W&.

ILllIBIRaiSy

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in One Volume, Svo, price 12s.,
Final Causes.
By PAUL JANET, Member of the Institute, Paris.
CranSlatrt from tlje dPrencI) Im Militant ^fflctfe, 53.13.
CONTENTS.
Preliminary Chaptkr— The Problem. Book t. — The Law of Finality. Chapter i.
The Principle.— n. The Facts. — nr. The Industry of Man and the Industry of Nature. —
iv. Organ and Function. — v. Mechanism and Finality. — vi. Objections and Difficulties.
— vn. The Doctrine of Evolution. Bookii.— The First Cause of Finality. Chapter I.
The Physico-Theological Argument. — n. Subjective and Immanent Finality. — in.
Finality and Intention. — iv. Pure Idea and Creative Activity. — v. The Supreme End of
Nature. Appesdix. — i. The Problem of Induction. — n. Cuvier's Law. — m. Lesage, of
Geneva, and Final Causes. — iv. G eoffroy Saint- Hilaire and the Doctrine of Final Causes.
— v. Final Causes in the Sankhya Philosophy.— vi. Optimism — Voltaire and Eousseau.
This work of Janet on the Causes Finales is really an event in science, and
ought to have a large circulation among the educated classes.
In One Volume, 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
The Doctrine of the Apocalypse,
And its Relation to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John.
By HERMANN GEBHARDT.
' A contribution of decided value to the doctrinal and spiritual exposition of the mystic
volume, and in this respect worthy of careful study.' — Church Bells.
' The Author has instituted and carried out a thorough and exhaustive examination of
the Book of Eevelation ; ... he has subjected the whole text of that highly symbolic,
and, to ordinary readers, mysterious and incomprehensible book, to a minute and searching
scrutiny.' — Scotsman. In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s.,
Growth of the Spirit of Christianity,
FROM THE FIRST CENTURY TO THE DAWN OF
THE LUTHERAN ERA.
BY THE
REV. GEORGE MATHESON, M.A., B.D.,
AUTHOR OF ' AIDS TO THE STUDY OF GERMAN THEOLOGY.'
'Mr. Matheson's work is fresh, vigorous, learned, and eminently thoughtful.'—
Contemporary Review.
' This work is a contribution of real value to the popular study of Lhurcn History.
— Pall Mall Gazette. ,
' These volumes are the work of a very able and pious and cultured thinker. — Uiwch
Quarterly Review. 
In crown Svo, Third Edition, price is. 6d.,
Aids to the Study of German Theology.
1 The Author has done his work well, and has given us a real help to the understanding
of German theology.'— Princeton Review. .
' A work of much labour and learning, giving in a small compass an intelligent review
of a very large subject' — Spectator. _ ,
' The writer or compiler deserves high praise for the clear manner m which he has in
a brief compass stated these opinions.' — Christian Observer.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

'This series is one of great importance to the biblical scholar; and as regards its
general execution it leaves little or nothing to be desired.' — Edinburgh Review.

KEIL AND DELITZSCH'S COMMENTARIES
ON THE OLD TESTAMENT.
In 25 Volumes, demy 8vo.
¦ jVTESSES. CLABK have resolved to offer complete sets of this work at the Original
-L'J- Subscription Price of £6, lis. 6d. Single volumes may be had, price 10s. 6d.
Just published, in demy ito, Second Edition, price 25s.,
BIBLIC0-THE0L0GICAL LEXICON OF NEW
TESTAMENT GREEK.
By HERMANN CREMER, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GRKIFSWALD.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF THE SECOND EDITION
(WITH ADDITIONAL MATTER AND CORRECTIONS BY THE AUTHOR J.
By WILLIAM TJRWICK, M.A.
'If the reader will search here for that which the Author professes to provide for
him, he will, we think, never be disappointed. On the contrary, he will feel that Pro
fessor Cremer has placed him under deep obligation, and will have veins of rich and
beautiful thought continually revealed.' — British Quarterly Review.
' We venture to express our conviction that the student will derive from it informa
tion which he will in vain seek in any other work of the same description.' — Christian
Observer. Just published, in One large 8vo Volume, Eighth English Edition, price 15s.,
A TREATISE ON THE
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK,
|Upr!tair as % §asrs of fjtofo ^tdmvcmt feg^sis.
Translated from the German [of Dr. G. B. WINER].
With large additions and full Indices. Second Edition. Edited by Rev. W.
F. Moulton, D.D., one of the New Testament Translation Revisers.
' We gladly welcome the appearance of Winer's great work in an English translation,
and must strongly recommend it tp all who wish to attain to a sound and accurate
knowledge of the language of the New Testament. We need not say it is the Grammar
of the New Testament. It is not only superior to all others,but so superior as to be by
common consent the one work of reference on the subject. No other could be mentioned
with it.' — Literary Churchman.

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS.

MESSRS. CLARK have much pleasure in publishing the
Second Issue of the Foreign Theological Library
for 1878, viz. : —
Hagenbach's History of the Reformation.
Vol. I.
Philippi's Commentary on the Romans. Vol. 1.
The First Issue for 1879 will be Philippi's Commentary on
the Romans, Vol. II. (completion), and Hagenbach's History of
the Reformation, Vol. II. (completion).
They have in preparation the following Works : —
Hagenbach's History of Doctrines. Translated from recent
edition, and edited, with large additions from various sources, by
Rev. Prebendary Clark.
Haupt on the First Epistle of John.
Weiss' New Testament Theology.
Kriebeg on the Atonement.
Steinmeyer on the Passion and Resurrection of Our
Lord. New edition, prepared by the Author solely for the English
translation. They beg anew to thank the Subscribers for their support, and to
respectfully request a continuance of it.
May they ask for an early remittance of the Subscription for
1879 — 21s.
Edinburgh, 38 George Street,
November 1878.

CLAKK'S

FOREIGN

THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

NEW SERIES.
VOL. LX.

gf)ilippt on §>t. Raul's GEpiStlc to t\)t 3&omanS.
VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1878.

rillXTED BY MURRAY AND CIBB
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON,  HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND 00.
DUBLIN, . . . ROBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, SCRIBNER AND WJELFORD.

COMMENTARY

ON

ST. PAUL'S
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

EY
FRIEDRICH ADOLPH PHILIPPI,
DOCTOR AND ORDINARY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT ROSTOCK.

2TransIatta from the Kftfrti fonpro&co an& ffinlargeti Coition,
BY THE
REV. J. S. BANKS,
MANCHESTER.

IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1878.

COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.

INTRODUCTION.
THE first intimation of the existence of a Christian church in
Rome is furnished by the Roman epistle itself. Now, since
the epistle supplies no explicit details as to the origin and founding
of t re church ; since, also, the account contained in the Acts, ch.
xxv Ji, of Paul's first visit to Rome, as well as the Pauline epistles
wiitten during the Roman imprisonment, .passes by this subject
in silence, while the later statements of ecclesiastical writers are
demonstrably untenable, the history of the rise of the Roman
chinch is enveloped in an obscurity which can only be relieved
by resorting to probable conjectures. According to Acts ii. 10,
there were present at the first Pentecost in Jerusalem eVtS^/xowTe?
'Pa>fiaioi, advenae Bomani, who listened to the testimony of Peter's
fir si apostolic discourse, the fundamental fact of church history.
Of these Roman Jews or proselytes, gathered in the Jewish
metropolis to observe the feast, some possibly belonged to the
three thousand who were added on that day, and who, returning
to 11 ime, bore with them and transplanted into western soil the
first ;erms of the gospel. Later also additional seed-corn might
be brought over, since even at an earlier period still, considering
the active and universal intercourse which Rome maintained in
that age, the uninterrupted union subsisting between the Roman
synagogue and the temple of Jerusalem, and the frequent journeys
of Reman Jews on trade and pilgrimage to and from Jerusalem,
-•siews of the appearance of Israel's Messiah may have been
¦ carried to Rome, especially by Jewish Christians. This may be
; pronounced possible, not improbable, nay, probable in a high
degree. But even if it were established beyond question, such
a fact would in nowise suffice to account for the existence of an
Puilifpi, Rom. I. A

2 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
independent, well-compacted, organized church, such as the Roman
epistle supposes. A sporadic lay testimony must be carefully
distinguished from the express work of founding churches, which,
according to all the statements of the New Testament, was carried
on only by evangelical teachers, by the apostles or disciples and
helpers connected with and dependent on apostles.
The Romish tradition, whose formation we can trace step by
step, names, as is well known, the Apostle Peter as founder of the
Roman church. He is said to have come to Rome in the second
year of the reign of the Emperor Claudius (42 A.D.), and to have
been the first bishop there for five-and-twenty years before his
death. But this is to be set down as a mere fable, rejected by
Protestant theology on numerous and sufficient grounds, — a fable
with which, apart from all else, the very existence as well as the
substance of the Roman enistle stands in direct contradiction.
If, according to Rom. xv. 20, it was Paul's fundamental principle
to preach the gospel only where Christ's name was not yet named,
in order not to build on another man's foundation (2 Cor. x. 15, 16),
then, supposing the Roman church to be Peter's own creation and
work, he would not, even before the composition of the Roman
epistle, have often resolved to come to Rome in order to exercise
there his apostolic office, Rom. i. 13, xv. 22 ; comp. Acts xix. 21.
This resolve certainly he had not made before the time that
he entered on European soil. But this took place about ten
years after Peter, according to the fable referred to, made his
appearance as apostle and bishop of the Romans. Since, then,
from that period Paul could no longer, in harmony with his own
fundamental principles, keep Rome in view as the goal of his
apostolic toil, he could never have done so at all, and therefore in
the passages cited must openly contradict either himself o: the
Romish fable. Even the composition of an epistle to serve
instead of his personal toil must under such circumstances appear
to us inconceivable, especially of an epistle which in no v, ay
refers to or is influenced by Peter's labour and teaching, either
past or still going on, nay, of one which, in the numerous greet
ings of ch. xvi., that imply an intimate acquaintance with the
teachers and members of the Roman church, contains no greeting
for bishop Peter, who, according to the fable, was then resident
in Rome. If, then, Peter did not found the Roman church
(another question, nowise dependent on this, is, Whether at a

INTRODUCTION. 3
' later time he came to Rome and there died a martyr's death ?),
no other apostle founded it, because no other is mentioned in
history, and whatever reason tells against its founding by Peter
tells against its founding by any other.
But, next, it must be admitted as exceedingly probable that the
evangelical teachers who gathered together the scattered Christians
already existing in Rome, added to their number by preaching
the gospel, established a formally organized Christian church, and
took it under their direction and care, and who are therefore to be
regarded as the real founders of the Roman church, were disciples
of the Apostle Paul. It is only natural that the church of the
Gentile capital — Rome— !-should owe its existence, indirectly at
least, to the labours of the Gentile apostle. Tp him the founding
of the first Christian church in Europe was entrusted as a fore
most object of his peculiar mission labour. Accordingly, by
means of his disciples and helpers he transplanted a branch of
this labour of his to Rome, while to the rest of the apostles, and
hence to the apostolic men associated with them, the Gentile
world, like the European field of toil, was foreign ground.
In the Roman epistle itself are some not insignificant items
that support this view. On this supposition the sending of the
epistle is most easily explained, since Paul thus entered on another
man's labour in the least degree. Nay, he must have felt himself
called upon to affix his apostolic seal to that faith of the Roman
church which was the fruit of his spiritual influence, and thus
by a systematic exposition of evangelical doctrine found the church
in a certain sense over again, Indeed, it may be said that if the
other Gentile churches enjoyed the privilege of institution by the
apostle's personal presence and preaching, the Roman church
received a full equivalent for this in the contents and significance
of the epistle addressed to it, which was, as it were, a supple
mentary charter of institution. The church, then, that is really
and truly based upon the apostolic doctrine contained in the
Roman epistle may call itself the genuine Roman church with
greater justice than the one that relies upon the fabled insti
tution by Peter in person. Moreover, it is probable that in the
sixteenth chapter — in Aquila and Priscilla, who held a church
assembly in their house, in Epaenetus the arrrapyr) t?)? 'Aa-ias, in
Andronicus and Junias the o-w/at^jttaXtoTot? of Paul (in addition
to the doubly significant eVtV^/tot iv to« airoaToXois;), in Urbanus

4 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the apostle's <jvvepy6<s — we have a list of persons who, as former
disciples and helpers of Paul, stood at that time in special esteem
in Rome as directors and leaders of the church, and who therefore
without doubt had taken a prominent part in the actual founding
of the church. Ch. xvi. 17 also, which expresses approval of
the doctrine they have received, and guards it against the efforts
of Judaistic false teachers, intimates the Pauline character of the
doctrine tying originally at the foundation of the Roman church.
Comp. also Meyer's Comment, on Ep. to Rom. I. p. 24,
As concerns the composition of the Roman church, it is certain
that, like probably all Christian churches outside Palestine, it
was made up in part of Jewish, in part of Gentile Christians.
Only in allusion to Jewish Christians could Paul, iv. 1, describe
Abraham as top irarepa r/fiwv, and the tendency characterized,
ch. xiv., points decisively to Judaistic scrupulosity and prejudice.
But in xi. 13, 25, 28, 30, Gentile Christians are expressly
addressed, while from xv. 7 ff. it follows that the church was
composed of both elements. In the same way it may be con^
jectured as matter of course that the number of Gentile Christians
preponderated ; for this may be set down as the ordinary, if not
the invariable condition of Christian churches in Gentile lands,
where probably the churches consisted altogether or principaUy
of Gentile ' Christians, but seldom altogether, or even in a pre
ponderant degree, of Jewish Christians. That no other relation
obtained in Rome, follows from ch. ix.-xi. of this epistle ; for
certainly it would have seemed very strange to the Roman church
for the apostle to have described believing Israelites as a ~Keififia
Kar itcXoyijv ¦xapiro'i, in contrast with the abounding numbers of
believers of Gentile race, if the opposite relation had obtained
before their eyes and in their midst. But in fact the majority of
Gentile Christians in Rome was so decisive, that Paul, designating
the church a parte potiori, could directly address it as a church of
believers of the Gentile world, as he does, i. 5, 6, 13-15 (comp.
the comment on these passages). In the same way he says, xv.
15, 16, he has written as XetToi/piyo? 'Iijcrou Xpia-Tov et? to. 'idvrj.
(Comp. Neander, Planting of Christian Church, etc., I. 280 ff.)
A confirmation of the view now advanced may also be found
in Acts xxviii. 1 6 ff. ; for the want of acquaintance which the
leaders of Roman Judaism there manifest with regard to the
existence of a Christian church in Rome, goes to show that but

INTRODUCTION. 5
few Jews had attached themselves to the new doctrine and com
munity. Still, although this was, comparatively speaking, the
case, we are compelled to suppose the numbers of the church
considerable enough, especially taking into account the extent
and importance it had attained at the time when the Roman
epistle was despatched (i 8, xvL 19), to make it inconceivable
that the Roman Jews could be in a state of entire ignorance as
to the existence of a Christian church within the walls of their
own city. We must therefore examine somewhat more closely
the difficulty confronting us here.
The hypothesis of Olshausen (p. 44 ff. of his Commentary) is
to the effect that the Roman Jewish Christians had been led by
the persecution of the Jews under the Emperor Claudius to
accentuate plainly and strongly the distinction between themselves
and the Jews, so that in consequence of this anti-Judaistic,
strongly Pauline tendency they had entirely dissolved their con
nection with the synagogue, and in this way remained altogether
unknown to the Jews who subsequently returned to Rome after
the abrogation of the decree. But this has found no favour, as
a conjecture with nothing to recommend it, and insufficiently
supported by proof. The tendency of the Jewish Christians in
Rome, as this is presented to us ch. xiv.,- cannot be reconciled
with this opinion.
According to the old conception, to which Tholuck has re
turned (in the previous editions, no longer in the fifth), the
irpwroi twv 'IovSalarv are supposed merely to have assumed this
want of acquaintance with the Roman Christian church hypo
critically, and to have grossly deceived Paul in shameful fashion,
in order more effectually to draw out his views. But the text of
the Acts gives no countenance whatever to such a supposition.
For even if the Jews in Rome were constantly hearing news of
the famous, or, according to their notions, infamous Gentile
Apostle Paul, it was still possible for them to say with truth :
'-H/tet? ovre <ypd/M/u.ara irep\ crov i8e£jd/j,e0a diro ttJs 'IovSatas,
oiire irapayev6(jLev6<s tt? twv a8e\(j>£>v uirrjyyeCKev rj eXaXrjae -ri
trepX aov irovrjpov, Ver. 21. This refers only to an official letter
from the Jewish community in Palestine, and to information
brought by Jewish traveUers to Rome respecting the recent events
in Jerusalem and Caesarea. As Paul began his voyage far on in
autumn, after the shipwreck wintered in Malta, and then, with

C COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the reopening of the spring voyaging season, arrived at Rome, it
might easily happen that he even anticipated the evil tidings
about him, which we may presume would be sent from Palestine.
Greater difficulty arises in connection with the words of the
Jewish proceres, ver. 22 : 'A^tov/iev Be irapa gov aicovcrai, say
they: a fypovelr trepl fiev yap t»}? aipea-emf tovti)? yvwaTov ianv
ijiuv, oti travra'xpv dvTtXeyerai.. But here also the existence of
this sect in Rome, and its being known to the synagogue leaders,
are not directly denied and precluded. Meyer very justly ob
serves (I. 27 of his Commentary) that the Jewish leaders exer
cising judicial reserve simply have no inducement, without
special cause, to speak before the strange prisoner as to the
position of the Christian body which existed in Rome itself.
With him agrees Tholuck, § 2, p. 13. But we believe that the
reasons of this reserve may be specified more definitely. As is
well known, Suetonius says, in his life of Claudius, c. 25:
" Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes." This seems
to allude to disputes between Jews and Christians as to whether
Jesus should be acknowledged as the Messiah. But even sup
posing only the commotions to be meant which were occasioned
by the Messianic expectations of the Jews (although both views
may be combined, since the Jews, excited by their political
Messianic ideas, and thus become objects of suspicion to the
Roman authorities, might -easily allow themselves to be carried
away to fierce disputes and persecutions of the Jewish Christians,
on account of the latter interpreting the promises of the new
King David in a spiritual sense, and applying them to Jesus), in
any case the severity of the imperial decree of banishment must
after their return have cooled their zeal, and rendered them more
cautious and reserved in publishing both their own Messianic
hopes and the difference on this subject of their own faith from
that of Christians. Hence we find that when Paul, directly after
that interview with the leaders, preaches the gospel to the
Roman Jews who came to him in his own dwelling, and declares
to unbelievers, with menacing severity, that the salvation of God
would pass over to the Gentiles, the Jews do not, as at other
times (Acts xxii. 21, 22), rise with passionate outcries against
language so intolerable to them, but go away in peace and quiet :
icaX TaiiTa ai/Tov ehrovTof, it is said, ver. 2 9 : dirrihdov ol 'IovSalot,
vroWrjv e%ovTe<} iv lavroZ? av^Ttjuiv.

INTRODUCTION. 7
On the present occasion, then, the trp&Toi twv 'lovBalwv behave
to Paul in harmony with these circumstances. They believe they
must be the more cautious, as the apostle complains to them of
the injustice done him by their Palestinian brethren, and informs
them that the Roman procurator was desirous to acquit him, but
the obstinacy of the Jews had compelled him to appeal to
Caesar, vv. 17—19. Finding themselves without information
from Palestine, and fearing, possibly, that the Jews there had
gone too far, and that Paul, the supposed foe of the Jews, might
easily turn the incident to the injury of the Jewish interest (on
which account he even deems it necessary expressly to assure
them that he had not appealed to Caesar as having an accusation
to bring against his nation, ver. 19, an assurance which might
easily augment their suspicion still further), they thought it
most prudent for the present to treat him with forbearance, and
cautiously draw out further explanations as to their own relation
to the Christian sect. They say what is true ; they had received
no special and explicit accounts respecting him and the events
mentioned by him, and they knew that the Christian sect was
everywhere spoken against. They go so far as to appoint him a
day when he is to expound his doctrine to their companions in
faith at greater length. But they pass over in silence — what
they do not deem it necessary and prudent to speak of — their
own views as to the Christian faith, as well as their attitude to
the Roman Christian community, which, moreover, from fear of
the Roman authorities, was not one of outward hostility.1 In
this way, in our judgment, the account of the Acts may be
brought into perfect harmony with the Roman epistle, and no
real discrepancy exists which can be used to throw suspicion on
the credibility of the Acts, or of ulterior conclusions.
1 Meyer supposes there is no need of our supposition, that the Jewish proceres were
made more timid and reserved by the Claudian measure. But it seems to us that
without some motive arising from without, the restraint put on the hate inflaming
the hearts of the Jews against the gospel, cannot well be reconciled with the character
of the Jewish leaders of the apostolic age. The idea that the Chrestus of Suetonius
was a Jewish rebel in Rome, <who actually bore this name, by which the historical
basis of our hypothesis is said to be taken away, far better deserves to be called a
mere fanciful assumption, than that, so constantly held and so naturally suggested,
of the identity of Chrestus and Christus. Besides, if there had been a rebel Chrestus,
who incited the Jews to an assidue tumultuari, would nothing further be known of
him in history ? Moreover, in conformity with all the historical circumstances, he
could be nothing but a false Messiah.

'8 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
As concerns the time and place of the composition of the
Roman epistle, comparisons of passages in this epistle with
passages in the Acts and Corinthian epistles lead to a certain,
generally received result. According to Rom. xv. 25-28, Paul
had just made a collection in Macedonia and Aehaia for the poor
Christian community in Jerusalem, and was about to take it
there, and thence, after the task was finished, journey by way of
Rome to Spain. We are thus remitted to Acts xix. 21 (comp.
1 Cor. xvi. 1—7; 2 Cor. ix. 4, xii. 20— xiii. 2), where we read:
co? Be iifkripwOrj TavTCt^, Wevo 6 Hav\o<? iv Tp irvevfiaTt, Bte\6wv
ttjv Ma/eeBoviav /ecu 'A%aiav iropeveadai et? 'Iepov<ra\r)/i, eforwv'
"Oti fieTa. to yeveoSai fie eicel, Bel /xe teal 'PwfiTjv IBelv. This
journey through Macedonia to Aehaia, on which he entered after
the tumult, excited in Ephesus by the goldsmith Demetrius, is
narrated, Acts xx, 1, 2. According to ver. 3, he remained at
that time three months in Aehaia, and then entered on his last
journey to Jerusalem (ver. 16). There awaited him, as he knew,
plots, afflictions, and bonds, vv. 22, 23. With this agrees Rom.
xv. 30, 31, where he requests the Romans to pray that he may
be delivered from the hands of the unbelievers in Judaea.
Without doubt, then, the writing of the Roman epistle falls
within this last three months' stay in Aehaia, which took place
during his third missionary journey. That he should have
written an epistle of such compass and such significance while
he was actually engaged on the journey to Jerusalem, especially
considering the haste with which the journey was performed,
Acts xx. 1 6, is of itself exceedingly unlikely. In that case, too,
he would probably have mentioned to the Romans, in the
passage Rom. xv. 30, the plots which began directly on his
setting out from Aehaia, and which compelled him to change his
route, Acts xx. 3. In the last place, he would scarcely on the
journey itself have again expressed the confident hope of coming
to Rome, seeing that, amid the presages echoing everywhere in
the churches of persecutions and sufferings awaiting him at
Jerusalem, the prospect of doing this must ever have grown
fainter and fainter, Acts xx. 23-25, xxi. 10-13. Now, if Paul
wrote the Roman epistle before his departure for Jerusalem,
during the last three months' abode in Aehaia, we are con
strained, on inquiring more closely into the place of composition,
to fix our thoughts at once on Corinth, which city, according to

INTRODUCTION. 9
the passages quoted from the Corinthian epistles, Paul had
selected for the longer term of residence during that period ; and
Corinth is indirectly pointed out as the place of composition
by the Roman epistle itself. To this points the commendation
of the deaconess Phoebe of Cenchrea the Corinthian port, and
probably the bearer of the epistle, Rom. xvi. 1, as well as the
greeting from his host Gaius, xvi. 23, comp. with 1 Cor. i. 14,
and from Erastus the city treasurer, xvi. 23, comp. with Acts
xix. 22, but especially with 2 Tim. iv. 20. This correct
inference is drawn already in the subscription to the Roman
epistle, which names Corinth as the place of composition. This
being so, the year 58 or 59 a,d, may be fixed, according to the
most likely computation, as the year of composition, about five
or six years after Paul had begun his missionary exertions on
European soil, and the Roman church by the labours of his
disciples had reached a settled condition. Comp. also Wieseler,
Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalter, pp. 371—374.
But, further, this was the most appropriate moment in the
historical development of the life and official labours of Paul for
sending an epistle to the Romans. His missionary activity in
the east had reached its termination, Rom. xv. 19, 23. By
bringing the loving gift of the Gentile Christians to the Jewish
Christians of Palestine, he wished to eement and ratify the bond
of the union which he had established between the Jewish and
Gentile world by means of one and the same gospel. Then his
purpose was to take the soil of the far west as his field of labour,
ibid. ver. 24, Finding himself at this central point of his official
activity, he felt the longing, as well as the need, to place himself
in more direct association than before with the Roman Christian
church. The delicate tact with which love had endowed him,
and which he displayed so surely and to such good purpose in
all conditions of life, led him also to this step. He was next to
show himself in Rome. This he could not do as a stranger, and
personally unknown. • He must first of all assure the church
there, as he does at the beginning and close of his- epistle, how
much he bears them on his heart, how he long ago determined
to visit them, and had only hitherto been hindered; for they
might easily think it strange that the apostle of the Gentile
world thus far seemed to take such little interest in them — the
church of the metropolis of the Gentile world. He must prepare

10 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
their hearts to receive him, and this the more since he intended
even now to spend but a short time with them. While, . as
already remarked, he did not regard his labour there as an
intrusion on another's office, Rome stood in less need of a long
stay on his part, because there the light of the gospel was
already set on a candlestick, and the fervour of his love and of
his sacrificial zeal urged him to the far west — to Spain — in
order to impart the blessings of the gospel above all to those to
whom news of it had not yet come. Thus he desired to send on
to the Romans an equivalent for a longer stay, which he supposed
himself unable to grant *thern.
But by these circumstances the contents of his epistle were
already marked out. The epistle was to be a substitute for
Paul's personal preaching in Rome (comp. on i. 15). Hence it
contains, as no other does, a systematic doctrinal exposition of
the specifically Pauline gospel. As this gospel was revealed to
him, the former Pharisee and zealot for the law, as deliverance
from the yoke of the law, and by this very means as a breaking
down of the wall of division which separated the Jewish and
Gentile worlds, as a reconciliation, justification, and new creation
of both into one body in Christ Jesus, so now, in the results of
his practical official labours, it had approved itself such in his
eyes. Standing at this great point of division in his labours, and
glancing back over his peculiar experience hitherto, — an experi
ence the inward and outward aspects of which supported, carried
on, and richly developed one the other, — if his object were to
comprehend in one large general view that gospel of his which
had been shaped in this way, he could exhibit it in no other form
than the one lying before us in the Roman epistle.
The absorption and elevation, as well of heathenism, which had
no sanction of law, as of Judaism, which had such sanction, as
inadequate manifestations of the religious life, into the gospel
which brings justification and holiness, into Christianity as the
absolute and all-sufficient form of religion,1 — this is the theme of
his epistle, as he expounds it under every aspect, ch. i— viii.
But this conception of the gospel was to be realized by degrees in
historical fact, for the divine determination must inevitably find
its fulfilment. Everything which might tend, in reference to the
course of development hitherto, to disturb and dim this con
fidence, must nevertheless, in harmony with the lofty plan of the

INTRODUCTION. 11
God who holds in His hand the threads of history, and weaves
them, not after the pattern of human, but after the paradeigma
of divine wisdom, serve in the end the accomplishment of His
original purpose of grace. The rejection of the gospel on the
part of the people destined for its enjoyment paved the way for
its transition to the Gentile world, whence, its mission there
fulfilled, it was to return to Israel. Christianity, thus speaks
this sacred and genuine philosophy of history, is the ideal, as it is
the real goal, of all human progress. Its destiny is not merely to
absorb into itself the Jewish and Gentile faiths, but also to draw
to itself the Jewish and Gentile worlds. This is the purport of
ch. ix-xi.,1 which chapters, therefore, are not to be regarded as an
incidental " historical corollary " (Tholuck, de Wette), but con
stitute an essential, integral element in the exposition of the
principal subject, which is thus unfolded as well in conformity
with its ideal as its historical purport.
A directly polemical aim against erroneous tendencies in the
church is not to be supposed in this first dogmatic main division
of the epistle. The contest waged everywhere is with Judaistic
justification by works opposing itself to the doctrine of justifica
tion by God's grace in Christ, whose representatives, in rhetorical
fashion, are introduced and addressed in person, ii. 1 ff., 17 ff.,
ix. 1 9 f. The contest is nowhere with Pharisaic Jewish Christians
seeking to impose the Mosaic law on Gentile Christians as an
essential means, along with faith in Christ, of justification. Thus
the didactic Roman epistle stands in a similar relation to the
polemic Galatian epistle, as the Ephesian to the Colossian epistle.
The exhortation also to mutual forbearance, to spare and deal
gently with the weak, contained (ch. xiv.-xv. 13) in the second
hortatory main division, beginning with ch. xii, suggests merely
practical scrupulousness and perplexity on the part of the Jewish-
Christian portion of the church, not at all an aggressive attitude of
the same towards the Gentile Christians with a view to bring them
into subjection to the Mosaic Nomos. We have here, then, merely
an apostolic exhortation, similar to the one in 1 Cor. viii. and in
x. 23-33 (Neander, I. 290), not a polemic corresponding to the
one in the Galatian epistle. Ch. xvi. 17, 18 of this epistle indeed
contains a positive allusion to Judaistic false teachers; but these
had manifestly gained no footing in the church, which therefore
1 Compare, however, the appendix to ch. xi.

12 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
is simply warned against them, while the apostle speaks hopefully
of its viraicorj,veT. 19, and anticipates a speedy breakdown of the
attempt, ver. 20. Had these false teachers already exerted a
baneful influence within the church, certainly the apostle would
not have mentioned them in so cursory a way at the end of the
epistle. But no doubt the positive exposition, which the dogmatic
portion of the epistle gives as to the real nature of the gospel in
relation to the Jewish legal standpoint, furnishes at the same
time the surest bulwark against such attempts. Moreover, such
a subordinate purpose is nowise precluded by the principal aim
of the epistle. Rather is it not without good ground to be main
tained with regard both to the peculiar antithetical form of the
exposition and to the relations of the Roman church already
indicated. Still this is included in a cursory and subordinate
manner, without on this account coming into prominence, and
cannot be accepted as the real cause of the epistle being written,
just as little as the exhortations of the second portion can be so
regarded, which, besides the direct, may also contain many indirect
allusions to the particular condition of the church, and yet are
not to be deemed important enough to have determined the
apostle to write the epistle. But least of all can the casual
journey of Phoebe to Rome be here taken into account. Neither
would this have induced the apostle to write, if he had had no
other reason for writing ; nor would he have lacked some one to
carry the epistle, even if Phoebe had not made the journey. Here
the opportunity should not be confounded with the occasion.1
The similarity of contents in the Roman and Galatian epistles
favours the opinion, that even in the first the apostle carries on a
direct polemic against the legal tendency of a Jewish-Christian
party. But, on the other hand, observation of the difference in
the kind and form of the exposition which obtains in the two
epistles leads to the conviction that this directly polemical aim
is foreign to the Roman epistle, containing as it does merely a
1 Th. Schott, d. Birmerbrief seinem Endzwecke und Oedankengange "riach ausgehgt,
Erlangen 1858, has ascribed to the apostle a special personal design in the composi
tion of the epistle: " namely, that being now on the point of proceeding with his
Gentile mission-work in the far west, Paul Wished to gain for his labours a fixed
point of support in the Roman church, and on this account wished to instruct the
Romans as to the significance and justification of the step, and to inspire them with
full confidence regarding it; for which reason he exhibits to them in detail the
nature and principles of his work." See, on the contrary, Meyer, I. 33.

INTRODUCTION. 13
general, positively dogmatic exposition of salvation in Christ, in
contrast with the ruin to which the Jewish and Gentile world
out of Christ is exposed. At most, it contains but an indirect
warning against the falsely nomistic conflicts which emerge so
readily in the Christian church, and also in particular against
attacks of the kind menacing the Roman church from without.
This may be described, on the whole, as the common result of
modern exegesis, as far as concerns the interpretation of the
general contents of this epistle. But this interpretation has been
strongly opposed by Dr. Baur in his work, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus
Christ, London 1873. According to Baur, Jewish Christians,
among whom undoubtedly an anti-Pauline bias began to show
itself very early, formed the chief constituent of the Roman
church. They had taken offence at Paul's ministry, observing
that its result was the reception of the Gentiles in ever-increasing
numbers into the Messianic kingdom, while Israel as a people
remained shut out of that kingdom. This appeared to them like
a disparagement of the Jews, like unrighteous treatment of them,
like a contradiction of the promises given to the Jews as God's
people. On the contrary, they denied that the same way of
salvation lay open to the Gentiles as to the Jews. The question
brought forward now, therefore, was no longer, as before, whether
the Gentiles might be admitted into the Christian community
only as proselytes of Judaism, or only on condition of submitting
to circumcision ; but this, whether the Gentiles as Gentiles are
to be admitted, — whether their reception, already begun and ever
widening in extent, is not to be looked upon as an unrighteous
.act to the Jews, and an infringement of their privileges 1 They
asserted, accordingly, that the Christian salvation has merely a
particular, not a universal design ; that participation in the grace
of the gospel depends upon a national prerogative, not on a
universal human need. Now it is against this assertion the
apostle contends in ch. ix.-xi. of the Roman epistle, which chap
ters, accordingly, constitute the main division of the entire epistle,
to which ch.' i.-viii. stand only as introduction. Paul, it is said,
works out the general positions, that neither Gentiles nor Jews
had any claim to salvation in Christ, since it only comes to sinful
man as a, gift of free grace (a position which is applied ch.
ix.-xi.) ; that accordingly the reception of the Gentiles, which was
withstood on the part of the Jewish Christians, and was supposed

14 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
to imply an unrighteous depreciation of the Jews, is on the con
trary the fault only of the Jews themselves, in supposing that
they could make good rightful claims based upon descent and
observance of the law, instead of upon faith in the preaching of
the gospel. The Jewish Christians had discovered in the uni-
versalism of the apostle a preference given in an unrighteous way
to the Gentiles to the detriment of the Jews. Against this the
apostle maintains, that since, as far as righteousness comes into
question, everything depends on faith, or on the Bticaioavvr) iic
Trto-Tew?, the putting of the Jews below the Gentiles is simply the
fault of their own unbelief. Hence the epistle of the apostle to
the Romans is not to be viewed as a dogmatic treatise issuing
spontaneously, but as a vindication of his apostolic office, of the
peculiar mission committed to him as Gentile apostle, called forth
by Jewish-Christian opposition; and the cause of the apostle's
writing is to be sought, not in a friendly attitude on his part, but
one partly polemic, partly apologetic. Baur, Paul, the Apostle of
Jesus Christ, I. part 2. With him also agrees Schwegler, comp.
his Nachapost. Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner Entwick-
lung, Tiibingen 1846, 1, p. 285 ff., and Volkmar, die Bom. Kirche,
1857, p. 7 ff.
Now this interpretation certainly hangs well with the theory
which Dr. Baur has advanced respecting primitive Christianity in
general. According to this novel theory, the creature of ingenious
criticism and combination, and maintained by sacrificing the
genuineness of the greater portion of the New Testament, not
merely the Judaistic false teachers, but the entire body of the
apostles and Jewish-Christian churches of their age, are supposed.
to have been entangled in a narrow-minded, Judaistic particu
larism, in opposition to which Paul, the Gentile apostle, with his
universalistic tendency, appeared as an innovator, and with
which he was engaged in unceasing conflict. This is not the
place to enter upon a minute examination of this mode of view
in general. We limit ourselves here to a brief criticism of that
branch of it which meets us in the interpretation of the Roman
epistle just characterized.
Now, first of all, it is difficult for an unprejudiced reader to
shake off the conviction, rising so clearly before the mind, that
i. 16, 17 enunciates the proper theme of the epistle, which
from that point up to ch. viii. is then expounded under every

INTRODUCTION. 1 5
aspect. In this conviction, accordingly, agree all interpreters of
all ages without exception. It would appear, then, more simple
to regard ch. ix.-xi. as a natural and fitting supplement, than ch.
i.-viii. as a mere introduction to the theme first announced,
ch. ix.-xL We have seen, moreover, that ch. ix.-xi. may even
keep its independent position as an integral constituent of the
entire doctrinal exposition,1 without its being raised, with Dr.
Baur, into the main division of the epistle, from which alone the
cause, theme, and construction of the epistle can be rightly
understood. In any case, we should have expected at the
beginning an indication of this presumed ' cause, which would
have made the course and connection of the apostle's reasoning
clear to the reader. But no such indication is contained, ch.
ix.-xi For while the apostle speaks there, indeed, of Jews who
would be righteous by works, and who withstood faith in the
gospel, he nowhere speaks of Jewish Christians who wished to
prevent the Gentiles entering into the Messiah's kingdom.
Wherefore no interpreter hitherto has been able to find such
indication, not even the author of the Commentaria in XIII.
Epistolas Paulinas, appended to the works of Ambrose, to whom
Dr. Baur refers (I. 367). Ambrosiaster simply compares, as
many interpreters after him have done, the tendency of the
Roman Christians with that of the Galatian false teachers
(" hi sunt," he says, "qui et Galatas subverterant") ; but of a par
ticularism excluding the Gentiles as such he knows nothing.
Nowhere does there exist a vestige of historical proof that the
Jewish Christians, either in the apostolic age or afterwards, ever
adopted such a notion. And this position appears the more
unwarranted, as such a standpoint would have flatly contradicted
Old Testament prophecy, which foretold in the clearest terms the
reception of the Gentile world into the theocracy, their participa
tion in the Messianic kingdom.' A narrow interpretation might,
perhaps, discover in the prophecies of the old covenant, on
acc6unt of the Old Testament veil of mystery under which they
delineated the character of the Messianic age, the intimation that
the Gentile world must submit to the Mosaic nomos, if it was to
share in the Messianic salvation ; but no intimation whatever
could be discovered of a rejection of the Gentiles in favour of
1 Comp. also Huther, Zweck und Inhalt der 11 ersten Capitel des Romerbriefes,
Schwerin 1846, p. 24 f.

16 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the solely privileged Jews.1 This latter claim was in and of
itself thoroughly beside the mark and unnecessary. For, with
the reception of the Mosaic nomos on the part of the Gentiles,
Judaism . in fact attained to all rights and honours which it
could ever claim, and fully satisfied narrow-minded Jewish par
ticularism, which thus in reality rejoiced in a triumph at once
over heathenism and Christianity. Dr. Baur concedes that even
the Roman Jewish Christians had sought and taught a justifica
tion by works of the law. Now, was not this doctrine sufficient
to negative the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, to
narrow the gate of God's kingdom for the Gentiles, to widen it
for the Jews ? No other opposition, then, to Pauline universalism
is even conceivable than that which all Judaistic false teachers
and sects actually adopted. Besides, it is such an opposition
alone that the apostle combats in the Roman epistle. He con
tends only against righteousness by works, not against a designed
exclusion of the Gentile world altogether; and, indeed, against the
1 Dr. Baur, indeed, says, p. 331, that the participation of the Gentiles in the grace
of the gospel appeared to the Jews like a disparagement of the Jews, as long as Israel
as a nation did not partake in this grace ; yet he, presently, lets even this qualifica
tion drop, and everywhere else describes their particularism as one without con
ditions. Even Schwegler,' ibid. p. 289, allows that Dr. Baur has taken the purpose
of the Roman epistle somewhat too narrowly, when he simply finds in it an apology
for the Pauline missionary labours, and that on this view the first portion of the
epistle is a disproportionate sacrifice of strength. It is, perhaps, more correct,
according to him, to take the design of the epistle somewhat more generally, as an
apology for Pauline Christianity in its entirety, than as a systematic treatise against
Jewish Christianity. Still more moderately, though just as defective, and in con
sistency with his Catholic opinion of the founding of the Roman church by Peter,
Thiersch, die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter, p. 166 : "Paul seeks to lead forward
the Jewish Christian church, consisting simply of followers of Peter, from its, not
heretical indeed, but somewhat backward standpoint, to such a rich insight into the
work of redemption as will entirely dispel the anxiety and fear which adherence to
the Mosaic law as a condition of salvation might still foster." Pretty much in
agreement with Schwegler, van Hengel expresses himself respecting the aim and
purport of this epistle, Inlerpretatio Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos, Fascic. I. 1854.
Comp: p. 20; "Magis certe mihi cum Schweglero arridet, quod Bauro visum est, auc-
torem ad suum, qui dicitur, Universalismum Romae defendendum Epistolam scripsisse
argument! Apologetici. " P. 21 : "Ergo his Christi sectatoribus Epistolam scripsit
cujus majori in parte habituri essent, quo ad refellendas Judaeorum argutias adjuvar-
entur ipsiq-ue perversis opinionibus et scrupulis liberarentur." P. 22: "Nectamen
Apostoli consilium omnino assecutos esse puto, qui, uti jam Oecumenius, in gentium
exterarum vocaiione ad Christi communionem causam cernere nolint, unde omnis
disputatio quodammodo pendeat, iis etiam in locis, quorum argumentum alius generis
esse vMeatur."

INTRODUCTION. 1 7
work-righteousness of Judaism, not against the work-righteous
ness of the Jewish Christian portion of the Roman church. Had
the Roman Jewish Christians followed this course, he would
have attacked it directly, and have withstood them as he did
the Galatian false teachers and the Galatian churches, and no
consideration of any kind whatever would have induced the
Gentile apostle to treat gently a tendency striking at the very
root of the gospel. For the rest, the same view must be held if
the Roman church had adopted not the ordinary Galatian ex-
elusivism, but the one described by Bauer ; for this, so far from
being, as Dr. Baur supposes, gentler, was harsher than , the
Galatian form, seeing that it excluded even the conditional
admission of the Gentile world to the Messianic salvation. If
now, on the other hand, we are reminded (Baur, I. 331) that
Paul did not in Rome, as in Galatia, see his own work over
thrown, and had not to encounter opposition to his apostolic
authority as directly hostile ; that here he had not to do with a
church that was going back, but with a church, as he might
hope, advancing from imperfection to perfection, — it is obvious
to rejoin that in that case Paul would the more decisively and
fearlessly have repelled false teachers so misleading the church,
and would have plainly and forcibly admonished and warned
the church itself. But here, indeed, everything returns to the
starting-point, namely, to the hypothesis that not only the Juda
istic heresy of the apostolic age, but apostolic Jewish Christianity
in general, was merely a particularism holding righteousness by
works. But could such a standpoint have been assumed even
by the SoKovvTe? etvai ri, by James, Cephas, or John, Paul would
without fail have encountered it with his fearless dvdBefia cotw !
Comp. also Fritzsche, Com. torn. II. pp. 238-240.
As concerns, finally, the authenticity of this epistle, this is
irrefutably established both by the unanimous testimony of
Fathers, and even of heretics, and by the ineffaceable stamp of
the apostolic spirit which it bears on its face. Hence, with the
exception of the superficial attacks of the English Evanson (The
Dissonance, of the Four generally received Evangelists, 1792, p.
259 ff.), long ago laid to rest, and "the frivolities" [Meyer] of
Bruno Bauer, whose critical radicalism could only be satisfied by
calling in question the whole of the Pauline epistles, it has
never been even contested. Even Dr. Baur (Paul. p. 256) reckons
Philiffi, Rom. I. B

18 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the Roman epistle, along with the Galatian and two Corinthian
epistles, among the Homologoumena, while certainly he classes
the remaining nine Pauline epistles with the Antilegomena, so
that, after all, his concession reminds us of Timeo Danaos et
dona ferentes. Of the integrity of the epistle, especially of the
genuineness of ch. xv. and xvi., we shall treat in the proper
place,

CHAP. I. 1.

CHAPTER I.
Vv. 1-7. The Salutation. — The type of greeting lying at the
basis of this salutation would run in the ordinary form : ilaOXos
'PwfiaCoK j(aipeiv. The way in which the apostle amplifies and
remodels this gives us to see by anticipation that the gospel is not
one among many common forms, but is spirit and life entering
into the common form, but in order to transform it. The saluta
tion is more copious than that of the other Pauline epistles, the
apostle having to introduce himself for the first time to the
church of the imperial metropolis, which he has neither founded
nor as yet visited. But he introduces himself as a God-ordained
apostle (ver. 1), an apostle of the gospel of the Son of God and
Son of man, the gospel which he intends in the following pages
to proclaim, and which was confirmed by the teaching of prophets
and the fact of the resurrection (vv. 2—4), and, indeed, as apostle
of the Gentiles (ver. 5), of whom the Romans are a part (ver. 6).
Thus at once and at the same time the genuine as well as the
personal character of his authority and obligation to write the
epistle stands clearly forth.
Ver. 1. Uavkosi] This originally Gentile name (the Latin
Paulus, in accordance with the frequent interchange of p and X,
identical with the Greek -iravpos, Horn. II. ii. 675) is found
along with the Jewish HavXoi (-WE*) first of aU (Acts xiii. 9) on
the apostle's first missionary journey among the Gentiles. From
that point onwards it appears exclusively, both in the Acts and
the Pauline epistles, instead of the latter. From that time then,
as apostle of the Gentiles, Paul allied himself with them, even in
his outward appellation.1
1 " In circumcisione nomen Sauli Ehraeum ipsi datum esse, dubium non est ; et fieri
potuit, ut Pauli nomen, cum ab aliis ita vocaretur, lubentius usurparit, turn quia
notius et communius, turn ut vocabulum lubentius Graeci ac Romani, quibus id
gratiosum ac familiare, agnoscerent, quorum se doctorem profitebatur, turn quod
eircumeisio jamjam abroganda penitus fuerit, doctrina imprimis hujus apostoli,
pleneque in ejus locum surrogandus baptismus, synagoga Judaica cum honore

20 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— BovXos 7 XpurTov] denotes in the superscription, as epithet
to the nomen proprium, not the general relation of servant, in
which all Christians stand to Christ their Lord, but the special
relation of office, of service in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. '
However, SoSXo? and the following dir6aToXo<; form no tautology.
The idea of BovXo<s is more general, that of dirocrToXos more
special ; the former is more precisely defined by the latter. The
8ovXo<; is not necessarily diroaToXos, he may also be ¦irpoQrJTTjs,
euayyeXto-Tfc, Troifiijv, and BiBda/caXos. The 0. T. niii; 7W also is
not merely prophet, but may be king, priest, etc. Thus between
BovXos and kAt/to? d-ir6<TToXo<; a gradation finds place, the diroar-
to\o? taking the highest rank among the N. T. SouXots.
— KXrjTb*} dTr6<TToXo<;~] all apostles were directly called to their
office, but Paul was so called (Acts ix. 6, 15, xxii. 21, xxvi. 16-18 ;
Gal. i. 1, 12). That he who came in later, when he wishes to
authenticate his apostleship, should lay special stress on this
kXtjo-is is only natural, without any intentional comparison of his
apostolic position being thereby kept in view. On dirocrToXm
comp. Acts xxii. 21: iyw eis edvrj fiaicpav e%aTro<TTeX5> ere;
xxvi. 17 : «'?. oti<s vvv (re diroaTeXXai.
— dcpwpicrfievos els evayyeXtov deov] The calling to the aposto-
late has its. aim and purport in being set apart to the work of
proclaiming the gospel, which is the function of the apostolate.
Both these, icXrjais and d<f)opia/i6<;., meet in the self-same moment
of the conversion narrated Acts . ix., and the atopic fios has a
permanence, reaching to the time when the epistle was written.
Hence the perfect dfywptafikvos. The idea of setting apart ap
proaches in meaning what we now call " ordination." There is
no allusion to the eternal counsel of God, for d<popl£ea6at, is not
of itself equivalent to irpoopi^ecrOat, and the addition etc KotXlas
fiTjTpos fiov (Gal. i. 15) is wanting here. Nor is reference made
sepulta, " Calovius on the passage. On the other side, Jerome early remarks, De Vir.
III. 5 : "A primo ecclesiae spolio, proconsule Sergio Paulo, victoriae suae trophaea
retulit, erexitque vexillum, ut Paulus diceretur e Saulo." Yet this memorable inci
dent of the conversion of the proconsul Sergius Paulus may be regarded as the first
occasion, not as the real reason, of the permanent change of name. According to
Augustine, the assumption of the name Paulus = exiguus, was the outcome of Pauline
humility (1 Cor. xv. 9 ; Eph. iii. 8). But this at most could only have been one of
several inwardly determining factors. According to Wieseler on Gal. i. 1, the apostle
as a Roman citizen had both names, Paulus Saulus, from the time of his birth (comp.
Alexander Jannaeus, Johannes Marcus, Jesus Justus), and used the first instead of
the second after he began his labours as Gentile apostle.

CHAP. I. 2, 3. 21
to the act of calling on the part of the Antiocheian church (Acts
xiii. 2), as many expositors, not without appearance of reason,
have supposed (comp. d<j>opiaa,Te fiot, there), for the d<f>opto-fi6$ is
a direct one, and answers better to irpoo-KeKXijiiat, there mentioned.
eh evayyeXtov 0eov] for tlie gospel of God, not in order to believe
in it, but in order to proclaim it. et?, in, for, is a particle of pur
pose ; 6eoi) is genit. causae, not object., for God is the author, not
the purport of the saving proclamation. The latter is Christ, as
is expressly said, vv. 3, 4. So also evayyeXtov 6eov (Rom. xv. 1 6 ;
1 Thess. ii. 2, 8, 9 ; 1 Pet. iv. 17, etc.).
Ver. 2. The gospel is the primitive truth, proclaimed before
hand by most credible witnesses, laid up in duly attested writings.
Kal rjfiei<s vfia<; eiayyeXt^ofieda ttjv 7jy>o? tous 7rare/3a? iirayyeXtav
yevofievrjv, says the same apostle (Acts xiii. 32). Thus the signi
ficance and glory of the gospel receive special emphasis, while
in this and the following verses, up to ver. 5, the sacred dignity of
the apostolic office is made clearly to appear, b Trpoeir'qyyelXaTo']
It was not so much the gospel, the news concerning Christ
(although this is included, x. 15), as Christ Himself, or redemp
tion, that God caused to be proclaimed before through the pro
phets. The expression is therefore concise, and the relative 5
refers to the contents of the gospel.
— Bui twv irpo^Ttov avTov] Not only the four great and twelve
minor prophets are meant, nor the order of prophets in general
commencing with Samuel, but all men by whom prophecies bear
ing on Christ are found recorded in the 0. T. covenant Scriptures,
iv ypa<pal<i dytai*}. Moses also and David accordingly belong to
these irpo<pr}Tal<i. Tpatpal ayiai are not : passages of Holy Scrip
ture; but either: the holy writings, or: holy writings. The
absence of the article says nothing against the first interpretation,
for ypacpal ay tat, are a self-defined unicum, like deos, trvevfia dytov,
v6fio<i; nor yet the circumstance that direct prophecies at least
are not found in all writings of the 0. T., for the Holy Scriptures
were regarded as a single volume, one and indivisible. Yet the
general spirit of the passage is more in favour of the last meaning,
for the glory of the gospel could only be set forth by characterizing
the medium of its prophetic announcement of old. This is the
sure and honourable medium of holy writings. But by this is
meant the entire 0. T., consisting of holy writings.
Ver. 3. irepl tov vlov uvtov] In accordance with the order of

22 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
words and grammar, to be connected with TrpoeinqyyeEXaTo, not
with evayyeXtov (ver. 1), although certainly as to substance the
object of the latter is meant to be here specified. Ver. 2, there
fore, is not to be made a parenthesis, vto? 6eov is not to be taken
as a mere Messianic official title, but invariably denotes with our
apostle a metaphysical relation of Christ to the Father. The subject
spoken of is the vtb<s fiovoyevrjq irapa iraTpb<s, John i. 14, the vlbs
iBioi, Rom. viii. 32. As such, above all, it was needful He should
be demonstrated, ver. 4. We have here the same antithesis of the
humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ as ix. 5, which passage
alone is decisive of the meaning of u/o? 0eov in the present one.
Comp. the description of the wo? it}? dydirr)<i ayrov, Col. i. 13-17.
— rod yevofievov iit o'TrepfiaTos AavtB~\ As son of David is He
born, according to the promises of the prophets. Only as such is
He one yevofievos, one born in time, one that came into existence
(Gal. iv. 4), for as Son of God He is the eternally existent one.
Nevertheless, this eternally existent Son of God became a son of
David, not by change of His unchangeable Godhead, — we must
never forget that only in the pantheistic system has the limita
tion of the illimitable a meaning,— but by the assumption and
elevation of humanity into the unity of His divine person.
The incarnate Son of God being only one, the expression is per
missible : the Son of God is born of the seed of David. But He
is born of the seed of David as bora of the Virgin Mary, David's
daughter. Thus the seed of David remained withal the seed of
the woman promised in the protevangelium. To concede to the
apostle the conception of the metaphysical divine sonship, and to
deny to him faith in the birth of God's Son of the Virgin, is to
impute to him a conception dogmatically inconceivable.
— kutc\ crdptca] adp% signifies here the entire human nature,
made up of cr&fih as well as of a lower and higher ¦tyv'xf). This
nature is described by the characteristic sign of its visible, sensu
ous manifestation. In the same sense stands in John i. 14 :
o X070? o-dpg eyeveTo, not essentially different from : God became
man, comp. Rom. ix. 5. The ethical element of the sinfulness of
the crdpl; is not included here, for Christ did not appear iv <rap/cl
dfiapTta<;, but only iv 6/ioiwfiaTt, <rapicb<i dfiaprta^. But probably
the weakness and frailty of the adp% is meant to be emphasized,.
although even His frail human nature is glorified as one that
sprang, in accordance with the promise, ix cnrep/iaTo<} AavtS.

CHAP. I. 4. 23
Ver. 4. tov opio-0evTO$ viov deov iv Bvvdfiet, /card irvevfia dyiw-
cvwryi, ij; dvaordaew; vexp&v] By the asyndeton tov yevo/ievov
. . . tov 6pia-9evro(}, the second parallel clause is made specially
prominent, opl^eiv Tivd ti, to designate one for something, to ap
point, to establish, constituere, creare. Thus in all N. T. passages,
Luke xxii. 22 ; Acts ii. 23, x. 42, xi. 29, xvii. 26, 31 ; Heb. iv. 7.
Hence, when Chrys. and Theophyl. explain optadevTos by Bei^-
6evro<;, diroBeiyQevTO'i, diro<pav0evTO<;, (3ef3aia>8evTO<:, Kpi8evTO<s, this
must be taken as explaining the sense rather than the word.
Christ is proved, demonstrated, the Son of God, in so far as by the
resurrection from the dead He is established as such before men, or
in the conviction of men. Parallel at all points is the thought Acts
xiv. 33. KaTa irvevfia dyMtrvvq<s furnishing a manifest antithesis
to KaTa adpica, it appears unnatural to co-ordinate iv Bwd/iei,
KaTa, irvevfia, and e'f dvaaTaaewi, and oppose them equally to
KaTa adpKa, by which method of construction Christ is said to be
demonstrated the Son of God " in power, according to the spirit
and by the resurrection." The familiar antithesis of adp\- and
irvevfia compels us rather to interpret : He is Son of David, KaTa
crdpKa ; Son of God, KaTa, irvevfia. The Words iv Bvvd/iet, must
then be joined either with opurdevros or with viov deov. If,
following the first method of construction, we wished to interpret:
" by the power of God," we should need the addition Oeov (2 Cor.
xiii. 4 ; 1 Cor. vi. 14), or look for an expression like Bid ttj<; So^?
tov iraTpos (Rom. vi. 4). But if the wish were to take eV Bvvdfiet,
adverbially in the sense of potenter, evidenter : " who is mani
fested in expressive fashion, powerfully, strikingly," then tov iv
Bvvdfiet opia0evro<} would certainly have seemed the best arrange
ment of the words, and one less liable to misconstruction. Accord
ingly, we think the Connection with viov Oeov the most simple and
natural " Id est," says Melanchthon, " declaratus est ess& filius
Dei potens," " who is established," i.e. " proved, manifested a Son
of God in power." If, then, the adp\; designates the lower,
human nature, the irvevfia can only serve as a designation of
the higher, divine principle in Christ.1 Therefore the reference
1 Comp. the contrast of rnv/ta and «fy|, to denote the divine and human natures
of Christ, in Gregory Naz. Orat. xxxix. 13, p. 685 ; xxxviii. 13, p. 671, cited by
Ullmann, Gregory of Nazianzum the Divine, pp. 398, 400. Cyprian, also, -De
Idolorum Vanitate, speaking of the incarnation, saysi "Carnem Spiritus sanctus
induitur."

24 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
cannot here be to the irvevfia dyiov, which, in dogmatic phrase
ology, is the third Person in the Godhead, neither as that Spirit
spoke through the prophets and testified of the divine sqnship of
Christ ; nor as Christ Himself, as Messiah, was anointed with it
without measure ; nor as He, after His glorification by the resur
rection, poured forth this irvev/ia upon His people. Besides, the
irvevfia dyiov is never elsewhere in the New Testament designated
by irvevfia dyiwavvr\<;, and the latter expression forbids the inter
change. Rather is irvevfia ayiwo-vvr}<; here nothing but the higher,
heavenly, divine nature of Christ, according to which, or in which,
He is the Son of God. Here there is ascribed to the Son of God
a spiritual essence, for irvevfia 6 0eo? (John iv. 24) also refers to
Him, and in 2 Cor. hi. 1 7 He is Himself called to irvev/ia ; while
according to Heb. ix. 14, He offered Himself to God Sid irvev-
fiaTo<; alwviov. dyiwo-vvrft is genit. qualitatis, and indicates the
nature of the irvevfia more precisely. 'Ayiwo-vvr)? itself must be
distinguished from dyiao-fio1; : it means holiness (2 Cor. vii. 1 ;
1 Thess. iii 13), not sanctifusation. But the reason why the
apostle here calls the Son of God a viov Oeov iv Bwd/iei, and His
higher nature a irvevfia dyiwavvryi, seems to be nothing but this :
that with the o-dp%, the human nature ascribed to Him, the idea
of infirmity and sinfulness is inevitably associated, though the
latter, as observed, does not lie in the word in this, passage. But,
as matter of fact, though the Son of God had subjected Himself to
the daOeveia <rapKo<s, and appeared iv Ofioiwfian aapicbs dfiapTta<s,
He was and remained vlbs Oeov iv Svvdfiei KaTa irvevfia dyica-
avv7]<s, and by the resurrection, as a triumph over death and sin, He
declared Himself the almighty, living, and holy Son of God, to
whom all power is given in heaven and earth, that He may give
eternal life to those whom the Father has given Him (Matt.
xxviii. 1 8 ; John xvii. 2). For the rest, with this passage is to
be compared the similar idea (1 Tim. iii 16): 0eb<s itpavepwOrf iv
trapxl, iBiKaiwOrj iv irvev/iaTi, and also the mutual contrast of
adp% and irvevfia (1 Pet. iii. 18).
— ef dva&Taaew? veKpwv] The e* may be taken either as a
temporal or causal particle (comp. Jas. ii. 18): since or by the
resurrection from the dead is Christ manifested the Son of God.
The causal sense is to be preferred, the apostolic preaching
pointing everywhere to the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the
ground of faith in His divine Sonship (Acts ii. 24, xiii. 30 ff.,

CHAP. I. 5. 25
xvii. 3, 31, xxvi. 23). This evidence, as matter of fact, it sup
plied, according to John ii. 19, x. 18. It corroborated Christ's
testimony concerning Himself, the substance of which was His
divine Sonship. dvaaTaais veKpwv cannot grammatically be the
same as dvdoraa-ft e/e veKpwv. Moreover, it is not the future
resurrection of the dead that is meant ; but Christ's resurrection
is the resurrection of the dead itself, in so far as in His resurrec
tion ours is involved, — in so far as His resurrection represents
the general resurrection in a concrete case (Acts iv. 2, xvii. 32,
xxiii. 6, xxvi. 8, 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 12).
— 'Irjaov Xpio-Tov tov Kvpiov tffiwv] is not to be joined with i£
avaaTacrews veKpwv, as is done in the Itala and Vulgate, but to be
taken as in apposition to tov viov avTov, ver. 3 ; but tov yevo-
fievov, up to vexpwv, is not on this account to be parenthesized.
This Son of God and of David is the historical person Jesus
Christ, — the man Jesus, the Messiah (X/storo?), the common Lord
of the church, whose So0\o?, in the stricter sense, the apostle is,
which fact is once more brought out (ver. 5) in fuller detail and
more special definition. But fjfiwv is not therefore to be applied
exclusively to the apostles, for Christ is Lord of aU, even as all
"believers are His BovXoi (Eph. vi. 6 ; 1 Cor. vii. 22). At the
same time, the solemn addition 7. Xp. t. k. iffi. furnishes an easy
point of connection with what follows.
Ver. 5. Bi o5] The formula Bid 'Irjcrov Xpia-Tov represents
Christ as mediator of a relation, the primary cause of which is
0eo? iraT-ijp. The medium (Bid) is accordingly to be distinguished
from the causa principalis (yird), xv. 1 5.
— iXdfiofiev] refers not to all the apostles, but to Paul alone ;
for irdvTa t& eOvrj expressly were to be the Gentile apostle's
peculiar sphere of action; and in what follows, his object is
simply to establish his own authority for writing to the Romans,
who belong to these eOvrj. The original meaning of the plural :
" I and my equals," passed out of use even in profane writers.
— %dpiv koi diroo-ToXrjv] The Kal is explicative : grace, namely
apostleship. There was no occasion to speak of converting grace,
comp. xv. 15, 16.. Elsewhere, too, the apostle views his toilsome
office, on account of its meaning and aim, as a gift of God's grace
(Eph. hi. 2, 3, 7, 8). By saying x°-PLV **' diroaToXrjv instead of
%dpiv dirocrroXf}<;, the grace manifested in the bestowal of the
apostleship is put forward in an independent and striking way, —

26 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the reverse of "the fulness and force of the discourse" being
weakened by this interpretation [Meyer].
— et? viraKorjv Tr/o-reoj?] et?, particle of purpose : I received the
grace of the apostolate for the obedience of faith, i.e. that obedi
ence of faith might arise, be established. Similarly, ver. 1, d(j>wpicr-
fievo<s et? evayyeXtov. JTio-Tew? may be taken as genit. autoris:
obedience to God, that faith requires or effects. But the apostle
is not an apostle in order to establish this obedience, but in order
to establish faith in the gospel itself, of which obedience is a
necessary and immediate consequence. Ilio-Tt?, not viraKorj, forms
the theme of the Roman epistle. Again, we may take irto-Tew<; as
genit. appositionis : obedience consisting in faith. No doubt faith
is an act of obedience to God's Word. Hence the phrases : vira-
Koveiv tw evayyeXhp, Rom. x. 16-; 2 Thess. i 8 : direiOetv t& Xoyw;
or to eiayyeXtw, 1 Pet. ii. 8, iv. 17. But it does not seem in
place for the apostle to introduce a characteristic property of faith,
where all that was required of him, in harmony with the aim of
his epistle, was to declare that his office consisted in bringing all
the world into subjection to faith itself. Therefore the preference
belongs to the interpretation which regards iri<rTew<} as genit.
objectivus : in order to establish obedience to faith. The gram
matical connection is justified by 2 Cor. x. 5 : f/ viraKorj tov
XpuxTov; 1 Pet. i. 22: ff viraKofj tr}<; dXvOeia? ; the mode of
expression itself, by Acts vi. 7 : viraKoiieiv tj) iriaTei. But then
the meaning of itio-ti^, questionable in the New Testament:
dogmatic faith, " fides quae creditur, doctrina Christiana," is not
to be accepted. Rather trdvra ra eOvrj are to become obedient
to subjective faith ; whereupon, no doubt, subjective faith is to be
conceived, as often, made objective as a power (xvi. 26 ; Gal. i. 23).
¦ — iv irdat rot? eOveo-i] The connection with the words just
preceding is the most natural, in the sense of Xva yevqTat viraKorj
irt(7Tew} iv irdai rot? eOveaiv, "that obedience to faith may be
produced among all Gentiles." Tlavra Ta eOvrj are not all nations,
inclusive of the Jews, as in Matt, xxviii. 19, but all Gentiles. The
apostle never describes himself as apostle of Jews and Gentiles
alike. Expressly and repeatedly he characterizes his call, especi
ally in the Roman epistle, as that of the Gentile apostle (i. 13 ff.,
xi. 13, xv. 16). Thereby all activity among the Jews is not
absolutely precluded, but denominatio fit a parte potiori.
— virep tov 6v6/iaTo<! avrov] The connection with 7tio-t€Q)s is,

CHAP. I. 6, 7. 27
for grammatical reasons, untenable, for we do not say irlori?
inrep nvo$. The connection with x^Plv Ka^ diroo-ToXrjv is more
unlikely than that with et? viramrfv . . . eOvecriv, " that submission
to faith may be brought about among all Gentiles for the sake (for
the glorifying) of His name" (Acts xv. 26, xxi. 13). In Acts ix. 15,
Svo/ia serves metonymicaliy as a designation of the person or
tiling itself, inasmuch as in the name its characteristic features
are expressed.
Ver. 6. iv oh core xal i/fieh] The Romans also belonging to
these eOvr), to whom the commission of the apostle applies, is the
reason of his writing to them.
— kXtjtoI 'Itjo-ov XpitTTOv] The apostle elsewhere invariably
ascribes the act of calling to God the Father (viii. 30, ix. 24;
1 Cor. i. 9, vii. 15, 17; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Tim.
i. 9). Therefore 'Itjo-ov XpurTov in this passage is probably to be
taken, not as genit. causae, but as the genitive of belonging to, and
thus the meaning is to be paraphrased : the called of God, who
belong to Jesus Christ. Here also (vv. 5, 6, as in vv. 3, 4) the
sign of parenthesis is to be erased, as needlessly, and contrary to
the end in view, breaking the coherence and flow of thought.
Ver. 7. irdai toi<s otiaiv iv 'Pwfij/ . . . 07101?] After concluding
the intervening thoughts, — so rich and so naturally linked to
gether (w. 2-6), — the apostle now completes the proper address
of the epistle: JTaOXo?, BovXo<s 'Iyo-ov XpiaTov, k\7/to? diroaToXos,
irdat, Toh ofiaiv iv 'Pw/iy dyairrfToh Oeov, kXijtok dyiOK. %aip£iv
or ev irpdrreiv, elsewhere commonly occurring among the Greeks,
forms the simple address to a salutation ; but it is not absolutely
necessary. Here the substance of %aipeiv appears in the follow
ing %dpi<i vfiiv ktX. as an independent sentence and invocation
of blessing of richer fulness, irdai addresses the epistle simply
to the entire Roman church, without secondary reference to the
distinction of natives and foreigners (ver. 8 forbids all thought
of the latter), or of known and unknown. "To all believers
belonging to the church in Rome." But Paul says not simply
7rtoTot?, but, putting emphasis on the objective glory of the
Christian position, dyairriToh Oeov, kXi)toi$ dyioi<i] These are
the privileges ascribed and pertaining, once to the Old Testa
ment, now to the New Testament covenant people, the true
7o-joo^X Oeov. Christians are dyairrfTol Oeov in Christ tg>
yyaTrrjfievw, Eph. L 6, and kXtjtoI ayioi, 1 Cor. i 2, i.e. set apart

28 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
from the world by a holy calling, and consecrated to God, ev
XpicrTw, who for their sake sanctified Himself (John xvii. 1 9),
and eV irvev/ian dyiw, whose temple they are (1 Cor. vi. 11).
"Non ideo vocati sunt," says Augustine, "quia sancti erant,
sed ideo sancti effecti, quia vocati sunt," comp. 1*jnj? E^pn
(Zeph. i. 7).
— Xapt? vfiiv koi elptfvr}] sc. etrj. These words, though cor
responding to the xatpeiv used elsewhere in the form of saluta
tion (Acts xv. 23, xxiii. 26), have in the apostle's mouth, as the
change and remodelling of the form expressly show, a more pro
found, inner, spiritual meaning; elpr\vt], our peace with God, is
a consequence of the %a|Oi<r, the grace, the peace that God
made with us in Christ. Comp. Wieseler on Gal. i. 3, p. 19,
only that etpjjvw is understood of peace within and without,
though still in the main of inward peace with God.
— dirb Oeov iraTpos f)fiwv koi Kvpiov ^Irfaov XpicrTOv] It is
wrong to make Kvpiov, like r/fiwv, depend on iraTpos. Against
this tells 2 Tim. i. 2 ; Tit. i. 4. Rather is the preposition diro
to be repeated in thought before Kvpiov. The equalization of
Oebf iraTrjp and Kvpiov 'Ino-ovs, with respect to the bestowal of
%a/>t? and elprjvr), belongs to the indirect but decisive proofs of
the divinity of Christ. It is conceded that God is here, as ever,
to be conceived as causa principalis ; Christ, as causa medians ;
but no creature can impart %dpiv koi elprjvnv in the way of real
communication, but only in the way of announcement. Just as in
Gal. i 1, in the words Bid 'Ivo-ov XpiaTov koi Oeov iraTpo<;, God,
like Christ, is considered as mediator of salvation, or more specially
as mediator of the apostolate ; so here, in dirb Oeov tot/jo? fjfiwv
ical Kvpiov 7^0-ou' XpiaTov, Christ, like God, is considered as the
source of grace and peace, although the one in a medial, the other
in a primary manner. — God is iraTrfp rffiwv in so far as we have
obtained vioOeaia through Christ. For the vlb<; Oeov, becoming
the BovXoi Oeov, procured for us vloOecrla, but for Himself the
authority of Kvpios in relation to the church.
Vv. 8-17. Preface and theme of the epistle. Declaration of
his thanks for the far-famed faith of the Romans, of his remem
brance of them in prayer, and his wish to come to them, because
he is under obligation to preach the gospel to them as to all
Gentiles. Of this gospel, on account of its glorious power and
efficacy, he is not ashamed, for it reveals the righteousness that

CHAP. I. 9. 29
avails before God, the righteousness that comes from faith (ver. 8).
The gratitude which the apostle bears in his heart for the faith
of all churches, as he declares in the opening of nearly all his
epistles, affords a glimpse into his apostolic heart, and shows
how justly he could boast of the fiepifiva irao-wv twv iKKXntrtwv,
2 Cor. xi. 28.
— trpwTov fiev] primum guidem, first of all. The remainder
should have been introduced by an etra or eirena Be, but in the
press of thoughts rushing one upon another this is omitted
(iii. 2 ; 1 Cor. xi. 18 ; also Acts i. 1).
— t5 Oew fiov] is best explained by Acts xxvii. 23 : ov elfii,
a koi XaTpevw ; 1 Cor. i. 4 ; Phil. iv. 19 ; Philem. 4.
— Bid 7ijo-o{) XpiaTov] All thanksgivings of the Christian
are presented through Jesus Christ, inasmuch as, of all benefits
for which he has to render thanksgiving, Christ is the medium
(vii.- 25; Col. iii. 17). Oecum. strikingly observes : avTos yap
rjfiiv atTio'i T?)? et? tov iraTepa ev^a/storta?, 6 Ka\-irpoaXaf36fievo<;
rjjids Kal t&> IBiw a'ifuvri irpbs ckbivov KaTaXXd^a<;. Thus Christ
is not to be conceived, with Orig. and others, as mediating bearer
of the thanksgiving.
— iv oXw tw Koa-fiw] is an hyperbolical expression, as xvi. 19;
comp. 1 Thess. i. 8; John xii, 19. But, undoubtedly, even in
the apostle's days, the gospel had been preached in the entire
civilised world known at that time ; and the fact of a Christian
church having been established in Rome, the imperial capital,
could not have remained unknown to the other churches. More
over, the apostle gives thanks that the faith of the Romans is
renowned throughout the world, not for its own sake, but inas
much as this bears witness to the sterling and illustrious
character of their faith. That he here gives thanks for the
7rto-Tt? of the Romans, not also for their dydiri], as in Col. i. 4, or
their yvwo-is, as in 1 Cor. i. 5, arises from the general tenor of his
epistle (vv. 1 2, 1 7). For the rest, Calvin rightly : " Praedicatam
in toto orbe fidem Romanorum, intelligamus omnium ftdelium
ore, qui de ipsa recte et sentire et pronuntiare poterant."
Ver. 9. The thanksgivings just uttered are the outflow of the
apostle's unceasing interest in the Romans, by which again the
reality and genuineness of his thanksgiving is attested.
— fidpTv<i . . . 0eo?] comp. the forms of oath, Phil. i. 8 ; 2 Cor.
i. 23, xi. 31; 1 Thess. ii. 5. Even the extrajudicial oath

30 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
springing from a holy motive, and directed to a holy purpose, is
permitted. The law and its Fulfiller (Matt. v. 33 ff.) forbid
only the false oath and reckless, needless swearing. To give to
the church, for the purpose of strengthening its confidence in
himself, a ratification of his declarations and his doctrine, his
truthfulness and sincerity, is reason sufficient to the apostle- for
an assertion in the form of oath.
— w XaTpevw iv ™ irvevfiaTi fiov ev tc3 evcvyyeXltp tov viov
avTov] These words add force to the truth of his affirmation, for
he will not insult God, whom he so faithfully serves in the
gospel, by a lie. And if he is a servant of the gospel from the
heart, he will naturally take the most vivid interest in the
churches established through the gospel. But Paul serves God
iv t&) evayyeXtw, not by believing in it, but by preaching and
diffusing it. iv indicates the sphere in which his service is
carried on. tov viov avTov is genit. object. : " the gospel of His
Son, i.e. which has the Son of God for its content and matter,"
in distinction from evayyeXtov Oeov, ver. 1, = irepl tov viov
avTov, ver. 3. The gospel proceeds from God the Father, and
the subject of which it treats is God the Son. iv tw irvev/iaTi
fiov is not at aU intended to define the apostle's service as a
service in spirit and in truth, in opposition to the vain idol
service of the Gentiles, or empty ceremonial service of the Jews;
but expresses, like iv t§ KapBla, fiov, the sincerity of his service
in opposition to hypocritical show (Eph. v. 19, vi. 6).
— o>?] not = oti, but serves to indicate the mode or degree :
how unceasingly (Phil. i. 8 ; 2 Cor. vii. 15; 1 Thess. ii 10).
Those who erase the comma after iroiovfiai, and place it after
irpo<rev)(S>v fiov, regard irdvTOTe as intensifying dBiaXeiirTco^ —
assidue semper, assiduissime. But in that case we should have
expected the words to stand : to? dSiaXeiirTw<s irdvTOTe ktX. In
this sense, at all events, the comma stands better after irdvTOTe:
to? dSiaXelirTw; fiveiav vfiwv iroiovfiai irdvTOTe ktX. But we
get the easiest and most natural division by joining irdvTOTe, not
with what precedes, but with what follows,' so that the comma
remains after iroiovfiai, and irdvTOTe belongs to Be6fievo<i.
— fiveiav ifiwv iroiovfiai] To be added in thought : in my
prayer, when praying, as is spontaneously understood, and as
ver. 10 intimates (Phil. i. 3 ; 1 Thess. i. 2).
Ver. 10. A particular form of this fiveia is the desire to come

CHAP. I. 11. 31
to them, em twv irpo<rev%wv fiov] iirl, with the genitive, as
often, a preposition of temporal definition (Matt. i. 11). In my
prayers, which I make in general, and therefore with reference to
you (Eph. i. 1 6 ; 1 Thess. i. 2 ; Philem. 4). The apostle speaks
here of the special seasons of prayer in which he brought before
the Lord his requests, as well as the interests of all churches ;
for it was impossible to remember the Romans in every separate
intermediate petition.
— et-n-o)?] si forte expresses the modest reserve of the request.
— ffBrj 7roTe] tandem aliguando, seeing that I have desired it
already so long (Phil. iv. 1 0). eftoBofiv Tivd, to lead one by a good
path, the passive evoBov<r0a,i = to get a good path, then = to
have good success, to prosper. The passive always stands in this
last, metaphorical sense (1 Cor. xvi 2 ; 3 John 2). Besides,
there was no motive here for requesting a good path, but only, in
general, success in coming to them. Sense : if perchance at last
I might be so successful. The infinitive iXOeiv then depends on
eioBwOifcrofiai, not on Beofievoq.
— iv t£ OeXtffiaTi tov 0eo§] to whom all the good subordinate
their wills (Acts xviii. 21 ; Rom. xv. 32 ; 1 Cor. iv. 19, xvi. 7 ;
Jas. iv. 15). iv, inasmuch as the OeXrjfia tov Oeov embraces
within itself the prosperous issue, the eyoBovtrQai, referred to.
Ver. 11. The ground (ydp) of the request stated ver. 10 is
the desire to visit the church, in order to be of use to it.
eVi7roc?ft)] The preposition gVt is not used to give strength to
iroOeiv, which already expresses fervent longing. iiriiroOeiv Tt
may simply mean iroOov e^eiv iirl rt. But this analysis does not
apply in xv. 23.
— iva ti fieTaBw %dpio-fia vfiiv irvevpMTiKov] 1 Thess. ii. 8.
The usual construction is fieTaBiBovai tw'i tivos. We must not
here think of special miraculous gifts (1 Cor. xii). Neither
would such a purpose be identical with the one stated ver. 15 ;
nor, again, is aTrfpi^Orfvai the necessary result of receiving such
%apicrfiaTa, which the apostle himself subordinates (1 Cor. xiii.)
to the %dpi<rfia of love, ascribing to them nothing but a relative
worth. The ^a/atcr/ia or Bdoprjfia, which the apostle desires to
impart to them, consists rather in the 7rtcrTt?, dydirr), iXirh,
yvwcri<;,, etc., implanted by the preaching of the gospel. But it
is irvevfiaTiKov, as produced by the irvevfia aryiov, as' whose organ
the apostle regards himself, and therefore carries in it the nature

32 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
of this irvevfia. Paul adds modestly a Tt: some spiritual gift.
Luther : something of a spiritual gift. The words ti . . . xdpier/ia
. . . irvevfiaTiKov are made the more emphatic by the words
(jieTaBw . . . iifiiv) inserted between.
— et? to <TTrjpf)(0^vai vfidi] The apostle says not : et? to
o-Ttfpi^eiv ifid<;, for this becomes God alone (xvi. 25). He is
only the instrument, hence the passive, Acts xvi. 5. Further,
the Romans needed strengthening only, not the first work of
instruction and grounding in truth.
Ver. 12. touto Bi eWt] elucidates the words et? to
crTifpixOfjvai I/ids, whose meaning the apostle qualifies and
restricts, not merely, as Erasmus says, in a "pia vafrieties et
sancta adulatio," but, withal, in genuine humility.
— (TVfiirapaKXnOrjvai] irapaKaXelv Tivd, to call one near (Acts
xxviii. 2 0). The design of this call may be a request or address.
Hence the meaning : to request or persuade one. The purport of
this address, converse, persuasion, may be comfort or admonition.
Hence irapaKaXetv Tivd, to comfort one, thus Matt. v. 4 : fiaKapioi
oi irevOovvTey art avTol irapatcXnOrfcrovTai ; ox: to admonish one,
thus Acts ii. 40 : Bie/iapTvparo ical irapeKaXei, Xeiyaw %w0i)Te
dirb T»)? yevea<i t?}? ovcoA-ta? TavT7]<s. Hence also irapa/caXeiv,
irapaKXrjcri<; often has the meaning of admonitory instruction,
Acts xiii. 15 ; 1 Thess. ii. 3 ; Tit. i. 9 : irapaKaXetv iv t?j
BiSao-KaXia Ty vyiatvovcrrj. Finally, comforting, admonitory
address comprehends quickening and strengthening, on which
account irapaKaXeiv, to quicken, occurs as synonym of ctTnpi^eiv,
to conform (1 Thess. iii. 2 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17). This last sense
is peculiarly appropriate in this passage as an exposition of
o-TrjpixOrjvai : " but this is, to be strengthened, quickened to
gether." To crv/nrapaKXrfOrjvai, neither t//xa? nor yet vfidf Kal
ifiavTov is to be supplied, which both ctvfi- and iv vfiiv, among
you, forbid. Rather is Paul to be considered the subject, in
which case, no doubt, a stricter style of writing would have
required the express insertion of ifie : " that I may be quickened
with you and among you."
— Bid Trj$ iv aXX^Xoi<; iriaTew<;, vfiwv re Kal ipov] " through
the mutual faith of you and me." iv dXXrfXoK not differing
from dXXi]Xwv, the apostle employs vfiwv tc /cat ifioi, which
more readily enters into direct dependence on iriaTews, not i/iiv
re Kal ifioi. But the apostle can say that he wishes to be

CHAP. I. 13. 33
quickened among the Romans through their mutual, common
faith, because he says that he wishes to be quickened with them
(a-vfi-). Thus they also are certainly to be quickened, he
through their, they through his, faith. The apostle's invigora-
tion forming the chief point of .the verse, in keeping with this
vfiwv is set before ifiov. Moreover, this arrangement of words
bespeaks the delicacy and fine feeling of the apostle.
Ver. 13. Not content with the desire to see them, he has
often already resolved to come to them, but hitherto has been
hindered, ov OeXw Be vfias dyvoeiv] A form of notice or com
munication often met with in the Pauline epistles (xi. 25; 1 Cor.
x. 1, xii 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 13). In the same sense
Phil. i. 12 : yivwaKeiv Be vfias f3ovXofiai. The communication
thus introduced is always of importance for the readers. In this
passage the frequency of his resolve indicates the sincerity and
earnestness of his desire to visit them, and by mutual intercourse
edify himself and them.
— dBeX<pot] the usual apostolic address, the dignity of the
apostolic office resting on the basis of a common brotherhood of
faith. The former, therefore, is only dwelt on and vindicated
when some practical purpose compels, never in the interests of
hierarchical ambition.
— iroXXaKis] when the apostle first formed this purpose, and
how often, cannot be determined. From xv. 23 it follows that
he first had it in mind many years before writing the epistle.
— Kal iKwXvOrjv dypi tov Sevpo] is to be viewed as a par
enthesis, since the following iva . . . &xa must be joined with the
preceding on iroXXaKi? . . . v/ias. The parenthetical Kal, = the
simple and of sequent thought, is not of itself identical with the
adversative koItoi or Be, although the latter might also have
been used. eKaXvOrjv, the obstacles to the journey, proceeded
neither from Satan, as in 1 Thess. ii. 18, nor from the Holy Spirit,
as in Acts xvi. 6, 7, but as Paul himself says, Rom. xv. 20-23
(comp. 2 Cor. x. 15), from his desire to preach the gospel in
regions where it had not yet penetrated. " Magis urgebat ne-
cessitas loeorum, in quibus Christus erat ignotus," Grotius.
Bevpo elsewhere an adverb of place, here only in the N. T.
of time. — 'iva Tivd Kapirbv cr^w] Paul says not, that I may do you
good (exeiv, not = irapixeiv), but : that I may have fruit. In
Philippi, Rom. I. C

34 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the ardour of his zeal for the gospel, he regards the results of
his preaching among the churches as his own harvest-fruit (as
to Kapiro<;, comp. John iv. 36, xv. 5; Phil, i 22), as his own
acquisition. This Kapirof was to him et? Kavx7lrLa e'9 fjfiepav
Xpio-Tov, Phil. ii. 16 ; Sotja Kal xaP^> 1 Thess. ii. 20. But he
modestly adds a Tivd. e^ety, to have, to possess, is not of itself
equivalent to KTaaOat, evpicrKeiv, to obtain, although the apostle
might have used these expressions just as well.
— Kal iv vfiiv, KaQm Kal iv] The doubling of the comparative
/cat is caused by the animation of the language. Kal iv v/iiv,
KaOwt alone was enough, or iv vfiiv, KaOws Kal, Matt.'xviii 33;
Col. iii. 13. To Ka0w<s Kal we must supply Kapirbv e%co. eOveaiv]
Gentiles, not nations, as ver. 14 shows. No doubt, according
to Acts xxviii, the apostle preaches the gospel first in Rome ;
yet is this course of action, as elsewhere, only subordinate and
preliminary. It paves the way for preaching among the Gentiles
(Acts xxviii. 28).
Ver. 14. To preach the gospel in Rome is not only the Gentile
apostle's wish, but his duty. "EXXrfves Kal f3dp/3apoi is a division
of the entire world known to antiquity, made from the standpoint
of Greek civilisation. Originally it was only = Greeks, and those
of strange tongue or foreigners ; then with the secondary notion
of the cultured in mind and habit, and the intellectually and
morally uncultured barbarians. Doubtless the Greeks classed
the Jews, as, later, even Philo does explicitly, with the fiapfid-
pot?. But this is altogether opposed to the mode of view of the
sacred writers, with whom the distinction in religion is so much
more significant than the different degrees of culture, that they
divided the entire community of nations into 'IovBaioi Kal eOvt),
iii. 29, ix. 24. Without doubt, then, from his standpoint, the
apostle, in the distinction of "EXXrfve<s Kal f3dpf3apoi, referred
only to the Gentile world. Besides, according to Gal. ii. 7, he
was not 6(f>eiXeT7]5 to the Jews. Sotpol Te Kal dvorfToi elucidates
still more definitely the meaning of the expression "EXX. Kal
fiapfi., which, used in the first instance merely as a designation
of diverse nationality, is applied by Paul withal to diverse degrees
of culture. This addition was the more needful, because, after
the importation into Italy of the Greek language and culture, the
Romans no longer, as formerly, reckoned themselves among the
fSap^dpoif, but yet could not, without qualification, be justly

CHAr. 1. 15; 35
called "EXXifvei} But Paul evidently, as ver. 16 intimates,
reckons the Romans among the o-oc/>ot?. One sees no real reason
why, if he only wanted to say in general : " I am a debtor to all
nations," he should have selected the particular national division
"EXXi)ve<i Kal f3dp/3apoi. Likewise, it does not seem in place to
apply (rotpol and dvorjToi only to individuals on the ground that
dvotfToi might have been found among the Greeks, as well as
o-o<pol among the barbarians. The latter, at least the Greeks,
whose point of view the apostle adopts in his division, would not
have conceded, and as to the first he says himself (1 Cor. i. 22)
of the Greek nation in general: "EXXTjves <ro<plav ^tjtovo-iv.
— 6<peiXeTr]<; eljil] as is self-evident, without its being ex
pressly supplied: evayyeXlo-acrOai or tov evayyeXlov, ver. 15.
The apostle regards the preaching of the gospel as a debt which
he owes to the Gentiles, for in the obligation to do this his
divinely instituted office consists (1 Cor. ix. 16, 17 ; 2 Cor. iv. 5).
Ver. 15. ovtw] thus, in such circumstances, in such a capacity,
i.e. as debtor to thew.E\\. t. k. fiapfi. ktX. As regards meaning
then ovtw = in consequence, comp. the /cat ovtw, Acts vii. 8 ;
1 Cor. xiv. 25.
— to KaT ifie irpoOvfiov] Some expositors take irp60v/iov as a
substantivised adjective = irpoOvfila: "as far as lies in me (to
KaT efie) there is readiness," for eo-Tt is understood spontaneously
(2 Cor. viii. 1 1). But even if to irpoOvfiov may stand instead of
37 irpoOvula, the use of the neuter of the adjective without the
article for the substantive (irpoOvfiov for irpoOvfila) would be
without example. Others explain to KaT - efie as the subject,
irpoOvfiov as the predicate: "that which concerns me is ready,"
i.e. I, for my part, am ready. But this use of the form to KaT
ifie for the substantive pronoun cannot be verified. The apostle
would then probably have written to KaT e/ie, irpoOv/ios, sc.
elfil, " as far as depends on me, I am ready." Accordingly, it
only remains to join together to irpoOvfiov, and to take KaT efie
as a paraphrase of the genitive (comp. Eph. i. 15) : to KaT efie
irpoOvfiov = r) irpoOvfila fiov. But then KaT e/ie is perhaps to be
made specially emphatic, in allusion to the hindrances mentioned
before. "The readiness depending on me exists to preach the
gospel to you also,", i.e. on my part readiness exists, etc.
1 Comp. Cic. De Fin. ii. 15: "a quo non solum Graecia et Italia, sed etiam omnis
barbaria commota est. "

36 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— Kal vfiiv to?? Iv 'Pwfirf] Although you belong to the aotpoh,
this causes me no scruple, as one 6<peiXeTrj$ twv trotpuv.
— evayyeXlo-aaOai] "latet his propositio: Scribam, quae coram
vellem dicere, de Evangelio" says Bengel.
Ver. 16. The apostle feels no scruple about preaching in Rome
also, for (ydp) he is not ashamed of the gospel even before the
wise Romans. At a later time he calls upon Timothy to manifest
a similar spirit in the imperial capital (2 Tim. i. 8). In Gal.
vi. 14, he even boasts of the cross of. Christ that formed the
substance of the gospel.1 The Lord Himself warns His disciples
against this false shame (Mark viii. 38). That the gospel is a
jiwpla to the <ro<pol<; Paul declares (1 Cor. i. 22, 23). He is there
speaking of the Greeks. He had proved this for himself in the
metropolis of Greek worldly wisdom (Acts xvii. 18, 32). But just
as little as he had been ashamed of the gospel in Athens or
Corinth, is he ashamed of it at Rome. Ashamed of the gospel ?
The consciousness of its peculiar glory forbids it. Thus with the
words Bvva/iK yap, up to the end of ver. 1 7, he passes over to the
proper subject of the epistle. As here he calls the gospel, so in
the passage quoted above (1 Cor. L 24) he calls Christ Himself
Oeov Bvvafiiv Kal Oeov aotyav.
— to evayyeXtov tov XpiaTov] The words toS Xpia-Tov are
wanting in the best manuscripts. There is found for them in
other copies the reading tou Oeov, or touto, or avTov. They are
accordingly to be regarded as unauthentic, and transferred to this
place from passages like xv. 29 ; 1 Cor. ix. 12, etc.
— BxivafiK yap Oeov io-Tiv] " a power originating with God,
fproceeding from God." Or rather with still greater directness
f and force : " a power belonging to God, a power of God in which
He manifests His energy." The genitive, therefore, is better taken
as genit. possess, than as genit. autoris. In the same sense the
apostle says, 1 Cor. i. 18 : o X070? 6 tov crTavpov (= to evayyeXtov)
Toh fiev diroXXvfievoi<! fiwpla earl, Tot? Be <ra)£ofievoi<} rjfiiv Bvvafiiv
Oeov i<7Tt. But the gospel is God's power, in so far as it is not
a mere word of man, explaining and proclaiming God's works of
redemption, but is God's Word really efficacious in conversion. It
is the pfjfia Oeov that is /idxaipa tov irvevfiaTo<s, Eph. vi. 1 7, it is
the sword that is the Spirit. It is God's Word as the bearer and
1 But we are not in the present passage to suppose a meiosis, or, with Seb. Schmidt,
a " negatio quae contrariam vehementem affirmationem includit."

CHAP. I. 16. 37
channel of God's Spirit (1 Thess. ii. 13 ; Heb. iv. 12, 13). But
of course it is this only in so far as it is the preaching of God's
justifying grace in Christ, the grace which is realized by faith.
Form and substance may not here be severed.
— et? o-wTrjplav] As Paul here calls the gospel a Bvvafii<i Oeov
et? (TWTifplav, so Jas. i. 2 1 describes it as Xoyov Bvvdfievov aw&ai.
a-wTTjpla is deliverance from every necessity, danger, and affliction,
comp. Luke i. 71: awTrfpla i% ixOpwv, Acts vii. 25, Jude 5,
of the a-wTfjpla experienced by the people of Israel through Moses ;
Acts xxvii. 34, Heb. xi. 7, Jas. v. 15, of saving of bodily life.. ,
But the ruling idea in the N. T. is that of spiritual deliver*]
ance. This consists of itself in aw^ea-Oai dirb t&v dfiapTiwvJ
Matt. i. 21, or iv d<peo-ei d/iapTiwv, Luke i. 77, which is identical
with Xoyl^eaOai BiKaioavvrjv, Rom. iv. 6, 7. As such, it is at tha
same time exemption from the opyrj Oeov, Rom. i. 18, from OdvaToA
2 Cor. vii. 10, and from dirwXeia, Phil. i. 28; Luke xix. 10. J
Thus salvation has in the first place a negative side ; but with this
the positive is inseparably interwoven, for pardon of sin, removal
of wrath and death, is not imaginable without the bestowal of
grace, of righteousness, and life. The cwTrfpia, further, is one
already realized, Luke xix. 9 : arffiepov ff a-wrvpla tw o'ikw tovtw
iyeveTo ; Acts xiii. 2 6 : o X070? ttj? awTrfplas TavTrj<; ; 2 Cor. vi. 2 :
IBoii, vvv fffiepa o-wT7]pla<;, also Eph. ii. 5 ; 2 Tim. i 9 ; Tit. iii. 5 ;
1 Pet. iii 21. But salvation now realized is only completed in
the future life. As the positive side is implied in the negative,
so the future is implied in the present relation. These are, so to
speak, spontaneously responsive chords. In many passages the.
present and future elements may even be equally probable, pos-i
sibly in 2 Pet. iii 15; Jude 3. FinaUy, in several passages
o-wTtjpla is referred only to completed deliverance, only toj
future salvation. So 1 Thess. v. 8 : iXirh awTrfpla*;, and irepi-
irolvo'i'} awTT/plwi ; Heb. i. 14 : KXijpovo/ieiv <rwT-r\plav, v. 9, ix. 28 ;
1 Pet. L 5, 9 : a-wTTjpla erolfut) diroKaXvcfiOfjvai iv Kaipw e'cn^oV^)
and to TeXo? tj}? irlcrTew;, crwTr/plav "tyvx&v ; comp. Matt. x. 22 ;
2 Tim. ii. 10, iv. 18. In the present passage also this last,
stricter conception of awTtfpla is to be maintained. The gospel
is a power that mediates eternal salvation (= future blessedness),
ver. 16, because it reveals righteousness that avails before God,
for the former is conditioned by the latter. This acceptation is
favoured first of all by ch. v., where, after the nature of the ,

38 'COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
BiKatoavvi) Oeov e'/c irlar-em has been described (iii. 21-iv. 25), the
nature of salvation is expounded as consisting in the eA.7rt? t»??
Sof)?? tow Oeov, ver. 2. Just as in i. 17 the idea of %wr], embodied
in tyo-erai, is manifestly related in meaning to or synonymous
with that of crwTrfpla, ver. 16, so we see this %wr] described as
future, v. 1 7, when it is said of the righteous : iv £wrj fiaa-iXev-
crovcri. But, above all, v. 21 is to be regarded as favouring our
acceptation, since there the sentence iva ... 17 %«/>t? /3aa-iXevari
Bid BiKaiotivvvs et? tpyrp) alwviov may be regarded as a concluding
recapitulation of the subject announced, i. 16, 17. With this
agrees viii. 24, where the apostle in the words tj} yap iXirlSi
io-wOn/iev represents awTnpla as future, as in x. 10, where present
BiKatoavvr) is expressly distinguished from future crwrr/pla, and
xiii 11, where the period of salvation is pictured as coming nearer
and nearer. Comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 1 : to evayyeXtov b evifyyeXi-
adfirjv v/iiv, b Kal irapeXdfSeTe, iv & Kal eaTrJKaTe, Si ov Kal crw^ecrOe.
— iravTi toj 7ricrTeiioi'Tt] crwrnpla exists only for irioTUi, but on
this condition it is universal.
— 'lovSatp tc irpwTov Kal "EXXrjvi] the universality of a-wTrjpia
stands opposed to Jewish particularism. Paul strengthens this
still further by 'IovBattp tc koI "EXXtjvi. But he does not in
this deny the divinely-ordained priority of the Jews. ' Rather by the
irpwTov he expressly acknowledges it. irpanov alludes not merely
to the order of time in the gospel being invariably preached first
to the Jews (Luke xxiv. 47 ; Acts xiii. 46), for we should thus
get a meaning pretty nearly as good as none at all. Rather it
denotes, as ii. 9, 10 proves, an order of rank. irpwTov primum —
potissimum. The order of time in preaching is itself grounded
on Israel's divinely-instituted order of rank (iii. 1, 2). Only to
Israel had God bound Himself by promise (ix. 4, xv. 8). To the
Gentiles He was discharging no debt, but exercising spontaneous
compassion (xv. 9). They were not tcaTa <pvaiv KXdSoi, but irapd
fyvaiv eyKevTpicrOevTe<s et? KaXXieXaiov. They bore not the root,
but the root bore them (xi. 16-25). Thus the Messiah was sent
to the nation of promise, and only through it and in it to the
Gentile nations (Matt. xv. 24, 26, 27). Of this priority of Israel
no nation has reason to complain ; for it was the means of bring
ing salvation to all mankind, inasmuch as only in this way was
it possible to preserve on earth a central fire of truth from which
the light of the gospel might be diffused. Moreover, in Christ is

CHAP. I. 17. 39
a like amount of grace for all, and thus the disparity is again done
away (Rom. x. 1 2 ; Gal. iii 28,29; Col. iii. 11). Finally, "EXXvv
is here to be taken in a wider sense, in contrast to 'IovSatos, as
ver. 14 in contrast to f3dpf3apo<s. Under this title the Greek-
speaking Gentile world is embraced as representing the entire
Gentile world (Acts xiv. 1 ; 1 Cor. x. 32, etc.).
Ver. 17. The gospel is a Swa/iis et? crwTrjpiav, because (yap)
it reveals the SiKaiocrvvr] Oeov, only the righteous being able to claim
future salvation. SiKaiocrvvr] yap Oeov] The SiKaiocrvvr] Oeov is
not here, as in iii 5, an attribute of God, neither His righteous
ness, nor His truthfulness, nor His goodness ; for these do not in
any sense proceed from the faith of man (e'« irlaTews;), comp. iii.
22, and are in no respect dependent on it. Rather this condi
tioning of SiKaiocrvvr) by irl<rTi<s indicates what the subjoined 0. T.
citation (6 St'/cato? . . . ^ijaeTai) confirms, that SiKaiocrvvr] here
denotes a quality in man, or a relation in which he stands.1 In
this case the genitive may be regarded as genit. autoris, like e/c
Oeov, as in PhiL iii. 9, Tr)v ix Oeov BiKaiocrvvrjv, expressly stands.
But there the e/c Oeov is occasioned by the contrast of ifir)v BiKaio-
avvTjv. A decisive reason against this acceptation may not be
forthcoming. But it seems to us, from the analogy of Rom. ii. 1 3,
iii. 20, Gal. iii. 11 : SUaiov elvai, BiKaiovcrOai (i.e. to have the
SiKaiocrvvr] here described) irapd tw Qew, ivwirtov avTov, that the
interpretation : righteousness that is such with God, that God holds or
views as such, is still more appropriate and more in harmony with
the context. Luther: righteousness which avails before God. Gram
matically this meaning is certified by Jas. i. 20 : bpyr) yap avSpbs
BiKaiocrvvnv Oeov ov KaTepyd^eTai. In this case the genitive is
either the genitive of objective reference, or even of subjective
belonging to ; for this righteousness belongs to God in so far as
it is what it is only by His judgment, avails as such with Him.
1 This tells also against the view advanced by Hofmann, Schrifibeweis, ii. 1, p.
625 ff., and received by Ortloph, who follows him here as almost everywhere, Romerbr.
p. 43, according to which iixxtorvvn 6idi denotes something which is primarily
God's own, a righteousness restored, realized by God; which is proclaimed through'
the N. T. ministry, and becomes ours by faith. But such an objective righteous
ness, restored in Christ, could be revealed only h ibayyi^iy, not also ex nUnas,
as is said in the present verse through both at once. The gospel would reveal
it, and faith receive it as revealed, but faith would not itself reveal it. And how
could such a righteousness be called (iii. 22) a tiixaiar. 6. S<« w'mrnus 'I. X. ? That
in this a purely subjective righteousness, peculiar to man only, not to God, is meant,
the expository iixxnifeivm iuptdt, ver. 24, shows.

40 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
The definition: righteousness availing before God, at all events
blends more readily than the other: righteousness proceeding
from God, with the forensic, declaratory elements of the Pauline
doctrine of justification. And in the statement of the very subject
of the epistle we look for the greatest possible clearness of
expression, iii. 23, 26, 30 proves nothing against this accepta-,
tion. AtKaiocrvvr) Oeov consequently, as already said, is that quality
of righteousness, that righteousness of man which God accepts as
such, which avails as such before God. Its dogmatic conception
will become apparent from the subsequent exposition.
— iv avTw diroKaXviTTeTai] It is revealed in the gospel, inas
much as the very news brought by the gospel is what the SiKaio
crvvr) Oeov consists in and how it is obtained. 'AiroKaXvirTerai,
comp. iii. 2 1 : iretpavepwTai. It has become manifest (ire<pavepwTai),
because it is revealed through the_gospel (diroKaXvirTeTai). The
present tense marks the unbroken continuance of the evangelic
proclamation. Only the gospel discloses the way, once concealed,
to SiKaiocrvvr] and &wTvpla. The previous testimony through
the prophets is but the promise of a way to be opened hereafter,
not the glad news of the opening itself accomplished, iirayyeXla,
not evayyeXtov. The revelation of pre-Christian days is as to its
nature a revelation of law, in which prophecy, even as to its form
coming forth under an 0. T. veil of mystery, appears merely as a
precursor of the N. T. revelation of grace.
— ix irlcrTew; eh iticttiv] sc. ovcra or yivofikvrf, for it is to be
joined with SiKaiocrvvr] Oeov. The reason of SiKaiocrvvr] Oeov
coming first is the practical importance of this conception. But
it is not to be explained : from faith to faith, in the sense of
referring to the growth of faith ; for the apostle is treating of
justification that springs from faith, not of the growth of faith,
on which justification of itself does not depend. It might be
better explained : the Bik. Oeov is revealed as coming from faith,
in order that it may be believed, et? itIcttiv = ut fides habeatur. But
such an addition pretty nearly amounts to nothing. If righteous
ness, availing before God, arises from faith, it is self-evident that
it is meant to be believed. Besides, on grammatical grounds, et?
itIcttiv for et? to irtaTevecrOai could scarcely be justified. The,
only interpretation then remaining is : the righteousness availing
before God is revealed as coming from faith unto faith. irlcrTii
is the condition of SiKaiocrvvr], even as it, is the organ appropriating

CHAP. I. 17. 41
SiKaiocrvvr]. In this way the import and significance of itIcttiv is
made prominent, et? itIcttiv, for faith, is thus as to meaning = et?
Toil? iricrTevovTa<;, iii. 22 ; Gal. iii. 22. Similarly Oecumen. early
interpreted : diro irlcrTew<s dpx^rai xal eh tov iricrTevovia Xrjyei,
sc. SiKaiocrvvr) Oeov, only that for Xr]yei it would be better to say
epxeTai.1 — xa0w<; yeypairrai] That the righteousness availing before
God comes from faith, is confirmed by the prophetic testimony
of the 0. T. Thus is evinced the truth of the declaration,
ver. 2 : o irpoemnyyeiXaTO Bid twv irpocfyrjTwv avTov iv ypafyah
dylais. The passage cited is taken from Hab. ii. 4. In the
original text it runs : nw 5n:«3K3 p^si. The LXX. translate (after
the various reading Tti*DK3) : 6 Be 67/cato? e/c iricrTews fiov £rjcreTai.
Paul, after the original text, omitted fiov. On the correctness of the
translation : the righteous shall live through his faith (not : through
his uprightness), as well as on the present passage in general,
comp. Delitzsch, der Proph. Habakuk, p. 51 ff. The punctuation
after irlcrTew<s (6 Be Slxaio<s ex iricrTews, tficreTai), not in correspond
ence with the Hebrew text, which most modern expositors assume,
does not of itself appear necessary, and accordingly, for the sake
of conformity to the original text, not admissible. That righteous
ness comes by faith, may be demonstrated not only by the fact
that life is adjudged to him who is righteous by faith (o St'/cato? e'/e
iricrTews), but also by the fact that it is said the righteous (o
SUaios) has life only by faith (e« iricrTews %r]creTai). The em
phasis Res plainly on itIcttis. Comp. also Wieseler on Gal. iii. 11,
p. 252 f. For the connection of ix iricrTews with ^rjcreTai, Heb.
x. 38 also is decisive. Moreover, if the connection were with
Slxaios, one would have expected to see the words arranged : 6 Be
ix iricrTews Slxaios. The Si is only transferred from the LXX.
But Delitzsch justly remarks, Hid. p. 50: "The apostle brings
nothing to this passage that it does not contain. All that he does.
is to set its meaning — that the life of the righteous comes from
faith — in the light of the New Testament." The Pauline quota-
' tion is the more warranted, as Habakkuk, like Isaiah, brings into
1 Zwingli's interpretation is a strange one : "trust in the true, faithful God" =
ix ¦xiitTias els rit mirriv. Similarly Mehring : " by faith in faithfulness. " "When he
commends this interpretation for its great naturalness, it is remarkable that no one
hit upon it before. But such a change in the meaning of a-iVr/s could he the less
conceived in the present connection, as justifying faith is not a faith in God's faith
fulness, but in God's grace and compassion.

42 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
comparison with each other the lower deliverance from exile and
the higher Messianic deliverance. Thus to him also justifying and
sanctifying faith is faith in the salvation of redemption. Accord
ingly the theme of the epistle, enunciated vv. 16, 17, is as fol
lows : " The righteousness that avails before God comes to aU men
from faith only, and only this righteousness of faith has crwr-qpla
for its result."
That faith only brings righteousness availing before God, follows
from the fact that all men are sinners. As such, they are not able
by their own works to lay claim to divine righteousness as a
reward, but only by faith to flee for refuge to divine grace. That
all men are sinners the apostle proves from ch. i. 18 to ch.
iii. 20, that accordingly only faith in the gospel is left them as
the sole means of salvation, ch. iii. 21-31. But as in ver. 16
of this chapter it is said that itIcttis brings awTrjpia to Jews in
the same way as to Gentiles, so he proves afterwards that, since
Jews, like Gentiles, are considered as sinners, destitute of the
SixaiocrvvT) Oeov, they have no crwTrjpla to expect, but instead are
exposed to the bpyr] and Sixaioxpicrla tov Oeov. He gives the
proof of this as to the Gentile world, ch. i. 18-32 ; as to the
Jewish world, ch. ii— iii. 20. ,IovSaiovs tc xal "EXXr/vas irdvras
vj> dfiapTtav elvai (iii. 9) is the theme of this entire train of
reasoning, which falls into two distinct parts. The apostle com
mences with the Gentile world, whose sinfulness was more obvi
ous to sight, and then passes over to the Jewish world, as to
which proof was necessary that, although in possession of the
Xoyia tov Oeov, and in spite of their supposed SiKaiocrvvr] it;
epyav vbfiov, they were in no respect better than the Gentile
world. This false SiKaiocrvvr] if; epywv gave him the most apt
point of transition to the delineation of the true SiKaiocrvvr) ix
iricrTews. Ver. 18. The righteousness that avails before God comes from
faith, because men being daefiels and dBixoi, unless they flee for
refuge to itIcttis, they have only the bpyr] Oeov to expect, diroxa-
XviTTeTai] in antithetical relation to diroKciXvirTeTai (ver. 17).
'AiroKaXvineiv, to reveal something hidden, always refers, like the
subst. diroKdXvyjris in the N. T., when God is the revealing sub
ject, to an extraordinary revelation through miraculous acts,
through the words of prophets and apostles, or inwardly through
the Spirit of God. The proof of this an examination of every

CHAP. I. 18. 43
,clavis will supply. By diroKaXv^ris, then, is not denoted a
revelation of nature, history, reason, or conscience, as this is
effected in accordance with the regular or natural laws of the
universe or of the human spirit ; for what is revealed through these
powers is simply a cpavepov, no fivcnrjpiov diroKeKpvfifievov in
need of diroxdXwlris.1 Accordingly, diroKaXviTTeTai in the pre
sent passage also can only express such an extraordinary, super
natural manifestation. The diroKaXvyfris here meant takes place,
as ii. 5 also proves, ev r)p£pa bpyrjs xal diroxaXvyjrews xal Bixaio-
xpialas tov Oeov. The present tense, then, is to be taken as future,
and is used because the judgment-day is described as a matter of
fact, whose occurrence is absolutely certain. Comp. Luke xvii. 3 0 :
27 r) fie pa 6 vlbs tov dvOpwirov diroxaXvirTeTai. This interpretation
is found first in the Greek exegetes, Chrysost., Theodor., Theophyl.,
and Oecumen. A doubt certainly arises here, that in this way
the strict correspondence between diroKaXviTTeTai (ver. 18) and
diroxaXvirTeTai (ver. 1 7) is done away. According to this corre
spondence, the present tense seems in this verse also to denote a
continuous divine act of revelation. On this account it will be
more correct to think of the whole series of precursory and pre
paratory apocalypses of wrath, which find their goal and their
completion in the final, absolute apocalypse at the Parousia. To
this series belongs the expulsion from Paradise, the Deluge, the
Dispersion of Nations, and Division of Tongues. As universal
judgments affecting the entire human race, these are foreshadow-
ings and prophetic types of the final judgment. But the same
holds good of all revelations of wrath and justice accomplished
among and upon Israel They are all directed against the
apostasy of the nation from the true God and its abandonment
to idolatry, in which, so to speak, the original sin of all mankind
was represented and received punishment. Hence also the ter
rible revelation on Sinai begins with the prohibition of idolatry.
Other expositors, also understanding diroKaXviTTeTai of an extra
ordinary revelation, refer it to the revelation eV eiayyeXiw. But
apart from all objections to the view itself, in that case the supple-
1 Meyer (i. 74) calls this interpretation of the biblical conception of divine «.mx&.
Xb^js a mistaken one, Mehring also agreeing with him. But I must still abide by it,
because all the striking passages in which God is the revealing subject express it with
the clearest certainty. Comp. Er. Schmid, Tx/uiTn, ed. Bruder, s.v. u,mx<tX&#nn
and ifrexdxu\],is. That in the present passage also a supernatural revelation is spoken
oi, the atr' evpavav intimates.

44 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
ment iv aiiTw to diroxaXvirTeTai could not be left out. Again,
the diroxaXv^is Oeov, here spoken of, is not to be found in the sur
render to sinful lusts (vv. 24, 26, 28); for this surrender is no
diroKaXvyJris effected through miraculous acts, through the Word
or Spirit of God, and although those Gentile lusts are indeed a
poena peccati, they are, on the other hand, peccata that still await
the diroK. bpy. or the xplfia tov Oeov (ii. 2). Other interpretations,
such as that of the revelation through the inner light of reason
and conscience, or through sudden destruction rained down from
heaven, and the like, are still less to the point.
— bpyr] Oeov] Just as little as dydirr) is manifestation of love is
bpyr] manifestation of wrath, as metonymia causae pro effectu =
xoXacns, Tifiwpia. Rather does bpyr] denote an inner modification
of the divine nature itself, the inwardly energetic antagonism and
repellent force of its holiness in relation to human sin, which
divine affection without doubt finds its expression in the infliction
of punishment.
— air oipavov] where is the seat of the Omniscient, Holy,
Almighty, Omnipresent God, whence therefore proceeds every
judgment of God (Ps. Ixxvi. 8), whence, too, the Judge of the
living and the dead will descend (Phil. iii. 20). The words are
to be joined with diroxaXvirTeTai, not with bpyr] or Oeov, because
then the article would not be omitted before air oipavov (Luke
xi. 13).
— eVt irda-av dcre/3eiav xal dSixlav] acrefieia a religious, dSixla
an ethical conception, a distinction to be firmly held here, where
both words are found together. The first denotes irreligious-
ness, godlessness, idolatry (2 Pet. ii. 5 ; 2 Tim. ii. 16) ; the
second, immorality, wickedness, heathen vices, ver. 29 : ireirXr)-
pwfievovs irdcrr) dBiKui. dcrefieia = sins against the first, dSixla —
sins against the second table. Thus even in dSixla, in the stricter
sense, an indirect religious reference is not wanting. But the
subjoined aSt/cta in this verse embraces a wider sphere, denotes
deviation from the divine norm in general (1 John i. 9 ; 1 Pet.
iii. 18; Acts xxiv. 15), and alludes to oix to? Oebv Sotjdgeiv r)
evxapio-Teiv, ver. 21. On 7rao-a, Theophylact remarks, after Chry-
sost. : r) fiev dXrfOrjs XaTpeia xal r) evtre^eia fila, r) Be dcrefSeia
iroXvcrxtBrjs. But this distinction is more worthy of note on
its own account than as an explanation of the word in the present
passage. Tldcra is simply = every possible, all and every (ver. 29).

CHAP I. 19. 45
— avOpwirwv, twi' tt]v aXrjOeiav iv dStxia xaTexovTWv] dXr)Oeia
here is not the special truth of the gospel, but, as the following
verses suggest, the true knowledge of God, such as is obtained
through contemplation of His works. /caTe^etv either = to hold
fast, forme tenere (1 Cor. xv. 2 ; 1 Thess. v. 21), or: to hold back,
to hinder, impedire (2 Thess. ii. 7). Here clearly the latter, for
the Gentiles had not held fast the truth, but, according to ver. 21,
lost it. Oecumen. strikingly explains xaT&xeiv by xaXviTTeiv,
yvwfirjs irovrjpla eiriaxoTl^eiv, as Philo also mentions, Opp. I. p. 1,
tovs fivQixois irXdcTfiacri Tr/v dXr]0eiav iirixpvifravTas. The cor
rupt heart is a hindrance to knowledge entering into the spirit,
and, in addition, checks its continuance and active development.
Every religious error has a moral root, wherefore Holy Scripture
invariably charges its guilt upon the conscience of man. iv dSixla
not = dSUws, for that to hinder the truth is unrighteous is self-
evident, but to be taken instrumentally : through unrighteousness.
Finally, in the words dvOpdnrwv tow ktX. the apostle expresses
himself quite generally ; but still, as ver. 1 9 ff. shows, he is
thinking of the Gentiles, and of them exclusively, for he passes
on to describe the Jews only in ii. I.1
Ver. 19 gives the reason for which God's wrath justly falls on
the men who hinder the truth by unrighteousness. Sioti] con
tracted from Si 6 ti, propter quod, quam ob rem, wherefore, in the
beginning of a sentence like the Latin quare = therefore. But in
the N. T. Sioti never stands in this meaning, but always Sto.
Rather is Sioti there invariably used in the sense of Sid tovto on,
propter hoc quod, quia, because, which in the beginning of a sen
tence spontaneously passes over into the meaning : for. So here,
for the apostle's language has more demonstrative force if we put
a period before Sioti.
— to yvwcnov tov Oeov] In classical Greek yvwcrTos for the
most part means : knowable; 7i»&>Td?, known. But in the Hellenistic
1 Meyer justly observes that the designation Mpa^ut is intended to make apparent
the audacity of this God-opposing conduct. Mehring has vainly tried to prove, in
opposition to the clearly apparent meaning of the description which is immediately
subjoined, and which is applicable only to the Gentiles, that the apostle (vv. 18-32 of
the first chapter) has the Jews just as much as the Gentiles in view. The apostle
commences with the delineation of Gentile idolatry as the universal human sin, the
original sin of man in general. Israel was the people of God taken out of this general
mass of humanity by positive revelation. As far as they fell into idolatry they had
ceased to be Israel and become a Gentile people. And this was not at all the charac
teristic of the strongly anti-pagan Judaism of that age,

46 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
dialect of the N. T. yvwTos does not occur. In the LXX. and
the N. T. only is yvwo-Tos found, and, indeed, without exception,
as the Lexicons prove, in the sense : known, as e.g. Luke ii. 44 ;
John xviii. 15; Acts i. 19, xv. 18, xxviii 22. In the same
way dyvwcTos, unknown (Acts xvii. 23). To yvacrTov tov Oeov is
therefore not = that which may be known of God (oirep SvvaTov
icm yvwo-Qr)vai, Oecumen). Besides, this would give an inap
propriate and withal wrong meaning. For neither was the ques
tion in hand here what could and could not be known respecting
the divine essence, nor, moreover, did the Gentiles in point of fact
know everything respecting God which it was possible to know,
seeing that, as the apostle himself presently says, they only had
access to what is disclosed as to God's essence through nature and
reason, not what is disclosed through revelation. To yvwaTov tov
Oeov is then = that which is known respecting God, i.e. what is known
respecting God through the universal revelation of nature and
reason, what all men know respecting God, in distinction from
what is received through special revelation. This interpretation
appears so pertinent and natural that we need seek no other.
— eV avTois] in them, ii. 15 : iv Tais xapSlais aiT&v, in their
consciousness, which interpretation also suits the subjoined aiTols
ecpavepwcre and voovfieva xaOopaTai (ver. 20). Therefore not:
among them.
— i<pavepware] through the creation of the world and the
bestowal of the vovs, which, from observation of the works of
nature, is able to arrive at certain knowledge of God. Paul says
cpavepovv, not diroxaXvirTeiv, because the former may also denote
a revelation mediated by natural means, the latter only one
mediated supernaturally by God. This verse, then, is to be ren
dered : the knowledge of God (quod notum est de Deo = notitia Dei,
the objective yvwcris Oeov) is manifest in them (—yivwcrxovcri
tov Oeov cpavep&s. Luther : for that it is known that there is a
God, is manifest in them), for God manifested it to them.
Ver. 20. Indication to what extent God has revealed the know
ledge of Himself. The mark of parenthesis is to be erased, the
passage supplying a confirmatory explanation of the foregoing, no
mere subordinate thought by way of digression. Ta dbpaTa avToii]
not so much : His invisible essence, which would be to dbpaTov,
as rather : His invisible attributes (hence the plural). Doubtless
in point of fact both are identical, the attributes constituting the

CHAP. I. 20. 47
divine essence. God is dbpaTos, in so far as He is hidden from
the senses, 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 16; and Philo, De Monarch,: 6
dopaTOS xal fiovrj Siavola xaTaXijirTos.
— xaOopaTai] the invisible is seen, — an oxymoron, which is
explained and softened by the addition voovfieva. It is perceived,
that is, not with the bodily eyes, but with the eyes of the spirit.
It is perceived with the vovs, with the reason. xaOopav is chosen
with special fitness, because it is mediated by the iroir]fiaTa, the
works perceptible by sense. xaOopav often in the sense of aKpif3ws
bpdv, pervidere, i.e. dare videre, perspicere. So perhaps here also.
— toi? iroir]fiacri] dativus instrumenti to be joined with xaOo-
paTai. nwyjz, iroirjfia, that which is produced by creation, to
iroir]fiaTa, the entire sum of created products. Accordingly, God's
historical dealings are not to be thought of. The revelation here
meant takes place from the earliest beginning of things (dirb KTlaews
Kocrfiov), therefore before even the opening of human history, and
reveals, above all, the diSios Svvafiis, which comes forth with
special distinctness in the observation of nature. Add to this
that history, in which human freedom, and consequently wicked
ness, forms a significant factor, could not be so absolutely described
as iroirjfia Oeov. God's invisible attributes become visible with
the reason through His works.
— dirb Kncrews Kocrfiov] since the creation of the world, dirb,
particle of temporal definition (inde a, Matt. xxiv. 2 1 ; Mark x. 6 ;
Rom. xv. 23). Therefore not: through the creation of the world,
which would make a Useless tautology with Tot? irotr]fiaai. Also
ktIctis xocTfiov = xaTaf3oXr) xbcr/iov, is not : dirb xTlcrews, in the
sense of: through creation. But through the act of creation
(xtIctis Kocrfiov), invisible in itself, the existence of God cannot be
apprehended. — ?) Te d'ISios ovtov Svvafiis xal OetoTrjs] His eternal power as
well as His Godhead, apposition to Ta dbpaTa aiTov. AlSios,
from aet, eternal, not to be confounded with aiSr]s, invisible. That
the universe has an absolute cause, not identical with the world
itself, is an irrefragable postulate of the human reason, which
abides as an innate, latent principle in the soul, and by contem
plation of the works of creation is developed and comes forth
into consciousness. But this absolute cause of the world deter
mines itself first of all as eternal omnipotence, because in the sur
vey of nature man is struck, above everything, with the contrast

48 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
between its vastness and glory, pointing to the Svvafiis of the
Creator, and the transitory, perishable character, the dependence
and limitation, of all finite existence which we are yet compelled
to deny of the Author of that existence, and the contrast leads us
to the conception of His dlSios Svvafiis. The pantheistic inter
pretation of the idea of God is not, indeed, expressly controverted
by the apostle. It is only the result of speculative refinement,
the philosophical expression of practical apostasy from fellowship
with the personal God, and of a state of actual self-surrender to
the impersonal spirit of the world and nature. Unbiassed con
templation of the world cannot adopt the monstrous opinion that
the cause of a world fashioned after wise designs, a world which
comes to its highest flower and bloom in the self-conscious spirit
of man, is an unconscious force, a blindly-working energy. The
" I " must needs call the cause of its existence " Thou," for " nihil
est in effectu quod non prius fuerit in causa." The apostle here,
so to speak, employs the cosmological and physico-theological or
teleological argument for the existence of God, which certainly,
as an argument for the existence of the personal God, only pos
sesses absolute demonstrative force and cogency for the human
spirit that is unbeclouded by sin and clearly conscious to itself of
the significance of its own personality. Upon the Old Testament
allusions to the visibility in His works of creation of the eternal
God in Himself invisible, comp. Umbreit, Der Brief an die Bomer
auf dem Grunde des A. T.'s ausgelegt, p. 202 ff. — ©etoTrjs, from
Oeios, divinitus, divinity, to be distinguished from OeoTrjs, deitus,
deity. ©eioTrjs in the N. T. only here, OeoTrjs only Col. ii. 9.
The OetoTrjs of God consists in the complex of His divine attri
butes, to which belongs His dtSios Svvafiis. This, as the element
in the knowledge of God first suggested by contemplation of the
world, is made specially prominent. The eternal power of God,
and in general (Kal) His entire OeioTns, are perceived mentally
through the iroirffiaTa. The Kal subjoined to the Te implies the
notion of cumulation and climax, comp. AeschyL Theoph. 54 :
to 6" efavxeiv, toS" iv f3poTols Qebs Te xal Oeov irXeov. With
Svvafiis koi OetoTrjs, comp. Cic. Quaest. Tusc. i. 43 : " vis (Svvafiis)
et natura divina (OeioTrjs)."
— et? to elvai airovs dvairoXoyr]Tovs] so that they are inexcus
able, i.e. knowing God's invisible nature through His works, they
are inexcusable for hindering the truth by unrighteousness. It

CHAP. I. 21. 49
is not to be explained : that they may be inexcusable, because the
next verse does not prove the divine intention to render them
inexcusable, but simply establishes the fact of their inexcusable-
ness. For the rest, the telic acceptation does not of itself neces^
sarily involve unconditional predestination. It is possible that
the divine purpose itself has come to pass on condition and
in foresight of self-incurred, guilty rejection of the means for
truly knowing God presented in creation. As comments on
the meaning of this verse, expositors give 'the following striking
quotations : — Aristot. De Mundo, c. 6 : iracrrj Ovryry (pvcrei yevo-
fievos dOewprjTos air airwv twv epywv OewpeiTai o Oeos ; Cic. De
Divin. ii. 72 : " esse praestantem aliquam, aeternamque naturam,
et earn suspiciendam, admirandamque hominum generi, pulcritudo
mundi, ordoque rerum coelestium cogit confiteri ;" Tuscul. i. 29 :
" Sic mentem hominis, quamvis earn non videas, ut Deum non vides ;
tamen, ut Deum agnoscis ex ejus operibus, sic ex memoria rerum,
et inventione et celeritate motus, omnique pulcritudine virtutis
vim divinam mentis agnoscito." Comp. also Wisd. Sol. xiii. 1-10,
as well as oix dfidprvpov iavTov dcfrrjxev, Acts xiv. 17 and xvii.
25-27. Further, when the apostle makes the idea of God come
into existence through rational observation of the works of creation,
he does not thereby exclude the mediating agency of the word of
divine primeval revelation, which gives the meaning of these works,
and trains the human spirit to understand them. Directly that
this agency has answered its purpose, — the development of the pure
knowledge of God, — supposing the heart only to continue in its
normal attitude towards God, this knowledge may even of itself
retain its original purity through constant contemplation of nature
and the teaching of unadulterated tradition.
Ver. 21. The reason of the inexcusableness of men lies in the
fact that, in spite of their true knowledge of God, they yet in
heart turned away from God, and thus obscured the knowledge
which had its abode within them. Sioti] for, as in ver. 19.
— yvbvTes tov Oeov] not : when they might have known God,
also certainly not, though grammatically possible : when they had
once known God, -but: when or although they knew God. The
partic.-aor. here, as often, coincides as to its temporal incidence
with#'fhe notion of the verb finit. iBoijacrav. The part, praes.
yivwaKovTes then was not called for. The former wrong accep
tations had their origin in the mistaken notion that Paul could
PmLrppi. Rom. I. D

50 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
not at one and the same time attribute to the Gentiles correct
knowledge of God and obscuration of the same by apostasy
to idolatry. But this is the very meaning of Tr)v dXr]0eiav iv
dSiKia KaTexeiv, on which Bengel observes : " Veritas in mente
nititur et urget : sed homo earn impedit," — as well as of to yvwcnov
t. 0. cpavepov eaTiv iv avTols. In fact, in heathenism the correct
idea of God is ever present. This is proclaimed in the unceasing
effort on the part of heathenism to raise itself out of the multi
plicity, limitation, and moral imperfection of its pantheon to the
conception of a single, unlimited, holy Being. In its idea of the
one true God — an idea standing above it and in its background, an
idea ever emerging and ever disappearing — polytheism carries in
its bosom the sentence of its own condemnation. Comp. Ter-
tuUian's treatise, de Testimonio Animae, and Nagelsbach, Die
homerische Theologie, pp. 11-70, especially pp. 12, 37.
— <&? Oeov] i.e. as possessor of the diSios Svvafiis xal OetoTrjs.
— iSofjacrav] sc. aiTov. They gave Him not the Sb%a due to
Him for His divine attributes, on which account the apostle on
his part (ver. 25), in opposition to idolatry, concludes with the
doxoiogy due to God.
— •nvxapuTTyo-av] sc. avTw. As the divine attributes in and
of themselves summon So%d£etv, so their relation to man, or the
benefits flowing through them to man, summon evxapio-Teiv. .
But he that gives not God the So£a due to Him, and with
holds from Him eixapio-Tia, by this aversion of heart forfeits
also the true knowledge of God ; for the knowledge of God has
its abiding root only in loving fellowship with Him. Hence
dXX i/iaTaiwOycrav iv toIs SiaXoyicrfioos avTwv] fiaTaiovcrOai =
fidratov yevecrOai, the Heb. T'SDn = to become foolish. Elsewhere
also the apostle ascribes fiaTaioTrjs tov vobs to the Gentiles, Eph.
iv. 17. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 18 with reference to the fact that to
fiaWaia Acts xiv. 15, answering to the Heb. ion Jer. h. 5, serves
to denote worthless idols. The man who forsakes the true God,
unable to remain without God, takes what is worthless for his
God, and thus becomes a fiaTaios, Ps. cxv. 8. AiaXoyicr/iol ever
figure in the N. T. as irovypol, xaxol, because denoting spiritual
functions of the natural man. They are now cogitationes, thoughts
'''Matt. xv. 19); now ratiocinationes, reasonings, refections (Luke
v. 22); now dubia, doubts (Luke xxiv. 38). Here the first,
there being no ground for supposing a special reference to the

CHAP. I. 22. 51
ratiodnationes, the reasoned conclusions of philosophers. Besides,
in this way the features characterizing the origin of heathenism
universally would, it is evident, be confined within too narrow
limits. — xal icrxoTlcrOr) r) dcrvveTos aiTwv xapBia] expresses a climax.
Their xapBia was dcrvveTos, because their BiaXoyicrfiol, which have
their roots in the xapBia, the centre of spiritual life (Matt. xv. 19),
had become uaTaioi, and in addition this dcrvveTos xapSia was
enveloped in ctkotos, i.e. they sank to the lowest depth of spiritual
darkness. The apostle then does not regard heathenism as the first and
necessary stage in the development of the religious consciousness,
from which mankind by degrees raised itself by progressive
spiritual culture to the pure, monotheistic conception of God.
Rather, on the contrary, heathenism presents itself to him as an
apostasy of the human spirit from the primitive, unsullied know
ledge of God, — an apostasy brought about by guilty alienation
of the heart from God. Mankind did not ascend from degrada
tion to honour, but fell from honour to degradation. Only on
such principles, then, can a true Christian philosophy of religion
be built. If heathenism is not an apostasy, Christianity is not
a restoration. FinaHy, the apostle regards apostasy to idolatry
as an act common to all mankind before Christ. Hence he
expresses himself in the aorist yvbvTes ov/c iSbgaaav. The
successive generations are severally and jointly responsible for
the act of the primitive heathen generation ; or rather the con
sciousness of God, which on the one hand is perpetually renewed
through the revelation of nature and reason, is on the other subject
to a process of perpetually renewed obscuration. This dXr]0eia,
eirlyvwais Oeov, continually asserting itself in the a kotos and
dyvoia of heathenism (Eph. iv. 18; Acts xvii. 3 0), but yet
continually overborne, is the accusing religious conscience of
heathenism. Comp. also on the entire picture of Gentile immor
ality, ver. 20 ff.; Wisd. Sol. xiii.-xv. Meyer justly observes, with
reference to Nitzsch and Bleek, that the reminiscence in this
section of the book of Wisdom, both collectively and in details,
is unmistakeable (i. 83). We add: a significant argument for
retaining the Apocrypha.
Ver. 22 summarizes the preceding ifiaTatwOtfoav . . . KapSia,
adding at the same time a new element of their fiapla, namely,

52 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
cbdaKovTes eivai crooboi] c^dcrxeiv, dictitare, prae se ferre, to assert,
pretend. So also Acts xxiv. 9, xxv. 19, and Rev. ii. 2, according
to the lectio recepta. The apostle does not here mean exclusively
philosophers, nor exclusively the wise and cultured in general,
although his statement holds good of all these in an eminent
' degree ; but he has in view as well the chief representatives of
wise conceit and cultured pride universally among Gentile nations
— Indians, Egyptians, Greeks. Even heathenism deemed itself
ao<pia in comparison with the fiwpia of God's truth.
— efiwpdvOrjcrav] i.e. fiwpol eyevovTo, 1 Cor. i. 20, iii. 19.
Ver. 23. Consequence or expression of the fiaTaioTrjs, of the
axoTos and fiwpia. r]XXa^av] The Greeks say dXXdcrcreiv tI twos
or di>Tt tivos ; Paul : dXA.dcra-etz' tI ev tivi, ver. 2 5, like the Heb.
3 "Vipn. The iv is instrumental, permutare rem per rem or re.
With the contents of this verse, comp. Ps. cvi. 2 0 : xal rjXXdljavTo
Tyv S6f;av aiTwv iv bfioiwfiaTi fiba^ov ectOovtos x°PT0V> and Jer.
ii. 11 : b Be Xabs fiov rfXXdtjaTo ttjv S6f;av aiTov.
— Tr)v So^av tov dobOdpTov Oeov] The Bb^a Oeov, ni!V 1133, is
the result of the complex of His attributes discoverable from the
revelation of nature (ver. 20). In the enjoyment of these per
fections, which are raised far above everything finite, God has
Bb^a, glory, which symbolically makes itself known in the
effulgent light of the manifested God streaming forth everywhere.
But God is called dcpOapTos in antithesis to (pOapibs dvOpwiros,
as also His immortality of itself distinguishes Him in charac
teristic fashion from the mortal creation, 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 16 :
6 fibvos e'xmv dOavauiav.
— iv bfioiwfiaTi eixbvos] is no empty pleonasm, but : the like
ness of the image = the likeness found in the image, in so far as
the image possesses the likeness of that which it represents. As
in the Greek cultus the image of tpOapTos dvOpwiros was chiefly
worshipped, so in the Egyptian was the elxwv ireTeivwv xal
TeTpairbSwv xal epireTwv, as is shown in the worship of Ibis, Apis,
and snakes ; Wisd. xiii. 1 0 : direixdcrfiaTa %d>av. See similar
classifications of the animal creation, Gen. i. 28, 30; Acts x. 12.
This verse may at the same time intimate, or at least it may be
here remarked, how man, in the folly of unnatural idolatry,
completely reversed all primitive, divinely-fixed order, seeing that,
himself created in God's image, he re-made God after his own imace.
and installed as lord of the animal world, Ps. viii. 7-9, he degraded

CHAP. I. 24. 53
himself to be its servant and suppliant. The adoration of images
of men and beasts on the part of the Gentile people, the statues
being held partly themselves to be gods, partly inhabited by gods,
was indeed the lowest depth of polytheistic fiwpia. Nevertheless
even the most refined worship of natural forces symbolized by
these images, or pantheistic absorption into the primal force, which
carries and comprehends these forces within itself, was but an
imaginary crocpia, in principle not really different from the former
fiwpia. Inwardly estranged from the true God, man fell a prey
to the powers of nature and human life, a grosser or more refined
idolater. The consequence of idolatry is immorality, consisting partly in
the vice of unnatural lust, w. 24-27, partly in other offences
of every kind, vv. 28-32. Ver. 24. Bib xal] Wherefore also; as,
that is, they had dishonoured God, so God also (xal) gave them
up, etc. xal notes a corresponding relation here between sin and
punishment, in Phil. ii. 9 between righteousness and approving
recompense. — irapeSwxev avTovs b Oebs] Chrysostom's interpretation : to
irapeSwxev ivTavOa eXacrev icm, and Theodoret's : to irapeSwxev
dvTi tov crvvex<0pr)cre TeOeixe, are not adequate, for irapaSiSbvai
means not: to permit, idv, Acts xiv. 16, i^airoaTeXXeiv, Ps.
lxxxi. 12, but to give up, surrender. The consequences of his
apostasy from God are no longer in man's own power; but as
God orders, decrees, and judges, they arise in forms of sin the
most diverse, Ps. lxix. 27. No doubt these sins are developed
only through the withdrawal of God's Spirit from fallen man, not
through His direct action. Still in this withdrawal and its issues,
that is, in the entrance upon a path of unrestrained crime and
vice, the avenues to which God opens and level's for man, a positive
divine infliction of punishment takes place, comp. Ps. lxxxi. 12 ;
Isa. vi. 10 ; Mark iv. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 11 ; Ecclus. iv. 19 : idv
diroirXavrjOf), iyxaTaXetyei avTov xal irapaSwcrei aiTov et? x6tpa<>
irTwcrews aiTov. " Traditi sunt," says Calvin, " a Deo non effective,
nee solum permissive, nee tantum ixftaTiKws, sed SixacrTixws et
judicialiter." But yet we may speak of the result of a divine
working, just in so far as God carries out His own penal decree.
God could prevent the outbreak of sin, but He does not, at least
not always, but so orders His arrangements that within them
sin comes to a head inwardly and outwardly, in order that by

