^i^^ 'in t MH AND SUOSIFfi'S ^I^H LIBRAI^y, South St. Louis. Mo. ^ jf6^ is book may be retained for elc.s. .ve cents tine per wef-k beyond t,ime. >. Anyone who writes in. tears or nerwise injures books, will be obliged pay according to their value. TERAfS OF MEMBERSHtP. For Sodallsts. - $1 00 per year. I Those not in Sodality, 1 50 per year. i Lending books, 10 cents, two week.*. \ -•llll*l«IWfltlWIWII*lltll«IWIWMII«l«ll*ll*ll«IMI«lt«ll«l«l«iai.. «« c r eft %^ ^ !*•< ^.r o CD a 3* E. r ' cr o 22 9? 3 a. t^ '. A.. COMMENTARY ^ISTLE TO THE ROMANS, DESIGNED FOR STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. BY CHARLES HODGE. PnOFESSOll OF BIBLICAL LITEIIATUHE IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINABlf AT rillNCETON. Philadelphia: PUBLISHED BY GRIGG & ELLIOT, NO. 9 NORTH FOURTH STREET. 1835. Entered, according to the act of Congress, in the year 1835, by Charles Hobge, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of New Jersey. * . \ rniNCETON ; tuinted uir joiin iiogaut. INTRODUCTION. Paul. When Paul and the other apostles were called to enter upon their important duties, the world was in a deplorable and yet most interesting state. Both Heathenism and Judaism were in the last stages of decay. The polytheism of the Greeks and Romans had been carried to such an extent as to shock the common sense of mankind, and to lead the more intelligent among them openly to reject and ridicule it. This scepticism had already extended itself to the mass of the people, and be- come almost universal. As the transition from infidelity to superstition is certain, and generally immediate, all classes of the people were disposed to confide in dreams, enchantments, and other miserable substitutes for religion. The two reisnina: systems of philosophy, the Stoic and Platonic, were alike in- sufficient to satisfy the agitated minds of men. The former sternly repressed the best natural feelings of the soul, incul- cating nothing but a blind resignation to the unalterable course of things, and promising nothing beyond an unconscious exist- ence hereafter. The latter regarded all religions as but different forms of expressing the same general truths, and represented the whole mythological system as an allegory, as incomprehen- sible to the common people as the pages of a book to those who cannot read. This system promised more than it could accom- plish. It excited feelings which it could not satisfy, and thus contributed to produce that general ferment which existed at this period. Among the Jews, generally, the state of things was hardly much better. They had, indeed, the form of true religion, but were, in a gi'cat measure destitute of its spirit. The Pharisees were contented with the form; the Sadducees 4 INTRODUCTION. were sceptics; the Essenes were enthusiasts and mystics. Such beins: the state of the world, men were led to feel the need of some surer guide than either reason or tradition, and some bet- ter foundation of confidence than either heathen philosophers or Jewish sects could afford. Hence, when the glorious gospel was revealed, thousands of hearts, in all parts of the world, were prepared by the grace of God to exclaim, This is all our desire and all our salvation. The history of the apostle Paul shows that he was prepared to act in such a state of society. In the first place, he was born and probably educated in part at Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia; a city almost on a level with Athens and Alexandria for its literary zeal and advantages. In one respect, it is said by an- cient writers to have been superior to either of them. In the other cities mentioned, the majority of students were strangers, but in Tarsus they were the inhabitants themselves.* That Paul passed the early part of his life here is probable, because the trade which he was taught, in accordance with the custom of the Jews, was one peculiarly common in Cilicia. From the hair of the goats, with which that province abounded, a rough cloth was made, which was much used in the manufacture of tents. The knowledge which the apostle manifests of the Greek authors, 1 Cor. 15: 33. Tit. 1: 12, would also lead us to suppose that he had received at least part of his education in a Grecian city. Many of his characteristics, as a writer, lead to the same conclusion. He pursues far more than any other of the sacred writers of purely Jewish education, the logical method in presenting truth. There is alinost always a re- gular concatenation in his discourses, evincing the sponta- neous exercise of a disciplined mind, even when not carrying out a ])rcvious plan. His epistles, therefore, ai-e far more logical than ordinary letters, without the formality of regular dissertations. Another characteristic of his manner is, that in discussing any question, he always presents the ultimate princi- ple on which the decision de])cnds. These and similar charac- teristics of this aj)ostle are commonly, and probaljly with justice, ascribed partly to his turn of mind and partly to his early edu- cation. We learn from the scrii)tures themselves, that the * Stral;c), Lil). 14, cli. fj. INTRODUCTION. 5 Holy Sjjirit, in employing men as his instruments in conveying truth, did not change their mental habits; he did not make Jews write like Greeks, or force all into the same mould. Each retained his own peculiarities of style and manner, and, there- fore, whatever is peculiar in each, is to be referred, not to his inspiration, but to his original character and culture. While the circumstances just referred to, render it probable that the apostle's habits of mind were in some measure influenced by his birth and early education in Tarsus, there are others (such as the general character of his style) which show that his resi- dence there could not have been long, and that his education was not thoroughly Grecian. We learn from himself that he was principally educated at Jerusalem, being brought up, as he says, at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22: 3). This is the second circumstance in the providential preparation of the apostle for his work, which is worthy of notice. As Luther was educated in a Catholic seminary, and thoroughly instructed in the scho- lastic theology of which he was to be the great opposer, so the apostle Paul was initiated into all the doctrines and modes of reasoning of the Jews, with whom his principal controversy was to be carried on. The early adversaries of the gospel were all Jews. Even in the heathen cities they were so numerous, that it was through them and their proselytes that the church in such places was founded. Wc find, therefore, that in almost all his epistles, the apostle contends with Jewish errorists, the cor- rupters of the gospel by means of Jewish doctrines. Paul, the most extensively useful of all the apostles, was thus a thoroughly educated man; a man educated with a special view to the work which he was called to perform. We find, therefore, in this, as in most similar cases, that God effects his purposes by those in- struments which he has, in the ordinary course of his providence, specially fitted for their accomplishment. In the third place, Paul was converted without the intervention of human instrumen- tality, and was taught the gospel by immediate revelation. " I certify you, brethren," he says to the Galatians, " that the gospel which was preached of me, was not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." These circumstances are important, as he was thus placed completely on a level with the other apostles. He had seen the Lord Jesus, and could, therefore, be one of 6 INTRODUCTION. the witnesses of his resurrection; he was able to claim the au- thority of an original inspired teacher and messenger of God. It is obvious that he laid great stress upon this point, from the frequency with which he refers to it. He was thus furnished not only with the advantages of his early education, but with the authority and power of an apostle of Jesus Christ. His natural character was ardent, energetic, uncompromising and severe. How his extravagance and violence were subdued by the grace of God is abundantly evident from the moderation, mildness, tenderness and conciliation manifested in all his epis- tles. Absorbed in the one object of glorifying Christ, he was ready to submit to any thing, and to yield any thing necessary for this purpose. He no longer insisted that others should think and act just as he did; so that they obeyed Christ, he was satisfied, and he willingly conformed to their prejudices and tolerated their errors, so far as the cause of truth and righteous- ness allowed. By his early education, by his miraculous con- version and inspiration, by his natural disposition, and by the abundant grace of God was tliis apostle fitted for his work, and sustained under his multiplied and arduous labours. On'ffin and Cnndilton of the Church at Borne. One of the providential circumstances which most effectually contributed to the early propagation of Christianity, was the dispersion of the Jews among surrounding nations. Thej^ were widely scattered througli the East, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece and Italy, especially at Rome. As they were per- mitted, throughout the wide extent of the Roman Empire, to worship God according to the traditions of their fathers, syna- gogues were every where established in the midst of the hea- then. The apostles, being Jews, had thus every where a ready access to the people. The synagogues furnished a convenient place for regular assemblies, without attracting the attention or exciting the suspicion of tlie civil authorities. In these assemblies they were sure of meeting not only Jews, but the heathen also, and precisely the class of heathen best prepared for the reception of the gospel. The infinite superiority of the pure theism of the Old Testament scriptures to any form of re- ligion known to the ancients, could not fail to attract and con- vince multftudes among the pagans, wherever the Jewish worship INTRODUCTION. 7 was established. J>uch persons became either proselytes or " de- vout," that is, worshippers of the true God. Being free from the inveterate national and religious prejudices of the Jews, and at the same time convinced of the falsehood of polytheism, they were the most susceptible of all the early hearers of the gospel. It was by converts from among this class of persons, that the churches in all the heathen cities were in a great measure founded. There is abundant evidence that the Jews were very numerous at Rome, and that the class of proselytes or devout persons among the Romans was also very large. Philo says (Legatio in Caium, p. 1041, ed. Frankf.) that Augustus had assigned the Jews a large district beyond the Tiber for their residence. He accounts for their being so numerous from the fact that the captives carried thither by Pompey were liberated by their masters, who found it inconvenient to have servants who adhered so strictly to a religion which forbade constant and familiar intercourse with the heathen. Dion Cassius (Lib. 60, c. 6) mentions that the Jews were so numerous at Rome that Claudius was at first afraid to banish them, but contented himself with forbidding their assembling together. That he afterwards, on account of the tumults which they occasioned, did banish them from the city, is mentioned by Suetonius (Vita Claudii, c. 25), and by Luke, Acts 18:2. That the Jews on the death of Claudius returned to Rome, is evident from the fact that Suetonius and Dion Cassius speak of their being very numerous under the following reigns; and also from the con- tents of this epistle, especially the salutations in ch. 16, ad- dressed to Jewish Christians. That the establishment of the Jewish worship at Rome had produced considerable effect on the Romans, is clear from the statements of the heathen writers themselves. Ovid speaks of the synagogues as places of fashionable resort; Juvenal (Satire 14), ridicules his countrymen for becoming Jews;* and Tacitus' * Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbata patrem, Nil praeter nubes, coeli numen adorant: Nee distare putant humana carne suillam, Qua pater abstinuit, mox et praeputia ponunt. Romanas autem soliti contemners leges, Judaicum ediscunt, et servant, ac metuunt jus, Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses, &c. 8 INTRODUCTION. (Hist. Lib. 5, ch. 5*) refers to the presents sent by Roman proselytes to Jerusalem. The way was thus prepared for the early reception and rapid extension of Christianity in the im- perial city. When the gospel was first introduced there, or by whom the introduction was effected, is unknown. Such was the constant intercourse between Rome and the provinces, that it is not surprising that some of the numerous converts to Christianity made in Judea, Asia Minor and Greece, should at an early period find their way to the capital. It is not impossi- ble that many, who had enjoyed the personal ministry of Christ, and believed in his doctrines, miglit have removed or returned to Rome, and lieen the first to teach the gospel in that city. Still less improbable is it, that among the multitudes present at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost, among whom were " stran- gers of Rome, Jews and proselytes," there were some who carried back the knowledge of the gospel. That the introduc- tion of Christianity occurred at an early period may be inferred not only from the probabilities just referred to, but from other circumstances. When Paul wrote this epistle, the faith of the Romans was spoken of throughout the world, which would seem to imply that the church had already been long established. Aquila and Priscilla, who left Rome on account of the decree of Claudius banishing the Jews, were probably Christians before their departure; nothing at least is said of their having been converted by the apostle. He found them at Corinth, and being of the same trade, he abode with them, and on his departure took them with him into Syria. The tradition of some of the ancient fathers that Peter was the founder of the church at^ Rome is inconsistent with the statements given in the Acts of the apostles. Irenaeus (Haeres. III. 1) says, that " Matthew wrote his gospel, while Peter and Paul were in Rome preaching the gospel and founding the church there." And Eusebius (Chron. ad ann. 2 Claudii) says, "Peter having founded the church at Antioch, departed for Rome, preaching the gospel." lioth these statements are incor- rect. Peter did not found the church at Antioch, nor did he and Paul preach together at Rome. That Peter was not at Rome prior to Paul's visit appears from the entire silence of * Pessimus quisque, spretis religionibus jjatriis, tributa et stipes illuc congcrcbat, nndc auctao .Fudacorum res. INTRODUCTION. 