re ee 
 
 ei nr 
 
 ~s v ‘= 
 Ye n= Retin ant to ot Poh aie? ot mtaret 
 al Aa ett igren A 
 
 geperer ns ~—t onatunate - . fs “ 
 ute of on rw! whotel Ooaew 
 Saat 
 
 paenanen iedirah 
 ee a. ok ated 
 
 sa aentbaareadineaetedh etre 
 hha dip Reted ds ine all 
 
 . i eae 
 Sed aah iaded 
 oe a 
 ahah ttatere 
 begets iiet weet tet tn tbet Sete hn’ , 
 ate = nee heen bh eLeee F 
 Sr rhe ph mote tenat-HaBrP-$4 net Comet 
 a aetebeth oo 0l eS Me : oo a < ay } 3 | 
 ‘om PREY ee mg ‘ = : F ca apa ap eh | Nelle Miya me 
 . | : : ’ 4 Ox is ane Td 
 vs : s nce bebeT ¥ . se ren Sn siete Taigeeest fok 
 : re ; Laer end elt vey Dew TD s 
 
 
 
 —-- 
 

 

 

 
 
 
4 
 
 fs 
 
 Aes 
 Ents 
 
 
 
EXPLANATORY ANALYSIS 
 
 . PAULS EPISTLE 10 THE ROMANS ~ 
 
 Maret 3x yi) ie erie U3 3 pigs Pr Sesh Bis ‘efiriky) ota ia 8 tags te 
 Bie =~ Pt Biiaits meat “aa Fara ceed ¥ . ae ee.” 
 be 
 
 > aiietied 
 o Serene ae 
 rs iia 
 
 
 
Works by Henry Parry Liddon, 
 D.D:, DiGL.; LED; 
 
 Late Canon and Chancellor of St. Paul’s. 
 
 Essays and Addresses: Lectures on Buddhism—Lectures on 
 the Life of St. Paul—Papers on Dante. Crown 8vo. 55. 
 
 Advent in St. Paul’s. Sermons bearing chiefly on the Two 
 Comings of our Lord. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. each. 
 Cheap Edition, in one vol. Crown 8vo. 55. 
 
 Christmastide in St. Paul’s. Sermons bearing chiefly on the 
 Birth of our Lord and the end of the Year. Crown 8vo. 55. 
 
 Passiontide Sermons. Crown 8yo. 5s. 
 
 Easter in St. Paul's. Sermons bearing chiefly on the Resurrection 
 of our Lord. Twovols. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. each. 
 Cheap Edition, in one vol. Crown 8vo. 55. 
 
 The Magnificat. Sermons in St. Paul’s, August, 1889. Crown 
 8vo. 25. 6d. 
 
 Sermons preached before the University of Oxford. Two vols. 
 Crown 8vo, 35. 6d. each, Cheap Edition, in one vol. Crown 8vo. 55. 
 
 Sermons on Old Testament Subjects. Crown 8vo. 5S. 
 Sermons on some Words of Christ. Crown 8vo, 53s. 
 
 Some Elements of Religion. Lent Lectures. Small 8vo. 2s. 6a.; 
 or in Paper Cover, Is. 6d. 
 The Crown 8vo. Edition, 5s., may still be had. 
 
 The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: being the 
 Bampton Lectures for 1866. Crown 8vo. 5s. 
 
 Selections from the Writings of H. P. Liddon, D.D. Crown 
 8vo. 35. 6d. 
 
 Maxims and Gleanings from the Writings of H. P. Liddon, D.D. 
 Selected and arranged by C. M.S. Crown 16mo. 1s, 
 
 Walter Kerr Hamilton, Bishop of Salisbury: a Sketch, with 
 Sermon, 8vo. 2s. 6d, 
 
 Of the Five Wounds of the Holy Church. By ANTONIO 
 RosMINI. Edited, with an Introduction, by H. P. Lippon, D.D. Crown 
 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Private Prayers. By the Rev. E. B. Pusry, D.D. Edited, 
 with a Preface, by H. P. LIppoN, D.D. Royal 32mo. 1s. 
 
 Prayers for a Young Schoolboy. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. 
 Edited, with a Preface, by H. P. Lippon, D.D. Large Type. 24mo. Is. 
 
 Lonpon: LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. 
 
 
 
? 
 EXPLANATORY ANALYSIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 od 
 
 ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 
 
 BY 
 H. a ahaw Db, Cbs blab; 
 
 rf LATE CANON AND CHANCELLOR OF ST. PAUL’S _ 
 zi | IRELAND PROFESSOR OF EXEGESIS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 1870-1882 
 
 ee ar. 
 <r q 
 
 ' Se et, ad Law i alee 
 
 set pele A 
 
 i ee 
 
 
 
‘ 
 . 
 . 
 oe ’ 
 j Ls 
 i 
 ‘ A ~ 
 
 Orford | 
 HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 > ae 
 
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 THE following ‘ Notice’ was prefixed to the unpublished 
 copies of the Analysis of the Epistle to the Romans which 
 the late Dr. Liddon caused to be printed for distribution 
 in 1876. 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 A few words may be due to any into whose hands this 
 Analysis may chance to fall. 
 
 It is composed of a series of papers which were distributed to 
 Students who attended the Author’s Lectures in 1875-76. These 
 papers were designed to furnish a clue to the sequence of the 
 Apostle’s teaching in his greatest Epistle; and also to supply a 
 skeleton, around which more detailed information and illustra- 
 tions might be grouped in private study. 
 
 The writer has largely followed the suggestions of Meyer, 
 wherever the theological or untheological crotchets of that 
 great scholar have not impaired the value of his opinion. 
 
 This Analysis is not published, for two reasons among others. 
 The scale of the earlier chapters does not correspond with that 
 of the later; and the writer is not without some anxiety as to 
 the explanation which has been given of Rom. vii. 14-25. 
 
 CH. Cr: H. E L. 
 June 19, 1876. : 
 
 After 1876, Dr. Liddon rewrote the Analysis of the 
 earlier chapters on a greatly enlarged scale, made con- 
 
vi Advertisement. 
 
 siderable additions and alterations throughout, and modi- 
 fied his view of Rom. vii. 14-25. The present edition 
 is printed in part (capp. i-v. 11) from a manuscript 
 dated Feb. 1878, in part from an interleaved copy of 
 the earlier issue dated Oct. 1880. The book is simply 
 Dr. Liddon’s: it was by him intended for publication : 
 and the work of the editor has scarcely gone beyond the 
 verification and correction of references. 
 
 Dr. Liddon’s literary executors desire to express their 
 thanks to Mr. Campbell Dodgson, late scholar of New 
 College, and the Rev. J. O. Nash, of Pusey House, for 
 labour devoted to the verification of references; also to 
 the Rev. G. A. Cooke, Fellow of Magdalen College, for 
 
 revision of the Hebrew quotations. 
 
 SEXAGESIMA, 1892. 
 
HEADS OF ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE 
 
 InTRopucTION (i. 1-17). 
 A. Apostolical Salutation (1-7). 
 B. The Apostle’s interest in the Roman Church explained (8-17). This 
 explanation concludes by stating the leading Proposition of the 
 
 Epistle (16b-17). Man becomes righteous before Gop by faith in 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Doematic Part (i. 17 —xi. 36). 
 are I G. 18—yv. 21). Justification by faith considered in itself and 
 objectively. Its place in human nature and religious history. 
 (A) Man’s need of righteousness universal (i. 18—iii. 20). 
 (B) Righteousness received by faith through Christ’s Atoning Death 
 (iii. 21-30), ' 
 (C) This Righteousness by faith in Christ anticipated in the 0, 7. 
 (iii. 31—iv. 25). 
 -(D) Happiness of the justified, and grounds of their encouragement 
 under trials (v. I-11). 
 (E) Comparison of Christ, the Author of Righteousness and of man’s 
 true life, with Adam, the author of sin and death (v. 12-21). 
 Division II (vi—viii). Justification considered subjectively and in its 
 effects upon life and conduct. Moral consequences of justification. 
 (A) The Life of Justification and sin (vi. 1-14). 
 (B) The Life of Justification and the Mosaic Law (vi. 15—vii. 25), 
 (C) The Life of Justification and the work of the Holy Spirit (viii). 
 Division III (appendix). Relation of the Jewish people to Justification 
 by faith (ix—xi). 
 (A) ee The Apostle’s sorrow at the condition of Israel 
 ix. I-5). 
 (B) Israel’s failure in the light of Gon’s Attributes (ix. 6-29). 
 (C) Israel’s failure in the light of man’s responsibility (ix. 30 —x. 21). 
 (D) Israel’s failure in the light of a happier future (xi. 1-g2). 
 (E) Concluding Doxology (xi. 33-36). 
 PracticaL Part (xii. 1—xv. 13). 
 Division I. General moral obligations (xii, xiii). 
 (A) In their application to the Christian— 
 (z) As possessing an animal and spiritual nature (xii. 1, 2). 
 (2) As a member of the Body of Christ (xii. 3-8). 
 (3) As a member of human society at large (xii. 9-21). 
 (4) As living under a (pagan) civil government (xiii. 1-7). 
 (B) Considered as animated by two great motives in particular (xiii. 
 8-14). 
 Division II. Particular questions solved (xiv. I—xv. 13). 
 (A) The questions stated (xiv. 1-5). 
 (B) Principles to which they are referred for solution (xiv. 6—xy. 13). 
 EprLocuk (xv. 14-33), The tone of parts of the Epistle justified. 
 ConcLUSION (Xvi). 
 
SPECIAL TABULAR ANALYSIS OF APOSTOLICAL 
 
 a. a slave of 
 Jesus 
 
 SALUTATION, I. 1-7. 
 
 1, He promised it, 
 
 Christ, (1) Gon’s 
 Apaoaiicn: sear 2. by the agency of prophets, 
 Apostle, with man, |, in Holy Writings, viz., in the Old Testa- 
 I. Tue lca ment (ver. 2). 
 c. & man set . 
 ‘Shanta rt to pro- - 
 Pau. ee ihe i, in respect of His Human Nature became ‘ of 
 Genres ne the seed of David’ (ver. 3). 
 eon waite li, in respect of His Higher, Holy, and Spirit- 
 eda ea ae ual Nature, was powerfully designated 
 era airla. Son of Gop, as a result of the Resurrec- 
 Weathers tion of the dead (in His Resurrection) 
 (ver. 4). 
 Piste iii, is the Man Jesus, the promised Christ, 
 pha po the common Lord of Christians (ver. 4). 
 Gop, who 1. obedience to faith, as 
 iy. is (the Mediator) a ruling principle. 
 through whom 
 Paul has re- |2. among all heathen 
 ceived Aposto- peoples, 
 lic grace, with 
 the object of /3. as a work under- 
 promoting taken for His 
 Name, i,e, Himself 
 (ver. 5). 
 1. all residents in Rome, who are 4. and so touching the 
 oT Pan ( readers who (are 
 a omua > beloved of Gop, called by the Father 
 P | and so) belong to 
 3. called so as to be holy (ver. 7a). Jesus Christ (ver. 6). 
 1. Gon’s efficacious favour. 
 i, viewed in itself, 
 Ill. Tue 2. the peace of the soul. 
 SUBSTANCE, 
 
 (a viewed in its source. 
 
 1. Gop our Father. 
 
 2, the Lord Jesus Christ (ver. 7 5). 
 
ST. PAUL'S 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY PORTION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 Cuap. I. 1-17. 
 
 A. 
 
 The Apostolical Salutation. I-7. 
 
 [Obs. As in Gal. i. 1 sqq. ; Tit. i. x sqq., the Apostle enlarges his salutation by 
 appended relative clauses, in which the main ideas of the Epistle are, to a 
 certain extent, anticipated. The salutation itself is contained in vers. 1 and 7. 
 But the intermediate verses are not parenthetical ; the structure is con- 
 tinuous. So at Col. iii. r2-14. Winer, Grammar of N.T. Greek, p. 707 (ed. 
 Moulton, 3rd edit., Clark, Edin. 1882).] 
 
 I. The writer of the Epistle. 
 1. The writer of the Epistle, describes himself as 
 ( a. a slave of Jesus Christ (S0dAes "Ino. Xp.), 
 b. a (divinely) called Apostle («Ayrés daédarodos), 
 a man separated from his fellows for a special work (d¢- 
 wpiopevos eis k,T.0.) (ver. I). 
 
 {Obs. 1. The description do0dA0s “Ijcod Xporod corresponds to nin T2Y, which is 
 used (1) of worshippers of Gop generally, as in Neh. i. 10; Ezra v. 11 ses: 
 XXXiv. 23; cxiii. 1; exxxiv. 1; exxxvi. 22; Is. liv. 17; Ixiii. 17, &c. (2) Of 
 persons entrusted with some special work or office, as of Abraham, Ps. cv. 
 6, 42; of Moses, Josh. i. 1 ; of Joshua, Josh. xxiv. 29; Judgesii. 8 ; of Job, 
 Job i. 8; of David, Ps. xviii. 1; xxxvi. 1; lxxviii. 7o; Ixxxix. 4, 21; of 
 Isaiah, Is. xx. 3; of Eliakim, Is. xxii. 20; of prophets, Amos iii. 7; Jer. vii. 
 25; XXV.4; XXvVi. 5; xxxv.15; xliv.4; Daniel ix. 6; Ezra ix. 115 of Ze- 
 rubbabel, Hag. ii. 23, and in a special sense, in Isaiah’s later writings, of 
 Messiah. Here the Apostle uses the term in the second sense; he was a 
 slave who bore office in the kingdom of Jesus Christ : the specific form of his 
 service is defined in the next clause as dméarodos. He had voluntarily sur- 
 rendered his liberty ; yet he belonged to Christ as purchased with Christ’s 
 Blood. In Gal.i. 10 he opposes his condition as Xprorod SodAos to that of 
 pleasers of men, Col. iv. 12. This is the earliest Epistle in which the word 
 occurs at the beginning; it is also found in Phil., Tit., S. James, 2 Pet., 
 S. Jude.] 
 
 a& 
 ro) 
 
2 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 2. In KAnrds anéarodos the specific form of S. Paul’s Sovdeia is given. In 
 the New Testament dméoroAos means (1) a man taught by Christ Himself, 
 and sent forth by Him to teach His Gospel. Thus it belongs properly to the 
 Twelve, Luke vi. 13, Acts i. 26, whose office is termed # dmooroAy Acts i. 25. 
 In a wider sense (2) it is used of a Christian teacher, not immediately 
 instructed by Jesus Christ, as S. Barnabas, Acts xiv. 4. (In Rom. xvi. 7 this 
 sense is at least doubtful.) S. Paul claims to be an Apostle in the first and 
 highest sense ; Christ Himself, exalted in glory, had taught and sent him ; 
 Acts ix. 6, 15; xxvi. 16; and as to his doctrine, ovdé yap éyd mapa avOpwrov 
 mapédaBov avré, ove €d:5axOnv, dAAG be dwokaddWews "Ino. Xp. Gal. i. 12. KAnTds 
 completes the title; S. Paul was a divinely-called Apostle. A divine call 
 was essential to the dmooroAn : and it marked S. Paul off from self-appointed 
 teachers, Acts xxii. 21 éy® eis €6vn paxpdy efamooTed@ oe : XXVi. 17 «is ous 
 viv o€ atooréAdkw. It was by no act of his own, or through accidental 
 circumstances, that he became what he was, odx aitds (nrjcas ebpev, GAA 
 KAnGels mapeyevero S. Chrys. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. dapwpicpévos. S., Paul was definitely separated from his friends and 
 countrymen by the call and ordination to the Apostolate, Acts xiii. 2 
 dpopicare 57 por #.7.4. He is probably thinking of Ley. xx. 26 byq377, 
 and of the words of our Lord, éfa:podpevés oe éx Tod Aaod Kal Tov eOvay, eis ods 
 viv oe dnooré\Aw Acts xxvi. 17. In Gal. i. 15 he goes further: 6 dgopioas 
 HE &t KolXlas pntpds pov, points to the act in the Divine Mind which preceded 
 the call, not to the historical fact of separation from kinsmen, &¢., which fol- 
 lowed it, as here. The mpoopicpds of Paul, as of all the elect, was indeed prior 
 to birth (Jer. i. 5), nay it was from all eternity (Eph. i. 5, 11) ; it must not be 
 confounded with the more specific separation that took place in time. } 
 
 2, His life-work,—the propagation of the Gospel of Gop, «is evay- 
 yédov Geod. This Gospel of Gop he more specifically describes by 
 
 (i) its relation to earlier religious history. It was 
 a. promised by Gop in preceding ages, 
 b. by the agency of Gon’s prophets, 
 c. in Sacred Scriptures. 
 
 (ii) Its subject is The Son or Gop (epi rod Yiod airod), Who 
 a. in respect of His Manhood (xara cagxa) was born of the race 
 
 of David ; 
 
 b. in respect of His Holy, superhuman Being («xara Tvedpa ‘Ayo- 
 avvns), was decisively marked out as the Son or Gop, as a 
 result of His Resurrection ; 
 
 c. is known by the 
 
 a. human name Jesus 
 b. official designation ¢ Of 4 Christ 
 ce. title of authority our Lord ; 
 
 d. conveys from Gop the Father to the writer (&’ ob &AdBoper) 
 whatever graces and powers He has received, 
 
 
 
Introductory : ch, 1, vv. 1-7. 3 
 
 [Obs. x. (ver. 1.) The Apostle was a man set apart eis ebayyéAvcov @eod. For the 
 phrase, ef. 2 Cor. ii. 12 éA@ay 52 eis ri Tpwada cis 7d ebayyédtoy TOU XpioTov. 
 The Gospel was to be the aim of his whole thought and life. In 2 Cor. x. 
 14 he speaks of it as the scene or sphere of his activity: dyxpi ydp kal tyav 
 EpOacapev ev TH ebvayyeAlw Tod Xpiorod. cis may = ‘in order to propagate the 
 Gospel.’ evayyéAcov, which meant from Homer to Plutarch, the reward for 
 bringing a good message or sacrifice for a good message, came in later writers 
 to mean the message itself; cf. Cremer, Bibl. Theol. Lex. (ed. 1889, p. 30), 8.V- 
 The New Testament use is opposed neither to the formation of the word 
 from eiayyedos, nor to the usus loquendi, evdayyédov is in the New Testament 
 the correlative of émayyedia ; émayyedia is the promise of salvation, evayyéAcov 
 the good news whereby this promise is fulfilled. Acts xiii. 32 jpeis buas 
 ebayyedCéueba tiv mpds Tovs Tarépas émayyediav yevoperny, Ste TadTHY 6 Ocds Ex- 
 merAnpwxev. Eph. iii. 6 elvac ra G0vn . 2... . ouppéroxa Tis émayyedlas ev 
 Xpio7G “Inood did Tod edayyediov. The evayyéAov is here not merely the (fransi- 
 tive) ‘proclamation of salvation’ (so Theodoret 70 xjpvypa), but the good news 
 itself; ef. Rom. xv. 16; 1 Thess. ii. 2, 8,9; 18. Pet.iv.17. Itis the fulness 
 of grace and truth which Gop has given to the world in Christ, and with the 
 communication of which the Apostles were charged. The art. is omitted 
 before edayyéAov, because there is only one evayyéAroy Ocod, and the word 
 is virtually a proper name, when followed by the gen. @cod. Winer, Gr. 
 N. T., p. 155. @cod seems here to be gen. originis, as Christ is the substance 
 of the evayyéAuor, cf. vers. 3, 4.] 
 
 [Obs. 2, (ver. 2.) The Gospel was first announced by Christ and His Apostles. 
 But it was not absolutely new. It had been promised by Gop in distant 
 bygone ages. For mpoernyyeidato, see 2 Cor. ix. 5. Ofthis previous announce- 
 ment of the edayyéAvoy Gon’s prophets had been the organs. Moses and David 
 were among these mpopjra. They had foretold the coming of Christ, Acts 
 xiii. 22; His works, and His sufferings and death, and resurrection, Acts 
 iii. 18, 21; iv. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 1 S. Pet. i. rm; the remission of sins 
 through faith in Christ, Acts x. 43; the blessings destined for the heathen, 
 Acts xv. 15 sqq. ; the happiness of good Christians hereafter, Tit. i. 2. Thus 
 *In vetere [testamento] novum latet, et in novo vetus patet ’ S. Aug. Quaest. 
 73 in Exod. Their words are preserved é ypapais dyias, i. e. Sacred Writings 
 of the Jews. These are generally called ai ypapat and 4 ypapn—the Books or 
 Writings xa7’ éfoyqv : S. John v. 39; Rom. iv. 3. Without the art., however, 
 ypapal aya could only mean Sacred Books of the Old Testament ; dyiats shows 
 sufficiently what books must be meant. Comp. Rom. xvi. 26, where ypagat 
 mpopnrixai are necessarily the prophetical writings. The Apostle’s object in 
 
 this statement may have been incidentally to meet the charge of novelty 
 
 a: which was urged against his teaching (S. Chrys. in loc.), but chiefly that 
 
 | the greatness and majesty of the Gospel, as present to the Divine Mind in 
 
 bygone ages, might be impressed on his readers. | 
 
 “a ~ 
 : 
 
 4] : 
 
 i [Obs. 3. (ver. 3.) mept Tod Tiod abrod may be connected with 6 mpoenyyetAaTo 
 3 (Theodoret, Tholuck, Fritzsche), but is more naturally taken with edayyéAuov, 
 ver. 1; Winer, Gr. N. 7., p. 233. This complete phrase, ebayyéArov mepl Tod 
 ‘iod, which occurs here only, explains edayyéAvov Tod XpioTod, as gen. obj., the 
 Gospel about Christ, not that which He preached. The Son ef Gop was a 
 title of Messiah, Ps. ii. 7, 12; Luke i. 35 ; S. Matt. iv. 3; S. Luke xxii. 70; 
 
 B2 
 
 
 
The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 S. John i. 50. ‘But,’ observes Meyer, ‘6 vids rod cov is not by any means 
 to be taken merely as a designation of Messiah: it is always used of Christ 
 by the Apostle, from the standpoint of the knowledge which Gop had given 
 him by revelation (Gal. i. 16) of the pre-existent Sonship (viii. 3, 32; vids téros 
 Gal. iv. 4; Col. i. 13 sqq.; Phil. ii. 6 sqq.).’ Thus it is equivalent to vids 
 povoyevis mapa matpés S. John i. 14. For [the theory of] a modification in 
 S. Paul’s conviction there is no ground: the vids rod Ocod is ‘ He who had 
 proceeded out of the essence of the Father like Him in substance,’ Meyer.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. (vers. 3, 6.) The Son of Gop considered in respect of His visible and lower 
 
 nature kata odpxa. oapé is here used without ethical significance, as the 
 material of the human frame, from which however the uv x7 is inseparable. 
 Christ was not, morally, capxexds (vii. 14), or Yuxeeds (1 Cor. ii. 14), although 
 His bodily nature made Him capable of temptation, Heb. ii. 18 ; iv. 15( Meyer). 
 He had a o@ya ris capkés Col. i. 22, but only in appearance a sinful one, év 
 Spowpare capkds duaprias Rom. viii. 3. oapg refers generally to our Lord’s 
 Humanity, which is there more specifically described as being é« omépparos 
 AaBid. In respect of this nature he came to be (yevopévov, comp. Gal. iv. 4) 
 of the race of David, as Messiah was to be, Jer. xxiii. 15 ; Ps. exxxii. 11; 
 S. Matt. xxii. 42 ; 8. John vii. 42. Of our Lord’s supernatural birth of a 
 Virgin Mother S. Paul says nothing ; it was sufficient for his present pur- 
 pose to describe Him as truly man and a descendant of David, i.e. as 
 Messias. On the Davidic descent of the Mother of our Lord, see Dr. Mill, On 
 the Mythical Interp. of the Gospels, pp. 208-211 (Cambr. 1861). ] 
 
 [Obs. 5. (ver. 4a.) The Son of Gop considered in respect of His superhuman being, 
 
 Kara. mvedpa ay.wovvns. It isimpossible to mistake the antithetical relation of 
 Kata mvedpa dyiwotvns to Kata odpxa, and mvedpa Gywotrvns cannot be well 
 explained (1) of the Holy Ghost, because this destroys the antithesis 
 between two elements in the Being of Christ, and does violence to xara: 
 nor (2) of Christ’s Human mvedya, the higher element of His yvx7, because 
 thus the solemn force of dywodvns is missed. mvedpa &ywotvns translates 
 Wapn Ni. e. quite generally the Divine Nature of Christ, which is referred to 
 more generally as mvedua, and then specifically and in concrete personality as 
 ids @cod. The essential nature of Gop is called mvedya in 8. John iv. 24, 
 while in 1 Tim. iii. 16 wvedpa, and in Heb. ix. 14 mvedpa aiwnorv, stand for the 
 Divine Nature in Christ; cf. [S. Clem. Rom.] Zp. ii. ad Cor. ix. 5 Xpiords 
 6 Kupios, dy pev 7d mp@rov mvedpa, eyevero adpé. 
 
 In respect of this Divine Nature, thus conceived of indefinitely, He was 
 designated (épio0evros), with decisive emphasis, év dvvdye, as the Son of Gop, 
 as a consequence of His Resurrection. The Resurrection furnished the 
 épiopés : it made His Divine Sonship plain to the apprehension of believing 
 men. Observe the contrast between dpioGévros and yevopévov. He became 
 man; He was already the Son of Gop before the creation of the world, and 
 was sent into it, Rom. viii. 3; Gal.iv. 4. But the humiliations of His Life 
 and His Passion made necessary some act whereby His true and eternal 
 Being might be made plain to mankind. Accordingly the Resurrection was 
 the transition to His manifested 5éfa ; in the Resurrection as well as before 
 all worlds, Heb. i. 2, the words were fulfilled, ‘Thou art my Son, this Day 
 have I begotten Thee,’ Acts xiii. 33. é« is used rather than dd With dvacracews 
 

 
 Introductory : ch. 1, vv. 1-7. 5 
 
 to mark that it was in virtue of the Resurrection that Christ’s Divinity was 
 thus marked out: but the dpsopdés did not simply date from the dvacraats, it 
 resulted from that event ; cf. Meyer in loc. dvaoraats vexpav, not dvagraots éx 
 vexpav ; ‘Resurrection of the Dead’ is the general category of which the 
 personal rising of Jesus was the first and greatest instance. This bearing of 
 the Resurrection on Christ’s Divine Sonship explains 1 Cor. xv. 14 ‘If 
 Christ be not risen, our preaching is vain.’ The Messiah was announced to 
 rise by prophecy: Acts ii. 24 sq. ; xiii. 32 sq.; xvii. 2, 3; xxvi. 22 sqq. Had 
 He not risen, He would not have been recognised as Son of Gop, in the sense 
 of the Messianic predictions. This, as well as the fact that He rose by His 
 own power [S. John x. 18] gives His Resurrection a significance, which does 
 not belong to that of Lazarus, S. John xi. 44, and others, S. Matt. xvii. 3 ; 
 XXvii. 53, who were not defined by it to be superhuman beings. The 
 efficacy of the designation is expressed by év d5vvayec, which, as at Col. i. 20, 
 2 Thess. i. rz, and like MDA Ps. xxix. 4, is here used adverbially and qualifies 
 dpiabevTos. | 
 
 [Obs. 6. The clause "Incod Xpicrod rot Kupiov juav is in apposition with epi rod 
 
 Yiov avrov ver. 3. It describes Him by His Human Name, His official title, 
 and His theandric relation to His people. Placed immediately before the 
 clause which follows, it suggests the graces and the high dignity of the 
 Apostolical ministry which He has instituted, as Mediator (5: of) with the 
 Father. éAdBoyev refers only to S. Paul’s personal reception of the Aposto- 
 late, and not to that of the other Apostles; it is the plural of the category 
 (Meyer), but the following év maou rots €6veo.v shows that S. Paul was thinking 
 of himself alone.] 
 
 3. His powers and commission. 
 
 a. Grace. Xdpis (generic). Gon’s gifts in the widest sense, illu- 
 mination, conversion, guidance, perseverance, &c, 
 
 b. Apostolic Mission (drocrodn), of which he notes 
 the purpose—to make men obedient to Faith, 
 the range—among all nations, 
 the motive—to do something for His Name, i.e. Himself. 
 
 c. Immediate practical reference. His mission to all heathen 
 brings him into contact with his readers—ev ois éoré xai ipeis 
 kAntol “Invod Xprorod — among which, heathen, also you, 
 called servants of Jesus Christ, are. 
 
 [0bs. 1.(ver.5.) xdapw kat drocroAny, not hendiadys, for ‘the Grace of the Apostolate’ 
 
 (8. Chrys.). This construction arbitrarily blends into one two elements 
 which separately yield a very satisfactory sense. S. Aug. understands by 
 xdpis the general grace of Redemption, by dwooroAy the specific apostolical 
 office: ‘Gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus accepit, apostolatum non cum 
 omnibus.’ Perhaps gai is best taken epexegetically : ‘Grace, and indeed 
 particularly the Apostolate.’ But the two seem to be combined in Rom. xv. 
 15 sqq.; Gal. i. 15; ii. 7-9; Eph. iii. 2, 8.] 
 
6 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 2. (ver. 5.) The purpose of the drocroA7 is eis inaxony micrews where mioTews 
 is not a gen. subj., ‘the obedience which faith produces,’ but a gen. obj. ‘the 
 obedience which is due to faith.’ Hence rio7is might denote the object of 
 faith, rather than the act or habit, this objective sense, although rare, not 
 being foreign to the N. T.; e.g. Acts vi. 7 imnxovoy 7H miorer: Gal. i. 23 
 evayyedtCera: tiv tiorv. For the use of inaxon with a gen. obj., cf. 2 Cor. x. 5 
 % inakon Tov Xpicrov: 1S. Pet. i. 22 4 braxon Tis dAnGeias : and compare Rom. 
 X. 16 ov mdvTes bnNKovcay TS evayyeAiw. The phrase imaxoi micrews occurs 
 again Rom, xvi. 26. If mio7s, as being without the art., here and in Rom. 
 xvi. 26, is understood subjectively, the phrase implies the obedience of the 
 soul, not to a new truth, but to a new grace or virtue which controls it. The 
 range of this taxon was to be év maar Tots €Ovecw, i. e. not all nations generally, 
 inclusive of the Jews, but (see Gal. i. 16; ii. 8; Acts ix. 15; xxvi. 17 sqq., in 
 accordance with S. Paul’s office as dmdécrodos Tov é6v@v, and the prominence 
 assigned to it in this Epistle, i. 13; xi. 13; xv. 16) all non-Israelite nations, 
 to which class the Romans belonged. The majority of the Roman Church 
 must have consisted of converts from heathenism. The motive of this work 
 is to achieve something on behalf of the Name of Jesus; izép rod évdépuaros 
 avrov. The name is the Person as revealed in human language. His Name 
 describes and so it stands for Himself: ef. 2 Cor. v. 20 “Crip Xpicrod obv 
 mpeoBevouev. Christ was to be served, by making His Name known among 
 the heathen; Acts ix. 15 oxevds éxAoyis por éotiv ovTos, Tod BaoTaca 7d dvopa 
 prov évwmov Overy Kal Bacikewy : XV. 26; xxi. 13, the Name of Jesus would be 
 known and honoured when the heathen were brought to the true Faith. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. (ver. 6.) KAnTol’Inoot Xpiorod (not gen. causae, but gen. possess.), ‘who through 
 being called by the Father belong to Jesus Christ.’ The «Ajois of the soul is 
 assigned to the Father by S. Paul: Rom. viii. 30;. ix. 24: 1 Cor. i. 9; vii. 
 15, 17; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Tim. i. 9.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. The whole sentence eis tbraxonjy mictews év maou Tots EOvecw brep Tov dbvd- 
 patos avrov is Hebrew rendered literally into Greek. It answers to yovind 
 iow by Dyan boa NWONT, A Greek would have written : iva tmaxovwor de 
 €pov mavTa Ta €Ovn TH TigTE, K.7.A. Obs. 2.] 
 
 II. The readers of the Epistle, viewed according to their 
 
 (1) present outward circumstances—They are resident Chris- 
 tians in Rome; 
 
 (2) relation to Gop—They are beloved by Him; 
 
 (3) religious destiny—They are called to a consecrated life. 
 
 [Obs. 1. (ver. 7.) The phrase aot rois ovoww év Pwpy dyamnrois Ocod, KAnTois ayins, 
 stands instead of 77 éxxAnoia or Tois morevoda: cis Xpiordv, apparently with 
 the object of expressing more fully the relation in which Christians stand 
 towards God through the redemptive work of Christ. The collective Roman 
 Church is addressed as at Phil. i. 1; Eph. i. 13 Col. i. 1; but no such 
 inference can be drawn hence as that the Roman Church was not yet 
 sufficiently organized to be properly called an éxxAyqcia ; whatever may haye 
 been really the case.] 
 
 
 
Introductory: ch. 1, vv. 1-7. y] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Christians are dyannroi Ocov, inasmuch as in their vocation, conversion, 
 and many subsequent graces they have had rich proof of Gon’s love. Those 
 who are reconciled to Gop in Christ 7@ 7jyarnpevw (Eph. i. 6) are special 
 objects of His Love, Rom. v. 8 sqq. ; viii. 39; Col. iii. 12, Cf. also1S. John 
 iv. 10. ] 
 
 [ Obs. 3. They are also called (as) saints whatever they may become afterwards. 
 Their «Ajots out of the world of men has involved, not merely a separation 
 from it, but consecration to Gop. The word dys, like wT, implies (r) 
 separation from what is merely natural and earthly, and then (2) conse- 
 eration toGop. This double sense of separation and consecration is implied 
 in the case of Israel in such passages as Lev. xi. 44; xix.2; Exod. xix. 5 sqq.; 
 and Christian ay:d7ys in the New Testament corresponds, in implying conse- 
 cration as well as separation. Cf. Eph. i. 4 adds éfeActaro quads .. . evar Ayas 
 ayious kat dumpous Karevwmov av’Tod év ayann. That this dydrns is to be under- 
 stood in a Christian theocratic sense, corresponding to that of Wp and not 
 of personal moral sanctification, appears from the fact that all the Roman 
 Christians as Christians are ayo. For this sense see 1 Cor. vii. 14 yiaora 
 yap 6 dvip 6 dmatos év TH yuvaiki, Kal Hyiaorat % uv?) } amoartos év TO avopi. ] 
 
 III. The substance of the greeting— 
 
 1, Blessings invoked on the readers. 
 
 { Grace. xdpts. Gon’s operative favour. 
 Peace. ipyjvn, Repose of the soul in Gop, 
 
 2. Source of these Blessings— 
 
 Gop the Father and 
 { Our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 (Obs. r. xapis represents the general epistolary yaipew of the Greeks (Acts xv. 23 ; 
 
 s James i. 1). For this the Apostle substitutes the more direct xaps. It 
 . corresponds to 10, i.e. good-will, favour, which on the part of Gop contains 
 implicitly all active blessings which He has to bestow. «ipyvy is = nidy, 
 peace, the great Hebrew blessing (Ps. Ixxxv. 8; exxii. 6; Luke xix. 42) 
 and greeting (> pide? Judges xix. 20; 8S. Luke xxiv. 36). It was 
 especially used to allay anxiety, Gen. xliii. 23, nod pide’, S. John xx. 
 19,26. In the Old Testament the word often had predominant reference to 
 external circumstances, in the New Testament to internal and spiritual, 
 S. Matt.x. 1a. In the Old Testament the Hebrew sense of safety predomi- 
 nates in the New Testament the Greek sense of peace. In S. John xiv our 
 Lord distinguishes between His own gift of peace and that of the world : 
 in Eph. ii. 15, the eipjvn between Jew and Gentile, effected by the abolition 
 of Jewish ordinances on the cross, is in question. Here dps and <ipnyn de- 
 scribe the entire inward work of Christ. xdp:s is the seed, eipnyvn the flower. 
 The germ of the Christian life is Gop’s grace, preventive and effectual, and 
 its fruit is an inward tranquillity which is independent of circumstances. 
 
 
 
8 The Epistie to the Romans. 
 
 The Father is especially 6 xapicdpevos, the Son, 6 eipnvorads through the 
 work of the Spirit. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The gen. Kuptov "Incod Xptorod is not dependent upon marpés so as to stand 
 parallel with #yuav, as if the Apostle meant ‘Gop the Father, of us and of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ.’ Kupiov "Incotd Xpiorod depends on amd, and must be 
 co-ordinated with @cod marpés: cf. Gal. i. 3. Hence the remark of the Greek 
 Fathers that in this juxtaposition of the Names of Gop the Father and 
 Christ, the Godhead of Christ, and His oneness of substance with the Father 
 is clearly implied. Comp. 1 Cor.i.3; 2 Cor.i.2; Eph.i. 2; Phil. i. 2; 1 Thess. 
 i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1 sqq. ; 1 Tim.i. 2; 2 Tim.i. 2; Tit.i.4; Philemon 3. Against 
 the theory of making 7juav and Kupiov “Inaod Xpiorov depend both on zarpis, 
 lies the fact that Scripture never speaks of ‘ our and Christ’s’ Father, Tit. i. 
 4; 2Tim.i.2. Meyer will not allow that the formal equalisation of Gop 
 and Christ in this text proves the divine nature of Christ, because ‘the 
 different predicates marpés and Kupiov imply the different conceptions of the 
 causa principalis and medians.’ This, however, begs a large question, viz. that 
 these admittedly different conceptions necessarily place the causa medians 
 wholly without the area of the Godhead. No created being can impart (as 
 distinct from announcing) yap kai eipnynv. In Gal. i. 1, the Father like 
 Christ is described as the ‘mediator’ of the Apostolate, dia “Incot Xpiarov Kai 
 Gcod tratpés.] 
 
 B. 
 
 Interest of the Apostle in the Roman Church, forming an 
 Introduction to the great Thesis of his Epistle. 8-17. 
 
 [Obs. This captatio benevolentiae by which the Apostle would secure the sympathies 
 of his readers, is not a rhetorical artifice, but springs naturally out of his 
 instinctively sympathetic character. As also in Phil. i. 3 sqq.; Col. 1. 3 sqq. 
 The three proofs of his interest widen and heighten as he proceeds. 
 
 I. Proofs of the Apostle’s warm interest in the Roman Church (8-10). 
 
 Proof 1. He thanks Gop through Jesus Christ for the world-wide 
 celebrity of the faith of the Roman Church (ver. 8). 
 
 [Obs. 1. This is introduced by mp@rov pév, to which no detrepoy 5é corresponds in 
 the apodosis. The construction was interrupted, because the second proof 
 of his interest in the Roman Church was not distinct from, but a proof and 
 confirmation of the first: ef. v. 9. Other such anacolutha occur in Rom. iii. 
 2; 1 Cor. xi. 18 sqq. Winer, @r. N. T., pp. 720, 721.] 
 
 [0bs. 2. The Apostle calls Gop his Gop (7G eG pov) on account of Gon’s indi- 
 vidualising love towards each reconciled soul. Each such soul feels Gop to 
 be his, as if He belonged to no other, Acts vii. 32; Phil. iv. 19. The Apostle 
 thanks his Gop, &a "Ijcot Xporod : it is only through the mediating agency 
 of Jesus Christ that thanksgiving or prayer can reach the Father. 64. ‘Inaod 
 Xpiorod is used of our Lord’s mediatorial action in all its forms, Rom. ii. 16; 
 v.i; 2Cor.i.5. Winer, Gr. W. T., p. 473. So, ‘By Whom and with Whom 
 in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto Thee, O Father 
 Almighty,’ Communion Service.] 
 
Introductory: ch. 1, vv. 8-17. 9 
 
 [0bs. 3. Origen observes on mdvytov, that S. Paul was satisfied with the world- 
 wide reputation of the faith of all the members of the Roman Church. 
 Observe how cautiously he writes to Churches, a section of whose members 
 he is obliged to censure ; 1 Cor. i. 4, he thanks Gon, éml 7H xapitt Tod Ocod 
 7) 508cion to the Corinthians ; ef. too Col. i: 4, where he does not attribute the 
 faith and love, in the Colossian Church, for which he thanks Gop, to all its 
 members. It is by Christians that the faith of the Roman Church «xaray- 
 éAAera; among non-Christians, Roman Christianity, so say the Jews, taytaxod 
 dymiAéyera: Acts xxviii.22, The expression év dAw 7& xdopw means ‘Apostolic 
 Christendom,’ it is, strictly taken, hyperbolical : he had said six years before 
 of the Thessalonians that their faith év mav7i témw . .. e£eApAVOev 1 Thess, i. 
 8. The language of S. Paul was often echoed, in succeeding ages, by the 
 Fathers ; 8. Cyprian, epp. 59. 14 ; 60. 2 (Hartel) ; S. Jerome, Apolog. contr. Rufin. 
 3. 12 (ed. Vallars.) ‘Scito romanam fidem, apostolicé voce laudatam, istius- 
 modi praestigias non recipere ; etiamsi angelus aliter annuntiet, quam semel 
 praedicatum est, Pauli auctoritate munitam, non posse mutari.’] 
 
 Proof 2. He calls upon Gop, whom he serves in the very sanc- 
 tuary of his soul in labour for the Gospel, to attest the truth of 
 his assertion that he incessantly mentions the Roman Christians 
 in his prayers (ver. 9). 
 
 [0bs. 1. This statement is a proof (cf. yép) of the assurance conveyed in ver. 8. 
 One who incessantly interceded for the Roman Church would be morally 
 certain to thank Gop, when his prayers were heard. The stress lies on 
 ddiakeintws: the Apostle practises what he had enjoined, dé:adcintws mpoced- 
 xeaGe 1 Thess. v. 17, but he mentions it here to illustrate, not his moral 
 consistency, but his profound and unaffected interest in the Roman Church. 
 As S. Chrys. says in loc.: 7d év ebyais Exe ddiadcintws, évvdnoov moans éo7t 
 diabécews wai gidias. Cf. 2 Tim. i. 3; Eph. i. 16; 1 Thess. i. 2; iii. 10.] 
 
 [0bs. 2. The solemn adjuration, pdprus yap pou éoriv 6 eds is rendered necessary 
 ye by the natural surprise of his readers at the Apostle’s taking such deep 
 * interest in a Church which he had never visited. For other such oaths 
 introducing an assertion, see 2 Cor. i. 23 éy@ 5& paprupa Tov Ocdy émxadodpat 
 ém riv euiy wuxhy, Ste Peaddpevos tpav ode HAPov eis KépwOov: xi. 31, after 
 enumerating his infirmities, he adds, 6 @cds «at watijp Tod Kupiov judy “Inood 
 Xpisrod ofdev, 6 dv ebrAoynrds cis Tods aldvas, bts ob Wevdouat: Phil. i. 8 wdprus 
 yap pou éorlv 6 @eds ws émiT09H mavras tpas év omrdyxvas Incod Xporov. The 
 appeal to Gop is explained by the difficulties which the readers might have 
 in accepting the statement which follows it. Such appeals are not to be 
 confused with the levity of language condemned by the Third Command- 
 ment. In the present passage the appeal is strengthened by the words @ 
 Aarpevw, x.7.A. The Apostle’s life is a Aavpeia, i.e. religious ep a not merely 
 or chiefly external, but offered in his inmost being, év 7@ mvedpari pou: while 
 the outer sphere in which this Aazpeia displays itself is év T@ eayyedly Td 
 Tiod airod, by preaching, defending, and in every way promoting it. With 
 év r@ mvedpars compare 2 Tim. i. 3 @ Aarpeiw.. . &Y Kabape owedjou and 
 Heb. xii. 28 J 
 
 
 
10 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 3. ws seems to be used in ver. 9 not as a substitute for and equivalent to ort, 
 =that, but as expressing the manner in which something is to be understood, = 
 how. Not merely the fact of the Apostle’s incessant prayers for the Romans, 
 but the mode of their being offered, were witnessed by Gop: Phil. i.8; 2 
 Cor. vii. 15; Acts x. 28. For pveiay moeis@a, as used of naming before Gop 
 the subjects of intercessory prayer, cf. Eph. i. 16; Phil. i. 3; 1 Thess. i. 2.] 
 
 Proof 3. He explains that the particular petition which he 
 always associates with his prayer for the Roman Christians, is 
 that God would, in His own time and way, enable him to visit 
 Rome (ver. 10). 
 
 [Obs. 1. This statement enhances the proof of interest in the Roman Church 
 which had been created by ver. 9, as ver. 9 had enhanced that resulting from 
 ver. 8. The drift of the preia (ver. 9) is here more precisely defined ; 7avrote 
 ... dedpevos. éni, which is to be referred to the notion of a definition of 
 time, indicates the form of an action which takes place. én mpocevxdv 
 1 Thess. i. 2; Eph.i. 16. Winer refers it to the local sense of éi, with a gen. 
 of that to which something else attaches itself, ‘with, [or in] my prayers ;’ 
 Gr. N.T., p. 470.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. etrws H5n more, ‘if perhaps after awhile at some time or other.’ 75 =already, 
 and thus (comparing a time long delayed with the present) at length (Meyer). 
 eimws expresses the hesitation of the Apostle in making the definite request, 
 and ore the shrinking from any attempt to specify a time for its accomplish- 
 ment. cvodovcGa mid. (1) to make a prosperous journey, but (2) generally 
 to prosper, corresponding to myn from MI¥ Ps. i. 3. Ecclus. xxxviil. 14 ; 
 2 Mace. x. 7; 38. John 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. The Apostle conditions this prayer 
 for being prospered to come to Rome, by év T@ OcAjpati Tod Ocod,—apart from 
 which will he cannot anticipate this or any other project for the future.] 
 
 II. Motives for the longing (émuro66 yap ideiv tuas) which leads him to 
 make this specific prayer. (11-16.) 
 
 Motive 1. His purpose of imparting to the Romans some xdpiopa 
 mvevpatixdy, Which may have a twofold effect in 
 
 a. strengthening their Christian life, «is rd ornpixOjvac byas. 
 
 b. the simultaneous encouragement of the Apostle and his 
 readers, by the sense of their common faith (11, 12). 
 
 (Obs. x. (ver. 11.) For ideiv as expressing by implication personal presence, see Acts 
 xix. 21; xxviii. 20. The xdpicpa which 8. Paul wishes to impart to the 
 Romans is mvevparixéy, not as belonging to the human spirit, but as a 
 product of the activity of the Divine mvedya whose organ the Apostle is. 
 xr Cor. xii. 4 diapeses. 5 yxapicpatay eict, rd Se adTd mvedua. The word 
 xdpicpa points to some definite endowment or faculty, more distinctly than, 
 
 
 
Introductory: ch. 1, vv. 8-17. II 
 
 @.¢g. evAoyia mvevpariny in Eph. i. 3. What the xdp:opna here alluded to is, 
 we can only conjecture: its object is the confirmation of the life and faith 
 of the Roman Church, «is 7d ornpixOqva. Cf. Acts xvi. 5 ai éxxAngiat éoTe- 
 peoovro 7H mioree: Rom. Xvi. 25 7O 52 Suvapévw ids ornpigta ... @  Sdga: 
 1 Thess. iii. 2 éwéppapev Tipddeov ... eis Td ornpigar tyas, cal mapakadécat bpas 
 mept THs micTrews tpav. The pressure of adverse circumstances and human 
 weakness always threatened Christian faith and life with disintegration : 
 hence the Apostle’s anxiety. The idea of ‘ Confirmation,’—whether it be or 
 be not glanced at in the xdpioyua of this passage,—is to establish the bap- 
 tismal grace by a reinforcement from above.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. In ver. 12 a modifying explanation (totro 5é éoriv) of the Apostle’s 
 object in desiring to visit Rome, as expressed in eis To ornpixOjvat bpas, is in- 
 troduced. The Roman Christians would not be the only gainers by his 
 visit ; he himself expected to profit by it spiritually. The Apostle alone is 
 the subject of cupmapaxAnéjva:; that the readers are not is clear from év 
 tyiv, which would be superfluous if it only meant in animis vestris. év GAAnAaS 
 does not differ from dAAnAwy; but ipay te cal €vod enter more readily into 
 direct dependence on aiorews than tyiv re cat éuoi would. The zapd- 
 kAnots Which he hopes to share is one of the accompaniments of the 
 primary meaning of the word, ‘talking to with a view to producing an 
 effect, —viz. admonition, or consolation, or encouragement. See Cremer, 
 im voc. mapakadciv, p. 474. Here one of the two last would be meant. 
 Even the Apostle, the organ of so many great spiritual graces, was depen- 
 dent upon those to whom he ministered for courage and confidence ; his gifts 
 and work react upon himself. So in the holy Body—the Church—the eye 
 cannot say to the hand, or the head to the feet, xpeiav ipay obk éxw t Cor. xii. 
 ar. The % év ddAndAos iors is the one faith which lives both in the Apostle 
 and the Roman Christians ; its quasi-objective character is suggested by 
 this phrase better than it would be by 7 GAAjAov aiotis. In tpar Te Kal épod 
 the Apostle, with the delicacy of true humility, puts the Romans before 
 himself. ] 
 
 Motive 2. He longs to have some spiritual fruit («aprév) among 
 the Romans, as among the other peoples of Heathendom (13). © 
 
 [0bs. r. Before stating the second motive he encounters a tacit objection. 
 
 Obj. Why, if these were his feelings, had he not visited Rome before the 
 present time ? 
 
 Answ. He had often intended (moAAdms mpocbéunv) to do so, but had been 
 prevented by circumstances up to the present date (é€ewAvOnv dxpe TOU Sevpo). 
 (73 a.)] 
 
 [Obs. 2. (ver. 13.) The formula od 6éAw 82 duds d-yvociv is used by the Apostle to 
 introduce a statement upon which he lays particular stress; xi. 25 ; 1 Cor. 
 x. 1; xii. 1; 2 Cor. i.8; 1 Thess. iv. 13. In Phil. i. 12 ywwonxew 82 ipas 
 BovAopa. The Roman Christians might have heard of S. Paul’s intentions 
 from Aquila and Priscilla. The clause ai éxwAv6nv dxpt Tov Sedpo is paren- 
 thetical, iva xaprév «.7.A. depending on mpocOéunv. dedpo here only in New 
 
 
 

 
 I2 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Testament is used of time, though often elsewhere in later Greek. S. Paul’s 
 plans were thwarted sometimes by Satan, 1 Thess. ii. 18 ; sometimes by the 
 restraining action of the Holy Spirit, Acts xvi. 6,7; sometimes by his own 
 hesitation to intrude on the field of labour assigned to others, Rom. xv. 22; 
 2 Cor. x. 15. Here the cause of the éxwAvénv is probably stated at xy. 22, 23, 
 as found in the requirements of the many places in which Christ was un- 
 known: &06 Kai Ta ToAAG évexonTépuny TOU EOEty Tpds bpas. | 
 
 [Obs. 3. By xaprév we must understand a spiritual result of apostolical toil ; the 
 
 Apostle thinks of himself as a husbandman, 6 ¢urevoy 1 Cor. iii. 7, who 
 sows the seed of the Faith in the soil of human hearts, or in the great field 
 of Heathendom. Individual souls reconciled to Gop in Christ are the 
 Apostle’s «xaprés,—a harvest gathered in for Christ, yet also for himself, 
 since he has no other object than Christ’s glory. In the same way the 
 Philippians will secure S. Paul’s xcavxnua eis juepav Xpiorod Phil. ii. 16 ; and 
 the Thessalonians are 4 ddfa judy nal % yapa 1 Thess. ii. 20. The Lat. 
 Sructus is used similarly, Cicero, Cat. Maj. xviii. 62. There is no necessity 
 for straining ox® to mean ‘ acquire’: the Apostle is thinking of the time 
 when, his toil being over, he would possess the spiritual fruit. «ai év iptv 
 Ka0as kai év is written hastily for év ipiv xaOds nai év, or for kal év byiv Kabds 
 év. ‘Geminavit per aliquam cogitandi celeritatem «ai comparativum,’ 
 Fritzsche. In éy rois AaTois €6veow he is thinking of the Lycaonians, Acts 
 xiv. 6 sqq., the Macedonians, Acts xvi. 12, the Athenians, Acts xvii. 34.] 
 
 Motive 3. His conviction that, as Christ’s Apostle, he owes 
 the faith (c@edérns eivi) to the whole heathen world, without 
 regard to differences of nationality or of culture. Thus he 
 is eager, according to his powers (ré kar’ éué mpdOvpor), to preach 
 the gospel to the citizens of Rome also (14, 15). 
 
 _ [0bs. x. In ver. 14 the prayer to visit Rome is referred to a general principle, 
 
 viz. his Apostolic obligations to all the peoples of Heathendom. For the 
 exhaustive description of all nations by dividing them into Hellenes and 
 Barbarians, see Hor. Ep. i. 2, 7 ‘Graecia barbariae lento collisa duello.’ 
 Sen. de Ira, iii. 2. Liv. xxxi. 29 ‘cum barbaris aeternum omnibus Graecis 
 bellum est, eritque ; natura enim quae perpetua est non mutabilibus in diem 
 causis, hostes sunt.’ Thucyd.i.3. The Hellenes included the Jews among 
 the BapBapo, as the Hellenized Jew Philo does [see Q. Liber sit, cc. 11, 12 
 (T. ii. p. 455. ed. Mangey) and the Christian Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 5. 46]. 
 But the New Testament writers would have conceived of the ‘Iovdato: as con- 
 trasting with and independent of the é@vn altogether, iii. 29; ix. 24, and 
 therefore as not falling under either head of the division, especially as S. Paul 
 was not an dpeiAérns to the Jews, Gal. ii. 7. Before the Apostle’s day Greek 
 culture had become prevalent at Rome ; and the Romans associated them- 
 selves with the Hellenes, in Gabecatilae. to the barbarians. S. Paul would 
 probably therefore, from his instinctive courtesy, have thought of the Romans 
 as ‘Hellenes’: ef. Cic. de Fin. ii. 15, 49, where Greece and Italy are opposed 
 to ‘barbaria,’ although Greek authors (Polyb. y. 104, ix. 37. 5) and Plautus 
 
 
 
- ye 
 a 
 
 Introductory: ch. 1, vv. 8-17. 13 
 
 (Bil. Glor. ii. 2. 58 ; Poen. iii. 2. 21) included Romans among barbarians. The 
 second division into cogoi and dvénra is not coincident with the first ; some 
 of the Hellenes would be dvéyror. } 
 
 (Obs. 2. For épedérns seo Acts xxvi. 17 sqq. for our Lord’s words, els ods vav ce 
 
 dmooréh\kw: Gal. ii. 7 wemiorevpat 7d edayyédcov Tis dxpoBvarias: 1 Cor. ix. 
 
 16 dvaykn yap pot émixertar oval 5é po éoriv, éay pr) edbayyediCwpa: 2 Cor. 
 
 _iv. 5. The &’ of éAdBoper xdpw Kai dwooroAjy (ver. 5) implied a moral obliga- 
 
 tion or debt to be discharged—viz. the employment of the grace of the 
 Apostolate in the conversion of heathen nations. ] 
 
 (Obs. 3. In ver. 15 o¥7w has an inferential force, Acts vii. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 25—‘in 
 consequence.’ §. Paul’s sense of duty towards the Romans was a conse- 
 quence of the debt which he owed to the whole of heathendom. 70 kar’ 
 éué mpd@vpov is taken (1) 7d Kat’ éué, mpd@vpov, ‘so far as I am concerned 
 there is eagerness,’ mpd@upov being subject and éori supplied, or (2) 7é is 
 connected with mpé@vpov and Kar’ évé taken as = pov, To mpddupdy pov [éoriv] 
 «.7.A., ‘my earnest inclination is,’ &c., or (3) 76 war’ évé is treated as sub- 
 ject, and mpé@vupoy as predicate. ‘All that depends on my efforts is ready.’ 
 Meyer adopts (3) ‘ the inclination on my part is to preach,’ &e. So Winer, 
 Gk. N. T. p. 289 [but he adopts (2) p. 294]. The words 70 kar’ éué express 
 his sense of dependence upon Gop, and are in antithesis to év 7@ OeAnpart 
 Tov Qeov ver. 10. } 
 
 (Obs. 4. kat bpiv rots év ‘Pwun. He is addressing members of the Church in 
 Rome, with whom, however, he assuciates in thought for the moment their 
 heathen fellow-citizens. If he owed the Gospel to the heathen world, he 
 owed it especially to Rome, the émrop7 ris oixovpévns, Athenaeus Deipnos. I. 
 p. 20 B. But the magnificence of Rome leads him to think of the work 
 which he is proposing to take in hand. If he might shrink from putting 
 himself forward, he is not ashamed of the Gospel. | 
 
 Motive 4. His sense of the greatness of his work, stated negatively, 
 as not being ashamed of the Gospel of Christ (ver. 16 a). 
 
 [Obs. This motive is a reason (yap) for the preceding mpd@vpov. . . . evayyedi- 
 cac@a. The negative form of his statement is to be accounted for (1) by his 
 sense of the impression produced among unbelievers by the Doctrine of the 
 Cross. 6 Adyos yap 6 Tod aravpov Tos pey amoAAvpévois pwpia éoriv I Cor. i. 
 18; 2 Tim. i. 8; and (2) by the indignities to which he had been exposed in 
 Athens (oreppoddéyos Acts xvii. 18), in Corinth, and in Ephesus. It might 
 have been supposed that with his practical experience of the minds of men 
 he would see in the Gospel something intrinsically worthless, through 
 which no honour could be gained, and by the continued advocacy of which 
 a clever man could only bring discredit and contempt upon himself. Cf. 
 2 Tim. i. 12 & Hy airiay kal tadra ndcxm, Kal ovx emacxvvopa, oda yap w 
 memiotevea, énaoxtvopa, like aicxvvoua, with acc. of the object: cf. 
 Meyer.] , 
 
 § 1st Reason (ydp) for Motive 4 (ver. 16 b). The Gospel is 
 
14 . The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 calculated to provoke ae shame but enthusiasm on account of it. 
 For it is 
 
 i. in itself—a Power from Gop (divapis Gcov), 
 
 ii, in its purpose—working for the salvation of man (és 
 owrtnpiav), 
 
 iii, in its range—destined for every believing human being 
 (xayrl 7G morevovre) with due recognition of the prior 
 claim of the Jews, as the covenant-people (Iovdaim re 
 mparov kai EAAnu) (ver. 16), 
 
 [Obs. 1. The words dvvayis cod eis owrnpiay navtt To morevov7: are the fullest and 
 deepest definition of the Gospel. See Origen in loc. By evayyéArov the 
 Apostle means, not the proclamation of the good news, from heaven, but asin 
 vers. I, 9, the good news itself. Of this he says that it is (1) in itself d¥vapes 
 @cod (gen. origin) a Power going forth from Gop, into the human world. 
 Such dvvayus may be destructive, Matt. x. 28 roy duvapuevoy nal puxiy Kat 
 o@pa dnoréou év yeevyy : its character is here determined by the context. The 
 dvvapus from Gop manifested in the Gospel is seen in its results upon the 
 characters and lives of men, in this world and upon their destiny hereafter, 
 Hence, 
 
 [Obs. 2. The Gospel is (2) in its purpose eis gwrnpiav. The owrnpia here meant is 
 not social or political, but that eternal owrnpia which was always associated 
 with the promise of a Messiah. In classical Greek the word stands for 
 prosperity, happiness ; cf. tod xowod 7 owrnpia Thue. ii. 60. 4. The Hebrew 
 myw combines both meanings. In the New Testament (excepting Acts vii. 
 25 ; ; XXvii. 34; Heb. xi. 7, where it is used in the general sense as = salva- 
 tion ; and Rev. vii. 10 7 cwrTnpia TO O€@ Hydv : xii. 10; xix. 1, where it ex- 
 presses an ascription of praise like AAy wn Ps. eS, 25) it means 
 salvation from sin here and from eternal death hereafter. Cf.S. Luke i. 71, 77. 
 It is contrasted with @dvaros, 2 Cor. vii. 10; with dpy7, 1 Thess. v.9; 8. John 
 iv.22; with dmwdAea, Phil. i. 28. Our cased is xépas owrnpias S. Luke i. 69; 
 He has won owrnpia aiwvos Heb. v. 9; the preaching of His Apostles is 
 6 Adyos THs Gwrnpias ravrns Acts xiii. 26 ; the Gospel is 76 evayyédtoy Tijs cwTN- 
 plas bpav Eph. i. 13 ; the Christian life, 650s cwrnpias Acts xvi. 17; the span 
 of each man’s life, jmépa owrnpias 2 Cor. vi, 2. Cf. Is. xlix. 8. In its com- 
 pleteness it is still future, and is an object of hope; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Thess. 
 v. 8 éAmiéa owrnpias: Heb. i. 14 kAnpovopeiv owrnpiay: ix. 28 dpOjoera Trois 
 avtod dmexdexouévas eis cwrnpiay: 1S. Pet.i. 5; Rom. xiii. 11 viv yap éyyvre- 
 pov Hpuav % owrnpia, i) bre émorevoapey, Thus owrnpia includes the whole of 
 Christ’s redemptive work in the soul of man, which begins in justification 
 and sanctification here, and is completed in endless happiness hereafter, 
 See Cremer, Lexicon s, ». and owe, pp. 827 and 824. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The Gospel is (3), in point of range, destined ray7t 76 morevovn. This 
 may7i is resolved into “Iovdaiw re mp@rov xai"EAAnu. As from the Greek point 
 of view, mankind is divided into “EAAnves and BapBapo (ver. 14), so from the 
 
 _ Jewish point of view they are “Iovdaton and ’EAAqves, Every man who was 
 
 
 
L[utroductory: ch. J, vv.s8-17. 15 
 
 not a Jew was, since the date of Antiochus Epiphanes, an “EAAny Acts xiv. 1, 
 I Cor, x. 32, i. e. a heathen—the foremost race of which, in Jewish eyes, is 
 put for the whole of heathendom. The Gospel is destined for every human 
 being ; but among the races of men, the Jews have a first claim to consider- 
 ation, mp@roy refers, not merely or chiefly to the fact that in the order of 
 time the Gospel was to be preached first to the Jews (S. Chrys. in loc.), but 
 to the promises, in virtue of which this order was observed, and which gave 
 the Jews a prior right, to it. They are the children of the Kingdom, S. 
 Matt. viii. r2. Cf. Rom. iii, 1; ix. 1seq.; xi. 16; xv.9, But, for them, as 
 for all others, faith was an indispensable condition for making the Gospel 
 eis gwrnpiav: hence movevov7t. This introduces the Thesis of the Epistle, 
 which is a reason for the immediately preceding statement. } 
 
 § 2nd Reason (dependent on 1st reason) for Motive 4. In the 
 Gospel the Righteousness which God gives is disclosed as being 
 from first to last dependent on faith in man (ver. 17). 
 
 [Obs. This-is a justification (yap) of the immediately preceding (ver. 16) state- 
 ment that the Gospel is a dvvayis Oeod eis cwrnpiav. Man can only be saved by 
 being as he should ‘be according to the Law of his Creator, and this is only 
 possible if Gop gives him the moral endowment by which he becomes so, 
 viz. d:maoodvn, and which he must receive by that effort of his intellectual 
 and moral being, which is called zioris.] 
 
 Tuesis oF THE EpIsTLE (ver. 17). 
 
 In the Gospel the Righteousness which Gop gives (S:xatoodvy Ocod) 
 is revealed as depending on Faith, and as producing the faith on 
 which it depends (é« micrews eis riotw), 
 
 [Obs. 1. Sixaroovvn is that relationship to dixn or Right which fulfils its claims; 
 which makes a moral being what he should be. As rights imply a person, 
 Sixacoodvn always has reference either to Gop or to man, whether other men 
 or the agent. Aixn isin pagan language Right (as apprehended by estab- 
 lished usage,—the best available criterion), and so personified as the 
 daughter of Zeus and Themis; this abstract divinity is mentioned Acts 
 XXviii. 4. The conception is also treated as personified in Wisd. i. 8 ovde 
 mapodevon avTov 7 Sikn. Elsewhere dixn appears in the LXX only in its. 
 narrower post-Homeric sense of judgment; and thus it is used to translate 
 }" Psalm ix. 4, and 0/) Lev. xxvi. 25; Deut. xxxii. 41; Ezek. xxv. 12. In 
 the New Testament we find Sinny aitety xara twos ‘to demand justice,’ Acts 
 XXYV. 15; diknvy inéxew Jude 7, ‘to render justice,’ of those who undergo 
 punishment so as to maintain the Right violated by them, and dixny tivew 
 2 Thess. i. 9, ‘to give satisfaction,’ to pay the debt of right by being punished. 
 The dixuos then is the moral being who fulfils all the claims of Right ; who 
 is as he should be. In Homer the dixaos is the man who does his duty 
 towards gods and men; Nagelsbach (Nachhomerische Theologie), pp. 237 ff., says 
 that in the Ethics of Homer there is no separation of the spheres of rights, 
 
16 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 of morals and of religion. In post-Homerie Greek, dicaos refers [mainly] 
 to the sphere of social life. The c#ppwy who keeps within the limits 
 marked out for him by the rights of others is the dicaos, and thus dixatos is 
 used when we might expect cwppwv. The dixaos remembers that he will 
 die ; he brings his life and conduct into correspondence with the true con- 
 ditions of his being and so is hardly distinguishable from the eiceBjs. 
 Hence the word was employed by the LXX to translate pI¥ (Fuerst 
 ‘rectum esse, planum esse’), in a state conformable to right, i. e. to Gop, as 
 revealed in the Moral Law. PJ¥ means conformity to the Jewish Law on 
 the ground that the Law is a revelation of Right; and thus it is translated 
 by dicacoctyn. 
 
 The principle of d:caocvvn then is always the same, viz. conformity to 
 Right, but the actual moral attainments which it represents vary with the 
 varying conceptions of din, and with the subjects to which it is attributed. 
 A rough practical definition of its current meaning in Pagan society occurs 
 in Plat. Rep. iv. 433 a 76 7a airod mparrew Kal pr) moAumpaypoveiv dikaocvvn 
 éoriv. As applied to Gop it describes His perfect correspondence with the 
 necessary and eternal Laws of His moral nature, Ps. 1.6; Rom. iii. 5. He 
 is the true standard of Absolute Right to Himself, as to all other moral 
 beings. The Biblical sense of d:xa:ocdvy, therefore, is that conformity to Right 
 which Gop enjoins and of which He is the standard. Thus the Christian 
 is 6 xara @edv KricGels év Sixacootvy Eph. iv. 24. He is to-seek first of all 
 Gop’s kingdom, and tiv d:xcaoadvny airod S. Matt. vi. 33, and to remember 
 that human passions d:caoctvvnv Ocod ob karepyatera S. James i. 20. In these 
 two cases @cov is apparently a genitive qualitatis ; and the phrase describes 
 that Righteousness of which Gop is the standard and which He expects at 
 the hands of Christians. 
 
 diuxaoctvn, however, is presented to us in the New Testament under 
 two leading aspects, as a standard or principle of human conduct, and as 
 a gift from Gop to man, in virtue of which man may tranquilly await Gop’s 
 judgment. 
 
 a. It is frequently viewed as a standard or ideal of human conduct, or as 
 good human conduct itself: Matt. iii. 15 mAnp®oa: macay dixaocdvny : Acts 
 X. 35 épyatecOa Sixaioctyyy : Heb. xi. 33; S. James i. 20. The expression 
 moeiy dSixaoovvny is peculiar to S. John: 1 S. John iii. 10; Rev. xxii. rz. 
 Thus it is also treated as if it were an abstract force or principle, of which 
 the organs of human life should be the weapons or instruments, dma d:xato- 
 ovvns Rom. vi. 13; as being enslaved to it, do0Aa 7H Sixarocotvp Rom. vi. 19; 
 and from which sinners are fatally emancipated, éAcvOepa Fre TH Sixacooivy 
 Rom. vi. 20. Yet it is fertile and productive, as if instinct with the life of 
 a parent or a plant, so 2 Cor. ix. 10 yevyjyara THs Sixacoovvns: Phil. i. 11 
 kaprov Sixaocvvns. It is the sphere in which Gop is to be served, S. Luke i. 
 75; and it is a breastplate, which protects the soul against the assaults of 
 Evil, Eph. vi. 14 rév Owpaxa ris dixatoovvns. It excites the hunger and thirst 
 of holy souls, of mew@vres nat Supdvres tiv dixaocivny S. Matt. v. 6; Christ’s 
 disciples are to seek it first of all things, S. Matt. vi. 33. 
 
 b. But it is often considered as a gift from Gop to man, Rom. v. 16 7d 
 dépnya ... 70 xdpiopa, and ver. 17 } dwped THs dexarogvvys, so that by it, many 
 
 
 
Introductory : ch. 1, vv. 8-17. 17 
 
 dina KaTacTadncovra, ver. 19. Indeed in the dogmatic language of S. Paul 
 diucacoctvn Ocov means the Righteousness which Gop bestows on Man, Rom. i. 
 I7; ili. 5, 21, 22, 25, 26; x. 3; 2 Cor. v.21. This appears, partly from the 
 passages which attribute Justification to Gop; (Rom. iii. 30 6s dicanwoa riv 
 mepiropnv: iv. 5 6 Sixaav tov doeBH: Vili. 33 Oeds 6 Sieat@y:) and partly 
 from the expansion of the expression in Phil. iii. 9 into 4 €# Ocod Sixaroovvn. 
 By nature all men are dé&«o, and as such inddicoc 74 @c@ Rom. iii. 19. 
 From this condition man cannot free himself by any efforts of his own ; he 
 cannot really obey the Law; he can only recover his true relation to Gop 
 and to himself by partaking in that true S:ca:oodvn which Gop gives us, 
 out of His free grace, in Christ, Who (1) by His Atoning Death, expiated 
 the guilt of the race which He represented, and (2) by His Spirit, enables 
 fallen man évévcacOa tov Kavov dvOpwror, Tov KaTa Ocdy KTiGbEVTA ev Kikatoowy 
 Eph. iv. 24. For the Holy Spirit, by Whom % dyamn rod Ocod éxxéxuta ev 
 tais kapdiais juav Rom, v. 5, does thereby purify and strengthen the will 
 and work a true &:aoovvn within us. The d:aoc¥vn then which Gop gives 
 includes these two elements ; acquittal of the guilt of sin, or justification in 
 the narrower sense of the word, and the communication of a new moral 
 life, iva 76 Sixaiwpa Tod vopov TAnpwOn év Hyiv Rom. viii. 4. These two sides 
 of the gift of d:caocvvn can only be separated in thought ; in fact, they are 
 inseparable, Man is actually and inwardly freed from the guilt of sin at the 
 moment when that sanctifying grace, which is the Holy Ghost Himself, 
 streams into man’s heart; and each effort flows directly from the action of 
 faith directed upon Gop’s redeeming mercy in Christ. The d:cacootvn which 
 is objectively won by Christ for the whole human family, becomes subjective to 
 each individual man by faith ; the Sitaocvvn Ocod becomes a dSixaoovvy erh- 
 mov Tov ©cov for the individual, by faith. 
 
 Opposed to this d:catoovvn Ocod is Phil. iii. 9 4} Epi) Sixacoodyyn % ex TOD vopov. 
 This imperfect and false righteousness is thus contrasted with the true, (1) 
 as being a man’s own work in himself. It is éu7 and idia, not @cod ; the fruit 
 of private and personal effort, and not Gon’s gracious gift. Thus Rom. x. 3, 
 the Jews dyvootrytes tiv Tod Oe0d Sikaoctvnv Kal tH idiay Sixaroovyny Cnrodv- 
 TES OTHOAaL, TH Sixaoc’yyn TOV Oeod ovx bmeraynoay : (2) as being a product of 
 the Jewish Law. It is 4 é# rod vdpou, not éx miorews. But a real righteous- 
 ness under the law was, according to the law itself, impossible, For it 
 could only be achieved by an exact obedience: Rom. x. 5 Mwojjs yap ypape 
 Tihv Sikawoctvny tiv éx Tod vdpov, “Ore 6 momncas aiTd dvOpwros (noeTar ev 
 avrois, And hence it followed that Gal. iii. 11 év véum oddels Siarodra mapa 
 7® @c@, The righteousness which was attained was, when judged by a 
 divine standard, worthless, as being imperfect, both in its motives and in 
 its range. This incapacity of the legal system to produce real Righteous- 
 ness was implied in the gift of the Gospel, which, when received by faith, 
 does ensure the gift of Righteousness and Life: Gal. iii, 21 ef ydp e500n 
 vopos 6 Suvdpevos Gwomorjoa, dvtTws av éx vopou hy % Deri ceyelt, 
 
 To this false righteousness, worked out by man’s natural powers under 
 the system of the Law, is opposed the freely-given Righteousness of Gop, re- 
 ceived by faith in Jesus Christ. This true Righteousness is one, not two, 
 or more. The maxim ‘justitia alia justificationis, sanctificationis alia’ is 
 not S. Paul’s. S. Paul knows nothing of an external Righteousness which 
 is reckoned without being given to man; and the Righteousness which 
 
 c 
 
18 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 faith receives is not external only but internal, not imputed only but im- 
 parted to the believer. Justification and sanctification may be distinguished 
 by the student, as are the arterial and nervous systems in the human body ; 
 but in the living soul they are coincident and inseparable. 
 
 [Obs. 2. In the Gospel the dxaoctvn @cod is being revealed, droxadvmrera. It 
 has for ages been a pvornpoy hidden (xvi. 25) in the Eternal Counsels, 
 though darkly hinted at in the Old Testament, Rom. iv. 3 sqq. The Apostles 
 are unveiling it by their preaching (1) the droAvtpwois from sin effected by 
 Christ’s Atoning Death, which implies His obedientia activa, of which His 
 Death was the climax, and His Divinity, which imparted to His Death its 
 immeasurable value, and (2) the need and power of faith in the recipient 
 of this divinely-imparted Righteousness. } 
 
 [Obs. 3. The expression é« miorews eis miary may be variously taken as it is con- 
 nected with dmoxadvmrera: or with &xaoovvy. The first construction is 
 natural and that of many fathers. Thus (1) é« miorews is [referred to] the faith 
 of the Apostle, or of the preachers of the Gospel, and eis mio7w to that of the 
 hearers ; so Sedulius, ‘ ex fide praedicantium in fidem credentium.’ Or (2) 
 _€« miotTews refers to the imperfect faith of the Jewish Church, and els miorw 
 to the complete faith of the Gospel ; so Tertullian, ‘ex fide legis in fidem 
 evangelii.’ To this the objection lies in év ad7@: éx micrews too is within the 
 range of the Gospel. The Apostle in this epistle only discusses a dueaoovvn 
 which the Gospel reveals. Or (3) é« miorews is the imperfect faith which first 
 receives the Gospel, and «is miorv the stronger faith which is the fruit and 
 reward of its reception: cf. Ps. Ixxxiv. 7 They will go from strength to 
 strength ; 2 Cor. iii. 18 perapoppovpeba dd ddéns eis 5dfav. This does not suit 
 the connection, The Apostle is not discussing the progress of the Divine 
 Life in Man, but he is insisting on the fact that in the Gospel a new way is 
 opened to attain the S:aoctvn cov, viz. the way of faith. Thus (4) it 
 seems best to take é« micrews as denoting the starting-point of man’s re- 
 ceiving d:xaoctvn Oeov, and «is nio7wv as pointing to the permanent con- 
 dition of its reception. (In this case the abstract «is miomy is practically 
 equivalent to the concrete eis rdv morevovra. So Oecumenius, in loc. : amd 
 miorews dpxera kal €is TOY moTevoayTa Anye.) The Righteousness of Gop 
 in Man dates from the act of faith which receives Jesus Christ, and 
 tends to produce faith, eis mic, as a condition of its being continuously 
 imparted. It is only given to the man who continues to believe. Hence 
 the S:xaocvvn Ocov is also called 4 xara miorw Sieaootvn Heb. xi. 7, and 
 Sixacoowvn ths micrews Rom. iv. 11, or miorews ib. 13, and Sicaocivyn H ex 
 miatews Rom. ix. 30; % é« mioTews dunarocvvn Rom. x. 6. 
 
 1. miors is used in the LXX. to translate MOX, firmness, constancy 
 (from PON}, to hold trustworthy, Hiph. of DN, unusual except in par- 
 ticiple, to support). The Hebrew substantive always has the passive 
 sense of trustworthiness, constancy, and is rendered in the LXX. by daq- 
 Gea, or by mists in this same passive sense. But constancy under suf- 
 fering would in an Israelite imply belief in Gop; men ‘endured as 
 seeing Him that is invisible.’ Thus the passive meaning of the word 
 suggested the active; and this is already the case in Hab. ii. 4, where 
 
 
 
Introductory : ch. 1, vv. 8-17. 19 
 
 even 378 seems to hover between the active and passive meanings ; 
 and §. Paul quotes the LXX rendering because he understands mio7s in 
 the former of these. See Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 154 ff., ed. 1890. 
 
 2. The Greek word itself seems to have had originally an active sense, 
 and to have gradually acquired the passive, which, except in Hab. ii. 4, 
 it always bears in the Old Testament, although in the Apocrypha the 
 active sense seems to be reasserting itself, Eeclus. xlvi. 15; xlix. 10; 
 tr Mace. ii. 52, quoted by Lightfoot, ubi supr. While the passive sense 
 is found in Rom. iii. 3 7)v rictw Tod Ocod, the fidelity of Gop, the active 
 sense is the usual one, especially in S. Paul’s writings. He uses aiotis, 
 mateve to describe an act or state of living adhesion on the part of the 
 human soul to the way of salvation revealed by Gop. 
 
 3. S. Paul then uses faith in the sense of being persuaded that some- 
 thing out of the range of experience is true, on the ground that Gop, 
 where wisdom and goodness make it impossible that He should deceive 
 or be deceived, has revealed it. morevew is used in the popular sense 
 of holding to be true, being persuaded of the truth of something, in such 
 passages as Rom. vi. 8 marevopey dt wal ov(noovey: Rom. x. 9 édv morev- 
 ons év TH Kxapdia cov, Ste 6 Oeds iyeipey adTov ex vexpav, owOnon; and a half- 
 formed persuasion is described in 1 Cor. xi. 18 wal pépos Tt moredw, In 
 these passages we have before us a conviction which does not depend 
 upon grounds of ocular demonstration, or of sensuous experience. Where 
 the grounds of a conviction are per se irresistible, the result is not faith 
 but scientific knowledge; and faith differs from this in that it always 
 implies the presence of a moral factor, which atones for the deficiency 
 of evidence, mathematically speaking, and makes the act of belief a 
 criterion of the moral condition of the believer. This contrast between 
 belief and science, in the strictly modern sense of the latter word, is ex- 
 pressed by S. Paul, 2 Cor. v. 7 did wiorews mepimarodpev ob id eidous, In the 
 same way, Rom. iv. 18, Abraham, map’ éAmida én’ éAmidi éniorevoev, believed 
 in the truth of what Gop had told him to expect, in spite of natural ex- 
 pectations founded upon experience to the contrary. This accords with 
 the definition of faith in Heb. xi. 1, as an éAm(opévew inéaracts, mpayyd- 
 Tov édeyxos ov BAeropevwy ; faith, by reason of the moral ingredient in it, 
 does amount to proof, and yields substantial support to the [expectation]. 
 
 4. Thus it is that faith always supposes a witness to its object, and so 
 it differs from olecOa, vopifav, «.7.A. This witness must produce creden- 
 tials, whether miracles or character or both ; ‘ the works that I do bear wit- 
 ness of me.’ Miracles do not warrant a creed, but they do certificate a 
 teacher who announces it, and who, on the strength of them, is believed 
 as to matters beyond the province of experience. Such a teacher, and 
 his doctrine, are a necessary condition of faith, Rom. x. 17 mloms é€ 
 dxo7s; and ver. 14 mas 58 morevcovow 00 obK Heovoav; mas 5& dxodaovat 
 xwpis knptooovros. And the production of faith is graphically deseribed 
 in Acts xxviii. 23, 24, where S. Paul, in Rome, éferiero d:apaprupdpevos 
 tiv Bagtrelav Tod Cod, neiOav TE aiTods TA mEpt TOD "Invod .... Kal of pév 
 émeiBovro Tois Aeyouévois, of Se Hricrovy. Faith is thus an act partly of the 
 
 _ intelligence and partly of the will, to which the soul is moved by the 
 
 C2 
 
20 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 words of an authoritative teacher, whether spoken or written, but which 
 it may fail or refuse to engage in. The teacher is believed because he 
 is held to represent Gop; hence the phrases morevew eis Ocdv: ent 
 @cdv, Rom. x. 14; iv. 5. 24, in which the believing act is represented as 
 moving towards or as resting upon Gop, and which thus are equivalent 
 to morevev Oca. 
 
 5. Of the particular truths which are more immediately apprehended by 
 justifying faith it will be time to speak hereafter. Here let it be noted 
 that such faith is not, in 8. Paul’s mind, a bare holding either the Atoning 
 Work of Christ or any other truths of Revelation for true: it is a loving 
 and soul-constraining self-surrender to them, so that they are grasped by 
 the moral no less than by the intellectual man. The mere apprehension, 
 which is divorced from all will and love, would not be called mioms by 
 S. Paul at all; it was the travesty of his mio7is, which his antinomian 
 followers advocated, and which S. James condemned as vexpa (ii. 17). S. Paul 
 would probably have at the best termed it yv@o.s and have contrasted it 
 disparagingly with dya77. With S. Paul, justifying faith is always practically 
 inseparable from hope and love ; it is bé0Taa1s éAm(ouévwy (Heb. xi. 1) and 
 it is &’ dydamns évepyoupevn (Gal. v. 6). It may be parted from them in our 
 ideas ; but it is bound up with them in the living fact ; and thus the faith 
 which justifies (Rom. iii. 28\, was rightly described by the schoolmen as a 
 ‘fides formata charitate. Love is its forma, its vivifying and plastic 
 principle ; and accordingly it brings man into a vital communion with 
 Christ, fills him with devotion to Gop, and by uniting him with the 
 Crucified Saviour, now living in Glory, cleanses him from his sins, and gives 
 him a real share in the righteousness of the Saviour which is communicated 
 to him. 
 
 On this subject Luther uses language which is sometimes, but incorrectly, 
 attributed to S. Paul. Luther understands by faith, in some of the most 
 characteristic passages of his Commentary on the Galatians, the bare act of 
 apprehending Christ : he urges that, if charity be also needful, the sinner 
 will despair ; he is almost indignant with the text in which S. Paul says 
 that if he had all faith so that he could remove mountains, and had not 
 charity, he is nothing. Probably, by this language Luther meant at bottom 
 to say that the justifying power of faith lies not in itself, but only in 
 Christ whom it embraces ; and Luther saw in love a trace of human effort 
 or merit, instead of a gift of the Redeemer through preventive grace. And 
 so he was betrayed into the language which has so often been quoted and 
 which would have shocked the great Apostle whom he undertook to 
 interpret, ‘Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in 
 Christo,’ Luther, Epistt. (Jena, 1556), tom. 1, pp. 345, 6. For such faith love 
 was not necessary ; such faith rendered man perfectly acceptable to Gop, 
 without sanctifying him; to such faith Christ’s righteousness was an 
 external object—the justified believer might still be impure. Instead of 
 a morally renovating and vital principle, placing man in real communion 
 with Christ, and securing a real communication of his righteousness, we have 
 a bare apprehension of it, resulting in an imputation of righteousness 
 which is not really communicated at all. 
 
 Luther saw that there was a great deal of language in Scripture which © 
 this theory of faith would not cover, and which was more or less distinctly 
 
 
 
Introductory: ch. 1, vv. 8-17. 21 
 
 opposed toit. Hence the distinction between the instrumental faith which 
 justifies, and the faith which is a source of good works and which works by 
 charity. The latter kind of faith is described by Luther in glowing terms in 
 his preface to the Epistle to the Romans, ‘ Faith,’ he says, ‘is a Divine work 
 within us, which changes us, makes us to be born again out of Gop, destroysthe 
 old Adam, and transforms us as it were into other men, in heart, in feeling, in 
 every faculty, and communicates to us the Holy Spirit. This faith is some- 
 thing living and efficacious ; so that it is impossible that it should not always 
 work good. Faith does not first ask whether good works are to be done ; 
 but before it enquires about the matter it has already wrought many good 
 works and is ever busy in working.’ It would be impossible to state the 
 Pauline idea of faith more fully ; but then this was the only faith to which 
 S. Paul allowed any justifying power. The conception of a twofold faith, 
 one only apprehensive and justifying, and the other loving, practical and 
 sanctifying, has no basis in S. Paul, and is the creation of a theory which 
 has seen its day. | 
 
 § Accordance of the Thesis with Hab. ii. 4, which promises life to 
 the man whose Righteousness depends on faith, 
 
 Heb. Aypy inoya pry 
 LXX 6 8€ Sixatos pod ek wicrews Cyoerat. 
 
 [Obs. 1. This is the second line of the prophecy respecting the ungodly power of 
 the Chaldaeans, which follows the Divine answer to Habakkuk’s ery for 
 light. The fundamental thought of all that follows is contained in ii. 4, 
 viz., that the presumptuous and proud, notwithstanding appearances, will 
 not continue, but the just alone will live. By the man puffed up MJBY, 
 is meant the Chaldaean ; his soul is not straight within him, and this 
 portends moral and ultimately material ruin. In contrast to him is the 
 p18 the typical Israelite, or the prophet himself, who desires to satisfy the 
 claims of Gop according to the terms of the Old Testament revelation. He, 
 the righteous, through his faith, will live. in2N2 belongs not to PTS 
 but to MNT}, MN here does not mean an ‘honourable character or fidelity 
 
 to conviction’ (Hitzig). Derived from jI0N it means (1) firmness, Ex. xvii. 12, 
 then (2) in Gop, faithfulness to His promises, Deut. xxxii. 4 ; Ps. xxxiii. 4 ; 
 lxxxix. 33, and (3) in man, fidelity in word and deed, Jer. vii. 28 ; ix. 3; Ps. 
 XXXVii. 3 ; and (4) in his relation to Gop firm confidence in Him. That in Hab. 
 
 ii. 4, 798 refers to a relation between man and Gop is clear from the con- 
 text ; the prophet is waiting for a promised [vision], preceded by a period of 
 editor It was not Habakkuk’s integrity towards man, but his faith in 
 Gop which was imperilled. The JON of the just is opposed to the pride 
 of the Chaldaean who exalts himself above Gop, and thus it must mean not 
 integrity but some quality antithetical to pride,—humble, trustful, submis- 
 sive. Hence the Jewish intt. and LXX render it by faith. See Keil, in loc. 
 Dr. Pusey, Minor Prophets, in loc.] 
 
 [Obs. 2, The LXX have changed the suffix and rendered é micreds pou instead of 
 
22 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 airod or éavrod (so Aquila and other Greek verses). They have thus missed 
 the sense. S. Paul omits the erroneous pov of the LXX without restoring 
 the avrod. | , 
 
 [Obs. 3. In Gal. iii. 12, the verse is quoted to show that the law cannot secure 
 justification ; é* miorews is antithetical to 6 mojoas. In Heb. x. 38 asa 
 reason for patient faithfulness to Christ, under the pressure of persecutions 
 
 which tempted to apostacy. Here, although the Hebrew does not bear it — 
 
 out, S. Paul seems to connect é« ticTews not with ¢noera but with 6 dicaos. 
 
 The man whose Righteousness is that of faith shall live. The purpose of his 
 
 appeal to the passage is to confirm from the Old Testament the reyeliga>) 
 not of the life é miarews, but of the righteousness é« mioTews. | 
 
 api! Weve be niediotee tt Mg 8% stor ch py air heen 0st aa 
 i sak ibd Hs oR eS ea re ae agen mee ut 
 aus Halt a Com tie reat ed 
 
 | if Lael et Gane uh 
 
 et Re aap 
 . ae fad ary 
 
 
 
 Se en ee 
 
 
 
 OF Ke OF Eg Sh VE" 
 
DOGMATIC PORTION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Drviston I. *° Omar: (Ee 18—V- ax. 
 
 THE AIKAIOSYNH OEOY EK MISTEQS CONSIDERED OBJECTIVELY, WITH 
 REFERENCE TO THE FACTS OF HUMAN NATURE AND 
 RELIGIOUS HISTORY, 
 
 All men need this S:ikatoodvn Ocod. I. 18—III. 20. 
 [Obs. The argument of this section may be thus stated :— 
 Major Whosoever sins, incurs 7d xpiva tod @eod, from which he can only 
 premiss. be delivered by the d:carogdvn Ocod (ii. 1-16). 
 
 Minor But the heathen, although taught by Nature and Conscience (i. 18- 
 premiss. 32), and the Jews, although possessing the Mosaic Law (ii. 
 17-iii. 8), have sinned by falling short of, or contradicting, 
 
 their respective standards of d:cacootvn. 
 
 Conel. Therefore, as the Old Testament had already proclaimed, é1édicos 
 
 yivera was 6 Kéopos rT Oc@ (iii. 19), and accordingly needs His 
 dixaocvvy (iii. g-20).] 
 
 ori: 
 
 (Minor premiss, part 1.) The Heathen Nations, taught by 
 Nature and Conscience, have failed to attain dixaocvvy 
 
 (I. 18-32). 
 
 [0bs. That the heathen have failed to attain d:avosivn, or, in other words, 
 are sinners, needing Gop’s Righteousness, is shown from a review of the 
 downward moral course of the heathen world. In it too, as in the 
 Gospel, there is an dmoxdéAvyis, but an dmoxddvfis dpyfs, and not dimaoav- 
 vns @eov. This is stated generally in ver. 18.] 
 
 Proposition. The moral history of heathendom is a revelation of 
 Gonv’s Wrath against all impiety and unrighteousness of men 
 who repress, by their unrighteousness, the promptings of truth 
 [as taught by nature and conscience]. 
 
24 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 1. This verse is a reason (yap) for Sicaoodvn in ver. 17. That riots is the 
 condition of an dmoxddAviyis THs Sikaocvvns is shown by the fact that where 
 mioris does not exist as in heathendom, there is an droxaAvyis, not of Divine 
 Righteousness, but of Divine Wrath. é»77) Ocov is antithetical to d:caocvvy 
 cod, and dm’ odpavod to év eiayyedig. | 
 
 [Ols. 2. épyn primarily denotes force or impulse of the soul; dpyaw is used of 
 [swelling or maturing] plants, or of brute animal impulses. In Attic 
 Greek it means, not the affection itself, but its expression in roused feeling. 
 When used of Gop it is opposed to éAeos, Rom. ix. 22, and means Gop’s wrath 
 against sin, the effect of which is to exclude from redemption, Heb. iii. 11, iv. 
 3; 1 Thess. v. 9. Hence it is contrasted in its effects with d:aodv, Rom. v. 
 9, and its manifestation in the imputation and punishment of sin is implied 
 in Rom. ii. 5 jmépa épyis : Rom. iv. 15 vdpos épyiv carepyacetac : Rom. iii, 5 6 
 émpépwy TI opynv, said of Gop; ix. 22 béAwy 6 Oeds evbci~acOae tiv dpyny, ib. 
 oxevn opyns: Eph. ii. 3 réxva dpyns: x Thess. ii. 16 épOace én adtrots @ dpy? 
 eis TéXos. The anthropopathic expression épyi) ©cotv—the disposition of the 
 Personal Gop towards moral evil—is the reverse side of His love. He 
 could not love goodness if He were not angry with evil. Lactantius, De 
 Ira Dei, v. 9 ‘Si Deus non irascitur impiis et injustis, nee pios utique 
 justosque diligit, .... In rebus enim divinis aut in utramque partem 
 moveri necesse est aut in neutram.’ Lactantius will not allow that Gop’s 
 épyn exists only effectu, and not affectu; it is, he urges, a real affection 
 in the Divine Being which is roused by moral evil. Tertullian in the 
 same sense writes against Marcion, who in his attack upon the Old 
 Testament had feigned a ‘Deus bonus’ who was incapable of anger. See . 
 Tert. Contr. Marcion. i, 26 ‘Stupidissimus ergo qui non offenditur facto 
 quod non amat fieri; ... si offenditur, debet irasci, si irascitur, debet 
 ulcisci.” De Anima, c. 16 ‘Indignabitur Deus rationaliter, quibus scilicet 
 debet ; et concupiscet Deus rationaliter quae digna sunt ipso.’ The dread 
 of anthropomorphism led to more cautious language in the great fathers. 
 S. Aug. Enchiridion, c. 10 ‘Ex humanis motibus translato vocabulo, vin- 
 dicta ejus quae nonnisi justa est, irae nomen accepit.’ Civ. Dei, xv. 25, 
 Gop’s anger is ‘judicium quo irrogatur poena peccato.’ Meyer denounces 
 this as a rationalising interchange of ideas. See Suicer, s. v. épyn, Petavius, 
 Dogm. Theol. ‘De Deo,’ iii. 2. 14-16. For anger in man, see Bp. Butler, 
 Eighth Sermon on Resentment, where he shows that a sense of injury, as 
 distinct from pain or loss, is its proper object. ] 
 
 [0bs. 3. The revelation of the wrath of Gop. which is here in question, is actually 
 taking place (dmoxaAvmrerat) in the heathen world. It is seen in the 
 punishment of unfaithfulness to natural light, which will presently be de- 
 scribed : cf. napéiwxev adtovs (vers. 24, 28). That it is not a revelation of 
 wrath in the Gospel which is in question is clear from the contrast between 
 dm’ ovpayod ver. 18, and év av’7@ in ver. 17, although some interpreters 
 would repeat éy aivé in ver. 18. This dmoxddAvyis of Divine wrath in 
 heathen history is said to be dm’ odpayod in order to point to the source of 
 the punishment of the heathen. It did not come from any natural agency, 
 but from heaven, the dwelling-place and throne of Gop, S. Matt. vi. 9. It 
 is possible that the phrase is partly determined by the image of the light- 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1, vv. 18-32. 25 
 
 ning ; but it contrasts with év ebayyeAlw, wherein the Divine d:caoovvy is 
 revealed, as suggesting a revelation, obvious not merely to the conscience of 
 the believing Christian, but also to the ordinary observer of the course 
 of human events. | 
 
 [Obs. 4. The object of Gon’s épy7 is man’s irreligiousness (do¢Bea, 2 Pet. ii. 5 ; 
 2 Tim. ii. 16), and immorality (dé:xia), ef. ver. 29, or failure to satisfy the 
 rights of Gop as defined by man’s present moral standard. It is not 
 merely the presence of wickedness under this twofold aspect which pro- 
 vokes the Divine épy7, but the fact that those who are guilty of it possess a 
 certain measure of religious truth (dAn@eiav), which they hold down («aréxovar) 
 so as to prevent its producing its natural effects upon conduct in their im- 
 morality (é déixia). On xaréxev as = to hinder, Vulg. detinere, cf. 2 Thess. 
 ii. 6; S. Luke iv. 42; 1 Mace. vi. 27. The sense of possess (1 Cor. Vii. 30; 
 xv. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 10), ‘who hold the truth in unrighteousness,’ is contra- 
 dicted by ver. 21, where the continued possession of truth is negatived by 
 éuaTrawOnoav, év adédixia is here instrumental; it was by dé«ia that the 
 truth was held down, Observe the Apostolic theory as to the place of 
 heathendom in man’s religious development. It is not a natural stage of 
 development through which man must pass to monotheism, but it is 
 unnatural ; it arises from and is a product of sin against previously-possessed 
 natural light. ] 
 
 a. 
 
 Neglect and abuse of natural light by the heathen peoples, issuing 
 in ignorance, folly, and idolatry (vers. 19-23). 
 
 1. A limited knowledge of Gop in heathendom—(r6 yrwordy rod 
 Gcovd) (ver. 19-20) derived from 
 
 a. The light of conscience (favepov év avrois), This inner 
 gavépwors of Gop has been made by Himself; but its 
 ground (yap) is found in 
 
 b. the witness of external Nature. In Nature 
 
 (x) the unseen truths about Gop (74 dépara airod) more precisely 
 defined as His everlasting power and divinity (7 re aidus 
 avtod Suvapus Kal Oevdrys) 
 
 (2) areseen (xaopara:) through being mentally discerned (voodpeva), 
 
 (3) by means of His works (rots mujpace), 
 
 (4) ever since the creation of the world (az kricews xécpov). 
 
 c. the result being that the heathen are inexcusable 
 dvarohoynrovs (ver. 20), 
 [Obs. 1. ver. 19 explains the assertion in ver. 18 tiv dAnbelav év ddicig katexdvTow. 
 
 If the heathen had repressed the truth out of ignorance they would be ex- 
 cusable. But they had a knowledge of Gop, and they repressed truth out of 
 
26 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 immorality. This proof of their knowledge shows why they are dvamoAéyn- 
 To. (ver. 20) ; &d7¢=propterea quod. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. The phrase 76 yvwordr Tov Ocod must, according to the invariable New Testa- 
 ment and LXX use, mean that which is known, not that which may be known about 
 Gop. The latter would be the elassical sense (cf. Meyer). But yvwords = 
 known in 8. Luke ii. 44 ; John xviii. 15; Acts i. 19, xv. 18, xxviii.22. And 
 S. Paul is speaking of an objective body of knowledge which becomes sub- 
 jective in the gavepwors, Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 295. This knowledge becomes 
 manifest in their consciousness ; év avrois does not mean ‘among them,’ since 
 vootvpeva kabopara point to an internal manifestation. On this manifestation 
 of truth through nature to conscience, see Acts xiv. 17, where, at Lystra, S. 
 Paul, after remarking that Gop had permitted the heathen nations to go in 
 their own way, adds xai roi ye ovx duaprupoy éavroy apjxev, ayaboroav. The 
 witness was yielded by rain and the succession of seasons of the year. At 
 Athens, Acts xvii. 26, he points to the creation of man, éf évds aivaros, and 
 to the epochs and frontiers of each national development as incitements to 
 seek Gop—ver. 27 KaTovye ov paxpav amd évds ExdaTov fugy bTapxovTa. And 
 yet, 1 Cor. i. 21 év 7H codia Tod Ocod, oie Eyvw 6 Kdcpos bid THs copias Tov 
 @cév: as a matter of fact heathen philosophy failed to know Him who had 
 revealed Himself in part through nature to conscience. [In regard to the 
 universality of some conception of God] Aristotle had observed, De Coelo, i. 
 3 (270 b. 5) mavres avOpwra epi Oe@v Exovor imdAnYw. Ken. Mem. iv. 4. 9 
 Tapa macw avOpwros mpaTov vopicerat Oeovs céBay. | 
 
 [0bs. 3. The revelation of Gop in conscience is explained by reference (yap) to 
 external nature. The first impression which nature yields as to its Author 
 is His power—dvvauis. The many invisible attributes of Gop (7a ddpara 
 avrov), more precisely Gop’s everlasting power and divinity, may be learnt 
 from nature. @edé7ns, divinity, that which Gop is, as a Being possessed of 
 Divine attributes; not Oed7ns, the being Gop, Col. ii.9. Under @eadrns all 
 Gon’s other attributes—wisdom, goodness, &e.—are included. These truths 
 about Gop are seen, through being mentally perceived ; the voids, as distinct 
 from the senses of man, must see Gop in naturé ; «a8opara cannot refer to 
 any action of the bodily senses. With ddpara it forms an oxymoron, with 
 which compare Arist. De Mundo, 6 (399 b. 22) G0ewpynros Gm abrav ray epyav 
 
 | Ocwpetrat {6 9e6s]. This revelation of Gop in nature dates from the creation ; 
 
 in amd krigews dg piow, xtiows must mean creatio, not res creata, because in the 
 latter case trois moupace voovpeva would be superfluous, The momjpara are 
 Gon’s productions as Creator; moinua corresponds to ny, Eccles. iii. 11, 
 vii. 14, but does not mean Gon’s acts in governing the world, to which dad 
 kTicews KOopou Would not apply. } 
 
 (Obs. 4. On the responsibility of this knowledge of Gop through nature and 
 conscience, see Tertull. Apolog. c. 17: ‘Quod colimus [nos], Deus unus est, 
 qui totam molem istam cum omni instrumento elementorum, corporum, 
 spirituum, verbo quo jussit, ratione qua disposuit, virtute qua potuit, de ni- 
 hilo expressit in ornamentum majestatis suae, unde et Graeci nomen munde 
 xégpov accommodaverunt. Invisibilis est, etsi videtur ; incomprehensibilis, 
 etsi per gratiam repraesentatur ; inaestimabilis etsi humanis sensibus aesti- 
 matur.... Hoe est quod Deum aestimari facit, dum aestimari non capit, 
 
 ¥ 
 
Dogmatic : ch. I, vv. 18-32. 27 
 
 Ita eum vis magnitudinis et notum hominibus objecit et ignotum. Ft haec 
 est summa delicti nolentium recognoscere quem ignorare non possunt.’ On 
 the way in which nature witnesses to Gop, see Luthardt, Fundamental Truths 
 of Christianity (3rd ed.), p. 44 sqq. On the function of reason in discerning 
 this witness, see Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, p. jo sqq. On the 
 ‘ Dispensation of Paganism,’ see Newman, Arians, i. §§ 3-5 (p. 83, 3rd ed.)]. 
 
 2. How this natural knowledge of Gop has been lost in heathen- 
 dom (ver. 21-23%. 
 
 Stage 1. Practical Indifference to known truth. The natural know- 
 ledge of Gop was not acted on. He was neither praised on 
 account of His perfections, so far as they were known (otx os 
 Gcdv edd£acav), nor thanked for the blessings which were seen to 
 be due to Him (i edxapiornoay) (ver. 21). 
 
 Stage 2. Intrinsically worthless speculation about Gop. 'The ideas 
 and reflections which the heathen formed for themselves 
 respecting the Deity, corresponded to nothing in fact: they 
 were reduced to emptiness (cuaramOnoav ev tois diadoyicpors) 
 (ver. 21). ; 
 
 Stage 3. Disappearance of the idea of Gop, as revealed in nature 
 and conscience, from the minds of men. The whole inner being 
 (xapdia) was darkened, it had become incapable of discerning 
 truth (dovveros) through the paradrns of its speculative folly 
 (ver. 21). 
 
 Stage 4. A Pride of Philosophy coinciding with abandonment to 
 spiritual and moral folly (pdoxovtes elvat copot ¢uwpavOncav) 
 (ver. 22), 
 
 Stage 5. Fetichism. The majesty of the Imperishable Gop 
 exchanged for something shaped like the image of (a) perishable 
 man or (0b) of the lower creatures (ver. 23). 
 
 (Obs. x. ver. 21. Stage of practical indifference to known truth. 6&d7t connects the 
 clause «is 7d dvarodoynrouvs eivac with the following account of heathen 
 degradation. The heathen originally possessed such knowledge of Gov" as 
 could be derived from conscience and nature (yvdvres Tov Oedv). This know- 
 ledge was a true knowledge so far as it went ; but like all religious truth, 
 it could only be retained on condition of being acted on. The heathen 
 originally knew Gop as a Being of infinite Perfections; his @ed7ns (ver. 20) 
 as well as His Power were known to them from nature. Yet did they not 
 glorify Him as Gov,—the correlative moral act to their knowledge of His 
 Nature. They knew too that He had given them all that they were and 
 
 had, yet did they not thank Him for His gifts. The debt of adoration due 
 
28 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 to Gop, on account of man’s natural knowledge of Him is exhausted by the 
 words dofafev and edxapioTeiv. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. Stage of worthless speculation about Gop. The heathen were reduced to 
 
 being mere triflers in their thoughts about Gop. Although they did not 
 praise and thank Him, they could not but think of Him; only thought 
 about Gop without the practical safeguards of devotion, becomes empty and 
 fruitless. Hence their patadé7ns* pataotc6a corresponds to SDN to become 
 foolish, or to ban [ef. 2 Kings xvii. 15 ; Job xxvii. 12]. The meaning is that 
 there was nothing in fact to correspond to the d:adoyopot of the heathen. 
 In Eph. iv. 17 the heathen are said wepinareiv év paraidrntt ToD vods avTav. 
 For ‘vanity,’ emptiness, as a characteristic of heathenism, see Jer. ii. 5; 
 2 Kings xvii. 15; Ps. xciv. rr. At Lystra the Apostles beg the heathen 
 multitude dd rovtwy Trav pataiwy émorpepew em Tov Ocdv Tov (avTa Acts xiv. 
 15. In the New Testament d:adoycpoi are always rovnpol, caxoi, whether 
 thoughts, S. Matt. xv. 19 ; or reasonings, S. Luke vy. 22; or doubts, S. Luke 
 xxiv. 38. Here ‘thoughts.’] 
 
 [Obs. 3. ver. 21. Stage of the disappearance of the idea of Gon from the heathen mind. The 
 
 kapdia, 19, is the centre of the soul’s life,—of will, of thought, and of emotion. 
 
 Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. pp. 292 ff. E.T. It is darkened, because the empty 
 speculations had rendered it dovveros, i.e. incapable of understanding what 
 is true and right. Winer seems to think dovveros a proleptic use of the 
 adjectiva effectus, but in reality less is implied by dovveros than by éoxotiabn, 
 Winer, Gr. N. T., p. 779. Compare Eph. iv. 18, for the heathen mwpwors ris 
 xapdias as the cause of dyvoa; and Eph. v. 17 for the contrast between 
 Gppoves and ovviévres ti 7d O€Anua TOD Kupiov. The passage is based on Wisd. 
 xi. 15. The whole representation is seemingly condensed from Wisd. xiii— 
 xv. | 
 
 [Obs. 4. ver. 22. Stage of a false conceit of wisdom coincident with abandonment to spiritual 
 
 and moral folly. The claim to wisdom was often repeated and was unfounded : 
 packer, dictitare, to make unfounded assertions, Acts xxiv. 9; xxv. 19; Rev. 
 ii. 2. For éuwpavénoay, cf. 1 Cor. i. 20 odx? Euwpavey 6 Oeds TH copiay Tod 
 xdopou TovTou, i Cor. iii. 18-20.] 
 
 [Ots. 5. ver. 23. Stage of Fetichism. The défa rob @cod is the Min} N23, the Glory 
 
 or Perfection of Gop—His @edérns. dé¢a applied to a person is the mani- 
 Jestation of excellence. The Shekinah was the visibly displayed: }35 mn, 
 1 Kings viii. rz, the glory (4 d0fa) of the Lord filled the house. 8, John 
 xi. 40 édv moredons dn riv Sdgay tod Oeod. The particular effulgence or 
 glory of Gop here meant is that displayed on the face of, although dis- 
 ‘tinct from, nature. Gop is a&p@apros:—His dp@apcia is the result of His 
 unchangeableness. See Pearson, Min. Theol. Works, I. 92 (Oxford 1844). 
 Aristotle, Phys. V. 1. (225 a. 17), defines pOopd as 4 ef troxepévov eis odx 
 broxeipevov, POopa Gmdrws peév 4 éx THs ovcias eis 7d pi) civar. For apOapros as 
 a Divine attribute, seer Tim. i. 17; 1 Tim. vi. 16 pdvos Exo dbavaciay, Ps, 
 cii, 26, 27, ‘The heavens shall perish, but Thou remainest ; and they all 
 shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou change them 
 and they shall be changed, but Thou art the same and Thy years shall not 
 fail.’ The heathen ought to have made rijv dégavy rod Ocod, manifested to 
 
Dogmatic: ch. I, vv. 18-32. 29 
 
 them in the revelation of nature, an object of worship. Instead of that they 
 chose what was shaped like an image of a perishable man for this purpose. 
 ad\Aaooev rt év Twi is a vivid phrase based on Ps. ev. 20, LXX 7AAdEgavTo Tijv 
 Sdfav adradv év épompare pooxov, év duompari for eis 6uotwua according to the 
 usual substitution of évy for eis when translating 3. déyolwya eixovos—the 
 époiwpa of the heathen deity was a likeness—not an absolute copy—of a 
 statue of aman. It was the likeness found in the image of that which it 
 represents. In dv@pwrov S. Paul is thinking of the Hellenic form of idol- 
 atry; in merewad «.7.A. of the Egyptian. On the Egyptian worship of 
 animals (Wisd. xiii. 10 dmexdopata (gdwv) see Dillinger, Gentile and Jew, 
 vol. i. p. 454 E. T.; Philo, Leg. ad Caiwm, pp. 566, 570 (ed. Mangey), 
 
 b. 
 
 Punishment of the Heathen for their neglect and abuse of the 
 natural knowledge of Gop, as seen in their abandonment to the 
 moral consequences of this unfaithfulness (24-32). 
 
 {0bs. In this punishment three stages are marked, each introduced by mapédwxev 
 (vers. 24, 26, 28), and mapédwxey cannot safely be paraphrased by ciace 
 (S. Chrys. and others) as if it described a mere permission. This paraphrase 
 was undoubtedly intended to screen Gop, from any blasphemous imputation 
 of being the cause of moral evil. But the language will not bear it; and 
 the dreaded consequence of construing the language literally does not 
 follow. Gop as Creator had established a nexus between moral acts, in- 
 volving the consequence of one crime upon another,—parallel to the 
 consequence of one virtue upon another. ‘To him that hath shall be given; 
 from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to 
 have.’ As each grace which is corresponded to, is rewarded by a higher 
 grace; so each vice, which is accepted by the will, leads to a deeper vice 
 beyond itself. ‘Das ist der Fluch des Bésen, dass es ewig Béses zeugt.’ To 
 abandon voluntarily the true idea of Gop is to fall necessarily under the empire 
 of material nature, with all its dominant instincts and desires, Hence in 
 the Old Testament idolatry is consistently described as fornication ; no- 
 thing short of a faithful hold upon the truth of Gop’s nature will keep man 
 from sinking beneath the debasements of a life of sensuality. mapéiwxer, 
 therefore, implies something more than permission, namely, Gon’s original 
 appointment in the laws of interconnection between one moral act and 
 another, which are a part of His original design for the moral world, and 
 in strict accordance with the essential and necessary sanctity of His 
 Nature. ] 
 
 Stage 1. mapédaxev els dxabapciav. Impurity of life, generally, 
 springing up in the field of their natural émévpia and leading 
 to mutual corporeal degradation (ver. 24), 
 
 § Reasons for this dreadful mapédaxev (25). 
 
30 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Reason 1. The heathen exchanged the Divine Reality for a lie 
 (Wetdos), viz. the false gods. 
 
 Reason 2. The heathen generally paid worship and ritual 
 service to the creature, i.e. neglecting the Creator (ver. 25). 
 
 [Obs. 1. ver. 24. dxaSapoia—spurcitia, impurity arising from indulged lusts. In 
 Gal. v. 19 it is the third of the épya ris capxis. In Eph. iv. 19 the heathen 
 anndynkdtes Eavrods mapédwkay TH doedyeia els épyaciay dxafapoias maons év 
 meovegia. Col. iii. 5 vexpwoate ody Ta wéAn buav Ta emt THs ys, Topveiay, axa- 
 Oapciav, rod drimacecda is gen. of precise definition. The dxa@apsia con- 
 sists in their bodies being reciprocally dishonoured. drtudfeo@a passive, 
 not middle, see Meyer. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The reasons for the deliverance to dxa@apcia are restated ; the Apostle 
 feeling that the severity of the Divine Judgment requires the repetition. 
 oi7ves, in that they, quippe qui: for this causal use, introducing the motive 
 which determined Gop to give the heathen up, see Rom. vi. 2; 2 Cor. viii. 
 10; Gal.v.4; S. Matt. vii. 15. The expression 77)v dAndeav Tod Ocod seems to 
 harmonize with tiv ddéfav rod Oeov in ver. 23: hence Geo is a gen. subj., the 
 truth which comes from Gop. But practically it is the truth about him, so 
 that in meaning it is 6 dAndwds Ocds. This the heathen exchanged for 
 a Wed5os. An idol is a concrete lie. “Pw means Yeddos as often as idols, Is. 
 xliv. 20; Jer. iii. 10; xiii. 25. Cf. x Thess. i. 9 éweorpépare mpds rov Ocdv 
 and Tv cidwAwy, Sovrevey @e@ (Gvri nal ddnOw@, and Gal. iv. 8, where he 
 implies the same antithesis in speaking of the heathen vce pi dvres Geol. 
 Cf. 1 Cor. viii. 4.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The general cultus of creatures is indicated by éceBacbncav. ceBaCona 
 here an Gm. Aey. in New Testament for the usual oéBopar. It means, to 
 treat with pious reverence. éAdzpevoay points to sacrificial.and ritual 
 service. This worship was offered to the creature, before the Creator, ‘prae 
 ereatore’ ; the context showing that the preference of the creature was not 
 merely relative, but that it excluded the latter. The heathen did not, in 
 fact, worship the Creator at all. The preposition apd with the accusative 
 is often used for }1) in this comparative sense. Here the sense is substan- 
 tially expressed by 8. Cyprian, Test. iii. 10, ‘relicto creatore,’ and S. Hilary, 
 De Trin. xii. 3, ‘praeterito creatore’ ; Jer. ii. 27, ‘They have turned their back 
 on Me and not their face.’] 
 
 [0bs. 4. For doxologies, offered to Gop by deeply moved piéty as acts of repara- 
 tion for some wrong done Him in thought or act, see xi. 36; Gal. i. 5; 
 2 Cor. xi. 31; Eph. i. 3; iii. 21. Such doxologies are common among the 
 Orientals, especially the Mahommedans, under such circumstances. | 
 
 Stage 2. mapéSoxev eis maby atryias mapa piow (ver. 26). Sensual 
 degradation, assuming in both sexes unnatural forms : 
 
 a. crime of 67deva—described generally as changing rh pvorkiy 
 xpiow eis tHv mapa iow. 
 
 en 
 
Dogmatic : ch. I, vv. 18-32. 31 
 
 b. crime of ippeves—described more particularly 
 \ 1. negatively, as adévres ti puoi xpnow ths Ondeias. 
 2. positively. 
 i. dpe&s. It is a brutal eLexavdnoar. 
 ii. completed action (xarepyateo Oa). It is doynpoovvn. 
 iil. penal result (avryuc6ia), That which was in accordance 
 with natural order (jv éée), viz. the loss of the 
 natural knowledge of Gop. 
 
 in the 
 stage of 
 
 
 
 [Obvs. 1. In the expression describing the sensual degradation of the heathen azr- 
 pias is a gen. qualitatis : ef. mvedua aywovvys ver. 4. The words @7jAca and 
 dppeves are selected to give prominence to the animal idea of sex, instead of 
 the higher human idea of man and woman : by ¢uaejv xpjow is meant the 
 use of the sexual organs appointed by Gop in nature. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. For the degradation of heathen females by unnatural sins, see Martial, 
 Epigram. Lib. i. 90. 5; Lucian, Dialog. v. in Meretric. 2, on the vice AecBiacer. 
 Cf. the évaipiorpias in Plato, Symp. p. 191 E. They were also called rtpi- 
 Bades.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. In describing the degradation of heathen males by unnatural sins, 
 efexavOnaav is used by the Apostle as stronger than the simple form: cf. 
 mupovoOa x Cor. vii. 9. KarepyatecOa: is used of perfected action, whether 
 evil (ii. 9, vii. 8, xv. 17 sqq.) or good (v. 3, xv. 18; Phil. ii. 12). For aoxn- 
 poovrvny, see Gen. xxxiv. 7; Rev. xvi. 15. It is the opposite of etaynpootvy, 
 xiii, 13. With the article it means ‘the well-known shame’ which 
 characterised pagan society. The mdAdavy referred to is the wandering from 
 Gop as known in nature and conscience to idols ; and the dvtiprodia év Eav- 
 rots, the hateful and unnatural desires just described. mAdvy seems to mean 
 wilful and corrupting delusion, 1 Thess. ii. 3 and 2 Pet. ii. 18, iii. 17; 
 S. Jude rr. dvtipucdia is not found in Greek writers or LXX : but cf. 2 Cor. 
 vi. 13; 2[Clem. Rom.]ad Cor.1. jv é5e : thenecessity referred to is implied in 
 the moral order of the world as ruled by the Creator. On the prevalence of 
 madepacria in antiquity, see Déllinger, Gentile and Jew, Bk. IX. i. 2. § 33: 
 ‘In very truth the whole of society was infected by it, and people 
 inhaled the pestilence with the air they breathed. . . . The erotic 
 sayings or discourses of philosophers contributed to fan the evil flame.’ 
 Seneca, the contemporary of 8. Paul, writes: ‘Transeo puerorum infelicium 
 greges, quos post transacta convivia aliae cubiculi contumeliae exspectant : 
 transeo agmina exoletorum per nationes coloresque descripta’ Epp. xv. 3 
 (95) § 24. Suetonius describes the infamous proceedings of the Emperor 
 Nero, Suet. Ner. ee. 28, 29. In the Amores, attributed to Lucian (Dial, xxxvilii. 
 § 51, ed. Dindorf), this vice is considered the privilege of philosophers. 
 S. Justin Martyr denounces its universality and publicity (Apol. i. 27). 
 Clem. Alexand. Pedagog. iii. 3. 21 (Dindorf). Tatian, Orat. ad Graecos. ¢. 25. | 
 
 Stage 3. mapédexev eis dddxtuov voiv. An active mental disposition 
 (vodv) towards intellectual and moral truth, which must be 
 pronounced reprobate, according to any objective standard. 
 
32 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 a. Measure of this voids addéxyos corresponds (xafos) with their 
 contemptuous rejection of the natural. knowledge of Gop, 
 which ought to have been brought to an émyvadva,—a 
 penetrating and living knowledge of Him. 
 
 b. Practical outcome of this vois dddxos. It leads in action 
 to their doing what cannot be deemed seemly, ra py 
 
 , 
 KaOnkovra. 
 
 [Obs. r. The measure of the refusal of the heathen to retain Gop in their know- 
 
 ledge was the measure of His giving them over to a mind about religious 
 and moral truth that was really reprobate. x«a@ws implies this correspond- 
 ence; it is not used in a causal sense. The heathen did not think Gop 
 worth (ove éd5oxivacav) retaining in their knowledge. Of. 1 Thess. ii. 4; 
 1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 22. The fuller, deeper knowledge, éniyvwais, 
 I Cor. xili.12; Phil. i.9, would have resulted from faithful use of the teach- 
 ing of nature and conscience about God. Their unfaithfulness to light was 
 punished by a proportionate moral darkness expressed by dddé«pmov vor. 
 Their mind, and its collective powers of thinking and willing, (ef. vods in 
 Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. p. 211, E. T,) is rejected on trial (ddde:pos), not indeed 
 in their own estimate, but when tested by the absolute standard of right 
 and truth. For ddd«pos see 1 Cor. ix. 27; 2 Cor. xiii. 5, 6, 7; 2 Tim. iii. 8; 
 Tit. i. 16; Heb. vi. 8, and observe the paronomasia between ov« édoxipacay 
 and didmporv. dddéx.pos cannot mean ‘incapable of judging’ since the word 
 is not derived from Gox:pacw.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The infinitive clause moreiv «.7.A. is epexegetical: the ddé«:pyos vods shows 
 
 iB 
 
 itself in the habitual commission of sin, without hesitation or regret. The 
 word xa@jxovta describes acts suited to a moral standard, or a given posi- 
 tion. Cf, Ex. v. 13 7a épya 7a xa@nxovra, of the tasks appointed te the 
 Israelites ; Acts xxii. 22 ob ydp KaOjKev aitov (Rv, of what befits the moral 
 order of the Divine Government as understood by the speakers ; 2 Mace. vi. 
 4 7A ph KajqxovTa evdov eicpepdvtwy, of objects incompatible with the 
 sanctity of the Jewish Temple. Here 7a pr xabnxovra, what cannot be 
 thought to be suitable to moral right ; the negative expression is correlative 
 to dddetpos votds. Ta pi) Ka@qKovTa, like 7a pt Séovra, & pr Set, r Tim. v. 13, 
 Tit. i. 11, expresses a moral estimate; while 7a ot« dvjxovta Eph. v. 4 
 describes an objectively existing class of things. Cf. Winer, Gn. ™. Tf, 
 Pp. 603. ] 
 
 § Twenty-one illustrations of the general moiv ra pi) Kabjxovra— 
 which practically results from the vods ddé«pos (29-31). 
 
 The heathen of S. Paul’s time are described as 
 
 Having been filled with (mexAnpopévovs) four governing forms of 
 evil: 
 
 I, adu«ig, disregard of all rights, human as well as Divine. 
 
 2. movnpia, absence of all principle ; moral rottenness, 
 
*) 
 
 Dogmatic: ch. I, vv. 18-32. 33 
 
 3. mreoveéia, selfish greed, whether to acquire wealth, or to 
 gratify lust. 
 4. «axia, the lack of all that constitutes human excellence. 
 
 II. Full of (xecrovs) bitter anti-social sins : 
 I. @Odvov, envy [which leads to | 
 I. in act|2. ¢dvov, murder, [and] 
 or feeling / 3. gids, party-strife, [and attains its ends by] 
 (abstract) | 4. 8ddov, deceit, [and exhibits itself generally in] 
 5. kaxonOeias, malignity of judgment. 
 
 I. Wibvpords, secret detractors, ‘ delatores.’ 
 
 2. in ; . . : 
 ; 2. katadddous, defamers, in public as well as private. 
 anguase ’)3. both of which classes are specially @eoorvycis, hateful 
 (concrete) 
 
 to Gop. 
 
 III. Sinners, by self-assertion, or pride. Of these there are three 
 kinds in a descending climax : 
 I. t8puords, men who, in their pride, insult others, by word or 
 deed. 
 2. imepnpdvovs, men who, in their pride, look down upon others, 
 but without openly insulting them. 
 3. ddafévas, men who, in their pride, swagger about themselves, 
 but without reference to other men. 
 
 IV. Sinners of six kinds against natural principles on which sociely 
 is based : 
 I. eeuperds xaxav, inventors of new vices, luxuries, tortures. 
 2. yovedow dmrebeis, men wanting in natural dutifulness. 
 3. dovvérovs, men wanting in moral intelligence of right and 
 wrong. : 
 4. dovvOérovs, Men wanting in faithfulness to engagements. 
 5. dorépyovs, men wanting in natural love of kinsfolk. 
 6. dvehejjpovas, men wanting in natural pity for the suffering. 
 