54 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
repentance or judgment it may be punished. Comp. Hengsten-
berg, die Authentie des Pentateuchs, II. p. 462 ff., on the har
dening of Pharaoh. In Eph. iv. 19 it is said of the Gentiles,
eavTovs irapeSwxav tj) dcreXyela et? ipyacrlav dxaOapcrias iracrrjs,
which may easily be reconciled with irapeSwxev uvtovs b Oebs.
Peccatum is withal poena peccati. " The curse of an evil deed is,
that it must continually bring forth evil."
— iv Tat? iiriOvfilais twv xapBiwv airwv] is not to be made
dependent on irapeSwxev in such a way that it = et? t<z? iiriOvfilas
or Tat? iiriOvfilais, which might be vindicated grammatically as
a Hebraistic construction ; for ver. 2 6 : irapeSwxev eh irdOy
aTifilas, and ver. 28 : irapeSwxev eh dSbxi/j,ov vovv, prove that
in the present verse also irapeSwxev eh dxaOapcriav are to be
joined together. Therefore iv tois eiroOv/iiais t. x. aiT. is to be
interpreted : in the lusts of their hearts, when in their hearts they
had given themselves up to lusts ; , comp. iv t§ bpefjei avTwv,
ver. 27. The admittance and encouragement of sinful lusts in
their hearts, which followed inevitably from their apostasy from
God and abandonment to creature-idolatry, is thus represented
as their own act. On the other hand, the outbreak of these
1 lusts in shameful vice is represented as a divine ordinance, a
divine judgment.
— et? dxaOapcriav] here specially, as in Gal. v. 1 9, Eph. iv. 1 9,
etc., pollution by fleshly crimes, sensual impurity. This sense is
made good by the following words : — tow aTifid^ecrOai t« awfiaTa
avTwv iv eauTot?] Infinitive of purpose (not of result, as in Acts
vii. 1 9), in order that their bodies, etc. That the divine intention is
here made prominent is shown by ver. 2 6, where the irdOr) aTi/ilas,
to which God abandoned them, resume the aTifid£ecrOai of this
verse. On this infinitive of purpose introduced by the article in
the genitive, comp. Winer, p. 408. Among the numerous N. T.
examples, comp. Acts xxvi. 1 8 ; Rom. vi. 6 ; 1 Cor. x. 1 3 ; Heb.
x. 7. Or tov . dTifid£eaOai might also be taken as the genitive
of more exact definition depending on dxaOapcriav, as a designa
tion of that in which the impurity consists = impuritati, quae
cernebatur in, impurity in becoming dishonoured, iroieiv (ver. 28)
also is the epexegetical infinitive. 'ATifidgecrOai never occurs as
middle, invariably as passive. So therefore here. This passive
condition of being given up is likewise expressed by irdOrj djifiias,
ver. 26. The passive signification is here specially appropriate,

CHAP. I. 25. 55
because in this way their vices are represented not as their own
act, but as a divine judgment under which they lie. But if
aTifid^ecrOai is passive, not middle, then we must read aiTwv, not
avTwv. iv eavTois, not : on themselves, but = ev dXXrjXois, on or
among one another, reciprocally. This — in the N. T. not infrequent
— use of eavTwv for dXXrjXwv (comp. e.g. Mark x. 2 6 ; John xii. 1 9 ;
1 Thess. v. 13 ; Jude 20) is to be explained by the considera
tion that the persons are viewed as a single totality, and made to
think, speak, act in reference to themselves, though this can only
reaUy come to pass through the reciprocal conduct of individuals
to each other. At the same time, by ev eavTois here the penalty
of shameful abuse" of their bodies, inflicted on mankind for their
apostasy from God, is pointed out as merited and self -incurred.
This reciprocal abuse of their bodies is more precisely described
vv. 26, 27. Accordingly, here already it is unnatural lust that
is meant. The apostle strikingly lays emphasis above all on this'
vice, in which the correspondence between divine punishment
and human sin is' brought out with special clearness. They who
had degraded the Lord God Himself beneath man to the image
of a beast, are now themselves in turn fallen beneath the beast.
" On deification of nature what is unnatural follows," Besser.
As matter of fact, the vice here alluded to is characteristically
heathen, one too specially widespread in that age, one which in
the entire circumference of Christendom in its most corrupt state
occurred but sporadically, and was practised but by stealth, but
was never palliated, still less approved by public opinion. More
over, . it is to be noted that the apostle here describes the
prevalence of vice as the inevitable consequence of idolatry, to
which the many licentious rites and festivals of heathendom bear
emphatic witness. Vicious indulgence within the pale of the
Christian church is apostasy from Christianity, and accordingly
gains ground as apostasy and lapse into idolatry gain ground.
On the other hand, vicious indulgence within the pale of
heathendom is a natural sequence of idolatry. See the 0. T. law
against paederasty, Lev. xviii. 22, xx. 13 ; comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9;
1 Tim. i. 10.
Ver. 25. The reason of the divine judgment is once more
brought forward, the contents of vv. 21-23 being summarised,
and the Sib, ver. 24, commented on. o'oTives] ut qui, quippe qui,
as those who, whosoever. The indefinite relative 6'o-Tt?, properly :

to

56 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
qui, scilicet aliquis, i.e. aliquis qui, characterizes the class to which
some one belongs, and therefore serves to specify the reason.
— fieTrfKXa^av Trjv dXr]0eiav tov Oeov iv tco yfrevSei] as to the
construction, see on ver. 23. The compound fieTrjXXagav, ex
changed, is more emphatic than the simple r]XXa%av, changed, ver.
23. The dXr]0eia tov Oeov might be understood, agreeably to
ver. 18, of the truth relating to God, the true knowledge of God,
Oeov being genit. object., or, which ver. 19 favours, of the truth
communicated by God Himself, in which case Oeov is genit.
auctoris. But it seems preferable, for the sake of parallelism
with ver. 23 (comp. tfXXagav Tr)v Sb^av tov Oeov there), to in
terpret tt]v dXr]0eiav tov Oeov, the truth, the reality, the true nature
of God, in which case, as commonly, abstract, stands pro concreto,
and Tr)v dXr]0eiav tov Oeov, as respects sense, is not really different
from tov dXyOivov Oeov (1 Thess. i. 9). To yjrevSos then denotes
tow tyevSeis Oeovs, as in Heb. also ~$$, lies, serves to denote
idols (Isa. xliv. 20 ; Jer. hi. 10, xiii. 25). As striking parallels,
have been quoted from Philo, De Vita Mosis, the following
passages : ocrov tyevSos dvO' ocrns dXr/Oeias virrjXXd^avTO. — otx
tov dXvOr) Oeov xaTaXiirovTes tovs TJrevSwvv/iovs iSrjfiiovpyrjcrav,
cpOapTals xal yevrjTaos oicriats Tr)v tov dcpOdpTov irpbcrprjcriv
iiricprjfiicravTes. " Pro Deo vero sumserunt imaginarios," Grotius.
Deeply stirred by the shamefulness of the thing, the apostle
characterizes the guilt of idolatry still further in the words
/cat iae^dcrOrjcrav] i.e. Tr)v ktictiv. cref3d^ecr0ai (in the N. T. an
aVaf; Xeyb/i.), occurring in later Greek for crej3ecr0ai (comp. Matt.
xv. 9; Mark vii. 7; Acts xiii. 43, 50, etc.), refers to inward
reverence of spirit, whereas /cat iXaTpevaav Trj /cTt'cret] refers to
the outward service of God. Under ktIois, properly, creation as
an act (ver. 20 ; Mark xiii. 19), then the creature, as here, viii.
39, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15, everything of a created nature is
included, — gods in heaven represented in human shape, their
material images, as well as beasts on earth.
— 7rapa tov KTlcravTa] more than the Creator, above the Creator,
yet not as if they had reverenced the Creator along with the
creature, and only reverenced the latter more than the former ;
for the apostle here describes an utter apostasy of heathenism
from the true God. On the contrary, the preference of one to
another implies the exclusion of the one put second, so that irapd
tov KTlcravTa, as regards its meaning, is identical with praeterilo

CHAP. I. 26. 57
or relicto creatore (comp. xiv. 5 : o? fiev xpivei r/fiipav irap r/fiepav,
and Luke xiii. 2). The interpretation contra creatorem, in opposi
tion to the Creator, is less appropriate, because the apostle, in his
present exposition, pictures heathenism not as hostile opposition
to God, but as an exchange of the true God for false gods, of the
Creator for the creature.
— o? io-Tiv eiXoyrjTos eh tovs alwvas. ,Afir]v.] eiXoyt)Tos, W^,
often interchanged with eiXoyrj/ievos, means : praised, not : worthy
of praise, or : to be praised; comp. Harless, Comm. zum Eph. p. 5.
God is called, /cot' igoxyv: b eiXoyr)Tos (Mark xiv. 61). This
is His unchanging title. He is and abides One who is praised,
the Holy One of Israel, He that dwells amid the praises of
Israel, though the Gentiles refuse Him this honour. Here we
have a doxology to the Father in opposition to the idolatry of
the Gentiles, in ch ix. 5 a doxology to the Son in opposition to
the rejection of Christ by the Jews.
Ver. 26. As ver. 25 recurs to ver. 23 in order to expand its
contents, so does ver. 26 (and 27), coupling on to ver. 25, to ver.
24. Sid tovto] namely, ot* icre^dcrOrjaav xal iXaTpevaav tji
xrlcrei irapa tov XTtaavTa. It resumes Bib, ver. 24.
— et? irdOi) dn/ilas] as regards the sense == irdOr] aTifid^ovTa.
The genitive is genit. qualitatis. As the Gentiles had robbed
God of Tifir], so He gave them up to aTifiia. iiriOvfila, having
arrived at undisputed sway, brings forth irdOos, in which man is
a helpless slave to iiriOvfila. irdOr) diifiias then = affectus igno*
miniosi, shameful, i.e. shame-inflicting passions or lusts (Col. iii.
5 ; 1 Thess. iv. 5).
— at Te yap 0r]Xeiai avTwv] The expression 0r]Xeiai, dpcreves
is used, not yvvaixes, dvSpes, because here the simple physical
allusion to sex comes exclusively into view = their females, their
males. The unnatural vice of the women is put first as the more
shameful. "Pudorem praeposterum ii fere postulant," says
Bengel, " qui pudicitia carent : Gravitas et ardor stili judicialis
proprietate verborum non violat verecundiam." Nevertheless, the
apostle from chaste reserve glides rapidly over the description in
this as over that in the following verse. As to this so-called
Lesbian vice of the women called Tpif3dSes, by Tertullian frictrices,
comp. Lucian : eraipiKol BiaXoyoi 5 : ToiavTas yap ev Aecrfiw
Xeyovcri ywaiKas, virb dvSpwv fiev ovk iOeXovcras avro irdcrxeiv,
yvvaiijl Be airds irXrjcria^ovcras, wcrirep dvBpas, and : iyevvr]Onv

58 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
fiev b/iola tois dXXais vfiiv r) yvwfvr) Be Kal r) iiriOvfiia /cat TaWa
irdvTa dvSpbs eo-Tt fioi. Martial, Epigr. xc. 5 : " Mentiturque virum
prodigiosa Venus."
— fieTr]XXa^av] answering to fieTr]XXat;av, ver. 25.
— Tr]v obvcriKrfv xpr)ffiv'\ as T'5? OyXelas is added, ver. 27,
so here perhaps tou dpaevos should be supplied. Or, even
without addition, cpvo-ixr) %/3^o-t? may signify natural sexual
intercourse. — et? Trjv irapd <f>vcriv] namely, xPr)crtv dXXr]Xwv.
Ver. 27. bfiolws tb /cat] Adequate critical authorities support
the reading bfiolws Be Kal, which Griesbach has approved and
Lachmann received. Thus, no doubt, an anacoluthon arises, but a
very slight and passable one, and one not uncommon in classical
Greek : " For both their women — but also the men likewise
burned." 'Ofioiws Be Kal, woavTws Be Kal is a form occurring
with remarkable frequency in the N. T., and the anacoluthon
hence arising might very easily induce the copyist to change Be
into Te, or, as is done in some codices, omit it altogether. We
must therefore read b/iotws Be Kal, not bfiolws Te xal. If, more
over, with Meyer, we take tc yap, ver. 26, in the sense of for —
indeed, the anacoluthon in this verse would vanish.
— ot dppeves] The Ionic form dpcreves, read by some manu
scripts here, is to be received, both because it is the one in almost
invariable use in the N. T. and also for the sake of uniformity
(comp. dpcreves ev dpaecri in the next clause).
— igeKavOijaav] stronger than the simple form, comp. irvpovcrOai
1 Cor. vii. 9, Like the Latin exardescere, it is a not uncommon
metaphor to denote the strength of passion, especially of libido,
of impotentia amoris.
— iv Tfj bpegei aiTwv] in their lust, conformably to the con
dition of sensual appetite in which they found themselves, comp.
ver. 24 : iv Tat? iiriOvfiiais twv KapBtwv avTwv.
— dpcreves ev dpaeai] This juxtaposition of words expresses a
special emphasis.
— Trjv daxwoavvriv] the well-known, or the accustomed, or the
definite shame here meant. Hence the article. But shame
stands here in the sense of shameful lust. 'Acrxyfiocrvvrj, turpitudo,
opposite of eicrxvp-ocrvvr), xiii. 13. KaTepyd&crOai, sensu bono,
v. 3, vii. 18, xv. 18 ; Phil. ii. 12 ; sensu malo, as here, ii. 9, vii.
8, 13, 15, 17, 20 ; in a neutral sense, 2 Cor. vii. 10, according to

CHAP. I. 27. 59
the led. rec. signifies, in distinction from the simple ipydgecrOat,
like the Latin perpetrare, to bring to pass, to perform, to accomplish.
— xal Tr)v dvrifiicrOlav] This retribution consisted in the very
xaTepyd^eaOai Tr)v dcryrifuxrvmiv, in being given up to iraOn
aTi/iias, not at all merely in the fatal consequences of sensual
sins ; for the peccatum here characterized, as the entire exposition
from ver. 24 onward evinces, is itself conceived as poena peccati,
dvTtfiicrOia. — fjv eSei] sc. aiTovs diroXafieiv, which was inevitable, which
was due to them, namely, according to the order of God's punitive
justice, such as is intimated, w. 24, 26, 28, in Sib irapeSwxev.
— Trjs irXdvrjs aiTwv] This aberration is depicted vv. 21-23.
It consists in idolatry.
— iv eavTois] as in ver. 24 = eV aW^Xot?, but with the same
reflexive emphasis as there. The reciprocal instruments of lust are
now reciprocal instruments of punishment. The vice described in
this verse was especially prevalent in that age, as many passages of
ancient writers testify. With incredible shamelessness, offensive
even in such an age, was it practised by Nero, as Suetonius re
lates, JVer. cc. 28, 29 : "Puerum Sporum, exsectis testibus, etiam
in muliebrem naturam transfigurare conatus, cum dote et flammeo
per solennia nuptiarum celeberrimo officio deductum ad se, pro
uxore habuit." And : " Suam quidem pudicitiam usque adeo
prostituit, ut contaminatis paene omnibus membris novissime
quasi genus lusus excogitaret: quo, ferae pelle contectus, emit-
teretur e cavea, virorumque ac feminarum, ad stipitem deligatorum,
inguina invaderet: et cum affatim desaevisset, conficeretur a
Doryphoro liberto : cui etiam, sicut ipsi Sporus; ita ipse denupsit,
voces quoque et ejulatus vim patientium virginum imitatus."
As a punishment for their apostasy, God gave them up, not
merely to unnatural sensuality, which Paul first of all adduced as
a sin as abnormal as it is enormous, as the culminating point of
specifically heathen sin, but also to all other vices which are now
given in detail, vv. 28-32. "Quia unum hactenus specimen
illud execrabile proposuit," says Calvin, "quod vulgare quidem
inter multos, non tanien omnium commune erat, hie incipit
enumerare vitia, quorum nemo immunis reperiatur. Nam etsi in
singulis non simul emineant omnia, sunt tamen alicujus ex illis
conscii sibi omnes : ut pro se quisque argui possit non obscurae
pravitatis." Herewith must be borne in mind the canon of

60 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
James : "Octtis yap iiXov tov vbfiov Twpr]crei, inaiaei Be ev evt,
yeyove irdvTwv ei/o^o?, ii. 1 0. Melanchthon's words are also worthy
of note : " Accusat autem utrosque, videlicet hos, qui externa
delicta habuerunt, et illos, qui etsi non habuerunt externa delicta,
tamen habent immunda corda et conscientia idololatriae aut aliis
peccatis. Ita in praedicatione poenitentiae legem intefpretamur,
ut intelligatur, non solum argui externa delicta, sed praecipue
immunditiem et impietatem cordium."
Ver. 28. xal] couples on a new element in the exposition, the
enumeration of all other heathen vi.ces.
— xaOws] not : because, but : quen.ad nodum, just as. The
punishment corresponds to the guilt.
— oix iSoxifiacrav] they thought not ft, non operae pretium
duxerunt. AoKi/id^eiv in the first place: to prove, test, then: to
approve, deem fit, 1 Cor. xvi. 3 ; 1 Thess. ii. 4.
— tov Oeov eyeiv iv iiriyvwcreo] iirlyvwcris is plena et accurata
cognitio (Erkenntniss), complete and accurate knowledge, in dis
tinction from yvwats (Kenntniss), knowledge. But e^etv iv
eirtyvwcrei is not = iiriyivwcrKeiv, but signifies : to have God in
complete knowledge, in the sense of to retain, holdfast ; Deum
in accurata cognitione habere, i.e. tenere, comp. Jas. ii. 1, in con
trast with xaTeyeiv Trjv dXr]0eiav iv dSixla, ver. 18. The Gentiles
had known God, ver. 21, but had wilfully fallen away to idols,
ver. 22 f., and thus forfeited correct knowledge of God.
— et? dSbxi/iov vovv] Paronomasia on iSoxifiacrav: "they
deemed not worthy — an unworthy, base, worthless mind. dSbxifios
from Sexpfiai, unacceptable, reprobate. This is its exclusive and
invariable meaning (1 Cor. ix. 2 7 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; 2 Tim. iii 8 ;
Tit. i. 16). The active sense : "qui judicare nequit, judicii expers,"
can only be arbitrarily supposed, for dSoxifios does not come
from SoKtfid&iv. Not only the paronomasia, but also the repeti
tion of o Oebs, lays stress on the correspondence of the retribu
tion. As to vovs, comp. Delitzsch, Bill. Psych, p. 212: "That
by virtue of which man thinks and determines himself, the
thinking and willing faculty in him, is vovs." In ver. 20 the
element of theoretical knowledge dominates, here that of practical
will ; so that vovs, as frequently, = mind, disposition.
— iroieiv] epexegetical infinitive.
— Ta fir) xaOijKovTa] We must not here introduce the distinc
tion of the Stoics, according to which to KaOijKov denotes officium

CHAP. I. 29. 61
medium, commune, while to KaTopOwfia denotes offocium pcr-
fectum, comp. Cic. de Off. i. 3 ; so that the meaning would be : the
Gentiles had not even discharged common duties. Apart from
the irrelevance of such a foisting in of special philosophical
school-distinctions, particularly in a description quite general in
form, it must manifestly in this case have been said : fiySe iroieiv Ta
KaOr]xovTa. Ta fir) xaQr)KovTa are indecora, inhonesta, that which is
unseemly, unbecoming. The subjective negation (fir]) is occasioned
by the infinitive construction, " facere quae (si quae) essent indecora,"
1 Tim. v. 13. On the other hand, Eph. v. 4: to oix dvqKovTa
= a ovk dvfjxev, comp. Winer, pp. 603, 610.
Ver. 29. ireirXypwfievovs irdarj dSixla] The accusative ireirXrjp.,
like the following fiecrTovs, yjriOvpicrTds xtX, joins on to the
subject which has to be supplied to the infinitive iroieiv. dSixla
is the generic conception which comprehends under it all the
following vices as its species. irXrjpovv with the dative (instrum.)
again, 2 Cor. vii. 4, in the classics also, elsewhere in the N. T.
c. genit, Luke ii. 40 ; Acts ii. 28, v. 28, xiii. 52 ; Rom. xv. 14;
2 Tim. i. 4 ; also irXrjpovcrOai ex twos, John xii 3 ; ev twi, Eph.
v. 18; ti, Col. i. 9.
— iropveia] apparently, according to the evidence of weighty
critical authorities, some of whom omit, some transpose it, to be
erased as unauthentic. Criticism on internal grounds gives here
but a doubtful judgment. Having depicted the sin of unnatural
lust, Paul may next have commenced his catalogus vitiorum with
the mention of common iropveia ; but, on the other hand, copyists,
missing this vitium, may also have inserted it in the text. Sup
posing it omitted, there is no reason for thinking its absence
strange, seeing that, as is self-evident, common iropveia certainly
exists where the uncommon form is so widely prevalent ; but
again the inclusion of irovypla in dSixla is in any case easy and
undisputed. — irovr/pla, irXeovegia, xaxlq] The order of words varies in
manuscripts, versions, and quotations by the Fathers. The most
probable arrangement is the one which Lachmann follows on
good authority : dSixla, xaKta, irovypia, irXeovegia, because then
the first three conceptions form a related series, and between the
first and second words on one side (dSiKia, xaxla), and the third
and fourth on the other (irovrjpla, irXeove^ia), a sort of assonance
finds place, xaxia, viciousness, vitiositas, opposite of dpeTr], Eph,

62 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
iv. 31; Col. iii. 8; Tit. iii. 3. irovqpia, malignity, malitia,
malice, Matt. v. 45, vii. 11 ; Acts iii. 26. The same order is
found 1 Cor. v. 8. irXeovel-la, coveteousness, as the outcome of
Kaicia and irovrjpla, ready to inflict injury on another, to rob him
of his goods.
 liecrTovs cpObvov, cpbvov, 'epiBos, BoXov, KaKorjOetas] Upon the
enumeration of forms of wickedness in general follows that of
special offences. On ireirXrjpafievovs and fieaTovs, comp. Seneca,
de Ira, ii. 8, who introduces his picture of the sinful corruption
of that age with the words : " Omnia sceleribus ac vitiis plena
sunt." c\\0bvov, cpbvov are joined together for the sake of rhythm,
Gal. v. 21. fieo-Tos cpbvov is one who is ever brooding upon
murder, who is filled with murderous thoughts, cpbvov fiepfinpl&v, :
Horn. Od. xix. 2 ; xaxorjOela in the N. T. an dira% Xeybfievov,
opposite of eii)0ela = maliciousness, malicious craft. According
to others = a malignant nature, respecting which Aristotle says
(Bhet. ii. 1 3) : cart yap xaxor]0eia to iirl to Xefyov viroXdfifiaveiv
irdvTa. From epts, as from cpObvos, cpbvos easily results, hke
BbXos from xaxorfOeia. All these trespasses are the outflow of
a heart embittered against one's neighbour.
Ver. 30. yfriOvpiaTas] susurrones, whisperers, secret slanderers.
. — xaTaXdXovs] to speak evil of some one, to slander in general
— Oeoo-Tvyeis] in accordance with established and invariable
usage only in the passive meaning : God-hated, i.e. abandoned
transgressors. It stands not inaptly before vfipioTas and virepy-
qbdvovs, for man's vfipis and vireprjcpaveia especially attract the
eyOpa Oeov. Comp. 1 Pet. v. 5 : o Oebs vireprjcpdvots dvTurdcrcreTai,
and 1 Tim. i. 13, where Paul calls himself tov irpoTepov bvia
^\dacp7]fiov xal SiwxTr/v xal vf3picrTr]v. Of the Jews, as such
vfipiaTais, it is said, 1 Thess. ii. 15, they are Oeco fir) dpecrxovTes.
Comp. further Jas. iv. 6 ; Luke i 5 1 f. The Vulgate also renders
in this passage : " Deo odibiles." The active meaning : " Dei
osores," is, indeed, found along with the passive in Oeofiicrrfs,
although even this is somewhat disputed ; but in the case of
OeocTTvyr]s it is altogether without proof. The active would,
indeed, have this advantage, that thus a specific offence would be
adduced in the series of specific sins ; but with this disadvantage,
that in the present catalogue of sins there is no other instance
of a trespass against God. On the contrary, in this catalogue
merely the consequences of the ungodhness previously described

CHAP. I. 31. 63
are depicted. We have here a detailed list of sins against the
second table as consequences of sins against the first.
— ifipicTTas, virepr)<f>dvovs, dXa£bvas] divers forms of superbia.
The vf3picrTr]s in his arrogance actuaUy subjects others to insolent
treatment. The virepr]cpavos, in self-complacent conceit of his own
excellences, looks down on them with scorn (r) tow dXXwv irXrjv
avTov KaTacppbvrjcris is the description of Theophr. Charact. 34).
The dXa£wv, vaniloquus, gloriosus, brags of bis own, for the most
part imaginary excellence, without directly ill-treating or despising
others. Therefore : insolent, haughty, braggarts. In 2 Tim. iii. 2
also dXa^bves and virepi](j>avoi are placed together.
— itpevpeTas xaxwv] Expositors quote Tac. Ann. iv. 11:
" Sejanus . . . facinorum repertor;" Virg. Aen. ii. 161 : " scele-
rumque inventor Ulixes;" and 2 Mace, vii' 31, where Antiochus
Epiphanes is called irdarjs xaxlas evpeTr]s. Such inventive genius
in villany denotes a peculiarly high degree of wickedness.
— yovevcriv direiOeis] 2 Tim. iii. 2. The sin against the first
commandment with promise (Eph. vi. 2), a commandment written
in the heart even of the Gentiles.
Ver. 31. davveTovs] probably inserted simply for the sake of
the paronomasia with the foUowing davvOeTovs. 'AcrvveTos is
one without crivecris, '"U'1? (Isa. xxix. 14), one who both in what
he does and leaves undone is not guided by intelligent conviction,
Luther's " Mr. Unreason going head foremost " (Hans Unvernunft,
mit dem Kopf hindurch), comp. Ecclus. xv. 7.
— davvOeTovs] covenant-breakers or unsociable. The last mean
ing seems here preferable, because it stands in natural association
with the three following notions — daTopyovs, without affection ;
danrbvBovs, implacable; dveXer]fiovas, unmerciful. Still, without
doubt, in davvOeTovs the meaning covenant-breakers is better
borne out by usage than the meaning unsociable. 'AcrirbvBovs
omitted by Lachmann, according to important and numerous
authorities, is at least to be deemed critically doubtful. It may
have been transferred here from 2 Tim. iii. 3.
The above enumeration of different offences, which were current
among the Gentiles, is nowise arranged in strictly systematic
order. Still there is found in it, as we have seen, a gradual
progress from the general to the special, a manifold interweaving
of related ideas, as well as some combinations suggested by verbal
rhythm. The crime of positive ungodliness and sinful sensual

64 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
lust is specified, for the reasons already stated. The entire series
of sins named in these verses rests either upon perverted self-love
or upon the want of right love of one's neighbour. Similar
catalogues of sin are found 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 19-21 ; Eph.
v. 3, 4 ; 1 Tim. i. 9, 1 0 ; 2 Tim. iii. 2-4. The accidental order
of the arrangement intimates that all sins, which can ever occur
to one's mind, are mutually related. It is) as it were, the open
ing of a sackful of sins, when it is all accident how the single
grains fall out.
Ver. 32. Justly has Reiche, in the Comm. Crit. in N. T.
torn. I. p. 1 ff., vindicated the lectio recepta of this verse against
the manifold variants. otTti>e?] comp. on ver. 25 = toiovtovs
Tivds o'l, tales homines qui.
— to Sixaiwfia tov Oeov] i.e. to SeSiKaiw/ievov viro tov Oeov,
the judicial decree of God, lex, decretum, statutum, Dei (Luke i. 6 ;
Rom. ii. 26, viii. 4; Rev. xv. 4). The LXX. render pn, riijn,
niSD, tJBE'p, D'Hlp?, by SiKaiwfia, BiKatwfiaTa.
— iiriyvovres] they knew, knew perfectly, see on ver. 28- This
knowledge was communicated to them through the law of conscience
(ii. 14 f.). Just as the darkness of idolatry was rebuked by the
light of the knowledge, of God implanted by nature, so the natural
consciousness of the moral law passed sentence of condemnation
on the transgressions of heathenism. Comp. Formula Concordiae
Sol. Decl. II. p. 657: " Humana ratio seu naturalis intellectus
hominis obscuram aliquam notitiae illius seintillulam reliquam
habet, quod sit Deus, et particulam aliquam legis tenet (Rom. i.
19 sqq.)." See an example of the Gentiles' knowledge as to the
divine AIkt], Acts xxviii. 4.
— on ot to TotavTa irpdcrcrovTes d%toi OavaTov elcriv] is enclosed
in brackets without reason. It gives the contents of the divine
Sixatwfia. That bodily death is the wages of sin was unknown
to heathenism, as well as that for the least of the offences men
tioned by the apostle the penalty of death is decreed (although the
Draconian legislation placed itself at this absolute standpoint).
But heathenism had a general knowledge of their criminality, as
well as of the future retribution awaiting the evil-doer. This
doctrine was involved in the heathen myth of Hades and its
punishments. Comp. Aesch. Eumen. v. 2 5 9-2 6 5 :
"Oip-ei Be Ke'i tis dXXov r]XiTev fipoTwv,
"H Oeov r) %evov tiv dcre/3wv,

CHAP. I. 32. 65
lH TOKeas cplXovs,
ExovO' eKaoTov Trjs Slxrjs eirdfjta.
Meya? yap A'lSrjs icrTW evOvvos (3poTWV,
vEvepOe xOovbs,
AeXToypdcfxp Be itovt iirwira cppevl.
Accordingly OdvaTos is to be interpreted of the mors aeterna
inflicted by God's punitive justice on the sins of men (ii. 8, 9, vi.
16, 21, 23, viii. 13).
— ov /ibvov avTa 7rotof)o-t] which might have found compara
tive justification in the allurement of evil desire, rashness, and the
like, aXXa xal crvvevBoKovcri tois irpdcrcrovcri] wherein is exhibited
the highest degree of inexcusable depravity. Here is found
personal delight in evil without personal temptation to it. avvev-
SoKeiv, to give consent, Luke xi. 48 ; Acts viii 1. Such consent
consists partly in inward delight, partly in approval by word.
The theoretical defence of paederasty, revenge, and similar things,
to be found in the writings of the heathen, is included here.
" Pejus est crwevBoKelv ; nam qui malum patrat, sua sibi cupiditate
abducitur, etc. ; sed qui crvvevSoKei, corde et ore, malitiae fructum
habet ipsam malitiam, eaque pascitur, et suum reatum alieno
cumulat, aliosque in peccando inflammat. Pejor est, qui et se et
alios, quam qui se unum perimit," BengeL irpdaa-eiv, to pursue,
practise, is stronger than iroieiv, to do; comp. ii. 3, vii. 15, xiii. 4,
and in John iii. 20 f. the antithesis of o cpavXa irpdaawv and
6 iroiwv tt)v dXr]0eiav. But the fact that the apostle in this
verse describes the offences which he himself represents as the
punishment of idolatry, as at the same time crimes worthy of
death, shows that the diroKdXvyjrts bpyrjs, spoken of ver. 1 8, cannot
consist in the Gentiles being abandoned to those offences, but, as
observed, is to be contemplated as a positive revelation of wrath
whose final consummation is still future. Further, if the bpyr] is
to be revealed not only against dcrefieia, but also against dSixla, it
cannot be exhaustively manifested in surrender to dSixia itself.
The order in which Gentile abominations are here treated is
found also in Tit. ii. 12. Idolatry offends against the ei<refSws,
unnatural lust against the crwcppbvws, and the remaining offences
against the Sixalcos Zfav there spoken of.

PfllLIPPI, Rom. I.

66 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 1. Aib] namely, because thou knowest the SiKaiwfia tou
Oeov, that they who do such things are worthy of death (i. 32).
The dvairoXbyrjTov elvai (i. 20) also is based upon conscious
sinning against better knowledge. It is not so much the act of
judging simply that renders inexcusable, as judgmg in another
the sin that one himself commits, as is further explained in this
verse. — w dvOpwire irds b Kplvwv] That the apostle here has the
Jews already in view, is evinced by the tenor and connection of
the entire chapter (comp. especially, vv. 13, 17). He does not
say at the outset w 'IovSdie, but uses the general, yet reproachful
form of address, & dvOpwire, answering to dvOpwirwv, i. 18. The
Jews must have felt convinced in their own conscience that they
were pointed at here, for Kpiveiv was just their specific national
sin. The arrow struck home aU the more surely, as they could
not help pressing it into their heart with their own hand. The
Jews, presuming on their possession of the law and their holiness
of works, condemned the Gentiles who were sunk in idolatry
and gross outward sins. They called them Cyan, dfiapTwXovs,
eOvos dfiapTwXwv, Tob. xiii. 6; Gal. ii. 15. This passion on
the part of the Jews for condemning others gives the apostle an
excellent vantage-ground for the judgment that he has to pass
upon them. Kplvew here denotes an unauthorized, merciless
judging, as in Matt. vii. 1 ; Jas. iv. 11. / ,
— iv w] neither instrumental: eo quod = by this^that, still less
temporal : eo tempore quo, but : in qua re, wherein, in what thing,
in what point (xiv. 22), corresponding to rd yap aiTa irpdacreisl J
On Ta aiTa comp. w. 17-24. However the sins of Jews and
Gentiles differed in form of manifestation, their nature was the
same. The final word of the verse
— o Kplvwv] has a certain emphatic keenness of edge, which is
altogether lost in the less attested -reading a Kplveis, after which
the Vulgate and Luther translate.

CHAP. II. 2-4. 67
Ver. 2. oiSafiev Be] But we know, i.e. but it is certain, known,
The persons who know are not the Jews specially, but men in
general. — xaTa dXr]0eiav] in conformity with the rule of truth, oi yap
icm irpoawiroXijyJrla irapd ra 0eq), ver. 1 1. This proposition :
But we know that the divine judgment without respect of person
is passed (eo-Ttz/ eVt, Acts iv. 33), in accordance with the rule and
requirement of truth and righteousness, upon those that are guilty
of such heathen abominations, prepares the way for what follows,
that therefore the Jew, guilty of the same, cannot cherish the
hope, on the ground of his being Abraham's seed and no Gentile,
of escaping this divine judgment ; for this were irapd dXf]0eiav,
not xaTa dXr]0eiav.
Ver. 3. Xoyityi Be] but fanciest thou in spite of this, although
God, as we know, judges according to truth 1 etc. Xoyi^etrOai,
from X070?, computatio, calculation = to make a calculation, cal-
culos subducere. But the calculation may be right or wrong. Hence
Xoyl^eaOai, censere, to judge, or opinari, to suppose, fancy (xiv. 14 ;
2 Cor. x. 2). Here the latter, as it is the false confidence of the
Jews that is combated.
— touto] namely, oti av ixcfiev^rj xtX. tovto, like the Latin
hoc, points emphatically to what follows (Acts xx. 29 ; 2 Cor.
x. 11).
— av] with emphasis : thou above others; thou as a Jew. Strik
ingly has the Rabbinical saying been quoted : P^n Dn? ¦&?''. bx"v&\ 73
Kan D?iyp. All Israel has part in the alwv fieXXwv. Comp.
John the Baptist's rebuke of the Pharisaic Jews (Matt. iii. 7-9 ;
Luke iii. 7, 8).
— iK<pevi;rf] cpevyei, fugit reus omnis : ixcpevyei, effugit, qui ab
solvitor, says Bengel. But here the question is not so much
of absolution as rather of imagined exemption from the divine
judgment. — Ver. 4. i]] puts another case. Thinkest thou, presuming on
thy high descent and thy possession of the law, that thou wilt
escape judgment ; or (¦>]), relying on God's forbearances hitherto,
despisest thou His goodness that leads thee to repentance, dreaming
forsooth that temporary security is a pledge of final impunity ?
Thus misjudging and making light of the holy purpose of the
divine goodness, thou slumberest in dangerous security in sin,
instead of rousing thyself to saving repentance.

68 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— tov itXovtov] common with Paul as a designation of the
abundance and vastness of the divine glory, goodness, and grace
(ix. 23, xi. 33 ; Eph. i. 7, ii. 7, hi. 16 ; Phil. iv. 19 ; Col. i. 27).
By the substantive itXovtos, the idea of the fulness of the
divine goodness is made to stand out with more independence and
impressiveness than by the adjectival designation xPr)°~T°Tr)'}
7r\oi»o"ta. — t»}? xPV^^oTrjTOS aiTOv xal Tr)s dvox'H'i Kal Tr)s fiaxpoOvfilas]
is intended to set forth exhaustively the comprehensiveness of
the divine goodness (Ex. xxxiv. 6). xPVa"r0TV'!> goodness, makes
itself known in imparting benefits (Luke vi. 35; Rom. xi. 22;
Eph. ii. 7 ; Tit. iii. 4). dvoxv, for which one codex reads dvafioXr]
as a marginal gloss, patience, indulgence, in the N. T. only again
iii. 25 (from dvexeaOai, to hold oneself aloft, hold oneself erect,
hold out, endure), bears wrong in hope of improvement, instead
of at once prosecuting one's right. The synonym fiaxpoOvfila,
long-suffering, the Heb. D^sx ^^! is the opposite of bifvOv/ila, and
denotes the gentleness that does not in instant wrath avenge
wrong-doing (Jas. i. 19 : fipaSvs eh bpyr]v), but delays punish
ment, and thus affords the sinner space for repentance (ix. 22 ;
Matt, xviii. 26, 29). As here we find dvoxr) xal fiaxpoOv/ila
combined in order to exhaust a single idea, so in Col. i. 11
viro/iovr] xal fiaxpoOvfila ; Jas. v. 1 0 xaxoiraOela xal fiaxpoOvfila ;
comp. also Eph. iv. 2 : fierd fiaxpoOv/ilas dvexbfievoi dXXr]Xwv.
— KaTacppoveis] The divine goodness is despised, when, not
caring for its purpose, one is led by it to wanton sin instead of
to repentance (Ecclus. v. 4—9).
— dyvowv] not = not being willing to know, but = not knowing.
Certainly this meaning readily glides into the other : not consider
ing, non reputans, non considerans, for what I do not consider I do
not know at the moment when I do not consider it, Acts xxiii 5 :
owe rjBeiv = I knew not at the moment, i.e. I considered not. Mark
ix. 32 ; Luke ix. 45 : dyvoeiv to prjfia, not to know the saying =
not to know its import, its meaning = not to understand. But
even in these passages dyvoeiv at bottom retains its primary
import, not to know, although this, in accordance even with the
mode of expression current among us, may properly interchange
with the other, not to consider, not to understand. In the present
passage there is no need to depart from the radical meaning.
The ignorance here spoken of as self-incurred is also guilty ignor-

CHAP; II. 5. 69
ance. But this guilty ignorance of the purpose of divine grace
leads to a despising of that grace in actual fact. " Miratur Paulus
hanc ignorantiam," Bengel.
— to xPV<7Tov] = f] xpyGTOT1')'}, comp. to Bvvutov, ix. 22.
— et? ueTavoiav] uerdvoia, change of mind, consists both
in an inward turning away from unrighteousness (hence fierdv.
dirb epywv vexpwv, Heb. vi. 1 ; comp. fieTavoeiv dirb Trjs xaxlas,
Acts viii 22 ; fieravoeiv ex twv epywv, Rev. ii. 22), and in an
inward turning to righteousness (hence 17 et? tov Oeov fierdvoia,
Acts xx. 21 ; comp. ueravorjaaTe xal iiriaTpiyJraTe, Acts hi. 19 ;
fieTavoeiv xal iiriarpec^eiv iirl tov Oeov, Acts xxvi 20). From
this inward act follow next epya dgia Trjs fieTavolas, ibid.; xapirol
d^ioi Trjs fieravolas (Luke hi. 8). But such a fieTavoia is et? %wr]v,
Acts xi. 18; et? awTrjplav, 2 Cor. vii. 10.
- — dyei] guides, leads, not de conatu: it would lead. Paul
speaks of the very act of leading, whose objective reality is not
done away by the subjective resistance of man. " Ducit suaviter,
non cogit necessitate," says Bengel. With the purport of this verse
comp. 2 Pet. iii 9. At the same time there is involved a refuta
tion of the doctrine of predestination ; for it is expressly asserted
that even they should and could repent on whom xaTaxpifia will
one day fall. Their condemnation, therefore, is not predestinated
absoluto decreto, comp. ver. 5.
Ver. 5. The goodness of God leads thee to repentance, but
thou by thy impenitence heapest up to thyself wrath. xaTa]
pro, according to, by virtue of.
— dfieravbr/Tos] in an active sense : that cannot grieve, that is in
accessible to repentance, contrast with els fierdvoidv ae dyei, ver. 4.
— Oi)aavpi£eis] instead of itXovtos Trjs xPVa"T0TVT0^> thou
gatherest for thyself a Orjaavpbs bpyrjs, comp. Deut. xxxii. 32-35,
and LXX. Prov. i. 18 : Oijaavpl&vaiv eavrois xaxd.
— aeavTw] for thyself, to thy own ruin.
— iv rffuepa, bpyrjs] either to be joined closely with bpyr)v : wrath
on the day of wrath, i.e. wrath that breaks forth on the day of
wrath, Winer, p. 519, or to be connected with Or/aavpl^eis, so
that a breviloquence, common in Greek, occurs, and we must
interpret accordingly : thou heapest up wrath et? r)/iepav bpyrjs, so
that it bursts forth iv nfi-epa bpyrjs, comp. Matt. x. 15 ; Luke xxiii
42 ; Jas. v. 3 : co? irvp iOijcravptaaTe iv e'cr^aTat? rjfiepais. Verbs
of motion, construed with eV, " indicate at the same time the

/ 0 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
result of the motion, that is rest," Winer, p. 514. On account
of the close succession and repetition of bpyrjs after bpyrjv, the
first connection is more emphatic. "Aewbrrjs, sermonis magna vi,"
remarks Bengel. The r)fiepa bpyrjs is called niiT_S)K E)\ Zeph. ii.
2, 3 ; ayt OS\ Ezek. xxii. 24 ; also briefly nin* n)\ Ezek. xiii. 5 ; Joel
i. 15. In the N. T. it is revealed that this day is deferred till the
return of the Messiah (1 Thess. i. 1 0 ; 2 Thess. i 6-1 0 ; Rev. vi. 1 7).
— xal diroxaXv^rews xal SixaioKpialas tov Oeov] Lachmann, on
the evidence of the older uncials, reads /cat diroxaXvtyews Sixato-
xpialas tov Oeov. But this looks like an explanatory gloss upon
the more difficult xal diroxaXvyfrews xal Sixaioxpialas t. 0.,
whereas for the interpolation of xal, if it were originally absent,
there was no sufficient reason. The accumulation of genitives
cannot be accepted as such a reason, none of them being super
fluous, and the sentence remaining clear and intelligible. Besides,
by the co-ordination of the three substantives bpyrjs xal diroxa-
\i/\|reeo? xal Sixaioxpialas the language becomes more stately,
befitting a delineation of the judgment-day.1 But then diroKct-
Xirtyis cannot of itself be the diroxdXinjns ,Ir)aov XpiaTov, because
in that case 'Iijaov XpiaTov must have been appended (1 Cor. i
7, 8 ; 2 Thess. i. 7 ; 1 Pet. i. 7, 13 ; Rev. i. 1). The object
revealed, then, is either the shameful deeds or thoughts of men
hitherto concealed (ver. 16), or, which is preferable, and to which
the glossarial reading points, God's Sixaioxptala itself, which was
hitherto, as ver. 14 intimates (comp. i 18), hidden from men.
Ver. 6. o? d7roS<ocret exdaTw xaTa Ta epya aiTov] this will take
place, as the context indicates, iv rffiepa bpyrjs xal diroxaXv^rews
Kal Sixaioxpialas tov Oeov. The apostle thus speaks, not in the
way of abstract hypothesis, but of concrete assertion. He speaks
not from the standpoint of the law, that has been abolished by
the gospel, but from the standpoint of the law in so far as it has
been ratified by the gospel (iii. 31). He says not what God
would do were He to proceed in accordance with the primal rule
and standard of the law, but what, proceeding according to that
rule, He will actually do. xaO' virofiovrjv epyov dyaOov also,
ver. 7, alludes to the holy conflict actually going on, which is to
be crowned with %wr) aiwvios. It cannot be said, " the gene
ral sense required the specific Christian rule to be put entirely
1 Reichealso, Comm. Grit. inN. T. torn. I. pp. 13-16, defends the reading accepted
by us as correct.

1.
CHAP. II. 6. 71
out of view, and only ,the universal one to be brought forward,
because the universal necessity of justification by faith is first to
be established, iii. 23 ff. ;" for, to say nothing of the fact that
already (ver. 16) Jesus Christ is named as the judge, already also
(vv. 28, 29) eV to KpvirTq} 'IovSaios and irepiTOfir/ xapSias iv
irveifiaTi are spoken of, where yet we shall not be willing to con
cede that the apostle speaks only of what was to be, not of what
may be and even actually is. Nay, this irepiTOfii) xapBlas was
already known to believers of the old covenant, for they did such
epya dyaOd as are referred to in this passage. That the doctrine,
God will as matter of fact give to every one according to his
works, contradicts neither the biblical doctrine of salvation in
general, nor the Pauline doctrine of justification in particular, is
made clear by many declarations of Scripture, not only of the 0.
but also of the N. T. (even of Paul himself), which plainly and
incontestably embody this truth. Comp. LXX. Ps. lxii. 12 : 6Vt
aii diroSwaeis exdarw xaTa Ta epya airov ; Prov. xxiv. 12 : o?
diroSlSwai eKaaTw Kara Ta epya avTov ; Matt. xvi. 2 7 : fiiXXei
yap o vtbs tov dvOpdnrov epx^vOai iv Ty Soljr) ktX., Kal totb diro-
Swaei eKaarw xaid Trjv irpagw aiTov; xxv. 31—46; 2 Cor. v.
10 : tou? yap irdvTas fjfids cpavepwOrjvai Set 'ifiirpoaQev tov
f3r]fiaTOS tov XpiaTov, iva Koalaryrai e/cae/To? Ta Sid tov awfiaTOS,
irpbs a eirpafjev, etVe dyaObv, eire xaxbv ; Gal. vi. 7—9 ; Eph. vi.
6, 8 ; CoL hi. 24; Rev. ii. 23 : xal Sd>aw vfiiv exdaTw xaTa Ta
epya vfiwv ; xx. 1 2 : xal ixplOrjaav oi vexpol . . . xaTa Ta epya
aircov, xxii. 12. Protestant exegetes accordingly acknowledge
that the present passage also may be referred to the good works of
the regenerate. "Paul," says Melanehthon, " non tribuit justifica-
tionem operibus, sed describit justos a posteriori, hoc est a fructi-
bus, quales sint." Calov remarks : " Secundum opera fiet d7rooWi?,
non vero secundum merita operuni, nee propter opera. Cum. retri-
buturum Deum secundum opera dicit (apostolus), recte utique
contra Pontificios observant nostrates, aliud esse secundum opera,
id est, secundum testimonium operum, aliud vero propter opera, id
est propter meritum operum aliquid reddere. Recte etiam notant,
nuspiam dici Sid Ta epya propter opera, sed KaTd Ta epya secun
dum opera : quia opera erunt quidem manifesta BiKaioKpialas
regula, non autem proportionata meritorum norma. Nee minus
observatur probe a nostris, quod S. S. non utatur verbo cWi8oo-ea>?,
quod ad mercedem proprie dictam quadam specie trahi posset, sed

72 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
a7ro8oo-eft>?, quod generate est, ac turn etiam locum habet, cuin
Deus ex gratia non merita nostra, sed sua dona coronat." Comp.
Joh. Gerhard, loc. theol. 1. xviii. c. viii. de meritis bonorum operum, §
1 1 5 f. : "Ex fide bene operamur et nos Christo vere insitos esse
demonstramus ; in iisdem operibus, tanquam in via, ad ultimam
vitae aeternae possessionem ambulantes, eandem ex gratia per
fidem tandem consequimur : quo sensu illud £r)Teiv Tr)v Sbgav Kal
Ti/irjv xal dcpOapalav KaO' virofiovrjv epyov dryaOov accipiendum
erit, si ad renatos transferatur, sicque bona opera erunt via regni,
non causa regnandi, ut Bernhardus loquitur." Nevertheless, in
order perhaps more easily to dispose of the Cathohc doctrine of
merit, they did not hold firmly by this — in our opinion correct
— view, but maintained that Paul speaks here only more legis,
that we have here only a sententia legalis which receives its cor
rection from the doctrine of grace in the gospel. Melanchthon
early gave the preference to this view, and the rest of the Lutheran
exegetes followed him, as well as most modern expositors of the
epistle. But when one of the latter goes so far as to broach the
opinion that Paul forgets and contradicts himself, ascribing here,
in opposition to his doctrine of justification, to righteousness of
character, such as man is able by his own strength to manifest,
what elsewhere he ascribes only to the righteousness of faith, — or
even that by the side of the via regia, which is per fidem, he marks
out also a semita which conducts some Jews and Gentiles to
salvation per honestatem, then indeed such an assertion, in pre
sence of a Roman epistle, does not deserve a serious reply. The
interpretation advocated by us is held, without any wavering in
favour of the other, by Calvin. " Porro," he says, " in hac sen
tentia non tantum est difficultatis quantum vulgo putatur. Re-
proborum enim malitiam justa ultione si puniet Dominus, rependet
illis quod meriti sunt. Rursum quia sanctificat, quos ohm statuit
glorificari, in illis quoque bona opera coronabit, sed non pro merito.
Neque id evincetur ex hac sententia, quae tametsi praedicit, quam
mercedem habitura sint bona opera, nequaquam tamen, quid
valeant, vel quid debeatur hlis pretii, pronunciat. Stulta autem
consequentia est, ex mercede statuere meritum." Strikingly is
the latter point illustrated by the Apologie, art. hi. ed. Muller,
p. 148 : " But Scripture calls eternal life a reward ; not that God
is bound to give eternal life in return for works, but that eternal
life being given on other grounds, nevertheless our works and

CHAP. II. 7. 73
trials are recompensed with it, although the treasure is so great
that God could not owe it us in return for our works. Just as when
the inheritance or all the means of a father are given to a son,
and are a rich recompense and reward of his obedience, while never
theless he receives not the inheritance on account of his merit,
but the father bestows it on him as a father. Hence it is reason
enough for eternal life being called a reward, that by it the evils
we suffer and the works of love we do are recompensed, although
it is not thereby merited. For recompense is of two kinds, one
that is due, another that is not due. As when the emperor con
fers an estate on a servant, the servant's toil is thereby recom
pensed, and yet the toil does not merit the estate, but the servant
owns that it is a free gift. God, then, does not owe us eternal life ;
but nevertheless when He gives it to believers for Christ's sake,
our suffering and work are thereby recompensed." Good works
of themselves establish no meritum, but come into view in the
judgment merely as signa et testimonia fidei justificantis et salvantis
propter meritum Christi. More than this, they are not even them
selves absolutely perfect, but the imperfection ever cleaving to
them is not taken into account for the sake of Christ's merit
alone. Comp. also Steiger on 1 Pet. p. 164 ff.
Ver. 7. Luther: "Namely, praise and honour and immortal
being to those who with patience in good works seek after eternal
life." Thus he joins together Xryrovai t,wr)v aiwviov, takes it in
apposition to Tot? fiev xaff virofiovrjv epyov dyaOov, and makes
Bb^av xal Tifirfv xal dcj)Oapalav depend on diroSwaei, in which
case the apposition drags heavily, — or, rather, with a still more
intolerable hyperbaton he construes Tot? fiev KaO' virofiovrjv epyov
dyaOov ^rfTOvai %wr]v aiwviov, (diroSwaei) Soijav xal Tifirfv xal
dcpOapaiav. The simplest mode of connection, and the one
followed by most expositors, is plainly this — to make fyor)v
aiwviov depend on diroSwaei, ver. 6, and erasing the comma after
dyaOov, to join Tot? fiev . . . ^rjTovai. If the comma is inserted,
Sbgav . . . ty/TOvai is in apposition to Tot? . . . dyaOov. But the
expression ot Ka& virofiovrjv epy. ay., sc. ovTes, is not adequately
borne out by oi xaTa adpxa ovres Rom. viii. 5, and the apostle
would then certainly, in conformity with ver. 8, have written :
TOt? fiev . . . dyaOov, xal Sbgav — ^qTovai.
— xaff virofiovrjv epyov dyaOov] indicates the norm or principle,
in accordance with which they act in striving after 8o|a, etc.

74 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
epyov dyaOov is the object to which virofiovr] refers, Luke viii. 15:
xapirocpopeiv iv virofiovfi ; Heb. xii. 1 : Tpexeiv Si' virofiovrjs.
'Wirofiovrj, perseverantia, endurance. Thus, 1 Thess. i. 3 : r)
virofiovr) Trjs ehirlSos. "Epyov in the singular is used collectively,
as in Gal. vi. 4 ; Jas. i. 4 : r) Be virofiovr) epyov TeXeiov e'^eVft) ;
Rev. xxii. 12. It is the entire united life-work, made up of
many separate works.
— Sogav Kal Tifirfv Kal dcpOapaiav tyjTovai] " Quod autem
dicit," remarks Calvin, "fideles in bonis operibus persistendo
gloriam et honorem quaerere, non significat eos alio aspirare,
quam ad Dominum, aut aliquod eo superius praestantiusve
expetere : sed ipsum quaerere nequeunt, quin simul ad regni ejus
beatitudinem contendant, cujus descriptio sub horum verborum
periphrasi continetur." Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 58. Such are de
scribed as do not, like the Jews, seek honour from men, but seek
it from God (John v. 44). The, triple description Sbfjav xal
Tifirfv xal dcpOapaiav serves adequately to set forth the fulness and
glory of %wr) alwvios. With 8o£a comp. Matt, xiii 43 : totc ot
Slxatoo ixXafii^ovaiv, cos o rjXios, iv Trj ftaaiXela tov iraipbs
avTwv ; with Tifir) comp. avfiftaaiXevaofiev 2 Tim. ii. 12. In
1 Pet. i. 7 also, as here, Sbga Kal Tifirj are joined together. Be
lievers share in that Sblja Kal Tifir] (Heb. ii. 7), which itself con
sists in a participation in the Sbfja /cat Tifir] of God (1 Tim.
i. 17). The element of dcpOapala stands forth independently,
which gives it greater emphasis than if it were simply added as
an adjectival qualification of So£a xal Tifir]. As to the word
itself comp. 1 Cor. xv. 53, also 1 Cor. ix. 25, where the aTetpavos
dcpOapTOs, and 1 Pet. i. 4, where the xXijpovoula dcpOapTos is men
tioned. But %wr) alwvios, in which these particular elements com
bine as in their common whole, is clearly conceived only as future.
Ver. 8. Tot? Be ef ipiOelas] sc. ovaiv, comp. o wv ix Trjs
dXrjOelas John xviii. 3 7 ^ so also ot ix irepiTOfirjs, oi ix vbfiov, ol
ix irlaTews Rom. iii. 26, iv. 12, 14. Ol e| ipiOelas are such
as have their origin, so to speak, from ipiOeia, and therefore have
ite characteristics in them, the same notion that is expressed
elsewhere by Texvov, vlbs, comp. viol Trjs direiOelas, Eph. ii. 2,
v. 6 ; Col. iii. 6, in contrast with Texva viraxorjs, 1 Pet. i. 14.
'EpiOela is to be derived from ipiOevofiai, like iraiSela from
iraiSevw, BovXela from BovXevw, dXa^ovela from dXa&vevo/iai.
But ipiOevw comes from 6, r) epiOos, which in its original signifi-

CHAP. II. 8. 75
cation = mercenarius, mercenaria, hireling, day-labourer, hired ser
vant. Hence ipiOeveiv, ipiOeveaOai, to serve for hire. But the
substantive ipiOeia occurs in classical Greek only in Aristotle,
in the sense : passion for intrigue, party spirit. This meaning
might perhaps be adopted in the other passages, 2 Cor. xii. 20,
Gal v. 20, Phil. i. 16, ii. 3, Jas. hi. 14, 16, but in the
present one yields no suitable sense. On this account the old
Greek exegetes, from Origen to Oecumenius, interpreted ipiOeia
by cpiXoveixla, contentio, contentiousness. So, too, Luther : " To
those who are quarrelsome ! " It would then designate their
opposition to the truth, and nirva rnD, Ps. v. 11, Hos. xiv. 1 ;
T\\rv ^btin trvo, Num. xx. 24, xxvii. 14, 1 Sam. xii. 15, may be
compared, which the LXX. render in the latter passage (comp. Deut.
xxi. 20) by ipl^eiv, ipeOLQiv. As respects this meaning of the word
ipiOeia, contentiousness, stubborn resistance, it may perhaps be ex
plained either by a misunderstanding of the etymology, ipiOeia being
derived wrongly from epis, ipt&, or, as is more probable, by the
affinity of the notion of party spirit with that of contentiousness,
stubborn resistance ; as e.g. Ps. ii., the princes form a party to with
stand the Lord and His anointed. In explanation of the choice of
this expression, striking reference has been made to the well-known
characteristic cpiXoveixla of the Jews. With this Justin M. re
proaches them in Dial. c. Tryph., where he calls them cpiXeplaTovs,
cpiXepiSas in contrast with <piXaXrjQeis, and accuses them of
cpiXepiaTeiv, ed. Otto, II. 212 D, 228 D, 390 E, 412 E. From
the first their ingrained love of controversy displayed itself in
opposing the truth. It is true the apostle speaks (vv. 7, 8) not
only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles ; but, in keeping with
the contents of this chapter, he has the Jews chiefly in view," and
in relation even to ot e'f ipiOeias the 7ow8ato? tc irp&Tov holds
good. Also in Ignat. ad. Philad. c. 5, where it is said : irapaxaXw
Be ifias firjBev xaT ipiOelav irpdaaeiv, dWd xard j£pto-TO/ia0tdz/,
as the sequel of the discourse shows, ipiOeia is not passion for
intrigue, partisanship, but Judaizing contentiousness. Meyer ob
jects that the explicative supplement xal direiOovai — dSixla
expressly proves x that Paul " has before his mind the strict and
1 So in former editions ; but in later ones he speaks of the addition, not as " ex
plicative," but merely as "further describing these men," and says, not that it
"proves," but merely that it "quite allows." Mehring arbitrarily enlarges the
notion of " party spirit " to " endeavouring to advance oneself and outstrip others,"

76 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
proper sense of the word partisanship, and it is therefore unwar
rantable to base the common but linguistically erroneous expla
nation on the affinity between the notions of partisanship and
contentiousness." As if disobedience to the truth were not a far
apter illustration of contentiousness, in the sense of contentious
resistance and obstinacy against the truth, than of partisanship,
partisan conduct.
— xal direiOovai fiev T?j aXvOela, ireiOo/ievois Be Trj dBixla]
The xal is exphcative, the nature of ipiOeia being now more
definitely characterized. It just consists in stubborn opposition to
the truth. dXr)0ela and dSixla appear here as it were personified,
and obedience is yielded and refused them (Gal. v. 7). But
dXvOela in this passage is revealed truth in distinction from
dXrjQela, i.. 18. dXrjOela and dSixla are opposed to each other
also in 1 Cor. xiii. 6 ; 2 Thess. ii. 1 2. From the bibhcal point
of view truth involves righteousness, and unrighteousness false
hood. Hence we read, Eph. iv. 24, of the Sixaioavvr) Trjs
dXrjOelas, and 2 Thess. ii. 10 of the airaTT) Trjs dSixlas. " Veritas
continet justitiam: et injustitia connotat mendacium," Bengel.
We say iirtcpepew, but not well diroSiSbvai bpyrjv xal Qvp,bv.
Hence, perhaps, arose the change of construction, so that to bpyr]
xal Ovfibs an ecTat is to be supplied. In contrast with ^orqv
aiwviov, one would have expected xbXaaiv or oXeOpov aiwviov
instead of bpyr) xal Ovfibs. This is not so much a metonymia
causae pro effectu, in so far as bpyr] works xoXaais, as that in the
bpyr] Oeov falling on man a main element of the xoXaais itself is
found. Ovfibs excandescentia, strong passion, vehement feeling,
intensifies the notion of 007??, like d Ovfibs Trjs bpyrjs, Rev. xvi.
19, xix. 15. Ira et excandescentia is not really different from
ira et vehemens quidem.
Ver. 9 along with ver. 10 contains an emphatic resumption
of vv. 7, 8. The order is reversed, and the unrestricted univer
sality of the recompense made specially prominent. Penal
menace is in the first place and in accumulated phraseology re
peated, because the very purpose in the whole of the context is,
stated more exactly : " endeavouring to advance oneself in God's sight by displacing
or supplanting others." In this case it would be better to abide by the meaning
" work for hire, mercenariness," which would be strikingly applicable to the
Jews, only that of course it supplies no antithesis to xal' iim/i. 'ipy, ay. 5o|, Z,nnh,
v.7.

CHAP. II. 10. 77
by threatened judgments, to alarm the natural man and lead him
to acknowledgment of his sin,
— OXlyfris Kal aTevoxwpld] sc. earai. That arevoxcopla ex
presses a higher degree of distress than Oxtyis, is shown by 2 Cor.
iv. 8 : ev iravTi OXifibfievoi dXX' ov aTevoxoypovfievoi. aTevox<opla
is a OXfyis from which there is no way of escape. In both
words the element of external calamity is not to be sundered
from that of internal suffering, although in 0Xli]ns the former, in
aTevoxa>pia the latter predominates. OXtyis xal aTevox<>>pla are
found connected, as here, so also LXX. Isa. vhi. 22 (for the Heb.
natyni rm), xxx. 6 (npwi rny); Rom. vhi. 35.
— eVi irdaav ifrvxvv avOpwirov] By a Hebraism B^K B^"'? is
irdaa ^vxv avOpwirov, every soul of man = every person. So too
xiii. 1 : irdaa tyvxy igovalais virepexovaais viroTaaaeaOw ; Acts
ii. 41, 43, hi. 23 (irdaa ^rvxr) rjns av, from Dent, xviii. 19 :
")E>'i< C'^n, where the LXX. have d dvOpwiros o? idv), vii. 14, xxvh.
3 7. Thus, in the present passage, no special reference is intended
to the soul as the suffering part. This would have required
iirl "jrvxrjv iravTos dvOpomov or iirl irdaav ^vx^fv avOpwirwv.
Statistics also speak of the number of " souls " instead of " men "
or " inhabitants." But Mehring well observes that the justifica
tion of the phrase lies in the fact that the soul, as the sole subject
of feehng, is the real man.
— toO xaiepya&fievov to xaxbv] The present tense expresses
persistence in evil-doing. xaTepydgecrOai, perficere, to accomplish,
intensifying the notion of epyd^eaOai, comp. on i. 27.
— ,IovSalov tb irpwTov] The priority of Israel, comp. on i. 16,
consisting in iriaTevOrjvai t« Xbyia tov Oeov, iii. 2, is also a
ground of special responsibihty in judgment. The measure of
opportunity determines the measure of guilt (Amos ih. 2 ; Matt.
xi. 22 ; Luke xii. 47, 48).
Ver. 10. The apostle had spoken (ver. 7) of those who seek
Bbgav xal Tifirjv xal dcpOapaiav. He now says that they shall
attain what they seek, namely, Sbfja xal Tifir) xal elprjvt). eiprjvr]
stands in contrast with OXtyis xal aTevox^pla. But the apostle
is speaking in this passage both of the Jews and Gentiles before
Christ (for even among the latter were always found those to
whom the iirayyeXlai tov 'IaparjX applied, as, passing by
Melchizedek, a Rahab, Ruth, a Naaman, Cornelius, and others
prove), and of the Jews and Gentiles of his own day, for,

78 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
indeed, in the whole of the chapter he has to do with the Jews
as his contemporaries. Further, among such believing Israel
ites and cpofiovfievots tov Oeov the preaching of Christ found
instant response and welcome, so that their faith in the ipxbfievos
was raised, transfigured, and perfected into faith in the eXOwv.
But Paul as yet keeps the advent of Christ in the background,
and carries his description of paganism and Judaism (ch. i.-ii.)
only up to the time of this advent, irrespective of the specifically
new elements of the Christian revelation of salvation. On this
account the colours and tints of the picture are taken throughout
with masterly, sure, and delicate tact simply from the mental
sphere of paganism and Judaism.
Ver. 11 states the ground of the universality (asserted w. 9,
1 0) of divine retribution, in opposition to Jewish particularism,
which assigned punishment only to Gentiles, reward only to Jews,
and accordingly must have found the 'IovSalov Te irpwTov, ver.
9, and xal "EXXrjvt, ver. 1 0, specially offensive. But the apostle,
in keeping with the starting-point of the chapter, refutes here, as
w. 12, 13 indicate, specially the first illusion of the absolute
impunity of the Jews ; in vv. 26, 27, the second illusion of their
exclusive title to reward.
— oi yap e'crTi irpoawiroXrj-^rla irapd tco Oew] Deut. x. 1 7 ;
1 Sam. xvi. 7 ; 2 Chron. xix. 7 ; Job xxxiv. 19 ; Acts x. 34, 35 ;
Gal. ii. 6 ; Eph. vi. 9 ; Col. iii. 25 ; 1 Pet. i. 17. The phrase
irpbawirov Xa/if3dvew, whence irpoawiroXtj-^rla, answering to the
Heb. EMB KBO (Steiger on 1 Pet. p. 162 f.), is not found in
classical Greek. The irpbawirov of man is his outward appear
ance in birth, position, work, etc. Xafifidveiv is = to receive,
accept, regard. Only an unjust judge regards the person in the
sense stated, a just judge looks only at the case. Thus in spite
of the distinction in rank and order of succession, obtaining
between Israel and the Gentiles, the ground and nature of divine
retributive righteousness remains unchanged.
Ver. 12. oo-oi yap dvbpws fjuapTov] i.e. the Gentiles, dvbfiws
= %to/3t? vbfiov, without being in possession of the law, 1 Cor.
ix. 2 1 : ol avofioi. The vb/ios here, as follows of itself, is the
vb/ios Mwvaews, the apostle ascribing even to the Gentiles (w. 14,
15) a natural law of morality. In every passage, without excep- •
tion, vb/ios, without quahfication, denotes the positive law revealed
through Moses. Deviations from this meaning, like vbfios irlarem,

CHAP. II. 13. 79
iii. 27; vbfios dfiapnas, vii. 23; vbfios Sixaioavvrfs, ix. 31;
vbfios XpiaTov, Gal. vi. 2 ; vbfios eXevOeplas, Jas. ii. 12, — are
indicated and justified by the appended adjectival definition itself.
Elsewhere dvofios is not one who has no vbfios, but one who acts
in opposition to law (Mark xv. 28 ; Acts ii. 23 ; 2 Thess. ii. 8 ;
1 Tim. i 9 ; 2 Pet. ii. 8).
— dvbfiws xal d7ro\owTat] shall also perish without law, i.e.
although not judged by the rule of the law, they shall still
perish. The first dvbfiws stands in contrast with ev vbfiw, the
second in contrast with the Bid vb/iov of the second clause =
ovx iv vofiw rffiapTov, oi Bid vbfiov diroXovvTai. diroXovvTai
at once forbids us to suppose a mitigation of the penal judg
ment on the Gentiles, as if dvbfiws meant : not by the 'Severity
of the Mosaic law. ,AiroXXvo0at forms the antithesis to
aw£ea0ai, i. 16. To accept the notion of absolute anni
hilation, in nihilum redigere, flatly contradicts biblical escha-
tology. The apostle says diroXovviai, not xpiOijaovTai, just
because it takes place dvbfiws; but xplais always refers to a
vbfios as its rule. The xal before diroXXvaOai intimates that
dirbXXvaOai follows from dfiapTavew of necessity, or at least is
in exact proportion to it. The duapTla corresponds with the
dirwXeta. Therefore not : without law they sinned, also without
law they shall perish. This would be, as Mehring observes, xal
dvbfiws, not xal diroXovvTai.
— xal oaoi iv vbfiw fjfiapTov] iv vbfiw, with the law, in
possession of the law, sc. SvTes, comp. iii. 19 : ot iv vbfiw.
vbfios denoting the Mosaic law, i.e. an object the only one of its
kind, the article may be omitted, since without it the substantive
is unequivocally defined (Winer, p. 148).
— Sid vb/nov xpiOtjaovrai] xplveiv is used here to denote a
condemning judgment, a xplfia whose result is xaTaxpifia, because
those to be • judged are transgressors of law. In xpiQrjaovTai
perhaps an aggravation of punishment is indicated. Where sin
is, there also is the punishment of death. This holds good equally
for Gentiles and Jews, for God punishes sinners without regard
to persons. Gentiles, as sinners, perish; Jews, as sinners, are
judged. If they claim priority, this is their priority above the
Gentiles. Thus not only is it da a ^vx1!, but also 'IovSalov Te
irpwTov, ver. 9, vindicated.
Ver. 13 corroborates the latter half of ver. 12 : oaoi iv vbfiw

80 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
fj/iapTov. Sid vbfiov xpiQrjaovTai, in opposition to the pharisaically-
minded Jews, who fancied that they were exempted from judg
ment by mere possession of the law. The parenthesizing of ver.
13 is to be rejected, as this verse contains a principal idea closely
linked with ver. 12.
— ot dxpoaTal tov vbfiov] The article here before vbfiov, as in
the subjoined words ot iroirjTai tov vbfiov, is apparently to be
expunged, with Lachmann, on the preponderant authority of the
oldest uncials. We should not say so well : the hearers of the law,
as rather : the readers of the law. But the Jews acquired their
knowledge of the law by hearing it read in the synagogue every
Sabbath (John xh. 34 ; Acts xv. 21 ; 2 Cor. hi. 14 ; Gal. iv. 21 ;
Jas. i. 2 2 ff.). The hearers (subst. not part.) aptly describes their
standing characteristic.
SiKaiwOrjaovTai] corresponding to Blxaioi irapd tw 0ew in the
first clause : they shall be declared just before God's tribunal.
Sixaiovv, the Heb. P"Mi}, is, as this passage at once proves, terminus
forensis : to declare just, not :" to make just, for doers of the law
are already just, they are not made such first by God. Sixaiovv
from Slxaios, after the analogy of TvtpXovv and other verbs in ba
derived from adjectives of the second declension, in accordance
with etymology, doubtless = to make just. Nevertheless, as the
usage of the LXX. and the N. T. prove, we must add in thought :
by declaring. So also the Roman says : " alicui virtutem tribuere ;"
and the German : " Jemanden fromm machen, Jemanden zum
Diebe machen." See the complete evidence for the forensic
meaning of Sixaiovv, especially in articulo justificationis, in my
Thatigen Gehorsam Christi, pp. 85-110. Comp. also Wieseler on
Gal. ii. 16. Whether or not there are such perfect iroirjTai tov
vbfiov the apostle does not say in this passage, but only opposes
the true standard to the false standard of the Jews, that dxpoaTal
tov vbfiov are just before God. The entire reasoning of the
Roman epistle tends to this conclusion, that no man is by nature
such a iroirjTrjs tov vbfiov, or can be. Wherefore Sixalwais comes
not ex vbfiov, but ex irlaTews. The iroieiv of the vbfios is nothing
but the subsequent result of the foregoing Sixalwais ; but doubtless
in the strength of justifying grace this is possible (w. 26, 27 ;
Jas. i. 22-25). " De jure itaque loquitur apostolus," remarks
Calov, " non de facto, quod lex perfectissimam obedientiam, non
solum externam, sed etiam internam, imo summam totius naturae

CHAP. II. 14. 81
integritatem exigat. Tales autem legis factores non dari hie
ex institute docet: ut concludat neminem per legem justi-
ficari." Ver. 14. The Gentiles, although they have not the revealed
law, yet testify, by their acting in harmony with law, that they
are a law to themselves. — The most natural and obvious con
nection of this verse is manifestly with ver. 13. There are some
interpreters who would find in this verse the idea that the devout
among the heathen, through obedience to the precepts of the
natural law of conscience, might become acceptable to God. But
this interpretation must be set down as an utterly abortive par-
hermeneia. First of all, this meaning can be found in the
apostle's words only in the most arbitrary way. All that he says
is : " The Gentiles also have a law," and confirms this further in
ver. 14. But he does not say: "The Gentiles also, by follow
ing the law, become just before God." Moreover, such a pro
position contradicts not only the fundamental conceptions of the
Pauline doctrine of sin and justification in general, but also in
particular the whole tenor of the exposition i. 18-iii 20, whose
very theme is ovx eon Slxaios oiSe els, hi. 10 ; irdvTas v<f>'
dfiaprlav elvai, iii 9. To involve the apostle in such self-
contradictions is not only to have no conception of a book of
Holy Scripture, but no conception even of Pauhne precision of
thought. Other interpreters understand the Gentiles being justified
through observance of the law of conscience, as hypothetical
merely. " The Jews shaR be justified, not by hearing, but only
by doing the law ; the Gentiles also shall be justified in this
way." In this case merely the condition on which justification
depends, not its actual existence, or merely a rule of imputation in
the case of the Gentiles, is supposed to be estabhshed. But apart
from objections drawn from the imperfect nature of the Gentile
law of conscience in relation to the revealed vbfios, even this
sense is, just as httle as the former one, to be got from the
apostle's words. To obtain it the explanation is given: "The
Jews shall be justified, not by hearing, but by doing the law.
This holds good of the Gentiles also, for the Gentiles also have
a law." But in this the thought, to which the confirmatory yap
of ver. 14 is referred, " this holds good of the Gentiles also," is
arbitrarily foisted in. The thought : " The Jews become righteous
only by doing the law, for the Gentiles are a law to themselves,"
Philippi, Rom. I. I"

82 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
is absolutely unintelligible, and it becomes no one, for the purpose
of giving it a meaning, to supply at pleasure : " This holds good
of the Gentiles also." For these reasons other interpreters would
not refer this 14th verse back to ver. 13 at all, but take it as
giving the reason for the first half of the 12th verse, namely, for
the words oti dvbfiws rffiapTov, dvo/iws xal diroXovvTai. " The
Gentiles perish dvbfiws, for although they are dvo/iot, they never
theless have a vbfios by which they are rightly judged." Very
truly has it been remarked against this view that it is very
arbitrary, when in the entire course of the reasoning yap always
refers to what immediately precedes, to refer otuv yap, ver. 14,
to ver. 12, and to explain away ver. 13 (although containing a
most striking confirmation of the second half of ver. 12) by a
parenthesis. Certainly as a parenthesis must ver. 1 3 in any case
be taken according to the interpretation in question. Manifestly
the apostle must in that case have developed his thoughts in the
following order : " They who sinned without law shaU also perish
without law ; for although avofioi, they have yet a vbfios. They
who sinned in the law shaU be judged by the law; for not
hearers, but doers of the law are just." But if ver. 13 is to be
taken as confirming the second half of ver. 1 2, not parenthetically,
ver. 14, as confirming the first half of ver. 12, must necessarily
have been introduced by some such form as bfiolws Be xal, instead
of by oTav yap. — We must therefore abide by the view that ver.
14 contains the confirmation of ver. 13. But then it can only
confirm the words of the 1 3th verse : oi yap ol dxpoaTal tov vbfiov
SUaioo irapd tg> 0ew. " Not hearers of the law are just before
God, for the Gentiles also have a law, i.e. for the Gentiles also
are dxpoaTal tov vbfiov." The Jews were filled with pride and
conceit in their possession of the law, their hearing and know
ledge of the law. In this they held their superiority to the
Gentiles to consist. The apostle shows how futile is this
superiority, since mere knowledge of the law cannot be denied
even to the Gentiles. This exposition harmonizes also with the
entire strain of this second chapter; for everywhere (vv. 1, 9, 10,
11, 26, 27) the apostle aims at reducing to nothing the illusive
prerogative of the Jews above the Gentiles. Hence he begins
the third chapter with the question rising naturaRy out of the
exposition of the second : ti oiv to irepiaabv tov 'IovBalov ;
But then it follows as matter of course from this intimate con-

CHAP. II. 14. 83
-nection of ver. 14 with ver. 13, that no parenthesis can be begun
with ver. 14.1
— orav] puts a case whose occurrence is described as possible :
in case that = as often as (Matt. xv. 2 ; John viii 44 ; 1 Cor.
xiv. 26).
— eOvrj] Luther rightly : the Gentiles. The article before the
substantive may be dispensed with when an adjectival definition
follows, comp. ix. 30. Even without such addition e0vr\ i may be
referred to the entire Gentile world, and as a self-defined totahty
stand without the article (iii. 29; Luke xxiv. 47; Steiger
on 1 Pet. i. 10; Huther and de Wette on 1 Pet. ii 4).
Others translate indefinitely : Gentiles. So e.g. Meyer : Gentiles
among whom the supposed case occurs. Comp, too, Hofmann,
Schriftbeweis, I. p. 567, and van Hengel here. But here the sub
ject is not merely individual Gentiles, but the totahty of Gentiles.
If the absence of the article is. pressed, we must interpret : " Men
who are Gentiles," in which case their collective whole would still
be contemplated. All Jews boast of possessing the law. The
apostle shows that in this all, not merely individual, Gentiles are
their equals. The delineation of morals given in the first chapter
is not in contradiction with this ; for the life of the Gentile world,
1 In spite of Meyer's adverse comments, I am still unable to depart from the view
given in the text. I do not understand how vv. 14, 15 can establish the regulative
principles of justification through the law (ol oromrxi wv vipou hxtuvMntm, ver. 13)
in respect to the Gentiles ; for even if the Gentiles fulfilled their viftog ypxvris h rxTs
xapdixis xi/ruv, they Would Still not be vrowrat rod vbpov to whom the ttxxioffvvvt 8tou
could be due, because the natural law of conscience is still but a substitute for the
revealed law, and contains the chief command of the latter, the command of love, if
at all, in any case in a very imperfect form and obscure shape. But nothing but
&yx«n is the x-kvpu/ix vi/iov, xiii. 10. — What Meyer advances against this objection
of mine in subsequent editions leaves the matter just where it was. The question is
not, that really neither the Jews fulfil the revealed law, nor the Gentiles the law of
conscience, and therefore neither of the two, as matter of fact, is justified through
the fulfilment of His law ; but the question is that in the case of the Gentiles even
the possibility does not exist, which Meyer's exposition supposes, of being justified
through perfect fulfilment of their imperfect law. But when Meyer calls the
exposition given by me in the text arbitrary, because it refers yip, ver. 14, not to
the assertion directly preceding (ol tromrxi <r. top. iixxiai.), ver. 13, but to the purely
negative sentence (ob yxp ol xxpoxrx) r. nop. Si*, a-xpx r. faif), which merely served to
prepare the way for this assertion, it is to be remarked that this negative sentence
really contains the main thought of ver. 13, which suggests the positive assertion as
a natural antithesis. The Jews were judged by the law (ver. 12), for the mere
possession of the law does not, as they fancy, exempt them from judgment. — The
objections of Mehring, based on utter misunderstanding, nay, an entire perversion
of my view, need no refutation for the thoughtful reader.

84 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
even in its deepest degeneracy, was regulated by rules and prin
ciples having the sanction of law, and the individual Gentile,
even though belonging to the most corrupt class, still could
not absolutely break with all conduct framed in harmony with
law. — Tct fir] vbfiov exoVTa~\ n0* T* vbfiov firj ex0VTa> ln order to
mark more distinctly the contrast of fir) vbfiov exeiv and cpvaei Ta
tov vofiov iroieiv.
— cpvaei] not, as some expositors wish, to be joined with the
foregoing to fir) vbfiov ex0VTa> Dut wrtn the following to tou vbfiov
iroiff. The first mode of connection makes cpvaei flat and pleonastic,
if it can be said at all of the revealed law which comes only Oeaei
that any one has it cpvaei. But cpvaei has the force of natura
duce, without being impelled thereto by command from without :
without undergoing the disciphne of the Mosaic law, Schol. Matt,
cpvaei, TOVTean toi? cpvaixois eirofieva Xoyiafiois.
— t« tov vbfiov irotrj] do what belongs to the law, what is con
tained in the law, observe the precepts of the law. Paul says not
tov vbfiov iroieiv, as in ver. 13, or tov vbfiov TeXeiv, as in ver. 27,
but Ta tov vbfiov iroieiv. Thus they keep not the vbfios in its
profound inner sense (vi! 14) and entirety, but observe parti
cular, outward commands in it — one this, another that. They
have epya vbfiov, like the Jews who still are not on this account
iroirjTai, but only dxpoaTal tov vbfiov. The plural iroi&aiv in
stead of iroifi, which Lachmann has received, appears to be a
grammatical correction.
— ovtoi] referring to eOvt] Ta fir) exovra vbfiov, a current con
structs ad sensum (Matt, xxviii. 1 9 ; Acts xxvi. 1 7). It resumes
with energy eOvrj Td firj vo/iov exovra in the sense of ot toiovtoi,
such men, they who do the commands of the law without having
the law.
— eavTois elai vbfios] are the law to themselves, or : are to them
selves instead of the law = they give the law to themselves.
Interpreters quote Aristot. Eth. Nicom. iv. 14 : d eXevOepios ovtws
e£et, olov vbfios wv eavTw. But it is not to be rendered, with
Luther : they are a law to themselves, but : are the law to them
selves ; for vbfios is always, as already observed, the Mosaic law,
and what the apostle wishes to intimate is just this, that in their
possession of the Mosaic law the Jews have no precedence over
the Gentiles. But the apostle here characterizes the import of

CHAP. II. 15. 85
the vbfios from the standpoint of the Jews ; what the vbfios was
to them, the entire series of external commands, though relating
to moral conduct, this in point of fact the Gentiles also possessed.
But the deeper spiritual nature of the vbfios remained a mystery
to both alike, to Jews as to Gentiles.
Ver. 15. otrive?] quippe qui, as those who, who indeed, they .who,
introduces the explanation and confirmation of eavTois elai vbfios.
Hence to be taken in a directly causal sense : for they, i. 25.
— ei/Se//ciwTat] manifest, make known, namely, by their very
tci tow vbfiov iroieiv, ver. 14, not by the fiapTvpla Trjs avveiSrjaews
adduced immediately afterwards. Apart from all else there is no
logical cogency in saying : " The Gentiles who do the works of
the law are the law to themselves, for they show their inward
possession of the law by the existence of the testimony of con
science." — to epyov tov vbfiov] is most simply interpreted as correspond
ing to Ta tov vbfiov, ver. 14. The singular is collective, as in ver. 7,
embracing the entire sum of the epya vbfiov in a unity. But the
work of the law or the works of the law are written in their
hearts, in so far as they confess themselves bound by the law.
— ypairTov iv Tais xapSlais aiTwv] The emphasis rests on iv
Tais xapSlais avTwv, in contrast with the stone tables on which
the decalogue, or even with the rolls on which the entire Mosaic
law, was recorded. By their acting in harmony with law, the
Gentiles show that they possess the law recorded, not indeed on
stone and parchment, but on their heart, and so far are the law
to themselves.
— avfifiapTvpovarjs avTwv Trjs avveiBrjaews] their conscience at
the same time bearing witness, namely, that the work of the law is
written on their heart, that they are the law to themselves. Two
witnesses, then, testify to the Gentiles' possession of the law : first,
their acting in accordance with law ; secondly, the existence of
conscience in them. avfifiapTvpeiv retains its primary significa
tion : una testari, to testify at the same time, namely, at the same
time with Ta tov vbfiov iroieiv, in which the first evSei^is consists.
By awelSrjais here can only be understood conscience consequens
so caUed, conscience antecedens being the vbfios ypainos iv Tais
KapBiais. That they have in their hearts a consciousness of the
demands of the moral law, they indicate first by their acting in
accordance with law, and again by their conscience passing judg-

86 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
ment on their acts. The nature of this avveiSrjais is brought to
light in the following words.
— xn\ fieTagii dXXrjXwv tow Xoyia/iwv xaTtjyopovvTWV rj Kal
diroXoyovfievwv] the thoughts accusing or excusing, and by the very
fact that conscience manifests itself in these judicial acts, bear
witness to the presence of vbfios ypairibs iv Tais KapSlais. As the
words /cat fieTa%v . . . diroXoyovfievwv contain the epexegesis of av/i-
fiapT. . . . avveiBrjaews, the /cat is to be taken exphcatively. fiera^v
dXXrjXwv, one among another. There takes place, as it were, a
dialogue between the thoughts, one accusing, the other acquitting.
Thus we get the meaning : one to another, alternatim, reciprocally.
tot Xoyiafiwv, the thoughts, as the individual actions of the'
avveiSrjais, the employment of the latter in the way of reflection
upon the case lying at any time before it. xaTrjyopovvrwv rj xal
diroXoyovfievwv is used absolutely. The object of the accusation
or acquittal is the act brought before the critical tribunal of the
conscience, rj xal, or even. Thus the conscience will find more
to accuse than acquit. From this it is evident how far the
apostle is from identifying Ta tov vbfiov iroieiv, ver. 14, with
irXrjpwfia vbfiov, xiii. 10. Despite the partial obedience to law
on the part of the Gentile world, the main function of conscience
in every particular individual will consist in accusing his acts. —
Indirectly, then, w. 14, 15 certainly contain an iUustration of
the first clause of ver. 12, for that the Gentiles perish, although
avofioi is based upon the fact of their having in the law of con
science a substitute for the vo/ios.1 At the same time, in the
close of ver. 1 5 the thought of the predominance of the condemn
ing activity of conscience is made specially emphatic. Hence it
was natural for the apostle, with ver. 16, to return to the thought,
already floating before his eyes in vv. 12, 13, of the day of final
judgment. Ver. 16. The witness of conscience, spoken of in ver. 15,
referred to moral conduct in the present life. But as the apostle
was describing it, the thought was borne vividly in upon his
mind in the way indicated, how this would manifest itself most
decisively in the general judgment. On this account he passes
1 In so far Calov's remark holds good : " Scopus autem Apostoli est convincere gentes,
quod non defuerint ipsis media cognoscendi, quodque inexcusabiles sint, etiamsi solo
naturae lumine instructi, atque id conclusio etiam Apostoli probat, nimirum gentiles
citra legem scriptam peccantes, citra legem condemnandos esse, ex sola naturae lege."

CHAP. II. 16. 87
on to the latter without so much as indicating the change in the
course of thought by varying the phraseology, as by xal tovto
fidXiaTa, Winer, p. 707.1 Therefore ver. 16 is to be joined
directly with ver. 15. To connect it with ver. 12 or ver. 13 is
not allowable. For apart from the fact that no parenthesis begins,
as we have seen, with ver. 13 or ver. 14, and therefore ver. 15
cannot close one, in ver. 16 after so long a digression some sign
of the resumption should have been found. But yet the reference
to the future final judgment can begin neither with evSeUvvvTai,
ver. 15, nor with avfifiaprvpovar]s, nor with /cat fieTafjii dXXrjXwv.'
In the first case we should have expected, for the sake of clear
ness, either eV fff-epa ore xpivei xtX. to come first, or to see the
future of the verbs used (ivSelxvvaOai, av/ifiapTvpeiv, xaTr/yopeiv).
Further, we saw that with ivSeixvvvTai logical sequence compels
us to supply : by iroieiv Td tov vbfiov. And if we desired to
begin the reference to the future with avfifiapTvpovarjs, the
ratification by the testimony of conscience in the present life
would be passed over in a very strange and inappropriate manner.
In the last place, the natural, strict, and epexegetical reference
to the fiap-rvpla Trjs avveiBrjaews forbids us to take the words
xaTrjyopovvTwv rj xal diroXoyovfievwv in the future sense. Rightly
says Calvin : " Observa autem, quam erudite describat con-
scientiam, quum elicit nobis venire in mentem rationes, quibus,
quod recte factum est, defendamus : rursum quae nos flagitiorum
accusent ac redarguant. Rationes autem istas accusandi ac de-
fendendi ad diem Domini confert: non quia sint tunc primum
emersurae, quae assidue nunc vigent ac officium suum exercent :
sed quia sint tunc quoque vahturae, ne quis ut frivolas et evanidas
contemnat." But we are not on this account to take iv rffiepa,
ver. 16, for et? fffiepav. Rather is the purport of w. 15, 16 to
be paraphrased : " that the Gentiles have a law written in their
hearts is testified, not only by their conduct being conformed to
law, but also by their conscience and their thoughts which .re
ciprocally accuse or justify even now, but especially in the day
of final judgment." Still, with this is not to be supplied : even
now, but especially ; but xairfyopeiv and diroXoyeiaOai, first of all
contemplated as present now, awaken withal the idea of the
future xaTrjyopla and diroXoyia, the participia praesentis realizing
the future in a more vivid manner. How conscience in particular
1 So in the fifth edition ; in the sixth he adopts another construction.

88 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
decisively and powerfully exercises its judicial office, Wisd. v.
13, 14 describes.
— Ta KpvirTa twv dvOpwirwv] are not the Xoyiafiol mentioned
in the previous verse, for these are not the object of judgment,
but themselves assent to God's judgment, especiaUy in so far as
they make xaTrjyopla. Further, Ta KpvirTa tow dvOpwirwv denotes
not exclusively the secret dispositions of men, as in 1 Cor. iv. 5,
xiv. 25, where Ta KpvirTa Trjs KapSlas is expressly said, but
secret deeds are meant as weU, comp. Eph. v. 12 : Ta xpvtprj
yivbfieva vir ovtwv ; 2 Cor. iv. 2 : Ta KpvirTa Trjs alaxvvrjs ; Luke
vih. 1 7 : oi yap ian xpvirTov, b oi cpavepbv yevrjaeTai. The
hidden things of men : Ta KpvirTa tow dvOpcoirwv, are thus aU
things in the inward and outward life that either are not known
to others at all, or not known according to their moral character.
But no doubt the phrase is selected on suggestion of, and with
reference to, Xoyiafiol, ver. 15, because these are hidden things
that come to light in the day of judgment, and because they also
bring before their tribunal not only open, but also, and indeed
chiefly, secret deeds and purposes.
— xaTd to eiayyeXibv fiov] " Suum appellat ratione ministerii,"
says Calvin. " Plane sicut ego hoc omnibus popuhs annuntio,"
explains Grotius, comp. 2 Tim. ii. 8. Even the announcement
of the judgment day is a part of supernatural revelation. Comp.
Mehring- here.
— Std 'Irjaov XpiaTov] the Mediator of grace, as of judgment
(John v. 22 ; Acts x. 42, xvii. 31 ; 1 Cor. iv. 5 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ;
2 Tim. iv. 1). But then the substance of the thoughts developed
vv. 14-16 contains, of course without design, not only a further
expansion of otrwe? to Sixalw/ia tov Oeov iiriyvbvTes, i 32, but
also above aU a complement to i. 19, 20. The revelation of
nature and reason is the medium to the Gentiles of knowledge
of God ; but they have withal a knowledge of law of which the
medium is the consciousness implanted within them. Doubtless
both these are obscured by sin, but even their remnants suffice
to leave them without excuse in God's sight. The knowledge of
God surviving condemns their idolatry; the knowledge of law
surviving condemns their immoral life.
Ver. 17 recurs to ver. 13. Not hearers of the law are just
before God, ver. 13, for knowledge respecting the law pertains even
to the Gentiles, vv. 14-16 ; but if thou boastest of this know-

CHAP. II. 17. 89
ledge, hearing, and possession of the law, and yet art a trans
gressor of the law, thy boasting is vain and futile, and will
therefore avail thee nothing towards the righteousness that God
regards, vv. 17—24. Everything said in this chapter hitherto
in a certain sense paves the way for this last section, vv. 17—24,
in which the apostle attacks the Jews openly, lays bare their sins,
and shows that they are no better than the Gentiles, et Se]
The apodosis commences with ver. 21. After the protasis:
"If thou knowest the law and boastest of it," one would have
expected the apodosis : " wherefore transgressest thou the law ? "
But with ver. 21 begins an easy change of construction, occasioned
by the accumulation of protases, as the resumptive o3v, usual in
such an anacoluthon, intimates. Winer : " The simple apodosis
which Paul had in his thoughts was perhaps this : thou oughtest
tlwn thyself to act according to law. But he expands this thought,
proceeding antitheticaUy, in such a form that in the words
SiBdaxwv, xnpvaawv, fiSeXvaabfievos, allusion is made to the con
tents of the protasis." J The reading t'Se or 'ISe, after which
Luther translated, instead of et Se, which, moreover, is attested by
external authorities, either arose from the itacism (comp. Jas.
iii. 3), or is a designed correction for the purpose of avoiding the
anacoluthon. — 'IovSaios] After the return from the Babylonian exile the
name of the whole people of Israel, Neh. ii. 16, v. 17; withal a
title of honour in distinction from the Gentiles, Gal. ii. 1 5 ; Rev.
ii. 9, hi. 9.
— iirovofiaijg] not : thou art surnamed, but : thou art named ;
for iirovofid^eiv Tivd ti may be resolved into bvofid^ew iirl Tivd
ti, and then does not differ from bvoud^eiv Tivd ti, comp. LXX.
Gen. iv. 17, xxv. 26.
— iiravairavrj tco vbfiw] = ireiroiOas iv t& vbfiw, Phil. iii. 4 :
ireiroiOevai iv aapxl, denotes the confidence, the rehance and
trust of the Jews in the outward possession of the law, on which
they, as it were, reposed. So Mic. iii. 11 : «JNf. nin^yi; LXX. :
xal iirl tov xvptov iiraveiravovro. Comp. 1 Mace. vhi. 1 2 : fieTa
Be twv <p'iXwv avTwv xal twv iiravairavofievwv aiTOis avveT^prjaav
cpiXlav. ¦> The article before vbfiw in the present passage is wanting
in good manuscripts, and, with Lachmann, is probably to be
omitted, as in ver. 13.
1 Winer, p. 711. (The quotation in Philippi is from a former edition.)

90 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— xavxaaai iv Oefi] Thou boasted of God, as one who is the
Father and covenant God of Israel exclusively. The apostle
does not question this priority in the abstract (comp. ix. 4 ; Gen.
xvii 7 ; Jer. xxxi. 3 3), for in point of fact it furnished matter
for genuine /cau^o-t? (Isa. xiv. 25 ; Jer. ix. 24). But the Jews
forfeited even this priority. " Haec igitur non cordis gloriatio sed
linguae jactantia fuit," says Calvin. On the uncontracted form
xavxaaai, comp. Winer, p. 90. The preposition iv indicates the
sphere in which the boasting is carried on, or that wherein the
boasting rests, after the analogy of xa^Peiv> TepireaOai iv. Mani
festly in the words 'lovSaios iirovofi. — iiravair. vbfitp — xavx- iv
Oew a gradation finds place.
Ver. 18. ywwaxeis to OeXrjfia] namely, as is self-evident
(xii. 2), ai/rov, which is omitted, not as Bengel suggests from
regard to Jewish eiXdfSeia, which shrank from uttering the
divine name, but to obtain a shorter clause in harmony with the
rest.
. — Soxi/id£eis Ta SiacpepovTa] so also in Phil, i 10. Soxifidgetv,
( either : to prove, or : to approve. Ta SiacpepovTa from Siacpepew, to
excel (Matt. vi. 26 ; Heb. i. 4), either =that which excels, oi = that
which differs. Therefore Soxifidgeis Td SiacpepovTa, either : thou
approved that which excels, or : thou provest that which differs, i.e.
that which is right and wrong. The latter meaning seems here
preferable. So already Theodoret rightly : ivavria dXXrjXots,
Sixaioavvrjv xal dSixlav, and Theophylact : xplveis ti Sei irpdl-ai
xal ti fir) Sei irpd^ai ; comp. Heb. v. 14 : Sidxpiais xaXov Te xal
KaKov. Testing the difference between right and wrong is the
result of knowledge of the divine will. No doubt with the
other interpretation : thou approvest the excellent (so already the
Vulgate : " probas utihora "), a chmax arises in relation to yivwaxeis
to OeXrjfia ; but this at least does not appear essential. Luther
follows the Vulgate, although rendering Soxi/id^eiv by " prove : "
" thou provest what is best to be done."
( — xaTrixovfievos ix tov vbfiov] Instruction in the law is the
source of ywwaxew to OeXrjfia and of Soxifid^eiv Ta SiacpepovTa,
because in the law itself both the wiU of God and the distinction
of right arid wrong, of pure and impure, are recorded. /caT^oi/-
fievos, part, praes., not KaTrjxrjOels, for it is not youthful instruction,
occurring but once, that is meant, but continuous instruction out
of the law.

CHAP. II. 19, 20. 9 1
Vv. 19, 20. Relying on this their theoretical knowledge of the
law, the Jews even set up as teachers of the Gentiles, whom
they in their arrogance described as TvcpXovs, as tovs iv axbrei,
as atppovas, and vrjirlovs. On the proselytizing of the Jews, and
the judgment passed on it by the Lord, comp. Matt, xxiii. 15.
ireiroiOds Te aeavTov xtX.] The accus. cum infinit. puts for
ward the subject (aeavrbv) with emphasis. Else it might also
have .read : ireiroiOds Te bSrjybs elvai TvcpXwv, or : ireiroiOds Te
on 087770? et rvcpXwv.
— bSr/ybv elvai TvcpXwv] comp. Matt. xv. 14: bSrjyol elai
TvcpXoi TvcpXwv. The TvcpXol here are not the illiterate Jews,
d oxXos b p/r) yivwaxwv tov vbfiov, John vii. 49, the Pf.^C DJ?,
for from ver. 17 onwards Paul is describing the assumption
of all Jews. Further, here apparently we are not so much to
think of proselytes, although even to them predicates as little
honourable were apphed, as of the Gentiles who were to be
made proselytes.
— <pws t&v iv axoTei] comp. Matt. iv. 16 : d Xabs b xaOrj-
fievos iv axoTei.
— iraiSevrijv dcppbvwv] not: a ehastiser of the ungodly, so that
dobpwv would have to be taken like the Hebrew ?2jij foolish in
the sense of ungodly, but as the synonyms TvcpXol, oi iv axoTei,
vrjirtoi intimate = an educator, a teacher of the foolish.
— SiSdaxaXov vtjirlwv] those not of age, of course not in
years, but in mind, are meant, 1 Cor. hi 1 ; Gal. iv. 3 ; Eph.
iv. 14. The accumulation of synonyms (TvcpXol, oi iv axbrei
xtX.) strengthens the description, and brings out the assumption
of the Jews in keener relief.
— exovTa Trjv fiopcpwaiv Trjs yvwaews xal Trjs dXrjOelas iv t&3
vbfiw] The participle is to be resolved : ut qui habeas. Paul
is speaking here in the person of the Jews who seek to justify
their bearing to the Gentiles, although at the same time he
on his part does not deny that the law really contains what
they find in it. Hence fibpcpwais here cannot be taken in the
sense of species, appearance, shadow, in opposition to reality
and truth. Rather is fibpcpwais (primarily, the act of imagining,
then the result of this act = image, figure) synonymous with
TU7TO?, vi. 17; viroTuirwals, 2 Tim. i. 13= the form, the
impressed figure, the ,real impression, the forma quae rem
exprimat ; comp. Cic. de Off. i 29: forma officii. Among the

92 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Greeks, ubpcpwfia. In the LXX. also fibpcpwais is not found.
The article before fibpcpwais denotes that it is a form cor
responding to the reality, the form absolutely, not merely a
one-sided, defective form, yvwais, like dXrjOeia, in the objective
sense, 1 Tim. vi. 20. yvwais, complete knowledge, is here no doubt
of itself the weU-known truth, but by the addition of dXrjOeia it
is specially distinguished as truthful knowledge. Thus the- truth
is not contained in the law as an abstract idea, but in such
concrete form and shape as man can perceive. On the opinion
of the Jews respecting the law, comp. Ecclus. xxiv. 23—29.
Ver. 21 begins the apodosis, which, falling into distinct
co-ordinate clauses, concludes only with ver. 23. These five
members of the apodosis are most expressively taken, with
the Greek exegetes, with Griesbacb, Lachmann, et al., as inter
rogatory sentences. If the emphasis is not to be lost, they
must at least be taken in the form of an apostrophe. With this
passage comp. LXX. Ps. 1. 1 6 ff. : IvaTi oi Sirjyfj Td Sixauo-
fiaTa fiov, Kal avaXafifidveis Trjv SiaOrjxrjv fiov Bid aTOfians
aov ; av Be ifilarjaas iraiSelav xal e'£e/3a\e? tovs Xbyovs fiov
eh Ta birlaw el iOewpeis xXeirTijv, avverpexes aiTw, xal fieTa
fioix&v Trjv fieplSa aov inOeis. — aeavTov oi StSdaxeis ;] i.e.
thou appliest not thy teaching to thyself, as thy corrupt hfe
shows. Paul adduces three instances of this moral corruption,
xXeiTTew, fioixevew, lepoavXeiv, on which Bengel not inaptly
remarks : " atrocissime peccas in proximum, te ipsum, Deum.
Ad gentes Paulus ostenderat peccata primum contra Deum,
deinde contra se, deinde contra alios, nunc ordinem invertit:
nam peccata contra Deum, in gentibus apertissima sunt, in
Judaeo non item."
— o xrjpvaawv fir) xXeirTeiv] xrjpvaaeiv, N"}pT, to proclaim
aloud, to preach; fir) xXeirTeiv, not to steal, i.e. that one must
or should not steal. But a Seiv or igeivai is not on this
account to be supplied. Rather there is imphed in xrjpvaaeiv
itself (comp. Xeyew, ver. 22) the notion of commanding. On
the construction, comp. Winer, p. 405.
Ver. 22. With d Xeysw fir) fioixevew, fioixeveis, comp. the
history of the adulteress and the Pharisees, John viii. 3-9.
d fiSeXvaabfievos Ta e'lBwXa] the Jews called the idols of the
heathen ffMjjiB', Ezek. xx. 7; niacin, 2 Kings xxiii. 13 ; fiSeXvy-
aaia, 1 Mace. vi. 7.

CHAP. II. 22. 93
C — tejoocn/Xet?] Luther : " thou robbest God of what is His,"
on which he comments : " Thou art a robber of God, for it is
God's glory which all who would be holy through works take
from Him." Similarly Calvin: "sacrilegium simpliciter est
profanatio divinae majestatis ; " Bengel : " quia Deo non das
gloriam, quae proprie Dei est." But as xXeirTeiv, fioixevew,
denote particular outward offences in the proper sense, iepoajj-
Xeiv here is scarcely meant to be taken in this improper,
general, spiritual sense. Others, accordingly, have supposed
a reference to an indirect dishonouring of Jehovah by robbing
His temple at Jerusalem. " Thou art horrified at idols, as if
God's honour were thy sole concern, and yet robbest thou
God's temple?" Appeal has been made to Mai. i. 8-14,
hi. 8—10, Joseph. Antt. Jud. viii. 3. 5 f., where examples of
indirect temple-robbery are recorded. However, the opposition
of BiSdaxeiv and oi SiSdaxeiv, of fir) xXeirTeiv and xXeirTeiv, of
fir) fioixevew and uoixevew, requires us to assume as the opposite
to fSSeXvaaeaOai Ta e'tSwXa a reference to Gentile idolatry. The
complete antithesis would have been d f3SeXvaaoaevos Ta e'tSwXa
tois elSwXois XaTpeveis ; but from the return of the Jews from
exile, idolatry proper no more lifted up its head among them.
On this account Paul selects the sin next in criminality to
idolatry, — robbery of Gentile idol-temples, by which the Jews,
despite their horror of idols, nevertheless, from greed of the
temple-vessels and treasures, really defiled themselves with the
idolatrous images of Gentile temples; thus, according to their
own views, entering into unhallowed feUowship with idols, and
even indirectly participating in idol-worship, comp. 1 Cor. x.
Thus in the words d f3SeXvaab/ievos Ta e'tSwXa, iepoavXeis, sharp
reproach and keen irony are implied. iepoavXeiv in our passage
was early apphed by Chrys., Theoph.,1 and Oecum. to the
robberies committed by Jews in heathen temples. They are
followed by the majority of modern expositors. Such IepoavXeiv
was expressly and strictly forbidden in the law (Deut. vii. 25).
That it nevertheless occurred in those days has been concluded
from Acts xix. 37 ; Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 1 0. Probably it took
1 Theoph. remarks Well : UpdrvXixv Xtyu rhv aQxiplo-iv rajv xvarthfiivav roTs littaXots.
K«) yxp u xxi \fihi\uai7ovTo rx iltoiXx, xX\' ofiue rJj QtXo%pnf*xrix rvpxvvovfisvoi ytfrovra
ruv uduXtxuv xvx^ri/Lxrajv 3/ xttrxpoxtpSlxv, save that he limits Upoo-vXuv too narrowly
to the purloining of the xixSipxTx.

94 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
place more commonly than we are in a position to prove from
the accounts that have come down to us. By xXeineiv, uotxevetv,
iepoavXeiv, then, the apostle describes the sins of robbery, adultery,
and sacrilege that were both openly current among the Jews,
and practised stiH more frequently in secret, nay, were per
petrated under the hypocritical mask of devotion (Matt, xxiii. 14).
Still he certainly did not exclude cognate forms of evil, such as
evil desire and inclination to these sins.
Ver. 23. The apostle having mentioned by name three special
offences, sums up his description of the Jewish violation of the
law in the words of this verse : " To sum up briefly, Thou who
makest boast of the law, dishonourest thou God by trangressing
the law ? " Certainly the language becomes still more impressive
if this concluding verse be taken, not as a question, but as an
apostrophe or categorical declaration, o? iv vbfiw Kavxaaai]
comp. ver. 1 7 : Kavxaaai iv Oew. In Bar. iv. 3, the vbfios is called
the Sb%a of Israel; and in ver. 4 it is said: fiaxdpioi iafiev
'IaparjX oti Ta dpeoTa tov Oeov fifiiv yvwaTa iaTiv ; comp. Ps.
cxlvii. 19, 20.
— tov Oeov aTifid^eis] The antithesis of ev vbfiw xavxaaai and
tov Oebv aTifid^eis is explained by the fact that the vbfios is a vbfios
Oeov. God may be dishonoured by the irapdf3aais vbfiov in a
twofold sense; first, in that the transgressor of the law robs God
of the honour accruing to Him from obedience to the law ; and
again, which is the chief point here, in that he is the cause
of others reproaching the true God, seeing that they judge of
His nature and law by the moral character of His servants.
" Quomodo et hodie," says Calvin, " Christum dehonestant per
evangehi transgressionem, qui de ejus doctrina otiose 'garriunt,
quam interim effreni ac hbidinosa vivendi forma proculcant"
(comp. 2 Pet. ii. 2). The opposite is found Matt. v. 16 : ovtw
XafityaTW to </>w? vfiwv efiirpoaOev toji/ dvOpwirwv, oirws iSwaiv
vfiwv Ta xaXd epya, xal So^dawai tov iraTepa hfiwv tov iv tois
oipavois. On the other hand, from the wickedness of the Jews,
the Genthes might readily infer the impurity of their law and of
Jehovah the lawgiver.
Ver. 24. The apostle ratifies the reproach against the Jews,
urged in ver. 23, by a declaration of Holy Scripture. The
quotation is taken as regards form from Isa. hi. 5 ; as regards
substance, from Ezek. xxxvi. 23. In the passage in Isaiah the

CHAP. II. 25. 95
LXX. translate : 8t' vfids BiairavTos to ovofid fiov (iXaacprjfieiTai iv
toi? eOveai. The words 8t' vuas and iv Tot? eOveaiv are not found
in the original text, but fall in with the sense of the context.
But the context withal makes clear that the Lord in the prophet
rebukes not the Jews, but the Gentiles who profaned the name
of the Lord by their oppression of the Jews His people. In
Ezekiel, on the other hand, it is said, ver. 21: to ovofid fiov to
dyiov, b ifiefirjXwaav dixos 'IaparjX iv tois eOveaiv. There the
Jews are rebuked, because by their banishment, the necessary
consequence of their sins, they afforded the Gentiles ground for
disparaging the glory and honour of Jehovah, as if He were unable
to protect His people. From this Paul derives the general truth,
that every reproach of the people of Israel, not only the reproach
on account of their humiliation in a state of servitude, but also
that on account of their sins, is reflected upon the God of Israel.
And without doubt, in the case lying before us in the prophet,
the power of the God of Israel, and with His power His holiness,
feU under reproach on account of His people's sins, for which
reason He there declares that He will hallow His name anew ;
comp. also 2 Sam. xii 14; Neh. v. 9 ; 1 Tim. vi. 1. On the
KaOms yeypairTai subjoined Bengel observes : " Convenienter hoc
incisum hie in extremo ponitur, de re per se evidente : ponitur
autem ob Judaeos" (ch. hi. 19). Paul, as the yap, found neither
in the Hebrews nor in the LXX, shows, makes the prophet's
utterance his own, and only afterwards indicates that it is a
prophetic declaration by the formula of citation placed at the close.
Ver. 25. The apostle so far had disabused the Jews of the
notion that the outward possession of the revealed law in and of
itself conferred on them pre-eminence above the Gentiles, and
intimated to them that, on the contrary, by their transgression of
the law they were found in the same condemnation as the Gen
tiles. Now he proceeds to strip them of the last refuge to which
they usually betook themselves, their illusive trust in the posses
sion of circumcision. This was so great, that some Jews main
tained the opinion that the circumcised need not expect and fear
the torments of Gehenna. As the outward possession of the law
avails thee nothing, rejoins the apostle, so circumcision avails
thee nothing, if thou break the law. By that thy circumcision
becomes uncircumcision, i.e. thou art regarded as a Gentile. No
harder thing could be said to a Jew.

96 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— irepnofir) fiev ydp wtpeXei, idv vo/iov irpdaays] The self-
defined term irepnofwff does not need the article, just as little as
vbfios, ver. 12, Even in German (and in Enghsh) it is here best
translated without the article Beschneidung, circumcision, as a
descriptive introduction of that to which the Jews attached the
greatest importance. But it is not to be taken metonymicahy
for Judaism in general (d 'IovSaiafibs), or synecdoehicaUy for the
ceremonial law in general, but signifies circumcision as a sign of
the covenant, ydp confirms the position assumed vv. 17-24
" As a transgressor- of the law thou dishonourest God, and thus
art without the Sixaioavvr) Oeov. To this circumcision, in which
thou perchance placest thy trust, makes no difference, for circum
cision is of advantage to him that keeps the law." What the
advantage of circumcision is, this was not the place to explain
further. Paul explains (iii. 2, and especiaUy iv. 11), that to
devout and believing Israelites it was the sign and seal of divine
grace. The possibility of the vbfiov irpdaaeiv meant here is
attested by Ps. cxix.
— dxpofSvaTta yeyovev] The Jews deemed the preputium iyiV
especiaUy impure. That circumcision was to be reckoned uncir-
cumcision, i.e. was to lose ah the advantage which it was believed
to impart to the circumcised over the uncircumcised, was for the
proud Jews a doctrine full of humiliation. Expositors quote
analogous passages from Schemoth Rabba, where, in genuine rab
binical style, it is said in a literal, as here it is said in a meta
phorical sense : " Dixit R. Berechias : Ne haeretici et apostatae
et impii ex Israelitis dicant : quemadmodum circumcisi snmus, in
infernum non descendimus. Quid agit Deus Sanctus Benedictus ?
Mittit angelum etpraeputia ipsorum attrahit (comp. 1 Cor. vh. 18),
ita ut ipsi in infernum descendant!' Comp. Eisenmenger, Ent-
decktes Judenthum, II. p. 339 f. yeyovev is the present of com
pleted action (1 Cor. xiii. 1).
Ver. 2 6 expresses the converse thought. " If the Jew trans
gress the law, his circumcision eo ipso has become uncircumcision,
ver. 25 ; if the Gentile keep the law, his uncircumcision eo ipso
has become circumcision, ver. 26." This last thought is put in
the form of an affirmative question, to intimate that not even the
Jew could take exception to it. The inferential particle oZv refers
to the thought expressed ver. 25, that all depends on the observance
of the law. r) dxpofivaTla] abslractum pro concreto = d d/cpo-*

CHAP. II. 20. 97
fSvaTos. To this nomen concret., which must be taken from the
nomen abstract, the following airov in r) dxpo/3. airov refers.
The converse case is found John viii. 44 : ¦yfrevaTrjs earl xal b
iraTrjp airov (namely, tow tyevSovs) ; Winer, p. 181. Hengsten-
berg, ibid., no doubt translates differently, referring airov to
¦\jreva-rrjs = he is a liar and a father of the liar (as a generic con
ception). — Ta SixaiwfiaTa tov vbfiov cpvXdaay] includes, like tov vbpoov
reXovaa, ver. 2 7, more than Ta tov vbfiov iroieiv, ver. 1 4. There
is expressed by it a perfect, not merely outward, but withal pro
foundly inward observance of the law. Td SiKaiwfiara, decrees,
statutes, ordinances, moral precepts, comp. i. 32.
— et? irepiTOfirfv XoytaOrjaerai] comp. ix. 8 ; Acts xix. 27 :
Xoylgeral ti eh to (or wore) elvai ti. Thus the preposition et?
expresses the result of an act of bringing into account. Uncir
cumcision will be brought into account as circumcision, will be,
reckoned as circumcision, and indeed this will be done in the
judgment. By the uncircumcised, if he observe the law, the same
awTrjpla will be enjoyed as is destined for the circumcised. Comp.
Matt. vhi. 1 1 : Xeyw Be vfiiv, on 7roWot d^ro dvaroXwv xal Sva/iwv
rjijovai, xal dvaxXiOrjaovrai fieTd 'Afipadp, xal 'Iaadx xal 'IaxwfS
iv rtf fiaaiXela twv oipavwv ; iii. 9 : Xiyw ydp v/iiv, oti Svvarai
b Oebs ix twv XlOwv iyeipai rexva Tea 'Afipadfi ; also 1 Cor. vii.
19 ; Gal. v. 6. In the present case the apostle speaks not merely
in the abstract of a possibility which merely may become a reality.
Rather he assumes, as in ver. 10, that cases actually occur
in which Gentiles exhibit such observance of the law. But this
only comes to pass in the strength of grace.1 The declaration
is accordingly to be referred to the so-called proselytes of the
gate, the cpofiovfievoi tov Oeov, comp. Acts xiii. 26, 36, and
1 Those expositors who take vv. 6-10 merely as sententia legalis, suppose that in
w. 25-27 the apostle speaks merely hypothetically. Hence Calov describes the
declaration before us as bfictio rhetorica. But that the apostle has in view cases
really occurring, w. 28, 29 especially seem to intimate. When Meyer calls our
reference to proselytes of the gate thoroughly arbitrary, and Tholuek describes it as
a far-fetched makeshift (comp. also Schott, Romerb. p. 178), it is to be replied that
these are thoroughly arbitrary suppositions which are not far to seek. With our
exposition of w. 6-10 and vv. 25-29, Besser also agrees in BibelstUnden zum Rimier-
briefe. To the unregenerate, carnal Jew, the principle of this verse is certainly meant
to be a sententia legalis passing judgment on him ; but this is a consequence of the
fact that to him the picture of the true 'l/rpxhx faoS, xxru trnil/ia, forms an utter
contrast. Philipm, Rom. I. G

93 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Hengstenberg on John iii. 21. Next, it admits an applica
tion to the Gentile Christians as well, since the Jewish Chris
tians, as the Galatian epistle especially shows, were not ah free
from the notion that the Gentile Christians should submit uncon
ditionally to outward irepirofir], in order to attain the Bixaioavvn
Oeov. The dxpoftvarla of which Paul speaks in this verse is no
iv rw cpavepw, iv aapxl irepiro/irj, but in truth a irepirofir) xapSlas,
ev irvevfiari, vv. 28, 29. To vv. 25, 26 the saying of Rabbi
Lipmann supplies a parallel : " verum illi nesciunt, quod fides non
posita sit in circumcisione, sed in corde. Quicunque vero non
credit, ilium circumcisio Judaeum non facit ; qui vero recte credit,
is Judaeus est, etiamsi non circumcisus."
Ver. 27. xal] Luther: " and will therefore." In this case xal is
consecutive. Others take the passage as a reply to the question
ver. 26, give an emphatic force to xpwei, and render xal, even,
beside this. In this case xal is intensive. Lachmann, et al., less
emphatically take ver. 27 as a continuation of ver. 26, put a
comma after XoyiaOrjaerai, and a note of interrogation after irapa-
(3drr]v vbfiov.
— xpwei] comp. Heb. xi. 7 : iriarei . . . Nwe . . . xareaxevaae
xiftwrbv Si rjs xarexpwe rbv xbafiov ; Wisd. iv. 16: xaraxpivei
Be Slxaios xafiwv roiis ^wvras daefieis. Grotius rightly interprets :
" comparatione sui tuam culpam evincet," " by his righteousness he
will expose thy unrighteousness and guilt." xpwei at the close
alludes, by way of rebuke, to xplveis, ver. 1. The relation will
be inverted.
— r) ix cpvaews dxpofivaria] = ol ix cpiaews dxpofivaroi. Un
circumcision by nature, but which (this is the contrast to be added
in thought) is a irepiropit] iv irvevfiari. As to its natural out
ward character, it is an dxpofivarla ; as to its spiritual inward
character, a irepiTOfi-r].
— tov vbaov reXovaa] therefore the reference may be also to
a perfection of good works in the regenerate, certainly not in the
Catholic sense of the phrase, but simply in so far as the spiritual
element in them is taken into consideration, and the carnal im
perfection that cleaves to them, for the sake of the righteous
ness of faith that hides it, is not brought into account.
Comp. Matt. v. 48: eaeaOe otiv reXeioi; Phil. ih. 15; CoL
iv. 12; John xvii. 23; 1 John ii. 5: dXrjOws ev towtm r)
dydirr) tov Oeov rereXelwrai ; also Gal. v. 23 ; and yet Paul says

CHAP. II. 27. 99
with the same truth, Phil. iii. 12: oix on 77817 eXaftov, i) rjSr)
TereXelwfiai. - — ae rbv Bid ypdfifiaros xal irepirofirjs irapafSdrijv vofiov] =
o~e rbv to ypdfifia xal rijv irepirofirjv expvra xal irapapalvovra
rbv vbfiov. We should say : with letter and circumcision, although
thou hast letter and circumcision. Sid with the genitive, properly
= through, denotes here, as often, the circumstances, situation in
which some one is found doing or suffering something. The
Greeks regard the circumstances under which anything takes
place as the remoter cause of what takes place, because the
circumstances in which we find ourselves usually influence the
character of the action, modify and determine its distinctive
qualities. Hence Sid Saxpvwv, Bid irevOevs, with tears, with grief,
comp. iv. 11, xiv. 20 ; 2 Cor: ii. 4, hi. 11 ; 1. John v. 6 ; Winer,
p. 475. ypdfifia, in allusion to the Mosaic law, never means
in Paul anything but letter, in contrast with irvevfia, ver. 29,
vii 6 ; 2 Cor. hi. 6, 7. Here, therefore, it is the same. If the
word stood simply for vbfios yeypaptfievos without further
emphasiSj why did the apostle say Bid vbfiov xal irepirofirjs ? As
ypdfifia denotes the external letter of the law, so irepirofir] denotes
external circumcision taking place only in the flesh. The Jews
possessed merely ypdfifia and irepirofirj iv aapxl, not irvevfia
and irepirofir] xapSlas, which the ix cpvaews dxpofivarla spoken
of by Paul possessed. To the former possession they attached
the greatest value and yet were trapafSdrat vbfiov, not considering
irepirofir) wcpeXei, idv vbfiov irpdaays. The purport of this
verse, then, may be paraphrased as follows : " The uncircumcised
in flesh, whom thou as such despisest, but who keeps the law, and
thereby proves that he is circumcised in heart, will judge thee
who art in possession of the law and of circumcision in the flesh,
to whj^h thou attachest such value, and yet art a transgressor of
the law ; whereas letter and circumcision were intended to remind
thee of the duty of observing the law, and only on condition of
this observance have any value." Thus 17 ix cpvaews dxpofivarla
stands opposed to Sid ypdfifiaros xal irepirofirjs, as rbv vbfiov
reXovaa does to irapafddrrjs vbfiov. With the teaching of this
verse, comp. Matt. xh. 41 : dvSpes Nivevirai avaarrjaovrai iv rfj
xplaei fierd rrjs yeveds ravrrjs, xal xaraxpwovaw airrjv, and ver.
42 : fSaai'Xiaaa Nbrov iyepOrjaerai iv rfj xplaei fierd rf]S yeveds
Tavrrjs, xal xaraxpivei avrrjvl- — :The apostle (w. 25-27) had ad-

100 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
vanced the doctrine that circumcision which breaks the law will
be reckoned uncircumcision ; on the other hand, uncircumcision
which keeps the law, circumcision, and will come forward as the
judge of law-breaking circumcision — that, therefore, circumcision
simply is of no avail This doctrine is supported (vv. 28, 29)
by the assertion that real Judaism and true circumcision are
nothing outward, but inward, of a nature not visible and carnal,
but invisible and spiritual.
Ver. 28. The subject of the sentence is incomplete, and must
be completed from the predicate. Oi ydp b iv ra cpavepw (se.
'lovSaios) 'lovSaios iarw oiSe rj iv Ta cpavepcp, iv aapxl (sc. irepi
rofir]), irepirofir] (iarw). By 'lovSaios in the second case the
'lovSaios dXrjOwos is to be understood, as by irepirofir] the irepirofir)
aXvOwrj. — r) iv rw cpavepw, iv aapxl, irepirofir]] The words iv aapxl
are an epexegesis of the words iv rep cpavepw. Circumcision is
visible, inasmuch as it is performed and perceptible in man's
body. A similar depreciation of mere outward circumcision is
found Eph. ii. 11 : virb rrjs Xeyo/iivijs irepirofirjs iv aapxl xelP°-
iroirjTov. iv toj cpavepw irepirofir] lays stress on the element which
peculiarly characterizes the iv tq3 cpavepw 'lovSaios, although in
addition he is distinguished from the Gentile by ceremonial
service also, knowledge of Jehovah and of His law, etc.
Ver. 29. Several modern expositors take d iv rw Kpvirrw as
subject, 'lovSaios (sc. iarl) as predicate ; and in the same way
irepirofir) KapSlas as subject, iv irvev/ian, ov ypd/ifian (sc. iariv
or ylverai) as predicate. " But he is a Jew who is so in secret,
and circumcision of the heart takes place in spirit, not in letter."
But first of all, the omission of iarlv indicates that the apostle
wishes d iv tw Kpvirrw 'lovSaios to be connected together. Else
he would have written, in keeping with ver. 28 : dXX' b iv rw
Kpvirrw, 'lovSaios ian. And again his object, as the contrast
with ver. 28 indicates, is not to teach that circumcision of the
heart is carried out in spirit, not in letter, but that only heart-
circumcision — spiritual, not literal in nature — is true circumcision.
On these grounds we prefer the more generally accepted mode of
connection, according to which d eV rw Kpvirrw 'lovSaios is the
subject from which the predicate 'lovSaios iari is to be taken,
and just so irepirofir) KapSlas the subject from which the predicate
irepiro/ir] iarw is to be supplied, iv irvevfiari, oi ypd/iuan is
then a definitive apposition to irep. KapSlas, as in ver. 28 iv aapxl

CHAP. II. 29. 101
is an expexegesis of iv t$ cpavepw. As then (ver. 28) the imper
fect subject is to be completed from the predicate, so conversely
(ver. 29) the entire predicate is to be supphed from the subject,
and accordingly to be construed: d iv rw Kpvirrw 'lovSaios
(lovSaios iarw), /cat irepirofirj KapSlas, iv irvevfiari, oi ypdfifiari
(irepirofir] ianv). — d iv toj Kpvirrw 'lovSaios] a Jew is he who is
so in secret, i.e. within, in disposition, comp. with rd Kpvirrd,
ver. 1 6, and 1 Pet. hi. 4 : d Kpvirrbs rrjs KapSlas dvOpwiros. A
similar contrast of the iv rq> cpavepw and iv rw xpvirrw 'IovBa'iafibs
is depicted by the Lord in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt, vi,
comp. especially vv. 6, 18. Such iv rw Kpvirrw 'IovSaioi and
ireptrfirjToi rfj xapBia, were the beheving fathers of the old
covenant ; such also were the Genthes who adhered to the faith
of the covenant-people. Expositors quote the analogous rabbinical
saying : " Judaei in penetralibus cordis sedent."
— irepirofir) xapBlas] Deut. x. 16: aaTTIji^TIK 7ID, xxx. 6 ;
Ezek. xliv. 7: $***?&', Jer. iv. 4; Acts vii^i; Col. ii. 11;
Phil. ih. 3. Philo, too, describes circumcision as av/if3oXov tjSovwv
ixrofirjs. The irepirofir) aapxbs had a twofold meaning : first, it
was acppayls rrjs Sixaioavvns rrjs irlarews, iv. 11; and next, a
sign of obhgation to irepirofir) xapBlas. The latter failing, it
ceased to be acppwyls rrjs Bixaioavvrjs, and lost its value altogether.
Indeed, in the case of the unworthy, the sacrament ceases to be
a sacrament, i.e. a means of salvation; not as to its objective
nature, but as to its subjective advantage ; comp. ver. 2 5, the
contrast of irepiropyrj wcpeXei and irepirofir] dxpof3varla yeyovev =
ovx wcpeXei.
— iv irvevfiari, oi ypdfifiari] Luther's note : " spirit means
what God works in man beyond nature ; letter means. aU action
of nature." But here, without doubt, as in the parallel passages
quoted on ver. 27, by irvevfia the irvevfia dyiov is to be directly
understood; by ypdfifia, the vbfios, in so far as it is outward
letter, not fulfilled in the irvevfia. iv is to be taken instru-
mentahy. The circumcision spoken of is one that takes place
in, ie. through, the Holy Spirit, not through the letter of the law.
The law commands circumcision, and it takes place iv ypdfifiari,
when it takes place simply in outward obedience to the law ; iv
irvevfiari, when the Holy Spirit circumcises the heart and purges
it of its lusts (2 Cor. ih. 3). The notion that the possession of
the irvev/ia dyiov could not be ascribed to behevers of the 0. T.

102 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
is refuted at once by Ps. Ii. 12. Whoever, with Luther, in most
intimate experience simply sees in the psalms the liturgy of all
saints, and from them has drunk the richest of spiritual comfort
in time of trial, will be unable again to sympathize with views
of the 0. T. and its worthies so fuR of dishonour. Hvevfia, then,
is here not, " in distinction from the Holy Spirit of Christianity,"
an undefined, vapour-like, though " hving Spirit, coming from .
God and filling the soul of the true Jew." Just as little is it
" the spirit of man " in which circumcision takes place, a mean
ing already expressed in xapBlas, and having against it the
antithesis of irvevfia and ypdfifia.
— o5] To interpret it as neut. = cujus rei, and refer it to the
entire sentence describing (ver. 29) ideal Judaism and ideal
circumcision, appears to us more difficult and improbable than
the common interpretation of the relative as masc, and referring
it to 7ov8ato?, who, moreover, even in irepirofir] xapBlas, is to be
contemplated as the one possessing such circumcision.
— d eirawos] comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5. The article marks out the praise
as praise that is due, fitting, such as only God the xapBioyvwarns
can bestow. But the Jews sought only praise, approval, and
honour from men who look at what is outward, John v. 44, xii.
43. Rightly Oecum. : rrjs yap xpvirrrjs 'xal iv xapBia irepirofirjs
oiK earai iiraiverns dvOpwiros, dXX o irdaav xapBlas xal ve<ppoi)s
Oebs.

CHAP. IH. 1. 103

CHAPTER IIL
The apostle has really brought to a close the first section of his
exposition, dealing with the proposition: 'IovSalovs re Kal"EXXr)vas
irdvras hep' dfiaprlav, comp. ver. 9. He might at this point,
as he does in this chapter, w. 9—20, summing up once more the
result and confirming it, especially in reference to the guilt of the
Jews by Scripture testimonies, conclude this section. But he
foresees the necessity of a digression, in order to obviate an
objection naturaRy rising out of the previous exposition. It
might seem by what is said in the second chapter, particularly
vv. 25—29, as if Judaism imphed no superiority whatever over
heathenism, — a conclusion which would have exposed him to the
just reproach that he disparaged the revelations made by the
Lord to the people of Israel. On this account he now himself
raises the question:
Ver. 1. TI ovv rb irepiaaov tov 'IovSalov ;] The particle o&v
draws an inference from what precedes, especiaUy ii. 28, 29,
according to which only spiritual eircumcision would avail, and
the Gentile who fulfils the law would judge the Jew who possesses
but breaks the law. Or we might refer oiv to the entire ex
position contained in ch. i. and h. and its consequence, which
is drawn out by Calov in the words : " Si non minus Judaei, quam
gentiles sub condemnatione sunt, vi peccati, quod demonstrarat
Apostolus, quid ergo praecipui habent Judaei prae gentibus ? et
quae est circumcisionis utilitas ? " Only that in the expressions
d 7ov8ato? and fj irepirofir] the special allusion to the conclusion
of the second chapter is unmistakeable. It wiU be best, then, to
combine the more general and more special reference : If, now,
Jews are sinners like the Gentiles, and it is no benefit to the Jew
as a sinner to be a Jew and to possess the outward law. " If,
now, matters stand thus." to irepiaaov, that which is over and
above, Matt. v. 3 7 ; what is more, what is better than another thing,
Matt. v. 47=iJ irepiaaela; LXX. Eccles. i. 3, vi. 8, 17 irporlfirjais,
ornamentum, decus, the pre-eminence. The apostle makes this

104 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
objection in his own name. If it proceeded from another, — a
Jew, Gentile, Jewish or Gentile Christian, — this would be indi
cated by an e'pet? ovv or otherwise, ix. 19, xi. 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 35.
— i) rls v wcpeXeta rrjs irepirofirjs ;] a subordinate question in
reference to the -special value of circumcision, which is not
separately answered in what follows. Respecting the advantage
of circumcision, comp. iv. 11.
Ver. 2. Paul replies to his own question raised in ver. 1. iroXv] '
namely, rb irepiaaov tov 'IovSalov iarlv. The apostle notices
only the first part of the question ; nor does he, as observed, return
again to the wcpeXeta rrjs irepirofirjs. This was the less called for,
as irepirofir] in reality is merely the seal of the Xoyia rod Oeov.
— Kard irdvra rpbirov] may be = omnino, profecto, by all means,
certainly, in every case. Luther : " in truth, ¦ exceeding much"
But the following irpwrov indicates that several points of pre
eminence floated before the apostle's mind, that therefore xcvrd
irdvra rpbirov = omni ex parte, in every respect, in all points.
— irpwrov fiev ydp] Lachmann omits ydp ; but some copyists
might easily, from reminiscences of irpwrov fiev, i. 8, pass it over
in error. Elsewhere, ydp is wanting in manuscripts when fiev
ydp appear in connection. Some expositors interpret irpwrov :
primarium illud, or : praecipue, or : id quod praecipuum est ; so
that the complete phrase would run : irpwrov fiev ydp rovrb
iariv, on, the principal one is this, that God committed to them
this Xoyia. In this case the apostle intended from the first only
to bring forward the principal one and pass by the rest in silence,
thus avoiding the anacoluthon. But irpwrov is better taken in
the sense of primum, in the first place. The complete sentence
then would run : irpwrov fiev ydp irepiaaela iarlv, on, for in the
first place it is a privilege, that, etc. In this case there should
follow an elra or eireira ; but the apostle, turned aside by ver.
3 ff., lets this fall through, comp. i. 8 ; 1 Cor. xi. 18. This is
quite in keeping with the apostle's animated style and strain of
thought. The objection raised by himself (w. 3, 5) diverts him
from the mention of further privheges. Add to this, that in fact
in on iiriarevOrjaav rd Xoyia tov Oeov the chief privilege, com
prising within itself most of the others, was instanced, and that
the apostle was satisfied with repelling, simply in the form of
suggestion, the reproach that he made light of the God-given
privheges of Israel. For the same reason, in harmony with the

CHAP. III. 2. 105
main aim of his argument, he employs the enumeration of
these privileges to rebuke the unbelief, the unfaithfulness, and
easy-going self-righteousness of the Jews. Moreover, a complete
catalogue of Israel's privileges is found in ix. 4, 5.
— on eiriarevOvaav rd Xoyia rov Oeov] = on kxpvai irtarev-
Oevra rd Xoyia rov Oeov, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 1 7 ; Gal. ii. 7 ; 1 Thess.
ii. 4; 1 Tim. i. 11. Winer, p. 326: "When a verb which
governs the dative or the genitive of the person (as iriarevew rwl,
xarrjyopeiv twos) is used in the passive, the Greeks are accustomed
to make the noun which denotes the person the subject of the
passive verb." We say iriarevew rwl n, in the passive
iriareveral rwl ri, but usually iriareveral rls ri. oi 'IovSaioi
must be supplied as subject to iiriarevOrjaav from the collective
d 'lovSaios, ver. 1. Ta \dyta is accusative of object. The being
entrusted with a thing implies the obligation of fidelity in taking
care of the treasure entrusted. Xbyiov, properly diminutive of
Xbyos, is used, both in classical and Hellenistic Greek, chiefly
of utterances of the Deity. Comp. the rich collection of examples
in Bleek on Heb. v. 12 in his commentary. The diminutive,
perhaps, originally indicated the brevity which was a general cha
racteristic of oracles. The LXX. employ Xbyiov for "n*j, "iDk, rnoK,
always in reference only to an oracle of God, whether one of predic
tion or command the context decides. Ps. xix. 14 supplies only
an apparent exception, since rd Xoyia rov arbfiarbs fiov there, as
spoken through the Holy Spirit, may be regarded as at the same
time Xoyia Oeov. Philo also frequently uses the word of the
oracles of God. In the N. T., in addition to the present passage,
it is found in Acts vii 38 of the vbfios Mwvaews ; in Heb. v. 12 of
the eiayyeXiov ; in 1 Pet. iv. 1 1 of God's revealed word in general.
The connection, therefore, decides as to the wider or narrower
reference of the expression. In the present verse there is no
reason to limit the Xbyia rov Oeov exclusively to the vbfios or
exclusively to the iirayyeXiai. rd Xoyia rov Oeov, without more
precise definition, are rather to be referred generaRy to the oracles
of God as a whole, treasured up in the 0. T. writings and en
trusted to the care of the people of Israel. Chrysostom therefore
rightly interprets : xPrla'rl0V'> dvwOev KarevexOevras. Without
doubt the Messianic predictions belonged to these Xoylois Oeov, —
nay, in a certain sense formed their most essential constituent and
central point. Calvin therefore rightly interprets : " Oracula vocat

106 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
foedus, quod Abrahae primo ejusque posteris divinitus revelatum,
postea lege et prophetis consignatum ac exphcatum fuit." And
Calov: "Non modo oracula Messiam praemonstrantia yel
iirayyeXiai notantur, sed universa Xoyia et eloquia Dei, tota V. T.
Scriptura." The pre-eminence, then, of the people of Israel,
mentioned here by the apostle, was an objective, not subjective
one. As guardians of the divine revelations imparted to them,
they were without question distinguished in the clearest manner
from the Gentile world, inasmuch as the right use of these saving
means might to them, as was actuaRy the case with the believing
fathers of the 0. T., prove the medium of salvation. But the
conversion of this objective pre-eminence, in the first instance
more an advantage than a pre-eminence, into a subjective one,
depended wholly on the right use of the means provided.
Ver. 3. Tt ydp;] quid enim? for what? for how? removes a
difficulty lying in the way, and therefore confirms the preceding
proposition, comp. i 18. The complete form would run: Tt ydp
iarw ; for how stands the matter ? — et rjirtarrjadv Twe?] Most
modern expositors refer this to the rejection of Jesus as Messiah
on the part of the Jews. But, first of aR, instead of the general
rd Xoyia tov Oeov, ver. 2, we should then have expected the more
special expression rds iirayyeXlas tov Oeov. Again, up to this
point Paul describes only Judaism absolutely, apart from its
attitude to the gospeL Only with vwl Se, ver. 21, begins the
dehneation of the Christian period, where likewise the very mode
of representation withal assumes a specificaRy Christian hue.
We therefore prefer the view that the apostle here does not treat
(as in ch. ix.— xi, comp. especially xi 29-31) of the Jews' want of
faith in the gospel of Christ, which, to pass by the connection,
is not clearly enough suggested by the form of expression ; but
of their want of faith in Jehovah's 0. T. revelations, in the
Xoyia rov Oeov. In every age, in truth, Israel was a rebellious
and idolatrous nation. Comp. also Mehring, p. 250. We are
not, then, with Calov, to think at the same time of the period
before and after Christ, but only of the first. The diriaroi were
really not rives, but iroXXol; but perhaps rives is used here not
so much to soften the expression, as is done in xi. 1 7, where the
apostle is opposing the presumption of the Gentiles, as rather in
contempt or irony. " Quod non valde sub censum veniant," says
Bengel. In contrast with the truthfulness of the divine word,

CHAP. III. 4.' 107
the host of unbelievers shows like a small, contemptible crowd.
With this interpretation Mehring also agrees, diriareiv, r) diriarla
air&v and r) irlans rov Oeov must all clearly be taken in the
same sense. Now we may interpret either : to be unfaithful, their
unfaithfulness, the faithfulness of God, or : to be unbelieving, their
unbelief the trustvjorthiness of God. We prefer the latter, because
with the trustworthiness, i.e. truthfulness of God (tov Oeov, genit.
subject.), a synonym for the dXrjOeia Oeov, the words yweaOw b
Qebs dXvOrjs, ver. 4, harmonize. Rightly, therefore, Theophylact
interprets rr)v rrlanv rov Oeov by to iriarov twi> viroaxeaewv
airov, to dXrjOes, rb dfierdOerov, although the viroaxeaeis are not
exclusively meant. The sense, then, of this verse is : " Should
the unbelief of the Jews overthrow the truthfulness of God so
that His revelations are not to be trusted, and therefore cannot-be
regarded as a real means of salvation, or form a true ground of
privilege to the nation to which they are given ? " So httle is
this the case, that, on the contrary, in every age many of the
Israehtes found hfe through faith in the truthfulness of the divine
covenant-revelations, " Ergo significat," says Calvin, " semper
mansisse in gente quosdam, qui in promissionis fide stantes ab ilia
praerogativa non exciderint." But fides specialis in the iircvyyeXla
includes in it fides generalis in the vbfios, the iraiSayooybs et?
Xpiarbv. So far the entire 0. T. revelation of God is to be
regarded as a means of salvation, the law as a preparation, the
promise as actually saving. And like irlans, so also does diriarla
relate to this entire revelation, the undivided Xoyia rov Oeov. It is
an unbelieving rejection, as weR of the law as of the promises of God.
Ver. 4. firj yevoiro] = n?hr\> Gen. xhv. 17, Josh. xxh. 29,
where also the LXX. render fir) yevoiro, 1 Sam. xx. 2, expresses
negation accompanied with abhorrence, Luke xx. 16. It is
accordingly the strongest form of denial ; minime vero, God pre
vent, God forbid ! Luther ; " far be it ! " a frequent deprecatory
formula with PauL It invariably deprecates an unseemly infer
ence, put in the form of a question, from the preceding exposition.
Accordingly it is found almost exclusively in the epistles contain
ing a systematic doctrinal exposition, namely, in the Roman and
Galatian epistles (Rom hi 6, 31, vi 2, 15, vh. 7, 13, ix. 14,
xi. 1, 11 ; Gal. ii 17, ih. 21), in addition only in 1 Cor. vi. 15,
and in the passage cited from the Pauline gospel of Luke.
Moreover, the formula is not strange to later Greek.

