0 3 4 hw fr’ 5 |} 42 bod ‘r LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON. N. J. _— em DE nm / Division. LA-me.Ln N Mi } Section..».4....1. ER ae and T. Clark's Publications. I Fust published, in demy 8vo, price 105. 6d., The Bible Doctrine of Man. (Sebenth Series of Cunningham DLectures.) By JOHN LAIDLAW, D.D. *’« An important and valuable contribution to the discussion of the anthropology of the sacred writings, perhaps the most considerable that has appeared in our own language.’ —Literary Churchman. ‘The work is a thoughtful contribution to a subject which must always have deep interest for the devout student of the Bible.—British Quarterly Review. ‘Dr. Laidlaw’s work is scholarly, able, interesting, and valuable... . Thoughtful and devout minds will find much to stimulate, and not alittle to assist, their meditations in this learned and, let us add, charmingly printed volume.’—Reoord. ‘On the whole, we take this to be the most sensible and reasonable statement of the Wiblical psychology of man we have met.’— Expositor. ‘The book will give ample material for thought to the reflective reader; and it holds a position, as far as we know, which is unique.’—Church Bells. ‘The Notes to the Lectures, which occupy not less than 180 pages, are exceedingly valuable. The style of the lecturer is clear and animated; the critical and analytical judgment predominates.’—English Independent. Fust published, Second Edition, demy 8vo, 105. 6d., The Trainıng of the Twelve, EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES IN THE GOSPELS EXHIBITING THE TWELVE DISCIPLES OF JESUS UNDER DISCIPLINE FOR THE APOSTLESHIP, BY A. B. BRUCE, D.D., PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW, ‘Here we have a really great book on an important, large, and attractive subject—a book full of loving, wholesome, profound thoughts about the fundamentals of Christian faith and practice..—British and Foreign Evangelical Review. ‘It is some five or six years since this work first made its appearance, and now that a second edition has been called for, the Author has taken the opportunity to make some alterations which are likely to render it still more acceptable. Substantially, however, the book remains the same, and the hearty commendation with which we noted its first issue applies to it at least as much now.’—Rock. ‘The value, the beauty of this volume is that it is a unique contribution to, because a, loving and cultured study of, the life of Christ, in the relation of the Master of the Twelve.’ —Edinburgh Daily Review. 2 T. and T. Clark's Publications. ‘This series is one of great importance to the biblical scholar; and, as regards its general execution, it leaves little or nothing to be desired.’—Edinburgh Review. KEIL AND DELITZSCH’S INTRODUCTION TO AND COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. In 27 Volumes, demy 8vo. iy) alpled ea CLARK have resolved to offer complete sets of this work at the Original Subscription Price of £7, 2s. 0d. Single volumes may be had, price 10s. 6d. In crown 8vo, Eighth Edition, price 7s. 6d., IHE SUFFERING SAVIO Uae OR, MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. By F. W. KRUMMACHER, D.D. ‘The work bears throughout the stamp of an enlightened intellect, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and of a profound study of the Word of God.’—Record. ‘The reflections are of a pointed and practical character, and are eminently calculated to inform the mind and improve the heart. To the devout and earnest Christian the volume will be a treasure indeed.’— Wesleyan Times. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. Just published, Second Edition, in crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d., DANI DoT AB BING. OF Sa Ae A PORTRAIT DRAWN FROM BIBLE HISTORY AND THE BOOK OF PSALMS. At the close of two articles reviewing this work, the Christian Observer says: ‘Our space will not permit us to consider more at large this very interesting work, but we cannot do less than cordially commend it to the attention of our readers. It affords such an insight into King David’s character as is nowhere else to be met with; it is therefore most instructive.’ In demy 8vo, price 7s. 6d., SERMONS TO THE NATURAL MAN. By WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D., Author of ‘A History of Christian Doctrine,’ etc. ‘Characterised by profound knowledge of divine truth, and presenting the truth ina chaste and attractive style, the sermons carry in their tone the accents of the solem feeling of responsibility to which they owe their origin. — Weekly Review. In One Volume, crown 8vo, price 5s., Third Edition, Ld GAM cE ROM Teh E ot RO BS: SERMONS ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD. Translated from the German of A. THOLUCK, D.D,, Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. ‘ With no ordinary confidence and pleasure, we commend these most noble, solemnizing, and touching discourses.’— British and Foreign Evangelical Review. T. and T. Clark’s Publications. Ben 1 0 0 Ta el a a a Q) In Three Volumes, 8vo, price 31s, 6d., A COMMENTARY ON PE: GOSPEL OF. ST: JOHN. By F. GODET, D.D., PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, NEUCHATEL. ‘ This work forms one of the battle-fields of modern inquiry, and is itself so rich in spiritual truth that it is impossible to examine it too closely ; and we welcome this treatise from the pen of Dr. Godet. We have no more competent exegete, and this new volume shows all the learning and vivacity for which the Author is distinguished.’—-Freeman. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. Just published, in Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s., A COMMENTARY ON mer GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. Translated from the Second French Edition. ‘We are indebted to the Publishers for an English translation of the admirable work which stands at the head of this review. ... It is a work of great ability, learning, and research.’—Christian Observer. ‘Marked by clearness and good sense, it will be found to possess value and interest as ar oe the most recent and copious works specially designed to illustrate this Gospel.’— uardien. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. In Two Volumes, 8vo, Vol. I. now ready, price 10s. 6d., A COMMENTARY. ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. ‘We have looked through it with great care, and have been charmed not less by the clearness and fervour of its evangelical principles than by the carefulness of its exegesis, its fine touches of spiritual intuition, and its appositeness of historical illustration.’ — Baptist Magazine. Just published, in demy 8vo, Fourth Edition, price 10s. 6d., MODERN DOUBT AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF. ° A Series of Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekers after Truth. By THEODORE CHRISTLIEB, D.D., UNIVERSITY PREACHER AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT BONN. Translated, with the Author's sanction, chiefly by the Rev. H. U. WEITBRECHT, Ph.D., and Edited by the Rev. T. L. Kinespury, M.A. ‘We recommend the volume as one of the most valuable and important among recent contributions to our apologetic literature. . .. We are heartily thankful both to the learned Author and to his translators.’—Guardian. ‘We express our unfeigned admiration of the ability displayed in this work, and of the spirit of deep piety which pervades it; and whilst we commend it to the careful perusal of our readers, we heartily rejoice that in those days of reproach and blasphemy go able a champion has come forward to contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.— Christian Observer. ee 4 T. and T. Clark's Publications. Dr. LUTHARDT’S WORKS. N In Three handsome crown 8vo Volumes, price 6s. each. ‘We do not know any volumes so suitable in these times for young men. entering on life, or, let us say, even for the library of a pastor called to deal with such, than the three volumes of this series. We commend the whole of them with the utmost cordial satisfaction. They are altogether quite a specialty in our literature.’— Weekly Review. APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. Fifth Edition. By ©. E. LUTHARDT, D.D., Leivzic. ‘From Dr. Luthardt’s exposition even the most learned theologians may derive in- valuable criticism, and the most acute disputants supply themselves with more trenchant and polished weapons than they have-as yet been possessed of.’—Bell’s Weekly Messenger. APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON THE SAVING TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. Fourth Edition. ‘Dr. Luthardt is a profound scholar, but a very simple teacher, and expresses himself on the gravest matters with the utmost simplicity, clearness, and force.’—Literary World. APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON THE MORAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. : Third Edition. . ‘The ground covered by this work is, of course, of considerable extent, and there is scarcely any topic of specifically moral interest now under debate in which the reader will not find some suggestive saying. The volume contains, like its predecessors, a truly wealthy apparatus of notes and illustrations.’— English Church nan. Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s., ST. JOHN THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. By Proressor C. E. LUTHARDT, Author of ‘Fundamental Truths of Christianity,’ etc. Translated and the Literature enlarged by C. R. Grecory,. Leipzig. ‘A work of thoroughness and value. The translator has added a lengthy Appendix, containing a very complete account of the literature bearing on the controversy respect- ing this Gospel. The indices which close the volume are well ordered, and add greatly to its value.’—Guardian. ‘There are few works in the later theological literature which contain such a wealth of sober theologieal knowledge and such an invulnerable phalanx of objective apolo- getical criticism.’—Professor Guericke. Crown 8vo, 5s., LUTHARDT, KAHNIS, AND BRUCKNER. The Church: Its Origin, its History, and its Present Position. ‘A comprehensive review of this sort, done by able hands, is both instructive and snggestive.—Record. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY THE NEW TESTAMENT. «BY HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D,, OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER, Srom the German. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED, WITH THE SANCTION OF THE AUTHOR, BY WILLIAM P>DICKSON, DD, PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW, PART IV. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. VOL. IL. EDINBURGH: Te T CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREERD MDCCCLXXXI. PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T.. & Tea CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON,. . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, . . * . . ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, . . . . SCRIBNER AND WELFORD, CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, BY 4 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tı.D,, OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER, 2 TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY Rev. JOHN C. MOORE, BA. HAMBURG, VOI. EDINBURGH: Toe Tr CLARK, 38 GEORGE STHEET MDCCCLXXXI. A A - . —E bAVITASSAT er. RE N AGOMU 4 AB: er oe a ; F > - mee Pe Od any ot Tero ; ne KIA MC tetas BO , 4 VIER r 7 ’ Y EAN fi ite 30 VOT NT Ter OEM Penal | Ty Lae bE? Ge Vital GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. AMONG the many valuable contributions with which | the scholars and theologians of Germany have enriched the literature of New Testament exegesis, the Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament of Dr. Meyer has been pronounced by the almost unanimous verdict of competent judges the best, as it is unques- tionably the most careful and elaborate, work of its kind. The title indicates with sufficient clearness its distinctive character as at once critical and exegetical, although the former element stands in subordination to the latter. The critical remarks pre- fixed to each chapter present a lucid statement of the evidence with reference to all questions of any moment affecting the constitution of the text, and are especially valuable for the concise explanations which they give of the probable origin of the various readings, and of the grounds which, ina conflict of evi- dence and of critical opinion, have determined Dr. Meyer’s own judgment. But, terse and discriminating as is its textual criti- cism, a still higher value belongs to the exegesis which forms the pith and marrow of the book. While there are many com- mentaries of more or less excellence which occupy themselves with the theological import of Seripture, with popular exposition or with homiletic illustration,and otherswhich are largely devoted to historical criticism—as it is called, although it is in reality too vi GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR, often mere arbitrary speculation—Dr. Meyer has chosen and has steadily cultivated the special field of exegesis pure and simple. His sole aim is to ascertain the grammatical and historical meaning of Scripture in accordance with the legitimate principles, and in the use of the proper resources, of interpreta- tion, leaving the result thus obtained to be turned to due account by the theologian, the preacher, or the critical inquirer for their respective purposes. That the primary sense of Scripture can be rightly arrived at only by the method of grammatico-historical interpretation, is now admitted on all hands; and it is acknow- ledged that all Christian theology must rest on the foundation of sure and solid exegesis. The theologian must presume the processes, and must accept the assured results, of interpretation; nor can the preacher be regarded as duly equipped for his work, unless he is able to draw directly from the fountain-head— integros accedere fontes atque haurire—and to quicken and deepen his Christian insight by fresh and daily renewed study of the living word. In this, as in other departments of science, the best results have been attained by dividing labour and specialising research , and Dr. Meyer has, by the concentration of his energies for up- wards of forty years on the exegetical study of the New Testa- ment, made the field essentially his own. The Commentaries on the Gospels, on Acts, and on the Epistles to the Romans, Corin- thians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Phile- mon proceed from his own hand, and have all of them been revised and enlarged in successive editions—several even a fifth time. For the completion of the work on the same general plan he called in the services of able colleagues—Dr. Liinemann for the Epistles to the Thessalonians and Hebrews, Dr. Huther for the Pastoral and the Catholic Epistles, and Dr. Diisterdieck for the Apocalypse. The labours of Meyer in New Testament exe- gesis may be regarded as correlative and complementary to those of Winer in New Testament Grammar, While Winer rescued GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. vi the grammar of the New Testament idiom from the dogmatism and caprice which had prevailed before his time, and rendered it, in the confident but just language of his title-page, “the sure! foundation of New Testament exegesis,” he dealt, from the nature of the case, merely with the isolated phenomena as illustrations. Meyer undertook the task of applying the same principles and methods to the interpretation of the New Testament as a whole. This work he has accomplished with rare exegetical tact and unrivalled philological precision. We say, unrivalled; for— without derogating from the merits of other labourers in the same field, and without denying the excellence more especially of various recent monographs formed after his model—it may safely be affirmed that his work remains, in its own line and in its most characteristic features, unequalled. The only book which, as covering the same ground, may be fairly brought into comparison with it is the “Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament” of de Wette—a masterpiece of exegetical skill, unquestionably well entitled to a place by its side. Each work has its own special excellences ; and no one has acknow- ledged the merits of Meyer more frankly than de Wette himself, who repeatedly refers, as does also Meyer on his part, to the help which each derived from the labours of the other—to the can- dour with which they accepted, or the fairness with which they controverted, as the case might be, each other’s views—and who pronounced Meyer, even at the outset of his exegetical career, an expositor distinguished by thoroughness (Griindlichkeit), correct perception, and sure judgment. The Handbook of de Wette is marked by a singular power of condensation and felicity of clear and terse expression; but the Commentary of Meyer is superior in philological accuracy, and in the fulness with which it sets forth not only the grounds on which his own 1 Mr. Moulton, in his most accurate and admirable translation of Winer, omits the word ‘‘sure,” probably deeming it unnecessary any longer to affirm what nobudy now denies. Vili GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. interpretation rests, but also the reasons which may be urged in support of, or in opposition to, the interpretations of others— a feature which gives special value to it as a practical discipline for the student of exegesis. And—independently of other con- siderations—the work of Dr. Meyer possesses the marked ad- vantage of having undergone to a much greater extent successive revisions at the hands of its author, and has thus been enriched, not only by the working in of results gathered in the interval from the labours of others, but also by the ample fruits of the author’s own more extended experience and more mature judg- ment. The first part of de Wette’s Handbook appeared in 1836, and it was completed in 1848, while his death took place in 1849. The first part of Dr. Meyer's Commentary appeared in 1832, and it has ever since been receiving alterations and addi- tions down to the spring of the present year. No doubt the work of de Wette has been reissued, since his death, in various editions by able and careful scholars, such as Briickner, Messner, and Moeller. But in this case we have no assurance, that the manipulation which the work has undergone is such as would have been approved by the mature judgment of the author, or even that it may be consistent with his known principles and views. Indeed,a lately reissued part of the work—the Commen- tary on Acts, as edited by Overbeck—presents a flagrant instance to the contrary. For Dr. Overbeck has not only made additions of his own, which amount to nearly two-thirds of the whole book, but—with a liberty, which in this country we should deem wholly unwarrantable, and strangely disrespectful to the memory of a man so distinguished as de Wette—he has overlaid the original work with a running commentary of tedious minuteness, written in support of critical views, to which de Wette had, in the preface to his own last edition, declared himself wholly opposed.! In Dr. Meyer's case, on the other hand, we have the 1 De Wette’s words—sufficiently remarkable—are to this effect : ‘* That I have not entered more at length into a refutation of the destructive criticism of Baur, GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. ix latest judgments of the great exegete himself, as he passes under review the fresh contributions to the literature of the subject, and in their light re-examines his earlier positions, and recalls, modifies, or vindicates anew his conclusions. Nothing indeed is more remarkable in connection with Dr. Meyer’s work than the results furnished by a comparison of its successive editions, as evincing the diligence with which he read and digested every new academic dissertation that might throw light on his subject, the impartiality and truth-loving spirit with which his mind remained open to fresh light and was ready to change or modify its interpretation wherever there seemed due ground, and the assiduous care with which he revised every sentence. The interleaved sheets—at present in my possession—shewing the corrections and additions made by Dr. Meyer on the fourth edition in preparation for the fifth, furnish, in their MS. erasures and copious marginal annotations, even a more striking illus- tration of the extent and variety of this alteration than the subjoined specimen, taken ad aperturam, in which I have under- lined the portions changed.! This constant process of alteration may possibly occasion disappointment in some quarters; but, besides that it would have required more space than I have at my disposal, I deem such a refutation superfluous. Extravagant criticism. of this sort nullifies itself; and the only benefit arising from it is, that by exceeding all bounds it awakens the feeling of a necessity for imposing self-restraint.” In the face of this condemnation Dr, Overbeck has superinduced on the work of de Wette an elaborate treatise carrying out in detail that very criticism, and thereby—whatever might under other circumstances be its value—fundamentally altering the standpoint and perverting the characterof the book. The pleas by which he attempts to vindicate his course are wholly inadequate to justify so unprecedented a violation of the respect due to a great name and a great book, as is the publication, under cover of a new edition, of views diametrically opposed to the last judgment of the author, 1 Rom. v.i. The underlining shows the extent of the alterations. Fourth Edition. Fifth Edition. V. 1.! Od folgert aus dem ganzen vori- V. 1.1 Ody folgert aus dem ganzen vori- gen Abschnitt 3, 21—4, 25, undzwarfor- gen Abschnitt 3, 21—4, 25, und zwar for- mell so weiterführ:nd, dass öıxaıwdevres mell so weiterführend, dass dccacwOévres 1 Ueber V. 1-8. s. Winzer Commentat. Lips. 1 Ueber V. 1-8. s. Winzer Commentat. Lips, 1832. 1832. Ueber das ganze Kap.: Stölting Bei- tiage z. Exegese d. Paul. Briefe, Gött. 1869. p Posen Fe Die ER ade ct Bat 4 3m x GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. and addition serves to account, in a great measure, for the some- what awkward form of many of the sentences, broken up as they are by subsequent parenthetical insertions, or prolonged by the appending of fresh clauses not contemplated at the outset. Fourth Edition. gleich nach da Thy Sixalwow Mn. mit sieghaftem Nachdrucke wieder an die Spitze tritt. In welcher begliickenden Heilsgewissheit die Gläubigen vermöge ihrer durch den Glauben eingetretenen Rechtfertigung (dıxamwdevres) sich be- finden (nicht ihre Zeiligung, wie Rothe will), soll nun geschildert werden. — eipnunv &x. m. T. Gedv] Der Gerecht- fertigte ist nicht mehr in dem Verhält- nisse eines Menschen, dem Gott feind sein muss und ist (€x@pds ©eov, V. 9 f.) sondern Frieden (nicht allgemein : Befriedigung, Genüge, wie Th. Schott meint) hat er in seinem Verhältnisse zu Gott. Es ist der Friede, der im bewussten objectiven Zustande der Versöhnung besteht, das Gegentheil des Zustandes, in welchem man dem gött- lichen Zorne verfallen ist. Mit der Rechtfertigung tritt dieser Friede als sofortige und dauernde Folge derselben ein. Daher dtkamwdevres — Exopev (vrgl. Act. 9, 31. Joh. 16, 33.). Und durch Christum (dı4 tod Kupiov etc.) ist dieser Besitz vermittelt, was sich zwar von selbst versteht, aber nach der Stärke und Fülle der eigenen Glau- benserfahrung des Ap. sehr natürlich noch besonders hervortritt, um an diese objective Ursache des Friedensstandes wie triumphirend auzuknüpfen, was wir ihr hinsichtlich des fraglichen Punktes zu verdanken haben V. 2. — mpös (von der ethischen Beziehung, Bernhardy p. 265.) wie Act. 2, 47. 24,16. Vrgl. Herodian. 8, 7. 8.: dvri moN&uov uev elphvnv Exovres mpös Geovs. Plat. Pol. 5. p. 465. B.: eipnvnv mpös Fifth Edition. gleich nach du4 rhv Ökalwew nu. mit sieghaftem Nachdrucke wieder an die Spitze tritt. In welcher beglückenden Heilsgewissheit die Gläubigen vermöge ihrer durch den Glauben eingetretenen Rechtfertigung sich befinden, soll nun näher dargelest, nicht aber soll ermahnt werden (Hofm. nach der Lesart &xwuerv), “unser Verhältniss zu Gott ein Friedensverhältniss sein zu lassen” (durch Glaubensleben), wobei der Nachdruck, welcher doch offenbar zunächst auf öwkawd. und dann auf eipnvyv ruht, auf dua Tod Kuplou nu. 1. X. liegen soll. — eippyw &. m. T. &eöv] Der Gerechtfertigte befindet sich nicht mehr in dem Verhältnisse eines Menschen, dem Gott feind sein muss und ist (éx@pis Oeoö, V 9f.), sondern Frieden (nicht allgemein: Befriedigung, Geniige, wie Th. Schott meint) besitzt er in seinem Verhältnisse zu Gott. Das ist der Friede, der im bewussten objeetiven Zustande der Versöhnung besteht, das Gegentheil des Zustandes, in welchem man dem göttlichen Zorne und dem sensus irae verfallen ist. Mit der Rechtertigung tritt dieser Friede als sofortige und dauernde Folge der- selben ein.t Daher dkawderres — éxouev (vrgl. Act. 9, 31. Joh. 16, 33.). Und durch Christum (dı&4 Tod Kuplov etc.) als den elpyvomouds, ist ihm dieses pacem obtinere (Bremi ad Isocr. Archid. p. 111.) vermittelt, was sich zwar von selbst versteht, aber nach der Stärke und Fülle der eigenen Glau- benserfahrung des Ap. sehr natürlich noch besonders wieder hervortritt, um 1 Vrgl. Dorner d. Glauben p. 12. £. Rechfert. durch d. GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR, xi In estimating the character and value of Dr. Meyer’s work, it is essential that we should always bear in mind the precise standpoint from which it is written. That is simply and solely, as we have already indicated, the standpoint of the exegete, who endeavours in the exercise of his own independent judgment to arrive, by the use of the proper means, at the historical sense of Scripture. His object is not to seek support for the doctrines, nor does he bind himself or regulate his operations by the defini- tions or decisions of any particular Church. On the contrary, he reaches his results by a purely exegetical process, and places them, when so found, at the disposal of the Church. Under these circumstances, it is not perhaps surprising that these re- sults do not in all respects accord with the traditional interpre- tation, or with the received doctrines, of the Church to which he belonged (the Lutheran). But as little is it surprising, on the Fourth Edition. aAAnAovs of tivdpes diovow. Legg. 12. p- 955. B. Ale. I. p. 107. D. Nicht zu verwechseln mit dem göttlich gewirk- ten innern Frieden (von welchem Phil. 4, 7. eiphvn Tod Ocod zu fassen ist, vrgl. Kol. 3, 15.); sondern dieser ist das subjective Correlat des objectiven eipnvn mpos T. Deöv, Fifth Edition. an diese objective Ursache des Fried- ensstandes wie triumphirend anzu- knüpfen, was wir ihr hinsichtlich des fraglicher Punktes zu verdanken haben V. 22 Um so weniger ist Grund vorhanden, 6a Tod xuplov etc. an eipnvyv anzuschliessen (Stölting); es gehört wie mpös r. Oedv nach der Stel- lung von &xouev zu diesem Worte. — mpös (von der ethischen Beziehung, Bernhardy p. 265.) wie Act. 2, 47. 24, 16. Vrgl. Herodian. 8, 7. 8: avri moNenov uev elpjvnv Exovres mpös Beovs. Plat. Pol. 5. p. 465. B. : elpjynv mpos aAAmAovs ol dvipes äfovow. Lege. 12. p. 955. B. Alc. I. p. 107. D., Xenoph. u. A. Nicht zu verwechseln mit dem göttlich gewirkten Gemüthszustand des Seelenfriedens, von welchem Phil. 4, 7. eipnvn rod Oeod zu fassen ist, vrol. Kol. 3. 15.; sondern dieser ist das sub- jective Correlat des objectiven Verhält- nisses der elpjvn, welche wir zpos 7. @cév haben, obwohl mit letzterer un- trennbar verbunden. xi GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. other hand, that the longer Dr. Meyer prosecuted the study of Scripture from his own standpoint, the closer was the approxi- mation of his general results to the conclusions embodied in the great Confessions of the Protestant Church. Some petulant critics, indeed, who seem slow to give to any that differ from them credit for that love of the truth to which they themselves lay claim, have sneered at the comparatively conservative and ortho- dox issues of his later exegesis ; but no one has ventured openly to affirm that these issues were reached otherwise than by the con- sistent and conscientious application of his exegetical principles. The general result in Dr. Meyer’s case—which is only what may be reasonably expected, unless we are to suppose that the great body of earlier interpreters have studied Scripture wholly in vain—coincides with the well-known statement of Winer, that “the controversies among interpreters have usually led back to the admission that the old Protestant views of the meaning of Scripture are the correct ones”! If the study of this book is fitted to supersede a mere blind attachment to foregone conclu- sions, it is no less adapted to counteract the too prevalent tend- ency in our own day to empty Scripture of all definite and 1 In the Preface to the fourth edition of kis Commentary on Romans, issued in 1865, Meyer has some interesting remarks as to the phases of opinion which had come and gone (or nearly so) within his own experience. ‘‘ We older men,” he says, ‘‘ have seen the day when Dr. Paulus and his devices were in vogue ; he died without leaving a disciple behind him. We passed through the tempest raised by Strauss some thirty years ago; and with what a sense of solitariness - might its author now celebrate his jubilee! We saw the constellation of Tübingen arise, and, even before Baur departed hence, its lustre had waned. A fresh and firmer basis for the truth which had been assailed, and a more complete appre- hension of that truth—these were the blessings which the waves left behind ; and so will it be when the present surge has passed away. What Strauss says by way of censure on Schleiermacher—that he had himself Jashed with cords to the ‘mast of faith in Christ, in order that he might pass by the dangerous island of criticism unharmed—will always (in the sense in which it held true of that Ulysses) redound to his praise. The Church and its science will continue bound to the strong mast of faith in Christ, and bound to it with the cords—that cannot be torn asunder—which the New Testament has woven in its living word. Only in the event of these bands giving way would the voices of criticism prove siren- songs leading it to destruction.” GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. Xi objective significance, or to find in it just what suits the senti- ments or wishes of the seeker. Much impressed by frequent use with the value of the work, I have long cherished a wish that its contents might be made avail- able in an English dress to the professional student of Scripture, who might not be able to consult it with facility in the original ; and when sometime ago Messrs. Clark obtained the consent of the German publishers to the issue of an English translation, I undertook at their request, and with the readily given sanction of Dr. Meyer, to edit the work. I was induced to do so, not only because it seemed important that the translation of such a work should be executed on uniform principles, and on a common plan—which it was not likely to be, if its several parts were rendered by different translators acting independently—but also because it appeared desirable that a work of so technical a character, the value of which largely depends on the minute accuracy of the rendering, should be revised and passed through the press by some one more or less familiar with its professional use. It has frequently happened that translations otherwise good have been disfigured by blunders springing from the want of this special knowledge on the part of the translators. I trust 1 I subjoin a few illustrations, out of a great many culled from various sources, which have come at different times under my own observation, and which may suffice to indicate the character of the mistakes into which translators not specially conversant with the subject under discussion are apt to fall :—Zusammensetzung des Worts, ‘‘ connection of the words ;” den gewichtigen Gleichbau, ‘‘ the forcible comparison ;” was betrifft der Structur, ‘‘as regards the style ;” prinzipiell, “prineipal;” in einer... Rection, ‘‘in adirection;” zu interpungiren, “to interpo- late ;” sächliche Objecte, ‘‘sensible objects;” sinnliche Vorstellung, ‘‘ ingenious representation ;” sinnfällig, ‘‘ spirit-crushing ;” in dem ergänzten Vordersatze, “in the enlarged premise ;” technischer