» Ease (ΤΣ 
 aha St 
 esa κά ἀκα ἐν δι cies 
 
 ΣΦ 5)}0: 
 Papen, 
 pea ἐκ τον 
 
 4 
 
 δὴ 
 
 SES SS 
 
 Beats 
 eecees 
 
 Spbrievers. 
 Ὁ he 
 bs is 32 τς 
 
 3300892252025 28s 
 
 are ΟΣ, 
 
 VOY 
 
 ς 
 
 ὁ 
 
 δόσις 
 
 τὸς 
 
 Ty 
 
LIBRA τ 
 
 ΘΟ ΟΟΊΟΒΙ Seminars. 
 
 PRINCETON, N.J. ὶ 
 
 bse4is .B58 ν.5 
 
 Tholuck, Friedrich August 
 Gottreu. 
 Exposition of St. Fame se 
 
THE 
 
 2 
 
 x 
 * BIBLICAL CABINET; 
 HERMENEUDTICAL, EXEGETICAL, 
 
 PHILOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 
 
 VOL. V. 
 
 THOLUCK’S COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE 
 TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 THOMAS CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET; 
 JIG. & F. RIVINGTON, LONDON 5 
 AND W. CURRY, JUNe & co., DUBLIN. 
 
 MDCCCXX XIII. 
 
EXPOSITION 
 
 OF 
 
 ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE 
 
 TO THE 
 
 ROMANS: 
 
 ΨΙΤΗ 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE EXEGETICAL WORKS 
 OF THE FATHERS AND REFORMERS. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN GF 
 
 iy 
 DR. FRED. AUG. GOTTTREU THOLUCK, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF HALLE, AND 
 CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF LONDON. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. ROBERT MENZIES. 
 VOL TI 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 THOMAS CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. 
 MDCCCXXKXIII. 
 
 θυ 
 
i eked 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Tue Translator is happy in being able to pre- 
 fix to this volume the following testimonial from 
 Dr. Tholuck, in favour of the general design 
 of the BrsyicaL ΟΛΒΙΝΕΤ. 
 
 “The attempt to transplant a portion of the 
 theological literature of Germany into the soil 
 of England, is doubtless cheering, provided that 
 such works shall be selected for translation as are 
 really calculated to promote, in the lands where 
 the language of that country is spoken, the growth 
 of pure evangelical theology. How glorious it 
 would be, if the Protestant churches, of all-na- 
 tions, were thus, like sisters, to join hand in hand, 
 in order, with one accord, to advance the great 
 work of building up the kingdom of God! To 
 Great Britain, in these modern days, we Ger- 
 mans are already under no small obligations. 
 The serious practical Christianity of your island, 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 which has manifested itself since the beginning 
 of the present century, in its numerous phi- 
 lanthropical and religious undertakings, has af- 
 forded us a model for similar institutions, and in 
 our country also Bible, Missionary, and ‘Tract 
 Societies have sprung up. In like manner the 
 practical theology of England, more especially 
 in the branch of biographical literature, has 
 yielded fruits which have had a blessed influence 
 among: the people of Germany. 
 
 ‘“‘ Tt hence could not be otherwise than pleasing 
 to us, if Britain, on her side, were not to despise 
 what we have it in our power to offer her in re- 
 turn. And, indeed, it cannot be denied, that 
 while the revival of the true faith among us, has, 
 as yet, in the domain of practical life, operated 
 incomparably less beneficially than in England 
 and Scotland, the fruits which it has produ- 
 ced in the field of science have been so much 
 the more abundant. The day has been when 
 Germans were wont to look for instruction from 
 
 the great men of the English church, such as 
 Pococke, Lightfoot, Usher, and Selden; and I 
 know notto what cause it is to be ascribed, that, at 
 present, in the department of theological literature 
 in England and Scotland, few works appear wor- 
 thy of general attention. In this respect our 
 
 country may now, perhaps, lend your’s a helping 
 
 hand, in brotherly love, according to the precept 
 of the Apostle, Eph. iv. 16, and in this manner 
 
 Δ σὰ, + 
 
 - 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 the bond between the Christian churches of 
 Britain and Germany be more closely cemented.” 
 
 It is scarcely to be hoped, however, that these 
 happy effects will be speedily realised. ‘The 
 undertaking has many obstacles to encounter. 
 One of the most formidable of these is the strong 
 prejudice which exists in this country against 
 whatever bears the name of German theology, 
 and which disposes so many to view with alarm 
 and suspicion every production that comes from 
 the infected regions of rationalism, as necessarily 
 tainted with heresy and error. It would be 
 absurd to deny, that, to a certain extent, this 
 feeling is well founded. There are numerous 
 theological works, of high reputation in their own 
 country, which it would be dangerous and un- 
 justifiable to introduce by translation into ours, 
 as they would certainly have the effect of unset- 
 tling the faith of the weak, and would only serve 
 to engage those, upon whom their influence 
 might be innocuous, in an unnecessary contest 
 with error, which is already beginning to perish - 
 in the land in which it grew, and never, it is to 
 be hoped, will reach us, except in the history of 
 its refutation. 
 
 At the same time, it can as little be de- 
 nied, that the danger is greatly exaggerated, 
 and the prejudice to which I allude carried to 
 an excessive and unjust extent. The offspring 
 of ignorance, how, indeed, can it be otherwise ? 
 
ag Te 
 
 Vill PREFACE. 
 
 To moderate and correct it, the best means pro- 
 bably is, to make known the real extent of the 
 evil; and for this purpose, let the reader accept 
 of the following brief, but accurate sketch of the 
 past and present state of theology in Germany, 
 from the pen of one, than whom, there is cer- 
 tainly no higher authority upon the subject. 
 “The prodigious schism which divides the the- 
 
 - ologians of our German church,” says Tholuck, 
 
 ‘is not unknown to your countrymen. ‘The 
 rationalism of Germany is the terror of the 
 greater part of Christendom where the English 
 tongue is spoken; although, if I am accurately 
 informed, there are in England, Scotland, and 
 North America, a number of persons who are cast- 
 ing longing eyes towards German rationalism, 
 as towards a forbidden tree of the knowledge of 
 good and evil, desirous themselves to taste its 
 fruits, and therewith also to make their coun- 
 trymen wise. Permit me then to present you 
 with a brief compendium of this system: The 
 majority of the books of the Old Testament do 
 not proceed from the authors to whom they are 
 ascribed. Several, such as Daniel, have been, 
 by a pious fraud, fathered upon the prophets. 
 Christ and the Apostles were fallible men, who, 
 though possessed of many good moral princi- 
 ples, were swayed by gross Jewish superstition. 
 Our accounts of the history of Jesus are full of 
 Mido, which a love of the miraculous tempted 
 
 - 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 the Jews of the first century to frame. Even 
 the declarations of Christ himself have not 
 come down to us precisely in the form in which 
 he delivered them; his disciples put much into 
 his mouth which he never spoke. Besides, the 
 gospels of Matthew and John are probably spu- 
 rious. What Jesus of Nazareth really taught 
 can now no more be known with certainty; but 
 it is unquestionable, that his originally simple 
 doctrine has been greatly corrupted by Paul, 
 who engrafted upon it the important articles of 
 original sin and redemption, which he had _bor- 
 rowed from his own Jewish theology; and these 
 came afterwards to be regarded as Christian 
 doctrines, although nothing can be more contrary 
 to the understanding. 
 
 ἐς Such is the relation in which the systemstands 
 to Christianity. Neither must it be supposed, 
 that these opinions were only in a cursory man- 
 ner enunciated or maintained. On the contrary, 
 since the year 1770, in which Semler, the true 
 father of this system, but who yet was far from 
 going the length of the rationalists of the pre- 
 sent day, first propounded it, the strenuous in- 
 dustry of the greatest part of the theologians, 
 philosophers, historians, and even naturalists of 
 Germany, has been engaged in strengthening 
 and establishing it. Whoever knows what Ger- 
 man industry can do, may form some conjec- 
 ture of the success which has attended its 
 
x PREFACE. 
 
 efforts, when once enlisted in the cause of infi- 
 delity. 
 
 “It required the ploughshare of Napoleon’s 
 wars, to break the soil, and again prepare the 
 heart of the Germans for the seed of the Word 
 of God. At that period, there awoke among us 
 an earnest longing after the faith of our fathers, 
 and that in several places has been followed by 
 a revival of the faith itself. Naturally, how- 
 ever, this could not be the case with those who 
 had received a liberal education, without their 
 being able to assign reasons for their belief, and 
 justify it scientifically in a conflict with the 
 doubts which had been raised on every side 
 against it. And thus, after a long period, in 
 the early part of which the Theological Faculty 
 of Tubingen alone had maintained a determined 
 and scientific resistance against the infidelity of 
 the age, there arose, about the year 1817, a 
 fresh endeavour, in opposition to the rationalists’ 
 objections, and with a continual reference to 
 these in all the departments of the science, to 
 lay again the foundations of evangelical theology. 
 On the domain of doctrine, this was a compara- 
 tively easy task, as that has always been the 
 weak side of rationalism, from which the gift 
 of speculation seems to have utterly departed. 
 So much the more arduous and stubborn, how- 
 ever, has been the struggle on the field of his- 
 tory and criticism, where innumerable inquiries 
 
PREFACE. xi 
 
 required to be prosecuted afresh in a new spirit. 
 In that new spirit of the German theology, 
 much, it must be confessed, has not as yet been 
 accomplished. In the several branches we can 
 speak only of a beginning, but, with the help of 
 God, this beginning shall surely also have a 
 progress.” 
 
 From this account of Dr. Tholuck, it appears, 
 that however gloomy the retrospect of the past, 
 a better day has begun to dawn upon the Church 
 of Germany. The sun of Divine truth, which 
 is destined to chase away the midnight horror 
 of neology, has arisen, and already sheds her 
 bright and cheering rays. ‘The strongholds of 
 infidelity and error have been assailed by a noble 
 band of champions for the faith once delivered 
 to the saints. In the arduous struggle in which 
 they are engaged, surely they have a claim upon 
 the sympathies and favour of all to whom the 
 gospel is dear. With what other feelings than 
 complacency and approbation should we view and 
 receive their labours? When right in the grand 
 essentials, is it just to treat them with fastidious 
 disdain, if on some minor points they have not been 
 able to shake off completely the influence of the 
 school in which they were nurtured, and diverge 
 some hair’s-breadth perhapsfrom the straight line 
 of orthodoxy among us? But in many instances 
 even this cannot be objected to them. And, as 
 has often been done in the former history of the 
 
Xil PREFACE. 
 
 church, they have exemplified how the clearest 
 statements, and most powerful defences of Truth, 
 have issued from amidst the hottest opposition. 
 
 Duris ut ilex tonsa bipennibus 
 Nigre feraci frondis in Algido, 
 Per damna, per cedes, ab ipso 
 Ducit opes animumque ferro. 
 
 Men are at pains to sift opinions which it costs 
 them dear to maintain; they seize with so much 
 the firmer grasp that of which they see others 
 anxious to rob them; and muster their strength, 
 and select their arms, when they have to encoun- 
 ter a formidable foe. 
 
 In this conflict Dr. Tholuck is universally 
 allowed to stand foremost among the defenders of 
 ancient orthodoxy; and his Commentary upon 
 the Epistle to the Romans is the most important 
 work which has as yet proceeded from his pen. 
 The universal approbation it has received from 
 the friends of evangelical truth, and the fierce 
 hostility with which it has been assailed by the 
 rationalist party in Germany, afford the most 
 satisfactory evidence of its distinguished worth. 
 No less decisive is the fact, that three editions 
 of it have already been exhausted, and that an 
 anxious demand is now expressed for a fourth. 
 Among other testimonies that might be quoted 
 to its excellence, it were unfair to withhold the 
 opinion of such a distinguished Biblical critic 
 as. Professor Stewart of Andover, who, in his 
 
PREFACE. Xili 
 
 work lately published on the same Epistle, has 
 not only expressed, in the highest terms, his 
 approbation of Dr. Tholuck’s previous labours in 
 the field, but availed himself, to no small extent, 
 of that writer’s views and researches. 
 
 Nor will the effect of these testimonies surely 
 be diminished, by the modest estimate which 
 the author himself seems to have formed of his 
 own performance, as expressed in the following 
 paragraph, which he has desired should be pre- 
 fixed to the translation. 
 
 “9 1 wish especially to remark, that the work 
 is to be regarded as the production of an earlier 
 period of my life, and as having been intended 
 for a particular purpose. I composed it in my 
 twenty-fifth year, with the special view of 
 commending to the hearts of my countrymen 
 the doctrine of justification by faith, which, at 
 the time, I perceived to be greatly misunder- 
 stood. Other points are hence laboured with 
 less care; and at this time, I believe, that upon 
 the 9th chapter I should be able to give some 
 more profound views. Accordingly, it by no 
 means presents what I now consider as the beau 
 ideal of a theological commentary. I am occu- 
 pied at present with the publication of an ex- 
 
 tensive commentary upon the Sermon on the 
 - Mount,* and it is to this I must refer, if your 
 
 _* This work Professor Tholuck has kindly offered to trans- 
 mit in sheets to the Translator ; and at no distant day it may 
 be expected to form a number of the Biblical Cabinets 
 
XiV PREFACE. 
 
 countrymen should wish to read a more mature 
 work from my pen. It contains many exposi- 
 tions of the doctrines, and might serve to render 
 the dogmatical part of our theology more acces- 
 sible to English divines. At the same time, ἢ 
 am persuaded, that none of them would there 
 meet with any thing at all contrary to the pure 
 orthodoxy of your church. Even in early boy- 
 hood infidelity had forced its way into my heart, 
 and at the age of twelve I was wont to scoff at 
 Christianity and its truths. Hard has been the 
 struggle which I have come through, before at- 
 taining to assurance of that faith in which I 
 am now blessed. I prove, however, in my- 
 self, and acknowledge it with praise to the Al- 
 mighty, that the longer I live, the more does 
 serious study, combined with the experiences of 
 life, help me to recognize in the Christian doc- 
 trine an inexhaustible fountain of true know- 
 ledge, and serve to strengthen the conviction that 
 all the wisdom of this world is but folly when com- 
 pared with the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.” 
 
 With regard to his own labours the Trans- 
 lator has only to say, that it has been his anxious 
 study to render the meaning of the original with 
 the utmost possible fidelity ; and that while with 
 this view he has been scrupulously conscientious, in 
 recasting the thoughts of the author, to preserve 
 unchanged their substance, order, and connection, 
 he has used the common licence of an interpreter, 
 
PREFACE: XV 
 
 to make such slight changes in their verbal form, 
 as was necessary to adapt them to the genius of 
 ourlanguage, and secure symmetry and cadence to 
 the expression. Some emendations, the result of 
 more matured study, he has already received from 
 theauthor, and hopes that he may stillreceive more. 
 By far the greater part of the quotations have been 
 collated with the best editions of the originals. 
 The translation of the extracts from the Greek 
 Fathers he has appended, in deference more to the 
 suggestion of others than to his own opinion, de- 
 ploring that this should have been deemed ne- 
 cessary by the prevalent neglect of a language 
 which our ancestors were wont to regard as one 
 of the eyes of theology. Much pains have been 
 expended, both by himself and the printer, upon 
 the accentuation of the Greek, and although he 
 dares scarcely hope that a faultless degree of ac- 
 curacy has been attained, he is persuaded that 
 the blunders are neither so numerous nor so 
 gtoss as greatly to offend even the most fastidi- 
 ous scholarship. 
 
 On his own part, let him be permitted to say, 
 that he would deem himself amply compensated 
 for all the toil which this work has already cost, 
 and may still entail upon him, could he but in- 
 dulge the hope that, like the grapes and pome- 
 granates of Canaan, it may serve to his fellow 
 students as a specimen of the riches and fertility 
 of what is, alas to us, almost a ¢erra incognita,— 
 
ΧΥΪ PREFACE. 
 
 the ancient literature of the church,—allure the 
 steps, though even of but a few of them, into a 
 field which the Germans have begun to culti- 
 vate afresh, with unspeakable benefit to the cause 
 of evangelical truth, and tempt them to ex- 
 tend their inquiries beyond the commentaries of 
 Henry and of Doddridge, into the rich mines of 
 thought which lie hidden and unexplored in the 
 works of Chrysostom, Augustine, St. Bernard, 
 and Calvin, in search of some new and quicken- 
 ing element to infuse into their ministration of 
 the word. 
 
 On the part of the author, he has to express 
 the wish, in which he cordially joins, that in 
 Great Britain also this book may, by the bless- 
 ing of God, be made the means of awakening 
 some few to the faith of the gospel, and of 
 deepening the blessed impressions of that faith 
 in those breasts where it already exists ! 
 
 EDINBURGH, 31st Aug. 1833. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Ὁ 
 
 CHARTER tT. 
 
 OF THE CHURCH AT ROME. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 OF iTS FOUNDATION. 
 
 AccorDING to the opinion of the Roman Catholics, 
 the first Christian Church at Rome was established by 
 St. Peter. This Apostle, it is maintamed, came to 
 Rome in the second year of the Emperor Claudius, 
 (the forty-third after Christ,) where he contended 
 with Simon Magus, and after filling the office of 
 Bishop for twenty-five years, at last suffered martyr- 
 dom. These assertions, however, contain much that 
 cannot be supported, as several members of the Ro- 
 mish Church, viz. Valesius, Antonius Pagi, and Ste- 
 phen Baluz havethemselves shewn. Among Protestants 
 their incorrectness has been demonstrated, particu- 
 larly by Samuel Basnage, in the Annales Politico- 
 Ecclesiastice, p. 522, sqq. Some Protestants, how- 
 ever, have gone too far on the opposite side. Salma- 
 sius, and Spanheim, (De temeré credita Petri in urbem 
 Romam profectione, Opp. T. I. p. 331,) contends that 
 Peter never was in Rome. That the Apostle, however, 
 B 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 did visit that city, and that it was even the scene of 
 his death, cannot, with due regard to historical evi- 
 dence, be doubted. Origen, who is distinguished for 
 his critical judgment, and whose authority has pecu- 
 liar weight, bears testimony to the fact, (Euseb. Hist. 
 Eccles. 1. iii. c. 3.) It is also attested by the fragment 
 of a letter of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, in the 
 year P. C. 117, preserved in the same work, (Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c,25.) Lastly, it is confirmed by the 
 presbyter Caius, who, at the commencement of the 
 third century, saw in that city the graves of Peter and 
 Paul, (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c. 25.) | Although, 
 however, the fact be admitted, the Apostle’s presence 
 at Rome must by no means be placed anterior to the 
 composition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. ‘This 
 is evident from the following reasons: Ist, In Acts xii. 
 4, we read that Peter was thrown into prison by 
 Agrippa, in the last year of his reign. Now that year 
 was the fourth of the reign of Claudius. It is, conse- 
 quently, impossible that Peter could have visited 
 Rome in the second year of Claudius. This is admit- 
 ted even by Valesius, (Annot. ad Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 
 ]. 11. 6. 16, p.30.) 2d, According to Acts xv. 7, Peter 
 attended the Synod of the Apostles at Jerusalem in 
 the ninth year of Claudius. In the year after, he tra- 
 velled from thence to Antioch. 3d, Paul came in the 
 seventh year of Nero to Rome, and there called to- 
 gether the Jews, without any notice being taken of 
 Peter. 4th, Amidst the many salutations at the end 
 of the Epistle, would Paul have forgotten Peter if 
 he had been at Rome? 5th, From St. Paul’s delicacy 
 of feeling, we may conclude with certainty, that he 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 would not have used the liberty of writing to the 
 disciples of another Apostle, in the tone of this Epistle. 
 6th, If Peter had at so early a period quitted the East, 
 where he behoved to announce the Gospel to the 
 Jews, he would have been unfaithful to his commission. 
 
 A variety of considerations renders it much more 
 probable, that the Gospel was first established at 
 Rome by disciples of Paul. Paul must have stood in 
 some sort of intimate connection with the Roman 
 Church, before he would have addressed himself with 
 such emphasis and concern to them. He evinces a 
 perfect acquaintance with their condition, and the 
 simplest manner of explaining this circumstance is to 
 suppose, that his own scholars, as overseers of the 
 church, furnished him with intelligence respecting it. 
 The greetings which he sends, are for the most part 
 to his fellow workers or disciples, to Epenetus, 6. xvi. 
 v. 5, to Aquila and Priscilla, v. 3, to Andronicus and 
 Junius, v. 7. These persons, it is probable, were 
 teachers at Rome. It was in the house of Aquila and 
 Priscilla that the church assembled. In saying this, 
 however, we do not mean to contend, that these dis- 
 ciples of Paul brought the first seeds of the Gospel to 
 Rome. It ismore likely, that they merely contributed 
 to a wider diffusion of it, and more especially to the 
 formation of a church. The first seeds may have 
 been brought by the Jewish residents at Rome, who 
 were present in Jerusalem at the feast of Pentecost, 
 Acts i. 10, or by the Hebrew Christians, who, after 
 the martyrdom of Stephen, were scattered abroad, 
 Acts viii. 1, or, perhaps, by the general concourse of 
 strangers, that was ever streaming from’ the pro- 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 vinces to the capital. Bertold (Einl. B. vi. s. 3271) 
 is inclined to believe, that even during the lifetime of 
 our Saviour, intelligence of his doctrme had been con- 
 veyed to Rome, a supposition which is at least not 
 incredible. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 
 
 Ir was composed, partly of Hebrews, partly of Hea- 
 then Christians, c.i. 13; xv.15, 16. The former are 
 particularly addressed c. iv. 1, vii. 1, and the latter 
 6. xi. 13. Generally, indeed, the reasoning of the 
 Apostle applies to the mutual relations of a commu- 
 nity made up of Jews and Gentiles. The Jews at 
 Rome were very numerous. Josephus, in his Antiq. 
 J. xvii. c. 11. § 1. relates, that on one occasion, in the 
 time of Augustus, 8000 Jews, resident in Rome, 
 joined themselves to an embassy. The most of them 
 were prisoners of war, taken by Pompey, to whom 
 Augustus had assigned a particular quarter of the city 
 beyond the Tiber (Philo Leg. ad Caium, p. 1014, ed. 
 Frkf.) Again, that numbers of the Gentiles in the ca- 
 pital were converted to Christianity, might be inferred, 
 if nothing else led to the conclusion, from the wide 
 spread corruption of manners, and the unsatisfying 
 nature of Paganism, which was unable to appease the 
 wants of serious minds. Seneca informs us, (de Su- 
 perst. Fragm. in Aug. de civ. Dei, 1. 7. c. 11.) that 
 such numbers of Romans had embraced the Jewish 
 (by which he also means the Christian) religion “ ut 
 
INTRODUCTION. o 
 
 per omnes jam terras recepta sit. Victi victoribus leges 
 dederunt.” And Juvenal also bitterly scoffs at Ju- 
 daising Romans, (Sat. 14. v. 100.) It was natural that 
 the same desire for a purer and more positive mode 
 of divine worship, which made Gentiles become pro- 
 selytes to Judaism, should induce them also to em- 
 brace Christianity ; and, among the Gentile Chris- 
 tians at Rome, there were, probably, many who had 
 been before Proselyte porte. That numerous Gen- 
 tiles were, in fact, converted to Christianity, we have 
 the testimony of Tacitus, (Annal. |. xiv. ὁ. 45,) “ Re- 
 pressaque in preesens exitiabilis superstitio rursus erum- 
 pebat, non modo per Judeam, sed per urbem etiam.” 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 OF THE TIME AT WHICH THE CHURCH AT ROME WAS 
 FOUNDED. 
 
 A modern scholar, Tobler (Theologische Aufsatze 
 Zurich, 1796, Zweiter Aufs.) has made an attempt to 
 prove from Acts xxviii. 17, that when Paul arrived 
 at Rome, there did not as yet exist any Christian 
 church there. According to the account given in the 
 passage referred to, the Apostle, upon his arrival, 
 calls the Jews together, and discourses to them 
 of Christianity. At the 22d verse, they reply, 
 that they had indeed heard of that sect, which was 
 every where spoken of, and that they wished to 
 learn his opinion with respect to it. From this the 
 inference might be drawn, that there was then no 
 Christian church in the city, for, otherwise, these 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Jews could not have been utterly unacquainted with 
 the Christian doctrine. If, however, no Christian com- 
 munity had existed, Paul could not possibly have | 
 written his Epistle to them. That it was not written 
 till after his imprisonment there, is in the highest de- 
 gree improbable. Besides, it is expressly said, Acts 
 xxviii. 15, that the brethren from Rome came to meet 
 Paul, and these cannot, without violence, be supposed 
 to have been only stranger Christians then acciden- 
 tally present in the city. It would hence appear, 
 that the Jews, in the passage referred to, merely pre- 
 tended that they knew nothing of the Christians. 
 With respect to the date of the establishment of this 
 church, we should gain a more definite point to settle 
 it, could it but be ascertained whether Aquila and Pris- 
 cilla were already Christians, at the time they were 
 banished from the city, by the decree of the Emperor 
 Claudius, and when Paul became connected with 
 them at Corinth, Acts, c. xviii. or whether it was he 
 who first taught them Christianity. In the former 
 case, we should have to adopt the supposition, that 
 not only Jews, but likewise Jewish Christians were 
 expelled from Rome ; and thus, that sosoon as the year 
 forty-eight, the date of the Claudian edict, there were a 
 considerable number of that nation in the city who had 
 embraced the gospel. We have already observed, 
 (sect. 1.) how probable it is that the first seeds of 
 Christianity were sown in Rome at a still earlier 
 period. That for a considerable time prior to the 
 date of our Epistle, the church had already existed as 
 a Christian church, may be concluded from the cir- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 cumstance that, as the Apostle mentions, the fame of 
 their graces had been universally spread abroad, 
 c. 1. 8. xv. 23, and that he had several times formed 
 the resolution of going to see them. On this sub- 
 ject, see the Treatise of T. F. Flatt, Nonnulla ad 
 questionem de tempore quo Pauli ad Rom. Ep. scrip- 
 ta sit, Tub. 1798, in Pott Sylloge Comm. T. ii. Only 
 
 the author confines himself chiefly to the refutation 
 of Tobler. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE EPISTLE 
 WAS WRITTEN. 
 
 THESE particulars may be ascertained with consider- 
 able certainty from Rom. xv. 25-30, as Theodoret 
 also notices in his Introduction. The plan which the 
 Apostle there lays down for his journey, coincides 
 with that given, Acts xix. 21, by St. Luke. He in- 
 timates, that, after gathering the contributions in 
 Achaia, his intention was to go to Jerusalem, and 
 from thence to proceed to Rome. Now, from this it 
 may be gathered, that the Epistle was written at the 
 elose of the Apostle’s second residence at Corinth, 
 according to Usher and Eichhorn in the year sixty, 
 according to Pearson, Dupin and Lange, in the year 
 fifty-seven; for Corinth, as the*capital city of Achaia, 
 was the place where the collection was made. That 
 the Epistle was written at this place, is likewise clear 
 from the following circumstances. It was sent by 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Pheebe, a deaconess of the Church of Cenchrea, a 
 suburb of the city of Corinth, c. xvi. 1. The Apostle 
 sends a greeting from Gaius, whom he designates, 
 “mine host, and of the whole Church,” xvi. 23, and 
 Gaius was by birth a Corinthian, whom he had himself 
 baptized. He likewise sends a salutation from Eras- 
 tus and Timothy, the former of whom he entitles 
 
 7.4. 
 6 οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως, Cc. ve 21 and 23. The πόλις. 
 
 here meant must be the city in which Paul was at the 
 time residing, and as nothing further is said to cha- 
 racterize it, it must have been a city of some note. 
 Moreover, we find that three years afterwards, Eras- 
 tus is still at Corinth, 2 Tim. iv. 20. In fine, Co- 
 rinth is marked out as the place of composition, by 
 this circumstance, that at the time the epistle was des- 
 patched, Aquila and Priscilla were staying at Rome. 
 For at the date of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 which Paul wrote towards the termination of his abode 
 at Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla were still with him. 
 From Ephesus the Apostle journeyed to Mace- 
 donia and Achaia, and in the interval, these his two 
 fellow workers might have again returned from that 
 city to Rome. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 SomE Roman Catholic interpreters of an older date, 
 Bellarmine and Salmeron, hold that the Epistle was 
 
 originally written in Latin. Bolten and Bertholdt 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 maintain that the Apostle wrote all his letters, and 
 this among the rest, in Aramaic. Both assertions, 
 however, are destitute of internal, as well as external 
 evidence. Paul,asa native of Tarsus, must have learned 
 the Greek tongue, and his having used that tongue in 
 a letter to the Roman Church, which was composed 
 of heathens who spoke Latin, and countrymen of his 
 own, ought not to surprise us, when we take into con- 
 sideration the well known facts, that Jews resident in 
 foreign countries universally made use of Greek as 
 the language of ordinary intercourse, and that almost 
 all Romans who had received any tincture of educa- 
 tion spoke it in addition to their mother tongue. 
 
 The following authorities are vouchers for the latter 
 fact :-— 
 
 Tacitus de Orat. c.29. “ Nunc natus infans dele- 
 gatur Greece ancille.” 
 
 Ovid De Arte Amor. 1. ii. v. 121. 
 
 Nec levis ingenuas pectus coluisse per artes 
 Cura sit, et linguas edidicisse duas. 
 
 Mart. Epig. 1. xiv. Ep. 58. 
 
 Reston es, nescis quid Greco nomine dicor, 
 _ Spuma vocor nitri, dicor et aphronitum. 
 
 Lastly, what Juvenal says of the Roman ladies, Sat. 
 vi. v. 184. | 
 
 Se non putat ulla 
 Formosam, ni que de Tuscé Grecula facta est. 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Hoc sermone pavent, hoc iram, gaudia, curas, 
 Hoc cuncta effundunt animi secreta. Quid ultra ? 
 
 Compare also Suet. Vita Claudii, ec. 4. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 STYLE AND DICTION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 As every man has a peculiar cast of countenance, so 
 has he also a peculiar style, and the latter, like the 
 former, bears the impress of his mind. To describe 
 the style of an author, is hence, to describe his cha- 
 racter, especially in those cases, Ubi oratio indicat se 
 in pectore, non in ore, nasci. The Apostle Paul 
 appears to us as a man of a highly serious and im- 
 passioned mind, who devotes all his energies to the 
 object that engages him for the time, and yet feels 
 that these are not sufficient. This is plainly indicated 
 by his style. It is forcible, brief, rapid, abounding in 
 sentences, in which he seems to be always labouring 
 for some new expression still stronger than the pre- 
 ceding, and the words press like waves upon each 
 other. But besides the natural qualities of the man, 
 his education must likewise be taken into account. — 
 He was brought up in a Rabbinical school. The 
 method of instruction pursued in these seminaries 
 may, even yet, be learned with some certainty, from 
 the older portions of the Mischna, and the Hierosoly- 
 mitan Gemara. In the style of the Talmudists, the 
 most striking features are,—abruptness, harsh transi- 
 tions, brief allusions, sometimes a mixture, and some- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 18] 
 
 times an unnatural disruption of cognate ideas, fre- 
 quently formal argumentation on particulars of no 
 importance, and abundant interweaving of Old Tes- 
 tament quotations in the body of the discourse. Al- 
 though, undoubtedly, the Christian spirit, that dwelt 
 in the Apostle, kept him from the extremes into 
 which, by the nature of his education, he might other- 
 wise have been betrayed, still it is impossible not to 
 perceive certain traces of its influence. 
 
 From what has been said, it may easily be inferred, 
 that the style of the Apostle presents difficulties, of 
 which we find that all commentators, from Origen to 
 Erasmus, and from Luther to the present day, have 
 loudly complained. Sometimes a dearth of words, and 
 abruptness of expression, and sometimes the ambiguity 
 of particular terms, make it difficult to seize the mean- 
 ing; while, on the other hand, the same effect is like- 
 wise occasioned by a perplexed involution of the 
 - periods—by numerous co-ordinate and subordinate 
 clauses—by the different predicates applied to the 
 same thing, and the various points of view from which 
 the author contemplates his subject. Not unfre- 
 quently, also, his peculiar mode of proof obscures the 
 sense, for he often laysa weight upon particular words 
 and phrases, such as the reader is not at once pre- 
 pared to admit. An indispensable requisite for the 
 exposition of such a writer is, that the expositor 
 should be familiar with the state of mind and the 
 tone of feeling from which the composition emanated. 
 It is only when possessed of this qualification, that it 
 will be possible for him to find within his own mind 
 the unity and concatenation of the Apostle’s impe- 
 
1 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tuous, and, as it will otherwise appear, desultory 
 train of thought, and that he will be able to explain 
 the transitions. We shall only further quote two fine 
 passages from the ancient Fathers, on the eloquence 
 of Paul. Hieronimus, (Ep. 48 ad Pammachiam, e. 13. 
 ed. Vall) thus expresses himself: “ Paulum proferam, 
 quem quotiescunque lego, video mihi non verba 
 audire sed tonitrua. Videntur quidem verba sim- 
 plicia, et quasi innocentis hominis et rusticani, et qui 
 nec facere nec declinare noverit insidias ; sed quocun- 
 que respexeris fulmina sunt. Heeret in causa; capit 
 omne quod tetigerit ; tergum vertit ut superet ; fugam 
 simulat ut occidat.” Chrysostom De Sacerdotio, 1. iv. 
 e.7. “ Like a wall of adamant, his writings form a 
 bulwark around all the churches of the world, while 
 himself, as some mighty champion, stands even now 
 in the midst, casting down every high thing that ex- 
 alteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring- 
 ing into captivity every thought to the obedience of 
 Christ.” 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Tuis has never been questioned, except upon certain 
 doctrinal grounds, by some heretical sects of anti- 
 quity, the Ebionites, Encratites and Cerinthians. (Ire- 
 neeus, ad Heer. 1. i.c. 26. Epiph. Her. xxx. Heron. 
 in Matth. c. 13, v. 2.) Their doubts are, therefore, 
 wholly destitute of critical weight. Even at so early 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 a period as that of the Apostolical Fathers, repeated 
 quotations are made from this Epistle. Thus, 
 Polycarp ad Philipp. c. 6, cites the 17th verse of the 
 twelfth chapter ; and Clemens Romanus in his First 
 Epist. ad Corinth. c. 35, the 32d verse of the first; 
 Comp. De Wette, Einl. s. 140. Testimonies for its 
 authenticity, founded on the historical allusions of the 
 Epistle, are to be found in Paley’s Hore Pauline. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OCCASION, DESIGN, CONTENTS, AND INTERNAL DIS- 
 POSITION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 OF THE OCCASION AND DESIGN OF IT. 
 
 SEVERAL modern Theologians assume this Epistle to 
 have arisen out of circumstances, and to have been 
 designed for ends connected with the special relations 
 ofthe Roman Church. Eichhorn’s opinion, (Einleitung 
 in N. T. B. iii. s. 214, ff) is as follows. “ A partiality 
 for new religions, and, in general, for whatever was 
 strange, had seduced many among the Romans to 
 connect themselves with the Jewish synagogues. 
 When, however, the doctrine of Paul was brought to 
 Rome, and the proselytes were presented with an op- 
 portunity of obtaining deliverance from the burden- 
 some ceremonial service, they embraced that doctrine 
 with double alacrity. The Jews, on the other hand, 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 indignant at losing their proselytes, contended, in op- 
 position, that Judaism was sufficient for salvation. 
 Paul had received intelligence that the converts were 
 beginning to waver, and accordingly he endeavoured 
 by this Epistle to confirm them.” Hug assigns to it a 
 different purpose and occasion. (Einl. ins N. T. B. ii. 
 s. 961, 2te Ausgabe). “ Under Claudius it was only 
 the Jewish Christians who were expelled from the 
 city; those of Gentile origin were permitted to re- 
 main. Upon the return of the former, in the reign 
 of Nero, there arose in the church many misunder- 
 standings and schisms, and to settle these is the design 
 of the Apostle.” As to the hypothesis of Eichhorn, 
 it is founded upon a view common to a great many 
 of the commentators, viz. that Paul, in this Epis- 
 tle, contends solely against Judaism. The view, how- 
 ever, is much too restricted. In chapter Ist and 2d 
 the Apostle likewise speaks with great emphasis against 
 the pretensions of the heathen. Hence, Erasmus has 
 observed with much truth. “ Miro consilio singularis 
 artifex sermonem temperat inter Judeos et Gentes, 
 dum studet omnes omnibus modis ad Christum pelli- 
 cere, neque vult, si fieri possit, quemquam omnino 
 mortalium perire suo duci, cui militabat. Itaque 
 nune hos objurgat, nunc illos, nune rursus erigit, | 
 ac sublevat. Gentium supercilium deprimit, osten- 
 dens nihil illos profuisse, neque nature legem, neque 
 philosophiam, cujus professione tumebant, quominus 
 in omne scelerum dedecus prolaberentur. Rursus 
 Judeorum arrogantiam coercet, qui legis fiducia per- 
 didissent id, quod erat totius legis caput, fidem in 
 Christum Iesum.—Et ad eum modum, detracto utris- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 que supercilio, adempta utrisque fiducia, omnes equat 
 in negotio fidei Evangelice.” Augustine (Inchoata 
 Expositio, § 1.) describes in a similar way the pro- 
 cedure of Paul in this Epistle, and then concludes,— 
 ‘“auferens utrisque omnem superbiam meritorum, et 
 justificandos utrosque per disciplinam humilitatis asso- 
 cians.” The whole disposition of the letter shows, that 
 the author had a much more comprehensive design 
 than merely to demonstrate, in a conflict with its 
 teachers, the insufficiency of Judaism. There is much 
 more likelihood in the supposition of Hug, that the 
 Apostle seeks to reconcile the differences between the 
 Jewish and Gentile Christians, and animadvert upon 
 the arrogant pretensions which they respectively made. 
 In fact, similar discords between Hebrew and Hea- 
 then converts happened in most churches during the 
 infancy of Christianity. And this view, accordingly, 
 in itself so natural, is the one which the majority both 
 -of ancient and modern interpreters of the Epistle 
 have embraced. There is not the same ground, 
 however, for acquiescing in the particular conjec- 
 ture of Hug, that it was the return of the Jewish 
 Christians to the capital in the reign of Nero, which 
 gave rise to the disputes in question, and hence, 
 indirectly to the Epistle. In the first place, it is by 
 no means probable, that, at the banishment of the 
 Jews (among whom Christians seem to have been 
 included,) the Gentile converts were spared. We do 
 not find under any of the persecutions, that these 
 experienced milder treatment than their brethren. 
 On the contrary, they must have appeared peculiarly 
 criminal, as having renounced the religion of the 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 state for a religio illicitaa The ground of persecu- 
 tion, in every case, was the refusal to join in the wor- 
 ship and sacrifices of the pagan gods, and in this re- 
 spect, all Christians, whether of Jewish or heathen 
 origin, were on a level. Moreover, many of the for- 
 mer, by becoming proselytes, in the first instance, to 
 Judaism, had already exposed themselves to suspicion. 
 And even although, in the face of all this, we were 
 to admit that the Jewish Christians alone were ex- 
 pelled from the city, and that they afterwards returned, 
 still it would not be natural to seek, in that circum- 
 stance, the occasion of the discord between them and 
 their Gentile brethren, considering that such misun- 
 derstandings were wont to arise far less from the ex- 
 ternal circumstances in which the parties were placed, 
 than from the doctrinal views which they respectively 
 entertained ; and hence, as we find, they universally 
 more or less occurred. To which, it must be added, 
 that the argumentation of Paul is much less calculated 
 to refute Jew and Gentile Christians, than to display 
 the insufficiency of Paganism and Judaism. Nor is 
 there, moreover, any competent reason for supposing 
 that Paul only endeavours in this Epistle to compose 
 local differences. What he says regarding the local 
 relations of those to whom he wrote, is limited to the 
 admonitory part at the end. The whole disposition 
 of the first doctrinal section rather announces the 
 more comprehensive design of exhibiting generally 
 the importance of the Christian doctrine, and of de- 
 monstrating that it alone can do (what is beyond the 
 power both of the Jewish and Pagan religion,) satisfy 
 the wants of human nature. As will appear from the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 summary of the matter to be exhibited in the follow- 
 ing Section, the Epistle is written according to a 
 grand and systematic plan, and, more than any other 
 book of Scripture, may be styled a doctrinal treatise. 
 This general view of its design, has been embraced 
 by the reformers, Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, and 
 Bucer, and is stated, in the prefaces which they seve- 
 rally wrote for it; and among the moderns, particu- 
 larly by Michaelis, in his Introduction. 
 
 But if the design of the Epistle is thus universal, 
 and not founded on the peculiar circumstances of the 
 Roman Church, the question arises, what could have 
 induced Paul to send to them such a general and com- 
 ‘prehensive discussion upon Christianity ? He himself 
 states, what his motive was, Rom. xv. 15. He had 
 been called to be a minister of Jesus Christ to the 
 Gentiles, and wished to impart some blessing to the 
 Romans among the rest. At the commencement of 
 the letter, c. 1. 15. he expresses no less strongly his 
 desire to teach Christianity at Rome by word of 
 mouth. And, indeed, to the great Apostle of the 
 heathen, what else could it be but highly desirable to 
 make the gospel resound in the capital, above all other 
 places in the world. When we also take into consi- 
 deration, that the church there was, probably, con- 
 ducted,—had even, perhaps, been originally founded, 
 by Paul’s scholars, and that they gave him intelli- 
 gence of its state, it appears a very natural thing, in- 
 deed, that he should have addressed to them a letter. 
 As he had few local relations, however, with which to 
 connect his remarks, and yet felt impelled by his af- 
 
 fection to write at some length, he takes up an expli- 
 c 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 cation of the entire scheme projeeted by the Divine 
 Being for the salvation of mankind, according as it is 
 revealed to us in the gospel; and afterwards, as an 
 appendage to this, which is the larger portion of the 
 letter, proceeds to the peculiar circumstances of the 
 church, in as far as they were known to him. 
 
 SECTION 1]. 
 
 CONTENTS AND INWARD DISPOSITION OF THE 
 EPISTLE. 
 
 In contemplating the Epistle, the last portion of it, 
 from chapter xii. to the end, seems to stand apart 
 from the preceding, inasmuch as, without being con- 
 nected by any definite bond of union, it consists in a 
 collection of multifarious admonitory lessons. In the 
 first and doctrinal part again may be distinguished 
 two larger sections. The first eight chapters are 
 purely doctrinal, to which the following three form 
 an historical and closely connected corollary. The 
 theme of the doctrinal part is properly to be found in 
 the 16th verse, which is skilfully woven into the exor- 
 dium, and is resumed afresh, Ch. ili. 21, 22. The 
 course which the Apostle takes is as follows: “ The 
 gospel is a message of salvation—of such a message 
 of salvation all men stand in need; because all are 
 sinners. ‘The heathen are so, because they have al- 
 lowed the knowledge of God, which they bring into 
 parc to be suppressed, by their criminal lusts, 
 and, in consequence thereof, have dishonoured God, 
 and, as the reflex influence of their unworthy know- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 ledge of God, have abandoned themselves the more 
 as a prey to sin, 6. 1. The Jews are equally sinners, 
 nay, favoured as they were with a clearer knowledge, 
 and more peculiar tokens of the Divine favour, they 
 are doubly criminal, chap. ii. True it is, that the 
 Jews possess certain privileges above the heathen, 
 in so far as God has furnished them more amply 
 with the means of salvation. Contemplated, however, 
 per se, they stand precisely on the same level, and are 
 in an equal degree, incapable of shewing in their 
 works that they have satisfied and fulfilled the law. 
 From this it is evident how absolutely necessary the 
 Gospel scheme of salvation is; inasmuch as it is a 
 scheme which insures justification to man without pro- 
 portioning it to his own righteousness by works, 
 chap. iii. This way of justification was known under 
 the Old Testament. In the case of Abraham and 
 David we have examples of the same kind of righte- 
 ousness as the Gospel inculcates, chap.iv. The fruits 
 of this divine scheme of justification are peace and joy, 
 nor does the latter solely spring from the hope of 
 future felicity, but is experienced even in the present 
 life. How great and adorable appears from hence 
 the entire economy of our salvation! For as by the 
 first man we lost all, so by the second Head of our 
 race has all been retrieved, c. v. Henceforth, however, 
 it is also necessary, that with us holiness should be the 
 consequence of forgiveness—not that holiness indeed, 
 which consists in a mere servile observance of the 
 law, but holiness as a natural fruit of the sense of 
 pardon, now become vital and operative within us, 
 
 chap. vi. The law for us is as good as dead, and we are 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 also as good as dead with respect to the law. For 
 the course, which spiritual life pursues, is as follows : 
 At first man is conscious of no law, and deems him- 
 self happy amidst his sins. He then comes to the 
 knowledge of the law, seeks to obey it, strains and 
 struggles, but still succumbs, exhausted at every fresh 
 trial. It is only through Christ that he acquires the 
 capability of fulfilling its requirements, which depends 
 upon a new principle of life implanted within him, 
 through faith in the free grace which Christ offers for 
 our acceptance, chap. vii. Hence aregenerated man is 
 able to accomplish what exceeds the power of any 
 other. And the final issue of his life is glory. What- 
 ever he may have to suffer here below, an eternal un- 
 speakable weight of glory is in store for him, and of 
 that nothing on this earth can deprive him, chap. viii. 
 How much should I rejoice to know, that my brethren, 
 according to the flesh, were brought to a participation 
 of the blessings of the glorious Gospel. But their stub- 
 born refusal to believe on Christ, shuts up for them the 
 way to it; and they imagine they may safely trust to 
 a righteousness by works. And yet it belonged to 
 God, as absolute Sovereign, to propose such ways of 
 justification as he thinks fit, and so as he now does, in 
 the exercise of his good pleasure, to set up faith in 
 Christ as the one only condition of salvation, chap. ix. 
 If possessed of faith, therefore, Israel would be accept- 
 ed, chap. x. But although that be not the case for the 
 present, this mighty nation of the theocracy is not 
 “rejected for ever. In the first instance, indeed, the 
 heathen shall be converted. But the day is also 
 coming when Israel shall be fully brought in; and 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9] 
 
 thus it shall be manifested to the glory of God, that 
 by ways the most diverse, he knows to guide all, who 
 were once involved in sin, to a participation in his 
 great scheme of salvation,” c. xi. Such is the tenor of 
 the Epistle. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OF THE OUTWARD DISPOSITION OF THE ADMONITORY 
 PART OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 WE have here to notice two hypotheses, which, though 
 equally arbitrary, must not be passed over in silence. 
 Heumann contends, that chap. xii.—xv. is a separate 
 letter, written at a subsequent date, and that chap. 
 XVi. is a postscript to chap. xi. He supposes that Paul 
 had written chaps. i.—xi. with chap. xvi., and prepared 
 it for Phebe’s departure. But that that event being for 
 a while retarded, he received letters from Rome du- 
 ring the interval, which informed him that a dead 
 faith would be less burdensome than works to the 
 Christians there. Hence the motive which led the 
 Apostle to add this appendage upon the duties, to the 
 preceding part of his Epistle upon the doctrines. 
 This account, however, is untenable. For although 
 it cannot be denied, that a new section begins with 
 chap. xii. the subject of which is entirely different 
 from what goes before, it does not by any means 
 stand in real opposition to it. Our Apostle seems~ 
 not to have made any very broad distinction between 
 doctrine and morals. His doctrine is uniformly a 
 
22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 vital, fervid, breathing, moral discourse. Besides, the 
 manner in which, chap. xii. 1, he connects the ad- 
 monitory with the previous part of the Epistle, shews 
 that he intends morality to be but the consequence 
 and the fruit of faith. Were there nothing more, 
 even the οὖν would prove this, and, in like manner, 
 the appeal to the mercy of God, which had been the 
 theme of the entire previous section of the discourse. 
 Comp. Comm. on chap. xii. I. 
 
 Still more groundless is the hypothesis started by 
 Semler with respect to chap. xv. and xvi. It is de- 
 veloped in his Diss. de duplici appendice Ep. Pauli 
 ad Rom. Hale 1767, and is as follows: On evidence 
 both external and internal, chap. xv. and xvi. are to 
 be considered as a heterogeneous supplement, which 
 did not originally belong to the Epistle. With re- 
 spect to the external proofs against the authenticity 
 of these chapters, in the first place, Origen tells us 
 that Marcion did not read them, and he cannot be 
 supposed to have lopped them off, seeing that even 
 Epiphanius, who censures his other violations of the 
 text, is silent as to this. Besides, Euthalius, in his 
 Elenchus Capitulorum, omits the xvi. chap.; and 
 lastly, Tertullian quotes the text xiv. 10, adding the 
 words in clausula Epistole. With regard, again, to 
 the proofs of an internal kind; it must be admitted, 
 that chapter xv. contains matter, which by no means 
 agrees with the preceding ; the Apostle, there speak- 
 ing exclusively of the events of his private history. 
 The xvi. again, when regarded in the common view, 
 contains various improbabilities. Greetings are sent 
 to persons whose presence in Rome cannot be proved, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 and is even improbable. Meetings are mentioned in 
 the house of Aquila, and also in the house of the per- 
 sons named in verses 14 and 15. Now it is not 
 likely that at that time the Roman church had three 
 different places of meeting. Nor, would one be jus- 
 tified in expecting such false teachers, as are describ- 
 ed in verse 17. Considering all this, the most probable 
 supposition is, that Paul gave the entire letter to the 
 Christians, returning home from Corinth to Rome, 
 but that he commissioned them to visit various bre- 
 thren at different stations, whose names he wrote out 
 in a catalogue, which is what we see in our xvi. chap- 
 ter. As they required first to pass through Cenchrea, 
 he addresses them first of all to Phebe, whom he re- 
 commended to the succour of the travellers (!) After 
 that to Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus, and so on. 
 Chap. xv. was not written by Paul to the Romans, 
 but was a sort of private missive intended to be com- 
 municated by the brethren, to all whom they visited 
 on the way. There is so much in this hypothesis of 
 Semler that is forced and unnatural, that it scarcely 
 deserves a refutation. Who that reflects upon the 15th 
 and 23d verses of chap. xv. and compares with the 
 latter, the 13th of chap. i. can doubt that the xv. chap. 
 was addressed to the same persons as the rest of the 
 Epistle? Who could determine in ὁ. xvi. J) to ex- 
 plain ἵνα ἀυτὴν προσδέξησθε, “ that ye support her in 
 her office as deaconess?” The internal proofs, as 
 they have been called, are brought by violence to 
 bear upon the point; the external are destitute of all 
 weight. Clausula, as used by Tertullian, proves no- 
 thing, for even we, especially if quoting from memory, 
 
94 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 would call the xiv. chap. the end of the E/pistle. It is 
 true that Euthalius does not state the contents of 
 chap. xvi. he omits it, however, only because it was 
 not publicly read on account of the many names. 
 His acquaintance with it is proved by the fact, that 
 the verses of it are included in the sum which he gives of 
 those contained in the Epistle. In fine, as regards 
 Marcion, Origen does not say that he really rejected 
 the xv. and xvi. chapters, but that he severed them, 
 (ab eo ubi scriptum est, guod non exfide est, peccatum 
 est cap. xiv. 23, usque ad finem cuncta dissecwuit,) be- 
 cause in fact it contained a particular postscript. 
 
 Accordingly, when we candidly reflect upon the 
 subject, it will appear the most probable supposition, 
 that Paul meant to close the epistle at the 23d verse of 
 the xiv. chapter, and hence added the conelusion, 
 which we read at chap. xvi. 25; that it occurred to him 
 however, to press still more home upon the Romans 
 the subject he had handled, and that this led him to 
 add the xv. chapter. We have an example of his re- 
 suming the subject after a similar intended conelusion 
 in Gal. vi. 12. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMENTATORS UPON THE 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 OrIGEN. (died 253) Commentarius in Ep. ad Rom. 
 ed. de la Rue, T.iv. This commentary is only extant 
 in a Latin translation of Rufinus, who, although the 
 
INTRCDUCTION. 95 
 
 work of Origen was no longer complete, abridged 
 still farther the part that remained, and in several 
 places not only extended what appeared to him too 
 short, but adulterated it with his own. Partly for 
 this reason, and partly because of Origen’s arbitrary 
 principles of interpretation, the commentary is not 
 of great value. Some degree of worth, however, 
 it does possess; inasmuch as that great Father of the 
 church, whose belief was shackled by no authority, is 
 occasionally led by his very boldness to seize the 
 truth. 
 
 Chrysostom. (died 407.)—Homiliz xxxii. in Ep. ad 
 Rom. in the 9th vol. of the Montfaucon edition of his 
 works. In different points of view, these homilies’ 
 are masterly, but especially on account of the ad- 
 mirable exegetical psychology, with which Chrysostom 
 knows to unfold the workings of the Apostle’s heart, 
 the sound principles of grammatical and historical in- 
 terpretation which he observes, and the lively evan- 
 gelical feeling which is every where manifest. 
 
 Augustine (died 430) has left a double work upon 
 the Epistle to the Romans. First, his Inchoata Ex- 
 positio Epistole ad Rom., and then, his Expositio 
 quarundum propositionum ex. Ep.ad Rom. Both are 
 to be found in the third vol. of the Benedictine edition. 
 The former embraces no more than ὁ. i. v. 1—7. It 
 is composed on far too extensive a plan, and is full of 
 useless questions and deviations. The latter work 
 consists in illustrations of several difficult passages. 
 We find in it many a fine specimen of Augustine’s 
 deep penetration, and insight into the doctrines of 
 Christianity. 
 
96 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Pelagius. (died subsequently to 417.)—From him 
 we have a commentary upon this Epistle, which has 
 been generally ascribed to Jerome, and hence, is to 
 be found in the works of that Father, ed. Vall. t. xi. 
 ed. Mart. t. v. It belongs, however, to Pelagins, as 
 has been shown by Gerhard, Joh. Vossius. In the 
 form in which we now possess it, it has been worked up 
 anew by Cassiodorus, who sorely mutilated it, leaving 
 out what appeared to him false, or substituting some- 
 thing else, and all with such caprice and inaccuracy, 
 that occasionally, even the most contradictory mean- 
 ings appear side by side. The Pelagian exposition 
 of the sense generally flattens, and robs of the true 
 meaning the expressions of Paul. The commentary, 
 however, as sometimes giving sound and independent 
 explanations, may be consulted with advantage. 
 
 Hilary.— We possess, under the name of Ambrose, 
 a Commentary upon the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, 
 which is so generally acknowledged to be spurious, 
 that it is wont to be quotedas the Ambrosiaster. To 
 whom it is to be aseribed is uncertain. Augustine 
 (Con. duas Epp. Pelag. 1. iv. c. 7) makes a quotation 
 from it under the name of “ Saint Hilary ;” a circum- 
 stance from which we may confidently infer, that the 
 author was called Hilary, but what Hilary he was, it © 
 is impossible to ascertain. There is as little reason 
 for supposing him the celebrated Bishop of Pictavium, 
 as the Luciferian Deacon of Rome. The work con- 
 tains many unnatural, but, at the same time, many very 
 happy explanations. In general, the exposition has 
 much that is peculiar. 
 
 Theodoret. (died after 450.)—His Coisiaesrtil 
 
» 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 97 
 
 upon the Romans is to be found in the third volume 
 of the Halle edition of his works. He is distinguished 
 for clear grammatical interpretation; but does not 
 penetrate into the substance of the doctrine, and is far 
 inferior to Chrysostom in depth of mind and lively 
 Christian knowledge. 
 
 CEcumenius. (in the tenth century) Comm. in Epp. 
 Paul. Parisiis, 1631. He excerpts Chrysostom, Pho- 
 tius, Basil, and others. These excerpts are highly pre- 
 cious, and afford admirable specimens of grammatical 
 and historical interpretation. He occasionally adds his 
 own expositicn, which also manifests a sound judgment. 
 
 Theophylact. (in the eleventh century,)—Comm. in 
 Epp. Paul. Londini, 1630. He does little more than 
 make extracts from Chrysostom. 
 
 Hugo a Sancta Victore (died 1141) has left usa 
 short treatise, entitled Shedule in Ep. ad Rom., and 
 to be found in Opp. Venetiz, 1588. It contains 
 several beautiful and profound observations. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas. (died 1274.)—We have from him 
 Commentarii in Epp. Pauli, Antw. 1591. In these 
 it would be vain to seek solid grammatical and his- 
 torical interpretation. But they, nevertheless, fre- 
 quently afford a sound view and clear development 
 of the truths of Christianity, as stated by the Apostle. 
 Erasmus in his Annot.ad Rom. i. 2, delivers a flatter- 
 ing panegyric upon the talents of this author. 
 
 Erasmus. (died 1536.)—He wrote a paraphrase upon 
 this Epistle, last published in Erasmi, Paraph. in N. 
 T. Berlin, 1777. And also Annotations in the Cri- 
 tici Sacri, t. vii. The paraphrase is distinguished for 
 its elegant Latin style, and often also by a clear per- 
 
98 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ception of the connection. The more peculiar Chris- 
 tian element, however, is frequently generalized ; and, 
 what is especially hurtful in the Epistle to the Romans, 
 the distinction between works and free grace is not 
 understood. The annotations are generally critical, 
 but several of them furnish valuable hints for the gram- 
 matical interpretation. 
 
 Luther (died 1546) did not expound the Epistle to 
 the Romans, but composed an admirable preface for 
 it, which breathes the very spirit of St. Paul. See 
 Walch’s Ausgabe, B. xiv. 5. 109. 
 
 Calvin. (died 1564.)—His Commentary on this Epis- 
 tle is to be found in vol. vii. of the Amsterdam edi- 
 tion of his works, and in the separate edition of the 
 commentary to the Epistles, Geneve, 1565. Here 
 are united a classical style, solid grammatical, and 
 historical exposition, profound thinking, and _ vital 
 Christianity. 
 
 Melancthon. (died 1560.)—This reformer has left 
 us an expository work upon the Epistle to the Romans, 
 in two different shapes. The former appeared in 
 1532, under the title Adnotationes ; the latter in 1532, 
 with the name Commentarii. They consisted of his 
 lectures, and afterwards gave rise to the Loci Com- 
 munes. Melancthon delivers mere scholia, and as~ 
 these are generally rather doctrinal than expository, 
 they refer chiefly to the passages in which the doc- 
 trines are stated. Their chief excellence lies in the 
 fine development which the author gives of the im- 
 portance and nature of the doctrine of free grace 
 without the merit of works. Of Melancthon’s par- 
 tiality for this Epistle, his contemporary Mylius thus 
 
INTRODUCTION. 929 
 
 speaks: Chronol. Script. Mel. Gorlic. 1582. In theo- 
 logicis observavi, plurimum eum fuisse occupatum in 
 explicanda clave et methodo universe Scripture, id 
 est Epistola scripta ad Romanos, quam solebat vocare 
 lumen propheticarum concionum. Hujus Epistole 
 doctrinam ut penitus imbiberet, et instar architecti 
 totam edificii formam in animo inclusam haberet, et 
 certam perspicuam ac simplicem sententiam investi- 
 garet, omnium eam sepissime pre ceteris Nov. Test. 
 libris publice enarravit, et comentariis illustravit ; 
 Juvenis etiam aliquoties, ut Demosthenes Thucydidem, 
 descripsisse dicitur. 
 
 Zuingluis. (died 1531.)—Of him there are extant 
 only brief scholia, like those of Melancthon; affording 
 specimens of just and natural interpretation, but other- 
 wise containing nothing remarkable. They are to be 
 found in his Opp. Tiguri, 1581, t. iii. 
 
 Beza. (died 1605.)—Novum Testamentum, 1598. 
 In a grammatical point of view, his annotations are 
 valuable. They contain occasionally deep percep- 
 tions of the sense and of the connection of particular 
 passages, but are not so rich in profound thought and 
 evangelical sentiment as Calvin’s. 
 
 Bugenhagen.—Joh. Pomerani in Ep. ad Rom. 
 Haganoz, 1521. This work consists in notes of 
 lectures, taken by Moibanus, and is more of an as- 
 cetic and doctrinal than exegetical character. 
 
 Bucer. (died 1551.)—Metaphrases et Ennarationes 
 Epp. Paul. t. i. Argentorati, 1536.—Shews high Exe- 
 getical talents, simple unconstrained exposition, free — 
 and original, sometimes most ingenious views. 
 
 -Hunnius. (died 1603.)—Expositio Ep. ad Rom. 
 
30 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Marp. 1587. Strictly Lutheran, and destitute of ori- 
 ginality. 
 
 Justinian.—Explanationes in omnes Epp. Pauli. 
 Lugd. 1612. Not without exegetical ability, and ex- 
 tensive and solid acquaintance with the Fathers. 
 
 Cornelius a Lapide. (died 1637)—-Comment in 
 omnes Ep. Pauli. Antw. 1614. Some of his quo- 
 tations from the Fathers may be useful. Here and 
 there, but very rarely, he shews originality of con- 
 ception. 
 
 Balduin.—Comment.in omnes Epp. Pauli. Frankf. 
 1644. The commentary on the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans appeared first in 1611, in a separate form. The 
 exposition is learned, orthodox in the Lutheran sense 
 of the word, but not without originality. - 
 
 Grotius. (died 1645.)—Comm. in Novy. Test. Pa- 
 risiis, 1644, 2 vols. The commentary upon the epistles 
 is far inferior to that upon the gospels. True, it 
 exhibits much valuable philological, historical, and 
 antiquarian knowledge, and sometimes an acute judg- 
 ment. But there are also apparent a defective ac- 
 quaintance with the Christian doctrine of salvation, 
 as revealed by Paul, a want of insight into the distine- 
 tion between the law and grace, Pelagian views of 
 the state of human nature, and, consequently, an exe-_ 
 gesis, often languid, and often totally false. 
 
 Cocceius. (died 1669.)—His commentary upon this 
 Epistle is contained in the 5th volume of his works. 
 It is too exclusively doctrinal, and is but seldom 
 available in a grammatical and historical point of 
 view. 
 
 Calov. (died 1688.)—Biblia Ilustrata, 1672, 4 vols. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 91 
 
 The 4th contains Paul’s Epistles. He first gives the 
 commentary of Grotius, which he then, sentence by 
 sentence, refutes; appending also, his own observa- 
 tions. Grotius is often very justly attacked, but a 
 stiff Lutheran exposition is substituted for the simple 
 biblical one. Useful notices for the history of the 
 exegesis are given. 
 
 Critici Sacrii—A collection of various valuable and 
 mostly grammatical and historical expositions. It 
 embraces the whole of the Old and New Testaments, 
 and was published in 1698, at Amsterdam, in 9 vols. 
 The Epistles of Paul are contained in the 8th volume. 
 The writers are Valla, Revius, Erasmus, Vatablus, 
 Castalio, Clarius, Zegerus, Drusius, Casaubon, Gualt- 
 perius, Cameron, James and Lewis Capellus, and 
 Grotius. The most valuable among the annotations 
 are those of Erasmus, Grotius, Clarius, Cameron, 
 and J. Capellus. 
 
 Seb. Schmidt.——His Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. 
 Hamb. 1644, reaches only to the 6th chapter. In 
 the manner of that age, the exposition is full of logi- 
 cal distinctions, and doctrinal and polemical subtleties. 
 This method, however, helps to place many a subject 
 ina Clearer light. This commentary is one of the 
 best of the sort, and is likewise distinguished for 
 learning. 
 
 Limborch. (died 1712.)—Comm. in Acta Apost. et 
 in Ep. ad Rom. et ad Heb. Roterd. 1711. Shews 
 talent for exegesis, independent thinking, but occa- 
 sionally also that shallowness which so frequently cha- 
 racterizes Arminians, and a deficiency of solid phi- 
 lology. 
 
92 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Alp. Turretin. (died 1737.)—Prelectiones in Ep. ad 
 Rom. Lausanne. Exhibits artless, natural, and free 
 interpretation, but a want of thorough philological 
 grounding. 
 
 Siegm. J. Baumgarten. (died 1757) wrote Ausle- 
 gung des Briefes an die Romer. Halle, 1747. Its 
 chief feature is a deficiency of philological knowledge. 
 It is valuable on no other account than that the tabu- 
 lar method in which it is composed, with its endless 
 divisions, sometimes enables us to form more distinct 
 ideas. 
 
 Bengel. (died 1752.)—The Gnomon Novi Testa- 
 menti of this author, second edition, 1759, contains 
 acute and ingenious observations, mingled with many 
 that are futile. The train of thought is sometimes 
 indicated with great acuteness. 
 
 Joh. Bened. Carpzov (died 1803,) wrote Stricture 
 Sacre in Ep. ad Rom. second edition, 1758. Avail- 
 able contributions from Philo. 
 
 Wolf. (died 1739.)—Cure Philologice. Basil, 1737. 
 The Epistle to the Romans is in the third vol. It 
 contains useful antiquarian and philological remarks, 
 together with much confused stuff. . 
 
 Heumann. (died 1764.)—His Commentary on this 
 Epistle is in the seventh vol. of his Erklarung des » 
 N. T. It exhibits great industry in the collection 
 of materials, occasionally soundness, but more fre- 
 quently perversity of judgment, with considerable ori- 
 ginality. The chief deficiency is in philological know- 
 ledge. 
 
 Chr. Schmidt. (died 1778.)—Adnott. in Ep. ad 
 
 Rom. Lips. 1777. This commentary is distinguish- 
 
INTRODUCTION. ἘΠῚ 
 
 ed for sound and unprejudiced judgment and gram- 
 matical knowledge. It is not sufficiently extensive. 
 
 Koppe. (died 1791.)—His Commentar zum Brief 
 an die Romer, which first appeared in 1783, was edited 
 afresh by Ammon in 1806, and finally in 1824. The 
 interpretation is for the most part unconstrained, but 
 does not always rest upon solid research. He is un- 
 acquainted with the true spirit of Paul, and misap- 
 prehends the more profound Christian doctrines. 
 
 Joh. Fr. Flatt published in 1825 Vorlesungen iiber 
 den Brief au die Romer. Titbingen. He shews a 
 good acquaintance with the exegetical writers of the 
 last decennia of the eighteenth and the first of the 
 nineteenth century, but wants accurate philological 
 grounding, and does not enter deeply enough into the 
 doctrines. 
 
 After these proper commentaries, there exist for 
 the use of the student, multifarious Observationes and 
 Annotationes. The most profitable to consult are 
 Stephen de Brais Analysis Paraphrastica Ep. ad Rom. 
 cum ejus notis, curante Venema qui suas Observ. ad- 
 jecit. Leov. 1735. Venema’s observations are, in ἃς 
 philological view, highly precious. Schéttgen, Hore 
 Talmudice, t. 1. He gives numerous instructive 
 parallels from the Rabbins. Elsner, Observatt. Sacre, 
 Traj. ad Rhenum, 1720—28, t. ii. and Kypke, Ob- 
 servatt. Sacre, Bresl. 1755, t. ii. offer valuable phi- 
 lological contributions from various profane authors. 
 Bauer, Philologia Thucydideo-Paulina, Halle 1773, 
 contains some good remarks from Thucydides. Ra- 
 phelii Annott. Philol. in N. T. ex Xenophonte, Poly- 
 bio, Arriano, Herodoto, Lugd. Bat. 1747, 2 vols. 
 
 D 
 
34 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 very rich philological collection. The following are 
 works which will less reward consultation. Krebs 
 Observatt. e Josepho; Losner, Observatt. e Philone ; 
 Palairet, Observatt. Phil.in N. T.; Miinthe, Observatt. 
 e Diodoro Siculo; Keuchen, Observatt. in N. T.; De 
 Prado, Observatt. et Annott. in N. T.; Ernesti An- 
 merkungen zum N. T. 
 
 As Introduction to this Epistle, may be used the 
 admirable work of Rambach, written with a thorough 
 knowledge of the subject, Introductio Historico- 
 Theologica in Ep. Pauli, ad Rom. Hale, 1730. 
 Usteri has developed the doctrinal ideas of the Epistles 
 of Paul, and of this among the rest, in his Entwicke- 
 lung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, Zurich, 1824. 
 In the first part of this treatise there is an able evo- 
 lution of the idea of the νόμος and of its antithesis to 
 πνεῦμα. In general he walks in the steps of his great 
 master Schleiermacher, not only in his ingenious con- 
 ception of the doctrines, but likewise in the artificial 
 exegesis with which the latter is chargeable. 
 
ON THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER FIRST. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 AFTER the Salutation, the Apostle assures the Romans of 
 his affection, and tells them how he had often proposed to 
 visit Rome, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel there, 
 seeing that all men stand in need of the Gospel, and need 
 it in an equal degree. In the first place, the heathen do so, 
 inasmuch as they lie under the threatenings of God’s pe- 
 nal justice, for having, contrary to the dictates of the Divine 
 revelation within them, denied the true nature of God, 
 and sunk, in consequence of their knowledge of God being 
 thus obscured, into the most abominable vices. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. The Salutation, V. 1—7. 
 2. Introduction, V. 8—~16. 
 3. Thesis, V. 16, 17. 
 
36 CHAPTER I. V. I. 
 
 4. Exposition of the Thesis in the case of the Heathen, as re- 
 spects the speculative errors, into which they were led by 
 their practical depravity. V. 18—23. 
 
 5. Exposition of the Thesis in the case of the Heathen, as re- 
 spects the practical depravity, into which they fell, in 
 consequence of their speculative errors. V. 24. 52, 
 
 PART I. 
 THE SALUTATION. y. 1—7. 
 
 V.1. Tue Apostle, penetrated, as he so deeply was, 
 with the thought of the high honour which God had 
 conferred upon him, by calling him in an extraordi- 
 nary manner, to be a preacher of the gospel, cannot 
 abstain from making allusion to this, at the beginning 
 of all his Epistles, a circumstance which, in the pre- 
 sent case, should naturally heighten the impression 
 upon the mind of the reader. 
 
 Παῦλος. The Apostle was properly called Saul. 
 But along with this Jewish name, he had another as a 
 Roman citizen. It was thus that many Jews, who lived 
 
 among the Romans, besides their native Hebrew appel-. 
 
 lations, assumed others of Latin origin, as Dostai, Dosi- 
 
 theus, Tarphon, Trypho; while those again, residing. 
 
 among the Greeks, took names from their language, 
 as Jesus, Jason, Joiakim, Alkimos. In such eases, the 
 Roman and Greek had ‘generally some similarity in 
 
 sound with the Jewish words; as Paul has with Saul. 
 
 This is the most natural way of explaining the ori 
 of the double name of the Apostle, and is given so 
 early as by Origen, (Pref. ad Comm.ad Rom.) 
 
 peas ae 
 
CHAPTER I. V. ]. 37 
 
 δοῦλος, Connected with the name of God, is found 
 in the Old and New Testament, bearing a twofold 
 signification. It designates, in the former, generally 
 all pious Israelites ; in the latter, all Christians ; e.g. 
 Ps. exiil. 1. Eph. vi. 6, imasmuch as the true wor- 
 shipper of God should always maintain upon his mind 
 a sense of his dependance upon the Divine Being. 
 Still the designation is found more rarely, in this 
 sense, in the New Testament, because, under it, the 
 feeling of love, more than the feeling of subjection, 
 ought to reign. More frequently are Christians spoken 
 of as the children of God; and Christ himself called 
 his disciples, not servants, but frzends, John xv. 1. 
 On the other hand, however, in the Old Testament, 
 extraordinary messengers of God are styled servants 
 of God, 717 Tay, Deut xxxiv. 5. Josh. i. 1. Neh. 
 x. 29; and in the New, the superior officers of the 
 ehurch of Christ, Gal. i. 10. James i. 1. Col. iv. 12. 
 This jast is the sense in which it here stands. 
 
 χλητὺς. Melancthon: Necessaria causa est, cur 
 officii mentionem faciat, ut ecclesia sciat doctrine 
 Pauli credendum esse. χαλέω, like NY, to choose 
 or select. The vocation of Paul is related in Acts 
 xxvi. 17. As this Apostle uses the word, καλέω 
 comprehends, no less the outward call to belief, by 
 the instrumentality of events and circumstances, than 
 the inward call, by the motions of the Holy Spirit. 
 Erasm. Hee vox peculiaris est Paulo, cui studium est 
 omnibus adimere fiduciam operum humanorum, to- 
 tamque gloriam transferre ad vocantem Deum, cui 
 vocanti qui auscultat salvus est. Theophylact: Ta- 
 
98 CHAPTER 1. V. I. 
 
 πεινοφροσύνης τὸ ῥῆμα, δείκνυσι γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ αὐτὸς ϑητήσας 
 εὗρεν, ἀλλὰ κληθεὶς παρεγένετο. 4 
 
 ἀφωρισμένος is an Epexegesis. Origen: Secundum 
 id quod in eo previdet aut eligit Deus, aut Apostolos 
 quisque vocatur, aut Propheta. In like manner does 
 God speak to the prophet, Jer. i. 5. “ Before I form- 
 ed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou 
 camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I 
 ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” St. Paul 
 uses similar language of himself, Gal. i. 15. Hesy- 
 chius explains ἀφωρισμένος as Synonymous with ἐχλελεγ- 
 μένος διωκεκριμένος, in which sense it is used, Acts xiii. 
 2. Radically it means, not to destine, but to separate. 
 
 εὐαγγέλιον employed, per metonomen, for the pudbli- 
 cation of the doctrine, which the word also signifies in 
 1 Cor. iv. 15; ix. 14. So ver. 5, there stands ai¢ ura- 
 κοὴν πίστεως, instead of εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν τῇ πίστει πάντα 
 σὰ ξθνη. 
 
 Θεοῦ. Chrysostom takes this up falsely as the 
 genitivus objecti, the gospel concerning God, suppos- 
 ing an allusion to the heathen not having acknow- 
 ledged him as the one God. The objectum does not 
 follow until the 5d verse. Θεοῦ is here the gen. sub _ 
 jecti. Theophylact explains it correctly ὡς δωρηθὲν 
 παρὼ τοῦ Θεοῦ. It is the Son who founds the entire 
 plan of salvation upon earth. But he who sends the 
 Son is the Father, and to him accordingly the whole 
 is referred back. 
 
 2 An expression of humble mindedness, intimating that he 
 had not found because he had sought, but that he had come 
 because he was called. : ᾿ 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 2. 39 
 
 V.2. The thought that he had been sent forth to 
 proclaim a new doctrine suggests to the Apostle the 
 recollection that Christianity could not be said to be 
 altogether new, nor had come, at unawares, into the 
 world. Theophyl. ἐπειδὴ ὡς καινὸν διέβαλον τὸ κήρυγμα, 
 δείκνυσιν αὐτὸ πρεσβύτερον ὃν τῶν Ἑλλήνων Tn like man- 
 ner, when before Festus, Acts xxvi. 22, Paul appeals to 
 the fact, that he was not an innovator, and that the mes- 
 sage of salvation which he brought was nothing else 
 than that which all the prophets had foretold. Ema- 
 nating from Judea, at this time, a rumour had widely 
 spread among the Gentile nations, that the king for 
 whom Israel had long so fondly looked, was soon about 
 to come, and would subject the whole earth to his sway. 
 Tacitus, Hist. L. v. ce. 18, takes notice of this rumour, 
 «* Pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum literis 
 contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, 
 profectique Judea rerum potirentur.” So also Sue- 
 tonius, in Vesp. c. 4, “ Pererebuerat Oriente toto, 
 vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore 
 Judea profecti rerum potirentur.” [ΙΕ then they did 
 not rejoice, how deeply at least must it have roused 
 the curiosity and attention of the heathen, when they 
 were told that at this time there had arisen men in 
 Judea who proclaimed aloud the advent of the long 
 expected Prince, and sacrificed their lives for his 
 sake! — | 
 προεπηγγείλωτο. Immediately upon the fall of the 
 
 > He answers the objection that what he preached was new, 
 by showing that it was more ancient than the Greeks them. 
 selves. 
 
40 CHAPTER I. V. 2, 3. 
 
 first man, the promise of a deliverer was vouchsafed, 
 in what has been called the protevangelium, Gen. iii. 
 15. The holy men of the old world strengthened — 
 their hearts, by looking forward to the time of re- 
 storation, and the nearer the era appointed for the 
 arrival of the promised Saviour approached, the 
 clearer became the intimations of the prophets with 
 respect to him, down to Zecharias ix. 9, xi. 13., and at 
 last Malachi, with whom the Old Testament closes. 
 The final announcement of the latter, 6. ii. 1, and 
 Mark i. 3, form the connecting links of the two econo- 
 mies. 
 
 ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίωις. The plural, equivalent to the 
 more ordinary ἡ γραφὴ, and found in the Fathers, who 
 have cus κύριακαι γραφαί. Krasm. Promissus fuit non a 
 quovis, sed ab ipso Deo, nec per quosvis, sed per pro- 
 phetas suos ἢ. e. veros ac divinos, nec id quibuslibet 
 instrumentis, sed in scripturis sacris. 
 
 V. 3. Here follows the subject ofthe glad tidings; 
 they treat of Christ and his dignity. 
 
 περὶ τοῦ ὑιοῦ. It isa question with what this περὴ is 
 to be construed, whether with πεοεπηγγείλατο in the 
 second verse, or with εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ in the first. 
 Chrysostom notices the difficulty attending a proper 
 arrangement of the clauses, and says ἀσαφὲς τὸ εἰρημένον. 
 ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν λήξεων πλοκῆς γέγονε Modern commen- 
 tators make two or three parentheses. Almost all 
 agree in enclosing verse second in brackets. But be- 
 sides this, several do the same with the words, from 
 
 * The complication of the words makes what he has said 
 obscure. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 3, 4. 41 
 
 τοῦ γενομένου as far as νεκρῶν, and some also with ᾿Τησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. The two last parentheses are 
 totally unnecessary. The first might, perhaps, be 
 admitted, inasmuch as the περὶ would then connect it- 
 self with εὐαγγέλιον more closely than it otherwise does 
 with προεπηγγείλατος. But even that ought to be re- 
 jected. The ancients, in general, seldom made paren- 
 theses ; more rarely still the Hebrews, and least of all 
 Paul, with the glow of whose diction the practice was 
 scarcely compatible. The least credible of all, is the 
 supposition of Heumann, that the Apostle inserted 
 these three passages upon a subsequent perusal of the 
 Epistle. Accordingly we connect περὶ with προ- 
 ἐπηγγεΐκατο. 
 
 V. 8, 4. τοῦ γενομένου κυρίου ἡμῶν. We find here, 
 what often occurs in the writings of this author, a 
 large group of co-ordinate clauses. With reference 
 to these, we remark, that Paul’s peculiar mode of 
 thinking, and, consequently, also of expression, is 
 most aptly compared to a throng of waves, where, in 
 ever loftier swell, one billow presses close upon the 
 other. Like all men of lively temperament, he ever 
 seeks to heighten the impression of his words, by ap- 
 pending new explanations or definitions. For ἃ strik- 
 ing example, see the opening of the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians. Such is the case in the present in- 
 stance. Not content with having, in the first verse, 
 described the gospel as a new and joyful message, 
 he cannot choose but describe it also, in the second, 
 as having been the object of long and ardent expec- 
 tation. Here, likewise, he is not satisfied with having 
 simply named the Son of God; but figuring to him- 
 
42 CHAPTER I. Vv. 3, 4. 
 
 self, at once, all that is implied in this appellation, he 
 proceeds to unfold it, in opposition to the Judaising 
 teachers, who denied so lofty a title to the Saviour. 
 The following is a just observation of Wolle, (Comm. 
 de Parenthesi Sacra, p. 63) Hic vides sanctissimum 
 πάθος Pauli, sigillatim affectum erga Iesum Christum 
 ardentissimum, quo divinum ejus pectus ita abunda- 
 vit, ut suavissimi hujus servatoris mentionem injiciens, 
 sibi temperare non posset, quominus summam ejus— 
 personam maximis in ccelum laudibus extolleret. 
 
 No sooner does Paul mention the name of Christ, 
 than the whole import of the title flashes upon his 
 mind. He describes him as the royal son of David. 
 This, however, was nothing above what the Judaising 
 teachers allowed him to be. Paul knows him no 
 more χατὼ σωρκά, 2 Cor. v.16. Before his eyes the 
 Saviour is ever present as a glorified being, and, 
 therefore, he immediately adds, that, besides being 
 son of David, he is of a still loftier nature, having 
 been manifested as ὑμὸς θεοῦ. According to this view, 
 we have here a climax, such as the Apostle often uses, 
 and which is generally expressed by an éu μόνον δὲ. 
 Rom. v. 3. 11, viii. 23, or a μᾶλλον δὲ, Rom. viii. 34. - 
 Older expositors, wishing to put into these words 
 the doctrinal view they held of the Divine and human > 
 nature of Christ, suppose here not a climax, but a 
 decided antithesis, betwixt the clauses, the one be- 
 ginning with γενομένα, and the other with ὁρισθέντος. 
 The climax consists in this, that Christ who, zara 
 σάρκα, is a scion of the royal stock of David, has 
 also been manifested as the partaker of a still loftier 
 dignity. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 3, 4. 43 
 
 Σὰρξ, as used by Paul, signifies in general the hu- 
 man nature according to its ordinary constitution here 
 below, and hence involves the inherent idea of weak- 
 ness. See this idea more fully developed, c. vii. 14. 
 When applied to Christ, it denotes all that he had in 
 common with other men, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 John iv. 2, 
 2 John vii. comp. Heb. ii. 14, and forms the contrast 
 to the divine element in his person. 
 
 Ἔκ σπέρματος Δαξὶδ, Even this was an honour. His 
 royal extraction, acknowledged as it was by the 
 judaizing teachers themselves, elevated him high in 
 the scale of rank. But Paul has a still higher dignity 
 to specify. Jesus Christ was also iss Θεοῦ. As used 
 in the New Testament, this expression primarily de- 
 notes one who stands in a near and_ special relation- 
 ship to God, and upon whom, betokened either by the 
 outward distinction which he enjoys, or by the rich 
 manifestation of the Spirit within, the action of a 
 peculiar divine influence is discernible. Hence, it is 
 bestowed as an appellation upon celestial beings, Gen. 
 vi. 2, Job. i. 6, upon rulers and kings, Ps. Ixxxii. 6, 
 Ps. ii. 6, and upon men, who live according to the 
 will of God, Deut. xiv. 1, 2 Sam. vii. 14. It was 
 even assumed by Christ himself. As the general idea 
 which the title implies, viz. that of a more close re- 
 lationship to G'od, is indefinite, the expression admit- 
 ted of a great variety of applications, and according- 
 ly we find it has been used by Christ and the Apos- 
 tles, in manifold and various senses; of which, how- 
 ever, the one does not usually exclude the other. 
 Sometimes the prominent conception is that of a 
 theocratical King, or the Messiah, Mat. xxvi. 63, 
 
44 CHAPTER I. v. 3, 4. 
 
 Luke iv. 41, Johni. 49, vi. 69, x. 36, xi. 27, Matt. xvi. 
 16, comp. with Luke ix. 20, Mat. xxvii. 40, comp. with 
 Luke xxiii. 35. In these passages, however, we must be- 
 ware of forthwith translating it the Messiah ; for al- 
 though such be its proper import, the general significa- 
 tion, viz. the chosen of God, (ὁ ἐκλεκτός τοῦ Θεοῦ, also a 
 name of the Messiah,) or one near to G'od, isstillretained. 
 Hence, in these instances, other references of the title are 
 not altogether excluded, and that, for the following, if for — 
 no other reason, that according to many Jewish theolo- 
 
 gians, it behoved the Messiah to be of exalted and di- 
 
 vine nature, a fact at which the Saviour himself hints, 
 
 Mat. xxii. 43. Sometimes the expression refers to 
 
 the miraculous generation of Christ by immediate di- 
 
 vine agency, Luke i. 35, comp. with i. 38. Occasion- 
 
 ally Christ appears to assume it, in virtue of that high- 
 
 er relationship in which he stood towards God, and 
 
 from the consciousness of a participation in the illimit- 
 
 able divine nature, Mat. xxviii. 19, xi.27. So frequent- 
 
 ly in John. In so far as the writings of Paul are con- 
 
 cerned, the first of these special acceptations seems to 
 
 predominate, in such a manner, however, as that he 
 
 likewise meant to express the divine nature in Christ, 
 according to those loftier views of the Messiah, enter- 
 
 tained by the Jewish theologians to which we have 
 above adverted. 
 