108 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— yiveaOw Be b Oebs dXrjOrjs] yweaOco answers to yevoiro.
Nay, let God become true, i.e. let the matter have this issue, that
God is true, i.e. be deemed true. God becomes true when in
the convictions of men He is , acknowledged for what He is.
Theophylact, then, rightly explains yiveaOw by cpavepovaOm,
diroSeiKvvaOw, ver. 1 9 ; or among moderns, Matthias by b/ioXo-
yelaOw. " Deum veracem dicit, non modo quia bona fide stare
promissis paratus sit4 sed quoniam opere implet, quidquid loquitur,"
Calvin. As here dXr)0r]s, so in Tit. i. 2 God is called d^revSrjs.
— 7rct? Se dvOpwiros ¦tyevarTjs] comp. Ps. cxvi 11 : 7rd? dvOpw
iros ¦^evarrjs. " Nunc de naturae vitio disputatur, non de gratia
Dei, quae vitiis remedium est," Calvin. If iras dvOpwiros is by
nature a liar, we cannot wonder if the rives, who, according
to ver. 3, by unbehef gave divine revelation the he, were of
themselves a great multitude.
— KaOws yiypairrai ktX.] The citation is taken verbatim
after the LXX. from Ps. Ii. 4 : " Against Thee only have I
sinned, and done what is evU in Thy sight, natri TU"J3 p^isri |jw
IgBtsb, in order that Thou mayest be righteous in Thy speech,
pure in Thy judgment." As to the interpretation of the passage,
comp. Hengstenberg on Ps. v. II. 193. David alleges the illustra
tion of God's righteousness as the end of his sin ; for the sin no
doubt belongs to man, but the form of the sin to God, who places
the sinner in such circumstances as compel him to reveal his inward
depravity in a definite manner. " In allusion to this co-opera
tion of God, David says that he must needs have committed so
heinous a sin in order that in the judgment which God held upon
him, in the first instance through Nathan, His righteousness,
purity, and hohness might be made known, and hence His name
glorified and honour increased," Heng. So also Gesenius in
Thesaur. p. 1052 : " eum in finem peccavi, ut illustretur justitia
tua." In this sense, then, Paul interprets the passage in the
Psalms. Israel's unbelief, he says, is so far from casting doubt
upon the divine credibility, that, on the contrary, by its very
means God alone is exhibited as true, man as a liar;' since it was
ordained by God, in order that by man's unrighteousness God's •
righteousness might receive striking iRustration. With this view
the objection of ver. 15 is in thorough keeping. From .this
interpretation it is clear that although the LXX. probably took
.^ KplveaOai in the passive sense, Paul, in harmony with the original

CHAP. III. 4. 109
text, understood it as middle in the intransitive sense : litigare,
to judge, comp. LXX. Job xiii. 19 ; Isa. xliii. 26 ; Jer. ii. 35 ;
Matt. v. 40 ; 1 Cor. vi. 1, 6. " In order that Thou mayest appear
righteous when Thou passest sentence (iv rois Xoyois aov = in
sententia ferenda), and overcome (despite man's opposition, appear
as a righteous Judge) when Thou judgest." In any case, the
exposition given is in closer accord with the strain of thought
in the context than the reference of the passage quoted from the
psalm to the preceding confession of sin = " Against Thee only
have I sinned (this I confess), in order that Thou mayest appear
righteous in Thy judgment." Nor is our interpretation in any
respect inconsistent with the teleology of the 0. T, On the
contrary, Scripture everywhere regards the glorification of the
divine name as the ultimate aim of every event. Sin, no doubt,
contradicts the divine voluntas antecedent, but in virtue of, the
voluntas consequent it subserves the manifestation of the divine
righteousness — viKav, vincere, used as often in sensu forensi, is
, stronger than n|W, to which in substance it corresponds.
The apostle should now properly, in conformity with irpwrov
fiev, ver. 12, go on to adduce other privReges of the Jews.
But the statements, of w. 3, 4 lead him to a digression, which
is found in vv. 5—8. He had begun to set forth the privileges
of the people of Israel, and along with this had shown that
these objective privheges were so far from forming the ground
of a subjective privilege, that, on the contrary, they served to ,
aggravate Israel's guilt and responsibility. Thus God alone is
glorified as the righteous and true covenant-God, not the re
bellious and faithless people. But now, from this fact,' considering
the proud, litigious spirit of the people, he might look forward
to a new objection, which he anticipates, starting it in his own
name. If our unrighteousness, he says, sets in clear relief, as I
have just shown, God's righteousness, wherefore then is God
angry, and why does He punish sinners who by their sin con
tribute to His glory? Should we not in that case rather do
evil that good may come, namely, that by this very means God
may be glorified ? Thus the apostle, as it were, himself points
out to the self-righteous sinner the last hiding-place of self-
righteousness for the very purpose of expelhng him thence, and
then anew and for ever binding him in fetters of accusation and
judgment not to be broken.

110 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Vv. 5, 6. et Be f] dSixla rffiwv Oeov Sixaioavvrjv avviarncn]
The expressions dSixla and Bixaioavvrj are suggested by Sixatw-
Orjvai, ver. 4. The dBixla includes in it diriarla, ver. 3, and
¦\JreOSo?, ver. 4, as the Bixaioavvrj includes dXrjOeia, ver. 4. The
unrighteousness (dSixla) of man is the generic conception to
which his unbelief and his falsehood belong as species. Just so
the righteousness (Bixaioavvrj) of God is the genus in which His
trustworthiness and truth are involved as species, rffiwv, looking
back to Trd? dvOpwiros, ver. 4, is doubtless used in the name of
aR men ; but Paul is thinking here, as there, mainly of the Jews,
of whom he is speciaRy treating. The opposed words, rjfi&v
Oeov, are placed emphatically side by side, avvlarrjai = Selxvvfii,
diroSelxvvfii, to show, demonstrate, verify (v. 8; 2 Cor. vi. 4,
vh. 11 ; Gal. h. 18). That out unrighteousness sets in relief
God's righteousness, the apostle concedes. This he had expressly
said ver. 4, as he does again ver. 21, just as in xi. 32 the
display of the divine compassion is aReged as the end of sin.
But now foRows the false conclusion, which might easily be
deduced from this position, introduced by the apostle's accus
tomed formula — rl ipovfiev] What should we say ? What should
we hence infer? (vi. 1, vii. 7, viii. 31, ix. 14, 30).
— fir] dSixos b Oebs] Is not God unrighteous ? This inference,
the meaning is, appears to result from the preceding premiss, ar]
in questions stands not merely where a negative answer is presup
posed or expected, but also where there is the disposition to beheve
what the question appears to deny (Winer, pp. 641, 642 ; Matt.
xii. 23, xxvi. 22 ; Luke ih. 15 ; John iv. 33, viii. 22). Certainly
in the present passage the apostle asks but xar avOpwirov, in
the name of the ignorant, who are ready to draw such inferences.
Therefore it is opposed to the context to render: God is not
unrighteous then ? so that the question leads us to expect a negative
answer. Rather is fir] here not substantiaRy different from nonne.
The affirmative answer to the interrogative fir) is certainly no
unconditional one. It may be better expressed : " this indeed is
scarcely credible, and yet it seems so, and yet one cannot avoid
this inference."
— d Oebs b iiricpepwv rrjv bpyrjv] not : God, when He inflicts the
wrath, but : God, who inflicts the wrath, or : the God who inflicts
the wrath. It is thus assumed as well known that God is one
imcpepmv rrjv bpyijv. This is the force of the article before the

CHAP. III. 5, 6. Ill
participle, Winer, p. 167. The article before bpyr] points out
the wrath as a definite one, namely, the one issuing forth in the
judgment, the judicial wrath of God spoken of i 18, h. 5, 8.
With iiricpepew bpyrjv, comp. Phil. i. 16 : iiricpepeiv &Xl-\]riv; Jude
9 • iiricpipeiv xplaw. But the apostle here has chiefly in mind
the wrath impending over the nation of the Jews. dSixos and
rr)v bpyrjv have the emphasis.
— «aTa avOpwirov Xeym] I speak after the fashion of a man,
like a man, as man. dvOpwirwov, in opposition to Oeiov, has the
secondary notion of what is imperfect or sinful. So in 1 Cor.
iii. 3 xard avOpwirov irepiirareiv stands as a paraRel to aapxixbv
elvai. The particular force of the Pauline formula xard avOpwirov
Xer/w is determined by the context in each case. Gal. ih. 15:
I give an example, taken from ordinary human life, in which is
implied a condescension to man's imperfect power of compre
hension. Similarly, Rom. vi. 19 . I speak after the manner of
men, who do not weigh their words with exact precision ; I avail
myself, so as to speak intelligibly and forcibly, of the harsher
expression iBovXwOrfre rfj Bixaioavvrj. 1 Cor. ix. 8 : Speak I only
according to human opinion, which is untrustworthy and decep
tive, or not also in accordance with God's law ? In the present
passage, finaRy, xard avOpwirov \ey&> : I speak as a man, who
often speaks and judges of God and God's dealings in a rash,
unworthy manner. This interpretation Theodoret's exposition
does not preclude : oi ydp iyw, cprjal, ravra \e71w, dA,Xd rovs
twi/ dXXwv reOeixa Xoyia fiovs. For when Paul talks after the
manner of men, he certainly does not speak as a Christian and
apostle, but as an ordinary man, i.e. as other unenlightened men
are wont to talk.
— fir) yevoird] an indignant rejection of the perverse inference.
— eVei irws xpwei b Oebs tov xbajiov] iirel expresses the
ground of this rejection. For, if this were so = else, alioquin
(xi 6; 1 Cor. v. 10, vii 14), how shall God judge the world?
The future (xpwei) stands either for ethical possibility, Winer,
p. 348, or is also to be taken as purely future, since it refers to
an event actually occurring in the future. That God judges the
world is admitted. But from this it follows that ground for the
judgment exists, that wickedness is actually punishable. Closely
examined, then, these words do not so much refute as repel a
blasphemous objection, which, for its own sake, deserves no

112 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
refutation. Were God unrighteous, the apostle argues, when He!
is wroth at the unrighteousness of men, then would He not he
so at all. But He is so, as follows from His admitted judgment
of the world. Therefore sin merits wrath and punishment.
For the apostle, the righteousness of God is so certain that He
deems no proof of it necessary. Thus the words : xard avOpwirov
Xeyw firj yevoiro' iirel irws xpwei b Oebs rbv xbafiov, which are
to be read uno tenore, contain a provisional, parenthetic, indignant
repudiation of (irj aSixos b Oebs b iiricpepwv rrjv bpyrjv. The apostle's
purpose in this is not to give such a refutation as would satisfy
an opponent, but merely, in the most positive manner, to free
himself from all complicity in such blasphemous language;
Accordingly we should perhaps enclose, if anything at aR, not so
much xard avOpwirov Xe7&> merely, as xard . . . xbafiov together in
brackets, by which course the imperatively required connection
of ver. 7 with ver. 5 is rendered easy. For the believer un
doubtedly the reply given by the apostle is enough ; for him the
righteousness of God the judge of all is unalterably fixed (Gen.
xviii. 25; Ps. 1. 6 ; Isa. xi. 3, 4). But the daring objector whom
the apostle has in view, if this reply were proposed to him, would,
from his point of view, not shrink from the reply, either that
God cannot be judge of the world if man's unrighteousness serves
only to glorify the divine righteousness ; or if He is, that then
He is simply an unrighteous judge,
Vv. 7, 8. The apostle having cleared himself from suspicion
of approving the false inference ver. 5 (jir) dStxos b Oebs b iiricp.
r. op.), and at the same time for his Christian readers indi
cated the mode of its refutation, can now the more freely ahow
himself to amplify the inference but briefly stated in ver. 5. The
ydp, ver. 7, then recurs to ver. 5, and introduces a resumption
and further confirmation of the false inference found there. " Is
not God unrighteous in His wrath ? " ver. 5. " For if His truth
is glorified by my he, why should I yet be judged as a sinner,
ver. 7, and why rather should we not do evil that good may
come ? " ver. 8. It is impossible in vv. 7 and 8 to find either
a confirmation of ver. 6, or a refutation of the false inference fir]
dSixos xrX., or even of the premiss el Be r) dSixla xrX., ver. 5.
Nay, the truth of .this premiss is conceded by the apostle himself.
The inference from this Paul does not refute in vv. 7 and 8, but
confirms, as the literal sense of the verses clearly proves , and for

CHAP. III. 7, 8. 113
this very reason vv. 7 and 8 contain no confirmation of the
refutation of this inference, no confirmation, that is, of irws xpwei
b Oebs rbv xbafiov, ver. 6.1 — -i) dXrjOeia rov Oeov] corresponds with
Oeov Bixaioavvrj, ver. 5, but in place of this general conception
puts the special one in allusion to d Oebs dXrjOrjs, ver. 4. From
this we see that Paul is dealing with the Jew, who, on the
ground that by his diriarla in the Xoyia rov Oeov he glorifies the
dXrjOeia tov Oeov, supposes that he has a right to impunity from
punishment. — eV t« i/iw ip-evaptari] corresponding with r) dSixla r)fiwv, ver. 5,
in allusion to 7rd? Be dvOpwiros tyevarrjs, ver. 4. The ifiw, like
the foRowing xdyw, indicates that the apostle puts himself in the
place of the Jew, and speaks in his person. The ifibv, iyd>, then,
is individualizing, and by this individualization the language of
the opponent gains in point and keenness. The older Attic form
for ^revafia is yjrevSos.
— iireplaaevaev eh rrjv Sbgav airov] corresponds in a stronger
form with awlaTijai, ver. 5. iireplaaevaev = irepiaarj iyevero,
became great, glorious, superabundant, or appeared so (2 Cor. iii. 9,
vhi. 2). God's truthfulness through my falsehood has become
1 Meyer remarks on ver. 7 f. : " The \*ii *Zs xpm? S hos r. x'otr. receives its illus
trative confirmation ; for as to the case of God, who would thus be unrighteous, and
nevertheless is to judge the world, every ground for judging man as a sinner must
be superseded by the circumstance already discussed, viz. that His truth has been
glorified by man's falsehood (ver. 4 f.) ; and (ver. 8) as to the case of man himself,
there would result the principle directly worthy of condemnation, that he should do
evil in order that good might come. " I would subscribe to this view of the con
firmation of ver. 6, if I were not deterred by the difficulty of the line of thought thus
arising. The thought not expressed, but merely assumed (ver. 6), that the God who
judges the world is righteous, is said to be confirmed by the fact that the course
, which He follows in the general judgment would not be pursued by God if He were
unrighteous. And even this main thought, " the unrighteous God would not so act,"
is (ver. 7) again not directly expressed. Against Meyer, comp. now Tholuck 5, Aufl.
ibid. Following the lead of many older and modern expositors, Tholuck, and in the
same way Umbreit, regard ver. 7 as a continuation and further confirmation of ver. 5.
Taking xxrx xvlpatm up to rh xio-fooy as a parenthesis (the marks of the bracket are
not even necessary) is the less " a violent expedient," as the apostle in those words
above all things merely wishes to free himself and his followers from the blasphemous
inference ; and then (ver. 7) he makes the perverse Jew, in whose name he speaks,
anew and in an enlarged form repeat and confirm his inference in opposition to the
disclaimer (ver. 6). The examination of the entirely novel interpretation given by
Mehring of vv. 5-8 would lead us too far. In our judgment, this learned and pro
found exegete, wherever he enters alone upon a new, untrodden path of interpreta
tion, only too readily falls into artificial and forced expositions. Comp. also his
exposition of iii. 26, iv. 2, v. 15, 16, which certainly will find no followers.
Philippi, Rom. I. H

114 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
exceedingly great, exceedingly abundant to His praise, i.e. my
falsehood has richly contributed to the illustration of God's truth,
and thus to His glory (2 Cor. iv. 15). The aorist indicates that
the contribution to God's glory stands forth in the day of judgment
as a historical fact.
— rl en xayw cos dfiaprwXos xplvofiai ;] " Why am I also
stiR (I, who yet contribute to God's glory) judged as a sinner ? "
Concerning the Gentiles, who, since they have no divine revela
tion, do not by their unbelief in it glorify God's truthfulness, it
might indeed hold good that they are righteously judged. The
expression xplvofiai is perhaps suggested by xpivei, ver. 6. We
see from Tt en xayw xplvofiai ; how little the opponent regarded
the refutation of his false inference contained in ver. 5 as a
refutation affecting him. The sign of interrogation after xplvofiai
should be exchanged for a comma, the question introduced by
Tt being continued further. In the continuation, then, it should
have run : /cat Tt fir] rroirjawfiev rd xaxd 'iva eXOrj rd dyadd ;
Instead of this, the phrase, cursorily inserted, though not on that
account to be bracketed : xaOws fSXaacprjfiovfieOa xal xaOws <f>aal
rives r)fias Xiyew, occasions a change of construction, so that now
iroirjawfiev is made, by means of an 6Vt, to depend on Xeyeiv. As
to this attraction, not rare among the Greeks, by which a part
belonging to the principal sentence is drawn to the dependent
sentence, comp. Winer, p. 783 ; and with the recitative on intro
ducing the direct statement, comp. John i 20, xviii. 6.
— xaOws ftXaacprjfiovfieOa] i.e. as if we did evil that good
might come, in distinction from xaOws cpaal rives r/fids Xeyeiv,
as if we even advanced such a doctrinal principle. The apostle .
here makes reference to an impeachment and perversion of his
teaching actuaRy occurring. The utterance of this slander is
somewhat exphcable from statements like the one in Rom. v. 20,
21, the perverse apphcation of which, vi. 1, Paul himself in-
stantly disclaims (comp. also Rom. xi. 32; Gal. hi. 22). The
plural pXaacpwfiovfieOa, rjfids, in distinction from the singular ep,&,
xayw, ver. 7, indicates that Paul here is not representing the
Jew, but speaking in his own name as apostle.
— rd dyaOd] namely, the glorifying of God's truthfulness.
— wv to xplfia evSixov iarw] wv, not : of those who thus
slander me, but : of those who intend to act thus, i.e. to do evil
for a good end ; for it was necessary, as the connection proves,

CHAP. III. 7, 8. 115
to expressly rebuke these last in a solemn manner. Moreover,
in the words wv to xplfia evSixbv iarw lies not so much a reply,
which the apostle in moral indignation could not prevail on him
self to give, as rather merely a fitting rebuke and energetic
repudiation of the absurd and blasphemous inference with which
he is deahng. He could the more readily content himself with
this indignant correction, as the daring assertion that God is
unrighteous in His wrath if He judges the unrighteousness which
conduces to the glory of His righteousness, has now exposed its
immoral and detestable consequence in the proposition : Let us
do evh that good may come, with such revolting nakedness as to
secure the condemnation of every judgment. God judges the
world righteously, the apostle had said, ver. 6 ; but why am I
stih judged ? the opponent had rephed, ver. 7 ; now, ver. 8, it is
self-evident that this judgment falls on him righteously, xpivei,
xplvofiai, xplfia, w. 6, 7, 8, are used, then, in reference one to
another, xplfia is here also the sentence of condemnation passed
on such evil-doers at the final judgment. evBixov = to iv Slxy
ov, yvyvbfievov, in accordance with justice, Heb. ii. 2. Moreover,
Paul elsewhere, instead of replying, repels with indignation the
guilty pride which finds fault with God's judgments, and seeks
to draw from them an excuse for sin, ix. 19-21. But Calvin
gives in striking form the proper solution of the enigma embodied
in this passage. " Neque vero," he says, " hanc impiam caviha-
tionem responso dignatur apostolus : quam tamen optima ratione
licebit retundere. Hoc enim tantum praetexit, Si Deus nostra
iniquitate glorificatur, et nihil agere in vita hominem magis decet,
quam ut Dei gloriam promoveat : peccandum ergo in ejus gloriam.
At prompta est depulsio, Quod • malum per se, nonnisi malum
parere potest. Nostro autem vitio quod Dei gloria iRustratur, id
non opus esse hominis, sed Dei : qui ut mirus est artifex, malitiam
nostram subigere et alio traducere novit, ut praeter destinatum a
nobis finem earn in gloriae suae incrementum convertat. Prae-
scripsit nobis rationem Deus, qua velit a nobis glorificari, nempe
pietatem, quae in verbi obedientia sita est. Hos limites qui
transilit, Deum non honorare, sed contumelia magis afficere
nititur. Quod aliter succedit, Dei providentiae ferendum est
acceptum, non hominis pravitati, per quam non stat, quominus
Dei majestas evertatur, nedum laedatur."
The apostle had now proved (ch. i.) the sinfulness of the

116 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Genthes, demonstrated (ch. ii.) that the Jews are in no respect
better than the Gentiles, acknowledged (ch. iii. 1-8) the objecr
tive superiority of the Jews in the fact of theh being entrusted
with the revelations of God, by which it is apparent withal how
little the Jews had on their part turned to advantage this God-
given priority. Quite naturally now, reverting to ver. 1, he
returns to the exposition given in the second chapter, and indeed
does this with the question : whether, then, the Jews, despite
their objective advantage, had a subjective pre-eminence ? To
this question he is compelled to reply in the negative, at the
same time proving the sinfulness of Jews and Genthes by means
of 0. T. testimonies. This argument he employs principahy on
behalf of the Jews, as this method of argument had no special
force in the case of the Genthes. But he employs it principally
against the Jews. Of the sinfulness of the Genthes the Jews
were convinced ' even without this ; but as concerns theh own
sinfulness, their obstinate passion for self-justification could only
be brought to the dust by means of an authority acknowledged
by themselves. This is the purport of vv. 9-20.
Ver. 9. Tt ovv ;] sc. iarlv, Acts xxi. 22 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 15 ; or
ipovfiev, vi. 1, vii- 7. What then ? i.e. what foRows then ? what
takes place in consequence ? how, therefore, stands the question ?
The same question of inference is found vi. 15, xi. 7.
— irpoexbfieOa ,-] In consonance with demonstrable usage, irpo-
exeaOai has but two meanings. Either it is passive : Are we
surpassed ? In this case it cannot be, as supposed by some, a
question of the Gentiles, who would be introduced here entirely
without warning, and to whom Paul, in what he said concerning
the Jews, had not given the shghtest ground for such a question.
Rather we should have had here a question of the insolent Jews :
" Are we surpassed by the Genthes ? are we worse than the
Gentiles ? " But apart from the consideration that then Paul
would have introduced the opponent's question by an eoet? ovv
instead of by Tt ovv, this was in no sense the contention of the
apostle in what precedes. Not that the Gentile surpasses the
Jew, but only that the Jew does not surpass the Gentile, was
the position maintained by the apostle. Besides, what foRows is
altogether irrelevant as an answer to this question. First, it must
have been said : oi fibvov 'IovSalovs dXXd xal "EXXrjvas, or at
least : "EXXnvds re xal 'IovSalovs, but not : 'IovSalovs re xal

CHAP. in. 9. 117
"EXXijvas xrX. Secondly, it would have been necessary anew
to establish this in particular, that the Gentiles also are sinners ;
but not, as on the contrary is done first of aR, that the Jews also
are sinners. — But in the second place, irpoexeaOai may be taken
as middle, in the sense of to pretend, praetexere. But against the
rendering : How then ? Do we use a pretext ? i.e. should we put
forward a pretext ? it is first of all to be objected, that irpoexeaOai
in this sense cannot be proved to be used absolutely, like irpo-
<paal£eaOai. As Rttle as in German it could be said vor sich halten
(to hold before oneself) in the sense of etwas vor sich halten (to hold
something before oneself) = to allege something in defence, could
it be said in Greek irpoexeaOai in the sense of irpoexeaOai n.
In that case Tt ovv irpoexbfieOa ; must have been joined together :
what, then, can we put forward in defence ? But against this
the oi irdvrws tells, for then it must necessarhy have stood oiSev
irdvrws. But further, according to this interpretation, irpoexbfieOa
could only naturaRy refer to the pretext employed by the Jews,
vv. 5 and 7. But these verses contain a secondary thought
already dismissed and done with, and the apostle now manifestly
reverts to the exposition contained in the second chapter; and
finally, the answer given does not suit this interpretation, for it
says that the Jews are sinners, not that they had and should
desire no excuse for their sins.
Nowise satisfied, then, with the regular meanings of irpoexeaOai,
we are compeRed to attempt a modified use of the word. ' But
then it is manifestly too harsh and arbitrary to attribute to the
verb irpoexeiv the altogether ahen sense : to prefer. Are we pre
ferred ? namely, on the part of God to the Genthes. Rather is
this the more easy and simple supposition — that the middle
stands for the active, irpoexeaOai for irpoexeiv, in the ordinary
sense of antecellere, praestare. Therefore irpoexbfieOa = irpoexo/iev,
num praestamus ? nun antecellimus ? Have we a pre-eminence ?
Have we any advantage? namely, over the Gentiles. So, now,
even Baur and TJmbreit. Elsewhere also in later Greek the
middle form is found instead of the active. Comp. Winer, p. 322 ;
Kuhner, § 398, 3; Tholuck on this passage; Harless on Eph.
i. 23, p. 131 f. An express instance of this in the N. T. is fur
nished by Tit. i. 5, where (prpvided that, as we believe, the lectio
recepta is correct, for the reading of Lachmann, iiriSiopOways, is
perhaps only a grammatical correction) iiriZiopOovaOai is used for

118 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
iiriSiopOovv. With the present irpoexbfieOa also may be com
pared Tit. h. 7 : aeavrbv irapexbfievos, instead of aeavrbv
irapex<*>v. But in the present passage the middle form is not
used for the active without a shght modification of meaning, as in
Tit. i. 5. Rather it may be interpreted : Have we any advantage
for ourselves ? Is the privilege of advantage to us ? This inter
pretation is perfectly, nay, in regard to ver. 1, exclusively germane
to the context. It is found already in Theophylact : exofiev n
irXeov xal eiSoxi fiov fiev oi 'IovSaioi, cos rbv vo/iov xal rrjv
irepiTOfir)v Se%dfievoi ; and even the reading of some ancient
codices, versions, and Fathers : Tt oiv irpoxarexofiev (or xarexofiev)
irepiaaov ; (which also, in what foRows, omit oi irdvrws and ydp),
clearly at first merely a gloss on rl ofiv irpoexbfieOa, presents the
same interpretation. The Vulg. also has : praecellimus eos ?
— oi irdvrws] The most obvious rendering would be: non
prorsus, non plane, non quovis pacto, not entirely, not in every
point, as in 1 Cor. v. 10. But Paul's object, as what is directly
subjoined shows, is hot to say that the Jews, though not entirely,
yet partially excel the Genthes, but that they do not excel them
at all. oi irdvrws then = irdvrws oi, 1 Cor. xvi. 12, prorsus non,
nullo pacto, not at all, not in any way ; Theoph. : oiSafiws ; Vulg.
nequaquam. The oi holds good irdvrws, Winer, p. 693. ov
irdvv also is used in the sense of omnino non. As, therefore, the
objective pre-eminence, the irepiaaov of the Jews, holds good xard
irdvra rpbirov, ver. 2 ; so a subjective pre-eminence, a irpoexeiv of
the same, holds good xar ouBeva rpbirov.
— irporjnaadfieOa] alrla hke the Latin causa, charge, accusa
tion. alndaOai, to accuse, to charge, irpb, before, namely in h. 1 ff.
the Jews, in i. 18 ff. the Gentiles. Comp. irpoeypatya, Eph.
iii. 3. The compound irpoamaaOai does not occur again. The
comma after ydp is to be deleted, for 'Ioi/8atoi»? Te xal "EXXnvas
irdvras is not the accusative belonging to the infinitive, but the
direct object of the verb irporjriaadfieOa. " For we have before
accused Jews and Genthes one and aR." The apostle coidd
regard his charge as established. " Vera accusatio," says Calvin,
" nonnisi ea est, quae firmis validisque probationibus nititur :
quemadmodum inter accusationem et convicium alicubi Cicero
distinguit." irdvras does not stand hyperbolicaRy for iroXXovs,
as is proved by oiBe els, oix eariv ecu? evbs, w. 10, 12, and irdv
arbfia, iras b xba/ios, irdaa adpg, vv. 19, 20. All the less can

CHAP. III. 10-12. 119
ii. 14, 15 have been meant of the justification of particular
Gentiles by means of moral works of the natural law. " Loquitur
autem de omnibus hominibus praeter Christum," says Melanchthon,
" ac de Sanctis etiam quatenus sine misericordia considerantur.
Porro exemplum de Judaeis accommodandum est ad omnes
omnibus temporibus qui versantur in bonis operibus morahbus."
In this way the general mode of speech, found in the plural
irpoexbfieOa, is justified.
— vcp' dfiaprlav elvai] specifies the matter of the charge = rov
elvai vcp' dfiaprlav, for we say alndaOai rwd n or rwd twos.
But it is stiR more simple, perhaps, to join irdvras with elvai
as an accus. c. infiin. depending on irpor]naadfieOa — -we have
before accused Jews and Gentiles, that they all, etc. With the
expression : " To be subject to sin as to a master," comp. Matt.
vhi. 9. " virb notat subjectionem tanquam sub tyrannidem peccati"
Bengel. With the sentiment, comp. Rom. vii 14: iyw Be
aapxixos ei/ii, ireirpa/ievos virb rrjv dfiaprlav, and John vhi. 34 :
7rd? o iroiwv . rrjv dfiaprlav, SovXos ian rrjs dfiaprlas. In this
expression vcp' dfiaprlav elvai = dfiaprwXbv elvai, though stronger,
it is clearly manifest how Paul, in his delineation of the actual
sins of the Gentile and Jewish worlds in the first and second
chapters, has at the same time described the sinful principle lying
at the basis of the various manifestations of sin, and holding sway
over all mankind. From this point of view alone do the testi
monies of David and Isaiah, which fohow presently, prove what
they are meant to prove. Properly, they picture the moral cor
ruption of theh own age ; but in this moral corruption the inner
and universal corruption of the human heart is reflected. In so
far are the words a perpetual prophecy.
Vv. 10—12 are taken from Ps. xiv. 1—3. Paul cites rather
freely after the translation of the LXX. The conjunction on
serves to indicate quotation, somewhat like our colon or marks of
quotation, oix ean Slxaios oiBe els] The LXX., in conformity
with the Heb. 3iD nfety ps, have oix ean iroiwv xPrla"roTVTa, 0VK
eariv ew? evbs. Altering the form more than the sense of the
words, Paul puts for this oix ean Slxaios, both because oix eari
iroiwv xPVa"r°TVTa is repeated ver. 12 (although certainly in the
Heb. and the LXX. the same expression occurs), and especially
because oix ean Slxaios oiBe els is eminently appropriate, sum
ming up by anticipation the general result of the foRowing Scripture

120 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
testimonies. The general result is just this, that all are devoid
of the Bixaioavvrj Oeov, because all are vcp' dfiaprlav. Rightly,
therefore, Bengel remarks on the word Slxaios ¦ " aptum verbum,
in sermone de justitia." The addition of the LXX., oix eariv ems
evbs, for which Paul puts oiSe els, is found in the Heb. text for
the first time in the third verse. Paul employs it here so early,
in order at once distinctly to express the unrestricted universality
of sinful corruption.
— oix eariv o avviwv, oix eariv b ix^rjrwv tov Oeov] Ps. xiv. 2.
The LXX., conformably to the Heb. text : xvpios ix tov oipavov
Siexv^frev iirl robs vlobs twv dvOpwirwv, tov ISeiv el ean avviwv
rj ix^rjrwv rbv Oeov. Paul at once states briefly the negative
result of this divine search, avviwv, in Heb. T'^fe'D, wise, in
telligent, as elsewhere 03 n, in the sense : pious, righteous. On the
other hand, bl), foolish, is often found in the sense : ungodly.
Piety is wisdom, both in its own nature and as ensuring salvation ;
ungodliness is folly, both in its own nature and as ensuring ruin.
The participial form avviwv for the regular avviels, from awlvui,
is derived from the root avview. It is especiaRy frequent in the
LXX. Others accentuate, perhaps more correctly, avviwv from
avvlw (Iw instead of irjui). Comp. Winer, p. 136, and Buttmann,
Ausf. Gr. Spr. I. p. 543. ix^-qreiv rbv Oeov, a'rfpK ns V?\,
to seek after God (ixfyjreiv, stronger than tyjreiv), to direct his
thoughts to God, to concern himself about God. Luther: to
inquire after God. The article, omitted by some codices perhaps
merely as a correction, serves to indicate the entire genus. " The
pious man, the man who inquires after God, is not to be found."
So Matt. xh. 35 : d dyaObs dvOpwiros ix rov dyaOov Ovaavpov e'«
/3dXXet Ta dyaOd, comp. Winer, p. 132. The foRowing 12th
verse corresponds exactly with Ps. xiv. 3, according to the LXX.
— irdvres i^exXwav] all are turned aside, i.e. from the right
way. In the Hebrew : "id 5an.
— dfia r)xpeiwOr]aav] To d/ia must be supphed in thought from
what precedes — irdvres = all together, WP, the entire mass is depraved.
dxpeios, useless ; then in a moral sense : worthless, good for nothing,
Matt. xxv. 3 0, nequam, improbus. From this r)xpeiwOr]aav, in har
mony with the Hebrew ^?S3, they are become worthless, are corrupt.
— oix ean iroiwv xpva"T0TVTCl] X/o^o-to? forms a contrast with
dxpeios. xPVa"r°Ttl'>> commonly = goodness, benignitas ; here =
honestas, virtus, virtue, Heb. 3it2.

CHAP. III. 13, 14. 121
— owe eariv] 7rot<3i' xPr)<TT°rVTa te be repeated in thought.
— eo>? evbs] up to one — i.e. this one included, there is none who
does good. Heb. in^rw, even one — £& thou Wouldst not find one,
even wert thou -willing to be satisfied with one. oiK eariv eo??
evbs is then = oiK eariv oiBe els. The Roman also says : " ad
unum omnes improbi sunt " — i.e. the one included. Comp. LXX.
Judg. iv. 16 : oi xareXelcpOv !<»? ez>o'?.
Ver. 10 thus treats of unrighteousness in general which is
manifested as irrehgion, ver. 11, and as immorality, ver. 12.
The Scripture passages which fohow treat of special forms of sin,
partly in word, vv. 13, 14, partly in deed, w. 15-17. The last
scriptural testimony, reverting to the beginning, ver. 11, traces
back individual sins to theh source, the absence of the fear of
God. The quotations, w. 13-18, are found in editions of the
LXX. as four verses of the fourteenth Psalm. But they
are taken from other 0. T. passages, and on the margin of
the Codex Vatican of the LXX. are added to Ps. xiv. from
the Roman epistle. In the Hebrew they are found only in one
codex, manifestly translated into Hebrew by a Christian
reader. Vv. 13, 14. rdtpos - . . iSoXiovaav] verbatim from Ps. v. 9 after
the LXX.
— rdcpos dvewyfievos b Xdpvyl; avrwv] " Theh throat is an open
grave." The Etymol. Mag. distinguishes Xdpvyl; Si ov XaXov/iev
Kal avairveofiev and cpdpvyl; Si ov iaOlofiev xal irlvo/iev iireiSr)
Svo irbpoi elal rov Xaifiov. According to this it is not the gula
that is meant, the gullet as the organ of swallowing, by which
they would be represented as bloodthirsty dvOpwirocpdybi ; but the
gutter, the throat as the organ of speech. So, too, Xdpvyfj, LXX.
Ps. cxlix. 6, cxv. 7 ; Job xxxiii. 2. Doubtless the original dis
tinction soon disappears, and Xdpvyl; and cpdpvytj are interchanged,
so that Phavorinus is not wrong when he says : Xdpvyl xal
cpdpvyl; ravrb. Comp. Job xxxiv. 3 : Xdpvyg yeverat [5pwaw.
Only in the present passage Xdpvyl;, the Heb. Ji"i3, retains its
original meaning, as is proved by its juxtaposition with the other
organs of speech, yXwaaa, xe^V> crbfia, which are referred to
simply as organs of speech. The tertium comparationis between
the throat and an open grave is destructiveness. Their words
and discourse threaten with ruin those who approach them, as
a grave swaRows up corpses. In Jer. v. 16 the quivers of the

122 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Chaldeans, pregnant with destruction, are compared to an open
grave.1 — Tat? yXwaaais airwv iSoXiovaav] with their tongues they
deceive, Heb. PP^n. bfivfa, they make smooth their tongues — i.e. they
flatter and feign so as the more easily to lead the unwary to theh
undoing. In the third pers. plur. of the historical tenses, the
flexion oaav instead of ov is very often found in the LXX. and
the Byzantines — e.g. Ps. lxix. 1, rj\0oaav instead of rjXOov. So
here iSoXiovaav according to the LXX., comp. Winer, p. 91.
The imperfect (they were deceiving) denotes what sthl continued
to take place.
— to? dairlSwv virb rd xe^V airwv] from the LXX. Ps. cxl. 3.
The whole verse there runs : rjxbvnaav yXwaaav airwv wael
Scpews, lbs dairiSwv virb rd xe^V airwv. Adders' poison is an
image of cunning and destructiveness combined. Bengel finds
the cunning indicated in virb, saying : " Sub labhs, nam in labhs
mel est."
— wv rb arbfia dpas xal irixptas yifiei] from Ps. x. 7, Heb.
TjhvrriKnoi ab» wa rbtt, " His mouth is fuR of cursing, and deceit,
and oppression," LXX. : ov dpas rb arbfia airov ye/iei xal
irixplas xal BoXov. Thus they render r»»"p, deceit, by irixpla,
probably confounding it with nhh», bitterness, although again they
add BoXov, and then leave rf\ untranslated. " Os esse execratione et
amarulentia plenum," says Calvin, " quod vitium contrarium est
superiori: sed intehigitur omni ex parte ipsos spirare mahtiam.
Si enim suaviter loquuntur, decipiunt, ac sub blandiths venenum
propinant: sin depromunt, quod habent in animo, iRic prodit
amarulentia et execratio." There have been mentioned, w. 13,
14, the different instruments of speech, — throat, tongue, lips,
mouth, — one and aR lying at the service of unrighteousness, as
oirXa dSlxtas, vi. 1 3, to be employed for a neighbour's destruction.
Vv. 15-17 are taken freely after the LXX. from Isa. lix.
7, 8, These read, with unimportant variations, agreeably to the
original text: ot Be iroSes airwv iirl irovvplav rpexovai,
1 Meyer well : "When the godless have opened their throats for lying and cor
rupting discourse, it is just as if a grave stood opened (observe the perfect), to which
the corpse is to be consigned for decay and destruction. So certainly and unavoid
ably corrupting in their discourse. " So now also Matthias. Less in harmony with
the following description, Pelag. Beng. Estius: "Sicut sepulcrum patens exhalat
tetrum et pestiferum foetorem, ita ex ore illorum impuri, pestilentes, noxiique
sermones exeunt." In the same way Tholuck and Mehring.

CHAP. III. 18. 123
raxtvol ixx&ai alfia, xal ol SiaXoyia/iol airwv BiaXoyiafiol
dirb cpbvwv avvrpififia xal raXaiirwpla iv rais oSois
airwv, xal bSbv elprjvns oix o'lSaai, /cat ovx ean xpiais iv
rais bSois airwv. The apostle omits eVt irovrjplav rpexovai
because it is already implied in rax'vol e/c^eat alfia, and passes
over the sentence xal ol BiaX. . . . cpbvwv, because he is here
treating, not of thoughts, but of deeds.
— avvrpififia xal raXaiirwpla ev rais oSois airwv] Where
they have walked, or walk, are found only ruin and misery. In
their paths are found only those whom they have plunged .into
ruin and misery.
— xal bSbv elprjvijs oix eyvwaav] A path in which they might
be the means of diffusing happiness, they have never become
acquainted with. They belong not to the elprjvoiroiois, they are
accustomed to nothing but the exercise of hostility. The bSbs
elprjvrjs . clearly supplies a contrast with the £8ot?, in which
avvrpififia xal raXaiirwpla are found. It is therefore not to be
interpreted : They know not the way to peace, i.e. to theh own
salvation. Against this also teRs the parallel addition of the
LXX., taken from the original text : xal oix ean xpiais iv rais
bSois airwv, " and there is no judgment in their paths."
Ver. 18. From Ps. xxxvi. 1, after the LXX. "The fear of
God is not before their eyes ; " i.e., it is not the fear of God which
they keep in view, by which they are guided in their dealings,
Ps. xxvi 3. — The question is, lastly, with what right the apostle, in
the Scripture passages quoted, could find an assertion of the sinful
condition of the whole world. Now Ps. xiv. 1-3 certainly con
tains such a universal reference. Comp. Hengstenberg, Com.m.
on Ps. vol. I. p. 205 : "Paul justly puts this passage at the head
of his proof; for the 0. T. contains no passage in which the
universahty and depth of human corruption are painted in such
vivid colours." In the other psalms the enemies of the sacred
psalmist are spoken of, "ubi in se ac suis," remarks Calvin,
" typum quendam regni Christi adumbrat ; quare sub adversarhs
ejus repraesentantur nobis omnes, qui alieni a Christo ejus spiritu
non aguntur." Isaiah's rebuke refers to Israel : " itaque accusatio
ejus multo magis in gentes competit. Quid ergo ? " continues
Calvin, "His eloghs hominum naturam depingi, nihil dubium est:
ut inde spectemus, qualis sit homo sibi relictus : quandoquidem
Scriptura tales esse omnes testatur, qui non sunt Dei gratia

124 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
regenerati. Sanctorum nihilo mehor foret conditio, nisi emendata
esset in hlis pravitas." But the regenerati most whlingly and
without murmuring invariably apply to themselves such Scrip
ture accusations, in remembrance not only of their former natural
state, but also of the sin still remaining in their flesh.
Ver. 1 9 seeks to strip the self-righteous Jew of the pretext, in
which he was disposed to take refuge, that the scriptural declara
tions quoted, vv. 10-18, applied only to Genthes, not to Jews.
oiSa/iev Se] comp. h. 2, introduces an acknowledged principle.
The matter, the meaning is, is weR known to aR who are con
versant with Holy Scripture.
— on ocra d vbfios X-e^et] On the principle : a parte potiori fit
denominatio, b vbfios serves here to designate the entire Old
Testament; for the scriptural passages were taken, be it noted,
from the Psalms and prophets, not speciaRy from the Mosaic
law.1 Comp. John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 21.
Paul expressly uses this title here, not only because of the legal
character of the citations, but also for the sake of the ahusion to
the immediately following Tot? iv toj vbfiw.
— Tot? iv tc3 vofiw XaA-et] ot ev rw vbfiw, sc. ovres, who are in
the law (vb/ios here in the strict and proper sense) as theh sphere
of life, i.e. the Jews, ii. 12. Xeyeiv refers more to the thoughts
expressed, XaXeiv to the utterance in words. "What the law
contains (says, Xeyei) it speaks (makes known, commands, \a\et)
to those who stand under it." Hence in Matt. ix. 33, Luke
xi. 14, it can only be said iXdXrjaev b xwcpbs, not eXeyev, because
here the chief point is not the thoughts expressed, but only the
utterance in words. Comp. Lucke, Comm. John II. p. 290, and
Meyer on John vhi. 43 ; Mark i. 34. The law speaks to those
who are under the law, in order that they may walk by it, apply
it to themselves. As matter of fact, the covenant-Scriptures were
given to the covenant-people. Therefore the rebukes in those
Scriptures were intended to apply to them. The rebukes to the
Gentiles were indicated as such by the prophets, constituted a
subordinate element in the entire code, and were not recorded
directly for the benefit of the Genthes but of Israel, for their own
warning, that they might confess the justice of the Lord, that
1 According to Hengstenberg, ibid., the name of the law was transferred from the
books of Moses to the other books of the 0. T. not a potiori, but because the latter
shared with the law its normative or regulative import.

CHAP. III. 19. 125
they might be convinced of their own kindred unfaithfulness.
The scriptural testimonies adduced, vv. 10-18, were doubtless
intended to establish the guilt of the Jewish and Gentile world ;
but they were intended in particular to do this with respect to the
Jews by the authority of the 0. T., which they acknowledged, and
above aR to abase their pride. For the conviction of the Gentiles,
the apostle, with wise regard to theh point of view, had brought
forward no testimony from Scripture, but dealt with them on the
ground of the so-called light of natural reason, which was always
summoning as a witness against them the remnant of that divine
knowledge and conscience which in their own breast played the
part of a standing accuser. Moreover, the Jews admitted the
guilt of the Genthes without aRegation of scriptural testimonies.
They needed, then, to be persuaded to apply the latter, not in any
sense exclusively to the Genthes, but, above all, to themselves.
— 'iva irdv arbfia cppayfj] the mouth, not only of the Genthes,
but also of the Jews, who were especially prone to contradiction
and boastfulness, ver. 27. 'iva, not exf3anxws, so that, but
reXixws, in order that, eo consilio ut. As a rule, the consecutive
sense of the particle 'iva is not demonstrable in the N. T. with
certainty. Rather everywhere, indeed (with the exception of
Rev. xiii. 13), we may be content with the tehc acceptation. But,
doubtless, it is often only a question of a different point of view,
whether one and the same thing is represented as a purpose or a
result. For this reason in several passages iva is convertible
with wo-Te, without being of itself the same in meaning, Winer,
p. 573. On no ground is there reason in the present passage to
deviate from the proper signification of the telic particle iva. On
the contrary, the real meaning here is : that which Scripture says,
it says that every mouth may be stopped. In consonance with
weR-established bibhcal teleology, what is commonly to be taken
by us as an effect or consequence of God's Word is often de
scribed as a purpose of God's Word itself, and still further of
God, the author of that Word. The phrase cppdaaew rb arbfia is
found in Heb. xi. 33 ; LXX. Ps. cvh. 42 ; Job v. 16.
— xal viroSixos yevryrai iras b xba/ios rw Oew] virbSixos
Theophylact explains by xardxpiros, dirappvalaaros. It is =
virb Slxvv wv, punishable, liable to punishment, and certainly in
this case the punishment is due to God (rw Oew). yevrjrai,
like yiveaOw, ver. 4. The penal liability doubtless actuaRy exists

126 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
already, but it is first proved to be such by the testimony of the
Word, irdv arbfia, iras b xba/ios stands, as Melanchthon says,
" insigni figura et verborum emphasi" In cppdaaeiv arbfia and
virbSixov ytyveaOai the judicial form of the expression is to be
observed. " Metaphora a judichs petita," says Calvin, " ubi reus,
siquid habet ad justam defensionem, vices dicendi postulat, ut'
quae sibi imposita sunt purget : si vero conscientia sua premitur,
silet ac tacitus exspectat suam damnationem, suo jam shentio
damnatus. Eundem sensum habet ilia loquendi forma, Job
xxxix. 34 : Opponam manum meam ori meo. Dicit enim,
etiamsi non destituatur ahqua excusationis specie, justhicandi
tamen omissa cura se Dei sententiae concessurum."
Ver. 20. The result arrived at, that every mouth must be
stopped, and ah the world be guilty before God, is finally, with a
view to the complete abasement of Jewish pride in the law,
confirmed by the doctrine that the epya vbfiov could not be the
means of the Bixaioavvrj Oeov, because the aim of the vbfios is
not to justify, but to condemn the sinner. Thus the apostle has
paved the way for a transition to the positive exposition of his
subject, namely, that Bixaioavvrj is e'/c irlarews, i. 17.
— Siori ilj epywv vo/iov ktX.] As to Sibn, comp. on i 19.
Here, too, it is not =propterea, Sib, but = propterea quod, in
which case after Oew, ver. 19, only a colon or comma is to be
put, or = nam. All the world is guilty before God, because
those works of the law which they can produce for their justifica
tion fail to justify them. By vbfios, of course, is here to be under
stood, as everywhere, the positive Mosaic law, and the epya vbfiov
answer to what* the Rabbins caR Ostein B'fcTflD. But these are not
merely works of the ceremonial law, — a notion which would result
in a purely abstract partition of the indivisible general conception
vbfios, just as un-Hebraistic as it is un-Pauline. The antithesis,
in fact, is not that man cannot be justified before God through
works of the ceremonial law, but through works of the moral law
he may, which would be to do away with the essence and aim of
redemption through Christ. Rather the works of the law stand,
generally and without distinction, in antithesis to faith. The
vd/to?, then, is the complete revealed law in its unsevered unity.
Nay, on the contrary, in this expression in Paul is found, though
not an exclusive, yet a predominant reference to the moral law,
to which, in truth, hitherto reference has chiefly been made,

CHAP. Ill, 20. 127
ii. 18, 21 ff., 26 f. Only on account of this most essential
moral constituent could the apostle bring the moral law of the
Genthes into comparison with the Mosaic law, ii. 14, 15, and say
of the latter what he does say in iii. 20, 31, vii. 7.
epya vbfiov, then, is explained on the one hand: works which the
law effects, which it wrests from man by its demands, i.e. works
such as the unregenerate man who stands under the law is able
to perform in the strength of his own free wiR ; therefore out
wardly, merely legal works, epya vexpd so called. In this case
the genitive is genitivus auctoris or causae. Thus in the train
of Augustine .and Thomas Aq., Roman Catholic expositors, since
the Reformation especially, but several modern Protestant ex
positors as weR, and I myself in the two first editions of this
commentary. So, too, Luther in his preface to the Roman
epistle : " Thus inure thyself to the saying that it is one thing to
do works of the law, and another to fulfil the law. Works of the
law are everything in the law which man does or can do of his
own free wiR and power. But since, among and along with
such works, unloving and constrained obedience to the law
remains in the heart, such works are aR thrown away and use
less." This St. Paul means (hi. 20) when he says : " By works
of the law no man becomes righteous before God." To epya
vbfiov in this sense, works which are done before conversion in
the strength of the natural wiR, epYa dyaOd, xaXd would stand
in opposition, Rom. h. 7 ; 2 Cor. ix. 8 ; Eph. ii. 10 ; Col. i 10 ;
1 Tim. h. 10; -Tit. ii. 14, ih. 8, 14, works which are the fruits
of regeneration, of the Spirit, and of faith. On this view, it was
not altogether warrantable exegetically for the older Protestant
expositors to assert that Paul, by the expression epya vbfiov,
directly excluded from justification aR works, not only those pre
ceding conversion, but also those following it. The dogma is
true in itself; but its exegetical confirmation hes not alone in
the epya vbfiov being excluded from justification, but rather, as
far as concerns the works of the regenerate, above aR in this fact,
that epya dyaOd follow as the consequence of justification. Comp,
Eph. ii. 10, where the eVt in eVt epyois dyaOois serves to
indicate the final aim. But the consequence of a thing cannot
itself form a constituent element of its nature. In the well-known
Augustan Protestant doctrine: "bona opera non praecedunt justifi-
candum, sed sequuntur justificatum," which is based upon profound

128 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
acquaintance with the Pauline doctrinal conception, it is likewise
asserted that justification does not consist in bonis operibus, because
the latter are the consequentia of the former. At aR events, at
the basis of that older interpretation of the expression epya
vbfiov lay the implied truth that epya dyaOd, when they are con
sidered as a fulfilling of the law, i.e. when they are supposed to
be a medium of justification, at that very moment are placed in
relation to the law, measured by the standard of the law, and
thus themselves become epya vbfiov, not, indeed, in the sense of
works effected and compelled by the law, but in the sense of works
demanded by the law and in correspondence with the law.
The latter, then, is the meaning assigned to the expression epya
vbfiov by older Protestant and a number of modern interpreters,
comp. especiaRy, Wieseler on Gal. h. 16, p. 194 ff. Accordingly
epya dyaOd are not merely works which, as purely outward works,
cannot justify, even though in their sphere they are without
defect (Phil. iii. 6); therefore, not merely works of the unregenerate
man. But under this designation are included as well the epya
dyaOd, xaXd of the regenerate, which likewise cannot justify, not
only because they are themselves merely the consequence of justifi
cation by faith, but also because of themselves they are ever
imperfect. All works demanded by God's law and in harmony
with it, which any unregenerate or regenerate man whatever can
bring forward, fail to justify him, because they are never a
perfect fulfilment of the spiritual Nomos. This signification of
epya vbfiov is advanced already by Luther on Gal h. 16 :
" Loquitur Paulus de universa lege, quod opus secundum totam
legem factum non justificet. Ergo non occidere, non moechari,
etc., sive fiat secundum naturam, secundum vires humanas, secun
dum liberum arbitrium, sive secundum donum Dei vel divinam
virtutem, tamen non justificat. Possunt opera legis fieri aut ante
justificationem aut post justificationem. Ante justificationem
multi boni vhi etiam inter genthes praestiterunt legem et fecerunt
egregia opera, et tamen per ea non sunt justificati. Post justifi
cationem faciunt opera legis Petrus, Paulus et omnes christiani,
sed per ea non justificantur, 1 Cor. iv. 4." In the same strain
says Calov on the passage : " Papistarum sophismata ut expedi-
antur, observandum (1) per legem hic non intehigi ceremonialem
legem, quasi opera tantum ceremonialia excludantur a justifica-
tione ; (2) per opera legis non inteRigi opera solis naturae viribus

CHAP. III. 20. 129
facta ; quia hic omnia excluduntur opera. Neque (3) per opera
legis tantum opera ante fidem sine Dei gratia facta intelhguntur,
quasi opera ex fide facta non excludantur a justificatione : sed
apostolus indefinite opera quaevis excludit." Comp., lastly, Joh.
Gerhard, loc. xvh. de Justif. torn. vh. p. 187 : " Ubicunque abso
lute et simphciter opera a justificatione excluduntur, ibi etiam
renatorum opera exclusa inteRiguntur. Renatorum opera sunt
opera legis, quia Spiritus sanctus renatis proponit legem tanquam
normam bonorum operum." Gal. v. 22, 23 : " Bona opera dicuntur
fructus Spiritus, contra quos non sit lex, utique ergo sunt opera
legis, hoc est, a lege praecepta et legi conformia." As the ground
upoii which justifying virtue is Jfco be denied even to the good
works of the regenerate, he lays down, p. 189 : "Ex operibus
legis ideo negantur homines justificari, quia lex non potest per
fect* impleri : lex spirituahs est, nos autem venumdati sumus
sub peccate, Rom. vh. 14. Atqui ipsi etiam renati non implent
legem perfecte, ergo ipsorum etiam renatorum operibus deneganda
est justificatio."
To this meaning of the phrase epya vbfiov we now give the
preference over the one advocated by us formerly. It might
seem, indeed, as if the apostle, in opposition to the unregenerate
Jew whom out of Scripture he had just convicted of sin, by the
ep7a vbfiov, which the Jew might perchance allege against him,
understands only outwardly legal works. But this does not
prevent the expression epya vbfiov in the abstract retaining its
general meaning, if here it receives also its special application.
Moreover, among the Israelites there were devout behevers who
had real epya vbfiov to show, whose works, as they still remained
sinners, the apostle intimates must be excluded from the matter
of their justification. And in the last place his Christian readers
were to be led, by the written preaching of the Roman epistle,
again and more thoroughly than heretofore, to make proof for
themselves of the way of repentance and faith, in doing which it
behoved the'm, above everything, to beware of bringing their own
works, even though wrought by the Spirit, into the matter of
justification, epya vbfiov, then, are all works required by God's
law and in harmony with it, which, whether according to the case
in hand they are merely outward works of the unregenerate, or
truly good works of the unregenerate, do not justify before God,
because in no case are they a perfect fulfilment of the law.
Philippi, Rom. I. I

130 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Wherefore it is said on one side, e'f epywv vbfiov ov SixaiwOrjaerai
irdaa adpl;, and on the other, ot iroirjral rov vbfiov SixaiwOrjaovrat,
ii. 13 ; for they who have epya vbfiov are sthl no iroiwral rov
vbfiov in the absolute sense of the word. But the genitive is the
genitive of belonging to or remoter relation : " Works which belong
to the law, which stand in relation to the law," Winer, p. 234.
They stand in relation to the law just in so far as the law
requires them and they correspond to the law, in which aspect
the motive from which and the power by which (liberum arbitrium
or gratia Dei) they are accomplished do not come into account.
EspeeiaRy decisive for the interpretation in question is the fourth
chapter of our epistle. The divine oracle there quoted^ which
ascribes to Abraham Sixalwais ovk e|f epywv, dXXd Sid irlarews,
was uttered when Abraham was already a behever, and engaged,
as to his conduct, in works truly good and weh-pleasing to God.
And in the same sense the apostle there says that David excluded
works from justification, — David, a man beheving and devout,
the man after God's heart. FinaRy, to the Apostle Peter and
the Galatian Christian church Paul proposes as a rule of per
petual force even for them, on oi BiKaiovrai dvOpwiros e£ epywv
vbfiov, Gal. ii. 16. For the rest, the expression epya vbfiov is
found in characteristic fashion only in the Roman and Galatian
epistles (Rom. hi. 28, ix. 31 ; Gal. h. 16, iii. 2, 5, 10). But epya
without vbfiov stands in the same sense (Rom. iv. 2, 6, ix. 11,
xi. 6, and Eph. ii. 9 ; 2 Tim. i. 9 ; comp. the synonymous phrase,
Tit. iii. 5).
— oi SiKaiwOrjaerai irdaa adpl; evwiriov airov] Ps. cxlih. 2,
LXX. : OTt oi SiKaiwOrjaerai ivcbiriov aov iras %wv. The negation
belongs to the verb. " Ah flesh shall not be justified = no flesh,
no one shall be justified, oiSefila adpl;, or ouSet? SiKaiwOrjaerai."
"A Hebraistic syntactical construction," Winer, p. 214. So e.g.
Matt. xxiv. 22 : owe dv iacoOrj irdaa adp%. That Sixaiovv has
here its declaratory force is self-evident, for the righteousness
which any one has from epyois vbfiov cannot be infused into him,
but can only be declared to exist. But still further, evwiriov
airov (not vir' airov) indicates that here the only mention is of
a judicial, declaratory act, a being just before the divine tribunal,
i.e. of a justum declarari. The future SiKaiwOrjaerai stands either
for moral possibility (comp. on ver. 6) or for the abstract future,:
in the sense : In every case where justification takes place, as

CHAP. III. 20. 131
often as justification is in question. The latter interpretation is
to be preferred on account of the analogous Sixaiwaei, ver. 30.
We are not to think of the time of the future general judgment,
for the very reason that already, in the present state of existence,
justification is invariably the immediate result of faith. 7rdo-a
adp!;, corresponding to iras b xbafios, ver. 19, and 7rd? %wv (,0"«>?)
in the passage of the Psalms quoted, is used probably without
special emphasis on the element of frailty in the adp};. When
the apostle says that by works of the law no one is justified
before God, he does not mean that this holds good because no
one has works of the law. On the contrary, the Jews had them
and boasted of them, as Paul himself did before his conversion ;
for he says of himself in that period he was xard Sixaioavvrjv rrjv
iv vb/iw a/iefiirros, Phil ih. 6. Rather epya vbfiov do not
justify, as observed, either because they are epya vexpd, Heb.
vi. 1, ix. 14, or because, although epya dyaOd, xaXd, even as
such they are imperfect. But then the apostle says not merely
that no Jew, but quite generally, that no man attains justification
availing before God by works of the law. At the same time, we
are not to suppose that in the expression epya vbfiov,,oi itself so
sharply limited, he included those works which the Gentiles did
in conformity with theh law of conscience, the deputy of the
Mosaic vbfios (h. 14, 15) ; and this the less, as undoubtedly he
would not have said of , the Genthes' law of conscience that it
effects iiriyvwaw duaprlas ; for this is only true of the vbfios in
so far as it is irvevfianxbs, vh. 14. Rather is Paul discussing
the supposition of the Jews, that by theh epya vbfiov they
attained the Bixaioavvrj Oeov, and that the Genthes as avofioi
must first be placed under the vbfios, and do its epya, in order
before God to share like honour with them.1 This supposition he
combats by the assertion that no man by works of the law attains
righteousness, neither the Jew who has epya vbfiov, nor the
Genthe if he had them. At the same time it is self-evidently
true, that if even the Jew is not justified by his works of
law, far less whl acts done in conformity with the natural law
of conscience assist the Genthe in attaining to real, vahd
righteousness. — Std ydp vbfiov iirvyvwais dfiaprlas] Confirmation (ydp) of
the preceding principle. Works of law justify not, because the
1 So now even Mehring, p. 307.

132 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS,
very nature of law is not to justify, but to impart the knowledge
of sin. Comp. Gal. ih. 10 . oaoi ef epyeov vbfiov elalv, virb
xardpav elalv. " A contrario ratiocinatur," says Calvin, " non
afferri nobis justitiam a Lege, quia convincit nos peccati et
damnationis : quando ex eadem scatebra non prodeunt vita et
mors." But the law works the knowledge of sin, because the
more familiar a man becomes with it, and the more he takes it
as his standard, the more, by its spiritual requirements of trust
in God, fear of God, and love both of God and one's neighbour,
it reveals to him the unspiritual, self-seeking, sensual elements
of his nature, so that he ceases to boast of his Pharisaic righteous
ness and outward reputation, and instead, as a sinner, confesses
himself guilty before God. Comp. vii. 7 ff. As to iirlyvwais,
see on i 28. Plena et accurata cognitio peccati is at the same
time agnitio peccati.
The apostle has now come to the end of one section of his
exposition. We recapitulate the results arrived at so far. The
theme of the epistle announces how all mankind can find right
eousness and life only in faith in Christ. To estabhsh this, it
must first of aR be proved that in mankind, in their natural con
dition, only sin and death are found. But mankind before Christ
fell into two great divisions, Genthes and Jews, whose prevalent
sins took different forms of manifestation. The Genthes were
given up to idolatry, to corruption of religious truth, unnatural
lusts, as well as to vice and crime of every kind. The light of
divine knowledge and of conscience remaining in them could
only serve to reveal to them theh inexcusableness and the judg
ment of death hanging over them, and could not avail to secure
righteousness acceptable to God. Over against them stood Israel,
the people of revelation and covenant, proud in the possession*
first, of the law as the source of aR true knowledge of God and
His will, and then of circumcision, as the sign of theh covenant-
relation to Jehovah, the only true God and Lord of the world.
Puffed up with such gifts and endowments, the Jews claimed to
instruct the Genthes, the ungodly, lawless, uncircumcised. But
by such conduct they simply passed judgment on themselves.
For neither fewer nor smaRer vices were current among them
than among the Gentiles, and by theh transgression of the law
they brought it to pass that the name of God was blasphemed by
f,h.p fi-Anr.ilpa nnil flint, t-.Tip law cmrl Amrona-nt._aiiTr» cfnA^ no n Tirit_

CHAP. III. 20. 133
ness against their untruthfulness and covenant-breaking. There
fore, hke the Gentiles, they were given up to sin and death. The
apostle depicts the rehgious and moral condition of the Gentile
and Jewish world of that age. From this he excepts no single
individual, and in point of fact in the national sphit and character
prevalent in any age, every member of the nation without ex
ception has a share. Every one contributes to this spirit, not
only when as a child of his age he is infected, if not by aR, yet
by one or other of the sins universally diffused ; but also when,
through neglect of energetic protest, admonition, correction, and
punishment, he does not meet it with opposition sufficiently
decided. But Paul has to do not merely with the external mani
festation, but, at the same time, with the inner essence which the
manifestation reflects. Sinful acts, manifold and widely ramified,
point back to sinful tendencies, of which they are manifestations.
There is nothing external without an internal counterpart. At
the root of Rlegal acts lies the illegal condition, the anomistic
state of heart. Wherefore neither the legal rules by which
Genthe life even in its deepest corruption was regulated and
influenced, nor yet the works of law in which the Jews, in their
zeal for God's worship, God's service, and the Mosaic Nomos,
prided themselves, could be any reply to the apostohc catalogue
of sins which to theh confusion was held up before them. So
little was this the case, that even where, which yet was not easily
possible, Pharisaic legal strictness succeeded in avoiding every
iRegal act, and in carrying through a complete and faultless per
formance of outward works of law, in no wise was either right
eousness acceptable at the divine tribunal attained, or implication
in the universal corruption of sin canceRed. For God's eye
pierces to the heart, and His hps of truth describe the sinful
tendency as already a sinful act, a transgression of that law of
His which requires obedience of heart and inclination. Hence
the law, being of a spiritual nature, even to the legally righteous
in the outward sense of the word, brings only knowledge of sin
and death, not righteousness and life. But, then, if this is the
invariable attribute and purpose of law, we see how the sinful
condition of that particular age, with its visible acts and hidden
tendencies, cannot at aR be regarded as peculiar to that age — i.e.
fortuitous and transitory. Rather as the separate sinful tendencies
are the source of separate sinful acts, so the shifting sinful

134 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
tendencies themselves again lead back to an abiding sinful
principle by which mankind is perpetuaRy governed. Evil lusts
lead back to evil lust as the universal source lying deepest and
most secret of all, a source which in all ages proclaims its trium
phant existence in special corrupt tendencies and acts in an end- ,
less variety of forms. Thus, in depicting the condition of the
world in that age, the apostle withal gives us a picture, of the
universal condition of mankind. He thereby proved man's sin
fulness and need .of redemption in every age and without excep
tion. If the moral character of his contemporaries was merely
fortuitous, if it did not prove the permanent corruption of human
nature, his entire train of reasoning misses its mark. For neither
could he then have so confidently charged every individual without
exception with sin, since a few here and there might in secret
have kept themselves free from contamination, nor even would
the actuaRy fallen need redemption through Christ, but only,
with the purity and integrity of their nature sthl remaining,
a turning to repentance and righteousness of life by the spontane
ous power of their own wiR, But least of aR in that case was
the atonement by Christ's blood an atonement for the sins
of the whole world; for neither was it by any means proved
that the possibly more moral races before Christ had needed
it, and that the races after Him would need it, nor from this
standpoint of an external moral atomism were there any means
of proving it.
The apostle, then, having shown that all men are under sin,
and therefore that the law cannot be a means of justification, —
nay, that, on the contrary, it only mediates the knowledge of sin,
— the second, real, main division of his epistle now opens, con
taining the positive exposition of his theme, laid down i 16, 17,
namely, that only irlans mediates the Bixaioavvrj Oeov and
awrrjpla. This forms again a coherent Whole, ih. 21 up to v. 11.
In this chapter, first of aR from ver. 21, the Pauline doctrine of
justification itself is set forth, according to which righteousness
availing before God comes without law through faith in the
atoning death of Jesus. In the fourth chapter this doctrine is
confirmed by the example of Abraham. In ch. v. 1-11 it is
shown in the last place how the possession of awrrjpla and £»>?
is the immediate fruit of this righteousness by faith, and there
fore the indefeasible inheritance of the justified by faith.

CHAP. III. 21. 135
Ver. 21. vwl Be] may be a mere logical particle of transition :
atqui, but then, as in vii. 17 ; 1 Cor. vii. 14, xv. 20 ; or vwl is an
adverb of time = iv rw vvv xatpw, ver. 2 6, hoc autem tempore,
but at this time, as vi. 22, xv. 23-, 25. The latter view is to be
preferred, because the apostle 'glances back not merely to ver. 20,
but to the entire preceding, exposition. In contrast with the
pre-Christian period of heathenism and Judaism, in which only
sin and the impossibhity of attaining righteousness through
works of the law were , to be seen, stands now the picture
of the Christian period, in which righteousness by faith, con
sisting in the forgiveness of sins, is provided without aid of the
law, comp. Gal. iv. 4. "Hitherto it was so, but now it is
otherwise." — Xmph vbfiov] Strikingly Luther : without the assistance of
the law, i.e. without its co-operation. It forms the antithesis of
Sid vbfiov, ver. 20, and is to be joined with irecpavepwrai, not
with SiKaioavvrj Oeov. With the new revelation of God's right
eousness the law in no respect agrees. For the law reveals sin ;
the gospel, righteousness. The law says : he that does me be
comes righteous and blessed ; the gospel says : he that beheves
in me becomes righteous and blessed, x. 5 ff. The law demands
and does not give, the gospel gives and does not demand. Since
no one does or can do the law, only the gospel which gives freely
without assistance of the law commanding, reveals righteousness
acceptable to God.
— Bixaioavvrj Oeov] see on i. 17.
— irecpavepwrai] is made manifest, the completed matter of
fact ; diroxaXvirrerai, i 17, is being manifested, the act still con
tinuing. The cpavepwais, diroxdXvyfris stands in antithesis to the
former concealment in the eternal divine counsel, xvi. 25 ; Eph.
ih. 5, 9 ; 2 Tim. i 9, 10 ; Tit. i. 2, 3.
— fiaprvpovfievrj virb rov vbfiov xal twv irpocprjrwv] Acts
xxviii. 23; Luke xxiv. 27. This new doctrine is withal the
old doctrine testified previously, i 2, and precisely as such is of
unerring authority, d vbfios xal ol irpocprJTai = the 0. T. Matt.
xxii 40. Already Moses (iv. 3 ; Gal. iii. 8) and the prophets
(i. 17; Acts x. 43) bore witness, that righteousness availing
before God is attained through faith. In so far as the O. T. is in
the main a covenant of law, the righteousness of faith is not
revealed by it but by the N. T. ; but in so far as the old legal

136 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
covenant, by means of the evangelic promise embraced in it,
already reaches forward beyond itself, it also bears witness to the
righteousness of faith proclaimed through the gospel. As to the
relative disclosure of the N. T. revelation of grace in the 0. T.
covenant-Scriptures, which is withal a relative concealment, the
saying of Augustine holds good : " Novum T. in Vetere latet,
Vetus in Novo patet." For the rest, Bengel rightly: "Lex
stride (namely, in %w/)t? vbfiov) d late (in virb rov vbfiov)
dicitur." Ver. 22 specifies by what means righteousness availing before
God is ^mediated, namely, through faith in Jesus Christ.
— Bixaioavvrj Se Oeov] God's righteousness, I say. The principal
idea is repeated, because it is now to be more precisely defined.
As to Se in explanatory repetitions = inquam, and that, comp.
Winer, p. 553; Phil. ii. 8. "God's righteousness, but God's
righteousness through faith."
— Sid irlarews 'Ivaov Xpiarov] not fj Sid irlar. 'I. Xp., either
because Bixaioavvrj Sid irlarews is taken as one strictly connected
idea = Righteousness-of-faith, or because Bixaioavvrj Bid irlarews
recaRs the formula BixaiovaOai Sid irlarews, ver. 30 ; Gal ii 16 ;
Winer, p. 155. Moreover, the article was here the less called
for, as Bixaioavvrj is without it. ,Irjaov Xpiarov is genitivus
objedivus = faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the object or
import of justifying faith (Mark xi. 22 ; Gal. ii. 20, ih. 22 ; Eph.
iii. 12 ; Winer, p. 232).
— et? irdvras xai iirl irdvras rovs iroarevovras] sc. ofiaa,
whereas others prefer to erase the -comma after Xpiarov, and to
make et? irdvr. xal iirl irdvr. depend on irecpavepwrai.1 The
repetition of irdvras expresses unreserved universahty. The
righteousness of faith extends absolutely to aR who believe, not
. simply to Jews, but just as much to Genthes. It comes unto ah
(els irdvras), and pours itself forth upon all (iirl irdvras) like a
stream. On the accumulation of prepositions for the purpose of
exhausting the idea in hand, comp. Winer, p. 521. xal iirl
irdvras is wanting in several old mss., translations, and patristic
quotations, on which account Lachmann has expunged these words
from the text. But since they are not to be regarded as a gloss,
1 But that this method of connection does not deserve the preference, Meyer
rightly proves, " because the point at issue was not the mode of becoming manifest,
but the specific characterizing of the righteousness itself that had become manifest."

CHAP. III. 23. 137
of which et? irdvras, intehigible of itself, stood in no need, it is
rather to be supposed that the omission of the words arose either
from the eye of the transcriber wandering from the first irdvras to
the second, or from an intentional correction, the sense being
complete without xal iirl irdvras.
— ov ydp eari SiaaroXtf] namely, between Jews and Gentiles.
The righteousness of faith extends to ah without exception, for
there is no distinction between one and another, because (ver. 23)
ah are sinners. "Et opponi debent hujusmodi particulae uni-
versales (irdvres)," says Melanchthon, " periculosis cogitationibus
de praedestinatione. Clare Deus offert omnibus remissionem
peccatorum, omnes igitur audiamus hoc Evangelium, sciamus hoc
Evangehum ad omnes pertinere, omnes amplectamur et erigamus
conscientias his testimonhs."
Ver. 23. irdvres ydp rjaaprov] as was made good by the
apostle in i. 18 up to hi. 19. The aorist describes the act of sin
as a historical fact of the past. The perfect rjfiaprr]xaai = vcp'
dfiaprlav elal would represent the sin as continuing with its
consequences to the present.
— xal varepovvrai rrjs SoJ-rjs rov Oeov] varepeiaOai = varepov
ylr/veaOai, posteriorem fieri, to be left behind in the race, to remain
behind. But as one that remains behind a thing is without it,
varepeiaOai in later Scripture passages means clestitui, carere, to
lack, to be without, and like aR verbs of defect governs the
genitive. Similarly XelireaOal twos. Luther: "and lack the
glory which they should have with God." In this case Sb%a rov
Oeov, analogously with Bixaioavvrj Oeov, stands for So%a ivwiriov
rov Oeov, irapd rw Oeu, " glory, honour that God deems such, that
avails before God." Not reaRy differing from this in meaning,
others interpret : " they are without the honour that God gives,
are without approval on God's part (rov Oeov, as genit. audoris)."
Just so John xh. 43 : r) Sbtja tov Oeov, for which in John v. 44
rj Sb%a r) irapd Oew stands. Accordingly, as we interpret Bixaioavvrj
Oeov, righteousness availing before God, or : righteousness that God
gives, we shaR prefer the one or the other of the interpretations
given, which in substance do not differ. But the interpretation :
they are 'without glorying towards God, is out of the question, for
Sb%a is gloria, not gloriatio. Glorying towards God is xavx^ais
or xavxrjfia irpbs tov Oeov, ver. 27. But just as httle is Sb^a
tov Oeov to be referred to the future glory which God will give

138 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
in eternal life, as in v. 2, the apostle here manifestly treating
of the desert of man in the present life.1 Finally, the reference
of the Sofa tou Oeov to the divine image implanted originally
is to be rejected, though most of the older Protestant and
some modern expositors maintain it. For neither can Sbga rov
Oeov be rendered likeness to God, nor does the expression in
the least degree suggest to any one a reference to a Sbija that
is past, or the interpretation : " they are without the glory that
God gave them in the beginning.'' But neither can Sbija rov
Oeov signify God-like glory = image of God. If the apostle had
wished to express this idea, he would undoubtedly have written
simply and intelligibly : xal varepovvrai rrjs eixbvos rov Oeov.
1 Cor. xi. 7: elxcov xal Sbija Oeov, furnishes no analogy suffi
cient to justify the reference of Solja rov Oeov in this passage to
the divine image implanted originaRy. There man himself is
called Sofa rov Oeov; the subject is not, as here, the Sofa toS
Oeov which man ought to have.
Ver. 24. Sixaioiifievoi] Luther:, "and are justified without
merit." But Sixaiovfievoi is not = xal Sixaiovvrai, for the
participle does not arbitrarily stand for the copula with the
finite verb. Rather are we to interpret: "and are destitute of
glory with God, being (since they are) justified freely;" Beza: "ut
qui justificentur." Here, then, the idea of unworthiness (vare
povvrai Sb%rjs) figures as the principal ide'a, to which the idea of
justification, upon which yet the principal emphasis lies, is
subordinated as a secondary notion. Elsewhere the Greeks often
annex the principal idea in a participial form to the verbum
finitum, which is explained by theh wealth in these forms, and
by their fondness for participial constructions. Comp. Matthia,
Ausf. Gr. Gram. Th. II. § 557, p. 1097, 2. But we do not
think that this mode of construction is chosen here without
design and significance. Rather is it of such consequence to the
apostle to annihilate ah Sbija and all xavxrjais in men, that from
the first he so arranges the exposition of his doctrine of justifica
tion as to direct it to this end. For this reason, when it is
finished, his first question, ver. 2 7, is : irov ofiv r) xavxrjais ; AR
men are destitute of glory before God in two certainly closely
1 Meyer justly observes that "the following lixxioi/tim proves that the Vo\x «3
hoZ cannot in reality be anything essentially different from the imano-hn tui,
and cannot be merely future."

CHAP. III. 24. 139
connected respects, — first, because they have all sinned; and
secondly, because they are all justified in the way of gift. It
cannot then be held that Paul would more plainly or correctly
have written xal Sixaiovvrai instead of Sixaiovfievoi.
— Swpedv] in way of gift, gratuitously, i.e. without payment
or merit through works of law on our part. Hence v. 17: r)
Swped rfjs Sixaioavvns, and Eph. h. 8 : Oeov to Sapov. In this
signification stands Swpedv, Matt. x. 8; Rev. xxi. 6, xxii. 17.
In the ordinary signification: gratis, without material payment,
Matt. x. 8 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ; 2 Thess. ih. 8 ; finally, in the sense of
sine causa, John xv. 25, and of frustra, Gal. ii. 21.
— t?7 airov ^dptTt] specifies the efficient cause of justification.
Its cause is not the merit of man's fulfilment of the law, for it is
vouchsafed Swpedv. On the contrary, the cause is simply and
solely the free, unmerited love of God, the love which in relation
to the sinner manifests itseR as x°LPl's- Respecting the antithesis
of %d/jt? (or eXeos, Tit. iii. 5) and fiiaObs epywv, or bcpelXrjfia,
comp. iv. 4, xi. 6. But if man's being pronounced righteous
depends on divine grace, it is eo ipso identical with absolution
from the guilt of sin, with forgiveness of sins, just as in iv. 1—8
expressly Sixaiovv, Xoyl^eaOai Sixaioavvrjv, dcpievai rds dvofilasy
iirixaXvirreiv rds d/iaprlas are perfectly synonymous notions.
" By the position of the words rfj airov x",PlTl (n°t TV X^P-
airov) the divine grace is, in harmony with the notion of
Swpedv, emphasized precisely as the divine, opposed to all human
co-operation," Meyer.
— 8td Trjs d7ro\i/Tpoja-e<»? rrjs iv Xpiarw 'Irjaov] sc. yevofievrjs.
" Contained and resting in Him, in His person, who has appeared
as the Messiah (hence the Xpiarcp is placed first)," Meyer.
Herewith the means are specified of which divine grace, as
the efficient cause, made use in working out man's justification.
' AiroXvrpwais, properly the redemption of captives in war by a
ransom, or generally redemption by payment of a Xvrpov. That in
every passage, in which the subject is man's justification, which is
mediated by an diroXvrpwais, this strict signification of purchase,
acquisition by payment of a price, is to be held fast, is evinced
by the synonymous expressions dyopd&iv, 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23 ;
i%ayopd%eiv, Gal. ih. 13 ; irepiiroieiaQai, Acts xx. 28 ; XvrpovaOai,
Tit. h. 14. But we must especially compare the Lord's declara
tion, Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45, that He came Sovvai rrjv ^vxvv

140 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
airov Xvrpov dvrl iroXXwv, and the apostle's corresponding ex
pression, 1 Tim. ii. 6 : d Sobs eavrbv dvrlXvrpov virep irdvrwv.
But in Eph. 1 7 the purchase price is expressly mentioned by
name, the alua being pointed out as that which mediated
diroXvrpwais for us. Just so in the present passage, ver. 25.
Comp. Rev. v. 9, and Steiger on 1 Pet. i. 18, p. 171 ff. of his
commentary. But no doubt in other passages the notion of
diroXvrpwais is generahzed into that of liberation in the abstract,
without intervention of a purchase price, Luke xxi 28; Rom,
viii. 23; Eph. i 14, iv. 30. If, then, we ask from what Christ
redeemed us by payment of His blood, Eph. i 7 gives the
answer — from the guRt of sin; for there the nature of the
diroXvrpwais which we have in Christ is defined epexegeticahy
as consisting in acpeais rwv irapairrcofiarwv. So, too, in this
passage, where Sixalwais is conceived as identical with acpeais
rwv trapairrwfidrwv, the remission of sins brought about through
diroXvrpwais. In unison with this is Gal. ih. 13, where the
xardpa rov vofiov is described as the object of redemption. For
the curse of the law is merely the manifestation of the guilt of
sin. With the guilt of sin we are at the same time delivered
from the penalty of sin, from the bpyrj rov Oeov, which not only
rests upon mankind now, Eph. ii. 3, but is also revealed hereafter,
Rom. v. 9, 1 Thess. i. 10, as weh as from death, temporal and
eternal death, in which the curse and sentence of the law is
finally executed, Rom. v. 17, 21. But with the guilt and penalty
of sin we are finally ransomed from the dominion of sin and
Satan, Tit. h. 14, 1 Pet. i. 18, Acts xxvi. 18, Col. i. 13,
although this element is not made prominent where the subject
is the direct efficacy of diroXvrpwais in justification. For the
objective forgiveness of sin (Sixalwais) is not in the mere abstract
identical with the subjective extirpation of sin (dvaxalvwais,
cvyiaa/ibs). We can only contemplate dehverance from Satan's
dominion as involved in Sixalwais, in so far as Satan is called d
xarryywp twj/ dSeXcpwv tjfiwv, o xarrjyopwv airwv ivwiriov rov
Oeov r)p,epas xal vvxros, Rev. xii. 10, and d to xpdros exa)P T0"
Oavarov, Heb. ii. 14. Comp. Col. ii. 14, 15. But then the
sense in which the alfia Xpiarov may be regarded as the means
of expiating sin is made clear to us in what foRows. Here it
only remains to be further noted, that if the apostle (ver. 22)
makes the Bixaioavvrj Oeov mediated Sid rrjs irlarews 'Iijaov

CHAP. III. 25. 141
Xpiarov, but in the present verse Bid rrjs diroXvrpwaews rrjs iv
Xpiarw 'Irjaov, the two statements can only be reconciled thus —
that diroXvrpwais is to be considered the objective, irlans the
subjective medium of justification.
Ver. 25. 'AiroXvrpwais was just mentioned by the apostle in
general terms, but it was needful to define it with greater exact
ness as a redemption accomplished through alfia. The objective
medium of justification being thus sufficiently characterized, the
subjective medium irlans could not remain unnoticed if the
proposition of ver. 22 is to be exhaustively developed. In the
last place, in the words et? evSeiljiv xrX. the apostle indicates
the divine purpose of this a7ro\i/Tp(»crt? Bid rov ai/iaros. — ov
irpoeOero] irporlOeaOai may mean: to propose to oneself to
determine, as in i. 13, Eph. i. 9, and then we should translate :
" whom God predestined." Then, perhaps, grammar would not
imperatively require elvai iXaarrjpiov, for as we say irpoopl^eiv,
iKXeyeaOai, we may, perhaps, also say irporlOeaOai nvd n, in
the sense : " to predestine, choose one for something," comp. Rom.
vhi. 29 ; Jas. ii 5. But the connection points not so much
to an eternal counsel of God, as rather to a fact realized in time,
a reference confirmed by the following et? evSeiljiv ktX. irpbs
evSeiljiv iv rw vvv xaipw. Accordingly, in this passage the only
congruent interpretation is : whom God set forth. The middle
signification of irporlOeaOai need not on this account be
given up. God set Him forth openly for Himself, His own
righteousness being concerned in this act, comp. et? evSeiljiv
rrjs Bixaioainirjs airov. irporlOeaOai is often used in profane
writers in the sense of spectandum proponere, especiaRy of
exposing the dead. Interpreters quote Plato, Phaed. p. 115 E,
ed. Beck : irporlOeaOai vexpbv ; Thucyd. h. 34 : rd bard
irporlOeaOai} 1 Despite the above explicit statements, Mehring maintains, p. 332, that I
interpret xpoihro in this passage by "He predestined" (sic/), a proof of the
incredible carelessness with which he has read my words. It is just as strange that
he should say, p. 330, that Ixxtrnpioi occurs altogether but three times in the 0. T. ,
whereas I have quoted six passages (and there are four besides), and that he should
call my assertion, that the word everywhere means the expiatory covering of the ark,
wrong, because in Num. xxv. 17 it is found as an adjective. On the contrary, this
passage quoted by myself supports my assertion. If, when used adjectivally, it
occurs only in connection with Mltfut, as a substantive it has itself only the
meaning of Ixao-rvput WihpLx. Comp. also further, Ex. xxv. 19-22, xxxvii. 9. If,

142 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— iXaarrjpiov] the translation given by the LXX. of JTias,
the name given to the cover of the covenant -ark in the
0. T., Ex. xxv. 18, xxxi. 6, xxxv. 12, xxxvii. 6, 8 ; Num. vii
89. Sometimes they add iirlOeaa, Ex. xxv. 17. When in
Amos ix. 1 they render liPiaa by iXaarrjpiov, without doubt they
read rnsa by a transposition of D and "i, or beheved that it should
be so read. At variance with this constant and frequent use of
the expression iXaarrjpiov for the Kapporeth of the covenant-ark,
IXaarrjpiov is found only in Ezek. xhh. 14, 17, 20, as a translation
of nnty, the ledge of the altar of burnt-offering. This rendering
is explained perhaps by the fact that acoording to ver. 20 the
Azarah also, like the Kapporeth, was to be sprinkled with the
blood of reconciliation, or by the fact that the Azarah was the
standing-place from which the sacrifice was offered up. In any
other sense (Xaarr]piov is never used by the LXX. Therefore, as
the passage in Ezekiel, standing by itseh in the description of the
ideal temple of Jerusalem, could not come into account, by the
expression iXaarrjpiov every one must have been reminded at
once of the Kapporeth of the covenant-ark. Hence it appears a
piece of simple exegetical wantonness, without the most stringent
necessity, to depart from this meaning, the only one verified by
bibhcal idiom. The more so, as iXaarrjpiov (used also by Philo
for the Kapporeth as the symbol of the tX,e<o Swduews of God) in
the single passage where it occurs in the N. T. Heb. ix. 5, stands
in this meaning fixed by usage. The objection raised in these
days that Gentile-Christian readers would be unable to under
stand an aRusion intelligible only to Jews, must be turned
completely round. Even Genthe Christians, considering theh
familiarity with the 0. T. in the translation of the LXX., by
the word iXaarrjpiov, which, moreover, in this passage plainly
aRudes to a current 0. T. notion, could be reminded of nothing
else than the Kapporeth of the ark. In the next place, the word
iXaarrjpiov in the present passage is taken in this sense both by
the church Fathers and by most of the older Protestant exegetes
(Luther : Gnadenstuhl, mercy-seat), some moderns agreeing. On
where the expiatory covering is introduced for the first time, Ex. xxv. 17, it is
called for the sake of perspicuity IXxtrripiov ivifapn, from that place onward in the
following verse and everywhere, equally with the substantivised adjective to
Ixxo-npiov, sc. lirikpia, it means the expiatory (namely, instrument) = the expiatory
instrument, the mercy-seat.

CHAP. III. 25. 143
the other hand, most of the modern expositors, and those the most
important, speak of this reference of IXaarrjpiov as untenable, if
not as altogether absurd and out of the field. In the first place,
it is asserted that the LXX. had translated iXaarrjpiov wrongly,
because rnaa is to be derived from the Kal ">B3, to cover, and
means operculum, covering, not from the Piel 1B3, to expiate,
reconcile. But this assertion is utterly groundless (comp. Bahr,
Symb. des mos. Cult. I. p. 381). Were the word formed from
the Kal, it must be JriM. If, then, the Kapporeth means in fact
nothing else than expiation, expiatory instrument, it is arbitrary to
assert that this symbolic signification sprang in the first instance
from the translation of the LXX., and thence passed on to Philo.
Not that it is to be supposed, on the other hand, that this meaning
was as weR known or familiar to the older Jews and the later
non- Alexandrine Jews as it was to Paul and his readers. — It is
asserted, further, that Paul must have written rb iXaarrjpiov with
the article (not iXaarrjpiov without article), as here the realized
idea of the ark-covering, rb aXvOivov iXaarrjpiov, is meant. But
does not this objection teR with the same force against the inter
pretation of the opponents who render iXaarrjpiov, expiatory
sacrifice? or was not Christ in very deed the realized idea of
expiatory sacrifice, the expiatory sacrifice xar' iijoxr]v! The
truth is, that, as the only one of its kind, the Kapporeth stood
in no need of the definite article ; and even if we translate : an
expiatory instrument, a mercy-seat, this may be quite weR under
stood of a spiritual Kapporeth, the counterpart of the material
one. The want of the article serves to characterize = He has
been set forth by God in the character of a mercy-seat, i.e. as is
self-evident, of a sphitual, real mercy-seat. Comp. e.g. the anar
throus iv via, Heb. i. 1 = through One who is a Son. — It is
said still further, that Christ, as Kapporeth, can only be regarded
as conducing et? evSeiljw xdptros, not, as is declared in what
follows, et? evS. SiKaioauvrjs. But every means of expiation,
precisely as a means of expiation by blood, is an exhibition of
the divine righteousness, the Kapporeth not less than the sacrifice.
— Finally, as concerns the objection, that it is incongruous to
compare Christ, who shed His own blood, with the ark-cover
sprinkled with foreign blood, this is the very difference that
naturally foRows in the antitype, and has justly been put down
to this account, in the same way, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,

144 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Christ, who offered His own blood, is represented as High Priest.
The tertium comparationis is simply this, that Christ, sprinkled
with blood, resembles the Kapporeth sprinkled with blood. In
the same way that the latter, just as sprinkled with blood, covered
the tables of the law contained in the ark, and in removing the
curse of the law by means of the blood of reconciliation set forth
God Himself as reconciled, is Christ, sprinkled with His sacrificial
blood, the end of the law, Rom. x. 4 ; for as such He nailed the
law to the cross, Col. ii. 14, and redeemed us from the curse of
the law, Gal. ih. 13, and thus in Him we have not merely typical,
but real reconciliation with God. As to how the Kapporeth of
the ark symbohzed the expiatory compassion of God, comp.
Hengstenb. die Auth. des Pent. II. p. 642 ff. Further, Paul's
comparison of Christ to the Kapporeth as the central point of the
entire 0. T. theocracy is a striking one. On the high significance
of the latter, comp. Bahr, ibid. p. 387 ff. ; p. 390 it is said : " The
Kapporeth was then in any case an expiatory instrument ; and
if, among the various expiatory instruments which the Hebrews
had, this one bore the very name of expiation, it must have been
the expiatory instrument /cot' i%oxrjv, the first and most im
portant." Hengstenberg says : " To the Kapporeth aR sin and
trespass offerings stood in the closest relation. It formed their
objective base, a summons and obligation to present them. What
took place outwardly but once a year in the great sacrifice on
the day of atonement, the sprinkling of blood before the Kap
poreth, took place spirituaRy in aR sacrifices." Hence, according
to Heb. iv. 1 6, it is the type of the heavenly Opbvos rrjs ^dotTo?.
As such was it set up in the midst of the people encamped
around the tabernacle, a token of grace, hke the serpent hfted up
in the wilderness, under the old covenant ooncealed in the Holy
of Holies ; under the new, revealed and visible to all. Hence the
expression irpoeOero b Oebs. The pride of the Jew in the law
could not be more effectuahy humbled than by the aRusion to
the Kapporeth as covering the blood-besprinkled, curse-dealing
law. — Thus we think we have vindicated the interpretation of
the word iXaarrjpiov, formerly current, as the correct one.1 Other
expositors take the word as mascuhne, and translate : reconciler,
1 According to Kahnis, Die Lehre vom Abendmahle, p. 66, we have done this
conclusively. Our view is now accepted also by Tholuck, 5 Aufl. ; Umbreit, p. 34 ;
Ritschl, Die Entst. der altk. Kir. 2 Aufl. p. 85, Anm. 2 ; Besser, I. 192.

CHAP. III. 25. 145
which would be iXaarrjs, or : one reconciling, which would be
IXaaxbfievos. Those who abide by the neuter meaning interpret
either : reconciliation, which would be IXaafibs, or : a reconciliatory,
a propitiatory means in general. But the latter meaning is not
established, and, besides, is far too abstract. The most popular
modern acceptation of IXaarrjpiov is = expiatory sacrifice, after the
analogy of owrijpiov, sacrificium pro salute, LXX. Ex. xx. 24,
xxix. 28, as examples of which 'iXaarrjpiov 'Axaiol r§ 'AOrjva rfj
'IXidSi, from Dio Chrys. and Hesychius, who explain iXaarrjpiov
by xaOdpaiov, are usuaRy cited. But this does not prove the
bibhcal use of iXaarrjpiov in the sense of expiatory sacrifice, since
in Holy Scripture the word has another fixed meaning. Add to
this that Scripture indeed says Christ presented Himself to God
an expiatory sacrifice (Heb. ix. 14, 28 ; Eph. v. 2 ; John xvii.
19), but not, God offered or presented Him to mankind in
sacrifice.1 God does not offer or present the sacrifice, but the
sacrifice is invariably offered or presented to God. We must
therefore rest content with the position that the substantivised
neuter of the adjective, which of itself has the general meaning
of an expiatory, a propitiatory, in this passage retains its histori-
caRy-fixed reference to the Kapporeth as the means of expiation
xar H-oxnv. But Christ is set forth to all the world as the
true Kapporeth, first of aR in His public crucifixion, and again
in the word of the gospel, whose echoes are ringing everywhere.
— Std rrjs irlarews iv rw airov a'tfiari] The most obvious
interpretation appears to be : " through faith resting on His
blood," comp. Eph. i. 1 5 : irlans iv tw xvplw 'Itjaov ; Col. i. 4.
But it is more germane to the context to make the elements of
irlans and alfia, not hitherto mentioned, stand out with more
significance and independence. This is done by putting a comma
after irlarews, taking Std rrjs irlarews, iv tw airov a'tfiari as
1 When Meyer replies, " the idea that God gave Christ to death pervades the
entire N. T.," it is still nowhere said that God offered Christ in sacrifice, which con
tradicts the very notion of sacrifice. And when Meyer in later editions answers :
" Not that God thereby offered Christ in sacrifice, which is nowhere asserted, but
that He set forth before the eyes of the universe Him who is surrendered to the world
by the very fact of His offering Himself as a sacrifice in obedience to the Father's
counsel, as such actually and publicly, namely, on the cross," still this setting forth
takes place only, through the word of proclamation, the preaching of the gospel,
whereas here manifestly the reference is to the actual surrender of Christ as ixuiTjpui
on the part of God.
Philippi, Rom. I. K

146 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
parallel definitions, and placing both in connection with irpoi-
Oero. God set forth Christ an expiatory covering, and this act is
reahzed on its subjective side through faith, for only through
faith does the individual make the expiation his own ; on its
objective side, in the blood, for only in the blood is the Kapporeth
an instrument of expiation. Bid rrjs irlarews, iv rw airov a'lfian
might also be connected with iXaarrjpiov. But the first mode of
connection seems to introduce best the purpose of the act of
setting forth directly subjoined (et? evSeifjw rrjs Sixaioavvvs airov).
By the very fact that the exhibition of Christ as a Kapporeth
was mediated through faith and the blood, did God manifest His
righteousness as the end of what He did. The blood here can,
of course, be only the blood of the expiatory offering, which on
the great day of atonement was also sprinkled on the Kapporeth
in the most holy place. In this blood really lay the atoning
virtue, according to Lev. xvii. 11. The animal destined for
sacrifice takes the place of the guilty offerer. By imposition of
hands the transference of sin and guilt to the head of the sacrifice
is symbohzed. In the blood-shedding of the slain victim is re
presented the execution of the penalty assumed by way of
substitution. But this blood is destined for the Kapporeth;
which only becomes a means of expiation when sprinkled with
blood. The curse of the law, hidden beneath the Kapporeth, is
covered and cancelled only by blood, the token of the Rfe poured
forth, of the transgressor's penal suffering and death endured,
that death in which the curse of the law received its due. Hence
it is said, Heb. ix. 22 : %&>/)t? alfiarexxvalas ov ylverai acpeais.
As to the substitutory signification of sacrifice, comp. -my Kirch-
liche Glaubenslehre, IV. 2, p. 247 ff.
— et? evSeiljiv rrjs Sixaioavvrjs airov] The divine purpose of
the exhibition of Christ as a Kapporeth by His blood =iva
ivSelljrjTai rrjv SiKaioavvrjv airov, comp. Eph. h. 7. Luther:
" that He may give the righteousness which avails before Him."
But this translation depends on a wrong conception of the sub
joined words, which Luther renders : " in the forgiveness of sin,
which had hitherto remained under divine forbearance." Paul
did not write Sta t?5? acpeaews rwv dfiaprrjfidrwv twv irpoyeyovbrwv
iv rfi dvoxfi rov Oeov. Luther's interpretation we should regard
as a superfluous repetition of the idea already expressed, ver. 21.
Finally, the words els evSeiljiv rrjs Sixaioavvvs airov, ver. 26, are

CHAP. III. 25. 147
explained by the words et? to elvai airov Blxaiov. Therefore
Bixaioavvrj Oeov here can only denote, as in ver. 5, an immanent
attribute of God, and then neither the truthfulness nor the good
ness of God, which Bixaioavvrj does not mean, but His righteous
ness, namely, His judicial, retributive righteousness. If, as we have
seen, Sixaiovv, Bixaioavvrj Oeov = ix Oeov or ivwiriov Oeov, has
always in the act of justification a reference to the judicial
righteousness of God, it is arbitrary to refer the Bixaioavvrj Oeov,
operative in that act as an attribute of God, to His goodness
(%dpis, eXeos, dydirrj, XPV<TT°TV'>> (piXavOpwirla, which, as observed,
Bixaioavvrj never signifies). Gurlitt, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. Jdhrg.,
1840, p. 974. But it is just as arbitrary to explain the epexegeti-
cal addition, ver. 26, et? rb elvai airov Blxaiov xal Sixaiovvra xrX. :
" that He may be gracious, and in grace justify," etc. But then
God made known His retributive justice in this way — by making
the blood of the expiatory sacrifice the objective medium of man's
justification. Only the death of the substituted victim could
satisfy God's penal justice. The objection that God wished to dis
play His righteousness merely for the sake of men, as the notion of
evSeiljis suggests, is futile. The same might be said, according to
Eph h. 7, of the divine grace. What God makes known to men
has its ground in Himself. If in the sacrificial death of Jesus
He makes known His righteousness, then His righteousness must
have demanded this sacrificial death for its own sake. Had the
purpose been merely a subjective one, — namely, the awakening
of a sense of guht in man (comp. de Wette here), — the surrender
of Jesus to death, so far from being a proof of the divine right
eousness, would have been a proof of His untruthfulness, in making
it appear as if sin reaRy claims a sacrifice which at bottom it does
not claim, and of His arbitrariness in bringing about, or even
merely permitting, the death of the innocent, without its being
imperatively required in order to the absolution of mankind from
guht. Thus the reproach of harshness recohs with fuR force on
this subjective theory of atonement. In the death of Jesus,
accordingly, is exhibited an objective reconciliation of the divine
righteousness and love, and, as far as the Anselmic doctrine of
satisfaction rests on this basis, the reproach of grossly anthropo-
pathic treatment is urged against it with injustice. In what its
defects consist, on this comp. my Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, IV. 2,
p. 87 ff. But then the apostle's discovering in the alfia of Christ

148 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
a manifestation of the divine righteousness rests upon this ground
— that God's grace appears in justification in so far as it is
bestowed on us without sacrifice on our part, but His righteousness
in so far as the bestowal stiR is conditioned by a sacrifice, by the
alfia of Christ. Doubtless this sacrifice, consisting in the sur
render of the only-begotten Son, the weR-beloved, Eph. i. 6, is
withal a manifestation of the divine love, John hi. 16; but the
necessity for the surrender was founded in the righteousness of
God, which demanded retribution. It is not, indeed, the love of
good-will that is procured for us through Christ, for this rests even
upon the sinner, and sent Christ for his salvation, but the love of
divine complacency, which is not consistent with the displeasure of
the divine righteousness at sin. The love of divine complacency
rests only upon Christ, the Just One, who appeased God's just
displeasure at sin, and upon the man who is justified through
faith in the righteous Propitiator. Christ then appeased not so
much God's wrath against sinners, as rather God's wrath against
sin, or God's wrath against sinners, not in so far as they are God's
beloved creatures, but in so far as they are creatures tainted with
the sin which is displeasing to God.1
— Std rrjv irdpeaw t<3z/ irpoyeyovbrwv dfiaprrjp,drwv iv rfj avoyjg
rov Oeov] states the reason that determined God to the evSeiljis
rfjs Sixaioavvrjs airov. At the same time, this confirms the
meaning of Bixaioavvrj just given. God having patiently borne
with sins hitherto, cannot be a motive to reveal His goodness, but
only to make known His righteousness, irdpeais, here only in the
N. T. = praetermissio, negledio, passing by; so also irapievai, Ecclus.
xxiii. 2 ; similarly virepiBeiv, Acts xvii. 30, and irapopav, Wisd.
1 Meyer observes : " Moreover, the Whala of the divine righteousness, which took
place through the atoning death of Christ, necessarily presupposes the satisfaetvo
vicaria of the ixutrifm. Hofmann's doctrine of atonement (compensation) does not
permit the simple and — on the basis of the 0. T. conception of atoning sacrifice —
historically definite ideas of vv. 25, 26, as well as the unbiassed and clear representa
tion of the inoxirputris, ver. 24 (comp. the xirpov atri, Matt. xx. 28, and kmXmpoi,
1 Tim. ii. 6), to subsist along with it. On the other hand, these ideas and sugges
tions given in and homogeneously pervading the entire N. T., and whose meaning
can by no means be evaded, exclude the theory of Hofmann, not merely in form but
also in substance, as a deviation evading and explaining away the N. T. type of
doctrine, with which the point of view of a ' befalling ' — the category in which Hof
mann invariably places the death of Jesus — is especially at variance. " And : " It is
not to the ecclesiastical doctrine, but to Schleiermaoher's, and partially also Mencken's
subjective representation of it, that Hofmann's theory, although in another form,
Stands related." (Meyer, I. 180.)

CHAP. III. 25. 149
Sol. xi. 23. On the other hand, acpeais is condonatio, forgiveness.
Sins temporarily passed over may be subsequently punished
(comp. 2 Sam. xvi. 10-12, xix. 21-23, with 1 Kings ii. 8, 9,
44-46), but not sins absolutely forgiven, irpoyeyovbra dfiaprrj-
fiara are not those of individuals before conversion, but sins
committed before the appearance and sacrificial death of Christ.
The only question is, whether the sins of the 0. T. covenant-
, people included under the law are meant, or the sins of aR man
kind before Christ. We beheve the first, because Christ was
described as the true Kapporeth by His blood, the Kapporeth that
really blotted out the sins which were only covered in the form
of promise by the typical Kapporeth in the Holy of Holies. But
these were the sins of the people of Israel. This view also
harmonizes with the avowed aim of the apostle, to humble Jewish
pride in the law (comp. ver. 24 on Sixaiov/ievoi Swpedv), and
explains the special prominence of the evSeiljis of the divine
Bixaioavvrj, which the Jews fancied they had satisfied by their
epya vbfiov. In this sense the present passage would agree per
fectly with Heb. ix. 15: xal Bid rovro SiaOrjxrjs xawrjs fiealrrjs
iarlv, oirws Oavdrov yevofievov els diroXvrpwaiv'Twv iirl rfj irpwry
SiaOrjxrj irapaftdaewv xrX., and Acts xiii. 3 9 : dirb irdvrwv wv oix
iSvvrjQrjre iv to vbfiw Mwvaews SixaiwOrjvai, iv rovrw iras b
iriarevwv Bixaiovrai. In other places Christ is exhibited as one
who by His sacrificial death abrogated the curse of the 0. T.
Nomos, Gal hi. 13, Eph. h. 15, CoL ii 14, and this for the
special purpose of redeeming those who are under the Nomos,
Gal. iv. 5. But therewith by natural consequence the guht of
the Genthe world is blotted out, Gal. ih. 1 3 ; Eph. ii. 1 6. At
the same time, with the abrogation of the Mosaic Nomos, not only
is the obhgation of its peculiar law binding on the conscience
canceRed, but the absolute obligation, which, as it hitherto testi
fied against the Jews, might also afterwards have testified against
the Genthes. But it is self-evident that with the abrogation of
the Nomos as the perfect and therefore permanently binding
revelation of the divine whl, the guht of mankind after Christ is
abolished as weR as that of mankind before Christ, John i. 29 ;
1 John ii. 2. Dogmatic truth of universal application is pre
sented by the apostle in the form of a special historical exposition.
When the apostle speaks of a passing over of the sins committed
under the old covenant that necessitated a manifestation of God's

150 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
retributive justice, this of course does not preclude the occurrence
even under the old covenant of relative and precursory revelations
of God's punitive justice, but the highest and adequate disclosure
of Bixaioavvrj took place only in the sacrificial death of the Son
of God. — iv rfj dvoxfi rov Oeov is to be joined with Std t^i;
irdpeaw — Sid to irapiivai tov Oeov rd irpoyeyovora dfiaprrjp,ara
iv rfj dvoxfi airov. The dvox^j of God, His forbearance, is to be
distinguished from %d/>i?, His grace. The first delays sin's punish
ment, the latter cancels it entirely. From dvoxv proceeds the
irdpeais, from %dpt? the acpeais dfiapnwv. The necessity of the
evSetljis rrjs Bixaioavvrjs is attested by the scorn and false inter
pretation of the divine dvoxv, of which, according to h. 4, Israel
had been guilty.
Ver. 26. irpos evSeiljiv rrjs Sixatoavvrjs airov iv to vvv xaipw]
contains a resumption of et? evSeiljiv rrjs Six. airov, ver. 25, with
the expressive addition of temporal definition, iv rS, vvv xaipfy,
when, therefore, the passing over of sins by divine forbearance
has come to an end. The preposition et? is exchanged for irpbs,
perhaps merely for the sake of euphony, to avoid the threefold
repetition of the latter (et? evSeiljiv xrX., ver. 25 ; et? evSeiljiv xrX.,
ver. 26 ; et? rb elvai xrX., ibid.). The article received by Lach
mann, irpbs [rr)v] evSeiljiv, may possibly be genuine, alluding to
the evSetljis already mentioned.
— et? to elvai airov Blxaiov] that He may be just — i.e. he
acknowledged as such by men, comp. ver. 4. As to the teleo-
logical form of expression, see on ver. 19.
— xal Sixaiovvra rbv ix irlarews 'Irjaov] As et? rb elvai airov
Blxaiov is an epexegesis of irpbs (els) evSeiljiv xrX., so is xal
Sixaiovvra a companion definition to Blxaiov. The emphasis
rests on rbv ix irlarews 'Irjaov. God manifests His righteousness,
even in justification, in justifying, not the man who busies him
self about works which do not satisfy the claims of His righteous
ness, but only the man who by faith appropriates Christ's
righteousness, 1 John h. 1. " Summum hic habetur paradoxon
evangehcum, nam in lege conspicitur Deus Justus et condemnwns :
in evangeho Justus ipse et justificans peccatorem," Bengel. As to
rbv ix irlarews, comp. on Tot? e'f ipiOelas, ii. 8. 'Irjaov is wanting,
indeed, in some codices, and varies in others ; but it is to be
regarded as genuine, on account of the implied reference of 7rt'erTt?
to 'Irjaovv Sixaiov, which in any case must be supplied. Perhaps

CHAP. III. 26. 151
in the particular manuscripts it has dropped out, after the analogy
of vv. 28, 30.
We have here, then (w. 24-26), a sedes propria of the Pauline
doctrine of justification, a passage always acknowledged as such.
We saw that of the divine attributes %dpt? and Bixaioavvrj come
into view as actively at work. The diroXvrpwais iv rw aifiari
Xpiarov contains the mutual adjustment and reconciliation of
these properties which the sin of man had placed in hostile
relations. Through this diroXvrpwais there is now procured for
man Sixalwais, consisting in acpeais tov dfiapnwv. The sub
jective medium by which this justifying grace, objectively pro
vided and offered in Christ, is appropriated on man's part, is
irlans. We have sthl to investigate more closely this latter
notion, both as to its nature and operation, irlans in Scripture
does not generaRy denote a mere intehectual acknowledgment of
the truth of the doctrine of atonement, or of the contents of
revelation. How could such a faith exercise an influence,
transforming human nature, and raising it above itself, such as
is everywhere ascribed to it in Scripture ? How could it be a
power overcoming the world, such as is described 1 John v. 4 ?
Rather is such a faith merely the irlans vexpd spoken of
in Jas. ii. 20, a possession common to men with demons, which
therefore can only beget (pplxrj, ver. 19, but cannot manifest its
energy in dydirrj, Gal. v. 6. Faith which brings salvation,
according to 0. and N. T. Scripture, is nowhere a mere
intehectual acknowledgment of the truth of revelation, but
everywhere a trust of the heart upon a God-given promise of
grace. IHans and iirayyeXla are everywhere inseparably inter
woven. As such trust of the heart, the faith of all the heroes
of faith under the old and new covenant is exhibited as to its
nature, comp. the portrait of Abraham's faith and Heb. xi. The
object of saving faith in general is any promise of divine blessing
and gift. But the object of justifying faith , in particular is the
promise of the divine blessing and gift in Christ, of the forgive
ness of sins procured through Him as the atoner, and provided
in Him, as Bixaiovfievoi Sid rrjs diroXvrpwaews rrjs iv Xpiarp,
ver. 24, alone proves. But then this saving, justifying faith
itself is not a work of nature, but an effect of divine grace.
Even the choicest fruit springing from nature is merely a
work of law, and as such cannot justify. We should not be

152 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
justified Swpedv, rfj airov xd/>tTt, ver. 24, if irlans were the
power still left in human nature of receiving by its own power
the diroXvrpwais iv Xpiarw 'Irjaov. This act of reception, with
its immediate effect, the regeneration of man's heart, is alone of
such value that it would certainly detract from the unqualified ,'
worth of divine grace if it stood by the side of grace as a co
operating, meritorious factor. Further, Scripture says un
reservedly : to yeyevvrjfikvov ix rrjs aapxbs, adplj ian, John
ih. 6. But irlans is not of a carnal, but spiritual nature. It
is therefore yeyevvrjfievov ix rov irvevfiaros, ibid. Again, no one
can come to Christ except the Father draw him, John vi. 44
But faith is nothing else than coming to Christ, than the result
of the Father's drawing to the Son through the Sphit. Specially
important for the understanding of the nature of faith as an
effect of the Divine Spirit of grace is Eph. ii. 8-10. If faith is
wholly a work of nature, or half a work of nature, neither has
Xapin iare aeawa/ievoi, nor yet oiK i% vfiwv, Oeov rb Bapov, nor
'iva fir] ns Kavxycrrjrat, nor, finaRy, airov ydp ia/iev irolr]jia,
KTiaQevres ev Xpiarw 'Irjaov, its entire and unrestricted import.
For in that case there is found at least a. division of agency
between grace and our merit, God's gift and our work; self-
glorying is not abolished. We are then not God's work only,
but our own as weR; and we are not created by God alone, but
with God are creators of our own righteousness avaihng before
Him, and of our renewal in Christ Jesus. As an effect of God
and of His irvevpa, faith is also expressly described in Rom. xii. 3 ;
1 Cor. xii. 3, 9 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; Gal. v. 5. Justifying faith is
therefore, as we have so far seen, a divinely-wrought rehance of
the heart upon the reconciliation procured through Christ, or
upon God's grace in Christ offered to us in the word of the
gospel in the form of promise.
The further question is then asked) how far faith thus imparted
can be the precise subjective means by which God's reconciling
grace is appropriated. The answer is, in so far as, viewed as
rehance upon Christ the Mediator, in its innermost essence and
kernel it is nothing else than a renunciation of aR work and
merit of our own, or in so far as it is the Organon by which
man, unrighteous in himself, lays hold upon the righteousness
of Christ. Faith, in the specific evangehcal sense of the word,
means just nothing else than a reliance, not upon our own epya

CHAP. III. 26. 153
vbp,ov, but upon the d7ro\i/T/j«BO-t? Std toO aifiaros rov Xpiarov.
A promise can only be embraced by believing trust. Any other
mode of apprehending the promised good is in the nature of
things not to be conceived. But it is important to unfold
sthl further the scriptural, genuinely Pauline idea which lies
wrapped up in the abstract in this relation of Christ's objective
work of atonement and man's subjective appropriation by faith ;
and in order to guard against any infringement upon the true
evangelical doctrine of justification distinctly to bring out this
point, that in the act of justification faith in no respect comes
into consideration as to its pecuhar moral quality and exceRence,
nor even in reference to the love and good works which issue
from it. Were the renewal of the heart and life a co-ordinate
ground of justification, how could this latter be described as
consisting alone in the forgiveness of sins (Rom. iv. 7, 8), and,
indeed, in a forgiveness of sins already fully purchased and pro
vided in the redemption effected through Christ's blood (Eph.
i. 7) ? Thus faith in no way effects or completes forgiveness,
but simply accepts it as it is offered. For this reason it may be
said not only we are reconched, but also we are justified, Sid Trjs
diroXvrpwaews, Rom. hi 24. But if faith here come into con
sideration as the power of new birth to spiritual life, we should
not be justified through the atonement, pure and simple, faith
which lays hold of the atonement adding nothing to it, but we
should be justified through the new man in us as an effect and
fruit of the atonement. Comp. Rom. v. 9, SiKaiwOevres oiv iv
rw airov ai/iari. Faith then in a word justifies, not on account
of its own worth, or on account of its moral effects, but solely on
account of its object and import, on account of Christ's righteous
ness, which it lays hold of and makes its own. Only thus is the
apostle's question (Rom. vi. 1) to be understood : Tt otiv ipovfiev ;
iirtfievovfiev rrj dfiaprla, 'iva rj ^dpt? irXegvdarj. If, along with
justifying faith, its sanctifying and renewing power and efficacy
were already to be taken into account, if so far it came not into
view purely as the medium appropriating forgiveness of sins, this
question has no meaning whatever. Only after he has completed
his description of the justifying power of faith does the apostle
in this epistle, from the sixth chapter onward, as elsewhere (comp.
GaL v. 13 ff.), describe faith's sanctifying power. If this last is
the effect of the former, how can it at the same time be its

154 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
cause ? If the sanctification of man is always imperfect, so that
Scripture everywhere requires its growth, how can it be a help in
supplementing in any way the perfection of Christ, which in
justification is given us to make entirely our own, i.e. form a
constitutive element of justification itself? If the new life of
the regenerate is still constantly sullied by sin, 1 John i. 8, then
this new life cannot be the ground, or even a joint-ground, of
our perfect righteousness availing before God. This ground is
simply and solely the holy and perfect sacrifice of Christ which
becomes our possession through faith. Thus is demonstrated the
scriptural truth of the Protestant doctrine of imputatio justitiae
Christi, of justificatio per fidem, not propter fidem, as weR as of the
Reformation Shibboleth — sola fide. In this formula, often called
dead and stiff, to the soul instructed by God's word and Spirit
in the nature of sin and grace, and really feeling its need of
salvation and comfort, is thrown open the Holy of Holies of the
evangehcal faith.1
As, then, the apostle, in the very course of expounding his
doctrine of justification (vv. 24-26), has given a glimpse here and
there of a controversial reference to the pride of the Jews in the
law, so, now that the exposition is finished, his purpose — hitherto
kept back, and only indicated — of humbling the work-righteous
Jew comes forth openly, and, so to speak, in the triumphant
consciousness of a victory won (vv. 2 7-3 0).
Ver. 27. irov ovv rj xavxrjais;] Where then is the boasting?
See a similar form o£ question, 1 Cor. i. 20, xv. 55; Luke
viii. 25 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4. In the irov (" Particula victoriosa," Bengel)
is imphed, so to speak, a search after something that has
disappeared. ovv draws an inference from the doctrine of
justification, expounded w. 21-26, which has just made ah
xavxrjais disappear. r) xavxrjais, gloriatio, not rb xavyrifM,
1 Comp. Meyer, I. 169 : "Every mode of conception which refers redemption and
the forgiveness of sins not to a real atonement through the death of Christ, but sub
jectively to the dying and reviving with Him, guaranteed and produced by that
death (Schleierm., Nitzseh, Hofm., and others, with various modifications), is
opposed to the N. T. , — a mixing up of justification and sanctification. " And, p. 181 :
" As to keeping the scriptural notion of imputed righteousness clear of all admixture
with the moral change of the justified, see also Kbstlin in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsche
Theol. 1856, pp. 105 ff., 118 ff. ; Gess, ibid. 1857, p. 679 ff., 1858, p. 713 ff., 1859,
p. 467 ff. ; compared, however, with the observations of Philippi in his Glaubenslehre,
IV. 2, p. 237 ff., second edition."

CHAP. III. 27. 155
iv. 2, gloriandi materia. The glorying itself, not merely the
ground or object of glorying, has vanished, no doubt the former
only because the latter. In full assurance of victory, the apostle
sees even the most stubborn gainsayer put to silence. The
article before xavxrjais denotes a boasting that is known, often
practised and heard, or often already brought forward and
repeRed, ii. 17, hi. 19. The xavxrjais, therefore, obliquely
rebuked everywhere from ch. ii. onward, may only be that of
the Jews, not of men in general. Rightly then Theodoret,
agreeing with Chryost., Theophyl, Oecum., already explains r)
xavxrjais by rb vijrrjXbv rwv 'IovSaiwv cppovvfia. But the
xavxrjais of the Jews referred to their epya vbfiov, comp. Eph.
ii. 9: oix ilj epywv, 'iva fir] Tt? xavxijavrai ; 1 Cor. i. 29. A
striking example of such xavxrjais is found, Luke xvhi 11 ff.
The apostle acknowledges only a xavxaaOai iv xvplw, 1 Cor.
i. 31; 2 Cor. x. 17; Gal. vi. 14.
— iljexXelaOrj] Theodoret : oix en xc^Pav %Xei" ixxXeiew, to
exclude, i.e. either : not to admit one who is without, or : to turn
out one who is within. Then metaphorically : not to allow, non
admittere, or : to put away, removere. Here in the latter meaning,
as in Gal. iv. 17.
— 8td irolov vbfiov ;] sc. i^exXelaOr). By what law is all
boasting excluded ?
— r&v epywv ;] of works ? i.e. by the law that enjoins works ?
— ou^t] not by this law; for, as the practice of the Jews
shows, this fosters, although contrary to its aim and destination,
which is to beget the knowledge of sin, — this fosters the legal
pride and boasting of men. By its very nature the law may
become, though not a cause, yet at least an occasion of false
xavxrjais ; but the gospel not even the latter.
— uXXd Sid vofiov irlarews] sc. iljexXelaOrj rj xavxrjais. " But
by the law of faith," i.e. by the law that enjoins faith. The
apostle is fond of such sharp and stirring antitheses. The law of
Moses is a vbfios epywv. The gospel is reaRy the opposite of the
vbfios, and yet it is a vbfios, but a vbfios irlarews, a law that
summons, not to works to be perfectly done, but to the grace of
forgiveness to be received. Thus in i. 5 the apostle speaks of an
viraxor) irlarews, an obedience to faith, just as diriaria is often
described as direlOeia, unbelief as disobedience to God's word
(comp. Heb. hi. 19 with iv. 6) ; and in 1 John hi. 23 it is said :

156 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
auT77 iarlv rj ivroXrj airov, 'iva triarevacofiev rep ovofian rov viov
airov 'Irjaov Xpiarov ktX. Therefore even in the association
of vbfios and irlarews the word vbfios retains the meaning norm,
obligatory rule of conduct, and never means doctrine, comp. Rom.
viii. 2 : vbfios irvevfiaros and vbfios dfiaprlas ; ix. 31: vbfios
BiKaioauvrjs ; Jas. i. 25, h. 12 : vbfios iXevOeplas.
Ver. 28. Xoyi^bfieOa ydp] The textus receptus reads oZv instead
of ydp ; but the latter reading has the greater weight of external
authority on its side. Xoyl^eaOai is not = avXXoyl^eaOai, to con
clude, but = to hold, to judge, censere, h. 3, vih. 1 8. The apostle
represents his doctrine of justification as having gained universal
assent through the preceding course of argument. Xoyl^eaOat,
then, implies the absence of doubt as to the objective truth and.
certainty of the doctrine held.
— SixaiovaOai irlarei avOpwirov %a)pt? epywv vbfiov] The order
of words irlarei SiKaiovaOai, which the recepta has, is supported
by slighter authority, and looks hke a correction for the purpose
of emphasizing irlans as the chief element. Sthl irtarei, standing
as it does in the middle, may receive a sharper emphasis = with
regard to justification, we judge that only by faith does man
obtain it. irlarei, as the dative of instrumental cause, is essentially
synonymous with, and only in form different from, Std irlarews.
Luther . through faith alone. Cathohcs have reproached him
with falsifying Scripture, because atone is not found in the text ;
but with injustice. For as Paul knows but one way of justifica
tion under two forms, that by works of the law and that by
faith, it follows that if one is expressly shut out, as it is here, the
other alone remains. Comp. idv fir], Gal. ii. 16, and Luther's
Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, Erl. Ausg., Bd. 65, p. 108 ff. : " But
they see not that it is implied in the meaning of the text ; and if
we are to Germanize it clearly and forcibly, it (sola or solum) is
necessary. . . . But then I have not only relied on and followed
idiom in adding solum, Rom. iii. [ver. 28], but the text and St.
Paul's meaning require and imperatively demand it." Not only
the church Fathers, but also a German Bible translation before
Luther, Niirnberg 1483, and even two Italian ones, Genua
1476, Venedig. 1538 : "per la sola fede," employed these par-
ticula exclusiva without objection in their days. Moreover, sola
fide stands in the sense of tantum fide, not of fide solitaria,
inasmuch as justifying faith is invariably attended by good works.

CHAP. III. 29. 157
Hence Protestant theology said : " Fides sola justificat : at nee
est, nee manet sola. Intrinsecus operator et extrinsecus," or :
" Fides, etsi nunquam sine operibus est, tamen sine operibus
justificat." The objection that epya vbfiov are only works of the
unregenerate, that the apostle excludes from justification these
only, not the epya dyaOd of the regenerate, has no force. By the
endeavour to make his epya dyaOd pass as the ground of justifi
cation, the regenerate man faRs back to the legal position, seeks
the complete fulfilment of the law not in Christ's work, but in
his own good works, and thereby again stamps his epya dyaOd,
by the legal relation that he gives to them, as epya vbfiov. See
on ver. 20, where, in addition, we have seen that the expression
•epya vbfiov already of itself, and directly, embraces the good works
of the regenerate. We abide, then, by the deoision of the
Formula Cancordiae Epit. hi Affirm, vh. : " Credimus, docemus et
confitemur, quod ad conservandam puram doctrinam de justitia
fidei coram Deo necessarium sit, ut particulae exclusivae (quibus
apostolus Paulus Christi meritum ab operibus nostris prorsus
separat solique Christo earn gloriam tribuit) quam dihgentissime
retineantur, ut cum Paulus scribit : Ex gratia, gratis, sine meritis,
absque lege, sine operibus, non ex operibus. Quae omnia hoc ipsum
dicunt .- Sola fide in Christum justificamur et salvamur. Eph.
h. 8; Rom. i 17, hi. 24, iv. 3 seq. ; Gal. ih. 11; Heb. xi."
Comp. Sol. decl. III. p. 691, ed. Rech. %«»/>i? excludes all co
operation of works in the act of justification. On the general
avOpwirov, a man, Chrys. remarks : rfj oiKovfievrj rds Ovpas dvoiljas
rrjs awrrjplas, cprjalv, avOpwirov, rb kowov rrjs cpvaews ovofm Oets.
Ver. 29. Supplementary proof of the correctness of the dogma,
ver. 28, that only faith justifies, not works of the law. The
proof is drawn from the consequence which would inevitably
fohow from the opposite supposition. If man became righteous
by epya vbfiov, God would only be the God of the Jews, not also
of the Genthes, for He had given the vbfios only to the Jews.
rj] introduces another supposition which must certainly stand
good if the dogma, ver. 28, is wrong ; comp. ii. 4.
— 'IovSalwv b Oebs fibvov ;] sc. iarlv. elvai twos, alicujus esse,
to belong to some owe, Luke xx. 38 ; Gal. iii. 20. Does God belong
only to the Jews ? It is needless, then, to repeat Oebs in the
sense of ff 6 Oebs 'IovSalwv fibvov iarlv Oeos ;
—oixl Kal iOvwvf] forms a second independent question, whilst

158 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the less authenticated lectio recepta, oy^t Be Kal iOvwv, forms only
the second portion of the one question beginning with rj.
— val xal iOvwv] God is the God of the Genthes also, inas
much as He is the Saviour also of the Genthes. That He is the
Creator, Lord, and Ruler of the Genthes was acknowledged even
by Jewish particularism. On the other hand, 0. T. prophecy, in
the Messianic prophecy of the caRing of the Genthe world, bore
witness also to the former truth, that God, as the Saviour of the
Gentiles, is the God of the Gentiles.
Ver. 30. Paul argues ex concessis, namely, from the indubitable
truth of the unity of God. If He is one, His fixed counsel
respecting the human race must be one and the same. Were
He merely the Saviour of one and not of the other, He Himself
would not be one, but twofold in nature, iirelirep] quando semel,
quandoquidem, seeing that, lays down a matter that is fixed, free
from doubt. The less authenticated reading, received by Lach
mann, e'lirep, siquidem, if at all events, rests perhaps merely on a
correction or change of the transcriber, iirelirep being an diralj
Xeybfievov in the N. T. Even e'lirep of itself would give a good
sense. For elsewhere also we find the rhetorical device employed
of leaving in suspense one's own judgment on a matter as to
which the final decision cannot be doubtful, a course by which
the certainty of the position in question is only made the more
emphatic, comp. 2 Thess. i 6. Since, then, God is one, He mani
fests Himself as one towards Jews and Gentiles in justifying
Jews, as He does Gentiles, through faith.
— o? Sixaiwaei] not only in the general judgment ; but the
future denotes an act in constant course of occurrence, ver. 20,
v. 19. What always holds good may be equally well repre
sented as having taken place (perf.), as taking place (praes.), or
as to take place (fut.).
— irepirofirjv . . . dxpoBvarlav] i.e. the Jews, the Gentiles. So
dxpofivarla, h. 26 ; irepirofir], iv. 12.
— ix irlarews . . . Bid rrjs irlarews] The change of the preposi
tion (ix, source ; Sid, means) indicates no real difference of meaning
Gal. iii. 8 ; Eph. ii. 8. At most, it might be intimated that the
distinction, if any at all, is merely verbal, not real, i.e. therefon
in truth none at aR.- Thus in the change of prepositions woulc
lie a certain Pauline subtlety. " Itaque," says Calvin, " subesst
in verbis ironiam judico : acsi diceret, siquis vult habere differ-

CHAP. III. 31. 159
entiam Gentilis a Judaeo, hanc habeat, quod ille per fidem, hic
vero ex fide justitiam consequitur." But probably the inter
change occurs merely for rhetorical reasons. Moreover, the
omission or insertion of the article (irlarews, rrjs irlarews) is
immaterial, since in the self-defined idea irlans, both may occur
with equal propriety. But from the expression ix irlarews no
justificatio propter fidem can be deduced. It indicates merely the
rise or origin of justification from faith in general. The mode of
origination may be variously conceived. But justification does
not spring from faith in the sense of the latter being the ground,
but only in this, that it is the means of justification. Hence, as
matter of fact, ix irlarews = Std irlarews, per fidem.
Ver. 31. Several modern expositors, following in the train of
Origen, in harmony with whom Theodoret explains : dvwOev yap
xal b vo/ios xal ol irpocprjrai rd irepl rrjs irlarews iOeairtaav, find
in this verse a resumption of the idea expressed in the words,
ver. 21 : Bixaioavvrj Oeov, fiaprvpovfikvrj virb rov vofiov xal t&v
irpocprjrwv. The law would then be confirmed by the doctrine of
justification through faith alone, in so far as even in the Pentateuch,
as the foRowing chapter shows, Abraham is adduced as an ex
ample of justification through faith. But in this case we should
expect in iv. 1 a ydp instead of ovv ; for the bare assertion that the
law agrees with the doctrine of faith could not, directly form the
basis of an inference (oZv), but must first of ah be itself estab
lished by evidence (ydp). Moreover, the view referred to is not
in perfect keeping with the context. The question, vbfiov ovv
xarapyovfiev Bid rrjs irlarews, manifestly looks back to ver. 28.
The doctrine that man is justified through faith without works of
the law, seemed to involve an utter abolition of the Nomos, and
to give countenance to a pernicious antinomianism. To rebut
this objection, it is not enough for the apostle to show that even
the book of the law teaches justification by faith. From this the
only inference would be, that the law decrees its own abohtion.
Thus the confirmation must be sought in something else. But it
can neither be found in the fact that the law begets the knowledge
of sin and so leads to Christ, nor in the fact that in Christ's
sacrificial death the law obtained its due. For in this is sthl
implied simply an abolition of the law, ver. 20 ; Gal. iii. 21-25 ;
Eph. h. 15 ; Col. ii. 14. Hence the meaning can only be: We
establish the law, inasmuch as from faith the new obedience

160 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
proceeds, the love developes itself, which is the irXrjpwfia vbfiov,
xiii. 10. The old establishment of the law, issuing from the
Jews, was reaRy a xarapyeiv, inasmuch as the law was still
violated. On the other hand, the xarapyeiv of the vo/ios, issuing
from the doctrine of faith, is really an lardvai, inasmuch as the
believer now fulfils the law by the Holy Spirit. " Faith fulfils
all laws," says Luther's note on this verse ; " works fulfil not a
tittle of the law." Comp, viii. 4 ; Gal. v. 23. Certainly the law
is abrogated only in the form of imperative demand and the curse
annexed thereto (Eph. ii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 13), whilst in the case of
the believer this is replaced by spontaneous obedience to the law,
Rom. vi 14-18. The present verse then contains merely a
passing thought interposed by way of anticipation, an abrupt
setting aside of a natural objection. Moreover, this way of speaking
is quite in unison with the animation of the apostle's course of
thought and style, comp. the subordinate argument in the opening
of this chapter. Just as the brief proposition, Sid vbfiov iireyvwats
dfiaprlas, which concludes in ver. 20 the description of the sin of
the Genthe and Jewish world, is more fully illustrated in vh. 7-25,
so the present vbfiov larwfiev, which concludes the description
just given of justification by faith, is treated at greater length
in viii. 1—11. Here the apostle glances, so to speak, merely by
anticipation, at the more complete argument which follows later
on. The illustration of the idea suggested under every aspect
would have interfered too much with the course of the main
exposition at present in hand.
— Karapyovfiev] abolemus, we abolish, ver. 3, iv. 14 ; Gal. hi 17.
— Std rrjs irlarews] namely, inasmuch as we teach that only
through faith is justification attained. Comp. the reproach of
abrogating the law brought against Paul on the part of the Jews,
Acts xxi. 28.
— larwfiev] stabilimus, confirmamus, we establish, confirm. As
here xarapyeiv and lardvai, so in Heb. x. 9 dvaipeiv and lardvai
are contrasted, larwfiev is not the conjunctive, but the indicative
derived from lardw, instead of 'iarafiev from 'larrjfii, comp. Winer,
p. 93. For the rest, the reading lardvofiev, received by Lachmann,
is attested by preponderant evidence, although certainly the rhythm
of the period is more in favour of the form larwfiev [Fritzsche,
p. 210 in Wordsworth's Comm.]. See a declaration of the Lord
corresponding to the affirmation of this verse, Matt. v. 17,

CHAP. III. 31. 161
Though the Nomos in the present passage comes into considera
tion only with respect to its abiding moral substance, of this sub
stance even the ceremonial law partook, in so far as under its
material and perishing garb it embodied tj'pes of higher ethical
conceptions.

Philippi, Rom. 1.