Terminus, “technical terminus ;” unver- träglich, ‘‘ unbearable ;” Vorwurf, ‘‘ theme ;” Ausweg, ‘‘ elucidation ;” Vorhaltung des thatsächlichen Bestandes, ‘‘ reproach against the actual resistance offered ;” ein Anklang unserer Stelle, “a corroboration of our passage ;” Hellenen, ‘‘ Helle- nists ;” verzweifelnde Verachtung, ‘‘doubtful repute ;” Cult, ‘‘ culture ;” absonder- lich, ‘‘ingenious ;” Attraction, ‘contraction ;” den von Hofm. angezogenen Belegen _ gemäss, ‘‘not in conformity to the accompaniments added to it by H.;” thatsächliche Belege zu, ‘‘actual consequences of ;” eigentlicher Sinn, ‘‘ actual sense ;” mit Accus. der Person und der Sache, ‘‘with the accusative of the person ZOLL & xiv GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. that the present translation—on which no small pains have been bestowed both by the translators and by the reviser—-may be found tolerably free from these grosser errors; although, on look- ing into it afresh, I find not a few instances in which the effort to reproduce the form as well as the matter of the original may occasion some perplexity to the English reader, and there are others where I am by no means certain that we have seized or have clearly enough expressed the meaning. This specially applies to some of the passages in which Dr. Meyer deals with the new interpretations so copiously thrown out by the subtlety of Dr. von Hofmann of Erlangen, whose ingenious refinements and obscurities—to which I suppose Dr. Meyer’s strong language towards the close of his Preface to the German edition to allude —are by no means easy to render. The changes which, in the fulfilment of my somewhat delicate task, I have ventured to make may not—I can well suppose—always appear to the translators as improvements; and it is but fair to them that I should accept the responsibility of the form in which their translation appears. In reproducing so great a masterpiece of exegesis, I have not thought it proper to omit any part of its discussions or of its references—however little some of these may appear likely to be of interest or use to English scholars—because an author such as Dr. Meyer is entitled to expect that his work shall not be tampered with, and I have not felt myself at liberty to assume and on the case generally ;” als der Welt verfallen, ‘‘as adapted to the world ;” das Richturtheil, ‘‘ the right sentence ;” dem sittlichen Diinkel, “individuals in moral darkness ;” eine schleppende Wiederholung, ‘‘a repetition too long delayed ;” der so gewandt die griechische Schriftsprache handhabende, “who so cleverly applied to his use utterances of the Greek Scriptures;” Medium (used of the ‘‘middle” voice) ‘‘the medium ;” ist erst Folge, ‘‘is the first consequence ;” ein schiefer Gedanke, ‘‘a deeper thought ;” frei nach der LXX, ‘‘entirely from the LXX;” anschauliche Bezeichnung, ‘‘a subjective relation ;” der nachsätzliche 6é, “the emphatic 6¢é;” “Reihe und Glied, “row and member ;” thetischer, ““theistie;” unter dogmatischen Händeln sein Leben verlor, ‘lost his life by ecclesiastical visitation ;” Beides halbirend, ‘‘preserving both ;” Philo Z.c. “Philo passim ;” Isidorus Hispalensis, ‘‘Isidore of Spain;” Theophil. ad Autol., ‘‘Theo- phylact ad Autol. ;” Beyschlag (proper name), ‘a bye-blow.” GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. XV that the judgment of others as to the expediency of any omission would coincide with my own. Nor have I deemed it necessary to append any notes of dissent from, or of warning against, the views of Dr. Meyer, even where these are decidedly at variance with opinions which I hold. Strong representations were made to me that it was desirable to annex to certain passages notes designed to counteract their effect, but it is obvious that, if I had adopted this course in some instances, I should have been held to accept or approve of the author’s views in other cases where I had not inserted any such caveat. The book is intended for, and can in fact only be used with advan- tage by,the professional scholar. Its general exegetical excellence far outweighs its occasional doctrinal defects; and, in issuing it without note or comment, I take for granted that the reader will use it, as he ought, with discrimination. He will find a. valuable exhibition of complementary views in the American translation of Dr. Lange’s Commentary, accompanied with elabo- rate notes by Dr. Schaff, and issued in this country by Messrs. Clark, while the logical sequence aud doctrinal significance of the Epistle will be found specially developed in the Commen- tary of Dr. Charles Hodge. The translation of the present volume has been made with care by the Rev. John C. Moore. I have revised it throughout, and carried it through the press. I subjoin to this Preface a note of the Exegetical Literature of the Epistle to the Romans, and of the Pauline or Apostolic Epistles generally; because information respecting it is often desired, aud is only to be gathered from such works as Walch’s Bibliotheca Theologica, Winer’s Handbuch der theologischen Literatur, Darling’s Cyclo- paedia Bibliographica, and other sources, which are not always accessible to the student. I have also indicated, in general, the official position of the writers, and the date of their death. A notice is also prefixed to this volume—once for all—of some abbreviations, etc. used throughout the work, xvi GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. The General Preface, specially written by Dr. Meyer for the English translation, will now be read with a deeper interest, as it was the last production of his pen. As these sheets were pass- ing through the press—and while recent accounts had testified to the almost unimpaired vigour with which he was still pursuing in a green old age the revision of his Commentary—the news arrived of his death, after a very brief illness, on the 21st of June. The life of a scholar presents in general little of outward incident; but the following brief outline of the leading facts in his career, which has been kindly furnished to me by his son Dr. Gustav Meyer, will not be without interest. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer was born on 10th January 1800 at Gotha, where his father was shoemaker to the Court. He attended the Gymnasium of his native town, where he was imbued by Schulze, Doering, and Rost with the most earnest zeal for the study of the classical languages, and, while at school there, he laid the foundation of those sure and solid attainments, and of that grammatical acuteness and precision, by the applica- tion of which to exegesis he has acquired so well founded a reputation in the theological world. At the age of eighteen he finished his school course with the greatest distinction as primus omnium, and entered the University of Jena, with a view to study theology under the guidance of Gabler, Danz, and Schott, while he also attended the prelections of Luden on History and of Fries on Philosophy. After two years and a half of study there he left Jena, passed his examination, and went to Grone near Gottingen, to act as resident tutor in the Academy of Pastor Oppermann, whose daughter he afterwards married. In January 1823, after having been examined afresh, he was appointed to the pastoral cure of the hamlet of Osthausen. On the dying out of the Gotha line, Osthausen was annexed to the Duchy of Meiningen. While settled there, he issued his edition of the Libri symbolici ecclesiae Lutheranae, which was GENERAL PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. xvil published in 1830 by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht at Göttingen. He had already acquired, in the year 1827, by Colloguwium from the Consistory of Hannover the necessary recognition ad eundem in that kingdom, and in January 1831 he became pastor at Harste near Göttingen. Here he commenced the work, to which with untiring zeal he devoted himself (mostly during the earliest hours of the morning) down to the end of his life—his Com- mentary on the New Testament. In the autumn of 1837 he was called to Hoya as Superintendent, and after four years was transferred to Hannover as Consistorialrath, Superintendent and Pastor Primarius in the Neustädter Kirche. In 1845 the degree of Doctor of Theology was conferred on him by the Theological Faculty of Göttingen. A very painful abdominal affection in the year 1846, which compelled him to refrain entirely from work for a considerable period, tended to mature his resolution to give up a position which involved too great an amount of labour, and to devote himself to the Consistory alone. He did so accord- ingly in the summer of 1848. In May 1861 he received the title of Oberconsistorialrath. On the. 1st October 1865 he re- tired, retaining at first the superintendence of certain examina- tions, which however he soon also gave up. During the night of the 15th June in the present year he was seized with intussus- ception, which proved beyond the reach of medical skill, and which, after a painful illness, put an end to his busy life on the 21st of June. If the great work, on which rests his fame, shall meet in this country with but a tithe of the acceptance which it has found in Germany, those who have taken part with me in reproducing it will not account their labour lost. W. BEE GLASGOW COLLEGE, September 1873. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, [For Commentaries, and collections of Notes, embracing the whole New Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. The following list includes works which deal with the Apostolic or the Pauline Epistles generally, or which treat specially of the Epistle to the Romans. Works mainly of a popular or practical character have, with a few exceptions, been excluded, since, however valuable: they may be on their own account, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work. Several of the older works named are of little value ; others are chiefly doctrinal or controversial. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended denotes that the work has been more or less frequently reprinted. + marks the date of the author’s death, c. = circa, an approximation to it.] ABAILARD (Peter), +1142, Scholastic: Commentariorum super S. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos libri v. [Opera.] Auzsıus [or Hates] (Alexander), + 1565, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Dispu- tationes in Epistolam ad Romanos, cum P. Melancthonis praefatione. 8°, Vitemb. 1553. ALEXANDER Natalis. See Norn (Alexandre). Autine (Jacobus), + 1679, Prof. Theol. at Gröningen : Commentarius theo- retico-practicus in Epistolam ad Romanos, [Opera.] 2°, Amstel. 1686. AMBIANENSIS (Georgius), + 1657, Capuchin monk at Paris: Trina Pauli theologia . . . seu omnigena in universas Pauli epistolas commen- “ taria exegetica, tropologica et anagogica. 2°, Paris. 1649-50. AMBROSIASTER [or PsEUDO-AMBROSIUS], c. 380, generally identified with Hilarius the Deacon: Commentarius in Epistolas xiii. B. Pauli. [Ambrosii Opera. ] ANSELMUS [or HERVEUS], c. 1100: Enarrationes in omnes S. Pauli Epis- tolas. 2°, Paris. 1533. Aquinas (Thomas), + 1274, Scholastic: Expositio in omnes Epistolas S. Pauli. 2°, Basil. 1475 al. ARBOREUS (Joannes), c. 1550, Prof. Theol. at Paris: Commentarius in omnes Pauli Epistolas. 2°, Paris. 1553. ARETIUS (Benedictus), + 1574, Prof. Theol. at Berne : Commentarii in omnes Epistolas D. Pauli, et canonicas, 2°, Morgiis, 1683. Baıpvın (Friedrich), + 1627, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Commentarius in omnes Epistolas apostoli Pauli . . . (Separately, 1608-1630). 4°, Francof. 1644 al, EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. xix BAUNGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob), + 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Romer. 4°, Halae, 1749. BauMGARTEN-Crostus (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), + 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Commentar zum Römerbrief. 8°, Jena, 1844. Brepa Venerabilis, + 735, Monk at Jarrow: Expositio in Epistolas Pauli [a Catena from the works of Augustine, probably by Florus Lug- dunensis, c. 852], et In Epistolas septem catholicas liber. [Opera.] BEELEN (Jean-Théodore), R. C. Prof. of Or. Lang. at Louvain : Commen- tarius in Epistolam 8. Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Lovani, 1854, BrisHamM (Thomas) + 1829, Unitarian minister in London : The Epistles of Paul the Apostle translated, with an exposition and notes. 4°, Lond. 1822. Brnecke (Wilhelm), + 1837, retired Hamburg merchant: Der Brief Pauli an die Römer erläutert ; 8°, Heidelb. 1831. Translated .... 8°, Lond. 1854. BisPine (August), R. C. Prof. Theo]. at Münster: Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Briefen der Apostels Paulus. 8°, Miinster, 1854-8 al. BoEHME (Christian Friedrich), + 1844, Pastor at Lucka near Altenburg : Epistola Pauli ad Romanos Graece cum commentario perpetuo. 8°, Lips. 1806. Braıs (Etienne de), c. 1680, Prof, Theol. at Saumur: Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos analysis paraphrastica cum notis. 4°, Salmurii, 1670, Brent (Johann), + 1570, Provost at Stuttgard : Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos, 2°, Francof. 1564 al, Brown (David), D.D., Prof. Theol. Free Church College, Aberdeen : Com- mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, embracing the last results of criticism. 12°, Glasg. 1860. Brown (John), D.D., + 1858, Prof. Exeg. Theol. to the United Presbyterian Church, Edinburgh : Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul ... to the Romans. 8°, Edin. 1857. Bruno, + 1101, Founder of the Carthusian Order : Commentarius in omnes Epistolas Pauli. 2°, Paris. 1509. Bucer (Martin), + 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge: Metaphrasis et enar- ratio in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, 2°, Basil. 1562. BUGENHAGEN (Johann), + 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Interpretatio Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Hagenoae, 1523. BULLINGER (Heinrich), +1575, Pastor at Zürich: Commentarii in omnes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Tiguri, 1537 al. CaJEranus [Tommaso da Vio], +1534, Cardinal: Epistolae S. Pauli et aliorum apostolorum ad Graecam veritatem castigatae et juxta sensum literalem enarratae. 2°, Venet. 1531 al. CaLixtTus (Georg), + 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt: Expositiones litterales in Epistolas ad Romanos, ad Corinthios privrem et posteriorem, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, ad Thessa- lonienses . . . et ad Titum. 4°, Helmstadii, 1664-66, xx EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. Catvin [CHAUVIN] (Jean), +1564: Commentarii in omnes Epistolas Pauli apostoli atque etiam Epistolam ad Ebraeos; necnon in Epistolas canonicas, 2°, Genevae, 1551 al. CaPELLUS [CapPEL] (Louis), + 1658. See Acts. Carpzov (Johann Benedict), + 1803, Prof. Theol. and Greek at Helmstadt: Strieturae theologicae et criticae in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos... 8°, Helmstad. 1758. Cassroporus (Magnus Aurelius), + 563, Chancellor of the Ostrogoth empire : Complexiones in Epistolas apostolorum, in Acta et in Apocalypsim quasi brevissima explanatione decursas. . . . 8°, Florent. 1721 al. Catarino (Ambrogio). See Poxrt1 (Lanzelotto). CHALMERS (Thomas), D.D., + 1847, Principal of F. C. College, Edinburgh : Lectures on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 12°, Glasg. 1842 al. Curysostomus (Joannes), + 407, Archbishop of Constantinople: Homiliae in Epistolas Pauli. [Opera.] CHyYTRAEUS [or KOCHHAFE] (David), + 1600, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Epis- tola Pauli ad Romanos, brevi ac dialectica dispositione partium et grammatica declaratione textus . . . explicata, 8%, 2, .p. 1599. CLAUDE (Jean), + 1687, Minister at the Hague : Commentaire sur l’Epitre aux Romains. [Oeuvres.] ConrarinI (Gaspare), + 1542, Cardinal : Scholia in Epistolas Pauli. [Opera.] 2°, Paris, 1571 al. ContzEn (Adam), + 1618, Jesuit at Mentz : Commentaria in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Romanos. 2°, Colon. 1629. ConyBEARE (William John, M.A.), Howson (John Saul), D.D. : Life and Epistles of St. Paul. 4°, Lond. 1852 al. Cox (Robert) M.A., P. C. of Stonehouse, Devon : Horae Romanae, or an attempt to elucidate St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by an original translation, explanatory notes, and new divisions, 8°, Lond. 1824. CRAMER (Johann Andreas), + 1788, Prof. Theol. at Kiel : Der Brief Pauli an die Romer aufs neue übersetzt und ausgelegt. 4°, Leip. 1784. CRELL (Johann), + 1633, Socinian teacher at Racow : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ex praelectionibus ejus conscriptus a Jona Schlichtingio.... 8° Racov. 1636. CRUCIGER [CREUZINGER] (Kaspar), +1548, Pastor at Leipzig : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Vitemb. 1567. Daue (John) : Analysis of all the Epistles of the New Testament. 12° Oxf. 1652. DamaAscEntus (Joannes), + 754, Monk at 8. Saba: Ex universa interpreta- tione J. Chrysostomi excerpta compendiaria in Epistolas 8. Pauli. [Opera. ] DewitzscH (Franz), Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Brief an die Römer aus dem griechischen Urtext in das hebräische uebersetzt und aus Talmud und Midrasch erläutert. 8° Leip. 1870, EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, xxi Dickson (David), + 1662, Prof. Theol. at Glasgow and Edinburgh : Expositio analytica omnium apostolicarum Epistolarum. ... . 4°, Glasg. 1645. and Analytical Exposition of all the Epistles. 2°, Lond. 1659. Digu (Louis de), + 1642, Prof. in the Walloon College at Leyden: Ani- madversiones in Epistolam ad Romanos. Accessit spicilegium in reliquas ejusdem apostoli, ut et catholicas epistolas. 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1646. Dioxysıus CARTHUSIANUS [DENYS DE RycKeEt], + 1471, Carthusian monk : Elucidissima in divi Pauli Epistolas commentaria. 8°, Paris. 1531. Epwarps (Timothy), M.A., Vicar of Okehampton, Devon : Paraphrase, with critical annotations on the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, with an analytical scheme of the whole. 4°, Lond. 1752. Est [Estrus] (Willem Hessels van), + 1613, R..C. Chancellor of Douay : In omnes beati Pauli et aliorum apostolorum Epistolas commentarius. 2°, Duaci, 1614-16, al. Ewatp (Georg Heinrich August), Prof. Or. Lang. at Göttingen : Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus übersetzt und erklärt. 8°, Götting. 1857. Ewsank (William Withers), M.A., Incumbent at Everton : Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans... 8°, Lond. 1850-51. FABER Stapulensis (Jacobus) [Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples], + 1536, resident at Nerac: Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli... 2°, Paris. 1512 al. Faye (Antoine de la), + 1616, Prof. at Geneva : Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. 8°, Genevae, 1608. FELL (Jonny), +1686, Bishop of Oxford: A Paraphrase and annotations upon all the Epistles of St. Paul, by Abraham Woodhead, Richard Allestry and Obadiah Walker. Corrected and improved by Dr. John Fell. [First issued anonymously in 1675.] 8°. Lond. 1708. FErmE (Charles), + 1617, Principal of Fraserburgh College: Analysis logica in Epistolam ad Romanos. 12°, Edin. 1651 al. Ferus [Wırn] (Johannes), +1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz : Exegesis in Epistolam Paulli ad Romanos. 8°, Paris. 1559. FEUARDENT (Frangois), + 1612, Franciscan preacher at Paris: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. 8°, Paris, 1599. Fiart (Johann Friedrich von), + 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tübingen :; Vorles- ungen über den Brief Pauli an die Römer, herausgegeben von Ch. D. F. Hoffmann. 8°, Tübing. 1825. Frorvs Lugdunensis, c. 852. See Bupa, FORBES (John), LL.D., Prof. of Oriental Languages at Aberdeen : Ana- lytical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, tracing the train of thought by the aid of parallelism. 8°, Edinb. 1868. Fritzscue (Karl Friedrich August), +1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Pauli ad Romanos Epistola. Recensuit et cum commentariis perpetuis edidit, 8°, Halis, 1836-43. ba EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. Fromonp (Libert), + 1653, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Louvain: Commentarius in omnes Epistolas Pauli apostoli et in septem canonicas aliorum apostolorum epistolas, 2°, Lovan. 1663 al. GAGNEE (Jean de), + 1549, Rector of the University of Paris : Brevissima et facillima in omnes divi Pauli et canonicas epistolas scholia, 8°, Paris, 1543 al. GERHARD (Johann), + 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Adnotationes posthumae in Epistolam at Romanos, cum Analectis Jo. Ernesti Gerhardi. 4°, Jenae. 1666 al. GLÖCKLER (Conrad), : Der Brief des Apostel Paulus an die Römer erklärt. 8°, Frankf.-a.-M. 1834. GoMAR (Francois), + 1641, Prof. Theol. at Gröningen : Analysis et explicatio Epistolarum Pauli ad Romanos, Gal. Philipp. Coloss. Philem. Hebraeos. [Opera.] 2°, Amstel. 1644. GRONEWEGEN (Henricus), + 1692, Minister at Enkhuizen: Vytleginge van den Zendbrief Paulli aan de Romeynen. 4°, Gorinchem, 1681. GUALTHER [WALTHER] (Rudolph), + 1586, Pastor at Zurich: Homiliae in omnes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Tiguri, 1599. GUILLIAUD (Claude), + 1550, Theological Lecturer at Autun: Collationes in omnes Epistolas Pauli. 4°, Lugd. 1542 al. HALDANE (Robert), of Airthrey, +1842: Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, with remarks on the Commentaries of Dr. Macknight, Prof. Tholuck, and Prof. Moses Stuart. 12°, Lond. 1842 al. Haymo, + 853, Bishop of Halberstadt [or Remicius]: Commentarius in Epistolas S. Pauli. 2°, Paris. 1556 al. Hemuine [or HEMMINGSEN] (Niels), + 1600, Prof.‘ Theol. at Copenhagen: Commentarius in omnes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Lips. 1572 al. HemseEn (Johann Tychsen), + 1830, Prof. Theol. at Göttingen : Der Apostel Paulus, sein Leben, Wirken, und siene Schriften herausgegeben von F. Luecke. 8°, Götting. 1830. Heneet (Wessel Albert van), Prof. Theol. in Leyden : Interpretatio Epis- tolae Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1854-9, Herveus Dotensis, c. 1130, Benedictine. See ANSELMUS. HesHusius (Tilemann), + 1588, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt: Commen- tarius in omnes Epistolas Pauli. . 2°, Lips. 1405. Hipstep (Johann), +1681, Prof. in Gymnasium at Bremen : Collationes phi- lologicae in Epistolam ad Romanos. 4°, Bremae, 1675. Hopes (Charles), D.D., Prof. Theol. at Princeton : Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 8°, Philadelphia, 1835 al. Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht. III. Theil. Brief an die Römer. 8°, Nördlingen, 1868, EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. Xx Huvco DE S. Victorz, + 1141, Monk at Paris: Quaestiones circa Epistolas Pauli. [Opera.] Hyperius [GERHARD] (Andreas), + 1564, Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Com- mentarii in Pauli Epistolas, 2°, Tiguri, 1583. JatHo (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim: Pauli Brief an die Römer nach seinem inneren Gedankengange erläutert. 8°, Hildesheim, 1858-9. Jowzrr (Benjamin), M.A., Master of Balliol College, Oxford: The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, with critical notes and dissertations. 8°, Lond. 1855. JUSTINIANI [GIUSTINIANI] (Benedetto), + 1622, S. J. Prof. Theol. at Rome : Explanationes in omnes Pauli Epistolas [et in omnes catholicas]. 2°, Lugd. 1612-21. KisTEMAKER (Johann Hyazinth), + 1834, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Miinster : Die Sendschreiben der Apostel (und die Apocalypse), übersetzt und erklärt. 8°, Münster, 1822-3. Kure (Heinrich), +1840, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Münich : Commentar über des Apostel Pauli Sendschreiben an die Römer, 8°, Mainz, 1830. Kwyicut (Robert) : A Critical Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans. 8°, Lond. 1854. KöLLner (Wilhelm Heinrich Dorotheus Eduard), c. 1850, Prof. Theol. at Göttingen : Commentar zu dem Briefe des Paulus an die Römer, 8°, Darmst. 1834. Kreaz (August Ludwig Gottlob), + 1855, Prof. Pract. Theol. at Leipzig: Der Brief an die Romer ausgelegt. , 8°, Leip. 1849. LANFRANC, + 1089, Archbishop of Canterbury: Commentarii in omnes D. Pauli Epistolas. [Opera.] LAPIDE (Cornelius a) [VAN DEN STEEN], + 1637, S. J, Prof. of Sacred Scrip- ture at Louvain : Commentaria in omnes D. Pauli Epistolas. 2°, Antwerp. 1614 et al. Launay (Pierre de), Sieur de La Motte: Paraphrase et exposition sur les Epistres de S. Paul. 4°, Saumur et Charenton, 1647-50. LEEUWEN (Gerbrand van), + 1721, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Verhande- ling van den Sendbrief Paulli aan de Romeynen. 4°, Amst. 1688-99. LEWIN (Thomas), M.A.: The life and Epistles of S. Paul. 8°, Lond. 1851. LımBorcH (Philipp van), + 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum et in Epistolas ad Romanos et ad. Ebraeos. 2°, Roterod. 1711. Livermore (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati: The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, with a commentary and revised translation, and intro- ductory essays. 12°, Boston, U. S., 1855. xxiv EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, Locke (John), + 1704. See GALATIANS. LomBarvus (Petrus), + 1160, Scholastic : Collectanea in omnes Epistolas D. Pauli ex. SS. Patribus. 2°, Paris, 1535 al. MACKNIGHT (James), D.D., + 1800, Minister at Edinburgh : A new literal translation . .. of all the apostolical Epistles, with a commentary and notes, philological, critical, explanatory and practical... 4°, Edin. 1795 al. MAIER (Adalbert), R. C. Prof. Theol, at Freiburg: Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Romer. 8°, Freiburg, 1847. Martyr (Peter) [VERMIGLI], + 1562, Prof. Theol. at Strasburg : In Episto- lam ad Romanos commentarü . . . 2°, Basil. 1558, al. MERHRInG (H. J. F.) : Der Brief Pauli an die Romer uebersetzt und erklärt. 8°, Stettin, 1859. MELANCHTHoN (Philipp), + 1560, Reformer: Adnotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad Romanos et Corinthios . . . 4°, Basil. 1522.—Commentarii in Ep. Pauli ad Romanos. - 8°, Argent. 1540.—Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos scriptae enarratio . . . 8°, Vitemb. 1556 al. MELVILLE (Andrew), + 1622, Principal of St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews: Commentarius in divinam Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos. . . 8°, Edin. 1849. Momma (Willem), + 1677, Pastor at Middelburg: Meditationes posthumae in Epistolas ad Romanos et Galatas. 8°, Hag. Com, 1678. Morison (James), D.D. Prof. Theol. to the Evangelical Union, Glasgow : An exposition of the Ninth chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 8°, Kilmarnock, 1849, And A critical exposition of the Third chap- ter... Ps 8°, Lond. 1866. Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Praelectiones in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, Cum ejusdem versi- one Latina, locorumque quorundam N. T. difficiliorum interpre- tatione. Ed. J. T. S. Holzapfel. 8°, Lips. 1794. Mouscuuus [or MeussLin] (Wolfgang), + 1563, Prof, Theol. in Berne: In Epistolam ad Romanos commentarius. 2°, Basil. 1555 al, NIELSEN (Rasmus), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Der Brief Pauli an die Romer entwickelt... 8°, Leip. 1843. NoEL (Alexandre) [Nartatis], + 1724, Dominican teacher of Church History at Paris: Expositio litteralis et moralis in Epistolas D. Pauli. 2°, Paris. 1710. OECUMENIUS, c. 980, Bishop of Trieca : Commentaria in Acta Apostolorum, in omnes Pauli Epistolas, in Epistolas catholicas omnes .. . 2°, Veronae, 1532 al, OLTRAMARE (Hugues), Minister at Geneva: Commentaire sur /’Epitre aux Romains, [I—V. 11.] 8°, Genéve, 1843. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLr. XXV ORIGENES, + 254, Catechete at Alexandria: Fragmenta in Epistolas Pauli, [Opera.] OsoRIO (Jeronymo), + 1580, Bishop of Sylvas: In Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos libri quatuor. [Opera.] 2°, Romae, 1592. _ Parevs [or WAENGLER] (David), + 1622, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Com- mentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos, 4°, Francof. 1608 al. Pauuus (Heinrich Eberhard Georg), + 1851. See GALATIANS. PEILE (Thomas Williamson), D.D., Vicar of Luton: Annotations on the apostolical Epistles, designed chiefly for the use of students of the Greek text. 8°, Lond. 1848-52. PELAGIUS, c. 420, British monk: Commentarii in Epistolas S. Pauli. [Hieronymi Opera. } PaıLıpp1 (Friedrich Adolph), Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Commentar über den Brief an die Römer. 8°, Erlangen and Frankf. 1848-52. Picquieny (Bernardin) [BERNARDINUS A Piconio], Cistercian monk: Epis- tolarum Pauli triplex expositio, cum analysi, paraphrasi et commen- tariis. 2°, Paris, 1703. Porımı (Lanzelotto) [AMBROGIO CATARINO], + 1553, Archbishop of Conza: Commentarius in omnes divi Pauli et alias septem canonicas Epis- tolas, 2°, Romae, 1546 al. PossELr (August), c. 1715, Pastor at Zittau: Richtige Erklärung der Epistel Pauli an die Romer... 4°, Zittau, 1696. Primasıvs, c. 550, Bishop of Adrumetum’: Commentaria in Epistolas Pauli. [Bibl. Max. Patrum. X.] Przıpzcov or PRZYPKowsky (Samuel), + 1670, Socinian teacher : Cogitationes sacrae ad onınes Epistolas apostolicas. 2°, Eleutheropoli [Amstel.], 1692. Purpue (Edward), M.A.: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ' with a revised translation. 8°, Dubl. 1855. Pre (Thomas), D.D., +1756, Vicar of Lynn: A Paraphrase, with some notes on the Acts of the Apostles and on all the Epistles of the New Testament. 8°, Lond. 1725 al. QuisToRP (Johann), + 1648, Superintendent at Rostock : Commentarius in omnes Epistolas Paulinas, 4°, Rostoch, 1652. Rapanvus Maovrvs, + 856, Archbishop of Mentz : Enarrationum ‘in Epistolas B. Pauli libri triginta. [Opera.] Rausaca (Johann Jakob), + 1735, Superintendent in Giessen: Ausführliche und gründliche Erklärung der Epistel Pauli an die Römer. 4°, Bremae, 1738, Introductio historico-theologica in Ep. P. ad Romanos, cum Martini Lutheri Praefatione variis observationibus exegeticis illustrata, 8°, Halae, 1727, XXvi EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, REIcHE (Johann Georg), Prof. Theol, in Göttingen: Versuch einer ausführ- lichen Erklärung des Briefes Pauli an die Römer, mit historischen Einleitung und exegetisch-dogmatischen Excursen. 8°, Götting. 1833-4 Commentarius criticus in Novum Testamentum, quo loca graviora et difficiliora lectionis dubiae accurate recensentur et explicantur. Tom I.—IIl. Epistolas Paulinas et catholicas continentes. 4° et 8°, Götting. 1853-62. REITHMAYR (Franz Xaver), + 1871, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Munich: Com mentar zum Briefe an die Römer. 8°, Regensburg, 1845. ReEMIGIUS (of Auxerre), + 899. See Haymo. Rortock (Robert), + 1598, Principal of the University of Edinburgh Analysis dialectica in Pauli apostoli Epistolam ad Romanos... . 8°, Edin. 1594 al. Rickert (Leopold Immanuel), c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena ; Commentar über den Brief an die Römer. 8°, Leip. 1831. SADOLETO (Jacopo), + 1547, Cardinal: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. 8°, Venet. 1536 al. SALMERON (Alphonso), + 1585, Jesuit: Commentarii in Epistolas S. Pauli. [Opera.] SCHLICHTING (Jonas), + 1664. See CRELL (Johann). ScHMID (Sebastian), + 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Commentarii in Epistolas Pauli ad Romanos, Galatas et Colossenses, una cum para- phrasi epistolae prioris ad Corinthios, utriusque ad Thessalonicenses, prioris ad Timotheum, epistolae ad Philemonem et cantici Mariae. [Previously issued separately. ] 4°, Hamb. 1704. ScHMID (Christian Friedrich), + 1778, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Annota- tiones in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, philologicae, theologicae et criticae. 8°, Lips. 1777. Scuort (Theodor) : Der Römerbrief seinem Endzweck und seinem Gedan- kengang nach ausgelegt. 8°, Erlangen, 1858. SEDULIUS Scotus Hiberniensis, c. 800%: In omnes 8. Pauli epistolas col- lectaneum. 2°, Basil. 1528. SEMLER (Johann Salomon), + 1791, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Paraphrasis Epis- tolae Pauli ad Romanos cum notis et translatione vetusta. 8°, Halis, 1769. SELNECOER (Nicolaus), + 1592, Prof. Theol. in Leipzig: In omnes Epistolas Pauli apostoli commentarius plenissimus, 2°, Lips. 1595. SHuTTLewortTH (Philip Nicholas), D.D., Bishop of Chichester: A Para- phrastic translation of the apostolical Epistles, with notes. 