 [0bs. r. General forms of evil which fill the heathen mind and govern public 
 
 life. memAnpwpévous, this passive verb is used with a genitive, Rom. xv. 14; 
 Luke ii. 40 ; Acts xiii. 52; 2Tim.i. 4; with a dative, 2 Cor. vii. 4; with 
 an accusative, Phil. i. 11; Col. i.9. The verb suggests a date in human 
 history when the case was otherwise, and so differs from peoro’s which 
 describes the matter of fact without any retrospect. It is from having 
 been filled with the general principles of evil, that the heathen are now full 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 of sins against their brother men in detail. (1) Of these words dé.cia is the 
 most general. It is opposed to S:tacocvvn in Rom. iii. 5; vi. 3. It is used 
 with doéBea in i. 18; hence déicia refers to the violated claims of Gop as 
 well as man. 2 Tim. ii. 19 Let every one that nameth the name of the 
 Lord dmogrntw dm dbdixias. 1 8. John v. 17 mdoa dditia Gyuapria éotiv, Cf. 
 Cremer, s. v. p. 300. (2) wovnpia, physically of a bad nature, xapnav, dpbadrpov, 
 ef. Jer. xxiv. 8, morally of utter worthlessness, arising from lack of principle. 
 In x Cor. v. 8, it is joined with sxaxia to complete the antithesis with 
 eiAtxpivela Kal GdAndeva. Its general sense of moral worthlessness appears in 
 Plat. Theaetet. 176 B—C, Sophistes 228 D vécos rhs puxfs. It bears the specific 
 sense of maliciousness in Mark vii. 22 d6p@adApds movnpds, Matt, xxii. 18. Cf. 
 the conduct of the Pharisees and Herodians, Luke xi. 39. movnpés in LXX 
 generally translates )0 which signifies, first of all, that which is physically 
 offensive. (3) mAcovegia includes (a) covetousness and (b) impure desires, 
 unregulated dpegis, r Thess. iv. 6 tAecovexreiv. On the lust of possession as 
 characteristic of Roman policy, cf. for a foreign estimate, Tacit. Agricol. go, 
 Cicero, in Verrem, iii. 89 ‘ Lugent omnes provinciae, queruntur omnes liberi 
 populi, regna denique jam omnia de nostris cupiditatibus et injuriis expos- 
 tulant, locus intra oceanum jam nullus est... quo non per haec tempora 
 nostrorum hominum libido iniquitasque pervaserit. Sustinere jam populus 
 Romanus non vim, non arma, non bellum, sed luctum, lachrymas, quaeri- 
 monias non potest.’ Pro Lege Manil. 22 ‘ Difficile est dictu Quirites quanto in 
 odio simus apud exteras nationes, propter eorum, quos ad eas per hos annos 
 cum imperio misimus, injurias ac libidines. Quod enim fanum putatis in 
 illis terris nostris magistratibus religiosum, quam civitatem sanctam, quam 
 domum satis clausam ac munitam fuisse?’ Compare Juvenal’s question, 
 Sat. i. 87 ‘Et quando uberior vitiorum copia, quando, Major avaritiae patuit 
 sinus?’ On the sensual sense of mAcovetia, see Seneca, De beneficiis, i. 9; iii. 
 16; Juvenal, Sat. vi. 293. (4) xaxia, badness, in the sense of moral inefficiency. 
 Opposed to dperf in both the physical and moral sense ; cf. Plat. Rep. i. 348 C ; 
 ix. 580 B; Cratylus 386 D; Arist. Eth. Nic. vii. 11; Wisd. v. 13,14. It issynony- 
 mous with dvavipia. As dpern indicates the possession of the qualities which 
 characterize a subject, xaxia designates their absence. In this general sense, 
 Gen. vi. 5; Acts viii. 22; 1 Cor. xiv.20. It means specifically malevolence in 
 Tit. iii. 3; Col. iii. 8; Eph. iv. 31, and evil in the sense of misfortune in 
 S. Matt. vi. 34. Here it is used in the general sense.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Five sins against fellow men, ver. 29. peorovs, used of things in 
 
 S. John xix. 29; xxi. 11; S. James iii. 8, and tropically of the human mind 
 as filled with good and svil impulses, S. Matt. xxiii. 28 ; 2S. Pet. ii. 14; 
 S. James iii. 17; Rom. xv. 14. (1) $@évov and ¢évov are placed in juxta- 
 position, on account of the paronomasia: so in the list of épya rijs capkds 
 Gal. v. 21. But they are also connected as cause and effect ; Wisd. ii. 24 
 ‘Through envy of the devilcame death into the world.’ In 1S. John iii. 
 12, 15, the pédvos of Cain is the cause of the murder of Abel. (2) ¢dvos here 
 means not the act of murder (which is incompatible with peorovs), but 
 the thought or design; cf. Acts ix. 1 SavAos ere eunvéwv dmedis xat 
 gévov. (3) épis too is an ethical result of p@dvos, with which it is closely 
 associated in 1 Tim. vi. 4, as among the results of Ephesian false teaching ; 
 and in Phil. i. 15, as the motives of some early preachers of Christianity in 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1, vv. 18-32. 35 
 
 Rome. (4) 5éAos suggests Juv. Sat. iii. 41 ‘Quid Romae faciam ? mentiri nescio.’ 
 (5) xaronGea, Vulg. malignitas, malicious disposition accustomed én 70 xetpov 
 trodapBavew Ta ravra Arist. Rhet. ii. 13. (1389 b. 20.)] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Two classes of sinners against fellow men, ver. 30. (1) yOuprords, secret 
 slanderers, ‘susurrones.. . quiut inviso homini noceant quae ei probro sint 
 crimina tanquam in aurem alicui insusurrant ;’ Fritzsche. (2) cataddAous 
 means detractors generally, but not exclusively public ones, as Theophylact and 
 others suggest, in order perhaps to create an adequate antithesis to yupiotas. 
 As regards the character of Rome for ill-natured gossip, cf. Cicero, Pro Flacco, 
 3 ‘In maledicentissima civitate’ ; Pro Caelio, 16 ‘At fuit fama. Quotus quisque 
 istam effugere potest in tam maledica ciyitate?’ Probably S. Paul is think- 
 ing of the delatores. Tacitus, Ann. vi. 7 ‘Quod maximé exitiale tulere illa 
 tempora, cum primores senatis infimas etiam delationes exercerent; alii 
 propalam, alii per occultum : neque discerneres alienos a conjunctis, amicos 
 ab ignotis, quid recens, aut vetustate obscurum, perinde in foro, in convivio, 
 quaqua de re locuti incusabantur, ut quis praevenire, et reum destinare pro- 
 perat, pars ad subsidium sui, plures infecti quasi valetudine et contactu.’ 
 (3) Geooruyeis hated by Gop ; Geoor’yers would be Gop-haters. Either would 
 be possible ; Meyer decides for the first, which is that of the Vulg, Deo odibiles, 
 as being according to the usus loquendi. Gop-hating would be better expressed 
 by pucdGeos, Aesch. Ag. 1090, like giAd@eos. The word expresses the attitude 
 of the Divine mind towards all the preceding classes of sinners, qua they 
 are sinners. | 
 
 [Obs. 4. The self-assertion of Heathenism is expressed by three terms which follow 
 in a descending climax. The worst are (1) the i8porai; the insolent, ‘qui 
 prae superbia non solum contemnant alios, sed etiam contumeliose tractant’ ; 
 in 1 Tim. i. 13, S. Paul says that he was a tBpiorns as well as a blasphemer 
 and a persecutor before his conversion. On the insolence of Roman life, 
 see Cicero, Ad Quintum fratrem, Ep. i. 1. 9 ‘ Romae—ubi tanta arrogantia est, 
 ‘tam immoderata libertas, tam infinita hominum licentia.’ Next come (2) 
 the imepnpavor, who, from an imaginary superiority, look down upon others; 
 ef. Theophrastus, Charact. xxiv. 1. They will characterize the last days, 2 Tim. 
 iii. 2; are opposed to the ramewwoi, Prov. iii. 34, quoted in S. James iv. 6; 
 18. Pet. v. 5; their confusion described in the Magnificat, S. Luke i. 51. 
 (3) Last are the dAdoves, vani ostentatores, (dAn, circumvagatio) ‘swaggerers, 
 but without any design of insulting others.’ Theophrastus, Charact. xxiii. 1. 
 Aristotle describes the dAd(wy (Eth. Nic. iv. (7) 2) as mpoomomntikds Tov évddgav 
 kat pr bnapxdvtwy, kat pecCévav 7 imdpxec—e€vexa Sdéns kai Tivjs. Magn. Moral. 
 i. c. 33. § 28. Josephus (Ant. viii. 10. 4) calls Rehoboam an dAd{ov, They 
 too will be among the men of the last days, 2 Tim. iii. 2. On the passage, 
 see Tittmann, Syn. N. T., pp. 72-77. Polybius speaks of an éupuros ddaoveia 
 among the Aetolians, Hist. iv. 3. 1.] 
 
 [Obs. 5. In the list of six kinds of sinners against the principles on which human 
 society is based, the positive and general épevperat xax@v introduces five 
 classes described regularly, with the privative a. For domévédous in text. rec. 
 
 ie there is no sufficient authority. (1) The épevperat (Gz, Aey. in New Testament) 
 : 4 xakOv, are devisers of evil things, whether new refinements in vicious plea- 
 
 sure, or new cruelties and tortures. Cf. 2 Mace. vii. 31, where the youngest 
 D2 
 
 
 
[Obs. 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 of the seven brothers addresses Antiochus Epiphanes, od 5 mdons kaxias 
 ebperns yevouevos; Philo, In Flace. p. 975 (Mangey) 6 kawav dduenpdatov 
 evperns ; Tac. Ann. iv. 11 ‘Sejanus, facinorum omnium repertor.’ Virgil, 
 Aen. ii. 164 ‘Scelerumque inventor Ulixes.’ Sallust, Hist. ‘Ep. Mith.’ 7 
 ‘Persen, apud Samothracas Deos receptum in fidem, callidi ac repertores 
 perfidiae, quia pacto vitam dederant, insomniis occidere.’ (2) The yovevow 
 adreOeis sin against the natural law of parental jurisdiction over children, as 
 well as the Divine. They will be found in the last times, 2 Tim. iii. 2. (8) 
 The dovvero: here are void of moral or religious intelligence (ef. ver. 21 «at 
 éoxoriabn } aovveros ait@y Kapdia); they have no moral insight when acting or 
 omitting to act; Ecclus. xv. 7 dovveros= 02}. (4) dovvdérous follows 
 dovvérous a8 a paronomasia; am. Aey. in New Testament, but cf. Jer. iii. 7 9 
 dotvOeTos Iovda. This faithlessness to engagements was specially characteris- 
 tic of social relations under the Empire. (5) dordpyous, without the affection 
 of natural love ; oropy7 is ‘amor in necessarios.’ This will mark the last 
 times, 2 Tim. iii. 3. See Tac. Vit. Agricolae, 43, for the bitter comments on 
 Domitian’s association with the wife and daughter of Agricola, as his heir. 
 Domitian was flattered; but, says Tacitus, ‘tam caeca et corrupta mens 
 assiduis adulationibus erat, ut nesciret a bono patre non scribi haeredem 
 nisi malum principem.’ (6) dveAenpévas (Gm. Acy. in New Testament), the un- 
 pitying, Prov. v. 9; Xii. 10 7a 5& omddyxva Tov docBOv avedenpova, Ecclus. 
 RMI ras, Wish. <i. 154 XLx. x.) 
 
 6. On the general question of the debasement of morals in the heathen 
 world in S. Paul’s time, see Neander’s Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bk. I. p. 143, seq. (ed. 
 1825), qu. by Tholuck. Also Seneca, De Ira, ii.8 ‘Omnia sceleribus ac vitiis 
 plena sunt. Plus committitur quam quod possit coercitione sanari. Certa- 
 tur ingenti quodam nequitiae certamine ; major quotidie peccandi cupiditas, 
 minor verecundia est. Expulso melioris aequiorisque respectu, quocunque 
 visum est, libido se impingit : nee furtiva jam scelera sunt; praeter oculos 
 eunt. Adeoque in publicum missa nequitia est, et in omnium pectoribus 
 evaluit, ut innocentia non rara sed nulla est. Numaquid enim singuli aut pauci 
 rupere legem? Undique, velut signo dato, ad fas nefasque miscendum 
 coorti sunt.’ Cf. also Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio, viii. ¢. 2.] 
 
 [Obs. 7. Other lists of sins or sinners in S. Paul’s writings are 2 Cor. xii. 20 
 
 (abstract), a list of eight sins against charity which the Apostle fears that 
 he will find at Corinth. Gal. v. 19 (abstract), a list of seventeen épya Tis 
 capkés in contrast to the xaprés rod nveduatros which consists in nine graces, 
 Eph. v. 3 (abstract), six sinful subjects which are to be banished from 
 Christian conversation, as 7a ov« dyvqxovra. 1 Tim. i. 9 (concrete), sinners 
 of fourteen kinds, arranged with a view to the order of the Decalogue, as 
 falling under the sentence of the Divine Law. 2 Tim. iii. 2-5 (concrete), 
 sinners of nineteen kinds who will characterize the éoxara: jyépa. Of these 
 four appear in the list of heathen vices in the text.] 
 
 c. Climax of the voids addxpos, Heathen immorality is wilful 
 opposition to knowledge and conscience. 
 
 1. Knowledge possessed by the heathen, They all know, as a 
 class, and by discernment (ofrwes émvyvévres), the decision of Gep 
 
 
 
-_ 
 
 Dogmatic: ch. 1, vv. 18-32. 37 
 
 (Sxatopa) manifested in their moral consciousness, viz. that 
 men who practise (mpdccovo:) such things as are described 
 above, are worthy of [eternal] death. 
 
 2. Conduct of the heathen. They 
 
 (1) not only do (xo0dc) the acts in question, 
 (2) but are also, morally, in agreement with others who 
 practise the sins (mpaocover) habitually (ver. 32). 
 
 [Obs. r. The climax of the vots ddéx:pos is reached by the classes before referred 
 
 to, but on account of their acting against light and knowledge. ofrwes—‘ of 
 such a moral character that they,’ quippe qui. It is not the specification of 
 a new reason as in ver. 25. émyvovres—not merely yvdvTes: the heathen 
 have a higher knowledge gained by reflecting on the lessons of nature ; cf. 
 ver. 28 év Tj Emryvwoe.. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. 70 Sixaiwpa Tov Oeod. The decision or natural law in accordance with 
 
 rights which Gop, as Legislator and Judge, has made. This decision is mani- 
 fested to the heathen in their moral consciousness. dicaiwpua is the result or 
 product of d:xaody ; it is the art whereby a dixaoy or a dSixaos is recognised 
 or constituted. Thus the word dixaiwua may mean, (1) an enactment in ac- 
 cordance with right as, (a) a legal ordinance, S. Luke i. 6; Heb. ix. 10. 
 (b) a moral requirement, ii. 26 7a Sikaiwpara Tod vopov; Viii. 4 70 dSieaiwpya 
 Tov vopov, (c)a decision or sentence, as here; but not in Rom.v.16, (2) An 
 act in accordance with right: Rom. v. 18 5’ évds diucatwparos. Rev. xv. 4, the 
 ducawpata of Gop; xix. 8, of the saints in glory.—In accordance with the 
 meaning of the word in this passage is its use of charters and other legal 
 instruments in the time of the lower Empire ; see Du Cange, Gloss. med. et inf. 
 Graec.s.v. In Arist. Eth. Nic. v. 10, it is defined as 70 éwavdpOwpa Tod adinqparos, 
 in which the idea of an act involving legal rectification of wrong seems to 
 predominate. . . The Divine &xaiwya or sentence manifest in the heathen 
 conscience is that gross immorality deserves @dvaros, i.e. death beyond the 
 grave. Cf. Aesch. Hum. 259-265 :— 
 
 oper 5e Kei Tis GAXos HArtev Bpotav 
 
 h Oedv 4h févov tw’ odk edocBay 7H ToKEéas Pidous, 
 
 éxov@’ exacrov rips Sikns éenagia 
 
 péyas yap “Acdns éoriy evOuvos Bporav 
 
 évepbe xOovds, 
 
 deAroypapw Se mav7’ érwma ppevi. 
 
 The heathen presentiment of punishment in Hades involves a truth to 
 which S. Paul here calls attention :—viz. that sinners deserve eternal death, 
 2 Thess. i. 8, although the heathen apprehended this under forms associated 
 with their own mythology. Cf. Plat. Rep. p. 330 D. It is no mere tem- 
 poral death which is in question, as in Ex. xix. 12; xxi. 15, 16,17; but 
 that of which physical death is the shadow, 8. James i. 15. So in ii. 8, 
 9; Vi. 16, 21, 23; viii. 13. This dicaiwya is apprehended by the moral 
 sense, | 
 
 [Obs. 3. The conduct of the heathen, who knew by reflection Gop’s sentence 
 
 , 
 
38 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 of death upon wilful sinners, involves deliberate rejection of light for 
 which they are responsible. For (1) the heathen do the acts which entail 
 this sentence (moto). (2) Not only so. They are in moral agreement 
 (svvevdoxodar) with those who practise (mpaocovcr) these things habitually. 
 notetv is to produce an act which may be often repeated ; mpacoey to engage 
 in a course of conduct. ovvevioxeiy is to consent in moral judgment ; it is 
 used by our Lord of the Jews, S. Luke xi. 48 cvvevdoxeire Tois épyos THV 
 natépwy jpav, and S. Paul was ovvevdoxav at the martyrdom of S. Stephen, 
 Acts viii. 1; xxii. 20; cf. 1 Cor. vil. 12; 1 Macc. i. 57; 2 Mace xi. 24. The 
 man who morally consents to evil in others, is worse than the agent, 
 because he cannot plead the force of passion or temptation. Of this Eli 
 had been an example, r Sam. ii. 29. Cf. Seneca, Epp. xvi. 2 (97). §3 
 referring to the money which was received by judges in order to hush up 
 some gross crimes, observes, ‘Minus crimine, quam absolutione peccatum 
 est.’ §. Paul, however, hints at something more than conspiracy with or 
 connivance at evil ;—the heathen of his time actively sympathised with 
 those who practised it. The injustice and greed of Roman policy, the envy, 
 malignity, and murder, which characterised the court life, the secret 
 informers and scandalous gossip of the capital; the unbearable pride 
 which was insolent, contemptuous and ridiculously vain by turns; the 
 vice which was so ingenious in its discoveries, and so defiant of the 
 elementary principles of dutifulness, common moral sense, honour, natural 
 affection, and human pity,—all this was yet in harmony with and approved 
 by the mass of heathen opinion. What more could he said to show that 
 the triumph of the vods d5é«:yuos—and the failure to attain d:casocdvy—wasg 
 complete ?] 
 
 § 2. 
 
 [Major premiss, see above p. 23.] Whosoever sins incurs r6 kpipa 
 rod Geod (from which he can only be delivered by the Sixaoovwn 
 ©cov), II. 1-16. 
 
 [ Obs. This general proposition, although applicable to Jews and heathen alike, 
 
 is especially addressed (ii. 1) to the Jews who had peculiar temptations to 
 forget it. The Apostle supposes (ver. 1) a (Jewish) reader to be con- 
 demning the Gentile sins which he has just described, and this affords him 
 an opportunity for making an appeal to conscience in passing, which 
 naturally introduces the general proposition beyond (ver. 2), ] 
 
 § Passing warning to the (Jewish) readers. II. 1. 
 
 By reason of those very heathen sins the reader, be he who kai may, 
 
 who condemns them is himself without excuse before the J ustice of 
 God. 
 
 Reason 1. yd¢p. In passing judgment on another, ib utterly gee 
 
 condemns himself. 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. II, vv. 1-16. 39 
 
 Reason 2. (for reason 1. ydp.) He himself, the critic, practises 
 the very things which he condemns. 
 
 [Obs. x. 5&6 must refer to the foregoing picture of heathen sin (i. 18-32), there 
 being no grammatical authority for its proleptic use. The (Jewish) reader 
 is naturally shocked at the sins of the heatheh. But this moral judgment, 
 whether expressed in words or not, does really leave the man who forms it 
 without excuse before the Justice of Gop. By dv@pwre is meant more par- 
 ticularly the Jewish reader; the Jew however is only named at ver. 17. 
 So the heathen are at first referred to as dv@pwrwy (i. 18), and the more 
 direct reference to them is only made at a later stage in the paragraph, 
 although the word é6vn is not used. For the reproachful use of the vocative 
 av@pwme see ix. 20; S. Luke xii. 14.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. dvarodéynros used only here and at i. 20 to which it carries us back. 
 There it is applied to the heathen who are convicted of guilty ignorance of 
 Gop by those works of His which exhibit His attributes and which lie 
 spread out before their eyes. Here, to the individual (Jewish) reader who 
 feels or expresses a natural abhorrence at the gross sins of the heathen, 
 The Jews were much given to self-righteous condemnation of the Gentiles 
 as rejected by Gop; but this distinctive fault of the Jew only becomes fully 
 prominent at ver. 17. By «pivew is here meant the condemning action of 
 the moral faculty, as at S. Matt. vii. 1. Observe the double contrast 
 between x«pivey and the stronger xaraxpiveyv, and between roy érepoy and 
 ceavrév. For this last 1 Cor. x. 24-29; Gal. vi. 4; Phil. ii. 4. év & may 
 =(1) for that, év rovrw 67, or (2) in the point concerning which, xiv. ar. 
 The critic practised the same sins (rd avra), not in all their details and 
 particulars, but in their governing principles. Cf. our Lord’s rebuke to the 
 Jews about the adulterous woman, S. John viii. 7. Thus thoughtless hero- 
 worship given to bad men might be in principle an illustration of the 
 heathen ovvevioxeiv rots mpaccovor Rom. i. 32.] 
 
 Proposition. The xpiya tot cod is (1) regulated by the standard 
 of moral truth, xara ddnfeav, and (2) visited upon those who 
 practise such sins as the heathen, (whether they be Jews or 
 Heathen). ver. 2. 
 
 [0bs. I. ver. 2. By oiSayev the Apostle associates his readers with himself in 
 the recognition of a truth patent to their common sense, Iii. 19 ‘We know 
 
 that whatsoever the law saith it saith to them that are under the law’; 
 t Cor. viii. 4 ‘We know that an idol is nothing in the world’: or to their 
 
 religious faith, Rom. vii. 14 ‘We know that the law is spiritual’; viii. 28 © 
 
 Here natural thought and Divine revelation teach the same lesson about 
 the Judgment of Gop. od Ocod is emphatic after 76 «pia, in opposition to 
 dvOpume 6 xpivwv, ver. 1.] 
 
 ‘We know that all things work together for good to them that love i) 
 
 [Obs, 2. xara ddfqOerav expresses the standard of Gon’s Judgment, Winer, Gr. N. r) 
 Pp. 50%. dA#@ea means reality, fact, as opposed to xard mpoowmoAnypiay ver 
 11; «ar dy S, John vii. 24; sara tiv odpxa S, John viii. 15; ef. S. John 
 
 * i 
 Pe | 
 
40 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 viii. 16 4 xplows 4 én) GAnOwh éorw. énl mpdoooytas expresses its objects. The 
 Jews thought that the heathen (as dpaprwAoi Tob. xiii. 6 oye) were alone 
 its objects ; they themselves, as Jews, were De, Dan. xi. 17. But it was 
 not race, but personal conduct, which determined the Divine Judgment. 
 The position of éo7i is emphatic. } 
 
 The proposition established— 
 
 ing his secret reasons for doubting whether 
 Gcod will touch him\3-$} ‘ 
 
 TO Kpipa Tov 
 
 (A) by an appeal to the conscience (of the critic, es 1) respect- 
 
 a. calculated trust in theocratic privilege. Does he calculate (Acyifn) 
 that, while he does the very acts (mv) of the conduct for 
 which he condemns others, he personally (cv) as being in some 
 privileged position, will escape utterly from the range of the 
 Divine Judgment ? (ver. 3.) 
 
 | [Obs. 1. The case here is slightly stronger than that of the critic in ver. f. It is 
 that of a man who wore? as well as mpdooe, and yet counts upon escape from 
 judgment. Observe how rodro emphatically prepared for the clause, dr: ov, 
 x«.7.A., describing the substance of the calculation. éxpevgacdar means not 
 acquittal before the Judge, but escape from His power, 1 Thess. v. 3 od pi) 
 expvywor: Heb, ii. 3 mds qyeis expevgdpeba ; 2 Mace. vi. 26.] 
 
 [Ovs. 2. The emphasis lies on ov with especial reference to the Jew’s confidence 
 in his theocratic position, as a safeguard against punishment due to his 
 personal sins, S. Matt. iii. 9 marépa éxopev Tov *ABpaap, S. Luke iii. 8. The 
 Jews believed themselves to be of viol rHs BaciAcias S. Matt. viii. 12, and 
 that the race of Abraham would be exempted from judgment, S. Justin 
 Mart. dial. cum Tryph. ce. 44, 125 ; Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, Theil 
 ii. k. 4, pp. 293-295-] 
 
 b. contemptuous estimate of the Divine Mercy as though it were 
 merely casy goodnatured indifference to sin. Or, dismissing the 
 calculations ver. 3, does he think cheaply (xarappoveis) of the 
 wealth of 
 
 goodness towards all His creatures, xpyorérns, 
 @ov's displayed even towards sinners, as dvoxn, 
 and delaying punishment after long provocation, paxpo- 
 Ovpia? 
 flo. 1.% draws attention away from the explanation first proposed and suggests 
 another, vi. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 6, ete., Meyer. The xatagpoveiv implies the con- 
 
 tempt which arises from measuring the Divine goodness by easy temper in 
 man, | 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. II, vv. 1-16, 41 
 
 [Obs. 2. mAodros is often used by S. Paul metaphorically in connection with the 
 Attributes and Gifts of Gop. So ix. 23 rdv mAodrov THs Sdgns: xi. 33 @ Bados 
 mAovrou Kat copias Kat yvwoews: Eph. i. 7 7d mAodros rijs xdéprtos: ver. 18 6 
 mAodros 19s SdEns tHs KAnpovopias. The expression is specially characteristic 
 of the Epp. of the First imprisonment. Cf. in addition to the last passages, 
 Eph. ii. 7; iii. 8, 16; Phil. iv. 19; Col. i. 27; ii. 2 It is used by Greek 
 authors, Plat. Euthyphro, p. 12 A. It is a vivid expression of the idea of 
 abundance and vastness. The ypyoré7ns of Gop is His goodness ; ‘benignitas - 
 Dei ad beneficiendum hominibus potius parata quam ad puniendum.’ 
 Tittmann, Syn. p. 195 (ed. 1829). It differs from ydpis, in that the latter” 
 always suggests preeminently the idea that its objects deserve nothing,—an 
 idea not necessarily implied in yxpyorérys. The Divine xpyorérns becomes | 
 manifest in benefits bestowed on man, S. Luke vi. 35, specially in the | 
 Incarnation. Tit. iii. 4 where 4 xpyordrns ... émepavn. dvoxy, Gon’s for- 
 bearance with sin and sinners, is still ypyordérns face to face with moral evil, 
 and modifying itself accordingly. Cf. iii. 26 év 79 dvox7 Tod Ocod, S. Matt. 
 xvii. 17. When these sins are persevered in, the dvoxn of a moment 
 becomes prolonged into paxpodupla, which is still xpnorérns face to face with 
 moral evil for long periods of time, and so delaying the merited punish- 
 ment. Observe the gradation in the three aspects of the Attribute : for the | 
 last, see ix. 22 6 @eds . . . Hveyney ev TOAAH paxpoOvpig oxevn dpyijs, 1 Tim. 
 i. 16; 1S. Pet. iii, 20. Compare Pearson, Minor Theological Works, i. p. 75, On 
 the ‘benignitas Dei’ as ‘bonitas Divina quatenus in Deo est per modum 
 affectus’ constantly impelling Him to benefit and bless His creatures. Also 
 Tertull. Adv. Marcion. ii. 4, for a fine passage on the goodness of Gop.] 
 
 In this xarappoveiv the Apostle detects— 
 
 (i) tragic ignorance of the true action of this attribute of the 
 Divine Nature upon the human soul. The goodness of Gop is 
 designed to be an impelling force towards repentance. 
 
 [0bs. dyvodv denotes the simple fact of ignorance, for which however the xara- 
 ¢povay is responsible. It does not mean voluntary ignorance at the time. As 
 here dye is used of the moral leading of the Attribute of xpyorérns, so in 
 viii. 14 the sons of Gop are defined to be dca TMvetpar: Ocot dyovra, The 
 same relation of this Attribute to the moral life of man is expressed in 
 2S. Pet. iii. g Gop paxpodupel cis ipds, pi) Bovadperds twas dmodrécOa GAAa 
 mayras eis peTavoway xwphoat.] 
 
 _ (ii) disastrous preparation of misery for a coming time. 
 
 a. its measure.—It is proportioned (kard) to the despiser’s 
 hardness and impenitent heart. 
 
 b. its growth.—It is gradually accumulated, like a fortune, to 
 the despiser’s destruction. 
 
 c. its character.—It is the Wrath of Gop, which breaks out 
 into penal woe on a given day, described as THE DAY 
 
 ou 
 
42 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 1. of wrath, épyis, 
 2. of unveiling, droxa\iweas, Tov Oeov. 
 of the Righteous Judgment, dckatoxpicias, 
 
 
 
 
 [Obs. 1: For xara of the rule or measure, with accus., see Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 501, 
 and ver. 2 KaTd dAjOeav. oxAnpérns, duritia, tropol. contumacia, Deut. ix. 27, 
 here only in N. T. But we find omdnpés (from oxéddw, oxdjjva, for NWP, in 
 
 \LXX) = asper, severus, S. Matt. xxv. 24; oxAnpoxapdia, obdurate mind, 
 S. Matt. xix. 8, S. Mark x. 5 (a vox biblica) ; and oxAnpotpaxndos, hard-necked, 
 hartnickig, only in Acts vii. 51 N. T. and Ex, xxxiii. 3, 5; xxxiv.9, LXX 
 IY AYP, not classical. ] 
 
 (Obs. 2. Onaavpifes glances at Tod mAovTou THs xpnoTérynTos av’rod. The treasure of 
 wrath is substituted by the impenitent for the wealth of the Divine good- 
 ness. oeav7d, dat. incommodi. For the idea of a ‘treasure of evil,’ see 
 Deut. xxxii. 33-35; Prov. i.18; ii. 7; Amos iii. 10; Micah vi. 10; S. James 
 vy. 3, and classical authors apud Wetstein. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The Day of Judgment is (1) jpuépa dpyjs, gen. of external relations 
 applied to designations in time. It is the day on which Gon’s wrath 
 against sin will manifest itself in the punishment of sinners. ‘ Dies irae’ 
 —the great hymn of Thomas de Celano—was suggested by this expression of 
 
 ‘the Apostle. In épyiv év juépa dpyis, observe (1) the emphatic repetition of 
 épyis after épynv in order to accentuate the idea, and (2) the brachylogy, 
 ‘wrath which will break forth on the day of wrath’; cf. 1 Thess. iv. 7 and 
 other exx., Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 519. (2) dwoxadvyews. It is a Day of Reve- 
 lation, of 7a xputTa Tay dvOpmnwy ver. 16, but especially of the just judgment 
 of Gop, which is at present veiled from human eyes. dixaoxpioias, only 
 here in New Testament, probably made by S. Paul: though found in an 
 unknown translation of Hos. vi. 5, Test. xii patriarchs, iii. 3. 15 (Fabricius, 
 PP. 547, 581); (S. Justin Martyr], Quaest. Gentil. c. 28. Cf. S. Jude 6 kpios 
 
 peyaadns 7pépas. | 
 
 [Obs. 4. On the Day of Judgment see Pearson, Creed, Art. 7. In the Old Testament 
 py! Di, day of wrath, Ezek. xxii. 24 ; 8% DV, day of indignation, Zeph. iii. 11; 
 SabP) ni’, day to be feared, Joel ii. 11; iii. 14: prophetic descriptions of 
 this ‘day’ occur in Amos y. 18-20; Joel ii. 1-5; Zeph. i. 14-18; Is. xiii. 
 9-13; Acts xvii. 31, ‘Gop hath appointed a Day in which He will judge the 
 world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained.’ Cf. év juépa 
 ére,x.7.A. This Future Judgment, at a fixed time known only to the Father, 
 is quite consistent with the fact that Gop is always judging us.] 
 
 (B) by a statement of the principles which will govern the 
 dixavoxpicia Tod Ceod (ver. 5) (6-16). 
 
 Principle, I. xara ta €pya. Gop will render to each man that 
 which corresponds to his deeds (6-8). 
 
 A are % 
 
 . 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. II, vv. 1-16. 43 
 
 1. To those whose— 
 a. Rule of life is to persevere in doing good, ka& troporny epyov 
 ayaoo : 
 b. Object in life is to obtain hereafter a glorious, honoured and 
 imperishable existence trois dd€av cai ripjv Kai apOapoiav 
 
 Gynrovet : 
 
 Gop will give Eternal Life (¢wmv aidnor) (ver. 7). 
 
 2. To those who— 
 a. (viewed as a class) belong to the category of selfish intri- 
 guers (rois d¢ e& epiGeias) : 
 b. (viewed as the servants of a governing motive) obey, 
 (i) not the Truth (39 adn bein), 
 (ii) but immorality (77 décxig), 
 
 there will be [éora se. ] Gon’s 
 
 Anger 
 
 in its tranquil judicial form of épyn, 
 in its outward self-manifestation as @upds (ver. 8). 
 
 fObs. 1. ver. 6 kata 7a Epya airod. Gon’s award to every man (éxdoTw) hereafter | 
 
 will be in accordance with his conduct, and not, as the Jews thought, with/ 
 his theocratic position. Cf. S. Matt. xvi. 27 dmoddéce Exdorw Kard Thy 
 mpagw-avrod : S. Matt. xxv. 31-46; 2 Cor. v. 10, we must all appear before 
 Christ’s seat of judgment, iva xoplonra éxactos Ta did Tod owparos mpds & 
 enpagev, etre dyabdv etre xaxdv : Gal. vi. 5 €xaoros yap 75 ibov poptioy Bacrace:: 
 ver. 7 3 ydp édv oneipy dvOpwmos TotTo Kai Oepioee: Eph. vi. 8 édv te €xacTos 
 moon ayabdv Todro Kopretrae mapd rod Kupiov: Col. iii. 24 dnd Kupiov dmo- 
 Afweade thy avramé5oow Tis KAnpovopias: Rev. ii. 23 Swow byiv éxaorw Kara 7a 
 epya ipav : xx. 12 éxpiOnoay of vexpol. .. Kata Ta Epya aitav : xxii. 12 6 puc dis 
 pov per’ éuod, dmododva Exdorw ds 7d Epyov avtod ~otat. This law, that moral) 
 action is the standard by which all men will be judged at the last day, is | 
 here stated broadly, and without reference (1) to the worthlessness of épya | 
 vépov before Gop, or (2) to the justifying faith which receives a Sieacoovvy | 
 that issues in épya dya6d. 
 
 [Obs 2. Kad’ iroporiy, the principle or standard by which the search after 5éfa = 
 
 guided. épyov dya00d is a gen. of the object to which iropor7 refers, 1 Thess. | 
 i. 3. The blessedness of the future salvation is described as in these several 
 ways the reverse of the condition of Christians in this life, (1) 5éga, bril- 
 liancy of light. 2 Cor. iv. 17 Bépos dééns : Matt, xiii. 43 Tére of Simao ExAaGp- 
 Yovow ds 6 fAos év 7H Bactdeig Tod marpds adtay: 2 Cor. iii. 18 hues mavTes 
 dvaxexadvppéry tpoorm thy Bégav Kuplov karomrpiCépevor Thy abriy eixdva pera- 
 poppovpeba dnd dééns cis 5d¢av: Rom. viii. 18 6 rhv péAdovoay Ségav dmokadupOjvat 
 els hpas. (2) ruqv, the honour involved in it as the prize of victory, 1 Cor. 
 ix. 25; Phil. iii. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 8; 1S. Pet. v. 4, and the being associated 
 with the inheritance and reign of Christ, viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12, This tym 
 is veiled in this life. (3) dp@apoiav. Its imperishableness, 1 Cor. Xv. 53; 
 
 
 
44 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Rev. xxi. 4; 1S. Pet.i.4; all these are included in (w7 aiwyios which is here 
 elernal life in the future world: (cf. dmoiwoe), as also vy. 21; vi. 22; Gal. vi. 8.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. With ver. 8 the construction changes: instead of dmodwoe with ace. we 
 \ have nominatives with éora. épideias from épiOos, a hired artisan, a spinner ; 
 (1) mercenary greed, or (2) partisan intrigue. The latter always in New 
 Testament. The incessant plotting for material earthly advantage or 
 superiority, as distinct from the repose of a soul, satisfied with and at peace 
 with Gop, is what is meant. Origen, in loc., says of the of é« 77s épibetas, 
 ‘quidquid libuerit pro lege defendunt.’ The word is thus extended to 
 partisanship in Phil. i. 17; S. James ili. 14, 16. é with gen. of the class or 
 category, not of the source. The Jewish épi0cia was constantly opposing its 
 self-seeking spirit to the Gospel, Acts xiii. 45 ; xviii. 12; Gal. iv. 17; vi. 12; 
 1 Thess. ii. 14. The ddn9ea which is not obeyed is the Gospel, Gal. iii. 1 ; 
 v. 7; 2 Thess. ii. 6-10, it is contrasted with dé«ia which is obeyed. Each 
 revealed truth and immorality is represented as a soul-governing principle 
 received by the will, vi. 12, 16, 19; vii. 14, 23. dépy7) nal @uyds, cf. i. 18, and 
 for the distinction between them, Tittmann, Syn. p. 131 ‘quum 6upés proprie 
 ipsum animum denotet . . . ad omnem animi vehementiorem impetum 
 transfertur . . . épy7 autem ipsam iram cum studio ulciscendi denotat.’ 
 Thus 6vpds is the manifestation of dpyn. Rev. xvi. 19 Oupds THs dpyis, aestus 
 
 irae; cf. 1 Thess. i. 10 THs dpyis Tis épxoperns. | 
 
 Principle, II. 0d mpocwmoAnwia rapa 7G Ocg (Ver. 11), Gop will take 
 no account of outward distinctions between man and man 
 (9-11). 
 
 1. There will be— 
 
 upon every soul 
 
 a. outward calamity, Ajiyis, | belonging to a! of the Jew first 
 
 b. and inward source of op- {man who brings} and also of the 
 pression, orevoxepia, evil to pass, xar-| Greek (ver. 9). 
 
 epyaopevov, 
 
 2. There will be— 
 
 to the Jew first 
 and also to the 
 Greek (ver. 10). 
 
 / to every man 
 a. radiancy, d0€a, who works at 
 b. honour, run, 
 
 6 (<pyagouév@) what 
 ae c. eternal repose eipnyn, ia coed, 
 Pina [Obs. 1. 6Atus, properly pressure, hence in biblical Greek, affliction, angustiae ; 
 >: LXX for MY used with dvayxy and dwypds. stevoxwpia angustia loci; Is. 
 Vili. 22, metaph. grave pressure of calamity, viii. 35; 2 Cor. vi. 4. The 
 words seem to correspond to Is. xxx. 6 Mi¥1 M¥—the one more to 7 
 material pressure or pain, 2 Thess. i. 6, 7. Opposed to dveots, dvamavois, ava- 7 
 yvgis, the other to inner oppression of the soul. The contrast is apparent = 
 in 2 Cor. iv. 8 0A:Bépuevan GAA’ od oTEVoXwpotpevot, emt Tacav yuxny = WEI 2, rat 
 although a Hebrew idiom, Rom. xiii. x ; Acts ii. 43; iv. 23; vii. 14;S.James ~_ ih 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch, 11, vv. 1-16. 45 
 
 i. 2t; Heb. x. 39; S. Luke xii. 47, is yet used here not redundantly, but to 
 express the seat of feeling. . épya(eo0a:, working at good, involves défa, 71427, 
 K.7.A.; Katepyatec0a, bringing evil to pass, leads to @Atus and orevoywpic, cf. 
 i. 27; vii. 8,13. eipyvn, LXX for pidyi, welfare, as inseparable from peace. 
 It is another aspect of the d@@apoia and (wi aiwnos of ver. 7.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The ampoownoAnyia of Gop is implied in macay Yvyxjv ver. g, mavri ver. to, 
 and the repeated phrase ‘ of’ or ‘to’ the ‘Jew first and also the Greek,’ vers. 
 9, 10. Theinsertion of mparov before te... xai gives the sense of ‘ especially,’ 
 Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 721. This phrase occurs at i. 16. The use of mpa@rov 
 there, and in ver. 10 shows that it is not ironical in ver. 9. As the people of 
 revelation, with its promises and threatenings, the Jews precede the 
 heathen, as the recipients of punishment or of reward. The first Iovda/ou 
 T€ mp@rov counteracts the Jewish conceit of exemption from punishment. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. mpocwroAnyia (Tisch. mpoowroAnpyia) is a word of Hellenistic manufacture. 
 mpécwnov, the face, that which meets the eye, is used by LXX to translate/ 
 both DO°35 and D‘BS. The noun mpoowmoAnyia is based on the Hebrew 
 D5 xw?, LXX mpécwnév twos AapBavev—Oavpaceav (Gen. xix. at), déxecOat 
 (Gen. xxxii. 21). It means such a regard to outward circumstances, to | 
 wealth, position, reputation, as blinds the judgment to questions of right, 
 truth and duty. The extreme form of mposwmoAnia was that of judges who - 
 received presents from persons who appeared before them ; whence 
 D5 nwa came to mean to be partial (Lev. xix. 15; Deut. x. 17) and the 
 substantive D°35 Nw, ‘partiality.’ In the New Testament the word is } 
 always used in a bad sense. Gop is not mpoowmoAnmrns Acts x. 34; Eph. 
 vi. 9; Col. iii. 25 ; Gal. ii. 6 mpdcwmov @eds dvOpwm0v od AapBave.: S. Luke xx. 
 ar; S. Matt. xxii. 16; S. Mark xii. 14; 2 Cor. x. 7; S. Jude 16 Oavpacortes 
 npdowna wpereias xapv. The idea of tpoowmoAnyia, as the sacrifice of objective 
 justice to something else which met the eye of the judge, is familiar to the 
 ancients, although the word is unclassical. The symbolic expression of the 
 idea was the bandage over the eyes of the statues of Justitia.] 
 
 Principle, III. Gov’s judgment of men will be relative to their 
 varying opportunities in life (ver. 12), 
 Thus— 
 
 1. The Heathen who have sinned, without the advantage of a 
 Revealed Law (dvéys), will also perish, by the sentence of Gon, 
 as being unfaithful to the light of nature, but without any 
 reference to Revealed Law (avépos). 
 
 2. The Jews, who have sinned, in the midst of a system of 
 Revealed Law (év vz), will be judged by this Revealed Law 
 (dua vépov), as if it were the author of their condemnation 
 (ver. 12). 
 
 [Obs. x. Ver. 12 is a reason (ydp) for the statement that there is no apoowrmodmpia® 
 * with Gop. His dmpocwnoAnyia is seen in the condemnation of the heathen 
 
46 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 \to eternal ruin, for their transgression of what they knew of His law, by 
 the light of nature. dvdyws without the guidance of the Revealed Law ; 
 opposed to év véuw, where the Law is conceived of as an atmosphere of 
 moral truth within which the Jew lives and acts. dmododyra: expresses the 
 antithesis to owrnpia i. 16; (yoera i. 173; wi aiwnos ii. 7; Séfa, Teph, 
 eiphvn ii. 10. It must be referred, not to any natural necessity, but, as the 
 context implies, to the sentence of Gop at the last Judgment. It corre- 
 sponds with the milder «piéjcovra, which here however expresses all that 
 is necessary to describe the impartiality of the Divine Judge. The Jew 
 who, having the guidance of revealed law, should commit the same sins as 
 the heathen, would be sentenced to a punishment proportioned in its 
 severity to the light which he had abused.] 
 
 (oes. 2. vopos is here used of the Mosaic law, without the article, as if it were 
 aproper name. This is frequent in the Apocrypha, and of particular laws 
 in classical writers. Cf. ii. 23; iii. 31; iv. 13, 14, 153; V.13, 203 VU. 1; 
 X43 Xil./8 50x Cor. ix. 20; Gal.ii. ar ; ii. 11, 18, ar; iy. 5, ete.) 
 
 Objection 1. (to 2 in ver. 12.) Will not the privileged position 
 of the Jew, as an dxpoarns véuov, of itself make him dikatos napa 
 T@ Gc and so screen him from condemnation ? 
 
 Resp. No. The Divine Rule is that the movyrai vépuov will be 
 adjudged righteous (at the last day, ver. 16). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The Jews are called dxpoara? véuov with reference to the public reading 
 of the Thorah on the sabbath, S. John xii. 34; Acts xv. 21 Mwojs ... Kata 
 may oaBBaroyv dvaywwordpevos: 2 Cor. iii. 14, for the veiling of the Jewish 
 
 _ heart during this reading, Joseph. Ant. v. 1. 26; 2. 7. The substantive is 
 | more forcible than the participle : it means ‘those whose business it is to hear,’ 
 whether they listen to any purpose or not. Among the Greeks dxovoyres or 
 axpoarai were applied to students, Polyb. Hist. i. 13.6; ix. 1.2. The word 
 ( is in vivid antithesis to mo:nrai.] 
 
 [ [Obs. 2. mapa 74 OcG. The Divine standard of diaoodvn is contrasted tacitly 
 with the Jewish. apa is here used as éywmoyv at iii. 20. Not privileged 
 knowledge, but conscientious obedience to the Divine Law is the condition 
 \ of being declared righteous by Gop. Sixadéw is (1) to justify, make one who 
 \ was unrighteous, righteous. Cf. Ps. Ixxiii. 13 pataiws éd:taiwoa tiv Kapdiav 
 Hou, where it =13}, to purify. So iii. 23 dxacovpevar Swpeav TH exeivov Xap: 2) 
 iv. 5 ém rov dieaodvra tov doeBH: Gal. iii. 8 é« wicrews Simatol ra EOvn 6 Oeds. | 
 (2) To account righteous in the judicial sense, i.e. acquit=pI¥n, Ex. 
 xxiii, 7 ob Simadoes Tov doeBR Evexev Skpwv, 1 Kings viii. 32 ; so Prov. xvii. 
 155 Ps. li. 6; 1 Cor. iv. 4. I know nothing against myself, ddd’ ob« ev 
 TouTw Sedixaiwpa. It is opposed to xaTadiné¢ew in this sense, which is that 
 | of the present passage. This verse is not contradictory of iii. 20 é¢ épyav 
 | vdpou ov dixawOnocera aca odpt evwmov avrov, because that passage describes 
 \ the actual fact, this the antecedent and general Divine rule.] 
 
 Objection 2. (arising out of resp. to obj. 1.) If it be the general rule 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. II, vv. 1-16. 4? 
 
 of Gov’s judgment that of roimrai vopov StxarwOnoovra, what is 
 the application of this rule to the heathen, who live, sin, and 
 die, without the pale of the Mosaic Law, dvépes drodotvra ? 
 (ver. 12). 
 
 Resp. The general rule does apply, in its degree, to the heathen. 
 For although they possess a something which cannot be 
 considered Revealed Law (vn ra pu) vdpov Zxovnes) they do, by 
 natural guidance, and without cultivation (fice) carry out 
 certain precepts or principles of the Revealed Law (ra rod 
 vopov modor) Thus, while they cannot be thought of as 
 possessing the Revealed Law, their moral nature is to them 
 what the Revealed Law of Sinai is to the Jews (ver. 14). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The parenthesis includes vers. 14, 15 according to Meyer and Lach- 
 mann: Winer would begin with ver. 13 (Gr. NV. 7. p. 707), on the ground 
 that the three verses constitute a group of thoughts complete in itself. But 
 év juepa connects itself as easily with d:xawOnoovra in ver. 13 as With «pi6y- 
 covra in ver. 12: and the relation of ver. 1g to 12 is more intimate than 
 that of ver. 14 to 13.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Remark (1) the contrast between 26vn .. . €xovra and oro. . . €xovres in 
 the two clauses; as the Apostle advances the abstract impersonal con 
 ception of heathendom is resolved into the individual men who compose it. 
 (2) The contrast between 7a pz) vépov €xovra, possessing only an analogon to 
 the Revealed Law, and véyor ph éxovres, not possessing the real Revealed Law 
 On ¢vois here, as signifying the original outfit of natural powers given to 
 man at his birth, and independent of subsequent training, see Meyer in loc. 
 For this sense of the expression, Arist. Nic. Eth. iii. (5) 15 rots pév bid pvow 
 aisxpots ovdels émTipG . . . ovdels yap av dvadione TUPAG Pica. In Nic. Eth. 
 v. (7), the distinction between ¢gvoixdy and vojurdy, this last being only 
 human positive law, is thus stated; puowxdv pev 76 TavTaxov tiv aviv Exov 
 Svvajuv Kat ob TO Boxeivy H pn. Nopurdy dé, d €f adpxis pev oddev Siapeper ovtws 7 
 GdAws, Stay 5é OGvTa, Siapepa ... oiov 7d OVev Bpacida. Cic. pro Caecina, 27 ‘Ita 
 justus et bonus vir est, ut natura non disciplina consultus esse videatur.’ 7 
 Tod vépov, not Tov vépov: the heathen only fulfil certain parts of the Revealed 
 Law—precepts belonging to it. In doing this, however, they become a 
 moral standard of a certain value to themselves—just as the Revealed Law is 
 a standard to the Jews. For the phrase éavrois «ict vépuos, compare Arist. 
 Nic. Eth. 4. (8) 10 6 5% xapieas wat érevdépios ows Efe, olov vdpos dy éavTa. | 
 
 [0bs. 3. On the unwritten laws of nature, see Ken. Memorab. iv. 4. 19 aypapous 
 twas oia0a, pn, @ ‘Inmia, vopous; Tots y ev maon, en, xvpa Kata TaiTa vom o- 
 pévous. Since men could not meet together to vote these laws, or, if they 
 did, could not be expected to agree, Oeobs ofua tots vdpous TovTOUs Tois dvOpw- 
 mots Oeivat : Soph. Oed. Tyr. 863 sqq. 
 
 av vopor mpdneavrat 
 ipimodes, odpaviay | 60 aidépa rexvwOévres, 
 
48 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Gv “Odupros | taTip pdvos, ovdé vv 
 
 Ovara pots avépwy erikTev.... 
 Cf. Dion. Halicar. iii. 23. 474. Philo Jud. speaks of the vdpos kal Oeapos 
 aypapos, De Abrah. vol. ii. p. 388, De v. Mosis, i. p. 627, where he says that the 
 vopos eppuxds Te Kat AoyuKds long preceded the work of the lawgiver.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. The words érav ydp é6vn... pvce TA TOD vopouv Toi Were employed by 
 Pelagius to show that man can obey Gop’s law without Gon’s grace. In 
 reply S. Augustine, de Spir. et Litera, ec. 46, explains that by ¢0vn are meant 
 heathen, who have been already converted to the Christian faith, or who 
 fulfil the law through some special and extraordinary supply of grace. On 
 ver. 10, S. Chrysostom had understood under Hellenes, the pre-Christian 
 heathen, Melchizedeck, Job, and “EAAnvas rods OcoceBudvtas, Tots TH puvaik@ 
 teOopevous vouw. The objection to S. Augustine’s reply is that it is opposed 
 to the context, which makes his limitation of ¢@vj impossible. The broad 
 answer to Pelagius is that his use of the passage (1) ignores what is said 
 about the heathen in i. 18-32; (2) is inconsistent with the whole drift of 
 the Apostle’s argument that all men, whether heathens or Jews, need the 
 dixmoctvn ToD @eod: (3) overlooks the force of rad tod vépuov morq—as if it 
 meant to fulfil the law. It really means a partial and relative obedience 
 such as was possible in a state of nature, but falling far short of d:cacoovvn. | 
 
 § Proof that the Heathen é<avrois cici vopos. 
 
 Z (Obs. hie is logical ; it may be resolved into dp, ‘for that they,’ quippe qui, 
 i. 25. 
 
 This is observable— 
 
 1. By their actions, the Heathen give external proof that the 
 conduct which corresponds to the law (ré épyov rod vépov) is 
 written as a code upon their hearts. 
 
 2. In their moral consciousness, the Heathen find a concurrent testi- 
 mony (cvppaprupotcns) that this natural rule of conduct does 
 supply them with the major premiss of the syllogism of 
 conscience. 
 
 3. In their secret moral judgments, as between man and man, the 
 Heathen condemn or acquit each other by appealing to this | 
 unwritten rule of conduct (ver. 15). : 
 
 | [Obs. t. Direct evidence of better heathen conduct. That évdeievuvra refers “ 
 to the outward evidence of this law in the heathen heart is gathered 
 from 7a Tod vépou moj ver. 14, and from the preposition in ovppapru- 
 povons, which expresses not simply attestation, but the concordance ‘ 
 
 \ between the inner evidence of conscience, and the outer evidence 
 ~ of conduct. See Meyer, in loc. note 1. 76 épyov Tod vépou, the conduct which 
 (corresponds to the law; ef. dyapripata vépov Wisd. ii. 12, the sins which 
 (violate the law. épyor is collective ; it comprises the épya Tod vépou, iii. 20, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch, II, vv. 1-16. 49 
 
 28 ; ix. 32, etc. ; the practical upshot of the Mosaic Law is what the expres-s 
 sion means, as distinct from any one of its particular precepts. ‘ypamrév= 
 
 yeyeappevoy: the word is chosen with reference to the written Law of Moses, 
 
 Heb. viii. 10. The essential contents of the law are shown to be written 
 upon the hearts of the better heathen by their conduct. Observe how this 
 sentence balances the description at i, 28-32, There were heathen and / 
 heathen. ] 
 
 (Obs. 2. Concurrent witness of the heathen conscience. In ovppaprupodons the ) 
 
 ovv points out the relation between the consciousness of the better heathen 
 and their outer conduct. Not only does this law govern their actions very 
 largely, but they know it, ovveidnois is here the faculty by which man re- 
 cognises the natural law within him; and this law is not the conscience, 
 but that which regulates its consciousness,—the major premiss of its deci- 
 sions. In this passage, says Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. p, 163, E. T. the Apostle 
 places conscience in a relation to the inner natural law, which resembles 
 that of prophecy to the Jewish Thorah. As prophecy, which has been 
 strikingly called the conscience of the Israelitish state, testifies to the 
 Thorah, and places the circumstances and conduct of Israel in the light of 
 the Thorah, from time to time,—thus conscience gives witness to that inner 
 law in man in his own sight (cvppaprupe?), impels and directs man to act 
 according to that law, (the so-called precedent conscience) judges his doings 
 according to this law and reflects his actions and his circumstances in the 
 light of this law (the subsequent conscience), ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The Aoy:cpol, reasoned thoughts, which necessarily arise from the appre- 
 
 hension of the internal law by the ovveidjots of men, either condemn or 
 excuse the acts which pass before it. Whose acts? The man’s own (says 
 Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. p. 164, E. T.); he is reflecting upon his individual 
 conduct, or his state as a whole. Those of others, (says Meyer, in loc,) the 
 accusations and vindications are conceived to be carried on between heathen 
 and heathen, perafd dAAjAwv. Observe the contrast between airav 77s cuvet- 
 Sjoews and peragd dAAfAwy: the latter expression occuring here only in 
 $. Paul, to contrast the mutual judgment of the thoughts of different men, | 
 with the personal and individual tendency of conscience. dAAjAwv must be) 
 referred to vn not to Aoyopol, as is plain from its necessary antithetical 
 correspondence with ai7v@v. Although Meyer seems to keep closer to the text 
 the current interpretation refers Aoyicpoi to the acts of the man himself, and 
 connects this clause with that which follows on the day of judgment. Thus | 
 S. Cyril Jerus. Catech. xv. ¢. 25 é« Tis cvverdnoews cou Kpwh peTagd TY Aoyopuav | 
 KatnyopovvTwy f Kat dmodoyoupéevar év Hepa Grav, «.7.A: Tertull. de Testim. An. 
 
 ce. 6 ‘ Merito igitur omnis anima et rea et testis est ; in tantum et rea erroris, | 
 in quantum et testis veritatis. Et stabit ante wills Dei in die judicii, nihil | 
 habens dicere,”] 
 
 
 
 § This correspondence between the sentence of God and the 
 opportunities enjoyed by men, will be made manifest on the 
 Day when— ‘ 
 
50 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 i. (subject-matter of His judgment) the secret side of human 
 conduct (ra kpunta trav avOporev). 
 
 ii. (standard of His judgment) according to the tenor of the 
 Gospel as taught by the Apostle (cara 16 ebayyehidv 
 pov), 
 
 iii. (Minister of His judgment) by the agency of Jesus 
 Christ (ver. 16). 
 
 [Obs. 1. év %yépa defines the time when dicawOjoovra, ver. 13, will take place ; and 
 this day is further defined by the clause 6re xpivet. *Ev #yépa is not ‘on every 
 day, on which Gop causes the gospel to be preached’; xpwei is future. Cf. 
 és dmodwoe ver. 6; KpiOnoovra ver. 12; SikawOnoovra ver. 13. GoD is 
 
 always judging men ; but this is not the sense of the text. For év jeépa, 
 see further 1 Cor. i. 8; v.53; 2 Cor. i. 14.] 
 
 Gop will 
 judge 
 
 [Obs. 2. 7a kpuTTa TOY dvOpwrwv, all in the outer or inner life of a man which 
 does not come to the knowledge of other men ;—thoughts, feelings, acts, 
 motives—advantages or disadvantages, 1 Cor. iv. 5 pwrice Ta KpumTa Tod 
 
 oxérous, Kal pavepwoe Tas BovAds Tay Kipdi@v: Ecclus. i. 30; 8. Luke xii. 2_ 
 
 ovdev xpumrov db od yvwoOnoera: x Cor. xiv. 25; 2 Cor. iv. 2 Ta xpumra tis 
 aicxvrns. | 
 
 [Obs. 3. xara 76 ebayyédrédy pov. This can hardly mean that the assertion that 
 Gop will judge the secrets of men by the agency of Jesus Christ was in 
 accordance with the Avpostle’s gospel, as well as that of others. For no other 
 teacher questioned the doctrine, and the pov would be meaningless. The 
 accent lies on «ard. The Divine judgment would be in correspondence 
 with the truths taught by the Apostle. The correspondence of the Divine 
 sentence, on the one hand, with the secret Predestination of Gop, on 
 the other its being xara ra Epya, viii. 4 ; 2 Cor. v. 10; Eph. v. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 
 9, &e. is what he means. 
 
 pou is antithetical, not to the gospel of other Apostles, but of false and 
 Judaising teachers in xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. That our Lord is the Minister of the Judgment, ef. S. John v. 22 ri 
 kplow wacay dé5axev TH TIP: Acts x. 42 6 dpicpévos bd Tod Ocod Kpit}s CevT@V 
 wat vexpav : xvii. 31 év dvipt @ Gpcev: 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10: Pearson, On 
 the Creed, art. vii.] 
 
 § 3. 
 [Minor premiss. Part ii. see above p. 23.] The Jewish people, 
 although entrusted with the Law revealed to Moses, have failed to 
 attain Sixavoobvn (ii. 17-i1i. 8). 
 
 [Obs. The argument of this paragraph may be stated thus :— 
 Maj. Those who enjoy great religious privileges and yet sin flagrantly, have 
 not attained d:xcarooivn. 
 Min. But the Jews make loud claims to the possession of such privileges 
 (17-20) and yet do sin flagranily (21-24). 
 Concl. Therefore, the Jews have not attained to diaaoodvy. } 
 
Dogmatic: chs. II, v. 17—III, »v. 8. 51 
 
 I. Religious position and consequent responsibility of the Jew, 
 
 measured— 
 
 (i) by positive features, defining his unique relation to Gop (vers. 
 149, 18). 
 1. his theocratic name, of ‘ Jew.’ 
 2. his confidence in (the possession of) the Divine Law. 
 3. his exulting boast in God (as the Guardian of Israel) (ver. 17). 
 4. his knowledge of The Will (of the Most Holy). 
 5 his superior moral insight which approvingly recognizes 
 true excellence and which is due to his having been 
 instructed out of the Sacred Law (ver. 18). 
 
 [Ots. r. The protasis of the sentence comprises vers. 17-20, and the apodosis 
 
 begins with ver. 21. In ver. 17, the true reading is «i 5¢; the recept. i5e is 
 merely a copyist’s error. As the Apostle proceeds with the protasis, he 
 loses sight of ei, ver. 17; he has forgotten it, when he reaches the end of 
 the protasis. Accordingly, he begins the apodosis ver. 21 with otv, involving 
 an anacoluthon, due to the vehemence of the Apostle’s language. Winer, 
 Gr. N. T. p. 711 sqq. The paragraph is suggested by ver. 13; the position 
 that not the hearers but the doers of the law shall be justified is here applied 
 to the Jew, in proof that he cannot, by himself, attain to d:cacoovvy.} 
 
 [Obvs. 2. The protasis, although dwelling on the privileges of the Jew, refers to, 
 
 his own language about them, and in terms of censure, which deepens as he) 
 proceeds. (1) «i 5 Iovdaios émovouatn—‘if thou art named Jew ’—the theo- ) 
 eratic name of honour ; amember of the chosen race, as opposed to heathen-( 
 ism, Gal. ii. 15; Rev. ii. 9; iii. 9. Judah the patriarch had a name of 
 religious significance, from niAwnS nin, Jehovam celebrare, Gen. XXixX. 35; 
 so that 1737" was understood to mean either 6 éfopodoyotpevos TS Oc@ Philo, 
 Alleg. (ed. Mangey), i. p. 55, or % fomoAdynois Tov @eod Philo, de plant. Noe, i. 
 Pp. 233. érovouatec@a used of imposinga name : cf. Meyer. (2) émavanavew is ) 
 used of reliance on a guarantee, as here of salvation ; it answers to 2) Wye? - 
 to support oneself on something. Cf. Mie. iii. 11. The Jew relied on the 
 law, as if eternal life resided in it, whatever his own relation to it might be 
 in practice; S. John v. 39 év aitais (see the Old Testament ypapai) Soxeire 
 (wi aiwvioy éxewv. (3) xavxdoa: for the form see ver. 23; xi. 18; 1 Cor. iv. 
 9. KavxdoOa in class. with émi or eis; with év in Gal. vi. 13; 2 Cor. x. 15, as 
 marking the object in which the xavynots rests. The Jew boasted in Gon, 
 as the author of the everlasting covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 7; as 
 ‘their Gop,’ Jeremiah xxxi. 33; ‘In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be 
 justified and shall glory’ Is. xlv. 25. Note the climax—'Ioviaios, vopq, Od. 
 The Jewish xavxnors is baptized by the Apostle in Rom. v. 11 cavxwpevor ev 
 TP OcG did Tov Kupiov Hua "Incod Xpiorod. } 
 
 [Obs. 3. (4) The expression 76 @éAnya is unique ; but this use of a substantive with’ 
 _ the article is found with dogmatic technical terms, ef. 4 épyf Rom. iii. 5 5 
 V.9; xii. 19. No will could be meant but One; there was no need for 
 adding cod. The Jew dwelt on this knowledge, as of itself so precious, as 
 
 E 2 
 
 ~~ 
 
52 The Epistle to the Romans, 
 
 to make corresponding conduct relatively unimportant. (5) By Soxipages 7a 
 diapépovra is meant, ‘Thou approvest things that are excellent,’ not ‘Thou 
 testest things which are different (a) whether from each other or (6) from 
 the will of Gop.’ Of, Phil. i. 10; 1 Thess. v. 21. The Jew prided himself 
 less on his power of seeing the distinction between right and wrong than 
 on his faculty for doing justice to superior excellence whenever he saw it. 
 This faculty he had trained, by being catechetically instructed in youth 
 out of the Law. s«arnxew used of repeated oral instruction, 8. Luke i. 4; 
 Acts xviii. 25; xxi. 21, 24; 1 Cor. xiv. 19; Gal. vi. 6, With xatnxovpevos, 
 cf. dxpoarat ver. 13. | 
 
 (ii) by current and highly cherished titles, defining the Jews’ 
 presumed relation to the Heathen (vers. 19-20). 
 
 a. He is confident with respect to himself that he is 
 guide of the blind—sdnyis rupdav : 
 light of those in darkness—dés rév év oxdret $ 
 educator of the senseless—maideurijs appover § 
 teacher of babes—d:ddcKados vnriov, 
 
 [Obs. r. Of these titles, used of themselves by the Rabbinical teachers, the first, 
 65nyos TuprA@v, is referred to by our Lord, who upbraids the Pharisees with 
 being 65nyol rupdAot tupAdy S. Matt. xv. 14. The second, das Trav év oxdre, 
 
 jis probably a Rabbinical adaptation of one of the titles of the Messiah ; ef. 
 
 ‘Ts, xlix. 6, and S. Luke ii. 32. When Messiah came, His people vee to 
 declare His glory among the Gentiles; Is. Ixvi. 19, and hence the title was 
 appropriated by individual Jews. The third, ra:devris appdévwy, is referred by 
 Tholuck to the Rabbis who instructed Jewish proselytes, to whom the terms 
 Gppoves and vyjmo: seem to have been applied (Selden, De Jure Nat. xi. 4, 
 p. 162, ed. 1640) like vedpuro: and beh ict to young Christians. But this re- 
 ference is doubtful : d:5acxnados vntiwv, a teacher of them who are wanting 4 in 
 
 ( the first elements of spiritual wisdom ; obs. the contrast between vjmos and 
 oopés in 1 Cor. iii. 1.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. In these titles the Jew contrasts himself with the heathen. The Jew 
 conceives himself to be a source of moral and intellectual truth ; he is an 
 6dnyés and madeuT7s ; he is PGs and a Siédoxados, The heathen is spiritually 
 blind,and without spiritual understanding : he is in darkness and his mind 
 is as undeveloped, for religious purposes, asa child’s. The moral and intel- 
 lectual elements of the description alternate. On the Jewish estimate of 
 the heathen world, see Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, part ii, pp. 206- 
 208. | 
 
 § Reason for the Jew’s confidence— ib at 
 He possesses the law, in which yous and ddjOea have received 
 the expression or form (#éppeow) which befits their nature (ver. 20 b), — 
 
 [0bs. 1. pdppwors occurs only here and in 2 Tim. iii. 5 éxovres péppwow eboeBelas, , ! 
 Tiv 88 Siva adtis jpyvnuévor (the verb poppdw occurs in Gal. iv. 19), poppwars 
 means in that passage form without substance, ‘Scheinbild’; but here it 
 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: chs. II, v. 17—IIl, v. 8. 53 
 
 can only be taken in the sense of formandi ratio, tUmos, exemplar. The} 
 Thorah was for the Jew the real expression of all moral truth, the form in 
 which it became incorporate ; its substance thrown into such shape as to) 
 become matter of intellectual cognizance; ef. Is. xliv. 13. LXX; Eeclus. 
 xxiv. 23. That S. Paul could not find in the Thorah only the form or 
 appearance, as distinct from the substance of truth, see iii. 21, 37.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The religious privileges of Israel, here referred to as they existed in the 
 minds of the Rabbinical order and with scarcely veiled censure on the 
 emphasis laid on them, are treated with profound sympathy in ix. 3-5. 
 Thus S. Paul is following our Lord’s judgment on the claim to be onépya 
 ’"ABpadp in S. John viii. 33-42. } 
 
 II. The sin of the Jew viewed (vers. 21-24). 
 (i) in itself— 
 I. as being against knowledge and, moreover, knowledge pressed 
 as binding on the consciences of others 
 
 a. generally, 6 ody dddcKev x.r.d. (ver. 21) 5 
 b. specifically, as e.g. 
 1. thieving, on the part of preachers of the eighth 
 commandment (ver. 21). 
 
 2. adultery, on the part of teachers of the seventh 
 coramandment (ver. 22). 
 
 2. as conflicting with strong religious professions. Thus, 
 The Jew professed the utmost dread of physical contact with 
 an idol. 
 Yet, upon occasion, he would enrich himself by the plunder of 
 a Pagan temple (ver. 22). 
 
 (ii) in its consequences— 
 
 a. The Jew’s transgression of the law, which is the subject of his 
 ‘boast,’ brings its Divine author into dishonour among the 
 heathen (ver. 23). For 
 
 b. Isaiah’s reference to the dishonour of the Name of Gop, 
 through the reduction of the Jews to slavery by their heathen 
 conquerors, may well describe the dishonour which is done to 
 Him in the minds of the Heathen through Jewish sin (ver. 
 24). 
 
 [Obs. x. (ver. 21.) For this contrast between teaching and personal practice, ef. Ps. 
 1. 16, 39 ‘But unto the ungodly said Gop, Why dost thou teach my law?’ 
 S. Ign. Eph. 15 ; Aboth Nathan 29, quoted by Wetstein. Aba Saul the son of Nani 
 said: ‘The disciples of the wise are fourfold ; first there is he who teaches 
 
 Pe eee 
 
54 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 others but teaches not himself.’ Seneca, De Vita Beata 18 ‘ Aliter inquit 
 loqueris, et aliter vivis. Hoc Platoni objectum est, objectum Epicuro, 
 objectum Zenoni. Omnes enim isti dicebant non quemadmodum ipsi vive- 
 rent, sed quemadmodum vivendum esset’ : Seneca, Ep. eviii. 36 ‘ Nullos autem 
 pejus mereri de omnibus mortalibus judico, quam qui philosophiam yelut 
 aliquod artificium venale didicerunt, qui aliter vivunt quam vivendum esse 
 praecipiunt.’ So ‘video meliora proboque deteriora sequor.’] 
 
 [Obs. 2. (ver. 21.) For thefts by preachers of the eighth commandment see Koheleth 
 R. viii. 4, quoted by Wetstein, ‘ The disciple said to a certain master, Rabbi 
 thou sayest to me, that a man may not take hay, yet thou takest it. Mayest 
 thou then do that which is forbidden to me?’ Compare the picture of the 
 ‘vir bonus omne forum quem spectat et omne tribunal’ in Hor. Epist. i. 16, 
 57, and whose secret prayer is— 
 
 ‘Da mihi fallere, da justo sanctoque videri 
 
 Noctem peccatis et fraudibus objice nubem.’ 
 Josephus mentions a ease of theft by four Jews, not long before this date at 
 Rome, who applied to their own uses some consecrated gifts destined for 
 the temple by a proselyte Fulvia, Ant. xviii. 3. 5.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. (ver. 22.) In the Talmud Rabbis Akiba and Eleasar are accused of 
 adultery (Tholuck in loc.). Aéyes is used as=to give a judicial decision, 
 S. Matt. xv. 5; S. Mark vii. 11.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. (ver. 22.) On BdedAvocdpevos 7a cidwda, see Deut. vii. 26 LXX ovx eicoicas 
 BdeAvypa eis TOv oikdy cov, The feeling became intense after the captivity: 
 idols were always referred to as BdeAvypara, NIIPIM, 1 Mace. i. 54; vi. 7. 
 On the occasion of Pilate’s bringing to Jerusalem the military standards 
 which were adorned with the representation of the emperor, multitudes of 
 the Jews went to meet him at Caesarea. During five days they were refused 
 an audience ; and when Pilate appeared he ordered them to withdraw on 
 pain of death. They threw themselves on the ground and exposed their 
 necks, preferring to die rather than that the law should be violated by the 
 entrance of idols into the city, Joseph. Antig. xviii. ¢. 3. 1; De Bell. Jud. ii. 
 9. 4. The reference in iepoovdcis is best explained of robbery of heathen 
 
 - temples : the Jew who dreaded contact with idols resigned himself to it 
 when something was to be got. That Jews were fepéovAc: may be inferred 
 from the speech of the town-clerk at Ephesus, Acts xix. 37; Joseph. Ant. 
 iv. 8.10. Delitzsch in loc. quotes Aboda Zara 53°, where the case of Jewish 
 mpd (Anorai), who should have stolen a Pagan idol is noticed. The words 
 have been referred (a) to thefts in the Jewish temple, whether of offered 
 money or of sacrifices, and (b) to general profanity, as involved in robbing 
 Gop of the glory which is due to Him.] 
 
 [Obs. 5. ver. 23 is an answer to the four reproachful questions, vers. 21, 22, 
 according to Meyer. But the interrogative punctuation of ver. 23 is more 
 probable ; and, in this case, the verse is an all-ineluding question which 
 presses the particulars specified in the preceding verses upon the conscience 
 with collective force. The robbery of gold and silver from pagan idols is 
 disallowed, Deut. xvii. 25, so that this would be a form of the 76 dripacew 
 tod Gcod. But the full meaning of this ‘dishonour’ is austeeted by the 
 
 z quotation in ver. 24.] 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: chs. II, v. 17—IIl, v. 8. 55 
 
 [Obs. 6. (ver. 24.) The quotation of Is. lii. 5 is intended to show that the Jews 
 were an occasion of dishonour to the name of Gop, 
 
 Heb. ysin ny pina Tn 
 {and continually all the day My name is blasphemed], 
 
 ; 
 
 LXX 80 Spas dia ravrds 76 Gvopd pou BAachnpeirac év Tois COveoww. 
 
 There is nothing in the present Hebrew text corresponding to &’ tyds and év 
 Tots €Oveow. The pagans uttered wild blasphemies against Gop ; the occasion 
 of their doing so was the captive people of Israel among them. S. Paul is 
 at liberty to neglect the primary historical sense of the passage, as he does 
 not quote it as a fulfilled prophecy: the passage will bear a sense in its 
 LXX form which illustrates his present meaning. | 
 
 [Obs. 7. In ver. 24 yép is not found either in the Hebrew or LXX; it is intro- 
 duced by S. Paul to show how ver. 24 justifies the rév Oedy dtipdces of ver. 
 23. That the Apostle is quoting from the Old Testament is only indicated 
 by «ads yéypanra at the close of his quotation. | 
 
 III. Jewish objections to this conclusion considered. ii. 25-iii. 8. 
 
 Objection I. from the efficacy of circumeision. Does not circumcision 
 place the Jew in a religious position, which is thus rendered 
 secure independently of his personal conduct ? 
 
 Resp. No. The advantage (apedci) conferred by circumcision is 
 conditional. It is only secured, when the Law is carried 
 into practice (mpdoons) by the circumcised person. The cireum- 
 cised Jew who is a mapaBdtns vopov might just as well be uncir- 
 cumcised (ver. 25). 
 
 From this it follows, (odv ver. 26)— 
 
 1. That an uncircumcised heathen who observes the moral 
 precepts (d:xaopara) of the Law, will at the last day, be reckoned 
 before Gop as a circumcised Jew (ver. 26). 
 
 2. That—further,—such a heathen, uncircumcised in virtue of 
 his birth, but obedient to the Law, will be the (tacit) condem- 
 nation of the Jew, who with his scriptures and his circumcision, 
 transgresses the law (ver. 27). 
 
 Proof that 2. (ver. 27) is accordant with the Old Testament 
 revelation. 
 
 Reason 1. from the falsehood of the popular and externalised 
 conception of what is meant by a ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision,’ 
 in the Sacred Language— 
 
 (a) a ‘Jew’ is not one whose external life only (ev 6 pavepo) 
 corresponds to the word. 
 
56 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 (b) ‘circumcision’ is not merely a wound on the flesh visible 
 to the senses. 
 
 Hence the mere Jew by birth who has received legal circumcision 
 is not ensured against condemnation. 
 
 [Obs. 
 
 ( 
 
 Reason 2. from the spiritual reality which the words imply. 
 
 (a) the true Jew is such in his inner life of service and 
 praise—6 ev ra KpurTa, 
 (b) the true circumcision (also év 76 kpumré) has for 
 (i) its seat, the centre of man’s inmost being—kapdias : 
 (ii) its creative power—the Holy Spirit, not the letter 
 of the Jewish Thorah (év mvevpare od ypappare) : 
 (iii) its result —that which commands if not the 
 praise of men, yet the approval of Gop. 
 
 _ 1. In ver. 25 yap corroborates the conclusion arrived at in vers. 23, 24, by 
 meeting a tacit objection from the supposed spiritual insurance effected by 
 circumcision. The advantage of circumcision consisted in the admitting to 
 all the blessings and promises conferred by Gop on the people of the 
 covenant, The privileges however depended on the observance of the Law 
 as their condition, Gen. xvii. 1‘ I am the Almighty God; walk before Me 
 and be thou perfect,’ Lev. xviii. 5 ; Deut. xxvii. 26; Gal. v. 3. In the event 
 of (é4v, Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 366) a Jew’s transgressing the Law, his cireum- 
 cision becomes ndry, dxpoBvotia, thereby yéyovey describes the moral result 
 which takes place :—a present of the completed action.] 
 
 (Obs. 2. Circumcision (nds from by, meptropn from mepitéuya tid, praecido 
 
 alicui praeputium), the distinctive sign of the Old Covenant, n“anis, 
 Gen. xvii. 11, the privileges and obligations of which it signified. Circum- 
 cision implied (1) that every member of the race which guarded the Reve- 
 lation made a sacrifice of his body, rejecting the impurities of heathen 
 life ; but (2) it implied no propitiation of the Divine justice ; nor (3) did it 
 establish any personal relationship between Gop and the recipient of the 
 ordinance ; nor (4) was it a ‘means of grace,’ like a Christian Sacrament. 
 It was a signum merum, not a signum efficax. It only effected admission to 
 the fellowship of the covenant people of those who were qualified, either 
 by birth as Israelites, or by later incorporation with the national union of 
 Israel. Thus while on the one hand it required no antecedent moral con- 
 ditions in the recipient in order to its due reception, it did bind the 
 
 sraelites who received it to blameless obedience, Gen. xvii. 1. Hence the 
 expression ‘circumcision of heart,’ (meaning purification of the inmost 
 being, affections and will, disposing man to listen to Gop and to obey Him, 
 Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6), and ‘uncircumcision of heart,’ in other words un- 
 mortified desires and consequent insensibility to the voice of Gon, Lev. xxvi. 
 41; Jer. ix. 25. The uncircumcised state is dxpofvoria, an Alexandrian 
 provincialism for dxpotoo6ia, Heb. ndry. ... As to its historical origin, the 
 custom seems to haye been one of immemorial antiquity among some 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: chs. I, v. 17—II], v. 8. 57 
 
 nations of Western Asia and Africa. It is not probable that the usage 
 spread from a single centre : Diodorus found it among the Troglodytes, and 
 in modern times it has been found among the South Sea islanders. The 
 theory of its Egyptian origin rests only on Hat. ii. 104; for its Egyptian 
 practice see Philo, De Circwmcis. ii. 210. Herodotus’ statement that the 
 Phoenicians and Syrians of Palestine received circumcision from the 
 Egyptians, is based on a misapprehension; see the full discussion in 
 Oehler, Theol. d. Alt. Test. §§ 87, 88. Josh. v. 9 and Jer. ix. 24 sqq- prove 
 nothing for, Ezek. xxxi. 18; xxxii. 19 nothing against it. This investment 
 of a preexisting custom with a new religious significance by making it the 
 sign of Gon’s covenant with Abraham is analogous to the later elevation of 
 Jewish baptisms into the Christian Sacrament, &c. For the subject, see 
 further Winer, Bibl. Realwoerterbuch, art. Beschneidung ; Oehler, ubi supra ; 
 Smith’s Bible Dict. art. Circumcision.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. In ver. 26 the Apostle means by Sampara the moral enactments in | 
 accordance with right made by the Mosaic law, cf. on Rom. i. 32. The 
 uncircumcised Gentiles do obey these, in obeying the moral law of nature, | 
 ef. ver. 14. In eis mepiropfy, eis is used of the result, as in ix.8; Acts xix. 
 27. The adrod after dxpoBvoria is suggested by the concrete noun dxpiBvoTos | 
 latent in the previous abstract d«poBvoria: so S, Luke xxiii. 51; S.J ohn | 
 viii. 44; Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 181 sqqg. The sense is given in 1 Cor. vii. 19 
 # mepitoph oddév éorw, Kal 4 dxpoBvotia ovdev éoriv, GAAA THpHOIS EvTOAGY Ocod. ] 
 
 4 
 
 [Obs. 4. In ver. 27 the Apostle makes an advance upon the question in ver. 26. 
 The opposition between zeprrou and dxpoBvoria is more sharply defined. 
 The # é« picews dxpoBvoria means those persons, who, from having been born 
 heathens, are uncircumcised. é« gvcews is here used as pice Iovdatos Gal. 
 ii, 15; Tav xara piow KrAddwv Rom. xi. 21; &« THs Kata pow adypedaiov Rom. 
 xi. 24. dv vdpov reAodoa= executing the law, S. James ii. 8 ei peyton vdpov), 
 redeire Bacikikdy. It implies a more energetic form of obedience than 
 gvdAdocev and rnpeiv vépov. This obedient dxpoBvotia is a mepiropi & mvev- 
 part. It will judge by the force of tacit contrast the disobedient but circum-\ 
 cised Jew. For this form of xpive, as meaning the indirect and silent | 
 condemnation, ef. our Lord’s saying about the men of Nineveh and the | 
 men of His own generation, S. Matt. xii. 41, 42, and the judicial signifi- \ 
 cance of Noah’s making the ark with respect to the men of his day, Heb. \ 
 xi. 7. In &d ypdpparos cai reprropfs, id denotes the surrounding cireum- 
 stances of an action ; here those in spite of which it took place. So iv. 11 
 Tav morevovroy 5 dxpoBvorias : viii. 25 5’ inopovfs dmexbexdpeba : xiv. 20 TO 
 5d mpookdpparos éadiovrt : 2 Cor. ii. 4 eypava dpiv did woAAGY Saxpiwv : Winer, 
 Gr. N. T. p. 475. Observe that here ypdéyya is not as in ver. 29 used 
 depreciatingly as if merely in contrast with mvedpya: it refers to the sacred 
 origin of the Law, as written with the finger of Gop, as in Exod. xxxi. 18.] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Obs. 5. (vers. 28, 29.) The religious sense of the sacred word ‘Iovdatos ver. 17, and 
 nepiropy ver. 25, is insisted on. First, negatively. Neither word is satisfied by 
 the external circumstances which it suggests; év 7@ gavep@ is contrasted 
 with év 7 xpum7d in S. Matt. vi. 6. The difference between the apparent 
 and the real Israel is insisted on in ix. 6 ob navtes of &€ “IopaijA obrot “Iopana : 
 $. John i, 48 dAnOas "Iopanadirns said of Nathanael ; Gal. vi. 16 émi rdv “Iopa7rA 
 ro @eot of the Christian church. In the second clause of ver. 28 év capi 
 
 So 
 ee 
 
 = 
 ‘t 
 
58 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 more precisely defines évy 7@ pavep@ as applied to circumcision. Secondly, posi- 
 tively. Each word implies something internal. With 6 év 7@ xpur7@ “Iovdaios, 
 compare 1 S, Pet. iii. 4 6 xpumrés THs Kapdias dvOpwnos. The true Jew is he 
 whose inner life corresponds to the idea of his theocratic position, The 
 true circumcision is (1) seated in the heart, With mep:ropi xapdias, cf. Lev. 
 xxvi. 41 LXX 9 kapiia aitav % drepityntos: Deut. x. 16 mepirepeiabe 72 
 oxdnpokapdiay tpav: Jer. iv. 4 ‘Cireumcise yourselves unto the Lord, and cut 
 off the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah’; ix. 26 for the contrast 
 mavTa Ta €Ovn amepitunta capki, kal Tas oikos “IopanA dmepirunto. Kapdias avT@y : 
 Acts vii. 51 dmepitpntoa TH Kxapdia Kal Tois woiv. Philo Judaeus calls cireum- 
 cision atpBodrov jdova@y éxtoujs. This, in which the Jews were wanting, is 
 (Col. ii. 11) mepitop? ayeporoinros. It is ‘the true circumcision of the 
 Spirit that our hearts and all our members being mortified from all worldly 
 and carnal lusts, we may in all things obey Gon’s blessed will,’ Collect for 
 Circumcision. So Phil. iii. 3 jueis (we Christians) ydp éoper 7 mepropy, ot 
 év mvevpart Oew@ AarpevovTes, kal Kavxwpevor ev XpioT@ “Inood, nal ovx ev caput 
 memo.oTes. Hence (2) év mvevpart, in the Holy Spirit, as the power in 
 which the circumcised heart is founded, just as the circumcision of the 
 flesh is based in the literal directions of the Thorah, & ypdappart. Tvetpa 
 here is the Divine Spirit Himself, as distinct from the ‘spirit of the law’ or 
 ‘the principle of the new life in man,’ or any influence or tendency which 
 is due to His agency. For this contrast see vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 6, which 
 make it certain that mvedya here cannot mean the spirit in man. ov 
 cannot be referred to ‘Iovdatos, without difficulty ; it refers to the whole 
 description of the true Jew and the true circumcision in ver. 29, ‘ of which 
 state of things the praise,’ &e. The cireumcised heart is beyond the pro- 
 vince of sense. On the Divine award of praise, cf. 1 Cor. iv. 5 Tére 6 
 €mavos yevnoetar ExaoTw amd Tov Ocov, and Rom. ii. 13 ov yap dxpoarai vépou 
 dixaot mapa TG OCD. .. . The passage 25-29 is further illustrated in iv. 9 sqq.] 
 
 Obj. II. from the apparent drift of the answer to Obj. I. based 
 (ody) on ii. 28, 29. If the true Jew and the true circumcision 
 be wholly internal, the literal Jew and the literal circumcision 
 of the Old Testament imply no religious superiority or advan- 
 tage whatever, iii, 1. 
 
 [Obs. 1. The Apostle puts the objection as if it were his own, but for the 
 moment he places himself at the point of view of a Jewish disputant, and 
 speaks his language. It arises naturally out of the preceding assertion of 
 the spiritual and internal character of the ‘Jew’ and ‘ circumcision’ in the 
 sense of Scripture.] 
 
 - [0bs. 2. 70 snouts seahgiods superiority’ of the Jew, i.e. as contrasted with 
 i the heathen, wepioody as in Eccles. vi. 11. wpéAcca=religious advantage of 
 | eireumcision to the Jew; cf. ddedc? ii. 25. As a believer in the Old 
 [ Testament the Apostle acai not deny that to be a Jew and to be cireum- cof 
 . cised, even in the bare literal sense, was represented as religiously advan- 
 
 tageous ; and yet his arguments seemed to have destroyed the advantage. 
 If not, wherein did it consist? He had to justify himself to his own _ Vi 
 
 principles.] : a ah 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: chs. Il, v. 17—IIl, v. 8. 59 
 
 Resp. This is a mistake. The circumcised Jews, as such, have 
 many prerogatives, The jirst is that to them as the covenant 
 people were committed the prophetic utterances about Messiah 
 (ver. 2). 
 
 (Obs, x. modd refers to both 7d mepioody and % dwpedAcca; and Kata maya TpoTov 
 cannot be regarded as only hyperbolical. It means ‘however we look at 
 the matter,’ ‘in every way.’ Had the Apostle continued his reply to Obj. 1. 
 the expression would have been justified. He is interrupted by the 
 emergence of Obj. mz. at ver. 3. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The first prerogative (mp@rov) of a series (which is not continued 
 here, but which is more fully stated at ix. 4) is that the Jews were 
 entrusted with the Divine Aéya. The indefinite expression 7d Adyia Tod 
 ©cov means any sayings of Divine origin. The LXX translate 12 and 
 MTN by Aéyiov; the expression occurs in Num. xxiv. 16, Oxo "IDS, Ps 
 xii. 7 ‘The words of the Lord (Aéya @cod) are pure words’ ; cxix. tog ‘ How 
 sweet are Thy words (7a Adyid cov) unto my throat.’ In New Testament, 
 Acts vii. 38, Moses é5éfaro Adypra (Gvra Sodvar Hyiv. Twice of truths revealed 
 to Christendom, Heb. v. 12 tiva 7a orotxeia Tis adpxis Tav Aoyiow Tod Ocod : 
 r Pet. iv. rz ei 7s Aade?, ds Adyia cod, In Ps. xix. 15 Adya is used of 
 human words. That the Adya here meant are the promises of a coming | 
 Messiah is clear from the reference to the dmozvia of the Jews in ver. 3; cf. | 
 ai énayyeAia (ix. 4) to which it corresponds. Reithmeyer gives a wider 
 sense to Adya, as though including the whole contents of the earlier 
 revelation. (Cf. Lightfoot, Essays on Supernat. Rel., pp. 172 ff.] For the 
 construction émorevOnoav ra Ady, cf. 1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7; 1 Thess. ii, 
 Awe ims i. Th. Tabi. Soh ; 
 
 Obj. III. (from the actual state of the Jewish people.) ‘The 
 majority of the Jews do not believe in Christ; what then is 
 the advantage of their being entrusted with those Aéya which 
 refer to Him ?’ 
 
 [0bs. This objection is supposed to arise at once on the mention of the /irst 
 . prerogative of the Jewish people in ver. 2, That only a portion of the 
 people disbelieved in Christ—although it was in fact the majority—is 
 guardedly stated, jaiornody rues, By tues the Apostle embodies one 
 feature of his reply in the statement of the objection. The unbelief would 
 only have cancelled the advantages of Israel’s being entrusted with the 
 Aéya had it been universal : it was at most partial (res). That jriornoar, 
 a&moria here mean, not unfaithfulness, but unbelief, see iv. 20; xi. 20, 23. 
 The word is in contrast not with émorevOnoav but with Ta Adya Tov Ocod.] 
 
 Resp. 1. Arg. a priori: from the Divine fidelity. This unbelief 
 of a section of the covenant people cannot be supposed to destroy 
 the value of Gon’s ancient promise to Israel (ver. 3). 
 Resp. 2. Arg. from that confidence as to the event, which faith in 
 David's inspired language would create. In the event it will be 
 : seen, that by fulfilling the Promises of a Coming Messiah, Gop 
 
~~ 
 =e 
 
 60 The Epistle to the Romans: > 
 
 has kept His word; while those Jews who, as members of 
 the covenant people, were bound to believe in the fulfilment of 
 His Promises, are the real Weiora, as being false to Him 
 
 (ver. 4). 
 
 [Obs. 1. By 7Hv rictw rod cod is meant ‘fides qua Deus promissis stat’: ef. 
 adnons ver. 4. That cod is a gen. subjecti appears, partly from the contrast 
 with dmotia airayv, and partly by the expansion of what is meant in ver. 4, 
 as well as cod dieacoovvyn in ver. 5. The adj. moz7dés is constantly used of 
 Gop in this sense, 1 Cor. i. 9; x. 13; 2 Tim. ii. 13.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. pi) yevorro, ‘may it not be,’ an exclamation of abhorrence corresponding 
 to ndyon, Gen. xliv. 17; Josh. xxii. 29, properly ‘to profane things,’ ad pro- 
 Jana; hence absit, ‘be it far from thee.’ The Greek formula occurs again 
 in vers, 6, 31 3 Vi. 2, 153 ViL 7, 133 iX. 145 xi. 1, 11; x Cor. Vin aspen 
 ii. 17; iii. 21, &e. It belongs to dialectic discussion. Elsewhere only at 
 S. Luke xx. 16 in its absolute form. -yvécdw, ‘let Gop become true’; i.e. 
 let the inevitable result take place. ywéodw implies pavepodcdw Theopbyl. 
 but is not equivalent to it. The Apostle desires what he knows must be: 
 so that his exclamation has a future force. dAn64s is here used of Gop as 
 keeping faith with man; cf. riv misty 70d cod ver. 3. Compare S. John 
 lil. 33; vill. 26. By mas dv@pwios is meant every man who would challenge 
 Gon’s riots, especially the Jews who are bound to faith in the promises of 
 Gop. The phrase occurs Ps. exvi. 11 LXX, but the Apostle is thinking of 
 the quotation from Ps. li which follows.] 
 
 § This is in accordance with Ps. li. 4, which shows that when 
 Gopv’s ways are subjected to human criticism, He justifies Himself 
 in the end (ver. 4). 
 
 Heb. TW PIA jyop 
 HED AWN 
 
 LXX Grws Gv SieawOjs ev Tots Adyous cov 
 kal viknons ev TO xplvecOai ce. 
 
 [Obs. The LXX inaccurately renders NDIA, ‘that thou mayest be pure’ by mxnons, 
 and 7 TOavI, Kal, cum judicas, by & 7 xpivecOal ce, med. ‘when thou dis- 
 putest.’ Sas, 1vID2, is not to be taken as ‘in order that,’ but ‘so that,’ in the 
 event of decision, ‘thou mayest,’ &e. d:xaiw6Rs be acknowledged as faultless 
 [in Thy words]: d:adw used of acquittal in the forensic sense as at ii. 13 
 SixawOnoovra. It is used of man’s judgment of Gop in S. Luke vii. 29, 35, 
 édixaiwoay tov Ocdy. év Tois Adyous cov, ‘in that which Thou hast said.” In 
 quoting this the Apostle is thinking of the Adya rot Ocod ver. 2, which 
 were disbelieved by the dmotia of the Jewish majority. vieyjons here only 
 in New Testament, used in the classical sevse of winning a law-suit: as 
 opposed to #r7rdc@a. It is equivalent here to dawOjs in the preceding 
 line. «pivecOa here in the classical sense of ‘ disputest as a litigant’ rather 
 than ‘when thou art judged.’ Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 6 ddeAgpds peta adeApod xpiverat. 
 Job ix. 3; xiii. 19 LXX. What David felt after his deep sin with Bath- 
 sheba, was not less true of Israel in its collective capacity. In the midst of 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: chs, II, v. 17—III, v. 8. 61 
 
 all human sin, whether dmoria or other, Gop’s truthfulness remains con- 
 sistent with itself and becomes eventually more and more manifest, | 
 
 Obj. IV. (based on a perverse construction of ver. 4.) If 
 the sin of man (as e.g. the unbelief of the Jews) does but 
 make Gop’s Righteousness indisputably clear; then is not 
 Gop wnrighteous, if He punishes such sin? (ver. 5.) 
 
 [Obs. It might have seemed a sufficient answer to say that the guilt of a sinful 
 action is not removed, because Gop so overrules it as to make it promote re- 
 sults which the sinner himself never contemplated. Gop would be righteous, 
 not unrighteous in punishing such an action; since any good which may 
 result from it, is due to its indirect effects, and is traceable not to the will 
 of the sinner but to His own wisdom and goodness. But the Apostle over- 
 looks these more abstract arguments, and meets the objection by pointing 
 out its irreconcileableness with the truth of the Day of Judgment.] 
 
 Resp. No. To suppose Him unrighteous is to deny His moral 
 fitness to judge the world. If He punishes unrighteous 
 unbelief, He must, as the Judge of men, be righteous in doing 
 so, That He will judge the world is a truth of faith; and to 
 be Judge of the world and yet to be aéd:cos is a contradiction in 
 terms (ver, 6), 
 
 [Obs. 1. The objector reads Ps. li. 6 as meaning that David sinned im order that Gop 
 might be justified, whereas David means that Gop is not less justified in 
 condemning his sin, than He would have been had no sin been committed 
 at all. Whatever be the perversions of the human will, the Divine Will is 
 always right. But the objector overlooks this. Gop, he argues, is under a 
 certain obligation to the sinner who by his sin establishes Gop’s character 
 for Righteousness, and who cannot therefore be righteously punished. 
 Observe the absence of the article before Gcod Sixaroovvny, such a thing as 
 righteousness on the part of Gop. The well-known attribute would have 
 been tiv Ocod Sixatocdvnv. Ocod is here gen. subj. with possessive force. 
 cuvicrava is used here and v. 8 of proving, and so establishing things: 
 then Gop proves His love to us by the Death of His Son. i épotuey peculiar 
 to this Epistle, where it either states an objection as here, vi. 1; vii. 7; 
 ix. 14, or winds up an argument as ix. go. ] 
 
 [Ods. 2. (ver. 6.) The question p17) ddicos 6 Oeds (ver. 5) awaits a negative answer. 
 Winer, Gr. N. T., p. 641 sq. THv dpynv the (well-known) wrath, v. 9: S. Matt. 
 iii. 7 Tis pedAAodons dpyfs: x Thess. i. 10 THs épxopévyns. See i. 18.—The 
 Apostle is stating an objection with which as an inspired Apostle he has no 
 sympathy, «aTd dv@pwrov used thus, Gal. iii. 15; 1 Cor. ix. 8; 2 Cor. 
 xi. 17.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. (ver. 6.) émeé, ‘for otherwise’; it assigns a reason for py?) yevarro, If Gon, 
 5 émépow tiv dpyhv, is unrighteous, how will he be morally able to judge 
 the world? xpwe? is emphatic; it is a future of ethical possibility, as Rom. 
 x. 14; S. John vi. 68; S. Matt. xii. 26 ; Winer, Gr. N. T., p. 348. Tov wéopov 
 
62 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 here not (1) the universe, nor (2) the great society of men qua alienated 
 from Gop, but (3) all mankind, cf. ver. 19. The Apostle is thinking of 
 Gen. xviii. 25, ‘Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ?’] 
 
 § Illustrative confirmation of the foregoing argument (vers. 7-8). 
 If Gop is wnrighteous in punishing the unbelief which He so 
 overrules as to make it promote His glory, then the relation 
 of Gop to the Judgment of the world would yield two absurd 
 consequences, 
 
 1. It would make Gop’s judgment of man as a sinner impossible ; 
 if judged, man must be accepted. For Gop’s truth would have 
 been glorified by man’s falsehood or sin, which, on the plea 
 suggested in ver. 5, Gop would therefore be unjust in punishing - 
 
 (ver. 7). 
 
 2. It would encourage men to do evil that good might come, ie., © 
 
 that Gop might be glorified. This principle of action is in- 
 juriously ascribed to Christians; some even accuse them of 
 teaching it. But it would become natural, if Gop were be- 
 lieved to be unrighteous in punishing sin, which He overrules 
 to His own glory. And yet, how deserving of condemnation 
 is such conduct ! (ver. 8). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The vers. 7, 8 are an illustration of the main reply (ver. 6) by which the 
 
 Apostle meets the objection (ver. 5), ‘that Gop cannot take vengeance on 
 Jewish unbelief which in the event redounds to His glory.’ The answer 
 
 (ver. 6) is that this objection would prove too much, even for the Jew; it . 
 would make it unjust for Gop to judge the world at all. In some way all . 
 
 sin is overruled to the glory of the perfect Moral Being, and therefore, no 
 
 sin, if the objection be admitted, could be punished. Hence (1) ver. 7 
 
 states the plea of any sinner in the day of judgment, who paraphrases, in 
 his own interest, the Jewish objection of ver. 5. The sinner urges that his 
 ‘lie,’ or sin, has been the occasion of Gon’s truth being advanced in the 
 world, and so of the promotion of Gon’s glory ; and he therefore claims ex- 
 emption from condemnation. If Gop retains the function of Judge of the 
 world, He must not judge any man as a sinner ; since, He has made human 
 sin promote His glory. To this first moral absurdity (2) a second follows 
 in ver. 8. If sin, as thus promoting Gon’s glory, cannot be punished justly 
 by Gop, men will naturally sin that Gop’s glory may be promoted,—they 
 will do evil, that the highest good may come. ... The objection to con- 
 
 sidering ver. 7, 8 as an amplification of the objection stated in ver. 5, is © 
 that this construction would oblige us to pyt all ver. 6 into a parenthesis ; _ 
 
 thus also (1) destroying the reference of yép in ver. 7 to the immediately 
 preceding verse ; (2) making the Apostle state an elaborate objection, to 
 
 only one half of which he replies by the anathema, dv 70 xpipa éviiedv 
 éorw.] 
 
Dogmatic: chs. Il, v. 17—III, v. 8. 63 
 
 [Obs. 2. The speaker in ver. 7 is not (1) a Jew, since ver. 7 is an answer to the 
 Jewish objection in ver. 5, which it reduces, by a paraphrase, to a moral 
 absurdity ; nor (2) a heathen, since 7dv xécpov ver. 6 includes more than 
 this, but (3) any sinner, at the last, in presence of the Judgment of Gop. 
 This universal sinner uses indeed the terms dA7j@ea and yYedopa, which 
 refer, taken exactly, to the case of the Jews, ver. 4; but they represent the 
 wider ideas of d:xa:oodvn and déixia, as ver. 5 shows, viz., the moral truth, i. e., 
 Gop’s Righteousness, and the moral lie, i. e., man’s immorality which always 
 contains an element of falsehood. The verb évepiccevcer is a stronger ex- 
 pression for ouvictna, ver. 5; the aorist denotes the result, viewed at the 
 day of judgment as a thing of the past ; the man’s life, though a moral lie, 
 has redounded to Gop’s glory. éri—whatever might have been before the 
 érepisoevoev— now after that assumed result, ti «pivoyatk.7.A. Kdyé, ‘I too 
 who have glorified Gop through my Yevoua,’—in contrast with any whose 
 sins have not had this result. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. In ver. 8, Ti must be supplied before yy from ver. 7, ‘and why should we 
 not.’ Had 8. Paul completed the sentence on the plan begun by «al yy, he 
 would have said ‘and why should we not do evil that good,’ &e. But the 
 intervening clause xadws BAacpnpovucba x.7.A. (as it was intended to be) 
 controls the construction to the end of the sentence, so that this original 
 design of it is lost sight of. 67 momowperv (in direct address) is accordingly 
 joined to Aéyew; 67: having a recitative force ; and the saying about ‘ doing 
 evil that good may come’ is introduced as the substance of heathen slander, 
 not as the practical immoral result of the Jewish argument in ver. 5. This, 
 however, is what the Apostle originally intended. Winer, Gr. N.T., p. 783. 
 If any word be supplied, it would be Aéywpey after ti wn (Dr. Vaughan). 
 But this is unnecessary, and indefensible, as the original structure is de- 
 stroyed by the attractive power of the clause ka0as BrAacpnpovpcba. Of 
 Bracgnpetv the. object is (1) generally Gop, S. Matt. ix. 3; xxvi. 65; S. 
 Mark iii. 28, 29; S. John x. 36; Acts xxvi. 11. (2) Sometimes holy things, 
 as Christian doctrine, 7 djaccadia 1 Tim. vi. 1; 6 Adyos Tod Ocod Titus 
 ii. 5; or the Christian Name, S. James ii. 7; or the Christian Life, 4 650s 77s 
 GAnoeias 2S. Pet. ii.2; or the good intentions of Christians, Rom. :xiv. 16 ; 
 or the Name of Gop, but this means Himself, as ii. 24. (3) Sometimes, as 
 here, men, 1 Cor. x. 30; Tit. iii. 2. The first Christians were charged, it 
 seems, not merely with acting on the principle ‘Let us do evil that good 
 may come,’ but with teaching it as a maxim of conduct. This accusation 
 was probably made by heathen, who misunderstood S. Paul’s teaching on 
 the subject of grace; cf. vi. 1 émpevotpev 7h dyaptia, va 4 xapis TAcovaon ; 
 There is no reason for understanding the Judaisers by rives. Of all who act 
 or teach thus, the Apostle says that their condemnation is just : they are 
 beyond argument, and have on them already the mark of perdition. Yet 
 the practical adoption of this maxim would have been a natural result of 
 accepting the Jewish argument in ver. 5, that because Gop brought the 
 triumph of the Gospel out of Jewish unbelief, therefore this unbelief 
 could not be justly punished by Gop. ] 
 
 § Conclusion from the foregoing discussion (odv II, 25—IIL.. ” of 
 Jewish objections. _ ‘ 
 
64 
 
 2 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 If it be asked by a Jew whether the Jews are placed in a higher 
 position than the Heathen before the Sanctity and Justice of Gon, 
 
 the 
 
 answer must be negative (ver. 9). 
 
 Reason. (yép) The Apostle has already charged both Jews (II. 17- 
 
 24) and Heathen (I. 18-32) that they are all wnder the empire of 
 sin. And, in the case of the Jews this objection has not been 
 removed by the objections discussed (II. 25—III. 8) (ver. 9). 
 
 [Obs 1. Meyer confines the retrospective force of otv to vers, 6-8, and he under- 
 
 l Obs. 
 
 stands mpoexéuea, middle, as having the ordinary sense of putting forward 
 a defensive argument, (mpoéxecOa is used with doméa, Il. xvii. 355, and so 
 metaphorically, with mpépacir, ‘to hold forth an excuse.’) ‘What then follows 
 from the discussion of Obj. IV. (ver. 6-8)? Are we (Jews) making a defence 
 for ourselves?’ This, although in accordance with linguistic usage, (r) 
 ignores the absolute position of mpoexéueOa to which Meyer arbitrarily 
 supplies 7/, since he does not venture to unite it with 7i ody in a single ques- 
 tion, and (2) it destroys the force of yap. That the Apostle had already 
 charged the Jews and Gentiles with being all under sin, is a reason for 
 denying that the Jews have any preeminence in the way of dixcaoovvn, but 
 it is no reason for denying that they would put forward arguments to defend 
 their position, since the Apostolic mpopriacdpeba would be nothing to the 
 Jewish disputant. It is better to render thus, ri ody (sc. éo7i), ‘ What is the 
 state of the case ?’ Acts xxi. 22; 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26; ef. vi. 15; xi. 73; mpoexd- 
 peOa (passive), ‘ Are we placed in a better position?’ this meaning being exceed- 
 ingly rare ; see Olsh. in loc. mpoéxev inact. often means ‘to prefer’ in classical 
 Greek writers, as well as ‘to have the advantage over’ ; and it must be a 
 passive of the word with the former meaning that we here meet with, ‘ Are 
 we then preferred by Gop?’ Vulg. ‘ praecellimus eos.’ In 0d tavtws observe 
 displacement of the negative particle ; Winer, Gr. N.T., p. 693. Properly it 
 would be mdavrws od, 1 Cor. xvi. 12; the effect of the change is to’make it 
 ‘Not by any means,’ cf. 1 Cor. v. ro.] 
 
 2. i’ Gpapriav = ‘under the empire of sin’—a stronger expression than dpap- 
 twrovs, Cf, vil. 14 mempapévos td Thy adpaptiay. Gal. iii. 22, The Seripture 
 has concluded ra ndvra ind Gyapriav, In Hellenistic Greek i7é is not found — 
 with the dative ; the idea of rest under is entirely transferred to the accusa- 
 tive. S. Matt. viii. 9 ind tovciay: S. Luke xvii. 24 bd Tov obpavdy : 8. John 
 i. 49 b10 Ti oveqv: Rom. vi. 14, 15 bd vipov, &e. See Dr. Vaughan’s note 
 in loc. For this moral dependence of man on the power of sin ef. vii. 25 
 Th de capKi [SovAetw] vépw duaprias, Gal. iii. 22. Scripture hath concluded ra 
 navta tnd tiv dpaptiay—this general sinfulness was recognised by the 
 heathen ; cf, Hesiod’s description of the Iron Age, Op. et dies, 174 sqq. ; Soph. 
 Ant. 1023: 
 
 avOpwmo.ot yap 
 Tots mao Kowdv éoTe TovfapapTavey, i 
 Eur. Hipp. 615: 
 dpyapreiv eixds dvOpwrovs, 
 Thue. iii. 45.2 mepinact dravres kat idia Kat Snpooia dpapravew, kat ob €or 
 vopos batts dweipfer TovTou: cf. Xen Curop. v. 4. 19.] 
 
Dogmatic: ch. U1, vv. 10 20. 65 
 
 § 4. 
 
 This subjection of all men to the empire of sin, and their conse- 
 quent necd of a Stxatooivn Gcod, is proved from the Jewish Scriptures. 
 (Proof of the whole minor premiss of the syllogism, p. 23) ver. 
 10-20, 
 
 [Obs. r. These quotations are introduced by Ka6ws yéyparra:, which occurs four- 
 teen times in the Epistle. It answers to the Talmudic 31N33, which 
 however is used of quotations from the Kethubim, as VONJY i953 is used 
 
 when the Thorah and the Nebiim are quoted. The Apostle does not observe 
 this distinction. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. ‘The recitative é7 (ver. 10) introduces quotations from Scripture very 
 various in character, which, after the Jewish manner, are arranged in imme- 
 diate succession. They aretaken from the LXX, though for the most part 
 with variations,’ Meyer.] 
 
 These Old Testament quotations illustrate 
 
 1. The general state of mankind as iq’ dyapriav (ver. 10-12). 
 Ps. xiv. 1-3 is quoted as describing human wickedness, viewed— 
 
 in its 
 negative i. correspondence between human conduct and the rule of 
 aspects. right. There exists no dicavos, 
 There is |ii. moral intelligence as to the chiefest concerns and true 
 an entire conduct of men. There exists not 6 cumav. 
 absence |iii. thought and endeavour directed towards Gop. There 
 in the exists not the éx(nrav tiv Ocdv (ver. EE). 
 world of 
 
 b. in its (i. general apostacy from truth and virtue, mavres e£éxhwvar. 
 positive 4ii. general demoralisation,—uselessness and corruption, 
 aspects of dpa nxpemOnoar, 
 
 i. the absence of practical goodness is universal. There 
 
 c. in its 4 
 practical exists not a mov xpnorornra, 
 ES ii, so universal, as not to admit of a solitary exception 
 
 otk €aTw ws évds (ver. 12). 
 Ps. xiv. 1-3, Heb. [nd dy saynn snnvin] 
 aiD"AwY pS 
 DINTII- OY AYPw YDB niny] 2. 
 . Sse wi (nis 
 | Dyn wT 
 sn2N2 YUE TD 737 3. 
 “ONDA PR 3D AY PS 
 F 
 
66 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 LXX [SrepOapnoay Kal €BdedvxOnoav év émrndedpacw) 
 ove tow mov xXpnoTéTnTa, ovK Eat Ews Evds. 
 2, [Kvpios éx rod otpavod diexvpev emt rods viovs Tay avOpwmam, 
 Tov ideiy] ei EoTw ovviayv 
 i éx(nta@v tov Oeér. 
 3. mdvrTes eێxdwway, Gua 7xpEwOnoav 
 ovK éoT Tov xXpnoToTyTa, ovK EoTW ews Evds. 
 
 [Obs.1. Of these verses the Apostle quotes only so much as his immediate purpose 
 requires. He substitutes Sitaos (ver. 1) for the LXX madv xpynorérnta, as . 
 including that and much more, and with a view to describing i¢’ apapriay 
 eivac as a want of dieaooivn. It is a striking instance of the Apostle’s con- 
 sciousness of possessing an equivalent inspiration, which leads him thus 
 to enlarge for the sake of his own argument, the sense both of the LXX 
 and of its Hebrew original. ov62 eis, which he quotes from the LXX, is un- 
 represented in the Hebrew. In ver. 11, the Apostle so quotes from the 
 LXX, that the negative statement which is only implied in the Hebrew and 
 LXX, is expressed by himself directly. ot, twice repeated, and the article 
 before ovviay and é«(y7@v are his own. In ver. 12 he adheres closely to the 
 LXX.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. 6 ovviév. The inserted article implies a definite person representing 
 the class. Buttmann. Newtest. Gr. § 144, 9, ed. 1859. ovmay usual in LXX 
 instead of cumeis, Ps. xxxiii. 15. 6 ovm@v is the practically wise man; in 
 the Old Testament goodness is wisdom, and sin is folly. See Gesen. s.v. 
 boy ; the Hiph. which often means to be prudent, has the sense of to be 
 pious here and Dan. xi. 33-35; xii. 3, 10. Im 6 é«{nra@v Tov Océdv, the de- 
 scription advances a step. Not only is there none who knows Gop; there 
 is none who makes efforts to know Him, i. 21. Cf. Gesen. s. v. v1.) 
 
 [Obs. 3. The general declension from natural rectitude is described as from with- 
 out by éféxAvay : "3D is used absolutely so as to express moral degeneracy 
 here and in Deut. xi. 16; Jer. v. 23; Dan. ix. 11. See Gesén. s.v. This 
 degeneracy is more intimately described by ixpemOqnoav ; they have become 
 useless, corrupt, good-for-nothing, dypefa, S. Matt. xxv. 30. andy. The 
 Arabic root nbs means to become sour, as milk ; the Niphal of ghia, verb is 
 used metaphorically with a moral reference HERS, Ps, lui.3 5 j Jobxy.16. In- 
 stead of INX"DI7PX the LXX translates ov« éorw éws évds, as though the 
 Hebrew were TART, which is the more familiar form of expression. ws 
 évés is as far as to one, inclusive.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. Ps. xiv is David’s. In the reprobation of the moral and religious 
 character of the men of the age, which Ps. xiv has in common with Ps. xii, 
 we have a confirmation of the 1172, Ps. xiv. 7 does not oblige us to come 
 down to the Exile (Delitzsch, Inir.). What the Psalmist says in ver. 1-3 
 applies primarily to Israel, David’s immediate neighbours ; but at the same 
 time to the heathen, as is evident. He laments the universal corruption 
 which prevails not less in Israel than in the heathen world. Ib. on ver. 3.] 
 
 2. Specific sins, which characterise all human life (I 4-1 7) i 
 a. of the tongue (vers. 13, 14) as j 
 
Dogmatic: ch. III, vv. 10-20. 67 
 
 1. full of corruption, like an open grave, which yawns to 
 receive others, Ps. v. 9. 
 
 2. insidious in their corrupting influence, like the poison of 
 asps, Ps. exl. 3. 
 
 3. ruinous to all charity—issuing in cursing and bitterness, 
 Payee: 7: 
 
 § Ps. v. 9 illustrates the corrupting power of sins of the tongue. 
 Heb. p23 mina “ap 
 
 apron paws 
 
 LXX dos dvewypevos 6 Adpuy~ abtav 
 ‘ais yAwooas avt@y édodL0vCar. 
 A yawning-grave is their throat 
 [to this] they make smooth their tongue. 
 {Obs. 7; pprom, they make smooth their tongue in order to conceal their real 
 design beneath soft language. P’ nn means directly to flatter in Ps. xxxvi. 
 3; Prov. xxix. 5. édoAovcay, the ‘imperfect implies that the deceit was 
 going on up to the present time. With this Alexandrian form of the 3rd 
 person plural, compare ¢exocay S. John xv. 22; tapeAdBocay 2 Thess. iii. 6.] 
 [Obs. 2. Ps. v is David’s, probably belonging to the time of Absalom’s rebellion, 
 and written in Jerusalem. It is a morning prayer, corresponding to Ps. iv, 
 which is an evening prayer. The reference to the companions of Absalom 
 in the text is suggested by the prayer which David will make in the front 
 court of the tabernacle, towards the Holy of Holies. ] 
 
 § Ps. cxl. 3 illustrates the insidiousness of sins of the tongue. 
 
 Heb. imnay non awoy nn 
 LXX ids duaitar brd Ta xElAn airav. 
 
 [Obs. The Apostle quotes the LXX exactly. JsWy, an adder, is an dm. Acy. from 
 voy, to bend, coil. This Psalm is David’s ; he is complaining of serpent- 
 like enemies who are preparing their plans pute him and with whom he 
 will have to fight in open battle. Ps. lviii and lxiv are very similar. The 
 Psalm is probably to be referred to the rebellion of Absalom,—an outbreak 
 of Ephraimitic jealousy, to which the rebellion of Sheba the son of Bichri 
 of Benjamin attached itself. Delitzsch.] 
 
 § Ps. x. 7 illustrates the wncharitableness of sins of the tongue. 
 
 Heb. qh) nin: xdo ama ndy 
 
 LXX of dpas 76 ordpa abrod yéuer wat mupias Kat 5ddov. 
 
 heag Here the Apostle dy 7d oréya dpas nal mxpias ener. Thus he makes the 
 
 reference of the verse plural by substituting dy for ob, and omits 5dAov. 
 The LXX mistranslates M0711) deceit, or craft of all kinds by m«pias which 
 may represent a different Hebrew text. JA too is oppression rather than 
 8éAos. The persons alluded to are heathen, in the two last strophes ; but 
 apostates from and persecutors of Israel in the earlier part of the Psalm as. 
 here. In Ps. ix on the contrary, with which this is intimately connected, 
 
 ¥ 2 
 
68 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 the persecutors are heathen. The Psalm is without a title; the LXX and 
 Vulg. make it one with Ps. ix. It may be Davidic, but the date is un- 
 certain. ] 
 
 b. of deed (vers. 15-17). 
 (a. murder, oécis éxyéat aipa, 
 ie oppression, ovvrpimpa Kai Tadarwpia, 
 c. quarrelsomeness, 68éy eipyyns odk €yvacar, 
 
 Is. lix. 7, 8 is freely quoted and shortened from the LXX, as 
 illustrating the sins of deed which characterize unredeemed 
 humanity. 
 
 Heb. sy yd DMM 7, 
 ['e3] By BRP TY 
 * * * * 
 pnibpna 7a 3 
 
 wT xb nid I 8. 
 
 LXX 7. of 5& wédes abr&v ext movnpiay tpéxova:v 
 Taxivol éxxéot aiva [dvairiov] 
 * * * * * 
 ovvTpipa Kat Tadaitmpia évy Tais ddois aiTav, 
 8. kal 650v eipnyns ode Eyvwoar. 
 
 [Obs. The Apostle condenses the first two lines of the LXX into éfeis of mé5es 
 avTav éxxéat aiua: the last two he quotes accurately. The verbs wy and 
 3772" depict active pleasure in wickedness ; ovvTpiupya, distress, as from a 
 fracture. The description of the crimes of some of the Jewish captives in 
 Babylon towards their own countrymen explains why Gop would not have 
 come to the help of His people. The misery and degradation belonging to 
 the last period of the Captivity are seen and described by the prophet as if 
 present to his sight.] 
 
 3. The source of sin: absence of any fear of Gop (ver. 18). 
 Ps. xxxvi. 2, quoted as illustrating this principle of all moral ruin. 
 
 Heb. pad appa yey yep pay] 
 yyy 3335 pds Snaps 
 
 [An oracle of transgression hath the ungodly within his heart,] 
 ‘There is no fear of Gop before his eyes.’ 
 LXX [¢yoiv 6 mapdvopos rod Gyapravew év éavrd,] 
 ovk Eotw poBos Ocod arévavts Tov dpOadpay abrod. 
 
 [0bs. The Apostle follows the LXX except in writing airév for airov. In Ps. xxxvi 
 as in Pss. xii, xiv, xxxvii, David himself describes the moral corruption of 
 his generation ; with this Psalm and liii they form a group. It is a result 
 of ‘the inspiration of iniquity’ in the heart of the wicked that the fear of 
 Gop never occurs to him. _The wicked has no sense of the sanctity of Gop 
 which inspires this fear.] 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. III, vv. 10-20. 69 
 
 § Jewish tacit objection. ‘The foregoing descriptions of sin apply 
 to the heathen ; they do not touch Israel.’ 
 
 Resp. This cannot be allowed. For it is plain both to our faith 
 and our common sense that ‘whatever the Old Testament 
 Revelation (6 véuos) contains is addressed especially to those 
 who live under or within its sphere of jurisdiction.’ And this . 
 fact has a twofold providential design (iva) ; viz. 
 
 Object 1. That no man, whether Jew or Heathen, may plead 
 before Gop anything in favour of his possessing Sicaoovvy of his 
 own. That every mouth be stopped (ver. 19). 
 
 Object 2. That the whole human race (ras 6 xéopos) should be 
 placed in the position of owing to Gop the penalty of trans- 
 gression (imdé:cos yevnrar TS Ge@) (Ver. 19). 
 
 Reasons (&d7t, propterea quod) for this aim of the Old Testament 
 Revelation. 
 
 Reason 1. Because any true justification before Gop, must be 
 gained by some other means than outward compliance with 
 the Rules of the Law (ya vépou) (ver. 20). 
 
 Reason 2. (reason yap for reason 1.) Because the true function of 
 the law is to create an ¢miyvwots duaptias,—a true inward sense 
 of sin; (the Law reveals personal moral evil which it cannot 
 remove, and thus becomes a madaywyés eis Xprordv) (ver. 20), 
 
 (Obs. 1. For the implied Jewish objection that the stern sayings of the law 
 
 could not apply to Israel, see Hisenmenger, Enid. Judenth., 1. 568 sqq. All 
 the above quotations, even Ps. xiv, really refer originally to Jewish trans- 
 gressors; but the later Jews had learnt to read the threatenings of their 
 Scriptures as applicable only to the heathen. The Apostle appeals to a 
 principle plain both to faith and to common sense, ii. 2 vidapey yap. boa 
 includes condemnatory as well as other language. 6 véyuos is here, as the 
 quotations 10-18 show, the Old Testament generally. Thus in r Cor. xiv. 
 2 vépos is applied by S. Paul to Isaiah; in S. John x. 34 by our Lord to 
 Ps. Ixxxii; in S. John xii. 34 to 2 Sam. vii by the people; S. John xv. 25 
 by our Lord to Ps. xxxv. 19. S. Paul purposely does not say dca oi mpopira 
 (although he only quotes David and Isaiah in vers. 8-10), but dca 6 vépos, 
 viz. that ‘law’ which the Apostle thinks of always as an undivided whole, 
 while yet he is thinking sometimes more of its ritual, sometimes of its 
 moral aspects: ef. Usteri, Paulinischer Lehrbegriff, iii. 3 sqq. The Apostle dis- 
 tinguishes the teaching of the law as (1) propositions contained in it, Aéyer 
 and (2) propositions proclaimed to man ; Aéyev (Adyos) describes the inward 
 aspect of speech, the production of thoughts and the formation of words ; 
 
 _AaAciv = the outward expression of what is within. By tots & véyo is meant 
 
70 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 ‘those who live within the sphere of the law,’ whether Jews or Gentiles; in 
 li, 12 €v vouw jyuaprov means the Jews only.]} 
 
 [0bs. 2. The two consequences of this principle are introduced by tva, which 
 may only express a result of what has preceded, but taken with vépuos Aare? 
 is better understood reArc@s. (1) In the phrase ¢ppaccew ordpa, ‘ videtur 
 allusisse Paulus ad forensem consuetudinem, qua reus, si nequeat sibi 
 objecta repellere, silens sententiam expectat, et quasi ore obstructo obmu- 
 tescit,’ Justiniani. Gop so speaks in the law, as to make it impossible for 
 man to utter any claim to justification on the score of his obedience to it. 
 (2) tréé:eos here only in New Testament, LXX, Apocr. punishable, liable 
 to satisfy the claims of 5ic7 : ‘cui merito dixy debeatur,’ Estius. Theodoret 
 Tiwpias bmevOvvos. T® Oe@ depends upon trddixos : Gop is He to whom the 
 penalty incurred by disobedience is due.] 
 