 ὁρίζειν, to mark off, define, and hence, to appoint, 
 
 declare. Even classical authors have the phrase 
 
 ὁνίζειν τινὰ θεόν. Hence Chrysostom and Theodoret 
 
 here rightly expound ἀποδειχθέντος. “ The same who 
 
 κατὰ σάρκα was only known as the descendant of 
 David, is now declared to be the Son of God.” | 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 3, 4, 45 
 
 By what means? The answer to this question, 
 the majority of commentators seek in ἐξ ἀναστάσεως 
 γεκρῶν, a phrase which must be resolved into ἀνάστασις 
 ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, the resurrection of Christ from the dead, 
 and his victory over death, having, as it were, demon- 
 strated his superior nature. Now, the resurrection, 
 per se, does not suffice to demonstrate this, seeing that 
 other men, as Lazarus, for example, have been re- 
 stored to life. Still, in the mind of the Apostle, with 
 the resurrection of the Saviour, there is always coupled 
 the idea of the dominion, with which he was then 
 invested, over the human race. The ἀναστάσις, in his 
 view, denotes the whole period of exaltation from the 
 time when he arose from the dead, and when death 
 ceased to have any more dominion over him, see chap. 
 vi. 10. For the same reason he also represents the 
 dizaiworg Of men as a consequence of the ἀνάστασις, 
 chap. iv. 25. Thus, he divides the life of Christ into 
 two sections, that in which the ἀσθενεία reigned, and 
 that in which the δυνώμις Θεοῦ. But if the idea at- 
 tached to ἀνάστασις must be thus widely extend- 
 ed, then the import in which we are to take up ἐξ 
 ἀνωστάσεως resolves itself into the other, sanctioned by 
 Theodoret and Grotius, in which ἐξ like ἀπὸ, Luke 
 viii. 27, Acts ix. 33, denotes the point of time. In 
 this case, the sense would be, “ he has been declared 
 the Son of God since the time when, having arisen 
 from the grave, he was exalted to divine glory.” 
 
 But how is ἐν δυνάμει related to this. passage, and 
 with what particular word is it to be construed? It 
 is used adverbially 7799393, and signifies, according to 
 Beza, potenter. If we compare the passage already 
 
46 CHAPTER I. V. 8, 4. 
 
 quoted, 2 Cor. xiii. 4, we might be inclined to join it 
 with ὑμὸς Θεοῦ, “ he has been declared as the mighty 
 glorified Son of God.” At the same time, it may 
 equally well be joined with the verb ὁρήζειν, “ he has 
 in a glorious manner been declared as the Son of God.” 
 
 There now remains only the phrase zara πνεῦμα 
 ἁγιωσύνης. ‘This seems to answer as a contrast to 
 κατὰ σάρκα, and hence denotes the divine nature in 
 Christ, whatever is not referable to the ordinary, 
 humble, and human form, in which he appeared. 
 More frequently is this same idea, with less precision, 
 spoken of as a being full of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον, Luke iv. 
 1, 18, John iii. 34, Acts x. 38. Comp. Heb. ix. 14, 
 διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου. ~ By virtue of his divine na- 
 ture, has he, after overcoming bodily death, been 
 made manifest as the Son of God.” Wetstein aptly 
 illustrates, as regards the sense, the contrast between 
 κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα ὡγιωσύνης, by humilitas 
 and majestas. Michaelis goes far astray, when he 
 renders the phrase, “ according to the declarations of 
 the Holy Spirit.” The expression πνεῦμ ὡγιωσύνης 
 instead of ἅγιον may appear strange. Bengel tries to 
 distinguish between ἁγιότης sanctitas, ἁγιωσύνη sancti- . 
 monia, and ἁγιασμὸς sanctificatio. But the distinction 
 is arbitrary. Even so in the Latin, there is no shade 
 of difference between sanctimonia and sanctitas, see 
 Forcellini, 5. ἢ. v., and in the Greek ἁγιωσύνη is as 
 much like ἁγιότης, as ἀγαωθοσύνη is to ἀγαθότης. Here 
 the substantive in the genitive case stands, as in the 
 Hebrew, by circumlocution for the adjective, so 
 that πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is equivalent to πνεῦμα ἅγιον. 
 Paul may, perhaps, have chosen the less ordinary ex- 
 
 - 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 9, 4, 5. 47 
 
 pression, as πνεῦμα ἅγιον might have too easily led the 
 reader to think of what that expression generally im- 
 plies, the derivative gifts of the Spirit. 
 
 We have only farther to observe, that others 
 arrange the clauses in a different way. Chrysostom 
 and Melancthon construe the three phrases, κατὰ 
 “νεῦμα ὁ γιωσύνης;----ἐν δυνάμει;----ἃηα ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, 
 as co-ordinate, and find in them three proofs of the 
 divinity of Christ: Ist, By power, ὁ. 6. by miracles ; 
 2d, by the communication of the Holy Ghost ; 3d, by 
 the resurrection from the dead, was he demonstrated 
 to be the Son of God. The Syrian interpreter con- 
 strues together only ἐν δυνάμει, and κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύ- 
 νήῆς. ‘To say nothing of other objections, however, the 
 very change of the prepositions makes this arrange- 
 ment of the clauses improbable. 
 
 V.5. The mention of the Saviour’s exaltation 
 makes the Apostle reflect on what he himself had ob- 
 tained through this glorified Messias. In his conver- 
 sion and illumination, he had received tokens of grace, 
 1 Tim. i. 13, but more especially in being called to 
 preach the word. Sirictly considered, therefore, it is 
 wrong to say, with Chrysostom, Grotius, and others, 
 that χάρις and ἀποστολὴ constitute a Hendiadis, and 
 stand for χάρις τῆς ἀποστολῆς. Augustine: Gratiam 
 cum omnibus fidelibus accepit, apostolatum non cum 
 omnibus. Ἵ 
 
 εἰς ὑπωκοὴν πίστεως. The Apostle specifies the 
 end and aim of his office. σήστις may either be con- 
 sidered objectively or subjectively. Objectively, it 
 means the same as εὐαγγέλιον, the doctrines of the faith. 
 In this signification, Theodoret takes it up, as also 
 
48 CHAPTER Ι. V. ὅ. 
 
 Beza, Bengel, Wolf, and others, and a parallel pas- 
 sage is found in 2 Cor. ix. 13,—trorayq τῆς ὁμολογίας 
 εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Still, it is not unlikely that St. Paul 
 here used πίστις in the subjective sense, and designs 
 by it the immediate conviction of the truth, laying hold 
 upon the consciousness, and subjecting the under- 
 standing of man. It may, perhaps, be his object to 
 set in a strong light, how all depends upon the per- 
 sonal πιστεύειν compliance with the divine call, on the 
 part of the individual. In this case, the substantive 
 πίστεως ἴῃ the genitive, according to the Hebrew idiom, 
 stands in place of the adjective σιστικὸς or πειθημνὼν. 
 Such is Chrysostom’s view of the passage: σῶν ἀπόστο- 
 λων γὰρ ἣν τὺ περίένωι καὶ κηρύττειν, σὺ δὲ πείθειν, τοῦ 
 ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν αὐτοῖς Θεοῦ. καθὼς κὰἂι ὃ Λουκᾶς φησιν; ὅτι 
 διήνοιξε τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν: καὶ πάλιν, δις ἦν δεδομένον 
 ἀκοῦσωι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. ᾽Ουκ εἶπεν, εἰς ζήτησιν καὶ 
 κατασχευὴν, ἀλλ᾽, εἰς ὑπο κοΐν'" οὐδὲ γὼρ ἐπεμφθημέν, φησι, 
 συλλογίζεσθωι, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ ἐνεχειρίσθημεν, ἀποδοῦναι Such 
 is also the view of Sebastian Schmidt. 
 
 ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν is joined by Beza with ἐλάβομεν, in 
 order to avoid the harshness of construction which 
 arises, when it is united with the clause εἧς ὑπακοὴν 
 πίστεως, even then too concise. Notwithstanding this 
 harshness, however, the latter is the true manner of 
 
 * The office of the Apostles was to go about and preach ; to 
 persuade was the part of God working within them. As says 
 St. Luke: He opened their hearts, and, to whom it was given 
 to hear the word of God. He does not say, for searching or 
 demonstrating, but for obedience, meaning, we have heen sent 
 not to reason, but to impart that of which we have been put 
 in charge. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 5. 49 
 
 construing it. The Apostle was led to adopt the con- 
 struction with ἐν by having in his mind a lively con- 
 ception of this faith, as spread like seed among all 
 nations. Hence, in place of the genitive σάντων, 
 which was to have been expected, he substitutes ἐν 
 πᾶσι “in order that faith in the Gospel may be pro- 
 duced among all nations,” πᾶς is equivalent to the 
 Hebrew 55, qualiscunque. The Apostles frequently 
 give animated expression to the sentiment, that by the 
 preaching of Christ, every wall of partition between 
 nations even the most diverse, is done away. 
 
 ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. With what is this appended 
 clause to be connected? Chrysostom joins it imme- 
 diately to πίστεως, considering it as specifying the ob- 
 ject of faith, and thus gives ὑπὲρ the signification of 
 περὶ---οὐχ, iva τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ περιεργασώμεθω, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ 
 ὄνομα, αὐτοῦ πιστεύσωμεν.8 In like manner, Theophylact, 
 Erasmus, and Ammon. It is astill more violent pro- 
 cedure to connect it with χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν, as is done 
 by Beza, Bengel, Limborch and others ; the last men- 
 tioned of whom translates the words, ut nomen ejus 
 glorificetur. The simplest, and at the same time the 
 way most accordant with the genius of the Helenistic 
 dialect, is to refer it back generally to the words εἰς 
 ὑπακοὴν πίστεως, according to the translation of Casta- 
 lio: Per quem gratiam sumus et apostolatum adepti, 
 ut obediatur fidei ob ejus nomen apud omnes gentes. 
 Ὄνομα, TW, the contents, compendium of the qua- 
 lities, and hence an emphatical circumlocution for 
 
 & Not that we should pry into his nature, but that we 
 should believe on his name. 
 E 
 
50 CHAPTER I. V. 6. 
 
 the person. The sense is consequently as follows, 
 “in order that by means of the propagation of the 
 faith among all nations, Christ may be glorified.” By 
 thinking of all nations the Apostle’s mind is next di- 
 rected to those, whom he is at the time addressing. 
 
 V. 6. ἐν οἷς. Chrysostom: εἴγε τὰ μὲν παλαιὰ περ 
 ἔθνος ἕν ἐγίγνετο, αὕτη δὲ γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν ἐπεσπάσατο. 
 Here the Apostle makes the transition. Having been 
 called and appointed by Christ to be a preacher of 
 salvation to all nations, in that lies my right to ad- 
 dress myself to you Romans. 
 
 κλητοὶ “Inoot Χριστοῦ. κλητὸς, in the language of Paul, 
 denotes the person to whom God outwardly gives the 
 opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Gospel, 
 and whom, at the same time, he inwardly draws by his 
 Spirit to embrace it. As our Apostle elsewhere uni- 
 formly traces the χωλεῖ to the agency of the Father, 
 the ultimate source of the entire economy of salva- 
 tion, it is probable, that here the genitive, ᾿Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 is equivalent to πρὸς Χριστὸν, and the sense, “ who 
 have been brought to Jesus Christ.” In another 
 of the Homilies of Chrysostom, the import of καλεῖν 
 is beautifully illustrated. τὶ οὖν ἡμᾶς CobAcras διδάξαι 
 (ὁ Παῦλος) διὰ τοῦ xAnroy ἑαυτὸν καλέσαι; ὅτι οὐκ 
 αὐτὸς τῷ δεσπότῃ προσῆλθε πρῶτος, ἀλλὰ κληθεις ὑπή- 
 κουσεν" οὐκ αὐτὸς ἐξήτησε χαὶ εὗρεν, ἀλλ᾽ εὑρέθη TAG- 
 νώμενος" οὐκ αὐτὸς πρὸς τὸ φῶς ἀνέῦλεψψε πρῶτος, ἀλλὰ 
 τὸ φῶς τὰς οἰκείας ἀχτῖνας πρὸς τὰς ὄψεις ἀφῆκεν τὰς 
 ἐκείνου, καὶ τοὺς ἔξω πηρώσας ὀφθωλμοὺς τοὺς ἔνδοθεν ἤνοιξε. 
 
 ὶ 
 ἢ 
 
 5 The former dispensation respected one people alone; this 
 
 has attracted both earth and sea. 
 i What then does Paul mean to teach us, when he says, 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 7. δ 
 
 V.7. Here follows the proper Salutation. ΑἹ] the 
 inward and spiritual glory, which was one day to be 
 manifested in the ghostly kingdom of regenerated 
 Christians upon the earth, was in a bodily manner 
 prefigured by the people of Israel; and hence the 
 Jewish Theocracy, in respect of its outward typical 
 institutions, was called, Ex. xix. 6, “ A kingdom of 
 priests, and a holy nation.” Deut. xxiii. 1, “« The 
 congregation of the Lord.” Is. xxxii. 19, “ The sons 
 and daughters of the Lord.” With still deeper mean- 
 ing, were all these appellations afterwards transferred 
 to the invisible community of believers. With Ex. 
 xix. 6, compare 1 Pet. ii. 9... With Deut. xxiii. 1, 
 1 Tim. i. 15, and with Deut. xxxii. 19, Phil. ii. 15, 
 1 John iii. 1 and 2, v.10. The members of this com- 
 munity enter it indeed defiled, but not merely by 
 name are they held bound to be saints. The trans- 
 forming Spirit of Christ must actually renew and 
 brighten the Saviour’s image in their souls. Augus- 
 tine: Non ita intelligendum tanquam ideo vocati sint 
 quia sancti erant, sed ideo sancti effecti quia vocati 
 sint. 
 
 ἀγαπητὸς. Subst.a favourite, darling, in the LXX. 
 for TF FT. 
 
 πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσι. This expression is more compre- 
 
 that he was called. He means, that it was not he who first came 
 to the Master, but that, having been called to him, he obeyed ; 
 that he did not spontaneously seek and find, but that he was 
 found, when he was wandering; that it was not he who 
 first looked up to the light, but the light which sent its rays 
 upon his vision, and having closed his outward, opened his 
 inward eyes. 
 
wet 
 
 52 CHAPTER I. V. 7. 
 
 hensive than if the Apostle had merely said τῇ ἐκκλη- 
 cig τῇ ἐν Ῥώμῃ : for it evidently embraces all the 
 Christian strangers then present in the city, and who, 
 for the period of their stay, might have joined them-— 
 selves to the Roman Church. This must have been 
 a very numerous class, owing to the extensive traffic 
 which the inhabitants of the provinces carried on with 
 the capital. In the time of Juvenal, for example, 
 there were such a number of Greeks in Rome, that 
 he calls it “ Greecam urbem.” 
 
 χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, Supply ἔστω. Even the Christian 
 greeting announces the peculiarity of the gospel, which, 
 while other systems summon to the combat and point 
 to the prize from afar, first bestows the wreath of vic- 
 tory, and having thus animated the warrior, leads him 
 forth into the field. By the coming of the Saviour, 
 objectively, the relation of God to man is changed ; 
 subjectively, the believer is made to partake of the 
 blessings which the gospel brings. Objectively, χάρις 
 is the divine favour towards the believer ; subjectively, 
 it is the manifestation of that, in the communication of 
 the πνεῦμα τῆς ὑιοθεσίας, which is also a πνεῦμα εἰρήνης, 
 Rom. v. 1. The Saviour himself employed the com- 
 mon Jewish form of salutation ὩΣ coyby, in this 
 loftier and peculiar Christian sense. (Author’s Comm. 
 zu Joh. xx. 19.) εἰρήνη, it is true, is the common 
 Hebrew salutation moby, and ought, therefore, per- 
 haps to be translated salvation rather than peace. 
 In the New Testament, however, the Greek sense 
 of peace seems to predominate even in the form of 
 greeting, as is shown by its position beside χάρις, It 
 appears, moreover, to involve an allusion to the re- 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 7. 53 
 
 moval of guilt through Christ. In this import, our 
 Saviour himself uses it, John xx. 19. Chrysostom: 
 “OL προσηγορίας μυρία φερούσης ἀγαθά. Τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Χρισ- 
 τὺς τοῖς ᾿Αποστόλοις εἰς τὰς οἰκίας εἰσιοῦσι, πρῶτον ῥῆμα 
 φάσκειν ἐπέταττε. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ ἸΤαῦλος ἐντεῦθεν πάντα- 
 χοῦ προοιμιάζετωι ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς εἰρήνης. οὐδὲ 
 γὰρ μικρὺν κατέλυσεν ὁ Χριστὸς πόλεμον, ἀλλὰ ποικίλον καὶ 
 παντοδοιπὸν, καὶ “χρόνιον. καὶ τοῦτον οὐκ ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων 
 ᾿πόνων, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς αὑτοῦ χάριτος: "Ewes οὖν ἡ μὲν ἀγάπη 
 σὴν χάριν, ἡ δὲ χάρις τὴν εἰρήνην ἐδωρήσατο, ὡς ἐν τάξει 
 προσηγορίας αὐτὰ θεὶς, ἐπεύχεται μένειν διηνεκῆ καὶ ἀκί- 
 ynra.® 
 
 PART AE 
 INTRODUCTION, v. 8—16. 
 
 V.8. HERE commences the introduction of the Epis- 
 tle, to which the Apostle passes by protestations of af- 
 fection. Previously he had declared the authority 
 by which he wrote to the Romans; here, as Theodo- 
 
 « O salutation, fraught with innumerable blessings! This 
 was what Christ enjoined upon the Apostles to say, upon their 
 entering into men’s houses. And hence it is, that Paul pre- 
 faces all his epistles, by wishing grace and peace. For truly it 
 is no petty warfare to which Christ has put an end. It is 
 manifold, various, and protracted. Neither has it been brought 
 by toils of our own to a close, but solely by his grace. So then, 
 as grace was the gift of love, and peace of grace, he ranges 
 them side by side in the salutation, and prays that they may 
 continue immoveable and for evermore. 
 
54 CHAPTER I. V. 8. 
 
 ret remarks, he seems almost to apologize, for not 
 having sooner taken an interest in them. 
 
 πρῶτον is an introductory form, and requires to be . 
 translated, jirst of all, before I proceed to other 
 matters. The expression is here abbreviated, and 
 stands for πρῶτον μὲν θέλω εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς, ὅτι εὐχαριστῶ τῷ 
 Θεῴ. 
 
 Θεός μου says the Apostle, because the man who 
 through Christ is reconciled to God, recognises him 
 as the affectionate Father of every individual soul, 
 and enters into a peculiar relationship of filial love to 
 him. 
 
 διὰ “Inood Χριστοῦ. Inasmuch as their connection 
 with Christ influences the whole life of believers, and 
 through his mediation flow all the blessings of divine 
 grace, the Apostle makes allusion to him in pronoun- 
 cing his thanksgiving. He expresses the same idea 
 in another way, when he says, 2 Cor. i. 3, εὐλογητὸς ὁ 
 θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Inood Χριστοῦ. Ep.i. 3. 
 The sense of διὼ is given by John xiv. 13, 14, it is 
 equivalent to ἐν ὀνόμωτι. 
 
 ὑπεὸ πάντων ὑμῶν. Here the Vulgate falsely renders, 
 pro; the Syrian correctly, respectu vestrum. The 
 gratitude felt by the Apostle, on account of the faith 
 of the Romans being celebrated universally in the 
 Christian churches, for so must the words ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ 
 κόσμῳ be understood, is to be explained, not only by 
 the ardent love, which he bore to the Saviour, and 
 which received gratification from every new accession 
 to the number of the believers, but by the consider- 
 ation, that Rome being the metropolis, its example 
 was calculated to have the most salutary influence 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 9. 55 
 
 upon the whole empire, when once traces of the 
 true faith were manifest here. Grotius: Magno cum 
 gaudio provincialium Christianorum acceptus fuit ille 
 nuntius, etiam Romee, in capite imperii, esse qui eandem 
 fidem profiterentur. Ambrosius: Qui non crediderant, 
 poterant credere horum exemplo; facile enim facit 
 inferior, quod fieri viderit a priore. Theodoret ob- 
 serves, that the fame of the faith of the Romans could 
 be easily spread, in consequence of the frequent visits 
 which the inhabitants of the various provinces made to 
 the capital. 
 
 V. 9. In attestation of the sincerity of his grateful 
 feelings, he appeals to God’s knowledge of his heart. 
 Admirably Chrysostom: *Esr2:07 ἔλεγεν, ὅτι ἀγαπῶ ὑμᾶς, 
 καὶ σημεῖον ἐποιεῖτο τὸ διηνεκῶς εὔχεσθαι, nal τὸ ξούλεσθαι 
 ἐλθεῖν πρὸς αὑτοὺς, καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο δῆλον ἦν, ἐπὶ τὴν ἀξιό- 
 πιστὸν καταφεύγει μαρτυρίαν. ἄρα δυνήσεταί τις ἡμῶν 
 καυχήσασθαι, ὅτι μέμνηται ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας εὐχόμενος, τοῦ 
 τῆς ἐκκλησίας πληρώματος ; οὐκ οἴμωαι. ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἸΤαῦλος οὐκ 
 ὑπὲρ πόλεως μιᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἁπάσης TLOON zh 
 τῷ Θεῷ; καὶ τοῦτο ody ἅπαξ, οὐδὲ δεύτερον, οὐδὲ τρίτον, 
 ἀλλὰ διηνεκῶς. ὡς δὲ τὸ διηνεκῶς ἐν μνήμῃ τινὰ περιφέρειν, 
 οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο εἰ μὴ ἀπὸ ἀγάπης πολλῆς" τὸ ἐν εὐγαῖξ vee 
 ἔχειν, καὶ ἀδιωλείπτως ἔχειν, ἐννόησον TOONS cots οἰαθεσεως 
 καὶ φιλίας. Melancthon: Hee que hic dicit prodesse 
 
 ' After having declared his affection for them, and adduced 
 in proof of it his incessant prayers in their behalf, and desire 
 to visit them, this not being apparent, he has recourse toa cre- 
 dible testimony. Can any among you boast that in his private 
 supplications he remembers the fulness of the church ? I trow 
 not; and yet Paul invoked God, not for asingle city, but for the 
 whole world, not once, twice or thrice, but continually. Nowas 
 
56 CHAPTER I. V. 9. 
 
 nobis tanquam exempla possunt, quomodo doctores 
 debeant esse soliciti pro ecclesiis. 
 
 ᾧ λατρεύω. The Apostle is proceeding to describe . 
 what a lively concern he felt in his heart for the spi- 
 ritual welfare of the church of Rome; in order, how- 
 ever, to justify himself in this respect, as perhaps the 
 thought again suggested itself, that his cares might 
 be deemed unauthorized, he subjoins, that such zeal 
 and diligence for the conversion of all was no more 
 than his duty as a servant of the Gospel. λατρεύω in 
 the Septuagint for Aw and jy denotes every per- 
 formance by which a man thinks to please God, whe- 
 ther it be an observance of religious worship, or an 
 action of any other kind done for God’s sake. Comp. 
 John xvi. 2. Theodoret: εὔδη es suo πολλά. καὶ γὰρ 
 6 προσευχομένος Θεῶ, λατρεύει, καὶ ὁ νηστείῳ χρώμενος; καὶ 
 ὃ τοῖς θείοις προσέχων λογίοις, καὶ μέντοι καὶ ὁ τῆς τῶν ξένων 
 θερωπείας ἐπιμελούμενος. 
 
 With this must be jomed ἐν τῷ evayyeAiw, here 
 signifying the work of preaching the Gospel. The 
 office of preaching, the Apostle regards under the 
 New Testament, asin some sort a sarcerdotal function 
 of worship, see 15, 16. The supplement ἐν τῷ πνεύματι 
 is susceptible of two applications, which may perhaps, 
 however, be combined. The Apostle may mean to 
 
 to bear one about in the memory, can only proceed from strong 
 affection, think what devotion and friendship it argues, to re- 
 member one in prayer, and to do so without ceasing ! 
 
 ™ There are many kinds of worship. He worships, who 
 prays to God, and he who fasts, and he who studies the sacred 
 Scriptures, and even he who discharges the duties of hospita- 
 lity. 
 
CHAPTER 1. Vv. LO. 57 
 
 express the deep inward devotion with which he pro- 
 secutes the great work of preaching salvation; from 
 which view, there would then result, with still greater 
 force, the truth of the protestation he afterwards 
 makes, as to the serious concern he feels for the spi- 
 ritual welfare of the Romans. In this case, the pas- 
 sage would be a parallel one to 2 Tim. i. 3, where he 
 attributes to himself a λατρεύειν ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, and 
 also to Ep. vi. 6. Beza: Plane volens, ex animo ill 
 addictus. Or perhaps the Apostle here adverts to 
 the difference betwixt his former Jewish piety, which 
 consisted more in external religious rites, and his pre- 
 sent state. The expression would then signify “ in 
 an inward and spiritual manner,” and be parallel to 
 Phil. i. 38. Ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομὴ, of πνεύματι Θεῷ 
 λατρεύοντες. So the older commentators, Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Ambrosius, and others. But there is no- 
 thing to prevent us supposing that in the lively con- 
 ception of Paul both of these ideas found place. 
 
 ὡς ἀδιωλείπτως μνείαν ὑμῶν σποιοῦμοωι. Chrysostom: 
 Καὶ δοκεῖ μὲν ἕν τι λέγειν, τέσσωρω δὲ τίθησιν ἐνταῦθα. καὶ 
 ὅτι μέμνηται, καὶ ὅτι ἀδιαλείπτως, καὶ Os ἐν εὐχαῖς, καὶ ὅτι 
 ὑπὲρ μεγάλων πραγμάτων δεόμενος. ‘There are numerous 
 passages which evince the profound concern with which 
 the Apostle bore upon his heart the welfare of the 
 churches, holding out an example to Christian pas- 
 tors that is too rarely imitated. 1 Thess. i. 3, ii. 1], 
 
 " In seeming to say but one thing, he here says four, that 
 he makes mention of them, that he does so in his prayers, that 
 he does so without ceasing, and that it is for great bless. 
 ings that he supplicates. 
 
δ8 CHAPTER I. V. 10. 
 
 iii. 17, 2 Tim. i. 1—3. How moving is this ardour 
 of affection in one, who, assaulted by so many afflic- 
 tions of his own, could speak of himself as Paul does! 
 2'Cor. ii. 29. 
 
 V.10. The Apostle is not satisfied with attesting 
 that he often thinks of the Romans, he desires also 
 to see them, nor does he merely desire this, but often 
 makes it the subject of his prayers. His ardent wish 
 to visit Rome must have been kindled, partly by the 
 animating intelligence that the Roman Christians 
 were rejoicing so greatly in the faith, partly by the 
 consideration, how important it would be if Chris- 
 tianity were firmly established in the metropolis. 
 And we may well believe, that, attracted on the one 
 hand by the desire of beholding the brethren, and on 
 the other, by a sense of the importance of Rome as a 
 missionary station, the Apostle often supplicated that 
 this favour might be allowed him. 
 
 δεόμενος. Admirably Chrysostom: Ἐφίλει μὲν γὰρ 
 αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἠπείγετο Teds αὐτούς. bu μὴν, ἐπειδὴ ἐφίλει, παρὰ 
 rh τῷ θεῶ δοκοῦν ἐξυύλετο ἰδεῖν. αὕτη ἡ γνησίω ἀγάπη, οὐχ, 
 ὡς ἡμεῖς ὃι ἀμφοτέρωθεν τῶν νόμων τῆς ἀγάπης ἐκπίπ- 
 τοντες. ἢ γὰρ οὐδένα φιλοῦμεν, ἢ ἐπειδὰν φιλήσωμέν ποτε, 
 παρὰ τὸ τῷ Θεῷ δοκοῦν φιλοῦμεν. 
 
 εἴπως ἤδη ποτέ. The πὼς denotes the uncertainty ; 
 ἤδη the urgency of the Apostle’s desire, which is en- 
 
 ° He loved them, and was hastening to them, but not- 
 withstanding his love, if contrary to the will of God, he had 
 no desire to see them. This is the genuine kind of effection. 
 How different from us, who transgress on both hands the laws 
 of love; by either not loving at all, or if we love, by loving 
 contrary to God’s pleasure. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. ll. 59 
 
 hanced by zor? Kypke: Vocula ἤδη ποτέ ingens 
 desiderium aut mali alicujus pertinacioris avertendi, 
 aut boni diu exspectati obtinendi significat. 
 
 εὐδοῦν means Ist, prosperum iter habere ; 2dly, pros- 
 perum esse. It is found in both meanings in the 
 LXX., and has here the sense of to be prospered and 
 favoured by God. Happily rendered by Grotius ; “Si 
 forte Dei voluntas felicitatem mihi indulgeat, ad vos 
 veniendi. In 2 Maccabees x. 23, it is used in the 
 same import, τῴ εὐοδώσαντι καθαρισθῆναι, “ who gra- 
 ciously permitted us to be cleansed.” In the phrase 
 ἐν τῷ θελήματι the ἐν is like the Hebrew by or 
 through. 
 
 V.11. Here the Apostle states the reason of his 
 desire to make a journey to Rome. Well might 
 Theodoret say of this llth and 12th verse, ταπεινοῦ 
 φρονήματος eignusva μεστὰς He affectionately declares 
 that the object of his journey was the spiritual invi- 
 goration of the Roman Christians, or rather, as he 
 subjoins, in limitation of the expression, to establish 
 them in what they already possess. Nay, he wishes 
 not to appear only as one conferring a benefit, but 
 desires to have his own faith strengthened by his in- 
 tercourse with them. Thus, in these words he unites 
 both humility and love, and removes every possible 
 suspicion of spiritual usurpation. 
 
 χάρισμα. πνευματικὸν. Many of the commentators 
 have given a very strained interpretation of this sim- 
 ple phrase. Bengel and Michaelis deem that it re- 
 fers to the power of working miracles, arguing from 
 the circumstance, that the Apostle, at the time he wrote, 
 
60 CHAPTER I. ν. 1]. 
 
 was present in the Corinthian church, then richly en- 
 dowed with this gift. Augustine thinks that χάρισμα 
 means the love of our neighbour, as if the Christian- 
 ized Jews were not to grudge the gospel to the hea- 
 then. Ambrosius infers from the words, that the Ro- 
 mans were previously commended only for having, in 
 a general manner, embraced the faith, that as yet, 
 however, they did not possess faith of the genuine kind, 
 but were cleaving to righteousness by works, and that 
 he uses χάρισμα, πνευματικὸν to denote spiritual right- 
 eousness. But even if it were not self-evident, the 
 12th verse would show, that there is nothing in all 
 this. What the Apostle there hopes to obtain from 
 his brethren, is what he also hopes to be able, on his 
 part, to give to them, viz. the spiritual παράκλησις. 
 The gospel itself is elsewhere called τὼ σνεύματικα, 
 Eph. ‘xv. 27, 1 Cor. ix. 11. 
 
 εἰς τὸ στηριχθῆναι ὑμᾶς. It is not necessary to con- 
 clude from this expression, as both ancient and mo- 
 dern commentators have done, comparing chap. xiv. 
 21, that the Roman Christians were still very weak 
 in faith. For then we should be forced to infer from 
 verse 12th, that the apostle was so likewise. Σσηριχ-ι 
 θῆναι does not refer to an increase of knowledge, but 
 to a more lively and cheerful acceptation of what 
 they already knew,—to that more vigorous excitement 
 of spiritual life, which is always the consequence of 
 intercourse among men of congenial sentiments im 
 religion. It is consequently unnecessary to give to 
 στηριχθῆναι that collateral signification which Theo- 
 doret mentions: οὐ γὰρ ἑτέραν ὑμῖν διδωσκολίαν προσφέρειν, 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 19, 61 
 
 ἀλλὰ τὴν ἤδη προσενεχθέϊσαν βεβαιώσασθαι βούλομαι, καὶ 
 σοῖς ἤδη φυτευθεῖσι φυτοῖς τὴν ἄρδειαν προσενεγκεῖν. 
 
 V. 123. τοῦτο 62 ἐστ. By this epanorthosis the 
 Apostle gives his words a still humbler and more 
 affectionate turn, placing himself on a footing of en- 
 tire equality with the members of the church, for the 
 purpose of yet farther softening the στηριχθῆναι: which 
 kind charientismus, Erasmus, somewhat too strongly, 
 calls pia vafrities et sancta adulatio. Sadoletus: Prius 
 tanquam preebiturus illis, ex se et sua in fidem Christi 
 constantia solatium, post mitigat orationem, ne velut 
 censor et magister loqui videretur, paremque sese et 
 unum de illis facit. 
 
 The συμπαρακληθῆναι depends on ἐπιποθῶς Among 
 the Athenians, παρακαλεῖν meant fo summon, invite, 
 impel ; in the Greek of later times, to supplicate, ex- 
 hort ; among the Hellenists, to soothe, comfort, cheer, 
 instruct. (See Knapp. Scripta, p. 124). Several, and 
 among others Beza, give too exclusive prominence to 
 the sense of instruction : “ Quum omnes ex parte cog- 
 noscamus, non dubium, quin et illi ex Paulo partim 
 multa intelligere, partim ea que intelligebant accura- 
 tius cognoscere, et Paulus etiam ipse, quantumvis ex- 
 cellens, ab ecclesia illa tum erudiri magis atque ma- 
 gis, tum confirmari etiam docendo potuerit. This’ 
 view is much too partial. The sense to be preferred 
 is to refresh, stir up, which is always the fruit of so- 
 cial intercourse between men of vital religion, 2 Cor. 
 vil. 7. Theodoret: οὐ γὰρ μόνον δοῦναι βούλομαι, ἀλλὰ 
 
 ΡῚ wish not to bring among you another doctrine, but to 
 establish that which has been already brought, and water the 
 plants which were planted before. 
 
69 CHAPTER I. v. 13. 
 
 καὶ λαβεῖν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν. παρακαλεῖ ὃὲ καὶ διδάσκαλον, ἡ 
 προθυμία τῶν μαθητῶν." Calvin: Fidei alacritas—vide 
 in quantam moderationem se submittat pium pectus, 
 quod non recusat a rudibus tirunculis confirmationem 
 petere. Neque tamen simulanter loquitur, siquidem 
 nemo est adeo inops in ecclesia Christi, qui non pos- 
 sit aliquid in profectum nostrum momenti afferre, sed 
 impedimur superbia, quominus talem ultro citroque 
 fructum colligamus. We must not, however, sup- 
 pose that mere communication by words is here 
 meant; there is also implied that inexplicable imme- 
 diate action of spirit upon spirit, which takes place 
 wherever there is a fellowship in love, and more espe- 
 cially among Christians. 
 
 V. 13. The Apostle did not cherish an empty 
 wish; that wish had become a purpose. Admirably 
 Chrysostom: ὅτι μὲν ἐκωλύθη, λέγει, διὰ τί δὲ, οὐκέτι. οὗ 
 γὰρ ἐξετάξει τοῦ δεσπότου τὸ πρόσταγμοω, ἀλλὰ πείθεται 
 μόνον. καίτοιγε εἰκὸς ἣν διωπορῆσωι, τίνος ἕνεκεν πόλιν οὕτω 
 λαμπρὰν καὶ μεγάλην, καὶ πρὸς ἣν ἅπασα ἔβλεπεν ἡ οἰκου- 
 μένη, ἐκώλυσεν 6 Θεὸς ἀπολαῦσαι διδασκάλου τοιοῦτου, καὶ 
 ἐπὶ χρόνον TOCOUTOY. ὁ μὲν γὰρ TIS κρατόυσης πόλεως περι- 
 γενόμενος, καὶ τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ὑῳδίως ἐπήει. ὁ δὲ τὴν βασι- 
 λικωτέραν ἀφεὶς, τοῖς δὲ ὑπηκόοις ἐφεδρεύων, τὸ κεφάλαιον 
 εἶχεν ἠμελημένον. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὐδὲν τόυτων περιεργάζεται, 
 ἀλλὰ παραχωρεῖ τῶ τῆς προνοίας ἀκαταλήπτῳ, τό τε ἐμ- 
 μελὲς ἐπιδεικνύμενος τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῆς, καὶ παιδεύων πάν-. 
 τας ἡμᾶς μηδέποτε τὸν Θεὸν ἀπαιτεῖν εὐθύνας τῶν γινομένων, 
 κἂν δοκῇ πολλοὺς θορυξεῖν τὰ πραττέμενα. ....««πάλιν OF OF 
 
 4 My desire is not merely to bestow, but to receive in my 
 turn from you. Thealacrity of the scholars is a stimulus even 
 to the master. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 13. 63 
 
 , 3 
 
 ἑτέρων ἐνδείκνυται τὴν ἀγάπην, οὐδὲ γὼρ, ἐπειδὴ ἐκωλύθην, 
 φησὶν, ἀπέστην τοῦ ἐπιχειρεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ μὲν ἐπεχείρουν, ἀεὶ 
 δὲ ἐκωλυόμην, οὐδέποτε δὲ ἀφιστάμην, τῷ μὲν θελήματι τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ οὐκ ἀντιπίπτων, τὴν Of. ἀγάπην τηρῶν At what 
 time he began to cherish that wish, and first formed 
 the often renewed purpose, cannot be given with pre- 
 cision. In chap. xv. xxiii. he speaks of having done so 
 for many years, perhaps from the period when Aquila 
 and Priscilla were banished from Rome, and came to 
 him with the intelligence of the establishment of the 
 church in that place. 
 
 καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο is to be regarded as pa- 
 renthetical. The καὶ is adversative, like the Hebrew 
 ἡ, and equivalent to χαΐπερ, John ii. 13, 32, viii. 55. 
 The hindrance lay in the circumstance of so many 
 
 τ He says, that he had been hindered, but he does not say 
 why; for it is not his way to scrutinize, but to obey the com- 
 mandment of the master. And yet there was room to doubt, 
 on what account it was, that for so long a period God pre- 
 vented that mighty and splendid city, to which the eyes of the 
 whole habitable globe were turned, from profiting by so great a 
 master. For when once the capital is reduced, it is easy to in- 
 vade the towns that are subject to it ; whereas he who leaves 
 the royal city alone, to besiege the inferior places, is guilty of 
 neglecting that which is most important. Paul, however, does 
 not curiously search into such things, but submits to the inscru- 
 tability of Providence ; thereby both shewing the moderation 
 of his mind, and teaching us never to question God about the 
 reasons of what he does, although his dispensations may seem 
 to trouble many. ...And again, he shows them his love in an- 
 other way. For I did not, hesays, when hindered, desist from 
 my attempt. My efforts were made commensurate with 
 my hindrances, and I never abandoned them, thus neither 
 resisting the will of God, nor failing in charity to you. 
 
χ 
 
 64 CHAPTER I. v. 13. 
 
 other places more imperatively demanding his minis- 
 trations. In the Acts, St. Luke occasionally alludes 
 to an inward impulse, urging the Apostle to go, or 
 restraining him from going, to a particular place. 
 The reason here alleged for his desire to visit Rome, 
 is the same as in the 11th verse. It is not necessary, 
 however, on that account, to put, as some expositors 
 have done, upon χαρπὸν ἔχειν the sense fructum offerre. 
 As Kypke shows, ἔχειν has rarely the same import as. 
 παρέχειν. Chrysostom justly observes, that the ex- 
 pression χαρπὸν ἔχειν emanates, as before, from the 
 affectionate humility of Paul, who wished to represent 
 the instructing and confirming of the Roman church, 
 which is the χαρπὺς, in that point of view from which 
 the contemplation of it was dear and agreeable to 
 himself. ἔχειν in manifold collocations with τιμὴν, 
 δύξων, &c. signifies assequi, and so here. Moreover, 
 from modesty, he merely says χαρπὸν swe. 
 
 καὶ ἐν ii Kalis here emphatic. The Apostle 
 alludes to the fact, that in all the regions where, as 
 
 ‘mentioned chap. xv. 18, 19, he had proclaimed the 
 
 gospel, it had manifested its blessed efficacy. Sublime 
 are the words of Chrysostom. Ποῦ νῦν of σοφοὶ τῶν 
 Ἑλλήνων, of τοὺς βαθεῖς πώγωνας ἕλκοντες, καὶ τὰς ἐξωμί- 
 δας ἀναβεβλημένοι, καὶ τὰ μεγάλω φυσῶντες ; τὴν Ἑλλαδα, 
 τὴν Βάρβαρον πᾶσαν ὁ σκηνοποιὸς ἐπέστρεψεν. ὁ δὲ πα- 
 ἐἰ αὐτοῖς ἀγόμενος nal περιφερόμενος ἸΤλάτων, τρίτον, εἰς Σικε- 
 Alay ἐλθὼν μετὰ τοῦ κόμπου τῶν ῥημάτων ἐκείνων, μετοὶ τῆς 
 ὑπολήψεως τῆς λαμπρᾶς, οὐδὲ ἑνὸς περιεγένετο τυράννου, 
 ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ἀθλίως ἀπήλλαξεν, ὡς καὶ αὐτῆς ἐχπεσεῖν τῆς 
 ἐλευθερίας. ᾿ ὁ δὲ σχηνοποιὸς οὗτος οὐ Σικελίαν μόνον, οὐδὲ 
 
 ᾿Ιταλίαν, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν ἐπέδραμε τὴν οἰκουμένην, καὶ οὐδὲ 
 a 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 14. 65 
 
 ἐν τῷ κηρύττειν τῆς τέχνης ἀπέστη, ἀλλὰ καὶ Tore δέρματα. 
 ξῤδωσπτε, καὶ ἐργαστηρίου προειστήκει" καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐσκανδά- 
 λισε τοὺς ἐξ ὑπάτων.ὃ 
 
 V. 14. Here, as was remarked so early as by Ori- 
 gen, there is difficulty in the construction. The 
 easiest way would be, to take verse 14 entirely by 
 itself, and then consider οὕτω---ν, 15—as referring to 
 it, in the sense of consequently, wherefore. It is 
 true, that οὕτω alone has not this signification ; still it 
 may have it, if, in a foregoing clause, a silent καθὼς be 
 understood, asin Matt. v.16. The “Ἑλλησί τε καὶ βαρ- 
 βάροις, however, appears too obviously to be an appo- 
 sition to ἔθνεσιν; and as, moreover, σοφοῖς τε καὶ ἀνοήτοις 
 is likewise an apposition to “Ἑλλησί τε καὶ βαρβάροις, 
 we must construe the whole 14th verse with ἔθνεσιν, 
 and then the words, from χωθὼς as far as ὀφειλέτης 
 eid, would be the premises to which verse 15th forms 
 the conclusion. It is thus that Origen construes and 
 translates: Proposui venire ad vos, ut fructum aliquem 
 haberem etiam inter vos, sed prohibitus sum usque ad- 
 huc ; sicut in ceteris gentibus, quibus debitor sum, ita 
 
 * Where now are those Grecian sages, with their long 
 beards and tunics and lofty pretensions? Greece and the 
 whole country of the barbarians, have been converted by the 
 tent-maker. Even Plato, whom they so much boast of and 
 applaud, although he thrice visited Sicily, was unable, with all 
 his pomp of language and splendid reputation, to overcome a 
 single tyrant; but, on the contrary, escaped with such difficulty 
 as even to losehis freedom. Whereas this maker of tents has 
 compassed not Sicily alone, nor Italy, but the whole world. 
 Nor, while he preached, did he leave off his trade, but still 
 continued to sew his skins and mind his shop; at which men 
 of rank took no offence. 
 
 Ἢ 
 
66 CHAPTER I. V. 14. 
 
 quantum in me est, paratus sum etiam vobis, qui 
 Rome estis, evangelizare. This is a collocation, how- 
 ever, which a more minute consideration of verse 
 13 will disincline us to adopt. In that verse, the xa) ἐν 
 τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν is too closely connected with ἐν ὑμῖν 
 to be separated without violence; and were we, 
 nevertheless, to choose to begin a new sentence with 
 καθὼς, then the χαὶ which follows it would be totally 
 superfluous, and the construction of ὀφειλέτης εἰμὴ with 
 ἐν would create a new, and though not, perhaps, in- 
 surmountable difficulty, still one so great as to have 
 made Origen think it necessary to complete the 
 phrase by the insertion of οἷς, the relative in the dative 
 plural, before ὀφειλέτης. The conclusion is, that there 
 is no other outlet, but to suppose, with the Greek 
 scholia, that the Apostle has here deviated from theright 
 construction, and that he refers the οὕτω in the 15th 
 verse to the καθὼς in the 13th, as if he deemed he 
 had there written a wore before the καθὼς, and instead 
 of ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν, the bare dative without the pre- 
 position. Whoever is inclined to seek, in outward 
 occasions, the cause of a negligent construction, (the 
 only source of which, however, was undoubtedly the 
 liveliness of the Apostle’s character,) may imagine, 
 that Paul was here called away, and that, upon re- 
 suming his pen, he supposed that he had begun a new 
 sentence with καθὼς. . 
 
 ᾿Ἑλλησί τε καὶ βαρβάροις. It is asked, whether the 
 Apostle here classes the Romans with the Greeks or 
 with the barbarians. Many, such as Bengel and 
 Heumann, embrace the first opinion, and many, as 
 Krebs and Wolf, the second. If we appeal to the 
 
 aa 
 
CHAPTER I. Vv. 14. 67 
 
 use and wont of language, that is decisive as to the 
 fact, that the Greeks, under the term βάρβαροι, compre- 
 hended even the Romans. Philo always gives them 
 that name, and Plautus himself calls Italy Barbaria, 
 and the Latin barbara lingua. Notwithstanding, 
 however, it would not be justifiable to assume that 
 Paul here does the same. The point of discrim- 
 ination is not, who spoke the Greek, and who the 
 other languages, but, as is denoted by the suecceed- 
 ing epexegesis of σοφοί τε καὶ ἀνόητοι, who did, and who 
 did not, possess the Grecian civilization? and if the 
 difference of civilization be indeed the point regarded, 
 then there cannot be a doubt, that the Romans were 
 comprehended with the civilized—the Ἕλληνες. This 
 seems even to be implied in what the Apostle gives 
 us to understand, in verse 16, viz. that seeing it was 
 the seat of Grecian refinement and culture, he might 
 well have entertained scruples about appearing at 
 Rome. Perhaps, however, the opinion of Koppe may 
 be most safely adopted, viz. that the Apostle, when he 
 used “Ἑλλησί τε καὶ βαρβάροις never thought of the 
 Romans at all, but that he merely gives an epexegesis 
 of σάντα τὰ ξθνη, and that he first adverted to them at 
 σοφοί τε καὶ ἀνόητοι, With the former of whom, as appears 
 from tlie 16th verse, he indisputably classes them. 
 Leaving the Romans out of view, he had already 
 preached to other and these rude βάρβαροι, viz. the 
 Lycaonians and Illyrians. 
 
 σοφοῖς καὶ ἀνοήτοις. These two adjectives specify 
 not the natural capacity, but the existing condition, 
 the educated and the uneducated. Erasmus: eruditi 
 et rudes. Beza, and others, suppose that a discrimina- 
 
 κ. 
 
68 CHAPTER I. V. 14, 15. 
 
 tion is intended between the individuals of a nation ; 
 but it is better to refer it to different nations. Gro- 
 
 tius: Monstrat apostolus ita omnibus hominibus ap-— 
 
 tatum esse Evangelium, ut nec stupidos contemnat, 
 nec ab ingeniosis contemni debeat. 
 
 ὀφειλέτης εἰμί, Justly Theodoret: σᾶσιν ὀφείλω τῆς 
 διδωσκωλίως τὸ χρέος. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 16. Where 
 the Apostle says he was bound, yea that necessity was 
 laid upon him, to preach the gospel. Koppe’s transla- 
 tion is totally erroneous. He makes ὀφειλέτης sims τινί, 
 bene meritus est alter de me. 
 
 V.15. οὕτω we refer back to καθὼς. 
 
 σὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ may relate to the circumstance he had 
 just mentioned, of God having put obstacles in his 
 way. If taken in this sense, it behoves to be transla- 
 ted as if it were τὸ ἐπ’ ἐμὲ, quantum in me est. So 
 9d Esdras vi. 11, Καὶ ὁ οἶκος τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ ποιηθήσεται : and 
 so Ailian, Var. Hist. L. 1. § 32. In this case, how- 
 ever, πρόθυμον would want its substantive and subject, 
 although in Latin the phrase can be so formed as that 
 
 the quantum in me est itself appears as subject. . 
 
 Grotius: Quod mez est potestatis paratum est. We 
 must here regard the zur’ ἐμὲ as a circumlocution for 
 μοῦ, and resolve the phrase into τὸ πρόθυμόν μου ἐστὶν, 
 which is similar to ἐγὼ πρόθυμον ἔχω. For this last, see 
 Euripid. Iphig. in Taur. v. 989. τὸ πρόθυμον would 
 thus stand for ἡ προθυμία. Still the ro κατ᾽ ewe may be 
 considered a direct circumlocution for ἐγὼ, in like 
 manner as réuc and τὸ ἐμὸν sometimes are. And 
 πρόθυμον Would be its predicate. We mi 
 this case, compare with it τὼ rug’ ἐμοῦ, as used for : 
 and the complete τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ μέρος; in Tyrius (1 
 
 ee ee 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 15, 16. 69 
 
 -vi. p. 59;) where, however, it must be confessed, 
 Schafer ad Bos Ellipses Greece, and others, remove 
 κατὰ from the text. The circumstance on which the 
 duty of the Apostle in respect of the Romans, is made 
 to hinge, is their being highly civilized. Lying as he 
 did, under equal obligation to preach the doctrine of 
 the cross to wise and polished nations, as to the rude 
 Illyrians, the Apostle was bound to go to Rome. 
 
 V. 16. οὐ γὰρ ἐπωισχύνομοι, has a reference to the 
 oopo. When Paul, who was in his external aspect 
 mean, and, though esteemed among his countrymen 
 for his skill in the law, wholly unknown to the hea- 
 then,—when Paul, despised for his deficiency in 
 Greek refinement, no less than because he was a Jew, 
 was called to make his appearance in Rome, the far- 
 famed city, where all the wisdom of the old world, 
 combined with the highest profligacy and insolence, 
 of which a race perverted by false culture is capable, 
 where the Roman pride of power was associated with 
 the darkness of Greek philosophy, and the humility of 
 the gospel had to encounter the exclusive arrogance of 
 the Jews on the subject of their revelation,—when such 
 a person, and in such a place, required to speak of the 
 Saviour and King of men, appearing in the form of a 
 servant, coming despised into a world in which he had 
 not where to lay his head, and after publishing a king- 
 dom which was likewise not of this world, departing 
 from it with a crown of thorns upon his brow; how 
 
 ld not fear and trembling have overwhelmed the 
 Oy God? But as Jesus had not been of this 
 worl so ne ither was he. The hatred it had shewn 
 to πω. Ἐπ he, knew it must shew to himself; and 
 
70 CHAPTER I. V. 16. 
 
 therefore he was not ashamed. Comp. 2 Tim. i. 8— 
 12, which was written in chains. Even in the Impe- 
 rial palace, he did not blush for the divine message. | 
 Phil. i. 13. He alone has power to overcome the 
 world, whom the world has not overcome. 
 
 εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Χριστοῦ is here genitivus ob- 
 jecti, and must be rendered the gospel concerning 
 Christ, i. e. whose chief subject is Christ. 
 
 PART THIRD: 
 
 THESIS. V. 16 and 17. 
 
 V. 16. While the Apostle points to the nature of 
 the gospel, as the reason for his not being ashamed to 
 propound it to mankind, he states in so doing, the 
 Thesis of his whole Epistle, which he afterwards de- 
 monstrates in regard both to the heathen and the Jews. 
 
 δύναμις γὰρ Θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν, per meton. effec- 
 tus pro appellatione cause, (Glass. philol. sacra, p p- 
 1450.) John xii. 50, xvii. 8. The gospel exerts a 
 power which conducts man to blessedness, 1 Cor. i. 
 18. Admirably says Theodoret: ἐκ ταύτης γὰρ οἱ 
 πιστεύσαντες τὴν σωτηρίων τρυγῶσιν. οὕτω καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν 
 πολλὰ κεκρυμμένην ἔχει τὴν οἰκείαν ἐνέργειαν. καὶ γὼρ τὸ 
 πέπερι ψυχρὰν μὲν ἔχει τὴν περιφάνειαν, καὶ τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν 
 οὐδεμίαν δείρινυσι θερμότητος ἔμφασιν. ὃ δὲ τοῖς ὀδοῦσι Aca 
 σύνας, τῆς πυροειδοῦς wlan δέχεται τὴν αἴσθησιν.----οὕτω 
 καὶ ὁ ofrog δύναται μὲν εἶναι καὶ ῥίζα, καὶ καλάμη, καὶ 
 
 ἄσταχυς" ov φοωΐνετωι δὲ τοιοῦτος, πρὶν εἰς τὰς ὕλι 
 κατασπαρῆναι τῆς γῆς The condition of this divine 
 
 t For from it those who believe derive salvation. | the | 
 same way, many sensible objects have their innate efficacy con. 
 a walleye RA 
 Z : ΘᾺ ᾿ 
 
 Ἐν 
 : 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 16. 71 
 
 efficacy on the part of man is σίστις. Grotius: Sicut 
 medicamentum non prodest nisi haustum, ita nec 
 evangelium nisi fides habeatur. Henceforward, through 
 the whole composition, from every point of view, and 
 under all forms, the Apostle repeats the great truth, 
 with which he was himself penetrated, and which forms 
 the central point of his doctrine, viz. that the entire 
 sanctification and pardon of man has its ground, not 
 in what he originates within himself, but in what he 
 obtains from God. σπήστις is a spiritual impulse, found- 
 ed in the moral and religious nature of man. What- 
 ever, in virtue of this principle, a man receives, must 
 become vital within him, and determine his whole mind. 
 The sense accordingly is, “this doctrine begets a power 
 in man, which leads to salvation, from the moment 
 he believes it, 2. e. admits it info his inward conscious- 
 ness, experiences in himself its truth.” 
 
 ᾿Ιουδαΐῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ “Ἕλλην. The observation or 
 Chrysostom is just. Paul himself declares that neither 
 circumcision ‘availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, 
 why then does he give precedence to the Jews? οὐδὲ γὰρ 
 ἐπειδὴ πρῶτός ἐστι, καὶ πλέον λαμβάνει τῆς χάριτος. Ἢ γὰρ 
 αὐτὴ δωρεὰ nal τούτῳ κἀκείνῳ δίδοται, ἀλλὰ τάξεώς ἐστι 
 τιμὴ μόνον τὸ πρῶτος." ΑΒ our Saviour first addressed 
 cealed. Pepper, for instance, appears outwardly to be cold, and 
 to those unacquainted with it, shews no semblance of heat. But 
 let one grind it with his teeth, and he perceives that it is hot 
 
 like fire.—Thus also a grain of corn may contain a root and 
 stalk and ear, but that does not become manifest, until it is 
 re 
 
 sown in the furrows of the earth. 
 Ὁ He does not by being first, receive a larger measure of 
 grace. On one and all the same gift is bestowed. The being 
 
 first is but a distinction of order. 
 
72 CHAPTER I. Vv. 17. 
 
 his preaching to the Jews, and was imitated in this 
 respect by the Apostles, so here could Paul also re- 
 present the gospel as a method of salvation intended, — 
 in the first instance, for that nation. The same expres- 
 sion, C. ii. 9, 10, Heumann rightly renders first of all, 
 emmediately. 
 
 V.17. The radical theme of the Epistle is more _ 
 particularly enunciated in this verse, viz. that through — 
 the gospel, the justification of men is possible. But, 
 as the acknowledgment that man needs justification, 
 depends upon the acknowledgment of his sinfulness 
 and guilt, the Apostle takes up this subject in v. 
 18, and, as far as the end of the chapter, de- 
 scribes the state of moral depravity into which the 
 heathen had sunk. From the beginning of the se- 
 cond chapter, to the 21st verse of the third, he givesa 
 similar description of the Jews, and then infers, as the 
 result, “ That all men, those within the Old Testa- 
 ment Theocracy, and those out of it, are equally in 
 want of salvation.” 
 
 The γὰρ is to be translated ¢o wit, it explains in 
 how far the gospel is able to help man to salvation. 
 
 Δικαιοσύνη means originally the condition of one who 
 has done all required of him by the law. ‘This signi- 
 fication had its source in the conception of a certain 
 relation subsisting between two parties, a covenant 
 called δίκη. The genitive Θεοῦ stands in place of 
 what St. Paul commonly employs ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 as it also does, chap. iii. 21, 22. Among others 
 Origen and Osiander deem that the divine attribute 
 of Justice is here meant; on which supposition, Θεοῦ. 
 would be the genitivus suhjecti. This does not, how- 
 
 ia 
 7 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 17. 73 
 
 ever, suit the context, seeing that the knowledge of 
 God’s penal justice is for man, no δύναμις εἰς σωτηρίαν. 
 Besides, δικαμοσύνη here forms an antithesis to the ἀσπο- 
 κάλυψις τῆς ὀργῆς inv. 18. It would be equally 
 discordant with the meaning of the context, to adopt, 
 with Chrysostom and Schottgen, what Paul rarely in- 
 
 _ tends, the Helenistic sense of d:xasoodvn, viz clemency. 
 
 Accordingly we thus expound, “ The. gospel makes 
 known a way to that perfect fulfilment of the law, 
 which is required by God.” 
 
 ἐν αὐτῷ in that gospel. 
 
 ἀποκωλύπτεται. Beza: Hoc ita intelligo, quasi 
 Paulus non eo duntaxat nomine commendet evange- 
 lium, quod in eo retegatur, et spectandum proponatur, 
 quod gentes quidem antea ignorabant, patres autem 
 Judzi procul et umbris tectum intuebantur: sed 
 etiam quod hance justificandi rationem ita proponat, 
 ut nune etiam re ipsa exhibeat....itaque pro consuetu- 
 dine Hebrezeorum cum antecedente intelligendum est 
 consequens, id est, cum patefactione conjungendum 
 est ipsius patefactze rei preestatio. Obviously, not the 
 mere act of revelation, per se, is here spoken of, but 
 at the same time, the operation ofthe truth revealed, 
 which, according to its inward nature, quickens and 
 transforms all susceptible of its influence. 
 
 ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. Expositors differ very widely 
 in the meaning they attach to these words. The 
 readiest way is to take the two nouns together, and 
 understand them asaclimax. This answers to the 
 use of 2%, which is especially employed to denote the 
 transition from one into another state; yeAdy ἐκ τῶν 
 
.74 CHAPTER I. V. 17. 
 
 πρόσθεν Oanguay ; SO Heliod. Aeth. βάσιν ἐκ βάσεως πα- 
 ρωμείξειν, 2 Cor. iii. 18, ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν would then 
 be a parallel passage. Thus Theophylact: Οὐ 
 γὰρ apni τὸ πρώτως πιστεῦσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς εἰσαγωγικῆς 
 πίστεως δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἀναξαίνειν εἰς τὴν τελειοτέρων πίστιν. 
 Clemens Alex. explains this more exactly (Strom. b. v. 
 6. 1,) where he says: There is a χοινὴ πίστις καθάπερ 
 θεμέλιος, like that of which our Lord said, ““ΤῊν 
 faith had made thee whole,” and a perfect faith, by which 
 a man may remove mountains. Hence it was, that 
 even the Apostles prayed, “ Lord we believe, help 
 thou our unbelief.” In like manner Melancthon, Beza, 
 Calovius, Clericus, and others. Compare Glassius 
 in his Philol. Sacra, p. 1027. Faith may certainly be 
 regarded as in this manner progressive. ‘The more 
 powerfully in any individual, the sense, on the one 
 hand, of his spiritual want, and, on the other, of that 
 harmony or blessedness which springs from a religious 
 life is awakened, the more lively will become the in- 
 ward necessity, the impulse urging him to recognise 
 as true the objective doctrines of religion. Neither 
 can it be said, that this meaning is not sufficiently 
 well based in the context. The general design of the 
 Apostle is to set forth, how in Christianity all de- 
 pends, not upon what man originates within himself, 
 but upon the appropriation of an objective datum. 
 Now this design is attained, if he shews that that ap-— 
 
 x It is not sufficient to have believed at first. We mustas- 
 
 cend from initial to more perfect faith. 
 ¥ A common faith, and as it were fundamental. 
 
CHAPTER 1. v. 17. 79 
 
 propriation is in its subject infinite, something which 
 must undergo continual progressive increase, whereby 
 the individual is ever more and more transformed 
 into the objective truth. The only other view of the 
 passage, which recommends itself as worthy of atten- 
 tion, is that which couples ἐκ πίστεως with δικαμοσύνη, 
 according as Bengel expounds. “ Paul wishes to 
 shew, that in this message all rests upon faith: Fides 
 est prora et puppis. Hence he says it is a righteous- 
 ness of faith, indeed it only exists for faith.” So also 
 Hammond and others. Rom. vi. 19, and 2 Cor. ἢ. 
 16, would afford some analogy. Nor can it be 
 said, that the addition εἰς πίστιν would then be super- 
 fluous, seeing that it lies in the Apostle’s intention, 
 that the necessity of a subjective appropriation of the 
 objective datum should be prominently set forth. 
 There is harshness, however, in the wide separation 
 of πίστεως from δικαιοσύνη, and if it be alleged that 
 this is done to heighten the emphasis, by the juxta- 
 position of the double πίστις, it may be answered, that 
 the same emphasis is likewise retained in the view 
 previously stated. To the other expositions of the 
 passage, besides these two, it may be objected, either 
 that they have too slender a basis in the context, or 
 that they are too far fetched. They are as follows; Ist, 
 The first σίστις is a general faith in the truth of the gos- 
 pel, the second, the special application of the same to 
 the subject, “from a belief of the gospel’s revealing to 
 man a way to fulfil the law, proceeds the belief, that 
 by me also, the believing subject, this fulfilment of 
 the law and justification before God is realized.” So 
 Witsius and Sadoletus. But the two things cannot, in 
 
76 CHAPTER 1. V. 17. 
 
 respect of time, be imagined as separate from each 
 other. 2. The first ziorig is faith in the Old, the 
 second, faith in the New Testament. Thus Origen, . 
 Theodoret, Zegerus, and others. 3. Augustine : (De 
 Spiritu et Littera, c. 11,) Ex fide predicantium in fi- 
 dem audientium. 4. Ex fide obscura in clarum vi- 
 sionem in ccelis. (Augustine Ques. Ev. 1. ii. ο. 39. 
 Bede.) 
 
 χαθὼς γέγραπται" ὁ OF δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. 
 The pious Jew loved to use Bible phrases, in 
 speaking of the things of common life, as this 
 seemed to connect in a manner his personal observa- 
 tions and the events of his own history, with those 
 of holy writ. Thus, the Talmud contains numerous 
 quotations introduced by such forms, 3°57 ἸΣΥΤ or 
 VOIIVNT PT VI or PDT ἼΩΝ Ἢ ΠΏΣ “ behold 
 that is what stands written,” “as says the verse,” with- 
 out there being understood any real fulfilment of the 
 text in the fact which is spoken of. This practice 
 was also followed by the Apostles. Acts xxviii. 25, 
 Rom. viii. 36, ix. 33, x. 5, xi. 26, xiv. 11. These 
 references to passages of the Old Testament often 
 serve to indicate the deep analogy subsisting between 
 that and the New, in so far as the latter, in outline 
 and germ, was already contained in the former. So 
 also in the present citation. In these words of the 
 prophet, what is set forth as the characteristic of the 
 just, is not the external opus operatum, but the in- 
 ward disposition of faith and trust in God, that direct 
 confidence in him transcending all reflection, of which 
 Chrysostom on this passage says, Τοιαύτη γὰρ ἡ τῶν 
 λογισμῶν φύσις" λαβυρίνθῳ τινὶ καὶ γρίφοις ἔοικεν, οὐδὲν 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 17. 5 Th 
 
 οὐδαμοῦ τέλος ἔχουσα, οὐδὲ ἀφιεῖσα Tov λογισμὸν ἑστάναι 
 ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας.2 In the Prophet Habac. ii. 4, God, 
 according to the LXX., declares, “ The man who 
 flies from the coming calamities, to him will I not 
 show favour, but the just shall live, that is, shall pros- 
 per through his confidence in me.” We have still to 
 observe, that the LXX. read ἐκ πίστεώς μου, while in 
 the original, the word is 1M3VDNI. Only Symma- 
 chus renders it exactly. The genitive of the pronoun 
 of the first person must then be considered as gene- 
 tivus objecti, for εἰς ἐμέ. Faith towards me. One 
 codex and the Syrian also read this μοῦ. Several 
 interpreters and editions insert a point after πίστεως, 
 which makes the sense, “‘ He who is justified by faith 
 shall live.” That the Prophet did not so construe his 
 JNIVINA is unquestionable ; as little the LXX. their 
 ἐκ πίστεώς μου. It must, therefore, be assumed, that 
 it was Paul himself, who, with the view of better 
 adapting the declaration of the Prophet to his subject, 
 gave this violent construction to the translation of the 
 Septuagint. But it is impossible to discover any 
 grounds for his doing so, and so much the less, if, in 
 the previous clause, the ἐκ πίστεως is not immediately 
 connected with δικαιοσύνη. And moreover, the decla- 
 ration is highly pertinent when the ἐκ πήστεως is coupled 
 with ζήσεται. Even Jews of later times know how to 
 appreciate the worth of such faith. R. Schemtob 
 _upon Cant. iv. 8, thus speaks: Dicent Israelite canti- 
 5. For such is the nature of reasonings. They are likea laby- 
 
 rinth or net, which has nowhere an end, and will not permit 
 the judgment to rest upon the rock. 
 
78 CHAPTER I. V. 18. 
 
 cum novum tempore futuro, Ps. xeviii. Cujus autem 
 merito dicet Israel carmen? Merito Abrahami, quia 
 credidit Deo, Gen. xv. Heeevest fides in qua Israel © 
 possidet, de qua Scriptura dicit Hab. ii. 
 
 PART FOURTE 
 
 ELUCIDATION OF THE THESIS IN THE CASE OF THE 
 HEATHEN, TAKING INTO VIEW THE SPECULATIVE 
 ERRORS INTO WHICH THEY WERE LED BY PRACTI- 
 CAL DEPRAVITY. v. 18—24. 
 
 V. 18. The thought, that the revelation of the 
 righteousness of God is a scheme so rightly fraught 
 with blessings for all mankind, pre-supposes that all 
 men stand in need of it, and that their sinfulness is so 
 great, as to make the communication of this righteous- 
 ness from a source above, absolutely indispensable 
 to them. Accordingly, the Apostle now proceeds to 
 demonstrate that. And, in the first place, he shows 
 that the heathen are chargeable with the most com- 
 plete alienation from God, and have thereby become 
 obnoxious to the divine ὀργὴ. This alienation dis- 
 covers itself in the obscuration of their knowledge of 
 the Divine Being, which has led them to substitute 
 in place of the true and holy God, the most con- 
 temptible idols as the object of their worship. Such 
 a deviation from right views of what God is can only 
 arise from the want of religious and moral life in the . 
 heart. It afterwards acts, however, reciprocally as a 
 cause leading to a still wider departure from God. 
 
΄ 
 
 CHAPTER I. V. 18. 79 
 
 ᾿Οργὴ Θεοῦ is equal to dimouoxgioia chap. ii. 5. The | 
 word is anthropopathic, and is well explained by 
 Damien Orthod. fide]. 1. v. 14.- -Οργὴν καὶ θυμὸν 
 ἐννοοῦμεν τὴν πρὸς τὴν κακίαν ἀπέχθειάν τε καὶ ἀποστροφὴν" 
 καὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς, τὸ ἐναντία τῆς γνώμης μισοῦντες, ὀργιζόμεθα. 
 The wrath of God is that relation of God to evil, in 
 virtue of which, he leaves it, in so far as it resists him, 
 to itself, whereby it becomes a prey to misery. This 
 abandonment to itself, entailing as it does wretched- 
 ness, is consequently a penalty. Hence, ὀργὴ was 
 anciently interpreted as synonymous with τημωρία and 
 κόλασις. See Suicer, 5. ἢ. v. 
 
 ᾿Αποκωλύπτεται ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ. Previously the Apostle 
 had spoken of the ἀποκάλυψις of the divine righteous- 
 ness. In antithesis to this, he now places another 
 ἀποκάλυψις, that of wrath, by which the former is ren- 
 dered necessary. Now the question here is, by what 
 means this second ἀσοχάλυψις is brought about? As 
 it stands, like an antistrophe, on a parallel with the 
 other, it might be fairly deemed that in this instance 
 also, the Apostle meant a revelation effected by the 
 Gospel. It is the general doctrine of Scripture, that 
 by the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, the know- 
 ledge of sin, and the sense of guilt are awakened in 
 man. Christ reckons it expressly among the opera- 
 tions of that Divine Being, that he reproves the world 
 of sin, John xvi. 8, 9. Christianity also teaches in the 
 most distinct manner the doctrine ofa future judgment, 
 Rom. ii. 6; xiv. 10. The import of the passage 
 might, therefore, be: “ By the same gospel men are 
 brought to the knowledge of the penal justice of the 
 Supreme Being.” It may, however, be questioned, 
 
 a 
 
80 CHAPTER I. v. 18, 
 
 whether the Apostle does not rather here appeal to 
 the sense of guilt, which, apart from the gospel, is 
 always to be found in man. The persons, whom he 
 has in view, are such as were presently destitute of 
 belief in the gospel, and his object is to guide them 
 to the acknowledgment of their want of it; besides, 
 that he pre-supposed in the heathen an inward sense 
 of their guilt and of God’s penal justice, appears from 
 verse 32. And how strong in fact were the mani- 
 festations which they frequently gave of that senti- 
 ment, and to what severe penances did they resort 
 in order to satisfy their awakened conscience, and 
 attain to a state of reconciliation with the Aaiuwy! 
 This is especially attested by Plutarch in his admir- 
 able treatise Teg? Aciosdasmoviag. Ifsuch be the mean- 
 ing, the passage would require to be interpreted as 
 follows: “ You cannot disown the consciousness 
 which God has implanted in your breasts, that his re- 
 tributive justice extends to all that is sin.” Equally 
 in both cases may the phrase ds’ οὐρανοῦ be viewed 
 as a figurative expression, for the origin of the revela- 
 tion in question. ‘The superiority of God to every 
 limitation, and to all the sin and evil of this world, we. 
 are wont, in compliance with a certain natural instinet 
 to which even the heathen were not strangers—(See 
 Pseudo Aristot. de Mundo, l. 1. 6.1. Beza: In ecelo 
 natura duce Deum querimus.) to denote, by conceiv- 
 ing him as placed in some upper region elevated 
 above the earth. Accordingly, in conformity with the 
 second view, we might here paraphrase the expression 
 “ Emanating from the higher invisible economy, the. 
 presentiment of the divine justice enters our minds.” 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 18. 81 
 
 The first of these elucidations has been adopted by 
 Jerome, (Comm. in Abacue. 1. 2, c. 3.) Erasmus, and 
 Grotius; the second by Bugenhagen and Wolf. In 
 the hands of P. Martyr it undergoes some degree of 
 modification. He contends that the giving over of 
 man to a reprobate mind is here implied, in conse- 
 quence of which, he unconsciously becomes his own 
 chastiser. These, however, are not the only interpre- 
 tations which have been offered of the passage. 
 Others less admissible, are the following: 1. The 
 firmament, in the general glorious testimony which it 
 bears to God, gives intimation also of the stern retri- 
 bution Which such a Being must execute against all 
 his despisers. So Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas, and 
 others. 2. Frequent calamities descending from the 
 skies upon men, such as thunder, lightning, and hail, 
 display the retributive justice of God. So Pelagius, 
 Zegerus, and Buddeus. 3. The revelation of Christ — 
 for judgment at the last day; which is the view 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Limborch, and 
 most others adopt. In this case, the present aroxa- 
 λύστεται requires to be taken in a future sense, which, 
 however, is in so far the less allowable, from the cir- 
 eumstance that it stands parallel with that of the 17th 
 verse. 4. Disasters and judgments proceeding from 
 God, whose seat is regarded as in heaven. So Origen, 
 Cyril, Beza, Calvin, and Bengel. j 
 
 ari πᾶσαν ἀσέβειων καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων. Πᾶς here 
 signifies like $D, every hind, species. Perhaps it was 
 the Apostle’s intention to denote the equality of 
 the sins of the heathen, with those of the Jews. 
 More correctly, he wished to shew the wide extent 
 
 G 
 
89 CHAPTER 1. v. 18. 
 
 and compass of the heathen’s amenability to punish- 
 ment. Chrysostom: “Evravéa δείκνυσιν ὅτι πολλαὶ τῆς 
 ἀσεβείας αἱ ὁδοὶ, ἡ δὲ τῆς ἀλεθείας, ular καὶ γὰρ ποικίλον, 
 καὶ πολυειδὲς, καὶ συγκεχυμένον ἡ πλάνη" ἡ δὲ ἀλήθεια, 
 wi.” Theophylact : Ἢ μὲν, τοῦ θεωρητικοῦ ἁμάρτημα, ἡ 
 dz τοῦ πρακτικοῦ. According to the use of the Greek 
 language, ἀσέβεια refers to our ¢respasses against God, 
 ἀδικία to those against men. 
 
 τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίῳ κατεχόντων. κατέχειν tO 
 hinder, keep back—xaréyey τὸν γέλωτα, the opposite of 
 κρατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ γέλωτος--ἰο restrain. Luke iv. 42. 
 2 Thess. ii. 6. Theophylact, xaraxarvaren, σκοτίζειν 
 τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Here all depends on what is the signifi- 
 cation of ἀλήθεια. One might consider it as standing 
 absolutely for the Christian truth, and view the words 
 of the Apostle as directed against those, who, by their 
 carnal minds, hinder the spread of the gospel, hostile- 
 ly oppose it. The meaning would then be, “ Men 
 now appear obnoxious to punishment, because they 
 will not accept the scheme proposed to them for their 
 justification, but, on the contrary, rather oppose its 
 efficacy, as warring with their sinful desires.” But 
 this meaning would not harmonize with the context: 
 The γὰρ at the commencement of the verse leads us 
 to expect the reason of a thought enunciated in the 
 preceding. According to the explanation in ques- 
 tion, however, there results only a contrast. “ The 
 gospel provides a means of salvation; on the other 
 
 @ Here he shews that many are the ways of ungodliness, but 
 that the way of truth is one. For error is a various and mul- 
 tiform, and confused thing, whereas truth is simple. 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 18. 83 
 
 hand, it reveals wrath against all who resist the truth.” 
 If this were the relation of the sentences, we should 
 have looked, not for a γὰρ but a 6:. Moreover, that 
 explanation is contradictory to the following 19th 
 verse, which speaks of a knowledge of God, not now 
 for the first time imparted, but that had already, and 
 for a long period, been accessible to man. Hence we 
 must consider ἀλήθεια, as signifying the religious truth 
 which was extant, prior to the publication of the Gos- 
 pel. But by that religious truth, two things may be 
 understood, viz. either the primeval traditions which 
 were handed down from age to age among the hea- 
 then, or the religious and moral sense inherent in the 
 human mind. Itis most correct to suppose that the lat- 
 ter is meant; for those traditions only exerted a quick- 
 ening power upon man in so far as he admitted them 
 into his mind, and allowed them to operate upon his 
 conscience. The 19th verse even leads to this view ; 
 Ammon prefers the former. Now, that by which the 
 inward conviction of religious truth was restrained 
 and suppressed is the admia unrighteousness: ‘The 
 ἐν is instrumental. The Apostle here founds upon the 
 great experimental truth, that the source of our know- 
 ledge of divine things lies in the immediate conscious- 
 ness, in which practice and theory are inseparably 
 united, so that an ungodly disposition destroys all 
 clear insight into divine things. In illustration of this 
 sympathy of our religious and moral knowledge 
 with the posture of the heart towards God, we 
 may quote the beautiful passage of Chrysostom, ad 1 
 Cor. ui. 3, Homil. 8, ἐντεῦθεν μανθάνομεν ὅτι εἰκότως 
 ἔλεγεν ὁ Χριστὸς ὅτι ὁ ποιῶν τὰ φαῦλα οὐκ ἔνχεται πρὸς τὸ 
 
84 | CHAPTER I. Vv. 18. 
 
 φῶς, καὶ ὅτι Clog ἀκάθαρτος ἐμποδίξει δόγμασιν ὑψηλοῖς, 
 οὖκ ἀφεὶς τὸ διορατικὸν φανῆναι τῆς διανοίας" ὥσπερ οὖν οὖκ 
 a 5» / a δι" os ~ ~ 3 / \ 
 ἔστιν ἐν πλάνῃ ὄντα καὶ ὀρθῶς Crodyre μεῖναι ἐν πλάνῃ ποτὲ, 
 οὕτως οὐ ῥῴδιον πονηρίῳ συντρεφόμενον ἀναδλέψαι ταχέως 
 πρὺς τὸ τῶν παρ ἡμῖν δογμάτων ὕψος, ἀλλὰ χρὴ πάντων 
 πρ ς rd . “a [4 Hf Ye 6: χρη 
 καθαρεύειν τῶν παθῶν τὸν μέλλοντα θηρᾷν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ὃ 
 So also the same author, in Joan. 3. (Hom. 24.) 
 Ἔστι γὰρ ἔστι καὶ ἀπὸ τρόπων διεφθαρμένων οὐκ ἀπὸ πολυ- 
 πρωγμοσύνης μόνον ἀκαίρου σκοτωθῆναι τὴν διάνοιαν «os 2 oe 
 ἐν τῇ πρὸς “Ἑβραίους δὲ καὶ πολλωχοῦ τῶν πονηρῶν δυγμά- 
 ray ταύτην ἴδοι τις ἀν τὸν ἸΤαῦλον τὴν αἰτίαν sive λέγοντα, 
 τὴν γὰρ ἐμπαθῆ ψυχὴν οὐ δύνασθαι μέγα τι γενναῖον ἰδεῖν, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ὑπὸ τινὺς λήμης θολουμένην ἀμβλυωπίαν ὑπομέ- 
 νειν τὴν χαλεπωτάτην. oo 00s μὴ σπείρωμεν ἐπ᾿ ἀκάνθαις.ς 
 Similar is the sentiment of Augustine: (De vera Relig. 
 c. 14,) Illa est enim peccati poena justissima, ut amittat 
 
 b Hence we learn the truth of Christ’s saying, that “ every 
 one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the 
 light,” and that an impure life is an impediment in the way 
 to sublime doctrines, not permitting the discernment of the 
 mind toexpand. In like manner, therefore, as it is not possible 
 for aman involved in error, and yet leading a good life, to re- 
 main in error long, so it is not easy for the man living in sin, 
 to raise his eyes to the altitude of our doctrines. He must be 
 purified from the passions, who means to engage in the pursuit 
 of truth. 
 
 © For not by unseasonable curiosity only, but also by de- 
 praved morals, may the understanding be darkened. Both 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many other passages, we 
 find Paul assigning this as a cause of false opinions ; because 
 that the mind, enslaved by passion, is unable to discern any- 
 thing great and generous, but resembles the eye, whose vision 
 when bedimmed by rheum, is greatly blunted. . .... et us not, 
 then, sow upon thorns. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 18. 85 
 
 quisque quo bene uti noluit, cum sine ulla posset dith- 
 cultate, si vellet. Id est autem, ut qui sciens recte 
 non facit, amittat scire quod rectum sit, et qui recte 
 facere cum posset, noluit, amittat posse cum velit. 
 With respect to the mode in which the Gentile Poly- 
 theism may be conceived to have arisen from carnal- 
 mindedness, what must chiefly be taken into view, is_ 
 that the heathen deities were deities of nature,—the 
 Jinite world personified without the idea of holiness. 
 Hence the very attribute which, as Paul informs us, 
 the character of the heathen did not possess, was also 
 wanting in their gods. They were gods who, having 
 emanated from the earthly-mindedness of the nations, 
 could have no reflex power to elevate above the earth. 
 This more profound theory of the derivation of hea- 
 thenism from moral and religious causes, is found 
 among the ancient apologists. (Theophilus of An- 
 tioch, ad Autol. 1. 1. 6. 2. Athanasius, Apologia, 
 opp. Par. 1728, p. 8. Philastrius, De Heresibus, 
 her. 60. Bibl. Max. Patr. vol. iv. P.i.p. 30.) Comp. 
 the Introduction to the Treatise on the moral influence 
 of Heathenism, in Neander’s Denkwurdigkeiten, Th. 
 1. Among the different expositors, the following 
 express with greatest force the sense here given. 
 Calvin: Veritas est vera Dei cognitio. Erasmus: 
 Veritatem cognitam non accommodarunt ad pie sanc- 
 teque vivendum. Grotius: De iis dicit hominibus qui 
 τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίως de Deo, de ejus bonitate ac justitia, 
 de honesto, per malos mores ita opprimunt, ut non 
 Magis appareant quam qui in atro carcere captivi de- 
 tinentur. Simile illud in choro vetere: ”Aggoveg δὲ 
 ὁπύσοι τὸ Oincuoy ἄγουσιν ὑπὸ τὰς ἀδίκου βιοτᾶς ἀφανὲς. In 
 
86 CHAPTER I. V. 18, 19. 
 
 fine, Thomas Aquinas: Vera Dei cognitio, quantum 
 est de se, homines inducit ad bonum, sed ligatur quasi 
 captivitate detenta per injustitiz affectum, per quam 
 ut dicitur, Ps. 11. diminutz sunt veritates a filiis ho- 
 minum. We have to mention another ingenious ex- 
 planation of ἀδικία, viz. an act of violence or robbery, 
 whereby God is defrauded of what rightfully belongs to 
 him. Thus Chrysostom: “ When one, to whom royal 
 money has been entrusted, (as the knowledge of God 
 has been to man,) with orders to spend it in the king’s 
 honour, squanders it upon thieves, harlots, and jug- 
 glers, (the unholy deities of nature,) he must be pun- 
 ished for the embezzlement. And thus also Theophy- 
 lact, CGEcumenius, and Beza. The context, however, 
 does not favour this explanation. 
 
 V.19. ΑΒ is shewn by the διότι, in this and the 
 20th verse the ἀλήθεια of the 18th is explained, and 
 in the 21, 22, 23, the mode of the χατέχειν. 
 
 ro γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The Apostle means to shew 
 in what respect the heathen were in possession of re- 
 ligious truth. Τνωστὸν may be viewed in various 
 lights. It may stand for the substantive ἡ γνῶτις, as 
 
 elsewhere the adjective in the neuter τὸ ἀσθενὲς for: 
 
 ἀσθένεια, 1 Cor. i. 25. τὸ χρηστὸν for χρηστότης, Rom. 1]. 
 