8°, Oxf. 1829 al. SLADE (James), +1860, Rector of West Kirby: Annotations on the Epistles; being a continuation of Mr, Elsley’s Annotations. 8°, Lond. 1824 al, EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, xXvil Soto (Domingo de), + 1560, Prof. Theol. at Salamanca: Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 2°, Antverp. 1550. SPENER (Philipp Jakob), + 1705, Provost at Berlin: Auslegung des Briefes an die Römer aufs neue herausg. von H. Schott. 8°, Leip. 1859 al. STEINHOFER (Friedrich Christoph), + 1761: Erklärung des Epistel Pauli - an die Romer; mit einem Vorwort von J. T. Beck. 8°, Tiibing. 1851. STENGEL (Liborius), + 1835, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg: Commentar über den Brief des Paulus an die Römer... . 8°, Freiburg, 1836, STENERSEN (Stener Johannes), + 1835, Prof. of Church History at Christi- ania: Epistolae Paulinae perpetuo commentario illustratae. Vol. I. Ep. ad Rom. Voll. II. III. Epp. ad Corinth, IV. Ep. ad Galat. 8°, Christiania, 1829-34, Stuart (Moses), + 1852, Prof. of Sacred Literature at Andover: A Commen- tary on the Epistle to the Romans, with a translation and various eXCUISUS . . . 8°, Andover, 1832 al. Tartor (John), D.D., + 1761, Minister at Norwich: A Paraphrase with notes on the Epistle to the Romans: to which is prefixed a Key to the apostolic writings. 4°, Lond. 1745 al. TERROT (Charles Hughes), D.D., Bishop, Edinburgh: The Epistle to the Romans, with an introduction, paraphrase and notes, 8°, Lond, 1828. THEODORETUS, + c. 458, Bishop of Cyrus : Commentarius in omnes Pauli Epistolas. [Opera, et] 2°, Lond, 1636. THEODORUS, + 429, Bishop of Mopsuestia : Commentarii in Epistolas Pauli. [Fragments in the Catenae, collected by Fritzsche : Theodori Mops. Commentaria in N. T. 1847. From Galatians to Philemon, in a Latin translation, incorporated in Rabanus Maurus.] THEOPHYLACTUS, c. 1070, archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria: In D, Pauli Epistolas commentarius Graece et Latine cura A. Lindselli. . . 2°, Lond. 1636 al. THOLUCK (Friedrich August Gottreu), Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Römer, nebst fortlaufenden Auszügen aus den exe- getischen Schriften der Kirchenväter und Reformatoren, 8°, Berl. 1824 al.—Translated by the Rev. Robert Menzies, D.D. 8°, Edin, 1842. Tit (Salomon van), + 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden: De Sendbrieven van Paullus aan de Romeinen en Filippensen, ontleedt, verklaardt en betoogt. 4°, Haarlem, 1721. Commentarius in quatuor Pauli Epistolas, nempe priorem ad Corin- thios, Ephesios, Philippenses, ac Colossenses, { 4°, Amstel, 1726. TITELMANN (Franz), 1553, Provincial of Capuchins at Rome: Elucidatio in omnes F'pistolas apostolicas, 8°, Antwerp, 1532 al xxvii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. ToLErus [FRANCISCO DE ToLEDo], + 1596, S. J. Cardinal : Commentarius et annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 4°, Romae, 1602 al. TURNER (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., + 1861, Prof. of Biblical Interpretation at New York: The Epistle to the Romans, in Greek and English. With an analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1853. TURRETINI (Jean-Alphonse), + 1737, Prof. Theol. at Geneva: In Pauli ad Romanos Epistolae capita priora xi, praelectiones criticae, theo- logicae et concinnatoriae. 4°, Lausannae, 1741. Umpreit (Friedrich Wilhelm Karl), + 1860, Prof. Theo]. at Heidelberg : Der Brief an die Römer, auf dem Grunde des Alten Testaments ausgelegt. 8°, Gotha, 1856. VAREN (August), + 1684, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Paulus evangelista Romanorum succincta divinissimae . . . Epistolae ad Romanos analysi et exegesi repraesentatus. 8°, Hamb. 1696. VAUGHAN (Charles John), D.D., Master of the Temple: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, with notes. 8°, Camb, 1857.— Third edition, enlarged. 8°, Lond. and Camb. 1870, Virrinea (Kempe), +1722, Prof. Theol. at Franeker: Verklaringe over de "agt eerste capittelen van de Brief Paulli aan de Romeinen. 4°, Franek. 1729. Vorst (Koonrad), + 1629, Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Commentarius in omnes . Epistolas apostolicas, exceptis secunda ad Timotheum, ad Titum, ad Philemonem et ad Ebraeos. 4°, Amstel. et Harder. 1631. WALFORD (William), +1850, Pastor at Uxbridge: Curae Romanae : notes on the Epistle to the Romans. 12°, Lond. 1846. WEINGART (Johann Friedrich), Pastor at Grossfahnern, Gotha: Commen- tarius perpetuus in Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos. [Et In decem Apostoli Pauli epistolas, quas vulgo dieunt epistolas minores.] 8°, Gothae, 1816. WEINRICH (Georg), + 1629, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Commentarii in Epis- tolas Pauli. 4°, Lips. 1620. WELLER (Jakob), + 1664, Chief Chaplain at Dresden : Adnotationes in Epis- tolam Pauli ad Romanos . . . collectae opera Jo. Schindleri. 4°, Brunsvigae, 1654. WILLET (Andrew), + 1621, Dear of Ely: Hexapla, that is, a sixfold commentarie upon the most divine Epistle . . . to the Romanes. 2°, Lond. 1620. Wıson (Thomas), c. 1620, Minister at Canterbury : A Commentary on the most divine Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, 4°, Lond. 1614 al, EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, xxix Winzer (Julius Friedrich), + 1845, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Adnotationes ad loca quaedam Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos. 4°, Lips. 1835. Wırrıca (Christoph), + 1687, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Investigatio Epistolae ad Romanos . . . una cum paraphrasi, 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1685. WOODREAD (Abraham). See FELL (John). ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott), +1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Paraphrastische Erklärung des Briefes Pauli an die Romer. 8°, Götting. 1786. von, 1 c ABBREVIATIONS. al., et al. = and others; and other passages; and other editions, ad or in loc., refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage. comp. = compare. “Comp. on Matt. iii. 5” refers to Dr. Meyer’s own com- mentary on the passage. So also “ See on Matth. iii. 5.” codd. = codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by x. min. = codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89. Rec. or Recepta = Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir). l. c. = loco citato or laudato, ver. = verse, VV. = verses. f. ff. = and following. Ver. 16 f. means verses 16 and 17. vv. 16 ff. means verses 16 and two or more following. vss. = versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms, Z2.g. Syr. = Peschito Syriac ; Syr. p. = Phi- loxenian Syriac, p. Pp- = page, pages. e. g. exemple gratia. sc. = scilicet. N. T. = New Testament. ©. T. = Old Testament. K.T.A. = kal Ta Aouad, The colon (:) is largely employed, as in the German, to mark the point at which a translation or paraphrase of a passage is introduced, or the transition to the statement of another’s opinions. .... indicates that words are omitted. The books of Scripture and of the Apocrypha are generally quoted by thei: usual English names and abbreviations, Ecclus. = Ecclesiasticus. 3 Esd., 4 Esd. [or Esr.] = the books usually termed Ist and 2d Esdras. The classical authors are quoted in the usual abridged forms by book, chapter, etc. (as Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 12) or by the paging of the edition gener- ally used for that purpose (as Plat. Pol. p. 291 B. of the edition of H. Stephanus). The names of the works quoted are printed in Italics. Roman numerals in small capitals are used to denote books or other internal divisions (as Thue. iv.) ; Roman numerals in large capitals denote volumes (as Kühner, 11.). The references to Winer’s Grammar, given in brackets thus [E. T. 152], apply to the corresponding pages of Dr. Moulton’s English transla- tion. PREFACE SPECIALLY WRITTEN BY THE AUTHOR FOR THE ENGLISH EDITION. eT cannot but be of great importance in the interests oof a thorough, sure, and comprehensive knowledge, that the results of progressive effort and research in the wide domain of the sciences should be mutually exchanged and spread from people to people, and from tongue to tongue. In this way of a living fellowship of mind, penetrating to the farthest limits of civilisation, the various scientific peculiarities of national development and culture are necessarily more and more elevated into com- mon property as regards their excellences, while their several defects and shortcomings are reciprocally compensated and supplied; and thus the honest efforts and labours of indivi- duals, pressing forward in common towards a deeper and clearer knowledge, are at once encouraged by their mutual respect and stimulated by a generous rivalry. Especially, and in an eminent degree, does this hold true within the sphere devoted to the highest object of human effort—the sphere of scientific theology. To the cultivation of this science, in accordance with its healthy life springing from the Divine Word and with its destination embracing time and eternity, be- longs in an eminent sense the noble vocation of applying every gift received from God freely and faithfully to the service of the great whole—the building up of His kingdom. In its xxxü PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. view the nations with their various characteristic powers, capa- cities, and tongues, are members of the one body, to which they are to hail each other as belonging in the fellowship of the one Head, which is Christ, and of the one Spirit, whose motions and influences are not restrained by any limits of nation or of language. From this point of view it cannot but be in every sense a matter for congratulation that in our day more than formerly those literary works of German theology, which have on their native soil obtained a fair position in the literature of the science te which they relate, should by translation into the English tongue have that more extended field opened up to them, whose only limit is the ever-increasing diffusion and prevalence of that language in both hemispheres. Thus German theological labour goes forth into the wide world; becomes at. home in distant lands and in a foreign dress; communicates what has been given to it,in order, by the mutual working of the Spirit, to receive in its turn from abroad; stimulates so far as in it lies, in order that it may itself find stimulus and furtherance, instruction and correction; and in all this lends its aid, that the divided theological strivings of the age and the various tendencies of religious national character may be daily brought closer together, and united in the eternal focus of all genuine science, which is truth and nothing but truth—and in the realm of theology the highest truth of all, that of divine revelation. In the transplanting of the literary products of German theology to the soil of the English language the well-known publishing house of the Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh have earned special distinction; and their efforts, supported by select and able professional scholars, have already found, and continue increasingly to find, an appreciation corresponding to their merits both in British and American circles. I have therefore readily and willingly given my consent to the pro- posal of the above-mentioned honourable publishers to set on PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. XXXlil foot and to issue an English translation of my Commentary on the New Testament; and with no less readiness have my esteemed German publishers, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht in Gottingen, declared their agreement to it. I earnestly wish that the version thus undertaken, the first portion of which is given to the public in the present volume, may not fail to receive, in the field of the English language and of the science which it represents, an indulgent and kindly reception, such as, during a long series of years, has been accorded to the German work by the German theological public. And if I venture to couple with this wish some measure of a hope corresponding to it, I am induced to do so simply by the fact that even in the German idiom these works have already found their way, in no inconsiderable numbers, both to England and America. Respecting the object and intention of my Commentaries no special explanation is needed, since, in point of fact, these are obvious on the face of them. They aim at exactly ascertaining and establishing on due grounds the purely historical sense of Scripture. This aim is so clear and so lofty, that all the produce of one’s own thoughts and subjective speculation must fall entirely into the background, and must not be allowed to mix up anything of its own with what objectively stands forth in the revelation of the New Testament and simply seeks to be under- stood just as it so stands. For exegesis is a historical science, because the sense of Scripture, the investigation of which is its task, can only be regarded and treated as a historical fact; as positively given, it can only be known, proved, established, and set forth so as to be clearly and surely understood, by the positive method of studying the grammar, the usus loquendt, and the connection in detail as well as in its wider and widest sense. Exegetical research therefore cannot regard any defini- tions of the doctrinal system of a Church as binding or regula- tive for its operations, as if forsooth, in cases where the Con- N fession has spoken, its duty were to seek only what it was 4 xxxiv PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. priori directed to seek, and thereupon to find only what it so seeks. No! it is just when perfectly unprejudiced, impartial, and free—and thus all the more consciously and consistently guided simply and solely by those historically given factors of its science—that it is able with genuine humility to render to the church, so far as the latter maintains its palladium in the pure Word of God, real and wholesome service for the present and the future. Unhappily the Church of Rome, by its un- changeable tradition beyond the pale of Scripture, and now com- pletely by its Vaticanum, has refused to receive such service in all points affecting its peculiar doctrine. But with the Evangelical Church it is otherwise. However deep may be the heavings of conflicting elements within it, and however long may be the duration of the painful throes which shall at last issue—accord- ing to the counsel of God and when His hour has come—in a happier time for the church when men’s minds shall have attained a higher union, the pure word of Scripture, in its historical truth and clearness and in its world-subduing divine might, disengaged from every addition of human scholasticism and its dividing formulae, must and shall at length become once more a wonderful power of peace unto unity of faith and love. The Evangelical Church bears inalienably in its bosom the Word as the living and imperishable leaven of that final development. Such is the ideal goal, which the scientific exposition of Scripture, while it desires nothing else than to elucidate and further the true historical understanding of Scripture, may never lose sight of in regard to the church, which is built on the Word But how limited is the measure of the attainments and ot the gifts conferred upon the individual! and how irresistibly must it impel him, in the consciousness of his fragmentary contributions, to the humbling confession, “ Not as though I had already attained!” Nevertheless let each strive faithfully and honestly according to what has been given to him, for that noble goal in the field of Scripture-science, in firm assurance that PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. XXXV God can bless even what is little and be mighty in what is weak. And so may the gracious God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ accompany my humble labours on His Word, as they are now going forth in the dress of another language to far distant brethren, with the blessing on which all success depends, that they may conduce to the knowledge of His Truth, to the service of His Church, and to the glory of His Holy Name. Dr. HEIN. AUG. WILH. MEYER, OBERCONSISTORIALRATE. Hannover, March 1873. PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. AORTY years have now elapsed since my Commentaries | on the New Testament were first given to the public. The first edition of the first volume—the weak com- mencement—appeared in January 1832. A scien- tific work, which has passed through a long course of develop- ment and still continues that course, has always a history—a biography—of its own, which of course is intimately interwoven with that of its author. Yet in this retrospect I can only be filled with praise and thanksgiving to the divine grace; of my- self I have nothing to say. The indulgence of friendly readers, which I have experienced so long, will not, I hope, fail to be still extended to me, when my day’s work is drawing to its end. This fifth edition of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is based—as was of course to be expected, and may be inferred from the increase in the number of the sheets—on a new and careful revision of the fourth edition, which was issued in 1865. This enlargement—although in particular instances much has been abridged or even deleted—could not be avoided, if on the one hand the more recent publications relating to the Epistle were to meet with due attention,’ and if on the other hand 1 I could not take into consideration the treatise of Dr. Eklund: ‘‘cap§ vocabu- lum, quid ap. Paulum significet,” Lund, May, 1872, which, cautiously proceed- ing by a purely exegetical method, in the definition of the ethical side of that PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION, xxxvü tle general plan of the book—according to which it has to provide along with the exposition itself a critical view of the interpreta- tions contrasting with it, and so of the detailed history of the exegesis—was to be preserved.. But on what portion of the New Testament could the labour and trouble—which are being continually renewed, wherever exe- getical science conscientiously strives to reach its pure and clear historic aim—he less spared than on this, the grandest and richest in contents of all the Apostle’s letters? Especially at the present time. The Epistle to the Romans still stands forth as a never silent accuser confronting the Roman ecclesiasticism, which has strained to the uttermost spiritual arrogance in the dethroned head, and Loyolist submissiveness in the members, of its hierarchy (perinde ac si essené cadavera); it is still the steadfast divine charter of the Reformation, as formerly our Luther found mainly in it the unyielding fulcrum by the aid of which he upheaved „the firmly-knit Roman structure from its old foundations. Amidst. the vehement and pretentious conflicts, which continually sur- round us in the field of evangelic belief, we still have in this Epistle—just because it sets clearly before us the pure apostolic Gospel in its deepest and most comprehensive scope—the clearest and most prominent criterion for the recognition of what belongs to the pith and marrow of the Confession, in order that we may distinguish with steadfast eye and con- science that which is essential from all the fleeting, temporary, notion arrives. substantially at the explanation of Augustine and Luther—a result, nevertheless, in which I am still precluded from concurring, as regards the Epistle to the Romans, by the contrast of odp£ and voids, as well as that of cdpé and the moral €y& in ch. vii.—I must here also make supplementary mention of Hilgen- feld’s dissertation ‘‘ Petrus in Rom und Johannes in Kl. Asien” (Zeitschrift, 1872. 3) ; in it he declares himself in favour of the nearly contemporary martyr- dom of Peter and Paul in Rome as a historically accredited fact, and, as 1 must still even after the doubts of Lipsius assume, with just reason, even as respects its independence of the Simon legend.—During the very printing of this Preface there have come into my hands the two dissertations by Harmsen, who defends the reference of the doxology in ix. 5. to God, and Hilgenfeld, who maintains the genuineness of chapters xv. and xvi. (in the latter’s Zeitschrift, 1872. 4). XXXVlii PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. controversial or scholastic forms, with which it has become con- nected and interwoven through the historical relations of ecclesi- astical symbols; a distinction, to which even the Introduction to the Formula Concordiae, although this most of all bears the theological impress of the time, significantly enough points, and which better meets the exigencies of the restless pre- sent than the overbearing cry—recklessly transcending limit or measure—after unity of doctrine, which yet does not remove or even so much as conceal the dissensions among the criers themselves. The unity which they desire—were it uniformly established, as it were in the lump, for «all doctrinal definitions of the Confession—would be Roman, and the very negation of truth and truthfulness in the church, because it would be contrary to the freedom of conscience in the understanding of Scripture, which has its ground and support, its standard and limit, and the holy warrant of its upright confidence, not beyond the pale of Scripture, but in it, and in it alone. Let us only advance with clearness along the straight path of pure historical exegesis, in virtue of which we have always te re- ceive what Scripture gives to us, and never to give to it aught of our own. Otherwise we run a risk of falling into the boundless maze of an interpretation of Scripture at our own pleasure, in which arti- ficial and violent expedients are quickly enough resorted to, with a view to establish results which are constructed from foregone premisses, and to procure doctrines which are the creations— obtruded on Scripture—of a self-made world of thought and its combinations. Exegetes of this sort—whose labours, we may add, are usually facilitated by a lack of sure and thorough philo- logical culture,! and of needful respect for linguistic authorities— 1 We theologians are far too much given to neglect a comprehensive and pre- cise knowledge of the Greek grammar. If the exegete of the present day supposes himself adequately furnished with such a Grammar as that of Rost (whose memory, as my former Gymnasial teacher, I gratefully revere) he is mistaken; it is no longer sufficient. We ought not to overlook the progress of philology in the field of the classics, but should be diligent in turning to account, for the New Testa- ment, whatever the contributions of the present day furnish. Otherwise we neglect PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION, ¥XXIS have the dubious merit of provoking refutation more than others do, and thereby indirectly promoting the elucidation of the true sense of Scripture. Yet they may,as experience shows, attain for a time an influence, especially over younger theolo- gians who have not yet reached the steadiness and soberness of mature exegetic judgment, by the charm of novelty and of a certain originality, as well as of a dialectic art, which veils its mistakes so that they are not at once recognised—an influence under which good abilities are misled and learn to be content with ex- tracting from the words of Scripture a meaning, which, originating from their own presuppositions, belongs really to themselves. In- deed, if such a mode of handling Scripture, with its self-deceptions and with its often very singular caprices, could become domi- nant (which, looking to the present state and progress of science, I do not reckon possible), there would be reason to fear that gra- dually the principle of Scripture authority, which preserved in its full objectivity is the aegis of the evangelical churches, would become zJlusory. All the worse and more confusing is it, when such an exegesis employs as the organ of presenting and com- municating its views a mode of expression, the quaint drapery of which hinders us from clearly discerning the substance of the meaning lying beneath it, and in fact frequently permits the effort of translating it into current forms of speech which cannot mislead to be attended with but dubious success. an eminently important part of our duty. I cannot but here recommend very urgently to the theologian, in the interest of pure exegesis, the second edition of Kühner’s Large Grammar (in two parts, 1869-1872)—to which my citations will always henceforth refer—as the most complete and most solid work on the structure of the Greek language regarded from the present standpoint of science. This entirely remodelled edition is a glorious monument of thorough and compre- hensive erudition, and of clear and ripe familiarity with the genius of the lan- guage of classic Hellenism. 1 In presence of such wretched evils of style we may be allowed to recall the simple rule, which the epigrammatist bids the rhetoricians (Anthol. Pal. xi, 144, 5f.) lay to heart: Noüv brorelodaı dei rots ypdupact Kal dpdow airdvy eivaı Koworépav, Ware voclv & Néyers. 31 PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. For the critical remarks the part of the editio octava of Tischen- dorf’s New Testament, which includes the present Epistle, was in good time to be turned to account. As it deviates in many cases from the editio septima, and this diversity is partly due to a modification of the critical principles adopted, I have deemed it advisable to specify not merely the readings of the octava, but also those of the septima. The one I have indicated by Tisch. (8), the other by Tisch. (7); but where the two editions agree, I put merely Tisch. With confidence then in God, who sits as Ruler and knows how to guide all things well, this work is left to make its way once more into the much agitated theological world. May He ward off harm, so far as it contains what is erroneous, and grant His blessing, so far as it may minister to the correct, unstinted, and undisguised understanding of His revealed Word. Dr. MEYER. HANNOVER, 24th July 1872 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. INTRODUCTION. § 1. SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. SQAUL, who received this Roman name, according to nm Jerome, Catal. 5—and from Acts xiii. 9, this view seems the most probable !—on occasion of the con- ne Version of Sergius Paulus the Roman Proconsul of Cyprus, but was at his circumcision named bani? was the son of Jewish parents belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. xi. 1; Phil. iii. 5), and was born at Tarsus® (Acts ix. 11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3), a moAıs mEyaAy Kat evdaluwv (Xen. Anabd. i. 2, 23) of ancient re- nown, founded according to the legend by Perseus, in Cilicia. The year of his birth is quite uncertain (A.D. 10-15 ?); but it is certain that he was of Pharisaic descent (see on Acts xxiii. 6), and that his father was a Roman citizen (see on Acts xvi. 37). He there- fore possessed by birth this right of citizenship, which subse- quently had so important a bearing on his labours and his fate 1 See the particulars on Acts xiii. 9. 2 Since both names were generally current, every attempt to explain their meaning in reference to owr Paul is utterly arbitrary—from that of Augustine, according to whom he was called Saul as persecutor (as Saul persecuted David), and Paulus as praedicator (namely, as the minimus apostolorum, 1 Cor. xv. 9), down to Umbreit’s play on the word ya (the made one, created anew) in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 377f., and Lange’s fancy that the Apostle was called the little, because he overcame Elymas as the little David overcame Goliath. 3 Not at Gisehala in Galilee, according to the statement of Jerome, de Vir. til. 5 (comp. also what he says on Philem. 23), which cannot be taken into con- sideration after the Apostle’s own testimony (see especially Acts xxii. 3), unless with Krenkel (Paulus d. Ap. d. Heiden, 1869, p. 215) we distrust the accounts of the Book of Acts even in such a point lying beyond the scope of its dogmatic tendency. A 2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, (Acts xxii. 27f.). Of his first youthful training in his native city, where arts and sciences flourished (Strabo, xiv. 5, 13, p. 673), we know nothing; but it was probably conducted by his Pharisaic father in entire accordance with Pharisaic principles (Phil. iii. 5; Gal. i. 14), so that the boy was prepared for a Pharisaic rabbinical school at Jerusalem. While yet in early youth (Acts xxii. 3, xxvi. 4, comp. vii. 58; Gal. i. 14; Tholuck, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1835, p. 364 ff.; also in his Vermischte Schr. II. p. 274 ff.) he was transferred to Jerusalem, where he had perhaps even then relatives (Acts xxiii. 16), though there is no evidence that the entire family migrated thither (Ewald). He entered a training- school of Pharisaic theology, and became a rabbinic pupil of the universally honoured (Acts v. 34) Gamaliel (Acts xxii. 3), who, notwithstanding his strict orthodoxy (Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 33), shows himself (Acts v. 34 ff.) a man of wise moderation of judgment.! In accordance with a custom, which was rendered necessary by the absence of any regular payment of the Rabbins and was very salutary for their independence (see on Mark vi. 8, and Delitzsch, Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu, 1868, V.), the youthful Saul combined with his rabbinical culture the learning of a trade—tentmaking (Acts xviii. 3)—to which he subsequently, even when an apostle, applied himself in a way highly honourable and remarkably conducive to the blessing of his official labours, and for that reason he felt a just satisfaction in it (Acts xviii. a8. 04: 1, Thess, 1.9: 2 Thess. ui. 7#.; 1 Cor. w, 12, 1%, xii, 15; 2 Cor. xi. 8, xii. 13). At the feet of Gamaliel he of course received an instruction which, as to form and matter, was purely rabbinic; and hence his epistles exhibit, in the mode in which they unfold their teaching, a more or less distinet rabbinico-didactic impress. But it was natural also that his susceptible and active mind should not remain unaffected by Hellenic culture, when he came into contact with it; and how could he escape such contact in Jerusalem, whither Hellenists flocked from all quarters under heaven ? This serves to explain 1 See traits of the mild liberality of sentiment, which marked this grandson of the celebrated Hillel, quoted from the Rabbins in Tholuck, /.c. p. 378. The fact that nevertheless the youthful Saul developed into a zealot cannot warrant any doubt, in opposition to Acts viii. 34ff., as to his having been Gamaliel’s pupil (such as Hausrath expresses, neut. Zeitgesch. II. p. 419 ff.). SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 3 a dilettante! acquaintance on his part with Greek literary works, which may certainly be recognized in Acts xvii. 28, if not also in 1 Cor. xv. 33 (Tit. i. 12); and which, perhaps already begun in Tarsus, may have been furthered without its being sought by his subsequent relations of intercourse with Greeks of all countries and of all ranks. It is impossible to determine how much or how little of the virtues of his character, and of the acuteness, subtlety, and depth of lofty intellect which he dis- played as apostle, he owed to the influence of Gamaliel; for his conversion had as its result so entire a change in his nature, that we cannot distinguish—and we should not attempt to distinguish —what elements of it may have grown out of the training of his youth, or to what extent they have done so. We can only recog- nize this much in general, that Saul, with excellent natural gifts, with the power of an acute intellect, lively feelings, and strong will, was, under the guidance of his teacher, not merely equipped with Jewish theological knowledge and dialectic art, but had his mind also directed with lofty national enthusiasm towards divine things; and that, however deeply he felt sin to be the sting of death (Rom. vii. 7ff.), he was kept free (Phil. iii. 6) from the hypocritical depravity which was at that time prevalent among Pharisees of the ordinary type (Schrader, II. p. 23 ff, comp. also Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 265). Nevertheless it is also certain that the moderation and mildness of the teacher did not communicate themselves to the character of the disciple, who, on the contrary, imbibed in a high degree that prevailing rigour of Pharisaism, the spirit of which no Gamaliel could by his indivi- dual practical wisdom exorcise. He became a distinguished zealot for the honour of Jehovah and the law (Acts xxii. 3), as well as for Pharisaic principles (Gal. i. 14), and displayed all the recklessness and violence which are wont to appear, when fiery 1 The exaggerations of the older writers (see e.g. Schramm, de STUPENDA erudi- tione Pauli, Herborn. 