162 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER IV.
They are two closely interhnked propositions which the apostle
has worked out in what precedes hi. 21 ff., — first, that man is
justified by grace alone through faith, not through works of the
law; and next, which follows directly from the former one, that this
justification is imparted not only to Jews, possessors of the law, but
just as much to Genthes. Both propositions are now corroborated
by the example of Abraham, — the first by David's judgment also,
¦ — Abraham, the progenitor of the Jewish people,. the father of
the circumcision, who was for the Jews the name of highest,
authority, to whose sacred example they expressly appealed
when they extohed the righteousness of works, and insisted on
them as the sole means of justification. The fact of Abraham's
example and David's testimony confirming the doctrine of
justification by faith, proves that, as is said in ih. 21, it was
witnessed beforehand by the law and the prophets.
Ver. 1. Tt ovv ipov/iev 'ABpadfi rbv irarepa rjfiwv evpvxivM
xard adpxa ;] The phrase Tt ovv or ti ovv ipov/iev, common with
our apostle elsewhere, must not lead us, with some expositors, to
insert a note of interrogation after ovv or ipoifiev in this passage,
Then the second question would run either : ipoifiev 'ABp. r.
irar. rjfi. evp. xard adpxa, or : 'ABp. r. irar. rjfi. evp. xard adpica.
But then, as object, we must supply to evprjKevai either St-
Kaioavvrjv, which is arbitrary, or an indefinite ti, which would
only be possible upon the supposition that what Paul had said
before suggests the notion that Abraham may have attained
something Kard adpxa. Thus the sentence : Tt ovv . . . xara
adpxa, is to be taken as one question : " What, therefore, shall
we say that Abraham our father has found according to the
flesh ? " xard adpxa is to be joined with evprjxevai, not with
rbv irarepa rjfiwv. In the latter case Paul must have written :
Tt oiv ipoifiev evprjxevai 'ABpadp, rbv irarepa rjfiwv xard adptca.
This order of words is indeed recommended by numerous and
weighty authorities, and Lachmann, who, moreover, reads

CHAP. IV. 1. 163
irpoirdropa for irarepa, has received it. Nevertheless, it looks
far too like a designed transposition, especially as Origen and
Chrysostom held to the former connection. But irpoirdropa,
uncommon in the N. T., in use only among the church Fathers
to designate Abraham as the progenitor of the Israelites, is to be
regarded as a gloss, intended to prevent irarepa rjfiwv here being
taken in the spiritual sense, as in vv. 11, 12, 16, 17, 18. More
over, the question : " What then shall we say that Abraham has
found, our father after the flesh ? " would give a wrong meaning.
For the answer must sthl clearly be : " He has found nothing,"
which is without foundation. Certainly Abraham found some
thing, and in truth much, namely, righteousness acceptable to
God. Abraham found nothing merely by works of the law, or
Kard adpKa, which must therefore of necessity be joined with
evprjxevai. Since Paih by b irarrjp rjfiwv describes Abraham, not
as father of ah behevers, but as progenitor of the Jews, he
thereby indicates beforehand that in the subsequent reasoning he
concerns himself with the Jews, who maintained that Abraham
had been justified xard adpKa, e'f epywv. Kard adpxa seems
then to be explained by e| epywv, ver. 2. If the epya are referred
to the external, legal works which the unregenerate man performs
in the strength of his natural free whl, this legal righteousness
would be designated here as originating from the old nature of
man, the adplj, a Bixaioavvrj xard adpxa, aapxixrj, in opposition
to the spiritual righteousness of faith. As the apostle (Phil.
iii. 4-6) comprehends under ireirolOrjais iv aapxl natural descent,
circumcision, and works of the law, and as generaRy circumcision
and works of the law from the Jewish standpoint are inseparably
connected, in agreement with the interpretation suggested, xard
adpxa should perhaps in the present passage also be referred to
both, to circumcision and external works of the law. . The only
circumstance to throw doubt on this explanation is that
Abraham had already in the obedience of faith complied with
God's call, and already, as a behever, and one to whom righteous
ness was imputed not by works but by faith (comp. ver. 3), stood
on the ground not of mere outward and legal works, but of works
really good and acceptable to God. However, even believing
David (comp. ver. 6) excludes his good works from justification.
See my remarks on ver. 20. On this account the epya of
Abraham, which are not to be taken into account in the matter

161 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
of his justification, must embrace not only Abraham's works
while stiR an unbeliever, but also his works when a behever.
Chrysostom early confessed this when in his eighth homily on
the Roman epistle he says : rb fiev ydp epya firj exovra ex
irlarews BixatwOrjval rwa, ovSev direixos, to Be xo/iwvra ev
xaropOwfiaai firj ivrevOev dXX diro irtarews yeveaOai Blxaiov,
rovro rb Oavfiaarbv. Little, then, as the apostle assigns the good
works of believers to the sphere of the adplj, since they are the
fruits of the irvevfia, for Paul they faR into this category, directly
that they are considered, as the Jews did with regard to the
works of Abraham, in the light of righteousness availing before
God. Everything wherewith man would magnify himself, and
assume airs, especiaRy in God's sight, even though of itself- a
good gift of God, may be described as belonging to the sphere of-
the human, phenomenal, perishing. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 24. So also
in Gal. iii. 3, Paul caRs the desire for righteousness through faith
alone a irvevfiari ivdpxeaOai, the blending with this of good
works a aapxl iirireXeiaOat, comp. also Gal. v. 4, 5 ; Col. ii. 18,
The same view is expressed in the note of Flacius on this
passage : " Vox secundum carnem hic significat ex operibus, non
sine extremo contemptu Justitiae operum, sicut et Isaias inquit:
Omnis caro foenum, et omnis justitia ejus sicut flos agri, et
slcut etiam habetur, Phhipp. ih. 4, et Gal. iii. 3, cum Spiritu
coeperitis, nunc carne consummamini : causa locutionis est, quia
caro, id est homo ipse in se habeat et praestet iRam justitiam,"
non gratis ei a Deo imputetur, etiamsi earn praestet jam renatus,
nam iha quoque opera vox haec complectitur." Calov, who
agrees with this note of Flacius, in the end declares for a third
interpretation, followed by a number of interpreters before and
after him, according to which xard adpxa in this passage is to be
referred to circumcisio as a ceremonia in carne obsignata. In
modern days this explanation has been especially advocated by
Mehring (comp. also Schott, p. 226), who says, p. 368 : " If we join
the words xaTa adpxa with evprjxevai, they correspond to the
subjoined ef epywv, and include circumcision, which was expressly
performed iv aapxl. Nay, not without great probabihty they
will denote not merely with primary, but, considering the words
following immediately, with exclusive reference to circumcision as
the chief representative of works (comp. Ecclus. xhv. 20: xal
iv aapxl airov earrjae BiaOrjxrjv), aR external things, to which

CHAP. IV. 1. 165
-especially works belong." We are now disposed, although Meyer
cahs it " entirely opposed to the context," to give the preference
to this interpretation, because it seems to us to be the one most
directly suggested both by the expression and thing signified.
Abraham, who is called the progenitor of the Jews, is as such
withal the progenitor of the circumcised. The Jews regarded
circumcision, not hke the apostle as above all the seal of the
covenant of grace, but exclusively as the seal of the covenant of
law, as the sign of obligation to observe the law. It was to
them the primary and fundamental work, including in itself all
other works, as the cause includes the effect. Hence xard adpxa,
ver. 1, is convertible with ilj epywv, ver. 2 ; and as surely as cir
cumcision was a divinely ordained sign of the covenant, so surely
might works be regarded as divinely produced works. The
reference to circumcision is the more natural, as the Jews were
directly described, ih. 30 (ih. 31 being, as we saw, a sentence
only cursorily interposed), as the irepirofir], by which their specific
distinction from the Genthes as the dxpoBvarla is emphasized.
If the irepirofir], like the dxpoBvarla, is justified only through
irlans, then is irepirofir] itself not the means of justification.
With this the question naturally connects itself, whether
Abraham had not been justified through circumcision, therefore
through works. Thus the special inquiry about the wcpeXeta rrjs
irepirofirjs, iii 1, which was started in opposition to the assertion
of its entire dvwcpeXeia apparently maintained (ii. 25-29), and
which still awaited its solution, is again taken up in the present
chapter, and in the following ver. 11 receives an answer.
Whether justification Res open to the Jew through circumcision
or without circumcision, i.e. through works or without works,
this is the question which is ever emerging again and again,
and with which the apostolic exposition from ch. ii. to ch. iv.
deals. But when Paul in this passage says, not ix irepirofirjs,
but xard adpxa, in this disparaging description of irepirofir] lies
wrapped up the answer to the question, namely, that in this way
Abraham attained nothing. Comp. the expression irepirofirj iv
aapxl j£ei0O7row7To?, Eph. ii. 11, and eiirpoawireiv, xavxdaOai iv
aapxl =iv irepiroafj, Gal. vi 12, 13. Just so even in Gal. ih. 3
aapxl eirireXeiaOe may be said in severe irony of the circumcision
in which the Galatians now sought their perfection, a course by
which they simply made manifest their relapse into a carnal

166 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
mind, in contrast with theh former spiritual disposition. With
evplaxew, NVD, to find, attain, gain, comp. Acts vii. 46.
Ver. 2 confirms the negation implied in the question of the
previous verse, et yap 'ABpadp, ilj epywv iSixaowQrj] Paul says
not e'f epywv vbfiov, because the vbfios was not yet given to
Abraham; but in substance the expression is the same. The
Talmud even infers from Gen. xxvi. 5 that Abraham already
observed the entire Mosaic law. iSixaiwOrj is not directly and
speciahy = was justified by God, but = was justified in general,
was found just, leaving it undetermined by whom. Comp. hi. 4.
— e^et xavxnp-a] habet gloriandi materiam. He has reason to
glory, namely, towards man, after human fashion.
— dXX' ov irpbs rbv Oeov] but not towards God, who does not
recognise merit. So the apostle says even of himself, he was
xara Sixaioavvrjv rrjv iv vbfiw dfiefirrros, but cahs this a
ireirolOrjais iv aapxl that cannot justify him before . God, Phil.
iii. 4 ff. The interpretation now given of this verse is the only
one at once natural and in keeping with the simple tenor of the
words. That a general and indefinite reference is thereby assigned
to SixatovaOai is a comparatively shght difficulty, as the word
stiR retains its radical meaning. But all other modes of inter
pretation are decidedly forced and untenable. Some, altering the
punctuation, have tried to explain the meaning in two ways.
First : dXX' oim irpbs rbv Oeov. But this makeshift is to be re
jected on this ground, that the formula of affirmation must have
run, not irpbs rbv Oeov, but irpbs rov Oeov, or rather fid rbv Oeov,
even irpbs rov Oeov being a formula of oath, not of affirmation.
Secondly : et ydp 'ABpadp, ilj epywv iSixaiwOrj ; " For was
Abraham justified by works ? " Answer : " He may glory, but
not v before God." From this it foRows that he was not justified
through works. This explanation is ingenious enough, but arti
ficial.1 Against it the objection has justly been urged, that et is
not found in Paul in a direct question; that the question itself is
irrelevant to what precedes ; finally, that the sentiment of the
answer in its unrestricted extent is inadmissible. In accordance
with the connection of thought, the most passable sense would be
given by the interpretation which regards dXX' ov irpbs rbv Oebv
as the minor of a syllogism, of which the conclusio must be
1 Meyer has now given this up, and follows the interpretation of the Greek
exegetes.

CHAP. IV. 3. 167
supplied. " For if Abraham was justified by works, he has reason
to boast, but he has no reason to boast before God ; therefore he
was not justified by works." But in this case Paul must clearly
have written : ej^et xaiixnfia irpbs rbv Oeov' dXX' oix ^Xet- Finally,
Theodoret observes : fj -toi/ dyaOwv epywv irXrjpwais airovs
arecpavoi rovs ipya^ofievovs, rrjv Be rov Oeov (piXavO pwir lav
oi Selxvvai. So, too, the rest of the Greek exegetes, Chrysost.,
Oecumen., Theophyl. If Abraham was justified through works,
the meaning is, he cannot boast of this at least with respect to
God, since in that case his justification is not a divine benefit, but
he himself has earned it. But this was precisely what the Jews
maintained. They therefore were not silenced by this. Hence
theh refutation must have been contained in the declaration of
Scripture, ver. 3. But then this would have been introduced by
dXXd, not by ydp. Moreover, the apostle himself shares the
opinion, that whoever is justified through perfect fulfilment of the
law has reason to glory even before God. Comp. Mehring on the
passage. Ver. 3. That Abraham was not justified before God by the
merit of works, is proved by the Scripture in which God Himself
bears a different testimony about him, namely, that he won
righteousness availing before God through faith, not through
works. The Scripture passage quoted is taken from Gen. xv. 6.
There Abraham receives the promise of a son and of a numerous
posterity. Now, every divine promise is of necessity a pledge
of an earthly gift and seal of heavenly grace. Faith in the former,
therefore, always includes faith in the latter. The divine gift
invariably bears the character of a sacramental ratification of
divine covenant-grace and covenant-truth. Thus in Gen. xv. 1,
in the words : " Fear not, Abraham, I am thy shield," the Lord
first of aR seeks to strengthen Abraham's confidence in this, His
covenant-truth. But beyond this the earthly gift itself, made
sure to Abraham, included in quite a peculiar way the promise of
the highest heavenly gift. From his natural posterity was to go
forth no other than the Seed of the Woman promised from the
very beginning. Abraham's faith, then, in the promise of a
posterity from which blessing was to diffuse itself over all nations,
imphed faith in the promise of the Messiah, the Seed of the
Woman and Conqueror of the serpent, whose birth was linked
to the seed of Abraham. Thus the higher divine word of promise

168 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
stood or fell with the lower. Clearly, then, the apostle in this
passage brings into view the elements thus indicated of Abraham's
faith. Not in so far as Abraham believed in the birth of Isaac
and his natural posterity simply considered was he justified before
God, but only in so far as this faith, looking both backward and
forward, included in it reliance upon divine grace and upon
the advent of the Messiah which was hnked to Isaac's birth.
This follows as matter of course from the nature of the Pauline
doctrine of justification. If the object of Abraham's justifying faith
had been, not God's grace in Christ, but only his future natural
posterity, the analogy between Abraham's and a Christian's faith
would simply have consisted in the subjective spiritual quahty of
trust. But had faith as a subjective quality of soul, as a spiritual
excehence of disposition, as a virtue weR-pleasing to God, — had J
this in Paul's view justified Abraham, the apostle would with his
own hand have cut the very sinew of his doctrine of justification.
For we have seen that, according to that doctrine, faith does not
justify man before God on account of its subjective character, a view
which must be described as a faRing back to the legal standpoint, ;
but that faith justifies man only on account of its object and
import, which is no other than Christ, or God's forgiving grace
in Christ. Even Abraham knew and in faith embraced the
promise of this grace, and this faith was reckoned to him for
righteousness.1 That this is actuaRy the apostle's meaning is
1 1 rejoice that now even Meyer adheres to this proposition, so boundless in its im
portance and pregnant in its issues, both as to the N. T. doctrine of justification and
as to the notion of 0. T. prophecy. He says : " Still less (in opposition to Neander
and others) can the explanation of the subjective nature of faith in general, without
the addition of its specific object (Christ), suffice for the conception of Abraham as
the father of all believing in Christ ; since in that case there would only have been
present in him a preformation of faith as respects its psychological quality generally,
and not also in respect of its subject-matter, which is nevertheless the specific and
distinguishing point in the case of justifying faith. — We may add that our passage,
since it expresses not a (mediate) issuing of righteousness from faith, but the imputa
tion of the latter, serves as a proof of justification being an actus forensis : and what
the Catholic expositors (including even Reithmayr and Maier) advance to the con
trary is a pure subjective addition to the text." It is also far from sufficient when
Tholuck, Aufl. 5 (comp. Wieseler on Gal. iii. 6, p. 242 ff), calls the parallel between
Abraham's faith and the faith of Christians a virtual one, on the ground that the
promise vouchsafed to Abraham was likewise a promise of grace. In the case of
justifying faith, it is not a question of a promise of grace in general, but of the
promise of grace in Christ. Tholuck no doubt calls the teaching of Lutheran
theology, that even in the case of Abraham the Messiah promised to him is to be
considered as the real object of faith, a petitio prindpii. But if it is admitted, which

CHAP. IV. 8. 169
proved by w. 4, 5 beyond contradiction. It is said, ver. 3 :
'ABpadp, iirlarevae xal eXoylaOrj aircp et? Sixaioavvrjv, and ver. 5 :
to irtarevovn iirl rbv Sixaiovvra rbv daeBrj Xoyl^erai rj irlans
eh Sixaioavvrjv. Thus the irlans of Abraham, which was ac
counted to him for righteousness, consisted in his believing in
Him that justifies the ungodly, just as David's justifying faith,
according to w. 6—8, had no other meaning. That Abraham
looked for the coming Messiah, the Messiah come expressly
testified, John vhi. 56. But if we always extract from the 0. T.
text merely the minimum that grammatical and logical interpre
tation, taken alone, can find in it, with no regard whatever to the
whole strain of 0. and N. T. Scripture, and to the teaching of the
Lord and His apostles, the result is an exegesis in the highest
degree barren for theology. We must grant, indeed, that in clear
ness, distinctness, and unbroken continuity, Abrahamic saving
faith is not to be compared with the Christian, if only the
essential identity of their substance be held fast. We have already
indicated the connection of the Protevangehum with the promise
of Isaac and with the universal blessing to spring from his seed,
which justifies the apostle in his conception of Abraham's faith.1
But then it foRows from this that he has not arbitrarily enlarged
the meaning of the Scripture testimony, to the effect that to Abraham
his faith was counted as righteousness, in applying it to justification,
while originahy it merely expressed, like Ps. cvi. 31 (comp. Num.
even Tholuck does not deny, that for the apostle the justification of the Christian is
an actus forensis, consisting in the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ,
then the petitio principii can only be discovered in the supposition that the apostle
has drawn his parallel between Abraham's justifying faith and the Christian's justi
fying faith with due regard to exactness. But to question this argues no particular
respect either for Pauline precision of thought or for the authority of the apostolic
word of God. The great and holy Apostle Paul is at least no vacillating, misty
divine of the modern mediation-theology. "When Tholuck distinguishes in the
Pauline doctrine of justification between the apostle's conception and the truth
embodied in this conception, and discovers the latter in the notion that in the appro
priation of Christ by faith lies in fact the principle of a perfect fulfilment of the law,
that justification is an anticipatory declaration which judges of the germ by its sub
sequent complete development (comp. on ver. 5, p. 178 f.), it is easily explicable
that he then also makes the apostle no longer so exact as to the object of Abraham's
justifying faith. This may be more remarkable in Mehring, p. 385 f. Meanwhile,
even he asserts that per fidem and. propter fidem are not absolutely separable. In
that case one should simply acknowledge in so many words that the Romish Church,
in its theory of justification, in opposition to the Reformation, is fundamentally in
the right.
1 See more in detail in the Excursus to this chapter. ,

170 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
xxv. 12), the divine approbation of a particular act well-pleasing
to God. In the case of Abraham it was bis faith; in the. case of
Phinehas, spoken of Ps. cvi, his deed, that was reckoned as right- '
eousness. The faith of Abraham, the father of the covenant and
of faith, was specific faith in the covenant-promise. The deed of
Phinehas was an extraordinary heroic achievement, which, on
account of its apparent harshness, stood in need of special divine
approval and of ratification in the shape of reward. Finally,
Abraham's justification extended merely to his own person, while
the reward of Phinehas extended " to all generations for evermore."
— eirlarevae Se 'ABpadp, rw Oew] LXX. : xal irrlarevaev
'ABpdp, rw Oew] Paul puts the main idea, on which the emphasis
lies, first : irrlarevaev, oix epya iiroirjaaro, oix elpydaaro. The
particle Be belongs merely to the citation, not to the connection of
the Pauline argument. Moreover, instead of 'ABpdp, Paul em
ploys the form of the name 'ABpadp,, which appears first Gen.
xvii. 5, and afterwards is exclusively used. He was to be intro
duced even here as the type and father of nations, of believers.
— xal iXoylaOr] airw eh Sixaioavvrjv] literally after the LXX.
The Hebrew text has the active v rnti'ijm, where God is to be
conceived as the subject. iXoylaOrj, it was reckoned, namely, rb
iriarevaai, which is to be supplied from irrlarevaev, Winer, p. 495.
Xoyi%eaQai in the present has sometimes (vy. 4, 5 ; contrary, ver. 6),
in the aorist passive has always, the passive sense, because for the
active sense the middle aorist form exists. In the Hebraistic
mode of construction: Xoyl^eaOal rwl ri et? ti (Ps. cvi. 31:
n^V? i? ^Vftim), e's denotes the result of the reckoning, ii. 26. As
an evidence, not so much of the justifying power of faith as of
the reward bestowed on true faith, the passage of Genesis cited by
Paul is quoted in 1 Mace. ii. 52 more in the apocryphal Jewish
than in the Pauline canonical sense.
Vv. 4, 5 lay down two general antithetical propositions
respecting the ground of justification, from the application of
which to the present case of Abraham the inference is that to
him justification was vouchsafed without the meritorious media
tion of works. Thus vv. 4, 5 contain an illustration of ver. 3.
to Be epya^ofiivw] Luther strikingly : " but to him who is
occupied with works." " Operantem voca't," says Calvin, "non
quisquis bonis operibus addictus est, quod studium vigere debet
in omnibus Dei filiis : sed qui suis meritis aliquid promeretur :

CHAP. IV. 4, 5. 171
similiter non operantem, cui nihil debetur operum merito.
Neque enim fideles vult esse ignavos : sed tantum mercenaries
esse vetat, qui a Deo quicquam reposcant quasi jure debitum."
o ipya^bfievos has therefore the pregnant signification : one active
in works, whose life-element is works, seeing that he performs
them as a means to attain the Bixaioavvrj Oeov and awrrjpla.
The metabatic Se serves merely to indicate the transition from
one thing to another, or as a mere link of external connection.
— b fiiaObs] The reward due, which presupposes, on the part
of the receiver, merit in the proper sense of the word.
— oi Xoyl^erai xard %dptz/ dXXd xara b(pel\rjfia] The emphasis
lies not on Xoyl^erai, but on xard x^Pcv> as the antithesis xaTa
bcpeiKvpa indicates. The apostle does not wish from the ex
pression Xoyl^eaOai itself to prove that justification is by grace,
which would be opposed to idiom. For XoyfteaOai means : to
bring into account, to reckon. Whether this is done by grace or
according to merit each particular case shows, not the word
simply. The proof of Abraham having been justified by grace is
not that his faith was reckoned to him, but that his faith was
reckoned. A work also may be reckoned, Ps. cvi. 31. More
over, according to the former false conception, we should have
most awkwardly before xard %a'pti/ to supply in thought a rovro
8' eariv, and, in addition, to suppose a zeugma, since after dXXd
some such word as SIBorai must be extracted from Xoyl^erai.
It has been justly observed, that if the apostle had given to
Xoyl^erai the pregnant sense of reckoning by grace, he must
have written : oi Xoyl^erai Se, o ean %dpt?, o fiiaOos to
ipyatpfievw, xard bcpeiXrjpa airov XafiBdvovri, Xoyl^erai Be
rw firj epya^ofievco, rriarevovn Be e. r. S. r. daeBrj fj irlans ai. eh
St/c. To one active in works, we must interpret, God accounts
reward not by grace, but by debt. The ipya%bfievoi, supposing
that they are iroirjral rov vbfiov in the fuR sense of the word,
have therefore, without doubt, a claim to reward proportionate
to their merit. In reality, even to them God owes nothing,
inasmuch as they have only done what they are bound to do,
Luke xvii. 10. But of His goodness He has assumed this debt,
bound Himself to them by' the promise of reward, to the fulfil
ment of which they certainly have a just claim.
— to Se firj epya&fievw] Opposite of to ipya&uevw,
ver. 4. Not such an one is meant, therefore, as does no

172 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
good works at ah, but one who does them not with a view to
his justification.
— iriarevovn Be iirl rbv Sixaiovvra rbv daeBrj] The daeBrjs
here is not Abraham in particular, who, according to the tradition
derived from Josh. xxiv. 2, and found in Philo, Josephus, and
Maimonides, before his cahing is said to have been an idolater;
for the proposition, as the parahelism of vv. 4, 5 shows, is to be
taken as a general principle. Sixaiovv rbv daeBrj yields a
stronger contrast than Sixaiovv rbv dSixov. All the more
illustrious also is the energy of the faith which in reliance upon
the divine %d/3t? beheves in spite of daeBeta. iriarevew iirl
rwa, to believe in some one, ver. 24, Acts ix. 42, xi. 17, according
to the Pauhne conception of justifying faith, is not different from:
" to put his trust in some one."
- — Xoyi^erai rj irlans airov et? Sixaioavvrjv] The Latin church
(Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Vulgata) added to these words: secundum
propositum gratiae Dei (i.e. xard rrjv irpbOeaiv rrjs xaPlT0'> r°v
Oeov, after the analogy of 2 Tim. i. 9). The intention clearly was
to make the antithesis more complete (to ipya&fiivw . . . Xoyl&rai
. . . xard bcpetXrjfia, rw Be . . . iriarevovn . . . Xoyt^erai . . . xard
rrjv irpbOeaiv rrjs x<*PtT0,> T0" Oeov). But we do not need this
addition, because for the apostle, as the connection shows, the
imputation of faith as righteousness is of itself identical with the
imputation of righteousness by grace. For him, faith is always
in the act of justification the opposite of works and the correlative
notion to grace (xi. 6). Hence with good reason the evangelical
church has explained the expression: "faith is reckoned as
righteousness," seeing that this is done by grace for the sake of
Christ's righteousness, as equivalent to the proposition : " Christ's
righteousness is reckoned to the behever as righteousness." "Et
sane res eodem reoidit, si orthodoxe exphcetur," observes Calov,
" sive dicamus, fidem imputari in justitiam, seu Christum fide
apprehensum: quia fides nihR ahud est, quam apprehensio Christi
et justitiae ejus ; quid ergo diversi est, Christi apprehensionem
nobis imputari, et Christum apprehensum imputari nobis ? "
The application of the general principle of vv. 4, 5 to the case of
Abraham foRows naturaRy. If Abraham's faith was reckoned to
him as righteousness (ver. 3), then was he one that dealt not in
works, else he would have received the reward of righteousness
as a debt due to him. But he was one that believed in Him

CHAP. IV. 6-8. 173
who justifies the ungodly, one therefore who was justified %o>/3t?
epywv. Vv. 6-8. Confirmation of the contents of ver. 5 by the testi
mony of David. " Perapposite," says Bengel, "post Abrahamum
introducitur David : quia uterque in Messiae progenitoribus pro-
missionem suscepit et propagavit. Mosi nulla directa promissio
data est de Messia ; quia hic ei opponitur, neque ex Mosis stem-
mate prognatus est." By its very form (xaOdirep), the testimony
and therefore also the example of David is aheged merely as a
subordinate confirmation of the doctrine of justification which has
been established by the case of Abraham. Sthl it contributes of
itself a new, independent evidence of that doctrine. And, in
fact, the appeal to David next to that to Abraham was peculiarly
apposite, because Christ was and was cahed a Son of David, and
to David, next to Abraham, the most definite promise of the
Messiah had been given. Besides, Abraham hved before, but
David after the giving of the law. xaOdirep xal] sicuti etiam, even
as also, 2 Cor. i 14; 1 Thess. ih. 6, 12, iv. 5 ; Heb. iv. 2, v. 4.
— \e7e1 rbv fiaxapiafibv] declares the felicitation, simply a
more select phrase for fiaxapl^ei. fiaxapiapbs is not convertible
with patcapia. ' It means not : David declares the blessedness
that a man possesses, etc., but : David expresses the felicitation
of the man, etc., i.e. he pronounces the man blessed.
— w b Oebs Xoyi%erai Sixaioavvrjv] We must not, with the
older Protestant exegetes, supply Xpiarov, by which course we
should get the doctrine of the justitia Christi -imputata in a
directly scriptural expression. But the correctness of this
Protestant doctrine follows by natural consequence from the
Pauline order of thought. That God imputes or accounts to the
believer a righteousness which of himself he possesses not, takes
place, if at least God is not to be guilty of unrighteous or
arbitrary conduct, precisely upon the ground of the existent
righteousness of Christ, which as a substitutory righteousness,
made ours by faith, is imputed to us. But the fact that in the
present passage the terminus technicus, met with elsewhere,
Sixaiovv is interchanged with Xoyl^eaOai Sixaioavvrjv, furnishes a
new proof that justification consists not in actuaRy making man
righteous, but in an actus forensis pronouncing him righteous.
— %ee/>t? epywv] to be joined with Xoyl^erai. In the passage of
the Psalms quoted (taken from Ps. xxxii 1, 2, literahy after the

174 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
LXX.) epya are not positively excluded, but inasmuch as there
justification is defined as consisting in forgiveness of sins, it is
self-evident that in it works do not come into consideration ; for
forgiveness of sins forms the very opposite of merit of works.
Further, the psalm does not speak expressly of justification;
but inasmuch as paxapla, hke awrrjpla, only exists as the con
sequence of the Bixaioavvrj Oeov, if the former must be placed in
acpeais rwv dfiapnwv, so also must the latter.
— iirexaXvcpOrjaav al dpaprlai] Heb. nKtan ^°? (fr°m n??)- God
so covers sin that it no more comes to light, i.e. He consigns it to
obhvion, He pardons, remits it. Augustine on Ps. 1. 1 : " Si
texit Deus peccata, noluit animadvertere, si noluit animadvertere,
noluit punire."
— oi fir] Xoylarjrai] The intensive oi fir] (of what whl or
should nowise take place) is construed in the N. T. only, and
indeed most usually, with the conjunct, aorist, or with the indie.
futur. ; in the classics also with the conjunct, praesentis. The
rule of Herrmann, that the conjunct, aorist stands in re incerti
temporis, in the N. T. at least finds no support. The present
passage might indeed be explained in harmony with it, but not
e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 15. Comp. Winer, p. 634. This passage shows
us that Sixaiovv is synonymous with Xoyl^eaQai Sixaioavvrjv, p/q
Xoyl^eaOai dfiaprlav, dcpievai ras dvofilas, iirixaXvirrew rds
dfiaprlas, and that therefore the Protestant church has the full
sanction of Scripture when it discriminates between justification
and sanctification.
Although now (w. 7, 8) David in general pronounced all
blessed whose sins are forgiven, it might sthl be affirmed that
this blessedness extended only to the irepirofifj, to the 'IovSaioi
irepiTfirjroi, to whom David himself belonged. On this account
the apostle (ver. 9) adds the question : 'O fiaxapiapbs . . .
dxpoBvarlav ; by which he passes over to the second point
which he was desirous to attest by the example of Abraham,
namely, that it confirms not only this truth that righteousness
comes by faith, but also that it is vouchsafed equahy to Gentiles
with Jews.
Ver. 9. 'O fiaxapiapbs ovv ovros, iirl rrjv ireptrofirjv ;] Some
would supply iriirrei. But cadere in aliquem is a Latinism
unknown to Greek idiom. Xeyerai, too, cannot weR be supphed
from ver. 6, comp. Heb. vii. 13. Paul asks not whether David

CHAP. IV. 10. 175
applies bis felicitation only to the circumcision or also to the
uncircumcision, but whether in and of itself it is to be applied
only to one or also to the other ? It is best, therefore, simply to
supply earh. The oiv draws an inference from the fiaxapiafibs,
contained vv. 7, 8.
— rj xal eirl rrjv dxpoBvarlav ;] or also. The xal intimates
that in what precedes eVt rrjv irepirofirjv is said in exclusive
reference to the Jews = eirl rrjv irepirofirjv pbvov. Some codices
even add this fibvov, manifestly supplied by themselves.
irepiToprj, dxpoBvarla, abst. pro concreto, ii. 26, hi. 30.
— Xeyofiev yap xrX] The emphasis hes on to 'ABpadp,. " For
we say that to Abraham his faith was accounted righteousness."
As he was the first to receive circumcision, it may be asked
whether he was justified before circumcision, or only as circum
cised, and, further perhaps, even on account of circumcision.
This question is answered in the following verse. If it were
wished to lay the emphasis on eXoylaOrj, we must assign to the
word the pregnant sense, " to account by grace, without merit of
works," a sense that^ it has not of itself, comp. on ver. ¦ 4.
Better than this would be the emphasis on fj irlans. If faith is
imputed as righteousness, an imputation by grace finds place.
The next question is, whether this takes place altogether
independently of circumcision, or only on condition of circum
cision pre- existent. The latter was the contention of the
Pharisaic Jewish Christians (Acts xv.), and of the Galatian false
teachers. From this followed the necessity of circumcision for
the Genthes, if they would partake in justifying grace and
eternal blessedness. Nevertheless, it seems to us more simple
and obvious to accentuate to 'ABpadp, than to give emphatic
prominence to rj irlans. The position of the words is not
decisive against our view.
Ver. 10. rrws ovv eXoylaOrj ;] sc. avrw. Hovj, in what way ?
not: in what condition? as if Paul had written 7t6j? e^oz/Tt or
iroiw ovn. Rather is the question as yet indefinite, and is first
defined more exactly by the subjoined iv irepiropfj ovn rj iv
dxpoBvarla ;
— oix iv irepir. . . . dxpoB-] For Abraham's justification is
treated of Gen. xv., but his circumcision for the first time
Gen. xvii. The latter was ;only ordained by divine command
several (at least fourteen) years after the former.

176 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Ver. 11. Circumcision was not the means, but the consequence
of justification, and the consequence, indeed, in the form of a
confirming seal. By this representation the possible objection is
implicitly guarded against, that according to Paul's view circum
cision was altogether without use and meaning, xal arjfieiov
ekaBe irepirofirjs] The genitive is genit. appositionis, therefore =
xal arjfieiov eXaBev o ian irepirofir], the sign consisting in circum
cision, comp. Acts iv. 2 2 : rb arjfieiov rovro rrjs laaews ; Jas. i 1 2 :
d arecpavos rrjs f wrjs ; Eph. vi. 17: r) fidxatpa rov irvevfiaros.
The reading irepnoporjv, advocated by Bengel and Griesbach, is
not sufficiently attested by manuscripts, and may most easily be-
explained by an error of the copyist through the adjacent
accusatives (arjfieiov, acppayiSa). Besides, Paul must have written
xal arjfieiov eXaBe irepirofirjv xal acppayiSa, or xal eXaBe rrepi-
roprjv arjfieiov xal acppayiSa. The arrangement of the words
xal arjfieiov e\a/3e irepirofirjs is only chosen for rhetorical effect,
because it is more sonorous, solemn, and musical than either
xal arjfieiov irepirofirjs eXaBe or xal eXaBe arjfieiov irepirofirjs.
The expression arjfieiov alone is not identical with arjfieiov
SiaOrjxrjs, rf"i3 niN, Gen. xvii. 11, but signifies simply the sign
that Abraham received in his person, by which he was distin
guished from the uncircumcised. The religious significance of
this sign is first given in the words subjoined.
— acppayiSa] forms the apposition to arjfieiov irepirofirjs, that it
might be a seal, as a seal, — a metaphorical expression for : as a con
firmation, a ratification, pledge, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 2 : r) ydp acppayis
rrjs ifirjs diroaroXrjs l/peis iare; 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; John vi. 27. The
seal subjoined confirms and ratifies the contents of a document.
Thus accordingly circumcision, ordained by God, was to Abraham,
so to speak, a seal affixed to the declaration of righteousness
vouchsafed to him on the part of God. In the Targum on
Cant. iii. 8 the seal of circumcision is spoken of : n^D now ;
as also in the formula of circumcision the words occurred :
" Benedictus sit, qui sanctificavit dilectum ab utero, et signum
(DIN) posuit in carne, et filios suos sigillavit (Dnn) signo foederis
sandi." The covenant which God made with Abraham, ch. xv.
(see especially ver. 18), and which was therefore only renewed
ch. xvh., was a covenant of grace and a promise on the part of
God. In ch xvii. 11 is circumcision first instituted as a sign of
this covenant. As, then, God stood in covenant with Abraham

CHAP. IV. 11. 177
through a promise of grace, so Abraham stood in covenant with
God through faith. The divine covenant-grace answers to the
Abrahamic righteousness of faith. Justly, therefore, might the
apostle describe circumcision, which, according to the 0. T. text,
was a covenant-sign, as withal a seal of the righteousness of faith.
— rrjs Bixaioavvrjs rrjs 7rt'crTeci>?] the righteousness of faith, the
righteousness of which faith was the medium, which had its
ground in faith.
— rrjs iv rfj dxpoBvarla] sc. axeOelarjs. It seems natural to
bind together Bixaioavvrjs rrjs irlarews as one notion : the righteous-
ness-of-faith, and then to refer rrjs iv rfj dxpoBvarla to the
complete notion : the righteousness-of-faith which he had attained
in uncircumcision. But in the first place, for the sake of per
spicuity, Paul must then have written : acppayiSa rrjs ix irlorews
Bixaioavvrjs rrjs xrX. Again, the subjoined iriarevovrwv Si dxpo-
Bvarlas, ver. 11, tt)? iv rfj dxpoBvarla irlarews, ver. 12, shows
that in the present verse the emphasis lies on tt)? irlarews, not
on rrjs Bixaioavvrjs. Otherwise the apostle would have written,
ver. 11 : et? to elvai airov irarepa irdvr wv rwv irlarei Sixaiw-
Oevrwv, not : irdvrwv rwv iriarevovrwv. Trjs iv rfj dxpoBvarla
is therefore to be joined with rrjs irlarews, not with rrjs Bixaio
avvrjs. " And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had in uncircumcision." The
apostle here takes circumcision simply as a seal of the covenant
and of grace. Its other meaning, as a symbol of inward circum
cision of heart (according to Philo, a aifiBoXov rrjs rwv rjSovwv
ixrofiijs), he does not here bring into view. But in point of fact,
the sanctification of behevers is itself a seal of theh righteousness
of faith already present. Without justification by faith there is
no new Rfe. The new hfe, therefore, bears witness to the presence
of justification, to which, accordingly, it serves as a seal. More
over, if circumcision is a acppayis of the Bixaioavvrjs irlarews, it is
self-evident that since in the N. T., in baptism, a new arjfieiov
acppayiarixbv is instituted, circumcision is abolished, Col. ii. 11,
12. " Caeterum," says Calvin, " quod in Abrahae persona cir-
cumcisio posterior justitia fuit, non semper in sacramentis locum
habet : sicut apparet in Isaac et posteris : sed Deus semel edere
tale ab initio specimen voluit, ne quis externis rebus salutem
affigeret," as to which certainly the opposite, spiritualistic extreme
must be just as decidedly rejected. This passage is of importance
Philippi, Rom. I. M

178 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
in determining the notion of sacrament, inasmuch as according to
it the sacramental sign stands out in antithesis, both to the opus
operatum and the mere nota professionis, as a seal of the divine
promise of grace which can only be embraced by faith. It is, in
Augustine's phrase, verbum visibile, a visible pledge of grace.
— et? rb elvao airov xrX.] by some expositors is taken ixBart-
icws = xal ovrws iyevero rrarrjp. But it is more forcible and
more accordant with the bibhcal mode of conception to take it
reXixws : that he might be, etc. Theodoret already well says :
d ydp tov oXwv Oebs irpoetSd>s o>? Oebs, cos eva Xabv ilj iOvwv xal
'IovSalwv dOpotaei, xal Sid irlarews airois rrjv awrvplav irapeijei,
iv rw irarpiapxTI 'ABpadp, dficporepa irpoSieypayjre.
— irarepa irdvr wv twv irlar. Si dxpoBvartas] It is, of course,
the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham that is here alluded to.
There exists a great family of believers, at the head of which
stands Abraham, the father of faith. Abraham is founder and
head of this family, and as such father of believers. Of the
spiritual interpretation of Abraham's fatherhood the Lord had
already set the example, John vih. 37, 39; comp. Matt. iii. 9 ;
Luke ih. 8. As matter of fact, Abraham's righteousness of faith,
present already before circumcision, and only confirmed and sealed
by circumcision, was a strong testimony to the universality of
divine grace, bound to no external conditions. The national
limitation of God's kingdom, that came in later, bound to natural
descent and an external cultus, was not, even during, the time of
its continuance, an absolute one, as is proved by the believing
Genthes who acknowledged the God of Israel, while prophecy
expressly anticipated a time when ah hmits should be done away.
— St' dxpoBvartas, in, with uncircumcision, ii. 27 : Std ypdp-
p,aros xal irepirofirjs.
— et? rb XoytaOrjvai xrX.] illustrates parentheticaRy the pre
ceding wTords : et? rb elvai airov irarepa xrX. Abraham was
to be father of all behevers from among the Gentiles, i.e. to
believers also from among the Genthes was righteousness to be
imputed. — xal airois] as to Abraham himself. The xal, altogether in
keeping with the strain of thought, which Lachmann on the
evidence of some critical authorities erased, merely dropped out
through a mistake of the eye of the copyist (occasioned by the
vat in the preceding XoyiaOrjvat).

CHAP. IV. 12. 179
— rrjv Sixaioavvrjv] which was already spoken of, namely, the
Bixaioavvrj irlarews. Hence the article.
Ver. 12. Abraham is spiritual father, not only of beheving
Genthes, but also of the Jews, provided that as his genuine
children they resemble him not merely in circumcision, but also
in faith. Already in the 0. T. the distinction is drawn between
the circumcised merely outwardly, in body, and the circumcised
spiritually, in heart, Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6 ; Jer. iv. 4. xal irarepa
irepiropfjs] looks back to et? rb elvai airov, ver. 11 : xal (els rb
elvai airov) irarepa irepirofirjs. That the Jews may not under
stand this in a carnal sense, Paul at once adds, as a necessary
qualification and illustrative definition : to?? oix xtX.
— dXXd xal Tois aroix°vai xrX.] Dativ. commod. : " to those
who," etc. We should have expected the apostle to continue in
the genitive : xal irarepa irepirop/rjs rwv oix xrX. dA-A-d xal twv
aroixovvrwv xrX., or rather : xal irarepa irepirofirjs, rovrean (or
A-eyo) Se) t&v oix xrX. However, we also say : eifil rwi rrarrjp,
comp. Rev. xxi. 7 : xal eao/iai airco Oebs, xal airbs earat fioi wos ;
Luke vii. 12 : wto? fiovoyevfjs ry firjrpl airov. The transition to
the more pointed dative (" I am a father to thee," more direct
than " I am thy father ") cannot therefore be considered strange.
— rois oix ix irepirofirjs fibvov] hke the unbelieving Jews, to
whom Abraham was not father in the Pauline sense, i.e. not a
spiritual father in faith. As to the phrase ol ix irepirofirjs, see
on h. 8.
— dXXd xal rois aroixovai rois ixveai xrX.] The expression
is not tp be illustrated by comparison with Gal. v. 25 : irvevpoan
aroixeiv, or Acts ix. 31 : iropeveaOai rep cpbBw rov xvplov, or
Phil, iii 16 : to avrw aroixeiv xavbvi, in which examples the
dative is to be regarded as the dative of the norm, and the
metaphor lies only in the word aroixeiv (to walk = to live),
comp. Acts xxi 24. Rather in the formula : Tot? ixveat twos
aroixeiv or Balveiv, the dative retains its original, local signifi
cation, and rephes to the question : Where ? " To walk in the
footsteps of some one." In this formula also not merely the
word aroixeiv, but the whole phrase is metaphorical = " to imitate
some one." The phrase : " walk in the footsteps of the faith
that Abraham had in unchcumcision," instead of : " imitate the
faith that Abraham had in uncircumcision," is not without a
touch of poetic grace. If, now, we look at the grammatical con-

180 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
struction of the sentence, it appears as if ot oix ix irepirofirjs •
fibvov must be different from ot aroixovvres xrX. ; for were they
the same, we should have expected, not Tot? aroixovai, but arot-
Xovai without the article : xal irarepa irepirofirjs, rois oix ex
irepirofirjs fibvov, dXXd xal aroixovai rois ixveai rrjs iv rfj dxpo- ¦
Bvarla irlarews rov irarpbs rjfiwv 'ABpadp,. On this account the
Peshito, Vulgata, Theodoret early referred rois oix ix irepiroprjs
pbvov, sc. ovai, to the Jews, dXXd xal rois aroixovai xrX. to the
Gentiles. " That he might be a father of the circumcised, not
only of the circumcised (the Jews), but also of those who walk
in the footsteps of the faith of uncircumcised Abraham." So,
too, Luther. But, in the first place, it could not then have run :
Tot? oix ix irepirofirjs fibvov, but must have run : oi tois ex
irepiroprjs pbvov, which some unimportant manuscripts even read,
clearly as a correction merely. In the first case oix would
negative ix irepirofirjs fiovoV elvai, in the second case irarepa
elvai. To suppose, with some expositors, that Paul has written
Tot? oix for oi rois, would be to suppose an inversion as unin
telligible as it is unexampled in harshness. Further still, it is
altogether inconceivable that Paul should have repeated once
more the proposition already laid down ver. 11^ that Paul is the
father of believing Gentiles, and done this, moreover, in an unlikely
form ; for instead of dXXd xal rois aroixovai rois Ixveai xrX.,
which could only serve to indicate the believing Jews, we should at
least have expected : dXXd xal rois dxpoBvarois rois aroixovai
xrX. On the other hand, the requirement which, in keeping
with the tenor of thought, we naturaRy expected, that the Jews
also, if they would be Abraham's children in truth, must possess
faith, would have been left altogether unmentioned. Nothing,
then, remains but to find in the words Tot? oix ix irepir. pbv.,
dXXd xal rois aroixovai xrX., a description of the believing Jews.
" That he might be a father of the circumcised, of those who are
not only circumcised, but also follow the faith of uncircumcised
Abraham.'' Thus only does ver. 1 2 completely correspond with
ver. 11. Abraham, a father of believing Gentiles, ver. 11, and a
father of believing Jews, ver. 12. It must accordingly be con
ceded that the article Tot? before aroixovai is repeated in error,
on which it has been rightly observed that Paul carelessly con
tinues with dXXd xal, as if he had previously written oi. pbvov
rois. We may here call to mind the canon which Calvin

CHAP. IV. 13. 181
enunciates on ii. 8 : "Ex aliis enim discenda est eloquentia :
hic sub contemptibili verborum humhitate spiritualis sapientia
quaerenda est." But it is to be borne in mind that negligences
of expression occur perhaps in the most practised and correct
writers. — But of set purpose the apostle says, not : " of those
who fohow Abraham's faith," but : " of those who follow Abraham's
faith manifested in a state of uncircumcision," in order thus once
again to strip the Jews of ah pride in their circumcision.
The apostle, vv. 1 3-1 7, makes good the position that Abraham
is father of all believers, not merely of the circumcised. The
gist of the argument beginning with ver. 13 is found in the
words of ver. 16: o? ian irarrjp irdvrwv rjfiwv. But the proof
hes in the proposition that the promise of inheritance was given
not through the medium of the law, but purely through the
medium of the righteousness of faith. For were only those
under the law, i.e. the circumcised, heirs of the promise, with
out doubt the Genthes would be excluded, and Abraham
would be father only of circumcised Jews, not also of believing
Genthes. Ver. 13. ydp] serves to make good the position that Abraham
is father of behevers, not merely of the circumcised.
— Std vbfiov] not : with the law, i.e. while having the law, as
in h. 27, iv. 11. Std vbfiov also is not of itself = Sid Bixaioavvrjs
vbfiov, or St' epywv vbpov, but generaRy : through the medium of
the law, by means of the law, for the law in no way co-operated
as the medium of the promise, comp. %e»pi? vbpov, hi 21. But
doubtless the explanation of the word given by Grotius, sub con-
ditione observandi legem, while of itself too narrow, may pass as a
not inappropriate paraphrase of the sense. The vbfios appears
here in correspondence with irepirofir], mentioned before, just in
so far as from the legal standpoint circumcision was regarded as
a sign of obhgation to render a complete fulfilment of the law,
Gal. v. 3. It is the more difficult to conceive such a condition
of salvation imposed in circumcision in the case of Abraham,
as the Nomos was not even as yet given to him, but was first
given, according to Gal. iii 1 7, fierd err] rerpaxoaia xal rpiaxovra,
and, if the chronology be fixed more precisely, even later still.
— rj iirayyeXla] sc. iyevero. With the word iirayyeXla the
apostle always associates the notion of the spontaneous, uncon-
ditioned promise of grace. Comp. Gal. ih. 18 : et yap ix vbfiov rj

182 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
xXrjpovop,ta, oixen ilj iirayyeXlas' tw Be ABpaap, itj iirayyeXlas
xexdpiarai o Oeos.
— rj rep airepfian airov] or to his seed. In negative sentences
the Greeks and Latins employ r] and aut where xal and et stand
in affirmative sentences, comp. Matt. v. 17 with Rom. hi. 21.
The aireppa are here manifestly believers, as the spiritual children
of Abraham, ver. 16. In the 0. T., to Abraham and his natural
posterity was first of aR promised the earthly possession, as an
inheritance, of the land of Canaan. But in different ways the
apostle arrives at the spiritual interpretation of this promise. In
the first place, the history of Isaac's birth is for him, in accord
ance with the typical character of the entire 0. T. history, an
Allegorumenon, Rom. ix. 7—9 ; Gal. iv. 22—31. Isaac, the seed
of Abraham, to whom the inheritance was made sure, was the son
of promise, the son of the free woman. Ishmael, on the contrary,
was the son of the bondmaid, born in the way of nature. The
former prefigures the church of believers who are freed from the
curse of the law, begotten spiritually through God's promise of
grace. The latter prefigures the community of those that live
after the flesh, that are busy in carnal works of the law, and are
under legal bondage. Only the first are heirs of the spiritual
Canaan, of &V alwvios, of Sbija eirovpdvios. In this conception
he is justified by the fact, that through Abraham's seed all races
of the earth were to be blessed. But according to the Prot-
evangelium, as well as according to the entire tenor of 0. T,
prophecy, this seed was none other than Christ, the promised
Seed of the woman, the true Israel (Isa. xhx. 3), He in whom the
Israehtish nation reached its flower, its consummation, and the
complement of its destiny. If Christ is the true Seed of Abraham,
in whom every lower iirayyeXla, given to Israel xard adpxa, is
elevated into a higher, heavenly promise, then are aR behevers
who are in Christ, as such, both from among Jews and Genthes,
both in the period before and in that after Christ, Abraham's
true seed and heirs' with Christ of eternal life, Gal. iii. 16, 29 ;
Rom. viii. 17- Finahy, the apostle refers the promise given to
Abraham, Gen. xh. 3, that in him all nations were to be blessed,
to the blessing of righteousness and the gift of the Spirit promised
to believers, Gal. iii. 6-9, 14. Being blessed through faith they
are blessed in Abraham, i.e. hke Abraham the father of faith, as
whose spiritual children behevers are regarded. Just as he as

CHAP. IV. IS. 183
natural father stands at the head of the natural Israel, so as
spiritual father is he at the head of the spiritual Israel, who, so
to speak, are born from his spirit of faith, because upon them the
spirit of Abraham's faith rests, because they tread in the footsteps
of his faith. By this last conception Paul in this passage also
obtains the notion of the spiritual aweppa of Abraham, as vv. 11,
12, 16, 17, 18 show. But this coincides with the first con
ception, and with this derives its truth and validity from the
mediatory interpretation. Because Christ is Abraham's airepfia,
behevers in Christ also are Abraham's aireppa, who, like Isaac,
are born through promise, and walk in the footsteps of Abraham,
theh father in the faith.
— to xXrjpovbfiov airov elvai [tov] xbafiov] forms an epexegesis
or a sort of apposition to 17 iiraryyeXla (Winer, p. 6 6 3), and is not
in reality different from ware elvai airov xrX. The infin. praes.
etvat does not stand for the infin. fut. eaeaOai, for by the promise
Abraham is already established in the inheritance of the world.
By airov Abraham is made to stand alone as the chief subject.
He appears as the representative of his airepfia, so that the
promise given to him refers just as much to the aireppa. The
article rov is wanting before xbafiov in the best manuscript
authorities, and must therefore be expunged. The reason of its
absence may be, that the word xbaptos denotes ah object the only
one of its kind, and therefore is self-defined. It is always absent
also in the phrases : dirb xaraBoXrjs xbafiov, irpb xaraBoXrjs xbafiov,
air' dpxrjs xbap.ov, and elsewhere frequently, v. 13 ; Gal. vi. 14 ;
Winer, p. 147. By xbapos, the object of the xXrjpovop.la, if. we
decline to have recourse to arbitrary explanations, may simply be
understood "aR the world." But xba/ios is here the glorified
world, the new heaven and new earth, 2 Pet. iii. 13, the xrlais
delivered from p,araibrrjs and cpQopd, Rom. vhi. 18 ff. To
Abraham and his natural seed the earthly Canaan was promised
(Gen. xh. 7, xiii 14, 15, xv. 18, xvii. 8; comp. xxvi. 3; Ex.
vi. 4). Just, then, as the apostle takes the natural seed merely as
the type of the spiritual seed, the aireppa of which he speaks
here being, as we have seen, Abraham's children in faith from
among Gentiles and Jews, it foRows that the earthly Canaan, the
possession of 'IaparjX xard adpxa, may be regarded as the type
of the heavenly Canaan which was to be the possession of
'IaparjX xard irvevfia, the church of believers. Just as in Christ

184 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the natural Israel attained its flower and consummation, so also
in this true Israel the earthly Canaan is elevated into the
heavenly Canaan, i.e. the eternal happiness, whose possession
Christ has procured. But this heavenly, invisible inheritance
comes forth in visible manifestation, and reaches completeness in
the new heaven and new earth for which we look in the xbapos
xawbs. That xbajios is not the world in its present earthly form,
is proved also by Rom. viii 17: et Se rixva xal xXrjpovopot,
xXrjpovopoi fiev Oeov, avyxXrjpovbfioi Se Xpiarov. Comp. Heb.
xi. 8-16, from which we learn that the aireppia of Abraham, the
community of believers, has sthl to look for a heavenly inheritance,
i.e. the xXrjpovofila Xpiarov. As here the glorified world, so
elsewhere the glorified earth is promised to believers as a future
possession, comp. Matt. v. 5 : fiaxdpioi ol irpaeis' on avrol
xXrjpovofirjaovai rrjv . yrjv, and again, Ps. xxxvii. 1 1 : ^W
jnK-lEni*; ver. 29 : n^ 1$ USB*"! n?"^?!1 Q,i?'"!¥ (Matt. xix. 28;
Luke xxii 30) ; Rev. v. 10. Even in the 0. T. the Messiah Him
self is presented as the Ruler of the ends of the earth, Ps. h. 8,
lxxii. 8 ff. But in the present passage the comprehensive ex
pression Koap,os is not to be confined merely to the sphere of the
earth [Koppe, Kbllner, Maier], sthl less are we to think of
Messianic blessedness in general, present or even future [Wetstein,
Flatt]. Nor, finally, can the apostle, in aRusion to Gen. xii 3,
xviii. 18, xxii. 18, which passages already the old Greek ex
positors, Chrysost., Theodor., Theophyl., make the basis of their
exposition, understand by KXrjpovopla xbafiov the reception of ah
nations into the theocracy [Beza, Estius], inasmuch as these very
nations themselves are the airepp,a to which this KXrjpovofila is
promised. Comp. also Mechilta in Jalkut Sim. I. f. 69, 3 : "hoc
planum est, Abrahamum neque hunc mundum neque futurum
haereditate consequi potuisse, nisi per fidem, qua credidit, q. d. Gen.
xv. 6." Tanchuma, p. 165, 1: "Abrahamo patri meo Deus
possidendum dedit coelum et terram." In the 0. T. the land of
Canaan is described as xXrjpovop,la, npni, Deut. iv. 21 ; but in the
N. T. the term is apphed not to the earthly, but the heavenly
Canaan only.
— dXXd Sid Bixaioavvrjs Trto-Tetu?] Certainly the promise was
given to Abraham before the declaration of his righteousness
through faith, Gen. xii, xiii. But he was already actually
righteous through faith before the declaration recorded in xv. 6,

CHAP. IV. 14, 15. 185
and the promise was also renewed to him after that declaration,
xv. 18, xvh. 8.
Vv. 14, 15. The proof of this assertion, that to Abraham and
his seed the promise of the inheritance was mediated through the
righteousness of faith, not through the law, the apostle deduces
from the impossibility of the opposite, which impossibility is
grounded on the nature of the law, or rather on its relation to
man's sinful nature. After this he reverts, ver. 1 6, to the asser
tion advanced ver. 13, and demonstrated vv. 14, 15. The nature
of the proof, therefore, here is dogmatic, whereas in Gal. iii. 15-18
he pursues the historical mode of argument, showing that, since
the law was first given 430 years after Abraham received the
promise, the fulfilment of the promise cannot be dependent on
fulfilment of the law. ot ix vbfiov] sc. ovres, h. 8, iv. 12. These
are not such as fulfil the law, ot iroirjral rov vbfiov, ii. 13, nor
such as are occupied with works of the law, place their trust in
the law, ot ipya^b/ievoi, iv. 4, but such as have, possess the law,
belong to the law, ver. 16. But, of course, the xXrjpovop,la is only
denied to them in so far as they have only the vbfios, not irlans
as well; for ver. 16 intimates that even ot ex vbfiov, in so far as
they are 7ricrTeuoi'Te? only, are partakers in the iirayyeXla. There
fore, in accordance with the sense, we might supply a fibvov not
so weR to xXrjpovbpoi as to ol ix vbfiov. Those meant are such
as belong to the law simply. Those belonging to the law, as such,
attain not the inheritance, ver. 16. The vbfios here is, of course,
the Mosaic law ; but the proposition holds good in a sthl higher
degree of the moral law in general
— xXrjpovo/ioi] sc. elal.
— xexevwrai ff irlans] Tertium enim non datur. Either the
vbfios or irlans, i.e. the %d/3t? Oeov of which irlans lays hold, is the
medium of the xXrjpovop,la. If, then, power to confer happiness
resides in the law, faith has lost its power, Gal. iii. 21, 22.
xexevwrai = is made or become void, idle, useless, powerless (not
different from Kevrj iarw as the result of xexevwrai) ; Kevbv Kal
dxpeiov irpdypa evplaxerai, Theophyl, 1 Cor. i. 17, ix. 15 ;
2 Cor. ix. 3 ; Phil h. 7. We must not supply airov to irlans,
i.e. rov 'ABpadp,, for the proposition is general.
— xal xarrjpyrjrai rj iirayyeXla] and the promise is abrogated,
annulled, hi. 3, 31, vi. 6, 1 Cor. xv. 26, no longer finds place.
The reason of this assertion, consisting in the fact that it is the

186 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
distinctive property of the law to work bpyr], the opposite of
xXrjpovofila, is given in the subjoined ver. 15.
— d yap vb/ios bpyrjv xarepyd^erai] whereby, therefore, x^P1^
and the iirayyeXla are precluded. This exclusion of grace and
the promise Luther has indicated by the particula exclusiva
" only," translating : " seeing that the law produces only wrath."
But bpyr] cannot be understood of man's wrath against the
divine judgment, as Melanchthon explains: "Hos terrores con-
scientiae vocat iram, in quibus videlicet conscientia hascitur
judicio Dei, fugit et odit judicium Dei." Placed in contrast with
objective x<*Pls and iirayyeXla, bpyr] also must denote something
objective. Elsewhere, indeed, exOpa is ascribed to guilty man
in relation to God, vhi. 7 (Eph. ii. 15), Jas. iv. 4, but never
bpyr]. This is predicated only of God, i. 18, ii. 5, 8, hi. 5, v. 9,
ix. 22 ; Eph. ii. 3, v. 6 ; 1 Thess. i. 10, ii. 16, v. 9, etc. But
just as httle can bpyr) denote man's consciousness of the divine,
wrath (MiiRer, The Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. I. p. 105) ; for
bpyr] is wrath, not : consciousness of wrath. Therefore 00717 here
is nothing but the bpyr] Oeov in its objective reality. The cause
of the law working wrath, the degree, is stated in the next words.
— ov ydp oix eari vb/ios, oiBe irapaBaais] The law works
wrath on this account, that its nature is so related to sinful
human nature, that, wherever it appears, it necessarily leads to
transgression. This proposition is put negatively by the apostle
in the words : for where the law is not, there also is no
transgression.1 From this it does not seem logically to fohow
that where the law is transgression always is, but only that, as
often as transgression is found, it is brought about by the law.
But yet, as matter of fact, the former consequence follows of
necessity, dfiaprla being already present in the nature of man,
it follows that the vbfios invariably heightens it into irapaBaais.
To the apostle, irapaBaais is always the transgression of a
positive divine command, v. 14, 1 Tim. ii. 14, or of the positive
law given by God through Moses, ii. 23 ; Gal. iii. 19 ; comp.
Heb. h. 2, ix. 15. The same is true of irapaBdrrjs, ii 25, 27;
Gal. h. 18; comp. Jas. h. 9, 11; and of irapaBalvew, Matt.
1 " Paul, however, expresses himself negatively, because in his mind the negative
thought that the fulfilment of the promise is not dependent on the law still pre
ponderates ; and he will not enter into closer analysis of the positive side of it —
viz. that faith is the condition — until the sequel, ver. 16 ff.," Meyer.

CHAP. IV. 14, 15. 187
xv. 2, 3 ; 2 John 9. (In addition, only Acts i. 25 in an
intransitive sense.) It follows directly from this that the
absence of the article before vbpos does not justify us in extend
ing the notion of this word to every legal norm in general. To
the Gentiles, indeed, irapairrwpara are ascribed, Eph. i. 7, ii. 1,
Col. ii. 13, but never irapaBdaeis vbfiov. How the law enhances
dfiaprla into irapaBaais, Rom. vh. 7—13 describes. Hence the
vbfios is even caRed, 1 Cor. xv. 56, rj Svvafiis rrjs dfiaprlas.
According to Rom. v. 20, it intervened 'iva irXeovdarj rb
irapdirrwfid. According to Gal. iii. 19, it was given Taw
irapaBdaewv %dptj/. Rightly Augustine : " Sine lege potest esse
quis iniquus sed non praevaricator." The law then, working
transgression, works also wrath and punishment. But thereby
it is not affirmed that bpyr] falls only on the irapaBaais vbfiov.
On the contrary, i. 18, Paul speaks expressly of an diroxdXwjns
bpyrjs that faRs even on the Gentiles; and this justly, for even
they have a knowledge of God and of the moral law, i 21, 32,
h. 14, 15, against which they sin, so that their dyvoia, Acts
xvii. 30, may always be regarded as nothing but a relative one.
But yet, apart from this natural consciousness of religion and
morality, the bpyr) Oeov rests upon the human race on account of
the sinful principle innate within it, Eph. ii. 3, comp. Ps. Ii 7,
John hi. 6, on account of which, to ah without exception, there
fore inclusive of unconscious children, death is decreed, Rom.
v. 12, 14. Hence dpxiprla oix iXXoyeirai firj ovros vofiov,
ver. 13, is to be taken only relatively, in so far as by the vbpos
the guht of dfiaprla is aggravated. So already the schohon in
Matthai: ware oi xard rb airb fierpov iv Kpoaei Xoyi^erai rj
dfiaprla vbfiov fir] xeifievov cos vbfiov xeipevov. The same holds
good of the assertion : d vbfios bpyrjv xarepyd^erai. The law
works wrath by enhancing it, since every enhancement is at the
same time a new production of the object already in existence.
Frequently in Scripture an absolute assertion, by the side of
another assertion placed in opposition to it, is to be reduced
to a relative degree. Comp. e.g. John ii. 11 with vii. 39.
Compared with the wrath that falls on transgression of the law,
the wrath that Res heavy on original sin is to be regarded as no
wrath at all. Thus the divine bpyr], and the xoXaais annexed
thereto, has its differences of degree. It rests upon the uncon
scious sinfulness of Adamitic human nature. It is aggravated by

188 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the fact of sin against the natural perception of God and law
of conscience once aroused into activity, however variously dis
guised. It reaches its highest point when sin is developed as
transgression of the law of God revealed from without, and at
the same time revealed by the Spirit within in its purity and
binding force. — Some good manuscripts and other authorities
read ov Be for ov. ydp. Lachmann has received the former
reading. It seems that some copyists found it easier to under
stand the negative proposition as opposed to the former one than
as a statement of the reason, and accordingly changed ydp into
Be. But even if ov Be were the original reading, Be might have the
power of the connective particle, and even thus the proposition serve
as illustrative of the preceding. Comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 845,
and the example there quoted from Homer's Iliad, xiv. 416:
tov o ovirep e^et opaaos, o? xev lorjrai,
iyyvs ewv' ^aXe^ro? Se Albs fieydXoio xepavvbs:
timet, qui prope videt fulmen hnmitti: grave autem Jovis fulmen
est. Ver. 16 draws an inference from w. 14, 15. Sid tovto in
irlarews] Luther: "therefore righteousness must come from
faith." But we should supply from the foregoing, not i)
Bixaioavvrj eariv, but either — inasmuch as the verse reverts to
ver. 13, whose purport has been verified by vv. 14, 15 — rj
iirayyeXla eyevero, or — which is more natural on account of the
interpolatory ver. 14, and on account of the opposition between
ex irlarews, ver. 16, and ix vbfiov, ver. 14 — xXrjpovop,la ylverai,
or sthl more precisely: ot xXrjpovbfioi elalv. The order of thought
of w. 13— 16 is therefore briefly the foRowing: "The promise of
inheritance comes not by the law, but by faith " (Tertium enim
non datur), ver. 13 ; for the law works only wrath, and thus
cannot be the medium of the inheritance ; hence the inheritance
comes through faith, ver. 16.
— 'iva xard x<*,Plv] sc- V or waw, according as to the foregoing
we supply xXrjpovofila ylverai or xXrjpovbpoo elalv. 'iva indicates
the divine purpose, xard x°/Pl,v> °V 'virtue of grace, by way of
favour = Swpedv, ih. 24, forms a contrast to xard bcpeiXrjpa, as
irlans does to epya vofiov. %d/3t?, iirayyeXla, irlans are mutuahy
related and hang together, as do epya vbfiov and b<pelXrjp,a. What
is imparted to faith is imparted of grace, because faith has nothing
in it of merit, but is simply the instrument apprehending grace,

CHAP. IV. 16. 189
which it in no way supplements or completes. The correspondence
or identity of ix irlarews and xard %dptz> demonstrates the accuracy
of the Protestant thesis: that we are justified per fidem, not
propter fidem.
— et? rb elvai BeBalav rrjv eirayyeXlav] is not to be taken as
a sentence expressive of consequence, but of purpose, therefore
not: so that, etc., but: in order that the promise might hold
good. The sentence supplies the antithesis of xarrjpyrjrai rj
iirayyeXla, ver. 14. It was part of the divine intention to give
certainty to the promise by making it depend entirely on grace. If
fulfilment of the law is the condition of obtaining the inheritance,
the promise of inheritance is uncertain, or rather faRs to the
ground, because the law only works wrath. But if the inheritance
is the gift of free grace, the promise stands firm, just because it
depends on no condition to be fulfiRed on man's part. "Hinc
etiam colligere promptum est," says Calvin, "gratiam non pro
dono regenerationis, ut quidam imaginantur, sed pro gratuito
favore sumi: quia ut regeneratio nunquam perfecta est, ad
placandas animas nunquam sufficeret, nee per se ratam faceret
promissionem." Withal, this passage furnishes a powerful argu
ment in opposition to the scholastic doctrine of conjedura moralis.
If the promise of inheritance by grace stands firm, then the cer
tainty of the inheritance through faith must stand firm ; whereas,
in case the inheritance of salvation is made dependent at ah on
works, even though the works of the regenerate, through the im
perfection of these works doubt must necessarily take the place
of certainty, or, at most, only a conjectural, not an absolute
certainty of salvation can be enjoyed.
— iravrl rw aireppan] = iravrl to iriarevovn, comp. vv. 11, 12.
— oi rw ix rov vopov fiovov] sc. aireppan. Therefore not
— not only to the circumcised Jews, for these do not merely as
such belong to the airepfia 'ABpadp, in the Pauhne sense of the
word, but = not only to the seed, i.e. to believers from among the
circumcised Jews. ol ix vbpov are therefore here simply = ol
'IovSaioi, elsewhere ot ix irepirofirjs. But since ver. 13, vbpos
has taken the place of irepirofir].
— dXXd xal rw ix irlarews 'ABpadp,] i.e. also to beheving
Gentiles. to ix vbfiov aireppa is also ex irlarews 'ABpadp,.
Wherefore from the contrast a %w/at? vbp,ov or fibvov is spon
taneously supphed, in accordance with the meaning, to tw ix

190 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
irlarews aireppan. " Not only to the seed that possesses the law,
but also to the seed that is of the faith of Abraham, i.e. without
possessing the law, i.e. that is only of the faith of Abraham"
— o? e'crrt rrarrjp irdvrwv rj/iwv] sc. rwv iriarevovrwv, who is
father of us all, i.e. of all behevers, as well from among the
Gentiles as the Jews. Thus the apostle herewith reverts to vv.
11, 12, and concludes the second part of his affirmation. The
first consisted in the proposition : Abraham was justified through
faith, not through works ; the second in the proposition : Abra
ham is a father of all believers, just as much of those from among
the Gentiles as of those from among the Jews. This latter
proposition he has established in a twofold manner : (1) Abraham
was righteous through faith before he received circumcision;
therefore faith does it, not circumcision. (2) To Abraham sal
vation was promised, not on condition of fulfilling the law, but
on account of his faith; therefore grace does it, not the law. But
if neither circumcision nor the law does it, but only faith,
Abraham is a father, not only of the Jews (his natural posterity ;
therefore also natural descent does it not), but a father of ah be
lievers, not less of those from among the Genthes than of those
from among the Jews.
Ver. 17. First of ah, the universal spiritual fatherhood of
Abraham is confirmed by a scriptural testimony, and then its
guarantee and dignity are emphasized. xaOws yey pairrai] Gen,
xvh. 5.
— oti irarepa iroXXwv iOvwv reOetxd ae] literaRy after the
LXX. In the original the on gives a reason for the change,
immediately preceding, of the name 'ABpdp. (high father) into
'ABpadp, (father of a multitude). In harmony with this, 6Vt in
this passage serves to indicate the proof of o? e'o-Tt irarrjp irdvrwv
rjpwv. The apostle here also keeps to the spiritual meaning.
Abraham is a father of many nations, i.e. of the great host of
behevers from among Jews and Genthes. oi xard cpvaixrjv
avyyeveiav, says Chrysostom, dXXd xar oixelwaw irlarews' . . •
o yap rviros rrjs exewov marews irdvras rjfids vlovs iroiei rov
'ABpadp,. With reOeixa ae, I have set thee, i.e. I have made
thee, appointed thee, comp. Heb. i 2: bv eOrjxe xXrjpovbpov
irdvrwv. — xarevavTi oi iirlarevae Oeov] Several greatly interpolated
codices, several versions and Fathers read iirlarevaas, which wrong

CHAP. IV. 17. 191
reading Luther follows, translating: "before God whom thou
believedst." The correction iirlarevaas arose probably from the
difficulty, httle regarded by expositors, of connecting xarevavn ov
iirlarevae Oeov with o? ian irarrjp irdvrwv r)p,wv ; for, since
Abraham is at present actuaRy father of us all, he is this no
longer merely, as during his hfe, xarevavn Oeov. (Then it must
have been said, Abraham is realized at present, as if he, just as in
that sacred moment of history, were standing as father of us all
before God's face. But manifestly Paul was not yet thinking of
such realization when he wrote o? ian irarrjp irdvrwv rjfiwv,
ver. 16. This could only have occurred as the sequel of the
quotation, ver. 17.) Accordingly, xarevavn ov . . . Oeov is not
to be directly coupled with o? eo-Ti irarrjp it. rjp,., but with a
phrase to be taken out of on irarepa iroXXtov iOvwv reOeixd ae :
" and as such he was appointed," or : " and thus he stood there
as father of us alL" But on this account xaOws ... ere ought
not, as is commonly done, to be enclosed in brackets. Already
has Bengel felt the necessity of the mode of connection given,
when he says : Construdio, reOeixd ae, xarevavn . . . Oeov,
similis est illi : 'iva eiSrjre, dpov, Matt. ix. 6, conf. Rom. xv. 3 ;
Acts i. 4. — xarevavn oi iirlarevae Oeov is usuahy resolved :
xarevavn rov Oeov, w iirlarevae. But elsewhere the attraction
is only found in verbs that govern the accusative. It would thus
be altogether regular if the phrase were : xarevavn oi rjydirrjae
Oeov = xarevavn rov Oeov, bv rjydirrjae. In verbs that govern the
dative the attraction indeed is not unheard of in profane authors,
but in the N. T. there is no unquestionable instance to confirm it,
Winer, p. 204. Therefore a surer analysis is: xarevavn Oeov,
xarevavn ov iirlarevae, coram Deo, coram quo credidit, Winer,
p. 206.1 xarevavn rov 0eov = n\n\ 'JS?, in God's presence, xare
vavn is always in the N. T. = coram, in conspectu, e regions, ex
adverso, before, over against, in presence of, Matt. xxi. 2 (xxvii. 24 :
direvavn); Mark xi. 2, xii 41, xiii. 3 ; Luke xix. 30. In the
present passage also the simplest course is to abide by this radical
meaning, according to which Abraham is represented as believing
and standing as irarrjp irdvrwv rjfiwv in the presence of the God
who appeared to him. No doubt with this the derivative meaning
1 mp) av xxrnxMvs xiym, Luke i. 4, cited by Tholuck, is no adequate parallel, as
here the analysis is not ittpi ™» xiyui, ¦rip) <J» KxmxMns, but simply rSv xiyut, *ipi
wv xarri%ri69ts.

192 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
easily allies itself : in the judgment [Riickert, Kohner, Fritzsche, i
Maier, Umbreit], or : according to the will [Reiche, Krehl] of God,
which latter sense would here be the more fitting, inasmuch as
Abraham is appointed to be father of all. Still it is better to
keep to the radical meaning of the word, a course, moreover, by
which the language gains in realistic and vivid force. In
iirlarevae the irlans of Abraham is again made prominent,
in order to intimate afresh how this alone mediated the true
spiritual and universal fatherhood of Abraham, and consequently
is the sole and exclusive condition of genuine childhood to
Abraham. — rov £woitoiovvtos . . ws ovra] contains a description of the
divine omnipotence. But the apostle says not simply tov irdvra
Svvafievov : Abraham was appointed father of all behevers in the
presence of the God whom he believed, who is almighty, i.e.
because He is almighty ; so that the remembrance of God's omni
potence would confirm to Abraham the promise that he should
be a father of all behevers, although as yet he discerned no sign
of a realization which, according to sensible appearance, was
impossible. But instead of the general rod irdvra Svvapevov,
Paul individualizes, and, in allusion to the actual circumstances
of Abraham, says : tov £woiroiovvros . . . cos ovra.
— rov £woiroiovvTos rovs vexpovs] Deut. xxxii. 39 ; 1 Sam
h. 6 ; Wisd. Sol. xvi. 13 ; Tob. xiii. 2 ; John v. 21 ; 2 Cor. i 9 ;
1 Tim. vi. 13. The fact expressed is therefore to be taken as a
standing characteristic of the divine omnipotence, and vexpol is
neither to be referred to the spiritually dead, nor yet to be iden
tified with vevexpw/ievoi, decrepiti, ver. 19, Heb. xi. 12, so that
the sense would be : " who to the dead (i.e. the decrepid, physi-
caRy infirm, as Abraham was) restores life (i.e. the power, there
fore, to beget children)." Rather is %woiroieiv rovs vexpovs, as has
been observed, a solemn formula for : to bring to life the actually
dead. Therefore here the meaning can be nothing else. Doubt
less there is to be conceded an indirect aRusion to the infirm
body of Abraham, which determined the apostle to the choice of
this particular expression. As God brings back the dead to life,
the more easily could He restore virile strength to Abraham,
physically infirm through old age.
— xal xaXovvros rd p,rj ovra &>? ovra] The foRowing expla
nations of this difficult utterance must be at once dismissed:

chap. rv. 17. 193
(1) " He calls into existence that which is not, as He cahed that
which is." This must have run : xal xaXovvros rd pJrj 8vra,
xaOws ixdXeae rd ovra. (2) " He caRs those not yet born, as
He caRs those born, to eternal hfe " [Fritzsche, Mangold]. This
sense has no relevance to the context, perspicuity would have
required xal et? rrjv ^wrjv aiwviov xaXovvros, comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12,
and the xXrjais is addressed only in time to the actuaRy hving.
It is merely irpoopiajibs, irpbyvwais, exXoyrj, which takes place in
the eternal counsel of God before the birth of the individual.
(3) "Who adds those not yet hving to the hving," viventibus
adjungit, so that a>? would stand in the sense of irpbs, eh [Luther,
Wolf]. But, first, this interpretation is not a natural one ; and
secondly, in this case we should have looked for the article rather
before ovra than before fir) ovra. Moreover, in this sense cos
stands only in reference to persons.1 (4) FinaRy, it is gram-
maticaRy impossible to take &>? bvra for et? ovra = et? to elvai
[Reiche, Kohner, Tholuck, etc.], or for a>? iabfieva [de Wette], or
to adduce by way of explanation the Heb. idiom 3 "s (jru) DiE>,
" to make one thing of the same nature as another thing," for this
would be riOevros or iroiovvros, not xaXovvros. There remain, then,
but two courses. (1) Either we may refer xaXeiv to the creating
call of God,2 and take ovra as the accusative of result,8 so that
xaXovvros rd p,rj bvra a>? ovra = xaXovvros rd firj ovra et? to yevea-
Oai aird to? ovra = xaXovvros rd urj ovra ware ewai aira, " who
caRs those not yet hving as hving ones," i.e. that through His call
they issue forth as hving ones, as those who hve. But then it is
hard to see why Paul did not, as in the passage quoted from Phho,
write more simply : xal rd firj ovra xaXovvros et? to elvai, or :
xal ilj oix ovrwv xaXovvros rd ovra. Besides, «>? is never found
elsewhere in this form of construction. Thus, at least, we should
have expected: xal xaXovvros rd fir) ovra ovra, as to which,
1 Comp. Hermann, ad Viger. ed. tert. p. 853: "is pro us ab Atticis de re
animata dici solere animadvertunt grammatici, rarissime autem de re inanimata, ut
us "Afiu&ov."
2 Comp. Isa. xxii. 12, xii. 4, xlviii. 13 ; 2 Kings viii. 1 ; Wisd. Sol. xi. 25 ; Philo,
de Great, princ. p. 728 : rk /jw ovra XxaiXunv us ro iivai.
3 Comp. Phil. iii. 21 : Ss fi.%raaxv^r'iiiu ro <rvfi.it . . . o-ifip.oplp'ov xrX. = us to
ytvio-Sxt xiri 0-ip.p.opipov, as some codd. even read as a gloss, 1 Thess. iii. 13: us ro
ffT9ipi£oii t/fiuv ras xotp^tas a/aiflorTovs Iv ayieotrvitn ; 1 Cor. 1. 8 ; 2 Cor. 111. 6 ; 1 TheSS.
v. 23 ; Jude 24 ; Ecclus. xiv. 6 ; see also, as to this proleptic use of adjectivaeffectus,
Winer, p. 779.
Philikpi, Rom. I. N

194 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
moreover, the use of the participle as participium effectus could
scarcely be established. (2) For these reasons, the interpre
tation which seems to us most in conformity with the words as
they stand simply is that which takes xaXeiv, hke Sip, in the
sense of "to call, to command" (comp. Ps. 1. 1; Isa. xl. 26):
" who cahs the non-existent as existent, i.e. who issues commands
concerning the non-existent as concerning the existent, who utters
His ordaining command concerning that which is not as concern
ing that which is." The description of almighty power, contained
in these words, is used in the next place in aRusion to the actual
condition of Abraham, to whom, when he showed himself one
iriarevaas xarevavn Oeov, Gen. xv. 6, God, pointing to the stars
of heaven, said at once : ovrws earat rb airepfia aov. The non
existent then finds an apphcation to the airepfia, concerning
which God, defining its number, gave command, as concerning
what exists. But if He gives command concerning the non
existent as concerning the existent, by this very act He attests
His power to caR that which is not into being. Less suitably,
xaXeiv is taken in the sense of appellare, to name [Hofmann].
" He who caRs by name that which is not as if it were." In the
first place, it must then rather have been written KaXeiv rois
bvbfiaaw airwv. Again, the phrase " to call by name " would
stand better as a designation of divine omniscience than of
omnipotence; and lastly, the striking aRusion to Gen. xv. 5
would faR to the ground. The present xaXovvros distinguishes
God's act of command concerning the non-existent as an abiding
characteristic of His omnipotence, rd p,r) ovra denotes relative
negation, what exists not yet; oix ovra, on the other hand,
absolute negation. The description of divine omnipotence is
universal. Hence it is not to be supposed that the neut rd prj
ovra stands for the masc. tov? fir) ovras, comp. 1 Cor. i 27, 28.
cos is the comparative as. As a striking parahel, Phho, de Jos.
p. 544, has been quoted, where it is said of the power of imagi
nation that it pictures Td fir) 8vra a>? bvra; and Artemidorus,
p. 46, where it is said of the painter that he represents rd prj
ovra oj? ovra. But in the words tov Qooiroiovvros . . . a>? bvra
divine omnipotence is described in the form of a climax, advanc
ing from the dead to the non-existent. Because, then, God cahs
to Rfe the dead, Abraham beheved that He would also quicken
his dead body ; and because He gives command concerning that

CHAP. IV. 18. 195
which is not as concerning that which is, and therefore by His
almighty power caRs into being that which is not, Abraham
beheved in the promise of a numerous posterity. But we know
already that, according to Paul's meaning, this airepfia is the
community of behevers. Abraham, then, beheved in this his
future airepfia, i.e. not so much in the 'IaparjX xard adpxa, in
which, of course, he believed as weR, as rather in the 'IaparjX
xard irvevfia, the 'IaparjX Oeov, comp. Gal vi. 16. The object
of Abraham's justifying faith has accordingly three elements. It
consists in the acpeais dfiaprimv, vv. 3, 4 ; the spiritual airepfia,
w. 16, 17; and the xXrjpovop,la, ver. 13. But the ground, the
central point and the bond that gives unity to these elements, is
Christ, without whom there is no pardoning grace which He
alone merits on our behalf, no community of believers which He
alone by His Spirit begets, no eternal life which He alone pro
cured. If, then, in what foRows, vv. 18-22, the justifying faith
of Abraham is referred to the natural birth of Isaac, this is only
done in so far as in the strength of faith with which Abraham
embraced the promise of natural seed, he at the same time
gave evidence of his unshaken believing expectation of the
Messiah, whose birth was conditioned by Isaac's, as weR as of
the forgiveness of sins, the spiritual seed and heavenly inherit
ance, of all which Christ was to be the exclusive ground and
Mediator. Vv. 18 to 21 set in rehef the strength of Abraham's faith.
"Ostendit Paulus," says Bengel, "fidem non esse rem tenuem,
cui justificationem adscribat, sed vim exhniam." This praise of
Abraham's faith shows, at the same time, that justifying faith is
no merely theoretical contemplation and perception, but a hving
trust, a confident rehance upon God's almighty grace. ElSes
irws rlOrjai xal rd xwXvfiara xal rrjv inJrrjXrjv rov Sixaiov yvwfirjv
irdvra virepBaivovaav, Chrys.
Ver. 18. o?] runs paraRel with o? e'o-Tt ktX., ver. 16.
— irap iXirlSa eV iXirlSi] a thoroughly Pauhne oxymoron.
irap' eXirlSa rrjv avOpwirlvnv, iir eXirlSi rfj tov Oeov, explains
Chrysostom ; irap' eXirlSa rrjv xard cpvaw Xeyer iir' iXirlSi Be rrjs
rov Oeov viroaxeaews, Schol. Matth.; "praeter spem rationis in spe
promissionis credidit," Bengel. Were the meaning only this, that
Abraham indulged hope subjectively where, in an objective point
of view, there was nothing to hope for, his hope would be marked

196 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
as mere illusion, irap' iXirlSa, against hope, Acts xvih. 1 3, where,
according to appearance and the laws of nature, there was nothing
to hope for. eV iXirlSi, upon hope, denotes the basis of the
iirlarevae. He beheved, resting himself, so to speak, upon the
ground of hope (in the divine promise). Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 10:
on err iXirlSi bcpeiXei b dporpiwv dporpiav, .also Tit. i. 2. " Una
eademque res," observes Bengel, "et fide et spe, prehenditur:
et fieri ut res, quae vere edicitur ; spe, ut res laeta, quae certo
fide, potest et fiet." The practical observation of Melanchthon
is also worthy of note : " Ita nos credamus, nobis ignosci,
credamus nos exaudiri, etiamsi nihil nisi peccatum in nobis
sentimus." — et? to yeveaOai airov irarepa iroXXwv iOvwv] cannot be
taken as the object of iirlarevae : he believed that he would be,
etc., he believed in his becoming father. Apart from the considera
tion that then we should have expected eavrbv instead of airov,
the construction of iriarevew els with a substantival infinitive
(iriarevw els to elvai (yeveaOai) fie n), though logicaRy possible,
cannot be supported by examples [Winer, p. 413]; also, the ener
getic irap' iXirlSa iir iXirlSi iirlar. would be thereby weakened.
Moreover, in what precedes, the object of Abraham's faith is never
directly specified, and therefore is to be supphed here also from
the context. Lastly, in that case Paul would probably have
quoted a scriptural passage to evince the strength of Abraham's
faith (of irap' iXirlSa iir iXirlSi iirlar.), not the great number of
his posterity. Further, as concerns the consecutive sense, by
which ei? rb yeveaOai airov = xal ovrws iyevero;tins objection has
justly been made that it is opposed to the tenor of the passage ;
for vv. 19-21 are a description of the faith itself, so that the result
of the faith (which is spoken of ver. 22) would be foreign to the
subject. Accordingly, nothing but the telic sense is left, after
which Luther rightly translates : " in order that he might be a
father of many Gentiles." According to this, Abraham's faith is
viewed, in harmony with et? rb elvai airov xrX., ver. 1 1, from
the standpoint of the divine intention. In the divine counsel
Abraham's faith was ordained for this end, to make him father of
ah behevers (of many nations). Comp. Gal. ih. 8. There is an
aRusion to the divine oracle, ver. 1 7. To enclose in brackets the
subjoined citation from Gen. xv. 5, which confirms et? rb yeveaOai
airov irarepa iroXXwv iOvwv with especial reference to iroXXwv, is

CHAP. IV. 19. 197
arbitrary, on account of the close connection in which it stands
with what precedes.
— owT«a? eo-Tat to airepfia aov] namely, as the stars of heaven.
The passage of the original, according to the rendering of the
LXX., runs in full : iljrjyaye Be airov eijw, xal elirev airw'
dvdBXetyov Brj els rbv oipavov, xal dplOp/qaov robs darepas, el
Svvrjarj iljapiOfirjaai airovs' xai elirev ovrws earai rb airepfia aov
(upon which in ver. 6 foRows : xal iirlarevaev' 'ABpap, rw Oew,
xal eXoylaOrj airw et? Sixaioavvrjv). In accordance with this —
with the addition of Gen. xiii 1 6, where it is said : /cat iroirjaw
rb aireppa aov a>? rrjv afifiov rrjs yrjs — several codices and Fathers
have thought that the present passage should be completed by
appending to ovrws earai rb airepfia aov the gloss : w? at (ot)
darepes rov oipavov xal rb dfifiov (rf dfifios) rrjs OaXdaarjs. The
Vulg. also reads, in several manuscr. : " sicut steRae coeh et arena
maris." On the other hand, the observation of Calvin is to be
noted : " Consulto (Paulus) testimonium truncatum adduxit : quo
nos acueret ad scripturae lectionem. Eeligiose enim id ubique in
citanda scriptura curant apostoh, ut nos ad dihgentiorem ejus
lectionem accendant."
Ver. 19. xal firj aaOevrjaas rfj irlarei] and because he was not
weak in faith. A Rtotes or meiosis. Mrj aaOevrjaas rfj irlarei,
dXX' laxvpdv airijv e^wv, Theophylact. "He was not weak"
= " he was very strong." For the doctrinal comprehension of
these words, Calvin's copious exposition is helpful : " Quod ait,
non fuisse debilem fide, sic aceipe : Non vacihasse, aut fiuctuatum
esse, ut solemus in rebus ambiguis. Duplex enim est fidei
debihtas : una, quae tentationibus adversis succumbendo excidere
nos a Dei virtute facit : altera, quae ex imperfectione quidem
nascitur, non tamen fidem ipsam exstinguit. Nam nee mens
unquam sic ihuminata est, quin maneant multae ignorantiae
reliquiae : nunquam sic animus stabhitus, quin multum haereat
dubitationis. Cum iis ergo carnis vitiis, ignorantia scilicet et
dubitatione, assiduum est fidehbus certamen : in quo certamine
fides eorum graviter concutitur saepe et laborat, verum superior
tandem evadit : ut dici possint in ipsa infirmitate firmissimi." rfj
irlarei, quod attinet ad fidem. It is the dative of reference,
denoting the sphere to which a general predicate (here p,rj daOeveiv,
as in ver. 2 0 ivSvvafiovaOai) is to be conceived as hmited. Comp.
1 Cor. xiv. 20 : firj iraiBla ylveaOe rais eppeaiv (in understand-

198 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
ing) ; dXX' rfj xaxla (in regard to wickedness) vrjirid£ere, Winer,
p. 270. The reading of several codices, iv rfj irtarei, is accord
ingly to be regarded as a gloss.
— oi Karevbrjae] Several good authorities, also the Cod. Sinait,
omit oi, which, accordingly, Griesbach deems suspicious, and
Lachmann has expunged. But the negation cannot be dispensed
with; for, as the subjoined Se proves, Paul must then have
written : Karevbrjae fiev ktX. The oi was manifestly omitted
from regard to Gen. xvii. 17. But apart from the consideration
that Paul here, perhaps, refers only to Gen. xv. 5, 6, where
Abraham's faith is forthwith decisively expressed, even the doubt
of Abraham, related Gen. xvh., was but a transient one, which he
at once in faith overcame. " Sed.quoniam omissa eonsideratione,"
says Calvin, " totem suum sensum Domino resignavit : dicit
apostolus, non considerasse. Et sane majoris fuit constantiae, ah
ea re, quae se oculis ultro ingerebat, cogitationem distrahere, quam
si nihil tale in mentem ei venisset." To this add, that Karavoeiv
signifies not merely: "animum advertere ad, considerare," but:,
" oculos, mentemque in re defigere," to fix the attention on a thing,
to view a thing closely, so to regard a thing as to decide by it,
comp. Luke xii. 24, 27 ; Acts vh. 31, 32, xi. 6 ; Heb. hi 1, x. 24.
Accordingly, Paul would deny, not so much that Abraham in
general directed his attention to the difficulty in the natural cir
cumstances of the case, as only that this engrossed the whole of
his thoughts. As of Abraham, Gen. xvii, so also of John the
Baptist, Matt, xi., an instance of wavering faith is recorded.
— to eavrov awfia rjSrj vevexpwfievov] ijSrj is absent in several
manuscripts, versions, and Fathers ; the Vulgate read it before
exarovTaerrjs. It appears therefore to be spurious. Lachmann
has bracketed it. The expression gains in force and conciseness
(to eavrov aw/ia vevexpwfievov . . . rrjv vexpadw rrjs firjrpas
Sdppas) without it. Perhaps it was inserted in aRusion to the
objection, that the power of generation in one a hundred years
old was not unheard of in that age, against which Bengel's remark
is to be observed : " Post Semum, nemo centum annorum generasse
Gen. xi. legitur." Comp. also Calvin on the passage. But as con
cerns the power of generation mentioned sthl later in the marriage
with Ketura, Gen. xxv. 1, 2, Bengel thus speaks: "Novus corporis
vigor etiam mansit in matrimonio cum Ketura." vevexpwfievov
= decrepid as regards power of generation, Heb. xi 12.

CHAP. IV. 20, 21. 199
— exarovraerrjs irov virdpxwv] irov, fere, about, for he was
ninety-nine years old, comp. Gen. xvii. 1, 24 with ver. 17, xxi. 5.
— /cat rrjv vexpcoaiv rrjs firjrpas kappas] rj vexpwais, actively
= interfedio, killing; passively, = (1) rb vexpovaOai, death, (2)
state of death. This may be taken, properly, of actual death, — so,
perhaps, 2 Cor. iv. 10, — or, figuratively, of extreme torpor of the
physical powers. According to Gen. xvii. 1 7, Sarah was ninety
years old. The LXX. write Sdppa, because the T in rnfe*, femina
princeps, princess, according to the etymology (from "IT?, to have
dominion), should have the Dagesh.
Vv. 20, 21. et? Se rrjv iirayyeXlav tov Oeov oi SiexplOrj rfj
diriarla, dXX' iveSwa/jowOrj rfj 7rto-Tei] As the direct, positive
antithesis of ov xarevbijae, ver. 19, we should have expected a
simple et? Se rrjv iircuyyeXlav rov Oeov iSwaftwOrj ry irlarei. But
this positive element acquires greater force when it is placed in
contrast with the prefixed negative, oi SiexplOrj rfj diriarla. els,
quod attinet, with respect to, as regards. As concerns the promise, he
doubted not in unbelief Comp., Acts xxv. 20: diropovp-evos Be
iyw et? rrjv irepi rovrov ^rjrrjaiv. But the et? ,may perhaps be
referred to iirlarevae first of all supposed, negatively paraphrased
by oi SiexplOrj rfj diriarla interposed, and positively expressed in
iveSwafiwOr) rfj irlarei. Se is not = dXXd, but connective = " and
indeed." Moreover, we may also, with Meyer, suppose that " the
negative proposition in ver. 19 is, in the first place, sthl more
speciaRy elucidated, likewise negatively, by et? . . . diriarla (Se,
the epexegetical autem), and then the i positive opposite relation is
subjoined to it by dXX' iveSvva/jiwOr) ktX. In the former negative
iRustrative clause, the chief element giving the information is et?
t. iircvyy. r. Oeov, which is therefore placed first with great
emphasis : but. with regard to the promise of God, he wavered not
incredulously, but waxed strong in faith," etc. rfj diriarla, dot.
instr. diffidentia addudus, through the unbelief which in this case
he would have had. Hence the article. iveSwapmOrj, Luther
rightly : , " he became strong." ivSwa/iovaOai is not middle : " to
make oneself strong, strengthen oneself," but passive : " to be
made strong = to wax strong, become strong," Acts ix. 22 ; 2 Tim.
h. 1 ; Heb. xi 34. Therefore = Svvarbs rfj irlarei iyevero. Thus
in SiexplOrj, according to N. T. usage, the. passive stands instead
of the middle form, whereas iveSwafiwOrj is the actual passive,
Winer, p. 327. The dative t^ irlarei, like the dative in fir)

200 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
aaOevrjaas rfj irlarei, ver. 19, is the dative of reference or rela- x
tion, quod attinet ad fidem. Biaxplvew, to discriminate, distinguish,
search into, decide, Matt. xvi. 3 ; Acts xv. 9 ; 1 Cor. iv. 7, vi. 5,
xi. 29, 31, xiv. 29. In the middle : to separate oneself to dispute,
Acts xi. 2 ; Jude 9 ; but mostly : to dispute with oneself to doubt
So here and xiv. 23 ; comp. Matt. xxi. 21 ; Mark xi. 23 ; Acts
x. 20, xi. 12 ; Jas. i. 6, ii. 4 (see Huther, ibid.). Elsewhere the
word occurs in the N. T. only Jude 22, where, however, both
reading and interpretation are doubtful.
— Sobs Sbljav toj Oew] corresponding with the Heb. 1133 ME> (|ri3)
njir-p (in Rev. xix. 7 we read rrjv Sbljav, i.e. to give the glory due
to God). BiSbvai Sbljav too Oew, to give glory to God = to think, say,
or do what furthers God's glory. The connection in each case
decides in what respect glory is given to God. It is given Him
by the acknowledgment of His omnipotence, so here — by speak
ing the truth, which implies acknowledgment of God as the
truthful One, who requires the truth to be spoken, so in John
ix. 24 — by thanksgiving for His goodness, so in Luke xvii. 18,
and so on. In general, therefore, BiSbvai Sbljav tw Oew is
to acknowledge God for what He is, and to speak and act
as His whl directs. The hallowing of God's name means the
same. — xal rrXrjpocpoprjOels] The xai before irXrjpocpoprjOels is wanting
in several important Western manuscripts. But it only seems
omitted because explicative ; and if it is left out, irXrjpo<popr]Oels
explains by direct addition in what the BiSbvai Sbljav too Oew con
sisted. " He gave God glory in being fuhy persuaded," etc. For
the rest, the participial clause Bovs Sbljav r. 0. xal irXrjpocpop.
xrX. explains the mode in which the ivSvvapwOfjvai rfj irlarei
manifested itself. The participia aor., annexed to the verb. fin.
in the aor., denote here an action contemporaneous with the latter
one ; also, elsewhere, one preceding it. Comp. Delitzsch on Heb.
ii. 10, vol. I. p. 118. irXrjpocpppeiv, to fulfil, 2 Tim. iv. 5 ; hence
irXrjpocpoprjOels, properly, satisfied, i.e. fully convinced, xiv. 5. oix
elire iriarevaas, dXX ificpanxwrepov, Oecum.
— eV»777eXTat] middle. What He (namely, d Oebs) has promised,
Winer, p. 328. "Docet item," observes Melanchthon on this
verse, "quod fides sit certitudo quaedam, non dubitatio. Ideo
inquit : non dubitavit diflidentia, item : certus fuit. Has parti-
culas meminisse debemus adversus impiam et perniciosam doc-

CHAP. IV. 22-25. 201
trinam scholasticorum, quae jubet dubitare utrum habeamus Deum
propitium." Ver. 22 reverts to the principal thought, ver. 3 (comp. ver. 9).
Bib xal] hinc nimirum, on which account also (i 24), namely,
because Abraham believed so strongly, as has been just described,
vv. 18-21. We are thus again reminded that in ver. 20 the
iirayyeXla tov Oeov (comp. o iirrjyyeXrai, ver. 21) is specified as
the object of Abraham's justifying faith. But we know already
that not only the birth of Isaac, the numerous natural ppsterity,
and the possession of the land of Canaan, were the substance of
this iirayyeXla, but also the birth of the Messiah, and the
forgiveness of sins linked thereto, the spiritual airepfia, as well
as the heavenly inheritance, and that it was really the reference
of the promise to the latter, not the former element, that gave to
Abraham's faith its justifying power. Further, when justification
is here ascribed to Abraham's faith on account of its strength, we
must not from this deduce the proposition that only absolutely
perfect faith justifies. In this case faith must have made
righteous before God on account of its own perfection, and not,
as it really does, on account of its objective import, the pardon
ing grace of God in Christ. Even Abraham's faith is not to
be conceived as absolutely perfect (comp. Calvin's observation
above on fir) aaOevrjaas rfj irlarei, ver. 19). Rather was it a
faith growing stronger through conflict with doubt (comp. ver. 2 0,
iveSwafiwOrj ry irlarei, and Gen. xvii. 17). But, doubtless, in
him faith conquered unbelief, so that he was not like a wave of
the sea driven helplessly hither and thither by the wind of doubt
(Jas. i. 6, 7), but God's strength was mighty in his weakness
(2 Cor. xii. 9).
— iXoylaOrj] it was reckoned, namely, the iriarevew just de
picted, comp. ver. 3.
Vv. 23-25 contain the application of the scriptural testimony
concerning Abraham's justification through faith to the justifica
tion of aR believers in Christ through faith, iypctcprj] it was
written, namely, in Holy Scripture. The aorist is here chosen
instead of the perfect, usual elsewhere (yeypairrai, it is written),
because here there is not quoted a Scripture testimony in force
at present, but reference is made to the historic fact of such a
testimony being recorded then, in order to draw attention to the
divine purpose linked with that historic fact.

202 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— St' airbv pbvov] on his account only, i.e. in order to make
known the way and method in which Abraham was justified.
Rightly Calvin : " Non propter ipsum duntaxat, acsi privilegium
aliquod singulare foret, quod in exemplum trahere non conveniat."
This is no history past and done with, but one continuously
realized. Here historia is seen in the highest sense of the word
as vitae magistra. Therefore Si airov, on his behalf, is not to he
interpreted : " that he might be honoured by posterity."
— on eXoylaOrj airw] that it was reckoned to him, namely, rb
iriarevew eh Sixaioavvrjv. The addition et? Sixaioavvrjv or rj
irlans (airov) et? SiKaioavvrjv, supported by feeble authority, is a
manifest gloss.
— St' rjfids] on our account, i.e. to testify to us, that we may
hence discern the only possible way and method of our own
justification. Comp. xv. 4 : oaa irpoeypdcprj, els rrjv rjperepav
SiSaaxaXlav irpoeypdcprj; 1 Cor. ix. 10, x. 11 ; Gal ih. 8 ; 2 Tim.
iii 16. "Quoniam probatio ab exemplo non semper firma est,
ne id in quaestionem veniat, diserte asserit Paulus in Abrahae
persona editum fuisse specimen communis justitiae, quae peraeque
ad omnes spectat. Locus, quo admonemur de capiendo exem-
plorum fructu in Scripturis," Calvin. Comp. Beresch. R. xl. 8 :
"Quicquid scriptum est de Abrahamo, scriptum est de Aliis ejus."
— ols ueXXei Xoyl^eaOai] to whom it is to be reckoned, namely,
to iriarevew et? SiKaioavvrjv. It is laid down that it will be
imputed to them as often, that is, as the case occurs, that they
beheve. Justification is described as a divine act accomphshed
in time. pceXXei therefore refers neither to the future day of
judgment, for justification is found already in the present aeon,
not first of aR on the threshold of the future aeon, the last day.
Nor sthl less can plXXei stand for ep,eXXe, to whom it was to be
reckoned, in which case the apostle would place his point of view
in the time of Abraham, or of the recording of the Scripture
testimony concerning him.
— Tot? iriarevovaw] those who believe, expresses the condition
of imputation. "It shall be imputed to those who beheve in
Christ's resurrection, i.e. if we beheve in Christ's resurrection."
— eVt tw iyelpavra 'Irjaovv rbv xvpiov rjfiwv ix vexpwv] The
Christian's faith is here referred to God the Father, not to Christ,
but to God in so far as He raised Christ from the dead. In both
elements the analogy of the Christian's faith with that of Abraham

CHAP. IV. 23-25. 203
shows itself, for he also, according to ver. 1 7, believed Oew rep
^woiroiovvri rovs vexpovs. "Fides Abrahami," says Bengel,
" ferebatur in id, quod futurum esset et fieri posset : nostra in
id, quod factum est, utraque in Vivificatorem." The faith of
Abraham was faith in the God who, by the quickening of His
decayed powers, gave assurance of the birth of the promised Seed
of the woman which was hnked to his natural posterity. The
faith of the Christian is faith in the God who raised Christ from
the dead, and thus accomplished the work of redemption. Thus
for the Christian's faith, the object, which is the same in the faith
of Abraham and the Christian, stands forth in its N. T. revelation
in its historic clearness, limitation, and completion. But that
the raising up of Christ is here adduced not merely as evidence
of divine omnipotence in isolation from divine grace, but as evi
dence of this omnipotent grace, which is the sole object of the
faith of justification, is shown by ver. 25, where Christ's resurrec
tion is expressly described as the saving ground that conditions
justification. In the phrases: iyeipeiv, iyelpeaOai, dvaarrjvai, %rjv
ex vexpwv in the N. T. vexpwv never has the article (only Eph.
v. 14 forms an exception, and Col. ii. 12; in 1 Thess. i 10 a
varia lectio is found). On the other hand, it is said almost.
always iyelpeaOai, dvaarrjvai dirb rwv vexpwv. Profane authors
also regularly omit the article before this word, Winer, p. 153.
— o? irapeSbOrj] namely, et? Odvarov, comp. Matt. x. 21, con
tains probably an allusion to Isa. lih. 12, LXX. : xal Sid rds
avo/ilas airwv irapeSbOrj, where also et? Odvarov is spontaneously
supphed from the immediately preceding dvO* wv irapeSbOrj eh
Odvarov ktX. The apostle says both Oebs irapeSaKe rbv vlbv
airov, viii. 32, and Xpiarbs irapeSwKev eavrov, Gal. ii. 20,
Eph. v. 2, or even eSwKev eavrov, 1 Tim. h. 6 ; Tit. ii. 14. God,
then, did not give Christ, the guiltless One, against His whl for
the guhty, but Christ of His own free wiR surrendered Himself
to the pains of death. The redeeming counsel of the triune God
is one and undivided. The love of the Son caRs for His surrender
not less than the love of the Father. The active and the passive
elements in this surrender are indissolubly and inseparably one.
If it is said, Acta hi. 13 : bv vp,eis irapeSwKare, men can only be
regarded as instruments of the divine counsel, Acts ii. 23, iv. 28;
Gen. 1. 20. There is exhibited here the unity of the two his
torical factors, human freedom and divine ordination.

204 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— Sid rd irapdirrcbptara rjfiwv] on account of our sins, i.e. to
expiate and atone for them, ih. 24, 25.
— Sid rrjv Bixalwaw rjfiwv] on account of our justification, i.e.
to effect it, to convey to us the Bixaioavvrj Oeov. Sixalwais
(found, besides, only v. 18 as the opposite of KaraKptfia) is the
act of God by which man' is brought into the relation of the
SiKaioavvrj Oeov, of righteousness in relation to God. Elsewhere
everywhere Scripture sets forth the death of Christ as the ground
of our justification, iii. 24, 25, v. 9; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Eph. i 7;
1 John i. 7. In point of fact, the work of atonement and justi
fication conditioned thereby, as the rereXearai of the Lord on the
cross testifies, John xix. 30, is finished with the death of
the Atoner. But the resurrection is the actual victory of the
righteousness and hfe of the Prince of Life over the sin and
death to which, not for His sake but for ours, He was given up.
As such a victory the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
is withal His justification before men, i.e. the evidence that He
died, not for His own sins, but as the eternal Son of God, as the
holy and just One, Stet rd irapairrwfiara rjpwv, i 4 ; 1 Tim.
iii. 16 ; John xvi. 10. Therefore, were He not demonstrated by
the resurrection to be such a victor over sin and death, our faith
were vain, as a faith in one who hes in the power of sin and
death. Therefore, were not Christ our Atoner, there would he
no justification for us, and we should be sthl in our sins, 1 Cor.
xv. 1 7. But now in His resurrection our righteousness, which
is in Him, and our hfe are secured and hidden. Along with
Him, the Substitute, believing humanity has risen from sin and
death, and, as righteous and endowed with eternal Rfe, is seated
on the throne of majesty. This security and hidden character it
has, in so far as, exalted by His resurrection to the right hand
of the Father, by His high-priestly intercession and prayer He
renders effectual and perpetuates the merit of His sacrifice in
the presence of God for His own, vih. 34; Heb. ix. 24; 1 John
ii. 1 ; Rom. v. 10. For as His atonement avails not merely for
the elect, so His resurrection also avails not merely for behevers,
although it does avah for these in a special manner, but for the
whole Cosmos, that it may be led to faith in His atonement.
Just as it is an actual victory, evidence, security, and defence, so
is Christ's resurrection finally the condition of the appropriation
of the salvation procured by Him, for God has exalted Him by

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 205
His right hand to be a Prince and Saviour, to give to Israel
repentance and forgiveness of sins, Acts v. 31. Although, there
fore, the death of Jesus alone has obtained righteousness and life
for us in the way of merit, yet the apostles are right in making
His resurrection everywhere the foundation of their preaching of
the gospel. Only Si dvaardaews 'Irjaov Xpiarov ix vexpwv is
there given us an iXirls %waa, 1 Pet. i. 3, seeing that, while
atonement and the possibility of justification are mediated
indeed through His death, the actual efficacy and reality of these
depended on the resurrection. " Quamquam enim praecessit
meritum, tamen ita ordinatum fuit ab initio, ut tunc singulis
applicaretur, cum fide acciperent," Melanchthon. Just as here
the Sixalwais, which the death of Christ effects, is referred, for
the reasons given, to the resurrection, so in x. 10 is the awrrjpla,
which is imparted to faith, annexed to confession. FinaRy, in
opposition to modern interpretations, the remarks of Calov on
this passage are sthl worthy of note : " Pervertunt autem
sententiam Apostoli Papistae, cum id eum hic velle contendunt,
mortem Christi exemplar fuisse mortis peccatorum, resurredionem
autem exemplar renovationis ct regenerationis internae, per quam
in novitate vitae ambulamus, vid. Bellarm. 1. II. de justific. c. 6,
quia hic non agitur vel de morte peccatorum, vel de renovatione et
novitate vitae, de quibus, cap. vi., demum agere incipit Apostolus,
sed de non imputatione vel remissione peccatorum, et imputatione
justitiae vel justificatione" Comp. also Calvin on the passage; and
as to subjective spiritual death and resurrection, vi. 4, 5, 8, 11.

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV.
THE PROTEVANGELIUM, OR THE SEED OF THE WOMAN AND
OF ABRAHAM.
A STUDY IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.1
Whoever would take a comprehensive survey of the end and
aim, the import and progressive development, of 0. T.. revelation,
will arrive at no certain and satisfactory result as long as,
1 Reprinted from the Kirchlkhen Zeitschrift von Kliefoth und Mejer, 1855,
p. 519 ff.

206 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
beginning so to speak ab ovo, he foRows the 0. T. step by step,
and endeavours to understand it simply from its own contents.
It is only in the New that the 0. T. has found its fulfilment, and
only through the N. T. that the Old is unfolded in its real import
and true significance. Here, in view of the two main consti
tuents of divine revelation, if anywhere, holds good in its entire
strain and compass the first principle to be observed in the inter
pretation of Holy Scripture from itself : " Scripture is the true
interpreter of Scripture (scriptura scripturam docet)." Even the
advent and witness of the Lord Himself, hke the teaching of the
apostles, was in reality nothing else than a fulfilment and unveil
ing of 0. T. revelation. In this sense Augustine justly said:
" The N. T. is enclosed in the Old, the Old is disclosed in the
New ; " 1 and Luther compared the 0. T. to the moon that borrows
its light from the sun of the N. T. If, therefore, we would
penetrate into the spirit and meaning of the 0. T., we must above
everything seek to discover the spirit and meaning in which it
is understood and explained in the N. T. Not merely the N. T.
doctrine of salvation in general, but also the N. T. view of the 0. T.
(both of which are inextricably bound up one with the other,
nay, in a certain sense, faR one into the other), must govern and
decide our view. But now, if, amid the rich variety of separate
statements in the N. T. respecting the O. T., we desire a fixed
point where we may obtain firmer foot- hold, and thence look
about us, especiaRy in the N. T., for a systematic treatment and
exposition of the different stages in O. T. revelation and its rela
tion to N. T. revelation, we are directed without doubt at once
.to the writings of the holy Apostle Paul. By birth, character,
course of training, as weR as by divine caR, was Paul — the
Pharisee, the zealot for the law, the persecutor of Christians,
and then the Genthe apostle converted to the Lord, and by Him
directly caRed to office and service — expressly destined and
chosen above aR the other apostles for this purpose — to discover
to the church of Christ the real significance of the old covenant ;
to afford the deepest insight into the 0. T. ; both to perceive as
clearly and describe as distinctly as possible the relation to each
other of promise, law, and gospel ; and in the most comprehensive
fashion, to set forth those educative dealings of the Lord with
Israel and with the Genthe world before and after Christ's advent
1 Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus Testamentum in Novo patet.

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 207
that were intended to prepare them for faith in Christ, and to
lead them to faith in Christ. As long as Paul went upon the
erroneous assumption as a Pharisee, that man, by fulfiRing the
law given of God through Moses, should and could attain perfect
righteousness availing before God, and along with it life and
salvation, the preaching of Christ crucified must have been scandal
and foolishness to him. His standpoint at that time was simply
the ordinary one of Jewish particularism. Only the people of
Israel, descending in natural course from Abraham, distinguished
by the covenant-sign of chcumcision, had a right, by virtue of
this descent and of theh covenant-relation to God ratified by
chcumcision, on condition of fulfilling the law, to the future glory
of the Messianic kingdom. For the Messiah Himself was to
appear, not in a state of humiliation, but in a state of glory, in
order to lead His elect people to the glory they deserved. But
on the godless Genthe world He was to execute judgment, so far
as in the case of separate individuals it was not incorporated
into the 0. T. theocracy by submission to chcumcision and the
law. But when the apostle, by the light of the Holy Spirit, came
clearly to perceive that perfect fulfilment of the law is impossible
to sinful man, that therefore to attain righteousness and salvation
on the ground of perfect fulfilment of the law is altogether out
of the question, that, on the contrary, man can only thoroughly
attain righteousness acceptable to God, and eternal life necessarily
connected therewith, by means of faith in Christ, who took upon
Him the guht and penalty of our sin, and by His atoning death
made satisfaction to the law and divine justice, then the position
from which he regarded the subject must have been changed in
every particular, nay, completely reversed. While none but the
sinner who is justified by faith in Christ has righteousness and
life, every sinner who is justified by faith in Christ has righteous
ness and life. Thus neither Jew nor Greek longer avails, but
only a new creature through faith in Christ. Thus aR depends
not on descent from Abraham, but on faith If the law cannot
justify because man as a sinner is incapable of fulfiRing it, it
cannot have been given by God for the purpose of justifying the
sinner. Not to lead to righteousness, but to expose sin, and to
lead to the complete knowledge of sin as well as of the sentence
of death on account of sin, by this knowledge to prepare and

208 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
dispose man to accept salvation in Christ through faith, and thus
by effecting the knowledge of sin to become a schoolmaster unto
Christ, remains the only conceivable end of the law. From this
truth flowed for the apostle a stream of Rght over the entire 0. T.
covenant economy and its divinely-ordained course of develop
ment. There is but one way of justification in the old as in
the new covenant — justification through faith. In this way even
Abraham was led. He was justified through faith in the promise.
But the promise is older than the law. Of aR the principles of
the apostle bearing on the economy of salvation, this is one of
the most far-reaching. If righteousness and hfe were assured to
Abraham and his race by God's free promise of grace, the mean
ing of the law that came in later cannot be, merely by way of
supplement, to make the attainment of the inheritance, that was
given freely, dependent on the impossible condition of fulfilling
the law, which would be to render the promise nugatory.
Abraham accordingly received circumcision not as a sign that
he was bound to fulfil the law (for the law was not even given
in his days), but as a seal of the righteousness he obtained through
faith in the promise, through faith which he had even in his state
of uncircumcision. Therefore natural descent from Abraham,
circumcision, and fulfilment of the law whl not, as the Jews and
Paul the Pharisee fancied, lead to righteousness and hfe, for
Abraham himself attained not thereto in this natural, carnal way.
It is spiritual descent from Abraham, walking in the footsteps of
his faith, of which as father of aR believers he is an illustrious
type, that leads to righteousness and to life. In the place of
Israel after the flesh stands Israel after the spirit ; in place of the
natural seed stands the spiritual seed of Abraham as the real heir
of the promises.
Let us here pause and look somewhat more closely at the
passages of the Pauline epistles bearing on the point. We begin
with Gal. ih. 15-18. Paul here says that even a human testa
ment, when it has acquired legal force instead of being annulled
or added to at pleasure, will be kept unchanged by all. How
much more whl this be the case with an ordinance of God ! But
God gave to Abraham and his seed the oft-repeated promise
(hence the plural the promises, on account of the frequent repeti
tion of one and the same promise). Therefore this legally vahd
ordinance or this covenant of God ratified previously, the law,

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 209
which was given 430 years later, cannot annul so as to make it
void (430 years = the time of the sojourn of the chhdreu of
Israel in Egypt, for the promise to Abraham was repeated to
Isaac and Jacob. Therefore the giving of the law on Sinai feR
430 years after the time of promise had come to an end). The
purport of the promise was the inheritance, with Paul always the
inheritance of salvation, of eternal life. This inheritance God
gave to Abraham freely by promise. Were, then, the inheritance
by way of supplement made dependent on fulfilment of the law, it
would necessarily become the fruit of work and merit, and the cove
nant-promise previously ratified by God be abolished and rendered
void by God Himself. God forbid this to be said or thought !
But a special difficulty arises in this — in itself clear — exposi
tion of the apostle in the 16th verse, the correct understanding
of which, as we shah see, is of special importance for our purpose.
The verse runs : " Now to Abraham and bis seed were the pro
mises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of
one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Thus the apostle says
that the seed of Abraham to which, as to Abraham himself, the
promise was given, is Christ ; for that the person of Christ is
here meant is shown by the closing words, of the chapter, which
glance back to this passage : " For ye are aR one in Christ Jesus.
' And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise." Thus the community of behevers is
called Abraham's seed, on this ground, that it stands in union
with Christ, belongs to Christ. Therefore the real seed of
Abraham is Christ (comp. also ver. 19). But then it seems
hard to understand how the apostle can frame his argument as
he does. He bases his course of reasoning on the use of the
singular " seed " (to airepfia). This denotes a single individual,
since, if more were meant, it would have been said " seeds " (rd
airepfiara). Therefore it is not the numerous natural descendants
of Abraham that are meant, but Christ — the one descendant, so
cahed by way of eminence. This appears, indeed, as if it were
a simple Rabbinical gloss (Midrasch), without any objective
evidential force ; for it is known weR enough that seed (airepfia,
jnj) is used in the singular collectively, and signifies poderity,
whether this consist of many or one.1 Even apart from the
1 Moreover, the plural D'jnt does not occur in the Hehrew in the sense of soboles,
but only in that of seed-grains, 1 Sam. viii. 15r
Philippi, Rom. I. 0

210 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
inspiration of the apostle's language, it is evidently the more per- •
verse to attribute to the apostle a mode of dogmatic proof based
on grammatical ignorance of so crass a kind, as he himself often
employs seed in the cohective sense, as presently in this ch,
v. 29 : " Then ye are Abraham's seed" and elsewhere, as especially
in Rom. iv., refers the promise given to Abraham's seed to
Abraham's spiritual children, the body of believers. We are
hence led, especially after this passage in the Roman epistle, in
this 1 6th verse, in the words : " Now to Abraham and his seed
were the promises made," to refer " and to his seed " as matter
of course to Abraham's spiritual posterity, to which, according to
Rom. iv., just as much as to Abraham himself, the inheritance -
was promised. From this we conclude, further, that the apostle's
precise object is to prove that to this spiritual, not as the Jews
and Galatian Judaizers supposed, to the natural posterity of
Abraham, the promise is given. He proves it thus : Were the
natural posterity meant, the plural would be used.1 For Abraham,
indeed, had more than one natural line of posterity, the one
springing from Isaac, from Isbmael, from the chhdren of Ketura,
as weR as the one springing from Esau. These natural hnes of
posterity, as natural, stand on exactly the same level. But the
singular is used. Therefore one altogether unique posterity, dis
tinguished from the many natural lines standing on the same level,
is meant; i.e. therefore the spiritual posterity, the body of behevers,
as the seed of Abraham so called by way of eminence. But then
to : " but as of one, and to thy seed," the apostle does not add
as an explanatory apposition : " which is the church," or : " which
is behevers," but : " which is Christ." Not quite precisely do
Augustine, et al., explain this : " Christ and His church," Bengel,
et al. : " the church alone," so that Christ would be put, as in
1 Cor. xii. 12, in a mystical sense for His body, the church of
behevers. On the contrary, we have already seen that Christ
here (comp. also ver. 17, where, no doubt, the addition els
Xpiarov, unto Christ, is criticahy suspicious) must denote the
personal Jesus Christ. It therefore seems more correct and
exact to say that the apostle passes from the church to Christ,
because both are so closely and inseparably connected as members
1 To this it makes no difference that in the Hebrew D^JHT cannot be proved to
occur in the sense of posterities. A corresponding expression, like nnstyDi might
certainly have been used.

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 2 11
and head, that in one the other is always imphed and involved.
The church of behevers as the body of Jesus Christ has its
ground of permanence and unity in Christ its head. Therefore
every promise made to the church is made to Christ, because it
is only made to the church in Christ. Hence the apostle can
say, the one seed of Abraham to which the promise is made is
Christ, because the promise is made to Abraham's seed in Christ,
because Abraham's seed attains to unity in Christ, really exists
only in Him, in whom by faith it germinates and grows, and is
elevated to true unity. In the same pregnant sense in ver. 28
he says : "' for ye are all one in Christ." The apostle therefore
says expressly that to Abraham the promise was given, that in
Christ, on him, and on all who Rke him belong by faith to
Christ, the inheritance of eternal hfe shall be bestowed, which
promise could not be rendered doubtful or invalid by the law
that entered afterwards.
But then the question is, whether the apostle's meaning is that
Abraham himself understood Christ and the church of behevers
to be the crowning point of the promise vouchsafed to him, or
whether he means that only in the N. T. is this knowledge found,
the 0. T. typical language and the 0. T. typical history being
only now explained by means of. the mystical mode of interpre
tation, which deeper sense remained a mystery to Abraham him
self. In favour of the latter supposition one might appeal to the
fact that the apostle himself, Gal. iv. (comp. Rom. ix.), treats the
history of Isaac and Ishmael as typical, and by an aRegorical
mode of interpretation regarded the former as a type of those
born by promise, the church of behevers, the latter as a type of
those born after the flesh, natural Israel. Sthl, in the first place,
the apostle may have meant to ascribe even to Abraham spiritual
comprehension of the types referred to ; and again, the genuine
typology belonging to the economy of salvation, which he opposes
to false Rabbinical typology, does not preclude the apostle from
also finding the promise made to Abraham of Christ and the
church of behevers in the form of a direct prediction in the Old
Testament. Now, that Paul ascribed even to Abraham conscious
faith in Christ the personal Messiah, and in the beheving church
in union with Him, there can be no manner of doubt. Accordmg
to its simple and natural signification, the Galatian 'passage
already treated of aRows no other sense. For the apostle says in

212 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
so many words that to Abraham the promise was given, whose
very purport was Christ, and that by this promise the inheritance
of eternal hfe was freely bestowed on him. How unnatural and
artificial would be the notion, that for Abraham the direct purport
of this promise was not Christ and the church of behevers and
the heavenly inheritance, but only Isaac and his natural posterity
and the earthly inheritance ! Besides, this , latter view is ex
pressly precluded by the exposition immediately preceding the
passage. For the apostle, there shows (Gal hi. 6-14) that
Abraham was justified not, as the Jews and Judaizers supposed,
by works, but by faith. Therefore is he the father of all believers, ;
and the promise that in him ah Genthes should be blessed is
fulfilled in the Genthes, hke him, inheriting the blessing by faith.
Now, was it meant that Abraham was justified by faith in the
promised birth of Isaac, in the natural posterity and possession of
the land of Canaan, and not by faith in Christ ? By such a view
the apostle would cut in two the very sinew of his entire doctrine
of justification, and pluck it iip by the roots. For, according to
the apostle's doctrine, it is not subjective faith of itself that
justifies man, no matter what the contents it includes or the
object to which it is directed ; but only faith in Christ is our
righteousness avaihng before God, because Christ Himself, who
bore and took away the curse of the law, procured this righteous- -¦
ness avaihng before God imputed to behevers. In the same way
(Gal. ih. 13, 14) Paul extends the blessing of Abraham in Christ
Jesus to the Gentiles, — in Christ Jesus, who bore the curse of the
law, and thus transformed the curse into blessing.
Now, that Abraham was justified, not by faith in the birth of
Isaac, but by faith in the promised Messiah, is stated in the
clearest way in Rom. iv. After the apostle has there quoted
(ver. 3) Gen. xv. 6 — a common proof - passage with him —
" Abraham beheved God, and it was counted to him for right
eousness," he continues : " Now to him that worketh is the reward
not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But , to him that worketh
not, but beheveth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith
is counted for righteousness." We therefore infer with the
utmost stringency that to Abraham also faith was reckoned for
righteousness, as to one that believed in God who justifies the
ungodly. But God only justifies the ungodly through Christ.
Abraham, therefore, was not justified by ( his faith in the bhth of

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 213
Isaac, but by his faith in God, who justified him when ungodly
through Christ. In the same way, continues the apostle by way
of confirmation, David declares the blessedness of the man to
whom God imputes righteousness without works, when he says :
" Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not
impute sin." Paul next shows further, that to Abraham this
blessedness and justification came when he was yet in an
uncircumcised, not first in a circumcised state, so that he be
came father of all believers, as well of those belonging to the
uncircumcision as of those belonging to the circumcision. To
this church of behevers, the true and genuine seed of Abraham,
he says further, the promise of inheritance was given of free
grace ; it was not made to depend on the condition of fulfiRing
the law, by which the promise would be directly frustrated.
That Abraham is father of ah behevers, he finds declared in the
words of Gen. xvh. 5: "I have made thee a father of many
nations," and says expressly that Abraham himself believed in
the promise of this spiritual seed, and, indeed, so firmly and
strongly, that on that account he regarded not his own and Sarah's
dead body. We see here how the apostle couples the promise of
Isaac and the natural posterity springing from him with the
promise of Christ and the body of behevers, the spiritual posterity
of Abraham. For the church of behevers was to spring from
Christ, Christ from Israel, Israel from Isaac. Had not Abraham
then beheved in the birth of Isaac, he had not believed in the
birth of Christ, the advent of Christ and of the church — the true
and real seed of Abraham — being from this time bound to the
birth of Isaac and his posterity, the people of Israel. And pre
cisely because Abraham beheved so strongly and firmly in the
promise of the true spiritual seed, he also believed so firmly and
strongly in the promise of the natural seed, as from this time one
promise stood and fell with the other.
Now, in the same way in which the Apostle Paul was led was
Luther led, and hence also called of God to disclose to God's
church afresh the meaning of our apostle's writings. Upon the
patriarchal age, the age of promise and faith, followed under Israel.
the age of law. But Israel knew not that the law is only a.
schoolmaster unto Chris't, for the purpose of kindling to greater
ardour desire for the fulfilment of the promise. They supposed

214 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
that the law was itself a means of justification. The time being
fulfilled, God sent His Son, and at the same time His apostle, who,
himself delivered by faith in the Son of God from the false right
eousness of law and works, now imparted to God's church correct
insight into the relation of promise and law, law and gospel.
Thus the Genthe church, founded by the apostles, reproduced the
history of the patriarchal church, in possessing again righteousness
and hfe by faith in Him that had come and in the promise
of future inheritance. Again, the church of behevers having
developed in the course of history under God's leading into a
national church, it came, like the nation of Israel that grew out of
the patriarchal family, under the dominion of law. Further, the
Christian national church, living under law, instead of using the
law as a schoolmaster unto Christ, supposed, like Israel, that it
was a means of justification. Then God raised up Luther the
monk, as once Paul the Pharisee, and leading him from monastic
work-righteousness to justifying faith, chose him as an instrument
to instruct the church of God anew in the distinction between
promise, law, and gospel. And thus our church, in the point of
bibhcal theology now in question, faithfuhy followed its great
teacher, the Apostle Paul. With him, it attributed even to
Abraham, the father of ah behevers, faith in the personal Messiah,
and held him justified, like aR behevers of the old and new
covenant, by this faith. It did not and could not subscribe to
the modern subjective theory, according to which Abraham's
justifying faith is said to be identical with the Christian's faith
merely as regards its subjective character, while having 'an
essentiahy different object ; for by doing this it would in point of
fact have contradicted the Apostle Paul to the teeth, utterly per
verted the doctrine of justification taught in Scripture, and thrown
to the winds the genuine evangelical analogy of faith.
The next question is, What authority the Apostle Paul has in
the words of 0. T. Scripture itself for his view of the promise
made to Abraham ? But before proceeding to answer this
question, we call attention to the way in which the Lord is
Himself in harmony with the apostle's view. Even John the
Baptist had warned the Jews not to trust in their being
Abraham's children, since from these stones God could raise up
children to Abraham (Matt. ih. 9). Therefore not the natural,
but spiritual descendants, the children of Abraham's faith, are his

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 215
genuine seed. In the same sense the Lord, in John, says to the
Jews : " If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works
of Abraham. Ye would then not seek to khl me (but believe, in
me), that have told you the truth which I have heard of God,"
John viii. 39, 40. Especially pertinent here, is the Lord's
declaration, ibid. v. 56 : "Abraham rejoiced that he was to see
my day, and saw it, and was glad." The Jews had previously
asked, ver. 53: "Art thou greater than our father Abraham?"
In order to show that He is greater than Abraham, the Lord says
that Abraham rejoiced to see His day, thereby himself acknow
ledging that Christ is greater than he. Abraham therefore
brought himseR into comparison with the person of Christ, and
in sphit rejoiced that he should behold Christ's glorious day,
which he actuaRy beheld.1
We now return, having gained this basis of N. T. authority,
to the 0. T. itself. The Apostle Paul, in his conflict with the
Judaizers, everywhere refers to Abraham, the founder of Israel's
race and faith, and thus puts himself on equal ground with,
and, as it were, in the very citadel of, his opponents, who also
on theh side appealed to Abraham the pattern of the righteous.
If he succeeded in proving to them that Abraham was not
justified by works, but by faith in the promise, their entire
doctrine of works feR to pieces. But if we would learn from
the 0. T. itself the meaning of the passages in which the
promises of a seed (JHt, airepfia), blessed and diffusing blessing,
are given to Abraham, we must go sthl farther back to the point
where mention is first made of such a seed in the 0. T. This is
done in the Protevangelium. The seed promised after the FaR is
one and the same with the blessed seed promised to Abraham,
T How this took place, whether in Sheol, where the tidings of Christ's advent
penetrated to Abraham, or, which we take for the right view, in a specially luminous
apocalyptic vision, or otherwise, as regards our purpose may be left undecided.
Enough that even the Lord testifies that Abraham during his lifetime waited to
behold His day, thereby acknowledging the christological import of the promise
made to him. Comp. also Meyer here. Even apart from the general tenor of the
passage, the day of Christ in general, the day of the Lord, can only be understood,
in consonance with universal biblical idiom, of the day of the Lord's personal
advent. We refuse, therefore, to say with Hofmann (Weissag. u. Erf. II. 13) that
Abraham witnessed the day of Christ,, because he witnessed the day of the birth of
Isaac, the son of the promise, Christ being set forth, i.e. typically, in the person of
Isaac. At least this could only hold good for the present passage, if in the birth of
Isaac even Abraham really acknowledged and beheld the pledge and anticipatory
representation of the future personal Christ ; but this Hofmann expressly denies.

216 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
whose advent was only subsequently hnked on to Abraham and
his race. We have then above ah to enter upon a closer ex
amination of the Protevangelium.
It is said, Gen. ih. 15 : "And I wiR put enmity between th^e
and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He shall
strike thy head, and thou shalt strike his heel." 1 i
That the serpent, which with its seed is here placed over
against the woman with her seed, was not the actual tempter,
but only the organ of the tempter, Satan, both foRows as matter
of course, and is attested, as is well known, by the entire Satan-
ology of Scripture as weR as by particular declarations of the
N. T., e.g. John viii. 44; Rom. xvi. 20 ; 1 John iii. 8; Rev.
xh. 9, xx. 2. Thus, as the serpent stands behind Satan, so behind
the penal sentence passed upon the serpent must be recognised
the penal sentence passed upon Satan. Nay, as to the gist of
the meaning, this sentence wih the more relate to the real tempter,
as he alone had really done what deserved punishment. The
innocent animal, the serpent, might indeed, hke the entire
creation, be involved in man's sufferings on account of sin ; but as
it is incapable of moral action, and therefore of responsibhity and
guilt, no real punishment can fall on it. But at the very fore
front of the penal decree it is said : " Because thou hast done this."
Moreover, if we refused to acknowledge this deeper underlying
meaning, the mere literal interpretation would give rise to in
superable difficulties. Indeed, this interpretation cannot be
strictly carried out. It is alleged that in the curse on the serpent
its defeat in the struggle with man is expressed. But when
1 nriio mh t\pw\ wn pr^nr pai sjjn? pai rwxrt pa i^a ire's niw
^PV ^S^Pl- The LXX. have : Kai 'i%6pa.v Qncu oova fliffov trou xat o\va. fitio"ov rns yvvaixas,
xxi olvco ftiffov rou ffvrtpp.xros eov xat km (jlioov rov fforipfiaros tnhrns. Avros ffov rvipnfty
xitpnXriv, xxi tru mpvio-us airov vrripvxv. Here all that can be called in question is the
translation of Bi|B> by mpuv, to watch, aim at. However, whether instead of this
we translate : to overtake, come up with, strike, or even : to crush, the sense remains
substantially the same. Even in the first case, what is meant is a successful over
taking, one that misses not its aim, so that : striking the head is = crushing the
head ; and even in the latter case : to crush as to the heel is = to destroy as to the heel,
to deal a deadly blow against the heel, to strike the heel successfully. The word
only occurs further, Ps. cxxxix. 11, Job ix. 17, where the interpretation is likewise
disputed. The translation advocated by Hengstenberg, Christology, I. p. 26, to
crush, which is also attested by the Chaldee (comp. Delitzsch and Keil here), is
certainly confirmed by nmrpl-^u, Rom. xvi. 20, supposing, as can scarcely be doubted,
that this passage contains an allusion to the Protevangelium.

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 217
the serpent strikes man on the heel, the bite is so dangerous
and deadly that the poison spreads thence through the whole
body (Gen. xlix. 17). Therefore, aR that would be really ex
pressed would be a mutual destruction of the serpent race and
human race. In any case, then, we must depart from the literal
conception, and fix our attention simply upon the contrast of head
and heel as the nobler and less noble parts. A wound to the first
is, as a rule, incurable ; to the latter, curable. But even then the
threat is by no means carried out completely, the victory of the
human race over the serpent race, which, as ending with the over
throw of the serpent, is represented as total, in reality being never
more than partial. Further, if here not merely a threat of punish
ment against the serpent, but also, which certainly cannot be
doubted, a promise on behalf of man is meant to be expressed, we
cannot of course find in this, taking the words in the bare literal
sense, with Hofmann and others', simply the preservation of the life
of the human race, despite the machinations of the serpent. The
serpent is far from being the only animal hostile and deadly to man,
«nd in any case can only be nameoV as representing aR beings and
powers that aim at destroying human life. Thus we are compelled
by the text itself, looked at on aR sides, to go beyond the limits
of the bare hteral interpretation, which no doubt retains its lower
aspect of truth, while receiving but a relative and partial fulfilment.
AR depends, then, upon a clear and strict analysis of the text
according to its higher reference. If the serpent is Satan, the
seed of the serpent will be the children of Satan (the so-called
rexva rov SiaBbXov in the N. T., chhdren of the devil). In
ahusion to the present passage, the Lord says in the parable,
Matt. xiii. 38 : " The tares are the chhdren of the wicked one"
(where Bengel rightly observes : mali, masculinum ; Luther,
wrongly, as neuter : " the children of wickedness "), and continues,
ver. 39 : " The enemy that sowed them is the devil" manifestly a
N. T. finger-post pointing the way to the deeper interpretation of
the Protevangehum. The devil's seed here answers to the serpent's
seed there (comp. Hengst. Christol. I. 26). In harmony with
this, the Lord (Matt, xxiii. 33) calls the Pharisees serpents, broods
of vipers (ocpeis, yevvrjfiara ix<,Svwv), xii. 34, iii. 7. (The serpent
is an image of wickedness, of the wicked one, the devh.) If,
then, in the Protevangelium enmity is put between the serpent's
seed and woman's seed, and the serpent's seed are the chhdren of

218 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the devil, it follows that the, woman's seed are the children of
God (rexva, viol rov Oeov). Thus in Matt. xhi. 38 the Lord
opposes the children of the kingdom to the children of the evil one.
We find, therefore, described in the present passage the enmity
and conflict between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom '
of light. But the contrast between the serpent's seed and
woman's seed seems strange, for from the very time of the Fall
all born of woman are the serpent's seed, chhdren of the devil.
They form by nature the world, the prince of which is the evil
one (Job xiv. 4, xxv. 4 ; Ps. Ii. 7 ; John ih. 6). The contrast,
therefore, to the serpent's seed in the spiritual sense is not the
woman's seed, but God's seed, who are born not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the whl of man, but of God, John
i. 1 3 ; 1 John ih. 9 : " Every one that is born of God sinneth
not, for His (i.e. God's) seed (aireppa airov) remaineth in him,
and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." More in con
formity with the spiritual sense of our passage would have been :
" and between thy (the serpent's) seed and my (God's) seed," than
as the words run : " and thy (the woman's) seed." When Storr
in his treatise, de Protevangelio, Opusc. II., remarks : "We readily
see that even the posterity of the serpent is the posterity of the
woman, but that it has been unworthy of the latter name since
the time that it apostatized to the common enemy of its race"
(comp. also Calvin, Com. in Gen., here), and even Hengstenberg
relies on this observation, this is no way sufficient to solve the
difficulty meeting us here. As if already in the very Fah a uni
versal apostasy of the human race to Satan's kingdom had not
taken place ! And if we would restrict the designation " serpent's
seed " specially to men who of set purpose persist and harden
themselves in apostasy, so that on this account they no longer
deserve the name of men, of seed of the woman, stiR, after taking
away this seed of the serpent proper, the men left are nothing
but the natural seed of the woman, not God's seed ; certainly not
children of the devil in the strictest sense of the word, — children
of men merely, yet not On this account children of God. The dis
tinction, then, would be that of children of the devR and chhdren
of men, as in Gen. vi. 2, chhdren of God and daughters of men =
children of men. It would then be necessary to take another step
still in the explanation, and say that as among the serpent's seed,
to which ah born of woman belong by nature, only they bear the

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 219
name pre-eminently who wilfully settle and harden themselves in
their natural condition, and thus really become ever more and
more hke the devil, so as matter of course the seed of the woman
opposed to them is also intended to stand in strict ethical con
trast with them, and therefore presents itself before us as the
woman's seed born of God. But this explanation, in truth, is so
artificial and strained that we must sthl look for a more simple
and natural solution of the hard knot, the problem in question
here. We proceed, then, first of all, a step farther in the analysis of
the Protevangehum. It is said further : " He shah strike (or crush)
thee on the head, and thou shalt strike him on the heel." Here,
therefore, the woman's seed stands in contrast, not, as before, with
the serpent's seed, but with the serpent itself. If, then, we were
compehed previously, in the antithesis to the serpent's seed as a
plurality, to regard the woman's seed collectively, we must here,
in logical strictness, in antithesis to the serpent as an individual,
regard the woman's seed as an individual. Over against the one
serpent stands the woman's seed as a unity, an individual ; over
against the serpent's seed stands the woman's seed as a multitude.1
1 Thus the LXX. early reasoned. For it is noteworthy in the highest degree that
although previously they translate : avx p/itrov rov anippoxros <rov xxi avx pio-ov rov
cxippoxros xbrns, they forthwith proceed, not xWo, but (according to the unanimously
attested reading) avr'os (therefore not ro o-orippx as a collective, but ro o-xippix as an
individual) nv mpfiitu xupxXriv. Joh. Gerhard, Comm. super Cenesin. p. 107, seeks
to deduce an argument for the position that the woman's seed in the Protevangelium
is to be understood pooovrpoo-iiirus xx) hixZs, in individuo de solo Christo, ex oppo-
sitione, because in parte hujus vaticinii posteriore semini mulieris non opponitur semen
serpentis, sed ipse serpens in individuo. But the argument loses in conclusiveness,
because Gerhard glides too easily over the opposition of the serpent's seed to the
woman's seed in the first clause with the words : "In priori quidem membro semini
mulieris opponitur semen serpentis, i.e. Diabolus cum omnibus asseclis, sed in hac
oppositione non praecise ad vocum sigrdficata, sed ad rem ipsam respiciendum. Unus
Messias toti infernalium hostium catervae opponitur. " When the Roman Vulgata,
derived from later codices, reads : " Ipsa conteret caput tuum," a translation which
has been combated by Luther in his Comm. on Gen., and again with special thorough
ness by Joh. Gerhard, ibid. (comp. also Calov, Bibl. illustr., here), this reading has
acquired special interest in modern days, because, as is well known, modern Jesuitism
has based the Scripture proof of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, the
serpent-conqueror, upon this reading exclusively. A striking evidence of what
immeasurable dogmatic importance for Catholicism is the Vulgata in contrast with
the original text, but at the same time a providential warning to Protestantism not
to reply to the Catholic substitution in the Protevangelium of the Virgin Mary by a
substitution of humanity in the place of Christ (comp. even Calvin, Inst. lib. ii.
c. 13, § 2 : " Non de uno duntaxat Christo illic senno habetur, sed de toto genere
humano").