 [0bs. 3. (ver. 20.) The reasons for the foregoing conclusions are introduced by 
 dé71, propterea quod. The object of the law’s Aade ver. 19 is to make the 
 whole human world indédixos 7@ Oc@. The Gentiles were, in the judgment of 
 Israel, already so ; the law itself places the Jews also in the samé category. 
 And it does this (1) because, as a matter of fact, actual righteousness, such as 
 will stand before Gop (évwmov avrov), cannot be secured by outward acts in 
 accordance with the directions of the Old Testament (é épywy vduov). nda 
 oapé is here substituted for mas av@pwros or mas 6 xécpos, in order to express 
 the ideas of sinfulness and weakness which are inseparable from un- 
 redeemed humanity, 1 Cor. i. 20. épya véuov are outward conduct con- 
 formed to the Law, whether ceremonial or moral ; there seems no sufficient 
 reason for limiting véyov to the former. Such épya are without the in- 
 forming spirit and motives which connect with justifying faith those 
 evangelical épya which necessarily spring from and are the practical side ot 
 it. dicwOjoera, ‘will be made just’ ; there is no question, in this negative 
 statement, of being accounted just. The fut. is rather of moral possibility than 
 of time; and thus it refers to the moment of justification in this life, not to 
 the day of judgment. Throughout the Epistle justification is treated as 
 arising immediately from faith. évwmov airod marks the distinction of a 
 Divine from a merely human standard of justification, The sentence is 
 repeated almost verbatim, as a reason for the Apostolic eis Xpordv “Inaodv 
 émoredvoapev in Gal. ii. 16 did7t od SiacwOyoerau ef Epywy vopov maga capg. It 
 is based on Ps. exliii. a dr: ob SiearwOjoerar evwmov cov mas (av. | 
 
 [Obs. 4. (ver. 20.) The reason yap why no human being is justified, é¢ Epywr vdyeu, 
 is that it is not the true function of the law to achieve this justification. 
 The law only creates in the soul an éniyvwots dyaprias which it cannot 
 satisfy. Jesus Christ can remove this sense of sin by the gift of di:xaoovvn 
 to the faith which apprehends Him ; and thus the law is a ma:daywyds eis 
 Xpiorév Gal. iii. 24. This providential purpose of the law is more fully 
 stated at vii. 7-13. In 8d vépou éniyvwors dpaprias the moral side of the law 
 is more emphasised, as it is this which stimulates the conscience to such 
 éniyvwors ; in é& E¢yov vépou, all its aspects, ceremonial as well as moral, to 
 which the conduct of a religious Jew would endeavour to correspond. } 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. Ul, vv. 21-30. 71 
 DOA 4\ , \) ~ B 1 
 
 How Sixatoodvy Ocod is attained by man. III. 21-30. 
 
 § 1. 
 Accompanying conditions under which d«aocivy Ceod is mado 
 patent to mankind (megarépwrat) ver, 21-23. 
 
 [Obs. vuvi is according to Meyer probably dialectical rather than temporal: ‘but 
 under these circumstances’ not ‘ nostris temporibus’: vii. 17; 1 Cor. v. 11; 
 xii. 18; xiii. 13. Onthe other hand is to be considered the common division 
 of the present age of being, aidy ovros, into two periods, of which the 
 former is that in which God, «iace navra td €6vn mopevecOa tais dd0ts ab7ar 
 Acts xiv. 16, and are thus xpdéva: THs ayvoias Acts xvii. 30, and of bondage, 
 Gal. iv. 3, 4, under the law, Rom. vii. 5; Gal. iii. 23 i710 vépuov éppoupov- 
 peOa. The same contrast between the past and the present is implied 
 Mie hom. <vi...45;,260: Col. i. a1, 2654 Lim. i. 65 2. Tim.. 1. 103. Heb- 
 i. t; 1 S. Pet. i. 20. Perhaps therefore the temporal sense of viv, as 
 representing an idea so deeply imbedded in the Apostle’s mind and in the 
 whole of the New Testament, as the contrast between the Christian and° 
 pre-Christian age, cannot be abandoned in deference to considerations 
 which are mainly linguistic. mepavépwra:, corresponding to dmoxadvmterat 
 i. 17, isa present of the completed action, ‘has been manifested and is now 
 open to view.’ The dxaoctivn Ocod had been as yet hidden; this is pre- 
 supposed by the expression mepavépwrat. dikaoovvy Ocod here as in i. 17, 
 the righteousness which Gop gives to man (@eov gen. orig.) and by 
 which man is rendered Sixaos, such as he should be, before Gop. Not the 
 righteousness qua Deus justus est, but that qua nos justos facit, as in ver. 
 26; iv. 5 sqq.; Gal. iii. 8.] 
 
 Condition 1. Negative relation to the Law. The Righteousness 
 which Gop gives, is xwpis vouov. The Law is in no way 
 concerned in securing it (ver. 21). 
 
 [Obs. In xwpis vépov the Law is used in its widest sense, for the whole Old 
 Testament revelation ; while in i165 rod véyov the Thorah as distinct from 
 the Prophets is in question. ywpls véuouv is opposed to Gal. iii. rr d:earovabac 
 év von, Gal. v. 4.] 
 
 Condition 2. Historical relation to the Old Testament. The 
 Righteousness which Gop gives is paprupoupém ind Tod vépou Kai 
 tav mpopyrar, i.e. by the whole of the sacred literature of 
 Israel (ver. 21). 
 
 [Obs. vépos xat mpopira denote the entire Old Testament, as does vépos alone in 
 ver. 19. Although the duaoc’vn Ocod is manifested to the world xapis 
 vépov, yet it is not without a justification in the sacred literature of Israel. 
 It is the pvorhpiov ba ypapav mpopnticadv eis Tavta Ta vn ywopiobev xvi. 26. 
 Our Lord said of the Jewish Scriptures, éxeiva eiow ai paptupotoat wept épot 
 
 1 For A. see p. 23. 
 
The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 S. John v. 39. ‘Novum testamentum in vetere latet, vetus in novo patet’ 
 S. Aug. The Apostle is probably thinking of all the types, promises, and 
 prophecies of a coming Messiah in the Old Testament, since the Sixaroodvn 
 @cov became manifest in and with Christ; cf. Rom. i. 2; iii. 12; Acts x. 43 
 ToUTw TavTES of TpopnTa paprupovow : re XXviii. 23, S. Paul at -Rome 
 preaches to the Jews 7a wepi Tov ‘Incod dmé te Tod vépov Mwoews al Tay mpo- 
 gntav: S. Luke xxiv. 27. For rod vépou, see iv. 3-5; x. 6 sqq. On the 
 general subject see Art. vii ‘Both in the Old and New Testaments, ever- 
 lasting life is promised to mankind through Christ.’] 
 
 Condition 3. Instrument of appropriation by mankind. The 
 Righteousness which Gop gives is appropriated by faith which 
 has Jesus Christ for its object, da sicrews "Incod Xpiorod (ver. 22). 
 
 [Obs. 5€ is repeated like aber, Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 553 with the same idea, diao- 
 
 [Obs. After the modus acquisitionis of the d:caocdvn cod follows the range of its 
 
 ovvn @eod which is now more precisely defined, as being secured by the 
 instrumentality of faith. “Ijcod Xpiorod is a gen. object. as generally ; see 
 Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 232; Gal. ii. 16, 20; iii. 22; Eph. iii. 12; iv. 13; Phil. 
 iii.9; S. Jamesii.1. The idea is as well expressed by the gen. as with «is 
 and the accusative. The usus loquendi is opposed to the theory which makes 
 Xpicrod a gen. subject.: ‘the faith in Gop which was inculeated by Christ.’ 
 Meyer points to the passages where the gen. with iors is a thing or an 
 abstract idea, Phil. i. 27; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Acts iii. 16; Col. ii. 12; mioms 
 @cod S. Mark xi. 22. This faith is the mediating cause whereby we men 
 take to ourselves the d:xcaiocvvn Ocov, and so unite ourselves to it as to 
 become through it holy. Christ has won this S:«aocvvy Ocod for all man- 
 kind by His death upon the Cross: objectively it is the result of His 
 obedience unto Death; but it is appropriated subjectively by each man 
 through faith, i.e. by an act of the intellect and the will involving free, entire, 
 and unreserved self-surrender to the salvation wrought by Gop in Christ. } 
 
 Condition 4. Range of destined extension among mankind. The 
 Righteousness which Gop gives is destined for Ce and—is 
 
 -aetualy—bestowed upon—fere> all who believe (mdvras rovs morev- 
 
 ovras) whatever their nationality or antecedont religious circum- 
 stances (ver. 22). 
 
 extension among mankind. This is expressed by the prepositions «is and 
 
 émi; cf. Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 521. It is meant for (cis) all; and it does ~ 
 
 extend itself over all (272) who believe in Jesus Christ. The Apostle loves 
 to use several prepositions with the same noun that its relation to another 
 idea may be completely defined on every side, Gal. i. 1 dad, dia: Col. i. 16 
 év, 5:4, eis: Rom. xi. 36 éx, dia, cis. But this is no mere redundancy of style ; 
 each prep. defines a relation which would not otherwise be expressed. The 
 emphasis here lies not upon morevoyras, but upon mav7as, which is presently 
 justified. «al ém mdéyras is wanting in A. B, C. P. 8* several versions, and 
 is omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, but Meyer observes that a gloss 
 on eis mévras was quite needless, and that the twice repeated mayras would 
 have occasioned the omission in very early MSS.] 
 
 a 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. III, vv. 21-30. 73 
 
 § Reasons for (ydp) this destined, universal extension (wdvtas . . . 
 mayras, ver. 22) of the Righteousness which Gop gives among 
 mankind (ver. 22 b—23). 
 
 Reason I. There is no distinction (S:sacrodn) between man and 
 man, or race and race, in virtue of which some races, or some 
 men, (e.g. the Jews,) might possibly attain to the dicaootvy 
 @cod, independently of any faith in Jesus Christ (ver. 22). 
 
 [Obs. &acroA7 is used of the spiritual advantages of races, x. 12; of the mystic 
 
 tongues, 1 Cor. xiv. 7.] 
 
 Reason II. (for yap reason I.) All men have sinned without 
 exception. This historical fact (fuaprov) shows that there is 
 no difference between any in this respect: and that the 
 Righteousness which Gop gives should be extended to all 
 (ver. 23). 
 
 [Obs. Ruaprov. The aorist points to the sinful acts as things in the past, which 
 have produced the state described by torepotyrat, «.7.A.] 
 
 Reason III. All men, through sin, have come short of that moral 
 glory which Gop gave to our first parents and which He 
 restores in Christ—rjs ddéns tod Ocot, Hence the universal 
 need for its recovery in the diKcaoctvn Gcod ek miotews (ver. 23). 
 
 [Obs. The dd¢a rod Ocod, effulgent beauty which Gop gives, is generally represented 
 as future, Rom. v. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 12 cuvdofac0jva TS Xprorw, Rom. viii. 17 
 sqq.; Col. iii.4. But this is not a decisive reason against its having existed 
 in the past, as jorepetoGa: with the gen. of its object, having the sense of 
 destitui, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 237, might seem to suggest. The glory which 
 Gop gave to unfallen man is described by Bishop Bull as ‘certain super- 
 natural gifts and powers, in which his perfection chiefly consisted, and 
 without which his natural powers were of themselves insufficient to the 
 attainment of an heavenly immortality’; ‘State of Man before the Fall,’ 
 Works, vol.ii. p. 52. This original righteousness was indeed forfeited by the 
 
 - fall, Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 22, but this forfeiture was confirmed and made 
 permanent by the separate sins (jyaprov) in past time which were the 
 moral consequences of the fall. That tod Ocod is a gen. auctoris is implied 
 in the analogous dicaootvn Oeod. Compare Art. ix ‘man is very far gone 
 from original righteousness,’ For the use of torepetada, see Dr. Vaughan, 
 tn loc.] 
 
 § 2. 
 Causes of dSikaiwois, i.e.. the communication of Sixaocivn Ccod to 
 mankind (vers. 24-26). 
 (Obs, d&xarodpevor, being made righteous. The part. cannot stand for xat dixarodvra : 
 it explains or proves tarepodvTa since they are being made righteous. Winer, 
 Gr. N.T. p. 443. The dixaiwors is represented as depending on the torepotv7ae 
 tis Sdgns 100 Ocod.] y ; 
 
74 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Cause I. ficient (remote). The unmerited Love and Mercy of 
 Gop (rj airod xdpite) which bestows Righteousness on man in 
 the way of a free gift (Swpeav) (ver. 24). 
 
 | [Obs. dwpedv properly an accus. : ‘in the way of a gift’; ‘Geschenksweise.” LXX 
 for D3 gratis, gratuitously. 1 Macc. x. 33; S. Matt. x. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 7; 2 
 Thess. ili. 8; Rev. xxi. 6; xxii. 17; Is. lii.3 dwpedy dvev dpyvpiov. The word 
 implies that nothing, whether it be faith or works, that precedes justification, 
 can avail to deserve it. The ydpis of Almighty Gop is the original source 
 of this free gift : Eph. ii. 877 ydp xapiti éore ceowopéevar did THs TicTeEws, Kal 
 TovTO ovk ef buav' cod Td Swpov, ovw ef Epywy : Eph. i. 6 éxapitwoev puas ev 
 TO nyamnuevy : Tit. iii. 5 ob« é¢ Epywy, ray év Sikaoovvy, dy émoinoapev Hels, GAA 
 KaTa TOV avTOD EAEoY EowoeV HUGS. | 
 
 Cause II. Efficient (meritorious\. The Redemption of man, 
 dua rhs dnohutpocews (ver. 24). 
 a. In whom is this Redemption found? In Christ Jesus, ¢v 
 
 Xpior@Incod. In the Messiah (Christ) who is Jesus (ver. 24). 
 | [Obs. droAvTpwots, prop. the payment of a Avrpov to an enemy with a view to pur- 
 
 chasing a captive’s liberty, see Plutarch, Pompeius, 24 médAcov aixparwTov 
 amohu7pwoes. It is used ten times in the New Testament, once without 
 metaphor, Heb. xi. 35; elsewhere of the ransoming of mankind by Christ, 
 whether as accomplished, 1 Cor. i. 30 éyev76n ... juiv...dmodUtpwots : 
 Heb. ix. 15 Oavarou yevopévov cis dmoAUTpwow : Eph. i. 7; Col.i. 14, or as des- 
 tined to have its full effect hereafter, as in Eph. iv. 30 jépa aroduTpacews. 
 Cf. Eph. i. 14; S. Luke xxi. 28. Instead of the verb dmoAurpav we find ayo- 
 pater, efayopafev, Gal. iii. 13; iv.5; 1 Cor. vi. 20; 2S, Pet. ii. 1; Rev. v. 9. 
 The enemies who held man captive were (1) sin, S. John viii. 31-36; Rom. 
 Vii. 14 mwempapévos id Thy apaptiav, 23 vépov... aixpadwrifovTd pe TO vou THs 
 dpaptias, and its consequence a curse of death, Rom. viii. to; Gal. iii. ro, 
 13, 23, which curse Jesus, by dying, removed, 2 Cor. v. 15, 21. (2) Satan, 
 lord of the realm of darkness (éfovgia tod oxédrovs Col. i. 13, which is also 
 éfovoia Tov Sarava Acts xxvi. 18). But the Avrpoy was not paid to Satan, 
 whose power was an usurpation, but to Gop Whose eternal and necessary 
 morality also required a satisfaction for sin. Hence the Son of Man gave 
 His life, Avrpov dv7t moAA@y S. Matt. xx. 28; éavrdy dvridutpov imép mavTav 
 1 Tim. ii. 6; yevdpevos imp judy Katdpa Gal. iii. 13; ef. dpapriav énoinoey 
 2 Cor. v. 21; and so is 6 fudpevos pads and THs dpyqs THs Epxopevns 1 Thess. i. 
 to. That which is purchased is (1) dpeots Tay dyapriwv here, Col. i. 14; 
 Eph. i. 7 ; Heb. ix. 15; and (2) future blessedness, S. Luke xxi. 28; Eph. i. 
 14; iv. 30; Rom. viii. 23.] 
 b. By whom is this Redeemer set forth? By Gop the Father. 
 He has openly set forth for Himself (mpoé6ero) as if in the 
 midst of human history, the crucified Redeemer (ver. 25). 
 
 [Obs. The expression mpoéGero may have been suggested by our Lord’s refer- 
 ence to the Brasen Serpent, S. John iii. 14. The word refers not to the 
 mpddeors in the Eternal Counsels of Gop, but to the historical fact of the | 
 Crucifixion, which was not a passing accident, but a public act of the Ruler a 
 of the Universe. pori#ec@a: was used by Greek authors to describe the ex- ' 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. III, vv. 21-30. a5 
 
 posure of dead bodies (Stallbaum ad Plat. Phaed. p. 115 E. qu. by Meyer) and 
 Jesus Crucified has been set forth by the Father before the eyes of believing 
 Christendom to the end of time; cf. Gal. iii. x ofs ar’ dpOadpods "Incovs 
 Xpiords mpoeypadny ev dpiv éoravpwpévos. The preaching of the Apostle carried 
 out the purpose of the Divine mpoé6ero.] 
 
 c. Under what aspect is this Redeemer set forth? Under 
 that of a propitiation, iAaornpov.....v TO adrovd aipati 
 (ver. 25). 
 
 [Obs. iAaothpiov is probably a substantive and not a substantival neuter of/ 
 ikaorhpios, since this adjective does not occur in classical Greek, and only, 
 seldom in ecclesiastical Greek. It is ‘something that propitiates’; cf. pvdAar- 
 Thptov, Ovo.acThpiov, Ovjuarnprov : such words are common in later Greek, as 
 dentipiov, ianarnpoy. Winer, Gr. N.T., p. 119. The analogy of dixaorjpiov, 
 axpoaripiov, pudakTnpioy, KaOiotnpiov would suggest that iAaorApioy is a nomen 
 loci, the place of expiation. Only Dio Chrys. and a writer of the seventh 
 eentury are quoted as making it analogous to yapiorjpiov, an expiatory gift. 
 The LXX use iAaorjpiov as a translation for 53, -Ex. XXv. 18, I9, 20, 21; 
 RRM) XXKY. Tos Xxxvil. 7,893) Lev. Xvi. 123, 531 e4ge rs 5 ovum vit. 
 89, and adjectivally 76 fAaorhpoy érifewa in Exod. xxv. 17; xxxvii. 6, where 
 we are told what is the material of which the n752 i is made. The LXX 
 also use iAaornpioy for the MY or ledge of the altar for burnt offerings, Ezek. 
 xlili. 14, 17, 20, because this too, like the Capporeth, was to be sprinkled 
 with the reconciling blood of the sacrifice. The Capporeth (explained also 
 by Levy, Chald. Dict, as a place of expiation) was the golden lid which covered 
 the Sacred Ark, and upon which the blood of a bullock and a goat was 
 sprinkled at the yearly feast of expiation. This lid covered not only the 
 Ark, containing the law, but, Exod. xxx. 6, the law itself. The blood of the 
 appointed victims only becomes propitiatory when it is on the Capporeth, 
 Ley. xvii. 11; xvi. 14, 15. Thus idaornpov, which certainly means the 
 Capporeth, in Heb. ix. 5 XepovBip dé¢ns katacmafovra 70 ikaorhpioy is best 
 explained by it here also. According to Ex. xxv. 22, and Ley. xvi. 2 the 
 Capporeth is the central seat of Gop’s saving presence on earth and of His 
 gracious revelations to man. The Holy of Holies itself was only the 
 nqB>n-n"a, the House of the Capporeth, 1 Chron. xxviii. rr ; 1 Kings vi. 5. 
 That the Incarnate Christ, sprinkled with His own Blood, should be 
 called iAaorjpiov, was therefore natural, Meyer understands by the word 
 iAaorhpiov, expiatorium generally, without any more precise definition of its 
 sense. But he prefers the explanation which defines it by fepév or Odya, 
 S. Chrys. takes it as ‘expiatory sacrifice —the antitype of the animal offer- 
 ings. In x8. John ii. 2; iv. ro Christ is called an iAacpés, as it is He by 
 Whom sin is covered and expiated. 
 
 Cause III. Efficient (receptive). The faith which receives, as 
 might a hand, Christ the iaorjpwry év tO adtod aipars as the 
 Stxatocvvn cod, 
 
 (Obs. xr. ris is wanting in C*. D*. F. G.& and several Fathers ; A. and Chrys. omit 
 the whole &d ris micrews; Lachm. and Tisch. omit tjs. Probably the 
 
 ~ omission of the art. was sagaested, by da miorews ver. 22, and the clause 
 4 should be retained. | 
 
76 The Epistle to the Romaus. 
 
 | [Obs. 2, év tO abrod aipart, although following da 77s micTews, is not dependent on 
 it, as if ‘through faith in His Blood’: since in that case t7Hs would have 
 been repeated before & 7@ aivart, and cis with an acc. would have been more 
 natural than év, although miots or moreveyv are used with év 711 in Eph.i. 15, 
 Col. i. 4, 1 Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 15, our Lord Jesus Christ being in all these 
 cases the object in which Faith rests. Both expressions are best regarded as 
 adverbial clauses added to dv.... fdaornpiov. da [THs] ticrews represents 
 the means of subjective appropriation of the itacrjpoy ; év TO avdTov aipart, 
 the objective medium of its exhibition to the world.]} 
 
 [Obs. 3. The relation of the aiva rod Xpiorod to Christ as the fAacrHpioy, is to be 
 explained by the relation between the soul and the Blood which is taught 
 in the Jewish Scriptures. (1) Gen. ix. 4-6, where in ver. 4 07 is in ap- 
 position to }¥I, and is paraphrased in LXX & aipars poxjs. The blood of 
 beasts may not be eaten, because it is the ‘soul’ of beasts. In ver. 5 man’s 
 blood and man’s soul are even more closely associated : the life of man as 
 contained in the blood of man is not to be even touched by beasts or men, 
 under penalty of death. (2) Lev. xvii. 10-14, The eater of blood was to be 
 destroyed, because ‘the soul of the flesh (i. e. of the nature living in the 
 flesh wan WD?) is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar 
 to make an atonement for your souls: for the blood, by means of the soul 
 (WD23, 3 instrumenti) is an atonement.’ This is mistranslated in A. V. ‘ The 
 blood maketh an atonement for the soul.’ The blood atones by the power 
 of the soul which is resident init. (3) Deut. xii. 23, Beasts of Sacrifice may 
 be slaughtered and eaten, like the roebuck and the hart, i. e. non-sacrificial 
 beasts, ‘ only be sure that thou eat not the blood ; for the blood is the soul, and 
 thou mayest not eat the soul with the flesh. Thou shalt not eat of it; thou 
 shalt pour it upon the earth like water. The eating blood was, on this 
 account, considered sin, 1 Sam. xiv. 32; punished in the prophetic ages, 
 Ezek, xxxiii. 25 ; and even forbidden by the Apostles, Acts xv. 20-29; 
 xxi. 25. Hence moral qualities are applied to the blood, considered as the 
 soul; Ps. xciv. 21 J by; and §. Matt. xxiii. 35 aia Sixaov. This unity of 
 the Blood and the soul wad implied in Virgil’s Aen. ix. 349 ‘ purpuream vomit 
 ille animam,’ and was taught in-Aristotle’s treatise De Anim. i. 2. 405 b. 5. 
 Tertull. De Anim. ¢. 15. But Scripture nowhere combines spirit (M1) and 
 blood as a unity; only soul and blood: and it does not confine even the 
 sensuous soul to the blood, so that it is not also in the organs, e. g. of re- 
 spiration, as YD), This language of Scripture is physiologically true, since 
 (1) the efficiency of the body depends on the quantity of the blood; the 
 blood is the basis of physical life ; and so far, the soul, as the prea of 
 bodily life, is preeminently in the blood ; (2) the blood is also the original 
 material from which, in the embryonic state, the human organism is de- 
 veloped ; hence S. John i. 13 says of the sons of Gop, ov« é aipatwy, cf, Acts 
 Xvii. 26 ; cf. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. pp. 281 ff. In our Lord’s case, His Blood 
 had an atoning value, as representing not merely a YD} or yux7, like the 
 sacrificial animals under the law, but as being hypostatically united to 
 mvedpa aiwviov, His eternal Divinity (see Delitzsch on Heb. ix. 14), which 
 imparts to it such absolute value that it can screen the whole guilty race of 
 man. Hence the language applied to the Blood of Christ. It is wept moAAdy 
 éxxuvopevov cis dpeow dyapridv Matt. xxvi. 28. It is the aiya iiov of Gop 
 with which He purchased (aeptemorqoaro) the Church, Acts xx. 28. By it 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. II, vv. 21-30. 74 
 
 Christians have 77)v dtoAvtpwoww Eph. i. 7, and in it, i.e.in the sphere of its 
 operation, they are brought near (éyyis éyevnOnTe) to Gov, Eph. ii. 13. It is 
 the blood of sprinkling, 1S. Pet. i. 2,19; the Precious Blood ws duvot dudpou 
 kat donidov Xpict90 (ib.). It is the Blood of Christ’s Cross, whereby He has 
 made peace, Col. i. 20; it xa@aprel thy cuvelinow juav Heb. ix. 14; it xadapiva 
 amd maons duaprias 1 S. John i. 7; in it the saved have been washed, 7@ Aov- 
 oav7t Rey. i. 5; and have whitened their stoles, éAcvcavay Rev. vii. 14; by 
 it Christ has bought them, 7yépacas v.9; and in it Christians have zap- 
 pnotay eis tiv elcodov Tay ayiwy Heb. x.19. As the aipa diaéquns aiwviov Heb. 
 Xili. 20, it corresponds antitypically to the blood of the Jewish sacrifices ; 
 with it Christ’s people are sprinkled fav7icpdv aivaros 1 Pet. i, 2, and 
 sanctified, iva dyidon 5A Tod idiov aiparos Heb. xiii. 12; by it they conquer 
 the adversary, Rev. xii. 11. It is the summary of the whole redemptive 
 work of Christ ; it implies the Incarnation on the one hand as the secret of 
 its power, and on the other the Resurrection as the warrant of its efficacy. 
 *Sanguis Christi, Christi Evangelium.’] 
 
 Cause IV. Final (1) Ultimately (<is), The manifestation of Gon’s 
 own attribute of Righteousness, eis evdekw ris Sexacoctdvns avrov 
 (ver. 25), eis Td etvar avrov Sixaov (ver. 26). 
 
 Reason for this daks. It was necessary on account of the 
 indulgent overlooking of sins in the pre-Christian ages (dca rip 
 mdpecw tev mpoyeyovdrwv duapriav) in virtue of the forbearance 
 (év ri avoxh) of Gov, that He should display in Christ’s Atoning 
 Death His own unchanged relation to moral evil (ver. 26). 
 
 [Obs. r. The clause «is évdergiv depends upon zmpoéGero, defining its final purpose. 
 It is iva évbeiénra: Eph. ii. 7. évdegis is used for a practical proof of human 
 affection, 2 Cor. viil. 24, and for an intimation of coming destruction, 
 admwdeias Phil. i. 28, In ii’ 15 évdeixvuvrat is used of the outward practical 
 proof given by the lives of the better heathen that an ideal of conduct in 
 accordance with the Law is written in their hearts. The d:caoctvn airod is 
 here, not the Righteousness which Gop gives, but as the context requires, 
 the Righteousness which is His attribute : ef. ver. 26 eis 76 eivar atrév dinar. 
 Winer says that it is difficult to think that S. Paul wrote d:taootvns airod 
 close to év aivart aro, and would read é:xaoovvns aitod, but adds that it is a 
 question for editors, Gr. N. T. p. 189. ] 
 
 (Obs. 2. did riv mapeow x«.7.A. seems to depend on eis évSegw rhs Siarcocvvns adrod, 
 rather than on mpoédero, The display of the Attribute of Righteousness in 
 His indignation against sin on the Cross, was rendered needful by Gon’s 
 pretermission of sins in earlier ages, in order to vindicate Him from 
 apparent indifference to moral evil. It must not be translated as if rh 
 mapeow THY mpoyeyovétwy duapriav gives the formal cause of justification, 
 which consists in the remission of past sins. For (a) &4 with acc. would 
 thus be taken as equivalent to da with gen. On the inadmissibility of this, see 
 Winer, Gr. NV. T. p. 497. (0) mépecis would be taken as dpeois. But dpeos is 
 remissio ; mépeois praetermissio. mdépecis occurs here only in Scripture ; 
 though wapréva: occurs in Ecclus. xxxiii. 2, and the idea of mapeois is expressed 
 by timepBaivay doeBeias Mich. vii. 18, and dmepiidy 5 @eds rods xpdvous Tis 
 dyvoias Acts xvii. 30. Then pre-Christian sins were not forgiven; they 
 
78 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 were let go unpunished. Particular acts of sin are hinted at in the form 
 ayaptnua, which only occurs in S. Mark iii. 28, 29; 1 Cor. vi. 18; 28. Pet. 
 i. 9. This pretermission, mapeois, of sin was the corollary in Gop’s active 
 \providence to His dvoy7, i. e. His xpnorérns face to face with human sin, 
 ii. 43 just as dpeors would have corresponded to His xapis. In év rH dvox7, 
 
 | &y is used in the sense of the ethical ground or sphere. The bearing of 
 Christ’s redemption upon Jewish sins in the pre-Christian ages is referred 
 to in Heb. ix. 15 @avdrov yevopevou eis dnodvTpwow Trev ent TH mpwTn SiabnKy 
 mapaBacewv, where these ancient sins are spoken of, not as a reason for the 
 évoeréis Siecsog’yns Ocov in the Crucifixion, but as redeemed by it.] 
 
 (2) Immediately (pés) the manifestation of the righteousness 
 which He gives to sinners at this present time, as the justifier 
 of rév ex migtews “Inood (ver. 26), 
 
 [Obs. 1. mpds resumes, by a parallel clause, the eis évSeéw in ver. 25; but eis is ex- 
 changed for the nearly equivalent mpés in order to suggest a more immediate 
 purpose of the mpodOero. év TH viv katp@ serves to mark its force, and intro- 
 duces a new element. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. The closing words els 7d eivai abrdv Sixatov x.7.A. summarize and explain 
 the whole preceding passage eis évdeifiv 77s Sixacoovvns «.T.A, eis TO elvas adTov 
 Sixaov corresponds to «is évdergiv THs Sicaroc’yns Tov Ocov: and dixaodvTa TOV 
 éx miaTews “Incod to mpds evdeigw THs Sixacoavyns avrovd év TS viv Kapa. | 
 
 [ Obs. 3. On the question of Justification, see Waterland, Summary View of the Doctrine 
 of Justification, Works, vol. ix. 427. (Oxf. 1823) ; Bull, Examen Censurae, Works, 
 vol. iv. p.93sqq.; Bp. Philpotts, Pastoral Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter 
 on the Present State of the Church, p. 19 (Murray, 1851) ; Sadler, Justification of Live 
 (Bell, 1888).] 
 
 [Obs. 4. Causes of dyxaiwors. 
 | 
 | | 
 x. efficient. 2. formal, 3. final. 
 Remission of sins, | 
 Rom. iv. 7. 
 | 
 remote. proximate. | 
 (cx parte Spiritus 1. immediate 2. ulterior. 
 Sancti.) apos evd. eis Evdercéuy 
 | Rom. iii. 26, tis 8. avtov. 
 i] | The mani- Rom. iii. 25. 
 (ex parte (ex parte 1. objective 2. subjective festation The mani- 
 Dei Patris.) D.N.J.C.) and instru- and receptive of the festation of 
 9 xdpts TOU @, =H awoAvTpwors. mental Faith. Righteousness His Eternal 
 Rom. iii. 24. Rom, iii. 24. Baptism. Rom. iii. 22, which He Attribute of 
 Tit, iii, 5. Col. i. 14. Tit. iii, 5. 25,28; V.x. gives to man, Righteous- 
 Rom. vi. 3. Gal. iii. 12, 26. ness,—ob- 
 Gal. iii. 27. This faith scured by His 
 I Pet. iii, 21. is 60” aydrns — =e 
 evepyounevn 
 Gal. v. 6, ners in the 
 and is only pre-Christian 
 ideally not ages] 
 aa 
 separa 
 from works. og 
 
 (S. James ii, 22.) 
 
 
 
 . 
 
Dogmatic: ch. Il, vv. 21-30. "9 
 § 3. 
 
 Inferences (odv ver. 27) from the preceding account of Sdixaiwors 
 (27-30). 
 
 Inference I. The Jew can no longer make his wonted boast (7 
 xavxyots)in his theocratic position. This boast is excluded from 
 consideration by a law whose zowrns is not works but faith 
 (ver. 27). 
 
 Reason. (yap) from the drift of the present argument: our argument 
 is that a man is justified by faith, apart from works of the law 
 
 (ver. 28). 
 
 [Obs. x. (ver. 27.) The rapid interchange of question and answer in ver. 27) 
 implies the Apostle’s sense of the conclusiveness cf his argument... In 7 
 wavxnots the art. indicates the well-known boasting of the Jews, already) 
 referred to in ii. 17 sqq. This boasting is excluded from the sphere of the} 
 religious relation to Gop proclaimed by the Apostle. The Apostle assumes 
 that this exclusion must be effected by some law, which no longer allows it. 
 What is the quality of this law? 8a moiov véuov; It cannot be the law\ 
 which requires outward works, since these afford scope for the Jewish «av- 
 xnois; it must be a law which is only a law in a wider sense, as a revelation of'\ 
 the Will of Gop, but which requires faith as the characteristic act of obedience : 
 to it. For this wider sense of véyos compare ix. 31 vdpos Sikaroovvys: Vili. 2 6 
 vdpos Tov mvevparos : S. James ii. 12 vdpos éAcvdepias. | 
 
 [Obs, 2. (ver. 28.) The clause Aoy:(épueba yap «.7.A. gives the reason for da vdpou 
 miorews eLexreloOn % Kavxnois Ver. 27. AovyiCecPa, as in ii. 3, of inferential 
 argument: by the plural the Apostle associates himself with his readers, 
 whom he assumes to be following him. The reading ody, textus receptus, must 
 be abandoned for yap in deference to decisive external testimony ; although 
 oty lends itself to a very tenable construction of the passage. dv@pwmov, a 
 ‘human being,’ is used here like as at ii. 1, 3 and wacav yuxiv dvOpwmov 
 ii. 9. The argument applies to every human being as such. For yxapis 
 épyov vépov compare ver. 20 éf épywy vopuou ov SixawOnoera maca capt, and 
 ver. 21 xwpls vépouv Sixaoctvn Ocod mepavépwrat. On this verse see Sadler, 
 Justification of Life, ch. iii. § 1, especially pp. 106, 107.] 
 
 Inference II. Gop is the One Gop of the whole human family, 
 and not of the Jews only (ver. 29). 
 
 Reason. This equal relation of the One Gop to the whole 
 human race is implied in His imparting d«aootvy on the same 
 terms of Faith to both Jew and Heathen. 
 
 (the Jews, } niotews, by starting from and developing 
 
 TEpLTOUHY, their existing faith in a coming Messiah. 
 He will &a tis micrews, through the instrumentality 
 justify |the Heathen | |of that Faith, which they have yet to 
 ~— \dxpoSveriay learn, and which is preached by the 
 
 ry: 
 
 Apostle (ver. 30). 
 
80 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. x. #, as at ii. 4, introduces an alternative supposition to that which has just 
 
 been stated in ver. 28. Or, if we are wrong in thinking that a human 
 being is made just apart from works of obedience to the Jewish law, are we 
 to say that Gop is the Gop of the Jews only? Gop must have been only 
 a Jewish Gop, if He made dixaiwors depend exclusively upon works of 
 obedience to the Jewish law. Im vai rat €@vwv the Apostle controverts the 
 Jewish exclusiveness ; the equal relation of Gop to the heathen was implied 
 in the promises to the heathen in the Jewish prophets, and had been 
 expressly revealed to S. Paul himself, Gal. i. 16. «ivai tkvos properly ‘to 
 belong to some one,’ here as Gop, Who is the Possession of the human soul, 
 as well as its Maker and Owner. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The Unity of Gon, eis 6 Oeds, which is here connected with His relation 
 
 to the whole human race, is asserted in 1 Cor. viii. 4, as against heathen 
 polytheism, in Gal. iii. 20, and 1 Tim. ii. 5 in relation to our Lord's 
 mediation, in Eph. iv. 6 as the climax of the unities which are the objects 
 of Christian devotion; in S. James ii. 19 as the subject of intellectual 
 assent, common to men and devils.]} 
 
 [0bs. 3. émetrep here only in New Testament if the true reading ; but A.B.C.D**N* 
 
 have ¢izep ‘if, at least.’ Meyer retains émeirep ‘whereas’; he thinks that it 
 would have been altered on account of its being unfamiliar to the copyists. 
 
 | dxadmoe, ‘future of the rule’; d:«caodv is viewed as an act of Gop which will 
 
 continue to be thus performed throughout the ages of Christianity, Winer, 
 Gr. N. T. p. 350. In é« miorews and ba THs wiorews Winer cannot allow that 
 the Apostle intended any distinction in sense, since mioT:s may with equal 
 propriety be conceived of as the source or as the means of blessedness, Gal. 
 iii. 8; Eph. ii. 8; Gr. N.T. p. 512. He thinks that the use of different 
 prepositions in parallel clauses is solely for the sake of variety. But ef. 
 on ver. 22, and observe the significant insertion of the art. in &d ris 
 miorews, It was the development of the subjective belief of the Jews which 
 would lead to their justification : it was the objective faith of Christendom, 
 of which as yet they knew nothing, which would be the means of justifying 
 the Gentiles. ] 
 
 Ov fj 
 Bond. C. 
 The Sixarocvvy Ccod ex mictews is confirmed by the authority 
 
 of the Old Testament (iii. 31—iv. 25). 
 
 General Thesis. The doctrine of Justification by faith is so far 
 from destroying the authority of the Mosaic Law that it 
 establishes this authority by appealing to it for a conchae on 
 its own distinctive characteristics (iii. 31). 
 
 [0bs. 1. The question ‘Do we then make the Law of none effect through the 
 
 principle of faith ?’ is a natural inference (odv) from what has been said as 
 to dinalwois.. . tx mioTews .. . xwpis Epyaw vépov. The antithesis of vdyos and 
 nioris shows that here the Mosaic Law is meant (cf. Acts xxi. 28 ; Gal. iv. 
 21) which the objection supposed. to be rendered invalid 5a ris miorews, by 
 making faith the condition of justification.] 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. IV, vv. 1-3. 81 
 
 [0bs. 2. In the answer vépov fordvoyev the form fardvoyev has preponderating 
 authority in itsfavour. The simple icrdvw here only in Scripture. ‘We make 
 the law stand’ in all its old authority : (=f«Satodpev) Theodoret. S. Paul 
 does not mean that the Law is not abrogated considered as a rule of 
 outward actions performed in order to the attainment of righteousness, Rom. 
 vii. 4; x. 4; 2Cor.iii.7; Gal. ii. 19 ; Gal. iii. 12, since in that sense the Law 
 was destroyed by the Gospel: but this same law, inasmuch as it taught | 
 that faith is the receptive condition of Sicatocdvy, is therefore confirmed in| 
 its authority by that Gospel to which it thus witnesses. ] 
 
 Proof of the Thesis, iii. 31 véyor iordvopey dia Ths wiotews, from the 
 case of Abraham, father of the faithful (iv. 1-25). 
 
 § 1, The question stated (iv. 1-3). 
 
 Quest. If SKxactivy ex ricrews, instead of abrogating, establishes 
 the Law, what religious advantage, (such as righteousness, ) 
 can we say that Abraham the typical ancestor of the race has 
 attained to, in accordance with the genius-of an external 
 system like that of the Law? (iv. 1). 
 
 Resp. No advantage whatever. 
 
 Reason 1. (yép) from observing the limited scope of the current Jewish 
 answer in a contrary sense. The Jewish doctors say that 
 Abraham has attained to some advantage, viz. that he ‘was 
 justified by outward works.’ Supposing this to have been the 
 case, the Apostle admits that Abraham has matter for boasting, 
 kavxnua ; he has attained righteousness through his own efforts. 
 But he has not this ground of boasting with respect to Gop, 
 mpis 18 Océr, since his justification is, (upon the supposition, ) 
 not at all Gop’s act but purely his own (ver. 2). 
 
 Reason 2. (proof, ydp, of od mpds Px Ocdy (ver. 2) in Reason r) from 
 the explicit statement of Scripture. Gen. xy. 6 teaches that what 
 Gop took account of in Abraham was his faith, and hence 
 it follows that if he did become righteous ¢é épyor, this is no real 
 ground of glory with respect to Gop, Kxaixnya mpos tov Ocdv 
 (ver. 2). 
 
 [0bs. I. (ver. I.) ody introduces the proof of iii. 31 to be drawn from the history 
 of Abraham in the form of an inference (Meyer). The Apostle asks a 
 question which implies a negative answer; and this negative answer 
 supplies a corrective to the Jewish misunderstanding of vépov iordvoper, 
 
 while at the same time it introduces Abraham’s true relation to the 
 receptive cause of diaooivy Gcod. The words ward odpxa are joined to roy 
 
 G 
 
 
 
82 : The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 natépa Hpav by A.C.D.E.F.G.8 and many Fathers ; but while this connection 
 may have been the motive of the transposition, it is really tautologous. 
 The words are better taken with cipyxévac: eipicxav is used like N¥ID ‘to 
 acquire,’ ‘earn,’ S. Luke i. 30; Heb. ix. 12. In «ard odpxa, apf is used as 
 nature, without the higher element of grace which was to be received by 
 faith, xara odpxa, in a purely human way, by his natural efforts. The 
 words Tov narépa hudv (mporatopa, A.B.S, &c. is probably a gloss) are signifi- 
 cant. Abraham was the typical ancestor of Israel, whether natural or 
 spiritual ; his history was to be the spiritual rule for that of his true 
 \posterity. If he attained to justification by his own efforts then the 
 Jewish teachers who appealed to the authority of his example were right : 
 if in the way of faith, then the Apostle-might claim him as the spiritual 
 ancestor of believing Christendom.] 
 
 , [Obs. 2. (ver. 2.) yap justified the negative reply which the question in ver. 1 
 implies. Abraham attained to no advantage whatever xara odpxa. If he 
 | was justified by works as the Jewish doctors say, this (is in its Way a 
 } matter of boasting—but it) has no reference to Gop, and is not therefore ti 
 | etpneevaa; Observe that eipynxéva: in the Apostle’s question ver. I corre- 
 sponds to éd:aw6n in the Jewish statement, ver. 2, and «ard odpxa in ver. I 
 to é€ épywv in ver. 2. But this correspondence does not involve equiva- 
 lence ; the expressions in ver. r are wider and more generic. In é§ épyov, 
 épya are products of natural human energy, not of the new element of 
 a Divine life received by faith, as in S. James ii. 21 ’ABpadu 6 rarip quay ovK 
 ef Epywv edixaiwOn dveveyxas “Ioadk tov vidy atrod ém 7d O@vo.acryjpov; The 
 Jews inferred from Gen. xxvi. 5 that Abraham kept the whole law of 
 Moses, Beresch. Rabba, f. 57. 4; Kiddusch. f. 82. 1. sKxavxnya, materies 
 glriandi, Phil. i. 26; ii. 16, in New Testament (but not in classics) distin- 
 guished from xadxnos. pds rev @edv, with reference to, not évwmov or 
 ‘apud.’ éxew xa’ynua mpds is explained by its opposite éxew popupiy mpés, 
 Col. iii. 13. Abraham, regarded as present (éxet, see Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 384) 
 may, if justified as the Jews assert, pass for a Sixaros before men, but he 
 eannot say that he is a Sixaos with reference to Gop, because Gop, as 
 Scripture testifies, only reckons to him his faith as d:cacoovv7.] 
 
 [0bs. 3. In ver. 3 Gen. xv. 6 is quoted as a proof (ydp) of the words od mpds roy 
 Océ in ver. 2.] 
 
 § Gen. xv. 6, quoted to show that Abraham’s faith, not his ante- 
 cedent works, were placed to his account as dicacoodvny by Gon. 
 Heb. AQIW 1 ABV A}MD NINN 
 LXX xai ériorevoev *ABpap TO Oew, wal édovyicOn alte eis Sixarootvny. 
 
 [Obs. 1. The Apostle quotes verbatim from the LXX, only substituting 5é after 
 éniorevoe for xai before it, as does S. James ii. 23, although at Gal. iii. 6 the 
 Apostle omits both. “Apap does not occur in the Hebrew, and 7@ Oc@ is f 
 substituted for MD. édoyicey represents the active navn, and he 
 reckoned it. ] ‘ 
 
 [Obs. 2. Abraham’s faith was conspicuously shown (1) in his leaving his native 
 _ land and kindred at the call of Gop, Gen. xiii. 1; Acts vii. 2 sqq. ; Heb. 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. IV, vv. 1-3. 83 
 
 xi. 8 riore: Smfeovcer eferGeiv. (2) In his believing, in spite of his advanced 
 years, that Sarah would bear him a son whose posterity would be innumer- 
 able like the stars of heaven, Gen. xv. 6 as here: ef. Gal. iii. 6; and (3) in 
 his willing surrender of the son of promise at the bidding of Gop, Gen. 
 xxii; Heb. xi. 17-19 aiore . .. Tov povoyer mpoepepey . . . TAS Emaryyedias 
 dmodegépuevos. (The Epistle to the Hebrews adds Abraham’s tent-life in the 
 promised land, xi. 9, 10, as a further instance of his personal faith in 
 addition to that which was common to him with the Patriarchs generally, 
 ib. 13-16, while the preternatural birth of Isaac is there connected with the 
 faith of Sarah ib. 11, 12.) For Jewish recognition of the faith of Abraham 
 see Mace. ii. 52 év metpacpo ebpéOn moards Kal édoyiabn ait eis dixacoovyny : 
 Philo, De Abrahamo, pp. 386, 387, and the beautiful passage ‘Quis rerum 
 
 divinarum haeres,’ p. 493, quoted by Tholuck. The act of faith in the | 
 promise of an innumerable seed which was reckoned to Abraham for ) 
 righteousness, did not make so great a demand upon him as the offering up | 
 Isaac: yet it was an heroic act of belief and the Apostle describes its | 
 
 difficulty in vers. 18, 19. Perhaps it is selected because it best illustrated | 
 the triumph of faith as such; the believing assent of the mind and will 
 of Abraham to Gop’s promise of a posterity did not at once issue in any) 
 definite act, such as the leaving his home before, or the offering his son 
 afterwards, although it was ready to do so. 
 
 When S. James, before quoting Gen. xv. 6, says that Abraham’s faith 
 ouvipyer Tots Epyos adrod Kal éx Tav Epywv % TioTis éreAeLhOn, he is referring to 
 the sacrifice of Isaac, Gen. xxii. 9, 12, as explaining the Divine estimate of 
 faith in Gen. xv. 6. Faith is always capable of works, whether it actually 
 produces them or not.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. In Gen. xv Abraham gave evidence of his faith in Gon’s promise of 
 
 a posterity by at once obeying Gop’s command to ‘fetch an heifer three 
 years old’ and other animals, and ‘divide them in the midst and lay each 
 piece one against another’ (vers. 9, 10) and Gop gave evidence that He 
 reckoned Abraham’s faith to him for righteousness, by that which followed : 
 ‘When the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, 
 and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces’ (ver. 17), and ‘in the 
 same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham.’ The Lord reckoned 
 Abraham’s faith to him as righteousness by making a covenant with him, 
 by taking him into covenant with himself (Keil, in loc.). Abraham’s' 
 morevev TS Oe@ did not differ substantially from the wiomts of Christians ; 
 because Abraham’s faith had reference to Gov’s promise of a posterity, 
 which embraced in it the future Messiah, John viii. 56 «at «ide Kai éxapn. 
 On the API of the Old Testament, see Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant, 
 i. p. 226, Engl. Transl. ‘He who in the exercise of his free will comes up 
 to the Divine idea and to the purpose of his existence is righteous. By the 
 fall man lost this righteousness, or rather the capacity for attaining it. 
 But as salvation is impossible without righteousness, and as in the eternal 
 counsel of His grace Gop has resolved to save man, Gop must Himself restore 
 righteousness to man. , . . Just as, according to the original arrangement, he 
 would have been just who had come up to the requirements of the Divine 
 idea expressed in creation, so now is he righteous who submits to the 
 conditions of the plan of salvation.... Of this plan... the condition is 
 
 G2 
 
84 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans, 
 
 that man should fall in with the salvation offered him, in as far as it 
 became manifest in each successive stage of development. Thus then 
 a new way in which to obtain righteousness, that of faith, i.e. of a full, 
 free and unconditional surrender of oneself to the idea embodied in the 
 Divine plan of salvation. This faith does not indeed work out salvation, 
 but it is the condition under which salvation becomes ours. Abraham 
 believed, i, e, he wholly surrendered himself to the truth contained in the 
 Divine promise under which at that stage of development salvation 
 appeared, and thus he became just.’] 
 
 § 2. Exposition of Gen. xv. 6 (vers. 4-25). 
 
 A. Negative import of Gen. xv. 6 (vers. 4-16a). Agencies 
 which did not contribute to Abraham’s justification, He 
 was justified 
 
 I. xapis gpyov (ver. 6). Abraham’s previous ‘natural’ good conduct 
 
 had no share in bringing about his d:xaiwors (vers. 4-8). 
 
 (a) Arg. from the logical conception of éAcyicém, It implies that 
 a return of some kind is made xara xdépw,—purely in the way of 
 grace or fayour. Thus it is sharply opposed to the conception 
 of épyd{ecOa which implies a return for work, xara 16 dpeiAnua, 
 according to the measure of debt. Had Abraham been justified 
 by good conduct previous to his faith in the Divine Promise, 
 Gen. xv. 6, his d:catootyy would have been described as a debt 
 which was due, not as a grace which was reckoned to him. 
 As it was, he illustrates the general Law, that ‘the faith of the 
 man who believes in Gop, the Justifier even of the impious, 
 is reckoned to that man for righteousness’ (vers. 4-5), 
 
 (b) Arg. (confirmatory of the preceding (a)) from the general 
 proposition laid down by David, Ps. xxxii. 1-2, in which he 
 congratulates the man whose sins are forgiven him and covered, 
 i.e. not imputed. This, the negative aspect of AoyiterOa 
 dixarcootynv, must have been the paxapiopes of believing Abraham, 
 to whom Gop reckoned righteousness without reference to 
 previous conduct (vers, 6-8), | 
 
 [Obs. 1. In vers. 4, 5, an illustration of ver. 3 is supplied, consisting of two 
 
 categories or general relations of moral life contrasted with each other. Thege 
 are (1) the épya¢épevos and (2) the pi) épya¢duevos conceived generally. (1) 
 The épya{épevos, the man who deals in works, has corresponding wages 
 (6 410 86s), which are ‘ reckoned’ to him according to the standard not of grace 
 but of debt. S. Paul assumes from yer. 3 that Abraham’s d:xaocdvn came to 
 him sard x4pw ; and hence Abraham cannot have been an épya{épevos. (2) 
 
 on 
 x, 
 #, 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. IV, vv. 4-25. 85 
 
 The man who cannot be thought of as an épya{épevos, but who believes (ém/) | 
 on Gop, the Justifier of the ungodly,—his faith is reckoned as d:xarocvvn. 
 This was obviously Abraham’s case, as described in Gen. xv, But in both / 
 verses the language is purposely wider than was needed by the particular 
 ease ; Abraham alone is not the pi) épyaépevos still less the doeBns of ver. 5. 
 Probably the Apostle is thinking of himself in 7@ épyaopnéev, such as he was 
 before his conversion, xata Sixaoovvny tiv éx vdpou dGyeumros Phil. iii. 6, blame- | 
 less in his own sight as a fulfiller of the law, and entitled to its rewards as | 
 a matter of strict justice. In the py épyaépevos, he is thinking also of him- | 
 self ; he does work, but cannot think of himself as an épyaCéuevos : looking 
 to his previous life, it is that of an doeBjs who needs justification before Gop, \ 
 and who is justified by believing on Him. morevew én rov Ocdv is not >) 
 merely credere Deo, or credere Deum. but credere in Deum, expressing not only the 
 direction of faith, but its character, ‘credendo amare, credendo diligere, 
 credendo in Eum ire et eius membris incorporari,’ Augustine, in Joann. tr.| 
 xxix. 6.] 
 
 [Obs. 2 in ver. 2. The quotation from David’s Ps. xxxii. 1, 2 is an accessory | 
 (xa@arep) argument. This paxapopds congratulation (not blessedness), of, 
 the person to whom Gop reckons a dSiaoodvn xwpis épywv, is based on the } 
 forgiveness of sins. «xa@drep for xaOws, xii. 4; 1 Cor. xii. 12; 2 Cor. 
 dil. 13, 18; viii. 11; 1 Thess. ii, 11, &e. paxaptopds only in ver. 9 and 
 Gal. iv. 15.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. There is no place in Scripture in which the Righteousness of Jesus 
 Christ is said to be imputed, as distinct from being imparted. When 
 Seripture says that Faith is reckoned to a man for righteousness, it does not 
 thereby say that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed without being im- 
 parted. Faith is imputed for righteousness on a common sense and 
 almost a natural principle. Faith is the initial act of all union with Gop 
 or Christ. Accordingly an all-gracious Gop does not wait until the sinner 
 has done such or such good works before He receives him into favour; He 
 sees the fruit in the germ, He takes the will for the deed; He sees the 
 career of faith in its earliest beginning. So it was with Abraham; the 
 event, we may reverently say, justified Gop’s eis d:cacoodvny édXoyicbn. When 
 Abraham believed Gop’s promise of a posterity, Gop accounted his faith as 
 righteousness : and when the day of trial came, it proved to be righteous- 
 ness, since the same faith which made Abraham believe the promise, made 
 him sacrifice the child of promise, Sadler, Justification of Life, (2nd ed.) pp. 
 60, 61.] 
 
 § Ps. xxxii. 1-2, quoted to show that David confirms the Apostle’s 
 account of the Sixcaocivy of Abraham as being imparted xepis 
 epyov. 
 
 Heb. yop? “WS 1, 
 BOR. 3e2 
 
 DIS “WE 2, 
 ty i> niny avin ND 
 
86 
 
 [Obs. 
 
 [ Obs. 
 
 II. 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 LXX pandpionr dv adéOnoav ai dvopia 
 kal Gv emexaddpOnoav at dpapriae 
 paxapios avip @ ov pi Aoyiontrar Kipos dpapriay. 
 
 1. The Apostle exactly follows the LXX. Sin is termed ywe, as a breaking 
 loose from Gop ; mson, as a deviation from that which is His Will ; iy, 
 as a perverse misdeed. The forgiveness of sins is described by Ni 3, as a lift- 
 
 ing up and taking away; by DD, as a covering, so that sin becomes 
 invisible to a Holy Gop; and by avn >, as a not-reckoning, Ps. xxxii 
 was written by David at the end of the year’s agony which followed his sin 
 with Bathsheba, and in the midst of which he wrote Ps. li. Ps. li was 
 written in the midst of the penitential struggle; Ps. xxxii after the re- 
 covery of inward peace. Ps. xxxii was S. Augustine’s favourite psalm. 
 
 2. In dpéOnoar, énexaddpOnoay the aorist expresses the completeness of the 
 forgiveness; in ov pi Aoyionra, the future generally,—without precise 
 definition—as the Day of Judgment ‘will certainly not impute.’ od py, » 
 1 Cor. viii. 13; Gal. iv. 30; v. 16; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ; v. 3.] 
 
 xopis repttrounjs. Abraham’s Circumcision had no connection with 
 
 his justification (vers. 9-12). 
 
 (a) Arg. from the order of events.in Abraham’s life. At the time 
 when Abraham’s faith in the promise of a posterity was reckoned 
 to him as daocvvn, he was still uncircumcised, Gen. xv. He 
 was only circumcised fourteen years later, Gen. xvii. It was 
 therefore as an uncircumcised man that Abraham was justified, 
 and had his share in the pakapiopds afterwards uttered by David 
 (vers. 9-10), 
 
 (0) Arg. from the true import of Abraham’s circumcision. His 
 
 circumcision was (1) a onpeiov of the covenant. Gop could 
 make no covenant with Abraham before he was justified: 
 Abraham’s circumcision was a sign, not an instrument, of his 
 justification. But it was received as (2) a odpayis. It was 
 received as an external authentication of the righteousness 
 already obtained by Abraham through faith in the aa of his 
 uncircumcision (ver. 11). 
 
 () Arg. from the Divine purpose, «is rd civac aitév mwarépa x.7.d. 
 Abraham was to be (i) spiritual Father of all (uncircumcised) 
 believers in Christ, who believe in order that to them righteous- 
 ness may be reckoned as it was to Abraham, and (ii) spiritual 
 Father of circumcised Jews, who are not merely circumcised, but 
 who also by believing in Christ follow in the steps of their as 
 yet uncircumcised ancestor (vers, 11-12). 
 
 [Obs. 1. Order of events in Abraham’s life.- The question as to the range of the 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. IV, vv. 4-25. 87 
 
 ( paxapiopds of David’s Psalm in ver. 9 is an inference (ody) from its connection 
 with what had previously been adduced about Abraham. After wepiropnv 
 supply éori (Meyer; Winer suggests Aéyerar, Gr. N.T. p. 734) to complete 
 the structure. The question ver. 9 is supposed to receive the answer, ‘ This 
 congratulation rests upon the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised.’ 
 For this answer a reason follows, (yap) ‘our assertion is that fwith was 
 reckoned to Abraham for righteousness’; and this by inference (ovv) in- 
 volves the further question, ‘Under what circumstances (m@s;) was it so 
 reckoned?’ Was Abraham, at the time, circumcised or uncircumcised ? 
 After & dxpoBvotia supply dye.) 
 
 [Obs. 2. Circumcision is said to be (1) a onpetov, in Gen. xvii. I1 MS-Nis, 
 a sign of the (already-made) covenant. For covenant S. Paul substitutes 
 the dinaocvvyn THs micrews. This was the real content of the N32 with Abra- 
 ham; what Gop promised was the Messianic inheritance, Gen. xv. 5-8, 
 which was received by the faith (Gen. xv. 6) which Gop reckoned as right- 
 eousness. Note the difference between circumcision and Christian Baptism. 
 Circumcision is the sign or warrant of a blessing previously received. But 
 the Christian sacraments are ‘effectual signs of grace and Gop’s good-will 
 towards us, by the which He doth work invisibiy in us’ (art. 25), and ‘ Baptism 
 is a sign of Regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that 
 receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church’ (art. 27). Cireum- 
 cision is a ‘signum merum’; Baptism is a ‘signum efficax,’ Acts xxii. 16 
 duactas Bdanricat kat anddovoa tds dpaprias gov, émadeodpevos TO Ovopa TOU 
 Kupiov: Eph. v. 26 xaOapicas T@ AovTpS Tod HdaTos ev phyuatt, iva napaorhoy 
 avTnyv éavT@ évdofov : x Cor.vi.rl dweAovoacde.. .nyiaoOnre ... EdixarwOnre: Tit. iii. 
 5, 7 éowoev nuas 61a Aovrpod madryyevecias: 1S. Pet. iii. 2x. Circumcision is 
 (2) a o¢payis or seal,—implying authentication. LXX, for onin, ‘a seal ring,’ 
 from DNN, ‘to seal,’ ‘to complete.’ Hence it wasattached to Jezebel’s mandate, 
 1 Kings xxi. 8. The Corinthians were 7 o¢payis pou Tis dtooroA7s to S. Paul, 
 x Cor. ix.2. The words ‘The Lord knoweth them that are His’ are a oppayis 
 of the Church’s foundation, 2 Tim.ii. 19. The oppayis rod cov occurs in 
 Rev. vii. 2, 3; ix. 4. Confirmation may be traced in 2 Cor. i. 22; Eph. i. 
 13; iv. 30. Circumcision was the authentication of the previously received 
 dinaootvn THs wistews Which Abraham had received in his uncircumcised 
 days. Asa onpeiov, Circumcision conferred nothing ; asa o¢payis, it implied 
 an authentication from heaven of a gift already received. This gift is 
 (observe the thrice repeated article) the ‘already referred to Righteousness of 
 that faith (ver. 3) which existed in that state of uncireumcision’ (ver. 12).] 
 
 [0bs. 3. The Divine aim of Abraham’s onpefov éAaBe wepropas is expressed in els 
 76 civat x.7.A. He was to be (1) the spiritual father of all uncircumcised believers. 
 & dxpoBvorias, with foreskin : 5:4 with gen. loosely used to denote that with 
 which some one is furnished, ii. 27; xiv. 20. Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 475. In 
 eis TO AoyoORva, the «is is again telic not ecbatic ; the persons referred to 
 believe on Jesus Christ in order that to them also righteousness might be 
 reckoned. Abraham was to be also (2) spiritual father of circumcised believers in 
 Christ. In narépa mepitopqs observe the absence of the art. ; all circumcised 
 Jews were not really Abraham’s children. He was to be father to those 
 » who were not merely of the body of circumcised persons, but who also 
 imitated his faith in his uncircumcised days, -Thus Abraham’s taking 
 
88 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 the sign of circumcision as a seal of his faith was to have two effects: (1) 
 It made him the spiritual father of all heathen converts to Christ ; (2) It 
 excluded unbelieving Jews, although circumcised, from the ranks of his 
 spiritual children. ois ov« é# mepirophs, is a dat. of relation depending on 
 matépa ; Tots ixvecr is a dat. of place, which, though rare in classics, has taken 
 deep root in the New Testament, Winer, Gr. N.T. p. 274. For oroxeiv, ‘to be 
 or move in a line or file,’ see Gal. v. 25; vi.16; Phil. iii. 16. The construe- 
 tion is disturbed by the introduction of rois before oro:yotct, which is 
 parallel to é€* mepiropjs. This is not negligence of expression (Meyer), but 
 a deliberate oratio variata, intended to emphasise the idea in grorxoda, 
 although at the cost of structural regularity, Winer, Gr. N.T. p. 722. See 
 Acts xx. 34; Eph. v. 33.] 
 
 III. xwpis venov. Abraham’s justification was in no way connected 
 with the gift of the Mosaic Law (13-16 a). 
 
 Arg. 1. from the agency through which the Messianic érayyedia was 
 given. That agency was not the Mosaic Law, which as yet 
 had not been proclaimed; it was the dicactvn miotews in 
 Abraham which moved Gop to grant it (ver. 13). 
 
 [Obs. 1. ver. 13 assigns a reason (ydp) for the statement that Abraham was to be 
 spiritual father of all the faithful in Christ, circumcised or uncircumcised, 
 and not of the circumcised Jews who rejected Him (ii. 6-12). The reason is 
 that it was not the law, but the righteousness of faith which procured for 
 Abraham and his descendants the promise of possessing the world. By 7d 
 onéppa Tov "ABpadp are meant believers in Jesus Christ, the true spiritual 
 posterity of Abraham, ix. 6 sqq. ; Gal. iv.22 sqq., and their Head and King, 
 the seed who is Christ, Gal. iii. 16. The éayyedia is explained to be 7d 
 KAnpovopov abrov eiva Koopov. avtév refers to Abraham as representing 
 the onéppa. As to the xécpos, Gop promised to Abraham and his posterity 
 the land of Canaan: Gen. xii. 7; xiii. 14,15; Xv. 18; xvii. 8; xxii. 17; 
 xxvi. 3; Exod. vi.4. The Jewish doctors already widened this to mean 
 Messianic sovereignty over the world of which Canaan was a type. The 
 New Testament, however, based the world-wide inheritance of Christ, not 
 merely on these passages, but on the explicit statements of the prophets, 
 Ps. xxii, xxii, &e. So our Lord, S. Matt, v.5; xix. 28 sqq.; S. Luke xxii. 
 30; S. Matt. xxv. 21.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. dixaosvvyn micrews, gen. subj., the righteousness which faith brings, as= 
 dunaoctyn 4 é« micrews, Rom. ix. 30; x. 6; Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 232, but cf. 
 p- 260, note 2.] 
 
 [0bs. 3. It is historically noteworthy that the énayyeAia which assured inherit- 
 
 | ance of the world was given to Abraham before his d:xaiwos, viz. in the 
 plain of Moreh, Gen. xii. 7, and after the parting from Lot, Gen. xiii. 14. 
 But the Apostle is thinking of the more explicit promises, after the making 
 the Covenant, Gen. xy. 18, and at the change of his name, Gen. xvii. 5. If 
 in its earliest forms the éwayyedla. was given independently of Abraham’s 
 diunmootvn éx micrews, the argument that the Mosaic Law from first to last 
 had nothing to do with this gift remains unaffected.] 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. IV, vv. 4-25. 89 
 
 Arg. 2. (reason, ydp, for arg. 1) from the opposition that exists between 
 vopos and iors, viewed abstractedly. If the Jewish disciples of 
 the Law inherit the Abrahamic promise, then it follows that 
 (1) faith is rendered inoperative, and (2) the Promise, which is 
 the object of faith, is done away with, i.e. Gen. xv. 6 is 
 meaningless (ver. 14). 
 
 1st Reason (ydp, ver. 15a). The operation of the Law is entirely 
 opposed to the genius of Faith. Faith looks to the Divine 
 xdpis and to the émayyeAia which is its expression in the human 
 world. The Law placed before man, but disobeyed, produces 
 Gop’s wrath (1'5 a). 
 
 2nd Reason (reason yap, 15b for Reason 1), Where there is no 
 Law then transgression of the Law does not exist, to excite the 
 wrath of Gop. Therefore it is the presence of the Law which 
 produces Gop’s wrath; and this result of the Law places it 
 in sharp antithesis to siors and the promises (15 b). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The of é« véuov are the adherents of the Mosaic Law, opposed to of é« aia- 
 Tews, Rom. iii. 26; Gal.iii.7. If the Jewish adherents of Mosaism are right, 
 the faith is emptied of its contents, cexévwrat, and so void and worthless ; 
 and the promise is brought to nothing, xarypynra. The two cannot coexist. 
 This essential opposition between vdyos and énayyeAia is insisted on in Gal. 
 iii. 18.] 
 
 [Obvs. 2, The reason for the opposition between vdyos and iors is that the law 
 in question (6 vépuos) produces the divine wrath ; (while miots claims the 
 divine xdpis in its concrete expression the émayyeAla). The wrath of Gon, if 
 not propitiated, takes a penal form, ii. 5 sqq.; iii. 5; ix. 22; Eph. ii. 3; 
 Eph. v. 6.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The truth of this xarepya{era édpynv of the Mosaic Law is found (ydp) in 
 the fact that when vépyos does not exist, then mapdBacis cannot exist. mapa- 
 Basis is the correlative of véuos ; mapaBacis presupposes those limits of con- 
 duct which vépyos lays down, and which mapdBaois passes over. This is a 
 double argument from cause to effect. (1) When the cause, wapdafaots, is want- 
 ing, then the effect, dpyy, is wanting ; (2) when the cause, véyos, is wanting, 
 then the effect, mapdf8aors, is wanting. Therefore (3) when vépos is wanting, 
 then épy7 is wanting; in other words it is the véuos which xarepya¢era 
 opynv.] ai 
 
 (Obs. 4. The Apostle says ov? mapéBacis, in accordance with the doctrine that 
 human émé@upia is kindled into activity by the power of sin which exists in 
 man, Rom. vii. 7 sqq.; 1 Cor. xv. 56; Gal. iii. 19. But he says here mapda- 
 Baois not dyapria, napdBacs is dyapria relatively to the law: but dyapria 
 might exist without vépos, i.e. positive law. Cf. i. 18 sqq.; Eph. ii. 3. Sins 
 against a law given are transgressions, and so specially provocative of the wrath 
 of the Lawgiver. S. Paul only denies the presence of sin where there is no 
 law, in a relative sense ; the denial would not be absolutely true.] 
 
 ie > an 
 

 
 go The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 5. With the &@ priori and abstract argument against the possibility that the 
 
 énayyeAia could have been given to Abraham 6. vépyov, compare the & pos- 
 teriori historical argument in Gal. iii. 15-22. ] 
 
 Arg. 3. (inferred from preceding 64 rodro ver. 16) from the 
 purpose of Gop in making the inheritance of the Messianic 
 erayyedia depend on zioms, This is that the xAnporduor may be 
 heirs according to the principle of grace, xara ydow. For this 
 principle there was a twofold reason. It was insisted on 
 
 (a) that the émayyedia might be secure (8¢Baia). Under the vdpos it 
 would have been sub conditione obedientiae, and so liable to 
 forfeiture ; 
 
 (b) that the erayyehia might be secured to the whole spiritual 
 posterity of Abraham, zavti 76 onéppari—not only to Christians 
 who are converts from Judaism, but also to Christians who 
 are converts from Heathenism, and whose descent from 
 Abraham is based on their succeeding to Abraham’s faith. 
 This Divine purpose made it impossible that Abraham should 
 have received the Messianic émayycdia through the agency of 
 the Mosaic Law (ver. 16). 
 
 [Obs, 1. In ver. 16 the structure isincomplete. After 5:d todro é« micrews supply 
 
 B. 
 
 éotiv % kAnpovopia, and after iva supply 7. Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 747. Ver. 16 
 is an inference (dd 7odr0) from ver. 15. It follows from the effect of the 
 law in operating wrath, and thus becoming incapable of being the condition 
 of the «Anpovoyia, that the latter must result from the antithesis of the law, 
 viz. from iors, With iva xara yap, by way of grace, not merit ; ef. ver. 4, 
 where xapis is contrasted with dpeiAnua, and iii.24 dwpedv. BeBaia only here 
 in S. Paul and 2 Cor. i. 7, where it is applied to Ams. It means firm under 
 the feet (Baivw), This security would be imperilled if inheritance of the | 
 promise really rested on obedience to the details of the Mosaic Law. ] 
 
 Positive import of Gen. xv. 6 (16 b-25). 
 I. Qualities which secured to Abraham’s faith its justifying power 
 
 (16 b-22). 
 
 1. Preliminary. The lofty Savimeas of iseaes* s faith is implied 
 in the spiritual Fatherhood of all the faithful to which he was 
 appointed, Gen. xvii. 5 (16-17), 
 
 [Obs, The title nae névrov jpav as applied to Abraham is condensed from 
 
 ver. II matépa wavtav Tay morevévtay bv dxpoBvorias, and ver. 12 marépa mept- 
 TOMAS .... TOS oTOLXovGL Tos txveow Tis év TH axpoBvoTia TiaTews TOD maTpds 
 
 _ heey tii All believers are through Christ cana dal sons of eee. 
 and his heirs, because his sons. ] 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: th. IV, vv. 4-25. gi 
 
 Gen. xvii. 5 quoted to show that Abraham is the spiritual Father 
 of all believers (ver. 17). 
 Heb. FAN) oOf9 fN-AN 3D 
 LXX or sortpa moda tOviw reed oe. 
 
 [Obs. rz. ion, ‘a multitude,’ is somewhat weakened by LXX moAAa@v. This promise 
 sives the reason for the substitution of ONIN, ‘father of the multitude’ 
 (on2? = Arab, ruhim,‘ multitude’) for DIAN, high father.’ Abraham was to 
 
 be the ancestor of a multitude of DN, not merely O'DY, i. e. of a posterity 
 including Gentile peoples, as well as the tribes of Israel. The promise is 
 understood spiritually by the Apostle ; od xara tiv puoi avyyeveiay, GAdA 
 Kata oikeiwow miatews S. Chrys. The temporal promise is typical of the 
 spiritual. ] ; 
 
 [0bs. 2. This promise was given with Abraham’s new name and the rite of cir- 
 cumcision fourteen years after the covenant of Gen. xv. 6. Gop revealed 
 Himself as El Shaddai, Gop the Mighty One (TW, ‘to be strong’) ; as pos- 
 sessing the power to realise His promises, even when the order of nature 
 gave no prospect of their fulfilment. This name, E] Shaddai, is not simply 
 identical with Gop the Creator ; it refers to Gop’s action in the sphere of 
 salvation, and especially to the miraculous quickening of the physical 
 powers of Abraham, then gg years old, and of Sarah, so that they became 
 the parents of a numerous posterity. Keil, in loc. 
 
 2. Specific characteristics of Abraham’s faith. It is typical ; and 
 is viewed, 
 
 (1) Relatively to the Divine Omnipotence. It is, primarily, belief in 
 Him Who quickens the dead, and Who treats the non-existent 
 as if it existed. 
 
 [0bs, x Abraham, as na7}p mavrwv jyav, stands in the sacred narrative, Gen. xvii. 
 5 face to face with Gop. sxarévayvti=class. xaTevayriov, in meaning = kaTe- 
 vwmiov, for nin), In that solemn moment of his history Abraham, as 
 the father of ‘all ‘Christians, stood before Gop, before Whom he believed.: 
 On the attraction see Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 204.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Gop as the object of Abraham’s faith is (1) (womoidy rods vexpots. This 
 _ is a special exercise of the omnipotence of Gop, r Sam. ii. 6; Wisd. xvi. 13 ; 
 Deut. xxxii. 39; 8, John v. 21; 2 Cor. i. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 13. The expression 
 refers, not to Isaac, but to Abraham’s o@pa 75n vevexpwpévoy, and to the 
 véxpwos of Sarah’s womb. God is also (2) addy ra pi) dvra ds ovra, uttering 
 His controlling word over that which is known not to exist as if it existed. 
 xadeiv, like NP, is used of the call of a Ruler addressed to that which is 
 subject to his power, Ps, 1.1; Is. xl. 26, In 7a pi dvta, Gop is conceived 
 of as knowing that that which He calls does not exist. The expression 
 refers to Gen. xv. 6; when the Lord pointed to the stars and ‘said unto 
 him, So shall thy seed be.’ 
 
 _ (2) Relatively to natural probabilities. It was opposed to anything 
 that could be reasonably expected, map’ Amida. Yet it was based 
 
92 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 on hope, én’ eAmié&:, i. e. subjective hope. Thus it led Abraham to 
 act with a view to carrying out the purpose of Gop intimated in 
 the promise that his posterity would be as numerous as the 
 stars and the grains of sand, Gen. xy. 5, xiii. 16 (ver. 18). 
 
 [Obs. That Abraham had no natural grounds for expecting a posterity appears 
 from Gen. xvii. 17 ‘Then Abraham fell upon his face and laughed, and 
 said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years 
 old? and shall Sarah that is ninety years old bear?’ In map’ éAmida.... é 
 éAmiét observe the oxymoron. The clause eis 76 yevéoOa «.7.A. expressed the 
 divinely intended purpose of Abraham’s ériorevoey ;—Abraham’s faith led 
 him so to act as to give effect to this purpose. | 
 
 Gen. xv. 5 quoted as showing the great range of the promise 
 which was the object of Abraham’s faith. 
 Heb. JVM mn AD 
 LXX oirws Sires Fe pataee gov. 
 [Obds. otrws, viz. ds of dorépes TOU ovpavod, not Kal 7 dupos THs Oaddoons, Which is im- 
 
 ported from Gen. xiii. 16. The Apostle supposes his readers to be familiar 
 with the form of ovrws in such a connection. ] 
 
 - (3) Relatively to physical obstacles, suggested by the senses. 
 
 (a) Abraham’s mental attitude towards these obstacles, 
 
 (i) subjective, p) doGevnoas rH miotre. He was not conscious of 
 any weakening in faith. 
 
 (ii) objective, GF Karevingen He did nef fix his mind on them 
 (ver. 19 a). 
 
 (b) What the obstacles were, 
 (i) the decay of his physical powers, cpa vevexpopévov : 
 (ii) his age, approximately (mov) 100, really 99, which might 
 well have led him to consider his cépa vevexpwpévoy as a 
 decisive difficulty : 
 
 (iii) Sarah’s véxpwors rijs pntpas (ver. 19 b). 
 
 (Obs. x. The participial clause pi) doOevqoas x.7.A. explains ob karevénoev k.7.r. 
 Because Abraham did not feel any weakness of faith, he did not give 
 attention to the physical obstacles which might have impeded it. ym does 
 not stand for ov; (Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 610, says pa) doevnoas represents 
 a conception to be denied, od xarevdénce, a fact to be denied). The od is 
 wanting before xarevénoev in A.B.C.N, &c. and is omitted by Lachmann 
 and Tischendorf. But it ought probably to be retained, as the omission 
 would have arisen from a desire to harmonize the verse with Gen. xvii. 17. 
 
 _ The od xarevénoey refers to Gen. xv. 5, 6, where after the promise of a 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. IV, vv. 4-25. 93 
 
 posterity as numerous as the stars, Abraham éniorevcey TO OcG. The hesi- 
 tation of Abraham, fourteen years later, described in Gen. xvii. 17, is 
 well compared by Meyer, al., to the doubts which S, John the Baptist 
 entertained respecting the Messiahship of our Lord (S, Matt. xi. 2 sqq.) 
 after an earlier period of faith, Observe the meiosis in pa doOevqoas : 
 Abraham’s faith was very robust, } 
 
 [Obs. 2. vevexpwpévor, like véxpwots, is used of the decay and death of the physical 
 powers of procreation and conception; cf. Heb. xi. 12. mov implies that 
 éxarovraérns is approximately, but not quite, exact; Abraham was go, 
 Gen. xvii. 1, 17; xxi. 5. Shem was the last person who had begotten 
 children at roo. Abraham’s later children by Keturah (Gen. xxy. 1 sqq.) 
 imply that the physical restoration of his powers continued after the death 
 of Sarah. The ov xarevénoey extends to both the objects of the sentence ; 
 kai Tv véexpwow brings the second object under it. véxpwos is used as 
 equivalent to @dvaros at 2 Cor, iv. 10; here py7pa vevexpwpéevn is meant by 
 the expression. Sarah was 90 years of age, Gen. xvii. 17, fourteen years 
 after the incident here referred to; therefore 76 at the time. | 
 
 (4) Relatively to the érayychia rod Gcod, 
 
 (i) (negatively described), Absence of indecision (od S:expi6n) 
 caused by unbelief (79 dmorig, instrumental dat.) (ver. 20), 
 
 (ii) (positively described). Invigoration (éveduvayd6n) through 
 faith (79 wiore, not dat. of exact definition, but of cause) 
 (ver. 20). 
 
 This is shown by 
 
 (a) Abraham's giving glory to Gop, by recognising His 
 almightiness (ver. 20), 
 
 (b) His complete satisfaction respecting Gop’s power of 
 making good His Word (ver. 21), 
 
 [Obs. r. On the form of eis in els 8& ri émayyeAlav, as=‘ with respect to,’ see 
 Winer, Gr. N. T. 496. The negative statement introduced by 5¢ (=autem) 
 explains the negative proposition of ver. 19 more fully. With reference to 
 the Divine promise, Abraham did not waver (od é:expidn), through unbelief 
 (77 dmorig, dat, of instrumental cause), see Meyer in loc, Indecision as to 
 spiritual things has its roots in unbelief: as spiritual vigour is a product 
 of faith. Hence éveduvvapw6n TH tioTre. 7TH miore seems to glance at 77 
 dmoria and to be like it a dat. of the cause, rather than at pi) doOevnoas TH 
 miore, ver. 10, Unbelief is not the product of intellectual doubts; but 
 doubts are the result of the loss of faith.] 
 
 [0bs. 2, The invigoration of Abraham’s faith is illustrated in the participial 
 clauses which follow, and which describe actions and states of mind, 
 simultaneous with and not antecedent to the évedvvayw6n, Abraham ‘gave 
 glory’ to Gop in the sphere of thought; such ‘glory’ may be given by 
 words or acts, 6éfa is the sum of the attributes or characteristics of Gop, 
 
 a oe 
 Tt 
 af 
 
94 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 5:5évar Sdfav is to ascribe to Gop His true character, as the Almighty, the all 
 holy, the all merciful, the all true, as in Josh. vii. 19 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 29; Is. 
 xlii. 8; S. Luke xvii. 18; S. John ix. 24; Acts xii. 23. The way in which 
 Abraham gave glory to Gop is expressed by mAnpopopneis, viz. by being 
 fully convinced of Gop’s power to perform His promises. For wAnpopopetv 
 as applied to persons, see xiv. 5; Col. iv. 12, and Dr. Vaughan’s note in loc. 
 émnyyeATa, middle in sense, Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 328.] 
 
 § Result of vers. 17-21. Since Abraham’s faith was of this 
 character, it was also reckoned to him for righteousness (ver. 22), 
 [Obs. The subject of éAoyicdn is the fact that Abraham believed or rather his 
 
 faith. The justification of the 56 lies in the whole negative as well as the 
 positive exposition of Gen. xv. 6 quoted at ver. 3. Abraham’s faith involved 
 positively the submission of his understanding to the revelation of Gop 
 (ver. 17 b), and of his will to the Will of Gop (ver. 18), while by impli- 
 cation it rested on One who is not here named by the Apostle expressly, 
 but whose Person and Advent were the contents of the énayyeAia. ] 
 
 II. Bearing of the Old Testament account of Abraham’s justification 
 on the justification of Christians (23-25). 
 
 1. True purpose of the narrative of Gen. xv. 6. The statement 
 that Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him for righteousness 
 (edoyicbn airS) was written down, not simply to describe an 
 incident in his life (6 airév), but also to teach a truth which 
 holds good of us Christians, his spiritual children (8 jpas) 
 (ver. 23). 
 
 2. Object of the faith which shall be reckoned as righteousness to 
 believing Christians. It is directed towards Gop, as having 
 raised Jesus our Lord from the dead (ver. 24). 
 
 § Reason for the Resurrection of Christ being the object of 
 justifying faith. Christ rose from the dead to make our dtxaiwous 
 possible. 
 
 (a) He was delivered to death (mapedd6,) as an tdaorjpiov, on 
 account of our offences ; but this, the objective result of His 
 death, could not have been subjectively appropriated by us, if 
 it had not been followed by some act making this possi 
 Hence, 
 
 _ (b) He was raised again, on account of our dixaioors, viz. to make 
 it possible, not merely as warranting faith in the atoning value 
 of his death, but also as making Him, in His Risen Life, a new 
 Life-principle for us, by union with whom our d«aiwns is 
 secured (ver. 25). 
 
 
 
~~ eso 
 thet Wy i 
 
 Dogmatic: ch. IV, vv. 4-25. 95 
 
 [Obs. 1. The statement that Abraham’s spiritual history, like his person, has 
 a typical value for all time, is made in Bereschith Rabba 4o. 8 ‘ Quicquid 
 seriptum est de Abrahamo, scriptum est de filiis ejus.’ Philo Jud. De 
 Abrahamo, p. 350, says of the three patriarchs that their virtues have come 
 to be inscribed in (éo7nArTevo@a) our sacred books, not in behalf of their 
 own praise but on account of those to whom it should fall to exhort and 
 guide to a zeal for the same. Compare for this principle of the permanent 
 value of Scripture, Rom. xv. 4 dca yap mpoeypagn, eis tiv Hyerépay SidacKadlav 
 éypagyn : r Cor. ix. 10 7 Sv Huds mavTws A€yer; Se Huds ydp éypapy : 1 Cor. x. 11 
 éypagn 5 mpds vovdeciay Hua. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. When faith is said Aoyi{ecOa eis Sixatocdvnv in the case of Abraham or 
 of Christians, this means that it is imputed or reckoned as righteousness, 
 but it does not mean, as is often assumed, that it is imputed or reckoned 
 without being imparted. See above on iv. 6 and cf. with vers. 19-24; 
 S. James ii. 21-23.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Abraham’s faith corresponds with that of Christians, (1) as to its Object, 
 which is (a) the omnipotence of Gop, and (b) the Messiah, in one ease 
 expected, in the other already come; and (2) on its formal side; it accepts 
 the quickening, (a) in Abraham’s case of his o@pa 75n vevexpwpeévov, and (b) 
 in our Lord’s of His Body in the grave. As Abraham became through the 
 quickening of his bodily powers the ancestor of a numerous posterity ; so 
 Christ, by His Resurrection became the father of the family of justified 
 believers in Him.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. The central object on which justifying faith gazes is the Resurrection of 
 Christ,—and not, as is often popularly stated, Christ’s Atoning Death ; cf. 
 X. 9 kal morTevons év TH Kapdia Gov Stt 6 Oeds adrov Hyetpey ex verpOv: 1S. Pet. 
 i, 2m matods eis Qcdv Tov éyeipavta ai’tov éx vexpav. Faith in the Resurrection 
 of Jesus ‘puts the soul into. contact with the whole body of the faith’ 
 (Sadler, Justification, ed. 2. p. 82); it is the ‘doctrine which is most im- 
 mediate to us, in which Christ most closely approaches us, from which 
 “we gain life, and out of which issue our hopes and our duties,’ Newman, 
 Justification, Lecture IX. p. 222. } 
 
 [Obs. 5. The word rape5é6n, implying our Lord’s abandonment to death (viii. 32), 
 is taken from Is. liii. 12, and is used sometimes as here and S. Matt. xvii. 
 22 without reference to an agent, or with reference to the action of Judas 
 (S. Matt. x. 4), the chief priests (S. Mark xv. 1), the Jewish people (Acts iii. 
 13), Pilate (S. Matt. xxvii. 26). The verb is also used of the action of the 
 Eternal Father (viii. 32) trp judy mavrev napédaxev airév, and of our Lord’s 
 own act of self-surrender ; Eph. v. 2, 25 mapéwrev éaurov trép Hypa: Gal. ii. 
 20 mapaddvros éavtov imép éuod. It implies the surrender of self-control 
 ‘which is involved in submission to sufferings and death at the hands 
 of another.’ Our Lord voluntarily became impxoos péxp Oavarov Phil. 
 ii. 8.] 
 
 (Obs. 6. In da 7a raparrmpara and did ri dixaiwow, 5d is used in both cases as 
 ‘for the sake of, but with distinct modifications. ‘For the sake of our 
 offences, to take them away. For the sake of our justification, to secure it.’ 
 Comp. xiii. 5 ob pévov bid ri dpyiy, i.e. to avoid it, dAAd Kal did ri ouvei- 
 
96 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Snow, i.e. to keep it in good order. The connection here stated between 
 (1) Christ’s death and the forgiveness of offences, and (2) Christ’s Resur- 
 rection and our dicaiwois, is not ‘an antithesis of words with no antithesis 
 of meaning.’ Sin and death, justification and resurrection are cognate 
 terms. Christ died, objectively, to put our sins away, as an idaornpoy, iii. 
 24 sqq.; v. 8 But in order to produce in man subjectively the new Life of 
 Righteousness, the Resurrection is necessary, (a) as warranting the value of 
 the atonement and so making faith possible, and (6) as implying the gift of 
 a new and divine principle of life ready to be communicated to any who is 
 willing to receive it. This pepscpds cannot be paralleled with that between 
 dixaocivn and owrnpia in Rom. x. 10, although there the complete result 
 owrnpla corresponds with the greater effort, It is well illustrated in Sadler, 
 Justification, pp. 79, 80.] 
 
 [Obs. 7. Sinalwois, in LXX a sentence in law (=DDW, Lev. xxiv. 22), and used 
 
 for a legal claim often in Thucydides, is in the New Testament used in 
 a sense regulated by that of dadw. Hence it means either acquittal (as 
 just), or the making just. It occurs here and in v. 18, where it is opposed to 
 kaTakpipa. | 
 
 Sh. iy: 
 Happiness of the justified éx miotews (V. I-11). 
 
 I. The Peace towards Gop, in which they live through Our Lord 
 
 Jesus Christ (ver. 1). 
 
 [Obs. 1. ody, ver. 1, refers to the whole section, iii. g3r—iv. 25. The justification 
 
 dates from (é«) the beginning of the life of faith, Having been justified by 
 faith, Christians possess (€xouev not éxwpev, see Meyer, App. Crit.) peace 
 in relation to Gop. eipqvy is here the actual state of reconciliation with 
 Gop, as opposed to the state of enmity with Him (ef. éx@poi ver. 10) which 
 preceded it; cf. eipjvy apud Cremer. This meaning of the word implies, 
 but must not be confounded with, the sense of being at peace in the man 
 himself, because he is at peace with the author of his life, the eipqvn Tod 
 ©cod 4 brepéxovoa rdvta vooy Phil. iv. 7; Col. iii, 15. For the use of mpés 
 as marking a moral attitude, see Acts ii. 47 xapi mpds bAov Tov Aadv : xxiv. 
 16 dnpéaxonov ovveidnow mpos Tov Gedy Kal Tods avOpwmovs. | 
 
 [0bs. 2. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the cause of this peace. He is 4 denn jay 
 
 I 
 
 Eph. ii. 14. For addy ebnyyedicato cipqyny tpiv Trois paxpay kal eiphyny tots 
 éyyus ver. 17. This peace is a result of reconciliation, Eph, ii, 1%, D7; 
 effected by Christ. ] 
 
 The state of grace fae: 2) into which Christ has given the 
 
 introduction, and in which living Christians remain. 
 
 [0bs. x. Probably mpocaywyy is best explained by reference to the usage of courts, 
 
 whereby approach to the sovereign could only be obtained through a mpoca- 
 
 _ ywryeds, sequester, admissionalis, Lamprid. in Alex, Sever. 4. It means in 
 
 
 
ee ——— 
 
 Dogmatic: ch. V, vv. I-11. 97 
 
 the New Testament not power of access, but actual leading towards, a person ; 
 Eph. ii. 18; iii. r2. This introduction Christians have had and have, 
 éoxnxapev, in virtue of their faith (77 tiore:).] 
 
 [ Obs. 2. Grace is here conceived of as a sphere or state, with definite frontiers, 
 which are passed when men enter it, or fall from it. The idea of the state 
 of grace is not scholastic; but biblical. Cf. Gal. v. 4 77s xapitos eeréoare : 
 I Pet. v. 12 ravrnv elvas ddAnOR yap Tod Oeod eis jv EotHxaTe. Cf. Newman’s 
 sermon ‘on the State of Grace,’ Par. Serm. vol. iv. s. 9. ] 
 
 III. The Hope of future glory, as the ground of religious exultation 
 (ver. 2). 
 
 [Obs, 1. kavxdo0u with éri alone here in the New Testament. But cf. Prov. xxv. 
 14; Ecclus. xxx. 2. Generally with évy as ver. 3. The word is used, some- 
 times, in a bad sense, of a proud boasting in something as one’s own, some- 
 times, in a good sense, of thankful rejoicing in Gon’s presence or gifts ; as 
 here. Cf. 1 Cor. iv. 7 Ti kavxdoa ws pi AaBwy ; for éw éAnid: cf. iv. 18.] 
 
 [ Obs. 2. The object of hope is the future 5é¢a rod Oeod in which the blessed shall 
 
 hereafter share ; ‘ qualem nobis suo divino munere impertit [Deus] tanquam 
 
 " filiis ad haereditatem adoptatis,’ Justiniani. x1 Thess. ii. 12 Gop has called 
 
 us eis T7)v Eavrod BactAciay Kai Sdgav: Rom. viii. 17 fva nal cvvdofac0Gper : viii. 
 
 ar eis TH édevOepiay THs Sdéns TY TéxVeV TOD Oecd. In iii. 23 THs Sdéns TOU Oeod 
 means the moral glory of which through grace man is capable in this life.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. éAnis, which is the basis of exultation in the inner life of the justified, is 
 
 the subject of vers. 3-10.] 
 \ 
 
 § Of the Anis rijs d6fns tod Gcod (3-10). 
 
 A. Growth of this édxis amidst eternal troubles (vers. 3-4). 
 
 This is introduced by the statement that Christians exult, not 
 merely in the hope of future glory, but in present afflictions. 
 
 Reason for this exultation in afflictions. It promotes éAnis by a 
 gradual process, of which the stages are, 
 
 (1) Adtyus, ‘outward affliction.’ Affliction, borne in faith, which 
 survives and looks beyond the troubles of the hour, works out 
 (ver. 3). 
 
 (2) tixoporny, ‘persevering anaapecate This in turn achieves 
 (ver. 4), 
 
 (3) Soxtuqv, ‘proved experience.’ Yet, as the Christian is tried, he is 
 thrown forward for support upon the unseen future, and this 
 creates (ver. 4), 
 
 (4) €Ani8a, which is thus the product of Odi (ver. 4). 
 
98 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 1. (ver. 3.) For the incomplete structure od pdévov 5é (xavywpeba én’ Amid: Tis 
 ddgns) GAAG Kat (Kavympeba x.7.A.) cf. Winer, Gr. N.T. p. 729. Cf. ver. 11; 
 viii. 23; ix. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 19. Observe the dmpoodéxnrov in passing from 
 the éAnis rHs 5dgns as a ground of (émi) exultation to @Aipes as a sphere (év) of 
 exultation. Seneca (de Prov. iv. 4) ‘gaudent magni viri rebus adversis, non 
 aliter quam fortes milites bellis triumphant.’] 
 
 [Obs. 2. tmopovny, ‘endurance,’ in the Christian faith and life, ii. 7 imopoviy Epyou 
 aya0ov: S. Matt. x. 22 6 852 tmopeivas eis TéAos, ovTos wOHoeTat, repeated at 
 XXiv. 13. OAaus can only have this effected in the justified whose faith is 
 the governing principle of life; if @Aius did not work out tmoporn, the 
 failure would imply loss of living faith.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Soxunv, ‘tried experience’; 2 Cor. ii. 93 viii. 2 év moAAH SoxipH OAtpews : 
 Kili. 3 Soxiphy Cnreire Tov év Evol AaAodyTos Xpiorov: Phil. ii. 22. To fail in 
 this is to become dddémpos—S. James i. 2, 3 corresponds with this passage ; 
 70 Soxijmov ths micrews there answers to S. Paul’s 6Aifis, which has a vim 
 probandi ; thus it xarepyd{era: bmropovnv. To the épyov réAcov of tmopovn in 
 S. James belong the Sompy and éAmis of the present passage. } 
 
 [Obs. 4. éAmis, ie. of the future glory, cf. v. 2. Hope does not exist for the first 
 time after the dox.un of endurance under affliction ; but it gains new strength 
 from such doxipn. It is ‘the highest subjective blessing’ of the justified 
 person. | 
 
 B. Warrant of the reality of the object of édmis (5-8). 
 This hope does not put us to shame (ot xaracxiver) by disappointing 
 us. : ; 
 (a) Subjective Reason. The Love of Gop for us is poured out 
 like a stream within our hearts, by the agency of the Holy 
 Spirit, given unto us. The sense of Gon’s love for us makes 
 us certain that our hope will not fail of its object (ver. 5). 
 [Obs. In 4 dyamn Tov Gcod, the gen. Tod Ocod is a gen. sudj., cf. Thy EavTod ayamrnv 
 ver. 8; S. Chrys. and others. Cf. Winer, Gr. N. T. 232, who compares Rom. 
 viii. 35; 2 Cor. v.14; Eph. iii. 19. But the phrase means the love of man to 
 Gop, (gen. obj.) in 8. John y. 42; 1 S. Johnii.5, 15; iii. 17; 2 Thess. iii.5. The 
 Holy Spirit is the personified love of Gop ; as He is the uncreated bond of % 
 love between the Father and the Son, so does He unite the Father to all who : 
 through Redemption and Justification are members of the Son. Of the { 
 three natural symbols of His action, wind, fire, and water, the verb éxxeciv : 
 belongs to the latter ; His descent is like a stream from the skies; ef. Joel 
 li. 28 éxye® dad rod Mvevpards pou: Zech. xii. 10 éxye® Eni Tov ofkov Aavid.... 
 mvevpa xapiTos Kal oixtippod: Acts ii. 17, 18, 33; Tit. iii. 5,6 dvaxawwoews 
 Tvevparos ‘Ayiou, ob eféxeev é?’ Huds mAovoiws ... The passage occurs here and | 
 Acts x. 45. The sense of Gop’s love for us,—which love He has poured into 
 our hearts—assures us that we shall not be disappointed of the object of our 
 hope. Thus the Spirit is the dppaBwy of the expected ddfa, 2 Cor. i. 22; V.5.] 
 
 (b) Objective fact,—independent of our sense of Gop’s love for 
 us, and attesting its reality,—viz. that Christ 
 are stated, 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. V, vv. 1-11. 99 
 
 (i) The object and opportuneness of Christ’s Death (ver. 6), 
 
 (a) He died on behalf of us, still weak as we were, and impious, 
 
 ére. . . dodevav . . . inép doeBav (ver. 6). 
 (b) He died, when the due time had come, kara kaipdv (ver. 6). 
 
 [Obs.1. On the misplacement of é7: (ver. 6) which belongs to évtwy see Winer, 
 Gr. N. T. p. 652: (‘through some inadvertence, or rather because the 
 ancients having only sympathising and intelligent readers in view were 
 not anxious about minute precision’) ; ef. 1 Cor. xiv. 7; Gal. iii. 15. It is 
 a trace of the change of the originally intended form of a sentence in the 
 process of dictation. ydp(as in vers. 6 and 7) never stands for the adver- 
 sative ‘but.’ In ver. 6 ydp gives a reason for the dydmn Tov Ocod ver. 5 ; it 
 manifests itself in Christ’s dying for sinners. Winer, Gr. N. 7. p. 568.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The condition of those, on whose behalf Christ died, is expressed by (1) 
 doGeveis, ‘ without spiritual force.’ The sinful condition is thus characterised, 
 in order to account for the pitying interference of Gon’s saving Love. (2) 
 doeBay (ver. 6) ‘without piety towards Gop.’ (3) dpaptwAay (ver. 8) so acting 
 as to miss the true aim of life. (4) éx@poi (ver. 10) ‘enemies’ to Gop. ] 
 
 [ Obs. 3. The satisfactio vicaria of Christ’s death is implied in, although not distinctly 
 expressed by, twép.. The general force of inép is in commodum ; not instead of, 
 loco ; except, possibly, in Gal. ili. 13; 2 Cor. v. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 18. For 
 S. Paul (1) exchanges irép with mepi, but never uses dvri in place of it; and 
 (2) both with témép and mepi he puts a genitive of the thing dyapriar, 
 as well as of the person, viii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 3, in which case a substitutionary 
 relation is impossible. wtaép expresses the benefit of Christ’s death; its 
 vicariousness is taught by the terms iAaornpioy iii. 25; @vcia Eph. v. 2; and 
 ayridurpoy 1 Tim. ii.6. It is, however, to be noted that the later Greeks used 
 mept where the more distinct dv7i would have been employed in earlier days; 
 cf, Passow, Lex. s.v.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. The opportuneness of Christ’s death is expressed by xara xaipév. He died 
 when the hour of man’s necessity had struck. The Divine dvox7 (iii. 26) 
 had been worn out by the accumulated sins of men. This was the rAnpwpa 
 Tov kaip@v Eph.i. 10; Gal.iv. 4. Cf. xarpots idiors x Tim. ii. 6; vi. 15.] 
 
 (ii) The moral elevation of Christ’s Death as estimated by comparison 
 with ordinary human generosity (vers. 7, 8). 
 (a) Scarcely will any one die even4f a dixais (ver. 7). 
 (b) Possibly a case may be found of self-immolation for the 
 dyaés, the man of attractive goodness (ver. 7). 
 (c) The Love which Gop bears towards us is recommended by 
 Christ’s dying for us, when we were yet dpapriodoi (ver. 8). 
 
 [Obs. 1. In ver. 7 the first yap introduces an illustration which furnishes a reason 
 
 for the reality of the dyann rod Ocod. Sixaiov (ver. 7) contrasts with doeBav 
 
 (ver. 6). The second yap proves the rule, by admitting a possible exception. 
 H2 
 
100 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 For the man of attractive goodness some one may possibly dare to die. 
 Tittmann, Syn. NV. T. p. 19 ‘ In voce aya0ds cogitatur bonum seu commodum, 
 quod ex re aut persona bona nascitur ; sed dixaory est quod tale est, quale esse 
 oportet, nulla ratione habité utrum commodum an malum afferat.’ ‘rhxa 
 expresses possibly not without doubt. Ewald compares the rescue of Jona- 
 than by the people when condemned to death by lot for taking the honey, 
 rt Sam. xiv. 45, and Jonathan’s interposition with Saul on behalf of David, 
 1 Sam. xx. 28.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. In ovvicrnot (Gop proves, ef. iii. 5) remark the lasting effect of our Lord’s 
 atoning death, as setting forth the Love of Gop. Gop’s own Love, r7jv éavTou 
 ayarnv, is authenticated in the death of Christ, for us as sinners. dpapTw- 
 Ady contrasts with dyaGov.] 
 
 Hence, 
 
 ©. Forms which édmis takes in the mind of the justified (vers. 9, 10). 
 
 [Obs. Its Aoyopds takes the shape of an argument a majori ad minus. The logic of 
 ty Christian hope argues, ‘if Christ has already died to save us, and placed us 
 \ in a state of salvation, much more will He complete His work.’ ~10AA@ padAov 
 expresses an enhancement of certainty as to that which follows. When 
 Estius and others regard these as arguments a minori ad majus, they (1) con- 
 fine their view to the receiver of Justification, and (2) overlook the force of 
 MOAA@ pGAAor. | 
 
 additional certainty (7oAA@ paddov) of being saved by Him from 
 the Wrath of Gop hereafter (ver. 9). 
 
 [Obs. 1. He who has done the greater work in giving His Son, will certainly do 
 the less. The greater was the sacrifice of the Son of Gop for sinful men ; 
 the less is the completion of that work by the salvation of those for whom 
 the sacrifice was offereds. Cf. the argument, viii. 32 8s ye Tod idiov viod ob« 
 épeioaro ... mds odxi Kal obVadTS TA TdvTa hyiv xapioera ; S. Aug. in psalm. 
 exviii (cxix) ‘Plus est jam quod fecit Deus quam quod promisit. Quid 
 fecit? Mortuus est prote. Quid promisit? Ut vivas cum illo.’] 
 
 | (a) Form, 1. Having been justified in His blood, we feel an 
 
 [Obs, 2. Our justification is contained in (év) the Life Blood of Jesus Christ. In 
 amd Ths opyqs, 6pyn is a technical word as in ii. 5; iii. 5; ef. 1 Thess. i. 10. 
 
 This ow6jodpeba is conditioned by the correspondence of our wills to Gop’s 
 <—sgrace ; it isa moral, nota mechanical certainty which the future expresses. ] 
 
 (b) Form 2. (expansion and justification, ydp, of Form 1). Having 
 been enemies of Gop, yet reconciled to Him, by the Death of 
 - His Son, we have an additional certainty that being reconciled 
 
 we shall be saved by union with Christ’s Glorified Life. 
 [Obs. x. éx@pot cod, passive, ‘enemies of Gop’ ; as deoaTvyeis i. 30 ; Téxva dpyjs Eph. 
 ii. 3, and not merely hostile to Gop; Christ’s death removed Gop’s enmity 
 against man, and man’s enmity against Gop only ceased, as a moral conse- 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. V, vv. I-11. 101 
 
 quence of faith. xaraddayévres and xarnddAdynpey must, therefore, be under- 
 stood to express, not merely the reconciliation of the moral nature of the 
 Christian with Gop, but the new relation of Gop to man in Christ which 
 made this possible. The argument is, ‘If the death of Jesus effected our 
 reconciliation, much more must His Glorified Life complete our deliver- 
 ance.’ The living Jesus cannot leave the work effected by His death in- 
 complete. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. This second ‘form’ of éAmis differs from the first in that Christ’s Glorified 
 Life, as well as His Death, is expressly mentioned as justifying the toAAd 
 HaGAAov of the argumentative inference. For the Life-giving power of 
 Christ’s Life in glory, cf. S. John xiv. 19; 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11; Phil. iii. 10, 
 where 77v Suvapuv THs dvacrdcews avrod refers to the quickening power of His 
 Risen Body. | 
 
 LY. Triumphant joy in Gop, through Jesus Christ, by Whose agency 
 we have even in this life received the Reconciliation (ver. 11). 
 
 [Obs, 1. The construction is best completed thus, od pdvoy 5 karaAdayévtes GAA 
 kat Kavywpevor. The part. cavydpevor necessarily suggests this. Winer, how- 
 ever, would supply cw6nodyeba after od pdvoy 5é, Gr. N. T. p. 441. dia rod 
 Kupiov. This joy is not merely brought about by Christ, but it is offered 
 through Him. viv contrasts not Christian with pre-Christian ages,—but 
 this life with the future beyond the grave.] 
 
 [Obs. 2, waTraddAayn, KaTnAAGynpEV, KaTaAAayevtes Must be taken passively, not 
 merely or chiefly actively. The reconciliation is accomplished, not only in 
 the hearts of men, but in the Heart of Gop. Men are reconciled with Gop 
 in Christ, in such sense, that Gop, seeing them in union with His Beloved 
 and Perfect Son, abandons His just wrath which their sins have kindled, 
 and admits them to His favour and blessing. This, the constant faith of 
 the Church, was scientifically worked out by S. Anselm of Canterbury in 
 his Cur Deus homo. Christ died ‘to reconcile His Father to us’ (Art. ii). 
 Abelard taught a ‘subjective and merely psychological reconciliation,’ 
 which Socinianism and some modern schools have insisted on to the 
 exclusion of the truth of an Objective Atonement. They plead that the 
 Eternal and Unchanging Love of Gop needs no reconciliation or atone- 
 ment; that only man has needed to be reconciled, because man does not 
 believe in the Love of Gop; that Christ’s death is a token of Gop’s 
 enduring love, addressed to the hearts of men, in order to awaken con- 
 fidence in the Divine Love, and lead men back to the Father. See Catech. 
 Racov. pp. 265-268. Now although it is true that the essential nature of 
 Gop is unchangeable Love, yet the living action of Gop’s Love in the 
 human world has been hindered and impeded by sin. Im reality Gop’s 
 Love is identical with His Righteousness. But sin has produced an 
 apparent antithesis between these Attributes. Although Gop eternally and 
 unchangeably loves the world, His actual relation to it is one of oppo- 
 sition, because the Unity of His Attributes is disturbed and the action of 
 His Love ad extra, is restrained, by sin. The dpyi rod Ocod is an expression 
 which implies, that in virtue of the Eternal necessities of His being, Gop’s 
 relation of Love to the human world is unsatisfied, owing to the agency of 
 
102 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 sin, since sin contradicts His essential nature. It is not then His Un- 
 changeable Character, but His relation (produced by sin) to the world of 
 men, that is really affected by the xaraAAay7. No mere man could affect 
 that relation by his personal conduct. Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of 
 God, Who also as the Pattern or Ideal Man represented the whole human 
 race, could, and did, by the consummate expression of His obedience on 
 the Cross, establish a new relation between the active manifestation of the 
 Love of Gop, and all those who by faith are associated with His own 
 supreme self-sacrifice. See Martensen, Dogmatik, § 157.] 
 
 OL A AS “j RX} iE 
 Parallel between the Redemptive Work of Christ the Second 
 Adam, the Author of the Sixaoctvn ék tictews, and the ruin 
 which resulted from the act of the First Adam (vers. 12-21). 
 
 [ Obs. r. This parallel between Adam and Christ follows (da rodro ver. 12) upon 
 the preceding allusions to our Lord’s Atoning Death and Risen Life, as the 
 ground and substance of our hope (vers, 8-10). Man’s Salvation and Life 
 in Christ will be understood by the analogies and contrasts which they 
 present with his fall and death in Adam, the first parent and historic 
 representative of the race. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. For the doctrine of the Second Adam qnsa DINN is a Rabbinical 
 title of Messias; 6 écxaros Addu, of our Lord, 1 Cor. xv. 45: Tod péAAovTos 
 ver. 14), cf. Pabst, Adam und Christus, p. 56 sqq.; Wilberforce, Doctrine of the 
 Incarnation, pp. 8-82; Sadler, The Second Adam ; Martensen, Dogmatik, §§ 159, 
 160. | 
 
 §1. Work of the First and Second Adam compared (12-19). 
 
 I. Point of resemblance (12-14). Each work is effected by a single 
 agent, 6: évés (v. 12). 
 
 As From Adam (i) dpapria (ii) @avaros (iii) eis wavras (actually), 
 So [From Christ (i) Sicaootv (ii) fon (iii) eis wavras (in design). | 
 
 One man, Adam, introduced sin; sin involved death ; and death 
 passed upon all men, because [in Adam] all sinned (ver. 12), 
 
 [Obs. 1. The apodosis to the sentence beginning worep isnot completed. S. Paul 
 loses sight of his originally-intended parallel, comp. Tim. i. 3 ; while proving 
 the truth that in Adam mavres jyaproy in vers. 13,14. The clause 8s éo7t 
 TUTOS TOU HEX) Ger ce is a first substitute for the true apodosis, which would 
 have run thus: otrw 5: évds dvOpwmov (Xpiorod) Sixarocbvn Kat did Tis Sixcauo- 
 ovvns } (aq x.7.A. It is more nearly reached in ver. 18.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The Pelagian theory, that 8 évds dv@phrov (ver. 12) refers to Eve 
 (Ecclus. xxv. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 14), is at issue with ver. 14, 
 where Adam is expressly named, and 1 Cor, xv. 12 sqq. In 1 Tim. ii. 14 
 the reference is to the relation of the two sexes, not to the race col- 
 lectively.] ; 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. V, vv. 12-21. 103 
 
 [0bs. 3. In 4 dyapria conduct is conceived of as self-determination in antagonism 
 to Gop, as a force, as a real power working and manifesting itself in all 
 cases of concrete sin (Meyer). On the connection between sin and physical 
 death, cf. Wisd. ii. 24; S. John viii. 44; 1 Cor. xv. 21; Martensen, Dogmatik, 
 § rrr. Note too that (1) the remains of ‘ pre-Adamite’ men in strata of an 
 unknown antiquity may well point to ages when this globe was the scene 
 of the probation of earlier races of ‘men,’—a probation which was closed 
 by some geological ‘catastrophe,’ prior to the reconstruction described 
 in Genesis, which made way for our race. (2) The Apostle’s argument 
 assumes the organic unity of the present human race; it is inconsistent 
 with any such hypothesis as that of several originally distinct pairs.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. Sin is described by three words in this passage. As an act, it involves 
 (1) overstepping the lines traced round human life by the Divine Law, 
 mapaBaots, and so (2) a Fall from Gop, involving recoil into the sphere of 
 self, or of nature (rapamrwya). As a ruling principle, or habitual disposition, 
 it misses the true end of our existence (dyapria). Considered as his 
 personal act, Adam’s sin was a wapdfaots in itself, and a maparrwya in its 
 immediate consequence ; as the sin, per eminentiam, the source and principle 
 of all later transgressions and falls, in the whole race of men, it was 
 dpapria (ver. I). ] 
 
 [Obs. 5. ef’ & =(not, in quo, since this would have been éy @, but) émi rovrw bu, 
 ‘in this that,’ on the ground that all sinned when through the one man ~ 
 sin entered into the world. The aor. j#yaprov refers the sins of all to the 
 act of Adam ; it describes a past moment already referred to, 2 Cor. v. 4; 
 Phil. iii, r2; iv. 10. Certainly ‘omnes in Adam peccaverunt, quando 
 omnes ille unus homo fuerunt’ (S. Aug. De Bapt. Parv. i. 10) ; but this is 
 taught in vers. 13, 14, and must not be reflected back upon 颒 @ in ver, r12.] 
 
 Subjoined proof of the statement that the (physical) death of all 
 men (ver. 12 b) has its cause in the sin of Adam and in the connexion 
 between that sin and death (vers. 13, 14). 
 
 i, Sin was in the world during the whole period which preceded 
 the Mosaic Law. But when law cannot be thought of as 
 existing (7 évros), sin is not imputed to man by Gop (ver. 13). 
 
 ii, And yet we are met by the fact that the Reign of Death 
 extended from Adam to Moses, even over those who cannot be 
 considered (47) to have sinned as Adam did, viz. by transgressing 
 positive law (ver. 14). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The Apostle leaves it to the reader to ask, How this intermediate reign 
 of death is to be explained, if in the absence of positive law it cannot be 
 explained by the personal sins of these successive generations of dying 
 men? It must be, by their having all sinned (mdvtes fyaprov) in Adam, 
 
 _ who would naturally have represented the whole human family; and com- 
 promised it by his panes 
 
104 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs, 2. In ver. 13 pp? dvros vépou does not contradict the fact that the Heathen, 
 
 vépov pi éxovres éavtois ciot vduos (ii. 14). The Natural Law not having 
 been given positively is not here in question ; and the commands to Noah, 
 and the penal judgments upon Sodom, &c. are not considered, because the 
 Apostle has before his mind only the two great epochs of Divine Legis- 
 lation in Paradise and on Sinai. | 
 
 § Thus Adam is the historical type of (Christ) the future (Adam) 
 his Antitype (rimos rod péAdovros ver. 14). 
 
 [Obs. 1. As the whole race of natural men lived and fell in Adam their first 
 
 parent, to whom they are linked by natural descent ; so the whole race of 
 redeemed men live and are glorified in Christ, their Second Parent, to 
 Whom they are linked by faith on their part, and the gifts of the Spirit 
 and the Sacraments on His. Christ is not to be conceived of as a man, but 
 as The Man ; not one individual of the race, but its adequate Representative, 
 as realising the perfect Idea of humanity, and so potentially bearing 
 regenerate mankind in Himself, just as Adam bore natural mankind in 
 himself. That our Lord took human nature upon Him at His Incarnation 
 and not a new i. e. a human personality, see Hooker, FE. P, v. 52-3.] 
 
 [ Obs. 2, The moral objections supposed to lie against the doctrine of the trans- 
 
 rf; 
 
 mission of original sin lose sight of the fact, that in nature as in Scripture 
 men are regarded under two aspects, (1) as forming an organic whole, 
 (2) as separate personalities. The transmitted loss of supernatural grace, 
 which is the essence of the Fall, is analogous to the providential ‘ visiting 
 the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth 
 generation’ in the entail of loss of property or reputation, or of consti- 
 tutions impaired by self-indulgence. (See a thoughtful treatise of Bersier 
 on ‘Solidarité.’) The objections from the point of view of natural justice 
 assume man to be only a person, not a member of an organism, viz. 
 humanity, in the collective destinies of which, for good and eyil, the 
 individual man inevitably shares. ] 
 
 Points of Difference (15-17). 
 
 Tuxsts. The xdpucpa or fulness of grace (ver. 17), whereof Christians 
 partake in Christ, does not correspond with the maparropa, Adam’s fall 
 Srom Gov which compromised his descendants (ver. 15 a). 
 
 Contrast 1. In the nature and measure of their specific effects. 
 
 [Obs. 1. This difference is expressed in the form of an hypothetical conclusion a 
 
 minori ad majus. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. (ver. 15.) xaptopa, Divinae ghikine donum Phil. Legg. All. iii.24. In Rom. 
 
 i, 11, some one gift, knowledge, piety, virtue; here, however, not as at 
 xii. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 4 sqq. a specific grace, but, as ver. 17 shows, the fulness 
 of grace of which Christians partake in Christ ; TmapanTwpa too refers not so 
 much to the actual sin of Adam, as to the resulting condition of a his 
 natural descendants. ] 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. V, vv. 12-21. 105 
 
 [Obs. 3. xdpis and dwped are related as cause and effect : as the free love of Gon, 
 and the gift which results from it. év xdpitt must be taken, not with 
 dwped, as this would require 7 év xapir1, but with émepiccevaer. | 
 If the effect of Adam’s mapdrrwpa is the death of all men (oi rodXoi), 
 
 much more (both in quantitative measure and in logical necessity) 
 the effect of Christ’s ydpis is the abundant extension (émepiocevae), 
 
 * to all («is rods roots) who will, of the Grace of Gop, and the 
 Gift (of Justification) which flows from it (ver. 15). 
 
 [Obs. (i) moAA@ paGAdAov seems to express a quantitative rather than a logical 
 ‘more.’ (ii) We should have expected mayres instead of of oAdoi to describe 
 the sufferers from the rapamrwya: but the latter expression =zdytes, and is 
 chosen as a natural antithesis to «is. ] 
 
 Contrast 2. In the number and power of the causes which im- 
 mediately occasioned them : ovy as dv évds duaprncartos To Sepnpa. 
 [Obs. 52 évds duaprnoayros indicates the unity of the person and of the accom- 
 plished sinful act. Fritzsche supplies after dyaprjcayros the words 76 tapa- 
 TT wpa eyeveTo. | 
 
 1, Asingle agent by a single act caused the Fall. From (éé) 
 one sinner came the occasion of that judicial sentence (kpizc), 
 which led on to condemnation (kardxpiza), Not so with the 
 dépyya. Many falls into sin (ek wodd\@v mapantopdreyv) have 
 moved the Divine Mercy to bestow that great gift of grace 
 (xapeopa) in Christ, which leads on to a judicial sentence of 
 acquittal (d:xaiopza) from Gop the Father (ver. 16). 
 
 [The contrast here is between 
 (i) xpitpa and xdpiopa. 
 (ii) wardxptpa and bixaiwpa, 
 (iii) (especially) évés and roAdA@v.] 
 
 2, (Reason for ver. 16), The triumphant certainty of the Reign 
 of Life confirms (yap) the 76 yapiopa ek mohAGv mapantrwpdrer «is 
 dixaioua (in ver. 16). The power of the Second Adam in the 
 direction of salvation cannot fall short of the power of the 
 First Adam in the direction of destruction. Rather, if the 
 one sapdntwopa (of the First Man) inaugurated the Reign of 
 Death, much more (7oAA@ padXov, here a logical and quali- 
 tative plus) will they who receive tv repiocetay tis xapiros, and 
 its concrete result, rijs Swpeas tijs Sixatoovvns, attain to the Reign 
 of Life, through the instrumentality of the One Jesus Christ 
 (ver. 17). 
 
 [0bs. x. This ver. 17 is nearly an expansion of ver. 15, but it is introduced with 
 a different logical object.] 
 
106 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs, 2. The antitheses here are, 
 I. év évi mapamTwpare and of tiv mepicoeiay . . . AapBavovTes. 
 2. 6 Oavaros éBacidevoey and év (wh BaciAevcovaty. 
 We should have expected, 
 I. év evi napanrwpare and év 7H mepioceia. 
 2. 6 Oavaros and (nom.) 4 (a. 
 
 = ‘as through one Fall Death reigned, so much more, through the Abundance 
 of Grace, will Life reign.’ 
 
 But the change of subject in the two clauses is significant. In pre- 
 Christian times Death, introduced by sin, reigned as a Tyrant; fallen 
 humanity was subject to Death’s empire. In Christ the conquered 
 became the conquerors (x Cor. iv. 8; 2 Tim. ii. 12) believers in Him 
 have overcome death, having already received the seed of a new and 
 endless Life, which ripens at the Resurrection. This Eternal Life is 
 the év (wm of this verse. ] 
 
 III. Swmmary recapitulation of the whole Parallel (vers. 12-17) compre- 
 hending the points of similarity and unlikeness (vers. 18, 19). 
 1. Comparison of the two representative acts, and of their ultimate 
 
 consequences. 
 Accordingly then (dpa ody) 
 (1) representative (2) range in fact or in (3) results im eternity. 
 acts. design. 
 { du’ vos \ els KaTaKpima 
 [ameBn] ine ae is els mavras avOpwmous 
 t evos 
 \ { Sixar@paros \ eis Stxaiwow ois 
 (ver. 18). 
 
 [Obs, 1. Sixaiwpa here being in antithesis to mapiarwya must mean an act of the 
 Second Adam (‘recte factum,’ Fritzsche), His moral self-consecration by 
 obedience, as in His Passion preeminently. In ver. 16 it is in antithesis 
 to xardxpa, and retains its more natural meaning of a ‘justifying 
 sentence.’ Meyer understands it of the ‘one judicial verdict,’ pronounced 
 by the Father on account of our Lord’s obedience through His death; but 
 without explaining the antithesis satisfactorily. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. mavras refers to our Lord’s intention, which however is not operative 
 unless corresponded to by the faith of the diacodpevor. | 
 
 2. Comparison of the moral dispositions of the two Agents and 
 their more immediate consequences (ver. 19). 
 
 (2) moral dispositions of (2) range. (3) more immediate 
 the agents. : effect in time. 
 dia THs mapakons dpaprwdot 
 
 { Tov évds avOparou kateotddnoar, 
 
 of mroAdol tel 
 dia THs braxons Tov évds Sicacoe 
 { Phat ii. 8 ; Heb. v. 8.) \ { xaraorabnoorrat, 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. V, vv. 12-21. 107 
 
 [Obs. x. (ver. 19.) Comparing the moral dispositions of the two agents, Adam and 
 Christ, gives the reason (yap) for the comparison of their representative 
 acts. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. xaGiordva is stronger than eiva: or imdpyev Observe its force as 
 implying an actual ‘making righteous’ (as distinct from mere imputation) 
 in the Justification of sinners by Christ. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. of moAAoi= dyes, in reality as regards the work of Adam, in intention 
 as regards the work of Christ.] 
 