1710) are pure inventions of fancy. So too is Schrader’s opinion, that Paul had by Greek culture prepared himself to be a Jewish mis- sionary, a proselytiser. It cannot even be proved that he formed his diction on the model of particular authors, such as Demosthenes (Köster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 305 ff.). The comparisons instituted with a view to establish this point are tuo weak and general. How many similar parallels might be collected, e.g. from Plato, and even from the tragedians! On the whole the general remark of Jerome, at Gal. iv. 24, is very appropriate: ‘* P, scisse, licet nen ad perfectum, literas saeculares.” 4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. youthful spirits concentrate all their energies on the pursuit of an idea embraced with thorough enthusiasm. His zeal was fed with abundant fuel and more and more violently inflamed, when the young Christian party growing up in Jerusalem became an object of hostility as dangerously antagonistic to the theo- cracy and legal orthodoxy (comp. Acts vi. 13, 14), and at length formal persecution broke out with the stoning of Stephen. Even on that occasion Saul, although still in a very subordinate capacity, as merely a youth in attendance,’ took a willing and active part (Acts viii. 1, xxii. 20); but soon afterwards he came forward on his own account as a persecutor of the Christians, and, becoming far and wide a terror to the churches of Judaea (Gal. i. 22f.), he raged against the Christians with a violence so resolute and persistent (Acts xxii. 3f, xxvi. 10 ff.), that his con- duct at this time caused him ever afterwards the deepest humi- liation and remorse (1 Cor. xv. 8, 9; Gal. i. 13; Eph. iii. 8; Phil. iii. 6; comp. 1 Tim. i. 13). Yet precisely such a character as Saul—who, full of a keen but for the time misdirected love of truth and piety, devoted without selfish calculation his whole energies to the idea which he had once embraced as his highest and holiest concernment—was, in the purpose of God, to become the chief instrument for the proclamation and exten- sion of the divine work, of which he was still for the moment the destructive adversary. A transformation so extraordinary required extraordinary means. Accordingly when Saul, invested with full powers by the Sanhedrin (Acts ix. 1, xxvi. 9), was carrying his zealous labours beyond the bounds of Palestine, there took place near Damascus (35 A.D.) that wonderful ap- pearance to him of the exalted Jesus in heavenly glory (see on Acts ix. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8) which arrested him (Phil. iii. 12),and produced no less a result than that Saul—thereby divinely called, and subsequently favoured with an inward divine revela- tion of the Son of God? (see on Gal. i. 15 £.)—gradually became, 1 Not as a married man or already a widower, of about thirty years of age, (Ewald, Hausrath); comp. on Acts vii. 58. 2 The attempts of the Tiibingen school (especially of Baur and Holsten) to represent the Gospel of Paul as having originated from the intrinsic action of his own mind, and the event at Damascus as a visionary picture drawn from his own spirit, are noticed and refuted at Acts ix., and by Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1870, 1. Compare generally Dorner, Gesch. d. prot. Theol. p. 829 ff. SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 5 under the further guidance of the divine Spirit and in the school of his own experiences so full of trial, the Apostle, who by the most extensive and most successful proclamation of the Gospel, especially among the Gentiles, and by his triumphant liberation of that Gospel froın the fetters of Mosaism on the one hand and from the disturbing influences of the current theosophic speculations on the other, did more than all the other apostles— he, the Thirteenth, more than the Twelve, who had been called in the first instance for the dwdecapvAov of Israel (Gal. ii. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 10). His conversion was completed through Ananias, who was directed to him by means of an appearance of Christ (Acts ix. 10 ff); and, having been baptized, he at once after a few days, in the resolute consciousness of his spiritual life transformed with a view to his apostolic vocation (Gal. i. 16), preached in the synagogues of Damascus Jesus! as being the Son of God (Acts x.19 f.). For all half-heartedness was foreign to him; now too he was, whatever he was, thoroughly, and this energetic unity of his profound nature was now sanctified throughout by the living spirit of Christ. His apostolic labours at Damascus, the birthplace of his regenerate life, lasted three years, interrupted however by a journey to Arabia (Gal. i. 17), the object of which most probably was to make merely a pre- liminary and brief trial of his ministry in a foreign field.? 1 The chief facts in the life of Jesus could not but have been already known to him in a general way, whilst he was actively oppusing the Christians at Jeru- salem ; but now, for the first time, there dawned upon him the saving knowledge of these facts and of their truth, and his constant intercourse with believers henceforth deepened more and more this saving knowledge. Thus, following the living historical tradition within the circle of Christianity under the influence of the Christ revealed in him, he became the most important witness for the history of Jesus apart from the Gospels. Comp. Keim, Geschichte Jesu, I. p. 36 ff.; also Hausrath, newt. Zeitgesch. II. p. 457. But that he had seen Christ Himself, cannot be inferred from 2 Cor. v. 16; see on that passage. 2 Schrader, Köllner, Köhler (Abfassungen d. epistol. Schr. p. 43 f.), Rückert, and Schott on Gal. Z.c., Holsten, Döllinger, Krenkel, and others, think that Paul withdrew immediately after his conversion to a neigh- bouring desert of Arabia, in order to prepare himself in retirement for his calling. Compare also Hausrath, newt. Zeitgesch. II. p. 455. This view is decidedly at variance with Acts ix. 19, 20, where the immediate public teaching at Damascus, a few days alter the conversion, receives very studious prominence. But we should only have to assume such an inconsistency with the passage in Acts, in the event of that assumed object of the Arabian journey being exegetically deducible from the Apostle’s own words in Gal. i, 17, which, however, is by no means the case. 6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. Persecution on the part of the Jews—which was subse- quently so often, according to the Divine counsel, the salutary means of extending the sphere of the Apostle’s labours—compels him to escape from Damascus (Acts ix. 19-26; 2 Cor. xi. 32£.); and he betakes himself to the mother-church of the faith on account of which he has suffered persecution in a foreign land, proceeding to Jerusalem (A.D. 38), in order to make the personal acquaintance of Peter (Gal. i. 18). At first regarded by the believers there with distrust, he was, through the loving inter- vention of Barnabas (Acts ix. 27 f.), admitted into the relation of a colleague to the apostles, of whom, however, only Peter and James the brother of the Lord were present (Gal. 1.19). His first apostolic working at Jerusalem was not to last more than fifteen days (Gal. i 18); already had the Lord by an appear- ance in the temple (Acts xxii. 17 ff.) directed him to depart to the Gentiles; already were the Hellenists resident in the city seeking his life; and he therefore withdrew through Syria to his native place (Acts ix. 30; Gal. i. 20). Here he seems to have lived and worked wholly in quiet retirement, till at length Bar- nabas, who had appreciated the greatness and importance of the extraordinary man, went from Antioch, where just at that time Gentile Christianity had established its first church, to seek him out at Tarsus, and brought him thence to the capital of Syria; where both devoted themselves for a whole year (A.D. 43) without interruption to the preaching of the Gospel (Acts xi. 25, 26). We know not whether it was during this period (see Anger, temp. rat. p. 104 ff.), or during his sojourn in Cilicia (see Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 440, ed. 3), that the Apostle became the subject of that spiritual ecstasy and revelation which, even after the Luke, it is true, makes no mention at all of the Arabian journey ; but for that very reason it is highly improbable that it had as its object a silent preparation for his official work. For in that case the analogous instances of other famous teachers who had prepared themselves in the desert for their future calling (Ex. xxiv. 18, xxxiv. 28; Deut, ix. 9; 1 Kings xix. 8), and the example of John the Baptist, and even of Christ Himself, would have made the fact seem too important either to have remained wholly unknown to Luke, or to have been passed over without notice in his history; although Hilgenfeld and Zeller suppose him to have omitted it intentionally. On the other hand, we cannot suppose that the sojourn in Arabia extended over the whole, or nearly the whole, of the three years (Eichhorn, Hemsen, Anger, Ewald, Laurent, and older expositors). See generally on Gal. i. 17. SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE, a7 lapse of fourteen years, continued to be regarded by him as so extremely remarkable (2 Cor. xii. 2-4). But the great famine was now approaching, which, foretold at Antioch by the prophet Agabus from Jerusalem, threatened destruction to the churches of Judaea. On this account the brethren at Antioch, quite in the spirit of their new brotherly love, resolved to forward pecuniary aid to Judaea; and entrusted its transmission to Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi. 27-30). After the execution of this commission (A.D. 44), in carrying out which however Saul at least cannot have gone all the way to Jerusalem (see on Gal. ii. 1), the two men were formally and solemnly consecrated by the church at Antioch as apostles to the Gentiles (Acts xiii. 1-3); and Saul now undertook—at first with, but afterwards without, Barnabas—his missionary journeys so fruitful in results. In the course of these journeys he was wont, where there were Jews, to attempt the fulfilment of his office in the first instance among them, in accordance with what he knew to be the divine order (Rom. i. 16, xv. 8 ff.), and with his own deep love towards his nation (Rom. ix. 1 ff.); but when, as was usually the case, he was rejected by the Jews, he displayed the light of Christ before the Gentiles. And in all variety of circum- stances he exhibited a vigour and versatility of intellect, an acuteness and depth, clearness and consistency, of thought, a purity and steadfastness of purpose, an ardour of disposition, an enthusiasm of effort, a wisdom of conduct, a firmness and deli- cacy of practical tact, a strength and freedom of faith, a fer- vour and skill of eloquence, a heroic courage amidst dangers, a love, self-denial, patience, and humility, and along with all this a lofty power of gifted genius, which secure for the Saul whom Christ made His chosen instrument the reverence and admira- tion of all time.! 1 Comp. Holsten, l.c. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 88 ff.; Luthardt, d. Ap. Paul. e. Lebensbild, 1869; Krenkel, Paul. d. Ap. d. Heiden, 1869; Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. Il. 1872; Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. d. neutest. Schriftth. 1871, II. p. 10 f.; also Sabatier, 2’apétre Paul, esquisse d’une histoire de sa pensée, Strasb. 1870, Still the history of the spiritual development of the Apostle cannot be so definitely and sharply divided into periods as Sabatier has tried to do. See, against this, the appropriate remarks of Gess, Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1871, p. 159 ff. The motive power and unity of all his working lay in his inward fellowship with Christ, with - His death and resurrection—in the subjective living and moving in Christ, and of Christ in him. Comp. Grau. Jc, p. 15 ff. 8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. In accordance with the narrative of Acts, three! missionary journeys of the Apostle may be distinguished; and in the description of these we may insert the remaining known facts of his history. (1.) On his consecration as Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul went along with Barnabas the Cyprian, and with Mark accompanying them as apostolic servant, first of all to the neighbouring Cyprus; where, after his advance from Salamis to Paphos, his work was crowned by a double success—the humiliation of the goetes Elymas, and the conversion of the proconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii, 6-12). Then Pamphylia, where Mark parted from the apostles (xiii. 13), Pisidia and Lycaonia became in turn fields of his activity, in which, together with Barnabas, he founded churches and organized them by the appointment of presbyters (xiv. 23). At one time receiving divine honours on account of a miracle (xiv. 11 ff.), at another persecuted and stoned (xiii. 50, xiv. 5, 19), he, after coming down from Perga to Attalia, returned to the mother-church at Antioch. While Paul and Barnabas were here enjoying a quiet sojourn of some duration among the brethren (Acts xiv. 28), there came down from Judaea Pharisaic Christians jealous for the law, who required the Gentile converts to submit to circumcision as a condition of Messianic salvation (Acts xv. 1; Gal. ii. 4). It was natural that this demand should encounter a decided oppo- nent in the highly enlightened and liberal-minded Paul, whose lively assurance of the truth, resting on revelation and upheld by his own experience, could tolerate no other condition of salvation than faith in Christ; and in consequence both he and the likeminded Barnabas became entangled in no small contro- versy (Acts xv. 2). The dispute involved the fundamental essence and independent standing of Christianity and the whole freedom of a Christian man, and was therefore of such import- ance that the church at Antioch, with a view to its settlement, 1 The supposition that there were other chief jowrneys, which, it is alleged, are left unnoticed in the Acts (Schrader), is quite incompatible with the course of the history as there given. He must, however, have made many subordinate journeys, for the Book of Acts is far from giving a complete account of his labours, as is clearly shown by various intimations in the Epistles. For example, how many journeys and events not noticed in the Acts must be assumed in connection with 2 Cor, xi. 14 ff. ? SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 9 deputed their most influential men, Paul, who also received a revelation for this purpose (Gal. ii. 2), and Barnabas along with some others (Paul also took Titus with him, Gal. ii. 1), to pro- ceed to Jerusalem (fourteen years after the Apostle’s first journey thither, A.D. 52), and there discuss with the apostles and elders the points in dispute. And how happy was the result of this so-called Apostolic Council! Paul laid the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles before the church, and the apostles in particular, with the best effect (Gal. ii. 2, 6); and, as to the point of circumcision, not even his apostolic associate Titus, a Gentile, was subjected to the circumcision demanded by members of the church who were zealous for the law. With unyielding firmness Paul contended for the truth of the Gospel. The apostles who were present—James, the brother of the Lord, Peter and John—approved of his preaching among, and formally recog- nized him as Apostle to, the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 1-10); and he and Barnabas, accompanied by the delegates of the church at Jerusalem, Judas Barsabas and Silas, returned to Antioch bearers of a decree (Acts xv. 28-30) favourable to Christian freedom from the law, and important as a provisional measure for the further growth of the church (Acts xvi. 4f.), though not coming up to that complete freedom of the Gospel which Paul felt himself bound to claim, and for this reason, as well as in virtue of his consciousness of independence as Apostle to the Gentiles, not urged by him in his Epistles. Here they prose- cuted afresh their preaching of Christ, though not always without disturbance on the part of Jewish Christians, so that Paul was compelled in the interest of Christian freedom openly to oppose and to admonish even Peter, who had been carried away into dissimulation, especially seeing that the other Jewish Christians, and even Barnabas, had allowed themselves to be tainted by that dissimulation (Gal. ii. 11 ff.). Paul had nevertheless the welfare of his foreign converts too much at heart to permit his wishing to prolong his stay in Antioch (Acts xv. 36). He proposed to Barnabas a journey in which they should visit those converts, but fell into a dispute with him in consequence of the latter desiring to take Mark (Acts xv. 37-39)—a dispute which had the beneficial consequence for the church, that the two men, each of whom was qualified to fill a distinct field of 10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. labour, parted from one another and never again worked in conjunction. (2.) Paul, accompanied by Silas, entered on a second missionary journey (A.D. 52). He went through Syria and Cilicia, strength- ening the Christian life of the churches (Acts xv. 41); and then through Lycaonia, where at Lystra (see on Acts xvi. 1) he asso- ciated with himself Timothy, whom he circumcised—apart how- ever from any connection with the controversy as to the neces- sity of circumcision (see on Acts xvi. 3)—with a view to prevent his ministry from causing offence among the Jews. He also traversed Phrygia and Galatia (Acts xvi. 6), in the latter of which he was compelled by bodily weakness to make a stay, and so took occasion to plant the churches there (Gal. iv. 13). When he arrived at Troas, he received in a vision by night a call from Christ to go to Macedonia (xvi. 8 ff.). In obedience to this call he stepped for the first time on the soil of Europe, and caused Christianity to take permanent root in every place to which he carried his ministry. For in Macedonia he laid the foundation | of the churches at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea (Acts xvi. 12 ff, xvii. 1 ff, 10 ff); and then, driven away by repeated persecutions (comp. also 1 Thess. ii. 1 £., i. 6)—but leaving Silas and Timothy behind in Beroea (Acts xvii. 14)—he brought to Christ His first-fruits even in Athens, where he was treated by the philosophers partly with contempt and partly with ridicule (Acts xvii. 16 ff). But in that city, whence he despatched Timothy, who had in the meanwhile again rejoined him, to Thessalonica (1 Thess. iii. 1 ff), he was unable to found a church. The longer and more productive was his labour in Corinth, whither he betook himself on leaving Athens (Acts xviii. 1 ff.). There, where Silas and Timothy soon joined him, he founded the church which Apollos afterwards watered (1 Cor. iti. 6, 10, iv. 15, ix. 1); and for more than a year and a half (Acts xviii. 11, 18; A.D. 53 and 54)—during which period he received support from Macedonia (2 Cor. xi. 9), as he had previously on several occasions from the Philippians (Phil. iv. 15 f.)—overcame the wisdom of the world by the preaching of the Crucified One (1 Cor. ii. 1ff.). The relation here formed with his fellow- craftsman Aquila (Acts xviii. 1 ff), who as a Roman emigrant was sojourning with his wife Priscilla in Corinth, could not fail SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 1% to exercise essential influence on the Christian church at Rome (Rom. xvi. 3). In Corinth he wrote also at this time the first of his doctrinal Epistles preserved to us—those to the Thessalonians. Corinth was the terminus of his second missionary journey. From Corinth he started on his return, not however taking a direct course, but first making by way of Ephesus (whither he brought Aquila and Priscilla with him) a journey to Jerusalem to attend a festival (Acts xviii. 18-22; A.D. 55), whence, without prolonging his stay, he returned to the bosom of the Syrian mother-church. But he did not remain there long (Acts xviii. 23); his apostolic zeal soon impelled him to set out once more. (3.) He made his third missionary tour through Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the churches which he had founded from town to town (Acts xviii. 23); and traversed Asia Minor as far as Ephesus, where for nearly three years (A.D. 56-58) he laboured with peculiar power and fervour and with eminent success (Acts xix. 1-xx. 1), although also assailed by severe trials (Acts xx. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 32, comp. 2 Cor. i. 8). This sojourn of the Apostle was also highly beneficial for other churches than that at Ephesus; for not only did he thence make a journey to Corinth, which city he now visited for the second time (see on 2 Cor. introd. § 2), but he also wrote towards the end of that sojourn what is known to us as the First Epistle to the Corinthians, receiving subsequently intelligence of the impression made by it from Timothy, whom he had sent to Corinth before he wrote, as well as from Titus, whom he had sent after writing it. The Epistle to the Galatians was also issued from Ephesus. He was impelled to leave this city by his steadfast resolution now to transfer his labours to the far West, and indeed to Rome itself, but before doing so to revisit and exhort to steadfastness in the faith his Macedonian and Achaean converts (Acts xix. 21, xx. 2), as well as once more to go to Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21). Accordingly, after Demetrius the silversmith had raised a tumult against him (Acts xix. 24 ff), which however proved fruitless, and after having suffered in Asia other severe afflictions (2 Cor. i. 8), he travelled through Macedonia, whither he went by way of Troas (2 Cor. ii. 12), and where, after that in addition to Timothy Titus also from Corinth had joined him, he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. He then remained three 12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIIE ROMANS. months in Achaia (Acts xx. 3), where he issued from Corinth— which he now visited for the third time (2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1)— his Epistle to the Romans. Paul now regards his calling in the sphere of labour which he has hitherto occupied as fulfilled, and is impelled to pass beyond it (2 Cor. x. 15 f.); he has preached the Gospel from Jerusalem as far as Illyria (Rom. xv. 19, 23); he desires to go by way of Rome to Spain, as soon as he shall have conveyed to Jerusalem a collection gathered in Macedonia and Greece (Rom. xv. 23 ff.). But it does not escape his foreboding spirit that suffering and tribulation await him in Judaea (Rom. xv. 30 ff). The Apostle’s missionary labours may be regarded as closed with this last sojourn in Achaia; for he now entered on his return journey to Jerusalem, in consequence of which the capital of the world was to become the closing scene of his labours and sufferings. Hindered solely by Jewish plots from sailing directly from Achaia to Syria, he returned once more to Macedonia, and after Easter crossed from Philippi to Troas (Acts xx. 3-6), where his companions, who had set out previously, awaited him. Coming thence to Miletus, he bade a last farewell with touching fervour and solemnity to the presbyters of his beloved church of Ephesus (Acts xx. 17 ff.); for he was firmly convinced in his own mind, filled as it was by the Spirit, that he was going to meet bonds and afflictions (xx. 23). At Tyre he was warned by the Christians not to go up to Jerusalem (xxi. 4); at Caesarea Agabus announced to him with prophetic precision the ap- proaching loss of his freedom (xxi. 10 ff.), and his friends sought with tears to move him even now to return; but nothing could in the least degree shake his determination to follow absolutely the impulse of the Spirit, which urged him towards Jerusalem (xx. 22). He went thither (A.D. 59) with heroic self-denial and yielding of himself to the divine purpose, in like manner as formerly the Lord Himself made His last pilgrimage to the Jewish capital. Arriving there shortly before Pentecost—for his object was not only to convey to the brethren the gifts of love collected for them, but also to celebrate the national festival, Acts xxiv. 17—he was induced by James and the presbyters immediately on the following day to undertake, for the sake of the Judaists, a Nazarite vow (xxi. 17 ff). But, while it was yot SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE, Ta only the fifth day of this consecration (see on Acts xxiv. 11), the Asiatic Jews fell upon him in the temple, accusing him of having, as an enemy of the law and the temple, brought Gen- tiles with him into the holy place; and they would have killed him, had not the tribune of the fort Antonia rescued him by military force from their hands (xxi. 28-34). In vain he defended himself before the people (Acts xxii.), and on the fol- lowing day before the Sanhedrin (xxiii. 1-10); but equally in vain was a plot now formed by certain Jews who had bound themselves by an oath to put him to death (xxiii. 11-22); for the tribune, when informed of it, had the Apostle conducted immediately to the Procurator Felix at Caesarea (xxill. 23-35). Felix was base enough, in spite of Paul’s excellent defence, to detain him as a prisoner for two years, in the expectation even of receiving a bribe; and on his departure from the province, from a wish to gratify the Jews, left the Apostle to be dealt with by Porcius Festus his successor (summer, A.D. 61), Acts xxiv. Even from the more equitable Festus, before whom the Jews renewed their accusations and Paul the defence of his innocence, he did not receive the justice that was his due; where- fore he found himself compelled to make a formal appeal to the Emperor (xxv. 1-12). Before this date however, whilst living in the hope of a speedy release, he had written at Caesarea his Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon (which are usually assigned to the Roman captivity); see on Eph. «trod. § 2. His appeal, notwithstanding the unanimously favourable opinions pronounced regarding him (Acts xxvi.) after his solemn defence of himself before King Agrippa II. and his sister (xxv. 13 ff.), was necessarily followed by his transference from Caesarea to Rome. During the autumn voyage, on which he was accompanied by Luke and Aristarchus, danger succeeded danger, after the Apostle’s wise warnings were despised (Acts xxvii. 10, 11, 21); and it was only in consequence of his advice being afterwards followed (Acts xxvii. 30-36) that all were saved and, after the stranding of their vessel at Malta, happily landed to pass the winter on that island. In the following spring he saw Rome, though not—as it had been so long his earnestly cherished wish to visit it (Rom. i. 10 ff.)—as the free herald of the Gospel. Still he there enjoyed the favour—after 14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. receiving a custodia militaris—of being permitted to dwell in his own hired house and to continue without interruption his work of instruction among all who came to him. This mild imprisonment lasted two full years (from the spring of 62): and as at this time his intrepid fidelity to his office failed not to make oral proclamation of the kingdom of God (Acts xxviii. 30, 31; Phil. i. 12 ff), so in particular the Epistle to the Philip- pians, which emanated from this time of captivity, is a touching proof of that fidelity, as well as of the love which he still received and showed, of the sufferings which he endured, and of the resignation and hope which alternated within him. This letter of love may be called his swan’s song. The two years’ duration of his further imprisonment did not decide his cause; and it does not make his release by any means self-evident,’ for Luke reports nothing from this period respecting the progress of the Apostle’s trial. But now all at once we lose all trustworthy accounts bearing on the further course of his fate; and only thus much can be gathered from the testimonies of ecclesiastica: writers as historically certain, that he died the death of a martyr at Rome under Nero, and nearly at the same time? as Peter suffered crucifixion at the same place. See the testimonies in Credner, Einl. I. p. 318 ff.; Kunze, praecip. Patrum testim., quae ad mort. P. spect., Gott. 1848; and generally Baur, Paulus, I. p. 243 ff. ed. 2; Wieseler, p. 547 ff.; Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 149 ff.; from the Catholic point of view, Döllinger, Christenth. und Kirche, p. 79 ff. ed. 2. The question however arises, Whether this martyrdom (be- heading) was the issue of his trial at that time (Petavius, Lard- ner, Schmidt, Eichhorn, Heinrichs, Wolf, de altera Pauli captivit. Lips. 1819, 1821, Schrader, Hemsen, Köllner, Winer, Fritzsche, 1 In opposition to Stölting, Beitr. z. Exeg. d. Paul. Br. p. 195. 2 Whether Peter suffered martyrdom somewhat earlier than Paul (Ewald), or some time later, cannot be made out from Clement, Cor. I. 5, any more than from other sources. Moreover this question is bound up with that as to the place and time of the composition of the First Epistle of Peter. But that Peter never came to Rome—as, following Baur and others, Lipsius, Chronol. d. Röm. Bischöfe, 1869, and Quellen d. Rim. Petrussage, 1872, and Gundert in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1869, p. 306 ff., seek to prove (see the earlier literature on the question in Bleek’s Einleitung, p. 562)—cannot, in view of the church tradition, be maintained. The discussion of this question in detail belongs to another place. SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 15 Baur, Schenkel, de Wette, Matthies, Wieseler, Schaff, Ebrard, Thiersch, Reuss, Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 549f, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Otto, Volckmar, Krenkel, and others, including Rudow, Diss. de argumentis historie., quibus epistolar. pastoral. origo Paul. impugnata est, Gott. 1852, p. 6 ff.), or of a second Roman captivity, as has been assumed since Eusebius (ii. 22) by the majority of ancient and modern writers, including Michaelis, Pearson, Hänlein, Bertholdt, Hug, Heidenreich, Pas- toralbr. II. p. 6 ff., Mynster, kl. theol. Schr. p. 291 f., Guericke, Bohl, Abfassungsz. d. Br. an Timoth. u. Tit., Berl. 1829, p. 91 ff., Kohler Wurm, Schott, Neander, Olshausen, Kling, Credner, Neudecker, Wiesinger, Baumgarten, Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II. 1. p. 386 ff., Bleek, Döllinger, Sepp, Gams, d. Jahr d. Märtyrertodes d. Ap. Petr. w. Paul. 1867, Ewald, Huther and others. Since the testimony of Eusebius, /.c., which is quite of a general character, confessedly has reference merely to a tradition (Aoyos Exeı), which was acceptable to him on account of 2 Tim. iv. 16 f., the historical decision of this question turns on the statement of Clemens Romanus.2 He says, according to Dressel’s text,? 1 Cor. 5: Arca £mAov Kat 6 IladAos vrouovns BpaBetov vréoxey, emrakıs deca popécas, puyadevOels, Aıdacdeis. Kijpv€ yevouevos &v Te TH avaToAy Kal Ev TH Övcei, TO Yevvalov THs TicTEws avTOU 1 Who, curiously enough, further assumes a third and fourth captivity. 2 Nothing at all bearing upon our question can be derived from the testimony of Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Euseb. ii. 25, to which Wiesinger still attaches weight. It merely affirms that Peter and Paul having come to Italy, there taught, and died as martyrs. Comp. Caius ap. Eus. Z.c., Iren. Haer. iii. 1; Tertull. Scorp. 15, praescr. 36; and even the xjpuyua Ilerpov (Clem. Strom vi. 5). These testimonies do not in the least suggest the idea of a second presence in Rome. 3 Dressel follows the recension of Jacobson (Oxon. 1838, and 2d ed. 1840), who collated Cod. A anew, and carefully rectified its text of the epistle first issued by Patricius Junius (Oxon. 1633), followed substantially in that form by Cotelerius (Paris 1672), and then amended by Wotton (Cantabr. 