9 this epistle on the subject; and from no mention being made of the fact in any of the letters written from Rome by Paul during his imprisonment. The tradition that Peter ever was at Rome rests on very uncertain authority. It is first mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth in the latter half of the second century, and from that time it seems to have been generally received. The account is in itself improbable, as Peter's field of labour was in the east, about Babylon; and as the statement of Diony- sius is full of inaccuracies. He makes Peter and Paul the founders of the church at Corinth, and makes the same assertion regarding the church at Rome, neither of which is true. He also says that Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom at the same time at Rome, which, from the silence of Paul respecting Peter during his last imprisonment, is in the highest degree improba- ble.* History, therefore, has left us ignorant of the time when this church was founded, and the persons by whom the work was effected. The condition of the congregation may be inferred from the circumstances already mentioned, and from the drift of the apostle's letter. As the Jews and proselytes were very nume- rous at Rome, the early converts, as might be expected, were from both these classes. The latter, however, seem greatly to have predominated, because we find no such evidence of a tendency to Judaism, as is supposed in the Epistle to the Gala- tians. Paul no where seems to apprehend that the church at Rome would apostatize as the Galatian Christians had already done. And in chapters 14 and 15, his exhortations imply that the Gentile party were more in danger of oppressing the Jewish, than the reverse. Paul, therefore, writes to them as Gentiles (ch. 1: 13), and claims, in virtue of his oflice as apostle of the Gentiles, the right to address them with all freedom and authority (15: 16). The congregation, however, was not com- posed exclusively of this class; many converts, originally Jews, were included in their numbers, and those belonging to the other class were more or less under the influence of Jewish opinions. The apostle, therefore, in this, as in all his other epis- tles addressed to congregations similarly situated, refutes those doctrines of the Jews which were inconsistent with the gospel, * See Eichhorn's Einleitung, Vol. 3, p. 203, and Neander's Geschichte det Pflanzung, &c. p. 456. 2 10 INTRODUCTION. and answers those objections, which they and those under their influence were accustomed to urge against it. These different elements of the early churches were almost always in conflict, ])oth as to points of doctrine and discipline. The Jews insisted, to a greater or less extent, on their peculiar privileges and cus- toms, and the Gentiles disregarded, and at times despised the scruples and prejudices of their weaker brethren. The opinions of the Jews particularly controverted in this epistle are, 1. That connexion with Abraham by natural descent and by the bond of circumcision, together with the observance of the law, is suiFicient to secure the favour of God. 2. That the blessings of the Messiah's reign were to be confined to Jews and those who would consent to become proselytes. 3. That subjection to heathen magistrates was inconsistent with the dignity of the people of God, and with their duty to the Messiah as king. There are clear indications in other parts of scripture, as well as in their own writings, that the Jews placed their chief de- pendence upon the covenant of God with Abraham, and the peculiar rites and ordinances connected with it. Our Saviour, when speaking to the Jews, tells them, " Say not, we have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham," (Luke 3: 8). It is clearly implied in this passage, that the Jews supposed, that to have Abraham as their father was sufficient to secure the favour of God. The Rabbins taught that God had promised Abraham that his descendants, though wicked, should be saved on account of his merit. Justin Martyr mentions this as the ground of confidence of the Jews in his day. " Your Rabbins," he says, " deceive themselves and us in supposing that the kingdom of heaven is prepared for all those who are the natural seed of Abraham, even though they be sinners and unbelievers." [Dialogue luith Trypho.) They were accustomed to say, "Great is the virtue of circumcision; no circumcised person enters hell." And one of their standing maxims was, " All Israel hath part in eternal life."* The second leading error of the Jews was a natural result of * See Raymundi Martini Pugio Ficlei, P. III. Disc. .3, c. 16. Pococke's Miscella- nea, p. 172, 227. Witsii Miscellanea, P. II. p. 553. Michaclis Introduction to the N. T. vol. 3, p. 93. INTRODUCTION. 11 the one just referred to. If salvation was secured by con- nexion with Abraham, then none who were not united to their great ancestor could be saved. There is no opinion of the Jews more conspicuous in the sacred writings, than that they were greatly superior to the Gentiles, that the theocracy and all its blessings belonged to them, and that others could attain even an inferior station in the kingdom of the Messiah only by be- coming Jews. The indisposition of the Jews to submit to heathen magis- trates arose partly from their high ideas of their own dignity, and their contempt for other nations, partly from their erro- neous opinions of the nature of the Messiah's kingdom, and partly, no doubt, from the peculiar hardships and oppressions to which they were exposed. The prevalence of this indispo- sition among them is proved by its being a matter of discussion whether it was even lawful to pay tribute to Caesar; by their assertion that, as Abraham's seed, they were never in bondage to any man; and by their constant tumults and rebellions, which led first to their banishment from Rome, and, finally, to the utter destruction of their city. The circumstances of the church at Rome, composed of both Jewish and Gentile con- verts; surrounded by Jews who still insisted on the necessity of circumcision, of legal obedience, and of connexion with the family of Abraham in order to salvation; and disposed on many points to differ among themselves, sufficiently account for the character of this epistle. Time and place of its composition. There are no sufficient data for fixing accurately and certainly the chronology of the life and writings of the apostle Paul. It is, therefore, in most cases, only by a comparison of various circumstances that an approximation to the date of the principal events of his life can be made. With regard to this epistle, it is plain, from its contents, that it was written just as Paul was about to set out on his last journey to Jerusalem. In the 15th chapter he says, that the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia had made a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem, and that he was on the eve of his departure for that city (v. 25). This same journey is mentioned in Acts 20, and occurred most pro- bably in the spring (see Acts 20: 16) of the year 58 or 59. 12 INTRODUCTION. This date best suits the account of his long imprisonment, first at Cesarea and then at Rome, of four years, and his probable liberation in 62 or 63. His subsequent labours and second im- prisonment would fill up the intervening period of two or three years to the date of his martyrdom, towards the close of the reign of Nero. That this epistle was w-ritten from Corinth appears from the special recommendation of Phebe, a deacon- ess of the neighbouring church, who was probably the bearer of the letter (ch. 16: 1); from the salutations of Erastus and Gaius, both residents of Corinth, to the Romans (ch, 16: 23); compare 2 Tim. 4: 20, and 1 Cor. 1: 14; and from the account given in Acts 20: 2, 3, of Paul's journey through Macedonia into Greece, before his departure for Jerusalem, for the purpose of carrying the contributions of the churches for the poor in that city. Jluthenticity of the Epistle. That this epistle was written by the apostle Paul, admits of no reasonable doubt. 1. It, in the first place, purports to be his. It bears his signature, and speaks throughout in his name. 2. It has uniformly been recognised as his. From the apostolic age to the present time, it has been referred to and quoted by a regular series of authors, and recognised as of divine autliority in all the churches. It would be requisite, in order to disprove its authenticity, to account satisfactorily for these facts, on the supposition of the epistle being spurious. The passages in the early writers, in which this epistle is alluded to or cited, are very numerous, and may be seen in Lardner's Credihility, Vol. II. 3. The internal evidence is no less decisive in its favour, [a) In the first place, it is evidently the production of a Jew, familiar with the Hebrew text and the Septuagint version of the Old Tes- tament, because the language and style are such as no one, not thus circumstanced, could adopt; and because the whole letter evinces such an intimate acquaintance with Jewish opinions and prejudices, {b) It agrees perfectly in style and manner with the other epistles of this apostle, (f) It is, in the truth and im- portance of its doctrines and in the elevation and purity of its sentiments, immeasurably superior to any uninspired produc- tion of the age in which it appeared. A conijwrison of the genuine apostoHc writings with the spurious productions of the INTRODUCTION. 13 first and second centuries, affords one of the strongest collateral evidences of the authenticity and inspiration of the former. (d) The incidental or undesigned coincidences, as to matters of fact, between this epistle and other parts of the New Testament, are such as to afford the clearest evidence of its having proceed- ed from the pen of the apostle. Compare Rom. 15: 25 — 31, with Acts 20: 2, 3. 24: 17. 1 Cor. 16: 1—4. 2 Cor. 8: 1 — 4. 9: 2. Rom. 16: 21—23 with Acts 20: 4. Rom. 16: 3, et seqq. with Acts 18: 2, 18 — 26. 1 Cor. 16: 19, &c. (see Paley's Horae Paulinae). 4. Besides these positive proofs, there is the im- portant negative consideration, that there are no grounds for questioning its authenticity. There are no discrepances be- tween this and other sacred writings; no counter testimony among the early fathers; no historical or critical difficulties which must be solved before it can be recognised as the work of Paul. There is, therefore, no book in the bible, and there is no ancient book in the world, of which the authenticity is more certain than that of this epistle. Analysis of the Epistle. The epistle consists of three parts. The first which includes the first eight chapters, is occupied in the discussion of the doctrine of justification and its consequences. The second, em- bracing chapters 9, 10, 11, treats of the calling of the Gentiles, the rejection and future conversion of the Jews. The third consists of practical exhortations, and salutations to the Chris- tians at Rome. The first part the apostle commences by saluting the Roman Christians, commending them for their faith, and ex- pressing his desire to see tjiem, and his readiness to preach the gospel at Rome. This readiness was founded on the conviction that the gospel revealed the only method b}^ which men can be saved, viz. by faith in Jesus Christ, and this method is equally applicable to all mankind. Gentiles as well as Jews, ch. 1: 1 — 17. Paul thus introduces the two leading topics of the epistle. In order to establish his doctrine respecting justification, he first proves that the Gentiles cannot be justified by their own works, ch. 1: 18 — 39; and then establishes the same position in reference to the Jews, ch. 2. 3: 1 — 20. Having thus shown 14 INTRODUCTION. that the method of justification by works was unavailable for sinners, he unfolds that method which is taught in the gospel, ch. 3: 21 — 31. The truth and excellence of this method he confirms in chs. 4th and 5th. The obvious objection to the doctrine of gratuitous acceptance, that it must lead to the indul- gence of sin, is answered, and the true design and operation of the law are exhibited in chs. 6th and 7th; and the complete security of all who confide in Christ is beautifully unfolded in chapter 8. In arguing against the Gentiles, Paul assumes the principle that God will punish sin, ch. 1 : 18, and then proves that they are justly chargeable both with impiety and immorality, be- cause, though they possessed a competent knowledge of God, they did not worship him, but turned unto idols, and gave themselves up to all kinds of iniquity, ch. 1: 19 — 32. He commences his argument with the Jews by expanding the general principle of the divine justice, and especially insisting on God's impartiality by showing that he will judge all men, Jews and Gentiles, according to their works, and according to the light they severally enjoyed, ch. 2: 1 — 16. He shows that the Jews, when tried by these rules, are as justly and certainly exposed to condemnation as the Gentiles, ch. 2: 17—29. The peculiar privileges of the Jews afford no ground of hope that they will escape being judged on the same principles with other men, and when thus judged, they are found to be guilty before God. All men, therefore, are, as the scriptures abun- dantly teach, under condemnation, and, consequently, cannot be justified by their own works, ch. 3: 1 — 20. The gospel proposes the only method by which God will justify men; a method which is entirely gratuitous; the condi- tion of which is faith; which is founded on the redemption of Christ; which reconciles the justice and mercy of God, hum- bles man, lays the foundation for an universal religion, and es-. tablishcs the law, ch. 3: 21 — 31. The truth of this doctrine is evinced from the example of Abraham, the testimony of David, the nature of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, and from the nature of the law. He proposes the conduct of Abraham as an example and encouragement to Christians, ch. 4: 1 — 25. INTRODUCTION. 