 § 2. Function of the vopos, interposed (alongside of the dpapria which 
 had already entered the human world) between the First and Second 
 Adam (apevondOev) (vers. 20, 21), 
 
 1. It was immediately intended (iva) to effect an increase of the 
 Adamic rapdrreopza in humanity (ver. 20). 
 
 [Obs, This intervening aim of the law was essential to the efficacy of the Cure 
 beyond. ‘Augetur morbus, crescit molestia ; quaeritur medicus, et totum 
 sanatur,’ S. Aug. in Ps. cii. c. 15. Things had to become worse with the 
 human family, before they could be better. Thus the law was a madayaryds 
 eis Xpiorév Gal. iii. 24. Compare Gal. iii. 19 ri obv 6 vopos ; Tay mapaBdoewr 
 xapw mpooeréOn, dxpis ov EAOn 7d oméeppa @ EmHyyeATaL. | 
 
 2. This stimulated activity of sin provoked a yet more abounding 
 manifestation of grace (imeperepiocevoey 7 xdpis), (ver. 20), This 
 manifestation was a more remote effect of the interposition of 
 the vdpuos (ver. 20). 
 
 3. Thus finally (ia of the ultimate purpose of Gop beyond the 
 vépos and the xdpis) was to be substituted for the reign of Sin 
 in the sphere of death, the Reign of Grace, through righteous- 
 ness tending towards Eternal Life, through the mediating 
 agency of Jesus Christ our Lord. In this way véyos realized 
 its original and permanent, as distinct from its incidental, 
 purpose (ver. 21). 
 
 [On the functions of the véyos, as working wrath, see iv. 15; as rousing émOupia 
 and so dyapria into active life, see vii. 8, 9. These are not inconsistent 
 
 with the fact that it is itself mvevpatixéds, vii. 14, as being given by the All- 
 holy and revealing His necessary Moral Nature.] 
 
DOGMATIC PORTION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 Drviston II. VI—VIII. 
 
 MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF AIKAIOSYNH ©EOY EK TISTEQS. 
 
 GrNeRAL Tuests. True morality, so far from being imperilled, is 
 actively promoted by this reception of Gov’s dicaoovvn through Faith in 
 Christ. 
 
 (Obs. In ce. vi-viii the Apostle seems to be considering two popular Antinomian 
 arguments, which appealed to his own teaching in favour of a lax morality. 
 1. ‘We may sin in order to get grace ; because, ‘‘where sin hath abounded, 
 grace hath much more abounded ”’ (ver. 20). This is answered in vi. 2-14 
 by an analysis of the idea and obligations of Christian Baptism. 2. ‘We 
 may sin ; because, being in grace, we are emancipated from the law, which 
 forbids sin.’ This is answered in vi. 15—viii. (1) by an examination of 
 what is meant by Christian ‘freedom’ ;.(2) by a statement of the true office 
 
 of the Mosaic law; (3) by a description of the Christian qepimareiv xara 
 Tvevpa. | 
 
 A, 
 
 Morality not imperilled but promoted by the mepicceia tijs 
 Xdpitos Tod Xpiotod which results in the gift of SiKxarocdvyn Ccod 
 éx miotews (vil. 1-14). 
 
 Objection. 
 
 (Put to himself by the Apostle as if suggested by an Antinomian opponent, 
 and worth consideration.) 
 
 Since of érdcdvacev 7 dyapria treperepiccevoey 4 apts (VY. 20) is a 
 law of Gop’s Redemptive Providence, should we, after justi- 
 fication, continue (émpéevoper, conj. deliberativus) in our old 
 sinful life, with a view to receiving greater supplies of 
 grace ? (ver. 1.) 
 
 Resp. I. From an analysis of the idea of dmobaveiv + apaprig. This 
 is the motto of that life to which Baptism (ver. 3) intro- 
 duces the Christian. This drodaveiv has presumably made 
 the Christian as insensible to sin, as a dead man is to the 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. V1, vv. 1-14. 109 
 
 objects of the world of sense. Obviously then the Christian 
 camnot live in (ev) sin, as if it were the home or sphere of his 
 moral life (ver. 2). 
 
 [Obs. r. (jv and dmobvncceav Twi are frequent tropical expressions in S. Paul to 
 
 describe intimate union with or suspension of all intercourse with a person 
 or object: Gal. ii. 19; with damé, Col. ii. 20.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Or, if this inference should appear questionable (7), let a second point 
 be considered (ver. 3).] 
 
 Resp. II. From the final moral aim of (iva ver. 4) Baptism into 
 the Death of Christ (vers. 3, 4). To be ‘Baptized into Christ’ 
 involves, 
 
 a. Baptism eis rév 6avarov rod Xpiorod (not merely into faith in, 
 but) into moral and spiritual communion with His Death 
 (ver. 3). Through this Bamropa cis rév Oavarov 
 
 b. there is a consequent (ody) spiritual association of the 
 baptized Christian with Christ’s Burial, cvverapnpev, 
 
 c. the purpose (iva) of this being, that as Christ rose from 
 the dead (8 ris ddéns) through the agency of the 133, 
 the collective glories and perfections of the Father ; so the 
 Christian, by means of this new supernatural strength, 
 should walk év xawérnrt (wis, in a life the leading feature of — 
 which should be innovation upon old habits of sin. How 
 irreconcileable with: 16 émpeévew 79 dpapria! (ver. 4.) 
 
 (Obs. 1. Banrifec@a eis is not to be explained by ‘in reference to,’ ‘in respect to’ ; 
 but (in accordance with the native force of the preposition ¢is) by ‘into.’ 
 Christ is the Element into which the Bamri(dpevos is immersed. (Comp. eis év 
 oGpa éBanricOnuey x Cor. xii. 13.) Hereafter, he is & Xpior@: vi. 11; 
 
 » Vi. 23; Vili. 1; Xvi. 11; 2 Cor. ii. 143 v.17; Gal. i. 22; x Thess. il. 14 (on 
 which see Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 486, E.T.). The Christian being thus incor- 
 porated with Christ, the mysteries of His Life are reproduced in the spiritual 
 life of the Christian. ‘Quidquid gestum est in cruce Christi, in sepultura, 
 in resurrectione tertio die, in ascensione in caelum in sede ad dexteram 
 Patris, ita gestum est, ut his rebus non mystice tantum dictis sed etiam 
 gestis, configuraretur vita Christiana quae hic geritur. S. Aug. Pnchir. 
 cap. 53. Compare Gal. iii. 27 600 eis Xprordy €BamricOnre, Xprorov evedvaaabe : 
 Col. ii. 12 owrapérres abtG ev 7H Banticpart, ev & Kat ovvnyépOnTe K.7.A. 2 Ve 13 
 ouve(woroince otv aito. Cf. Eph. ii. 5, 6 ovve(womoince TH XpioT@ ... Kat 
 ovvnyetpe, kal ouvekabioer év Tois Emovpavioss év XpraT@ *Inaod. 
 
 [0bs, 2. The Baptism of Adults by immersion is present to the Apostle’s mind. 
 The (i) descent into the water («arddvois), and (ii) the rising from it (dvdbvais), 
 were the two striking features of the rite, corresponding to (1) the Death, 
 and (2) the Resurrection, of Christ; and so to the Christian’s (1) ‘Death 
 
I10 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 unto sin,’ and (2) ‘New Birth unto righteousness.’ Between the two comes 
 the moment during which the Barri(épevos is beneath the water ; it corre- 
 sponds to Christ’s Burial, and in the Christian’s life to the permanent effect 
 of his dmo@aveiy 7H dpapria, viz. his insensibility to sin. (For the ancient 
 Rites of Baptism, see Bingham, Antig. Chr. Ch., book xi. ¢. 2 sqq.)] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The 5dfa rod Marpés, the collective perfections of the Father, chiefly His 
 
 Omnipotence, 1 Cor. vi. 14 5 2 Cor. xiii. 4 ; Eph. i. 19, raised Jesus from the 
 dead. Christ’s Resurrection is attributed to the Father in iv. 24 ; viii. 11; 
 Acts ii. 24-31 sqq. It is understood of our Lord’s Own Divine Nature by 
 Theodoret, &c. and Keble, who refers to S. John ii. 19, as showing that 
 Christ’s raising Himself is proof of His being very Gop.] 
 
 Resp. III. From the inherent force of that intimate union with 
 _(ctipgpura) Christ's Death to which Baptism introduces us. It 
 must lead on by an implicit moral necessity to a similar 
 association in His undying Resurrection-life (5-11). 
 
 [Obs. This is a reason (yap ver. 5) for the previous assertion of purpose (iva 
 
 womep nyép0n k.7.A. ver. 4), but it assumes the proportions of a substantive and 
 independent argument. ] 
 
 1. How this intimate union with Christ’s death effected by 
 Baptism is described (ver. 5). We are grown together with that 
 moral condition which corresponds to the death of Christ in 
 the life of the soul; and this is a moral earnest of our being 
 similarly united to the moral condition which is the counter- 
 part of His Resurrection. 
 
 [ Obs, cdppura (image from vegetable growth) =‘ grown together with’ : cvppuns is 
 ‘the usual form, from ovpdiw. (‘Planted together with’ would have been 
 
 ovppvrevta, from ovpputevw: cf. Meyer). T® dpoiwpari, the moral counter- 
 part in us of the objective fact of Christ’s Death; it is that in redeemed 
 humanity which is produced by and which answers to the Passion and 
 Death of the Redeemer. For époiwpya see i. 23; v. 143 Vill. 3. It is gram- 
 matically possible, but less natural, to make rod @avdrov airod belong to 
 ovpputo, and take 7@ éyowpat: as an interposed instrumental dat., and 
 almost adverbially. ddAAd emphatically introduces the contrasted clause, 
 which is elliptical, and would, if completed, run thus: dAAd Kal TO époimpate 
 Ths avacracews av’rov ovppuTa éodpeba, éodpeOa, fut. of ethical necessity. Grace 
 is not irresistible ; and man’s will may break away from its directive and 
 impulsive power at any point. But Baptism involves the closest conceivable 
 association with Christ’s Death which physical nature can suggest to us, 
 and this should involve an equally intimate and a lasting association with 
 His Risen Life (ver. 5.] 
 
 2. What this intimate union with Christ’s Death involves now 
 (vers. 6, 7). 
 
 [Obs. rodro ywwoxovres appeals to knowledge as to the effect of the initial sacra- 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VI, vv. I-14. ~ ibs ce Se 
 
 ment, previously received by oral amen, and experimentally realized. 
 Compare «idéres ver. 9. ] ; 
 
 i. The crucifixion (coveoravptn) of the old sinful nature 
 (madatds 7 Npav Sebponny with Christ (ver. 6). 
 
 [0bs. Comp. Eph. iy. 22 ; Col. whieh, not 2 Cor. iv. 16; Rom. vii. 22; Eph. 
 iii 16; for the distinelionth een the old and the new nature, Deltech: 
 
 Bibl. Psych v. 6 PP. 43: ET.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 of this crucifixion (iva) is the putting out of 
 ence (xarapyn6f, iii, 3, 31: 1 Cor. xv. 26) the ‘sin- 
 
 ‘ Pris dpaprias (gen. of remote inner reference, Winer, G7. N. T. é. 
 15) =70 o@pa ris capkds: ef. Col. ii. 11. Itis the body, so far as it is ruled(Y) 
 
 by sin, not (1) the body in itself, nor (2) the body as the seat of concupis- 
 
 - eentia which may be controlled, nor (3) sin conceived of as a body which 
 may be crucified, the substance of sin, massa peccati. J. Miiller, Christian 
 Doctrine of Sin, ii. 2. It corresponds to the odpf ody rois maOjpact Kal Tais 
 émOvyias (cf. Gal. v. 24), and thus in view of its destiny is a c@pa Tov Oava- 
 
 tov Rom. vii. 24.] 
 
 iii. Result of destroying the ‘sin-body.’ (ro, inf. of purpose, 
 ver. 6.) There can be no more service of the sinful prin- 
 ciple (dyapria), The instrument of such service will have 
 disappeared. 
 
 Reason (yap): this is found even in the generally accepted legal 
 maxim, that a dead man must be acquitted of sins said to have 
 been committed subsequently to the date of his death (ver. 7). 
 
 [0bs. This ‘locus communis’ is Rabbinical. Delitzsch, Hebr. Ubersetz. p. 84.] 
 3. What this intimate union with Christ’s Death should lead on to 
 (8-11). 
 
 i, Fellowship in Christ’s Death through Baptism is seen by 
 faith (morevouev) to involve fellowship in His Resurrection- 
 
 & Life. 
 [Obs. cv¢qoopey must be referred mainly to spiritual participation in Christ’s 
 
 Risen Life here, without excluding the fuller communion in it hereafter. ] 
 
 ii. (Ground of i). It is a point of Christian knowledge (cidéres) 
 that the Risen Christ dies no more. If He could do so, 
 
 there would be no secure ground for morevopev éri KA. 
 (ver. 8). But death is no longer lord over Him, as was the 
 
 
 
no 
 
 * Sa ooh 
 112 The Epistle to the Romans. | 
 
 Ce 
 
 case at the Crucifixion (ver. 9). The reason is (ydp ver. 
 10) twofold). 
 
 a. The Death which He died, He died 7H dyapria (dat. 
 of reference), nee for all, Having suffered death 
 on account of human sin, sit has no further power 
 over Him. He cannot die for it again (ver. 10). 
 
 b, The Life which He lives, Yin His glorified humanity, 
 belongs wholly to Gop (wer, 10). He was 
 crucified é& doGeveias, but He lives Ty Divine power: 
 2 Cor. xiii. 4. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i, Resulting (otrw) estimate (Aoyiferbe) of des us "UL 
 Baptized Christian (ver. 11). This governs 
 
 his (i) Sin. He is dead to it: for him it does not exist. 
 relation J (ii) Gop. He lives for Him, as the Object of existe ce. i 
 to (iii) Christ. He lives in (év) Him, as the Sphere of his 
 new life. (Since €BarrioOnpev eis Xp. Inc.) 
 
 [Ovs. For the inconsistency between this culminating description of the effect 
 of Baptism in uniting us with the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, and 
 the émpévev év rh Gyaprig, ef. vi. 1.) 
 
 § Maxims, based (ody ver. 12) on the foregoing argument (12, 13). 
 
 Maxim 1. (On the dominion of ayapria). Negative. Let not the sin- 
 principle (ayapria) be the reigning power in your body, mortal 
 (4vnr@) as it is, (and therefore not worthy to exact the sacrifice 
 of that (a7 7@ Ged (ver, 11) which is yours through Baptism), 
 that you should obey sin in the sphere of bodily sale 
 
 / 
 
 (ver. 12). Y; / 
 
 Maxim 2. (On the employment the b qily pern.) Negative. Do 
 not go on placing (maplprdvere)/ fone bes members (éAn) at the | 
 disposal of the sinful principle (concupiscentia, dapria), to be ; 
 employed by it as weapons in the warfare against Gop (émha i 
 déixias) for establishing unzighteousriess. Positive, (a), Place your 4 
 inmost selves (€avrovs) without delay Les pk th the disposal sic d 
 
 
 
 
 
 of Gop, as men who share the resurrection-life. i) (Result of 
 foregoing). Surrender to Him your ‘bodily mémtbers,” to be 
 used as weapons in the cause of righteousness (8mAa Sixavoodvys) © 
 and as belonging to Gop (ver. 13). : 
 

 
 Dogmatic: ch. VI, vv. 15-23. 113 
 
 [Obs. 1. duapria here =indulged concupiscentia. ‘Concupiscentia hath of itself the 
 nature of sin,’ art. ix. That ‘ex peccato est et ad peccatum inclinat’ (Conc. Trid. 
 sess. v. can. 5) does not go so far: but the art. does not say that it is sin. The 
 body is called 6vnrév with reference to the contrast it presents to the glorified 
 body (viii. rr), the glories of which are planted within us at our regeneration. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. SmAa is here used like »55, as ‘instruments,’ rather than the usual 
 ‘weapons.’ The imp. aor. napacrhcare after mapuotdvere marks the peremp- 
 toriness of the last command; the pres. imp. being used of an action already 
 commenced, and which is to be continued; the aor. of an action which 
 rapidly passes and should take place-at once: S. John ii. 16; 1 Cor. xv. 34; 
 Acts xii. 8; Winer, Gr. N.T. p. 394.] 
 
 Reason (yap) for compliance. Sin will not become lord over you 
 (kupeedoet, not merely BaciAevrer), (unless. you will it), You are 
 not placed under the law, as a mere outward rule of conduct, 
 but under grace, an invigorating and protecting force (ver. 14). 
 
 [Obs, 1. The axiom ov ydp éore i176 vopoy, GAN’ bd xapw is of decisive importance, 
 and governs ¢. vi. 15-23}; vii; viii. (i) dd vduov. Aquin. in loc. ‘Esse 
 sub lege quasia lege coactus ;. et sic dicitur esse sub lege, qui non voluntarie 
 ex amore, sed timore cogitur legem observare. . . . Sic igitur quamdiu aliquis 
 sic est sub lege, ut non impleat voluntarie legem, peccatum in eo dominatur, 
 ex quo voluntas hominis inclinatur, ut velit id quod est contrarium legi.’ 
 Cf. vii. 5 sqq., 21; viii. 15 mvedua Sovdeias cis PdBov. Thus in Gal. iii. 22, 23 
 id dyuapriay and ind véuov mean practically the same thing. (ii) That xdpis 
 here is not mere favour, but an operative force, invigorating the human 
 soul, and resisting the aggressiveness of duapria, is clear from viii. g tbpets 
 ove éore ev capki, GAN’ év mvevpari, einep TIvedua Ocod oixel ev byiv: Gal. v. 18 ei 
 be mvedpart dyecGe, ovx éore bd vopov, (iii) On the antithesis, comp. 8. Aug. 
 de Continentia, c. 3 ‘Non sumus sub lege, bonum quidem jubente, non tamen 
 dante ; sed sumus sub gratia, quae id quod lex jubet faciens nos amare, 
 potest liberis imperare.’ For his summary of man’s three successive rela- 
 tions to vépos, see De Quibusdam Prop. in Ep. ad Rom. n. 13 ‘Ante legem 
 sequimur concupiscentiam carnis ; sub lege trahimur ab ea; sub gratia nec 
 sequimur eam, nec trahimur ab ei; in pace nulla est concupiscentia carnis.’ 
 Cf. S. John viii. 32 sqq.]} 
 
 [Obs. 2. The relation of this axiom to what follows may be stated thus :— 
 
 (t) What i760 véporv does not mean (vi. 13-23). 
 (2) What it does mean, with objections and replies (ce. vii). 
 (3) What 67d xapw means (ce. viii).] 
 
 B. 
 
 Morality not imperilled but secured by the relation to the 
 Mosaic Law, which is implied in S:xatoodvy Ocod ek mictews 
 (vi. 15-vil. 25). . 
 
 Sele 
 
 What ov éoré id vdpov does Nor mean. License to sin (vi. 15-23). 
 
 [0bs. As in ver. 1 the Apostle puts to himself an Antinomian inference from 
 an axiom which he has just stated, asif it was worth consideration.] 
 
 I 
 
 ° 
 
114 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Obj. Does the axiom ovk écpév imd vopov, add’ ind yapw leave 
 Christians at liberty to sin by disobeying the Law? (ver. 15). 
 
 Answ. Certainly not (vers. 16-23). For the Life of the Justified, 
 so far from being an emancipation with reference to Righteous- 
 ness, (eAevdepia ri Sixacootvn ver. 20) is a new service (dovdela 
 ver. 16), with its own ineffaceable sense of obligation (vers. 
 16-18), its own pressing duties (vers. 19, 20), and its own 
 characteristic rewards (vers. 21-23). 
 
 [Obs. In order to clear the ground by showing what ov« eivat id vdpov does not 
 mean, the Apostle exhibits the Christian life as the Voluntary Service of an 
 Unseen Master, entered upon at Baptism (vi. 16-23). This representation 
 excludes the Antinomian conception of a life of license.] 
 
 Tuesis. The Christian Life, although not ind vopor, is really a Service 
 (SovAcia rij Sixavootvy ver. 18) (vi. 16-23). 
 I. Sense of obligation to this Service. Appeal to the instinct of Christian 
 honour (16-18). 
 
 Major prop. Those who voluntarily enter the service of a master, 
 whatever be his character, owe him the debt of obedience 
 (ver. 16). 
 
 Minor prop. But Christians, after being the slaves of sin, have 
 entered Christ’s service at Baptism, by yielding heartfelt 
 obedience to the rimos d:daxijs to which He has given them over 
 to be moulded by it (ver. 17). 
 
 Concl. Therefore Christians, although not imé vépyor, are yet not 
 free to act in any way ; they are the slaves of that Righteous- 
 ness which is their Master’s badge and gift (ver. 18). 
 
 [Obs. x. In ver. 16 #ro. . . 7 here only in the New Testament. 77a gives special 
 emphasis to the former alternative: aut sane. Bauemlein, Partik. p. 244. 
 We might have expected @cod instead of imaxofs as the antithesis of dpap- 
 vias: but dyapria suggests as its nearest antithesis a moral disposition, 
 which accordingly is personified as a mistress. It would be natural to 
 expect eis (any aiwnoy, instead of eis iuxaroovvny, as the antithesis to eis Odva- 
 tov. But the former is implied in the latter. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2, In ver. 17 rumos didax7js. ‘Form of doctrine’ (in the objective sense) into 
 which, as a spiritual mould, Christians were delivered by Gop’s providence 
 at their Baptism, to be shaped by it to the outlines of a new life. Comp. 
 xavev Gal. vi, 16; Phil. iii, 16. It is not (1) the impression which 
 Christian doctrine makes on the heart, nor (2) that ideal of moral life 
 which faith in Christ suggests, nor (3) S. Paul’s own distinctive manner of 
 
 am 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. V1, vv. 15-23. 115 
 
 presenting Christian truth, since the Roman Christians had been converted 
 by others. The attraction eis dv mape5d0nTe TUTov 5:5ax7js can be resolved either 
 into irnxodoareT@ tim didayijs eis dv mapeddOnre or bmynkovaate eis Tov TUTov Sidaxjs, 
 eis dv mapedé0nre. The first is the more natural explanation ; the second is 
 quite tenable and it yields the deeper sense. wtmaxoveav eis 7 is ‘ to go on 
 obeying up to a certain standard,’ 2 Cor. ii. 9. As the pass. mapeddOnre 
 expresses the objective power of Divine Grace, so imnxotoare é« xapdias 
 describes the activity of free will. On this inverse attraction, see Winer, 
 Gr. N.T. p. 205. On the instruction which preceded and followed Baptism, 
 see Bingham, Ant. book x.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. In ver. 18 the éAevOepia of the justified is a 5ovAcia 7H Sixacocdvy. There 
 is no intermediate moral condition between the one service and the other. 
 Only as slaves of righteousness, and so free to follow the true law of our 
 being, can we cease to be slaves of sin. ‘Deo servire est vera libertas,’ S. 
 Aug. ‘Whose service is perfect freedom—cui servire regnare est,’ Collect 
 for Peace. ]} 
 
 II. Pressing duties attached to this Service. Appeal to the instinct of 
 moral enterprise (vers. 19, 20). 
 
 _ 
 
 [Obs. 1. Remembering their moral weakness, do@évea capkds, the Apostle only 
 suggests that which is possible for man to do. Let them do in one direc- 
 tion what they have done in past years in another, viz. place their bodily 
 organs at the disposal of a Governing Influence, as if slaves. ] 
 
 [0bs. 2. For this sense of dv@pdmwos comp. metpacpos dvOpwmvos, temptation which 
 man can resist: x Cor. ii. 13; x. 13. He might have asked for much 
 beyond. } 
 
 1. T7 axabapoia, moral\ /completing the idea of 
 
 as they defilement of the] | duapria, and leading on 
 have agent within ; eis THv avopiav—the estab- 
 yielded | ra pédn 2. tH dvopia, violation/ \lishment of Gop-defy- 
 as of Divine Lawwith-| |ing lawlessness as a 
 
 so let | dovda, out; concrete reality. 
 them leading on «is déysacpor, 
 yield the attainment of holi- 
 
 Th Stkavoovry ness in thought and 
 
 act (ver. 19). 
 
 [0bs. péAn often used in this sense in the Mischna, O38. Not in Old 
 Testament. A trace of S. Paul’s Rabbinical education.] 
 
 Reason (ydp) for this. If the readers object, ‘This, after all, is only 
 a new slavery,’ let them reflect that they have already tried the 
 only alternative condition, the only possible edevOepia rH dixasoodyy. 
 
 12 
 
116 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 That condition too was, in itself, a slavery,—but 1s dyaprias 
 
 (ver. 20). 
 [Obs. Here, as in ver. 18, (and S. Matth. vi. 24,) the ground-thought is: you 
 must serve one of two lords; there is no intermediate condition of moral 
 
 suspense between the two services ; to escape from the one is to be thereby 
 bound to the other. ] 
 
 III. Rewards of this Service. Appeal to the instinct of prudence. 
 (21-23). (xapmés vers. 21, 223 réAos Vers. 21, 22; époua Ver. 23; 
 Xdptopa ver. 23). 
 
 1. Test of experience in the past. "What was the moral gain (xapzés) 
 of those past acts on which (e¢’ ois) memory cannot dwell with- 
 out raising an emotion of shame? Surely, nought. For acts 
 which end in eternal death hereafter cannot bring moral gain 
 now (ver, 21). 
 
 [Obs. Lachmann, Tisch. and many others end the question with rére, in which 
 case ép’ ois viv éracoxivecde becomes the answer, and 70 yap TéAos «.7.A, its 
 
 proof. But the antithesis of xaprév in ver. 22 shows that in ver. 2t the 
 having of fruit, not its quality, is in question (see Meyer).]} 
 
 2. Appeal to present experience. Having been emancipated from 
 sin and so enslaved to Gop, you possess your moral gain (xapmér), 
 (1) leading on to increasing holiness here (déyacyév), and (2) 
 ending in (wi aimmos (ver. 22). 
 
 3. General Law of Gov’s moral government which is the reason 
 (yap) of this experience. (ver. 23.) 
 { Ta oyranua Tis auaprias = Oavaros, 
 ro xdptopa ToD Ccod == Lar aidmos év Xp. "Ine. 
 
 [Obs. 1. éyd&mov, later Greek word, probably whatever is bought to be eaten with 
 bread, specially fish, or meat. As such condiments were given to soldiers 
 instead of pay (Caesar, B. G. i. 23. 1; Polyb. i. 66. 3) é¥a0v came to mean - 
 military pay (Polyb. vi. 39. 12), the plural being due to the various goods that 
 constituted the original payments, or to the coins used in the later money 
 wages. Lobeck, Pkryn. p. 420.] 
 
 [Obs. 2, @dvaros is not exclusively physical, but the eternal death, cf. ver. 22, 
 where (wi aidmos is its antithesis. S. Paul will not use é¥ama of Gon’s 
 reward of His free grace to His servants, which is originally a xdpiopa: 
 
 - Origen, in loc. On the point common to the two ideas, comp. S. Prosper. de 
 Vocat. Gent. ii, 8 ‘Datur unicuique sine merito, unde tendat ad meritum ; 
 et datur ante ullum caiiahay unde quisque mercedem accipiat secundum 
 suum laborem.’} 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VII, vv. 1-6. 117 
 § 2. 
 
 What 1s meant by ovk éoré tnd vdpov? Nothing less than a higher 
 degree of Holiness in the emancipated (vii. 1-6). 
 
 Tuesis. The Life of the Baptized, besides being conceived of as a New 
 Service (vi. 16-23), is also a Marriage to a Second Husband, the Risen 
 Christ, through Whose grace Christians bring forth good works to Gop 
 (vii. 1-6). 
 
 I. Legitimacy of this Second Marriage (vers. 1-4 a). 
 
 1. (General Axiom). The authority of the Mosiac Law over a 
 man lasts during the man’s life-time (ver. 1). 
 
 [Obs. 1. By ddeAgpoi the Apostle probably means all the readers of his Epistle ; and 
 not merely the converts from Judaism, i. 13; viii. 12; x. 1; Xi. 253 Xil. I; 
 XV. 14, 30; Xvi. 17. This precept was common in the Rabbinical Schools. 
 Schabbath, f. 30. 1 ‘Homo, postquam mortuus est, cessat a lege.” Talmud. 
 tr. Niddai. cf. Wetstein in loc. The Jews thus contrasted the Mosaic Law 
 with human legislation, which might be altered, or suspended, or had only 
 a temporary force. §. Paul is rather thinking of the fact that the jurisdic- 
 tion of the law does not last beyond death, As ywwoxorres Tov vépoy, converts 
 from Judaism, among his readers, would readily understand the allusion. ]} 
 
 [Obs. 2. We must follow S. Augustine in making dv@pwmos, and not vdpos, the 
 subject to (7. Comp. vers. 2, 3, 4. The Apostle is not discussing the abroga- 
 tion of the Mosaic Law, but the relation of Christian converts to it.] 
 
 2. (Particular illustration). The Mosaic Marriage-Law bound the 
 married woman to her husband during his life-time. But in 
 the event of his death, she too, in the eye of the law, ceased to 
 exist as wife (xarjpynra). By this her own legal decease she 
 was freed from the Law that bound her to her husband (yépos 
 tod dv8pés). Consequently, a woman who connects herself with 
 another man, during her husband’s life-time, takes the formal 
 name of adulteress. But, after the husband’s death, as being 
 legally dead, gua wife, she is legally freed from the Law which 
 bound her to him, with the object of her not being deemed an 
 adulteress, although she be married to another man (vers. 2, 3). 
 
 [Obs. 1. #ravdpos yuvy, a phrase implying the ‘ subjection’ of the Hebrew wife = 
 
 APN non ABN Numb, v. 29, LXX. Comp. Gen. iii. 16. On dédera: cf. 
 
 Winer, Gr. NV. T. p. 339, as expressing the life-long obligation of the vinculum 
 
 matrimonii contracted at a past date. With yévyra: dvdpi comp. vid nin 
 
 Ruth i. 12; Ezek. xvi. 8. For thissense of xpypari(ew, to take a name from 
 one’s business, comp. Acts xi. 26; Joseph. Ant, xiii. 11. 3.] 
 
118 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 2. The Mosaic Law gives the wife no power of divorcing her husband ; 
 hence 5é5e7ar. Gen. ii. 24 ‘they two shall be one flesh’; Eph. v. 31 the 
 man mpockodAAnOncerat mpos THY yuvaika avTov. The Apostle does not notice the 
 case of a woman divorced by her husband: Deut. xxiv. 2; Kiddusch, f. 2. 1 
 ‘Mulier possidet se ipsam per libellum repudii, et per mortem mariti.’ For this 
 permission to divorce a wife a vinculo matrimonii had only been given mpds 
 Tiv ackdnpoxapdiay of Israel. Our Lord repealed it, thus reverting to the 
 original marriage law of the Creator: S. Matt. xix. 8. (Even adultery 
 (uorxeia) does not warrant divorce a vinculo matrimonii: although concealed 
 sin before marriage (ei pi én mopveia) may have vitiated the marriage 
 contraet ab initio. Cf. Déllinger, Christenthum und Kirche, Beit. iii. p. 461.) 
 S. Paul, as writing to Christians, does not notice a legal provision which our 
 Lord had repealed. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The illustration has been thought inapposite, because the actually dead 
 person (the husband) and the person released from the law (the wife) 
 are represented as different, so that the axiom of ver. 1 is at first sight 
 inapplicable. This led S. Chrys. to suppose that there is here an inversion 
 of the comparison. But the Apostle’s emphasis lies on the legal death of 
 the wife, qué wife (katnpynra), resulting from the actual death of the 
 husband. The wife is only under the vépos Tod dvdpds, so long as she lives 
 a wife in the eye of the law—a state of things which ceases with her 
 husband’s actual death. Thus the axiom of ver. 1 applies directly.] 
 
 3. Analogous inference from the axiom (ver. 1) and its illustration 
 (2, 3). Converts to the Church from Judaism may lawfully 
 espouse themselves to Christ (ver. 4 a). 
 
 1. For they are in the position of the yur) trav8pos after her 
 husband’s decease. So far as the Mosaic Law is concerned 
 (76 vopw, dat. ref.) they are dead ; since they have been put to 
 death (e6avarw6nre). This was effected by the Death of the 
 gpa Tov Xpiorov, into which they were at Baptism incorporated. 
 His Death has killed them, as for purposes of sin (Rom. vi. 
 3 sqq.) so also for their old spouse, the Law (2 Cor. v. 14). 
 They are as if it did not exist (ver. 4a). Whence, 
 
 2. Under the terms of the axiom in ver. 1 they are at liberty to 
 contract marriage with Another, viz. the Risen One (ver. 4 a). 
 
 [0bs. 1. Only the Risen Christ can enter into this mystieal wedlock with the soul, 
 iv. 24. With «is 7d yevéoOat érep connect iva kapropopyomper K.7.A.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. yevéoOat érépw: ef. ver. 3.] 
 
 II. Fruitfulness of this Second Marriage (vers. 4 b-6). 
 
 [Obs, Espoused to the 6 é« vexp&v eyepbeis, and ‘semine gratiae ejus foecundata,’ 
 the Christian soul brings forth good works to the honour of Gop. The meta- 
 phor of marriage dictates the term xapropopjowpev. Thus, an internal 
 force achieves that which the Law, as an external rule, never could secure. ] 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VII, vv. 7-25. 119 
 
 Explanation of iva caprogopnowper tO Gcp (vers. 5, 6). 
 1. Antithesis of this fruitfulness to the status naturae (év 77 capxi) 
 under the rule of the Law. That was marked by 
 
 a. the activity (empyeiro) in the bodily organs of the ra6jpara 
 auaptias, those movements of passion which result in sin ; 
 
 b. the ultimate xapropopjoa 16 Oavdro, Eternal death is to 
 this legal and natural fruitfulness, what Gop (ver. 4) is to 
 that of the regenerate (ver. 5). 
 
 2. Intrinsic character of this fruitfulness. It springs from 
 
 a. freedom from the Law, which had held man in its grasp. 
 Christians are dead to it, through union with Christ’s death. 
 Hence they render 
 
 b. a service (Sovdetew) whose sphere is the new impulse which 
 the Holy Spirit has given from within, and not the old 
 obedience to a literal rule, imposed altogether from without 
 (ver. 6). 
 
 § 3. 
 
 Objections to the foregoing account of vonos considered (vil. 7-25). 
 
 Objection I. Does not the foregoing account (ody ver. 1) of the 
 relation of the Mosaic Law to Christian Holiness imply that the 
 Law is essentially sin’ (not ayaprwdds, but dpapria)? (ver. 7.) 
 
 Resp. No: this is so far from being the case, that (adda) the law 
 actually discharges functions, which, on such a supposition, 
 would be impossible (7-12). The law is really dys (ver. 12). 
 
 [Obs. The Apostle cannot be supposed (7-13) to be speaking (1) simply of himself, 
 and his own personal experiences before his conversion, nor yet (2) only in 
 the person of the Jewish people as a people, or of human nature. It isa 
 
 _picture of his unregenerate self, at the two stages of xwpls véuov and ind 
 
 vénov, but widened here and there so as to represent the universal 
 
 experience. | 
 
 Arg. 1. From the illwminative office of the Law. The Law brought 
 with it an ériyywors duaprias. (iii. 20.) It was the Law which 
 threw light upon the existence of the sinful tendency in human 
 nature. It did this by taking the concrete shape of évredy, 
 which revealed dyapria in the active form of émvpia, unregulated 
 desire. [The Law, it is implied, must be essentially different 
 in nature from that which it thus brings to light] (ver. 7). 
 
120 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. The évrodn here, ob« émOupnoes, is from Ex. xx. 16. The scope of the 
 prohibition is widened by omitting the objects mentioned in the tenth 
 commandment : ‘tanquam haec esset vox legis ab omni peccato prohibentis. 
 Neque enim ullum peccatum nisi concupiscendo committitur,’ S. Aug.] 
 
 Arg. 2. From the (indirectly) provocative office of the Law. By 
 means of the precept against concupiscence, the sin-principle, 
 having chosen its occasion, worked out all manner of device 
 after the forbidden. Thus the Law became adoppy maons émOvpias. 
 {The Law, it is implied, must be essentially opposed to the sin- 
 principle, which it only thus irritates into active opposition, by 
 reason of its felt incompatibility] (ver. 8). 
 
 Particular description of the Apostle’s experience. Whenas 
 a child he knew nothing of the Law, the sin-principle was 
 dormant, as if dead, vecpd. In those years (moré) he lived 
 the life of innocence (é{ov) of any active sin. Then the 
 precept against concupiscence presented itself. The con- 
 sequence was that the latent sin-principle started up intoa 
 second life. This was the tragic moment of conscious 
 spiritual death—dréOavoy (ver. 9). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The dormancy of sin in childhood lasts until the intelligence opens 
 upon the moral Law. ‘Peccatum sine lege, tanquam non sit, latet, non 
 apparet, penitus ignoratur ; tanquam in nescio quibus ignorantiae tenebris 
 sit sepultum’ S. Aug. Contr. duas Epp. Pelag. i. 9; ‘Hane legem nescit 
 pueritia, ignorat infantia, et peceans absque mandato, non tenetur lege 
 peccati. Muledicit patri et matri; parentes verberat ; et quia necdum 
 accepit legem sapientiae, mortuum est in eo peccatum. Cum autem man- 
 datum hoe venerit est tempus intelligentiae appetentis bona et vitantis mala,- 
 tunc incipit peccatum reviviscere, et ille mori reusque esse peccati. Atque 
 ita fit ut tempus intelligentiae, quo Dei mandata cognoscimus ut pervenia- 
 mus ad vitam, operetur in nobis mortem’ S. Hieronym. Ep. ad Algasiam. 
 qu. 8. S. Aug. explains dvé(noev of the sin of the race in paradise, in 
 which each member has a share; ‘vixerat enim [peccatum] aliquando in 
 paradiso’ ; when the child consciously disobeys ‘tune peccatum quodam- 
 modo in notitia nati hominis reviviscet quod in notitia primum facti 
 hominis aliquando jam vixerat’ Contr. duas Epp. Pelag. i. 9. There is no 
 ground here for the hypothesis of a premundane life, such as that attributed 
 (in Wisd. viii. 20) to the Eternal Wisdom. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. That man is disposed to regard as a good whatever is prohibited, merely 
 because it is prohibited, was well understood by the heathen. Cato speaks 
 of luxury ‘ipsis vinculis, sicut fera bestia, irritata’ Liv. xxxiv. 4. Seneca 
 says that ‘parricidae cum lege coeperunt’ De Clem. i. 23. Horace complains 
 that ‘Audax omnia perpeti, Gens humana ruit, per vetitum nefas ’ Carm. i. 
 3.25. ‘Nitimur in vetitum semper’ Ov. Amor, iii. 4.17. Comp, Prov. ix. 
 17-] y 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VII, vv. 7-25. 121 
 
 Arg. 3. From the contrast between the actual effect of the Law and its 
 original object. The precept against concupiscence was originally 
 intended to protect man’s moral (#7, Experience showed 
 (cépe6n) this very precept of all others (avrn) to tend to promote 
 spiritual death. Like the serpent in paradise, the sinful 
 tendency used the precept to provoke ill-regulated desire: it 
 held out as desirable something intrinsically pernicious, and so 
 eénmatnoe, and accomplished moral murder (dméxrewev) (ver. 10— 
 11). Conclusion (from vers. 7b-11). Thus the Law, although 
 misused by sin, remains dos, as being Gop’s unveiling of His 
 moral nature; and the particular concrete évroAy is not less dya 
 as coming from Gop, dikaa, in what it requires of man, and 
 ayaén, in its original and salutary object (vers. 10-12). 
 
 {Obs. The Apostle, as ye ver. 12 shows, intended to say further ‘but sin has, 
 through the law, which is itself good, resulted in death to me.’ But he 
 has only half completed his inference from the premises (7-11), when 
 (see Winer, Gr. V. T. p. 720) there emerges] 
 
 Objection II. ‘ At any rate this amounts to saying that that which 
 is good in itself (the Law) has become a principle of moral 
 death’ (ver. 13a). 
 
 Resp. No. Sin it is which really tends to death. 
 This has been ordered with a two-fold object : 
 
 {1) ta garh «7A. That sin might be seen in its true colours, 
 as working out the spiritual death of man by its misuse of 
 that which is in itself good. It turns Gop’s bounty against 
 Himself, and uses His best blessings to promote man’s ruin 
 (ver. 13). 
 
 (2) ta yéyra x.t.d. (climatic parallel), That through this 
 misuse of the evrodn, sin might become exaggerated, kad’ imep- 
 Borji dpapredds. This would heighten the necessity for a 
 Divine Deliverer, (comp. ch. v. 20) (ver. 13). 
 
 § Proof (not merely of the final purpose of the fact (ver. 13 b) 
 but of the fact (ver. 13 a) that sin, and not the law, really tends 
 to death (14-25). 
 
 (Obs. x. This passage (vii. 14-25) was understood by the Greek Fathers, from 
 S. Irenaeus downwards, to apply to man in the unregenerate state. So at first 
 by S. Augustine (Prop. 45. in Ep. ad Rom. ; ad Simplic. i. 9 ; Confess. vii. 21-27). 
 When the Pelagians, adopting this interpretation, appealed to vers. 17, 18, 22, | 
 in proof of their estimate of fallen human nature, Aug. thought that the 
 older interpretation was out of harmony with the general mind of Scripture. 
 
122 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Accordingly, in his later works, he maintained that the éyw# of this passage 
 is that of the regenerate. (Retractationes, i. 23; ii. 7; contr. duas Epp. Pelag. i. 
 Io ; contr. Faust. xv. 8.) The Pelagian controversy had a similar influence 
 upon the judgment of S. Jerome. §S. Augustine’s later interpretation was 
 followed by S. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and in the 16th cent. by the 
 Reformers. The disposition of some among the foreign reformers to treat 
 concupiscence as not merely having ‘the nature of sin,’ but as actually being 
 sin, and also to depreciate the strength and completeness of the regenerate 
 life, led to a re-action against the later Augustinian interpretation. Thus 
 Hammond and Justinian, in the 17th century, already understood it of the 
 unregenerate life ; and this opinion is, probably, whether among believing or 
 rationalising commentators, the dominant one at the present day, although 
 not always necessarily or chiefly on dogmatic grounds. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The reasons for understanding vii. 14-25 of the regenerate state in the 
 phase of struggle, while viii. 1-11 describes it in the repose of completed victory, 
 are as follows: (1) The relation of the véyuos to the unregenerate has been 
 already explained in vii. 7-13. (2) At ver. 14 the aorists of vii. 7-13, 
 apparently describing past facts in the Apostle’s experience, suddenly 
 cease ; and the presents of vii. 14-25 would seem to assert facts belonging to 
 an existing spiritual state. (But the change of tense is sufficiently accounted 
 for by the clause 6 vépos mvevpatixds éortv. The Apostle is confronting 
 the spiritual nature of the law. The paragraph 14-23 describes what is 
 indeed past for him; but he realises it as present; see Meyer.) (3) 
 Throughout vii. 14-25 the inmost self of the writer is on the side of the 
 Divine vépos : ver. 15 5 OéAm, 6 pio® : ver. 16 cdppnut TO voy : Ver. 22 cuvpdopa 
 T@ vou Tov Oeov: Ver. 25 av’Tds éyw: and this inmost éy# must not be con- 
 founded with the second self which lives év 77 capxi (ver. 18), and has an 
 érepov vépov of its own (ver. 23), and produces acts which the inmost self 
 condemns (vers. 15, 16, 19, 20). (But this harmonises with the fact that in 
 unregenerate man the moral sense and reason are in sympathy with the 
 Law of Gop, while the sin-power predominates in the odpf so completely as 
 to overbear the inner éy# and to destroy all ‘liberum arbitrium in spirituali- 
 bus.’ This may have been true even of the Jew in Rom. ii. 17-24.) (4) The 
 whole passage seems thus understood to correspond with the account of the 
 Tivedpa and the odp{ in Gal. v. 17 ratra Be dvrixerra GAAHAGS, iva ph & dv 
 O€AnTe, TaiTa moATe. (Doubtless that passage does ascribe to the odpé a real 
 remaining power in the life of those who are yet regenerate. It warrants 
 the statement of Art. ix. And much of the language which Rom. vii. 
 14-23 applies to the unregenerate is, as some of the Fathers saw, true of the 
 regenerate also. But the question is to what does Rom. vii. 14-23 refer ?) 
 (5) ‘Non est absurdum ut homo renatus sit simul vetus, ut novus homo 
 operatur malum, et... pugnam sentiat carnis adversum spiritum’ S. Hieron. 
 Dial. ti. contr. Pelag. For ‘this infection of nature doth remain yea in them 
 which are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh ... is not subject to 
 the law of Gop,’ Art. ix. And the ancient Church prayed ‘ut nos Uni- % 
 geniti Tui, nova per carnem nativitas liberet, quos sub peceati jugo vetusta 41 
 servitus tenet.’] 
 
 {Obs 3. Reasons for understanding the passage of the wnregenerate state are given 
 by Meyer, Reithmayr, Tholuck, especially by Julius Miller, Chr. Doctr. of 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VII, vv. 7-25. 123 
 
 Sin, b. ii. ec. 2. These reasons resolve themselves into two. (1) The dififi- 
 culty of reconciling the wempapévos bird tHv Gpapriav ver. 14 ; who does what 
 he would not, ver. 15; in whose odpf there is no good discoverable, ver. 
 18; who is brought into captivity to the vépos ris dyaprias év Tois péAcowv 
 ver, 23; who still cries out ris we piceTa ; «.7.A. Ver. 24, With the Banriobeis 
 who is dead to dyapria in vi. 3-11; or with Gal. iii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. 
 ii. ro. These passages describe not the ideal, but the law, of the regenerate 
 life. (2) The difficulty of supposing that the later Augustinian interpreta- 
 tion of vii. 14-25 can be reconciled with vii. 5, which places the ascendancy 
 of sin within the status naturae sub lege; with vii. 6, which places the 
 kawétns tvedparos within the status gratiae; or with viii. 1 sqq. (Tholuck, in 
 loc.). This difficulty is apparently insuperable. | 
 
 [Obs. 4. In the whole passage vii. 7—viii. 1-11, four distinct spiritual states are 
 described. (1) Man xapis vépov, in the irresponsibility of childhood, vii. 
 7, 9. (2) Man, ird véporv, when the Law acts (a) as an ‘index peccati’ 
 (S. Ambros.) ; and (6) as (through its misuse by dyapria) stimulating ém- 
 Oupia, vii. 8, 10, 11, 13. (3) Man, ov« ind vépor, in internal harmony with 
 the Law. (ctudnm 7O vépw Gre adds Vii. 16; ovvpdopa TH vow ver. 22.) 
 Yet in conflict with dyapria,—a conflict which discloses the intrinsic 
 sanctity of véuos, vii. 14-23. (4) Man, ov« ind vépuov, and reposing in ascer- 
 tained victory over dyapria. ... The question is whether (3) is within or 
 without the frontier of the regenerate state. Looking to the language of 
 Scripture, as well as to actual experience, the difficulties of the latter suppo- 
 sition appear to be the more considerable '.] 
 
 Arg. 1. From the intrinsic nature of the Law, which contrasts 
 with that of the Jew, as the spiritual to the carnal (ver. 14 a). 
 Christians know (épodoynpévov roito S. Chrys.) that the Mosaic 
 Law is mvevparixdés. In form it is a ypdypya ; but in its essence it 
 is the Self-Revelation of the Divine Being, Who is Himself 
 Tvetpa (S. John iv. 24) and it is thus fulfilled by the xara 
 Ilvedpa mepuratodrres viii. 4. Whereas the writer knows himself 
 to be cdpxiwos, made of flesh. 
 
 [Obs. t. The change from the aorists in 7-13 which describe the condition of 
 ‘man prior to and under the law to the presents in ver. 14 sqq. is determined 
 by the proposition ascribing the spiritual nature of the law, which the 
 unredeemed éy# confronts. The Apostle realizes as present an experience 
 which for himself was long since past. ] 
 
 _ [0bs. 2. cdpmvos applied to the unredeemed man is not fleshly, but made of 
 flesh, 2 Cor. iii. 3; 1 Cor. iii. x. Cf. Plat. Legg. x. p. 906 C. The word 
 describes the material phenomenal nature of man, in which sin grows 
 apace, and which renders the moral will fruitless, ] 
 
 1 [This Obs. 4 is not in complete harmony with Obs. 3. After this Analysis was 
 privately printed Dr. Liddon changed his view on the question under dis- 
 cussion, but did not obliterate the traces of his earlier view altogether.—Eb. } 
 
124 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Arg. 2. From the Enslavement of the Jew to the power of sin 
 (ver. 14 b-17). 
 
 [Obs. wempapevos seems to be applicable only to the unregenerate (Dr. Pusey) as 
 it ‘implies an entire giving up of self out of one’s own power.’ The Hebrew 
 Won, LXX mérpacat, used of Ahab by Elijah, 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25; 
 and of the apostate Israelites under Hosea, 2 Kings xvii. 17 émpa@noav Tov 
 Toljoat TO movnpoy évy dpOadpois Kupiov, 1 Mace. i. 15. But disciples of Christ 
 are no longer dodAa THs duaprias Rom. vi. 17; 8. John viii. 34-36.] 
 
 This writer feels himself to be odpxwos, made of flesh, and sold as 
 a slave might be (mempayévos) under the dominion of sin (cf. 
 ver. 23’. He traces his enslavement— 
 
 a. in his imperfect survey of the field of moral action (6 yap 
 karepyafoua, ov ywooko). A slave must often act without 
 knowing why (ver. 15). 
 
 * b. proof of foregoing (yap) in his want of decision. His moral 
 activity (tpacow) is not directed to that which he desires (6 
 6éhw). He actually does (ro) that which he abhors (6 pica) 
 (ver. 15). 
 
 Two deductions : 
 
 a. This opposition of his real desires to his actual conduct 
 implies his real concurrence with the moral excellence of the 
 Law (cippnpe td vépw Ste adds) (ver. 16). 
 
 b. It is no longer his true personality (¢yo) that works this 
 evil, but the sin-principle, to which his true and better self 
 is enslaved (ver. 17). 
 
 [Obs. In ver. 17 év éyot does not, like éy, refer to the self-conscious personality. 
 It is explained in ver. 18 to mean & 7H capxi. This distinction shows that 
 the real éy, even in the circumstances of vers. 15, 16, may be given to 
 Gop. On the ‘empiric ego,’ see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. p. 189. } 
 
 Arg. 3. From the experimental sense of the absence of good in the 
 adpé, i.e. the phenomenal nature, the home of the sin-principle 
 (vers. 18-20), 
 
 This is verified, 
 
 a. by self-introspection. Surveying the inner world, which is 
 open to his view, he sees confronting him (zapdke:rai por) the 
 dev 7d addy, but he is unable to discover the xarepyafecOa rd 
 ka\év. This xakév—in Greek eyes, the dyabdv, ‘quod candore 
 
 | nitet.’ He wills, but he does not achieve it. ; 
 ——s—s«&B (Proof of preceding, ydp) by noting the contrasts between his 
 ' actions and his real will. 
 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VII, vv. 7-25. 125 
 
 He wills good, yet does not effect it (mo), 
 He does not will evil, yet his moral activity is towards it 
 (mpacoo). 
 Deduction from (0b) : 
 
 This shows that the real agent is not now any longer his true 
 personality, but the indwelling sin-principle (ver. 20). 
 
 {0bs. The close correspondence between ver. 19 and ver. 15, with, however, the 
 varied use of mo and mpacow. Also the repetition of ver. 17 at the end of 
 ver. 20,—not merely a strophical arrangement, but describing a single 
 result which is reached from independent points of consideration. | 
 
 Avg. 4. From the resulting perception of a moral dualism in the soul 
 
 (vers. 21-23). 
 
 1. It results (from vers. 14-20, dpa) to the writer that while he 
 wills the Divine Law (rév vopov 76 O€dovrs euoi), in order to do the 
 good (moiv, inf. of parnese) the evil confronts him (mapdkevrac) 
 (ver. 21). 
 
 2. (Fuller statement, by way of justification (ydp) of the fore- 
 going. ) 
 
 a. His inward man, ie. his rational and moral nature (vois), is 
 in true sympathy with the Divine Law, in regard of what is 
 good. Its joy (the law being personified) is also his own 
 (ver. 22). 
 
 b. But he sees a law of a different nature (€repov) in his bodily 
 organs, the instruments of the activity of the odpé (ver. 23). 
 This law 
 
 a. makes war against the vépos rod vods, (local gen.), the law 
 according to which he rejoices inwardly with ioe Divine 
 Law—xnot the Divine Law itself. 
 
 b. makes him prisoner of war (aixuadorif{orra) to the law of the 
 sin-principle (=érepos véyos supr.) in his organs, ie. to 
 itself (ver. 23). 
 
 [Obs. r. The pe in ver. 23 is not the vois, or éow dv@pwros, which continues 
 throughout in the service of the Divine Law (ver. 25 airés éy@ 7O piv vot 
 
 dovrAciw vduw Ocod) ; but the second apparent self which is identified in ver. 
 18 with the odpf, and which is mempapévos tnd Ti dyaprtiav.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. In vers. 22, 23 three laws are mentioned, not four: (1) the vdpos rod 
 @ecod (gen. auct.), the Law given by Gop to Moses, ver. 22 ; (2) the vépos rod 
 vos, the Law which brings his inmost self into sympathy with the Divine 
 Law; (3) the érepos vépos év trois péAeow, which is not distinct from, but 
 strictly identical with, the vépos zis duaprias (ver. 23). S. Aug. de Nup. et 
 Concup. i. 30.) 
 
126 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Arg. 5. From the final crisis and victory (vers. 24, 25). 
 1. Cry for aid (ver. 24). 
 
 a. Condition of the suppliant, radamopés Rev. iii. 17, (word 
 from Greek tragedy,) weighed upon by the capa rod Oavdrov, 
 the body as the seat of this death, as being also the cépa 
 ths dpaprias (vi. 6), the seat of that sin-principle which in its 
 triumph is death. 
 
 [Obs. Delitzsch observes that the very form of this cry shows that it proceeds from 
 a person who is regenerate, but it would equally express the anguish of an 
 unregenerate soul, at the crisis of conversion. | 
 
 b. What he needs,—a Deliverer (ris pe picera:) from the power 
 of sin remaining in him. 
 
 2. The complete Deliverance—termination of the struggle (ver. 
 25). He thanks Gop, through Jesus Christ, the Mediator both 
 of the deliverance and of his thankfulness for it. 
 
 Summary of contents of 14-25 (dpa ov 25b). The general result 
 of the foregoing is that in the phase of struggle which terminates 
 at verse 25, the inner self of the regenerate serves with the vois 
 the law of Gop, but with his cdpé is in the service of the law of 
 sin. This, however, shows the intrinsic holiness of the Law (ver. 
 12), ver. 25. 
 
 C. 
 Morality not imperilled but secured by the Christian’s new 
 Life in Christ through the Holy Spirit (viii. 1-39). 
 
 The foregoing (vii. 14-25) leads (dpa) on by contrast to the 
 complete victory of the Holy Spirit in the ee This 
 victory involves 
 
 §1. 
 Sibed sen of the regenerate life in Christ (viii. 1-11). 
 I. Freedom of the regenerate from amy sentence of condemnation 
 (xardxpysa) excluding from eternal life (vers. 1, 2). 
 
 [Obs. x. The phrases rois év Xpior@ “Inood, Tvedua Xpicrod éxew (ver. 9) and 
 Xpiords év ipiv (ver. 10) refer to the same fact. The Spirit unites us to the 
 
 Divine Humanity of the Son of Gop, so that ‘we dwell in Christ and — 
 
 Christ in us, we are one with Christ and Christ with us.’ On being ‘in’ 
 Christ, see Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 56. 7. The old gloss in the text. rec. pi) Kara. 
 odpka meprnarodot dAAd Kara mvedpa is inappositely introduced from ver. 4:] 
 [0bs. 2. wardxpyya, What faith is represented as effecting in ch. v. 1 is here 
 attributed to the moral freedom granted by the Spirit to the of é Xpo7d. 
 
 
 
 
a 
 
 Dogmatic: ch. VIII, vv. 1-11. 127 
 
 Faith then is not merely a receptive faculty, but the motive power of the 
 Divine life in the soul, and inseparably united to love and obedience. ] 
 
 Arg. This freedom is secured because the law of the Spirit leading 
 to life—the inward power of supernatural grace—has in Christ 
 Jesus (Gal. iv. 31 ; v. 13; S. John viii. 31) freed the regener- 
 ate from the power of the inward law of sin (vii. 23) which 
 leads to death (ver. 2). 
 
 (Obs. 1. The aor. #AevOépwoev points to the historic moment of regeneration as 
 that in which the freedom was achieved. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The véyos tis duaprias is not the Mosaic Moral Law, since that is mvevya- 
 wikds Vii. 14, and Gyos vii. 12; but the inward rule of the sin-principle, 
 vopos év tots péAcow vii. 23, and tis dyaptias ibid. which takes captive 
 (aixpadwrife vii. 23) the ‘empiric ego.’] 
 
 (Obs. 3. (Transitional.) In ver. 3 this 7AevOepwcer (cf. ver. 2) is justified (yap) by 
 showing how the regenerate Christian is freed from the law of sin. His en- 
 franchisement from the law of death follows in vers. 10, 11. ] 
 
 Il. Freedom of the regenerate from the vspos ris épaprias (viii. 3-9). 
 
 I, Impossibility of this freedom from sin under the Mosaic Law. 
 That the law could not achieve it resulted from man’s sinful 
 phenomenal nature, or (cdpé), which rendered the law impotent 
 for good (cf. vii. 8-12) (ver. 3). 
 
 [Obs. 7d ddvvarov x.7.A. nom. absol. It is a heading or title to what follows. The 
 sentence properly begins with 6 @eds. Cf. Meyer, in loc.] 
 
 2. How is this freedom from sin secured under the Gospel ? 
 
 1. Manner of His Appearance among men. €v spompate 
 capxos duaprias, robed in flesh, which looked like sinful 
 flesh (ver. 3). 
 
 2. Occasion of His Appearance among men. epi duaprias 
 with reference to sin. That He might both expiate 
 its guilt, and expel it from man’s nature, specially 
 
 a ; the latter (ver. 3). 
 Dy oP E ¢| > Effects of His Appearance among men. He condemned 
 ae the sin-principle to be deposed from its dominion 
 : over human nature. He did this & 79 capxi which 
 poy He had assumed, and which was representative of 
 
 the world. all human odpé (ver. 3). 
 
 4. Ultimate object of His Appearance among men. That 
 (wa) the rightful demand (d:caiopa i. 32; ii. 26) of 
 the Mosaic Moral Law might be fulfilled in us who 
 
 walk not after the rule (xard) of cdpé, but after that 
 of Lveipa (ver. 4). 
 
128 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 1. The Unique Character of Christ’s Sonship is implied in éavrod. Com- 
 pare idios vids ver. 32, and 6 vids airov 6 povoyerjs 1 S. John iy. g. His 
 pre-existence is implied in réuas; compare Gal. iv. 4 éfaméoreAev ; while 
 the pop?) Geod of Phil. ii. 6 is indirectly suggested by év 6pmowpate k.7.A. 
 The Manifestation of the Eternal Son in a sinless Body, points to His 
 supernatural conception of a Virgin-Mother, which cut off the entail of 
 human sin. (See Origen, in h. J.) If this mystery is not expressly men- 
 tioned by S. Paul, at least no negative inference can be drawn from his 
 silence. } 
 
 [Obs. 2. The Docetic Gnostics and Manichaeans appealed to & épomwpate capkds 
 dpaprias to prove that Christ’s Human Body was not real, but only appa- 
 rent. This would have been more justifiable if duaprias had been omitted. 
 But odpé dyaprias, like cpa tis dyaprias (vi. 6) is a single conception ; it 
 means our phenomenal nature so far as it is the seat of sin. Our Lord’s 
 Flesh was real (1 8. John iv. 3; 1 Tim. iii. 16); but it only resembled 
 ‘sinful flesh.’ époiwpa has a negative relation to dyaprias. Tert. adv. Mare, 
 v. 14 ‘Similitudo ad titulum peccati pertinebit, non ad substantiae 
 mendacium.’ époiwya in Phil. ii. 7 suggests the contrast between the 
 assumed Humanity and the Pre-existent Person of Christ. For the general 
 subject, see Ullmann on the Sinlessness of Christ.) 
 
 [Obs. 3. The condemnation of sin was achieved by its exclusion from the odpé of 
 the Representative Man. (Compare «éxpira in S, John xvi. 11; xii. 31.) 
 By His appearance, it lost its dominion as a universal principle of human 
 nature. In His Sinless Flesh, which He made an offering for sin, sin was 
 condemned and destroyed. All who are truly born again to Him, share 
 this death unto sin by their new birth unto righteousness. As His Death 
 became the Death of all Christians, so His Victory over sin is our common 
 victory, since we are members of His Body, of His Flesh, and of His Bones : 
 Eph. v. 30. ] 
 
 [Obs. 4. mept duaprias seems to negative the Scotist hypothesis that the Incarna- 
 
 ’ tion would have taken place if man had not fallen. Cf. Heb. ii. 14.] 
 
 [Obs. 5. S. Irenaeus adv. Haer. iii. 18. 2 is a clear and beautiful paraphrase of 
 vers. 3, 4. Comp. S. Cyr. Alex. im Joann. lib. ix. p. 820, who insists on 
 Xpiords ayid lov tiv THs capkds pow év éavt@ as the key to the meaning of 
 the passage. | 
 
 ‘ 
 
 3. The condition of retaining this freedom from sin is the coopera- 
 tion of the regenerate will: py xara odpxa mepuatoicw dada : 
 
 kara Tvedpa. (ver. 4.) 
 [Obs, mepimareiy, like Epa Is. xxxviii. 3; Ps. cxix. 1, incedere, vitam instituere. 
 The verb implies habitual conformity of outward and inward conduct to 
 
 a principle. «ard with acc. of the governing rule of life. Compare, how- F 
 ever, Gal. v. 16 mvedpart mepiraretre. | 
 
 x: 4. The value of this freedom from sin, shown by the complete : 
 antithesis between odpé (the seat of ‘the vépos rijs duaprias) and ; 
 Tvedpa, as rival principles of life (vers. 5-9). . 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VIII, vv. 1-11. 129 
 
 (Obs. TIvedya here without the art.=the Holy Spirit. It is not ‘the higher 
 nature of the regenerate man.’ (Harless, &c.) The word does not need 
 the art., being used asa proper name, See Meyer, in loc.} 
 
 This is seen, 
 a. In the difference of their practical interests— 
 
 veer { odpka \ y taal We gapkos 
 of kara i dvTes, Cpovovat Ta 
 veda rod IIvevparos (ver. 5). 
 
 [Obs. dvres substituted for mepmarodytes. Elvat xara describes the fundamental 
 state of the soul; ¢poveiy the development of this state in the inward 
 sphere of thought and will; mep:mareiv xard, in the whole life, outward as 
 well as inward. ¢poveiv and mepnareiv are related to eivat, as the branch 
 and flower are to the root. Cf. Gal. v. 25 ef (@pev mvetpari, mvedpare Kal 
 oroxapev, where (@pyev corresponds to «vat, h. l., and ororxdpev includes 
 gpoveiy and nepmarciv. That ¢poveiv means the concentration of interest 
 upon a subject, and so almost =(nreiv, see Col. iii. 1, 2; Phil. iii. 19.] 
 
 b. In the resvlts to which they instinctively tend. 
 
 cr ae Tis capKds = Odvaros, 
 To ppdvnpa i . ns NRT a 
 rod Ivetparos= or) kat eipnyn (ver. 6). 
 [0bs. In this verse ydp is explicative of the preceding. For this weakened use, 
 see xi. 24; S. Matt. vi. 32; xviii. r1.] 
 
 ce. In their respective relations to Gop, (Sir, reason for ver. 6 a). 
 
 1. Hostile. pa eis Ocdv: cf. ver. 10; Col. i, 21. 
 
 ppdvnpa |2. Rebellious. ody brordacerat tO vow Tov cov. 
 Tis sapKds [This ody ixoréocera is the reason (yd4p) of the éx@pa ver. 1.] 
 
 is 3. Incapable of obedience. ovd¢ yap divara (Se. imordacecbat), 
 i.e. in its present state (ver. 7). 
 
 [Obs. ode Sévera gives the internal reason (ydp) for obx tmordocera. | 
 
 On the other side (8¢), looking at the question in the conerete and 
 practically, 
 ape Gape \ Gem dpéoat ov Svvavrat (ver, -8). 
 évres 
 
 [Obs. x. The antithesis between odpf and avedpa is not here completed. The 
 reason for ver. 6 b is only introduced in vers. 10, 11, in connection with 
 another group of ideas. But it is here implied that the ppévnya rod mvev- 
 
 ' paros is at peace with Gop, because submissive to His will; and that of ev 
 7® mvedpart can and do please Him.]} 
 
 [Obs. 2. The od Svvara, ob Sivavra of vers. 7, 8 are only true of the ppdynya rijs 
 capxés while it lasts. It does not exclude the action of Gon’s converting 
 grace upon the subjects of this gppévnua. The of é& ocapxi are in the cdpf as 
 in the element in which their life exists and moves, and while this is the 
 case they cannot please Gop. of xara odpka (ver. 5) are thosé who make the 
 
  odpé the rule of their life.] ; 
 
 be ta “@re 
 
 
 
130 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 5. Relation of the readers to this antithesis ver. 9 (antithetie 8¢). 
 They are not év capi, but ev mvevtpate since (cirep, cf. S. Chrys. in 
 
 loc.) the Spirit of Gop dwells in them. His dwelling in them’ 
 
 implies their living ‘in’ Him, as the sphere of their life. 
 [Obs. On the évoixnois of the Holy Spirit, Who thus makes the bodies and souls 
 of men, as well as the collective Church, temples of His and of Christ’s 
 Presence, Whose Spirit He is, compare 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19 ; Gal. iv. 6.] 
 
 6. Bearing of this antithesis on the Christian’s relation to 
 Jesus Christ, ver. 9 (antithetic dé). If any man have not the 
 Ilvetpa Xpiorod (Tv. Geod), and so is not év mvevpart, he does not 
 belong to Christ (ver. 9). 
 
 ) [Obs. Mvetya Xprorov is so called because He is sent by Christ, and is the organ 
 
 of His Presence among men, in the Sacraments and in the heart. Not 
 
 ‘our Lord’s Human character,’ but the Holy Ghost, the Mvedpya Ocod (ver. 
 
 9) is here referred to, Phil. i. 19; 1 Pet. i. 11; and as vedpa Xporod in 
 
 order to emphasise ov« éo7w aiTod. } 
 
 IIL. Freedom of the regenerate from the vépos rob Oavirov [cf. viii. 2] 
 
 (vers. 10, 11), 
 
 1. Immediate consequence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of 
 Christ in the regenerate (ver. 10). 
 
 1. The body is (destined to become) a corpse, on account of 
 sin. It is ‘conditioni mortis obstrictum,’ S. Aug. de 
 Pecc. Merit. et Rem. i. 7. This dyapria is the original sin 
 transmitted from our first parent. Comp. chap. v. 12. 
 But, 
 
 2. the personal spirit (ré mveipa) not merely ¢7, but is (on. 
 This is 6a dixaoovvny. The justified spirit of the regene- 
 rate is Life, because it bears within itself both Christ, Who 
 is the Life Itself, and His Spirit. The justification which 
 Christ works im us through His Spirit is the ground of 
 this (w7 (ver. 10). 
 
 2. More remote consequence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 
 of Christ in the regenerate (ver. 11). 
 
 1. The future fact. The mortal bodies of the regenerate will 
 hereafter be quickened by Gop the Father at the Resur- 
 rection (ver. 11). 
 
 2. Its motive. These bodies, during life, have been inhabited 
 by the Spirit of Him Who raised up Jesus from the dead. 
 For the honour of that Spirit (8:4 16 évow«odv Ivedpa) He 
 
 which He wrought in the case of His Son (ver. 11), 
 
 
 
 will repeat in the bodies of the oi év Xpi7é the miracle 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VIII, vv. 12-30. 131 
 
 [Obs. r. In ver. to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Christians is described 
 
 by its accompanying effect, Xpiords év tyiv. In ver. 11 He is 7d Mvedpa 700 
 éyeipavtos “Incodv éx vexpOv, as though His Presence pledged the Father 
 to be consistent with His past action in the case of Jesus. This of/course 
 does not at all imply that the Spirit’s modus inhabitationis in Christ and in 
 Christians is identical. ] 
 
 [Obs, 2. In ver. 11 51d 76 évorxodv abrod Mvedpa &v byiv would seem to be a better- 
 
 supported reading than &d rod évorxodvros avrov Tvedparos x.7.A. In the last 
 case the Spirit would be the instrument of the (woroijas of Christians, in 
 the first His past indwelling is the reason for it. The latter reading was 
 supported by the Catholic opponents of the Macedonian heresy in the 4th 
 and 5th centuries, probably because it appeared to teach the personality of the 
 Holy Ghost more distinctly. But the text must have varied at a much 
 earlier date. Observe (woranoe, not éyepe. The latter will be common to 
 the unregenerate as well as the regenerate (cf. Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. v. 10 ;/ 
 S. Matt. xxv. 31, 32; S. Johnv. 28); but it excludes the moral elements} 
 of (wf. On the general subject of the Resurrection of the Body, see/ 
 Pearson, On the Creed, Art. xi.], 
 
 [Obs. 3. The raising of our Lord from the grave is, as in ver. 11, ascribed to the 
 
 Father in Gal. i. 1; Eph. i. 20; ef. Acts ii. 32; but also by our Lord to His 
 own agency, S. John ii. 19, 21; S. John x.17, 18. See Pearson, On the Creed, 
 Art. v.] 
 
 § 2, 
 
 Obligations of the regenerate life in Christ (viii. 12-30). 
 
 I. Duty of the Regenerate stated generally and negatively (12-17). 
 
 It follows (dpa ody ver. 12) from the relation of the Holy Spirit to our 
 Ovnra owpara, described in ver. 10, 11, that 
 
 Tuests. Christians are debtors; but they do not owe any debt of 
 obedience to the odpé with the view of leading carnal lives (ver. 12). 
 
 [0bs. The Apostle is arguing against the assumptions that (1) 76 xara cdpka Civ 
 
 is the natural law of human life ; and that (2) the onus probandi lies with 
 those who would dispute it. He approaches the discussion (dpa oy ver. 12) 
 from the high vantage ground occupied in ver. 1-11. Christians cannot be 
 bound to obey a law of life, from which it is their happiness to be emanci- 
 _ pated.] 
 
 Arg. 1. (ex consequentiis.) Life according to the standard of 
 cdpé leads to death ; while mortification of the animal actions of 
 the body, (mpd§ers rod caparos, cf. vii- 23,) by the power of the 
 Holy Spirit, leads to life (ver. 13). 
 
 Arg. 2. From the conditions and privileges of the vidrns Gcod to 
 which Christians are admitted (14-17). For 
 
 K 2 
 
132 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 a. This visrys, although a product of Gon’s grace (S. John i. 
 13), depends for its continuance on man’s passive 
 obedience to the leading of the Holy Spirit of Gop (ver. 
 14). 
 
 b. It implies trustful intimacy with a Holy Gop. "What 
 Christians have received is (a) not such a spirit as might 
 rule a slave, so that they should now again, as under the 
 law, live in terror; but (b) the Uvedpua viobecius, the Spirit 
 that inspires and befits an adopted son. In Him, as in 
 the element of their new life, Christians fervently speak 
 to Gop in prayer, as to their Father (ver. 15). 
 
 c. Its reality is concurrently attested on one side by the 
 Spirit speaking from without through Revelation and in 
 the Church, and on the other by the personal conscious 
 spirit of the Christian, who knows that he stands towards 
 Gop in this new relation (ver. 16). 
 
 d. It involves the further relation (in accordance with those 
 instincts which are implanted in our nature, and which 
 express themselves in human law) of heirship towards 
 Gop and co-hewship with Christ. This, however, is 
 conditioned; and the condition expresses the second 
 obligation of the Regenerate Life, viz. suffering with 
 Christ (ver. 17). 
 
 [Obs. x. Connection of thought (vers. 13-17). The attributes of sonship, (1) 
 guidance by the Holy Spirit, (2) intimacy with Gop as a Father in prayer, 
 (3) the inner sense of sonship corresponding to the attestation of the Spirit, 
 and (4) the ‘heirship’ of Gop and co-heirship with Christ,—all forbid the 
 thought of our being épe:Aéra: 7H capi. But the exact relation of the verses 
 (14-7) to each other is as follows: ver. 14 supplies a reason (yap) for (noec8e 
 in ver, 13, since the future (w7 is destined for the réxva Ocod (ver. 17 ; Gal. 
 iv. 7); ver. 15 explains (ydp) the applicability of ver. 14 to the readers ; ver. 
 16 is confirmatory of ver. 15; and ver. 17 unfolds the additional fact of 
 «Anpovopia Which is involved in vidrns.] a 
 
 [Obs. 2. Although dyovra is passive (cf. S. John iii. 8; iv. 14; 2 ‘Tim. iii, 6: 
 t Cor. xii. 2; S. Matt. iv. 1; S. Luke iv. 1), it does not compromise the free- 
 dom of the human will. The gift of the Spirit restores that freedom 
 by rescuing man from the dominion of sin and nature under which he 
 had fallen. §. Aug. Serm. de Verb. Apostoli, clvi. c. 11 ‘Dicit mihi aliquis, 
 Ergo agimur et non agimus. Immo et agis et ageris; et tunc bene agis, si 
 a bono agaris. Spiritus enim Dei, qui te agit agentibus adjutor est.’] 
 
 [Obs. 3. viol cod. In the Old Testament the relation of Gop’s people to Himself 
 was one of fear. (Ex. xix. 12 sqq. ; Heb. xii 18 sqq.) Kings and single 
 members of the Theocracy were named sons of Jehovah, This external 
 
 ‘ 
 
 eecenanncromenes 
 
 A ees 
 
 
 
 
 
ss oe ed 
 
 Dogmatic: ch. VAI, vv. 12-30. 133 
 
 theocratic distinction is, under the Gospel, both in itself spiritualised, and 
 extended to all living members of the Church. As this Christian vidrns does 
 not belong to man by nature, it is from S. Paul’s point of view a viodecia : 
 but this, as explained by S. John, involves a real second yévvqas, S. John 
 i. 13. viodecia, only in S. Paul (@éc0a: vidv Plat. Legg. xi. 929), denotes the 
 assumption into sonship by an act of Gon’s grace, as distinct from the 
 sonship which results from birth. Used of (a) Israel’s relation to Gop, in 
 contrast with the heathen peoples, Rom. ix. 4, (b) the condition of true 
 Christians as effected by the Holy Spirit (Gal. iv. 5; Eph. i. 5, and 2. 1.) 
 in this life, and (c) the same condition as perfected after Christ’s Second 
 Coming, Rom. viii. 23, ef. ver. 19. ’ABBa 6 marhp S. Mark xiv. 36; Gal. 
 iv.6; \3/” carefully preserved by Christians, as the very word used by 
 Christ in prayer, and in teaching His disciples to pray. S. Aug. thinks 
 that the two words point to Gop’s common fatherhood towards Jews and 
 Gentiles under the Gospel. ] 
 
 [Obs. 4. In ver. 16 is a sharply-drawn distinction between the Absolute and 
 Divine Mvedua, and man’s mvedya or conscious personality, the 70 mvetdpa Tot 
 GvO@pwrov 76 &v aitG@ 1 Cor. ii. 11. These concur, the first speaking from with- 
 out through revelation, and the second from within in the depths of 
 consciousness ; and they witness to the reality of the Christian vidrns @cov. 
 Not that this cvppaprupeiy is a single act; the prep. (asin study, ovvjdopa, 
 vii. 16, 22) need only point to concurrent although independent action. 
 The passage affords no real support to the theory of a ‘ fides specialis’ or 
 any such particular assurance of justification and sonship, as may be inde- 
 pendent of obedience, and due to physical temperament. The certainty 
 which results from the svppaprupeiv is a moral one.] 
 
 [Obs, 5. Inver. 17 xai kAnpovdua. Neither here, nor in Gal. iv. 7, is the Apostle’s 
 language based on the Jewish law of inheritance, according to which the 
 legitimately-born sons alone (the first-born having a double portion, Deut. 
 xxi. 17) were, as a rule, intestate heirs ; but on the Roman law, according to 
 which sons and daughters, whether born in marriage or adopted children 
 (and the Apostle conceives of Christians as such), yvere intestate heirs, Cf. 
 Ewald, Alterth. p. 238 sqq.; Meyer on Gal. iv. 7. For the full meaning of 
 ovyxAnpovéyo. 5¢ Xp. ef. S. John xvii. 24; S. Matt. xix. 28; .1 Cor. vi. 2; 
 2 Tim. ii. 12; S. Aug. in Ps. xlix. 2 ‘Tanta charitas est in illo haerede, ut 
 vyoluerit habere cohaeredes: haereditas autem, in qua cohaeredes Christi 
 sumus, non minuitur copia possessorum, non fit angustior numerositate 
 cohaeredum ; sed tanta est multis quanta Dang tanta singulis quanta 
 omnibus.’] 
 
 II. Duty of the regenerate stated positively and specifically (18-30). 
 The Law of suffering with Christ. 
 § Tuests. Christians should gladly share Christ's sufferings, that 
 they may share His glory (cimep ovprdcyxoper, iva kai ovvdogacbaper) 
 (ver. 17 b). 
 
 _ [0bs. Those who for the truth’s sake accept suffering, S. Matt. x. 38; xvi. 24, 
 suffer Bias Christ; 1 Pet. iv. 13 xowoveite Trois Tov Xpiorov maOnpacw : S. Matt. 
 
 : 
 
134 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 XX. 22 Sdvacbe meiv 7d ToTH pov d éyw pédAAw Tivery, Kat 76 Barriopa } éyw BanTi- 
 Copa, BanticOjva ; This suffering was a necessary preliminary to a share in 
 Christ’s glory (¢imep) : because it is a mark of real union with Christ suffer- 
 ing and glorified, of true incorporation with His Body Mystical ; ct. Acts ix. 
 4 Ti pe SidKes 5 | 
 
 Encouragement to this cvprdcxew (vers. 18-30). 
 
 Reason 1. (for encouragement to suffer with Christ) (vers. 18-25). 
 The revelation of glory which awaits us altogether transcends 
 our present sufferings (ver. 18). 
 
 [Obs. 7a rabqpara Tod viv Katpod refers to actual or impending persecutions ; dé¢a 
 to the irradiation of the bodies and souls of the regenerate hereafter ; 
 péddoveav to the aidv pédAdAwy, the future age of the completed Messianic . 
 kingdom, which will date from the Second Coming of Christ, and the 
 general resurrection. Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 17 70 ydp mapaurixa éhappov rhs Odipews 
 Hpav nad’ irepBodjy els SwepBodry aidviov Bapos 5béyns Karepyacerac jyiv. | 
 
 Proof of the reality of this transcendent glory (vers. 19-25). (A) 
 from irrational nature (19-22); (B) from the experience of 
 Christians (23-25). 
 
 (A) Proof from irrational nature. (vers. 19-22). 
 
 Arg. a. (Warrant (yép) of péAdoveay ver. 18). From the ex- 
 pectant aspect of nature. The reality of this coming revelation 
 of the glory of the ‘sons of Gop’ may be inferred from the 
 attitude of expectancy, directed towards an unrealised future, 
 which is observable in the whole irrational creation (ver. 19). 
 
 Obs. r. xttows here not the act of creation, but the creature, as S. Mark x. 6; 
 xiii. 19; 2S. Pet. iii. 4; Wisd. ii. 6: and in a more limited sense, S. Mark 
 xvi. 15; Col. i. 15, 23; Heb. iv. 13. S. Augustine understands by it the 
 perishing element in human life : ‘quidquid nunc in homine laborat et 
 corruptioni subjacet.’ (Zxpos. propos. liti. ex Epist.ad Rom.) Or unconverted 
 humanity, ‘ea, quae tantummodo creatura est, nondum per fidem aggregata 
 numero filiorum Dei.’ §. Paul would have named this, not «riots, but xdcpos. 
 Theodoret would include even the angels under «riots, while S. Chrysostom _ 
 limits it to inanimate objects. It would seem to mean animate and inani- 
 mate nature, in opposition to man; in fact what we generally term 
 ‘nature.’ ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. droxapadoxia, ‘ waiting expectation,’ from dmé, xépa, and 5oxedw, erecto capite * 
 prospicere : S. Chrys. 4 oé5pa mpoodoxia (tom. ix. p. 581 ed. Ben.), Phil. i. a6, *: = 5, 
 Ascribed by a bold prosopopoeia to nature. For the idea of a coming glorific ” Ste aa 
 
 - tion of nature, see Is. xi. 6 sqq. ; Ezek. xxxvii ; Is. lxv. 17; Ixvi. 1; Ps. cil. & 
 
 27; Eisenmenger, Entd. Jud. ii. p. 367 Sqq., 824 sqq. } : €. ; r 
 
 Obs. 3. The pessimist philosophy of Schopenhauer dwells constantly, although 
 with a very different drift, on this aspect of nature. ‘All human life is 
 
 “essentially suffering,’ is his favourite thesis. Cf. Die Welt als Wille und Vorstel- 
 lung, ‘ Alles Leben Leiden ist,’ § 56 (vol. i. p. 356). Of. 57, 59-] Er 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VIII, vv. 12-30. 135 
 
 Arg. b. From the grounds of this expectant aspect of nature. 
 The droxapadoxia of the creature is to be explained by (yap ver. 
 20) its instinctively felt paradrns, ‘emptiness,’ ‘nothingness ’ 
 
 (ver. 20). 
 [Obs. For paradrns see Eph. iv. 17; 2S. Pet. ii. 18. It seems that émorayjva 7H 
 paradrnr here introduces the state described as dSovAcia Ts POopas in ver. 21. 
 S. Chrysostom paraphrases ver. 20, tom. ix. p. 582, by p@apr? yéyove, as though 
 paradrns and ~Gopa were practically coincident, although ¢@op4 is developed 
 out of paradrns. patadrns, corresponding to 217 in Ecclesiastes, seems to be 
 the felt void, objectlessness, of nature, apart from Gop. paraidérys is con- 
 
 ceived of as a mistress to which nature has been subjected (imerdyn) as 
 a slave. ] 
 
 _ 
 
 . at a particular historical epoch (émerdyn, hist. 
 aor.), i.e. the Fall. Gen. iii. 17 (ver. 20). 
 
 . through the agency of Gop (really 6 imoragas, 
 He did this on account of man’s guilt) 
 (ver. 20). 
 
 . on account of Gop (8:4 rév trordgavra) and in 
 
 Circumstances order to satisfy His Will (ver. 20). 
 of this subjection 
 
 of nature to 
 
 paraorns. 
 
 It took place 5: 
 
 Ny 
 
 vo 
 
 4. without the will of nature itself, odx éxotca, 
 
 - invitaé et repugnante natura (ver. 20). 
 
 but with the appended condition of a hope, 
 that not merely the children of Gop, but 
 irrational nature as well, would be delivered 
 from the bondage which consists in cor- 
 ruption (gen. apposit.) into the freedom 
 which consists (gen. apposit.) in the glory 
 of the children of Gop (ver. 21). 
 
 [Obs. S. Chrys. and others understand Adam by the imordfas. On man’s account 
 and by his act nature was subjected to vanity ; nature was originally man’s 
 servant, a kind of second and more spacious body to the human spirit. Had 
 man never fallen, nature, like the human body, would have ever realized 
 its true object in subjection to his self-conscious spirit. But with the fall, 
 a separation took place between the spirit of man on one side, and his body 
 and nature on the other; and the latter, no longer sharing the immortality 
 of his spirit, fell under the power of paradrys and ¢Oopd. ... We should, 
 
 however,-have expected some expression in the text pointing to Adam as 
 the imordgas ; the text assumes that the drordgas is well known. ] 
 
 Arg. c. From the universal and unceasing character of this travail 
 of nature (ver. 22). This condition of nature, which is a point of 
 Christian knowledge, (cidapev, ii, 2 ; ili. 19 ; vii. 14), shows (yap 
 
 
 
136 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 ver, 22) that a hope of deliverance (én’ édmid: ver. 20) is left; 
 had this been otherwise, nature would have ceased, ere now, 
 its cvorevagew and cuvadivew (ver. 22). 
 
 (B) Proof from the experience of Christians. (23-25). 
 
 These sighs are not confined (od pdvoy dé) to irrational nature. They 
 are shared in by Christians, who thus afford a decisive proof of 
 the well-founded character of the ¢eAmis in ver. 20. 
 
 Arg. a. Although Christians have received the drapyi rod Tveduaros, 
 yet they too sigh inwardly, waiting as they do for the complete 
 realisation of their viodeoia, which as yet (ver. 15) they possess 
 only imperfectly, and which the redemption of the body from 
 corruption is necessary to complete. This crevdfew points to the 
 future dmoxad\vyis in ver. 19 (ver. 23). 
 
 [Obs. 1. dmapy?) rod Tvedparos (partitive gen.) possessed by Christians in this life, and 
 in contrast to the full possession of Him in the life to come. Thus it corre- 
 sponds with dppaBay tov Mvevparos 2 Cor. i. 22, ef. Eph. i. 14, where the partial 
 gift of the Spirit here is represented as an earnest of the whole which is to 
 follow. The contrast does not lie with (1) unconverted mankind who had 
 not any such share of the Spirit as to suggest it, or (2) with any lesser gifts 
 of the Spirit in the post-Apostolic age. Ifa gen. apposit., it must =the Spirit 
 as first-fruits, viz. of a state of glory. ]} 
 
 [Obs. 2. The dmoA’tpwow tod cwpyaros is an epexegetical explanation of the com- 
 plete viodecia, By being thus redeemed from the defects of its earthly con: 
 dition, the body will become a c@pa ap@apror, like the body of Jesus glorified. 
 (1 Cor. xv. 51; 2 Cor. v. 2 sqq.; Phil. iii. 21.) Or, in the case of those who 
 die before the Second Advent, it will be raised up as such (1 Cor. xv. 42 
 sqq.). Not ‘redemption from the body,’ as Fritzsche and others: judy 
 would probably have been added, had owparos been a gen. obj. | 
 
 Arg. b. This expectation of the complete viodecia by Christians is 
 (yp) itself in keeping with the conditions under which they had 
 been made partakers of salvation, (€cd6nuev), They possessed oh 
 salvation, not altogether in actual reality, but, so far as the By 
 redemption of the body is concerned, in hope. Had this object Es) 
 of hope (éAris) been already seen, it would thereby have ceased es 
 to be one; hope has ceased, when we behold its object (ver. % 
 24). Accordingly, Christians patiently look out for a future - 
 which they do not see, but for which they hope (ver. 25). 
 ‘This future is the droxad\uyis ray vidv rod Geod Ver. 19. . 
 
 
 
 
 [Obs. For the objective sense of éAmis in ver. 24, comp. Col. i. 5 éAms drone pévn : 
 1 Tim. i. 1; Heb, vi. 18.) © 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VIII, vv. 12-30. 137 
 
 Reason 2. (for encouragement to suffer with Christ), (vers. 26, 27). 
 The Holy Ghost assists Christians. 
 
 (Corresponding to our waiting with patience (dcavrws) is the assistance, on Gop’s 
 side, of the Holy Spirit, (ver. 26).] 
 
 In this assistance of the Holy Spirit, note 
 
 1. Its general character. By this assistance He cooperates, actively, 
 with our weakness (ver. 26). 
 
 [0bs. The activity of the Divine Mvedya is here again, as in vers. 16, 23, distinguished 
 clearly from the subjective consciousness of the soul. The Spirit ovvav7iAap- 
 Bavera 77H doGeveia : He joins His activity to that natural weakness in us, which 
 makes tropzovn (ver. 25) so difficult. Observe the idea of concurrence in 
 ouv-.] 
 
 The Reason for this assistance (yap) is to be discovered in one 
 particular want, viz. our ignorance of what to pray for, 
 according to certain circumstances («a0 dei). This is relieved 
 
 _by the Holy Spirit, in whose assistance note further 
 
 2. Its specific character. By this assistance He interposes, on our 
 benefit, with Gop in prayer, which takes the shape of sighs 
 whose meaning no words can convey (ver. 26). 
 
 [Obs. r. SoS. Paul himself had prayed iép rot oxdAomos, but in vain ; 8. Chrys. : cf. 
 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9.] 
 
 (Obs. 2. twepevrvyxaver (dm. Aey.) = evruyxave brép Huav, scil. To Oecd. Cf. vers. 27, 
 34; Heb. vii. 25. The orevaypol dAdAnro, our sighs, the full meaning of 
 which cannot be expressed in human speech. That these sighs may be ex- 
 pressed, as sighs, outwardly, is possible; like the charisma of yAwooas 
 Aadeiy 1 Cor. xiv. 2-4, 13sqq. S. Aug. Tr. vi. in Joann. 2 ‘Non ergo Spiri- 
 tus Sanctus in semetipso, apud semetipsum, in illa Trinitate, in illa beati- 
 tudine, in illa aeternitate substantiae gemit, sed in nobis gemit, quia 
 gemere nos facit. Nee parva res est, quod nos docet Spiritus S. gemere ; 
 insinuat enim nobis quia peregrinamur, et docet nos in patriam suspirare, 
 et ipso desiderio gemimus.’ Origen. Expos. in loc. (vol. iv. p. 602 Ben.) ‘Non 
 verbis offerre dicitur Spiritus interpellationem pro sanctis, sed gemitibus, et 
 non communibus istis gemitibus, .sed inenarrabilibus. Quomodo enim 
 enarrari potest, quod Spiritus Dei loquitur Deo, cum interdum nec ipse qui- 
 dem noster Spiritus quod sentit et intelligit sermone possit exponere ?’ 
 Note here (1) the dogmatic bearing of this verse on the personality of the 
 Holy Ghost, Who is clearly distinguished as an agent (a) from Gop the 
 Father Whose Spirit He is, and (b) from the human spirit within which He 
 sighs; and (2) its relation to the higher and supernatural kind of mental 
 prayer, described by Tauler and other Christian Mystics, in which the 
 collective powers of the soul are stilled, and the Divine Spirit alone is 
 
 active. It is no longer, as in the lower form of mental prayer,man who 
 
 * 
 
 
 
138 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 prays, but the Holy Ghost Who prays in him: in such prayer man is lost 
 to himself in Gop.] 
 
 3. Its real value. It is understood by Him to Whom it is addressed. 
 
 Obj. It is impossible to say what value there is in prayer which 
 takes the form of dAadnrot orevaypoi. 
 
 Resp. True; if man were addressed in prayer. But untzue in fact. 
 For 
 
 (1) this prayer is addressed to Gop, the Searcher of hearts. 
 
 (2) He knows that the specific dpdvnua of the interceding 
 Spirit is (i.e. what the Spirit intends in prayer), viz. to 
 make intercession (a) for Christians, (6) according to the 
 Divine Will (ver. 27). 
 
 [Obs. The title épevvav rds xapdias, applied to Gon, is of peculiar solemnity; 1 Sam. 
 Xvi. 7; I Kings viii. 39; Psalm vii. 10; Jer. xvii. gsqq. The 4), or «apdia, 
 is the central chamber of self-conscious life in the personal spirit of man. 
 Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. pp. 292 ff. ] 
 
 Reason 3. (for encouragement to suffer with Christ), (28-30). All 
 things (including suffering) cooperate with those who love Gop 
 to promote their good (ver. 28). 
 
 [0bs. 1. This is a Christian conviction (oiéaper), which is set off against (5€) the 
 orevatouev of the regenerate in ver. 23 sqq. The mévra include the ma@qpata 
 Tov viv Kapov (ver. 18). The ovvepyciv refers not to the concurrence of all 
 circumstances, but to the cooperation of all with the dyanévres Tov cdr. 
 (Cf. Mark xvi. 20; 2 Cor. vi. 1; S. James ii, 22.) The dya0dv is purposely 
 indefinite, because so inclusive. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. mavra here does not appear to include sinful acts, into which the regene- 
 rate may fall ; the regenerate as such sinneth not. 18. John iii. 9; iv. 7. 
 It is only as ruled by the old nature that he sins. 8. Chrys. limits révra to 
 the sum of hindrances and sufferings which Christians experience in serving 
 Gop. Yet S. Aug. takes in their falls as well: ‘adeo prorsus omnia, ut si 
 etiam qui eorum deviant, et exorbitant, etiam hoc ipsum eis faciat proficere 
 in bonum, quia humiliores redeunt atque doctiores,’ De Corrept. et Grat. 
 
 cap. 9. ] = 
 
 Arg. 1. Those who do love Gop are xara mpééeow xkdnrot, [and, as 
 such, are natural objects of His loving care, Who has thus — 
 from all eternity proposed to call them to Himself] (ver. 28). 
 
 [Obs 1. mpé@eots is understood by S. Chrysostom of the resolve of the called to 
 
 ' obey Gop’s voice : ox 7 KARots pdvov, GAAA Kai 7) mpdOects TOV KadOUPEVaV THY 
 
 owrnpiay eipyaoaro. And this human zpécors is mentioned in Acts xi. 23 ; 
 
 2 Tim. iii. 10. But the whole connection shows that the mpé#eas here is 
 
 that which has existed from eternity in the Divine Mind; ch Rom.ix. ir 
 +1 ot " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VIII, vv. 22-30. 139 
 
 mpddeats Tod Geov: Eph. i. 11 mpoopicOévres xara mpddecw rod ta mdvta évep- 
 yoovros kara tiv BovAry Tov OeAjpatos av’tod: Eph. iii. rx xatd mpddecw rav 
 aidvew iy énoinoev év TH Xpiot@ “Incod. The opposite account of the motive 
 of the «Ajais is rejected in 2 Tim. i. 9 xadécavros Huds KAnoE ayia ob Kata Ta 
 Epya Hpav, GAAd ard idiay mpdbeow Kat xdpw Tv So0beicay hiv év Xp. 1. wpd 
 xpdéver aiaviov. This mpd0eos is dictated by His Eternal Love ; it is eddoxia 
 iv mpoébero év atts Eph. i. 9.] 
 
 [0bs. 2. The Divine «A7ja1s emerges into time and history in the preaching of the 
 
 Gospel ; and, in the widest sense of the expression, all are said to be «Anroi 
 who are reached by it. But of these the many are contrasted by our Lord 
 with the agro (S. Matt. xxii. 8), and with the é«Aexroi (S. Matt. xx. 16), who 
 are comparatively few. These last are «Anroi in a narrower sense ; they hear 
 and obey. Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 2, 24. They are the last class described in 
 the Parable of the Sower (S. Luke viii. 8, 15’, and thus correspond to the 
 Ternpnuéevar KAnTot of S. Jude 1, and to the «ard mpdeow KAnroi of this 
 passage. | 
 
 Arg. 2. That all things must cooperate with those who love Gop 
 for good becomes clearer, if the successive stages of Gon’s card 
 mpddeow kAjows in its majestic development through eternity and 
 time are considered (vers. 29, 30). 
 
 § Five points are distinguishable in this xara mpdécow kdjous (vers. 
 29, 30). 
 
 1. The Divine Foreknowledge (ods mpoéyyw). Gop foreknew the 
 dyarévres Tov Gedy (ver. 29). 
 
 [Obs. This mpoéyvw is strictly an act of the Divine Intelligence: novit suos ante- 
 
 quam vocaret. It has been understood to mean a creative knowledge,— 
 a knowledge which includes affection and choice ; and is thus an actus volun- 
 tatis as well as an actus intellectus. So Origen, iv. p. 604 ‘Cognovisse suos 
 dicitur, hoe est, in dilectione habuisse sibique socidsse.” But the New 
 Testament use of the word does not sanction this (not even in Rom. xi. 2; 
 1 S. Pet. i. 20), or any other meaning than to know beforehand. Acts xxvi. 5; 
 28. Pet. iii. 17. For yyvdoneayr, see S. John ii. 24, 25; xX. 14, 27; 2 Tim. ii. 
 19; and especially S. John vi. 69 for the general sense. } 
 
 2. The Divine Fore-ordaining (pooper). Gop predestined the 
 foreknown to be like His Son (ver. 29). 
 
 [Obs. To say that the mpoopicpds, following the mpéyvwors is propter praevisu merita, 
 
 would be semi-pelagian ; it is not even post praevisa merita. For the mpoopioyuds 
 includes the gifts of grace, as well as the glory of the world to come. ‘Sub 
 praedestinatione cadit omne beneficium salutare, quod est homini ab 
 aeterno divinitus praeparatum. Unde eadem ratione, omnia beneficia quae 
 nobis confert ex tempore, praeparavit nobis ab aeterno. Unde ponere quod 
 aliquod meritum ex parte nostra praesupponatur, cujus praescientia sit ratio 
 praedestinationis, nihil est aliud quam gratiam ponere dari ex meritis nostris, 
 
140 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 et quod principium bonorum operum est ex nobis, et consummatio est ex 
 Deo,’ Aquin. in loc. } 
 
 a. Form of this Predestination. Our conformity to the Image 
 of His Son (a) in suffering, perhaps, (cvpmacxew ver. 17), 
 but chiefly (b) in glory (vioGeviay, thy arohitpwow Tod cHpatos 
 ver. 23) (ver. 29). 
 
 [Obs. ovppdppous ris eixdvos, gen. of dependence, where we should have expected a dat. 
 after a word compounded with ovv. In Christ our Lord, according to Phil. 
 li. 6, 7, there is a two-fold poppy. As being in the popd? Ocov, He is the 
 Image of the Invisible God: Col. i. 15. In the poppy SovAov He has so 
 entered into the conditions of our nature that we can be ovppoppot with 
 Him. Especially is conformity with His Glorified Manhood the form to 
 which true Christians are predestined: x Cor. xv. 49; Phil. iii. 21 «is 76 
 yevécba aitd (sc. our body of humiliation) ovppoppov TO owpart THs BdEns 
 avrov. | 
 
 b. Final Aim (eis ré) of this Predestination. That Christ might 
 be the zpwrdrokos év moddois ddeAgois. His glory is the Final 
 Cause of that of His members (ver. 29). 
 
 [0bs. While our Lord, in his Eternal Relation to the Father, is the povoyerjs, 
 the One and only Son of Gop, He is the mpwréroxos relatively to the adopted 
 viot @eov, whose conformity to His Image is thus essential to His fully 
 entering upon this relation towards them, while it has its basis in the 
 communication of His new nature by Grace. As the mpwrdroxes He 
 addresses His brethren in S. John xx. 17, and rises from the dead, Col. i. 
 18. See on this subject, S. Cyr. Alex. Thesaur. Assert. 25, p. 236.] 
 
 3. The Divine Call to the Predestined (éxdAece). Here the Divine 
 mpdbeors takes shape in time (ver. 30). 
 
 [Obs. The xAjors is partly external, through the preaching of the Gospel ; partly 
 
 internal, as being the appeal of the Divine Spirit to the heart. Cf. S. 
 
 John x. 27; Acts xiii. 48; 2 Tim. i. 9. They who obey the «Ajots are 
 emphatically the «Anroi and they obey because they are mpowpicpévor. } 
 
 4. The Divine Justification of the Called (éxalwcev) (ver. 30). 
 (Cf. iii. 26; iv. 5, 25; v. 19; Viii. 4.] 
 5. The Divine Glorification of the Justified (éddéacev) (ver. 30). 
 
 [Obs. r. On the close connection between Justification and Glory, see ii. 7; vers. 
 9, 17, 21; Vi. 23; Viii. 10-17. ] 
 
 [Obs, 2, é5dgace is not an aor. used for a fut. Each of these acts is viewed as 
 already historically accomplished in the Divine Mind; the last not less 
 than the first. There is no succession in Gon’s thoughts and resolves ; all 
 that was and is and is to come is seen at once, as present in its completeness 
 to the Infinite Mind, which sees all at a glance.) 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VIII, vv. 31-39. 141 
 
 dependent of our cooperation Intelligence eee 
 
 [Obs. 3. (i) as an eternal act of Gop, in- | . (in the Divine 
 or praevisa merita, is ii, in the Divine Will, mpoopio pds. 
 
 The «Ajo | (ii) as emerging into time, and ... | iInitsapproach A 
 ata mpd- implying the cooperation i to the soul aged 
 dec, of the predestinated, 1. in its work upon 
 which, however, is a the soul Sixatwars. 
 invariable, is v. inits final results, d5ofacpds.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. On the general subject, see Bp. Browne, Articles, At. xvii. sect. 1. 
 History : Martensen’s Dogmatik, §§ 210-224; Petavius, de Leo Deique proprie- 
 tatibus, Libri ix, x ; Weiss, Biblische Theologie des N. T. p. 144 sqq.] 
 
 § 3. 
 Permanence of the regenerate life in Christ (viii. 31-39). 
 This permanence is warranted by three arguments. 
 
 Arg. 1. From the relation of the of év Xporé to Gop the Father 
 (31-34 a). 
 
 [Obs. In ver. 31 oy shows the logical relation between vers. 29, 30, and 31 sqq. 
 
 It is in view of the foregoing description of the predestination of the saints 
 
 (pds radra) that the Apostle does say in the name of the of év Xporg what 
 follows (vers. 31-39). ] 
 
 a. Gop is their Guardian (imép jpév). With such protection, 
 an attack from any quarter must fail (ver. 31). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The question ti otv époduev ; asked in the name of the elect, is answered 
 by another question, which contains the beginning of what the elect do say, 
 ei 6 eds, #.7.A. Resolved into an affirmative proposition it would be, Since 
 Gop guards us, none can harm us. On the opposition between imép and 
 xara, cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 8.] 
 
 (Obs, 2. iwép jyav is a summary of vers. 29, 30. The thought is that of Ps. xxvii. 
 1; 8. John x. 28 sqq.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Transitional. intp judv is justified also by ver. 32. 8s ye used for oz: as a 
 causal particle. He who in deed, etc.] 
 
 b. Gon is their Benefactor, therefore they will want nothing. 
 His Bounty 
 
 (i) in the past is seen in the astonishing surrender even of 
 His Own Son to death (imep jpav ravror). 
 
 (ii) in the future may be expected freely to bestow all 
 things necessary to Salvation in and with this 
 transcendent gift of His Son (ver. 32). 
 
142 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 {Obvs. x. The arg. (cf. ver. 32) is a majori ad minus: the greater implies the less. 
 The surrender of the Everlasting Son to sufferings and death must carry 
 with it all the blessings and graces which are needed to secure the regenerate 
 life in Christians. The greatness of the gift is implied (1) by the use of 
 idiov, His own Son by nature, (ef. ver. 3 tov éavrod vidv ;) (2) by ove Epeioato 
 (xi. 21; 2 Cor. xiii. 2; 2S. Pet. ii. 4, 5), which implies that the Father’s 
 Eternal Love did a certain violence to Itself in the surrender of His Son ; 
 (3) by the juxta-position of the negative and positive phrases (ov« épeicaro 
 - .. GAAd mapédwxev), enhancing the significance of the surrender, (mapé- 
 dwKev, sc. eis Oavarov, iv. 25). What can be refused after this gift of 
 gifts ? what that is necessary to a Christian is not, by anticipation, in- 
 cluded in it?] : 
 
 [Obs. 2. In égeioaro there is a clear reference to Abraham, Gen. xxii, 16 ot« 
 épeiow Tov viov God Tov dyamnrod. idiov is here substituted as the stronger 
 word, wtmép navtav jyav. On the effect of the death of Christ cf. Rom. v. 
 6-11; 1 Tim. i. 15; 1S. John iv. 9, 10, 14; 1S. Pet. ii. 24.] 
 
 c. Gop is their Justifier (6 dixaav); they have no accuser to 
 fear. 
 
 Qu. Who shall make accusation against the elect of Gop? 
 
 Ans. There is no one to condemn, because Gop is the Justifier : 
 consequently the accusation would be without result 
 
 (ver. 33). 
 [ Obs. x. In ver. 33, as in 31, 32, the question is answered by a counter question, 
 
 vis 6 karaxpivwy ; really = the neg. prop. ovx éativ 6 karaxpivev. The words 
 Xpicrds 6 droGavwv introduce a second answer to tis éyxadéoei 5] 
 
 [Obs. 2. éAexrol @eod are identical with the xard mpddec.v KAnroi, ver. 28, cf. 
 S. Matt. xxii. 14; 1 Tim. v. 21. Those whom Gop has chosen out of the 
 xécpos (S. John xvii. 6) to be members of His Church, and blessed for 
 Christ’s sake eternally, Eph.i. 4. This is the Christian transfiguration of 
 the Old Testament national, external, theocratic conception of é«AexToi. 
 (Ps. civ. 43; ev. 5; Is. xlii. 1; lxv. 9; Wisd. iii. 9.)] 
 
 Arg. 2. From the relation of oi év Xpioré to Jesus Christ, Whose 
 past and present acts for us are the warrant of His love 
 (ver. 34). 
 
 (i) He is drofavay. ‘Greater love hath no man 
 than this, that a man lay down his life for 
 his friends.’ Rom. v. 6; Eph. iii, 18 sqq. 
 
 (a) in the past (ver. 34). 
 
 hind (ii) Yet more, He is 6 éyepOcis. This 8:4 riy dxaioow 
 
 juov Rom. iv. 25: cf. also Rom. v. 10; 1 
 
 Cor. xy. 20-23 ; S. John xxi. 14 (ver. 34). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VIII, vv. 31-39. 143 
 
 (ili) €orw ev def rot Ocod, Ps, cx. 1; S. Matt. xxii. 
 44; 8S. Mark xvi. 19; Eph.i. 20; Acts ii. 
 24 Ank 505- TLC -1.- 1) 5: Bere.) ey. AL: 22 
 (ver. 34). 
 
 {Obs. The Right Hand of Gop signifies (1) the great 
 power of Gop, (2) the place of honour in heaven 
 
 at the (1 Kings ii. 19), (3) the place of perfect happiness: 
 b. | present Ps. xvi. 11. Cf. Pearson on the Creed, Art. 6.] 
 
 moment, (iv) evrvyxdver bxép jpav. Although the ovrépovos of 
 the Father, He intercedes for us; being 
 present with the Father in His glorified 
 Humanity, He continuously presents His 
 finished ‘Aaornpiov on our behalf (1 S. John 
 ii. 2), and as our High Priest: Heb. vii. 
 26; ix. 24 (ver. 34). 
 
 [Ots. This passage is fatal to the theory that on His Ascension our Lord made 
 one act of Intercession, and then ceased. It is a present and continuous 
 action, which is described by évrvyxaver; (and it is the warrant of the 
 continuous intercessions of His members, whether on earth or in Paradise). 
 
 On the omnipotentia supplex of the Ascended Mediator, see Pearson, On the Creed, 
 Art. 6.] 
 
 Arg. 3. From the relation of the oi év Xpicr@ to all possible trials, 
 states, unseen beings, or conditions of being (35-39). 
 
 a. No trials in this life can of themselves separate us from the 
 
 Love of Christ for us (35-37). 
 [Obs. The dydrn rod Xpicrod here, as in Rom. v. 5, is gen. subj. His acts of love 
 are enumerated in ver. 34; He is called 6 dyamjoas judas in ver. 37, and 
 
 the expression is paraphrased by dydan Tov @eod 7 €v Xpior@ in ver. 39 ; cf. 
 Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 232.] 
 
 (1) Seven representative forms of earthly trials which cannot 
 sever us from the dydmn rod Xpeorod (ver. 35). 
 oppression, OdjiWns. 
 a. generic, | seine circumstances, orevoxwpia. 
 persecution, diaypds. 
 
 Trials, through want , hunger, Ards. 
 of means { nakedness, yupvdrns. : 
 | b. specific, danger of violent death, 
 
 through risks kivdvvos. 
 from without ) contact with violent death, 
 
 paxaupa, 
 
 %, 
 
144 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [ Obs. 
 
 . T. OAtfis and orevoxwpia are coupled inii.o. The former corresponds in 
 
 LXX to M$ and “WV. The latter is the stronger word; it is opposed to 
 evpoxwpia, and means loss of liberty, straitened circumstances, or worse : 
 2 Cor. vi. 4; xii. 10. Siwypds, lit. ‘ persecution’: S. Matt. xiii. at ; S. Mark 
 iv. 17; Acts viii. 1; xiii.50; plural, S. Mark x. 30; 2 Cor. xii. 10; 2 Thess. 
 i. 43 2 Tim. iii. 11.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Acuds and yuprdrns are coupled in S. Paul’s description of the trials of the 
 
 [Obs 
 
 Apostles, 1 Cor. iv. 11, and of his own, 2 Cor. xi. 27. For xivdvvos, see 
 2 Cor. xi. 26 Kwdvvos ToTap@y, kwdbvos AnoTav and 1 Cor. xv. 30 Kwivvedopev 
 macav pay: paxarpa Heb. xi. 34, 37.] 
 
 (2) Of these, the last suggests the persecutions undergone by the 
 Jews, —persecutions which had a typical value for the Christian 
 ages (ver. 36). 
 
 Ps. xliv. 23, quoted (xa6ads yéyparrat) as describing by anticipation 
 
 the sufferings of persecuted Christians. 
 Heb. DPI-PD wrin Py 
 npap jNyp wT 
 . 1. The quotation from the LXX is exact. In the Heb. the emphasis lies on 
 
 123, which is used as in Psalm lxix. 7. By xaOas yéypanrra: the Apostle 
 treats the verse — not as an historical coincidence,—but as a Divine 
 utterance in an earlier age, which corresponds prophetically to the sufferings 
 of the Church of Christ. It forms, in fact, a motto for the Church in time 
 of persecution, and god is naturally referred to the Church’s Lord.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Delitzsch gives reasons for referring this Psalm to the reign of David, 
 
 under the events which resulted from the Syro-Ammonitie war. While 
 David was engaged with the Syrians, the Edomites swept down upon the 
 country as being denuded of troops, and caused great bloodshed: 1 Kings 
 xi. 15. The lofty sense of loyalty to Gop which pervades this Psalm 
 best befits the age of David ; no other Psalm contains any like expression of 
 the consciousness of innocence. It may therefore have been composed by a 
 sufferer under the Edomite invasion. The only satisfactory alternative is 
 to place it in the times succeeding the exile, when the nation had been free 
 from the taint of idolatry for some years, but before the Maccabaean period, 
 when the Psalm had already acquired a kind of liturgical or popular use. 
 See Delitzsch on Psalm xliv. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. This is intended to describe the present or impending persecution of 
 
 rs 
 
 Christians in the Apostolic age. 1. The motive of such persecutions was 
 hatred of Gop and His truth, évecey ood. 2. Their relentless character 
 is shown in that they went on from morning to night, SAyv thy jpépay. 
 3. The estimate of their victims formed by the persecutors, éAoyic@npev 
 
 as mpoBata opayis. | 
 (3) In all these (vers. 35, 36) Christians do more than conquer 
 
 (Swepvixdpev), because they are helped by Christ Who has loved © 
 
 them so well (ver. 37). 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. VIII, vv. 31-39. 145 
 
 [Obs. 1. imeprixOpev, not found in ancient Greek. Coined to express the Christian 
 sense of jubilant triumph. It is used by late writers to mean pushing a 
 victory too far: Socr. H. £. iii. 21.) 
 
 (Obs. 2. The dyamjoas is Christ, whose Atoning Death—the consummate proof of 
 His love—is glanced at by the historic aorist: Rom. v.6; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. v. 
 2, 25. (Compare ver. 35.) For dd rod ay. cf. 2 Cor. xii. 9 iva émoxnveon 
 em éue  Sdvajus TOU Xprotot. The power which our Lord supplies is love, 
 2 Cor. v.14 % yap ayann Tov Xpiorod (gen. object. here) cvvéxer Huds. So Thomas & 
 Kempis, De imit. iii. 5 Amor onus sine onere portat, et omne amarum dulce 
 ac sapidum efficit.” And S. Cyprian says of the Martyrs of his day: ‘Certamini 
 suo adfuit (Christus]; proeliatores atque assertores sui nominis erexit, 
 corroborayit, animavit. Et qui pro nobis mortem semel vicit, semper 
 vincit in nobis....Ipse luctatur in nobis, ipse congreditur, ipse in cer- 
 tamine agonis nostri et coronat pariter et coronatur’ Hpist. x. 3. 4.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. By wéreiopa: the Apostle expresses his strong personal conviction that 
 what is true of earthly persecutions will hold equally good of all beyond the 
 range of sense and time. ] 
 
 b. The Love of Christ for us is that from which we can be 
 parted neither by dying nor by continuing to live: ore 
 Gavaros, ovre (on. Cf. Phil. i, 21. (ver. 38.) 
 [0bs. Transitional. In verses 38, 39 there are four groups of words, the two former 
 
 pairs, the two latter threes. The third term in each of the two latter is a 
 general one, having no immediate relation to the preceding antithesis. 
 Oavaros, 
 (on, 
 
 ha invisible personal beings, or orders of such beings. 
 
 the two possible conditions of human existence. 
 
 éveoTara, 
 péAAorTa, > anything in time, however powerful. 
 
 duvapeis, 
 } cee ) anything in space, anything that comes from the 
 ms «riots érépa, { Hand of the Creator. | 
 
 c. The Love of Christ for us is that from which we cannot be 
 parted 
 
 (1) by any invisible beings, such as the @yyedor and dpyxai 
 of the heavenly hierarchy, or among fallen spirits (ver. 
 38) ; 
 
 (2) by any circumstances of present or future time, éveoréra 
 ovre pédNovra ; or by any powers—personal or impersonal— 
 duvduecs—of any kind (ver. 38) ; 
 
 (3) by any conceivable variations of space, dyapa otre Babos: 
 or indeed by anything else in the shape of a created thing, 
 ore Tis KTiows érépa (ver. 39). 
 
 L 
 
146 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. x. In ver. 38 Suvdyes must (see apparatus criticus) be placed after péAAovta, 
 and consequently has not necessarily the definite meaning of an order of 
 angelic beings, as have dyyeAo. and dpxai. (For lists of angelic beings, ef. 
 1 Cor. xv. 24; Col, i. 16; ii. 15; Eph. i. 21; vi. 12.) St. Paul’s teaching on 
 this subject belongs chiefly to the Epistles of the first imprisonment. 
 For the Jewish traditions, see Eisenmenger, Entd. Jud., II. p. 370 sqq. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. In ver. 39 the ‘Love of Christ’ for us is resolved into ‘the Love of Gop 
 which is in Christ Jesus.’ Our Lord’s Human Love is traced to its source 
 in the Divine Nature. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. This passage (31-39) does not afford countenance to that theory of the 
 Final Perseverance of the Saints which makes their salvation independent of 
 responsibility and free-will. That forfeiture of Grace, which Gop the 
 Father and our Lord never will, and which no external power or circum- 
 stance ever can effect, may be brought about by the free-will of the 
 Christian himself. So 8. Bernard, Ser. de dupl. Bapt. (qu. by Just.) ‘Attende 
 quanta enumeravit Apostolus, ejus enim verba sunt, minime tamen adjiciens, 
 nec nos ipsi. Nimirum haec est libertas qua Christus nos liberavit, ut nulla 
 penitus creatura avellere nos aut vim facere possit. Solum id deserere 
 possumus propria yoluntate abstracti, et illecti a propria concupiscentia : 
 praeter hance enim nihil est quod timeamus.’ And 8. Ambrose: ‘Nemo tibi 
 Christum potest auferre, nisi te Illi ipse auferas.’ Comp. Rev. ii. 4 tiv 
 dydnnv cou Tiv mpwtny apjKas : 1 Cor. x. 12 6 doxav Eatavat, BrenéTH pi) méoD: 
 1 Cor. ix, 27 pymws dAAas Knpigas, adds addxipos yévopat.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. In De Doctr. Christ. iv. 20, S. Aug. refers to this whole passage (31-39) as 
 an example of the ‘grande dicendi genus’ which, he says, ‘ non tam verborum 
 ornatibus comtum est quam violentum animi affectibus.’ He compares 
 2 Cor. vi. 20 sqq. and Gal. iv. 10. It is, in fact, a passage of lyrical beauty, 
 like 1 Cor. xiii ; but the elevation of feeling does not oblige us to ignore the 
 sequence of thought, ] 
 
 
 
DOGMATIC PORTION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Diviston III. IX—XI. 
 
 RELATION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE TO AIKAIOSYNH OEOY EK MISTENS. 
 
 [Obs. x. The problems discussed in chapters ix, x, xi arise inevitably out of 
 the earlier argument of the Epistle. On the one hand, the Gospel was 
 intended to be a divapus @cod eis cwrnpiav, in the first instance, to the Jews 
 (i. 16). On the other hand, this cwrnpia could only be gained by those 
 who believed the Gospel. And, as the whole Jewish people, with the 
 exception of a small body of converts, deliberately rejected the Gospel, 
 their case presented a contradiction between the actual fact and the original 
 Divine intention, which needed explanation on abstract grounds, and 
 which appealed most closely to the sympathetic nature of 8. Paul. Chapters 
 ix, x, xi are best regarded as an historico-theological Shpense to the 
 dogmatic portion of the Epistle. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. The opinion that chapters ix, x, xi form the germ of the Epistle to which 
 i. 17-viii are merely introductory (Baur, Paulus, ii. 3) is untenable, (1) as 
 assuming that the Jewish Christians are addressed throughout the Epistle 
 and that they formed the predominant element in the Roman Church ; ef. 
 ch. xvi; and (2) as obliging Baur, when analyzing the first eight chapters, 
 to overlook the most important elements of the argument, and to thrust 
 incidental features into unnatural prominence. At the same time, the 
 Jewish converts are addressed in ch. ix-xi, except when the Apostle turns 
 to the converts from heathenism, xi. 13-36; cf. vers. 28, 30, 31.] 
 
 A. 
 
 Inrropuction (ix. 1-5). 
 Sorrow of the Apostle at the dmofodky of Israel. 
 
 [Obs. The blessedness of the of év XpioT@, so exultingly celebrated in viii. 32-39, 
 makes the actual condition (dmoBoAq xi. 5) of the majority of the Apostle’s 
 countrymen all the more painful by contrast. Hence the burst of pas- 
 sionate sorrow, ix. 1-5. Compare x. 13; xi. I sqq.; 14 sqq.: as also iii. 
 I sqq. ; xv. 8 for like expressions of feeling. } 
 
 1. Sincerity of the Apostle’s feeling (ix. 1). This sincerity is 
 
 a. affirmed both positively and negatively, ddjOeav AEyo... 
 ov Yevdouat, 
 L2 
 
148 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 b. witnessed to by conscience, cvppaptupovons por tis cuverdnoews, 
 
 c. hallowed by Christ, the element in which his mental life 
 moves (ev Xpuor@); and by the Holy Spirit, within 
 whose encompassing Presence the report of his con- 
 science is given (ver. I). 
 
 [Obs. x. For instances of the negation following and strengthening the affirma- 
 tion, see S. John i. 20; Eph. iv. 25; 1 Tim. ii. 7.] & 
 
 [Obs. 2. As the positive dAndeay A¢éyw has received its solemn guarantee by the 
 added words év Xpior@, so the negative ob Wevdoya: is concurrently attested 
 by conscience, ¢v Tvedyars dyiw. For év Xpior@, see 2 Cor. xi. 173 Xii. 19; 
 it Thess, iv. 1; Eph. iv. ‘17. ° It cannot=per Christum. An adjuration “by 
 Christ’ would have required mpés with the gen.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. On ovveidnots as the knowledge which man has with himself of a Divine 
 law established in his heart (the ethical side of the general sense of truth) ; 
 related to that law as prophecy was in Israel to the Thorah, proclaiming it, 
 and judging acts and motives with reference to it, cf. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 
 p. 159 and Rom. ii. 15; xiii. 5; 1 Cor. viii. 73 x. 28; 2Cor.i. 12; iv.2; 
 v. 11; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. i. 15: Bporots dnacw % ovvetinois Oeds 
 Menander, Gnom. Monostich. 654.. The law which conscience recognises is in 
 a héathen often darkened. In a Christian it is illuminated by the Holy 
 Spirit.] 
 
 2. Intensity of the Apostle’s feeling (introduced by ér:), (vers. 2, 38). 
 
 a. described in terms which mark 
 i, its greatness, Avan peyddn. 
 
 ii. its continuance, ddiddeurros ddivn. 
 iii. its depth, 77 xapdig (not on the soul’s surface, but at its 
 centre (ver. 2). 
 
 [Obs. Avy, ‘sadness,’ opposed to xapd, S. John xvi. 20; Heb. xii. rz. d5vvn has 
 a more positive character of mental pain. This sorrow may coexist with 
 perfect sincerity with the joy described in viii. sub fin. : the motives of the 
 two feelings being perfectly distinct. From delicacy the Apostle does not 
 name the cause of the sorrow: he leaves it to be gathered from what 
 follows. ] 
 
 b. Justification (ydp) of this description. This feeling has taken 
 shape in a definite prayer. 
 