220 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Now, what kind of individual is he who shall trample on the
serpent's head, i.e. triumph over Satan ? He is a seed of the
woman. Here we shah be still less justified than before in
understanding by this a chhd of God in the sense of one born of
woman, and spiritually born again of God, the woman's seed
standing here in contrast not with the serpent's seed, i.e. those
born spiritually of Satan, but with the serpent itself. There is
therefore no allusion whatever to spiritual offspring. Thus he
whl be a seed of the woman in the proper sense of the word.
But how can a sinful seed of woman overcome the serpent when
from his very birth he himself is overcome by the serpent ? He
will be then no sinful, but a holy seed of woman, yet not, as we
saw, one made holy by regeneration, but holy from his very birth ;
therefore a supernatural and miraculous, though true and actual
seed of woman. Nay, we must go further, and conclude that,
since Satan is the adversary who opposes God, and can only be
overcome by the Lord God, who alone can abolish the sin and
death that Satan brought into the world, and thereby strip Satan
himself of his power and dominion, it foRows that the Lord God
Himself, as one born of woman, and on this very account a seed
of woman, — holy, miraculous, supernatural, — wih trample on the
serpent's head. Moreover, man was already vanquished. There
fore, if a mere man were destined to achieve the victory, the
promise on this side also had stood on doubtful ground. The
enigma proposed before now resolves itself. The woman's seed,
as an individual, stands in such close union with the woman's seed
as a collective, that we may pass from the latter to the former as
matter of course. " I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed (cohective) ; he (as an
individual) shaR bruise thy head." Now for the first time we
perceive why the cohective woman's seed denotes the church of
God's children, namely, because, standing in union with this
individual seed of woman, it has itself become a holy seed. It
now bears the name and nature of that holy seed of woman, just
as the church of Christ is itself called Christ (1 Cor. xii 12).
The individual seed of woman is God's Son, therefore is the
collective seed that stands in union with Him, the church of
God's children. In 1 John ii. 29 also a birth from Christ is
spoken of, and in iii 8-10 God's chhdren born from Christ are
opposed to the devh's chhdren. Was not the Apostle Paul, then,

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 22,!
right in saying in the Galatian epistle : " He saith not : To thy
seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is
Christ"? He says exactly the same of the church as the body
that is said in the Protevangelium, passing over to Christ as the
Head, and we see how He associated the seed promised to
Abraham with the seed of the Protevangelium.1
We have been hitherto engaged merely with the second and
third clauses oi our text. But in the first clause it is said :
" And I wiR put enmity between thee and the woman." The
serpent is hosthe to the woman, because the woman's seed will
prove too strong for it. As the woman succumbed to the
temptation of the serpent, so, too, from the woman victory over
the serpent is to proceed. With the man the serpent had
nothing to do directly, but only with the woman. Hence the
woman only, not the man, is opposed to the serpent. The woman,
without the man, brought ruin ; from the woman, without the
man, comes salvation. The woman stood in Paradise face to face
with the serpent as a chaste virgin, for only after the Fall is it
said, Gen. iv. 1 : " And Adam knew his wife." And so also the
woman, when placed by God in the Protevangelium face to face
with the serpent as the channel of salvation, was sthl a chaste
virgin. From a chaste virgin, therefore, without man, was the
blessed seed, the serpent conqueror, to take his birth. This
mystery Isaiah, by the Sphit, knew and indicated when he said,
vii 14, not as Luther renders, " Behold, a Virgin," but with the
articles " Behold, the Virgin (n»!5J?n) is with child, and shah bring
forth a son, whom they shah caR Immanuel ! "
1 When Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. 576, dismisses the exposition of the Protevan
gelium, given above, with the words : "To pass by in entire silence the impossible
notion that fljnj was meant to be a collective, the church of believers, and on the
other hand Mil, relating thereto, an individual, namely Christ," this is merely a
dismissal, not a reply. The possibility of our view lies precisely in the uniqueness of
the relation that this individual bears to this collective, which may be described as a
relation of identity. Delitzsch, Comm. zu Genesis, p. 182, pronounces judgment
more cautiously. He says : " As the serpent's seed has its unity in Satan, it is to be
presumed that the woman's seed, that overcomes the former, will have a person as a
point of unity,— a presumption that, as we gladly concede to Philippi, was the more
natural, as in this second clause Nin has as its antithesis not the serpent's 'seed, but
the serpent, and in the serpent Satan." No doubt this concession is partially with
drawn in what immediately follows, and the sharp distinction between collective and
individual again disappears. Even in the reasoning of Keil here we desiderate point
and definiteness.

222 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
We return, finally, to the third clause. We have, in the
first instance, only taken into consideration its first half : " He
shah strike or crush thy head." The second half runs : " And
thou shalt strike his heel, or crush him on the heel." Thus
the serpent-conqueror whl not, without suffering, win the victory
over the serpent. But we saw that on the one side the serpent's
bite on the heel is deadly, and, on the other, that the con
trast of heel and head, the heel only being struck, denotes the
infliction of a curable wound. We have thus a death that is yet
no death. And while the woman's seed tramples on the serpent's
head, the serpent pierces him in the heel. Both meet together ,
in the same moment of time, the death of the serpent abiding in
death, and the death of the serpent- conqueror, which yet is no
death. " The day that thou eatest thereof," the Lord had said,
" thou shalt die the death." By means of its temptation, the
serpent had brought death into the world. Therefore must death
be carried into effect in the woman and ah her race. Even the
serpent-conqueror must succumb to death, but, in order to van
quish death, retaliating and inflicting it on the serpent. There
fore must Jesus in the serpent's form (the form of the guilty
serpent's seed) hang on the cross in order to vanquish the serpent
(John hi. 14). The claim of the devil, death, must be met. An
actual death, which yet is no death, but a vanquishing of death,
a rising from the dead ! When, therefore, the holy One succumbs
to the death due only to the sinner, and yet vanquishes death,
He endures it in the sinner's stead, in his behoof to bring right
eousness and life to hght. If the devil is a liar from the begin
ning, then is his adversary the true Prophet. If the latter, for
our sake, endures the serpent's sting, then is He our eternal High
Priest. If He tramples on the serpent's head, then is He the
heavenly King. Thus in the Protevangehum is Christ's three
fold office significantly intimated. " 0 the depth of the riches
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! Who hath
known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been His coun-
seRor ? or who will instruct Him ? But we have the mind
of Christ ; and the Spirit searcheth ah things, yea, the deep
things of God."
We have considered the Protevangelium in the light of N. T.
fulfilment, but we have inserted nothing not actually implied in
the words. Dhectly after the faR of mankind, the Lord put forth

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 223
a holy enigma. The solution of the enigma is given only in
Christ ; and now that the Lord has appeared, we are able to show
how every other solution either explains away the enigma, i.e.
with rationalistic shahowness empties the words of all mysterious
meaning, or at most but approaches the solution, without perfectly
satisfying the enigma. In God's wondrous wisdom, the enigma
is so arranged that there is but one solution answering to the
words perfectly and in every respect. It is here as with every
ordinary enigma. One broods long on it, perhaps eveu approaches
the meaning, but this and that word refuses to fall in with rlio
solution, and the feeling remains of uncertainty whether the right
one has been reached. But directly the right key is found it fits
the lock exactly, and one says with joyous certainty : " Yes, here is
the real solution ! " and is able to show how it suits the words of
the enigma, however strictly taken. The Protevangelium is the
bud, holding wrapped up in it the flower, Christ ; in Christ the
flower has unfolded its perfect bloom and most glorious hues.
When even Hengstenberg remarks, in reference to the interpre
tation of the majority of the ancient Christian, and especiahy
Lutheran expositors, who by the seed of the woman expressly
understood the Messiah, but certainly then exclusively, that by
this explanation the gradual development of Messianic prediction
so clearly evident in Genesis would be upset, that a gradual
advance is just as obvious in the kingdom of grace as in the
kingdom of nature, we may reply that the very characteristic of
organic progress is this — that in every step of the development,
the whole, with aR its parts and members, is involved and
present, and this ever grows as a whole and reaches forward
towards completeness. The child does not so grow, that, while
the trunk is present, the head is only added in later years. But
whoever finds expressed, in the first instance, in the Protevan
gelium merely, the antithesis of God's church and Satan's church,
and then supposes the announcement of the personal Christ to be
'introduced in later ages, really believes in a body to which the
head is added later. Or would this be an organic development,
if for two thousand years and more divine revelation foretold
merely a general victory of the kingdom of hght over the kingdom
of darkness, and then suddenly, we may say like a pistol-shot,
either in Jacob's blessing the Shhoh steps forth as the personal
Messiah, or in Balaam's oracle Jacob's star, or in the prophecy of

224 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Deuteronomy the prophet like unto Moses ? 1 We fear that
the concessions made here to a spurious historico - genetic
development will at last leave the conceders exposed without
defence , to ah the consequences of this principle. We, too; •
have a historico - genetic development, but we believe the true
instead of the false form, in which, in the very germ and root,
all is wrapped up which subsequently in plant and tree comes
forth in complete manifestation. " My ways are not your
ways," says the Lord ; " but high as the heaven is above the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways." The Lord, in His
dealings with mankind, proceeds by historical ways ; but they
are divine, not merely human ways, that He takes with them, — ,
reahy ways at once divine and human, whose essence consists in
this, that they are neither wholly divine nor whoRy human. •
Thus in the Protevangelium He made the actual historical occasion,
the relation of the woman to the serpent, His starting-point, and
shaped the language of His verbal announcement in exact corre
spondence with these relations ; but, notwithstanding, in this
prediction He reached forward across untold generations, and in
the protevangelical enigma sketched completely the entire kingdom
of God, as regards its head and members, up to its triumphant
historical conclusion. On this divine enigma the studies of
countless generations have been fixed, and whl only be completed ,
in the new heaven and new earth, where Satan, the great dragon,
the old serpent, shall be utterly overthrown, the serpent- victor a
complete His conquest, the church of God triumph with Him,
and the serpent-seed be consigned to its final doom. Until then
it does not yet appear what we shall be, because as yet He has
not appeared whom we shaR be like, the seed of the woman,
of whom it is said that we are of His flesh and of His bones, —
He the head, we the members of His body, — we the seed of the
woman because He is the seed of the woman, children of God
because He is the Son of God. Unth then it is sthl true : " It
is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church,"
Eph. v. 30-32. Until then, hke the great fathers of our race,
we still see through a glass in an enigma (Bi iaoirrpov ev
aivvypan), 1 Cor. xiii 1 2. Just as the whole of divine revelation
1 We, of course, acknowledge in the fullest degree the striking exposition of the
Shiloh- prediction in Hengstenberg's Christology, of the prediction of Balaam and
of Deuteronomy in Kurtz' History of the Old Covenant.

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 225
is seminahy involved and compendiously summed up in the
Protevangelium, so from it has the whole of 0. T. prophecy, of
course under the continuous supernatural inspiration of God's re
vealing Spirit, been evolved, now this, now that aspect of prophecy
being set in clearer rehef. But to the original revelation no abso
lutely new elements have been added, just as invariably, in a really
organic structure and course of development, nothing is evolved
which is not to be found complete from the first in the germ.
What degree of clearness and definiteness subjective knowledge
of 0. T. revelation attained in behevers of the old covenant, it
may be hard to determine. In the case of individuals, there must
have been far greater differences in degree on this point than
among behevers of the new covenant ; and even in the same indi
vidual at different times, the light of knowledge must have shone
with brighter or dimmer radiance. Less information is given in
Scripture on the subject, because it has to do for the most part
merely with describing the objective progress of revelation. But,
on the whole, the stage of knowledge reached at any particular
time must have corresponded to the receptiveness of the time.
But with respect to whom should we assume a greater degree of
receptiveness than in our first parents themselves, — the very ones
who had fahen and been driven as exiles from Paradise to the
curse-burdened earth, from life to death, from immediate converse
with God to abandonment by God, from God's image and like
ness to sin ? How they must have longed and looked for some
word of salvation and comfort from their God ! After the FaR,
indeed, the Lord only met them as a judge, and even the Prot
evangelium was merely woven into the word of judgment uttered
over the serpent, and on this account appeared in the very form
of a penal sentence upon the serpent. But even in the judgment
on theh enemy, tempter, and destroyer they found wrapped up the
salvation which, as we have seen, was expressed with sufficient
definiteness in the Protevangehum. This word of comfort they
bore with them from Paradise into exhe. The Lord had vouch
safed it to them as a stay and staff, as bread and water of hfe,
that they might not perish by the way. This was for them the
law of the Lord upon which they meditated day and night ; and
who whl determine the hmits within which they penetrated into
the meaning, so rich in mystery, of this wondrous enigma ? Should
we not perhaps gain some light on this subject by rendering
Philippi, Rom. I. P

226 .COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS
with Luther, should it appear improbable to render — t^K VMjj
rfarm : " I have the man, the Lord" ? x That in the Protevan
gelium the man the Lord, the God - man, is meant, we have
seen. To Eve it was said that her seed should trample on the
serpent's head. Thus she was very likely to refer this to
herself in a direct, not merely indirect sense. The birth of the
first man must for her have been an overwhelming wonder.
In her ecstasy of feehng she might easily overleap all bounds.
She perhaps erred. Yet was her Magnificat a prophecy of that
Magnificat of Mary which, unlike Eve's, was no ihusion, but
issued in a real fulfilment. Eve, indeed, had yet to learn that the
serpent-conqueror would not be born of a sinful seed, that the
natural seed of woman is merely a seed of the serpent. And
this she was to find out in the most bitter and painful form ; for
Cain was the head and ringleader of the serpent's seed, was of
the wicked one (1 John hi. 12), and as a fratricide imitated his
father the devil, a murderer from the beginning. Thus must
history and experience have led our first ancestors both negatively
and positively to deeper and stiR deeper knowledge of the Prot
evangelium, for it began at once to be realized. In Cain and
Abel the serpent's seed and woman's seed stood face to face as
enemies. But the woman's seed was God's seed not by bhth,
but by faith in the future woman's seed, who would be God's
seed by bhth. And the woman's seed here did not vanquish the
serpent's seed, but was vanquished and slain by it, so that longing
and hope after the true woman's seed, . the victorious hero and
serpent-conqueror, must have been heightened and fostered ah
the more. Just as in the Protevangelium the woman's seed was
only opposed to the serpent's seed cohectively, but the victory over
the serpent itself was promised only to the woman's seed as an
individual, and therewith no doubt indirectly to the woman's seed
collectively, and as the woman's seed cohectively was made to pre
cede the woman's seed as an individual, — so also was it to be in the
historical development. Christ did not appear at the commence-
' ' Even Hofmann, Weiss, u. Erf. I. 77, allows that the rendering : "with the help
of Jehovah," is exposed to grammatical difficulties, as 1"IX never, like DJ?, occurs in
that meaning. He would translate : in presence of Jehovah, and explains, as it seems
to us very artificially : " Eve looked upon the birth of her son as an event happening
in presence of Jehovah, in reference to Him, and is right in this ; it is a step in advance
in her relation to Him." Further, it is self-evident that our exposition of the Prot
evangelium does not stand or fall with the rendering and view of Gen. iv. 1 referred to.

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTER IV. 227
ment of human history to conquer Satan, but the individual seed of
woman was preceded by the cohective seed of woman. From the
outset the human race parted into the race of Canutes and Sethites,
who stood opposed as enemies, and certainly represented and pre
figured typically in the form of an historical process the actual
appearance, and consequent upon this the perfectly victorious
final conflict, of Christ with Satan himself. Thus typical predic
tion from the first went hand in hand with direct. Neither was
prediction merely typical, nor even did direct prediction merely.
spring from typical ; but, on the contrary, the direct preceded the
typical, and the typical rested on the direct. The Protevangelium
is direct prediction, occasioned, not dhectly caused, by actual his
torical relations, and in form and contents corresponding to them.
It began to be realized in a provisional and imperfect way in the
opposition of Cainites and Sethites, and this initial and imperfect
realization was again a pledge and typical prediction, in fact, of '
the perfect realization which the dhectly prophetic Protevangelium
was finally to receive. 0. T. revelation shows us not merely the
reflected image of the sun in terrestrial water, but the very sun in
heaven itself. The former is merely the effect of the latter, and
where the latter is wanting, the former vanishes. But prophecy
raises our eyes from earth to heaven, and points to the original
image from which the earthly image springs. No doubt the
sun in heaven and the sun in water appear illusively alike. But
the confusion of one with the other rests on mere deception.
The former is recognised by its difference from the latter in
dazzling splendour and genial warmth. The sun of righteous
ness arose in the morn of human history, in the ProtevangeRum
it shines fuR upon us, sthl later it threw forth an image of itself
in the national history of Israel, and rose higher and higher in
the horizon unth in canonical prophecy it attained its meridian.
Direct prophecy thus preceded typical, and again also doubtless
fohowed it, expounding the type and referring it back to its
original. It is the beginning and the end which enclose the
middle, the word of testimony of Him who is Alpha and Omega,
and who was before Abraham not merely from eternity with the
Father, but also in the word of prophecy, in the Protevangehum,
the promise of the woman's seed, the promise which later, as a
promise of Abraham's seed, blessed and blessing, passed over to
Abraham himself, and was linked to his race.

228 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER V.
Having now proved that righteousness avaihng before God comes
not by works of the law, Jews, like Genthes, being under sin,
and that the law therefore brings only knowledge of sin, or
declares the whole world guilty, — having explained, further, how
justification is mediated only through faith in Christ, who by His
blood atoned for our guht, and that therefore, for Jews as for
Genthes, there is but one path of justification, namely, solely and
exclusively faith in Him who was crucified and rose again for
• us, apart from aR reference to natural descent, circumcision, and
law, — and, finally, having confirmed these propositions by the
example of Abraham and the testimony of David, — the apostle
next describes, first of aR, in v. 1-1 1 the blissful results of justi
fication, consisting in elprjvrj irpbs rbv Oeov and in the unalterably
certain iXirls rrjs Sbljrjs rov Oeov. In i 17 he had summed up
his theme in the prophet's words : o Be Slxaios ix irlarews tfjaerai.
Having shown how Bixaioavvrj is only ix irlarews, he next makes
clear how, by this Bixaioavvrj ix irlarews, fyorj is rendered sure.
Ver. 1. AixaiwOevres oiv e« irlarews] Having therefore been
justified by faith, i.e. we who have believed in Jesus Christ, even as
iv. 23-25 prescribed such faith to us as the condition of justifica
tion. The oiv thus draws an inference from hi. 21-iv. 25 with
special allusion to iv. 23-25. FoRowing immediately on Sid Trjv*
SiKalwaiv rffi., iv. 25, SiKaiwOevres is placed at the head of the
sentence with triumphant emphasis. As the apostle previously,
while dealing with the world of Gentiles and Jews, kept himself
in the background, so now he stands consciously within the chcle
of the Christian church. Hence, from this point forward, we
and you.
— elprjvrfv e"xop.ev irpbs rbv Oeov] we have peace with respect to
God, in relation to God. Luther : " we have peace with God."
Elprjvrjv iroieiaOai, exew, dyeiv, irpbs (cum) denotes the relation
of peace in which one party stands towards another, or each
towards the other. Expositors quote, as parahel passages from

CHAP. V. 1. 2'29
profane authors, Herod, vih. 7, 8 : dvrl iroXeptov p,ev elpyvr,v
exovres irpbs Oeovs; Diod. Sic. xxi. 12 : 'AyaOoxXrjs . . . iro;..>v
Xpovov . . . eipijvevwv irpbs KapxvBovlovs ; Plato, dc Hep. v. 44 3 :
elprjvrjv irpbs dXXrjXov.s ol dvSpes dljovaiv. Comp. also Acts ii -i7 :
exovres x°"Plv '"'P0'* °^°v T0V Xabv ; xxiv. 1 6. By elprjvr] then hei",
we are not to understand subjective peace of soul tranquillitas
animi, pax conscientiae ; for it were incongruous to associate
the element of external relation with a mental state so purely in
ternal as this. In the latter meaning we may rightly say elprjvrjv
ex^v absolutely (ii 10, vih. 6, xiv. 17, xv. 13) ; elprjvrjv exeiv dirb
Oeov, i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i 3, etc. ; ¦rj elprjvr) rov Oeov (genit. autor.), Phil.
iv. 7 ; tow Xpiarov, CoL iii. 15 ; or eV Xpiarcp, John xvi. 33, but
never elp. ex irpbs rbv Oeov. The latter denotes not a mental state,
but a relation of man to God. And, indeed, in this passage the
relation consists not in the reciprocal removal' of divine bpyr] and
human e\0pa, but simply in the removal of the former. This is
shown not only by the connection of thought in w. 1-11, — which
is not yet concerned with the sphere of the dyiaafibs that is
identical with the removal of the exOpa, but with the sphere of
iXaa/ibs and Stxalaats, — but also, and chiefly, by ver. 9, where
BixaiwOevres vvv iv rw a'ifiari airov, awOrjaopieOa Si airov dirb
rrjs bpyrjs glances back illustratively to BixaiwOevres ovv ix
irlarews, elprjvrjv exofiev irpbs rbv Oeov, ver. 1. In this objective
sense of removal of the divine bpyr], elprjvrj stands also in Eph.
ii. 14, 15 (comp. at least Harless, ibid., and Col. i. 20). While,
no doubt, the cancelling of the bpyr) Oeov reaRy took place before
through the atonement, and in the act of justification we actu
aRy received this dehverance from divine wrath, sthl withal it is
a permanent consequence of justification, inasmuch as by justifica
tion we are brought into the state in which the dydirrj rov Oeov
(ver. 5) rests continuaRy upon us instead of the former bpyr]. The
cancehing of bpyr] past is the pledge of escape from that to come.
But then, of course, this elprjvrj cannot but mirror itself in sub
jective elprjvrj. Our peace with or before God, i.e. the peace that
God has and holds with us, has necessarhy inward peace of soul
for its result. Here, therefore, it is not yet, as in viii 2 ff., the
removal of our eyOpa against God that is meant, but only the
removal of the exOpa (comp. on ver. 10), the bpyr] of God against
us. Not the sanctifying, but the saving and gladdening results of
justification are depicted vv. 1-11. In this entire chapter the

230 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
apostle does not as yet quit the subject of the objective aspect — so
wondrous and rich in comfort — of the doctrine of atonement and
justification, but first of all, by unfolding their blessed effects,
leads us to a more profound insight into their nature. For this
reason we must regard as out of place and untenable the reading
— supported, certainly, by weighty though not preponderant
evidence — which Lachmann has received in spite of its rejection
by most expositors, find which arose, probably, from the ecclesi
astical, hortatory employment of this passage, viz. : elprjvrjv exwfiev
irpbs rbv Oebv, let is (by abstaining from sin, or by a life weh-
pleasing to God, or by remaining truly devoted to Christ) maintain
peace with God. If our peace with God consist in the removal of
divine wrath, it is not we that can, but God that must maintain
peace. Only the maintenance of faith, not of peace, belongs to
man. Moreover, the apostle cannot exhort us to maintain peace
with God, because he has not yet spoken at aR of our having peace
with God. What we are to maintain we must first have. And
it is just this, that we have peace, which is expressed by the
indicative exo/iev. Comp. also with this passage Isa. xxxii. 17:
DW Hjyisn nB>j?D rvni, and the work of righteousness is peace.
— Bid rov xvplov rjfiwv 'Irjaov Xpiarov] Jesus Christ, by His
atoning death, mediated this peace with God, or rather He con-
tinuahy mediates it for us ; for the love of God abiding upon the
Beloved, Eph. i. 6, abides also continuahy upon us, the righteous
ness of the Beloved being ours through faith.
Ver. 2. Si oi xal] through whom also, xal is not intensive,
irpoaaywyrj eh rrjv x°'Pbv being not something higher, but the
ground of the elprjvrj.
— rrjv irpoaaywyijv iax^xapev ry irlarei eh rrjv X°-Plv Tavrrjv]
The expression exew rrjv irpoaaywyrjv occurs only again in Eph.
ii. 18, iii 12, both times in the intransitive sense access (not intro
duction). So, therefore, here. Vulg. : accessum} In no passage
are we to think of the usage in despotic courts of mediated access
to the sovereign through the subordinate and often even infamous
person of a irpoaaywyevs, sequester, admissionum magister, ad-
1 Meyer, indeed, has again defended introduction as the invariable meaning o1
the word ; but he himself concedes, in Herod, ii. 58, processions as at least a deriveo
meaning. It is there said : Tlxvnyvpts 3s xpx xat cro/A^rxs xai orpocayuyas xpZrat xvSpw
*aiv Alyvtrru! uo-i ol oroiwdpotvoi. The conjunction with orxvnyipn and iropoxxs favour!
the intransitive meaning. Comp. Schweigh. ad loc. ; Hesychius, " xpoo-xyuyn esi
orpoo-ixivo-ts, recte : accessio, nempe ad deorum aras, supplicatio," and Mehring, p. 464

CHAP, V. 2. 231
missionalis. The word itself does not suggest this; and the
comparison, as taken from heathen antiquity, is far-fetched, and,
moreover, ignoble. But access is mediated for us ,by the atoning
passion of Christ, 1 Pet. iii. 18. In the other passages the
irpoaarfwyr] is irpbs rbv Oeov, here et? rrjv x^Plv -ravrrjv ; for it io
out of the question to make these last words depend on ry irlarei:
through faith in this grace, for this reason, that while indeed it is
said irlans els rbv xvpiov, eh Xpiarov, Acts xx. 21, xxiv. 24, the.
expression els rrjv x"-Plv is without any N. T. analogy, %a/ot?
here can only be the grace of justification, for no other ^ap? was
spoken of so far, ih. 24. The reference of ^apt? to elprjvrj, ver. 1,
would give a meaningless tautology, or at least a flat, nugatory
sense : " We have elprjvrj through Christ, through whom also we
have had access to elprjvrj." Rather the sense is: "Justified
through faith, we have elprjvrj through Christ, through whom also
we have had access to the grace of justification." ry irlarei,
indeed, is wanting in good authorities, and is erased by Lach
mann ; but it was perhaps omitted originaRy for the purpose
of ensuring the connection of rrjv irpoaaywyrjv with et? rrjv %apw'.
The reading iv ry irlarei owes its origin simply to dittography
(iaxr]KapEN 'EN), irlans is here specified, as in Eph. ih. 12,
as the condition of irpoaaywyrj, comp. Heb. xi. 6 : iriarevaai yap
Sei rbv irpoaepxbp-evov to3 Oew. The unusual dative rfj irlarei,
through faith, comp. ih. 28, is chosen instead of Sid rrjs irlarews,
in order to avoid the iteration of Bid, which has just preceded.
iax^xafiev, we have had, comp. 2 Cor. i 9, ii. 12, vh. 5, in con
trast with exop-ev, ver. 1. Therefore it is not = habemus, not =
nacti sumus et habemus, but habuimus, i.e. when vjc became believers.
For justification is complete directly we beheve. We have had
(iaxi]xap,ev) access to the divine grace of which, as justified, we
are partakers, and have (exopev) now peace with God. ravrrjv
imphes a triumphant aRusion to the glorious grace at present
existing. — iv y earrjxafiev] in which (namely, grace) we stand, i.e. stand
firm, abide continuaRy, which we possess inalienably, John viii 44;
1, Cor. xv. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 24 ; Eph. vi. 13 ; 1 Pet. v. 12. " Postea
subjicit continuo, ejusdem gratiae tenore fieri, ut firma stabihsque
salus nobis maneat : quo significat, perseverantiam non in virtute
industriave nostra, sed in Christo fundatam esse," Calvin.
— xal xavx<wfieOa ktX.] adds a new leading idea, on which

232 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
account the sentence is more aptly joined to elprjvrjv exofiev acta,,
ver. 1, than to the subordinate sentence iv y earrjxapev. The
consequence of justification is first present elprjvrj ¦ next, the hope
of future Sb!ja. xavxdaOai is not merely = to rejoice, but = to glory.
But joyous glo ying in a blessing that is the gift of grace is at the
same time prsise of this divine grace itself. Bengel observes,
very acutely : " xavx^eOa, gloriamur, novo ac vero modo, conf.
iii. 27," although the apostle has not positively indicated this
antithesis. — eV iXirlSi] propter spem. iirl, with the dative in verbs of
emotion, serves to specify the reason. So yeXav, fieya cppoveiv,
fiaiveaOai, dyavaxreiv iirl nvi. As here, so also in LXX. Ps.
xlix. 6, Wisd. xvh. 7, Ecclus. xxx. 2, xavxdaOai iirl rwi is used.
Elsewhere in the N. T. is only found the construction xavxdaOai
ev rwi, h. 17, 23, v. 3, 11, etc.; virep twos, 2 Cor. vh. 14, ix. 2,
xh. 5 ; and rrepl twos, 2 Cor. x. 8 ; also xavxdaOai ri, 2 Cor.
xi. 30. The xavxnpa rrjs iXirtBos is spoken of also Heb. ih. 6.'
— rrjs Sbljrjs tov Oeov] Luther : " the future glory which God is
to give." Then the expression would be parahel with peXXovaa
Sbija diroKaXvcpOrjvai et? rjpds, vih. 1 8, and the genitive rov 0eov,\
genit. autoris. So John xh. 43 : rjydiryaav ydp rrjv Sbljav rwv
dvOpwirwv /idXXov, rjirep rrjv Sbljav rov Oeov. But in the latter
passage, the honour which God gives stands in contrast with the
honour which men give ; whereas in this passage, that God confers
Sbija would be a predicate of Sbija of little significance, because
self-evident. For this reason it is preferable to interpret Sbija
rov Oeov of the glory that God Himself has, of the glory of God
in which behevers are one day to share, comp. John xvii. 22,
1 Thess. h. 12, Rev. xxi. 11, where the seer beholds the holy city
Jerusalem descending from heaven kxpvaav rrjv Sbljav rov Oeov.
2 Pet. i 4 also affords illustration, where it is said that we are to
be Oelas kowwvoI cpvaews ; and 1 John ih. 2 : oiSafiev Se, on idv
cpavepwOfj, opoioi airw iabfieOa. Melanchthon : " quod Deus sit
nos gloria sua aeterna ornaturus, i.e. vita aeterna et communica-
tione sui ipsius." " Atqui hic evertentur," says Calvin, " pestilen-
tissima duo sophistarum dogmata, alteram, quo jubent Christianos
esse contentos conjectura morah in percipienda erga se Dei gratia,
alterum, quo tradunt omnes esse incertos finalis perseverantiae.
Atqui nisi certa in praesens intehigentia, et in futurum constans
ac minime dubia sit persuasio : quis gloriari auderet 1 " But the

CHAP. V. S, 4 233
ground of our Kavxyais, and of the eW£? rrjs Sbljrjs, lies in the
elprjvrj irpbs rbv Oeov, which we have as ping justified.
Vv. 3, 4 carry to a climax the last (thought of ver. 2. The
xavxvais of Christians takes place 'mot] only on account of the
e"\7rt? of future Sotja, but even on account of present sufferings,
of course only in so far as the latter enhance the former iXirls.
ov povov Be] We must not supply toOfo which the apostle would
have added, but repeat' from ver. 2 : xavx^fieOa iir iXirlSi rrjs
Sbljris tov Oeov:'. Gprnp.; ou fiovov Se, ver. 11, viii. 23, ix. 10;
2 Cor. vhi. 19/.' _^LHd)«bi only do we boast of the hope of future
glory, — dXXd KaX^KUvxwfieOa iv rais OXlylreaw] but we boast of
tribulations also,' which is saying far more, the unbehever usually
murmuring at these, and allowing himself to sink under them.
Thus the antithesis iv rais OXtyeaw must be made dependent
on KavxwueOa : gloriamur de calamitatibus, not : gloriamur in
calamitatibus, so that only the situation would be indicated in
which the boasting occurs. That KavxdaOai ev nvi, to boast on
account of a thing, is in the N. T. the most common construction
used with xavxdaOai, see on ver. 2. Concerning such Kavxyais
of behevers in tribulation, comp. Matt. v. 10, 12 ; Acts V. 41 ;
1 Pet. iv. 12, 13. Paul himself glories in his daOeveiai, 2 Cor.
xi 30, xii 9. But while such glorying excludes neither the
painful sense of sufferings nor occasional despondency, both are
overcome by the believing assurance of the salutary nature of
sufferings. " TJbicunque enim profectus est salutis," says Calvin,
"illic non deest gloriandi materia." Not sufferings simply are the
object of glorying, but the fruit of sufferings, namely, the pledge
they contain of the hope of glory.
— etSores] knowing, being certain, states the reason of the
glorying, 1 Cor. xv. 58 ; 2 Cor. i. 7, iv. 14; Eph. vi. 9. The
following words : on r) OXtyis . . . oi xaraiaxvvei, form a climax,
vih. 29 f£; i. .14;ff. ; 2 Pet. i. 5 ff. Behevers glory in tribulations,
not so much' because they work virofiovrjv and SoKifirjv, as because
they work; 'iXirlSa, ijris oi xaraiaxvvei, the last and highest issue
of their influence.
— on r} Oxtytis virofiovrjv xarepyd^erai] This takes place, of
course, only.ih'tfce case of those justified by faith; but in their
case, as Joh'g •EJs'th.ey are such, takes place without fail, viro/iovrj
is not so' rrmcih'patientia, patience, i.e. quiet submission to evil
(dvexeaOai), a&? rather constantia, perseverantia, stabilis permansio.

234

COM

ON THE ROMANS.

Only out of
g the result,
dical meaning
then the word
This signification ,

endurance, stedfastness (fpv£fi$l.fowp. ii. 7 ; Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13;
2 Tim. h. 12 ; Heb. x.|3ffe:a#<j Luke xxii. 28 : ol Stafiepevrjxores %
fier ipov iv tok iretf^ijli^;^ This very constantia in suffering, |
which is a ¦ .higher 'fe|^|^ian patientia, works Boxifirjv] i.e.
indolem spectatdm?triefflnm mfyapproval. Just so 2 Cor. ii. 9,
ix. 13; Phil. ii. 22. -^nly ¦thTpi^^virop.ovrj does Soxi/irj arise,
for if viropovy fail to holdv out,- j.the 'maja becomes an dBbxipos.
Hence it is not correct to lg^)thj6l})-/^Mfcmce merely makes
known tested character, but does*WL«|p0due4
perfected virofiovy springs Soxi/irj, the l^J^JIiiU:
not merely the manifestation of the formerT^HI
of SoKipfj is testing (1 Cor. xi. 28 ; 2 Cor. vhi.
denotes the testing borne = tried worth, approval.
is required in the present passage by the connection, and cannot
be rendered with Grotius : " exploratio sui ipsius," and sthl less
with Luther : experience, probably as " experientia bonitatis Dei," as
Calvin also explains. If it is said in Jas. i. 3 : to Soxlfiiov vpStv
rys irlarews xarepyd^erai virofiovrjv, this does not contradict the
present passage, for Soxlfiiov is = means of proof or = SoxipMalat.
proof, whose effect is Boxifiy as approval. Soxlfiiov therefore)
corresponds to OXtyis in this passage, which as the means of
testing or test of irlans here, as there, virofiovrjv xarepyd^erait^
But the state of approval, as observed, is nothing but the test
borne. If, then, the proof is a proof of faith, the state of approvalfl
is nothing but the proof of faith borne, the final approval of
faith, comp. 1 Pet. i 7. In the present passage, also, Boxipfj is
perhaps to be taken as Soxijirj irlarews. Such final approval of
faith Paul affirms of himself, 2 Tim. iv. 7 : tw dywva rbv xdSJbv
yywviafiai, rbv Spopov rereXexa, rrjv irlanv rerrjpyxa. How
Oxl^is perfects irlans is explained at length in Rom. viii. 35-39.
2. Thus
oratio,"
ustifying stedfast
measure
produces
itual life
e a fresh
larevaav
disciples,

— y Be Soxipy iXirlSa] sc. rrjs Soljrjs rov Q<
eXrrls returns in a circle upon itself. " In or
Bengel. In the consciousness of the bpyrj Oeov r
faith produces e\7rt? t?5? Sb%ys, and faith, ap
fidelity in tribulation, merges in a higher and
of this e\7rt'?. Therefore faith tested and
hope in enhancing and confirming it; for in
every enhancement and confirmation is at the
act of production. Comp. on iv. 15, and John
et? airov ol fiaOyral airov, where the fait'

CHAP. V. 5. 235
already existing, is produced by the miracle of Jesus, in so far as
by the miracle it is heightened and corroborated, -We find a state
ment analogous to this passage in meaning, Jas. i. 12: paxdpios
dvrjp os virofievei ireipaa/ibv on Sbxipos yevbpevos Xy^erai rbv
crretyavov rrjs ^wrjs, bv iiryyyelXaro b xvpios rois dyairwaw airov.
Here, in Rke manner, OXlyfris (ireipaapkbi)! produces xmopovr],
virofiovr] — Soxifir] (Sbxipos yevbfievos), Soxtpn'i — ekirls (Xrjtyerai
arlcpavov rrjs £wfjs). Also, whhe in the passage in James %wr]
appears as the reward of dydirrj, not as the immediate possession
of simple irlans, or of irlans approved by fidelity in tribulation,
the expression iirrjyyelXaro indicates that this reward is to be
regarded merely as a reward of grace. And in point of fact, the
inheritance that belongs to the children already by right of birth,
is withal a superabundant reward of their obedience attested
by love, — a reward of theh obedience, in so far as by disobedi
ence their birthright might have been forfeited, — a reward of grace,
in so far as theh obedience is fuR of defect and imperfection.
Comp. on ii 6.
Ver. 5. y Be eXirls oi xaraiaxvvei] y eXirls cannot be put for
airy y iXirls = " a hope attested by stedfastness under tribulation,
therefore a hope established." Rather y eXirls stands in exact
parallelism with the preceding phrases, y OXi^is, y virofiovy, y
Soxiprj. In all these words the article points back to the same
substantive standing before without article (iii. 30). Therefore
y iXirls, in distinction from eXirls, is simply = spes, quam dixi,
the hope just mentioned,
— oi xaraiaxvvei] makes not ashamed, i.e. deceives not (B^O,
LXX. Ps. cxix. 116, and Ecclus. ii. 10), comp. ix. 33, x. 11
(after LXX. Isa. xxviii. 16). For whoever is deceived in his hope
blushes for shame. " Habet certissimum salutis exitum," Calvin.
" Nee faRet, spes erit res," Bengel. The reason why the hope of
future glory does not deceive the believer, does not suffer him to
be put to shame, is stated in the words on y dydiry . . . rjpiv.
— y cvydiry rov Oeov] The genitive rov Oeov is genit. subject.,
not £enit. object. Not : the love that we have to God (so wrongly
TheMgjHftag., August., Bernhard, Anselm, several Socinians and
Caw&i^fflie latter of amor infttsus, also Umbreit here, and Hof-
magL HfKiftbew. 2 Aufl. I. 525), but : the love that God has to us
(soJ^igyHirys., Ambros., Theophyl, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin,
th&oidfliKProtestant, and nearly all modem interpreters). The

/
236 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
latter signification is proved by the epexegetical 8th verse vi
(avviaryoi ryv eavrov dydiryv eh y/ids o Oeos). It is the dydmj
rov Oeov y iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov, viii. 39, comp. 2 Cor. xhi. 14. Not-!!
our love to Go*:, but God's love to us, is therefore aheged here as
the basis of our hope.
— ixxixvrai iv .rais xapSlais ^/uaw] We are not to suppose
an attraction out of ixxixvrai et? rds xapBlas rjfiwv, xal ean
(ivoiKei) iv airciis, Winer, p. 516. The Greeks, like the Latins, ?([:
could think, for example, of wine as poured both into a glass and
in a glass. So Suetonius says, Galba, c. 20 : "amputatum caput
in loco abjicere," which might also be expressed as in locum. So,
as is weR known, the Latins say simply: ponere in loco. Comp;
LXX. Ps. xiv. 2 : iljexvOy x^P1^ *v Xe^etT^ aov- Bove is poured
out into the heart, i.e., it is shed abroad in the heart. In
eV^ew, as in the Latin effundere, in the German auschutten, pour
forth, hes the notion of abundance, fulness. Comp. Acts x. 45 :
on xal iirl rd eOvy y Swped rov dyiov irvevfiaros ixxixvrai, Tit.
iii 6, where irXovalws is expressly added. So, too, the Heb.
=!?{£ Ezek. xvi. 36. Thus God's love has not merely dropped on
us as dew, but hke a stream has been poured into our hearts, it
is shed abroad in our hearts, Isa. xliv. 3 ; Tob. iv. 17; Ecclus.
i. 9 ; Acts ii. 17, x. 45 ; John vii. 38, 39. But the love of God
is poured into our hearts in so far as by faith we have an assured
consciousness of this love, as we find ourselves in possession of it,
1 John iv. 9, 16. Strikingly Calov: "quae charitus effusa in
nobis non qua inhaesionem subjedivam, sed qua manifestationein et
qua effectum vel sensum ejusdem in cordibus nostris effusum."
The objection that, according to this view, the certainty of God's
love is made interchangeable with God's love itself, is nothing to
the point ; for in the faith that grasps the love of God, not only the
certainty, but also the actual possession of this love is involved.
— Sid irvevfiaros dyiov rov BoOevros ypiiv] As the Holy Ghost
is the cause, so also is He the fruit of faith — He is given to
believers. "Datum praeterea hunc Spiritum dicit," remarks.
Calvin, "gratuita scilicet Dei bonitate erogatum, non autem
redditum nostris meritis." But then the first effect of the;Holy
Sphit's working is, that the behever learns through Him '.the
abounding love which God feels towards him in Christ; ^ Jesus.
Accordingly, the irvevpa appears here, not as dppa@&vy.;t& in
2 Cor. v. 5, Eph. i. 14, but as testis, comp. vhi. 15, 16/.;]iX;d0ere

CHAP. V. 6. 237
irvevpa vloOealas, iv w xpd%op,ev 'ABBa, b irarrjp ! Avrb rb irvevfia
avppaprvpei rep irvev/ian yprnv, on i a fiev rexva Oeov ; Gal. iv. 6.
Thus we see that the apostle, although he contemplates the hope
of eternal hfe as enhanced by stedfastness and fidelity in suffer
ing, is so far from regarding this stedfastness and fidelity as
an adequate ground of this hope, that, on the contrary, he puts
forward as the sufficient and certain basis of our hope of future
glory, not our love to God attested by fidelity, but God's love to
us, resting on Christ's atoning death. The idea worked out in
w. 1-5 is therefore as foRows : He that is justified by faith has
nothing more to fear from God's wrath, this being cancelled
through Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he enjoys the hope of
future glory. Even tribulations cannot rob him of this hope, but
only heighten and strengthen it ; for by the Holy Spirit he is
1 assured of the love of God towards him, so that even tribulations
no longer appear to him a manifestation of divine wrath, and can
no longer make his faith stagger. The God who from pure love
to sinners sent His Son to make atonement, when they have
become objects of grace and established in faith through tribula
tion, whl the more assuredly bless them with eternal happiness.
Ver. 6. The love of God is demonstrated (ydp) by the fact of
Christ's atoning death for us when we were without God. en ydp
Xpiarbs ovrwv rjfiwv daOevwv] Some expositors take en ydp in
the sense of insuper, porro, moreover (but this would be en
Be, Heb. xi 36), or of adeo enim, quin etiam, for even, nay even
(but this would be xal ydp or dXXd xal). Rather ver. 8 : ert
dfiaprwXwv ovrwv rjfiwv, shows that we must connect together
en ovrwv yfiwv daOevwv. For when we were still without strength,
Christ, etc. Such a hyperbaton is not by any means unknown,
especially with en. Expositors quote Eurip. Or est. v. 416 : exrov
rbS' rjpap- en irvpd Oep/iy rdepov ; AchiR. Tat. v. 18 : iyw Be en
cot ravra ypdcpw irapOevos; comp. Winer, p. 692, and Luke
xv. 20': eri Se airov paxpdv direxovros. The needless difficulty
caused by the order of the words provoked corrections. Hence
some codices. lead'elye ydp, others et? ri ydp, instead of en ydp,
and place the eri after daOevwv. The latter is even done by some
manuscripts, whi^n! retain en ydp at the head of the sentence,
either blending .the true reading with a portion of the correction,
or even borrowing- . the second en from the Lectionaries, which
in like manner r^ad en after daOevwv, because the old church-

238 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
lection began with Xpiaros. Griesbach has therefore received!
this repetition of en wrongly; Lachmann, indeed, scarcely rightly.'
daOevrjs never signifies anything but imbecillis, infirmus, weak,
either toj awpari, where it is used either of physical weak
ness or sickness, or rw vow of mental weakness, Tot? XPWa<rA
of poverty, ry irlarei, Rom. iv. 19, xiv. 1, and in many other
relations. What the relation is, is indicated in each case by
express addition or by the context. Here manifestly spiritual
weakness, the weakness of sin, is spoken of. Comp. Isa. xxxiii.
24 : "No inhabitant shall say, I am weak (sick, W?n), for the
people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their sin ; " hii. 4 :
Nfc>3 SW W^n, LXX.: to? d/iaprlas rjfiwv cpkpei; Matt. vhi. 17:
rds daOevelas yp,wv eXaBe ; Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Heb. iv. 15. Sin
in this passage is represented as weakness, helplessness, in con
trast with the strengthening love of God. But the expression
daOevys here may possibly be chosen in allusion to the contents
of vv. 2, 3. The justified one has xavxyaw in the consciousness
of God's love ; the sinner has daOeveiav, which calls for the strong
help of love. The former has strong confidence in the dydirrj and
Sbija Oeov ; the latter, on the other hand, is weak and fearful from
dread of the bpyy Oeov and xoXaais alwvios. Comp. 1 Cor. ii 3 :
iv daOevela xal iv cpbBw xal iv rpbpw, and Heb. h. 15. dodevrjs,
therefore, of itself is neither = daeBys, which fohows presently, nor
= dp,aprwXos, ver. 8. Rather it denotes a condition of helpless
ness and spiritual dread as the consequence of daeBeia and
d/iaprla. Least of ah do we need the correction dOemv for
daOevwv. — xard xaipbv virep daeBwv direOave] Some interpreters wish
to join xard xaipbv with eVt = en tcw?, en Tore, adhuc eo tempore,
adhuc turn, still at the time when we were weak. But the separa
tion in the order of the words tehs against this, and also in that
case xard xaipbv would be a useless addition. Others join it with
daOevwv. So Luther : " When in accordance H I period we
were still weak." xard Kaipbv would then I I temporim
ratione, secundum rationem temporis, in so fail Hthe period
before the advent of Christ we could not be othesw Hthan weak
But this would imply an inappropriate apolojM He daOeveia,'
diametrically opposed both to the spirit of IB JmSe an(* ^e
teaching of the apostle, xard xaipbv must accord By be joined
with direOave. It may then be explained after Pha-rSrinus : xard

CHAP. V. 6. 2ocj
rbv evxaipov xal irpoarjxovra xaipbv, at the proper time,, tempore
opportuno, the opposite of irapd xaipbv, praeter opportunity km,
tempore alw.no, Heb. xi. 11. So xaipbv fieraXaBwv, Acts xxiv.
25. In much the same sense also, Kard xaipbv, LXX. Num.
xxiii. 23 ; Isa. Ix. 22. In this case the death of Jesus would be
conceived as taking place at the Hght instant of time for antici
pating the imminent outburst of divine wrath, inasmuch as the
•pdpeats twv irpoyeyovbrwv dfiapryfidrwv, iii. 25, had just come
to an end, and God must then have vindicated His justice. Yet
such a conception does not occur elsewhere in Paul, and would
therefore scarcely have been expressed by the brief phrase xard
xaipbv. Sthl less Pauline appears the conception : " The death
of Jesus took place at the proper point of time, namely, for
the ypeis ; as for these, it was not irapd xaipbv, but seasonable.
Had Christ appeared and died later, they would have perished
unredeemed in their sins, and would have had no part in His
work of atonement." Moreover, this would equahy hold good,
if at all, of every generation in whose time Christ might appear,
and at least of behevers of the 0. T. would not hold good, because
as to these the saying : " Mors Christi profuit, antequam fuit," is
true. It is therefore preferable to explain Kara xaipbv : at the
appointed time, tempore a Deo constituto. In John v. 4, also, xard
xaipbv stands in the sense of certo tempore. In meaning, then,
xard xaipbv is identical with ore rjXOe rb irXypw/ia rov XP°V0V>
Gal. iv. 4, comp. Eph. i. 10 ; 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; Tit. i. 3. Christ
appeared as the Propitiator at the time determined beforehand in
the divine counsel, announced beforehand by the prophets. The
divine wisdom and love, which contain the reason of aR divine
determinations, without doubt ordained this precise point of time
for the advent of Christ. So far, therefore, xard xaipbv har
monizes well with the connection of thought in this passage. To
the inquiry as to the real cause of this particular time being fixed,
different answers may be given. Comp. J. G. Walchii, Miscellanea
sacra, Meditatio xviii. : " de tempore adventus Messiae idoneo."
The most fitting answer sthl seems to be the one at which some
of the Fathers hinted, that the sinful disease of mankind must
needs reach its fuR development before remedial means could be
j to purpose. So already Gregory of Nyssa says (in Walch,
|" Sic animorum aegrotantium medicus exspectavit, dum
morbus, quo natera hominum victa laborabat, se totum

240 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
aperiret, ne latens aliquid incuratum remaneret, si curaret id
solum, quod cerneretur ;" and Theophyl. : ore irdv elBos xaxlas
SieljeXQovaa y cpvais y dvOpwirlvy iSeiro Oepairelas, i^arriareiKe
tov vlbv airov b Oebs. Comp. also w. 20, 21 of this chapter. — It
is true that the preposition iirep in itself is not convertible with
dvTi, Winer, p. 479 ; Harless on Eph. v. 2 ; Meyer here, ami is =
instead of, loco ; iirep (interchangeable with the synonymous irepl)
= for, for the sake of, in commodum. One may die iirep, and yet
not ami twos, as the death that I submit to on another's behalf,
to secure him some good or avert some evh, does not always
assume that he must have died if I had not died. Sthl this whl
usually be the case, and with respect to Christ it was the case,
His death being, as we know from other sources, a vicarious,
sacrificial death, comp. on iii 24. The phrase Xpiaros virep
yfiwv direOave, irapeSwxev eavrov (Rom. vih. 32, xiv. 15 ; 1 Cor,
i. 13 ; 2 Cor. v. 14 ; Eph. v. 2 ; 1 Thess. v. 9, 10 ; 1 Tim. ii. 6 ;
Tit. ii 14), therefore expresses the compassionate love of Christ's
vicarious, sacrificial death, so that in virep the dvri is assumed or
rather included, comp. Steiger on 1 Pet. ih. 18. In the present
case iirep imphes the notion of compassionate substitution. That
virep sometimes of necessity involves the idea of dvrl, is shown by
passages like 2 Cor. v. 15, 20, 21 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; Philem. 13.
Finally, the apostle in the present passage writes : virep daeB&v,
not : iirep yp,wv, for the express purpose of setting forth withal
the misery of sin (daOeveia) in its penal, degraded, and guhty
character, in which aspect alone the love providing the atonement
is seen in its true antithesis, and receives its adequate hlustration.
Ver. 7. What men are able to do and sacrifice being placed
in contrast with the deed and loving sacrifice of Christ, the latter
stands out in its absolute uniqueness. /ibXis ydp virep Sixaiov
Tt? diroOaveiraf virep yap rov dyaOov rdxa ns xal roXp,a diro-
Oavew] The Peshito read dSlxwv for Sixaiov, which is clearly to
be regarded as a mere correction, yielding, no doubt, an easy
meaning, but at the same time a sentence somewhat flat and
halting. " Christ died for the ungodly, ver. 6. Scarcely, that is,
does one (sc. ampng men) die for an ungodly man ; for on behalf
of a good man one perhaps (that is, even among men) might
venture to die, ver. 7. But God shows His love to us in that
Christ died for us though ungodly, ver. 8." Some expositors,
even whhe retaining the fuRy established lectio recepta Bixdlov,

V. 7.

241

sought to obtain the m^fl^g''j|pt given by altogether arbitrary
means. Slxaios eip,i, whBSie allowing infinitive, is said to be =
dignus sum qui. They a@E$>j|ftHy supplied to Sixaiov, from the
following d7ro0ai/e*rat, an1 aaratffcwti'. " Scarcely wiR one die for
one worthy of death." BffltW^Mnanifestly, diroOaveiv could not
have been omitted ; and ifaftbas^ffflen justly remarked that Paul
must have written : fioXis Yfp'e&yriSi Slxaios iarw diroOaveiv, virep
IjE&lders : " Now scarcely does one
|6isr:i^od one might perhaps die."
J?asmus, he takes SiKalov and
Lta<fcai

rovrov ns diroOaveirai. L
die for what is just ; for w.
After the example of Jerom'
rov dyaOov as neuters.1 Bu
maticaRy impossible, because Tnctfeai:
absent. Justice is not SiKaiovVfra&'jTM
ri Be xal dcp' eavrwv oi Kpivermme;
rov dyaOov meant to be neutel
sense of to avficpipov, to xepBos)
expected, seeing that the ethic
the ethical acceptation for rov a
summum bonum, the highest good.

Sixaiov as neuter is gram-
ase the article could not be
Ixaiov, comp. Luke xii. 5 7 :
tov ; Col. iv. 1. And were
t have stood, either in the
xpression we should have
tion of SiKalov requires
as. well ; or in the sense of
3«tJ*eUatter case the antithesis

is lost altogether, since Christ als«j<B#v^ftg virep rwv dpaprwXwv,
died virep tov dryaOov. Accordingly both SiKalov and rov dyaOov
must be taken as mascuhne, which is intrinsically probable, as the
point in question in the death of Christ is a dying on behalf oi per
sons. But in that case SUaios and b dyaObs cannot be synonyms,
serving alike to designate a good, righteous man. Thus Calvin :
" Rarissimum sane inter homines exemplum exstat, ut pro justo
quis mori sustineat : quamquam hlud nonnunquam accidere
possit." " For scarcely for a righteous man wiR any one die, but
perhaps one may venture to die even for the righteous man ; but
Christ died for sinners." But Paul must then have vritten : roXfid
Be (not ydp) Kal rdxa ns, or : rdxa Be xal roXfia. ti? airoOaveiv
virep tov dyaOov. But with the present arrangement of the words
the emphasis clearly lies on rov dyaOov, which is therefore con-
1 Melanchthon's interpretation is the same: " Vix pro justo aliquis moritur
i. e. inviti in causa justa mortem oppetimus ubi mori debemus. Ut fur invitus
moritur etiam si debet mortem legibus. Milites inviti mortem oppetunt, etiamsi
mori debent pro republica. Intelligatur igitur in verbis Pauli pro justo de re seu
causa justa seu debito. Sic deinde, sed pro bono fortassis ausit aliquis mori, intelli
gatur etiam de re bona, jucunda et utili. Nam facilius suscipimua pericula incitati
cupiditate aut opinione utili'tatis, quam cdacti debito. Sicut multi mo; tern oppetoit
ad retinendas res caras, ut conjuges aut gloriam," etc.
Philifpi, Rom. I. Q

242 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
trasted with Sixaiov, and cannot of .course be identical with it-
Add to this, that in fibXis, with the difficulty at the same time, the
possibility is sufficiently intimated that some one might die for
a just man, whereupon the seeo^|l' sentence becomes somewhat
superfluous and tame. Accordingly rov dyaOov must stand to
Sixaiov in the relation of a different idegree, as is indicated even
by Ta^a, perhaps, in relation to fibXis, scarcely. It is important
in this case above aR things to -define the conception dyaObs. It
is ordinarhy taken in the sense' of ienef actor; so that o dyaObs
(with the article) is said to:.be'= the benefactor whom he has, his
benefactor. "Hardly does atiy^rie'die on behalf of a righteous
man (who stands to him in no-W%fer relation) ; for on behalf of
his benefactor one perhaps takes. it upon him (from gratitude) to
die." For this signification^ ,, there is quoted from the classics,
Xenoph. Cyrop. ih. 3. § 4:{'Kx>pbv dvaxaXovvres rbv eiepyerrjv,
rbv dvSpa rbv dyaObvy^Hell. vii. 3. § 12 : ol uevroi iroXirai
airov, <»? dvBpa dyaOov xofiiadfievoi, eOayfrav xrX. Ovrws ol
irXeiaroi opt^ovrai rovs evepyeras airwv dvBpas dyaOovs elvai ;
Charito Chaerea et Co.llirKde,y\\\. 8 : iirevcptjfiyaev b Brjpos' dyaOa
dvhpl, iroXvxdpp,(p, cplXtp' -iriarfp o Brj/ibs aoi X"-Piv i^rloraraf
ryv irarplSa eiypyeryxas; Lucian, Caucasus, c. 18 : xalroi Qeovs
ye ovras dyaOovs XPV zlvai xal Swrrjpas idwv xal efa cpObvov
iravrbs eardvai ; Aelian, var. hist. iii. 1 7 : Tapavrlvois . iyevero
dyaObs 'Apxvras. However, in all these and other passages
dyaObs is perhaps = noble, gracious; but not exactly = benefactor,
as the distinction from eiepyerys in the first passage clearly shows.
The same holds good of Matt. xx. 15 : et o b<pOaXp,bs aov irovypbs
iarw, on iyw dyaObs el fit; 1 Pet. h. 18. Very striking is
Cicero's illustration of the notion of the dyaObs, de off. iii. 15:
" Si vir bonus is est, qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini, recte
justw.-i virura, bonum non facile reperiemus ; " de not. deor. ii. 25 :
"Jupiter optimus dictus est, id est beneficentissimus ; " upon
which, again, to hlustrate the use of Slxaios, Tholuck aptly quotes
Xenoph. Sympos. c. 4, § 42, where the Blxaioi are defined as those
o: yxiara rwv dXXqrpiwv opeyovrai xal ols dpxei rd irapbvra)
Oecon. c. 14, §§ 6-9, where the slaves who are not thievish are
described as Blxaioi; and ibid., as likewise Agesilaus, c. 11, § 8,
where the eXevOepios is placed over against the Slxaios : XP^Iia'7^
ye pyv oi fiovov Bixaiws, dXkd xal ekevOepiws iypyro, rw pev
Stxalw dpxeiv yyovfievos rb idv rd dXXbrpia, to5 Be iXevOeplw xal

CHAP. V. 8. 243
rwv eavrov irpoaacpeXyreov elvai. Accordingly Slxaios is a just
man who does no wrong ; dyaObs, a noble, gracious man, a tender
hearted friend of human-kind, who does good to every one.
Similarly, Bengel explains Slxaios by homo innoxius; b dyaObs by
omnibus pietatis numeris absolutus, eximius, lautus, regalis, beatus
v. gr. pater patriae ; and observes : " articulus chmaca efficit ; "
that is, the article with dyaOos intimates, perhaps, that this
dyaObs is known and recognised as such in the family, the church,
the city, the nation. As matter of fact, one whl more readily
venture to die for such an one than for a righteous man, who has
indeed a just cause and suffers innocently, but sthl has not, like
the kind, generous friend of humanity, drawn to himself the
hearts of men. Thus, doubtless, b dyaObs comes very near to the
meaning of o evepyerys, yet without quite coinciding with it ; o
evepyerys, implying more another's relation to myself in respect
of conduct ; 6 dyaObs, more a description of another's character in
itself. Further, in duaprwXos, ver. 8, may be given the opposite
of both expressions, not merely of Slxaios, but also of dyaObs.
Man scarcely dies for one that is just, at most for one that is
good ; but Christ died for us when we were stih sinners, there
fore neither just nor good. The first ydp is explicative : namely;
the second ydp causal : for. " Scarcely, that is, wiR one die for a
just man ; for (to such a point perhaps a mao attains) on behalf
of a good man one perhaps ventures to die." diroOaveirai is
used riot of ethical possibility, but the proper future, — of what
will not easily occur, in fact, in the entire future, Winer, p. 349.
Kal belongs to roXfia, not to diroOaveiv, which, on account- of the
previous diroOaveirai, carries no special emphasis. Besides, it
must have read roXfid xal diroOaveiv, not xal roXfia diroOaveiv.
xal = also, even; roXfia = sustinet, a se impetrat, prevails on oneself,
undertakes, comp. 1 Cor. vi. 1, 2 ; 2 Cor. x. 12.
Ver. 8. Contrast (Se) between God's love and man's love,
ver. 7. awlaryai, demonstrat, probat, proves, as in hi 5 ; not :
commendat, as the Vulgate, or : commends, as Luther translates.
The present is selected, because the efficacy of Christ's atoning
death continuing, the evidence of the divine love is conceived
as continuing, awlaryai is placed first, with an emphasis,
in harmony with the strain of thought. What God proves,
cannot be caRed in question by man. Wherefore, from the
matter demonstrated, further inferences are confidently drawn

244 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
veT_ 9. — |Ti dfiaprwXwv ovrwv yp,wv] Now are we no longer
sinners ; not as if we were never guhty of sin, but because our
sin is no longer imputed to us, — because we are BixaiwOevres iv
to a'lfian rov Xpiarov, ver. 9. The 'in, glancing back at en,
ver. 6, forms a contrast with vvv, ver. 9 ; but dpaprwXwv answers
to daOevwv and daefSwv, ver. 6, and is opposed to Slxaios and
dyaObs, ver. 7. Concerning the death of Christ as the highest
demonstration of God's love, comp. John ih. 16 ; Rom. viii. 32;
as an evidence of Christ's love towards us, Gal. h. 20 ; Eph.
v. 2, 25. When it is said, ver. 7 : " Among men one scarcely dies
on behalf of a just man," we should expect the contrast, ver. 8 :
" But God proves His love towards us by dying even for the
unjust." Instead of this, it is said that " Christ died for the
unjust." ' But uie two are one, because Christ is God ; and God,
in surrendering Christ, the vlbs fiovoyevys, the yyairy/ievos, Himself
presented the sacrifice. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 19 : Oebs yv iv XpiarS
xbafiov xaraXXdaawv eavrw. Hence also God here proves ryv
eavrov dydiryv, His own love, by the fact that Christ died
for us.
Vv. 9-11. That hope does not disappoint, Paul had inferred,
ver. 5, from the consciousness of God's love dwelling in our
hearts ; and the real existence of this love he proved, w. 6-8,
from the atoning death of Christ. Instead now of simply turning
back to his point of departure, ver. 5, — namely, to the proposi-
- tion y eXirls oi icaraiaxvvei, — and affirming that this has been
proved correct, from vv. 6—8 he draws a further conclusion,
namely, that if, when we were sinners, we were reconciled through
Christ's death, sthl more, as reconciled and justified, we shah be
preserved from God's wrath through Christ's life, and are able to
glory in God, the giver of future glory. Thus, with vv. 9-11,
although as to form advancing a step, really as to substance he
turns back to his point of departure, ver. 5 (and, sthl further, to
the fundamental thought of the whole exposition found in ver. 2),
that the hope of the glory of God, of which we boast even in
tribulation, makes not ashamed ; which assurance of hope is now
attested to us in a twofold way, — first by Christ's death for
sinners, and then by Christ's hfe for the righteous.
Ver. 9. iroXXw oiv pdXXov] raises to a chmax the assurance of
the hope of glory. " Far less, therefore, for us who are justified,
is our salvation a matter of doubt." The conclusion (ovv) pro-

CHAP. V. 9. 215
ceeds a majori (vv. 6-8) ad minus (ver. 9). It is a greater thing
to be reconciled when sinners, than to be preserved from wrath
when justified.
— BixaiwOevres vvv iv rw a'ipiari airov] comp. iii. 25. The
sentence forms the antithesis of en dpxiprwXwv Svrcov rjfiwv, ver. 8.
But the fact that justification is here represented as depending on
the blood of atonement, without special mention of the mediating
irlans, proves, as previously observed, that in the act of justifica
tion faith is merely regarded as the organ laying hold of the aR-
perfect righteousness of Christ, not as completing or supplementing
it,— not as a spiritual quahty meritorious and commending to God
on its own account. In the act of justification, irlans has its
sole merit through the alfia Xpiarov, which it receives, and
through the j^a/n? Oeov, ih. 24, on which it rehes. It is only the
doctrine of justification of the Protestant Church which, from the
elements that concur in Sixalwais, — x^P^' alfia, irlans, — is able
to form a harmonic triad, whhe in eveiy other combination they
make hopeless discord.1
— awOyabpeOa Bi airov dirb rrjs bpyrjs] i 16, 18, ii. 8. "We
shah be saved and rescued from wrath." A constructio praegnans,
comp. Winer, p. 775 ; Acts ii. 40. The same brachylogy is found
in the reverse form, 2 Tim. iv. 18: acoaei eh t^i» BaaiXelav, He
mil save me into His kingdom, i.e. He whl save and place, etc.
The bpyy is the wrath issuing forth on the future day of judgment.
Theodor. : rj fieXXovaa xoXaais ; comp. Matt. hi. 7 : cpevyew dirb
'rrjs fieXXovatjs bpyrjs ; 1 Thess. i 1 0 : pveaOai dirb rrjs bpyrjs rrjs
ipxop-evys. But with future final wrath, of course aR wrath
that might faR on us in the present life is cancehed. If we are
safe from bpyr], then elpyvy irpbs rbv Oeov and eX.7rt? rrjs Sofjys
rov Oeov are confirmed to us and rendered inalienably sure.
Upon the justified man there is no longer bpyy, but only dydiry
1 Meyer remarks rightly: "Faith, as the Xwrnxov of justification, is understood
as a matter of course (ver. 1), but is not mentioned here, because only what has
[been accomplished by God through Christ is taken into consideration." But when
\ Tholuck remarks here: " The justification of the believer depends, in fact, upon the
ianticipation of his moral perfection, which living faith in grace in the end also
•¦brings to pass," this position of the modern mediation-theology rests on an absolute
misconception of the scriptural, Pauline doctrine of justification. It stands, as even
to-bbler has remarked with pleasure, in essential harmony with the Tridentine
transformation of justitia imputata into justitia infusa. Comp. my observations on
iv. <&.

246 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
rov Oeov, so that even tribulations are for him no evSetljis bpyrjs,
but an evSetljis dydirys, Heb. xh. 6 ; Rev. hi. 19.
Ver. 10. The purport of ver. 9 is further developed and
vindicated. In this verse we have a double antithesis, — first of
ixOpol and xaraXXayevres, next of Bid rov Oavdrov rov viov
airov and iv rfj t,wy airov. On the exposition, therefore, of this
notion the understanding of the verse depends. ixOpol] sc. toS
Oeov, may have both an active and passive meaning, either =
hating God, i.e. enemies of God, or = hated by God, i.e. exposed to
His wrath. Just so the Latin exosus = hating and hated. The
first meaning is found Rom. viii. 7 ; Col i. 21 ; Jas. iv. 14; the
second passive meaning, Rom. xi. 28 : xard fiev to eiayyeKtov
ixOpol Si ifids' xard Se rrjv ixXoyyv dyairyrol Sid robs
irarepas; comp. ix. 13. Which meaning is to be assigned in the
present passage depends, as xaraXXayevres forms the antithesis
to ixOpol, on the decision as to the meaning of xaraXXdrreadai.
xaraXXdrreaOal rwi, again, may mean, as is acknowledged in
our day, two things, both : to be reconciled with some one, in the
sense of laying aside enmity, anger against him, so 1 Cor. vii. 11,
and: to be reconciled with some one, in the sense of his laying
aside enmity, anger against us, of our ceasing to be treated by
him as enemies, comp. LXX. 1 Sam. xxix. 4 ; Matt. v. 241
That the latter meaning is intended in the present passage
follows not only from the correspondence of xaraXXayevres with
BixaiwOevres, ver. 9, but also from the entire course of doctrinal
development to the present point, according to which man's
reconciliation with God consists simply in the removal of the
divine wrath resting upon him, hi 25. The removal of man's
enmity against God is only the effect of the removal of divine
wrath against men, the effect ' of IXaa/ibs, xaraXXayr], Sixalwais.
Besides, Paul nowhere bases awrypta (comp. xaraXXayevres
awOyabfieOa) upon our friendship with God, but only upon God's
grace towards us. If, then, xaraXXayevres are those with,
respect to whom God has laid aside His wrath, His enmity, the
ixOpol are those who are burdened with His enmity, His wrath. i
1 The distinction formerly laid down by Tittmann, de synonymis in Novo Testa)
mento, lib. i. p. 102 sqq., between iixxxdrmr ("efficere, ut quae fuit inimicitji
mutua, ea esse desinat") and xxraxxdrrtn ("facere, ut alter inimicum animran
deponat") is arbitrary, and may be regarded as abandoned, comp. Tholuck, SerrMm
on the Mount, on v. 24, and Fritzsche here.

CHAP. V. 11. 247
As already remarked, it is no contradiction, that while God's
exOpa rested on mankind, His dydirrj instituted a scheme of
reconciliation (comp. xoajiov KaraXXdaawv eavrcp, 2 Cor. v. 19);
because the exOpa falls only on sin, the dydiry, on the other
hand, regards sinners.1 The first antithesis, then, is as follows :
If we were reconciled to God, even when His wrath restgd upon
us, much more, being reconched, shall we be saved; for the
actual removal of wrath is a pledge of permanent deliverance
from wrath, of final salvation and blessedness, since even among
men it is a harder task to become reconched than with a
reconched heart to manifest goodwill. The second antithesis is
given in Sid rov Oavdrov and ev ry t,wy airov. If the death of
?Christ, in which in humiliation and weakness He lay under
God's wrath, appeased God's wrath, much more whl the life of
the Risen One, in which He now stands as our eternal and
almighty Mediator and Intercessor before God's throne, keep far
from us a return of wrath, vih. 34 ; Heb. vh. 25 ; 1 John ii. 1 ;
also John xiv. 13, 14. But not merely Christ's high-priestly
office, but also His kingly office forms such a safeguard for His
own, since in virtue of that office He has power to bestow on
them the benefits of His death, shield them from aR hosthe
might, and carry to its end and final consummation the purpose
of His atonement, iv rfj t,wy airov Rlustrates St' avToO, ver. 9.
Concerning the instrumental iv, comp. Winer, p. 485.
Ver. 11. ov fibvov Se] Some codices add toOto, clearly origin
ally but a gloss.
— dXXd xal Kavxwpievoi iv Oew] If we wish to take the
participle Kavxwuevoi as such, it cannot stand in contrast with
xaraXXayemes, ver. 10: " Not merely reconciled, but also
boasting in God shaR we be saved," for xaraXXayevres is not a
more precise definition of awOyabfieOa, but = eVet xaryXXdyyp,ev.
Rather in that case xavx&p-evoi must be regarded as a definition,
added later, of awOyabfieOa: oi p,bvov Se (namely, awOyabpzOa,
ver. 10) dXXd xal (namely, awOyabfieOa) xavxcbfievoi iv Oew:
"not only (shaR we be saved), but also therewith glorying in
1 1 abide by the interpretation of the phrases lx*f' and xxmXXxynii.it given in the
text, notwithstanding the polemic directed against it by Mehring, p. 492 ff., a
polemic which amounts to nothing less than a subjective transformation of Paul's
objective doctrine of reconciliation. Comp. also against it my Kirchl. Glaubensl.
IV. 2, p. 270 ff.

248 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
God." The apostle would then distinguish between aw&adai
(simply and actuaRy) and xavxwpevov iv Oew aw^eaOai (comp.
Winer, p. 441). but the xavxdaOai would be contemporaneous
with the aw^eaOai, i.e. both would take place in the future.
But, apart from the awkward and tame form of expression
which this gives, the xavxdaOai hitherto (comp. vv. 2, 3) was
always conceived as something present, not as something future,
postponed to the day of judgment. So therefore here. The
participle xavxwp-evoi is used then, with iap,ev to be supplied, for
the verbum finitum. The reading xavxd>p,eOa itself (or even
Kavx&p-ev, as some codices read in error) is not sufficiently authen
ticated, and must therefore be deemed a gloss which has crept
into the text, or a designed correction. We have then the con
trast and climax of the negative aw^eaOai dirb rrjs bpyrjs,
vv. 9, 10, and the positive KavxdaOai iv Oew, ver. 11, which
is grounded in the eXiris rys Bbljys rov Oeov, ver. 2. Not merely
shall we be finally delivered from wrath (oi fibvov Be, sc.
awOyabfieOa), but we also boast in God (dXXd xal xavx&pevoij i
as in one who whl make us partners in His glory. Thus the
reasoning turns back to its point of departure, and reaches a
self-contained conclusion, elprjvyv exofiev irpbs rbv Oeov, ver. 1
= awOyabfieOa dirb rrjs bpyrjs, vv. 9, 10; xal xavx<bfieOa iir'
iXirlSi rys Soljys rov Oeov, ver. 2 = xal xavx&peOa iv Bern,
ver. 11. Rejoicing and boasting in God as the author of all
blessings is often mentioned in the 0. T., Ps. xxxiv. 2, xhii. 4 ;
Hab. iii. 18. Of the use of the participle (xavxwfievoi) instead
of the verbi finiti (xavxwfieOa), examples may be quoted from
the Greek poets (Sophocl, Oedip., Tyr. v. 157: irpwrd ae
xexXbfievos, sc. el/il = xeXopai) and the Pyzantines (comp. Winer,
p. 440, note; Kiihner, Ausfr. Gr. d. gr. Spr. II. p. 379, § 680).
Among the Hellenists this construction is further justified by
Hebraistic usage (comp. the quotation from the LXX. in Rom.
ix. 28, also 2 Cor. vh. 5, xi. 6).
—Si oi vvv rrjv xaraXXayyv eXdBofiev] The xaraXXayrj is
in possession, we receive it through faith, so that xaraXXayyv
Xap,Bdvew = SixatovaOai, comp. 2 Cor. v. 21 : xaraXXdyyre rw
Oew. The vvv alludes to vvv, ver. 9, and therefore stands in
contrast with past, not future time.
The apostle has now dehneated the universal sinfulness of man,
as well as the reconciliation, justification, and bhss provided for

CHAP. V. u. 249
ah in Christ. He had thus reached the end of one main section
of his exposition, nay, had really developed the fundamental
theme of his epistle as to its essential elements in every aspect.
But before he proceeds to add to the foregoing a new course
of reasoning altogether, he glances back once more at the
general substance of his teaching hitherto, and, by way of con
clusion, sums it up in the form of a parallel drawn between
Adam and Christ — Adam the source of sin and death among
mankind, Christ the source of righteousness and hfe. Thus the
whole of humanity is seen summed up and represented in these
its two federal heads, the first and the second Adam, comp.
1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, 45 ff. The rehgious historical development of
humanity accordingly parts off into two great epochs — the period
of the dominion of sin and death, and the period of the dominion
of righteousness and life. At the head of one, as the principle
determining its character and ruling its movements, stands
Adam; at the head of the other, in like capacity, Christ. In the
interval between these two chief epochs enters the intermediate
economy of the law, bridging with its provisions the space from
one to the other. This is the essential purport of w. 12-21, in
which _are given the base-lines of a true and genuine philosophy
of history. At the same time, the parahel here drawn includes
an element of doctrine not hitherto mentioned, tracing back the
sinfulness, so far merely described as existing among mankind,
to its prime origin and source. Moreover, the substitutory satis
faction of Christ now stands forth with greater independence and
emphasis, whereas previously it came into notice merely as the
basis of justifying faith. Further, the purpose of the law is now
intimated, ver. 20, whereas before only its consequence was
described, ih. 20, iv. 15. Finally, in vv. 15-17, the super-
abounding fulness and transcendent glory of salvation in Christ
are pictured in contrast with the ruin and misery of which
Adam was the source. But the apostle did not make it his
express object to introduce these new and weighty elements by
way of adding a supplementary exposition. Rather the parallel,
whose main points are found in vv. 12, 18, 19, is intended simply
and dhectly as a comparative retrospect and summary conclusion.1
1 "Respicit totam tractationem superiorem," says Bengel, "ex qua haec infert
apostolus, non tam digressionem faciens, quam regressum, de peccato et de justitia."
Then the fine remark : "Paulinae methodi imitatione agendum primo est de peccato

250 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Ver. 12. Aid tovto] therefore, accordingly, on this account,
joins on to the last words of the 11th verse in such a way as
at the same time to refer back to the entire train of reasoning con
tained in i. 17— v. 11. In St' oi vvv ryv xaraXXayyv eXdBo/iev'
is involved the idea that we, previously sinners, have now (vvv)
through Christ received the reconciliation (t^v xaraXXayyv), i.e.
are justified, and therewith also become partakers of ^wfj and
awrypla, as is explained in vv. 1-11. But therein is given an
epitome of the entire purport of i. 17— v. 11.
— wairep] We have here an dvavrairbSorov, as in Matt.
xxv. 14; 1 Tim. i. 3. In exact correspondence with the protasis,
as the whole of the succeeding exposition, especially w. 18, 19,
shows, the apodosis must have run-: ovtw xal Si evbs avOpwirov
y Sixaioavvy et? rbv xoafiov elayXOe xal Sid rrjs Sixaioavvys r)
t,wr]' xal ovrws eh irdvras dvOpcoirovs y £gm7 BieXevaerai, i<p a>
irdvres BixaiwOyaovrai, or even the second half (xal ovrws ...
SixaiwOyaovrai) more briefly expressed: 'iva irdvres dvOpwiroi
BixaiwOevres %yawaw. The protasis is too short to allow us to
suppose that this apodosis escaped the memory of the apostle
directly after ver. 12. Rather he was unable there to introduce
the apodosis, as he wished first in w. 13, 14 to verify the state
ments of ver. 12. Hence the place in which the apodosis dropped
out is after the words rrjs irapaBdaews 'ASdp,, ver. 14, where, after
the long argument found in w. 13, 14, it could only have been
added in grammatical form and at due length with awkward effect.
But then it is clearly indicated in the words of the 14th verse:
os ian rviros rov fieXXovros, which, however, neither amount to
a proper apodosis as to form, nor yet comprise all the elements of
a complete apodosis. They are therefore most aptly subjoined
simply as a virtual and provisional substitute, but are not to be
regarded as a grammatical apodosis. Among the many methods
adopted to explain or supply the dvavrairbSorov, this is decidedly
the most simple and least artificial, and is followed, after the
example of Calvin, by most modern expositors. For the refuta
tion of other modes of construction, see Meyer here.
actuali, deinde retro de peccati ortu. — Et ex justificatione homo demum respiciens
doctrinam capit de origine mali et reliqua. " But Melanchthon passes over to this
section with the following words: "Absoluta est supra praecipua epistolae hujus
disputatio. Sicut autem dialectici docent xvaXumv facere, hoc est membra proposi-
tionum dissolvere et singula revocare ad methodum, ita hic fit avdxvo-is, membra
propositionum, de quibus hactenus disputavit, methodice explicantur. "

CHAP. V. 12. 251
— St' evbs avOpwirov] namely, Adam, ver. 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21,
22, 45, 47. "Cur nihil de muliere?" asks Bengel. (Comp.
1 Tim. ii. 14 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; Ecclus. xxv. 24.) Resp. 1, " Adamus
mandatum acceperat ; 2, caput erat non solum generis sui, sed
etiam Evae ; 3, si Adamus non audisset vocem muheris suae,
peccatum non venisset ad plures." It is especiaRy on the third
element in his answer that stress must be placed, for it did not
concern the apostle so much to specify with historical exactness
who was guhty of the first sjn, as rather who, as the first sinner,
became the representative and general head of a sinful human
race. — y dpaprla et? rbv xbapxtv elayXOe] sin entered into the world.
i) dpaprla denotes (1) sin as an act, which signification is the
only one belonging to dudpryua, Mark ih. 28, iv. 12 ; Rom. iii.
25 ; 1 Cor. vi. 18. So Matt. xii. 31 ; Acts vh. 60 : xvpie, fir)
arrjays airois rrjv dfiaprlav ravryv ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ; Jas. i. 1 5,
ii. 9 : et Se irpoawiroXyirreire, dfiaprlav ipyd^eaOe ; iv. 1 7 ; 1 Pet.
ii. 22. Thus especiaRy frequent in the plural, Eph. ii. 1 : vexpovs
rois irapairrwfiaai xal rais duapriais ; Jas. v. 15 : k&v dfiaprlas
§ ireiroiyxws ; Matt. ih. 6 : ijjofioXoyovfievoi rds dfiaprlas ; ix. 3 :
dcpewvral aoi al dfiaprlai aov ; Heb. ii 17: tXdaxeaOai rds
dfiaprlas. Whether here the dfiaprlai, the sinful acts, are to be
conceived as issuing from a single generative principle lying at
theh root, as conditioned by a sinful propensity, is not intimated
in the expression as it stands, and therefore could only be dis
covered from the general strain of scriptural teaching. But
without doubt y dpaprla signifies also (2) sin as a propensity, as
an inner principle, as a power ruling in man, the parent of the
whole brood of particular sinful desires and acts. So Rom. vh.
8 : y dpaprla . . . xareipydaaro . . . irdaav iiriOvfilav ; vii. 9 : y
dpapna dvetyjaev ; vh. 17: y olxovaa iv ipol dpaprla ; vii. 2 3 :
to) vbficp rrjs dpaprlas rat ovn iv rois fieXeal fiov. Finally, rj
afiapria denotes (3) sin as the synthesis of the propensity and act.
So John i. 29 : tSe o dfivbs rov Oeov, b a'lpwv ryv dfiaprlav rov
xbafiov; Rom. iii. 20, iv. 8 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56 : to Se xevrpov rov
Oavdrov, y dfiaprla. rj Be Svvafiis rrjs dfiaprlas, o vo/ios ; 2 Cor.
v. 21; 2 Thess. ii. 3 : o dvOpwiros rrjs dpoaprlas; Heb. iv. 15,
ix. 26, x. 18 : irpoacpopd irepl dpaprlas; 1 John i- 8, hi. 4, 5.
This latter meaning should perhaps, in harmony with Scripture
practice, which is not to view things according to theh abstract

252 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
logical divisions, but to blend together in one graphic conception |
their inner essence and outward manifestation, be assigned to the
word in every case, in which we are not compeRed by the form
of expression or connection of thought to fix our attention merely
on one element of the subject, on sin as expression, manifestation/ J
act, or on sin as propensity, principle, power bearing rule within.
In the present passage, then, we are naturally led to include
under rj dfiaprla everything which this expression can denote
according to the teaching of Scripture and of the apostle. It is sin
as the synthesis of the habitus and actus, but at the same time
sin as a generic conception, i.e. not merely the individual sin of
Adam, but the sin of mankind in general ; for Paul says not that
the sin of one man, but that through one man sin came into the
world. Just as comprehensive, e.g., is the idea of dpaprla, also
in John i. 29 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Heb. x. 18. In this verse, therefore,
under y dpaprla, the sinful condition of the world, with all sinful
acts issuing therefrom, is contemplated as an abstract unity. It
is the sin of the world taken as a totality both as to its principle
and its manifestation. It is everything universally that can be
called sin. This signification dp,aprla has throughout the present
section, comp. vv, 13, 20, 21, where, moreover, iBaa'iXevaev rj
dfiaprla iv tw Oavarw is to be taken as defining the meaning of
y dfiaprla els rbv xbafiov elayXOev xrX., ver. 12. It is only the
conception of dfiaprla thus defined that reaRy involves the right
connection with the import of i. 18-iii. 20, and sums up ah that
is there developed. Paul here traces back the world's sin there
dehneated to its original source, placing Adam, in whom the dpaprla
rov xbapov is wrapped up, in antithesis to Christ, through whom
Bixaooavvy, the IXaapbs rov xoafiov, is accomplished. The sub
sequent exposition of the present section will stih further verify
and corroborate this acceptation of dfiaprla in this passage, which
is thoroughly confirmed by idiomatic usage, — nay, whl evince it to
be the only one possible. Besides, it is not essentially different
from what is meant when dp,aprla is explained : sin as a power,
as a force exercising its dominion, working and coming into
manifestation in concrete sins, so that the sinful condition of the
world is regarded merely as the effect of the dfiaprla that
came in. For, of course, the actual sin of the world came
into the world through Adam only potentiaRy, but, without
question, as a real power. Before Adam's act of sin there was

CHAP. V. 12. 253
nothing in the world that could be caRed sin. With Adam's act
of sin came into the world not merely something that could be
called sin, but sin in general (not merely dfiaprla, but y dfiaprla),
in so far as in this act of sin the entire sin of the world lay
wrapped up ; for Adam's faR was the fall of the entire human
race, as has been subsequently proved by the fact of his posterity
being born sinners. — In the phrase elaepxeaOai els rbv xbafiov
we must not refer 6 xbapios to the universitas rerum (to enter
into the universum = esse incipere), but to this sublunary world,
or the world of man, so that the expression denotes outward
entrance into the human world, first occurrence among men.
Comp. Wisd. ii 24, xiv. 14 ; Heb. x. 5 : elaepxbfievos eh rbv •
sbapov, of the entrance into the human world of the Messiah
who, as the eternal Son of God, already existed in the universitas
rerum (so, too, 1 Tim. i. 15 : epxeaOai et? rbv xbapov; and
Gal. ih. 23 : epxeaOai simply) ; 2 John 7 : iroXXol irXdvoi elarjX-
6ov et? tw xba/iov. The first entrance of sin into the universum
cannot be intended here, because according to universal Scripture
teaching, and therefore according to the apostle's own view, sin
already existed in the domain of evh sphits, and therefore in the
xbapos as the rerum universitas. " In mundum hunc," says
Bengel, " qui dicitur genus humanum ; esse coepit in mundo ;
nam antea non fuerat extra mundum." 1 But yet we must not
think of sin's entrance into the human world as infecting with an
inward taint individual men, of its entrance in the form of a
principle ruling within and diffusing its influence, because elaep-
XeaOai els rbv xba/iov does not express this. Paul would then
have written elaepxeaOai eh tt/v xapSlav twi* dvOpwirwv, or at
least et? rovs dvOpwirovs. Should it be objected to the meaning,
" to enter into the human world = to appear among men," that
this human world did not as yet exist when sin came into
existence upon earth, it may be said that the apostle, directing
his gaze backwards, beholds Adam's posterity already surrounding
him as theh federal head, if we do not prefer to understand
elaepxeaOai els rbv xbafiov of entrance into this sublunary world
in general, of appearance in this earthly world as a whole. In
1 "Porro cur nihil de Satana," observes the same Bengel, "qui prima peccati
causa est ? Resp. 1, Satanas opponitur Deo ; Adamus Christo ; ad hic oeconomia
gratiae describitur, potius, ut est Christi, quam ut Dei. Ideo Deus semel nominatur,
ver. 15, Satanas nunquam. 27< Quid Satanae cum gratia Christi ? "

254 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
this sense xbafios stands, Matt. iv. 8 ; John xvi 21 ; Rom. iv. 3;
1 Cor. vh. 31. "In hanc partem mundi, scil. terrenam, in qua
homines habitant," Abelard. Through one man, therefore, accord
ing to the apostle's declaration, the sin of mankind came into
existence in this earthly world.
— xal Sid rys dpaprlas 6 Qdvaros] sc. els rbv xbafiov elayXOe.
It is important, first of aR, to investigate the conception of
Odvaros. Odvaros invariably signifies death as the antithesis and
abohtion of f»i?, life. As, then, life may be bodily, spiritual, or
eternal life, so also Odvaros may be (1) bodily death. So John
xi 4 : rj daOeveia oix ean irpbs Odvarov; xh. 33, xvih. 32:
iroiw Qavdrcp rjfieXXev diroOvyaxew ; Phil. i. 2 0 : fieyaXwOyaerai
Xpiaros iv tw acbpurl p,ov, e'lre Sid ^wrjs, e'lre Sid Qavdrov xr\
(2) Spiritual death. So 1 John hi. 14 : o'lSa/iev, on peraBeBrj-
xa/iev ix rov Qavdrov et? rrjv tyoyv, on dyairwfiev rovs dSeXcpovs'
b p,y dryairwv rbv dSeTupbv, pevei iv rw Oavdrw. Comp. Matt.
vih. 22 : acpes rovs vexpovs Odtyai rovs eavrwv vexpovs; Eph.
h. 1 : «at ifids bvras vexpovs rois irapairrcbfiaai xal rais dpap-
rlais ; ver. 5 ; Col. h. 1 3. This Odvaros forms the antithesis of the
£o>^ tov Oeov, Eph. iv. 18, and consists in the privation of the
holy and blessed existence of which the soul in feRowship with
God is partaker, in which representation sometimes the loss of
holiness, sometimes the loss of blessedness, is most prominent,
according to the connection of thought. (3) Eternal death as the
' antithesis of future £gm; alwvios. So Rom. i 32 ; 2 Cor. ii. 16,
vii 10 ; Jas. i. 15, v. 20 ; 1 John v. 16. This death (in Rev.
h. 11, xx. 6, 14, xxi. 8, cahed also 6 Odvaros b Sevrepos) is the
ultimate outgrowth and completion of the spiritual death already
actuaRy present in the soul ' of the sinner.1 But then it hes in
the very nature of such biblical notions embracing a rich variety
of elements, that often several, or even aR of these elements,
should appear in combination, the context of the passage deciding
how many and which are to be conceived as blended in one.
That by this means a difference of interpretation as to particulars
can scarcely be avoided is easily conceivable, as the compass of
the expression may be taken now more narrowly, now more
1 In Scripture the metaphorical use of the phrases livxros, nxpis, awoMo-xm, has
the same latitude as that of the idea of £««. Thus we may speak of a death of the
sinful life, of an inward, spiritual dying to sin, to the law, of dead faith, dead works,
and so on. Comp. Rom. vii. 4, viii. 13 ; Col. iii. 5 ; Heb. vi. 1, ix. 14 ; Jas. ii. 17.

CHAP. V. 12. 255
widely, while the text itself does riot in every case give an
absolutely certain deliverance. A combination of all three
elements we think, e.g., should be held, 2 Tim. i. 1 0, of the first
and second, Matt. iv. 16, of the second and third, John v. 24,
vih. 51. As relates, then, to the present passage, in the first
place the element of bodily death should not be excluded from
the idea of Odvaros ; for not only is the aRusion to Gen. ii. 1 7,
hi 3, 19 unmistakeable, but this meaning is assured to the word
Odvaros by ver. 14, where the presence of sin before the law was
to be demonstrated mainly from the presence of bodily death as
that which alone had for every one the force of an undeniable,
universaRy acknowledged fact. But then it is not to be imagined
that here, where the apostle is describing the entire penal judg
ment which fell upon the whole of the world's sin, he should be
satisfied with referring merely to the lower element, temporal
death, without at the same time including the higher element,
eternal death. That, on the contrary, the latter is done is proved
by vv. 17, 18, 21, where fiw^ alwvios forms the antithesis of
Odvaros. For there is no ground whatever for the assertion that
in the idea of fw^ alwvios the chief notion is that of bodhy
resurrection as the opposite of bodhy death. Comp., on the
contrary, 1 Cor. xv. 2 1, where dvdaraais vexpwv forms the express
opposite of death in the bodhy sense. In any case, therefore,
the first and third elements in our definition of the idea are
demonstrably included in the word Odvaros in this passage. It
might then be supposed that the apostle, having here selected
physical death as the point of departure for his view, could not
weh include in the same thought spiritual death already present
in the soul, since this is anterior to bodhy death, but could only
include future and eternal death, to which bodily death is the
introduction and portal But then without doubt, in an indirect
way, present spiritual death would be involved, as a matter of
course, in future eternal death, as in its crown and completion,
just as in bodhy death are involved aR his, diseases, and in
firmities preceding and predisposing to it. In this case Paul in
this passage would comprise in its crowning point everything
which can be called bodhy and spiritual death. However, it
seems more appropriate and more in accordance with fact, from
the first and directly to give the same breadth of meaning to the
idea of Odvaros as to that of dfiaprla, so that as the latter denotes

256 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
everything which can be caRed sin, the former also' embraces
everything which can be meant by the simple term death. We
have accordingly in the word Odvaros to recognise the union of
the three elements laid down by us. It is death in the most
comprehensive sense, i.e. bodhy, spiritual, eternal death ahke ; for
nothing but the entire domain of death can be regarded as an
adequate punishment for the entire domain of sin enclosed by the
dp,apria, which came into the world through one man. It is no
sufficient objection against such a combination of various elements
of the notion that the same word cannot at the same time have
a literal and tropical meaning, for the word Odvaros, taken even
in the greatest range of its constituent elements, has sthl only
one fixed sense — it is the negation, abohtion, destruction of ah
that which is called hfe. Further, according to this passage,
agreeably to the teaching of Scripture elsewhere, bodhy death is
not to be taken as an original principle of nature, but only as one
that appeared among mankind subsequently in consequence of
sin. Comp. Krabbe, die Lehre von der Siinde und vom Tode,
pp. 194-198.
— xal ovrws] and in this way, and in consequence of this,
namely, because death came into the world as the consequence of
sin, i.e. in consequence of the causal connection of sin and death.
— b Odvaros] is criticaRy suspicious, but in any case, even if
it is left out, is to be supphed as subject to BiyXOev. But its
omission mars the symmetry of the sentence, which is otherwise
perfect, so that it is not easily conceivable that it was not origin-
aRy written by Paul himself. Further, it is found in the oldest
manuscripts, even in the Cod. Sinait.
— et? irdvras dvOpwirovs BiyXOev] penetrated, extended to all men,
spread itself abroad to all men. SiepxeaOai, to go through. A place
or country may either be crossed in one direction (Luke xvii. 11,
xix. 1 ; John iv. 4), or one may pass through it in aR directions
(Acts vhi. 4, ix. 32, x. 38). In the latter meaning here. Death
planted its foot in the world (eiayXOev), and has now gone hither
and thither in the world to aR men (BiyXOev), has not remained
with one only.
— icp' w irdvres ypoaprov] because all sinned. The cause of the
extension of death to all men without exception is the fact of
aR without exception having sinned. That icp' & is to be taken
in the sense of a conjunction scarcely needs now to be proved.

CHAP. V. 12. 257
The reference of the relative c5 to ets dvOpwiros, with the excep
tion of some Catholic exegetes, is now rightly given up by all
modern interpreters. Not only is such a reference shown to be
arbitrary and inadmissible by the entire construction of the clause
and the remoteness of St' evbs avOpwirov, but in addition aR the
meanings assigned on this supposition to e^>' o3 are beyond ques
tion untenable. For it means neither in quo, in whom (according
to the famous saying of Augustine : " in quo, sc. Adamo, omnes
peccaverunt,quando omnes hie unus homo fuerunt;" so sthl Aberle),
— this would rather be iv cp, — nor yet per quern (sc. " omnes peccati
poenam subiere," Grotius, or: "peccatores facti sunt," Melanchthon ;
meanings, moreover, which do not at aR belong to yuaprov), — this
would rather be St' oi, — nor yet propter quern or cum quo, which
would be St' ov or avv w. More natural would be the reference,.
proposed by some, of the relative cj> to the subject b Odvaros
dhectly preceding. But supposing us in this case to understand
i<p' cp of the designed result : " for which aR sinned," there arises
the impossible notion that some may sin for the purpose of being
punished ; and a passing ironical remark can the less be supposed,
as the apostle is not engaged in controversy with definite oppo
nents. If we take e<p' w of the undesigned Tesult, in the first place
this mode of employing eVt with the dative, especiaRy in prose
discourse, could not be proved ; and in the next place, the idea
that the death to which aR are subject is the result of the fact
that aR sinned, would inappropriately stamp icp' w irdvres
ypaprov with the character of a cursory observation, whereas the
entire construction of the thoughts and sentence compels us to
co-ordinate it in meaning with the remaining three clauses, and
to find in it the statement of the reason why death came to aR
men without exception, dfiaprla brought Odvaros, Odvaros came
to ah, because (thus must we, as matter of course, further conclude)
dpaprla had come to aR. 'Eop' & is therefore without doubt to
be taken as a conjunction. But this being so, it signifies, hke dvO7
&v (comp. Luke xh. 3), either : quare, wherefore, so perhaps in Phil.
hi. 12, or it stands in the sense irrl tovtco on = propter id quod,
for that, because, so in 2 Cor. v. 4, perhaps also in Phil. hi. 12.
Thomas Magister and Phavorinus say expressly : icp' a> dvrl rov
Boon. Respecting oti' with the dative in the sense on account
of, comp. Matt. xix. 9 ; Acts hi. 16 ; 2 Cor. xii. 21. In classical
Greek, icp' oh, the Latin propter ea quod, is more usual than icp' w.
Philippi, Rom. I. R

258 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
The meaning for that, or because, is also quite appropriate in the
present passage, and on this account is received by modern inter
preters almost without exception.1
"HpMprov cannot mean : became sinful, or : were sinful, for
dpaprdvew is not = dpoaprwXbv ylyveaOai or elvai. Sthl less does
it mean : bore the penalty of sin. Rather yp,aprov is nothing but
= actually sinned. If, now, by dpaprla we understand only actual
sins, in the sense that through Adam first of all committing sin, or
through his act of shi, and in consequence of this, death came into
the world, and that then death extended itself to aR because ah have
actually sinned, we thus ascribe to our verse indeed a grammati
cally possible meaning, but at the same time leave altogether out
of account not only the principle, scriptura scripturam docet, but
also the entire tenor and strain of thought in the epistle itself.
For not only in the preceding chapters by dfiaprla was intended
the sinful principle already always dwehing in humanity, the
sinful principle conditioning and causing the world's sinful state,
but also in the entire subsequent exposition (comp. especially
ver. 19) it is a real connection of the sin of humanity with Adam's
sin which is spoken of. But above ah, the very sinew of the
Pauline parahel is severed, if we sweep away this connection
between the actual sins of all and Adam's transgression, seeing
that the apostle makes the righteousness of ah absolutely condi
tioned by the righteousness of Christ. When it is objected to this
that Adam is set over against Christ the author of hfe, not as the
author of sin, but only as the author of death, it is evident at once
how baseless and halting the comparison becomes, if to Christ,
as the direct and sole source of righteousness and life, Adam is
opposed merely in so far as he is the indirect source of death to
his posterity, who, being independent of him as sinners, are con
demned in the penalty of death, instead of in any other penalty,
for no other reason than that this penalty by a positive, arbitrary
1 To say nothing of the translation, altogether without support, quamquam, the
acceptation which Rothe (Neuer Versuch einer Auslegung der Paulinischen Stelle,
Rom. v. 12-21, pp. 17-38) has assigned to if £ has gained no special favour. He
would resolve if S, not into 8srt roiro, on, but into iiri rovra liars, and ascribes to
it the meaning which it has with the infinitive praeterite following : on condition
that, on the more definite condition that, ea conditione, ea ratione ut. But, in the first
place, this signification has never been confirmed by examples to the point ; and-
further, as our subsequent exposition will show, the causal signification, commonly
received and amply supported, is perfectly appropriate in the passage.

CHAP. V. 12. 259
act of God's wiR was denounced against Adam's sin in the first
place, and then in justice against the like sin in his posterity.
Moreover, the Pelagian accommodation-theory, by which the con
nection between the sin of Adam and of mankind is placed merely
in the spontaneous imitation of Adam's example, is arbitrary and
inadequate, since not merely in this passage is there no mention
of such imitation, but, as Calvin justly remarks : " quia hoc modo
Christus exemplar tantum esset justitiae, non causa."
If, then, dpaprdvew does not denote to be or become sinful, and
yet the connection between the sin of mankind and Adam's trans
gression is to be preserved, nothing seems left but to icp' & irdvres
ypaprov to supply in thought : in consequence of Adam's sin. " All
have sinned in consequence of the taint derived from Adam's sin."
But in this case, in the first place, one sees not why Paul did not
write either: xal ovrws els irdvras dvOpwirovs b Odvaros BiyXOev,
i<p' w y dfiaprla eh irdvras BiyXOev, or : e'^>' w irdvres dfiapraXol
eyevovTo. Again, y dfiaprla would have to be referred to the
sinful habit which entered as the dominating principle into the
hearts of mankind. But we have seen that elaepxeaOai eh rbv
xba/iov has not this meaning. Finally, according to the view in
question, in the second clause of this verse the unreserved uni
versahty. of the dominion of sin and death would be especially
emphasized and accentuated, seeing that the existence everywhere
in the human world of dfiaprla and Odvaros was already affirmed
in the first clause. Now, apart from the halting and disjointed
character thus given to the language used, clearly w. 13 and 14
must then be meant to prove icp' & irdvres yuaprov, that all have
sinned ; which view, as the exposition of these verses whl show,
cannot be borne out.
For these reasons we are driven of necessity to accept the
interpretation which, although abandoned by modern expositors
(comp., nevertheless, Olshausen), and apparently remote, is yet the
most obvious, simple, and natural ; 1 namely, to rjfiaprov to supply
1 I rejoice that this dogmatic interpretation of the passage, in which, when I
first revived it in all its stringency and point, a critic in Tholuck's literarischen
Anzeiger prophesied that I should find no follower, has now found an earnest advo
cate in Meyer. Perhaps I may say that now, too, Thomasius will agree with, instead
of opposing me and the rest who share my views, comp. Christi Person und Werlc,
I. p. 276. He decides for Hofmann's view of this passage (comp. Schriftbeweis, I.
477). But Meyer on the passage has .already rightly observed that the reference of
if $ as a simple relative to o6avxroS = " they sinned under the dominion of death,"

260 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
in thought : iv 'ASdp,, or still more precisely : " Adamo peccante."
" Non agitur de peccato singulorum proprio," says Bengel " Omnes
peccarunt, Adamo peccante," or, as Koppe puts it, " ipso actu, quo
peccavit Adamus." The momentary sense of the aorist ypaprov
tells also on the same side. Death penetrated to aR, because ah
sinned when Adam sinned, because in Adam's sin their own sin was
included. Thus as to substantial meaning, although by way of a
different grammatical construction we should get back again to
Augustine's " in quo omnes peccaverunt." We may aptly compare
2 Cor. v. 15 : et els virep irdvrwv diriOavev, dpa oi irdvres direOavov,
to which we find here the corresponding antithesis : et els iirep
irdvrwv ypoaprev, dpa ol irdvres y/iaprov. Further, as here the dpap-
rdvew, so in 1 Cor. xv. 22 the diroOvyaxew of all iv rco 'ASdp is
spoken of. The apostle therefore represents the sin of mankind as
objectively wrapped up in Adam, precisely as he contemplates the
righteousness of mankind as objectively wrapped up in Christ,
and in this way alone the parallel attains its true precision and
plastic intuitiveness. The doubt which may thereupon be raised
against this interpretation, that the supplement iv r& 'ASdp or
rov 'ASdp, dp,aprdvovTOs is not expressly added, is removed by
the very interpretation we have given of the notion of dpaprla
in this passage. If y dfiaprla denotes the cohective sum of the
sin of mankind, or even the sin of mankind as a real power, it is
self-evident that the sin of ah is comprised in it, and the supple
ment required appears necessary and natural. Through Adam
the sin of mankind came to be manifested, and in consequence of
it death ; and thus death spread abroad to ah, because in that very
sin of mankind the sin of all was included.1 " Peccatum est prius
morte : sed mortis universalitas prius innotescit quam universalitas
cannot be justified grammatically. Thomasius himself interprets : if £ wxvns %/ixprov,
' ' under which relation all have sinned, namely, under this relation, that in conse
quence of Adam's sin death ruled as an objective all-embracing power. " This mean
ing of l<p' £ also is not grammatically justifiable. Moreover, as a fact, would this inter
pretation follow more simply and naturally from the construction of the sentence
than the one given ?
1 When Hofmann, with whom Tholuck agrees, objects to the supplying of Adamo
peccante, that it is unjustifiable " at pleasure to supply in thought what nothing but
one's own arbitrariness suggests to thought," the answer given in what is said above
to this objection is sufficient for every one who will consider and weigh it. Meyer
also justly replies : "The objection, that in this way the essential definition is arbi
trarily supplied (Tholuck, Hofmann, Stolting, Dietzsch, and others), is incorrect ; for
what is maintained is simply that more precise definition of Xpapro* for which the

CHAP V. 13, 14. 261
Haec ratio ordinis incisorum quatuor in hoc versu,"
Bengel. Vv. 13, 14. As already remarked, according to the view of
several, especiaRy modern expositors, who differ from our inter
pretation of icp' cp irdvres yptaprov, ver. 12, these verses furnish a
confirmation of these latter words. They are thus supposed to
demonstrate the unlimited universality of sin in the world. Such
proof might seem necessary to the apostle on account of the
statement, iv. 15 : oi yap oix ean vbfios, oiBe irapaBaais. For
it seemed as if the assertion of the universal presence of sin
must be qualified by the principle, that before the advent of the
law there was no transgression. In consequence of this, vv.
13, 14 would lay down that even before the law sin existed.
Doubtless sin is not imputed where law is not ; but yet from
Adam to Moses death reigned, proving that even if irapaBaais
did not, dfiaprla did exist always in the world. Neverthe
less, this acceptation presents manifold difficulties. In the first
place, the apostle might regard the fact of aR having sinned,
ih. 23, as settled once for aR, and even iv. 15 furnished no
sufficient occasion for a fresh confirmation of this position. For
there it was not denied that dfiaprla, but only that irapaBaais
existed before the law. Still, had Paul thought it necessary
expressly to emphasize this distinction, it must at least have
been done more clearly and definitely by some such words as :
dpaprla fiev ydp axpi vbfiov yv iv xoapocp, irapaBaais Se
vbpov rbre oix ?p>. But if we were willing to overlook the
general incongruity between the form of expression and the
meaning stated, sthl in the separate particulars the language
must have been shaped quite differently. Instead of &xpi yap
immediate connection has necessarily prepared the way." This holds good also
against Mehring, who, p. 536, ventures to affirm : " if we would act with perfect
honour, i.e. not foist our own thoughts into Scripture, we can only supply from what
goes before. But in what goes before not h 'Atxp, but only h' his xvlpavov has been
spoken of, and hence we can only supply $/' mt xvlpuvov, which, indeed, is understood
as matter of course." But in what goes before not only was V hos Mp£orov spoken
of, but also h' hos kvlpunoti a a/ixpria ils rov xoo-poov ilrixti, which words, rightly under
stood, already involve rtxvns h 'Alxpi. lipoxprov. But in the further course of this
chapter the apostle himself gives a commentary on his own meaning. Nothing but
this incontestably clear meaning, not as Mehring supposes the Augustinian doctrine
of imputation, which I should quite readily bring to the passage by way of supple-
ment, led me to my interpretation, with which now, moreover, Besser and Ortloph
agree. Comp., too, Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychology, p. 433.

262 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
vbpov, at least a «at ydp dxpt vofiov must have been used, and
instead of but in dfiaprla Se oix eXXoyeirai, a certainly or of course!
But finaRy, according to the interpretation in question, one sees
no reason at aR why the apostle wrote : xal iirl rovs py
dfiapryaavras irrl rco bfioiwfiari tij? rrapaBdaews 'ASdp,, and not
rather : xal iirl rois fiy irapaBdvras rbv vbfiov. There remains,
then, only the second interpretation, according . to which, in w.
13, 14, the main thought of the 12th verse, namely, that through
Adam sin and death came into the world, or that Adam's sin
brought death to mankind ; or, which amounts to the same, the
interpretation, according to which et? irdvras dvOpwirovs 6 Odvaros
BiyXOev, icp' tp irdvres ypaprov in the sense accepted by us, is
confirmed.1 That this interpretation accords exactly with the
meaning and connection of the words before us, and avoids the
difficulties accompanying the other one, the exposition of the
particulars whl evince. a-XP1 t^P v°/l0v] Some expositors,
following Orig., Chrys., Theodor., take axpi in the sense of donee,
quamdiu, during, i.e. as long as the law lasted, during the law,
thl the end of the law, therefore from Moses to Christ. So axpi
stands, 2 Mace. xiv. 1 0 : &xpt ydp 'lovBas irepleanv dSvvarov
elpyvys rvxeiv rd irpdy/iara, and Heb. iii. 13 : &xpis oi rb
ayfiepov xaXeirai. But dypt vbfiov means here, in harmony with
the usual sense of axpi, until the law, thl the time when the law
was given, which would be from Adam to Moses. That this
latter meaning is to be adopted is shown by the words : dirb 'ASdp,
p-expt Mwvaews, ver. 14. " Par est ratio omnium ante Mosen et
gentium deinceps, c. ii. 12," Bengel.
— dfiaprla yv iv xbapow] sin was in the world, dfiaprla
without the article does not differ from y dfiaprla, ver. 12, comp.
Winer, p. 148, and Gal. h. 17 ; 1 Pet. iv. 1 ; Eom. ih. 9, vi. 14.
The presence of sin before the law is proved by the testimony of
Genesis. The apostle himself demonstrated this in his picture of
the sins of the Genthe world. For, as observed, as the Genthes
had not the law of Moses, their sins stood on exactly the same
footing as the sins of the whole of mankind before the law.
1 According to the passage of Chrysostom quoted by Bengel, Paul teaches in this
Verse : ort ovx xvrn h Xftxpria rns rov vofiov VTxpxfcae'ius, aXX' Ixlivt] r) r%$ rov ' Adapt,
rtapaxoris, avrh 7iv rj vrxvra XvpLxtvafihri, xat rts ft revrov xtroo'u%is ; ro xx) vrpo rov voptoo
oravrxs aorotvwxuv, "non id peccatum, quo lex violatur, sed illud, quo Adam
inobediens fuit, omnem dedisse perniciem : nam etiam ante legem omnes esse
mortuos."

CHAP. V. 13, 14. 263
Further, ap,aprla here is one and the same dpiaprla that is spoken
of ver. 12. It is the one sin of mankind — there, objectively
wrapped up in Adam ; here, subjectively present in the world, and
conceived as having its abode in it.
— dfiaprla Be oix eXXoyeirai p,y ovros vbpov] Luther, after
the example of Ambrose and August. : " but where no law is, one
regards not sin." So, too, Calvin, Beza, and several moderns.
According to them, the imputing person is supposed to be man
himself, and the sense, that where no law is, men do not impute
sin to themselves, have no keenly impressed sense of their guht
and sin. But eXXoyeiv, to take account, to reckon, found again
Phhem. 18, ahudes of itself rather to the relation between two
parties, so that if a seZ/-imputation were meant, this would have
been expressly said. Next, the present proposition evidently
corresponds with what is laid down iv. 15 : oi yap oix ean
vbpos, oiSe irapaBaais, comp. Acts xvii. 30, and therefore teaches
that where law is absent an objective imputation is absent. Lastly,
ver. 14 : fiy dfiapryaavres iirl rw Ofioiwfian rrjs irapaBdaews
'ABdp,, correspond to those who sinned: fir) ovros vbfiov, ye?. 13 ;
and as the former are plainly described as those who committed
sins which God did not impute, in eXXoyeiv also God is to be
conceived as the imputing person. That vbfios here means the
Mosaic law, is evident as matter of course both from the aRusion
to the immediately preceding &xpt vbfiov, and from the observa
tions on ii 12.
— dXX' iBaalXevaev b Odvaros d. 'A. fi. M. xal iirl rovs fiy
dpapryaavras] dXXd is not atqui, but now, used in the assumption
or minor proposition ; this would be dXXd fiyv, xal fiyv, or even
Se. But yet it is not exactly = attamen, verumtamen, nihilo secius,
but yet ; this would be dXX' ofiws or ofiws fievrot. Rather is it
= at, but, however, in opposition to the preceding oix eXXoyeirai.
Comp. Meyer and de Wette on 1 Cor. iv. 15. Death appears
here, so to speak, personified as a lord to whose sceptre men are
subject, vi. 9, 12, 14, vh. 1. The Greeks say: dpxew, dvdaaew,
BaaiXevew,yyepoveveiv, xvpieveiv twos, or even rwl; the Hehenists:
Baaikevew iirl riva (LXX. 1 Sam. viii. 9, 11 ;^Luke i. 33,
xix. 14), in imitation of the Hebrew construction: "a bv ?]?» (Ps.
xlvii. 8), "a by tb& (Neh. v. 15), and "3 by byn (Prov. xxviii. 15).
In xal iirl rovs fiy dpapryaavras, as is now universaRy acknow
ledged, the reading is to be regarded as adequately attested, the

264 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
evidence for the omission of xal being altogether insufficient; for
the omission of p,y, nowise sufficient. From Adam to Moses death
reigned over those also who had not sinned.
— eVt ra> bfioiwp,an rrjs irapaBdaews 'ASdp,] Chrysost., and
Theophyl. join these words with iBaalXevaev b Odvaros. In the
same way Bengel, who interprets : " Quod homines ante legem
mortui sunt, id accidit eis super similitudine transgressionis Adam,
i.e. quia Riorum eadem atque Adami transgredientis ratio fuit:
mortui sunt, propter ahum reatum, non propter eum, quern ipsi
per se contraxere, id est, propter reatum ab Adamo contractum."
In this case, in rois fiy dfiaprrjaavTas would he a peculiar Pauline
keenness of distinction ; namely, sinners before the law would be
called py dfiapryaavres, because they committed sins which were
not imputed. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 21. This interpretation has much
to attract, because according to it the thought which confirms
ver. 12 is openly expressed, instead of being merely supphed by
inference after 'ASdp,. Also the dXXd, but, as weR as the iirl
before bp,oiwfian, is thus capable of easier explanation. Only,
then, one would have expected fiy irapaBdvras rbv vbfiov instead
of py dfiapryaavres, and instead of eVt rco bpoicopari rfjs
irapaBdaews 'ASdp, the more direct iirl rfj irapaBdaei, or Sid ryv
irapdBaaw rov 'ASdp,. On this account it seems best to join
eVt rw op,, rrjs irap. A. with fiy dfiapryaavras. Those, then, are
described who did not, like Adam, transgress a positive divine
command, but only committed sins not imputed by the law.
Nevertheless, if over these death, the penalty of sin, reigned,
this goes to prove that they are punished on account of Adam's
irapaBaais, or in so far as they sinned in Adam, apaprdveiv
iirl nvi does not occur elsewhere, but it is not without analogy.
We may either take eVt in the sense of rule, comp. Luke i 59,
2 Cor. ix. 6, or interpret : with, under = the Rkeness existing, ovros
b/ioicoparos, Heb. ix. 17, x. 28. Therefore dpapr. iirl r. bp. r.
irap. 'A. = to sin in such a way that one has or presents the
likeness of Adam's transgression, i.e. as he transgresses a positive
command. Since Origen, many interpreters have understood by
fiy dfiaprya. xtX. young, irresponsible chhdren. Clearly these
are not to be excluded, but they are neither specially nor directly
intended. But, without doubt, every interpretation of w. 12-14
which views the mors infantium otherwise than as stipendium
peccati must be rejected as a contradiction to the unlimited

CHAP. V. 13, 14. 265
generality with which the Pauhne doctrine teaches that death is
conditioned by sin. Most aptly now do the words come in —
o? e'ort rviros rov fieXXovros]. Since after 'ASdp, the thought
naturally arises that ah are subject to death on account of Adam's
irapaBaais, on this naturahy foRows the thought that Adam is
therefore a type of Christ, inasmuch as just as Adam's sin brought
death to aR, so Christ's righteousness brought life to all. The
words are to be understood thus : o? (sc. 'ASdp,) ian rviros rov
fieXXovros, sc. 'ASdp,, i.e. tov Xpiarov. In 1 Cor. xv. 45, also,
Paul places in contrast d irpwros (dvOpwiros) 'ASdp, and d
eff^aTo? 'ASdp,, as a Rabbinical saying runs : n*V®y} KW tf"™? D1??>
the last Adam (in contrast with the flPton D"ik) is the Messiah.
As alwv peXXwv, in contrast with ata>i> oiros, denoted the Messianic
period, so 'ASdp, b fieXXwv or d eaxaros, in contrast with 'ASdp,
b irpwros, denoted the Messiah. The participle d p,eXXwv is
neither to be resolved by the imperfect : " which Adam is a type
of him who was to come," nor yet is Christ Himself to be con
ceived as sthl to come, inasmuch as He is expected to return from
heaven. Without doubt, in the phrase d fieXXwv, Paul employs a
designation of the Messiah borrowed from the pre-Christian stand
point. Both on account of the famiharity of this conception of
the Messiah as the 'ASdp, b fieXXwv, and on account of the natural
reference of o? to the immediately preceding 'ASdp,, it must be
described as improbable and artificial to take rov fieXXovros as
neuter, and, referring o? to rviros, to understand it as used by
attraction for o = which thing contains a figure of that which
should one day take place, in which extension of death to aR men
on account of Adam's sin is contained a type of the future, or of
a future thing, i.e. of the life procured for &H by Christ's right
eousness. Tviros from rvirrw, the impression of one body on
another produced by a blow or otherwise, the impressed form, the
impressed figure or type, so John xx. 25 : rbv rvirov twv rjXwv;
then generaRy, the type, figure, Acts vh. 43, and that conceived
now as the original type, general form, pattern, norm, so Acts
vh. 44, xxiii. 25, Eom. vi. 17, Heb. vih. 5 ; now as fore-type,
either as a moral, so Phil. ih. 17, 1 Thess. i 7, 2 Thess. ih. 9,
1 Tim. iv. 12, Tit. ii. 7, 1 Pet. v. 3, or historical fore-type, so
1 Cor. x. 6, 11, and so here. The after-type, anti-type (dvrlrviros,
Heb. ix. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 21), here is Christ. ITw? tvtto?; asks
Chrysostom. on, he answers, wairep ixeivos rois e'£ auTou,

266 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
xalroiye py cpayovaw dirb rov IjvXov, yeyovev a'lnos Oavdrov rov
Bid rrjv )3/owcrtf elaaxOevros' oiirw xal b Xpiaros rois ilj airov,
xalroiye oi Bixaioirpayyaaai, yeyove irpoljevos Sixaioaivys (rather.
fow)?), rjv Sid rov aravpov iraaiv yp,iv ixaplaaro. Both, then, are
representative heads of mankind — one the representative head of
sin and death, the other of righteousness and life.
The exposition to fohow of the remainder of the section whl ,
make manifest how only the interpretation we have accepted as
the right one of vv. 12—14 renders possible an exposition of the
rest of the section at once precise and in perfect harmony with
the connection of the words. But we wish first of ah to describe
in its relations the apostle's general point of view in reference to
the sin found among mankind, as far as we are able and authorized -
to do this by the principles, already considered. Paul in the first
place draws a distinction between y dfiaprla and y irapaBaais.
The latter is the single act of transgressing God's positive law,
such as was done by Adam (ver. 14) ; the former, the sin of the
world conceived as a unity, as this was wrapped up objectively
in Adam's act (ver. 12), or subjectively dwells in the world
(ver. 13). Only the irapaBaais of Adam is to be regarded as sin
that is imputed, punished with death ; the dfiaprla rov xbapov is
so only in so far as it was included in this irapaBaais. Before
the revelation of the Mosaic vbfios there was no sin imputed,
punished with death, other than the irapaBaais of Adam, including
in itself the dfiaprla rov xoapov. Not the dpaprla rov xbapov,
but only the irapaBaais vbfiov stands in the same category with
the irapaBaais 'ASdp,, and as such is in and of itself imputable
and penal, just because it is not merely sin, but transgression of
the law. But, on the other hand, the deputy of the vbpos, which,
according to i. 19, 20, 32, h. 14, 15, the Gentiles possess in
their law of conscience, is sufficient to render them inexcusable;
so that, in connection with those declarations, the absolute dictum:
dfiaprla oix eXXoyeirai fiy ovros vbpov, must be reduced to a
relative import. That is, in comparison with the irapaBaais
'ASdp, and with the irapaBaais vbfiov, indeed the imputation, to
which the dfiaprla rov xbap,ov is subject, cannot come at aR into
account, seeing that it finds its primary and essential imputation
only in the irapaBaais of Adam. Nevertheless this very dpaprla,
as a violation of the natural law of conscience, is imputable
enough, i.e. is guilty and penal. "Sane unius lapsui," says

CHAP. V. 13, 14. 207
i| Bengel, "mors multorum assignatur immediate, ver. 15. Sic non
negater, cujusvis peccati stipendium esse mortem, sed ostenditur,
prhnariam mortis causam esse peccatum primum. Hoc nos
peremit: sicut latro post homicidium furatus punitur ob homi-
cidium, nee tamen impune furatus est, furti poena in poenam
homicidh confluente, sed ad homicidh poenam vix aestimata." If,
now, we wish to formulate still further for our dogmatic conscious
ness the Pauline doctrines which are to be connected in the way
indicated, we are, as matter of fact, naturaRy led to the old-
fashioned method of distinguishing between, as also of associating,
nature and person, genus and individual, or, more particularly,
between the generic whl and specific personal will, the latter of
which is to be regarded merely as the individuahy-determined
impression of the former, so that the latter is invariably involved
and imphed in the former. The universal generic wiR committed,
in Adam, the personal, conscious act of transgression against God's
1 positive law, and is accordingly subject to the penalty of death
assigned to this imputable act of transgression. The particular
individual; born afterwards, can of course have no recoRection of
this original act of transgression in which he was partaker, because
on his part this act was the act, not of a conscious person, but
merely of an unconscious genus. Nevertheless, that he did reaRy
and truly partake therein is proved by the fact that this act dweRs
in him from birth in the form of sinful propensity. For in this
habitus is manifested nothing else than that aversion of human
nature from God which took place in Adam. On this account
there also dweRs in the individual, along with the principle of
sin, the principle of death as the wages of sin. When the indi
vidual advances into the arena of mature consciousness and inde
pendent whl, he cannot, as matter of course, reverse the act of
determination once done in Adam, but, in keeping with the
primal sin committed once for all, goes on doing sin always.
This doing of sin is necessary, because it is merely the consequence
of the primal act ; yet it is also free, because the generic act of
determination done once for aR time is a free act. When, there
fore, the individual reproduces that generic sin in individual sinful
acts, he does so freely, because in this he merely repeats the
primal fact of apostasy, and continuahy determines himself person
ally in the same way in which he determined himself as a part of
the genus. In proportion, then, as the individual detaches him-

268 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
self, so to speak, from the basis of nature, and by his own act
makes the universal sin of nature his own, does he become
personaRy responsible for it, although, in consequence of the
darkness that has faRen upon moral and religious consciousness,
this appropriation and responsibhity appears merged in the
original act and original guht, and is only then fully complete,
when, face to face with God's law anew revealed, it anew takes
the form of a personal act of transgression.1
The apostle, having indicated rather than fuRy expanded the
paraRel between Adam and Christ, proceeds, vv. 1 5-1 7, first of all
to specify the points of difference which are found along with the
resemblance. Thus, before the parahel itself is drawn out in
detah, a hmitation in it is indicated. Bengel says weh : "Adamus
et Christus, secundum rationes contrarias, conveniunt, in positivo; ,
differunt, in comparative. Convenientiam Paulus primum, w.
12-14, innuit, protasi expressa, apodosi tantisper ad subaudien-
1 The Protestant Church had therefore adequate Scripture-ground, as well as suffi
cient dogmatic justification, for its doctrine of the imputatio peccati Adamitki ad
eulpam et poenam, and its consequence peccatum originate consisting in the habitus
peccandi and the reatus, of which this is the ground. It is one merit of Julius
Miiller's treatise (The Christian Doctrine of Sin), that it has decisively demonstrated
the untenableness of the modern mode of conception, according to which the natural
sinful tendency or moral disorder caused by the fact of sin in Adam's posterity is
regarded merely as innocent misfortune; so that in this matter all that is to be
imputed to them is free consent (vol. II. p. 307). On the contrary, it is a funda
mental element of Miiller's doctrine, — as thoroughly in accord with Scripture and
experience as it is far-reaching, — honourably distinguishing it from modern theories,
that the sinfulness of the individual present from the very time of birth is subject
to divine imputation, or constitutes a relation of guilt before the divine tribunal.
Nevertheless even Miiller holds fast to the rationalistic supposition of the absolute
dependence of guilt upon personal self-decision. In order to get rid of the con
tradiction connected with this, he takes refuge in the speculative hypothesis of an
extra-temporal state, and original fall of man as a personal being out of time (vol.
II. p. 357). But this mode of solution only serves, in our opinion, to bring clearly
out the necessity of giving up one or the other of the two contradictory premises;
as well as, if the former is to be maintained, of seeking a further understanding of
the mystery of original sin only in the way marked out by the church. As matter
of fact, the speculative attempt at reconciliation in question does not, as its author
supposes, merely begin beyond Scripture, but runs directly in its face, Scripture, as
this passage of the Romans shows, clearly representing the human race, not only
with respect to its physical and mental, but also with respect to its spiritual powers,
as wrapped up in Adam, seeing that sin, not merely as a corruption of body and
soul, but sin in general, — therefore, above all, as selfishness, as an apostasy of the
spirit from God, and rebellion of the will against His command, — is expressly traced
back to Adam's fall. Comp. the more thorough exposition of the doctrine of sin in
my Kirchlichen Glaubenslehre, III. pp. 1-217.