15 Justification by faith in Christ secures peace with God, pre- sent joy and the assurance of eternal life, ch. 5: 1 — 11. The method, therefore, by which God proposes to save sinners, is analogous to that by which they were tirst brought under con- demnation. As on account of the offence of one, sentence has passed on all men to condemnation; so on account of the righteousness of one, all are justified, ch. 5: 12 — 21. The doctrine of the gratuitous justification of sinners cannot lead to the indulgence of sin, because such is the nature of union with Christ, and such the object for which he died, that all who re- ceive the benefitsof his death, experience the sanctifyinginfluence of his life, ch. 6: 1 — 11. Besides, the objection in question is founded on a misapprehension of the effect and design of the law, and of the nature of sanctification. Deliverance from the bondage of the law and from a legal spirit is essential to holi- ness. When the Christian is delivered from this bondage, he becomes the servant of God, and is brought under an influence which effectually secures his obedience, ch. 6: 12 — 23. As, therefore, a woman, in order to be married to a second husband, must first be freed from her former one, so the Chris- tian, in order to be united to Christ and to bring forth fruit unto God, must first be freed from the law, ch. 7: 1 — 6. This necessity of deliverance from the law, does not arise from the fact that the law is evil, but from the nature of the case. The law is but the authoritative declaration of duty; which cannot alter the state of the sinner's heart. Its real operation is to produce the conviction of sin (vs. 7 — 13), and, in the renewed mind, to excite approbation and complacency in the excellence which it exhibits, but it cannot effectually secure the destruction of sin. This can only be done by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, ch. 7: 7 — 25. Those who are in Christ, therefore, are perfectly safe. They are freed from the law; they have the indwelling of the life- giving Spirit; they are the children of God; they are chosen, called and justified according to the divine purpose; and they are the objects of the unchanging love of God, ch. 8: 1 — 39. The second part of the epistle relates to the persons to whom the blessings of Christ's kingdom may properly be offer- ed, and the purposes of God respecting the Jews. In entering upon this subject, the apostle, after assuring his kindred of his 16 INTRODUCTION. affection, establishes the position that God has not bound him- self to regard as his children all the natural descendants of Abraham, but is at perfect liberty to choose whom he will to be heirs of his kingdom. The right of God to have mercy on whom he will have mercy, he proves from the declarations of scripture and from the dispensations of his providence. He shows that this doctrine of the divine sovereignty is not in- consistent with the divine character or man's responsibility, because God simply chooses from among the undeserving whom he will as the objects of his mercy, and leaves others to the just recompense of their sins, ch, 9: 1 — 24. God accordingly predicted of old that he would call the Gentiles and reject the Jews. The rejection of the Jews was on account of their unbelief, ch. 9: 25 — 33. 10: 1 — 5. The two methods of justification are then contrasted, for the purpose of showing that the legal method is impracticable, but that the method proposed in the gospel is simple and easy, and adapted to all men. It should, therefore, agreeably to the revealed pur- pose of God, be preached to all men, ch. 10: 6 — 21. The rejection of the Jews is not total; many of that genera- tion were brought into the church, who were of the election of grace, ch, 11 : 1 — 10. Neither is this rejection final. There is to be a future and general conversion of the Jews to Christ, and thus all Israel shall be saved, ch. 11 : 11 — 36. The third or practical part of the epistle, consists of direc- tions, first, as to the general duties of Christians in their various relations to God, ch. 12; secondly, as to their political or civil duties, ch. 13; and, thirdly, as to their ecclesiastical duties, or those duties which they owe to each other as members of the church, ch. 14. 15: 1—13. The epistle concludes with some account of Paul's labours and purposes, ch. 15: 14 — 33, and with the usual salutations, ch. IG. COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS. CHAPTER I. Contents. This chapter consists of two parts. The first extends to the close of V. 17, and contains the general introduction to the epis- tle. The second commences with v. 18, and extends to the close of the chapter : it contains the argument of the apostle to prove that the declaration contained in vs. 16, 17, that justi- fication can only be obtained by faith, is true with regard to the heathen. CHAP. 1: 1—17. Jinalysis. This section consists of two parts. The first, from v. 1 to 7 inclusive, is a salutatory address; the second, from v. 8 to 17, is the introduction to the epistle. Paul commences by an- nouncing himself as a divinely commissioned teacher, set apart to the preaching of the gospel, v. 1. Of this gospel, he says, 1. That it was promised, and of course partially exhibited in the Old Testament, v. 2. 2. That its great subject was Jesus Christ, V. 3. Of Christ he says, that he was, as to his human nature, the Son of David; but as to his divine nature, the Son of God, vs. 3, 4. From this divine person he had received his office as an apostle. The object of this office was to bring men to believe the gospel ; and it contemplated all nations as the field of its labour, v. 5. Of course the Romans were includ- ed, V. 6. To the Roman Christians, therefore, he wishes grace and peace, v. 7. Thus far the salutation. Having shown in what character, and by what right he ad- dressed them, the apostle introduces the subject of his letter by 18 ROMANS 1: 1—17. expressing to them his respect and affection. He thanks God not only that they believed, but that their faith was universally known and talked of, v. 9. As an evidence of his concern for them, he mentions, 1. That he prayed for them constantly, v. 9. 2. That he longed to see them, vs. 10, 11. 3. That this wish to see them arose from a desire to do them good, and to reap some fruit of his ministry among them, as well as among other Gen- tiles, vs. 12, 13. Because he was under obligation to preach to all men, wise and unwise, he was therefore ready to preach even at Rome, vs. 14, 15. This readiness to preach arose from the high estimate he entertained of the gospel. And his rever- ence for the gospel was founded not on its excellent system of morals merely, but on its efficacy in saving all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, v. 16. This efficacy of the gospel arises from its teaching the true method of justification, that is, the method of justification by faith, v. 17. It will be perceived how naturally and skilfully the apostle introduces the two great subjects of the epistle — the method of salvation, and the persons to whom it may properly be offered. Commentary. (1) Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apos- tle, separated unto the gospel of God. Paul. Jewish, as other oriental names were generally significant. Thus Saul means the demanded, or asked for. These names were very frequently changed, on the occurrence of any remarkable event in the life of those who bore them; as in the case of Abraham and Jacob, Gen. 17: 5. 32: 28. This was especially the case when the individual was advanced to some new office or dignity, Gen. 41: 45. Dan. 1: 6, 7. Hence a new name is sometimes equivalent to a new dignity, Apoc. 3:17. As Paul seems to have received this name shortly after he entered on his duties as an apostle, it is often supposed, and not improbably, that it was on account of this call that his name was changed. Thus Simon, when chosen to be an apostle, was called Cephas or Peter, John 1: 42. Matt. 10: 2. Since, however, it was very common for those Jews who associated much with foreigners to have two names, one Jewish and the other Greek or Roman; sometimes entirely distinct, as Hillel and PoUio; sometimes nearly related, as Silas and Silvanus, it is perhaps more proba- ROMANS 1: 1—17. 19 ble that the apostle was called Saul among the Jews, and Paul among the heathen. As he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and all his epistles, except that to the Hebrews, were addressed to churches founded among the heathen, it is not wonderful that he constantly called himself Paul instead of Saul. He styles himself a servant of Jesus Christ. This term is often used to express the relation in which, under the New Testa- ment, the apostles stood to Christ, as in Gal. 1: 10. Phil. 1: 1. &c., as in the Old Testament the phrase 6'ery«;z/f o/ Go^ ex- presses the relation in which any one employed in his special service stood to God, Jos. 24: 29. Numb. 12: 7. Judges 2: 8, &c. &c. It is therefore a general official designation. • Called 'an apostle. The word rendered called, means also chosen, appointed, see v. 6 and 7 of this chapter. 1 Cor. 1: 1 and 24. Rom. 8: 28. compare Isaiah 48: 2. "Hearken unto me, 0 Jacob and Israel my called," i. e. my chosen. 51: 2. 42: 6. In the epistles of the New Testament this word is rarely if ever used in reference to one externally called or in- vited to any office or blessing, but uniformly expresses the idea of an effectual calling, or of a selection and appointment. Paul begins many of his epistles by claiming to be thus divinely commissioned as an apostle, because his appointment was differ- ent from that of the other apostles, and its validity had frequent- ly been called in question. The term apostle or messenger, with few exceptions, is ap- plied exclusively to those thirteen individuals appointed by Jesus Christ to deliver to men the message of salvation, to au- thenticate that message by signs and wonders, Heb. 3: 4, and especially by their testimony as eye witnesses of the resurrec- tion of Christ, Acts 1: 22. 2: 32. 3: 15. 1 Cor. 15: 15; and to organize the Christian church by the appointment of officers and the general ordering of its affairs. It was therefore neces- sary that an apostle should have seen Christ after he arose from the dead, 1 Cor. 9:1. Separated unto the gospel of God. The word rendered separated expresses the idea both of selection and appointment, Levit. 20: 24,26. Acts 13: 2. Gal. 1: 15. Paul was chosen and set apart to preach the gospel of God, that is, the gospel of which God is the author. (2) Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the 20 ~ ROMANS 1: 1—17. lioJy scriptures. It was peculiarly pertinent to the apostle's object to state, that the gospel which he taught was not a new doctrine,' much less inconsistent with writings which his read- ers knew to be of divine authority. This idea he therefore frequently repeats in reference to the method of salvation, eh. 3: 21. 10: 11, &c.; the rejection of the Jews, ch. 9: 27, 33. 10: 20, 21; and the calling of the Gentiles, ch. 9: 25. 10: 19, &c. see Luke 24: 44. John 12: 16. Acts 10: 43. (3, 4) Concerning his So7i Jesus Christ our Lord, &c. This verse is to be connected with the last clause of the first, and states the grand subject of that gospel which Paul was appointed to preach. That subject which includes all others, is the Son of God. Having mentioned the name, Paul imme- diately declares the nature of this exalted personage. The passage which follows is therefore peculiarly interesting, as giving a clear exhibition of the apostle's view of the character of Christ, and the import of the phrase Son of God. There are three leading interpretations of this passage. 1. According to the first, the meaning is, 'Jesus Christ was, as to his human nature, the So i of David ; but he was clearly de- monstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by the resurrection from the dead.' 2. According to the second, the passage means, 'Christ was, in his state of humiliation, the Son of David, but was constituted the Son of God in his state of exaltation, by the resurrection from the dead ; or, after his resurrection.' 3. According to the third, 'Christ was the Son of David, as to his human nature, but was declared to be the Son of God, agreeably to the scriptures, by the resurrection from the dead.' The first of these interpretations is recommended by the following considerations. 1. The sense which it assigns to the several clauses may be justified by usage, and is required by the context. This will appear from the examination of each, as they occur. Which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. Was made, i. e. was born, see the same sense of the word here used. Gal. 4: 4. John 8: 41. 1 Peter 3: 6. The plirasc according to the flesh, may, con- sidered by itself, be very variously explained. As the word flesh, apart from its literal and obvious meaning, is very fre- quently used for mrn, as in the phrases all flesh, no flesh, &c.; ROMANS 1: 1—17. 21 so it is used for human nature, and commonly, when employed in reference to men, for the nature of man, considered in itself, as apart from the Spirit of God, and therefore, with the asso- ciated ideas of weakness and corruption. Hence, in the phrases "to be born of the flesh," John 3: 6; "to be in the flesh," Rom. 8: 7; "to live after the flesh," Rom. 8: 17; "the works of the flesh," Gal. 5: 17; and in others of the same kind, the word expresses the idea of human nature considered as corrupt. But these accessary ideas are of course excluded, when the word is used in reference to Christ, as in the phrases "has come in the flesh," 1 John 4:2; "was manifest in the flesh," 1 Tim. 3: 16; "became flesh," John 1: 14, &c. In all these cases, it stands for human nature, as such, not merely for the body or visible part of man, nor for his external condition or circum- stances, but for all that Christ, who was made like unto his brethren, yet without sin, had in common with otherimen. So in this passage, and the parallel one, ch. 9: 5, as to the flesh, means in as far as he was a man, or as to his human nature. This interpretation is therefore according to usage, and the natural sense of the word. It is secondly required by the context. In what sense was Christ the son of David, or descended from the family of David, but as he was a man, or as to his human nature? Thirdly, the antithesis requires this interpretation, as to the one nature he was the Son of David: as to the other ihe Son of God. And fourthly, the passage in ch. 9: 5, in which it is said, that Christ was, as to the flesh, as a man, descended from the Israelites, confirms this interpretation, jlnd declared to be the Son of God, with poiver. That the Vv^ord rendered declared has, in this case, that meaning, may be argued, 1, From its etymology. It comes from a word signifying a limit or boundary, and literally means to set limits to, to define, and such, in usage, is its frequent signification. To define is nearly related both to appointing, or to naming, declaring, exhibiting a person or thing in its true nature. In the New Testament, indeed the word, as in common Greek, is used generally to express the former idea, viz. that of constituting, or appointing; but the sense which our version gives it is in many cases involved in the other, Acts 10: 42. 17: 31. 2. The Greek commentators, Chrysostom and Theodoret, both so explain the word. So does the Syriac version. 3. This explanation 22 ROMANS 1: 1—17. supposes the word to be used in a popular and general sense, but does not assign to it a new meaning. It signifies, says Morus, in common life, / confirm, I cause it to he certain. So that the expression of the apostle means, "it is confirmed or rendered certain that Jesus is the Son of God.'' 3. Reference may be made to that familiar biblical usage, according to which words are used declaratively. Thus, to make guilty, is to pro- nounce to be guilty; to make just, is to pronounce to be just; to make unclean, is to declare to be unclean. Hence, admitting that the words literally mean, 'made the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead,' they may, with the strictest regard to usage, be interpreted, exhibited as inade, declared to be.^ 4. The necessity of the place requires this interpre- tation ; because it is not true that Christ was made the Son of God by his resurrection, since he was such before that event. 5. The passage, unless thus explained, is inconsistent with other declarations of the sacred writers. Acts 1 : 22, &:c., which speak of Christ's resurrection as the evidence of what he was, but not as making him either Son or King. The words luith power may either be connected adjectively with the preceding phrase, and the meaning be, 'the powerful Son of God;' or, which is preferable, adverbially with the word declared, 'he was powerfully, i. e, clearly declared to be the Son of God.' As when the sun shines out in his power, he is seen and felt in all his glory, so Christ, when he arose from the dead was recognized at once as the Son of God. According to the spirit of holi?iess. That these words can properly be interpreted of the divine nature of Christ, may be argued, 1. Because the term spirit is obviously applicable to the nature of God, and the word holiness, which here qualifies it adjectively, expresses every thing in God, which is the foundation of reverence. It therefore exalts the idea expressed by spirit. ' According to that spiritual essence in Christ, which is worthy of the highest reverence.' 2. The divine * The great majority of commentators, however various their views of the other parts of this passage, and of its general meaning, agree in explaining ofiffS't'vTog declared, exhibited. Besides the older commentators, see Koppe, wlio translates Declaratus per resurrectionem Jilius Dei. Flatt, Fi/r Gottes Sohn, krafciff erklart -wurde. "As Son of God, was powerfully declared." Tholpck, 7*^ nun ojfcnhar ivorden aU Gotten Sohn. " Is now manifested as the Son of God.'' ROMANS 1: 1—17. 23 nature in Christ is elsewhere called Spirit, Heb. 9: 14, " If the blood of bulls and of goats, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, with an eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot unto God." That is, ' if the blood of animals was of any avail, how much more efficacious must be the sacrifice of Christ, who was possessed of a divine nature.' In our version this passage is rendered through, instead oi with an eternal Spirit; but this docs not so well suit the context, nor give so good a sense. The same preposition is often rendered with, Rom. 2 : 27. " with the letter," "with circumcision," i. e. having these things, see Wahl's Clavis. In 1 Tim. 3: 16, " God was manifest in the flesh; justified in the Spirit," the meaning probably is, the fact that God was incarnate was proved, and his claims vindi- cated by the divine nature, which exhibited its power and glory in so many ways, in the words and works of Christ. In 1 Peter 3: 18, Christ is said to have been put to death as to the flesh, but to have remained alive as to the Spirit, by which Spirit he preached to the spirits in prison. If this preaching refers to the times before the flood, then does Spirit here also mean the divine nature of Christ. 3. The antithesis obviously demands this interpretation — as to the flesh, Christ was the Son of David, as to the Spirit, the Son of God: if the flesh means his human, the Spirit must mean his divine nature. 4. It is confirmed by a comparison with ch. 9: 5. there the two natures of Christ are also brought into view and contrasted; as to the flesh he was an Israelite, but as to his higher nature he is God over all and blessed forever. So the latter clause of that pas- sage answers the latter clause of this; to be the Son of God, is equivalent with being God over all. By the resurrection from the dead. That is, the resurrec- tion of Christ was the great decisive evidence that he was the Son of God; it was the public acknowledgement of God of the validity of all the claims which Christ had made. Hence the apostles were appointed as witnesses of that fact. Acts 1 : 22. see on V. 1. This, of course, does not at all imply that the res- urrection of Christ in itself was any proof that he was the Son of God, any further than it was a proof that he was all that he had claimed to be, and as, in its attending circumstances, it was a display of his divine power. He had power to lay down his 24 ROMANS 1: 1—17. life, and he had power to take it again. This clause is some- times rendered " after the resurrection from the dead." The preposition used in the Greek admits of cither rendering; but the former is best suited to the context, and more in accordance with the manner in which Paul speaks elsewhere of the resur- rection. See the passages cited above. The first argument then in favour of the interpretation of this passage which has just been given, is, that the sense which it assigns to all the clauses may be justified, and is required by the context. 2. A second argument is derived from the struc- ture of the passage. As remarked above, when speaking of a particular clause, there is evidently an antithesis between the two clauses, as to the flesh, and as to the Spirit. In the one view, Christ is the Son of David; as to the other, the Son of God. 3. It is accordant with what is elsewhere taught of the Sonship of Christ, John 5: 17. 10: 30—33. Heb. 1: 4—8. 4. This interpretation should be adopted, because the others are pressed with serious, if not fatal objections. The second inter- pretation mentioned above makes the passage mean, ' Christ was, as to his low condition, the Son of David; but was made the Son of God, as to his exalted state, by the resurrection from the dead.' To this it may be objected, 1. That it assumes an unusual, and, in such a phrase as son as to the flesh, an unex- ampled sense of the word flesh. 2. To make the words accord- ing to the spirit of holiness, mean according to his exalted or pneumatic condition, violates all usage. No passage can be found in which the word so rendered means exalted state. It is difficult to see how it can have this sense. Reference is made to 1 Tim. 3: 16. Heb. 9: 14. 1 Peter 3: IS, in support of this interpretation. Let the reader consult these passages, and see if they bear out this exposition. 3. It affirms that Christ was made the Son of God by or after his resurrection. This is not correct, whatever sense be given to the term Son of God. Christ was the Messiah, and King before, as well as after his resurrection. 4. The resurrection is spoken of as the proof of Christ's various glories, but not as his advancement to Sonsliip. The third interpretation differs from the first only by explaining the clause according, or, as to the Spirit of holiness, to mean, agreeably to the scriptures, i. e. to the declarations of the Holy Spirit. This however is liable to two objections. 1. It ROMANS 1: 1—17. 25 is not the apostle's manner of referring to the scriptures. He generally says, 'as it is written/ 'according to the scriptures,' &c. 2. It is entirely inconsistent with the antithesis: as to the flesh, and as to the Spirit must correspond ; if the former means 'as to his human nature/ the latter cannot mean ' according to the scriptures.' The reason for dwelling at such length on this passage, is its great importance in the decision of the question, why Christ is called the Son of God ? What is the import of that appellation ? Does it express his dignity as Mediatorial King, or his intimate connexion with God as an object of his affection ? or does it imply that he is of the same nature with God, partaker of his essence and attributes? Is the ground of its application the eternal relation between the first and second persons of the Trinity ? These are important questions. The term Son is used in scripture to express such a variety of relations that nothing certain can be inferred from the mere force of this word. It expresses the relation of derivation, dependence, possession, likeness, intimate connexion, &c,, in very various modifications. It is therefore used in a multitude of phrases foreign to the idiom of our language; as, son of five hundred years; sons of Belial, or worthlessness; son of death, of hunger, of destruc- tion, &c. ; sons of the kingdom; sons of the bride chamber^ &c. &c. As, however, this is a very marked distinction kept up in the scriptures between the phrase Son of God in the singular, and Sons of God in the plural, it is evident that little light can be derived from the mere general use of the word Son, as to the precise import of the former of these phrases. The term Son of God is used in reference to Jesus Christ alone, except where, for an obvious reason, it is applied to Adam, as being produced by the immediate power of God. There is therefore a reason why Christ is called the Son of God, which applies to no other being in the universe. That this reason is not his royal dignity, appears, 1. Because the term, if expressive of mere exaltation or power, would not be so exclusively applied to Christ, but be given to other royal persons. 2. Because it is very nearly a gratuitous assumption, that kings in the Old Testament are called sons of God on account of their office. The passages referred to are the fol- lowing: Ps. 2: 7, which, as it refers to Christ, can prove nothing 4 26 ROMANS 1: 1—17. as to this point. Ps. 82: 6, where princes are called "sons of the Most High," which, however, may mean merely, they are highly favoured of God, treated as sons, 2 Sam. 7: 14, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son," means, as applied to Solomon, nothing more than ' I will regard and treat him as a father does a son.' Ps. 89: 27, " I will make him my first-born," i. e. ' I will treat him with peculiar favour.' It is therefore very far from being a familiar usage of the bible to call kings sons of God, on account of their exaltation or dignity; much less can it be assumed as the prominent, if not the only ground for designating Christ the Son of God. If there is nothing in the usage of the term Son, or of the phrase sons of God, which can fix definitely the meaning of the appellation now in question, we must advert to those cases in which either the ground of the appellation is distinctly stated, or its true import explained. These cases are of course comparatively few. Christ is called Jesus in a multitude of instances, but the reason of his being so called is stated in but one or two. In like manner he is very frequently called the Son of God, but why he is so called we can learn only from the few cases just referred to. In this passage, for example, (Rom. 1: 3, 4) it seems to be definitely asserted, that Christ is the Son of God as to his divine nature; and of course the ground of his being so called, must be the relation between that nature and the eternal Father. In John 5: 17, Christ calls God his Father in such a way as to imply that he is equal with God. This is the interpretation which his hearers put upon his words, and one which Christ himself confirmed. The same is the case in John 10: 30 — 39, where Christ declares himself to be the Son of God in such a sense that he and the Father are one. In John 1 : 14, the glory of Clirist, which proved him to be God, is said to be his glory as the only begotten Son of the Father, compare v. IS. In Hebrews 1: 4 — 7, it is argued, in effect, that because Christ is called Son, he is God; higher than the angels, and worthy of their worship. These and other passages prove that Clirist is called the Son of God, because he is of the same nature with the Father, and sustains to him a mysterious relation, as God, which lays the foundation for the appellation. When Christ calls himself the Son of God, he claims equality with God; and when he is so called by the ROMANS 1: 1—17 27 sacred writers, this equality is ascribed to him. It is not at all necessary, in order to make out the correctness of this remark, to show that, in every instance, reference is had to his divine nature. Is it necessary to prove that the appellation Son of man has uniformly reference to his human nature, in order to show that it