1718). The variations however of the different revisions of the text, which is only preserved, and that in a very faulty form, in Cod. A, do not essentially affect the present question. Even the form in which Laurent (neutest. Stud. p. 105 ff., and in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1870, p. 135 ff.) gives the text of the passage in Clement on the basis of Tischendorf’s reproduction of Cod. A, is without influence on our question. This holds true also with respect to the latest critical editions of the Clementine Epis- tles by Hilgenfeld (N. 7. extra canonem, 1866, I.), by Lightfoot (S. Clemeni of Rome. The two Epistles, etc. 1869), and by Laurent (Clem. Rom. ad Cor. epistula, etc. 1870). 16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, KNéos EAaßev, Sixatordvny dıdafas OAov Tov KOTMOY, Kat ext TO Teppa Tis dUcews EeAQwv, Kal maprupisas Emil TOY HYyoULEVwY. Odrws amnrAXAayn TOU KOGMOU, Kal eis TOV dyıov TOToV Eropeudn, UToMovis yevouevos neyıoTos UTOypaupos. This passage, it is thought, indicates clearly enough that Paul before his death, passing beyond Italy, had reached the farthest limit of the West, Spain, and that therefore a second Roman imprisonment must be assumed. See especially Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 51 ff.; Huther, Pastoralbr. Einl. p. 32 ff. ed. 3; Lightfoot J.c., who understands by répua r. 6. Gades. In opposition to this view we need not seek after any different interpretation of ro repna T. ducews ; Whether it may be taken to signify the western limit appointed to Paul (Baur, Schenkel, Otto)—which certainly would be very meaningless—or the line of demarcation between East: and West (Schrader, Hilgenfeld, apost. Vater, p. 109); or even the centre of the West (Matthies). But it is to be observed :—1st. that the language generally bears a highly rhetorical and hyper- bolical character, and, were it only for this reason, it is very ha- zardous to interpret the “ limit of the West” (ro repna Tis durews) with geographical accuracy. And is not even the immediately preceding dixatoc. dıdafas 0Aov Tov kocuov a flourish of exagger- ation? 2d. Clement does not speak of East and West from his own Roman stand-point, but, as was most naturally accordant with the connection and design of his statement, from the stand- point of Paul, into whose local relations he in thought transports himself. While the Apostle laboured in Asia, he was in the East: then he passed over to Greece, and thus had become, from his Oriental point of view, a herald also in the West. But in the last crisis of his destiny he came even to the far West, as far as Rome: and for this idea how naturally, in the midst of the highly coloured language which he was using, did the expression él TO TEpma Tis duTews EAOwy suggest itself! It could not have been misunderstood by the readers, because people at Corinth could not but know the place where Paul met his death. 3d. 1 So also Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 620 ff. ed. 3, who supposes that, when Paul heard in Spain of the horrors of the Neronian persecutions, he hurried back to Rome to bear witness for Christianity; that there he was arrested, placed once more on trial, and condemned to death. According to Ewald the Book of Acts itself, at i. 8, points by way of anticipation to the Spanish journey. SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. +17 Ext tov jyovuevwv denotes (in allusion to Matth. x. 18) the rulers generally, before whom Paul gave testimony concerning Christ (uaptupijoas), after he had reached this répua Tas ducews. If the latter denotes Rome, then we may without hesitation, on historical grounds, conclude that the rulers are those Roman magistrates before whom Paul made his defence in Rome. But if Spain should be the “goal of the West,” we should find our- selves carried by the uaprupyoas emi Tay iyyoup. to some scene of judicial procedure in Spain; and would it not in that case be necessary to assume a sojourn of the Apostle there, which that very trial would render specially memorable? But how opposed to such a view is the fact, that no historical trace, at all certain, is preserved of any church founded by Paul in Spain! For the testimonies to this effect adduced by Gams, Kirchengesch. v. Spanien, p. 26, Sepp, Gesch. der Ap. p. 314, ed. 2, and others, contain nothing but traditions, which have merely arisen from the hypothetical Spanish journey of Paul. And to say with Huther that the Apostle had travelled (eX0wv) to Spain, but had not /abowred there, is to have recourse to an explanation at variance with the intrinsic character of Paul himself and with the context of Clement. Besides, according to Rom. xv. 23 f., Paul desired to transfer his ministry, that was accomplished in the East, to Spain. 4th. If ézt To répua T. durews EXOwv was intended to transport the reader to Spain, then it would be most natural, since oörws sums up the previous participial clauses, to transfer the arı\Aayn Tov Kocpov also to Spain ; for just as this ammAX. T. x. is manifestly correlative to the dicacoovvny dıda£. 9Aov T. KOT MOV, SO eis T. dyıov TOTOV evopevOy corresponds with the éml T. Tepna T. dvoews K.T.X:; so that Paul, starting from the Tépua T. dvcews, Which he has reached, and where he has borne his testimony before the rulers, enters on his journey to the holy place. It is only, therefore, when we understand Jtaly as the western limit, that the language of Clement is in harmony with the historical circumstances of the case.! See, moreover, Lipsius, 1 If we render kaprupnoas martyrium passus (Credner, Lange, and older writers), this result comes out the more clearly, since at all events Paul died in Rome; along with which indeed Döllinger further finds in éwi r&v yyoyu. an evidence for the year 67 that has been the traditional date since Kusebius, Chron. (comp. also Gams, Jahr d. Märtyrertodes, ete.; and Sepp, J.c. p. 379), when Nero was absent and the Prefects ruled in Rome. See his Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 101, ed. L + B 18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. de Clem. Rom. ep. ad Cor. I. p. 129, and Chronol. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 163 ff. It cannot withal be overlooked that in the so-called Zpist. Clem. ad Jacobum, c. 1, there is manifestly an echo of our pas- sage, and yet Rome alone is designated as the final goal of the Apostle’s labours: tov Eronevov ayaboy 6AM TO Koop pyvicat BarıXEa, méexpis evrauda TH Poun yevouevos, HeoßovAyrw didac- kalla owlwv avOpérous, autos Tod viv Blov Biaiws To Civ wernANa£ev. After this the conjecture of Wieseler (and Schaff, Hist. of Apost. Church, p. 342), who, instead of eri ro Tepua as given by Junius, would read zo To Tepua, and explain it “ be- fore the supreme power of the West,” is unnecessary. It is decisive against this view that Jacobson, as well as Wotton, found erı in the Cod. A, and that Tischendorf likewise has attested the existence of cat er! as beyond doubt. But, besides, Wieseler’s expedient would not be admissible on grounds of linguistic usage, for répua in the sense assumed is only used with exew; see Eur. Suppl. 617, Or. 1343, Jacobs. ad Del. epigr. p. 287. From the very corrupt text of the Canon Muratorii,! 2. Against that chronological determination, see generally Baxmann, dass Petr. u. Paul nicht am 29. Junius 67. gemartert worden sind, 1867. 1 The passage in question runs, ‘‘ Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro sunt. Lucas optime Theophile comprindit (comprehendit), quia sub prae- sentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote passionem Petri evidenter de- clarat, sed profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam profieiscentis.” Wieseler conjectures that after proficiscentis the word omittit has been left out; that semote means : at a separate place, viz. not in the Acts of the Apostles, but in the Gospel, xxii. 31-88. A very forced conjecture, with which nevertheless Volk- mar (in Credner’s Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 348) agrees, supposing that a non has dropped out after proficiscentis. Credner, l.c. p. 155 f., conjectured semota (namely oca, which is supposed to refer to John xxi. 18 ff., and Rom. xv. 24), and then et instead of sed. Otto, p. 154, would read sic et instead of sed; making the meaning : ‘‘ Consequently (sic) he declares openly, that just as (ui et) in his absence the martyrdom of Peter took place, so likewise (sic ei) the journey of Paul,” ete. But how much must we thus introduce into the semote/ Laurent alters into: ‘‘semota passione. ..et profectione,” etc. Various suggestions are made by others; see Ewald, Jahrb. VIII. p. 126, whose own procedure is the boldest. Hilgenfeld, Kanon u. Krit. d. N. T., thinks that the author has ““ guessed” the martyrdom of Peter and the Spanish journey of Paul from the abrupt close of the Acts of the Apostles. Such a theory should have been precluded by the “* evidenter declarat,” for which indeed Ewald would read ‘‘evidenter decerpit” or ‘‘decollaé. If we must resort to conjecture (and it is necessary), it seems the simplest course, instead of e¢ semote, to insert id semotam, and then in- stead of sed, et. This would yield the sense: as this circumstance (id), viz. the writing down only what took place in his presence, evidently explains the exclu- SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 19 nothing can be gathered bearing on our question, except that the author was already acguainted with the tradition of the journey to Spain afterwards reported by Eusebius; not, that he wished to refute it (Wieseler, p. 536). On the other hand, Origen (in Euseb. iii. 1: ri dei wept HlavAov Aeyeıv aro ‘Tepoveadnu mexpı tov "IAXvpırod TemAnpwKoTos TO evayyeAıov TOU XpicTo Kat vorepov ev TH Pon ert Nepwvos wemaptupykoros) tacitly excludes the Spanish journey. The tradition regarding it arose very natur- ally out of Rom. xv. 24; (Jerome: “ad Italiam quoque et, ut ipse scribit, ad Hispanias—portatus est”), and served as a needed his- torical basis for the explanation of 2 Tim., acquiring the more general currency both on this account and because it tended to the glorification of the Apostle. It is further worthy of atten- tion that the pseudo-Abdias, in his Historia Apostolica, ii. 7, 8 (in Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. p. 452 ff.), represents the execution as the issue of the captivity reported in the Acts. Had this author been a believer in a liberation, as well as in a renewed missionary activity and second imprisonment, he would have been the last to refrain from bringing forward wonderful reports regarding them. Substantially the same may be said of the Acta Petri et Pauli in Tischendorf, Act. ap. apocr. pe bff. Note—If we regard the Lpistles to Timothy and Titus—which, moreover, stand or fall fogether—as genuine, we must take, as Euse- bius in particular has done with reference to 2 Tim., the tradition of the Apostle’s liberation from Rome and of a second captivity there as an historical postulate,’ in order to gain the room which cannot otherwise be found for the historical references of those Epistles, sion (semotam) of the passion of Peter and of the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. On both of these occasions the author accordingly thinks that Luke was not present, and thereby the fact that he has omitted them in his book is explained. 1 This is the ground assumed by the latest expositors of the Pastoral Epistles, who maintain their genuineness, Wiesinger and Huther ; whilst Rudow, again, in the already mentioned Dissert. 1852, only rejects the First Ep. to Timothy (comp. Bleek), and, calling in question a second captivity, ascribes the Second Ep. to Timothy to the first imprisonment, and the Ep. to Titus to the sojourn at Ephesus. So also Otto, with respect to the two last-named Epistles ; but he regards the First Ep. to Timothy as a letter of instruction for Timothy in view of his missioa to Corinth, consequently as nearly contemporaneous with the Ep. to Titus. See, in opposition to Otto, Huther on the Pastoral Epistles, Introd. ed. 3 20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. and the latest possible time for their other contents. But the more defective the proof of the second imprisonment is, the more warranted remain the doubts as to the genuineness of these Epistles, which arise out of their own contents; while in virtue of these doubts the Epistles, in their turn, cannot themselves be suitably adduced in proof of that captivity. Besides, it cannot be left out of view that in all the unquestionably genuine Epistles which Paul wrote during his imprisonment every trace of the previously (Rom. xv. 24) cherished plan of a journey to Spain has vanished; and that in the Epistle to the Philippians, which was certainly not written till he was in Rome (i. 25 f, ii. 24), he contemplates as his further goal in the event of his liberation, not the far West, but Macedonia, or in other words a return to the East. From Acts xxiii. 11, however, no evidence can be adduced against the Spanish journey (as Otto contends), because in this passage there is no express mention of a last goal, excluding all further advance. § 2. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT RoME.! That the Christian Church in Rome had been in existence for a considerable time when Paul wrote to it, is clear from i. 8-13 and xiii, 11, 15; and that it was already a church formally con- stituted, may be gathered from the general analogy of other churches that had already been long in existence, from xii. 5 ff., and less certainly from xvi. 5. Especially may the existence of a body of presbyters, which was essential to church organization (Acts xiv. 23), be regarded as a matter of course. In the Acts of the Apostles the existence of the Church is presupposed (xxviil 15) as something well known; and the author, who fol- lows the thread of his Apostle’s biography, had no occasion to narrate its origin or development. The origin of the Roman Church cannot therefore be deter- mined with certainty. It is not incredible that even during the lifetime of Jesus faith in Him had taken root, in individual cases, among the Roman Jews (comp. Clem. Recogn. i. 6). For 1 See Th. Schott, d. Römerbrief s. Endzweck u. Gedankengang nach, Erl. 1858; Mangold, d. Römerbr. u. d. Anfänge d. röm. Gem. Marb. 1866; Wieseler in Herzogs Encykl. XX. p. 583 ff. (1866); Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 627 ff. ; comp. also Grau, 2. Einführ. in d. Schriftth. N. T., Stuttg. 1868, and his Entwickelungsgesch. d. neut. Schriftth. II. 1871, p. 102 ff. ; Sabatier, !’apötre Paul, 1870. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME. 21 among the pilgrims who flocked to the festivals at Jerusalem from all countries Romans also were wont to be present (Acts ii. 10), and that too in considerable numbers, because the multitude of Jews in Rome had since the time of Pompey become extra- ordinarily great (see Philo, leg. ad Caj. II. p. 568; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 6; Joseph. Antt. xvii. 11, 1), including Jews directly from Palestine (prisoners of war, see Philo, /.c.), of whom a large portion had attained to freedom, the rights of citizenship, and even wealth. Is it unlikely that individual festal pilgrims from Rome, impressed by the words and works of Jesus in Jerusalem, carried back with them to their homes the first seeds of the faith? To this view it cannot be objected (as by Reiche), that Chris- tianity did not spread beyond the bounds of Palestine until after the miracle of Pentecost; for there is mention, in fact, in Matt. x. of the official missionary activity of the Apostles, and in Acts viii. 1 ff. of that of emigrants from Jerusalem. If the former and the latter did not labour in foreign lands until a subsequent period, this by no means excludes the possibility of the conversion of individual foreigners, partly Jews, partly proselytes, who became believers in Jerusalem. It is further probable that there were some Romans among the three thousand who came over to the Christian faith at the first Pentecost (Acts ii. 10); at least it would be very arbitrary to exclude these, who are expressly mentioned among the witnesses of what occurred at Pentecost, from participa- tion in its results. Lastly, it is probable that the persecution which broke out with the stoning of Stephen drove some Pales- tinian Christians to take refuge even in the distant capital of the world, distinguished by its religious toleration, and in fact in- clined to Oriental modes of worship (Athenaeus, Deipnos. I. p. 20 B., calls it erırounv Ths oikovpevns, and says: kal yap Aa Ta On aßpows aurodı cuvexicra). For that this dispersion of the Christians of Jerusalem was not confined to Samaria and Judaea (an objection here urged by Reiche and Köllner), is proved by Acts xi. 19, where emigrants are mentioned who had gone as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus. And how easily might some find their way even to Rome, seeing that the brisk maritime intercourse be- tween these places and Italy afforded them opportunity, and seeing that they might expect to find admittance and repose among their countrymen in Rome, who were strangers to the fanatical zeal of 22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, Palestine. But although, in consequence of the constant inter- course maintained by the Jews at Rome with Asia, Egypt and Greece, and especially with Palestine (Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. § 17), various Christians may have visited Rome, and various Jews from Rome may have become Christians, all the influences hitherto mentioned could not establish a Christian congregational life in Rome. Individual Christians were there, and certainly also Christian fellowship, but still no organized church. To plant such a church, there was needed, as is plain from the analogy of all other cases of the founding of churches with which we are acquainted, official action on the part of teachers endowed directly or indirectly with apostolic authority. Who the founder of the Roman congregational life was, how- ever, is utterly unknown. The Catholic Church names the Apostle Peter; concerning whom, along with the gradual develop- ment of the hierarchy, there has been a gradual development of tradition, that he came to Rome in the second year, or at any rate about the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Claudius (according to Gams, A.D. 41), to overcome Simon Magus, and remained there twenty-five years (Gams: twenty-four years and an indefinite number of days), till his death, as its first bishop. See Eusebius, Chron. (in Mai’s Script. vet. nov. coll. VIII. p. 376, 378); and Jerome, de vir. al.1.1 But that Peter in the year 44, and at the date of the apostolic conference in the year 52, was still resident in Jerusalem, is evident from Acts xii. 4, xv. 7, and Gal. ii. 1 ff. From Acts xii. 7 a journey to Rome cannot be inferred? Further, that still later, when Paul was living at 1 See, generally, Lipsius, d. Quellen d. Rim. Petrussage, Kiel, 1872. As to the way in which that tradition, the germs of which are found in Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb. Z. E. ii. 25), gradually developed itself into the complete and definite form given above, see Wieseler, chronol. Synops. p. 571; regarding the motley legends connected with it, see Sepp, Gesch. d. Ap. p. 341, ed. 2 ; concerning the unhistorical matter to be eliminated from the report of Jerome, see Huther on 1 Peter, Introd.; comp. Credner, Hind. II. p. 382. The alleged presence of Simon in Rome is probably the mere product of a misconception, by which Justin, Apol. i. 26 (comp. Irenaeus, Heer. i. 23), explained an old inscription as referring to Simon Magus. Comp. also Uhlhorn, d. Homil. u. Recogn. d. Clem. p. 378 f.; Möller in Ierzogs Encykl. XIV. p. 3921f.; Bleek, p. 563 f. 2 Even if Peter had actually, in the course of his foreign travels (1 Cor. ix. 5), visited Rome once in the time of Claudius (comp. on Acts xii. 17), which Ewald (apost, Zeit. p. 606f. ed. 3.) concedes to ecclesiastical tradition, not calling in THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME. 23 Ephesus, Peter had not been labouring in Rome, is evident from Acts xix. 21, because Paul followed the principle of not interfer- ing with another Apostle’s field of labour (Rom. xv. 20; comp. 2 Cor. x. 16); and, had Peter been in Rome when Paul wrote to the Romans, he would have been saluted by the latter before all others; for the numerous salutations in ch. xvi. presuppose an accurate acquaintance with the teachers who were then in Rome. Peter cannot have been labouring in Rome at all before Paul himself was brought thither, because the former, as Apostle to the Jews, would have brought Christianity into closer contact with the Jewish population there than is apparent in Acts XXviil. 22. It is even in the highest degree improbable that Peter was in Rome prior to the writing of the Epistle to the Philippians—the only one which was certainly written by Paul in Rome—or at the time of its being written; for it is incon- ceivable that Paul should not in this letter have mentioned a Jellow-Apostle, and that one Peter, especially when he had to complain so deeply of being forsaken as at Phil. ii. 20. Conse- quently the arrival of Peter in Rome, which was followed very soon by his execution—and which is accredited by such ancient and strong testimony (Dionysius of Corinth, in Euseb. ii. 25; Caius, in Euseb, ii. 25 ; Origen, in Euseb. iii. 1; Irenaeus ; Tertul- lian, etc.) that it cannot be in itself rejected—is to be placed only towards the end of Paul’s captivity, subsequent to the composi- tion of the Epistle to the Philippians, If, therefore, the tradition of the Roman Church having been founded by Peter—a view dis- puted even by Catholic theologians like Hug, Herbst, Feilmoser, Klee, Ellendorf, Maier, and Stengel, who however are vehemently opposed by Windischmann, Stenglein, Reithmayr,and many others! question even a meeting with Simon Magus there, yet we cannot regard this as involving the foundation of the Roman church and the episcopal position. Other- wise Paul would have intruded on another labourer’s field. See the sequel. 1 Dollinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 95 ff. ed. 2, still seeks to support it on the usual grounds, and in doing so starts from the purely fanciful & priori premiss, that the Roman Church must have been founded by an Apostle, with the equally arbitrary conclusion: ‘‘and that Apostle can only have been Peter.” He gives to the twenty-five years’ duration of the Petrine episcopatus a curious round- about interpretation, according to which the episcopate is made to mean merely ecclesiastical dignity in general ; see p. 317. The passage of Dionysius of Corinth ın Euseb. ii. 25 is misinterpreted by him.—It ill accords with the Roman epis- 24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. — must be entirely disregarded (although it is still defended among Protestants by Bertholdt, Mynster and Thiersch), it is on the other hand highly probable, that a Christian church was founded at Rome only subsequent to Paul’s transference of his missionary labours to Europe; since there is no sort of indication, that on his first appearance in Macedonia and Achaia he anywhere found a congregation already existing. He himself in fact stood in need of a special direction from Christ to pass over to Europe (Acts xvi. 9f.); and so another official herald of the faith can hardly before that time have penetrated as far as Italy. But, when Paul was labouring successfully in Greece, it was very natural that apostolic men of his school should find motive and occasion for carrying their evangelic ministry still further westward,—to the capital of the Gentile world. The ex- pulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius (Sueton. Claud. 25; Acts xvill. 2) served, under Divine guidance, as a special means for this end. Itefugees to the neighbouring Greece be- came Christians, Christians of the Pauline type, and then, on their return to Rome, came forward as preachers of Christianity and organisers of a church. We have historical confirmation of this in the instance of Aquila and Priscilla, who emigrated as Jews to Corinth, dwelt there with Paul for upwards of a year and a half, and at the date of our Epistle had again settled in Rome, where they appear, as previously in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), according to Rom. xvi. 3 as teachers and the possessors of a house where the Roman church assembled.’ It is probable that copate of Peter that in Euseb. iii. 2, and Irenaeus, iii. 3, Linus is expressly named as the first Roman bishop ; and in fact in the Constit. ap. vii. 46, 1, it is said that he was appointed by Paul; while Peter only nominated the second bishop (Clemens) after the death of Linus. According to this statement Peter had nothing to do with the founding of the Roman episcopate, and neither Paul nor Peter was bishop in Rome. On the whole it is to be maintained that no Apostle at all was bishop of a church. The apostolate and the presbyterate were two specifically distinct offices in the service of the Church. In Rome especially the succession of bishops can only be historically proved from Xystus onwards (ob. 125); see Lipsius, J.c. 1 That this married pair came to Corinth, not as Christians, but as still Jews, and were there converted to Christianity through Paul, see on Acts xviii, 1, 2. Comp. Reiche, I. p. 44 f.; Wieseler, Z.c. p. 586.—Moreover, that the Christians (Jewish-Christians) resident in Rome were driven into exile along with other Jews by the edict of Claudius, can neither be proved nor yet controverted from the well-known passage in Sueton. Claud. 25 (see on Acts xviii. 1); for at that time THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME. 25 others also, especially among the persons mentioned in ch. xv1., were in similar ways led by God; but it is certain that a chief place among the founders of the church belongs to Aquila and Priscilla; since among the many who are greeted by Paul in the 16th chap. he presents to them the first salutation, and that with a more laudatory designation than is accorded to any of the others. Christianity, having taken root in the first instance among the Jews, found the more readily an entrance among the Gentiles in Rome, because the popular heathen religion had already fallen into a contempt inducing despair both among the cultivated and uncultivated classes (see Gieseler I. i. § 11-14; Schneckenburger, neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 59 f.; Holtzmann, Judenthum u. Christenthum, p-305 ff.). Hence the inclination to Monotheism was very general; and the number of those who had gone over to Judaism was very great (Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff.; Tac. Ann. xv. 44, Hist. v. 5; Seneca, in Augustine, de civ. Dei, vii. 11; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3,5). How much attention and approval, therefore, must the liberal system of religion, elevated above all the fetters of a deterrent legal rigour, as preached by Aquila and other Pauline teachers, have met with among the Romans dissatisfied with heathenism! From the description of most of the persons named in ch. xvi., from the express approval given to the doctrine in which the Romans had been instructed, xvi. 17, vi. 17, and even from the fact of the composition of the letter itself, inas- much as not one of the now extant letters of the Apestle is directed to a non-Pauline church, we may with certainty infer that Pauline Christianity was preponderant in Rome; and from this it is a further necessary inference that a very important part of the Roman church consisted of Gentile-Christians. This Gentile-Christian part must have been the preponderuting one, and must have formed its chief constituent element (in opposi- tion to Baur, Schwegler, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Volkmar, Reuss, Lutterbeck, Thiersch, Holtzmann, Mangold, Grau, and Sabatier), since Paul expressly and repeatedly de- signates and addresses the Romans in general as belonging to the €0vy (i. 6, 13, xi. 13); and asserts before them the importance the Christian body, which at all events was very small and isolated, was not yet independent, but still united with the Jewish population, 26 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, of his calling as Apostle to the Gentiles (xv. 15 f., i.5; comp. xvi. 4, 26). Comp. Neander, Gesch. d. Pflunzung, ete., ed. 4, p. 452 ff, Tholuck, Philippi, Wieseler, Hofmann. Indeed, we must presume in accordance with the apostolic agreement of Gal. ii. 7 ff, that Paul would not have written a doc- trinal Epistle to the Romans, especially one containing his entire gospel, if the church had been, in the main, a church of the epıroun and not of the axpoBvoria! Even ch. vii. 1, where the readers are described as yırwokovres vouov, as well as the numerous references to the Old Testament, and proofs adduced from it, are far from attesting the predominance of Jewish Chris- tianity in Rome? They are fully explained, when we recollect that in the apostolic age all Christian knowledge was conveyed through the channel of the Old Testament (xvi. 26); that an acquaintance with the law and the prophets, which was constantly on the increase by their being publicly read in the assemblies (comp. on Gal. iv. 21), was also to be found among the Gentile- Christians ; and that the mingling of Jews and Gentiles in the churches, even without a Judaizing influence being exerted on the latter (as in the case of the Galatians), could not but tend to further the use of that Old Testament path which Christian preaching and knowledge had necessarily to pursue. The grounds upon which Baur (in the Tübing. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, p. 144ff 1857, p. 60ff, and in his Paulus, I. p. 343 ff. ed. 2; also in his Christenth. d. drei erst. Jahrb. p. 62 ff. ed. 2; see also Volckmar, d. Rim. Kirche, p. 1 ff.; Holsten, z. Ev. u. Paul. w. Petr. p. 411) seeks to establish the pre- ponderance of Jewish Christianity will be dealt with in con- nection with the passages concerned; as will also the defence 1 By this Epistle he would have gone beyond the line laid down by him for his own field of labour (comp. 2 Cor. x. 13 ff), and would have interfered in the sphere not assigned to him—the Apostleship to the Jews. 2 Even in the Epistle of Clement, written in the name of the Roman Church, with its numerous O. T. references, the Gentile-Christian and Pauline element of thought predominates, although there is a manipulation of Pauline views and ideas in accordance with the ‘‘ Christian legalism ” (Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 274 ff.) of a later period. Comp. Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. pr. 1855 ; and Mangold, p- 167 ff. I cannot agree with Wieseler and others that this Epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, but with Ritschl and others assign it to the time of Domitian ; comp. Cotelerius, TIE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME. 27 of that preponderance which Mangold has given, while correct- ing in many respects the positions of Baur. The middle course attempted by Beyschlag, /.c. p. 640—that the main element of the church consisted of native Roman proselytes to Judaism, so that we should regard the church as Gentzle-Christian in its lineage, but as Jewish-Christian in ils habits of thought —is unsupported by any relevant evidence in the Epistle itself, or by any indication in particular of a previous state of pro- selytism. But even if there was merely a considerable portion of the Christian church at Rome consisting of those who had been previously Jews (as, in particular, xiv. 1 ff. refers to such), it must still appear strange, and might even cast a doubt upon the exist- ence of a regularly organized church (Bleek, Beitr. p. 55, and Einl. p. 412; comp. Calovius and others), that when Paul arrives as a prisoner in Rome, and wishes to acquaint himself with the Jewish community there, the leaders of the latter make no mention of a Christian congregation at Rome, but evince merely a superficial cognisance of the Christian sect in general (Acts xxviii. 