CHAP. V. 15. 269
dum rehcta. Deinde differentiam multo magis directe et expresse
describit." Ver. 15. AXX oix m? 7° Tapdirrwp,a, ovtw xal rb' x^PiCTP'a]
rb irapdirrwpta, from irapairlirrew, lapsus, the offence, irapdirrw/ia
is used of the lapsus Adami also Wisd. x. 1, as here. Hapdirrwpa
invariably denotes a definite sinful act, which, as in the case
before us, may at the same time be irapaBaais, comp. ver. 14, but
not necessarily so ; for the Genthes have irapairrwp,ara, Eph. i. 7,
ii. 1, but no irapaBdaeis vbfiov. To ^apter/ia, the gracious gift of
God, consisting in the imputation of the .righteousness of Christ
in justification, consequently = y Bwped in this verse ; rb Swpyfia,
ver. 16; y Swped rrjs Bixaioavvys, ver. 17. Therefore: But not
as the offence, so also the gift of grace. In the predicate, iarlv, is,
or e^et, stands, is to be supplied. We should now have expected
the apostle, over against the irapdtrrwp,a of Adam, to place the
Bixalwfia of Christ, ver. 18, not the x",Pl(TrM 0I" G^d- But the
form of expression is concise. On one side stands the irapdirrw/ia
of Adam, the xardxpifia of God upon mankind in consequence of
this irapdirrw/ia, and Odvaros in consequence of the xardxpip,a.
On the other side stands the Sixalwpia of Christ, the ^apto-//,a of
God in consequence of this Sixalwp,a, consisting in Sixalwais, in
the Bwped rrjs Bixaioavvys, and £<b^ alwvios in consequence of this
ftdpiapa. As the apostle then opposes x"-PicrlJ'a t° irapdirrwpa,
from the latter xardxpipia Oavdrov is, as matter of course,
supphed to irapdirrwp,a, just as x^Pl<rrLa a^s0 points to £g»7, its
consequence. The complete sentence would run : But it is not
with the transgression of Adam, which had God's judicial wrath
against mankind and death for its consequence, as with the
gracious gift of justification, depending on Christ's righteousness,
which has hfe for its consequence. But irapdirrw/ia and x^PtlT/ia
are emphasized and opposed merely in a preliminary way as the
chief conceptions upon which the chief stress is laid in the
exposition immediately foRowing.
— El ydp rco rov evbs irapairrcbfian ol iroXXol direOavov] This
passage confirms our interpretation of ver. 12; for the Odvaros
of the many is described here as the direct consequence of the
irapdirrwfia of the one, precisely because in this irapdirrwp,a the
dpaprla of the many, of which death is the wages, is directly
included. According to the other interpretation of ver. 12, the
connection of the transgression of the one with the death of the

270 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
many must be conceived as brought about by the sinful acts or
sinful tendencies of the many themselves, an idea of which there
is not a trace in the words before us. el, not = quandoquidem,
since, but the conditional particle si, if, usual in the hypothetical
syllogism, ol iroXXol, the many, as to extent not different from
irdvres dvOpwiroi, ver. 1 2. But the expression is selected in con
trast to els ; for in the abstract ah need not be many, ver. 19,
xii. 5 ; 1 Cor. x. 17 ; also Matt. xx. 28, xxvi 28, where hkewise
irdvres are described as iroXXol. "Possunt aliqua esse omnia,
quae non sunt multa," observes Augustine.
— iroXXw fiaXXov] A quantitative plus of intensive demon
stration of power can only occur here to a perplexed exegesis
that is unable in any other way to conceive a real differ
ence between the results issuing from Adam and from Christ,
while the higher degree of d priori evidence belonging to
one fact above another seems to constitute no real distinction
between the two facts. But the structure of the sentence leads
us, precisely as vv. 9, 10, 17, xi. 24, to think merely of the
logical plus of certainty. For the conditional inference, that if
(el) the one is, much more (iroXXw fiaXXov) the other is, simply
asserts that the existence of that other has a far higher degree of
certainty and evidence than the existence of the one. iroXXp
fiaXXov is therefore not = in how much greater a degree, but =
much more is it to be supposed, much less can it be doubted. Rightly,
Chrysostom : iroXXw yap rovro eiXoywrepov. For how should
not the issues of a divine act working salvation be far more
certain than the issues of a human act working ruin ?
— V X",Pi'! T°o @e°o Kal V Swped] As previously x"-Pl<TlMl> so
here %a/at? and Swped are opposed to irapdirrwfia. In this way
the %a/3to-/ia, the gift of grace, is merely divided into its two con
stituents, the grace (y X^P1^) ana^ the gift (y Swped). 'H %dpis
rov Oeov denotes, then, favor Dei, God's gracious disposition
towards men, from which, as from its fountain, flows y Swped.
But in this case the Swped itself, as is proved by the entirely
parallel statement ver. 17 (ot rrjv irepiaaelav rrjs ^ajptTo? xal rrjs
Swpeds rrjs Bixaioavvys Xap,Bdvovres), can only be the Swped t»}?
Bixaioavvys, the gift of justification, of which fwjj is only the
result, not the Swped rrjs ^wrjs itself.
— iv ^a/>iTt ry rov evos avOpwirov 'lyaov Xpiarov] As y
Swped = rb xdptapa naturally requires the supplement iv x^P171'

CHAP. V. 15. 271
it is the most obvious course to connect these words, actually
subjoined as they are, with y Swped, not with iireplaaevae. The
addition, naturally to be looked for, iv x<*Pin is then to be
regarded as an essentially constituent part of the substantive
idea, and is therefore connected without the article (instead of y
h>xthlTt) with the preceding substantive, comp. Winer, p. 155,
and Harless on Eph. i 15. ^apt? is then more precisely defined
as the grace of Jesus Christ. Hence- the subjoined article iv
Xapm rfj xtX., which unusual employment of the article (comp.
also i 18, ii 14) cannot weR be explained or supported if these
words be connected with iireplaaevae. The apostle describing
Xapts, which, according to what is said just before, we must have
been disposed to regard as the j^a/at? rov Oeov, as the x^P^
'Iyaov Xpiarov cannot surprise us, as there is in truth but one
grace of God, which is quite as much the grace of the Son as
the grace of the Father. Concerning the %a/o<? 'Iyaov Xpiarov,
comp. Acts xv. 11; 2 Cor. vih. 9 ; Gal. i 6; Tit. iii. 7. But
Paul says not simply y x^P^ 'Iycrov Xpiarov, but y X"-Pl<;
rov evbs avOpwirov 'Iyaov Xpiarov, in opposition to the
irapdirrwfia rov evbs. Doubtless, as dvOpwiros Christ is the
mediator, 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; but in so far as such He exercises %«/w>
He is this only as the dvOpwiros, who is at the same time the
vlbs Oeov, as OedvOpwiros? The apostle, as the beginning of this
verse shows, would oppose x°-Pl(7hia to irapdirrwpa. This he
now does, but in such a way that in the words y %a/»? . . .
Iyaov Xpiarov he resolves, paraphrases, and expands the notion
of ^apitr/ia, and then, instead of opposing to rw rov evbs
irapairrwfian ol iroXXol arteOavov a rw rov evbs xapur/juiTi ot
iroXXol %r]aovrai, speaks of the irepiaaeveiv of the ^apttr/ia.
This also shows that the connection of iv x^P171 K7>y- w^tn
Swjoea is correct, whereas the connection with iireplaaevae
1 "Libenter," says Bengel, " Jesnm Paulus (prae ceteris apostolus, qui eum ante
passionem viderunt) hominem appellat, in hoe negotio, 1 Cor. xv. 21 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5.
Quis humanam Christi naturam excludat ab officio mediatorio ? Paulus hoc versu, ubi
nomen hominis Christo tribuit, Adamo non tribuit : et ver. 19, ubi Adamo tribuit,
Christo non tribuit. Scilicet non eodem tempore hwmanitatem et Adamus sustinet
et Christus : et aut Adam nomine hominis indignum se fecit ; aut nomen hominis
vix satis dignum est Christo. Porro denominari solet Christus ab humana natura,
ubi agitur de hominibus ad Deum adducendis, Heb. ii. 6 sqq., a divina vero, ubi
agitur de adventu Salvatoris ad nos, et de praesidio, quod ipse nobis praestat
adversus hostes, Tit. ii. 13. "

272 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
needlessly perplexes the order of thought, since rw rov evos
irapairrcoptan has then a double opposition, first, y x&pix tow
Oeov xal y Swped = rb x&picrp-a, and next, iv X"-Pin 7V K7^-
— et? tou? iroXXovs iireplaaevae] The iroXXol are irdvres
SiKaiwOyabp,evoi, vv. 18, 19, who are described as many, in
opposition to the els dvOpwiros. The aorist iireplaaevae refers,
not so much to the subjective and actual participation of the
iroXXol in the x^P1^ ano- ^wPe^> as to the objective and actual
existence of this x^P1^ an<^ Swped for the iroXXol. Hepiaaevei ri
et? rwa has not so much a comparative as a superlative import,
iii. 7 = something comes to one most abundantly, something falls
to one's lot beyond measure (irepiaaov, abundanter, largissime, in
most abundant degree). The difference, then, in the results of
Adam's and Christ's Rfe lies in the superabundance (the emphasis
rests on iireplaaevae) of the results of the latter, and indeed this
superabundance is set forth as an. evident and natural fact
(iroXXcfi pBXXov). And this is the more evident as it is grounded
in the grace of God and Christ, which, if manifested at all, can
only be manifested superabundantly.
Ver. 16 introduces a further point of difference. As the one
sin of Adam brings us condemnation, so through the righteous
ness of Christ, imparted to us in the way of gift, we are absolved
not merely from the one sin of Adam, but also from the many
sins which we ourselves have added. Kal oix w<> ^ *"°s
dpapryaavros, rb Bwpypa] Some modern expositors expunge the
comma after dfiaprrjaavros, and make Bwpypta the exclusive sub
ject of the sentence, only supplying after it the copula iarlv =
and not as through one who sinned is the free gift, i.e. it is not
as if it were occasioned only through one sinner, rather is it
bestowed on occasion of many trespasses. But the similarity
with the beginning of the 1 5th verse suggests the necessity of a
hke construction here. The most simple mode of supplement
would then be : xal oix <*)? ^'' ^0? dpapryaavros iyevero, ro
Swpypod ian. The expression is, no doubt, very concise, but it is
explained by the fact that above aR special prominence was to
be given to the eh dfiapryaas, on whom in what fohows every
thing turned, in opposition to the iroXXol dpLapryaavres, or rather
to their iroXXd irapairrwpara. On this account it is perhaps
superfluous, in antithesis to to Bwpypa, to supply either, as is
indicated by what foRows, rb xardxpipta, or provisionaRy with

CHAP. V. 16. 273
still less definiteness rb irdOypa, as the subject of the first
clause = xai oix ™? ^*' *y(>? dfiapryaavros rb xardxpifia (rb
irdOypa) iyevero, rb Swpy/id iarw. Similarly Luther, who
renders in paraphrastic form : " And the gift is not only con
cerning one _ sin (xal oi rb Bwpypa virep evbs dfiapryp,aros,
namely, in order to obhterate only this one dpdprypia), as
through the one sin of the one sinner aR the ruin " (cbs Si evbs
apapryparos, since he read, on the critical authority of the
Vulgate, irdv to irdOypia or KaraKpipia). But the reading
apapryparos, not sufficiently authenticated, instead of dfiapry
aavros, is plainly to be treated as a mere correction to remove
a difficulty. — to pkv ydp xplfia ef evbs eh KaraKpifia] sc. iyevero. For
the judgment was from one unto condemnation. to xplp,a is of
itself a neutral idea. The result of the xplfia may as readhy be
acquittal as condemnation, accordingly as a righteous or un
righteous man is submitted to the divine judgment. Here, then,
xplpa becomes KaraKpifia, the judicial sentence becomes a
sentence of condemnation, the judgment a penal judgment. This
is the most simple and natural interpretation of xplpa in the con
nection, and in relation to xardxpipa. i!j evbs, sc. dfiapryaavros, or
even avOpwirov, vv, 12, 15, 17, 19. evbs cannot be neuter, be
cause in what precedes we read dfiapryaavros, not dfiapry/iaros;
and the reference forward to rrapairrwfidrwv = e£ evbs irapair-
rwparos, instead of the reference backward to dpapryaavros,
is arbitrary. The sense remains substantiaRy the same, whether
I say the sentence of condemnation came through one sinner or
through one sin ; for even in the first case the one sin of the one
sinner is meant. Here, as throughout this section, the gaze of the
apostle is fixed on the el?, and when he speaks of his irapdirrwpa
he cahs it irapdirrwfia rov evbs, not ev irapdirrwpa. But even
here the chief stress rests upon evbs, as in evbs dpuipryaavros; for
in addition to this no emphasis is meant to be placed on xplpa
and xdptapta, xardxpipoa and BiKalwp,a, as points of difference.
These indeed are real contrasts, and perhaps the intention is to
intimate that it is not accidental that the free grace, from which
issued the x^PlaPja> nas a widvr circle of operation than the
justice which passed the xplpa. But it is perfectly self-evident,
and therefore need not be instanced as a special point of
difference, that if Adam and Christ are ever brought into
Phiiippi, Rom. I. s

274 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
comparison, from the one issued Kpipa et? KaraKpifia, from the
other xaPt<TH'a e'? Sixalwpa. ilj, from, aRied to, but not identical
with Sta, stands for the source or cause from which something
proceeds, comp. Winer, p. 460. The xaraKpipa is completed in
Odvaros, and extends et? rovs iroXXovs, as foRows necessarily
from the ideas developed in vv. 12-15.
— rb Se xapiafia ix iroXXwv irapairrw/idrwv els Sixalw/ia] sc.
iyevero. But the gift of grace was from many offences unto sentence
of justification, ex stands here also for the active occasion, inas
much as the many sins are conceived as invoking the divine
compassion to pass sentence of absolution, just as there the
one sinner is conceived as invoking the divine justice to pass
sentence of condemnation. iroXXd irapairrcbfiara are the actual
sins of individuals. Here, then, merely the els dpapryaas, or the
irapdirrwpa of Adam, and the iroXXd irapairrwpara are brought
into contrast. The dpaprla included in the irapdirrwfia of Adam,
and inherent in the individual as habitus peccandi, is not specially
emphasized, though of course it is the principle and source of the
particular irapairrwpara. Aixalwpa is not to be identified with
Sixalwp,a in ver. 18, which latter as Christ's satisfaction of the
law stands in contrast with the irapdirrwfia of Adam. Here, on
the other hand, Sixalwpa forms the opposite of xdrdxpifia. One
might even explain the form of the word merely from this
opposition, so that Sixalwp,a, the termination denoting product or
state being chosen for the sake of resemblance to xardxpipa, is
equivalent to BiKalwais. Sthl a difference of meaning may be
supposed, which at the same time makes the substantive opposi
tion stih more precise. Sixalwpa signifies, i. 32, the ordinance;
but here, derived from Sixaiovv in the specific Pauline sense,
the ordinance by which an unrighteous man is declared righteous.
Thus Sixalwais is the act of justification ; Sixalw/ia, on the other
hand, the sentence of justification, the decretum absolventis, and in
this way Sixalwpa, the sententia absolutoria, stands in appro
priate contrast with xardxpipa, the sententia damnatoria, not
only as to form, but also as to meaning. Comp. Bar. ii 17 :
Bwaovai Sbljav xal Sixalwpa tw xvpiw, also Ecclus. xxxv. 16.
Whereas, then, ver. 15 depicts the intensive, this verse depicts
the extensive superabundance of grace, Christ having repahed not
merely the loss inflicted by Adam, but also that which we added to-
it. " Gratia," observes Melanchthon on this verse, "abolet multa

CHAP. V. 17. 275
peccata, scihcet originale et actuaha, radicem et fructus." So
Augustine early: "quia non solum illud unum solvit, quod
originahter trahitur, sed etiam quae in unoquoque homine motu
propriae voluntatis adduntur."
Ver. 17. On ver. 15 the thought naturally suggested itself
that the future Rfe of the many who receive the irepiaaeia of
%apt? and of the Swped iv ^aptTt, is far more certain than the
death of the many through the transgression of one. This
thought now finds expression ver. 17, the verse thus containing
indeed a supplement or inference, but in no sense a confirmation
or exposition of ver. 15. The ydp by which ver. 17 is intro
duced can accordingly only confirm the purport of ver. 16. Were
it intended to confirm ver. 15, then ver. 16 must be regarded as
a parenthesis, a view which seems altogether arbitrary. Ver. 16
affirms that the gift of grace makes reparation not merely for Adam's
sin, but also for the many transgressions of his posterity. This
is corroborated by the fact of the indisputable certainty that they
who obtain the superabundant fulness of grace will one day reign
in hfe. And, in fact, had Christ made satisfaction merely for the
irapdirrwpa of Adam, and not also for the many irapairrcbputra of
his posterity, neither would the grace bestowed on them have
been called superabundant, nor could their reign in life have
been regarded as assured, since that reign would have been sthl
dependent on theh own satisfaction for their iroXXd irapairrw
para. The intensive abundance of grace, and the certainty of
hfe springing therefrom (ver. 17), are thus without doubt the
ground of the extensive aR-sufficiency of this grace (ver. 16).
El ydp rw rov evbs irapairrwpara o Odvaros iBaaiXevae Sid
rov evbs] answers to et ydp rw rov evbs irapairrwfian oi
iroXXol direOavov, ver. 15. The reading is uncertain. Passing
by Origen and an unimportant codex having iv evbs irapairrwp,an,
as weR as the simple rw irapairrwpan, which is the reading of
another unimportant codex, the reading iv evl irapairrwpan, re
commended by Griesbach, has considerable, the reading iv rm evl
irapairrwpan not inconsiderable attestation. But such attestation
is not wanting to the lectio recepta. Both the variants worthy of
notice, iv evl and iv ra> evl irapairrwpM.n, are now, indeed, to be
looked on as corrections ; first, because they occur, for the most
part, in the same codices which, reading in ver. 1 6 dfiaprypoaros for
dpapryaavros, took evbs there as neuter, and must thus have been

276 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
disposed to substitute, ver. 17, ev irapdirrwfia for irapdirrwpa
rov evbs ; secondly, because this disposition must have been
strengthened by the apparently tautological repetition of Sid rov
evbs. A positive evidence for the recepta is the correspondence
with ver. 15, the reference to that verse in general in the present
verse being unmistakeable. Instead of ol iroXXol direOavov, the
apostle says here : d Odvaros iBaaiXevae, chiefly by this expres
sion to prepare the way for the foRowing iv £arfj BaaiXevaovat ;
for it behoves him here, in harmony with the strain of thought
indicated, to make prominent that certainty of the abundance of
life and reign in hfe which confirms the certainty of the atone
ment made for the iroXXd irapairrcbfiara, ver.- 16. For the same
reason also in Std tov evbs the els is repeatedly and expressively
emphasized, Sid rov evbs 'Iyaov Xpiarov being meant for this
purpose to form a striking contrast, as the certainty of the reign
in life depends on this very fact, that the eh who is its Mediator
is Jesus Christ.1 As to3 tov evbs irapairrwfian, in the beginning
of this verse, runs parahel with rw rov evbs irapairrwpan, ver.
15, so Sta rov evbs answers to Si evbs dpapryaavros and e'£
evbs, ver. 1 6. But the repetition of ot iroXXol was of no moment
here. — iroXXw paXXov] as in ver. 15, not the quantitative plus, but
the logical much more of inference to . denote greater force of
evidence. — ol ryv irepiaaelav rrjs ^a/3tTo? xal rrjs Swpeds rrjs Bixaioavvrjs
XafiBdvovres] The irepiaaeia, the abundance, the exuberant great
ness, 2 Cor. vih. 2, resumes iireplaaevae, vex. 15, %apt? and Swped
being distinguished from each other here as there ; but Swped is
expressly described with reference to Sixalwfia, ver. 16, as Scoped
rys Bixaioavvys (genit. apposit.). ol XafiBdvovres might, as the
participium praesentis with the article often is, be used substan-
tivaRy, so that, converted into a noun, it excludes all definition
of time (= the recipients), comp. Winer, p. 444, and the examples
there quoted. But it is best to preserve its participial and
present force, the reception of grace, the objective existence of
which was spoken of ver. 1 5, being thus described as continuing
in time. " Accipere (Xa/iBdveiv)," says Bengel, " potest vel
1 Similar emphatic repetitions are found also Matt. xxvi. 24 : S avlpwros ixiivos ;
2 Cor. xii. 7 : Ivx pori iiKspxtpcopoxi ; Eph. vi. 19, 20 : h otalpnoix . . . Iva iv alru
9ruhpr,ffiatrojf&att

CHAP. V. 17. 277
tanquam neutro-passivum reddi empfangen, erlangen, kriegen, vel
active annehmen. IRud potius. Relatio tamen ad Swpedv, donum,
cum actu sumendi melius convenit. In justificatione homo agit
aliquid : sed non justificat actus sumendi, quatenus est actus ;
sed hlud quod sumitur sive apprehenditur."
— eV %wij fSaaiXevaovat] Manifestly to be understood of future
fay alwvios, in which alone the BaaiXeveiv takes place. Hence
the future. But the apostle says not : y ^wrj /3ao-t\euo-et eVi
rovs . . . Xap,f3dvovras, in correspondence with d Odvaros iBaai
Xevae, but ol . . . XafiBdvovres iv tyofj BaaiXevaovai, because the
sinner is in subjection to death as to a foreign power lording it
over him with despotic sway, whereas the justified man, as one
dehvered from the power of death, is himself raised to exercise
dominion as a king in hfe. As to this BaaiXeveiv of behevers
in eternal life, which is a avyxXypovofieiv, a avvSoijd^eaOai, and
a avfiBaaiXeveiv aiv t&> Xpiarw, comp. viii 17; 1 Cor. iv. 8,
vi 2, 3 ; 2 Tim. h. 12 j Rev. xx. 4, xxii. 5.
— Bui rod evbs 'Iyaov Xpiarov] " In uno hoc versu," observes
Bengel on ver. 14, "ponitur nomen individui 'ASdp,, in caeteris
nomen appeRativum, homo. Nomen autem Jesu Christi, Adami
nomine obhvioni tradito, clare praedicatur," w. 15, 17. If we
briefly summarize the dogmatic elements in which the super
abundance of the grace and gift of Christ is manifested, we shall
put it thus : Adam possessed a finite righteousness and con
ditional promise of eternal life ; Christ brought an infinite
righteousness and the free gift of eternal life itself. Adam com
mitted one sin, and in virtue of this incurred the penalty of
death ; Christ atoned for many sins, and not merely abolished
death, but planted hfe in its stead.
The apostle had not yet exphcitly drawn out the parahel
between Adam and Christ, but now does it, vv. 18, 19. It was
indeed, as to its essential substance, already contained in the pro
tasis, ver. 12, taken along with o? ian TU7ro? rov fieXXovros, ver.
14. Wherefore, even in the hmitation of the parahel which the
glory and exuberance of God's grace in Christ, filling his soul,
compelled him to put first, in order clearly to set forth how much
greater is the gain through Christ than the loss through Adam,
—even in this Paul could take for granted the substance of
the parallel itself, as in w. 15-17 we have on one side the
irapdirrwfia, xardxpipa, and Odvaros ; on the other side, the eh

278 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
dvOpwiros 'Iyaovs Xpiaros, Sixalwais, and ^wy. Sthl he must
perforce draw out at length and set forth in due form the
parallel itself on which, in the whole exposition , before us, he
laid emphatic stress. Hence after the incidental limitation he
turns back to the beginning of his description, and now brings
forward in their complete mutual relations all the ideal elements
that come into view in the comparison between Adam and Christ.
Ver. 18. "A pa ovv] Accordingly then. Paul places these
particles of inference, in very frequent use with him, contrary to
classical usage at the beginning of the sentence, vh. 3, 25,
vhi. 12, ix. 16, 18, xiv. 12, 19, etc. It serves often as here,
e.g. vh. 25, to introduce a summary conclusion of the preceding
exposition; for the substance of the summary recapitulation
results as an inference from the contents of the detailed state
ment going before. Here, as remarked, the exposition, to which
the resumptive inference refers, is partly introduced and indicated
vv. 12-14, partly contained in the form of the presupposition
vv. 15-17.
— Si evbs irapairrmparos] That evbs, both here and in the
fohowing St' evbs Sixaiwfiaros, is to be taken as masculine, not
neuter, fohows, apart from the contrast in which it stands with
et? irdvras dvOpwirovs, from the fact that throughout the ex
position, vv. 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, it is always used in the mas
culine. The apostle was under no necessity to write : Bid rov
irapairrwp,aros rov evbs. Rather here, where he begins the
matter as it were afresh, the omission of the article is quite
appropriate. So ver. 12 we read St' evbs avOpwirov, and then
ver. 15 toO evbs, because this els was already named and familiar.
Just so ver. 16, where again a new element is introduced, evbst
but ver. 17 tou evbs. Just so here, ver. 18, evbs, and ver. 19,
rov evos.
— et? xardxpipa] sc. Qavdrov, as after ver. 12 ff. is understood
as matter of course. Comp. farfs expressly added to the following
Sixalwaw. But the immediate connection in which, even as to
outward phraseology, the irapdirrwfia of Adam is placed with
the xardxpifia Qavdrov of all men, intimates that this immediate
connection obtains also as to actual fact, and that we have no
authority to supplement or rather alter the apostle's meaning by
any alien combination of thought. He says nothing but this,
and this he does say expressly and exclusively, that through

CHAP. V. 18. 279
Adam's transgression God's sentence of condemnation, which in
death is carried into effect, came upon all men.
— ovrw xal Bi evbs Sixaiw/iaros] Sixalwpa here stands in
opposition to irapdirrwfia. It must therefore receive a sense in
harmony with this contrast. Consequently it means neither, as
in i. 32, h. 26, ordinance, statute, nor yet, as in v. 16, sentence of
justification ; but, as in Bar. h. 1 9, Rev. xix. 8, fulfilment of right,
righteous act. The explanation quoted .from Aristotle, Ethic.
Nicom. v. 10: Sixalw/ia Se ro iiravopQw/ia rov dSixrjfiaros,
reparation for an unjust ad, would indeed be strikingly appro
priate in the connection, but it cannot be supported by biblical
idiom. Aristotle probably does not mean reparation by means of
a just action (i.e. by means of Sixaioirpdyyfid), but in keeping
with the classical use of Sixaiovv = to punish, to chastise, probably
takes Sixalwfia in the sense of punishment as reparation for an
unjust action. As Adam's irapdirrw/ia is a transgression of law,
so Christ's Bixalwfia is & fulfilment of right or of law. As the
one sufficed for the condemnation, so the other suffices for the
justification, for the absolution of mankind. Christ's recte factum
(Bixaiwpa) is thus in very deed a satisfadio, and, in truth, as both
the previous exposition and the present strain of thought evince,
a satisfadio vicaria. But as Adam's irapdirrwpa, so also Christ's
Bixaiwpa is to be taken as a particular definite action. The latter
is the death of Christ, upon which the apostle has hitherto ex
clusively based our reconciliation and justification. Accordingly
the death of Christ has a twofold relation. It is quite as much a
fulfilment of law as a bearing of penalty, — the former principally
as an act of spontaneous surrender, John x. 17, 18 ; the latter, as
endurance of the curse of the law, Gal. ih. 13. The foRowing
verse shows that, as the result, the crowning point of His obedience,
which was tested and proved through the whole of His life, is
itself iiraxoy. In this obedience Christ gave Himself up to the
wih of the Father, John iv. 34, etc., and so perfected the voluntary
suffering of His death. Thus in the expressions Sixalwpa and
viraxoy is, without doubt, given the groundwork for the dogma of
obedientia activa, whhe the old dictum is justified: actio ejus fuit
passiva et passio fuit activa. The death of Christ being not only
xardpa but also Bixalwfia, the Sixalwais based upon it is not
merely a negative removal of guilt, forgiveness of sins, but
also a positive declaring jud, since the justified are not merely

280 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
regarded as if they had done no sin, but as if they had fulfilled
the law.1
— et? irdvras dvOpwirovs] in parahel opposition to the pre
ceding et? irdvras dvOpwirovs. Sthl there foRows here as matter
of course the qualification, that by irdvres dvQpcoiroi are only
meant all that believe. The doctrine of universal restoration
contradicts not merely the doctrine of Scripture elsewhere, but
also other explicit statements of the apostle himself, Phil. iii. 19 ;
2 Thess. i. 9. Paul here has in view on one side the race of
those lost in Adam, on the other side the race of those saved in
Christ. There are irdvres dvOpwiroi xaraxexpifievoi, here irdvres
dvQpwiroi SixaiwOyabpievoi. Both are ot iroXXol, in opposition to
the et?. Those who remain in the Adamitic state of ruin he does
not take into account. Before his spiritual vision there rises
only the antithesis of Adamitic and Christian humanity. See an
exactly simhar limited use of irdvres, 1 Cor. xv. 2 2 ; comp. also Rom.
xi 32 ; 2 Cor. v. 15, as weh as the exphcitly stated limitation,
Gal. ih. 22 ; 2 Thess. hi. 2. The remark of Thomas Aquinas is
so far right : " quamvis possit dici, quod justificatio Christi (= to
evbs Sixalwp,a) transit in justificationem (= et? Bixalwaiv) omniuni
hominum, quantum ad sufftcientiam, hcet quantum ad efftcientiam
procedit in solos fideles." Sthl what is meant here is not merely
the possibhity or offer, but the real experience of justification.
— et? Bixalwaiv £wrjs] unto justification of life = justification
unto hfe, i.e. which carries life with it, makes partaker of hfe
(namely, of fro?) alwvios). ^wys may be taken as genitivus effectus
or qualitatis. Winer, p. 235, classes it with genitives of "inner
reference of a remoter kind." " Sixalwais &»»)?," remarks Bengel,
" est declaratio divina iha, qua peccator, mortis reus, vitae adjudi-
catur, idque jure." To the first clause an direBy, res cessit, dbiit
in, is to be supphed ; to the second, as ver. 1 9 indicates, an
diroBalvei, or rather diroByaerai. So, rightly, Winer, p. 734.
If the second time we supply an direBy or iyevero, the apostle
would contemplate the act sthl continuing in time as already
completed. 1 Upon the history of the development of the dogma of Christ's active obedience
in the Lutheran Church, comp. de obedientia Christi activa historiam et progressiones
inde a confessione Augustana adformulam usque concordiae enarravit, Thomasius,
Erlangae 1846. On the dogma itself, comp. my Thdtigen Gehorsam Christi and my
Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, IV. 2.

CHAP. V. 19. 281
Ver. 1 9 contains the confirmation (ydp) of ver. 1 8. dpoaprwXol
xareardOyaav] The radical meaning of xaOiardvai is sistere, con-
stituere, to set down, constitute, Acts vh. 10, 27, etc. (From the
meaning, to set down, bring down, comes the meaning, to conduct,
Acts xvh. 15.) In the passive : constitui, to be put down, set down,
constituted, Heb. v. 1, viii. 3, Jas. iii. 6, iv. 4, 2 Pet. i 8 form
no exceptions to this. At least in N. T. idiom the meaning of
KaOlary/ii never passes into that of. reddere, facere; passive,
reddi, fieri. Accordingly in this passage we can do nothing
but abide by the only radical meaning of any authority, and
dpaprwXol xareardOyaav is = were set down as sinners, were put
into the category of sinners.
— Blxaioi xaraaraOyaovrai] = shall be set down as righteous,
shall be put into the category of righteous. If, then, the latter takes
place, as the whole tenor of the Pauhne doctrine of justification
has shown us, through imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
the former must be conceived as having taken place, if the
parallelism of thought is to be preserved, as also in harmony
with the interpretation of icp' a> irdvres yjiaprov, ver. 12, ac
cepted by us as correct, through imputation of the sin of Adam.
" Habemus ergo hic," says Calov, " justitiam et obedientiam Christi,
quae imputatur nobis in justificatione nostra, in judicio divino
per fidem, vel cum fide apprehenditur, quemadmodum inobedientia
Adami imputata est posteris ejus. Ut enim hi peccatores con-
stituti sunt imputatione inobedientiae Adami, sic justi nos con-
stituimur imputatione obedientiae vel justitiae Christi." 1 The
future (xaraaraOyaovrai) is used, as in ih. 20, because justifi
cation is to be conceived as an act not yet come to an end, but
continuing in the future. It does not refer, then, to the future
revelation of glory after the resurrection. Not then for the first
time shall they be put into the category of the righteous.
— ol iroXXol] in compass = irdvres, is placed in both clauses
1 The passage quoted by Bengel from Thorn. Gataker. Diss, de novi instr. stylo,
c. 8, is worthy of note : " Aliud estjustum constitui, etiam ubi de imputatione sermo
habetur, aliud justificari: cum illud justificationis fundus et fundamentum existat,
et justificationem veram, cui substernitur, necessario praecedat, Justus enim quis
existat, prius necesse est, quam possit vere justificari. Utrumque autem a Christo
habemus : nam et satisfactionis Christi meritum homini ex se injusto imputatum,
justum eundem jam constituit, quum justitiam ei conciliet, qua Justus sit; et
justitiae hujus virtute, quae merito illo comparatur, justificatur necessario, ubi id
opus fuerit : h. e. jure merito absolvitur, qui hac ratione Justus exstat." -

282 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
at the end with emphasis. Thus : " through the transgression of
one it has come upon all men unto condemnation (ver. 1 8), be
cause through the disobedience of the one they have aR been put
into the category of sinners (ver. 19), and through the fulfilment
of right of one it shah come upon ah men unto justification
leading to life (ver. 18), because through the obedience of the
one they shall aR be put into the category of righteous (ver. 19)."
Moreover, from the entire strain of Pauline teaching, such as we
have hitherto listened to, the distinction fohows that the sin of
mankind, wrapped up objectively in Adam, at the same time
inheres subjectively in mankind, whereas the righteousness of the
justified through faith remains objectively wrapped up in Christ.
(Comp. Calvin's remark on ver. 17 of this chapter.) But this
distinction, though not denied (comp. vv. 13, 14, 20, 21, whera
the irapdirrwfia of Adam is expressly conceived as inhering in
mankind in the form of dpaprla), is not expressly noted in the
parallel itself, because in it only the point in common is placed
in contrast, namely, the objective inclusion in Adam of sin bringing
death, and in Christ of righteousness bringing life. Moreover,
the hmitation of the parallel does not specially bring out this
difference, because its only purpose is to set in clear rehef the
exuberant abundance of grace in relation to the greatness of sin
and ruin.
The apostle knows then, as we have seen, but one economy of
sin and death, and one economy of righteousness and life. The
head and mediator of one is Adam, the head and mediator of
the other Christ. The question is now asked, Wherefore served
the economy of law that intervened as a form of divine revelation
between the period of sin and that of grace ? This question, in
conclusion, is answered, Not at aR to bring righteousness and life,
and so take the place of Christ, but to aggravate sin and death,
and so complete the work of Adam, was the law given, ver. 20.
By this means grace found occasion to manifest itself in super
abundant fulness, ver. 20, so that the divine purpose to make
grace reign unto hfe, where before sin reigned in death, was stih
accomphshed, ver. 21. Without doubt, this supplementary re
mark concerning the purpose of the law was necessary to the
completeness of the argument, especially in an epistle the ever-
recurring refrain of which may be described as this : the law is
nowise the mediator of grace, of righteousness, and life.

CHAP. V. 20. 283
Ver. 20. Nbfios Be irapeiarjXOev] The foRowing explanations
of irapeiarjXOev we must reject as idiomatically indefensible : —
(1) It came in between (Adam and Christ). (2) irpbs xaipbv,
obiter, ad tempus intravit. (3) Intravit, adesse coepit = eiayXOev,
in which case the preposition irapd is left altogether out of sight.
Demonstrable (Gal. ii. 4 ; 2 Pet. h. 1 ; also 2 Mace. viii. 1 :
irapeiairopevopievoi XeXyObrws), although not tenable in the
present passage, is the rendering of the Vulgate: subintravit
= clam irrepsit ; for the notion of the law stealthily creeping
in is opposed to the solemnity and pubheity of its promulgation
(Ex. xix. 16 ff. ; Gal. iii. 19), to the esteem and reverence
that Paul manifests for it (Rom. vii. 12 ff.), as well as to its
wise divine purpose as stated in this passage. The meaning
praeterea intravit, insuper introiit, or ingressa est lex, it came in
or into the world besides (i.e. beside dfiaprla, which, according to
ver. 12, had already entered), yields a paraRelism between the
vbpos and dfiaprla not altogether pertinent. In this case, too,
one would rather have expected irpbs (comp. irpoaereQy, Gal. ih.
19, according to the led. recept.) or iirl as a designation of what
is added to something already existing, instead of irapd. There
remains, accordingly, nothing but the rendering : to come in by the
side of, by the way, by which the law is described as a subordinate,
accessory institution.1 Alongside the chief economy of sin
(eiayXOev y dpaprla, ver. 12) ran the secondary economy of law
(irapeiarjXOev b vbfios), modifying it, not in a specific, but only in
a gradual way, since it did not, like Christ, abolish, but only,
whhe preserving its essential character, enhance it. Rightly
therefore Luther : but the law came in by the way.
— iva irXeovday rb irapdirrwfia] that the offence might be in
creased or swell beyond measure. The conjunction 'Iva is to be
taken reXixws (see on iii. 19), not ixBanxws. The increase of
the irapdirrwpa as the result of the law must have been expressed
by the words : vbfiov Be irapeiaeXObvros iirXeovaae ro rrapairrwpa.
But if 'iva be taken as a particle oi purpose, it is arbitrary to supply
.to 'iva irXeovday to irapdirrwpa : " in the eyes, in the conscious-
1 Least of all may we render, with Mehring : " The law entered in opposition thereto,
or appeared in opposition thereto." Apart from the doubt raised as to idiom, "»*
¦aXiovi^ ri xapixrapoa forbids this. The apostle would scarcely have expressed a
psychologically true proposition in the form of a logical contradiction ("the law
appeared in opposition to sin for the purpose of enhancing it ").

284 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
ness of men ; " for Paul did not write : 'iva irXeovday y iirlyvacis
rrjs dfiaprlas. Then, too, in what follows, the iirepirepiaaeveiv of
, %a/at? must likewise be conceived as taking place in the acknow
ledgment of men, clearly in opposition to the apostle's meaning
(comp. also vi. 1). According to Paul's teaching, therefore, it
was reahy the design of the law to multiply sin, just as it is said,
Gal. ih. 19, that the law was given tow irapaBdaewv xdPl,v> *¦«¦
ut transgressiones fierent, and, 1 Cor. xv. 5 6, the law is called y
Svvapis rrjs dpaprlas. On the very ground that it leads to
irapaBaais it works bpyrjv (Rom. iv. 15). But, of course, the
increase of sin by the law is only to be regarded as a mediate
purpose of God, for the final purpose is, by increasing to force sin
from within outwards, and leave it without concealment, and so
work the knowledge of sin. Sid yap vbfiov irriyvwais dpaprlas,
Rom. hi. 20. How the enhancement of sin brings about the'
knowledge of sin, Rom. vii. 7 ff. describes. Here, then, the sub
ject is not the final purpose in view, but only the mediate pur
pose, because the chief point was to insist that the law was nowise
a medium of righteousness, but only a means of enhancing un
righteousness. Accordingly the emphasis lies on irXeovday. Comp.
Augustine, Enarratio in Ps. ch. c. 1 5 : " Hoc est in lege magnum
mysterium, ideo earn datam, ut crescente peccato, humiliarentur
superbi, humiliati confiterentur, confessi sanarentur. — Non cru-
deliter hoc fecit Deus, sed consilio medicinae. Ahquando enim
videtur sibi homo sanus et aegrotat : et in eo quod aegrotat et
non sentit, medicum non quaerit : augetur morbus, crescit molestia,
quaeritur medicus, et totum sanatur." to irapdirrwpa is never
the sinful habit, the power of the sinful principle, but always the
sinful deed. Moreover, it never, hke y dfiaprla, stands abstractly
or collectively, just as little as the synonymous dp,dprypa, but
always refers to the concrete case only, to the definite particular
sin of an individual. So therefore here, to irapdirrwpa is the
trespass of Adam, — a meaning which, even if another were idio
matically possible, must stih be maintained, because in this entire
section (vv. 15, 17, 18) irapdirrwpa invariably has this definite
reference. Until the vbpos there was only Adam's irapdirrwpa;
the law was given to multiply this irapdirrwp,a. But the irapdir
rwpa of Adam can only be multiplied by the law in so far as in
the form of dpaprla it inheres subjectively in mankind, on which
account directly afterwards y dpaprla is used in the place of ro

CHAP. V. 20. 285
irapdirrwpa. Our verse then supphes a new proof of the correct
ness of our view of the exposition contained in vv. 12-19. TrX-eo-
vcdjew = irXiov yiyveaOai or elvai, to become or be more, augeri,
multiplicari, dbundare, used of extensive or intensive abundance
(2 Cor. iv. 15, viii. 15 ; Phil. iv. 17 ; 1 Thess. iii. 12 ; 2 Thess. i 3 ;
2 Pet. i. 8). Here in the latter meaning, as the contrast of
virepirepiaaevew, ver. 20, irXeovd^eiv, vi. 1, indicates. The irapdir
rwpa or the dpaprla implied in it was intensively aggravated by
the 'law, inasmuch as from simple dpaprla it became irapaBaais
vbpov. Luther : " in order that sin might become more abundant."
— oi Be iirXeovaaev y dpaprla, virepeireplaaevaev y X^,Pt's"\ ^ne
apostle does not begin this sentence with iva. We have there
fore no reason to suppose that he regards the superabounding of
grace as the final purpose of the enhancement of sin by the law.
Rather one took place merely on occasion of the other. The aorist
¦ (virepeireplaaevaev) might be taken, as serving often in Greek to
denote a. general result of experience, in the sense of what is
usual. Comp. Kiihner, Ausf. Gr. d. Gr. Spr. II. p. 76. We
should then have a general proposition, from which, in order to
restore the thread of thought, we must sthl deduce the particular
historical concrete case (where sin has abounded, there grace is
wont to abound sthl more exceedingly, as took place in this case,
etc.). Otherwise the foRowing 'iva would be left without adequate
point of connection ; for to regard the general proposition as a
parenthesis, and make the second statement of purpose: 'iva wairep
iBaa'iXevaev xrX., depend on the first : 'iva irXeovday rb irapdirrwpa,
whl not do, because the purpose, that as sin reigned in death, grace
should reign unto life, was not accomphshed only by the increase
of sin through the law, as of course this purpose might be accom
plished without this, ver. 17, and in the sphere of the Gentile
world, which had not the law, must have been so accomphshed,
It appears preferable, then, — no certain instance of this use of
the aorist, moreover, being forthcoming elsewhere in the N. T.,
comp. Winer, p. 346, — to refer oi Se iirXeovaaev . . . y %ajot? in
this passage at once and directly to the particular historical
concrete case, or to take it as a pure historical allusion. Then
we might regard oi as an adverb of time = lire, iireiSfj, when,
answering to the Latin ubi, as this temporal sense actually occurs
in the combination dcp' oi, ilj oi : " but when sin increased, grace
waxed exceedingly abundant." Nevertheless this use of oi must

286 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
be regarded, especiaRy in Greek prose, as nowise established, and
in the N. T. unknown. We are accordingly compeRed to abide
by the local meaning, the only' one estabhshed (iv. 15; 2 Cor.
iii. 17: ov . . . ixei, etc.) = where, i.e. in the region where, in the
sphere in which. In the same sphere in which sin increased,
grace abounded beyond measure. But then this sphere is no
other than the nation of Israel placed under the law ; so that
Abelard's view of the oi may stand as a correct paraphrase of
the sense: "in eodem populo, quo." But, no doubt, what has
been done once on the part of God may be expanded — as re
peating itself amid like circumstances in like manner-r-into the
idea of a general law of divine action, virepirepiaaeveiv has not
the comparative (Luther: "there grace became far more abun
dant"), but, like other compounds with iirep, the superlative
meaning: supra modum, valde redundare, to abound exceedingly,
Mark vii. 3 7, 2 Cor. vii. 4 ; comp. virepXlav, 2 Cor. xi. 5 ; iirep-
irXeovdfa, 1 Tim. i 14; virepavljdvw, 2 Thess. i. 3; iirepvixda,
Rom. vih. 3 7 ; virepv^jrbw, Phil. h. 9. The apostle's holy fervour
loves expressions that transcend common limits. Moreover, he
chooses virepirepiaaeveiv instead of virepirXeovd£ew, because irepia-
aevew is stronger than irXeovd^ew, — irepiaaov denoting abundance
absolutely ; irXeov, merely more than what is necessary. At the
same time, virepirepiaaeveiv is perhaps used in allusion to irepia-
aevew and irepiaaeia, vv. 15, 17. They who died ra tow evbs
irapairrwfiari have received ryv irepiaaelav rrjs x^P170^ > DUt hi
respect to those in whom the irapdirrwpa, inhering in them in
the form of dfiaprla, was increased through the vbpos, a virep
irepiaaeveiv of grace< found place. FinaRy, in relation to the pre
ceding irXeovd^ew, the iirepirepiaaevew sthl retains a comparative
meaning. If, where sin rose high, grace rose to a sthl higher
point, it is self-evident that the grace was greater than the sin.
Ver. 2 1 concludes the entire train of reasoning, carried on from
ver. 12, bringing forward once again the main thought lying at
its foundation. Even the economy of the law must subserve
God's final purpose of making grace reign as previously sin had
reigned. The law had indeed enhanced sin; but over against
the increase of sin a superabundant fulness of grace had been
given, in order that sthl the final purpose of God might be accom
plished. In this verse, then, neither to iBaalXevaev y dpdpria
nor to rj xapw BaaiXevay have we to supply the addition : " in

CHAP. V. 21. 287
abundant measure." The apostle says not that sin and grace
have been enhanced that not merely sin and grace, but abundance
of sin and abundance of grace might stand in mutual contrast, but
that abundance of grace has been set over against the enhance
ment of sin, in order that the universal, original purpose of God —
through grace to aboRsh sin, through Christ to make up what had
been lost through Adam — might not fall to the ground. This
verse answers completely, although with a different turn of
phraseology, to the meaning of ver. 1 7. Thus it contains no new
thought, but merely the fundamental.thought previously expressed
by way of conclusion, to indicate that everything, even the legal
economy, has tended to subserve the end stated. — y dpaprla]
sin, which, in consequence of the irapdirrwfia inhered in man
kind, and in the case of those who were subject to the vbfios, had
been enhanced into irapaBaais.
— iv tb Oavdrw] in death; not as Luther translates : unto
death, which would be et? toi» Odvarov. Sin reigned iv tw
Oavdrw, grace et? £a>^i/ aiwviov ; for the sphere of death, in which
sin exercised its sway, was one already existing; whereas fay
alwvios, comp. ver. 17, is conceived as future. The antithesis of
Odvaros and fay alwvios, vv. 17, 19, pervading this section,
clearly appears also here, on which account it is inadmissible to
translate iv to> Oavdrco, through death, as if in contrast with Sid
Bixaioavvys. Instead of ovtw xal y Sixaioavvy BaaiXevay, Paul
says, in allusion to j^a/st?, mentioned just before,
— ovtw xal rj X"'Pi<> Ba<7i^£oay Sid BiKaioavvys] Grace reigns
unto eternal hfe as its final goal, to which it leads, since it is
grace alone that works and bestows eternal hfe. But Sixaioavvy
is the Sixaioavvy irlarews, the righteousness of faith, which grace
imparts ; not righteousness of hfe, which the apostle only begins
h to describe in the sixth chapter.
— Sid 'Iyaov Xpiarov] Righteousness is the medium, Christ
the Mediator. Hence the repeated Sta. " Jam ne memoratur
quidem Adamus," says Bengel, " sohus Christi mentio viget."

288 COMMENTARY ON- THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER VL
The theme of the apostle, announced i. 1 7, that in the gospel the
Sixaioavvy Oeov is revealed as coming ix irlarews, had now been
discussed under ah aspects. But the peculiar nature of the
evangelical doctrine of justification left open the possibility of a
suspicious misinterpretation. Thus from the declaration just
made, v. 20 : oi Be iirXeovaaev y dfiaprla, iirepeireplaaevaev y
Xapis, ignorant or mahcious conclusions might be drawn. That
this was actually done has been already intimated in the words,
iii. 8 : xaOws BXaacpy/iovpeOa xal xaOws cpaal rives ypas Xeyeiv,
on iroiyawfiev rd xaxd, 'iva eXOy rd dyaOd. And, indeed, even in
apostolic days the doctrine of grace was perverted by some to the
practical service of sin (Gal. v. 13 ; 1 Pet. ii 16 ; Jude 4 ; also
Jas. h. 14 ff), — a circumstance which might give a semblance of
accuracy and truth to the objection that this is the inevitable
consequence and fault of the doctrine itself. For this reason the
apostle in the present chapter anticipates this perversion and
misinterpretation, himself raising the question : Tt oiv ipovpev ;
iiripevovfiev ry dfiaprla, 'iva y %a/3t? irXeovday ; which he repels
with a fiy yevoiro, and then shows "now justifying faith, by its
very nature, is the death of the old and the rising of a new man,
on which account whoever is renewed by justification must of
necessity be the servant of righteousness, not of sin, whose power
and dominion over him is broken. But the doctrine of justification
forms the ah-deteTmining and central thought of the epistle to
such a degree that even the doctrine of renewal and justification,
in itself so important, is introduced and discussed merely in the
form of a defence against a false inference from the doctrine of
justification. Moreover, the first introductory question of the
chapter furnishes a new proof that, according to the apostle's
teaching, the sinner's justification consists purely in the grace of
forgiveness, not withal in the grace, without doubt directly
imphed in it and most intimately associated with it, of sanctifi- '
cation and renewal. If sanctification and renewal form a con-

CHAP. VI. 1, 2. 289
stituent element and integral factor in the notion of justification,
the question : iirifievovfiev rfj dpaprla, 'iva y %ajoi? irXeovday ;
has neither reason nor meaning.
Ver. 1. TI oiv ipovpev ;] ih. 5. What, then, shall we say ?
ie. what shah we infer from what was just said? v. 20. The
apostle himself introduces the possible false inference. He does
not represent it as made by an opponent — a Jew or Jewish
Christian. In this case he would not have said : rl oiv ipoifiev,
but : ipeis oiv poi, ix. 19.
. — iiripsvovp^ev ry dfiaprla] The best codices give iiripevwfiev,1
which reading, rightly approved by aR modern expositors, Gries
bach in his smaller edition, Lachmann, and Tischendorf have
received into the text. The copyists wrote iiripevovp,ev, after the
pattern of ipovpev. The conjunctive is dehberative : Are we to
continue ? Comp. Mark xh. 1 4 : eljean xrjvaov Kalaapi Sovvai
rj ov ; Swpev, rj fiy Swptev ; Comp. Winer, p. 356. iiripAvew
rivl, to continue in something, comp. xi. 22 ; Col. i. 23.
— 'iva y x^P1^ irXeovday ;] glances back at v. 20.
Ver. 2. fiy yevoiro] comp. on ih. 4.
— o'inves] causal, quippe qui, we being such as, see on i. 25, 32.
The fact of our having died to sin is the reason why we shall no
longer hve in sin. But the relative sentence is placed first with
emphasis, in order to bring out with greater force the impossibihty
of the tfiy iv dfiaprla. The apostle argues from the reQvyxevai
rfj dpaprla, as an acknowledged fact against the absurd inference
of the first verse, without? entering more deeply into a logical
analysis of the false conclusion, whose possibility was fitly repelled
,by p-y yevoiro. \
— direOdvofiev rfj dfiaprlai comp. Gal ii. 19 : vbfiw diroOvrj-
axeiv; Col. h. 20 : diroOvyaxew dirb tw^ aroixelcov rod xoapov;
1 Pet. h. 24: Tat? duaprlais diroylyveaOai ,; Rom. vh. 4: Oava-
rovaOai ra vbfiw; Gal. vi. 14: aravpovaOai to3 xoafico. Thus
diroOvrjaKew ry dpaprla = to die to sin, or as regards sin, not : to
die by sin, and not : to die on account of sin (with Christ). Comp.
Theodoret : ypvrjOys, <pyal, t^v dpaprlav Kal veKpbs airy yeyovas.
To die to sin means to break off living connection with it, to have
no further relation to it, no further communion with it. The
1 " So Cod. A B C D E F G, Min. Cod. Sinait. read imphopiv, but perhaps only
as an error in copying. For the indie, pres. would involve the supposition, not
occurring here, of an actual desire to continue in sin," Winer, p. 354.
Philippi, Rom. I. T

290 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
aorist denotes an occurrence that happened once. Accordmg to
the previous exposition, this can only be the moment and act of
justification itself, which by the foRowing verse is represented as
annexed to the reception of the sacrament of baptism. Thus
forgiveness is at the same time the death of sin. Forgiven sin
only is hated, that unforgiven is loved. By means of justifying
faith the hfe of sin receives, as matter of course, its death-blow.
This does not firs.t take place through a second isolated act
following upon faith.
— 7rw?] expresses the impossibility of the thing. Whoever in
the past died to sin, can and whl no longer live in sin.
— eVt ^yaofiev iv airy] ver. 11 ; Col. ii. 20. To live in sin
= to maintain living feRowship, relation, connection with it.
Similarly irepiirareiv ev rwi, 2 Cor. iv. 2 ; Eph. iv. 17. Stih
irepiirareiv is the external manifestation of the ^yv that denotes
internal spiritual fehowship, Col iii. 7 ; Gal. v. 25. CaloVs
remark is worthy of note : " Pontifich hinc extorquere volunt
dogma suum de omnimoda peccati sublatione et exstirpatione ; sed
non urgenda est metaphorica locutio, neque extendenda ultra
mentem Spiritus Sancti contra analogiam fidei. Nam Apostolus
de dominio peccati loquitur, quod justificatis peccatum non
dominetur, quodque non serviant iRi peccato, non vero eosdem
sine peccato et peccati sensu esse docet."
Ver. 3. The impossibihty of the Christian hving in sin, the
apostle deduces from the significance and effect of the sacrament
of baptism. He refers to the baptismal act, because by it the
Christian has been taken into communion with Christ. From its
import, therefore, the nature of the Christian's position must
needs be clearly apparent. If, according to Paul's mode of view,
baptism were merely a symbolical attestation to the fact of
regeneration which has previously taken place, and not rather,
as is expressly stated Tit. iii. 5, comp. Eph. v. 26, the effectual
medium by which iraXiyyeveala is accomplished, the apostle
would more aptly have reminded the church of the moment of
theh believing than of the moment of their baptism. For faith
also is a faith in Christ's death. It may not be said that the
reference to the baptismal act is only chosen because by KardBvais
and dvaSvais the submergence of the old and the emergence of
the new man is shadowed forth ; for in that case Paul would
have named these symbolical acts and indicated them more

CHAP. VI 3. 291
definitely, whereas it must remain doubtful whether in this
passage he even so much as glanced at them, although doubtless,
comp. especially ver. 4, this is probable. Elsewhere also Paul re
minds the churches of baptism as the sacrament of their initiation
into communion with Christ, comp. Gal. ih. 27, Eph. iv. 5, and
the passage analogous to the present one, Col. ii. 11, 12. While,
then, in the preceding verse he only said in general terms that
they actuaRy died to sin, in this verse he intimates that this took
place in baptism, because what took place in them as Christians
must certainly make itself known as having taken place in
baptism, the sacrament of theh incorporation into Christ. This
holds true especiaRy of infant baptism preceding the ministry of
the Word. But even the Word that precedes the baptism of
adults is merely preparatory to baptism as the real crowning act,
just as the Word following baptism simply points back to baptism
by way of continuous exposition and apphcation. The Word that
goes before offers to aR coRectively the gracious gift which baptism
conveys to the particular definite individual. Faith before baptism
accepts for itself also the gift promised in the Word to all ; faith
in and after baptism accepts the blessing given by God Himself to
it specially. In the former case takes place a subjective and
human (though one willed and brought about by God), in the
latter an objective and divine individual application of the
blessing of salvation. Wherefore, as in baptism the general
act of salvation has been accomphshed in me directly by
God, my faith as to its assurance of salvation rests upon my
baptism, in which, as in a focus, the Word going before or
following is gathered up, and sheds upon me its Rluminating
rays, rj dyvoeire, on] vii 1 = rj oiK o'iSare, on, xi. 2 ; 1 Cor.
vi 2, etc. Or (if what is asserted ver. 2 should sthl appear
doubtful, if you are unwilling to concede it), know you not?
(which not to know as something universaRy known would be a
reproach to you.) " Doctrina de baptismo fuit omnibus cognita,"
remarks Bengel ; and : " Ignorantia multum officit : scientia non
sufficit." — oo-ot] quotquot, as many as, all we who.
— iBairnaOyfiev] passive. Paul here speaks, not of what
Christians did, but of what was done in them in baptism. Just
so in the main in the next verses up to ver. 11. No doubt he
already touches beforehand on the subjective design (Iva . . . xal

292 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
yfieis iv Kaworyn £wrjs irepiirarrjawfiev, ver. 4 ; toC pyxeri
SovXevew ypas ry dpaprla, ver. 6) which they, in consequence
of that objective fact, have to realize. But it is not thl Ver. 12
that he expressly summons them to the actual fulfilment of that
duty. — et? Xpiarov 'Iyaovv] unto Christ Jesus, in relation to Him,
But the relation, as the exposition itself proves, is one of most
intimate union, dependence, and feRowship.
— et? top Odvarov airov iBairrlaOypev] were baptized unto
His death. " Qui baptizatur," says Bengel, " induit Christum
Adamum secundum ; in Christum, inquam, totum, adeoque etiam
in mortem ejus baptizatur: et perinde est, ac si eo momento
Christus pro tah homine, et tabs homo cum Christo pateretur,
moreretur, sepehretur." Comp. 2 Cor. v. 15. The apostle
describes a psychological event, mysterious indeed, but real and
certain, -although conceivable only by experience of the new birth
effected through justification. As the death of Christ is the
crown and chief element in His redemptive work, baptism above
all introduces into union with the death of Christ. Hitherto the
fellowship with Christ's death, in which baptism places us
objectively and faith subjectively, was only considered in so far
as it justifies, now it is considered as it sanctifies. But it does
the one through the other. The incorporation of man into
Christ's death through justifying faith is at the same time his
sanctification. For the sin of his, which he beholds by faith
lying upon Christ his substitute, and in Him crucified, is no
longer present in him; it is crucified, i.e. forgiven, and at the
same time blotted out. The act by which he subjectively
transfers his own sins to Christ, who objectively bore them, as
one and the same act both justifies and sanctifies. Although,
therefore, the apostle here treats of sanctifying incorporation into
Christ's death, he does not thereby exclude justifying incorpora
tion into the same death. Nor does he even regard the former
as subsequent to the latter in time. Rather for him feRowship
with Christ's death, mediating the forgiveness of sins, is eo ipso
the act of sin's obhteration, or the death itself of the old man.
Only in this way can we explain the sudden transition from the
dehneation of beheving fellowship with Christ's death as one
that justifies to the description of identity with Christ's death as
one that sanctifies, and the phraseology answering to this in the

CHAP. VI. 4. 293
exposition now foRowing. But hence results the inference that
justification is regarded, not as the temporal, but as the causal
antecedent of sanctification, and, although not separable, to be
distinguished from it. " Utriusque finis causa in mortem Christi
baptizamur, ut et hberemur morte Christi a peccati reatu et
Spiritus S. effundatur in nos, cujus virtute liberi reddamur a
dominio peccati, ut peccato mortui amplius non vivamus eidem,
sed Domino nostro, ejusque sanctissimis vestighs insistamus.
Fines hi subordinati sunt ; nam hberationem a reatu peccati vel
justificationem consequitur liberatio a dominio peccati, ut justifi-
cati non vivant peccato, sed peccato mortui Domino, qui eos a
peccati reatu et maledictione hberavit, vivant atque serviant,"
Calov. Luther's smaR Catechism distinguishes the gift or
benefit of baptism, consisting in the forgiveness of sins and
eternal blessedness, from the significance of baptism, which consists
in this : " that the old Adam in us, with every sin and evh lust,
is to be drowned, and to die through dahy sorrow and penitence,
and a new man, hving unto' God in righteousness and purity for
ever, dahy to come forth and rise up." But what is to be
actuahy done by us dahy was done in us originally in the very
act of baptism; as also the gift and the significance of baptism,
although standing to each other in the relation of cause and
effect, are yet combined in one and the same moment of
baptism. Ver. 4. If by baptism we are brought into fehowship
with Christ's death, it foRows that we are also buried with
Him, inasmuch as burial is the attestation of the truth and
reahty of death. "Sepultura mortem ratam facit," Bengel.
avverdcpypev ovv airw] The aw in avverdcpyfiev does not
merely express a comparison = wairep airbs, as if Christ's
physical burial were to be taken as a type of our spiritual
burial. Rather it denotes a real fellowship, seeing that in the
dead body of Christ our substitute, in virtue of our spiritual
incorporation in Him, our sinful body is conceived as buried at
the same time. Comp. Col. ii. 12: avvracpevres airw iv to3
Bairrlafian. On the figure, Chrysostom remarks on John iii. :
ypwv xaOdirep ev rwi rdcpw tw vBan xaraBvbvrwv rds xecpaXas
b iraXaibs dvOpwiros Odirrerai, xal xaraSvs xarw xpvirrerai
oXws xal xaOdiralj.
— Bid rov Bairriafiaros eh rbv Odvarov] corresponds to et?

294 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
rbv Odvarov airov iBairrlaOy/iev, ver. 3, for which reason els
rbv Odvarov is to be joined with Sid rov BainlcrfiaTos, not with
avverdcpypoev, the expression " buried unto death," moreover,
containing an incongruous figure. The repetition of the article
before et? rbv Odvarov is needless, because rb Bdirnapa et? rbv
Odvarov — to eh rbv Odvarov Bairrl^eaOai, forms one notion.
— 'iva xrX.] in order that, etc. 'iva is to be taken reXixws,
not ixBanxws. We are dead and buried with Christ, not that
we may continue dead, but that we may rise again as Christ
rose again, or rise again in and with Him. But the apostle
forthwith describes the ultimate purpose of sanctification, which
is not only an diroOvyaxew ry dfiaprla and a avveyelpeaOai rw
Xpiarw, but also an iv xawbryn faris irepiirareiv, in contrast
with the former irepiirareiv iv dp-aprlq,. As incorporation into
Christ's death is the death of the old man, so is incorporation
into Christ's resurrection the resurrection of the new one. In
truth, this death and this rising again are one indivisible act, for
no neutral condition of the human spirit is conceivable even for
a moment. But the two are rightly separated in idea as the
negative and positive sides of one and the same process. Besides,
there is no doubt implied in the forgiveness of sins, mediated by
faith in Christ's death, along with the destruction of the old life
at the same time, and, indeed, as matter of course, the creation of
the new one. Nevertheless, this last element is not arbitrarhy
referred to Christ's resurrection, because the death of Christ is
only the principle of the new life in so far as it is the death of
the Prince of life, in so far as in it that holy and eternal hfe
was laid down which by the resurrection manifested and asserted
itself in its truth, and reahty, and triumphant immortality. But,
in like manner, as incorporation into Christ's death obliterates
sin by cancelling guilt, does incorporation into Christ's resurrec
tion regenerate by positively justifying, Eph. h. 5, 6 ; Col h.
12, 13, ih. 1.
— Sta rrjs Sbljys rov irarpbs] Through the glory of the Father.
The glory of God comprises the manifested plenitude of His
attributes; but among them, in a particular case, one may be
especially illustrious. So here the omnipotence, the Bvvauis, to
which elsewhere the raising of Christ is uniformly ascribed,
1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. xiii 4; Eph. i. 20, comp. with Col. i. 11,
where we read to xpdros rrjs Sbljys.

CHAP. VI. 5. 295
— eV xaworyn $&»}?] not absolutely identical with iv fafj
mivfj, but stronger, inasmuch as the idea of newness is put for
ward as an independent idea, and thus special attention is
directed to it, vii. 6 ; 1 Tim. vi. 17 ; Winer, p. 296.
Ver. 5 contains the confirmation (ydp) of the last thought,
ver. 4: 'iva wairep xrX. We are able to walk in a new life,
because, if we are dead with Christ, we shall also be partakers in
His resurrection. Of our resurrection to the new life the apostle
had not dhectly spoken in the last verse, but' simply of its con
sequence — our walk in the new hfe. But this walk is conditioned
by, and possible through nothing but the resurrection, et yap
avpcpvroi yeyovafiev ra bfioiwpan rov Qavdrov airov] Luther :
" but as with Him we are planted in a like death." Calvin : " nam
si insititii facti sumus simihtudini mortis ejus," with the remark :
" Ergo ut surculus communem habet vitae et mortis conditionem _
cum arbore in quam insertus est : ita vitae Christi non minus,
quam et mortis participes nos esse consentaneum est." But
ovptpvTos is not to be derived from cpvrevw = ip,cpvrevros} en
grafted, set, implanted, but, Rke avp,cpvys, from cpiw, as the Etym.
Mag. rightly remarks : jjvp,<pvros, b avyyevys, dirb rov Ijvv Kal
<pvw. The meaning of avficpvros, as has been shown by modern
expositors (comp., beside Losner, obss. sacr. p. 253, Reiche and
Fritzsche here), is very diversified : — (1) Derived from cpvopai, in
the sense of to become, to become by birth, it means connate, una
natus. LXX. Zech. xi. 2 : on KareairdaQy b Bpvpibs b avficpvros,
i.e. the primeval oak-forest, coeval with the place. Hence
(a) existing from birth, innate, innatus. So Joseph. Antt. J.
vi. 3. 3 : y av/icpvros Sixaioavvy; 3 Mace. hi. 22: y avficpvros
xaxoyOeia. In the same sense stands ep,<pvros, Wisd. xii 1 0 :
irovypd y yeveais airwv xal eficpvros y xaxla airwv. The opposite
of this avficpvrov, innate, natural, is given in iirlKryrov, iiraxrbv,
iirlOerov, adventitium, adscititium, what is gained in addition,
what is added, strange, counterfeit, artificial. (6) Of like species,
race, descent, birth, nature, cognatus, cognate; metaphoricaRy =
similis, similar, (c) Arising simultaneously, growing simultane
ously, Luke vih. 7 : avpocpveiaai al dxavOai, spinae simul exortae.
This leads us to the second class of meanings of avficpvros : —
(2) From <pvop,ai, in the meaning to grow, it signifies (a) grown
together, concretus, connaturalus; metaphorically: closely united.
1 As may easily be suggested by the analogy of Qvnvrit actually occurring.

296 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Hence of places, (b) overgrown, consitus. A to7to? avficpvros,
accordingly, is a place, as it were, grown together, densely covered
with trees, i.e. overgrown with trees. LXX. Amos ix. 13 : xal
irdvres ol Bovvol av/icpvroi eaovrai. But in the present passage,
manifestly only the meaning (1 b) or (2 a) can find place. It is
most appropriate to take the latter, as by it both the choice of
the expression avficpvros is better explained, and the intimate :
fellowship of behevers with Christ is more definitely set forth.
Besides, the phrase " cognate or similar to the likeness of death "
is tautological, or rather hlogical. We might indeed connect
av/MpvToi with tw Xpiarw, to be supphed, and take rw bpotwpan
rov Qavdrov airov as the dativus instrumenti: " for we are be
come cognate (similar) to Christ through the likeness of His
death (i.e. through our dying spiritually as Christ died bodily,
vv. 2-4)." But in this case Paul would probably have written :
et ydp avpcpvroi yeyova/iev airw rw bfiotcbfiari rov Qavdrov. As
the words now run, we are naturally led to the simple and most
obvious connection of avficpvroi with t&> b/ioiwpan, a connection
which is to be retained as long as it yields an appropriate sense.
But such a sense demonstrably exists. " For if we grew together,
i.e. became closely united with the likeness of His death." The
bp,oiwp,a (analogue) of His death is the spiritual dying with which,
in baptism, w. 3, 4, we grew together, i.e. became closely united
But to be closely united, or, as it were, covered with the likeness
of Christ's death, means nothing else than (in virtue of His death)
" to be dead spiritually as He was bodhy," or " to be such as that
it belongs inseparably to their nature to set forth in themselves
likeness to His death (in a moral relation, ver. 3 f.)."
— dXXd xal] verum etiam, but also. The antithesis to which
dXXd refers is found, as here, so also occasionally in classical
Greek, in a hypothetical protasis. Homer, II. viii. 153: ei-Vep
ydp a' "Exrwp ye xaxov xai avdXxiBa cprjaei, dXX' oi irelaovrai
Tpwes. — rrjs dvaardaews iabpeOa] We might perhaps attempt here
to apply the construction elvai twos = to belong to some one.
So rys dvaardaews elvai, to belong to the resurrection = to
stand in fellowship, to be closely united with the resurrection.
But elsewhere elvai twos refers only to relation to a person, and
denotes dependence, subjection, not mere feRowship. Besides, in
this way the parallelism of expression in the protasis and apodosis

CHAP. VI. 6. 297
would be lost, ctv/icPvtos, then, being construed as weR with the
genitive as the dative, several expositors have made rrjs dvaardaews
depend on avp,cpvroi, which is to be repeated in thought. Never
theless, as the expression ry dvaardaei lay at hand for this purpose,
the abrupt change of construction must appear the more strange.
Accordingly nothing is left (in accordance with the familiar form
of comparatio compendiaria, comp. Matt. v. 20, etc.) but to supply
avpcpvroi tq> bpx>iwpan, in which, especially as the emphasis lies
on toO Qavdrov and t»}? aj/ao-Tao-ew?, there is no difficulty. "We
are closely united, as with the likeness of His death, so also with
the likeness of His resurrection." The dvdaraais is the dvd-
araais airov, the resurrection of Christ, and the bpolwpa of the
same is our spiritual resurrection. We are not then to think of
the bodhy resurrection of behevers, a notion altogether foreign
to the connection. The future iabfieQa expresses neither a should
nor a would, but denotes that which is the consequence, in the
nature of things, of another thing presupposed or preceding. If
we are dead with Christ, it foRows that we shall rise with Him,
because otherwise our feRowship with Him were imperfect and
defective. Incorporation into His death is not conceivable without
incorporation into His resurrection.
Ver. 6. The apostle had spoken hitherto of an incorporation
into Christ's death, of a being covered with the hkeness of His
death. The representation was thus pre-eminently objective,
inasmuch as the man was pictured as transplanted out of himself
into Christ's death, or into the hkeness of His death and resurrec
tion, i.e. into the new spiritual man projected, so to speak, out of
the subject. It is now declared, more precisely, what conse
quences this objective event has in the nature of the subject
himself. It is, as to its nature, a destruction of the sinful
principle in us, an annihilation of corrupt desire and inclination.
The Ba/'rrt'O'0'fjvai els rbv Odvarov rov Xpiarov, the avvracpyvai
airw Sid rov Bairrlaparos eh rbv Odvarov, the av/Kpvrov yeyo-
vevai rco bfioiwfian rov Qavdrov airov, subjectively regarded, is
nothing else than a avaravpwOyvai of the iraXaios dvOpwiros, a
xarapyyQyvai of the awfia rrjs dfiaprlas. Accordingly tovto ywco-
axovres] is neither to be taken as confirmatory nor causal ; but
the participle, as often (ii 4), simply continues the construction
= xal tovto ywwaxo/iev.
— d iraXaibs yiiwv dvOpwiros] comp. Harless on Eph. iv. 22,

298 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
and Bucer's comment on that passage : " (deponere) veterem
hominem h. e. naturam nostram quanta est, quae erroneis con-
cupiscentiis perpetuo ferter." The iraXaibs dvOpwiros, the old-
man, is the sinful ego, the iyot aapxixbs, Rom. vii. 14; iyw r]
adplj, ibid. ver. 1 8. It is iraXaibs, viewed from the standpoint <
of dvayevvyais, iraXiyyeveala (John iii. 3 ; Tit. ih. 5), the former,
previous man, to whom the dvOpwiros veos, xawbs, created by the
new birth, or the xawy xrlais, is opposed, Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii
9, 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 17. The phrase iraXaibs dvOpwiros is therefore
a personification, not of the former mode of conduct (Col iii. 9,
irpdfjets airov are distinguished from the iraXaibs dvQpwiroi
himself), but of the previous (sinful) character or ruling tendency
of the whole life.
— avvearavpwOy] sc. to Xpiarw. Elsewhere an diroQeaQai,
direxBvaaaQai of the TraXato? dvOpwiros is spoken of; here, a
aravpovaOai, in aRusion to the crucifixion of Christ, with which
we enter into fellowship, and so experience the crucifixion of our
old man. "Hunc veterem hominem dicit esse affixum cruci
Christi, quia ejus virtute conficitur. Ac nominatim allusit ad
crucem, quo expressius indicaret non aliunde nos mortificari,
quam ex ejus mortis participatione," Calvin. " avv non simili-
tudinem notat, verum simultatem, ut ita dicam, et communionem,"
Calov. — 'iva xarapyyOy to aw/ia rys dpoaprlas] that the body of
sin might be destroyed, specifies the purpose of d TraXato? yp&v
dvOpwiros awearavpwQy. But as the xarapyeiaOai of the a&pa
appears here as the end and aim of the aravpovaOai, it can
only be understood of an actual annihilation, not of a mere
cessation of aetivity, a reduction to inactivity. The awpa t»}s
dpoaprlas cannot then denote the physical, material body, in so
far as it is the seat or organ of sin ; for this is only destroyed by
natural death, comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13 : xarapyeiv t^v xoiXiav. Nor
can the incidental meaning of the subsequent awpa Qvyrbv, ver.
12, be decisive as to the sense of the preceding awpa rrjs
dfiaprlas appearing in another connection. Accordingly in this
latter phrase we can only, with many older and some modern
expositors (comp. especiaRy, Juhus MiiRer, Christ. Bod. of Sin,
I. 330), recognise a continuation of the figure, dpaprla is
conceived as a awpa, and in the crucifixion of the old man, not
the actual body, but this awpa tt}? dpaprlas is destroyed. In

CHAP. VI. 7. 299
this case it is most natural not to suppose a mere periphrasis (so
Theodoret : irepicppaanxas airy y duapria), but to explain the
choice of the figurative expression by supposing that the apostle
considers the mass of sin as an articulated organism, as awpa,
whose members are particular sinful lusts. So Pelagius : " Quia
unum vitium membrum peccati, omnia corpus totem." Quite
analogous, then, is the phrase, Col. ii. 11: iv ry direxSvaei tov
aa>paros rrjs aapxbs (comp. Julius Miiller, ibid., Bahr, and Steiger
on the passage). In that place is meant the totality of the adplj,
the natura corrupta, the direxSvats of which is represented, as in
the present passage, as accomplished in our joint-burial in baptism.
Were awpoa here man's natural body, the direxSvats rov acbfiaros
in this passage must have been understood, analogously to
direxBvaaaOai, 2 Cor. v. 4, of bodily death. But this awpa rrjs
aapxbs has its fieXy. These are rd fieXy rd iirl rys yfjs, Col.
iii. 5, consisting in particular lusts, iropveia, dxaOapala, etc.,
whose vexpovaOai, analogous to aravpovaOai, xarapyeiaQai,
direxSveaQai, is enjoined. Already Chrysost. interprets rb awpa
rrjs dpaprlas here by rrjv dirb rwv Biacpbpwv poepcov irovyplas
avyxei/ievyv xaxlav. " Ideo autem cum Christo crucifixus est homo
vetus" remarks Calov, " ut aboleatur non hoc vel hlud tantum
peccatum, sed totum peccati corpus cum omnibus membris suis,
ut posthac non serviamus ulli peccato, nam ita aboletur peccatum,
quantum ad dominium, quando non servitur eidem."
— rov pyxeri BovXevew ypas ry dp,aprla] " finem abolitionis
notat," Calvin. As in ver. 4 our walk in a new life is described
as the end of our spiritual resurrection, so here it is described as
the end of our spiritual death with Christ, that we should no
longer render obedience to sin. We are to do what God did in
us. Because sin's dominion over us is abohshed, we are. no
longer to serve it. Ii we commit sin, we serve it according to
John vih 34, it is our fSaaiXevs or xvpios; we, its SoOXot or
virrjxooi, vv. 12, 14.
Ver. 7 confirms tov fiyxen BovXevew ypoas rfj d/iaproa by the
proposition : d ydp diroOavwv SeSixaiwrai dirb rrjs dfiapnas] for
he that is dead is absolved from sin. Several, especially modern,
interpreters refer diroQvyaxeiv to physical death. In that case a
threefold interpretation is possible. (1) He that is dead is freed
from sin, because by death he is freed from the body, the seat of
sin This view rests upon an anthropology quite as unbibhcal as

300 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
it is un-Pauline, comp. Julius MiiRer, I. 315.1 (2) "Usus est
sententia civili de operibus," says Melanchthon. " Mortua natura
non est efficax." The dead one sins no more against the statutes
of the civh law. 2Y? ydp iOeaaaro irwirore, comments Theodoretf
vexpbv rj ydfiov dXXorpiov Siopvrrovra . . . rj dXXo n rwv droTrav
SiairparTopoevov ; But against this view it has been remarked, in
the first place, that Paul would have simply expressed this meaning
in the words : d ydp vexpbs oixen dpoaprdvei, and then he would
probably have added the more exact definition : against the civil law,
as without doubt he beheved in an dpaprdvew against the divine
law in the life hereafter in the case of the dirlarots, just as much
as in the case of the BidBoXos. For if dfiaprla ceased, Odvaros
would be abohshed. (3) Others explain the proposition of death
by execution, by which sin is atoned for. In this case with
SeSixaiwrai is compared the juristic 'expression of ancient German
criminal law, according to which it was said of the executed : he
is justified. But here clearly the apostle speaks not only of
freedom from subjection to punishment, but also of freedom from
sin itself. In the latter lies the motive for fiyxen BovXeveov
ry dfiaprla. Moreover, we have no authority for referring d
diroOavwv specially to death by execution. Accordingly a7ro-
Qvrjaxew must be referred to the ethical death spoken of in the
preceding vv. 5, 6, and in what directly foRows (ver. 8 : el Be
direOdvofiev avv Xpiarw, which stands in relation to d yap
diroOavwv, ver. 7). In this case it is not necessary to supply rfj
duapria to diroOavwv, although even then the sentence would not
be dhectly tautological. Just as we say : he that lives to sin is
the slave of sin, may we say : he that is dead to sin is freed from
the slavery of sin. Notwithstanding, d diroOavwv is to be simply
interpreted : he that is dead, whereupon it fohows naturahy from
what precedes that here is meant the inner, spiritual death carried
into effect in believing fehowship with Christ's death, by which,
as by death in general, all former relations and connections
are dissolved, and therefore the connection with sin, which thus
loses its old authority and power over man. But if man is
absolved from sin, he ought not again to hold converse with it
SeSixaicbfieOa dirb rrjs dpaprlas, iva fiyxen SovXevwfiev avrfj
SeSixaiwrai Chrysost. explains by diryXXaxrai ; Theophl, Oecum.
Schol. Matth. by yXevOepwrai. " NR jam in eum juris est peccato,'
1 Nevertheless this is still repeated by Meyer.

CHAP. VI. 8, 9. 301
explains Bengel, "ut non jam sit debitor, c. vih. 12. Justus est,
ratione praeteriti a reatu; ratione futuri, a dominio, ver. 14."
Sixaiovv retains, then, here the meaning absolvere, to acquit, which
the added definition dirb rys dpoaprlas enlarges to the notion of
liberare, to set free. Comp. Ecclus. xxvi. 29; Acts xiii. 39.
Man being set free from sin, it has lost its power over him, its
power to accuse and to govern him. Comp. also with the state
ment of this verse the analogous utterance, 1 Pet. iv. 1 : 6Vt d
iraOwv iv aapxl, irerravrai dfiaprlas, and Steiger, ibid.
Ver. 8 continues the thought expressed in w. G, 7. The emphasis
falls on direOdvofiev and av^yaofiev. If we died with Christ, we
beheve that we shall also live with Him, for only thus does our
fehowship with Him become complete. The sentence corre
sponds with the one contained in ver. 5. Still there is no tautology,
but a systematic carrying forward of the exposition. The process
of sanctification is treated first of all as to its objective, w. ,3, 4,
next as to its objective and subjective, ver. 5, and finally as to
its purely subjective aspect, vv. 6-8. If by faith we stand in
fehowship with Christ's death and resurrection, we are thereby
incorporated with the spiritual death and spiritual resurrection
(av/Kpvroi xrX.) that manifest their subjective existence in us
as the death of the old man and as a new life (av%yaop,ev).
iriarevopev] This confidence is based on the assurance that God
wih not leave His work of grace unfinished in us, which would
be the case if He made us partakers merely of the death of
Christ and not also of His hfe, 1 Thess. v. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 3;
2 Tim. ii. 11.
— av^yaofiev] refers not to the future fay alwvios, neither
exclusively nor partiaRy, in so far as this may be regarded as the
continuation of the present fay iv Xpiarw. Neither iriarevopoev
(see ante) nor the future (which is to be explained as in the
similar case, ver. 5) commits us to this opinion, which is also
alien to the strain of thought (comp. the summary conclusion,
ver. 11). Rather av%yaop,ev refers exclusively to the new hfe of
behevers in this world, which no doubt, according to John iv. 14,
is in itself the water that springs up to eternal life.
Ver. 9 introduces the new thought that this fay iv Xpiarw
is a continuous one, never again to be interrupted, since Christ,
raised from the dead, dies no more. et'SoTe?] = xal o'lBajiev, comp.
yivwaxovres, ver. 6.

302 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— on Xpiaros, iyepOels ix vexpwv, oixen diroQvyaxei] from
which it directly follows that our life, being conformed to His, is
an enduring, unending one ; for in Christ's life lies the power and
the promise of the unbroken continuance of our life. But this
does not preclude the possibility of our again losing this life, sup
posing us to faR away.
— Odvaros airov oixen xvpievei] death is no longer (as formerly)
lord over Him. An emphatic repetition of oixin diroOvrjaxeo,
strengthened by the form of asyndeton. As the sinless Son of
God, Christ was lord of death ; but as our substitute, made sin for
us (2 Cor. v. 2 1), He made Himself its servant.
Ver. 10. Confirmation of oixen diroQvyaxef Odvaros airov
oixen xvpievei, ver. 9. The death which Christ died He died
to sin icpdiralj, therefore He whl not die a second time; but
the life which He lives He lives ra Oew, in which hes the »
guarantee for the imperishableness of His present life, o yap
direOave] comp. Gal. h. 20 : o Se vvv %w iv aapxl, Winer, p. 209.
o is paraphrased by several expositors : quod attinet ad id, quod, as
concerns this, that ; but by others is more correctly taken as the
case of object. diroQvyaxeiv n, %rjv n = aliquam mortem mori,
aliquam vitam vivere. So therefore b direOave, what He died =
the death that He died, He died, etc.
— rfj dpaprla direOavev] (this) He died to sin, i.e. died in rela
tion to sin. The, phrase is chosen in aRusion to ver. 2 : o'lrives
direOdvopoev, and ver. 11 : vexpovs fiev rfj dpaprla. But the
paraRel is merely a formal one, Christ having died to sin in a
different manner from us ; He, as the previous exposition and the
teaching of Scripture elsewhere show, to atone for and efface it ;
we, to get rid of fehowship with it. But of course our dirodvrj-
axew rfj dpaprla is only a consequence, and takes place only in
virtue of the diroQvyaxeiv rfj dfiaprla on the part of Christ.
1 Meyer, following Hofmann, explains : " He is dead to sin (dative of reference),
i.e. His dying concerned sin ; and, indeed, so that the latter (namely, the sin of the
world, conceived as power) has now, after He has suffered death on account of it,
become without influence upon Him, and has no more power over Him ; He sub
mitted Himself to its power in His death, but through that death He has died to Us
power. " If this exposition is not to detract from the biblical doctrine of atonement,
which at least in Meyer is not the case, it would in point of fact be equivalent to our
view ; for in no other way had sin power over Christ than that in His death He
bore the penalty of sin as a substitute. Moreover, the exposition : " to die in refer
ence to sin = to die to the power of sin," seems to me artificial. Neither ver. 2 nor
ver. 11 furnishes a parallel instance.

CHAP. VI. 11. 303
Bengel caRs the dative rfj dfiaprla, a dativus detrimenti. Although
as to grammar more correctly described as dative of relation, as
matter of fact Christ no doubt died, not in commodum, but in
detrimentum peccati.
— i^dira^] used emphatically, once, i.e. once for all, not to be
repeated, Heb. vh. 27, ix. 12, x. 10 ; 1 Pet. ih. 18 ; Heb. ix.
26, 28.
— £?} T$ 0eu>] He lives to God. His life belongs no longer to
the death-causing power of sin, but to the eternal, immortal God
alone, with whose glory it is penetrated, clothed with whose omni
potence He Himself now reigns as king for ever. "Vivit Deo,
vitam ex Deo gloriosam, divini vigoris plenam, in perpetuum.
Nam Deus est Deus viventium," Bengel.
Ver. 11. Application of ver. 10 to behevers in the form of a
recurrence to ver. 2, and conclusion in the same form of the pre
vious course of reasoning, ovrw] in like manner, namely, as
Christ once died to sin and hves to God, ver. 10. Griesbach
and others needlessly place a colon after ifieis. It is true it was
said of Christ that He died to sin, not that He reckoned, etc.
But even with this new punctuation the same difference remains,
for XoylfaaOe xrX. sthl contains the exposition of ovrw xal vpoeis.
At most, Griesbach's reading renders the language more emphatic.
As an example of the usual mode of connection, comp. Luke
xvh 10.
— Xoyl&aOe eavrovs] Imperative, not indicative, in which case
we should have expected ovtw xal y/ieis Xoyi^bfieOa, comp. ver. 8.
Xoyl^eaOe, not colligite, conclude, but existimate, reputate, censere,
consider, judge, be assured, ih. 28 ; 1 Cor. iv. 1. Believers are
to acknowledge themselves for what they are ; and with this is
connected the summons, ver. 1 2, to represent it also in their life.
But what they are they became through baptism unto Christ's death.
— vexpovs fiev rfj dfiaprla] The led. recept. elvai after vexpovs
pev is rightly removed from the text by Griesbach, Knapp, and
Lachmann on preponderant authority. It is also said XoylfcaOai
nvd Tt, "to take one for something," Wisd. v. 4, xv. 15.
— Z&vras Be rw Oew] to His whl and service, given up to Him
as His property (xiv. 8 ; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; Gal. h. 19). Besides, the
parahehsm of thought with ver. 10 proves as matter of course
that 'the spiritual death is to be viewed as having taken place
once for aR, the spiritual hfe as of unbroken continuance. " Ut

304 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Christus excitatus est ad incorruptibhem vitam, ita vos Dei gratia
renatos esse, ut totam vitam in sanctitate et justitia traducatis :
quando aeterna est semperque vigebit haec, qua renovati estis,
Spiritus sancti virtus," Calvin.
— iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov] not per Christum Jesum, but in Christo
Jesu, in fellowship with Christ, iv denotes, as often, the element
in which the Christian's spiritual life is lived (1 Thess. h. 14).
The words may be joined with vexpovs fiev . . . rw Oew in common,
or simply with %wvras tw Oew. The former seems preferable,
because vexpois . . . favras, in strict parahehsm with ver. 10, is
connected in thought, and in conclusion receives in common eV
Xpiarw 'Iyaov as an accessory definition.
— toj xvp'tw ypowv] according to decisive critical testimony, is
to be deemed spurious, and is therefore rightly expunged from
the text by Griesbach and Lachmann. It is to be regarded as
an ascetic or hturgical addition, or inserted by copyists in the '"
text without special design, in reminiscence of v. 21, vi. 23;
1 Cor. xv. 31 ; Phil. hi. 8, etc.
The apostle having shown what Christians have become in
virtue of fellowship with Christ mediated by baptism, and what
they are to deem themselves, exhorts them now, w. 12, 13,
actuaRy to be what they have become, by theh own act to ratify
God's act in them, or to reahze subjectively the spirit of their
objective regeneration. They are accordingly to exhibit them
selves in life as vexpovs rfj dpaprla, ver. 12, up to dfiaprla, and
as favras tw Oew, ver. 13, from dXXd irapaaryaare onward. Thus
the import of vv. 12, 13 corresponds with that of ver. 11.
Ver. 12. My oiv BaaiXeverw y dpoaprla] Wherefore let not sin
reign. An inference (oiv) from the foregoing. Because you have
to regard yourselves as vexpovs ry dfiaprla, ver. 11, it fohows
that sin ought not to reign, for one would contradict the other.
The antithesis of Ba^tXevew is not the existence of sin in general,
as if the latter were supposed and permitted, and only its sway
precluded and forbidden.1 The thing is correct in itself, but is
not here expressly mooted. Rather the apostle pays no regard to
1 So Augustine in Calov : " Non ait non sit, sed non regnet. Quamdiu enim vivis,
peccatum necesse est esse in membris tuis, saltern illi auferatur, ne fiat, quod jubet."
Certainly m itself this is fully as true as Luther's gloss : " Mark, the saints have still
evil lusts in the flesh, which they follow not." Comp. also Calov's observation
against the Pontificii on ver. 2 of this chapter.

CHAP. VI. 12. 305
this aspect of the relation, but depicts the Christian position
according to its idea, in conformity with which sin, being buried
by baptism unto Christ's death, is never again to wield power
and influence in man. fiy fiaaiXeverw y dfiaprla, answers to rov
pqxen BovXevew ypods rfj dfiaprla, ver. 6 ; comp. viraxovew in
this verse, and xvpieveiv, ver. 14.
— ev t$ Ovyrw ifiwv acbfian] to be joined with BaaiXeverw,
so that it describes the sphere of activity of dfiaprla ; not with
apapria, in which case the article (y dpoapr. y iv rep 0v. vp,. a.)
must have been repeated, awfia cannot here denote exclusively
the physical, material body. As such it must have been con
ceived either as the source, or the seat, or the organ of sin.
The sensuous theory, according to which the body is set forth as
the source of sin, contradicts just as decisively the bibhcal as the
Pauline mode of conception (comp. Jul. Miiller, I. 2 9 5). On the
other hand, the body is doubtless the seat of sin, but neither its
exclusive nor original seat. By this mode of view the apostle
would leave unnoticed the chief sphere of sin's activity, and by
dwelling exclusively on the bodily sphere, fall back upon the
notion that the body, as the exclusive seat, is also at the same
time the primary source of sin. But if, finahy, we view the body
as the organ of sin, sin manifests its dominion in man through the
organ of the body, but does not reign in the organ. Paul would
then have written : iv ifiiv Sid tov Ovyrov aooparos, but not : iv
rw Ovyrw vpwv awpan. Besides, the notion of the organ of the
reign, when the point in question is merely the reign, is out of
place. But, on the other side, awfia cannot be simply identified
with adptj or iraXaibs dvOpwiros as a designation of the corrupt
tendency pi human nature. This conception can be proved neither
idiomaticaRy nor by usage. For the understanding of the peculiar
modification intended by Pauline idiom in the word ato/ia, — for
it is certain that sacred philology ought as little to be restrained
within the narrow hmits of classical usage as bibhcal conceptions
are exhausted by pagan forms of ideas, just as words hke dfiaprla,
Sixaioavvy, adplj, Odvaros, fay, etc., appear in Holy Scripture
with a perfectly distinct modification of meaning, — we must take
info consideration passages like Rom. vih. 10, 13. In the latter
Sssage, Qavarovv rds irpd%eis rov awparos forms the antithesis
xard adpxa %yv. As little, then, as the latter should be
referred merely to the activity of the lower impulses of sense,
\Philippi, Rom. I. TJ

306 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
can the former concern the mortifying of these impulses. We
may not say with Miiller, I. 328, that the adplj is related to
the irpdljeis rov acbpoaros as the genus to the species. Why
should the apostle mention merely one, and that a subordinate
species of the adplj, just there where the chief point was to
require the Oavarovv of the entire adplj \ But a positive guide
for the elucidation of the word awpa is supphed in ver. 10 by
the contrast in which awfia and irvevpa are there placed, irvevpa
there is the spirit of man in so far as it is pervaded and governed
by God's Spirit ; awpoa, that which is left of the entire man after
the subtraction of the spiritual element, therefore as much the
soul as the material body, in so far as it is not the abode of
God's Spirit. The designations are selected in accordance with
the natural, anthropological division of man into irvevfia and awpa.
Here, as there, rrveifia denotes the higher, inner ruling ; awpa,
the lower, visible, and concealing, earthly, servile principle.
awpoa, then, in both the passages cited, is that portion of man
which is conceived as not yet illuminated by the irvevpa Oeov,
the source and seat of sinful inclination, as well spiritual as
sensuous, without yet, like adplj, denoting inclination itself. This
awpa is a awpa tov Qavdrov, vii. 24; vexpbv, viii 10 ; Qvyrbv,
viii. 11 ; for precisely as the seat of dfiaprla is it subject to
Odvaros, the wages of sin, vi. 23. Thus the phrase Qvyrbv awpa
in the present passage is explained. The awpa is man as to
body and soul, in so far as he is not yet permeated by the
irvevpa. As such it is Qvyrbv, mortal, and herewith are we
admonished not to suffer it to live in sin, or to surrender it to
the dominion of that which alone brought death upon it. In the
fatal effects of sin lies a reason for shunning it. The penalty of
death passed on the awpa on account of sin at the same time
strips it of ah rights ; for, as tried and under sentence, it is
without rights. Therefore has it no right to suffer sin to reign
in it, or, which is the same, by permitting sin itself to reign^over
the irvevpa. The awpa of the Christian, then, is dead, not 'that
it may remain in death, but that it may be raised from death to
life, comp. viii. il : faoiroiyaei xal rd Qvyra aw para i/iwv. ',In
the soul this takes place through the continuous process of Re
generation and sanctification; in the body, through the resurrectiotn.1
1 If we would still refer o-Zptx exclusively to the material body, we must in tlhat
case say that the apostle, speaking ideally, looks upon regeneration, according to

CHAP. VI. 13. 307
— et? rb viraxovew rais iiriQvfiiais airov] This reading, the
one most strongly attested, received by Knapp, Lachmann, and
Tischendorf, approved by several modern expositors, is, as can
scarcely be doubted, the original one. From this, as a gloss,
arose the reading : et? to viraxovew airy, the iiriQvpolai
rov awparos being identified with dfiaprla, as to meaning,
rightly. The combination of both readings, along with the in
sertion of iv which became necessary, resulted in the lectio
recepta : et? ro iiraxovew airy iv Tais iiriOvfilais airov, which
accordingly cannot weR be accepted as the original from which
the two others sprang by partition, because it is the least attested.
The same holds good of the opposite, i.e. shortest reading : et? to
viraxovew, received by Griesbach, from which, then, the others
must have arisen by means of explanatory supplements.
Ver. 13. poySe irapiardvere] nor yet present, irapiardvew, the
N. T. form for irapiardvai = to yield up, present, place at the dis
posal, place at the service, give up to something, vv. 16, 19, xii. 1 ;
Matt. xxvi. 53 ; Acts xxiii. 24; 2 Tim. h. 15.
— rd pAXy ipvwv] The fieXy are the different parts of which
the awpa consists. Hence here not merely the members of the
body, hand, foot, etc., but also those of the soul, heart, will,
understanding, vii. 5, 23.
'.', * ': — oirXa dSixlas] as weapons of unrighteousness. Several ex
positors take oirXa in the sense, certainly in itself weh-grounded,
of instruments. But everywhere else in the N. T. the word has
the meaning weapons, and, indeed, in the literal sense, John
xviii 3 ; elsewhere only tropically, Rom. xiii. 1 2 : oirXa rod
cpwros; 2 Cor. vi. 7 : oirXa rrjs Bixaioavvys ; x. 4 : rd SirXa rys
arparelas rjfiwv. This analogy of the Pauline idiom may be
w. 2-11, as already entirely completed in the spirit. Then we only need note the
observation of Calov : " Quod autem corporis et membrorum mentionem facit, non
eo accipiendum, ac si in corpore tantum dominetur, anima vero a pravis desideriis
immunis sit, nee peccati dominio subjici possit, sed quod in corpore et membris
eorporeis apertius sese exserat peccatum, quodque non permisso dominio peccati in
corpore ac membris eorporeis, nee in nervum ita erumpere peccatum aut vim suam
plene exerere aut vires etiam eas acquirere possit, quo nos captivet et in miseram
servitutem redigat, et ex ad-verso imminuatur ita ac frangatur vis concupiscentiae et
desideriorum, dum non permittitur tale dominium : ubi tamen intermittenda etiam
non est veleris hominis et pravae concupiscentiae interioris mortificatio ac desideriorum
inde prorumpentium subactio, cohibitio et repressio," etc. But the exposition of
the idea of rZ/ix given in the text still seems to us to deserve the preference in this

308 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
accepted as decisive with respect to the present passage. Add
to this that the apostle elsewhere shows a fondness for mhitary
images, vii. 23, 1 Cor. ix. 26, Eph. vi. 11 ff, 1 Thess. v. 8,
and that in the present passage the explanation in question is
supported both by the BaaiXeveiv of dpaprla, ver. 12, and by
the expression rd byjrcovia, ver. 23, hkewise borrowed from
mhitary service, dfiaprla is pictured as a BaaiXevs, who uses
the members of man as weapons by which to win and establish
a kingdom of unrighteousness, and then to reward his soldiers
with death as their wages (rd byjrwvta). But dSixla is un
righteousness, not as a special vice, but, as often, unrighteousness
in the sense of immorahty generally.
^•V — dXXd irapaaryaare] The imperative aorist (in distinction
from the imperative present irapiardvere just used) denotes here
not so much an action passing rapidly, or one which should take
place at once, Winer, p. 393, but marks an action which took
place but once, as once for all
— eavrovs] yourselves, your entire personality, the entire man.
"Primo consideratur persona Christiani, deinde actiones et
munera. Homo in peccato mortuus non commode diceretur
sistere SEIPSUM peccato: sed vivens potest se sistere Deo,"
Bengel. — w? ix vexpwv favras] as those who were dead and now live,
who from being dead have become ahve. cos denotes the
character, and the mode corresponding to this, in which they
are to regard themselves. The phrase glances back to ver. 11;
but the vexpol are not vexpol rfj dfiaprla in the sense of ver. 11,
but in the sense of Eph. h. 1, 5, Rev. iii. 1, i.e. not those who
died in baptism to sin, but those who are dead in sin.
— xat] sc. irapiardvere, which is to be taken from irapa
aryaare, in contrast with the former irapiardvere. The entire
ego is surrendered once for aR to God, but its separate mem
bers in a gradual process.
— rd fieXy ipwv] figure here as members of the entire ego
(comp. the preceding eavrovs), which confirms our view of awpa
and poeXy. " Membra quoque nostra Rhus arbitrio destinata sint
ac consecrata : ut nihil, quam ejus gloriam spirent omnes animae
ac corporis nostri facultates," Calvin.
— oirXa Bixaioavvys] as weapons of righteousness. Sixaioavvy
here is a notion quite as general as dSixla its opposite.

CHAP. VI. 14. 309
— rw Oew] Contrast with rfj dpoapria.
Ver. 14. The assurance uttered in this verse contains the
reason (ydp) justifying the apostle in addressing to his readers
the exhortation given in vv. 12, 13. dfiaprla ydp ipowv oi
xvpievaei] for sin shall not reign over you. The sentence cannot
be taken imperatively, this meaning applying to the second but
not to the third person future. Moreover, it is not an expression
of confidence in the Romans, for in this case Paul would have
said: You whl not let sin reign over you. It expresses, then, the
certainty of a fact, or, as this is to be conceived as future, a
promise, fitted to give the. readers comfort and consolation in
reference to the exhortation just addressed to them. " Consolatio
et promissio," Melanchthon.
— oi ydp iare viro vopoov, dXX' virb ^apti/] The reign of law
is in keeping with the condition of man's bondage to sin, iii. 20,
iv. 15, v. 20 ; but with the reign of pardoning, justifying grace,
the freedom of man from sin's bondage, vi. 2-11. Conscience
fettered and terrified by the law hates the judge ; conscience set
free through grace loves the reconciler. But hate binds fast to sin,
whereas love releases from it. " Gratia non solum peccata diluit
(i.e. dimittit), sed ut non peccemus facit," Augustine. Of the
relation of the law to sin, the apostle has only spoken hitherto in
brief sentences by way of intimation. It is not thl the seventh
chapter that he treats of it in the shape of more detailed ex
position, elvai virb ri, to be under something, to be under its
dominion, hi. 9 ; Gal. iv. 21, v. 18.
As from the doctrine of grace abounding through sin abounding,
v. 20, the inference might be drawn that it is good to continue in
sin that grace may be multiphed, vi. 1, so the statement: oi ydp
iare virb vbfiov, dXX' iirb x^Pvv> mign* awaken the idea that
with freedom from the law hcence is given to sin. This idea
the apostle repels with the utmost energy. But yet he does not
here so much develope the inner psychological impossibhity of
the legal state fostering and furthering righteousness, and of
the state of grace fostering and furthering sin, as rather again
remind of a matter-of-fact relation into which his readers,
through faith in the gospel, have entered. As baptism into
Christ's death mediates the death of the old and the rising of the
new man, ver. 3 ff., so is freedom from the law, in point of fact,
a bondage to righteousness, the dominion of grace a freedom

310 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
from sin, so that once a SovXela dpoaprlas eh Qavarov, but now
a SouXeta Oeov xal BiKaioavvys els fayv aiwviov, takes place. In
the contrasted outcome and end, on one side Odvaros, on the
other fay, lies withal a motive for renouncing sin and serving
righteousness. This is the purport of vv. 15-23.
Ver. 15. TI oiv;] comp. on ih. 9.
— djiapryaofiev] shall we sin ? is to be taken as a pure future
= shall sin find place in us ? Here also, as in ver. 1, the
apostle himseff draws the inference, in order thereby to antici
pate another's possible, and, indeed, often already urged objection.
Good codices have dfiapryawpoev ; are we to sin ? a reading recom
mended by Griesbach, received by Lachmann and Tischendorf. It
seems, hke iirip,evwp,ev, ver. 1, to be genuine, although, especially
as it is not countenanced by quite as many authorities, it may
have been conformed to ver. 1. dpoapryaai, comp. v. 14, 16,
stands in later Greek for dpoapreiv, Winer, p. 99.
— on oiK iapoev virb vbfiov, dXX' virb %a/3w] an emphatic
repetition. Ver. 1 6. The fiy yevoiro is estabhshed by an appeal to a truth
admitted unconditionally by the readers themselves, for oix
ot'SaTe] introduces an uncontradicted proposition, for which the
experience, the consciousness of the readers may be appealed to.
Know you not, to whom you yield yourselves unto obedience, his
slaves (actuaRy)1 you are, whom you obey? The sentence is a
--general one, hence
— irapiardvere] present absolute, to denote what always stands
good. The bond of slavery, once contracted, binds firmly.
— et? vrraxorjv] unto obedience, i.e. to obey it henceforth
— BovXoi iare] sc. rovrov or ixelvov.
— w iiraxovere] whom you obey, not: whom you obeyed,
emphasizes the notion of viraxoy stiR more strongly. Slaves
to him whom you obey = slaves rendering service by obedience.
In yroi . . . Sixaioavvyv is given to the general sentence its
special reference.
— ^toi dfiaprlas] sc. BovXoi. The rot added to fj, which in
classical Greek is usually strengthened by 76, " expresses an ex-
1 1 incline now to agree with Meyer, that here not Io-te, but, as the order of words
and the correlation with nxpiarxvirh ixurois require, o'ovXoi has the emphasis.
" Whoever places himself at the disposal of another for obedience as a slave, is no
longer free and independent, but is simply the slave of him whom he obeys."

CHAP. VI. 16. 311
elusive force with respect to external objects, the given case
being severed from all other otherwise conceivable possibilities,"
so that »?Tot = rj = either this only or that, tertium non datur.
Herod, i. 11 : vvv rot Bvoiv bSoiv irapeovaewv, Tvyy, BiSwpi
aipeaw, oxorepyv /QouXeat rpdireaOai, etc., dXX' yrot xeivbv ye
rbv ravra BovXevaavra Sei dirbXXvaOai ¦Ij ae, rbv ifie yvpovyv
Byyadpevov. Hartung, Lehre von den Partikeln der Gr. Spr.
II. 356 f. ; Kiihner, Ausfi Gram, der Gr. Spr. II. 444.
— et? Odvarov] unto death. Clearly Odvaros here, as in vv.
21, 23, is in contrast with fay alwvios. It cannot then be
taken as the opposite of et? Sixaioavvyv, which only comes after
wards, and exercises no retrospective force, i.e. of the cessation of
moral action in hfe. The idea may be taken quite as compre
hensively as in v. 12, although in that case the element of
-spiritual, and especiaRy eternal, death predominates. If it is
supposed that because bodily death falls stiR upon the SovXos
iiraxovys, and on account of the contrast of Odvaros and fay
alwvios, vv. 21, 22, by Odvaros eternal death exclusively must be
understood, it may be replied that by means of actual sins death
in the utmost compass of the idea, therefore also bodily death, as
it rests already on man on account of the corruption of original
sin, is also personally appropriated and deserved through his own
act. But for the SovXos iiraxovys even bodily death is abolished,
partly already in the shape of penalty, partly hereafter, by the
resurrection. EspeciaRy on account of ver. 23 we wish here to
abide by the general notion of Odvaros, for rd yap btywvia rrjs
dpaprlas Odvaros seems to us to point back expressly to v. 12.
The same death that falls on, man on account of original sin,
v. 12, falls on him also on account of actual sin.
— y viraxorjs] namely, to God, opposite of dpaprlas, which as
to its essence is irapaxoy, v. 1 9. The church doctrine of nova
obedientia finds here even as to expression its point of connection.
It fohows also from the entire tenor of the previous as of the
subsequent exposition, that it is in harmony with the apostle's
meaning to teach that the abohtion of the law for believers con
sists only in deliverance from the curse and constraint, not from
the obedience of the law. This obedience as to its nature is a
free one, but from freedom we cannot be made free. The use of
the word viraxorjs, employed here in a different relation, is in the
Pauline style occasioned by the preceding eh viraxoyv.

312 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
¦ — et? Sixaioavvyv] unto righteousness, as matter of course not
to be understood of the righteousness of faith, but of righteous
ness of life, as in vv. 13, 18 ff. Sixaioavvy, moral righteousness
as a condition, is the result of the continuous act of irraxoy. As
the exactly corresponding opposite of »?Tot dpaprlas et? Odvarov,
we should have expected ¦y Bixaioavvys els fayv instead of i)
viraxorjs els Sixaioavvyv. But it was of prime importance for
the apostle here to lay stress on the ethical elements of iiraxofj
and Sixaioavvy. The motive of terror and attraction, lying in
Odvaros and in far], is only brought forward expressly and inde
pendently from ver. 2 1 onward, to which et? Odvarov here merely
forms a prelude. Nevertheless, perhaps along with Bixaioa., its
consequence, fay alwvios, is to be supplied in thought out of
the antithesis Odvaros. Sixaioavvy here denotes, then, neither
" righteousness subjectively reahzed, even as this is the object of
ultimate eXirls," nor yet " the righteousness awarded to behevers
in. the judgment on account of Christ's death." Against both, the
conception of Sixaioavvy, ver. 18, is decisive. To iiraxoy els
Sixaioavvyv is analogous Sixaioavvy els dyiaap,ov, ver. 19. With
the doctrine of this verse, comp. Matt. vi. 24.
Ver. 1 7 contains the application or minor proposition of ver. 1 6.
Xapis Be rw Oew] sc. ety. " Adjungit gratiarum actionem ; primum
quo doceat, non esse id proprii meriti, sed singularis Dei miseri-
cordiae : simul ut ab ipsa gratiarum actione discant, quantum sit
Dei beneficium, eoque magis ad peccati detestationem animentur,"
Calvin. The x<*,Pl,'s @e°v challenges the x&P11* dvOpwirwv.
— oft fjre BovXoi t?J? dpoaprlas] The thanksgiving of the
apostle cannot of course refer to their having been the slaves of
sin, but only to the following irryxovaare ktX. According to
this view, on tfre BovXoi Trjs dp,. iiryKovaare Se ktX. stands for
OTt ovres irore BovXoi r. dp,. iiryK. ix KapSlas, comp. Winer,
p. 785. But this construction excites some suspicion, and still
more the absence of the preparatory fiev after ?jre, scarcely to be
dispensed with in this case, an absence of which no quite corre
sponding instance can be adduced. As the sentence gives here a
wrong sense, if it is not understood in close relation to the sub
sequent contrast, the particle indicating this relation was here
altogether indispensable. ' It is preferable, therefore, with several
modern expositors, to place the emphasis upon fjre, a view which
is favoured by the precedence given to ^Te. " But thanks be to

CHAP. VI. 18. 313
God, that ye were slaves of sin (that this is past and gone)."
Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 11 : Kal ravrd rives r)re; Eph. v. 8 : ijre ydp
irore axbros, and Harless there. The attraction foRowing can
only be resolved, as is acknowledged by all modern interpreters,
by vrryxovaare Be ix xapBlas (tg») twt&> SiSaxys et? bv irape-
BbQyre, Winer, p. 205.
— iiryxovaare] corresponds to iiraxoy, ver. 16, save that the
former more general viraxoy here appears more definitely as viraxoy
rod eiayyeXlov.
—ix xapBlas] comp. Matt, xviii. 35, and ix tyvxy's, Eph. vi
6; Col. iii 22. ¦ oiBe ydp yvayxdaOyre, oiBe iBidaOyre, dXX'
exovres poerd irpoQvpolas direaryre, Chrys. " Veritas et efficacia
religionis Christianae," remarks Bengel. " Mali non possunt plane
ex animo esse mah, quin eos semper vel inscios poeniteat sui et
servitutis suae : sed boni ex animo boni sunt et libere."
— et? bv irapeSbQyre] namely, by God through the Spirit of
God at work in the gospel, for which x^P^ *s due *° God. t^i>
toO Oeov BmjQetav alvtrrerai, Chrys. The passive (irapeSbQyre)
emphasizes the passive relation of man in regeneration, his activity
(iiryxovaare) being only the result of this relation, according to
the well-known axiom : " Ita a Spiritu Dei agimur ut ipsi quoque
agamus." Wherefore the
— TU7ro? SiSaxys] cannot be understood in the subjective sense
of " the form of doctrine, imprinted in the heart," as this is rather
imparted to or impressed on him. Luther and others : " the
pattern of the doctrine, exemplar, ideal which the doctrine sets up,
sentiendi agendique norma ac regula." But we cannot weR say,
to obey a pattern. In any case, the meaning is simpler and more
in keeping : form, definite type of doctrine. Expositors quote
from Jamblichus, vit. Pyth. c. 23, the perfectly analogous rviros
SiSaaxaXias = rpbiros SiSaaKaXlas. Comp. ii. 20 : fibpcpwais rrjs
7wuo-eft>? ; 2 Tim. i 13: inrorvirwais iyiawovrwv Xoywv ; Acts
xxhi 25. But by tu7to? SiSaxys, in agreement with the connec
tion, is meant the gospel in the stricter, not in the broader sense,
the doctrine of the righteousness which is in Christ, a righteous
ness of faith closely connected and inseparably interwoven with
righteousness of life, which includes and produces righteousness
of life as certainly as the germ the fruit.
Ver. 18; Several interpreters find in this verse the logical
conclusion, regarding, and indeed justly, ver. 16 as the major,

314 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
and ver. 1 7 as the minor proposition. But, in the first place,
the particle Be raises a doubt, for we should have expected oiv
instead, even if we take it as Se fieraBanxbv. Again, even in
iiryxovaare . . . SiSaxys as to substance is contained iSovXwOyre
rfj Sixaioavvy, which is therefore more naturally taken as a more
precise explanation than as a final inference. Wherefore ver. 18
is perhaps to be directly and strictly linked to ver. 17, and
separated from it only by a comma, not by a period or note of
exclamation, so that ?)re BovXoi rys dpoaprlas corresponds with
yroi dpaprlas et? Odvarov, ver. 16, iiryxovaare . . . SiSaxys with
its more precise explanation, contained in the 18th verse: ekev-
OepwOevres . . . iSovXwOyre rfj Sixaioavvy with rj iiraxoys els
Sixaioavvyv. But we may, nevertheless, with Laclimann and
Meyer, set a colon before iXevQ., when the sentence is no longer
dependent on on, but stands out independently, and so more
emphatically. The conclusion then foRows of itself : " Thus the
question raised, ver. 15, is to be answered in the negative, and
duly repelled by a fiy yevoiro. Therefore must you obey, not
sin, but righteousness."
— iSovXwOyre rfj Sixaioavvy] you were enslaved to righteousness.
The expression is no doubt paradoxical, but very significant,
sharply emphasizing the subjection, the fruit of grace, of the
justified man to the law of righteousness. Has b yeyevvypevos
ix rov Oeov . . . oi Svvarai dpaprdveiv, 1 John hi. 9. He is
one freed from sin and a slave of righteousness. Comp. the
analogous paradox, 1 Cor. vh. 22. Elsewhere BovXevew, SovXovv
expresses for the most part the ethical servitude, the slavery to
sin and the law, which is freedom from righteousness, Gal iv. 3 ;
Tit. h. 3 ; 2 Pet. ii. 19. But comp. also vh. 25, xiv. 18 ; Col.
ih. 24 ; 1 Thess. i. 9.
Ver. 19. dvQpwirwov Xiyw] in a similar way to xar avOpwirov
Xeyo), ih. 5, apologizes for the expression iSovXwOyre rfj Sixaio
avvy, which is somewhat gross and accommodated to dull powers
of apprehension. " Humanitus se loqui elicit non quoad substan^
tiam, sed quoad formam," Calvin.
— Bid ryv daQeveiav rrjs aapxbs vpwv] Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 22.
The adplj is the natura mere humana,' in contrast with the divine
irvevpa, Matt. xxvi. 41. From this weakness of the flesh, found
still in every behever in a higher or lower degree, flows slow
ness of comprehension in spiritual things. Only a nature

CHAP. VI. 19. 315
whohy spiritual is able to understand and appreciate purely
spiritual truth in a purely spiritual form. Until then it stands
in need of conceptions and expressions put in a figurative, strongly
sensuous way. " Humanus sermo frequens et quodammodo per
petuus, quo scriptura se ad nos demittit. Sermo apertior non
semper aptior ad rem ipsam," Bengel. Paul had used the ex
pression : " you were enslaved to righteousness," lest they should
fall into the carnal mistake of supposing that freedom from the
law is freedom from righteousness ; as, on the contrary, it is
freedom to righteousness, or, more strongly put, bondage to
righteousness. Moreover, the marks of parenthesis must be
erased; for the foRowing wairep ydp xrX., while it elucidates
iBovXwOyre rfj Sixaioavvy, does so hkewise dvQpcoirlvws with
reference to the daOeveia of the adplj, seeing that here also the
SovXela rys Sixaioavvys is placed in parahehsm with the BovXela
rrjs dpaprlas.
— wairep . . . ovrw] Comparison between the former and present
condition. — yap] namely. The explanation is given in the form of
exhortation. The apostle exhorts the church, in harmony with
the nature of the sanctifying process, to become that which it
already is.
— rfj dxaOapala, xal ry dvopola] Instead of the one rfj dpaprla,
ver. 13, two sinful principles are specified; but these merely
characterize the idea of dpaprla under its two aspects, subjective
and objective ; or regard sin with respect to its inner essence, as
which it is dxaOapala ; and with respect to its relation to the
divine law, as which it is dvopola. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 7 : oi ydp
ixdXeaev ypas 6 Oebs iirl dxaOapala, dXX' iv dyiaa/iw, and 1 John
hi. 4 : iras b iroiwv t^w dfiaprlav xal t^v dvofilav iroiei' xal y
dpaprla iarlv rj dvopla. As dxaOapala, sin is defilement of body
and spirit ; as dvopola, it is guht.
et? t^v avo/ilav] = ware iroieiv ryv avopolav. dvopola, the first
time, denotes opposition to law as a principle ; the second time,
opposition to law in its manifestation — the unlawful deed. " Just
as you yielded up your members slaves to impurity and to law
lessness, for the practice of lawlessness or for doing what is
unlawful," so now yield up (ovtw vvv irapaaryaare, where, with
out doubt, the aorist, as the vvv added intimates, denotes what is
to be carried out at once ; see on ver. 1 3) your members slaves —

316 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
— rfj Sixaioavvy eh dyiaa/ibv] to righteousness unto holiness of
walk. Sixaioavvy, again, denotes the principle; dyiaa/ibs, the
manifestation, the practical matter of fact.
In conclusion, the apostle urges, vv. 20-23, to a ready com
pliance with the exhortation last given, by reference to the
unhappy effects of the former bondage to sin, and the happy
effects of the present bondage to righteousness and God, of which
the former should deter them from sin, the latter encourage to
holiness. Ver. 20. "Comply with the exhortation just given, ver. 19,
for," etc. The particle ydp introduces a motive, which is not
itself given thl ver. 21 ff. In the present verse the way is pre
pared for it. The apostle, therefore, without any essential altera
tion in meaning, might have written: rlva ydp xapirbv etxere
Tore, ore BovXoi yre rys dpoaprlas, iXevOepoi Be rfj Bixaioavvrj.
But he begins, first of aR, by reminding them of their former
state, adducing, not without a touch of irony, its advantage
(eXevOepov elvai ry Sixaioavvy), in order, over against the imaginary
advantage, to make the real disadvantage and injury stand out in
more striking colours. iXevOepoi yre rfj Sixaioavvy] i.e. de facto,
not de jure. Engaged in the service of the opposite sovereign, sin,
as no one can serve two masters, you were in fact free from the
other sovereign, righteousness. Even then you had freedom ; but
of what sort, and linked with what issues ! That dehcious
freedom from restraint brought at length the bitterness of death.
iXevOepoi tfre ry Sixaioavvy = oix tfre BovXoi rfj Bixaioavvrj, free
from righteousness, i.e. free with respect to righteousness, in rela
tion to righteousness. It stands in antithesis to BovXovaOai ry
Sixaioavvy, BovXoi ry Sixaioavvy, vv. 18, 19 ; Winer, p. 263.
Ver. 21. Several interpreters connect together rlva . . . iiraia-
XvveaOe; as one question. "What fruit had you then (of the
things) of which you are now ashamed*?" The answer to he
then supplied is : none, or pernicious fruit. But the supplying
of ixelvwv or e'£ ixelvwv before e'^>' oils, which then becomes
necessary, is difficult, and not fuRy borne out by vii. 6. More
over, the paraRelism of thought requires those sins and shameful
deeds (ixeiva icp' oh vvv iiraiaxyveaOe) to be just as much
regarded as the xapirbs of their former condition, whose Te\o? is
Odvaros, as in ver. 22 good works are represented as the xapirbs
of theh present state, whose reXos is fay alwvios. But if we

CHAP. VI. 22. 317
would interpret: "What fruit now had you then of things, of
which you are now ashamed ? i.e. you had then no fruit, no moral
gain of, etc. ; for what leads at last to death could bring you no
moral gain," it is quite self-evident that things of which one is
ashamed, i.e. sins and shameful deeds, bring no moral gain. It is
therefore best, with Luther and most modern interpreters, to place
the note of interrogation after rbre, so that icp' ol? vvv iiraia-
yvveaQe forms the answer. " What fruit had you then ? Things
of which (e<£' oh = rotavra icp' oh) you are now ashamed."
Comp. in Gal v. 19-22 the antithesis of epya rrjs aapxbs and
Kapirbs rov irvevpoaros. The things of which they are ashamed
now that they are converted, are sinful deeds as the fruit of theh
bondage to. sin ; dvopola, ver. 1 9, as the effect of the SouXeta t?j?
dxaOapalas xal rrjs dvofilas. Elsewhere, indeed, the apostle
speaks Only of the xapirbs rov irvevparos, rov cpcorbs, rys Bixaio
avvys. But here a sort of ironical oxymoron is found. They had
a xapirbv\ dxapirov, comp. Eph. v. 11. rb ydp reXos ixelvwv,
Odvaros] Reason of the shame. You are now ashamed of these
acts ; for 1 low shameful must the act be whose end is death ! The
hurtfulnes 3 of sin sets in rehef its shamefulness, the destruction
that it b ings, as a divine punishment, embodying a judgment
upon its v rorth. TeXo?, end, issue, fined result, 2 Cor. xi. 15, PhR.
ih 19, AJPet. i. 9, not absolutely identical with byjrwvia, wages,
ver. 23|, itRather ver. 23 expressly shows that reXos, which may
be quitted weR ^aptoyta as b^rcoviov, is in itself neither of them.
Respecting Odvaros, see on ver. 16. If the reading received by
Lachmann, to fiev ydp reXos xrX., is genuine, the fiev does not
correspon d to the following Se, but is to be rendered : for the end
indeed, e1;c. Comp. Hartung, Lehre von den Part. d. Gr. Spr.
II. 414.
. Ver. 22. Antithesis to w. 20, 21. They were iXevOepoi rfj
Btxaioovfy, but are iXevOepwQevres dirb Trjs dpoaprlas] for
their freedom in reference to the law was their natural condition,
preceded 'by no other from which they had been set free ; whereas
they were set free from sin by regeneration.
— SovXwOevres Be tw Qeco] To serve righteousness is to serve
God, vv. 18, 19, for only the righteous is God's servant, Isa.
liii. 11. Augustine says, strikingly: "Deo servire vera hbertas
est." Comp. also 1 Pet. ii. 16.
— eWre 70V ^aprrbv vpowv els dyiaapbv] Breviloquence for o

318

COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.

xapirbs bv e^eTe iarw (dyei) els cvyiaapbv, " the fruit that you
now have leads unto holiness," The xapirbs is the epya iov
irvevp,aros of believers, which are a fruit that they enjoy, which,
apart from all reward, are on their own account to them, a
delightful fruit of grace. The end and aim of grace, certainly
only to be attained in this hfe in unceasing approximation, is
dyiaafibs, holiness. There is here clearly a glancing back to the
conclusion of ver. 19, to SouXet'a rrjs Bixaioavvys et? dyiaapbv.
— rb Be reXos farjv aiwviov] still dependent on e^eTe. {psy
alwvios is here conceived as future. Comp. on i. 16.
Ver. 23 ratifies what is said, vv. 21, 22, of the final result of
the bondage to sin and to God. rd btywvia] = y dvnpiadla.
'Otycbviov xvplws Xeyerai ro rois arpanwrais irapd rov BaaiXetas
BeBopoevov airypeaiov, Theophylact. The expression is used in
allusion to ver. 13. The collective plural, to indicate the very
various elements in kind or coin used in payment, is more usual
than the singular. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 7. I
¦ — to Be x^PiaH'a 7°v Oeov] Death is the well-e£,rned and
merited wages that sin gives, but eternal life is and re nains the
unmerited gracious gift-of God. We have it
— iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov] in believing feRowship with

is at once righteousness and eternal hfe, 1 John v. 20.

Him who
Thus the
inseparable connection of justification and sanctifieat^jn, which
forms the basis and fundamental view of this chaptea reappears
at its end. He that is justified by faith in Christ has*!tternal hfe
as God's gracious gift ; and inasmuch as sanctification is simply
the subjective development of the objective gift of j\u tification,
fay alwvios remains, even for the sanctified, what it w£ & at first,
namely, x"-Pi(7P,a Oeov, whose possession he does not first earn
by means of dytaapobs, but only awaits, and, when he has attained
the end of sanctification, actually receives. Bona opera, according
to St. Bernard's weR-known saying, are merely the via r&gni, not
the causa regnandi.

CHAP. VII. 1. 319

CHAPTER VII.
The law is lord over man as long as he Rves. Only death can
dissolve his relation to the law, just as the wife can only come
into the power of another husband when her husband is dead.
In the same way, then, the church is dead to the law ; and, this
first marriage-bond being dissolved, has become the possession of
Christ, her second husband. The purpose of this new union is to
bring forth fruit to God ; for the law did nothing but stir up
sinful desire, and only through freedom from the law has service
in the new spiritual nature been made possible and real. This is
the purport of w. 1-6. If, then, we ask, to what point in the
foregoing exposition this teaching links on, the statement, ver. 14,
at once occurs to us: dfiaprla ydp ipwv oi xvpievaef ov ydp
iare virb vbfiov, dXX' iirb x°-Piv '¦> ^or VT- l-^ of this chapter
manifestly correspond to oi ydp iare virb vbfiov, <iXX' virb %a/3ti>
=.oi ydp iare vbfiov, dXXd Xpiarov, and vv. 5, 6 to the inference
to be drawn from this : dpaprla ipowv oi xvpievaei. The decisive
statement of vi. 14 might easily cause offence, especially in the
Jewish-Christian portion of the church, as it was always difficult
for Jewish Christians to look upon the dominion of the law as
entirely abolished by Christ. Hence the apostle in the present
section proves at sthl greater length that this is the actual state
of things, that the notion of a union between the law and Christ,
and of the first being retained alongside the latter, is altogether
without warrant, and that only by the passing away of the
dominion of the law is the dominion of sin broken and the
dominion of righteousness estabhshed. Every other mode of
connection with what precedes, although in appearance more
probable, is to be regarded as reaRy more improbable and artificial.
Ver. 1. *H dyvoeire] vi. 3; 1 Cor. vi. 16. In the nature of
things, y usually relates to the subject immediately preceding ; but
there is no logical necessity for this. The point of connection
may also lie farther back, provided that there is sufficient reason
for this, and that it is obvious to the . reader. But here this is

320 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
actually the case. The proposition vi. 14 might, as vi. 15 shows,
lie open to a dangerous misconstruction. This must first of ah
be repelled. After this is done in vi. 16—23, the apostle returns,
according to intention, to vi. 14, in order to expand the sentiment
of that verse more fully, and defend it against the doubts that
might arise. StiR, if it is desired formally to connect the deferred
exposition of vi. 14, contained in vv. 1-6 of this chapter, with
what immediately precedes, we may say that the position that
the Christian, set free from the service of sin and become the
servant of God, has his fruit unto holiness and eternal life as the
final result, vi. 22, 23, could not be truth, if the Christian were
not free from the law, and did not belong to the risen Christ
instead, etc., vh. 1—6.
— dSeX^ot] As Paul is about to examine a doubt usually
raised only by Jewish Christians, we cannot wonder at his here
addressing himself speciaRy to them with the title dSeXcpol. In
iv. 1, also, his question is specially directed to Jewish Christians,
and on this account cahs Abraham our (i.e. natural) father. In
a quite similar way, xi. 25 (comp. ipoeis, vv. 28, 30), as hkewise
follows from the context, only Gentile Christians are addressed by
dSeXcpol. The purport of this passage clearly stands in positive
and direct relation to the Jewish Christians, and can only bear ,a
secondary and subordinate apphcation to the Genthe Christians.
But it is obvious that this gives no ground for the assertion that
the Roman church consisted in overwhelming proportion of
Jewish Christians (against this, see Introduction), and that there
fore the entire church is described a parte potiori ; for, as observed,-
even a part of the church may be exclusively addressed without
noticing the other.
— yovwaxovat yap vbfiov XaXw] not : " for I speak to those
among you that know the law," i.e. to the Jewish Christians,
which would be rois ywwax. xrX., but: "for I speak to you as
to those that know the law ; I speak to those acquainted with
the law." ydp then belongs, not to dSeXcpol, but to y dyvoeire,
and confirms, not the reference of. the address to the Jewish
Christians, but the assumption of knowledge in those addressed.
But certainly the pregnant and specific description yivwaxovres
vbpov applies only to Jewish Christians, h. 17-20, and could
not as matter of necessity leave the readers in doubt as to who
were addressed in dSeXcpol.

CHAP. VII. 1. 321
— o vbpoos] here also the Mosaic law, as is proved by the
ahusion to vi. 14, yivwaxovai vopoov in the present verse, and the
application ver. 4 of the present chapter. Therefore neither the
moral law in general, nor yet merely a part of the Mosaic law,
namely, the marriage-law.
— xvpievei rov avOpwirov] comp. vi. 14 : dpaprla oi xvpievaei.
The xvpieveiv of sin holds good as long as the xvpievew of the
Nomos holds good ; but the xvpievew of the Nomos holds good —
— icp' baov XP0V0V ?vl sc- ° dvOpwiros, for as long time as he
lives. Most expositors take the sentence b vbpoos ... %fj as a general
proposition. " The law wields its power over man for the whole
period of his life." But apart from the triviahty of such a pro
position, it was already of itself sufficiently obvious, so that, in
fact, no appeal was necessary on its account to the yvwais vbfiov
of the readers. Add to this, that in reahty it is false and in any
case anti-Pauline. Paul might, indeed, say that the law is given
to man for the whole period of his hfe, but not that it rules over
. him during the whole • period of his life (xvpievei rov dvOpwrrov).
For the behever, as is here to be expressly proved, the dominion
of the Nomos has ceased. He is no longer iirb vbfiov, and the
vbpos is no longer his xvpios. Accordingly t,yv here is to be
understood, not of physical, but spiritual hfe, and we have a
statement analogous to the words : o yap diroOavwv SeSixaiwrai
dirb tt}? dpaprlas, vi. 7. As long as man hves, i.e. his old,
natural life continues, he is a servant of the law ; only when he
is spirituahy dead is he free from the power of the law, o yap
diroOavwv SeSixaiwrai dirb rov vbfiov. To this, then, iOavarwQyre
t« vbpow, ver. 4, and KarypyrjQy/iev dirb rov vopoov, diroQavovres,
ver. 6, correspond, the apostle by the latter more precisely defining
the summons to spiritual death stated generaRy in this verse as a
summons to die to the law. Thus only does the appeal to the
knowledge of the law on the part of his Jewish-Christian readers
acquire its profounder meaning. It is such a knowledge as they
could not but have derived from the experience of their former
condition of subjection to the law in contrast with their present
condition of freedom in Christ. Several expositors as subject to
icp' oaov xpovov £,fj supply, not b dvOpwiros, but o vop,os. This
certainly has the advantage that the simhe, vv. 2, 3, is made to
correspond stiR more closely. But the apostle, as ver. 4 shows,
intends to speak here, not of the death of the law, but of the
Philippi, Rom. I. X

death ot man in relation to tne law ; ana, as ne puts tnis topic
in the very front, our view of i<p' oaov XP0V0V %V (among the
advocates of which Umbreit and Besser are now to be numbered)
is perfectly agreeable to the context.1
Vv. 2, 3. Most modern expositors find in these verses an
example in support of the general proposition, ver. 1. So Estius
early : " Quod dixit, exemplo declarat legis conjugalis, a qua
deinde (namely in ver. 4) comparationem sumit." But, first of ah,
this proposition, as already remarked, was sufficiently evident of
itself without illustrative example. Again, those expositors them
selves must acknowledge that the example is inapposite, nay,
halting. If it were meant to correspond to ver. 1, it must in
versely have been said : y ydp viravSpos yw»j, icp' oo-of xpovov $g,
rw dvBpl SeSerai vbfup' idv Be diroOdvy (sc. y 7W7), xarypyyrai
dirb rov vbfiov rov dvBpos. FinaRy, in that case ver. 3 is a
casual and needless expansion of the example, although in the
application, ver. 4, the chief stress is placed on this expansion,
and the chief reference made to it. It is best, then, to take •
vv. 2, 3, not as an example demonstrating by a concrete case in
needless and clumsy fashion the proposition : that death dissolves
the relation to the law, but — according to the view once uni-
versaRy received, in modern days held only by Reiche, Klee,
Olshausen, Tholuck (although in the fifth edition with trembling
hand), and Besser — as a simile or aRegory. Several interpreters
then, in the train of Augustine, understand by the y vwf the human
soul; by the one dvyp sinful lust, the iraQrjfiara tow dpapri&v
spoken of ver. 5, the 7raXato? dvOpwiros ; by the vbpos rov dvBpos,
the law, which constitutes the union of the soul with sin ; lastly,
by the other dvyp, Christ. But, first of all, it is somewhat far
fetched and forced to place the 7raXato? dvOpwiros over against
the iyw as the dvyp in relation to the ywy ; and again, according
to this view, Paul must have written in ver. 4 : xal vpeis
QavarwOevres (sc. ry dpaprla) Bid rov aebpoaros rov Xp.
yXevOepwOyre dirb rov vopov, whereas he is now clearly treating
of death in relation to the law, not of death in relation to sin.
He wishes to prove, not that by being freed from the law we are
dead to sin, but rather the reverse (vv. 5, 6), that by being dead
to the law we are freed from sin. It is therefore best, with the
majority of interpreters, who follow the aRegorical explanation of
1 The objections raised by Meyer and Tholuck we look upon as not conclusive.

CHAP. VII. 2, 3. 323
the verse, in the train of Origen and Chrysostom, to understand
by the yvvrj the church, by the one dvyp the law, by the other
Christ. It is common with the apostle to set forth the relation,
of the church to Christ under the image of marriage, 2 Cor.
xi 2 ; Eph. v. 32; and Hengstenberg, Comm. on Psalms, II. p. 120.
We have here a striking and beautiful expansion of the image,
the marriage-covenant serving to set forth the relation of the
covenant of law to the covenant of grace. The partial inversion
of the comparison that appears in the exposition, ver. 4, presents
no difficulty, because in reality the death of the law is identical
with the death of the individual in reference to the law.
— ydp] either confirmatory : for, for thus is it prefigured in
the law, or explanatory : nempe, namely, because the allegorical
instance borrowed from the marriage-law hlustrates the relation
in question of man to the law, Jas. h. 2.
— viravSpos] marito subjecta, i.e. married. The expression
occurs also in classical Greek, and is used by the LXX. for the
Hebrew i=iB»K nnn nm, Num. v. 29, etc.
< — rw favri dvSpl SeSerai] is bound to her living husband, is
bound to be his only. Comp. SeSeaai yvvaixl, 1 Cor. vii. 2 7, and
yvvrj SeSeTat icp' oaov xpovov £y b dvyp airys, ver. 39.
— vbfiw] by the law, namely, the Mosaic. He appeals to the
law in the presence of those who yivwaxovai vopoov. The law,
indeed, contains no express command of the sort, but only an
indirect precept ; for as only the husband could dismiss the wife
by bill of divorce, Deut. xxiv. 1, it fohowed that the wife on her
part was bound to the husband during her hfe. That the wife
also by the biR of divorce was released from obligation to the
husband (Kidduschin, f. h. 1 : " muher possidet se ipsam per
libellum repudii et per mortem mariti, Deut. xxiv. 2 f."), Paul
leaves out of sight, not so much because he only takes into
account the rule, not the exception, as rather because it only
concerned him here to lay stress on. this, — that the wife on her
part has no power, whhe her husband lives, to separate and
release herself from him, in which relation no change is made by
the power of the husband on his part to free himself from his
wife. — xarypyyrai dirb rov vopoov tov dvBpos] the phrase xarap-
yeiaOai dirb twos, not used in classical Greek, is found again
in ver. 6 and GaL v. 4. In meaning it corresponds with eXevOepa

324 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
iarlv 'dirb tou vbpov, ver. 3 (comp. iXevOepwOevres dirb, vi. 18,
22), although it is stronger and best compared with cpQelpeaOai
dirb, 2 Cor. xi. 3. We should have expected xarrjpyyrai b vbpos
tov dvBpos (hi 31) xal airy eXevOepa iarlv. But in energetic
phraseology the notion of abrogation is transferred to the person, and
by a construdio praegnans xarapyeiaQai dirb is put for xarapyeiaOat
xal xwplKe<T0ai dirb rov vopoov, to be annulled and released from-
the law, i.e. to be entirely set free from the law and released from
it in every respect, o vbpoos rov dvBpos, lex ad maritum pertinens,
de eo lata, the law referring to the husband, made in reference to
him. Comp. LXX. Lev. vii. 1 : ovros b vbpos rov xpiov xrX.,
oiros b vbpos Overlas awryplov ; xiv. 2 : rov Xeirpov ; xv. 3 ; rrjs
dxaOapalas, etc. Thus it is not reahy different from o vbpos
irepl rov dvBpos, LXX. Lev. xi. 46 : oiros b vbpoos irepl rwv
xryvwv xal rwv irerewwv xrX., and the genitive expresses, accord
ing to Winer, p. 235, inner reference of a remoter kind. Law of
the husband, i.e. the law fixing the relation to the husband, i.e. as
results here from the context, in such a form that it binds to him.
Bengel remarks on rov vopoov tov dvBpos, " non incommode statuas
appositionem : a lege, viro." Although this grammatical construc
tion is untenable, it may be said that Paul has not without
purpose chosen the phrase dirb rov vopoov rov dvBpos (ver. 3,
eXevOepa iarlv dirb rov vbpov) instead of the simple dirb rov
dvSpbs, in order to intimate that the freedom of the wife from
the husband in the spiritual sphere, prefigured by this relation,
is freedom from the law.
— dpa oiv] see on v. 18.
— XPyptartaei] The verb xPVparlfa, derived from XP^H"1'
originahy = to transact business, then : to manage state affahs,
especially to hold councils, to give answers and decisions upon
questions, to consult, ordain, decide. Hence in the N. T. of
divine answers and decisions, xPrliJM'TtXeiv = oracula edere, divinitus
admonere, edocere, Heb. xii. 2 5 ; the passive xPVM'aTl£ea'0ai, oraculo
moneri, oraculum accipere, divinitus admoneri, Matt. ii. 12, 22;
Luke ii. 26 ; Acts x. 22 ; Heb. vih. 5, xi. 7 (hence Chrys. : XP7!'
fianafibs irpocpyrela iarlv ; Rom. xi. 4 : %/3?7/*,aTi07io? = oraculum).
From the meaning : to conduct state affahs, to hold a pubhc office,
has arisen in later profane writers, Polybius and Diodorus (xpV~
fiarlfai BaaiXevs, he assumes the title of king, has himself cahed
lung), Plutarch (via *Icrt? ixpypdnae, she had herself cahed a new

CHAP. VII. 4. 325
Isis), Strabo (ixpypanae KapxySbvios), and others, the meaning
Xpyparlfa, I take, assume a title of office, character, name ; then
simply : I am called. So here, poixaXls ^/STj/uaTto-et, she shall be
called an adulteress. Comp. Acts xi. 26 : iyevero . . . ^p^aTtcrat
irpwrov iv 'Avnoxela rovs paQyrds Xpianavovs. The future
Xpyparlaei is used, because what always holds good may be
conceived as holding good also in the future.
— idv yevyrai dvSpl erepw] if she shall become another man's (as
wife). Comp. the B*&6 rrn, Ruth i. 12 ; Judg. xiv. 20; Ezek.
xvi 8, xxhi 4. erepos is here well chosen, because it concerns
not merely another husband of two, but also one of another kind,
belonging to another class or category. So Christ, in relation to
the law, is not merely dXXos, but erepos dvyp, Gal. i 6.
— tov poy] = ware p.y, of result, not of purpose, comp. Acts
ih. 12, vh. 19; Winer, p. 408.
Ver. 4. wore] Particle of inference, quare, itaque, accordingly,
therefore. On the foRowing indicative, comp. Winer, p. 377. It
follows that they also are dead to the law through the body of
Christ, because through the body of Christ the law is slain, and
therefore they, like the wife through the husband's death, are free
from the dominion of the law. The apostle, glancing back to
ver. 1, says : ifieis iOavarwQyre rw vbficp, instead of, as vv. 2 and 3
would have led us to expect, o vbpoos iQavarwQy, KarypyrjOy, not
so much to avoid giving offence to the weak Jewish Christians
by the former harsher expression (for in x. 4 he says : TeXo? vbfiov
Xpiaros ; Eph. h. 1 5 : rbv vbfiov twi/ ivroXwv iv Soyfiaai, Karap-
yrjaas ; Col. h. 14), as rather because, in keeping with vi. 14, he
would deal, not with the abolition of the law, but with the release
of believers from the law. Both are no doubt inseparably inter
woven, nay, identical, and therefore the transition could be made
from one conception to the other without difficulty. But had he
(vv. 2, 3) chosen the purely objective representation, it might
then have seemed as if the abohtion of the law left the Christian,
. hke the wife in the preceding comparison, in his natural state,
without the inner subjective change substituting for the yoke of
the law the lordship of- Christ. Moreover, since the awpa tov
Xpiarov is to be conceived as QavarwQev, and in this very awpoa
OavarwQev the law is at the same time slain (comp. the passages
of the Ephesian and Colossian epistles just cited), we can scarcely
speak of an inversion of the simile, the proposition: you are put

326 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
to death to the law through the body of Christ, being in reality
identical with the proposition : since through the body of Christ
the law is put to death, you are set free from it. There is accord
ingly found here not so much an inversion as a contraction of
thought and expression.
— xal ifieis] you also, namely, wairep y yvvrj, vv. 2, 3.
— iOavarwQyre toj vbpw] not direOdvere rw vbpotd, because only
the awpa QavarwOev rov Xpiarov and your incorporation by
God's gracious act into this awpa QavarwOev are the ground of
your deliverance from the law. On the dative toj vbpow, put to
death, dead to the law, as to the law, opposite of yiyveaQai (fj/p)
erepcp, comp. Winer, p. 263. ¦ ¦'.
¦ — Bid rov awparos rov Xpiarov] sc. OavarwOevros, which is
supplied naturally from iQavarwOyre, or even because iOavarw
Qyre rw vbpw Sid rov awparos rov Xpiarov may be regarded as
a contraction of eXevQepwOyre dirb tov vopov Bid rov awparos
OavarwOevros rov Xpiarov. Through the fact that the body of
Christ was slain, through the slaying of Christ's body you are put
to death to the law, in so far precisely as through the slaying of
Christ's, body the law is slain. Therefore the death of Christ
even here comes into view as a vicarious sacrificial death. With
awparos, comp. Eph. h. 1 5 : iv rfj aapxl airov ; and h. 1 6 : iv
evl awpari. The expression awpoaros is used instead of Qavdrov
with plastic insight. Christ's obedient seZ/-surrender to death is
not to be conceived as excluded, Heb. x. 1 0. Had we, moreover,
in ver. 1 only a general proposition, and in ver. 2 f. the example
illustrating it, ver. 4 would contain, not an inference, but an
application. But it would then be introduced by ovrws, not
by ware. At least if we interpret (comp. de Wette, Bdmerbr.
4 Aufl. p. 9 1) : " Therefore you also are put to death to the law " (so
that it no longer reigns over you as dead), we must say that it
does not at all follow that they also are dead, because only death
releases from the law, vv. 2, 3, but that the law uo longer reigns
over them only foRows on the supposition, or because it is
actually the case, that they also are dead. . Therefore either:
oiirws xal ipeis direOavere tw vopw, xal Bid tovto oixen b vopos
xvpievei vfiwv, or ware o vopos oixen xvpievei oiBe ipowv, Biori
xal ipeis direOdvere.
— et? rb yeveaOai vpas rw erepw] in order to your becoming
another's. Exphcation of yevopevyv avSpl erepw, ver. 3, et? rb,

CHAP. VII. 4. 327
tehc, not consecutive ; for the end of the law being abolished is
teat they should belong to Christ.
— rw iK veKpwv ir/epQevn] apposition to erepw, used in aRusion
and contrast to awpoa QavarwOev. They belong not to the dead,
but to the risen Christ. Through the slain Christ they are dead
to the law. The other husband, to whom they now belong, is
therefore not the slain, but the risen, the living Christ, vi. 5.
There may also be supposed a reference to the active power of
the Risen One who remains not in death, a reference preparatory
to Iva xapirocpop. r. Oew, v. 10, vi. 9.1
— 'iva xapirocpopyacopoev t& Oew] specifies the purpose of
yeveaOai vpds erepw, and the final purpose of iOavarwQyre tw
vbpw. The change of person is found in other places also, viii. 1 5 ;
Gal. hi 14. The transition to the common mode of speech in
the first person plural expresses the generality of the demand,
promise, etc., and thus adds force. On xapirocpopyacopev, Bengel
remarks : " Fructus respondet proli : nam simihtudo est a matri-
monio." So, too, the majority of ancient and modern interpreters,
who understand xapirbs of the fruit of marriage, good works.
Theodoret early remarks : xal iireiSy avvdcpeiav xal ydpov ryv els
rov xvpiov irpoayyopevae irlarw, elxorws Selxvvai xal rbv rov
ydpov xapirbv. But as this metaphor, occurring so often else
where in Scripture, of xapirbv iroieiv, Matt. ih. 8, 10 ; xapirbv
BiSbvai, Mark iv. 7 ; xapirbv cpepew, John xii. 24, xv. 2 ; xapirbv
exew, Rom. i 13 ; xapirocpopeiv, Matt, xiii 23, Mark iv. 20,
28, Luke vhi. 15, Col. i 6, 10, — is always taken from the soil,
trees, grain, vine, and as even in this epistle xapirbv exew, vi. 22,
just before, and xapirocpopeiv tw Oavdrw, vh. 5, just after, refer
to fruit of the soh (comp., besides, GaL v. 22 ; Eph. v. 9 ; Phil.
i. 11), there is no adequate ground for supposing a deviation here
from this use of the word, which is invariable in the N. T. The
metaphor of xapirocpopeiv, so famihar, needed in fact no special
occasion to suggest its employment. It must therefore remain
exceedingly doubtful whether, whhe retaining the trope from the
soh, merely an allusion to the xapirbs xoiXias (Luke i. 42) should
1 " For if Christ became through His bodily death our deliverer from the law, we
cannot now belong to Him otherwise than as the Risen One for a new and indis
soluble union. The importance of this addition, in its bearing on the matter in-
hand, lies in the xmvirns S>Ss (vi. 3, 11, 13, 22), which, on the very ground of the
ethical communion with the Risen One, issues from the new relation," Meyer.