properly implies that Christ is a man ? These, and all other designations of Christ, no matter what their origin or import, are frequently used to designate his person. Hence the Son is said to give life, to judge, to be put to death, to be ignorant of the day of judgment, to be subject to the Father, &c. In all these cases no reference is had to the import of the term Son, or to the original ground of its application. It is merely a personal designation. In like manner, Christ is said to be God; to have died upon the cross; to have arisen from the dead, &c. The Son of man is said not to have where he may lay his head; to be in heaven, &c. The fact, therefore, that the term Son is often applied to designate the person of Christ, even when the immediate reference is to his human nature, cannot prove that the original ground of its application is not his relation, as God, to the Father; or that its application does not involve the assumption or ascription of equality with God. Most of the passages, therefore, which give us any definite information on the nature of the Sonship of Christ, or of the reason of his being called the Son of God, show that the term Son implies a participation in the divine nature, and an ineffable relation between the first and second persons of the Trinity. Even if there were others, which assigned a different reason for his being so called, it would only prove that the import of the term, and the grounds of its application were manifold, and not that Christ was not the Son of God, as to his divine nature. The passage in Luke 1: 35, seems to assign the miraculous conception of Christ as a reason for his being called the Son of God. This may be admitted, and all that has been said as to his being a Son in a sense which involves equality with God, be still correct. Those who give this sense to Luke 1 : 35, still say, that the principal reason for his being called the Son of God is his exaltation as King, The declaration of the angel to the Virgin Mary, may, however, be understood as implying not merely that the human nature of Christ was to be miracu- 28 ROMANS 1: 1—17. lously conceived, but also that the divine Being was to come into personal union with that nature, and hence that holy thing, which should be born of her, should be called, i. e. recognized as divine. Acts 13: 33, is often referred to as proving that Christ is called the Son of God on account of his resurrection. The passage is as follows. "God hath fulfilled the same (the promise made to the fathers) unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." On this passage it may be remarked, 1. Admitting our version of it to be correct, the inference drawn from it does not necessarily follow. If the second Psalm v. 7, means ' Thou art my Son, this day have I declared or exhibited thee as such;' then it is perfectly pertinent to the apostle's object, because he appeals to the fact of Christ's resurrection as a proof that God had recog- nized or exhibited him as his Son: which is precisely what is elsewhere taught when the resurrection is said to be a proof of the Sonship of the Redeemer. But, 2. Our version of Acts 13: 33, is, in all probability, incorrect. The word rendered he hath raised up (Jesus) again, means merely he hath raised up. Whether it refers to a raising up from the dead, or to a calling into existence, or to a certain office, depends upon the context. Acts 3: 22, "a prophet like unto me will God raise up," see Matt. 22: 24. Acts 2: 30. "Of the fruit of his loins he would raise up Christ," Acts 7:18, &c. The insertion of the word again, in our translation, alters the sense, and is altogether arbitrary. The meaning probably is, 'we declare unto you glad tidings, how the promise made unto the fiithers (the promise referred to in v. 23, that God w^ould raise up a Saviour), God hath fulfilled unto us, in that he hath raised up Jesus.' There is no allusion to the resurrection. The promise referred to was not that Christ should rise from the dead, but that a Saviour should appear; and of this, the second Psalm is a clear prediction. In v. 34, Paul, having announced the glad tidings that a Saviour had come, introduces another subject, " But that he hath raised him from the dead, (as he had asserted in v. 30) he saith on this wise, &c.;" and then quotes Ps. 16th, in proof that his rising from the dead had been predicted. lience, v. 33, and its quotation from Ps. 2d, have no reference to the resurrection, ROMANS 1: 1—17. 29 and of course can prove nothing as to the nature of Christ's Sonship.* (5) By whom we have received grace and apostleship, &c. Having in the preceding verses set forth the character of Jesus Christ, as at once the Son of David and the Son of God, Paul says it was from him, and not from any inferior source, that he has received his authority. This point he often insists upon, Gal. 1: 1. 1 Cor. 1:1, &c. The word grace means favour, kindness, and is often metonymically used for any gift proceed- ing from kindness, especially unmerited kindness. Hence all the gifts of the Spirit are graces, unmerited favours. The greatest of God's gifts, after that of his Son, is the influence of the Holy Ghost; this, therefore, in the bible, and in common life, is called, by way of eminence, grace. The word may be so understood here, and include all those influences of the Holy Spirit by which Paul was furnished for his work. The two words grace and apostleship may however be taken together, and mean ' the grace or favour of being an apostle;' but the for- mer explanation is to be preferred. For obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name. Literally unto obedience of the faith. This expresses the design or object for which the office of apostle was conferred upon Paul. It was that all nations might be made obedient. Similar modes of expression are frequent, " Baptism unto re- pentance," i. e. that men might repent; " unto salvation," that they might be saved, &c. It is doubtful whether the word faith is to be understood here as in Gal. 1: 23, "He preacheth the faith, which he once destroyed;" and frequently elsewhere, for the object of faith, or for the exercise of belief. Either gives a good sense; according to the former, the meaning is, ' that all nations should be obedient to the gospel;' according to the latter, ' that they should yield that obedience which consists in faith.' Bengel unites the two. The former is the most com- mon explanation, see Acts 6: 7. Among all nations is most naturally connected with the immediately preceding clause, * See on tliis subject, besides the older theologians, such as Be Moor in his Commentarius Exegeticus on Makk's Compend; Knapp's Theology, translated by Mr. Woods; Koppk's Second Excursus to his Commentary on Galatians; Phofessor Stuart's Letters to Dr. Miller; Dr. Miller's Letters to Professor Stuart; and the BibUcal Repertory for 1829, p. 429—456. 30 ROMANS 1: 1—17. * that obedience might be promoted among all nations.' They may, however, be referred to the former clause,' we have received the apostleship among all nations.' The words for his name are still more doubtful as to their connexion. Some join them with the middle clause, ' for obedience of faith in his name,' see Acts 2G: 18. But this the words will hardly licar. Others connect them with the first clause, ' apostleship in his name,' 2 Cor. 5: 20. Others again, and more naturally, to the whole preceding clause. ' Paul was an apostle that all nations might be obedient to the honour of Jesus Christ;' that is, so that his name may be knowi?.* (6) Jimong ivhom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ. If the gospel contemplated all nations as. the field of its opera- tion, the Romans of course were not to be excluded. They, i. e. the persons addressed, were of the number of those who had become obedient to the faith. The called of Jesus Christ means those who are effectually called, not invited merely, but made actually partakers of the blessings to which they are called. The word called is often, therefore, as in the first verse, equivalent with chosen, see the passages cited on that verse. In 1 Cor. 1 : 24, Christ is said to be a stumbling block to one class of men, and foolishness to another; " but to those that are called, the power of God, &c.;" where the called cannot mean those Avho receive the external call merely: but those who are effect- ually called. Rev. 17: 14, "those who arc with him are called, and chosen, and faithful," see, too, the frequent use of different forms of the verb signifying to call, Rom, 8: 30; "them he also called," Jude 1: 1; "to the called," 1 Peter 5: 10. 2: 9. Such a call is in fact a choice; it is a taken one from among many. Hence, to be called, is to be chosen, as just remarked. Called of Jesus Christ does not mean called by Christ; but the geni- tive expresses the idea of possession, 'the called ones who belong to Christ,' ' Christ's called, or chosen ones.' (7) To all that he in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints. As tliis verse contains the salutation, it is, in sense, immediately connected with the first. 'Paul an apostle to all that be at Rome.' All that intervenes is not proj)crly a paren- * Pro nomine orgo tantundem valet acsi dixissct, ut manifcstcni, qualis sit Christus. — Calviit. ROMANS 1: 1—17. 31 thesis, but an accumulation of clauses, one growing out of the other, and preventing the apostle finishing the sentence with which he commenced. This is very characteristic of Paul's manner, and as is peculiarly obvious in his two epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. His teeming mind protruded its rich thoughts and glowing sentiments so rapidly, that his course was often impeded, and the original object for a time entirely lost sight of. See Ephesians 3: 1, where the sentence, with which the first verse begins, is interrupted, and is not resumed until v. 14, or, perhaps, the beginning of the next chapter. The salutation of Paul is addressed to all the Christians who were at Rome, whom he calls beloved of God, and called to be saints. The people of God are often, both in the Old and New Testament, distinguished by the honourable appellation, beloved of God, Deut. 33: 12. Col. 3: 12. Called to he saints, means chosen or made saints; as in v. 1, called to be an cqjostle, means chosen or appointed an apostle, see 1 Cor. 1 : 2. The fact that they were saints, was to be attritjuted to the gracious choice or call of God. The word translated saints properly means separated, and is applied in a multitude of cases in the Old Testament, both to persons and things conse- crated to God. In this sense, all the Hebrews were a holy peo- ple. But in the New Testament, when used in reference to persons, it expresses their moral relation to God, in the great inajority of cases. This is its meaning here. The Roman Christians were called to be not merely a people consecrated externally to God, as were the Jews, but to be morally holy, see on ch. 11: 16. Grace to you, and peace from God our Fa- ther, and the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the common form of salutation. Grace is the divine favour; oxidi peace is the con- sequence of it, and includes, as does the corresponding Hebrew word, all blessings. Compare the phrases " way of peace," '' God of peace," " gospel of peace," and the like. Hence it is used constantly in salutations, " Peace be with you," i. e. may all good rest upon you. The Greek term has this extent of meaning from being used with the same latitude as the He- brew word, which signifies, as an adjective, complete {integer), and as a substantive, completeness {integritas), well-being; and, therefore, includes all that is necessary to make one what 32 ROMANS 1: 1—17. he would wish to be. When the favour of God is secured, all other blessings follow in its train.* These blessings are sought from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is equally with the Father the source of these blessings, and, therefore, the object of prayer; which, under such circumstances, and for such blessings, is one of the highest acts of worship. God is called our Father, as he from whom all good ultimately comes; and Jesus Christ is called Lord, as our Ruler, under whose care and protection we are placed, and through whose ministration all good is actually bestowed. (8) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, &c. From this verse to the end of the 17th, we have the general introduction to the epistle. It is distinguished by the usual characteristics of the introductory portions of the apostle's letters. 1. It is commendatory. This is the case in all his epistles, more or less, except that to the Galatians. However severe his reproofs, he never fails to begin in a conciliatory manner. Compare also the introduction to chapters 9th and 10th. 2. It is affectionate. 3. It is pious, i. e. full of gi-ateful acknow- ledgements to God as the author of all the good he had to com- mend in them, or hope for them. 4. It is skilful; introducing, in the most natural and appropriate manner, the topics of discus- sion. First indeed. There is nothing to answer in what fol- lows to the word indeed, and it is, therefore, in our version, omitted. Compare, on this clause, 1 Cor. 11: 18. 2 Cor. 12: 12, and other instances of the same kind, in which the apostle fails to carry out regularly the construction with which he com- mences. Before introducing any other topic, the apostle ex- presses his gratitude to God on their account. My God is the endearing form of expression which he uses, in the conscious- ness of his reconciliation. " I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people," Jer. 30: 22, contains all the blessings of the covenant of grace. My God through Jesus Christ, as these words are often explained, thus expressing the idea that God is our God, or is reconciled to us through Jesus Christ The latter clause may, however, be connected with the words / give thanks. This is the more natural construction, and is * Nihil prius optamlum, quam ut Doiim proj)itiiiiii habcanuis: quod dcsignatur per Gratiam. Deindo, ut ab co prosperitas et succcssus omuiiuu rerum fluat, qui significatur Pacis vocubulo. — Calvijv. ROMANS 1: 1—17. 