 He wished, if it could be so, to be himself Anathema (and so 
 separate) from Christ, instead of his kinsmen (ver. 3). - 
 [Obs. 1. For construction of ndxéunv without dy, see Gal. iv. 20; Acts xxv. 22; and 
 
 Winer, Gram. WN. T. p. 353. I was wishing, if it were practicable. * The 
 thought of its being fulfilled or not is in the background of his mind. But 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, vv. 1-5. | 149 
 
 the wish is represented as continuing. The ‘imp. marks an action that 
 does not attain to accomplishment, but would do so on certain conditions :’ 
 Kiihner. nixépunv dv would mean ‘I should wish, if the wish were possible ; 
 but the wish is not possible, therefore I do not wish.’] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Substance of the nixdunv. dvdbepa (Att. dvddnua) originally something 
 
 consecrated, or something accursed. For the two meanings, see Lev. xxvii. 
 28, 29, LXX. Gradually, however, dva@yua was appropriated to expressing 
 the idea of something consecrated; dvd@eva that of something accursed, 
 devoted ‘to destruction. So, of Jericho, Josh. vi. 17 NT OI Yyn, eora 
 % wots dvdbepa., This sense of being devoted to destruction appears in Acts 
 XXiil. 14 dva@¢uats dveepatioapey EavTovs: 1 Cor. xii. 3 Aéyer "Avabepa "Incody : 
 XVi. 22 ef Tis ov ide Tov Ktpioy . . . Tw davddeya: Gal. i. 8, 9 dvdBepa éoTw. 
 Only here with dd rot Xpiorov. The construction is pregnant; and some 
 verb denoting separation (kai xwpi(ecOa) is implied, as involved in the 
 eternal dmwAcia, airds éyw here describes his own single personality, as in 
 contrast with his fellow-countrymen, tay diecApoy pov, But in vii. 25 his 
 true personality is contrasted with his oapf, which during the stage of 
 struggle is in the service of dyuapria. | 
 
 [Obs. 3. ‘Lawfulness’ of the wish. It is formed on Ex. xxxii. 32 ‘Yet now, 
 if thou wilt forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of Thy 
 book which Thou hast written.’ It expresses an-emotion of unmeasured 
 devotedness, which however is controlled by the sense of Gon’s known will. 
 If the Apostle could take the place (imép here=dvri) of his countrymen, he 
 would do so, fearful as would be the eternal loss. It is unselfishness of 
 feeling carried to a point which is unintelligible to selfish calculations. ] 
 
 3- Grounds of the Apostle’s feeling. 
 
 (a) Natural. The tie of blood : rév ddehpav pov, Tav ovyyevOv ov 
 kara odpka (ver, 3). 
 
 [Obs. x. The expression ovyyevav kata capa contrasts with ddeAgots ev Kupiv 
 Phil. i. 14 > ayious ddeApois 1 Thess. v. 27 ; ef. Heb. iii. 1; Col. i. 2, ela 
 Phil. ver. 16, where Onesimus the slave is described as dde\pds d-yamnrds nai 
 év capxt xat év Kupiw. The distinction between natural and spiritual relation- 
 ships is familiar to the Apostle. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Natural relationships are here recognised as warranting some of the 
 strongest feelings of the soul. Cf. Eph, v. 29 ovdels yap wore tiv éavTod cdpKa 
 épionoev. The claims of nature, which is itself from Gop, are nof really in 
 conflict with those of the kingdom of grace, or such evangelical counsels as 
 8. Luke xiv. 26. On the duties which natural ties siperstively prescribe, 
 see r Tim. vy. 8.] 
 
 (b) Theocratic. Prerogatives of the ee ai (vers. 4, 5). 
 
 [Obs. oirwes gives a further and stronger motive for what is said in ver. 3,” 
 ‘quippe qui.” But this does not imply that, if the natural bond of ddeAgpoi 
 and ovyyeveis had alone Smee, the Apostle would not have felt grief at 
 Israel’s fall.) 
 
They are 
 “IopanXira, 
 (ancient 
 valued 
 theocratic 
 name) : 
 Gen. xxxii. 28; 
 S. Matt. ii. 6 ; 
 S. Luke ii. 32; 
 S. John i. 48 ; 
 Rom. xi. 1 ; 
 2\0or. xi. 22s 
 Phil. iii 5. 
 
 (ver. 4.) 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 I. 9 viobecia, the adoption of this people by 
 God into the place of children, in the 
 national, theocratic sense: Ex. iy. 
 22 sqq.; Deut. xiv. 1; xxxii. 6; Hos. 
 Xi.as), (ver...) 
 
 2. » dda, the Glory, not of Israel but of 
 Jehovah, the Shekinah of the Rabbis, 
 mm As, Ex. xvi 10; xXxivs 10; 
 xl. 34,35. Cf. 1 Sam. iv. 22 dr@xora 
 dd£a "Iopand: 1 Kings vili. 11. (ver. 4.) 
 
 ig 3. ai Siabjxae (not here the Jewish and 
 ov, Christian, but) the Covenants made by 
 who as Gop with the Patriarchs since Abra- 
 such ham. Gen. xvii. 7; Ex. xix. 5; Deut. 
 enjoyed xix. 1; Wisd. xviii. 22; Ecclus. xliv. 
 six Ir. (ver. 4.) 
 
 special | 4. 4 vopodecia, the Sinaitic legislation, (not 
 marks = vopos). Israel was distinguished as 
 of the the people to which Gop had revealed 
 Divine His moral Nature in the Mosaic Law. 
 favour. Cf. Ps. exlvii. 19, 20; Deut. iv. 7-14; 
 
 Acts vii. 53; Gal. iti. 19; Heb. i, 2 
 
 sqq.; xii. 18 sqq. 
 
 5-  Aarpeia, the NTAY, Ex. xxxv. 24; Xxxix, 
 42, the solemn cultus of the true Gop, 
 as ordered by Himself: Heb. ix. 6. 
 (ver. 4.) 
 
 6. ai émayyehia, specially the Messianic pro- 
 mises made to Abraham : Rom. iv. 13 ; 
 xv, 8; Gal. tit, 16, 21; Heb.viaae 
 Vil O 5 x. 19; 27, 935° 4 veredn 
 
 a oi marépes. The Patriarchs, as saintly an- 
 éy, and cestors, belong to all the generations 
 were the of Israel : Ex. iii. 13,15; iv. 5; Acts 
 race who fii. 13; vil. 32. The word marnp is 
 could applied to Abraham, S. John viii. 39 ; 
 
 claim the S. Luke i. 55; Isaac, Rom. ix. 10; 
 Patri- Jacob, S. John iv. 12; and David, 
 archs. S. Luke i. 32, 55; Acts ii. 29. (ver. 5.) 
 TT. 
 
 6 Xptorés. So far as His assumed Humanity 
 
 é by, : wee 
 is concerned, 16 kara odpxa, 
 and of ° ey 
 ie i. over all, ei ravrov, 
 : : -_| ii. God, Cecos. 
 blood while, in His zi bleaued ona 
 came the] ~ Eternal Person,| ~~ ; Aue SL 
 Tene Wa 4a (6 by evAoyntos eis TOUS 
 
 Messiah. aidvas (ver. 5). 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, vv. 1-5. 151 
 
 [Obs. r. Israel was the name given to the Patriarch Jacob, who had struggled 
 with Gop (bys and nn), Gen. xxxii. 28, and Jacob had prayed that his 
 descendants might be named after himself and his fathers, Gen. xlviii. 16 ; 
 Is, xlviii. r. Along with this name the promise and hope of Jacob passed 
 to his posterity ; the people, like the patriarch, had power with Gop. The 
 spiritual dignity of the nation was wrapped up in this name; which 
 however finds its chief fulfilment in the Church of Christ. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. This viodecia is not to be confounded with its antitype—the Christian 
 viodecia of viii. 15. ‘The Old Testament exhibits man at the beginning of 
 his sonship, but under the discipline of the Law ; the New Testament in the 
 completeness of his sonship, as one of full age.” But the Jews are referred 
 to by our Lord as réxva Matt. xv. 26. Comp. ‘the generation of Thy 
 children,’ Ps. Ixxiii. 15; and ep. Gen. vi. 2. In Wisdom the use of rarnp 
 with reference to Gop and vids Geod of the devout Jew, approaches the New 
 Testament account. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The Gentiles had a natural vépos but no vopobecia. Israel was the 
 people of Revelation. 
 
 [Obs. 4. The Doxology (ver. 5 6 dy #.7.A.) has been dealt with in three principal 
 ways. 
 
 (1) Referred to Christ our Lord, with a comma after odpxa. 
 
 (2) Treated as an independent doxology to God the Father, by placing a 
 full stop after odpxa. [With Codd. C. L. 5. 47; Lach., Tisch. ] 
 
 (3) Broken up, by placing a full stop after mavrwy with Cod. 71. In this 
 case 6 dv én mavtov is referred to Christ; and what follows is a 
 doxology to the Father. (Erasmus, &c.) 
 
 Of these, (3) has few defenders, (a) 6 dy él mdvrwy is abrupt: ef. Acts 
 x. 36; Rom. x. 12, (b).no explanation can be given of the position of 
 evAoynrds after eds, not even that of an ‘emphasis in view,’ (c) while 
 such a punctuation implies a contrast between én mdvrwv and @eés, 
 
 _ and thus tends to an indirect disparagement of the Person and Glory 
 of Christ, a result which, no one can suppose, was intended by the 
 writer. 
 
 The real question lies between (1) and (2).] 
 
 [0bs. 5. The authority of Christian antiquity is on the side of (1). 
 S. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. ili, 16. n. 3 (vol. i. p. 506, ed. Stieren). 
 Tertullian, adv. Prax. ¢. 13, 15 (vol. ii. pp. 669, 673, ed. Oehler). 
 Cone. Ant. A.D, 269, ap. Routh, Rel. Sacr. iii. 292 (ed. 1846). 
 Novatian, de Trinitate, c. 13, 30 (pp. 43, 118, ed. Welchman). 
 S. Athanasius, contr. Arian. Orat. i. 10; Orat, iv. 1 sub in. (vol. i. p. 415, 
 ed. Ben.), 
 a Epist. ad Epictetwm (vol. i, pt. ii. p. 908, ed. Ben.). 
 8. Epiphanius, Haer. 57. 2, p. 483; 76, conf. 30 (p. 978). 
 S. Hilarius, De frinitate, viii. c. 37, 38 (p. 970, ed. Ben.). 
 8. Ambrosius, De Spiritu Sancto, i. 3. 46 (vol. ii. p. 609, ed. Ben.), 
 8. Gregorius Nyss., contra Eunom. Orat. x. (vol. ii. p. 695, ed. Paris, 1638). 
 S. Augustinus, De Trinitate, ii. 13. n. 23 (vol. viii. p. 786, ed. Ben.). 
 Contra Faustum, iii. ¢. 6 (vol. viii. p. 192, ed. Ben.). 
 8. Bicrnyaus, Ep. ad Algas, Qu. ix. (vol. iv. p. 204, ed. Ben. Par.). 
 

 
 152 
 
 [ Obs. 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 The passages which Wetstein has adduced from the Fathers in favour of 
 (2) are allowed by Fritzsche (in loc.) and Meyer (in loc.) to be inapposite : 
 Meyer himself only produces two quotations, which can imply a non- 
 reference to Christ. Of these that in Pseudo-Ign. ad Tars. 5 is only an 
 indirect implication ; while Diodorus of Tarsus (ap. Cramer, Catena, Oxon, 
 p. 162) was in other ways rationalizing. The passage was not used in the 
 earlier controversy against Arianism, probably because Sabellianism was 
 still too recent and too powerful to allow the Catholics generally to appeal 
 to it, without being supposed to ‘confound the Persons’ of the Son and the 
 Father. (See Reiche, Comm. vol. ii. p. 268, note.) At a later stage it was 
 constantly referred to by Catholic opponents of Arianism, as by Oecumenius 
 in loc. évrad0a Aapmpdtata Ocdv Tov Xprorov dvopala 6 amdaTodos’ AiaxvvOnrt 
 tpicdOde Apeie, dxovwv mapa TlavAov dofoAovpevoy tov Xprotov Oedy aAndwév. 
 The Arians do not appear to have challenged the reference. Later Arians, 
 Whitby, Crell, &c. endeavoured to escape its force by reading dv 6 instead 
 of 6 dv, in defiance of MSS. and of good sense. When Julian the Apostate 
 sarcastically observed that rév yody ‘Inooty obre TlatAos éréApnoev ecimeiv Ocdr, 
 nor yet the three earlier Evangelists, but only 6 xpyards ‘Iwavyns, 8. Cyril 
 Alex. replied by pointing to this passage, idod roy Kara odpxa éf “lovdaiwr, 
 rovTeca. Xpiordy, wal Oedy él TavTwy, k.7.A., c. Julian. x. p. 328. The early 
 Socinians did not question the reference to Christ, but explained eds 
 away: Catech. Racov. 159 sqq. Among writers of note Erasmus first inno- 
 vated on the traditional judgment and sense of the Church, and he has 
 been largely followed since Wetstein. ] 
 
 6. The structure of the passage lends itself naturally to (1). Observe (a) that 
 there is no adequate reason for the abrupt transition which occurs, if a full 
 stop is placed after odpka, unless, indeed, it be assumed that the Apostle 
 could not predicate émt mavtwv @eds of Christ : (b) that in detached doxologies 
 ev\oynrés always stands at the beginning, as in thirty places of the LXX 
 following the Hebrew use of 73, WA, Gen. ix. 26; 1 Sam. xxvi. 25; 
 2 Sam. xviii. 28, &e. The only i setae exception is Ps. Ixviii. 20, LXX (Kuptos 
 5 @eds EvAOYNTs, VAoYNTOs KUptos Huépav Kad’ hyépay, Hebrew only ny N78 yw2 
 py) where the first clause ending in evAoynrés would seem to be inter- 
 polated, or the LXX is a free paraphrase with a designed rhetorical 
 emphasis (with the inverted order of words, the doubled eiAoynrds, the 
 stronger form of blessing following the weaker one). Winer would arbi- 
 trarily account for the exceptional position here of edAoynrds, by suggesting 
 that ‘the subject of the doxology is antithetical to another subject,’ Gr. 
 N. T. p. 690, thus begging the question. EvAoyyrds «is Trois aidvas is used 
 elsewhere twice by S. Paul, and each time as an assertion respecting the 
 subject of the sentence, not in a detached ascription of praise: Rom. i. 25 
 rov Kricayta, ds oT evAOYNTOS eis TOUS ai@vas: 2 Cor. xi. 31 6 Ocds Kal Tarhp 
 ... 6 dv ebdoynTds eis Tovs aiévas. Wherever it does not occur in a relative 
 clause, ebAoynTds, evAoynpévos stands at the beginning of a doxology, S. Matt. 
 xxi. 9; Luke i. 68; 2 Cor.i. 3; Eph. i. 3; 1S. Pet. i. 3. It is, therefore, in 
 its natural Sasbiont as a predicate of Xpiords. (¢) That 7d xara odpxa, of itself, 
 
 implies that Christ was not. altogether sprung from the race of Israel, but 
 
 that He had another and higher Nature. It suggests as its antithesis some 
 
 positive ascription of Divinity which would satisfy the suppressed TO KaTa 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, vv. 1-5. 153 
 
 Tivedya. Compare Rom. i. 3. The suppression of the antithesis to 7d xara 
 odpxa that it may be supplied in thought (2 Cor. xi. 18; Col. iii. 22; 1 Cor. i. 26) 
 cannot take place where, as here, the thesis only exists for the sake of the 
 antithesis. Without 6 dv ém raévTwy Oeds the words 76 kata cépxa would imply 
 a diminution of the prerogative of Israel. Of themselves they weaken the 
 passage. That Christ springs from the Jews does the Jews more honour 
 than that Christ springs from them merely after the flesh. But what 
 privilege can compare with theirs from whom He springs after the flesh 
 Who is over all, Gop blessed for ever? (d) That dv is altogether superfluous, 
 if (2) be adopted, while in (x) it vividly expresses the present momentous 
 fact that Christ is Gop. Comp. S. John i. 18; iii. 13 ; xii. 17 ; and especially 
 2 Cor. xi. 31, where it=ds éorv.] 
 
 [0bs. 7. The passage is in harmony with the teaching of S. Paul and the New 
 Testament on the subject of Christ’s Person, if (x) be adopted. To take 
 Meyer’s objections : I. ‘ Paul never uses Geds of Christ.’ But see Eph. v. 5 
 év TH BactAcia Tov XpioTod xai @cod, i.e. the kingdom of Him Who is Christ 
 and Gop, asis implied in the connection by means of the same article. Cf. 
 also the true reading Col. ii. 2 rod cod Xpior0d, Lachmann. Probably Tit. i.3 
 Kar’ émrayiv Tod owrhpos Huey cod. Certainly ii. 13 émpdvecay rips ddgns Tod 
 peyaAou cod Kal owripos huay “Incod Xporod : iii. 4 7) xpnordrns Kal 4 pidav- 
 Opwria énepdvn Tod cwrhpos #uav Geod: if x Tim. iii. 16 be not adduced. To 
 predicate @cdés of Christ is not inconsistent in a writer who speaks of Him 
 as év popp} Ocod imdpxay Phil. ii. 6; and asserts that év ai7@ xaroie? may 7d 
 TAHpwpa THs OedTnTos cwpariuas Col. ii. g. If the Apostle thinks of Christ 
 as Gop, it is natural that he should call Christ Gop, in a passage where it 
 was important to express the complete antithetical relation of His Higher 
 Nature to His Manhood. And he attributes to Christ eternity, Col. i. 15, 
 I7; and omnipresence, Eph. i. 23; the creation and upholding in being 
 of the world, Col. i. 16, 17; and the award of judgment, Rom. xiv. 10; 
 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 Thess. i. 7-10. Christ is the author of grace, Rom. i. 7; 
 xr Cor. i. 3; and the object of worship, Rom. x. 13; Phil. ii. 10, 11. Even 
 if @cés as a predicate of Christ in Rom. ix. 5 were a Gm. Aey. this does not, of 
 itself, show that the construction of the passage which makes it such is 
 untenable, unless the expression be really in advance of the modes of 
 thought about our Lord which are observable in other passages. And 
 Meyer admits that ‘Paul agrees essentially in substance with the Christology 
 of John, and might have affirmed just as appropriately as the latter (S. 
 John i, 1) the predicative @eds of Christ.’ But, then, II. ‘Paul has not 
 adopted, like John, the Alexandrian form of conceiving and stating the 
 Divine essence of Christ, but has adhered to the popular, concrete, strictly 
 monotheistic terminology.’ But that S. Paul had Alexandrian thought in 
 view in his use of eixav (a favourite word with Philo) and zpwrdroxos, as 
 applied to our Lord, is more than probable; and his ‘monotheism’ must 
 have led him to include Christ within the One Divine essence, unless such 
 passages as Col. i, 15-17 are unmeaning rhetoric. III. ‘Paul always 
 accurately distinguishes Gop and Christ.’ This is true, if it be meant that 
 the Apostle does not anticipate the Sabellian heresy by ‘confounding the 
 Persons.’ But it is inaccurate, if it be intended to suggest that, according 
 to S. Paul, Christ is something else or less than Gop. When Meyer says 
 
154 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 that S. Paul sharply and clearly distinguishes Christ as the Kupios from ®eds 
 in Rom. x. 9; 1 Cor. xii. 3, the question arises, What did S. Paul mean to 
 say of Him by terming Him Kvpios? What place was there in the belief of 
 so serious a Monotheist as S. Paul for such a Being, confessedly superhuman, 
 yet not literally Divine? In 1 Cor. viii. 6 eis @eds 6 Maryp is merely opposed 
 to the moAAois Geois of the heathen, and the cis Kupios "Incods Xpiorés to their 
 moAAois Kupios, and the xupidrns, which especially belongs to Christ as the 
 Revealer of the Hidden Deity, and Lord of the kingdom of souls, just as 
 little excludes the 6ed77s as the Oed7ns does the «upidrns. In 1 Cor. xv. 22-29 
 it is the human as well as the Divine Nature of Christ that is in question, 
 and especially the former. When the Redemption of the species is complete, 
 Christ, as the Mediator, delivers up His kingdom to the Father, but, says 
 S. Aug. De Trin. I. c. x ‘Christus in quantum Deus est, cum illo nos subjectos 
 habet, in quantum sacerdos nobiscum illi subjectus est.’ As for Meyer's 
 assertion, that ‘there runs through the whole New Testament a delicate 
 line of separation between the Father and the Son,’ this is recognised, so 
 far as it is true, by the Catholic doctrine of the Subordination of the Son ; 
 but the Arianising drift of the remark is excluded by the passages which 
 Meyer quotes, S. John i. 1; xx. 28; and 1 S. John v. 20. IV. ‘In the 
 ' properly Apostolical writings we meet no doxologies to Christ.’ Here 
 Meyer begins by observing that Heb. xiii. 21 ; 2 Pet. iii. 18, do not belong 
 to these writings! He reluctantly admits that 2 Tim. iv. 8 certainly refers 
 to Christ ; but leaves us in doubt as to his inference respecting the Pastoral 
 Epistles. Yet 1 Pet. iv. 11; Rey. i. 5, 6; and Rey. v. 12-14; vii. ro (where 
 He is associated with the Father), as well as Rom. xvi. 27, are doxologies of 
 this kind, while their principle is justified in 2 Thess. i. 12 Stws évdogdoOn 
 70 dvopa Tod Kupiov Apav “Incod Xpicrod év byiv. Consider S. John v. 23. 
 V. ‘The insuperable difficulty is that Christ is ém mdvrav @eds,’ if (1) be 
 adopted. But why insuperable? The relation to the Universe implied in 
 émt mavrov is already involved in what is said of Christ in Col. i, 15-17. 
 The Universe was created év ai7d, &’ adrod, cis airév: He éari (not éxticOn) 
 mpd mavtwv, and 7a navTa év av’t@ ovvéornxev. After this it is little to say 
 that He is émi mdvrwy, although this is predicated of the Father (Eph. iv. 6), 
 Who, it ought to be unnecessary to add, cannot be included in the téyra: 
 1 Cor. xv. 27. Christ is émi ravrwy Oeds, not 6 én mavrov Ocds, as if He were 
 airé0eos; and for this preeminence see Rom. x. 12; Acts x. 36. The 
 absence of the article proves nothing ; @¢ds is predicate, and the object is to 
 affirm Christ @edv eivar, not Tov @cdy eivar. He is not 6 eds, i.e. the Triune 
 Gop, but Gop ; ef. 8. John i. 1 kal @eds Hv 6 Adyos. EvAoyn7és seems to be 
 sustained by edAoynpuévos, applied to Christ in S. Matt. xxi. 9; S. Luke xix. 
 38. Meyer well observes that ‘if Christ is here referred to, we need not 
 shrink from acknowledging that He is not nuncupativé, but naturaliter, Gov.’ ] 
 
 B. 
 
 Israel’s general failure to attain Sixarocdvy Oeod éx mictews Con- ae 
 sidered in the light of the Divine Attributes (ix. 6-29). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The first section of this treatise belongs to what would now be called ‘A 
 Theodicea. This word as now commonly used to describe such efforts of <. 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, vv. 6-29. 155 
 
 Theological Science as are devoted to explaining and justifying Gop’s 
 government of the world, in those particulars which present the greatest 
 difficulty to the moral sense or the understanding of man, only dates from 
 the end of the 17th or the beginning of the 18th century. But the effort 
 is as old as, or older than, Christianity. The Book of Job in the Old 
 Testament, and this passage in the New Testament (Rom. ix. 6-29), are its 
 chief Biblical examples. The distribution of pain presents as many diffi- 
 culties to human thought as the mysteriousness of the kingdom of grace. 
 In Christian antiquity S. Augustine’s Treatise de Civitate Dei represents 
 an attempt of Christian thought to answer objections to the idea of a 
 Divine Government of the world, which arose out of the miseries that 
 prevailed at the destruction of the Roman Empire. When at the close of 
 the 17th century men were distracted between Spinoza’s absorption of 
 all free-wills into a single substance and Bayle’s proclamation of a modified 
 dualism, Leibnitz published his Essai de Théodicée, sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté 
 de Vhomme, et Vorigine du mal, 1710. An entire literature has sprung from 
 or been modelled on this book; and the word Theodicea has been since 
 appropriated in ordinary theological language to that department of 
 Christian Apologetics which vindicates the attributes of Gop, against the 
 objections which appeal to the existence of evil, moral and physical, and to 
 the ‘clouds and darkness’ which surround certain districts of Gop’s action 
 upon the world and humanity. Considering Gop’s promises to Israel, the 
 rejection of the mass of the Israelites presented difficulties which required 
 explanation. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The situation which made the following discussion necessary is thus 
 described by Baur, Paulus, ii. 3 ‘ After many years of the Apostle’s ministry 
 great numbers of heathen had embraced the Christian faith, while the 
 number of Jews who were converted formed a very trifling proportion of 
 the nation as a whole: and thus the very condition on which the Messianic 
 faith of the Jewish Christians was based, namely that the fulfilment of the 
 old promises made to Israel had come about in Jesus, appeared not to have 
 been fulfilled. How could Jesus be the Messiah of the nation if the nation 
 did not believe in Him, nor seem at all likely to do so, and if the respective 
 proportions of Gentile and Jewish Christianity made it clear that the 
 blessings which Messiah was to bring had, so far, gone much more to the 
 Gentiles than to the Jews? ... Hither this glaring disproportion, which 
 so conflicted, as the Jewish converts thought, with the old promises, must 
 lead them to renounce their faith in Jesus as the Messiah altogether, or 
 they must have serious scruples as to the mode in which the Gentiles had 
 been called to Christianity.’ That such scruples were justified S. Paul 
 could on no account admit: he had replied to them by anticipation in his 
 whole account of d:xaootvn é« mictews. He must therefore address himself 
 to the task of showing that the Jewish Christians misunderstood the real 
 drift and import of the promises made to Israel, and that there was no 
 such contradiction between the circumstances of their day, and the faith- 
 fulness and pledged word of Gop, as they were disposed to imagine. ] 
 
 Prop. I. . 
 (Concerning Gon’s veracity). Gop’s promise has not been violated 
 _by the reprobation of the Jewish people (ix. 6-13). 
 

 
 156 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Jewish objection (kept in view by S. Paul). The droB8ory of Israel 
 implies that the Messianic promise made to Israel had failed 
 (ver. 6). 
 
 [The Adyos rod @cod refers to Gen. xii. 3, and the & dv 6 Xpiords 7d xara odpxa of 
 ver. 5. It means Gon’s word of promise to Israel, specially the promise of 
 salvation through the Messiah. This Aéyos might seem to have fallen out 
 of its place (éx7érraxev) in the order of Providence, when the great majority 
 of the people to whom it belonged were altogether unaffected by it, at least 
 for good. | 
 
 Resp. No. It is not a matter of such a nature as the éxminrew of 
 the Divine word which has caused the grief of the Apostle in 
 ix. 1-5. For 
 
 [Obs. 1. odx ofoy br is a solecism mixing up two modes of expression, (1) odx ofov 
 with a finite tense éxrémrwxev, and (2) obx br1=o00nK ép® Sri. As it stands 
 the phrase in full is od rofoy Aéyw, ofov S71, ‘I do not speak of such a kind 
 of thing as (that is) that.’ Cf. Meyer in loc.] 
 
 [Obs, 2. éxmimrew is here used like bp) in Joshua xxi. 43 (Heb.), d:arinrev, xxiii. 
 14, minrev, of sayings which are not fulfilled. The sense of ‘to fall out of 
 position’ satisfies the various uses of the word in the New Testament, 
 S. Mark xiii. 25; Acts xii. 7; 1 Cor. xiii. 8; Gal. v. 4; S. James i. 11; 
 1S. Pet. i. 24; Rey. ii. 5. Cf. the classical éxBadAeoOa. Opposed to this is 
 peévew ver. 11. ] 
 
 Tuesis. Gop’s Promise to Israel, instead of having failed, has been 
 Julfilled (6 b-13). 
 
 Arg. The reason why (yap) the Promise of Gop to Israel has not 
 
 failed is that all who spring from Israel are not Israel’s true - 
 
 children. Of those who are by natural descent Israelites, only 
 a certain number really correspond to the import of the name. 
 To these the Divine promise was really made ; and with them 
 it has been kept (ver. 6 a). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The distinction between the true Israel and the merely natural Israel 
 is implied in dA7@as “Iopandirns S. John i. 48 ; €v TO KpuTTG “Iovdaios Rom, ii. 
 28, 29; “IopaijA xara mvedya Gal. iv. 29; "IcpayA Tov Ocod Gal. vi. 16. The 
 spiritual Israel was at once narrower and wider than the natural Israel : 
 narrower in that it included only a minority of the nation, and wider in 
 that it was to embrace, as réxva 77s émayyedias and réxva Tov Ocov, men of all 
 races, Within the Catholic Church of Christ. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Does of é¢ ‘IopanA mean those who have sprung from the Patriarch 
 Jacob, or from the People? Probably the latter. The Apostle distin- 
 guishes between the natural Israel and the Israel chosen by Gop, before he 
 proceeds to justify this distinction by the history of the Patriarchal 
 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, vv. 6-29. 157 
 
 families. Among Jacob’s posterity there was no such distinction as that 
 between the children of Abraham and of Isaac. None of the twelve sons 
 of Jacob were excluded from the theocratic body. ] 
 
 This restriction of the true spiritual Israel to a limited number of 
 born Israelites is referred to a general law, obtaining through- 
 out the Patriarchal Age, by which the rékva rijs émayye\ias are 
 always only a portion of the réxva ths wapkéds (7-1 ay 
 
 (A) Case of the children of Abraham (7-9). Here the prerogative 
 title of oréppa "ASpadu—implying true descent from Abraham— 
 so far from being extended to Ishmael, is limited by the express 
 word of Gop to Isaac. If, therefore, the Jews were by descent 
 oméppa ABpadp, it did not follow that they were also réxva, i.e. 
 true children (ver. 7). 
 
 [Obs. omépya here means mere natural offspring: in ver. 8 it means spiritual 
 descendants. | 
 
 a. Gen. xxi. 12 (being the promise to Abraham, at the expul- 
 
 sion of Ishmael) quoted in order to show that the spiritual 
 
 prerogatives of the chosen race were limited to a portion of 
 
 the family of Abraham (7 b). 
 Heb. YR 9? NY POD *D 
 LXX 6m & "Ioadke KAnOnoeTai co oméeppa. 
 
 [Obs. x. ‘In the person of Isaac posterity shall be named to thee’; i.e. Isaac’s 
 children will pass as thy descendants ; Ishmael’s are tacitly excluded. It 
 is the reason given to Abraham warranting compliance with Sarah’s 
 demand for the expulsion of Ishmael. But (see ver. 9) the Apostle limits 
 the saying to the person of Isaac himself, Isaac being Abraham’s promised 
 child, and thus representing in himself Abraham’s true posterity. For all 
 Israelites were descendants of Isaac; and they could not therefore be 
 treated by the Apostle, as the type of the true sonship of Abraham, in an 
 
 argument, by which the claim to that sonship which rests upon bodily 
 descent is withdrawn. ] 
 
 [0bs. 2. This saying, being well known, is introduced immediately without 
 Kadds yéypanra:: Gal. iii. 11, 12; 1 Cor. xv. 27.] | 
 
 b. Gen. xxi. 12 explained as illustrating a general law (ver. 
 8). This expresses the idea (rodr’ éorw) that (1) it is not all 
 the physical progeny of a saintly Patriarch who are as 
 such necessarily Gon’s children, but (2) that those children 
 of Abraham who, like Isaac, are made his sons by the 
 creative virtue of a Divine Promise, are accounted by Gop 
 to be Abraham’s true posterity, (Acyi¢erat eis omépya) (ver. 8). 
 
158 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. Gentile converts to the Church cannot here be included under the ré«va 
 THs émayyeAias without ignoring the context. Abraham’s race is alone in 
 question ; all his natural descendants are not considered by Gop to belong to 
 it. Yet in another connection the Apostle writes to heathen converts, Gal. 
 iv. 28 jets 5€, ddeApoi, nata "Ioaan émayyedlas Téxva éopev. For Aoyifera, see 
 Rom. iv. 3, 5.] 
 
 c. The explanation justified (yap ver. 9) by an appeal to the 
 words spoken by Jehovah at Mamre in Gen. xviii. 10, and 
 Gen. xviii. 14 (ver. 9). 
 
 Gen. xviii. 10 and 14, blended and quoted to show (ydp) that 
 Isaac was the child (not of nature) but of Promise (ver. 9). 
 
 Gen. xviii. 10, 
 Heb. (IMAM) TIN Mys POX aw iw 
 AUN MY? 
 LXX énavacrpipwv iw mpos ot kara Tov KaLpoy 
 TovTov eis wpas, Kal ef vidy Zappa H yurvn gov. 
 Gen. xviii. 14. 
 Heb. fa mys men nys poy awe 
 
 LXX eis tov Katpdy todrov dvactpéyw mpods oé eis 
 Gpas Kat ora 7H Sdppa vids. 
 
 [Obs. 1. In the text. as quoted by S. Paul, card tov xaipdy Todroy is taken from 
 ver. Io, and «al éora 7H Sdppa vids from ver. 14, while éAevcoua is substi- 
 tuted for 7éw. The words of the Divine Speaker in the grove of Mamre, 
 before Sarah’s laughing, are combined with His repeated promise which 
 occurs in the reproof afterwards. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. The blended quotation is a word of promise. téxva tis énayyedias means 
 that Isaac was born by virtue of the Divine promise, not simply that he 
 realised it, Gal. iv. 23: % THs émayyedias ioxis Erexe 7d maidiiov S. Chrys. 
 Sarah’s child was a child not of nature, but of the émayyedia. xard tov 
 kapdv TovToy ver, Io represents 730 nyd, ie. as the time revives, i.e. 
 when the present season lives again (next year). 
 
 (B) Case of the children of Isaac (vers, 10-13), 
 
 [Obs. 1. od pdvov 5& (Sappa Ad-yov @cod, or émaryyediay, fyev). Abraham’s family is 
 not the strongest case. For it might be objected that Ishmael’s rejection 
 was to be explained by his being illegitimate. But the same distinction 
 between the natural child and the child of promise reappears in the sons of Isaac, 
 who were not merely both legitimate, but twins. The more definite idea of 
 promise which governs the argument of vers. 8, 9 is here exchanged for the 
 more general one of Divine appointment. ] 
 
 [0bs. 2. We should have expected that Abraham with the two sons from two 
 wives, so unequal in their positions, would have been followed by Isaac 
 with his two sons from the one lawful wife. But the mention of Sarah in 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, vv. 6-29. 159 
 
 the composite quotation in ver. 9, and still more the fact that the Divine 
 declaration in ver. 12 was made, not to Isaac but to Rebecca, leads S. Paul 
 to state the contrast between the mothers, ver. 10. ] 
 
 The Prediction to Rebecca (vers. 10-13). 
 1. Circumstances under which the Prediction to Rebecca was given 
 (vers. 10, II a). 
 
 a. Rebecca was e& évds xoirnv gxovoa, namely, by our father Isaac 
 (ver. 10). 
 
 [Obs. 1. After dAAd kat “PeBéxxa supply ouppaprupel jpyiv or napddevypa mapéxet. 
 éf évés does not simply affirm Rebecca’s conjugal faithfulness. It proves the 
 worthlessness of mere bodily descent in the transmission of the émayyedia, 
 Rebecca was to be a mother of twins by one man, yet how different would 
 be their religious destiny ! xoirnv (used like edvy and Aéxos) as in Heb. xiii. 
 4; Lev. xv. 18; xviii. 20; Wisd. iii. 13.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The arg. is strengthened by the solemn title tod matpds judy given to 
 Isaac. Lawfu! descent from the most venerable ancestors does not carry 
 with it heirship to the émayyeAia. For narnp, see Rom. iv. 1.] 
 
 b. As Gop indeed knew, Rebecca’s twins were yet unborn, and 
 had done nothing, whether good or bad (ver. 11 a). 
 
 [Obs. pjrw, not otmw, The subjective negative relation is insisted on. Not only 
 were the twins unborn in fact, but this fact was before the Divine Mind. 
 Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 608.] 
 
 2. Purpose (iva) with which the Prediction to Rebecca was given 
 (ver. 11b). 
 
 That the 7 xar’ ékdoyny mpdbeors (the Divine purpose which was 
 so formed that in it an election was made) might have its 
 unchangeable character (uévy), not as a result of any works 
 which those whom it concerned would perform, but as the 
 outcome of His agency, Who calls nations and souls to His 
 Kingdom and Service (cf. viii. 28, 30). 
 [Obs, 1. iva i.7.A. ver. 11 specifies the purpose with which the Divine mpdéeais 
 respecting Rebecca’s children was declared before their birth. For other 
 
 examples of a sentence expressing purpose, being thus placed before a 
 governing verb, cf. S. Matt. xvii. 27; S. John xix. 28, 31 ; Acts xxiv. 4.] 
 [Obs. 2. With 4 xar’ éxdoyiv mpd0cors compare xi. 5 nar’ éxAoyiy xdapiTos, and, as 
 parallel phrases, Heb. xi. 7 } xara riotw dixacoobvn, Rom. xi. 21 of xara pvaw 
 Kdbor : €x TOU KaAOUYTOS = xdpiTt, OF Ex XapiTos, xi. 6 ; Eph. ii. 8, 9; 2Tim. i.g 
 Tob KadgoavTos (pas) KAnoE ayia, ob Kara Ta epya Hua, GAAG Kat’ idiay mpddeow 
 Kat xapw.) 
 
 [Obs. 3. Gon’s purpose expressing itself in the election of a minority of the Jews, 
 corresponding to Jacob, and in the dmoBoAy of the majority, corresponding 
 
160 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 to Esau, is not the result of the presence or absence of conduct in conformity 
 with the law, moral or ceremonial, but has its ground in the will of Gop. 
 It is ob« é€ Epywv, GAN’ éx ToU KadovvTos. But it does not from this follow that 
 the Divine mpd@eots, the free self-determination of Gop with respect to His 
 creatures, is in itself a mere arbitrary caprice. It must, on the contrary, be 
 in strict harmony with the Eternal Moral Laws of Gon’s Nature, with that 
 unerring Justice and Love which is Gop. This is not indeed here stated by 
 S. Paul; but it is not denied. §. Paul merely says that the éxAoyf in 
 which the Divine rpé@ears takes form is not determined by the épya of the 
 person or nation which is its object. He may mean that it is determined 
 by zioris: but he does not say so here. See, however, iii. 22 eis ravras 
 kal énl mavtas Tos morevorTas. | 
 
 3. Substance of the Prediction to Rebecca (éppy6n airy), (ver. 12). 
 
 Gen. xxv. 23, quoted to show that Gop had foretold very different 
 destinies for the two children of Rebecca. 
 Heb. = yy Tay. IN 
 LXX 6 pei(ey Sovdcdoa TH eAdoooNL. 
 
 [Obs. pei(wy and é¢Adoowv mean the greater and the less, not the first born andsecond 
 born. The prediction refers to the ‘two nations in the womb’ of Rebecea, of 
 which one was greater than the other, and yet was to serve it. It was ful- 
 filled by David’s conquest of Edom (2 Sam. viii. 14) ; by the later conquests 
 under Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 7; 2 Chron. xxv. 11) and Uzziah (2 Kings 
 xiv. 22; 2 Chron. xxvi. 2) ; and under John Hyrcanus (Jos. Ant. xiii. 9. 
 1). S. Paul is thinking, however, not of the nations, but of the brothers ; 
 and as to these, the prediction was justified by Isaac’s blessing, Gen. xxvii. 
 29 yivov Kupios Tov adeAdou gov, cf. 37, 40. | 
 
 4. Illustration of the Prediction to Rebecca by Gon’s later decla- 
 ration, through Malachi, of His eternal love for Jacob, and 
 hatred of Esau (ver. 13). 
 
 Mal. i. 2, 3, quoted to show that the Prediction to Rebecca re- 
 specting Gon’s relations with Jacob and Esau, was borne out 
 
 _ by history (ver. 13). 
 Heb.  snsay WYNN) Apys NY IT 
 
 LXX kal qyamnoa Tov “lakwB roy 6& “Hoat évionoa, 
 
 [Obs. 1. The passage occurs in Malachi’s opening reproach to Israel for ingratitude : 
 
 Mal. i. 2, 3 ‘I-have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast 
 
 thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I 
 
 loved Jacob and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage 
 waste for the dragons of the wilderness.’ Thus, that Israel had been Re 
 exalted and Edom destroyed, was a practical illustration in history of this a 
 hyamoa and éyicnca. But in the Apostle’s sense the aorists are to be 4 
 referred not to Gon’s practical dealings with the nations in history, but to the 
 _ Divine mpé0eo1s which preceded the birth of the brothers. Yet, as Petavius 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, vv. 6-29. 161 
 
 observes, the saying of Malachi does not touch upon the eternal weal or loss 
 of the two brothers, personally, but only on their typical relationships to 
 the érayyeAia. It seems otherwise with Isaac and Ishmael. Pet. de Dogm. 
 Theol. t, 1. lib. 10. & I. 0. 7.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. éuicnoa (1) may be used in the privative sense of not fo love, or to love less, 
 See S. Jerome on Mal. i. Aq. Summ. Th. p. 1. qu. 23. art. 3. ad. rt ‘In 
 quantum Deus quibusdam non vult hoe bonum quod est vita aeterna, dicitur 
 eos odio habere.’ As dyandy sometimes = evAoyeiv, kad@s Toreiv, so puoety has 
 this privative sense in Eph. v. 29 ovddels yap more Tiv Eavrot odpxa épionoer, 
 GAN éxtpéper kai OdATa aitnvy. Comp.S. John xii. 25. The word has been 
 taken to describe conduct which would imply in man arbitrary hatred. 
 Since Gop is love, ‘He hateth nothing that He has made’; but He acts 
 sometimes towards men, as men would act, they think, if they felt hatred, 
 puceity thus describes not an emotion in Gop but an effect of an emotion, 
 anthropopathically attributed to Him: Gen. xxix. 30, 31; Deut. xxi. 15 
 sqq.; Prov. xiii. 24; S. Matt. vi. 24 &c. In the present case picciy expressed 
 itself in, or was recognized in, Esau’s rejection: dyamav in the éxAoyn of 
 Jacob. 
 
 [Obs. 3. This failure of natural descent to secure the émayyedia, which the 
 Apostle traces in the earliest history of the theocracy, shows the fundamental 
 unity of the O. T. and N. T. on the question of man’s Salvation, and is the 
 ground of that necessity for a new Birth which our Lord and His Apostles 
 insist upon; S. John i, 13; iii. 3-6; 1S. Pet, i. 23. Comp. Eph, ii. 5.] 
 
 Prop. TI. 
 
 (Concerning Gon’s justice.) That Gop is just when He freely 
 chooses a small number of Jews to be members of the 
 Church of Christ, while the great majority are rejected, can be 
 shown from the language of the Jewish Scriptures themselves 
 (14-18). 
 
 Jewish obj. (suggested by vers. 11-13). Is not the restriction of 
 the promises (a) to Jacob to the exclusion of Esau, and (0) to 
 conyerted Jews to the exclusion of the majority of Jews, 
 suggestive of capricious injustice on the part of Gop ? (ver. 14). 
 
 [Obs. pi) diinia napd TO Cc; ‘Is there not unrighteousness with Gop?’ S. Paul’s 
 
 anticipation of the Jewish Christian inference from 11-13, which he nega- 
 
 tives by pi) yévorro. The stress lies on ddiixia. For rapdé with dat. in order to 
 
 express qualities or attributes, see Winer, Gr. V.T. p. 492. The presumed 
 
 . dduxia of Gop would consist in His choosing Jacob, without reference to any 
 
 human claims, since the idea of dixn implies, apparently, reward for 
 meritorious effort. ] 
 
 Resp. No, According to the Jewish Scriptures themselves, Gop 
 Himself so asserts His free choice in the exercise both of Mercy 
 - and of Severity, as to silence the suggestion (15-18). 
 M 
 
phen’ >. (obaees 
 
 162 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. This is an ad hominem arg. as against a Jewish controversialist, who would 
 be bound to accept those representations of the Divine character and 
 conduct which are put forward in the Hebrew Scriptures. Though these 
 representations have an equally binding authority for Christians, and may 
 be illustrated by independent moral considerations, yet this is not im- 
 mediately in question. ] 
 
 (A) The Jewish Scriptures represent Gop as acting with perfect 
 freedom in His exercise of Compassion (15, 16). 
 
 [Obs. The quotation in ver. 15 is a reason (yap) for pa yévorro (ver. 14). Only 
 Moses, the venerated recipient of the word, is named; Océs is understood 
 before Aéye: from ver. 14.] 
 
 a. Proof from Ex. xxxiii. 19. Gop’s word to Moses in the 
 vision before the giving of the Law, quoted to show that 
 Gop’s mercy is not conditioned by any human right or title 
 
 (ver. 15). 
 Heb. “nS (MON JAS Ww Tas pa 
 
 LXX kat ddchow bv Gy ered, Kal vixrerpnow dv dv oikrepa. 
 
 [Obs. x. The Hebrew, ‘Iam gracious to whom I will be gracious,’ &. LXX ‘TI will 
 be gracious to whomsoever I am gracious,’ &c. But the sense is the same. } 
 
 [Obs. 2. Moses had prayed, ‘Suffer me, I pray Thee, to see Thy glory.’ The 
 request was granted ; and the quotation assigns a reason for the promise 
 which precedes : ‘I will make all thy goodness pass before thee, and I will 
 proclaim the Name of the Lord before thee.’ But the axiomatic form of this 
 reason enables S. Paul to detach it from its immediate context,asa general 
 statement of the law that Gop’s =e is exercised in accordance with His 
 Free-will.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. oixreipw expresses more strongly the exercise of mercy than éed. Inthe 
 LXX éAceiv represents {3 = gratia seu favore prosequi; and oi«reipew 
 stands for O97 = clemens esse. Probably the Hebr. leads Tittmann 
 (Syn. p. 69 sqq.) to distinguish éAcetv Gop’s active mercy, from oixteipav 
 His pitying loving-kindness. ] 
 
 (Obs. 4. It may be said that the charge of déixia rapa 76 OcH which S. Paul 
 is here repelling is aggravated rather than met by the contents of the 
 citation in ver.15. But for the disputant with whom the Apostle conceives 
 himself to be arguing, who takes his stand on the Jewish Scriptures, and 
 accuses Gop of being unjust to the majority of Israel in the Apostolic age, 
 the reply is sufficient. It lies in the fact that the citation is from the 
 Hebrew Scriptures ; that it is an authority which the objector must own to 
 have a binding force. IfS. Paul argues as he does from the histories of the 
 children of Abraham and Isaac, his inference is borne out by Gop’s words 
 about Himself in the Jewish, Law ; and no good Jew, or Jewish Christian, 
 can doubt that what Gop says about Himself in his own Law, must be in 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, vv. 6-29. 163 
 
 harmony with this absolute Righteousness. Further than this it is not 
 necessary for the Apostle to go, at the present stage of his argument. ] 
 
 b. Inference (apa oév) from the Divine saying to Moses (just 
 quoted), as to the causality of Redemption (ver. 16). 
 
 Man’s to any (inward) earnest longings for 
 share in the salvation (Phil. ii. 13), od rod 
 saving €)eos | not O€dovros : 
 
 and to any active (outward) efforts to serve 
 
 oikTippds Gop, ovd€ rod rpéxovros : 
 of Gop but to Gon’s (free) compassion, rod €Acodvros 
 is due Geov. 
 
 [Obs. 1. The gen. 0éAovtos, TpéxovTos, éAeodvTos expresses the Lat. penes. Tpéxeuwv 
 means active effort ; the figure is borrowed from the public games: 1 Cor. 
 ix. 24, 26; Gal. v. 7; Phil. ii. 16. It is equivalent to diwxew dixaocdvny in 
 ix. 30, and si idiay Sixaootvyy (nreiv otjom in x. 3. It seems very 
 doubtful whether zpéyew has any reference to Esau’s fruitless running 
 in from the chase ; or 6éAev to Abraham’s wish to make Ishmael, or Isaac’s 
 wish to make Esau, heir of the érayyeAia.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The idea of ver. 16 is more fully expanded in ix. 30-33, and x. 1-3. 
 It is simply, but adequately, expressed as follows: ‘Salus hominis non 
 debetur alicui per aliquam ejus voluntatem, vel exteriorem operationem, 
 sed procedit ex sola Dei misericordia,’ Aquin. in loc. The tpéxwy, in the 
 strength of grace received, only acts conformably to the 7 kar’ éxArAoyjv 
 mpd0eors: and yet, viewed from the side of human experience, he acts freely ; 
 and hence the Apostle bids him rpéxew in x Cor. ix. 24.] 
 
 (B) The Jewish Scriptures represent Gop as acting with perfect 
 freedom in His exercise of severity (17, 18). 
 
 [Obs. In ver. 17 yap is explained as implying that the case of Pharaoh affords a 
 reason e contrario for the proposition stated inver.16. The Divine oxAnpivev 
 is the counterpart of the Divine édcctv. 7% ypad7 is said to speak, because 
 Gop speaks in it: Gal. iii. 8, 22. Pharaoh is the chosen contemporaneous 
 historical antithesis of Moses: the Divine rejection is contrasted with the 
 Divine election. Pharaoh, like the rejected majority of the Jewish people, 
 stood on his rights. He claimed to have a right to the continued posses- 
 sion of Israel; and he asserted this right against the Will of Gop, as 
 proclaimed through Moses. So the Jews of the Apostolic age appealed to 
 the position secured to them, as they thought by the Mosaic Law, as 
 against the Will of Gop revealed by Christ and His Apostle.} 
 
 a. Proot from Ex. ix. 16. (Message to Pharaoh, in announcing 
 the Plague of Hail). Quoted to show that Gop is not less free 
 in His. exercise of severity, than in His showing com- 
 
 passion (ver, 17). 
 M2 
 
164 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Heb. JANI aya PIT NN aya ody 
 rpasaboa ‘py 7p jyinds no-ny 
 
 LXX rai Gerev rodrov diuernp7yOns, iva évdeigwpa ev cot tiv icxvv pov, kat Stws SrayyeAT 
 70 Ovopa pou év maon TH YT. 
 
 i. eis adtd Toiro eEnyepa oe, 
 ) li. Oras evdeiEopat ev coi thy Svvapiv pov, | 
 ii, kal dras SiayyeAf TO dvoud pov ev mdon TH yi. 
 i, Act of Gop. Assigning to Pharaoh his place in 
 human history: e&jyepd ce. 
 
 li. Its immediate purpose. The manifestation of Gop’s 
 punitive power: émws evdeiEopat, x.t.d, 
 
 lii. Its more remote purpose. The world-wide publi- 
 cation of the Divine Name: kai draws diayyeAq 1d 
 dvopa, K.T.A. 
 
 [Obs. 1. God’s act. ée€ayeapd ce. Heb. VETO, ‘I have made thee stand up,’ 
 1 Kings xv. 4; Prov. xxix. 4. The reference to the pestilence (Ex. ix. 
 15) led the LXX to translate freely by Svernpnéns (see Hexapla), thou 
 hast been preserved alive. Chald. Paraph. FAP. S. Paul’s ééiyerpa, 
 while referring immediately to the historical incident (comp. S. James 
 Vv. 15), suggests the whole appearance of Pharaoh on the scene of 
 history. He had been raised up for this. So éyeipew is used in this sense: 
 S. Matt. xi. 11; xxiv. 21; S. John yii. 52; Ecclus. x. 4; 1 Mace. 
 lil. 49. «is av7d TodTO, s stronger than LXX éexev rovrov, for NN} Way. 
 Attention concentrated on émws, «.7.A.] j 
 
 [Obs. 2. Immediate purpose. Smws évdei~wpar év col tiv Svvayiv pov. A various 
 reading of the LXX which stands iva évdeigwya év col thy icxdv pov. The 
 Divine Power (Svvayis) exhibited partly in the successive plagues of Egypt, 
 and chiefly in the destruction of the Egyptian hosts and their king (éy go), 
 On évécixvvcda, see ii. 15; iii. 25; Eph. ii. 7; 1 Tim. i. 16. Gop would 
 cause His power to be recognised. émws here expresses not Gon’s antecedent 
 will respecting any creature of His Hand, but His consequent will,—consequent, 
 that is, on Pharaoh’s becoming what Gop eternally foreknew that he would 
 be. ‘Non Deus auctor fuit malitiae Pharaonis, sed cum destitutus Divinae 
 Gratiae praesidiis, multis sese sceleribus inquinarit, divinae potentiae 
 illustrandae materiam praebuit,’ (Just. in loc.). Gop could not positively 
 and directly contribute to Pharaoh’s wickedness, without doing violence to 
 His own Sanctity ; but He did privatively contribute to it by gradually with- 
 drawing from Pharaoh such grace and opportunities as might have saved 
 him, when Pharaoh’s repeated sin had made this penal privation just. This 
 is all that S. Augustine means in paraphrasing the passage, ‘ Excitavi te, 
 ut contumacius resisteres imperio meo, non tantum permittendo, Wc multa 
 etiam tam intus quam foris operando.’] 
 
 - [Obs. 3. More remote purpose. kat dnws, x.7.A. The world-wide (& méoy TH YH) 
 publication (S.ayyeAp) of the Name of Gop as the Judge and Punisher of 
 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, vv. 6-29. 165 
 
 Pharaoh was to follow in all coming time. The Egyptian wonders, and 
 especially the destruction of the Egyptian host, produced a great effect on 
 the mind of the heathen world. In the Song of Moses, the effect upon the 
 Canaanites, Edomites and Moabites is anticipated: ‘The people shall hear 
 and be afraid : sorrow shall take hold of the inhabitants of Palestina. Then 
 the dukes of Edom shall be amazed ; the mighty men of Moab, trembling 
 shall take hold upon them ; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away’ 
 Ex. xv. 14, 15. Compare the prayer of the Levites in Neh. ix. 10, The 
 destruction of Pharaoh is often mentioned in the Koran.] 
 
 b. Inference (dpa ov) from the Divine saying to Pharaoh, 
 (just quoted,) as to Gon’s free-agency in the exercise of 
 severity, as well as of mercy (ver. 18), 
 
 ov Gere ; Mees “ 
 okAnpuvet, 
 
 [Obs. 1. The subject to 0éAa, viz. 6 Oeds, is suppressed from a feeling of awe, and 
 because every reader could easily supply it. Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 736, E. T. 
 By 0éAea is denoted the action, not of a capricious, but of a perfectly Holy 
 Will. The ultimate reason for man’s salvation (éAee¢) lies not in his will 
 but in that of Gop, Who is 6 évepy@v év ipiv kal 7d OéAew Kal 7d evepyeiv 
 trép ris eddoxias Phil. ii. 13. éAee? summarises vers. 15, 16.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. oxAnpove. Acts xix.9; Heb. iii. 8, 13, 15. Cf. Ex. iv. 21, LXX éya 82 
 oKAnpuv® avtov tiv Kapdiav : Vii. 3; ix. I2; X. 20, 27; xi. 10; xiv. 4, 8, 17. 
 oxdnpivey, from oxdnpés (oxéAAw oxAjvar) durus, asper, rigidus, LXX for 
 NYP, Hiph. 12, ‘to make hard.’ It cannot be here ‘to treat harshly,’ (on 
 the ground that in ver. 17, the subject is not the hardening, but the over- 
 throw of Pharaoh), because this would do violence to the language. Akin 
 to oxAnpivew is Bapiveay = Heb. 135i) ingravare ; ‘to make heavy.’ Cf. Ex. 
 viii. 15, 32. ‘The two metaphors make up the idea of moral insensibility. 
 Yet (1) this hardening is also said to be Pharaoh’s own act; Ex. 
 Vili. 15, 32 éBdpuveyv Papaw tiv xapdiay abrod: Ex. ix. 343 xiii. 15 
 éaxdnpuvev Papaw éfamooreiAa judas. Compare 1 Sam. vi. 6. Elsewhere, (2) 
 such hardening is represented as a punishment sent by Gop: Ex. ix. 12; 
 X. 20, 27; Is. vii 9 sqq. Gop has given man a moral nature, which 
 may surrender itself to evil, until it reaches a point at which return 
 has become impracticable. Gop is said Himself to do that which results 
 from a misuse of the laws of the nature which He has given ; and yet, so far 
 as Gop is concerned, this result is always a judgment for man’s neglect of 
 Gonp’s merciful calls and warnings. ‘ Man first closes his own heart and then 
 his heart is closed,’ So even Christ is ‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of 
 offence to them who stumble at the word, being disobedient,’ 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8. 
 In theological language, when man neglects gratia sufficiens which Gop gives 
 to all, Gop withholds His gratia eficax. In this privation consists the 
 oxdrnpive, which however is here, consistently with his present point 
 of view, regarded by the Apostle as exclusively the product of Gop’s Holy 
 and Absolute Will (dv 5& 6éAe), and irrespectively of those conditions of 
 human responsibility which he elsewhere recognizes. Cf. S. Aug. de div, 
 Quaesit, ad Simplic, 1. Qu. 2, 15 ‘obduratio Dei... nolle misereri, ut non ab 
 
166 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 illo irrogetur aliquid quo sit homo deterior, sed tantum quo sit melior non 
 erogetur.’ But see the exhaustive discussion of o«Anpivey considered as 
 evidencing the testing power of Gop’s Revelations, Miller, Chr. Doctr. of Sin, 
 Bk. v. 3 (vol. ii. p. 465, E. T.); Is. vi. 10 sqq.; S. Matt. xiii. 12. And 
 observe how the d7ipa(ecOa and 1d6n dtipias of Rom. i. 24, 26 were punish- 
 ments of the Heathen for refusing to retain Gop in their knowledge, when 
 revealed in Nature and Conscience.] 
 
 Prop. IIL. ' 
 
 (Concerning Gop’s Justice.) Man is not in a position which 
 enables him to criticize the Justice of Gop’s dealings with 
 sinners (vers. 19-21). 
 
 Jewish obj. (suggested by ver. 18 dy dé Oder oxAnpivet, to Which ov» 
 (ver. 19) refers). How can Gop reproach hardened sinners, 
 since it is asserted that they have been hardened by the Divine 
 Will Itself, to which no created will offers successful opposi- 
 tion ? (ver. 19). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The Apostle does not make himself in any way responsible for the 
 objection, when he says épeis obv : cf. Rom. xi. 19; épet Tus 1 Cor. xv. 35; S. 
 James ii. 18. When he feels sympathy with some element in an objection, 
 he asks, Ti obv épotper; iii. 5; vi. 1; vii. 7; ix. 14, 30. The insolence of 
 the antagonist is further implied in pevodvye, & dvOpwre. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. BovAnua=the thing willed; adam. Acey.inS. Paul. We might have expected 
 OeAjpart (ver. 18 dy 5é O€Ae), but the word is purposely varied ; consilium, 
 not merely voluntas. dv@éornKe, perf. pres. Winer, Gk. N. T. p. 342, implies the 
 ever resistless character of Gop’s Will. The objector does not mean that 
 Gop could have nothing in any one to censure, because nobody could resist 
 His predestinating Will; but he asks, how Gon’s censure of the oxAnpuvdpevot 
 can be at all explained. ‘The question is partly impious, partly tragic. ’] 
 
 a. Resp. Man is in no position which entitles him thus to 
 reply by way of opposition to the Divine Judgment of 
 sinners (ver. 20a). 
 
 [Obs. 1. pevodvye (Rom. x. 18; S. Luke xi. 28) denotes an objection, and is 
 slightly ironical ; ris concentrates attention on the nothingness of man, 
 face to face with his Creator. dv ranoxpivdpevos describes putting the question 
 ri ér: ... .av0éaTnKe, Which is a reply by way of opposition to Gon’s péupera 
 of hardened sinners. The verb dyramoxpivecOa is used by the LXX to 
 
 - translate WOS 2°wn and 73, and means to give a contradictory or gainsay- 
 ing reply: S. Luke xiv. 6. 8S. Chrys. paraphrases by dv7iAéyor, évayriovpevos. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. A direct answer to the objection would have been that the objector 
 misunderstood the nature of the oxAnpivew in ver. 19, which cannot be 
 imagined to be a positive process urged forward by the Will of Gop, without 
 blasphemy. But the Apostle replies, not to the question of the objector, 
 but to the disposition from which it issued. Apart from its misconception 
 of the sense of o«Anpivay, the question implied a total forgetfulness of the 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. LX, vv. 6-29. 167 
 
 real relations of man to his Creator. So our Lord often ignored the point 
 of a question put to Him, and addressed Himself to the temper which 
 prompted it: S. Matt. viii. 20, 22; xix. 17; S. John ili. 3; vi. 65; S. Matt. 
 Xxiil. 29, 31. Even had the case been as the objector supposed, how could 
 a man presume to make the objection ? That it was not so, is implied in 
 the 6€ of ver. 22. ] 
 
 b. Justification of Resp. from the Old Testament simile of 
 the potter and the clay, which sets the Divine Power, as 
 contrasted with man’s insignificance, in the strongest light 
 (vers. 20 b-21). 
 
 {Obs. The simile occurs in Is. xxix. 16; xlv.9; Ixiv. 8; Jer. xviii. 6; Ecclus. 
 Xxxili. 13; Wisd. xv. 7. In ver. 20 the Apostle has in view Is. xlv.g9; in 
 ver. 21, as it seems, Wisd. xv. 7‘ For the potter, tempering soft earth, 
 fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service ; yea of the same 
 clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also 
 all such as serve to the contrary ; but what is the use of either sort the 
 potter himself is the judge.’] 
 
 The simile suggests, 
 
 (1) The absurdity of man’s remonstrating with Gop for His 
 conduct in Creation and Providence. Gop is the potter: 
 man the clay (ver. 20). 
 
 (2) The power of Gon (egoveia) to make out of the same mass 
 of human nature (7\és, dupaya) some who would become 
 children of glory, and some children of shame (ver. 21), 
 
 [Obs. 1. The simile forms an-a minori ad majus arg. If not even in the case of a 
 plastic image can the question, Why hast thou made me thus? be conceived 
 as being put; how much less in the case of man, who is so much further 
 removed from the Creator, than any created matter from a human artist !] 
 
 [0bs. 2. The point suggested by the simile is not Gop’s freedom to create beings 
 with different capacities, but to mould beings, already created, (pvpaya, 
 mmads,) to different destinies. “Emoinoas o#rw must be explained by 70 
 mAaoaytt, Which implies an already existing material, ver. 20.] 
 
 _ [Obs. 3. oxevos eis rupqy, eis dripiay. eis of destination, a vessel destined fora noble, 
 
 and a base use. Philo, de Vit. Contempl. ed. Mangey, ii. 472, explains it thus. 
 In 2 Tim. ii. 20, the being a oxedos eis tiynv depends on édv éxxa@apy éavrov. 
 Here the Divine order is alone in view.] 
 
 _ [0bs. 4. The problem respecting the Justice of Gop is not solved in vers. 20. 2. 
 
 The objection is only silenced by reference to the unconditional power of the 
 Creator. ‘One abstraction is set against another.’ As the objector puts for- 
 ward claims on Gop’s justice, which rest on human rights, and leave Gop’s 
 unlimited supremacy out of account, so the Apostle puts forward this 
 unlimited supremacy of Gop, without, at the moment, referring to the Love 
 and Sanctity which regulate its exercise. .The pride of the objector must 
 be humbled; by contemplating the utter insignificance of man before his 
 
168 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Maker, as taught in the Jewish Scriptures, before he can hope to understand 
 the true account of Gon’s dealings with Israel. With this object in view 
 the Apostle will not qualify his assertion of the Absolute Supremacy of 
 Gop.] 
 
 Prop. TV. 
 
 (Concerning Gop’s Mercy.) The action and purpose of Gop in 
 bearing with sinners who deserve punishment should silence 
 the cavils of man (vers. 22-29). 
 
 1. The fact of His bearing with the oxetn dpyis (ver. 22). 
 
 [Obs. The aor. qveyxev, although primarily glancing at the case of Pharaoh 
 (S. Chrys.), includes all hardened sinners until the Advent. For pépew in 
 the sense of ‘ to endure,’ cf. Deut. i. 12; Jer. xliv. 22; Heb. xii. 20. When 
 Gop is said to éndure the oxevn dpyijs, it is implied that His penal oxAnpivew 
 did not positively form them for destruction. ] 
 
 2. The difficulty of His bearing with the oxein boys (ver. 22) 
 seen in 
 
 a. His will (6\ov) to manifest His 6 py against that which 
 provokes it (ver. 22). 
 b. His will to make known 76 dvvaréy airoi, i, e. what He 
 can do to repress it (ver, ooh 
 c. The condition of the cxevn épyis as SS KaTnptTicpeva eis 
 amo\evay (ver. 22), 
 [Obs. On dpyy ef. S. Aug. Civ. Dei, xv. 25 ‘Ira Dei non perturbatio animi ejus 
 est, sed judicium quo irrogatur poena peccato.’ 70 duvardv airod glances at 
 divapis, ver. 17. But Gon’s righteous indignation and His Power are repre- 
 
 sented as held in check by His long-suffering for sinners, and His designs of 
 boundless munificence for His elect. 0éAwv =xKairep Oédwy.] 
 
 3. The motives of His bearing with the cxevn épyis (vers. 
 22, 23). 
 
 a. His abundant long-suffering (odd paxpobvpia) is the 
 attribute within (¢v) which this takes place (ver. 22 b). 
 b. (Secondary or accessory (xai) motive.) His purpose 
 (wa) of making known the wealth of His moral glories 
 to be shed upon the oxetn édéovs, whom He _ had 
 previously fashioned for glory. This required ce 
 
 (ver. 23). 
 
 4. The concrete result to the readers of His bearing with the 
 oxetn Opyis (ver. 24). 
 
Dogmatic: ch. LX, vv. 6-29. 169 
 
 a. He has called them, as ckeiy édgovs, to a state of 
 salvation (ver. 24). 
 
 b. He thus has taken them, (i) not only from among the 
 Jews, who might (however erroneously) deem them- 
 selves hereditary oxet’n ¢A¢ovs, but (ii) from among the 
 heathen nations, who might have been considered 
 beyond the range of the Divine compassion (ver. 24). 
 
 [Obs. r. In vers. 22, 23, the different constructions which have been given turn 
 upon the words in ver. 22, with which «al iva yvwpion (ver. 23) is connected. 
 
 (z) connected with jveyxer ver. 22. In this case cal iva yvwpion 
 
 _ gives a second motive, over and above that supplied by the 
 Divine Attribute of yaxpobupia, for Gov’s bearing with the 
 oxevn opyns. It was that He might make known what He 
 had done for the cxevn éAgous. (Meyer.) 
 
 (2) connected with xarnpticpéva eis dmwAccay (ver. 22). In this 
 case kal iva yvwpion would express the purpose with which 
 the oxevn dpyjs are made ready for destruction. 
 
 (3) connected with (as coordinate with) Oédwy 6 @eds évdeifacGar, 
 In this case «i must be repeated again before iva yowpicn, 
 and the verb depending on ei is not actually inserted. 
 There are then two coordinate clauses. 
 
 kal iva yvapion A. But if Gon, 
 ver. 23. (1) although willing to show His Wrath, and to make 
 known His Power, 
 (2) endured with great long-suffering the vessels of wrath 
 fitted to destruction. 
 
 B. And if Gop, 
 
 (x) in order that He might make known the wealth of 
 His Glory upon the vessels of mercy, whom He 
 had before prepared unto glory, 
 
 (2) [did all that was needful to conduct these vessels to 
 the glory prepared for them, by calling and justi- 
 fying them, viii. 30], 
 
 [what room is there for gainsaying after the manner 
 of the objector in ver. 19?] 
 
 ; The most perfect meaning is yielded by (3), but in addition to the suppres- 
 sion of the apodosis of the whole sentence, we have to suppose the 
 additional suppression of a most important clause B (2), upon which iva yapicn 
 really depends. This is taking too great a liberty with the text. In (2) 
 the last chief thought is made to depend quite subordinately on the 
 secondary qualification xarnpricpéeva els dnwAcvav. We therefore fall back on 
 (1) as presenting fewest difficulties. ] 
 
 [0bs. 2, The apodosis of the question in vers. 22, 23 is not expressed. The ques- 
 tion introduced by «i 5é—‘ But how if’—is not completed ; the aposiopesis 
 being even more expressive than the completed sentence. ‘ But how if Gop, 
 
170 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 although willing to manifest His anger on sinners and to show what He 
 can do against sin, has nevertheless hitherto, in His abounding tenderness, 
 endured sinners, fitted though they are for everlasting destruction, with 
 the further object of making known, during this period of deferred judg- 
 ment, His wealth of glorious perfections in respect of the objects of His 
 mercy, whom by His grace He has fashioned for eternal glory,—how in 
 view of Gop’s long-suffering towards the one class, and His purposes of 
 mercy towards the other, must not any desire to dispute with Him be at 
 once extinguished ?] 
 
 [Obs. 3. oxedn used like n>. cwevos épyjs (ver. 22) corresponds to oxevos eis dripiav 
 (ver. 21), and oxevos édéous (ver. 23) to oxedos eis TiuHy (Ver. 21) ; aripia being 
 the effect of the épyn, tiwH of the €dcos. Compare the Rabbinical use of o> 
 and in Is. xiii.5. In oxedos épyjs—éAéovs—the gen. is of the object, ‘ destined 
 to experience Gop’s wrath’ or mercy ; oxedos éxAoyHs (Acts ix. 15) must he 
 taken actively. The ‘vessels of wrath’ are xatnpticpéva eis dnwAcay, the 
 passive verb being dictated by a motive of piety which for the moment veils 
 the Divine Agent, and suggests the responsibility of the wicked in making 
 themselves what they become, (contrast the mponroipacey (ver. 23) of the 
 aeterna electio of the saved, cf. Eph. ii, 1o,) although the simile of the potter 
 (ver. 21) makes it impossible not also to think of Gop as the «araprifwy, so 
 far as withholding His gratia efficax is concerned. Compare Acts xiii. 48 
 boa joay Tetaypéevar: S, Jude 4 of mpoyeypappéevo: eis TODTO TO Kpiva : 2 Tim. ii, 
 2I okedos Hromwacpéevoy. Observe that mpoeroiwafev implies the communica- 
 tion of certain qualities which sxaraprifey does not: 1 Cor. ii.g; Eph. ii. 
 to; S. Matt. iii. 3; S. Luke i. 17.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. Vers. 22, 23 are apparently moulded on Wisd. xii. 20, 21 ‘For if Thou 
 didst punish the enemies of Thy children, and the condemned to death with 
 such deliberation, giving them time and place whereby they might be 
 delivered from their malice; with how great circumspection didst Thou 
 judge Thine own sons, unto whose fathers Thou hast sworn and made coven- 
 ant of good promises!’ §S, Augustine paraphrases the motive, xal iva ywpion 
 «.7.A. in Ep. 186 ad Paulinum, § 24 ‘Pertulit in multa patientia vasa irae 
 aptata in interitum, non quod illi essent necessaria, ...sed ne se (vasa ‘ 
 misericordiae) ‘in bonis operibus tanquam de propriis extollerent viribus, 
 sed humiliter intelligerent nisi illis Dei gratia, non debita, sed gratuita, 
 subveniret, id fuisse reddendum meritis suis, quod aliis in eadem massa 
 redditum cernerent.’] 
 
 [Obs. 5. In ver: 24 the Apostle recurs to the starting-point of the discussion in 
 ver. 6, viz. the exclusion of the majority of Israelites from the Christian 
 Church, and the admission of heathen converts in their place. In ods «ai 
 éxadecer the relative is attracted in gender by the following #ya@s—‘ as which, 
 viz. as oxevn édcous & mponroipacey eis Sdfavy, He also called us,’ &., Winer, 
 Gr. N. T. p. 662.) : a 
 
 § Appendix on the Witness of Prophecy to the call of the oxety 
 édéovs out of Heathendom, and to the fact that the great 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, vv. 6-29. 171 
 
 majority of the Jewish people, in their unbelieving rejection of 
 Jesus Christ, were oxetdn dpyis (vers. 25-29). 
 
 [Obs. The statement of ver. 24 was too paradoxical to pass without some justifi- 
 cation. Certainly éf "Iovdaiav required no confirmation. But éf @v@v seemed 
 to involve repudiation of Gon’s Covenant with Israel. And é “Iovédaiwy 
 implied that the mass of Gop’s ancient people were left in unbelief. Did 
 Jewish prophecy anticipate this state of things, which placed Gentiles and 
 Jews, religiously speaking, each in a new position ?] 
 
 (A) Prophetic Witness to the vocation of the cxevn édéous out of 
 Heathendom into the Church of Christ (vers. 25, 26). 
 
 [0bs. The two passages which illustrate this are both taken from Hosea,—the 
 ‘Prophet of the Divine Tenderness.’ ] 
 
 a. Hosea ii. 23, quoted to show that heathens would be Gop’s 
 people and objects of His Love (ver. 25). 
 
 . Heb. mom NO-ny ANN 
 ANY “woyndh DN 
 ‘T will have mercy upon her who had not obtained mercy ; 
 And I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art 
 my people.’ 
 LXX xai hc ad THY ovK eAenwevny (B. nat dyannow Thy obK qyamnperny) 
 
 kat ép TH ov Aaw pov" 
 Aaés pou ef av. 
 
 [Obs. r. The Apostle’s rendering varies both from the LXX and Heb. 
 Kahéow Toy ov Aadyv mov, Aadv pov" 
 kal Tiv ove iyyamnperny, ayarnpuerny.] 
 
 [0bs. 2. In the Hebrew the reference is to the symbolical names of the prophet’s 
 son ‘DY xd and daughter ADM) x, given in token of the rejection of 
 Israel, Hos. i. 6-9. It was not “the heathen, but the idolatrous people of the 
 ten tribes, whose pardon and renewed adoption was thus announced. 
 S. Paul applies the prophet’s words to the case of the Gentile converts to 
 Christ, because Israel had fallen to the level of the idolatrous heathen 
 and had sinned against greater light and knowledge. Israel’s pardon was 
 therefore typical of Gop’s mercies to the heathen : and S. Paul changes épa 
 7@ ov Aa@ into xadréow roy ov Aadv x.7.A. because the true Messianic fulfilment 
 of the words is already present to his mind. S. Peter similarly applies 
 Hosea’s language to the heathen ; 1 S. Pet. ii. ro.] 
 
 b. Hosea i. 10, quoted to show that heathen lands would be the 
 home of many of Gon’s true children (ver. 26). 
 Heb. DAP 7S? WwW Dippa mn 
 DAN “mpay-wd 
 sprby van pad ws! 
 
172 . The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 LXX kal éora év 7d rénw ov eppebn avrois 
 ov Aads pov vpels, 
 éxel KAnOnoovra viol @eod (vTos. 
 
 [Obs. Hos. i. 10; (én Heb. ii. 1) ‘And it shall come to pass, that in the place 
 where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said 
 unto them, Ye are the sons of the living Gop.’ Here again the reference is 
 to the ten tribes, who would be restored and united with Judah after their 
 dispersion. Hence Djpi refers, in the prophet, not to the place of the 
 exile, but to Palestine,—the scene of their restoration as of their sin. 
 S. Paul sees the antitypical fulfilment of the promise in the Call of the 
 Gentiles, who, after being ‘not-Gop’s-people’ for long ages, will now be 
 called ‘the sons of the living Gop.’ Hence rémos of éppé6n avrois is, in the 
 sense of the Apostle, all the countries of Heathendom. S. Peter under- 
 stands the passage (1 S. Pet. i. 1) of converts to the Church of Christ from 
 among the dispersed ten tribes. ] 
 
 (B) Prophetic Witness to the eventual salvation of a mere remnant 
 of the natural Israel,—the great majority, in their rejection of 
 Jesus Christ, being cxetn opyjs (vers. 27-29). 
 
 [Obs. The two passages which illustrate this are both taken from Isaiah,—the 
 great Prophet of Israel’s future, and of the Messianic age. Of these utter- 
 ances, respectively, the impassioned character is noted by «pa¢e: (which =the 
 Rabbinical MN)¥ N23) ver. 27, and the predictive by mpocipnxey ver. 29.] 
 
 a. Isaiah x. 22, 23, quoted to show that only a remnant of the 
 natural Israel would be saved by conversion to Christ, the 
 great majority being destined to destruction (vers. 27, 28). 
 
 [Obs. tr. The citation varies from the LXX most remarkably in substituting 
 6 dpiOpuds Tov vid "Iopand for 6 Aads *Iopand, to express the point of the great 
 number of the people at large in contrast with the sardAe pa, which varies 
 from the Hebrew considerably. 
 
 Heb, 3 Pind Deby JwY AYO *2 
 ia aw ANY 
 
 PDI ALI yn jh>D 
 
 myqna) 122 ° 
 
 HINT; 2B Avy nixay nip, ye 
 
 Translation of Hebrew :— 
 ‘For though thy people, O Israel, shall be as the sand of the sea, 
 A remnant of them only shall return : 
 Destruction is decreed, it brings in as with a flood penal justice ; 
 For the destruction, and that which is decreed, 
 Doth Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, accomplish in the midst of the whole 
 earth.’ 
 
 LXX kal édv yévnra é Aads "IopahaA ds 4 dpupos ris Oaddoons, 7d KaTddeppa 
 aitay cwOncera Aéyov ouvTEed@y kal ovvréuvow ev dixnoovvp, Ott Adyov ouvTEeTpy- 
 pévov Kupios mojoe év TH oixovpévp bAp. 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. UX, vv. 6-29. 173 
 
 (Citation.) édv 7 6 dpiOpds Tay vidy “IopanA ds h dupos THs Padrdoons 7d 
 
 irércrppa cwOnoeTa* Adyov yap cuvTeAGy Kal ovyvTépvwy Tonoe Kipios ent THs yijs. 
 
 (Obs. 1. TINY is emphatically accentuated—only a remnant will turn to Gop. 
 owbhcerat, which the LXX understood of a return to Palestine, is retained 
 by S. Paul in its Christian sense. The LXX translation of the third line 
 of the Hebrew is apparently incorrect. The LXX sometimes render (11 
 (rad. ‘to cut’) by ouvrépveav Is. xxviii. 22, And, the voices being, as often, 
 changed, cvvréyuvwy represents YIN, while te 3D, prop. ‘wasting away,’ is 
 translated by Adyov in the sense of decree, although ‘utterance’ (see Meyer) 
 is a better rendering. But how is cuvreA@y to be accounted for? Possibly, 
 as an attempt to exhaust the idea of ae 5, so imperfectly represented by 
 Adyov, Div) however is wholly untranslated; unless the LXX be supposed 
 to have read DEW. The LXX may have thought that the sense was 
 
 sufficiently expressed in ouvtéyywy and ovyteAGv. The Apostle however 
 keeps to the LXX since, equally with the original, it prophetically illustrates 
 the destiny of the great mass of the people of Israel. ‘For accomplishing 
 His utterance [is He] and cutting short (delay) in penal justice, for a 
 summary utterance of punishment will the Lord bring to pass upon the 
 earth.’ See Lowth on Isaiah, p. 94; Meyer in loc.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The prophecy probably belongs to the first three years of the reign of 
 Ahaz, and to the period which preceded the destruction of the two allies by 
 Tiglath-pileser. To the small remnant that would escape of the all-destroy- 
 ing host of Assyria (ver. 19) corresponds the small remnant that alone would 
 turn to Gop, under this penal visitation, even though the numbers of Israel 
 were the highest that had been promised to the Patriarchs. With regard 
 to the majority, destruction was irrevocably determined; and this destruc- 
 tion in its onward sweep would carry out the penal righteousness of Gop. 
 It would embrace, if not every single individual, at any rate the great 
 majority—all the land and all the people. Antitypical to this was the 
 spiritual situation of Israel at the date of the first promulgation of the 
 Gospel ; ef. Delitzsch on Is. x.] 
 
 b. Isaiah i, 9, quoted to show that the remnant of Jewish 
 Converts to the Faith of Christ alone saves Israel from 
 spiritual annihilation (ver. 29). 
 
 Heb, w> nin nixay mim x 
 Ww 
 HT MY wT DID? HyDD 
 LXX xat ci pr) Kipios SaBawd éyearédurev Hyiv omréppa 
 as Sd5opa av éeyernOnpuev 
 kal ds Tépoppa adv wpowOnpev. 
 
 [Obs. x. The citation closes the first paragraph of the opening address in Isaiah 
 respecting Gop’s dealings with His ungrateful people. But for His Compas- 
 sion, all must have been destroyed. And His Omnipotence (glanced at in 
 the title, ‘Jehovah (Gop) of the hosts of heaven’) set His Compassion in 
 
 motion to save the remnant. From Sodom four human beings only escaped : 
 Gomorrah was absolutely annihilated.] 
 
174 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 2. In the expression Kvpios SaBaw0, which occurs fifty times in the LXX of 
 Isaiah, and may be illustrated from 1 Kings xxii. 19, ninay is a dependent 
 gen., and not an independent name of Gop as the Absolute, wy, para- 
 phrastically translated by the LXX omépya, means a survivor, one escaped 
 from a great slaughter (see Ges.), who so may be the parent of others. In 
 Job xx. 21, a survival, after general destruction. In Deut. ii. 34, without 
 Dydd = ‘a remnant which was but a mere trifle.” In ds &. dv éyernOnyev 
 and ds T. dv d&powOnpev, two modes of conceiving the relation of likeness are 
 intermixed: Hos. iv. 6; Ez. xxxiv. 2.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Throughout this section (ix. 6-29) no attempt is made by the Apostle to 
 harmonize the absolute Freedom and Omnipotence of Gop with man’s self- 
 determination and responsibility. For the moment, the former truth is 
 stated with such imperious force, that the latter appears to be quite lost 
 sight of : and the necessity for this ‘one-sidedness’ of statement lay in the 
 presumption entertained by the Jews, that in virtue of their theocratic posi- 
 tion Gop must be gracious to them, Without attempting to determine the 
 relation of interdependence which exists between Divine and human free- 
 dom, (secured by the truth that the former is ruled by Gon’s essential 
 Sanctity and is consequently conditioned by moral facts on the side of man), 
 S. Paul passes on to consider the other side of the phenomenon before him, 
 viz. the responsibility of the Jews themselves for their failure to attain the 
 dixaoctvn Ocod. On the general subject of Predestination, see Bishop Browne 
 on Art. xvii; Mozley on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination (who however 
 perhaps states S. Augustine’s position somewhat one-sidedly) ; and, for the 
 difference between the teaching of S. Augustine and Calvin on the subject, 
 Petavius, de Dogm. Theol. vol. i. lib. x. ¢. 7 sqq. de Predestinatione. ]_ 
 
 C. 
 
 Israel’s failure to attain Sixatoodvy Ocod éx mictews Considered 
 in the light of human responsibility (ix. 30—x. 21). 
 [0bs. The preceding prophecies (vers. 25-29) lead (odv) to the historical result 
 stated in ver. 30, as an answer to the question 7/ oby épodpev; This is, that] 
 i, [Some] Heathens, whose efforts were not directed (un) to 
 becoming righteous, have, at their conversion, obtained that 
 righteousness which proceeds from faith (ver. 30). 
 
 [0bs. The Heathen had no revelation, and did not observe the moral law. In 
 this sense they were pi) diwxovta dixcoodvnv, and yet they had moral aspira- 
 tions which faith in Christ satisfied. On the use of diwxew, xaradapBavew of 
 competitors in the Greek Games, see 1 Cor. ix. 24; Phil. iii. 12-14; 1 Tim. 
 Fieri, ti] 
 
 ii. [Most] Israelites pursuing the [ideal] law of righteousness 
 have not attained it, because they set out from their own 
 outward acts, not from a divinely-given inward disposition — a 
 (vers. 31, 32). 
 
 
 
PS he 
 
 Dogmatic: ch. 1X, v. 30—X, v. 2t. 175 
 
 [Obs. 1. The vdpos dixatocdyns is not legal righteousness, but the Law which con- 
 fers righteousness. This is not simply the Mosaic Law, but that ideal law 
 which the Jew vainly endeavoured to reach by literal obedience to the 
 Mosaic ordinances. ov« épOace eis in ver. 31 corresponds by contrast to 
 xaréAaBe in ver. 30. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. In ws éf épywr [vdpov] ver. 32, ws used to be explained by reference to the 
 Hebrew Caph veritatis (see Gesenius on Is. i. 7), as involving a comparison 
 with all objects of the same species. See 8. Johni. 14; vii. 10; Phil. ii. ra. 
 But it is better (Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 771) to understand it as contrasting the 
 imaginary rule é¢ Epywv with the objectively-true one é« ticrews. ws introduces 
 the subjective conception and implies that nothing true in the objective 
 sense, answered to it. Omit véyov which here, as in iv. 2, was added by the 
 glossarists ; although it is justified by iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The contrast may be thus exhibited :— 
 
 (i) The effort (negative), (i) The effort (positive), 
 py Si@xovra diwKnwy vopov Sikarocvvns 
 Gikiia dikatoovrnv (ver. 30). (ver. 31). 
 Lovn (ii) The result (positive), In (ii) The result (negative), 
 Sicate beating a = vépov Sikatoatvns ovK 
 dixarocdvny (ver. 30). EELS épOacev (ver. 31). 
 
 (iii) The reason for this, (iii) The reason for this, 
 [o74] é« niorews (ver. 30). br obK éx TioTEwWs 
 GAN ws ef épyav 
 vopou (ver. 32).] 
 
 [Obs. 4. Thus this contrast introduces the subject of the section, (ix. 32 b-x. 21), 
 viz. the failure of Israel to attain dcaootvn @cod éx micTews, and his responsi- 
 bility and guilt on account of this failure. The whole section is an expansion 
 of the clause d71 ob é« mioTews, GAN ws e€ Epywr vdpov. | 
 
 Guilt of Israel (ix. 32 b-x. 21). 
 
 § 1. 
 First evidence. of Israel’s Guilt. Their rejection of the Messiah, 
 
 prophesied in their own Scriptures (ix. 32 b, 33). 
 
 a. The fact. They stumbled at the true historical dios mpoo- 
 kopparos, i, e. the Messiah, by not believing in Him when He 
 came (ver. 33). . 
 
 [Obs. It is the quotations in ver. 33 which lead the Apostle to select the title 
 AiOos mpockdpparos for our Lord here ; but the title well suits the metaphor 
 implied in diKav, POdvav, xaTradkayBavew (vers. 30, 31). It was, as 
 crucified, that. our Lord especially became a oxdvéadov and a mpécxoppa to 
 the Jews. In Himself He was OepéAros xat Edpaiwya (Theophyl.) ; ef. S. Matt. 
 xxi. 44 6 mecdy ént Tov AiBov TodTOY auvOAacOHcETA, ep’ dv 5E wégD AtKpHOEL 
 avrév.] 
 
 b. The prophecies which should have saved them (Is. xxviii. 
 16, and viii. 14, blended into one) are quoted to show that 
 
176 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Israel had been warned that Messiah would be rejected by 
 His own people. 
 
 1. Is. xxviii. 16. 
 Heb. ON | PYR TDS 1n 
 | HY TDW Nps nas | Ma 7a 
 TRAM ND ONT 
 
 ‘Behold, I am He who hath laid in Sion 
 
 A stone, a stone of trial, 
 
 A precious corner stone, of well-founded founding: 
 Whosoever believes shall not have to move.’ 
 
 LXX iSob éyd éuBddrddAw eis TA OenédAta Sav AiOov modAvTEeAR, exAEKTOr, 
 aKpoywviatoy, évtipov, eis TA Oewédia adTHs, Kal 6 morevav ew aiTs ov pH KaTat- 
 oxvv 67. 
 
 2. Is. viii. 14. 
 
 Heb, 22 BNA | Wap? MM 
 ONT? AD WD | Divina vyba 
 rodvimw vind wipinds nap 
 ‘So will He become a sanctuary, 
 But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence 
 To both the houses of Israel, 
 A snare and trap to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.’ 
 
 LXX éora oo «is dyiacpya, wal obx ws AiOov mpockdppatt ovvayTncedbe adra, 
 
 ovde ws méTpas mTwpaTt. ae 
 
 it’ [Obs, 1. (Citation.) idod ri@nm ev Sidy Aiov mpookdpparos nal mérpay cKav5ddov" 
 | kal Tas 6 moTevwv em avT@ ov KaTmoxuvOnceTa. 
 
 Speaking generally, the Apostle has composed his citation by inserting 
 the description of the Stone and Rock in e. viii as Al@os mpocxdpparos and 
 méTpa oxavdddov into the place occupied by that of the Ai@os in ¢, xxviii, viz. 
 AiOos moAuTeAns, ExdenTés, Evtiwos. Compare especially 1 S. Pet. ii. 6-8, where 
 the same two passages are referred to, with the same variations from the 
 = LXX but kept distinct, the passage in Ps. exviii. 22 being inserted between 
 them. §S. Paul keeps closer to the Hebrew in ¢. viii Siwian mays 533 yan), 
 The LXX usually render Swan by oxdvdadov, which S. Paul here puts into 
 the citation; while the LXX have arapa. The LXX xaracxvv64 stands 
 for WM, ‘flee quickly’: they may have read WI}, or more probably para- 
 phrased &M by giving its motive or moral accompaniment. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Is. xxviii. 16 belongs to the Book of Woes or Discourses relating to 
 Assyria and the Egyptian alliance: Is. xxviii-xxxiii. An _ irreligious 
 popular faction desired to enter into alliance with Egypt against Assyria. 
 In opposition to this, Gop announces by His Prophet, that for all His true 
 subjects He had laid in Sion a Foundation-stone which was more firmly set 
 than all human schemes. This Stone is the theocracy centering in the 
 future theocratic King Messias. The prophetic praeterite ID) is no ob- 
 jection to this : the Stone is not actually laid in the young King Hezekiah, 
 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. 1X, v. 3o—X, v. 2. 177 
 
 but only contemplated as laid in the future King Messiah. See Schittgen, 
 Horae Talm. vol. ii. pp. 170, 290, for the Jewish interpretation. Compare Ps. 
 exviii. 22, for the prophecy of the Corner-Stone, which our Lord (S. Matt. 
 xxi. 42, 44; S. Luke xx. 17) applied to Himself, and He is followed by His 
 Apostles (Acts iv. 11; 1 S. Pet. ii. 7). The second passage (Is. vili. 14) 
 occurs in the consolations of Emmanuel in the midst of the Assyrian 
 oppressions, cc. vii-xii. It is addressed by the prophet, in the Name of 
 Jehovah, to subjects of the kingdom of Judah, who were tempted to 
 distrust His aid against Israel and Syria. Gop offers Himself to all who 
 trust Him as a wap or sure sanctuary, but, on the other hand, to the 
 mass of those who “opposed Him in Israel and Judah as a Stone of Offence 
 and Fall. Thus Simeon says of the Infant Jesus, odros eit eis mr@ow kai 
 dvaoracw ToAA@y. év Tw “Iopand: S. Luke ii. 34; 1 S. Pet. ii. 7, 8. In Is. 
 XXviii the theocracy centering in a Monarch is the Stone laid by Gop; in 
 Is. yiii Gop Himself is the Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence to His 
 enemies. Both meet in the Messianic interpretation, and are accordingly 
 blended into one passage by the Apostle. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The rejection of the Messiah by Israel is taught in Zech. xi. 12; Is. 
 lili. 1; in several Psalms, and in express terms by the author of the 
 Midrasch. ] 
 
 [Obs. 4. morevwy én’ ara, viz. our Lord Jesus Christ. morevew émi rin describes 
 faith resting on its Object as on a foundation ; in moreve eis Twa, it moves 
 towards its Object as a goal or end; ef. x. rr; xr Tim. i. 16 morevew én 
 aire «is (wiv aiwvov: 1 S. Pet. ii.6; S. Luke xxiv. 25 morevew ént maou ois 
 éAdAnoayv of mpopyra. The contrasted expression mpocxérrav twi implies 
 that what ought to ke rested on by faith, is for the non-believing soul an 
 obstacle in the path of thought and life, at which it stumbles. ] 
 
 Interposed assurance of the Apostle’s deep personal interest in 
 his readers (x. I, 2). 
 
 a. his inward disposition (edSoxia rijs xapSias) of heart- 
 
 L felt good-will, passing into wish, longing. 
 This b. its practical result, Séjous mpés tov Ocdv for those 
 interest who were its objects. 
 - measured c. its purpose, viz. that of promoting (eis) Shon sal- 
 by vation (x. I). 
 poe a. Israel has zeal for Gop (gen. obj.). 
 For this | 
 interest b. (reserve in stating the above (a)), Israel’s zeal is 
 in Israel the not according to the measure of accurate spiritual 
 reason is, that knowledge (02 kar’ émiyvwow) (ver. 2). 
 
 [Obs. 1. This protestation of heartfelt interest in the spiritual condition of 
 Israel corresponds to thé introduction to this entire section of the Epistle 
 (ix. 1-5). There the Apostle bases his sympathy on the divinely given 
 
 
 
178 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 privileges accorded to Israel: here on Israel’s zeal, mistaken as it was, for 
 Gop and His law. The protestation is rendered necessary, because the 
 Apostle is about to make his severest criticisms on the conduct of the Jews 
 when confronted by the true Messiah : péAAa maAw adt&v KabarrecOa opo- 
 
 Sporepov 7) mpuTepov’ 51d mdAwy avaipec macys amexOclas indvaay (S. Chrys. ix. 
 p. 621.)] 
 
 [Obs. 2. dbdeApol, as at vii. 1, is a tender appeal to affection. evdoxia i 
 Ecclus. xviii. 31 evdoxia émOvpias: 2 Thess. i. 11 evdoxia aya0wovvns. It 
 implies here taking personal pleasure in an object, S. Matt. xi. 26; S. Luke 
 ii. 14; x. 21; 2 Thess, i. 11, rather than good-will, Eph. i. 5,9; Phil. i. 15; 
 li. 13, because the latter would involve an inappropriate self-commendation. 
 
 *) There is no 5é to correspond with pé, ver. 1. Cf. Winer, Gr. N. £. p. 719.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. On Israel’s zeal for Gop, compare the vivid description of Philo Judaeus, 
 li. 562, Legat. ad Caiwm, p. 1008 (€6vos) e€iwOds Exovaious dvadéxetOa Pavarous 
 wonep GOavaciav, imip Tov pndev Tov natpiov mepiideiy dvaipovpevoy, ei Kat 
 Bpaxdtatoy ein: Ibid. ii. 577, p. 1022; Josephus, contra Apion. ii. 20; de 
 Bell. Jud. ii. 17, &e. Hecataeus of Abdera mentions the Jewish icxyupoyvw- 
 poourvn, ef. Rom. ii. 17. S. Paul was, before his conversion, (nAwris Tov 
 vopov Acts*xxii. 3: and indeed mepocorépws CAorns indpxev TRY TAaTpLKaV 
 napaddcew Gal. i. 14: and accordingly xard (HAov SiwKav Thy éxxdAnoiav 
 Phil. iii. 6. Even Jewish converts were (nAwtal rod vépouv Acts xxi. 20; ef. 
 1 Mace. ii. 58. It is the intensity, not the precise objects, or moral flavour, 
 of Jewish zeal to which the Apostle bears witness. See Newman, Par. 
 Serm. vol. iii. 13, Jewish Zeal a Pattern to Christians. ] 
 
 [Obs. 4. That vital spiritual knowledge was not the measure of Israel’s zeal, is 
 shown in the second evidence of Israel’s guilt (ver. 3), which is accordingly 
 a reason (yap) for the clause ov kat’ éniyywow. With ov kar’ éniyywow com- 
 pare Acts iii. 17 war’ dyvoay énpagare. | 
 
 § 2. 
 
 Second evidence of Isracl’s guilt. The attempt to substitute purely 
 human efforts after Righteousness for submission to the gift of 
 Righteousness by Gop, in spite of the clear warnings of the 
 Jewish Law itself (x. 3-13). 
 
 [Obs. 1. This (ver. 3) is introduced as a reason (ydp ver. 3) for the statement, 
 ver. 2, that the Jewish zeal for Gop was ov xar’ éniyywow. It does this by 
 explaining in what the ov xar’ ériyywowy consists. They were ignorant of the 
 real character of 7 Tov @cod Sixarocivn. This dyvoa is not here branded as 
 wilful, as in Eph. iv. 18; 1S. Pet. i. 14.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. In ver. 3 4 Tod Oeod Sxaoctvn is the Righteousness which Gop gives 
 through His Son, in contrast with the idia diauoodtvn, or self-achieved 
 righteousness of Israel. Of the first the Jews were ignorant (dyvoodrTes) ; 
 how far culpably, is not here explained. But this ignorance proves their ; 
 zeal for Gop to have been od kar’ ériyvwow. Their own private righteous- - 
 ness (idia Sueacoovvy) they endeavoured to make valid (a790a) by obedience 4 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. X, vv. 3-13. 179 
 
 to the law ; thus constructing, each one for himself, an éyiy dixaootvny riv 
 é« vépov, in contrast with ‘the 4 da wicrews Xprotod, } Ex Oeod Sixaroovyy Eni 
 
 7 miore Phil. iii. 9; see i. 17. This effort prevented their submission by - 
 
 faith (imerdynoav) to Gon’s gift of Righteousness. On the use of the pass. 
 with middle force, see Viii. 7 ; xiii. 1.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. breraynoay suggests as its correlative the Will rather than the Righteous- 
 ness of Gop. But Gop’s Righteousness is here conceived of as the expression 
 of His Will, and so requiring the obedience of faith, i. 5; x. 16; and He 
 has willed to give us the évrodn, iva morevowpev Tw dvdpaTs TOU Tiov avTov 
 1S. John iii. 23}. 
 
 [Cbs. 4. i. their ignorance (d-yvoobvres) of Sixaroctvn O¢eod. 
 In the Jews ) ii. their effort after ((nrodvres orqoa) their idia dkeaoovvn. 
 consider iii. their failure to submit themselves (odx tmerayynoay) to 
 
 Gon’s gift of Righteousness in His Blessed Son. ] 
 
 Reason for odx imerayncav (ver. 3). The law, as an instrument for 
 attaining righteousness, has ended in Christ. Christ, in Whom 
 the law ends, enables every believer in Him to partake of 
 righteousness (ver. 4). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The reason which is given for the statement that the Jews did not 
 submit to Gop’s righteousness is that they did submit to the Mosaic law 
 and not to Christ. And the law as an instrument for attaining righteous- 
 ness has ended in Christ.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. réAos is not (i) the fulfilment (reAciwors or mAApwya) of the law in the 
 sense that the types of the ritual law were realized in our Lord, while He 
 fulfilled the moral law by His perfect obedience. That this is true is 
 asserted in Heb. x. 1; S. Matt. 17; Heb. vii. 18: but 7éAos will not 
 bear this meaning, even in 1 Tim. i.5. Nor is it (ii) here, the aim and 
 intention of the law (S. Chrys. and others), considered as the madayaryds eis 
 Xpiordv Gal. iii. 24, by making man aware of his profound moral de- 
 ficiencies, and of his helplessness, and so leading him to Christ, because 
 this signification does not harmonize with the context; but (iii) it is the 
 termination of the law, in accordance with the natural sense of the word and 
 drift of the passage. The law has come to an end, in that, in place of its 
 requirement of external effort, the inward act of faith is the condition of 
 receiving righteousness, vii. 1-6. The ritual law ended altogether in 
 Christ, Who was its Antitype. And although the moral law is eternal, 
 yet under the Gospel it loses its form of external law, and becomes an 
 internal principle of life : Col. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 15. Cf. 6 vépos nai oi npopara 
 €ws “Iwavvov S. Luke xvi. 16.] 
 
 (A) Proof of the Reason (ver. 4) for the second evidence of Israel's 
 guilt (ver. 3) from the Mosaic Law itself (vers. 5-10). 
 [Obs. In vers. 5-10 SiKaootvn 4 &e Tod vdpov and # eK mlarews dinaoctvn are 
 
 personified. Moses describes the first by the fundamental rule of Lev. 
 xviii. 5. The second describes herself by her use of Deut. xxx. 11, 12, 14.] 
 
 N 2 
 
180 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 The law, by obedience to which idia Sixaoctvn is supposed to 
 be worked out, itself points to the Gospel as putting an 
 end to its own validity, that is, so far as the law is 
 understood to represent a system supposed to be capable 
 of securing d:caoovvn (vers. 5-10). 
 
 a. By a description of 4 ék rod vépov Sixavoovvn which con- 
 fines the promise of its own blessings to those who 
 really fulfil its precepts (ver. 5). 
 
 Lev. xviii. 5 (almost after LXX), quoted. The man who 
 shall have done the rpoordypara ©cot shall live through 
 their being fulfilled (ev atrois) ‘Ye shall therefore keep 
 My statutes and My judgments, which if a man do (AY¥2 
 OMS) he shall live in them’ (ver. 5). 
 
 Lev. xviii. 5. 
 Heb. DINT ONS Ayr WS 
 p73 ‘mM 
 LXX 6 toimoas adta dvOpwmros CyoeTran ev adrois. 
 
 [Obs. 1. This Law is repeated in Ezek. xx. 21 ; Neh. ix. 29; ef. S. Luke x. 28 rovro 
 moie. kai (yon: S. Matt. xix. 16 Ti dya0dv roinow, iva éxw (any aiwmov ; comp. 
 Gal. ili. 11, 12, where Lev. xviii. 5 is quoted in contrast to Hab. ii. 4 6 
 Dimas x TicTews (noera, to show that éy vou ovdels dicrodTa mapa TO Oew. 
 Ziv, like the Hebrew 7'N, means ‘to be happy in existence.’ The later 
 Jews understood that the (#7 promised by Moses referred not merely to 
 happy and prosperous life in Palestine, but to the (a7 aidvos. Onkelos 
 
 translates: ‘Whosoever keeps these commandments shall thereby live in 
 the life eternal.’] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The emphatic word is ro:noas, which characterizes Moses’ description of 
 the production of d:caootvn % é« ToD vépov. If 57 be read before riy dieao- 
 ctvnv, the latter depends on 6 momoas. For moeiv tiv dicaootyny, cf. 
 1 S. John ii. 29; Rev. xxii. rr. On the difficulty of fulfilling the legal 
 precepts, see Rom. ii. 21-24; iii. 19, 20, The difficulty of fulfilling the law 
 is suggested by the statement that life is promised (only) to the man who 
 has fulfilled it.] 
 
 b. By supplying language which is appropriate in the mouth 
 of 4 ek Gcod dixavcootvn and which insists on the facility with | 
 which the true righteousness which Gop gives is attaimed 
 by man (vers. 6-8). 
 
 Deut. xxx. 12-14, quoted (with variations from the LXX 
 
 -and the Heb.) in .order to show that the evangelical 
 
 ' pijya tis mioreos, in embracing which the soul acquires 
 
 
 
 
 
 we » 
 
/ 
 
 Dogmatic: ch. X, vv. 3-13. 181 
 
 the diKnaoovyvn rod Gcod, is unlike the Stkaorvvy rod vovov in 
 its easy accessibility to every believing Christian (vers. 
 6-8). 
 Deut. xxx. 12-14. 
 Heb. son oma ND 12, 
 nowowin sabrnbyr 1» “ond 
 mvp An’ ayo ub Any 
 si pd says) 13. 
 ps nay-bs bray: 1 sox 
 srayyay ms apes yP OPN 
 “RD DTD PHY BD 14, 
 sinby> 73322) 23 
 
 LXX Deut. xxx. rr-14 % [évroAi) airy, dv eyd evrédrdopal cor onpepov, odx 
 brépoyKds éorir ovde paxpay dnd cod éorw,. 12, odK &Y TE ovpavG@ dvw éoTi,] A€ywv" 
 Tis dvaBhnoerat Hiv eis TOV ovpavdv [Kal AnpeTar Huiv aitHy, Kal dxovcayTes avTiv 
 mongopev ; 13. ovde mépay THs Oaracons eori,} A€ywr, Tis duawepace Hyiv cis 7d 
 mépay Tis Oaracons, [kal Anperar Hyiv aitnv, kal drovcayTes. abtiy Tonooper ; | 
 14. eyyus gov éort 7d fjua [pd8pa] é év TO orépari gov kai év TH) Kapdia cov [Kal 
 év Tais xepoiv cou] moeiy av7d, 
 
 [Obs. x The citation differs from the LXX, of which only parts of verses r2, 
 13, and 14 are given, (1) by expanding (ver. 12) Aéyov LXX, Heb. sox 
 into pi eimps év 77) Kapdia gov. The original indirect sense of forbidding is 
 widened thus into the direct, with the addition év 79 xapdig, because un- 
 belief has its seat in the heart, where unholy thoughts and feelings are the 
 moral equivalent of language, Ps. xiv.1; S. Mark iii. 5; (2) by omitting 
 jpiv and all after odpaydv in ver. 12; (3) by reading (in ver. 13) tis kaTaBy- 
 cera eis Tiv GBuvaoov ; instead of ris diarepdoe Hyiv cis TO mépay THs-Oaracons; 
 and omitting all that follows. This change is probably to be explained as 
 a paraphrase giving the sense in which the typical force of the original was 
 fulfilled. Eis rd wépay rijs OaAdoons conveyed on the surface of the language 
 no typical reference to Christ ; but in Holy Scripture the sea is often termed 
 aBvocos (Job xli. 23), and this noun would suggest a change of the accom. 
 panying verb to express sounding the depths of tha sea, rather than 
 traversing its surface. (4) In ver. 14 opddpa, év rais xepoiv cov (which is not 
 found in the Hebrew, but is in Philo) and woeiy aird, are omitted.] 
 
 _ (Obs. 2. In the original text Moses is speaking of Gop’s command to Israel to 
 fulfil His law. ‘This commandment,’ he says, ‘is not beyond the reach of 
 accomplishment, nor out of the range of man’s moral’and mental life 
 (Deut. xxx. 11). It is not up in heaven, nor is it beyond (S. Paul substi- 
 tutes ‘‘ beneath”) the sea ; so that a man must mount to the one or traverse 
 (or sound) the other, in order to fetch it. On the contrary, Israel repeats 
 this commandment in every-day talk, and it is stamped upon Israel’s heart 
 (in its written form it is in his hands; LXX), in order that he may accom- 
 plish it (vers. 12 14).’ For S. Paul, this language really describes the 
 
182 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 facility of faith in Christ more accurately than that of obedience to the 
 Mosaic Law, the difficulty of which elsewhere is recognised by the Law 
 itself. The Apostle sees in this aspect of the Old Law something typical of 
 the New—a virtual prophecy of the di:xaoctvn éx miotews. He adapts the 
 quotation from the passage to its ultimate and deepest sense, partly by 
 alteration, and partly by omission of that which was non-relevant (cf. ver. 
 14 invyd). S. Paul puts the quotation in the mouth of 7 é« miarews dixato- 
 avvn (ver. 6), which is boldly personified, as forbidding questions that 
 imply unbelief in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ, and as 
 directing men to the Word of Faith, i. e. the Gospel Revelation as a whole, 
 which is deposited in man’s very heart and mouth by the preaching of the 
 Apostles. } 
 
 [Obs. 3. The method of quotation in vers. 6-8, with interspersed commentary, 
 is that of the Midrasch, as in Rom. ix. 8; Gal. iii. 16; iv. 23, 24. Jewish 
 methods of exegesis, like Rabbinical opinions, or quotations from Greek 
 poets, are consecrated when they are adopted by an inspired Apostle ; but 
 this consecration of a selected extract does not by any means involve a 
 sanction of the entire exegetical. system, or class of opinions, or literature, 
 of which the extract forms a part. By ror’ éor1, which is thrice repeated, 
 (=scilicet), the Apostle by an inserted comment decides the sense in which 
 the passage is used by the personified 4 é« miorews diucacoodvn, Each clause 
 introduced by rod7' éo7: should be bracketed. } 
 
 The Gospel, using the language of the Law, but with far greater 
 appropriateness (vers. 6-8), 
 
 (1) Warns against the unbelieving thought that Christ has still 
 to be fetched down from heaven, in order to become an 
 Object of faith ; since His Incarnation is already a fact 
 (ver. 6). 
 
 (2) Warns against the unbelieving thought that, in order to be 
 possessed by faith, Christ has to be recovered from that place 
 of departed spirits into which His Human Soul entered after 
 His Crucifixion ; since His Resurrection from the dead is 
 already a fact (ver. 7). 
 
 (3) Bids the Christian know that the éfpa micrews—the Gospel- 
 Revelation addressed to faith—is here, ready to be professed 
 and believed by Christians; since it is the very subject of 
 the Apostolic preaching («nptooopev) (ver. 8), | 
 
 [Obs. 1. The first unbelieving question against which the Christian is warned 
 (in ver. 6) cannot refer to Christ’s Session at the Right Hand of Gop, since 
 this sense gives no explanation of xatayayeivy (which corresponds to «ara- 
 Baivew, S. John iii. 13 ; vi. 33, 38). The second unbelieving question must 
 refer to the Descent into Hades, which is called G8vacos here, in accordance 
 with the typical employment of the word in Jonah ii. 5; déys, in Ps. xvi. % 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. X, vv. 3-13: 183 
 
 10; gvdaky, in x S. Pet. iii. 19; Ta Katwrepa rhs yqs, in Eph. iv. 9. Else- 
 where in the New Testament aBvaaos is the place of torment: S. Luke viii. 
 31; Rev. ix. 1, 11; Xi. 7; xvii. 8; cf. Vaughan i loc. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. 7d pjua THs wioTews, the (definite) word or ‘spoken-fact,’ which has to 
 be believed (gen. obj.) as reality. It is the Gospel s«npvypa, and corre- 
 sponds to what we generally mean by Revelation, or the Creed of a 
 Christian. It is that body of objective truth, which is warranted by Gon’s 
 authority, and is addressed to faith. It centres in our Lord’s Person and 
 Work ; cf. 1 Tim. iv. 6 Adyos micrews.] 
 
 § Appended discussion of the foregoing (vers. 6-8) argument 
 from the evangelical sense of Deut. xxx. 12-14 (vers. 9, 10). 
 
 Proof (ér: ver. 9) of correspondence between the 16 pjya of Deut. 
 xxx. 14, and the 70 pjya tijs mictews as actually proclaimed by the 
 Apostles (vers. 9, 10), 
 
 > ol 
 
 Arg. 1. Corresponding to the ¢v ré ordpati cov kat ev rh Kapdia cov 
 of Deut. xxx. 14, are the Gospel requirements of outward public | 
 confession (€v tr ordpart) of the Kupidrns of Jesus, and internal 
 assent (ev rf xapSia) to the truth of His Resurrection from the 
 dead through Divine Power (ver. 9). 
 
 Arg. 2. (Reason for (ydp) these requirements on the part of the 
 Gospel). Internal assent, by faith, to revealed truth, specially 
 to the doctrine of a Risen Christ, leads to Stxavootvn tov Geod, 
 Outward confession of Christ’s Divinity before men leads to 
 owrnpia (ver. I 0). 
 
 [Obs. x. In ver. 9 S. Paul mentions époroyfAoa & 7G ordpar: and moredoa ev TH 
 «apdia in the order suggested by the passage from Deut. cited in ver. 8. In 
 ver. ro he is no longer under the influence of this quotation, and accord- 
 ingly inverts the order, following that of the spiritual fact. ‘I believed 
 and therefore will I speak.’ The heart first yields internal assent to the 
 truth revealed by Gop, and then ‘the fire kindles,’ and with the mouth 
 confession is made unto salvation. ] 
 
 (Obs. 2. dpodroyia rH ordpart is the fruit of miotis év 7H Kapdia. Faith unites the 
 soul to the Crucified One, Living because Risen, and true faith cannot but 
 own Him as the soul’s Kipos before men. The necessity of an outward 
 profession of the truths to which we yield internal assent is taught by our 
 Lord, S. Matt. x. 32 sqq.; S. John ix. 22; 1 S. John iv. 2; and especially 
 in the fragment of an Apostolic Hymn quoted at 2 Tim, ii. 12 ei 58 dpvov- 
 peOa, Kdneivos dpynoerat judas. Not merely in conversation and example, but 
 in creeds, in worship, if need be at the cost of suffering, must this époAoyia 
 be made. In an age of persecution, like the Apostolic, it chiefly takes the 
 form of jiropovn, Rom. viii. 17, 25; 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8; Rev. iii. ro, &e. Cf. 
 Origen, vol. i. p. 277, Exhortat. ad Martyr. cap. 5 éavrods yap dwatr@aow of vopi- 
 Govres dpeiv mpds 7d Tuxelv ev XpiorG rédovs 7d “Kapdia yap morevera eis 
 
184 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 dixaoovvyny,” wav ph mpoop 7d ‘ordpars Se Sporoyetra els cwrnpiav.” Kal éori 
 ye cimeiv, O71 pGAAbV Eat ToIs xEiAcor TLLGY THY Kapdiav méppw ~xovTa amd Oeod, 
 wep TH Kapdia Tiuav avrov, TOD oTOpaTos pr) 6podoyovvTos cis cwrypiav. See too 
 S. Irenaeus, Haer. iv. 33. n.9; and Tertullian’s vigorous treatise Scorpiace, 
 in which he examines some current sophistical reasons against the duty of 
 confessing Christ when Martyrdom was the consequence. | 
 
 [Obs. 3. The confession before the world of the Kupiérns of Jesus (ver. 9), while 
 
 acknowledging His present relation to the morevwy and to the Church (1 Cor. 
 xii. 3; viii. 6; Phil. ii. rr), also glances back at His Pre-existent, as yet 
 Un-incarnate, Person; (Rom. viii. 3; Gal. iv. 4; Phil. ii.6). He is the 
 eternal Kupios, as the ‘Son of Gop’; and this is powerfully proclaimed to 
 the world by His Resurrection (Rom. i. 4). The Resurrection is especially 
 the object of Christian mic7is, as warranting belief in the entire Work and 
 in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ, so that Christian faith as a whole de- 
 pends on its being believed, 1 Cor. xv. 17, 18. As the true Divinity of the 
 Incarnate Jesus is suggested by the unbelieving question rebuked in ver. 6 ; 
 so the reality of His Resurrection from Death is suggested by the unbeliey- 
 ing question rebuked in ver. 7. | 
 
 [Obs. 4. The question why S. Paul connects d:cacoovvn with the faith of the heart, 
 
 and owrnpia with the confession of the lips in ver. 10, is to be answered (as 
 at Rom. iv. 25), at least in part, by reference to the parallelism of Hebrew 
 poetry, the rhythm of which sometimes shapes the Apostle’s prose. And 
 yet the distribution of his thought is not wholly or chiefly to be accounted for 
 thus. He conceives of a di:caocdvn which may not issue in owrnpia, since 
 diuxacoovvn may be itself forfeited by the moral cowardice of the moredwy, who 
 does not venture to avow his faith before men. If mia7:s does not grow into 
 dpodoyeta@at, it dies back, first into mere ‘opinion,’ and then into unbelief. } 
 
 (B) Proof of the Reason marti 76 mioretovre ver. 4, for the second 
 evidence of Israel’s guilt (ver. 3) from the previously-quoted 
 (ix. 33) Ianguage of propheey (vers. 11-13). 
 
 Is. xxviii. 16, quoted to show that every (true) believer in 
 Messiah would escape the shame of rejection from His 
 Kingdom, by securing the S:xaoctvn rod Ocov ek miatews 
 (ver. 11). 2 
 
 Heb. rim ND OND 
 
 LXX 6 moredoy én ate od ph Karacxvr67. 
 
 [Obs. mas is significantly added before 6 morevoy. It is found neither in the 
 
 LXX nor in the Hebrew, but is suggested, perhaps by Joel ii. 32, but much 
 more by the unlimited character of 6 morevwy in Is, xxviii. 16, and the 
 practical interpretation which the growth of a Catholic Church was already 
 
 putting upon the prophet’s language. Hence there follows a comment on 
 
 the] 
 
 a. significance of ras, in Is. xxviii. 16. It is warranted (yap) by 
 : the fact that mo difference is made between heathens and 
 
Dogmatic: ch. X, vv. 3-13. 185 
 
 Jews in respect of the bestowal of the blessing of Sicaocivy 
 on the believing (ver. 12 4). 
 
 [Obs. Generally S. Paul insists on this equality of Jew and Gentile, in order to 
 show that the believing heathen are called into the Church of Christ equally 
 with believing Jews. Here, as he is insisting on the responsibility of the 
 Jews, he means that the promise is for their encouragement, as well as for 
 that of believing heathen.] 
 
 b. The reason (ydp ver. 12 b) for this perfect equality of all 
 believers in respect of the blessings promised to faith is, that 
 the same Lord of all (Jesus Christ) is rich in His bestowal of 
 grace and salvation on all who pray to Him (ver. 12 b). 
 
 [Obs, 1. That Kvpos here is Christ, (and not the Eternal Father,) is clear both 
 from the whole context in ver. 4, and from the meaning of ai7@ in ver. II. 
 It is in harmony with the Messianic reference of the citation from Joel in 
 ver. 13, and especially with ver. 14. Ifthe Father were meant, it would 
 be necessary to supply the hiatus of meaning by ‘Gop in Christ.’ Jesus 
 Christ is mavrav Kips Acts x. 36; He died, and rose, and revived, iva kat 
 vexpov kai (avtwy Kupievon Rom. xiv. 9; and the final object of His exaltation 
 is that every tongue should confess dm: Kuptos Incovs Xprords Phil. ii. 11 ; ef. 
 Rom. ix. 5. This Kvupiérns mavtwv, a Lordship of the Universe and of 
 Humanity, is, however, ultimately grounded on the fact that all originally 
 owe existence to Him: S. John i. g-14; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i, 16 sqq. 
 Hence the divisions of mankind are ended in Him (Eph. ii. 13-17) ; all 
 races, stations, even the sexes, find in Him their point of unity, Gal. iii. 28 ; 
 Col. iii, rr. And as He is Lord of all without distinction, so the wealth of 
 His compassion and grace is for all. mAoura@y eis mayras is the correlative of 
 Kvpios wavtov. | : 
 
 [Obs. 2. The énixAnots of Christ is not to be identified with the éyodoyia that is 
 made before man, vers.9,10. For instances of such émixAnots, see Acts ii. 21 ; 
 vii. 59; ix. 14, 21; xxii. 16; 1 Cor. 1.2; 2 Tim. ii, 22. This émxadcioba, or 
 calling upon Jesus Christ for grace and help, cannot be deemed (with 
 Meyer, who here arbitrarily imports an Origenizing gloss, quite unwarranted 
 by the text) only a relative worship, and as such distinct from the absolute 
 worship paid to the Eternal Father. See Waterland’s dissection of the 
 Arianizing hypothesis of ‘an inferior worship’ offered to Christ, Works, iii. 
 p. 363 (Oxford, 1823), ‘Second Defence of some Queries,’ qu. xvii: ‘Where 
 do you find two different worships, more than two different natures [i.e. in 
 
 - the Son and the Father]? Only the worship, as the Nature, being One, is 
 _ considered primarily in the Father, and secondarily in the Son.... You 
 will never prove anything of inferior worship, unless you can first prove the 
 nature of the Son to be inferior to the Father.’ Again, worship, he observes, 
 whether addressed to the Father or the Son, ‘terminates in the Divine 
 Nature considered primarily in the Father and derivatively in the Son.’ (1b.) 
 On the Scriptural authority for the worship of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 on the usage of the Primitive Church, see Waterland, Works, v. pp. 379-386, 
 ‘Remarks upon Dr. Clarke’s Exposition of the Church Catechism.’] 
 
186 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 c. The ground (yap ver. 13) for predicating mAovrap els mavras tobs 
 émtxadovpevovs aitéy (ver. 12) of our Lord Jesus Christ is 
 furnished by Jewish prophecy (ver. 13). 
 
 Heb. bby nim ova siprowy 55 
 LXX mas ds dv émnadréonta 76 dvopa Kupiov, owOycerat. 
 
 Joel ii. 32 (iii. 5, Heb.), quoted to show that Jesus Christ 
 will save all who pray to Him (ver. 13). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The expression } nin ova 1) means to worship the Lord as He is. 
 His Name reveals His Nature or mode of existence ; for in inspired language 
 there is no felt distinction between the name and the Reality. To call 
 upon the Name of the Lord implies right faith about Him, as the Object of 
 worship. (See Pusey, Minor Prophets in loc. pp. 130, 131.) Of the LXX 
 renderings, (1) ém«xadefo0a: 76 dvopa Kupiov Gen. iv. 26, to call on the Lord 
 as being what He is. (2) ém«xadetoOa ént 7rd dvdpuari Kupiov Gen. xii. 8, to 
 make His Name, as a revelation of His Nature, the ground of calling on Him. 
 (3) Emxkadeioba év dvdpati Kupiov 1 Kings xviii. 24, to call upon Him, within 
 the revealed conditions of His Nature expressed in His Name. (4) émxadci- 
 oOa tov Ocdv “IopanA Gen. xxxiii. 20, includes all the foregoing, which, 
 indeed, give different senses of the Hebrew expression. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. This passage is Messianic: it describes the deliverance which would be 
 found in the Kingdom of Messiah, before the Great Day of the Lord, by the 
 nw, the escaped ones, whom the Lord would call. The deliverance 
 would be obtained by prayer to the Lord, and, considering the Messianic 
 import of the passage, S. Paul understands this of Jesus Christ. S. Peter 
 quoted the whole passage, Joel ii. 28-32, (excepting ver. 32 b,) after the out- 
 pouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, as having been fulfilled by that 
 great miracle (Acts ii. 17-21). And he adds with reference to it, in address- 
 ing the first Christians, ‘For the promise is unto you and to your children, 
 and to all that are afar off, and even as many as the Lord our Gop shall call’ 
 (Acts ii. 39). Jarchi and Kimchi understand the whole passage of the 
 times of the Messiah. Seve Keil in loc.; Hengstenberg, Babee i, pp. 345, 
 
 346, E.T.] 
 
 § 3, 
 
 Third evidence of Isracl’s Guilt. Deliberate neglect of great oppor- 
 tunities for attaining the miorts upon which dicaocivn Geod depends 
 (x. 14-21). 
 
 [Obs. Knowledge being an element of responsibility, (S. John xv. 22 ‘If I had 
 not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin ;’ Arist. Nic. Eth. is 
 13 sqq.) 8. Paul proceeds to admit, or rather to assert, this general principle ye 
 (in vers. 14, 15), before insisting on the responsibility of Israel for the ad- " 
 vantages they had actually enjoyed. ] ‘ 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. X, vv. 14-21. 187 
 
 I. Necessity of adequate opportunities for hearing the Faith, in 
 order to full responsibility for believing or rejecting it (vers. 
 14, 15) 
 
 Prop. If Salvation, through émixadeioba rd dvoya Kuptov (ver. 13), is 
 to be attained, a Divinely-commissioned Teacher is necessary 
 (vers. 14, 15). 
 