328 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
also be supposed. But against the notion that the xapirbs xoiklas
is here directly meant, beside what has been already quoted,
tehs the somewhat indelicate coarseness of the figure, which,
moreover, would stand out in strong contrast with the bare
intimation of the marriage-relation lying in the phrase: et? rb
yeveaOai ipods erepcp. xapirocpopeiv rwi, to bear fruit for one, it,
to bear fruit that one may enjoy, that is agreeable to him. Since
the end of our union with Christ consists in our being bound to
bear fruit to God, it foRows that through Christ the law is only
abolished relatively. " Ac tenendum quidem est," says Calvin,
" Paulum earn duntaxat partem, quae propria est Mosis ministerio,
hic attingere. Nam quatenus decern praeceptis tradidit Deus,
quid rectum sit, vitamque nostram instituit, nuha nobis somnianda
est Legis abrogatio : qui vigere perpetuo debet Dei voluntas.
Itaque dihgenter meminerimus, non esse hanc a justitia, quae in
Lege docetur, solutionem : sed a rigida exactione et ea, quae inde
sequitur, maledictione. Non ergo bene vivendi regula, quam Lex
praescribit, abrogata est : sed qualitas iha, quae hbertati per
Christum partae opponitur, nempe dum summam perfectionem
requirit, et quia non praestamus, constringit nos sub aeternae
mortis reatu."
Vv. 5, 6. Confirmation of 'iva xapirocpopyawpev rw Oew. This
xapirocpopeiv rw Oew is now to take- place, for (yap) under the
law only a xapirocpopeiv rco Oavdrw took place, ver. 5 ; but now,
when we are dehvered from the law, a BovXevew iv xawbryri
irvevparos, ver. 6, which by its very nature is a xapirocpopeiv tw
Oew. Thus is justified our initial assertion, that as vv. 1-4 of
this chapter are the development of the second half of vi 14,
oiK iare iirb vopov, dXX' virb x^Plv> s° vv. 5, 6 are a more pre
cise presentation of the first half, dpaprla ipwv oi xvpievaei, or,
if one chooses, of the entire sentence, dpaprla ip. oi xvp., on oix
iare v. vbp., dXX' v. %apti>. Instead of ore ydp fj/iev iv rfj aapxl]
according to the connection of thought, we should rather have
expected ore ydp ypev iirb rbv vbpov, to which, then, vwl Be
KarypyyQyjiev dirb rov vbpov, ver. 6, stands in opposition. On
this ground Theodoret early explained iv ry aapxl by iv ry xara
vbpov iroXireta, and supported the explanation by the words •
adpxa yap rds rfj aapxl SeSopevas vopooQealas wvbpaae. Certainly
elvai iv ry aapxl cannot be identified offhand with elvai iirb rbv
vbpov. But the reference of the expression to the essence of the

CHAP. VII. 5, 6. 329
law is imperatively demanded by the connection, unless the struc
ture of the language is to be described as altogether out of harmony
and irrelevant, adplj , then, is the old essence of human nature in
opposition to the new essence of the irvevpa. But this manifests
itself not merely in the dominion of sinful lusts and propensities,
but quite as much in rehance upon descent, circumcision, external
prerogatives, and works of law. Comp. on Kara adpxa, iv. 1.
The Jewish Christians, therefore, were iv ry aapxl, just as they
rehed upon those carnal things ; and elvai iv ry aapxl accordingly
means not to be under the law, but to be in a legal position, of
a legal nature.
— rd iraQrjpara rwv dpapnwv] the passions of sins, i.e. the
passions leading to sins, that have sins for their result. Comp.
on et? Bixalwaiv fays, v. 18. rd iraQrjpara, elsewhere in a
physical sense sufferings — only again, Gal. v. 24, in an ethical
sense — occurring also in profane authors, passions, in the latter
passage co-ordinated with iiriQvplais. But iraQrjpara rwv dpap
nwv cannot be inverted " passions brought about by sins," because
while y dpaprla indeed does, al dpaprlai does not denote the
sinful principle active in the heart. Parallel is Jas. i. 15 :
y eiriOvpla avXXaBovaa rlxrei dpaprlav.
— Ta Bid tov vbpov] either directly a more exact definition of
rd iraQrjpara, as perhaps 1 Thess. i 8 : y irlans ipwv rj irpbs
rbv Oeov, or ovra (not merely cpaivbpeva or yvwpi^bpeva, as,
besides being ungrammatical, Chrysostom wishes) is to be under
stood. For the law not merely works iirlyvwaiv dpaprlas, but
is also Svvapis dpaprlas, 1 Cor. xv. 56. "Hoc est legis opus,"
says Calvin, " corda nostra magis accendere, ut in tales cupiditates
ebulhant." How this is done is explained at length, ver. 7 ff.
The iraQrjpara brought about through the law (Sta) are those
excited and set in motion through the law. " Lex enim," Calov
Strikingly remarks, " ob peccatum accusans et damnans, nos ad
ham fremitumque contra se et Deum excitat, et interna malitia
sentiens legem urgentem et damnantem, tanquam ignis in calce
viva perfusus aqua, tanto magis exaestuat, quum virtutem obse-
quendi haud videat."
— ivypyeiro] were active, middle, not passive, which occurs
nowhere in the N. T. Of persons Paul invariably uses the active
ivepyeiv, 1 Cor. xii. 6 ; Gal. ii. 8, ih. 5 ; Eph. i. 11, 20, ii. 2 ;
. PhiL ii 13 ; of things, the middle ivepyeiaOai, 2 Cor. i. 6, iv. 12 j

330 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
Gal. v. 6 ; Eph. hi. 20 ; Col. i. 29 ; 1 Thess. ii; 13 ; 2 Thess,
ii. 7, comp. Jas. v. 1 6 ; on the other hand, Matt. xiv. 2 ; Mark
vi. 14. In profane authors the middle does not occur. From
1 Cor. xii. 11, therefore, according to this invariable Pauline
idiom, an argument may be deduced for the personahty of the
Holy Spirit.
— iv rois peXeaiv ypwv] The fieXy as parts of the a&pM
(comp. on vi. 12) are here mentioned in the same sense as in
vi. 13, 19. Hence Melanchthon justly observes: " Quod autem
dicit affectus peccatorum per legem excitatos, efficaces fuisse in
membris nostris intelhgit de dubitatione, indignatione adversus
Deum, desperatione," save that sensual lusts are just as httle to
be excluded.
— et? rb xapirocpopyaai tw Oavdrw] The fruits are no other
than the sinful deeds that bring death, vi. 21, 23, and Jas. i 15 :
y Se dpaprla diroreXeaOeiaa diroxvei Odvarov. eh rb, in keeping
with ware, ver. 6, is to be taken ixBanxws, not TeXtKw?. Re
specting Odvaros, comp. on vi. 16, 21, 23. Again, what is here
said in particular of Jewish Christians may also be apphed,
although only in a subordinate and analogous manner, to Gentile
Christians, and, moreover, to aR Genthe Christians, not simply to
those among them who formerly belonged to the proselytis portae.
Even the law of conscience possessed, according to ii 14, by the
Gentiles, as the deputy of the Mosaic Nomos, stirred up the lusts of
the flesh. It was, so to speak, an emanation of the divine, revealed
law, by means of which that law exerted its influence even over
the natural life of man. Hence the law of conscience may be
here viewed as included under the Nomos, and condensed in it
as in its culminating point. Besides, what is said in this section
could only bear application to the Genthe Christians, in so far as,
had they not become Christ's, they must have come under the
Nomos, since no third form of revelation exists or can exist. But
by the ancients (comp. Calov here) this verse is rightly under
stood to intimate that believers, even in the time of the old
covenant, were justified and regenerated simply through faith in
the promise, and were thus dehvered from the law which excites
fleshly lusts.
¦ — vwi] used as adverbium temporis in contrast to ore, ver. 5.
Just so vwl, vi. 22, in opposition to ore, ver. 20.
— xarypyyOypev dirb rov vbpov] Theophylact: direXvQypev,

CHAP. VII. 5, S. 331
fjXevOepwOypev. Comp. xarypyyrai dirb rov vbpov rov dvBpos,
ver. 2.
- — diroQavbvres] This reading, the best attested by manuscripts,
is the one approved by all modern editors and interpreters. The
lectio recepta diroQavbvros is reaRy a mere conjecture, that has
crept into the text through a misunderstanding on the part of
Beza of Chrysostom's interpretation, comp. Reiche, Com. Crit. I.
p. 50 ff. The connection of xareixopeda is no doubt thereby
made easy, but the representation of the vbpos as diroOavwv
would be inconsistent with the idea of ver. 4. The reading
rov Qavdrov, occidental only, is hkewise to be regarded as a
correction to remove difficulties. The vbpos was described as
vbpos rov Qavdrov in aRusion to ver. 5, where Odvaros was men
tioned as its consequence, because diroQavbvres was understood,
not of spiritual death in relation to the law, but wrongly of death
brought about by the law. vwl xavypyyOypev dirb tov vbpov
diroQavbvres, so that diroQavbvres gives the mode of xarypyyOypev,
is in meaning identical with vpeis iOavarwQyre rw vbpw, ver. 4,
on which account the connection of iv w with rov vbpov appears
easier than that with an ixelvm or rovrw (neut.) to be understood
after diroQavbvres, Winer, p. 198, note. With diroQavbvres,
comp. Gal h. 1 9 : iyd> ydp Sid vbpov vbpw direQavov ; Col. h. 2 0 :
et direOdvere avv Xpiarw dirb rGsv aroixelwv rov Koapov.
- — xareixbpeOa] as a captive in prison, Gal. ih. 23 : iirb vbpov
itppovpovpoeOa avyKexiXeiapevoi, iv. 3, also Rom. xi. 32.
— wore] so that, consequence of release from the law.
— BovXevew ypods] as is seR-evident r& 0e&, vi. 22. Just as
self-evident i3 it that the BovXevew iv iraXaibryn ypdpparos is a
BovXevew rfj dpaprla (vi. 17, 20), for which reason neither tw Oew
nor rfj dpaprla need be expressly added.
— iv xaivbryn irvevparos xal oi iraXaioryn ypdpparos] comp.
ii. 29 ; 2 Cor. hi. 6. From the last passage it follows that
irvevpa here is the irvevpa Oeov Himself, not merely the human
spirit renewed by God's Spirit, which irvevpa may perhaps mean
elsewhere, ypdppa is the law, in so far and as long as it is not
written by God's Spirit on man's heart, as it presents itself to
him merely as an external, dead, and fatal letter. xaworys
might, then, be referred to irvevpa, so that xaworys irvevparos
would be a more energetic expression for «ati>oi> irvevpa, vi. 4 :
xaworys £&>i?9. But the irvevpa can only be called xawbv, in so

332 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
far as it attests a new condition of life ; and elsewhere only
dvOpwiros or xriais, not irvevpa, is accompanied by this predicate.
Hence it is preferable to understand Kawbrys of this new condi
tion of man which the irvevpa conditions and effects ; and in the
same way iraXaibrys is to' be understood of the former condition
of hfe moulded under the influence of the ypdppa, of the inward
and outward constitution of the 7raXato? dvOpwiros. Luther
therefore rightly : " thus that we may serve in the new nature of
the spirit, and not in the old nature of the letter." That this old
nature is sinful and the new nature holy, results naturahy as
well from the character of the principle which is its source, as
from the entire tenor of the exposition, iv denotes the spherej
the element in which the BovXevew takes place, and is of course
to be referred to iraXaibryn.
In the exposition of the doctrine of God's justifying and
sanctifying grace in Christ, which has engaged the apostle up to
this point, he had continually made reference, although mostly
but in brief sentences, to the Mosaic Nomos, and repeatedly
asserts its inability to confer righteousness, hohness, and hfe.
Nay, on the contrary, he describes the law as a principle that
mediates sin, divine wrath, and death. His doctrine of grace
stood in complete contrast with the • doctrine of law. Thus we
read, hi. 20, that the vbpos justifies not, because it brings iiriyvm-
aw dpaprlas ; that, accordingly, righteousness availing before God
is revealed %t»pt? vbpov, ver. 21 ; just so, iv. 15, that the vbpos
works wrath, because it has irapdBaaw for its consequence ; v. 20,
that it is given to aggravate the irapdirrwpa ; vi. 14, that with its
dominion, the dominion of sin is broken. With a simhar apparently
disparaging remark concerning the law be bad concluded the,
section, just expounded, of this seventh chapter. What the apostle
said there, vv. 5, 6, leads him to the subjoined apology for the law,
now indeed become necessary, in which he vindicates the Nomos
from the guilt of its evil consequences, and charges them abso
lutely to the account of the sinfulness of human nature. This is the
drift of the exposition that now follows, vv. 7-25. The apostle?
uses the first person, and therefore utters his own experience. Sthl,
at the same time (the rhetorical axypa may be called koIvcoois,
Kowoiroiia, IBlwais, or peraaxypanapbs), the universal experience
of mankind is delineated. If merely his individual spiritual
states were meant to be described, without our being justified in

CHAP. VII. 7. 333
giving them a universal reference, such a description would be
deprived of all evidential force, since it must then remain utterly
uncertain whether the law invariably produced such effects as he
had once and by the way experienced. But, on the other hand,
that Paul here, excluding his own experience, pictures only the
general experience of mankind, or that of the Jewish people under
the law, is, to pass by all other inconveniences, out of the question,
because the apostle, as his life, his writings, and the case itself
testify, had actuaRy gone through the conditions here dehneated,
and pictures them with such a vivid touch as nothing but
remembrance of past or consciousness of present occurrences can
impart.1 " Imprimis in rebus spiritualibus," says Melanchthon,
"prodest Sanctorum experientiam nosse, ut ex eorum exemphs
agnoscamus vim verbi et opera Dei." " Se ergo in exemplum
sistere voluit apostolus," observes Calvin, " partim ivepyelas ergo,
siquidem hlustrior fiat exemplis oratio, partim iriOavoXoylas gratia.
Nihil enim loqui se ostendit, nisi quod sensu atque experientia
suapte compertum habeat. Tunc enim utilissime docetur, cum
in se quisque descendens doctrinae vivum experimentum ex se
ipso capere potest" Rightly, Theodor. Mopsu. on ver. 8 : to iv
epol ore Xeyei, to xoivbv Xeyet rwv dvOpdnrwv, and Theophyl. on
ver. 9 : iv tcS olxelw Be irpoawircp tj)i< dvQpwirwyv cpvaw Xeyet.
But if we ask, of what period in his life the apostle treats in this
section, it is unquestionable and really conceded by aR expositors
that vv. 7—13 can only refer to the legal condition of the un
regenerate. We consider then, first, the content of these verses,
and defer thl afterwards the consideration of the question, what
stage of the inner hfe is described in w. 14-25.
Ver. 7. Ti oiv ipovpev ;] comp. ih. 5, vi. 1, also iv. 1.
— o vbpos dpaprla;] Is the law sin? Most interpreters
suppose a mdonymia effedus pro causa = is the law the cause of
sin? comparing it with Gal. ii. 17: dpaprlas Sidxovos, and
appealing to Mic. i 5 : pl?w afci 3j«p jrate_,». " Who is the
JTo the view of Grotius ("Apostolus autem hic sub prima persona describit
Hebraeum genus quale fuit !*•< ri xoxi primum ante legem, deinde post legem "),
which Calov calls a "glossa Pelagiana, Sociniana et Arminiana," in modern days
only, Reiche (who even finds, ver. 15 ff., in the double iyu " the empirical, sinfulJew,
as he appears in experience and history, and as such does evil, distinguished from
the ideal Jew free from sin, as he might and should have been, who as such dis-
'approves that evil ") and Fritzsche have adhered. See its thorough refutation in
Tholuck, Com., 1842, p. 349 ff.

334 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
author of Jacob's transgression? Is it not Samaria?" But,
apart from the consideration that there the expression is poetical
and that in this sense we should at least in the present passage
have expected b vbpos dpaprla poi ylverai ; Paul also could not
offhand and in every respect deny that the law is the cause of
sin, seeing that, according to his own representation, although '-
not its efficient, it is yet its proximate cause. On this account
several modern interpreters, fohowing Tittmann, de syn. in N. T.
lib. I. p. 46 (manifestum est, in verbis: o vbfios dpaprla;
dpaprlav non esse incitamentum ad peccatum, sed quod per se
pravum et vitiosum est), have rightly taken dpaprla in the sense
of dpaprwXos, xaxbs (abstr. pro doner.). Is the law sin? i.e.
something whose nature is in itself sinful, immoral? The
supposition is natural, that, from the homogeneity of cause and
effect, what occasions sin is itself sinful. The abstract dpaprla
is chosen, then, instead of dpaprwXos (2 Cor. v. 21, also 1 John
iv. 10) on account of the subjoined dpaprlav. The contrast,
ver. 20, o vbpos dyios = ovx dpaprwXos, also favours this inter
pretation. But, of course, it only seems possible to suppose
that the law itself is sin in so fars as it could be held answerable
for the sin that it occasions, when of set purpose and mahce afore
thought it brings to ruin man in himself without sin ; for the
supposition that the law is sin, on the ground of its commanding
wrong instead of right, or rewarding instead of punishing sin,
would be too diametrically opposed to the universaRy admitted
idea of law. Hence Calvin's intermediate view: "Quum autem
rogat, an peccatum sit : intehigit, an peccatum sic generet, ut illi
imputari ejus culpa debeat," and Bengel's : " num lex est peccatum
sive causa peccati peccaminosa," may perhaps be nearest the truth.
The law would be itseK sin if it were the direct cause of sin.
This dangerous misunderstanding the apostle now rebuts, as
usual, by a
— py yevoiro] comp. on iii. 4.
— aXXa] not = iut indeed, but = imo, on the contrary, or = but.
It introduces the opposite of what was denied in prj yevoiro.
That which is. designed to lay bare and make known sin cannot
itself be the mahcious and guhty cause of sin. dpaprla pev oix
ean, cpyal, yvwpianxbs Be dpaprlas, Theophyl.
— T^f dpaprlav oix e'ywaj/] I knew not sin. dpaprla here is,
of course, as the subjoined explanatory Tyv re yap iiriOvpiav ovk

CHAP. VII. 7. 335
jfSew proves (vv. 8, 9, 11, 13, 14), sin as an inward principle, not
sin as an act, for the sinful act was known indeed before the law.
But " I knew not sin " is not to be directly explained : I knew
not that sin is sin; for the apostle says not oix rjSew ryv
dpaprlav elvai dpaprlav, but man knows not sin at aR, just
because he knows not that sin is sin, i.e., before the revelation
through the law, the character and essence of sin is unknown to
him, because he takes the sinful propensity, dwelling in him, for
a lawful, divinely-implanted inclination. In the apodosis, as
often (John vih. 39, ix. 33, xix. 11 ; Acts xxvi. 32), the av (oix
eyvwv instead of oix av eyfow) is omitted for emphasis. I knew
not sin = certainly I should not have become acquainted with it,
answering to the Latin cognoram. Comp. Kiihner, Ausf. Gram.
Th. II. p. 556. But the emphasis implied in this form of ex
pression is not always regarded in later Greek, in which the
omission of av becomes increasingly frequent, Winer, p. 382.
— et py Sid vbpov] sc. eywav airyv. The Nomos is here the
Mosaic law, as is proved, if further proof were needed, by the
express citation from the decalogue. The purpose of this entire
section is, no doubt, to vindicate the Mosaic law, but therewith, of
course, the law of conscience is vindicated in aR its analogous
effects. -, r—ryv re yap iiriOvpiav oix rjSew] for I should have known
nothing of lust, re ydp, for indeed, is stronger than the simple
ydp. Hermann remarks on a similar re ydp in Sophocles,
Trachin. v. 1015: "Te Rlud non copulat, sed lenius affirmat
quam toi, unde natum est, ut Germanice pery« vel wohl exprimi
possit." iiriOvpla here, of course, denotes not the divinely-
implanted, natural instinct, the rational opeljis in itself, but its
perversion in God-opposing, evh desire. Of the existence of the
latter, man knows nothing until the precept of the law, for
bidding it, is brought home to him in its inward personal
obligation. Until then he knows, indeed, that lust exists in
him, but not that this lust is sinful. Certainly here also the
apostle does not directly say: oix rjSew ryv iiriOvpiav ewai
jea/wfi/, but simply: ryv iiriOvpiav oix fjSew; but, supposing by
the expression iiriOvpla nothing but iiriOvpla xaxy to be meant,
the sense amounts to the same. Just because man, until the
appearance of the prohibitory precept, knows not that the lust
existing in him is evh, he knows not the specific character and

336 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
real nature of iiriOvpla at all, he knows nothing of evh desire..
" Consuetudo loquendi obtinuit," says Augustine, de civ. Dei, 1. xiv.
c. 7, "ut, si cupiditas vel concupiscentia dicatur nee addatur,
cujus rei sit, non nisi in malo possit intehigi." The apostolic
position is corroborated by experience. Civh law judges but the
act, the moral law of phhosophers the consent of the whl Only
the revealed Nomos, just because it is irvevpanxbs, ver. 14,
judges even the evh desire and inclination itself. But the
present Pauline teaching condemns just as much the Catholic
doctrine that the evh desire of the regenerate is not in itself sin,
as the certainly equahy warranted rationahstic opinion that the
evil desire of the unregenerate is not in itself sin. If evil desire
is forbidden, it is sin ; and if it is sin in the unregenerate, even
though he knows it, it is so much the more sin in the regenerate,
because he knows it. The subject here is not the so-called
concupiscentia formata or voluntaria, ie. concupiscentia in union
with consensus, as Catholicism, Socinianism, and Arminianism
with arbitrary shaRowness maintained. Rather the apostle
describes iiriOvpla simply and absolutely, therefore even con
cupiscentia involuntaria or informis, as dpaprla. iiriOvpla may
then be identified with the preceding dpaprla ; but it is perhaps
more precisely (ver. 8 : y dpaprla . . . xareipydaaro . . .
iiriOvpiav) viewed as the most immediate effect and primary
manifestation of dpaprla, which is conceived simply as the
radical, underlying principle. "'Apapria, peccatum," says
Bengel, "est quasi materia peccans, ex qua omnis morbus et
paroxismus concupiscentiae." And: "Penitior et reconditior est
y dpaprla, peccatum: y iiriOvpla, concupiscentia, magis in sensum
incurrit, eademque peccatum prodit, ut fumus ignem." 1 In the
existence of iiriOvpla I learn the existence of dpaprla ; wherefore
I knew not sin, for I knew not concupiscence, without the law.
But the yvwais dpaprlas, here spoken of, is not absolutely
identical with eirlyvwais dpaprlas, iii. 20. It is rather simply the
first step towards the latter. For the fuR knowledge of sin it does
not suffice to know that lust is evh, but we must also apprehend
that it is not to be overcome by natural, human strength. This
latter knowledge, ver. 1 3, is the final result of an inward process,
joining on to the former knowledge, as is described in vv. 8-12.
— et py b vbpos eXeyev] namely, in Ex. xx. 17.
1 Inversely, Jas. i. 15 takes xjixprix as the sinful act, whose cause is Wih/tlt.

CHAP. VII. 8. 337
— oix irriQvpyaeis] The future, chosen in conformity with the
0. T. legal idiom, views the command as already obeyed in the
future, and is therefore more commanding in tone than the impera
tive, Wirer, p. 396. Paul does not here adduce the objects of lust,
specially mentioned in the striking passage in Exodus, because
his point was desire in general, evil lust universally. Indeed,
the meaning of that special indication was not to represent desire
after objects not speciahy mentioned as lawful. But we see how
the apostle regards oix iiriOvpyaeis as the innermost kernel and
centre of the entire law, just as the Lord does the positive
gqairyoeis corresponding to it, Matt. xxii. 37, comp. Rom.
xiii 10. And, in reality, the act only takes place through the
good or evh desire after the really good or evil act. But under
iiriOvpla here is included, not merely sensual desire, but quite as
much, nay, pre-eminently, exOpa et? Qebv and cpiXavrla.
Ver. 8. But the propensity to sin is so little suppressed by the
prohibition of lust, that, on the contrary, defiant and invincible
by the law, it takes occasion from this very law for the first time
to break forth into evh desire and lust of every kind — an un
answerably certain, psychological fact, which man can more easily
reason and argue against than get rid of. dcpoppyv Be XaBovaa y
dpaprla Sid rrjs ivroXijs] Elsewhere it is only said : dcpoppyv
XdpBdvew ix, irapd, dirb, not : Sid twos. On this account several
modern expositors suppose dcp. Se XaB. y dp. to be used absolutely,
and join Sta rys ivroXrjs with the foRowing xareipydaaro. But
then the more suitable order would have been : xareipydaaro iv
ipol irdaav iiriOvpiav Sid t^? ivroXrjs; whereas, upon Sid rrjs
ivroXys placed first, an unwarranted emphasis would be placed.
The same relation obtains in ver. 1 1 ; whereas Sid rov dyaOov,
ver. 13, placed first, reaRy has a special accent. On this account
the connection of Bid rys ivroXrjs with dcpoppyv XaBovaa, more
probable even according to the previous context, seems to deserve
the preference, if it can only be justified grammaticahy. The choice
of the preposition Sid may possibly be explained thus : that in
this way reproach was meant to be sthl farther removed from the
law and thrown upon sin. The Nomos did not so much give
occasion to sin, as sin took occasion by means of its appearance,
on- the ground of its innocent intervention (Sid), to express itself,
to manifest its own nature. Hence we prefer to interpret dcpop
pyv XapBdveiv by: to take occasion, not by: to receive, obtain
Philippi, Rom. I. *

338 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
occasion. Obtaining occasion would aRude more directly to the
giving of occasion on the part of the Nomos. Vulg., Erasm.
translate : " accepta occasione ; " more correctly Beza : " sumta
occasione," adding the remark : " occasionem autem cupiditates in
nobis excitandi non praebet lex, sed earn arripit cupiditas nostra,
legis interdicto irritata." The ivroXy, the command, or rather;
here, the prohibition (namely, oix iiriQvpyaeis), is related to the
vbpos, as pars to totum; comp. Eph. h. 15 : b vbpos rwv ivroXlov.
" Praeceptum," remarks Bengel, " pars est legis, addita expressiore
connotatione virtutis coactivae, quae coercet, injungit, urget, pro-
hibet, minatur."
— xareipydaaro iv ipol irdaav iiriOvpiav] brought about in me
all manner of desire. xarepyd^eaQai, to work powerfully, stronger
than ipydfaaQai, as in iv. 15, v. 3 ; comp. on ii. 9. But the bring
ing about of desire consists in the enhancement of desire already
existing and at work through the Nomos. Traca iiriOvpla, all
manner of desire, desire of every sort, i. 18, 29 ; Eph. iv. 31.
The general oix iirtOvpyaeis touches each separate concrete
iiriOvpla, and incites it to burst forth in greater strength, orav
twos iiriOvfiwpev, elra xwXvbpeOa, aiperai pdXXov t?5? eVt-
Ovplas y cpxblj, Chrysostom. With the sentiment of this verse
comp. Prov. ix. 17, xx. 17, as well ' as the Ovidian : " Nithnur in
vetitum semper, cupimusque negata ; " and the Horatian : " Audax
omnia perpeti Gens humana ruit in' vetitum nefas." The heathen
world knew weR that prohibition fans desire into passionate eager
ness for the unlawful act, and that the accomplishment of this
act is punishable ; but Scripture describes even this kindhng of
desire itself as sinful. " Desperati morbi remedhs exasperantur.
Sic legi membrorum eo ipso dulcia fiunt pleraque, quia lege Dei
sunt prohibita. Tanta enim est naturae nostrae depravatio, ut
quo exquisitius in lege prohibetur peccatum, eo magis in con-
trarium nitatur. Tendit enim ad libertatem suam, quae vinculo
legis quasi adstricta videter, adeoque illud vinculum rumpere
nititur," Calov.
— X^pls ydp vbpov dpaprla vexpd] sc. iarlv, not yv, which the
apostle must have expressly added. The proposition is general.
As long as the law, with its prohibition of concupiscence, does
not come within man's consciousness, sin is dead, i.e. it slumbers,
so to speak ; not raging with desire, as when it is stirred up by
the law. It flows along smoothly thl it is met by an impeding

chap. vii. 9, 10. 339
barrier, over which it leaps with tumultuous violence ; comp.
1 Cor. xv. 56 : y Svvapis Trjs dpaprlas d vbpos. Here, too, vbpos
denotes, not the moral law in general, but the Mosaic Nomos, for
no other contains the prohibition of iiriOvpla pure and simple!
The explanation of this verse by the knowledge of sin ("Detexit in
me omnem concupiscentiam : quae dum lateret, quodammodo
nuha esse videbatur," Calvin) is manifestly forced and untenable.
Vv. 9, 10. iyw Be efav %&>/>»? vbpov irore] The question is,
what period in his hfe the apostle characterizes in these words.
Melanchthon here distinguishes a threefold status of man : the
status securitatis, the status sub lege, and the status regenerationis.
In the words : X«»/3i? yap vbpov dpaprla vexpd. 'Eyw Be efav
Xapls vbpov irore, Paul describes the first, thence to ver. 13 the
second, from ver. 14 onward the third stage of the inner life.
In the state of security man hves a hfe of unrestrained lust
without regard to the divine law, or fancies himseh, with a hypo
critical show of righteousness, to be righteous before God by
outward works of the law. In this latter condition Paul found
himself during his Pharisaic period. He then lived without law,
because the law did not yet alarm him, did not accuse him.
"Lex enim tunc vere lex est, cum judicat et terret, non cum est in
parietibus scripta. Ita Paulus hic dicit, se sine lege vixisse, hoe
est : se fuisse securum, cum arbitraretur, se legi satisfacere, quia
habebat hypocrisin externorum operum." So most of the old
Lutheran and Reformed interpreters, Calov, Carpzov, Bengel,
Calvin, etc. In that case, the condition described in the words
iXOovays Be t?)? ivroXrjs, etc., must begin with the moment when
the Lord appeared to the apostle, and, by reveahng the true
nature of the law, effected in him, although not as yet the new
birth, the repentance that precedes it, as e.g. Luther says in his
first disputation against the Antinomians, Thes. 34: "Paul is
first of aR smitten to the earth by the law, when he hears the
voice that said to him, ' Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ? '
Then he was made alive by the gospel, when the Lord said to
him, ' Rise,' etc., Acts ix." But we beheve that this view, at least
with regard to its sharp, unrestricted definition of Paul's Pharisaic
hfe as a lawless status securitatis, is involved in no insignificant
difficulties, both exegetical and psychological. In the first place,
it is not probable that Paul would have described his life in
Pharisaism, without qualification, as a £yv %w/3t? vbpov, seeing

340 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
that he characterizes precisely the same condition as a Biwxeiv
vbpov Btxawa uvys, Rom. ix. 31 ; as an elvai virb vbpov, 1 Cor.
ix. 20, Gal. iv. 5, 21 ; as an virb vbpov cppovpovaOat avyxexXeia-
uevovs, Gal. iii. 23 ; comp. also Phh. iii. 6. Again, vv. 7—13 of
this chapter plainly contain a more minute development of ver. 5,
in which latter passage certainly the subject is not merely the
legal condition after, but before the appearance and revelation of
Christ. As concerns, further, the course of Paul's rehgious de
velopment, he assuredly did not belong to that class of the
Pharisees who, without having received any impression of the
inward holy and inviolable nature- of the divine law in the soul,
sought to make a show before God and man with a superficial
appearance of righteousness. On the contrary, we are obhged to
suppose that, even before his turning to the Lord, he acknow
ledged the unconditional obligation of the command requiring
pure love to God, and of the command forbidding evh desire, and
strove most earnestly to obey them. But he went upon the
mistaken belief that he was able in bis own strength to fulfil
God's law, to extirpate and overcome forbidden inchnation,
and by perfect obedience secure for himself God's approval.
Therefore he must learn by experience how desire is only
stimulated and inflamed by prohibition ; and thus, instead of
approbation, wrath, instead of hfe, death fell to his lot. The
outward history of his nation was again reflected in his inner hfe.
Israel, placed under the law, by its continuous rebehion against
the law became a nation of transgressors, which in consequence
experienced the continuous judgments of the Lord. But such
experiences did not make the Pharisee Paul waver in his belief,
Encouraged by what he believed he had already attained by his
moral strivings, he sthl hoped at last to accomphsh his end —
to satisfy and get the better of the divine judgment, and reach
perfection of hfe. When the law of God encounters man's
unregenerate nature, it no doubt exerts on him its imperative and
terrifying influence, makes him a irapaBdrys vbpov, proves to
him the Svvapis dpaprlas, and brings to him bpyyv, xardpav, and
Odvarov ; but yet it is unable to humble his pride, disabuse him
of the notion that at last he wiR hold the field as victor, and
conduct him to the true and full iirlyvwais dpaprlas. This
humbling influence the law only then exercises when the Sphit
of God within makes clear to man the relation of the carnal

CHAP. VII. 9, 10. 341
character of his nature to the spiritual essence of the Nomos,
imparts to him along with the knowledge of the guilt of the evil
lust and inchnation dwehing in him an insight into its unconquer
able nature, and thus gives him the contrite spirit and broken
heart in which desire towards sin dies, instead of reviving. Only
then does he learn to renounce confidence in fulfilment of the
law as an iRusive means of justification before God, and to acknow
ledge Christ as the end of the law and its condemnation. Thus has
the vbpos become to him a iraiSaywybs els Xpiarov, and he himself
begins to lay hold upon grace, instead of, as before, persecuting
it. Thus we have no doubt, with Melanchthon, to distinguish a
threefold status in the hfe of Paul, a status securitatis, legalis, and
regenerationis, only that we place his Pharisaic period, not in the
first, but in the second status, iyw Be efav %o>/>t? vbpov irore
falls therefore before this Pharisaic period, or even if partiahy
within this, stiR only up to the moment when the depth of the
law's demand unfolded itself in his soul by perception of the
obhgation of oix iirtOvpyaeis, and he now saw that the law
requires not only outward act, but inward inchnation. That
the apostle also, even when a persecutor of the church of Christ,
sthl felt the sting of the law's condemnation in his heart, which
he endeavoured by legal strivings, ah the more earnest, to blunt,
appears to be intimated in the Lord's word : axXypbv aoi irpbs
xevrpa Xaxrlfav, Acts xxvi. 14. In %yv %&v>£? vbpov, therefore,
the subject is not merely the first stage of childhood, or so-caRed
childlike innocence, although this is not to be conceived as
specially rejected.1 The phrases : dpaprla vexpd- iyw Be efav . . .
y dpaprla dve£yaev, iyco Be direQavov, plainly form designed anti
theses. It is natural, therefore, to give to efav a pregnant signi
fication. " Nam mors peccati," says Calvin, " vita est hominis :
rursum vita peccati mors hominis." efav would Hhen=fayv
elxov, but may not on this account, with Augustine, be imme-
1 Although we still believe ourselves compelled to abide firmly by the exposition
given above, yet agreement with the view of the older teachers of our church now seems
to us to allow that Paul's status legalis during his Pharisaic stage was still to be called
relatively a status securitatis. For, in spite of the perpetual condemnation and terror
of the divine law, he perpetually lulled himself in security, since he supposed him
self able to prevail over this condemnation by performing works well-pleasing to
God, and thus sought and found in his works an apparent life that stifled and hin
dered the full and abiding experience of his spiritual death. Only when the Lord,
appearing to him, completely subdued him and smote him with three days' blind-

342 - COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
diately interpreted by vivere mihi videbar, although doubtless that
life, comparatively undisturbed, unruffled by experience of the
law's curse, was in itself merely an apparent hfe, not the true
fay. That the assertion of Moris : e£yv, drrixws' efav, eXXyvixias,
is unfounded, efav being the better form, as is proved by the con-
sonous form efav used invariably in the 3d plur., see Buttmann,
Ausfi Gr. Spr. II. § 114, p. 144, under faw. On the contrary,
the compound sound y, prevailing in contraction, in accordance
with which the 2d and 3d sing, etyjs, e£y were formed, early
led usage astray into the formation in pi, so that it was also said
e%yv, and in the imper. ^yQi.
— eXQovays Be rys ivroXrjs] "Data Israelitis lege," interprets
Grotius, referring the preceding iyco Se efav %«/3t? vbpov wore
to the hfe of the Israelites in Egypt. But if this view were at
aR aRowable, Paul must at least have written eXQbvros Be tov
vbpov. The ivroXy is the prohibition oix iiriOvprjaeis, and its
coming is to be referred to its entry into man's consciousness.
— y dpaprla dvetyjaev] " revixit," remarks Bengel, " sicut vixerat
cum per Adamum intrasset in mundum." Demonstrably dvatffjv
signifies everywhere reviviscere, to come to life again (Luke xv. 24,
32 ; Rom. xiv. 9 ; Rev. xx. 5, the last two passages according to
the led. recep.). For the meaning vivere incipere, to come to life,
no example has been adduced. The appeal to the meaning
etymologicahy possible (dvd, again, hke dvairySdw, dvdXXopai,
dvaBodw) avails nothing against invariable usage. Even the
analogy of dvaBXeirw, John ix. 1 1 (comp. Liicke here), is illusory.
First of all, dvaBXeirew actually has both significations, both to
look up (Matt. xiv. 19; Mark vh. 34; Luke xix. 5) and to
see again, to recover his sight (Acts ix. 12, 17, 18). Again,
the latter signification is found wherever the bhnd seeing is
spoken of, even in John ix. 11, 15, 18. For although there
the blind man is expressly described as born bhnd, ver. 1, sthl
ness, did he become so perfectly conscious of the law's sentence of death which could
awaken but could not remedy evil lust, that he was no longer inclined to seek life
in himself, but in Him that died and rose again for him. Strikingly Besser : " Ac
cordingly we shall say that ' being alive without law, the commandment coming,
and sin living again,' extends through the whole period that Paul was in the flesh,
ver. 5 ; but that ' dying' through the law, although it announced itself long before,
again and again, only came to completion in the three days of his physical blindness,
when he felt the law most deeply as he never did before, and ' in the hot-bath of
conscience' beheld its real purity."

CHAP. VII. 9, 10. 343
seeing is considered as man's normal condition, which is restored
to him although he had lost it from birth. But dva^yv, in the
sense reviviscere, agrees perfectly, not only with the only certi
fied idiomatic usage, but also with the dogmatic teaching of the
apostle. Paul then views (which harmonizes very well with his
exposition given v. 12 ff, and with his entire conception else
where of the relation of the world's sin to Adam's sin and to the
law, and furnishes a new evidence of our view of his doctrine of
sin) one and the same sin as faaa, in so far as it is irapaBaais
vbpov, but otherwise as vexpd. It was ahve in Adam's dis
obedience, is dead in mankind hving without law, and comes to
hfe again in renewed transgressions of the law. We have no
need, therefore, of the conjecture of Hemsterhuis, in itself in
genious, dve^eaev, efferbuit, which besides is precluded by manu
script authority and by the antithetical phraseology (vexpd, efav,
dvityjaev, direQavov). The Attic dialect usuahy forms the aorist
and perfect of %yv from the form Bibw, Buttmann, p. 90 and p. 144.
— iyw Be direQavov] forms the antithesis as regards form to
dveXyaev, as regards substance to efav. direQavov = I fell
victim to death. As to the notion of Odvaros, comp. on vi. 16.
As original sin and actual sin work death, so does transgression
of the law, meriting it in an enhanced degree. Here also the
element of spiritual and eternal misery predominates.
— xal eipeOy poi] and it was found, proved to me, Winer, p.
770. oix elire yeyove Odvaros, oiBe erexe Odvarov, dXX' evpeQy,
rb xaivbv xal irapdSoljov rrjs aromas ovrws eppyvevcov, xai ro irdv
els twv ixelvwv (men) irepirpeirwv KecpaXyv, Chrys.
— y ivroXy y els fayv] the command that was to serve unto
life, namely, according to divine intention. The law as to its
nature shows us the way in which we may attain salvation (Lev.
xvhi 5 ; Deut. v. 33 ; Luke x. 28 ; Rom. x. 5 ; Gal. ih. 12).
Its proving to us, notwithstanding, the means of ruin and death
hes not in its nature, but in ours, and is therefore not its fault,
but ours. Thus a medicine, curative by nature, aggravates in
stead of removing an incurable disease.
— avry els Odvarov] sc. ovaa, 1 Pet. i. 7. The question is,
whether airy or avry is to be read. In the abstract both avTo?
and oiros, and even iKeivos, serve for the purpose of resumption
and emphasis, Winer, p. 199. Here avry seems preferable on
account of the parallel tovto, w. 15, 16, 19, 20. This resump-

344 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
tion of y ivroXy y et? fayv immediately preceding has a tragic
emphasis. Ver. 11. The reason of the ivroXy working Odvaros instead of
fay hes, not in the ivroXy itself, but in dpaprla, which is there
fore put emphaticahy at the head. The sense of this verse is
hlustrated by ver. 8. Sin took occasion by the commandment/,
(y ydp dpaprla dcpoppyv XaBovaa Sid rys ivroXrjs) and deceived
me (Hjyirdryae pe), making the very command that was given for
the purpose of extinguishing my v lusts an occasion for exciting in
me every kind of lust. The deceitfulness of sin, therefore, consists
here not so much in its presenting as a good the object of lust,
that, as soon as it is attained, proves an evh, as in this, that it
turned the law, in which I ought to have found a guide to right
eousness, in my case into a means of furthering unrighteousness.
Rightly has it been remarked, that in the conduct of dpaprla,
such as is described in this verse, there is probably an aRusion
from the nature of the case to the serpent in Paradise. Comp.
even with the form of sentence in Gen. ih. 13, LXX.: d b<pts
yirdryae pe, and 2 Cor. xi. 3. Calvin arbitrarhy remarks:
" Merito dicit Paulus : Ubi peccatum a lege detegitur, nos a vita
abduci. Ergo verbum Hjairarav non de re ipsa, sed de notitia
exponi debet : quia scihcet ex lege palam fit, quantum a recto
cursu discesserhnus." Simharly Flacius, who in his Clavis renders
ifjyirdryae pe, deceptum me declaravit, against which Calov here
justly remarks: "de ipsa deceptione agitur.'' It is stih the
struggle of the more earnest Pharisaism that is here described,
in which with all outward righteousness of law and works (comp.
Phh. iii. 6 : xard Sixaioavvyv t^v iv vbpcp yevbpevos apepirros)
the commandment yet excites inward lust and menaces death to
the transgressor. But as long as man in this condition regards
evh desire as only an incidental emotion of the heart, which by
energetic effort he can eradicate, and fancies that by pangs of
repentance or acts of righteousness he can overcome the wrath of
God, which manifests itself in the sense of unhappiness that
attends evh desire, he is still at a great distance from that spiritual
knowledge of the law, from that iirtyvwais dpaprlas the pro
duction of which is the final aim of the vbpos. Only when this
aim is accomplished does he recognise evR desire, not merely as an
incidental product of his free will, but as an inevitable expression,
of his sin-enslaved condition, and along with this the impossibility

CHAP. VII. 12. 345
of satisfying the divine justice by epya vbpov. This latter know
ledge was communicated to the apostle only on the appearance of
the Lord. The Pharisaism of Paul thus always involved this
self-contradiction, that whilst the vbpos wrought in him iiriOvpla
and Odvaros, he nevertheless always hoped by its means to attain
Sixaioavvy and fay. Even during the three days of his physical
blindness after the Lord's appearance this struggle stiR continued.
Nay, it only then reached its highest point, when Paul perceived
clearly and felt deeply in all its greatness, weight, and irresistible
force the fatal sentence with which sinful desire, aggravated
by the spiritual law, menaced him. But at this point the aim
and end of the struggle is accomphshed. Now, at length, he
desisted from the attempt by the performance of works of law to
overcome the wrath of God, fully and frankly acknowledged
himself exposed to that wrath in confessing his hopeless bondage
to sin, fled for refuge to the pardoning grace of the Lord who
appeared to him, and by this faith was buried with Him in death
to sin, and rose with Him to a new hfe of righteousness.
eSjairarav stronger than drrarav, comp. ixireirXypwxe, Acts xiii. 32.
direxrewev] procured me death, answers to direQavov, ver. 1 0.
Ver. 12. wore] Consequently, therefore, deduces the result of the
exposition w. 7—11. The apostle would prove that the ruinous
effects described ver. 5, are the fault, not of the law, but of sin.
This purpose he has now accomplished, and accordingly puts into
words the result arrived at. The vbpos is not dpaprla, but ayto?.
— d pev vbpos] The particle pev leads us to expect an
antithesis introduced by Se, such as y Be dpaprla or dpaprwXos.
This antithesis is omitted, because the apostle's animation of
spirit leads him first to anticipate an objection (rb ovv dyaOov xrX.),
the answer to which, ver. 13, substantially contains the missing
antithesis, Winer, p. 720.
— xal y ivroXy] namely, oiK iiriQvpyaeis. Whereas the
vbpos had received only one commendatory predicate, the ivroXy
receives three, because by it apapria had taken occasion to break
out into all iiriOvpla.
— ayt'a xal Simla xal dyaOrj] Theodoret interprets: ay lav
irpocryybpevae, ft>? rb Seov SiSdljaaav Sixalav Be, cos bpQws rois
irapaBdrais rrjv ¦^rfjcpov iljeveyxovaav dyaOyv Be, cos farjv rois
cpvXdrrovaiv eirpeirl&vaav. Similarly, although defining the
notion of iV.nov and Blxaiov more correctly, Calov : " Sanda

346 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
dicitur lex ratione causae efficientis et materialis : quia a Deo
sanctissimo est, et circa objecta praecepta sancta oceupatur: justa
est formaliter, quia justitiae divinae direixbviapa, nostrae regula
est ; bona est ratione finis : quia bona temporalia et aeterna pro-
mittit. Si sanda et justa, non ergo deceptionis causa : si bona, non
ergo causa mortis et condemnationis." Thus dyaObs would be, not :
morally good, but : useful, beneficial, comp. the synonymous xaXbs
b vbpos, 1 Tim. i. 8. But the parahehsm with ayto? xal Slxaios,
•with xaXbs, ver. 16, as weR as ver. 13, favours the former signifi
cation. For to dyaOov, ver. 13, clearly represents the common,
essential root-idea of the three predicates, ayto?, Slxaios, dyaObs,
and sin appears far more sinful as a perversion and abuse of the
morahy good than as a perversion and abuse of the merely useful.
The better interpretation, therefore, is : ayto?, holy, as revealing
the holy nature and whl of God ; Slxaios, just, just in character,
such as it should be, i.e. answering to the idea of righteousness
and laying down its rule ; dyaObs, good, excellent, faultless.
Ver. 13. The apostle himself raises the objection, which might
be deduced from his last words : to oiv dyaOov ipol yeyove
Odvaros ;] " Has, then, that which is good become death to me ? "
i.e., " Has, then, that which is good procured me death ? " In ver.
7 the question was raised : o vopos dpaprla ; here it is asked : d
vbpos Odvaros ; Both are repelled in the same manner, the fault
being charged, not on the vbpos, but on dpaprla. The most
weighty MS. authorities, also Cod. Sinait., read 'iyevero, which,
received by Lachmann, may be genuine. It answers to direQavov,
ver. 10 ; direxrewev, ver. 11. By it is explained without difficulty
the rise of the led. recept. yeyove, as also, the difference of reading
having once appeared, the omission of the verb altogether in some
codices. Odvaros, death = cause of death, comp. on ver. 7.
, — py yevoiro] It is said, indeed, ver. 10 : eipeOy poi y ivroXy
. . . et? Odvarov. But the reaRy effective cause of this was
nothing but dpaprla, not the nature of the ivroXy itself.
— dXXa y dpapna] = sc. ipol yeyove Odvaros. The law is
merely the occasion, sin the real cause of death. The con
struction : dXXd y dpaprla Sid rov dyaOov poi xarepyafapivy
(?iv) Odvarov, 'iva cpavy dpaprla, which even Luther in his
translation follows, apart from the self-made difficulty of the
participial construction (xarepyafapevy instead of xareipydfaro),
is also of itself less simple and natural.

CHAP. VII. 13. 347
— iva cpavfj dpaprla] Some expositors take dpaprla as subject,
and join xarepyafapevy with cpavfj. " That it might appear that
sin wrought me death by means of what is good." But dpaprla
would then have the article, dpaprla, therefore, is predicate :
" that it might appear sin." The subject referred to here is, first
of ah, the appearance, the actual manifestation of sin's character,
as also the parallel sentence 'iva yevyrai xtX. shows. This burst
ing forth of sin without doubt was involved in the divine purpose,
comp. tva irXeovday to irapdirrwpa, v. 20. But the final purpose
of this objective manifestation of sin is its subjective acknow
ledgment, its manifestation in the consciousness of man. By
the very fact of its proving the Bvvapis dpaprlas does the vbpos
lead to the irrlyvwais dpaprlas.
— Bid rov dyaOov poi xarepyafapevy Odvarov] Causal sen
tence : " Since it wrought me death by means of what is good."
Sin stands forth as sin, as a rebel against God and His law,
precisely by this, that it abuses God's good and blessed law to
evh ends.
— iva yevyrai xaQ virepfioXyv dpaprcoXbs y dpaprla Bid rrjs
ivroXrjs] Climactic parahel sentence. The first 'iva is resumed in
order to put sthl more definitely the sentence introduced by it,
hi. 26 ; 2 Cor. ix. 3, xh. 20 ; Gal ih. 14, iv. 5 ; Eph. vi. 19, 20.
" That sin might be sinful beyond measure by the commandment."
In yevyrai as in cpavy the objective and subjective (might be and
might appear, hi. 4), the real and the ideal elements are to be
considered as combined, and, indeed, the latter as the result of the
former. As sin became irapaBaais vopoov, it became xaQ' iirep-
BoXyv dpaprwXos, i.e. stood forth in its most intimate essence as
sin, and was at the same time known as such. Thereby is com
pleted the process, preparatory to redemption, of which the Nomos
is the means ; for with the irr'iyvwais dpaprlas now attained is
necessarhy associated the longing for redemption, and thus the
vbpos has become a iraiBaywybs eh Xpiarov. With xaO iirep-
BoXrjv, comp. 1 Cor. xii. 31 ; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17 ; Gal. i. 13. Sid
ti}? ivroXrjs, by means of the command, which it so shamefully
- abused, stands emphatically at the end of the whole exposition.
Before proceeding to the exposition of the foRowing verses
14-25, it behoves us, in the first place, to understand in general
what condition the apostle describes in these verses, whether that
of the regenerate or unregenerate. On the history of the inter-

348 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
pretation, comp. especially Tholuck in his Commentar, 1856,
p. 335 ff. On the whole, it may be said that the pietistic and
rationalistic exegesis refers the passage to the status irregenitorum;
on the other hand, the Augustinian and Reformation exposition
understands it of the status regenitorum. At the first glance, no
doubt,, the former view alone seems to be the one exclusively
warranted. It is said to be dishonouring to the power of the Sphit
of regeneration, and to give dangerous encouragement to carnal
security, to maintain that the regenerate man has nothing but a
powerless will to what is good, which is overmastered and taken
captive by the opposite doing of what is evh; so that the entire
gain of regeneration would be reduced merely to an impotent'
longing, after which, as before, the doing of what is opposed to
law would maintain its ground. Nay, this is contradicted both
by what the apostle affirms of the regenerate, ch. vih. and else
where (ch. vi.), as well as by the account of his own hfe and his
own consciousness, Phil. iv. 13. Hence it is not to be wondered
at that the reference of this passage to the legal struggle of the
unregenerate has come in modern days to enjoy an acceptance
almost without exception ; comp., however, Delitzsch, die biblisch-
prophetische Theologie, p. 260 f., Anm. ; Harless, Christian Ethics,
§ 26a, § 276; Besser, Bibelstunden, VII. 1, p. 483 ff.; Luthardt,
die Lehre von freien Willen, p. 404 f. ; in reality, also, Umbreit in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1851, p. 633 ff, and Rbmerbr. p. 74 ff.1 It
1 Even Thomasius, Christi Person und Werh, Th. I. p. 230 ff., according to the
whole drift of his exposition, is to be reckoned in the above class (comp. especially
p. 232 f.), although his exposition seems to me to be at variance with itself. He
refers at the same time to my interpretation of the passage and to Hofmann's
Schriftbeweis, I. p. 460 ff. But in Hofmann I find the reference of this passage to
the unregenerate only skilfully covered ; and if Thomasius, 2 Aufl. p. 276, Anm.,
does not comprehend how I can describe his exposition as at variance with itself
when he agrees both with me and Hofmann, it seems to me that he has not
rightly understood Hofmann's real meaning. Hofmann says (Schriftb. I. p. 469) :
" Before the thankful response (ver. 25) to his anxious question (ver. 24), Paul has set
forth the state of contradiction in which he finds himself, when he considers himself
in the abstract, apart from what he is in Christ, seeing that as ego, as the inner man,
he is subject to the law of God, but as regards his nature, as the outer man, to the
law of sin." And : " Therewith it is also certain that from ver. 14 Paul says every
thing of his present experience, but only as he describes himself, when delighting in
the law of God, entirely -with regard to his own moral relation to God, apart from
the moral capacity accruing to him from community of life with Christ." Therefore,
even apart from what he is in Christ, considered in the abstract (i.e. therefore con
sidering the condition of the regenerate after abstracting the efiects of the Spirit of
regeneration), the apostle as ego, as the inner man, is subject to the law of God, i.e.

CHAP. VII. 18. 349
is therefore essential above everything to enter upon a closer
examination of this mode of conception, as well as of the different
modifications it has actuaRy assumed or possibly may assume.
In the first place, when it is supposed that delight in God's
law may be ascribed to the unregenerate, it does not seem easy
to see with what justice it can then be said that this delight is
never answered by corresponding, but always by contrary con
duct. This may be the case in particular moments, when the
powerful excitement of sensuous impulse overmasters the rational
will It may even be found as a permanent condition in feeble or
rvvrdiffUxi, a°ovX&6stv r£ vo/aw rov Hov Kara rov %fft» xvUpowtav, belongs to the natural, un
regenerate personality in itself. Meyer also, ii. 4, has understood Hofmann exactly
as I have done, while he commends him for rightly returning to the pre-Augustinian
interpretation. Moreover, this professed picture of his present condition on the
apostle's part, abstracting what he is in Christ, seems to us to be nothing but an
empty abstraction. If I am in Christ, and depict what I am out of Christ, I depict
in concreto not what I actually am, but only what I once was out of Christ,
Delitzsch, Biblical Psychology, indeed, calls this " a sophism 'J (p. 455) ; but even
Schott, Bomerbr. p. 276, agrees with my judgment, and calls the abstraction on which
Hofmann's view rests a casus non dabilis. Comp. my Kirchl. Glaubensl. III. p. 227 ff. ,
and the confirmatory observation of Meyer here. Delitzsch (p. 453, note) now, indeed,
recalls his opinion expressed in the Bibl. proph. Theol., that in vii. 14 ff. of this
epistle the regenerate man, as such, is the speaker,- and adheres unreservedly to the
view of Hofmann. He calls the o-wiibstrlai ro/ vi/up rou hov an effect of God's law, not
of the Spirit of regeneration, — of God's law which the man learned to like, because
it won his love (p. 453). He even describes this effect of the law as an effect of
grace, when he says, p. 447 •- " The apostle does not mean (by the 'ioo> xvlpaiKos) a
higher and better self left to man after the Fall, but the self effected by grace (!),
namely, the paedagogy of the law in the order of salvation, or, as may be said, the
one set free (!) by grace." Expressed dogmatico-historieally, this is a retrogression
from the Augustinian to the semi-Pelagian mode of view. For what, then, remains
for the spirit of regeneration to do, except to support the higher self, set free by tho
law, in its effectual carrying out of its will against the recalcitrant <rap% ? Moreover,
this is not Pauline. For in the present chapter the apostle expressly teaches, not a
release of the higher self, but only a release and aggravation of evil desire, of Wi-
Ivpitx, by the law, and a death-bringing operation of the Nomos. Finally, it agrees not
with the evangelical ordo salutis, which only knows of love to the law as an effect
of the gospel bringing forgiveness, not as an effect of the law bringing a curse. Even
in the 2d edition of the Schriftbeweis, Hofmann remains faithful to his view. But
he calls it (I. p. 556) an unjustifiable wrong on my part to hint suspicion that he
only skilfully concealed his real meaning, namely, the reference of vii. 14-24, to the
unregenerate. But the question is simply this, whether 6ixa> xyxllv and rtpQi/ti,
o-vvfiopx,, tovXiio, vipoip l»v is an effect of the Spirit of regeneration, which Hofmann
expressly denies. That it is found, according to Hofmann, in the regenerate is
nothing to the point, for according to him it is to be found in the regenerate not in
so far as, but in so far as he is not regenerate. In that case, it must also be found
even in the unregenerate, and the struggle depicted in vii. 14-24 is in itself the
straggle of the unregenerate ego, which runs through the life of the regenerate as well.

350 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
passionate characters. But there are also men of strong whl,
heroes of self-denial, calm and temperate characters, who prove by
their conduct that they are able to fashion their hfe by the law
of reason, and to keep sensuous desire in unbroken subjection to
the moral whl. Even heathendom has real wonders of asceticism
to show. If in such ascetics, or generally in the so-called xaXois
xdyaOois, the viris bonis, there is but the OeXew of good, the
irpdaaeiv follows inevitably. But just here the second difficulty
occurs to us. Could the apostle ascribe to. man's natural whl the
piaeiv of evil, the avvySeaOai and BovXevew tw vopcp rov Oeov, and,
indeed, a consent to that Nomos which he has expressly described
as spiritual ? Could he conceive the iyw of man, the innermost
centre of his personahty, as at one with the law of God ? How
does this agree with his descriptions, and those of Scripture else
where, of the deep corruption of the human heart ? If he has
only just said that the law works irdaav iiriOvpiav, according to
the view in question, he might much rather have spoken of iiri
Ovpla of good than of evh. If (vih. 7) he characterizes the cppbvypa
rrjs aapxbs as an exQpa et? Oeov, and yet in the dominion of this
carnal mind a hatred against evh finds place, its inmost principle
is rather to , be described as love than enmity to God. If (Phh.
ii. 13) he ascribes not only the ivepyeiv, but also the OeXeiv of
good to the power of God's grace, and yet this willing of good
forms the very substance of man's moral condition as it is by
nature, it is to be regarded simply as a gift of nature springing
from God's creative power, not as a gift of grace springing
from redemption. Accordingly, to the unregenerate man who
strives to obey the law, there can as httle be ascribed merely a
iroieiv of evh as a OeXew of good. If the inmost ego of man, the
eaw dvOpwiros, the vovs, was directed only to good even before re
generation, so that only the adplj prevented him from exhibiting it
in outward act, we should then certainly be driven to foist on the
apostle the anthropology of rationalism, according to which man's
wiR, good in itself, is only fettered by the power of the sensuous
nature, and in the performance of the sinful act is overborne;
whereas it is acknowledged, without doubt, and that by the fore
most modern inquirers, that the ethical conception of the adplj is
one far deeper and more comprehensive than that of the sensuous
nature. It embraces the entire sphere of the corruption of
human nature, its ahenation from God and selfishness, not less

CHAP. VII. 13. 351
than its mere sensuous desire, on which account the apostle
enumerates (Gal. v. 19) among the epya rrjs aapxbs, not only
iropveia, dxaOapala, daeXyeia, peOai, and xwpoi, but also et'SwXo-
Xarpela, cpappaxela, exQpai, epeis, §3}Xot, Qvpol, epiOeiai, St%oo--
raalai, alpeaets, cpObvoi, cpbvot, describes (Rom. iv. 1, Phil. ih. 4)
confidence in works as a carnal sentiment, and (Col. ii. 18) even
cahs a theosophic asceticism an elxfj cpvaiovpevov iirb rov vobs
rrjs aapxbs airov.
The notion of the adplj just indicated might no doubt be
retained in the present passage, and nevertheless this might be
taken as characterizing the condition of the unregenerate. The
adplj would then be not merely irregular, sensuous impulse, but
the old man as to his selfish, sensuous tendency, in whom only
the spirit and whl would have to be considered as at natural
variance with each other, so that the excessive power of the lower
ego would be confronted by the impotent longing of the higher
ego. Again, the first difficulty raised against the former view
might be supposed to be obviated by the statement that even
where the outward act corresponds to the law, in the hfe of the
natural man prava concupiscentia reigns ; the merely legal act is
-not therefore to be described as really good, and the performing
of evh spoken of here by the apostle consists not merely in
outward law-opposing action, but quite as much in the profoundly
inward act of evh inclination triumphantly overpowering and
bringing into bondage the better self. The only question is, in
what this higher, better self consists ? It could clearly only be
found in the action of conscience ineradicably implanted in man.
But apart from the consideration that conscience appears more as
an inevitable power, standing face to face with the real act of
whl in man, than as a mental function, the product of the free ego-
life, and therefore asserting itself far more in the form of a law of
conscience than in the form of an impulse of conscience (as e.g.
Bleek describes the vbpos rov vobs in the carnal man, comp. the
Birth of the Christian Life, p. 13, Outlines of Biblical Psychology,
p. 42), stiR the content of the natural law of conscience is nowise
identical with that of the vbpos irvevpanxos, ver. 14 ; of the
vbpos Oeov, ver. 22, to which the longing, the joy, and the service
of the higher ego here described is said to be directed. For the
law of conscience contains essentiahy nothing but the acknow
ledgment of the authoritative sanction of the universal in opposi-

352 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
tion to unhmited individual inclination ; but it knows nothing of ,
the real principle and quintessence of the divine Nomos, namely,
of the requirement of love to God — the very primal, personal
love— and of love to God's divinely established and divinely
hallowed image represented in the person of a neighbour. To
question this is to question the natural development of man's
ethical conception, such as is presented to us in heathenism, and
only in heathenism untouched by the influences of revealed truth.
If the psychical, fleshly man possessed a remnant of this know
ledge and this love for the spiritual law, then he would have
within him by nature alongside the fleshly a spiritual principle as
well. Scripture could not with such sharp severance everywhere
contemplate and describe everything spiritual in him as a super
natural, gracious effect of the irvevpa Oeov ; it would be false that
what is born of the adplj only is adplj, John ih. 6 ; that the
psychical man understands nothing of spiritual things, 1 Cor. ii.
14; that he is one irvevpa py £%&>i>, Jude 19. And this
difficulty, again, is not absolutely removed if we make, as
Augustine in the first period of his dogmatic development, Bengel,
Olshausen, Tholuck, the so-called gratia praeveniens a co-operating
factor in the condition of the unregenerate here described. At
least such is the conclusion if this takes place in the synergistic
sense, according to which the divine Pneuma is conceived as
awakening, exciting, strengthening, and supporting the natural
pneumatic germ of spirit which hitherto lay slumbering under a
fleshly husk.
If the objection is to be thoroughly cleared away, and the view
in question placed in perfect harmony both with the unsophisti
cated anthropology of Scripture, which nowhere contains a trace
of the notion that in the fleshly man as such there sthl lies
concealed a remnant of spiritual hfe, and with far-reaching and
complete views as to the nature of human sin and its relation
to renewing grace, we must take the OeXew, awySeaQai, and
BovXevew of the eaw dvOpwiros in reference to the spiritual law
of God as the pure and exclusive product of the creative divine
Pneuma Himself, who, in the stage of development of the inner
life here described, merely began His activity, and had not as yet
carried it on to the point of real regeneration, who merely planted
the germ of the new nature, but had not yet ripened it to the
perfect flower. Only thus could the reference of this passage to

CHAP. VII. 13. 353
the unregenerate be called dogmatically and psychologically un
objectionable from the standpoint of the general biblical and
specific Pauline form of doctrine. We should no doubt find our
selves verging towards the opposite interpretation, yet without
overstepping the boundaries and entering its proper domain. It
is a point in favour of the application of the passage to the status
irregenitorum, modified in this way, that we thus obtain an easy
connection with what immediately precedes. For if with ver. 1 3
we had reached the point where the Nomos, unfolded by the
Pneuma, awakened the knowledge of sin and the felt need of
redemption, in w. 14, 15 the very nature of the spiritual con
dition which has thus arisen is further developed ; and to this
links on just as easily and naturally the sthl further advance
contained in the account, ch. vhi., of the state of regeneration.
Hence also Augustine, even in his later period, retracting his
former view of this passage, only says : " Longe enim postea
etiam spiritalis hominis (et hoc probabilius) esse posse ilia verba
cognovi," comp. Betradt. 1. i. c. 23, 1. ii. c. 1. From this it
would fohow that even at the end of his life, though he deemed
the reference of the passage to the " homo sub lege positus,
nondum sub gratia " improbable, be did not deem it impossible.
Now, though we on our part regard this application, taking it in
the way more exactly defined by us last, as not contradicting the
analogy of faith, and therefore dogmatically free from objection,
there are sthl weighty exegetical difficulties that seem even then
to confront us.
First of aR, in w. 17-20, the real ego of man is presented
before us as on the one hand entirely separate from sin and
, opposed to it, and on the other harmoniously united and bound
up with the spiritual law of God. But manifestly only the
ruling, not the inferior part of man's nature, can be described as
the real ego. If sin rules, the iyw, the primary and active whl
of man, is itself aapxixbv; if the Spirit and grace rule, it is
irvevpanxov. Only in the personality truly made free by Christ
can the real ego, the higher and ruling will, amid the duphcity
of the ego continually found, be considered as -released from sin.
If, on the other hand, aR that is sthl found in man is a spark of
longing, awakened by the Pneuma, for such a wih, a spark so over
laid by the ashes of selfishness and evil desire that consent to sin,
the act and dominion of sin, remains the permanent condition,
Philippi, Rom. I. ^

354 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the real ego yet stands on the side of ivoixovaa dpaprla, not
of the divine vbpos ; it is the ally, not the foe of sin. Comp.
Augustine, Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, 1. i. c. 22, and
c. 18 : "Nam si concupiscit et consentit et agit, quomodo non
ipse illud operator, etiamsi se operari doleat, et vinci graviter
ingemiscat ? " Add to this that the apostle depicts the spiritual
state of development here set forth not as past, but, as the present
tense beginning with ver. 14 proves, as present. Now, in order
to account for this striking phenomenon, which certainly cannot
be supposed to have arisen merely from the vivid realization of
the past, it has been alleged that the condition of the unregenerate
here described occurs sthl in the life of the regenerate merely. as
an abnormal, not as a normal condition, and therefore was known
even to the apostle, not simply from memory, but withal from
still continuing experience. But, in the first place, such conditions
of absolute spiritual impotence will not harmonize in the least
with the spiritual fulness and vigour of the apostolic life such as
lies here without a break before our view. But if they occurred,
certainly it would be but very occasionally ; and the animation,
graphic clearness, and impressiveness of the picture of his present
raXaiirwpia remains as striking and inexplicable as ever. Still
further, it is not at all an Occasional, but a perpetual and pre
vailing condition, and, indeed, one described by the present tense
as now existing, that is in question. Moreover, we confess it
appears doubtful to us whether the description " abnormal con
dition of the regenerate," if subjected to strict analysis, yields -
any tenable meaning at all. The normal condition will be
that in which evh desire and inclination, while not indeed
utterly extirpated but continually alluring and tempting man, is
yet overpowered by sanctified inclination, so that it fails to gain
the consent of the spiritualized whl, and to be expressed in act.
Or, where the carnal principle breaks out in word and act, and
comes to open manifestation, these will only be moments of
unwisdom, feebleness, and rashness, to which the innermost will
of man refuses its assent, with which he stands in no alliance,
and to which he does not yield a painless and unresisted
dominion. The factors, invariably forming the life of the
regenerate man, are thus without doubt irvevpa and ' adplj, the
one riding, the other serving, although tempting, and . alluring,
and impeding him as he follows the path that is good and well-

CHAP. VII. 13. 355
pleasing to God, and opposing, and often, indeed, as it were
behind his back and against his real wish, overpowering his
sanctified whl in its attempts to carry out its purpose. Within
the limits of this permanent condition there are, doubtless,
degrees and fluctuations, a more or less powerful sway of the
Pneuma, a stronger or feebler opposition of the adplj, a more or
less frequent surprise by peccatis ignorantiae, infirmitatis, and
praecipitantiae ; yet, withal, the Pneuma never ceases to be the
permanently ruling principle. On this account these various
fluctuations, degrees, and inconsistencies of themselves furnish
no clear and definite principle of division, and do not justify
us in speaking of normal and abnormal conditions of the
regenerate. If, on the other hand, the Pneuma loses the
ruling power, and fahs back into a state of servitude, such as
according to the view in question must be depicted in this
passage, then a retrograde- movement takes place, which, unless
it is again reversed, leads at last back to the original state
of sphitual death ; and this status can no longer be cahed an
abnormal condition of the regenerate, because in the case of the
backslider regeneration in the proper and strict sense of the word
no longer exists at aR.
We are therefore involuntarily carried a step farther, and
adopt the view which must be described as the opposite of the
one hitherto dealt with. But it is clear from the previous dis
cussion in what sense, with Augustine in his later period, Luther,
Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, the chief representatives of this view,
we apply the present passage to the condition of the regenerate
man. It must first of aR be laid down that this condition
is seen exhaustively set forth only in the combined teaching
of ch. vii. 14-25 and ch. viii 1-11. For in these two pas
sages, one immediately foRowing the other, are pictured the two
aspects, ever appearing in mutual connection, of one and the
same sphitual status ; so that the regenerate man, according as
his glance is directed to the one or the other aspect of his
nature, is able every moment to affirm both of himself, as well
what is said vii. 23 as what is said viii. 2. Hence also ever
rises from his heart with equal truth the twofold cry, as well
raXalirwpos iyd> dvOpwiros as eixapiarw rw Oew. But certainly
the combination of elements so opposite is only conceivable if, as
observed, in the life of the regenerate sin- is considered, not as-

356 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
ruhng the consent of the will and the conduct, but only as the
stimulus of evil desire dwelling constantly in the heart, ever
impeding and defiling the new, holy inclination, and therefore
ever felt more and more as a yoke of bondage. But clearly the
apostle has here chiefly in view a profoundly inward doing, as,
indeed, already everything from ver. 7 on was referred simply to
eiriQvpia, not to the outward act merely. Even when the life of
the regenerate man is holy and governed by the Spirit, the un
interrupted, persistent sinful emotions of the heart may very well
be described as a doing of evil that is not desired. To this is
to be added that these very emotions never remain absolutely
within ; but, even apart from the manifold sins of ignorance,
weakness, and unwatchfulness in which they manifest them
selves, leave their hindering or polluting influence on the best
acts of the regenerated one, and thus envelope even his
brightest experiences* as it were with a veil of earthhness.
Comp. Augustine, Contra duas epistolas Pelag. 1. i. c. 18, where
he observes on ver. 1 6 of this passage : " Facere ergo se dixit et
operari, non affectu consentiendi et implendi, sed ipso motu
eoncupiscendi ; " and ibid. c. 19 on ver. 18: " Hoc est enim
perficere bonum, ut nee concupiscat homo. Imperfectum est
autem bonum, quando concupiscit, etiam si concupiscentiae
non consentit ad malum ; " and on the same verse, Contra
Julianum Pelagianum, 1. iii. c. 62: " Facere bonum, est post
concupiscentias non ire : perficere (xarepydfaaQai) autem bonum,
est non concupiscere." Comp. Eetradt. lie. 23: "Propter hanc
itaque concupiscentiam motusque ipsos, quibus ita resistitur, ut
tamen sint in nobis, potest quisque sanctus jam sub gratia
positus dicere ista omnia."
Now it would be unjustifiable to suppose that, according to
our interpretation, there is too sudden and abrupt a leap from
the description of one condition to that of the other. For with
ver. 13 the apostle had already reached the limits of the legal
condition, seeing that, where the law has worked iirlyvwaiv
dpaprlas, the conscious need of redemption is awakened which
finds its satisfaction in the justification and new birth that fohow,
so that the transition to the latter stage seems prepared for and
altogether natural. Moreover, it is to be borne in mind that the
bond of connection for the representation of the two diverse
conditions is found in the purpose announced in vv. 7, 13, to

CHAP. VII. 13. 357
avert blame from the law and fasten.it on sin. But this purpose
was most surely effected by setting forth the Rfe of the regenerate,
because in it, as ver. 1 6 declares, it is precisely the higher will of
man, brought into unison with the law, that is best entitled to
head the vindication of the law. Add to this that even the con
dition depicted in vv. 7-13, as vv. 14, 15 expressly show, still
enters into and runs through the life of the regenerate man,
although now certainly no longer as an exclusive, but merely as
a partial and secondary element in it. For as far as he is still
adplj, he still experiences continually that iiriOvpla is stirred up
by the vbpos, and to him dpaprla becomes xaQ' virepBoXyv
apaprwXos through the eWoX?;. And if we look at this point
narrowly, we may even say that in what fohows in vv. 7-25
the apostle explains the condition characterized in vv. 5, 8 of
this chapter, and in viii. 1-11 that characterized in ver. 6 of
this chapter, showing more at length how the Nomos, encounter
ing the adplj of man, excites always only rd iraQrjpara rwv
dpapriwv, without on that account being liable to any just
accusation. But whhe glancing, by this reference, at the carnal elemeflt still
always present in the hfe of the regenerate, he at the same time
brings up for discussion a point hitherto kept in the background,
but essential to the complete development of the doctrine of
.regeneration and sanctification, — one which could not be omitted
in a complete representation, and which accordingly furnishes a
new evidence of the corregtness of our view. If we take into
account only the delineation ch. vi, ch. vh. 1-7, and ch. viii. 1-11,
we may easily gain the impression that the regenerate man has
become all irvevpa, and the adplj has been utterly extinguished in
him ; so that we are no longer able to perceive why the summons
to mortify the adplj, beginning viii. 12, is necessary. It was
thus every way essential expressly to characterize the carnal
element sthl constantly adhering to the spiritual life.1 A very
striking parahel with the present passage in nuce is supphed, as
1 "Postquam legem divinam vindicavit, vel pravae concupiscentiae omnem
culpam transcribendam docuit, ejus vim sese etiamnum experiri, ingemiscit
apostolus, etiamsi renatus jam sit, et justificatus ; idque ideo, quia nondum ex asse
spiritualis, sed exparte adhuc carnalis, quum Spiritus quidem primitias acceperit,
sed camis adhuc reliquiae superent, a quibus mirem quantum fatigetur. Id quod
operose exequitur, ad confundendam et contundendam perfectionem propriae
justitiae, quam venditabant Pharisaei, ut unice laus maneat gratiae Deit et redem-

358 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
is weh known, by Gal. v. 1 7, where, certainly and beyond ques*
tion, the subject is the status regenitorum; and we believe the
same view must be held in regard to the Lord's declaration, Matt.
xxvi. 41.
Lastly, as concerns the practical significance of the different
interpretations of this passage now passed in review, it may be
said that the application to the state of regeneration in the way
we have defined must be cahed not the laxer, so much as the
stricter one. The former would be the case if the meaning were,
that the regenerate man has nothing but an impotent and fruit
less wih to what is good, along with a constant performing of
what is evil. But since, according to the other mode of interpre
tation, the condition of the unregenerate man here professedly
described must enter, although abnormahy, into the hfe of the
regenerate, it must be said, on the contrary, that by this view
dangerous encouragement is directly given to carnal security, as
the regenerate man may then always comfort himself with the
thought that he is there and then in such a condition, which
nevertheless leaves him in statu regenitorum. But, on the other
side, the view combated by us may certainly lead as far astray in
the direction of pietistic self-complaining, if, that is, it is sup
posed that, in the regenerate man, the root of sin must be so
destroyed that he has no need continuahy to join in the cry,
ver. 24. Thus the rock of wantonness threatens on one side, of
despair on the other, like a Scylla and Charybdis.
Ver. 14 confirms (yap) the inevitable necessity of the experience
hitherto narrated, and introduces the highest and best vindication
of the law by means of the experience of the regenerate. It could
not but be that y dpaprla, dcpoppyv XaBovaa Bid rrjs ivroXys,
xareipydaaro irdaav iiriOvpiav xal Odvarov, for d vbpos irvev
panxos, iyw Be aapxtxbs. The apostle depicts here the character
of human nature in the abstract in its relation to the divine law.
His declaration thus holds good of the adplj universally, whether
it be that of the unregenerate or regenerate. The sole point of
tioni Christi, soliusque fidei adseratur justificatio. Ideo tum de concupiscentia in
renatis prolixa lamentatio, ad vers. 24 inclus. tum pro liberatione a Christo facta
nervosa gratiarum actio hic habetur v. 25," Calov. He also calls w. 1-6 of the
seventh chapter, Pars I. : " xXXnyopixo . . . 'iiixxrixi e lege matrimoniali status non
renatorum et renatorum differentiam illustrans ;" vv. 7-13, Pars II.: " xiroXvyvrni
legis sanctitatem vindicans;" vv. 14, 15, Pars III.; " vxirXtxo-rixri, querelam apostoli
de vi pravae concupiscentiae exhibens. "

CHAP. VII. 14. 359
difference is, that of the former nothing else holds good ; of the
latter, what is here said holds good only in so far as he is still
adplj.1 As far as he is no longer such, what is said viii. 9 also
holds good of him : vpeis Se oix iare iv aapxl dXX' iv irvevpari.
In hke manner he can just as well say of himself : e'yw ireirpa-
pevos elpl virb rrjv dpaprlav, as, according to vi. 18 : ey&> Se
t_ iXevOepwQels dirb t% dpaprlas, iSovXwOyv ry Sixaioavvy. The
dehverance accomplished once for all is withal, as a self-developing
principle, a progressive redemption from bondage not yet absolutely
abolished. The expressions, chosen by the apostle here and sub
sequently, are really not stronger than the quite similar tones to
be found so commonly in the prayers and hymns of the Christian
church in all ages. It would in fact be, not an evidence of
special progress, but a sign of defective self-knowledge, were a
believer, upon appeal to his regeneration, to refuse to apply to
himself, and to describe as appropriate to his condition, in any
moment whatever of his life, the sentiments expressed in these
prayers and hymns. Besides, it is to be well observed that the
apostle here begins with ooSapev ydp, such knowledge belonging
to behevers only. It is doubtless true that of itself it holds good,
even for the unregenerate man, that the law is spiritual, while he
is carnal, sold under sin ; but that it is so to him he knows not,
nay, denies. This knowledge only the regenerate one possesses, for
it is itself the result of enlightening grace. Very justly Delitzsch
observes, bibl. proph. Theol. ibid.: "Dhectly the spiritually-minded
man, confronted with God's spiritual law, feels most acutely and
profoundly that he has sthl of himself a carnal nature, and cannot
ransom himself entirely from the power of sin, by the very fact
of his accusing himself in dahy repentance as aapxixbs, it is
apparent that, as to the fundamental tendency of his personality,
he is irvevpanxos." — ooSapev yap] copoXoyypevov tovto xal SfjXov
iarw, on irvevpanxos ian, interprets Chrysostom. Comp. h. 2,
hi. 19, viii. 28. But it is only for the Christian consciousness
that this is an copoXoyypevov xal SyXov. The otherwise pretty
equaRy attested reading o'lSapev Be appears to have come into the
1 At the same time I have no wish to deny, as Meyer in his former editions misunder
stood me to deny, that the subject in vv.- 14-25 is the same as in vv. 7-13. Thereby
different states of the same subject are described; and ver. 14, in passing from one
state to the other, for the first time characterizes the natural character of the subject
such as he is in the abstract and never absolutely ceases to be. So also Melanchthon :
"Primum autem narrat Paulus qualis sit natura carnalis secundum sese."

360 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
text from the parallel passages just quoted. Be would have to he
taken as Be peraBanxbv, comp. on iv. 15. Sender's conjecture,
olSa pev ydp, is needless, because iyw Se aapxixbs elpi does not
depend on ooSapev oti, but forms an independent sentence ; and
untenable, because Paul would then have written d pev vbpos, not
otSa pev,
— oti d vopos irvevpanxos iarw] The conception of irvev
panxos defines itself from the antithesis aapxixbs. But here
plainly it is not the physical antithesis of adplj and irvevpa, as
in Col. ii. 5, but the ethical antithesis so frequently occurring
in Paul, Gal. hi. 3, v. 16 ff, vi. 8. d vbpos irvevpanxos ianv
cannot then mean: the law refers to the irvevpa of man. i.e. it
requires not merely the outward work, but also the right disposi
tion ("mentem et interiorem hominem respicit," Beza). Rather,
here, the reference to the Qeiov irvevpa is to be decidedly held ;
but not on this account to be interpreted, with Theodoret: Oelm
ydp, cpyalv, iypdcpy irvevpari' ravrys perex<ov tj)? ^aptTO? d
paxdpios Mwarjs rbv vbpov avveypatyev ; for here it was important
to describe, not so much the origin as the cJiarader of the Nomos
in contrast with the character of man. As the latter is aapxixbs,
so the former is irvevpanxos, i.e. carries in it the nature of the
irvevpa. This is reahy the invariable signification of irvevpanxbv,
only that the reference to origin is sometimes, as in i. 11, glanced
at as well. Moreover, in this passage both elements might be
united. The Nomos has its origin from the irvevpa, and therefore
has the nature of the irvevpa. Stih, by this antithesis of aapxixbs
no direct allusion at least is made to the former element. But
then the Nomos is sphitual in nature and essence, in so far as
it sets up the ideal of a spiritual man, and by such an one only
is fulfilled, because he, as Calvin says : " coelestem quandam et
angelicam justitiam requirit, in qua naevus nullus appareat, ad
cujus munditiam nihh desideretur ; " or because he, as Bengel
interprets: "requirit, ut sensus omnis humanus respondeat sensui
Dei : Deus autem est Spiritus."
— iyco Se aapxixbs elpi] Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann, after
the best manuscripts (so also Cod. Smalt.**) and several Fathers,
have received the reading adpxwos (in the same way 1 Cor. ih. 1 ;
Heb. vii. 16), which is approved by the majority of modern in
terpreters. Decision is difficult ; for whereas external authorities
are conclusive for adpxwos, internal reaspns favour aapxixbs.

CHAP. VII. 14. 361
The former signifies merely of flesh or fleshy (as adjediva propar-
oxytona in wos denote almost invariably the material, e.g. IjiiXovos
of wood, iryXivos of clay, dxdvOwos, Bvaawos, xplQwos, yyivos, etc.,
comp. Buttmann, Ausf. Gr. Spr. II. p. 340; Winer, p. 122;
Fritzsche, ad Marcum, p. 797 sq. ; and in Comm. on Eomerbr. here),
the latter is carnal. That Paul observes this distinction is proved
by 2 Cor. ih. 3, where the perfectly idiomatic antithesis of eV
irXaljl XiQlvais and iv irXaljl xapSlas aapxlvais is found, whereas
aapxixbs is used everywhere else where the antithesis irvevpanxos
is expressed or understood (Rom. xv. 27 ; 1 Cor. iii. 3, 4, ix. 11 ;
2 Cor. i. 12, x. 4). It is therefore hard to suppose that in some
passages Paul deviated from this fixed distinction. Nevertheless,
were adpxwos in this passage to be considered genuine, we must
either say that popular language confounded the forms, and used
adpxwos in the sense of aapxixbs, especially as all adjectives in
wos do not denote material (comp. dvOpwirwos, Winer, p. 123,
note; Tholuck here), or, which is especially favoured by ireirpa-
pevos iirb t^v dpaprlav, that adpxwos, placed in antithesis to
irvevpanxos, is stronger than aapxixbs. I am of flesh = I ain
made of flesh as of a material, i.e. simply and purely flesh, comp.
John iii. 6 : to yeyevvypevov ix rys aapxos, adplj ian. But
from this it can neither be inferred that sin consists in sensuous-
ness, for the fleshly material denotes even here the entire corrup
tion of nature,1 nor yet that sin is the substance of human nature,
for a rhetorical expression is not to be construed with logical
stringency. Comp. Formul. Concord. Sol. Peel, i 51, upon Luther's
expression : " peccatum et peccare esse corrupti hominis naturam."
In 1 Cor. ih. 1, Paul at least calls the regenerate who are not yet
strong in faith vyirlovs iv Xpiarw, aapxixovs. But every Chris
tian, when he looks at the sin stiR remaining in his flesh, appears
to himself such a vyirios, and therefore a aapxixbs.
— ireirpatievos iirb ryv dpaprlav] Illustrative supplement to
aapxixbs or adpxwos elpi. Sin is represented as a lord, man as
a slave who must do what the lord commands. " Coactionem
semper excipio," remarks Luther, " sponte enim peccamus, quia
1 Even Meyer understands by the «¦«>£ the material psychical nature of man that
resists the divine mtv/ix. I do not understand how an expositor who finds in the
apostle's writings the doctrine of the imputatio peccati AdamUicl, of the satisfadio
vkaria, and justitia imputata Christi, can everywhere attribute to him the anthro
pology of rationalism.

362 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
peccatum non esset, nisi voluntarium. Sed addicti sumus ita'
peccato, ut nihil sponte possimus nisi peccare : quia mahtia, quae
in nobis dominatur, hue nos rapit. Quare haec simhitudo non
coactam (ut loquuntur) astrictionem sonat, sed voluntarium obse-
quiuin, cui nos ingenita servitus addicit." Comp. herewith the state
ment of Augustine, de grat. et lib. arbitr. c. 15: "Semper est autem
in nobis voluntas libera, sed non semper est bona." iriirpdaxeaOai
iirb n, like SovXovaQai iirb n, Gal. iv. 3. Elsewhere it is said
iriirpdaxeaOai rwi, ? 13M, Lev. xxv. 39 ; p ">3?""n, Deut. xxviii. 68,
and Bar. iv. 6 : irrpdOyre rois eOveaiv. With the sentiment of
the expression iriirpdaxeaOai iirb t^v dpaprlav, comp. also espe
cially the phrase inn rttofe "conn 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25 ; 2 Kings
xvii. 17 ; iriirpdaxeaOai rov iroiyaai to irovypbv, 1 Maec. i. 15.
Ver. 15. Confirmatory elucidation of the preceding iyw ireirpa-
pevos elpi iirb ryv dpaprlav. The bondage of sin shows itself
precisely in carrying out sin's commands in involuntary blind
obedience, without consciousness and inquiry; for such is the
relation of a slave to his lord. b ydp xarepydfapai, oi
ywwaxw] In the wake of Augustine several expositors have inter
preted oi ywwaxw, non approbo, I approve not. Bengel : " non
agnosco ut bonum." But neither the Heb. jn* nor yovwaxew has
this meaning. Even in the passages quoted for it, Ps. i. 6 (comp,
Hengstenberg here), Hos. viii. 4, Amos iii. 2, Ecclus. xvhi 28,
Matt. vii. 23, John x. 14, Rom. x. 19, 1 Cor. viii. 3, Gal.
iv. 9, 2 Tim. ii. 29, V1J, ywwaxew, means properly nothing but:
cognosco, novi, I know, discern, perceive, not : agnosco, I acknow
ledge, I approve. Rightly Chrysostom early interpreted : axorov-
poai, cpyal, avvapirdfapai, iirrjpeiav iiropoevw, oix oiSa irws viroaxe-
Xlfapai. Vulg. : " quod enim operor, non intelligo." Luther :
"for I know not what I do." Comp. Luke xxiii. 34: oi ydp
o'lSaai rl irooovai. The regenerate man sins not consciously
and wiRingly. It is the blind natural impulse of evil desire and
inclination not yet entirely eradicated that carries him away.
His better ego knows nothing of this act of his sinful nature*
But from this it certainly follows, of course, that this higher self
does not acknowledge and approve such an act.
¦ — oi ydp o QeXw, tovto rrpdaaw' dXX' b piaw, tovto 7toioj] The
fact of the regenerate man as such wishing and loving only the
good that is weR-pleasing to God, just proves (ydp) that the evil
he performs is not done of conscious (oi ywcoaKw) purpose.

chap. vn. 15. 3G3
QeXew cannot here denote the so-called velleitas, the weak, power
less will of the schoolmen. To energetic dislike (piaeiv) only
energetic wishing can correspond. OeXew has not this diluted
meaning in the passages quoted for it, 1 Cor. vii. 7, 32, xiv. 5,
2 Cor. xii. 20; for even there QeXeiv expresses thorough deter
mination of purpose, which is only opposed by outward hindrances,
not by any paralysing indecision. Here, accordingly, must be
meant the regenitus, whose new higher ego alone can be the subject
of such a OeXew and piaeiv. The will spoken of by the apostle
is nothing but the whl of the new man. Even the old man has his
will ; but Paul calls that which in the regenerate one is the deepest
wish and innermost longing of his heart, his whl Kar iljoxyv.
On the contrary, that which wars with this he calls what is
opposed to his will. The parallel passages quoted from the
classics, among which the best known are Epidet. Enchirid. I ii.
C. 26 : o dpapravwv . . . b pev QeXei, oi iroiei, Kal b py QeXei,
iroiei, and Ovid, Metam. vii. 19:" Aliudque cupido, mens aliud
suadet, video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor," supply an
analogy to the apostle's statement, belonging merely to the sphere
of natural morals, not to the Christian sphere. There, the ques
tion is only of contradiction between reason and sensuousness ;
here, between irvevpa and adplj. Well Calov : " Nihil hue Medea
facit, aut quicquid hic geminum e gentilibus collegit." Grotius :
" non enim de appetitus sensitivi adversus intelledualem pugna, vel
de rationis et voluntatis contentione, quam non renati experiuntur,
cum ea, quae non probant mente, eligunt tamen et sequuntur
voluntatis affectibus abrepti : sed (de) pugna spiritus et camis, quae
non locum habet, nisi in renatis, hic disseritur : quod excmplo
Apostoli satis constat, siquidem de semetipso loquatur." The apostle
is speaking of sin which constantly besets and surprises the believer,
not exactly in outward word and deed, but above all in thought
and inchnation. When he says : I do not what I wish, but what
I hate that I do, this does not mean that the believer never does
anything good, but that with the good he does sin is ever mixed,
disturbing, hindering, causing him to fall, or at least to waver.
He never does what he wishes, because he never performs a per
fectly pure- act in perfectly holy love. When he glances from the
height of spiritual freedom, to which grace has raised him, down
into the deep abyss of nature's sin, which is always alluring and
enticing, often even causing him to tremble, and leading him to

364 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS..
the brink of ruin, there attends him continually, along with the
consciousness of inward strength and freedom, the sense of an
alien power and bondage. And it is just this aspect of his
experience and feeling that the apostle pictures in this section.
" Negat se facere, quod lex exigit, quia non facit omnibus numeris,
sed quodammodo fatiscit in suo couatu," Calvin. The touto
before rrpdaam is to be accounted suspicious on critical grounds.
Ver. 16 by the metabatic Se draws from what precedes an
inference by which the thought from which the entire discussion
sprang — the innocence and excellence of the law, ver. 14 (comp.
vv. 12, 7) — is corroborated. This thought is here expressly
stated for the last time, the delineation of the condition of man
under the law, vv. 7-13, and under grace (the latter, as regards
its two aspects of subjection stih remaining, vv. 14—25, and of
freedom already existing, viii. 1—11, which delineation serves as
a basis for the vindication of the law) being carried on from this
point without further express reference to this apologetic purpose.
But the reasoning of the apostle is fully demonstrated. The will
of man, condemning its own unlawful acts, thereby takes its stand
as an advocate for the law. The phraseology is determined
by the preceding 'o piaw (=o oi OeXw), tovto iroiw. Other
wise the reverse form : et Be oi OeXw tovto, b iroiw, would have
been more suitable, avpcpypi to vbpw, on xaXbs] I agree with
the law that it is good, i.e. I confirm the assertion wdiich the law
makes respecting its own character, Deut. iv. 8 ; Ps. xix. 8-11.
Thus avpcpypi with the dative retains its original signification : I
say with, agree with, consentio, and has not, with avv merely
intensifying, the signification: I assent, I grant, confiteor. The
law is good, because it commands the good that I myself wish,
forbids the evil that I myself wish not.
Ver. 17. If I consent to the law that it is good because my
inmost heart's desire, my real will, is in unison with the law, it
is no longer I that do the evil, but sin that dwells in me. It is
thus a power alien to my real man that still holds me prisoner,
and verifies e'ya> aapxixos elpi, ireirpapevos iirb t^i> dpaprlav,
ver. 14. The fact that the apostle here sets his real ego in
opposition to sin, shows, considering the matter from the stand
point of biblical and Pauline haniartology, the impossibility of
interpreting the present passage otherwise than of the regenerate.
Yet, certain as it is that he is depicting the sinfulness that chngs

chap. vii. is. 3G5
to the believer, he can, it must be remembered, on the other hand,
pay no higher tribute to the dignity of the Christian's position
than when he says : It is not i" that sin. Thus oixen iyw
Karepydfapai airb is in a certain sense a correction or qualifying
exposition of eyeb aapxixbs elpi. Both, without doubt, hold good
of the ego of the mail, but the former more than the latter, inas
much as the innermost and most real whl of the regenerate is seen
in the fulfilment of the divine law. In the redeemed man sin has
withdrawn from the centre of personality to the circumference of
elementary nature, iwi Se] not a temporal particle = " nunc post
legem datam " (Grotius), or = " ex quo Christianus factus sum "
(Koppe), but : but now, if it is so, or : but thus, since this is the
case, namely, since I agree with the law that it is good. Just so —
— aixeri] is to be taken logically, not temporally, of that
which cannot be conceived after what has been said. But it is
true no longer, can no longer be supposed that / commit evil.
Comp. ver. 20, xi. 6 ; Gal. iii. 18.
— y olxovaa iv ipol dpaprla] As of sin, so of the Spirit of
God it is said: 6Vt olxei iv ypiv, vhi 9; 1 Cor. iii. 16, comp.
vi. 19. The regenerate man is not only a lodging-place of sin,
but also a temple of the Holy Sphit. The purport of the 17th
verse, as is shown by the 20 th verse, which repeats it almost
verbatim, is elucidated and confirmed by the consciousness that
springs from Christian experience (olSa ydp).
Ver. 18. The qualification, tovt eariv iv rfj aapxl pov, added
to iv ipol, is another proof that Paul can only be speaking of
the regenerate. In me, i.e. in my flesh, dwells no good thing
(= nothing good, Luther), is the same as saying that in my real
iyw something good dwells. And, indeed, this good, so called in the
highest sense and corresponding to the pneumatic Nomos, can itself
be only of a pneumatic nature, so that by the real ego, to which
the iyw aapxixbs is opposed, only the iyw irvevpanxos, the xawos,
irvevpanxos dvOpwiros can be meant. As everywhere where it
appears in a moral sense, so here adplj stands for aapxixos, i.e.
iraXaibs dvOpwiros, and postulates as its constant antithesis vios
dvOpwiros. — rb ydp OeXew irapdxeiral poi] Bengel remarks on
OiXew: " Accusativus, bonum, non additur: et hujus orationis
tenuitas tenuitatem rov veRe exprimit." But with as much justice
it might be maintained, in the opposite sense, that Paul's here
always using OeXew, without express mention of the object, only

366 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
of wishing what is good, shows that he is treating of the man
renewed by the Spirit, in whom, since he is considered a parte
potiori, no real willing of what is evil any longer exists, irapa
xeirai, a latere jacet, lies beside me = rrdpean, est in promptu,
mihi adest, is present in me. Comp. the analogous irpbxeirai,
2 Cor. viii. 12, in conspedu jacet,. and Horn. Odyss. xxii. 65 : vvv
vpiv irapaxeirai ivavrlov ye pdxeaOai rj cpevyew. The apostle
looks round, so to speak, in the space of his inner ego, and finds
lying right before him the OeXew of what is good ; but of the
xarepydfarQai (comp. on ii. 9) to xaXbv, on the contrary, of which
he looks round in search, he is compeRed to say —
— oix eiplaxw] I find it not, i.e. I know not where it is, it is
not there, oix e''plcxw is thus = ov irapaxeirai, note=7 cannot
attain it. Still the meaning is not, that the believer's only
characteristic is an wholly ineffectual state of desire (comp.
against this, Phil. ii. 13), but that even -in his best act, since sin
is ever mixed with it, he does not perform the act that corresponds
to his will sanctified by the Spirit of God. He would love God,
and finds in himself the love of sin ; so that, looking upon this
power of sin still lingering in him, he ventures at the very best
to affirm of himself a willing, not a performing of what is good.
Well worthy of note here is Luther's marginal gloss : " To do,
means not to perform the work, but to feel lusts stirring them
selves. But to perform is to live without lust, quite purely, which
does not happen in this life." Instead of oix eVpl°~Ka>> attested
by the occidental codices, the Alexandrian (also Cod. Sinait.)
read merely ov (namely, irapaxeirai), which reading has been
approved by Griesbach and accepted by Lachmann. But, to say
nothing of the difficulty created by the double oi at the end of
this verse, and directly again at the beginning of the next verse,
this mode of expression seems altogether too abrupt, harsh, and
frigid. Were it original, the glossarists would scarcely have
supphed a term so very appropriate as eiplaxw, but would far
more probably (have repeated irapaxeirai. Thus an dBXe^la of
the copyists seems to have occurred, their eye wandering from
oix, ver- 18, to oi, ver. 19, when oi5^; eiplaxw dropped out, and
the manifest hiatus was then supplied by a simple ov, or as one
codex reads, by oi ywwaxw, after ver. 15, or, as the Aeth. has,
by oix exco.
Ver. 19 proves to Se xarepydfajOai rb xaXbv, oix evpl°~K0>>

CHAP. VII. 20, 21. 367
ver. 18, by repeating the statement found already, ver. 15.
Only that in this verse dyaOov is expressly added in apposi
tion to o OeXw, and xaxbv to h oi OeXw. The parallelism of
ver. 19 and ver. 15 tells in favour of omitting toOto before
irpdaaw. Ver. 15 : ov yap o OeXw, irpdaaw' dXX' h piaw, tovto iroiw.
Ver. 19 : oi yap h QeXco, iroiw (dyaOov)' dXX' h oi OeXw (xaxbv),
tovto irpdaaw.
Ver. 20 deduces from ver. 19 the proposition announced ver.
1 7, that had to be proved. The e'y&i after OeXw, on the authority
of numerous and important manuscripts, Fathers, and versions, in
which it is altogether wanting, or placed after tovto or before oi,
is to be accounted suspicious in the highest degree, and has
indeed been rightly omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The
analogy of w. 15, 16, 19 also is against the use of this pronoun,
as weR as the absence of the antithesis which, by its emphatic
.meaning, it imperatively requires. It thus seems to have been
awkwardly supplied by copyists from the next clause of the verse
(oixen iyw xarepyd^.), in order to intimate that the real ego not
only does not perform, but does not wish what is evh. But the
Pauline antithesis is not at all : It is not I that' wish what is
evil, I do it nevertheless, thus I do it not ; but : I wish not what
is evh, I do it nevertheless, thus J do it not.
Ver. 21. So far, two points were estabhshed; first, that the
law is good, ver. 16 ; and next, that it is not I, but sin dwelling
in me, that does the evh ; i.e., that sin, as involuntary, is a power
alien to me, reducing me to bondage against my will, ver. 20.
But these were just thfr two elements contained in ver. 14, and
now sufficiently expounded. Both elements were established by
the experimental proposition that I indeed desire the good but
perform the evil, that I do what I desire not, vv. 15, 19. This
latter proposition, since both the propositions contained in ver. 1 4
depend upon it and are to be traced back to it, may accordingly
be regarded as the final outcome of the entire previous discussion,
vv. 14-20. In the present verse, therefore, it is advanced as
such, and in its turn is estabhshed, vv. 22, 23. Difficulties
arise in the construction of the words. Interpreters are divided
into two classes. The one refer rbv vbpov to the Mosaic law.
Among the different explanations given by them, the one advo
cated especiaRy by Knapp, Scripta varii argumenta, ed. sec. torn.

363 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
II. pp. 383-393, Fritzsche, and Tholuck here alone deserves
notice : " I find, then, that while I wish to practise the law, the
good, evh is present with me." 1 rbv vbpov is thus dependent on
iroieiv, and to xaXbv in apposition to rbv vbpov. We have no
wish to press strongly against this construction, which is no doubt
grammatically possible, the objection often raised of intolerable
harshness, because it might be replied that this depends simply
upon exegetical feeling, which is always but an uncertain and
changeable rule of judgment, and because the same objection
might be retorted by the advocates of the view in question upon
its opponents in reference to their own interpretation. But other
difficulties seem to us to stand in the way. If it is certain that
Paul deduces the import of this verse, not only as to meaning
but as to form, from the preceding, it must first of aR appear
strange for him here to speak abruptly of a OeXew, iroieiv tov
vbpov, whereas so far he has spoken only of a OeXew, iroieiv rb
xaXbv, ver. 18 ; to dyaOov, ver. 19. When, moreover, in the
very next clause we find the antithesis, so common before, of
iroieiv, irpdaaew, xarepydfaaOai, or even irapdxeiaQai of xaxbv,
we are at once led naturally to connect together also in this verse
t&3 QeXovn ipol iroieiv rb xaXbv. Add to this, that if the apostle
had even adopted the altered mode of expression, rbv vbpov
rw QeXovn ipol iroieiv, there was yet no reason for the epexe-
getical supplement, rbv xaXbv. To guard against the notion of
the vbpos being a xaxbv (comp. ver. 16) were here altogether
irrelevant, and for the mere purpose of paving the way for the
following contrast of rb xaxbv irapaxeirai the supplement to
xaXbv was the more needless, as, if the previous phraseology
were once abandoned, it would have been far more simple and to
1 Tortuously, and opposed to the context, Meyer (in former editions), after the lead
of the Greek exegetes : "I find, then, the law for me, so far as I am disposed to do
the good, because evil lies before me ; i.e., I find that the law (namely, the Mosaic),
so far as I have the will to do what is good, is designed for my advantage, because
to me (to my personality in itself, apart from this moral will) evil is present. The
latter circumstance makes the former relation evident ; for if evil lies before my
person in itself, as regards that better will the law can only be designed for my good
to serve as a rule to this moral will, in opposition to this impulse." Even the
exposition given by Meyer in recent editions is very forced : "I find, then, in me,
whilst my will is directed to the law to do what is good, that evil lies before me. "
Against this comp. Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 445, note. Not less forced Hofmann,
Schriflbew. I. p. 463 : "Its ever lying near me to do evil causes me to see that the
law to me who wish to do it is good." Against this comp. Meyer, II. 24.

CHAP. VII. 21. 369
the purpose to write : eiplaxw dpa, rbv vbpov t&3 QeXovn ipol
iroieiv, ore ipol y dpaprla irapaxeirai. But if it were simply
intended to intimate that what is now called OeXew, iroieiv rbv
vopov is the same that was previously caRed OeXew, iroieiv rb
koXov, this would be a remark just as little to the point as a
mere play of words. Inversely, the apostle might have said
with more reason : evpiaxw dpa, rb xaXbv tw QeXovn ipol iroieiv,
tov vbpov, in order to intimate that the xaXbv which be bad
spoken of wishing to do is no other than the vbpos Oeov, not a
rule chosen at whl by man, but one fixed by God, by which
simply and solely perfection of conduct can be estimated. Thus,
not that the Nomos is the xaXbv before named, but perhaps that
the xaXbv before named is the Nomos, might have been remarked
in an appropriate and significant sense. Therefore, since the text
is to be regarded as completely authenticated, and the conjectures
attempted can only be described as arbitrary, we are compelled
to adhere to the second class of expositors, which is also the
most numerous. They agree in interpreting d vbpos in this
passage not of the Mosaic law, but in the sense of norma,
regula, praescriptum, i.e. law in general, rule, natural necessity,
analogously to the use of vbpos, ver. 23, where Bengel renders :
didamen. The construction, then, may be in one of two ways, —
either the dative rw QeXovn is dependent directly on evpiaxw :
"I find, then, for me that wish to do what is good, the law
that evh is near me;" or, supposing an easy transposition of
on (Winer, p. 6 9 7), it is to be explained : " I find, then, the
law, that to me that wish to do what is good, evh is near."
Decision is not easy, but we inchne to the second view, because
by it the proposition : " I wish to do good, but evh is beside
me," which was plainly intended to be expressly brought for
ward as the result of what precedes, stands forth more pro
minently. The objections urged equally against the two latter
views appear not difficult to remove. They consist principaRy in
two points. First, that in this case tovtov rbv vbpov must have
been said instead of rbv vbpov. But, first, the necessity for this
is not apparent, as the demonstrative meaning is not imperatively
cahed for ; and again, even the article, as has been observed, may
be used demonstratively in the same manner as in Acts xi 16 :
tov pyparos rov xvplov, a>? e'Xeyei* ; xx. 35 : rwv Xoywv tov xvp.
'Iya., on airbs elire. But, further, vbpos, where it has the
Philippi, Rom. I. 2A

370 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
wider signification, is said to be used only in contrast with vbpos
in the proper sense, ih. 27, vh. 23, viii. 2, ix. 31. But even
this contrast is not to be excluded, since it is introduced now
preparatory to the further exposition, ver. 23. The very con
sideration hitherto of the relation in which the regenerate man
stands to the law suggests to the apostle the law, that to him
that wishes to do good evil is present. But this experience is very
significantly called a law, just because it expresses no accidental
and transient, but an inevitable and abiding phenomenon.
Vv. 22, 23 elucidate the result stated in ver. 21, that to me
that wish to do good, ver. 22, evh is present, ver. 23. avvySopat
ydp rw vbpw tov Oeov] for I take delight in the law of God.
avvySopal rwi may mean ; (1) to rejoice together with some one
over a thing. But the interpretation : " I rejoice with another in
God's law, I share the joyous delight that is taken in the divine
law," is irrelevant, because the idea of another is here altogether
out of the question. Exceedingly forced and far-fetched is the
makeshift : " I rejoice with the law of God, so that its joy (the law
personified) is also mine, namely, concerning the moral good
desired by the law and by me." (2) Intus, apud animum meum
laetor, to rejoice in something inwardly, in his soul. So here.
Analogous is the meaning of avv in criwotSa poi and in avXXv-
irovpevos, Mark iii 5. One cannot then say offhand either that
avv is pleonastic, or that it adds strength. And yet both might
be maintained under cover of the signification just given, by
supposing either that "to rejoice with oneself" was reduced in
the course of usage to a simple " to rejoice," or that, which of
itself is more natural, apud animum laetari is meant to describe
depth and inwardness of dehght, i.e. strong dehght. The latter
meaning is also to be preferred on account of the following xard
rbv earn avOpwirov, which accentuates this element still more dis
tinctly. But avvySopat too vbpw is distinguished from avpcpypi
toj vbpw, ver. 16, the latter denoting the consent of the intehect,
the former, appropriation by the heart and will. The vbpos is
defined as vbpos Oeov (genit. audor.) in contrast with erepos
vbpos immediately fohowing. The dehght in God's law here
described is treated of Ps. i. 2, xix. 8-12, xl. 9 (comp. Hengst.
here), cxh. 1, cxix. 14, 16, 47, 70, 77, 92, 143, 174. Even in
these passages, so important for the exposition of the present one,
delight in God's law is the delight of the righteous, the regenerate,

CHAP. VII. 22, 23. 371
and even there with delight is blended lamentation over sin still
remaining in the flesh.1
— xard rbv eaw avOpwirov] " Interior homo," says Melanchthon,
"significat hominem, quatenus renovatus est Spiritu Sancto."
Just so Calvin : " Interior homo non anima simpliciter dicitur,
sed spirituahs ejus pars, quae a Deo regenerata est." Comp.
Luther's marginal note : " The inward man means here the spirit
born of grace, which in the saints contends against the outward
man, i.e. reason, mind, and everything that is natural in man."
But d eaw dvOpwiros is not in the abstract and directly identical
with d xawbs, irvevpanxos dvOpwiros. Rather d eaw dvOpwiros
(which expression is needlessly derived from the phraseology of
the Platonic school, comp. Harless on Eph. ih. 16, p. 314 f.)
denotes in the first place merely the vovs, v v. 23, 25, the irvevpa
avOpwirov in contrast with the e%w dvOpwiros, the awpa, or the
adplj, i.e. man, in so far as he is not outward and visible to others,
i.e. body, but as he is inward and hidden, i.e. spirit. So 2 Cor.
iv. 16; Eph. ih. 16. But without doubt, as these very passages
show, it is the eaw dvOpwiros, to whom the irvevpa Oeov is given
to work in him the new birth and renewal. Accordingly, by the
eaw avQpwiros even the xawbs dvOpwiros may be denoted, on the
supposition that the former is to be conceived in a definite order
of thought as necessarily dvaxexawwpevos. Quite analogous to
this is the employment of tyvxn, 1 Pet. ii. 11 (comp. Steiger
here) : direxeaOai twj/ aapxixwv iiriQvpiwv, a'inves arparevovrai
xard Trjs yfrvxys. The reference here cannot be to the soul in its
natural character, for, as such, it is itseh a tyvxy aapxixy, but to
the soul as it bad been renewed in the believing readers of the
epistle, in whom it was pervaded by the Holy Spirit, so that
Calvin rightly interprets : " ipsa animae regenitae natura, quae
spiritualis est. Totus homo interior, qui per Sp. S. renovatus
est, intelhgitur." On the other hand, in 1 Pet. ih. 4 it is certainly
doubtful whether the description d xpvirrbs rrjs xapBlas dvOpwiros,
1 Tholuck, p. 341, directly quotes these passages from the Psalms as an evidence
against our reference of awno'io-lai r$ vo/ia, rov hov to the regenerate. Nay, he even
appeals to the prayer in Oed. Tyr. v. 845. Thus he places the believing Israelite
on a par with the devout heathen, and identifies the natural law of conscience with
the spiritual, revealed law of God, whose fundamental requirement is love to God,
of which the heathen knew nothing. In fact, only on such grounds is it possible to
refer this passage to the conflict in the unregenerate. But this alone is enough to
condemn the reference for ail deep, truly spiritual understanding of the Scriptures.

372 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
corresponding with eaw dvOpwiros, signifies simply every inward
ego, even of the natural man in contrast with the body, — so
Steiger, in which case we must interpret : " Outward adornment,
that of the body, becomes not Christian women (wv earw, oix °
eljwQev xbapoos), but the inner man in the imperishable ornament
of a meek and quiet spirit (eV t&3 dcpQdprw tov irpaeos xal yavx'iov
irvevparos)," so that the imperishableness of a meek and quiet
spirit is conceived as the principle pervading and sanctifying the
xpvirrbs rys xapBlas dvOpwiros, — or whether o xp. rrjs k. dvOp. of
itself is to be conceived as pervaded by the irvevpa Oeov, comp.
Wiesinger here, in which case (which we hold to be the right
view) we must interpret : " the inward (= spiritual) man, consist
ing in the imperishableness of a meek and quiet sphit" (" in pectore
latitans homo, qui perpetuitate mansuetae et tranquhlae mentis
cernatur," Fritzsche, Comm. in ep. ad Bom. torn. II. p. 64), so that
to dcpOaprov rov Kp. k. ya. irvevp. more precisely explains the
character of this inner man (comp. Rom. h. 29: b iv rw Kpvirrw
'lovSaios, Kal irepnopy KapSlas, iv irvevpan). Now, in the present
passage, d eaw dvOpwiros is in point of fact the inner man, not
simply in so far as he may and should be pervaded by the Spirit of
God, but in so far as he actuaRy is pervaded by the Spirit of God,
for only as such has he delight in God's law.1 The apostle's use
1 Meyer asserts that " it is quite arbitrarily denied by me that to the unregenerate
man belongs, as respects his moral ' I,' the o-wvihopoxi t* vipo* rot hov (comp. ii. 15),
and it must belong to him, since the sinful nature has its seat and home in the nzfg,
vv. 18, 25, as the antithesis of the vovs. This does not, indeed, consist with the
assumption that it is precisely the higher powers of the natural man that by nature
are at diametrical variance with God and His law (Form. Cone. p. 640 f.), but it
nevertheless rests on an exegetic basis." We ask, on the other hand, whether
Meyer really supposes that his carnal Hamartology consists better with the Augustan
Formula of 1530, to which, in the preface to his 2d edition, he so strongly adheres, in
distinction from the Concord Formula ? But, as concerns his assertion that his
anthropological positions are exegetically established, we hold precisely that they are
not exegetically established. Whoever is acquainted with the position of investigation
respecting the biblical notion of the *&p\, will be compelled to declare both assertions
at least equally warranted. Harless e.g. says, Christian Ethics, § 26a; "It is
confessed that the biblical notion of o-xp% has nothing further in common with the
Gentile and modern notion of sensuousness than that it includes under it the
so-called sensuous desires " (comp. § 10). Comp. also Harless, Comment, zum Ephes.
Br. p. 162 ; Wieseler on Gal. v. 13 ; Tholuck, " Erneuerte Untersuchung iiber ai.pl
als Quelle der Siinde," Stud. u. Krit. 1855, III. 1, u. Com. zu Rom. 5 Ausg., the
exposition of vi. 6 ; Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych, p. 439 ; Luthardt, die Lehre vom freien
Willen, p. 394 ff. All these inquirers, as well as Jul. Mtiller, Ernesti, Thomasius,
etc., in spite of many variations in particulars, decidedly agree in opposing Meyer's
narrow view of the biblical conception of the nfyg.

CHAP. VII. 22, 23. 373
here of this expression, not of Kaivbs, irvevpariKos dvOpwiros, is
explained by the tenor of the previous exposition. He wishes
just to show that sin is a power foreign to the believer, bringing
him into bondage against his will. This he does by showing how
his real ego, the innermost ground and core of his desire and
being, is free from sin. Thus there was here no occasion whatever
for describing this innermost ground and core as expressly spiritual.
Rather, on the contrary, since in the apostle's teaching it is self-
evident (and in harmony with the enthe doctrinal exposition
given so far by the Roman epistle of sin and grace, flesh and
spirit, bondage of the law and freedom of the gospel cannot be
conceived otherwise) that only that which is created in man
through the Pneuma can be (ver. 22) in sympathy with the
pneumatic law (ver. 14), the only thing of importance was, to
describe this desire of the Pneuma in man as his real ego (ver. 1 7),
his real inward man (ver. 22). The peXy (ver. 23), then, are not
the sinful corruption of human nature in the abstract, just as
little as the eaw dvOpwiros or the vovs (ver. 23) is the new cha
racter of sanctified human nature in the abstract ; but the former
is here described as peXy (awpa, ver. 24; adplj, vv. 18, 25), the
latter as eaw dvOpwiros (iyw, vovs), by a mode of expression
borrowed from and corresponding to natural, i.e. morahy indif
ferent anthropology. The higher, inner, hidden part (the eaw
dvOpwiros, vovs, the iyw proper) of man simply is a rational, in
the regenerate man a spiritual essence. What remains in the
former, after taking away the irvevpa avOpwirov, is called awpa,
adpfj, peXy ; and just so, therefore, is aR that cahed which remains
in the latter, after taking away the irvevpa Oeiov, which is con
ceived as having become the principle subjectively active in man.
" Interior igitur homo," remarks Calvin, " non anima simphciter
dicitur, sed spiritualis ejus pars, quae a Deo regenerata est : mem-
brorum vocabulum residuam alteram partem significat. Nam ut
anima est pars excehentior hominis, corpus inferior : ita spiritus
superior est carne. Hac ergo ratione, quia spiritus locum animae
tenet in homine, caro autem, id est corrupta et vitiata anima,
corporis, iRe interioris hominis, haec membrorum nomen obtinet."
Comp. the remarks on awpa, vi 12. Thus adplj, awpa, peXy,
vv. 18, 23, 24, 25, in this section really hold a middle place
between the purely physical and purely ethical meaning, and in
a certain sense form the point of transition from the former

374 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
to the latter; as respects the form of the conception leaning to the
one side, as respects the substance to the other. " Nee membra
tantum intelhguntur externa," observes Calov, " sed interiores
quoque facilitates, quae veluti membra sunt, quod per easdem
operetur homo vetus, et in iisdem consistat."
— jSXeirw Be erepov vbpov iv rois peXeal pov dvnarparevbpevbv ¦
rw vbpw rov vobs pov] may be construed in two ways. We may
either make the partic. avnarparevopevov governed by BXeira
(after the manner of verba videndi joined with the participle,
Acts viii. 23 ; 1 Cor. viii. 10 ; Heb. x. 25 ; Mark v. 31 ; Luke
xxiv. 1 2 ; John v. 1 9), so that iv Tot? peXeal pov very closely
coheres with avnarparevopevov : "But I see that another law
wars in my members against the law of my spirit," or we may
join iv rois peXeal pov with erepov vbpov, and resolve the
participium by the pronomen relativum. So Luther: "But I
see another law in my members that wars against the law in my
soul," and most expositors. This latter mode of construction
seems to deserve the preference on account of the sharp antithesis
it gives between iv rois peXeal pov and eaw dvOpwiros. BXeirco,
like eiplaKw, ver. 18, denotes perception after inward survey.
erepov vbpov, a law of another kind, ver. 4, not merely aXXov
vbpov. Comp. Tittmann, de Synon. in N. T. p. 155 sq.': " dXXos'
erepos. Illud denotat alium, nuRa diversitatis, nisi numeri,
ratione. erepos, non tantum alium sed etiam diversum indicat.
dXXos 'Iyaovs - . . erepov eiayyeXiov, 2 Cor. xi. 4 sq." A law of
another kind, namely, than the law of God, in which I take
pleasure after the inward man. iv rois peXeal pov, vi. 13,
vii. 5 ; Jas. iv. 1. avnarparevopevov, comp. the remark on
oirXa dSiKias, vi 13, and Jas. iv. 1; 1 Pet. ii 11; also dvriKenai,
Gal. v. 17. The vbpos rov vobs is not identical with the vbpos
rov Oeov, but is the law issuing from and immanent in the
human sphit that has become spiritual, the law demanding and
consisting in avvrjSeaQai ra vbpw rov Oeov. vovs is the spirit, not
merely as to its theoretical, but also as to its practical aspect,
mind, i. 28, xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 10, h. 16; Eph. iv. 17, 23 (Harless);
Luther here: "Gemiith, soul." (Meyer: "practical reason;" Beck,
bibl. Psych, p. 42 : " the soul's spiritual sense.") The mind and
soul of the Christian are directed to what is spiritual, to the vbpos
Oeov. On the form vobs in later Greek (after the thhd declension),
instead of vov, and vol instead of vow, vw, see Winer, p. 72.

CHAP. VII. 22, 23. 375
— xai aixpaXwrifavrd pe rw vbpw rrjs dpaprlas rep ovn iv
rois peXeal pov] The figure implied in avnarparevopevov, taken
from mhitary service, is continued in alxpaXwrlfavra. The
contending foe takes prisoner his opponent, and thus gains the
victory. The prisoner of the law of sin as such does what sin,
his master, commands. Only this takes place, as already re
marked, not in such a sense as if nothing but sin were present
in the regenerate, but in such a sense that the law of the spirit
does not thoroughly permeate his will, inasmuch as sin still
mingles with the whl, constantly hindering and disturbing its
operations. This impossibility of ever attaining, perfect hohness,
this continuous encompassing by evireplararos dpaprla, Heb.
xh. 1, this perpetual cloud on the spiritual hfe from the
encumbering body of evil deshe and inchnation, is just that
which is felt by the behever as an ever-continuing bondage of
sin, existing side by side with the freedom that he has in Christ.
alxpaXwrlfa (Luke xxi. 24 ; 2 Cor. x. 5 ; 2 Tim. iii. 6) from
alxpfj dxlaxopai, " to make prisoner of war;" to» vopw t»)?
dpaprlas, comp. ireirpapevos iirb ryv dpaprlav, ver. 14. The
slave may be either a prisoner of war or a bought slave. But
with equal pertinence man might be described as a slave born
in the house of sin (verna). The ancient Attic writers say
alxpaXwrov iroieiv. Still later than alxpaXwrifaw is the form
alxpaXwreveiv, Eph. iv. 8, also 2 Tim. ih. 6, according to the
less attested led. recepta. Now, Eph. iv. 8 being taken from
LXX. Ps. Ix. 18, alxpaXwrlfa may be described as the sole form
occurring in the N. T. pe is not the eaw dvOpwiros, the vovs, the
real e'yto, ver. 17, for neither is it emphatic, nor does the vovs
cease to be subject to the vbpos Oeov, comp. ver. 25, but it is the
entire ego in the abstract, considered as morally indifferent, which
as subject to the law of God is vovs, eaw dvOpwiros; the real ego,
as subject to the law of sin, is adplj, awpa, comp. ver. 25 :
airbs iyw t&> pev vol . . . rfj Se aapKi. The dative to vbpw rys
dpaprlas is dativ. commod., not instrum. : " and takes me captive
for the law of sin," i.e. under the power of sin. By vbpos rys
dpaprlas the erepos vbpos is more exactly defined as to its
character. This erepos vbpos is simply, which before was not
expressly said, a vbpos dpaprlas. Hence also it is not said
merely alxptaXwrlfavrd pe eavrw, i.e. the erepos vbpos makes me
its prisoner. Further, the supplement tw ovn iv rois peXeal pov

376 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
expressly identifies the one vbpos with the other, and obviates
the supposition that the vbpos rys dpaprlas is a vopos different
from the erepos vbfios. " The law of sin that, as was said, is in
my members." Hereby, too, the connection of erepos vbpos iv
rois peXeal pov is again corroborated. The distinction that some
have attempted to discover between erepos vbpos and vbfios rys
dpaprlas must be regarded as more or less untenable. If it is
wished to distinguish a fourfold instead of a threefold vbpos, with
logical strictness the vbpos rov Oeov, the law proceeding from God,
could only be opposed to the vbpos rrjs dpoaprlas, the law pro
ceeding from sin. With the first, the vbpos roii vobs, dehght in
good, would then harmonize ; with the latter, the erepos vbpos ev
rois peXeai, inchnation to evh. But the vbpos ti}? dpaprlas
itself, just as much as the erepos vbpos, being found iv rois
poeXeai, this distinction between an objective and subjective law
of sin fahs to the ground, and there remains only a threefold
vbpos, a vbpos rov Oeov, a vbpos rov vobs pov, and an erepos
vbpos, or a vbpos rrjs dpaprlas iv rois peXeal pov. " But he
calls both the spirit and the flesh," says Luther in his preface to
St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, " a law, because, as is the
manner of the divine law, it impels and demands : therefore also
the flesh impels, and demands, and rages against the spirit, and
would have its desire. This conflict lasts in us as long as we
live, in one more, in another less, according as the spirit or the
flesh is stronger. And yet the whole man himself is both these,
spirit and flesh, which contends with him unth he becomes ah
spiritual" Ver. 24. The fact of the stiR - continuing captivity of sin,
realized in experience, impels the apostle to the lament and cry
for help of this verse. Even the redeemed Christian, and he
expressly, in view of his carnal nature, is seen sthl ever lament
ing and seeking redemption. raXalirwpos iyw dvOpwiros] Cry of
distress. Unhappy man that I am ! Wrongly Bengel : " me
miserum, qui homo sim ! The nominative is the nominative of
exclamation, Winer, p. 227. raXalirwpos, Rev. hi. 17, joined
with iXeewbs, according to the usual derivation from rXyvai rbv
irwpov, i.e. rb irevOos, according to Passow s.v., perhaps a
poetical variation of raXairelpios, a strong expression to denote
misery, comp. iii. 16 : awrpippa xal raXaiirwpla (LXX. for
"W); Jas. v. 1 : xXavaare oXoXvfavres iirl rais raXaiiraiplais,

CHAP. VII. 24. 377
iv. 9 : rdXairrwpyaare xal irevOyaare xal xXavaare. On the
cry of distress foRows the call for help in the form of an inquiring
survey. — rls pe pvaerai e/c toC awparos rov Qavdrov rovrov ;] The
redeemed man is ever, as it were, crying afresh for a new
Redeemer from the power of sin stiR remaining in him. " Non
quaerit autem, a quo sit liberandus, quasi dubitans ut increduli,
qui non tehent unicum esse hberatorem: sed vox est anhelantis
et prope fatiscentis, quia non satis praesentem opem videat,"
Calvin. Several interpreters refer this cry for help to the
Christian longing for death, which with redemption from the
body brings redemption from the evR of sin. But awpa here, as
observed, denotes the material body neither exclusively nor
abstractly, but body and soul, in so far as they are not yet per
vaded by the irvevpa. Moreover, the longing expressed here, as
ver. 25 : eixapiarw . . . ypwv, in connection with vhi. 1 f. shows,
finds its satisfaction in the present life. Thus the point treated
of is not the wish for dehverance from the awpa in itself, but
from the awpa in so far as it is subject to sin and death, i.e. for
the dehverance of the body from sin and death, comp. ver. 23.
But, no doubt, inasmuch as this wish can only receive its final
and complete fulfilment in the future life and in the glorification
of the body, this element may be conceived as echoing, so to
speak, breaking forth involuntarily from the background of
natural feeling. The genitive rov Oavarov may be taken as
simply genit. possess. : " the body belonging to death," to
XetpwOev iirb rov Qavdrov, or also according to Winer, p. 235,
as genitive of reference : " the body leading to death." Respect
ing Odvaros, comp. on v. 12, vi. 16, vh. 10. The question is,
whether rovrov should be joined with Oavarov or with awparos.
It is supposed that in the latter case the apostle for the sake of
clearness must have written ix rovrov rov awparos rov Oavarov.
But this judgment, in our opinion, rests on a very precarious
canon. A writer often intends a particular definite cohocation of
words, without reflecting that for the reader it may be ambiguous.
The placing of rovrov after awparos, moreover, was required by
the emphasis aimed at, and there remained then nothing but the
order ix tov awparos rov Oavarov rovrov, which in addition is
reheved of difficulty by the consideration that awpa rov Oavarov
'may be joined together as a single conception, " body-of-death."

378 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
The only point in question, then, is to decide with which of the
two substantiva (awparos or Qavdrov) the pronomen demon-
strativum is joined with greater relevance to the connection of
thought. As to this we certainly beheve with awparos, for
Odvaros was not the subject, vv. 14—24 (we must, then, with
Luther in his original note interpret : " He calls the misery and
sorrow of the conflict with sin death "), and the aRusion to ver.
10 ff. appears too remote. The emphatic indication, contained
in rovrov placed last, can thus only refer to the awpa, hitherto
spoken of as the seat of dpaprla.
Ver. 2 5. Thanks for redemption found in Christ, and recapitu
lation of what was last explained, eixapiarw rw Oew Sid 'Iyaov
Xpiarov tov xvplov ypwv] This lectio recepta has no adequate
confirmation from' manuscripts. For* eixapiarw tw Oew are found
the, variations %apt? tw Oew, %a/ot? Be tw Oew, y %<ijOt? rov Oeov,
rj x<zpt'> Kvpiov. The two last readings are plainly alterations made
to obtain a direct answer, y x&P1'* T°v Oeov or Kvpiov (sc. pvaerai
pe), to the foregoing question, ver. 24: ti? pe pvaerai; Thus
the only choice seems to lie between %a/?t? tw Oew Bid 'Iyaov
Xpiarov r. Kvp. yp., which Mill and Griesbach approve, and
Lachmann has received, and x^Pl<s ^6 rV @eP OT^-> as Fritzsche
reads. We give the latter reading the preference, on the ground
that the omission of Be is more easily explained than its insertion.
The supposition that this reading was taken from vi. 17 has no
probabihty in its favour.1 It might just as well be said that
eixapiarw tw Oew is borrowed from i. 8, where, in addition, Sid
'Iyaov Xpiarov is likewise found. After the wah and cry for
help, ver. 24, the apostle's language becomes calm and measured;
whereas, if %a/)t? tw Oew is read without Se, it acquires an abrupt
and unconnected character : " Wretched man that I am ! Who
shaR deliver me from this body of death ? "
Xapts Be rw Oew Sid 'Iyaov Xpiarov r. xvp. yp!] "But thanks
be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord." There is thus no
ground for misgiving. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 57: tw Be Oew ^ajot?,
tw SiBovri yfiiv to vixos Sta rov xvplov ypwv 'Iyaov Xpiarov.
With this, also, the subjoined calm, recapitulatory exposition
links on more simply and readily. xaPl,s &e T9> &?>» comp. 2 Cor.
1 Yet this is maintained even by Meyer. In this case, with him, we should have
to retain the recepta tb%xpio-r£ xrX. This is no doubt confirmed also by the Cod.
Sinait., which only reads %xpit Vi by a second hand.

CHAP. VII. 25. 379
vhi 16; ix. 15, Sid 'Iyaov Xpiarov, comp. i. 8. Thanksgiving
is presented to God through Jesus Christ, because He is the cause
of our having reason to present thanksgiving to God. alrlov
ovros Trjs evxapiarlas, explains Theophylact, airbs ydp, <pyal,
xarwpQwaev a o vopos oix rjBvvyOy airbs pe ippvaaro ix t»j?
daQeveias rov awparos, ivSvvapwaas airb, ware pyxeri rvpav-
veiaOai iirb rrjs dpaprlas. The apostle having, on the one hand,
in view of the sin stiR remaining in the flesh, broken out into
the wail and cry for help which dweR perpetually in the Christian
soul; and, on the other, mindful of the redemption found in
Christ, — enjoyed already in experience by himself, and anew and
more and more deeply to be appropriated in ever-advancing
progress, — having presented his thanksgiving to God, he now
recapitulates, in the form of an inference, the essential purport of
what has been explained from ver. 14 onward, especially from
ver. 21 to xvplov ypwv,Yer. 25. Two positions are advanced:
first, that the regenerate man with the sphit serves the law of
God, but with the flesh the law of sin ; and secondly, that, never
theless, having reason for praise on account of the redemption of
which Christ is the mediator, in spite of the twofold nature of
His ego already mentioned, no condemnation faRs on those who
are in Christ, because in them the sin remaining in the flesh no
longer comes into account, but only the new nature of the spirit.
The first inference is drawn by dpa oiv in this verse, the second
by dpa vvv in vih. 1 f. Thus the division of the chapters here
interrupts the strict connection of thought, and may therefore be
described as httle to the purpose. A beginning might perhaps
be made of a new paragraph, since certainly the description of a
new aspect in the condition of the regenerate opens, but not
suitably of a new chapter. The seventh chapter would thus con
clude better with vhi. 11.
— dpa oiv airbs e'yw tw pep voi SovXevw vopco Oeov' ry Be
aapxl vbpw dpaprlas] Comp. the striking practical explanation of
these words by Haldane in his Exposition of the Epistle to the
Romans, as well as the profound and rich comments of Besser on
this entire section, vv. 14-25. (Only, we find the twofold sense,
which the latter would assign to the expression vbpos dpaprlas,
"the law that has sin for its subject," and "the law that judges
sin," incapable of being sustained exegetically) The fact that the
apostle, after the thanksgiving for dehverance accomphshed,

380 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
repeats this proposition, shows that it contains a description of
the state of the regenerate man. Otherwise we should have
expected to see it prefixed to the thanksgiving. And after the
utterance of the thanksgiving, if the description of a new and
opposite state of life were meant to be forthwith introduced, there
was no reason whatever for a passage recapitulating and repeating
the description of the former state of hfe. Besides, in that case
Xdpis Be rw Oew xrX. would acquire the character of a paren
thetical interpolation, with which only viii. 1 hnks on, dpa oiv
airbs iyw xrX. referring back to ver. 24 — manifestly an unnatural
and violent mode of connection. On this account even Olshausen
refers the words dpa ovv airbs iyw xrX. to the new bhth now
introduced ; which then, certainly, since they clearly contain the
substance of vv. 14-24 in nuce, should by reflex influence
have changed completely his view of the entire section, dpa
oiv, comp. on v. 18. airbs iyw, comp. Fritzsche and Tholuck
here, airbs iyw has either an adversative or declarative significa
tion. The first occurs Luke xxiv. 39 : 6Vt airbs iyw elpi, that it
is I myself (not a spectre that has mimicked my form). Comp.
Rom. xv. 14. In that case, the contrast in this passage would be
contained in Bid 'Iyaov Xpiarov. I myself, i.e. I alone, apart from
Christ's interposition. On this view, indeed, x^Pi<s ^6 T9> Q£$ *TAv
need no longer be regarded as a parenthetical interruption. But
it must be described as far-fetched, because the thought with
which : " I myself with the spirit serve the law of God " is sup
posed to stand in contrast, namely : " Jesus Christ is my deliverer
from this body of death," can only be indirectly taken from the
thanksgiving expressed before. The second signification of airbs
answers to our German eben, even, just, very, and denotes the very
one spoken of just before, or just now, or about to be spoken of.
It is found ix. 3 : yixopyv yap airbs e'yw dvdOepa elvai dirb tou
Xpiarov iirep rwv dSeXcpwv pov. " Even I, who have just made
known the sorrow of my heart;" although in this passage the
first meaning also might be found: "I myself," in contrast with
his brethren. 2 Cor. x. 1 : airbs iyw IlavXos . . . o? xard
irpbawirov pev rairewbs iv vpiv xrX. " Even I, Paul, who," etc.
xii. 13: ri ydp iarw b ijtt^^tb iirep rds Xoiirds ixxXyalas, el py
oti airbs iyw oi xarevdpxyaa ipwv; "Even I, who by many signs
proved myself an apostle of Christ," comp. ver. 12. So especially
often in the phrase airb tovto, Rom. ix. 1 7, xhi. 6 ; 2 Cor. ii 3,

CHAP. VII. 25. 381
v. 5, vii. 11 ; Gal. ii. 10 ; Eph. vi. 18, 22 ; Phil. i. 6 ; Col. iv. 8;
2 Pet. i. 5. So also in the present passage : Even I who was just
now spoken of, i.e. who just now bewahed to God my sin and
misery, and presented my thanks for dehverance. Some exposi
tors interpret airbs iyw here by idem ego. " I, one and the -same
man, do a twofold act, with my spirit," etc. But airbs is never
in the N. T. = d airbs, Winer, p. 139; and the other attempts
made to extract this sense are to be regarded as artificial and
without sufficient evidence. SovXevw. If it is maintained that
in the regenerate no BovXevew vbpw dpaprlas takes place, we
must reply that this takes jj^ace not absolutely, but only rfj
aapxl; whereas, on the contrary, it must be maintained that in
the unregenerate no BovXevew vbpw Oeov, even tw vol' takes place.
On the sin sthl remaining in the flesh, even in the regenitus, comp.
Eph. iv. 22 ; Col. ih. 5. " Brevis ephogus," observes Calvin, " quo
docet, nunquam ad justitiae metam pertingere fideles, quamdiu in
carne sua habitant : sed in cursu esse, donee corpore exuantur. — -
Patetur, se ita esse Deo addictum, ut reptans in terra multis
sordibus inquinetur. Notabihs locus ad convincendum illud per-
niciosissimum Catharorum dogma, quod hodie suscitare rursum
conantur tumultuosi quidam spiritus." The strong expression
BovXevew (vi. 18) shows that even in the OeXew iroieiv rb dyaOov
and the avvyBeaOai rw vbpw rov Oeov no mere velleitas, no mere
impotent and fugitive acquiescence, is to be supposed.

382 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER VIII.
The apostle now presents to us the life of the regenerate man
under its other aspect. He had described fuRy the circumstances
out of which the sin perpetually cleaving to him necessarily
arose. He describes now the might and glory of the new life-
principle, of the grace and Spirit that believers receive in Christ
Jesus. Thus ch. vh. 14-25, viii 1-11 do not picture different
and successive conditions in a Christian's hfe, but, taken together,
furnish an exhaustive description of one and the same condition
with respect to the two elements of which it is invariably com
posed. As already intimated in the remarks introductory to vii.
14-25, the behever, glancing at the dpaprla iv aapxl, has reason
every moment to cry : TaXalirwpos iyw dvOpwiros ! rls pe pvaerai
ix rov awparos rov Qavdrov rovrov ; but being iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov,
and in Him delivered from xardxpipa, he is withal able to say :
d vbpos rov irvevparos rrjs fafjs yXevQepwai pe dirb tov vbpov
rys dpaprlas xal rov Oavarov. By this view we do not cah in
question the fact that the one or the other element is uppermost
in consciousness, according as he finds himself more vehemently
assaulted by sin, or governed and influenced by the spirit of
freedom and life. Luther's words, in his preface to the Roman
epistle, may stand as a general introduction to the eighth chapter :
" In the eighth chapter he gives such combatants the comforting
assurance that the flesh does not condemn them, and intimates,
further, the nature of flesh and spirit, and how the Spirit comes from
Christ, who has given us His Holy Spirit to make us spiritual
and quench the flesh, and assure us that we are God's children, and
how fiercely sin rages in us as long as we follow the Spirit and
strive to mortify sin. But as the flesh is kept under by nothing
so effectually as the cross and suffering, he comforts us in suffer
ing by assuring us of the sympathy of the loving Spirit and all
creatures, seeing that the Spirit groans in us and the creature
longs with us that we may be delivered from the flesh and sin.
We thus see that these three chapters relate to the one work of

chap. viii. 1. 383
faith, which is there called mortifying the old Adam and doing
violence to the flesh." As introductory to the section, vv. 1-11,
which has first of all to be interpreted, Calvin's words are worthy
of note : " Ubi certamen subjecit, quod habent ph cum carne sua
perpetuum, redit ad consolationem hlis valde necessariam, cujus
antea meminerat : quod tametsi a peccato adhuc teneantur
obsessi, mortis tamen potestati jam exemti sint et omni male-
dictioni, modo non in carne vivant, sed in spiritu. Tria enim
simul conjungit, imperfectionem, qua semper laborant fideles, Dei
indulgentiam in ea condonanda et ignoscenda, regenerationem
spiritus : atque hoc quidem postremum, ne quis vana opinione
se lactet, acsi liberates esset a maledictione, carni suae interim
secure indulgens. Ut ergo frustra sibi blandiatur homo carnalis,
si de emendanda vita nihil sollicitus hujus gratiae praetextu im-
punitatem sibi promittat : ita habent trepidae piorum conscientiae
invictuni propugnaculum, quod, dum in Christo manent, sciunt,
se esse extra ornne damnationis periculum."
Ver. 1. Inference (dpa) from what precedes. " The question is,
from which words the inference is deduced. To connect it with
ch. ih or iv., or v. 12 ff, or vh. 6, is too remote, and therefore
arbitrary. On the contrary, we must certainly find a point of
connection with the context immediately preceding. Now, they
who see the condition of the unregenerate described there seek a
link of connection in part in the last words of vii. 2 5 (dpa ovv
. . . dpaprlas). The train of thought would then be as foRows :
" When I was yet under the power of sin, on account of sin I
was doomed to death. Now, then, when we are in Christ Jesus
we are saved from condemnation, for in Christ Jesus is freedom
from the law of sin and death." According to this view, the
emphasis lies on vvv. But in this case the more apt and natural
arrangement would clearly have been : vvv dpa oiSev xardxpipa
rois iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov, or even oiSev dpa xardxpipa rois vvv iv
Xpiarw 'Iyaov. Moreover, this thought would have been far
more suitably expressed in an antithetical than in a consecutive
form : vvv Se oiSev. xardxp. xrX. : " Formerly I was a slave of
sin and death. But now," etc., comp. vwl Be, ih. 21. Therefore
the connection must be made with the first part of vii. 25
(eixapiarw . . . ??/u.wi>), whose contents, no doubt, point back to
ch. ih. ff. But if, accepting this mode of connection, dpa ovv
airbs e'yw . . . dpaprlas is meant to refer to the status irre-

384 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS,
genitorum, then eixapiarw . . . yp,wv could only be viewed as a
subordinate parenthetical sentence, despatched, as it were, in an
instant, or, at all events, after these words a pause (comp. de
Wette here) must be supposed. In both cases the mode of con
nection proposed would acquire a strange and forced appearance
which does not belong to it on our view. According to our view,
the idea embodied in the context, vii. 24, 25, is as follows : "The
believer, with the soul serving the law of God, with the flesh the
law of sin, while* he has reason to mourn, has also reason for
thanksgiving to God." Now, from this it foRows that on those
who are in Christ Jesus no condemnation falls, for in Him they
have freedom from sin and death. Thus the sin and death still
present in them are not only constantly swaRowed up in the
righteousness and hfe to be found in Christ, but also, in the case
of those who are in Christ Jesus, are no longer even brought before
God in judgment. oiSev dpa vvv xardxpipa] sc. iarlv. dpa vvv
= on this account now, on this account then, like dpa ovv, v. 18,
vii. 3, 25, viii. 12, etc. Respecting vvv as a logical particle of
transition, see on iii. 2 1 ; and besides the passages there cited,
comp. especially Heb. xi. 16 ; Jas. iv. 13, v. 1 ; 1 John h. 28.
dpa oiv Paul always places at the head of the sentence; but
after dpa oiv, vh. 25, this would have been very awkward here.
xardxpipa, as in v. 16, 18, = sentence of condemnation, carried
into effect in the very act of death in the entire compass of the
notion, the element of spiritual and eternal misery predominating.
For them no more is there sentence of condemnation = it falls on
them, etc. The interpretation: "nullae poenae, nihil damnatione
dignum" — Luther, "nothing worthy of condemnation" — cannot be
accepted, at least as a precise interpretation of the word. With the
sentiment, comp. xard tow toiovtwv oix ean vbpos, Gal. v. 23.
— Tot? iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov] sc. oiaw. After the whole exposi
tion contained in ch. hi— vi. there needs nothing else to disprove
the arbitrary and superficial explanation that puts ol iv Xpiarw
on a parahel with the designations ot toO Zyvwvos, ol dpcpl HXd-
rwva, ol dirb rov HvQaybpov (we never do say ot iv Zrjvwvi,
nxdrwvi, HvQooybpa, of a scholar's relation to his teacher), or to
prove that the phrase elvai iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov in the apostle's lips
can only denote a real, spiritual, and no doubt mystical com
munity of hfe on the part of the believer with Christ. Comp.
John xv. 3 ff. ; Acts xvh. 28 : Rom. xvi 11 : 1 Cor. i. 30 ;

CHAP. VIII. 2. 385
2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. hi. 27, 28 ; Winer, p. 484, note. In 1 John
h. 5, rypeiv rbv Xoyov airov is expressly described as a charac
teristic of eV air& elvai. The two, therefore, cannot be identical.
From elvai iv xvplw foRows eiplaxeaQai, Phil. ih. 9 ; aryxeiv,
iv. 1, 1 Thess. hi 8 ; irepiirareiv iv xvplcp, Col. ii. 6. By faith
we are incorporated with Christ, the Atoner and Redeemer. By
elvai iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov, therefore, we have, under their subjective
aspects, BiKalwais and dyiaapbs in inseparable connection (1 Cor.
i 30), and therewith the abrogation of every xardxpipa. The
foRowing supplement —
— py Kara adpKa irepiirarovaiv, dXXd Kard irvevpa] is wanting
in the most important codices, versions, and Fathers either
entirely or as to its latter half (dXXd Kara irvevpa). It has
therefore been justly described by most editors and interpreters
as a spurious gloss from ver. 4. Moreover, such a condition (and
conditionally it must be translated in the absence of the article
toi?) yields an irrelevant sense here, where there is no occasion
to specify the condition on which KaraKpipa is abolished, but,
above ah, to establish the fact of the abrogation itself, ver. 2. The
express treatment of this condition as such really begins only
with ver. 12 f.
Ver. 2 states the reason (ydp) why for behevers there is no
xardxpipa. The vbpos rov irvevparos rrjs £wys forms an anti
thesis with vbpos rrjs dpaprlas xal rov Qavdrov. On the latter
phrase, Chrysostom early remarked : Oi rbv Mwaews vbpov Xeyei
ivravQa' oiSapov yap airov vopov apaprias KaXei. IIws yap ov
Blxaiov xal dyiov iroXXdxis wvbpaae xal dpaprlas dvaipenxov ;
dXX' ixeivov avnarparevopevov rw vbpw rov voos. Indeed, it is
obvious that here in the vbpos rrjs dpaprlas we must hold fast by
the reference to the vbpos rrjs dpaprlas iv rois peXeai pov, vh. 23,
25. Just as there the subject spoken of is captivity (at^aXwTt-
, fav) to this law, so here the subject is deliverance (iXevOepow)
from it. The Mosaic law can be so much the less intended, as
Paul would scarcely have cahed it a vbpos rys dpaprlas xal rov
Qavdrov in this connection. For although (vii. 5) he speaks of the
iraOypara rwv dpapnwv, rd Bid rov vbpov, describes the vbpos,
1 Cor. xv. 56, as a Svvapis rrjs dpaprlas, and ascribes to it, 2 Cor.
hi. 6 (comp. ver. 7), diroxrelveiv, yet in the exposition immediately
preceding the present passage, as it were correcting these expres-
sions and reducing them to their due measure, he expressly
Philippi, Rom. I. 2 B

386 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
observed that the vbpos is not dpaaria, and not the cause of
Odvaros. On the contrary, it is ayto?, Slxaios, dyaObs, and
koXos ; and iiriOvpla is not brought about by the ivroXy, but only
upon occasion of the ivroXy by dpaprla, which is likewise the
cause of Odvaros, vii. 7, 8, 12, 13, 16. It is therefore impos
sible that directly afterwards he should describe the same vbpos
as a vbpos rys dpaprlas xal rov Oavarov, as a cause of sin and
death. The subject spoken of here, then, is that mighty principle
of sin in our members which wields the power of a law, so that
Chrysostom and Theodoret not inaptly interpret this vbpos rys
dpaprlas by Bvvaarela rrjs dpaprlas. But inasmuch as our
awpa with its piXy is subject not merely to apapria, but also,
precisely through dpaprla, to Odvaros, vii 24 (comp. v. 12),
the power dwelling in our members and making us its slaves is
a vbpos rys dpaprlas xal rov Qavdrov, so power issuing from
sin and death (genit. audor.). Upon this view, the meaning of
vbpos rov irvevparos rrjs farjs now explains itself. By this, in
like manner, must be understood a principle dwelling within man.
By vbpos, therefore, cannot be meant the gospel, the new covenant,
the Christian scheme of salvation (somewhat after the analogy of
vbpos irlarews, ih. 2 7), in contrast with the 0. T. Nomos. But
the vbpos rov irvevparos is not, therefore, identical with the
vopos rov vobs pov, vh. 23, not even if the latter be conceived
as vovs irvevpanxos. For the vbpoos of the vovs irvevpanxos does
not make man free from the vbpos of dpaprla and Odvaros, but
only when the irvevpa Oeov sets him free from the latter does
the vb/ios of the vovs irvevpariKos come into existence in him.
Comp. ver. 10 in relation to ver. 11. The irvevpa here, then,
must be the irvevpa Qeiov, dyiov himself. In so far as He works
eternal life, fay (comp. 2 Cor. iii 6 : to irvevpa faoiroiei), He is
a irvevpa rys fw»)? ; and in so far as this Sphit leading to life
(comp. as to this genitivus effedus, John vi. 3 5 : d dpros rrjs ta»j? ;
Rom. v. 18 : Sixalwais §»?}?) is a principle dweRing and ruling
in man's heart, does a vbpos rov irvevparos rfjs farjs find place, a
sovereign power proceeding from the Sphit who is the means of
life, that breaks and masters the power of sin and death. But
the irvevpa leads to fay, the opposite of Odvaros, in abolishing
dpaprla, the cause of Odvaros. This antithesis, complete at every
point, of vbpos rov irvevparos rys fwj}? and vbpos rrjs dpaprlas
xal rov Qavdrov at once suggests that iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov] is to

CHAP. VIII. 3. 387
be connected neither with t?}? £af)s, which would give one item
too many in the first member of the antithesis, nor with toO
irvevparos, nor with o vbpos rov irvevparos rrjs fays (which, in
spite of the article being absent, is no doubt possible, Winer,
p. 171, although here, certainly, on account of the possible
ambiguity, the explanatory d, tou, or t?)? before iv Xp. 'lya. was
to be looked for), but with the following yXevOepwae. This mode
of connection corresponds perfectly with the contents of the pre
ceding and foRowing verses. The object is to prove that for those
who are eV Xpiarw 'Iyaov there is xardxpipa no longer, ver. 1.
This is the case precisely, because iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov freedom is
given from the law of sin and death through the Spirit of life,
ver. 2. And to prove this position again, it is shown that
apapria is condemned, not by the vbpos, but iv Xpiarw. Thus
iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov coming first in this verse is explained, not only
by the fact that the words immediately following yXevOepwae pe
dirb tov vbpov xrX. would not bear interruption, but also by the
emphasis lying on iv Xp. 'I. in this verse both in aRusion to eV
Xp. 'I, ver. 1, and in opposition to vbpos, ver. 3. At the same
time, by this mode of connection subjective redemption is traced
back to its objective ground. The Spirit of life has made us free
from the law of sin and death in Christ Jesus, so that we partake
in this freedom only as we are in Him. Thus subjective renewal
depends upon the objective atonement and justification of which
we are partakers through our being in Christ by means of faith.
Respecting eXevOepla iv Xpiarw, comp. the Lord's saying, John
vhi. 36.
— yXevOepwae pe] The aorist denotes the single act of dehver
ance by incorporation into Christ through faith, comp. ol Be tov
Xpiarov ryv adpxa iaravpwaav, Gal. v. 24. This freedom,
ideahy complete, is in reahty to be conceived as a principle in
course of development. The reading yXevOepwae ae instead of pe
has clearly arisen merely from repeating by mistake the last
syllable of yXevOepwae. Here Paul speaks of himself for the last
time as representing all believers. Already previously, ver. 1, ot
iv Xpiarw were mentioned in general Then appears ypeis, ver. 4,
and vpeis'veT. 9. The wail over the power of sin sthl continuing
he takes speciaRy on himself. In picturing the glory of re
demption, his language becomes inclusive and general.
Ver. 3 confirms iv Xp. 'I. yXevOepwae pe xtX., ver. 2. to yap

388 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
dSvvarov rov vbpov] dSvvarov may either be taken in the active
sense = y dBwapia, the impotence ; or it has a passive significa
tion = what cannot be carried out, the impossible. But the latter
would be rb dSvvarov tw vbpw. The vbpos is here, of course,
the vbpos Mwvaews, the vbpos Oeov. The question is, how the
sentence before us is to be construed. It is altogether arbitrary
to suppose an accusat. absolut., or to supply the preposition xard
or Sta = " as respects the inabihty of the law," or " on account of
the inabihty of the law." Better than this would be the supposi
tion of an anacoluthon, to dSvvarov rov vbpov . . . d Oebs rbv
eavrov v'obv ireptyas . . . xarexpwe ryv dpaprlav for to dSvvarov
rov vbpov . . . irrolyaev o Oebs, irepyjras . . . xal xaraxplvwv
xrX. " What was impossible to the law . . . God, sending His
Son, condemned sin in the flesh," instead of " this God did, and
condemned," etc. So Winer, pp. 290 and 718.1 But there
is no need, as is acknowledged in these days by the most pro
found interpreters, to suppose an anacoluthon. On the contrary,
the construction may be regarded as according to rule, rb dSv
varov rov vbpov is to be taken as nominative, and in apposition
to the subjoined principal sentence : d 0ed? . . . iv rfj aapxl, and
to be resolved relatively : o "tjv rb dSvvarov rov vbpov (Vulg. :
" quod erat impossibile legi"), thus : d Oebs xarexpwe rrjv dpap
rlav, b (sc. rb xaraxplvew ryv dpaprlav) yv to dSvvarov rov vbpov.
" For the impotence of the law — God condemned sin in the
flesh," i.e., " God condemned sin in the flesh, which was the
impotence of the law (i.e. that which the law was not competent
for)." Quite analogous is the construction, Heb. viii. 1 : xecpdXaiov
ovv iirl rois Xeyopevois, roiovrov exopev dpxiepea. In exactly the
same way, even in classical Greek, stand the phrases : rb peyiarov,
id quod maximum est, rb Sewbrarov, rb eaxarov, rb xecpdXaiov,
rb reXevraiov, as appositional adjuncts before the principal sen
tence. Comp. Kiihner, Ausf. Gram. d. gr. Spr. Th. II. p. 146,
§ 500, 1, Anm. 2. The prefixing of dSwaroy rov is here
specially warranted by the contrast in which it stands with iv
Xpiarw 'Iyaov, ver. 2, and the emphasis thus gained.
— iv a, yaOevei Sid tjJ? aapxbs] iv w here is plainly to be taken
1 So too Luther : "This God did and sent His Son, and condemned sin in the
flesh through sin," where npi xpoxprixc is translated through sin. We might indeed
resolve or paraphrase xxrixpm by \oroivnn xn.rxxplvmv, but not, as Luther seems, though
not necessarily, to have construed tri/t^xs by Itrtlun n't/t^xs.

CHAP. VIII. 8. 389
not as a relative in which, as in ii. 1, but as a conjunction. As
such it may mean: (1) quo tempore, so Mark ii. 19, Luke v. 34,
John v. 7, comp. eV iravrl XP°V(P> *v $> Acts i 21, and eV eo xaipoj,
Acts vii. 20; (2) as an attraction for iv rovrw on, either in eo
quod, quatenus, as far as, or propter hoc quid, propterea quod,
quoniam, because, Heb. iKtea, comp. iv tovtw iriareiopev, propter
hoc, on this account we believe, John xvi. 30, and oix iv tovtw
SeSixalwpai, per hoc, by this am I not justified, Winer, p. 484,
Heb. vi. 17. The temporal meaning cannot be accepted here,
because the law was not merely powerless to abohsh sin at a
particular time when it was weak through the flesh, but was
powerless at any time to do that which was the peculiar office
of Christ. There remains then nothing but the meaning " as far
as," or "because," and indeed the latter is preferable, because
what is here affirmed of the law's weakness bears no limitation.
It is powerless to abohsh sin, not merely in so far as it is weak
through the flesh, but by its very nature, just because wherever
sin is confronted with sin its weakness is apparent. It is
daOevys and dvwcpeXes, Heb. vii. 18; oi Sivarai faoiroirjaai, Gal.
ih. 21. The imperfect (yaOevei) serves to indicate what con
tinued to be true up to the time of Christ's advent ; comp.
the exactly similar imperfect, vii. 5, 6. In truth, this dSwapla
of the vbpoos continues even in the case of the redeemed Christian,
so far as he is sthl adplj, comp. vh. 14-25. On the other hand,
with respect to the most essential aspect of his ego he has become
irvevpa, and as such is competent to the rrXypwais vbpov, as is
explained at length, viii 1 ff. The weakness of the law was
brought, about Bid t^? aapxbs. The adp% was the mediating
cause. In conflict with the Nomos it showed itself the stronger.
— d Oebs rev eavrov viov ireptyas iv opoiwpdn aapxos apapnas]
By putting rbv eavrov v'tbv first, marked emphasis is laid on God's
act" of love. Just as by eavrov (comp. 'ISios vlbs, vhi. 32) the
filial relation of Christ is described as a metaphysical one (comp.
on i. 3), so by irepireiv xrX. Christ's personahty is described as
a pre-existent one, comp. Gal. iv. 4; John x. 36, xvh. 3, etc. :
diroareXXeiv et? rbv xbapov. But Christ appeared not iv aapxl
dpaprlas, which is the Ebionite conception, nor ev bpoiwpari
aapxbs, which is the Doketic,1 but iv bpoiwpari aapxbs dpaprlas,
1 Against this Doketic view Tertullian observes, contra Marcionem, 1. v. c. 14 :
"Similitudo ad titulum peccati pertinebit, non ad substantiae mendacium,"

390 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
which is the Biblico-Pauhne. adplj here is manifestly the entire
nature of man, as in John i. 14, Rom. i 3, ix. 5, 1 John iv. 2, as
regards body and soul. But this adplj, as we know from vii. 14,
18, 25, is a adplj dpaprlas. Christ could appear indeed iv aapxl,
but not ev aapxl dpaprlas, for He must of necessity be %wpt?
dpaprlas, Heb. iv. 15 (comp. John viii 46, xiv. 30; 2 Cor. v. 21;
Heb. vii. 26 ; 1 Pet. ii. 22, iii. 18), for the very end that He may
be able xaraxplvew ryv dpaprlav ev ry aapxl. Thus He appeared
ev bpoiwpari aapxos dpaprlas, comp. Phh. h. 7 : iv opoiwpan
dvOpwirwv yevbpevos. Theodoret early remarked: oix elirev ev
bpoiwpari aapxbs, dXX' ev bpoiwpari aapxbs dpaprlas.
cpvaw /lev ydp dvOpwirelav eXaBev, dpaprlav Be dvQpwirelav oix
eXaBe' rovrov By x^Plv T0 XycpQev oix bpolwpa aapxos, dXX'
bpolwpa aapxbs dpaprlas ixdXeae' ryv ydp airyv exwv cpvaw
ypiv t^/v airyv oix eaxev ypiv yvwpyv, and Oecumenius : to ev
bpoiwpari oi irpbs rb aapxbs bpa, dXXd irpbs rb aapxbs
dpoaprlas. In the same way Theophylact: adpKa exovra bpolav
pev Kara ryv oiaoav ry yperepa rfj dpaprwXw, dvapdpryrov Be
Bion ydp ipvyaOy dpaprlas, Sid tovto to opolwpa irpoaeQyxev.
Wherein this resemblance in Christ to human nature as a sinful
nature consisted, we shah see later on. The fact that adplj here
denotes not merely the physical aspect, but the entire nature of
man, and indeed as such is cahed a adplj dpaprlas, corroborates
our view of the notion of adplj in the seventh chapter.
— xal irepl dpaprlas] to be joined with irepyjras, whose pur
pose it specifies, not with xarexpwe. Taken alone, irepl dpaprlas
might no doubt intimate the relation between the mission of Christ
and sin merely in general; but as it is a formula current elsewhere
to denote the purpose of expiating sin (LXX. Num. viii. 8, Heb.
niton ; Ps. xl. 7, Heb. nsDn; Lev. vi. 25, 30; Heb. x. 6, 8, 18 ;
1 Pet. ih. 1 8), and, moreover, as the relation of Christ to sin has
been expressly described in this epistle (iii. 24, 25, v. 11, 18) as
that of a propitiator, this element, spontaneously suggesting itself,
cannot by any means be excluded. On the other hand, the con
nection of thought, both with ver. 2 and with ver. 4, requires us
to regard Christ as standing to sin not merely in the relation of
its atoner, but of its obhterator. It would therefore be a one
sided course, supplying Ovaiav after the manner of the LXX., to
take irepl dpaprlas here directly and exclusively in the meaning :
"expiatory sacrifice." On the contrary, we must leave to this

CHAP. VIII. 3. 391
phrase its broader reference, and interpret: "respecting sin, on
account of sin ; " but in the thoroughly definite acceptation : " to
obhterate by expiating sin."
— xarexpwe t^v dpaprlav iv rfj aapxl] The expression «aTe'-
xpwe is manifestly used in allusion to xardxpipa, ver. 1. Because
in Christ Jesus the xardxpipa is carried into effect on sin, it no
longer exists for those who are in Christ Jesus, iv rfj aapxl is
to be joined with xarexpwe, not with t^i> dpaprlav. Not only
would the article be cahed for in the latter case (t^v iv ry aapxl),
— the same reason not existing for its omission as in analogous
instances, Winer, p. 147, — but the keenly contrasted order of
thought also suggests the first method of connection. Sin had its
home iv aapxl, and as such could not be judged by the vbpos.
Wherefore the Son of God appeared eV aapxl, and by Him the
judgment on sin was carried out iv aapxl. The question is, in
what way the xardxpipa of sin was carried out. We might
think of a sanctification of human nature by the sinless life of
the Redeemer, a sanctification itself involving a condemnation, i.e.
a victorious extirpation of sin in and out of human nature. But
in this case the phrase xaraxplvew is most strangely chosen. By
that phrase we are driven involuntarily to think of a definite
moment in Christ's life, when an actual xardxpipa in the proper
sense of the word took place. This is the moment of death, the
xardxpipa being always executed in Odvaros, v. 16, 18. Else
where, too, Scripture ever ascribes the obhterative condemnation
of sin to Christ's death ; and the doctrine of redemption taught
in the Roman epistle is wholly rooted in the idea that the xard
xpipa of dpaprla is supplied in the Odvaros, the alpa Xpiarov.
The foregoing irepl dpaprlas also, as observed, points to the same
conclusion. But just as httle can the apostle's doctrine of atone
ment, known to us from ch. iii— v., leave us in any doubt as to
the way in which the xardxpipa dpaprlas is to be conceived as
carried out in the Odvaros Xpiarov. The sin of mankind lay
upon Him, their surety and representative (iirep ypwv dpaprlav
iirolyaev, 2 Cor. v. 21), and in Him was condemned. And this
condemnation was really carried out in the penalty of death.
But then the sin condemned, i.e. expiated in the death of Christ,
is eo ipso taken away and blotted out, to which the resurrection
of Christ bears witness. Therefore they who are in Christ Jesus,
with the remission at the same time enjoy the extirpation of sin,

392 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
both blessings subsisting in Christ in inseparable unity. The latter
element had been already dwelt on in ch. vi. and vii. 1-6. But in
the present passage it was necessary to put this expressly forward
as the final aim of the atonement, the connection of thought with
vv. 2, 4, where a real deliverance from sin is treated of, requiring
it. KaraKplvew therefore here, as regards meaning, is not = to
overcome or destroy simply, which is countenanced neither by the
notion of the word nor analogous example, but = " to destroy or
overcome by judgment, to take away by condemning, to obhterate
by atoning." So already Irenaeus: "condemnavit peccatum, et
jam quasi condemnatum ejecit extra carnem." Comp. John
xii. 3 1 with xvi. 1 1 ; and as to the analogous amplification of the
notion Sixaiovv, on vi. 7. The antithesis to dSvvarov rov vopov,
thus resulting, is as foRows : " The law was able indeed to condemn
sin, but not so to condemn as by the condemnation to remove
or erase it. But God by the death of His Son so condemned sin
as by this very (expiatory) condemnation to destroy it." The
powerlessness of the law was the work of the adplj, because sin
in human nature, condemned by the law, is not blotted out but
only inflamed to so much the greater intensity. On the other
hand, laid on the holy humanity of Christ, sin was blotted out
and reduced to nought. But this leads us back to the expression
eV bpoiwpari aapxbs dpaprlas. The truth intended to be con
veyed here cannot be the christological one, that the Son of God
appeared not iv aapxl dpaprlas, but, because sinless, merely eV
bpoiwpari of such adplj, for there was no occasion here for
pressing the sinlessness of Jesus in opposition to any alleged
sinfulness. Rather the expression is of a soteriological nature,
and is meant to show how Christ was able to destroy dpaprla iv
rfj aapxl, because He Himseh appeared iv aapxl dpaprlas. But
this description it was needful to guard against possible misunder
standing, by appending the more precise definition iv bpoiwpari.
Christ appeared eV bpoi. aap. dp. means, therefore, nothing but
this : that He appeared in the likeness of sinful humanity, in so
far as He took upon Him our sin, and, as it were (iv bpoiwpari),
Himself became a sinner (Isa. Rh. 1 2 ; John i. 2 9 ; 2 Cor. v. 2 1),
in so far as in His malefactor-death, although holy in Himself,
He appeared in the form of a sinner. But this malefactor-death
was merely the crown and culmination of the course of sufferings,
full of shame and ignominy, in which He appeared iv bpoiwpan

CHAP. VIII. 4. 393
aapxbs dpaprlas, a course stretching through His whole life from
the cradle to the grave. " Eum vero in similitudine carnis peccati
venisse dicit : quia tametsi nuRis maculis inquinata fuit Christi
caro, peccatrix tamen in speciem visa est, quatenus debitam
sceleribus nostris poenam sustinuit," Calvin. If it is supposed
that a mere assumption of another's sin involves no similarity of
nature, we must observe that it is not even said that Christ
appeared in a nature hke man's sinful nature, but merely in a form
hke it. Every one condemned innocently appears iv bpoiwpari
of a criminal, without being himself a criminal. If, on the other
hand, we seek the bpolwpa in the liability to temptation of the
adplj of Christ, this belongs to the very idea of human nature,
and while it involves the possibihty of sin, does not involve like
ness to it. Even of the first Adam, on the ground of liability to
temptation, it could not be said that he was created iv bpoiwpari
aapxbs dpaprlas. Least of aR can the phrase before us, with
Menken and Irving, be perverted to support the unscriptural
doctrine of a sinful tendency dwelling in Christ Himself, and
only overcome by non-acquiescence on His part. On this vievv,
bpolwpa is meant to denote, not similarity, but identity. In this
case the qualification iv bpoiwpari were altogether superfluous,
and the apostle would simply have written iv aapxl dpaprlas.
Nay, the xaraxplveiv rrjv dpaprlav iv rfj aapxl would have been
carried into effect, not by God at ah, but by Christ by His non-
acquiescence in the tendency to sin. If we join iv rfj aapxl
with xarexpwe, this is not indeed to be referred directly to the
adplj of Christ, where then airov (Eph. ii. 15) Would have been
added. The subject is the general condemnation of sin in the
very human nature in which it has its seat. But this human
nature in which sin was condemned is of course none else than
the human nature of Christ. In the interpretation of this verse,
expositors for the most part divide into two classes : one referring
the words irepl dpaprlas and xarexpwe tV dpaprlav ev ry aapxl
exclusively to the expiation of sin by the death of Christ ; the
other, exclusively to the blotting out of sin by Christ's holy hfe.
But the truth, as we have confessed, Res in the truth that com
bines both. The precise point treated of is the blotting out of
sin by means of expiation.
Ver. 4 states the design (ova) with which God xarexpwe tJji>
dpaprlav iv rfj aapxl. But of course this design is to be con-

394 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
sidered as actually accomplished, so that, instead of the par
ticle of design 'iva, the particle of result ware might have been
used, 'iva rb Bixaiwpa rov vbpov irXypwQy iv ypiv] We have
aheady passed in review the various senses in which Sixalwpa
occurs in the N. T. in general, — (1) Judicial ordinance in general,
legal award, i 32 ; Rev. xv. 4; LXX. Num. xxxi. 21 ; 1 Sam.
xxx. 25. Closely allied to this, (2) legal demand, statute, ordinance,
moral precept, ii. 26 ; Luke i. 6 ; Heb. ix. 1, 10. (3) Fulfilment
of right or law, right conduct, v. 18 ; Rev. xix. 8 ; Bar. ii. 19.
(4) Justifying sentence, sententia absolutoria, in opposition to xard
xpipa, sententia damnatoria, v. 16. Here the only choice hes
between the second and fourth meaning. If we decide for the
meaning legal demand, we must understand the statement in
question either, with most modern expositors, of sanctification,- or,
with most of the older Protestant exegetes (in harmony with
their exclusive reference of ver. 3 to the satisfadio vicaria), of
justification. With respect to the first view, the demand of the
law is fulfilled in us by the very act of our walking not after the
flesh, but after the spirit. But, first of aR, in this case Sixalwpa
must needs be taken in a collective sense, whereas in a cohective
sense it is found elsewhere only in the plural And further, on
this view it presents no contrast with xardxpipa, ver. 1 ; xare
xpwe, ver. 3. Besides, irXypwOf) would more suitably have come
first than Bixaiwpa rov vbpov. Referred to justification, the
demand of the law would be fulfilled by justitia imputata. But
if by Tot? py xrX. the ground or condition of justification were
meant to be indicated, the Pauline doctrine of justification would
be entirely altered. Or if by these words the consequence of
justification is meant to be indicated, we must (with Luther)
interpret: in us who now (i.e. having been justified) walk no
longer after the flesh, but after the sphit. But we have no war
rant for interpolating a vvv. There is left then nothing but the
interpretation Bixaiwpa = sententia absolutoria, justifying sentence.
This meaning agrees well with the strain of thought, and yields
a striking contrast to xardxpipa, ver. 1, and to xarexpwe. t^v
dpaprlav, ver. 3. For those who are in Christ Jesus there is no
KaraKpipa, but a Bixaiwpa vbpov, because in Christ Jesus dpaprla,
which caRs aloud for KaraKpifia, is itseh smitten with xardxpipa.
In perfect analogy with this, it is said in reference to the specially
mentioned xapirbs rov irvevparos, Gal. v. 23 : xard tojv roiovrwv

CHAP. VIII. 4. 395
ovx ean vopos = Kard rwv roiovrwv oiSev ian xardxpipa vbpov
= iv rois toiovtois iirXypwOy to Bixaiwpa rov vbpov. Thus vopov
larwfiev, Rom. iii 21, has now verified itself; for through the
fulfilment of the law by behevers the law has gained its due, so
that over them the law can now pronounce its sentence of acquittal.
"To Bixaiwpa," remarks Bengel, " antitheton, condemnatio, ver. 1.
Peccatum est condemnatum : qui fuerat peccator, nunc recte agit,
et lex eum non persequitur." Comp. Rom. xhi. 8 ; 1 John iii. 9.
Whilst by this mode of representation the apostle guards the
doctrine of justification from being mistaken for a mere magical
charm that covers without at the same time extinguishing sin ;
on the other hand, in consonance with the entire course of the
apostolic exposition, it is ever to be borne in mind that only on
the basis of the perfect righteousness of faith can there be any
question of real righteousness of life. Only because we are justified
in Christ does the sin perpetuaRy cleaving to us (vii. 14-25,
vih. 8) no longer come into account. Only thus can the holy
acts which are the fruit of God's Spirit in those who are righteous
in Christ be caRed a fulfiRing of the law. Comp. our exposition
of ii 6. irXypovaOai, ratum fieri, to be carried out, Luke iv. 21 ;
LXX 1 Kings ii. 27 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi 21. iv ypiv, on us, 1 Cor.
iv. 6, so that the Sixalwpa vbfiov is carried out, and becomes
visible on us, i.e. by means of our spiritual walk, iv ypiv here,
then, is not : in us, nor yet : by us, which would be vcp' ypwv.
— rois py xard adpxa rrepiirarovaw, dXXd xard irvevpa] de
scribes the character of those on whom the justifying sentence of
the law is carried out. But this character at the same time is
the ground of the act. Primarily rb irvevpa is the objectively
real Holy Sphit, the self-subsistent divine Spirit. On the other
hand, irvevpa without the article is the Spirit as a principle
dwelling and active within man, a subjective possession. Comp.
Harless on Eph. ii. 22. As, however, irvevpa dyiov is already to
be regarded almost as nomen proprium, even where the objectively
self-subsistent divine Spirit is meant the article may be left out.
Comp. Fritzsche here, and Winer, p. 151. On the other hand,
one can see no reason why, in certain connections, even to irvevpa
in the subjective sense the definite article should not be added.
Thus whether, in particular cases, the objective or subjective
meaning obtains, cannot be decided with certainty by the insertion
or omission of the article. As to the present passage, Bengel's

396 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
remark is worthy of note : " Spiritus denotat vel Spiritum Dei,
vel spiritum fidehum, ver. 16. Hic est vis nova ab Iho producta
in nobis et sustentata : et de hoc sermo est, ubicunque caro stat
in opposite." Here, then, without doubt the subjective meaning
is to be preferred ; and irvevpa, in opposition to the adplj, is the
pneumatic essence of man as the product of the aytoi> irvevpa, the
self-subsistent Spirit who is active in man. Comp. John iii. 6 :
to yeyevvypevov ix rov irvevparos, irvevpa iarw, i.e. the spiritual
nature and essence, in opposition to the adplj, the corrupt, carnal
human nature, is the product of the self-subsistent, personal Spirit
of God. In this passage, then, we must interpret : " To walk by the
rule of corrupt, carnal human nature," and " by the rule of renewed,
spiritual human nature." But Theophyl. rightly observes : xard
adpxa £fj b iroiwv adpxa xvplav rrjs fa»}? xal Seairoivav rrjs
¦^rvxys. The substance of w. 1-4, Luther indicates rightly in the
marginal note : " Although sin still rages in the flesh, it condemns
not, because the Spirit is righteous, and strives against it. Where He
is not, the law is so weakened and overpowered by the flesh that
it is impossible for the law to help man, save to sin and death.
Wherefore God sent His Son, and laid on Him our sin, and thus
helped us by His Spirit to fulfil the law." " Caeterum ahud est
servire came legi peccati, cum legi Dei mente servitur, quod de
renatis, quia non prorsus spirituales sunt, afnrmatur cap. vh. v.
ult. aliud ambulare non secundum spiritum, sed secundum carnem,
quod in renatis locum non habet, nee cum gratia Dei aut fide
justificante consistere potest. Quia ibi invita servitus est, hic
voluntaria in hs, quae caro dictitat, exequendis occupatio : nam
to ambulare studium et frequentationem peccati voluntariam et
malitiosam infert, Ps. i. 1. Ibi caro luctatur quidem adversus
spiritum, non autem ei praedominatur, hic vero praedominatur
caro. Renati ergo etsi imbecillitates camis adhuc sentiant, non
tamen secundum carnem ambulant, aut carnalibus desideriis
indulgent," Calov.
Ver. 5 confirms (yap) ypiv, rois py xard adpxa irepiirarovaiv,
dXXd xard irvevpa. For those who are in Christ Jesus there is
no KaraKptpa, but Sixalwpa vopoov, because they are no longer, as
once, xard adpxa, but xard irvevpa. But instead of elvai Paul
had just written : irepiirareiv xard adpxa, xard irvevpa. He
therefore explains in this verse how the latter results necessarhy
from the former. From xard adpxa elvai foRows rd tt;? aapxbs

chap. viii. 6. 397
tppovelv ; on the other hand, from Kard irvevpa elvai follows rd
rov irvevparos cppoveiv. But from Ta t»}? aapxbs, rd rov
irvevparos cppoveiv, results again, of necessity, Kara adpxa, xard
irvevpa irepiirareiv. Thus rd rrjs aapxbs, rov irvevparos cppoveiv,
forms the intermediate notion between xard adpxa, Kard irvevpa
elvai, and xard adpxa, xard irvevpa irepiirareiv. We walk not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For only they who are after
the flesh are fleshly-minded, and therefore walk after the flesh ;
but they who are after the Spirit are spiritually-minded, and there
fore walk after the Sphit. But we are not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit. (Comp. ipeis Se oix iare iv aapxl, dXX' iv irvevpan,
ver. 9.) Therefore we walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit, ot ydp xard adpxa ovres] qui camis indolem referunt,
synonymous with iv aapxl, aapxixbv elvai. " They who are after
the flesh, i.e. they who carry in them the nature of the flesh, are
fleshly." To this corresponds the opposed ot Be xard irvevpa, sc.
ovres. — rd rrjs aapxbs cppovovaw] Comp. Matt. xvi. 23 : ov cppoveis
rd rov Oeov, aXXa rd Twt> dvOpwirwv ; Phil. ih. 1 9 : ot rd iirlyeia
cppovovvres ; Col iii. 2 : rd dvw cppoveiv. cppoveiv Tt signifies to
direct thought and endeavour to something, to brood upon, strive
after something, rd rrjs aapxbs = what is of the flesh, what
belongs to the flesh, the interests, aims, and possessions of the
adplj. The antithesis of this is rd rov irvevparos, sc. cppovovaw.
From this cppoveiv rd rys aapxbs, rov irvevparos, follows next of
necessity and naturally irepiirareiv xard adpxa, xara irvevpa.
Endeavour corresponds to being ; action, to endeavour.
Ver. 6 states the reason why they who are xard irvevpa, rd
rov irvevparos cppovovaw. They do it because the cppbvypa of
the adplj is Odvaros, but the cppbvypa of the irvevpa, fay. — rb
ydp cppbvypa rrjs aapxbs Odvaros] for the driving of the flesh is
death. This is not to be resolved and paraphrased directly by
the proposition : " for the striving of the flesh has death for its
result." Rather is Odvaros (in which notion here again the
element of spiritual misery especially predominates, as the con
trasted elprjvy shows) conceived as aheady realized (comp. faaa
teOvyxe, 1 Tim. v. 6, and Eph. ii. 1, 5), as not merely a result,
but characteristic note, immanent property of a carnal disposition.
In favour of this tehs not merely the expression itself taken in
its simplest sense, but also the comparison of to irvevpa fay in

398 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
contrast with to awpa vexpbv, ver. 10. Further, we must not
interpret : " for the striving of the flesh is directed to death," i.e.
the object of carnal effort is death, for the simple reason that
every one, even the carnally-minded, seeks after life, not death.
— rb Be cppovypa rov irvevparos, fay xal elpyvy] but the striving
of the Spirit is life and peace, fay is put first as the direct
antithesis of Odvaros. elpyvy, peace, as a subjective spiritual
quality, comp. ii. 10, sets in relief that element in the more
comprehensive notion of fay which here comes chiefly under
consideration. " Addito verbo, pax," says Bengel, " praeparat sibi
transitionem ad v. sq., ubi describitur inimicitia." But this fay
and elpyvy, in which the cppbvypa of the irvevpa consists, is
nothing else than that which is already directly associated with
Sixalwais. Sixalwais ix irlarews is fay xal elpyvy, i. 1 7, v. 1 ;
but justification being naturally and inseparably bound up with
man's renewal to a pneumatic essence, xard irvevpa or eV irvevpan
elvai likewise is fay xal elpyvy. The same is true also of the
cppbvypa rov irvevparos, the immediate and necessary conse
quence of elvat iv irvevpan. Just as the irvevpa itself, ver. 2,
is fay xal elpyvy, so also is the cppbvypa rov irvevparos. Rightly
remarks Bengel : " Odvaros . . . fay, in hac jam vita cum con-
tinuatione in altera."
Ver. 7 states the reason (StoTt, propterea quod, because, for, see
on i. 19) why the striving of the flesh is death, for it is exOpa els
Qebv] enmity against God, the sole source of life. As here the
carnal disposition, so in Jas. iv. 4 the love of the world is cahed
%xQpa rov Oeov. But the cppbvypa of the flesh is enmity against
God— — tw yap vbpw rov Oeov oix virordaaerai] for it is not subject
to the law of God. The rebel against the law of a ruler is an
adversary (ixQpbs) to the sovereign who gives the law. But it
is not subject to the law of God —
— oiBe yap Svvarai] for neither can it be. It cannot be,
because it is against its nature, the nature of the carnal dis
position being simply rebellion against God and His law. Just
as in presence of the adplj an dSwapla of the vbpos holds
good, ver. 3, so, on the other hand, in presence of the vbpos
an dBwapla of the adplj holds good. The vbpos is unable
to master the aaplj, because by it the latter is only the more
provoked and inflamed, and the adplj is unable to submit to

CHAP. VIII. 8. 399
the vopos, nay, necessarhy revolts against it, just because the
vbpos is pneumatic in essence, the opposite of the carnal nature,
vii. 14. The present verse contains a strong argument against
the doctrine of the so-called liberum arbitrium of the natural man.
This carnal disposition, which cannot submit to God's law, is
neither the product of man's spontaneous determination, nor can
it be got rid of by spontaneous determination. On the contrary,
according to the apostle's teaching, it constitutes his actual
original nature. How far this is the case vii. 14-25 shows,
where it has been described to us how this adp%, stih remaining
even in the regenerate man, despite the fact that his e'yw, his vovs,
has become pneumatic, is by an inner necessity dominated by the
principle of rebellion against God's law. Notwithstanding, the
regenerate man is no longer xard adpxa, and has no cppbvypa rys
aapxbs, because the adplj has been reduced to the position of a
subordinate element in his nature, always deplored and always
resisted, his real ego, the ruling principle of his personality,
being the pneuma.
Ver. 8. ot Se iv aapxl ovres, Oew dpeaai oi Bvvavrai] but they
that are in the flesh cannot please God. This proposition, intro
duced by the metabatic Be, couples on directly to the first
proposition in ver. 7, StoTt . . . et? Oeov, tw ydp vbpw . . . Svvarai
being simply interpolated to confirm the latter proposition. " The
striving of the flesh is enmity against God ; but they that are in
the flesh cannot please God." Thus is made good the proposition
of ver. 6 : " the striving of the flesh is death." For enmity
against .God that has God's displeasure as its result, cannot be
conceived without death as its result, nay, is itself death simply
and absolutely. Upon exQpa els Oeov fohows invariably the bpyy
Oeov, which is here expressed by Oew dpeaai oi Bvvavrai. iv
aapxl elvai (comp. vii. 5), to be in the flesh, to live and move in
it, differs from xard adpxa, viii. 5, aapxixbv elvai, vii. 14,
merely as to the form, not as to the substance of the conception.
iv indicates the element or sphere, xard the rule or course. The
distinction made (2 Cor. x. 3) between iv aapxl irepiirareiv and
xard adpxa arpareveaQai hes not in the formula in itseh, but
in the fact that there adplj is used the first time in a physical,
the second time in an ethical sense. Just as the phrase exQpa
et? Oebv, ver. 7, forbids our taking cppbvypa rrjs aapxbs as
mere sensuous feebleness instead of malignant opposition of

400 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the whl to God, so Oew dpeaai oi Bvvavrai in this verse
forbids our thinking of the dSvvapla of the adplj, ver. 7, as a
merely innocent instead of a guilty incapacity. "To be
carnally-minded," says Luther in the marginal gloss, "is when
one seeks not after God, or cares not for Him, and knows
nothing of Him."
Ver. 9. The apostle here omits the proof of the second half of
ver. 6, namely, that the cppovypa rov irvevparos is fay xal elprjvy,
because it is <f>tXta Oeov and is in the possession of strength for
the irXypwais vbpov, and therefore has the eiSoxla Oeov as its
result, — a proof that- is in fact implied as an antithesis in vv. 7, 8,
and formally drawn out would have rendered the exposition flat
and prolix, — and instead of this proceeds at once to apply ver. 8
antithetically to the Roman church. The truth expounded vv. 1-8,
in general terms, that they who are in Christ Jesus are no longer
in the flesh and death, but in the spirit and hfe, is here expressly
and speciaRy applied to the readers, and this in such a form as
at the same time to challenge them to prove whether or not this
glorious assumption is founded in fact, iv irvevpan] Opposite
of iv aapxl, in the element of the spiritual nature, synonymous
with xard irvevpa, ver. 5, = irvevpanxol.
— et7rejO irvevpa Oeov olxei iv ipiv] e'lirep Chrysostom was the
first to interpret by iirelirep, quandoquidem, appealing to 2 Thess.
i. 6. This may be the meaning of etye indeed, but not of eiirep.
Comp. Hermann, ad Viger. § 310, p. 834 : " etirep, quod nos wenn
anders (if at ah events) dicimus, ita ab etye, quod nos dicimus
wenn denn (if then) differt, quod eiirep usurpatur de re, quae esse
suniitur, sed in incerto rehnquiter, utrum jure an injuria sumatur
(see confirmatory instances in Hartung, Lehre von den Partikeln
der gr. Spr. Th. I. p. 343) ; etye autem de re, quae jure sumta
creditur. E'lirep SoKei aoi, wenn es anders dir so gefallt (if at ah
events it seem good to thee) dicimus ei, de quo non certo scimus,
quid ei placeat, aut de quo id nescire simulamus. JEt'ye BoKei aoi,
wenn es denn dir so gefallt (if, indeed, it seem good to thee),
dicimus ei, de quo scimus, quid ei placeat." This meaning etirep
has also in aR other passages of the N. T., ver. 17, 1 Cor. viii 5,
xv. 15, 2 Cor. v. 3, where likewise eiirep, not etye, should be
read, 2 Thess. i 6 ; see on Rom. hi 30 ; 1 Pet. ii. 30.1 Here
1 According to Tholuck also, Beitrage zur neutest. Sprachcharacteristih, p. 146;
and on this passage the distinction can be verified universally both in classical and

CHAP. VIII. 9. 401
this meaning must be the more firmly held (dptpiBoXlas eariv,
remarks Theodoret on eiirep), as the subjoined et Se Tt? irvevpa
Xpiarov oix ep^et shows that the apostle would here urge the
church to examine whether their Christian profession were not a
mere show without their really possessing the Spirit of Christ.
This is not necessarhy inconsistent with the glorious testimony
that he bore to their faith, i. 8, eiirep, "if at all events, if as I
may presume," involving no positive doubt. With olxei iv ipiv,
comp. 1 Cor. ih. 16, also vi. 19 ; 2 Tim. i 14. o'iKeiv doubtless
implies the notion of a permanent abiding, without the element
of permanence being meant to be speciahy emphasized in distinction
from a mere momentary, fleeting phenomenon. But elvai iv
irvevpan, being in a spiritual nature, is the consequence of the
ivoUyats rod irvevparos, of the indwelling of the Spirit of God.
— et Se ti? irvevpa Xpiarov oiK e^et] The irvevpa Xpiarov
(Phh. i 1 9 ; 1 Pet. i. 1 1), as the interchange of irvevpa Oeov and
irvevpa Xpiarov shows, is not different from the former. This
identity foRows also from viii. 14f., comp. with Gal. iv. 6. Both
denote here the self-subsistent divine Spirit, which irvevpa with
the addition dyiov, Oeov, Xpiarov, invariably signifies. Therefore
irvevpa Oeov, irvevpa Xpiarov, is the Spirit that is the common
possession of God and Christ, not the Spirit sent by God and
Christ to men, proceeding from both in time. This is proved by
Gal iv. 6 : iljaireareiXev b Oebs to irvevpa rov viov airov et? Ta?
KapSlas vpwv. If God sends the Spirit of His Son, He cannot
be cahed the Sphit of the Son because the Son sends Him into
the heart. But if He is caRed the Spirit of the Son because He
is the possession of the Son, so much the more must He be cahed
the Spirit of God because He is God's possession, for this reason,
that the Son possesses only what the Father does. Were He
merely called God's Spirit because God sends Him, it would be
said indeed HjaireareiXev b Oebs rb irvevpa airov, but not to
irvevpa rov viov airov. There is no inconsistency here with
1 Cor. ii. 12, vi. 19, for it is self-evident that the Spirit who is
God's proceeds also ix Oeov or dirb Oeov. Only because God and
Christ possess Him can they impart Him to men, or, in dogmatic
N. T. usage, and only disappears in degenerate Greek, that simp = " if at all events,"
expresses slight doubt, «?y.= "if then," an admitted assumption. Meyer, indeed,
now disputes Hermann's canon, but allows that the meaning assigned by the latter
exclusively to ilmp suits the connection in the present passage admirably.
, Philippi, Rom. I. 2 c

402 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
terminology, the temporal sending of the Spirit into behevers'
hearts by the Father and the Son is based upon His eternal
procession from both. Thus the present passage contains, without
doubt, a dictum probans for the occidental doctrine of the pro-
cessio Spiritus S. a patre filioque. Certainly that the irvevpa Oeov
xal Xpiarov is to be conceived as a self-subsistent, personal
principle, not as a mere impersonal divine power, both immanente
and transeunte, does not follow directly from the present passage
alone, but is made good in other ways from N. T. teaching.
Further, if the Pneuma is equaRy the eternal possession of God
and Christ, if irvevpa Oeov = irvevpa Xpiarov, then is Xpiaros
also Himself =0ed?. " Spiritus Dei, spiritum Christi. Testimonium
illustre de S. Trinitate," remarks Bengel. But Paul in this
passage uses the expression irvevpa Oeov interchangeably with
irvevpa Xpiarov, just because the truth of oix elvai Xpiarov,
where God's Spirit is wanting, is thus the more clearly apparent.
— ovros oix eariv airov] With elvai rov Xpiarov, comp. 1 Cor.
iii. 23, 2 Cor. x. 7, and ot tow Xpiarov, 1 Cor. xv. 23, Gal. v.
24. "To be Christ's " = to be Christ's property, to belong to Him.
This denotes a relation of possession by another not of a mere
outward, but of an inner nature, so that in substance it really
coincides with iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov elvai, comp. Gal. iii. 28, 29:
irdvres ydp ipeis et? iare iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov. El Be vpeis
Xpiarov. But whoever has not the Spirit of Christ belongs not
to Christ, because Christ imparts His Spirit to all that belong to
Him. Thus the possession of the Sphit of Christ is the cha
racteristic note of those belonging to Him. Comp. 1 John iv. 13 :
'Ev rovrw ywwaxopoev, on iv airw pevopev, xal airbs iv ypiv,
on ix rov irvevparos airov SeSwxev ypiv. As to et oi instead
of et py, comp. Winer, p. 599. "The ov here belongs to the
verb, not to the conditional particle, oix exew = to be without,
destitute of.
Ver. 10. Result of belonging to Christ, el Be Xpiaros iv vpiv]
After ver. 9 we should have expected et Se irvevpa Xpiarov
exere, or et Se irvevpa Xpiarov iv ipiv. But here, as in airov
elvai, ve* 9, the necessary consequence is at once stated, for in
His Spirit Christ Himself dwells in us. By faith we are iv
Xpiarw 'Iyaov, ver. 1, comp. 1 Cor. i 30 ; 2 Cor. v. 17, xhi. 4;
John vi. 56. From this it follows that we are partakers of the
irvevpa Xpiarov, vv. 2, 9. But, in His irvevpa, Xpiaros Himseh

chap. viii. 10. 403
is eV ypiv, ver. 10, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, Gal. ii. 20, iv. 19, Eph. iii. 17,
CoL i. 27, John vi. 56, xv. 4, and with Christ the Father also
comes to make His abode with us, John xiv. 23. Thus the
unio mystica is carried into effect under its objective aspect in the
real indweRing in behevers of the triune God, the Father and the
Son making theh abode in behevers' hearts in the Spirit. " Qui
Spiritum habet, Christum habet: qui Christum habet, Deum
habet," BengeL
— to poev awpa vexpov Bi dpaprlav, rb Be irvevpa fay Sid
Sixaioavvyv] The principal element, the result of Xpiaros iv
ipiv, Res in the second proposition, to irvevpa . . . Sixaioavvyv.
The preceding qualification, to awpa . . . dpaprlav, ratifies our
view of vii 14-25, showing that even in the regenerate the
awpa tov Oavarov, vii 24, is present. What the apostle has
said of the regenerate man so far in ch. viii. might make it seem
as if he were aR irvevpa and fay, which would be inconsistent
with the exposition found in vh. 14-25. He therefore takes
the description, hitherto treated ideahy, and reduces it to its real
dimensions. Thus what is said in vv. 7, 8 takes place partially
even in behevers, whilst no doubt the opposite, to be taken from
those verses (to cppovypa rov irvevparos fay cpiXia ydp ian
rov Oeov' tw ydp vbpw rov Oeov virordaaerai = rb Be irvevpa
fay Sid Sixaioavvyv), is the ruling principle in their nature.
Thus, whhe the second half of ver. 6 (to cppbvypa rov irvevparos
fay xal elpyvy) is not, indeed, supplementarily demonstrated in
the present verse, in conjunction with its demonstration imphed
as a tacit contrast in vv. 7, 8, it is applied directly to the readers
of the epistle. The interpretation of the separate expressions in
this verse differs very widely, according to the different views
taken of this and the preceding chapters (comp. the account of
the divergent explanations in Meyer, Fritzsche, and de Wette).
In the first place, as concerns the expression rb Se irvevpa fay,
it clearly points back to rb Se cppbvypa rov irvevparos fay,
ver. 6. The irvevpa here, then, is not the divine Spirit simply,
for He would least of aR by the apostle be called fay. Rather
is irvevpa the human sphit penetrated and sanctified by the
divine Sphit, the pneumatic essence of the regenerate, itself, like
the cppovypa issuing from it, peaceful, blessed hfe (fay xal elpyvy,
ver. 6). Tlvevpa Be ivravOa ryv tyvxyv irpoayyopevaev (b
IlavXos), w? irvevpanxyv yBy yeyevypevyv, observes Theodoret.

404 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
The fay, then, is to be viewed' not merely as future, but as
actuaRy present. On this view, it seems most obvious to refer
the Sixaioavvy to inherent righteousness of life, vi. 18. But
against this tehs Sta with the accusative = " on account of," for
righteousness of life is not the ground of life. Moreover, taking
into account the reference to the irvevpa dyiov in the present
context, dyiwavvy would have been spoken of rather than
Sixaioavvy. The Sixaioavvy, then, is the righteousness imputed
to faith. With to irvevpa fay Sid Sixaioavvyv, comp. d Slxaios
ix irlarews ^yaerai, i 17. Thus the majority of the older, and
several modern expositors. In exact analogy with the contrast
contained in the present verse, in vi. 2 3 Odvaros as the btywvia
t?j? dpaprlas was opposed to fay alwvios as the x^,Pla'ua ^v
Xpiarw 'Iyaov. Indeed, in ver. 6 the cppbvypa rov irvevparos
was itself called fay xal elpyvy. But it was not said that the
spiritual disposition is the ground of life. On the contrary, the
ground of life is, and remains alone, the righteousness imputed to
faith, from which issues the righteousness of life, or spiritual
disposition by which faith is attested and maintained. Thus
even this righteousness of life is partaker in the Rfe that is the
fruit of the righteousness of faith, and in so far also to cppbvypa
rov irvevparos is fay xal elpijvy. Comp. Jas. i. 25: d
irapaxvifras et? rbv vbpov reXeiov tjj? eXevOeplas, xal irapa-
pei'vas, . . . oiros paxdpios iv ry iroirjaei (not Sta t^p irolyaiv)
airov earai. Further, to refer Sixaioavvy in this verse to the
righteousness of faith, is not inconsistent with referring irvevpa
to the human sphit become pneumatic. For the first thing the
human spirit does when renewed by the Spirit of God is by
faith to lay hold on the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and the
eternal life which that righteousness secures. In this sense
the older Lutheran dogmatics placed regeneratio as the collatio
virium spiritualium ad credendum before justificatio. On this
interpretation the meaning of the first clause now explains
itself. To irvevpa is opposed awpa ; to fay, vexpbv ; to Sid
Sixaioavvyv, Si dpaprlav. The awpa, then (comp. on vi 12,
vii. 23), opposed to irvevpa, is all that remains of the believer's
individuality after the irvevpa is abstracted. It is soul and body,
in so far as these are not permeated by the irveupa, and are
therefore the seat of sin sthl remaining. This awpa, on the very
ground of sin still present, is a awpa rov Qavdrov, vii. 24 ; i.e.

chap. viii. 11. 405
it is just as much Qvyrbv, vi. 12, vhi. 11, as vexpbv. It is
Qvyrbv, in so far as death, which like the awpa itself is to be
conceived as both sphitual and corporeal, is only completed
hereafter. It is vexpbv, in so far as this death even at present
dweRs in body and soul as the dominating principle. Comp.
2 Cor. i 10, iv. 11 ff. ; Eph. h. 1, 5 ; Rev. hi. 1.
Ver. 11. According to ver. 10, Odvaros is still found in the
Christian by the side of fay, because dpaprla is stiR present by
the side of irvevpa. According to the present verse, Odvaros is to
be vanquished by a gradual process, and finally to be entirely
swaRowed up in fay. — et Se to irvevpa tov iyeipavros 'Iyaovv
ix vexpwv olxei iv vpiv] The irvevpa Oeov, irvevpa Xpiaroi;
ver. 9, in whom Christ Himself dweRs in us, ver. 10 (so that,
inversely, this irvevpa also dwells in those in whom Christ is,
ver. 11), is here caRed the Spirit of Him that raised Jesus from
the dead, our fay being included in Christ's resurrection, vi. 4, 5 ;
Eph. h. 5 ; Col. h. 13 ; 2 Tim. i 10. Therefore, if the Spirit of
Him that raised up Christ dwell in us, in this Spirit is given to
us the pledge (2 Cor. v. 5) that we are partakers in Christ's
resurrection and its blessed fruits. If, then, God that raised
Christ from the dead, and thus brought hfe and immortality te
light, has given us His Spirit, in whom is involved the pledge of
our fehowship with the Risen One and of our participation in
. the power of His resurrection, it foRows, cf course, that He who
raised Christ from the dead whl complete His work in us,
and swaRow up the death present in us in hfe, or that He will
quicken the vexpbv awpa, ver. 10.
— d iyelpas rbv Xpiarov ix vexpwv] On the preceding 'Iyaovv
Bengel remarks: "Mox, in apodosi, Christum. AppeRatio Jesu
spectat ad ipsum ; Christi, refertur ad nos. Ilia appehatio,
tanquam nominis proprh, pertinet ad personam; haec, tanquam
appeRativi, ad officium."
— faoiroiyaei xal rd Qvyra awpara ipwv] " Mortalia corpora
vocat quicquid adhuc restat in nobis morti ,obnoxium: ut mos
illi usitatus est, crassiorem nostri partem hoc nomine appellare.
Unde coRigimus, non de ultima resurrectione, quae momento fiat,
haberi sermonem, sed de continua Spiritus operatione, quae
reliquias carnis paulatim mortificans, coelestem vitam in nobis
instaurat," Calvin. Still the bodhy resurrection, as the final
goal of this hfe-giving process, is not excluded, but included with

406 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
the other, for the very reason that the awpa on which the
faoirolyais is carried out is to be considered as partaking of the
nature of both soul and body; in Tholuck's phrase, " the process
of the body's glorification as the outcome of the process of redemp-
tion." Respecting this twofold aspect of the faoirolyais, comp.
John v. 21 ff, also iv. 14, vi. 58. But, on the other hand,
were awpa merely the material body, and therefore only the
bodily resurrection here meant, one would have expected, in the
inverse order to the present, Qvyrbv, ver. 10, and vexpd, ver. 11.
But, of course, the gradual absorption of Odvaros into fay can
only take place through the gradual absorption of dpaprla hito
Sixaioavvy, conceived as righteousness of life, or of the awpa into
the irvevpa, by which soul and body are hallowed and glorified.
— Sid to ivoixovv airov iv ipiv] This reading is received by
Erasmus, Stephanus, Mill, Bengel, Matthai, Griesbach, Knapp,
Seholz, Hahn, and approved by nearly all modern expositors.
The Elzevir edition, on the contrary, read : Sid rov ivoixovvros
airov irvevparos iv vpiv; and Lachmann and Tischendorf have
restored the recepta, which de Wette also thinks the original
reading. The critical authorities are pretty evenly balanced.
Comp. Reiche, Com. crit. I. p. 54 ff. The codices ABC, Cod.
Sinait., indeed expressly have the genitive; on the contrary,
D E F G J ; and from Maximi monachi Dial. iii. de s. Trinit. in
Athanas. Opp. ii. pp. 228, 234, it appears that the orthodox de--
fended this reading in their dispute with the Macedonians, in
order to prove by it : on tjJ? airrjs ian cpvaews rb irvevpa irarpl
xal vlw, because it fohows from this reading : oti wairep b irarrjp
iyelpei rovs vexpovs jcal faoiroiei, bpolws Be xal b vlbs, ovrws xal
rb irvevpa faoiroiei. They also asserted that the genitive is found
ev oXois rois dpxalois dvnypdcpois, and that the Pneumatomachoi
had falsified the text in the interest of dogma. But, on the other
hand, the accusative is found in the most ancient Fathers and
translations, Iren., Orig., Tert., Peshito, Ital, therefore before the
outbreak of the controversies referred to ; and on this account the
Macedonians, not unjustly, question the assertion of the orthodox
in Maximus, that the genitive is found in aR ancient manuscripts.
But, inversely, it is just as little to be supposed that the orthodox
on their part had falsified the reading, since, apart from the fact
that this cannot be shown to have been the practice of the
church, they were able to deduce the deity of the Spirit from so

chap. vhi. n. 407
many other passages in the N. T., and even for the faoiroieiv
proceeding from Him could appeal to John vi. 63 ; 2 Cor. hi. 6.
Furthermore, before the outbreak of the controversies mentioned,
the genitive occurs once in Clemens Alex, and in Methodius,
although the latter, another time, has the accusative. Even in
still later Fathers — Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine — sometimes
the genitive is found, sometimes the accusative. Thus a decision
can only be arrived at upon internal grounds. These certainly
seem to us to favour the accusative, Sid rb evoixovv airov irvevpa
ev vpiv, on account of His Spirit dwelling in you, i.e. because His
Spirit dwells in you (Luther : on this account, that His Spirit
dwehs in you) ; for if we suppose this supplement absent alto
gether, we shaR still be compeRed to supply it in thought. " But
if the Spirit of Him that raised Jesus from the dead dwell in
you, He that raised Christ from the dead will also quicken your
mortal bodies (just because His Spirit, the pledge of your fellow
ship with the Risen One, dweRs in you, and God who gave you
this pledge wiR not deceive you, cannot deny Himself)." It
cannot be said that this supplement is useless, merely repeating
what is contained already in the protasis. For, first of all, such
a repetition would have special emphasis; and, again, the idea
contained in the protasis is not so much repeated as simply
expressly drawn out, since in the protasis it was not directly
expressed, but only capable of being educed from it by inference.
But the genitive, Sid rov evbixovvros airov irvevparos iv ipiv,
would add a new idea, and would therefore be linked on. by a xal
rovro, and this, xih. 11 ; 1 Cor. vi. 6; Eph. ii. 8; Phil, i 28;
3 John 5, Lachmann. Further, the transition of the accusative
into the genitive seems more eashy explicable than the converse
change. In order to substitute the accusative for the genitive,
there must have been a more exact analysis of the connection of
thought, whereas the genitive suggested itself naturally, since it
was customary to think of the Spirit as the mediator of the divine
acts of creation and redemption ; and in this very place, without
doubt, He is the principle effecting the faoirolyais of the Qvyrbv
awpa (ver. 2).
The apostle has now dehneated the spiritual state of the re
generate in aR its features; the power of the stiR remaining
adp%, which brings forth Odvaros, vii. 14-25 ; the glory of the
irvevpa, which is fay, viii 1-9 ; and the operation, ever pro-

408 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
gressing and advancing to its final goal, of this latter principle in
those who are not yet entirely irvevpa, but sthl at the same time
awpa, vv. 10, 11. Now- follows the admonition to walk also
after the Spirit, so as from the Spirit to reap hfe ; and not
after the flesh, so as not to faR a prey to death, vv. 12—17.
If the analogous admonition, vi. 12 ff, has as its postulate the
description of the spiritual state of the regenerate man in its idea
and completeness, the paraenesis now following relates to his state
in its concrete reality, in which it is seen to be a state of progress,
in the form of a contrast of mutuaRy hostile powers. And thus,
from the consideration of this state results the summons to
subjugate the evh principle still existing, and energeticahy main
tain and prosecute the good.
Ver. 1 2. "Apa oiv] draws an inference from vv. 1—1 1. Because,
then, irvevpa brings us fay, we are bound to live not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit. "Habet autem baec conclusio vim
exhortationis : quemadmodum semper a doctrina exbortationem
solet deducere : sic alibi, Eph. iv. 30, monet, ne contristemus
Spiritum Dei, quo obsignati sumus in diem resurrectionis. Item
Gal. v. 25 : Si Spiritu vivimus, et Spiritu ambulemus," Calvin.
The loving address —
— dSeXcpol] is meant to open and win the readers' hearts to
the admonition. It answers to dSeXcpol pov, which we last read
vii. 4. What they became by divine act (QavarwOevres), vh. 4,
this they are now to become by their own act (comp. Qavarovre,
viii. 13), to affirm spontaneously the purpose (et? to . . . 'iva,
vii. 4) of the divine act upon- them.
— bcpeiXerai iapev oi rfj aapxl rov xard adpxa %yv\ The
antithesis aXXa tw irvevpan, rov xard irvevpa grjv, which is
indicated by the position of oi (not: oix bcpeiXerai iapev rfj
aapxl, but : bcpeiXerai iapev . . . oi rfj aapxl), is readily under
stood of itself. According to Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 844, in
ep. ad Rom. II. p. 131, and Winer, p. 410, the infinitive rov xard
adpxa t,yv is to be considered as dependent on bcpeiXerai, after
the model of the formula, bcpeiXerys elpi rwl twos. But the
expression: "We owe to the flesh the living after the flesh"
appears to us harsh and strained ; and we think it in any case
more natural here to take the genitive of the infinitive, substan
tivised by the article, as is done so frequently, especially in Paul
and Luke (Winer, p. 408), as the genitive of design or result,

chap. viii. 13. 409
comp. on i. 24. "We are are debtors, not to the flesh, in order
that we may live after the flesh ; " i.e., if we stood in a debtor's
relation to the flesh, the design of this relation would be to incite
us to hve after the flesh. Or : " We are debtors, not to the flesh,
so that we hve after the flesh ; " i.e., if we stood in a debtor's
relation to the flesh, the effect of this would be that we should
live after the flesh. For that this genitive may also be a genitive
of effect (Winer, p. 410), may be inferred, among others, from the
formula previously cited : bcpeiXerys elpi rwi twos. So : "lam
thy debtor in a great sum " = " I am thy debtor, so that I have
to pay thee a great sum."
Ver. 13. There is no motive for living a life after the flesh,
for (ydp) to hve after the flesh brings death, et yap xard adpxa
%fjre, peXXere diroQvyaxeiv] We live after the flesh, when we give
way to the inclination of the old man without restraint. peXXere
diroQvyaxeiv, mors vobis proposita est, death is appointed you, lies
before you, you must die, comp. iv. 24 ; 1 Thess. hi. 4 ; Jas. ii. 12.
That diroQvyaxeiv here cannot be understood exclusively of bodily
death, one might suppose, would be self-evident, for this comes
even to the regenerate man who lives after the whl of the Spirit.
Nevertheless, some modern expositors, prejudiced by a real idio
syncrasy against the sphitual, or combined spiritual and physical
conception of the notions Odvaros, vexpos, Ovyros, Ovyaxeiv, diro-
Ovyaxeiv, would even here hold to the purely physical meaning.
They have therefore been compelled to resort to more or less
arbitrary or artificial supplements of thought, either : " you shaR
so die, that for you there is no dvdaraais," contrary to express
Scripture teaching, John v. 28, 29; Acts xxiv. 15; or: "you
shall so die, that for you far] no longer remains, that you shah
hve a vita non vitalis in Hades." But what, then, can we make
of such passages as John vi. 49, 50, xi 25, 26 ; 1 Tim. v. 6 ;
Rev. hi. 2 ? How the above-mentioned explanation always has
some expedient ready in such and many like cases, one may see
among others from Kauffer, de Biblica §»J5? aiwviov Notione,
Dresden 1838, pp. 100, 114. We are further told here, p. 96,
that even in Eph. ii. 1, 5, Col ii 13, vexpos is used sensu proprio
andper irpbXyyfriv for obnoxius vel adjudicatus morti. The unpre
judiced expositor has no choice but to confess that in the present
passage diroOvyaKew, in contrast with £yv, embraces as wide a
sphere as the latter, and that both terms, in manifest ahusion to

410 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
vv. 2, 6, 10, 11, denote the broadest conception of death and
life. Here, above all, is meant spiritual and present, yet withal
bodily and spiritual death. Just as Christianity acknowledges a .
transcendent and at the same time immanent God, so, too, it
acknowledges a present and at the same time future fay. The
same holds good of Odvaros. The oft-repeated objection, that the
same word cannot at the same time have a natural and tropical
meaning, has the less foundation, as Odvaros, wherever it appears
as the consequence of dpaprla, denotes the undivided idea of
divine penal judgment, consisting in every kind of physical and
spiritual misery. For those, therefore, who are iv Xpiarw 'Iyaov
even bodily death remains no longer as a penal judgment, which
alone makes it really Odvaros, but merely as the completion of
diroXvrpwais, as a transition to fay alwvios. Besides, whatever
we are wont and able to include in thought under the word
" death," this certainly the Apostle Paul was able to include
under it. Comp. our exposition of the notion Odvaros on v. 1 2.
The declaration before us supplies a dictum probans for the pos
sibility of apostasy, the so-called amissibilitas gratiae.
— et Be irvevpan rds irpdjjeis rov awparos Oavarovre, faaeaOe]
£yv after the adplj has Odvaros as its result, Qavarovv of the adplj,
fay. We may here refer irvevpan to the objective Spirit of God,
and take it instrumentahy. By means of this Spirit of God
dwelling in him, ver. 11, by whom he is led, ver. 11, the behever
mortifies the flesh. Sthl the practice of Scripture is to make the
Spirit use man as the instrument or organ of His activity, but not
man the Spirit. We therefore think it best to refer irvevpa here,
in harmony with the meaning settled by us in vv. 4, 5, 6, 10, to
the subjective, pneumatic character of the regenerate spirit, and
to interpret not so much " by the Spirit " as " in the Spirit," in
analogy with irvevpan irepiirareiv, aroixeiv, Gal. v. 16, 25. The
following irvevpa Oeov, ver. 14, referring to irvevpa in this verse,
does not preclude this view, for even man himself is irvevpa or
iv irvevpan, in so far as he is the abode or under the influence
of the irvevpa Oeov. Further, in ver. 1 3 irvevpa only is spoken
of in contrast with awpa; on the other hand, in ver. 14 the
irvevpa Oeov is expressly mentioned, vv. 9, 11. The irpdljeis
are not identical with epya, acts, deeds, but irpaljis is either
" behaviour, bearing," Matt. xvi. 27; or " business, occupation,"
Rom. xh. 4 ; or sensu malo, an imprdbum f acinus, a machinatio,

CHAP. VIII. 14. 411
Luke xxiii. 51. In the latter meaning, the plural is specially in
use, Acts xix. 18. So here and in the parallel passage, Col. iii. 9 :
direxBvad/joevot rbv iraXaibv avOpwirov avv rais irpdljeaw airov.
They are the prava f acinar a, the machinationes, the molimina, the
sinful tendencies of the adplj, of the TraXato? dvOpwiros. Rightly,
therefore, Theodoret: rds irpdljeis rov awparos, rovrean rb
cppbvypa rys aapxos, rd twj/ rraQypdrwv axiprrjpara. Moreover,
it is only these that can be mortified (i.e. the adplj avv rois iraOy-
paai xal rais iiriOvplais, Gal. v. 24), not epya, for facta infeda
fieri nequeunt. This also confirms our view of the word awpa in
the present passage (comp. on vi. 12, vii. 23, 24, viii. 10, 11) ;
for to the material body as such no irpdljeis can be ascribed, but
to body and soul, in so far as these stand in opposition to irvevpa.
Exclusively sensual tendencies cannot be meant here in con
sistency with the general xard adpxa %yv. If it is alleged that
the awpa, in itself indifferent, only comes into account here as
the executive organ of sin, still the tendencies of sin do not spring
from the body. The reading t?)? aapxbs, not adequately attested,
instead of toO awparos, is to be regarded either as a correct gloss
or a correction, which arose from a wrong understanding of the
word awpa in this passage, but from a right perception of the idea
required here. Oavarovv = xarapyeiv, comp. vii. 4. Melanchthon's
comment on this verse is noteworthy : " Si secundum carnem
vixeritis, moriemini. Est autem secundum carnem vivere obsequi
cupiditatibus carnahbus. Id vocant peccare mortahter. Si spiritu
actiones camis mortificabitis, vivetis. Hic fatetur Paulus in
Sanctis esse actiones carnis et malos motes, sed tamen sanctos non
obsequi hlis motibus. Atqui hinc sumi potest quae peccata
veniaha, quae mortalia dicuntur."
Ver. 14 confirms the promise of fay, given in tfaeaOe, ver. 13.
Ver. 14 begins the confirmation, which is only concluded in
ver. 1 7. Being under the influence of God's Spirit is an evidence
of divine sonship, ver. 14 ; for when the Spirit is received, He
makes HiniseK known as a Sphit, not of bondage, but of divine
-sonship, w. 15, 16. But sonship is inseparably bound up with
inheritance (namely, the inheritance of fay), ver. 17. oaoi yap
irvevpan Oeov dyovrai] for as many as are moved by the Spirit of
God; but, according to ver. 9, these are all who really belong to
Christ. dyeaOat irvevpan Oeov is the ground; irvevpan rds
irpdPeis rov awparos Oavarovv, the result. Where the latter is

412 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
found, the former must be present. Hence one expression takes
the place of the other without difficulty, because one is derived by
necessity from the other, irvevpan dyeaQai is also found in Gal.
v. 18. dyeaQai is used of an abiding influence, in opposition to
a transient impulse, to cpepeaOai, 2 Pet. i 21 ; comp. olxeiv, ver. 9.
Man's passive relation to the operation of the Holy Sphit is the
primary and anterior ; man's active operation, the secondary and
subsequent element. Without dyeaQai irvevpan Oeov there is
no irvevpan rds irpafjeis rov awparos Oavarovv. " Ita a Spiritu
sancto agimur, ut ipsi quoque agamus."
— ovtoi] these, and no others. Comp. Gal. ih. 7 : ywwaxere
dpa, on ol ix iricrTews, ovrol elaw viol 'ABpadp. Would you
then really be and remain God's favoured chhdren, and thus heirs
of life, which without ddubt is your wish, prove and attest your
divine sonship by yielding to the influence of the Spirit prompt
ing to mortification of the flesh.
— viol Oeov] vlbs Oeov as a designation of the behever is used
by Paul in opposition to SovXos, comp. in ver. 1 5 the antithesis of
irvevpa SovXelas and irvevpa vloQealas, Gal. iii. 23—26, iv. 1-8.
As long as man lives under the law he is BoiXos, as such seeks
by works to earn for himself reward, though reaping only wrath
and curse, and stands before God his Lord and Judge with fear and
trembling. As a slave he has no part in the inheritance. Not
life, but death awaits him. But by justifying faith man passes
from a state of slavery to a state of sonship. Instead of the
Judge's wrath and curse, the Father's love now rests upon him.
Instead of the fear of a slave, he has now the trust and confidence
of a child, and free access to the Father's heart. But as a child
he has a legal title to the inheritance. The vlbs is xXypovbpos.
All this is secured for him by the Son of God, on whom the
Father's love rests by nature, Eph. i. 6, who redeemed him from
the curse of the law, being made a curse in his stead, Gal. ih. 13,
and having now become His brother, John xx. 17 ; Rom. viii. 29.
Thus by faith he is invested with the rights of Him who is the
Son by nature, whereas he himself is a child, not by nature, but
by adoption. He is not cpvaei, but Qeaei vlbs, be has obtained the
vioQecrla ; for cpvaei he is a rexvov bpyrjs, Eph. h. 3, not a rexvoy
Oeov. Comp. also Rom. ix. 26 ; 2 Cor. vi. 18 ; Eph. i. 5. Just,
then, as in Paul, in harmony with the central thought of his
teaching, the vloOeala is viewed in opposition to SovXela, and the

CHAP. VIII. 14. 413
several elements of this idea coincide with the characteristic
marks of this relation ; so, on the other hand, John, on his part
employs the phrase rexvov Oeov in a meaning likewise in harmony
with his mystical vein of contemplation. This mode of view
occupies itself not with the contrast of law and gospel, justification
by works and justification by faith, bondage under the curse of
the law and freedom under grace. On the contrary, its central
point of observation is the new sphitual birth from God, imparted
to us through faith in Christ in contrast with natural, carnal
generation. For it, the rexvov Oeov is identical with yeyewij-
uevo? ix Oeov, John i. 12 ; 1 John iii. 9, 10, v. 1, 2. This divine
generation obliterates sin, the product of Satanic generation. The
rexva rov Oeov form for it the antithesis to the rexvois rov
StaBbXov. Finally, in the Synoptics, Rkewise in conformity with
their line of conception and representation, which, falling before
Pentecost, falls also before the period in which the Spirit was to
keep before Him the wondrous facts of atonement, justification,
and regeneration as the central object of His contemplation,
around which all His thoughts revolve, the natural, purely human
side in the notion of sonship is more the ruling element. It is
the idea of the child's likeness in disposition to the father that is
here specially brought forward, Matt. v. 9, 16, 45, 48; Luke
vi 35. Sthl there are not wanting points of accord with the
Pauline idea of vloOeala (especially in Luke, comp. xv. 18, 19, 21,
xx. 36, but also in Matthew, comp. xvh. 25, 26), as conversely in
Paul the element predominating in the Synoptics is found, Phh.
ii. 1 5. rexvov, vlbs Oeov denotes, then, in Paul the position and
privilege, in John the origin and natural likeness, in the Synoptics
the identity in disposition of the child with the father. Only by
combining these elements is the N. T. notion of a child of God
exhaustively presented. One element follows naturally from
another ; from justification, the new birth, from this the child-like
mind answering to the mind of the Father in heavem But
in John is found only the expression rexvov, in the Synoptics
only vlbs Oteov, in Paul both meanings. The former expression
may have been selected by John in allusion to the etymology
apparent on its very face (rexvov from ti'ktw, one begotten, born,
a derivation more famihar to the popular consciousness than that
of the word vlbs from vw with the digamma = cpvw), to which, as
we have seen, he holds fast in his idea of rexvov. Moreover,

414 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
with him the woid has a certain touch of tenderness, 1 John iii. 1,
just as in the N. T. generaRy in affectionate addresses rexvov ov
rexvlov is very frequently used, vie never. (Heb. xii 5 forms
merely an apparent exception, because there it is a quotation, and
the child is viewed as under age. On the other hand, it is said,
Acts xiii. 1 0 : vie BiaBbXov, not rexvov BiaBbXov.) In Paul, vw;
and rexvov Oeov are interchanged in such a way that there seems
to be no difference whatever in meaning, Rom. viii. 14, 16, 17,
19, 21 ; Gal. iv. 7. Sthl, although both words alike indicate an
inner relation of love on the Father's part, a relation of con
fidence and right of heirship on the chhd's part, in vlbs withal
the notion of maturity in distinction from immaturity under the
law, which is not included in vlbs, may perhaps be speciahy
emphasized, Gal. iii. 24-26, iv. 1-7. Hence, too, Christ as Son
of God is ever called vlbs, never rexvov Oeov. (The phrase irais
Oeov, applied to Israel, David, Jesus, Matt, xii 18, Luke i. 54, 69,
Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 25, 27, 30, corresponds with the 0. T.
niiT lay.) Therefore the Synoptics use only vlbs Oeov, because
only the full-grown child can be caRed upon to imitate the
father's spirit. Finally, if the arrangement utot elaw Oeov, re
ceived by Lachmann and Tischendorf in this, passage, which is
countenanced by the uncials, Cod. Sinait., and several Fathers, is
genuine, viol, in contrast with BovXoi, ver. 15, would have the
emphasis next to ovtoi.
Ver. 15. For the truth of the assertion advanced ver. 14, the
apostle appeals to the Christian experience of his readers. " They
that are moved by the Spirit are God's children, for you received
not the spirit of bondage, but the spirit of sonship." oi yap
eXdBere irvevpa SovXelas irdXw et? cpbBov, dXX' eXdBere irvevpa
vioOealas] The antithesis of irvevpa SovXelas and irvevpa vio
Oealas requires that both the genitival relation and the notion of
irvevpa in both expressions be taken in a corresponding sense.
irvevpa vioOealas, then, cannot be " the Spirit that works sonship,
or places in a filial relation to God," for the impartation of the
Spirit is an effect of adoption, Gal. iv. 5, 6, not the reverse. It
must therefore be interpreted, either : " the sphit that proceeds
from sonship," or : " the spirit that peculiarly pertains to sonship,
the spirit of sonship, spiritus, qualis adoptatorum est ; " Luther: "a
child-like spirit." The latter meaning most aptly falls in with
the interpretation of irvevpa SovXelas, "the spirit that is the

CHAP. VIII. 18. 415
characteristic of slavery, spiritus, qualis est servorum ; " Luther: "a
slavish sphit." The question then is, what irvevpa is meant,
whether the irvevpa Oeov or a irvevpa dvOpwirwov, the objective
divine Spirit Himself, or a subjective, human, although spiritual
affection ? For the first view, neither the connection nor yet
Gal. iv. 6 is conclusive alone. For there the subject is not the
irvevpa vioOealas, but the irvevna rov viov rov Oeov, and the
irvevpa might very weR be conceived as the operation of this divine
irvevpa in man. But in the nature of the case, the transition is
easy from the irvevfia Oeov to His operation, the irvevpa as the
pneumatic essence in man. Thus the connection with ver. 14,
where the irvevpa Oeov is mentioned, to which certainly the
irvevpa vioOealas in this verse corresponds, cannot be a hindrance
to our interpreting the latter of the child-like spirit in man,
which, as the operation of the divine Spirit, of necessity points
back to His presence. But we hold, further, that this view
is actuaRy required by the antithesis with irvevpa SovXelas.
For the Sphit of God cannot be called a irvevpa SovXelas,
since He neither works bondage- nor proceeds from it, or is a
characteristic sign of it, being given only to children and the
free, not to slaves. It is indeed said that irvevpa SovXelas
does not denote the spirit that men actually had under the
law, but merely denotes negatively what the spirit that
Christians had received is not. Thus : " the spirit that you
received is not a sphit of bondage, but a spirit of sonship;" i.e.,
slaves possess not this Spirit of God, but only the children of
God. irdXw is said to belong, as the order of words shows, not
to iXdf3ere, but to et? cpbf3ov = els rb irdXw cpoBeiaQai, such,
namely, as was the case under the law working wrath. But
neither this negative conception of oi yap iXdBere irvevpa SovXelas,
nor yet this connection, right in itself, of irdXw, seems to us to
remove the difficulty referred to. For the spirit of bondage may
sthl be merely the spirit of fear; and when it is said: "the spirit
that you received is not a spirit of bondage that you should again
fear," or, " so that you whl again fear," it is understood, of course,
" as took place when you possessed the spirit of bondage, i.e. the
sphit of fear," and the words understood : " as took place under
the law working wrath," are merely an attempt to conceal the
identity of these two supplementary phrases under a variety of
expression. The irvevpa SovXelas must then always be so under-

416 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
stood that it may be conceived as an actual possession of man,
therefore not as Spiritus Dei, but as spiritus senilis hominum.
The latter, indeed, is not so much received as simply possessed.
Wherefore we must interpret : " you received not a servile spirit
that you should again fear, as when you possessed this servile
spirit, but you received a child-Rke spirit." Thus de Wette
rightly interprets irvevpa SovXelas, vioOealas, a spiritual affection,
such as one has in slavery, such as one lias in sonship, and remarks
that iXaBere = eSwxev ipiv b Oebs, indicates the objective source
of this spiritual affection. Comp. Rom. xi. 8 : eSwxev airois b
Oebs irvevpa xaravvfjews ; 2 Tim. i. 7 : oi ydp eSwxev ypiv o Oebs
irvevpa SeiXlas, dXXd Swdpews xal dydirys xal awcppoviapov ;
2 Cor. iv. 13 . exovres Be rb airb irvevpa rrjs irlarews ; Gal. vi. 1 :
xaraprlfare rbv roiovrov iv irvevpan irpaoryros ; Eph. i 17: d
Oebs . . . Swrj ipiv irvevpa aocplas. The SovXela and the cpbBos
were certainly the effect of the revealed vbpos ; but it is not to
be inferred from this that the Roman Church consisted mainly
of Jewish Christians, or that the apostle is here addressing merely
the Jewish Christian portion of -the church. For the operation of
the natural law of conscience, which, according to ii. 14, 15, the
Gentiles possessed, is analogous ; and that Paul regards heathenism
also as a state of bondage, is shown by Gal. iv. 8, 9. On vioOealas
Grotius observes : " Non satis habuit dicere Spiritum libertatis, sed
dixit adoptionis. Nam qui adoptantur, si servi sint, et hberi ex
servis Sunt et filii Filii lege facti Qerol dicuntur in jure Graeco.
Verbum est vloOereiv, unde vloOeala, quod et arrogationem et adop-
tionem specialiter Romanis dictam comprehendit. Poterat et ab
ipsa naturali generatione simhitudinem sumere apostolus, sed ut
ab adoptione sumeratur, hinc loco convenientius fuit, quia simul
meminit status prioris, quasi servilis." But then, as adoption
effects a complete transference to the relation and rights of a
child by birth, the spirit of adoption as to its nature and results
is not different from the spirit of sonship. The repetition of
iXaBere (it is written once in 1 Cor. ii 1 2) occurs for the sake of
emphasis, comp. Heb. xii. 18, 22 ; Eph. h. 17, 19 (where Lach
mann reads xal elpyvyv and dXX' iare).
— iv w xpdfapev] not : at whose instance, or : through whom;
but : in whom we cry. xpdfav, Gal. iv. 6, here not, as usual
elsewhere, of a bare outcry, but of a distinct caR, as a token of
joyous confidence, in contrast with trembling despondency in

CHAP. VIII. 15. 417
prayer. " Clamor" says Bengel, " sermo vehemens, cum desiderio,
fiducia, jure, constantia."
— yABBd, b iraryp] In the Palestinian provincial dialect, the
Aramaic K2N was employed instead of the Hebrew 3K. The
formula dfifid, 6 iraryp, is found again in Mark xiv. 3 6 ; Gal.
iv. 6. d iraryp cannot be regarded- as a translation appended by
the evangelist or apostle ; for in that case the usual interpretation
formula : o ian, tout' eo-Tt, o ian peOeppyvevbpevov, never wanting,
especiaRy in Mark (ih. 17, vii. 11, 34, v. 41, xv. 22, 34, also
Matt. i. 23, xxvh. 46, John i 39, 42, Acts i 19, iv. 36, xiii. 8,
Heb. vh. 2), would be added. Paul's practice, on the other hand,
is so little to interpret Hebrew phrases, that in 1 Cor. xvi. 22 he
has even left the very unintelligible papdv dQd without explana
tion, d iraryp, then, is a component part of the prayer itself. The
observation of Grotius is untenable : " Imitater puerorum patribus
blandientium voces. Mos est blandientium repetere voces easdem"
(similarly before him Chrysost. and Theodor.), as in this case
dBBd, dBBd, or d irarrjp, 6 irarrjp (Matt. vh. 22, xxvii. 46), must
have been said. Still less to the point is Calvin's observation :
" Significat Paulus, ita nunc per totum mundum publicatam esse
Dei misericordiam, ut promiscue linguis omnibus invocetur :
quemadmodum Augusthms observat. Ergo inter omnes gentes
consensum exprimere voluit. Unde sequitur, nihil jam differre
Graecum a Judaeo, quum inter se coaluerint." Not only is there
nothing to suggest such a subordinate reflection, but, in addition,
neither the connection nor the emphasis of the expression per
mits it. The more likely account is, that dBBd, in use among
the Palestinian Jews, passed over to the Hellenists, and from
them to the Christians, just as phrases like Abba, Jehovah, Im-
manuel, etc., have passed over into our hymnology. But it was
quite natural that in prayer, the language of the heart in confi
dential intercourse with God, the same address should be re
peated in the mother-tongue of the worshipper. Thus we should
not readhy say in prayer "Jehovah," without adding "Lord."
The opinion that dBBd is used on account of the child-like sound
may be combined with ours, as it may indicate the reason for the
Jewish form of address, dBBd, being originally retained. Stih it
is a question whether the opinion does not depend too much on a
transfer of modern experience and practice in the use of the word
Abba. Comp. also Meyer here, d iraryp, the nominative with the
Philippi, Rom. L 2 D

418 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
article for the vocative, comp. Mark v. 8, 41, ix. 25, xv. 34 ; Luke
xvhi 11, 13 ; Winer, p. 227. The apostle in the present verse
contrasts the effect of the 0. T. revelation of law with the effect
of the N. T. revelation of grace. The one is the irvevpa SovXelas,
the other the irvevpa vioOealas. " Neque tamen inde colligas,"
says Calvin, " vel Spiritu adoptionis neminem ante Christi ad-
ventum fuisse praeditum : vel quicunque Legem acceperint, servos
fuisse, non filios. - Ministerium enim Legis cum Evangelh dispen-
satione potius confert quam personas cum personis. Fateor
quidem hic moneri fideles, quanto cum ipsis liberahus nunc
egerit Deus, quam ohm cum Patribus sub Veteri testamento :
externam tamen dispensationem respicit, cujus tantum ratione
praecellimus : quia ut praestantior fuerit Abrahae, Mosis et
Davidis fides quam nostra, quatenus tamen in speciem sub paeda-
gogia eos Deus continuit, nondum ad libertatem, quae nobis
patefacta est, progressi erant." With this should be specially
compared Gal. iii. 23-26 and iv. 1-6. How much more must
the irvevpa SovXelas have held sway over those who were not
dehvered from it, at least comparatively, by irlans in the eVay-
yeXla, but remained as captives fast bound hi the legal point of
view ! On the change of person, eXdBere, xpdfapev, Calvin
remarks : " Personam ideo mutavit, ut sortem omnium sanctorum
communem exprimeret, acsi dixisset: Spiritum accepistis, per
quem vqs, ut nos reliqui omnes fideles, clamatis."
Ver. 16. airb to irvevpa] means not: idem spiritus; Luther:
the same spirit, for this would be to airb irvevpa ; but : ipse
Spiritus, the Spirit Himself namely, the Spirit of God, in whom
and through whom we have the irvevpa vioOealas, ver. 15.
— avppaprvpei rw irvevpan ypowv] 1 John v. 6-11. Vulg.:
" testimonium reddit spiritui nostro." Luther : " bears witness
to our sphit." So, too, several modern expositors. This sense
would only be tenable upon our interpretation of ver. 1 5 ; for if
irvevpa is there taken in the sense of irvevpa Oeov, in the present
verse we get merely a tautological and next to meaningless
emphasis. If the children of God raise the Abba-cry in the
Spirit of God, it is self-evident that it is the Spirit of God Him
self who bears testimony to their sonship. But it might very
well be expressly stated, that in the child-like spirit in which the
Abba-cry is uttered the Spirit of God Himself bears testimony
to our spirit as to our filial position. However, there is no

CHAP. VIII. 17. 419
example to prove that the compound avppaprvpeiv can be taken
as identical with the simple paprvpeiv. Accordingly, avppap
rvpeiv here, as in ii. 15, ix. 1, is to be taken in the sense of una
testari, to bear witness along with. Our spirit witnesses our
vloQeala, in the character of a child-like spirit, by its Abba-cry,
ver. 15. But it does not witness this alone, but with it the
Spirit of God does the same. But the latter witnesses this not
by an immediate assurance, but by means of the general word of
promise which He applies to the particular individual in whom
He dwells. For whereas Scripture calls all who believe in Christ
children of God, the Spirit testifies to the individual believer
Thou art God's chhd ! This testimony of the Spirit is the first
testimony, and withal the cause of the Abba-cry, which is the
second. Against the Pontificii certitudinem gratiae infallibilem
impugnantes, Calov remarks : " Quod nostro spiritui testificatur et
confirmat Spiritus S. de eo nos indubitato certi sumus ; quia
testimonium Spiritus Sancti certissimum est et prorsus indubi-
tatum, cui qui non credit, Deum mendacem facit, 1 John v. 10."
The asyndeton (instead of airb rb irvevpa we should have
expected an oi povov Be, dXXd xal airb rb irvevpa) seems most
eashy vindicated, if, laying a sharper accent on airb and avp — ,
at the end of the verse we supply the thought : " And thus
for our sonship all simply requisite evidence is at hand."
FinaRy, the teaching of the 16th verse forms an antithesis with
the Deistic quite as complete as with the Pantheistic view of the
relation of God to the world in general and to the human spirit
in particular. It shows that Christianity is the fellowship of God
the Spirit with man, in abiding distinction from the human spirit.
Ver. 17. et Se rexva, xal xXypovopoi] From our sonship follows
necessarhy, by the analogy of human law, our heirship, Gal. iv. 7.
But this heirship, as an heirship of God and co-heirship with
Christ, consists in Sb%a or farj alwvios (comp. the avvBoljaaOwpev
of our verse, and peXXovaa Sb%a, ver. 18). Thus the truth of
%yaeaQe, ver. 13, is established. The proposition et Se rexva
(iapev), xal xXypovopoi iapev, in the first instance, merely
announces a truth universally valid, which is but more precisely
defined by the subjoined xXypovopoi pev Oeov xrX. Thus to
rexva and xXypovopoi a Oeov is not to be supplied.
 KXypovbpoi pev Oeov] In ordinary human relations, the in
heritance is only entered upon after the testator's death, Heb.

420 COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS.
ix. 16, 17. In applying the comparison, this point is not to be
regarded. The tertium comparationis is merely the patrimonial
estate, which by right of sonship belongs to the son, and in the
sphere of earthly relations is described as inherited estate. Comp.
also Luke xv. 12. At most, the notion of death intervening
before entry upon the inheritance might be retained in general
terms, — there the father's death, here the chhd's death, which is
the moment of transition to eternal life, or to the possession of
the heavenly inheritance.
— avyxXypovbpoi Se Xpiarov] The inheritance of God, im
parted to the children of God, is really the inheritance of Christ,
to participation in which they are summoned by adoption. He
is the xXypovbpos xar iljoxyv, Gal. iii. 1 6—1 8, Heb. i. 2 ; and
incorporated in Him by faith, they, too, come to participate in
what He possesses, — they, too, become xXypovopoi, Gal iii. 28, 29,
comp. Rom. iv. 13. As in the old covenant to Israel and Jacob
typically, so to Christ all rights of the first-born and heir are
transferred. He is the irpwroroxos iv iroXXois dSeXcpois, ver. 29,
and shares His patrimonial inheritance with His brethren, which,
as a spiritual inheritance, by its very nature devolves to every one
whole, and entire. The untheocratic reference of this passage to
the Roman law of inheritance is as foreign as it is inappropriate.
There an equal share in the inheritance belonged to aR children
by bhth ; so that in the application of this, the gracious act and
interposition of Christ, the first-born and only real heir would
be thrown quite into the shade. Preferable to this would be
Wieseler's opinion on Gal. iv. 7, that Paul has in view no
particular law of inheritance at all. Still we believe, for the
reasons indicated, that we must abide by the reference to the
Jewish law of inheritance.
— eiirep avpirdaxopev] if at all events we suffer with, appends
the indispensable condition on which alone every Christian may
hope to attain to participation in the Sbija of Christ. Comp.
Matt. xx. 22 f. ; Col. i 24, iii. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11 f. ; 1 Pet. iv. 13,
v. 1. No doubt the death of Christ procured for God's believing
chhdren the title to future glory; but they can only preserve
this title, and enter upon possession of the glory itself, by being
conformed to His sufferings and death.1 These sufferings are
1 Calvin rightly observes, that here, not the causa, but the ordo adipiscendae
salutis is indicated. Melanchthon says that o-vpfrxo-^uv is required, not as meritum

CHAP. VIII. 17. 421
no doubt really martyr-sufferings, such, especially, as the first
Christians endured in a marked degree. But the idea may be
generalized and applied to suffering in conflict with sin, to the
Oavarovv rds irpd^eis tov awparos. All suffering on the part of
the Christian is at root one and the same. It is renunciation of
the world in its various forms. But the irdaxew must be thought
of as willing suffering ; "for only this makes the Christian, even
the non-Christian being unable to avoid involuntary suffering.
But if suffering is the inevitable condition of glorification, in this
very fact comfort is necessarily implied; inasmuch as in that
case, so far is it from casting a shadow on the hope of glorifi
cation, that it includes a new pledge of that blessing, v. 3 ff,
— iva xal awSoljaaOwpev] in order to be also glorified with
Christ ; in essential meaning the same as, though stronger than,
ovrw yap xal awSoljaaOyabpeQa (as is self-evident avv rw Xpiarw,
John xvii. 22 ; Rev. ih. 21). d yap rois oiSev xarwpOwxoai
roaavra Bwpyadpevos dyaOd, orav o'Sy xal irovrjaavras xal
roaavra iraOovras, irws oixl fidXXov dpetyerai, Chrysostom,
The regular and necessary consequence of a thing is often, in
energetic phraseology, viewed as intended by the thing itself. So
here the glory that foRows as a necessary consequence of suffering
is pictured as the aim of the suffering itself, 'iva depending on
avpirdaxopev, not on avy xXypovopoi. i
or pretium vitae aelernae, but merely as obedientia propter ordinem a Deo sancitum.
Just so Calov : " Passiones non conditio sunt meritoria, sed ordo, quem Deus in
hominibus ad aeteruam haereditatem admittendis constituit et observat. Causa
enim unica constituta erat viohaia vel adoptio." But previously, upon nXnp. 6.
o-vyx^np. xp-, he had remarked: " Quum autem hic vita aeterna haereditas dicatur,
nvanifestuiu est excludi operum merila, quae Papistae aflerunt. "

END OF VOL. I

MURRAY AND GIBE, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJiiSTV'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In crown 8vo, price 5s.,
THE LEVITICAL PRIESTS.
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH.
Br SAMUEL IVES CTJRTISS, Je,
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, LEIPZIG.
' A real contribution to the criticism of the Pentateuch, and a storehouse of arguments
against that neological school which expends its confessedly great powers in splitting
liairs and weaving sophistries, and which tries by arrogant assertion to compensate for
weakness of proof.' — Literary Churchman.
' Dr. Curtiss has argued his thesis with conspicuous ability, candour, and learning.' —
Evangelical Magazine. Just published, in crown 8vo, price 5s.,
THE SYMBOLIC PARABLES
OF
THE CHUECH, THE WOBLD, AKD THE AKTICHEIST;
gtiiig % Separate JJKbitikms at i\t gipDtalgpsj,
VIEWED IN THEIR RELATION TO THE GENERAL TRUTHS OF SCRIPTURE.
By Mrs. STEVENSON.
' It is quite refreshing to meet with a treatise on the Book of Bevelation like this,
marked by good sense and reverence. Brief as it is, it throws more light on a difficult
subject than many laboured tomes.' — Methodist Recorder.
1 H deserves careful study from all to whom the Book of Bevelation has been regarded
as a mystic utterance not meant for them, for it has the great advantage of being com
prehensible by the most simple and unlearned.' — John Bull.
In crown 8vo, Second Edition, price 4s.,
PRINCIPLES OF NEW TESTAMENT
QUOTATION
Established and apphed to Biblical Science, and specially to the
Gospels and Pentateuch.
BY REV. JAMES SCOTT, M.A., B.D.
' An interesting discussion vindicating the method thus analyzed is followed by a very
valuable summation of the argument in its bearing on the Canon, the originality of the
Gospels, the internal unity of Scripture, and the permanence of Bevelation. —British
Quarterly Review. 
Just published, in crown 8vo, price 4*.,
OUTLINES OF BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOGY.
By J. T. BECK, D.D.,
PROF. OKD. THEOL., TUBINGEN.
Eranglateii from ffje Eljiro (Enlarge* anb dorrectel) (German ffibitum, 1877.
' The smallness of the work should not lead to its being undervalued ; it well deserves
a nlace sXby side with Delitzsch and Heard. ... We do warmly recommend this
volume as one of the most fresh and valuable contributions to theological literature of
recent date.'— Wesleyan Methodist Magazine. , , ., ....
< We Quite endorse Bishop Efficott's statement that, for many readers, Becks will be
found to be the most handy manual on the subject.'-CWA Bells.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 12s.,
THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
Including: Inquiries into the Origin of Sacrifice, the Jewish Ritual, the
Atonement, and the Lord's Supper.
By ALFRED CAVE, B.A.
' We have nothing but praise for its clearness, its method, its thoroughness, and its
tolerance. We most warmly commend Mr. Cave's book to the study of the clergy, who
will find it full of suggestiveness and instruction.' — English Churchman.
' A thoroughly able and erudite book, from almost every page of which something
may be learned. The Author's method is exact and logical, the style perspicuous and
forcible- — sometimes, indeed, almost epigrammatic ; and as a careful attempt to ascertain
the teaching of the Scripture on an important subject, it cannot fail to be interesting
even to those whom it does not convince.' — Watchman.
In crown 8t>o, price 6s.,
THE METAPHYSIC OF ETHICS.
By EMMANUEL KANT.
Translated by J. TV. Semple, Advocate. Third Edition. Edited by H.
Calderwood, D.D., Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Edin
burgh.
' A translation of Kant into intelligible English may be supposed to be as difficult as a
translation of Carlyle into Ciceronian Latin. But Mr. Semple's translation has been
accepted by scholars as a real success. Some real knowledge of Kant is indispensable iu
order to comprehension of the learned thought of our time, and because the study of
Kant is, on the whole, the best preliminary discipline for independent study of phuV-
sophy proper as distinguished from mere science.' — Contemporary Review.
Just published, in demy 8vo, Third Edition, price 7s. 6d.,
AN INTRODUCTORY HEBREW GRAMMAR;
5K3iti) Progt-cfSSibc <£ytrciiti in fteatting; anB TOriting.
By A. B. DAVIDSON, M.A., LL.D.,
Professor of Hebrew, etc., in the New College, Edinburgh.
' As a system of Hebrew Accidence, within the proper limits of the subject, the book
is characterized by great completeness as well as simplicity. Ease has never been pur
chased at the expense of fulness, and in many cases matter is given which will be vainly
sought for in the larger book of Bodiger. The paradigms are particularly full and good.'
— British and Foreign Evangelical Review.
In demy 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,
DISCOURSES OF REDEMPTION.
By STUART ROBINSON, D.D.
' It would be impossible, in a brief notice, to do justice to this able and interesting
volume. . . . The book as a whole presents a logical and eloquent development of the
gospel in the order of its commuuication to man.' — Evangelical Magazine.

PUBLICATIONS OF
T. AND T. CLARK,
38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.

Adam (John, D.D.) — An Exposition of the Epistle of James.
With an Appendix of Dissertations. 8vo, 9s.
Alexander (Dr. J. A) — Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah.
New and Bevised Edition. With a Preface by John Eadie, D.D., LL.D.
Two vols. 8vo, 17s.
Ante-Nicene Christian Library — A Collection of all the Works
of the Fathers of the Christian Church prior to the Council of
Nick a. Twenty- four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £6, 6s.
Augustine's Works — Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Sixteen vols.
8vo, Subscription price, £i, 4s.
Auberlen (C. A.) — The Divine Revelation. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Bannerman (Professor) — The Church of Christ : A Treatise on the
Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian
Church. Two vols.' 8vo, 21s.
Baumgarten (Professor)— Apostolic History ; Being an Account of
the Development of the Early Church in, the form of a Commentary on
the Acts of the Apostles. Three vols. 8vo, 27s.
Beck (J. T., D.D.) — Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown
8vo, 4s.
Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes,
Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d.
Cheaper Edition, the five volumes boujid in three, 24s.
Besser (Dr. Rudolph)— Biblical Studies on St. John's Gospel.
Two vols, crown 8vo, 12s.
Bleek (Professor)— An Introduction to the New Testament.
Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Bruce (A. B., D.D.)— The Training of the Twelve ; or, Exposition
of Passages in the Gospels exhibiting the Twelve Disciples of Jesus under
Discipline for the Apostleship. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Humiliation of Christ in its Physical, Ethical, and
Official Aspects. (Sixth Series of Cunningham' Lectures.) 8vo, 12s.
Brown (David, D.D.)— Christ's Second Coming : Will it be Pre-
Millennial 1 Sixth Edition, "Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Buchanan (Professor)— The Doctrine of Justification : An Out
line of its History in the Church, and of its Exposition from Scripture, with
special reference to recent attacks on the Theology of the Keformation. (Second
Series of Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Comfort in Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
 On Improvement of Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Bungener (Felix) — Rome and the Council in the Nineteenth
Century. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Calvin — His Life, Labours, and Writings. By Felix Bungener.
8vo, 8s. 6d.
Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by

Henry Beveridge. Two vols. 8vo, 14s.
Calvini Institutio Christianse Religionis. Curavit A. Tholuck.
Two vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 14s.
Caspari (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc
tion to the Life of Christ. 8vo, 9s.
Caspers (A.)— The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Cave (Alfred, B.A.) — The Scripture Doctrine of Sacrifice.
Demy 8vo, 12s.
Christlieb (Dr.) — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. A Series
of Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekers after Truth. Third
Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Cousin (Victor)— Lectures on the True, the Beautiful, and the
Good. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d.
Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa
ment Greek. Second Edition, demy 4to, 25s.
Cunningham (Principal) — Sermons by the late Wm. Cunningham,
D.D., Principal and Professor of Church History, New College, Edinburgh.
8vo, 9s.
Reformers and Theology of the Reformation. 8vo,

10s. 6d.
 ¦ Discussions on Church Principles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Historical Theology. A Review of the Principal Doctrinal
Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age. Second
Edition, Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Curtiss (Dr. S. J.)— The Levitical Priests. A Contribution to the
Criticism of the Pentateuch. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Dabney (R. L., D.D.)— The Sensualistic Philosophy of the
Nineteenth Century Considered. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Davidson (Professor)— An Introductory Hebrew Grammar. With
Progressive Exercises in Beading and Writing. Third Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Delitzsch (Professor)— A System of Biblical Psychology. Second
Edition, 8vo, 12s.
Biblical Commentary on the Book of Job. Two vols.

8vo, 21s.

Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Three vols. 8vo

31s. 6d.

Biblical Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Two

vols. 8vo, 21s.

Biblical Commentary on the Song of Solomon and

Ecclesiastes. 8vo, 10s. Gd.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Delitzsch (Professor) — Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of
Isaiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Biblical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Doedes (Dr. J.) — Manual of Hermeneutics for the New Testa
ment. Crown 8vo, 3s.
Dollinger (Dr.)— Hippolytus and Callistus ; or, The Roman Church
in the First Half of the Third Century. 8vo, 9s.
Dorner (Professor) — History of the Development of the Doctrine
of the Person of Christ. With a Review of the Controversies on the Subject
in Britain since the Middle of the Seventeenth Century, by Rev. Dr.
Fairbairn. Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d.
 History of Protestant Theology, particularly in Germany,
viewed according to its Fundamental Movement, and in connection with the
Religious, Moral, and Intellectual Life. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Eadie (Professor) — Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle
of Paul to the Galatians. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.) — The Gospel History: A Compendium of
Critical Investigations in support of the Historical Character of the Four
Gospels. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Elliott (Chas., D.D.) — A Treatise on the Inspiration of the Holy
Scriptures. 8vo, 6s.
Emesti — Principles of Biblical Interpretation of New Testa
ment. Two vols. fcap. 8vo, 8s.
Fairbairn (Principal) — The Typology of Scripture, viewed in con
nection with the whole series of Divine Dispensations. Fifth Edition, Two
vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Revelation of Law in Scripture, considered with
respect both to its own Nature and to its relative place in Successive Dispen
sations. (The Third Series of Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Ezekiel and the Book of his Prophecy : An Exposition.
Fourth Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Prophecy Viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its Special
Functions, and Proper Interpretations. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Hermeneutical Manual ; or, Introduction to the Exegetical
Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Pastoral Epistles. The Greek Text and Translation.
With Introduction, Expository Notes, and Dissertations. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Pastoral Theology : A Treatise on the Office and Duties of

the Christian Pastor. With a Memoir of the Author. Crown 8vo,
Fisher (G. B., D.D.)— The Beginnings of Christianity, with a View
of the State of the Roman World at the Birth of Christ. 8vo, 12s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Forbes (Professor) — The Symmetrical Structure of Scripture;
or, Scripture Parallelism Exemplified in an Analysis of the Decalogue, the
Sermon on the Mount, and other Passages of Sacred Writings. 8vo, 8s. 6d.
 Analytical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,

tracing the Train of Thought by the aid of Parallelism ; with Notes and Dis
sertations on the Principal Difficulties. 8vo, 10s.- 6d.
Gebhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its Relation
to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gerlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gieseler (Dr. J. C. L.) — A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History.
Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d.
Gilford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets : Twelve Lectures preached
in the Chapel of Lincoln's Inn, 1870-74, on the Foundation of Bishop War-
burton. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Glasgow (Professor) — The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded.
8vo, 14s.
Gloag (Paton J., D.D.) — A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. 8vo, 12s.
 The Primeval World. Crown 8vo, 3s.
Godet (Professor) — Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two vols.
8vo, 21s.
 Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. 8vo,
31s. 6d.
Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things
that are Made. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.) — History of the Reformation in Germany
and Switzerland chiefly. Translated from the Fourth Revised Edition
of the German by Evelina Moore. Vol. I., 8vo,-10s. 6d. [Vol. II. shortly.
Hamilton (Jas., M.A.)— Faith in God : Sermons by Rev. Jas. Hamil
ton, M.A., Cockpen. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Harless (Dr. C. A.) — System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Havernick (H. A. Ch.) — General Introduction to the Old Testa
ment. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.)— The Tripartite Nature of Man— Spirit,
Soul, and Body — applied to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrine of Original
Sin, the New1 Birth, the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body. With
an Appendix on the Fatherhood of God. Fourth Edition, crown 8vo 6s.
Hefele (Bishop)— A History of the Councils of the Church.
Vol. I. (Second Edition) to A.D. 325 ; Vol. II., a.d. 326 to 429. 8vo,
12s. each.
Hengstenberg (Professor)— Commentary on the Psalms. Three
vols. 8vo, 33s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Hengstenberg(Professor) — Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes.
To which are appended : Treatises on the Song of Solomon ; on the Book of
Job ; on the Prophet 1 saiah ; on the Sacrifices of Holy Scripture ; and on the
Jews and the Christian Church. 8vo, 9s.
 The Prophecies of the Prophet Ezekiel Elucidated.

8vo, 10s. 6d.
— Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, and the
Integrity of Zechariah. 8vo, 12s.
— History of the Kingdom of God under the Old Testa
ment. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
— Christology of the Old Testament : A Commentary on
the Messianic Predictions. Second Edition, Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.
— Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. 8vo,

21s.
Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. By Paul Janet, Member of the In
stitute. Translated from the French by William Affleck, B.D. Demy
8vo, 12s.
Joufiroy — Philosophical Essays. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Keil (Professor)— Biblical Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three
vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth.
8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Books of Samuel. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Books of Kings. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. 8vo,

10s. 6d.
— Commentary on Jeremiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
— Commentary on Ezekiel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
— Commentary on Daniel. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Commentary on the Books of the Minor Prophets. Two

vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Manual of Historico - Critical Introduction to the
Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Killen (Professor)— The Old Catholic Church ; or, The History,'
Doctrine, Worship, and Polity of the Christians, traced from the Apostolic
Age to the Establishment of the Pope as a Temporal Sovereign, a.d. 755.
8vo, 9s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Krummacher (Dr. F. W.) — The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations
on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edition, crown 8vo,
7s. 6d.
David, the King of Israel : A Portrait drawn from Bible

History and the Book of Psalms. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Autobiography. Edited by his Daughter. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Kurtz (Professor) — Handbook of Church History. Two vols. 8vo,
15s. '
 History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.

Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ : A Com
plete Critical Examination of the Origin, Contents, and Connection of the
Gospels. Edited, with additional Notes, by Marcus Dods, D.D. Second
Edition, in Four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 28s.
 Commentaries on the Old and New Testament. Edited
by Philip Schaff, D.D. (The volumes on Numbers and Deuteronomy,
and Isaiah, completing the Series, will shortly be published. ) To purchasers
of a Complete Set of either Old or New Testament the price is 15s. per volume.
Non-Subscribers, 21s. per volume. In 24 vols, imperial 8vo.
 Commentary, Theological and Homiletical, on the

Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 On the Gospel of St. Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 18s.
 On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On the Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Lisco (F. G.) — Parables of Jesus Explained and Illustrated.
Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner — The Church : Its Origin, its
History, and its present Position. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Luthardt (Professor) — St. John the Author of the Fourth
Gospel. 8vo, 9s.
St. John's Gospel Described and Explained according

to its Peculiar Character. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (Fourth
Edition), Saving (Third Edition), Moral Truths of Christianity (Second
Edition). Three vols, crown 8vo, 6s. each.
M'Lauchlan (T., D.D., LL.D.)— The Early Scottish Church. The
Ecclesiastical History of Scotland from the First to the Middle of the Twelfth
Century. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Macdonald (Rev. Donald) — Introduction to the Pentateuch : An
Inquiry, Critical and Doctrinal, into the Genuineness, Authority, and
Design of the Mosaic Writings. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
The Creation and Fall : A Defence of the First Three

Chapters of Genesis. 8vo, 12s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Martensen (Bishop)— Christian Dogmatics : A Compendium of the
Doctrines of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Matheson (Geo., M.A., B.D.) — Growth of the Spirit of Christianity,
from the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo,
21s. Aids to the Study of German Theology. Second Edition,

crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Meyer (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on St.
Matthew's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. [Vol. II. shortly.
 On St. John's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On the Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On Corinthians. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. [Vol. II. shortly.
 On Galatians. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Philippians and Colossians. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Morgan (James, D.D.) — The Scripture Testimony to the Holy-
Spirit. 8vo, 9s.
 Exposition of the First Epistle of John. 8vo, 9s.

Miiller (Dr. Julius) — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. An entirely
New Translation from the Fifth German Edition. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Murphy (Professor) — A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Psalms. 8vo, 12s.
 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Exodus. 8vo, 9s.
Naville (Ernest) — The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Neander (Dr.)— General History of the Christian Religion and
Church. Nine vols. 8vo, £3, 7s. 6d.
This is the only Library Edition of Neander published in this Country.
Oehler (Professor)— The Theology of the Old Testament. Two
vols. 8vo, 21s.
Oosterzee (Dr. Van)— The Year of Salvation. Words of Life for
Every Day. A Book of Household Devotion. Two vols, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
each.
 Moses : A Biblical Study. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Olshausen (Dr. H.)— Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and
Acts. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.
 On Romans. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Corinthians. 8vo, 9s.
 On Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessai.onians.
8vo, 10s. 6d.
 , on Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Owen (Dr. John) — Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited
by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £4, 4s.
Philippi (Friedrich Adolf) — Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to
the Romans. Translated from the Third Improved and Enlarged Edition,
by the Rev. J. S. Banks, Manchester. Vol. L, 10s. 6d. Vol. II. in Press.
Pressense" (Edward de) — The Redeemer : Discourses Translated from
the French. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Preuss (Dr.) — The Romish Doctrine of the Immaculate Concep
tion, traced from its Source. Crown 8vo, 4s.
Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian
Doctrine. (The Fifth Series of the Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Riehm (Dr. E.) — Messianic Prophecy: Its Origin, Historical Charac
ter, and Relation to New Testament Fulfilment. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Bitter (Carl) — The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the
Sinaitic Peninsula. Four vols. 8vo, 32s.
Robinson (Rev; S., D.D.) — Discourses on Redemption. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Robinson (Edward, D.D.) — Greek and English Lexicon of the
New "Testament. 8vo, 9s.
Rdthe (Professor) — Sermons for the Christian Year. Advent to
Trinity. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Saisset— Manual of Modern Pantheism i Essay on Religious Philo
sophy. Two vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Schaff (Professor) — History of the- Christian Church; from the
Birth of Our Lord to Gregory the Great. Three vols, royal 8vo, 36s.
Schmid (C. F., D.D.) — BiBl-ioal Theology of the New Testament.
8vo, 10s. 6d.
Scott (Jas., M.A., B.D.) — Principles of New Testament Quotation
Established and Applied to Biblical Criticism. Crown 8vo, Second
Edition, 4s.
Shedd (W., D.D.)— A History of Christian Doctrine. Two vols.
8vo, 21s.

Sermons to the Natural Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Smeaton (Professor) — The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught
by Christ Himself. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by the
Apostles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Smith (H. B., D.D.) — Faith and Philosophy : Discourses and Essays.
Edited, with an Introductory Notice, by G. L. Prentiss, D.D. 8vo, 12s.
Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.)— The Miracles of Our Lord : Examined'in
their relation to Modern Criticism. 8vo, 7s; 6d.
Stevenson (Mrs.)— The Symbolic Parables; or, The Church, the
World, and the Antichrist : Being the Separate Predictions of the Apocalypse
viewed in their relation to the General Truths of Scripture. Crown 8vo, 5s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Steward (Rev. G.) — Mediatorial Sovereignty : The Mystery of Christ
and the Revelation of the Old and New Testaments. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. A

Posthumous Work. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Stewart (Dugald) — The Collected Works of. Edited by Sir Wm.
Hamilton, Bart. Eleven vols. Svo, 12s. each.
Stier (Dr. Rudolph) — On the Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight
vols. 8vo, £4, 4s. Separate volumes may be had, price 10s. 6d.
In order to bring this valuable Work more within the reach of all Classes, both
Clergy and Laity, Messt's. Clark continue to supply the Eight volume Edition bound
in Four at the Original Subscription price of £2, 2s.
The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on

the Epistle of St. James. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
— The Words of the Apostles Expounded. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Thiersch (Dr. H. W. J.) — On Christian Commonwealth. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Tholuck (Professor) — Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.
8vo, 9s.
 Exposition of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Two vols.
fcap. 8vo, 8s.
 Light from the Cross '. Sermons on the Passion of Our
Lord. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 5s.
 Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

TTllmann (Dr. Carl) — Reformers before the Reformation, Princi
pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Sinlessness of Jesus : An Evidence for Christianity.
Third Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
Urwick (W., M.A)— The Servant of Jehovah : A Commentary,
Grammatical and Critical, upon Isaiah Iii. 13-liii. 12 ; with Dissertations
upon the Authorship of Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 8vo, 6s.
Vinet (Professor)— Studies on Blaise Pascal. Crown 8vo, 5s.
 Pastoral Theology. Second Edition, post 8vo, 3s. 6d.
 Homiletics; The Theory of Preaching. Second Edit., 8vo, 9s.
White (Rev. M.)— The Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Crown
8vo, 4s.
Winer (Dr G. B.)— A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa
ment Greek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Second
Edition, edited by W. F. Moulton, D.D. Eighth English Edition, 8vo, 15s.
 A Comparative View of the Doctrines and Confessions
of the Various Communities of Christendom, with Illustrations from
their Original Standards. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Wuttke (Professor)— Christian Ethics. Two vols. 8vo, 12s. 6d.

FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION:
One Guinea (payable in advance) for Pour Volumes, Demy 8vo.
N.B. — Any two Years in this Series can be had at Subscription Price. A single Tear's
Books (except in the case of the current Year) cannot be supplied separately. Non-
subscribers, price 10s. 6d. each volume, with exceptions marked.
18 6 4 — Lange on the Acts of the Apostles. Two Volumes.
Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vols. I. and II.
18 6 5 — Koi! »nd Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vol. III.
Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John. Two Volumes.
Keil and DelitZBch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Volume.
18 6 6 — Keil an|l Delitzsch on Samuel. One Volume.
Keil and Delitzsch on Job. Two Volumes.
Martensen's System of Christian Doctrine. One Volume.
18 6 7 — Delitzsch on Isaiah. Two Volumes.
Delitzsch on Biblical Psychology. (12s.) One Volume.
Auberlen on Divine Revelation. One Volume.
18 6 8 — Keil' a Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Volumes.
Delitzsoh's Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. I.
Harless' System of Christian Ethics. One Volume.
18 6 9 — Hengstenberg on Ezekiel. One Volume.
Stier on the Words of the Apostles. One Volume.
Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. I.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. I.
18 7 0 — Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. II.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II.
Schmid's New Testament Theology. One Volume.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. II.
18 7 1 — Delitzsch's Commentary on the Psalms. Three Volumes.
Hengstenberg's Kingdom of God under the Old Testament. Vol. I.
18 7 2 — Keil's Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume.
Keil's Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume.
Keil's Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume.
Hengstenberg's History of the Kingdom of God. Vol. II.
18 7 3 — Keil's Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Volume.
Winer's Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Volume.
Keil's Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. I.
Martensen on Christian Ethics.
18 7 4— Christlieb's Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol.
Keil's Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. II.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. I.
Oehler's Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. I.
18 7 5 — Godet's Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two Volumes.
Oehler's Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. II.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. II.
18 7 6 — Keil's Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Volumes.
Luthardt's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. I.
Godet's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. I.
18 7 7 — Delitzsch's Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes.
Godet's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vols. II. and III.
Luthardt's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. II.
18 7 8 — Gebhardt's Doctrine of the Apocalypse.
Luthardt's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. III.
Philippi's Commentary on the Romans. Vol. I.
Hagenbach's History of the Reformation. Vol. I.

MESSRS. CLARK allow a SELECTION of Twenty Volumes (or more at the same
ratio) from the various Series previous to the Volumes issued in 1875 (see next page'),
At the Subscription Price of Five Guineas.

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 1 1

CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY— Continued.

^ The following are the works from which a, Selection may be made (non-subscription
prices within brackets) : —
Dr. Hengstenberg. — Commentary on the Psalms. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D.D.,
Professor of Theology in Berlin. In Three Vols. 8vo. (33s.)
Dr. Gieseler. — Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. By J. C. L. Gieseler,
D.D., Professor of Theology in GBttingen. Five Vols. 8vo. (£2, 12s. 6d.)
Dr. Olshausen — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Adapted especially
for Preachers and Students. By Hermann Olshausen, D.D., Professor of
Theology in the University of Erlangen. In Four Vols. 8vo. (£2, 2s.)— Com
mentary on the Romans. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d. )— Commentary on St.
Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. In One Vol. 8vo. (9s.)
— Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians,
and Thessalonians. One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) — Commentary on St. Paul's
Epistles to the Philippians, to Titus, and the First to Timothy. In con
tinuation of the Work of Olshausen. By Lie. August Wiesinger. In
One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Neander. — General History of the Christian Religion and Church. By
Augustus Neander, D.D. Translated from the Second and Improved Edition.
Nine Vols. 8vo. (£3, 7s. 6d.)
This is the only Edition in a Library size.
Prof. H. A.' Ch. Havemick. — General Introduction to the Old Testament. By
Professor Havernick. One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Midler. — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. By Dr. Julius Muller. Two
Vols. 8vo. (21s.) New Edition.
Dr. Hengstenberg. — Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the
Messianic Predictions. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D. D. Four Vols. (£2, 2s.)
Dr. M. Baumgarten. — The Acts of the Apostles ; or, the History of the Church
in the Apostolic Age. By M. Baumgarten, Ph.D., and Professor in the
University of Rostock. Three Vols. (£1, 7s.)
Dr. Stier. — The Words of the Lord Jesus. By Rudolph Stier, D.D., Chief
Pastor and Superintendent of Schkeuditz. In Eight Vols. 8vo. (£4, 4s.)
Dr. Carl Ullmann. — Reformers before the Reformation, principaUy in Germany
and the Netherlands. Two Vols. Svo. (£1, Is.)
Professor Kurtz. — History of the Old Covenant ; or, Old Testament Dispensation.
By Professor Kurtz of Dorpat. In Three Vols. (£1, lis. 6d.)
Dr. Stier. — The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on the Epistle of
St. James. By Rudolph Stier, D. D. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Tholuck. — Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. By Professor
Tholuck of Halle. In One Vol. (9s.)
Professor Tholuck. — Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. By Professor
Tholuck. In One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. nengstenberg. — On the Book of Ecclesiastes. To which are appended: Treatises
on the Song of Solomon ; the Book of Job ; the Prophet Isaiah ; the Sacrifices of Holy
Scripture ; and on the Jews and the Christian Church. In One Vol. 8vo. (9s.)
Dr. Ebrard. — Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. By Dr. John H. A.
Ebrard, Professor of Theology. Id One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Lange. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospels of St.
Matthew and Mark. By J. P. Lange, D.D. Three Vols. (10s. 6d. each.)
Dr. Dorner. — History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ.
By Dr. J. A. Dorner, Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin.
Five Vols. (£2, 12s. 6d.)
Lange and Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on
the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.)
Dr. Ebrard. — The Gospel History: A Compendium of Critical Investigations in
support of the Historical Character of the Four Gospels. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
[See also next page.

12 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY— Continued.
Lange, Lechler, and Gerok. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the
Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Dr. Lange. Two Vols. (21s.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. — Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil. — Biblical Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. — Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. — A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.)
Dr. C. A. Auberlen. — The Divine Revelation. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil. —Commentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Book of Job. Two Vols. (21s.)
Bishop Martensen. — Christian Dogmatics. A Compendium of the Doctrines of
Christianity. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. J. P. Lange.^-Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel of St.
John. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor KeiL — Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Delitzsch; — Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols. (21s.)
Dr. Harless. — A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. — Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Stier.— The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. — Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Bleek. — Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Schmid. — New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. — History of the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant.
Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil. — Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil — Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. — Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. — Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. — Commentary on Jeremiah. Two Vols. (21s.)
Winer (Dr. G. B.)— Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Bishop Martensen. — Christian Ethics. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Vol. I. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Oehler.— Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. I. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Christlieb. — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
And, in connection with the Series —
Murphy's Commentary on the Book of Psalms. To count as Two Volumes. (12s.)
Alexander's Commentary on Isaiah. Two Volumes. (17s.)
Bitter's (Carl) Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Volumes. (32s.)
Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine. Two Volumes. (21s.)
Macdomald's Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Volumes. (21s.)
Ackerman on the Christian Element in Plato. (7s. 6d.)
Gerlaeh's Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. — Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s. )
The series, in 141 Volumes (including 1878), price £37, forms an Apparatus without
¦which it may be truly said no Theological Library can be complete; and the Publishers
' take the liberty of suggesting that no more appropriate gift could be presented to a
Clergyman than the Series, in whole or in part.
*„* no duplicates can be included in the Selection of Twenty Volumes ; and it will save
trouble and correspondence if it be distinctly understood that NO less number
than Twenty can be supplied, unless at ntyn^subscription price.
Subscribers' Names received by all Retail Booksellers.
London : (For Works at Non-subscription price only) Hamilton, Adams, & Co.

T. and T. Clark 's Publications.

13

In Twenty-four Handsome %vo Volumes, Subscription Price £6, 6s. od.,
&nte=TSTicene Otfjttstian Hifcrarg.
A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NICffiA.
EDITED BY THE
REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D.

MESSRS. CLARK are now happy to announce the completion of this Series.
It has been received with marked approval by all sections of the
Christian Church in this country and in the United States, as supplying what
has long been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learn-
in «¦, and care with which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult
task. .
The Publishers do not bind themselves to continue to supply the Series at the
Subscription price.
The Works are arranged as follow : —

FIRST YEAR.
APOSTOLIC FATHERS, comprising
Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians ;
Polycarp to the Ephesians; Martyr
dom, of Polycarp; Epistle of Barnabas ;
Epistles of Ignatius(longerand shorter,
and also the Syriac version); Martyr
dom of Ignatius ; Epistle to Diognetus ;
Pastor of Hermas; Papias; Spurious
Epistles of Ignatius. In One Volume.
JUSTIN MARTYR; ATHENAGORAS.
In One Volume.
TAT IAN; TUEOPHILUS; THE CLE-
mentine Recognitions. In One Volume.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume
First, comprising Exhortation to Hea
then ; The Instructor; and a portion
of the Miscellanies.SECOND YEAR.
HIPPOLYTUS, Volume First; Refutation
of all Heresies, and Fragments from
his Commentaries.
IRENffiUS, Volume First. „„T„„
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
CYPRIAN, Volume First; the Epistles,
and some of the Treatises.
THIRD YEAR.
IRENEUS (completion); HIPPOLYTUS
(completion); Fragments of lnird
Century. In One Volume.
ORIGEN: De Principiis; Letters; and
portion of Treatise against Celsus.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume
Sucond ; Completion of Miscellanies.
TERTULLIAN, Volume First; To the
Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations,
etc
FOURTH YEAR.
CYPRIAN, Volume Second (completion) ;
Novatian; Minucius Felix; Fragments.
METHODIUS; ALEXANDER OF LY-
copolis; Peter of Alexandria; Anato-
lius; Clement on Virginity; and
Fragments.
TERTULLIAN, Volume Second.
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS, ACTS, AND
Revelations ; comprising all the very
curious Apocryphal Writings of the
first three Centuries.
FIFTH YEAR.
TERTULLIAN, Volume Third (comple
tion).
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES; APOSTO-
lical Constitutions. In One Volume.
ARNOBIUS. DIONYSIUS; GREGORY THAUMA-
turgus ; Syrian Fragments. In One
Volume. SIXTH YEAR.
LACTANTIUS; Two Volumes.
ORIGEN, Volume Second (completion).
12s. to Non-Subscribers.
EARLY LITURGIES AND REMAIN-
ing Fragments. 9s. to Non-Subscri
bers.

Sinele Years cannot be had separately, unless to complete sets ; but any Volume
may be had separately, price 10s. 6d.,— with the exception of Origen, Vol. II., 12s. ;
and the Early Liturgies, 9s.

H

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

%\jt WLoxU of St attgustmt
EDITED BY MARCUS DODS, D.D.

SUBSCRIPTION:
Four Volumes for a Guinea, payable in advance (24s. when not paid
in advance).

FIRST YEAR.
THE ' CITY OF GOD.' Two Volumes.
WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH
the Donatist Controversy. In One
Volume.
THE ANTI-PELAGIAN WORKS OF
St. Augustine. Vol. I.
SECOND YEAR.
' LETTERS.' Vol. I.
TREATISES AGAINST FAUST US

One Volume.
OF THE EVAN-
gelists, and the Sermon on the Mount.

the Manichsean
THE HARMONY

One Volume.
ON THE TRINITY.

One Volume.

THIRD YEAR.
COMMENTARY ON JOHN. Two
Volumes.
ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, En
chiridion, On Catechizing, and On
Faith and the Creed. One Volume.
THE ANTI-PELAGIAN WORKS OF
St. Augustine. Vol. II.
FOURTH YEAR.
' LETTERS.' Vol. II.
'CONFESSIONS.' With Copious Notes
by Rev. J. G. PilkIngton.
ANTI-PELAGIAN WRITINGS. Vol.
III.
LIFE. By Principal Rainy. [In preparation.

Messrs. Clark believe this will prove not the least valuable of their various
Series. Every care has been taken to secure not only accuracy, but elegance.
It is understood that Subscribers are bound to take at least the books of the
first two years. Each volume is sold separately at (on an average) 10s. 6d.
' For the reproduction of the " City of God " in an admirable English garb we are
greatly indebted to the well-directed enterprise and energy of Messrs. Clark, and to the
accuracy and scholarship of those who have undertaken the laborious task of translation.'
— Christian Observer.
' The present translation reads smoothly and pleasantly, and we have every reason to
be satisfied both with the erudition and the fair and sound judgment displayed by the
translators and the editor.' — John Bull.
SELECTION FROM
ANTE-NICENE LIBRARY
AND
ST. AUGUSTINE'S WORKS.

THE Ante-Nicene Library being now completed in 24 volumes, and the
St. Augustine Series being also complete (with the exception of the ' Life ')
in 16 volumes, Messrs. Clark will, as in the case of the Foreign Theological
Library, give a Selection of 20 Volumes from both of those series at the Sub
scription Price of Five Guineas (or a larger number at same proportion).

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 15

'Lange's comprehensive and elaborate "Bibelwerk." . . . We hail its publication as a
valuable addition to the stores of our Biblical literature.' — Edinburgh Review.
lange's
COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.
Edited by Dr. PHILIP SCHAFP.
There are now ready (in imperial 8vo, double columns), price 21s. per
Volume, OLD TESTAMENT, Fourteen Volumes:
The Book of Genesis. One Volume.
Exodus and Leviticus. One Volume.
Numbers and Deuteronomy. One Volume. (Shortly.)
Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Volume.
The Books of Samuel. One Volume.
The Books of Kings. One Volume.
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Volume.
The Book of Job. One Volume.
The Psalms. One Volume.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. One Volume.
Isaiah. One Volume. (Shortly.)
Jeremiah and Lamentations. One Volume.
Ezekiel and Daniel. One Volume.
Minor Prophets. One Volume.
NEW TESTAMENT, Ten Volumes:
The Gospel of St. Matthew.
The Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke.
The Gospel of St. John.
The Acts of the Apostles.
The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans.
The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians.
The Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philip
pians, and Colossians.
The Epistles to the Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon,
and Hebrews.
The Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude.
The Book of Revelation.
The price to Subscribers to the Foreign Theological Library, St. Augustine's
Works and Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, or to Purchasers
of Complete Sets of either the Old or New Testament Commentary will be
FIFTEEN SHILLINGS PER VOLUME.
• T)r T ANGE'S Commentary on the Gospels and Acts (without Dr. Schaff's
NnW> \* also published in the Foreign Theological Library, in Nine Volumes
demv 8vo and may be had in that form if desired. (For particulars, see List
of Foreign Theological Library.)

1 6 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
M E Y E R'S
Commentary on the New Testament.
' Meyer has been long and well known to scholars as one of the very ablest of the German
expositors of the New Testament. We are not sure whether we ought not to say that he is
unrivalled as an interpreter of the grammatical and historical meaning of the sacred
writers. The publishers have now rendered another seasonable and Important service to
English students in producing this translation.' —Guardian.

The Subscription is 21s. for Four Volumes, Demy 8vo, payable in advance.
Each Volume will be sold separately at (on an average) 10*. 6d. to Non-Subscribers.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT,
By Dr. H. A. W. MEYER,
Oberconsistorialrath, Hannover.
In order to secure perfect accuracy, the Publishers have placed the whole
work under the editorial care of Eev. Dr. Dickson, Professor of Divinity in the
University of Glasgow, and Rev. Dr. Crombie, Professor of Biblical Criticism,
St. Mary's College, St. Andrews.
The First Three Years comprise the following works : —
1st Year — Romans, Two Volumes.
Galatians, One Volume.
St. John's Gospel, Vol. I.
2d Year— St. John's Gospel, Vol. II.
Philippians and Colossians, One Volume.
Acts of the Apostles, Vol. I.
Corinthians, Vol. I.
3d Year— Acts of the Apostles, Vol. II.
St. Matthew's Gospel, Two Vols. (Vol. II. shortly.)
Corinthians, Vol. II. (Shortly.)
' I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, and learned com
mentary of Dr. Meyer has been most carefully consulted throughout ; and I must again,
as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholar
ship of the learned editor.' — Bishop Ellicott in Preface to his ' Commentary on Ephesians.'
' The ablest grammatical exegete of the age.' — Philip Schaff, D.D.
'In accuracy of scholarship and freedom from prejudice, he is equalled by few.' 
Literary Churchman.
' We have only to repeat that it remains, of its own kind, the very best Commentary
of the New Testament which we possess.'— Church Bells.
'No exegetical work is on the whole more valuable, or stands in higher public esteem.
As a critic he is candid and cautious; exact to minuteness in philology; a master of the
grammatical and historical method of interpretation.' — Princeton Review.
Intending Subscribers will be kind enough to send their orders either
direct to the Publishers at 38 George Street, Edinburgh, or through their
own Booksellers.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05118 8069

'.'¦' mmm