33 recommended by a comparison with such passages as Eph, 5: 20, " Giving thanks in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," Heb. 13: 15. John 14: 13. These passages show that we must re- cognize the mediation of Christ in our offerings to God. That your faith is spoken of throughout the world. This is the ground of the apostle's thanksgiving; and of course assumes, that faith is the gift of God, something for which we ought to be thankful. The cause of the faith of the Romans, l)eing so generally spoken of, may have been either that it was remarkably strong and decided, or that it was considered of special importance, that at Rome, the capital of the world, the gospel had been embraced. (9) For God is my witness, whom I serve with m,y spirit, in the gospel of his Son, &c. That Paul was really thankful for the conversion of the Romans, he confirms by the fact that he was constantly mindful of them in his prayers; and that he did thus remember them, he calls God to witness. This appeal to God as a witness of the truth of our declarations, approaches very nearly to the nature of an oath, wanting only the impre- cation of divine displeasure in the case of falsehood. It is, with Paul, not unfrequent, 2 Cor. 1: 23. Gal. 1: 20, Phil. 1: 8, &c. &c. The word rendered I serve, means, properly, I tv or ship, or perform religious service, and is always elsewhere used in this sense in the New Testament. This meaning may be here retained, " whom I worship in my spirit," i. e. not merely externally, but cordially ; and the clause in the gospel of his Son may mean either, agreeably to the gospel, or in preaching the gospel. If the latter, the idea may be, that preaching the gospel is itself a religious service; or that his devotion to this duty was evidence that he was a sincere worshipper.* The former interpretation is the simpler of the two — according to the gospel. The preposition rendered i7i, often expresses the rule according to which any thing is done — " according to what judgment ye judge, &c." Matt. 7: 2. (10) Making request if by any tneans now at length I might have a jwosperous journey by the will of God to come * So Calvik, Deindc a signo probat, quomodo Dcum non ficte colat, nempe ministerio suo. Erat enim amplissimum illud specimen, esse hominem Dei gloriae deditum, &,c. 5 34 ROMANS 1: 1—17. unto yon. Not merely the fact that he prayed, Init the subject of his prayers, evinced his interest in the Roman Christians. If by any means now at length expresses the strength of the apostle's desire to see them, and implies that it had been, as he afterwards assures them was the case, long cherished, / may have a prosperous journey ; this is all expressed by one word in the Greek, which means, / may be prospered, see 2 Cor. 16: 2. 3 John v. 2. The idea therefore is, 'that God would order things fiivourably to his visiting them.' By the luill of God, not merely by the divine favour, but under the divine guidance. (11) For I long to see yon, that I may impart nnto you some spiritual gift, &c. The desire of the apostle to visit Rome, arose from no idle curiosity, nor from a mere desire of intercourse with his fellow-christians, but from a wish to be useful. Spiritual gifts are gifts of which the Holy Spirit is the author, and include, not only those miraculous endowments, of which such frequent mention is made in the epistle to the Corinthians and elsewhere, but also the ordinary gifts of teach- ing, exhortation and prophesying, enumerated in 1 Cor. 12. Gifts of the former class were communicated by laying on of the hands of the apostles. Acts 8: 17. 19: G, and therefore abounded in churches founded by the apostles, 1 Cor. 1 : 7. Gal. 3: 5. As the church at Rome was not of this number, it has been supposed that Paul's meaning in tliis passage is, that he was desirous of communicating to them some of the extraor- dinary gifts, by which the gospel, in other ])laces, was attended and confirmed. To this view is suited the object which he had in his mind, viz. " that they might be established." Although this idea is not to be excluded, a comparison with vs. 12, 13, shows that the apostle's meaning is more general. (12) That is, that I may be comforted together with you, &c. This verse is connected with the last clause of the pre- ceding; it does not imply that the apostle was to receive from them the same gifts that he wished to im])art to them, but that he expected to be benefited by their imjjrovement. It is de- signed, therefore, with singular modesty, to insinuate, that he did not imagine himself above being improved by the Roman Christians, or that the benefit would be all on one side. He hoped to derive good from those to whom he imparted good. ROMANS 1: 1—17. 35 The word rendered to covifort, means to invite, to exhort, to instruct, to console, &c. Which of these senses is to he pre- ferred here, is not easy to decide. Most probably the apostle intended to use the word in a wide sense, as expressina; the idea that he might be excited, encouraged and comforted by his intercourse with his Christian brethren.* (13) Now I luould not have you ignorant brethren, that oftentimes I pui^posed to come unto you, &c. In ch. 15: 22, 23, he mentions the same fact, and says this purpose had been long entertained; its execution was prevented by providential circumstances, or direct intimations of the divine will. In 1 Thess. 2: 18, he tells the Thessalonians that Satan had hindered his coming to them. In Acts 16: 6, 7, it is said that he "was forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia." And in Rom. 15: 21, 22, he says his pressing calls to preach the gospel where it had not before been heard, had much hindered his going to Rome. His object in desiring to visit them was, that he tnight have some fruit among them, as among other Gen- tiles. To have fruit, commonly means to derive advantage from; ch. 6 : 21, 22, "what fruit had ye," i. e. what advantage had ye. Many give the words this sense here, and understand the apostle as referring to personal benefits of some kind, which he wished to derive from preaching to them. But it is much more natural to understand him as referring to that fruit, which, as Calvin remarks, the apostles were sent to gather. John 15: 16, "I have chosen you that ye might go and bring forth fruit," i. e. produce great results, and that your fruit may remain. (14) I ain debtor both to the Greeks and the Barbarians, both the ivise and the unwise. That is, ' I am officially bound to preach to all classes of men.' Those whom he calls in the first clause Greeks and Barbarians, he calls in the second, wise and unwise. As the Greeks called all foreigners barbarians, and as most other nations were uncivilized, the term barbarian was often used as equivalent with rude, uncultivated. Pro- perly, however, it means a foreigner, one of another lan- guage, especially in reference to the Greeks: for the Romans were called, and called themselves barbarians, until the Greek • Vide in quantam modoratioiiein subniittat pium prctus, quod noii recusat a rudibus tiruncuiis coiifirinationein petere. — Calvin. 36 ROMANS 1: 1—17. language and literature prevailed among them. Paul uses it in its original sense in 1 Cor. 14: 11, "I shall he unto him that speaketh, a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me," i. e, we shall be as foreigners to each other, if one uses a tongue unknown to the other. It is used, as here, for those destitute of Roman or Jewish culture. Acts 2S: 2, 4^ and Col. 3: 11. It is said to have been first employed as a term of reproach by the Greeks in reference to the Persians after their wars with that people. See Passow's Greek Lexicon on this word. (15) So, as m/iich as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to yo7i that are at Rome also. As the apostle's obli- gation extended to all classes, he was prepared to preach even at Rome, where he might expect the greatest opposition and contempt. Our translation of the first clause of this verse is the same as that given by Grotius.* It may, however, more consistently with the structure of the sentence, be rendered so, my desire is, or, so, I am ready: llic words translated as much as in me is, being a mere paraplirase for the posses- sive pronoun, or for the genitive case of the personal pronoun. (16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the 2J0iver of God imto salvation, to every one that he- lieveth; to the Jeiv first, and also to the Greek. We have here the theme of the whole epistle. The gospel ]iroposcs sal- vation on the condition of faith; and it is universally applicable to the Greek as well as the Jew. These ideas are presented more fully in the two following verses. Thus naturally does the apostle introduce the great topics of discussion, the method of salvation, and the persons to whom it may be proj)oscd. The connexion between this and the preceding verse is obvious. The reason why he was ready to preach the gospel, even in the proud capital of the world, was that it is divinely efficacious in securing the salvation of men. It docs what no other system ever did or can accomplish. The words rendered the ])0wcr of God may be taken for divinely efficacious; better, however, as expressing the idea of that through \ohicli the power of God is manifested. Acts 8: 10. 1 Cor. 1: IS, 24.t 'The gospel * Quod mcao est potcsfatis id paratum est. Thus too Beza, Quicquid in me situm est, promptum est ad vobis quoque qui Roma; estis evangclizandum. ■j- Organon Dei verc potens ct eflicax ad senandum. — Bf.za. ROMANS 1: 1—17. 37 is an instrument, in the liands of God, truly powerful in saving men.' To every one that believeth. Emphasis must be laid upon both members of this clause. The gospel is thus effica- cious to every one, without distinction between Jew and Gen- tile; and to every one that believeth, not who is circumcised, or wlio obeys the law, or who does this or that, or any other thine;, but who believes, i. e. who receives and confides in Jesus Christ in all the characters, and for all the purposes in which he is presented in the gospel. It will be very clearly seen in the progress of the epistle, that Paul attributes no special effi- cacy to faith itself, considered as an exercise of the mind. As such, it is no more worthy of being the condition of salvation, than love, or repentance, or resignation, or any other act of obedience to the law of God. It is as the organ of reception; as the acquiescence of the soul in the method of salvation pro- posed in the gospel, that it is the turning point in the destiny of every human being. The grand idea of this epistle, and of the whole bible (as far as this subject is concerned), is that the ground of our justification, and the source of our sanctification, are not in ourselves; that neither human merit nor human pow- er can have any of the glory of our salvation. To the merit of Christ we owe our acceptance with God, and to the power of the Holy Ghost, our preparation for his presence. To the Jew first, and also to the Greek. It would be in direct contradic- tion to one of the prominent ol)jects of the apostle in writing this epistle, as well as to his explicit declarations, to make this clause teach that the gospel w^as specially designed or adapted for the Jews, see ch. 3: 9, 22, 29. 10: 12, &c. The meaning obviously is, ' for the Jew in the first instance, and then for the Greek.' The gospel was to be preached to all nations, be- gin7iing at Jerusalem, compare Acts 3: 26 and 13: 26. Paul often says ' Jews and Greeks' for ' Jews and Gentiles,' ch. 2 : 9. 3: 9, &c., because, after the conquests of Alexander, the Greeks were the Gentiles with whom the Jews were most familiar. (17) For therein the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, &c. The reason why the gospel is so efficacious in the salvation of men, i. e. in securing the pardon of their sins, and the moral renovation of their hearts and lives, is not that it reveals a perfect moral system, or that it teaches the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment, or that it 38 ROMANS 1: 1—17. discloses new views of the divine character. All this is true and efficacious; but the power of the gospel lies in the fact that it teaches the doctrine of justification by faith, or, in other words, it reveals the righteousness of God by faith. This expression is one of the most important in the epistle, and is variously explained. The word rendered righteousyiess, has, in the scriptures, a very great extent and variety of meaning. It signifies not merely Justice in its strict sense, but general rectitude, including all moral excellence. It is used, therefore, especially in the Old Testament, for almost every specific virtue, as tinith, benevo- lence, mercy, &c. The examples may be seen in the Lexicons. Its common and proper meaning is, that which makes a man just, i. e. which fulfils and satisfies all the claims of justice or law. Hence, a just vian is one who can stand in judgment See the constant opposition between \\\e just and the unjust; between those who can, and those who cannot answer the demands of law. The word, therefore, not unfrequently means the state of one who is thus just, or who has done all that is required of him. This Tholuck gives as its original meaning. See Is. 5: 23, "who take the righteousness of the righteous from him;" that is, not who take away his excellence, but its consequences; who deprive him of the benefits of his righteousness, or exclude him from the state or condition of those who are regarded as right- eous. This is by many considered as the dominant meaning of the word in the New Testament. 'The state of freedom from punishment, and enjoyment of the favour of God, i. e. the con- dition of those who arc considered righteous in his sight' See such passages as Is. 45: 8. 51: 5, and 56: 1, where righteous- ness is connected with salvation, as a nearl}' synonymous term. Ps. 24: 5, "he shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation;" here righteous- ness is not excellence, but the blessings consequent on it Hence, ' to receive righteousness' is to be justified. And so this verse may be rendered ' he shall be justified by the God of his salvation.' Prov. 21:21," he that foUoweth after righteousness and mercy, findeth life, righteousness and honour," where the word is obviously used in different senses in the two members of the verse. In this sense of the word, it is nearly equivalent with justification, not as the act of God, but viewed in refer- ROMANS 1: 1—17. 