 Arg. 1. From the nature of the case (vers. 14, 15a. 
 
 In order to pray, men must believe in Him to Whom prayer 
 is addressed : 
 
 In order to believe in Him, men must have heard Him. 
 
 In order to hear Him, men must have listened to a preacher 
 through whom He speaks (ver. 14). 
 
 But In order to speak for Him in preaching, men must be com- 
 missioned by Gop (ver. 15 a). 
 
 Therefore, if men are to attain cornpia by prayer to Jesus 
 Christ, an Apostolate is indispensable (vers. 14, 15 a). 
 
 » [0bs. t. The arg. of ver. 14 is a ‘reversed sorites,’ thrown into a series of four 
 questions, each introduced by mas. By otv the Apostle glances backwards 
 at the ém«xadcio@a of the quotation in ver. 13. émxadécovta, fut. of ethical 
 possibility: Winer, Gr. N. 7. p.348. The future converts to Christ, whether 
 heathen or Jews, are the subjects to the first three verbs—émxadécorra, 
 marevcover, dxovcovor: the Apostles to the last two—«npvfovet, drograd@ot. 
 ov before ove qxovoay refers to Christ speaking in His envoys (cf. Eph. ii. 17) ; 
 not to Christ as the great subject of Apostolic preaching, which would pro- 
 bably be dv, Eph. iv. 21; nor yet to Christ as Him, de quo they would hear 
 (since New Testament usage does not sanction this) ; still less is it the adv. 
 of place, ‘where,’ which would break up the symmetry of the passage : 
 Meyer, in loc. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. xnpvfovor ver. 15, ‘ discharge the duty of heralds.’ The word implies (i) 
 that the Gospel message, consisting as it does of divinely-attested facts re- 
 specting the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, must come to man from without 
 him. Being objective historical matter of fact, it cannot be ‘evolved from 
 man’s consciousness by reflexion’; it must be brought to him from without 
 himself, and he must first hear of it in order to believe it. Instead of being 
 a human ‘speculation about Gop,’ it is a message from Gop, transmitted 
 through His herald. Hence the word implies (ii) that the Christian teacher 
 must have Mission, and this, not from those to whom he delivers his message, 
 but from the Divine Monarch Whose herald he is. Hence the value placed 
 by S. Paul on his title dwéaroAos, Rom. i. 1; Gal. i. 1, 12, 16; il, 7 sqq. ; Tit. 
 i. 1, &c. This drooroAn from Gop is transmitted through the Apostles and 
 their successors to the end of time: its absence is much more serious than 
 
 ' 
 
188 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 ‘an ecclesiastical irregularity.’ Cf. ois ob dvecre:Adueba in the Apostolic 
 Letter, Acts xv. 24. ] 
 
 Arg. 2. From the welcome given in Isaiah, by anticipation, to the 
 arrival of the Apostles of cwrnpia among men (ver. 15). 
 
 Is. lii. 7, quoted to illustrate the welcome accorded to an Apos- 
 tolic ministry, which satisfies the great needs of humanity 
 by announcing the joyful tidings of salvation (ver. 15). 
 
 Heb. pay WNIT S 
 Diew wevin TID 17 
 ap “a1 
 ‘How lovely upon the mountains 
 
 Are the feet of them that bring good tidings, that publish peace ; 
 That bring tidings of good.’ 
 
 LXX mépetp ds Spa em tov dplwv, ds wédes edaryyedrCouevov dxory eiphvns, ds evary- 
 yearrCopevos ayaa, | 
 
 [Obs. 1. (Citation.) ds cipato: of rédes rev edbayyedtCopéve [elpnyny, Tav edaryyediCopevar] 
 Ta ayabd. 
 
 The citation follows neither the Hebrew nor the LXX, though keeping 
 more closely to the former, while omitting éai r@v épéwv as of local reference ; 
 ef. Nahum i, 15. Kaéds yéyparra states the correspondence between the 
 last question, insisting on the need of a «fpug dmoctadcis, and the Old Testa- 
 ment anticipations of Messiah’s Kingdom. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The prophet sees in vision the redemption of Jewish prisoners consequent 
 on the fall of Babylon. The tidings are being carried to Jerusalem, over the 
 mountains to the north of the City; in his ecstasy the prophet exclaims that 
 the feet of the messengers (1WI1D is collective) are lovely, from their swift- 
 ness, as they approach. Cf. Cant. ii. 17; viii. 14. , It is the message which 
 makes the arrival so welcome: they announce DI?w, peace as involved in 
 theocratic deliverance from the heathen power ; and 340, all good in the 
 future to which Israel is heir, through the promises. The Rabbins under- 
 stood this of the days of the Messiah; and S. Paul applies the exclamation 
 to the appearance of the Apostles of Christ upon the scene of history. Their 
 
 _ feet are wpato: (beautiful, like fruit in its maturity, S. Matt. xxiii. 27) in his 
 eyes, as they announce the end of the captivity of sin, and publish epnvy 
 (Eph. vi. 15 7d edayyédor THs eipyvns), made by Christ, through the Blood of 
 His Cross, between Gop and man, between earth and heaven (2 Cor. v. 18- 
 20; Eph. ii. 17; Col. i. 20); and all the blessings of goodness (7a d-ya6a) 
 which Gop in Christ bestows on the redeemed, especially dicaoovvy.] 
 
 II. The historical fact, however, is that the majority of the Jews 
 have heard and rejected the Apostolical teaching (vers. 16, 17). 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. X, vv. 14-21. 189 
 
 a. The fact stated. Notwithstanding the commission and 
 labours of the Apostles (ada), the Jews have not, all of 
 them, obeyed the good news of Messiah and His Kingdom 
 (ver. 16). 
 
 [Obs. ov waytes is a tragic litotes ; the fact being that an enormous majority refused 
 obedience ; cf. iii. 3 ijriatnodv twes. With tmpxovcay compare tmeraynoay 
 
 ver. 3, as indicating the attitude of submission which becomes man when 
 in presence either of Gop’s Truth or His Grace.] 
 
 b. The fact prophetically anticipated in Isaiah (ver. 16), 
 
 Is, liii. 1, quoted to show that history repeats itself, since 
 the rejection of the prophet’s teaching was singularly 
 typical of Israel’s rejection of the Gospel in the Apostolic 
 age (ver. 16). 
 
 Te; liii: 3. 
 Heb.  hyevp pod ‘D 
 
 LXX Kupie, ris émiorevoey TH akon Hpdv 3 
 
 [Obs. Delitzsch assigns the question ‘Who hath believed our preaching?’ to 
 
 Israel, (not to the prophet,) as the connection between Is. lii. 13-15 and Is. 
 
 liii. r implies. The nation acknowledges with penitence, how shamefully it 
 
 has mistaken its own Saviour. ‘Who hath believed our preaching, i. e. the 
 
 preaching that was commonly heard among us?’ The Hebrew [ONT ‘1D 
 nyo is without any equivalent to Kime in the citation, or to KUpios in 
 
 Ex... nyww, the hearing = the tidings, especially the announcement in 
 
 Is. xxviii. 9, of the exaltation of the Servant of Gop from deep degradation. 
 
 axon similarly has an objective meaning, that which is heard, tidings. Meyer | 
 
 understands the prophetic preaching, not its contents, see Gal. iii. 2. Com- 
 pare the application of Is. liii. 1, by S. John xii. 38, to the unbelief of the 
 
 Jews after witnessing our Lord’s miracles. ] 
 
 c. Inference (apa) from this prophecy, in confirmation of what 
 has been said (ver. 14) as to the conditions required for the 
 growth of wiors (ver. 17). 
 
 (i) mloms is e& dxons. It originates in the preaching, 
 
 whether of Prophets or Apostles (ver. 17). 
 (ii) axon, the Apostolic preaching is made possible by the 
 Revealed Word of Gop (&4 pjaros Gcod), which furnishes 
 an Apostle both with his message and his credentials 
 
 (ver. 17). 
 
 {Obs. r. This inference is a parenthetical confirmation, suggested by the quota- 
 tion in ver. 16 of the earlier assertion, in ver. 14, of the necessity of Apostolic 
 
 preaching, and.an Apostolic mission, in order to the genesis of faith and 
 worship. ] 
 
190 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 2. pjua @cod referring to fjua rhs miorews ver. 8. The revealed Word of 
 Gop (answering to min 25, the substance of the prophetic proclamation) 
 as taught by the Apostles. ‘So at S. Luke iii. 2; iv. 4; S. John iii. 34 ; viii. 
 47; Eph. vi. 17; Heb. vi. 5; xi. 3; 1 Pet. i. 25. Not the command of Gop 
 only which gives the Apostle his commission, although this is included. ] 
 
 III. Possible excuses for the conduct of the Jews considered 
 (vers. 18-21), 
 Excuse I. (Put by the Apostle to himself.) ‘Surely it cannot be 
 that Israel has not heard the Apostolic preaching ?’ (ver. 18). 
 [Obs. The question is introduced by an 4Add of ‘ objection, whether proposed by 
 the speaker or by some one else.’ In pi ov« Heovoay ; the interrogative u7q 
 anticipates that od# jxovoav will be negatived. Winer, Gr. N.T. p. 642. ov 
 
 ph would be only a strengthened form of the simple negative. The subject 
 of jxovoay is ov mavtes (ver. 16), the unbelieving Jews ; its object is 7Hy dxonv 
 
 (ver. 17). ] 
 
 Resp. The excuse is dismissed by a quotation from the Psalter, 
 which describes the world-embracing scope of the Apostolical 
 preaching (ver. 18), 
 
 [Obs. pevodvye, ‘immo vero,’ with a slight touch of irony, warranted by the fact 
 that the spread of the Gospel, as described in the quotation, was much greater 
 than was necessary to give Israel the required opportunity ; cf. ix. 20.] 
 
 Ps. xix. 4, quoted to show that the Apostolic dxoj had been suf- 
 ficiently wide-spread to afford an opportunity of hearing it to 
 all Jews, whether in Palestine, or among the two Dispersions 
 (ver. 18). 
 
 Heb. YP NYY NTTP2a 
 apo ban nypz 
 
 ‘Into all lands is gone forth their line, 
 And to the end of the world their utterances.’ 
 
 [Obs, r. The citation exactly follows the LXX. 6 $0dyyos airy corresponds to 
 D3p, i. e. the measuring-line of the heavens. The parallel ond shows that 
 this line was traced by them as heralds of Gop, and this may explain the 
 paraphrastic translation @@éyyos. 1) however might mean a harpstring, as 
 being a cord in tension, and then, like 7évos, a sound, which would lead 
 more easily to the LXX 6 ¢6dyyos, and Symm. 6 jxos: although the LXX 
 may have read ndip.] 
 
 Obs. 2. Ps. xix is Davidie. It places side by side the glory of Gop in Nature 
 (vers. 1-6) with the mercy of Gop in His Law (vers. 7-14). Nature too is 
 an organ whereby Gop reveals to man His Power, Magnificence, Wisdom, 
 Bounty, and this Revelation penetrates everywhere. And thus ‘the 
 measuring-line of the heavens,’ as interpreted by the LXX, suggests to the 
 
Dogmatic: ch. X, vv. 14-21. Ig 
 
 Apostle, as to Jewish teachers, (Sohar, Genes. ii) the spread of the Gospel 
 by the Apostolic ministry throughout the earth. The praeconiwm caelorum 
 is a figure of the all-penetrating pracconium Evangelii, as the argument of the 
 Psalm itself suggests. This is independent of, but not inconsistent with, 
 the ancient allegorical exposition, which makes the heavens a figure of the 
 Church, and the sun, of Jesus Christ or the Gospel. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Perhaps it was on account of his own share in it that S. Paul shrank 
 from describing the spread of the Gospel in language of hisown. The verse 
 which he quotes is in its meaning at once historical and prophetic. His- 
 torically, it states that the Apostolic teaching had already penetrated, eis 
 madoav Thy ynv and eis Ta mépata THs oikovpévns, sufficiently to reach the great 
 mass of the Jewish population wherever dispersed. As yet the Apostle had 
 not preached in-Spain, xv. 20, 24, 28, and it was only later that S. Clement 
 Romanus describes S. Paul as d:cacoovyny bidagas 6Aov Tov Kéapor I. ad Cor. Vv. 7. 
 Although in Col. i. 6,23; Rom. i. 8, the dissemination of the Faith through- 
 out at least the civilized and Roman world is referred to as achieved. The 
 quotation refers to a proclamation of the faith which was accomplishing itself, 
 and which had been already sufficiently achieved to make the Jewish people 
 responsible for the possession of sufficient knowledge to secure their conver- 
 sion. Prophetically understood, it pictures the spread of the Church into 
 all the countries of the world, but it does not oblige us to suppose that in 
 the Apostolic age itself Christian Missionaries had reached America or 
 Australia. ] 
 
 Excuse II. (Put by the Apostle to himself.) ‘Surely it cannot be 
 that Israel was ignorant of the (universal destination and 
 consequent) world-wide proclamation that was to characterize 
 the Messianic good-tidings ?’ (ver. 19). 
 
 [Obs. pi *Iopard ob éyvw ; is parallel to px ov jeovaay ; ver. 18: but the object of 
 éyvw is not (like that of j7xovcav) the Apostolic axon, but the universal diffu- 
 sion of the Gospel as suggested by the quotation, Ps. xix. 4. Was it the case 
 
 that Israel did not know that Christianity was destined for every human 
 being, and was universally preached ?] 
 
 Resp. The excuse is set aside by two quotations from Moses and 
 Isaiah, which are prophecies even of the conversion of the 
 heathen among whom therefore the Gospel must previously 
 have been proclaimed, (vers. 19, 20); and by a third from 
 Isaiah, which rebukes the Jews for the moral temper of dis- 
 obedient opposition, when confronted with Christ Crucified, 
 Who it is thus implied was preached to them also (ver. 21). 
 
 a. Deut. xxxii. 21, quoted to show how the heathen would 
 be admitted to share in the communion of Gop’s people, 
 whereby the jealousy and anger of the Jews would be 
 excited (ver. 19). 
 
2 
 
 192 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. mp@ros, here not=mpdrepos, as in S. John i. 15, but ‘first in order of the 
 Sacred Writers.’ Of the many later testimonies which might have been 
 quoted, the Apostle contents himself with one from Isaiah. ]} 
 
 Deut. xxxii. 21. 
 Heb. DY"NDD DWN 
 
 DD WIS 922 “23 
 ‘And I will provoke you to jealousy by a no-people, 
 And by a foolish nation will I anger you.’ | 
 
 {Obs. 1. The citation closely follows the LXX: it substitutes buds twice for 
 avrous. 
 
 [0bs. 2, The passage occurs in the Song of Moses. sapatnrAwow, Heb. SIPR, 
 implies the conjugal relation in which Gop stands to His ancient people ; 
 His jealousy is the effect of His love. Even in the Mosaic age, Israel pro- 
 voked Gop by unbelief and idolatry. DY"N23, én’ od« Ove, in respect to 
 a ‘not-people’ ; ov« é6vos forming a single negative notion. By ov« €@vos and 
 €6vos aovverov, Canaan primarily, and afterwards every heathen nation is 
 meant. One people only in the ancient world corresponded to the Divine 
 Idea of a people; the rest, in Gop’s eyes, were non-existent. Yet, if 
 Israel would serve gods which were ‘ not-gods,’ Gop would move them to 
 jealousy by showing mercy to a people which, theocratically speaking, had 
 no existence ; cf. ix. 25; 1 S. Pet. ii. ro. On the connection of od with 
 a noun, cancelling its notion altogether, see Winer, Gr. N.T. p. 597. €@vos 
 davverov,i. e. in not seeking or asking after Gop (Eph. iv. 17). The expres- 
 sions in Deut. xxxii. 21 are explained by Is. Ixv. 1. As Israel did fall into 
 idolatry, the conditional menace became a fulfilled prophecy, and as such is 
 appealed to here.]} 
 
 b. Isaiah Ixv. 1, quoted to show how Gop would become 
 known to and found even by Heathens, who during long 
 ages had neither sought nor asked for Him (ver. 20). 
 [Obs. droro\yG is not merely a Hebraizing way of expressing the adv. ‘boldly.’ 
 Apart from his words, Isaiah is bold in confronting the men of his own day, 
 
 and the historical prejudices of Israel. The present tenses represent him (as 
 Moses in ver. 19) as still present through his writings in the Apostolic age. ] 
 
 ig! ey, tx. 
 Heb. saw vido sav 
 ‘wD NDD HN? 
 £I was to be discerned by those who did not enquire, 
 I was to be discovered by those who did not seek me.’ 
 LXX épparijs &yevopny rots Ewe pr) enepwraor, 
 eipcOnv Trois éue ph (nTovow. 
 Citation.  ebpéOnv Trois eve pi (nrodouw, 
 éuparis “eyevouny Trois Eve pr) emepwrGor. . 
 
 [Obs. 1. The LXX follows the order of clauses in the Hebrew, which S. Paul 
 transposes, possibly with a view to the order of the ideas. ] 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. X, vv. 14-21. 193 
 
 [Obs. 2. The passage refers originally to Jews who had apostatized from Gop 
 through sin and idolatry. The prophet has begged for grace on their behalf. 
 And, in reply, he is reminded how Gop had given Himself to be found, 
 and had revealed Himself to a people which asked no questions, and did 
 not seek Him. ‘AY/17) is not ‘I have become manifest,’ but (niphal toler- 
 ativum) ‘I allowed myself to be found out.’ So ‘N&S1D), ‘I let myself be 
 found.’ Israel did not trouble itself about Gop ; yet Gop would be known 
 to and found by Israel; ef. Is. lv. 6. In its idolatrous apostasy Israel had 
 actually become "iW. sped 3, a nation in which the Lord’s Name was 
 not invoked: its thorough heathenism is expressed by the substitution of \} 
 (LXX é6vos) for DY (LXX Aads). This apostate condition of Israel made it 
 in S. Paul’s eyes typical of the heathen world, which did not concern itself 
 about Gop (Eph. ii. 12 deo év rd Kdopw), but to which Gop has given Him- 
 self to be found in the Gospel. The Gentiles have accepted Gop’s mercy ; 
 Israel has resisted it: hence in ver. 21 S, Paul applies Is. Ixy. 2, exclusively 
 to Israel. Hosea ii. 23, and i. 10, are quoted on a similar principle in 
 Rom. ix. 25, 26, with reference to the Gentiles, although the idolatrous 
 Israelites were, originally, in both cases alluded to.) 
 
 c. Isaiah Ixy. 2, quoted to show that Israel too had had the 
 largest opportunities of hearing the d«on, but that Israel’s 
 own disobedience and gainsaying was the real reason of its 
 not having been conyerted as a people to the Faith of 
 Christ (ver. 21), 
 
 [Obs. pds used figuratively of mental direction (Heb. i.7; S. Mark xii. 12), 
 Turning to Israel, Isaiah says, in the Name of Gop, the words in ¢. lxv. 2.] 
 
 Is. Ixy. 2. Read 
 Heb. pioba op snbnB 
 
 “nip oyn bs 
 
 ‘I spread out My Hands all the day 
 To a refractory people.’ 
 
 (Obs. x. The citation follows the LXX, except that in the latter and the Hebrew 
 bAnv ri hpépav follows xetpds pov. LXX dre@otvra kai dvtiAéyovTa are an 
 expanded rendering of \1}D, being stubborn, 1D is used of refractory 
 beasts. The present part. denotes the continuance of the disobedience and 
 contradiction. } 
 
 [Obs. 2. It may at first sight seem arbitrary, that while Is, Ixv. 1, originally 
 applicable to the Jews, is applied by S. Paul to the heathen, Is. Ixv. 2, in 
 ‘the immediate context, should be restricted in its application (ef. mpés ver. 
 ro) to the Jews. In truth apostate Israel’s indifference to Gop was on a 
 level with that of the heathen: and so far a similarity of moral circum- 
 stances justified the application of the text. But, on the other hand, 
 Israel’s persistent disobedience and contradiction were without any parallel 
 in heathen history ; since the heathen never had the light and grace which 
 alone made this sharp antagonism to Gop possible. And Gop’s love for 
 Israel was unique. Though Israel was as estranged from Gop as were the 
 heathen, yet Gop, in His exhaustless love, turned towards Israel again and 
 
 oO 
 
194 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 again during the long day of its chequered history, and conspicuously at 
 the climax of that history when His Son appeared among men. The out- 
 stretched hands of Gop are a symbol of His immense, persevering, all- 
 embracing Love; of the tender, patient, incessant invitations whereby He 
 sought to draw to His heart the people of His choice, which remained fixed 
 in rebellion and contradiction (Acts Vii. 51 ; xiii. 45; xix.g). Israel lacked 
 not opportunities for knowledge; the heart of Israel was at fault, not its 
 means of acquiring necessary religious information. As S. Augustine says, 
 ‘nemo credit, nisi volens’ ; and a rebellious will is not forced to faith even 
 by the Infinite Love of Gop. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. In éferéraca tds xeipds pov, Origen, S. Augustine, and S. Jerome (on Is. 
 lxv) see a prophetic anticipation of Christ Crucified, while hanging on the 
 Cross. §. Jerome, ‘Significant expansae manus parentis clementiam suos 
 filios in sinum recipere gestientis.’” On dmeodvra, see S. Matt. xxiii. 37. 
 avriaeyeav (ef. avriAoyia Heb. xii. 3) means contradiction in words (Meyer), 
 not general opposition (Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 23). Of the Jewish dvy7Aoyia to 
 our Lord, the sayings, that He was a Samaritan and had a devil; that He 
 cast out devils through Beelzebub the prince of the devils ; that He was not 
 from Gop because He kept not the Sabbath day ; that being a man He made 
 Himself Gop, were instances, } 
 
 D. 
 
 Israel's failure to attain Sixaocivy Ocot éx mictews Considered with 
 reference to some consolations and encouragements which 
 qualify the sterner aspects of the fact (xi. 1-32). 
 
 [Obs. These consolations are, (i) that the whole nation of Israel has not failed to 
 secure ditaoctvn Oeod: (ii) that the failure of the majority is closely con- 
 nected with the conversion of Heathendom, which will in turn promote 
 that of Israel: (iii) that a bright future is in store for Israel itself.] 
 
 Consolation I. 
 
 Israel, as a people, has not wholly failed to attain diKxaooivn Geod 
 é€x miotews (Xi, I-10). 
 
 [Obs. This general proposition is established by the consideration of a question 
 arising out of (otv) those which have been already asked and answered to 
 himself by the Apostle in x. 18-21. These questions and answers might 
 have seemed to imply that the whole nation, conjointly and severally, had 
 been shut out from the Kingdom of Messiah. Hence the Apostle asks, } 
 
 Question. Surely Gop has not cast away His own people? (ver. 1). 
 
 [Obs. The question expects a negative answer. The emphatic drwcaro is placed 
 first, and implies entire rejection: the retention of rdv Aady abrod to designate 
 Israel implies that the enquiry could only be answered in one way. dmwzaro 
 and 70y Aady airod are mutually exclusive notions. The question seems 
 
 Rc el 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. 1-10. 195 
 
 formed on Ps. xciv. 14 71 ob# dmwoera Kipios Tov Aady adrod, Kal tiv KANpoVo- 
 play avrod ovK eyearadeiipe. | 
 
 Resp. py yévaro, No. The very thought of araécaro is horrible. 
 Proof that Gop has not rejected Israel as a whole (vers. 1-10). 
 
 Arg. 1. From the Apostle’s own case. S. Paul himself is an 
 instance of a Jew who had not been rejected by Gop. And he 
 is a representative Jew, both as-not being a proselyte (é« o7ép- 
 paros "ABpadu), and as belonging to a tribe which, together with 
 that of Judah, was the theocratic centre of the nation (ek pvdAjjs 
 Bevianiv). Hence, to say the least, ov« daacaro 6 Geds every 
 member of His people (ver. 1). 
 
 [Obs. 1. xai éyw is a reason (ydp) for wi) yévorro. Meyer understands the Apostle 
 to refer only to his own sentiment as ‘a true Israelite of patriotic feeling 
 whose theocratic self-esteem would not allow him to admit the dmwaato,’ 
 mainly on the ground that the proof proper does not begin until ver. 20. 
 Certainly the first argument is only a prelude to others which are to follow; 
 as if the Apostle said, ‘To begin with, I am a case in point,’ which shows 
 that dnwoaro cannot be pressed in the full force of the words. But it is an 
 argument ; and surely 8. Paul had parted with his ‘theocratic self-esteem ’ 
 at his conversion. See Phil. iii. 7.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. On é« orépyaros ’ABpadu, no mere proselyte, see Phil. tii. 5; Rom. ix 7. 
 On Benjamin, Acts xiii. 21. On the separation of the State into two king- 
 doms, Benjamin was attached to the tribe of Judah, and with it constituted 
 the kingdom oi Judah, 1 Kings xii. 21. After the captivity, these two tribes 
 formed the heart of the Jewish colony in Palestine. See Ezra iv. 1; x. 9.] 
 
 Arg. 2. From the Divine foreknowledge. Gop foreknew His 
 people as being such from all eternity ; but if He could have 
 been supposed to have thrust Israel altogether away from Him, 
 His foreknowledge of His own actions towards His people 
 would have been at fault. This is inconceivable (ver. 2 a). 
 
 -  [0bs. x. In introducing this argument, the proposition which is being proved in 
 xi. 1-5, and which negatives the question in ver. 1, is stated, ob« dmwcaro 
 6 @eds Tov Aady adrod. As in ver. 1 the emphasis lies on daécarTo and adrod. | 
 
 [0bs. 2. mpoéyvw, as in viii. 29, precedes mpoopifev, not chronologically and in the 
 Divine mind, but in the order of our apprehension. Gop foreknew His 
 people as being what they were to be, when as yet creation was not. The 
 duerdderov tis Bovdjs avrod (Heb. vi. 17) makes it impossible that His 
 mpéyvwos could have been at fault, since his BovAy is based upon it. Nor 
 does the mpéyvwois, as here conceived, include the sins and apostasies of 
 Israel, since this tpéyvwois of Israel’s sin could not have been the basis of 
 the Divine mpoopicpyds. dv mpoéyvw is not a limiting definition ; as meaning 
 that part of Gop's people which He foreknew, as predestined to Salvation in 
 Christ ; because Aads av7ov here as in ver. r must mean the entire nation. | 
 
 02 
 
196 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Arg. 3. From historical analogy. The spiritual situation of Israel 
 in the days of Elijah corresponded to that of the Apostolic period 
 (2 b-4). 
 
 [Obs. év "HAig—in the passage of Holy Scripture treating of Elijah—as often 
 in LXX and Rabb., S. Mark xii. 26 év rj BiBAw Mwoews: S. Luke xx. 37 
 Mwons éujvucev. 7% ove oldare #.7.A. ;=or (if you do not agree that Gop has 
 not rejected the people of His foreknowledge) is it the case that you do not 
 know what Scripture says in respect of Elijah ?]} 
 
 1 Kings xix. 10, 14, 18, quoted to show that general national 
 apostasy does not always involve total and unconditional 
 national rejection ; but that it is, on the contrary, consistent 
 with the existence of a ‘remnant’ which by its presence 
 proves that Gop otk dzacaro tiv Aady airod (vers. 3, 4)» 
 
 a. Elijah’s intercession in accusation of (kara) Israel: 1 Kings 
 xix. 10 (ver. 3). 
 
 Heb, ninay ‘qo nimd oneap sip 
 DSW Wa PND wy 
 
 PWIITNY) IIT PHAB ONY 
 
 yaad ‘8 MN. TIA ANA 
 
 : mpd VEIN WPI 
 
 LXX (nrdv éChdrwka 7d Kupiy mavtoxparopt, Sts éykarédundv ce of viot "Iopand* 
 Ta OvolacThpia Gov KaTréoKapav, kal Tovs mpopntas gov dméxrevav év poupaia, Kat 
 tredeipOnv eye povwratos, kat (nToda THY WuxHY pou AaBeElv aiThv. 
 
 {Obs. 1. This prayer is repeated in 1 Kings xix. 14 (after the question of the pov? 
 avpas AentHs), with the substitution of rv dS:a0qKnv cov for oe, and of tmoAe- 
 Aecppar for tmedcipOnvy. In the Hebrew, however, qn"2 and WHS) are 
 found alike in ver. 10 and ver. 14, which entirely correspond. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The Apostolic citation varies from the LXX freely. It omits the 
 reference to the covenant, and inverts the order of the slaughter of the 
 prophets and the destruction of the altars, probably because the slaying of 
 the prophets was a much graver sign of national apostasy than the de- 
 struction of the altars. For povwraros it has only pdévos: and, as if showing 
 that it was made with a view to conciseness, év foypaig and Aafely airjv, 
 which both occur in the Hebrew, are left out.] 
 
 [Obs. g. The Israelites, under Ahab, were the murderers aches of the 
 prophets : 1 Kings xviii. 4, 13, 22. They utterly razed the altars of Jehovah, 
 i.e. those which, since the separation of the ten tribes, had been erected 
 on the high places throughout Israel. These altars were indeed forbidden 
 by the law (Lev. xvii. 8,9; Deut. xii. 13, 14); and Hezekiah and Josiah, 
 Kings of Judah, were praised for destroying them. In Judah they were 
 
 
 
 wholly out of place; but they stood on a somewhat different footing in _ 
 
 
 
eg 
 
 Dogmatic: ch. X1, vv. 1-10. 197 
 
 Israel, as the devout worshippers of the Lord Jehovah were not allowed to 
 go to the Temple at Jerusalem, and erected these altars, not out of dis- 
 obedience, but in order to offer such worship as was possible, under the 
 circumstances of the schism. Accordingly these altars were destroyed in 
 Israel under Ahab, from a purely irreligious motive—not because they 
 violated the precepts of the law, but—hbecause they were suggestive of the 
 worship of the Gop of Israel. Hence Elijah’s complaint. pédvos, in Elijah’s 
 sense, among the prophels; in S. Paul’s, among the people. For (nretv riv 
 yuxnv, ‘seeks to destroy life,’ see r Sam. xxii. 23 WDI-NN wpa, S. Matt. 
 ii. 20. For the parallel between the two religious situations, see S. Matt. 
 xxiii. 29 sqq.; Acts vii. 52; 1 Thess. ii. 14 sqq.] 
 
 b. The Divine response (xpyyariopds) to Elijah: 1 Kings xix. 18 
 (ver. 4). 
 Heb. DDN nyaw bea Nw 
 byad syarnd vwix Dysnan-ba 
 [319 PYEN? AWS nBD>DN] 
 ‘Yet I have (marg. will leave) left Me seven thousand in Israel, 
 
 All the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, 
 {And every mouth that hath not kissed him.’] 
 
 LXX «ai katadeif~w [katadreip~as] év “IopajA Entra yiArddas avipdy, navra ta 
 yovata & ov Exappav [wxdacay| t¢ [7H] Baad, [nal nav ordpa 6 ob npocekvvncer 
 avTe]. 
 
 [Obs. r. The citation gives narédrmov éyavtw [Hebrew *AANW) for xatadrci~w év 
 "Iopayrh: émraxicxiAlous dvdpas for Era xiAiddas dvdpav: oirwes for mavta Ta 
 yovata &: 7H Baad (see App..Crit.) for 7G Baad. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. This sentence is termed by S. Paul 6 xpnyariopés, the Divine response, 
 or oracle, a Gm. Aey. here in N. T. as=a special revelation ; but found in 
 2 Mace. ii. 4; xi. 17. xpnyati{w means (actively) ‘to transact business, 
 decide, ordain’; here passively ‘to assume a title, office, character.’ For 
 xpnparitw in the passive, see S. Matt. ii. 12, 22; S. Luke ii. 26; Acts x. 22; 
 Rom. vii. 3; Heb. viii. 5; xi. 7; the active, often of Gop in Josephus: and 
 of His representatives, Jer. xxxiii. 2; xxxvi. 23; Heb. xii. 25. It is a 
 word, which after doing heathen work has been consecrated by Revelation, - 
 like Aecroupyia, éxxAnoia, &e.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. xaréAumov éuavTg. Gon had left remaining to Himself, and as His own 
 property, seven thousand men who were not slaughtered with the rest, yet 
 had not worshipped Baal. These were concealed from view; to the 
 prophet the apostasy seemed universal. As in the days of Noah, and in 
 the wilderness, so now the faithful remnant were a minority. Jezebel had 
 introduced the cultus of the Phoenician bya, also known as "bi, the 
 Punic MédAox. For his worship, see Lev. xviii. 21; 1 Kings xi. 5, 7, 33; 
 2 Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. xxxii. 35; Acts vii. 43. The fem. 77 Baad (the 
 LXX reads 7#) is probably to be explained by the popular conception of 
 this god as androgynous. Movers (Phoenic. i. 178 sqq.) shows that this 
 Tyrian Baal, as the sun-god, is substantially identical with the Babylonian 
 
198 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 and Syrian Baal, and with the Greek Heracles. In Phoenicia, a rude 
 physiological materialism had been early digested into a formal idolatry, 
 which worshipped the productive powers of nature in personified con- 
 ceptions ; and this worship centred in that of the sun, who was regarded as 
 the chief fertilizing power in nature: Creuzer, Symbol. ii. 266 sqq.; Winer, 
 Bibl. Real-Woerterbuch, s. v. Baal. The form of the worship seems to have 
 been to kneel before the idol of Baal, and kiss the right hand to it.] 
 
 Arg. 4. From the actual fact that a remnant of Jews were 
 Christian. As in the days of Elijah, so (otros) now in the 
 Apostolic age, and in order to make vers. 3, 4 applicable (ov), 
 there was a Acippa Kar’ ékA\oynv xdpiros, a chosen remnant of Jews 
 whose conversion to the Faith of Christ proved that ovx drécaro 
 6 Geds rdv Aadv aitod (ver. 5). 
 
 [O0bs. The converts to Christ of Jewish descent correspond to the seven 
 thousand of Elijah’s day: they are termed Aciupa nara riv éxdrAoynv xapiTos. 
 The expression is immediately suggested by xaréAutov énavT@ ver. 4. Aciupa, 
 a term from Isaiah (cf. Rom. ix. 27, 29), means the remainder from a whole 
 of which the larger part has been removed. But in Elijah’s day and in 
 S. Paul’s the Aeiupa seemed insignificant when compared with the perishing 
 or unbelieving majority ; and yet, in the Apostolic age, the Christian 
 Aeiupa of the natural Israel was, in point of numbers, considerable. Cf, 
 Acts xxi. 20, for the representation of the mpecBirepa to S. Paul, méca 
 pupidbes cioly “Iovdaiwy Tay memotevedtwy : also Acts ii. 41. Rev. vii. 4 makes 
 the mystical number of the Jews predestined to salvation through Christ 
 144,000. This Acqua was taken from the rest of Israel, not in consequence 
 of meritorious service, but through Gon’s free choice, dictated by His com- 
 passion, xa’ éxdoyiy xapiTos.] 
 
 § (Transitional.) Negative import of the production of the Acippa 
 in the way of éxdoy) xdpiros (ver. 6). It excludes épya as 
 entitling to a place in the Acizpa, on the ground that, if this 
 were otherwise, grace would cease to be grace ; it would give 
 up its specific character of gratuity by being conditioned 
 (ver. 6). 
 
 [Obs. t. The logical obxérs, as at vii. 17. The idea is epigrammatically expressed 
 by S. Augustine : ‘Gratia, nisi gratis sit, non est gratia.’ It is not purely 
 parenthetical, since, besides explaining the negative import of the principle 
 on which the Aciypya (ver. 5) was constructed, it accounts by anticipation 
 for the failure of Israel’s ém(nreiv (Thy Sixaocvvny) éf Epywv in ver. 7.] 
 
 Obs. 2, The clause ef 5é éf Epywy, ove ert atl xapis* Emel TO Epyov ov‘ Ett EoT 
 i 5& ef Epywy, ode em oti yapis’ émel 76 € ux ett early 
 épyov, although occurring in B. C.8* Syr. S. Chrys., is probably an old inter- 
 polation intended to complete the argument. See App. Crit.] 
 
 
 
 ee et Cee. 
 
 Arg. 5. From the true account of the failure of the majority of 
 Israelites, and of the salvation of the minority which thus (ody) 
 presents itself (vers. 5-10), 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. I-10. 199 
 
 (A) The failure of the majority of Israelites to obtain dixaooim, 
 viewed on the side of hwman responsibility, and as the result 
 of vers. 5, 6 (ver. 7a. 
 
 a. Israel, in the mass, did not obtain even rotro, the Sd:karootvy 
 which it sought, ¢& ¢pywv (ver. 7 a). 
 b. The converted minority, or éexdoyn, did obtain Sixaootivy, scil. 
 ex miotews (ver. 7 a). 
 Hence, what occurred cannot be described as-dracato 6 Geis 
 Tov Nady avrov, since the cause lay in Israel itself, 
 
 Obs. To this it might be objected that the reference to Pharaoh in ix. 17 
 suggests that Gop did in some sense reject Israel: dv 6é O€Aee oxAnpiver. 
 Hence follows, | 
 
 (B) The failure of the majority of Israelites to obtain dicaoovvn, 
 viewed.on the Divine side (vers. 7 b-10). 
 
 a. This failure applies only to that portion of Israel which 
 remains after the deduction of the Christian Acippa, viz, of 
 Aourei, the unbelieving majority (ver. 7b). 
 
 b. The internal cause which brought this failure to pass. is 
 described by ¢rapaéncav, The intellect and will of the 
 majority were hardened by the withdrawal of Gon’s grace, 
 so as to be irreceptive of faith in Christ. Such a process 
 differs from the summary rejection implied by dracaro, in 
 being gradual, as well as in being the penal result of their 
 own misconduct (ver. 7 b). 
 
 c. This account of the failure corresponds with the typical 
 language (kadas yéyparra) of the O.T. which describes a 
 like process in the days of Moses, David, and Isaiah (vers, 
 8-10), 
 
 [Obs. The m&pwos of ver. 7, although describing the same general moral fact as 
 the 7d oxAnpiveoOa of ix, 18, is perhaps stronger in its import. The metaphor 
 implies not merely the stiffening of the existing soul and character, but the 
 outgrowth of a new feature, which obscures while it hardens, by an outer 
 coating of mental habit. m&pwos differs from oxdAnpiveoda by the idea of 
 a new outgrowth of mental obduracy. pos, the tufa-stone, is specially used 
 of a callus or substance exuding from fractured bones and joining their 
 extremities as it hardens ; hence mwpéw, ‘to petrify,’ ‘form a bony substance,’ 
 and so metaph. ‘to harden.’ The word is not to be identified with mwpéw— 
 amnpéw, ‘to make blind,’ although ver. 8 has suggested this; indeed in 8. John 
 
 xii. go it is contrasted with tupAdw. This m&pwois produced permanent 
 bluntness and insensibility in the intelligence (2 Cor. iii. 14 «aAuppa émi 79 
 

 
 200 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 dvayvwoea THs madkads diadhens pever): but it was especially (as among the 
 brutalized heathen) a mépwois rhs xapdias Eph. iv. 18, issuing in the 
 spiritual blindness, described in S. Matt. xiii. 13 sqq.; in o«Anpoxapiia: in 
 the being oxAnporpdxndot kal dmepitynto 7H Kapdig Kal Tots wolv Acts Vii. 51. 
 As in earlier ages, so in the Apostolic, this tHpwots, viewed from the human 
 side, was a penal judgment for prolonged indifference to grace and light. ] 
 
 a. Isaiah xxix. 10, blended with Deut. xxix. 3, quoted to show 
 that this rapeors of the majority of Jews in the Apostolic age 
 corresponded with that of the people of Israel in the days of 
 Moses and Isaiah,—a hardening which was typical of that 
 which characterized the Jews of the Messianic period 
 (ver. 8). 
 
 (i.) Is. xxix. 10. 
 Heb. nin) ppydy yDID 
 nDNA AY 
 ‘For He hath poured on you, hath Jehovah, 
 A spirit of deep sleep.’ 
 LXX 6m rendtixey ipads Kipios mvevpats Kkaravigews, 
 
 Citation. gdwxey avtois 6 Ocds mvedpa Karavifews. 
 (ii.) Deut. xxix. 3. 
 Heb. nyo 35 nad nim ymanhy 
 yay DYN) rion Dy) 
 ma oD Ip 
 ‘Yet the Lord hath not given unto you an heart to perceive 
 
 And eyes to see, and ears to hear, 
 Unto this day.’ 
 
 LXX xat Sone Kiipios 6 @cds iptv [xapdiay eidévai Kal] dpOarpods BA€émey,, 
 kal @Ta akovew ews THs huepas TaVTAS. 
 
 Citation. ép@adrpods rod ph Bdrérev, kal Gra Tod pi dxovew, Ews ris 
 onuEpov 7ué pas, | 
 
 [Ots. 1. Is. xxix. 10 is a line in the Book of Woes (ch. xxviii-xxxiii on Assyria 
 
 and the projected alliance with Egypt). Woe II. On the Oppression and 
 Deliverance of ‘Ariel’ (chap. xxix). The prophet has traced the humili- 
 ation of ‘ Ariel’ (vers. 1-4) and its wonderful deliverance (vers. 5-8) ; but 
 in order to understand the depths and heights of their history, the nation 
 wanted faith. All was lost on the obtuseness of the mass. The self- 
 induced indifference of the people becomes a judicial sentence of obduracy 
 (ch, xxix. 9 b-12). All the members of the nation, even its eyes and heads, 
 were possessed by a TITIAN NY, a passive state of complete spiritual impo- 
 tence and insensibility. M7 (from O17) is deep sleep, Gen. ii. a1; 
 Xv. 12; 1 Sam. xxvi. 12: and the word is used of a corresponding spiritual 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. X1, vv. 1-10. 201 
 
 condition, Prov. xix. 15, and here. It is variously translated by the LXX 
 according to the connection; as by éxoraas, at Gen. ii. 21; by @dyBos, at 
 x Sam. xxvi. 12; by dvdpéyuvor, at Prov. xix. 15. Here the LXX render by 
 mvedpa Karavugews, a spirit that induces stupefaction. Calvin, and other 
 erities, following the etymology of «ardvvgis, render ‘spiritus compunc- 
 tionis’; but this severs the Greek word altogether from the meaning of 
 MI77H, which it was intended to represent. On the other hand, it is 
 impossible to derive the noun xardvvgis from karavvora{w, which would yield 
 Karavvotaypds—vvoraypa : or from xata-viw (if it was ever used), since this 
 would form xardvvots. It is derived from ard and vicow, properly ‘to prick,’ 
 then ‘to wound’ (Hom. JJ. p. 395 ; S. John xix. 34), finally ‘to strike.’ The 
 compound verb catravicow is rarely found in its proper signification of 
 *compungere’; it is used, especially in the middle and passive, of passing 
 under the overwhelming influence of fear, dejection, and the like (Gen. 
 xxxiv. 7; Ps. iv. 5; cix. 16, &c.). Hence it comes to mean, to be 
 mentally overwhelmed—struck dumb (Is. vi. 5; Lev. x. 3). Although the 
 substantive xaravvéis generally denotes some mental disturbance produced 
 by grief, compassion, or fear, it may mean simple stupor. Thus in Ps. Ix. 5 
 the LXX. translates ndyIA j% by olvoy xatavigews, lit. ‘wine of reeling,’ i. e. 
 producing the stupefaction which makes a man reel. So in Is. xxix. 10 6re 
 menétikev bas 6 Kupios mvevpatt Karavigews : ‘bibendum vobis Dominus dedit 
 spiritum, qui torpidos vos faceret.’ See the Excursus in Fritzsche, Ep. Rom. 
 ii. p. 558 sqq. That S. Paul understood by mvevpa xatavigews, not a mere 
 moral state, but an evil personal being or daemon, producing spiritual in- 
 sensibility, might be gathered from 2 Cor. iv. 4 év ois 6 Oeds Tod ai@vos TovToU 
 érUpAwoe Ta vonyata, or Eph. ii. 2, where heathen life is xara roy dpxovra Tijs 
 efovgias Tov dépos, TOD mvEevpaTos TOU Viv évepyouvTos év Tos viois THs dmeELOelas. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. Deut. xxix. 3 occurs in Moses’ parting exhortation to obey the Law: it 
 refers immediately to the insensibility of Israel to the real import of the 
 plagues of Egypt. od pa BAémew (gen. of the aim) is ‘eyes, that they may 
 not see’; a fatal oxymoron. Cf. Is. vi. 9g, -10; S. John xii. 4o; Acts 
 XXViii. 27.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The general sense of these passages is as follows:—The majority of the 
 Jewish people in the time of Christ and His Apostles act like men drunk, or 
 ina dream. Their eyes are open, but they see no one object clearly ; sounds 
 fall on their ears, but no ideas are conveyed. The Eternal Truth, to Whom 
 their whole history points, presents Himself before them ; yet they cannot 
 recognise Him. How can this obtuseness be anything less than a penal 
 visitation? Gop must have deserted them; or rather He must have 
 deprived them altogether of His illuminating grace; and as the last 
 influences of the mvedpya dyov depart, the mvevpa Karavigews supervenes. 
 The m&pwors is then complete. ] 
 
 b. Psalm lxix. 23, 24, quoted to show that the curse denounced 
 by David, whether as prophet or type of the Messiah, had 
 been fulfilled in the topos of the majority of the Jews, who, 
 in the Ppovtelio age, had rejected the true Messiah (vers, 
 
 9, 10). 
 
202 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Heb. DNB? DIY a 
 : wind pvpirydy nad 
 nivy OPP m2 
 PIED WR PIN 
 
 ‘Tet their table before them become a snare 
 And to the unconcerned a trap. 
 
 Let their eyes be darkened that they see not, 
 And make their loins continually to shake.’ 
 
 LXX yevnOjrw 4 rpanela airav évimov abray eis nayida Kal els dvrand- 
 Soow kai eis oxdvSarov. SxoricOjrwow of dpbarpot aitav Tov pi) 
 Brérrev, kat Tov vOTov a’t&y SiamavTos ovyxappov. 
 
 [Obs. r. The citation differs from the LXX in omittingé vdmov abray after rpamefa 
 airy: in inserting xa? eis @fpay after mayida: in substituting dvramddopa for 
 dvrarddoo.v, and transposing it with oxdviadov. The LXX rendering <«is 
 dvranddoow is only a comment on, not a translation of, omidyidy (= the 
 carnally secure, who enjoy peace without solid grounds) ; and ovyxapwov, 
 ‘bend together,’ is an effect of 195, imp. Hiph. ‘make them to shake.’} 
 
 [0bs. 2. Ps. Ixix according to the inscription is David’s, and belongs, like Ps. 
 xl, which it most nearly resembles, to the period of his persecution by 
 Saul. Delitzsch follows Hitzig in ascribing it to Jeremiah, but against 
 S. Paul, as well as the inscription, and upon internal grounds which do not 
 appear to be convincing. It is not altogether a typically-prophetic Psalm ; 
 David here, as in Ps, xxii (which with Ps, ]xix is most frequently quoted 
 in the New Testament with reference to Christ’s sufferings), loses his own 
 individuality in that of the Ideal Holy Man under persecution who became 
 concrete in Christ. As such David identifies himself in vers. 23, 24 with 
 the Divine Mind in respect of his persecutors ; and he utters the curse, 
 which Absolute Justice, as distinct from any private feelings of revenge, 
 would prescribe. In this, as in Ps. cix and Ps. exxxix. 21 ‘Do not I hate 
 them, O Lord, that hate Thee?’ the Psalmist regards the enemies of the 
 Theoeracy as his own, and his own enemies as enemies only so far as they 
 fought against the Divine order of the world. The imprecations, therefore, 
 are only the form which ‘Thy Will be done’ necessarily assumes in the 
 
 presence of aggressive evil, They are a prayer that the Divine Justice a 
 might be revealed in action for the protection of the cause of Truth and q 
 Righteousness against its enemies. So far are they from being ‘ peculiar to ’ 
 
 the moral standard of Judaism,’ that they are, as here, deliberately adopted 
 by the inspired teachers of Christianity. Were they indeed the language 
 of mere human passion, they would be very alien from the Christian 
 spirit ; but, in truth, they rank with the sterner sentences of our Lord and 
 His Apostles, as utterances of the penal Justice of God. Cf. Gal. i. 8, 9, &e.] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Obs. 3. The persecutors of the Sufferer, who in ver. 20 have given Him gall, and 
 vinegar, fall in ver. 23 under His prophetic imprecations. Their table, 
 which was abundantly supplied with the good things, is to be turned into 
 a snare; they will be slain while sitting at the feast. In their carnal 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. 11-24. 203 
 
 security (DYDIr¥) they little heed the coming ruin. Those eyes, which 
 gloated on the sufferings of the Righteous One, are to be closed to spiritual 
 truth. Those loins, so full of self-confident defiance, must shake with fear. 
 (7920). The Apostle in quoting the passage, contemplates the ruin which 
 1) Tpame(a avT@v was, according to the prophetic imprecation, to bring upon 
 Israel. This well-furnished table was in S. Paul’s sense either Gon’s 
 earlier Revelation, or the Jewish Scriptures ; ‘on which table,’ says Origen, 
 ‘any who wished to feed on the Word of Gop was nourished with the 
 discourses of the Law and the prophets.’ And, as our Lord said to the 
 Jews, dpeis Soxeire év atrais (wiv aiwvoy éxev (S. John v. 39). Yet the same 
 spirit which rejected the true Messiah obscured the true meaning of the 
 Scriptures which spoke of Him. The Jews (Sdééav mapa dAAjAwy AapBavovTes 
 S. John v. 44 ; ef. xii. 43) glided into a false exegesis, based on self-love and 
 self-flattery, until the true tendency of the Law and the moral elevation of the 
 prophets were lost sight of, and the sources of Divine Truth were overlaid 
 with profitless controversy and logomachy. In this way their Scriptures 
 became ‘snares ’ and ‘traps’ to Israel, nay, an enemy chasing them to 
 their destruction, and ‘repaying’ them for their treatment of the Messiah. 
 Under thé dark shadow of this false exegesis, the Jewish Scriptures have 
 been the fertile source of the miseries of Israel, from the days of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem untilnow. And at the root of this is the spiritual 
 blindness, which sees not that the Law ended when the true Messiah 
 came ; and the spiritual servitude to sin personal and national, which lasts, 
 because the one possible Deliverer has been rejected. ] 
 
 [Obs. 4. The mépwors lies, not in 4 tpdwe(a airy, the well-spread board, at which 
 Israel feasted on the dainties of the ancient Scriptures ; but in yevn9jTw «is 
 mayiéa, as ver. 10 more precisely explains. For «at eis @qpavy there is no 
 equivalent in the Heb. or LXX; the Apostle expands the thought suggested 
 by mays: Ojnpa can only mean ‘the chase by which they are captured.’ 
 oxavdadrov = cxavdadnOpov, the stick set in a trap, often used in the LXX for 
 wpid, ‘asnare.’ dvramddoya, not classical; but often in the LXX ¢is dvramddopua 
 is added to suggest that all the instruments of the downfall of Israel have 
 the character of being a retribution. xa? eis dvranddopa, ‘and thus a retribu- 
 tion.” Cf. S. Luke xiv. 12. va@ros (Att., varov), here mase. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 
 290. The bending down of the back of Israel was a figure of its spiritual 
 bondage under the law.] 
 
 Consolation II, 
 
 The failure of the majority of Israel to attain through Christ 
 dicatocvvm Ocod ék wiorews is intended to promote the salvation of 
 Heathendom: while the conversion of the Heathen will in 
 turn bring about the restoration of Israel (xi. 11-24). 
 
 I. Divinely-intended results of Israel’s offence in rejecting Christ 
 (vers, 11-16), 
 
 [0bs, These results are stated in four theses (vers, 11-16).] 
 
204 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Tuests 1. (Negative.) It is not to be imagined (ui yévorro) that the 
 offence taken at the claims of Christ on the part of the majority 
 of Israel involves permanent spiritual ruin (ver. 11). 
 
 [ Obs. €rracay (ver. 11) refers (ody ver. 11) to of 5% Acimol émwpwOnoav (ver. 7) for its 
 occasion. The antithesis lies between émraicay and néowot, mraiev is a 
 figurative expression for taking such offence at the claims or Person of 
 Christ, as to refuse faith in Him. The expression is chosen with reference 
 to our Lord’s title Ai@os mpocxédpuparos ix. 32, possibly to oxavdadov ver. 9. 
 For moral stumbling, see 8. James ii. 10; iii. 2; 8. Pet. i. 10. mimrev here 
 implies a fall into unending destruction : Heb. iv. 11. S. Paul denies that 
 there was any Divine purpose (iva) of an irrecoverable fall in Israel's 
 stumbling at the claims of Christ. He does this by indignantly answering 
 his own question in the negative. | 
 
 Tuests 2. (Positive.) The offence (mapdrropa) of Israel in rejecting 
 Salvation through Christ has led to the acceptance of this 
 Salvation by the heathen, and this tends to make («is) the Jews 
 (in a good sense) emulate the heathen, who have succeeded to 
 their leadership in religious privilege (ver. 11 b). 
 
 [Obs. 1. mapémrmpa refers to émracay, not to mécwor: mapartwpa gives the moral 
 import of an act, which, viewed historically, and with sympathy for the 
 unhappy agent, is described as mraiopa. For the ellipse of yéyover after rors 
 é6veow, see Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 733. For the fact that the Christian Faith 
 was addressed to the heathen world in consequence of its rejection by 
 the Jews, see S. Matt. xxi. 43 dpOqceta ap’ ipa % BactAcia ToD Oeod kal 
 doOnoeTar EOver moiodvTs Tos KapTovs avTis: Id. xxii. 9 mopevecbe ody eis Tas 
 defcSous tev ddav Kai Goous Gv evpynTe, KadécaTeE eis TOYs yapous. Acts xiii. 46 
 (S. Paul to the Jews in the Pisidian Antioch) tpiv jv dvayxaiov mpa@rov 
 AadnOjva Tov Adyov ToD Ocor* ered?) 5é aGmwheiobe aitov Kai ove a£ious KpiveTe 
 EavTots THs aiwviov (ws, idod orpepopeba eis TA €Ovn : Id. xxviii. 28 (at Rome) 
 yvwordv ovv éoTw bpiv, Ort Tos COveow ameoTAANn Td GwTHpLov TOU OEod, ado! Kal 
 dkotoorvrat. But the ultimate intention and drift of this admission of the 
 heathen was «is 7d mapa(nAdoa airovs, namely the Jews ;—here is the 
 antithesis to iva réowo: in the question put to himself by the Apostle. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. On eis 7d mapalnA@oa abrod’s, comp. Deut. xxxii. 21, quotedin x. 19. Gop 
 desired, by tokens of His love towards the Canaanites, to stir up His Own 
 people to jealousy. ‘Sicuti uxorem a marito sua culpa rejectam accendit 
 aemulatio, ut se reconciliare studeat, ita nune fieri posse dicit, ut Judaei, 
 quum viderint Gentes in locum suum subrogatas, repudii sui dolore tactiad 
 reconciliationem aspirent.’ Caly,]} 
 
 Tursts 3. If so much spiritual advantage has resulted to mankind 
 at large from the failure of Israel in the mass to attain dixcavoovvy f 
 rod Gcov, much more may be expected to result from Israel's 
 entire conversion to Christ (vers. 12-15). if 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. X1, vv. 11-24. 205 
 
 [Obs. x. This may be described as an inference ‘a felici effectu causae pejoris ad 
 feliciorem effectum causae melioris.’” As drawn out by Aquinas it runs 
 thus: ‘Bonum est potentius ad utilitatem inferendam quam malum ; sed 
 malum Judaeorum magnam utilitatem gentibus contulit; ergo, multo 
 majorem conferet mundo eorum bonum.’] 
 
 (Obs. 2. The paragraph (vers. 12-15) contains three parallel statements of the 
 same argument, with a passage practically parenthetical (vers. 13, 14), 
 although closely connected with that which precedes and follows it, inserted 
 between the second (ver. 12) and third (ver. 15). Thus, 
 
 ss mUpeRr es Aes mAOUTGS ee | Nida paxhos 
 €i 4 TO WTTHpA avT@v < TAoUTOS byw ¥ 5) 
 % GroBoAry - xatadAay? Kéo pou 
 TO TANpPwEA ais (seil. wAodTos Kécpov, Kal €Ovav], (ver. 12). 
 1; mpdarnuis § PT" ) et pi) Cor ee vexpdv (ver. 15). ; 
 Although in ver. 12 the logical force of the argument is expressed verbally 
 by mécw padror, it lies equally in tis ei pH (ver. 15); since in ver. 15 the 
 Apostle argues, not merely that the conversion of the Jews will at least be 
 as beneficial to the world at large as their failure to attain é:caocdvn, but 
 also that it will produce an effect as much greater as (a) é« vexpay is than 
 KaTadAay? Kdo pov. | 
 
 § The argument is threefold in its mode of presentation. 
 
 a. If the ‘offence’ (rapdmropa) of (the majority of) Israel in 
 rejecting the Gospel has enriched the world, how much more 
 must the restoration of Israel to its full number of faithful 
 [sAnpopa] enrich it! (ver. 12), 
 
 [Obs, x. In ver. 12, 5€ is transitional. Israel’s offence became the mAodros ndcpnov 
 because in consequence of it the Christian owrnypia was offered to, and 
 accepted by, the converted portion of Heathendom. The mAjpwya of Israel 
 means the fully restored number of faithful Israelites, through the conver- 
 sion of the unbelieving of Aowoi (ver. 7) to the Christian Faith, On the 
 word, see Fritzsche, Ep. Rom. ii. p. 469.] ? 
 
 [Obs. 2. mAnpwya, here ‘the complement of Jews filling up the gap in Gon’s king- 
 dom.’ Fritzsche has shown, in loc., that the passive meaning of the word is 
 the most common in the New Testament, rAjpwya means, (1) that with which 
 a thing is filled up, (2) that which is filled up, (3) actively, the action of 
 filling up. Fritzsche only adduces Rom. xiii. ro, for the active sense, 
 mAjpwpa vépouv % ayarn, yet this may be taken passively thus; love is that 
 by which the Law, conceived of as an outline of duty, is filled up, 1 Cor. x. 
 26 70 mAnpwpa THs ys, that by which the earth is filled by the processes of 
 nature; so S. Matt. ix. 16; Mark ii. 21; Eph. iii. 19; iv. 13; Col. i. 19; 
 ii. 9. mAnpwya rod Ocod and rod Xporod is the sum of perfections with 
 which Gop, or Christ is filled. The Church is Eph. i. 23 76 tAfpwpa rod 7a 
 néyra év naow mAnpovpevov, the fulness with which Christ is filled and which 
 also fills the Church. In ver. 25 mAnpwya Tod é6vay cannot mean that with 
 which the Gentiles are filled up, the sum of qualities or characteristics which 
 
206 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 makes them to be what they are ; but the complement which the Gentiles 
 supply to fill up the gap in the Bao.Acia Tod Ocod created by the apostasy of 
 the Jewish majority. It is a gen. apposit.; as in Cant. v. 12 mAnpwpata 
 bdaTwy, i. e. the waters by which the river-bed is filled. And mAjpwpa means 
 here what it means in ver. 25, and is in antithesis to 777nya: viz. the full 
 number of Jews by which the apostasy of the majority will be repaired ; 
 see Philippi in loc.] 
 
 b. If the ‘overthrow’ (irrnua) of Israel, through the loss of the 
 unbelieving majority, has enriched the heathen nations, how 
 much more must the restoration in Israel of its full number 
 of faithful enrich them ! (ver. 12), 
 
 [Obs. 1. HrTnpa (1 Cor. vi. 7; Is. xxxi. 9) is notclassical. It = 7rra. The Apostle 
 conceives of Israel as an army, which has experienced defeat through the 
 loss of a majority of its men. | 
 
 [ Obs. 2. At this point, before the third statement of his position in ver. 15, the 
 Apostle becomes conscious that his ex-heathen readers will think his 
 enthusiasm on behalf of Israel inconsistent with his office. To meet this 
 latent objection he interposes a parenthetical explanation (ver. 13, 14). ] 
 
 § Parenthetical explanation addressed to converts from Heathen- 
 ism, in justification of the inferences of ver. 12, and in 
 preparation for that of ver. 15 (vers. 13, 14). 
 
 Supposed Objection of the ex-heathen Christians. ‘As the ¢6véy 
 anéorokos §. Paul has no concern with the future conversion 
 and wAjpopa (ver. 12) of Israel” (ver. 13). 
 
 Resp. (1) So far as he is ¢6vdv dmoorodos, he magnifies his 
 office. He claims all honour for it, and he practically 
 illustrates its importance by his work (ver. 13). 
 
 (2) But in doing this, he admits, he has an object 
 beyond. His work for Heathendom is in reality work for 
 Israel. Israel, he hopes, will be stirred to a holy emulation 
 at the sight of heathen conversions to Christ, and thus at 
 any rate some Jews may be rescued from their unbelief 
 
 (ver. 15). 
 
 (Obs. 1. S. Paul’s title é6vv dmécrodos, Doctor Gentium, seems to have been 
 already fixed; and it is treated as involving corresponding obligations, 
 Our Lord gave it Himself, Acts xxii. 21 éya cis €0vn paxpdy eatooTeA@ oe, 
 As contrasted with the drooroA tis wepitops of SS. Peter, James, and John, 
 
 _ it was an dnooroA?) eis Ta EOvn, corresponding to the evayyéAtov ris dxpoBvorTias, 
 Gal. ii. 7-9. In discharging this apostolate S. Paul naturally became (1 
 Tim. ii, 7) a d&ddcxados é6vGv: and he says accordingly, 2 Tim. i. 11 és 3 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. 11-24. 207 
 
 éréOnv ey Knput Kat amdarodos Kal diddoKxadros evav. The d:axovia which he 
 magnifies consisted in diapapripacda 7d evayyédov THs xXapitos TOU Ocov Acts 
 xx, 24; 2 Cor. iv. 1.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. S. Paul’s affection for Israel appears (1) in the use of pov riyv oapka, cf. ix. 
 3 TOY ovyyev@v pov Kata odpka: 2 Sam. xix. 12, 13; (2) in mapa(yAwow, the 
 language of injured love ; (3) in cwow twas. He did not venture to expect 
 all or many, at least yet. Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 22 iva mavrws Twas owow. He 
 ascribes ow(ew to himself, because he administers the Gospel which is 
 dvvapus eis owrnpiav i, 16; 1 Cor. vii. 16; ix. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 16.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The argument suspended at the end of ver. 12 is resumed in ver. 15, 
 and as a reason (ydp ver. 15) for the hope expressed in ef ws mapatnAwow. | 
 
 c. If the ‘loss’ (droBodn) of the majority of Israel has issued 
 in the reconciliation of (so many converts from) the world, 
 what will the reception (mpdécAnpys) of Israel back to Gop’s 
 favour be but the final (wi é« vexpdv? (ver. 15). 
 
 [Obs. dmoBody (see Acts xxvii. 22 with yvxjjs) explains frrnya in ver. 12. For 
 kaTahiayh, see Rom. v. 103; mpdcdnpiyis only here ; but mpocAapBavecba often, 
 cf. Rom. xiv. 3; xv. 7. (wi) é« vexpv may be taken, (1) as the Resurrection 
 of the dead to eternal life, since the conversion of the Jews (ver. 25) will 
 coincide with the end of time (Origen, S. Chrys.) ; (2) as the Resurrection 
 of the whole world from the death of sin to newness of life (S. Ambr.) ; (3) 
 as a proverbial expression. The entrance of the converted Jews into the 
 Church will quicken Christendom with so powerful a moral impulse, that 
 it will seem as if the world had risen from death to life. Of these, (1) which 
 
 makes (wi=dvdoracis is most probable. See Col. iii. 3, 4; 1 Thess, iv. 14, 
 &e.] 
 
 Tuests 4. The spiritual glories of the Patriarchs of Israel are an 
 earnest of the future which awaits the race (ver. 16). 
 
 {Obs. This is a corroboration of the hopes of Israel’s mpdcrnmlis (ver. 15) and is 
 introduced by the metabatic 6é, ver. 16. It also supplies a ground for the 
 threefold warning afterwards addressed to the converts from Heathendom 
 (17-24).] 
 
 Analogy 1. From the legal symbolism of the first-fruits and lump 
 of the dough in Numb. xv. 19-21. When the dough was 
 kneaded, a portion was set aside, and a cake of it baked for the 
 priests, This drapx7 had the effect of consecrating the remainder 
 of the lump, ¢ipaya, This drapyy symbolizes the Patriarchs, 
 the historical drapyn of the mass of Israel, from whom the 
 collective people (vpaya) received an indelible character of 
 theocratic consecration (in the external sense) to Gop (ver. 16), 
 
208 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [0bs, r. Numb, xv. 20 dnapxi) Tod pupdparos = DINDWY MWNI, The word AD y, 
 (only found in pl. from Diy ‘to pound up’) is coarse meal, polenta. Vulg. 
 pulmentum. In Neh. x. 38, Ezek. xliv. go, rendered by otros, which however 
 cannot be understood here, since ¢ivpaya always means a kneaded mass, 
 dough: 1 Cor. v. 6, 7; Gal. v. 9.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. dyia is here used ‘non de actuali sanctitate, sed de potentiali,’ Aquinas. 
 Like WYP it means ‘something separate from common use.’ So in x Cor. 
 vii. 14 the children of believing parents are said to be, not personally, but 
 theocratically, ayo: and in the Creed, the Catholic Church is ‘ Holy.’ 
 ‘Non ergo sanctum vocat Judaicum populum Paulus, quod sanctitatem in 
 se habeat ; sed quia habet unde sanctificetur, tanquam massa ex primitiis, 
 et rami ex radice, ut proinde sanctus dici possit in spe, et causa probabili, 
 et in quadam praeparatione, quam Scriptura non raro sanctificationem 
 vocat.’ Estius. | 
 
 Analogy 2. From the natural symbolism of the root and branches 
 of atree. The root communicates its qualities to the branches. 
 The Patriarchs, the fifa of Israel, impart theocratic consecration 
 to the branches of the race which springs from them (ver. 16). 
 
 [Obs. tr. The second figure, borrowed from nature, teaches the same truth as did 
 the first, borrowed from legal prescriptions. The image of a tree is used for 
 the theocracy in Neh. viii. 15; Jer. xi. 16; Hos. xiv. 6; Zech. iv. 11: its 
 root was in the Patriarchs, of whom sata capxa came the Messiah. By 
 rejecting Him, the majority of the Jews severed themselves from the Root, 
 i. e. from the Patriarchs, to whom He was promised as the ripe product of 
 their race,—and so became broken-off branches: 8. John viii. 37, 39, 40. 
 Our Lord adapted this image of the vine to teaching the necessity of union 
 with Himself: S. John xv. 1-8.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. ver. 16, although constituting a distinct thesis, stands in the relation of 
 an argument to the teleology of vers. 11, 12, 15. The belief that the 
 conversion of Heathendom, itself resulting from the fall of Israel, would 
 yet work out Israel’s good by provoking emulation, is based on the Apostle’s 
 faith in all that is involved in the calling of the Patriarchs, as the dmapyq 
 and fi(a of the race. See ver. 29.] 
 
 II. Warnings to converts from heathenism against certain errors to 
 which they might be prone in their words and thoughts respecting 
 Israel (vers. 17-24). 
 
 {Obs. The metaphor of the fi{a and «Addo, as applied to the Patriarchs and their 
 descendants (in ver. 16), shapes the entire section vers. 17-24. ] 
 
 Warning I. Against indulging in boastful and triumphant 
 language over Israel’s fall (7) xaraxavyd rév khadov), (vers. 17, 18). 4 
 a. Circumstances under which the ex-heathen convert is 
 tempted to triumph over Israel (ver. 17). 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. 11-24. 209 
 
 t. Some ‘branches’ of Israel have been severed from the 
 piga of the Patriarchs (ver. 17). 
 
 [Obs. tuvés, as at iii. 3, is a litotes; the great number of these ‘ branches’ is not 
 
 mentioned, in order not to encourage self-exaltation among the ex-heathen 
 converts. Young twigs, cAddo, so called, because broken off on account of 
 unfitness for bearing. ] 
 
 2. The convert from heathenism (0°), himself originally from 
 the wild-olive-tree, has been grafted in among the Israelitie 
 ‘branches’ which spring from the old pifa, and so has be- 
 come a fellow-partaker with these Judaeo-Christians in 
 fellowship with the Patriarchs, and in the mérns, or rich 
 blessings of the Evangelical promises which the Church 
 of Christ inherits from them (ver. 17). 
 
 (Obs. 1. dypiédasos (an adjective) = é« rijs dypreAaiov ver. 24. Each convert from 
 
 heathenism is addressed individually by ov, which cannot impersonate 
 Heathendom asa whole, sinve the heathen converts were only grafted into the 
 Tree of the Church, one by one. For the mérns tijs éAaias, see Judges ix. 9. 
 S. Paul chooses the olive, (not the vine,} because its mérns was symbolical 
 of the spiritual fulness of Israel. For the ritual use of oil, as a symbol of 
 the Spirit, see Ex. xxv. 6; xxx. 31; xxxvii. 29. And for the beauty and 
 productiveness of the tree, see Ps. lii. 10. év, ‘among’ (Theodoret) ; rather 
 than ‘in the place of’ the branches. (S. Chrys.)] 
 
 [ Obs. 2. In antiquity, scions of the wild olive were grafted into old trees, in 
 
 order to renew their fertility (Columella, De re rustica, v. g, 11, &c. ; but 
 this practice is not in §. Paul’s view in the present passage. In the 
 garden, the young shoot was grafted upon the decrepit stem, in order to 
 invigorate its life ; in the spiritual world, the heathen convert was grafted 
 into the Tree of the Church, which had its roots in the Patriarchs, and its 
 stem in Christ, not for the sake of the tree, but for his own.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The insertion or ingrafling into Christ which évexevtpic@ns implies, is 
 
 explained by S. Cyril of Jerusalem of Baptism, Catech. Myst. ii. 3. That 
 ex-heathen Christians become ‘very members incorporate in the mystical 
 body’ of the Son of Gop, is taught in Ep. iii. 6 eiva: ta €Ovn ouyKAnporvdpua, 
 kai atoowpa, Kal cuppeToxa THs émayyeAlas aiTou év TO Xpio7@ Sia TU evaryyeXiov : 
 Eph. v. 30. The metaphors of the Tree and the Body both imply the 
 
 organic life of the Church; but the former lends. itself to the idea of 
 
 insertion from without (as through Baptism) more readily than the latter.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. The convert from heathenism then had no reason for triumphing over 
 
 Israel to which, indirectly at least, he owed all that made him what he 
 was as a member of Christ.] 
 
 b. Precept-to the converted heathen against triumphing boast- 
 fully over Israel (m1) xataxavy rév xdddwv) (ver. 18), 
 Ee 
 
210 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. The Addo: are not merely the broken-off branches, that is, Jews who, by 
 rejecting the apostolical preaching, had been severed from true communion 
 with the Patriarchs; but also converts from Judaism to the Church, who 
 were still living ‘branches’ of the Patriarchal Tree, and indeed first in 
 honour among them, but to whom the unbelief of the mass of their 
 countrymen was imputed as a degradation by heathen converts. | 
 
 c. Absurdity in the conduct of a heathen convert who 
 triumphs boastfully over Israel (ver. 18). 
 
 If he does it (the possibility is expressed at vers. 21, 22), 
 the fact remains that it is not he who bears the Patriarchal 
 pita, (as his boastfulness might seem to imply), but the 
 pita which bears him as one of its branches (ver. 18), 
 
 [Obvs. For the form xaraxavyaom, cf. Rom. ii. 17, 23; dd5vvaéoa: 8, Luke xvi. 25. 
 The position of heathen converts in the Church afforded even less ground 
 for xavxnots than did that of Jewish converts. As our Lord said to the 
 Samaritan woman, ‘Salvation is of the Jews,’ 8. John iv. 22, The Jew 
 was already in a sense growing out of the root of the Patriarchs, The 
 heathen was altogether a graft from without, inserted upon conditions, 
 and had no ground whatever for self-exaltation. | 
 
 Warning II. Against self-exalting thoughts, (uy tynrodpdve ver. 
 20); which misapprehend the true purpose and lessons of the 
 Divine Judgments on Israel (vers. 19-21), 
 
 [Obs. Rejoinder of the converted heathen, which he will therefore (ody ver. 19) 
 make, because the remark % fifa oé Baorafa stops his xavxnots, ver. 18.] 
 
 a. Anticipated Objection from the converted heathen: ‘The 
 Jewish branches were broken off the Patriarchal Tree with 
 the express object of my being grafted into it’ (ver. 19). 
 
 [Obs. iva éyw has the tone of arrogant self-esteem. The heathen convert might 
 appeal to the Apostle’s own statement in ver. 11. And he insists on his 
 rhetorical advantage in a purely selfish spirit.] 
 
 Resp, (1) The fact is admitted (xadés), (ver. 20), 
 
 (2) The fact is explained by its immediate causes, Un- 
 belief caused the ééexAdcOnoav of the Jews ; faith is the condition 
 of the perseverance of the converted heathen in his present 
 position (ver. 20), 
 
 [0bs. 7H dmotia, TH ticre are datives of the ground or reason, Gal. vi. 12; Col. 
 i. 21; Winer, Gr. N. 7. p. 270, E.T, Their position, each before the verb 
 
 which describes the consequent effect, gives them the emphasis of solemn 
 warning. éoryxas refers, (1) to the position of the ingrafted branch upon 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. 11-24. 211 
 
 the tree, and (2) to the Christian life of grace, Rom. v. 2; 1 Cor. x. 12; as 
 opposed to mimrev, xi. 11, 12; Xiv. 4.] 
 
 b. Precept. (To the converted heathen) forbidding conceited 
 thoughts about himself, and suggesting humble anxiety as to 
 
 his real position (u1) dynArogpdver, dAda poBod) (ver. 20). 
 [Obs. x. inroppovety xii. 16; x Tim. vi. 17; cf. brepppoveiv xii. 3; 1S. Pet. v. 5. 
 Opposed to tamevoppoveivy, Ps. cxxxi. 1,-2. In classical Greek the verb is 
 not found, only peyadodpoveiy : but the adj. i~nAdppov is used in the good 
 
 sense of high-spirited. On the subject of humility, Heathen and Christian 
 ethics differed fundamentally ; and accordingly their terminology differs. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The fear, here prescribed, is the antithesis of false security, and is not 
 therefore that servile apprehension of evil which is cast out by 7 TeAcia 
 dyann 1S. John iv. 18.] 
 
 c. Reasons (yép) for the precept adda po8od (ver. 21), 
 
 1. (Implied reason.) The converted heathen too may lose 
 faith, 
 
 2. He, a mere mapa dvow xdddos, has, in that case, the more 
 reason to dread the Divine Judgment, since Gop has so 
 severely punished the xara piow kdddo (ver. 21), 
 
 [Obs. 1. The xara giow xdado are opposed to the ingrafted “Addo. py mws ov5e 
 gov deicera (not geionra), ‘it is to be feared lest He will not also (as a 
 matter of fact) spare thee.’ .The fut. ind. is more definite and certain than 
 the conj. On the other hand, py mows softens down ovd5e cot peicera: from 
 
 a pure matter of fact, into one of mental apprehension. (See Winer, Gr. 
 N. T. p. 595, E. T.)]} 
 
 [Obs. 2. The argument suggested is an a fortiori one. The xara piaw xrado of 
 the adAréAaos (ver. 24), the ‘natural’ members of the Church of Gop 
 rooted in the Patriarchs, had been cast off for their‘lack of faith in Christ. 
 Much more would the mapa giow «dada, the heathen converts ingrafted 
 into the Church, be cut off, if they lost hold on faith,h—a grace which 
 might easily be forfeited.] 
 
 Warning III. ‘To contemplate the Divine Attributes of Goodness 
 and Severity in their bearing upon present circumstances, and 
 upon the possible changes of the future (vers, 22-24), 
 
 [0bvs. The precept of ver. 22 is inferred (ctv) from ver. 21, and corresponds to 
 the precept pi ip~nrogpdéva, GAA poBod in ver. 20.] 
 (I.) The two Divine Attributes to be contemplated (ie), (ver. 22). 
 
 a. xpnoréms. Eternal Loving-kindness passing into beneficence 
 towards created beings (ver. 22), - 
 P3 
 
212 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [0bs. On xpnordrns, see Rom. ii. 4 Tov mAovTou THs xpnorétynros abrov: 1 S. Pet. ii. 3, 
 quoting Ps. xxxiv. 9 LXX yevoace kai idere Ott xpnoTds 6 Kiptos: S. Luke 
 vi. 35 xpnaords éotw emt Tovs dxapiorous kat movnpo’s. The LXX use it often 
 for 3\D, Ps. Ixxxv. 13: exix. 68; exlv.9. On the distinction between the 
 *bonitas Dei’ which impels Gop to surround Himself with creation, and 
 the ‘benignitas’ which leads Him to confer His benefits on the creatures 
 of His Hand, see Bp. Pearson, Minor Theol. Works, vol. i. pp. 73-75. The 
 Incarnation was the Supreme Manifestation of this Attribute, Tit. iii. 4 
 % xpnorétys kat H piravOpwnia énepavn Tod SwrHpos Huav Oeov. See especially 
 Tertullian, adv. Marcion. ii. c. 4; Lessius, De Perfectionibus Moribusque Divinis, 
 lib. xii; Martensen, Dogmatik, § 50 sub fin.; Grimm, Inst. Theol. Dogm. Lv. 
 
 p. 210. ] 
 
 b. droropia, the penal severity of Gon’s Justice (ver. 22). 
 
 (Obs. dmoropia, ‘pars justitiae, quae ita scelera ulciscitur, ut nihil de supplicio 
 remittat, sed resecet atque exigat omnia ad vivum,’ Justinian. The subst. 
 only here. Wisd, v. 21 dmdéropos épyj: 2 Cor. xiii. 10 dmoréuws ypnowpar: 
 Tit. i. 13 €Aeyxe avrovs drotéuws. On the severity of the Divine Justice, 
 guarded by Wisdom and Goodness, see Martensen, Dogmatik, § 50; Butler, 
 Analogy, part i. c. 2; Lessius, De Perfect. Mor. Div. lib. xiii. cc. 13, 14; 
 Grimm, Inst. Theol. Dogm. Ev. p, 208; Newman, Univ. Sermons, Ser. 5, ‘On 
 Justice as a principle of Divine Gnceraicen® 7] 
 
 (II.) Present operation of these Attributes (ver. 22). 
 
 a. Of Divine Severity, émt rovs meodvras, on the unbelieving 
 Israelites (ver, 22), 
 
 [Obs. 1. éni is here used of the direction of will and aim, the Attributes being 
 really the Divine Will under particular aspects. See Winer, Gr. WN. T. 
 p- 509.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The unbelieving Israelites are here called meodvtes, although (ver. rr) 
 they did not stumble iva réowot. minrev is here used, not of a final lapse 
 from Gop, as when opposed to mraiev, but, in view of the metaphor of the 
 falling branch which has been severed, as describing that which inevitably 
 followed on the droBodn, ver. 15.] 
 
 b. Of Divine Goodness, emi ce, i.e. on the Bue oe heathen 
 (ver. 22). 
 
 [Obs. The order of the Attributes is here reversed, but with the words édv ém- 
 peivns (ver. 22) the Apostle’s thought turns back again to its original order.] 
 
 (III.) Future and contingent operation of these Attributes (vers. 
 22 b-24\. 
 
 a. In the case of the converted heathen, xpyorérns may give place 
 to drorouia (ver. 22 b). 
 
Dogmatic: ch. X1, vv. 11-24. 213 
 
 1, All depends on the convert’s resolution émpévew ev 1H xpyo- 
 rérnrt,—to rest by faith, and obedience, in the encompassing 
 Benevolence of Gop (ver. 22b). 
 
 (Obs. xpnorérns here does not mean human good conduct, but Divine Goodness, 
 as the context requires. The mode of abiding in the Divine Goodness is 
 faith, which apprehends It. Clement. Alex. Puedag. I. 8. p. 140 Tov’ €or TH 
 eis Xpiorov miore, émpévey ig generally used thus with reference to a 
 human grace, virtue, or habit, or quality, rather than to a Divine attribute. 
 Cf. Acts xiii. 43 émpévew 7H xdpi7t: Rom. vi. 1 7H dyapria: Col. i. 23 77 
 niote., The Divine xpyord7ns is here conceived of as a sphere of being in 
 which man may rest, while he also may wilfully plunge out of it by a sinful 
 or unbelieving act.] 
 
 2. If the convert from heathenism does sever himself by un- 
 belief or by sin from the goodness of Gop, then he also will 
 be cut off (from the sacred Tree), (ver. 22 b). 
 
 _ [Obs. 1. émel, ‘since, if otherwise, then,’ &c. The threatening character of the 
 discourse suggests the stronger term éxxorjon, as an act of the Divine azo- 
 ropia, The unfaithful convert wiil no longer be living in the sphere of the 
 Divine xpyorérns.] 
 
 [Obs. 2, énet kal od éxxonjoy. This is a dictum probans for the possibility of the 
 loss of grace by the regenerate. The assumption that such loss is only 
 possible when there was a feigned or hypceritical faith, is at issue with 
 the fact that the heathen convert who is addressed, had at his conversion 
 and baptism been actually grafted into the spiritual olive tree; ef. 1 Cor. 
 ix, 27-4} : 
 
 b. In the case of the unbelieving Israelite, droropia may give 
 place to xpnorérns (vers. 23, 24). 
 
 Prop. If the Israelites do not remain fixed in unbelief, they will 
 be grafted into the Tree of the Church (ver, 23 a). 
 
 Arg. 1. From the Omnipotence of Gop, (yap ver. 23). If the 
 cause, dmoria, on account of which Gop broke off these branches, 
 has ceased to exist, His power to restore them to their old 
 
 places cannot be questioned (ver. 23 b). 
 
 [Obs. 1. madu is not redundant ; it suggests that the éyxévrpiois will restore the 
 believing Israelites to their previous place of honour on the Tree of the 
 Patriarchs. With dvvards yap éoriv 6 @eds, comp. iv. 21; xiv. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 8; 
 2 Tim. i. 12; Heb. xi. 19.] 
 
 [0bs. 2. This whole passage shows, (1) that grace is not indefectible, since man 
 may fall from it; (2) that, having been forfeited, it may be recovered ; 
 . (3) that, viewed” from the human side, and in each particular sito pre- 
 destination is not to be deemed absolute.) 
 
214 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Arg. 2. A minori ad majus. The restoration of converted Jews to 
 the Patriarchal communion must from the nature of the case 
 be more natural than the conversion of the heathen (ver. 24). 
 
 [Obs. 1. yap (ver. 24) introduces a further explanation of the argument in ver. 
 23 b. The argument is, that Omnipotence would find less to do in pro- 
 moting the conversion of the Jews; since, unlike the conversion of the 
 heathen, it is only a recurrence to an order of things which has already 
 existed. méaw paddAov does not so much suggest what is done more easily 
 than another ; as what follows, in the course of things and logically, more 
 surely or more probably: cf. ver. 12; S. Matt. vii. 11; x. 25; 8S. Luke xii. 24, 
 28; Philem. 16; Heb. ix. 14. So wéAAw paddrov Rom. y.9, 10, 15, 17; 1 Cor. 
 xii. 22; 2 Cor. iii. 9, 11; Phil. ii. 12, This completes the reason for €y- 
 KevTpioOjoovTa Ver. 23.] 
 
 [Obs. 2, The contrasts are as follows :— 
 
 Ifthe (77s mapa 
 heathen J “°7* fends aed évexevtpicOn 
 convert | P47" kat cis 
 d-ypteAatou KaAALEA tov 
 moog of kata 
 paAAov puow ri 86 
 shall con- ~ (é« rijs [ovres] 2ral ‘i eynevT pioOjcovrat 
 verted Jews | KaAAl- ‘ 
 (obrou) €Aaiov) 
 
 The heathen who is converted to Christ has, (1) to be cut off from the 
 wild tree of heathen life (éfexémn), and (2) to be grafted praeter naturam on 
 the Tree of the People of Revelation, with which he has no previous 
 affinities. Neither of these efforts of grace has to be made in the case of 
 the Jewish convert to Christianity. He has not to be violently separated 
 from an irreligious human society, since by descent he already belongs to 
 the People of Revelation ; and his conversion, and insertion into the 
 Church of Christ, is so far from involving anything ‘unnatural,’ that it 
 only replaces him in the position for which he was already destined by his 
 theocratic antecedents.] 
 
 [0bs. 3. Observe the sustained contrast between xara piow and rapa giow. The 
 Tree of the Patriarchs, now become the Catholic Church of Christ, is the 
 idia édaia of the unbelieving Jews. They have grown upon it; and they 
 have been cut off from it. It is still their own, if they only knew it. ] 
 
 Consolation III. 
 
 A bright future is yet in store for Israel, (mas apn owbnoera 
 ver. 26), notwithstanding the present failure of the majority 
 to attain d:Kcaootvn cod ék miatews (Vers, 25-32). - 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. 25-32. 215 
 
 Prop. The rapeors of the majority of Israelites will only last until 
 the full number of the heathen have by conversion entered the 
 Church of Gop, after which the whole of Israel will be saved 
 (ver. 26). 
 
 In this prop. remark 
 
 (1) its importance: the heathen converts in Rome must not be 
 ignorant of it (ver. 25), 
 
 [0bs. Although it appears as a corroboration (ydp) of éyxevrpicOAcovrat (ver. 24), 
 the prop. is introduced by the Apostle’s accustomed formula of peculiar 
 solemnity, od OéAw tyds ayvoeiv (cf. i. 13; 1 Cor. x. 1; xii, 1; 2 Cor.i.8;- 
 1 Thess. iv. 13), reinforced by the fervent address, adeAgoi. | 
 
 (2) its character: it is a pvornpiov (ver, 25), 
 
 [0bs. puornprov properly an adj. Mvw, ‘to close,’ and ‘to be shut,’ especially of the 
 lips or eyes; whence porns, ‘initiatus,’ the man who will not improperly 
 disclose the secrets entrusted to him. Mvornptoy is that which is so made 
 known to the pvorns, while it is hidden from mankind at large. This sense 
 of the word is essentially that which is found in the Christian Fathers. 
 S. Chrys. in loc. (ix. p. 651) puaornpiov = 70 dyvoovpevov Kal andppntov, kal mov 
 pev TO Gadpa, ToAD 52 7d mapadofov €xov: and Theodoret, pvornpidy éort 7d pr 
 mao. yvapipdyv, GAA pdvois Tots Oewpovpévors, Practically the New Testament 
 use of the word agrees with this; since puvorjpiov means in the New Testa- 
 ment that which having been from all eternity known only to Gop, and 
 hidden from all created intelligences, and so inaccessible to man's natural 
 reason, is now graciously disclosed to the Apostles, and through them to 
 Christians, while it is still withheld from all outside this circle,—from the 
 world and the worldly wise. The pvornpioy is droxexpuppévoy amd TeV aimver, 
 Eph. iii. 9 ; Col. i. 26. The copia which it contains is still (1 Cor. ii. 7, 8) 
 % dmoxexpuppévn . . . tw oddels trav dpxdvtwv Tov aidvos TodTov eyvanev. Cf. 
 S. Matt. xi. 25 sqq. Yet jyiv 6 Oeds dmexddvpe 5d Tod mvevparos aiTod is the 
 language of Apostles, r Cor. ii. 10; the Holy Spirit is the Initiator; the - 
 Apostles are pvora, as having iv otveow ev TO pvornpiy rod Xpotov, Eph. 
 iii. 4-9. The New Testament pvorjpiov then is something which natural 
 understanding does not discover, and which is made known to the chosen 
 band of faithful by a positive revelation of the Holy Spirit, The great 
 truths of Christianity are puornpia, r Cor. xiii. 12: cf. uvornpia THs Baotdeias 
 Ttav ovpavav S, Matt. xiii. 11; S. Mark iv. 11; S. Luke viii. ro. Among 
 
 - such pvothpa are the nature and development of the work of Christ in the 
 Divine kingdom, S. Matt. xiii. rr ; the incorporation of the heathen into 
 the Church of Christ, Eph. iii. 4 sqq.; the spiritual union of Christ with 
 His Church, Eph. v. 32; the change which will pass upon the bodies of 
 those who are still alive at the second coming of Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 51 sqq. ; 
 especially péya 7d tis edoeBelas pvorjpiov, that is, the Incarnation and 
 Glorification of the Son of Gon, 1 Tim. iii. 16, &e. Unless the Sacraments 
 are included under pvsrjpa Gcod in 1 Cor. iv. 1, they do not seem to be 
 called mysteries in the New Testament. But the word was naturally 
 applied to them on account of their restriction to those who were admitted 
 
216 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 to the fellowship of Christian faith, and with reference to their ‘inward 
 and spiritual grace,’ the reality of which was only known to Christians. 
 pvorhpiov is used of the Eucharist by S. Greg. Naz. Or. 41. p. 740 (ed. Par. 
 3778); Cone. Laod. Can. 7, &e. The Eucharistic puorjpa are said by 
 S. Chrys. to be Oavpacrd, ppinrd, ayia, Ocia, TeAeoTiKa. See Suicer in voc. 
 Observe that the original character of ‘mystery,’ as ‘something originally 
 hidden, comprehended only by the initiated, and concealed from the pro- 
 fane,’ is not forfeited by the Divine daoxaAvyrs to the Apostles ; the dmoxd- 
 Avis does not ipso facto destroy the ‘mystery, by putting the Christian 
 Apostles and Church in possession of it. For (1) the Christian believer 
 receives the truth contained in the pvornpoy as a puorns, (2) while this 
 truth is hidden from the uninitiated world, and (3) is itself still in some 
 respects incomprehensible and inconceivable to those who apprehend it, 
 since it reaches away into spheres beyond their range of mental vision. In 
 the popular use of the word this specific element of surviving incompre- 
 hensibleness is dwelt upon more particularly than the other elements of 
 ‘mystery,’ and so far the proportions, rather than the constituent features, 
 of the Scriptural conception are lost sight of. Here, as in 1 Cor. Xv. 51, 
 S. Paul is conscious of having received a special puornpioy, which he forth- 
 with announces. The prop. which follows is dmoxadvyis puaornpicv Rom. 
 xvi. 25; 1 Cor. ii. 7-10. The -account of pvorjpov given by Toland, 
 Christianity not Mysterious, sect. 3. chaps. 2, 3, by Meyer im loc, and others, 
 ignores the real continuity of signification in the classical and Christian 
 uses of the word. ] 
 
 (3) Its intention: to suppress a false-conceit of knowledge in the 
 heathen converts (iva pi) ire map’ Eavrois ppovipor), (ver. 25). 
 
 [Obs. map’ éavrois ppdvipo here (as at xii. 16; Prov. iii. 7 LXX) means posses- 
 
 sion of the contracted wisdom which never passes the frontier of mere 
 
 natural subjective reflection and experimental knowledge. It corresponds 
 
 to PIP2 OM Prov. iii. 7. ‘ Insultare lapsis ... non fit per Dei sapientiam, 
 
 sed per humanam,’ Origen, iv. p.639- On mapaé with dat. of opinion, see 
 Winer, Gr. N. 2. p. 493-] 
 
 (4) Its contents (vers. 25 b, 26a). 
 
 [Obs. 87 (ver. 25) introduces the contents of the nvornpiov which is contained in 
 the words m#pwos. .. cwOnoerar. It does not end at yéyover. ] 
 
 (i) A rapoos has befallen Israel, (a) dé pépovs partially and 
 (b) for a predetermined period (ver. 25). 
 __ | Gi) The mépoos of Israel will cease, when the full number of 
 a the heathen shall enter [the Church of Gop], (ver. 25). 
 (iii) Correspondingly with which consummation all Israel will 
 be saved (ver. 26). 
 
 [Obs. 1. dd pépous (ver. 25) is connected with yéyovev (compare nwés ver. 17): 
 it recognises the fact that many Israelites were not victims to the mupwas, 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. 25-32. 217 
 
 since they were already converts to Christ. For yéyovev, see ver. 8 édwxey 
 airois 6 @eds: cf. ver. 20. The mwpwois as a penal visitation from Gop, 
 2 Cor. iii. 14.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. dypis ob eioéAOy (ver. 25), usque dum intraverit. In eioéAdy the metaphor 
 of the Olive Tree is dropped, and the Church which it symbolises has taken 
 its place in the Apostle’s thought. The word, like bby and N)2 in the 
 Rabbinical writers, has a recognised sense when used absolutely, as in 
 S. Matt. vii. 13 ; xxiii. 14; S. Luke xiii. 24 eis riv BaotAciay, eis tiv Cwyy or eis 
 tiv xapdv, being understood. Here every reader would understand «is rijv 
 BaciAclay rod Ocod. 1O TAHpwpa Tov COvay = TavTEs of mpoEeyywopevor EOViKOl, 
 (Theodoret,) i. e. the full complement, as fixed in the Divine foreknowledge. 
 Had every single individual heathen been meant, the expression would 
 have been stronger. In ver. 12 mAjpwya as here=that by which complete- 
 ness is secured, as in S. Matt. ix. 16; Rom. xiii. 10; xv. 29; and even Eph. 
 i. 23; Col. i. 19. On the preaching of the Gospel to all nations, see S. Matt, 
 xxiv. 14; S. Mark xiii. 10. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. kat orm does not=xai rére: but it expresses the relation of causality 
 between the conversion of Jews and that of the heathens, already referred 
 to in ver. 1x. Whenever a time arrives at which all the heathen nations of 
 the world have entered within the Church of Gop, the Jews too, seeing 
 themselves cut off from a Religion in which all others have found happiness 
 and blessing, will finally come to Christ for salvation. The intermediate 
 period is described in Hos. iii. 4, 5 ‘The children of Israel shall abide 
 many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, 
 and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim : after- 
 ward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their Gop.’ See 
 Pusey, Minor Prophets, p. 24 im loc. The period preceding Israel’s conversion 
 is the xapot é0vav S. Luke xxi. 24. That mas “Iopd7\ means the whole 
 Jewish nation appears from mAnpwya abray (ver. 12), and the antithetical ex- 
 pression dd pépous (ver. 25). For the Christian tradition that Elijah will 
 be the instrument of the conversion of his countrymen, see Theodoret in loc. ; 
 S. Aug. de Civ. Dei, xx. 29; S. Justin Martyr, Dial. cwm Tryph. ¢. 49.] 
 
 (Obs. 4. mas "Iopand is understood of the Spiritual Israel (Gal. vi. 16), composed of 
 elect heathen as well as Jews, by Theod.; S. Aug. Zp. ad Paulin. exlix. cap. 
 ii. 19; as later by Luther, who denies the possibility of converting Jews 
 (Werke, ed. Walch. Th. xx. p. 2529, ‘Ein Jude, oder Jiidisch Herz ist so 
 stock-stein-eisen-teufelhart, das mit keiner Weise zu bewegen ist’); and the 
 Reformers generally. But the context requires the literal Israel ; considering, 
 
 - @) what is meant by 7Anpwya aire, ver. 12; (ii) the subject of édy pr émpei- 
 vuo. TH amarig, éykevtpicOnoovra Ver. 23 ; (iii) the parallel instituted between 
 the Jews and the Heathen in vers. 30, 31; and (iv) iva rods mavtas éheqon 
 ver. 32. Israel’s entrance as a nation into the Church of Christ, although 
 contrary to all present probabilities, is a climax of the pvarnpiov disclosed by 
 the Apostle in vers. 25, 26. So Origen, S. Chrys., 8. Ambr., and (in de Civ, 
 Dei, xx. 29; Quaest. Evang. ii. 33) S. Augustine; S. Jerome, while on one 
 occasion treating this interpretation as judaizing, seaattag in Is. xi) more 
 often adopts it (in Hos. iii. 5; in Hab, iii. 17).] 
 
218 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Considerations which illustrate the closing statement of the puery- 
 prov, viz. that eventually zs "IopayA cabyoera (vers. 25 b-32). 
 
 [This proposition, that ‘all Israel will be saved’ by Christ, is not so much 
 established by argument, (since it is part of the pvornpiov disclosed to the 
 Apostle év dmoxadvye,) as shown to harmonize with facts and prophecies 
 which have an immediate bearing on its subject-matter (vers. 25 b-32). } 
 
 Arg. 1. That ‘all Israel will be saved’ in harmony with prophecy 
 (xaOas yéyparrat), (vers. 26, 27), 
 
 Isaiah lix, 20, 21, blended with Is. xxvii. 9, and quoted to show 
 that those who reject Messiah will be converted and 
 pardoned, and that thus, as a consequence, the Messianic 
 awtnpia will be extended to all Israel (vers, 26, 27). 
 
 Heb. Is. lix. 20, 21. Syia tityd wos 
 apyra yep raviba 
 :miny DN) 
 
 ‘And there comes for Zion a Redeemer, 
 
 And for those who turn from apostasy in Jacob, 
 Saith Jehovah. 4 
 Onix “NS NNT 381 
 
 mins Worx 
 
 And I, this is My Covenant with them, 
 Saith Jehovah. 
 
 Is, xxvii. 9. 2py7y'y Bde MND 729 
 inxen ADA “yp bp mn 
 
 ‘Therefore in this will be purged the guilt of Jacob, 
 And this [is] all the fruit of the taking-away his sin.’ 
 LXX Is, lix. 20, 21 kal Hfe Evenev Sidv 6 fudpevos, kat dwoorpépe, doeBedas 
 and "laxwB- kat atrn adtois 4 map’ énod diadnKn, «ime Kvpios k.7.A. 
 Is. xxvii. 9 (5a rodro dpaipeOnoera dvopia laxwB, kat Tod7d éorw H 
 evdoyia abrod,) drav GpeAwpat Thy Guaptiav avTOU K.T.A, 
 [Obs. x. Citation. Hge ée Zidv 6 pudpevos, 
 (kat) dmoorpepe doeBeias and "IaxuB* 
 kat aiirn avrois 4 nap’ épod d:abqKn, 
 Grav dpéAwpor Tas apyaprias avTav. 
 
 Here (1) é« Sid in the citation corresponds to tryd and LXX ferev Sidr. 
 The change of preposition is probably an intentional variation from the 
 (LXX and Heb.) text of Isaiah, suggested by Ps. xiv. 7, liii. 6, in order to 
 bring into stronger relief the promises made to the Jewish people. (2) dmo- 
 
 _otpapa doeBelas dd "laxwB (cit. and LXX) corresponds to Apy’a yw. 2 
 ‘and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.’ The LXX may 
 have read Ipy¥> YwD IW. The Syr. reads WM for "2W?. (3) airy, 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. 25-32. 219 
 
 pointing to the following clause in the LXX (Is, lix. 21), refers to the words 
 of the covenant, 76 mvedya 76 épndv od pi ExAitry Ex TOD OTOpaTos K.7.A.; but in the 
 citation, it refers to the words substituted from Isaiah xxvii. 9 érav dpédw- 
 pa. x.s.A. The fundamental unity of Revelation deprives this substitution 
 of any real arbitrariness. } 
 
 [0bs, 2. Is. lix. 20, 2 follows Isaiah’s statement of the sins which retarded 
 Israel’s Redemption. The subject of 82} is Jehoyah, He comes for Zion, 
 as a Redeemer, and those who turn away from apostasy, ywD Av. A double 
 object of redemption is specified : (x) Zion, the Church which has remained 
 true, and more especially, (2) those who turn again from their previous 
 apostasy. See Delitzsch in loc. Is. xxvii. 9 occurs almost at the end of the 
 last portion of The Great Catastrophe (chaps. xxiv-xxvii), where the Pro- 
 phet is describing the chastisement and salvation of Israel, xxvii. 7-13. 
 Israel’s punishment would cease as soon as its purpose was secured ; it 
 would cease at once, if Israel would renounce its sin, especially idolatry. In 
 the original of Is. xxvii. 9 the final conversion of Israel is not alluded to, 
 and yet the language would only receive its complete fulfilment at that 
 event. | 
 
 [Obs. 3. 6 pudpevos, the Messiah: bys, Christ self-revealed in His teaching 
 Church (Eph. ii. 17) will convert Israel. be &1 is used of Gop, redeeming 
 Israel from Egypt, Ex. iv. 6; from Babylon, Is. xliii. x; $ RAV, 23:5 Schvuins 
 20; xlix.7; and absolutely of Messiah, Ps. lxxii. 14; Is. li. 10; Joh xX. 
 25,] 
 
 [Obs. 4. 4 map’ épod d:abhnn does not=% én? biabjnn, but=the covenant which 
 proceeded from Me. arn refers to drav dpéAwpa:, where Otay is not temporal, 
 but a particle of definition. ‘In eo testamentum hoe implebitur quod 
 auferam,’ &c. Closely connected with this passage is Jer. xxxi. 33, 34. 
 The New Covenant was to consist not in the bestowal of a new outward 
 Law, but in the forgiveness of transgressions, preceding the gift of the 
 Spirit, Who would enforce the Evangelical Law as an inward principle. ] 
 
 Arg. 2. That ‘all Israel will be saved’ is not inconsistent with 
 existing facts. For Israel has a double aspect. Israelites are 
 
 TO evayyéAtov €xOpot ) (de spas (se. the heathen 
 converts). 
 kata 
 Thy exhoyny dyarnrot dia robs marépas (ver. 28). 
 
 [Obs. In respect of the Gospel Message, which they rejected, the majority of 
 Israelites are under Gon’s wrath (éx@poi), since they have refused the means 
 of attaining diaootvn @cod, and this was (in the design of Providence) for 
 the sake of the heathen (6: buds), who were thus enabled to attain to owrnpia 
 (ver. rr). But in respect of the elect remnant (é«Aoyi)=Aciupa, see vers. 
 5, 7), the minority of Israelites, with whom was lodged the promise of the 
 future, Israel is beloved by Gop for the sake of the Patriarchs, whose faith- 
 fulness and privileges this remnant shared. « (S. Luke i. 54; 55.) The 
 
2.20 The Epistle to the Romans. . 
 
 existence of this minority shows that the preceding prophecy (vers, 26 b, 27) 
 and pvotypiov were on the road to fulfilment. ] 
 
 Arg. 3. That ‘all Israel will be saved ’ is in accordance with that 
 rule of the Divine government of the world, which makes Gop’s 
 gifts to, and calling of, men irrevocable (ver. 29). 
 
 [Obs. 1. This (ver. 39) is immediately a reason (yap) for the preceding statement 
 (ver. 28) that Israelites, so far as the elect-remnant is concerned, are still 
 beloved of Gop, for the sake of the Patriarchs, The «Ajais rod Ocod can, in 
 connection with what precedes, only refer to the calling of the people of 
 Israel in the person of the Patriarchs to the salvation through Messiah, that 
 formed the main purport of the Divine covenant-promise. This call, as it 
 cannot be retracted, must yet be realized. It might have been suggested 
 that the Divine Gifts and Calls vouchsafed to the Patriarchs were now 
 altogether things of the past. But to this the Apostle replies practically, 
 that thereis no Past for the Eternal Mind, before which the Past and Future 
 are spread out as an illimitable present; and, therefore, that the anthropo- 
 morphic conceptions of forgetfulness or change of purpose are wholly irrele- 
 vant. Gop, having once made Israel the recipient of His Gifts, and having 
 called it to salvation through His Son, will not now leave it to itself. That 
 He has done so much, is an earnest that He will do more. On dyerapéAnra, 
 see 2 Cor. vii. 10, God would not recall gifts which He could not repent of 
 having given. | 
 
 [Obs, 2. The axiom dperapéAnra Ta xapicpata Kai } KARO TOD @cod is not incon- 
 sistent with the fact that Divine Gifts are withdrawn, and Divine Calls 
 neglected and wasted, ‘Et tamen ipsum temporale Dei donum et temporalis 
 vocatio non irritatur per mutationem Dei, quasi poenitentis, sed per muta- 
 tionem hominis qui gratiam Dei abjicit.’ (Aquin.) On the Immutability 
 of Gop, in virtue of which ‘non potest ita mutari ut aliquid velit, quod 
 prius nollet; ut aliquid nolit, quod prius vellet,’ see Pearson, Min. Theol. 
 Works, i. pp. 93, 94; Petavius, De Deo, Deique prop. lib. iii. cap. 2. | 
 
 Arg. 4. That ‘all Israel will be saved’ is suggested by the case 
 of the converts from heathenism (vers. 30, 31). 
 
 [Obs. This parallel is introduced as a sensible proof (yap) of the truth of the axiom 
 stated in ver. 29. ] 
 
 through the 
 (viv) disobedience 
 Asians (moré) now of Israel, 
 formerly have (which led 
 heathen : : ver. 
 disobeyed but < experienced to the offer 
 converts : ; 3% 
 gus Gop (through Gop’s mercy of cwrnpia to 
 kines) unbelief), (in being the heathen, 
 ; converted) vers. II, 15, 
 
 19, 28.) 
 
 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. 33 36. 221 
 
 through the 
 in order mercy that 
 So the have that they was shown 
 uncon- disobeyed too should to the 
 verted Gop (by but experience heathen (as as. 
 Jews rejecting Gop’s mercy in ver.12)and * 
 (otra) | the Gospel), (in being which will 
 converted) stimulate 
 them. 
 
 (Obs. 7d tperépw édréeae is emphatically placed before iva for the sake of 
 emphasis (see 1-Cor. ix. 15; 2 Cor. ii. 4; Gal. ii. 10; Winer, Gr. N. T. 
 p. 688), and the comma must be placed after 7jmei@ncav, not after éréer. 
 On the objective force of tuetépw, the mercy sbown fo you, see Winer, 
 Gr. N.T. p. 191. iva (ver. 31) introduces the Divine purpose with which 
 qeOnoay was permitted, } 
 
 Arg. 5. That ‘all Israel will be saved ’ is involved in the universal 
 method of Gon’s government, namely, that He has given over 
 all to unbelief at one period, that He may, ata later period, 
 have mercy upon all by bringing them to the True Faith 
 (ver. 32). 
 
 [0bs. r. ver. 32 is given as the general principle which warrants (dp) the specific 
 historical statement about the heathen converts to Christ in ver. 30, and 
 consequently the inference respecting the now disobedient and unbelieving 
 majority of Israel in ver. 31.) 
 
 (Obs. 2. ovyxdAciay eis = ID “3D with either 5 or by, as in Ps, xxxi. 9; xxviii. 
 50. So in later Greek, (Diod. Sic. xix. 19 eis roatrny dynxaviay cvyxdeobels 
 *Avti-yovos perepédero,) it =‘to hand over to or put under the power of.’ Thus 
 it expresses the same idea as mapéSwxe Rom. i. 24. In Deut. xxxii. 30; Job 
 Xvi. 11, 13D is rendered by mapadiéwm. The best parallel is Gal. iii. 22 
 ouvékAccev % ypap)) Ta ndvta bp’ duapriav. See S. Luke v. 6. ovvéxdeae is not 
 merely permissive ; it describes a penal visitation after unfaithfulness to 
 whatever degree of light and grace. This visitation consists in the privation 
 of Gon’s assistance, whereby fallen man is shut up into the sphere of his 
 own downward tendencies, The context obliges us to understand rods mav- 
 tas not of all human beings collectively, but of all peoples, specially Jews and 
 heathens. Origen attempts to appropriate the passage in the interests of 
 his theory of a general droxardaraais. | 
 
 E. 
 
 Concluding Doxology (vers. 33-36). 
 
 [Obs. At the close of the Doctrinal portion of the Epistle, the Apostle is moved 
 to offer to Gop an enraptured expression of praise (vers. 33-36), before he 
 
222 
 
 [ Obs, 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans, 
 
 passes to the hortatory and ethical part of the Epistle. Especially this is 
 prompted by the immediately preceding description of the slow and intricate 
 processes whereby the Divine Will is accomplished in history, and above all 
 by the final statement (ver. 32) how evil is overruled by and made subser- 
 vient to the purposes of good. | 
 
 I. Adoring wonder at contemplating the three Divine Attri- 
 butes, which are chiefly observable in the foregoing discussion, 
 chap. ix, 1 to xi. 32 (ver. 33a), 
 
 mAovTou 
 (exhaustless 
 Grace and Goodness), 
 
 codias 
 (practical wisdom, 
 or Providence), 
 
 % Babos @EOY (ver. 334). 
 
 yrarews 
 
 (Omniscience), 
 
 1. BdGos expresses the felt unfathomableness of the Attributes of the Infinite 
 Being, when contemplated by a created intelligence. 8S. Chrys. ix. p. 653 
 Oavpatovrds éoriv % pois, ov# eiddros 7d nav. On the use of Babos, Baus, to 
 suggest great fulness and abundance, see the reff. in Meyer, in loc. That 
 mAovTou, copias, and yvwoews must be co-ordinated as all depending immediately 
 on aos (S. Chrys., Theodor., Theophyl.), instead of treating Ba@os mAovrov 
 as = Badds mAodTos, and codias, yywoews, as the treasures which constitute the 
 mAovros (S. Aug., Ambr., &c.), see Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 238.] 
 
 [Obs, 2. Of the three Attributes, (1) mAodros is the superabundant wealth of the 
 
 Divine Resources, as shown especially in Gop’s saving q:AavOpwnia and xpyao- 
 rérns, abounding to the happiness of all, ver. 32. mAovdros stands indepen- 
 dently in Phil. iv. 19 as a Divine Attribute ; in Rom. xi. 12, for human 
 endowments; cf. Eph. iii. 8 dveétxviacros mAovros Xpiotod : and Rom. ii. 4; 
 x. 12; Eph.i. 7; ii. 4, 7; Tit. iii.6. (2) copia, prudential wisdom (Rom, 
 xvi. 27; Eph. iii. 10), disposing everything in the best way, and with 
 a view to its final purpose; as shown in the abandonment of the heathen 
 and election of the Jews, then in the rejection of the Jews and the conver- 
 sion of the heathen, which finally leads to the conversion of the Jews. (3) 
 yvaeos, Gop's knowledge, especially directed towards events still future to 
 and unknown by man, as here the conversion of the majority of the Jews. 
 Thus copia is less purely intellectual than yy@o.s : in man godiais practical 
 wisdom, as opposed to higher theoretical knowledge, yv@ais ; 1 Cor. xii. 8; 
 Eph. v.15. Even in Col. ii. 3 the distinction is not lost. In Gop cogia 
 and vas are nearly contrasted as Providence with Omniscience ; ef. 1 Cor. 
 i. 2t and 2 Cor. x. 5, where 70d @cod is gen. subj. Each Attribute is here 
 viewed by the Apostle in its relation to the Divine Government of the 
 
Dogmatic: ch. XI, vv. 33-36. 223 
 
 world and the Oeconomy of Salvation. On the Providence of Gop, see 
 Pearson, Min. Theol. Works, vol. i. pp. 232-242; Petavius, De Deo, lib. viii. ¢. 4. 
 On the Knowledge of Gop, see Pearson, wbi supra, pp. 149-205; Petavius, 
 De Leo, lib. iv. c. 1-7 ; Martensen, Dogmatik, §§ 49, 50. ] 
 
 II. Expansion of the contemplation of the Three Attributes 
 (vers. 33 b-36). 
 
 [Obs. The order of 334 is varied. Instead of rAodros, copia, yvdois, we have copia, 
 yv@ats, wAOvTOS. | 
 
 1, Bdos copias. This is contemplated in the dvefepetwnra xpipata 
 of Gop. His secret resolves or decisions, according to which 
 His action upon the world is governed, elude all human 
 efforts to discover the causes or reasons which shape them 
 (ver. 33 b). 
 
 [Obs. Compare Ps. xix. 6; xxxvi. 7: 72) pinn PHav. The Divine judg- 
 ments are as difficult in explore as the depths of the ocean. For dvegepedvyra, 
 see Prov. xxv. 3, Symm. ; Jer. xvii. 9; dm. Aey. in New Testament. It is the 
 depth of the gogia of Gop, which makes His decisions unsearchable by man. 
 The «pia especially in view of the Apostle is that in ver. 32, viz. that all 
 should be disobedient, in order that all might find mercy.] 
 
 2. Bdbos yraceas, This is contemplated in the avefixviacro: 680i of 
 Gop. His modes of procedure, whereby He carries His 
 decisions into effect, can be tracked out by no human dis- 
 coverer, since they are known only to His Omniscience 
 (ver. 33 b). 
 
 (Obs. 1. ddoi, used of the methods pursued by Gop in His dealings with man, (ai 
 
 oixovopia S. Chrys.): Heb. iii. 10; Acts xiii, 10; cf. the metaphorical use 
 of 650i in classical Greek, and of tha Heb. 7)7- For dvegtxviaora, see Eph, 
 iii. 8, where the epithet is applied to the mAotros Xpiorov. Only the illimit- 
 able yv@o1s of Gop can track out the measures which He takes in His 
 dealings with man; for man, when he would explore them, pn ixvos éoriv 
 evpeiv—there are no foot-marks to guide him, ] 
 
 [0bs. 2, On the general subject of the Divine Incomprehensibility, see Job v. 9 ; 
 
 ix. 10; xi. 7; Eccles. iii. rr; S. Aug. Serm. 117. iii. 5 ‘De Deo loquimur ; 
 
 quid mirum si non comprehendis? Si enim comprehendis, non est Deus 
 
 . Attingere aliquantum mente Deum magna beatitudo est ; comprehend-re 
 
 autem omnino impossibile.’ On dvefepevvnra, S. Chrys. argues, in loc. (p. 653) 
 
 ei 5t épevynOjva Gdivarov, TOAAG waGAAov KaTadnPOjva: ddvvarwrepov, See Pear- 
 son, Min, Theol. Works, i. pp. 128-134. ] 
 
 § Confirmation (yap) of the two foregoing contemplations from 
 the words of Isaiah (ver. 34). 
 
224 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Is. xl. 13, quoted in illustration of the truth that Gon’s Know- 
 ledge and His Providence are alike beyond the reach of human 
 efforts to comprehend them (ver. 34). 
 
 Is. xl. 13. 
 Heb. nin omens pen 
 Sy INyY wx) 
 
 Transl. of Heb. bi 
 ‘Who brought the Spirit of Jehovah into conformity with rule? 
 
 And (who) instructed Him as His Counsellor ?’ 
 
 LXX tis éyvw vodv Kupiov ; 
 wat tis odpBovdos aitod é-yéevero 3 
 
 (Obs. r. The citation reads 7 for xai in the LXX. éyvw expresses the cause of {iM 
 —Who knew enough to regulate the mind of Jehovah ?] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The quotation occurs among the questions which succeed the Prologue 
 (xl. 1-11) to the second great division of Isaiah’s Prophecy. The Prologue 
 had announced the coming Redemption, and the incomparable Exaltation 
 of Him Who was to redeem His people. The questions which follow are 
 designed to rouse among the exiles this sense of the exaltation of the Lord ; 
 first as the Creator (vers. 12-14), and then as Governor of the world (vers. 15- 
 17’. Throughout these questions the antithesis presented by the popular 
 idolatry is present to the writer’s mind. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. In the quotation, the first line refers to the Bda0os yvwaews Tod Ocod, the 
 second to the Bdéos cogias. Left to himself man cannot be privy as atpuBovdos 
 to Gon’s Providential decisions, nor can he discern the means which the 
 Uncreated vots knows to be the best for giving them effect. vois, in Gop, is 
 the ‘ Absolute Intelligence,’ to which all ideas and the essence of things are 
 eternally present. Here are rd Bd6n rod @ceod 1 Cor. ii. to. No created 
 mind can penetrate these depths; Gop only can reveal any part of them: 
 t Cor. ii. 7-15.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. For the sense of the quotation, compare Wisdom ix. 17; Ecclus. xviii. 
 2-5; Xen. Mem. i. 4.17; Hesiod, Fragm. 196. The passage is quoted at 
 1 Cor. ii. 16, but with the purpose, not of suggesting the Incomprehensible- 
 ness of the Divine yv@ors, but of asking a question, which is answered by 
 an appeal to the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and Church of Christ. ] 
 
 3. BdOos mrotrov. This Attribute is contemplated in the relation 
 of the entire universe to Gop as His property. None can 
 lay Him under obligations ; since everything proceeds from 
 Him, is sustained in existence by Him, and exists for His 
 glory (vers. 35 b-36). 
 
 (Obs. In the case of this Attribute, the method pursued in the two preceding is 
 inverted. The Old Testament quotation precedes the statement of facts in 
 which the Attribute is to be contemplated.] 
 
 - 
 
Dogmatic: ch, XI, vv. 33-36. 2.25 
 
 a. Job xli. 3, quoted to show that no man is in the position of 
 receiving a recompense for any real gift or favour conferred by 
 himself upon Gop ; since we receive nothing but grace, and He 
 has given us all that we are and have (ver. 35 b). 
 
 Heb. pbeisn wovIpA 
 
 Transl. of Heb. 
 ‘Who hath prevented me that I should repay him?’ 
 
 LXX ris dvriotncerai por Kat bropevel; 
 [Obs. Citation. tis mpoédwxev aiTad, nat dvramodobnceta aiTa ; 
 
 Here the LXX appears to represent some lost Hebrew text ; while S. Paul 
 follows, with a change of person, the existing Hebrew text closely. The 
 words of the citation are found in the LXX Cod. A and® at Is. xl. 14, close 
 after those quoted in ver. 35. Ewald thinks that they may have existed 
 there in the Apostle’s copy of the LXX ; but they are probably an interpola- 
 tion in the LXX text from this passage in the Epistle.] 
 
 b. Reason for (ér:) the inevitable answer to the question asked in 
 the words of Job. No one has been beforehand with Gop in 
 conferring any kind of benefit, because the universe was already 
 in the most absolute sense Gop’s property, being related to Him 
 as (i) its Creator, (ii) its Preserver, and (iii) its Last End (ver. 
 36). 
 
 [Obs. r. The BdOos mAovrov is illustrated by this exhaustive account of the relation 
 of all created beings to Gop. - For eis airév, Gop as the Last End of all crea- 
 tures, see Lessius, de Div. Perfect. lib. xiv. 
 
 é¢ avrov, proceed from Gop the Creator as the source of 
 being. 
 5? airov, are upheld in being by the instrumentality of 
 7a ndvrTa Gon’s continuous operation, without which they would 
 relapse into nothingness. 
 
 eis avrév, are destined to promote His will and glory, since He 
 is the Object and End of their existence. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. For these prepositions, ef. 1 Cor. viii. 6, where é¢ and «is are used of the 
 Father, 5:4 of the Son ; Col. i, 16, where &:’ atrod, eis atrév, and év aiT@ are 
 used of Christ in His relation to the universe; Heb. ii. 1 5: dv Ta mavTa Kal 
 & ob ra wévra is said of the Father; and Eph. iv. 6 éai mavrav, bd mavrov, ev 
 macaw, of Gon. | 
 
 [Obs. 3. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is recognised in ver. 36 by Origen in 
 loc. ; S, Aug. de Trin. i, 6; S. Hilar. de Trin, viii. 38. Origen also finds it in 
 ver. 33, referring mAotros to the Father, copia to the Son, and y@ars to the 
 Holy Ghost. In ver. 36 it is adumbrated by the language without being 
 taught, since the drift of the passage is to describe not those Eternal Sub- 
 sistences within the Divine Being Which are revealed to us, but His three- 
 
 9 
 
226 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 fold relation to the universe. Yet é ot does describe the Father’s relation 
 to all created beings as their original source, and &’ od the Son’s work as 
 Organ of creation (x Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 16), while eis év may refer to the 
 Holy Spirit, although this is rather suggested by its place in the clause 
 
 than by intrinsic considerations, 
 
 (a) Father’s 
 
 The New relation 
 Testament | (0) Son’s to 
 frequently created 
 expresses things 
 the (c) Holy by 
 
 Ghost’s 
 
 (a) éx, as their source. 
 émi, as governing them. 
 
 () a as the instrument of their 
 creation and preservation. 
 
 évy, as the element 
 
 thi which 
 
 q J Van) 
 eis, as furnishing eS 
 
 the ideal towards ‘ 
 
 Of these prepositions, however, éwi and eis are equally applicable to Each 
 of the Divine Persons. And, indeed, év and eis are used of the Son in Col. 
 i. 16, and da of the Father in Heb. ii. ro. All that can be maintained is 
 that upon the whole the more restricted use of the prepositions is traceable.] 
 
 7 d0£a 
 
 . ‘ .A 
 €i¢ TOUS al@vas, 
 
 [Obs. On % dda, see xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5. The glory which befits Gop, and which 
 cannot be given to any created being, is here ascribed to Him. The word 
 is connected with éra:vos, Phil. i. 11-3 1 S. Pet. i. 7; with tipq, 1 Tim. 
 i. 17; Heb. ii. 7, 9; 2S. Pet. i. 17; Rev. iv. 11; with 7ipq and edAoyia, 
 Rey. v. 12. It means the recognition of Gop as being what He is. The 
 nin? 1133 comprises all the Divine Perfections. See Cremer’s Biblico-Theol. 
 
 Lexic. s. V.] 
 
PRACTICAL PORTION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 (XII. 1—XV. 13.) 
 
 [Obs. x. The distribution of this, as of other Epistles of S. Paul, into a doctrinal 
 and an ethical part is only a rough approximation to the truth. For as 
 S. Paul’s dogmatic. teaching is constantly suggestive of practical con- 
 sequences, so his moral and spiritual exhortations are continually based on 
 dogma. Cf. xii. 4, 5; xiv. 9, 10; xv. 8-12 sqq. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. This practical part of the Epistle consists, (1) of a positive statement of 
 the law and obligations of Christian Holiness (xi, xiii), and (2) of a dis- 
 cussion of questions of conscience respecting private observances, which 
 were warmly agitated in the Roman Church (xiv. 1-xyv. 12).] 
 