22). But the Jewish leaders are here speaking as officials, and, as such, are not inclined without special immediate occasion to express their views before the captive stranger as to the position of the Christian body which existed i Rome itself. A designation of the Christian sect generally in accordance with its notorious outward reputation—such as might bring it into suspicion—is enough for them; but as to the precise relation in which this sect stands to them in Rome itself they do not feel themselves called upon to say anything for the present, and, with discreet reserve, are therefore wholly silent respecting it. This narrative therefore of Acts is neither to be regarded as a fiction due to the tendency of the author (Baur, Zeller, Holtz- mann), nor to be explained, arbitrarily and inadequately, by the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius (Olshausen), which had induced the Roman Jewish-Christians to separate themselves entirely from the Jews, so that on the return of the latter from exile the former remained unnoticed by them. Neither is it to be accounted for, with Neander—overlooking the peculiar charac- ter of Jewish religious interests—by the vast size of the metropo- lis; nor, with Baumgarten, by the predominance of the Gentile- 23 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. Christians there ; nor yet, with older writers, by the hypothesis— unjust and incapable of proof—that the Roman Jews acted a dis- honest and hypocritical part on the occasion. Not dishonesty, but prudence and caution are evinced in their conduct (comp- Schneckenburger, Philippi, Tholuck, Mangold), for the explana- tion of which we do not require, in addition to what they them- selves express in ver. 22, to assume any special outward reason, such as that they had been rendered by the Claudian measure more shy and reserved (Philippi; comp. Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 588, ed. 3); especially seeing that there is no just ground for referring the words of Suetonius, “ Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit” (Claud. 25), to disputes between Jews and Christians relative to the Messiahship of Jesus, con- trary to the definite expression “tumultuare.” ! We may add that our Epistle—since Peter cannot have laboured in Rome before it was written—is a fact destructive of the histo- rical basis of the Papacy, in so far as the latter is made to rest on the founding of the Roman church and the exercise of its epis- copate by that Apostle. For Paul the writing of such a didactic Epistle to a church of which he knew Peter to be the founder and bishop, would have been, according to the principle of his apostolic independence, an impossible inconsistency. 1 The Chrestus of Suetonius was a Jewish agitator in Rome, who was actually so called. See on Acts xviii. 2, and Wieseler, p. 585. Every other interpreta- tion is fanciful, including even the one given above, which is adopted by the majority of modern writers, among others by Baur, Holtzmann, Keim, Grau, and Mangold. Thiersch is peculiar in adding to it the groundless assertion that ‘‘the disturbances arose through the testimony of Peter to the Messiah in Rome, but that Peter had again left Rome even before the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius.” Groundless is also the opinion of Philippi, that, if Chrestus is to be taken as an agitator, he must have been a pseudo-Messiah. The pseudo-Messiahs appeared much later. But after the analogies of Judas and Theudas, other insur- gents are conceivable enough—enthusiasts for political freedom and zealots. Bey- schlag, p. 652 ff., likewise taking Chrestus as equivalent to Christus, infers too rashly, from the passage in Suetonius, that the Roman Church was chiefly com- posed of proselytes, who, when the native-born Jews were expelled, remained be- hind. Märcker (Lehre von der Erlös. nach d. Römerbr. Meining. 1870, p. 3) rightly rejects the interchange of the names Chrestus and Christus. OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE, 29 § 3. Occasion, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.! Long before writing this Epistle (470 roAA@v érav, xv. 23) the Apostle had cherished the fixed and longing desire (Acts xix. 21) to preach the Gospel in person at Rome (i. 11 ff)—in that metropolis of the world, where the flourishing of Christi- anity would necessarily exert an influence of the utmost import- ance on the entire West; and where, moreover, the special relation in which the church stood to the Apostle through its Pauline founders and teachers, and through the many friends and fellow-labourers whom he possessed in the city (ch. xvi.), claimed his ardent and loving interest. His official labours in other regions had hitherto prevented the carrying out of this design (i. 13, xv. 22). Now indeed he hoped that he should soon accomplish its realisation; but, partly because he wished first to undertake his collection-journey to Jerusalem (xv. 23-25), and partly because Spain, and not Rome (xv. 24-28), was to be the goal of his travels to the West, a lengthened sojourn in Rome cannot have formed part of his plan at that time. Accordingly, in pursuance of his apostolic purpose with reference to the Roman church, he could not but wish, on the one hand, no longer to withhold from it at least such a written communication of his doctrine, which he had so long vainly desired to proclaim orally, as should be suitable to the church’s present need; and on the other hand, by this written communication to pave the way for his intended personal labours in such fitting manner as to render a prolonged stay there unnecessary. This twofold desire occasioned the composition of our Epistle, for the trans- mission of which the journey of the Corinthian deaconess Phoebe to Rome (xvi. 1) afforded an opportunity which he gladly embraced. He could not fail to possess a sufficient ac- quaintance with the circumstances of the church, when we con- sider his position towards the teachers saluted in ch. xvi, and the eminent importance of the church itself—of whose state, looking to the active intercourse between Corinth and Rome, he was certainly thoroughly informed—as well as the indications afforded by ch. xii. xiv. xv. That the Epistle was called forth 1 See, besides the works quoted in $ 2, Riggenbach in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 33 ff. / 80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THD ROMANS. by spezial communications made from Rome itself (possibly by Aquila and Priscilla) is nowhere apparent from its contents; on the contrary, such a view is, from the general nature of the contents, highly improbable. Of all the Apostle’s letters, our present Epistle is that which has least arisen out of the necessity of dealing with special casual circumstances. According to Baur, the readers, as Jewish Christians (imbued also with erroneous Ebionite views), gave rise to the letter by their opposition to Paul, in so far, namely, as they saw in Paul’s apostolic labours among the Gentiles a detriment to the Jews, contrary to the pro- mises given to them by God, and therefore asserted the national privileges of their theocratic primacy in an exclusive spirit as opposed to the universalism of the Pauline teaching. Comp. also Schwegler, nachapost. Zeit. I. p. 285 ff.; Volekmar, l.c. p. 7 ff. ; and also Reuss, @esch. d. N. T. § 105 ff. ed. 4 In this view the Epistle is made to assume a specifically polemic character, which it manifestly has not (how very different in this respect the Ep. to the Galatians and those to the Corinthians !); it is assumed that the Church was a Jewish-Christian one; and an importance, too great in relation to the whole, and indefensible from an exe- getical point of view,! is attached to the section, chs. ix.-xi. (even in Baur’s second edition, which contains on this point a partial retractation), while, on the other hand, the two last chapters have to be sacrificed to critical doubts that have no foundation. In no other Pauline Epistle is the directly polemical element so much in the background; and where it does find expression, it is only for the moment (as in xvi. 17-20),—a sure proof that it was least of all the concrete appearance and working of Anti- paulinism which the Apostle had occasion in this Epistle to oppose. Against that enemy he would have waged a very different war- fare, as is shown in particular in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians, so nearly allied in its contents. Nor is that enemy to be discovered in the weak in faith of xiv. 1ff. Of. course, however, Paul could not present his Gospel otherwise than in 1 Baur previously, after his dissertation in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, found even the principal theme of the whole Epistle in chs. ix.-xi., for which chs. i.-viii. only serve as introduction. See against this view Huther’s Zweck u. Inhalt d. 11 ersten Kap. d. Römerbr. 1846, p. 14 f. Baur, in his Christenth. d. drei ersten Jahrb. p. 62 ff. ed, 2, has modified his view on this point. SCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLL. St antagonism to the Jewish righteousness of works and arrogance, which it had already overcome and would continue to do so; for this antagonism belonged to the essence of his Gospel and had to assert itself, wherever there was Judaism—only in various forms and degrees according to the given circumstances—and therefore at Rome as well. The view of Thiersch (Kirche im apostol. Zeitalt. p. 166), that Paul desired to elevate the Jewish- Christian church, which had consisted of the simple followers of Peter, from their still somewhat backward standpoint to more enlarged views, rests on the erroneous opinion that Peter had laboured in Rome. The object of our Epistle, accordingly, was by no means the drawing up of a systematic doctrinal system in general (see, against this view, Köstlin in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 68 ff.; Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. II. p. 114); but it is not on the other hand to be restricted more specially than by saying: Paul wished to lay before the Romans in writing, for their Chris- tian edification (i. 11, xvi. 25), his evangelic doctrine—the doc- trine of the sole way of salvation given in Christ—-viewed in tis full, specific chavacter as the superseding of Judaism, in such a way as the necessities and circumstances of the Church demanded, and as he would have preached it among them, had he been present in person (i. 11). The mode in which he had to accom- plish this was determined by the circumstance, that he deemed it necessary for his object fully to set forth before the Roman church, in a manner proportioned to the high importance of its position, this Gospel as to which his disciples had al- ready instructed them, 7 the entire connection of its consh- twent fundamental principles.1 In no other letter has he done this so completely and thoroughly ;? hence it is justly regarded as a grand scheme of his whole teaching,’ in the precise 1 Against which Hofmann unjustifiably urges dro uepovs and ws eravanınyaskwv buds in xv. 15. See on that passage. 2 So completely, that we can well enough understand how this Ep. could be- come the basis of Melancthon’s loci communes. 3 Comp. Hausrath, newt. Zeitgesch. II. p. 514 ff. Observe, at the same time, that though the Epistie deals very much with legal notions, this does not arise from its being destined for the Rumans to whom Paul had become a Roman (Grau, l.c. p. 118), but from the very nature of the Pauline Gospel in general, and is there- fore found e.g. also in the Epistle to the Galatians. on THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. form which he held to be suitable for its presentation to the Romans. How much he must have had this at heart! How much he must have wished to erect such a complete and abid- ing memorial of Ais Gospel in the very capital of the Gentile world, which was to become the Antioch of the West! Not merely the present association of Jews and Gentiles in the church, but, generally, the essential relation in which, accord- ing to the very Pauline teaching, Christianity stood to Judaism, required him to subject this relation in particular, viewed in its strong antagonism to all legal righteousness, to an earnest’ and thorough discussion. This was a necessary part of his design; and consequently its execution, though on the whole based on a thoroughly didactic plan, nevertheless assumed, in the presence of the given points of antagonism, partly an apologetic, partly a polemic form, as the subject required; without however any precise necessity to contend against particular doctrinal misconceptions among the Romans, against divisions and erroneous views, such as had appeared, for example, among the Galatians and Corinthians; or against a Judaistic leaven brought with them by the Jews and Jewish-Christians who had returned to Rome (comp. Grau). The actual dangers for the moment in the Church were more of a moral than a dogmatic character—a remark which applies also to the opposition between the Gentile Christians, strong in faith, and the scrupulous Jewish Christians —and have merely given occasion to some more special notices (xiii. 1 ff; xiv. 1 ff), and hints (xvi. 1 ff.) in the hortatory portion of the Epistle. The Judaistic opponents of Pauline Christianity had not yet penetrated as far as Rome, and were not to arrive there till later (Ep. to the Philippians). It was theretore an untenable position when, even before the time of Baur, who as- sumed the object of the Epistle to be the systematic and radical re- Futation oj Jewish exclusiveness, its aim was very frequently viewed as that of a polemic against Jewish arrogance, which had been spe- cially aroused on account of the calling of the Gentiles (Augustine, Theodoret, Melancthon, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Schmidt, Flatt, Schott, and others!). The same may be said of the hypothesis 1 Comp. van Hengel, who assumes that Paul desired to instruct the Romans how to refute the subtleties of the Jews with reference to the calling of the Gentiles, and to free them from errors and doubts thence arising. OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 33 that Paul wished, in a conciliatory sense, to obviate misunderstand- ings between Jewish and Gentile Christians (Hug). There is no evidence in the Epistle of actual circumstances to justify any such special definitions of its object; and even from xvi. 20 it cannot be assumed that Judaistic temptation had already begun (as Grau thinks). The comprehensiveness of the object of our Epistle—from which, however, neither the combating of Judaism, which arose naturally and necessarily out of the nature of the Pauline Gospel, nor (seeing that the futwre coming forward of his opponents could not be concealed from the Apostle) the prophylactic design of it, may be excluded—has been justly defended by Tho- luck, Riickert, de Wette, Reiche, Kollner, Fritzsche, Philippi, Wie- seler, Hausrath and others. Comp. Ewald, p. 317f Along with it, however, Th. Schott (comp. also Mangold, Riggenbach, Sabatier) has assumed a special personally apologetic purpose on the part of the Apostle; namely that, being now on the point of pro- ceeding with his Gentile mission-work in the far West, Paul wished to gain for his new labours & fixed point of support in the Roman church,? and on this account wished to instruct the Romans as to the significance and justification of the step, and to inspire them with full confidence regarding it, for which reason he exhibits to them in detail the nature and principles of his work. Against this view it may be urged, in general, that Paul nowhere gives expression to this special purpose, though the announcement of it would have been of decided importance, both 1 Hofmann also makes the object of the Apostle persona?. Paul assumes it to be a matter of surprise in Rome that he, the Apostle of the Gentiles, should have hitherto always kept aloof from the world’s capital, and even now had not come toit. It might seem as if the church, that had arisen without his aid, had no interest for him; or as if he were afraid to proclaim the message of salvation in the great centre of Gentile culture. This twofold erroneous notion he was especially desirous to refute. As a proof how far he was from being thus afraid, he sets forth what in his view the message of salvation was, etc. etc. Thus he might hope that the church in the metropolis of the world would be just as steady a point of support for his ministry in the farthest West, as if it had been founded by himself. In this way, however, assumptions and objects are assigned to the Epistle which are not expressed in it, but are imputed to it on the ground of subordinate expres- sions, as will be shown in the exposition. 2 Compare also Sabatier, Vapétre Paul, p. 160f., who at the same time affirms of the “grand missionaire:” dont l’ambition était aussi vaste que le monde. According to Sabatier, Paul gives down to chap. viii. the defence of his doctrine, and in chaps. ix.-xi. that of his apostleship. I. Cc 54 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. for his own official interests and for the information of the Roman church (they could not read it between the lines either in the preface, vv. 1-15, or in the conclusion, xv. 14-44); and, in parti- cular, that the Apostle’s intention of visiting the Romans only in passing through, without making a lengthened sojowrn, is incom- patible with the assumed purpose which he is alleged to have formed regarding the church. Moreover, a justification on so great a scale of the Gentile mission would presuppose not a Gentile- Christian, but a Jewish-Christian, church and its requirements. Hence Mangold, holding the same view that the Epistle contains a justification of the Gentile apostleship, has the advantage of consistency in his favour; his theory is nevertheless based on the unsatisfactory ground adopted by Baur, namely, that the Church was Jewish-Christian. See, further, Beyschlag, Lc. p. 636 ff., and especially Dietzsch, Adam wu. Christus, p. 14 ff. As to contents, our Epistle, after the salutation and introduc- tion (i. 1-15), falls into two main portions, a theoretical and a hortatory, after which follows the conclusion (xv. 14-xvi. 27). The theoretic portion (i. 16-xi. 36) bears its theme at the outset, i. 16, 17: “ Righteousness before God, for Jews and Gentiles, comes from faith.” Thereupon is established, in the first place, the necessity of this plan of salvation, as that which the whole human race required, Gentiles and Jews alike, because the latter also, even according to their own law, are guilty befure God, and cannot attain to righteousness (i. 17-iii. 20). The nature of this plan of salvation is then made clear, namely, that righteousness really and only comes from faith; which is especially obvious from the justification of Abraham (iii. 21-iv. 25). The blessed results of this plan of salvation are, partly the blissful inward condition of the justified before God (v. 1-11); partly that justification through Christ is just as universally effective, as Adam’s fall was once universally destructive (v. 12-21); and partly that true morality is not only not endangered by the manifestation of grace in Christ, but is promoted and quickened by it (chap. vi.), and made free from the fetters of the law (vii. 1-6). This last assertion demanded a defence of the law, as that which is in itself good and holy, but was abused by the sinful principle in man, against his own better will, to his destruction (vii. 1'7-25)—a sad variance of man with himself, which could TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 35 not be removed through the law, but only through Christ, whose Spirit produces in us the freedom of the new divine life, the consciousness of adoption, and assurance of future glory (ch. viii.). From the lofty description of this blessed connection -with Christ, Paul now suddenly passes to the saddening thought that a great part of that very Jewish people, so signally favoured. of God, has rejected the plan of redemption ; and therefore he develops at length a Theodicée with regard to the exclusion, apparently irreconcileable with the divine promises, of so many members of the theocracy from the attainment of salvation in Christ (chs. ix.-xi.). The hortatory portion (chs. xii—xv. 13) gives the essentials of the Pauline ethical system, partly in the form of general exhortations (xii. 1-21; xiii. 8-14), and partly in some special discussions. which were deemed neces- sary in the circumstances of the Romans (xiii. 1-7, xiv. 1-xv. 13). The conclusion comprises in the first place—corresponding to the introduction (i. 8-15)—personal explanations with regard to the Apostle’s intended journey by way of Rome to Spain (xv. 14-33); then the recommendation of Phoebe (xvi. 1 ff.) and salutations (xvi. 3-16); a warning with a closing wish (xvi. 17-20); some supplementary salutations with a second closing wish (xvi. 21-24); and, finally, a concluding doxology (xvi. 25-27). “ This Epistle is the true masterpiece of the N. T., and the very purest Gospel, which is well worthy and deserving that a Christian man should not only learn it by heart, word for word, but also that he should daily deal with it as with the daily bread of men’s souls. For it can never be too much or too well read or studied ; and the — more it is handled, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes.’ —Luther, Preface. § 4. PLACE AND TIME OF CoMPOSITION.—GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. ° Since the Apostle, when he composed. his letter, was on the point of conveying to Jerusalem the proceeds of a collection made in Macedonia and Achaia (xv. 25-27), and intended to _ journey thence by way of Rome to Spain (xv. 28, comp. Acts xix. 21), we are thus directed to his last sojourn—of three months —in Achaia, Acts xx. 3. His purpose was to cross over 36 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. directly from Achaia to Syria in order to reach Jerusalem, but he was led, owing to Jewish plots, to take quite a different route, namely, back through Macedonia (Acts xx. 3). This change in the plan of his journey had not been made when he wrote his Epistle ; otherwise he would not have failed to mention in ch. xv.— where he had at vv. 25 and 31 very immediate inducement to do so—a circumstance so remarkable on account of its novelty and importance. We justly infer therefore—even apart from the fact that the composition of such an epistle presupposes a somewhat lengthened and quiet abode—that it was written before Paul again departed from Achaia. Although Luke men- tions no particular city as the scene of the Apostle’s three months’ residence at that time, still it is, & priori, probable that he spent at least the greater part of the time in Corinth. For Corinth was the principal church of the country, and was in the eyes of the Apostle pre-eminently important and precious on account of his earlier labours there. But our attention is also directed to Corinth by the passages 1 Cor. xvi. 1-7, 2 Cor. ix. 4, xii. 20-xiii. 3, from which it is plain that, on his journey down from Macedonia to Achaia, Paul had chosen that city as the place of his sojourn, where he wished to complete the business of the collection, and from which he would eonvey the money to Jerusalem. Now, since the recommendation of the deaconess Phoebe from the Corinthian seaport Cenchreae (xvi. 1, 2), as well as the salutation from his host Gaius (xvi. 23, comp. with 1 Cor. i, 14), point to no other city than Corinth, we may, beyond all doubt, abide by it as the place of writing, and not with Dr. Paulus (de orig. ep. P. ad Rom. paralip. Jen. 1801, and Römerbrief, p. 231), on account of xv. 19 (see on that passage), put forward a claim on behalf of a town in Illyria. Theodoret has admirably proved in detail its composition at Corinth. The time of composition accordingly falls in A.D. 59, when Paul regarded his ministry in the East as closed, and (see xv. 19, 23) saw a new and vast scene of action opened up to him in the West, of which Rome should be the centre and Spain the goal. The genwineness is decisively attested by the testimonies of the orthodox church (the first express and special quotations from it are found in Irenaeus, Zaer. iii. 16, 3, 9, while previously there are more or less certain echoes of its language or traces of GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 37 its use),! as well as of the Gnostics Basilides, Valentinus, Heracleon, Epiphanes, and Theodotus ; and there is not a single trace that even the Judaizing heretics, who rejected the authority of the Apostle, at all rejected the Pauline authorship of our Epistle. In order to warrant any doubt or denial of its authen- tieity, therefore, the most cogent internal grounds would need to be adduced; and in the utter absence of any such grounds, the worthless scruples of Evanson (Dissonance of the four generalty received Evangelists, 1792, p. 259 ff.) and the frivolities of Bruno Bauer could find no supporters. The Epistle bears throughout the lively original impress of the Apostle’s mind, and his charac- teristic qualities, in its matter and its form; is the chief record of his Gospel in its entire connection and antagonism; and is therefore also the richest original-apostolic charter and model of all true evangelical Protestantism. The opinion of Weisse (philosoph. Dogm. I. p. 146), which ultimately amounts to the suggestion of a number of interpolations as interwoven through. out the Epistle (see his Beitr. 2. Krit. d. Paul. Br., edited by Sulze, p. 28 ff.), rests simply on a subjective criticism of style, which has discarded all weight of external evidence. The originality of the Epistle extends also to its language, the Greek, in which Paul dictated it to Tertius? The note of the Syrian Scholiast on the Peschito, that Paul wrote his letter in Latin—a theory maintained also, but for a polemical purpose, by Hardouin, Salmeron, Bellarmine, Corn. 4 Lapide, and others—is based merely upon a hasty inference from the native language of the readers. Its composition in Greek however corresponds fully, not only with the Hellenic culture of the Apostle himself, but also with the linguistic circumstances of Rome (see Credner’s Einl. II. p. 383 f.; Bernhardy, Griech. Literat. ed. 2, p. 483 ff.), and with the analogy of the rest of the ancient Christian writings addressed to Rome (Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, e¢ al.). That the two last chapters are genuine and inseparable parts of the Epistle, see in the critical remarks on ch. xv. 1 Clem. Cor. i. 35 ; Polycarp, ad Phil. 6; Theoph. ad Autol. i. 20, iii. 14; letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Euseb. v. 1. 2 The reason why Paul did not usually write his Epistles himself is to be sought, not in a want of practice in the writing of Greek—which is a supposition hardly reconcileable with his Hellenic culture—but in his apostolic position, in - which—when, instead of the oral preaching for which he was called, he had to _ enter on written communication—friendly and subordinate hands were at his service. Comp. on Gal. vi. 11. 38 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. IIavAov erıoroAn mpos Ponalovs. p The simplest and most ancient superscription is: pos" Pwuatous nABCR. CHAPTER I. Ver. 1. "Iycod X.] Tisch., following B, reads Xpicrod “Iycov against decisive testimony. — In ver. 7 ev ‘Pwyuy, and in ver. 15 rots év Poun, are wanting in G. Born. ; and on ver. 7 the scho- liast of cod. 47 remarks: 70 ev ‘Pay ove ev rn eEnynoer, ove ev To pyT@ wynuovever (who ? probably the codex, which lay before the copyist). This quite isolated omission is of no critical weight ; and is in no case to be explained by the very unnatural conjecture (of Reiche) that Paul in several Epistles (especially in that to the Ephesians) addressed the readers simply as Chris- tians, and that then the place of residence was inserted by the copyists in accordance with the context or with tradition. In ver. 7 the omission might be explained by the reading év ayarı, which G and a few other authorities give instead of ayazyrots ; but, since rovs ev ‘P. is wanting in ver. 15 also, another unknown reason must have existed for this. Perhaps some church, which received a copy of the Epistle from the Romans for public read- ing, may have, for their own particular church-use, deleted the extraneous designation of place, and thus individual codices may have passed into circulation without it. Riickert’s conjecture, that Paul himself may have caused copies without the local address to be sent to other churches, assumes a mechanical arrangement in apostolic authorship, of which there is elsewhere no trace, and which seems even opposed by Col. iv. 16. — Ver. 8. ürep] A BC D* K, S, min, Dam. read zepi, which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted: justly, on account of the preponderant attestation, since both prepositions, though dzép less frequently (Eph. i 16; Phil. i 4), were used for the expression of the thought (in opposition to Fritzsche). — Ver. 13, The less usual position rıva kaprov (Elz. x. 7.) is, established by decisive testimony ; as also 6 cds yap (Elz. 6. y. ©.) in ver. 19; and de kai (Elz. re kai) in ver. 27, although not on CHAP. I. ‘39 equally strong authority. — Instead of ov HeAw in ver. 13, D* EG, It. and Ambrosiaster read our otoua. Defended by Rinck. But the very assurance already expressed in vv. 10, 11 might easily cause the ov 0éAw to seem unsuitable here, if due account was not taken of the new element in the progress of the discourse con- tained in rpoedeunv. — After evayy. in ver. 16 rod Xpiorov (Elz.) is omitted on decisive authority; zpwrov, however, which Lach- mann has bracketed, ought not to be rejected on the inadequate adverse testimony of B G, Tert. as it might seem objectionable along with rıarevovrı (not so in li. 9f.). — Ver. 24. The kai is indeed wanting after do in ABCN, min, Vulg. Or. al.; it was very easily passed over as superfluous ; comp. ver. 26; ii. 1. Nevertheless Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have deleted it. — ev eavrois] Lachm. and Tisch. read ev avroıs, following ABC D*N, min. But how frequently was the reflexive form neglected by the copyists. It occurred also in ver. 27 (B K). — Ver. 27. @ßpeves] B D* G, 73, Or. Eus. Oec. read &pceves. Adopted by Lachm. Fritzsche and Tisch. (7). Since two different forms cannot be supposed to have been used in the same verse, and in that which follows &poeves ev. äpaecı is undoubtedly the true reading (only A* S, min., and some Fathers reading uniformly app. ev app.), we must here adopt the form apoeves almost invariably used in the N. T. (only the Apocal. has @9£.). — Ver. 29. ropveia] wanting after adır. mABCKSN, min. and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Fritzsche, and Tisch., and rightly so; it is an interpolation introduced by those who did not perceive that the naming of this vice was not again appropriate here. It was written in the margin, and introduced at different places (for we find it after rovnpia also, and even after xakia), so that it in some instances even supplanted zrovypia. — The placing of kakia immediately after adıria (Lachm. on weak authority), or accord- ing to AN, Syr., after zovypia (Tisch. 8), is explained by the aggregation of terms of a similar kind.— Ver.31. After daropyous Elz. and Scholz read aorovdovs, which Mill condemned, and Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted. It is wanting in A B D* E G and §*, Copt. Clar. Germ. Boern. and several Fathers. It is found before aoropy.in 17, 76, Theophyl. Taken from 2 Tim. ill, 3. — Ver. 32. Alter erıyvovres, D E Bas. read ovk Evoncar, and G, ovx &yvwoav. That death is the wages of sin—this Christian doctrinal proposition seemed not at all to correspond with the natural knowledge of the Gentiles. — Instead of aura mo.ovatv, GAG Kal cuvevdoxover B reads aura rootvres, GANG kal auveudorovvres ; So Lachm, in margin. This arose from the _ fact, that eir!v was erroneously taken for the chief verb in the sentence ; or else it was a consequence of the introduction of 40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. ovx @yvwcav, which in other witnesses led to the insertion of yap or de after ov povor. Vv. 1-7.—The Apostolic salutation. Ver.1. IIavAos] See on Acts xiii. 9. — dovAos . . . evayy. Oeov is the exhaustive statement of his official dignity, proceeding from the general to the particular, by which Paul earnestly—as deal- ing with the Church of the metropolis of the world, which had as yet no personal knowledge of him—opens his Epistle as an official apostolic letter; without, however, having in view therein (as Flatt thinks) opponents and calumniators of his apostleship, for of the doings of such persons in Rome the Epistle itself con- tains no trace, and, had such existed, he would have set forth his dignity, not only positively, but also at the same time negatively (comp. Gal. i. 1).