39 ence to the sinner. See 2 Cor. 3: 9, where "the mniistration of condemnation" is opposed to " the ministration of righteous- ness," i. e. justification; Rom. 9: 31, where " the law of right- eousness" may mean 'the rule of justification;' Gal. 2: 21, "if righteousness (justification) co7ne hy the law, Christ is dead in vain;" 3: 21, "if there had heen a law which could have given life, verily righteousness (justification) should have been by the law;" 5: 5. Rom. 5. 21. Finally, when used in refer- ence to God, it may mean his justification, that is, his way of justifying sinners. Thus salvation of God is used, Acts 28: 28, for ' his method of salvation.' One of the greatest difficulties in understanding the epistles of Paul, especially those to the Romans and Galatians, arises from the fulness and variety of the meaning of the word here rendered righteousness. The difficulty is greatly enhanced to the reader of the English version, as the English term answers to a small portion only of the ideas which may be expressed by the Greek word. Hence, an interpretation which the Greek readily admits, the English will not bear. It is, therefore, often necessary to vary the translation of this word in obedience to the requirements of the context. With regard to the important phrase righteousiiess of God, in this verse, there are three interpretations which demand attention. I. According to the first, it is to be understood of some divine attribute, the recti- tude or mercy of God, see ch. 3: 5, 25. But this interpretation does not, in the first place, suit the context. It is not because the gospel contains the declaration of God's rectitude, or even of his mercy, that it is so efficacious. 2. The latter sense, that of inercy, the word rarely, if ever has, in such a connexion in the New Testament. 3. This interpretation is inconsistent with the force of the words by faith. It is the righteousness of God by faith, that is revealed in the gospel. The phrases righteousness of, or by faith, and of the law, are so opposed to each other as to be mutually explanatory. It is the former which is the great theme of the gospel, and which cannot pos- sibly mean the ' mercy which is by faith.' 4. This interpreta- tion cannot be applied to other passages where the phrase occurs; as ch. 3:21, where this righteousness of God is de- clared not to be legal; ch. 10: 3, where the righteousness of the 40 ROMANS 1: 1—17. Jews, ' as tlieir own,' is opposed to the righteousness of God, see Phil. 3: 9. II. According to the second view, the phrase means ' that righteousness, of which God is the author, and which is accept- able to him;' as " ways of God " are ways which he approves. In favour of this interpretation it may be urged, 1. Tliat it gives the word righteousness its most common and appropriate mean- ing; and assigns to the genitive of God one of its most familiar acceptations. 2. That it is sustained by a reference to the fre- quently recurring expression, ' righteous before God,' or ' in his sight,' i. e. in his estimation, which shows how familiar it was to the sacred writers to qualify the righteousness Avhich was to be desired, by designating it as such in the estimation of God. 3. This interpretation will suit most of the passages in which the phrase occurs, ch. 3: 21. 10: 3. Phil. 3: 9, &c. It suits also the opposition between ' righteousness of, or by faith,' and ' righteousness of the law, or by tlie works of the law.' These expressions are used in such connexion with the phrase under consideration, as to show that the word righteousness must mean the same thing in both cases. ' Righteousness by faith' is ' that excellence which is obtained by faith;' and ' right- eousness of the law' is that which is obtained by obedience to the law. 4. It suits the contrast, Rom. 10: 3, between * our own righteousness' and ' tlie righteousness of God.' It is especially recommended by a comparison with Phil. 3: 9. "Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness wiiich is of God l)y faith," Here it is evident " the rigliteousness which is of God," is that meritorious excellence which he gives, as distin- guished from that which we gain by our own works. This serves to explain what Paul meant by the more concise phrase, " righteousness of God." This interpretation, which, among the older Calvinistic writers,* is altogether the most common, * Justitiam Dei acripio, qua; ajjiul Dei tribunal approbctur; qucmaclmotlum contra Iloniinuin justitiam vocare solent, qua; hominum oj)ini()nP habctur et ccn- setur justilia, licet fuinus timtum sit. — Calvin. Beza's explanation is much the same. So, too, among the moderns, even the philoso])liical Neanpeu, " Die ^ixaiotfuvr) tou Sjou bezcichnet hicr, (he is speakinc; of Mom. 10: 2) cin solches Oerechtseyn, welches vor Gott Geltung hat und von ihm herkommt im Gegensatz gegciieui seiches, das man sich durch cigcnc Kriiftc und Werke erwcrbcn meint und ROMANS 1: 1_17. 41 is perfectly suited to the context. Tlie power of the gospel is attributed to the fact, that a justifying righteousness is therein revealed, that is, a merit which satisfies all the demands of the law, and which God offers, as the ground of the sinner's depen- dence, in preference to any righteousness or merit of his own. III. According to the third interpretation, "righteousness of God" means ' God's method of justification.' This is consist- ent, as shown above, with the meaning of the word in the ori- ginal. It may signify justification, or a state of favour with God, and then. the method of obtaining it. This is, among mo-, dern writers, the interpretation which is most generally re- ceived, although the second seems to be again coming into vogue. This view has the great advantage of being applicable to all the places in which the phrase occurs in this epistle, ex- cept ch. 3: 5, and (perhaps) 3: 25. It suits also the opposition between the expressions ' the method of justification by faith,' and ' the method of justification by works.' But it is, on the other hand, liable to several objections. It gives the word righteousness a figurative and comparatively unusual meaning. It does not so well suit the opposition between ' our own right- eousness,' and 'the righteousness of God;' as the former of these phrases cannot well mean ' our own method of justifica- tion.' It is opposed also to the explanation of the apostle, fur- nished by the expression, ' the righteousness which is of God by faith,' Phil. 3: 9, which cannot, in that passage, mean ' God's method of justification.' On the whole, therefore, the old in- terpretation is the best, better suited to the usage of the words, better adapted to the context, and to the train and object of the apostle's argument, which all tends to demonstrate that the ground of our acceptance with God, is something out of our- selves : a righteousness which is of God, and not our own. The words from faith to faith are not to be connected with the word revealed, as though the meaning were, ' revealed das, wenn auch Menschen durch den Schein sich tauschen lassen, vor dem Blick des heiligen, all wissenden Gottes nicht bestehen kann." " Aixaio(Ti;v>] tou Ssou designates here such a righteousness as is of avail before God, and which comes from him, in opposition to that which men imagine they can gain by their own power and works, and which, even if they allow themselves to be cheated by the semblance, cannot stand before the eye of the all-holy and all-seeing God." — Ge- schichie der Pfanzung der Kirclie, &c., vol. 2, p. 537. 6 48 ROMANS 1: 1—17. from faith to faith,' but with the word righteousness. It is " the righteousness of God, tuhich is by faith to faith,''' that is disclosed by the gospel. The most natural interpretation of these words is that which makes the repetition merely inten- sive— ' from faith to faith,' entirely of faith, in which works have no part. See 2 Cor. 2: 16, " death to death," means very deadly, " life unto life" eminently salutary. That righteousness, then, which is acceptable before God, is that of which he is the author, and which is received by faith alone. As it is ivritten. The just shall live by faith. The words, as it is written, are the usual formula of reference to the Old Testament. In what relation the passage cited may stand to the topic in hand, whether as a prediction, or an inculcation of the same or some analogous truth, or of something which may serve as an illustration, depends entirely on the context. In the present case, Paul wishes to show the importance of faith, by a reference to a passage in Habakkuk 2: 4, in which the prophet declares that the safety of the people depended upon their believing. Those who turned a deaf ear to the threaten- ings and promises of God should perish, but those who be- lieved should live. The passage, therefore, is directly in point, and shows that, as well in reference to the external theocracy of the Old Testament, as to the spiritual theocracy or kingdom of Christ, under the New Testament, the favour of God was to be secured by faith. Agreeably to the position of the words in the original, these words may be pointed either thus, ' the just by faith, shall live,' or thus, ' the just, by faith shall live.' The former is more con- sistent with the immediate object of the apostle, who is spealfc- ing of di justness by faith. It is also the connexion and sense of the words in the Old Testament. Shall live, shall enjoy the favour of God, whose favour is life, and whose loving-kindness is better than life, see Rom. 5: 17. 8: 13. 10: 3, and the nume- rous passages in which the word life expresses all the benefits of the redemption of Christ. Doctrines. 1. The apostolic office, except as to what was peculiar and extraordinary, being essentially the same with the ministerial office in general, Paul teaches, 1. That ministers are the ser- ROMANS 1: 1—17. 43 vants of Christ, deriving their authority from him, and not from the people; 2. That their calling is to preach the gospel, to which all other avocations must be made subordinate; 3. That the object of their appointment is to bring men to the obedi- ence of faith; 4. That their field is all nations; 5. That the de- sign of all is to honour Christ; it is for his name, vs. 1 — 5. 2. The gospel is contained, in its rudiments, in the Old Testa- ment, It is the soul of the old dispensation, v. 2. 3. Christ is the Alpha and Omega of the gospel. In stating the substance of the gospel, Paul says, ' it concerns Jesus Christ,' V. 3. 4. Christ is at once God and man; the son of David and the Son of God, vs. 3, 4, 5. Christ is called the Son of God in reference to his divine nature, and on account of the relation in which, as God, he stands to the Father. The name, therefore, is expressive of his divine character, vs. 3, 4. 6. He is the proper object of prayer, and the source of spi- ritual blessings, v. 7. 7. He is the mediator, through whom our prayers and thanks- giving must be presented unto God, v. 8. 8. God is the source of all spiritual good; is to be worship- ped in spirit, and agreeably to the gospel; and his providence is to be recognized in reference to the most ordinary affairs of life, vs. 8—10. 9. Ministers are not a class of men exalted above the people, and independent of them for spiritual benefits, but are bound to seek, as well as to impart good, in all their intercourse with those to whom they are sent, vs. 11, 12. 10. Ministers are bound to preach the gospel to all men, rich as well as poor, wise as well as unwise; for it is equally adapted to the wants of all, vs. 14, 15. 11. The salvation of men, including the pardon of their sins, and the moral renovation of their hearts, can be effected by the gospel alone. The wisdom of men, during four thousand years previous to the advent of Christ, failed to discover any adequate means for the attainment of either of these objects; and those who, since the advent, have neglected the gospel, have been equally unsuccessful, v. 16, &c. 12. The power of the gospel lies not in its pure theism, or 44 ROMANS 1: 1—17. perfect moral code, but in the cross, in the doctrine of justifica- tion by faith in a crucified Redeemer, v. 17, &:c. Remarks. 1. Ministers should remember that they are "separated unto the gospel," and that any occupation which, by its demands upon their attention, or from its influence on their character or feelings, interferes with their devotion to this object, is for them wrong, V. 1. 2. If Jesus Christ is the great subject of the gospel, it is evi- dent that we cannot have right views of the one, without having correct opinions respecting the other. What think ye of Christ? cannot be a minor question. To be Christians, we must recog- nize him as the Messiah, or Son of David; and as divine, or the Son of God; we must be able to pray to him, to look for blessings from him, and recognize him as the mediator between God and man, vs. 1 — 8. 3. Christians should remember that they are saints; that is, persons separated from the world and consecrated to God. They therefore cannot serve themselves or the world, without a dere- liction of their character. They are saints, because called and made such of God. To all such, grace and peace are secured by the mediation of Christ, and the promise of God, v. 7. 4. In presenting truth, every thing consistent with fidelity should be done to conciliate the confidence and kind feelings of those to whom it is addressed; and every thing avoided, which tends to excite prejudice against the speaker or his message. Who more faithful than Paul ? Yet who more anxious to avoid offence ? Who more solicitous to present the truth, not in its most irritating form, but in the manner best adapted to gain for it access to the unruffled minds of his readers ? vs. S — 14. 5. As all virtues, according to the Christian system, are graces (gifts), they aflbrd matter for thanksgiving, but never for self-commendation, v. 8. 6. The intercourse of Christians should be desired, and made to result in edification, by their mutual faith, v. 12. 7. He who rejects the doctrine of justification by faith, rejects the gospel. His whole method of salvation, and system of rcli- •j-ion, must be different from those of the apostles, v. 17. 8. Whether we be wise or unwise, moral or immoral, in the ROMANS 1: 18— 32. 45 sight of men, orthodox or heterodox in our opinions; unless we are believers, unless we cordially receive ' the righteousness which is of God,' as the ground of acceptance, we have no part or lot in the salvation of the gospel, v. 17. CHAP. 1: 18—32. Jinalysis. The apostle having stated that the only righteousness availa- ble in the sight of God is that which is obtained by faith, proceeds to prove that such is the case. This proof required that he should, in the first instance, demonstrate that the righteousness which is of the law, or of works, was insufficient for the justification of a sinner. This he does, first in reference to the Gentiles, ch. 1 : 18 — 32; and then in relation to the Jews, ch. 2: — 3: 1 — 20. The residue of this chapter then is designed to prove that the Gentiles are justly exposed to condemnation. The apostle thus argues: God is just; his displeasure against sin (which is its punishment) is clearly revealed, v. 18. This principle is assumed by the apostle, as the foundation of his whole argument. If this be granted, it follows that all, who are chargeable with either impiety or immorality, are exposed to the wrath of God, and cannot claim his favour on the ground of their own character or conduct. That the Gentiles are justly chargeable with both impiety and immorality, he thus proves. They have ever enjoyed such a revelation of the divine cha- racter as to render them inexcusable, vs. 19, 20. Notwith- standing this opportunity of knowing God, they neither wor- shipped nor served him, but gave themselves up to all forms of idolatry. This is the height of all impiety, vs. 21, 23. In consequence of this desertion of God, he gave them up to the evil of their own hearts, so that they sank into all manner of debasing crimes. The evidences of this corruption of morals were so painfully obvious, that Paul merely appeals to the knowledge which his readers all possessed of the fact, vs. 24 — 31. These various crimes they do not commit ignorantly; they are aware of their ill-desert; and yet they not only commit them themselves, but encourage others in the same course, v. 32. The inference from the established sinfulness of the Gentile world, Paul does not draw, until he has substantiated the same 46 ROMANS 1: 18—32. charge against the Jews. He then says, since all are sinners before God, no flesh can be justified by the works of the law. ch. 3: 20. Commentary. (IS) For the lorath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, &c. The con- nexion of this verse with the preceding, and consequently the force of the particle for, will be perceived, if it is remembered that Paul had just asserted, that those only who were just by faith, could live; in other words, that no righteousness but that which is of God by faith, can avail to the justification of men. The reason is assigned in this verse; God is just. Men must be justified by faith, for the wrath of God is revealed, &c. The wrath of God means his disapprobation of sin and his determi- nation to punish it. The passion which is called anger or wrath, and which is always mixed more or less with malignity in the human breast, is, of course, infinitely removed from what the word imports when used in reference to God. Yet as anger in men leads to the infliction of evil on its object, the word is, agreeably to a principle which pervades the scriptures, applied to the calm and undeviating purpose of the divine mind, which secures the connexion between sin and misery, with the same general uniformity that any other law in the physical or moral government of God operates. This wrath is revealed from heaven. These words are variously explained. Some very unnecessarily take the present is revealed, for the future shall be revealed, i. e. in the last day. It is no less obvious that the apostle does not mean that this wrath is now revealed in the gospel, for his object is to reason with those who knew not, or who rejected the gospel. The sim])lest interpretation is that which makes Paul declare that the divine wrath is clearly made known; made known from heaven, where God dwells, and whence he is said to look down on the children of men, and whence all manifestations of his character are said to proceed. This revelation is from heaven, as the lightning is, which forces itself on the most reluctant vision. Even so Paul assumes that God's j)unitive justice forces itself on the knowledge and conviction of every sinner. He, therefore, neither tells us how it is manifested, nor does he attempt to prove that such is the ROMANS 1: 18— 32. 47 fact. It is one of those obvious and ultimate truths, which, existing in every man's consciousness, may safely be assumed as both known and admitted. It will be seen that all Paul's reasoning on the subject of justification rests on the principle here assumed. To what purpose would it be to prove that men are sinners, unless God is determined to punish sin ? If retribu- tive justice is no part of the divine character, their sinfidness may be admitted, and yet it may be consistently maintained, that they can be justified by any work, moral or ceremonial, which God might choose to appoint. But if sin must be punished, then pardon must not only be gratuitous, as it regards the sinner, but it can only be dispensed on the ground of an adequate atonement. Jigainst all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Although the words ungodliness and iinrighteousness are often used indiscriminately, they are not to be considered in this case as synonymous, because Paul distinctly proves that the Gentiles are chargeable both with impiety and immorality, in the ordi- nary acceptation of these terms. These two all-comprehensive classes of sins are declared to be the objects of the divine dis- pleasure. Who hold the truth in unrighteousness. The word truth is here variously explained. It is obviously inconsistent with the context to understand it of the gospel, as though the apostle meant to denounce judgment on those who opposed the gospel. The word is used with considerable latitude in the scrip- tures. It is often used for true religion, including both its doctrines, John S: 32. Rom. 2: 20. 2 Cor. 4: 2, &c. &c., and its duties, John 3: 21. 1 John 1: 6, "who do not the truth, &c." Such is probably its meaning here. The word rendered to hold, in the sense of having in possession, is so used in 1 Cor. 7: 30. 15: 2. Luke 8:15, &c. If this sense be adopted here, the word truth must be understood objectively, for the true doctrine; and in unrighteousness should be rendered ivilh unrighteousness. The meaning of the clause would then be, ' who have the truth with unrighteousness,' i. e. although pos- sessed of the truth are still unrighteous. See James 2: 1, for a precisely similar expression, " my brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, with respect of persons," i. e. do not, if believers, cherish a respect of persons. As, however, the word also means to hold back, to hinder, and then to impede; it may 48 ROMANS 1: 18— 32. be so understood here, and the clause be rendered ' who oppose the truth by unrighteousness;' or better, 'who wickedly oppose the truth,' i. e. religion. The latter interpretation is the simpler of the two, but the former is sustained, in some measure, by a comparison with v. 21, in which men are represented as know- ing God, i. e. having the truth, and yet acting wickedly. (19) Since that ivhich may be known of God is manifest in them, &c. The apostle's object being to prove that the Gen- tiles are justly chargeable with impiety, he commences by showing that they have not the excuse of ignorance, since all men have enjoyed a competent revelation of the divine charac- ter. This, as is his manner, he introduces naturally, by the as- sociating idea contained in the last clause of v. 18, ' men wick- edly oppose the truth, since they have a sufficient knowledge of it;' or ' men who are wicked, still have the truth, since what may be known of God has been revealed to them.' In either case, the connexion and argument are essentially the same. That lohich m,ay be known. Such is the common and proper mean- ing of the word here used, and which suits well the context It is, therefore, to be preferred to another rendering, which is also philologically correct, according to which, the word means knowledge, ' the knowledge of God is revealed,' &c. The words translated in them, may be rendered to them, or among them. The first is to be preferred, as it is more natural and more forcible. It is not an external revelation merely, of which the apostle is speaking, but of that witness of the existence and perfections of God also, which every man has in the constitu- tion of his own nature;* and in virtue of which alone, he is competent to appreciate the manifestations of God in his works. For God hath showed it unto them. The knowledge in question is a revelation. It is a manifestation of God in them and to them. Such knowledge is not a conclusion arrived at by a process of reasoning, but it is seen in its own light and felt in its own power. The manifestation to which Paul spe- cially refers, is that which is made in the external world, and for the right apprehension of which God has fashioned our nature.t * Dei notitia rccondita est in intimis mentis penetralibus. — Beza. I Quod dicit Detim manifestasse, scnsus est, ideo conditum esse hominem, ut spectator sit fabricae mundi ; ideo datos ei oculos, ut intuitu tarn pulchrae imaginis ad auctorein ipsuin fcratur. — ('alvin. ROMANS 1: 18—32. 49 (20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, &c. This verse is a confirmation and illustration of the preceding. The knowledge, of which Paul speaks, relates to the invisible things of God, that is, his eternal power and Godhead. These things, Paul says, are seen, though invisible, by their manifestation in the external world. This manifestation is perpetual and uni- versal. It is from the creation of the world. These words may indeed be rendered by the creation, &c., but not consist- ently with the latter part of the verse; nor do they, when thus rendered, give so pertinent a sense. These invisible things are seen, being understood; that is, it is a mental vision of which Paul speaks. The eye of sense sees nothing but the ex- ternal object, the mind sees mind; and mind possessed not of human power and perfections, but of eternal power and divi- nity. The latter word (which is not the same with that also ren- dered Godhead, Col. 2:9) means the divine majesty and ex- cellence, and, therefore, includes all the divine perfections. These perfections are manifested by the things which are mfide; so the word here used properly means, see Eph. 2: 10; but it may also mean works generally. ' Being understood by his ivorks,' would then include the dispensations of his provi- dence, as well as the products of his hands. The common ver- sion, how-ever, is more natural and appropriate. So that they are without excuse. These words are by many frequently considered as depending on the last clause of v. 19, 'God hath showed it unto them, so that they are without excuse.' The former part of this verse is thus thrown into a parenthesis. The sense remains the same. God has so manifested himself in his works, as to render the impiety, and especially the idolatry of men, inexcusable. It is not necessary to maintain that this re- velation is competent to supply all the knowledge which a sin- ner needs. It is enough that it renders men inexcusable;* and as it is that by which they are to be judged, ch. 2: 14, 15; if it be disregarded, it renders their condemnation as just, although * Sit haec distinctio: Demonstrationeni Dei, qua gloriam suam in crcaturis per- spicuam facit, esse, quantum ad lucem suam, satis evidentem; quantum ad nos- tram caecitatem, non adeo sulficere. Caeterum non ita caeci sumus, ut ignoran- tiam possiiiius praetexerc, quin pervcrsitatis arguamur. — Calvin. 7 50 ROMANS 1: 18—32. not so severe, as the condemnation of those who disregard the clearer light of the gospel. The sentiment of this verse occurs in Acts l4: 17, "Nevertheless, he left not himself without a witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, fill- ing our hearts with food and gladness."* (21) Because that, lohen tliey knew God, they glorified Jmn not as God, neither ivere tliankfid, &c. That men are justly chargeable with impiety, Paul proves, because they had a competent knowledge of God, but did not act agreeal)ly to it When they knew, means either having the opportunity of knowing, or actually possessing this knowledge. The latter is probably the apostle's meaning. God has revealed himself in the constitution of human nature, and in his works, to all men. This revelation is indeed greatly and generally neglected; and other, and delusive guides followed, so that the heathen arc commonly ignorant of what it teaches. In like manner the bible is neglected, and those to whom it is sent, disregarding its directions, follow those who teach for doctrines \he command- ments of men. In both cases, however, there is knowledge pre- sented, and a revelation made; and in both is ignorance without excuse. As there is no apology for the impiety of the heathen to be found in any unavoidable ignorance of God, their idolatry is the fruit of depravity. The apostle, therefore, says, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful. These two expressions include every act of worship. The former refers to the recognition of all the divine perfec- tions, the latter to the acknowledgement of God as the source of all good. To regard God as possessed of all excellence, and as the giver of all good, is true piety. Instead of thus rendering unto God the homage and grati- tude which are his due, they became vain in their imagina- tions, and their foolish heart was darkened. ' They became * That the hcatht'ii themselves recofynizcd the works of God as a manifestation of his existence and glory, is evident from their frequent dQclarations to this effect. .Aristotle, De Mundo VI., -Kudrj 5vr)T/i (pvSSt ysvofiSvog dS£wPr)T05, d-ff' auTWV