 Driviston IL. 
 THE OBLIGATIONS OF CHRISTIAN MORALITY (xii, xiii). 
 
 [Obs. x. These obligations are traced, 
 (i) to the natural being of the Christian, bodily 
 and mental (xii. 1, 2). 
 
 (ii) to the Christian, as a supernaturally-endowed 
 
 (A) in their member of the Body of Christ (xii. 3-8). 
 
 application *\ (iii) to the Christian, as having various social rela- 
 tions both with fellow-believers and with 
 heathens (xii. 9-21). 
 
 (iv) to the Christian, as living under a (pagan) civil 
 government (xiii. 1-7). 
 
 (B) to their (i) tothe unlimited obligations of damn (xiii. 8-10). 
 animating (ii) to the never-ceasing lapse of time, and nearer 
 principles approach of the eternal world (xiii. 11-14).] © 
 
 [Obs. 2. On the relations between Christian Holiness and Christian Doctrine, 
 see especially the Series of Sermons, Nos, go-103, in Bishop nibh 
 Works, vol. Vv. pp. 20-257 (London, 1824). ] . 
 
 Q2 
 
228 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 A, 
 
 Obligations of Christian Morality in various spheres of life 
 and duty (xii,1—xiii. 7). 
 
 § ‘ps 
 Obligations of Christian Morality for the Christian, as possessing 
 capa and vois (xii. I, 2). 
 1. Consecration of the Christian’s cépua to Gop (ver. 1). 
 
 a. Its importance, shown by the terms of the Apostolic ex- 
 hortation (mapaxahé .. , dia radv oixrippay Tod Ceod) (ver, I), 
 
 b. Its character. The body should be presented in sacrifice to 
 Gop (ver. 1). 
 
 ar ae (aca (not slain, like the O. T. sacrifices), 
 ee 4 dyia (like DN, free from defects), 
 to AN eidpeotos 76 GeG (Eph. v, 2). 
 
 c. Its rationale. “This sacrificial consecration of the body 
 to the service of Gop is the rational Aarpeta which the 
 Christian offers Him (ver. 1), 
 
 [Obs. 1. The moral obligations of the Christian are an inference (otv) immediately 
 from the undeserved and abundant mercy of Gop (xi. 35, 36), and more 
 remotely from the entire dogmatic teaching of the Epistle (i. 16-xi. 36). 
 Yet the Apostle says wapaxadAd, not émtdcow, * Moses jubet: Apostolus 
 hortatur,’ Beng. ; Philem. 8; 2 Cor. v. 20.] 
 
 [0bs. 2. The Divine Compassions furnish the impulsive motive to Christian 
 thankfulness, expressing itself in a life consecrated to Gop’s service. On 
 da with gen. of the motive through which the writer hopes to succeed in 
 his appeal, see 1 Cor. i. 10; 2 Cor. x. 1; Winer, Gr. N.T. p..477. The 
 plur. form oi«7ippoi is shaped by DON, which the LXX often thus 
 translates: but it accords with the Greek use of the plur. for abstract 
 nouns, Phil. ii. 1; 2 Cor. i. 3. In using the word the Apostle is probably 
 thinking more especially of iii. 24 ; v. 6-11: viii. 3, 31-39.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The oblation of the body as an offering to Gop has been already enjoined 
 under another image in vi. 23 wapacryjoate 7a péAdn SrAa Sixacocivys TH OG: 
 ib. ver. 19 dodAa 7H Sixaoctyy eis dyaopudv. For the sacrificial sense of wap- 
 tordvat, see Xen. Anab, vi. 1, 22; Polyb. xvi. 25. 7 OUpara Tois Bwpois mapacrh- 
 gavtes: Virg. Aen. xii. 171 ‘admovitque pecus flagrantibus aris’: S. Luke ii. 
 22; Ley. xvi. 10. That owpara tpay means not ‘yourselves,’ but ‘your 
 bodies,’ is clear from the antithesis of vods in ver. 2. The ‘body,’ with all 
 its limbs, powers, and faculties, although vexpdv 5’ dyapriav viii. 10, is yet 
 so quickened by Christ’s indwelling as to become a Ovoia (aoa; cf. vi, 11; 
 
Practical: ch. XII, vv. 1, 2. 229 
 
 t S. Pet. ii. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 15 7a owpara bpav pédn Xprorod éativ: ib. ver. 19 
 7d capa bpav vads Tod év dpiv Mvevparos ‘Ayiov éoriy : ib. ver. 20 Sofdcare Tov Oedv 
 év 7@ owpart Spay. For the sacrificial act, ef. 1 Cor. ix. 27 imwmatw pou 76 
 capa Kat Bovdaywy@: Col. iii. 5 vexpwoare ta pédn ipav. The Christian 
 estimate of the body is equally removed from heathenish contempt of the 
 body, and from heathenish worship of the body and Bodily objects, cf. 
 Harless, Christ. Eth. iii. § 44. Note here, in opposition to a false ‘spiritu- 
 alism,’ the religious significance of the body in relation, (1) to ethics, (2) to 
 Christian worship, (3) and (through the Resurrection) to the eternal 
 future. Cf. Tertull. de Res. Carnis, c. 47, where he argues from this precept 
 for the Resurrection of the Body. If it perished at death, how could it be 
 such a 6ucia as the Apostle describes ?] 
 
 [Obs. 4. Ovcla, properly ‘ mactatio,’ then=6iya, the victim sacrificed, as M2} 
 Lev. iii. 6, 9; S. Mark ix. 49; and in a wider sense any other offering. 
 Here the word is used in the strict sense. United with the Redeemer in 
 Baptism the Christian is crucified with Him, vi. 6; vii. 4; viii. 3. Com- 
 munion with His Life implies fellowship in His Sufferings, 2 Cor. iv. 1o. 
 The body is the instrument which the Christian soul employs at will: the 
 victim which the soul, as a priest, offers to Gop. The Christian offers his 
 body in union with the Sacrifice of Calvary. The victim which he offers 
 should be ‘living’ with Christ’s Life; and ‘holy,’ dy:os (Gywpos, DDN), 
 because sanctified by the Holy Spirit (xv. 16; 1 Cor. iil. 16; vi. 19), and 
 consequently edcpeoros T~ Ged, which the Old Testament sacrifices frequently 
 were not; cf. Ps. 1. 13.] 
 
 [Obs. 5. The clause tiv Aarpeiav AoyK} bpav is in apposition not with évoiav, but 
 with the whole sentence, mapacrqca x.7.A.: cf. Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 669. 
 This Aarpeia, or cultus, is offered to Gop by every Christian, who, as such, 
 is a priest, and, says S. Clirys., iepeds rot oicciov odparos. On Aarpeia, cf. 
 ix. 4, compared with i. 9 and S. John xvi. 2. The heathen, and to a great 
 extent the Jewish, Aazpeia, was of an external, material, mechanical 
 character. The Christian Aarpeia is Aoy«n, that is, offered by the active 
 effort of the soul or reason, Adyos, and so contrasted with the external 
 ceremonial of the Jewish and heathen cultus. So 1 S. Pet. ii. 2 speaks of 
 the Aoyxov yada of Christian doctrine, i.e. ‘quod ratione ac mente gus- 
 tatur,’ Justiniani. The Testament of the XII Patriarchs, Levi, ¢ 3, calls 
 the sacrifice of the angels dcpiy eiwdias AoyiKHY, Kal dvaipaxroy mpoopopay. 
 Cf. Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ. c. 13; S. John iv. 24; Phil. iii. 3; 
 1S. Pet. ii. 5 rvevparixal Ovoia eimpdcdexror. | 
 
 _2. Renewal of the Christian’s mental life (ver. 2). 
 
 a. (Negative duty.) Not to take a mental shape conformably 
 with the type prevalent in the aidyv otros. 
 
 b. (Positive duty.) Mental transformation through the renewal 
 of the thinking faculty (dvaxaivwors rod vods), 
 
 c. (Aim of this avaxa'vwots.) A personal testing, by the continuous 
 experience and activity of conscience, of what is willed by 
 
230 The Epistle to the. Romans. 
 
 Gop, as being, in itself, that which is good, and so accept- 
 able to Him, and so ideally perfect. 
 
 [Obs. r. For the readings ovoynpariferOa, perapoppodcba (instead of imper.) see 
 App. Crit. These infinitives depend on wapaxad® ver. 1. The aor. tapa- 
 otjoa shows that the Christian offers his body once for all: the present 
 inf, ovoxnparifecOa, perapoppodcGa: point to continuous acts. The verbs 
 are distinguished chiefly by the prepositions; although poppy is more 
 internal than oxjpa: popd) organic form, oxjpua external form. Of. Light- 
 foot on Phil. ii. 7 for a complete history of the words. Christians are to 
 avoid even the appearance of moral assimilation to the life of the world, and 
 are to be really and inwardly changed to a new moral type by the dvaxai- 
 
 yeots Tod vols. The aidw ofros is the Rabbinical ny Oy, the pre-Messianic 
 
 period, as contrasted with the aidy péd\Aor, ND p>iy, the days of Messiah, 
 The Apostolic Christians spoke of the non-Christian world as aidy obros: 
 the aidv péd\Awy being that which had become partaker in the Messianic 
 Redemption. Thus the phrase lost its chronological significance, and 
 acquired a purely moral or religious one. With otros, aiwy, like xéapos, acquired 
 a bad ethical association, cf. Gal. i. 4 é« rod éveor@ros aidvos movnpov, Eph. 
 1a Cor. ivi] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The perapoppotcdu is the immediate effect of 7H dvaxavewcet, dat. instru. 
 ment. not dat, modi, since the vots does not cover all the ground in which 
 a change of poppy is required. The voids, the dvaxaivwois of which will be 
 the instrument of the contemplated transformation, is the practical reason ; 
 it wills as well as thinks, Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. p. 211. The predominance 
 of dyapria in the odpt of fallen man has darkened and enfeebled his 
 practical reason or vots, making it a vods rHs capxds Col. ii. 18; or even 
 a vous ddéx.pos Rom. i. 28. Hence the vods of fallen man needs dvaraiveois : 
 and even the baptized and regenerate man must work for it, on account of 
 the struggle in which he is still engaged, viii. 3, 4; Gal. v. 16-18. Of this 
 dvaxaivwors, the original principle is the Holy Spirit, given to the Christian 
 in Baptism (Tit. iii, 5 dia Aovrpod madryyevecias Kat avaxawwoews Tvedparos 
 dyiov): while the scene of its activity is the mvedya rod vods, or spiritual 
 element in the mind, and its effect complete investiture with the new 
 nature of the Son of Man (Eph. iv. 23, 24). It is by faith, which makes 
 the unseen realities perpetually present to the voids, that the dvaxaivwois is 
 pushed forward (Phil. iii. 10-14), bringing it to pass at last; xara rov_ 
 movTOV Tis Signs adrod, Sivaper KpatawOjva iad Tod Tvetvparos aitod eis Tov ~ow 
 GvOpwmov, kaToKjoa Tov Xpiorov bid THs mioTews év tTais Kapdiais Eph. iii, 16, 
 17; 2 Cor. v. 17.] 
 
 [Obs, 3. 7d dyaGdv Kal eddpecrov kat réAeov are substantival adjectives, in appo- 
 sition with 7d OéAnya rod Oeod, which here means not Gon’s action of 
 willing, but that which He wills, ii. 18; 1 Thess. iv. 3. The art. is 
 omitted before eddpecrov and 7éAcoy, because the three words form parts of 
 one whole. The Christian, whose vois has been renewed, tests the reality 
 and power of moral truth by actual experience; to others it is a region of 2 
 phrase and fancy. Eph. v. 10 doxtpagovres ti éorw ebdpecrov TH Kupiw: Phil. 
 i. 10 eis 7d Sompagav tyds Ta diapéporta: Heb. v. 14 did thy Ew Ta aiodn- 
 
 
 
Practical: ch. XII, vv. 3-8. 231 
 
 THpia yeyuuvacpéva éxévrov mpos Siaxpiow Kadrod Te Kal Kaxov. His dpOadpol rhs 
 d:avolas (Eph. i. 18) are farsighted to discern the Divine will: he has put 
 on Tov véov avOpwrov, Tov avakawovpevoy eis éniyvwow. Not merely 76 dyaddv, 
 ii. 103 Vii. 18; xii. 9; but eddpeorov, Heb. xiii. 21; good, as being well- 
 pleasing to Gop, and attaining ideal perfection, réAcov, S. Matt. v. 48; 
 I Cor, xiii. 10, is his aim.] 
 
 § 2. 
 
 Obligations of Christian Morality for the Christian as a member of 
 the Body of Christ (&v capa éopev ev Xpiord ver. 5), (vers. 3-8). 
 
 [Obs. The governing idea of this paragraph (vers. 4, 5) is introduced incidentally 
 
 as a reason for the precept 7) émepppovetv (in ver. 3), While it is the ground 
 of the successive precepts which follow (vers. 6-8). ] 
 
 A. General duty. (Humility.) Every Christian should form 
 an accurate, and therefore a humble, estimate of his own 
 importance to the Church (ver. 3), 
 
 (a) It is promulgated by a distinct exercise 
 of the Apostolic authority committed to 
 S. Paul (da ris xaperos rips Sobeions por | 
 
 Sy ver. 3). 
 
 signifi- 
 
 cance. | (0) It is addressed to every single Christian, 
 the lowest and the highest, the most 
 gifted and the least (mavti 6 dvr ev 
 ipiv ver. 3). 
 
 Tn this 
 
 general (a) Negative ; =not to think lofty thoughts 
 
 precept (u) drepppoveiv) about self, going beyond 
 note 3 det hpoveiv, i.e, the kind of thoughts 
 
 which are in keeping with Christian 
 duty (ver. 3). 
 (ii) its ~ (b) Positive; = to think such thoughts as 
 contents. tend to (cs) a sober discretion, as their 
 aim (ro coppoveiv ver. 3). 
 (c) Regulative standard ; = the pérpov xlatews, 
 
 or degree of faith, which Gop has 
 given to each (ver. 3). 
 
 [0bs. z. This exhortation to humility in ver. 3 is confirmatory of, and, in this 
 
 sense, a reason (yap) for, the more general one to dopmaves TOU eve (ver. 
 2) which precedes it.] 
 
232 The Episile to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 2. That the yapis So@cioa (ver. 3) refers not to any private grace, but to 
 S. Paul’s public apostolate of the nations, is clear from the subjoined pot. 
 He shared it with none of his readers, Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 10; xv. 9, 10, 15; 
 Eph. iii. 7, 8; Gal. i. 15, 16; ii. 9. It was the possession of this divinely- 
 given authority which relieved the Apostle’s didactic attitude of any im- 
 modesty. The jurisdiction of the Apostolate being universal, S. Paul 
 speaks may7i tq@ Ove &y byiv.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Of the three infinitives irepppoveiy, ppoveiv, and cappoveiv (other parono- 
 masiai in S. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 31, 32; xiii. 6, 7, 13), the generic idea is given 
 by ¢poveiv, which, as at 1 Cor. iv. 6, means here ‘to form judgments about 
 oneself’; (although it more often means to judge rightly, as=7'29 Is. 
 xliv. 18; cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. ii. 5). dmrepppovetv then=to form an 
 exaggerated estimate of oneself; and owdpoveiv, to form a sober or accurate 
 estimate, the rule of which is given presently : éxaorw ws 6 Oeds x.7.A.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. The pérpoy miorews is not the measure supplied by the true Christian 
 Faith (objectively taken), but that which is supplied by the grace of faith 
 as measured out by the Holy Spirit to the individual Christian. This 
 pétpov may differ, in different cases, both as to quality and as to intensity; 
 see 1 Cor. xiii. 2. And since it is faith which receives and appropriates 
 other graces, ‘per quam quis gratiam capit’ (Origen im loc.) a man’s faith 
 is presumably the true measure of his general spiritual capacity (Theodoret 
 in loc.). Thus practically the ydpiopa given to each Christian is the measure 
 of his faith. mpopyreia is the pétpoyv micrews of the mpopyrns, &c. The 
 precept is directed against a man’s thinking himself capable of a higher 
 ‘work or office in the Church than his pérpov wtiarews warrants. Only in 
 Christ, the Head of the Church is grace unmeasured, S. John i. 14-16; iii. 
 34; Col. i. 19: of His servants the most gifted receive only a limited pézpor, 
 whether more or less, from the 6 pepicas éxdory. Origen sees in the 
 expression a reference to the heathen converts—grafts from the wild olive 
 tree, inserted in the Tree of the Patriarchs. } 
 
 [Obs. 5. For the hyperbaton of éxaory before ws, cf. 1 Cor. iii. 5; vii. 17; Winer, 
 Gr. N. T. p. 688.] 
 
 § Dogmatic Reason (yap ver. 4) for the General Duty of Humility 
 (ver. 3); namely, the relation of Christians to one another in 
 the Church or Body of Christ (vers. 4, 5, 6a). 
 
 1. Simile (xaOdmep ver. 4) of the natural organised body (ver. 4). 
 
 a. Each human body has many members (ver. 4). 
 b. The members, all of them, have different functions 
 ( (ver. 4). 
 
 a. Corresponding Spiritual Reality (otros) in the Church of Christ 
 (vers. 5, 6a). 
 
 
 
Practical : ch. XII, vv. 3-8. 233 
 
 (a) The many [Christians] are a single body (ver. 5). 
 (i) relation to Christ (the ground of this organic 
 unity). They are év Xpior@ (ver. 5). 
 
 (ii) relation to each other (the consequence of 
 this organie unity), They are dddAjov peédn 
 (ver. 5). 
 
 (b) They possess however individually xapicpara, which differ 
 Kata THY xdpiv Thy Sodcicav to each (ver. 6 a). 
 
 [0bs, x. The comparison between the human body and the body social or politic 
 was familiar to the ancient Roman world. For the discourse of Menenius 
 Agrippa, ef. Liv. ii. 32. Cf. also Cicero, de Offciis, iii. 5; Seneca, de Ira, il. 
 § 31. S. Paul adapts the metaphor to a higher purpose by substituting the 
 Church or Body of Christ for the ‘corpus sociale’; this comparison is most 
 carefully elaborated in 1 Cor. xii. r2-30. The Christian Church is some- 
 times called simply o@pa, 1 Cor. x. 17; xii. 13; xv. 20; Eph. iv. 4; Col. 
 i. 18; ili. 15: sometimes capa Tov Xporov x Cor. xii. 27; Eph. i. 23; iv. 
 12; v. 23; the faithful péAn Xpiorod and péAn Tov owparos adrod 1 Cor. Vi. 
 15; Eph. v. 30: Christ is elsewhere especially the xepady, Eph. i. 22; iv. 
 15; v. 23; Col. i. 18; ii. 19, the figure being slightly changed : the Church 
 conceived of as an organism complete in itself but only Sloss when asso- 
 ciated with Christ. Once thé Church is called simply 6 Xpiorés x Cor. 
 xii. 12. Other metaphors in the New Testament which teach the nature 
 of the Christian Church are BaaiAeia, modts, olkos, vads, éAaia. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. mpa@fis, as at Ecclus. xi. ro, ‘function.’ §. Ambr. ‘ officium.’ of modAAoi, 
 ‘the (well-known) many who compose the Church,’ Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 137. 
 For év Xpiot@, see Hooker, FE. P. v. 56. 7 ‘The Church is in Christ, as Eve 
 was in Adam. Yea, by grace we are, every one of us, in Christ and in His 
 
 - Church, as by nature we are in those our first parents’; Wilberforce, Doctr. of 
 Incarnation, c. xi. p. 257, 4th ed. 76 5e xaé’ es, a popular solecism in later Greek, 
 instead of xa@” &va, S. Mark xiv. 19; S. John viii. 9; 3 Mace. v. 34. The 
 regular form occurs in 1 Cor, xiv. 31 xa’ éva navtes: Eph. v. 33 tpeis of nad’ 
 éva. The transition to the irregular idiom cis xa6’ eis, &c. was probably 
 suggested by the neut. év a6’ év Rev. iv. 8. The «ara lost its government, 
 and served merely as an adverb.. Here=in what concerns the individual 
 relation. Christians are GAAjAov péAn, because each limb belongs not 
 merely to the body as a whole, but to every member that composes it. The 
 Apostle had meant to say we are all péAn rod Xpiorod or tod awparos Tod 
 Xpiarov. But the figure is departed from in the interest of the truth which 
 is being taught. The idea of dAAnAav péAn forbids imepdpoveiv. | 
 
 [0bs. 3. Ver.6a probably begins a new construction, while, as to the idea, it 
 corresponds to 7a 5& péAn od ri adriv éxes mpagw of the simile in ver. 4, 
 éxovres (ver. 6 a) may depend on écpér (ver. 5), but is better taken as intro- 
 ducing a new and highly elliptical paragraph, as 5¢é would of itself imply. 
 The xapiopara, supernaturally imparted faculties for advancing the life of 
 the Church (1 Cor. xiv. 1 mvevyarixa), are concrete products of the xe to 
 which they owe their existence.] 
 
234 The Epistle to the. Romans. 
 
 B. Specific duties. Each Christian should make the best possible 
 use of the particular xapsopa which he has actually received in 
 his capacity of member of the eae yeaa of Christ (vers. 
 6 b-8). 
 
 [Obs. x. x4pis is the vital force of the o@pa Tod Xprorod, which flows from Christ 
 through all its living members; xdpiopa, a special determination of this 
 force to enable a particular péAos to do its part towards the whole o@pa. 
 The talent of natural social life becomes the ydpiopa of the higher life of 
 the Holy Body; the natural endowment is often the raw material of the 
 spiritual. S. Paul here enumerates or implies seven xapicpata: he gives 
 nine at x Cor. xii. 1-12, 28-30; five at Eph. iv. 11.) 
 
 [Obs. 2. The xapicpara referred to may be thus arranged :— 
 
 (i) in observing the 
 proportion im- I. mpopnreta, which must be sata tiv 
 
 posed by an ex- dvadoyiay THs TidTEws, 
 
 Seven ternal standard ; 
 xapicpara or, 
 
 in the (ii) in undistracted 2. d:axovia 
 exercise of attention to the 3. didacKxadria év airy Eoro. 
 which 7d implied duties ; 4. WapaKAnots 
 owdpovetv or, 
 | (ver. 3) 5. 6 peradidovs needs dmdédrns (xaptopa of 
 ‘ consists, (iii) in the assistance dvridmyas 1 Cor. xii), ale 
 
 6. 6 mpoiordpevos needs onovdn (xapiopa 
 
 afforded by an 
 of xvBépynots 1 Cor. xii). Jontrrmmaent 
 
 additional grace 
 or virtue. 7. 6 é\e@v needs idapérns (xapropa lapd- 
 tov t Cor. xii).] 4ue“4 
 VU 
 
 I, mpopyreca. The xapicya of ‘inspired discourse’ presupposing 
 amoxadvyrs from Gop, This gift is to be exercised according to 
 the proportion of the Faith (ver. 6). 
 
 v [Obs. 1. The New Testament mpopjrns, ‘qui praedicit, Dei interpres apud 
 homines,’ corresponds generally to the Old Testament X°2). In the sphere 
 of their action, and in the measure of their endowment, the mpopjra 
 ranked next to the Apostles, 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. rz. A very high value 
 was therefore set upon mpopnreia (1 Cor. xiv. 1, 39). The mpopprns could 
 unveil the future, Rev. i. 3; xxii. 7, 10; Acts xi. 28; xxi. 10, 11. Espe- 
 cially the mpopynrns had a knowledge of undisclosed pvornpa, and of 
 Christianity as a y@os, 1 Cor. xiii. 2. He could even lay bare 7a 
 Kpunta THs Kapdias 1 Cor. xiv. 25; he administered oixodopiv Kat mapaxAnow 
 kai mapapvdiay 1 Cor. xiv. 3; and was thus an instrument of building up 
 the Church, 1 Cor. xiv. 4. His sphere of operation was accordingly nearly 
 that of the Christian preacher whom §S. Chrysostom identifies with him, i 
 although his gift was transcendent; the Apostolic rule about mpopjra 
 (1 Cor, xiv. 24) was in S. Chrysostom’s time still observed as to preachers, 
 two or three of whom might address a single congregation (Hom. 26 in 1 
 
 
 
Practical: ch. XII, vv. 3-8. 235 
 
 Cor. c. 4. tom. x. p. 338). Thevery ancient liturgical response of the people, 
 ‘Et cum Spiritu tuo,’ probably greeted the Christian mpopjrns on his appear- 
 ance with a ‘Dominus vobiscum,’ in the assembly of the faithful. | 
 
 [0bs. 2, Corinth was the Chureh most richly endowed with yxapicpata of the 
 
 unusual kind: Rome more sparingly. mpopnreia alone of these charisms is 
 . mentioned. ]- 
 
 [Obs. 3. The mpopyrns must speak kara tiv dvadoylay ths miarews. The majestic 
 proportion of the (objective) Faith is before him, and, keeping his eye on it, 
 he avoids private crotchets and wild fanaticisms, which exaggerate the 
 relative importance of particular truths to the neglect of others. Observe 
 the distinction between pérpoy ticrews (subjective), ver. 3 ; and dvadoyia Tis 
 tiarews (objective), ver. 6. dvadoyia in classical Greek is used as a mathe- 
 matical expression, Plat. Pol. p. 257 B, &. With the Latin Fathers we 
 must understand rioris objectively of the fides quae creditur, as the rule or 
 standard of the mpognreia (the Greeks take it subjectively, as the jides qua 
 creditur, the intensity or direction of which must determine the range of 
 the prophetic utterances), The act of believing furnishes no standard for 
 the mpopyreia, no safeguard against confusions and fluctuations of thought. 
 kara Ti dvahoyiay=pro congruentia cum [veritate fidei]. See Fritzsche’s 
 defence of the objective sense of iors in Rom. i. 5 eis imaxoiy micrews: cf, 
 Gal. i. 23; iii. 23, 25; Eph. iv. 5; 2 Pet. i. 1.] 
 
 2. duaxovia, This gift, including all the duties that further the 
 service of the Church, is to be exercised without looking beyond 
 it for distinction or reward (ver. 7). 
 
 [Obs. 1. dcaxovia is here used generically, as in diapéces Scaxovidv (1 Cor. xii. 5), 
 of any place in the ministerium ecclesiasticwum, not only of the order of the 
 diaconate, as in Acts vi. 3; Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 8, 12; 1 S. Pet. iv. 11. 
 In 1 Cor, xii. 28 the functions of the diaconate proper are termed dvri:Aqyets. ] 
 
 3. didackadia,. The man who gives Christian instruction is to find 
 his satisfaction in, and not beyond, this work (ver. 7). 
 
 [Obs. r. The abstract words mpopyreia, d:axovia are here exchanged for concretes, 
 6 d:5dcxwv, 6 nmapaxadrady, &c. because the corresponding abstract words déa- 
 oxaxia, mapdxAnots would not combine with éxovres (ver. 6 b), on which the’ 
 two former depend. They are less endowments than duties which pre- 
 suppose endowments. } 
 
 [0bs. 2. The difference between the mpopjrns and the &8dcoxwv is stated by 
 S. Chrys, Hom. 22 in 1 Cor. c, 1. tom. x. p. 286 6 pev yap mpopynrevwy navra dnd 
 TOU mvevpaTos POeyyera 6 Se Kiddonxav éorlv Sov Kat e€ oixelas Siovoias dia- 
 Aéyera. Thus the two would differ as a man speaking when inspired from 
 aman using his natural understanding ; and accordingly the same person 
 might be at different times a mpopyrns and a diddoxwv, The difference would 
 in some respects correspond to that which now separates Christian 
 preaching, understood in its highest sense, from the work of the Catechist 
 or Christian instructor. The &:5éoxados was also a definite Church official, 
 (énioxonos or mpeaBurepos) who was as such a teacher, Eph. iv. 11 ; 1 Tim, 
 iii. 2; 2 Tim. ii, 2; Tit, i. 9.] 
 
236 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [ Obs. 3. The &:5aoxados occupies the third place after Apostles and Prophets in 
 1 Cor. xii. 28, the fifth in Eph. iv. 11. Had the Church been only a school 
 of philosophy, he must have been always first. ] 
 
 4. mapdkdnois, The man who exhorts, encourages to action or 
 suffering, or consoles, is to find his satisfaction in, and not 
 beyond, his work (ver. 8). 
 
 [Obs. This xapiopa was addressed to the heart and will of those whom it bene- 
 fited ; as d:dacxadia was to their intelligence. It seems in Israel to have 
 been connected with the public reading of Scripture. as by our Lord in the 
 Synagogue of Nazareth, Luke iv. 20, 21, so afterwards by S. Paul at Antioch 
 in Pisidia, Acts xiii. 15, where the dpy:ovvaywyos asked for a Adyos mapa- 
 kAnoews. It was exercised by the mpopj7a as well as by the usual Church 
 teachers, Acts xiii. 15; 1 Cor. xiv. 3, 31. S. Timothy was to give heed to 
 TapdakAnots, as well as to didacxadia, 1 Tim. iv. 13. This very passage com- 
 mences with mapaxAnos (xii, I mapaxad@). It required a capacity for 
 spiritual sympathy, but was not a distinct ministerial service. 8S. Chrys. 
 speaks of it as exercised by Ministers of the Church. Instances are given 
 at Acts iv. 36; xi. 23, 24.] | 
 
 © 
 
 5. 6 peradiSovs. The Almoner. He who exercises the xdpiopa of 
 dvriknyis (1 Cor. xii. 28), by imparting his wealth to the poor, 
 should do it from a simply religious, as distinct from a mixed 
 or selfish, motive (ver. 8). 
 
 [Obs. x. In these last three examples (ver. 8’, the xdpioyva no longer appears 
 except by implication, in the initial participles. They describe forms of 
 Christian effort which imply the presence of spiritual endowments. The 
 form of the precept changes also: distinct graces or virtues—daAérns, omovd4, 
 itapérns—are to characterize these efforts, over and above the duty of not 
 looking beyond the work. | 
 
 (Obs. 2. The peradidovs distributed that which was his own, Luke iii. 11 6 €xov 
 bvo xiT@vas peraddtw 7H pr) ExovTt. Eph. iv. 28, the repentant thief is to 
 work with his hands, iva éxn peradiddvar 7d xpelay éxov7st. 1 Tim. vi. 18, 
 the wealthy are to be taught to be edperadoro. On the other hand of the 
 common fund of the Church it was said d:edi5oro ExdoTrw Kabir ay Tis xpeiav 
 cixev Acts iv. 35.. Thus the deacon distributing public Church funds as in 
 Acts vi. 1 would have been termed 6 diadidovs. There is more need of 
 am)érns in private than in public or official charity: because the tendency 
 to ostentation or some sort of selfish seeking for a return is greater. Cf. 
 S. Matt. vi. 2 dray moins édenuoo’vnv, ph cadrmions Eumpoobev cov. anddrns 
 would exclude a desire for human praise, as well as all sorts of favoritism 
 towards the persons relieved, &e. ] 
 
 6. 6 mpoiorduevos. The Church-ruler, of whatever grade. He who 
 presides in the Church, exercising the xdpupa of xvSépyqos 
 (1 Cor. xii. 28), is to do it in an earnest spirit (ver. 8) a 
 
 
 
Practical: ch. XII, vv. 9-21. 237 
 
 [Obs. 1. mpotarduevos, as a generic word, might apply to dmdarodos, mpopyrns, or 
 biSacxados. In x Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. v. 17 (of Kad@s mpoeor@res mpeaBurepor), 
 iii. 4, 5, it means the presiding Minister in the Church, Bishop or Pres- 
 byter. It apparently corresponds with the mpoeatds of S. Justin Martyr 
 (Apol. i. 67), with the mpoxa@npevos of the Ignatian Epistles, with the 7yov- 
 pevos of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of S. Clem, Rom, It implies the 
 gift of guiding and overseeing the faithful, as by worpéves Eph. iv. 11; and 
 éxicxonma Acts xx. 28. To understand by 6 mpojordpevos, the ‘patron of 
 strangers,’ in accordance with the Greek mpoorarns, patron of the péroikor, 
 and mpécraris Rom, xvi. 2, a transient (éyevn6n) occupation of Phoebe, is 
 against New Testament usage, It is no objection that high office in the 
 Church is thus ranged side by side with humble forms of Church work. 
 There is no classification here of xapiopvara, and no distinction between 
 them and mere offices, (See the same neglect of classification in 1 Cor. xii. 
 28; Eph. iv. 11.) The promiscuous enumeration of gifts and offices of very 
 different value was a reminder that each Christian was a péAos Tod owpaTos 
 and a warning against tmepdpoveir, | 
 
 [Obs. 2, The appropriate virtue for a ruler in the Church is omovd7: cf. S. Paul’s 
 own pepipva 2 Cor, xi. 28, Cf.2 Tim. iv. 5 rv d:axoviay cov mAnpopédpnoor : 
 tS. Pet. v. 2 émoxomovvres pr) dvayxacta@s, GAAd Exovoiws, pnde aicxpoxepdds 
 GAAA tpobdpos; S.Ignat, aa Polyc, cc. 1-3. | 
 
 7. 6 eked», The ‘ Hospitaller,’ having the xdpipya rév lapdrov, 
 1 Cor, xii. 28. He who takes charge of the sick and suffering 
 is to do so with a bright cheerful temper and manner (ver. 8). 
 
 [Obs. It is probable that 6 éAe@v exercised the xépiopa iapdrov, S. Matt. xxv. 36; 
 r Cor. xii. 28, This was to be done é idapétnm, which is nowhere more. 
 necessary than in a sick room, where a gloomy or constrained manner is 
 very depressing to the patient. Yet, on the other hand, constant bright- 
 ness, after the fatigue of long nursing, is often very difficult. As to the 
 meaning of the word, see 2 Cor. ix. 7, where the fAapés 8érns, whom Gop 
 loves, is contrasted with the man who gives é« Avmns # é€ dvayxns. So 
 8. Paul will do nothing for Onesimus without Philemon’s permission, iva 
 Hi} dis Kata avayKny 7d dyabdy Gov 7, GAA KaTa Exovorov Philem, 14.] 
 
 § 3. 
 
 Obligations of Christian Morality for the Christian as @ member of 
 human society (vers, 9-21). 
 
 [0bs. 1, Like the precept on Humility (ver. 3), and in eontrast to the seven 
 precepts addressed to possessors of particular xapicuara (ver. 6 b-8), the 
 rules which follow (vers, 9-21) are binding on every Christian. They 
 refer to the duties of Christians, (1) in the spheres of the Christian life 
 and Church (vers. 9-13), and (2) in the sphere of general human society, 
 Pagan as well as Christian (vers. 14-21.] 
 
 [0bs. 2. The construction in this paragraph is very elliptical; only the main 
 words which suggest a duty are jotted hastily down, the sentences being 
 left incomplete, The imperative of the substantive verb orm ver. 1, gore 
 
~ 
 
 238 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 generally) must be supplied after each participle and adjective; Set after 
 the infinitives in ver. 15. Compare Heb. xiii. 5.] 
 A. Rules for the Christian in his personal life and conduct, within 
 the Church (vers. 9-13). 
 1, Concerning dyad, the Love of Gop and man (vers. 9-11). 
 a. It must be in reality what it professes to be in words 
 
 (ver. 9). 
 b. It implies earnest hatred of and shrinking from moral 
 
 sete evil, as well as determined adhesion to moral good 
 conduct fron b) 
 
 ; ot _ |e. As existing between brethren in Christ (:Aadeddia), 
 i tated love should resemble natural affection between mem- 
 circwm- - 
 
 sey. bers of a family (ver. 10). 
 
 - hee: d. In readiness to do honour to merit in others, love 
 ee should make a Christian take the lead and encourage 
 Chank others by his example (ver. ro). 
 
 e. Love is enthusiasm. Negatively, it is inconsistent with 
 Py sloth (ékvos), where there should be zeal (omovdy) for 
 Rots the cause of Christ. Positively, it implies fervour 
 (¢éo.s) in the spirit or soul of man. But it is always 
 service, rendered to an unseen Lord (ver. 11). 
 
 [Obs. r. The datives are continued from ver. g to ver. 13, but with very various 
 force, and for the sake of structural uniformity. Cf. Winer, Gr. N. 7. 
 p. 271.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. 4 dyamn, absolutely, of Gop, and, for His sake, of men, is to be dvuné- 
 kpitos, without outward pretence, or self-seeking. dvuméxpiros is not 
 classical ; but it is used of «piou, Wisd. v. 19; of ém7ayi) Tov Ocod, xviii. 16; 
 of miotis, 1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. i. 5; of cogia,.S, James iii. 17; of pidadeAgia, 
 1 S. Pet. i. 22; of dydmn, 2 Cor. vi. 6. The dmoxpitys says one thing in 
 public, but feels another; love is untheatrical by the terms of its essence, 
 which consists in the gift of self, ee xaOapas xapbias, nal ovverdjoews ayabijs, Kat 
 miorews dvumoxpirov, Here, as in 1 Cor. xiii. 1 sqq.; Eph. iv. 15, dyamq is 
 represented as the greatest virtue of the Christian life ; and here too, as in 
 1 Cor. xii. 31 ; xiii. 1 sqq., the Apostle passes from describing the manifold 
 xapicpara of Christ to that which is higher than them all, dya77.] 
 
 [0bs. 3. In dmoorvyobrres (ver. 9) remark the idea of shrinking which the com- . 
 
 pound (dd) adds to the radical idea of hatred. So in Hdt. ii. 47. It is not 
 enough to keep clear of (dméxeo@a) moral evil; the Christian must shrink 
 from it with hatred ; this hatred being a necessary correlative of his love of 
 Gop, the Absolute Good. s«oAAdo@a, Heb. p35, ‘agglutinare’ (used of metals, 
 Is. xli. 7; of the marriage tie, Gen. ii. 24; S. Matt. xix. 5; of the adhesion 
 of a girdle to the body round which it is bound, Jer. xiii. 11; of keeping 
 one’s seat in a chariot, Acts viii. 29) implies the closest union. Cf. 1 Cor, 
 
Practical: ch. XII, vv. 9-21. 239 
 
 ' vi. 16, 17, for the contrast between 6 coAAdpevos TH mépyyn and 6 KoAdAwpevos TO 
 Kupiy ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 21, 22.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. pidadeAdia, (dat. modalis,) love towards brethren in Christ. Through 
 their Second Birth of the Holy Ghost, Christians are madé members of an 
 adedpdrns, (1 S. Pet. ii. 17; v. 9) or family of brothers. Gop is the Father 
 of this family, and Christ is the mpwréroxos év moddois ddeApois viii. 29. 
 ‘Fratres dicuntur et habentur, qui unum Patrem Deum agnoverunt, qui 
 unum Spiritum biberunt sanctitatis’ Tert. Apolog. ¢. 39. Hence the affection 
 which they mutually feel, and which binds them to each other, is ‘brother’s 
 love, 1 Thess. iv. 9; Heb. xiii. 1; in accordance with the Elder Brother's 
 precept, ‘that ye love one another, as I have loved you,’ S. John xy. 12. 
 This love should have the freedom and strength of natural affection (q:Ad- 
 GTopyo). arépyev = Oeppos girciv. (S. Chrys.) Indeed, oropyy generally 
 means the love of parents and children ; the affection of Christian brothers 
 should rival this strongest form of natural affection.] 
 
 [Obs. 5. mponyetioda (in ver. 10) cannot = yyeiobar dAAovs Srepéxovras éavtav (Phil. 
 ii. 3) consistently with usage, but ‘to go first and lead the way,’ Hat. ii. 48, 
 generally with a dat. Love makes a man lead others by the example of 
 showing respect to worth or saintliness. Compare our Lord’s words, S. John 
 xiii. 14; S. Luke xiv. 17.] / 
 
 [Obs. 6. 7H orovdy ur dxvnpoi and 7@ mvevpat: (éovres are the negative and positive 
 sides of a single precept. Love forbids the thoyght (un) of sloth in zeal for 
 the good of others, because ‘propter abundantiam divinae dilectionis totus 
 homo fervet in Deum,’ Aquin. For éxvnpés, see S. Matt. xxv. 26. medyua 
 is here the spirit of man penetrated by the Holy Spirit of Gop, who, as Fire, 
 illuminates man’s understanding by the gift of faith, and enkindles his 
 
 heart by the gift of charity. Apollos was (éwv 7r@ mvedpart Acts xviii. 25 ; 
 S. Luke xii. 49.] 
 
 [Obs. 7. In ver. 11 7G Kupiy (A.B. D** N, most minor vss. and Greek Fathers, 
 Tisch., Lachm., Tregelles) has the weight of external evidence in its 
 favour; kapo (D* F.G. 5, Lat. Fathers; Meyer, obs. Fritzsche, Olshausen), 
 SovAevery 7H Kupiy is a phrase familiar to S. Paul, Rom. xiv. 18; xvi. 18; 
 Eph. vi. 7; Col. iii. 24 ; Acts xx. 19. So general a precept as 7@ Kupig dov- 
 Aevew occurring in the midst of specific precepts is to be accounted for as 
 giving the scope and limits of the two preceding exhortations. The service 
 of the Lord guards glowing zeai against the fanaticism which becomes only 
 too easy where self is the real object of work. See the warnings against 
 man-service in Eph, vi. 6; Col. iii. 22, Those who read «apy understand 
 the Apostle to mean that the circumstances of their age may and should, 
 within limits, influence the action of Christians ; that different duties are im- 
 posed by different circumstances, stages of civilisation, &c., see Phil. iv. 12, 
 13; 1 Cor. iv. 11 sqq.; viii. 13; Acts xvi. 3; xx. 35; xxi. 23 sqq. . But 
 dovAeve seems to express something more than this, and is hardly to be 
 justified by ‘tempori servire’: Cic. Tusc. Disp. iii. 27; Epp. ad Div. ix. 17. 
 S. Paul would have said rnpeiv roy xarpév : he does say éfayopa¢ew Tov xaipév. 
 He reserves dovAevev—in describing Christian duty—to express man’s rela- 
 tion to Gop or to our Lord or to daocvvn (Rom. vi. 18). But the Christian 
 may not be a dofA0s dvOpunev (x Cor. vii. 23; Gal. i. 10 jpeoxoy,) and would 
 hardly have been desired by S. Paul to be a SoA0s xapod. Assuming Kupig 
 
240 The Epistle to the Romans, 
 
 to be the true reading on external grounds, the precept assigns the motive 
 which imparts steadiness and reverence to, while it sustains spiritual 
 fervour in, the dodA0s Xprorod : ef. xiv. 7, 8; xvi. 18. It supplies a caution 
 against the subtle selfishness which often enters into religious enthusiasm. ] 
 
 2. Concerning ¢Amis and works of dydmn, 
 1. (The) hope (of future Blessedness), (ver. 12). 
 
 (1) Active effect on the soul. Joy (ver. 12). 
 (2) Passive effect. Patience in tribulation (ver. 12). 
 (3) Practical result. Perseverance in prayer(ver. 12.) 
 
 Conduct in [Obs. ry éAmid:, dat. of motive, v. 2 xavydwpeOa én’ 2dmidi THs 
 5ééns Tod @eod: Phil. iv. 4. On éaopovg, see viii. 25 with 
 
 tr oublous vers. 3-5; S. Jamesi. 2 sqq. The sight of the endless 
 times future which Hope enjoys, fills the Christian heart with 
 within the kavxnows and xapd, and makes imopovy easy. On the 
 Church. other hand, Hope expresses and strengthens itself in 
 persevering prayer, Col. iv. 2; mpooxaprepetre 1 Thess. v. 
 ane y, of 17; ddvadcinrws 2 Thess. iii. 1; 1 S. Pet. iv. 7, &c.] 
 ore Bod Ala: Concerning works of charity (ver. 13). 
 ayamn, 
 
 I. Generic. Share in the needs of fellow- 
 Christians (ver. 13). 
 II. Specific. Specially seek occasions for pee 
 fevia (ver. 13). 
 [Obs. 1. The reading pveias (S. Ambr., Hil.), instead of xpefais, is traceable to the 
 use of this passage in a Church lesson, Acts xx. 34; Tit. iii. 14. For cowwveiv, 
 see Phil, iv. 15; Gal. vi. 6. Not almsgiving, so much as actively sharing 
 
 the wants of the a&y:o1,—‘censum nostrum cum ipsis quodammodo habere 
 communem,’ Orig, (iv. p. 652).] 
 
 [Obs. 2. BiAogevia was of peculiar importance in the early days of the Church, 
 Christians when travelling were, asarule, unbefriended, Cf. the suggestive 
 definition of févor dv féva Ta Koopxad Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 9. p. 450; hence 
 the duty of giving them bed and board. It was to be discharged dvev 
 yoyyvopnav 1S. Pet. iv. 9; and with the hopes inspired by recollecting that 
 bid ravrns €dAabdv rives fevioavres ayyéAous Heb. xiii. 2; S. Clem. Rom. x Cor, 
 ec. 10sq. S. Paul insists that a Bishop must be giAdgevos, 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. 
 i. 8. On which passage S. Jerome observes: ‘Domus Episcopi omnium 
 debet esse commune hospitium, Laicus enim unum aut duos aut paucos 
 recipiens implebit hospitalitatis ofticium ; episcopus nisi omnes receperit, 
 inhumanus est’ (Comm. in Tit, i. 8), iucres implies that g:Aofevia is not 
 merely to be exercised when opportunities present themselves, but that 
 ‘sectemur et perquiramus ubique hospites,’ Orig. in loc, iAogevia is 
 a modified application of the principle of community of goods (Acts iv. 34), 
 which had for its result that obd@... évdens tis Sahpxev ev abrois. On the 
 hospitality of the Clergy of the Primitive Church, see Bingham, Antiquities, 
 book vi. ¢. 2, sect. 7. It was destined for the poor, not for the noble or the 
 rich, Ibid. sect. 8.] 
 
Practical : ch. XII, vv. 9-21. 241 
 
 B. Rules for the Christian in his daily intercourse with general 
 society around him, being chiefly Pagan (vers. 14-21). 
 
 Persons and circumstances. Right conduct. 
 E ) let i ) 
 le persecutors wore) blessings and prayers 
 (ver. 14), f rs) Ve T4). f 
 Il. 
 the joyful and the pane in each 
 sad (ver. 15), case (ver. 15). 
 TT. III. 
 fellow-Christians harmonious (with a 
 (ver. 16), view to effect on 
 heathens), (ver. 16), 
 Il. IV. FY; 
 
 the occurrence of not aiming at ra ind, 
 
 let thoughts and feelings be 
 
 ° splendid or of humble but attracted by 
 8 circumstances (ver. 16), Ta Tamewd (ver. 16), 
 = vi: * 
 5 your own opinions not self-confident 
 S) on general subjects (ver. 16). 
 o (ver. 16), 
 is VE 
 any man who has done not to ae him by 
 you (xaxév) an ill turn retaliating (ver. 17). 
 (ver. 17),. 
 VIL. 
 the public opinion of to pe. sa prejudices 
 the day (ver. 17b), within certain limits 
 suggested by natural 
 morality (ver. 17 b). 
 VIII. VEEL 
 
 general heathen 
 society, although 
 
 if possible, to live at 
 peace with it (ver. 18). 
 
 let your rule of action be 
 
 ITI. hostile (ver. 18), 
 IX. IX. 
 those who have not to vindicate per- 
 injured you sonal rights, but to leave 
 (ef. vi), wrongdoers to Gon’s 
 (ver. 19), épyh (ver. 19). 
 an enemy to win them by persis- 
 (ver. 20), tent kindness (ver. 20). 
 XI. XI. 
 evil in the abstract to conquer it by active 
 (ver. 21), good (ver. 21), 
 
242 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 1. On blessing persecutors (ver. 14). The S:axovres are heathens, emperors, 
 proconsuls, &c. edAoyeite is repeated twice on account of its importance ; 
 the second time it is followed by the (implied) negative pu) xarapaode, a re- 
 dundancy which the ordinary lower instincts of human nature make 
 necessary. S. Paul is thinking of our Lord’s precept, S. Matt. v. 44, where 
 mpocevxec0at bwep implies edAoyetv. This language towards persecutors is 
 not ‘conventional or artificial,’ but is based on the ground stated at 1S. Pet. 
 iii. 9, viz. that Christians are called iva evAoyiav KAnpovopnonre :—an inherit- 
 ance which is secured by suffering, and which therefore entitles those who 
 inflict it to the gratitude of the sufferers ; cf.S. Matt. v. 10-12. Besides which 
 this evAoyetv may win the persecutor to the truth which he is opposing. 
 Cf. S. Chrys. in loc.; S. Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. ¢. 11 ; Acts vil. 60; 1 Cor. iv. 
 12; 1S. Pet. ii. 23, That the love of enemies is a precept of the Gospel is 
 certain ; whether edAoyeiy is an evangelical counsel or a precept is discussed 
 by 8. Aug. de Mendac. ec. 15 ; Enchir. ¢. 73.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. On sympathy with the joyous and the sad (ver. 15). xalpew is considered an 
 ex. of the imperatival use of the inf. as Phil. iii. 16. But cf. Winer, Gr. N. T. 
 p. 397, and supply de. §. Chrys. observes that to rejoice with others is 
 harder than to weep with them. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. On unity of thought and feeling (ver. 16), 70 abrd ppovetv means, not to have 
 the same mind (as that above mentioned) in your relations with each other, 
 but to be of one mind, 2 Cor, xiii. rr; Phil. ii. 2; iv.2; Rom. xv. 5. The 
 occurrence of a precept insisting upon Christian unity in this connection is 
 to be accounted for by the effect of such unity upon the heathen world, 
 and by the effect of its absence. is dAA#Aous, generally év dAAnAos : S. Mark 
 ix. 50; 8. John xiii. 35 ; Rom. xv. 5. eis marks the direction of ¢poveiv, év 
 its sphere: the practical result is the same; but the former preposition 
 implies the transit of the Apostle’s thought in this verse from the heathen 
 world (in ver. 15) to the Christian Church.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. On unambitious aims and tastes (ver. 16). Td nda, high positions, a dis- 
 tinguished career, &c.; ef. xi. 20. 17a Tanevd, humble tasks, interests, rela- 
 tions in life. These should have an attractive force for the Christian, and 
 earry him away with them. ovvandyeo@a has a bad sense in Gal. ii. 13; 
 2S. Pet. iii. 17, through the context: not here. The dogmatic reason for 
 this precept is given at Phil. ii. 5 sqq. as the self-humiliation of the Eternal 
 Son at His Incarnation ; He Himself connected the duty with His own ex- 
 ample, S. Matt. xx. 26-28.] 
 
 [Obs. 5. On Self-distrust (ver. 16). For ppémpot map’ éavrois, see Xi. 25. Ona great 
 many questions heathens may be better informed than Christians ; a man’s 
 being a Christian does not justify him in affecting a tone of self-confident 
 indifference to what others may say. The moral self-sufficiency which leads 
 a man to despise the opinion or feeling of others is here specially meant : Is. 
 vy. 21; Prov. iii. 5. 7. ‘Non potest veram sapientiam Dei scire, qui suam 
 stultitiam quasi sapientiam colit ’ Orig. (iv. p. 653).] 
 
 [Obs. 6. On non-retaliation (ver. 17). pndevi includes non-Christian as well as 
 Christian, S. Matt. v. 38 sqq.; 1S. Pet. iii. 9; 1 Thess. v.15. This precept ' 
 is opposed to the Hellenic ddmeiv Tq ddicodvTt, as well as to the Pharisaic i 
 
 
 
Practical : ch. XII, vv. 9-21. 243 
 
 glosses in favour of retaliation. It applies to Christians in their private 
 capacity. When charged with public interests, whether in Church or State, 
 they may be bound to punish evil, as being done (not against themselves, 
 but) against Gop, or the Body of Christ, or natural society. The civil 
 government is‘@cov d:dxovos, Exdixos eis dpyiv Tw TO Kady mpdooovTt Rom. xiii. 
 4; and of such a government a Christian may be a member. And as to 
 Church censures, the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira by S. Peter, of 
 Elymas and the incestuous Corinthian by S. Paul, are in point.] 
 
 [Obs. 7. On a respect (within limits) for public opinion (ver. 17). This precept is trace- 
 able to Prov. iii. 4 mpovood nada évwmov Kupiov ral avOpwrwy: cf. 2 Cor. viii. 
 2I Tpovoovpevor Kara ov pdvoy évwmov Kupiov GAAA Kal évwmov avOpwmwv. The 
 word rdévtwy shows that even the pagan public had claims upon Christian 
 mpovoa: such claims as are supplied by the possession of a certain common 
 moral sense or judgment as to rd xadAd, which enables it to appreciate con- 
 duct higher than itsown. When indeed this public opinion was in conflict 
 with truth or goodness, the Christian would disregard it, since it does not 
 furnish him with his true standard in faith or morals. The precept, says 
 Theophylact, is not intended to encourage xevobdofia, but is given iva pr) mapé- 
 xwpev Kal’ judy apopyds Tois Bovropévors. On avoiding the appearance of evil, 
 for the sake of non-Christians, see 1 Cor. x. 32 dmpéaxona yiveade kat "Iovdaiors 
 kai “EAAnow: 1 Thess. iv. 12 mepinarnre evoxnudvws mpds tos éfw, 1 S. Pet. 
 ii. 12.] 
 
 [Obs. 8, On living peaceably (if possible) with all men (ver. 18). 7d é tudy used ad- 
 verbially, as i. 15. The seventh Beatitude is awarded to the eipnvorooi, 
 S. Matt. v. 9; but while the Christian must desire, on his part, peta wavtwv 
 eipnvederv, his duty to truth may make this quite impossible. Then the 
 words apply (S. Matt. x. 34) ob# 7A@ov Barciv cipnyny GAdAa payaipav. Hence, 
 ei duvvarév. Pagan hostility to Revealed Faith and Morals might make 
 ‘peace’ with Christians impracticable ; Christians were concerned to see 
 that peace is not forfeited by their own faults of temper or judgment ; 70 é& 
 bpav.} 
 
 § Precepts as to conduct under a sense of injury (ver. 19-21). 
 
 [Obs. 1. On account of the practical difficulty and high importance of right 
 action in this department of Christian duty, the Apostle abandons the con- 
 cise style of vers. 9-18, completes his constructions, and enforces his moral 
 teaching by arguments (vers. 19-21). The tender epithet dyamnroi (ver. 19) 
 marks a new attitude towards his readers. He is no longer merely teaching, 
 but appealing to their affections, while recommending portions of the law 
 
 - of Jesus Christ which present the greatest difficulties to human nature.] 
 
 [0bs. 2. These precepts are three. 
 (1) (Passive duty.) What not to do when wronged (ver. 19). 
 
 (2) (Active duty.) What to do when wronged (ver. 20). 
 (g) (General duty.) Think of the evil done to you as an enemy to be van- 
 - quished by charity (ver. 21).] 
 Precept I. (Passive duty.) What not to do, when injured 
 
 (ver. 19). 
 R 2 
 
244 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 (i) Do not insist on taking vengeance by legal processes against 
 those who injure you, but 
 
 (ii) let the Divine épy7 have its course. The All-just will deal 
 with them in His own time and way. Give place to Him 
 
 (ver. 19). 
 
 (Obs. 1. éxd:xetv here means to avenge, as in Rev. vi. 10; xix. 2; S. Luke xviii. 
 3; and not to punish, as 2 Cor. x. 6. The emphatic word is éavrovs. The 
 precept is like that in ver. 17 against retaliation ; but is directed against 
 a different motive for punishing one who has injured us. In ver. 17 the 
 thought of making an adversary suffer an equivalent, while here, that of 
 avenging self, is condemned. } 
 
 [Obs. 2. 4 dpyq here, as in iii. 5; v.9; x Thess. i. 10; ii. 16, is a ‘dogmatic 
 technical term,’ the Divine wrath. (Winer, Gr. N.T. p. 743.) So # xdpis, 
 7 OéAnua, Rom. ii. 18. rémov didévac=to make place for another, S. 
 Luke xiv. 9; and so inferentially, to give him time and opportunity to 
 act. That 4 épyq does not mean, (1) the Christian’s own wrath at being 
 injured, which might pass away, if time were given it (cf. Livy viii. 32 irae 
 spatium dare, but rémov &dévac in Greek does not mean this, but to give room 
 for indulgence, Plut. De ira cohibendd, p. 462) ; or (2) the wrath of the man who 
 inflicts the injury, and before which it might be prudent to retreat, is clear 
 from the quotation. The latter would be a maxim of worldly, as distinct 
 from Christian, prudence. | 
 
 Reason for (ii). In Deut. xxxii. 35 Gop claims to punish injuries, 
 in virtue of His moral prerogatives ; and He also undertakes to 
 punish them (ver. 19). 
 
 Heb. pea npr %d 
 
 ‘To Me [belongs] revenge and recompense.’ 
 LXX év jpépa exiixnoews dvranodwow. 
 
 [Obs. r. Deut. xxxii. 35 is quoted to show that the right and duty of punishing 
 those who are guilty of injustice is reserved by Gop for Himself. The 
 LXX departs from the Hebrew, to which S. Paul keeps more closely, 
 using however the words of the LXX and adding Aéyer Kupios. The cita- 
 tion reappears exactly in Heb. x. 30, and in the paraphrase of Onkelos. 
 Meyer suggests that the saying had become proverbial as a ‘formula 
 of warning,’ and thus influenced both S. Paul and the paraphrase of 
 Onkelos. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Does this precept make it wrong to prosecute for burglary or assault? 
 It would do so, if these offences could only affect the individual. They are 
 prosecuted, however, not as wrongs done to the individual, but as crimes 
 against Gop and society. If the individual only were affected, such prosecu- 
 tions would be un-Christian. On the Stoic conception of forgiveness of 
 injuries, see Seneca, de Ird, ii. 32, 33; iii. «. 5. On the patience of the 
 Christian populations under the stress of Pagan persecution, see Tertull. a 
 Apolog. c. 37 ‘Cui bello non idonei, non prompti fuissemus, etiam impares K, 
 
 te 
 
 
 
Practical: ch. X11, vv. 9-21. 245 
 
 copiis, qui tam libenter trucidamur si non apud istam disciplinam (scil. 
 Christianam) magis occidi liceret quam occidere ?’ ef. too contra Marcion. ii. ¢. 
 18. Cf. S. Matt. v. 39.] 
 
 Precept II. (Active duty.) What to do, when injured. Be 
 energetically kind to the man who has done the wrong 
 (ver. 20). 
 
 { (1) If he is hungry, feed him thyself (ver. 20). 
 (2) If he is thirsty, give him drink (ver. 20). 
 
 Reason for the precept. 
 
 In doing this, thou wilt bring him to remorse and shame for his 
 conduct. Thy large-hearted kindness will heap up on him the 
 ‘glowing coals of fire’—the pain of remorse (ver. 20). 
 
 (Obs, 1. Youpifew (~wpyds), give morsels, as if with thine own hand. The expression 
 is affectionate, 1 Sam. xxviii. 22, LXX; 1 Cor. xiii. 3 ; Deut. viii. 16.] 
 
 [Obs, 2, Verse 20 is a quotation from Prov. xxv. 21, 22 :— 
 Dy? MPPNT INI! SyTrON 
 DY spe NY-ON) 
 sivio-ly anh vmy ovdn 2 
 
 The LXX corresponds with S. Paul’s text, except that cod. A. reads rpépe 
 for Ywme, and omits mupds after dvOpaxas. The expression owpeve dvOpakas 
 ént thy kepadynv=to heap up pain that clings toa man. ‘Glowing coals’ are 
 used as a metaphor for ‘pain that strikes deep and cleaves.’ The Rabb. 
 phrase ‘to give any one coals and lightning’ is formed on Ps. xi. 6; xviii. 
 8. ‘Coals of the wise’ mean, cutting remarks that give pain. Pirge Aboth, 
 ii.14. In 2 Esdr. xvi. 53 the burning fiery coals on the head is an image 
 of painful punishment, sent by Gop; but the context there makes it neces- 
 
 ' sary, while it suggests another sense in the present passage. That enemies 
 should be benefited, in order to secure their severer punishment hereafter 
 is as far as possible from the Apostle’s mind. S. Jerome, contra Pelag. lib. i. 
 p. 840 ‘Non in maledictum et condemnationem, ut plerique existimant, 
 sed in correctionem, ut superatus beneficiis, excoctus fervore, inimicus esse 
 desistat’: S. Aug. de Catechiz. rudibus ‘ Nulla est major ad amandum provo- 
 eatio quam praevenire amando’: De Doct. Christ. iii. 16, where the av@paxas 
 mupdés are explained as ‘ urentes poenitentiae gemitus.’] 
 
 Precept III. (General duty.) Be not vanquished by the evil 
 which an enemy does against thee, but conquer it in the power 
 of the good which thou doest in return (ver. 21). 
 
 (Obs. On this, see Seneca, de Benef. vii. 31 ‘ Vincit malos pertinax bonitas,’] 
 

 
 246 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 § 4. 
 
 Obligations of Christian Morality for the Christian as living under a 
 (pagan) civil government (xiii. 1-7). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The necessity for this section is traceable to the widespread feeling of 
 
 irritation against the Roman government among the Jewish populations. 
 To the Jew the theocracy seemed to be the only legitimate form of govern- 
 ment: Deut. xvii. 15 ‘Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is 
 not thy brother.’ The Messianic promise, as understood by the Jews, was 
 hostile to the claims of any pagan government. Notwithstanding the 
 Roman conquests, the Jews still debated whether éfeor Sodva kivoov 
 Kaioap, 7) ov (S. Matt. xxii. 17), and maintained that ovdevi dedov- 
 Aevxapev mwmore (S. John viii. 33). Judas the Gaulonite had founded a 
 sect which held that it was unlawful to obey earthly rulers (Joseph. 
 Ant. xviii. 1. 1; Acts v. 37); and the enterprise of Theudas (Joseph. 
 Ant. xx. 51) and the speech of Eleazar at Maseda (Joseph. de Bell. Jud. vii. 
 8. 6) are equally illustrative of the prevailing temper. Indeed Rome 
 itself had recently been the scene of Jewish insubordination, Suetonius, vit. 
 Claudii, ec. 25; Acts xviii. 2; Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. lx. c.5. The heathens 
 did not yet distinguish between Jews and Christians ; and some converts 
 from Judaism may have brought with them their revolutionary sympathies 
 and projects into the Church of Christ. On the revolutionary temper im- 
 puted to the Christians by Jewish agitators, see Acts xvii. 6, 7; and by 
 Pagan orators, see Acts xxiv. 5, 6.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. But probably the reason for the paragraph is to be found more precisely in 
 
 the Ebionite conception that the power which governs the world, and acts 
 through the civil magistracy is devilish. This belonged to the dualistic 
 tendency in Ebionistism ; ef. Epiph. Haer. xxx. 16. So the author of the 
 Clementine Homilies (xy. 7) says, ‘The True Prophet says that Gop the 
 Creator of all things assigned two realms to two beings, the one good, the 
 other evil. To the evil being he gave the lordship of the present world, with 
 the proviso, that he should punish those that do evil: to the good being, the 
 future eternal world... The children of the future world are while they 
 remain in this one, in the hostile realm of a foreign king.’ This antagonist 
 position enables us to understand the Apostle’s passing over the many ques- 
 tions that might be raised as to the relation of the governed to the govern- 
 ment, and insisting on what might seem at first a truism, ov« éomy efovaia ei 
 pi) dard rod @eod : cf. Baur, Paulus d. Apostel, ii. 3.] 
 
 [0bs. 3. S. Peter insists, with equal earnestness, on the duty of obedience to civil 
 
 governments (1 S. Pet. ii. 13-17 ; comp. 2S. Pet. ii. 19). There is no reason 
 
 for supposing that he had S. Paul’s language in view, or that S. Paul had 
 
 his.] 
 
 A. Duty I. Every Christian should submit (irorarcéo6w) to i 
 imperial government (xiii. 1). 
 
 - Proved (xiii. 1-6). 
 
 [Obs. 1. maca puxn, wards, yet not a mere Hebraistic paraphrase, for the personal 
 
 pronoun. puxh, “like wp3, is never entirely without meaning. It here 
 
 
 
Practical : ch. XIII, vv. 1-7. 247 
 
 means man, conceived of as feeling pleasure or displeasure, attraction or 
 repugnance : in Rom. ii. 9, man as feeling punishment. For other shades 
 of meaning, see S. Matt. xxvi. 38 ; Acts ii. 43 ; iii. 23 ; Heb. xiii. 17; 1S. Pet. 
 ii. 25.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The éfovcia: twepéxovem, magistracies of commanding position, include all 
 the high offices of the empire. For éfovsia:, in the sense of earthly authori- 
 ties, see S. Luke xii. 11; Tit.iii.r. In Eph. iii 10; vi. 12; Col. ii. 15; 
 1 S. Pet. iii. 22, it refers to an order of spiritual beings, whether angels or 
 demons. The abstract term éfovcia: (without the article) is (as in ver. 3 
 Gpxovres sqq.) elsewhere rendered into concrete equivalents ; ef. 1 S. Pet. ii. 
 13, where after the emperor (SaciAed’s ds trepéxov), are specified the legati 
 (77yépoves), or other high officials who represent him. Sot Tim. ii. 2, the 
 Church is to offer intercessions, irép Bacihéwy cal wavTov Tav év bwepoxD Gyre. 
 The emperor, who in the West was princeps or imperator, never rex, was 
 bluntly termed Sac:Aev’s in the eastern provinces. } 
 
 [Obs. 3. In trepeyotvoas and troraccécOw, izép and izé are correlative. Preemin- 
 ence implies submission. ] 
 
 Arg. 1. From the Divine origin of civil government (vers. 1 b, 2). 
 
 1. General theses. 
 { a. No magistracy exists which is not aré Geod (ver. 1 b). 
 b. The de facto magistracies are appointed tré rov Geod (ver. 
 rb). 
 
 2. Inferences (Sere) from these theses. 
 a. Resistance to-the magistracy is resistance to Gon’s darayy 
 (ver. 2 a). 
 b. Those who do resist will to their own hurt (éavrois, dat. 
 incommodi) receive a penal judgment (kpiya), (ver. 2b). 
 
 [0bs. x. In ver. rb, dwé and éwé are not arbitrarily interchanged. Civil govern- 
 ment derives its authority from Gop (dé), and He, by His providence, 
 establishes it among men (imé). The objection that whatever might be said 
 about the abstract origin of civil government, de facto governments (ai odca 
 éfovcia:) are too bad to be obeyed, is met by the fact that Gop has given 
 them their lease of power.] 
 
 [0bs. 2. Civil government being # rov @cod d:aray7, resistance to it is resistance to 
 Him, and the «pia which punishes it, though inflicted by man, is really 
 His. It is clear from ver. 3 that the Apostle is thinking of penalties t 
 inflicted by the dpyovres. This applies not only or chiefly to hereditary 
 monarchies, but to all regularly-constituted governments, whether mon- 
 archical or republican. All that is requisite to cultivate the obligation of 
 obedience to a government is that it is otca. With the origin of a govern- 
 ment, or its political form the Apostle does not concern himself: nor 
 does he enter upon the question at what point during a period of revolu- : 
 
 
 
248 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 tionary change a given government is to be considered as ovca, or as 
 non-existent ; and when a government, originally illegitimate, acquires a 
 prescriptive right. The imperial authority was too old, and too firm to 
 make these questions practical ; and the Apostle gives the precepts which 
 are required by the circumstances of his readers. The. Roman éfovaia 
 combined the forms of a republic with the reality of a despotism. See 
 Merivale, Romans under the Empire, vol. iv. c. 32. The imperial authority 
 was, as regards the Romans, an usurpation ; as regards the provincials, the 
 result of war and conquest. Yet it was 4 otca éfovcia, and, as such, was 
 from Gop. | 
 
 Arg. 2. From the providential and beneficial purpose of civil 
 government (vers. 3, 4). 
 
 [Obs. The prop. that of dpxovres ovx eat pdBos Td dyad Epyw in ver. 3 is introduced 
 as a reason (yap) for the immediately preceding statement that a Divine 
 judgment will fall upon rebels. ] 
 
 The providential purpose of a Ruler is to inspire fear, not into 
 those who do good, but into those who do wrong (ver. 3 a). 
 
 Hence, 
 
 a. Those who act rightly need not fear government: government 
 will show them some mark of its approbation (éawos), since it 
 is after all Gon’s minister, intended by Him to promote the 
 cause of good (vers. 3b, 4 a). 
 
 b. Those who act criminally ought to fear government. It is 
 armed with the power of life and death for a serious purpose. 
 It is Gop’s minister, designed by Him to punish the evil-doer 
 (ver. 4b). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The abstract éfovcia here becomes concrete of dpxovres, but the term is 
 still general. péBos, ‘a terror’ (used like timor), for poBepol,‘metonymia rei pro 
 rei causa.’ So 70 dya0dv Epyov (see App. Crit.) and 76 xaxdy Epyov are personified ; 
 the dpxwy has only to deal with the épycv. Of the intention he knows 
 nothing. ‘The émavos which government bestows is not a reward, but only 
 its approbation. The reason (ydép) for expecting this lies in the Divine 
 mission of government, which is @¢cod didxovos. The paxatpa which govern- 
 ment bears is not the mapafidis or dagger worn by the emperor and others 
 as the symbol of the jus vitae et necis, but, as always in the New Testament, 
 the curved sword, which used to be borne by, or before, the Greek 
 magistrates, opeivy marks the continued habit, and so means more than 
 pepe. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2, The expression ¢dBos 7@ xax@ Epyy is the key to the feeling about the 
 Pagan Imperial Despotism which prevailed in the early Church. S. 
 Irenaeus (Haer. v. 24. 2) traces the necessity for such a government to 
 the fall of man, Since the fall human nature has been avaricious and 
 
 
 
Practical : ch. XIII, vv. 1-7. 2.49 
 
 cruel ; and, accordingly, ‘ad utilitatem gentilium terrenum regnum positum 
 est a Deo,.... ut timentes regnum hominum non se alterutrum homines 
 vice piscium consumant.... Cujus jussu homines nascuntur, ejus jussu et 
 reges constituuntur, apti his qui illo tempore ab ipsis regnantur.’ This 
 view of despotic government, as a safe-guard provided for fallen human 
 nature against the effects of its own selfish vices, might seem to be incon- 
 sistent with the heathen cruelty and levity of some of the Roman emperors ; 
 but S. Irenaeus ascribes such abuse of absolute power to Gop’s just 
 judgment of a guilty world. The duty of submission had nothing to do 
 with the faith or character of the reigning emperor. S. Aug. de Civ. Dei, 
 v. 2t ‘Qui dedit imperium Constantino Christiano, Ipse Apostatae Juliano.’} 
 
 [Obs. g. The description of government as @¢cov d:dxovos, which is twice repeated, 
 and as «is 70 dyaOdv (ver. 4 a) and éxbitos eis 6pynv TO TO KaKdv mpdcoorTt (ver. 
 4b), applies to it as designed by Providence, not always as existing in fact. 
 But as yet it was the earlier and happier period of Nero’s reign, when 
 éravos might be sometimes accorded to virtue. Cf. Merivale, Romans under 
 the Empire, vol. vi. ¢. 52: Seneca, de Clementia, i. 1. For the atrocities and 
 degradation of Nero’s later years, see Tacitus, Ann. xvi. 1-16.] 
 
 Arg. 3. (Subjective inference from preceding arguments.) From 
 the double moral necessity (dvdyxn) for submission, which thus 
 (86) presents itself (ver. 5). 
 
 (i) partly, but not chiefly, political: Sa rjyv épyny. 
 
 To refuse submission is to incur the vengeance 
 of the government (ver. 5). 
 
 This 
 necessity (ii) partly, and more especially, moral: da ri 
 is’ ovveidnow. To refuse submission is to disobey 
 the commands of the Christian conscience 
 (ver. 5). 
 
 (Obs. x. dvd-yxn means a moral necessity in 1 Cor. ix. 16. The Jews knew of no 
 motive of submission to the government of the Empire, save their dread of 
 its vengeance. Christians were compelled to submit by their conscientious 
 conviction that, amid all its degradations, it wielded a power which came 
 from Gop. For &4 7iv svvelinow, compare da Tov Kvpiov, 1 S. Peter ii. 13 and 
 1 Cor. x. 25-209. | 
 
 (Obs. 2. cvveidnois here, not consciousness, as Heb. x. 2 ray dyapriGv ovveidyors, but, 
 as generally, conscience, i. e. the moral faculty distinguishing good from evil, 
 praising the one and blaming the other: cf. Rom. ii. 15; ix. 1; 1 Cor. viii. 
 4, 10, 12; X. 29; 2:Cor.. i. 125 iv. 2; v. 11 ; Heb. ix. 14.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Conscience recognizes as a general law the duty of submission to the eivil 
 government. There are however grave questions, which S. Paul does not 
 here raise, but which in later times have had to be answered : e. g. (i) What 
 is a Christian’s duty during a revolution, when political power is changing 
 hands, and it is doubtful where 7 otca éfovcia is to be found? On this, see 
 Tertullian, Apolog. 30-37. In ad Scapulam, c. 1 he observes that Christians 
 
250 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 were accused of disloyalty : ‘tamen nunquam Albiniani, nec Nigriani, vel 
 Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani.’ (ii) What is a Christian’s duty if 
 the government enjoins that which is contrary to the Law of Gop? The 
 rule is given Acts v. 29 meOapyxety Sef O€@ paddAov 7 dvOpwras. The admitted 
 jurisdiction of the civil government in matters of earthly concern cannot be 
 pleaded as a reason for submitting to it when it usurps the duties of 
 ministers of religion, still less when it prescribes idolatry or religious error. 
 Tertullian notices the use which was made of this passage by those who 
 shrank from martyrdom, and wanted a good reason for submitting to 
 government when it insisted on apostasy: Scorpiace, c. 14 ‘Non in 
 occasione frustrandi martyrii, jubet te subjici potestatibus, sed in provoca- 
 tione bene vivendi, etiam sub illarum respectu, quasi adjutricum justitiae.’ 
 So in his de Idol. 15. It is the duty of Christians to be ‘subditos magistra- 
 tibus, et principibus, et potestatibus, sed intra limites disciplinae quousque 
 ab idololatria separamur.’ He then cites the cases of the Three Children and 
 Daniel, who were absolutely obedient to the commands of the kings, until 
 the law of Gop was imperilled. The modern misconstructions of S. Paul’s 
 language arise from a neglect of limitations to its scope which Scripture 
 elsewhere supplies. Cf. Harless, Christian Ethics, iii. 54. ] 
 
 Arg. 4. From consistency, the Principle implied by the existing 
 practice of the Apostle’s readers who already paid taxes to the 
 civil government (ver. 6). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The fact that Christians pay taxes to the civil government is a reason 
 (yap) confirmatory of the avay«n stated in ver. 5. &:a rodro marks the ground 
 of such payment; taxes are paid because government is from Gop, and 
 submission to it a Christian duty. ody, in ver. 7, must prevent one con- 
 sidering TeAetre an imperative. The Apostle is arguing from the practice of 
 Christians to the principle it implies. If submission to government was 
 wrong, they ought not to recognize and support government by paying taxes. } 
 
 [Obs. 2. On the payment of taxes to the Imperial officers, ef. Tert. Apol. 42 
 ‘Sed caetera vectigalia [i. e. other than those paid to keep up the temples] 
 gratias Christianis agent ex fide dependentibus debitum, qua alieno frau- 
 dando abstinemus, ut si ineatur quantum vectigalibus pereat fraude et 
 mendacio vestrarum professionum, facile ratio haberi possit, unius speciei 
 querela compensata pro commodo caeterarum rationum.’ What was with- 
 drawn from the temples was more than made up to the revenue in other 
 ways. Cf. S. Justin. Apol. i. 17 pépous 52 Kat eiopopds tots ép’ pay reraypevas 
 rretpw peda pepe, ws &:5axOnpev wap’ avTov.]} 
 
 § Justification of &4 roire, The rulers of the State (of dpxovres) 
 have a certain priestly or sacrificial character in Christian eyes. 
 As the éfovcia is Gcod Sidxovos (ver. 4\, so its representatives are 
 Aeroupyot Gcod. It is for this very object, eis a’rd roiro, viz. ré 
 Aeroupyeiv TG OcG, that they labour so perseveringly ; and they 
 are supported in this high function by the proceeds of taxation 
 (ver. 6b). ‘. 
 
 
 
Practical : ch. XIII, vv. 1-7. 251 
 
 [Obs x. The sacredness of the civil magistracy which had been indicated in Ocod 
 dudkovos (twice repeated, ver. 4) minister of a justice which is really Gon’s, 
 is here enhanced by Aeroupyol Gcot, entrusted by Gop with a public service, 
 that of collecting the taxes which acknowledge the sanctity and rights of 
 government. Aeroupyeiv, AaToupyia, Aerovpyés, all had a classical use: 
 referring especially to public duties or services at Athens undertaken by a 
 citizen at his own expense: Plat. Laws, xii. p. 949 C. So in Lysias, 
 Isocrates, Theophrastus. The verb was used by the LXX (to render nw, 
 ‘to wait upon,’ Numb. xviii. 2; Ex. xxviii. 31, 39 ; xxix. 30 sqq. &c. and 
 T2y, Numb. iv. 38; xvi. 9; xviii. 6 sqq.) of the sacred duties of Priests 
 and Levites. So S. Paul calls himself Ae:toupyds “Incot Xporov Rom. xv. 
 16; and Christian worship is described as Aeroupyeiv TO Oc Acts xiii. 2. 
 The word Acrovpyés is used of heathen priests by Dion. Halicarn. Ant. ii. 
 73, of Jewish priests, cf. Neh. x. 39; Ecclus. vii. 31 ; Heb. viii. 2; x. 11. It 
 is already applied to royal officers and servants, 1 Kings x. 5; Ecclus. x. 2. 
 Here in a sense which partakes of its classical and sacred associations. The 
 adjective Aeroupyixés does not occur except in LXX and N. T., used of cxevn, 
 Numb. iv. 28 ; oroAa/, Ex. xxxi. 10 3 mvevpara, Heb. i. 14, &c.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. In eis aird rovro,; eis defines the aim of mpockaprepotyres. aitd TovTo 
 would have no adequate motive, if it referred only to taxation.] 
 
 B. Duty II. Every Christian should contribute money and moral 
 support to the government (ver. 7). 
 
 [O0bs. This precept is suggested by the fact just (ver. 6) noticed, that Christians do 
 pay taxes. It isa moral inference (otv) from the now-established claims of 
 government as Qcod didxovos (ver. 4). The construction is elliptical ; supply 
 after 7@ pédpov, Tédos, k.7.A. drarrovyTt. | 
 
 (i) pépov. Taxes on persons and property : tributum ; 
 (so xjvoos), (ver. 7). 
 
 adore (ii) téAos. Customs on goods: vectigal ; (ver. 7). 
 maou (iii) péBov. The profound veneration due to the highest 
 ras dpetdds, persons in the State (ver. 7). — 
 
 (iv) tu». The honour and respect due to all who hold 
 public offices (ver. 7). 
 
 Lote x. The Jews had scruples about paying taxes to the Pagan Government. 
 Judas of Gamala taught riv dmoripunow ovdev GAdAo, f avriKpds SovAciay empéepev, 
 Josephus, Ant. xviii. 1. 1. Our Lord was asked whether it was lawful to pay 
 tribute, S. Matt. xxii. 17. Moreover, the character of the reA@va for pecula- 
 tion was proverbial : the taxes were embezzled throughout the empire. On 
 Nero’s proposal to abolish the vectigalia,—probably only in Italy and the 
 Coloniae,—see Tacitus, Ann. xiii. 50. The duty of Christians was not affected 
 by any abuses in the administration, or by political considerations. } 
 
 (Obs. 2. On ver. 7 b,; see Tatian, contra Graecos, c. 4, who insists that he is ready to 
 discharge the duties of a subject ; but reserves péfos for Gop : tov piv yap 
 
252 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 avOpwmov avOpwnivws tiunréov, poBnréov Se povov tov @edv. Cf. 1S. Pet. ii. 17 
 Tov Ocdy oBeicbe, Tov Bacirdéa Tipare. S. Paul used ¢$dBos in a restricted 
 sense : he implies that there are high State-officers to whom it is due.] 
 
 B. 
 
 Animating motives of Christian Morality (xiii. 8-14). 
 
 Motive I. The Love of Gov, and, for His sake, of man, considered as 
 a debt which can never be paid off (vers. 8-10). 
 
 [Obs. The precept in ver. 8 is a more general statement of that in ver. 7. The 
 duty of Christians towards the officers of the State (ver. 7) is widened, so 
 as to include all obligations that may be due to any human being. One 
 debt alone can never be paid off, because no external acts or sacrifices 
 exhaust its claim—the debt of dyamyn. damn remains, eluding all efforts to 
 discharge its obligations; being as it is the inspiring creative force 
 to all Christian excellence. Cf. S. Aug. Ep. excii. 1. ad Celest. ‘Semper 
 autem debeo caritatem quae sola etiam reddita semper detinet debitorem. 
 Redditur enim cum impenditur, debetur autem etiam si reddita fuerit, quia 
 nullum est tempus quando impendenda jam non sit, nec cum redditur 
 amittitur, sed potius reddendo multiplicatur.’] 
 
 Precept. After paying off all other debts, continue to pay the inex- 
 haustible debt of dyamn (ver. 8 a). 
 
 § Reasons for this Precept, drawn from the significance of dydmy 
 (vers. 8b, 9). 
 
 Arg. 1. (yép ver. 8b.) From the inherent moral force of dydzn. 
 The man who really loves his neighbour (rév érepov), already, in 
 doing so, has implicitly fulfilled the Second Table of the Law 
 (ver. 8 b). 
 
 [Obs. In rdv érepov, any other human being with whom 6 dyandy has to do is 
 
 brought definitely before the mind’s eye (Rom. ii. 1, 21; 1 Cor. iv. 63; vi. 
 
 I, &c.). menAnpwxe, as in ii. 25, present of the completed action: in the act 
 
 of dyanay the precepts of the law have been fulfilled : Gal. v. 14; S. Matt. 
 
 xxii. 39, 40; 1 Tim. i.5; S. James ii. 8. Although vdyoyv without the art. — 
 
 may mean ‘abstract law,’ the context (ver. 9) points to the Mosaic Law 
 here as a proper name. ] 
 
 Arg. 2. (yap ver. 9; reason for mem\jpoxe ver. 8b.) From the lan- 
 guage of the Mosaic Law. In Leviticus xix. 18 the previously 
 enumerated commandments respecting a man’s duty to his 
 neighbour are repeated and summarized in the precept to ‘love 
 him as thyself’ (ver. 9). 
 
 Lev. xix. 18. Heb. qos qyId Aan 
 LXX dyampoes rév mAnatoy cov ws ceavrér. 
 
 Kits: 
 
Practical: ch. XIII, vv. 8-14. 253 
 
 [Obs. r. In Lev. xix the preceding precepts referred to by the Apostle (ver. 9) are 
 not only or all the commandments of the Second Table. But all duties of a 
 man to his neighbour are dictated by dydam7n.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The sixth commandment here follows the seventh, as in S. Mark x. 19; 
 S. Luke xviii. 20; S. James ii. 113; Philo, de Decalogo; S. Clem. Alex. 
 Strom. vi. 16. S. Paul followed copies of the LXX which had the same 
 order, as codex B. Deut. ver. 17. The fifth commandment is not given; the 
 ninth, od Wevdoyaprupnoes, has been added by a copyist for the sake of 
 completeness. For this dvaxepadaiwois of the Second Table in Ley. xix. 18, 
 see S. Matt. xxii. 39; S. Mark xii. 31; S. Luke x. 27; Gal. v. 14: vépos 
 BaotdiKds S. James ii. 8.] 
 
 Arg. 3. From the negative force of dyamn. It refrains from work- 
 ing ill toa neighbour. Hence the conclusion (ody) that, since 
 the seventh, sixth, tenth, and other commandments of the 
 Second Table (except the fifth) forbid such ill in detail, dyamn 
 is the mAnpwpa vdpov. Through dyarn the spirit of the Law has 
 already been fulfilled (ver. 10). 
 
 [0bs. For the negative, repressive power of dydrn, see 1 Cor. xiii. 4 b-6). It is 
 this, rather than its active and productive force, which makes it mAnpwpa 
 vépou, the vépuos being chiefly prohibitory. dydmn is the wAjpwpya vdpou, that 
 in which its fulfilment really consists ; not merely mAjpwois, the process of 
 achieving this fulfilment. Cf. Gal. v. 14, where however the positive as 
 well as the negative force of dydmn is insisted on as making it fulfil the 
 
 law. On the subject-matter, ses Newman, Par. Serm, y. 23 ‘Love the one 
 thing needful.’] 
 
 Motive II. The nearness of the Second Advent of Christ (vers. 11-14). 
 
 A. The period (xa:pés) characterized, in accordance with the (instructed) 
 knowledge (cidéres) of the Roman Christians (ver. 11). 
 
 [Obs. ver. 11 is introduced as yielding a motive for the precept in ver. 8 «ai 
 rovro, and for this, viz. pndevt pndev dpeidrere ei pi) 7d GAAHAOUS ayaTav, no 
 supplement like moefre is required, Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 717; 1 Cor. vi. 6, 
 8; Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 28.] 
 
 a. Itis dpa && tnvov éyepOjva—high time for awaking out of 
 moral and spiritual slumber (ver. 11). 
 
 b. (Reason (yap) for Spa, «.7r.4.) The completed salvation (7 co- 
 pia) to follow upon Christ’s Second Coming is much nearer 
 now (viv objective) than at the date of the conversion of the 
 Roman Christians, or of the Apostle (ver. 11). 
 
 c. The period preceding the Second Advent—the night of time 
 —is far advanced in its course. The period following the 
 Second Advent—the day of Eternity—is at hand (ver. 11). 
 
254 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 1. For the same motive, see Heb. x. 25, 37; 1 Cor. vii. 29; 1 S. Pet. iv. 7. 
 Kaipés, the appointed measure of time, S. Matt. xxiv. 45; S. John vii. 6. 
 It refers to the period between the present and the Second Coming. This 
 xapés was continually becoming shorter. The Apostles felt that the 
 Second Coming might occur at any moment (Phil. iv. 5; 1 Thess. v. 6; Rev. 
 xxii. 12); our Lord having desired them to be always prepared for it 
 (S. Matt. xxiv. 42; xxv. 13; S. Luke xxi. 34-36) ; as indeed fast approaching 
 (S. Matt. xxiv. 29). But that they were mistaken in their anticipations, 
 or disappointed at the result, is an unwarranted assumption : see 2 S. Pet. 
 iii. 8 for their real mind. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Umvos and vvé are often used as figures of the life without Christ, 1 Cor. 
 Xv. 34; Eph. v. 14; 1 Thess. v. 6. Christ’s disciples at their conversion 
 have come from darkness into the light, Eph. v. 8, 11; 1 S. Pet. ii. 9; 
 S. John iii. 20, 21. Here however (ver. 12) v¥é means the period before the 
 Second Advent, and imvos, which corresponds to it (ver. 11), here indicates 
 a condition of the regenerate, in which full moral and spiritual activity is 
 slumbering, owing to the remaining power of sin. The Christian therefore 
 needs awakening from time to time.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Ste Emorevoapev, the historic moment of conversion to the Faith. For 
 morevev, see I Cor, iii. 5; xv. 2; Gal. ii. 16; 2 Thess. ii. 11; S. John i. 7, 
 12. % swrnpla jyav, the complete salvation into which Christians enter at 
 the Second Advent, 1S. Pet. i. 5,9; Rom. i. 16; v. 93 viii. 23.] 
 
 B. Practical results of this knowledge. The éyepOévres e€ dnvov should 
 live as children of the Day which is already dawning (vers. 12-14). 
 
 1. Change in the moral clothing (dro6apeba, évdveapeba) of the soul, 
 as befits the break of ‘day’ (ver. 12). 
 
 a. Put off (like night-clothes) the épya rod oxérovs, works which 
 belong to moral darkness, as the sphere in which they are 
 wrought: Eph. v. 11 (ver. 12). 
 
 b. Put on (like a soldier’s day attire) the érda rod ghards, prin- 
 ciples and methods of action which belong to the sphere 
 of spiritual light (ver. 12). 
 
 {Obs. The Christian is awaking from sleep. His first duty is to change the 
 garments of the night for those of the day. The épya rod oxérovs are 
 regarded as night-clothes, which the sleeper has had on; oxéro0s is the robe 
 of which the épya are appropriate decorations. The émAa rod gwrés become 
 the Christian as a warrior for Christ, and are ‘put on’ like garments, Eph. 
 vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 8. Here oxéros and $s correspond to vg and jyépa: 
 émAa is the designed antithesis to épya, since in the Christian new prin- 
 ciples are the best safeguard against old acts of sin. ] 
 
 2. Conduct (epimarncoper) which befits the ‘day’ (ver. 13). 
 1. Positive characteristic (edcxnpdves), Moral decorum (ver. 13 a). 
 { 2. Negative characteristic. It is incompatible with (ver. 13 b), 
 
Practical: ch. XIII, vv. 8-14. 255 
 
 a. Sins of gluttony and their occasions (ver. 13 b)— 
 xopos, revellings: Gal. v. 21. 
 { péOas, carousals. 
 b. Sins of impurity (ver. 13 b)— 
 koiras : ix, 10; Wisd. iii. 13. 
 doedycias : 2 Cor. xii. 21; Eph. iv. 19; 1 8. Pet. iv. 
 3. ‘Protervitas et petulantia, non obscaenitas libi- 
 dinis,’ Tittman, Syn. p. 151. Except 2 S. Pet. 
 li, 18. 
 c. Sins of temper (ver. 13 b)— 
 hae 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 20. 
 (nro, jealousy : 1 Cor. i, 11 ; ill. 3. 
 
 [0bs. r. These sins commonly grow im the order given by the Apostle. Excess 
 at the table leads to impurity, and this to strife and jealousy. On the fatal 
 oscillation of fallen human nature between @upés and éméupia until com- 
 pletely rescued by Christ, see J. Miiller, Ch. Doctr. of Sin, ii. 5 sub fin. } 
 
 [Obs. 2. This verse is historically of great interest, as having determined the 
 conversion of S. Augustine. Cf. Confessions, viii. 12. 28 sqq. } 
 
 3. Fundamental principles of the life which befits the ‘day’ (ver. 
 14). 
 
 a. Positive. Put on the Lord Jesus Christ (ver. 14 a). 
 
 [Obs. The phrase évévcacGe tov Kipiov "I. X., expressing intimate union with Jesus 
 Christ, may be compared with 7)3¥ 3 vad of the Synagogue. By 
 putting on the clothes of the Shekinah, it is meant that man’s sin must be 
 ‘covered’ by Divine glory (Delitzsch, Hebr. Uebersetz. in loc.). This évdvcacOat 
 tov K. "I. X. is the secret of évivec@ar 7a Orda Tod gwrds and of eioynpdvws 
 mepirateiv. Real moral renovation is impossible, unless there be intimate 
 union with the New Manhood of the Second Adam. évéveo@a is often used 
 metaphorically with a quality ; Job xxix. 14 évdtvew dixaoctvnv: Hom. Il. 
 xix. 36 dvcceo & dAxny. But the ‘praesens efficacia’ of Christ makes the 
 metaphor mean much more than the adoption of His modes of feeling and 
 action, which would be its natural meaning in the case of a dead exemplar. 
 The use of pap in a figurative sense, which means ‘to be wholly filled 
 with’ some person or thing, probably governs S. Paul’s use of évivec@a: (see 
 above). This investiture with the New Humanity of Christ first takes 
 place in Baptism : Gal. iii. 27 Sc01 yap eis Xpiordv éBarriaOnre, Xpiatov éverv- 
 cacGe : but each revival or advance of the spiritual life is a new putting on 
 of Christ ; hence the precept, Eph. iv. 24 évidcac0e tov Kawvoy ci Opwrov Tov 
 kata. @cdv Kria0évTa év Sixaoovvy Kat doidtyT THs GAnOcias. In Col. iii. 12 this 
 is further expanded. See Wilberforce, Incarn. chap. xiii.] 
 
 b. Negative. Not to take such care for the capé as to stimulate 
 the en6vupia, which have their seat in it (ver. 14b). 
 
256 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. odpt does not here exactly =c@pa: but it is the material of the o@pa, the 
 animal nature of man, considered as the source of sensuous and sinful 
 desires, in contrast to mvedua. It is not, on the other hand, the sinful — 
 principle in man, as at Gal. v. 16-21, because this odp is to be cruci- 
 fied (Gal. v. 24; Rom. viii. 6, 7, 13; Col. ii. 13, 14), as utterly intolerable 
 to a Christian, as belonging to the past unconverted life (Rom. vii. 5), 
 and having no claims whatever on him now (Rom. viii. 12). mpévoiav ph 
 mo.etoGe Would be advice altogether unequal to the occasion, if the Apostle 
 were alluding to a deadly enemy of the spiritual life. This precept against 
 taking too much care of the odpf is not inconsistent with the Apostle’s 
 condemnation of the false asceticism, dpedia cwpatos, at Colossae (ii. 23), 
 which differs from the true in its principle and motive, rather than in 
 its outward form.] het 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ae. 23 OR at : x 
 pn aPC rd ee ‘ ; 
 Misr 2) ar @ oe ee oxy Ven toe aS 
 Grider Pa eRe weted oe cake yt, fs Pe ene a 
 a AL in Beha 1 ghreh id Aatleermss lerasite he 
 soar At st Li hilt volts 644 ta Bs CE tate ry cy 
 Bi Speen OAT WR EWY raiteen ae gee 
 ery age Hi i eit ae shia’ ost OME ete eo 
 Bein Pia bid tobi ve. GPA in bP wakl eiaz aia ne 
 ‘aan sls hai st ok placed tails Brot 2 
 on secHir i ranaar ei ip righ 
 uate aedes 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A, al 
 at rags ae A ty 
 a 1a Pe Mi 
 
PRACTICAL PORTION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Diviston IL 
 
 CHRISTIAN DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING SCRUPLES ABOUT 
 PRIVATE RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES (xiv. I—Xv. 13). 
 
 [Obs. zt. The questions discussed in this section originated in scruples enter- 
 
 tained by converts from Judaism in the Church of Rome. These converts 
 could not make up their minds to abandon the private observance of (1) 
 such ascetic rules as (a) to eat no flesh (ver. 2‘, and (6) to drink no wine 
 (ver. 21) ; or of (2) the Jewish feasts and fasts, or some of them (ver. 5). 
 They seem to have judged somewhat hardly the Gentile Christians, who 
 did not at all share their scruples (vers. 3, 10), and to have been treated in 
 turn with a contemptuous disregard for their scruples (vers. 3, 10, 15, 16). 
 These Jewish converts, forming the minority, are termed doOevoivres 7H 
 miote: (xiv. I, 2), of py éoOiovres (ver. 3), of ppovodyres Tas Huépas (ver. 6), of 
 diaxpivopevar (ver. 23), of ddvvara (xv. 1). The majority, consisting of con- 
 verts from Heathendom, are of éa6iovres (ver. 3), of ui) ppovodvres Tas Huépas 
 (ver. 6), of dvvaroi (xv. 1).] 
 
 [0bs. 2. The dodevodyres (xiv. 2) are not to be confounded, (1) with the pure 
 
 | 
 
 Judaizers of the Epistle to the Galatians. For in eating no flesh and 
 drinking no wine, they observed a rule different from and stricter than that 
 of the Mosaic Law. They do not seem, moreover, to have insisted on 
 circumcision ; and, instead of saying that through their adhesion to Jewish 
 forms Christ would profit them nothing (Gal. v. 2), 8. Paul pleads for 
 toleration of their scruples. Nor, (2) with the cabalistic theosophists of 
 the Epistle to the Colossians. Nothing is said here about a philosophical 
 
 basis for the asceticism practised at Rome; and S. Paul does not condemn 
 
 the Roman ascetics for presumption (Col. ii. 18), or é@eAo@pnoxeia (ib. ver. 
 23), or ‘not holding the Head’ (ib. ver. 19). Nor, (3) with the doOeveis at 
 Corinth (1 Cor. viii), who were scandalized at the use of eiéwAd@vra for 
 Christian food, and whose case is treated very similarly to the present. 
 There is however no trace of any such motive for abstinence from flesh and 
 wine on the part of the Roman Christians. They seem to have followed 
 a private rule, possibly of Essenic origin, like many Jews of that period 
 (Philo in Eus. Praep. Ev. 8 fin.), and to have shrunk from abandoning it on 
 their conversion to the Church. Banus, the pious and ascetic master of 
 
2.58 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Josephus, lived on vegetables (in vit. Josephi, c. 2); and there were pious 
 priests who lived on figs and dates (in vit. Josephi, c. 3). Compare S. John 
 the Baptist, S. Luke i. 15; vii. 33; S. Matt. iii. 4. For the ascetic life of 
 S. Matthew, see 8. Clem. Alex. Paedagog. i. 16. p. 174; of S. James, Eus. 
 Hist. Eccl. ii. 23. There were Christian ascetics of this kind, contemporaries 
 of Origen, Contra Cels. v. 49. The apostolical Canons condemn those Clergy 
 who considered the use of flesh and wine actually sinful, but not those 
 who abstained from them for ascetic and disciplinary reasons (Can. 43 
 (51)). Read the account of the Christian ascetic and martyr Alcibiades 
 under Marcus Aurelius, Eus. Hist. Eccl. v. 3. The Pythagorean asceticism 
 was an instance of a corresponding moral temper in Heathendom; but it 
 would not have in any degree influenced the ascetic converts from Judaism 
 to Rome. Cf. Tholuck in loc.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The section may be analyzed as follows :— 
 § 1. Statement of the points in controversy, with appended encouragements 
 and warnings (xiv. I-5). 
 § 2. Principles to be kept in view when dealing with these questions 
 (xiv. 6-xv. 13). 
 i. The risk involved in passing judgment on others (xiv. 6-13 a). 
 ii. The danger of injuring or wounding weax consciences (xiv. 13 b- 
 
 XV. 4). 
 iii. The duty of mutual forbearance and union within the Church, 
 based on Christ’s relation both to Jews and Heathen (xv. 
 
 5-13).] 
 
 A. 
 
 Statement of the points in controversy, with appended — 
 encouragements and warnings (xiv, 1-5). ‘ 
 
 General duty of the majority of the Roman Church (dvwaroi 17 
 miore) towards the minority (doOeveis tr miore) which enter- 
 tains scruples in favour of certain private observances. This 
 duty is twofold : (1) to give it a welcome (mpocdapBaveode), and 
 (2) to avoid judgments on the thoughts and motives which have 
 shaped its scruples (ver. 1). 
 
 [Obs. By mpocAapBaveoOa is meant a cordial welcome to all the intimacy and 
 - privileges of a common church-life, xv. 7; Acts xviii. 26; Philemon 17. 
 Opposed to it is éxxAcioa: Ode Gal. iv. 17. The dodevodvtes were already 
 
 in the communion of the Church; but the majority of dvvaroi were indis- 
 posed to cooperate with them, except on the condition of constantly making 
 unfavourable criticisms on the motives which actuated them. The do@cveia 
 
 7 miore consisted, not in a defective. hold upon the Object-matter of faith, 
 
 but in a failure to understand what it involved in respect of freedom from 
 
Practical: ch. XIV, vv. 1-5: 259 
 
 the rules of earlier or human systems. Eis may express ‘intention’ or 
 ‘result’ (Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 496). didxpiors, ‘discrimination between,’ as 
 in Heb. v. 14; 1 Cor. xii. 10. Siadoyiopol, as Rom. i. 21; 1 Cor. ili. 20: as 
 also S. Matt. xv. 19; S. Mark vii. 21; S. Luke ix. 46; xxiv. 38. In Phil. 
 ii. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 8, ‘outspoken arguments.’] 
 
 A. First point in controversy. Whether it be right to insist upon 
 abstaining from all animal food (ver. 2). 
 
 (i) The duvarés is convinced that he may eat anything, 
 without restriction (ver. 2). 
 (ii) The doderjs eats only vegetables (Adxava), (ver. 2), 
 
 [Obs. x. The Neo-Pythagoreans were vegetarians, Seneca, Ep. cvili. 17-20; 
 Porphyr. de abst. quoted by Meyer; but this cannot have determined the 
 rule of the Roman doéweis. Yet this rule undoubtedly excluded (legally) 
 ‘clean’ meats as well as ‘unclean’; and meat not offered in sacrifice to 
 idols as well as eidwAd@uTa, It was probably a variety of Essenic dis- 
 cipline.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. When Jovinian compared the private rules observed by the dodeveis at 
 Rome with those enjoined for Christian edification by common Church 
 authority, S. Jerome observed, after quoting this verse, that the Apostle, 
 ‘non inter jejunia et saturitatem aequalia merita dispensat ; sed contra eos 
 loquitur, qui in Christum credentes, adhuc judaizabant,’ Contr. Jovinian. ii, 
 16, tom. ii. p. 351. ¢. ed. Vallars.] 
 
 § Apostolic cautions (vers. 3, 4). 
 
 Caution 1. (To the duvaroi,) The Christian who eats all food indis- 
 criminately is not to be contemptuous (pn e£ovdeveirw) towards the 
 vegetarian (ver. 3). . 
 
 Caution 2. (To the doéeveis,) The Christian who only eats vege- 
 tables is not to be censorious (py xpwéerw) towards the man ge 
 observes no restrictions (ver. 3), 
 
 [Obs. This tendency on the part of the do@eveis to form narrow and hard 
 _ judgments of the duvaroi required more notice than did the éfov$évnais of the 
 latter towards their ‘weak’ brethren. It was in fact more religious, and 
 therefore more likely to win approval from misinformed consciences. 
 Accordingly the Apostle contents himself with showing the evil of such 
 narrow judgments. } 
 
 Arg. 1. (ydp ver. 3.) Gop has accepted (mpoceddfero) the man who 
 _ eats food of all kinds (viz. by admitting him into the Church). 
 It is not then for men to condemn him (ver. 3)... 4 
 8 2 
 
260 The Epistle to the. Romans. 
 
 Arg. 2. Such condemnation pronounced on the dwaroi by the 
 doGeveis is intrusive and erroneous (ver. 4). 
 
 a. Intrusive, because the person who eats food of all kinds 
 is after all ddAdrpios oikérns—a servant in the House (not 
 of his critic, but) of Jesus Christ. Whether he perse- 
 
 / -veres in grace or falls from it, is a matter which con- 
 cerns, not the critic, but his real Master, Christ (ver. 4). 
 
 b. Erroneous, because charity must presume that such a 
 person will persevere, cra@jcera. Gop’s power can effect 
 this (ver. 4). 
 
 (Obs. That ornxe 7 tinre, cradqoera: are to be explained, not of acquittal or con- 
 demnation at the Judgment, but of perseverance in or falling from grace appears 
 from duvare? yap, x.7.A. Cf. 1 Cor. x. 12 TG idiy Kupig, dat. of relation.) 
 
 B. Second point in controversy. Whether particular days ought to 
 be privately observed as feasts and fasts (ver. 5). 
 
 { (i) The doéevis sets an especial value on particular days (ver. 5). 
 (ii) The dvvards treats all days as alike (ver. 5). 
 
 § Apostolic caution for both (ver. 5b). 
 
 Let every one be satisfied in his own practical reason with the 
 motives of his action, and independently of the judgnes of 
 others (ver. 5 hb). 
 
 [0bs. 1. The Jewish observance of days is here in question ; as Gal. iv. 10 juépas 
 maparnpeiode, kat pivas, Kat koupods kat énavrovs: Col. ii. 16 wh obv Tis tpas 
 kpwwéro ev Bpwoe Kat ev ndcer, } ev péper Eoprijs } voupnvias 4 caBBarov. In the 
 Galatian and Colossian Churches such observance was connected with 
 errors condemned. Not so at Rome. The Jewish Sabbath and other sacred 
 days were privately observed by a section of the Roman Christians, without 
 dishonouring the work of Christ. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2, On mAnpopopeicOw, see iv. 21 ; Col. iv. 12. mAnpopopia, Col. ii. 2; 1 Thess. 
 i. 5; Heb. vi. rr; x. 22. Whether these days are observed or not, 
 Christians should be satisfied, each in his own mind, that they are doing 
 Gon’s Will. This purely subjective standard of conduct only applies in 
 cases like the present where nothing is clearly laid down by Revelation or 
 Church-authority. To apply it to the Christian Lord’s Day, or to other 
 Holy days which the Church prescribes for observance in the Prayer Book, 
 is to assume an analogy between the cases which does not exist. On the 
 observance of Festival Days, see Hooker, Zvcl. Pol. v. 69-71. On Fasts, 
 public and private, Ibid. v. 72.] 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, v. 6—XV, v. 13 261 
 
 B. 
 
 Principles to be kept in view when dealing with these 
 questions (xiv, 6—xv. 13). 
 
 Principle I. 
 
 Much risk is involved in passing judgment on the private religious life 
 of others (xiv. 7-13 a). 
 
 Arg. 1. The observances of the doGeveis, and the neglect of these 
 observances by the dvvaroi, have a common motive, namely, the 
 desire to please our Lord Jesus Christ (ver. 6). [In view of 
 this sacred motive, criticism on outward details should be 
 silenced. | 
 
 a. This is true of private distinctions of days, according to the 
 Jewish Calendar (ver. 6 a), : 
 
 1. The doderfs 4 aiaoaee ppovei, 
 THY pepav 
 Kupi 
 2. The duvards i [6 a] eee 
 coe ad ov ppovei. | 
 
 vo. Lhis is also true of private abstinence [or non-abstinence | from 
 animal food (ver. 6b). 
 
 1. The dvuvarés \ fables} { proved (ydp) by his 
 
 eo biov thanksgiving. 
 Kupio 
 2. The dobers { 6 ph ovK \ frases also by his 
 €obiwy eobiet thanksgiving. 
 
 [Obs. x. The Kvpros of this verse is our Lord Jesus Christ : see ver. 9. Obs. the 
 dat. commodi Kupiy, in Whose interest both parties to the controversy act, as 
 belonging to Him. ¢poveiy means giving careful thought to an object. Cf. 
 Vill, 53, xii. 3.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The clause 6 py} ppovay tiv jpépay Kupiw od ppove? is wanting in A. B. &. 
 C*, D, E. F. G. al. Vulg. It. Lat. Fathers. } 
 
 [Obs. 3. The edxapioria, or grace, implies that the doGevns and the dvvards were 
 alike willing to consecrate what they did by invoking the Name of Gop. 
 For the eixapioria before meals; cf. S. Matt. xv. 36, our Lord blessed the 
 seven loaves and two fishes ; Acts xxvii. 35, S. Paul during the voyage to 
 Malta; 1 Cor. x. 30 ri BAaopnpotpa trip ob éy® edxapioT@ ; 1 Tim. iv. 4 mav 
 xrigpa Qcod kadoy .... pera evxapiorias AapBavdpevov. | 
 
262 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 4. In the second part of ver. 6 the Apostle returns to the first point of 
 controversy, namely, about abstinence from meat ; and the second point, 
 about private observance of days, is not again discussed. From this we may 
 infer that the former occupied a much larger share of attention in the 
 Church of Rome, although the principles appealed to by the Apostle are 
 equally applicable to both. ] ; 
 
 § Proof of Arg. 1 (vers. 7-9). 
 
 Reason I. (y¢p ver. 7). From the subjective direction of the true 
 Christian’s life. The Christian, whether living or dying, feels ~ 
 that he owes himself unreservedly to Christ (vers. 7, 8). 
 
 1. Stated negatively (ver. 7). 
 
 { ovdels Nav éavTe C7, 
 ovdels Eau droOvijcxe. (ver. 7). 
 
 [Cbs. €avt@, like 7@ Kupiy (ver. 1), isa dat. ofthe moralaim. The subjective direction 
 of the Christian’s life and death is described negatively ; the Christian is 
 conscious that he neither dies nor lives for himself. éav7d admoOvyoxew means 
 to welcome or seek death, as a relief from the troubles of life. Of this 
 selfishness in death, suicide is the highest expression. ] 
 
 2. Stated positively, (so as to justify (ydp ver. 8) the preceding 
 (ver. 7) negative statement), (ver. 8 a). 
 
 (@pev ) 1 (Opev 
 €dv Te Kuol 
 drobunckwpev “PO | drobvioxoper (ver. 8 a). 
 
 [Obs. 1. Here the subjective direction of the Christian’s life and death is 
 described positively. "Whether living or dying, he knows that he owes 
 himself, and therefore he gives himself, by a conscious act, to Christ. In the 
 expression 7@ Kupiw dnoOvncxey, death is conceived of—not as a collapse of 
 vital force, but as a moral act, wherein, by a conscious effort of will, the 
 Christian surrenders his soul into the hands of the Redeemer. It is the 
 final act of a life which has been deliberately given to an Unseen Master. 
 Cf. év Kupip droévnoxav Rey. xiv. 13; Phil. i. 20 ; Christ will be magnified in 
 “my body whether by life or death: Rom. viii. 38; S. John xxi. 19.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. That Jesus Christ is the Person to whom the Christian, renouncing self, 
 consecrates his life, is plain from ver. 9, which fixes the meaning of 7@ 
 Kupiw in ver. 8, as of Kupiw (used as a proper name without the art.) in ver. 
 6. This self-consecration in life and death would be idolatry, unless He 
 Who is its Object were truly Gop.] 
 
 3. Consequence (ody ver. 8b) of t and 2. Whether in life or 
 death, the Christian knows himself to be Christ’s property 
 (ver. 8 b). ) 
 
 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, v.6—XV, v. 13. 263 
 
 (Opev 
 edv Te rod Kuptou éopev (ver. 8 b). 
 arobynoKwpev 
 [Obs, in ver 8 the threefold Kupios, as implying the Majesty of Christ, to Whom 
 the Christian is consciously surrendered in life and death.] 
 
 Reason II. (yép ver. 9. Ground of the foregoing subjective 
 relation of the Christian to Christ.) From the purpose of the 
 objective historical fact of Christ’s Death and Resurrection Life— 
 améOave kai E(noev, (ver. 9 a. ) 
 
 [Obs. 1. dréOave wat E{noev is probably the original text, to which dvéorn was 
 first added marginally as a gloss upon (yer, and then crept into the text 
 itself, thus accounting for the variations ; see Meyer. é(ncev, ‘became alive’ ; 
 
 the hist. aor. marking the commencement of His Risen Life after His Death. 
 There is no reference here to our Lord’s earthly life before His Passion.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. On the use of (#7, (jv for the Resurrection Life of Christ, cf. Rom. v. ro ; 
 2 Cor. iv. 10; Rev. ii. 8; xx. 4,5. It was as dying and living after death 
 that our Lord warranted the self-consecration of the Christian to Himself 
 both in life and death: Rom. viii. 34; Phil. ii. 8,9; S. Matt. xxviii. 18; 
 8. Luke xxiv. 26.] 
 
 § The Purpose (cis rotro...tva) of the Death and Resurrection 
 Life of Christ (ver. 9 b), was to establish His xvpirns over the 
 dead and the living. By His descent into hell, He claimed rule 
 over the dead (Phil. ii. 10) ; and by His Risen Life in Heaven, 
 over the living (ver. 9)- 
 
 [Obs. The unusual order of the words vexpav kal (évrwy corresponds to that of 
 Christ’s Death and Risen Life. Cf. Winer, Gr. V. I. p. 691-] 
 
 Arg. 2. From the Divine prerogative of judgment, which it is not 
 for man ‘to usurp (vers. 10-13 a). 
 
 § Both parties are reproved ; the doéeveis for their harsh judgments 
 of the majority, and the dvvaroi for their contemptuousness 
 towards the dvdeveis. The error of such xpiois and efovdévnars is 
 shown (vers. 10 b-12). 
 
 [Obs. In ver. 10 od 82 ri xpives is an arg. ad verecundiam, based on the contrast 
 presented by the personality of the do@evns who is thus addressed, to the 
 kupidrns (ver. 9) of Jesus Christ. xal od ri efovOeveis is a still stronger arg. ad 
 
 verecundiam, based on the contrast presented by the dvvards who is thus 
 addressed, to the Lord Jesus Christ. Compare ver. 3.] 
 
 Arg. 1. (yép ver. 10b.) There is one tribunal of judgment—the 
 Bipa rod Geot—before which all will present themselves 
 (ver. 10 b). 
 
sie 
 
 264 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. Bjyxa occurs in the sense of tribunal in S. Matt. xxvii. 19; S. John xix. 13 ; 
 Acts xii. 21 ; xviii. 12, 16, 17; xxv. 6, 10,17. With this compare 2 Cor. v. 
 Io gavepwOqva Sef Eumpoobev Tor Bnyaros tov Xpiorov, where gavepwhjva 
 expresses the consequence of mapacrnadpeba in this passage. That Bjya Tov 
 @cov (not Xporov) is the true reading, see Meyer. Christ as man will sit 
 upon the Bjya (S Matt. xxv. 31; 2 Cor. vy. 10) as the Divinely-appointed 
 Judge (Acts x. 423; xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 16); and hence, as also on account of 
 Christ’s Divine Nature, it is Bjua tov Ocov. On the Final Judgment, see 
 Pearson on the Creed, Art. vii.] 
 
 Arg. 2. (ydp ver. 11, in proof of Arg. 1, ver. 10b.) From the 
 language of prophecy respecting a future universal acknowledg- 
 ment of Gop (ver. 11). 
 
 Is. xlv. 23, quoted to show that all human beings (av yovv kai maca 
 yhéooa) will acknowledge Gop’s supremacy at the Judgment of 
 the World (ver. 11). 
 
 Heb. ‘MYyav) °3 
 Tag Tse ee 
 awh xy 
 
 TBE pA Tg 
 :piwh->a payin 
 
 ‘By Myself have I sworn, 
 
 There has gone forth from a-mouth-of-righteousness a word, 
 ‘And it will not return ;— 
 
 That to Me shall bend—every knee, 
 
 Shall swear—every tongue.’ 
 
 LXX (Tisch.) xar’ épavrot durio, ei ph efededoera e&x« Tov ordpards pov 
 Sixatoovyn, oi Adyou pou ovK dmooTpadyoovTa, Ste Evol Kapa wav yovu Kal dpetras 
 maga yA@ooa Tov Ocdy. 
 
 [Obs. 1. In the citation, the Apostle renders the oath by (@ éyw, omits the two 
 clauses ei pr) efeAevoeTa . .. . Amoorpadnjoovrat, paraphrases dpeira by éfopodo- 
 yjoera, and accordingly substitutes 7@ Oc@ for Tov Oedv.] 
 
 [Ovs. 2. The verse occurs at the close of the Prophecy on Cyrus, the Deliverer of 
 Israel (Is. xliv. 24—xlv). It is a Messianic prediction of the final and 
 universal triumph of the Theocracy. The Apostle sees a complete satisfaction 
 of the Prophet’s words in a still future event, viz. the Last Judgment, to 
 which he accordingly applies them. The last Judgment presupposes all 
 that the words more immediately foretell. ] 
 
 [Obs. 3. In the words ‘MYDW) ‘A Gop, swearing by Himself, pledges what He 
 swears with His own life; hence the Apostolic (@ éyw (instead of xar’ 
 évavrot dpyiw LXX), following ‘8 “0, Numb. xiv. 21, 28 ; Deut. XXXli. 40, 
 
 &e. Aéye Képios (ef. xii. 19) is added in accordance with the usual 0. T. 
 
 formula. The LXX dyeiza: follows the Heb. The reading éfopodoyjoeru 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, v. 6—XYV, v. 13. 265 
 
 in Cod. Alex. is probably introduced from the N. T. yrun may be used, as in 
 2 Chron. xy. 14, of swearing allegiance to Gop; Is. xix. 18; Zeph. i. 5. 
 toporoyeioOau with the dat. means to praise: S. Matt. xi. 25 ; 8. Luke x. a1 ; 
 used absolutely ‘to promise,’ S. Luke xxii. 6; Rom. xv. 9; it requires an 
 accusative of the object when it means to confess sins, S. James v. 16.] 
 
 Conclusion (oév ver. 12) from the two preceding arguments. Every one 
 individually must give an account of himself to Gop (ver. 12). 
 [Obs. The emphasis lies on éxaoros, which is warranted by nav and maoa in the 
 quotation, ver. rr. The logical inference is, that since every one without 
 exception will give an account mepi éavfov to Gon, the «piois of the dodeveis 
 and the éfov@évnots of the dvvaroi are superfluous and unwarrantable. The 
 practical inference is stated in ver. 13.] 
 
 Practical Rule. Let neither class pass judgments, whether harsh 
 or contemptuous, on the other (ver. 13 a). 
 
 [Obs. kpivemev here, as dAAnAous shows, includes the éfovdévnats of the dvvaroi, as 
 well as the narrow and harsh judgments of the do@eveis. Observe the 
 antanaclasis in xpivare, For this figure antanaclasis, see Bengel, Gnomon 
 Index term Tech. s. v. In the first case the verb = ‘to pass a judicial 
 decision.’ In the second ‘to form a moral judgment.’ To the unchristian 
 kpivwpev is opposed, with this new sense, the Christian xpivare. What the 
 judgment of Christians ought to be, the Apostle proceeds to state. ] 
 
 Principle II. 
 The danger of injuring weak consciences (xiv. 13 b-xv. 4). 
 
 [Obs. This section is addressed throughout to the Svvaroi, who were disposed to 
 insist upon Christian freedom from [private] rules of life, without any 
 consideration for the conscientious difficulties of the dodeveis on the 
 subject. | 
 
 Precept addressed to the 8vvarot. Do not put moral difficulties in the 
 way of a brother in Christ (ver. 13 b). 
 
 [Obs. mpdcxoppa is a stone against which a man stumbles in walking ; oxdavdadov a 
 
 trap into which he falls: Rom. ix. 32, 33; xi.9; Lev. xix. 14. The two 
 
 words are combined here to describe the complete effect on the conscience 
 of a cause of moral offence. ]} 
 
 § Arguments enforcing the precept on the dvvaroi ri mioter (xiv. 14 
 —xyv. 4). 
 
 Arg. 1. The spiritual mischief done by wounding the consciences 
 of the do@eveis is much greater than the spiritual advantages 
 which may be secured by insisting on freedom from their ascetic 
 rules (vers. 14-204). 
 
es 
 
 266 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 A. Concession to the case of the duvaroi. They are quite right in 
 supposing that the idea of xowdy, as attaching to any species of 
 food, is purely subjective. There is no such thing as a xowdv dv 
 éavtov. But there is a xowdv 76 Aoyifouevo, and this has to be kept 
 in view in deciding the question before us (ver. 14). 
 
 [Obs. 1. ofa is more precisely defined by mémercpar év Kupiw “Inood. S. Paul’s 
 indwelling in Christ was the source of his spiritual knowledge. Our Lord 
 had taught that it is not 7d eiowopevdpevoy eis 7d ordpa Which kowel Tov 
 avOpwrov S. Matt. xv. 17, 18, and S, Peter was bidden @ 6 Ocds éxaddpice od pi 
 xoivov Acts x. 15. Cf. x Cor. viii. 4-6; x. 26; 1 Tim. iv. 4, 5. For «ai 
 nénecopa, cf, viii. 38, warranted by Col. i. 19; ii. 3, 17; Eph.i. 22. Christ 
 is the source of true spiritual knowledge. His knowledge of the inherent 
 nature of things is implied in His relation to the universe, as stated in Col. 
 
 i. 16 sqq. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. If, for &’ éavrov, &’ abrot be read, the reference is to Christ : S. Paul is 
 persuaded that He has not made anything xowdv by His teaching, or that 
 nothing is unclean in consequence of Hisredemptive work. But the reading 
 éav7ov is to be preferred. The ordinary Jewish distinction between ‘clean’ 
 and ‘unclean’ has no ground in objective fact. In this passage the modern 
 distinction between objective (5:’ éavrod) and subjective (7@ Aoy:Copevw) is applied to 
 xowé7ns. The Apostle allows only a subjective 76 kody, 5 abou = pica, 8. Chrys.; 
 ‘natura sua immundun,’ Orig. «owdy should be compared with d«a@aprov 
 Acts x. 143 déBAnrov 1 Tim. iv. 4; and mov BSéAvypa, ‘abominabile,’ Rev. 
 xxi. 27, corresponding to NID, For the account of the word, ef. S. Jerome, 
 Comm. in S. Matt, xv. 11 ‘Populus Judaeorum, partem Dei esse se jactitans, 
 communes cibos yocat, quibus omnes utuntur homines, v. g. suillam carnem, 
 lepores, &c. .. . Commune ergo, quod caeteris hominibus patet, quasi non 
 de parte Dei, pro immundo appellatur.’ xowvédy does not presuppose any 
 inherent evil in particular kinds of food ; but the Roman do@eveis, following 
 some Essenic teaching, extended the idea of the word (restricted by the Jews 
 to particular kinds of meat) to all animal food whatever. Yet—éxeiw 
 xowodv—the uncleanness is really subjective ; it exists only for the individual 
 doevns, in consequence of the condition of his conscience. For éxeiva, cf. 
 S. Mark vii. 15, 20; 2 Cor. x. 18.] 
 
 B. Reasons why the dvvaroi should not do violence to the scruples 
 of the doeveis (vers. 15-18). i 
 
 Reason 1. (yap, not dé, ver. 15.) The rule of charity: xara aydmny 
 mepurareis, This will no longer be observed, if the dvvaroi insist 
 on eating everything indiscriminately. For, in seeing them 
 violate rules which he thinks sacred, the doéevijs cannot but 
 experience some moral perplexity and distress (Avmeiru). No 
 particular kind of food can be really worth the infliction on 
 others of serious moral pain (ver. 15 a. 4 
 
 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, v. 6—XV, v. 13. 267 
 
 Reason 2. The Redemptive effect of Christ’s death. There is real 
 risk lest the duvaroi, by insisting on their freedom, should destroy 
 souls for which Christ has died. 'The meat which they insist on 
 eating will-effect this destruction. It cannot be worth such a 
 price (ver. 15 b). 
 
 [0bs. The construction changes from the indicative to the imperative, from the 
 form of argument to that of deprecation. dméAdve is the result of Avmetrat: 
 it is to he understood of the eternal dmwAcia, from which Christ redeemed 
 men by His death. Into this drwAécia the dodevys might fall, by being tempted 
 to disregard his conscience, although, on this particular point, it was misin- 
 
 formed. Christ’s Life, (the Apostle argues,) given for the do@evyjs, ought to 
 be more precious to the dvvardés than insistance on eating flesh-meat. | 
 
 Reason 3. Influence on the surrounding heathen. The result (ody) 
 of violating charity and destroying souls, for such a poor object 
 as freedom to eat anything, would be to draw down upon the 
 Kingdom of Christ (ipav 16 dyaédv) the calumnies of the heathen, who 
 will say that Christians hope to get to heaven by virtue of 
 insisting on eating everything (ver. 16). 
 
 [Obs. In ver. 16 otv implies that heathen calumnies would be a natural con- 
 sequence of the evils referred to in ver. 15. For BAacpnyeiv, i.e. BAdnrev 
 av oneny, bringing [holy things] into dishonour, cf. Rom. ii. 24 ; iii. 8 ; 
 Tit. ii. 5. tdpayv 76 dyabdy is understood of (1) Christian faith, 8. Chrys. 
 and 8. Ambrose; (2) Christian hope ; (3) Christian éAev@epia, as represented 
 by the duvarot themselves, t Cor. x. 29, 30; ef. 1 Cor. viii. 4; x. 25; but 
 more probably (4) of the Kingdom or Church of Christ (see ver. 17) ; the 
 Jewel or Treasure which the Christian purchases at his conversion, by the 
 sacrifice of everything else (S. Matt. xiii. 44-46), and in which he finds all 
 the pédAovra ayada Heb. ix. 11; x. 1. It was not any sectional interest, 
 but the influence and character of the whole Body of Christ, which was the 
 true ipay 7d dyabdy of the Suvaroi (as well as of others), and which was now 
 imperilled. The Church would be calumniated, if the Svvaroi insisted on 
 their inconsiderate neglect of the prejudices of the dodeveis.] 
 
 § Two subordinate reasons for pi Bracdnpciocba ipav rd dyabdv, There 
 are objects to secure which a Christian will turn a deaf ear to 
 heathen criticism. But insistance upon freedom to eat every- 
 thing is not such an object (vers. 17, 18). 
 
 Reason (a\, (yép ver. 17). The essential characteristic of Gon’s 
 Kingdom does not consist in the principle of eating and drinking 
 everything indiscriminately. It does consist in righteousness, 
 peace, and spiritual joy. [If then the dvvaroi respect the 
 prejudices of the doéeveis, they will not thereby forfeit anything 
 
268 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 essential to a share in the Kingdom, while they will illustrate 
 those supernatural graces which are its distinguishing charac- 
 teristics], (ver. 17). 
 
 [Obvs. 1. The BaciAcia Tov Oeod here, as in x Cor. iv. 20; S. Luke xvii. 21, is 
 viewed on its subjective side, Aquin. ‘Regnum Dei dicitur id, per quod Deus 
 regnat in nobis, et per quod ad regnum ipsius pervenimus.’ It does not 
 consist in the act of eating or drinking (Bp@ots and méats, not Bp@pa and mopa) 
 this or that, 1 Cor. viii. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 10; Col. ii. 16. Observe that the 
 false idea here combated by the Apostle, is not the supposed necessity of 
 abstinence from particular kinds of food, but the supposed necessity of 
 making no distinctions between different kinds of food under any circum- 
 stances, | 
 
 [Obs. 2. The BactAcia rot Ocod is apprehended subjectively by means of three 
 graces in particular :— : 
 
 (a) dcxatoodvn, S. Matt. vi. 33, first before Gop, and neat, as the context 
 would suggest (ver. 18), moral uprightness in dealing with Christian 
 brethren. 
 
 (b) eipnyn, first with Gop, and next with other men, especially Christians, 
 xii. 18; ovvdecpos eipnvns Eph. iv. 3; the third fruit of the Spirit, 
 Gal. v. 22. 
 
 (ce) xapa, first rising towards Gop, out of faith and hope, xii. 12; ver. 3; 
 and next, illuminating all acts of intercourse with Christian brethren. 
 ‘Gaudium referendum est ad modum, quo sunt justitiae opera per- 
 ficienda,’ Aquinas. Its sphere is the Holy Ghost, r Thess. i. 6 xapa 
 Tvevpatos dyiov : Phil. iii. 1. yxaipew év mvedpari, in opposition to natural 
 high spirits, Phil. iv. 4.] 
 
 Reason (b), (y¢p ver. 18, confirmatory of Reason (a), ver. 17 b). 
 The man who serves Christ in the sphere of d:xavoowvn, eipivn, and 
 xapa is (a) well-pleasing (eidpecros) to Gop, and (b) approved 
 (8éxyuos) by the higher moral judgment of his fellow-men. [This 
 should determine the course of the évvaroi towards the dodeveis |, 
 (ver. 18). 
 
 [Obs. 1. év rovros (although é rovr is better supported, but see Meyer, App. 
 Crit.), se. d:taocdvn, eipnyn and yapa. It denotes the life element; the 
 sphere in which the Christian lives and works. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. For eddpeotos 7H OcG, ef. 1 Cor. viii. 3 BpSpa 58 Hpas od wapictnat TS Od : 
 for ddx:pos Tots avOpwmois, whose highest interests are forwarded by the 
 Christian self-denial of others, 1 Cor. ix. 19 sqq. ; x. 24. Observe that the 
 service of Christ is the root of this, xii. 11 ; Phil. i. 20.] 
 
 Practical conclusion (pa ov) from vers. 17, 18 (vers. 19, 208). 
 
 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, v. 6—XV, v. 13. 269 
 
 i. Positive (ver. 19). 
 ra ths eipnyns (ver. 19), all that promotes peace. 
 Sidkopev < ra tis oikodouns tis els dAAnAovs (ver. 19), all that 
 promotes Christian perfection in others, 
 ii. Negative (ver. 20a). 
 pi) évexev Bpwparos katadve To Epyov Tod Geod (ver. 20 a). 
 
 [Obs. t. ra ris eipnyns, everything that can promote peace in the Church : here 
 especially consideration for the prejudices of the do@eveis about food and 
 Jewish days. 7a ris olxodouqs, everything that can build up the life of 
 faith and love in souls, and in the Church at large. oixodopu7y is used some- 
 times of the process of building, sometimes of the edifice itself. For the latter; 
 ef. x Cor. iii. 9; Eph. ii. 21: for the former, or all that promotes it, ef. 
 Rom. xv. 2; 2 Cor. x. 8; xiii. 10; 1 Thess. v. rr. That it is here used 
 in the sense of active edification, the addition rjs eis dAARAwy shows. 
 diwxev, as implying earnest moral effort, has for objects pAogeviay Rom, xii. 
 13; ayamnv x Cor, xiv. 1 ; S:eacoodvny x Tim. vi. 11.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. By the épyov rod @cotd is here meant the state of grace in which the 
 doGevns is—the Kaw? «riots of Eph. ii. 10; 2 Cor. v.17; Gal. vi. 15; 1 Cor. 
 iii. 9, which cost so dear a price, 1 Cor. Vili. 11, 12. This might be 
 destroyed, if the example of the dvvaroi led the dodeveis to imitate them, 
 while doing violence to their consciences. satradvew is the reverse process 
 to oixodopetv, S. Matt. xxvi: 61; 2 Cor. v. 1; Gal. ii. 18 Observe the anti- 
 thesis of 7d épyoy rod Ocod in the soul, and—Spdya.] 
 
 Arg. 2. The pleas insisted on by the duvarot do not warrant them 
 in wounding the consciences of the doéeveis by doing violence to 
 their prejudices (xiv. 20 b-23). 
 
 Plea I. ‘wavra xaapd, all kinds of food are in themselves really pure ; 
 and it is of importance to proclaim this, in the face of the error 
 which denies it’ (ver. 20b). 
 
 [Obs. This is the same position as the Apostle himself has already conceded, 
 
 ovdev Kowdv &’ éavrod ver. 14. He admits it here by péy, but proceeds to 
 show its irrelevancy as bearing on the practical question. ] 
 
 _ § Answer to Plea I (ddd ver. 20b). Two moral considerations 
 (20b, 21). 
 
 Ans. 1. It is sinful (xaxdv) for the dodevns to eat [that which is 
 intrinsically xa8apdv, but] 5:4 mpooxdupatos, while giving offence to 
 his sense of right. [And to this he may be urged by the 
 conduct of the duvarot], (ver. 20b). 
 
 (Obs. The reference of 1G dvOpwry TH 5d mpooxdpparos éoOiovrTs to the doberhs is 
 suggested by vers. 13, 14. If mpooxépuparos referred to the offence given by 
 
270: The Epistle to the Romans...” 
 
 the Bpaors of the Suvaroi, 1 Cor. viii. 10 would exactly illustrate it. For the 
 relaxed use of 6:4, cf. Winer, Gr. N. 7. p. 475, as ii. 17.] 
 
 Ans. 2. It would be morally noble (xadév) for the dvvarés to eat no 
 animal food whatever, and to drink no wine, (in accordance with 
 the Essenic rule of the Judaeo-Roman do@eveis), and indeed to do 
 nothing which could occasion spiritual offence or scandal or 
 weakness to a brother in Christ (ver. 21). 
 
 [Obs. 1. For the absolute use of mpooxémreyv, cf. Ecclus. xxxiv. 17; xiii. 23, 
 8. John xi. 9, 10.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. To the xaapa of the plea, are opposed the xaxdy (ver. 20 b) and Kaddv 
 (ver. 21) of the reply. These words represent much weightier moral con- 
 siderations ; and the plea must therefore be set aside.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. (ver. 21.) 7) cxavdarivera 7) doGevei must be retained. The threefold descrip- 
 tion of a single disastrous moral result is to be explained by the Apostle’s 
 strong sense of the extreme and varied character of the disaster. dodevei here 
 ‘is weak,’ not ‘becomes weak,’ That the do@eveis drank no wine is here only 
 intimated. ] 
 
 Plea II. The dvvarés urges that he ‘has a firm “faith ” [in Christ], 
 -which leads him to treat the scruples and observances of the 
 doGeveis with pardonable impatience’ (ver. 22 a). 
 
 § Answer to Plea II (vers. 22, 23). 
 
 Ans. 1. It should suffice the dvvarés that he may cherish this ‘ faith’ 
 in respect of himself alone [kara ocavréy before Gop [evomov 7 Tov 
 Gcoi], (ver. 23 a). 
 
 [0bs. S. Chrys. paraphrases: dpxeirw gov 7d ouveidds. Gop knows of this moral 
 
 confidence of the dvvards, and He will approve it the better, if it is not made 
 a ground for wounding the consciences of other men. | 
 
 § Reason for xara ceavrév éxe (ver. 22 a). 
 
 a. The duvarés himself already paxdapios in being free from any 
 self-condemnatory judgment on the score of conduct which 
 he approves. [Thus he can afford to be considerate and 
 generous to others. | 
 
 [0bs. r. The implied argument is that the strong can afford to be generous and 
 considerate towards the weak. é @ Sox:pwé¢er,—in that which he approves as 
 the right course of action, 2 Mace. iv. 3.] 
 
 [Obs. 2, The maxim paxdpios x.7.A. may be applied to the dodevfs also. In that 
 case it is a warning to the dvvards not to disturb his paxapidrys. Probably 
 therefore it is best taken generally, with however a more immediate appli- 
 cation to the case of the duvards.] 
 
 a 2 a2 8% ~+ as 
 
 4 “ 
 “y thy 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, v. 6—XV, v. 13. 271 
 
 Ans. 2. The doéevjs, on the other hand, if he eats, doubting whether 
 such eating is right or not, falls under the penal judgment of 
 Gop (ver. 23). This cataxéxpera: is proved, dre ovK k.T.A, 
 
 [Obs. katakéxpira is proved by a syllogism. 
 In a Christian, all action which does not spring from the moral con- 
 fidence of faith is sinful: 
 But indiscriminate eating on the part of the do@evjs would not spring 
 from the moral confidence of faith ; 
 Therefore it would be sinful. 
 
 These premises are stated in the reverse order of the reasoning. ] 
 
 (i) (Minor premiss.) Because he eats not é« miorews, ie. with 
 that moral confidence in the general rightfulness of his 
 conduct with which Faith in Christ endows a Christian 
 in all those matters as to which the Will of Gop is not 
 clearly revealed (ver. 23). 
 
 (ii) (Major premiss.) Because in a Christian all which does not 
 thus spring ¢« miorews, (from. the moral confidence which 
 faith implies), is sin (ver. 23). 
 
 (Obs. x. The conclusion is that the dvvarés, by his inconsiderately insisting on 
 the plea of wicris for himself, may become, in whatever degree, responsible 
 for the sin against conscience and so for the condemnation of the dodevjs. ] 
 
 [0bs. 2, The principle nav 5 cix é« miorews dyapria éoriv, is only applied by 
 S. Paul to the Christian life. . To infer from it that all the virtues and works 
 of unbelievers are sins. is to reason ‘a dicto secundum quid ad dictum sim- 
 pliciter.’ Cf. S. Aug. contra Julian. iv. ¢. 3 ; de Gratid Christi, c. 26; de Adult, 
 conjug. i. c. 18; S. Prosper. de vit. Contempl. iii. c. 1. So especially Calvin, 
 Institut. ii. 3. n. 3, 43 iii..15. n. 6 Art. xiii says that works before 
 Justification ‘cum ex fide Jesu Christi non prodeant minimé Deo grata 
 sunt,’ and that ‘peccati rationem habere non dubitamus.’ The Council 
 of Trent, sess. 6, can. 7, condemns those who say that works done 
 before Justification are sins—which, as Bp. H. Browne says, does not 
 positively contradict the Art. S. Paul does not say wav 6 é& micTews 
 
 . Sixaidv éorev. There are such sins as sins of ignorance, and their guilt is 
 proportioned to the responsibility of the agent for the ignorance. But, says 
 S. Chrys. (ix. 715) tatra wavra mepi THs mpoxeipevns bwodécews eipnrat TH MavAy, 
 ov wept névrov, Against the error that subjective conviction warrants any 
 action whatever, thus denying that the objective Will of Gop is the standaré@ 
 of our conduct, cf. Delitzsch, Bibl. Ent ili, § 4; Julius Miller, Chr. Doct. of 
 Sin, i. 2. § 1.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. On the relation of chapters xv, xvi to the rest of the Epistle there are, speaking 
 broadly, three theories. (i) That these chapters are to be considered a sort 
 of appendix to the Epistle written by S. Paul in separate fragments, with 
 
272 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 the exception of xvi. 25-27, which properly follows xiv. 23, and closes the 
 Epistle. (ii) That these chapters were written by S. Paul, but did not 
 originally belong to the Epistle to the Romans at all. (iii) That these 
 chapters were not written by the Apostle, but at a later period, and by an 
 inferior hand (Baur). 
 
 The arguments for (i) and (ii) are based, (a) on Marcion’s having ignored 
 these chapters. But Origen expressly says (on xvi. 25), that Marcion cut 
 them out. (6) On Tertullian’s (contw Marcion. v. 14) saying that xiv. Io, on 
 the ‘tribunal Christi,’ is found in clausulé of the Epistle. But Tertullian is 
 plainly referring to Marcion’s copy. (c) On the difficulty of supposing that 
 S. Paul had, as yet, so many acquaintances in Rome, as ¢. xvi implies, 
 since he had never visited it. But Rome was the ‘colluvies gentium’ : 
 everybody went there sooner or later; and the Apostle need not have 
 known Uy face all of those whom he mentions. (d@) On the difficulty of 
 supposing that Aquila and Priscilla (xvi. 3) were now in Rome, since 
 shortly before (x Cor. xvi. 19’, and some years after (2 Tim. iv. 19), they 
 were living at Ephesus. But they might easily have migrated, after the 
 date of x Cor., from Ephesus to Rome ; and their change of home would be 
 known to the Apostle ; while there is still less difficulty in supposing that 
 they went back, at a later date, to their old home in Ephesus. (e) On the 
 repeated formulae of conclusion (xv. 33}; Xvi. 20, 24), before the close of the 
 Epistle. But this is naturally accounted for by the occurrence of fresh 
 matter, which suggested successive postscripts to what had been already 
 written. Meanwhile observe the intimate relation between xiv. 23 and 
 mV; Ie 
 
 Baur (iii) attacks the Pauline authorship of ec. xv, xvi on various grounds 
 of detail (Paulus, ii. 3), but chiefly because the advances to the Jewish 
 Christians in xv. 3, 8, 14, and the drift of the quotations in xv. 9-12, are in 
 conflict with Gal. i, ii. It may be replied that they are not more so than 
 Rom. xiy to which Baur does not object, and to which they are a natural 
 sequence. The circumstances of the Jewish converts at Rome, and of the 
 Galatian Judaizers, were so entirely different, as to relieve the Apostle of 
 any reproach of inconsistency. | 
 
 Arg. 3. The dvvaroi are under an obligation (épetopev) 
 
 a. Specifically; to bear the infirmities (dcGevipara) of their 
 weaker brethren (xv. 1). | 
 
 b. ‘Generally’; ; to avoid self-pleasing in religious mS 
 (xv. 1). 
 
 (be This obligation is immediately contrasted (8¢) with the preceding warning 
 as to those perilous consequences to the do@eveis which a reckless insistance 
 on their privileges by the duvaroi might involve (xiv. 23). The dodeveis are 
 here termed the dévvaro: (a gentler expression), in contrast with the dvvaroi 
 (more precisely defined as 77 micret), with whom the Apostle classes himself 
 (jets). The doderuara (ar. dAey.) are the concrete manifestations of the 
 doGeveia, little prejudices and scruples, ‘imbecillitates,’ which to S. Paul 
 appear burdensome (Gal. vi. 2 74 Bdpy), and which the dvvaroi should bear 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, v. 6—XV, v. 13. 273 
 
 with (facrd{ev), for the sake of the doGeveis, in a spirit of charity, 
 sympathy, and patience. But this can only be done if the latter 
 courageously determine not to make their own wishes and satisfaction in 
 religious matters a first consideration. dpéoxev éavt@ = to live so as to 
 please self. On dpéoxev, see viii. 8; 1 Cor. vii. 32. 
 
 Thus (a) and (0) are the specific and general, the positive and negative aspects 
 of a single duty—namely, religious unselfishness: 1 Cor, x. 33 Kaas nay 
 mavTa maow dptoxw, ph (nrav 7d épavrod ovppepov, GAAA 7d ToY TOAAGY, iva 
 oobior : x Thess, ii. 4 obrw Aadodpuev obx ws dvOpwmos dpéckovTeEs, GAAG TH OCD 
 7® Soxipacovrs ras Kapdias Hpaov.] 
 
 Precept. The égedy, thus insisted on, is now thrown into the form 
 of a general and positive rule of life: viz. that every Christian 
 should please his neighbour, with a view to promoting his 
 highest and eternal good (ver. 2). In this observe 
 
 (1) its universal obligation among Christians (ékaoros jpar) : 
 (2) its substance; to win the approval of others (dpéccew 16 
 mAngiov) ¢ 
 generally, to promote good (eis 76 dyabdv) : 
 (3) its intention; < specifically, to build up in others the perfect 
 Christian life (mpos oikoSopnv), (ver. 2). 
 
 [Obs. yap (ver. 2) is to be erased; see Tisch. App. Crit. The sphere within which 
 dpéoxev tT mAnoloy is possible is defined by the general purpose which 
 should govern it, eis 76 dya0év. This excludes all mere worldly flattery, 
 and sinful complaisance with human error, Of this the Apostle says, Gal. 
 i. 10 ef E74 GvOpwrots Hpeckov, Xpiarod SovAos ovK Gv juny. eis 7d ayabdv marks 
 the general tendency (eis), which is more specifically explained by the 
 immediate aim pds oixodopqv : and this may be compared with 176 avppepov 
 Tav mo\A@Y I Cor. x. 33: cf. Rom. xiv. 19. In this sense S. Paul says, 
 éyevounv Tois dabevéeow ws aoberns, iva Tovs dabeveis Kepdnow. See the whole 
 passage, 1 Cor, ix. 20 23.] 
 
 Reason 1 for the Precept, ver. 2 and ver. rb. (ydp ver. 3.) Our 
 _ Lord’s example. Even Christ pleased not Himself; He lived 
 
 conformably to Ps. Ixix. 9, which describes prophetically the 
 _ spirit of His Life (ver. 3). 
 
 Psalm Ixix. 9, quoted to show that Jesus Christ renounced all 
 self-pleasing, by exposing Himself to the reproaches of the 
 enemies of the Eternal Father (ver. 3). 
 
 Heb, soy sd52 Prin nism 
 LXX of dvediopot rav bvediCivraw ce énémecov én’ eve. 
 ‘" 
 
274 - The Epistle to the Romans, 
 
 [Obs. 1. The citation follows the LXX.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. This Psalm (vers. 23. 24) has been already quoted at Rom. xi. 9 sqq. 
 with reference to the rejection of Israel. It is a Psalm of David when 
 persecuted by Saul, and is throughout typically prophetic of the sufferings 
 of Christ. The following verses are quoted in the New Testament. 
 
 ver. 4. Of the hatred of Christ’s enemies, S. John xv. 25. 
 9a. Of His driving the buyers and sellers from the Temple, S. John 
 rE IPs iy 
 9b. Of His bearing the reproaches of Gop’s enemies, Rom. xy. 3. 
 
 12. Of the mockery by the soldiers in the praetorium, S. Matt. xxvii. 
 27-30. 
 
 21. Of the offer of vinegar mingled with gall before the Crucifixion, 
 S. Matt. xxvii. 34; and of the sponge dipped in vinegar 
 afterwards, S. John xix. 29. 
 
 22sq. Of the present rejection of Israel, Rom, xi. 9. 
 
 25a. Of the deposition of Judas, Acts i. 20.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. That the reproaches of Gop’s enemies fell on our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 shows that Christ’s will was not to please Himself: S. Luke vii. 39; S. Mark 
 ii. 16; S. Matt. ix. 11; S. John viii. 49. For He took these indignities and 
 sufferings upon Him voluntarily, Phil. ii. 6-8 ; Heb. xii.2,3. The quotation 
 indeed speaks of devotion to the cause of God, while the context insists upon 
 self-renunciation for the spiritual interests of man. There is no contradiction ; 
 the second object is implied in any adequate conception of the first. Our 
 Lord gave Himself for His brethren in surrendering Himself perfectly to 
 the Father’s will.] 
 
 {Obs. 4. Our Lord, whether in action or in suffering, is the example of Christians, 
 as being the Ideal or Archetypal Man. S. John xiii. 15 trddaypa cdma byiv : 
 1S. John ii. 6 6 Aéywr év ad7G péve dpeiia xadas exeivos meprearnce kal avTods 
 otirws mepmateiy : cf, Wilberforce, Incarn. c. iii, ‘ Christ the Pattern Man by 
 Nature.’] 
 
 Reason 2 (ydép ver. 4) for the appropriateness of the preceding 
 quotation in ver. 3. From the purpose of the O. T. Scriptures, 
 Observe here— 
 
 i. The description of the O, T. (éca mpoeypadn), as the Sacred 
 Writings of ages which preceded the Apostolic (ver. 4). 
 
 ii. The general purpose of the O. T. (cis ri qyerépav iene 
 Christian Instruction (ver. 4). 
 
 . The more specific (va) and moral purpose of the O. T. is the - 
 firm maintenance of the Christian Hope in the Eternal © 
 
 Future (iva ri Amida tywuey ver: 4). This is coon by f 
 
 twe particular effects of the O.T, 
 
 
 
 a * ae 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, 0. 6—XV,_‘v. 13. 2755 
 
 a. by 4 tropom, the patience which is so peculiarly 
 7 Christian, but of which the O.T. gives such bright 
 edris examples (ver. 4). 
 fostered |b. by 4 mapdkdnow, the encouragement which the O. T. 
 affords by promises as well as examples (ver. 4). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The Old Testament is not merely archaeologically precious as a record of 
 the past, but has enduring and spiritual value : it is destined eis jyerépay bida- 
 oxariay : cf. Art. vii ‘Of the Old Testament.’ It is ‘not contrary to the 
 New, for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to 
 mankind by Christ.’ (Marcion denied this in his Antitheses, a work in which 
 there were passages from the Law and the Gospel contrasted in order to 
 show that they did not proceed from the same author; cf. Tertullian, adv, 
 Marcion. lib. 4. So the Manichaeans, Aug. de Haerts. 46; Socr. H. E. i. 
 22, and probably the Manichaean sects of Bulgarians, Cathari, &c. in the 
 Middle Ages; Mosh. Eccl, Hist, cent. xi. pt. 2, 5. §§ 2, 3.) It was indeed 
 the manual of Christian d:éacxcadia in the Apostolic age, dpéArpos mpos dida- 
 oxariay 2 Tim. iii. 16: and :dacxadia, as has been seen (xii. 7), was itself 
 a xdpiopa, This general purpose of the Old Testament is more specific- 
 ally described as enabling Christians to cling to their hope of an Hiernal 
 Future. ] 
 
 (Obs. 2. 4% éAmis, the (specifically) Christian Hope. This may be (a) (subjective), 
 the virtue by which the Christian looks forward to the promised future, 
 Rom. v. 6; 1 S. Pet. iii. 15: or (6) (objective), the future to which he looks 
 forward, Rom. viii. 24 sq. The Old Testament warrants (b), and so 
 strengthens (a) ; but did rijs troporas cal mapaxAnoews seems to show that (a) 
 is here meant. tév ypapav (gen. auctoris; Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 236) belongs to 
 Tis Uropovas as Well as THs mapaKAnoeas. | 
 
 {Obs. 3. The particular lesson of patience and encouragement in the Apostle’s 
 mind is that afforded by our Lord’s example in His voluntary acceptance 
 of the reproaches of the Jews, as prophetically described centuries before 
 (mpoeypagn) in Ps, lxix. 9.] , 
 
 [0bs. 4. In the Collect for 2nd Sunday in Advent what is here said of the Old 
 Testament is applied to the New Testament as well, and the icea of mapaAn- 
 os is determined into ‘comfort.’] 
 
 Principle III. 
 
 The duty of mutual forbearance and union {rb aitd ppoveiv) incum- 
 bent upon the-dobeveis and Svvaroi alike, and based on Christ's 
 double relation to the Jews and the Heathen (xv. 5-13). 
 
 Benediction. (Suggested by ver. 4), (vers. 5,6). 9 
 , 2 
 
276 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 1. The sowrce of the Blessing. 
 
 Oe i ee oe Sdn dpiv (ver. 5) 
 
 \ Ths Tapaklnoews 
 
 2. The substance of the Blessing. 
 
 (i) Sphere of this ppoveiv = év dddndors (ver. 5). 
 
 i (ii) Standard of this gpoveiv = xara Xpiordv *Inoody 
 Jose The Will of Christ (ver. 5). 
 
 3. The purpose of the Blessing. 
 
 (i) of mind, 
 dpobvpador, in glorifying the Eternal Father of 
 
 (ii) and voice, our Lord Jesus Christ (ver. 6). 
 
 es a ‘ 
 €y €vt oTopaTt, 
 
 c Petey, | 
 
 TO avTo 
 
 Unity 
 
 [Obs. 1. The words ris iropovis nat ris mapaxAnoews (gen. of quality, Winer, 
 Gr. N. T. p. 231, Theophyl. airiay nat Sorfjpa dvopaver Oedv), are suggested 
 by ver. 4; but the Benediction which they introduce consists in 7d atré 
 ppovetv, which cannot exist, unless men are taught forbearance, and are con- 
 soled by Gop. Gop unites these in His Essence, which is Love, and imparts 
 them to those who ask Him, Rom. viii. 37. On this subject, seeS. Cyprian’s 
 Treatise, De Bono Palientiae. For analogous titles, cf. xv. 13 6 Oeds THs EATidos, 
 Phil. iv. 9 6 Oeds ris cipnvns, see Rom. xv. 33; 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. xiii. 20.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Sgn, a late form of doi7. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 346; cf. Eph. i. 17; iii. 16; 
 2 Thess. iii. 16; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18. The gift is Unity. ] 
 
 [Obvs. 3. Essence of this unity. 1d aird gpoveiv = 4 xapdia Kal % Wuxi pia Acts iv. 
 323; ovpyvxo Phil. ii. 2, Of this Unity our Lord’s Will is the standard 
 (xara), and Christians, as mutually related to each other, the sphere (év).] 
 
 [Obs. 4. Result of this unity (va), Unanimous acknowledgment of the Father ; 
 év évi ordépart (instrumental), The inner unity naturally shows itself in 
 unity of creed, of public prayer, of places and forms of worship.] 
 
 [Obs. 5. rod Kupiov Incod Xpiorod belongs only to warépa, not to the preceding rdv 
 @cédv. xal (epexegetic) defines rov @edy more precisely as taTépa Inood Xprorov, 
 Theodoret : judy @cdy éxddrece Tov Ody, Tod 5% Kupiov Inood mwarépa, Soin 
 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; Eph.i.3; Col.i.3; 1S. Pet.i.3. That marépa is 
 thus related to @edy appears more clearly, where the two words occur 
 without the appended ‘Incot Xpiorod : 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. v. 20; Col. ili, 17; 
 S. James i, 27; iii. 9. Meyer, in loc.] 
 
 § Precept (suggested (80) by the foregoing Benediction, with a 
 view to attaining its object, 16 air ppoveiv x.r.2.). 
 
 Let both parties (the duvaroi and dodeveis) welcome each other to 
 full communion of heart and life (mpocdapBaverbe ddAnrovs), 
 (ver. 7 a). 
 
 eines 2” ae 
 ). a 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, v. 6—XV, v. 13. 2°97 
 
 [Obs. That this precept is addressed not to the dvvaroi only, but to the doGeveis 
 also, is clear from dAAjAous, ver. 7a, and buds (not #uas), ver. 7b. ] 
 
 § Reason for.the Precept. Christ’s example (xa6as). He has 
 received into fellowship with Himself both Jewish and Heathen 
 converts (ipas addressed to all), that Gop might be glorified in 
 this association of the human family with His Son (ver. 7 b). 
 
 [Obs. eis ddgav ©eod seems to depend, not on mpocdAapBdvecbe, but on the imme- 
 diately preceding mpocedaBero, cf. v. 8,9. mpooeddBero is predicated of 
 Ocds, xiv. 3. That Ocod is gen. obj., not gen. sudj., results from vers. 6, 8, 12. ] 
 
 § Proof (ydp, not dé, ver. 8) of the Reason (ver. 7b) from the 
 relation of our Lord Jesus Christ to Jews and Heathens (vers. 
 
 8-12). 
 
 1. (generally) on behalf of the Truth of Gop (iép 
 dAnéeias Gcot). The Father was pledged to the 
 promises which His Son thus realized (ver. 8 a’. 
 Christ a. with the proximate design of 
 became confirming the promises made 
 didxovos ‘ee to the Patriarchs (by fulfilling 
 Tepttouis them in His own Person) 
 
 at His 2. (specifically) | (ver. 8b). 
 Incarnation, b. but with the more remote design 
 
 that the Gentiles should praise 
 Gop on account of His mercy 
 (ver. 9 a). 
 
 (Obs. 1. Aéyo ydp—* I mean,’ in order to explain mpoceAdBero (ver. 7 b), according 
 to Meyer. dofaou is parallel to the preceding BeBaidoa, and depends (not 
 on Aéyw) , but on eis 7d. tmép eAgovs is only partly in contrast to brép ddAn- 
 Ocias. Christ came ‘ to perform the promises made unto the Fathers, and to 
 remember the Holy Covenant.’ But when the Jews refused the message of 
 salvation, He brought mercy to the heathen, on account of which they would 
 ‘praise Gop, as Jewish prophecy itself anticipated. It is common to make 
 dofaca depend—not on eis 74, but on Aéyw, and to account for the retention 
 of the aorist Sofacai, as pointing to the historical fact that the Gentiles had 
 already been received into the Church, and had praised Gop for His mercy, 
 Perhaps, if the thought favours this construction, the structure of the 
 language suggests the other. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. The heathen converts had to remember, (r) that Christ was did«ovos 
 meptropys, Himself a circumcised Jew, and the Minister of the circumcised 
 ‘people, to whom, as Messiah, He devoted Himself: S. Matt. xv. 24 ov« 
 dneordAny ei pi) cis 7a mpéBara 7a dwodwAédra oixov "IopaiA. For didxovos, see 
 
278 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 S. Matt. xx. 28. He came not d:axovnOjvar adda siaxovnom. And (2) that 
 the Jews could appeal to Gop’s Promises, which Christ came to make good. 
 Cn the other hand, the Jewish converts must not forget that, if the Gentiles 
 would praise Gop for His unmerited mercy (imép éAéous), Jewish prophecy 
 itself had said that they would do so, and thus Gon’s dAn@eia was pledged to 
 them also, and that for them too, although more remotely, Christ became 
 incarnate. | 
 
 § Predictions in the O. T. of the praise which converted heathen 
 peoples would offer to Gop (vers. 9 b-12). 
 
 [Obs. naOas yéyparrat. The praises for the mercy offered to Gop by the heathen 
 world are in correspondence with Psalm xviii. 50. In ver. 10 % ypapq is 
 the subject of Aéye, and is suggested by yéypamrat. In ver. 11 4 ypaph Aéyet 
 is repeated after maAvv.] 
 
 Prediction 1. Psalm xviii. 50, quoted as prophetically expressing, 
 in the language of Jesus Christ, the praise which He, with His 
 brethren converted from MHeathendom, would offer to the 
 Father (ver. 9). ; 
 
 Heb. mins oven Tie ponby 
 
 évopart cov War. 
 [Obs. 1. The citation corresponds with the LXX, except in the cmission of 
 Kvpre. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. Psalm xviii is certainly Davidic. It is given in 2 Sam. xxii; and the 
 inscription is justified by vers. 5-20, which must refer to the persecution 
 by Saul. As David is a type of Christ, his language is typically-prophetie ; 
 David, when among the heathen, will praise Gop for deliverance ; Christ, 
 present among the conyerted heathen, will, in union with them, praise Gop for 
 His mercy. That is to say, the heathen, in union with and through Jesus 
 Christ, will offer this tribute of praise, edxaporotvres TG Oe@ wai Marpl bi’ 
 av’rod Col. iii. 17.] ; 
 
 Prediction 2. Deut. xxxii. 43, quoted as a summons addressed by 
 Moses to the heathen, bidding them join Israel in the joyous 
 praise of Gop, when, in a distant future, Israel’s deliverance and 
 triumph should be complete (ver. 10). 
 
 Heb. jpy oY 9770 
 
 LXX (Tisch.) eippdvOnre 2Ovn pera Tod Aaod abrod. 
 [Obs. x. The citation follows the: LXX, which differs from the Heb. In 
 the latter, there is at present nothing to explain pera, The LXX may 
 
 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, v. 6—XV, v. 13. 279 | 
 
 have read }SY-NN (Kennicott). The Hiphil /'375 may mean either, ‘to 
 cause to shout for joy,’ Ps. lxv. 9, Job xxix. 13; or ‘to shout for joy,’ ‘to 
 rejoice,’ followed by b Ps. lxxxi. 2; or may be used absolutely, Ps. xxxii. rr. 
 Render accordingly : ‘Shout for joy, ye beathen, (who are now) His people.’ 
 (Aquila, Theodorus), or (Hengstenberg), ‘Shout for joy, ye heathen, [let] 
 His people [shout]}.’ The double subject being rendered by pera Tod Aaod. 
 Wogue translates, Nations, felicitez son peuple: Vulg. Laudate, gentes, populum 
 ejus: De Wette, ‘ Rejoice, ye tribes (!), His people.’ | 
 
 [Obs. 2. In Deut. xxxii ‘Israel reads its past, present and future, and indeed in 
 one sense the future of humanity.’ See Siphra, Deuteron. p. 932 (in Ugolini, 
 Thesaur. Antig. Sacr. Venet. 1753). The LXX and the Apostle saw that 
 Israel’s future triumph involved the association of converted heathen with 
 the covenant people in the work of praise. ] 
 
 Prediction 3. Psalm exvii. 1, quoted as containing a twofold 
 summons to the praise of Gop, addressed to all the peoples of 
 Heathendom (ver. 11). 
 
 Heb. pisba ninensy bn 
 sowexn-bs sninay 
 LXX (Tisch.) aive?re tov Kupiov ndyta ta éOvn énavéoare abtov mavres 
 of Aaot. 
 [Obs. 1. The citation follows the LXX, except in adding «ai. A.B.C.D.E.N, 
 
 8. Chrys. read éravecarwoay for émavécare. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. Ps. exvii, the shortest of all the Psalms, is a later Hallelujah addressed 
 to the heathen world, inviting its peoples to come into the Kingdom of 
 Gop. DDN occurs here only in the Old Testament Hebrew; the word 
 elsewhere means Ishmaelites, or Midianitish tribes. D3" 2, all peoples 
 without distinction ; D'ONN7275, all nations without exception.] 
 
 Prediction 4. Isaiah xi. 10, quoted to show that the King Messiah, 
 Who was to descend from David, would reign over the heathen, 
 and be the Object of their hope (ver. 12). ; 
 
 Heb. S77 OD AN 
 pay pid spy -ws ww eA 
 wT! DNa NPY 
 ‘And it shall come to pass in that day, 
 
 The Root of Jesse, which stands as a Banner of peoples, 
 For It will the nations ask.’ 
 
 LXX (Tisch.) nat ora év rh jpépa éxelvy pila rod “lecoat, nat 6 dra- 
 Tdpevos dpxew eOvav én’ ate EOvn EAmodat. a : 
 
 [0bs. r. The citation follows the LXX, except in omitting é 7) jyépa éxeivp. But 
 
 the LXX differs from the Hebrew. DD) pad Ty TWN is paraphrased by 
 
280 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 its concrete historical meaning, 6 dvordpevos dpxav eOvav: and éAmovar 
 represents the spiritual impulse which results in or from the act described 
 by 177°.) 
 
 [Ots. 2. The citation occurs in the last of the poems designed to console Israel 
 under the Assyrian oppressions (¢c. vii-xii); and it describes the destruc- 
 tion of the world-empire, and the rise of the Kingdom of the Lord in 
 Messiah (x. 5-xii). The tree of David’s sovereignty has been hewn down: 
 the root alone remains. Out of this root, however, springs up °W WW, the 
 root-sprout of Jesse, Who is, also, the Root itself, as being of its substance, 
 and as having preserved it from utter decay. In Him the root of Jesse 
 recovers a second youth; He is exalted into a Banner, which summons 
 the nations to gather round it, DY pb, and they ask for Him as the new 
 Object of their hope. The passage is strictly Messianic, Delitzsch in loc. 
 S. Paul traces the fulfilment of this 17) in the praises offered to Gop for 
 His mercy by the converted heathen.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. % pita Tod "Iecoat, Radix Jesse, 4 fifa AaBid, applied to our Lord in Rev. v. 
 5; xxii. 16. Its full sense is given in Is. xi. 1 éfeAevoerar faBdos ex THs pins 
 *Ieacal, kat dvOos é« ris pi(ns dvaByoera. “WOH, ‘a rod’ Prov. xiv. 3. 1¥) (dv@os), 
 ‘a sprout,’ ‘shoot’ ; from “IN3, (1) ‘to shine,’ (2) ‘to flower,’ ve, ‘a root,’ 
 WW (Pi.) ‘to root out.’ 
 
 [Obs. 4. én aire éEAmodat. Eni, of the object on which Hope rests, 1 Tim. iv. 10; 
 vi. 17. Itis similarly used of the object of Faith : morevev én atte Rom. 
 ix. 33; x. 11. Observe the bearing of ém’ air on the Divinity of Christ.] 
 
 § Concluding Benediction (ver. 13). 
 
 [Obs. This Benediction is suggested by the preceding citation; 6 @eds rijs éAnidos 
 by éAmovot, just as that in ver. 5 is suggested by ver. 4. This section ends 
 as it began, with a Benediction.] 
 
 1. Author of the Blessing. 
 6 Ocds tijs edmidos (gen. auctoris), ef. ver. 5 (ver. 13). 
 
 2. Substance of the Blessing. 
 
 xapas 
 mAnpacat tpas maons Kal &v TG morevew (ver. 13). 
 eipnyns 
 
 3. Aim of the Blessing (to be secured év durdyer Tvetparos ayiov), 
 The abundance of Hope: «is ro meprocevew tas ev rH edmide 
 
 (ver. 13). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The Blessing begins and ends with éAnis, without which xapa and eipyyy 
 cannot fill the soul. When, in the life of faith, they do fill the soul, they 
 react upon the éAmis which produces them, eis 7d mepooevev.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Baur’s objection (Studien, 1836. n. 3) to the Pauline origin of xv. 1-13, 
 turns chiefly upon the expression didxovos mepiropajs (xv. 8), which he con- 
 
 
 
Practical: chs. XIV, v. 6—XV, v. 13: 281 
 
 siders unlike the Apostle, and inconsistent in the author of Gal. i, ii. But 
 this strong and condensed expression is intentionally chosen to remind the 
 Gentiles of the high honour which had been put upon Israel by the Birth 
 and early Ministry of Jesus Christ. That d:d«ovos harmonizes with S. Matt. 
 Xv. 24; xx. 28, has been observed already. But that Christ was, primarily, 
 Sidkovos tepitopjs is implied in Rom. i. 16 (mp@rov), and in ix. 5; xi. 16, 28. 
 Certainly in xv. 8 the Apostle represents our Lord’s relation to the Jews as 
 in some sense the payment of a debt, by the expression imép ddndeias Ocod 
 (ver. 8), while His relation to the heathen was purely one of compassion 
 _ (émép éd€ous ver. 9) : and at first sight this might seem to be in conflict with 
 the argument of ch. x, in which he will not allow that Gop owed the Jews 
 anything. In reality there is no contradiction ; since what Gop did not 
 owe to the Jews, He may be represented, xar’ dv@pwrov, as having owed to 
 Himself. §. Paul lays stress upon this aspect of religious history, with 
 a view to correcting the Gentile ¢gov@évnots of everything Jewish.] 
 
 Vigey ‘ a3 jut abs ioe 
 oe poise sec, Sage Huila 
 ie eh soe ee 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 ae 
 fs | 
 
 
 
EPILOGUE. 
 
 XV. 14-33. 
 
 Tone of parts of the Epistle justified. 
 
 [0bs. This Epilogue should be compared with the Introduction, ch. i. 8-16, to 
 
 which it corresponds in several respects. It may be analyzed briefly as 
 follows :— 
 
 The Apostle justifies the frank tone he has assumed (roApnpérepov ver. 15) 
 in writing to a Church which so entirely enjoys his confidence as the 
 Roman (vers. 14, 15), by reference to 
 
 1. his calling to be the Ae:roupyds "Incod Xprorod eis Ta €Ovn (ver. 16). 
 2. his past labours among the heathen nations (vers. 17-21). 
 3. his plans, past and present, for visiting Rome: (proof of interest’, 
 (vers, 23-29). 
 4. his anxiety to be assisted by the prayers of the Church of Rome under 
 these circumstances ; (proof of confidence), (vers. 30-33). ] 
 
 § General Statement (vers. 14, 15). The Apostle, although himself 
 persuaded (not less than others) that the Roman Christians are 
 
 a. general excellence—peoroi dyabwovms (ver. 14). 
 
 b. knowledge of Christian truth—zemAnpopéva macys 
 ywoceos (ver. 14). 
 
 c. power of giving good spiritual advico—unkanas 
 GhAnAous vovereiv (ver. 14). 
 
 eminently 
 gifted in 
 
 Yet has written to the Romans — 
 a. more ‘boldly’ (rodpnpérepov) than such an estimate 
 (as that in ver. 1) would seem to warrant (ver. 15). 
 b. in parts of his Epistle (dé pépous) (ver. 15). 
 » (Cf. vi. 12 8q., 19; Vili.9; xi. 17 Sq.; Xii. 3; Xlii. 3 Sqq., 13, 143 
 (yp aya) Xiv. 3, an. 13, 15, 20; Xv. 1-8.] - 
 c. in the manner of one who again reminds them of 
 truths which they knew before (as émavapipvijoKov) 
 
 (ver. 15). 
 
Epilogue: ch. XV, VU. 14-33. 283 
 
 [0bs. x. The three qualities predicated of the Romans, dya@wown, yvaois, vovdereiv, 
 advance from the general to the particular. dya$woabrn, ‘general excellence,’ 
 wider than xpyordrns (S. Chrys. ix. p. 729 6AdHAnpov Thy aperiy ovTw Kadél), 
 Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9;-2 Thess. i. 11. yv@ous, here of Christian truth, 
 t Cor.i.5 ; viii. 1, 7. vovOereiv Acts xx. 31; 1 Cor. iv. 14; Eph. vi. 4; Col. i. 28 ; 
 iii, 16. The expressions peoroi, remAnpwpévae must be understood relatively ; 
 and not of individuals, but of the whole Church. There was still room 
 therefore for the mvevpatixov xapiopa Which the Apostle says at i. 11, he was 
 anxious to communicate to them and which Baur (Paulus, ii. ¢. 3) refers to 
 as disproving the Pauline authorship of ¢« xv. The Apostle is not 
 inconsistent with any of his former language: still less is he ‘writing 
 insincerely.’ The Roman Church, as a whole, was what he here says. Cf. 
 i. 8.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. roAunpdrepov (cf. Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 304). This expression is not 
 ‘too apologetic to be apostolical,’ since it refers to the manner, not to the 
 matter, of parts of the Epistle ; and courtesy is an Apostolic grace. éypaipa, 
 not the epistolary use, like scripsi ; since the Apostle refers not to the whole 
 letter (which his readers would think of), but to particular parts of it. 
 (Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 347.) In éravayiprjoxwv remark the reference to 
 the previous teaching which the Romans had enjoyed, ard the Apostolic 
 modesty which limits the scope of the Epistle so considerably. S. Chrys. 
 rovreatw puxpdv 7. Cf. 2S. Pet. i. 12, Observe the ém- in éravapprjcKar. | 
 
 § Justification of the Apostle’s frankness in addressing the 
 Romans. It is in keeping with his whole relation towards the 
 Romans and the Church at large (vers. 16-33). 
 
 Reason I. The Apostle’s ‘ boldness’ is justified by the high grace 
 which he had received to be the priest (Accroupydrv. . . iepoupyotvra) 
 of Jesus Christ towards the heathen (ver. 16). 
 
 1. Its source. 9 xapis 7 SoOcica ind rod Ccod 
 (ver. 16). 
 
 ' , 2. Its effect on the Apostle : «is 16 eivaé pe. 
 
 (Character), devrovpyov "Incod Xpusrod, priest of 
 
 In the Jesus Christ (ver. 16). 
 grace of (Field of work), «is ra €6n, the heathen (ver. 16). 
 8. Paul’s (Description of work), ‘povpyoivra, doing 
 
 Apostolic priestly work (in respect of), (ver. 16). 
 office _ . (Subject matter), 1d evayyé\wov tod Gcod, the 
 observe Gospel message (ver. 16). 
 
 3. Its purpose, that (iva) the oblation of the 
 converted heathen might be acceptable to 
 the Father, being jy:acpévy ev Lvetpare dyio 
 
 (ver. 16). sid iain 
 
284 The Epistle to the Romans, 
 
 [Obs. 1. That Aeroupyés here means, not a public oixévoyos nor a bSidxovos, but 
 specifically a priest (ef. Acts xiii. 2; Phil. ii. 17), deriving his authority 
 from Jesus Christ (Rom. i. 5), is clear from the explanatory iepovpyotvta 
 which follows. iepovpyeiv =‘ sacra facere,’ as a priest; often intrans, but 
 here transit., like épyd(ec@a and éumopevecbau, cf. Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 279, 
 with 70 evayyéAvov : which however is not the zpoopopa (the 26vn are the 
 mpoopopa), but the system or doctrine which is administered. ‘Iepovpyodvra 
 is rendered ‘sacrificans’ by Rufinus, ‘consecrans’ by S. Augustine, 
 
 ‘sanctificans’ by the Vulgate. For this use of iepoupyeiv, see Joseph. Ant. 
 vi. 6. 2.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. % mpoopopa r&v eOvav (gen. apposition, Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 666), a more 
 solemn word than maporavey (2 Cor. iv. 14; xi. 2; Col. i. 22, 28). See 
 Heb. x. 10 mpoopopd rod owparos “Incod Xpiorod: Ep. vy. 2. In order that 
 the converted Gentiles, consecrated by the Holy Spirit to be Gon’s, may be 
 an offering acceptable [to the Father, and] made by the Apostle as the 
 priest of Christ, it is necessary that the offering must be pure (Rom. xii. 
 1). Hence jyacpérn.]} 
 
 [Obs. 3. jyacpévy ev Tvedpar: dyiw is in contrast to the purely external consecra- 
 tion of the Levitical Sacrifices. dyd(ev means to consecrate as an offering 
 (S. John xvii. 19), like #71) Ex. xiii. 2. This consecration of the converted 
 €6vy takes place in Baptism (Gal. iii. 27; Tit. iii. 5 ; Eph. v. 26). ] 
 
 [Obs. 4. The cast of the phraseology of this passage is very remarkably liturgical. 
 Without directly mentioning the Eucharist, it seems already to take for 
 granted those ways of referring to it, which we find in the early Fathers ; 
 see Hickes, on The Christian Priesthood, vol. ii. pp. 93-100 (Oxf, 1847); 
 Keble, Sermons Academical and Occasional, p. 366, note. ] 
 
 Feason II. The Apostle’s ‘boldness’ is justified by his past 
 labours (vers, 17-21). 
 
 {0bs. This is introduced by a proposition which follows from ver. 16, but is 
 connected still more closely with ver. 18.] 
 
 § Inference (oév ver. 17) from the foregoing. The xadynois of the 
 Apostle (the warrant of his attitude towards the Roman Church) 
 (ver. 15) properly belongs to him (éy#) ; since it is wholly un- 
 connected with self, as being, (1) ev Xpiore "Inood, in Christ, Whose 
 Aeroupyds he is; and (2) as dealing with ra mpis tov Gcdv, Whose 
 Gospel he administers as a priest. He therefore proceeds to the 
 proof of xatynow éxw (ver. 17), (vers. 18-21). 
 
 Arg. 1. (Negative confirmation.) (Limits of the work referred to.) The 
 Apostle makes no reference to the labours of others for the 
 propagation of the Faith (vers. 18, 19a). 
 
 (Obs. 1. The words ov xare:pydgaro are emphatic. The xabynous, he implies, would 
 be forfeited, if he were claiming as his own the labours of other Apostles. 
 
 
 
Epilogue: ch. XV, vv. 14-23. 285 
 
 Rendered affirmatively, ver. 18 runs: ‘I will venture to let myself be 
 heard only as to-those things which Christ has brought about by my agency 
 towards making the heathen obedient to Him.’] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Remark the Apostolic conception of a mission to the heathen. 
 1. The real Converter is Christ, Xpsords xareipyacaro, 
 2. The instrument is His Apostle, 6.’ éuod. 
 
 g. The purpose in view is that the heathen should obey Jesus Christ, by 
 faith and good works, eis imaxony é6v@v Rom. i. 5 ; xvi. 26. 
 
 4. The means employed are 
 
 z. natural a. Adyw, preaching the Gospel. 
 agencies, ei epyy, active efforts, journeys, organizations, &e. 
 
 a. power which goes forth from (gen. deriv.) miracles. 
 
 2, super: (i) onpeia, NINN, tokens of Gov’s near Presence. 
 natural (ii) répara, DNDN, as producing astonishment. 
 agencies, 
 
 b. power which goes forth from the Holy Spirit into the 
 minds of men, év duvvape: Tvedparos dyiov.} 
 
 [Obs. 3. For a complete account of the words répas, onpeiov, as also dvvayus and 
 épyov, see Archbishop Trench, Miracles of our Lord, pp. 2-8. onpeta and 
 tépara both refer to the significant aspect of miracles; but of the two, onpetov 
 is the more ethical. The usual order of the words follows in Heb, Nin 
 n’nbini: exceptions are in Acts ii. 22, 43 ; vi. 8; vii. 36.] 
 
 Arg. 2. (Range of previous labours.) (Result (Sore) of vers, 18, 19 a.) 
 The Apostle had fully published the Gospel of Christ between 
 Jerusalem and Illyria, besides making a circuit («i«A¢) in Arabia 
 and Syria (ver. 19 b). 
 
 {0bs.-r. Although S. Paul had begun to preach at Damascus, and having made 4 
 retreat in Arabia did not go to Jerusalem until three years after his 
 conversion (Gal. i. 17, 18) ; yet he entered the Apostolic fellowship first at 
 Jerusalem, Acts ix. 26, and made it the terminus a quo of later efforts, Acts 
 Xviii. 22; xx.16. Jerusalem was the centre of the Apostolic Church : Is. ii. 
 3 was fulfilled in its relation to the Gospel. ‘§. Paul writes ‘IepoodAupa only 
 at Gal. i. 17, 18; ii. 1.) 
 
 rove 2. kal KUKAw negatives the idea of working directly between Jerusalem and 
 Illyria. §S. Chrys. and others understand it to describe the course of his 
 journey through Syria, Asia Minor, Troas, and Macedonia, —a course 
 which was inevitable, unless the Apostle had gone to Greece by sea, KvkAw 
 means ‘in the are of a circle,’ and «ai shows that it refers to a journey over 
 and above the nearest land route between Jerusalem and Illyria. It thus 
 glances at the facts of Gai. i. 17, 18.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Méxpt, like dyp, is used alike of place and time. To understand by 
 péxpt that the Apostle only reached the Illyrian frontier during a Macedonian 
 _ excursion, is inconsistent with ver. 23; although of itself péxp decides 
 
286 The Epistle to the Romans, 
 
 nothing, since it sometimes includes and sometimes excludes the point 
 attained to. Cf. Rom. v.14; S. Matt. xiii. 30; Phil. ii. 30, and S. Matt. xi. 
 23; Phil. ii. 8. Probably the Illyrian Mission is to be referred to the 
 phvas tpets of Acts xx. 3; the silence of the Acts is no reason against it. 
 The intention to visit Nicopolis, referred to at Tit. iii. 12, would have been 
 at a much later date. ] 
 
 [Obs. 4. The phrase mAnpody 7d ebayyédov, ‘ fulfil the Gospel,’ implies preaching 
 it so that it is received. Cf. Col. i. 25 mAnp@oat Tov Adyov Tov Ocod. Compare 
 S. Luke vii. 1 with S, Matt. vii. 28.] 
 
 Arg. 3. (Method of action.) The Apostle had made it a point of 
 honour to preach, not in districts where Christ had been already 
 named by preachers and confessors of the faith, but (in accord- 
 ance with the spirit of Is. lii, 15) where He was as yet entirely 
 unknown (ver. 20, 21). 
 
 [Obs. 1. By the word ¢:AoTipotvpevoy, the Apostle means that he followed as a 
 point of honour the rule which he proceeds (o¥7w) to state in abit the 
 Gospel. On quAoripetoOat, see 2 Cor. y. 9; 1 Thess. iv, 11.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Of this rule the negative side is, not to preach where others had founded 
 Churches previously. His motive was (iva pq «.7.A.) to avoid continuing the 
 work of conversion which others had already begun. Compare 2 Cor, x. 
 14b-16 dypt yap Kal tyav épOdcapey ev TH evayyeAiw Tov XpioTov: ovK eis TA 
 dperpa kavxwpevot ev GAdAoTpiots Kdrois, €ATida 52 exovres, ad’favopevns THs TlaTEws 
 bpar, év bpiv peyaduvOjva, Kari Tov Kavdva judy eis mepioceiay, cis TA bTEpeKeva 
 tyav ebayycdicac0a, ove év GdAdorpiw Kavou eis TA Eroiua Kavxjoacba. Itisa 
 mistake to suppose that S. Paul followed this rule in order to avoid 
 controversies with those who had preceded him. For him the Apostolic 
 office was first in labour as first in honour ; and he confined himself to the 
 
 _ work of founding Churches, as being the most difficult. His rule did not 
 prevent him from writing to Churches which others had founded, as, e.g., to 
 the Colossians and the Romans; he only avoided such work as implied 
 personal residence in these places. Thus, he only contemplated passing 
 through (d:amopevdpevos ver. 24) Rome; his later residence there was 
 compulsory—as a prisoner. | 
 
 § Is. lii. 15 quoted in illustration of the Apostle’s rule to confine 
 his labours to those heathens who had not received the Faith of 
 Christ from others (ver. 21). 
 
 Heb. 7 DTD TAD-ND mW »D : 
 ; :o3iann spia-nd WY 
 
 ‘For what has not been told unto them they see, j 9: 
 And what they have not heard they discover.’ P 
 
 LXX (Tisch.) ois od« dvnyyéAn nepl abrod dYovra, nal of ob« dunxdact owhistitii 
 
 
 
Epilogue: ch. XV, vv. 14-33. 287 
 
 [Obs. r. The citation follows the LXX, who took 18 in each line ay masc., and 
 added zept aired.]- : 
 
 [ Obs. 2. The lines oceur at the beginning of the prophecy of the exaltation of the 
 Servant of the Lord out of deep degradation (Is, lii. 13-liii. 12), In the 
 Hebrew the kings, who shut their mouths in amazement at the exaltation 
 of the Servant, are the subjects of 387 and want. But the Apostle here 
 substitutes the heathen-nations to whom the true Servant of the Lord is 
 not yet made known, on the ground that together with and as represented 
 by the ‘kings’ (in the prophecy) their people also must see His glory. Cf. 
 especially S. Matt. xiii. 23; xv. ro. The Apostle deduces a rule for his 
 own work from a law of Gon’s Providence. ] 
 
 Reason III. The Apostle’s ‘boldness’ is warranted by the 
 practical interest in the Roman Church which his past and 
 present plans for visiting Rome have consistently implied 
 (vers. 22-29). 
 
 1. Past schemes for visiting Rome. These have resulted in nothing, 
 because (8 ver. 22) the Apostle’s mode of working has 
 obliged him to confine himself to the districts mentioned in vers, 
 19, 20 (ver. 22). 
 
 [Obs ver. 22 is an answer to a tacit objection. ‘If you have felt such interest 
 in us as to write as you do, why have you not paid us a visit before now ?’ 
 évexonréuny need not be explained of external hindrances: the Apostle’s 
 sense of duty has prevented the journey. Ta woAAd : in most cases, ‘ plerum- 
 
 , que.” The Apostle will not say that this motive entirely accounts for his 
 continued absence. | 
 
 2. Present anticipations of visiting Rome (vers. 23-29). 
 
 (A) General hopes of visiting Rome (vers. 23, 24). Their warrant. 
 
 [Obs. vuvt 5é (ver. 23) introduces a contrast to évexomrduny ver. 22.] 
 
 a. The Apostle has no longer scope (rérov) for founding new 
 Churches in the «Aiyara between Jerusalem and Illyria (ver. 
 23 a). 
 
 [0bs. «Aipa, ‘region,’ (from the apparent declension of the sky to the horizon) : 
 2 Cor. xi. 10; Gal. i. 21.] 
 
 b. The Apostle’s émmodia to visit the Romans is now of many 
 years’ standing (ver. 23 b). 
 
 (Obs. émmoGia only here. 2 Cor. vii. 7, 11 émnédOnots. Phil, iv. 1 bsg! sg On 
 the subject, see ch. i. 11, 13.] : q 
 
288 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 c. The Apostle hopes, whenever he carries out his projected 
 journey into Spain, to pass through Rome, and have a sight 
 (Gcécac@a) of the Roman Christians. After partially satisfy- 
 ing his longing to see them, he hopes to be sent forth by 
 them on his Spagish journey, with escort and provisions 
 (ver. 24). 
 
 (Obs. r. The words éAetoopat mpos ipas in the text. rec. are doubtful. The con- 
 
 struction is broken ; éAmi(w [yap] begins a new sentence, and the sentence, 
 which is thus interrupted, beginning at ws édv mopetwya, is not resumed. 
 The implied sense is given in ver. 28 dmeActoopat 5’ ipa cis Sraviav.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. S. Paul only contemplated passing through Rome (d:amopevdpevos ver. 24 ; 
 & tpav ver. 28), and remaining just long enough to see the several 
 members of the Church there. 6@eGc@a here only in S. Paul. It was in 
 accordance with the Apostolic rule, stated in ver. 20, that he would thus 
 hasten on to Spain, where as yet no Church had been founded. avia, 
 generally in Greek ‘I8ypia, Hdt. i. 163 ; Strabo, iii. 4. 16: but also ‘Iozavia 
 t Mace. viii. 3.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. mpomeupOjvar. This solemn act by which an Apostle was sent forth on 
 his work, accompanied by an escort of Christian friends, is most fully 
 described in Acts xxi. 5. Cf. Acts xv. 3; xx. 38; 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 11; 2 Cor. 
 i. 16. From these two last passages it seems that provision for the journey 
 was often made, éxef (by attraction for éxetoe, S. Matt. ii. 22; xvii. 20; S. 
 John xviii. 3) seems to show that S. Paul hoped to be accompanied, all the 
 way, by members of the Church of Rome; probably too, provisions would be 
 given him for the whole journey : Tit. iii. 13 ; 3 S. John 6, 7.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. By dd pépous the Apostle implies that he cannot hope within so short a 
 time for perfect spiritual satisfaction (€umAyo6®) through intercourse with 
 the Roman Church, They had more to give than he could expect to receive. 
 Observe the gen. of the person after éumAn700.] 
 
 (B) Engagement in the immediate future, which (only) postpones 
 his visit to Rome (vers. 25-28). 
 
 [Obs. vuvi 5é here introduces a contrast with the future sketched out in ver. 24, 
 
 just as vuvt 6€ in ver. 23 introduced a contrast with évexomréunv. The 
 
 Apostle has to account for not being able to act immediately in the spirit of 
 ver. 24; and his reasons follow. ] 
 
 (1) He is on his way to Jerusalem, in the service of the Christians 
 who live there (S:axovay rois dyiows), (ver. 25). 
 [Obs. By the pres. part. daxovav the Apostle implies that the journey itself was 
 part of the service, Winer, Gr. N. 7. p. 429.] 
 
 § Explanation (ydp ver, 26) of his phrase d:axordv trois ayios (vers, 
 26, 27). 
 
 a 
 
Epilogue: ch. XV, vv. 14-33. 289 
 
 a. The fact which this phrase presupposes. [The Churches of] 
 Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some 
 collection for those members of the Church of Jerusalem who 
 are poor (rots mrayxovs trav ayiwyv), (ver. 26). 
 
 [Obs. 1. kowovia is used for almsgiving, because true fellowship on the part of the 
 wealthy with the poor, implies a communication of some part of their sub- 
 stance. Hence the word acquires its active meaning. For xowwviay moin- 
 oacGa, see 2 Cor. viii. 4; ix. 13: also cf. Rom. xii. 13, which explains the 
 expression, Tais ypeiais THY ayiow KowavodvTes. By evddunnoav the spontaneous 
 character of the effort is marked; the reason of the eddoxia follows in 
 ver. 27.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. ‘Macedonia’ and ‘ Achaia’ were the two provinces into whieh Greece 
 was divided by the Romans. The names of the territorial districts are 
 used for the Christians who inhabit them. The Church has already a 
 presentiment of empire.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. The journey here alluded to is that to which 1 Cor. xvi. 1-4; Acts 
 xix. 21 refer. For the collection in Macedonia, sce 2 Cor. viii. 1; ix. 
 2sqq.; for that in Achaia, see 1 Cor. xvi. 1 sqq. (comp. Gal. vi.6sq.). By 
 twa the Apostle hints at his ignorance of the amount collected: the moral 
 value of the collection was in his eyes of much greater importance than the 
 exact sum.] fe 
 
 b. The motive for this collection. The Greek Churches were 
 spiritually debtors to the Church of Jerusalem, from which 
 the Gospel had gone forth. The claim of the Church of 
 Jerusalem upon the charity of the Greek Churches takes the 
 form of an arg. a majori ad minus :— 
 
 If the converted heathen had shared in the spiritual privileges of 
 the Jewish Christians, the converted heathen ought to make a 
 sacrifice, in the matter of their worldly goods, for the Jewish 
 Christians (ver. 27). — 
 
 [Obs. wat épedéra adds a new element to the repeated nvSdxnoav, The collection 
 ‘was a matter of free-will; and yet the Greek Churches were in the debt of 
 the Church of Jerusalem. By 7a mvevpatixd all the blessings of the Gospel 
 considered as gifts of the Holy Spirit are meant. Antioch, the first heathen 
 Church, was founded from Jerusalem, Acts xi. 19, 20. The least the 
 heathen could do was (Aeroupyjoa) to make a sacrificial service of 7d 
 oapuxa (their possessions belonging to the world of sense) for the benefit of 
 the poor Christians in Jerusalem. Aerovpyfoa, as at xiii, 6; xv. 16; cf. 
 Phil. iv. 18.] 
 
 (2) (Practical inference, otv ver 28.) When he has done his work 
 {for the Greeks who commission him, and] for the Jewish 
 U 
 
290 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Christians at Jerusalem, he will set out on another journey 
 (ameXevoouar) for Spain, and will pass through Rome (8 tpér) 
 (ver. 28). 
 
 [Obs. 1. Toro refers to the duty suggested by the circumstances described in 
 vers. 26, 27. For émredciv, ‘to complete,” see 2 Cor. vil. I; viii. 6, 11. 
 oppay.cdpevos, ‘having secured, as by affixing a seal to a document,’ this 
 fruit of charity to the Jewish Christians. By handing over to the Church 
 of Jerusalem the alms which were sent from Greece, the Apostle assured 
 these alms to that Church as its property. avdrois, like air@v and avrois in 
 ver. 27, refers to the Christians in Jerusalem, rather than the Greek 
 Christians. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. It is clear that S. Paul subsequently abandoned for awhile the hope of 
 visiting Spain: cf. Acts xx. 25. During his first imprisonment at Rome, 
 he looked forward to visiting Philippi (Phil. ii. 24), and Colossae (Philem. 
 22). This anticipation, however, is not inconsistent with his having 
 actually made a western journey before his second imprisonment. §. 
 Clement of Rome’ says expressly that he went ém 7d réppa THs dvcews (1 ad 
 Cor. ¢. v, on which see the note in Lightfoot’s ed.). Cf. Muratorian Frag- 
 ment apud Westcott, Hist. Canon, pp. 525 ff.: and among later authorities, 
 S. Jerome, De Vir. Illust.c. 5; Comm. in Amos, v. 8: S. Epiphanius, Haer. 
 xxvii. n. 6; Theodoret, Comm. in 2 Tim. iv. 17. Cf. Neander, Pflanzung d, 
 Kirche, i. p. 390.] 
 
 (C) Encouraging conviction about his visit to Rome (ot8a ver. 29), 
 He knows that it will be accompanied by a full measure of 
 Christ’s Blessing (ver. 29). 
 
 [Obs. 1. Tod ebayyeAtov, text. rec, is not found in A. B. C. D. E. F, G@. Clem. 
 Alex. Orig. Copt. al.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. This expression of confidence in the Blessing from Christ which would 
 attend his visit forms a natural transition to the exhortation which follows 
 (vers. 30-32).] 
 
 Reason IV. The Apostle’s ‘boldness’ is warranted by the affec- 
 tionate proof of confidence in the Roman Church which he 
 gives by asking to be personally remembered in its intercessions 
 (vers. 30-32). 
 
 1. Motives to this intercession (ver. 30). 
 { a, Our Lord Jesus Christ (ver. 30). 
 b. %) dydmn rod Ivedparos (ver, 30). 
 
 [Obs. 1. &a belongs to mapaxadd, It is by referring to our Lord Jesus, and to the 
 Love of the Spirit, that the Apostle desires to move his Roman readers to 
 pray for him, Cf. Winer, Gr. N. T. p. 477-] 
 
Epilogue: ch. XV, vv. 14-33. 2g1 
 
 [Obs, 2. The d-yarn tov Tvevparos may mean, (1) the Love of the Spirit whereby 
 He is the eternal Bond between the Father and the Son, or (2) the Love 
 which He inspires, Gal. v. 22. } 
 
 2. Description of this intercession,— 
 
 1. its generic character. It will occur among (¢v) the mpocevxai 
 tnép €nod mpos tov Gedy, which (he takes it for granted) are 
 offered by the Roman Church, (ver. 30). 
 
 2. its specific character. It is to be an earnest struggle, con- 
 certed between the Apostle and his readers (cuvayavifec6at), 
 
 (ver. 30). 
 
 [Obs. On ovvaywvifes@a, see Col. ii. 1 dydva mepi ipav: Col. iv 12 dywuCdpevos 
 imép tpav, Prayer is often an earnest struggle, as with Jacob, Gen. xxxii. 
 24; and our Lord in Gethsemane, S. Matt. xxvi. 37-44; S. Luke xxii. 40-44. 
 Cf. S. Clem. Rom, 1 ad Cor.c. 2 dyav jv bplv jpepas Te Kal vuerds bwép Tmaons 
 Tis adeApornros. | 
 
 3. Particular aims of this intercession (vers. 31, 32). 
 
 (1) That the Apostle might be delivered, during his approach- 
 ing journey, from the unbelieving Jews (ver. 31). 
 
 [Obs. The dredodvres are those Jews who refuse to give to Jesus Christ the 
 inakon tiorews, and therefore they are not the Judaeo-Christians, Rom. xi. 
 30, 31; Acts xiv. 2. 8S. Paul anticipated persecution from this quarter, 
 Acts xx. 22, 23. This prayer was not fulfilled (Acts xxi. 27), because 
 Christ had another destiny (Acts ix, 16) in store for His servant.] 
 
 (2) That the Apostle’s service, destined for Jerusalem, might 
 prove acceptable to the poor Christians living there (ver. 31 b). 
 
 [Obs. S. Paul might have felt doubtful as to the reception he (Rom. xi. 14; 
 Acts xx. 21 seq.) would meet, when bringing the alms of Greek Churches 
 to the Christians of Jerusalem. It could not be taken for granted that 
 he would be welcome, as representing the Greek Churches. ] 
 
 (3) That the Apostle, by Gon’s will, might carry out his plan of 
 visiting Rome, év xapa (ver. 32). 
 [0bs. He was led to Rome, dia OeArparos cod. But as a prisoner, Acts xxvii, 
 For &:d OeAnparos Gcod, cf. Rom. i. 10; 1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. i, 1, &e.] 
 (4) That the Apostle might refresh himself by spiritual inter- 
 course with the members of the Roman Church (ver. 32). 
 
 [Obs. With ovvavanaicwyar compare cupnapakAnOjva, i, 12. The interchange 
 of spiritual thoughts and sympathies would bring rest to the Apostle, 
 guvavarravecOa corresponds to cvvayavifecdat.] 
 
 U2 
 
292 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 source. Gop the Author of Peace (6 cds rijs elpquns), 
 (ver. 33)- 
 § Benediction. 4 Substance. Gon’s presence (yera), (ver. aut 
 Range. All members of the Roman Church (mdvrav 
 ipav), (ver. 33). 
 [Cbs. xépis is generally found, as in xvi. 20, 24. Probably the context suggested. 
 ciphvn : Gop is the author of the Blessing for which he asked the Romans 
 to pray.] 
 
 eg fab ee etek. id Ses hatrnet aS 
 peace * Ys) ee ee ah , = "eae ¥ Atlage sod 
 ! shar AA ii honenast anne evieaied 365-8 
 ES OT prt 
 
 batyate! . pr Oita he 
 ee hing hee aii tae eR 
 
 7 a % Ie pt? \ 
 sie € aa els eh Crete sae ri 
 és: eat ae Se eye 4 We a 
 * ; J Me 4 : y, 
 ; og. af A CA ee ea Ei ae 
 ee 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION, 
 Cu. XVI. 
 
 [Obs. 1. Recommendation of the Deaconess Phoebe to the care of the Church of 
 
 Rome (xvi. 1, 2). 
 
 2. Christians, and groups of Christians, at Rome to whom greetings and 
 messages are sent (vers. 3-16). 
 
 3. Warnings against schismatics and false teachers (vers. 17-20). 
 
 4. Christians who join the Apostle in sending greetings to the Church of 
 Rome (vers. 21-24). 
 
 5. Solemn concluding doxology (vers. 25-27).] 
 
 § & 
 Commendation of the Deaconess Phoebe, bearer of the Epistle, to 
 the care of the Church of Rome (xvi. 1, 2). 
 
 Phoebe is recommended to the Roman Church,— 
 
 1. (description) as being, 
 
 b. specifically, a Deaconess of the Church in 
 
 a. generally, a sister in Christ (ver. 1). 
 Cenchreae (ver. 1). 
 
 2. (purpose, iva ver. 2), 
 a. that the Roman Church should receive her, 
 * (1) from a sense of fellowship with our Lord 
 
 (é€v Kupio), and so (2) in a manner worthy of 
 Christians who realize this (ver. 2 a). 
 
 b. that it should assist her in any respect wherein 
 she might need assistance (ver. 2 a). 
 3. Especial reason, xai yap (ver. 2 b)— 
 { a. she has been a mpoordris roddGv (ver. 2b) : 
 b. and indeed of the Apostle himself (ver. 2 b). 
 
 [Obs. x. owviornu. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 12 éavrods cumordvopev. For the three kinds of 
 ‘literae formatae’ in the ancient Church, ‘commendatoriae,’ ‘communi- 
 
294 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 eatoriae,’ and ‘dimissoriae,’ see Bingham, Antig. i. p. 100. book ii. ¢. 4. 
 § 5 ‘Strangers travelling without commendatory letters might partake 
 of the Church’s charity, but not of the communion of the altar’; 1b. vi. 
 p. 366, book xvii. ¢. 3. § 7.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. ddeApyj, as a member of the family of Christ, cf. giAdoropyo xii. ro. 
 didxovos, in later Greek d:axducc0, also mpeoBiris, probably also yjpa. In 
 later times the xjpa: were an order, at least at Ephesus, of women who had 
 only married once, and were sixty years of age, t Tim. v.9. The mpeaBv- 
 mies, besides moral qualifications, were to be xadod:ddoxardo Tit. ii. 4. 
 Pliny speaks of putting two Christian ‘ministrae’ to the torture, Lib. x. 
 Ep. 97. For a full account of deaconesses in the Primitive Church, see 
 Bingham, Antig. vol. i. p. 332 sq. book ii. ¢. 22.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. Cenchreae was 7o stadia from Corinth, and its eastern port on the 
 Saronic gulf; ef. Acts xviii. 18. The expression «at airod éuod (ver. 2) 
 
 might seem to imply that the Apostle had been ill at Cenchreae, and had 
 been nursed by Phoebe. ] 
 
 [Obs. 4. Observe the play on mapaorfre and mpoordtis. mapacratis would have 
 corresponded with mapacrjre, but mpoordatis, ‘patroness,’ ‘protectress,’ 
 answered better to the official and personal eminence of Phoebe. ] 
 
 § 2, 
 
 Thirty-one names, or groups, of Christians at Rome, to whom the 
 Apostle sends messages or greetings (vers. 3-16). 
 
 1. Prisca (ver. 3). 
 
 2, Aquila (ver. 3). 
 
 a. They have worked with the Apostle, cvvepyot év Xpiora (ver. 3). 
 b. They volunteered to suffer death, in order to save him 
 
 (ver. 4). 
 c, They have thus earned the gratitude of all the Gentile 
 Churches, as well as his own (ver. 4). 
 
 [Obs. 1. Prisca, 2 Tim. iv. 19, is Priscilla, Acts xviii. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 19. When 
 addressed or referred to she is named first, probably as being the stronger 
 and more decided character, Acts xviii, 18; 2 Tim. iv. 19: not in 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 19, where both salute. Aquila was a native of Pontus, who had settled 
 with his wife at Rome, when he was expelled by the Decree of Claudius 
 Caesar (Merivale, Romans wnder the Empire, vi. p. 263, ed. 1858). On reaching 
 Corinth they met S. Paul, and their conversion followed. They thence 
 went to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 19), and had again, before 
 the date of this Epistle, returned to Rome. At the close of S. Paul’s life 
 (2 Tim. iv. 19) they were again living at Ephesus.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Of the epithet ovvepyol, the instruction in Christian doctrine which 
 Aquila and his wife gave to the learned Alexandrian Apollos is a con- 
 
 
 
Conclusion: ch. XVI. 295 
 
 spicuous illustration, Acts xviii. 26. They (rpayndov tréOnxav) placed their 
 own necks under the axe of the executioner ; i.e. invited death, in order to 
 save the Apostle’s life. This may have occurred during the Jewish riots at 
 Corinth, Acts xviii. 12 ; or in the pagan tdpaxos ov ddryés at Ephesus, Acts 
 xix. 23.] 
 
 3. The éxxAnoia in the house of Prisca and Aquila (ver. 5). 
 
 (Obs. tiv Kaz’ olkov aitav éxxdnoiay probably means the Christians who were 
 accustomed to meet at the house of Aquila and Prisca, rather than the 
 members of their household, which would have been very small. Aquila 
 and Prisea used their house at Ephesus for a similar purpose, 1 Cor. xvi. 19. 
 Nymphas had a xa7’ ofkov éxxAnoia at Laodicea (Col. iv. 15) ; sohad Philemon 
 at Colossae (Philem, 2).] 
 
 4. Epaenetus (ver. 5). 
 
 f a. Beloved by the Apostle, ayamnrés pov (ver. 5). 
 
 b. The first convert from the western portion of Asia Minor 
 ( (dmapxy ths ’Acias), (ver. 5). 
 
 [Obs. 1. Instead of *Ayaias text. rec., read ’Agias with A. B. &. C. D*. F. G. It. 
 Copt. aeth. ete. "Axalas is at issue with 1x Cor. xvi. 15, where Stephanas is 
 said to be dnapxi) ris “Axaias, unless, (1) dmapxy be a first-fruit, or (2) 
 Epaenetus was an inmate of the household of Stephanas, and baptized at 
 
 the same time. Dorotheus, quoted by Justiniani, makes Epaenetus sub- 
 sequently Bishop of Carthage. | 
 
 [Obs. 2, Asia is here used not as ‘ Asia proconsularis,’ or ‘cis Taurum,’ but in 
 the narrowest of its three senses, as when it is contrasted with Pontus 
 (Acts ii. 9) or Cilicia (Acts vi. 9); or described as lying in the Apostle’s 
 journey between Phrygia and Galatia on the one hand, and Mysia on the 
 other (Acts xvi. 6); or distinguished from Cappadocia and Bithynia, as 
 well as Pontus and Galatia (1 S. Pet. i. 1); or referred to as the district 
 within which the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse were situated (Rev. i. 
 
 4, 11).] 
 
 5. Mary (Mapidpz), a Jewess by birth (ver. 6). At some past time 
 she had toiled much with a view to helping (és) the Romans 
 (ipas) (ver. 6). 
 
 {Obs, 1. The aorist éxomiace points to some past date well known to the readers 
 of the Epistle. Probably she was a deaconess. The work of this Mary 
 
 would not have included public teaching, see x Cor. xiv. 34, 35; but very 
 probably private instruction in Christian doctrine, See S. Chrys. in loc.] 
 
 _ [0bs. 2, There seems no sufficient reason for eis jyas.] 
 
 6. Andronicus (ver. 7). 
 
 [0bs. He is said by Dorotheus to have become a bishop in Pannonia. Such 
 traditions are probably of later growth.] 
 
296 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 7. Junias, or Junianus, "Iovnis (ver. 7). 
 
 [Obs. S. Chrys. and others, with the A. V. accentuate “Iovviay as feminine, and 
 understand the sister or wife of Andronicus. émionyo: év tois dmoorédos 
 (ver. 7) is not decisive. Cf. ovvepyoi (ver. 3) of Prisca.] 
 
 § Andronicus and Junias characterized (ver. 7)— 
 
 (1) as kinsmen of the Apostle (cvyyeveis), (ver. 7). 
 (2) as having been fellow-prisoners with him (ovvatxpaderor), 
 
 (ver. 7). 
 
 (3) as enjoying great consideration (émionnor) among the Apostles 
 (ver. 7). 
 
 (4) as having been ‘members of Christ’ (¢v Xpiorg) before the 
 Apostle himself (ver. 7). 
 
 [Obs. 1. ovyyeveis may mean only Israelites (ix. 3). But when the context does 
 not require this, the narrower meaning of ‘relations’ is more natural 
 (S. Mark vi. 4; Acts x. 24), as also implying a distinction which Jewish 
 birth alone would hardly give. The Apostle had a sister and a nephew, 
 Acts xxiii. 16. In vers. 11, 21 the designation is applied to Herodion, 
 Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater. We know too little of the Apostle’s family 
 to indulge in conjectures as to the degree of kin in which these persons 
 stood to him: probably it would have been a distant one. ] 
 
 ' [Obs. 2. svvatypadwrous refers to some unrecorded imprisonment of the Apostle : . 
 we know that he was imprisoned seven times, 8. Clem. Rom. 1 Zp, ad 
 
 Cor. 5; ef. 2 Cor. vi. 5. The word is based on the metaphor of captivity in 
 war, Vii. 23 ; 2 Cor. x. 5; Eph. iv. 8.] 
 
 [Obs. 3. For émionuo év dmoorddAas, highly esteemed by the Apostles, cf. Eur. 
 Hippol. 103 énionpos év Bpotois, &. In 1 Cor. xv. 7 adméarodos is used by 
 S. Paul in the generic sense, but even then including the twelve. Meyer 
 will not allow this wider reference elsewhere. But see 2 Cor. villi. 23 ; 
 compare Acts xiv. 4, 14. Origen, S. Chrys. understand ‘distinguished 
 among Apostles,’ i.e. distinguished Apostles; and 8. Chrys. expresses his 
 wonder at the distinction thus conferred upon a woman, as he reads Junia 
 (in loc.).] 
 
 [Ots. 4. Obs. the expression év Xpior@ civa, for being a Christian; éy Xpioro 
 yivecOa, for conversion. The Christian life is conceived of, not simply 
 as an assent to the doctrine of Christ, but as incorporation with 
 —existence in—Christ, as the sphere of the New Life. An earlier date of 
 conversion than his own was in S. Paul’s eyes a great distinction. Comp. 
 Acts xxi. 16 dpxaiw pwaénr7. | 
 
 4 
 
 8. Amplias, dyamyrés pou év Kuplo (ver. 8), , ; >a aI 
 
 [0vs. Amplias, abbreviated for Ampliatus, a common name in the imperial vi 
 household : Gruter, Inser. Rom. Corp. p. 62. 10; Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 174, 
 
 ‘Caesar’s household,’ Tradition (pseudo-Hippolytus quoted by Justiniani) — 
 
 makes him subsequently Bishop of Odessa. ] 
 
 
 
Conclusion: ch. XVI. 297 
 
 9. Urbanus, cvvepyis qpav ev Xptorg (ver. 9). 
 
 [Obs. Also common in the imperial househcld: Lightfoot, p. 174. Said by 
 pseudo-Hippolytus, in his ‘history of the Seventy disciples’ quoted by 
 Justiniani, to have become a Bishop in Macedonia. Nothing about him is 
 certainly known; but the prep. jay seems to show that Urbanus had 
 helped, not the Apostle (who uses pov when referring to himself), but 
 the Roman Church, at some earlier time, in propagating the Faith. ] 
 
 10. Stachys, dyamyrds pov (ver. 9). 
 
 [O0bs. Possibly a court-physician mentioned in an inscription: Lightfoot, ubi 
 supra. The Roman Martyrology makes him Bishop of Byzantium. } 
 
 11. Apelles, 6 ddxos &v Xpore (ver. 10). 
 
 [Cbs. The name of a well-known Jew of the previous generation: Hor. Sat. i. 5. 
 100. And of a court-tragedian, who belonged to Ascalon under Caligula 
 (Lightfoot). He is not to be confounded with Apollos. ] 
 
 12. Some of the slaves of Aristobulus, of é« ray "ApioroBovAov 
 (ver. 10), 
 [0bs. Possibly Aristobulus the younger, grandson of Herod the Great, He died 
 
 at Rome, and may have left his slaves to the Emperor Claudius: Joseph. 
 Bell, Jud. ii. 11. 6; Lightfoot, p. 175. ] 
 
 13. Herodion, a kinsman of the Apostle (ver.-11). 
 
 [0bs. Possibly a freedman of the Herodian family, one of the Aristobuliani.] 
 
 14. Some of the slaves of Narcissus, of é« rév Napkiocou, dvres év 
 Kupi@ (ver. I1). 
 
 [Obs. Narcissus may have been the powerful libertus of the Emperor Claudius : 
 Suet. Claudius, 37; Vesp. 4; Tac. Ann. xi. 29 sqq.; xii. 57. Although his 
 death occurred in the first year of Nero, a.p. 54: Tac. Ann, xiii. 1, his 
 household would have been kept together, and have continued to bear his 
 name, after passing into the hands of the Emperor. On his enormous 
 fortune, see Juv. xiv. 329; Neander, Planting and Training, i. p. 279, note 1, 
 BRN 4 
 
 15. Tryphaena (ver, 1) Go ee : 
 16, Tryphosa (ver. I ay  agsibaet ev Kupio (ver. 12), 
 
 17. Persis, 9 dyannry, ris mohNa exoriacev ev Kupio (ver. 12), 
 
 {0bs. For the occurrence of these names in inscriptions referring to the imperial 
 housekold, see Lightfoot, p.173. These women were probably deaconesses : 
 Persis evidently stood highest in the estimate of the Apostle. A rich 
 widow, Tryphaena of Iconium, is mentioned in the Acls of Theda, ¢. 9.] 
 
 
 
298 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 18. Rufus, 6 éxexrés €v Kupio (ver. 13). 
 
 [0bs. He may have been the son of Simon of Cyrene, and brother of Alexander, 
 S. Mark xy. 21. 8. Mark, who probably wrote in Rome, assumes that Rufus 
 was well known. éxAexrds év Kupig, ‘a choice Christian, not merely chosen 
 to be a Christian, which would imply nothing distinctive. Cf. x Tim. v. 
 21; 18. Pet.ii.4; 28S. Johni. 13; Wisd. iii. 14.] 
 
 19. The mother of Rufus, who by her tender charity made herself 
 a mother to the Apostle (ver. 13). 
 
 {Obs. For an earlier acknowledgment of personal indebtedness, see ver. 2. 
 Also 1 Cor. xvi. 18; Philem. 11. The circumstances referred to are quite 
 unknown. | 
 
 20. Asyneritus (ver. 14). 
 
 [Obs. With Asyncritus, the laudatory epithets cease. S. Chrys. thinks that the 
 names which follow are those of Christians of less eminence for sanctity or 
 labour. The order of names ‘Eppjjv, MarpéBay, ‘Eppay, according to A. B. C. 
 De PG. Ps.) 
 
 21. Phlegon (ver. 14). 
 
 22. Hermes (ver. 14). 
 
 [Obs. A very common name in inscriptions.of the household.] 
 
 23. Patrobas (ver. 14). 
 
 [0bs. Perhaps a dependent of Patrobius, the freedman of Nero, who was killed by 
 Galba : Tac. Hist. i. 49 ; ii. 95.] 
 
 24. Hermas (ver. 14). 
 
 [Obs. Origen (in loc.) makes this Hermas the author of the book 6 roipqv : so Eus. 
 Eccl. Hist. iii. 3, on which however see the note of Valesius, Annotat. Var. 
 i, p. go, ed. Cantab. 1720. According to the Muratorian Fragment, the 
 writer of the rounv was a brother to Pius I, Bishop of Rome, and would 
 therefore have lived in the middle of the second century. | 
 25. Christians associated with the five persons who are last 
 named (ver. 14). 
 
 [Obs. These ‘brethren’ were probably members of xat’ oixov éxxAncia, gathered 
 round each of the above-named Christians, who, Olshausen suggests, may 
 have been presbyters. ] 
 
 26. Philologus (ver. 15). 
 
 {Obvs. The name is found in inscriptions connected with the imperial household. } 
 24. Julia, probably wife of Philologus (ver. 15). 
 
 [Obs. This name would belong to a dependent of the court.] 
 
Conclusion: ch. XVI. 299 
 
 28. Nereus (ver. 15). 
 
 29. The Sister of Nereus (ver. 15). 
 
 [0bs. Nereis was a member of the household about this time.] 
 
 30. Olympas (ver. 15). 
 31. Christians associated with the five persons who are last named 
 (ver. 15). 
 
 [0bs. The names in vers. 14, 15 occur in Gruter. On the general subject of these 
 names, see Lightfoot’s account of inscriptions in Columbaria at Rome 
 (Journal of Classical Philology, No. x. p. 57), used as receptacles for the ashes 
 of slaves and freedmen of the imperial family. Some of the names, 
 as Hermas and Nereis, are connected with the Claudian gens; others, as 
 Tryphaena and Tryphosa, with the Valerian (that of Messalina) ; others, as 
 Philologus and Ampliatus, occur independently. Cf. Merivale, Romans under 
 the Emp. vi. 259, note 3. See the note ‘Caesar’s Household’ in Lightfoot, 
 Philippians, pp. 171-177. ] 
 
 § Precept. The Roman Christians are to salute each other with 
 the Anya dyov (ver. 16 a). 
 
 [0bs. The ancient eastern and especially Jewish custom of marking a greeting 
 with a kiss led to the Christian ceremony of the piAnpa dyoy 1 Cor. xvi. 
 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26: piAnua dydarns 1 S. Pet. v. 143 Const. 
 Ap. ii. 57. 12 70 év Kupiw giana: Tert. de Orat. 18 ‘osculum pacis.’ On the 
 moral meaning of the ceremony, see the beautiful words of S. Chrysostom, 
 Hom. in 2 Cor. viii. 12. So S. Cyr. Hierosol. Cat. Myst. v. 3 [rotro 70 pidnpa] 
 dvakipvnot Tas Yuxds GAAnAas, Kal macav dpynoikakiav avtais pynoreverat, 
 Snpeiov roivuy éort 7rd Pidnpa, Tod dvaxpabjva ras Puxds, kal macay eopitev 
 prnoixaniavy, The Kiss of Peace was a feature of the Eucharistic Service of 
 the Primitive Church; but in the East, in accordance with S. Matt. v. 24, 
 it took place at the Oblation of the Elements, (S. Cyr. Hierosol. Catech. 
 Mystagog. v. 3; S. Chrys. de Compunct. Cord. i. 3; perhaps too S. Justin 
 Martyr, Apol. i. 65); while in the West, it was after the Consecration and 
 the Lord’s Prayer, ‘inter ipsa Sacramenta’; S. Aug. contr. lit. Petiliani, 
 li. 53; Serm. de tempore, ecxxvii; especially, Innocentii I, Zp. xxv. ad 
 Decentium, ce. 1 ‘Pacis osculum dandum esse post confecta mysteria, ut 
 appareat populum ad omnia, quae in mysteriis aguntur, atque in ecclesia 
 celebrantur, praebuisse consensum,’] 
 
 § Greetings sent to the Church of Rome from all the Churches of 
 Christ (ver. 16 b). 
 
 [0bs. The evidence for maéoa (ver. 16b), omitted by text. rec., is decisive. It 
 does not follow that all the Churches had actually entrusted the Apostle 
 with their greetings to the Church of Rome; but ‘quoniam cognovit 
 omnium erga Romanos studium, omnium nomine salutat.” It seems 
 difficult to restrict maca to (1) all the Greek Churches, or (2) all the Churches 
 in and about Corinth, without arbitrariness. ] 
 
300 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 § 3. 
 
 Warnings against false teachers who might be expected to introduce 
 error and division into the Church of Rome (vers. 17-20). 
 
 [Obs. 1. If the false teachers had actually appeared in Rome when S. Paul wrote, 
 he would probably have treated of the dangers which they brought with 
 them at length, and in the body of the Epistle. This supplementary 
 treatment shows that a hint of a possibly impending danger was all that 
 was needed. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. It would seem from ver. 17 that Judaizing teachers are meant: Gal. ii. 
 6. 11 sq. ; Phil. iii. 2 sqq. 18, 19; 2 Cor. xi. 13 sqq.] 
 
 § Precept. Mark and avoid false teachers (ver. 17). 
 
 (1) The persons referred to are characterized by two notes (ver. 17). 
 { a. They cause d:yooracia and oxavdada (ver. 17). 
 b. They act mapa riv didaxnv hv eudbere (ver. 17). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The expression d:xocracia finds its foil and explanation in the Apostle’s 
 fervent language about Church Unity in xv.6 sq. as «ata “Inootdv Xpordv and 
 designed to glorify Gop the Father. 6:yooracia: would include any separa- 
 tions which break up the religious intereommunion of souls: they charac- 
 terise the oapxixoi x Cor. iii. 3, and form the twelfth épyov ris capxdés Gal. 
 v.20. For cxdvéada, see xiv.13. Itis here used, perhaps, in a wider sense. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. In mapa riv bidaxiv jy éuabere, mapa means ‘ opposition as implied in going 
 beyond’ the received Revelation. The principle of Divine Revelation is 
 opposed, when anything is added on human authority. For the use of wapd, 
 see Rom. i. 25; iv. 18; xii.3; Gal. i. 8. This canon of truth is stated more 
 strongly at Gal. i. 8, and is also found in 1 S. John ii. 20-27; 28. John 9; 
 S. Jude 3. It is the principle of Catholic prescription, as worked out by 
 S. Irenaeus and Tertullian in the second and third centuries; and it is 
 equally opposed to all denials and all accretive developments of the original 
 deposit of Christian Doctrine committed to the Church of Christ.] 
 
 2. The conduct towards them prescribed by the Apostle is, 
 
 a. okoreiv, keep them in view (in order to guard against 
 them), (ver. 17). 
 
 [Obs. oxoneiv = ‘speculari.’ Cf. Phil. iii. 2 BAémere.] 
 
 b. exxdivate an’ atray, ‘turn away from them’ (ver. 17). 
 
 (Obs. This rule, éxxAivare x.7.d., is not for the Rulers of the Church 
 who might be bound to excommunicate such offenders ; but for 
 private Christians. It is a specific application of the general 
 principle éxmA\ive dns naxod 1S Pet. iii. 11. Compare mepi- 
 israco, Tit. iii.9g and 2S. Johnto. 8. Timothy as a Bishop was 
 
 ‘ desired év mpaiirnre madevew rods dyriDittride nevous 2 Tim. ii. 25. 
 i Cf. ver. 14, and Titus, aiperixov faired oT play Kai ig 
 vouGeciav mapavr ot ili. gi) 
 
 . 
 
 Pa 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 -~ 
 wn 
 q 
 
 a es 
 f 
 
 
 
Conclusion: ch. XVI. 301 
 
 Arg. 1. From the character and proceedings of these teachers 
 (ver, 18). 
 
 a. The Master whom they serve (Sovdevover) is, (ver. 18), 
 { (negative) mot our Lord Jesus Christ (ver. 18), 
 (positive) but ri éavray xowdig (ver. 18). 
 
 b. The nature of their efforts (ver. 18)— 
 
 (their teaching) ; deception (é€amaréaw), (ver. 18). 
 
 (sphere in which they work) ; the affections of the simple (ai 
 kapStat Tov dxdkov), (ver. 18). 
 
 (means which they employ); speeches reassuring as_ to 
 substance, and well-expressed (xpyorodoyia and «idAoyia), 
 (ver. 18). 
 
 [0bs. x. The sensual trait implied in TH koiXia avta@y corresponds to the description 
 of the Judaizing éx@pol rod oravpod in Phil. iii. 18. The phrases 79 xovAla 
 dovdeve, 7 yaorpi Sovrdedev, ‘abdomini servire’ (Seneca, de Benef. vii. 26), 
 describe the particular form of selfishness to which the teachers in question 
 were enslaved, and which their influence and popularity enabled them to 
 gratify. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 20 ef Tis KaTeobie. | 
 
 [Obs. 2. The deceitfulness of these teachers corresponds with that ascribed to the 
 Corinthian Judaizers: 2 Cor. xi. 13 PevdandarodAot, Epyarar 5dr, peTacxn- 
 pari(dpevor eis dmoordAous Xpiorov x.7.A. The heretics of the Pastoral Epistles 
 too vopifover mopicpov civ thy evoéBeav 1 Tim. vi. 5. They are pevanara 
 padtora of éx Ths mepiropys, and SiddoKxovres & pi) Sel aicxpod Képdovs xapw 
 (Tit. i. ro, 11). The mAdvn rod Badady wodod S. Jude 11; 28. Pet. ii. 15; 
 Rev. ii. 14. Cf. ib. ver. 9 BAaodnpia Trav AcyovTwy "Tovdaious civar éavrots Kat 
 ovx« eit are analogous, but distinct, as belonging to a later Antinomianism 
 which caricatured S. Paul’s doctrines on the Subject of Grace. ] 
 
 [0bs. 3. Machinery of deception. xpnorodroyia differs from etAoyia as the substance 
 of what is said from its form. The false teachers said admirable things and 
 expressed themselves well. Julius Capitolinus referring to Pertinax, ¢. 13 
 ‘ Chrestologum eum appellantes, qui bene loqueretur et male faceret.’ SoS. 
 Chrys. in loc. The classical Adyor xpyoroi is equivalent. evAoyia here rather 
 
 . ‘fine phraseology ’ (Plat. Rep. 400 D) than, according to the more ordinary 
 signification, ‘praise,’ ‘blessing.’ The d«axo (Heb. vii. 26) neither do, 
 nor suspect others of, evil.] 
 
 Arg. 2. From the Apostle’s (i) delight in, and (ii) wishes repeating 
 the Roman Christians (ver. 19). 
 
 ‘[Obs. yap (ver. 19) apparently assigns a new reason for mapaxad@ x. T. X. ver. 17. 
 Meyer will not allow that the use of a second coordinated yap is to be found 
 in the N. T., and he refers yap here to rds xapdias Trav dxakav ver. 18, as 
 justifying that phrase. But cf. fetta Gr. N. T. p. 560. This is ae an 
 ‘explicative’ ydp.] : 
 
302 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 i. The obedience of the Romans to the Faith is a matter of general 
 notoriety in the Church; and on this very account (ovy ver. 
 19) the Apostle delights in them. Surely they would not belie 
 their character! (ver. 19). 
 
 [Obs. imaxon here = riots. Rom. i. 8 § mioris bydv KarayyéAdrera év Sdw TH Kbopw. 
 For the reputation of the Thessalonians, cf. 1 Thess. i. 4 ; and Corinthians, ef. 
 2 Cor. vii. 14. There is no sufficient authority for 7é before 颒 in text. rec. 
 A.B. al. read 颒 iptv ody xaipw.] 
 
 ii. But (5¢, adversat.) the Apostle wishes them to be— 
 
 ; a. practically wise in the pursuit of good (ver. 19). 
 b. undefiled (dxepaiovs) in the direction of evil (ver. 19). 
 
 This will only be possible, if they resolve to keep away from 
 (exkdiveww ds) the teachers referred to in ver. 17. 
 
 [Obs. Compare with the Apostolic 6éAw our Lord’s precept, S. Matt. x. 16 yiveo@e 
 Pporipor ws of Opes, wal axépaior ws ai mepiorepai, The Apostle uses cods as 
 practically equivalent to ppdvipos. Cf. xi. 33. dxépatos, lit. unmixed; not 
 from épas, xepaifev (Reithmayr). Obs. eis, as = with reference to, in 
 the direction of. The abstract words dya0év, caxév, mean respectively the 
 Apostolic Faith, and the error of the Judaizing teachers. ] 
 
 Arg. 3. From encouraging promise of victory ; (5¢ contrasts with 
 the apprehensions of ver. 20). The Gop of Peace will bruise 
 Satan under the feet of the Roman Church shortly. [Let it 
 not forfeit victory by sinful concessions.] (ver. 20). 
 
 [Obs. 1. The name Satan join (enemy, LXX transl. 6:4BoA0s) occurs in 1 Chron, 
 xxi. 1; Job i. 6; Zech. iii. 1, &. In N, T. thirty-five times. On the 
 personality of the Evil One, see Martensen, Dogmatik, § 101, E.T. p. 188. 
 The Christian belief in the Devil as ‘a superhuman yet created spirit, who 
 originally was good, but fell from his station, and in pride became the 
 enemy of Gop, involves the clearest contrast and opposition to the dualism 
 of heathendom, which either makes two fundamentally distinct existences, 
 as in the Persian religion ; or makes evil the dark and mysterious source 
 from which good developes itself, and which existence conquers, the view 
 adopted by the Greek and Northern mythologies.’ See the whole section.] 
 
 [Obs. 2. When naming Satan, S. Paul thinks of the ministers or organs through 
 whom Satan works, namely, the Judaizing teachers. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 15. 
 The bruising Satan takes place only in the might of Gop’s power. Gopi 
 said to be 77s eipnvns in contrast to the mowdyres Tas dixooracias ver. 17. 
 ovyrpive is an allusion to Gen. iii. 15.] 
 
 § Benediction (ver. 20) conveys— 
 
Conclusion: ch. XVI. 303 
 
 ixapes (a. source (rod K, "I. X.) is Jesus Christ (ver. 20 b). 
 of which 4 b. recipients (ue ipav) are the readers of the Epistle 
 the (yer. 20 b). 
 
 § 4, 
 
 Eight Christians who unite with the Apostle in sending greetings to the 
 Roman Church (vers. 21-23). 
 
 1. Timotheus, .6 cuvvepyds pov (ver. 21). 
 
 [Obs. On the history of S. Timothy, see the materials in Winer’s Realwoerterbuch, 
 s.v. Besides the two Epistles addressed to him by the Apostle, see especially 
 Acts xvi. 1-3; Phil. ii. 19 sqq. His name is associated with that of S. 
 Paul as a joint writer of 2 Cor. ; Phil.; Col.; 1 Thess. ; 2 Thess. ; Philemon ; 
 and, as he was in Corinth when the Epistle to the Romans was written, 
 surprise may be felt at the omission of his name at the beginning of this 
 Epistle. It is possible that, (1) he did not arrive in Corinth until the Epistle 
 was partly composed, or (2) that S. Paul was unwilling to associate any one 
 of less than Apostolic authority with himself when addressing the Roman 
 Church. } 
 
 2. Lucius, . 
 3. Jason, of ovyyeveis pou. (ver. 21). 
 4, Sosipater, 
 
 {Obs. 1. Lucius is identified with S. Luke the Evangelist by Origen, and some 
 moderns. He is probably Lucius of Cyrene, a teacher in the Church of 
 Antioch, Acts xiii. 1, who, according to Const. Apost. vii. 46, was made 
 Bishop of Cenchreae by S. Paul, although a distinct tradition places him at 
 Laodicea.]} ; 
 
 [{Obs. 2. Jason is probably the Thessalonian Christian of that name, with whom 
 8. Paul lodged in his Second Missionary Journey, Acts xvii. 5 sqq., and 
 who would have been likely to attach himself to the Apostle. Tradition 
 makes him Bishop of Tarsus, Fabricius, Lua Evangelii, p. 91.] 
 
 [0bs. 3. Sosipater, probably (although not certainly) Sopater of Beroea in Mace- 
 _ donia, whom in his Third Missionary Journey the Apostle took with him 
 from Greece to Asia, Acts xx. 4. According to tradition, Bishop of 
 Iconium. All three were ovyyeveis of the Apostle, but how nearly related 
 
 it is impossible to conjecture. ] 
 
 5. Tertius, the Amanuensis. 
 $° His claim, 6 ypawas riyv emorodyy (ver. 22). 
 b. His message, domafopat év Kupi (ver. 22). 
 
 (Obs. 1. Tertius was probably an Italian merchant at Corinth, well known to 
 members of the Roman Church; he too is traditionally represented as 
 
304 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 becoming a Bishop of Iconium; Fabricius, Lux Evangelii, p. 117. The 
 opinions, (1) that the Apostle’s own name was Tertius Paulus (Roloff. de 
 tribus Pauli nomin. 1731), and (2) that, Tertius was the same person as Silas, 
 as being the Latin rendering of WW or windy (Burmann al.), are only 
 curiosa. Silas was not with S. Paul at this time, but in Antioch, Acts xy. 
 34: and there does not seem to have been any such Hebrew proper name 
 as ‘wow. Tertius was a common name ; ef. Gruter. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2. Tertius, as broypadeds, is allowed by the Apostle to send a greeting in 
 his own name, and in the first person. This is what would have occurred 
 naturally : S. Paul resumes his dictation in ver. 23. There is no ground 
 for the theory of Grotius, that Tertius merely copied S. Paul’s MS., and 
 placed this personal greeting in the margin. For the Apostle’s custom of 
 dictating his Epistles, see r Cor. xvi. 21; Gal. vi. 11 ; Col. iv. 18; 2 Thess. 
 iii. 17. ] 
 
 6. Gaius, the host (fevos), (ver. 23\— 
 
 a. of the Apostle (uov), (ver. 23). 
 \ of all Christians who claim hospitality from him (kai rijs 
 €xkAnatas Gdns), (ver. 23). 
 
 [Obs. This Gaius must be identified with Gaius of Corinth, who was baptized 
 by the Apostle, 1 Cor. i. 14. The phrase kai ris éxxAnoias bAns is better 
 explained by his hospitality to all Christians visiting Corinth (Meyer), 
 than by his opening his house for prayer. When S. Paul first arrived at 
 Corinth, he stayed with Aquila and Priscilla, Acts xviii. 1 sqq. He 
 preached, but did not lodge, in the house of Justus, Acts xviii. 7. This 
 Gaius of Corinth may be also Gaius of Derbe, Acts xx. 4; Derbe being his 
 real birthplace : but he cannot also be identified with Gaius of Thessa- 
 lonica, Acts xix. 29. He has also been identified with the Gaius of 3 Ep. 
 S. John: this is possible, if he is the same person as Gaius of Derbe. (See 
 Michaelis, Zinl. N. T. ii. 1279 sq.)] 
 
 4. Erastus, oixdvopos rijs ré\ews (Arcarius civitatis), (ver. 23). C 
 
 [0bs. There seems to be no adequate reason for rejecting the identity of this 
 Erastus with the person named in Acts xix. 22, and 2 Tim. iv. 20, as he 
 would probably have given up his civil position, in order to devote himself 
 to the Apostle, and is called oi«évopos ths méA€ws, as having occupied that 
 office in former years. Neander, Pflanzung, i. 394, however, will not allow 
 this supposition, and denies the identity. In the Menolog. Graecum (i. 179) 
 he is described as subsequently Oeconomus of the Church at Jerusalem, 
 and Bishop of Paneas. He must have been a person of high consideration 
 at Corinth. See x Cor. i. 26 sqq.] 
 
 8. Quartus, 6 dded¢ds (ver. 23). 
 
 [Obs. é8eApés=a Christian. The absence of adrod (see ver. 15) is fatal to the 
 supposition that he was a brother of Erastus. ] : 
 
 
 
Conclusion: ch. XVI. 305 
 
 § Benediction (repeated from ver. 20b), (ver. 24). 
 
 [0bs. This benediction, repeated from ver. 20, is an Apostolic equivalent to the 
 Latin ‘vale iterum,’ and is wanting in A. B. C. 8. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. etc. But 
 the repetition, of itself, would have led the copyists to omit it, cf. Meyer. 
 Wolf says, ‘ Apostoli mos ita fert ut eandem salutandi formulam aliquoties 
 repetat.’ Vide 2 Thess. iii. 16 and 18.] 
 
 § 5. 
 
 Concluding Doxology (vers. 25-27). 
 
 [Obs. x. Genuineness of the Doxology. This has been disputed on the grounds of (1) 
 ‘the unsuitableness of its position, whether at the end of c. xiv. or after 
 Xvi. 23.’ It is unsuitable in the former, but not in the latter position, 
 where, after all the closing messages have been delivered, it gathers up the 
 main thoughts of the Epistle into an aseription of praise to Gop. (2) ‘Its 
 ‘“‘unpauline” want of simplicity.’ It is more elaborate, certainly, than 
 any other doxology in S. Paul ; it much resembles 8. Jude 24, 25, which is, 
 not impossibly, modelled on it. But its unique position, at the close of an 
 Epistle so full of the deepest thought, will account for its fervid language 
 and broken structure—evidences of the strong, over-mastering feelings of 
 the writer. (3) ‘The unusual and obscure character of some of its lan- 
 guage.’ But when examined in detail, this is found to represent in a con- 
 centrated form the leading truths of the Epistle, and to be especially 
 characteristic of S. Paul. The suggestion that ypdvois aiwvios, ceavynuévou, 
 aiwviov @«€ov, yvwpicbevros, belong to the ‘ gnosticising’ phraseology of a later 
 period, is a mistake which rests on a very partial and cleariy accidental 
 coincidence of expression. ] 
 
 [Obs. 2, Position of the Doxology. It is placed— 
 (1) After xvi. 24, by B. C. D. E. 8. Syr. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. Lat. Fathers. 
 (2) After xiv. 23 by L. most min. Syr. Chrys. Theod. Oecum. Theophyl. ete. 
 (3) Both after xiv. 23 and xvi. 23 by A. P. ai. 
 (4) Nowhere. D.*** F. G. Marcion al. 
 
 The weight of evidence is in favour of (1), The early witnesses in favour 
 of (2) may be easily accounted for (a) by the uniqueness of a doxological 
 conclusion in a Pauline Epistle ; (0) by the apparent reference of buds ornpifac 
 to the case of the doGeveis in ¢, xiv, which would have led early copyists 
 to place it after xiv. 23. (3) The repetition of the doxology represents 
 uncertainty in early times as to its real position, an uncertainty produced 
 by the mistake of the copyists just referred to. (4) The total omission of 
 the doxology by Marcion is explained by ver. 26 dia Te ypapav mpopnrixadr. 
 In modern times the omission has been due to ‘an old precarious criti- 
 cism’ which inferred from the uncertainty of the position the conclusion 
 that it could not be genuine. See Meyer, App. Crit.) 
 
 x 
 
306 — The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 3. Analysis of the Doxology. 
 I. 7@ 5 buvapévm byas— 
 eee } 76 ebayyénidy How, kat § 
 70 Knpvypa “Incod Xporod (ver. 25). 
 
 a. Xpdvots aiwviows ceatynpévou (ver. 25). 
 
 , 
 Pepe b. pavepwOévros 5é viv (ver. 26). 
 ii, xara 
 dmoxdduiy ‘a, 1a ypapav npopynrixar, 
 puornpiov | b. Kar’ émrayiy Tod aiwviov Ocod, 
 
 > « , 
 c. eis Unaxony TidTEws, 
 
 c. yvopabévTos | 
 
 d. eis mavTa Ta EOvn (ver. 26). 
 
 a. povwy dopa, , 
 : 3 a. 95 
 II. Ocd Is a "Inood Xpiorod, “2 ae 
 
 c. [ein 5dfa]. 
 
 [Obs. 4. Incomplete Structure of the Doxology. In the rapid pressure of the thoughts 
 of vers. 25, 26 T@ 5é Suvanévwy is left without any governing verb; the 
 Apostle would probably have added 7 5é¢a «ij. With a view to doing this, 
 he resumes pdévwy copa Oe bid "Inood Xprorov in ver. 27. But the mention of 
 Jesus Christ, Whose appearance among men enables them to glorify the 
 copia of Gop, again creates an anacoluthon, by diverting the doxology to 
 Jesus Christ Himself ; so that pévw copy OcG is also without government. | 
 
 b. eis Tovs ai@vas (ver. 27). 
 
 § Ascription I (vers. 25, 26). 
 1. Subject of the Doxology—Gon’s power to confirm the faithful. 
 
 To Gop, as to Him Who is able to keep you steadfast (ornpigar) 
 —l(be glory], (ver. 25). 
 [Obs. 1. The construction is incomplete: the dat. re Svvayévy being without 
 
 government. Olshausen’s conjecture ovviornmu is entirely without basis in 
 MSS.} 
 
 [Obs. 2. For ornpiga, see i. 11 ornpixOjva. It is used of human agency, S. Luke 
 xxii. 32; 1 Thess. iii. 2; S. James v. 8: or of Divine, as here, 1 Thess. iii. 
 13; 2 Thess. ii. 17; iii. 3; 1 S. Pet. v. 10. Perseverance is an especial 
 grace of Gop.] 
 
 2. Reference of ornpigfa. It was in respect of (xara) adhesion to the 
 GosPEL, which is characterised, in two ways (ver. 25). 
 
 a. The Gospel, which had been entrusted to the 
 I. (Ratione Apostle to preach (ré evayyedv pov) (ver. 25). 
 
 subjecti) 4}, The Gospel which Christ Himself preached (by 
 
 = means of the Apostle), («jpyypna "Incod Xpiorod), 
 
 (ver. 25). 
 
Conclusion: ch. XVI. 307 
 
 [Obs. 1. ward here of reference; not apparently, (1) of the standard or rule, 
 ‘according to the rule of my Gospel’; nor (2) of the mode or character, 
 ‘after the manner of my Gospel,’ cf. Meyer. It is to be explained by his 
 anxieties about a Judaizing mission in Rome (vers. 17-19).] 
 
 (Obs. 2. 7d edayyédidvy pov. Cf. Rom. ii. 16 ‘the Gospel as revealed to me’ 
 (x Cor. xy. 1), in contradistinction here to the Gospel as corrupted by the 
 Judaizers. But, after all, this evayyéAcoy was not only the Apostle’s own 
 belief; it was, he thankfully adds, nothing less than the truth preached 
 through his agency by Christ Himself. ] 
 
  [0bs. 3. xhpvypua “Incod Xporod. Origen and Theodoret regard “Incod Xpiorod as 
 a gen. object., in which case it=Xpiords éoravpwpévos, 1 Cor. i. 23; ii. 2. 
 Christ, His Person and Redemptive work, being the subject-matter of the 
 Apostle’s preaching. But as a clause, designed to explain the preceding, 
 xhpuyya is better taken as=d Xpiords éxnpvge (S. Chrys.); i.e. through 
 S. Paul as His organ. Cf. Rom. xv. 18 xareipydcaro Xpiords 5 évot: Eph. 
 li. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 3. For this use of «npuypya, see S. Matt. xii. 41; S. Luke 
 Xi, 32; x Cor.i. a1; xv. 14; 2 Tim. iv.17; Tit. i. 3.] 
 
 1. A mystery, kept in silence during eternal ages 
 (xpévors aiwvioss georynpevor), (ver. 25). 
 
 2. A mystery, made manifest in the present time (gave- 
 paévros € viv), (ver. 26). 
 
 1. (dud) by means of the Old Testament 
 
 II. (Ratione prophetic writings, which were 
 objecti) its proof and confirmation, &a 
 
 as ypapav mpopyrixay (ver. 26). 
 the 3. A mystery, | ». (xara) in accordance with the com- 
 unveiling made an mand of Gop, the Eternal, Who 
 of the object of commissioned the Apostles to 
 
 mystery of human proclaim it (ver. 26). 
 ' Redemption.| knowledge 
 
 3. (cis, of purpose). In order to produce 
 obedience to the Faith (ver. 26). 
 4. (cis, of the range of destination.) 
 
 Among all the heathen peoples 
 (ver. 26). 
 
 (yraptobevros), 
 
 [Obs. x. kara dxoxadvpw is in apposition with ard 7d ebayyédidv pov. S. Paul’s 
 
 Gospel was considered, with reference to its contents, as the uncovering of 
 
 amystery. That mystery was the whole plan or work of human salvation, 
 
 perfected through Christ. The appearance of Christ in the world of sense 
 
 and time was the droxdAvyis pvornpiov,—and this dmoxddvyis was carried 
 forward by the preaching of the Apostles. On puorjpov, see Rom. xi. 25.] 
 
 x 2 
 
 
 
308 The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 [Obs. 2. The pvornpiov, consisting in the Divine plan of man’s Redemption 
 through Jesus Christ, had been kept in silence through the whole duration 
 of a past eternity. xpdvos aiwviows, dat. of a space of time ; so S. John ii. 20; 
 Acts viii. 11; xiii. 20; Eph. iii. 5. It is practically equivalent to the 
 expression mpd xpévwy aiwviwy, although this is stronger in point of form. 
 No human being, of himself, could anticipate Gop’s method of redeeming 
 His creatures, Col. i. 26; ii. 2; Eph. vi. 19; 1 S. Pet. i. 20. Even the 
 Prophets, though assisted by the Holy Ghost, only discerned this puarqpiov 
 in a shadowy way, cuveonacpévws (Theod.). Comp. 1 8. Pet. i. ro.] 
 
 [O0bs. 3. The Incarnation of the Son of Gop was the davépwots or dmoxdduiyis 
 puornpiov. avepwhévros is in contrast (obs. 5é€, ver. 26) with oeovynpéevov 
 (ver. 25); and rvvy marks the period which has set in since the historic act 
 of gavépwors. Cf. Col. i. 26 7d puornpiov 7d dmoxexpuppévoy amo Tav aidvew kat 
 amd Tay yevedy, viv 5t épavepw6n: 2 Tim. i. 9, 10 pavepmbeioay 5é viv: Tit. i. 
 2, 3 épavépwoe 5e kaipois idiots: 1 S. Pet. i. 20 pavepwOévros 5& én’ éoxarou TaV 
 xpovey : cf. 2 Tim. i. 10 dia ris mupaveias. The result of this pavepwGévros is 
 expressed by yvapicbévros: having become manifest in Christ, the Eternal 
 Secret becomes a matter of human knowledge, Rom. iii. 21 ; Col. iv. 4.] 
 
 [Obs. 4. The ypapal rpopntixai of the Old Testament are the instrument (8:4) for 
 propagating a knowledge of the puorjpiov: ef. Rom. i. 2. They supply 
 proof and confirmation of the Gospel-account of Redemption. For their 
 use by our Lord, see S. Matt. v.17; S. Luke xxiv. 27, 44; S. John v. 39: 
 by the Apostles, see Acts xvii. rr; 1 S. Pet. i. rr, &c. Prophecy was already 
 ancient; Christ and His Apostles had only to appeal to it as an antici- 
 pation of their teaching. | 
 
 [Obs. 5. It is in accordance with a command of the Eternal God, that the 
 puotnpov of Human Redemption, so long kept in silence, thus becomes an 
 object of human knowledge. The predicate aiaviov belongs to Him Who 
 disposes of the xpéva: aiwmot, and of their puvorjpia. But it also enhances 
 the significance of the émzay7, and the responsibility and dignity of those 
 who, like the Apostles, give it effect, Rom. i. 9; 1 Cor. iv. 1: also Rom. x. 
 14-16; xv. 18; 1 Tim. ii. 7; Tit. i. 3.] 
 
 [Obs. 6. The knowledge of the secret Plan of Redemption was intended to 
 produce (cis) obedience of faith. Cf. Rom. i. 5; not to gratify mere human 
 curiosity. And this effect was to extend (eis) throughout all the peoples of 
 heathendom, «ls wavra ra é6vn. See Rom. i. 5; xX. 12, 13; Col. i. 6, 23, 26; 
 t Tim. iii. 16. For this use of eis, see S. John viii. 26 Aéyw eis tov Kécpoy.} 
 
 § Ascription IT (ver. 27). 
 
 1. Subject of the (resumed) Doxology. Gop’s Absolute Wisdom. 
 (udp co$) (ver. 27). 
 
 [Obs. povos aopés = the absolutely wise; cf. 1 Tim. vi. 15 sq. pdévos duvacrns, 
 pévos éxov adavaciav. In Christ, too, are mavres of Oncavpol ris cedias .. . 
 dréxpupa, Col, ii. 3, since, according to His Higher Nature, He is one with 
 the pdvos copds. Of the copia, or practical wisdom of Gop, especially in His 
 dealings with man, the whole Epistle to the Romans is a lengthened 
 
Conclusion: ch. XVI. 309 
 
 exposition: and Gop is therefore, at its close, fittingly glorified in the 
 Attribute, which is so present to the mind of the Apostle and his readers,] 
 
 2. Offerer of the Doxology (Sa ‘Invod Xpiocrod). Jesus Christ 
 (ver. 27). 
 
 [Obs. Meyer would connect dd *Incod Xprorod with pdvw copa, ‘To Gop only wise 
 through Jesus Christ’; Christ’s appearance in the world having been the 
 instrument of exhibiting to man Gop’s absolute wisdom, The position of 
 @e@ appears to interfere with this: it is more natural to understand «iy 
 ddfa after "Incod Xpiorod. Only through Jesus Christ the One Mediator, 
 because He is both Gop and Man, can praise or prayer be offered to the 
 Most High.] 
 
 3. Appended Doxology to Jesus Christ Himself (ver. 27). 
 "Ll, Xs, 
 "OQ 
 9 d0fa 
 els TOUS ai@vas, ayhy 
 (ver. 27). 
 
 [Obs. There is no doubt that @ must be retained in the text (see Tisch. App. 
 Crit.) and, if so, it is most naturally referred to Jesus Christ. Winer, Gr. 
 WN. T. p. 710, says, that instead of simply adding % défa eis rots aidvas 
 the Apostle expresses the substance of the Doxology by a relative clause, 
 just as if @e@ had concluded the sentence : and he compares Acts xxiv. 5, 6. 
 So also Meyer in loc. and Buttmann, Neutest. Gr. p. 252. But this forced 
 manner of construing the sentence is apparently due to an unwillingness 
 
 to recognise any Apostolic Doxologies addressed to Jesus Christ. Cf. Rom. 
 ix. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 21; Rev. i. 6.] 
 
 THE END. 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
Date Due 
 
 Sexy) 
 St 
 < @) 
 Ne 
 ine 
 = 
 
 cx 
 2 
 
 irs 
 
 be. 
 
 MAR 2? 9° 
 APR 1 8 
 
 | 
 
 IN 
 lise 
 
 | | 
 
 @