— In the first place Paul describes by dovXos 'I. X. his relation of service to Christ, as his Ruler, whose servant he is, and that in general (comp. on Phil. i. 1), just as the Old Testament mm3y expresses the relation of service to Jehovah, without marking off in itself exclusively any definite class, such as the prophetic or the priestly (see Josh. i. 1, xiv. 7, xxii. 4; Judg. ii. 8; Ps. cxxxi. 10; comp. Acts xvi. 17). This relation of entire dependence (Gal. i. 10; Col. iv. 12) is then specifically and particularly indicated by kAyros amderoXos, and for this reason the former dovAos ’I. X. cannot be ren- dered merely in general Christi cultor (so Fritzsche), which is inadequate also at 1 Cor. vii. 22; Eph. vi 6. Paul was called to his office, like all the earlier Apostles; he did not arrive at it by his own choice or through accidental cir- cumstances. For the history of this divine calling, accom- plished through the exalted Christ Himself, see Acts ix. (xxii. 26), and the remarks thereon. This «Ayros presented itself so naturally to the Apostle as an essential element! in the full de- scription of his official position which he meant to give (comp. 1 Cor. i. 1), that the supposition of a side-glance at uncalled teachers (Cameron, Glöckler) seems very arbitrary. — ddwpiopmévos eis evayy. Oeov] characterizes the k«Anros darooToAos more precisely: set apart (definitely separated from the rest of mankind) for God's message of salvation, to be its preacher and minister (see on Eph. iii, 1 See Weiss in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 97 ff. CIAP. I. 2 41 7). The article before evayy. elsewhere invariably given in the N. T., is omitted here, because Paul views the message of God, of which he desires to speak, primarily under its gualıtative aspect (comp. also van Hengel and Hofmann). Concrete definiteness is only added to it gradually by the further clauses delineating its character. This mode of expression implies a certain /festal tone, in harmony with the whole solemn character of the pregnant opening of the Epistle: for a gospel of God, which He promised before, etc. Still we are not to understand, with Th. Schott, a work of proclamation, since evayy. is not the work of conveying a message, but the message itself. Ocov is the genitive swbyecti (auctoris), ver. 2, not objectt (Chrysostom). See on Marki.1. Itis God who causes the message of salvation here referred to, which is His Aoyos (Acts x. 36), to be proclaimed; comp. xv. 16; 2 Cor. xi. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 2, 8,9; 1 Pet. iv. 17. The destination of Apostle to the Gentiles is involved in adup. eis ev. ©. though not expressed (against Beza and others). Further, since adwp. is parallel with the previous «AnTros, it is neither to be explained, with Toletus and others, including Olshausen, by Acts xiii. 2, nor with Reiche, Ewald and van Hengel (following Chrysostom and others) by Gal. ı. 15, comp. Jer. 1.5; but rather by Acts ix. 15 (cxevos ErAoyns), comp. xxvi. 16 ff. The setting apart took place as a historical fact in and with his calling at Damascus. Entirely different is the mode of presenting the matter in Gal. i. 15, where abopicas me ex Kon. unTp. as the act of predestination in the counsel of God, is placed before the ka\&cas, as the historically accomplished fact. The view of Drusius (de sectis, ii. 2, 6) and Schoettgen (comp. Erasmus and Beza), which Dr. Paulus has again adopted, viz. that Paul, in using the word adwp., alludes to his former Pharisaism (“the true Pharisee in the best sense of the word”), is based on the Peschito translation (see Grotius), but is to be rejected, because the context gives no hint of so peculiar a reference, for which also no parallel can be found in Paul’s other writings. Ver. 2. A more precise description of the character of this evayyeAtov Ocov, according to its concrete peculiarity, as far as ver. 5 inclusive, advancing and rising to a climax under the urgent sense of the sacredness of his office, which the Apostle has frankly to assert and to establish before the church of the 42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. metropolis of the world, personally as yet unknown to him.— Ö mpoermnyyeiAaro «.r.\.] How natural that the Apostle with his Old Testament training should, in the light of the New Testament revelation which he had received, first of all glance back at the connection divinely established in the history of salvation between the gospel which he served and ancient pro- phecy, and should see therein the sacredness of the precious gift entrusted to him! To introduce the idea of an antithetie design (“ ut invidiam novitatis depelleret,” Pareus, Estius, Grotius and others, following Chrysostom and Theophylact) is quite arbitrary, looking to the general tenor of vv. 1-7. The news of salvation God has previously promised (mpoermyyeiXaro, 2 Cor. ix 5; Dio Cass. xlii. 32) through His prophets, not merely in so far as these, acting as the organs of God (avrov), foretold the Messianic age, with the dawn of which the evayyeXıov, as the “publicum de Christo exhibito praeconium” (Calovius), would necessarily begin, but they foretold also this praeconium ttsel/, its future proclamation. See x. 18, xv. 21; Isa. xl 1 ff, xlii 4, li. 1 ff.; Zeph. iii. 9; Ps. xix. 5, lxviil. 12; Deut. xviii. 15, 18. It is the less necessary therefore to refer 6, with Philippi and Mehring, to the contents of the gospel. — trav rpodyray] is not to be limited, so as either to include merely the prophets proper in the narrower sense of the word, or to go back—according to Acts iii, 24, comp. xiii. 20—only as far as Samuel. The following ev ypadats ay. suggests, on the contrary, a reference to all who in the O. T. have prophesied the gospel (even Moses, David and others not excluded) ; comp. Heb. i 1.— ev ypagats ayiaıs] Not: in the holy Scriptures (so most expositors, even Fritzsche), in which case the article must have been used; but qualitatively: im holy writings. The divine promises of the gospel, given through the prophets of God, are found in such books as, being God’s records for His revelations, are holy writings. Such are the prophetic writings of the O. T.; thus designated so as to lay stress on their qualitative character. In a corresponding manner is the anarthrous ypab@v mpogpyrixay to be understood in xvi, 26. Vv. 3,4. We must, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, set aside the view which treats Tov yevouevov .... vexpav, and vv. 5, 6, as parentheses, because we have to deal with intervening 1 Comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 502 ff. CHAP. I. 3, 4. 43 clauses which accord with the construction, not with insertions which interrupt it. See Winer, p. 526 [E. T. 707]. — ep: rov viov aurov] “ Hoc refertur ad illud quod praecessit evayyeXıov; ex- plicatur nempe, de quo agat ille sermo bona nuntians,” Grotius. So, also, Toletus, Cajetanus, Calvin, Justiniani, Bengel, Flatt, Reiche, Köllner, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Umbreit,Th Schott, Hofmann, and others. But it may be objected to this view, on the one hand, that repi is most naturally connected with the nearest suitable word that precedes it; and on the other that evayy., frequently as it is used with the genitive of the object, nowhere occurs with repi in the N. T.;! and still further, that if this connection be adopted, the important thought in ver. 2 ap- pears strangely isolated. Therefore, the connection of epi with & mpoernyy.is to be preferred, with Tholuck, Klee, Rückert, Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, and others, following Theodoret; so that the great personal object is introduced, to which the divine previous promise of the gospel referred ; consequently, the person concerning whom was this promise of the future message of salvation. God could not (we may remark in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) have previ- ously promised the gospel im any other way at all than by speaking of Christ His Son, who was to come and to be re- vealed ; otherwise his mpoerayyeAXcodaı evayyeAıov would have had no concrete tenor, and consequently no object. — rot yevouevov down to verpwv describes under a twofold aspect (xara) the exalted dignity of Him who had just been designated by rov viov avrov: (1) kara oapxa, He entered life as David’s descendant; (2) cara vevua aywo., He was powerfully in- stated as Son of God by His resurrection. Nevertheless 6 vios tov Qeod, in the words ep: Tod viov aurov (not aurov), is not by any means to be taken in the general, merely historical theocratic sense of Messiah (Winzer, Progr. 1835, p. 5 f.; comp. also Holsten, 2. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 424; and Pfleiderer, /.c.), because this is opposed to the constant usage of the Apostle, who - never designates Christ as vids Oeov otherwise? than from the 1 Hofmann erroneously thinks that Paul could not have added the object of his divine message otherwise than by wepl. He would have only needed to repeat the eis edayyeAıov with rhetorical emphasis, in order then to add the object in the genitive (rod viod d.). Comp. Dissen. ad Dem. de cor. p. 315. 2 Comp. Gess, v. d. Pers. Christi, p. 89 ff. ; Weiss, bib. Theol. p. 309. 44 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. standpoint of the knowledge which God had given to him by re- velation (Gal. i. 16) of the metaphysical Sonship (viii. 3, 32; Gal. iv. 4; Col.i.13 ff; Phil. ii. 6 ff. al.); and the hypothesis of a modification having taken place in Paul’s view (Usteri, Kollner ; see, on the other hand, Rückert) is purely fanciful. Here also the vids rov Beou is conceived in the metaphysical sense as He who had proceeded out of the essence of the Father, like Him in sub- stance (not, as Baur thinks, as organ of the Spirit, which is the purer form of human nature itself), and is sent by Him for the accomplishment of the Messianic counsel. But since it was ne- cessary for this accomplishment that He should appear as man, it was necessary for Him,—and these essential modal definitions are now added to the viov rov aurov,—as a human phenomenon, (1) to be born kara capxa, and indeed of the seed of David} and yet (2) to be actually instated kara mvedpa, as that which, although from the time of His birth in appearance not different from other men (Phil. ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4), He really was, namely the Son of God. These two parallel clauses are placed in asyn- detic juxtaposition, whereby the second, coming after the first, which is itself of lofty and honourable Messianic significance, is brought out as of still greater importance. See Bernhardy, p. 448; Dissen. ad. Pind. Exe. I1., de Asynd. p. 275. Not perceiv- ing this, Hofmann fails to recognise the contrast here presented between the two aspects of the Son of God, because Paul has not used cara wvevua de Opıodevrosin the second clause. — cara capka] in respect of flesh ; for the Son of God had a fleshly mode of being on earth, since His concrete manifestation was that of a materially human person. Comp. ix. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 18; Phil. ii. 7; Rom. v.15; 1 Cor. xv. 21; 1 Tim. it 5. To the capé belonged in the case of Christ also, as in that of all men, the yvy7 as the principle of the animal life of man; but this sensuous side of His nature was not, as in all other men, the seat and organ of sin. He was not capkxixos (vii. 14), and %vxıros (1 Cor. ii. 14), in the ethical sense, like all ordinary men, although, in virtue of that sensuous nature, he was capable of 1 But at the same time the idea of ‘‘an accommodation to the Jewish-Christian mode of conception” (Holsten, 2. Ev. Paul. u. Petr. p. 427), is not to be enter- tained. Paul gives the two main epochs in the history of the Son of God, as they actually occurred and had been already prophetically announced, CHAP. I. 3, 4. 45 being tempted (Heb. ii. 18; iv. 15). Although in this way His body was a cwua Tis aapros (Col. i. 22), yet He did not appear Ev vapk! anaprias, but Ev öuowuarı vapkos auaprias (Rom. viii. 2). With reference to His fleshly nature, therefore, i.e. in so far as He was a materially-human phenomenon, He was born (yevo- uevov, comp. Gal. iv. 4), of the seed (as descendant) of David, as was necessarily the case with the Son of God who appeared as the promised Messiah (Jer. xxiii. 5; Ps. cxxxii. 11; Matth. xxii. 42; John vil. 42; Acts xiii. 23; 2 Tim. ii. 8). In this expression the && arepuaros Aavid is to be understood of the male line of descent going back to David (comp. Acts ii. 30, ex kaprov Tis dogvos), as even the genealogical tables in Matthew and Luke give the descent of Joseph from David, not that of Mary; and Jesus Himself, in John v. 27 (see on that passage), calls Himself, in contradistinction to His Sonship of God, son of a man, in which case the correlate idea on which it is founded can only be that of fatherhood. It is, therefore, the more erroneous to refer ek or. Aav. to Mary (“ ex semine David, i.e. ex virgine Maria,” Melanc- thon; comp. also Philippi), especially since Paul nowhere (not even in viii. 3, Gal. iv. 4) indicates the view of a supernatural genera- tion of the bodily nature of Jesus (Usteri, Zehrbegr. p. 328; Rich. 1 In opposition to Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfüll. II. p. 49 (comp. the Erlangen Zeitschr. 1868, 6, p. 359 f.), who generalizes the sense of the words in such a way as to convey the meaning that Christ appeared as one belonging to the collective body which traces its descent back to David. But in fact it is simply said that Christ was BORN of the seed of David. The reading yevywyuévou (in min., and MSS. used by Augustine) is a correct gloss ; and Hofmann himself grants (heil. Schrift N. T., in loc.) that ylyveodaı Ex here signifies descent by birth. And even if yevo- uévov be taken as meaning : who appeared, who came (comp. on Mark i. 4; Phil. ii. 7; so Ewald), still the genetic relation to the omepua of David remains the same. He came xara adpxa of the seed of David, and that in no other way than through His birth. This remark holds good also against other obscure evasions to which Hofmann resorts in his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 113; in his heil. Schr. N. T. he adheres substantially to his earlier view (‘‘ come of the race which called itself after David, because tracing its descent to his ancestry”). No, the omepua of David is nothing else than his semen vrrıle, out (ex) of which, transmitted (comp. dé, Acts xili. 23) through the male line from yeved to yeved (Matth. i. 6 ff.), at length the Son of God xara cdpxa—Christ, the David’s son of promise— was born. See besides, against Hofmann, Rich. Schmidt, 2.c. — Because Christ was ek omepuaros of David, He might also Himself be called omépya of David, in the same way as He is called in Gal. iii. 16 omepua ’ASpadu ; and He is so called Matth. i. 1. Comp. further on é« omepuaros, in the sense of fatherhood, Soph. 0. C. 214: Tivos ei amepnaros... . marpödev, 46 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 140 ff.; Pfleiderer, l.c.), even apart from the fact that the Davidic descent of the mother of Jesus can by no means be established from the N. T. It is the more unjusti- fiable, to pronounce the metaphysical divine Sonship withoutvirgin birth as something inconceivable! (Philippi). — There now follows the other, second mode in which the Son of God who has appeared on earth is to be contemplated, viz. with reference to the spirit of holiness, which was in Him. The parallelism between cara vapra and cata rveuna wy., apparent even in the position of the two ele- ments, forbids us to understand cara v. ayiwo. as denoting the presupposition and regulative cause of the state of glorious power ascribed to the Son of God (Hofmann). In that case Paul must have used another preposition, conveying the idea on account of, perhaps dıa with the accusative (comp. the dio, Phil. ii. 9), in order to express the thought which Hofmann has dis- covered, namely, that the holiness of His spirit, and therefore of His life, was to make His divine Sonship a state of glorious power. Regarding the view taken of év duvaneı in connection with this, see the sequel. ‘“Ay:wovvy, in Paul’s writings as well as in the ‘ Sept. (in Greek authors and in the other writings of the N. T. it does not occur), invariably means holiness (2 Cor. vii. 1; 1 Thess. iii. 13; Ps. xcvi. 6, xcvii. 12, cxliv. 5), not sanctifica- tion (as rendered by the Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, and many others, including Glöckler and Schrader). So also in 2 Macc. iii. 12. The genitive is the gen. qualitatis (Hermann, ad Viger. pp. 887, 891; Kühner, II. 1, p. 226), and contains the specific character of the rveuna. This rvetua ayıwe. is, in contradistinc- tion to the cap€, the other side of the being of the Son of God on earth; and, just as the sap£ was the outward element per- ceptible by the senses, so is the veoüua the inward mental ele- ment, the substratum of His vovs (1 Cor. ii. 16), the principle and the power of His INNER life, the intellectual and moral “ Ego” which receives the communication of the divine—in short, the Erw avOpwros of Christ. His rvedua also was human (Matth. xxvil. 50; John xi. 33, xix. 30)—altogether He was an entire man, and the Apollinarian conception is without support in the N. T. teaching—but it was the seat of the divine nature belong- 1 This opinion rests on a premiss assumed @ priori, on an abstract postulate, the propriety of which it is impossible to prove. Comp, on Matth. i. 18, note. CHAP AES, 2 47 ing to His person; not exeluding the specialty of the latter (in opposition to Beyschlag, Christol. pp. 212, 231), but being rather that which contained the metaphysical viorns Oeov, or—according to the Johannine type of doctrine—the seat and the organ of the Aoyos, which became flesh in the human person of Jesus, as also of the fulness of the Holy Spirit which bore sway in Him (John iii. 34; Acts i 2; 2 Cor. iii. 17). Consequently the zvedua of Christ, although human (comp. Pfleiderer), was exalted above all other human spirits, because essentially filled with God, and thereby holy, sinless, and full of divine unpolluted life, as was no other human vevna ; and for this reason His unique quality is characterized by the distinguishing designation rveuna ayıwavvns, i.e. spirit full of holiness. This purposely-chosen expression, which is not to be abated to the studiwm sanctitatis (van Hengel), must, seeing that the text sets forth the two sides of the personal nature of Christ, absolutely preclude our understand- ing it to refer to the wvevua dyıov,! the third person of the divine Trinity, which is not meant either in 1 Tim. iii. 16, or in Heb. ix. 14. Nevertheless, the majority of commen- tators, since Chrysostom, have so explained it; some of them taking it to mean: “ secundum Sp. S. ei divinitus conces- sum” (Fritzsche; comp. Beza, Calixtus, Wolf, Koppe, Tho- luck, and others) ;? some referring it to the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit (Theodoret), or to the bestowal of the Spirit which took place through Christ (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Estius, Bohme, and others). Since the contrast between cap& and veuua is not that between the human and the divine, but that between the bodily and the mental in human nature, we must also reject the interpretation which refers the words to the divine nature (Melancthon, Ca- lovius, Bengel, and many others); in which case some take ayıwovvn as equivalent to Oedrys (Winzer); others adduce in ex- 1 This is called in the Test. XII. Patr. p. 588, mveüna aywodtvys, in so far as it produces holiness. 2 Comp. also Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1842, p. 486. In his view (2 Cor. iii. 17), the wveöua is the element of which the higher personality of Christ consists. According to Baur, Paulus II. p. 375, it 1s the Messianic spirit, the intrinsic principle constituting the Messiahship of Christ. According to Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 425, it is in itself a transcendent pneumatic force, which pro- duces the aywwotvn, a radiance of the divine mveöua dyrov. 48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. planation of rveoua the here irrelevant rvevua 6 Oeds, John iv. 24 (Beza, Winzer, Olshausen, Maier, Philippi); others take the expres- sion as substantially equivalent to the Johannine Adyos (Riickert; comp. Reiche, “the principle of His higher essence”), and thus have not avoided an Apollinarian conception. The correct inter- pretation is substantially given by Köllner, de Wette, Baumgar- ten-Crusius, Ewald (also in his Jahrb. 1849, p. 93), and Mehring. Comp. Hofmann (“spirit which supposes, wherever it is, a con- dition of holiness”), and also Lechler, apost. wu. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 49, who nevertheless understands the divine nature of Christ as also included.! — dpicbévros] The translation of the Vulgate, "qui praedestinatus est, based on the too weakly attested reading mpoopıcdevros (a mistaken gloss), drew forth from old writers (see in Estius) forced explanations, which are now properly for- gotten. ‘“Opigewv, however, with the double accusative, means to designate a person for something, to nominate, to instate (Acts x. 42; comp. Meleager in the Anthol. xii. 158, 7: ae Ocov dpice Saiuwv), nor is the meaning different here? For although Christ was already the Son of God before the creation of the world, and as such was sent (viii. 3; Gal. iv. 4), nevertheless there was needed a fact, by means of which He should receive, after the humilia- tion that began with His birth (Phil. ii. 7 f.), instating into the rank and dignity of His divine Sonship; whereby also, as its necessary consequence with a view to the knowledge and convic- tion of men, He was legitimately established as the Son. The fact which constituted instatement was the resurrection, as the transition to His éo€a ; comp. on Acts xiii. 33; and ézotyoe in Acts ii. 36. Inaccurate, because it confounds that consequence with the thing itself, is the gloss of Chrysostom: derxdevros, atogpavOévros, kpıdevros; and that of Luther: “ skewn.” Umbreit’s rendering is erroneous: “ separated,” namely from all men. — éy 1 A more accurate and precise definition of the idea may be found in Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 313; also Rich. Schmidt, p. 105 f.; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 169, 503 f. 2 But not in the sense : destined to become something, as Hofmann thinks; nor generally, in the sense: qui destinatus est, but rather: qui constitutus est (was instated). For otherwise the aorist participle would be unsuitable, since it must necessarily indicate an act following the yevouévov, etc.; whereas the divine dustination would be prior to the birth. Consequently, were that sense intended, it must have been, as in Acts x. 42, apiopévov. CHAP) 13,4 * 49 dvvaucı] Not: through omnipotence (Umbreit), but: mightily (Luther), forcibly; for this installation of the Son of God as Son of God was a work of divine power, which (see what follows) was accomplished by means of the resurrection from the dead. Thus commanding power, divinely-energetic and effectual, forms the characteristic quality, in which the opiouds took place. On éy, as paraphrase of the adverb (Col. i 29; 2 Thess. i. 11), see Bernhardy, p. 209. ev dw. is not, with Melancthon, Schoettgen, Pareus, Sebastian Schmid, and others, including Paulus, Baum- garten-Crusius, Philippi, Mehring, Holsten, Hofmann, and Pfleiderer, to be connected with viov Beov (as the mightily power- ful Son of God); for it was here of importance to dwell, not on a special predicate of the Son of God,! but, in contradistinction to the ex arepu. Aav. xara capxa, upon the divine Sonship in itself; of which Sonship He was indeed the hereditary possessor, but yet needed, in order to become instated in it with glorious power, resurrection from the dead. Thus, however, ev duvaneı, even when rightly connected with öpıc0., is not, with Chrysostom and Theophylact, to be taken as “ per virtutem, i. e. per signa et pro- digia” (Calovius, comp. Grotius); nor with Fritzsche: vz ei datd; for Paul himself defines the how of the mighty öpıcuos by: e€ avacr. verpwv. This, namely, was the causal fact, by virtue of which that öpıonos was accomplished; for by the resurrection of Christ, God, who raised Him up (comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4), accom- plished in point of fact His instating declaration: Thou art my Son, this day, etc., Acts xiii. 33. Paul might accordingly have written dia, but ex is more expressive of the thought that Christ in virtue of the resurrection, etc. On ex, used of causal issuing forth, see Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 281; Ellendt, Lez. 1 As if only a change of His attributes was concerned, or the transition into the full reality of the divine Sonship (Pfleiderer). The question concerned the installation of the Son of God as such, as it were His enthronisation, which had not taken place previously, but was accomplished by the resurrection with a mighty power. By means of the latter He received—as the Son of God, which from the beginning and even in the days of His flesh He really was—a de facto instate- ment, which accomplished itself in a way divinely powerful. What accrued. to Him thereby, was not the full reality (see viii. 3; Gal. iv. 4), but the full efficiency of the Son of God ; because He was now exalted above all the limitations of the state of His xévwors (Phil. ii.; 2 Cor. viii. 9); comp. e.g. vi. 9; xi. 33 f., v. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; and numerous other passages. The Son was now the kUp.os mavrwv, had the name above every name, etc, etc. I. D 50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. Soph. I. p. 550f. The temporal explanation, since or after (Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Toletus, and others, including Reithmayr; comp. Flatt, Umbreit, and Mehring), is to be rejected, because the raising up of Jesus from the dead was itself the great divine act, which, completed through the majesty of the Father (vi. 4), powerfully instated the Son in the Son’s position and dignities; hence it was also the basis of the apostolic preaching, Acts i 22, ii. 24 ff, xiii. 30, xvi. 31 f,, xxvi. 23; Rom. iv. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 3 ff. We are not to take the expression e€ avaor. vexp., a8 is often done, for e£ dvacr. Ex vexp., the second ex being omitted for the sake of euphony: but it must be viewed asa general designation of the category (vexpwv, see on Matth. ii. 20): through resurrection of the dead, of which category the per- sonal rising of the dead Jesus was the concrete case in point. Comp. xvii. 32. So, also, de Wette, Hofmann; comp. Philippi, who however, following Erasmus and Bengel, introduces also the idea, foreign to this passage, that owr resurrection is involved in that of Christ.—The following ’Iyrov Xpicrod is in apposition to Tov viov aurov in v. 3; not necessary in itself, but in keeping with the fulness of expression throughout this opening portion of the Epistle, which exhibits a character of majesty particularly in vv. 3, 4. — Observe, further, that the exhibition of the holy and exalted nature of Christ in our passage serves to express the high dignity of the apostolic office. Of diversities in faith and doctrine in Rome regarding the person of Christ there is not a trace in the whole Epistle. — Ver. 5. To the general rov Kupiov juev, which designates Christ as the Lord of Christians in general, Paul now adds the special relation in which he himself stands to this common kvpuos. He entertained too lively a consciousness of the bliss and dignity of that relationship, not to set it forth once more (comp. ver. 1) in this overflowing salutation; this time, however, with closer refer- ence to the readers, in accordance with his definite character as Apostle of the Gentiles. — Vv. 5, 6 are not to be enclosed in a parenthesis; and only a comma should be placed after ver. 6. — 6¢ od] through whom, denotes nothing else than the medium ; nowhere, not even in Gal. i. 1, the causa principalis. The view of the Apostle is, as Origen rightly perceived, that he had 1 Comp. Gess, von d. Pers. Chr. p. 56, CULAR. 8; 51 received grace and apostleship through the mediation of Christ, through whom God called him at Damascus. Regarding Gal. i. 1, see on that passage. — e&Xaßouev] He means himself alone, especially since in the address he specifies no joint author of the letter; not however—as Reiche, following Estius and many others, thinks—using the plural out of modesty (in the solemnity of an official epistolary greeting ?), but rather (comp. iii. 9) in accord- anve with the custom, very common among Greek authors, of speaking of themselves in the plural of category (Krüger, § 61, 2; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2,46). This is, no doubt, to be traced back to the conception “I and my equals;” but this original con- ception was in course of use entirely lost. The opinion, therefore, that Paul here includes along with himself the other apostles (Bengel, van Hengel) is to be all the more rejected as unsuitable, since the subsequent év rac Tots Ever points to Paul himself alone as the Apostle of the Gentiles. To understand Paul’s offi- cial assistants as included (Hofmann) is forbidden by the subse- ‘quent azootoAjy, which does not mean mission in general, but, as invariably in the N. T., specially apostleship. — xapıv kx. amooroAny] grace (generally) and (in particular) apostleship. Xapıv is to be understood, not merely of pardoning grace (Augustine, Calvin, Calovius, Reiche, Tholuck, Olshausen, and others), or of the extraordinary apostolic gifts of grace (Theodoret, Luther, and others, including Flatt and Mehring); for such special references must be demanded by the context; but on the contrary generally of the entire divine grace, of which Paul was made partaker through Christ, when be was arrested by Him at Damascus in his career which was hateful to God (Phil. i. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 10), converted, enlightened (Gal. i. 16), and transferred into the communion of God’s beloved ones and saints. The special object (Gal. 1.16) and at the same time the highest evidence of this xapıs which he had received, was his reception of the dzrocroX?,! and that for the Gentile world. Others find here a &v dra vor (Chrysostom, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Glass, Rich. Simon, Wetstein, Semler, Koppe, Bohme, Fritzsche, Philippi, and others): xapıv arosroAns. This might certainly be justified a Augustine aptly remarks: “ Gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus, apostolatum autem non cum omnibus communem habet.” Comp. Bengel: ‘‘ Gratia et singu- laris gratiae mensura apostolis obtigit.” 52 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. in linguistic usage by the explicative «ai (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 856; Nägelsbach, 2. Zlias, iii. 100); but it arbitrarily converts two elements, which taken separately yield a highly appropriate sense, into one, and fails to recognise— what is involved in the union of the general and the particular—the fulness and force of the discourse moving the grateful heart. This remark applies also against Hofmann, according to whom the Apostle terms one and the same vocation “a grace and a mission;” in which view arocT. is erroneously rendered (see above), and in consequence thereof eis urar. w. is then joined merely to yap. x. az., and not also to &Aaß. — eis imar. mior.] Object of the &Aaß. yap. x. amocr.: in order that obedience of faith may be produced, i.e. in order that people may subject themselves to the faith, in order that they may become believing. Comp. xvi. 26; Acts vi. 7; 2 Cor. x. 5f.; 2 Thess. i. 8. To take ricrıs for doctrina fidei (Beza, Toletus, Estius, Bengel, Heumann, Cramer, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Fritzsche, Tholuck, and others), is altogether contrary to the linguistic usage of the N. T., in which icrıs is always subjeetive faith, although often, as in the present instance, con- ceived of objectively, as a power. Comp. xvi. 20; Gal. i. 23. The activity of faith in produeing works (Reithmayr), however, is not contained in the expression. The icrıs is, according to Paul, the conviction and confidence (assensus and jiducia) regarding Jesus Christ, as the only and perfect Mediator of the divine grace, and of eternal life, through His work of atonement. Faith alone (to the exclusion of works) is the causa apprehendens of the salvation promised and obtained through Christ; but, because it transfers us into living and devoted fellowship with Him, alto- gether of a moral character, it becomes the subjective moral power of the new life regenerated through the power of the Holy Spirit—of the life i Christ, which, however, is the necessary consequence, and never the ground of justification. See Luther's Preface. — The genitive ricrews, in accordance with the analogy of the expressions kindred in meaning vzaxoy Tov Xpıorov in 2 Cor. x. 5, and wzrak. rns aAndelas in 1 Pet. i. 22, necessarily presents itself (comp. Acts vi. 7; Rom. x. 16; 2 Thess. i 8; also 2 Cor. ix. 13) as denoting that to which the obedience is ren- dered; not (Grotius, following Beza) the causa efficiens: “ ut Deo obediatur per fidem,” in which explanation, besides, the “ Deo” CHAP. L 6. 