 4. So Justin, Apol. ii. ὁ. 14. Ἔν τῇ φύσει τῇ τῶν ἀν- 
 
 θρώπων ἐστι τὸ γνωριστὸν κωλοῦ καὶ αἰσχροῦ. It may also 
 retain its meaning as verbal adjective, in which case 
 it must be rendered the knowable, just as in phi- 
 losophical language are often found στὸ νοητὸν, πὸ 
 uisdyroy, τὸ ἀύρωτον, v. 20. Even the very word γνοσ- 
 
 © There is in human nature a knowledge of right and wrong. 
 
 | 
 | 
 
CHAPTER I. Vv. 19. 87 
 
 σὸν frequently occurs in Plato, who in the fifth Book 
 of the Republic several times places τὸ γνωστὸν and 
 τὸ δοξαστὸν in opposition, (478 Steph.) In things 
 theoretical, the termination τὸς denotes usually the 
 possibilitas, in things practical, the officium or facultas, 
 στυγητὺς, ἀγαπητὸς. See on such words as used by 
 Plato, Wyttenbachs Phezedo, p. 295, ed. Lips. To 
 this way of understanding γνωστὸν, we must here give 
 the preference, because the circumstance, that in the 
 sequel an ἀόρατον of God is spoken of, implies that 
 God is, in one repect, knowable, in another not. Jo- 
 sephus employs a mode of expression exactly similar, 
 when he says, 6. Apion |. xi. c. 16. Θεὸς δυνάμει μόνον 
 ἡμῖν γνώριμος, ὁποῖος δὲ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἄγνωστος. It is in 
 this manner also, that the majority of commentators 
 have explained the word. Pelagius: Quod potest 
 naturaliter sciri de Deo, quod sit, et quod justus sit, 
 ἢ, 6. that there is but one, and he a holy God. Cal- 
 vin : Intelligit id totum quod pertinet ad gloriam Do- 
 mini illustrandam, vel, quod idem est, quidquid nos 
 movere excitareque debet ad Deum glorificandum. 
 Quo verbo significat, Deum quantus est minime posse 
 mente nostra capi, sed aliquem esse modum intra quem 
 se cohibere debeant homines, sicut Deus ad modulum 
 nostrum ‘attemperat quidquid de se testatur. Me- 
 lancthon: Addit que sit illa ἀλήθεια. Est notitia, in- 
 quit de Deo et cxterz notitia, que vocantur leges 
 naturales, qua omnes sunt testimonium de Deo, et 
 docent qualis sit Deus, et quod judicaturus sit. Ernesti 
 proposed to consider the expression as _ periphrastic, 
 for ὁ Θεὸς ὁ γνωστὸς and appealed to the LXX. Gen. ii. 
 9. τοῦ εἰδένωι γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ ἀγωθοῦ ; where it does 
 
88 CHAPTER 1. V. 19. 
 
 indeed appear to be used _ periphrastically, but where 
 it may yet with much greater probability be consi- 
 dered as a substitute for γγῶσις, signifying the grounds 
 of the knowledge of good and evil. In the pas- 
 sage before us, however, the ἀόρατα which succeeds, 
 shews that a certain emphasis hes on the γνωστὸν, and 
 accordingly that it cannot be used merely as a peri- 
 phrasis. 
 
 φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς. Here the meaning depends 
 upon the ἐν If it be translated among, we are led 
 with Theophylact and Erasmus, to think of the few 
 among the heathen, who possessed a deeper insight 
 into religion. But, as the Apostle is speaking of the 
 more universal guilt and sinfulness of the heathen, he 
 cannot mean that religious truth whieh was confined 
 to afew of them. Hence, we must either suppose 
 that ἐν forms with αὐτοῖς, a periphrasis for the dative, 
 asin 1 Cor. xiv. 1]. (John xi, 10, 12, 35, 1 Cor. ii. 6, 
 2 Cor. viii. 1, are appealed to, but without sufficient 
 srounds for the same use of ἐν) or, taking it in its 
 proper signification, render the passage is manifest 
 within them. Thom. Aquinas: Quod cognoseibile 
 
 est de Deo ab homine per rationem, manifestum est. 
 
 illis ex eo quod in illis est, ex homine intrinseco. The 
 
 connection of the present with the following verse, by 
 
 the ya, shews that the Apostle principally intends 
 that conviction which man derives from the works of 
 God. This, however, is not by any means incon- 
 sistent with the view we take of the passage. The 
 creation, contemplated per se, does not confer upon 
 man, the knowledge of God in question; it but 
 awakens his slumbering consciousness, so that he 
 
 ‘4 
 ————— 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 19, 20. 89 
 
 comes of himself to the apprehension of these ele- 
 ments of divine knowledge that lie within his breast. 
 Hence, although it is by means of the external world, 
 that the mind developes its knowledge of God, that 
 knowledge is still within itself. The Apostle suppo- 
 ses an inward relationship of the human with the Divine 
 mind, Acts xvii. 27.28. With much precision, there- 
 fore, does Melancthon say: Quanquam enim, ut pos- 
 tea dicit, mens ratiocinatur aliquid de Deo, ex consi- Ὁ 
 deratione mirabilium ejus operum in universa rerum 
 natura, tamen hune syllogismum ratio non haberet, 
 nisi etiam Deus, aliquam notitiam zara πρόληψιν in- 
 -didisset mentibus nostris, et illa mirabilia specula re- 
 rum πρόληψιν excitant. 
 
 v.20. A more precise statement of the way in 
 which menare capable of knowing God. Ta γὰρ 
 ἀόρατα ἀυτοῦ, xrA. The incomprehensibility of the 
 Divine Being is more accurately defined by the spe- 
 cification of those attributes with which the contem- 
 plation of nature makes us acquainted. Δύναμις is 
 omnipotence, ἡ δημιουργία, as ‘Theodoret explains it. 
 The idea which first suggests itself to man, on con- 
 templating nature, is that of a force far surpassing his 
 own, infinite power. ‘This is observed in the book of 
 Wisdom, xiii. 4, where the author, speaking of the 
 heathen surveying the material world, says ἐχπλαγέν- 
 reg δύναμιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν. Θειότης, different from Θεότης 
 which denotes the Divine Being, Col. 11. 9, expresses 
 the sum of all the attributes of God, that, in virtue of 
 which God is God to us. It is hence also used by 
 periphrasis for Θεὸς, as in the Book of Wisdom, xviii. 9, 
 ὁ τῆς θειότητος νόμος. The quality which first impres= 
 
90 CHAPTER I. V. 20. 
 
 ses itself upon man, is omnipotence; Paul, however, 
 here seeks to express that this omnipotence is not 
 blind, but that along with it we come to have a sense 
 of the other divine attributes. In like manner, in | 
 the 13th chapter of the Book of Wisdom the author 
 endeavours to shew how the observation of nature 
 ought to have awakened the heathen to the conscious- 
 ness of God. The passage so strongly resembles 
 that on which we are commenting, that one might 
 almost imagine St. Paul to have had it in his eye, if 
 the subject were not so much a locus communis 
 among the Jewish doctors, as makes it easy to sup- 
 pose a fortuitous accordance between the two writers. 
 Calvin: Non recenset autem sigillatim que in Deo 
 considerari possunt, sed docet ad sternam usque ejus 
 potentiam et divinitatem perveniri. Nam qui omni- 
 um est auctor, eum oportet sine initio esse et a seipso. 
 Ubi eo ventum est, jam se profert divinitas, Que nisi 
 cum singulis Dei virtutibus nequit consistere, quando 
 sub ea omnes continentur. 
 
 ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου. The ἀπὸ may mean either dy or 
 since. Inthe former sense, it is found even in the New 
 Testament united with γινώσκειν, Mat. vii. 16 and 20, 
 but that sense is far more frequently expressed by ἐκ, as 
 ἐκ τῶν ὅνυχων λέοντα, and being here moreover contain- 
 ed in the σποιήμασι, it is more correct to give to ax 
 the second meaning of since as ax ἀρχῆς κτίσεως, 
 Mark x. 6, Ecclesiasticus xvi. 25. Of χοσμοῦ, it may 
 be remarked, that what is termed the physico-theo- 
 logical proof lies already in the etymon of the word. 
 (Plin. Hist. Nat. 1. ii. ο. 4.) 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 20. 91 
 
 τοῖς ποιήμασι νοούμενω καθορᾶτωαι. On the σποιήμασι 
 νοούμενα Bengel observes, Incomparabile oxymoron! 
 Invisibilia Dei, si unquam, certe in creatione facta 
 essent visibilia, sed tum quoque non nisi per intelli- 
 gentiam. Pelagius: Tam evidenter intellecta sunt, ut 
 conspecta dicantur. In like manner, Arist. De Mundo, 
 c. 6. πάσῃ θνητῇ φύσει γενόμενος ἀθεώρητος, an αὐτῶν τῶν 
 ἔργων θεωρεῖται ὁ θεός. There are several who take 
 ποίημα inthe sense of action, by God’s operation in the 
 created world. It may unquestionably bear this sense, 
 which the Hebrew 7wyp likewise bears, and which has 
 been retained by the LXX., Eccles. vii. 14, vin. 17, 
 Ps. exliii. 5. Plato also (De leg. X.) places in 
 contrast τὰ ποιΐήματο and ra παθήματα τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 
 But it is more natural to hold by the common signi- 
 fication, by means of the creatures. The νοούμενα is 
 illustrative of καθορᾷᾶται, an inward exercise of thought 
 and reflection being necessary in order to recognise 
 in nature those divine attributes. Mosheim: “ when we 
 consider them.” The meaning of the passage is hap- 
 pily expanded by Erasmus in his paraphrase. 
 
 εἰς τὸ εἶναι" εἰς τὸ used, as it frequently is, in the New 
 Testament for ὥστε. Chrysostom: Kairorye ob διὰ 
 τοῦτο ταῦτα ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς, εἰ καὶ τοῦτο ἐξέξη. Οὐ γάρ 
 ἵνα αὐτοὺς ἀπολογίας ἀποστερήσῃ, διδασκαλίαν σοσαύτην εἰς 
 μέσον προὔθηκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα αὐτὸν ἐπιγνῶσιν ἃ To which ob- 
 
 ἃ God did not make them for this end. Although it has so 
 turned out. The great lesson he brought forward was not 
 intended to deprive them of an excuse, but that they might 
 learn to know himself. 
 
92 CHAPTER I. V. 21. 
 
 servation, CEcumenius appends the exegetic rule: Igo- 
 σεχε γοῦν τοιούτῳ ἰδιώματι τῆς γραφῆς, καὶ od προσκόψεις. 
 πολλὰ γὰρ τοιαῦτω παντωχοῦ λέγονται, ἃ δεῖ λύειν οὕτως; 
 ὡς ἐκ τοῦ ἀποτελέσματος αἰτιολογούμενα.5 
 
 V. 21. According to the syntax, the διότι refers to 
 ἀνωπολόγητους, as illustrative of why they are without 
 excuse. According to the sense, however, and con- 
 nection with the entire preceding context, it is, as 
 we have already said, an explication of the κατέχειν 
 in verse 18. The general assertion formerly made 
 by the Apostle, that the original knowledge of God 
 was merely suppressed by the heathen, he now esta- 
 blishes by shewing how they came, first to entertain 
 unworthy conceptions, and afterwards, as a natural 
 consequence, to make unworthy representations of 
 the Divine Being. In the Old Testament they are 
 also styled mre TDW, forgetters of God, Ps. ix. 
 17. Their true apprehensions of God were sup- 
 pressed, and then false and unworthy gods substi- 
 tuted in the place of Him who is almighty and holy. 
 It was thus that the heathen, as Jeremiah upbraids 
 the Jews, committed two great evils. They forsook 
 the fountain of living waters, and hewed out for them 
 broken cisterns that could hold no water. And their 
 guilt in this respect, as Thomas Aquinas observes, 
 was in reality twofold. An offence, which is the off- 
 spring of ignorance, is forgiven, but it waxes doubly 
 heinous when that ignorance itself is culpable; just 
 
 © Give heed to such idioms and you will not err. For 
 many such things are every where said which require to be 
 resolved, as specifying the cause from the event. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 9]. 93 
 
 as he commits a double crime, who first intoxicates 
 himself, and then perpetrates a murder. 
 
 The two duties of δοξάζειν and ἐυχαριστεῖν are thus 
 illustrated by Melancthon. To glorify God as God, 
 is to acknowledge him in the integrity of his divine 
 attributes, and then, for the sake of these, to love, in- 
 voke, and fear him. 170 be thankful to him, is to 
 acknowledge that God manifests actively all these at- 
 tributes in the direction and government of the world. 
 Now, in so far as men mistook these positive duties, 
 implied in their state of relationship to God, the nega- 
 tive found place, they formed erroneous conceptions 
 of his nature. 
 
 The verb ματαιοῦσθαι has in the LXX. the double 
 signification of irritum fieri and stultum fieri, like 
 i507. The Vulgate takes the first, and translates, 
 evanuerunt. And so likewise, or nearly so, many of 
 the expositors. Erasmus has frustrati sunt, to wit, in 
 their attempts to bring some great discovery to light 
 by their researches. The other signification, how- 
 ever, appears the more eligible, were it for no other 
 reason than that the delusion consisted chiefly in the 
 adoration of false deities, which in Acts xiv. 15, are 
 styled ra μάταια. According to this view, Calvin ex- 
 pounds correctly as follows: Derelicta Dei veritate, 
 ad sensus sui vanitatem conversi sunt, cujus omnis 
 perspicacia inanis est. Hee illa est injustitia, quod 
 semen rectz notitizs mox sua pravitate suffocent, 
 priusquam in segetem emergat. 
 
 ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς. The word διωλογισμὸς is gene- 
 rally used in a bad sense, Rom. xiv. 1, 1 Cor. iii. 20. 
 All the thinking of man is only the manifestation of 
 
94 CHAPTER I. Vv. 21, 22, 28. 
 
 his mind, his inward being. Hence, in as far as that 
 was turned away from God, his thoughts with respect 
 to God, took likewise a perverse direction; his con- 
 ceptions became foolish, as religious and moral error 
 is always the consequence of religious and moral per- 
 versity, upon which it has also a reflex operation. 
 Καρδία, like the Hebrew 35, is a designation of the 
 entire inward man, the disposition; here the inward 
 and immediate sense of divine things. This was ori- 
 ginally ἀλήθεια or φῶς. as Christ, Mat. vi. 22, calls 
 it, but now it has lost its vigour, ὁ. e. was darkened. 
 
 V. 22. It is the invariable property of error in 
 morals and religion, that men take credit to them- 
 selves for it, and extol it as wisdom. So the heathen- 
 They were proud of their knowledge in general, and 
 boasted of their learning. 1 Cor. i. 21. Philosophy 
 made them vain also of their discernment of divine 
 things. Notwithstanding all this, however, on the 
 subject of the Deity they laboured under the greatest 
 delusion. With regard even to their phiiosophers, 
 it may be true that they were not enslaved by the 
 common idolatry; still the pantheistical doctrines 
 which they entertained were closely allied to poly-: 
 theism, and served it as a kind of defence, by re- 
 presenting it as involving some profounder meaning. 
 The word φάσκω is not without emphasis. It most 
 frequently denotes in Greek the vaunting of a pre- 
 tender. See Wetstein and Kypke, a. ἢ. 1. and Sturz. 
 Lex. Xen. Hence the proverbial expression οἱ φιλο- 
 σοφεῖν φάσκοντες. Cicero, (Tuse. ]. 1. 6. 9.) Qui se sapi- 
 entes esse profitentur. Comp. LXX. Jer. x. 14. 
 
 VY. 23. Chrysostom, Πρῶτον ἔγκλημα, ὅτι Θεὸν οὐχ 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 23. 95 
 
 εὗρον δεύτερον, ὅτι καὶ ἀφορμὰς ἔχοντες μεγάλας καὶ σα- 
 φεῖς" τρίτον, ὅτι σοφοὶ λέγοντες εἶναι" τέταρτον, ὅτι οὐ μμόνον οὐχ, 
 εὗρον, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς δαίμονας κατήγαγον, καί λίθους, καὶ 
 ξύλα τὸ σέβας ἐκεῖνο....τὴν γὰρ γνῶσιν ἣν ἔδει περὶ τοῦ πάν- 
 ray ἀσυγκρίτως ὑπερέχοντος ἔχειν, ταύτην τῷ παντων ὠσυγ- 
 κρίτως εὐτελεστέρῳ περιξθηκαν.' Lact. (Inst. Div. 1. ii. ὁ. 6.) 
 Duplici ratione peccatur ab insipientibus, quod ele- 
 menta, id est, Dei opera Deo preeferunt, deinde quod 
 elementorum ipsorum figuras colunt. Verse 21. 
 merely pointed to the error so long as it was con- 
 fined to the mind of the deluded sages, here the 
 Apostle shews how it manifested itself externally. 
 The false conceptions of God gave rise to false repre- 
 sentations of him. 
 
 Kal ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου Θεοῦ. The 
 Apostle’s object is to set forth the infinite distance of 
 God from all created beings; and, hence the contrast 
 between δόξα ἀφάρτου Θεοῦ and φθαρτὸς ἄνθρωπος. 
 ὠλλάσσειν τὴν δόξαν Θεοῦ, is an Old Testament expres- 
 sion, ΚΡ J) Way found in Ps. evi. 20, Jer. ii. 11, 
 Hosea iv. 7. The Hebrew word “22 denotes ge- 
 nerally the discovery or manifestation of the being of 
 God, and more particularly his majesty and glory. 
 
 f The first charge is, that they did not find God; the second, 
 That they failed to do so, although favoured with the best and 
 most manifest opportunities; the third, That they failed, 
 though calling themselves wise ; and the fourth, That they not 
 _merely did not find him, but degraded his worship to demons 
 and stones and blocks..... The knowledge which they ought to 
 have had concerning him who is incomparably the most 
 excellent of all, they transferred to that which is incompa- 
 rably the most vile. 
 
96 CHAPTER I. V. 23. 
 
 With the ΤῚΣ of the invisible glory is contrasted the 
 εἰκὼν. But the polytheists did not even choose the 
 image of the noblest among the perishing creatures; . 
 they had recourse to that of the brutes, yea, even of 
 the most despicable of these. 
 
 Ἔν ὁμοιώματι instead of εἰς ὁμοίωμα, according to 
 the usual substitution of ἐν for εἰς, when it is a trans- 
 lation of the Hebrew ἢ. So Ps. ev. 10, ἠλλάξαντο 
 τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁμοιώματι μόσχου. ᾿Ομοίωμοα, εἰκόνος 15 
 also ἃ Hebraism instead οἵ εἰς εἰκόνα, ὁμνοῖον τοῦς ND ID. 
 Similar passages are found in Philo the monotheist. 
 See Wetstein and Carpzovius 5. h. 1. See also in 
 Josephus, the passage 6. Apion, 1, 2, where, in 
 forcible terms, he paints how unfit even the noblest 
 substances are to represent the glory of the invisible 
 Jehovah. 
 
 PART FIFTH. 
 
 EXPLICATION OF THE THESIS IN THE CASE OF THE 
 HEATHEN, WITH REFERENCE TO THE PRACTICAL 
 DEPRAVITY INTO WHICH THEY SANK, IN CONSE- 
 QUENCE OF THEIR SPECULATIVE ERRORS. v. 24 
 
 Tue Apostle, in the sequel, sketches from the life a 
 picture of the monstrous immoralities of the heathen. 
 This subserves his design, which is to manifest their 
 guiltiness and need of a Saviour. At the same time, 
 however, he represents their moral depravity in the 
 aspect of a divine judgment. Nor is there any dis- 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 24. 97 
 
 crepancy in these two views. For, seeing that in 
 God’s government of the world, a sense of guilt and 
 physical evil are inseparably connected with sin, in so 
 far the divine condemnation is thereby always con- 
 nected with it. Johniii. 19. Here the Apostle’s atten- 
 tion is principally directed to that arrangement in the 
 moral economy of the world, by virtue of which, the 
 obscuration of a man’s knowledge of God, blinds him 
 with respect to practical duty, so as that he becomes ca- 
 pable of dishonouring himself. Theophylact: ὁ γὰρ τὸν 
 θεὸν μυὴ θέλων εἰδέναι, εὐθὺς καὶ narc τὸν βίον διαφθείρεται. 
 Even the heathen had observed how irreligious men 
 become blinded and enslaved to error as to practical 
 duties, falling into the ἀδόκιμος νοῦς, of which Paul 
 speaks, v. 28; and in this they saw a moral Nemesis 
 of the gods. Lycurg. adv. Leocr. p. 213. Οἱ γὰρ θεοὶ 
 οὐδὲν πρότερον ποιοῦσιν ἢ τῶν πονηρῶν ἀνθρώπων τὴν διάνοιαν 
 παράγουσι.Β So likewise the verses of Euripides, 
 
 ὅταν γὰρ ὀργὴ δοιμόνων βλάπτει τίνα, 
 
 τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ πρῶτον ἐξαφαιρεῖσαι φρενῶν 
 
 σὸν νοῦν τὸν ἐσθλὸν᾽, εἰς τε τὴν χείρω τρέπει 
 
 γνώμην" ἵν᾿ εἰδῆ μηδὲν ὧν ἁμαρτάνει. 
 See Ruhnken ad Vallej. Pat. ii. c. ὅ7. With regard 
 to the present case, it is obvious that such a thing as 
 a deification of nature, could only be introduced where 
 there was a defect in the religious and moral sense. 
 On the other hand, however, it was also inevitable 
 that, when once the worship of nature was established, 
 
 5. He that will not know God is speedily corrupted also in 
 his morals. 
 
 » There is nothing more common for the gods to do than 
 pervert the minds of wicked men. 
 
 H ‘ 
 
98 CHAPTER I. V. 24. 
 
 the religious and moral sense would, even from in- 
 fancy, be enfeebled, and at last gradually destroyed ; 
 whence immorality would necessarily arise. In like . 
 manner, as a tendency towards nature, as such, is the 
 peculiar property of both pantheism and polytheism, 
 so is the native tendency of theism towards morality. 
 We may form a still more precise conception of the 
 retribution thus inflicted upon the heathen. God had 
 been degraded not only beneath the divine, but even 
 beneath the human dignity, being represented in the 
 form of a beast. Hence, according to the secret laws 
 of this aberration, man came at last to sink not only 
 below his own rank, but below the brutes themselves. 
 The differentia constitutiva between man and the 
 other animals is the gift of reason. But this distine- 
 tion is done away for the time during which the blind 
 sinful inclination is awake: and where that is permit- 
 ted long and powerfully to predominate, the under- 
 standing is utterly destroyed, and man sinks to a per- 
 fect level with the brute. Nay, by certain unnatural 
 crimes, repugnant to the brute itself, he even debased 
 himself lower. A terrific judgment! 7 
 Διὸ xui παρέδωκεν. What has been said above de- 
 termines the sense of παρέδωκεν. It signifies neither a. 
 violent compulsion, nor yet a mere passive permis- 
 sion. Having once ordained as a law of his moral 
 government, that practical transgression should ema- 
 nate from the suppression of divine knowledge in the 
 mind of man, God did not, in the present instance, sus- 
 pend this law, but suffered it to come into operation ; 
 and thus by his judgment was evil begotten of evil. 
 It is hence obvious, that in another point of view, it 
 might also be said of the heathen, that they gave them- 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 94. 59 
 
 selves up. Eph. iv. 19. Strikingly illustrative of this 
 meaning of ragédwxev is the passage Ecclesiasticus iv. 
 19, where the author speaks of the conduct of divine 
 wisdom towards the man who voluntarily deviates from 
 her ways. “ But if he go wrong she will forsake him, 
 and give him over to his own ruin.” Comp. Acts vii. 
 42. Chrysostom: Καὶ γὰρ a Tis βασιλέως ὑιὸς ὧν, Tov 
 TUE ἀ]μιάσας ἕλοῆο εἶναι μεϊὰ λῃσϊῶν, κωὶ ἀνδροφόνων, καὶ 
 Ἰυμβωρύχων, καὶ Ἰὼ ἐκείνων προ]ιμήσειε τῆς ποϊρῴας οἰκίας, 
 ἀφίησιν οὐϊὸν ὁ πα]ὴρ, wole διὰ Ἰῆς πείρας αὐτῆς μαθεῖν Ἰῆς 
 οἰκείοις ἀνοίας Τὴν ὑπερβολήν. Compare Calvin, ad. ἢ. 1. 
 
 ἐν Taig ἐπιθυμίαις. This is most frequently coupled 
 with axadugoiav, which again is made to depend upon 
 παρέδωκεν; and the passage is rendered, he “ gave 
 them up through their lusts to uncleanness.” But the 
 Hebrew mode of construction is the most proper, ac- 
 cording to which, ἐν stands for εἰς, and the εἰς ἀκαθαρ- 
 σίαν is regarded as an elucidation of ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις. Thus 
 in the Hebrew, substantives intended to illustrate sub- 
 stantives going before, are connected with them by 5. 
 «“ He gave them up to their lusts, to uncleanness, ἢ, e. 
 so that they became unclean.” ° Axadago/a principally 
 sensualities. 
 
 lot dlc ζεσθαι Koppe very needlessly supposes pas- 
 sive. It is better to suppose it medial, and that ἐν 
 ἑαυ]οῖς stands for ἐν ἀλλήλοις, for which it is substituted, 
 Eph. iv. 32, and below, v. 27. It is so likewise even 
 in classical authors. See Ast. ad Plat. leg. p. 74. 
 
 * Were any king’s son, despising his father, to join himself 
 to robbers, murderers, and violators of tombs, and prefer their 
 company to his home, the father leaves him to himself, in or- 
 der that he may learn frem experience the excess of his folly. 
 
100 CHAPTER I. V. 25. 
 
 Ver. 25. οἵτινες, as being such, to be resolved by 
 γὰρ. This verse is only to be regarded as an illustra- 
 tive parenthesis intended to point out the retributive 
 nature of their self-inflicted dishonour. 
 
 μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ev τῷ Ψεύδει. The 
 words ἀλήθεια and Ψεῦδος may be regarded as they 
 have been by most interpreters, as abstracta pro con- 
 cretis. In which case, Ψεύδος requires to be translated 
 idol, what is not God. Thus in Hebrew the Pagan 
 deities are often called 9py, Is. xliv. 20; Jer. iii. 10, 
 xiii. 25. ᾿Αλήθειων τοῦ Θεοῦ, according to a well 
 known Hebraism, would then be equivalent to Θεὸς 
 ἀληθὴς, and the passage of Philo, 1. 3, De vita Mosis, 
 p- 578, would furnish a striking parallel, where that 
 author says, of the Israelites who had made the golden 
 calf, that Moses was amazed, ὅσον etidos ἀνθ᾽ ὅσης ἀλη- 
 θείας ixnrrazavro.® Itis possible, however, that ἀλήθεια 
 may here signify the true nature of God, in contra- 
 distinetion to that which is ascribed to him when he 
 is represented as corporeal, and resembling the crea- 
 tures. Ψεῦδος would then mean his zmaginary nature. 
 This signification of ἀλήθεια is frequent even among 
 profane authors, 6. g. A‘lian, Hist. Var. L. ii. ο. 3.. 
 ἵππος ἐν εἰκόνι stands in distinction to ἀληθινὸς ἵππος. 
 Polyb. Hist. i. 84, 6. ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ἀληθείως ἦν συνιδεῖν, 
 «“ Be convinced by the thing itself.” Ibid. 11..115, 2, 
 μάχη ἀληθινή. Cicero (Tuse. Q.].5,) ὁ. 1, uses pictura 
 and imagines viritutum for res and veritas. Ambrose 
 explains the passage as follows: Nomen Dei, qui ve- 
 rus est, dederunt his qui non sunt Dei. Lapidibus 
 
 * What a lie they had substituted for how greata reality ! 
 
 ᾿- 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 25. 101 
 
 enim, vel lignis, vel ceteris metallis auferentes quod 
 sunt, dant illis quod non sunt, hoc est immutare ve- 
 rum in falsum. So also Calvin. Neither is it a bad 
 exposition of Wolf to understand by ἀλήθεια the in- 
 nate idea of God, and by ψεῦδος the same in its ob- 
 scured form. 
 
 ᾿Εσεζάσθησαν. Σεξάξομαι is synonymous with σέδεσθαι 
 and λατρεύειν. Only some will here have σεδάζεσθαι 
 stand for inward reverence, in order that λατρεύειν, 
 which properly signifies external worship, may pre- 
 serve that meaning exclusively to itself: 
 
 παρὼ τὸν κτίσαντα is by some rendered passing by 
 the Creator, as Beza, Grotius, Heumann, and among 
 the ancients, Hilarius. But although occasionally 
 παρὼ may have this meaning, it is not the one which 
 it most frequently bears. The LXX. Josephus and 
 Philo use it always as the comparative particle, ex- 
 pressing the same as the Hebrew 12, above, more than, 
 Xenoph. Mem. i. 4, 14. raga τὰ ἄλλα Carn ὥσπερ θεοὶ 
 οἱ ἄνθρωποι ξιοτεύουσ. So likewise the Syrian. The 
 same thought which is here expressed by the Apostle, 
 is found also expressed by Philo (De Opif. m. p. 2.) 
 Ties τὸν κόσμον μᾶλλον ἢ τὸν χοσμοποιὸν θαυμάσαντες. It 
 is a doubtful point, however, whether Paul means, 
 that the deities represented by statues, were powers 
 of nature, in which ease he contends against a theo- 
 logia naturalis, or whether his thought be, that inas- 
 much as these representations were material, matter 
 was the object of adoration to the heathen. 
 
 ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς. This doxology it is customary 
 both for Jews and Mahometans to append to the 
 name of God, whenever any thing unworthy requires 
 
102 CHAPTER I. v. 25, 26. 
 
 to be said of the Divine Being, as if the writer wishes 
 to remove every suspicion of his acquiescing in the 
 impious words. In an Arabian work, Cod. MS. Bibl. 
 Reg. Berol. on the various religious sects of Isfrajini, 
 the pious Mahometan subjoins after every heresy of 
 which he makes mention: “ God is exalted above 
 what they say.” Doxologies of the kind are found 
 elsewhere in Paul’s writings, Gal. i. 5, 2 Cor. xi. 31- 
 εὐλογητὸς worthy of praise, blessed. Chrysostom: ἀλλ᾽ 
 od διὰ Ἰοῦτό τι παρεολάξη, φησίν" αὐτὸς μὲν γὼρ εἰς Tous 
 αἰῶνως εὐλογηϊός. ᾿Ἑν]αῦθα δείκνυσιν ὅτι οὐχ, ἑαυϊῷ ἀμύνων 
 εἴωσεν αὐ]οὺς, ὕπουγε αὐϊὸὺς οὐδὲν ἔπασχεν 
 
 V. 26. After having thus pointed out the retribu- 
 tive hand of God manifested by the accordance be- 
 tween the penalty inflicted upon the sin, and the sin 
 itself, he resumes the delineation of the former, which 
 had been commenced in verse 24, and he uses the 
 same words to connect as he had there done. Un- 
 natural lust, of which the Apostle here speaks as the 
 lowest stage of debasement, prevailed in the old world 
 among most heathen nations. In Greece it was in 
 some places forbidden by law, in others, as for example 
 in Crete, tolerated by the state. At the period in 
 which our Apostle writes, it broke out to the most 
 revolting extent not only at Rome, but over the 
 whole empire. He who is unacquainted with the 
 historical monuments of that age, especially Petro- 
 nius, Suetonius, Martial, and Juvenal, can scarcely 
 
 1 But thereby, says the Apostle, he received no wrong, for 
 he is blessed for ever. Here he shews, that it could not be to 
 avenge himself that God gave them up, for he suffered no- 
 thing. 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 26, 27. 103 
 
 figure to himself these excesses so frightful as they 
 really were. A view into this moral corruption has 
 been opened up by Meiners in his Geschichte des 
 Verfalls der Sitten und der Staatsverfassung der 
 Romer, Leipzig, 1791. See also Neander’s Denk- 
 wurdigkeiten, b. i. s. 143. 
 
 πάθή ἀτιμίως by a Hebrew idiom for ἀτιμότατα. 
 Chrysostom: σάσχει ἐν τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασιν ἡ ψυχὴ μᾶλλον, 
 καὶ καταισχύνεται, ἢ τὸ σῶμα ἐν τοῖς νοσήμασι The 
 Apostle here mentions, in the first instance, the 
 shamelessness of that sex, to which modesty is indis- 
 pensable. The degeneracy of women is spoken of 
 by Seneca, (Ep. 95.) Martial, (Epigr. 1. 1. ep. 90, ad 
 Bassam,) Athenzeus, (Deipnos, l. 13, p. 605.) Wo- 
 men addicted to the crime alluded to were common 
 in Lesbos, and were called τριβάδες, ἑταιρίστριαι.-----Κρῆ- 
 σις, ΒΒ Venereus. 
 
 V.27. ἐξεκαύθησαν. ᾿Ἑχκαίω antiqué ἐκκαύω, also 
 ardere, and χαταφλέγω, οαἴθεσθωι τῷ ἔρωτι are usual 
 expressions for lascivious desires, so ἔρεξις.--- Αντιμισθία, 
 merces par operae.— Ey ἑαυτοῖς. °Ey, like the Hebrew 
 3, instrumentum. ἑαυτοῖς stands for ἀλλήλοις one by 
 another.—Ilhcévy is, in the Septuagint, the translation 
 of Pwd revolt; it also means idolatry. 
 
 Of the punishment itself Theodoret thus speaks: 
 a γὰρ οὐδεὶς αὐτοῦς τῶν πολεμίων ἐπειράθη διαθεῖναι ποτὲ, 
 ταῦτα μετὰ πάσης ἀσπάζονται προθυμίας" καὶ ἣν οὐδεὶς ἂν 
 αὐτῶν δικαστὴς κατεψηφίσατο τιμωρίαν, ταύτην αὐτοὶ nab 
 ἑαυτῶν ἐπισπῶνται. Chrysostom, “Exedy γὰρ περὶ γεέν- 
 
 ™ More than the body by disease, does the soul suffer, and 
 is put to shame, by sin. 
 " What none of their enemies ever attempted to infliet 
 
104 CHAPTER I. V. 97, 98. 
 
 ung καὶ κολάσεως λέγων, νῦν οὐκ ἐδόκει πιστὸς εἴναι τοῖς 
 ἀσεβέσι, καὶ οὕτω ζῇν προαϊρουμένοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταγέ- 
 λαστύς; δείχνυσιν ἐν ἀυτῇ τῇ ἡδονῇ ταύτην τὴν κόλασιν οὖσαν. 
 εἰ δὲ οὐκ αἰσθάνονται, GAN ἥδονται, LI θαυμάσῃς" καὶ yae 
 καὶ οἱ μαινόμενοι καὶ οἱ φρενίτιδι κατεχόμενοι νόσῳ πολλὰ 
 ἑαυτοὺς ἀδικούντες, Kol ἐλεεινὰ πράσσοντες, ἐφ᾽ οἷς αὐτοὺς 
 ἕτεροι δωχρύουσι, γελῶσι καὶ ἐντρυφῶσι τοῖς γινομένοις αὐτοί. 
 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ τοῦτό φαμεν αὐτοὺς ἀπηλλάχθαι κολάσεως; 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ OF αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦτο ἐν χωαλεπωτέρῳ tives τιμῶ- 
 eid, ὅτι οὐδὲ ἴοασιν ἐν οἷς εἰσιν. οὐ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν νοσούν- 
 σων GAN ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγιωινόντων, δεῖ φέρειν τὰς 
 Ψήφους.5  Pelagius: Ita ut quasi amentes ipsi in se 
 suorum sint vindices delictorum. 
 
 V. 28. The Apostle had shewn in v. 21, that 
 the suppression of the innate knowledge of God 
 among the heathen, entailed, as a necessary conse- 
 
 upon them, they with all alacrity embrace, and what no judge 
 ever decreed as a punishment, they voluntarily entail upon 
 themselves. 
 
 ° For as when he spake of hell and punishment, he seemed 
 to the wicked, and such as followed that kind of life, to be 
 now unworthy of belief, and more an object of ridicule; he 
 shews that the punishment of the pleasure lies in the pleasure — 
 itself. And though men may not be sensible of this, but 
 rather the contrary, do not you, on that account, be surpris- 
 ed. In the same way, madmen and those who Jabour un- 
 der the delirium of a fever, do much injury to themselves, 
 and commit such pitiful things, as make others weep for 
 them; and yet they laugh all the while, and are delighted 
 with what they have done. But we do not, for that reason, 
 pronounce their case to be the less unhappy; on the contrary, 
 we deem their misery aggravated by the circumstance that 
 they are unconscious of it. For we must take the opinion not 
 of the sick, but of them that are whole. 
 
CHAPTER I. Vv. 98. 105 
 
 quence, a perversion of the reflective powers, and 
 wrong conceptions of the deity, such as they ought to 
 have been ashamed of. He extends this thought, and 
 shews that the same cause gave rise to a blindness 
 on moral subjects in general, which was no less 
 disgraceful to them. And it is always found, that 
 the want of a sense of religion blunts the sense 
 for general morality. This, the natural consequence 
 of things, according to the economy of the moral 
 world at present obtaining, and which is founded 
 on the nature of God, the Apostle again lays down, 
 as he had done before in verse 24, as a Divine 
 judgment. 
 
 ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει may be regarded as a circumlo- 
 cution for the verb ἐπιγινώσκειν, according to the com- 
 mon practice of forming such circumlocutions with 
 ἔχειν and ἐν, ἔχειν ἐν ὀργῇ for ὀργίζεσθαι, ἔχειν ἐν αἰτίαις 
 for αἰ σθαι: so in Latin, in spe habere for sperare. 
 See Vig. ed. Herm. p. 608. In this instance, how- 
 ever, it may possess a peculiar significancy, like ἔχειν Tov 
 λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μένοντα ev ὑμῖν, John v. 38. It seems in- 
 deed to denote continuance, persevering inthe knowledge 
 of God. Δοκιμάξειν originally means to prove ; then 
 to favour or choose, and is equivalent to δοκημον ἡγεῖσθαι ; 
 as δεδοκιμάσμεθα, 1 Thes. ii. 4,is also to be understood. 
 Comp. Joseph. Antiq. ii. 7. 8. τὰ μὲν οὖν ὀνόμαϊα δη- 
 λῶσαι τοὔτων οὐκ ἐδοκίμαζον, Where we must translate it 
 “I did not think it right.” The Arabian version 
 gives the meaning “ as they would not resolve.” In 
 the English translation, (one which is in many respects 
 admirable,) it is given with great precision, “as they 
 did not like to retain God in their knowledge.” 
 
106 CHAPTER I. V. 98. 
 
 Erasmus: Non visumest eis Deum quem cognoscebant, 
 agnoscere et venerari. 
 
 ἀδόκιμον vouv stands by paronomasia, with reference 
 to ἐδοκήμασαν. ἀδόκιμος may be taken either as active 
 or passive. As active, it would signify a mind znca- 
 pable of proving, as passive, reprobate. Erasmus: Mens 
 reproba quee omnibus displiceat. The Syrian, ὦ vain 
 mind. Beza characterises this sense as flat, and 
 doubtless, the other, viz. a blinded mind, one that 
 is no longer capable of judging, is far more signifi- 
 cant. It casts a stronger light upon the retribution 
 in the case. So Limborch, Wolf, and others. The 
 old French translation, which follows that of Beza, is 
 “un jugement dépourvu de tout jugement.” Adopt- 
 ing this sense, ἀδόκιμος νοῦς would be equivalent to axgi- 
 cia. It ought, however, to be taken into account, 
 that the use of this word, in an active sense, must be 
 considered as still undemonstrated. It is true, that 
 adjectives in sos, have an active no less than a 
 passive import, as, ex. gr. τρόφιμος, μάχιμος. With 
 most authors, however, they are used almost exclu- 
 sively in the passive signification. This is likewise the 
 ease with ἀδόκιμος, which frequently occurs, both in 
 the classics and in the New Testament. Beza holds 
 that it is employed actively in Tit. i. 16. Thus some-. 
 times νόμισμο, ἀδόκιμον, * money which the assayer 
 does not approve,” stands for οὐ χρήσιμον. Polyb. Hist. 
 vi. 45, 4, ἀδόκιμος ἐστὶ παρὰ Λωκεδαιμονιόις ἡ τοῦ διωφόρου 
 τίμησις. ““ΤἼὭΘ Lacedemonians declare all the worth of 
 money to be nothing.” 
 
 ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκον]α. This denotes in general actions 
 inconsistent with the moral dignity of man. It is well 
 
CHAPTER 1. v. 29, 90. 107 
 
 known as a terminus technicus of the Stoics, and by 
 Cicero is translated officia. 
 
 V. 29,30. Without any definite order the Apostle, 
 as at 2 Tim. ili. 2, now enumerates along catalogue 
 of sins, such as among the heathen were connected 
 with polytheism. It must not be left out of view 
 that this picture of tne corruption of morals must 
 have been the more striking to the Apositle’s read- 
 ers, inasmuch as they were eye witnesses of the 
 wild excesses to which depravity was carried in the 
 profligate metropolis. See besides the works of 
 Neander and Meiners already referred to, Corn. 
 Adami Observ. Philol. Theol. t. ii. Grotius and 
 Wetstein, a. ἢ. 1. The only testimony we produce 
 of contemporaries is that of the Greek Pausanias, 
 (τοῖο Descriptio, 1. viii. c. 2.) ᾿Επ᾽ ἐμοῦ δὲ (κακία 
 γὼρ δὴ ἐπὶ πλεῖσϊον ηὔξετο καὶ γῆν Te ἐπενξμνεῖο πᾶσων καὶ 
 πόλεις πάσας) οὔ]ε θεὸς ἐγίνετο οὐδεὶς eh ἐξ ἀνθρώπου πλὴν 
 ὅσον λόγῳ καὶ κολακείῳ πρὸς τὸ ὑπερέχον. And that of 
 the Roman Seneca. (De Ira, 1. ii. c. 8.) Omnia sce- 
 Jeribus ac vitiis plena sunt. Plus committitur, quam 
 quod possit coercitione sanari. Certatur ingenti quo- 
 dam nequitiae certamine: major quotidie peccandi 
 cupiditas, minor veracundia est. Expulso melioris 
 aequiorisque respectu, quocunque visum est, libido se 
 impingit ; nec furtiva jam scelera sunt, preeter oculos 
 eunt.. Adeoque in publicum missa nequitia est, et in 
 omnium pectoribus evaluit, ut innocentia non rara sed 
 nulla est. Numquid enim singuli aut pauci rupere 
 legem? Undique, velut signo dato, ad fas nefasque 
 miscendum coorti sunt. 
 
 Πεπληρωμένο. Even profane authors employ the 
 
108 CHAPTER I. V. 29, 30. 
 
 verba plenitudinis in reference to actions as well as dis- 
 positions. Πᾶς, sir of every kind. 
 
 Ilogveix is omitted in many manuscripts; by several, 
 it is placed after πονηρία. The Syrian reads σιχρίω in- 
 stead of πονηρία. It is obvious, therefore, that either 
 πονηρία or πορνεία is false. Judging from external rea- 
 sons, the last must be given up. According to inter- 
 nal, the first. ogveia, if wanting, would be an omis- 
 sion in the specification of all other sins; whereas 
 πονηρία is rendered superfluous by the use of zaxia. 
 Still, however, the very circumstance of rogve/a seem- 
 ing to be absent, furnishes a reason for its having been 
 interpolated. 
 
 πονηρία beside κακίω may have the special meaning 
 of cupiditas nocendi, malitia. Ammonius de diff. 
 verb: κακὸς πονηροῦ διωφέρει ὥσπερ.ὁ ἄκακος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, 
 κακὸς μὲν γὰρ ὁ πανοῦργος, πονηρὸς ὃξ ὁ δραστικὸς κακοῦ. 
 χακία may however bear the sense of wickedness, 
 which Suidas adopts in this passage. δόλος, Juv. 3, 
 41. Quid Rome faciam? mentiri nescio. Kaxo7j- 
 cia specially signifies malevolentia. The Vulgate 
 translates it malignitas. Ammon expounds zaxia 
 κεκρυμμένη. Ψιθυριστὴς a secret, καταλάλος AN Open - 
 slanderer. Θεοστυγεῖς may be taken passively, with 
 the circumflex upon the last syllable. This is its 
 usual sense, in which it is synonymous with θεήλατος. 
 Vul. Deo odibiles. But it may also be taken actively, 
 and then it has the accent upon the penult, and means 
 abhorrentes a Deo, being derived from θεοστύγης; a sy- 
 nonyme of θεομίσης, although it cannot be proved that 
 compounds of the third declension, when used in an 
 active sense, change the accent. Thus Theodoret, 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 29, 30, 91. 109 
 
 (Ecumenius, and Beza. As it is human vices which 
 are here spoken of, the active appears the more pro- 
 bable signification, and it would immediately lead the 
 mind to think of those heathen mentioned by Cyprian, 
 who, whenever a calamity befel them, used to cast 
 the blame of it upon God, and denied a providence. 
 Superstition, however, even begat a hatred of the gods, 
 as is shewn by Plutarch, in his work, περὶ δεισιδαιμο- 
 ving. “Ὑξρισταὶ is often, by Josephus, placed side by side 
 with ἀσεξὴς, the former denoting pride towards a fel- 
 low creature, the latter towards God. The Emperors 
 uttered the most shameful indecencies in the ears of 
 honourable men, and forced them to actions of the 
 same kind. See fearful vouchers of this fact, in the 
 life of Heliogabalus by /Elius Lampridius, in Script. 
 Hist. Aug. “Ὑπερηφάνους. Theoph: καταφρόνησις πλὴν 
 αὐτοῦ τῶν ἄλλων. ᾿Αλαζόνας This vice defined by 
 Plato ἕξις προσποιητικὴ ἀγαθοῦ ἢ ἀγαθῶν μὴ ὑπαρ- 
 χόντων. Polybius (Hist. 4. 3, 1.) speaks of an ἔω- 
 Qurog ἀλαζονεία among the Atolians. Plautus trans- 
 lates ἀλωζὼν gloriosus. Martial describes the manners 
 of the Romans as personatos. “Egeugéras κωκῶν. 2 
 ~ Mace. vii. 81. Σὺ δὲ πάσης κακίας εὑρετὴς γενόμενος. 
 _ Philo uses the same expression. Tacitus, Repertores 
 flagitiorum. In these times, new refinements in plea- 
 - sure and luxury, and new tortures and cruelties were 
 - invented every day. 
 V. 31. ᾿Ασύνεϊοι in the Hebrew sense, in which 
 ᾿ μωρὸς elsewhere appears, signifies stupid about things 
 - divine, and comprehends moral delinquency. Comp. 
 Ecclesiasticus xv. 7, 8, where dodvdo and ἁμιαξ]ωλοὶ are 
 
110 CHAPTER I. V. 91, 32. 
 
 placed parallel to each other. ‘Aclogyor without af- 
 fection for relations, especially without filial and pa- 
 rental love. EXmperors murdered their parents, and 
 violated their sisters. Ασσονδοι is by some codices 
 improperly omitted, perhaps from having been thought 
 entirely synonymous with ἀσύνθεῖοι ; it has the pecu- 
 liar meaning of tmplacable. So the Syrian and Vul- 
 gate. Polyb. (Hist. 1. 65, 6,) speaks of a σόλεμος 
 ἄσπονδος, a war for life or death, and Tacitus says of 
 the Romans of his age: Non sperandum esse, ut qui 
 pacem belli amore turbarent, bellum pacis charitate 
 deponerent. ᾿Ανελεήμονες. Melancthon: Crudelis est 
 qui leedit alium atrociter sine justa causa, immisericors, 
 qui, cum probabilis causa est, non mitigat justam as- 
 peritatem. 
 
 V. 32. By these words the Apostle, on the one 
 hand, seeks to complete the picture of the moral cor- 
 ruption of the heathen, by specifying, as it were, its 
 extreme point, and on the other, intends again to in- 
 culcate the leading thought, that on account of that 
 moral corruption, they are involvedin guilt. Accord- 
 ingly, he refers back to the fact that they have an in- 
 ward law (6. ii. 14,) which in spite of the suppression 
 of their original knowledge of God, avouches to them 
 the baseness of their dispositions. With respect to his 
 designing in these words to mark as it were the 
 acme of the depravity, this may seem less fully at- 
 tained, inasmuch as to approve of wickedness may be 
 thought less criminal than the commission of it. It 
 must, however, be remarked, that in many instances, 
 civil law prevents the breaking out of evil, and that 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 32. lil 
 
 what chiefly imparts moral worth to man is the na- 
 ture of his dispositions or inclinations. Moreover, 
 there are many manifestations of sin which emanate 
 from the momentary power of passion, and are after- 
 wards seriously repented; and hence it implies a 
 higher degree of depravity, when in cold blood we 
 ean find satisfaction in the wickedness of others. The 
 scope of the Apostle is contravened, by supposing, 
 as Grotius does, that the philosophers are here in- 
 tended, as those who, even in theory, had pronounced 
 certain sins to be lawful; Aristotle justifying revenge, 
 and the Epicureans and Stoics sodomy and incest. 
 The Apostle evidently speaks of something which 
 applies to the heathen as such. 
 
 Δικαίωμα, τοῦ Θεοῦ equivalent to prt law or ordi- 
 nance. In profane authors, sentence, right, statute. 
 Melancthon, correctly: Lex nature eademque Dei; 
 est enim lux a Deo in mentibus nostris condita. 
 
 ἄξιοι θανάτου. Θάναῖϊος may either be taken in a 
 more extensive sense for misery, punishment, or ina 
 more confined, for death, the greatest of all bodily 
 punishments for the greatest of all transgressions, 
 defection from God, which is manifest in these sins. 
 
 We have still to mention another reading, given 
 among the Greeks by Isidorus Pelusiota, so early as 
 the fifth century, and which has found its way into the 
 Vulgate: οὔ μόνον of ποιοῦν]ες αὐτὼ ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ συνευδοκοῦν-- 
 1ες. It is, however, neither confirmed by external 
 authority, nor does it harmonize with the context or 
 the scope of the Apostle. And there are just as few 
 reasons, external and internal, to approve of the inter- 
 
119 CHAPTER 1. V. 82. 
 
 polation of οὐ συνῆκαν before ὅτι, which has been made 
 in some later codices and the vulgate, which thus 
 translates: Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent non 
 intellexerunt quoniam (quod)......morte digni sunt. 
 This reading has obviously had its source in the inabi- 
 lity of those who proposed it to seize the profound 
 meaning in the words of Paul, which led them to sub- 
 stitute another, in order to escape from their embarrass- 
 ment. 
 
CHAPTER SECOND. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 AFTER having thus described the miserable state of the 
 heathen through sin, the Apostle turns to the Jews, who 
 looked upon themselves as greatly superior ; and at first, by 
 evident allusions, without directly naming them, but after- 
 wards using undisguised rebukes, he shews that their con- 
 dition is even worse than that of the heathen, because, 
 while the perfect knowledge with which they are favoured, 
 and on which they place reliance, increases their respon- 
 sibility, they still manifested no greater holiness in their 
 life. Accordingly God, whose decisions are never influenced. 
 by partiality, must necessarily judge the Jews, supposing 
 their dispositions to be worse, by a severer rule than the 
 heathen. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1, The mere knowledge of what is good does not free from 
 ai. ¥. tI 1 
 
 2. God judges of men according to the different means of 
 grace and degrees of knowledge vouchsafed to them. V- 
 1214, 
 
 3. By this rule, the Jew who is favoured with a variety of 
 means of grace and superior knowledge, and still breaks 
 the law, is worse than the heathen, who, without these 
 
 external advantages, is faithful to the law within him. V- 
 17—29. 
 
114 CHAPTERAK Vane 
 
 PART .FIRSE 
 
 THE MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT WHICH IS GOOD 
 DOES NOT EXEMPT FROM SIN. v. 1—lI. 
 V. 1. Ir entered into the plan of the Apostle to speak 
 of the Jews as well as the Gentiles, and prove to 
 them also their need of salvation. A natural transi- 
 tion to this subject here presented itself. In the last - 
 verse of the first chapter, he ineidentally mentioned 
 that the heathen, although possessing a knowledge 
 of the Divine will, approved notwithstanding of sin ; 
 and this very naturally called his countrymen, the 
 Jews, to his remembrance, who were always ready 
 to condemn the heathen as sinners, and who might, 
 from the judgment he had pronounced, have taken 
 occasion for vain glory. He does not as yet, how- 
 ever, openly state the contrast between those who 
 recognise sin to be criminal, and yet approve of 
 and take pleasure in it, and those who, although they 
 condemn, still practise it, as a contrast obtaming be- 
 tween heathens and Jews; but he states it, which 
 indeed it is, as one applicable to all men. He thus in 
 some sort, divides mankind into avowed sinners and 
 pretended saints. In a way precisely similar, he had said 
 in Vv. xvill.c. 1, ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέξειων τῶν κατεχόντων, Where 
 the truth is brought forward as of universal applica- 
 tion. Bugenhagen: Hee non solwm de Judeis ac- 
 cipienda, verum de omnibus hominibus qui faciles 
 
CHAPTER Il. V. 1. 115 
 
 sunt ad judicandum alios, tamen precipue de Judzis 
 dicuntur. That St. Paul, in this general address, has 
 the Jews principally in view, appears more clearly 
 even at the 4th and 5th verse, and at the 11th it comes 
 fully into light. Augustine (Prop. 8.) and Stolz take 
 the same view. ‘The context is decisive against sup- 
 posing with Clericus, that he here speaks of the Gen- 
 tile philosophers, or with Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
 Grotius, ofthe Gentile magistrates. It is also decisive 
 against the opinion of Calvin, that he alludes to the 
 mutual judgments which the heathens passed upon 
 each other. 
 
 Διό. To what this causal particle refers, it is not 
 easy to say, as we should rather have expected one 
 - expressive of a contrast; such as ἀλλὰ. We must 
 presume, that the Apostle had in view, what does not 
 at once meet the eye, a causal connection between the 
 inexcuseableness of the person judging, and the 32d 
 verse ; and this, as Grotius has remarked, is just that 
 connection which we have already sought to trace. 
 He very frequently appends a long explication to 
 a thought founded but not enunciated, or perhaps 
 only incidentally expressed in the preceding con- 
 text. The διό here denotes some such sequence 
 of ideas as the following. “I have upbraided those 
 who, having a sense of what is right, approve of sin 
 in others. By this, however, it is not meant that 
 every one is justified who merely condemns his neigh- 
 bour.” 
 
 ὦ ἄνθρωπε. Donatus upon Terent. Adelph. i. 2, 31. 
 Homo de iis dicimus, quos parce reprehendimus. So 
 
116 CHAPTER 11. V. I, 2. 
 
 Plut. De Superstitione c. 7: gu μὲ, ἄνθρωπε, διδόναι 
 δίκην. 
 
 ἐν ᾧ may signify after the Hebrew, because that, like 
 "WN; so Erasmus and Beza. It may also be taken 
 in the Hebrew acceptation, in the matter wherein. So 
 the Vulgate. This gives force to the conclusion. 
 
 κρίνεις, according to the Hebrew, synonymous with 
 naraxcive. It may, perhaps, appear extraordinary 
 in the Apostle to assume, as he here does, that the 
 Jews would at once acknowledge that with which 
 he charges them. But, in the first place, he as yet 
 speaks, without having named the Jew, and only co- 
 vertly summons him, as it were, to search his con- 
 science ; just as Jesus did with the Pharisees, in the case 
 of the adulteress. Moreover, it must also be remarked, 
 that at this period, depravity among the Jews was un- 
 precedentedly great. In proof of which, we require 
 only to open Josephus, and peruse his delineation-of 
 the life of the courtiers, and history of the court of 
 Herod the Great. 
 
 V.2. The connection of this with the preceding 
 verse is well given by Calvin: Concilium Pauli est 
 blanditias hypocritis excutere, ne se magnum aliquod 
 adeptos putent, si vel a mundo laudentur, vel se ipsi 
 absolvant ; quia longe aliud examen eos in ccelo 
 maneat. 
 
 οἴδαμεν. Koppe deems that there is here an allu- 
 sion to the Jews, who boasted that they alone pos- 
 sessed the true knowledge. But the Apostle has ra- 
 ther in view, those apprehensions of a divine judgment, 
 which are spread among all mankind, and to which 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 2, 3, 4. 117 
 
 he had alluded in verse 32. Grotius: Ipsa ratio nos 
 docet. 
 
 κατὰ ὠλήθειων in profane authors, is the common 
 form of asseveration ; in like manner as ὄντως, or τὸ 
 ἀληθές. The Hellenistic dialect generally uses ἐν ἀλη- 
 θείῳ or ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας in this sense. Inthe LXX. however, 
 nar ἀλήθειαν signifies agreeably to truth or justice. Ac- 
 cording to which Beza expounds correctly : Ex ipsius 
 rei natura, de qua apud Dei tribunal dijudicanda que- 
 ritur, non ex ulla recti specie. This signification like- 
 wise agrees better with the train of thought, as Paul 
 is speaking against hypocrites. 
 
 V. 3. The nerve of the first part of the chapter. 
 Knowledge without corresponding dispositions is of 
 no avail. Pelagius: Si enim tu peccatorem tibi simi- 
 lem judicas, quanto magis Deus justus te judicabit in- 
 justum ? Chrysostom: τὸ σὸν οὐκ ἐξέφυγες κρίμα, καὶ τὸ 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ διαφεύξῃ." 
 
 V.4. The Apostle presupposes that the hypocrite, 
 or, to take it now more specially, the Jew, will be too 
 hardened to acknowledge his sinfulness, and will rather 
 choose to infer his innocence from his impunity, which 
 is the common character of hypocrisy ; he therefore 
 appeals pointedly to another life. Could it be sup- 
 posed that he here speaks of the Israelites as a people 
 collectively, which is not probable, the Jew might 
 perhaps have concluded from the permanence of the 
 theocracy, the favour of God towards him. Beza, 
 who imagines the punishment of the heathen to be in- 
 tended, remarks, that from the prosperity and growth 
 
 * You have not escaped your own judgment, and shall you 
 escape that of God ? 
 
ea 
 sie 
 
 118 CHAPTER II. V. 4. 
 
 of the Roman empire, they inferred that they enjoyed 
 the divine approval. But it is quite obvious that the 
 Apostle does not again revert to the heathen. The sub- 
 stance of the whole argument is thus given by Theo- 
 phylact: E/ δὲ dia σὸ μήπω κολασθῆνοωι, κατωφρονεῖς τοῦ 
 πλούτου τῆς ἀγαθότητος, ald τοῦ]ο εἰς πλείω σοι κόλοσίν 
 ἐστιν. Ἢ γὼρ μοκροθυμία, τοῖς μὲν πρὸς διόρθωσιν αὑτῇ 
 χρωμένοις, σωτήριος" τοῖς δὲ εἰς προσθήκην ἁμαρτίας Camo 
 νῶσιν αὐ]ὴν, τιμωρίας μείζονός ἐστιν ἀφορμή" οὐ παρὰ τὴν 
 αὐτῆς φύσιν, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τήν ἐκείνων σκληρότητοι" 
 
 πλοῦτος τῆς χρηστότητος. The Hellenists are fond 
 of translating the Hebrew 3% by πλοῦτος. ΡΒ. Ixix. 
 163 evi. 7. Χρηστότης is love in general. ἀνοχὴ and 
 μακροθυμία is this love modified by God's relation to 
 SINNETS. 
 
 ᾿Αγνοῶν. Αγνοξω signifies not merely not to know, 
 but not to acknowledge or consider. So in the He- 
 brew y', and also in the Hellenistic, Wisdom of Solo- 
 mon, vii. 22. 
 
 τὺ χρηστὸν. The neuter adjective for the substan- 
 tive χεηστόϊης, as frequently occurs. See i. 19. 
 
 “Aye. In the Hebrew, as in other languages, verbs 
 in the present often denote endeavour. (S. Glassius, 
 Philol. sacra, p. 765.) So here seeks to lead thee. | 
 
 > If you take occasion from your impunity hitherto, to de- 
 spise the riches of his goodness, that itself will aggravate 
 your punishment. For to those who improve it for their 
 amendment, his long-suffering is of saving efficacy, but to such 
 as waste it in accumulating sin, it is the occasion of a doom 
 more severe; not by reason of its own nature, but of their 
 hardness. 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 5, 6. 119 
 
 V. 5. By neglecting to take advantage of the long- 
 suffering of God for his salvation, man adds impe- 
 nitence to his sinfulness, and thus makes an accumu- 
 lation of guilt. This is called θησαυρίζειν, which the 
 LXX. use instead of ἼΝΝ, Amos iii. 10, and also for 
 ΣΝ. In the same manner the Rabbins employ 3)) 
 metaphorically. Bava Bathra, f.xi.2. Hardness of 
 heart betokens a deficiency of love. Love inclines to 
 the reception of the beloved object ; hence, suscepti- 
 bility for the μακροθυμία of God. 
 
 Ἔν ἡμέρῳ ὀργῆς does not merely stand for εἰς ἡμέραν. 
 The expression is pictorial; the Apostle figuring to 
 himself the event. ‘The Old Testament, agreeably to 
 the idea of a retribution which pervades it, always re- 
 presents the Divine blessing as coming after a previ- 
 ous time of sifting and purification. Such seasons are 
 called NI OV, sometimes Oy ON Ez. xxii. 24.— 
 Y Hy CY Zeph. ii. 2, 3. The New Testament pro- 
 claims such a period of general sifting; after which, 
 the kingdom of Christ, purified from all the dross of 
 evil and sin, shall be gloriously established. This 
 great period bears particularly the name of ἡμέρα ὀργῆς 
 Rev. vi. 17; also ἡ μέλλουσα, and ἡ ἐρχομένη ὀργὴ. “Ἣμέ- 
 eo is figurative. In the Koran it is even more empha- 
 tic, where the day of judgment is called the Hour, c. 9, 
 Sura 6. 
 
 V.6. The ἔργα of a man, are the manifestation 
 of his disposition. His disposition cannot be sanc~ 
 tified otherwise than by his being filled with the love 
 of God, and that can only take place when he is 
 penetrated with the belief of things divine. Hence, 
 the texts in which salvation is made dependent upon 
 
190 CHAPTER II. V. 6, 7. 
 
 works, do not stand in contradiction to those, where 
 
 it is made to depend upon religious faith. In a cer- 
 
 tain degree, even the morality of the heathen may 
 
 rest upon religious faith, and in so far be pure. Ac-— 
 cordingly, the Apostle does not here mean the ἔργα 
 
 νομοῦ, Which only in an outward manner, correspond 
 
 with the requirements of a holy God, but the ἔργα ἀγαθά. 
 
 Whether at all, and to what extent, it is possible for 
 
 man without the redeeming influence of the Spirit of 
 Christ, to execute such ya ἀγαθὰ, and yield entire 
 
 satisfaction to the law of God, are questions which 
 
 he leaves totally untouched. His only object is to 
 
 designate two distinct classes of men; those who, 
 
 possessing moral seriousness, really labour in their 
 
 actions to fulfil the law, and those who, pretending to be 
 
 holy, condemn others, and deceive themselves about 
 
 their own condition. 
 
 Vi. 7. καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ. “Ὑπομονὴ is perse~ 
 verance. In this sense, the verb is used by classical 
 authors. Plato de Leg. x. 9. In Xenoph. Cyrop, lL. 
 vii. c. 1. § 30, it signifies the continuance of an enemy’s 
 attack. So Cicumenius: ὑπομονὴν εἰπὼν, γεννωΐως 
 ἔχειν διδάσκει πρὸς τοὺς πειρασμούς." Paul wishes to ex- 
 press that occasional virtuous emotions are not enough, 
 but that the direction of the character must be habitual- 
 ly towards what is good. It is clear from the union of 
 these words with ζητοῦσι, that he pre-supposes the ex- 
 istence of a disposition, and regards perseverance in 
 action as the symptom of a lively principle within. 
 
 * By the word perseverance he teaches us vigorously to re- 
 sist temptation. 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 7, 8. 191] 
 
 Δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν is ἃ Hendiatria bor- 
 rowed from the Hebrew, and should be translated 
 a glorious and honourable immortality. Reversely, 
 Ambrose considers ἀφθαρσίαν, as a predicate of σιμὴ, 
 and this gives him occasion to make the beautiful 
 remark. “ Paul here speaks of the superior degree 
 of glory which awaits the Christian in the life to come. 
 In presenti enim honor vel gloria, frequenter amit- 
 titur, quia corruptibilis est qui dat, et quod dat, et 
 qui accipit.”. Τιμὴ is often coupled with δόξα. Heb. ii. 
 7, 1 Tim. i. 17, especially 1 Pet. i. 7. And then the 
 two words answer to ΤΠ ἼΠ. Chrysostom has the 
 following fine observation upon them as here used, 
 « Behold how in discoursing of the things to come, 
 being unable to describe them, he but calls them glory 
 and honour. For as they surpass all that is human, 
 human things cannot supply any image adequate to 
 represent them. From among the objects of this earth, 
 however, which seem to us the brightest, he instances, 
 (and he could do no more,) glory, honour and life.” 
 CEcumenius does violence to the language, when he 
 here supposes a hyperbaton, and construes the words in 
 the following manner: τοῖς καθ᾿ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ 
 ζητοῦσι ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἀποδώσει δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν. 
 Equally violent and unnecessary is the procedure of 
 Beza and Herzog, who construe ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ with δόξαν, 
 and thus translate : Qui secundum patientem exspecta- 
 tionem querunt boni operis gloriam. In that case, 
 ἀφθαρσία would require to be construed in like man- 
 ner with ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ, which would be totally unintel- 
 ligible. 
 
 V. 8. τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας. °ES forms with the nouna 
 
199 CHAPTER II. V. 8. 
 
 periphrasis for the adjective, as in Phil. i. 16 and 17, 
 where we have both οἱ ἐξ ἀγάπης and of ἐξ ἐριθείας. 
 So also of 2% στοᾶς and οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, 1 John iv. 5. 
 Theophylact explains it, πονηροὶ ἀπὸ φιλονεικίας. Beza: 
 Litigiosi sive dogmata sive mores spectentur. Pela- 
 gius: Contentiosus qui aliquid contra suam conscien- 
 tiam nititur defensare. This would be consistent 
 with the ordinary usage of the Greek language. The 
 Hellenistic sense of the word, however, is greatly pre- 
 ferable, corresponding as it does with the usual sig- 
 nification of 3 ΓΤ 40 be stubborn, which is specially 
 employed to. characterize the wicked, Deut. xxi. 20. 
 Hence, the Septuagint have also ἐρεθίζειν τὸν θεὸν and 
 ἐρίζειν τῷ θεῷ. In the Athiopian version, it is render- 
 ed the apostate. 
 
 ᾿Απειθοῦσι μὲν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. What ἀληθείω is here 
 meant? It is most natural to suppose the same which 
 was treated of in the first chapter, viz. the universal 
 moral and religious sense. Correctly Calvin: Veri- 
 tatis nomine simpliciter regula divine voluntatis, que 
 sola veritatis lux est, designatur. Nihil medium est 
 quominus in peccati servitium mox concedant, qui 
 subjugari a Domini lege noluerunt. Pelagius and 
 CEcumenius take it in a more restricted sense, viz. 
 the truth of the gospel ; and Ambrose in a narrower 
 still, the truth that there is an eternal judgment. The 
 ἀπειθέω signifies a headstrong intentional sinning. 
 Theodoret: οὐ τοῖς ἐκ περιστάσεώς τινος ὀλισθαΐνουσιν εἰς 
 αὐτὴν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μετὰ πολλῆς αὐτὴν μετιοῦσι σπουδῆς.ἃ 
 
 * Not those who fall into it by some misfortune, but those 
 who pursue it with great eagerness. 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 8, 9. 123 
 
 πειθομένοις δὲ. CE cumenius ἑκὼν γὰρ πείθεται ὁ πειθύμε- 
 νος. ᾿Αδικίῳᾳ is opposed, as in 18th verse of the Ist 
 chapter, to ὠληθείᾳ, unrighteousness, sinful inclinations, 
 which withstand the moral consciousness. The terms 
 θυμὸς καὶ ὀργή are probably synonymous, and both are 
 used to strengthen the emphasis. A difference be- 
 tween them may, however, be discovered. Ammo- 
 ius: Θυμὸς μὲν ἐστὶ πρόσκαιρος, ὀργὴ δὲ πολυχρόνιος μνήσι- 
 κακία. Eustathius makes θυμὸς anger rising within, 
 ὀργὴ vented outwardly. When aversion and positive 
 anger at sin, and, in so far, penal justice, are ascribed 
 to God, we must necessarily abstract the element of 
 passion and irregularity, which usually mingles with 
 these emotions in human beings, and is even implied 
 in the terms θυμὸς and ὀργὴ. There is here an ano- 
 maly in the syntax, seeing that these words, like ζωὴν 
 αἰωνίον ought to stand in the accusative; but while in 
 that case, Paul supplies ἀποδώσει, in the present he 
 probably had καταβήσεται in his mind. 
 
 V.9. This and the 10th verse contain a summary 
 of what was said in verses 6, 7, and 8; the Apostle 
 besides, expressly intimating to whom his words in 
 these former verses were meant to apply, viz. to Jews 
 and Heathen. Beza: Thesis posterior ad hypothesin 
 applicatur. A verb requires to be supplied to ἐπὶ 
 πᾶσαν ψυχὴν. AS θυμὸς καὶ ὀργή expressed what are the 
 effects of human sin upon God, so do θλέψις and ore- 
 voyweic the manifestation of these effects towards man. 
 The two words are frequently coupled in profane 
 authors, as TPIS) TIS the synonymous ones are in 
 Hebrew, Is. xxx. 6. The distinction between them, 
 if a distinction must be made, is suggested by Paul 
 
194 CHAPTER 11.ν. 9, 10, 11. 
 
 himself in 2 Cor. iv. 8, θλιβόμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ στενοχωρούμενοι, 
 where, by the first, he intends outward calamities ; 
 by the second, secret anguish. 
 
 ἐπὶ πᾶσωαν Ψυχὴν. Ambrosius: Desuper animam — 
 dicit, ut spiritualem poenam intelligas, non corporalem, 
 quia animam invisibilibus peenis arctabitur. It is 
 better, as Pelagius observes, to take Ψυχὴ, as like 
 w5) paraphrastic for person. 
 
 ᾿Ιουδαΐου τε πρῶτον καὶ “Ἑλληνος. πρῶτον 15 here to be 
 rendered in the first instance, and the import of the 
 words is, that Divine justice will begin by manifesting 
 itself upon those who stood in the most defined and in- 
 timate relation to it. It will be the Jews who shall, 
 as it were, first make their appearance before the judg- 
 ment seat, and that, in consequence of their close con- 
 nection with God. Precisely the same is the mean- 
 ing of πρῶτον in the similar expression, c.i. 8. And 
 hence, the explication here given of it by Origen and 
 Chrysostom, although involving a just principle, is 
 not admissible. They suppose it to express, that the 
 Jews, as having possessed a greater measure of know- 
 ledge, will be so much the more severely punished. 
 Chrysostom : Ὁ γὰρ πλείονος ἀπολαύσας τῆς διδασκαλίας, 
 μείζονα ἂν εἴη καὶ σιμωρίαν ἄξιος ὑπομεῖναι παρανομῶν.“ 
 
 V. 10 and 11. Δόξα καὶ rij is the Hebrew 
 TUT TT. Εἰρήνη is ΟΦ salvation, blessing, NW) 
 ("35 to receive a person, kindly entertain, favour ; 
 and then in a bad sense, when applied to a judge, to 
 
 © For he that has had the advantage of better instruction, 
 must deserve to endure a greater punishment when he trans- 
 gresses. 
 
CHAPTER II. Vv. 12. 125 
 
 regard the person instead of the cause. ‘This in the 
 New Testament is the sense of πρύσωπον λαμβάνειν ΟΥ̓ 
 εἰς πρόσωπον βλέπειν. What the Apostle therefore means 
 to say is, that in the judgment, God will not favour 
 the Jew for the sake of his person, 7. 6. because he is 
 a Jew, but look only to the merits of the case, even 
 purity and holiness. 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 GOD JUDGES MEN ACCORDING TO THE DIFFERENT 
 MEANS OF GRACE AND DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE 
 VOUCHSAFED TO THEM. v. 12—l16. 
 
 V. 12. The general proposition which the Apostle 
 had announced in verse 11, he now applies to the par- 
 ticular case. If God were to favour the Jews, as such, 
 he would try them by the lower standard, according 
 to which he tries the heathen. Correctly Cicume- 
 nius: Δεῖξαι θέλει ἐν δύο amagrnonow lovdaiw τε καὶ ἀκρο- 
 βύστῳ, χεῖρον τὸν ᾿Τουδαῖὸν τιμμωρεῖσθοωι, ὅσῳ κοὶ νόμου ὁδηγοῦ 
 εὐπορήσας ἥμαρτεν. ἘΠΕῚ ὅσῳ πλείονος ἀπήλαυσεν ἐπιμελείας: 
 τοσούτῳ μείζονα, δώσει δίκην. ἷ 
 
 ᾿Ανόμως is commonly equivalent to παρανόμως: but 
 here to χωρὶς νόμου. Compare a passage which throws 
 light upon it, 1 Cor. ix. 21. We must not, however, 
 
 f He wishes to shew, that in the case of a Jew and a Gentile 
 having sinned, the Jew, inasmuch as he has had the advan- 
 tage of the law to direct him, is more severely punished. In 
 proportion to the care bestowed upon him will be the heavyi- 
 ness of his chastisement. 
 
196 CHAPTER II. V. 12. 
 
 strictly assume, that the heathen knew nothing of a 
 Divine law. The νόμος here meant is the will of God, 
 in so far as it was expressed by the law of Moses. 
 In verse 15, the Divine law is referred to as written 
 upon the heart of the heathen. 
 
 ᾿Απολλύεσθαι, like JAN to which in the LXX. it 
 answers, to become wretched, be brought to dishonour. 
 Ecclesiasticus: Βασιλεὺς ἀπαΐδευτος ἀπολεῖ τὸν Ady αὐτοῦ. 
 CEcumenius explains the ἀνόμως in this second passage, 
 οὐ μετὰ ἀκριβείας νόμου, ὅ δηλοῖ τὴν σύμμετρον ἀπώλειαν. 
 
 Ἔν νόμῳ signifies as much as ἔννομος, used by Paul, 
 1 Cor. ix. 21, having the law. In like manner, οἱ ἐν 
 περιτομῇ, those who are cireumeised. 
 
 κριθήσονται. The Vulgate, judicare. The ordinary 
 signification to condemn is preferable. 
 
 dia vowove As the voice of the moral sense, which 
 the perverse and ungodly bias of the will, may now 
 sometimes overpower, but which nothing can destroy, 
 shall bear testimony against the heathen, so against 
 the subjects of the theocracy, shall the declaration 
 of the will of God, once engraven upon stone, and 
 therefore never to the effaced. Kant and Fichte in 
 the Critik aller Offenbarung, draw our attention 
 to the fact, that it is possible for man to doubt whether 
 the voice of the moral law in his heart be really from 
 God, and that hence arises a necessity for an external 
 discovery and ratification of it, in order to establish 
 its divinity. We have to add, in reference to this 
 passage, that it is also possible for the inward judge to 
 be deceived, and to have his eye obscured, whereas, 
 the law, as externally revealed, is unalterable. Hence , 
 a more inexorable judgment awaits the Jews. The 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 12, 13. 127 
 
 thought in general is as follows:—“ The decisions 
 of God are always made with a regard to the parti- 
 cular relations of the party, and hence, both Jew and 
 Greek shall, each in his own way, be proved guilty 
 before him.” 
 
 V. 13. In this and in the following verse, the Apostle 
 appends an explanation of what he had said. In the 
 one, he justifies himself from the possible imputa- 
 tion of lowering too far the Israelitish law; in the 
 other, from the objections of those who might find 
 fault with his ascribing the possession of a law to the 
 heathen no less than to the Jew. It is impossible for 
 man to conceal from himself the need he has of sal.- 
 vation, and the secret longing which he feels for some 
 certainty as to the mode of attaining it, a sentiment 
 which is itself a spark kindled by God. At the same 
 time, however, the tendency to seek the blessedness for 
 which he sighs in the creature instead of the Creator, is 
 so strong, that he would fain come to a compromise 
 with the desires of his soul, and secure what he wants 
 by external means, in order to resign himself undis- 
 turbed to the enjoyment of what is unconnected with 
 God. This perverted tendency is particularly ap- 
 parent in Judaism and Catholicism. According to the 
 intention of God, the law should only have been the 
 means of attaining a higher end, even holiness. In 
 place of which, Israel wished to convert the means 
 into the end, and imagined that in the mere pos- 
 session of the law, they held a magical earnest of 
 salvation. The word axgourjs is to be explained 
 by the fact, that to the great majority of the Jewish 
 people the Mosaic law was known, not by personal 
 
128 CHAPTER II. V. 13, 14. 
 
 reading, but by listening to the Sabbath lessons. 
 Even the Greeks, however, sometimes styled readers 
 of ἀκούοντες. Polyb. Hist. i. 13, 6. Frequently also as 
 ib. ix. 1, 2, ἀκροατὴς. Δικαμοῦσθαι; to be declared inno- 
 cent. 
 
 V.14. Chrysostom: od ἐκβάλλω τὸν νόμον, φησὶν, 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐντεῦθεν δικαιῶ τὰ ἐθνη.8 “Orav γὰρ. The γὰρ 
 refers to ποιεῖν τὸν νόμον, which the Apostle here as- 
 cribes to the heathen, likewise annexing the proof, 
 that, to a certain degree, they also possess ἃ αν. Φύσει, 
 the same as sponte, by innate instinct. Φύσις denotes 
 among classical authors ingenium, nativa virtus. Else- 
 where it is opposed to σλαστῶς, and equivalent to 
 ὄντως. 
 
 τὼ τοῦ νόμου OF τὸν νόμον ποιεῖν, OF τὸν νόμυον πράσσειν; ν. 2d, 
 to fulfil the law. When they do so, their own moral 
 consciousness is their rule. There is a parallel pas- 
 sage Arist. Ethic. iv. 14. ὁ δὴ χαρίεις καὶ ἐλεύθερος 
 οὕτως ἕξει οἷον νόμος ὧν ἑαυτῷ: The Rabbins also dis- 
 tinguish between FYDYIIT) ΠΣ NT see Buxt. 
 Lex. p. 1349. It may be objected to this interpreta- 
 tion, that it seems to imply, that the heathen some- 
 times really fulfilled the law of God. This, however, 
 cannot be the meaning of the Apostle, for he had be- 
 fore described them as all involved in moral obdura- 
 tion and perversity. It has accordingly been sug- 
 gested to give ποιεῖν τὼ τοῦ νόμου, the meaning of Idem 
 facere quod lex facit, zd. est. honesta preecipere, turpia 
 vetare. So first Beza, and after him, Elsner, Capel- 
 
 & Ido not reject the law, but even from thence I justify the 
 Gentiles. . 
 
CHAPTER II. v. 14, 15. 129 
 
 lus, Limborch, Flatt and others. Taking the words 
 in this signification, they may be easily connected 
 with what follows. But it is obvious, that ποιεῖν τὰ 
 σοῦ νόμου requires to be interpreted in the same sense, 
 as that in which ποιεῖν τὸν véuoy is so frequently used ; 
 it seems also manifesly to correspond with the ποιηταὶ 
 νόμου of the 13th verse. Moreover, it cannot be said 
 that in the preceding delineation of the depravity of 
 the heathen, the Apostle meant to comprehend every 
 individual, without exception, and deny the possibility 
 of at least an exterior morality. Now it is only of 
 such an outward conformity to the law, that he here 
 speaks, and to that in many of the relations of life, he 
 never would have disputed the claims of the heathen. 
 We have still farther to add, that when the Gentile 
 contemplated the νόμος γραπτὸς within him, as ἃ com- 
 mandment inscribed by God himself upon his heart, he 
 might feel himself excited to obedience by a reveren- 
 tial awe of what is holy. This feeling, although it did 
 not govern men’s lives among the Greeks, comes yet 
 nobly forward in many sentiments of the tragic poets. 
 To cite one example, see the admirable chorus upon 
 conscience, in Cidipus Tyr. v. 845. 
 
 V. 15. <A confirmation of the 14th verse, St. 
 Paul means to bring proof, that such actions of the 
 heathen, as are conformable to law, really have their 
 basis upon an inward law in their breast. For this 
 purpose, he appeals to the conflict which takes place 
 between the opposite tendencies of the will in man, and 
 to the judgments pronounced upon these by the moral 
 sense. He again uses οἵτινις aS a Connexivye, which 
 must here also be resolved by γὰρ, quasi ἐνδείκνυνται 
 
 K 
 
190 CHAPTER Il. ν. 18. 
 
 γάρ. This verb is not to be interpreted, as Grotius 
 has done, by the gloss, vitze scilicet innocentia. The 
 object of the Apostle is to account for the manifesta- 
 tions of a purer morality among the heathen, by the 
 revelation of the will of God within them, consequently, 
 ἐνδείκνυνται signifies that such a law becomes apparent 
 upon a strict search of the heart. What then, it may 
 be asked, is the meaning of ἔργον in its connection 
 with νόμου ἢ The simplest way is to understand it col- 
 lectively in the sense in which ra ἔργω τοῦ νόμου is al- 
 ways found, “ they shew the works prescribed by the 
 law within them.” So Theophylact and the majority 
 of the ancients. It is improbable, however, that the 
 singular should be used in a sense which the plural 
 has once been received as exclusively expressing, 
 as is the case, unless in 1 Thessalonians i. 3, we take 
 ἔργον πίστεως for τὰ ἔργω τῆς πίστεως, which is done by 
 Vorstius de Hebr. N. T. p. 256. The expositors who, 
 in verse 14, understand ποιεῖν τὰ τοῦ νόμου to execute the 
 function of the law, also give to ἔργον the sense of offi- 
 cium, negotium. Grotius, who in the interpretation of 
 that verse, is by no means explicit, here defines ἔργον, 
 Id quod lex in Judeis efficit, nempe cognitionem licit 
 et illiciti. Legis virtus est imperare, vetare, permit- 
 tere, punire. De Wette renders it “ das Thun des 
 Gesetzes.” This meaning of ἔργον is sufficiently well 
 grounded in the use of the language, but it seems to 
 coincide exactly with the interpretation stated of 
 ποιεῖν τὰ τοῦ νόμου. Hence, it only remains to consider 
 ἔργον as periphrastic, which Palairet, Wolf, Schleus- 
 ner, and others do. In justification of this use, 
 may be instanced the following passages from classi- 
 
CHAPTER II. Vv. 15. 181 
 
 cal authors. Polyzenus: (Strat. 1]. 1. 6. 18.) τοῦ λογιοῦ τὸ 
 ἔργον exiGaiver τῇδε. Diogenes Laert. (Proem. ad Hist. 
 Phil.) τὸ τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἔργον ἔνιοι φασὶνἀπὸ βαρβάρων ἄρξαι. 
 The periphrasticuse of ἕρῆμα and πρᾶγμα is well known. 
 See Viger, p. 159. As these wordsare notalways, how- 
 ever, purely pleonostic, so neither also, would ἔργον in 
 the present instance be, but denote almost as much as 
 ὑπόστασις, Which Erasmus conjectured. Seiler, in this 
 view, translates the contents of the law, Michaelis, the 
 substance. Bolten, 6. iii. 20, even renders τὼ ἔργα τοῦ 
 νόμου, the contents of the law, and so also Con. Vorstius. 
 In support of this use of ἔργον, might be cited Baruch vi. 
 51, where Θεοῦ ἔργον is used for Ozioy ; the interpretation 
 of it, as virtus operosa, given by Schleusner, in his 
 Thesaurus in LXX., can by no means be received. 
 It is found in the same sense as in the present pas- 
 sage, in Eph. iv. 12, and perhaps also, 1 Thess. 
 i. 3. 
 
 συμμοωρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως. It may be 
 questioned, whether St. Paul under συνείδησις, and 
 afterwards under λογισμοὶ, intends something different 
 from the νόμος γρωπτὸς ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις. In that case, 
 these three clauses of the verse would require to be 
 made co-ordinate, as three distinct proofs of the fact, 
 that the acts of the heathen, which are conformable 
 to law, really emanate from a law existing within 
 them. This has been done by Luther, and the ex- 
 positor Hemming. But although it may be defend- 
 ed upon good grounds, the more natural way is to 
 subordinate the second and third clause to the first, 
 and regard them as an explanatory epexegesis. The 
 expression νόμος γραπτὸς was not one of ordinary use. 
 
132 CHAPTER II. V. 15. 
 
 Paul, therefore, explains it by terms more familiar, and 
 which point at the same time to the facts by which 
 he was justified, in employing so uncommon an expres- 
 sion. By νόμος γραπτὸς, Paul meant the συνείδησις, that 
 which constitutes the bond of relationship between man 
 and God, and which discovers itself, as a sense of what 
 isjust and good. One might, perhaps, lay weight upon 
 the σὺν in συμμαρτυρούσης, and refer it either to the 
 νόμος γραπτὸς or to the ταῖς καρδίαις. The συνείδησις, 
 however, must be considered as identical with the 
 νόμος γραπτὸς ; the καρδία, or the disposition, gives a 
 testimony only in virtue of the νόμος γραπτὸς within 
 it, and hence it cannot be well considered as another 
 and a distinct witness besides the συνείδησις. Accord- 
 ingly we take the compound in the sense of the simple 
 word. Συνειδένοι likewise means hnowing along with 
 another, but the sense of simul sciendi frequently dis- 
 appears, and hence it is construed with the dative of 
 the thing. See Plato Phedon, p. 92. With respect 
 to the third clause, it is again an epexegesis and elu- 
 cidation of the second, to wit, “the direct moral con- 
 sciousness of man is the offspring of certain thoughts 
 which arise in the reflexion.” Μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων. μεταξὺ 
 is here equivalent to ἐναλλὰξ. So the Syrian. The 
 Vulgate renders it invicem. It is used in the same 
 sense, Mat. xviii. 15, Acts xv. 9. The antithesis 
 which it marks, is the complaint of one party before a 
 tribunal, and the defence of the other, here repre- 
 sented as taking place in the conscience of the indi- 
 vidual. 
 Κατηγορούντων ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων must not, as has 
 been done by Gicumenius and Sebastian Schmidt, be 
 
CHAPTER Il. v. 15, 16. 199 
 
 referred to different persons, of whom the one justifies, 
 while the other condemns the dictates of the con- 
 science. The Apostle speaks of the twofold action of 
 the conscience in one and the same individual. To 
 both verbs it will be best to supply ἄνθρωπον as the 
 object, although perhaps ἑαυτοὺς would answer better 
 to μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων. It is not, however, the dictates of 
 conscience which mutually accuse and excuse each 
 other, but it is these which approve or disapprove 
 the inclinations and desires. A parallel passage may 
 be found in the Wisdom of Solomon, iv. 20, and 
 in Philo, de Decal. p. 756: ed. Frankf. Ὁ μὲν ἐν 
 ἑκάστῃ «ψυχῇ συνοικὼν καὶ συμπεφυκὼς ἔλεγχος, ὡς μὲν 
 κατήγορος αἰτιᾶται, κατηγορεῖ, δυσωπεῖ, πάλιν δὲ ὡς δι- 
 καστὴς διδάσκει, νουθετεῖ, παραινεῖ, μεταξάλλεσθα!." The 
 Rabbins also called the conscience ΝΟ the ac- 
 cuser. This verse has been happily paraphrased by 
 Erasmus: Etenim cum nationes a lege Mosaica ali- 
 ene, ultro nature ductu, que lege jubentur, faciunt ; 
 quamvis nullo legis Mosaicee preescripto moneantur, 
 tamen ipsi sibi legis vice sunt, propterea quod rem 
 legis exprimunt, non tabulis sed ipsis mentibus in- 
 sculpte, et quidquid apud eos, qui sub lege vivunt, 
 geri solet apud tribunal, hoc in istorum pectore ge- 
 ritur, dum pro te aut adversum te testimonium dicit 
 conscientia. 
 
 V. 16. The connection of this with the preceding 
 
 Ὁ That conviction, which is the innate inhabitant of every 
 soul, like an accuser, censures, charges, and upbraids; and 
 
 again, as a judge, teaches, admonishes, and exhorts to re- 
 pent. 
 
134 CHAPTER Il. v. 16. 
 
 context has furnished grammatical difficulties for the 
 expositors, although, in regard to the sense, no doubt 
 can be entertained as to its close coherence. The 
 great majority have extricated themselves by placing 
 verses 13, 14, and 15 within parenthesis, in order thus 
 to bring ἐν ἡμέρᾳ into immediate connection with κριθή- 
 σονται. So Grotius, Limborch, Wolf, and Winer. But 
 as Heumann has remarked, so long a parenthesis does 
 not seem natural from the pen of a person of so 
 fervid a temperament as Paul, and can only be ex- 
 plained on the supposition that he added these verses 
 upon a subsequent perusal of the Epistle. This way 
 of evading difficulties, however, to which Heumann 
 has frequent recourse, is likewise of very questionable 
 propriety. But leaving the character of Paul out of 
 view, there exists such a strong inward coherence be- 
 tween verses 13, 14, 15, and so close a connection of 
 verse 13 with verse 12, that the supposition of a pa- 
 renthesis is very improbable, and that only as the re- 
 sult of anxious search, could the expedient of annexing 
 verse 16 to verse 12 have been thought of.” Neither 
 can we admit, what Heumann also suggests, and Beza 
 
 in his translation actually practises, viz. to inclose 
 
 verses 14 and 15 only; because, in the first place, 
 
 verse 14 isas closely united to verse 13 as verse 13 to 
 
 verse 12; and, secondly, verse 14 contains an evident 
 antithesis to verse 17. In fine, it will not answer to 
 make verse 15 by itself parenthetic, seeing that οἵτινες 
 marks a closely connected continuation of verse 14. 
 
 The method adopted by Koppe and Rosenmiiller to 
 
 escape from the difficulty is the most forced of all. © 
 The former gives to μεταξὺ the meaning of μετέπειτα, 
 
CHAPTER 11. V. 16. 185 
 
 which it undeniably has, and then ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισ- 
 μῶν κατηγορούντων ἤ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων becomes a geni- 
 tive absolute, to which ἑαυτῶν is to be supplied. He 
 farther connects μεταξὺ with ἐν ἡμέρῳ, and thus ob- 
 tains the following artificial translation: “ Their own 
 conscience tells them, and their principles shall here- 
 after accuse or excuse them on the day when God 
 shall judge.” Far better than all these, is the simple 
 mode of construction proposed by Bengel, who unites 
 ἐν ἡμέρῳ with ἐνδείκνυνται as may well be done, when the 
 second and third clauses of the fifteenth verse are sub- 
 ordinated to the first.. He then observes in explana- 
 tion: Quale quidquid fuit, tale cum conspicietur, de- 
 finietur et manebit. In illo die constabit illud in cor- 
 dibus scriptum legis, apologiam etiam aliquam recte 
 
 factorum conjunctam habens, quamvis homo in judicio 
 ~ succumbat, semet accusatore, propter cetera. Idque 
 infert accusationem vel etiam defensionem (a majore 
 ad minus procedendo) in hae quoque vita constantem, 
 quoties vel ipsum representatur homini judicium fu- 
 turum, vel preeludia ejus in conscientia, homine inscio, 
 aguntur. Bengel is followed by Chr. Schmid. Some- 
 what different from this view is that of Calvin, which 
 Jerome likewise adopts, in his Com. in Ies. 1. xviii, 6. 
 66, v. 18 upon the verse; “ Opera et cogitationes 
 eorum venio ut congregem.” They construe ἐν ἡμέρῳ 
 immediately with the preceding ἀπολογουμένων, which 
 is very agreeable to the Hebrew mode of construc- 
 tion, and especially that of St. Paul; and taking ἐν 
 in the sense of εἰς ἡμέραν, they give tothe whole the 
 signification, “ that the great end of this struggle of 
 the conscience with the perverse bias of the will, is, 
 
136 CHAPTER Il. V. 16. 
 
 that on the day of judgment man may be self-refuted 
 and self convicted.” Calvin: Rationes autem istas 
 accusandi et defendendi ad diem Domini confert, non 
 quia sint tune primum emersure, que assidue nunc 
 vigent et officlum suum exercent, sed quia sint tune 
 quoque valiturze, ne quis ut frivolas et evanidas con- 
 temnat. Cicumenius and Theophylact, and equally, 
 as it seems, Theodoret and Chrysostom, connect, in 
 the same way, ἐν ἡμέρῳ with ἀπολογουμένων not taking 
 it, however, in the sense of εἰς ἡμέραν. According to 
 their explanation, these decisions of the conscience 
 are first to be delivered in the judgment. The view 
 they take of the passage, however, is throughout ob- 
 scure. The choice seems to lie between the con- 
 structions of Bengel and of Calvin. That of the 
 Grecian fathers may also be safely retained, with only 
 the modification of taking ἐν ἡμέρῳ as emphatic, so 
 that the meaning would be, “ their thoughts exeuse or 
 accuse them always, but chiefly on the day when,” &c. 
 Precisely so Erasmus: Secundum hee igitur judi- 
 cabit illos Deus olim, quum quod nunc occulte fit in 
 precordiorum latebris, tum propalam fiet sub oculis 
 omnium. In verse 12 and 13 the Apostle had pro- 
 posed to speak of the judgment to come. But first, 
 the thought suggests itself to his mind of that judg- 
 ment which already goes on in the heart of man. 
 From this connection it is easy to conceive how, in 
 Paul’s lively imagination, the present and the future 
 should mingle and be confounded together. What now 
 takes place inwardly, will then be manifested openly. 
 In favour of this explanation, the sequel furnishes a 
 proof in the contrast of the +a xgurré with the public 
 
CHAPTER II. v. 16. 137 
 
 judgment. By construing verse 16 with verse 12, 
 the τὰ κρυπτὸ appears divested of any special refe- 
 rence whatever ; according to the view we have now 
 proposed, however, we may, and must refer it to 
 those conflicts of the conscience with the ungodly 
 bias of the mind, which presently, indeed, are hidden 
 from the external eye, but which are one day to be 
 subjected to a visible judgment. Of the manifesta- 
 tion of the hidden things of darkness, and the coun- 
 sels of the heart at that great period, the Apostle also 
 speaks, 1 Cor. iv. 5. 
 
 κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγξέλιόν μου. So does the Apostle call 
 the collective doctrines committed to him to preach. 
 Rom. i. 16, 2 Tim. ii. 8, comp. with 1 Cor. xv. 1. 
 
 Διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. That Christ, in his state of ex- 
 altation, will one day be the judge of the human race, 
 is elsewhere taught by St. Paul, Acts xvii. 31, as it 
 also is by Peter, Acts x. 42. We must not, however, 
 in imitation of Pelagius and Grotius, lay, in the pre- 
 sent instance, any particular stress upon that cireum- 
 stance, as if, forsooth, Paul had expressly annexed 
 κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγξελιόν μου, because the human understand- 
 ing cannot of itself discover by whom God will judge 
 the world. By the addition of these words, he only 
 means to certify, in a solemn manner, the great truth 
 of a judgment to come. It is a still greater mistake 
 to construe κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου with dic ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ, according to my Gospel received from Jesus 
 Christ. In concluding, we may state Semler’s arbi- 
 trary hypothesis, viz. that the ὅτε before xgwd is a 
 gloss, and that the words from ἐν ἡμέρα are to be taken 
 ἀσυνδέτως, unconnectedly, and that expression transla- 
 ted publice. 
 
138 CHAPTER II. V. 17. 
 
 PARP ORE: 
 
 BY THIS RULE, THE JEW WHO, ENJOYING VARIOUS 
 MEANS OF GRACE AND BETTER KNOWLEDGE, 
 NEVERTHELESS TRANSGRESSES THE LAW, IS WORSE 
 THAN THE HEATHEN, WHO, WITHOUT SUCH EXTER- 
 NAL ADVANTAGES, IS TRUE TO THE LAW IN HIS 
 HEART.» v.'17—29. 
 
 V.17. Tue Apostle, in this and the following verses, 
 enumerates all the privileges and advantages, which 
 the Jew, who had his religion sincerely at heart, real- 
 ly possessed; describing them in the vain-glorious 
 language of the Jew himself. 
 
 Ei 6: is, for preponderating reasons, both external 
 and internal, to be received into the text as the true 
 reading. The substitution of ἴδε seems indeed to im- 
 part simplicity, for by reading εἰ δὲ we miss the con- 
 clusion which might be expected to follow. But, be- 
 sides that the great majority of the codices are in 
 favour of εἰ δὲ, it is also probable that ἴδε was only 
 adopted for the purpose of simplifying the connection. 
 Moreover, it is not accordant with the style of our 
 Apostle to begin a new train of thought with ἤδε. The 
 conclusion which εἰ δὲ seems to require, and which 
 escaped in the warmth of discourse, is found substan- 
 tially, although not in form, in the 21st verse. 
 
 *Iovdaiog. That the Apostle here plays, as is gene- 
 rally supposed, upon the etymology of the word 
 WT M4), 20 praise God, has little probability. 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 17. 139 
 
 Rather is the observation of Grotius correct: Nomen 
 erat religionis eo tempore et significabat μονόθεον. 
 The name Jew awakens the remembrance of all the 
 great things which God had wrought for the Fathers, 
 and which furnished the Israelite with grounds of 
 boasting. How much he presumed upon this name, 
 we may learn from Gal. ii. 15; Phil. iii. 5; Rev. ii. 9. 
 Hence the Apostle employs the word ἐπονομάζειν, 
 which has a loftier tone. Plato, de Leg. L. i. p. 8. 
 Bip. Ὦ ξένε ᾿Αϑθενωῖε" οὐ γὰρ σὲ ᾿Αττικὸν ἐθέλοιμ᾽ ἄν προ- 
 σωγορεύειν. δοκεῖς γὰρ μοι τῆς θεοῦ ἐπωνυμίας ἄξιος εἶναι 
 μᾶλλον ἐπονομάζεσθαι. : 
 
 ἐπαναπαύῃ τῷ νόμῳ. This is the verb by which the 
 LXX. render }yy), Micah iii. 11. It is equivalent to 
 πεποιθέναι. Comp. 1 Mace. vii. 12; Phil.iii.4. Beza: 
 Excitat Judzos legi quasi placide indormientes, ut 
 apertum et proximum periculum cernant. 
 
 νόμος is not here to be understood in the more com- - 
 prehensive sense of the writings of the Old Testament, 
 but restricted to the law of Moses, as is obvious from 
 the sequel. 
 
 καυχᾶσαι ἐν Θεῷ. The same expression occurs 
 Rom. v. 11. While the heathen felt themselves to 
 be ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, their deities having no vital in- 
 fluence upon life, the Jew stood in real and historical 
 - connection with his God, of whose deeds he could 
 
 speak. Deut. iv. 7, “ For what nation is there 
 so great, who hath God (or Gods ) so nigh unto them, 
 as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon 
 him. for.” Ps. exlvii. 19, and 20, “ He sheweth 
 his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments 
 unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: 
 and as for his judgments they have not known them. 
 
140 CHAPTER II. V. 17, 18. 
 
 Praise ye the Lord.” Com. 2 Sam. vii. 23. Cicum: 
 ὡς μόνος ἀγαπηθεὶς παρὼ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους. ς 
 
 V.18. Other privileges of the Jew described in 
 his own words, xa! yiwones τὸ θέλημα sc. τοῦ Θεοῦ. So 
 Baruch iv. 4. Μακάριοι ἐσμὲν ᾿Ισραὴλ ὅτι τὰ ἀρεστὰ τοῦ 
 θεοῦ ἡμῖν γνωστὰ ἐστί. 
 
 δοκιμάξφεις τὸ διαφέροντα. The same expression is 
 found in Phil.i.10. AoxsaZev—comp. at i. 28—has a 
 twofold signification, either to discriminate, prove, or 
 to commend, favour; and in like manner, ra διωφέ-. 
 govra, means things, either opposed, or distinguished. 
 Of the last of these meanings, we have an example in 
 Andocydes, Or. iv.in Alcib. Δεινὸν μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ καὶ ὑπὸ 
 τῶν ἀγνοούντων τὼ δίκαια πάσχειν καλῶς, πολὺ δὲ χωλε- 
 πώτερον ὅτων τις ἐπιστάμενος τὼ διαφέροντα παραβαίνειν 
 σολμῶ 3 of the former, in Xenophon. Mem. iv. 3, 11. 
 ἐπειδὴ πολλὰ μὲν καλὰ Kol ὠφέλιμα διαφέροντα δὲ ἀλλή- 
 λων ἐστί. Accordingly, we may either translate the 
 passage, “and provest things that differ,” as Eras- 
 mus, Beza, Elsner, Clericus, and even Theodoret have 
 done, who thus expounds ra διωφέροντα ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐναντία 
 ἀλλήλοις δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀδικίαν; or we may translate 
 it “approvest the things that are more excellent.” 
 Vulgate: Probas utiliora. So Chrysostom, C&cume- 
 nius, Theophylact and Luther. Looking only to this 
 passage, we should prefer a third to either of these 
 senses of the word. It sometimes signifies, cause dis- 
 sidii, controversiz. Xenophon. Hist. Greece. vi. 3. 4. 
 Σωφρόνων μὲν δήπου ἐστὶ, μηδὲ εἰ μὴ μικρὰ τὰ διαφέροντα εἴη 
 πόλεμον ἀναιρεῖσθαι. Polybius: Hist. xxxi. 13, 1, τὼ δια- 
 φέροντα τῷ Θασιλεῖ πρὸς τοὺς Ταλάτας. * The conten- - 
 tions of the king with the Galatians.” According 
 to this meaning, the passage would be translated, 
 
CHAPTER 11. v. 18, 19. 141 
 
 «“ thou triest controversies.” This, however, would 
 not answer at Phil. 1.10, and asit is certain that the 
 Apostle uses the expression in the same import in 
 both passages, we decide in favour of the second 
 interpretation, which agrees best with the latter. 
 Calvin says: Duplex est probatio, altera electionis, 
 quum id quod bonum probavimus, amplectimur ; 
 altera judicii, qua discernimus quidem bonum a malo, 
 sed conatu vel studio minime sectamur. Sie ergo 
 erant eruditi in lege Judei, ut possent morum censu- 
 ram exercere, sed de vita sua ad hane cesuram exi- 
 genda parum erant soliciti. 
 
 V.19. Having in the 17th and 18th verses de- 
 scribed the privileges of the Jews, confining his view 
 to the fruits which that nation itself might have reaped 
 from them, the Apostle now adverts to the lofty po- 
 sition which they assumed in relation to the heathen, 
 proposing themselves, as indeed, when piously disposed, 
 they were calculated to be,*their guides to salvation. 
 
 ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν. In like manner, did our Lord 
 himself upbraid the Pharisees with being blind leaders 
 of the blind, Matt. xv. 14. It is well known that 
 they took great pains to gain proselytes, which en- 
 deavours, among the worse sort of the sect, (the Tal- 
 mud shews ‘that there were good men among them. 
 Bux. Lex. Talm.) proceeded partly from well-mean- 
 ing ignorance, and partly from vanity, Matt. xxiii. 15. 
 
 φῶς τῶν ἐν σκότε. ‘The Messias was to prove the 
 light of the Gentiles, according to Is. xlix. 6. comp. 
 Luke ii. 82, And as it was thought that at the pe- 
 riod of his coming, his people were to participate in 
 his glory, and to go forth as missionaries among the 
 
149 CHAPTER II. V. 19, 20. 
 
 heathen, Is. Ixvi. 19, every individual Jew, who was 
 versed in the law, considered himself as a light of 
 the Gentiles. 
 
 V. 20. ᾿Αφρόνες, like MINN, Ps. xix. 7, is syno- 
 nymous with νηπίος, which is used in contrast to σοφοὶ, 
 Matt. xi. 25. Here the object of the Apostle’s 
 thoughts was probably the Jewish proselytes, who 
 were figuratively so called, (Selden de Jure nat. ii. 4.) 
 Whence also, in the New Testament, νεόφυτοι and 
 νηπίοι are applied to young Christians. It may be 
 objected, that the Rabbins did not shew such haughti- 
 ness towards their proselytes as this name would im- 
 ply, but rather demeaned themselves kindly. With 
 respect to their pride, however, see Andr. Schmid, 
 De Symb. Apost. in Talmude ruderibus, Helmst. 5. 
 26. 27. 
 
 ἔχοντα τὴν oepwon. This word signifies the form 
 or image of a thing. ‘This signification may be here 
 retained, as contrasted with the inward substance, 
 and then the word is to be translated the semblance. 
 Phavor.: τὸ ἐπίπλαστον εἰκὼν καὶ σχῆμα ἀληθείας οὖκ 
 ὃν δέ. In this bad sense, it is used by the Apostle, 
 2 Tim. iii. 15; and in this sense it is here understood - 
 by Hammond, Lange, and others. Theophylact. : 
 "Eels τὴν μόρφωσιν. οὐκ ἐν ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ τοῖς κατορθώ- 
 μασιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, πεποιθὼς ἀυτῷ, ὡς μορφοῦντι τὴν 
 ἀρετήν. ὥσπερ ἐάν τις βασιλέως εἰκόνω ἔχων, αὐτὸς μὲν κατ᾽ 
 αὐτὴν μηδὲν ζωγραφοίῃ" οἱ δὲ μὴ πιστευθέντες αὐτὴν, κὰι 
 χωρὶς τοῦ πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀποβλέπειν, μετὰ ἀληθείας αὐτὴν 
 μιμοῖντο Μόρφωσις, however, may denote a correct 
 
 ' You have the form of knowledge and of the truth, not in 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 20, 21. 143 
 
 impression, and then it stands ina good sense, like the 
 verb in Gal. iv. 19, and is equivalent to ὑποτύπωσις. 
 In Latin, the word forma, forma officii, (Cic. Off. 
 i. 29,) forma reipublice, is used in the same way. 
 This sense must be here preferred, seeing that what 
 is spoken of, is a privilege, of which the subject of the 
 Theocracy boasts. Chrysostom: διὸ χαὶ ἐπιδωψιλεύε- 
 THI τοῖς δοκοῦσιν αὐτῶν εἶναι ἐγκωμίοις, εἰδὼς ὕτι μείζονος 
 κατηγορίας ὑποθέσις τὰ λεγόμενα. 
 
 Ver. 21. Now follows what is properly the conclu- 
 sion to εἰ δὲ inverse 17. ‘The Apostle resumes his 
 consideration of the privileges of the Jew, and of the 
 superiority of his position to that of the heathen, and, 
 in a forcible antanaclasis, turns the eyes of his coun- 
 trymen to the discrepancy of their life, which so many 
 advantages, in point of knowledge, rendered still more 
 appalling. The interrogative form in which it is ex- 
 pressed, gives additional force to the rebuke. Theft 
 and adultery, against which the Apostle inveighs, need 
 not be considered, as Michaelis and others have ima- 
 gined, the sins which were principally prevalent 
 among the Jews. It is obvious from ἱεροσυλεῖς, that 
 he merely instances peculiarly heinous sins, of which 
 among a nation so highly favoured by God, there 
 
 your actions and duties, but in the law, to which you trust 
 for the formation of virtue ; just as if one possessing the like- 
 ness of a king were not himself to use it as a copy to draw by, » 
 while others, who had nothing of the kind to look at, imitated 
 it correctly. 
 
 * Paul adds to the catalogue of their apparent commenda- 
 tions, knowing that what he says is the ground of a heavier 
 accusation. 
 
144 CHAPTER II. v. 21, 22. 
 
 ought not to have been a single example. It is na- 
 tural to suppose that he chiefly referred to the teachers 
 of the law in this passage, since, as we remarked, in 
 the instance of proselytising, verse 20, what was_ 
 the character of the depraved nation in general, be- 
 longed particularly to them. Hence the declarations 
 of our Saviour with respect to the Scribes and Pha- 
 risees, may be quoted as parallel passages, for instance, 
 Matt. xxiii. 14, where he reproves their avarice. 
 Κηρύσσω here, in the import of the Hebrew NW pro- 
 clamare, mandatum edere, Jonah iii. 5. 
 
 V. 22. The most celebrated Rabbins, such as R. 
 Akiba, Meir, Eleasar, and others, are accused in the 
 Talmud of adultery. 
 
 Aéyw in the sense to give a judicial decision. Matt. 
 xv. 5, Mark vii. 11. So ΓΝ a commandment, is 
 translated a decree. βίῃ. iii. 3. 
 
 6 βδελυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα" Ἑϊδωλον signifies an amage, 
 idol, and thence the heathen deities, which are also 
 called βδελύγματα Tw. The Israelites, especi- 
 ally after the captivity, felt a real horror for these. 
 When Pilate, for example, made the military standards, 
 which were adorned with representations of the em- 
 peror, be brought to Jerusalem, with the Roman sol- 
 diers, the Jews, in vast multitudes, flew to meet him at 
 Cesarea. During five days they were refused an au- 
 dience ; and when Pilate at last appeared, he ordered 
 them, upon pain of death, to withdraw. They, how- 
 ever, cast themselves upon the ground and exposed 
 their necks, exclaiming that they would all to a man 
 choose rather to die than that their law should be 
 violated by the entrance of idols into the city. (Jos. 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 22. 145 
 
 Archeol. ]. xviii. c. 3, § 1. De Bel. Jud. 1. ii. ὁ. 9, § 
 2 and 3.) It had been well if such zeal had been com- 
 bined with right dispositions ! 
 
 ἱεροσυλεῖν admits of a twofold interpretation. It 
 commonly signifies to plunder a temple, and hence 
 the meaning may be, “ dost thou rob an idol’s tem- 
 ple?” This view is taken by Chrysostom, Theophy- 
 lact, Koppe, and Clericus, who thus paraphrases the 
 passage: Tu quite ab idolis abhorrere fingis, quasi 
 rebus summopere pollutis, quas ne attingere quidem 
 velles, tamen si detur occasio, ipsa eorum templa spo- 
 liare non vereris. Such conduct was in direct oppo- 
 sition to the law, which peremptorily forbade the ap- 
 propriation of heathen property, Deut. vii. 25. (Mi- 
 chelis, Mos. Recht. Th. ν. 5. 248.) It is also con- 
 demned in Josephus. (Archeol. 1. iv. 6. 8, § 10.) 
 According to this sense of the word, the passage 
 would require to be interpreted as follows: “ Dost 
 thou who hast such an abhorrence of all that belongs 
 to idol worship, make property taken from heathen 
 temples thine own?” But it may be objected to this 
 interpretation, both that history has not recorded any 
 instance of the spoliation of heathen temples by the 
 Jews, and that it isa crime, for the commission of 
 which the opportunities must obviously have been 
 exceedingly rare. Accordingly some have proposed 
 another interpretation of the word, viz. to take it as 
 metaphorically applied to a withholding of the temple 
 dues on the part of the laity, and the embezzlement 
 of the templa revenues by the priests. So Pelagius, 
 Grotius, and a host of others, who support their 
 opinion by quoting the passage from Jos. Archeol. 
 
 L 
 
146 CHAPTER II. V. 22, 23. 
 
 lvili. 6. 3, § 3, where it is related how the Jews ap- 
 propriated to their own use, the rich contributions 
 made to the temple by the proselyte Fulvia. They 
 also appeal to the accusations brought against the 
 Jews in Malachi, chap. i. 8, 12, 18, 14; chap. iii. 10. 
 To refer the passage in this manner, however, to dis- 
 honest practices with respect to tithes, appears too re- 
 stricted an application, and hence it is, perhaps, best to 
 take ἱεροσυλεῖς in a still more general sense: Aré thou a 
 violator of that which is holy ? without determining 
 what special kind of profanation the Apostle had in 
 view, to whom the word was suggested by the feeling 
 of the moment. Thus Bengel: Deo non das glori- 
 am, que proprie Dei est. So also Chr. Schmidt and 
 Schleusner.’ 
 
 V. 23. “Os ἐν νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι. In Baruch iv. 3, the 
 law is called ἡ δόξα τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ. Διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως 
 τοῦ νόμου τὸν Θεὸν ἀτιμάζεις; Chrysostom remarks : 
 They commit a threefold sin; they dishonour God; 
 they dishonour him by means of that whereby them- 
 selves were honoured; they dishonour that God 
 who had honoured them. Whoever boasts of any 
 particular token of Divine grace, is under obliga- 
 tion to walk so much the more worthily and piously ; 
 for otherwise, God is dishonoured by having bestowed 
 his favour upon an undeserving object. Hence it is 
 said, Is. lii. 5, Ezek. xxxvi. 20, 28, That God is blas- 
 phemed, and his name profaned, by his people being 
 led away captives. He was, indeed, compelled to 
 
 '{ The author has since declared his preference of the literal 
 sense, as yielding a stronger antithesis. } ; 
 
 fs Ν 
 _ 
 4 ΤΩΣ 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 23, 24. 147 
 
 send them into captivity, in consequence of their nu- 
 merous transgressions ; and hence these had the effect 
 of spreading an evil report of God, who was called 
 their God. In like manner, Christ commands us to 
 let our light so shine before men, that our Father in 
 heaven may be glorified, Matt. v. 16. 
 
 V.24. We already remarked at chap. i. v. 17, 
 how fond the Jews in general, and Paul among the 
 rest, were of speaking in the language of the Old 
 Testament. This our Apostle especially practises, 
 when he has any thing to say, which might seem se- 
 vere or strange to the Jews. It is particularly exem- 
 plified in chapter xi., and is also the case here. When 
 such quotations are made, we may add, as a para- 
 phrase, “ It is not I only who say this, ye are already 
 described in the Old Testament.” (icumenius: 
 ᾿Επειδὴ βαρὺ εἴπεν, ὅτι σὺν Θεὸν ἀτιμάζεις, τὸν προφήτην 
 παράγει μάρτυραα Paul does not mention the text of 
 scripture. He quotes from memory, and gives the 
 seuse rather than the words. The texts, which were 
 before his mind, and resemble this, are the following: 
 Ezek. xxxvi. 23; 2 Sam. xii. 14; Neh. v. 9; and 
 more especially, Is. li. 5. 
 
 In the whole preceding context the Apostle had 
 sufficiently shewn how the preference enjoyed by 
 Israel, is so far from being able of itself to secure 
 them the favour of God, that, on the contrary, unless 
 it be associated with a corresponding character, the 
 Jew stands on precisely the same level with the Gen- 
 
 m Having made the heavy charge, thou dishonourest God, 
 he brings forward the prophet to attest it. 
 
148 CHAPTER I. Iv. 94. 
 
 tile, nay that the latter takes a higher place, in pro- 
 portion to the superior excellence of his character. 
 This he had not as yet distinctly expressed. But he 
 now does so, though still with great moderation, in 
 order that the Judaizing zealots might not have occa- 
 sion to decry him as an eccentric despiser of the an- 
 cient Theocracy. Accordingly he leaves the honour 
 of being God’s covenant people, and guardians of the 
 Divine revelations in unimpaired respect, and instead 
 of putting the Gentiles on the same footing with the 
 Jews, by declaring that honour to be a nonentity, 
 and that all depends upon holiness of mind, he says, 
 I readily acknowledge it as a high distinction to be 
 the covenant people of the Lord; it was conferred 
 by God himself, and upon persons who, he wished, 
 might fully appreciate, and live in conformity to it. 
 But, seeing that it is altogether misconceived by 
 them, the Gentile, who labours ta observe the moral 
 law, enters into the enjoyment of the distinction in 
 question, and the Jew, who lives unconcerned about 
 obeying the moral law, is regarded as destitute of any 
 interest in it. Circumcision being the badge of one 
 who belonged to the covenant people, Paul uniform- 
 ly uses the sign for the thing itself. σπεριτομὴ is the 
 quality of a covenant people; ἀκροξυστίω, the state of 
 exclusion from a near connection with God. There 
 is a passage entirely parallel to this both in the sense 
 and the metonymical character of the language, (al- 
 though indelicately expressed) Schemoth rabba, sect. 
 19. fol. 118. (In Schottgen, a. ἢ. 1.): dixit R. Bera- 
 chias: Ne heretici et apostatee et impii ex Israelitis 
 dicant : Quandoquidem cireumcisi sumus, in infernum 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 25, 26, 27. 149 
 
 non descendimus, quid agit Deus S. B.? Mittit ange- 
 lum et preputia eorum attrahit, ut ipsi preeputiati in 
 infernum descendant. 
 
 V. 26. The first ὠκροβυστία, as is manifest from the 
 αὐτοῦ, in place of αὐτῆς subjoined to the second, is 
 here by metonyme—the abstract for the concrete— 
 used for ἀκροβύστοι, which is equivalent to of ἄθεοι ἐν 
 τῷ κόσμῳ. Δικαιώμιατα TT are the single precepts. 
 Φυλάσσειν after the Hebrew yw to keep. The εἰς 
 before περιτομὴ is the Hebrew 5, which is always placed 
 before what is derived from something else. 
 
 V.27. καὶ may be either regarded as connexive, 
 uniting the clauses before and after it, so as to com- 
 prehend the latter in the interrogation, which the 
 Vulgate, Beza, Limborch, and Calvin have done, and 
 which yields a construction more accordant with pure 
 Greek, or it may be considered as marking progression 5 
 in which case the present verse is separated, as being 
 an inference, from the preceding; and _ this, . again, 
 would be more agreeable to the Hellenistic. Thus, 
 Luther, and Erasmus in his paraphrase: Imo non 
 solum equabitur tibi in hac parte, quin imo pre- 
 feretur. 
 
 zewe?r. The fulfilment of the law by the heathen 
 will serve as a living witness against the Jews. Gro- 
 tius: comparatione sui tuam culpam evincet. Seea 
 similar use of the word, Matt. xii. 42, Heb. xi. 7. 
 
 Ἢ ἐκ φύσεως axgovoria. There is no doubt that 
 these words are to be taken together. The Apostle 
 had before spoken metaphorically of the uncircumcised, 
 among whom he numbered the Jews. In order to 
 apprise the reader that he now relinquishes the meta- 
 
150 CHAPTER II. V. 27. 
 
 phor, he here annexes ἐκ φύσεως. So Galat. ii. 15, 
 ἥμεις φύσει ᾿Ιουδαῖοι. ‘There is not, therefore, in the 
 sentence the smallest occasion for the violent con- 
 struction adopted by Koppe, who construes ἐκ φύσεως 
 with νόμον τελοῦσα 
 
 Τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς ποωραβάτην νόμου. 
 Γράμμα signifies per met. the written law, as 2 Cor. 
 iii. 6. In specifying the law and circumcision, Paul 
 embraced all those privileges of Isvael, which his pre- 
 sent purpose required him to take into account. The 
 motives by which the Jew might be influenced to com- 
 ply with the law, were, on the one hand, the thought 
 of having obtained mercy as a subject of the cove- 
 nant; and, on the other, the distinct knowledge which 
 had been imparted to him of the Divine will. Beza 
 gives διὰ in its proper sense, as denoting azstrumen- 
 tality ; as if the law and the covenant, with which he 
 was favoured, had operated as occasions of the moral 
 deterioration of the Jew. It is subsequently, how- 
 ever, that St. Paul takes up this thought. Here διὰ 
 designates the state or circumstances under which any 
 thing takes place. In this sense it is frequently used 
 in the New Testament, particularly by Paul, Acts 
 xii. 9, 1 John v. 6, Rom. iv. 11; xiv. 10, 2 Cor. ii. 4, 
 2 Cor. v. 10, Phil. i. 20. In short, διὰ embraces, like 
 the Latin per and the English through, the idea of 
 causality and place. Now, according as the first 
 or the second, but especially the second, of these 
 ideas prevails, it may also signify during, which like- 
 wise implies wnder the cireumstances. This sense of 
 διὰ occurs also in classical Greek; partly in phrases 
 in which certain auxiliary verbs are coupled with sub- 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 27, 28. 151 
 
 stantives, and supply the place of the proper verbs, 
 such as dia θαύματος ἔχειν, διὰ σπουδῆς ἄγειν, διὰ φόβου 
 γίνεσθαι, διὰ μνήμης φέρειν, instead of θαυμάζεσθαι, σπουδά- 
 ζέιν, &e. partly in other combinations, as δι χειρῶν ἔχειν; 
 dic, χαρίτων ὁμιλεῖν, and partly, in fine, where it is used 
 for the formation of adverbs, as da ταχέων, δ ἀπεχθείας, 
 διὸ βραχυτάτων. Ast. in Plat. Remp. p. 429. 
 
 V. 28. Here the Apostle closes the proof of the 
 guiltiness of Israel, and entirely overthrows external 
 reliance upon the Theocracy, as a magical means of 
 obtaining salvation. Chrysostom makes the just ob- 
 servation, that even in this place he does not deny 
 that God had connected the tokens of his grace with 
 the Jewish people in particular. Only, we must 
 rightly understand whom God means under that Israel 
 to whom he has designed the accomplishment of his 
 promises, even the converted part of the covenant 
 people, like the inward church of the believers in the 
 external Theocracy. To that inward community, a 
 large portion of the Jewish nation manifestly did not 
 belong ; and hence, it follows, that they stood equally 
 with the Gentiles in want of a δικαιοσύνη, available 
 with God. Οὐ γὼρ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ᾿Ιουδαῖὸς ἐστι. Gro- 
 tius, in the most violent manner, couples these words 
 with οὗ 6 ἔπαινος in the 29th verse; “ Not he who is a 
 Jew outwardly has the praise.’ It is obvious that 
 "Ioudaios is to be supplied after ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ and 
 περιτομή after ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ. Storr quite unnaturally 
 says, that ἐστί stands for ἐστί τι, valet aliquid. ᾿Ἐν 
 σαρκὶ is epexegesis to ἐν τῷ φανερῷ. 
 
 V. 29 Circumcision was ἃ symbol of purity of 
 heart, and hence the Hebrews, substituting the sign 
 
19 CHAPTER II. Vv. 29. 
 
 signified for the thing, spoke of a circumcision of the 
 heart. Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6, Jer. iv. 4. In the New 
 Testament it is called περιτομὴ ἀχειροποίητος, Col. 1]. 
 26, Phil. iii. 3. 
 
 ἐν πνεύμοτι ov γράμματι. Beza and Heumann consider 
 ἐν πνεύματι aS an epexegesis to περιτομὴ καρδίος, cir- 
 cumcision that takes place in the heart and in the 
 spirit. In this manner, however, the contrast with 
 γράμμα is last. Accordingly, the great majority of 
 expositors, Ctcumenius, Grotius, and others, apply 
 πνεῦμω to the Divine Spirit as the producing cause, 
 give to ἐν the Hebrew sense of through, and making 
 γράμμα antithetical to πνεῦμα, and taking it in the 
 acceptation, the precept of the law, thus translate the 
 passage, “ the circumcision which is operated by the 
 Holy Spirit, and not by the mere commandment 
 of the law.” In this case, it is the Apostle’s object 
 to show, that in the Old Testament economy there 
 reigned an imperative law ; whereas in the New there 
 reigns an inwardly quickening spirit. This is a con- 
 trast which he is fond of drawing. ἐν σνέυματι and 
 ἐν γράμ" τι may also, however, be taken adverbially, 
 according to the Hebrew manner of forming adverbs 
 by prefixing 3, and would then signify spiritually 
 and literally. So Augustine, Clericus, and others ;. 
 and so also does Beza explain ἐν γράμματι, butin such a 
 manner as to lose, at least in form, the contrast with 
 ἐν πνεύματι. The Rabbins furnish numerous parallel 
 passages. The following is from the Talmud, Tract. 
 Nidda, f. xx. 2. “ The Jew sits in the interior of the 
 heart.” There is a striking one from R. Lipman in 
 Nizzachon, num. xxi. p. 19, which is thus translated : 
 
CHAPTER II. Vv. 29. 153 
 
 “ Faith depends not upon circumcision, but rather 
 upon the heart. Circumcision will not make an un- 
 believer a Jew.” 
 
 Οὗ refers both to the Jew inwardly and to the cir- 
 cumcision of the heart, as antecedents, and hence is to 
 be regarded as neuter. It is altogether a Hebraic 
 construction, and requires to be thus resolved, τοῦτο 
 γὼρ ἐπαινεῖται οὐ μόνον Toe ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὼ καὶ παρὰ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. For the judicial sense of the word ἔσαινος, comp. 
 1 Pet. ii 14, Rom. xiii. 3. 
 
CHAPTER THIRD. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 THE Apostle replies to those who, in spite of his guarded ex- 
 pressions in the previous chapter, might still charge him 
 with detracting from the respect due to the Old Testament 
 Theocracy. He shews, on the contrary, that he leaves it in 
 full possession of its honour. At the same time, however, 
 he must testify, that if questioned as to the relative situa- 
 tion of Jew and Gentile with respect to guilt in the sight of 
 God, and need of salvation, he cannot do otherwise than 
 place them both upon the same level, as being alike destitute 
 of that δικαιοσύνη, which God may rightfully require from 
 man. But seeing, as it appears from this, that neither 
 Gentile nor yet Jew, can establish for himself such a δι- 
 καιοσύνη by a faultless ebedience to the Divine Law, so God 
 now reveals an entirely new way of acquiring it in that 
 Gospel, which Paul according to c. i. 16, glories to promul- 
 gate. To participate in the δικαιοσύνη according to this new 
 mode, a man must embrace the salvation which has been 
 procured by Christ. In that way, heathens and Jews, with- 
 out distinction, attain to justification, and all occasion of ex- 
 alting self is cut off. 
 
 - 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. Proof that Paul by no means lowers the dignity of the Old 
 Testament Theocracy. V. 1—8. 
 2. Explanation how, notwithstanding, in as far as regards 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 1. 155 
 
 cuilt through sin, and need of salvation, there is no dif- 
 ference whatever between him that is a Jew, and him 
 that is not. V. 9—20. 
 
 3. Announcement of the new method by which God justifies 
 all, and which he has devised in consequence of their in- 
 ability to acquire justification for themselves, by a perfect 
 fulfilment of the law. V. 21—26. 
 
 4. Epiphonema: in which it is shewn, how, by this scheme 
 of justification, all opportunity of aggrandizing self is 
 done away, and heathen and Jew obtain mercy on the 
 game terms. V. 27—31. 
 
 PART FIRST: 
 
 PROOF THAT PAUL BY NO MEANS LOWERS THE 
 HONOUR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT THEOCRACY. 
 Vv. 1.28; 
 
 V.1. Tue Apostle had terminated the former chap- 
 ter with the assertion, that the privileges conferred 
 upon Israel as a covenant people, could not in the 
 least degree free them from the guilt of sin, or affect 
 their need of salvation. He now brings forward as a 
 speaker a character whom he disliked, viz. a bigoted 
 Jew with his orthodox objection. Oty if so be as was 
 said, verse 28 and 29, of chap. ii. Τὸ περισσὸν 2 the 
 Vulgate, amplius ; better, preerogativa. Diod. Sic. ed. 
 Bip. 11. p. 278, dla τὴν περιτότητα μνημονεύεσθαι. The 
 second question is nothing but a more specific de- 
 finition of the first, circumcision being the badge of 
 the subjects of the Theocracy. 
 
156 CHAPTER III. V. 2. 
 
 V. 2. The members of the old covenant had ad- 
 vantages of a twofold description over the heathen 
 world. In the first place, anterior to the advent of Him, | 
 who was the object and end of the whole Old Testa- 
 ment economy, it was a noble privilege to stand in a 
 closer connection with God, and enjoy more peculiarly 
 his guidance, than the heathen. The advantages 
 which they enjoyed also at the opening of the new 
 kingdom of God, were important. They possessed 
 revelations concerning it; among them it appeared; 
 they were the first to whom it was proclaimed, and 
 they were thus more favourably situated for entering 
 into it. As the great object of the Apostle was to 
 lead the Jews to the acknowledgment of the spiritual 
 necessities under which they laboured after Christ’s 
 advent, he passes over the former class of privileges, 
 and of the second, instances in this verse, only the one 
 which we first mentioned. It is clear, however, from 
 what has already been said, that all that these privi- 
 leges could effect, was merely to smooth the way to 
 the great end, in doing which, they proportionably in- 
 creased the culpability of those who failed to reach it. 
 The tokens of the divine favour exhibit, in stronger 
 contrast, the faithlessness of the Jews. Chrysostom: 
 εἶδες οὐδαμοῦ τὰ κατορθώματα αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς 
 εὐεργεσίας ἀπαριθιοῦντω 33 
 
 κατὰ πάντα τρόπον. St. Paul probably used these 
 words, without attaching to them any definite idea, 
 but there is nothing to hinder us from referring them 
 
 * Do you observe how he still enumerates, not their righte- 
 ous deeds, but the benefits conferred upon them by God ? 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 2. 167 
 
 to the two descriptions of privileges enjoyed by Is- 
 rael, those anterior to the period of the Messiah, and 
 those contemporaneous with his advent. 
 
 Πρῶτον μὲν γάρ. There is no secondly to correspond 
 with this. Grotius, Hammond, and others, indeed, 
 travel so far as chap. ix. 4, for what is wanting in 
 the immediate context. But this is highly forced. 
 Some, accordingly, have taken it up as an adjective, in 
 the sense the most important. Beza: Primarium illud 
 est, quod. The μὲν, however, points, not necessarily 
 indeed, but still with probability, to a following 62 
 Moreover, it is more in accordance with the fervour 
 of Paul’s mind to suppose, either that he had for- 
 gotten what ought to have followed, or that he deem- 
 ed what he had already said in the first place, to be 
 sufficient for his purpose. Bucer, Calvin: Etsi unum 
 istud esset, satis valere debet ad eorum dignitatem. 
 Origen violently construes ὅτι and πρῶτον together; 
 “unto them were first committed.” 
 
 ἐπιστεύθησαν. The subject is not ra λέγια, so as to 
 require the supplement of zélis, as the Vulgate and 
 the Syrian have supposed. According to an Attic 
 form of construction, instead of being put in the da- 
 tive, the person is made nominative to the passive 
 verb, in which it is here included, and to which it 
 forms the subject. ro λόγια is accusative, and the 
 proper translation is, they were entrusted with the 
 oracles. We have other examples in 1 Cor. ix. 17, 
 Gal. ii. 7, and also Philo in Flace. p. 987. Αἴγυπτον 
 ἐπὶ ἐξαετίαν ἐπιτράπεις. Lucian, Nigrin, c. 34, of ἐπιτε- 
 τραμμένοι τὰς πόλεις. 
 
 Aéyia τοῦ Θεοῦ, according to the common use of the 
 
158 CHAPTER III. V. 2, 3. 
 
 language, of which there are instances in Philo, may 
 signify, generally, the Divine precepts, but in parti- 
 cular, the ten commandments TA ATT, as in Acts 
 vii. 88, But as Paul had shewed above, that the 
 possession of the νόμος could do little for the Jews, 
 we must here adopt some other signification. Aéyroyv 
 means primarily a Divine declaration, and hence may 
 be applied particularly to promises and prophecies, 
 like χρησμοί. Profane writers employ it as synony- 
 mous with μαντεύματα. The LXX. translate JWM 
 λόγιον κρίσεως, and Josephus λόγιον. Philo, Quis rer. 
 div. ἢ. p. 482. ἀκροτέλευτον λόγιου τοῦ senobevrog αὐτοῦ 
 ra ue; Hunnius, Seb. Schmidt, and others, take it 
 here in the sense of ἐπάγγεμμια. Ambrosius, Cicu- 
 menius, Beza, and Beausobre in that of προστάγματα; 
 in which case the passage would resemble Ps. exlvi. 
 19, 20. It was a high distinction of the Jews, as 
 members of the theocracy, that they were honoured 
 with preintimations of the future plan of salvation. 
 
 V. 8. The Apostle himself starts an objection, 
 which might possibly be raised against the privilege 
 of the Israelites which he had specified. It might be 
 said, of what avail is it, that the Jews, for so many 
 hundred years before his advent, were favoured with 
 prophecies and promises respecting the Messiah. 
 Now that he is come, a vast majority of them do not 
 believe, and these, therefore, cannot be looked upon 
 as having been a very extraordinary benefit. To this 
 Paul replies: The advantages which a Jew, believing 
 in Jesus, derives from these ancient promises, re- 
 main precisely the same, notwithstanding the multi- 
 tudes of his countrymen who remain unconvinced ; 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 3. 159 
 
 for God unalterably fulfils his promises to all who are 
 willing to have them fulfilled; and thus the Jew, 
 who becomes a believer, has in so far the advantage 
 over the Gentile, that these promises guide him more 
 easily to the faith, and strengthen his convictions 
 when he has believed. 2 Tim. 11. 18, presents a passage 
 which is parallel in sense. Theophylact: Ταῦτα δὲ 
 λέγων, δοκεῖ μὲν αὐτῶν ὑπεραπολογεῖσθαι" ἔγκλημα OF ὅμως 
 πάλιν ἄλλο εἰς μέσον αὐτοῖς προσφέρει, κοὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτοὺς 
 ἀπιστήσαντας τοῖς θείοις λόγοις, OF ὧν ἐσιμήθησαν.Ὁ 
 
 ἠπίστησαν. Those who make λόγια the law, require 
 to take this word as synonymous with ἠπείθησαν, which 
 is, indeed, the reading of one codex. It is question- 
 able, however, if the rules of the language warrant 
 this interpretation. Hesychius, by whom it is pro- 
 posed, may have adopted it for the same reason as 
 the codex we have alluded to did the various reading, 
 viz. for the explanation of the passage. In some 
 codices of the LXX. it is used as the translation of 
 309. in Ps. xxv. ὃ. But there, for sound critical 
 reasons, ἀνομοῦντες is to be received. Koppe thinks, 
 that the Apostle was led to choose the verb ἀσίιστεῖν by 
 the noun πίστις following ; but it is far more natural 
 to suppose, that he selected the σίστις that follows in 
 consequence of amore) going before. τινές per cha- 
 rientismum for of πλεῖστοι. 
 
 Πίστις credibility, trust-worthiness. In a like sense 
 
 > While in saying this, he seems to apologize for them, he 
 in fact brings against them a fresh accusation, shewing that 
 they had disbelieved the divine oracles which had been grant. 
 ed to them as a high distinction. 
 
100 CHAPTER Ill. V. 3, 4. 
 
 it seems also to be used in many passages of the New 
 Testament. Gal. v. 22. Comp. Ecclus. xl. 12. 
 Profane authors have πόλεμος ἄπιστος, bellum contra 
 datam fidem. Melancthon: Hic locus continet egre- — 
 giam consolationem, ac monet ne propter ingentem 
 multitudinem impiorum, suspicemur promissionem 
 gratie Ecclesiz factam irritam esse, sed sciamus vere 
 eam exhiberi etiamsi paucissimi sint. 
 
 V.4. Paul replies in the negative to the question, 
 _ which he had himself started as an objection. In order 
 
 to show how utterly groundless that objection is, he 
 utters, in the warmth of discourse, the wish that all 
 mankind might prove covenant-breakers, as_ this 
 would only tend to glorify God the more, by being 
 the occasion of manifesting how great is his fidelity. 
 Theophylact: Θῶμεν ὅτι πάντες ἠπίστησαν" καὶ τι τοῦτο ; 
 καντεῦθεν δικωιοῦται ὁ θεός." 
 
 M7 γένοιτο is the strongest form of negation. The 
 corresponding phrase in Hebrew is mn, profana 
 res mihi sit. The Rabbins use wm; Be quiet and 
 dismiss such thoughts. Profane authors have εἰς xé- 
 φαλήν oo Kuster ad Aristoph. Plut. v. 525. From 
 having used this γένοιτο, the Apostle is led for the sake 
 of the paronomasia to employ γινέσθω in the next 
 clause. That word is capable of being interpreted two 
 ways, according to the punctuation. Herzog, who is 
 followed by Koppe, places a colon after δὲ, and takes 
 up the sequel as the quotation of a text of Scripture, 
 Ps. exvi. 11 ; γινέσθω would then signify, let that be 
 
 © Grant that all have disbelieved. What of that? Even by 
 their disbelief God is justified. 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 4. 161 
 
 fulfilled, or as Koppe renders it, “so let it rather 
 be.” According to the latter translation, we miss 
 ὧδε in the text. According to the first, there arises 
 the scruple whether γινέσθαι, without any further sup- 
 plement, can mean to be fulfilled, which does not 
 follow, as Wolf justly observes, from 1 Cor. xv. 54, 
 seeing that there it is joined to ὁ λόγος ὁ γεγραμμένος. 
 Accordingly it is more natural, not to place a point 
 after γινέσθω δὲ, but to construe it immediately with ὁ 
 Θεός. Its meaning would then be, let God become, 
 which amounts to as muchas let God appear. Theo- 
 phylact, φανεροῦσθωι. ᾿Αληθὴς, according to the He- 
 braistic use, refers to practical veracity, trust-worthy. 
 Ψεύστης denotes practical falsehood, and is to be 
 translated faithless. Hesychius, Ψεύδος, ἀπάτη, πλάνη. 
 The Old Testament frequently speaks with em- 
 phasis of the uncertainty of the word of man, and of 
 the imprudence of relying upon it, as Jer. xvil. 9. 
 The sentiment of the Apostle would have been more 
 appropriately expressed, if the second had here pre- 
 ceded the first clause. A similar declaration is made 
 with respect to men, in Ps. exvi. 11. As that, how- 
 ever, wants the Θεὸς ἀληθὴς, it is not probable that it 
 is what the Apostle cites. The citation which im- 
 mediately follows, contains an analogous thought. It 
 is quoted from Ps. li. precisely according to the LXX. 
 David acknowledges that he had sinned against God, 
 and does so, in order that God, in inflicting punishment 
 upon him, might be seen to be just. Soherethe acknow- 
 ledgment, that all men are faithless, serves to shew 
 forth the unspeakably great covenant-fidelity of God. 
 Δικαιωθῇῆς PTS wo to be right, to be justified. 
 M 
 
169 : CHAPTER III. V. 4. 
 
 Λόγος an action or law-suit, Acts xix. 38. Νιχᾷν, is 
 in like manner, and even by profane authors, used in 
 the sense to win a law-plea. The Hebrew text em- 
 ploys to express the same thing {3} to be pure. 
 
 Ἔν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε may be viewed either as passive, 
 or as middle. Several have even taken it in an active 
 acceptation. ‘To suppose it passive in the Hebrew 
 text, would not yield a suitable meaning, although it 
 would be grammatically correct. This, however, is 
 no sufficient proof of the passive acceptation not 
 having been adopted by the Septuagint, and after- 
 wards by Paul, which would here make the meaning, 
 when thou art judged, although that meaning, it 
 must be confessed, does not seem perfectly to accord 
 with the Apostle’s scope. The parallel passages from 
 the LXX. appear also in favour of it, and for these 
 reasons, it has been espoused by Lambertus Bos, 
 whom the majority of expositors follow. On the 
 other hand, the active signification is what would best 
 coincide both with the Hebrew text, and the Apos- 
 tle’s design in the passage before us; as there are no 
 examples however to support it, and as xgiveodos, when 
 not passive, is always middle, we here take it in 
 the latter mood. Although the Hebrew will not bear 
 this, MDW being in Kal. and requiring to be under- 
 stood actively, the LXX. might nevertheless, have 
 adopted the middle, from its analogy to theactive. Comp. 
 Is. xliii. 26, in the Septuagint. For these reasons we 
 thus translate, “that thou in controversy with men 
 mayest appear just, and maintain the superiority, when 
 thou judgest,” 
 
 V. 5. The answer now given to the objection 
 
 ; 
 ‘ 
 : 
 ἡ 
 i 
 1 
 : 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 5. 163 
 
 which Paul had himself brought forward, viz. as to 
 whether the unbelief of the Jews with respect to Christ, 
 did not deprive the dispensation of prophecy of its 
 whole value, might give occasion to a still more dan- 
 gerous assertion. When he said, that the falsehood of 
 man was the means of shedding a brighter light upon 
 the covenant-fidelity of God, the insolent sophistry of 
 the Jews might conclude from that proposition, that 
 the sinner was no longer amenable to punishment, as 
 thus contributing to the glory of the Divine Being. 
 The ἡμῶν has no special reference either to Jews or 
 Christians, but applies generally to all men committing 
 sin. ᾿Αδικία and δικαιοσύνη are the generic ideas for 
 the ἀπιστία and πίστις of the 5d verse. Συνιστάναι to 
 commend, manifest. Philo: (De migr. Abrah. p. 
 . 894,) τήν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ διωσύνιστησιν----κ τοῦ τόν κόσμον 
 δεδημιουργηκέναι. The τί ἐροῦμεν is ἃ figure of Rabbi- 
 nical Dialectics, sy ND N Wy), quid est dicendum ? 
 which in the Talmud, always appears in the abbrevi- 
 ated form of Syn. In like manner, it is peculiar to 
 the Rabbins, to repel the opponent by a negative, cast 
 into the form of an interrogation. 
 
 In the μὴ ἄδικος ὁ Θεὸς the Apostle gives the false 
 reply to the above sophistical question. Were this 
 reply true, it would justify the pernicious sophistry 
 which dictates the question, and might certainly be 
 deduced from the former impious inference. The μὴ 
 which, as is well known, like the Latin num, intro- 
 duces a question to which we expeet a negative 
 _ answer, may accordingly be here paraphrased, “ Shall 
 
 we then reply to that objection by paris that 
 God,” &c. 
 
164 CHAPTER III. V. 5. 
 
 χατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. There are three several accep- 
 tations in which this formulary may be taken. I speak 
 agreeably to the nature or understanding of man, or I 
 speak as men are wont to do, or, finally, in a still 
 more restricted sense, I speak as those mendo. These 
 various meanings may frequently indeed coincide ; it 
 is nevertheless possible to point out one of them as 
 the most common, and that is the second. This 
 is the meaning of the phrase in Gal. iii. 15, and Rom. 
 
 vi. 19, where we read χατὰ ἀνθρώπινον λέγω. In 
 
 support of it, it is usual, since the time of Grotius, 
 to instance Eccles. ii. 18, but there M727-5y has a 
 somewhat different signification. On the other hand, 
 it is of frequent occurrence among the Talmudists, 
 who, when they borrow any illustration from com- 
 mon life, are wont to say WIN MONT WDD as men 
 usually speak. ‘The same mode of speech is preva- 
 lent among classical authors; and takes its rise from 
 the general meaning of ἀνθρώπινον, that which is cus- 
 tomary among men. Comp. Aristoph. Vespe, v. 1174. 
 Μὴ μοὶγε μύθους ἀλλὰ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων οἵους λέγομεν μά- 
 λιστα τούτους nar οἰκίαν. Rane, v. 1174, ἢν οὖν σὺ 
 λέγης Λυκαβήτους, καὶ ἹΠαρνασσῶν ἡμῖν μεγέθη, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι 
 τὰ χρηστὰ διδάσκειν ὃν χρὴ φράζειν ἀνθρωπείως ; Strato, 
 the comic author, has ἀνθρωπίνως λαλεῖν. It is like- 
 wise equally common in Latin. Petronius: (Satyricon, 
 c. 90.) Minus quam duabus horis mecum moraris, et 
 seepius poeticé quam humane locutus es. Further- 
 more, Symmachus: (Epp. ed. Leccius, p. 47, ep. 32.) 
 
 Persuasisti mihi epistola mez concinnationem inhu- — 
 manam non esse. So likewise Cicero (De devina-_ 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 5, 6. 165 
 
 tione, 1. xi. c. 64) uses the expression, hominum more 
 dicere, in the sense “ to speak in ordinary language.” 
 Such is the meaning given to zara ἄνθρωπον λέγω in 
 the present passage by Theodoret. See his Expos. 
 of Gal. iii. 15. More ancient commentators deviate 
 from him, as, for example, Suicer, in this very place, 
 opposes to him Theophylact. Already Chrysostom 
 expounded the zara ἄνθρωπον by κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπινον δια- 
 λεχθείη λογισμόν, Which Theophylact and Gicumenius 
 more minutely explain. The former says, ἐγὼ μὲν 
 τοιαῦτα ἀπολογοῦμαι ὑπὲρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κατὰ ἀνθρώπινον 
 λογισμὸν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν, ὡς em δυνωτὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λογίζεσθαι 
 δικοιολογίας. ᾿Επεὶ ὅσω ποιεῖ ὁ “γεὸς, ἔχει τινὰς ἀποῤῥήτους 
 λόγους, ἃ By this exposition, a false reference is 
 given to the formula by its being brought into connec- 
 tion with the following answer of Paul, ἐπεὶ πῶς κρίνει, 
 &c. The Ambrosiaster interprets: Absit ne deus ini- 
 quus dicatur, quia hoc homini competit, quem constat 
 errare. Modern commentators differ greatly from each 
 other. Many unnaturally render it, as the opponents 
 Say. 
 
 V.6. The Apostle repels the insolent sophistical 
 objection under review, by retreating to a truth which 
 no Jew denied. If, as he argues, from the circum- 
 stance of sin’s bringing the Divine perfections into 
 clearer light, it could be inferred, that God ought not 
 to punish the sinner, it would follow that he could not 
 be the judge of the world, for it universally happens, 
 
 4 This I state in apology for God, according to human judg- 
 ment, that is, as an umpire decides upon the defences of the 
 parties. There are always some secret reasons in God’s doings. 
 
166 CHAPTER III. V. 6. 
 
 that the sins of men become subservient to the mani- 
 festation of God’s glory, without their native turpi- 
 tude being thereby done away. We, accordingly, 
 expound as follows: “ Were such the case, how would 
 he then judge the world. A future judgment must 
 also be given up.’ So Grotius, Beza, and others. 
 With a slight variation of idea, the majority of inter- 
 preters render it, “ were such the case, how would 
 he hold, z. e. would he have revealed that he will 
 hold, ajudgment?” This is in so far expressed with pre- 
 cision by Theophylact: Διότι σε κυλάζει, OF αὐτὸ τοῦτο 
 οὐκ εἶ αὐτῷ τῆς νίκης αἴτιος ἀδικίω γὰρ τὸ τόν αἴτιον τῆς 
 γίκης παρὰ τοῦ νικῶντος κολάζεσθαι. Even 50 Origen, 
 Theodoret, GZcumenius, and Bucer, who says, that 
 ἐς to judge, involves the idea of avenging sin.” There 
 is still another shade of the idea, suggested by Clarius, 
 but which is far-fetched. He lays the emphasis upon 
 Θεὸς, and determines the meaning to be, “ ought not 
 we rather to judge the world, who would thus bring 
 good out of our sins?” An interpretation, deviating 
 far from the common one, has been proposed by Lim- 
 borch and Koppe, who understand χόύσμος to mean, 
 the heathen world. This would yield the following 
 sense. “If, as by your fond sophistry ye conclude, 
 the sins of Jews make God unrighteous in punishing 
 you, you must also grant that the sins of the hea- 
 then equally conduce to the Divine glory, and hence 
 that it is equally wrong for him to punish them: an 
 
 © The mere fact of his punishing you does not constitute 
 you the cause of his overcoming. ΤῸ inflict a penalty on the 
 author of his victory would be injustice in the conqueror. 
 
 : 
 ‘ 
 “ 
 ‘ 
 
CHAPTER III. Vv. 6. 167 
 
 inference which, as Jews, you will not admit.” To 
 this interpretation no objection, on the score of lan- 
 guage, can be offered. The Jews were fond of dis- 
 tinguishing Sw and ὩΣ Π NYDN, those who be- 
 longed to the external theocracy, and those who were 
 excluded from it. ‘The same distinction was trans- 
 ferred to the spiritual theocracy, and κόσμος came to 
 denote all who have no part in the kingdom of Christ. 
 Under these the heathen are comprehended. Besides, 
 it is no less true, that the Jews believed that the 
 great judgment day, which they looked for at the 
 advent of the Messiah, was especially designed as a 
 day of vengeance against the enemies of the theo- 
 cracy, viz. the heathen. See Lightfoot ad Joh. iii. 
 17. In spite of all this, however, it is more correct 
 to suppose, that the Aposile here refers to that uni- 
 versal judgment to which God will bring the whole 
 world. For, in the first place, as Paul did not be- 
 lieve on a judgment of the heathen, according to 
 the Jewish views, he could not properly appeal to that, 
 as a perfectly certain event, which the use of the fu- 
 ture tense κρινεῖ shows that he does. In his concep- 
 tion, the judgment of the heathen must have been 
 comprised in God’s general office of YAN 55 pw, 
 as he is always called in the Old Testament. Again, 
 it is obvious, from the 8th verse, that under χόσωος the 
 Apostle had in view sinners of every kind, and not ex- 
 clusively the heathen. Moreover, he who uniformly 
 offered such decided opposition to the delusion of the 
 Jews, who flattered themselves, that, by virtue of mere 
 bodily extraction, they belonged to the kingdom of 
 God, insisting with them that their character rather 
 
168 CHAPTER III. v. 6, 7. 
 
 showed them to be of the world, would scarcely have 
 made so erroneousan idea the foundation of anargument. 
 
 ᾿Επεὶ alioquin, see Ast ad Plat. Remp. p. 633, Al- 
 berti Obs. p. 341. xgive, in our acceptation of the 
 passage, means not to condemn but to judge. 
 
 V.7. This verse justifies the statement contained 
 in verse 6th, viz. that by the sophistical perversion of 
 the truth in question, the idea of a judgment is en- 
 tirely done away. Instead, however, of introducing 
 the sinner, supposed to be unjustly subjected to judg- 
 ment, and making him speak in the third person, the 
 Apostle, by an ordinary figure of rhetoric, takes the 
 part upon himself. The connection of this verse with 
 the preceding is hence as follows: “It cannot be 
 allowed that God is unrighteous when he punishes 
 the sinner, for otherwise we must deny that he will 
 one day judge the world, inasmuch as I, a sinful 
 person, cannot lawfully be judged as such, seeing that 
 my sin conduces to the divine glory.” The exposi- 
 tion of the verse shows at once the incorrectness of 
 Limborch and Koppe’s interpretation of κόσμος, it 
 being obvious, that sinners of every kind are here 
 spoken of. 
 
 Ψεῦσμα for ψεῦδος, is to be taken as ἀδικία in verse 
 Sth, after the Hebrew, 4pw, which signifies worth- 
 lessness ; ἀλήθεια is practical truth, equivalent to 
 δικαιοσύνη holiness, which Old Testament use of 
 speech, the Rabbins still preserve, giving Ow), the 
 meaning of ¢ruth and holiness. That, in translating 
 this passage, the generic term ought to be used to ex- 
 press the idea, is obvious from the fact that the 
 Apostle has been led by the mention of the judgment 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 7, 8. 169 
 
 of the world, to make a transition from the special 
 relationship of the Israelite to God, which consisted 
 in covenant-faithlessness on the one side, and cove- 
 nant-truth on the other, to the contemplation of that 
 general relation in which man, as a sinner, stands to 
 the divine Being. It is entirely forced when Koppe 
 interprets tone tdolatry, and ἁμαρτωλὸς, an tdolater, 
 in order to make the passage apply to the heathen. 
 
 ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς τὴν δόξων αὐτοῦ, is in place of περισσο- 
 τέρως ἐδόξασε αὐτὸν, after the Hebrew, sy105 Vy 
 K¢ya. The za is here not altogether devoid of 
 meaning, in so far as it co-ordinates the fate of man 
 with the advantage which God gains in the case: it 
 may be expressed by beszdes, moreover. 
 
 V. 8. continues the confirmatory elucidation of 
 what was said in verse 6th. Supposing the sophism 
 in question to be laid down, two consequences follow, 
 not only does God cease to be the judge of the world, 
 but we are landed upon a proposition, which is revolt- 
 ing to every moral feeling, viz. that we are bound to do 
 evil that good may come. It is very difficult to find 
 the correct grammatical construction here. We men- 
 tion, in the first instance, the modes proposed by those 
 who do not supply any thing. Grotius considers 
 ὅτι as meaning why, and the μὴ at the beginning of the 
 verse with the ὅτι in the middle, as standing per me- 
 tathesin for ὅτι μὴ, why not. For rendering ὅτι, why, 
 the only example, (and it is a questionable one,) 
 which can be produced, is Mark ix. 11, 28; a meta- 
 thesis of this kind is in the highest degree violent ; 
 and, in fine, the words are at too great a distance 
 from each other, to admit of their being transposed. 
 
170 CHAPTER 11]. V. 8. 
 
 Others, such as the Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Baum- 
 garten, consider ὅτι as merely a particle of resump- 
 tion, required after the parenthetical clause, and con- 
 tend that the μὴ should be united immediately with 
 ποιήσωμεν. Such a use of ὅτι must be copied from 
 the Hebrew, and there are even passages in which 
 it is exemplified, as Is. xlix. 19. The exposition is 
 hence not inadmissible. We may also, however, 
 suppose that we have here an example of negligent 
 construction, and that something is to be supplied 
 after μή. Some suggest λέγομεν, as Erasmus, Calvin, 
 and Koppe. Louis de Dieu and Sebast. Schmidt 
 γένοιτο. It is better, however, to supply ποιοῦμεν or 
 ποιήσωμεν, aS is done by the Arabian translator, and by 
 Luther, Bengel, and Heumann, who thinks himself the 
 first author of the expedient. The Apostle had in- 
 tended to use this word, after καὶ μὴ, but being then 
 diverted from his purpose, he afterwards subjoins it 
 to ὅτι. According to this view, we endeavour to copy 
 the turn of the sentence in the following manner :— 
 “« And why should we not, as some, traducing us, say, 
 we recommend to—do evil that good may come.” By 
 this involution of the thought, which we have at- 
 tempted to imitate in the translation, the omission of | 
 the ποιήσωμεν is very easily explained. Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, and GEcumenius, appear to have adopted 
 the same construction. Theodoret, on the other hand, 
 supplies λέγομεν, likewise taking the sentence in an af- 
 firmative acceptation. As in some respects analogous 
 we may regard Thucyd, Hist. 1. 1. c. 134, xa! αὐτὸν 
 ἐμέλλησαν μὲν εἰς τὸν Κεάδα (ἐμβάλλειν) οὗπερ τοὺς κα- 
 κούργους ἐμβαλλεῖν εἰώθεσαν. Compare also for the 
 
CHAPTER III. v. 8, 9. 171 
 
 construction, 2 Cor. iii. 13. Why the Christians 
 were charged with this blasphemy is mentioned by 
 Chrysostom, Ambrose and Theodoret. Hear the 
 last: οὐδὲν, φησὶ, τούτων ἡμεῖς φαμὲν, Tag ἐτέρων δὲ λέγειν 
 συκοφαντούμεθα, οἱ τῆς συκοφαντίως τίσουσι δίκας. εἰδέναι 
 μέντοι χρὴ, ὡς τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων λεγόντων, ὅπου ἐπλεόν- 
 σεν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις, τινὲς TH θεοσεβείοι 
 δουλεύοντες, «Ψψευδολογίαις κατ᾽ αὐτῶν κεχρημένοι; λέγειν 
 αὐτοὺς ἔφασχον, ποιήσωμεν τὰ κακὼ, ἵνω ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀγαθά. 
 ὧν τὸ κρίμα ἐνδικόν ἐστι. ‘This supplement is not, as 
 is usually supposed, ἃ refutation of those who urge the 
 calumnious charge. Their refutation is already con- 
 tained in the clause, rag κρινεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον. Here 
 they are only incidentally alluded to, and, therefore, 
 this clause does not form a link of the argument. 
 ᾿Ἔνδικος quasi ἐν δίκῃ av; Hesychius: δικαΐος, ἄξιος. 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 EXPLANATION HOW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRiVI- 
 LEGES OF THE THEOCRACY, THERE IS NO DIFFER- 
 ENCE WHATEVER, IN AS FAR AS REGARDS GUILT 
 THROUGH SIN, AND NEED OF SALVATION, BETWEEN 
 HIM THAT IS A JEW, AND HIM THAT IS NoT. v.9 
 —21. 
 
 V.9. The defence which the Apostle makes for 
 himself in the preceding section, against the charge of 
 
 * We say, affirms the Apostle, no such thing, but are tra- 
 duced as saying so by others who shall one day receive the 
 
1γυ CHAPTER III. V. 9. 
 
 undervaluing the theocratical dispensation of God to 
 Israel, was forced from him, and did not properly 
 belong to the train of proofs which he is bringing 
 forward, with the sole purpose of showing the guilt 
 and need of salvation both of those who were, and of 
 those who were not, members of the theocracy. Ac- 
 cordingly, he now resumes his proper theme, which 
 he had relinquished at the end of chapter 2d. ΑἹ- 
 though, as his meaning is, this intermediate inquiry 
 yields the result, that, in respect of what has been 
 done for them by God, the Jews enjoy great privi- 
 leges, by means of which it is made easier for them 
 to enter into the kingdom of Christ, we are compelled, 
 nevertheless, to come back to our former proposition, 
 that in an equal degree with the heathen they are in- 
 volved in guilt, and stand in need of salvation. So 
 far as their divine ordinances are concerned, they 
 have much, but, as regards their real character, they 
 have no advantage at all over the Gentiles. So Chry- 
 sostom, Theophylact, and Ambrose. Origen: Paulus 
 velut arbiter inter Judzos et gentes temperat sermo- 
 nem semper et librat, ut nune nos nunc illos in qui- 
 busdam videatur arguere, et rursum singulas partes 
 certa spe promissionis animat. 
 
 The middle προξχεσθαι means to hold before one’s 
 self, and hence is used with ἀσπίδα. It is also em- 
 
 punishment of their calumny. It is right to know, that when 
 the holy Apostles taught, that where sin hath abounded, 
 grace did much more abound, some professors of the old re- 
 ligion, spreading falsehoods to their prejudice, reported that 
 they said, let us do evil that good may come. 
 
 ἃ 
 " 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 9. 173 
 
 ployed metaphorically with πρόφασιν, and signifies to 
 pretend, make an excuse. In this sense it may be 
 taken along with τί οὖν, as is done in the Syrian and 
 Arabian versions and by Koppe, and then the trans- 
 lation is, What pretext can we now allege? The re- 
 ply would be od πάντως, in the sense none at all. 
 As οὐ πάντως, however, cannot very well have this 
 meaning, it has been joined to the following verb; 
 and the particle γὰρ, which seems to resist such a 
 conjunction, has, on the authority of several codices, 
 been removed from the text. What pretext had the 
 Apostle here in yiew? might now be asked. The 
 most natural reply would be, that which he stated in 
 the context immediately preceding, and by which the 
 Jews thought to evade the penal justice of God. But 
 this does not accord with sgoqjriacdmeda κτλ.» which 
 treats of something entirely different. We would 
 therefore require to go still farther back, to the place 
 at which Paul shows that the mere knowledge of the 
 law does not profit the Jew, and that he is a sinner 
 no less than the Gentile. In this way might the in- 
 terpretation of σροεχόμεθα, now under consideration, 
 be defended, but at the expense of several supposi- 
 tions, which are unnatural. Moreover, such a use of 
 προεχέσθαι, although frequent in classical Greek, is by 
 no means so in Hellenistic. In that dialect προέχειν, 
 in the active voice, signifies to surpass. Now sup- 
 posing, according to Wetstein’s opinion, that syo- 
 εχόμεθα meant, are we surpassed by the heathen ? it is 
 clear this would not harmonize with the sense of the 
 passage, for in the first verse, mention was made of 
 
174 CHAPTER III. V. 9, 10, 11. 
 
 a περισσὸν τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαιοῦ. We must consequently em- 
 brace the plan of giving, what is unusual, an active 
 signification to the Medial σπροεχέσθαι, according to 
 which it is synonymous with προβάλλεσθαι, ὑπερέχειν. 
 In this manner, we are able to sunder τί οὖν, and od 
 πάντως retains its ordinary signification. τί ody is the 
 Rabbinical ΓΤ NPD ΝΣ, What comes from thence ? 
 A formula in use among the Rabbins when they take 
 up the result of an inquiry. Tecaréiobas. Grotius, 
 who adopts the usual interpretation, translates this 
 word by the legal phrase, accusationem przestruximus. 
 Vulg. precausati sumus. Here correctly rendered 
 by Ambrose, probare. Ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν, as under a lord. 
 See Matt. viii. 9, Gal. iii. 22. 
 
 V.10. The declarations from the Psalms which 
 delineate the great corruption of the men who sur- 
 rounded David in the court of Saul, Paul here em- 
 ploys in order to describe the universal depravity of 
 the whole human race. The 19th verse, however, 
 shows that he meant the words of the Psalmist to ap- 
 ply, in the first instance, to the Jews. The quotations 
 are collected from different Psalms. In the Codex 
 
 Alexandrinus of the LXX. they are all appended to — 
 
 the 14th, unquestionably from this passsge. V. 10— 
 12 is from Ps. 14, after the LXX. The words ὅσι οὐκ 
 ἔστι δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς are the Apostle’s own, in which he 
 gives the substance of the following quotations. 
 
 V. 11. Ps. xiv. 2. Συνιὼν DWH. An enlight- 
 ened knowledge comes only from converse with God, 
 and an unenlightened is averse to holiness, 1 Cor. ii. 14, 
 Ὃ ἐχζητῶν τὸν Θεόν. Pelagius: qui non requirit fun- 
 
 ae * . 
 ἢ ΄ 
 ΝΥ ποσὰ i i ὼ "ὦ 
 
CHAPTER III. Vv. 1], 12, 13, 14. 175 
 
 damentum, necesse est ut declinet. To man, as a 
 fallen creature, God is a hidden God. But a certain 
 longing and presentiment, more or less strong, impels 
 us to seek after that hidden being, until at last we 
 find him, and are so closely united to him, that we can 
 say, Ps. Ixxiii. 25, “ Whom have I in heaven but 
 thee, and there is none upon earth that I desire be- 
 side thee.” 
 
 V. 12. °E&éxAway means, according to the He- 
 brew, which is "D, ¢o deviate from the way which 
 leads to God. ᾿ἩΗχρειώθησαν to become useless or un- 
 profitable ; in the Hebrew mb) to corrupt, meta- 
 phorically to have an inward germ of vileness. “Ews 
 ἑνός, ἃ Hebraism for οὐδὲ cis. Calvin: Ut optimum 
 mutu inter nos conjunctionis vinculum nobis est in 
 Dei cognitione, ita ejus ignorantiam fere sequitur in- 
 humanitas, dum unusquisque, aliis contemptis se ip- 
 sum amat. 
 
 V.13. Literally quoted from the LXX. of Psalm 
 v. 9. The Psalmist calls the mouth of the wicked an 
 open sepulchre, because, as from the one comes the 
 stench of corruption, so from the other proceed pes~ 
 tilential words. Δολιοῦν to act deceitfully. The 
 Beeotian Alexandrine termination of all the historical 
 tenses is in cay, as ex. 47. ἐλάβοσαν, ἐμάθοσαν. ἐδολιοῦσαν 
 stands for ἐδολιοῦν. 
 
 V.14. After the LXX., with a slight alteration 
 from Ps. x. 7. ᾿Αρά as used by the LXX., signifies 
 an oath. Greek authors have ἀρᾶσθαι obtestari. Suidas 
 ἐπιθειάζειν τινί. ἀρά in this place, however, would 
 seem, from the connection with the following noun, 
 to mean perjury. For the word in the Hebrew is 
 
176 CHAPTER ττωὺν.0.14. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 
 
 not 4\Y°)79, which would correspond with the zixgia 
 of the Septuagint, but ΓΔ 2» which signifies fraud.* 
 
 V.15. This passage is quoted, with some abbrevia-,; 
 tion, from Is. lix. 7. The man who is thoroughly’ — 
 
 corrupted does not hesitate at a wicked act, but exe- 
 cutes it at once. 
 
 V. 16. Also from Is. lix. 7, Σύντριωμα καὶ ταλαι- 
 πωρία, IW) TW. “Odo is, after the Hebrew, the 
 way of living. ‘The sense, accordingly, is “in all that 
 they do there is destruction and misery ;” supply either 
 for themselves or others. 
 
 V.17. ὁδὸς εἰρήνης means a way of life from which 
 flows salvation. ΨΤινώσκων to know practically, hence, 
 to acknowledge. 
 
 V. 18. is from Ps. xxxvi. 1. Φόβος Θεοῦ, the fear 
 of God, arising from asense of his holiness. 
 
 V.19. Although, when he began to cite these 
 passages, Paul had not the Jews exclusively before 
 his eyes, but meant to paint the depravity of the 
 whole race, he now, however, applies them directly 
 to that nation; and, as he perhaps thought that they 
 might be misled by pride to fancy that such state- 
 
 ments could not be intended for them, he subjoins, 
 
 that whatever the Old Testament declares, it declares 
 of all who are under it. So Chrysostom, Calvin and 
 Grotius. 
 
 ὁ νόμος. In compliance with the exposition here 
 given, we require to take νόμος in its more general ac- 
 ceptation, as when joined with χαὶ of πεοφῆται, the 
 
 * [ Tholuck has acknowledged, that the exposition here is too 
 artificial. The passage probably means, ‘‘ their mouth is full 
 of cursing and anger.”’ 
 
 " 
 “Ὁ ᾿ 
 bs 
 
 Ἢ 
 
CHAPTER III. v. 19, 20. 177 
 
 writings of the Old Testament. In this acceptation 
 it is used, John x. 34, xii. 34, 1 Cor. xiv.21. It may 
 be objected, that when the word is so interpreted, 
 the expression οἱ ἐν τῷ voz does not correspond with it, 
 but neither is this necessary, if the different idea be but 
 expressed by a similar word. On the other hand, it is 
 not inadmissible to take νόμος in the narrower sense 
 of the daw, as is done by Calovius and Ammon. In 
 this case Paul must have viewed the νόμος as the reign- 
 ing principle of the Old Testament; as throughout 
 the New, it is the χάρις which speaks to man: and 
 his meaning is, “ whatsoever emanates from the spirit 
 of the law, in the writings of the Old Testament, is 
 addressed precisely to such as lived under the con- 
 stitution of the Old Testament, and hence the Jew 
 must take it home to himself, and urges to no pur- 
 pose his proud objections.” Hesychius gives as sy- 
 nonymous with ὑπόδικος, ὑπεύθυνος, χρεώστης; ἔνοχος δίκης. 
 
 ν. 290. With admirable skill the Apostle now puts 
 the key-stone to the inquiry which he has been car- 
 rying on from the 18th verse of the Ist chapter. 
 Ἔργα νόμου. We here already encounter this term, so 
 full of import in the doctrine of Paul. Under νόμος, 
 many, from ancient times, have contended, that nothing 
 else was meant, than that portion of the Mosaic law 
 which contains the ritual precepts. We may enume- 
 rate Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, Lom- 
 bard, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Kop- 
 pe, and Ammon. But the fact, that such a separa- 
 tion of the ceremonial from the moral part of the 
 law, was by no means usual among the Jews, is de- 
 cidedly opposed to this restricted interpretation of 
 
 N 
 
178 CHAPTER III. ν. 20. 
 
 the νόμος. In their constitution, the two were inti- 
 mately combined. The observance of the ritual was 
 to them a duty of precisely the same obligation as the 
 performance of the moral precepts. For this reason 
 alone, it behoves us, when the Apostle speaks of the 
 ἔργοις τοῦ νόμου, to understand the whole amount of 
 the duties obligatory upon the Jews, whether they 
 relate to external rites or moral actions properly so 
 called. That by the word νόμος the idea which he 
 means to express, is that of a religious and moral law, 
 externally imposing a command and obligation, apart 
 from any regard to its subject matter, results indisput- 
 ably from the connection of the whole doctrine of St. 
 Paul, as well as from that of particular texts. Comp. 
 the exposition of Usteri, Paulinischer Lehrbegriff, 
 S. 25. ff Even in the present passage, the connec- 
 tion demands this acceptation of νόμος. His object, 
 throughout the whole of the foregoing inquiry, had 
 been to show that the Jew is guilty, because he does 
 not keep the divine law, outwardly imposing obliga- 
 tions upon him; and that, for the same reason, the 
 heathen is guilty, even as transgressing that law im- 
 planted by nature within him, and which is also out- 
 wardly obligatory. Now, how inconsistent would it 
 be with all this, were he here to draw the conclusion, 
 that in so far as it respects a certain subject, viz. the 
 ritual precepts, the law is incapable of justifying a 
 man, but that it is able to doso, in as faras it respects 
 what is properly moral. The hinge, upon which his 
 argumentation turns, is not the matter and subject of 
 the law, but the relation of every divine precept, to 
 the fulfilment of it on the part of man. And if such 
 
CHAPTER III. v. 20. 179 
 
 be the case, it follows that, in what he says of the 
 νόμος, he refers also to the moral law with which we 
 are acquainted, seeing that that is not a mere subjec- 
 tive instinct, but an objective command. In the se- 
 cond chapter, he had in fact placed the moral law, as 
 engraved on the conscience of the heathen, upon a 
 level with the law of Moses ; and subsequently, in the 
 seventh chapter, after speaking in the Ist and 7th 
 verses of the Mosaic law, he insensibly makes a tran- 
 sition to the νόμος τοῦ νοὺς, v. 23. The right compre- 
 hension of these terms νόμος, and ἔργα τοῦ νόμου is of 
 high importance. For if we are to understand by 
 them nothing but the mere ritual precepts, it follows, 
 that the chief merit of the Old Testament consisted 
 in imposing a number of superfluous and burdensome 
 ordinances, and that all we are indebted for to the 
 New, is the abrogation of these. But if Christianity 
 did nothing more than liberate man from a multitude 
 of oppressive rites, its utility would certainly be alto- 
 gether of a negative kind. Under such circumstances, 
 we cannot blame Melancthon, when, in his excursus 
 xiv., he gives the preference, among the expositors, to 
 Augustine, for having extended the meaning of ἔργα 
 γόμου, beyond mere ritual observances. He adds: 
 Quid enim sit liberatio a lege, prorsus ignorant ili, 
 qui eam intelligunt tantum de ceremoniis. Several 
 Roman Catholic expositors take a middle path, hold- 
 ing that moral actions are meant, but only those that 
 precede conversion. This is suggested by Augustine 
 in Quest. 83, Qu. 67, whom Thomas Aquinas, and 
 Salmeron follow. The negative with πᾶς, means 
 none at all. Beza: Omnis caro non justificatur, pro 
 
180 CHAPTER III. vy. 20, 21. 
 
 quo planius dixeris, nulla caro justificatur. The 
 Apostle designates man by σὰρξ, which has the con- 
 comitant idea of weakness, as it were, “ poor feeble 
 man cannot justify himself before the eye of God.” 
 The law, whether written upon the conscience, or en- 
 graved upon tables, may teach man to know what sin 
 is; but it cannot teach him to hate it, nor inspire the 
 love of what is holy. Hence it aggravates his sinful- 
 ness, by shewing him on all hands what things he 
 ought to do, and what to leave undone. Chrysostom : 
 εἰ γὰρ αὐχεῖς ἐπὶ τῷ νόμῳ, αὐτός σε μᾶλλον κατοισχύνει. 
 οὗτός σου τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἐκπομπεύει.Β Melancthon: Hec 
 responsio prorsus nova et absurda videtur mundo, 
 lege tantum ostendi peccata non tolli. Nam legum 
 latores in imperiis ferunt leges, non tantum ut osten- 
 dant peccata, sed ut tollant. Verum non concionatur 
 Paulus de moribus externis. 
 
 PART THIRD. 
 
 ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NEW METHOD BY WHICH 
 GOD JUSTIFIES ALL, AND WHICH HE HAS DEVISED 
 IN CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR INABILITY TO ACQUIRE 
 JUSTIFICATION FOR THEMSELVES, BY A PERFECT 
 FULFILMENT OF THE LAW. v. 21—27. 
 
 Ver. 21. Paul has stated the grounds on which all 
 men stand in need of some salvation, similar to that of 
 
 4 If you glory in the law, it rather puts you to shame, by 
 making a display of your sins. 
 
 ee ae 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 21. 181 
 
 which he had announced himself as the messenger to 
 the Romans, chap. i. 16, 17. He has thrown Jew 
 and Gentile into perplexity as to the way of obtain- 
 ing justification before God, no one being capable of 
 securing it by fulfilment of the law. He now there- 
 fore at once draws aside the curtain, and exposes to 
 the eyes of mankind an entirely new and hitherto un- 
 heard of scheme, devised by God, and calculated for the 
 justification of the whole human race. Qicumenius: 
 Ἐπσιδείξας αὐτοὺς μηδὲν ὠφελημένους ἐκ τοῦ νόμου, καὶ εἰς 
 ἐπιθυμίαν ἀγαγὼν μεθέδου σῶσαι δυναμένης, εὐκαίρως εἰς τὴν 
 πίστιν εἰσβάλλει Χριστοῦ. 
 
 Νυνὶ δὲ is not a particle of transition, but designates 
 the time, now, in the revelation of the New Testa- 
 ment ; ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, V. 26. 
 
 Χωρὶς νόμου, without any respect to moral obligations, 
 without the law, in so far as it is a νόμος ἔργων, v. 27. 
 Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is the same as in 6.1. 17. Tlepavég. 
 wrat. Theophylact: Καλῶς εἴπε τὸ, πεφανέρωται, ἵνον 
 δείξῃ ὅτι ἐκέκρυπτο πάλαι οὖσα. καὶ διὰ τοῦ εἴπειν, μαρ- 
 τυρουμένη ὑπο τοῦ νόμου, δηλοῖ ὅτι οὐ πρόσφωτός ἐστι 
 
 Μαρτυρουμένη. The Apostle here intimates, as he 
 had before done, ec. i. 2, that it is not a new doctrine 
 which he teaches, and that the Christian revelation 
 
 * Having shewn them that they were destitute of all help 
 from the law, and brought them to desire some effectual way 
 of salvation, he casts them opportunely into the faith of 
 Christ. 
 
 * He uses well the word manifested, shewing that, although 
 hidden, it was of ancient date, and, in like manner, when 
 he says, it was witnessed by the law, he declares the same, even 
 that it is not of to-day. 
 
182 CHAPTER III. V. 21, 22. 
 
 was closely connected with the preparatory economy, 
 partly by the law which awakened a sense of sin, and 
 partly by the prophecies, as the presentiment of a 
 coming salvation. . | 
 
 V. 22. A more special definition of the justifica- 
 tion in question. Ard σίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ. It is the 
 effect of a believing inward acceptance of Christ in 
 all that he was for mankind. 
 
 εἰς πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. Supply, 
 as suggested by Luther, ἐρχομένη. One is tempted to 
 attach to each of the prepositions a special meaning 
 of its own; and, accordingly, Seb. Schmidt, and Chr. 
 Schmid refer εἰς tothe mere publication, and ἐπὶ to the 
 appropriation of grace. The ancients, Theodoret, and 
 (Ecumenius, very arbitrarily apply the former πάντας 
 to the Jews, and the latter to the Gentiles. It is 
 better, however, not to suppose a difference of mean- 
 ing in the two prepositions. Paul’s lively tempera- 
 ment led him to vary his expressions, without attach- 
 ing to them in every instance a different import. 
 See Gal. i. 1. 
 
 V. 23. To the self-righteous Jew it must have 
 been a very repulsive doctrine, that by obedience to 
 his law, he could by no means earn a title to salva- 
 tion, and so distinguish himself above the heathen. 
 But the more difficult it was for him to admit this 
 truth, the more does the Apostle feel himself obliged 
 to insist upon it. He, therefore, once more declares 
 it, “ If, on our part, there were conformity to the law, 
 this new way of justification might not perhaps be 
 necessary, but seeing that we are destitute of that, 
 God’s justifying us through Christ is a work of free 
 
 Se ΣΡ ΦΈΡ 
 
CHAPTER III. v. 23, 24, 25. 183 
 
 grace.” AéZalike J)25, andalso mdr, praise, glory. 
 1 Chr. xvi. 28, 29. Equivalent are the expressions 
 δόξα παρὼ τῷ Θεῷ, John v. 44,and δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ, John 
 xii. 43, and so likewise, καύχημα πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. It is 
 altogether arbitrary on the part of Glassius and Calov. 
 to interpret δόξω, the Divine image. 
 
 V. 24. The new way of justification, which is 
 stated generally in verses 21 and 22, is now, as far 
 as the 27th, clearly and magnificently unfolded, and 
 its relation to the human race at the same time taken 
 into view. So that verse 23 is to be regarded as in- 
 terrupting the development of the subject. 
 
 Δικοιούμενοι supply εἰσί, or rather it is to be con- 
 sidered as properly a participle to be collocated He- 
 braistically with ὑστεροῦνται. It would have added to 
 the perspicuity if, at this place, where he begins a 
 principal head of argument, the Apostle had made 
 the transition with ἀλλὰ, and a verbum finitum. ) 
 
 Δωρεὰν, without any thing done on our parts, but 
 the believing acceptance of that which has been ob- 
 jectively wrought out for us. We require to bring 
 neither sacrifice for expiation, nor any fixed amount 
 of legal performances. Ambrose: Nihil operantes nec 
 vicem reddentes. In the two following verses the 
 ἀπολύτρωσις ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, is explained and evolved. 
 
 V. 25 and 26 are closely interwoven, and hence 
 arises the question: In what relation does the latter 
 stand to the former ? Is it co-ordinate or subordinate ? 
 It will be necessary, however, in the first instance, to 
 determine the sense of the particular words. 
 
 ἹἸλαστήριον. This word is properly an adjective, 
 and we have to enquire, What is the noun to be joined 
 
184 CHAPTER III. V. 95. 
 
 with it? The choice lies between two, ἐπίθεμα and 
 θῦμα. Like other ancient nations, the Hebrews had 
 a sacred ark as a symbol cf the Divine presence. 
 This was covered with a golden lid, called TDD, 
 from 5, to cover. Upon the lid, and wrought as a 
 part of it, were two cherubim, turned face to face, and 
 spreading out their wings as a covering to the lid of 
 the ark. Over these cherubim was the throne of 
 God, whence Moses received the Divine oracles. 
 See Ex. xxv. 22, Num. vii. 89, (Jahn’s Archeologie, 
 Ὁ. ii. 5. 242; Lundius Von den Jiidischen Heiligthii- 
 mern, |. i. c. 13, and the learned treatise, De areca 
 Feederis, c. 9. in Bux. Fil. Exercitationes Historice, 
 Bas. 1659.) On the yearly feast of expiation, the 
 High-Priest sprinkled upon the lid of the ark the 
 blood of a bullock seven times, and seven times also 
 the blood of a goat, as a sign of the atonement of the 
 sins of the people. Even the Jews recognised in the 
 ark of the covenant a most important typical mean- 
 ing. Abarbanel says on the subject: “ Far be the 
 thought, that the cherubim served as ἃ mere orna- 
 ment, and betokened nothing higher.” In the mar- 
 ginal gloss to the Talmud, (Tract. Berachoth, chap. 
 v.) it is declared, “ God hath given us the figures of 
 the tabernacle, and of the holy place, and of all 
 their furniture, that we may thence learn the heaven- 
 ly truths.” Now, as the lid of the ark was in this 
 manner likewise a symbol of the grace of God, it is 
 probable, that the LXX. thence derived its name; 
 "55; besides the primitive meaning ¢o cover, having 
 also the metaphorical meaning ¢o atone, and that they 
 accordingly translated it ἱλαστήριον, the expiatory. In 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 25. 185 
 
 two passages, Ex. xxv. 17, xxxvii. 6, they even annex 
 ἐπίθεμα. Even so, Philo (de vita Mosis, l. iii. p. 668. 
 D. ed. Frank.) speaks of a πῶμα ἱλαστήριον, and after- 
 wards of an ἐπίθεμα προσαγορεύομενον ἱλαστήριον, and says 
 of it, ἔοικεν εἶναι σύμβολον φυσικώτερον τῆς ἵλεω τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 δυνάμεως. Thesame expression is also used Heb. ix. 5. 
 This signification of ἱλαστήριον has accordingly been 
 adopted by numerous expositors, as Origen, Theo- 
 doret, Theophylact, Gicumenius, Erasmus, Luther, 
 and others; and the meaning of the passage which 
 results from it is as follows: “ As the lid of the ark 
 of the covenant, when sprinkled with blood, imparted 
 to the Israelite a firm confidence of the forgiveness 
 of his sins, in like manner the Saviour, and specially 
 his death, is the security for our redemption, to which 
 we may believingly look. It is objected to this ex- 
 planation, that the Apostle, in a letter, addressed as 
 much to heathen as to Hebrew Christians, would 
 scarcely have used an image so entirely Jewish. On 
 the one hand, however, the ἱλαστήριον was a thing of 
 such consequence in the Jewish worship, that Gen- 
 tile Christians must necessarily have been acquainted 
 with it, accustomed as they were to the diligent study 
 of the scriptures of the Old Testament, and as, more- 
 over, many of them were previously proselytes to Juda- 
 ism. Again, on the other hand, the Apostle in this, as in 
 all the other Epistles, mentions numerous special facts, 
 the knowledge of which, by those to whom he wrote, 
 he ought as little, according to that doctrine, to have 
 assumed. Rom. ix. 10, 1 Cor. x. Nor can any 
 exception be taken to the explanation in question on 
 the score of the unsuitableness of the image. It is 
 
186 CHAPTER III. v. 25. 
 
 said, that the blood of the Saviour is the blood of the 
 victim, and that hence Christ may well be compared 
 to the sacrificed animal, but with no propriety to the 
 lid of the ark. Strictly speaking, the similitude re- 
 quires to be represented in the manner contended 
 for, and the felt want of correspondence, when it is 
 so represented, made the Fathers have recourse to the 
 most forced expositions. Just, however, as Christ is 
 represented in the New Testament, sometimes as high 
 priest, and sometimes also as victim, so, in like man- 
 ner under the Old, may not only the slaughtered 
 animal, but also the mercy-seat sprinkled with atoning 
 blood, be considered as furnishing a type of him. 
 From all this it appears, that there is nothing which 
 can be brought forward as a valid objection to the 
 meaning we have given to ἱλαστῆριο. Nevertheless, 
 however, the other explanation of the word, accord- 
 ing to which θῦμα is the noun supplied, expiatory sa- 
 crifice, seems more eligible, and especially for this rea- 
 son, that, as Bucer remarks, it has in the New Testa- 
 ment the analogy of doctrine more decidedly in its 
 favour. John i. 29, Eph. v. 2, 1 Pet.i. 19; ii. 24, 
 Heb. ix. 934. As to the elliptical form of the word, 
 it corresponds exactly with that of other terms ap- 
 plied to a sacrifice, as, ex. gr. χαριστήριον, σωτήριον, τὼ 
 ἐτήσια, τὼ γενέθλια. It is found in Josephus with this 
 import, which, accordingly, has been embraced by 
 Hesychius, Grotius, Clericus, Kypke, Elsner, Heu- 
 mann, and others. ‘There remains, however, a third 
 meaning to be mentioned, which is also admissi- 
 ble. ἹἹλαστήριον, the neuter of the adjective, may be 
 considered as used for the substantive, and synony- 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 25. 187 
 
 mous with /Awowos, and thus, the abstract standing for 
 the concrete, for Σωτὴρ. This is the interpretation 
 adopted by the Vulgate, which renders the word pro- 
 pitiatio ; so also, as it would appear, the Syrian, and 
 we may add, Louis de Dieu and Zegerus. The pa- 
 rallel passage, 1 John ii. 2, where Christ is called 
 inaowis, favours this reading. 
 
 How then shall we understand προέθετο ἢ προτίθημι 
 primarily signifies spectandum proponere, ἕο set i 
 view for the purpose of selection, or sale, or sacrifice, 
 &e. Hesiod. Theogon, V. 537, where, of the offer- 
 ing made by Prometheus to Jupiter, it is said μέγαν 
 βοῦν προὔθηκε, Διὸς νόον ἐξωπαφίσχων. ‘Transferred to 
 things spiritual, it has a variety of senses, to offer, 
 produce, prefer. In the middle voice it is specially 
 used to denote all kinds of exhibitions, also to resolve. 
 If, now, we inquire which meaning best suits the pre- 
 sent passage, that will depend upon whether we inter- 
 pret ἱλαστήριον, mercy-seat or atoning sacrifice. In the 
 first case, the sense ¢o set up to view is the one to be 
 chosen. In the second, the strong analogy with Eph. 
 i. 9, would lead to a preference of constituere. In- 
 deed the prominence given in that Epistle to the fact 
 of the purpose of salvation having been formed before 
 the creation of the world, renders it probable that, in 
 the text quoted from it, and therefore in the present 
 passage, the idea of time expressed by πρό and the idea 
 of space are both included. 
 
 πίστις ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι for εἰς τὸ aiwa stands, by 
 metonomy, for bloody death, the ἀκμὴ of his holy and 
 love-devoted life. The clause is best conjoined as 
 an epexegesis with ἱλαρτήριυν. Thus far extends the 
 
188 CHAPTER III. V. 25, 96. 
 
 general proposition of the Apostle, which, in sub- 
 stance, means as follows: “ By the believing appro- 
 priation of that, which Jesus Christ, during the whole 
 course of his blessed life, until it terminated in a 
 bloody death, was, and did, for the human race, men 
 are made partakers of justification before God.” He 
 now proceeds to show, what the Saviour’s life and 
 death actually achieved for mankind. The expla- 
 nation of the sequel depends upon what is the 
 meaning of δικαιοσύνη: how διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν is to be 
 understood; whether διὰ with the accusative, is 
 equivalent to διὰ with the genitive; if πάρεσις is the 
 same as ἄφεσις ; and, in fine, whether we are to view 
 πρὸς ἔνδειξιν aS a mere resumption of εἰς ἔνδειξιν. First, 
 with respect to δικαιοσύνη, some, as Ambrose and 
 Locke, interpret it fazthfulness, others, according to 
 a sense in which it is elsewhere used by Paul, good- 
 ness. So Theodoret, Socinus, Grotius, Bolten, and 
 ‘Koppe. Now it is true that, considered per se, it 
 may signify goodness even like the Hebrew 7p x, 
 which is sometimes synonymous with IDF. The διὰ 
 with the accusative is furthermore supposed to be of 
 the same force as διὰ with the genitive, and πάρεσις to 
 be synonymous with ἄφεσις, from which the following 
 sense results, “for the manifestation of his goodness 
 by the forgiveness of sins before committed.” Ac- 
 cording to this view, ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ is best construed with 
 προγεγονότων, committed in the time of forbearance. 
 Tigis ἔνδειξιν this class of expositors are disposed to 
 consider as a returning upon εἰς ἔνδειξιν, “ for the 
 manifestation of his goodness in the time now being.” 
 In this case, ¢éxasoy will also be taken in the sense of 
 
 a 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 25, 26. 189 
 
 good, and the clause, in which it occurs, interpreted, 
 « 90 that he even appears full of kindness, and in vir- 
 tue thereof justifies the believer.” There are many 
 things, however, which speak against this exposition. 
 In the first place, it cannot be shewn, that δικομοσύνη 
 occurs any where in the writings of Paul in this 
 strange sense, but uniformly means righteousness or 
 holiness. Much less can any shade of the idea good- 
 ness be imparted to d/xasog and δικαιοῦν. Again, the mis- 
 take of the case after διὰ is not probable, considering 
 how scrupulous Paul always is in this respect. More- 
 over, it is unlikely that πρὸς ede should be a mere 
 resumption of εἰς ἔνδειξιν. The change of the prepo- 
 sition makes the reverse more probable. Finally, as 
 to πάρεσις, it is true, that it may be considered equi- 
 valent to ἄφεσις. In Dion. Halic. we read (Antiqu. 
 1. 7. p. 446,) τὴν μὲν ὁλοσχερῆ πάρεσιν οὐχ, εὕροντο, τὴν δὲ 
 εἰς χρόνον ὡς ἂν ἠξίουν ἀναβολὴν ἔλαβον, where delay 
 is opposed to total remission, πάρεσις. If we com- 
 pare, however, Acts xvii. 30, τοὺς μὲν οὖν χρόνους τῆς 
 ἀγνοίας ὑπεριδὼν ὁ Θεὸς, we shall feel inclined to affix 
 another meaning to πάρεσις, and interpret it passing 
 by, overlooking. In this signification it was certainly 
 used by the Greeks, Xenophon (Cyr. 5, 4, 7,) has 
 πολὺ μεῖζον παρεὶς θαῦμα, ἐμὲ θαυμάζεις. Id. (Hipparch. 
 7. 10.) ἁμαρτήματα παριέναι ἀκόλαστα. So also 
 Dion. Hal. παριέναι ἁμαρτάδα ἀξήμιον. Appian uses πσά- 
 ρεσις like ἀμέλεια, καταφρόνησις. In Ecclesiasticus μὴ 
 φείδεσθαι and μὴ παριέναι are used parallel. Book of 
 Wisdom, παρορᾶν signifies to overlook sin. Accordingly 
 the Apostle first shows the relation of the scheme of re- 
 demption to the period before Christ. God has, as it 
 
190 CHAPTER 111. V. 25, 26. 
 
 were, permitted sin to pass as if he did not observe it. 
 But now in this plan of salvation, his holiness is ma- 
 nifested in such a way that the former sins, which he 
 tolerated the while with ἀνοχή, are made to appear 
 odious in his sight. The σρό in προγεγονότων relates 
 naturally to the period before Christ’s advent. Paul 
 further shews the relation of the scheme of redemp- 
 tion to the σῷ viv χαιρῷς. In this also must God’s 
 holiness be manifested. The νῦν καιρὸς forms a con- 
 trast to the ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῆ. We would not, however, say, 
 that the other view, according to which πρὸς. ἔνδειξιν 
 is considered as a repetition of the εἰς ἔνδειξιν, is inad- 
 missible. In conformity with it, Michaelis expounds 
 stify but correctly, “ for the vindication of his justice 
 with regard to sins once committed, and which he 
 with patience and long-suffering bore—for the vindica- 
 tion of his righteousness at the present time.” The 
 Apostle is hence enabled to conclude, that by this in- 
 stitution, the Divine holiness is placed upon a firm 
 basis, while, at the same time, the justification of men 
 is wrought out. As tothe manner in which the plan 
 of salvation produces these effects, see the observa- 
 tions upon chap. v. 15—19. Bengel: Summum hoc 
 paradoxon evangelicum, nam in lege conspicitur Deus 
 justus et condemnans, in evangelio justus ipse et jus- 
 tificans peccatores. 
 
CHAPTER. III. V. 27. 191 
 
 PART FOURTH. 
 
 EPIPHONEMA: IN WHICH IT IS SHOWN HOW BY THIS 
 SCHEME OF JUSTIFICATION, ALL OPPORTUNITY OF 
 AGGRANDIZING SELF IS DONE AWAY, AND HEATHEN 
 AND JEW OBTAIN MERCY ON THE SAME TERMS. V. 
 27—31. 
 
 V.27. It may be asked, whether the Apostle ad- 
 dresses himself principally to the Jews, or jointly and 
 equally to Jews and Gentiles. The former is the more 
 likely. He has still in his thoughts the presumption 
 of the Jews, against which he had inveighed up to the 
 21st verse, and to them he again reverts at verse 29. 
 In this view, the thought here uttered by the Apostle 
 is the same with what is delivered in the 9th verse, viz. 
 “Inasmuch as Christianity finds the subject of the 
 theocracy equally with the man who is an alien to it, 
 in the condition of not fulfilling the law, it lays the 
 same necessity upon both of taking refuge in the new 
 plan of salvation, and does away that status of the 
 Jew, in virtue of which he arrogated to himself the 
 right of looking down upon the Gentile. Theodoret: 
 Καύχησιν ὃὲ καλεῖ σὺ ὑψηλὸν τῶν ᾿Ιουδωίων φρόνημα. 
 Compare Ephes. ii. 8, 1 Cor. i. 29. It would per- 
 haps, however, be more correct to take the abstract 
 καύχησις ἴῃ the sense of the concrete καύχημα, materia 
 -gioriandi. 
 
 ᾿Εξεχλείσθη., Theodoret: οὐκ ἔτι χώραν ἔχει. Chry- 
 sostom: ὅπερ ἀκοωιρίας ἔστι. In this sense, Paul speaks 
 
192 CHAPTER III. V. 27, 28. 
 
 of a παλαιότης γράμματος, Rom. vii. 6. If it is only by 
 the acceptance of an objective redemption that men 
 
 are justified and sanctified, no one can boast of his 
 
 own efforts. 
 
 Διὰ ποίου νόμου ; Chrysostom : 1δοὺ καὶ τὴν πίστιν νόμον 
 ἐχάλεσεν, ἐμφιλοχωρῶν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, ὥστε παραμυθεῖσθαι τὴν 
 δοκοῦσαν εἶναι καινοτομίαν. τίς OF ὁ τῆς πίστεως νόμος; διὰ 
 χάριτος σώζεσθαι. Νόμος is most frequently, like ΓΤ; 
 interpreted in the general sense of doctrine, as in James 
 ij. 25. In several passages of Paul’s writings, which 
 are cited as examples, this sense, it must be confessed, 
 is less suitable, Rom. viii. 2, vii. 25, where, according 
 to the Apostle’s peculiar phraseology, it ought rather 
 to be rendered rule or method. As this latter sense, 
 however, does not answer in the present case, νόμος 
 must undoubtedly be translated doctrine, which is an 
 extension of the original meaning law. Νόμος ἔργων 
 is a very common expression, and may here, for the 
 sake of assimilation, have suggested the phrase νόμος 
 πίστεως. 
 
 V. 28 is an inference drawn from the preceding, 
 as οὖν itself indicates. Several codices, instead of οὖν 
 read γὰρ, which, however, does not conform so well to 
 St. Paul’s train of thought. 
 
 Δογιζόμεθα. Not properly συλλογιζόμεθα, argumen- 
 tando concludimus, as Theodoret expounds it, but as 
 in chap. viii. 18, Heb. xi. 19, persuasum nobis habemus. 
 
 1 Observe, he has. called even faith a law, fondly dwelling 
 upon such names, for the purpose of softening what has the 
 semblance of being a novelty. What is then the law of faith ἢ 
 It is, that salvation must be obtained through grace. 
 
 ΄ 
 Se 
 
CHAPTER III. V. 28, 29, 30. 1938 
 
 So 2 Cor. x. 7, Phil. iv. 8. Erasmus skilfully: Ex- 
 istimamus enim, (better igitur) id quod res est, post- 
 hac quemvis hominem per fidem justitiam consequi 
 posse. 
 
 Πίστει is translated by Luther, allein durch den 
 glauben. Against this the shallow-minded among his 
 Catholic opponents raised a mighty outcry. The. ἐὰν 
 μὴ of Gal. i. 16, amounts to as much, and even Ca- 
 tholic translations introduce the alone in the present 
 passage. Thus, in the Niirnberg edition, 1483, it 
 is nur durch den glauben. The LXX. frequently in- 
 terpolate it where it does not stand in the Hebrew. 
 Lev. iii. 11. Deut. vi. 13, 1 Sam. x. 19. The Fa- 
 thers often affirm, “ that by faith only is man justi- 
 fied.” Hence Erasmus (De ratione concionandi, |. 3) 
 says: Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoe seculo in 
 Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur. With re- 
 gard to νόμος ἔργων, which many imagine to imply 
 only ritual precepts, see the comment upon v. 20. 
 
 V. 29 and 30. The Apostle could not deny, that 
 in one respect God might be regarded as the God of 
 the Jews only, viz. in his having given to them ex- 
 clusively institutions preparatory to the redemption. 
 Inasmuch as these very institutions, however, were 
 intended to be subservient to the introduction of a 
 _ salvation designed for all mankind, God’s interest in 
 the fate of Gentile nations was not in abeyance even 
 in the establishment of the Old Testament theocracy. 
 Besides, even in the Old Testament, it is in many 
 places distinctly averred, that heathen nations are by 
 no means shut out from manifestations of the Divine 
 love, so that Paul might confidently look for an ac- 
 
 ο 
 
194 CHAPTER III. v. 30, 31. 
 
 knowledgment on the part of the Jews, that the God 
 whom Abraham styled YON) DVWTIP was also the 
 God of the heathen. 
 
 Several codices read εἴπερ in place of ἐπείπερ, which 
 cements more closely the connection between the two 
 verses, and gives greater emphasis to the thought. 
 The prepositions ἐκ and διὰ must be supposed to pos- 
 sess the same force, and yet the change can scarcely 
 be thought to have been undesigned. Perhaps it 
 implies a gentle stroke of irony, of which we have 
 elsewhere, in St. Fau’s writings, still stronger exam- 
 ples, Gal. v. 12. 
 
 V. 31. Ananthypophora. Here, where the Apostle 
 affirms that salvation is attainable apart from all 
 demands of the law, he might be met with that seru- 
 ple which at all times has forced itself upon the mind 
 of man, in contemplating this extraordinary scheme of 
 salvation, viz. whether such a doctrine does not lead 
 to immorality. The formal confutation of this ob- 
 jection he takes up at chaps. vi. vii. but especially 
 at the viii, At present he does no more than briefly 
 and generally attest that the Christian doctrine of 
 faith produces holiness. Equally forced and insipid 
 are the expositions of this verse, given by those who 
 understand by ἔργο νόμου, the observance of the cere- 
 monial law. So that Cocceius might well say of it: 
 Haec jugulant opinionem Socinianorum. Ofall these, 
 Erasmus undoubtedly gives the best; and yet how 
 unnatural is even his! Adeo non abolemus legem 
 aut labefactamus, ut eam etiam confirmemus sta- 
 
 biliamusque, id predicantes factum qued lex futu- © 
 
 rum promiserat, eumque nuntiantes in quem, ceu 
 
 ee 
 
CHAPTER IIL V. 8]. 195 
 
 scopum, summa legis spectabat. Neque enim id 
 aboletur, quod in meliorem reparatur statum, non 
 magis quam si defluentibus arborum floribus suc- 
 cedat fructus, aut umbrz succedat corpus. In what 
 manner and in how far the Christian doctrine of jus- 
 tification establishes the law, the Apostle does not 
 here say, but it is shown in chaps. vi. vii. viii. 
 where he describes how, subjectively at least, the 
 redeemed yield a certain satisfaction to the law. He 
 demonstrates, to wit, how this moral law, per se, 
 does not suffice to beget love for the performance of 
 it; that there exists in man, according to the present 
 circumstances of his nature, a conflict of tendencies, 
 some of which are favourable and some repugnant 
 to what is divine ; that, on the other hand, a believing 
 acquiescence in the scheme of salvation engenders in 
 ’ the heart the love of God, and therewith the love of 
 God’s law; and that thus a new principle of life is 
 implanted in him, which operates from the heart 
 outwards, and brings forth the καρπὸς rod πνεύματος. 
 In this way, in the case of the believing Christian, 
 obedience is actually rendered to the law, and that of 
 the genuine kind, seeing that it rests on the inward 
 basis of a mind penetrated with love to God. Such 
 is the manner in which faith subjectively establishes 
 the law. It likewise establishes it, however, objec- 
 tively, inasmuch as Christ, by his holy life and death, 
 perfectly fulfilled it, and thereby satisfied the demands 
 of the moral government of the world. Compare the 
 fine sentiments of Calvin upon this verse. However 
 true this is, and much although it may seem to stand 
 
 here in its right place, still it cannot be denied that 
 
196 CHAPTER III. V. 939]. 
 
 a still closer coherence with the sequel is effected by 
 another explanation, suggested by Flatt and Koppe. 
 The Apostle had declared in the 21st verse, that he 
 was the preacher of a method of justification, which, 
 however new it might appear, had nevertheless been 
 already anticipated and foretold in the Old Testa- 
 ment. In the 4th chapter he endeavours to establish 
 this by proofs. It is not impossible, therefore, that 
 by the word νόμος we are to understand the books of 
 the Old Testament, and that Paul means to say, that 
 the entire doctrines he had before been teaching were 
 founded upon truths already recognised under the 
 former covenant. In this acceptation the verse forms 
 a convenient transition to the 4th chapter. In regard 
 to its meaning, Chrysostom observes: τρία τοίνυν ἐν- 
 ταῦθα ἀπέδειξε, καὶ ὅτι χωρὶς νόμου δυνατὸν δικομωθῆναι, 
 καὶ ὅτι τοῦτο οὖκ ἴσχυσεν ὁ νόμος, καὶ ὅτι ἡ πίστις αὐτῷ οὐ 
 μάχεται 
 
 ™ He has here demonstrated three things; that justification 
 
 is possible without the law ; that the law was unable to effect 
 it ; and that it is not hostile to the law. 
 
CHAPTER FOURTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 For the purpose of still further corroborating in the eyes of 
 Jews the Christian doctrine of justification, the Apostle 
 shews that under the Old Testament, no less than under 
 the New, the source of the divine goodness was on God’s 
 part free grace, and the condition of its reception on the 
 part of man, faith. This is manifest from a Psalm of 
 David’s, but more especially from the history of Abraham, 
 that is, from the relation to God of two individuals who, 
 above all other men, might, if the thing had been possible, 
 have founded a claim upon the merit of their works. The 
 life of Abraham particularly evinces that his works by no 
 means sufficed to accomplish his justification. If, however, 
 the Israelite chose to ascribe, either to circumcision, which 
 is the sign, or to the law, which is the foundation of the 
 theocracy, any influence and co-operation in the matier of 
 justification, it could be shewn, that, on the contrary, these 
 distinctions of Israel, rested solely and exclusively upon the 
 righteousness which is by faith, which was thus, as it were, 
 the cause of the theocracy. 
 
 PARTITION. 
 
 1. Proof that Abraham was not justified by works, but by 
 faith. V. 1—6. 
 2. Proof that David was justified by free grace. V. 6—8. 
 
198 CHAPTER IV. Vv. 1. 
 
 3. Proof that circumcision, the sign of the theocratical covenant, 
 had no share in the justification of Abraham. Far from 
 being subservient to that end, it was much more a conse- 
 quence of it. V. 9—12. 
 
 4. Proof of the establishment of the theocracy without the 
 co-operation of the law. So far from the law having 
 given rise to the theocracy, both the theocracy and the 
 law rested upon the righteousness which is by faith. V. 
 ΡΥ 
 
 5. Description of Abraham’s faith, and statement of the noble 
 benefits accruing to believers, as exhibited in his ex- 
 amaple. V. 18—25. 
 
 PART FIRST: 
 
 PROOF THAT ABRAHAM WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY 
 WORKS, BUT BY FAITH. V. 1—6. 
 
 V. 1. Ir was natural for the Israelite, upon hearing 
 of this new method of salvation proposed by Paul, to 
 reflect upon the Old Testament, and to ask, in objec- 
 tion, whether the holy men, whose lives are there re- 
 lated, did not obtain justification before God by per- 
 fect obedience to the law? Theophylact: καὶ φησὶν, 
 ὅτι οὐδὲ οὗτος ὁ τοσαῦτα nal τὰ τηλικαῦτα κατορθώσας, 
 ἐδικαιώθη ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς πίστεως. 
 
 τί οὖν. The οὖν need not here be considered as a 
 mere formula transeundi, it is grounded in the Apos- 
 
 * And he says, that not even he, viz. Abraham, who had 
 performed such mighty acts of righteousness, was justified by 
 works but by faith. 
 
CHAPTER IV. V. lL. 199 
 
 tle’s train of ideas. What then, that being the case 
 with justification, shall we say of the righteous men 
 who lived under the Old Testament ? 
 
 σὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν. We must not follow Cocceius, and 
 take this appellation in the spiritual sense, which is 
 afterwards at the 16th verse developed by St. Paul. 
 It here means our bodily progenitor, the Hebrew IN 
 forefather, Gen. xxviii. 13, 1 Kings xv. 11. The 
 Rabbins give the same name to Abraham. Κατὰ σάρκα 
 is by most expositors, and, among others, by Chrysos- 
 tom, Erasmus and Limborch, joined to πατέρο. But 
 to this it may be objected, first, that it produces a 
 harsh hyperbaton, to avoid which, several codices of 
 authority have placed εὑρηκέναι before τὸν πωτέρω ἡμῶν, 
 and, 2dly, that in such a conjunction, κατὰ σάρκα would 
 be a superfluous addition, while, on the other hand, 
 some supplementary clause would be required to de- 
 fine εὑρηκέναι. It is, therefore, more correct to con- 
 strue it with εὑρηκέναι. 
 
 εὑρίσκειν, both in profane and sacred authors, means, 
 like the Hebrew NY, to acquire, earn, Luke i. 30, 
 Heb. ix. 12. What then, in connection with this 
 word, does κατὰ σάρκα imply? The usual meaning of 
 Σὰ, in reference to the Old Testament theocracy, 
 is, “ the outward privileges conferred by God upon 
 the Israelites.” So 1 Cor. x. 18, Phil. iii. 3, Gal. vi. 
 12. In this general sense it is taken by Cocceius 
 and Witsius, who thus explain the text, “by the 
 Mosaic economy it was impossible for him to be justi- 
 fied, for it did not then exist.” Wetstein and Mi- 
 chaelis suppose that it refers in a more restricted 
 sense to circumcision, “ in virtue of the circumcision 
 
900 CHAPTER Iv. V. I, 2. 
 
 in his body.” In the immediate context, however, 
 the Apostle is shewing, not the inefficacy of circum- 
 cision to secure the patriarch’s acceptance with God, 
 
 but the inefficacy of his works in general. It is obvious, 
 
 therefore, that for an explanation of zara σάρκα, We 
 must have recourse to the ἐξ ἔργων of v.2. Not that 
 we ought to follow Theodoret, and view κατὰ σάρκα 
 as precisely equivalent to ἐξ ἔργων, which is not the 
 case. The Apostle rather considers σίστις, as in 
 fact it is, an inward principle of life, and hence 
 contemplates it in the aspect of a σνευματικὸν im- 
 planted by God, in contrast with which he views 
 works, as but the product of the weak and enslaved 
 moral powers of the natural man. Κατὰ σάρκα is there- 
 fore to be looked upon as opposed to zara πνεῦμα. 
 and translated humanly, by his own moral endeavours. 
 Comp. the observ. upon Sagé at chap. i. 3, 7. The 
 interpretation of Calvin, who makes it naturaliter, 
 and the identical one of Grotius “ propriis viribus,” 
 are therefore virtually correct. We require only to 
 notice, farther, an unnatural interpunctuation adopted 
 by Grotius and Clericus, who place a point of inter- 
 rogation after ἐροῦμεν and translate, “ What shall we 
 then say? That Abraham has attained (justification) 
 by his own endeavours °” 
 
 V.2. We here desiderate a proper answer to the 
 question. The γὰρ, however, indicates, as usual, a 
 silent thought. See Fritzsche Comm. in Matt. ind. 
 s.h.v. The οὐδοτιοῦν, which the sense requires, is 
 suppressed. Abraham, it is true, had whereof to 
 glory, but that only before men, who cannot try the 
 heart, and even of the external conduct survey only 
 
CHAPTER IV. V. 2, 3. 201 
 
 an inconsiderable part; and his glory, however uni- 
 versally acknowledged, would avail him nothing so 
 long as he did not stand justified in the eye of the 
 omniscient God. A consideration, which is not in- 
 deed founded on a connection with these words, but 
 which indicates, in a very beautiful manner, the dif- 
 ference between evangelical and legal righteousness, is 
 
 GAN οὐ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ ὡς κατωρθωκότι" 
 ὃ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως σωθεὶς, ἐπεὶ μὴ ἔχει εἰς ἑαυτὸν καυχήσασθαι, 
 οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔργον ἔπραξεν, εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καυχᾶται" μεῖζον δὲ τὸ 
 εἰς Θεὸν καυχᾶσθαι, ἥπερ εἰς ἑαυτόν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ κατορθώ- 
 ματα, πολλάκις καὶ ἀφονίξεται ἑτέραις πλημμελείωις" ἡ δὲ 
 εἰς Θεὸν καύχησις, ἄτρεπτος διαμένει.» 
 
 V.3. Ti γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ λέγει ; A corroboration of what 
 the Apostle has just declared, that God could by no 
 means consider the character of Abraham as con- 
 formable to the law. The γὰρ must therefore be 
 translated for. In proof of this, he now quotes Gen. 
 xv. 6, verbatim from the LXX., excepting only that 
 he substitutes a δὲ for a χαὶ The whole life of the 
 patriarch displayed an extraordinary strength of faith. 
 The first great manifestation of it was his unreserved 
 compliance with the will of God in his departure from 
 his native land and kindred. The second was that 
 
 _> He would have whereof to glory, not before God indeed, 
 but in himself, as having acted righteously. But the man 
 who is saved by faith, being destitute of any ground for glo- 
 rying in himself, seeing he has done nothing, glories in God. 
 And it is better to glory in God than in ourselves. For our 
 good deeds often disappear before our sins, whereas the glory 
 that is in God remains for ever immutable. 
 
902 CHAPTER IV. v. 3. 
 
 recorded in the 15th chap. of Genesis, when he ad- 
 mits into his belief what, from the advanced years 
 both of himself and his wife, appears to be an impos- 
 
 sibility, even that Sarah should bear him a son, and 
 
 that by means of that son, a blessing should be diffused 
 not merely over Canaan, but over the whole earth. 
 The third instance, in fine, in which he manifested 
 his faith, was his willingly giving up, when required 
 to do so by God, this very son of promise, on whom 
 all his future prospects depended. Gen. xxii. On 
 account of this persevering faith, Abraham is highly ex- 
 tolled even among the Jews. 1 Mace. 11. 52. ᾿Αβραὰμ 
 οὐχὶ ἐν πειρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστὸς, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δι- 
 χκαιοσύνην; Philo de Abrahamo, p. 386, ed. Frankf. 
 ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἀνάγραπτος ἔπαινος αὐτοῦ, χρησμοῖς μαρτυρηθεὶς 
 ods Μωῦσῆς ἐθεσπίσθη, δ οὗ μηνύεται ὅτι ἐπίστευσε τῷ Θεῷ. 
 ὅπερ λεχθῆναι μὲν βαρύτατον ἐστὶ, ἔργῳ δὲ βεβαιωθῆναι 
 μέγιστον In the Jewish commentary οἵ R. Ismael 
 Mechilta, it is, in like manner, said of Abraham: De 
 Abrahamo legimus, quod mundum hune et futurum 
 non nisi ea de causa consecutus sit, quam quia in 
 Deum credidit, quod dicitur, Gen. xv. 6. The occa- 
 sionupon which Abraham showed the faith that obtain- 
 ed for him the above testimony from God, was not in- 
 deed of so trying a nature as the offering up of Isaac, 
 still it was a most heroic act of believing, and the ex- 
 
 = 
 
 * And his praise has been recorded, being testified by the 
 oracles which Moses delivered, by whom it is reported that he 
 believed in God. And that this has been said of him is a great 
 thing, but it is a far greater that it has been confirmed by 
 acts. 
 
CHAPTER IV. V. 3. 203 
 
 traordinary energy of mind required for it, is described 
 by Paul himself, v.18, 19. The common Jew looked 
 only at the external act of Abraham. Paul proves that 
 it is not that which consitutes its true worth, but the 
 believing devotion of self to God, that laying hold of 
 his promises, which is also the great characteristic of 
 a Christian. Among the Jews, there are many who 
 appreciate the high importance of religious faith, as 
 an inward giving up of self to God. To this purpose, 
 Philo has various beautiful passages, De Abrahamo, 
 p- 387. “ The one only sure and infallible good is 
 faith, the faith that is fixed upon God; it is the 
 consolation of life, the fulfilment of hope, the ab- 
 sence of evil, and the price of every blessing; it is 
 the ignorance of misery, the knowledge of piety, and 
 the inheritance of felicity ; it is that which perfects 
 every thing, depending as it does upon him who is 
 the great first cause, who has power to do all things, 
 but who wills only the best.” In the sequel, he styles 
 faith, the queen of virtues. More especially, however, 
 in his work, Quis rerum divinar. heres? p. 498, 
 «« Abraham believed in,God, and to have done so re- 
 dounds to his praise. Some indeed may perhaps in- 
 sinuate, that there is nothing very commendable in 
 that; and may ask, if any one, even the most unjust 
 and impious of men, would not give heed to the 
 words and promises of God. To whom we reply, 
 beware thou of inconsiderately defrauding the wise 
 man of his merited eulogium, of assigning faith, which 
 is the most perfect of virtues, to the unworthy, or of 
 casting reproach upon our knowledge of this subject. 
 For if you please to search more deeply, and not 
 
204 CHAPTER IV. V. 3, 4. 
 
 keep to the mere surface of things, you will readily 
 perceive, that to believe in God alone, and in nothing 
 else besides, is by no means an easy matter. And 
 what makes it hard is our relationship to the mortal 
 body with which we are yoked, and which persuades 
 us to believe in riches, and glory, and power, and 
 friends, and health, and strength, and many other 
 things. But to be weaned from all these, and to dis- 
 believe a generation which denies whatever lies be- 
 yond itself, and to believe in God only, who is the 
 only true object of belief, is the act of a great and 
 heavenly mind, elevated above the allurements of any 
 thing here below. And well is it said, that faith was 
 counted to him for righteousness, for there is nothing 
 so righteous as to exercise a pure and unmingled faith 
 in God alone.” In heathen antiquity, we find few 
 traces of a recognition of the high importance of re- 
 ligious faith. There is a passage in Plutarch which 
 has some reference to the subject, Sept. Sap. Conv. 
 c. 18. Speaking of Arion as he rode upon the dol- 
 phin’s back, he says that he was neither very much 
 afraid of death, nor yet desirous to live, but longed 
 to be saved, ὡς λάβοι περὶ θεῶν δόξαν βέβαιον. In the 
 heathen philosophy πίστις and δόξα coincided. 
 
 Δικαμοσύνη, in Hebrew i178, denotes here subjective 
 holiness. God looked upon Abraham’s childlike sub- 
 mission as if it were real holiness, and attached value 
 to it alone. Parallel is Ps. evi. 30, 31. Deut. xxiv. 
 13; vi. 25, may likewise be compared, and for an 
 exposition of the Old Testament citation, Luther’s 
 Auslegung des Genesis. 
 
 V.4. Paul here defines more precisely the sub- 
 
CHAPTER IV. V. 4. 205 
 
 stance and meaning of the above quotation. A doubt 
 might arise, whether the words really implied that 
 Abraham had not been able to attain by his works a 
 perfect state of justification before God. Accord- 
 ingly the Apostle shows, that the idea of ascribing 
 faith as righteousness, implies the impossibility of the 
 party otherwise having such _a righteousness as God 
 could accept. 
 
 τῷ δὲ ἐργαζομένῳ is best translated by Luther, “der mit 
 Werken umgeht” and Beza: Is qui ex opere est aliquid 
 promeritus. The great majority of expositors, however, 
 take it in the emphatic sense of “ acting faultlessly.” 
 Theodoret expounds it thus, ὁ γὰρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης 
 ἐργάτης μισθὸν ἀπαιτεῖ, and so also Limborch, Baum- 
 garten, and Christ. Schmid, who deems it synony- 
 mous with ἐργαζόμενος δικαιοσύνην, Heb. xi. 33. The 
 context might, it is true, impart this meaning to the 
 word, but it is by no means probable that it does so. 
 That man in general, and Abraham no less than 
 others, is incapable of yielding a perfect obedience to 
 the demands of the moral law, it is not the object of 
 the Apostle here to show; what he asserts is, that in 
 point of fact, Abraham’s works were not the ground 
 of his justification. Grotius puts a false interpretation 
 upon the whole clause: Sicut qui operam alicui pre- 
 stat, non ideo amicus est illius, sed mercedem accipit 
 operee respondentem, sic etiam qui nativa vi, ut po- 
 test, Dei preeceptis externis aliquo modo paret, habet 
 mercedem, liberatur a suppliciis, sed non ideo fit ami- 
 cus ; Χάρις hic amicitiam significat. Calovius justly de- 
 nominates these interpretations, “ Strabe, plane 
 alienze a mente Apostoli.” 
 
206 CHAPTER Iv. V. 4. 5. 
 
 Ὃ μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται κατὰ χάριν. λογίζεσθαι is here 
 either put, per meton. cause pro consequentia, for 
 reckoning instead of paying, in which case, it might 
 also be supplied to κατὰ τὸ ὀφείλημα and χατὰ χάριν 
 would be entirely parallel with εἰς δικαμοσύνην. Here 
 the emphasis lies solely upon χάριν and ὀφείλημα, 
 whereas in verse 5, it lies, if not upon εἰς δικαμοσύνην, 
 at least upon the whole clause λογίζεται αὐτῶ εἰς δικαι- 
 οσύνην. Or, on the other hand, the zara χάριν is an 
 explicatory supplement to AcyiZerou, to which we must 
 imagine it connected by a silent τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, and the 
 nara τὸ ὀφείλημα is united per zeugma with λογίζεται, 
 upon which the whole emphasis rests, being consi- 
 dered by the Apostle as fully involving, and suffi- 
 ciently expressing the idea of what is undeserved. 
 This last is at once the weightier exposition, the more 
 conformable to the usual diction of Paul, and is no 
 less agreeable to the context than the others. It is 
 expressed with great precision by Michaelis. “To him 
 who does works, the reward is not said to be reckoned, 
 an expression which makes it appear as if it were 
 given from grace, but he obtains it because it is his 
 due.” Even in profane authors χάρις and ὀφείλημα 
 stand opposed to each other. 
 
 V.5. The counting of faith as righteousness, the 
 Apostle here says, implies that Abraham had not the 
 power of placing himself in any other way in a state . 
 of justification. He now transfers the analogy fur- 
 nished by the case of Abraham to the domain of 
 Christianity, shewing how the term λογίζεσθαι, as used 
 in reference to the patriarch, designates precisely the 
 relation in which the sinner who is justified through 
 
CHAPTER IV. ν. 5. 207 
 
 the redemption of Christ, stands to the Divine justice. 
 That we must here suppose a transition from the 
 example of Abraham to the case of the Christian, 
 who believes in God’s justification through Christ, is 
 clear from the expression σπιστεύοντι ia} τὸν δικαιοῦντα 
 roy ἀσεβῆ, seeing, that in that particular act, which 
 the Apostle has mentioned, the object of the patri- 
 arch’s belief was by no means the justifying grace of 
 God. This remark is made by Sebastian Schmidt, 
 Baumgarten, and Chr. Schmid. On the other hand, 
 the commentators who think these words have a spe- 
 cial reference to Abraham, either call the attention, 
 like Beza, to the fact, that even Abraham might be 
 characterised as ἀσεβὴς, in so far as he did not yield a 
 perfect obedience to the moral law—which observa- 
 tion is certainly just in itself, but does not do away 
 with the difficulty, that in the instance alluded to 
 it cannot be Abraham’s faith in the pardoning grace 
 of God, which is spoken of; or like Michaelis, Ro- 
 senmiiller and Koppe, they follow Grotius and 
 Wetstein in taking up ἀσεβὴς in the sense of ¢dolater, 
 and supposing that it referred to the patriarch’s hav- 
 ing been once addicted, like his father Terah, Josh. 
 xxiv. 2, to idol worship, according to the tradition of 
 the Rabbins Mirchand, Philo, and Josephus, which 
 interpretation is peculiarly unnatural. Guarding 
 against the abuse of this passage, Calvin says: Neque 
 enim fideles vult esse ignavos, sed tantum mercena- 
 rios esse vetat qui a Deo quidquam reposcant quasi 
 jure debitum. Et jam prius admonuimus non hic 
 disseri, qualiter vitam instituere nos opporteat, sed 
 queeri de salutis causa. We have only farther to add, 
 
208 CHAPTER IV. Vv. 95. 
 
 that the Vulgate, and several Latin Fathers, append 
 to the verse, Secundum propositum gratiz Dei, which, 
 however, is wanting in the Greek Codices. 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 PROOF THAT DAVID WAS JUSTIFIED BY FREE GRACE. 
 ΝΣ 6—S8. 
 
 Tue Apostle now appeals to another most distin- 
 guished forefather of the Jews, even David, and shows 
 how he had not boasted of his merits, nor claimed 
 from God any recompense as his due, but, on the con- 
 trary, had extolled God’s pardoning mercy. In re- 
 spect of the form, this second Old Testament instance 
 of righteousness by faith is not, as Seb. Schmidt 
 accutely observes, co-ordinate with that of Abraham. 
 For although, in respect of the sense, there is such a 
 co-ordination, still the sentence is only appended as 
 a voucher for the meaning given to λογίζεσθαι in verse 
 5. The transition is as follows: “ That the idea of 
 justification, which I express by λογίζεσθαι, is correct, 
 will be apparent from the fact, that David in the 
 Psalms extols the same kind of justification, and when 
 he speaks of the ground of his acceptance with God, 
 passes over in silence his sin-stained works.” In this 
 view, Chrysostom justly observes, it would be more 
 appropriate if the words of the Apostle were μακάριος 
 ὦ ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνη. The quotation is made 
 from Psalm xxxii. 1, 2, verbatim after the LEX: 
 According to the opinion of commentators, this Psalm 
 
 : 
 { 
 
CHAPTER Iv. V. 6, 7. 209 
 
 was composed after David’s transgression with Bath- 
 sheba. It was consequently very well adapted to the 
 purpose of St. Paul; for at that time, it must have 
 been very natural for the fallen king to look en- 
 tirely away from himself, and appeal only to the 
 Divine mercy. 
 
 Μακαρισμὸς, attribution of blessedness; hence λέγει 
 σὸν μακαρισμὺὸν is equivalent to μακαρίζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 
 Χωρὶς ἔργων. ἔργα here is the same as Zeya νόμου. an 
 additional proof that the latter means works of the 
 moral law. 
 
 to cover, are, like the two corresponding Hebrew 
 words NW) and JOD, synonymous metaphorical ex- 
 
 pressions for the forgiveness of sins. Theodoret in 
 Psal. ἃ. ἢ. 1]. : τοσαύτῃ γὼρ πρὸς αὐτοὺς κέχρηται φιλότι- 
 
 V.7and8. ἀφίεναι to put away, and ἐπικαλύστειν 
 
 μίᾳ, ὡς οὐ μόνον ἀφιέναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ καλύψαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας, 
 χαὶ μηδὲ ἔχνη τούτων καταλιπεῖν ἃ 
 
 Λογίζεσθαι to place to account, a figurative word, 
 which, in like manner as éo retain, is used with respect 
 to sin. Job employs an expression implying even a 
 stronger figure, ch. xiv. 17. 
 
 “Such generosity does he exercise towards them, as not only 
 to forgive, but even to cover their sins, so that net even the 
 traces of them are left. 
 
210 CHAPTER Iv. V. 9. 
 
 PART THIRD. 
 
 PROOF THAT THE SIGN OF THE THEOCRATICAL COVE- 
 NANT, CIRCUMCISION, HAD NO EFFICACY IN THE 
 JUSTIFICATION OF ABRAHAM. INSTEAD OF BEING 
 A PROCURING CAUSE, IT WAS A CONSEQUENCE OF 
 ee ve SA. 
 
 V. 9. SEVERAL modern expositors, and among 
 others, Chr. Schmid and Koppe, connect these words 
 closely with the preceding context, supposing that 
 the Apostle suddenly starts aside, and, instead of 
 waiting the opponent’s answer, hastens to resume the 
 former theme of Abraham. This, however, is a 
 wrong view of the course of the ideas. It is more 
 correct, as Theophylact, amongst others, has shown, 
 to suppose that at the commencement of the 9th verse, 
 a new point of the enquiry istaken up. The Apostle 
 has been hitherto demonstrating, that in the case of 
 the holiest men of the Old Testament, the ground of 
 justification was not the fulfilment of the law, but the 
 free grace of God. That the Israelite might have 
 granted, but he would have restricted the principle to 
 the members of the theocracy. In opposition to 
 which, Paul now shows that this kind of justification 
 took effect upon Abraham, on the one hand, before he 
 had yet received the sign of the theocracy, and on 
 the other before the promulgation of the law, in which 
 respect the Patriarch appears to stand perfectly on a 
 level with every Gentile. ‘O μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος, 
 
 >is 
 
CHAPTER Iv. ν. 9, 10. 211 
 
 according to the view of the train of thought which 
 we have adopted, we must interpret as follows: 
 “‘ Does this counting one’s self blessed, on account of 
 the free grace of God, belong only to the Theocrat ?” 
 The verb to be supplied is, as suggested by Theo- 
 phylact, πίπτει, but better perhaps ἔστ. The καὶ be- 
 fore ἐπὶ τὴν ἀχροβυστίαν is a sign that the sense re- 
 quires us to conceive a μόνον introduced after é/ 
 τὴν περιτομῆν. It is, therefore, false in Cicumenius 
 and Theophylact so to state the question of 
 Paul, as if he ascribed to the heathen a greater right 
 to the μακαρισμὸς than to the Jew. λέγομεν γὰρ. 
 The γὰρ links the new argumentation to the previous 
 concessions. ‘The Apostle supposes the Jew to have 
 allowed that Abraham was pronounced just without a 
 _ regard to works. It would unquestionably be more 
 ~ correct to include this clause in verse 10th, with which 
 it is so closely connected, and with which it must be 
 combined to make a whole. 
 
 V.10. The Apostle might have confuted this new 
 and exclusive restriction of the Jews, by urging what 
 he had already brought forward at the commence- 
 ment of the 3d chapter, viz. that God had imparted 
 circumcision to the members of the theocracy, as a 
 gift of free grace, and that, hence, it could only pos- 
 sess that degree of value in the eyes of God, which he 
 in the counsels of his free-will chose to attribute to 
 it. The history of Abraham, however, afforded 
 him an opportunity of employing a still more tri- 
 umphant argument against them. The declaration 
 of God, wherein he justified Abraham for the sake 
 
ore CHAPTER Iv. v. 10, I1. 
 
 of his faith, was made, if not twenty-five, at the least 
 fifteen years anterior to the introduction of circum- 
 cision, Gen. xvii. 23. When the patriarch received 
 it, he did not, of course, as yet belong to the theocracy. 
 Πῶς here signifies, under what circumstances 9 
 
 V. 11. The Apostle strengthens the proof. Not 
 only, he maintains, is cireumcision, as the sign of the 
 covenant, not the condition of justification by free 
 grace, it is nothing more than a consequence of it. 
 Chrysostom : Οὐχ ὑστέρα δὲ μόνον (περιτομὴ) τῆς πίστεως, 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ σφύδρα αὐτῆς καταδεεστέρα, καὶ τοσοῦτον ὅσον 
 σημεῖον τοῦ πράγματος οὗπερ ἔστι σημεῖον As is com- 
 mon with our author, he here restricts the facts of the 
 Old Testament more than is done in the Old Testa- 
 ment itself, by giving prominence to the essential 
 point. The sign of the covenant was not really con- 
 ferred upon the patriarch in consequence of that great 
 act of faith, but for his general childlike acquiescence 
 in the plans and purposes of the free grace of God. _ 
 As, however, that act of faith was a particularly dis- 
 tinguished instance of his submissive compliance with 
 the Divine economy, the Apostle was justified in re- 
 presenting the covenant sign as a consequence of 
 justification by faith. We have to observe, in the 
 first place, with respect to the text, that several of 
 the Greek fathers read σεριτομὴν in the accusative. 
 The genitive, however, is preferable, and the accu- — 
 sative has been substituted in its room only because of — 
 its infrequency. It is the genitivus appositionis, — 
 
 © Not merely is circumcision posterior to faith, but even far . — 
 inferior, as much so indeed as the sign to the thing sig- τὸ 
 Β ΗΝ Ε 
 nified. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 1]. 913 
 
 similar to the Latin flos viol, and requires to be re- 
 solved into ἡ περιτομὴ ἡ ἔστι σημεῖον. In precisely the 
 same manner, the Rabbins are accustomed to connect 
 ΠῚ circumcision, as the genitivus appositionis with 
 DVN ἃ sign, and PDN a seal. 
 
 Σφφωγὶς means τὸ δακτύλιος, rarely δακτυλίον DAV, 
 το σημεῖν τῶν δακτυλίων, and τὸ ἐκμαγεῖον τῶν σημείων. 
 Here it signifies the latter. An impressed seal is the 
 sign of the strongest confirmation, and hence in the 
 New Testament σφραγὶς is frequently used in the 
 sense of βεβαίωσις, 1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 19, and by 
 the fathers, baptism is styled ἡ ἀθανατοποιὸς καὶ σωτήριος 
 σφραγίς. (Grabe Spicil. Patr. tom. i. p. 332.) The 
 Sabzans likewise call it the seal of life. With re- 
 spect to the thing itself, circumcision was but the 
 sign of reception into the theocracy. As Philo says, 
 (De Opif. Mundi, p. 36.) ra αἰσθητὼ σημεῖα εἶναι! σύμβολα 
 τῶν νοητῶν. In that light it was regarded by the Jews, 
 (See Schottgen and Wetstein.) They denominate it 
 in Jalkut Rubeni, f. 65, 4, the sign of the covenant, 
 and in the Chaldee Paraphrase to the Song of Solo- 
 mon, “ the seal of circumcision which strengthens like 
 swords those who bear it.” It is also called the seal of 
 Abraham and the holy sign. (Comp. Liber Cosri, ed 
 Buxt. p. 1. ec. 115.) In this view, therefore, the Is- 
 raelite could not but grant the truth of what the 
 Apostle said, and just as little was he able to contra- 
 dict him, when he made the covenant sign dependent 
 upon the earlier act of faith. Long before Abraham 
 had shown himself worthy of it, God opened the way 
 for him to become the founder of a blessed family upon 
 the earth. With childlike obedience, the Patriarch fol- 
 
914 CHAPTER Iv. Vv. 1]. 
 
 lowed the heavenly intimations, and in faith laid hold 
 of the promises. This simple and submissive accept- 
 ance on his part of the offered grace of God, now 
 became the cause of God’s actually imparting to him 
 that covenant sign, and thereby constituting him, in 
 fact, the author of a Divine commonwealth, at first com- 
 prehending only a single family, which soon, however, 
 extended to a nation, until finally, at the appearance 
 of Christ, it spread over the whole human race. Ei 
 τὸ εἶναι, is a copy of the Hebrew method of joining 5 to 
 the infinitive, and stands for καὶ οὕτως ἐγένετο. Tlso- 
 revovres OF ἀκροβυστίας. On the use of διὰ like the 
 Hebrew 3, to signify with and im, see chap. ii. v. 
 27. It ishere to be resolved into χαΐπερ ἀκρύβυστοι ὄντες. 
 
 Πατέρα τῶν πιστευόντων OF ἀκροβυστίας. The word 
 father is figuratively used by eastern nations to de- 
 note the most multifarious relations. The most com- 
 mon is the general one of dependenee. In the pre- 
 sent case it is to be taken in the sense of author or 
 founder. Comp. Job xxxviii. 28; Gen. iv. 21; 1 
 Mace. ii. 54. Φινεὲς ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ φηλῶσαι ζῆλον, 
 John viii. 44. Carpzovius: exemplar. Schleusner 
 prefers the meaning, antesignanus. The two, however, 
 are virtually identical. Abraham, as the first of those 
 who received justification in this way, leads the train 
 of all who in the same way receive it after him. 
 There is a similar passage in the dictionary Michlal 
 Jophi upon Mal. i. “ Abraham is the father of all those 
 who follow him in faith.” The word father is used in 
 the same sense by Maimon. Opp. Poe. 1, p. 63. “ Mo- 
 ses is the father of all preceding prophets.” 
 
 The εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι expresses more distinctly in 
 
CHAPTER IV. V. 11,.19. ora 
 
 what this paternity consists, viz. that as children par- 
 take the nature of their father, so may all the heathen 
 appropriate to themselves the privileges which were 
 enjoyed by him, who by his childlike faith founded 
 the kingdom of justification by free grace. Theodo- 
 ret, pushing the comparison too far, has the following 
 words: ‘O γὰρ τῶν ὅλων Osis, προειδὼς ὡς Θεὸς, καὶ 
 ὡς ἕνω λαὸν ἐξ ἐθνῶν καὶ lovdaiwy ἀθροίσει, καὶ διὰ πίστεως 
 αὐτοῖς τὴν σωτηρίαν παρέξει, ἐν τῷ Πατριάρχῃ ᾿Αβραὰμ, 
 ἀμφότερα προδιέγρωψε. Δείξας γὰρ αὐτὸν, καὶ πρὸ τῆς 
 περιτομῆς τὴν ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνην κτησάμενον, καὶ μετὰ 
 THY περιτομὴν, οὐ κατὰ τὸν Μωσαϊχὸν πολιτευσάμενον νόμον, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιμείναντα τῇ τῆς πίστεως ποδηγίᾳ, πατέρα τῶν 
 ἐθνῶν αὐτὸν προσηγόρευσεν. ἷ 
 
 V.12. What the Apostle here means to say is, that 
 the members of the Israelitish theocracy are as little 
 excluded from justification by the fact of Abraham’s 
 having received the righteousness of faith when he 
 did not as yet belong to it. All, however, depends 
 upon their choosing to take the same way to it as 
 Abraham did. Ciéicumenius : ἱΩσπὲς γὰρ οἱ ἐν ἀκροβυσ- 
 Tit, οὐ διὸ τοῦτο μόνον σχοῖεν ἂν τὸν ᾿Αβρωὸμ, πατέρα, διὰ 
 To ἐν ἀκροβυστίῳ αὐτὸν πεπιστευκέναι, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὴν πίστιν 
 
 μυιιμήσαιντο, οὕτως οὐδὲ οἱ ἐν περιτομῇ σχήσουσι, οὐ διῶ τὸ 
 
 f He who is the God of all, foreseeing, as God, that he would 
 gather one people from among Jews and Gentiles, and impart to 
 them salvation through faith, prefigured both in the person of 
 the Patriarch Abraham. For having shewn, that even prior to 
 
 circumcision, he possessed the righteousness which is through 
 
 faith, and subsequent to his circumcision, that he was not 
 subject to the Mosaic law, but continued under the discipline 
 of faith, he calls him the Father of nations. 
 
216 CHAPTER IV. Vv. 12. 
 
 μόνον περιτιμηθῆναι τὸν AReudL, ἕαν μὴ καὶ τὴν πίστιν αὐτοῦ 
 μιημυήσωνται.8 
 
 The dative τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον is put accord- 
 ing to the analogy of the Hebrew, instead of the ge- 
 nitive τῶν. The genitive, in that language, being 
 often expressed by 5. There is a twofold way of 
 understanding the meaning and scope of these words, 
 for each of which weighty arguments may be alleged. 
 The Syrian interpreter, andthe Vulgate find here, not 
 as we do, an antithesis between exclusive self-righ- 
 teous Jews and subjeets of justification by faith, but 
 between Jews and Gentiles. And the same opinion 
 is adopted by Theodoret, Anselm, Castalio, Grotius 
 
 ~ 
 
 and Koppe. These expositors regard τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ 
 περιτομῆς μόνον aS an inversion for οὐ τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς 
 μόνον. οἵ which latter collocation we have an instance 
 below in verse 16th. As exemplifications. of this 
 harsh construction, Castalio appeals to 1 Thessalonians, 
 i. 8, 2 Tim. ii. 6, and Koppe quotes the present passage 
 in support of his unnatural explanation of ἐκ φύσεως, 
 Rom. ii. 97. But not one of the three passages fur- 
 nishes sufficient authority for so violent an inver- 
 sion, as these expositors propose. It is true, that 
 partly the καὶ before τοῖς standing in immediate con- 
 nection with ἀλλ, and more especially the repeti- 
 tion of the article before στοιχοῦσι, speak in their fa- 
 
 & For as those in uncircumcision have not Abraham for 
 their father, for the sole reason, that he believed in an uncir- 
 cumcised state, unless they are also imitators of his faith ; so 
 neither, without this condition, shall they of the circumcision 
 have him for their father, from the mere circumstance of his 
 having been circumcised. . 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 12. ΤΥ 
 
 vour. This last reason, however, is not enough to 
 countervail the harshness of the inversion, and the 
 reasons for the opposite exposition which we have 
 adopted. In favour of that may be urged, that it would 
 be totally superfluous to repeat what had been said in 
 the 11th verse touching the justification of the Jews : 
 Moreover, that, according to the other interpretation, 
 the πατέρα περιτομῆς, without any further addition, 
 would be quite destructive of the sense. It would 
 only refer, as Koppe makes it refer, to the lineal des- 
 cent of the Israelites, which is here quite contrary to 
 the train of thought. In fine, it is also confirmatory 
 of our explanation, that if Abraham is here stated to 
 be the father of the subjects of the theocracy, some 
 sort of limitation, like that which the Apostle makes, 
 appears indispensably necessary. This view has ac- 
 cordingly been adopted by Chrysostom, Ambrosius, 
 (who had the Latin translation before his eyes,) Eras- 
 mus, Beza, Calvin, Carpzovius and others. ᾿Αλλὼ καὶ 
 we must translate but rather, and not but also, καὶ 
 having often this intensifying power. Τοῖς στοιχοῦσι τοῖς 
 ἤχνεσι. The repetition of the article is to be consi- 
 dered as a solecism. Στοιχεῖ means fo follow. 
 
9218 CHAPTER 1V. v. 13. 
 
 PART FOURTH. 
 
 PROOF OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THEOCRACY 
 WITHOUT THE CO-OPERATION OF, WHAT WAS 
 ITS CHIEF PILLAR, THE LAW. INSTEAD OF THE 
 LAW HAVING FOUNDED THE THEOCRACY, THEY 
 WERE BOTH THE OFFSPRING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 
 BY FAITH. V. 13—18. 
 
 BEsIpEs the covenant sign of circumcision, their hay- 
 ing received the law operated as another cause to lead 
 Israel into the error of imagining the privilege of an 
 interest in divine mercy, inherent in their mere position, 
 whereas that could only acquire value, when con- 
 nected with suitable dispositions. Even the distinc- 
 tion of possessing the law belonged not to Abraham, 
 at the period when God gave him the great promises. 
 Paul, accordingly, now demonstrates from the instance 
 of the patriarch, that the possession of the law con- 
 tributed nothing to the establishment of the preroga- 
 tives of the theocracy, but that no less in the case of 
 the law, than in that of circumcision, it is clearly 
 evinced, that the theocracy of which the Jew) made 
 his boast, far from rendering the righteousness of faith 
 superfluous, was founded and reposed upon no other 
 basis than free grace on the part of God, and a cheer- 
 ful and childlike faith, accepting it on the part of man. 
 That this faith, whose character is to think humbly of 
 self, ensures the fulfilment of the promises, is de- 
 clared by the Talmud itself, Tr. Berachoth, fol. 63, 1, 
 
CHAPTER Iv. Vv. 13. 219 
 
 where it is written, “ The promises of the law pass 
 into accomplishment, only in the instance of him who 
 looks upon himself ΝΣ DD as if he were nothing.” 
 The fourth head of St. Paul’s demonstration does not, 
 in the manner in which it is stated, correspond en- 
 tirely with the third. In order to make it thus coin- 
 cide, he would have required to say, “ In like man- 
 ner, aS circumcision was imparted for the sake of 
 the righteousness by faith, so also were the law, and 
 all the concomitant theocratical distinctions given to 
 Israel on account of the faith and consequent justifica- 
 tion of the patriarch, and were far from having been 
 conditional upon the fulfilling of the law.” Paul did 
 not, however, choose to state his proposition in this 
 manner ; because the law had not, like circumcision, 
 been bestowed immediately upon Abraham himself. 
 As the reward of his faith and confidence, he had re- 
 ceived the ἐπαγγελία, that in his seed should all the 
 nations of the earth be blessed, Gen. xxii. 18. In this 
 promise was contained the germ of the theocracy, 
 which in time gradually unfolded itself, first in weak- 
 ness under the Old Testament, but subsequently in 
 perfection under the New. Hence virtually the same 
 parallelism still lies in the words before us. 
 
 V. 13. This new argument the Apostle links to the 
 preceding, simply by γὰρ, which with the od must be 
 translated “neque poro.” Or we may also suppose, 
 with CEcumenius, that in point of form it is brought 
 forward, as a farther corroboration of his former pro- 
 position, 7. 6. that by a conclusion a majori ad minus, 
 he still more firmly establishes the doctrine, that cir- 
 cumcision has no justifying efficacy. 
 
990 CHAPTER IV. vi 15. 
 
 ἡ ἐπαγγελία, τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου. 
 Κληρονόμος equivalent to κύριος signifies a proprietor, 
 κληρονομεῖν δόξαν, φήμην, are common Greek phrases 
 implying possession. So also in Hebrew MM) the 
 property. There is no promise to be found in the Old 
 Testament expressed in these words. The quotations 
 of Jews, however, were not always literally exact. 
 (See Surenhusius in Βήβλῳ καταλλαγῆς c. 2. De modis 
 allegandi, Thes. v.) Sometimes, they extend the 
 meaning by additions made from parallel passages. 
 Many commentators deem that the Apostle has before 
 his eyes, Gen. xv. 7, where it is said, that to Abra- 
 ham shall be given ANT YIN, this land, to inherit 
 tt. Now if such be the case, Paul must have seen 
 more in the promise than the mere inheritance of the 
 terrestrial Canaan; for in the 16th verse we find he 
 speaks of that promise as extending also to believing 
 Christians from among the heathen. And it is a very 
 obvious conjecture, that he interpreted the words ty- 
 pically, and considered the possession of Palestine as 
 a figure of the possession of the spiritual kingdom of 
 God. There are analogous instances of Canaan be- 
 ing taken in this figurative sense, Heb. iv. and so like- 
 wise Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 95. Κόσμος would then 
 stand for κόσμος μέλλων, αἰὼν μέλλων. According to a 
 similar typical view, Philo wrote his book, ‘O τῶν θείων 
 πραγμάτων κληρονόμος. ‘This way of understanding the 
 words has been followed by Brent. Chr. Schmid and 
 Carpzov. It is, however, difficult to see, how κόσμος 
 can stand immediately for κόσμος μέλλων 3; and imme- 
 diately it does not admit of a spiritual sense. It would 
 hence no more serve for a spiritual exposition than 
 
 ΄ 
 Se ee a. ee ee ee 2.2...“ νων ee ee eee 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 19. 991 
 
 for a proper translation of DN YON? One would 
 rather be disposed to conclude with Gicumenius, that 
 κληρονομεῖν τὸν κόσμον is a form of expression, which, in 
 the course of time, lost its original signification, and 
 came at length to signify, generally, the enjoyment of 
 welfare and blessing, as Matt. v. 5, comp. with Ps. xxv. 
 13, particularly Ps. xxxvii. 9; Prov. ii. 20, 21. The 
 best way, however, might be to take xéowos, as signi- 
 fying all the nations of the earth, and then to consider 
 the promises intended to be, such as Gen. xxii. 17, 18, 
 The prophets often foretel the taking possession Ww, 
 of foreign nations, at the time of the Messiah. In 
 that was implied their reception into the theocracy, 
 and hence, indirectly, their participation in the king- 
 dom of the Messiah; so that the promise before us, 
 that Abraham with his race should fill the whole 
 earth, is viewed by St. Paul as including the prospect 
 of all mankind becoming subjects of the Messiah’s 
 kingdom. ‘This is also precisely the meaning of the 
 17th verse. The passage in Philo, Quis rerum divin. 
 heres? p. 520, may be compared, where he calls 
 Abraham, ᾿Ηγεμόνω ἔθνους καὶ γένους ἑτέρου μέλλοντα. 
 Also among the Rabbins, Maim. Tr. Bikkurim, ec. 4, 
 § 1, where it is said, “ The proselyte presents his 
 firstlings, and confesses (his faith on one God) as it 
 stands written of Abraham. J have made thee a father 
 of many nations, Gen. xvii. 5.. Lo he is the father of 
 all the earth.” Mechilta upon Exod. xiv. “ Our 
 father Abraham possesses the world that now is and 
 that which is to come, by faith alone.” Gen. xv. 6. 
 Philo uses a similar expression in reference to Moses, 
 De vita Mosis, p. 626, ed Frankf. κοινωνὸν γὰρ ἀξ- 
 
‘929 CHAPTER Iv. ν. 13, 14. 
 
 “ώσως ὁ θεὸς ἀναφανῆναι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ λήξεως, ἀνῆκε πάντα 
 τὸν κόσμον ὡς κληρονόμῳ κτῆσιν ἁρμόζουσον." 
 
 Ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. In the promises made to 
 Abraham, his posterity were also included. This it 
 entered into the design of Paul, to bring prominently 
 into view, as it showed, in the clearest manner, how 
 the theocratical privileges, in which the Jews so 
 proudly gloried, rested entirely upon the faith of Ab- 
 raham, and fell at once from their hands the moment 
 they wished to make them depend upon the law. 
 
 διὼ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως. The promises of blessing 
 were made to Abraham at first under the condition 
 of his childlike compliance with all the purposes of 
 God with respect to him, Gen. xii. 2, 8. Accord- 
 ingly, after having in all things manifested perfect 
 fidelity to God, he obtained the seal of the covenant, 
 was set apart for the founder of the theocracy, and, 
 in consideration of his former cheerful faith, those nu- 
 merous promises, before exhibited only from afar, 
 were confirmed to him, Gen. xvii. 5. At length the 
 third great and most severe trial of his faith was made, 
 in which the aged Patriarch having stood firm, the 
 promises were once more repeated, and with a still 
 richer enlargement, xxii. 18. 
 
 V. 14. Abraham received the promise in conse- 
 quence of his childlike faith, and for us also its sig- 
 
 nificance depends upon our believing. If it were 
 
 only upon the ground of a fulfilment of the demands 
 
 » For God thinking fit to make apparent the commonntess 
 of his inheritance, has left the whole world as a suitable pro- 
 perty to an heir. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 14, 15. 223 
 
 of the religious and moral law, that God imparts 
 grace, then does religious faith, that noblest act of the 
 human spirit, loose its value, and the promise made 
 to Abraham, of one day obtaining a participation in 
 the glorious kingdom of God, is made of none effect, 
 and cannot be fulfilled. So Calvin, Beza, and Lim- 
 borch. 
 
 οἱ ἐκ νόμου is exactly parallel with of ἐξ ἔργων, Gal. 
 iii. 10, to which, in the foregoing verse, οἱ ἐκ πίστεως is 
 there placed in opposition. The meaning is, those 
 who trust to their works, and those who trust to faith. 
 Theod. : οἱ xara νόμον πολιτευσάμενοι. 
 
 κεχένωται ἡ πίστις. This verb is used by the LXX. 
 as the translation of 5 TON, Jer. xiv. 2, to loose power 
 or value. So 1 Cor. i. 17, according to which the 
 sense of the present passage is, “ Religious faith is 
 made insignificant.” Christ. Schmid: Fidei vis tol- 
 litur. 
 
 καταργέω in the LXX. is put for bn to hinder 
 or prevent. CEcumenius : ai ἐπαγγελίαι ἄχρηστοι καὶ ἀτέ- 
 λεστοι γεγένηνται. ‘The prophecy made to Abraham 
 cannot be carried into accomplishment, if the condi- 
 tion of its accomplishment is our fulfilling the law. 
 Thomas Aquinas: $i aliqua promissio sit implenda 
 per id quod impletionem promissionis impedit, talis 
 promissio aboletur, enimvero lex impedit consecu- 
 tionem heereditatis. 
 
 V. 15. The idea of daw, and the idea of penal 
 justice are correlative, because it is impossible to con- 
 ceive of man, except as a transgresssor. In another 
 train of thought, chap. vii. 7, Paul expands this thought. 
 Calvin: Ea est nature nostre vitiositas: Quo magis 
 
224 CHAPTER Iv. V. 15, 16. 
 
 docemur quid rectum sit ac justum, eo apertius nostra 
 iniquitas detegitur, maximeque contumacia, atque hoc 
 modo gravius Dei judicium accersitur. 
 
 V.16. If God’s promise of receiving the true pos- 
 terity of the Patriarch into his kingdom is to remain 
 sure, its certainty must be founded upon his own free 
 grace, and not upon so doubtful a thing as man’s obe- 
 dience to the law. Seeing, however, that grace, and 
 the manifestation of it, that is, the operation of the 
 Divine Spirit upon the heart of man, on the one hand, 
 and a believing susceptibility for its reception, upon 
 the other, are co-relative, it follows, that if God jus- 
 tifies us by free grace, our justification necessarily 
 rests upon the ground of a believing acquiescence or 
 appropriation upon our parts. 
 
 To διὰ τοῦτο we may supply, from verse 13 and 
 14, κληρονόμοι γινόμεθα. One might be here tempted 
 to understand the ov τῷ ἐκ rod νόμου μόνον κτλ. in 
 the same sense with the roi οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς of the 
 12th verse, in order to introduce an accordance be- 
 tween the two expressions. This, however, is by no 
 means necessary. . To displace the od in the present, 
 would be no less violent than in that former instance. 
 Accordingly, we regard the words τῷ ἐκ σίστεως 
 ᾿Αβραὰμ, as designing the heathen ; and this opinion 
 is corroborated by παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι, which obviously 
 leads us to expect a subsequent μερισμὸς, and still 
 more, by the final clause ὅς ἐστι πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν, by 
 which the Apostle intimates, that although he had 
 before denominated Abraham, more especially, the 
 Father of the Jews, still the heathen might also parti- 
 cipate in that privilege. 
 
CHAPTER IV. V. 17. 225 
 
 V. 17. The passage from Gen. xvii. 5, is quoted 
 verbatim from the LXX. It ought rightly to be joined 
 to the previous verse. T/devas in the Hellenistic dialect, 
 answers to the. Hebrew 173, ἐο constitute. The pro- 
 mise, as it stands, refers solely to the numerous bodily 
 progeny of the Patriarch. In so far, however, as his 
 bodily progeny founded the theocracy, and were 
 subservient to the reception ‘of all the nations of the 
 earth into the covenant originally made with Abra- 
 ham, Paul had good ground to say, that that promise, 
 even in a higher sense, had met its accomplishment. 
 
 κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσε Θεοῦ. ‘These words are par- 
 ticularly difficult to be understood. Hence, proba- 
 bly the variations in translation among the ancients. 
 The Syrian and Arabian versions, besides two codices, 
 read ἐπίστευσας, which is what Luther also translates, 
 connecting the words with the preceding address of 
 God to Abraham. Ambrose, on the contrary, ex- 
 pounds as follows: Ut unum Deum omnium doceat, 
 allequitur gentiles, Abraham ipsi Deo credidisse, et 
 justificatum esse ante eum in quem et gentes credunt. 
 This reading and translation, however, is unfounded. 
 If, then, we keep to the common reading, still the 
 sense may be determined very variously. With re- 
 spect to the construction, it will be found necessary 
 to suppose an attraction and rhetorical transposition, 
 which must be resolved into xaréairs τοῦ Θεοῦ ᾧ ἐπίσ- 
 revoz See upon such forms of syntax, Herman zu 
 
 Viger, s. 891. Winer Gramm. des N. Test. § 50. 
 The meaning of the expression is thus given by Theo- 
 doret: ὥσπερ πάντων ἐστὶ ποιητὴς ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ πάντων Θεός 
 τε καὶ κηδεμών. οὕτω χαὶ τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ πατέρα πάντων 
 
 9 
 
926 CHAPTER IV. V. 17. 
 
 κεχειροτόνηκενὶ So also Chrysostom, - Theophylact, 
 Erasmus and Brentius, who take χατένωντι in the sense 
 of καθ᾿ ὁμοίωμα or ὁμοίως. In this sense it may be 
 found in the Old, but nowhere in the New Testa- 
 ment. It would give to the passage the following 
 meaning: ‘ Abraham should be the founder of a 
 multitude of nations, just as the Almighty God, upon 
 whom he believed, was the author of numerous beings, 
 and also raises the dead.” Leaving out of view, how- 
 ever, that this import of κατέναντι has not been suf- 
 ficiently proved, it must be obvious, that that state- 
 ment would be here superfluous, and moreover un- 
 suitable. To prove such a similarity between Abra- 
 ham and God would be highly affected. Seb. Schmid 
 proposes to give another sense to xarévavrs, respectu ad, 
 according to which the meaning would be, “ as re- 
 gards the object of our faith, we are Abraham’s chil- 
 dren; his faith and ours were fixed upon the same 
 being.” But neither does this meaning answer, and 
 such a use of κατέναντι is undemonstrated. The at- 
 tempts of Grotius and Herzog to explain it are also 
 violent. They separate by a point of interrogation, 
 placed by the one after ἐπίστευσε by the other after οὗ, 
 the κατέναντι οὗ from what follows, and it is thus 
 that the former translates, “‘ Before whom did Abra- 
 ham believe? Answer; before God.” Augustine, Cor- 
 nelius a Lapide and Bengel, join the κατέναντι οὗ with 
 the citation from Gen. xvii. 5, and make the sense, “ I 
 have made thee a father of many nations in the sight 
 
 ' As God is the maker of all, and the God and guardian of 
 all, so has he appointed Abraham the Father of all. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 17. 7 
 
 of God, because to the eye of man they did not as yet 
 exist.” Others give different explanations. But it is 
 at once most agreeable to the language and meaning, 
 to take κατέναντι here in the sense “ according to the 
 judgment or design of God,” as in the Hebrew *"7.PI 
 and among the later Jews, 9995. So Origen, Coc- 
 ceius, Beausobre, De Wette. The purpose of append- 
 ing the clause unquestionably was to intimate, that 
 God already foresaw the many that were one day to 
 follow Abraham upon the path of believing submission, 
 and thereby be numbered among his people. [{ is to 
 this, accordingly, that the epithet conferred upon 
 God refers. He who has power to call the dead from 
 their graves, and to whom that which is not is as if it 
 were, could even then perceive the whole race of be- 
 lievers, who were destined to unite themselves with 
 Abraham, and in this view denominate the Patriarch 
 a father of many nations. Others contend that Paul 
 bestows the epithet in question from an anticipation 
 of what he was about to say in verses 18 and 19. 
 They, therefore, either consider the vexgo/ here as 
 equivalent to vevexewuévos, Heb. xi. 12, comp. with 
 Rom. iv. 19; so Theophylact, Grotius, Christ. Schmid 
 and Beza. Or they imagine, that Paul ascribes faith 
 to Abraham, in reference to the future offering up 
 of Isaac. Even if, at the Divine command, he had 
 completed the sacrifice, God could still have easily 
 recalled the victim from the dead. So Erasmus. 
 According to the former view, Cicumenius observes: 
 ὁ γὼρ τοὺς νεκροὺς ζωοποιῶν, καὶ τὸ μὴ ὄντα οὐσιῶν, πολλῷ 
 
 Ο μᾶλλον δυνήσεται τῷ νενεκρωμένῳ διὰ τὸ γῆρας σώματι 
 
 ᾿ 
 ᾿ 
 
 δοῦναι σπέρμα ζωογόνον. 
 
928 CHAPTER IV. V. 17. 
 
 καὶ καλοῦντος Ta μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. There is difficulty 
 in the construction of these words. The simplest 
 way is to take ὡς as a comparative particle, and to 
 expound, “ With God existence and non-existence 
 are the same; when he commands, the latter must 
 obey him no less than the former.” In precise uni- 
 formity with this view, the Vulgate translates: vocat 
 que non sunt, tanquam ea que sunt. Beza: apud 
 quem jam sunt, que alioqui re ipsa non sunt. It 
 has been defended among moderns by Chr. Schmid, 
 Losner, and Koppe. We might then compare 
 the passage from Philo: (De Josepho, p. 544.) Ey ταῖς 
 nab ὕπνον φαντασίαις, βλέποντες οὐ βλέπομεν, τῆς δι- 
 ανοίας ἀναγραφούσης καὶ εἰδολοποιούσης τὰ μὴ ὄντω ὡς 
 ὄντα. Likewise from the same author: (in Flace. 
 Ρ. 988,) κατ᾽ ὄναρ εἶδον πλάσματα, «ψυχῆς ἴσως ἀνα- 
 γραφούσης τὰ μὴ ὑπάρχοντω ὡς ora This sense, 
 however, appears to want simplicity. Now it sug- 
 gests itself at once to suppose that ὡς ὄντα stands for 
 ivats for the expression καλεῖν or παράγειν τὰ μὴ 
 5 τὸ εἶναι is exceedingly common, (See Losner, 
 a. h. 1.) no less in classical, than in Philo, and Ecclesi- 
 astical authors. Epiphanius: (Heres. t. iii. p. 267.) 
 Τριὰς ἁγία ἐξ ἧς τὰ πάντα καλῶς ἐχτισμένα----εξ οὐκ ὄντων 
 κεκλημένα εἰς τὸ εἶναι. Lucian: (Philop.c. 11.) ἄνθρωπον ἐκ 
 μὴ ὄντων εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρήγαγε. Philo: (de vita Mosis, 1. 3. 
 p- 693,) ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὸ τελειότατον ἔργον τὸν 
 κόσμιον ἀπέφηνε. Id. (de Creat. prine. p. 728.) ra γὰρ μὴ 
 ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι. In like manner Luther trans- 
 
 k In our dreaming fancies, seeing we do not see, the mind 
 
 descriling and imagining things that are not as though they 
 
 were. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. V. 17. 2990 
 
 lates “das sie seyen.” The question now arises 
 whether this way of understanding the words can be 
 shown to be grammatically correct. With this view, 
 Elsner quotes a multitude of passages, where ὡς is 
 construed with the participle, to express the end or 
 design. That, however, it was unnecessary to prove; 
 the question is whether, in such cases, the present 
 participle stands for the future. The participle of 
 εἶμι, Which occurs in two of the instances cited, cannot 
 prove this, seeing that εἶμι, even in the present parti- 
 ciple, has the sense of the future, and it does not seem 
 evident that either Xenophon or Aristides there used 
 them in the present tense. If then we are to abide 
 by this explanation, nothing is left for us but to con- 
 sider ws as equivalent to εἰς (See Matthie, 5. 846, 
 Hermann, zu Viger, p. 807,) and ὄντα to τὸ εἶνα. A 
 parallel passage would then be found in Plato’s Symp. 
 p- 205, ἐχ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ ev ἰόντα. In fact, Mangey 
 has proposed (ad Phil. t. ii. p. 917,) to emend the 
 text, by substituting εἰς for ws. But it is sufficient of 
 itself to discredit this expedient, that ara is unac- 
 companied by the article, which would, in that case, be 
 indispensable. We, therefore, prefer taking ὡς in the 
 sense of the Hebrew Caph veritatis, a use of it which oc- 
 curs in classical Greek, (See Zeune zu Viger, p. 563,) 
 and not merely with adverbs and adjectives, but with 
 substantives also. It would then be translated, not 
 tanquam, but ut; and the idea of calling involve that 
 of bringing into existence. With respect now to the 
 verb καλέω, its proper meaning of ¢o call is here to be 
 held fast, as it implies an allusion to the call of Jeho- 
 vah sy. This designation of the creative energy of 
 
9230 CHAPTER Iv. v. 17. 
 
 the Divine Being as a calling was prevalent among 
 the Jews. Com. Isa. xli. 4. UNV AIT NW, 
 and in the Book of Wisdom, xi. 26. We find the 
 same term also among the Samaritans. Chrysos- 
 tom observes to the point: οὐδὲ εἶπε rod παράγοντος 
 σὰ οὐκ ὄντα ἀλλὰ, καλοῦντος: τὴν πλείονα εὐκολίαν 
 δηλῶν! But to come now to the sense upon the 
 determination of which the construction has no real 
 influence. In like manner as to the former, many 
 expositors give to this clause, a direct reference to 
 the case of Abraham, several understand the words 
 ἐς those things that be not,” to refer to the defective 
 power of procreation which God had restored ; while 
 others, which is certainly the most natural way, if we 
 seek to give the words a more special scope, refer 
 τὰ μὴ ὄντα, to the late spiritual posterity of Abraham. 
 This interpretation is followed by Origen, Ambrose, 
 and Beza. Chr. Schmid, Beausobre and Erasmus, like- 
 wise adopt it, but take ὄντα in the platonic sense of 
 things excellent, important, and τὰ μὴ ora, things un- 
 important. In illustration, we may cite the following 
 passage from Athanasius. “ For if it be true, that 
 they whose nature was not to be, were by the appear- 
 ance and love of the word called into existence, it may 
 be inferred, that being once emptied of all sense of 
 God, and having turned from him to things that are 
 not, men must have been so emptied for ever. Now 
 what is meant by the things that are not, is evil, where- 
 as the things that are, mean good things, having been 
 
 ‘He speaks not of creating, but of calling the things that | 
 
 are, to express the greater facility. 
 
 4. 
 
 κεν, το. -. 
 
 ἰδ λον". 
 
ὧν Σ᾿ ee 
 
 CHAPTER. Iv. ν. 17. 231 
 
 made by the God that is.” It may be, however, that 
 we have to suppose the words to refer generally to the 
 creation of the world, which is one of the most difficult 
 objects for faith. A belief in the creation of the world 
 without pre-existent matter, distinguished the Hebrew 
 from every heathen nation. Hence, to designate the 
 omnipotence of the Divine Being, the Jews oft appeal- 
 ed to this great act, as 2 Mace. vii. 28.; and Philo, 
 in the passage we have quoted from de vita Mosis, 1. 
 iii. p. 693. Perhaps, therefore, Paul merely meant 
 to point in general to an object in reference to which 
 it was hard for Abraham, as it is for all, to believe. 
 
 PART FIFTH. 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM AND STATE- 
 MENT OF THE NOBLE BLESSINGS ACCRUING TO BE- 
 LiIEVERS, AS EXHIBITED IN HIS EXAMPLE. V. 18 
 —25. 
 
 As the Apostle does not write systematically, he here 
 yields to his feelings, which prompt him to delineate 
 the greatness of faith and power of confidence, mani- 
 fested in the instance alluded to from the life of Abra- 
 ham, and in this manner he gives us the characteristics 
 of his δικαμοσύνη. Bengel: Ostendit Paulus fidem non 
 esse rem tenuem, cui justificationem adscribat, sed vim 
 eximiam. Were we to point out the right place for 
 this admirable delineation in the chain of proof, it 
 would be between the 3d and 4th verses of the chap- 
 
232 CHAPTER IV. V. 18. 
 
 ter. Here it is worth while to compare Philo, de 
 Abrah. 
 
 V. 18. “ος παρ ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾽ ἐλαίδι ἐπίστευσεν. An 
 oxymoron similar to spes insperata. The antithesis of 
 the double ἐλπὴς designates the twofold sphere with 
 which the spirit of the believer is conversant, one 
 inferior, that of the usual order of things, and 
 one that is superior, and into which we cannot 
 penetrate but by faith. The Apostle’s meaning is, 
 that on the one hand Abraham might look to the or- 
 der and laws of nature; on which side he had no 
 hope. On the other, he might contemplate the omni- 
 potence and promise of God, and upon these build 
 the strongest expectations. Chrysostom: rug ἐλπίδα 
 τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην, ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Melancthon: 
 Fidei objectum est verbum, quod pugnat cum externa 
 specie, ut Abrahae promittitur semen et posteritas, cui 
 velit Deus benedicere, interim conjux est sterilis, ipse 
 est effcetus. Nobis promittit pacem et vitam, interim 
 exercemur omni genere afHictionum, et in morte vita 
 non conspicitur. Bengel: Una eademque res et fide 
 et spe apprehenditur, fide ut res que vere edicitur, 
 spe ut res leta, que certo et fieri potest et fiet ; preeter 
 spem rationis, in spe promissionis credidit. Calvin — 
 obtains a different interpretation by taking raga as 
 comparative: Potest etiam legi supra spem, et forsan 
 magis apposite, quasi diceret, ipsum sua fide longe 
 superasse quidquid concipere poterat. Nisi enim sur- 
 sum alis ccelestibus evolet fides, ut omnes carnis sensus 
 procul despiciat, in luto mundi semper herebit. - | 
 
 εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι may be resolved into ai οὕτως ἐγένετο, 
 
CHAPTER Iv. V. 18, 19. 233 
 
 as is done by Luther, Michaelis, and De Wette in their 
 translations ; or again εἰς like the Hebrew Ὁ indicates 
 the subject of Faith. So Castalio and Beza, who 
 translates: fore ut fieret. Οὕτως torus τὸ σπέρμα σου 
 is from Gen xv. 5. The οὕτως refers to the multitude 
 of stars, which Abraham, who received the promise by 
 night, beheld in the sky. Ps. exlvii.4. The stars are 
 represented as uncountable. 
 
 V. 19. This and the following verse afford the ex- 
 planation of rag’ ἐλπίδα and ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι. In the present, 
 Paul mentions what, according to the lower order of 
 things, might have yielded a hope, aud yet now yield- 
 ed none to him. In the 20th, what, in the higher 
 order of things, afforded him a sufficient ground of 
 faith. Beautifully, Chrysostom: εἶδες πῶς τίθησι καὶ 
 τὼ κωλύματα, καὶ τὴν ὑψηλὴν τοῦ δικωΐου γνώμην πάντα 
 ὑπερβαίνουσαν ; Tag ἐλπίδα, φησὶ, τὸ ἐπαγγελθέν. τοῦτο 
 κώλυμα πρῶτον" οὐδὲ γον εἶχεν αὐτὸς ἕτερον ᾿Αβραὰμ οὕτω 
 λαβόντα παῖδα ἰδεῖν" οἱ μὲν yore μετ᾽ αὐτὸν, εἰς αὐτὸν ἔβλεπον. 
 ἐχεῖνος δὲ εἰς οὐδένα, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν θεὸν μόνον" διὸ καὶ παρ᾽ 
 ἐλπίδα ἔλεγεν. εἶτα τὸ σῶμα νενεκρωμένον. δέυτερον τοῦτο. 
 καὶ ἡ νέκρωσις τῆς μήτρας Σάῤῥας. τοῦτο καὶ reirov.™ 
 
 μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει. Τῇ πίστει is here to be trans- 
 lated 22 respect of faith. It is the dative of the qua- 
 
 ™ Observe how he states both the obstacles in the case, and 
 how the lofty mind of the just man triumphed over them all. 
 What had been promised was against hope, he says. This is 
 the first hindrance, for he had no instance to look to of any 
 former Abraham having thus received ason. They who came 
 after, looked back upon him. He, however, had none to 
 look to but God: and therefore it is that Paul says against 
 hope. Besides his body was dead, which was a second; and 
 so was Sarah’s womb, and that was a third obstacle. 
 
994 CHAPTER Iv. v. 19, 90. 
 
 lity. The Apostle, according to a frequent Hebrew 
 practice, here applies the μείωσις, and by prefixing the 
 negative, renders more forcible the declaration he 
 makes of the strength of Abraham’s faith. We would 
 paraphrase it, “ And in truth he gave no small proof 
 of faith, but...... ” Opposed to this ἀσθένεια πίστεως, 
 stands πληροφορηθεὶς of verse 21. Comp. Rom. xiv. 
 1; 1 Mace. xi. 49. 
 
 Οὐ κατενύησε, xrA. There were three circumstances 
 calculated to weaken Abraham’s faith. His own age, 
 the age of Sarah, and her former barrenness. xara- 
 voeiv to take into consideration. Luther on Gen. xv. 
 1. “ Denn wo Gott seine hand abzeucht, spintisirt 
 ihm das Fleisch gar auf eine wunderliche Dialectica 
 und Rhetorica und denkt der Sache gar seltsam nach.” 
 This κατανοεῖν to consider, is the opposite of inward 
 confidence. In the latter, the mind’s eye is directed 
 steadily to one object, and hence flows strength of will 
 and resolution ; in the former, however, it fluctuates 
 between two directions, and hence weakness of pur- 
 pose and determination. 
 
 τὸ σῶμα ἤδη νενεκρομένον, κσλ. Heb. xi. 12. “Exarov- 
 ταετὴς, Gen. xvil. 17. νέκρωσις, is with Paul equivalent 
 to dcvaroc, 2 Cor. iv. 10. It stands here in place of 
 the adjective μήτρα νενεχρωμένη. Sarah was ninety 
 years old. Gen. xvii. 17. 
 
 Ver. 20. Chrysostom: Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπόδειξιν ἔδωκεν, 
 οὐδὲ σημεῖον ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς, ἀλλὰ ῥήματα ἦν ψιλὰ μόνον, 
 ἐπαγγελλόμενω ἅπερ οὐχ, ὑπισχνεῖτο ἡ φύσις. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὗ 
 διεκρίθη." Οὐ διεκρίθη, he staggered not. It is also used 
 
 ® For God neither afforded him a proof, nor made any sign. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 20. 235 
 
 in this sense, Rom. xiv. 23; Jas. i. 6, 11. 4. TH ἀπισ- 
 rig instead of διὰ πῆς ἀπιστίας. Vulgate, diffidentia. 
 The Syrian, “like one of little faith.” Falsely ren- 
 dered by Michaelis, “ he suffered not his doubts to wax 
 into disbelief of the promise of God.” Esg ἐπαγγελίαν. 
 The preposition here means, 7 regard to, we should 
 rather have expected πρός. 
 
 ἐνεδυναμώθη. The Apostle appears to have chosen 
 this form for the sake of the parallel with διεκρίθη. For 
 a similar reason he seems to use the dative τῇ πίστει, 
 which corresponds with τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ. The dative τῇ 
 πίστει, however, is not of the same import with τῇ 
 ἀπιστίᾳ; but rather as at v. 19, is the dative of the 
 quality, 2 respect of faith. The passive voice in 
 which the verb is used, has the force of the Hebrew 
 Hithpael. CEcumenius: δείκνυσι πολλῷ καμάτῳ καὶ 
 δυνάμει «ψυχῆς κατορθουμένην τὴν πίστιν. 
 
 δοὺς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ. This expression a) 353 Dw 
 denotes, according to Hebrew idiom, “ to manifest 
 practically that we recognize certain attributes of God.” 
 In this sense, it is especially used when a call is made 
 for sincerity, John ix. 24, Jos. vii. 19. The meaning 
 here accordingly is, “ Abraham proved by his actions 
 that he had no doubt of the omnipotence of God.” 
 So in 1 Jobn v. 10, it is said, that he who believeth 
 not the gospel, ‘ hath made God a liar.” Chrysos- 
 tom: dea τὸ μὴ περιεργάζεσθαι, δοξάζειν ἐστὶ τὸν Θεὸν, 
 ὥσπερ οὖν τὸ περιεργάζεσθωι πλημμελεῦ ...... ci δέ ἔστιν 
 ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δόξων; ἐνενόησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν δικαμοσύνην, 
 
 Mere words announced to him what nature did not promise, 
 and yet he did not stagger. 
 
236 CHAPTER IV. v. 20, 21, 22, 23. 
 
 THY ἅπειρον δύναμιν----καὶ τὴν προσήκουσαν περὶ αὐτοῦ ἔννοιαν 
 λαβὼν, οὕτως ἐπληροφορήθη περὶ τῶν ὑποσχέσεων Calvin: 
 Extra certamen ‘quidem nemo Deum omnia posse 
 negat: verum simulac objicitur aliquid quod cursum 
 promissionum Dei impediat, Dei virtutem e suo gradu 
 dejicimus. It would be better, however, to take δοὺς 
 δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ into the following verse. 
 
 V. 21. states in what the δοὺς δόξαν consisted. 
 
 V. 22. With these words St. Paul resumes his 
 theme, and returns properly to the’ 3d verse of this 
 chapter. Theod: οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὑπὸ τὸν νόμον, καὶ ἐν 
 σοῖς πρὸ τοῦ νόμου, δείξας τὴν πίστιν ἀνθήσασαν, ἐπὶ τὸ προ- 
 κείμενον μεταφέρει τὸν λόγον. We must supply the whole 
 preceding context as subject to ἐλογίσθη. “ His su- 
 periority to all doubts, and, amidst the greatest temp- 
 tations, giving God the glory.” 
 
 V. 23. Calvin: Quoniam probatio ab exemplo 
 non semper firma est, ne id in queestionem veniat, 
 . diserte asserit Paulus in Abrahe persona editum fuisse 
 specimen communis justitia, que ad omnes spectat. 
 The Jew might certainly have still objected, that al- 
 though on historical grounds, this narrative, and es- 
 pecially this mode of justification, had been recorded 
 to the praise of Abraham, it was, however, impossible 
 
 ° Hence, to abstain from curious enquiries is to glorify God, 
 as to make them is to transgress...... What means “ giving © 
 glory to God”? It is, that he reflected upon his justice and 
 infinite power, and forming proper views of these, he was 
 assured of the promises. 
 
 ΣΡ And thus having shown that faith had flourished equally 
 among those before and those under the law, he transfers his 
 discourse to the subject. 
 
CHAPTER IV. v. 29, 24. 237 
 
 to deduce from thence any inference applicable to 
 other men. The Apostle maintains, on the contrary, 
 that the great doctrine of faith being counted for 
 righteousness, stands for all times, and therefore is 
 true of the Christian. In the Rabbinical Comm. 
 Bereschit Rabba, there is a similar passage, ‘“ What 
 is written of Abraham is written also of his children.” 
 And Philo, with reference to the histories of Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob, (de Abrah. p. 350.) says: ὧν τὰς 
 ἀρετὰς ἐν ταῖς ἱερωτάταις ἐστηλιτεῦσθαι γραφοῖς συμβέβη- 
 κεν, οὐ πρὸς τὸν ἐκείνων ἔπαινον αὐτὸ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὲρ 
 τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας προτρέψασθαι, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν τῶν ὁμοίων 
 ζῆλον ἀγαγεῖν.“ 
 
 VY. 394. Seeing that now, under the New Testa- 
 ment, there obtains a system of imputation by free 
 grace, we are entitled to look back upon the Old, and 
 if we find any similar case, to apply the particular cir- 
 cumstances of it to ourselves. It may here be ques- 
 tioned, whether what the Apostle proceeds to say 
 about the work of Christ, has any reference to what 
 he had previously said about Abraham, or if it be 
 totally unconnected with it. Several, as Bengel and 
 Cocceius, suppose, that Abraham’s faith in the resur- 
 rection in general is put as a counterpart to the Chris- 
 tian’s faith in a risen Christ. It cannot be said, how- 
 ever, that verse 17 speaks directly of Abraham’s be- 
 
 4 Whose virtues have come to be inscribed in our sacred 
 books, not for the sake of their praise, but in behalf of those 
 
 to whom it should fall, to exhort and guide to a zeal for the 
 same. 
 
238 CHAPTER Iv. v. 24, 25. 
 
 lief in the resurrection of the dead. Others, as Gro- 
 tius, compare Abraham’s belief in the recovery of 
 his lost power of procreation, with the Christians in 
 the resurrection of the Saviour, which is still more 
 untenable. It is far better to suppose that Paul, as 
 he is wont, here regards the resurrection, as the 
 first step in the exaltation of Christ, and hence, 
 as the summit of the work of redemption. As to 
 Paul’s not making a risen Christ the direct object of 
 our faith, but speaking of the God who raised him, 
 this is done for the sake of perfecting the parallel be- 
 tween the Christian faith and that of Abraham. We 
 may, therefore, paraphrase the passage in the follow- 
 ing manner: “ We who believe on the same God on 
 whom Abraham believed, but who appears to us in a 
 peculiar relation, as finisher of the work of redemp- 
 tion.” 
 
 V. 25. The Apostle now states, in few words, 
 wherein that work of redemption consists, which has 
 been accomplished by the God in whom Christians 
 believe, and in doing so, he returns, as it were, to 
 chap. iii. 21, 22. 
 
 6s παρεδόθη scilicet, εἰς θάνατον, which the LXX. add 
 in Is, xxxviii. 13, where they render ymbwn by 
 παρεδόθην. So also, Is. 1. 12, xal διὰ ras ἀνομίας 
 αὐτῶν παρεδόθη. The Apostle again separates by a μερισ- 
 μὺς, two things properly conjoined as one. The διὰ 
 ra παραπτώμοτα strictly considered, cannot mean any 
 thing different from dia 7ὴν δικαΐωσιν. The manifestation 
 
 of the ideal of holiness, ὃ. 6. of love supreme, ren-— 
 
 dered necessary the sufferings and the death of Christ. 
 
 ‘ 
 7 
 δ 
 3 
 
CHAPTER IV. v. 95. 939 
 
 But it is by his accomplishment of a perfect obedi- 
 ence, and realization of a perfect love, that the 6- 
 καίΐωσις is wrought out. We must, however, sup- 
 pose the Apostle had some end in view, when he 
 made the separation. The δικαίωσις of believers 
 through Christ is a very extensiveterm, comprehending 
 the removal of present guilt, which is the ἀπολύήρωσις im 
 its narrower sense, and the communication of the new 
 principle of life, issuing at last in the accomplishment 
 and glorification of the saints in the αἰὼν μέλλων, 
 which is the ἀπολύϊρωσις in a wider sense. The Re- 
 deemer could not complete and crown the d:maswors, 
 without being emancipated from the barriers of ter- 
 restrial life, and raised to a glorified state of existence. 
 Contemplated from this point of view, the Apostle 
 might well represent the δικαΐωσις as an especial pro- 
 duct of the resurrection, the more so when we take 
 into account that Paul, in speaking of the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ, comprehends in it the whole ensuing 
 interval, c. i. 4. the life in and with God, There is 
 the example of a similar μερισμὸς, in which δικοιωσύνη 
 and oolgia are disjoined, in Rom. x. 10. Calvin 
 draws the attention to this point: Summa vero est, 
 ubi fructum mortis Christi et resurrectionis tenemus, 
 nihil ad implendos omnes justitiz numeros deesse. 
 Neque enim dubium est, quin mortem a resurrectione 
 separans, ruditati nostree sermonem accommodet, quia 
 alioqui verum est, Christi obedientia, quam in morte 
 exhibuit, partam fuisse nobis justitiam. Sed quia 
 resurgendo patefecit Christus quantum morte sua 
 profecisset, hac quoque distinctio ad docendum apta 
 
240 CHAPTER IV. v. 25. 
 
 est, sacrificio, quo expiata sunt peccata, inchoatam 
 fuisse salutem nostram, resurrectione vero demum 
 fuisse perfectam. Nam justitiz principium est, nos 
 reconciliari Deo, complementum autem, abolita morte 
 vitam dominari. With these words terminates the 
 first section of the doctrinal part of the Epistle, the 
 Apostle having hitherto shown man’s want of salva- 
 tion, and what is the only, the indispensable remedy, 
 justification through the free grace of God in Christ. 
 He now proceeds to delineate the effects which flow 
 from receiving the pardon of sin and justification. 
 
 3..- αὐ δὰ 
 
CHAPTER FIFTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 H1iTHERTO the Apostle has been describing the misery of 
 man through sin, and its only antidote, redemption by 
 Christ; he now proceeds to show what are the fruits and 
 consequences of that redemption in the individual who 
 becomes the subject of it. These consist in the sense of 
 peace and joy, which the justified believer even now ex- 
 periences in his heart, and in the prospect of the future 
 glory of the children of God. Nor have the afflictions 
 of time any power to destroy either his present bless- 
 edness, which is inward, or yet the hope of that which 
 awaits him hereafter, and which is both inward and out- 
 ward. To make still more apparent the magnitude of the 
 fruits secured by this redemption, the Apostle, viewing 
 mankind as a whole, places their miserable condition, as 
 unredeemed, in contrast with their blessed condition as a 
 redeemed community, describes, in a magnificent parallel, 
 Adam as the head and founder of the race in the state of 
 fall, and Christ as its head and founder in the state of re- 
 covery, and thus demonstrates, that the redemption is the 
 greatest and most important event in the history of man, 
 the centre of all spiritual life and felicity. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. The blessed consequences of justification through Christ 
 are peace and joy in the soul even here upon earth, 
 R 
 
949 CHAPTER V. Vv. l. 
 
 joined to the hope of glory in the world beyond the 
 grave. Neither this hope of future glory, both within 
 and around him, nor yet that foretaste of it, which is 
 even now his portion, but which for the present is only 
 inward, can be troubled by the afflictions which the 
 Christian meets with upon earth. V. 1—1l1. 
 
 2. The noble effects of the redemption contemplated by means 
 of a contrast between the general condition of mankind, 
 as involved in the ruin entailed by Adam, and their con- 
 dition, as advanced to the felicity which is derived from 
 Christ. V. 12—21. 
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 THE BLESSED CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 
 THROUGH CHRIST ARE PEACE AND JOY IN THE 
 
 _ SOUL EVEN HERE UPON EARTH, TOGETHER WITH 
 THE HOPE OF GLORY IN THE WORLD BEYOND THE 
 GRAVE. NEITHER THIS HOPE OF FUTURE GLORY, 
 BOTH WITHIN AND AROUND HIM, NOR EVEN THAT 
 FORETASTE OF IT, WHICH IS EVEN NOW HIS POR- 
 TION, BUT WHICH FOR THE PRESENT IS ONLY ΙΝ - 
 WARD, CAN BE TROUBLED BY THE CALAMITIES 
 WHICH BEFAL. THE CHRISTIAN UPON’ EARTH, 
 ae Cel th 
 
 V. 1. Δικαιωθέντες οὖν. The very last topic which 
 the Apostle had touched in the former chapter was 
 the mode of the δικαΐωσις. This enables him to unite 
 the present closely with the previous section of his 
 
 epistle. ἥ 
 εἰρήνην ἔχομεν. The Codd. A.C. and D., the Greek : 
 
CHAPTER V. V. lL. 943 
 
 Fathers, and the Syrian, Arabic, and Koptie versions, 
 all read ἔχωμεν. The external evidences for both 
 readings are nearly equiponderant ; the internal speak 
 decidedly for the indicative. The explanation of 
 these words by the Greek Fathers, Origen, Chrysos- 
 tom, Theophylact and Theodoret, is false. They 
 suppose that the Apostle intends a cessation from 
 sin, considered as war with God. (écumenius: 
 Πῶς δ᾽ ἂν τὶς εἰρηνεύοι πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ; ἀκολουθῶν ταῖς ἐντο- 
 λαῖς αὐτοῦ, ὡς ὅγε ἁμαρτάνων πολεμεῖ Θεῷ. Origen: 
 Sciens quia bellum contra Diabolum pacem patrat ad 
 Deum. Far more truly did the Reformers under- 
 stand the peace here spoken of to mean the tranquil- 
 lity of conscience, which ensues upon the fall of that 
 barrier of separation mentioned in Is. lix. 9, As such 
 do the Scriptures describe this peace, Phil. iv. 7, I 
 John iii. 2, Beza: Nihil est horribilius terroribus 
 - conscientize suorum peccatorum morsibus sauciate. 
 Hinc omnes falsarum religionum species, dum adver- 
 sus hoc tantum malum queritur remedium, idque 
 frustra. Calvin: Eam nec Phariseeus habet qui falsa 
 operum fiducia turget, nec stupidus peccator, qui vi- 
 tiorum dulcedine ebrius, non inquietatur. Quanquam 
 enim neuter apertum bellum videtur habere, quem- 
 admodum is qui peccati sensu feritur: Quia tamen ᾿ 
 non vere acceduntiad Dei judicium, nequaquam con- 
 cordiam cum illo habent. Stupor enim conscientie, 
 quidam est veluti a Deo recessus. 
 
 πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν. The more complete the harmony be- 
 
 * But how can one have peace with God? By obeying his 
 commandments, as he that transgresses wars with God 
 
944 CHAPTER V.V. ]. 
 
 tween the spirit of man and all without him, the great- 
 er is the blessedness which he enjoys. For all that 
 man seeks in love is concord with his own being. 
 But the highest law of every individual existence is 
 the will of that God who alone is a law to himself. 
 Consequently the harmony after which an individual 
 strives, as well for himself as where others are con- 
 cerned, is only to be attained by entire obedience to 
 the divine will. We have the perfect ideal of such a 
 general harmony presented to us in the fellowship of 
 the blessed, who for this reason that God is everything 
 to all of them, live together in the fullest enjoyment 
 of love. Now, misery must necessarily be the portion 
 both of the man who still decidedly follows his sinful 
 propensities, and of him in whose breast a war, but 
 not through Christ, has begun against them. While 
 the former still obeys the laws of his own will, or 
 rather (as there can be no genuine will which is not 
 founded upon knowledge) of his own wilfulness, and 
 that has no laws, and to that would like to subject 
 every thing else in the world, a voice from his inmost 
 being proclaims aloud the glory and supremacy of the 
 law of the divine will, to which, let him resist as he 
 may please, he must at last, if he values his own hap- 
 piness, submit. Death itself, which puts an end to 
 
 every other anguish, only aggravates this, by bringing © 
 
 the sinner nearer to the domain where that holy and 
 unalterable Jaw obtains. He thus feels that peace 
 
 and harmony can never be his portion, except he re- — 
 nounce his pride and his struggle after autonomy, — 
 
 which he mistakes for genuine freedom. Even the 
 man, however, who disdaining to be the slave of his 
 
 4 
 
CHAPTER νον. 1, 2. 945 
 
 wilfulness, takes arms against it, cannot attain to 
 peace so long as he is destitute of fellowship with 
 Christ. Deep in his heart he feels, it is true, an ap- 
 probation (vii. 22,) of the divine will, but he is too 
 weak to carry the sentiment into action; sin over- 
 powers him, he finds, like a blind force, (vii. 17, 23,) 
 and contrary to the desire of his better self, he sees 
 himself involved inastate of rebellion against his God. 
 From a believing surrender of the heart to Christ, as 
 Him who does away sin, arises the certainty of pardon 
 and sanctification, and through these peace also in our 
 relation to God. 
 
 Διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Theophylact 
 considers the co-operation of Christ, here expressed, 
 to consist in a protecting power against sin. He says: 
 Ὃ γὰρ δικαιώσας ἡμᾶς ἁμαρτωλοὺς ὄντας, συνεογήσει καὶ 
 εἰς τὸ φυλαχθῆναι ἡμᾶς ἐν τῇ δικωιοσύνῃ αὐτοῦ More 
 correctly, “ By means of the redemption which was 
 wrought out by Christ.” si 
 
 V.2. AP οὗ καὶ τὴν προσωγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν. ἹΠροσα- 
 γωγὴ means access, approach. ‘The word is borrowed 
 from the usage of eastern courts, where a προσαγωγεὺς 
 conducted the stranger into the presence of the king. 
 Our προσαγωγεὺς to God is Jesus Christ. Hence else- 
 where, also, our προσαγωγὴ is described as a conse- 
 quence of the redemption, Eph. ii. 18; iii. 12, where 
 it is joined to the παῤῥησία ; comp. | Pet. iii. 18. In 
 these passages, t20cwywy7 either stands independently, 
 
 _ » For he who justified us while we were sinners, will also 
 contribute to our being protected in his righteousness. 
 
946 CHAPTER V. V. 2. 
 
 or is connected with πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. In the same 
 way it behoves us to take it here, viz. in direct re- 
 ference to God. We require, accordingly, to place 
 the point after ἐσχήκαμεν, although it cannot be de- 
 nied that προσωγωγὴ in that case stands somewhat 
 abrupt. So Cicumenius, Lamb. Bos and Michaelis. 
 By far the greater number of expositors, however, 
 without any interpunctuation, unite the προσαγωγὴ with 
 εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην. To this it cannot be objected, 
 that then the preposition πρὸς would have been used, 
 for there are innumerable instances of εἰς standing in 
 the place of πρὸς, 6. g. Rom. iii. 22. Still the mode 
 in which προσαγωγὴ is uniformly employed in the New 
 Testament, appears to be against it, denoting, as we 
 have remarked it always does, approach to Ged. 
 The Apostle here by the καὶ distinguishes the προσα- 
 γωγὴ; from the εἰρήνη of our conscience, as another 
 distinct fruit of the atonement; and in what, it may be 
 asked, do they differ? The sigqyyrefers to the inward 
 state of the believer, the προσαγωγὴ to the relation 
 of his soul to God, as something first resulting from 
 peace of conscience. For it is only in consequence 
 of his conscience being pacified, that man derives 
 filial confidence at all times to draw near to God 
 in prayer, and that he ceases to be any jonger slavish- 
 ly afraid of him. “Eye is here used in the sense, to 
 obtain. 
 
 τῇ πίστει εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην, is by Michaelis trans- 
 lated in connection with the foregoing, “ through 
 whom we also, by means of faith in this grace in which 
 we stand, obtain access to God. Χάριν. Whether we 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 2. 947 
 
 construe this word with προσωγωγὴ, or, as we prefer, 
 with ziorei, in both cases we can only understand it, 
 as meaning “that objective relation which has, once 
 for all, been established between the holy God and sin- 
 ful humanity,” even the relation of children to a father, 
 into which men have entered through Christ. Taking 
 it in this sense, the former mode of construction 
 would make the meaning as follows: “ Through the 
 Saviour, we have free access to the everlasting justi- 
 fication, under the economy of which we are at pre- 
 sent placed, so that, however often we fall, we may 
 yet in faith hold fast the assurance that Christ will 
 accomplish for us the work of our dmaiwos.” Ac- 
 cording to the second, the meaning becomes, “ By 
 believing in the gracious institution of salvation under 
 which we now live, there is secured for us such a child- 
 like relationship towards God, that it is always a joy- 
 ful thing to hold intercourse with him.” 
 
 Ἔν ἢ ἑστήκαμεν. Here Grotius most unnaturally 
 makes σίστει the antecedent to the relative. As ob- 
 jectionable is Beza’s translation, per quam. ἑστήκαμεν 
 is rendered by Ambrose, Theophylact, Grotius, and 
 Michaelis, with various shades of the emphatic mean- 
 ing, to persevere, be established, set up. It is, how- 
 ever, equally probable that it has not here the same 
 emphasis as in 1 Pet. v. 12. Hence De Wette, “ in 
 possession of which we are.” How beautifully does 
 Chrysostom observe at this place! Es σοΐνυν μακρὸν 
 ὄντας προσήγαγε, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐγγὺς γενομένους καθέξει. 
 Σὺ δὲ μοι σκόπει πῶς πανταχοῦ τὰ δύο τίθησι, καὶ τὰ παρ᾿ 
 αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὰ παρ᾿ ἡμῶν. ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν αὐτοῦ ποικίλα, 
 καὶ πολλά, καὶ διάφορα. καὶ γὰρ ἀπέθανε OF ἡμᾶς, καὶ 
 
948 CHAPTER ν. V. 2. 
 
 κατήλλαξεν ἡμᾶς; καὶ προσήγαγε; καὶ χάριν ἔδωκεν ἄφατον" 
 ἡμεῖς δὲ τὴν πίστιν εἰσηνέγκαμνεν μόνον. 
 
 καὶ καυχώμεθα ex ἐλπίδι. Besides peace in the soul, 
 there is the hope of glory beyond the grave. Beza: 
 Non solum ab omni damnationis formidine liberi su- 
 mus, immo, magna latitia perfusi exultamus de heredi- 
 tate celesti. Pelagius: Tantumque est quod spera- 
 mus, quantum ex se nullus auderet, ne non spes sed 
 blasphemia putaretur, eo quod multis pro sua mag- 
 nitudine incredibile videtur. Chrysostom: ᾿Ἑννόησον 
 τοίνυν ἡλίκα τὰ μέλλοντα, ὅταν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν εἶναι 
 λυπηροῖς μέγα φρονῶμεν. Τοσαύτη ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ δωρεὰ, καὶ 
 οὕτως οὐδὲν αὐτῆς ἀηδές. ἐπὶ μὲν γὰν τῶν ἔξωθεν πρωγιμάτων, 
 οἱ μὲν ἀγῶνες πόνον ἔχουσι καὶ ὀδύνην καὶ ταλαιπωρίαν, οἱ 
 Of στέφανοι καὶ τὰ ἔπαθλα σὴν ἡδονὴν κομίζουσιν. ἐνταῦθα 
 δὲ οὐχ, οὕτως, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἐπάθλων τὰ παλαΐσμωτα οὐχ, 
 ἧττον ἡμῖν ἡδίω“ Instead of δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Vul- 
 
 “ΤΕ then he hath given us access when we were far away, 
 much more will be uphold us being brought near. And re- 
 mark, I pray, how the Apostle everywhere distinguishes, on 
 the one hand, what was accomplished by him ( Christ), on the 
 other, what byus. And various, and many, and different are the 
 things which he hath done; for he died on our account, and 
 reconciled us, and brought us near to God, and gave us grace 
 unspeakable; while all that we on our part contribute is only 
 faith. 
 
 4 Judge then how great must be the things to come, when . 
 
 we glory even in what wears the semblance of distress. So 
 precious is the gift of God, and so utterly is it devoid of all 
 bitterness. For in regard to external things, our struggles 
 are ever attended with toil, and pain, and misery, and only 
 crowns and rewards confer the pleasure. But here it is not 
 so. Our very struggles are no less sweet than the prize itself. 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 9, 3. 249 
 
 gate, and several Latin interpreters, read, gloria fili- 
 orum Dei. We may either understand by the ex- 
 pression, as is usually done, the glory which emanates 
 from God, and is imparted to the blessed, or the bless- 
 edness of God himself, of which we are to partake. 
 V.3. In the foregoing verse, the Apostle had 
 spoken of the Christian’s prospect in a future world. 
 Upon this subject, infidels, as heathen infidels actually 
 did, might scoff. (See Minut. Felix, Octav. c. 12. 
 Arnob. adv. Gentes 1. ii. in fin. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
 l.iv.) He therefore proceeds to say, that even the 
 calamities of this life, so far from rendering the Chris- 
 tian miserable, rather tended to elevate his hopes, 
 thereby contributing to his felicity. Chrysostom: 
 ὅρα πάλιν τὴν φιλονεικίαν ἸΤαύλου, πῶς εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον περι- 
 πρέπει TOY λόγον.....«οὐ γὼρ μόνον οὐκ ἀναιρεκαὶ τῆς τοι- 
 αὑτης ἐλπίδος αἱ θλίψεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατασχευωστικαίὃ 
 Clem. Alex. (Strom. 1. ii.) “« Exulting in these arms, 
 O Lord, says the enlightened Christian, give me 
 but a field and see how I shall acquit myself. Let 
 calamity come. Strong in thy love, I mock at danger.” 
 Melancthon: Multi deriserunt Christianos predican- 
 tes liberationem a peccato et a morte, cum nullum 
 genus hominum sit calamitosius. Imo et sanctorum 
 conscientiz, cum agnoscunt suam infirmitatem, dolent 
 et luctantur cum dubitatione, disputantes an Deo 
 placeant, cum adeo sint infirmi. Nec est levis ten- 
 
 © Observe, again, the Apostle’s taste for controversy, and how 
 he turns the argument the opposite way. ... Tribulations are 
 not merely not destructive, they are even confirmatory of such 
 a hope. 
 
250 CHAPTER V. V. 3. 
 
 tatio, quia cum fides ex verbo debeat pendere et sta- 
 tuere, quod Deus certo propitius sit propter Christum, 
 nostra infirmitas hoc oculis et sensibus comprehendere 
 conatur. The Apostle, in proceeding, begins with a 
 formula which is very common with him, and the 
 force of which is to heighten the emphasis οὐ μόνον δὲ, 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ. 
 
 He makes a climax, by which the leading thought 
 is more strongly brought out. It is as follows: 
 That hope of future glory at which you scoff, is so 
 far from being damped by our tribulations, that, on the 
 contrary, it is even greatly elevated by them. In the 
 glow of language the Apostle loves this figure, which 
 we find chap. vill. 29, 30; x. 14, 15. Augustine 
 (De Doctr. Christ. 1. iv. 6. 7,) cites the present passage 
 as a proof that Paul did not despise the ornament of 
 eloquence when opportunity occurred. The Rab- 
 bins also not unfrequently use the climax. So Schir. 
 Haschiram Rabba, fol. 3, 2, (in Schottgen): R. Pinehas 
 fil. Jair dixit: Sedulitas nos perducit ad innocentiam, 
 innocentia ad puritatem, puritas ad sanctitatem, sancti- 
 tas ad humilitatem, humilitas ad metum peccatorum, 
 metus peccatorum ad pietatem, pietas ad spiritum 
 sanctum, spiritus sanctus ad resurrectionem mor- 
 tuorum. . 
 
 Καυχᾶσθαι is construed with ἐπὶ and περὶ, and also 
 with ἐν, Rom. ii. 17, 23. It may hence be said, that 
 the θλίψεις are the object of the glorying, which sense 
 would make the text a fine parallel to ἐσ ἐλσίδι τῆς 
 δόξης. ἕν may also, however, be regarded as denoting 
 the state of the persons. ‘Yroov7, patience. See at ii. 
 7. Thom. Aquinas: Non quidem sic, quod tribulatio ἡ 
 
Kee 
 
 CHAPTER V. V. 3, 4. 251 
 
 sit ejus causa effectiva, sed quia tribulatio est materia 
 et occasio exercendi patientice actum. 
 
 V. 4. δοχημὴν can have either an active or a passive 
 sense. It may be taken, like δοκιμασία, to signify pro- 
 bation, trial, in compliance with which view, Luther 
 translates it experience ; so 2 Cor. xiii. 3. Thus also 
 Grotius expounds: Exploratio sui ipsius ; nam patien- 
 do discit homo suas vires; And Camerarius: Tenta- 
 tione divina innotescit, non quidem Deo sed hominibus, 
 quod antea latuit. Beza, Melancthon, and Carpzovius 
 follow in the same path. The word may also, how- 
 ever, have a passive signification, confirmedness, ge- 
 nuineness. Phil. ἢ. 22. 2 Cor. ix. 13. In 1 Peter 
 i. 7. the word δοκίμιον has, contrary to the rule, the 
 same passive signification, and perhaps, also in James 
 i. 3. Theophylact : ‘H δὲ ὑπομονὴ δόκιμον τὸν πειρωζόμενον 
 ἀπεργάζεται" δόκιμος OF γενόμενος ὃ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ θαῤῥῶν 
 ἐπὶ τῷ ἀγαθῷ αὐτοῦ συνειδότι, ὅτι διὰ τὴν Θεὸν ἐθλίβη, ἐλ- 
 πίζει τὰς ὑπερ τῶν τοιοῦτων θλίψεων ἀμοιβάς. Τῇ δοκίμιον 
 in James i. 3. bears the passive signification, the deri- 
 vation of these two Christian virtues by the two Apos- 
 tles is reversed. But yet neither of them is less true 
 than the other; for not more does patience confirm 
 faith, than faith, when confirmed, begets patience. 
 The climaxes of the Apostle, however, are not always 
 to be urged, e. g. 2 Pet. i. 5, 7. 
 
 f Patience makes him who is tempted experienced. But 
 when a man has become experienced, and has confidence in 
 his good conscience, he cherishes the hope of obtaining com- 
 
 pensation for the afflictions to which God has subjected 
 
 him, 
 
252 CHAPTER V. V. 4, 5. 
 
 ἡ δὲ δοκιμὴ ἐλπίδα. Calov: Qui in cruce confirman- 
 tur imagini filii Dei, ex eo confirmantur, quod etiam 
 eidem aliquando confirmandi sint in gloria. Rom. vii. 29. 
 Limborch : Hee spes nonconditionata, qua quis sperat 
 si patiatur se adepturum coronam gloriz, sed que in 
 fideli existit post conditionem impletam, estque pro- 
 missionis divine generalis specialis applicatio. Such 
 the Apostle describes his own hope to be, 2 Tim. iv. 
 Gi:8, 
 
 V. 5. Ἢ de ἐλαὶς οὐ καταισχύνει. This declaration 
 is true of every right hope in God. LEceclesiasticus 1]. 
 10. But here the article 7 stands for the demonstra- 
 tive pronoun αὕτη ἡ Amis. Καταισχύνειν to expose 
 
 false pretensions. Ambrose: Non confundit, dum 
 stulti et hebetes a perfidis judicamur, credentes que 
 mundana carent ratione. 
 
 ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ. This clause may be connected 
 with what precedes, in three different ways. It may 
 either be united ἀσυνδέδως, and co-ordinated with the 
 two foregoing smaller clauses, by the word εἰδότες 
 supplied, in which case ὅτι would be objective. 
 This view is taken by Baumgarten, but is very un- 
 natural. Or again, ὅτι, as causal particle, refers to the 
 two smaller previous clauses, and gives the reason why 
 Christians reap such blessed effects from affliction; which 
 construction is very apposite. Still better, however, 
 is the Hebraistic one, by which ὅτι is connected with 
 the clause immediately preceding it, as Erasmus does 
 in the following words: Neque vero periculum est ut 
 ea spes nos fallat, quandoquidem jam nunc certissi- 
 mum pignus et arrhabonem tenemus, miram et in- 
 auditam Dei caritatem erga nos. Melancthon justly — 
 
—_—, 
 
 CHAPTER V. ν. 9. 253 
 
 observes, that we require to suppose an intermediate 
 member to the sentence. Our hope will not be put 
 to shame, because God loves us supremely, and of 
 this we are conscious. Chrysostom : ᾿Ασπαλλάξας Toivuy 
 adlods ἱκανῶς ἀμφισβηϊήσεως ἁπάσης διὰ Ἴοὐγων Tow ῥημάγων, 
 οὐχ, ἵστησι μέχρι Ἰῶν παρόν]ων Tov λόγον, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἰὰ μέλ- 
 hovla παλίν ἐπάγει, εἰδὼς Τοὺς ἀσθενεστέρους καὶ Ta παρόν]α 
 Cilodilas, καὶ οὐκ ἀρκουμένους 7οὐ]οις. καὶ πισϊοῦ]αι αὐ]ὰ 
 ἀπὸ Ἰῶν ἤδη δοθένήων......εἰ Of οὐκ ἐβούλεϊο μεγάλοις ἡμᾶς 
 με]ὼ lode πόνους σεφάνοις δωρήσωσθαι, οὐκ ἂν πρὸ Tay πόνων 
 Ἰυσαῦ]α ἔδωχεν ἀγαθά. νῦν δὲ 17ὺ θερμὸν αὐ]οῦ Tis ἀγάπης 
 δείκνυῆαι ἐν]εῦθεν, ὅτι οὐκ Hotbot, καὶ κα] μικρὸν ἡμᾶς ἐήίμωη- 
 σεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀθρόον Τὴν πηγὴν Ta ἀγαθῶν ἐξέχεε, καὶ Ἰαῦ]α πρὸ 
 Tey ὠγώνων. wale κἀν μὴ σφόδρα ἧς ἄξιος, μὴ ἀπογίνωσκε, 
 ἔχων μεγάλην συνηγόρον τοῦ δικάφον]ος, Ἰήν ἀγάπην. 
 ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ. Among the older commentators, 
 Theodoret, Augustine and Pelagius understand here, 
 the love of man to God. ‘The last of whom remarks: 
 Magnitudo beneficiorum excitat in se magnitudinem 
 
 § Having by these words fully freed their minds from all 
 doubts, he does not bound his discourse by things present, but 
 again introduces things future, from a consideration of the 
 weakness of some who, not content with the latter, seek what is 
 within their reach, and by appealing to those which are al- . 
 ready in hand, he proves what are afterwards tocome. For 
 unless he designed to bestow noble crowns upon us when our 
 toils were over, he would never have conferred such blessings 
 before they are begun. But now he manifests the ardour of 
 his affection, by not bestowing his honours upon us insensibly 
 and by degrees, but pouring out the full fountain of his bless- 
 
 ‘Ings, and this before the battle. Learn from hence, not to 
 
 despair, though you feel your own unworthiness, seeing you 
 havea powerful intercessor with the Judge, even love. 
 
954 CHAPTER V. V. 5. 
 
 caritatis. Even so the Catholic expositors, appealing 
 to Luke xi. 42, John v. 42, 1 John iii. 17, v. 3, where 
 ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ stands objectively. It is more cor- 
 rectly understood, however, by Origen, Chrysostom, 
 Ambrose, Luther, Melancthon and others, as meaning 
 the love of God to man, as at Rom. viii. 39, 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 14, 1 John iv. 9. Exactly in the same way do 
 we find mentioned in verse 8th, what God hath done 
 in commendation of his love towards us. Besides, St. 
 Paul, who is at so much pains always to point man 
 away from himself to the objective ground of faith in 
 God, would scarcely have proposed the liveliness of 
 man’s love to God as the proper basis of his 
 confidence. The expression ἐχχέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις 
 must obviously signify something more than the 
 mere knowledge of this love of God derived from 
 reflection, a bare understanding of the promises of 
 Scripture on the subject, as Calov. and Grotius are 
 disposed to regard it ; the latter of whom says: Effusa, 
 id est abundanter testata hominibus. We must na- 
 turally view it as implying @ consciousness in the 
 heart, such as is spoken of in Rom. viii. 16, 2 Cor. 
 j. 22. The Spirit is that element of new life, 
 whereof we become partakers by faith,—the σπέρμα 
 Θεοῦ, 1 John ii. 9,—by which all the inward ex- 
 periences of the Christian are produced, and through 
 which all the communications of God to him are made. 
 In this way it is understood by Bugenhagen and Seb. 
 Schmid, among Lutheran divines. Calvin: Signi- 
 fieat participium diffusa adeo uberem esse divini in 
 nos amoris revelationem, ut corda nostra impleat. 
 Sic autem in omnes partes effusa, non modo tristitiam 
 
 eo a ἃ... 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 5; 6. 255 
 
 in rebus adversis mitigat, sed quasi suave condimen- 
 tum amabiles reddit tribulationes...... Certum est non 
 aliud doceri a Paulo, quam hune verum esse omnis 
 dilectionis fontem, quod persuasi sunt fidelis a Deo 
 se amari; nec leviter duntaxat hac persuasione tincti 
 sunt, sed animos prorsus delibutos habent. Admirable 
 is the observation of Ambrose: As the stranger in a 
 foreign land cannot prove his origin, so does our faith 
 wander as an exile here upon earth; et quia natura 
 ejus verbis explicari non potest, virtutis, quee major res 
 - est, testimonio commendatur. Exxiyura. This word 
 denotes always plenitude of communication, John vii. 
 38, Acts ii. 17. 
 
 V. 6. The verses from this to the 12th, containing, 
 as they do, a description of the love of God, the bless- 
 ed sense of which is known to us through his dwelling 
 in our hearts, are connected, in point of form, with 
 the 5th; in point of sense, however, they are a justi- 
 fication of the καύχησις in hope of eternal glory, ex- 
 pressed at the end of the 2d verse, and to which, at 
 verse llth, the Apostle again returns. He accord- 
 ingly states, in the first instance, the great objective 
 proof of the love of God to man, whereby the holy 
 Spirit awakens in our hearts the sense of it in its un- 
 speakable and unmerited greatness. 
 
 ἔτι γὰρ. Instead of this, the Syriac, Arabic, and 
 Koptic versions read εἴ ye; Isidorus and Augustine 
 ξι yao; F. G. εἰς 1); and the Vulgate, Irenzeus, and 
 Ambrose translate, ut quid. It was probably the un- 
 usual position of the 271, which led to all these various 
 readings. If we read εἴ γὰρ or εἴ yz, a harsh aposiopesis 
 is introduced, or we must resolve to consider verse 
 
256 CHAPTER V. V. 6. 
 
 7th as parenthetical, and seek the conclusion in the 
 8th, which cannot, however, be done, as there is there 
 a 6: Besides, the Codex Alexr. reads ἔτι once more 
 after ἀσθενῶν, and Griesbach has admitted it into the 
 text. The external authority for this second ἔτσι is 
 certainly weighty ; and, according to the canon, which 
 prescribes the preference of the more difficult to the 
 easier reading, it ought to be received. With re- 
 spect to the first ἔτι, it is taken by Cider and Koppe 
 in the sense over and above, as Luke xiv. 26. It 
 cannot be denied, however, that in that case it 
 would, in so animated a discourse, have a very trailing 
 air; and it must likewise be added, that the Apostle 
 in reality brings forward nothing new, but merely 
 enlarges on what has been already said. It will ac- 
 cordingly be more correct to construe it with 6vJwy 
 ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν, as verse eighth will’ also induce us to do, 
 and to suppose, that for the sake of emphasis, it has 
 been here placed in front. 
 
 The precise meaning of ὠσθενὴς it is not easy to de- 
 termine. It stands here parallel with ὡμαρ)ωλὸς in 
 verse 8. As such, its meaning may be twofold. . It 
 may, in the first place, signify wretched, unworthy. 
 In this sense it is understood by Calvin, Chr. Schmid, 
 and Wahl, and may be compared with 1 Cor. xii. 22, 
 and 2 Cor. x. 10. The LXX. moreover, render ‘Jy by 
 ἀσθενὴς. Prov. xxii. 223 xxxi. 5,9. When understood 
 in this sense, however, ἀσθενὴς expresses too feebly 
 the ἐχθρὰ of men to God, which is spoken of in the 
 tenth verse, and would rather excite compassion. We 
 prefer, accordingly, the other signification, forsaken by 
 the powers of the divine life. Thus interpreted, it 
 
Ὁ" 
 
 CHAPTER V. V. 6. 257 
 
 corresponds very accurately with the meaning of 
 σὰρξ, as given by the Reformers, and adopted by us. 
 So Beza, Grotius, and others. Michaelis, following 
 the practice of the LX X., who render bw) by ἀσθενεῖν, 
 makes it fallen. The two ideas of weakness and sin 
 border very near upon each other; Heb. iv. 15; v. 
 2, where Cicumenius remarks: ἀσθένειαν, Thy amagiiov 
 λέγε. Grotius: Cum nondum vires accepissemus ad 
 serviendum Deum. 
 
 If we must now dispose of the second 27, the sim- 
 
 plest manner of doing so, would be by construing 
 
 κα]ὰ καιρὸν with ἀσεβῶν. “ Being yet sinners by the 
 rule of that period.” So Pelagius, Erasmus, Castalio, 
 Calvin, and others. Such a restriction of ἀσεβῶν how- 
 ever, would be totally contrary to the design of Paul, 
 and weaken the impression of the whole. The ordie 
 nary sense in which χορὸς is used, leads us to an en- 
 tirely different interpretation. As employed by pro- 
 fane authors and the LXX., κα]ὰ καιρὸν means at the 
 appointed time. Job v.26. Is. 1x. 22. In the New 
 Testament ἐν καιρῶ is substituted in its place. Καιρὸς 
 is used to denote the period of the Messiah's advent, 
 Mark i. 15. Luke xxi. 8. and that, by the set- 
 tled decree of God, Christ appeared at a particular 
 time, is declared in Gal. iv. 4. 1 Pet. i. 20. Heb. ix. 
 26. Accordingly, CGZcumenius correctly observes : 
 
 Κατὰ καιρὸν, εὔκαιρὸν, καὶ wreoonnovla καὶ προωρισμένον. 
 
 We construe it therefore with ἀπέθανε. There now 
 
 remains, however, nothing else for the second és but 
 
 to unite it with ἀσεβῶν, which, however, in conse- 
 
 quence of the intermediate καϊὰ καιρὸν, cannot possibly 
 
 be done. It may be, that Paul having forgotten the 
 5 
 
258 CHAPTER V. V. 6, 7, 
 
 ἔτι at the commencement, put down the second by an 
 oversight. If this be also a supposition we are unwil- 
 ling to adopt, there is no help for it but to consider the 
 word as a gloss. 
 
 V.7. The γὰρ which is here declarative, and not 
 causative, expresses the vast importance of the fact 
 announced. In the explication of this sentence, all 
 depends upon the sense given to δίκαιος and ἀγαθὸς. 
 Even in his time, Jerome (in Epist. 121, ad Algasiam) 
 enumerates five different, and partly heretical inter- 
 pretations of the passage. We could mention a still 
 greater number, and perhaps of more weight, but shall 
 select only the most important. In the ordinary use 
 of the Greek language, it is certain that δίκαιος and 
 ayabos are not precisely synonymous, but still, as the 
 meaning of the one may include that of the other, 
 they are sometimes used as such. A/xasog properly sig- 
 nifies equitable, honest. The radical idea is the same 
 with νόμιμος, as is observed by Aristotle. Comp. 
 Xenoph. Cyrop. 1. i. 6. 3. 5. 14, ἔπεῆα δὲ ἔφη Tb μὲν 
 νόμιμον δίκαιον εἶναι. ᾿Αγαθὸς again signifies able, ex- 
 cellent, hence γεωργὺς ἀγωθὸς a skilful husbandman. 
 Xenoph. Cyrop. i. 5, 10. τὰ πολεμικὰ ἀγαθοὶ, peritus 
 rei militaris, i. 5,9. Hence the phrases ἐπ᾿ ayabyi 
 γενέσθαι, ex ἀγαθῷ εἰπεῖν. ‘This distinetion of the two 
 words, which is peculiar to classical Greek, cannot 
 have place here, we must, therefore, consult the Hel- 
 lenistic. That dialect would permit us to regard 
 δίκαιος as signifying one irreprehensible in the eye of 
 the law, and dyabds one perfectly good. So Gatacker 
 in this passage. It is, however, too subtle a distinc- 
 
 tion ; besides that in the Old Testament, δίκαιος often 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 7. 959 
 
 signifies holy, and stands here opposed to the ἁμαρ- 
 Ἰωλὸς of the 8th verse. Another expedient, accord- 
 ingly, has been adopted by Origen, Jerome, Erasmus 
 in his Commentary, Luther, Melancthon, and Bugen- 
 hagen. It consists in taking either the two words 
 δικαίου and ἀγαθοῦ, or at least the former of them as 
 neuter nouns. Origen: Est enim amor vite tan- 
 tus, ut etiam cum justa causa mortis advenerit, vix 
 unusquisque mortem patienter accipiat. Justa autem 
 causa mortis videtur cum nature. legi defertur. The 
 same author applies the ὠγαθὸς to our Saviour, for 
 whom unquestionably the martyrs dared to die. The 
 close connection, however, in which the words stand 
 with the masculine ἁμαρτωλὸς forbids either the one 
 or other to be considered as neuter. Moreover, ac- 
 cording to this view, the antithesis between δίκαιος 
 and ayadis is lost, which has led the Syriac inter- 
 preter arbitrarily to change the text, and translate as 
 if instead of δίκωιος, there stood ἄδικος; in which he 
 has been followed by the Arabian. Grotius incon- 
 siderately lends the aid of his authority to this ground- 
 less alteration, and quotes as a parallel passage the 
 sentiment of Seneca: Succurram perituro, sed ut 
 ipse non peream, nisi si futurus ero magni hominis 
 aut magne rei merces. It helps us as little, with 
 Findeisen (Comm. Theoll. ed. Velth. et Rup. t. iv.) 
 and Schleusner, to cut the knot, take δίκαιος in the 
 sense of worthy, and supplying θανατοῦ, force out in 
 this manner the meaning of godless or wicked. & 
 great multitude of expositors, in utter despair, have 
 given up the antithesis altogether, regard δίκαιος and 
 ᾿ ἀγαθὸς as identical, and having interpreted τάχα, per- 
 
260 CHAPTER V. V. 7. 
 
 chance however, and set it in opposition to μόλις, bring 
 out the following meaning : “ Scarcely for a good man 
 will one die; perchance however, one might dare to die 
 fora good man.” So Ambrose, Jerome, Erasmus in his 
 Paraphrase, Calvin, Beza, Calov, Limborch, and others. 
 The very structure of the sentence, however, in- 
 volves an objection to this view, for rot ἀγαθοῦ seems 
 purposely to be placed before τάχα, to mark its an- 
 tithesis with ὑπὲρ δικαίου. It may also well be objected, 
 that it makes the Apostle first enunciate a sentiment 
 with great emphasis, and then again render it weak 
 and insipid; as Jerome says: Pendulo gradu senten- 
 tiam temperat. There is therefore no alternative 
 but to have recourse to a finer verbal distinction 
 between δίκαιος and ἀγαθὸς, of which Cocceius, Bengel, 
 and Seb. Schmid appear to have had some presenti- 
 
 ΚΙ ἃ 
 
 ment, and which Heumann in Latin, and Raphelius in ~ 
 
 Greek, sought to establish upon philological grounds. 
 (Heum. in Bibl. Bremensis class. 4, Fascic. 2. Raphe- 
 lius in Annot. adh. 1.) The words POM in Hebrew, 
 ὠγαθὸς in Greek, and bonus in Latin, involve the 
 idea of beneficence as the chief element of their 
 
 meaning. In Hebrew this idea is easily derivable — 
 from that of love, kindness, which is the primary sense — 
 of pry. That that word betokens a higher degree — 
 of the quality than ΟΥ̓͂Ν, may be inferred from the — 
 practice of the LXX. who translate it ὅσιος, Ps. iv. © 
 3. The meaning beneficence is peculiarly prominent 5 
 in a passage of the Talmudic Tract. Pirke Avoth, 4 
 c. 5, § 10.“ There are four classes of men; the © 
 one say, what is my own is my own, and what is — 
 yours is yours. J). N70 M, this is the way of — 
 
Ἢ CHAPTER V. V. 7. 261 
 
 the middle class. The others say, what is mine is 
 thine, and what is thine is mine, YIN Oy M7 77: 
 This is the way of the populace. But he who says, 
 what is mine is thine, and let what is thine be thine, 
 is a pious man, "OFT. Whereas, he who says, what is 
 thine is mine, and let what is mine be mine, is PW, 
 a villain.” In rabbinical Hebrew, the proper meaning 
 of NIDM is beneficentia, beneficium. In the New 
 Testament, in like manner, ayaéds, at Matt. xx. 19, 
 may be understood in the sense of beneficent, . for ὁς- 
 θαλμὸὺς πονηρὸς, which is opposed to it, in the He- 
 brew and in the Apocrypha signifies an evil eye, 
 Prov. xxviii. 22. In classical Greek, this sense is 
 also exemplified in the following passages. Κῦρον ava- 
 narouvles Tov εὐεργέτην, Tov ἄνδρα, Tov ἀγαθὸν. Elian. Var. 
 Histor. |. iii. 6. 17. Tagavlivors ἐγένεῖο ἀγαθὸς Αρχύτας. 
 ᾿Αγαθὺς, in the same sense, is used in inscriptions. See 
 Gruter, Corpus inscript. Rom. p. 491, i. 846, 9. 
 Phavorinus, accordingly defines the word ἀγαθὸς, ὁ 1a 
 καλὰ χαριζόμενος ἀφθόνως. With respect to the Latin 
 bonus, that it is used in the same sense, is shown by 
 the following passages. Cicero, De offic. 1. iii. ec. 15: 
 Si vir bonus is est, qui prodest quibus potest, nocet 
 nemini, recte justum virum, bonum non facile repe- 
 riemus. Id: De nat. Deor. 1. ii. Jupiter optimus 
 dictus est, id est, beneficentissimus. Publius Syrus 
 says: In nullum avarus bonus est, in se pessimus. 
 As to the use of δίκωμος in Greek, Xenophon in his 
 Sympos. ὁ. iv. s. 42, declares the δίκαμοι to be such, 
 vig γὰρ μάλισϊω Ἰὰ παρόντα ἀρκεῖ, ἥκιστα τῶν ἀλλοϊρίων 
  ὀρέγονδαι. And in De (Ἑοοπομηῖα, he designates δίκομοι 
 the slaves who did not steal. On the other hand, 
 
269 CHAPTER V. V. 7, 8. 
 
 the same author, both in the Symposion and in the 
 book de Agesilao, ὁ. ii. s. 8, puts ἐλευθέριος in opposi- 
 tion to d/xosos, which ἐλευθέριος there signifies as much 
 as ἀγαθὸς does with St. Paul. In the latter place it 
 is sald: χρήμασί ye μὴν οὐ μόνον δικαίως, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐλευ- 
 θερίως ἐχρῆτο. τῷ μὴν δικαΐῳ ὠρκεῖν ἡγόυμενος 10 ἑᾷν Ἰὰ 
 ἀλλότρια, τῷ δὲ ἐλευθερίῳ καὶ Ἴῶν ἑαυτοῦ προσωφεληϊεον 
 εἶναι. Perhaps also the article before ὠγαθὸς is here 
 significant, and stands for the pronoun, quasi, Azs be- 
 nefactor. So the Spanish version, which, like the 
 Vulgate, sometimes comments instead of translating : 
 “Por su bien hechor.” Comp. Hombergk Parerga 
 Sacra, p. 204. 
 
 Taya. Theodoret, ‘ows, which, in classical Greek 
 is often coupled with it; τάχ᾽ ἂν ἴσως. Τολμᾷν is 
 used in Greek in reference to any enterprise which 
 demands a struggle, to dare, be bold enough. Eurip. 
 Alcestis:"HAixog τ᾽ ὥν κἀπὶ τέρμ᾽ ἡκῶν βίου, οὐκ ἠθέλησας; 
 οὐδ᾽ ἐτόλμησας θανεῖν τοῦ σοῦ πρὸ παιδός. The καὶ prefixed 
 elevates the sense of the verb. So Polybius: περὶ δὲ 
 τῶν διαδεξαμένων πῶς καὶ τολμᾶτε μνημονεύει. Ham- 
 mond, in his paraphrase, gives the meaning as fol- 
 lows: Hine quantus ejus fuerit amor, intelligere est, 
 quod inter homines pro viro quopiam beneficentis- 
 simo aliquis forte vite periculum adeat, at qui pro 
 viro etiam justissimo de vita periclitari velit, egerrime 
 inveniatur. Sadol. In quibus verbis unum uni, justus 
 impio, bonus hosti redditur. 
 
 V.8. While among men there is thus none who 
 will die for the innocent, and not many who will die 
 for a benefactor, the holy one submits to death for sin- 
 ners, for those who had offended against God himself. 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 8, 9, 10. 263 
 
 Συνιστάναι, see chapter iii. 5. The word ἁμαρ)ωλὸς 
 involves the idea of that alienation—the ἔχθρα of the 
 10th verse—of man from God, which has been pro- 
 duced by sin. Ὑπὲρ may signify, in favorem et com- 
 modum alicujus, and doesso in John x. 15, Tit. i. 14, 
 where Christ’s death is spoken of; but it may likewise 
 signify loco, synonymously with 7’, in which sense 
 it is also used with reference to the same subject, 
 1 Tim. ii. 6. Comp. Ecclesiasticus, xxix. 15. Xen 
 Hist. iii. 4. 15: Προειπὼν δὲ ὁ ᾿Αγησιλάος, ὅστις παρέχοι 
 σὺ ἱππικὸν καὶ ὅπλα, κωὶ ἄνδρα δόκιμον, OTs ἐξέσται αὐτῷ 
 μὴ στρατεύεσθωι, ἐποίησεν, οὕτω ταῦτα ξἕυντόμως πράττεσ- 
 θαι, ὥσπερ ἄν τις τὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανούμενον προθύμως 
 φητοίη. Hence also the verb ὑπερωποθνήσκει.. The 
 author of the Epistle to Diognetus: ἐπεὶ δὲ πεπλήρωτο 
 μὲν ἡ ἡμετέρω ἀδικία καὶ τελείως πεφανέρωτο ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς...» 
 κόλασις καὶ θάνατος προσεδοκᾶτο. ἦλθε δὲ ὁ καιρὸς, ὃν θεὸς 
 προεθετὸ λοιπὸν φανερῶσοι σὴν ἑαυτοῦ χρηστότητα καὶ δύμα- 
 μιν ὡς ὑπερβωλλούσης φιλανθρωπίας μία ἀγάπη....οὐκ 
 ἐμίσησεν ἡμᾶς, οὐδὲ ἀπώσατο, οὐδὲ ἐμνησικάκησεν, ἀλλὰ 
 ἐμνωκροθύμησεν, ἠνέσχετο, λέγων αὐτὸς, τὰς ἡμετέρας ἁμαρ- 
 σίας ἀνεδέξατο: αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο, λύτρον ὑπὲρ τῶν 
 κακῶν, τὸν δίκοιον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδικων, τὸν ἄφθαρτον ὑπὲρ τῶν 
 θνητῶν. 
 
 V. 9, 10. The Apostle here gives a popular view 
 of the relation in which man stands towards God, by 
 a reference to the analogous relations, which subsist 
 between man and man. Such popular representa- 
 tions, however, must always rest upon a basis of ob- 
 jective truth. It was a noble demonstration of God’s 
 love, that while men were all involved in a situation 
 of revolt from him, he suffered Christ to appear 
 among them, who, in order to break the power of evil, 
 
964. CHAPTER V. V. 10. 
 
 took upon himself the consequences of sin, even death 
 and all its pains. Hence, now that he has passed into 
 a state of glory, when believing Christians have laid 
 hold of him, and, by his Spirit, have entered anew 
 into fellowship with God, well may the Apostle say, 
 that they have no more reason to be afraid, lest the 
 sufferings of the present should prove an obstacle to 
 their future blessedness. 
 
 ἐχθροὶ ὄντες. It is vain to wish to discriminate 
 whether the enmity of men towards God, or of God 
 towards men, is here designed. In the expressions 
 of the Apostle both in this and other passages, we 
 can find no ground for such a distinction, seeing, 
 that in point of fact, the two things are corelative, 
 so that the one cannot be supposed without the other. 
 Only, we must be upon our guard, when transferring 
 this ἔχθρα, as well as all other passions, even that of 
 love, from man to the Divine Being, to abstract every 
 mixture of human sinfulness. Freed from this ele- 
 ment, there remains only the idea of an objective an- 
 tithesis, a spiritual repulsion of evil. If it be impos- 
 sible, in cases where the relations of man to man are 
 spoken of, to avoid supposing the words ἐν ἔχθρῳ ὄντες. 
 (used of Pilate and Herod, Lukexxiii. 12,) to imply that 
 the enmity is mutual, it will be equally impossible to 
 do so here. Not that we would thereby deny, that 
 sometimes it may be the Apostle’s intention to bring 
 more into view the one side, the sense of alienation 
 from, and variance with God, on the part of the sinner ; 
 as seems to be the case, Col. i. 21. Even that senti- 
 ment, however, presupposes opposition on the part of 
 God to man, which is evinced by the consciousness 
 
CHAPTER V. v. 10. 265 
 
 of guilt, of which God and not man is the author. 
 Moreover, the scriptural doctrine of the ὀργὴ of God 
 itself involves essentially the idea of the ἔχθρα, which 
 is manifested by the ὀργὴ, in the sense of guilt 
 and the numerous evils connected with it. On the 
 other hand, the ἔχθρα rod ἁμαρτωλοῦ εἰς Θεὸν is implied 
 in the idea of sin, as a more negative or more posi- 
 tive contrariety to the holy law and will of God, Rom. 
 vi. 7. Jamesiv. 4. Theodoret : of ἐχθροὶ δὴ τῶν ἐντολῶν 
 αἷς μηδὲ ὑπακηκόωσσι, γενόμενοι ὥσπερ φίλοι οἱ ὑπακηκούτες. 
 Clem. Alex. Strom. |. iil. καὶ μή τι καθάπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 οὐδενὶ μὲν ἀντίκεισθωι }ιέγομεν τὸν Θεὸν, οὐδὲ ἐχθρὸν εἶναι 
 τινός. πάντων γὰρ κτίστης, καὶ οὐδέν ἐστι τῶν ὑποστάντων ὅ μὴ 
 θέλει. Φαμὲν ὃὲ αὐτῷ ἐχθροὺς εἶναι Tous ἀπειθεῖς καὶ μὴ 
 κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ πορευομένους. Pelagius: Inimici 
 actibus non natura, reconciliati autem quia conciliati 
 naturaliter fueramus. Melancthon takes occasion to 
 observe: Estque consolatio necessaria his, qui cum 
 sint sanctificati, tamen vident se adhuc habere reli- 
 quias peccati, et obnoxios esse terroribus et pavoribus, 
 item immergi asperrimis calamitatibus, et luctantur cum 
 diffidentia. 
 
 ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὑτοῦ. The apostle uniformly considers 
 the life of the Saviour as divided into two sections. 
 That holy one, who, as being free from sin, was also 
 not subject to evil, becomes a member of the race 
 which had made themselves guilty of it, bears all 
 its consequences, suffering of every kind, and death 
 itself. But having passed triumphantly through these 
 ἡμέραι τῆς σαρκὸς, Heb. v. 7, the same personage enters 
 the state of glory, where he no longer lives, as he 
 once did here below, in any manner connected with 
 
266 CHAPTER V. V. [10,1]. 
 
 awaeria or θάνατος, but solely in relationship with 
 God. Rom. vi. 10, Phil. ii. 6. This period commences 
 with the resurrection. 
 
 V.11. At this verse, the Apostle returns to verse 
 2d. By what has hitherto been said, it has been es- 
 tablished, that the disciples of Christ, amidst afflictions 
 of every kind, have a title to glory and exult, it being 
 indisputably certain, from what they have already 
 experienced of God’s compassion, that everlasting 
 bless is secured to them. 
 
 Καυχώμενοι scil. ἐσμὲν. “Ev τῷ Θεῷ 3 because his 
 love towards Christians is the basis of all their glory. 
 Calvin: Nam dum gloriamur Deum esse nostrum, 
 quidquid fingi vel optari potest bonorum consequitur 
 et, ex hoc fonte manat. Non enim supremum tantum 
 bonorum omnium est Deus, sed summam quoque et 
 singulos partes in se continens. 
 
 OF οὗ νῦν τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν. The νῦν stands 
 opposed to that everlasting glory, in the prospect of 
 which, the Christian, surrounded by calamities, re- 
 joices, to the ἐλσὶς τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, v. 2d. The 
 pledge of the δόξη is the present χκατωλλαγὴ. The 
 redemption, which is already finished and complete, 
 is the surest guarantee, that those who believingly 
 appropriate it, shall also be partakers of heavenly. 
 bliss 
 
CHAPTER v. V. 12. 267 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 THE NOBLE EFFECTS OF THE REDEMPTION, CONTEM- 
 PLATED BY MEANS OF A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE 
 GENERAL CONDITION OF MANKIND, AS INVOLVED 
 IN THE RUIN ENTAILED UPON THEM BY ADAM, 
 AND THEIR CONDITION, AS PARTAKERS OF THAT 
 GLORY WHICH IS DERIVED FROM CHRIST. V. 
 1221. 
 
 V. 12. Tue Apostle had begun at the first verse 
 to paint the effects of God’s great scheme of sal- 
 vation. He now essays to make these more appa- 
 rent, by showing how they comprehend the whole race, 
 and bring about an entirely new period in the existence 
 of mankind. Accordingly, setting up the one who 
 fell, as the head of sinful humanity, he contrasts him 
 with the restorer, as head of humanity now regenerated, 
 and received afresh into sonship with God; and shews 
 in what manner the fall of the first Adam is related 
 to the restoration effected by the second. The con- 
 clusion, verse 21, coincides with the conclusion of the 
 first half of the chapter, verse 11, the Apostle merely 
 re-affirming as true of the whole of mankind, and 
 with reference to the state of fall, what he had there 
 declared without taking in these regards. Hence 
 also, we may perceive how this second part of the 
 5th chapter is properly only an elucidation, and ex- 
 position on a grander scale, of the first. The obser- 
 vation of Bengel is therefore just: Non tam digres- 
 
268 CHAPTER V. V. 12. 
 
 sionem facit Apostolus quam regressum..... Ex jus- 
 tificatione homo demum respiciens doctrinam capit de 
 origine mali. Chrysostom: Καθάπερ of τῶν ἱατρῶν 
 ἄριστοι τὴν ῥίζαν ἀεὶ πολυπραγιμονοῦσι τῶν νοσημάτων, καὶ 
 ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν ἔρχονται τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ κακοῦ" οὕτω καὶ ὁ μακά- 
 ριος Παῦλος" εἰπὼν γὼρ ὅτι ἐδικαιώθημεν, καὶ δείξως ἀπὸ 
 τοῦ πατριάρχου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπο- 
 θανεῖν τὸν Χριστόν, οὐδὲ yoo ἂν ἀπέθανεν εἰ μὴ ἔμελλε 
 δικαιοῦν, κατασκευάζει λοιπὸν καὶ ἑτέρωθεν τὸ διοὶ πούτων 
 ὠποδειχθέντα, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων συνιστὰς τὸ προκείμενον, 
 σουτέστιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ θανάτου χαὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Calvin ob- 
 serves with great precision: Non possumus clarius 
 perspicere quid habeamus in Christo, quam ubi nobis 
 demonstratum fuerit quid perdiderimus in Adamo. 
 Διὰ τοῦτο, 2. 6. proinde, it follows from what has been 
 said. The Hebrew ap) serves in the same way to 
 draw inferences. 
 
 ὥσπερ. This particle gives rise to much difficulty, 
 as there is a doubt whether the consequence it infers 
 is expressed at all, and if so, where it is to be sought. 
 The majority of commentators make a parenthesis 
 from verse 13 to verse 17 inclusive, and contend that 
 
 5. It is the constant practice of the best physicians to explore 
 the root of their patient’s disease, and thus come to the source 
 of the evil; and this is what the blessed Apostle does here. For 
 having said that we were justified, and having shewn it from 
 the example of the patriarch, and from the Holy Spirit, and 
 from the death of Christ, who would not have died but to ac- 
 complish this end, he forthwith proceeds to bring proofs of 
 the same thing from another quarter, and establishes his pro- 
 position by arguments drawn from the opposite things, viz. from 
 death and sin. 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 19. 269 
 
 at the 18th the proposition is continued. So Luther, 
 Melancthon, Grotius, Bengel, and many others. So 
 extended a parenthesis, however, is highly improbable, 
 not to mention that ἄρα οὖν in the 18th verse far too 
 obviously appears to mark an inference, drawn from 
 the immediately preceding context, and by no means 
 the resumption of a proposition, which after such an 
 interval has disappeared from the mind. Others, 
 Cocceius, Elsner, Koppe, Rosenmuller, and Stolz, 
 after διὰ τοῦτο supply ἐλάβομεν τὴν καταλλαγὴν from 
 the foregoing verse, and form the conclusion of the 
 words succeeding ὥσπερ, ‘Thus Elsner: Itaque re- 
 conciliationem accepimus, quemadmodum per unum 
 hominem peccatum in mundum introit. It is difficult 
 to perceive, however, why at the commencement of 
 his proposition, the Apostle should have omitted so 
 many words, and these so necessary for the right 
 understanding of what he says. But even were 
 we to supply them, still no complete comparison 
 would arise, inasmuch as it is only by contrasting the 
 single points in the work of redemption and the fall, 
 that their parallelism can be made apparent. Others 
 attempt to evade the difficulty by an inversion. They 
 assume that xa/ οὕτως in verse 12 should properly 
 stand for οὕτως καὶ, So Clericus, Wolf, and others. 
 Such a transposition, however, is quite unusual, and 
 moreover when admitted, subverts what is the great 
 scope of the Apostle—the comparison of Adam with 
 Christ. Much more natural is the construction of 
 Erasmus and Beza, who consider the xa before διὰ 
 τῆς ἁμαρτίας as the particle of the conclusion. But 
 against this also we have to object, that it is far too 
 
970 CHAPTER v. V. 19. 
 
 evident that the Apostle designed to set in apposition 
 Adam and Christ, and that by the construction pro- 
 posed, the words δ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, which, as appears 
 from the train of thought pursued through the whole 
 of the latter section of the chapter, must be emphatic, 
 loses all its significance. As all these modes of plac- 
 ing the conclusion are thus inadmissible, we have no 
 resource but to suppose an epanorthosis or an anan- 
 tapodoton. The acute Calvin adopts the first. Ac- 
 cording to this view, we have to imagine that the 
 Apostle had written as far as the 15th verse in the 
 consciousness of his protasis, but that being there re- 
 minded by the expression ὅς ἐστὶ τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος of 
 his intention to compare Adam and Christ, it strikes 
 his glowing mind, that it is not enough merely to point 
 out an equality between the two, and he gives a sud- 
 den turn to the proposition. This explanation has 
 much in its favour, but there appears to be still more 
 to recommend an anantapodoton. The only question 
 is, where does the Apostle cease to retain the pre- 
 mises in his thoughts. Even Origen supposed an 
 anantapodoton, but he strangely seeks the ground of 
 it, not in a negligence of language, but in the design, 
 on the part of the Apostle, not to weaken in Christians 
 the zeal for sanctification, by subjoming the coun-- 
 terpart of Christ. Erasmus in his paraphrase, Casta-- 
 lio and others, supply the conclusion immediately at the - 
 end of the 12th verse. Erasmus gives it in these words: 
 Ita per unum Christum, in quo renascimur omnes per 
 fidem, innocentia inducta est. It is more probable, 
 however, that the Apostle does not lose sight of his 
 premises till he comes to ὅς ἐστὶ τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. 
 
CHAPTER ν. V. 12. 971 
 
 The parenthesis of verse 13, 14, might cause him to 
 forget that he had begun his comparison with ὥσπερ, 
 although he still remembered that he was drawing one. 
 At the close of that parenthesis, in his own lively man- 
 ner, he at once fully enunciates it, and following a He- 
 brew construction, instead of καὶ οὗτος connects it by the 
 relative 6g. ‘The conclusion, accordingly, in point of 
 sense, is contained in this appended proposition. Such 
 is the view of the difficult construction, which possesses 
 the greatest verisimilitude, and is to be preferred to 
 what is otherwise allowable, the adoption of an epa- 
 northosis. We now pass to the consideration of the 
 single words. The subject of the Apostle is the en- 
 trance of sin into the world, and its spread: εἰσῆλθε and 
 διῆλθεν. Now, inasmuch as an opposition, though not 
 expressed, is here implied to a state devoid of sin, it is 
 impossible to distinguish, and vain to make a question, 
 whether the ἁμαρτία means the peccatum habitu- 
 ale or actuale, ὁ. 6. whether the propensity to sin, or 
 the manifestation of that propensity. The whole do- 
 minion of sin is intended. Along with sin, and de- 
 pendent upon it, appeared the θάνατος. Comp. Ec- 
 clesiasticus, xxv. 24. ᾿Απὸ yuvounis ἀρχὴ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ 
 δ αὐτὴν ἀποθνήσκομεν πάντες. Θάνατος has, by Pela- 
 gius and others, been understood to signify spiritual 
 misery, and by the great majority, mere bodily death. 
 But both interpretations are too confined, as appears 
 evident when we consider to what θάνατος and οὗπο- 
 θνήσχειν are opposed in v. 15, 17,21. In the 15th 
 they are opposed to ἡ χάρις and ἡ δωρεὼ ἐν χάριτι. 
 In the 17th and 2180 to ἡ χάρις and ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. 
 Now to look only to the latter ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος expresses 
 
272 CHAPTER V. v. 12. 
 
 much more than the mere prolongation of existence 
 after death, which certainly is also implied in it. 
 The words ζωὴ and θάνατος along with the cog- 
 nate verbs, although appearing in very various appli- 
 cations, are most clearly, explained, when we sup- 
 pose the following views to have lain at the basis of 
 them. God is the ζωὴ asmévos, 1 John v. 20, or the 
 φῶς, 1 John i. 5; Jam.i.7. Beings made in the 
 image of God have true life only in fellowship with 
 him. Wherever this life is absent, there is θάνατος. 
 Accordingly, the idea of ζωὴ comprehends holiness 
 and bliss, that of ϑανάτος sim and misery. Now as 
 both the ζωὴ and the θάνατος manifest themselves 
 sometimes in different degrees, sometimes under dif- 
 ferent aspects, the words acquire a variety of signi- 
 fications. The highest grade of the ζωὴ is the life 
 which the redeemed live with the Saviour in the glo- 
 rious ϑασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. Viewed on this side, 
 ζωὴ denotes continued existence after death, com- 
 munion with God, and blessedness, of which each 
 is implied in the other. The highest grade of the 
 life out of God, ἐ. 6. of the θάνατος, is external exclu- 
 sion from communion with the members of the βασιλεία 
 σοῦ Θεοῦ. Regarded in this view, θανώτος compre- 
 hends bodily death, existence in the realm of spirits, 
 full sense of guilt and misery, each one of which is 
 also involved in the other. This explication of the 
 two words we shall hereafter establish with greater 
 exactness. Now, although in other passages in’ 
 which he employs the terms, the Apostle may only 
 intend one or other of these significations, still it 
 might be anticipated, that in that before us, where 
 
i CHAPTER V. Vv. 12. 273 
 the object is to delineate in contrast the domains of 
 sin and light in their full extent, ζωὴ and θάνατος 
 are to be taken in their largest sense. Where there 
 is no sin, there does the ζωὴ reign in its whole ex- 
 pansion. Where sin exists, there the θάνατος appears 
 in all its multifarious modifications, and the con- 
 sequences which it entails. Even the text, Gen. 
 ii. 17, is applied by the Rabbins to death, im its 
 most comprehensive import. Sepher Ikkarim, b. 4, 
 e.41. “The FD is repeated, in order to show 
 AT AN) wat AND.” 
 
 It now remains to explain ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, 
 whereby it will likewise be brought to light in what 
 way the διελθεῖν, (which Luther renders happily, by a 
 German word, meaning ¢o penetrate, De Wette, less 
 happily, éo go over,) has taken place. For reasons 
 which shall be produced forthwith, we understand ἐφ᾽ 
 ᾧ in the sense of the Hebrew WN in as much as, 
 because that. So that the Apostle adduces the fact 
 of men being sinners as the reason why death also 
 manifested itself among them. The thought, accord- 
 ingly, lies in this, that auagria and θάνωτος are corre- 
 latives, and stand necessarily connected together as 
 cause and effect, so that neither can be supposed 
 without the other. Now, in consequence of the reci- 
 procity between evil and sin, as the latter came upon 
 all, the former necessarily did the same. 
 
 With respect to the word ἁμαρτάνειν, it may either 
 indicate more the commencement of sin, 2. 6. the be- 
 coming sinful or guilty, in which sense it corresponds: 
 in the LXX. with the Hebrew DWN, or it may rather 
 denote sin in its course. The latter is the mean- 
 
 T 
 
974 CHAPTER V. V. 19. 
 
 ing most commentators adopt, from the supposition, 
 that the justice of God is better vindicated when 
 θανάτος is reckoned only the consequence and punish- 
 ment of the sins of the individual. Hence Theo- 
 doret: οὐ γὰρ διὰ τὴν τοῦ προπάτορος ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλὰ 
 διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἕχωστος δέχεται τοῦ θανάτου τὸν ὅρον. 
 Whether, in a doctrinal point of view, any advantage 
 be really gained in this manner, seeing it must still 
 be acknowledged, that without Christ man is desti- 
 tute of all ability to conquer the inborn propensity to 
 sin, we do not at present enquire, but merely observe, 
 that a comparison of the 18th and 19th verses affords 
 ground for preferring the former of the two interpre- 
 tations. For, while it is there left entirely out of 
 view. what part the individual himself may have con- 
 tributed, the sinfulness of the entire race is represented 
 as standing in immediate and causal connection with 
 the sin of the first man. Now, if from these passages, 
 we judge of the present, it might perhaps be ques- 
 tioned, whether doctrinal partialities have not intro- 
 duced something foreign into the Apostle’s train of 
 thought, when it is contended, that by the ἥμαρτον, 
 the self-determining principle in man is brought into 
 view. More consentaneous with the circle of ideas, 
 which the Apostle here developes, is the interpreta- 
 tion given by the Reformers, and with certain modi- 
 fications, thus stated by Usteri: (Entwickelung des 
 Paulinishen Lehrbegriffes, s. 18.) * Of any other con- 
 nection than that of the identity of human nature, 
 
 ' Because each man for his own, and not for the sin of 
 Adam, comes under the decree of death. 
 
 ws 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 12. 975 
 
 and consequently the transference of its sinfulness to 
 all posterity, no intimation is given. For even the 
 statement, v. 19, διὰ τῆς taganone τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἅμαρ- 
 τωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, declares nothing more 
 than that, in the sinfulness of Adam, which first mani- 
 fested itself as actual and deliberate sin, by the trans- 
 gression of a positive commandment, the sinfulness of 
 the human nature entire was brought to light, and that 
 in the sin of the first of the race, the sinfulness of all 
 the rest was already implied, and by it brought about 
 and necessitated.” Augustine: (De verbis Dom. 
 Sermo. 14.) Quod in Adam fuit culpe non nature, 
 nobis propagatis jam factum est naturee. 
 
 Having thus found the import of the text, we now 
 subjoin some discussions upon particular points. And 
 first, with respect to the sense of θάνατος. As in general, 
 the Old Testament comprehends, at least in germ, 
 the truths of the New, it should not appear extraordi- 
 nary, that the peculiar meaning of certain terms in 
 the latter are also found in an initial form in the for- 
 mer, and in the apocryphal books. (7, denotes in 
 the Old Testament the aggregate of all good, ΓΛ» of 
 all evil. We have an instance in Moses’ declaration, 
 Deut. xxx. 15, OMT AN OT PD? ΠΣ AN, 
 YT FAN) AVS AN) DOA ANI, which phrase re- 
 turns , Jer, xxi. 8, Ecclesiasticus, xv. 17. This life 
 man finds in following the Divine commands, and 
 hence in holiness. Prov. xi. 19, “ As righteousness 
 tendeth to life, so he that pursueth evil, pursueth it to 
 his own death.” Wisd. of Sol. xv. 3: To γὰρ ἐπίστασ- 
 θαί σε ὁλύκληρος δικαιοσύνη, καὶ εἰδέναι τὸ κράτος σοῦ ῥίζα 
 
976 CHAPTER V. Vv. 19, 
 
 davaciac. Com. Proverbs iv. 13; vi. 233 x. 17: xii. 
 28. Baruch iv. 1. True life is, hence, properly 
 with God, Ps. xxxvi. 9. and in the state of saints, after 
 death, so Ps. xvi. 11. Wisdom, v. 15, Afxaso εἰς τὸν 
 αἰῶνω ζῶσι, καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτῶν. The blessed- 
 ness of the good in the world to come, is, indeed, ex- 
 pressly called ody “77, Dan. xii. 2. We may com- 
 pare the way in which ΠΝ and wrt are used, which, 
 as the Dictionaries shew, mean in like manner, happi- 
 ness and misery, good and evil. But, above all, the 
 beautiful passage, Ps. xxxvi. 19, “ With thee is the 
 fountain of life, and in thy life shall we see light.” We 
 also meet with the expression in the same sense in 
 Philo, with whom, however, it is mixed up with Pla- 
 tonic ideas: (De Post. Caini.) τοὺς μὲν οὕτως (ἀσεβῶς) 
 ἀποθανόντας ἡ ἀθάνατος ἐκδέξεται ζωὴ; τοὺς δὲ ἐκείνους ὁ 
 ἀΐδιος θάνατος. Generally, indeed, the practice of de- 
 nominating happiness, and more expressly spiritual 
 happiness, dfe, and on the other hand, misery, but 
 chiefly that kind of it which springs from moral evil, 
 death, together with those more profound views, ac- 
 cording to which, virtue and felicity are considered as 
 a manifestation of the life in God, was borrowed from 
 the east by several of the Grecian sages, viz. Pytha- 
 goras, Plato, and Heraclitus, who speak of a dévaros 
 of the soul in this life, and of an ἀναβίωσις in the 
 next. See Plato, Gorgias, ed. Heind. 5. 156, Annot. 
 Also Phaedo, ed. Wyttenb. p. 142, 165. The Rab- 
 bins also retained this use of the words. In the Tal- 
 mud, Tr. Berachoth, c. 8. the G7, Eccles. ix. 5, 
 is expounded by DP, and the Ow; by Oyw. 
 
CHAPTER V. v. 12. 977 
 
 In ona. ¥y 5. 20, col. 3, it is written: ΤῺ awn yy 
 ‘Mo qvyy mawn ΠΟ wero any, In the work nv 
 man the author, Elias de Widas thus speaks, “ He 
 who repents, weeps and says to his soul Jinn TX 
 for he has brought it from the place of life to the place 
 of death. All his life long he mourns, wo» narw dy.’ 
 We come now tothe New Testament. Here by almost 
 all the different writers, the words ζῆν and ἀποθνήσκειν, 
 Zwn and θάνατος, ζῶν and νεκρὸς are employed in the em- 
 phatic metaphorical sense of life in God, and life with- 
 out God. Most commonly, it is true, by John and Paul, 
 Matt. vii. 22; Luke x. 28; Luke xv. 32; John v. 24, 
 and many more. 1 John ii. 14; 2 Cor. ii. 16; Rom. 
 vi. 2, Vu.5, 24, vil! 9. 63° “Tim. ve 65: Rom. vik. 
 9, viii. 18; Eph. v. 14; James i. 15, ii. 17, 20, and 
 numerous others. Now Christ is represented as He 
 who brought the true 27 to light. But as fellowship 
 with him is first rightly enjoyed in the state here- 
 after, and, consequently, as the ζωὴ, in its full extent, 
 does not commence until that is reached, the life to 
 come, is emphatically styled ἡ ζωὴ, (see above at v, 
 10, and below at v.18,) and more particularly ἡ Ζωὴ 
 αἰώνιος. According to this view, the life of the be- 
 liever, in the future world, and that in the world that 
 now is, are not specifically different, but form a pro- 
 gressive series ; and hence ζωὴ, as at v. 18 below, and 
 Cw αἰώνιος, as at John v. 24, frequently comprehends 
 both. Again, on the other hand, with respect to 
 θάνατος, Should we comply with the analogy we have 
 just explained, it would, when used antithetically to 
 Φωὴ in the sense of δωὴ αἰώνιος, denote the life of 
 misery and separation from Grod hereafter. Now 
 
978 CHAPTER V. v. 12. 
 
 into the conceptions formed by the Apostles of the 
 future state, the idea of a definite locality always en- 
 tered as a substratum. The ζωὴ was in the οὐρανὸς 
 or in the ἄνω ᾿Ιερουσωλήμ. Hence it is not an impro- 
 bable opinion, to which Dr. Bretschneider in particu- 
 lar, has in modern times called the attention, viz. that 
 the Apostles conceived the Old Testament Scheol to 
 be the place into which all are conducted, who do not 
 receive life by fellowship with Christ. It must be con- 
 fessed, however, when they speak upon the subject, 
 the idea of locality is left in the shade, and it is that 
 of the condition itself which predominates. This con- 
 dition is one of misery, but more of a negative kind 
 arising from deprivation. Rev. xx. 6 and 14, xxi. 
 8, we read of a θάνατος δεύτερος, and that seems to de- 
 note the condition of proper and positive wretchedness, 
 which follows the period of existence in the Scheol. 
 The xai οὕτως can be understood in two ways. 
 Οὕτως may be equivalent to ὡσαύτως, and then the 
 similarity expressed between the subject of the second 
 with that of the first member of the verse will con- 
 sist in this, that as the first man constituted the 
 ground for the existence of sin and death, so did he 
 also for their propagation. Thus Seb. Schmid. Or 
 the comparison may perhaps lie in this, that, as in the 
 case of Adam, sin was the condition of evil, it is so 
 likewise in all that follow him. On that supposition, 
 it ought to be translated: “ And after the same man- 
 ner sin passed upon all, seeing that all are sinners.” 
 It is, however, far more conformable to the use of 
 the language, especially as οὕτως is preceded by xa/, 
 to consider it as the particula consecutionis. So 
 
CHAPTER ν. v. 12. 979 
 
 Erasmus: Atque ita factum est. In this view it re- 
 fers to the intimate connection of all the individuals 
 with the head of the species, which in every member 
 of the race, necessarily entails that discord manifesting 
 itself inwardly as sin and outwardly as evil. The same 
 thing is also very pointedly expressed by διῆλθεν. The 
 meaning, accordingly is: “ In consequence of sin and 
 evil being brought forth in the instance of the first man, 
 they have also passed upon all who belong to the race.” 
 "EQ ᾧ 15 in the old Latin version rendered in quo ; 
 and it was upon that translation that Augustine 
 founded his doctrine of imputation. Accordingly, it 
 has been retained by the great majority of Catholic 
 expositors, and among the Reformers by Beza, Ca- 
 lixt, Erasmus, Schmidt, Calov, Raphelius and others. 
 Augustine: (Op. imp. 6. Jul. Pel. 1. v. 6.ὄ 12.) Fue- 
 runt enim omnes ratione seminis in lumbis Adam, 
 quando damnatus est, et ideo sine illis damnatus 
 non est; quemadmodum fuerunt Israelitee in lumbis 
 Abrahz quando decimatus est, Ep ad Heb. 7. Also 
 (De .pece. mer. et rem..L 3,.¢. 7-):| In Adam 
 omnes tune peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura, — 
 118 insita vi qua eos gignere poterat, adhue om- 
 nes ille unus fuerunt. So likewise Origen and | 
 Ambrose. Augustine proceeded upon the realist Ὁ 
 view, that God did only oncE cREATE, placing the | 
 whole of each species in the first individual, so that. 
 all subsequent existence is nothing more than the — 
 manifestation and development of what has a previ- | 
 ous being. Inasmuch then as at the first, the man | 
 Adam was when he fell, both individual and βρθ-Ὸ 
 cies, the species also fell in him. Acute expositions 
 
280 CHAPTER V. v. 19. 
 
 of this view, and a philosophical application of 
 the Aristotelian principles de universalibus in re to 
 the doctrine of imputation, are to be found among 
 the schoolmen, 6. 5. Anselm and Odoardus, in De 
 peccato originali. There are, however, strong ob- 
 jections to such an interpretation of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ: Ist, 
 The antecedent ἄνθρωπος is much too remote. So 
 early as by Augustine it was remarked, (Contra 
 duas Epp. Pell. 1. iv. 6. 4) that one might be 
 tempted to refer the relative to the preceding sub- 
 stantive θάνατος. ‘The sense would then, however, be 
 obscure. 2d, When ἐπὶ governs the dative, it has not 
 the meaning of im but upon. And hence in the 
 passage cited by Origen and Augustine as parallel, 
 Heb. vii. 10, there stands not ἐπὶ but ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ. 
 Grotius suggests another meaning of ἐπὶ, viz. through 
 or by occasion of. This is agreeable to the usage of 
 the language, (see Luke v. 5; ix. 48,) but owing to 
 the false reference of the relative cannot be sustained ; 
 it is, moreover, founded by Grotius on his peculiar 
 interpretation of ἥμαρτον, which see below. Cocceius 
 understands it in the sense of with, together with, and 
 quotes as authorities ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ μειρακίῳ τοῦτο γέγονεν. 
 ἐτελεύτησεν ἐπὶ δυσὶ παισίν. ‘There, however, it is merely 
 a particle denoting time, which it cannot be in the 
 declaration of Paul. It would be easier to defend 
 the rendering of it post, after the precedent of Adam. 
 See Matthias’ Gram. In which case, the clause 
 would either express the Pelagian view of sin, viz. 
 That it is the imitation of Adam’s transgression, (as if 
 there could be imitation without similarity of dispo- 
 sition, ) or it is idle and nugatory. Upon these grounds, 
 
CHAPTER V. v. LY. 981 
 
 we have interpreted ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in the sense of Sy fol- 
 lowing the example of the Syriac, Theodoret, Eras- 
 mus, Vatablus, Luther, Calvin, and many others. It 
 has the same meaning, 2 Cor. v..4; Phil. iii. 12. As 
 has probably also even ἐν ᾧ, Rom. viii. 3; Heb.u. 18. 
 
 There is still another way of understanding ἥμαρτον, 
 upon which we have not as yet touched. Chrysos- 
 tom, Theophylact and Grotius, take it metonymically 
 for “ have suffered the penalty of sin,” “ are treated 
 as sinners.” Chrysostom: ‘Exzivou πεσύντος, καὶ of μὴ 
 φαγόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, γεγόνασιν ἐξ ἐκείνου πάντες θνητοί. 
 Now, there can be no doubt, that in many a connec- 
 tion it might be justifiable to interpret ἁμαρτάνειν in 
 this manner; here, however, there is the objection 
 against it, that ἁμαρτία in a different sense occurs be- 
 fore, to which ἥμαρτον obviously refers. 
 
 In conclusion, it deserves also to be taken into con- 
 sideration, that when the Apostle here teaches that all 
 evil has its source in sin, and all sin in that of the au- 
 thor of the human race, he by no means propounds 
 an entirely new doctrine. It is substantially contained 
 in the 3d chapter of Genesis, and is frequently de- 
 elared in the Apocrypha, Wisd. of Sol. ii. 23, 24; 
 Eeclesus. xxv. 24. It has likewise been handed down 
 in the exegetical tradition of the Rabbins, among 
 whom, for example, are to be found such sentiments 
 as the following. The Targum, on the text, Ecclesi- 
 astes vil. 29. “ God hath made man upright,” ob- 
 serves: “ But the serpent and the woman seduced 
 
 © After his fall, even they who eat not of the tree have all 
 through him become mortal. 
 
282 CHAPTER V. V. 12. 
 
 him, and caused death to be brought upon him and 
 all the inhabitants of the earth.” And on Ruth iv. 
 22, when relating that David's father was also called 
 WIT) it adds, “ Jesse lived many days, until the coun- 
 sel, which the serpent gave to Eve, was called to 
 mind before God. In consequence of this counsel 
 all men upon the earth are obnoxious to death.” To 
 the same purpose are the words of R. Shemtob (died 
 an. 1293,) in the Book Sepher Haemunoth. «“ In 
 their mystical commentaries our doctors say, that if 
 Adam and Eve had not sinned, their descendants 
 would not have been infected with the propensity to 
 evil; their form would have remained perfect like that 
 of the angels, and they would have continued for ever 
 in the world, subject neither to death nor change.” Be- 
 reschith Rabba, a mystical commentary upon Genesis 
 from an early period of the middle ages, par. 12, 14. 
 * Although created perfect, yet when the first man 
 sinned, all was perverted, and shall not return to order 
 until the Messiah come.” R. Mosche of Trana in 
 the 15th cent. (Beth Elohim, f. 105. 6. 1.) “ The 
 whole world sinned the same sin with Adam; for he 
 was the whole world.” R. Jacob: (Neve Schalom 
 Tract 9. 6. 5, fol. 160, 2.) « As the first man was 
 the one that sinned, so shall the Messiah be the one 
 to do sin away.” R. Mayer Ben Gabbai in Avodath 
 Hakkodesch, f. 52, says: “ Adam by his fall opened 
 a fountain of impurity, so that uncleanness and poison 
 have overspread the whole world.” On the opinions 
 of the Rabbins, see Snabelii Amecenitates Typice et 
 Emblematicz, the first treatise, Sommeri Theologia 
 Soharica, p. 23 and 24. Schottgen on this passage, 
 
CHAPTER V. V. jie 283 
 
 and Wetstein on chap. v. 14. On the other hand, 
 however, there were numerous learned Jews who con- 
 tended, on the contrary, that not only the death, but 
 likewise the fall of Adam, was the inevitable conse- 
 quence of the constitution of his nature, and that God 
 implants a principle of evil in every individual. See 
 Vitringa, Observ. Sacre, |. 3. ch. 8 and 9. Susskind 
 in the Magazin fur Dogma. und Moral. st. 15. Bar- 
 tolocci, Bibl. Magna Rabbinica, v. ii. p. 47 sqq. In 
 a peculiarly glaring manner is the doctrine expressed 
 in the passage, Bereschith Rabba, par. 28, p. 30. 
 Col. 3, where God is made to say, “ It distresses 
 me that I have created them with the Yetzer Hara, 
 (the propensity to evil.) Had I not done so, they 
 would not have rebelled against me.” It is to the 
 views of these Hebrew scholars, that Vitringa and 
 Siisskind appeal in support of their opinion, that the 
 Apostle did not derive his doctrine from the creed 
 of Jewish theologians. It must not be overlooked, 
 however, that the Rabbins, who contended that God 
 implants evil in every man at birth, do not on that 
 account suppose it unconnected with Adam; they 
 merely speak as Creatians. Calvin in his Institutions 
 expresses himself in a way equally obscure, endeavour- 
 ing, along with the doctrine of Creatianism, to de- 
 monstrate upon this subject a connection between our 
 sinfulness and that of our first parent. The opinion, 
 on the contrary, that even the first man was created 
 with the NIN ἜΝ is not to be found among ortho- 
 dox Jews, but was only held by Emanatistical Kab- 
 balists, who look upon evil as a negation, or those 
 embued with platonism, who give it an origin in mat- 
 
984 CHAPTER V. Vv. 13. 
 
 ter, and consequently also consider it as a negation. 
 We may instance Moses Maimon, R. Jehuda Levita, 
 and others. Comp. the learned treatise of Ammon, 
 Nova Opusce. De vestigiis theol. Jud. in Ep. ad Rom. 
 where other authorities are likewise quoted. 
 
 V.13. This and the following verse constitute an 
 explanatory supplement, and may be regarded as par- 
 enthetical. The γὰρ shows that the writer means to 
 justify some previous statement. The nearest propo- 
 sition is, That by virtue of the connection between 
 ἁμαρτία, and θάνατος, (of which latter a single aspect 
 only is brought to view, viz. the transition, by bodily 
 dissolution, into the realm of spirits,) as cause and ef- 
 fect, in the case of the first man, the same had passed 
 upon all. In confirmation of this, what does the 
 Apostle say? He speaks of a twofold ἁμαρτάνειν, the 
 one ἐπὶ rw ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως “Addy, the other 
 taking place μὴ ὄντος νόμου. The first, accordingly, is 
 such as is committed contrary to a distinct command. 
 With respect to the latter, he affirms that, im ἃ cer- 
 tain sense of the word, it is not imputable. Notwith- 
 standing of this, however, death has exercised its do- 
 minion over the persons who were guilty of it. If then, 
 from these premises, we draw a conclusion, it can 
 scarcely be any other than That θάνατος is the natural 
 consequence of the sinfulness which has been trans- 
 mitted from the Founder to all the individuals of the 
 species, precisely as is expressed in ver. 17. Now that 
 is a conclusion which obviously goes to confirm the 
 foregoing proposition; for it proves That the general 
 basis of the θάνατος and ἁμαρτία lies in the author of 
 the race. And this it is here the chief design of the 
 
CHAPTER V. v. 19. 985 
 
 Apostle to show, in order thereby to establish, as an 
 antistrophe, How, in like manner, the general basis of 
 the ζωὴ and δικαΐωσις lies in Christ. Usteri, Entwick. des 
 Paul. Lehrbeg. s. 26: “ Sin is not imputed so long 
 as man has no law, that is, Man does not feel the evil 
 consequences of his sin as a punishment, so long as he 
 does not recognise sin to be what it is; he is a réxvov 
 ὀργῆς. God’s law of nature connecting together evil 
 and sin, goes of itself into execution against him. So 
 that then it may be said ὅσοι ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον, ἀνόμως καὶ 
 ἀπολοῦνται. Not that this condition is at all better 
 than the opposite one, ὅσοι ἐν vim ἥμαρτον διὰ νόμου κρι- 
 θήσονται. For, on the one hand, excepting only the 
 state of childhood, it is founded upon a total obduracy 
 πώρωσις, and upon the other it constitutes what is pro- 
 perly the βασιλεία rot θάνωτου, Rom. v. 14, where the 
 sum of all evil has fixed its seat, and exercises un- 
 bounded lordship. This non-imputation, however, 
 does by no means do away guilt, for the Apostle has 
 beforehand expressly proved that men are ἀναπολόγη- 
 τοι. But in the state of sinfulness now become habi- 
 tual, guilt does not reach the individual so much as 
 the historical whole.” 
 
 We might here also, perhaps, take exception, if not 
 to the thing proved, at least to the mode in which the 
 Apostle proves it, viz. inasmuch as he at once assumes 
 as granted, that without a positive precept, there can 
 be no ἐλλογεῖσθαι, although he has already asserted in 
 chapter second, that the heathen shall be judged accord- 
 ingtothe νόμος γραπτὸς ἐν τῇ καρδίῳ. Itcannot be denied, 
 however, that in proportion to the degree in which 
 this inward νόμος has been obliterated, the special 
 
286 CHAPTER V. v. 13. 
 
 responsibility of the individual (provided always he 
 has not himself been guilty of blunting his moral 
 sense) is diminished. And what idea can we form of 
 the ἀνοχὴ, chap. iii. 26, with which God overlooked 
 the χρόνοι τῆς ἀγνοίας, if it do not presuppose a with- 
 drawal of special accountability ? Quite analogous is 
 the declaration of Christ, John xv. 22. ἘΠ μὴ ἦλθον καὶ 
 ἐλάλησα αὐτοῖς ἀμωρτίαν οὐκ εἶχον. Although, there- 
 fore, it may be said, that man theoretically, or as be- 
 longing to the world of intelligences, can and must 
 be judged according to the entire law, and so con- 
 demned as absolutely guilty; still, however, as re- 
 gards his historical existence, and considering him as 
 belonging to the actual world, we can deem him 
 only ina limited degree responsible, Mat. xi. 21. 
 In this way might we find a satisfactory side from 
 which to consider the declaration of the Apostle. 
 This view of the passage, Schott, in his Opuse. t. 1, 
 has defended with great doctrinal impartiality. Still, 
 however, it may be questioned, whether we ought 
 not to prefer, to the one stated, another exposition, 
 which at least creates no difficulties with reference 
 to the declaration of the Apostle we have now 
 discussed. It might be said, that he here an- 
 ticipates verse 20th. He imagines to himself an op- 
 ponent starting the objection, that although all men 
 may be regarded as sinners, yet as sin can only exist 
 where there is a positive law, it cannot be ascribed 
 to those who lived prior to Moses. In opposition to 
 this, however, the Apostle has now shown, that even 
 over these persons, the θάνατος had reigned; and 
 hence, in so far sin must necessarily be presumed in 
 
CHAPTER V. v. 13. 287 
 
 them, even although it might have arisen in con- 
 trariety only to an inward law. That the outward 
 law had been added, merely to subserve the ἐσίγ- 
 νωσις τῆς ἁμοωρτίαςς. In this manner do Photius, 
 among the ancients, and several others whom Chry- 
 sostom mentions and confutes, Schottgen and Koppe 
 expound the passage. The words of Photius are 
 as follows: Εἰπὼν ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, ἵνα μή τις εἰπῆ, 
 καὶ πῶς ἦν ἁμαρτεῖν νόμου (Ly ὄντος ; οὗτος γὼρ σὺ ἀνω- 
 τέρω ἔφης ὅτι οὗ οὐκ ἔστι νύμος, οὐδὲ παράβασις. παραβά- 
 σεως OF μὴ οὔσης οὐδὲ ἁμαρτίῳ δηλονότι. πῶς οὖν διῆλθεν 
 ὁ θάνατος εἰς πάντας, ED ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον; ἵνα οὖν μὴ ἢ 
 σις λέγων τοῦτο, παραλαβὼν λύει τὴν ἀπορίαν, καὶ φησὶν, ὅτι 
 ἦν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου" ἐπράττετο γὰρ, καὶ τὸ πρωττόμενον οὐκ 
 ἔστι μὴ γενέσθαι. (Βουτηθηῖαβ adds : ὕρα δὲ τὴν ἀσφάλειαν 
 τοῦ ᾿Αποστόλου, ἵνω μὴ δόξωμεν λοιπὸν ἀδικεῖσθαι, OF ἄλλον 
 ἀποθνήσκοντες, εἶπεν, ἁμιωρτίω ἦν ἐν κόσμῳ, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἔλο- 
 γίζετο. τοιγαροῦν οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸν “Add, ἀλλὰ καὶ διοὰὶ 
 τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἀποθνήσκομεν." ΑΒ far as the language is 
 
 ' To what the Apostle had said about all having sinned, some 
 might perhaps reply, How could sin be committed when there 
 was no law ? Even you yourself declare in the sequel, that 
 where there is no law neither is there transgression, and it is 
 clear that without transgression there can be no sin. How 
 then has death passed upon all, for that all have sinned ? That 
 no one might speak thus, he takes up and solves the difficulty, 
 declaring that sin existed even before the law, for it was com- 
 mitted, and what is done can never be undone. 
 
 ™ Behold the caution of the Apostle. Lest weshould deem 
 ourselves unjustly treated in being subjected to death for an- 
 other, be says, that sin was in the world although it was 
 not imputed. Hence it is not on account of Adam alone that 
 we die, but likewise for sin. 
 
288 CHAPTER V. V. 13. 
 
 concerned, there is certainly nothing to object to this 
 explanation, besides, that the thought thus expressed 
 is one by no means strange to the Apostle. The 
 structure and position of the verse, however, will by 
 no means suit such an interpretation. It is presumed 
 that the Apostle means to refute a silent objection, 
 viz. that anterior to Moses there was no sin. But 
 looking to the proposition, as it stands, it has not at 
 all the semblance of a refutation. Far more does the 
 exegetical feeling constrain us to consider this first pro- 
 position as the major, and the 2d ὡμαρτίω δὲ οὐκ ἐλλ. (δὲ, 
 atqui) as the minor, to which the ἀλλ᾽ forms an anti- 
 thetic conclusion. Indeed, without an affirmative par- 
 ticle, such as ὄντως; or a comparative one, such as ὡσαύ- 
 τως, it seems impossible to agree to that explanation. 
 To this it must be added, that as the Apostle, verse 12, 
 speaks of the mutual relation of the θάνατος and ἁμαρ- 
 σία, and both are here again introduced, the train of 
 thought would rather prepare us to expect some an- 
 nouncement with respect to their connection, and 
 about the universality of the ἁμαρτία. The more so, 
 that such an objection, as is supposed on the part of 
 the Jew, has no great probability, imasmuch as it 
 would tend to prove that the Gentiles, not being ξννομοι, 
 were hence not ἀναπολόγητοι, whereas the Jew con- 
 sidered them as obnoxious to the κατάκριμα: And in 
 fine, were any one to attempt to discredit the sense we 
 have proposed, it might, perhaps, be possible on doc- 
 trinal grounds to elude it in the present instance. Not 
 so, however, in verse 17, where it is plainly expressed. 
 In fact, a large majority of expositors, even those who, 
 from doctrinal partialities, would have wished to de- 
 
CHAPTER V. Vv. 13. 289 
 
 cide otherwise, although they have not viewed the 
 proposition in the same precise light as we, have yet 
 concluded from its entire disposition, that the Apostle 
 means to point out our θάνατος as fundamentally 
 rooted in that of Adam. So Chrysostom, Theophy- 
 lact, Grot., Limb., Bengel, Christ. Schmid, Micheelis, 
 and many others. According to their view, the impu- 
 tation is of an outward juridical kind; which, how- 
 ever, the observation of Limborch is by no means 
 sufficient to justify: Non fuit quidem gratiosa Dei 
 actio, sed severa, attamen neutiquam injusta. Non 
 enim injustum est, nocentem, cui alias fortassis par- 
 citurus sis, tractare ut nocentem, ac punire quia natus 
 est ex parente magis nocente et poenam insigniter 
 merito. Quite erroneous is the interpretation of those, 
 Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Melancthon, 
 Beza, Cornel. a Lapide, and others, who imagine that 
 St. Paul here speaks of the guilt of infants. The 
 train of thought obviously contradicts such an ap- 
 plication, as the judicious Calvin justly observes, and 
 hence. these interpreters see themselves obliged 
 to have recourse to the most forced explanation of 
 the terms. Augustine, Melancthon, and Theodoret, 
 take the ἄχρι in the larger sense of the word, as equi- 
 valent to the Hebrew “yy, in which it includes the 
 term in quo, and thus denotes the period from Adam 
 to Christ. Augustine, Ep. 157, ad Hilarium, ex- 
 pounds : Quia nec lex data per Moisen potuit regnum 
 mortis auferre quod sola abstulit gratia. Origen, 
 Thos. Aquinas, and in occasional passages, Augustine, 
 think the words μὴ ὄντος νόμου refer to the moral law, 
 of which children are unconscious. Not only, how- 
 U 
 
290 CHAPTER v. V. 19. 
 
 ever, do these expositions deviate from the natural 
 sense of the language, but they make it difficult to 
 see the connection between the 13th and 14th verses. 
 Cornelius a Lapide has expressed it most clearly in 
 the following terms: “ You will object, that where 
 there is no law, there can be no sin. As the men, 
 however, in the interval between Adam and Moses 
 died, it is obvious that they must necessarily have 
 been sinners. And in case you may perchance in- 
 sinuate that this is merely a proof of their peccata ac- 
 tualia, and not of the peccatum originale, I appeal to 
 children, who although they had not offended against 
 any positive Divine law, were also during that period 
 subject to death. So also Beza. 
 
 We have still to notice another expedient of 
 rather a violent kind, which many have adopted for 
 removing the difficulties of this text. Instead of its 
 common signification, they take ἐλλογεῖ in the sense 
 of to regard, take to heart. So Luther, in his Trans- 
 lation, Heumann and Camerarius, who has these words : 
 Cum aperte proponeretur lex, clarum fuit peccatum, 
 cum tacite, peccatum minus compunxit conscientiam. 
 Heumann gives the connection thus: “ The Jew might 
 ask, how then can Adam’s posterity have sinned, 
 when the law of Moses was not yet given? Paul 
 replies, For that very reason they sinned the more 
 thoughtlessly, and therefore death also reigned.” 
 Against this we have to say, that ἐλλογεῖ has no such 
 meaning, and that it would be contrary to the use 
 of the Greek language, to consider ἀλλὰ as an in- 
 ferential particle. | 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 14. 991 
 
 V.14. ἐβωσίλευσεν. Photius: Τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι κατ᾽ ἐξου-᾿ 
 σίαν πολλὴν ἐχράτησε, καὶ εἰς ἔννομον ἐξουσίαν ἐλλογίσθη 
 αὐτοῦ ἡ τυραννὶς, τῷ τε χρόνῳ σεμνυνομένη, καὶ τοῖς ἡμῶν 
 ἀμαρτήμασι κροιτυνομένη. Thus in Wisd. of Sol. i. 14, 
 οὐκ ἔστι ἅδου βασίλειον ἐπὶ γῆς. So likewise, to denote 
 the powerful efficacy of the θάνατος, the Rabbins use 
 the verb tdy. (See Schotgen) Usteri, 5. 18: « Upon 
 all who did not possess a positive law, death has come, 
 as a natural consequence, according to that δικαίωμα 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, Rom. i. 32, ὅτι of τὰ τοιαῦτο πράσσοντες ἄξιοι 
 θανάτου εἰσὶν. or the connection which God has established 
 between sin and evil. This condition, to distinguish it 
 from that in which death might be considered as the 
 positive penalty for transgressing the law, Paul here 
 denominates a βασιλείῳ τοῦ θανάτου. 
 
 ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας. Several Latin codices 
 omit the μὴ, though Augustine confesses that in no 
 Greek one is this done. Semler, who so often vio- 
 lently changes the text, judges that the Latin 
 ought here also to be followed. Probably, the diffi- 
 culty of interpretation, which is occasioned by the 
 presence of μὴ, and of which even Origen and Am- 
 brose complained, led to its omission. 
 
 ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώμωτι τῆς παραβάσεως “Addu. Ἐπὶ con- 
 
 joined with a substantive in the dative, is used in 
 place of the Hebrew 5, for the purpose of forming 
 adverbs. Thus, the LXX., at Ps. xvi. 9, translate 
 
 " That is, lorded it with mighty power, and its tyranny 
 was considered as a legitimate authority, being sanctioned by 
 time, and confirmed by our transgressions. 
 
909 CHAPTER V. V. 14. 
 
 m5, ἐπὶ ἐλπίδι, which is used in the same way, Acts 
 v. 14. In Hebrew there would have stood in this 
 place the substantive ΓΔ 2, which, in Daniel x. 16, 
 is translated literally, ὡς ὁμοίωσις ὑιοῦ ἀνθρώπου. The 
 expression, accordingly, means ὁμοίως τῷ Ada παρα- 
 βάντι. ΑΒ this transgression of Adam’s is put upon a 
 parallel with that of the law of Moses, the aspect in 
 which it is here to be contemplated, is his having 
 broken a distinct and positive Divine law. The 
 generalization, therefore, of Grotius is incorrect, who 
 says: Solent graves transgressiones comparari trans- 
 gressioni Adami, Hos. vi. 7. Equally unnatural is 
 the application of the words made by those who 
 think that in these two verses children are spoken of. 
 _ According to them, children had not sinned like Adam, 
 inasmuch, as even at birth they are already infected 
 with sin and its guilt. Augustine, (Ep. 157, ad Hilar.) | 
 Quia in semet ipsis, cum jam nati essent, nec ratione 
 adhuc uterentur, qua ille utebatur quando peccavit, 
 nec preceptum accepissent, quod ille transgressus est, 
 sed solo originali vitio tenerentur obstricti. 
 ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. Paul still bore in mind 
 that he was drawing a comparison between the Sa- 
 viour and the fallen progenitor of the human race, 
 which comparison he had begun with ὥσπερ. The pa~ 
 renthesis of verses 12th and 13th had caused him in 
 some degree to deviate from it. Here, without re- 
 membering to connect it as a conclusion with wozeg, 
 he simply affirms the counterpart, and annexes it not 
 by καὶ οὗτος, but, according to a Hebrew construction, 
 by the relative tc. To μέλλοντος we must supply 
 
CHAPTER V. v. 14. 293 
 
 "Addu 3 as inthe same way, 1 Cor. xv. and xlv., Christ 
 is denominated ὁ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδὲμ. 
 
 τύπος from τύπω, a copy taken by impression, John 
 xx. 25, τύπος τῶν ἥλων; and, hence, metaphorically an 
 image or type. The Apostle had set out with the 
 design of showing what extent of salvation and bless- 
 ing had been procured for men by Christ. With 
 this view, he had described the extent of ruin emanat- 
 ing from the original founder of the human race. Now, 
 with that before his mind, the thought naturally sug- 
 gested itself, that this First head of the race might be 
 regarded as animage of the Second. Usteri: (s. 121,) 
 « Adam and Christ, each the emanating point of a 
 general and opposite life, the two poles, as it were, of 
 humanity, that fly from each other, and attract the 
 mass, 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22.” Even Rabbinical theolo- 
 gians advert to a certain relation betwixt Adam and 
 the Messias. In the book Tseror Hamor, Sect. Beres- 
 chith, it is said “ The secret of Adam is the secret of 
 the Messiah.” The author of Neve Schalom has, 
 moreover, b. ix. ὁ. 5, 8, the remarkable statement : 
 «“ The last Adam is the Messias, as it is written, He 
 will be greater than Moses. It is also true, as is de- 
 clared, He will be higher than the angels that serve God. 
 Then shali be taken away the ancient sin which occa- 
 sioned death. In his time shall be the resurrection 
 of the dead. God intended Adam to be immortal, 
 but sin brought death. Thus the divine purpose has 
 been accomplished in the King Messias, asin his coun- 
 terpart, the first Adam.” Untenable are the explica- 
 tions of others, who, as Bengel and Hombergk supply 
 χρόνου, and make the sense, ““ He was the type of the 
 
294 CHAPTER V. v. 14, 15. 
 
 time to come,” for it is evident from verse 15th, that 
 the Apostle has spoken of a comparison between 
 Adam and Christ; or who take μέλλων absolutely, 
 like ὁ ἐρχόμενος, to signify the Messias, which it would 
 be impossible to establish by parallel passages; or, 
 finally, who supply an indefinite neuter, “the type of 
 future events,” like Erasmus and Christ. Schmid. 
 Against which exposition there lies the same objec- 
 tion as against that of Bengel. 
 
 V. 15. Scarcely has the Apostle expressed how 
 Adam represented in outline what was done by the 
 great Redeemer, than the thought occurs that the 
 work of Christ is unspeakably greater. Accordingly, 
 he now seeks to show, by a comparison of the diame- 
 trically opposite influences respectively exercised by 
 these two personages, that while they exhibit great 
 equality, in respect of what is positive, they still differ 
 very widely in degree. With much precision Ben- 
 gel remarks: Adam et Christus secundum rationes 
 contrarias conveniunt in positivo, differunt in com- 
 parativo. In substance the influence proceeding 
 from Adam is sin and destruction; that from 
 Christ, holiness and felicity. The equality in the po- 
 sitive, consists in this, that both kingdoms originate 
 in asingle person, the first Adam and the second, 
 being each the head and founder of an entire race. 
 The comparative difference, according to v. 16, 
 is, that when Adam fell, he had before him a pure, 
 uncontaminated progeny, upon which his sin ope- 
 rated so perniciously as to constitute them all sin- 
 ners. On the other hand, Christ has the entire 
 race, with its innumerable sinners, before him, and, 
 by his perfect obedience, not only does away the— 
 
CHAPTER V. Vv. 18. 295 
 
 whole consequences of that original sin, but re- 
 stores afresh the διχωΐωσις ζωῆς, i. e. the justifica- 
 tion which brings along with it a perfect, divine, 
 and blessed life. See on this subject the acute 
 Treatise of Stisskind, in Flatt’s Magazin fur Dogma- 
 tick und Moral, Bd. xiii. 5. 86, and the admirable 
 Paraphrase of Usteri, s. 122. Photius says well: 
 « There are three things to be noticed in the subjects 
 here brought into comparison, a certain resemblance, 
 a certain opposition, and an excess in the point of simi- 
 larity. The opposition lies between sin and sinlessness, 
 enmity to God, and reconciliation with him, condem- 
 nation and justification, ruin, offence, and death, and 
 salvation, life and resurrection. These are opposite. 
 The similarity again consists in that, as by one man 
 these evils fell upon all, so also by one man came the 
 blessings upon all. And as to the excess, it is, that 
 whereas with regard to the evils, the many co-operated 
 with the one in order to become partakers, with respect 
 to the blessings, this was not the case ; but the free gift 
 came by Christ singly and alone, sothat even as regards 
 the point in which the two agree, there is excess and su- 
 perabundance upon the one side. Moreover, not only 
 were the evils introduced by Adam taken away by 
 Christ, but the better things substituted in their place.” 
 
 In this 15th verse, the Apostle does not as yet 
 state the inequality in the case, but only directs our 
 attention to the fact, that a priori grace might be ex- 
 pected to operate in a far richer way than sin. In- 
 capable of deducing any clear meaning from these 
 _ words, some commentators make them an interroga- 
 tion. By that means, however, ἀλλὰ would lose its 
 
906 CHAPTER V. V. 15. 
 
 true signification, and become a mere formula tran- 
 seundi. So Schottgen and Heumann. Others con- 
 join with the negative some sort of limitation, such 
 as xara πάντα τρόπον: but to say nothing of other 
 objections, the subsequent εὐ γὰρ is a sufficient one of 
 itself. παράπτωμα. Beza: Sic dicitur ipsa Adami ruina, 
 unde manat ἡ ἁμαρτία, id est, tum reatus ille, tum cor- 
 ruptio In omnium hominum natura herens. Χάρισμαι. 
 This term is chosen by Paul in place of dimatouwe 
 which would have been the strict doctrinal expression. 
 The γὰρ is a note of explication, fo wit. Οἱ πολλοί. 
 The article here has a retrospective reference, mean- 
 ing the vast multitude of mankind. It is hence to be 
 considered not as comparative, but absolute, accord- 
 ing to Augustine’s observation (I. vi.c. 12. Cont. Jul.): 
 Multi constituti sunt peccatores, ἐν e. omnes, qui re- 
 vera sunt multi. The Father here alludes to the im- 
 propriety there is in Pelagius appealing to this pas- 
 sage, and inthe Socinians to this word, in order to prove 
 that all men have not been sinners, but those only who 
 imitated Adam. ᾿Απέθωνον. It is manifest, both from 
 the antithesis and the connection, that here ἀπέθανον 
 is not used simply in the limited signification of cor- 
 poreal death, but comprehends the θάνατος in its’ 
 widest extent, viz. the sense of guilt, physical evil, and 
 the future consequences of sin. Ἢ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 καὶ ἡ δωρεὼ, is best taken as a Hendyadis for ἡ δωρεὰ 
 τῆς χάριτος, which is but another name for the δικαΐ- 
 wo obtained through Christ. ᾿Εν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς 
 ἀνθρώπου. The article σῇ here shews that the geni- 
 tive τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου is to be construed not with δωρεὰ 
 but with χάριτι. That genitive, however, is suscep- 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 185, 16. 297 
 
 tible of different significations. Χάρις may mean the 
 favour in which Christ stands with the Father, and 
 by which he obtains the love of God for us. This is 
 its most improbable signification. Or the genitive may 
 here denote the subject, the grace which Christ ma- 
 nifests towards us. Suchis the opinion entertained by 
 the majority of commentators, but who yet regard 
 Christ onlyas the channel of communication. Thomas 
 Aquinas: Sic enim a Deo gratia in multos effunditur 
 ut eam per Christum accipiant. Or in fine, the ge- 
 nitive may be considered objectively. The grace of 
 God, which through and in the redemption of Christ 
 is imparted to us. This interpretation of Erasmus 
 coincides best with the train of thought. ‘Evog ἀν- 
 θρώπου. Paul calls Christ ἄνθρωπος, because, in re- 
 spect of his pure humanity he was the founder of 
 a new race; and as the chief point of similitude be- 
 tween him and Adam is, that from both, as progeni- 
 ters, there emanated respectively, blessings on the one 
 hand and misery on the other, he expressly annexes 
 the εἷς. 
 
 V.16. That which the Apostle had only gene- 
 rally premised in the foregoing verse, he now states 
 with greater exactness, viz. in what consists the for- 
 mal difference between the effects entailed by Adam 
 and those by Christ upon their respective offspring. 
 Erasmus: Siquidem pernicies sic est orta, ut unius 
 peccatum in omnes posteros propagaretur, atque ita 
 tandem omnes redderet obnoxios; contra, Dei bene- 
 ficium sic confertur, ut universa omnium delicta jam 
 agglomerata, jam confirmata, semel Christi morte 
 aboleantur, neque solum aboleantur admissa, verum 
 
298 , CHAPTER V. V. 16. 
 
 etiam justitia gratis conferatur. Chrysostom: Καὶ 
 τί Tore ἔστι τοῦτο τὸ λεγόμενον ; ὅτι τὺν μὲν θάνατον καὶ τὸ 
 κατάκριμα ἴσχυσεν ἁμαρτία μία εἰσενεγκεῖν" ἡ δὲ χάρις οὗ 
 τὴν μίαν ἐκείνην ἁμαρτίαν ἀνεῖ).ε μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς μετ᾽ 
 ἐκείνην ἐπεισελθούσας.5 Highly expressive are the words 
 of Pelagius: Quia non invenit Adam multam justi- 
 tiam, quam suo exemplo destrueret, Christus au- 
 tem gratid sud multorum peccata dissolvit. From 
 this clause, Melancthon beautifully points to the con- 
 soling truth, that in the individual, grace uniformly 
 brings tothe contest with sin not only equal but superior 
 forces, so as both to annihilate its consequences, and 
 establish an opposite reign. Nothing but a misap- 
 prehension of the whole context could have led some, 
 as e.g. Heumann, to make this sentence interroga- 
 tive, quasi: “ And is it not the same with the gift of 
 grace as it is with sin ?” 
 
 The Codices D. E. F. G. the Syriac, the Vulgate 
 and the Latin Fathers, all read ἁμαρτήματος in place of 
 dwaernoavros. And a variety of evidence, both in- 
 ternal and external, support this reading. The mean- 
 ing then becomes, “ We are not, however, to suppose, 
 as if the redemption came in consequence of one trans- 
 gression.” The clause would be self-contained, and διὰ 
 πολλῶν ἁμαρτησάντων becomes the antithetic member. 
 But to say nothing of other reasons, such a use of ody 
 ws would be too anomalous, inasmuch as we uniformly 
 find it employed in drawing a comparison, and follow- 
 
 ° What means this saying? It is, that one sin availed to 
 introduce death and judgment, but grace not merely took 
 away that single transgression, but those also which followed 
 after it. 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 16. 299 
 
 ed by a corresponding οὕτω. It is more probable, 
 that ἁμάρτημα has been interpolated, partly to increase 
 the analogy with ποράπτωμα in verses 15 and 17, 
 partly in consequence of the subsequent ἐξ ἑνὸς, to 
 which it is necessary to supply παραπτώματος, and 
 that ἁμαρτήσαντος, the more difficult reading, is never- 
 theless the more correct. After ἁμαρτήσαντος there 
 fails a substantive answering to the δώρημα in the 
 comparison. The vivacity of Paul’s mind may have 
 led to it’s omission. Expositors supply either some- 
 thing perfectly indefinite, as Beza and Piscator: 
 illud quod introiit, or as Michaelis the “ consequence 
 of sin,” or more definitely, “ that precise consequence 
 of sin here opposed to the χάρισμα, which is χρῶμα. 
 So Wolf and others. This is the most natural way, 
 seeing that τὸ γὰρ xeiza only resumes the former sub- 
 ject of the Apostle’s thoughts. Accordingly, there 
 are here four points of contrast, Ist, the agents; 
 the one transgressing, the other fulfilling the law. 
 2d, The actions performed ; that of the former, which 
 was a single sin, that of the latter, which concerned 
 numerous sins. 3d, The consequences of what they 
 have done; in the one case, the objective sentence of 
 condemnation, xgij#«, which embraces all connected 
 with Adam, and is manifested by the sense of guilt, 
 and in the other case, the objective forgiveness, 
 χάρισμα, of all united with Christ, which appears, 
 subjectively, as cheerful confidence towards and 
 peace with God. In fine, the issue of that sentence 
 of condemnation, viz. objective damnation, which, 
 subjectively, displays itself as misery in all who are 
 involved with the first sinner, κατάκριμα, and the issue 
 
900 CHAPTER V. ν. 16. 
 
 of the gracious gift of forgiveness, even the objec- 
 tive pardon of believers δικαίωμα, manifested in the 
 subject as perfect holiness, and hence also bliss. In 
 the interpretation of these statements, we must take 
 special care to discriminate between subjective and 
 objective. These cannot indeed be separated in the 
 concrete; for man has nothing subjectively divine, 
 but what he derives from him who is so objectively, 
 and what God says with respect to man is like all 
 divine volition, an operation. His word is deed. 
 What he wills with reference to us is an effect within 
 us. In the language of Paul, who always speaks 
 from the life, from direct intuition, these things are 
 not unnaturally disjoined. The expositors who seiz- 
 ed exclusively the one or the other view, have 
 never been able to arrive at perfect perspicuity. 
 Kejua is therefore the objective sentence of rejection, 
 which, in virtue of the holiness entering into the 
 conception of the divine character, God must pro- 
 nounce upon all who coincide in the bias of their will 
 with Adam. The discovery or revelation of this sen- 
 tence of rejection on the part of God, is subjectively 
 the sense of sin in man. Rejection issues in damna- 
 tion, which is manifested in and upon man as misery. 
 
 rh μὲν γὰρ κρῆμα ἐξ ἑνὸς. To the ἑνὸς we must not 
 here supply ἀνθρώπου, as is done in the Aithiopic ver- 
 sion, and by Louisde Dieu. For πολλὰ παραπτώματα; 
 which immediately follows, is contrasted with it. Be- 
 sides, when man was mentioned at the 12th verseas a 
 sinner, διὰ and not ἐξ, was the preposition made use 
 of. It would be better to supply παραπτωμάτος, and 
 regard ἑνὸς as the genitive masculine, and then to 
 
 - Sar 
 = 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 16, 17. 301 
 
 consider πολλῶν as in the same case and gender, which 
 is what Le Dieu proposes. In defence of this, we 
 might appeal to the os ἑνὸς ὡμοαρτήσαντος, or in v. 17, 
 to the σῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι. The meaning would 
 thus be left the same, and only the point of compari- 
 son slightly modified. Bengel: unus lapsus, unius 
 hominis, multi lapsus, multorum. The ἐξ has here an- 
 other signification, than in the ἐκ in ἐκ πολλῶν παραπ- 
 τωμάτων. It states the cause, by. Michaelis: ἐγ) conse- 
 quence of sin. 
 
 εἰς κατάκριμα. The verb ἐγένετο is to be supplied. 
 The εἰς, as in Hebrew, shews what a thing becomes. 
 The xaraxeivey is the effect of the χρώνειν, wherever 
 wickedness exists, 1 Cor. ii. 32. 
 
 Δικαίωμα, denotes objectively the act of justifying, 
 subjectively the condition of being obedient to the law, 
 i. 6. perfect holiness, which condition, in respect of the 
 objective announcement, is the beginning, and in re- 
 spect of the subjective realization, is the end of re- 
 demption. In Baruch ii. 17 and 18, δικαίωμα, and 
 δικαιοσύνη stand parallel to each other in the sense of 
 obedience to the law. Atthe 18th verse, below, we have 
 instead of it, δικαΐωσις Cwijs, gustification which brings 
 divine life with it. This justification is wrought out 
 by the δωρεὼ δικωιοσύνης. 
 
 V. 17. corresponds with the ]5th, inasmuch as it 
 expresses generally, how it might have been expected 
 from divine grace, that its efficacy would be more 
 powerful than that of sin. But whereas, at v. 16, the 
 sinner’s state was described more objectively, ὁ, e. in 
 his relation to the divine holiness, or according as he 
 must appear in the eyes of God, here the Apostle 
 
302 CHAPTER V. V. 17. 
 
 rather describes him subjectively, or as he is in him- 
 self, 2. e. his misery, and at once places in juxtapo- 
 sition the blessedness of the man who is, and the 
 wretchedness of him who is not redeemed. Calvin 
 beautifully paints this contrast of the two kingdoms, 
 entered the one by birth, the other by regeneration: 
 Ut misera peccati hereditate potiaris, satis est esse 
 hominem, residet enim in carne et sanguine ; ut Christi 
 justitia fruaris, fidelem esse necessarium est, quia fide 
 acquiritur ejus consortium. 
 
 ἐβασίλευσεν 6 θάνατος. There is elevation in the 
 thought of Bengel: Sermo preeteriti temporis ex ceco- 
 nomia gratiz respicit in ceconomiam peccati, ut mox 
 regnabuné futurum ex ceconomia peccati prospicit in 
 ceconomiam vite et vite perennis. 
 
 περισσείωαν τῆς χάριτος. Wherein this consists, is ex- 
 pressed by the δωρεὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, which immedi- 
 ately follows. By fellowship with Christ, man be- 
 comes a partaker of the πνεῦμα and thereby of 
 the δικοωιοσύνη, which subjective δικωιμοσύνη is the ef- 
 fect of acceptance of the objective announcement of 
 it. This δικαιοσύνη is subjectively the ζωὴ of God 
 in man; its issue is yet to come in eternity. See 
 Com. on v. 12, John iv. 14. See also verse 18, the 
 ζωὴ, ν. 19, the fut. κατασταθήσοντωι, v. 21, εἰς ϑωὴν 
 αἰώνιον, chap. vi. 21, 7d τέλος ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Hence it is 
 that the Apostle uses the future βασιλεύουσ. The 
 βασιλεύειν of Christians in the life to come denotes the 
 higher degree of perfection in power to which, with 
 their forerunner Christ, they shall be raised, John xvii. 
 24, Matth. xix. 28, 2 Tim. ii. 12, Heb. vi. 20. The 
 parallelism is not strictly observed, in as far as in this 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 18. 303 
 
 place the subject is not the bliss, but the redeemed 
 who partake of it. Chrysostom: πολλῷ γὼρ πλείονα 
 ὧν ὀφείλομεν κατέβαλεν ὁ Χριστὸς, καὶ τοσούτῳ πλείονω ὅσῳ 
 πρὸς ῥανίδα μικρὰν πέλαγος ἄπειρον. Μὴ τοίνυν ἀμφίβαλλε, 
 ἄνθρωπε, τοσοῦτον πλοῦτον ὁρῶν ἀγαθῶν, μηδὲ ζήτει πῶς ὃ 
 σπινθὴρ ἐκεῖνος τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἐλύθη, 
 τοσαύτης θαλάττης χαρισμάτων ἐπενεχθείσης αὐτῷ. 
 
 V. 18. With the majority of commentators, as we 
 before stated, this verse passes for a continuation of 
 the 12th, and ἄρα for the formula of resumption. It 
 is, however, far more natural to consider the ἄρα as 
 here the particle of inference from the preceding con- 
 text, and to suppose that the Apostle, after yielding 
 to the glow of his emotions, which urged him to de- 
 monstrate how much more powerful had been the 
 efficacy of grace than of sin, wished again to insist 
 upon the resemblance which, nevertheless, obtains be- 
 tween the two heads of mankind. For by the epa- 
 northosis which he has been developing from the 15th 
 verse, it has by no means been denied, that not- 
 withstanding the great diversity, in form and substance, 
 there is much resemblance between the two subjects 
 in what is positive. The genitive ἑνὸς, may be consi- 
 dered, as is done by Clericus and Locke, of the neuter 
 gender, but better, in conformity with verse 17th, 
 as of the masculine. It is remarkable, that in both 
 
 Ρ Far more than what we owed was paid by Christ, as much 
 more, as the immeasurable ocean exceeds a drop. Doubt not, 
 therefore, O man, when beholding such a treasure of blessings, 
 _ nor ask how the old spark of death and of sin has been extin- 
 
 guished, seeing that such a sea of the gift of grace has been 
 poured upon it. 
 
304 CHAPTER V. v. 18, 19. 
 
 clauses, the subject is wanting ; on which account, the 
 Syrian omits εἰς, before χατάχρμα and δικαΐωσις, and 
 makes these words the subjects. But the preceding 
 context shows that xgiua and χάρισμα are to be sup- 
 plied. 
 
 δικαΐωμο, is here predicated of Christ in precisely 
 the same sense in which at the 16th verse it is as- 
 cribed to believers. He realized the ideal of holiness. 
 Viewed in the objective aspect, accordingly, he satis- 
 fied all the demands which the holy God could make ; 
 in the subjective, he thereby implanted a new prin- 
 ciple of life into sinful humanity, and originated a new 
 species of it. By entering into fellowship with him, 
 and becoming partakers of his holiness, believers like- 
 wise attain to the condition of the δικαίωμα, here call- 
 ed dimaiwors. The ζωῆς is genitivus effectus, so, how- 
 ever, as that we cannot separate the effect, even in 
 thought, from its ground in the concrete. In this in- 
 stance also Paul probably uses ζωὴ in the more com- 
 prehensive sense, which we explained at verse 12th, 
 ὃ. e. as including the perfect and divine life in eternity. 
 So also, hereafter, in verse 21, cig ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 
 
 V.19. The Apostle repeats the statement, giving 
 it at the same time a turn which brings more promi- 
 nently forward the subjective relation of man to the 
 fall and the redemption. Instead of the more general 
 expressions παράπτωμο and χάρισμα, he chooses-the 
 more specific of σαρακοὴ and ὑπακοὴ. ἸΠαρακοὴ, when 
 used with regard to Adam, may refer either to the 
 transgression of the single command not to eat of the 
 forbidden tree, of which he was guilty, or to the proud 
 disposition of heart, which made him aspire to aute- 
 
 “+ Ka 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 19. 305 
 
 nomy, according as we adopt the literal or the sym- 
 bolical interpretation of the 3d chapter of Genesis. 
 Even in the former case, the desire of autonomy 
 must still be supposed as the basis of the act of diso- 
 bedience. Thus Augustine: (De pecc. merr. et rem. 
 l. ii. c. 19.) Preecedit in voluntatate hominis appe- 
 titus quidam propriz potestatis, ut fiat inobediens per 
 superbiam. The entire holy life of our Saviour, on 
 the contrary, is termed ὑπακοὴ, inasmuch as holiness is 
 nothing else but subjection to the laws of the one only 
 Being who is a law to himself, the αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν. This 
 ὑπακοὴ accordingly embraces in indivisible unity, what 
 the Church has split into the obedientia activa and obe- 
 dientia passiva; which things are also inseparable in the 
 concrete. The active holiness was the perfect love of 
 the Saviour. This implied an entrance into the con- 
 dition of the being who is its object, and who needs 
 to besaved. So did the Redeemer, prompted by love, 
 come into the present state of men, and take up- 
 on himself all the consequences of sin which that 
 involves. So did he feel with sinners the magnitude 
 of their apostacy and guilt. So did he bear the 
 sufferings prepared for him by the sin of the race, 
 which he designed to deliver from their fall, more 
 especially in his final tortures and death, and hence 
 it was that his active obedience required to manifest 
 itself in suffering. 
 
 καθίστασθαι has the sense to be made, to become, 6. g. 
 James iv. 4. Interpreters have started the question 
 whether the Apostle here refers to the objective pur- 
 pose and decree of God, or to the subjective being 
 made a sinner, and being justified on the part of man. 
 
 Χ 
 
906 CHAPTER V. v. 19. 
 
 Exclusively, as we have already observed at v. 16, 
 neither the one nor the other is ever spoken of. Such 
 separations belong to the theoretical exposition of 
 doctrine. And, therefore, the only question which 
 can properly be made is, which side of the case does 
 the Apostle bring most into the light. In answer to 
 this it may be said, that χατασταθήσονται gives greater 
 prominence to the subjective. “ Owing to the iden- 
 tity of human nature, by means of the inward dis- 
 cord in the mind of Adam, with whom the race was 
 involved, sin and its consequences were entailed upon 
 all. By means of the holiness of the second Head of 
 the race, and in virtue of the spiritual communion 
 and oneness of believers with him, the δικομοσύνη is 
 entailed upon them, which shall be still more clearly 
 displayed in the life to come.” The Apostle, in like 
 manner as at v. 17, chooses the future tense, because 
 the δικαίωσις and the ζωὴ, during the present life, are 
 incipient, and only reach perfection in the future 
 world. They who cling to the objective view, are 
 obliged to translate καθίστασθαι declarari, which, how- 
 ever, is a sense that cannot be defended. Schleusner 
 indeed in his Thesaurus, quotes χαθήστημι from Daniel 
 xiii. 60. (Cod. Chis.) as bearing that signification, but it 
 rather means, coarguere. ‘The Socinian interpretation, 
 which may be found substantially in Chrysostom and 
 Theodoret, which Grotius was the principal means of 
 spreading, and of which Whitby has written a minute 
 defence, (De imput. div. pece. Adami, Lond. 1711, 
 c. 3, p. 47, 5646.) takes ἁμαρτάνειν, as formerly at v. 
 12th, in the metonymical sense, effectus pro causa, 
 to become punishable. In the present instance, how- 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 19, 20. 307 
 
 ever, it is liable to the same objection as in that. 
 From the circumstance of οἱ πολλοὶ, and not πάντες 
 being used, it is even more impossible to infer any- 
 thing doctrinal than Matt. xxvi. 28, from the περὶ 
 πολλῶν ἐκχυνομένων. ‘The very use of the article with 
 πολλοὶ shows that the πάντες are here contrasted in 
 a mass with the one. 
 
 VY. 20. Paul had set in opposition the two heads of 
 mankind, and the effects which they have respective- 
 ly produced upon it. He had stated two extensive 
 periods in the development of the species. Now, here 
 the question naturally arose; what was the purpose 
 of the economy of the Old Testament, if it is the 
 New alone which has formed the great epoch of hu- 
 manity ? He answers this question, by showing the 
 relation of the Old Testament economy to sin. Beau- 
 tiful are here the words of Calvin: Erant quidem 
 naufragi ante legem; quia tamen in suo interitu sibi 
 videbantur natare, in profundum demersi sunt, quo 
 illustrior fieret liberatio, quum inde preter humanum 
 sensum emergunt. This author, however, is mis- 
 taken, when he supposes the present verse expository 
 of the 13th. 
 
 παρεισῆλθεν. The sage may here be mute, as for 
 . example, Philo: (de Temul. p. 263.) ἄγνοια μήτε φῶς, 
 μήτε λόγον παρεισελθεῖν ἑῶσα, and Polyb. (Hist. ii. 
 55, 3); or it may indicate the secrecy of its incoming, 
 or, best of all, according to the translation of Beza: 
 Preterea introiit, and of Luther: es ist nebeneinkom- 
 men. 
 
 ἵνα. Chrysostom : ἵνα, ἐνταῦθα, οὐκ αἰτιολογίας πάλιν, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐκβάσεως cor. Οὐ γὰρ διὼ τοῦτο ἐδόθη ἵνα πλεο- 
 
908 CHAPTER V. V. 90. 
 
 γάσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐδόθη μὲν ὥστε μειῶσαι καὶ ἀνελεῖν τὸ παράπ- 
 τωμα. ἐξέβη δὲ τοὐναντίον, οὐ παρὼ τὴν τοῦ νόμου φύσιν, 
 ἀλλὰ παρὼ τὴν τῶν δεξαμένων ῥᾳθυμίαν. So also the 
 majority of Catholic interpreters. But it is manifest 
 that iva is here in fact used στελικῶς, for it was the 
 Apostle’s intention to show what was the purpose of 
 the law, and all that is requisite is to fix the true 
 meaning of σλεονάση. What Paul meant to express 
 by that word, was how the law ought to have pro- 
 duced the acknowledgment of sin; by which indeed 
 sin itself is increased, inasmuch as its guilt grows with 
 the knowledge of him who commits it, and where that 
 exists in a small degree, the responsibility appears pro- 
 portionably diminished. See v. 13. As that, how- 
 ever, is a condition of ἄγνοια or πώρωσις, it requires to 
 be done away, and hence, the law must bring to a 
 consciousness of variance with God. It is only after 
 this has existed as an interval of transition, that the 
 grace of God can be known. 
 
 ‘Yregerecioosvoey. ‘This compound is again used by 
 St. Paul, 2 Cor. vii. 4, and ὑπερπλεονάζω, 1 Tim. i. 14. 
 Bengel: Victi victorem vincens, tertius utroque melior 
 est. Hominem vicit peccatum, peccatum vicit gratia, 
 ergo gratiz vis maxima. Pelagius: Sicut et Salvator, 
 ‘cui plus dimittitur amplius diligit,’ manifestata est 
 enim quantitas peccati ut sciretur gratiz magnitudo, 
 et redderemus competens debitum charitatis. Augus- 
 
 4 The ἵνα here again points not to theintention but to theevent. 
 For it (the law) was not given to increase, but that it might 
 diminish and take away sin. The very reverse, however, 
 took place, not from the nature of the law, but from the sloth 
 of those who received it. 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 90, 21. 309 
 
 tine in Psalm cii: Lex ideo data est, ut crescente pecca- 
 to, humiliarentur superbi, humiliati confiterentur, 
 confessi sanarentur. 
 
 V. 21. The Apostle restates what he had already 
 said, v. 17th, and concludes the observations, com- 
 menced with the 15th verse, by contrasting once 
 more, in their grand features, the two domains of 
 sin and of grace. Βασιλεύειν has the same meaning as 
 at verse 17th. Asxasoovvn should properly stand im- 
 mediately opposed to ἁμαρτία ; but this Paul avoids, 
 in order again to mark emphatically, how all holiness 
 must be traced to its higher source. Here also, as 
 at verse 17th, the Apostle brings forward the final 
 issue, in which the whole work of the δικαΐωσις is con- 
 summated, even the ζωὴ αἰώνιος. 
 
CHAPTER SIXTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 A new subject commences with this chapter. Persons who 
 clave to the law and legal piety, might suppose that, by 
 this doctrine of the ἀπολύτρωσις and χάρις, the Apostle 
 forced the subjective moral agency of man too much into 
 the shade; and that thus the gospel doctrine of salvation 
 might be made auxiliary to sin. Paul now shows the con- 
 trary. The χάρις or the rvedua, the operative principle in 
 the heart of the Christian incites him to sanctification. 
 Even the rite of baptism demonstrates that to be his scope. 
 He enters, however, upon a new relation to holiness; and 
 does what is right, not because of the outward law and its 
 stern commands, but in consequence of a new and vital 
 impulse within him. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. The moral effect of the doctrine of redemption upon the 
 Christian is increase of holiness, as is shown even by the 
 baptismal rite. V. 1—1I. 
 
 2. Grace and not the law, leads the Christian to sanctification, 
 which is promoted by that very circumstance. V. 12—19. 
 
 3. Prospect of the final consummation, in which holiness τι το 
 be rewarded. V. 20—23. 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 1. 21 
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 THE MORAL EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMP- 
 TION UPON THE CHRISTIAN IS INCREASE OF HOLIE- 
 
 NESS, AS IS SHOWN EVEN BY THE BAPTISMAL RITE. 
 V. bo 
 
 V.1. THERE can be no doubt, if we strictly sepa- 
 rate the doctrines of justification and sanctification, 
 that here, after the discussion of the first, the proper 
 place presents itself for treating the second. Butit is, 
 as we have already observed, unusual with the Apos- 
 tle to discriminate very nicely objective from sub- 
 jective. We must not, therefore, think of seeking, 
 in a systematic arrangement, the reason of his bring- 
 ing forward, at this place, what we term the doctrine 
 of sanctification. It was, however, natural for him, 
 after having delineated the grand and novel scheme 
 of salvation, to recollect the insinuations of the legal 
 Judaizer, (c. iii. 8.) who objected to his doctrine of the 
 δικαΐωσις and χάρις, that it only served as an encour- 
 agement to sin. This objection he now meets. Cal- 
 vin justly remarks: Quum humano sensui παραδοξώ- 
 τατον sit quidquid de Christo preedicatur, nihil novi 
 videri debet si, audita fidei justificatione, caro toties, 
 tanquam ad adversos scopulos, impingit. Pergendum 
 est tamen, nec Christus ideo supprimendus, quia mul- 
 tis sit in lapidem offensionis et petram scandali. Qua 
 enim ratione impiis cedet in ruinam, piis vicissim in 
 resurrectionem erit. Sic enim se res habet...... in 
 hune finem nos justificari, ut deinde vite puritate 
 
τ ia) | 
 
 312 CHAPTER VI. V. 1, 2. 
 
 Deum colamus...... Plus quam igitur preepostera esset 
 operis Dei inversio, si occasione gratize quee nobis in 
 Christo offertur peccatum vires colligeret. Neque 
 enim medicina morbi, quem extinguit, fomentum est. 
 It would hence be. highly incorrect to follow Chry- 
 sostom, in regarding what follows as a set of moral 
 precepts, independent altogether of the preceding 
 context. The Apostle links his discussion upon sanc- 
 tification to the extraordinary statement made at v. 
 20th of the former chapter. The false inference which 
 he seeks to refute, he had already touched, chap. 
 11. v. Sth and 8th. Compare the commentary at v. 
 15, 1 Pet. u. 16, Jude iv., where the persons are de- 
 scribed, who really perverted in this manner the doc- 
 trine of salvation. 
 
 V.2. While the Apostle repugns the false con- 
 clusion in question, he was bound, of necessity, to 
 state the grounds, why it is not conceivable that the 
 regenerated Christian should continue in sin. The 
 liveliness of his mind, however, prevents him here, in 
 like manner as at chap. iii. v. 3 and 5, from coming 
 to a refutation in form, otherwise he must have shewn 
 that what God has effected by the redemption, like- 
 wise becomes manifest in those who are the subjects. 
 of it, according as at verse 15th of the previous 
 chapter, he adverts to the fact, that the χάρις is not. 
 merely objective, something existing externally of 
 man, but is something operative within him; or as 
 Augustine states the argument in prop. 31: Hine os- 
 tendit de preeteritis peccatis factum esse ut donaren- 
 tur, et in eo superasse gratiam ut preterita peccata 
 demitterentur. Ergo quisquis adhuc queerit augmenta 
 
 Se 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 2. 313 
 
 peccati, ut augmentum gratize sentiat, non intelligit se 
 id agere, ut nihil in eo gratia operetur. Opus enim 
 gratie est ut moriamur peccato. In place of this 
 answer, he merely replies by the assertion, that the 
 discrepancy is as great between Christianity and sin, 
 as between death and life. Oirwes ἀπεθάνομεν. This 
 verb, with the dative, denotes beng dead in reference 
 to a particular object, Gal. ii. 19, So ζῆν, 1 Pet. ii. 24. 
 The natural man has pleasure in sin, and no com- 
 mandment has power to root that feeling from his 
 heart. Upon a believing surrender of the soul to 
 Christ, however, the new principle of life takes its rise 
 within him, the χάρις, the consciousness of the love of 
 God manifested towards him in the redemption. Thus 
 Chrysostom: Τί ὃέ ἐστιν, vexgods αὐτῇ γεγονέναι ; τὸ πρὸς 
 μηδὲν ὑπακούειν αὐτῇ λοιπόν" τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ μὲν βάπτισμα 
 ἐποίησεν ἅπαξ, ἐνέκρωσεν ἡμᾶς αὐτῇ. δεῖ δὲ λοιπὸν παρὰ τῆς 
 ἡμετέρας σπουδῆς κατορθοῦσθαι αὐτὸ διηνεκῶς. ὥστε, κὰν 
 μυρία ἐπιτάττῃ, μηκέτι ὑπακούειν, ἀλλὰ μένειν ἀκίνητον 
 ὥσπερ τὸν νεκρόν A similar expression to the ἀσοθνή- 
 σχεῖν τῇ ἁμορτίῳ is the following used by Philo. (Quod 
 det. Pot. Insid. p. 164, ed. Fr.): ὁ "AeA, τὸ παραδοξώτα- 
 τον, ἀνήρηται τε καὶ δῇ. ᾿Ανήρηται μὲν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἄφρονος 
 διανοίας, C7 δὲ τὴν ἐν θεῷ ζωὴν εὐδαίμονα." 
 
 * But what means, To have become dead to sin? It means 
 to obey itin nothing any more. This result baptism hath 
 accomplished for us once, having slain wus in regard to sin. 
 Henceforth it is incumbent upon us to carry this death, by 
 our own pains, continually into effect, so as even although 
 sin command us a thousand times, to remain motionless like 
 @ corpse. 
 > Abel, marvellous to tell, is taken away, and yet lives. He 
 ἌΝ 
 
 ᾿ ὦ (4 ἷς Σ ν 
 
314 CHAPTER VI. V. 2. - 
 
 V. 3. The Apostle ought now to shew, that by virtue 
 of the very nature of the doctrine they profess, Chris- 
 tians must appear dead in respect of sin, and in how 
 far this is the case. All that he does, however, is to 
 appeal to the well-known baptismal rite, whose sym- 
 bolical meaning he explains, thereby endeavouring to 
 demonstrate, howa spiritual regeneration is necessarily 
 connected with the reception of Christianity. The basis 
 of what he delivers is the thought, that every endea- 
 vour after salvation, and acquiescence in the Christian 
 scheme of it, presupposes a sense of the need of 
 emancipation from sin. “Ooo, more forcible than 
 οἵτινες, Shows the universality of the Christian obliga- 
 tion to be inwardly conformed to the death of the 
 Saviour. 
 
 ἐβωπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Τησοῦν. The εἰς expresses the 
 same as the baptismal formula, Matt. xxviii. 19, al- 
 though ὄνομα is here awanting. That word in the for- 
 mula, as elsewhere the Hebrew Doyy, seems indeed to 
 be pleonastic ; of which the special proof is the obser- 
 vation of Vitringa, (Observ. Sacre, Frankf. 1700, 1. 
 ili. c. 22.) that among the Rabbins, a similar expression 
 was used in the baptism of proselytes. When the 
 proselyte, for example, is a slave, the master declares 
 whether he chooses still to keep him as a slave, or to . 
 grant him his freedom, and, in doing so, uses the fol- 
 lowing words, 7) J2 Owl ΣῈ or Wy Ow? 510 
 “ to baptize in the name of a freeman” or “ in that of 
 a slave.” It but remains to enquire what the εἰς in 
 the baptismal form signifies. Usually it is ore 
 
 is taken away from a foolish understanding, and lives 
 of blessedness in God. i i 
 
: CHAPTER VI. V. 3, 4. 315 
 
 as meaning into the acknowledgment. Now that 
 sense it certainly may have, but to pass over other 
 grounds, there are certain parallel passages against it, 
 e.g. 1 Cor. i. 13. Id. x. 2. Id. xii. 13, in which it 
 rather seems to denote participation in that with 
 which it is construed. In the present case, conse- 
 quently it would imply into participation of the bless- 
 ings of Christ’s grace. 
 εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ. The preposition has obviously 
 the same meaning here, as in the preceding context, 
 and that, according to the explication we have given, 
 is also highly suitable to the scope, viz. “ that if bap- 
 tized into fellowship with Christ in general, we must 
 also be baptized into fellowship with his death.” So 
 Ambrose. (De Sacram 1. II. ce. 7.) Chrysostom : 
 εἰς τὸ ἀποθανεῖν ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος. Bengel says excellently : 
 Qui baptizatur, induit Christum, Adamum secundum ; 
 in Christum, inquam, totum, adeoque etiam in mortem 
 ejus baptizatur, et perinde est, ac si eo momento Chris- 
 tus pro tali homine, et talis homo cum Christo, patere- 
 tur, moriretur, sepeliretur. So also Bucer. In this 
 view βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς τὸν θάνωτον αὐτοῦ is not different 
 from the συνεσταυρώθημνεν Which occurs, Rom. vi. 6, and 
 Gal. ii. 20. | 
 
 V. 4. The figurative expressions ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ 
 ἁμαρτίῳ leads the Apostle to compare Christ’s bodily 
 with our spiritual death, and thence to deduce the ob- 
 ligation incumbent upon Christians to sacrifice their 
 life of sin, as the Saviour sacrificed his earthly exis- 
 tence. He had said that the rite of baptism, which 
 takes place at the entrance into Christianity, manifests 
 that it is the will of the Christian to conform spiritually 
 
916 CHAPTER VI. V. 4. 
 
 to the death of Christ. The very obvious idea here- 
 upon occurs to him, that the baptismal symbol itself 
 may be regarded asa figure of the death of Christ, 
 and accordingly he in this verse represents the Chris- 
 tian undergoing baptism, as being in some sort buried 
 with his Saviour. Having proceeded thus far with the 
 emblematical meaning of baptism and the death of 
 Christ, it was natural for the Apostle to assimilate in 
 like manner the coming out of baptism, and the re- 
 surrection of Christ, which accordingly he does. We 
 find at another place the same symbolical allusion, 
 Col. ii. 12. For the explanation of this figurative de- 
 scription of the baptismal rite, it is necessary to call the 
 attention to the well known circumstanee, that, in the 
 early days of the church, persons when baptized, were 
 first plunged below, and then raised above the water, 
 to which practice, according to the direction of the 
 Apostle, the early Christians gave a symbolical im- 
 port. See Suiceri Thes. T. I. sub voce ᾿Αναδύσις. In 
 the same sense Chrysostom on the third chap. of John. 
 Observes: Καθάπερ γὰρ ἕν τινι τάφῳ τῷ ὕδατι κατα- 
 δυόντων ἡμῶν τὰς κεφαλὰς, ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος θάπτεται, 
 καὶ καταδὺς κάτω κρύπτεται ὅλος καθάπαξ." 
 
 Συνετάφημεν. The σὺν here expresses similarity 
 quasi, ὥσπερ αὐτός, Rom. viii. 17; Col. iii. 1; 2 Tim. 
 ii. 11. The Apostle uses the word buried in place 
 of died, as being more emphatic. Bengel: Sepultura 
 mortem ratam facit. Melancthon: Sepelimur autem 
 
 © For when we sink our heads in the water, as if it were in 
 a tomb, the old man is buried, and going down is Πα, 
 tire and at once. 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 4. 317 
 
 una cum Christo, quia postquam natura nostra mor- 
 tificari ccepit, peccatum sepultum est dupliciter. Pri- 
 mum imputatione, quanquam enim reliquize manent, 
 tamen sunt condonatz. Secundo, quod ad affectum 
 attinet, quia natura vitiosa desinit esse efficax. At 
 nondum sumus glorificati. Quare etsi sumus justi, 
 tamen jacemus sepulti exspectantes glorificationem, 
 sicut Paulus inquit: Vita nostra abscondita est cum 
 Christo, id est, etsi habemus gloriam, justitiam, vitam, 
 tamen hee gloria latet adhuc tecta cum Christo donee 
 resuscitabimur. The οὖν is here requisite to denote 
 the continuance of the sense. In explication of it, 
 Seb. Schmidt very justly applies the following canon: 
 Particule illative non semper conclusiones przce- 
 dentibus subjungunt, et ex iis inferunt formales, sed 
 seepe quid, uno alterove posito, dicendum porro sit, 
 et ex iis inferendum: Inasmuch, viz. as ouveraonuev is 
 here in no respect different from the ἀπεθάνομεν. 
 
 εἰς τὸν θάνατον. Calovius, Castalio, Seb. Schmidt, 
 and Wolf, have, in a very forced manner, connected 
 this clause with the verb συνετάφημεν, understanding it 
 to mean the death of sin. But if such were the case, 
 some supplementary clause would here have been 
 absolutely necessary, seeing εἰς θάνατον occurred be- 
 fore referring to the death of Christ. Hence the an- 
 cients, and Hombergk, Chr. Schmid, and other mo- 
 derns construe εἰς τὸν θάνατον with βαπτίσματος, and 
 again uuderstand it to signify the death of Christ, 
 into fellowship with which believers are baptized. 
 
 διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός. Beza supposes that there 
 is here a mistake of the case, and that it should be 
 εἰς τὴν δόξαν. Castalio and Carpzovius consider the 
 
 rn es, 
 Lig 
 
918 CHAPTER VI. V. 4, 5. 
 
 διὰ with the noun to be used for the adjective, and 
 translate: in paterna gloria resurrexit. But Came- 
 rarius refutes this interpretation, and renders correct- 
 ly: Per potentiam gloriosam. The word δόξα, to 
 wit, in Heb. )35, as Bucer likewise observes, means 
 generally, singularis presentia divinitatis. It denotes 
 the sum of all the divine perfections, and hence also 
 any single, peculiarly prominent attribute. So in Ps. 
 Ixviii. 34, and Is. xii. 2. the Hebrew jy is rendered 
 δόξα, Col. i. 2, χράτος τῆς δόξης. We may therefore 
 take διὰ with the genitive in its usual signification. 
 Περιπατεῖν is a copy of the Hebrew phrase pant or 
 ὙΠ to lead a mode of life. ἹΚαινότης ζωῆς likewise a 
 Hebraism for κοινὴ Φωή. 
 
 V.5. Some look upon this verse as demonstrative 
 of the foregoing. So Mylius, who says, that the 
 Apostle states the reason why Christians, by conform- 
 ing to the death of the Lord, must likewise conform 
 to his resurrection. The reason is twofold. One is 
 given metaphorically ; Christians being incorporated 
 with the Saviour, as the graft is with the tree, must 
 share all things with him. The otheris derived from the 
 necessary connection between death and resurrection. 
 It is better, however, to consider the verse as an ex- 
 planatory appendage. 
 
 Σύμφυτος. The old interpreters took this word in 
 its primary meaning. The Vulgate translates: com- 
 plantati facti sumus ; the Syriac: una plantati sumus ; 
 Beza: plantati coaluimus ; and Chrysostom thus com- 
 ments: τῷ τῆς φυτείας ὀνόματι τὸν ἐκ ταύτης καρπὸν 
 ἡμῖν αἰνιξάμενος. Καθάπερ γὼρ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ταφὲν ἐν 
 τῇ γῇ» καρπὸν τῆς οἰκουμένης τὴν σωτηρίαν ἤνεγκεν" ὄυτω 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 5. 319 
 
 nal τὸ ἡμέτερον ταφὲν ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι, χαρπὸν ἤνεγκε 
 σὴν δικαιοσύνην, τὸν ἁγιασμὺὸν, τὴν ὑιοθεσίαν, τὰ μυρίω ἀγαθά. 
 In the same sense also, Calvin beautifully says: In- 
 sitio non tantum exempli conformitatem designat, sed 
 arcanam conjunctionem, per quam cum ipso coaluimus, 
 ita ut nos spiritu suo vegetans, ejus virtutem in nos _ 
 transfundat. Ergo ut surculus communem habet vitee 
 et mortis conditionem cum arbore in quam insertus 
 est, ita vitee Christi non minus quam et mortis parti- 
 cipes nos esse consentaneum est. And Bengel: Om- 
 nis vis vegetativa spiritualis est in Christo, eaque in 
 baptismum collata est. So also Beza, Bucer, and 
 Heumann. Σύμφυτος and συμφυὴς, however, signify 
 no more than συγγενὴς and συνών. Plato de leg, i. 10. 
 ὅτι μὲν ἡγῇ θεοὺς, συγγένειά τις ἴσως σὲ πρὸς τὸ ξύμφυτον 
 ἄγει τιμᾷν καὶ νομίζειν εἶναι: Where ξύμφυτον is equivalent 
 to συγγενές. Hesychius explains σύμφυτον, by συμπορευό- 
 μενον and συνὸν, according to which it here differs in no 
 respect from ὅμοιος. Now as ὁμοίωμα, with a noun in 
 the genitive, is a Hebraism for the adjective ὅμοιός 
 τινι, SO σύμωφυτοι τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ 15. merely 
 a pleonastic expression for ὁμοίως ἀπεθάνομεν ὥσπερ αὐτὸς, 
 ΟΥ ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ γεγόναμεν. 
 
 ἀλλὼ καὶ is the particle indicating a climax, and 
 usually stands in the conclusion after conditional pre- 
 mises. See Palairet Observ. 
 
 4“ By the word planting, he alludes to the fruit we reap 
 from his death; for, as his body, when buried in.the earth, 
 _ produced the salvation of the whole world, so ours also, when 
 buried in baptism, has borne the fruits of righteousness, 
 sanctification, adoption, aud a thousand blessings. 
 
329 CHAPTER VI. V. 5. 
 
 τῆς ἀναστάσεως. To this genitive we must again sup- 
 ply τῷ ὁμοιώματι, not μέτοχοι as Erasmus and Heu- 
 mann incorrectly suggest. The translation of Luther, 
 «“ we shall be like the resurrection,” is false. The 
 sense is as follow: By conquering death, Christ com- 
 pleted his terrestrial task, z.e. hisexistence in fellowship 
 with humanity, burdened with the consequences of sin. 
 Asarisen Christ, he had already entered upon his exal- 
 tation, as he indeed appears not to have lived habitu- 
 ally upon the earth. In like manner we, so soon as 
 we have in baptism acknowledged our sins and re- 
 ceived pardon, are bound to arise to a new existence, 
 which is founded on heavenly mindedness. Chrysos- 
 tom: καὶ πῶς ἀνάστασις ; τῆς μὲν ἁμαρτίας νεκρωθείσης, 
 σῆς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἀνασϊάσης, καὶ Ths μὲν παλαιᾶς ζωῆς 
 ἀφανισθείσης, Tis 02 καινῆς laving καὶ ἀγγελικῆς πολῆἥευο- 
 μένης. Olav δὲ ἀκούσης καινὴν ζωὴν, πολλὴν ζήϊει Τὴν 
 ἐναλλαγὴν, καὶ μεγάλην Thy μεϊαβολήν. ἀλλὰ γὰρ δακρύσαι 
 μοι λοιπὸν ἔπεισι, καὶ σ]ενάξωι μέγα, ὅτων ἐννοήσω πόσην μὲν 
 ἡμᾶς ἀπαιτεῖ φιλοσοφίαν ὁ ἸΤαῦλος, πόσῃ δὲ ἑαυτοὺς ἐξεδώ- 
 καμεν ῥαθυμίᾳ, μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρότερον ἐπανιόντες 
 γῆρας, καὶ εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἀνακάμπτοντες, καὶ σχρύδων 
 μεμνημένοι μνεϊὼ 10 wavy.” 
 
 © How is this resurrection ? It takes place in the death of sin 
 and the restoration of righteousness, in the disappearance of the 
 old, and the reign of a new and angelical life. And when you 
 hear mention made of a new life, be sure that implies a great 
 change and diversity. For myself, 1 forthwith burst into 
 tears and groans, when I reflect what strictness Paul demands 
 of us, and to what indolence we have given ourselves up, re- 
 lapsing after baptism into our previous old age, returning to 
 
 Egypt, and hankering after the garlic though we have tasted 
 the manna. ’ 
 
CHAPTER vI. ν. 5. 321 
 
 ᾿Εσόμεθα. The future tense here occasions difficulty, 
 for it seems to intimate that ἀνάστασις means the re- 
 surrection of the body. So Cicumenius: TMofasg ἀνασ- 
 τάσεως; τῆς ὅταν ἀναστῶμεν. Kal ὅρω ἀγωθότητα Θεοῦ. 
 σὸν μὲν θάνωτον τοῦ κυρίου, ὡς ἐν εἰκόνι ἀπεθάνομεν, τῆς δὲ 
 ἀναστάσεως, ἀληθῶς κοινωνήσομενιδ If bodily resurrec- 
 tion is meant, it is not easy to bring the passage into 
 concord with the previous and subsequent context. 
 Now, if we follow the bulk of the commentators, and 
 suppose, as the connection certainly requires, that al- 
 lusion is made to spiritual resurrection, then the cir- 
 cumstance of the verb being in the future, either ex- 
 presses obligation, “ so ought we also to be,” a sense 
 which Raphelius endeavours to justify grammatically ; 
 (Annott. in Herod) or following Baumgarten, we 
 must interpret it as signifying, “that in the present 
 life the Christian never attains to complete spiritual 
 resurrection.” This interpretation seems to be veri- 
 fied by verse 8. Most to the purpose, is the suppo- 
 sition of Limborch, that both meanings, the resurrec- 
 tion of the spirit, and the resurrection of the body, 
 blended together in the Apostle’s mind when he used 
 the word ἀνάστωσις, inasmuch as the latter may in 
 some sort be regarded as the complement of the for- 
 mer, it being only after the removal of the Christian 
 from this earth, that the perfect ζωὴ begins. See ob- 
 servations at chap. v. verse L2and17. In compliance 
 
 8 What resurrection does he mean? That which takes 
 place when we rise from the grave. And mark the goodness 
 of God. We have died only in the likeness of the Lord’s 
 death. But in the resurrection we shall have real fellowship 
 with him. 
 
 yi 
 
322 CHAPTER VI. V. 5, 6. 
 
 with this view, viz. that the external ἀνάστασις is but as 
 it were the completion of that which has already taken 
 place within, the Saviour himself in the 5th chap. of 
 John, connects the description of the former immedi- 
 ately with that of the latter. 
 
 V. 6. The Apostle proceeds to extend the emble- 
 matical comparison, and now applies the particular 
 kind of death which our Saviour suffered, spiritually to 
 believers. He again unites this proposition with the 
 foregoing, by the participle instead of a finite tense 
 of the verb, a construction which is especially frequent 
 with the verbs εὐδέναι and γιγνώσκειν. See numerous 
 examples from Polybius in Raphelius, note Polybb. 
 Grotius well: Modo hoc infigamus animo. Ὁ σωλαμὸς 
 ἄνθρωπος. As we have already hinted, at chap. ii. 20, the 
 Israelite regarded the Gentile who joined himself to 
 the external theocracy, as undergoing a new birth. 
 So the Talmud expresses it, Tr. Jevamoth f. 62, 1. 
 “Α proselyte who comes over is like a little child,” 
 upon which passage Maimonides remarks, “ and his 
 relatives are his relatives no more.” By entering into 
 entirely new relations of life, sucha person was looked — 
 upon as another man, so that the common appellation 
 of proselytes was WT ANI, new creature. This 
 mode of speech was, it is probable, transferred by our 
 Saviour from the old to the new dispensation, John iii. 
 under which the mind becomes more spiritualized, and 
 which required not merely an external renunciation 
 of the previous course of life, but an inward withdrawal 
 and separation from all former relations. Language 
 referring in the same way to the Old Testament theo- 
 cracy, appears to have been transferred by Paul to 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 6. S20 
 
 Christians, when he discriminates between the παλαιὸς 
 and the χαινὸς ἄνθρωπος. Schottgen tells us that, in 
 Sohar Chadasch, the fallen Adam, (an expression 
 often used by Cabbalistical authors, only as the symbol 
 of humanity not yet assimilated to its prototype, 7. 6. 
 of man as asinner) whom they also call “ the evil πᾶ- 
 ture,” is also denominated 37) DIN the old Adam. 
 As every human being in his natural state bears the 
 image of the fallen Adam, so ought every Christian to 
 exhibit instead of that the image of the glorified and 
 holy Jesus. The whole previous being of the indivi- 
 dual, in knowledge, sentiment, and volition, should be 
 renewed and changed by virtue of fellowship with the 
 Saviour, into which we are brought by the redemp- 
 tion. It is hence manifest, what profound meaning 
 there lies in that appellation, seeing that all human 
 wisdom and doctrine improves only partially. Theo- 
 doret at Col. 1. 9: παλομὸν ἄνθρωπον τὴν προτέραν 
 ἐκάλεσε πολιτείαν. Of the new Adam he says at verse 
 10.:” Avadev ἡμᾶς ἐδημιούργησεν 6 τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς, καὶ τοὺς 
 σῆς θείας εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρος, οὗς ἡ ἁμαρτία διέφθειρεν, 
 ἀκριβέστερον ἐν nit) ἐξετύπωσει It is a very perverted 
 interpretation which is given by Seb. Schmid: Vetus 
 homo est collapsus, novus integer! ! 
 
 Συνεσταυρώθη. The application here made of the spe- 
 cial kind of death suffered by our Saviour, to the spi- 
 ritual death of the old man, is the more emphatic, in- 
 asmuch as the former is peculiarly accompanied with 
 
 4 Originally the God of all created us, and stamped more 
 correctly the characters of the divine image which sin cor- 
 rupted. 
 
Ο9 4. CHAPTER VI. V. 6. 
 
 pain, and resembles the way in which the love of sin 
 is actually extinguished in the Christian. Crucifixion, 
 first painfully robs a man of all power of action. 
 He still lives, but lives under constraint and torture. 
 By slow degrees does he sink away, until the break- 
 ing of his limbs puts an end to him at last. In like 
 manner might it be said, is the love of sin pierced 
 through by the impressions which the Holy Spirit makes 
 upon the heart. It can no more do what it would, 
 but still it does not expire. As the opposite thirst 
 for holiness, however, which flows from and keeps 
 pace with the believer’s growing passion for his soul’s 
 invisible friend, augments in fervour, the love of sin 
 feels itself miserable and tormented, and declines 
 apace until death inflicts upon it the finishing stroke, 
 and conducts the Christian, purified by the contest, 
 into the peaceful bosom of his Saviour. 
 
 ἵνα καταργηθῇ. Beza: Notandum est proponi me- 
 tam sanctificationis non quasi ad eam usque jam in 
 hae vita perveniemus, sed quoniam ad eam contendi- 
 mus ac tandem etiam pervenerimus, quum videlicet 
 Deus erit omnia in omnibus. 
 
 σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας. We can suppose a fourfold 
 way of interpreting this expression. The first is, 
 that a body is metaphorically attributed to sin. So 
 Chrysostom: οὐ τὸ σῶμα τοῦτο οὕτω κωλῶν, ἀλλὰ τὴν 
 πονηρίαν ἅπασαν. ὥσπερ γὰρ πολαιὸν ἄνθρωπον λέγει τὴν 
 ὁλόκληρον κοκίαν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου 
 τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν διαφόρων μερῶν πονηρίας συγκειμένην παλίν 
 κακίαν Origen gives the same interpretation along 
 
 iIt is not to the body itself that he gives this name, but to 
 
 a i ὩΣ ει 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 6. 9.9.5 
 
 with another. So also Pelagius: Hoc est, ut omnia vitia 
 destruantur. Quia unum vitium membrum est peccati, 
 omnia corpus totum. Thomas Aquinas: Congeries 
 malorum operum, which is the interpretation many 
 give to σῶμα in chap. vii. 24. This sense is here 
 adopted by Erasmus, Grotius, Limborch, Koppe, and 
 Wolf. But although we may metaphorically consider 
 sin as a man to whom bodily members are attributed, it 
 is less natural to give a body to sin, more especially as 
 the Apostle makes no farther application of this com- 
 parison, as he does in that other passage where he 
 speaks of the members of a metaphorical body. A 
 second way is to understand σῶμα in the sense which 
 σὰρξ generally bears, human nature weak and aban- 
 doned by the quickening Spirit of God. No passage, 
 however, can be pointed out where there is a neces- 
 sity for giving this meaning to σώμα. There is none 
 even at Rom. viii. 10. It is a meaning which, in 
 Hebrew, cleaves exclusively to the word Ww, and 
 hence, in the Hellenistic, always to the corresponding 
 σὰρξ. A third interpretation is as follows ; Σῶμα may 
 be used in like manner, as in the language of the 
 Rabbins Dyy and 79, for intensifying the following 
 noun, as it were the deing of sin, an exemplification of 
 which we would have in Rom. vii. 24, and perhaps 
 also Col. i. 22. This resemblance to the Hebrew 
 51) and Oxy is here supposed by Clarius, Hammond, 
 
 sinfulness in general. For as he elsewhere denominates the 
 
 whole of sin the old man. In like manner, considering it as 
 composed of the various constituent parts of wickedness, he 
 now calls it the body of that man. 
 
326 CHAPTER VI. V. 6. 
 
 Schottgen, Conrad Vorst, and Glassius, (Philol. Sacra. 
 p. 1234 and 1654,) only, that these expositors hold 
 σῶμα to be purely periphrastic, as the Hebrew words 
 frequently are. It is better, however, to consider it 
 as giving intensity to the noun it governs. FIND 
 among the Rabbins means substantialia legis. In 
 Greek, also, σῶμα frequently signifies the mass. Aris- 
 totle says, Probl. xxiv. 9, rd σῶμα τὸ τοῦ ὕδατος πᾶν. 
 Hence, Schneider has defined σῶμα, “any whole com- 
 posed of parts or members.” Now, although the views 
 of the word which we have stated, and more espe- 
 cially the last, are by no means inadmissible, still the 
 most natural way is, to take σῶμα in its usual sense, to 
 regard the following noun in the genitive case as used 
 instead of the adjective ἁμαρτητικὸν, (in like manner, 
 as Plato says, φύσις τῆς ἀσθενείως,) and to suppose that 
 Paul speaks directly of that kind of sin which mani- 
 fests itself in the body, partly because sensuality and 
 intemperance are the most ordinary and apparent 
 offences, partly because the comparison with the cru- 
 cified Saviour is thus most easily drawn. So also 
 below, at v. 12, 7, and 24, and chap. viii. 10, 13. 
 The καταργεῖν naturally refers to the ὡμαρτητικὸν and 
 not to the σῶμα. Δουλεύειν. In Scripture this ex- 
 pression is used to denote the relation of man to the 
 power of good as well as to that of evil, which shall 
 be more fully explained at verse 16th. Man is purely 
 an organ; he must either devote himself to the ser- 
 vice of God, in doing which he is truly free; or to 
 the service of that which is contrary to God, and then 
 he ever more and more annihilates the idea of his 
 
 own being. 
 
 —- νὰν 
 
“Sy 
 CHAPTER VI. V. 7. 327 
 
 Y.7. Paul further corroborates what he has just 
 said, by a general proposition. This proposition may 
 be understood in three different ways. Let ἀποθνή- 
 σχεῖν be taken in its spiritual meaning, and δικομόω as 
 signifying to acguit, deliver, and there will result the 
 following sense of the words. “He who is spiritually 
 dead with Christ is freed from sin.” Such is the 
 sense adopted by Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, and 
 Limborch. Or let ἁμαρτία be supposed to mean the 
 guilt or penalty of sin, δικαιοῦν would then signify to 
 — justify, absolve judicially, and guided by the Talmudic 
 sentence, Sanhedr, 6.6, [NAM ὮΣ MDD ΤΠ ΤΣ: 
 Let my death atone for all my sins, we should obtain 
 the following meaning. “ Since Christ has suffered 
 death, and the believer is one with Christ, so has he 
 also died for sin, and consequently is now free from 
 its penalty.” So Jac. Alting, Wolf, Carpzovius, and 
 others. It appears most natural, however, that as the 
 Apostle is applying to the Christian spiritually, what 
 is true of the corporeal death and resurrection of 
 Christ, he in like manner transfers also the laws which 
 came into operation on the death of the body to spi- 
 ritual mortification. So Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 (Ecumenius, Beza, and others. In this view it would 
 be best to translate it, ““ He that is dead bodily has no 
 more to do with sin.” Thus the Talmud, in Tr. 
 Nidda, declares, “« The man who dies is freed from 
 the commandments.” So also Philo (I. 1, Alleg. to- 
 wards the close:) εἰ ἀποθάνοιμεν ἀπηλλαγμένη ἡ ψυχὴ 
 (ἔσται) κακοῦ καὶ νεκροῦ σώματος. Precisely similar is 
 the statement, 1 Pet. ἱν.ὄ 1. The δικαμοῦσθαι means in 
 that case the same as ἐλευθεροῦσθοι, which is employed 
 
- 
 
 328 CHAPTER VI. V. 7, 8. 
 
 in the 18th verse, inasmuch as liberation is the con- 
 sequence of justification and acquittal. 
 
 V.8. What the Apostle here appends does not 
 differ from what is said in verse 5th. It rather seems 
 that he wishes merely to impress that statement more 
 deeply, and hence repeats it in a somewhat more 
 comprehensive form. He shows, to wit, that Christ 
 had been subjected to mortality only for a brief pe- 
 riod, and to death but once, while, on the contrary, 
 the state of glory upon which he entered at the re- 
 surrection is eternal; and he infers, that in the second 
 birth, there is imparted to the Christian a seed (1 John 
 iii. 9) which is indestructible, and which unfolds itself 
 in evergrowing glory and bliss, through all eternity. 
 Regeneration, he thus intimates, is not merely a resur- 
 rection, but an eternal resurrection, upon which no 
 death shall ever intrude. Tsorebowev ὅτι καὶ συζήσομεν. 
 The Apostle, in verse 5th, had made use of the future 
 ἐσόμεθα. He does the same here, only adding, that 
 the life of union with the Saviour is a subject of faith ; 
 and the reason why he adds this is, that he looks up- 
 on that life to come as an uninterrupted continuation, 
 as but the completion and exaltation of the life that 
 now is. As it doth not yet appear what we shall be, 
 when our life, which is now hid in God, shall be re- 
 vealed, the Apostle has good grounds for representing 
 the full accomplishment of our spiritual resurrection 
 as a matter of faith. Erasmus: Igitur si commortui 
 sumus Christo mortuo, a pristinis vitiis liberi, confi- 
 dimus fore ejusdem beneficio, ut posthac per vite 
 inculpate innocentiam una cum vivente vivamus, et 
 ita vivamus, ne relabamur unquam in mortem, et in 
 
2 
 CHAPTER VI. V. 9, 10. 329 
 
 hoe Christi simulacrum quoad fieri potest referentes. 
 Neque enim ille sic resurrexit, ut denuo jus aliquod 
 morti in se permitteret, sed revixit immortalis deinde 
 futurus. 
 
 V. 9. For the purpose of establishing the redemp- 
 tion, the guiltless Jesus had once entered this earthly 
 sphere, which has been subverted by the consequences 
 of sin, and, as connected with it, had taken upon him- 
 self the θάνατος. That being accomplished, death has 
 no more any influence upon him. The κυριεύειν seems 
 to involve the idea of a usurped power, for properly, 
 as Christ was an innocent being, there was no reason 
 why he should die. 
 
 V.10. The Apostle states the reason why, in the 
 instance of Christ, death can only once take effect. 
 Here we have first to remark with respect to the 
 punctuation, that the Greek interpreters place the 
 comma before ἁμαρτία, which is correct. While the 
 Syriac, the Vulgate, Erasmus and others, place it after 
 that word, which yields a sense no doubt, but by no 
 means so apposite a one. To justify the latter punc- 
 tuation, it does not suffice to urge that τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ 
 and τῷ Θεῷ do not form a suitable antithesis. In 
 point of fact ἀποθνήσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ should not forma 
 counterpart to ζῇν τῷ Θεῷ, the object of the Apostle 
 being, as it frequently is, to make only a formal 
 parallelism. Following on the other hand the more 
 generally received mode of pointing, which places the 
 comma before awagrig, we find here a very adequate 
 reason assigned why Christ could not die more than 
 once. (CEcumenius: Καὶ τοσοῦτον οὐκ ἔτι ἀποθωνεῖται, 
 ὅτι ἐκεῖνο τὸ ἅπαξ ὃ ἀπέθανεν, οὐχ ὡς ὑπεύθυνος θανάτου 
 
330 CHAPTER VI. v. 10. 
 
 κατὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν TOU 
 χόσμου ἁμαρτίαν, a ταύτην ἀνέλῃ καὶ θανωτώσῃ. Chry- 
 sostom: Καὶ σκόπει πάλιν αὐτοῦ τὴν φιλονεικίων, καὶ πῶς 
 anh τῶν ἐναντίων αὐτὸ κατασκευάζει. ᾿Ἐπειδὴ γὼρ εἰκὸς 
 ἦν τινας θορυβεῖσθαι διὰ τὸν σταυρὸν καὶ τὸν θάνατον, δείκ- 
 γυσιν ὅτι OF αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦτο χρὴ θαῤῥεῖν λοιπόν. Μὴ γὰρ 
 ἐπειδὴ ἅποξ ἀπέθωνέ, φησι, νομίσῃς αὐτὸν θνητὸν sivas. καὶ 
 γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸ ἀθάνατος μένει. θανάτου γὰρ θάνατος ὁ 
 θάνατος αὐτοῦ γέγονε. καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἀπέθανε, διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ 
 ἀποθνήσκει. καὶ γὼρ ἐκεῖνον τὸν θάνατον τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ ἀπέθανε." 
 Calvin: Dominium mortis ad momentum subeundo 
 in eternum ipsam deglutivit. It is hence obvious 
 that ἀποθνήσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ must here have a dif- 
 ferent meaning from where it is applied to men. 
 The readiest way would be to consider it as equiva- 
 lent in sense to ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. Paul may have 
 preferred using the dative, either for the purpose of 
 making his present declaration with respect to Christ 
 analogous, even in the form of expression to what he 
 
 © And thus he will never die any more, because in the death 
 he once endured, he did not die like other men, as being sub- 
 ject to death, but in consequence of the sin of the world, that 
 he might take away, and destroy it. 
 
 ‘Remark again his love of argument, and how he proves 
 his point by what seems to prove the contrary. For as it was 
 likely that some would be dismayed by the cross and death οὔ 
 the Saviour, he shows that these ought to be rather a ground 
 of future confidence. You must not, he says, conclude from 
 the circumstance of his having once died, that he is mortal. 
 That is the very reason why henceforth he is immortal. His 
 death was the death of death. Because he has died he now 
 dies no more, for that death he died to sin. 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 10. 331 
 
 had before said of believers, or as appears more pro- 
 bable, for the sake of the parallelism with τῷ Θεῷ. In 
 the Andromache of Euripides, we have an example of 
 the same construction ; τέθνηκα τῇ σῇ θυγατρὶ instead of 
 ὑπὲρ τῆς σῆς θυγατρός. It might, however, be more 
 apposite to regard ἁμαρτίω as the κύριος, in like man- 
 ner as déyarog was before so called. Christ, having 
 once taken upon himself the consequences of sin, 
 and appeared in the human nature according as now 
 constituted, (Phil. il. 7,) required to make this obla- 
 tion to sin, to die unto or in consequence of it. Au- 
 gustine gives a false interpretation of this dative in his 
 Euchiridion c. 41, where he considers it as standing 
 per metonomen for sinful body: Itaque quodam 
 modo peccato moreretur, dum moritur carne ‘in qua 
 erat similitudo peccati: Compare on the subject, 
 Heb. ix. 26, 28, where in the same way the Saviour’s 
 once dying is represented as sufficing for the establish- 
 ment of an everlasting atonement. 
 
 ὃ δὲ ζῆ. ‘The Greek grammarians, Erasmus, Cor- 
 nelius a Lapide, and others, consider ὃ as used instead 
 of ὅτι. But Beza more correctly supposes it an elip- 
 ses, to which καθ᾽ is wanting, as in τὰ λοιπὰ, τ᾽ ἀλλά. 
 See Bos. 
 
 Ζῇ τῷ Θεῷ. An expression which has created dif- 
 ficulties. Theophylact expounds the dative: ἐν τῇ 
 δυνάμει τοῦ Θεοῦ. CEcumenius: “thereby that he is 
 God, by his divinity.” We must, however, in this in- 
 stance also take the dative in the same general sense, 
 as previously +7 ἁμαρτίῳ, and in which men are, v. 
 11, said ζῆν τῷ Θεῷ, “to live in relation to, or for 
 God.” This same expression is found, 2 Cor. νυ. 
 
992 CHAPTER VI. v. 10, 11. 
 
 15. In classical Greek ζῆν rm has the like sense. 
 Thus Demosthenes, περὶ ‘“AAovjoou: of οὐκ αἰσχύνονται 
 Φιλίππῳ ζῶντες, καὶ οὐ τῇ ἑαυτῶν πατρίδ. The ζῇν τῷ 
 Θεῷ in reference to Christ, stands in contrast with 
 the ἡμέραις dobeveing or τῆς σωρκὸς, Heb. v.2, 7. Hence 
 Justinianus correctly observes at this passage, “ It 
 may in a certain degree be affirmed, that upon this 
 earth our Saviour lived both to us and to his God, 
 inasmuch as it was for our sakes that he lived in a 
 certain connection with evil, sin, death, and Satan. 
 This connection is now dissolved, and God is the 
 only scope of his life”” So likewise Beza. Pelagius 
 accurately expresses the sense: Vivit in gloria Deitatis. 
 Origen: expleto eo quod in forma Dei positus exina- 
 nivit semetipsum, et formam servi accepit, permanet 
 in forma Dei et zequalis Patri. 
 
 V.11. Here again follows the application to us 
 of the example of our Head. In regard to the text, 
 it is to be noted, that codices A D E F G, and, on 
 their authority Griesbach, omit the εἶναι after νεχροὺς 
 μὲν and that in the same codices, rw χυρίω ἡμῶν is 
 awanting. We may follow Griesbach and others, in 
 placing a colon after ὑμεῖς. A better way, however, 
 is to supply a καθὼς to the sense at verse 10th, and 
 construe ὑμεῖς with λογίζεσθε. Matt. v. 16 affords an 
 example of οὕτω, standing in the same relation to ἃ. 
 preceding clause. AoyiZeote. Beza: colligite ; refero 
 ad syllogismum, ut inde colligamus, ac vere sentia- 
 mus, nos tum peccato esse mortuos per Christi mortis 
 communicationem, tum Deo vivere id est justitie. 
 Comp. 3, 28. 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 12. ous 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 IT IS GRACE, AND NOT THE LAW, WHICH LEADS THE 
 CHRISTIAN TO SANCTIFICATION, WHICH IS PRO- 
 MOTED BY THAT VERY CIRCUMSTANCE. V. 12 
 ἘΞῈ 
 
 V. 12. Ar the former verse the Apostle had al- 
 ready passed from the domain of doctrine into that of 
 admonition. He now delivers his admonitions on a 
 more enlarged scale, connecting with them, at the 
 14th verse, the promise of certain victory which be- 
 longs to believers, as standing under grace. This 
 circumstance does not weaken but rather heightens 
 diligence after holiness. It is not without reason that 
 Bucer observes on the composition of these admonitions: 
 Cum primis hic et in omnibus adhortationibus Paulinis 
 observandum est, quod ardent omnia, quod densa 
 sunt argumentis, lisque urgentissimis. There is great 
 variation in the text of the last words of this verse. 
 Some of the fathers leave all after αὐτῇ away. Se- 
 veral codices omit αὐτῇ ἐν. Others reject αὐτῇ itself, 
 as well as all that follows it. And instead of αὐτῇ, 
 others read αὐτῶ or αὐτοῦ or αὐτήν. Griesbach is one 
 of those who terminate the verse with ὑπακούειν. 
 It is certainly very difficult to imagine that Paul 
 used no pronoun at all, for in that case the sentence 
 is quite obscure, it being impossible even to discover 
 what is the subject to ὑπακούειν. From this point of 
 view we might be inclined to receive a dative into the 
 text. As the reading of αὐτῇ, however, is so very 
 
994 CHAPTER VIL. v. 12. 
 
 various, and the dative τῇ dmagrig may be supplied 
 from the subsequent verse, the reading of Griesbach, 
 which closes the verse with ὑπακούειν, is probably 
 correct. 
 
 μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω. ‘The older expositors justly ob- 
 serve upon these words, that the Apostle does not ex- 
 pect from the Christian at once the total eradication 
 of every sinful propensity in the heart, although that 
 certainly is the ultimate end at which he aims, but for 
 the present, that the ungodly inclinations shall merely 
 not be lords of his inward life. According to this, 
 although sin breaks out in the Christian’s life, his in- 
 clination must be averted from it. Aug. Prop. 35. 
 Quia non consentimus desideriis pravis in gratia 
 sumus. What Chrysostom says upon this verse, is 
 truly admirable: Οὐκ εἶπε, μὴ οὖν ζήτω ἡ σὰρξ, μηδὲ 
 ἐνεργείτω, GAA ἡ ἁμαρτία μὴ βασιλενέτω. Οὐ γὰρ τὴν 
 φύσιν ἦλθεν ἀνελεῖ, ἀλλὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν διορθῶσαι. εἶτα 
 δεικνὺς ὅτι οὐ βίῳ καὶ ἀνάγκῃ κατεχόμεθα ὑπὸ τῆς πονηρίας, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἑκόντες, οὐκ εἶπε, μὴ τυραννεῖτο, ὅπερ ἀνάγκης ἦν, ἀλλὰ 
 μὴ βωσιλευέτω. Καὶ γὰρ ἄτοπον εἰς βασιλείαν ἀγομένους 
 τῶν οὐρανῶν, βασιλίδα τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν, καὶ καλουμένους 
 συμβασιλεῦσωι τῷ Χριστῷ, αἱρεῖσθαι γενέσθωι τῆς ἁμαρτίας 
 αἰχμωλώτους. ὥσπερ ἂν ξι τις τὸ διάδημα ῥίψας ἀπὸ τῆς 
 κεφαλῆς, δαιμονώσῃ γυναικὶ καὶ προσαιτούσῃ καὶ ῥάκιῳ, 
 περιβεβλημένῃ δουλεύειν ἐθέλοι. εἶτω, ἐπειδὴ βαρὺ τὸ 
 περιγενέσθωι ὡμαρτίας, dpa πῶς καὶ κοῦφον ἔδειξε, καὶ τὸν 
 πόνον παρεμυυθήσατο εἰπὼν, ἐντῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι. 
 τοῦτο γὰρ δείκνυσι προσκαΐίρους ὄντας τοὺς ἀγῶνας, καὶ τα- 
 χέως καταλυομένους.α With the natural man it is con- 
 
 m He does not say let not the flesh live, neither act, but let 
 not sin reign. For he came not to subvert human nature but 
 
CHAPTER V. Vv. 19. 335 
 
 fessed, that what is lord should be the slave, and that 
 the slave, which should be lord. Hence, there is rea- 
 son for the Rabbins calling as they do the sinful 
 nature of man 597} 0 the great king, and on the 
 other hand the good, MIM) DD 151, the wise poor 
 child. (More Nebothim, p. iii. c. 22.) A beautiful 
 allegorical exposition of Eccles. ix. 14, referring to 
 this expression, is to be found in Beth Israel, p. 19, 
 col. 4. 
 
 ἐν τῷ θνητῷ σώματι. Among the ancients, by Origen 
 and Photius, among moderns, by Turretin, Chr. 
 Schmid, and others, θνητὸς is considered as the same 
 with νεχρὸς, and as having a metaphorical sense. Both 
 words they interpret as implying, bereaved of the 
 powers of divine life, as νεκρὸς means in the phrases 
 πίστις νεκρὰ, ἔργω vexed. Turretin: Cum dominium 
 omne morte finiatur, hine colligit Paulus, non debere 
 amplius Christianos corpore suo abuti ad imperia 
 
 to rectify the will. Moreover, to show that we are not kept 
 by force or necessity in the power of wickedness, but of our 
 own free will, he does not say let it not tyrannize, which 
 would have implied a necessary subjection on our part, but the 
 word he uses is reign. And surely it would be absurd for 
 those who are bound for the kingdom of heaven, to take 
 sin for a queen, and to choose to be her captives when call- 
 ed to reign along with Christ. As if one were to cast a dia- 
 dem from his head, and prefer to be the slave of some demo- 
 niac beggarly and ragged female. And then, seeing it is hard 
 to vanquish sin, observe how he proves that it is easy, and 
 encourages us to the task by the words in your mortal body ; 
 shewing thereby, that our struggles are but for a season and 
 will speedily terminate. 
 
996 CHAPTER VI. VY. 12. 
 
 peccati exequenda, cujus respectu corpus ipsorum 
 veluti mortuum est. Others, among whom Seb. 
 Schmidt, consider σῶμα to be emphatical, like σὰρξ, 
 and to mean human nature in general in its present 
 state of depravity. Which seems likewise what Cal- 
 vin intends by, tota hominis massa. au might also 
 stand for the designation of man’s visible frame, by 
 which the Apostle meant to express, as it were, the — 
 domain, within which the love of sin manifests its 
 power; and then it would imply as much as if there 
 stood ὄντων ὑμῶν ἐν τῷ θνητῷ σώματι. It seems most 
 natural, however, to take σῶμα θνητὸν here in its usual 
 sense of, the bedy which is subject to decay, especially 
 as the Apostle immediately proceeds to discourse of 
 the bodily members. He does not thereby deny, 
 that every sin has its origin in the depravity of the 
 mind. It only comes into external manifestation, 
 however, when man employs the bodily members in 
 its service, when his eye obeys the lusts of the soul, 
 to look upon what is forbidden, and his hand the 
 angry impulse of the heart, to do some act of violence, 
 and so on. Now, it not being the Apostle’s design 
 to give any doctrinal exposition of the source of sin, 
 he is satisfied with warning against evil inclinations 
 in their visible form. Bengel with precision: Cupi- 
 ditates corporis sunt fomes; peccatum ignis. In 
 other passages Paul admonishes to keep both the 
 soul and body pure, 1 Thes. v. 23. Θνητός is doubt- 
 less added, as Chrysostom, Grotius, and others re- 
 mark, to encourage the Christian, by pointing his 
 thoughts to that never-ending glory, into which this 
 frail tabernacle shall one day be transformed. ‘Theo- 
 
CHAPTER VI. vy. 12, 13. 997 
 
 doret: Ἢ μὲν γὰρ τῶν παθημάτων κίνησίς τε καὶ evox ANOS 
 κατὰ φύσιν ἡμῖν ἐγγίνεται" τῶν δὲ ἀπειρημένων ἡ πρᾶξις 
 τῆς γνώμης ἐξήρτηται. ἔδειξε δὲ καὶ τοῦ πολέμου τὸ πρόσ- 
 καιρὸν, θνητὸν τὸ σῶμα προσαγορεύσας. τούτου γὰρ δεξαμέ- 
 νου τοῦ θανάτου τὸν ὅρον, παύεται καὶ τῶν παθημάτῶν ἡ 
 προσβολή." 
 
 V. 19. The Apostle enlarges upon the admonition 
 given in the preceding verse. The mortification of 
 sin must bring along with it the positive effect of en- 
 gaging in the service of holiness. Theodoret: Baor- 
 λείας μημονεύσας, ἀναγκαίως καὶ τὴν ταύτης ease πανοπ- 
 λίαν, καὶ τὸν τῆς νίκης ἡμᾶς ἐξεπαίδευσε τρόπον. ὅπλοις γὰρ 
 καθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἡ ἁμαρτία τοῖς ἡμετέροις κέχρηται μέλεσιν. When 
 man is regenerated, and the divine principle of life 
 has become operative within him, all must be made 
 to serve it. The human body too and its members 
 are not sinful in themselves, but are first made so by 
 the perverse inclination of the will; according to the 
 remark of Chrysostom upon this passage, who says, 
 ἐς that the defender of his country, and the murderer 
 alike make use of arms, without there being anything 
 hurtful in these as such.” In him who has undergone 
 the new birth, all those things which were previously 
 
 "For the movements and turbulence of the passions is in 
 us by nature, but to carry those that are forbidden into action 
 depends on ourmind. He has shown also the temporary nature 
 of the war by calling the body mortal. For when that has 
 found its termination in death, the assault of the passions also 
 ceases. 
 
 ° Having spoke of reigning, he is naturally led to show what 
 armour is used under it, and instruct us how to gain the vic- 
 tory. For sin uses our own members as weapons against us. 
 
 Z 
 
998 CHAPTER VI. ν. 13. 
 
 organs of the love of sin, now become organs of 
 heavenly-mindedness, and so means of promoting 
 holiness. There is beauty in the comment of Pelagius : 
 Ut oculus, qui ante videbat ad concupiscendum, nunc 
 videat nudum ad vestiendum. Sic de reliquis membris 
 adverte. 
 
 Παριστάνετε. ἹΠαριστάναι τινί τὶ, to present to any 
 one something for his free use. Polyb. ili. 55, 6: 
 παραστήσας τὰ πλήθη, πρὸς TO ἐξῳκοδομεῖν τὸν κρημνόν. 
 This word corresponds to the βασιλευέτω in the fore- 
 going verse, showing, as Pelagius says: Quod homo 
 membra sua cui velit parti exhibeat per arbitrii li- 
 bertatem. 
 
 σὰ μέλη. Turretin: Non tantum externas notant 
 corporis partes, sed etiam internas, adeoque ipsos 
 affectus. These the Apostle does not exclude, al- 
 though they are not what he properly intends. 
 “OAov, the Hebrew DD, signifies an zzstrument or 
 weapon. Many adopt the latter meaning. Here 
 the first is very appropriate, organs. ~°Adixia, ungod- 
 liness in general. ‘Apwugria, the indwelling predomi- 
 nant love of sin. 
 
 ὡς ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας. Commentators have here need- 
 lessly sought a speciality of reference. Majus and 
 Deyling believe that Paul has in his eye the ὑστεροπότμοι 
 of the ancients, who, when they returned to life, were 
 regarded as sacred. Wolf, Chr. Schmid and others are 
 of opinion that he means to signify how, while the 
 Jews made oblations of slaughtered animals, the Chris- 
 tians presented themselves as living sacrifices, accord- 
 ing to the thought expressed, Rom. xii. 1. In that 
 case, however, the Apostle could scarcely have found 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 13, 14. 339 
 
 amore obscure way to enunciate his meaning. Far 
 more eligible is the simple sense of the words thus 
 given by Pelagius: Tanqum qui jam resurrexistis, 
 quia tune nec carnaliter vivitur nec peccato. 
 
 ὅπλα δικοιοσύνης Ἰῷ Θεῷ. The genitive here denotes 
 the olject of the armsor organs. The dative may be 
 construed with παροσήήσαΐε § it is, however, more na- 
 tural to consider it as the dativus commodi, iz or for 
 God’s cause. 
 
 V. 14. Several expositors look upon κυριεύσει as im- 
 perative. It is thus interpreted even by Pelagius ; 
 also by Hunnius, Locke, Taylor, Heumann and others. 
 Assuming it to be so, the verse would be thus connected 
 with the following: Sin must not have dominion over 
 you, were it for no other reason than that you no longer 
 stand under the law, and accordingly, as Christians, 
 have superior obligations. This interpretation is. not 
 quite to be despised. It must yield, however, to an- 
 other, which is decidedly better, and has been more 
 generally adopted. According to that, the present 
 verse contains a promise, and the following context 
 states the grounds of it. So Origen, Chrysostom, 
 Augustine, Theodoret and many others. Calvin: 
 Exhortatus erat, ut omnes suas facultates in obsequium 
 justitie applicarent. At quum circumferant carnis 
 reliquias, necesse est eos aliquantum claudicare. Pro- 
 inde ne infirmitatis suze conscientia fracti, animos 
 despondeant, tempestive occurrit, interposita consola- 
 tione ex eo petita, quod jam non exiguntur eorum 
 opera ad severum legis examen. Melancthon: Non 
 dominabitur idem est ac non damnat vos, sed placeat 
 inchoata obedientia propter Gratiam. Photius: Μὴ 
 
940 CHAPTER VI. Vv. 14. 
 
 ᾿ ~ e 
 
 γὼρ ἔστω ὑμῖν ὁ τῆς ἁμαρτίως πόλεμος πρόφασις" ἀσθενὴς 
 Zork νυν ἡ ἁμαρτία" οὐ δύνωται κυριεύειν, ἐὰν μὴ ἡμεῖς ἑκόντες 
 ὑποκατακλιθῶμεν αὐῇ, ἀλλὰ προσβάλλει μὲν, οὐ κυριεύει 
 dz.P Erasmus: Neque vero periculum est, ne pecca-_ 
 tum vos volentes in pristinam retrahat servitutem, 
 
 quandoquidem jam non estis obnoxii legi, quee cupidi- 
 tates irritabat potius quam coercebat. It is conse- 
 
 quently quite false to do like Koppe, with whom 
 
 Rosenmiiller also injudiciously agrees, make a pause 
 here in the middle of the 14th verse, as if a section of 
 the chapter came to a conclusion, and with the words 
 
 οὐ γὼρ ἐστὲ to Commence a new section and a new 
 verse. Even the γὰρ is hostile to this subdivision of 
 the verse, which Koppe considers as transitive particle, 
 
 and translates zndeed. 
 
 od γὰρ ἐστὲ κελ. The νόμος presents itself to man 
 
 with its external precepts, and cannot inspire him with 
 the love of good. The χάρις operates inwardly and 
 renews. Here also objective and subjective coalesce 
 in the mind of the Apostle. The χάρις objectively, 
 
 is the unmerited affection of God for the sinner. 
 
 Subjectively, it is the new principle of life within, 
 
 which is wakened by faith in the objective truth of 
 pardon in and through Christ. Chrysostom: νόμος 
 
 μετὰ τοὺς πόνους, τοὺς στεφάνους ἐπήγγελτο. ἅυτη δὲ πρό- 
 τερον ἐστεφάνωσε, καὶ TOTE εἰς τοὺς ἀγῶνας εἵλκυσεν. Very 
 
 P Let not your war with sin be a pretence, for it is now 
 enfeebled, and has no power to rule, unless we willingly sub- 
 mit toit. Assail it may, but it cannot reign. 
 
 4 The law promised a crown when the struggle was over. 
 Grace first crowned, and then led the soldier to battle. 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 14, 15. 34] 
 
 appositely Augustine: (De continentia, 1. 3.) Non 
 sumus sub lege bonum quidem jubente, non tamen 
 dante, sed sumus sub gratia, que id quod lex jubet 
 faciens nos amare, potest liberis imperare. The two 
 following quotations also serve to throw light upon 
 the thought. Ad Num. 13. Ante legem seque- 
 bantur homines concupiscentiam carnis; sub lege 
 trahebantur cum sua concupiscentia; sub gratia nec 
 sequimur concupiscentiam, nec trahimur ab ea; in 
 pace nulla est concupiscentia carnis. And Prop. 19, 
 ad Rom. iii. 20. Quod cum fit (cum gratia homini 
 sub lege constituto donatur), tametsi desideria quee- 
 dam carnis, dum in hac vita sumus, adversus spiritum 
 pugnant, ut eum ducant in peccatum, non tamen his 
 desideriis consentiens spiritus, quoniam est fixus in 
 gratia et caritate Dei, desinit peccare. Non enim in 
 ipso desiderio pravo, sed in nostra consensione pec- 
 camus. On the other hand, it by no means har- 
 monizes with the doctrine of Paul, when ὑπὸ νόμον 
 and ὑπὸ χάριν are interpreted to denote something 
 merely external, as is done by Grotius, Clericus, 
 Limborch, and others, who render it, the Old and New 
 Testament, the Jewish and Christian religion. ‘Yo 
 νόμον. Beza: Apud impios sub lege non esse signi- 
 ficat pro arbitrio sno quidvis audere, sub gratia au- 
 tem esse non posse damnari. 
 
 V.15. At the commencement of the chapter, the 
 Apostle had stated and refuted a false inference, in 
 as far as that applied to the reception of Christianity, 
 viz. that it required no conversion. He had pointed to 
 the baptismal ordinance, which alone suffices to show 
 that entire conversion is the end for which it is cal- 
 
342 CHAPTER VI ν. 15. 
 
 culated. The same inference is here again brought 
 forward in reference to the progressive walk of the 
 Christian. That consists in the permanent enjoy- 
 ment of a sense of the objective Divine favour, and 
 in the subjective experience, through the Holy Spirit, 
 of certain quickening and animating impressions 
 which are thence derived. May not that be detri- 
 mental to growth in sanctification? To this Paul now 
 proceeds to answer as follows: When a person living 
 in sin accepts of forgiveness and salvation, he thereby 
 evinces that he is in earnest about holiness and the 
 happiness with which it is connected, so that the re- 
 ception of Christianity is the manifestation of a de~ 
 cided desire after holiness issuing in an inward sense 
 of the want of it. Hence the act of accepting redemp- 
 tion from sin, is, in some sort, an entrance into the ser- 
 vice of a holy God. But as forgiveness is only bestow- 
 ed upon those who really desire to serve God, such per- 
 sons are thereby also brought under obligation to fulfil 
 their service by earnest endeavours after holiness; and 
 in the career upon which they have entered towards 
 that, it is impossible to suppose any interruption. 
 Chrysostom: ᾿Ἐπειδὴ δὲ robrois ἀνωπνεῦσαι πεποίηκε 
 τὸν ἀκροαϊὴν, ἀσφαλίζεϊαι πάλιν αὐϊὸν, ἐξ ἀν]ιθέσεως πα- 
 ραίνεσιν εἰσάγων ‘The remarks of Calvin are excellent: 
 Quia Dei mysteriis perpetuo carnis sapientia obstre- 
 pit, necessario subjicit hance prolepsin. Nam quum 
 lex bene vivendi sit regula, putamus, ea soluta, pro- 
 
 τ Having by these things given the listener time to breathe, 
 he strengthens him again by introducing an admonition drawn 
 from the very objection. 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 15, 16. 343 
 
 tinus corruere omnem disciplinam, frangi repagula, 
 nullum denique manere discrimen boni et mali... Hee 
 quidem propria solutio est, nihil aliud quam maledic- 
 tionem tolli, cui extra gratiam obnoxil sunt cuncti 
 mortales. Sed Paulus quamvis id diserte non expri- 
 mit, oblique tamen ostendit. The reproaches thrown 
 upon Christians by the heathen on this point are to 
 be found strongly stated, in the words of Celsus, in 
 Origen, con. Celsum, 1.3, c. 58. See also Origen’s 
 fine reply. It is likewise curious to mark how the 
 heathen Xosimus misrepresents Christianity in this 
 particular, (Histor. 1. ii. p. 114, ed. Oxon.) where he 
 mentions the sins of Constantine. Julian in his Ce- 
 sares, when speaking of that emperor, does the same. 
 On the subject of the objection that grace abrogates the 
 law, compare Rom. ii. 31, and 1 Cor. ix. 21. ᾽᾿Αμαρ- 
 7ήσομνεν, in the future, as interrogatio deliberativa. See 
 Lipsius de indie. p. 19. 
 
 V. 16. In this sentence there is no tautology. The 
 sense is as follows: When once the will of an indivi- 
 dual has taken a decided determination in favour of a 
 particular power whether of good or evil, he is, hence- 
 forth, on the one hand, insensibly swayed and directed 
 by that power, and, on the other, comes under the en- 
 gagement to make all his energies subservient to its 
 interests. By the free course which the natural man 
 gives to his own wilful inclinations, sin acquires still 
 greater and greater attractive influence over him, and, 
 by directly darkening his understanding, makes him 
 ever more and more the blinded slave of his unbridled 
 desires. On the other hand, the natural man on his 
 part, with perceptions indirectly obscured, sees himself 
 
344 CHAPTER VI. V. 16. 
 
 as in some measure bound to devote his powers to the 
 reign of passion. For, to secure the enjoyment of 
 the fruits of his sin, new acts of iniquity are constantly 
 necessary, and as no sin, like no righteous act, stands 
 isolated, he finds himself constrained, unless indeed, 
 an entire conversion takes place, by the mere progres- 
 sive connection of the ensuing with the past period of 
 his life, to commit fresh trespasses. It is a beautiful 
 saying ofthe Talmudists, in Pirke Aboth.: “ A good 
 action is the reward of a good action, as a wicked 
 action is punished by a second.” In respect of this 
 obligatory power of sin, whereby, partly in a direct, 
 and partly in an indirect manner, it. blinds the under- 
 standing of man, it was even by the ancients repre- 
 sented as a Mistress, and sinners as her slaves. We 
 produce as vouchers, only the two following passages, 
 Xenophon: (Mem. I. iv. ¢. 5.) οστις οὖν ἄρχεται ὑπὸ 
 σῶν διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἡδονῶν, καὶ διὰ ταῦτας μὴ δύναται 
 πράττειν τὰ βέλτιστα, νομίζεις τοῦτον ἐλεύθερον εἶναι ς Se- 
 neca: (Natural. Quest. 1. iii.) Liber est quiservitutem 
 effugit sui. Hee est assidua servitus et ineluctabilis, 
 et per diem et noctem equaliter premens, sine inter- 
 vallo, sine commeatu ; Sibi servire gravissima servitus 
 est. Even the Rabbins are acquainted with this me- 
 taphor, (Sohar, Exod. fol. 48 :) Qui malus est, sub po- 
 testate ipsius (concupiscentiz pravae) est, sicut servus 
 sub potestate domini sui. So also in the declaration 
 of our Lord, John viii. 34. But although it be with 
 acknowledged propriety that he speaks of a δουλείω of 
 sin, it is more remarkable when Paul likewise sup- 
 poses ἃ δουλεία of holiness. He even intimates at 
 verse 19th, that the expression is not to be too much 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 16. 345 
 
 insisted upon. Still there cannot be a doubt that it 
 is here also perfectly apposite. For, on the one hand, 
 holiness, no less than sin, in consequence of its con- 
 nection with happiness, by the*peace, the joy, the 
 tranquillity of soul which it confers, exercises a gentle 
 charm over the man who knows it, and, by a cer- 
 tain mysterious longing, again allures him beneath 
 its sway. While, on the other hand, it holds true, 
 especially of the Christian, that, upon conversion, he 
 in some respects binds himself to the service of holi- 
 ness, and that for the reason above assigned, viz. that 
 the sorrow and penitence which he feels for his former 
 subjection to sin, and which make him seek forgive- 
 ness and salvation, involve the confession that it is 
 his wish now to belong to another power. It is in 
 this manner that most expositors understand the con- 
 nection of ideas and reasoning of the Apostle. Some, 
 however, among whom are Baumgarten and Mos- 
 heim too partially bring forward the εἰς θάνατον, and 
 the εἰς δικωιοσύνην as denoting the recompence obtained, 
 and make the argument of the Apostle consist in re- 
 pelling the false inference by a statement of the bitter 
 wages of sin. This view, however, when considered 
 by itself, is not apposite, and besides, to say nothing 
 of other reasons, their very position shows that εἰς 
 θάνατον and εἰς δικαιοσύνην are subordinate. The allu- 
 sion to the recompence at verse 22d is connected 
 solely with the admonition. ‘Qs παριστάνετε. This ex- 
 presses the spontaneous direction of the will, which 
 gives itself up to slavery, and then is bound to fulfil 
 all its duties. 
 
946 CHAPTER VI. V. 16. 
 
 ᾧ ὑπακούετε. Calvin, Grotius, and Cocceius consi- 
 der this ᾧ as in the ablative case: eo quod obeditis. 
 It is more natural, following the Vulgate and Syriac 
 versions, to suppose it here also in the dative, and to 
 view these two words as a pleonastic addition, equiva- 
 lent to ἐχεζνου, or, which seems preferable, as ἃ sepa- 
 rate supplementary clause united to the previous one 
 by the relative pronoun, instead of the demonstrative 
 with καὶ; accordingly we translate it, “ his servants 
 ye are and him ye then in fact obey.” 
 
 εἰς θάναϊον is wanting in Codd. D, E, the Syrian and 
 elsewhere. It isnot easy, however, to account for its 
 reception into the text, supposing it to have been ori- 
 ginally absent. It does not form a proper counterpart 
 to εἰς δικαιοσύνην, and hence could scarcely have been 
 interpolated for the sake of the parallelism; and as, 
 moreover, the external authorities do not preponderate 
 against it, we retain itin the text. The contraposition 
 of θάνατος and δικαιοσύνη seems to indicate that the for- 
 mer refers principally to moral depravity. Seeing, 
 however, that δικοιοσύνη also implies blessedness, it is 
 not necessary to exclude the other meanings of θάνα- 
 τος. 
 
 ‘Yaraxon. Beza: Novitas vitee quee nos ad obedien- 
 tiam Dei disponit. Comp. 6. v. 19, ὑπακοή. On 
 this verse Chrysostom observes : οὔπω λέγω τὴν γέεννάν, 
 φησιν, οὐδὲ τὴν πολλὴν ἐκείνην κόλασιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐνταῦθα 
 αἰσχύνην, ὅταν δοῦλοι γίνεσθε, καὶ ἑκόντες δοῦλοι, καὶ ὥμαρ- 
 τίας δοῦλοι, καὶ ἐπὶ τοιούτῳ μισθῷ ὥστε πάλιν ἀποθανεῖν... . 
 Μὴ τοίνυν ἑκὼν σεωυτὸν προδῷς. ᾿Επὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν πολέμων 
 καὶ ἄκοντες παροωδίδονται πολλάκις οἱ στρατιῶται" ἐνταῦθα 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 16, 17. 347 
 
 ὃὲ dy μὴ αὐτὸς αὐτομολήσῃς, οὐδείς σου περιέσται. In the 
 7th chapter the objection of the previous verse is more 
 pointedly answered than in the present. There the 
 Apostle specially shows how the law has no power to 
 promote holiness in man. 
 
 V.17. The Apostle declares that Christians have be- 
 come so from the heart, and accordingly have acknow- 
 ledged their sin from the heart, and from the heart 
 sought forgiveness, and hence have decidedly surren- 
 dered themselves as in some sort servants to holiness. 
 The sentence is not constructed with care. It ought to 
 be: ὅτι, πρὶν μὲν ὄντες δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, νῦν δὲ ὑπηκούσατε, 
 or, at all events, a μὲν ought to come after ἦτε. Paul 
 enunciates this argument in the form of a benediction. 
 On which Bengel makes the just remark: Idioma 
 Paulinum est, quod propositiones categoricas solet 
 non categorice et nude, sed cum quodam quasi modo, 
 ὃ. 6. cum significatione affectus, gratiarum actionis, 
 voti &c. efferre; Vide 1 Cor. xiv. 18, 2 Tim. ii 7. 
 Hee observatio faciet, ut multis in locis et sententia 
 sermonis et ardor pectoris apostolici distincte appareat. 
 Chrysostom : οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀνθρωπίνης ἰσχύος ἦν, φησιν, ἐκείνων 
 ἡμᾶς ἀπαλλάξαι πάντων, ἀλλὰ τῷ Θεῷ χάρις τῷ τοσαῦτα 
 καὶ βουληθέντι καὶ δυνηθέντι. καὶ χκαλῶςεἶπεν ὑπηκούσατε 
 
 ἐκ καρδιάς. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἠναγκάσθητε, οὐδὲ ἐβίασθητε, ἀλλ᾽ 
 
 * I speak not of hell, he says, nor its awful punishment, 
 but of the disgrace there is in being slaves, and willing slaves, 
 and slaves of sin, and slaves for such a wage as the second 
 death...... Do not then voluntarily betray yourself ; for it often 
 happens, that in war soldiers are betrayed against their will. 
 Here, however, unless you desert of your own accord, none 
 shall overcome you. 
 
348 CHAPTER VI. V. 17. 
 
 ἑχόντες μετὰ προθυμίας ἀπέστητε. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ἐγκωμιά- 
 ζοντός ἐστιν ὁμοῦ, καὶ καταπτομένου. οἱ γὰρ ἑκόντες προσελ- 
 θόντες, καὶ μηδεμίαν ὑπομείναντες ἀνάγκην, ποίαν ἂν σχοΐ- 
 τε συγγνώμην, τίνα ὃὲ ἀπολογίαν ἐπὶ τὰ πρότερω παλιν- 
 δρομουντες 3° 
 
 ὑπηκούσατε εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς. The verb 
 ὑπακούειν, although not very appropriate, is retain- 
 ed by the Apostle, in consequence of his having pre- 
 viously spoken of the Christian ὑπακοή. There may 
 hence exist a twofold hypallage. If, for instance, we 
 understand ὑπακούειν to be here, as it often is elsewhere, 
 (See in Kypke examples from Appian and Josephus, ) 
 construed with εἰς, the expression is to be resolved 
 into ὑπηκούσατε εἰς τύπον διδωχῆς ὃς παρεδόθη ὑμῖν, in 
 compliance with the rule that verbs which in the 
 active have the dative of the person, in the passive 
 change that into the nominative. Heb. vii. 11, ὁ λαὸς 
 ἐπ᾿ αὑτῇ vevowolernro. So Castalio, for which he is 
 blamed by Beza; Paruistis ei doctrine rationi, quee 
 vobis tradita est. If we suppose, on the other hand, 
 that the Apostle meant to construe ὑπακούειν as usual 
 with the dative, then the hypallage consists in the 
 noun’s having taken the case of its relative, in conse- 
 
 Ὁ For it was not in human strength, he says, to rescue us — 
 from all these evils; but thanks be to God, who has had 
 both the will and the power todo so ! And justly does he say, — 
 ‘ ye have obeyed from the heart,’ for ye were neither obliged 
 nor constrained, but with free will and alacrity revolted from 
 your former slavery. And this he mentions both as an enco- 
 mium and a reproach; for as persons, who have of their own 
 accord and not constrained by any necessity, embraced Chris- 
 tianity, what kind of an excuse, what apology would you 
 have for returning to the side you have deserted. 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 17. 949 
 
 quence of which it will require to be resolved into 
 τῷ τύπῳ εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε. This construction is defended 
 by Beza, who says in explanation of it: Hoc dicendi 
 genus habet magnamemphasin. Ita enim significatur 
 evangelicam doctrinam quasi instar typi cujusdam 
 esse, cui velut immittamur ut ejus figure conformemur 
 et totam istam transformationem aliunde provenire. 
 Adopting the same mode of construction, Theophy- 
 lact observes upon παρεδόθητε : Δεικνύων ors εἰ καὶ αὐτοὶ 
 προσῆλθον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτος τὸ πᾶν, προσέ- 
 θηκε τὸ παρεδόθητε" The passive form of the verb 
 would here evince, that it is by the operation of the 
 Spirit of God that a man is brought to surrender him- 
 self to the gospel, and the ἐδουλώθητε of the 18th verse 
 might be adduced as an instance of agreement. The 
 latter verb, however, points directly to the fact, 
 that a free determination of the will preceded, and 
 brought the Christian into this state of holy bondage; 
 and, in like manner, in the present verse, the iay- 
 κούσοτε, especially as connected with ἐκ καρδίας, lays 
 emphasis on what the whole train of argumentation 
 shows to be emphatic, the exercise of the free will in 
 the first acceptance of forgiveness and compliance 
 with the purpose of salvation. We do not hesitate, 
 therefore, to adopt the first mode of construction. 
 The formula παραδιδόναι τινί τὶ means to teach, make 
 known. Acts xvi. 4, 1 Cor. xi. 2, xv. 3, 2 Pet. ii. 21. So 
 in Latin, tradere disciplinam. Grotius adopts a totally 
 different construction, taking εἰς τύπον διδωχῆς ἃ5 equi- 
 
 ἃ To show that albeit they had themselves drawn near, still 
 all had proceeded from the grace of God, he has added παρεδόθητε. 
 
350 CHAPTER VI. ν. 17, 18, 19. 
 
 valent to xa7& τύπον, and translating: obedistis ad 
 eum modum quem Evangelium prescribit, quique 
 vobis est traditus. 
 
 τύπος διδυχῆς. Compare Rom. 11. 20, μόρφωσις τῆς 
 γνώσεως, 2 Tim. i. 19, ὑποτύπωσις ὑγιαινόντων 2. όγων. 
 Jamblichus, Vita Pythag. 6. 16: καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ τῆς παι- 
 δεύσεως ὁ τύπος τοιοῦτος καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀποβλεπων. 6. 29, 
 ἐνεκῶ τοῦ σωφέστερον γενέσθαι roy τύπον Ἰῆς διδασκαλίας. 
 
 x καρδίας. This supplement was necessary for the 
 purpose of showing the obligation of abiding true to 
 him, to whom we have made a free-will surrender of 
 ourselves. 
 
 V.18. ἐδουλώθητε τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ denotes the exist- 
 ing condition of dependence. Grotius mistakes when 
 he says with respect to δικαμοσύνη : Justitia, id est Jans 
 pro justitia. To this Calov. rightly answers: Jus- 
 titia notat proprie justitiam, ὁ. 6. sanctitatem vite. 
 Obedimus enim non ut landem reportemus vel glo- 
 riam sed ut justi et sancti simus. 
 
 V.19. The expression ἐδουλώθητε, ye became the 
 servants of righteousness, was extraordinary. There 
 was a possibility of its giving rise to some kind of 
 legal notion, and hence Paul deems it necessary to 
 resolve it into the more ordinary expression of “ yield- 
 ing the members to the service of righteousness.” 
 ᾿Ανθρώπινον λέγω. This adjective has a double signi- 
 fication, which must here be taken into consideration. 
 Sometimes it means, “ what man’s powers are equal 
 to.” Pollux expounds it in this sense by the sy- 
 nonymes τὸ κοῦφον, εὔφορον. So a Greek would say, 
 ἀνθρώπινα aoglavely, Xenophon Cyrop. 1. ii. ¢. 1. 5. 
 22. It is thus used, 1 Cor. x. 18, (compare in the. 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 19. 351 
 
 Hebrew, 2 Sam. vii. 14.) This sense has been adopt- 
 ed, in the present passage, by Origen, Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Bucer, and Wetstein, who deem that 
 Paul designs to show the practicablity of what he re- 
 quires of them, quasi, “I exact of you nothing above 
 your powers.” Theodoret: Τῇ φύσει μετρῶ τὴν πα- 
 ραΐνεσιν. οἶδω γὰρ τὰ ἐν τῷ "θνητῷ σώματι κινούμενα πάθη.Σ 
 What the Apostle here enjoins, viz. to become δοῦλος τῆς 
 δικομοσύνης, is however something of an arduous nature, 
 is properly a πνευματικὸν, Which he would scarcely have 
 described as light and easy. We adhere, accordingly, 
 to the usual sense in which he employs the word, and 
 of which we have treated, c. ili. 5. Agreeably to that, 
 it would mean, “I avail myself of the more usual 
 manner of thinking and speaking.” But this again 
 may have various shades of signification, in determin- 
 ing which we require to take into consideration the 
 διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σωρκὸς, by which either moral or 
 intellectual imperfection may be chiefly designed. 
 In the latter case, the sense would be as follows: 
 The feebleness of your human nature makes it ne- 
 cessary for me to select very plain images from 
 ordinary life. Grotius: Sensus spirituales exprimo 
 per similitudines rerum vulgarium et vobis notarum. 
 By this interpretation, the Apostle points to the slen- 
 der power of comprehension possessed by the Ro- 
 mans. The word σὰρξ would not then, however, be 
 suitable, for it always indicates general humanity. 
 The exposition is better, and more significant, when 
 
 * 1 proportion my admonition to human nature, aware of 
 the passions that work in the mortal body. . 
 
ong CHAPTER VI. Vv. 19. 
 
 we take ἀσθένεια τῆς σαφπὸς in a moral sense, the earthly 
 carnal mind. To that, holiness appears as a δουλεία, but 
 to the man spiritually enlightened, to the πνευματικὸς, 
 it is the true liberty. Agreeably to this view, the 
 ἀνθρώπινος refers more to the way of thinking common 
 amongst men. Erasmus, Beza, Seb. Schimidt take 
 it up as follows: “ On account of your ungodly dis- 
 positions, you need powerful correctives ; I require to 
 paint the matter to you in strong colours.” 
 
 ὥσπερ παρεστήσατε. CXcumenius: Πολλῷ μὲν μείζονα 
 ἔδει τῷ Χριστῷ τὴν δουλείαν παρασχεῖν καὶ τῇ δικαιοσύνη, 
 ἥπερ bony παρέσχετε τῇ ἀκαθαρσίῳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομίῳ, πλὴν 
 διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς, τὴν ἴσην ἀπαιτῶ) How 
 beautiful is the comment of Anselm: Sicut ad pec- 
 candum vos nullus cogebat timor, sed ipsius libido 
 voluptasque peccati, sic ad juste vivendum non vos 
 supplicii metus urgeat, sed ducat delectatio justitia. 
 Sicut ergo ille iniquissimus, quem ne pcenze quidem 
 temporales deterrent ab immundis operibus, ita justis- 
 simus ille, qui ne pcenarum quidem temporalium 
 timore revocatur a sanctis operibus. 
 
 ἀκαθαρσία generally means Just, but that significa- 
 tion may here be extended. Calvin supposes it to 
 denote chiefly sensual sins, as ἀνομία does acts of 
 violence. : 
 
 εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν must be interpreted according to the 
 parallel expression opposed to it, εἰς ἁγιασμόν. Agree- 
 ably to this, the εἰς expresses the pumpose. The first 
 
 Σ You are bound to yield to Christ and to righteousness, a 
 far greater service, than that which you have given to unclean- 
 ness; on account of the weakness of your flesh, however, I only 
 ask that it shall be equal. 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 19, 20. 353 — 
 
 ἀνομία is the lawless unbridled desire ; the second de- 
 notes the continual manifestations of such inordinate 
 feelings as they spring up within, and of which man 
 makes his members the instruments. So Beza, Baum-. - 
 garten, and Mosheim. Heumann translates accu- 
 rately, “ so that ye became sinners.” Theophylact 
 takes a contrary view: Οὐ γὰρ ὁπηνίκα τινὰ ἁμαρτίαν 
 ἐποιήσατε, ἵστασθε ἄχρι ταύτης, GAN ὑπέκκαυμα ταύτην" 
 exele εἰς 7ὺ ἐπὶ πλέον ἀνομεῖν.2 And in this he is followed 
 by Luther, Erasmus, and many others. But both the 
 parallelism forbids, and the language scarce admits of 
 it, for it would require ἐξ ἀνομίας εἰς ἀνομίαν. The 
 sense accordingly is, “As formerly your sensual 
 passions always found in your members willing in- 
 struments to accomplish their purposes, actually pro- 
 ceeding to forbidden acts, now let your members be 
 willing instruments of the holy emotions of your heart, 
 for the promotion of holiness.” 
 
 PART THIRD. 
 
 PROSPECT OF THE FINAL CONSUMMATION, IN WHICH 
 HOLINESS IS TO BE REWARDED. Vv. 20—23. 
 
 V. 20. After the Apostle has thus shown that it 
 lies in the very nature of Christianity to produce 
 progressive holiness, he now encourages to the pur- 
 suit of it, by intimating what is to be its final issue. 
 
 7 When you committed a sin, you did not stop at that, it 
 did but prove an incentive to further transgression. 
 
 yA 
 
954 CHAPTER VI. V. 20. 
 
 The γὰρ, introducing the consideration by which Chris- 
 tians are to be strengthened in holiness, refers to 
 what is said in verse 22d of the reward which awaits 
 them. ᾿Ελεύθεροι ἦτε τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ. Most expositors, 
 both ancient and modern, ex. g. Origen, Theophy- 
 lact, GEcumenius, Beza, and Limborch, look upon 
 this second member of the verse as merely confirma- 
 tory of the first, “ While engaged in the service of 
 sin, ye were entirely estranged from holiness,” thus 
 making ἐλεύθεροι equivalent to, plane alieni. In this 
 case, the verse would not agree with that which fol- 
 lows. By reflecting upon the connection between 
 the two, it will be manifest that the 20th suggests 
 something desirable in the service of sin, which, how- 
 ever, the 21st, by pointing to what is to be the ulti- 
 mate end of that service, again disparages. Now, the 
 advantage connected with the service of sin is freedom 
 from the Divine authority of the law of holiness. For, 
 so long as man surrenders himself without reserve to 
 sin, his understanding is more and more obscured, 
 and he becomes proportionally less alive to the up- 
 braiding voice of conscience, and also, in some sort, 
 as he deems, stands in no relation to holiness. This 
 state of licence, if desirable at all, the Apostle allows ; 
 only he now, at verse 21st, inquires what is to be the 
 issue of it. Conformably with this view, we give the 
 connection of the two verses as follows. “ While en- 
 gaged in the service of sin, you possessed, it is true, 
 the advantage of standing entirely out of all subjec- 
 tion to righteousness, but let us look to what is to be 
 the final result.” Erasmus states the meaning of 
 the verses correctly, although he misapprehends their 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 20, 21. 355 
 
 connection : Quamdiu versabamini in paganismo, quo- 
 niam serviebatis peccato, videbamini a justitia alieni, 
 neque quidquam illi debere, cui nondum eratis addicti. 
 Nunc nihil est quod possit pretexi. Quodsi ipsa 
 recti natura parum vos movet, fructum obsequii longe 
 diversissimum expendite, qui utrumque servitutis genus 
 estis experti. Upon the ethical import of this decla- 
 ration of the Apostle’s, Thomas Aquinas well remarks : 
 Quantum ad hoe quod dicit ‘liberi fuistis justitiz,’ id 
 precipue contingit his qui ex certo proposito peccant. 
 Nam illi qui ex infirmitate vel passione peccant aliquo 
 freno justitiz retinentur. Sciendum tamen est, quod 
 iste status habet veram servitutem, libertatem autem 
 non veram sed apparentem. Cum enim homo sit id 
 quod est secundum rationem, tune homo vere est ser- 
 vus quando ab aliquo extraneo abducitur ab eo quod 
 est rationis. 
 
 V.21. The Apostle calls Christians to the salu- 
 tary employment of looking back upon the past, in 
 which they had been unhappy, in order thereby to 
 refresh their remembrance of the noble gifts of grace 
 which were now become their portion as disciples of 
 Jesus. Calvin: Pii simul atque illuminari incipiunt 
 Christi spiritu, totam vitam preeteritam, quam extra 
 Christum egerunt, damnabilem libenter agnoscunt, ac 
 tantum abest ut conentur excusare, ut potius eos sul 
 pudeat. Quinetiam hanc ignominiz suz recordationem 
 perpetuo in animum revocant, quo sic pudefacti verius 
 ac propensius coram Deo humilientur. 
 
 "EQ οἷς νῦν ἐπαισχύνεσθες. We have here a choice 
 between two modes of construction. The ἐφ᾽ οἷς may 
 be appended to καρπὸν, and the whole sentence brought 
 
956 CHAPTER VI. V. 21. 
 
 within the limits of the question. But on this sup- 
 position, we must supply ἐκ τῶν ἔργων τούτων before 
 ἐφ᾽ οἷς. So Chrysostom, Erasmus, Bengel, and others. 
 It is, however, at once more natural, and far more 
 emphatic, to make the answer commence with ἐφ᾽ 
 οἷς, Supply τοιαῦτω before it, and translate “Such fruit 
 as ye are now ashamed of.” This construction is con- 
 firmed by the circumstance, that +d γὰρ τέλος imme- 
 diately succeeds érasoyivects, So Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus, Luther, Heumann, and others. Calvin very 
 pointedly calls the attention to the fact, that it is at 
 this stage, that shame first enters, a man, at the time 
 of sinning, being insensible of the degradation to which 
 he is sunk: Innuit enim quam cceco nostri amore 
 laboremus, dum peccatorum tenebris sumus-. obvoluti, 
 qui tantas in nobis sordes non reputemus. Sola est 
 lux Domini, que potest oculos nostros aperire, ut 
 perspicere queant latentem in carne nostra foeditatem. 
 Ille igitur demum Christiane philosophiz primordiis 
 imbutus est, qui sibi serio displicere, ac suze miseriz 
 verecundia confundi bene didicerit. Tandem a conse- 
 quenti apertius etiamnum indicat quantum erubescere 
 debeant, quum intelligant se fuisse in preecipitio mortis 
 et ruin propinquos, imo mortis portas ingressos, 
 nisi Dei misericordia retracti essent. 
 
 rb γὰρ τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος. It would not be im- 
 proper to place a point of interrogation after exzivwy, 
 and consider θάνωτος as the answer. To τέλος com- 
 mentators have given a variety of significations. In 
 the LXX. it stands for DD ID and YP. Some 
 make it synonymous with καρπός. Erasmus and 
 Schmidt : vectigal. Others, as Carpzovius and Krebs, 
 
CHAPTER Vl. v. 21, 22, 23. 957 
 
 penalty. We ought not, however, to give it ἃ dif- 
 ferent signification from what it bears shortly after in 
 reference to δικοιμοσύνη. There it is different from 
 καρπὸς, and signifies issue, termination. Chr. Schmid: 
 ultima linea flagitiorum. It is used in the same sense, 
 Phil. iii. 19; 2 Cor. xi. 15. Θάνατος as a counter- 
 part to ζωὴ αἰώνιος, implies everlasting misery. 
 
 V. 22. εἰς ἁγιασμόν. The proposition is here sus- 
 ceptible of a twofold interpretation. Either it may 
 be used instead of ἐν, which would make the sense, 
 « In holiness there is so much bliss, that it is its own 
 remuneration.” Or the εἰς really expresses the end or 
 consummation of the reward itself, just as the He- 
 brew 9 often forms supplementary clauses in the same 
 sense. In this view, Seb. Schmidt, with little pro- 
 priety, considers good works to be the fruit which is 
 meant. It would be far better, however, to under- 
 stand the influences of the Holy Spirit, or divinely im- 
 parted strength to do good, by which alone holiness 
 is possible. The common opinion is, that χαρπὸς εἰς 
 ἁγιασμόν is equivalent to καρπὸς ἁγιωσμοῦ. Τὸ δὲ τέλος. 
 (Εο.: °Ex τῶν δεδομένων τὼ προςδοκώμνενω πιστοῦται, τους- 
 ἐστιν ἀπὸ ἁγιωσμοῦ τὴν αἰώνιον ζωήν. 
 
 V. 28. ᾿οΨώνιον means a soldier's pay ; and the 
 phrase is inasmuch the more appropriate, as the Apostle 
 had represented the sinner as in subjection to sin. 
 At the time a man surrenders himself to its sway, 
 it promises, indeed, something very different, but 
 while he seeks what is durable, sin deceives him with 
 apparent blessings, which prove afterwards to be 
 destruction, his true nature being altogether over- 
 looked in the enjoyment they impart. There is 
 
 ! 
 ἥ 
 
958 CHAPTER VI. V. 23. 
 
 great beauty in the Apostle using, on the side of 
 holiness, the word χάρισμο as the counterpart to this 
 ὀψώνιον. For sin being really hostile to human nature, 
 promises him reward, whereas holiness, which alone 
 satisfies it, calls upon him for obedience, and allows 
 him to regard the happiness connected with that, only 
 as a gift of grace. Augustine, (Ep. 105, ad Six- 
 tum): Adversus elationis pestem vigilantissime mili- 
 tans, stipendium inquit peccati mors. Recte stipen- 
 dium, quia debetur, quia digne retribuitur, quia meri- 
 tum redditur. Deinde ne justitia de humano se extol- 
 leret bono merito, sicut humanum malum non dubitatur 
 esse peccatum, gratia inquit Dei, vita eterna. It is 
 too learned and hence incorrect, when Grotius and 
 Wetstein interpret ydégiowa in the military sense of a 
 bounty, in contrast to ὀψψώνιον the proper pay. 
 
 END OF VOL. I. 
 
 Je THOMSON, PRINTER, MILNE SQUARE, 
 
ἬΠΠΠ] 
 
 1 1012 011 
 
 Princeton Theological Sem 
 
 inary-Speer Libra 
 
Ὁ 
 
 Aor Phan te 
 
Eee »ΣΕΕ ic — = a Ἴ 5 ἥ 
 ™ ᾿ ᾿ Β - aan eee ἡ oS ; : . 
 in 
 ‘ . 
 2 : - 
 
 oy 
 
 Dees, 
 ἮΝ 
 
 PU 
 ey z 
 
 ate! CEES 
 Κα δος teats 
 +4 io.