53 is arbitrarily introduced Hofmann is also wrong in taking the genitive wiorews as epexegetical (an obedience consisting in faith). — ev macı Tois EOveciw] is to be joined with eis vrar. ric Tews, beside which it stands; the &Qvn, however, are not all nations generally, inclusive of the Jews (so most expositors, including Riickert, Reiche, Kollner, Fritzsche, Baur), but, in accordance with the historical destination of the Apostle (Gal. i. 16; Acts ix. 15, xxvi. 17 f.), and in consequence of the repeated promi- nence of his calling as Gentile Apostle in our letter (ver. 13, xi. 13, xv. 16), all Gentzle nations, to which also the Romans belonged (Beza, Tholuck, Philippi, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann and others); and these regarded not from a geographical point of view (Mangold, p. 76), but from a popular ‚one, as DM; which precludes us from thinkine—not as to a section, but at any rate as to the mass, of the Roman congregation—that it was Jewish-Christian. This his apostolic calling for the Gentiles is meant by Paul in all passages where he describes the €Ovy as the object of his labours (Gal. i. 16, ii. 2, 8, 9; Eph. iii. 1, 8; Col. i. 27; 1 Thess. ii. 16). — vrep Tov ovou. aurov] belongs, in the most natural connection, not to &Aaß..... aroct. (Rückert) or to di’ od.... eOvesıv (de Wette, Mehring, Hofmann), but to eis vmakom .... @Ovecıv; “in order to produce obedience to the faith among all Gentile nations for the sake of (for the glorifying of, comp. Acts v.41; Phil. ii. 13) His name.” Acts ix. 15, xv. 26, xxi. 13; 2 Thess. i. 12, serve to illustrate the matter referred to. The idea of wishing to exclude the glorifying of his own name (Hofmann) is not for a moment to be imputed to the Apostle. He would have needed a very special motive for doing so. Ver. 6. Application of the contents of ver. 5 to the relation in which the Apostle stood to his readers, whereby he indicates how he is officially entitled to address them also, teaching, exhorting, and so forth — ev ois éore cal üueis kAyror 1. X.] To be written thus, without a comma after vets, with Heu- 1 So also van Hengel, on the ground of passages like v. 19; Phil. ii. 12, where however the sense of obedience to God results from the context; and Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, II. p. 281 ff., who urges against our view that it makes ürep Tod övdu. a’rod superfluous. But the glory of Christ is precisely the lofty end of all braxovew ty mloreı. Where it takes place, it is acknowledged that Jesus Christ is Lord, Phil. ii. 11. 54 THE EPISTLE Of PAUL TO THE ROMANS. mann, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette, Hofmann, and Bisping: among whom also are ye called (ones) of Jesus Christ. Among the Gentile nations the Roman Christians were, like other Gentile-Christian churches, called of the Lord; amidst the Gentile world, nationally belonging to it (in opposition to Man- gold’s mere geographical interpretation), they also shared this high distinction. The reference of the cat to Paul (Th. Schott), and consequently the interpretation: as J, so also ye, is erroneous, because the Apostle has asserted concerning himself something far higher than the mere Christian calling. The common interpre- tation of «Ayroı I. X. as an address (so too Rickert, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Mehring) makes the &v ois éore x. tu. quite a meaningless assertion ; for Bengel’s suggestion for meeting the difficulty, that ev ofs has the implied meaning: among which converted nations, is purely arbitrary. — Since the calling (to the Messianic salvation; see on Gal. i. 6; also 1 Cor. vii. 17) is invariably ascribed by Paul to God (viii. 30, ix. 24; 1 Cor. i. 9, vil. 15,17; 1 Thess.ii. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 14; comp. Usteri, p. 281; Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 127; what Schmidt urges in opposition, in Rudelbach’s Zeitschr. 1849, II. p. 188 ff. is untenable) we must explain it,not as: called by Christ (Luther, Rückert, Mehring, Hof- mann, and others), but as: called (by God) who belong to Christ (so Erasmus, Beza, Estius, and most modern commentators, also Winer, p. 183). The genitive is possessive, just as in the analo- gous Tovs ékAexTovs aurov in Matth. xxiv. 31. With the sub- stantive nature of xAnros (comp. Buttmann, neut. Gir. p. 147) the genitive by no means admits merely the interpretation which points to the calling subject,as in 2 Sam. xv 11; 1 Kings i. 41, 49; Zeph.i.7; but admits of very different references, as eg. in Homer, Od. xvii. 386, kAnroil ye Bpor@v are not those called by mortals, but those who are called among mortals (genitive totius). Ver. 7. Now for the first time, brought by ver. 6 nearer to his readers, Paul passes from the throng of the great intervening thoughts, ver. 2 ff, in which he has given full and conscious ex- pression to the nature and the dignity of his calling, to the formal address and to the apostolic salutation. — racı x.7.d.] directs the letter to all beloved of God who are in Rome, ete., and therefore to the collective Roman Christian church, Phil. i. 1; Eph.i 1; CHAP: IL 7. 55 ' Col. i. 1),! but not, as Tholuck thinks (comp. Turretin, Wolf, and Lohme), at the same time also to those foreign Christians who were accidentally staying in Rome, for against this view ver. 8, in which vrép ravTwy vey can only refer to the Romans, is decisive. The racı would be self-obvious and might have heen dispensed with, but in this Epistle, just because it is so detailed and is addressed to a great church still far away from the Apostle, racı carries with it a certain diplomatic character. Similarly, though from other grounds, Phil. i. 1. — ayarır. Oeov, kAnrots ayioıs] Characteristic special analysis of the idea “ Christians” in accord- ance with the high privileges of their Christian condition. For, as reconciled with God through Christ, they are beloved of God (v. 5 ff, viii. 39; Col. iii. 12); and, as those who through the divine calling to the Messianic salvation have become separated from the koowos and consecrated to God, because members of the new covenant of grace, they are called saints ; comp. 1 Cor. i. 2. This saintship is produced through the justification of the called (viii. 30), and their accompanying subjection to the influence of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. i. 30). De Wette erroneously interprets. “those who are called to be saints.” So also Baumgarten: Crusius. The calling always refers to the salvation of the Messiah’s kingdom. But that the ayıorys is to be understood in that Christian theocratic sense after the analogy of the Old Testament wtp, and not of individual moral holiness (Pareus, Toletus, Estius, Grotius, Flatt, Glöckler, de Wette, and others), is plain from the very fact, that al! Christians as Christians are dyıoı. — xapıs....eipyvn] See Otto, in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. Xapıs is the disposition, the subjective feeling in God and Christ, which the Apostle wishes to be entertained towards and shown to his readers ; eipyvn is the actual result, which is produced through the manifestation of the xapıs: grace and salvation (Dia), the latter in every aspect in which it presents itself as the Christian issue of the yapis. Comp. Melancthon. The 1 With these parallels before us, it is unreasonable to ask why Paul does not. designate the readers as a church. Bengel and van Hengel are of opinion that no regular congregational bond was as yet in existence. Th. Schott thinks that Paul as yet stood in no relation whatever to the church. The övres &v ‘Pwuy x.7.2. are the church, and it is to the chwrches that he has written where he does not write to specified persons. 56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, specifically Christian element in this salutation’ lies in drö Ocod maTpos.... Xpıorov. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. i. 2; Eph.i. 2; Phil a2; ‘Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess. i. 1 f.;)1 Timi a 2 721m 2 Tit. i 4; Philem. 3. The special rendering of efpyvy, peace, which, following Chrysostom and Jerome, the majority, including Reiche, Olshausen, Tholuck, Philippi, Umbreit and others retain (the higher peace which is given, not by the world, but by the con- sciousness of divine grace and love, see especially Umbreit, p. 190 ff.), must be abandoned, because xapıs Kai efpivy represent the general epistolary yaipew (Acts xv. 23; James i. 1), and thus the generality of the salutation is expressed in a way characteristically Christian. — raryp 7uev means God, in so far as we, as Christians, are His children through the vioderia (see on Gal. iv. 5; Rom. viii. 15). — cat kupiov] @.e. cat azo Kuplou, not, as Glöckler, following Erasmus, takes it, “and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” for against this view stands the decisive fact that God is never called owr and Christ’s Father; see also Tit. i.4; 2 Tim. i. 2. The formal equalisation of God and Christ cannot be certainly used as a proof (as Philippi and Mehring contend) of the divine nature of Christ—which, however, is other- wise firmly enough maintained by Paul—since the different predi- cates marpos and xvpiov imply the different conceptions of the causa principalis and medians. For this purpose different pre- positions were not required ; comp. on Gal. i. 1. Vv. 8-15. First of all the Apostle now—as under various forms in all his epistles, with the exception of that to the Galatians (also not in 1 Timothy and Titus)—expresses with thanksgiving towards God his pious joy at the faith of his readers; and then assures them of his longing to be with them and to labour among them personally. The thanksgiving is short, for it relates to a church not only personally unknown to him, but also far removed from the sphere of labour which he had hitherto occupied ; but the expression of it is in accordance with the position of the church in the metropolis of the world. Ver. 8. IIparov uev] To that, which Paul desires first of all to write, there was meant to be subjoined something further, possibly by érevra dé. But, amidst the ideas that now crowd 1 Regarding Otto’s attempted derivation of it from the Aaronic benediction, ses on 1 Cor. i. 3, CHAP. 19. 57 upon him, he abandons this design, and thus the ae remains alone. Comp.iii.2; and on Actsi.1; 1 Cor. xi. 18; Schaefer, ad Dem. IV. p.142 ; Hartung, Partikel. II. p. 410. — +o Oew nov] od eit, @ kat Aarpevw, Acts xxvii. 23; comp. 1 Cor.i.4; Phil.i. 3, iv. 19; Philem. 4.— dca "Inpot Xpiorov] These words—to be connected with evxapıar®, not with nov, as Koppe and Glöckler think, against which vii. 25 and Col. iii. 17 are ciearly deci- sive—contain the mediation, through which the evxapıoro takes place. The Apostle gives thanks not on his own part and in- dependently of Christ, not di éavrov, but is conscious of his thanksgiving being conveyed through Jesus Christ, as one who is present to his grateful thoughts; in so far, namely, as that for which he thanks God is vıvidly perceived and felt by him to have been brought about through Christ. Comp. on Col. iii. 17; Eph. v. 20. Thus Christ is the mediating causal agent of the thanksgiving. To regard Him as its mediating presenter (Ori- gen, Theophylact, Bengel, and others, including Hofmann) can- net be justified from Paul’s other writings, nor even by Heb. xiii. 15. Theodore of Mopsuestia well observes: rov Xpıorov raurns quly THs evxaploTias THY aiTiay Tapaoxouevov. — 4 mioris vuov] quite simply : your faith (on Christ); the praiseworthy character of the riorıs is only set forth by the context (karayyeAX. ev dXo T. x.) afterwards. Everywhere one hears your faith openly spoken of. Comp. xvi. 19. Observe how this flattering expression of the Apostle and the thanksgiving coupled with it, as also the ornpıx@nvaı «.r.A., in vv. 11, 12, point to the church not as Jewish-Christian but as Pauline. Mangold’s reference to Phil. i. 15-18, in opposition to this inference, leaves out of view the quite different, personal situation under which the latter was written. Comp. on Phil. i. 18, note.— év Aw T. koouw] a popular hyperbole, but now accordant with the position of the church in that city, towards which the eyes of the whole world were turned! Comp. 1 Thess. i. 8. It is, moreover, obvious of itself, that the subjects of the karayyeANcıv are the believers. As to the unbelievers, see Acts xxviii. 22. Ver. 9. Tap] The pith of the following proof of the assurance conveyed in ver. 8 lies in adiadeirTwe, not in the desire to come to ‘Rome, which is not subjoined till ver. 10(Th.Schott). The interest felt by the Apostle in the Romans, which was so vivid that he un- 58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. ceasingly remembered them, etc., had even now urged him to his eUXapLOTO TH Oew K.T.A. — papros....Oeos] The asseveration in the form of an oath (comp. 2 Cor. i. 23, xi. 31; Phil. i. 8) is intended solemnly to strengthen the impression of what he has to say ; viewed with reference to the circumstance which might readily excite surprise, that he, the Apostle of the Gentiles, had never yet laboured in the church—which nevertheless was Pauline—of the capital of the Gentile world. See vv. 10-13. The hypothesis of “ iniqguos rumores,” that had reached his ears from Rome (van Hengel), is unnecessary and unsupported by any trace in the letter. — 6 Aarpevw x.7.r.] added to strengthen the asseveration with respect to its sacred conscientiousness: to whom I render holy service in my spirit, %.e. in my moral self- consciousness, which is the living inner sphere of that service.) This &v r@ rv. wov, on which lies the practical stress of the relative clause, excludes indeed all Aarpevew of a merely external kind, exercising itself in works, or even impure; but is not intended to suggest a definite contrast to this, which would here be without due motive. It is rather the involuntary expression of the pro- foundly vivid feeling of inward experience. The Apostle knows and feels that the depths of his innermost life are pervaded by his Aarpevew. Comp. & Aarpeiw....ev kadapa cuvedijoe, in 2 Tim. i. 3; also Heb. xii. 28. To zvetua mov cannot be the Holy Spirit (Theodoret),? but Paul bore the witness of that Spirit in his own spirit (viii. 16 ; ix. 1.). — ev ro edayy. T. viod aurov] in the gospel of His Son, which I preach, defend, etc. That is the great sphere to which He is called in the service of God, in the consciousness of which he is impelled by an inward necessity to devote to his readers that fervent sympathy of which he -assures them. Grotius and Reiche think there is an implied contrast to the Aarpeia ev TO vonw, which however is quite foreign to the connection. Can we think of a side-glance at the Jewish style of teaching—when the discourse breathes only love and warmth of affection ? — ws adıa\.] ws does not stand for 67 (as following the Vulgate, the majority, including Fritzsche, think), but ex- I Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, II. p. 89f.; see also on John iv. 23. ® Holsten also (z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 386) understands it of the Holy Spirit as bestowed on the Apostle (uov). See, against this view, Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 33 ff. CHAP. I. 10, 11. 59 presses the manner (the degree). God is my witness, how un- ceasingly, etc. Comp. Phil. i. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 15; 1 Thess. 11.10; Acts x. 28 ; Calvin; Philippi; van Hengel ; see also Ellendt, Lea. Soph. II. p. 1000. The idea of modality must be everywhere retained, where we takes the place of 671. See the passages in Heindorf, ad Plat. Hipp. may. p. 281, Jacobs. ad Ach. Tat. p. 566. — py. Un. Tovovp.| make mention of you, viz. in my prayers. See ver. 10. Comp. Eph. 1.16; Phil. i. 3; 1 Thess. i. 2. Ver. 10. IIavrore . . . deomevos] annexes to ws adıaX. the more precise definition: in that (so that) I always (each time) in my prayers request. emi, which is to be referred to the ıdea of definition of time(Bernhardy p.246),indicates the form of action which takes place. Comp. 1 Thess.i. 2; Eph. i. 16; Philem. 4; Winer, p. 352 [E.T.470]. — eitws 767 more] if perhaps at length on some occasion. For examples of 767, already (Baeumlein, Part. p. 138 ff.), which, comparing another time with the present, conveys by the refer- ence to something long hoped for but delayed the idea at length, see Hartung, Partikel. I. p. 238; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 607; comp. Phil. iv 10, and the passages in Kypke. Th. Schott incorrectly renders ravrore, under all circumstances, which it never means, and ijéy more as if it were 7#5y voy or aprı. The mode of expres- sion by e/rws implies somewhat of modest fear, arising from the thought of possible hindrances.! — evodwOrrouaı] I shall have the good fortune. The active evodovv is seldom used in its proper signification, to lead well, expeditum iter pracbere, as in Soph. O. C. 1437 ; Theophr. de caus. pl. v. 6, 7; LXX. Gen. xxiv. 27,48; the passive, however, never means via recta incedere, expeditum iter habere, but invariably (even in Prov. xvii. 8) metaphorically ;: prospero successu gaudere. See Herod. vi. 73; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; 3 John 2; LXX. 2 Chron. xii. 12; Ps. i. 3, and frequently ; Ecclus. xi. 16, xli. 1; Tob. iv. 19, v. 16; Test. XII. Patr. p. 684. There- fore the explanation of a prosperous journey, which besides amounts only to an accessory modal idea (Beza, Estius, Wolf, and many others following the Vulgate and Oecumenius; including van Hengel and Hofmann), must be rejected, and not combined with ours (Umbreit). — ev rw OeX. T. Oeov] in virtue of the will of God ; on this will the evodw@. causally depend. Ver. 11. ’Exizoa] not valde cupio, but denoting the direction ! Comp. xi. 14; and on Phil. iii. 11; 1 Mace. iv. 10, 60 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. of the longing. Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 2; Phil. i. 8. — ydpiopa vevuarırov] Paul calls that, which he intends to communicate to the Romans through his longed-for personal presence among them (ideiv; comp. Acts xix. 21, xxviii. 20) a spiritual gift of grace ; because in his apprehension all such instruction, comfort, joy, strengthening, etc., as are produced by means of his labours, are regarded not as procured by his own human individuality, but as a result which the zvevua dyıov works by means of him—the gracious working of the Spirit, whose organ he is. While it was highly arbitrary in Toletus, Bengel, Michaelis and others to refer the expression to the apostolic miraculous gifts—against which the evayyeAtoacOa in ver. 15 is conclusive—it was a very gratuitous weakening of its force to explain it (as is done by Morus, Rosenmüller, Köllner, Maier, Th. Schott) as a gift refer- ring to the (human) spirit; “a gift for the inner life,’ Hofmann. In such an interpretation the specifically Christian point of view (1 Cor. xii. 4; comp. evAoyla wvevuarıry, Eph. i. 3) is left out of account; besides, rvevuarırov would imply nothing characteristic in that case; for that Paul did not desire to communicate any gifts of another sort, e.g. external, would be taken for granted. — The expression 7c... yap. is modest (nerpıalovros, Oecumenius). Note also the arrangement by which the words are made to stand apart, and this delicate rı, the substantial xapırua, and the qualifying rvevuatixor, are brought into the more special promin- ence.!— eis TO ornp. vmas] Object of the intended communica- tion of such a gift; that ye may be established, namely, in the Chris- tian character and life. See ver. 12; comp. Acts xvi. 5; Rom. xvi. 25; 1 Thess. iii. 2. The orypi€a is conceived as being divinely wrought by means of the Spirit, hence the passive ex- pression; it was to be accomplished however, as Paul hoped, through him as the instrument of the Spirit. Mangold, p. 82, has, without any ground in the text, assumed that this establish- ment has reference to “their abandoning their Jewish-Christian scruples regarding the mission to the Gentiles,” whereas ver. 12 rather testifies to the Pauline Christianity of the Romans. This remark applies also against Sabatier, p. 166, who understands “une 1 On perabdidévac revt rı (instead of rivi twos), comp. 1 Thess. ii. 8; Tob. vii. 9; 2 Mace, i. 35. So sometimes, although seldom, in classic authors, Herod. viii. 5, ix. 34; Xen. Anab. iv. 5, 5; Schaef. Mele. p. 21; Kühner, II. i. p. 295. CHAP. I 12. 61 conception de l’evangile de Jésus plus large et plus spiritu- elle.” Ver. 12. Tovro de eorı] This, however, which I have just designated as my longing (namely, (deity umas, va . . . arnpıxÖ. Umas) means, thereby I intend to say nothing else than, etc. By this modifying explanation, subjoined with humility, and expressed in a delicate complimentary manner (Erasmus puts the matter too strongly, “ pia vafrities et sancta adulatio”), Paul guards him- self, in presence of a church to which he was still a stranger, from the possible appearance of presumption and of forming too low an estimate of the Christian standpoint of his readers.! — suprapar\nOnvaı] must be understood not, with the Peschito, Vulgate, Valla, Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, de Dieu, and many others, including Koppe and Ewald, in the sense of comfort or of refreshment (Castalio, Grotius, Cramer, Rosenmüller, Böhme)— which it would be necessary that the context should call for, as in 1 Thess. iii. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 17, but which it here forbids by the general ideiv vuds, (va x.7.A.—but in the quite general sense of Christian encouragement and quickening. The cuvz.—however is not to be explained by judas kal euavrov; on the contrary, the ev Univ renders it necessary that Paul alone should be conceived as the subject of auumaparXnOnvaı. He desires to be quickened among the Romans (ev viv) at the same time with them, and this by the faith common to both, theirs and his, which should mutually act and react in the way of the Christian sympathy that is based on specific harmony of faith. That the readers are not the subject of the suuraparX. (Fritzsche, van Hengel) is certain from ev vuiv, which, if it meant in animis vestris (van Hengel), would be a perfectly superfluous addition. — The com- pound ovumapar\. occurs only here in the N. T., and is not found in the LXX. or Apocr.; but see Plat. Rep. p. 555 A; and Pelyb. v. 83, 3. — 4 ev aAAı7Aoıs Ticrıs, More significant of the 1 The delicate turn which he gives to the matter is this: ‘‘to see you, in order that I,” ete., means nothing more than “‘ to be quickened along with and among you,” ete. Consequently ovurapakx. is parallel to the idet ; for both infinitives must have the same subject. If ouumaparX. x.r.X. had been meant to be merely a delicate explanation of ornpixOjvar ünäs (the usual exposition after Chrysostom), then éué must necessarily have been added to cuuwmapaxd. Grotius aptly says: “ auumaparX. regitur ab erım00%.” The true interpretation is given also by Bengel and Th. Schott ; comp. Olshausen, Ewald, and Hofmann, who erroneously imputes to me the common view. 62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, hearty character of the faith than 4 adAjAwv ierris, is the faith of both viewed in its mutual identity, so that the faith which lives in the one lives also in the other. — vuwv re cat éuotl placed in this order with delicate tact. Ver. 13. My longing towards you has often awakened in me the purpose of coming to you, in order also among you ete. Paul might have placed a xai before rpoed., but was not obliged to do so (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) ; and he has not put it, because he did not think of it. The discourse proceeds from the desire (ver. 11) to the purpose, which is coming nearer to real- isation. Hence it is the less necessary to transfer the weight of the thought in ver. 13 to the clause expressive of purpose (Mangold). — ov OéAw de vu. ayv.] The Apostle lays stress on this communication. Comp. on xi. 25. The de is the simple ueraßarırov. — Kat exwAr. axpt Tov dedpo] is a parenthesis separ- ated from the structure of the sentence, so that {va attaches itself to rpoed. €XO. zp. vu. The kat, however, is not to be taken as adversative, as Köllner still thinks (see, in opposition to this, Fritzsche), but as the simple and marking the sequence of thought, which here (comp. John xvii. 10) intervenes paren- thetically. For the view which makes it still dependent on ör,, so that it introduces the second part of what the readers are to know (Hofmann), is precluded by the following clause of pur- pose, which can only apply to that resolution so often formed. — dcdpo] used only here in the N. T. as a particle of time, but more frequently in Plato and later authors; see Wetstein. That by which Paul had been hitherto hindered, may be seen in xv. 22; consequently it was neither by the devil (1 Thess. ii. 18) nor by the Holy Spirit (Acts xvi. 6 f.). Grotius aptly observes (comp. xv. 22): “Magis urgebat necessitas locorum, in quibus Christus erat ignotus.” — iva tia kapmov «.r.X.) is entirely parallel in sense with a te nerado «.r.A.in ver. 11, and it is a gratuitous re- - fining on the figurative kaprov to find specially indicated here the conversion of unbelievers beyond the range which the church had hitherto embraced (Hofmann); comp. also Th. Schott, and even Mangold, who takes the Apostle as announcing his desire to take in hand the Gentile mission also among his readers, so that the capzos would be Gentiles to be converted. No; by kapmov Paul, with a complimentary egotism flattering to the CHAP. I. 14, 15. 63 readers, describes that which his personal labours among the Romans would have effected—consequently what had been said without metaphor in ver. 11—according to a current figure (John iv. 36, xv. 16; Phil. i. 22; Col. i. 6), as harvest-fruit which he would have had among them, and which as the produce of his labour would have been his (ideal) possession among them. But in this view the literal sense of Exeıv (comp. vi. 21 f.) is not even to be altered by taking it as consequat (Wolf, Kypke, Koppe, Kollner, Tholuck, and others). To postpone the having the fruit, however, till the Jast day (Mehring) is quite alien to the context. — caOws kal ev Tots Aoım. €Ov.] as also among the remain- ing nations, i.e. Gentiles (see on ver. 5), namely, I have fruit. In the animation and fulness of his thought Paul has inserted twice the cat of comparison, inasmuch as there was present to his mind the twofold conception: (1) “among you also,! as among ;” and (2) “among you, as also among.” So frequently in Greek authors. See Baeumlein, Partikell. p.153; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 457 E; Winer, p. 409 [E. T. 547]. There is there- fore no grammatical reason for commencing the new sentence with xaQws (Mehring), nor is it in accordance with the repeti- tion of the ev. Vv. 14, 15. Fuller explanation regarding the previous {va twa KAPT.OX® kal Ev vmiv, kadws Kal ev T.Aoır. EOveriv.— Re- specting Bapßapo? (övoua To ovx ‘EXAnuxov, Ammonius), which, according to Greek feeling and usage, denotes generally all non- Greeks (Plat. Polit. p. 262 D)—all who were strangers to Greek nationality and language—see Dougt. Anal. II. p. 100 f.; Her- mann, Staatsalterth. § 6,1. How common it was to designate all nations by thus dividing them into ‘EAN. x. Bapß., see in Wet- stein and Kypke, with examples from Philo in Loesner, p. 243. 1 That the “you” must mean the Roman Christians, and not the still wncon- verted Romans (Th. Schott), is clearly shown by all the passages, from ver. 8 onwards, in which the dpe?s occurs ; and especially by the vyiv rois év "Pwyy in ver. 15. As regards their nationality, they belong to the category of Gentiles. Comp. xi. 13, xvi. 4; Gal. ii. 12, 14; Eph. iii. 1. But if Paul is the Apostle of the Gentiles, the Gentiles already converted also belong to his apostolic sphere of labour, as, e.g., the Colossians and Laodiceans, and (vv. 5, 6) the Romans. Schott is compelled to resort to very forced suggestions regarding év duiv and tuiv, especially here and in ver. 15; as also Mangold, who can only find therein a geographical designation (comp. Hofmann: ‘‘he addresses them as a constituent portion of the people of Rome”). Comp. on ver. 15. 64 “TIE LPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. Of course the Hellenes included the Jews also among the Bapßapoı (a view which is attributed even to Philo, but with- out sutficient ground), while the Jews in their turn applied this designation to the Hellenes. See Grimm on 2 Mace. u. 21, p. 61. Now it may be asked: did Paul include the Romans among the "EAAnves or among the Bapßapoı? The latter view is maintained by Reiche and Köllner, following older writers; the former is held by Ambrosiaster, Estius, Kypke, and others, and the former alone would be consistent with that delicacy which must be presumed on the Apostle’s part, as in fact, since Hellenic culture had become prevalent in Rome, especially since the time of Augustus, the Roman community was regarded from the Roman point of view as separated from the barbaria, and only nations like the Germans, Scythians, etc., were reckoned to belong to the latter. Comp. Cicero, de fin. ii. 15, “non solum Graecia et Italia, sed etiam omnis barbaria.” But the following sopors Te Kal avorjrors, a8 also the circumstance that the Romans, although they separated themselves from the barbarians (Greek authors included them among these, Polyb. v. 104, 1, ix. 37, 5, Krebs and Kypke ix loc.), are nowhere reckoned among the Hel- lenes or designated as such, make it evident that the above question is to be entirely excluded here, and that Paul’s object is merely to set forth generally his obligation as Apostle of the Gentiles in its universality. This he does in the form of a two- fold division, according to nationality, and according to condition of culture, so that the thought which he would express is: Iam in duty bound to all Gentiles, without distinction of their nation- ality or of their culture; therefore I am ready, to you also etc. — obeıAerns] Paul regards the divine obligation of office, received through Christ (ver. 5), as the undertaking of a debt, which he has to discharge by preaching the Gospel among all Gentile nations. Comp., in reference to this subject, Acts xxvi. 17 f.; Gal. ii. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 16. — ow] so, that is, in accordance with this relation, by which I am in duty bound to the "EXAyoı Tr. x. Bapß., to the cod. +. «. avoyrt. It does not refer to ka@ws, ver. 13, which is dependent on the preceding cat ev vuiv, but gathers up in itself the import of “EAAnot.... etme: so then, ita, sie igitur. See Hermann, ad Luc. de hist. conser. p. 161; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 307. Bengel well says: “est quasi ephiphonema et illatio a toto ad partem insig- CHAP. L 14, 15 65 nem.” — The odtw ro cat’ eue mpoQuuov (sc. Earı) is to be trans- lated: accordingly, the inclination on my part [lit. the on-my-part inclination] is, so that ro belongs to zpoOuuoy, though the expres- sion To kat’ éué tpoOuuor is not substantially different from the simple ro zpoOuuov mov, but only more significantly indicative of the idea that Paul on his part was willing, etc. Comp. on Eph. 1.15. He says therefore: