Skip to main content

Full text of "Critical Exegetical Handbook New Testament 11 volumes"

See other formats 


Google 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world’s books discoverable online. 


It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. 


Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 


Usage guidelines 


Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 


We also ask that you: 


+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 


+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 


+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 


+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 


About Google Book Search 


Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 


atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/ 


A 550366" 








e 


w¢ 
= EL ts | 


ears] tc Sy) | 


UBRARY CS CS OF. THE © 


VOUABUDUOOAOUUDLNATOSODSOURAUADUAINEUNT 


ee 


» 


PEEL LU Boke TROLLS TL 


yu 


THO 


QCCROUOUT EUR eRUeCaedaaenl 


wee 


STACI AHNTLTTTNILTS bat MMT NT aig 


oo OCOMsTrerP DUE NeGbeborcenelee El eqneeaarrs Neesasasrdestanaresarpesperevectiaes ord) Caren need 


Ep peta esac 











BS 
234 ¥ 
»Mba3 
lesy¥ 
Vis 


Mew, Ne cu ech Cuca ea ee 
Cai ACh YT or Th Maye Te aa  1eeY, 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


HAN D-BOOK 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 
7192] 


ed 


BY 
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D. 
OBERCONSISTORIALLATH, HANNOVER. 
TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 


Rev. JOHN C. MOORE, B.A., aND Rev. EDWIN JOHNSON, B.A. 


THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D. 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 


WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY 
TIMOTHY DWIGHT, 


PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGB. 


NEW YORK 
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PuBLisHErs 
10 axD 12 Dry STREET 


1884 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, 
By FUNK & WAGNALLS, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C. 











PREFACE 


BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


In Dr. Dickson's General Preface to the English Translation of Meycr’s 
Commentary on the New Testament, which is placed at the beginning 
of the volumes on the Epistle to the Romans, the following sentences 
descriptive of its character are found. ‘‘ In cstimating the character and 
value of Dr. Meyer’s work, it is essential that we should always bear in 
mind the precise standpoint from which it is written. That is simply 
and solely the standpoint of the exegete, who endeavours in the exercise 
of his own independent judgment to arrive, by the use of the proper 
means, at the historical sense of Scripture. Ilis object is not to seck 
support for the doctrines, nor does he bind himself or regulate his 
operations by the definitions or decisions, of any particular church. 
On the contrary, he reaches his results by a purely exegetical process, 
and places them, when so found, at the disposal of the Church.’’ In 
other words, his Commentary is what an exegetical commentary ought 
to be. For this reason, the introduction of this work, a few ycars since, 
to the knowledge of English and American students of the New Testa- 
ment who had no acquaintance with the language in which it was origi- 
nally written, was an event of much significance in the progress of Bibli- 
cal learning. In our own country, by reason of the peculiar circum- 
stances of our history, the study of Theology began, and for a long 
period was carried forward, almost wholly on the doctrinal and philo- 
sophical side. A few scholars, indeed, like Moses Stuart and Josiah W. 
Gibbs, investigated the Scriptures in the purely exegetical way, and thus 
became leaders in the right path. But itis only within the last quarter 
of a century that such investigation has made its great adva:ce move- 
ment among us and assumed for itself its proper relative position. That 
the effect of German scholarship in this department of study has been 
greatly beneficial to our Theology cannot be questioned. It has tended 
directly and strongly to the end of bringing us to the immediate, fair- 
minded, intelligent examination of the New Testament words, and to 
the interpretation of them, as the thing of primary importance, according 


lV PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


to strict grammatical and linguistic principles. No better example of the 
right method of explaining and commenting has ever been presented to 
the student than that which Meyer has given. [Hc was eminently fitted, 
both by his learning and his spirit, to be an interpreter of the Apostolic 
writings, and, like all candid and large-hearted seekers after the truth, 
he entered more fully into the possession of its treasures as the years of 
his life moved onward. The knowledge and influence of such a commen- 
tator’s writings are of peculiar value in the stady of the Epistle to the 
Romans, in the atmosphere of which our theological thinking nceds 
continually to be brought to measure and adjust itsclf by the true prin- 
ciples of interpretation. 

The design of the publishers of the present edition of Meyer’s work 
is to place it within the reach of the largest possible number of theo- 
logical students and ministers, in order that the influence of its profound 
scholarship, its true methods, its honest truth-seeking purpose, its relig- 
ious spirit and its manly confidence in Christianity may be most widely 
extended. The commentary is printed in full and precise accordance 
with the English Translation—except that, in many instances, references 
to authorities and to Greek writers are transferred from the page to foot- 
notes—and by an arrangement with the English publishers. The 
translation of this volume was made, as indicated on the title-page, by 
the Rev. John C. Moore and the Rev. Edwin Johnson; the work of 
the former covering the first eight chapters, and that of the latter 
the remainder of the Epistle. The translation, it is believed, has com- 
mended itself to those who havo used it since its first publication. The 
Rev. Dr. William P. Dickson, of the University of Glasgow, was the 
auperintending editor of the work when this portion of it was pre- 
pared, and the entire translation, so long as his editorship continued, 
was reviewed and revised by him. As the Commentary on the Romans 
was the first of the series which was published, Dr. Dickson introduced 
it by aGeneral Preface. This preface it has been thought proper to omit 
in this edition, inasmuch as the principal facts connected with Meyer’s 
life, which it contained, have been already stated in the volume on the 
Acts, edited by Dr. Ormiston, and because the Commentary is now so 
much better known than when it was first issued in Edinburgh, that such 
introductory words seem to be scarcely necessary. The Topical Index at 
the end of the volume has been prepared by the Rev. G. F. Behringer, 
of Brooklyn, N. Y., who has kindly exercised a gencral supervision of 
the work, while passing through the press. 

As to my own share in the present volume, as American Editor, I may 
be permitted to say a few words. The limitations of the volume have 
allowed me to add only about eighty pages of annotations. Within so 


PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Vv 


small a space it was manifestly impossible to consider with fulness or 
freedom all the points of interest which the Epistle presents, or even to 
set forth and establish by arguments the view which I hold of its character, 
its design and purpose, its line of thought, its circle of doctrinal teach- 
ing, or what, if the expression may be allowed me, I may call its peculiar 
Paulinism. The discussion of these and other questions would demand 
a volume, which I hope that, at some future time, I may be able to 
prepare. All that 1 have attempted to do, at present, is to give some 
brief notes, at the close of cach chapter, upon words or sentences re- 
specting which it has scemed to me that suggestions might be helpful 
towards a true understanding of the Apostle’s meaning. In connection 
with the setting forth of this meaning, I have occasionally raised the 
inquiry whether Paul intended to declare a particular doctrine in a 
particular verse or passage, and have sometimes endeavored to show 
that he had no such intention. But I have not deemed it to be within 
my sphere in these annotations—a sphere which is purely exegetical— 
to affirm or to deny that any such doctrine belonged to the Pauline 
system. For this reason, also, as well as because the book is intended, 
as the English editor says in his Preface, for the professional scholar, 
who can endure in a writer some views with which he may not himself 
agree, I have not considered it necessary to discuss any doctrinal 
opinions to which Meyer has incidentally given expression in his re- 
marks upon points with which they have no vital and essential con- 
nection. I have purposcly made but few references in the notes to 
commentators and writers upon the Epistle. As I have long been en- 
gaged in the work of theological instruction in the department of New 
Testament Greek, it will not be supposed, I trust, that the omission is 
due to any want of reading the works of such writers, or of acknowledg- 
ment of what I have gained in my studies from their views or thoughts. 
Occasional allusions to some of the most recent authors appeared to me 
not inappropriate, but the limited space at my command rendered it im- 
practicable to mention names, as Meyer himself has done so constantly 
and abuudantly. The edition of Meyer’s work on the Epistle which was 
published about two ycars since by Dr, Bernhard Weiss has been referred 
to somewhat frequently, because it gives—where he differs from Meyer, 
as well as where he adds his assent to what Meyer had said—the views of 
the scholar who is, at present, perhaps more prominent than any other, 
in this line of studies, in Germany. It is a matter of satisfaction to me 
that in some important points, respecting which my own opinions were 
formed many years ago, [ find myself confirmed by the words of this 
very able writer. In some cases mentioned in my notes, on the other 
hand, where J am constrained to take a position opposite to his, I hope 


vl PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


that tlie reasons presented may be regarded as not unworthy of serious 
consideration. Ina number of these cases I have tho pleasing con- 
sciousness of standing with Meyer himself. 

If the few pages which I have inserted in this volume shall prove to 
be helpful to any students of the Pauline writings—especially, if they 
shall be viewed as, in any measure, deserving of a place in such near 
connection with the words and thoughts of a commentator whom I have 
long held in so much honour, I shall be glad to have had the privilege 
of associating my name, even in the most unpretending way, with his, 
as his work goes forth for a wider circulation among the clergy and 
the members of Theological Schools in our country. To thoso who have 
been connected with the Divinity School of Yale College during the 
past twenty-six years,—in whose life and work I have a personal and 
most friendly interest,—I commend the volume in all its parts. 


Timotny Dwiaar. 
Yate ConueceE, February 18, 1884. 


Norz.—In my own annotations, the edition of Meyer’s work by Weiss is com- 
monly referred to as Weiss ed. Mey. The letters T. R. are used to designate 
the Textus Receptus. The references to Winer’s Grammar are tu the American 
translation. I may state that, for the convenience of students, I have inserted 
the numbers of the pages of the American translations of both Buttmann’s and 
Winer’s Grammars, wherever Meyer has cited these works in his notes. In 
regard to other abbreviations, see page xxiv. 

The reader will allow me to correct one or two errors, which were accident- 
ally overlooked by me in revising the proof-sheets of my notes. In the first 
line of page 75, ‘‘oixovonovc), 80 etc.” should be read, instead of ‘‘ olx). So etc.” 
In the seventh line of page 79, for ‘‘ Gal. iii.” read Gal. v. On page 108, Note 
XX., line 7, for ‘‘to the approving” read ‘‘of the approving.’’ Page 254, lino 
3, for ‘‘ ver. 20°’ read ‘‘v. 20," and page 255, line 2, for ‘‘ vv. 12-19" read ‘‘v. 
12-19,” and at the end of Note LXXIII. read “ver. 20” for “‘ ver. 19." On 
the other hand, on page 294, line 15 of Note LXXXVI., for “‘ v. 25” read “‘ ver. 
25." On page 289, Note LXXVII. in the last two lines let the words “‘ first” 
and ‘‘ second” exchange places. These cases include all, I think, which are 
of any importance and which the reader will, without trouble, adjust for 
himself, T. D. 


PREFACE 


SPECIALLY WRITTEN BY THE AUTHOR FOR THE ENGLISH 
EDITION. 


Ir cannot but be of great importance in the interests of a thorough, 
sure, and comprehensive knowledge, that the results of progressive 
effort and research in the wide domain of the sciences should be 
mutually exchanged and spread from people to people, and from tongue 
to tongue. In this way of a living fellowship of mind, penetrating to 
the farthest limits of civilization, the various scientific peculiarities of 
national development and culture are necessarily more and more elevated 
into common property as regards their excellences, while their several 
defects and shortcomings are reciprocally compensated and supplied ; and 
thus the honest efforts and labours of individuals, pressing forward in com- 
mon towards a deeper and clearer knowledge, are at once encouraged by 
their mutual respect and stimulated by a generous rivalry. Especially, 
and in an eminent degree, does this hold true within the sphere devoted 
to the highest object of human effurt—the sphere of scientific theology. 
To the cultivation of-this science, in accordance with its healthy life 
springing from the Divine Word and with its destination embracing time 
and eternity, belongs in an eminent sense the noble vocation of applying 
every gift received from God freely and faithfully to the service of the 
great whole—the building up of His kingdom. In its view the nations 
with their various characteristic powers, capacities, and tongues, are 
members of the one body, to which they are to hail each other as 
belonging in the fellowship of the one IIead, which is Christ, and of the 
one Spirit, whose motions and influences are not restrained by any limits 
of nation or of language. 

From this point of view it cannot but be in every sense a matter for 
congratulation that in our day more than formerly those literary works 
of German theology, which have on their native soil obtained a fair 
position in the literature of the science to which they relate, should by 
translation into the English tongue have that more extended field opened 


Wl PREFACE TO THE ENGLISII EDITION. 


up to them, whose only limit is the ever-increasing diffusion and prev- 
alence of that Janguage in both hemispheres. Thus German theological 
labor goes forth into the wide world ; becomes at home in distant lands 
and in a foreign dress ; communicates what has been given to it, in 
order, by the mutual working of the Spirit, to receive in its turn from 
abroad ; stimulates so far aa in it lies, in order that it may itself find 
stimulus and furtherance, instruction and correction ; and in all this lends 
its aid, that the divided theological strivings of the age and the various 
tendencies of religious national character may be daily brought closer 
together, and united in the eternal focus of all genuine science, which 
is truth and nothing but truth—and in the realm of theology the high- 
est truth of all, that of divine revelation. 

In the transplanting of the literary products of German theology to 
the soil of the English language the well-known publishing house of the 
Messrs. T. & T. Clark, of Edinburgh, have carned special distinction ; 
and their efforts, supported by select and able professional scholars, have 
already found, and continue increasingly to find, an appreciation cor- 
responding to their merits both in British and American circles. I have 
therefore readily and willingly given my consent to the proposal of the 
above-mentioned honorable publishers to set on foot and to issue an 
English translation of my Commentary on the New Testament ; and 
with no less readiness have my esteemed German publishers, Vanden- 
hoeck and Ruprecht in Gottingen, declared their agreement to it, I 
earnestly wish that the version thus undertaken, the first portion of 
which is given to the public in the present volume, may not fail to 
receive, in the field of the English Janguage and of the science which it 
represents, an indulgent and kindly reception, such as, during a long 
series of years, has been accorded to the German work by the German 
theological public. And if I venture to couple with this wish some 
measure of a hope corresponding to it, Iam induced to do so simply 
: by the fact that even in the German idiom these works have already 
found their way, in no inconsiderable numbers, both to England and 
America. 

Respecting the object and intention of my Commentarics no special 
explanation is needed, since, in point of fact, these are obvious on the 
face of them. They aim at exactly ascertaining and establishing on due 
grounds the purely historical sense of Scripture. This aim is so clear 
and so lofty, that all the produce of one’s own thoughts and subjective 
speculation must fall entirely into the background, and must not be 
allowed to mix up anything of its own with what objectively stands 
forth in the revelation of the New Testamont and simply seeks to be 
understood justas itstands. For exegesis is a historical science, because 





PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. 1x 


the sense of Scripture, the investigation of which is its task, can only be 
regarded and treated as an historical fact; us positively given, it can 
only be known, proved, established, and set forth so as to be clearly and 
surcly understood, by the positive method of studying the grammar, the 
usus loguendi, and the connection in detail as well as in its wider and. 
widest sense. Exegetical research therefore cannot regard any defini- 
tions of the doctrinal system of a Church as binding or regulative for its 
operations, as if forsooth, in cases where the Confession has spoken, its 
duty were to seek only what it was @ prior: directed to seck, and there- 
upon to find only what it so seeks. No! it is just when perfectly 
unprejudiced, impartial, and free—and thus all the more consciously 
and consistently guided simply and solely by those historically given 
factors of its science —that it is able with genuine humility to render to 
the Church, so far as the latter maintains its palladium in the pure Word 
of God, real and wholesome service for the present and the future. 

Unhappily the Church of Rome, by its unchangeable tradition beyond 
the pale of Scripture, and now completely by its Vaticanum, has refused 
to receive such service in ali points affecting its peculiar doctrine. But 
with the Evangelical Church it is otherwise. However deep may be 
the heavings of conflicting eloments within it, and however long may be 
the duration of the painful throes which shall at last issue—according to 
the coansel of God and when His hour has comc—in a happier time for 
the Church when men’s minds shall have attained a higher union, the pure 
word of Scripture, in its historical truth and clearness and in its world- 

subduing divine might, disengaged from every addition of human 

scholasticism and its dividing formulae, must and shall at length become 

once more a wonderful power of peace unto unity of faith and love. 

The Evangelical Church bears inalienably in its bosom the Word as the 

living and imperishable leaven of that final development. 

Such is the ideal goal, which the scientific exposition of Scripture, 
while it desires nothing else than to elucidate and further the true his- 
torical understanding of Scripture, may never lose sight of in regard to 
the Church, which is built on the Word. But how limited is the meas- 
ure of the attainments and of the gifts conferred upon the individual ! 
and how irresistibly must it impel him, in the consciousness of his 
fragmentary contributions, to the humbling confession, ‘‘ Not as though 
I had already attained !’’ Nevertheless Iet each strive faithfully and 
honestly, according to what has been given to him, for that noble goal 
in the field of Scripture-science, in firm assurance that God can bless 
even what is little and be mighty in what is weak. And so may the 
gracious God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ accompany my hum. 
ble labors on His Word, as they are now going forth in the dress of 


» ¢ PREFACE TO THE ENGLISYN EDITION. 


another lancuage to far distant brethren, with the blessing on which 
all success depends, that they may conduce to the knowledge of His 
Truth, to the service of His Church, and to the glory of His Holy 
Name. 

Dr. HEIN. AUG. WILH. MEYER, 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH. 
HaNNOVER, March, 1873. 


PREFACE 


TO THE GERMAN EDITION. 


Forty years have now elapsed since my Commentaries on the New 
Testament were first given to the public. The first edition of the first 
volume—the weak commenceinent—appeared in January, 1832. A 
scientific work, which has passed through a long course of development 
and still continues that course, has always a history—a biography—of 
its own, which of course is intimately interwoven with that of its author. 
Yet in this retrospect I can only be filled with praise and thanksgiving 
to the divine grace ; of myself I have nothing to say. The indulgence 
of friendly readers, which I have experienced so long, will not, 1 hope, 
fail to be still extended to me, when my day’s work is drawing to its end. 

This fifth edition of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is 
based—as was of course to be expected, and may be inferred from the 
increase in the number of the sheets—on a new and careful revision of 
the fourth edition, which was issued in 1865. This enlargement— 
although in particular instances much has been abridged or even deleted - 
—could not be avoided, if on the one hand the more recent publications 
relating to the Epistle were to meet with due attention,’ and if on the 


1 T could not take into consideration the treatise of Dr. Eklund : ‘ adp£ vo- 
cabulum, quid ap. Paulum sigqnificet,’’ Lund, May, 1872, which, cautiously pro- 
ceeding by a purely exegetical method, in the definition of the ethical side of 
that notion arrives substantially at the explanation of Augustine and Luther— 
a result, nevertheless, in which I am still precluded from concurring, as regards 
the Epistle to the Romans, by the contrast of cupf and voic, as well as that of 
coups and the moral éydé in ch, vii.—I must here also make supplementary 
mention of Hilgenfeld’s dissertation ‘* Petrusin Rom und Johannes in KI. Asien” 
(Zeitschrift, 1872. 3); in it he declares himself in favor of the nearly contem- 
porary martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome as a historically accredited fact, 
and, as I must still even after the doubts of Lipsius assume, with just reason, 
even as respects its independence of the Simon legend.—During the very 
printing of this Preface there have come into my hands the two dissertations 
by Harmsen, who defends the reference of the doxology in ix. 5 to God, and 
Hilgenfeld, who maintains the genuineness of chapters xv, and xvi. (in the 
latter’s Zeitschrift, 1872. 4). 


Xi PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. 


other hand the general plan of the book—according to which it has to 
provide along with the exposition itself a critical view of the interpreta- 
tions contrasting with it, und so of the detailed history of the exegesis 
—was to be preserved. 

But on what portion of the New Testament could the Jabour and 
troubic—which are being continually renewed, wherever exegetical sci- 
ence conscientiously strives to reach its pure and clear historic aim—be 
less spared than on this, the grandest and richest in contents of all the 
Apostle’s letters? Especially at the present time. The Epistle to the 
Romans still stands forth as a never silent accuser confronting the Ro- 
man ecclesiasticism, which has strained to the uttcrmost spiritual arro- 
gance in the dethroned head, and Loyolist submissiveness in the mem- 
bers, of its hierarchy (perinde ac si essent cadavera) ; it is still the stead- 
fast divine charter of the Reformation, as formerly our Luther found 
mainly in it the unyielding fulerum by the aid of which he upheaved 
the firmly-knit Roman structure from its old foundations. Amidst the 
vehement and pretentious conflicts, which continually surround us in the 
field of evangelic belief, we still have in this Epistle—just because it sets 
clearly before us the pure apostolic Gospel in its deepest and most com- 
prehensive scope—the clearest and most prominent criterion for the rec- 
ognition of what belongs to the pith and marrow of the Confession, in 
order that we may distinguish with steadfast eye and conscience that 
which is essential from all the fleeting, temporary, controversial or 
scholastic forms, with which it has become connccted and interwoven 
through the historical relations of ecclesiastical symbols ; a distinction, 
to which even the Introduction to the Formula Concordiae, although 
this most of all bears the theological impress of the time, significantly 
enough points, and which better meets the exigencies of the restless 
present than the overbearing cry—recklessly transcending limit or meas- 
ure—after unity of doctrine, which yet does not remove or even 80 
much as conceal the dissensions among the criers themeclves. The 
unity which they desire—were it uniformly established, as it were in the 
lamp, for ald doctrinal definitions of the Confession—would be Roman, 
and the very negation of truth and truthfulness in the church, because 
it would be contrary to the freedom of conscience tn the understanding 
of Scripture, which has its ground and support, its standard and 
limit, and the holy warrant of its upright confidence, not beyond the 
pale of Scripture, but tn it, and in it alone. 

Let us only advance with clearness along the straight path of pure 
historical exegesis, in virtue of which we have always to receive what 
Scripture gives to us, and never to give to it aught of our own. Other- 
wise we run a risk of falling into the boundless maze of an interpreta- 


PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. xill 


tion of Scripture at our own pleasure, in which artificial and violent ex- 
pedients are quickly enough resorted to, with a view to establisn results 
which are constructed from foregone premisses, and to prucure doctrines 
which are the creations—obtruded on Scripture—of a self-made world of 
thought and its combinations. Exegetes of this sort—whose labours, 
we may add, are usually facilitated by a lack of sure and thorough phi- 
lological culture,' and of needful respect for linguistic authorities—have 
the dubious merit of provoking refutation more than others do, and 
thereby indirectly promoting the elucidation of the true sense of Script- 
ure. Yet they may, as experience shows, attain for a time an influence, 
especially over younger theologians who have not yet reached the stead- 
iness and soberness of mature exegetic judgment, by the charm of nov- 
elty and of a certain originality, as well as of a dialectic art, which veils 
its mistakes so that they they are not at once recognized—an influence 
under which good abilities are misled and learn to be content with ex- 
tracting from the words of Scripture a meaning which, originating from 
their own presuppositions, belongs really to themselves. Indeed, if 
such a mode of handling Scripture, with its self-deceptions and with its 
often very singniar caprices, could become dominant (which, looking to 
the present state and progress of science, 1 do not reckon possible), 
there would be reason to fear that gradually the principle of Scripture 
authority, which preserved in its full objectivity is the aegis of the 
evangelical churches, would become zdlusory. All the worse and more 
confusing is it, when such an exegesis employs as the organ of present- 
ing and communicating its views a mode of expression, the quaint 
drapery of which hinders us from clearly discerning the substance of 
the meaning lying beneath it, and in fact frequently permits the effort 


1 We theologians are far too much given to neglect a comprehensive and 
precise knowledge of the Greek grammar. If the exegete of the present day 
supposes himself adequately furnished with such a Grammar as that of Rost 
(whose memory, as my former Gymnasial teacher, I gratefully revere) he is 
mistaken ; it is no longer sufficient. We ought not to overlook the progress of 
philology in the field of the classics, but should be diligent in turning to ac- 
count, for the New Testament, whatever the contributions of the present day 
furnish. Otherwise we neglect an eminently important part of our duty. I 
cannot but here recommend very urgently to the theologian, in the interest of 
pure exegesis, the second edition of Kihner’s Large Grammar (in two parts, 
1869-1872)—to which my citations will always henceforth refer—as the most 
complete and most solid work on the structure of the Greek language regarded 
from the present standpoint of science. This entirely remodelled edition isa 
glorious monument of thorough and comprehensive erudition, and of clear and 
ripe familiarity with the genius of the language of classic Hellenism. 


XIV PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. 


of translating it into current forms of speech, which cannot mislead, to 
be attended with but dubious success.’ 

For the critical remarks the part of the edttto octava of Tischendorf’s 
New Testament, which inciudes the present Epistle, was in good time 
to be turned to account. As it deviates in many cases from the editzo 
septima, and this diversity is partly duc to a modification of the critical 
principles adopted, I have deemed it advisable to specify not merely the 
readings of the octava, but also those of the septima. The one I have 
indicated by Zisch. (8), the other by Tisch. (7); but where the two 
editions agree, I put merely Zisch. 

With confidence then in God, who sits as Ruler and knows how to 
guide all things well, this work is left to make its way once more into 
the much agitated theological world. May IIe ward off harm, so far 
as it contains what is erroneous, and grant His blessing, so faras it may 
minister to the correct, unstinted, and undisguised understanding of His 
revealed Word. 


Dr. MEYER. 
HANNOVER, 24th July, 1872. 


1 In presence of such wretched evils of style we may be allowed to recall the 
simple rule, which the epigrammatist bids the rheturicians (Anthol. Pal. xi. 
144, 5 f.) lay to heart : 


Nowy droxeiobar dei toig ypaupas kati dpdov avrav 
elvat xotvotépay, Gore voeiv a Aéyecc. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


[For Commentaries, and collections of Notes, embracing the whole New 
Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. 
The following list includes works which deal with the Apostolic or the Pauline 
Epistles generally, or which treat specially of the Epistle to the Romans. 
Works mainly of a popular or practical character have, with a few exceptions, 
been excluded, since, however valuable they may be on their own account, they 
have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work. 
Several of the older works named are of little value ; others are chiefly doctri- 
nal or controversial. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed 
by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended 


denotes that the work has been more or less frequently reprinted. +marksthe ~ 


date of the author's death, c. = circa, an approximation to it.] 


ABpartarD (Peter), ¢ 1142, Scholastic : Commentariorum super 8. Pauli Episto- 
lam ad Romanos libri v. [Opera.] ; 
Avesius (or Hates] (Alexander), ¢ 1565, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Disputationes 
in Epistolam ad Romanos, cum P. Melancthonis pracfatione. 
8°, Vitemb. 1553. 
ALEXANDEB Natalis. See Nogx (Alexandre). 
ALTING (Jacobus), f 1679, Prof. Theol. at Gréningen : Commentarius theoreti- 
co-practicus in Epistolam ad Romanos. [Opera.] 2°, Amstel. 1686. 
AMBIANENSIS (Georgius), ¢ 1657, Capuchin monk at Paris : Trina Pauli theologia 
. . . 8e0 omnigena in universas Pauli epistolas conmmmentaria exegetica, 
tropologica et anagogica. - 2°, Paris. 1649-50. 
AMBROSIASTER [or PsEUDO-AmMBROsIUS], c. 380, generally identified with Hilarius 
aie Deacon: Commentarius in Epistolas xiii. B. Pauli. [(Ambrosii 
pera. ] 
ANsELMUs [or HERvEvs], c. 1100: Enarrationes in omnes S. Pauli Epistolas. 
2°, Paris. 1533. 
Aquinas (Thomas), + 1274, Scholastic : Expositio in omnes Epistolas S. Pauli. 
2°, Basil. 1476 al. 
ARzBorEvsS (Joannes), c. 1550, Prof. Theol. at Paris: Commentarius in omnes 


Pauli Epistolas, 2°, Paris. 1553. 
ARkETIUS (Benedictus), + 1574, Prof. Theol. at Berne: Commentarii in omnes 
Epistolas D. Pauli, et canonicas. 2°, Morgiis, 1683. 


Bavpury (Friedrich), + 1627, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Commentarius ino 
omnes Epistolas apostoli Pauli. . . (Separately, 1608-1630). 

4” Francof. 1644 al. 

Baumoarren (Sigmund Jakob), ¢ 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung des 


Briefes Pauli an die Réimer. 4° Halae, 1749. 
Baumoarten Crustus (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), ¢ 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena: 
Commentar zum Rimerbrief. 8°, Jena, 1844. 


Bepa Venerabilis, ¢ 735, Monk at Jarrow : Expositio in Epistolas Pauli [a Ca- 
tena from the works of Augustine, probably by Florus Lugdunensis, 
c. 852], et In Epistolas septem catholicasliber. (Opera.] 


xV1 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


BEELEN (Jean-Théodore), R. C. Prof. of Or. Lang. at Louvain : Commentarius 
in Epistolam 8S. Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Lovani, 1854. 
Bret (Joseph Agar), A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 
London, 1877. 
BetsHam (Thomas), f 1829, Unitarian minister in London: The Epistles of 
Paul the Apostle translated, with an exposition and notes. 
49°, Lond. 1822. 
BENECKE (Wilhelm), ¢ 1837, retired Hamburg merchant : Der Brief Paulian die 


Romer erliutert ; 8°, Heidelb. 1831. 
Translated .... 8°, Lond. 1854. 
Bisprne (August), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Minster : Exegetisches Handkuch zu 
den Briefen des Apostels Paulus. 8°, Minster, 1854-8 al. 


Bornme (Christian Friedrich), ¢ 1844, Pastor at Lucka near Altenburg: Epis- 
tola Pauli ad Romanos Graece cum commentariv perpetuo. 

8°, Lips. 1806. 

Brats (Etienne de), c. 1680, Prof. Theol. at Saumur : Epistolae Pauli ad Roma- 


nos analysis paraphrastica cum notis. 4°, Salmurii, 1670. 
Brent (Johann), + 1570, Provost at Stuttgard : Commentarius in Epistolam ad 
Romanos. 2° Francof. 1564 al. 


Brown (David), D.D., Prof. Theol. Free Church College, Aberdeen : Commen- 
tary on the Epistle to the Romans, embracing the last results of crit- 
icism. 12°, Glasg. 1860. 
Brown (John), D.D., ¢ 1858, Prof. Exeg. Theol. to the United Presbyterian 
Church, Edinburgh : Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul .. . 


to the Romans. 8°, Edin. 1857. 
Bruno, tf 1101, Founder of the Carthusian Order: Commentarius in omnes 
Epistolas Pauli. 2°, Paris. 1509. 
Bucer (Martin), ¢ 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge : Metaphrasis et enarratio 
in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 2°, Basil. 1562. 
BuGENHAGEN (Johann), f 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Interpretatio 
Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Hagenoae, 1523. 
BuLLINGER (Heinrich), ¢ 1575, Pastor at Zurich : Commentarii in omnes Epis- 
tolas apostolorum. 2°, Tiguri, 1537 al 


Casetanvs [Tommaso da Vio], f 1534, Cardinal : Epistolae 8. Pauli et aliorum 
‘apostolorum ad Graecam veritatem castigatae et juxta sensum literalem 
enarratae. 2°, Venet. 1531 al. 
Catixtus (Georg), ¢ 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt : Expositiones litterales in 
Epistolas ad Romanos, ad Corinthios priorem et posteriorem, ad Ga- 
latas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, ad Thessalonienses 
. et ad Titum. 4°, Helmstadii, 1664-66. 
Cavin (CHaAvviIn] (Jean), f 1564: Commentarii in omnes Epistolas Pauli apos- 
toli atque etiam Epistolam ad Ebraeos ; necnon in Epistolas canoni- 
cas, 2°, Genevae, 1551 al. 
CaPeLus [CapPE.] (Louis), f 1658. See Acts. 
Carpzov (Johann Benedict), ¢ 1803. Prof. Theol. and Greek at Helmstadt : 
Stricturae theologicae et criticae in Epistolam Pauli nad Romanos. . . 
8°, Helmstad. 1758. 
Casstoporvus (Magnus Aurelius), ¢ 563, Chancellor of the Ostrogoth empire : 
Complexiones in Epistolas apostolorum, in Acta et in Apocalypsim quasi 
brevissima explanatione decursas, .. . 8°, Florent. 1721 al. 
Catarino (Ambrogio). See Poxrtt (Lanzelotto), 
Cuautmers (Thomas), D.D., t 1847, Principal of F. C. College, Edinburgh : 
Lectures on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. 
12°, Glasg. 1842 al. 
Curysostomvs (Joannes), ¢ 407, Archbishop of Constantinople : Homiliaein Epis- 
tolas Pauli. [Opera.] 
CuxTragvs [or KocaHare] (David), f 1600, Prof. Theol, at Rostock : Epistola 
Pauli ad Romanos, brevi ac dialectica dispositione partium et gram- 
matica declaratione textus . . . explicata. 8°, n. p. 1599. 
CuavvDE (Jean), ¢ 1687, Minister at the Hague: Commentaire sur l'Epitre aux 
Romains. (Oeuvres. ] 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. XV. 


Contakri (Gaspare), tf 1542, Cardinal: Scholia in Epistolas Pauli. [Opera.] 
2°, Paris. 1571 al. 
ConTzEn (Adam), + 1618, Jesuit at Mentz : Commentaria in Epistolam S. Pauli 


ad Romanos. 2°, Colon. 1629. 
ConyBEARE (William John, M.A.), Howson (John Saul), D.D. : Life and Epis- 
tles of St. Paul. 4°, Lond. 1852 al. 


Cox (Robert), M.A., P. C. of Stonehouse, Devon: Horae Romanae, or an at- 
tempt to elucidate St, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by an original 


translation, explanatory notes, and new divisions. 8°, Lond. 1824. 
Cramer (Johann Andreas), ¢ 1788, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Der Brief Pauli an die 
Romer aufs neue tibersetzt und ausgelegt. 4°, Leip. 1784. 


Cretu (Johann), f 1633, Socinian teacher at Cracow : Commentarius in Fpis- 
tolam Pauli ad Romanos, ex praclectionibus ejus conscriptus a Jona 


Schlichtingio .. . 8°, Racov. 1636. 
CrucicER [CREUZINGER] (Kaspar), t 1548, Pastor at Leipzig : Commentarius in 
Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Vitemb. 1567. 


Date (John) : Analysis of all the Epistles of the New Testament. 12° Oxf. 1652. 
Damascenvs (Joannes), ¢t 754, Monk at S. Saba: Ex universa interpretatione 
J. Chrysostomi excerpta compendiaria in Epistolas 8S, Pauli. [Opera.] 
Deuirzscu (Franz), Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Briefan die Romer aus dem grie- 
chischen Urtext in das hebriische uebersetzt und aus Talmud und 


Midrasch erliutert, 8°, Leip. 1870. 
Dickson (David), ¢ 1662, Prof. Theol. at Glasgow and Edinburgh : Expositio ana- 
lytica omniym apostolicarum Epistolarum. .. . 4°, Glasg. 1645. 
and Analytical Exposition of all the Epistles. 20, Lond. 1659. 
Dretscx (August), Prof. in the Univ. at Bonn : Adam und Christus. Rém. V. 
12-21. 8° Bonn, 1871. 


Drev (Louis de), + 1642, Prof. in the Walloon College at Leyden : Animadver. 
siones in Epistolam ad Romanos. Accessit spicilegium in reliquas 


ejusdem apostoli, ut et catholicas epistolas. 4°, Lugd, Bat. 1646. 
Dionysius CarRTHUSIANUS [DENYs DE RyckeEu], ft 1471, Carthusian monk : Elu- 
cidissima in divi Pauli Epistolas commentaria. 8°, Paris. 1531. 


Epwarps (Timothy), M.A., Vicar of Okehampton, Devon: Paraphrase, with 

critical annotations on the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, with 

an analytical scheme of the whole. 4°, Lond. 1752. 

Est [Estrus] (Willem Hessels van), t 1613, R. C. Chancellor of Douay : In 
omnes beati Pauli et aliorum apostoloruam Epistolas commentarius. 

2°, Duaci, 1614-16, al. 

Ewa.p (Georg Heinrich August), Prof. Or. Lang. at Géttingen ; Die Sendschrei- 

ben des Apostels Paulus tibersetzt und erklart. 8°, Gotting. 1857. 

Ewsank (William Withers), M.A., Incumbent at Everton : Commentary on the 


pistle of Paul to the Romans... 8°, Lond. 1850-51. 
Faser Stapulensis (Jacobus) [Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples], f 1536, resident at 
Nerac : Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli .. . 2°, Paris. 1512 al. 

Farrar (F. W.), Canon of Westminster: The Life and Works of St. Paul. 
Lond. 1879. 
Taye (Antoine de la), f 1616, Prof. at Geneva : Commentarius in Epistolam ad 
Romanos. 8°, Genevae, 1608. 


Feuz (Jon), + 1686, Bishop of Oxford : A Paraphrase and annotations upon all 
the Epistles of St. Paul, by Abraham Woodhead, Richard Allestry and 
Obadiah Walker. Corrected and improved by Dr. John Fell. [First 


issued anonymously in 1675. ] 8°, Lond. 1708. 
Ferme (Charles), + 1617, Principal of Fraserburgh College: Analysis logica in 
Epistolam ad Romanos. 12°, Edin. 1651 al. 
Fervs (Witp) (Johannes), + 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz: Exegesis in 
Epistolam Paulli ad Romanos, 8°, Paris. 1559. 
FEUARDENT (Francois), ¢ 1612, Franciscan preacher at Paris : Commentarius i in 
Epistolam ad Romanos. 8°, Paris. 1599. 


Friart (Johann Friedrich von), ¢ 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tibingen : "Vorlesungen 


xVlil EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


tiber den Brief Pauli an die Rémer, herausgegeben von Ch. D. F. Hoff- 
mann. 8°, Tibing. 1825. 

Fiorvs Lugdunensis, c. 852. See Bena. 
Forses (John), LL. D., Prof. of Oriental Languages at Aberdeen: Analytical 
commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, tracing the train of thought 
by the aid of parallelism. 8°, Edinb. 1868. 
FrirzscHeE (Kari Friedrich August), t 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Pauli ad 
Romanos Epistola. Recensuit et cum commentariis perpetuis edidit. 
8°, Halis, 1836-43. 
Fromonp (Libert), + 1653, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Louvain : Commentarius in om- 
nes Epistolas Pauli apostoli et in septem canonicas aliorum aposto- 
lorum epistolas. 2°, Lovan, 1663 al, 


GaGNEE (Jean de), f 1549, Rector of the University of Paris: Brevissima et 
facillima in omnes divi Pauli et canonicas epistolas scholia. 
8°, Paris. 1543 al. 
GERHARD (Johann), f 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Adnotationes posthumae in 
Epistolam ad Romanos, cum Analectis Jo. Ernesti Gerhardi. 
4°, Jenae. 1666 al. 
Girrorp (EK. H.), Rector of Much Hadham : Introduction, Commentary, and 
Critical Notes on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. III. of Bible Com- 
mentary, edited by F. C. Cook, Canon of Exeter. Lond. 1881. 
GLécKLER (Conrad} : Der Brief des Apostel Paulus an die Rémer erklart. 
8°, Frankf.-a.-M. 1834. 
Gopet (F.) Prof., in the Theol. Faculty at Neuchatel : Commentaire sur!’ Epitre 
aux Romains. 8°, Paris. 1879-80. 
Translated by A. Cusin. Edinburgh, 1881.] 
Gomar (Francois), + 1641, Prof. Theol. at Gréningen: Analysis et explicatio 
Epistolarum Pauli ad Romanos, Gal. Philipp. Coloss. Philem. He- 
braeos. ([Opera.] 2°, Amstel. 1644. 
GraFeE (Ed.): Ueber Veranlassung und Zweck des Rémerbriefes. 
Freiburg, 1881. 
GRONEWEGEN (Henricus), + 1692, Minister at Enkhuizen : Vytleginge van den 
Zendbrief Paulli aan de Romeynen. 4°, Gorinchen, 1681. 
GUALTHER [WALTHER] (Rudolph), + 1586, Pastor at Zurich: Homiliae in om- 
nes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Tiguri, 1599. 
GuILLiaup (Claude), + 1550, Theological Lecturer at Autun : Collationes in om- 
nes Epistolas Pauli. 4°, Lugd. 1542 al. 


HaupanE (Robert), of Airthrey, + 1842 : Exposition of the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans, with remarks on the Commentaries of Dr. Macknight, Prof. 
Tholuck, and Prof. Moses Stuart. 12°, Lond. 1842 al. 

Hayrmo, + 853, Bishop of Halberstadt [or Remiarus] : Commentarius in Epis- 
tolas 8S. Pauli. 2°, Paris, 1556 al. 

HEmMMING (or HEMMINGSEN] (Niels), + 1600, Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Com- 
mentaerius in omnes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Lips. 1572 al. 

Hemsen (Johann Tychsen), + 1830, Prof. Theol. at Gédttingen: Der Apostel 
Paulus, sein Leben, Wirken, und siene Schriften herausgegeben von 


F. Luecke. , 8°, Gotting. 1830. 
HeENGEL (Wessel Albert van), Prof. Theol. in Leyden: Interpretatio Epistolae 
Pauli ad Romanos. 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1854-9. 


Hervevs Dotenss, c. 1130, Benedictine. See AnsELMus. 
Hesuvstus (Tilemann), + 1588, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt : Commentarius in 


omnes Epistolas Pauli. 2°, Lips. 1605. 
Hirstep (Johann), + 1681, Prof. in Gymnasium at Bremen: Collationes phi- 
lologicae in Epistolam ad Romanos. 49 Bremae, 1675. 
Honae (Charles), D.D., Prof. Theol. at Princeton : Commentary on the Epis- 
tle to the Romans. 8°, Philadelphia, 1835 al. 


Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die 
Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhiéngend untersucht. 
III. Theil. Brief an die Romer. 8°, Nérdlingen, 1868. 
Ho.sten (C.): Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus. Rostock, 1868. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. xix 


Hvoo pe 8. Vicrorg, f 1141, Monk at Paris : Quaestiones circa Epistolas Pauli. 


(Opera. 
Hyperius [GERHARD] (Andreas), +1564, Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Commentarii 
in Pauli Epistolas. 2°, Tiguri, 1583. 


JaTHO (Georg Friedrich) : Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim : Pauli Brief 
an die Rémer nach seinem inneren Gedankengange erliutert. 

8°, Hildesheim, 1858-9. 

Jowett (Benjamin), M.A., Master of Balliol College, Oxford : The Epistles of 

St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, with critical notes 

and dissertations. 8°, Lond, 1855. 

J USTINIANI [GrusTINIANI] (Benedetto), + 1622, S. J. Prof. Theol. at Rome : Ex- 
planationes in omnes Pauli Epistolas [e¢ in omnes catholicas]. 

2°, Lugd. 1612-21. 


KusTEMAKER (Johann Hyazinth), ¢ 1834, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Minster: Die 

Sendschreiben der Apostel (und die Apocalypse), tibersetzt und erklirt. 

8°, Miinster, 1822-3. 

Kiger (Heinrich), + 1840, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Minich : Commentar iiber des 

Apostel Pauli Sendschreiben an die Rémer. 8°, Mainz, 1830. 

Knicut (Robert): A Critical Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle 

to the Romans. 8°, Lond. 1854. 

KLosTeRMANN (August), Prof. in the Univ. at Kiel : Korrekturen zur bisherigen 

Erklaérung des Rémerbriefes, Gotha, 1868. 

KO6OuLNER (Wilhelm Heinrich Dorotheus Eduard), c. 1850, Prof. Theol. at Gét- 
tingen : Commentar zu dem Briefe des Paulus an die Rémer. 

8°, Darmst. 1834. 

KREHL (August Ludwig Gottlob), ¢ 1855, Prof. Pract. Theol. at Leipzig: Der 

Brief an die Romer ausgelegt. 8°, Leip. 1849. 


LanFRanc, + 1089, Archbishop of Canterbury : Commentarii in omnes D. Pauli 
Epistolas. [Opera.]} 
Laripe (Cornelius 4) [VAN DEN STEEN], + 1637, S. J. Prof. of Sacred Scriptare 
at Louvain : Commentaria in omnes D. Pauli Epistolas. 
2°, Antwerp. 1614 eal. 
Lavnay (Pierre de), Sieur dela Motte : Paraphrase et exposition sur les Epistres 
de S. Paul. 4°, Saumur et Charenton, 1647-50. 
LzEuUWEN (Gerbrand van), a Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Verhandeling 
van den Sendbrief Paulli aan de Romeynen. 4°, Amst. 1688-99. 
Lewis (Thomas), M.A.: The Life and Epistles of S. Paul. 8°, Lond. 1851. 
Lo«asorcn (Philipp van), + 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Com- 
meptarius in Acta Apostolorum et in Epistolas ad Romanos et ad 
Ebraeos. 2°, Roterod. 1711. 
Livermore (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati: The Epistle of Paul to the 
Romans, with a commentary and revised translation, and introductory 


essays. 12°, Boston, 1855. 
Locke (John), + 1704. See GanaTians. 
Lomparpvus (Petrus), + 1160, Scholastic: Collectanea in omnes Epistolas D. 


Pauli ex. SS. Patribus. 2°, Paris. 1535 al. 
Lucut (H.): Uber die beiden letzten Kapite] des Rémerbriefes. Eine Kritische 
Uutersuchung. 8°, Berlin, 1871. 


MacxnicuT (James), D.D., + 1800, Minister at Edinburgh : A new literal trans- 
lation . . . of all the apostolical Epistles, with a commentary and 
notes, philological, critical, explanatory and practical... 

4°, Bdin. 1795 al. 

Marer (Adalbert), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg: Commentar iiber den Brief 
Pauli an die Rémer. 8°, Freiburg, 1847. 

Mancotp (Wilhelm), Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Der Rémerbrief und die Anfinge 
der Rémischen Gemeinde. Eine kritische Untersuchung. 1866. 
Also, Der Rémerbrief und seine geschichtliche Voraussetzungen, 1884. 

Marbarg. 


Xx EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


Martyr (Peter) [VERMIGLI], + 1562, Prof. Theol. at Strasburg : In Epistolam ad 

Romanos commentarii . . 2°, Basil. 1558, al. 
Mesninea (H. J. F.): Der Brief Pauli an die Rémer uebersetzt und erklirt. 

8°, Stettin, 1859. 

MELANCHTHON (Philipp), ¢ 1560, Reformer: Adnotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad 


Romanos, et Corinthios. . . 4°, Basil, 1522. —- Commentarii in Ep. 
Pauli ad Romanos. 8? Argent. 1540. ~-Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos 
scriptae enarratio ... 8°, Vitemb. 1556 al. 


MELVILLE (Andrew), + 1622, Principal of St. Mary's College, St.Andrews : Com- 
mentarius indivinam Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos .. . 

8°, Edin. 1849. 

Momma (Willem), + 1677, Pastor at Middelburg : Meditationes posthumae in 

Epistolas ad Romanos et Galatas. 8°, Hag. Com. 1678. 

Morison (James), D.D. Prof. Theol. to the Evangelical Union, Glasgow: An 

exposition of the Ninth chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 8°, 

Kilmarnock, 1849. And A critical exposition of the Third chapter... 

8°, Lond. 1866. 

Moxvs (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Prae- 

lectiones in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Cum ejusdem versione 

Latina, locorumque eee N. T. difficilioram interpretatione. 

Ed. J .T. 8. Holzapfe 8°, Lips. 1794. 

Movscu.vs for Mevssiin] (Wolfgang), ¢ 1563, Prof. Theol. in Berne: In Epis- 

tolam ad Romanos commentarius. 2°, Basil. 1555 al. 


NIELSEN (Rasmus), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Der Brief Pauli an die Rémer 

entwickelt . 8°, Leip. 1843. 

Nozxt (Alexandre) (Narazis], + 1724, Dominican teacher of Church History 
at Paris : Expositio litteralis et moralis in Epistolas D. Pauli. 

2°, Paris. 1710. 


OxcumeEntvs, c. 980, Bishop of Tricca : Commentaria in Acta Apostoloraum, in 
omnes Pauli Epistolas, in Epistolas catholicas omnes .. . 

2°, Veronae, 1532 al. 

OLTRAMARE (Hugues), Minister at Geneva: Commentaire sur 1’ Epitre aux 

Romains. [I—V. 11.] 8°, Geneve, 1843. 

ORIGENES, eh. 254, Catechete at Alexandria: Fragmenta in Epistolas Pauli 


ra. J 
Osorio derte eronymo), f 1580, Bishop of Sylvas : In Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos 
libri quatuor. ([Opera.] 2°, Romae, 1592. 


Parevs [or WAENGLER] (David), + 1622, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Commen- 
tarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. 4°, Francof. 1608 al. 

Pavuuus (Heinrich Eberhard Georg), + 1851. See Gaxarians. 

Prre (Thomas Williamson), D.D., Vicar of Luton : Annotations on the apos- 
tolical Epistles, designed chiefly for the use of students of the Greek 


toxt. 8°, Lond. 1848-52. 
Pexacrus, c. 420, British monk : Goaninentarit: in Epistolas 8S. Pauli. [Hierony- 
mi Opera. } 
Puri (Friedrich Adolph), Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Commentar iiber den 
Brief an die Romer. 8°, Erlangen and Frankf. 1848-52. 
[Translated from the 3d ed. by J. S. Banks. Edinburgh, 1879.] 


Pricquieny (Bernardin) [BERNARDINUvS A Piconto], Cistercian monk : Epistolarum 
Pauli triplex expositio, cum analysi, paraphrasi et commentariis. 
2°, Paris. 1703. 
Pourtr (Lanzelotto) [AmsrRocio Catarrno], + 1553, Archbishop of Conza : Com- 
mentarius in omnes divi Pauli et alias septem canonicas Epistolas. 
2°, Romae, 1546 al. 
Possett (August), c. 1715, Pastor at Zittau: Richtige Erklirong der Epistel 
Pauli an die Rémer... 4° Zittau, 1696, 
Prmastivs, c. 550, Bishop of Adrumetum : Commentaria in Epistolas Pauli. 
(Bibl. Max. Patrum. X.] 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. XX1 


Przrzcov or Przypxowsxy (Samuel), + 1670, Socinian teacher : Cogitationes 
sacrae ad omnes Epistolas apostolicas. 

2°, Eleutheropoli [Amstel.], 1692. 

Purpvur (Edward), M.A, : A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, with a 

revised translation. 8°, Dubl. 1855. 

Pyiz (Thomas), D.D., + 1756, Vicar of Lynn: A Paraphrase, with some notes 

on the Acts of the Apostles and on all the Epistles of the New Tes- 

tament. 8°, Lond. 1725 al. 


QuistorP (Johann), + 1648, Superintendent at Rostock : Commentarius in omnes 
Epistolas Paulinas. 4° Rostoch, 1652. 


Rananus Maovrvs, + 856, Archbishop of Mentz: Enarrationum in Epistolas B. 
Pauli libri triginta. [Opera.] | 
RampacH (Johann Jakob), A 1735, Superintendent in Giessen: Ausfihrliche 
und griindliche Erklarung der Epistel Pauli an die Rémer. 
49°, Bremae, 1738. 
Introductio historico-theologica in Ep. P. ad Romanos, cum Martini 
Lutheri Praefatione variis observationibus exegeticis illustrata. 
8°, Halae, 1727. 
REIcHE C ohann Georg), Prof. Theol. in Gdttingen: Versuch einer ausfihr- 
ichen Erklarung des Briefes Pauli an die Rémer, mit historischen 
Einleitungen und exegetisch-dogmatischen Excursen. 
. 8°, Gdtting. 1833-4. 
Commentarius criticus in Novum Testamentum, quo loca graviora et 
difficiliora lectionis dubiae accurate recensentur et explicantur. 
Tom. I.—II. Epistolas Paulinas et catholicas continentes. 
4° et 8°. Gotting. 1853-62. 
RerrnMayrr (Franz Xaver), aces R. C. Prof. Theol. at Munich : Commentar 
zum Briefe an die Rémer. 8°, Regensburg, 1845. 
Remierus (of Auxerre), +899. See Harmo. 
Ro.tiock (Robert), + 1598, Principal of the University of Edinburgh: Analysis 
dialectica in Pauli apostoli Epistolam ad Romanos... 
8° Edin. 1594 al. 
Rorue (Richard), Prof. Theol. in Heidelberg: Neuer Versuch einer Auslegung 


der Paulinischen Stelle Rémer V. 12-21. 8°, Wittenberg, 1836. 
Rfickert (Leopold Immanuel), c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Commentar tiber 
den Brief an die Rémer. 8°, Leip. 1831. 


Sapatrer (A.): L’Ap6tre Paul. Esquisse d’une histoire de sa pone = 
ris, 1881. 
Sapo.eTo (Jacopo), + 1547, Cardinal : Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. 
8°, Venet. 1536 al. 
ee ee + 1585, Jesuit: Commentarii in Epistolas 8S. Pauli. 
pera. 

Sanpay (William), Principal of Hatfield Hall, Durham: The Epistle to the Ro- 
mans. In Vol. II. of New Testament Commentary for English Read- 
ers. Edited by C. J. Ellicott, Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 

London. 

Scuarr (Philip), Prof. in Union Theol. Sem. New York: A Popular Commen- 
tory on the New Testament by English and AmericanScholars. Vol. III, 
The Epistle to the Romans. By Profs. Philip Schaff and Matthew B. 
Riddle. New York, 1882. 

ScHLICHTING (Jonas), + 1664. See Creit (Johann). 

Scummp (Sebastian), + 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg : Commentarii in Epis- 
tolas Pauli ad Romanos, Galatas et Colossenses, una cum paraphrasi 
epistolae prioris ad Corinthios, utriusque ad Thessalonicenses, prioris 
ad Timotheum, epistolae ad Philemonem et cantici Mariae. [Pre- 
viously issued separately. } 4°, Hamb. 1704. 

Scamp (Christian Friedrich), + 1778, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Annotationes 
in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, philologicae, theologicae et criticae. 

8°, Lips. 1777. 


xxi EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


Scuott (Theodor): Der Rémerbrief seinem Endzweck und seinem Gedanken- 


gang nach ausgelegt. 8°, Erlangen, 1858. 
Seputius Scotus Hiberniensis, c. 800?: In omnes 8. Pauli epistolas collec- 
taneum. 2°, Basil. 1528. 


SeMLeR (Johann Salomon), + 1791, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Paraphrasis Epistolae 

Pauli ad Romanos cum notis et translatione vetusta. 8°, Halis, 1769. 

SELNECCER (Nicolaus), + 1592, Prof. Theol. in Leipzig: In omnes Epistolas 

Pauli apostoli commentarius plenissimus. 2°, Lips. 1598. 

SHEppD (William G. T.), Prof. Theol. in New York: A Critical and Doctrinal 
Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. 

New York, 1879. 

SHUTTLEWoORTH (Philip Nicholas), D.D., Bishop of Chichester: A Paraphrastic 

translation of the apostolical Epistles, with notes. 8°, Oxf. 1829 al. 

S.apE (James), + 1860, Rector of West Kirby : Annotations on the Epistles ; 

being a continuation of Mr. Elsley’s Annotations. 8°. Lond. 1824 al. 

Soro (Domingo de), f 1560, Prof. Theol. at Salamanca : Commentarius in Epis- 


tolam Pauli ad Romanos. 2°, Antverp. 1550. 

SpeNnER (Philipp Jakob), + 1705, Provost at Berlin: Auslegung des Briefes an 
die Rémer aufs neue herausg. von H. Schott. 8°, Leip. 1859 al. 
STEInHOFER (Friedrich Christoph), + 1761 : Erklarung des Epistel Pauli an die 
Rémer : mit einem Vorwort von J. T. Beck. 8°, Tiibing. 1851. 
STENGEL (Liborius), + 1835, R.C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg : Commentar tiber 
en Brief des Paulus andie Rémer.. . 8°, Freiburg, 1836. 


STENERSEN (Stener Johannes), + 1835, Prof. of Church History at Christiania : 
Epistolae Paulinae perpetuo commentario illustratae. Vol. I. Ep. ad 

Rom. Voll, Il. IIL. Epp. ad Corinth. IV. Ep. ad Galat. 
8°, Christiania, 1829-34. 
Stuart (Moses), + 1852, Prof. of Sacred Literature at Andover : A Commentary 
on the Epistle to the Romans, with a translation and various excur- 
sus... 8°, Andover, 1832 al. 


Taytor (John), D.D., + 1761, Minister at Norwich : A Paraphrase with notes on 
the Epistle to the Romans: to which is prefixed a Key to the apos- 
tolic writings. 4°, Lond. 17465 al, 

Trrrot (Charles Hughes), D.D., Bishop, Edinburgh: The Epistle to the 
Romans, with an introduction, paraphrase and notes. 8°, Lond. 1828. 

THEoporetvs, } c. 458, Bishop of Cyrus : Commentarius in omnes Pauli Epis- 
tolas. [Opera, ef.] 2°, Lond. 1636. 

Turoporvs, + 429, Bishop of Mopsuestia: Commentarii in Epistolas Pauli. 
ie eniroee in the Catenae, collected by Fritzsche: Theodori Mops. 

ommentaria in N, T. 1847. From Galatians to Philemon, in a Latin 
translation, incorporated in Rabanus Maurus. } 

Tueopuyxactvs, c. 1070, archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria: in D. Pauli Epis- 
tolas commentarius Graece et Latine cura A. Lindselli . . . 

2°, Lond. 1636 al. 

Tuo.uck (Friedrich August Gottreu), Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung des 
Briefes Pauli an die Rémer, nebst fortlaufenden Ausziigen aus den 
exegetischen Schriften der Kirchenviiter und Reformatoren. 8°, Berl. 
1824 al.—Translated by the Rev. Robert Menzies, D.D. ‘ 

8°, Edin. 1842. 


Tx (Salomon van), + 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : De Sendbrieven van Paullus 
aan de Romeinen en Filippensen, ontleedt, verklaardt en betoogt. 

4°, Haarlem, 1721. 

Commentarius in qnatuor Pauli Epistolas, nempe priorem ad Corin- 

thios, Ephesios, Philippenses, ac Colossenses. 4°, Amstel. 1726. 
TrrELMANN (Franz), 1553, Provincial of Capuchins at Rome: Elucidatio in 


omnes Epistolas apostolicas. 8°, Antwerp, 1532 al. 
To.etTvus [Francisco DE ToLEpDo], + 1596, 8. J. Cardinal : Commentarius et an- 
notationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 4°, Romae, 1602 al. 


Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., + 1861, Prof. of Biblical Interpretation at 
New York : The Epistle to the Romans, in Greek and English. With 
an analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1853, 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. XXxill 


Turret (Jean-Alphonse), + 1737, Prof. Theol. at Geneva: In Pauli ad 
Romanos Epistolae capita priora xi, praeloctiones criticae, theologicae 
et concinnatoriae. 4°, Lausannae, 1741. 


Uwpreir (Friedrich Wilhelm Karl), + 1860, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Der 
Brief an die Rémer, auf dem Grunde des Alten Testaments ausgelegt. 
8°, Gotha, 1856. 


Vanen (August), + 1684, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Paulus evangelista Roma- 

norum succincta divinissimae . . . Epistolae ad Romanos analysi et 

exegesi repraesentatus. 8°, Hamb. 1696. 

Vavuauan (Charles John), D.D., Master of the Temple : St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
Romans, with notes. 8°, Camb. 1857.—Third edition, enlarged. 

8°, Lond. and Camb. 1870. 

Virernaa (Kempe), + 1722, Prof. Theol. at Franeker ; Verklaringe over de agt 

eerste capittelen van de Brief Paulli aan de Romeinen. 

4°, Franek. 1729. 

Vouxkmark (Gustav) : Die neutestamenlichen Briefe, geschichtlich im Zusammen- 

hang erklirt. Band I. Paulus Rémerbrief. Die ilteste Text deutsch 

und im Zusammenhang erklart. Mit dem Wortabdruck der Vatican- 

ischen Urkunde. : Ziirich, 1875. 

Vorst (Koonrad), + 1629, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius in omnes 

Epistolas apostolicas, exceptis secunda ad Timotheum, ad Titum, ad 

Philemonem et ad Ebraeos. 49°, Amstel. et Harder. 1631. 


Watrorp (William), + 1850, Pastor at Uxbridge: Curae Romanae : notes on the 
Epistle to the Romans. 12°, Lond. 1846. 
Wernoart (Johann Friedrich), Pastor at Grossfahnern, Gotha : Commentarius 
perpetuus in Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos. [#{In decem Apostoli 
Pauli epistolas, quas vulgo dicunt epistolas minores, } 8°. Gothae, 1816. 
Wetnaicu (Georg), ¢ 1629, Prof. Theol. ut Leipzig: Commentarii in Epistolas 


Pauli. 4°, Lips. 1620. 
Weer (Jakob), + 1664, Chief Chaplain at Dresden : Adnotationes in Episto- 
m Pauli ad Romanos. . . collectae opera Jo. Schindleri. 


4°, Brunsvigae, 1654. 

Wrrseuer (Karl): Der. Abschnitt des Rémerbriefs vii. 7-25, exegetisch und 

biblisch-theologisch erklirt. Greifswald, 1875, 

Wier (Andrew), + 1621, Prebendary of Ely : Hexapla, that is, a sixfold com- 
mentarie upon the most divine Epistle . . . to the Romanes. 

2°, Lond. 1620. 

Wis0n (Thomas), c. 1620, Minister at Canterbury: A Commentary on the 

most divine Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. 4°, Lond. 1614 al. 

Winzzr (Julius Friedrich), ¢ 1845, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Adnotationes ad 

loca quaedam Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos, 49, Lips. 1835. 

Wrrtica (Christoph), + 1687, Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Investigatio Epistolae ad 

Romanos . . . una cum paraphrasi, 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1685. 

WoopHeap (Abraham). See Feuu (John). 


ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott). +1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel : Paraphrastische 
Erklaérung des Briefes Pauli an die Rémer. 8°, Gitting. 1786. 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


al., eal. = and others ; and other passages ; and other editions. 

ad. or in loc., refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the 
particular passage. 

cf. <= compare, 

comp. = compare. ‘‘Comp. on Matt. iii. 5” refers to Dr. Meyer’s own com- 
mentary on the passage. So also ‘‘See on Matt. iii. 5.’ 

codd. = codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the 
usual letters, the Sinaitic by &. | 

min. = codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are 
individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, 
as 33, 89. 

Rec. or Recepta = Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir). 

l.c. = loco citato or laudato. 

ver. = verse, vv. = verses. 

f. ff. = and following. Ver. 16f. menns verses 16 and 17. vv. 16 ff. means 
verses 16 and two or more following. 

vss. = versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the 
usual abridged forms. £.g. Syr. = Peshito Syriac ; Syr. p. = Philox- 
enian Syriac. 

Pp. pp. = page, pages. 


€.g. = exempli gratia. 

$.c. = scilicet, 

N. T. =New Testament. O. T. = Old Testament. 

A. V. = The Authorized English Version of the New Testament. 

R. V. = The Revised English Version of the New Testament. 

A. R. V. = The American Appendix to the Revised English Version of the N. T. 
K.T.A, = Kat Ta Aon, 

The colon (:) is largely employed, as in the German, to mark the point at which 


a translation or paraphrase of a passage is introduced, or the transi- 
tion to the statement of another’s opinions. 

. . « - indicates that words are omitted. 

The books of Scripture and of the Apocrypha are generally quoted by their 
usual English names and abbreviations. Eccles. = Ecclesiasticus. 3 
Esd., 4 Esd. (or Esr.) = the books usually termed Ist and 2d Esdras. 

The classical authors are quoted in the usual abridged forms by book, chapter, 
etc. (as Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 12) or by the paging of the edition generally 
used for that purpose (as Plat. Pol. p. 291 B. of the edition of H. 
Stephanus). The names of the works quoted sre printed in Italics. 
Roman numerals in small capitals are used to denote books or other 
internal divisions (as Thuc. iv) ; Roman numerals in large capitals 
denote volumes (as Kiihner, IT.). 

The references to Winer's and Buttmann’s N. T. Grammars, given in brackets 
thus (E. T. 152], apply to the corresponding pages of Prof. Thayer's 
English translations of these works. 


THE 


EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


INTRODUCTION. 
§ 1. SkETcH OF THE APOSTLE’s LIFE. 


Ala) 9 AUL, who received this Roman name, according to Jerome, 
‘ , )”) Catal. 5—and from ‘Acts xiii. 9, this view seems the most 
FH probable '—on occasion of the conversion of Sergius Paulus 
SWg the Roman Proconsul of Cyprus, but was at his circumcision 
named ‘738%,? was the son of Jewish parents belonging to the 
tribe of Benjamin (Rom. xi. 1 ; Phil. iii. 5), and was born at Tarsus? (Acts ix. 
11, xxi. 89, xxii. 3), a réAcc ieiay kat evdainwv (Xen. Anabd. i. 2, 23) of ancient 
renown, founded according to the legend by Perseus, in Cilicia. The year 
of his birth is quite uncertain (a.p. 10-15 %) ; but it is certain that he was 
of Pharisaic descent (sce on Acts xxiii. 6), and that his father was a Roman 
citizen (see on Acts xvi. 87). He therefore possessed by birth this right of 
citizenship, which subsequently had so important a bearing on his labours 
and his fate (Acts xxii. 27 f.). Of his first youthful training in his native 
city, where arts and sciences flourished (Strabo, xiv. 5, 18,’ p. 673), we 
know nothing ; but it was probably conducted by his Pharisaic father in 
entire accordance with Pharisaic principles (Phil. ili. 5 ; Gal. i. 14), so that 
the boy was prepared for a Pharisaic rabbinical school at Jerusalem. While 
yet in early youth (Acts xxii. 3, xxvi. 4, comp. vil. 58 ; Gal. i. 14 ; Tholuck, 


















overcame Elymas as the little David over- 


1 See the particulars on Acts xill. 9. 

28ince both names were generally cur 
rent, every attempt to explain their mean- 
ing in reference to ovr Paul is utterly 
arbitrary—from that of Augustine, accord- 
ing to whom he was called Saul as persecutor 
(as Saul persecuted David), and Paulus as 
praedicator (namely, as the minimus apos- 
tolorum, 1 Cor. xv. 9), down to Umbrelt’s 
play on the word Sapa (the made one, 
created anew) in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1852, p. 377 f., and Lange's fancy that the 
Apostle was called the litle, because he 


came Goliath. 

- § Not at Gischala in Galilee, according to 
the statement of Jerome, de Vir. ill. 5 
(comp. also what he says on Philem. 2), 
which canrjot be taken into consideration 
after the Apostle’s own testimony (see 
especially Acts xxii. 3), unless with Krenkel 
(Paulua d. Ap. d. Heiden, 1869, p. 215) we 
distrust the accounts of the Book of Acts 
even in such a point lying beyond the scope 
of its dogmatic tendency. 


2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1835, p. 364 ff.; also in his Vermischte Schr. II. p. 274 
ff.) he was transferred to Jerusalem, where he had perhaps even then rela- 
tives (Acts xxiii. 16), though there is no evidence that the entire family 
migrated thither (Ewald). He entered a training-school of Pharisaic theol- 
ogy, and became a rabbinic pupil of the universally honoured (Acts v. 34) 
Gamaliel (Acts xxii. 3), who, notwithstanding his strict orthodoxy (Light- 
foot, ad Matt. p. 33), shows himself (Acts v. 34 ff.) a man of wise modera- 
tion of judgment.’ In accordance with a custom, which was rendered nec- 
essary by the absence of any regular payment of the Rabbins and was very 
salutary for their independence (sce on Mark vi. 8, and Delitzsch, Handwer- 
kerleben zur Zeit Jesu,* 1868, V.), the youthful Saul combined with his rab- 
binical culture the learning of a trade—tentmaking (Acts xviii. 3)—to 
which he subscquently, even when an apostle, applied himself in a way 
highly honourable and remarkably conducive to the blessing of his official 
labours, and for that reason he felt a just satisfaction in it (Acts xviii. 3, xx. 
34; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 7 ff. ; 1 Cor. iv. 12, ix. 6, xii. 15; 2 Cor. xi. 8, xii. 
13). At the feet of Gamaliel he of course received an instruction which, as to 
form and matter, was purely rabbinic ; and hence his epistles exhibit, in 
the mode in which they unfold their teaching, a more or less distinct rab- 
binico-didactic impress. But it was natural also that his susceptible and 
active mind should not remain unaffected by Hellenic culture, when he 
came into contact with it; and how could he escape such contact in Jerusa- 
lem, whither Hellenists flocked from all quarters under heaven? This 
serves to explain a dilettante 7 acquaintance on his part with Greek literary 
works, which may certainly be recognized in Acts xvii. 28, if not also in 
1 Cor. xv. 38 (Tit. i. 12); and which, perhaps already begun in Tarsus, may 
have been furthered, without its being sought, by his subsequent relations of 
intercourse with Greeks of all countries and of all ranks. It is impossible to 
determine how much or how little of the virtues of his character, and of the 
acuteness, subtlety, and depth of lofty intellect which he displayed as apos- 
tle, he owed to the influence of Gamaliel ; for his conversion had as its re- 
sult so entire a change in his nature, that we cannot distinguish—and we 
should not attempt to distinguish—what elements of it may have grown out 
of the training of his youth, or to what extent they have done so. We can 
only recognize this much in general, that Saul, with excellent natural gifts, 


1 See traits of the mild liberality of senti- 
ment, which marked this grandson of the 
celebrated Hillel, quoted from the Rabbins 
in Tholuck, /.c. p. 878. The fact that never- 
theless the youthful Saul developed into a 
zealot cannot warrant any doubt, in oppost- 
tion to Acts viil. 34 ff.,as to his having been 
Gamaliel’s pupil (such as Hausrath ex- 
presses, newt. Zeitgesch. II. p. 419 ff.). 

3 The exaggerations of the older writers 
(see ¢.g. Schramm, de stTuPENDA eruditione 
Pauli, Herborn. 1710) are pure inventions of 
fancy. So too is Schrader’s opinion, that 
Paul had by Greek culture prepared him- 


self to be a Jewish missionary, a prose- 
lytizer. Itcannot even be proved that he 
formed his diction on the model of particu- 
lar authors, such as Demosthenes (Koster 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 308 ff.). The 
comparisons instituted with a view to es- 
tablish this point are too weak and general. 
How many similar parallels might be col- 
lected, ¢.g. from Plato, and even from the 
tragedians! On the whole the general re- 
mark of Jerome, at Gal. iv. 24, is very ap- 
propriate: “* P. schase, licet non ad perfectum, 
bileras saeculares.”’ 
* Translation pub. by Funk & Wagnalls. 


SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 3 


with the power of an acute intellect, lively feelings, and strong will, was, 
under the guidance of his teacher, not merely equipped with Jewish theo- 
logical knowledge and dialectic art, but had his mind also directed with 
lofty national enthusiasm towards divine things ; and that, however deeply 
he felt sin to be the sting of death (Rom. vii. 7 ff.), he was kept free (Phil. 
iii. 6) from the hypocritical depravity which was at that time prevalent 
among Pharisees of the ordinary type (Schrader, II. p. 23 ff.; comp. also 
Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 265). Nevertheless it is also certain that the mod- 
eration and mildness of the teacher did not communicate themselves to the 
character of the disciple, who, on the contrary, imbibed in a high degree 
that prevailing rigour of Pharisaism, the spirit of which no Gamaliel could 
by his individual practical wisdom exorcise. He became a distinguished 
zealot for the honour of Jehovah and the law (Acts xxii. 8), as well as for 
Pharisaic principles (Gal. i. 14), and displayed all the recklessness and vio- 
lence which are wont to appear, when fiery youthful spirits concentrate ail 
their energies on the pursuit of an idea embraced*with thorough enthusiasm. 
His zeal was fed with abundant fuel and more and more violently inflamed, 
when the young Christian party growing up in Jerusalem became an object 
of hostility as dangerously antagonistic to the theocracy and legal orthodoxy 
(comp. Acts vi. 18, 14), and at length formal persecution broke out with the 
stoning of Stephen. Even on that occasion Saul, although still in a very 
subordinate capacity, as merely a youth in attendance,’ took a willing and 
active part (Acts viii. 1, xxii. 20) ; but soon afterwards he came forward on 
his own account as a persecutor of the Christians, and, becoming far and 
wide a terror to the churches of Judaea (Gal. i. 22 f.), he raged against the 
Christians with a violence so resolute and persistent (Acts xxii. 3 f., xxvi. 
10 ff.), that his conduct at this time caused him ever afterwards the deepest 
humiliation and remorse (1 Cor. xv. 8, 9; Gal. i. 18 ; Eph. iii. 8; Phil. iii. 
6; comp. 1 Tim. i. 18). Yet precisely such a character as Saul—who, full 
of a keen but for the time misdirected love of truth and piety, devoted with- 
out selfish calculation his whole energies to the idea which he had once em- 
braced as his highest and holiest concernment—was, in the purpose of God, 
to become the chief instrument for the proclamation and extension of the 
divine work, of which he was still for the moment the destructive ad- 
versary. A transformation so extraordinary required extraordinary means. 
Accordingly when Saul, invested with full powers by the Sanhedrin (Acts 
ix. 1, xxvi. 9), was carrying his zealous labours beyond the bounds of Pales- 
tine, there took place near Damascus (35 A.D.) that wonderful appearance to 
him of the exalted Jesus in heavenly glory (see on Acts ix. 8; 1 Cor. ix. 1, 
xv. 8) which arrested him (Phil. iii. 12), and produced no less a result than 
that Saul—thereby divinely called, and subsequently favoured with an in- 
ward divine revelation of the Son of God * (see on Gal. i. 15 f.)—gradually 


1 Not as a married man or already a__ssent the Gospel of Paul as having originated 
widower, of about thirty years of age, from the intrinsic action of his own mind, 
(Ewald, Hausrath); comp. on Acts vil. 58. and the event at Damascus as a visionary 

2The attempts of the Tfibingen school picture drawn from his own spirit, are 
(especially of Baur and Holsten) to repre- noticed and refuted at Acts ix., and by 


4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


became, under the further guidance of the divine Spirit and in the school of 
his own experiences so full of trial, the Apostle, who by the most extensive 
and most successful proclamation of the Gospel, especially among the Gen- 
tiles, and by his triumphant liberation of that Gospel from the fetters of 
Mosaism on the one hand and from the disturbing influences of the current 
theosophic speculations on the other, did more than all the other apostles— 
he, the Thirteenth, more than the Twelve, who had been called in the first 
instance for the duwdéexagtAcy of Israel (Gal. ii. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 10). His con- 
version was completed through Ananias, who was directed to him by means 
of an appearance of Christ (Acts ix. 10 ff.); and, having been baptized, he 
at once after a few days, in the resolute consciousness of his spiritual life 
transformed with a view to his apostolic vocation (Gal. i. 16), preached in 
the synagogues of Damascus Jesus ' as being the Son of God (Acts x. 19 f.). 
For all half-heartedness was foreign to him ; now too he was, whatever he 
was, thoroughly, and this energetic unity of his profound nature was now 
sanctified throughout by the living spirit of Christ. His apostolic labours at 
Damascus, the birthplace of his regenerate life, lasted three years, inter- 
rupted however by a journey to Arabia (Gal. i. 17), the object of which most 
‘probably was to make merely a preliminary and brief trial of his ministry in 
a foreign field.* 

Persecution on the part of the Jews—which was subsequently so often, 
according to the Divine counsel, the salutary means of extending the sphere 


Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1870, 1. 
Compare generally Dorner, Gesch. d. prot. 
Theol, p. 829 ff. 

1 The chief facts in the life of Jesus could 
not but have been already known to him 
in a general way, whilst he was actively 
opposing the Christians at Jerusalem ; but 
now, for the first time, there dawned upon 
him the suring knowledge of these facts and 
of their éruvth, and his constant intercourse 
with believers henceforth deepened more 
and more this saving knowledge. Thus, 
following the living historical tradition 
within the circle of Christianity under the 
infinence of the Christ revealed in him, he 
became the most important witness for the 
history of Jesus apart from the Gospels. 
Comp. Keim, Geschichte Jesu, I. p. 86 ff.; also 
Hausrath, newt. Zeitgesch. YI. p. 457. But 
that he had seen Christ Himself, cannot be 
inferred from 2 Cor. v. 16; see on that 
passage. 

3 Schrader, K6llner, Kohler (Adfassungen 
d. enistol. Schr. p. 48 f.), Riickert, and Schott 
on Gal. i.c., Holsten, Déllinger, Krenkel, 
and others, think that Paul withdrew im- 
mediately after his conversion to a neigh- 
bouring desert of Arabia, in order to pre- 
pare himself in retirement for his calling. 
Compare also Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. IT. 
p. 455. This view is decidedly at variance 


with Acts ix. 19, 20, where the immedtate 
public teaching at Damascus, a few days 
after the conversion, receives very studious 
prominence. But we should only have to 
assume such an inconsistency with the pas- 
sage in Acts, in the event of that assumed 
object of the Arabian journey being ere- 
getically deducible from the Apostle’s own 
words in Gal. i. 17, which, however, is by no 
means the case. Luke, it is true, makes no 
mention at all of the Arabian journey; but 
for that very reason it is highly improbable 
that it had as its object a silent preparation 
for his official work. For in that case the 
analogous instances of other famous teach- 
ers who had prepared themselves fn the 
desert for their future calling (Ex. xxiv. 18, 
xxxiv. 28; Deut, ix. 9; 1 Kings xix. 8), and 
the example of John the Baptist, and even 
of Christ Himself, would have made the 
fact seem too important either to have re- 
mained wholly unknown to Luke, or to 
have been passed over without notice in 
his history : although Hilgenfeld and Zeller 
suppose him to have omitted it intentionally. 
On the other hand, we cannot suppose that 
the sojourn in Arabia extended over the 
whole, or nearly the whole of the three 
years (Eichhorn, Hemsen, Anger, Ewald, 
Laurent, and olderexpositors). See gener- 
ally on Gal. i. 17. ; 


SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 5 


of the Apostle’s labours—compels him to escape from Damascus (Acts ix. 
19-26 ; 2 Cor. xi. 82 f.); and he betakes himself to the mother-church of 
the faith on account of which he has suffered persecution in a foreign land, 
proceeding to Jerusalem (A.D. 88), in order to make the personal acquaint- 
ance of Peter (Gal. i. 18). At first regarded by the believers there with dis- 
trust, he was, through the loving intervention of Barnabas (Acts ix. 27 f.), 
admitted into the relation of a colleague to the Apostles, of whom, however, 
only Peter and James the brother of the Lord were present (Gal. i. 19). 
His first apostolic working at Jerusalem'was not to last more than fifteen 
days (Gal. i. 18); already had the Lord by an appearance in the temple 
(Acts xxii. 17 ff.) directed him to depart to the Gentiles ; already were the 
Hellenists resident in the city seeking his life; and he therefore withdrew 
through Syria to his native place (Acts ix. 80; Gal. i. 20). Here he seems to 
have lived and worked wholly in quiet retirement, till at length Barnabas, 
who had appreciated the greatness and importance of the extraordinary man, 
went from Antioch, where just at that time Gentile Christianity had estab- 
ished its first church, to seek him out at Tarsus, arid brought him thence 
to the capital of Syria ; where both devoted themselves for a whole year | 
(a.D. 43) without interruption to the preaching of the Gospel (Acts xi. 25, 
26). We Know not whether it was during this period (sce Anger, temp. rat. 
p. 104 ff.), or during his sojourn in Cilicia (see Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 440, 
ed. 3), that the Apostle became the subject of that spiritual ecstasy and 
revelation which, even after the lapse of fourteen years, continued to be re- 
garded by him as so extremely remarkable (2 Cor. xii. 2-4). 

But the great famine was now approaching, which, foretold at Antioch 
by the prophet Agabus from Jerusalem, threatened destruction to the 
churches of Judaea. On this account the brethren at Antioch, quite in the 
spirit of their new brotherly love, resolved to forward pecuniary aid to Ju- 
daea ; and entrusted its transmission to Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi. 27-30). 
After the execution of this commission (a.p. 44), in carrying out which 
however Saul at least cannot have gone all the way to Jerusalem (see on 
Gal. ii. 1), the two men were formally and solemnly consecrated by the 
church at Antioch as apostles to the Gentiles (Acts xiii. 1-8); and Saul now 
undertook—at first with, but afterwards without, Barnabas—his missionary 
journeys so fruitful in results. In the course of these journeys he was wont, 
where there were Jews, to attempt the fulfilment of his office in the first in- 
stance among them, in accordance with what he knew to be the divine 
order (Rom. i. 16, xv. 8 ff.), and with his own deep love towards his nation 
(Rom. ix. 1 ff.); but when, as was usually the case, he was rejected by the 
Jews, he displayed the light of Christ before the Gentiles. And in all va- 
riety of circumstances he exhibited a vigour and versatility of intellect, an 
acuteness and depth, clearness and consistency, of thought, a purity and 
steadfastness of purpose, an ardour of disposition, an enthusiasm of effort, 
a wisdom of conduct, a firmness and delicacy of practical tact, a strength 
and freedom of faith, a fervour and skill of eloquence, a heroic courage 
amidst dangers, 8 love, self-denial, patience, and humility, and along with 
all this a lofty power of gifted genius, which secure for the Saul whom 


t 


6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Christ made His chosen instrument the reverence and admiration of all 
time.’ 

In accordance with the narrative of Acts, three’ missionary journeys of 
the Apostle may be distinguished; and in the description of these we may 
insert the remaining known facts of his history. 

(1.) On his consecration as Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul went along with 
Barnabas the Cyprian, and with Mark accompanying them as apostolic ser- 
vant, first of all to the neighbouring Cyprus; where, after his advance from 
Salamis to Paphos, his work was crowned by a double success—the humilia- 
tion of the goetes Elymas, and the conversion of the proconsul Sergius Pau- 
lus (Acts xiii. 6-12). Then Pamphylia, where Mark parted from the apos- 
tles (xiii. 13), Pisidia and Lycaonia became in turn fields of his activity, in 
which, together with Barnabas, he founded churches and organized them 
by the appointment of presbyters (xiv. 23). At one time receiving divine 
honours on account of a miracle (xiv. 11 ff.), at another persecuted and 
stoned (xiii. 50, xiv. 5, 19), he, after coming down from Perga to Attalia, 
returned to the mother-church at Antioch. 

While Paul and Barnabas were here enjoying a quiet sojourn of some du- 
ration among the brethren (Acts xiv. 28), there came down from Judaca 
Pharisaic Christians jealous for the law, who required the Gentile converts 
to submit to circumcision as a condition of Messianic salvation (Acts xv. 1; 
Gal. ii. 4). It was natural that this demand should encounter a decided 
opponent in the highly enlightened and liberal-minded Paul, whose lively 
assurance of the truth, resting on revelation and upheld by his own experi- 
ence, could tolerate no other condition of salvation than faith in Christ; 
and in consequence both he and the like-minded Barnabas became entangled 
in no small controversy (Acts xv. 2). The dispute involved the fundament- 
al essence and independent standing of Christianity and the whole freedom 
of a Christian man, and was therefore of*such importance that the church 
at Antioch, with a view to its settlement, deputed their most influential 
men, Paul, who also received a revelation for this purpose (Gal. ii. 2), and 
Barnabas along with some others (Paul also took Titus with him, Gal. ii. 1), 
to proceed to Jerusalem (fourteen years after the Apostle’s first journey 
thither, a.p. 52), and there discuss with the apostles and elders the points 


1Comp. Holsten, f.c. Evang. @. Paul. u. 
Petr. p. 88 ff.; Luthardt, @. Ap. Paul. e. Le- 
bensbild, 1869; Krenkel, Paul. d. Ap. d. Hei- 
den, 1869; Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. II. 
1872; Grau, Entwickelungegesch. d. neutest. 
Schriftth. 1871, II. p. 10f.; also Sabatier, 
Vapbtre Paul, eequisse d'une histoire de sa 
pensée, Strasb. 1870. Still the history of the 
spiritual development of the Apostle can- 
not be so definitely and sharply divided in- 
to periods as Sabatier has tried todo. See, 
against this, the appropriate remarks of 
Gess, Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1871, p. 159 ff. The 
motive power and unity of all his working 
lay in his inward fellowship with Christ, 


with His death and resurrection—in the 
subjective living and moving in Christ, and 
of Christ in him. Comp. Grau. é.c. p. 15 ff. 
2 The supposition that there were other 
chief journeys, which, it is alleged, are left 
unnoticed in the Acts (Schrader), is quite 
incompatible with the course of the history 
as there given. He must, however, have 
made many subordinate journeys, for the 
Book of Acts is far from giving a complete 
account of his labours, as is clearly shown 
by various intimations in the Epistles. For 
example, how many journeys and events | 
not noticed in the Acts must be assumed in 
connection with 2 Cor. xi. 14 ff.? 


SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. v 


in dispute. And how happy was the result of this so-called Apostolic Coun- 
cil/ Paul laid the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles before the 
church, and the apostles in particular, with the best effect (Gal. ii. 2, 6); 
and, as to the point of circumcision, not even his apostolic associate Titus, a 
Gentile, was subjected to the circumcision demanded by members of the 
church who were zealous for the law. With unyiclding firmness Paul con- 
tended for the truth of the Gospel. The apostles who were present—James 
the brother of the Lord, Peter and John—approved of his preaching among, 
and formally recognized him as Apostle to, the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 1-10); and 
he and Barnabas, accompanied by the delegates of the church at Jerusalem, 
Judas Barsabas and Silas, returned to Antioch bearers of a decree (Acts xv. 
28-30) favourable to Christian freedom from the law, and important asa 
provisional measure for the further growth of the church (Acts xvi. 4 f.), 
though not coming up to that complete freedom of the Gospel which Paul 
felt himself bound to claim, and for this reason, as well as in virtue of his 
consciousness of independence as Apostle to the Gentiles, not urged by him 
in his Epistles. Here they prosecuted afresh their preaching of Christ, 
though not always without disturbance on the part of Jewish Christians, so 
that Paul was compelled in the interest of Christian freedom openly to op- 
pose and to admonish even Peter, who had been carried away into dissimu- 
lation, especially seeing that the other Jewish Christians, and even Barna- 
bas, had allowed themselves to be tainted by that dissimulation (Gal. ii. 11 
ff.). Paul had nevertheless the welfare of his foreign converts too much at 
heart to permit his wishing to prolong his stay in Antioch (Acts xv. 36). 
He proposed to Barnabas a journey in which they should visit those con- 
verts, but fell into a dispute with him in consequence of the latter desiring 
to take Mark (Acts xv. 37-39)—a dispute which had the beneficial conse- 
quence for the church, that the two men, each of whom was qualified to fill 
a distinct field of labour, parted from one another and never again worked 
in conjunction. 

(2.) Paul, accompanied by Silas, entered on a second missionary journey 
(a.D. 52). He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the Christian 
life of the churches (Acts xv. 41) ; and then through Lycaonia, where at 
Lystra (see on Acts xvi. 1) he associated with himself Timothy, whom he 
circumcised—apart however from any connection with the controversy as to 
the necessity of circumcision (see on Acts xvi. 3)—with a view to prevent 
his ministry from causing offence among the Jews. He also traversed Phry- 
gia and Galatia (Acts xvi. 6), in the latter of which he was compelled by 
bodily weakness to make a stay, and so took occasion to plant the churches 
there (Gal. iv. 13). When he arrived at Troas, he received in a vision by 
night a call from Christ to go to Macedonia (xvi. 8 ff.). In obedience to 
this call he stepped for the first time on the soil of Europe, and caused 
Christianity to take permanent root in every place to which he carried his 
ministry. For in Macedonia he laid the foundation of the churches at Ph#- 
lippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea (Acts xvi. 12 ff., xvii. 1 ff., 10 ff.); and then, 
driven away by repeated persecutions (comp. also 1 Thess. ii. 1f., i. 6)—but 
leaving Silas and Timothy behind in Beroea (Acts xvii. 14)—he brought to 


8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Christ His first-fruits even in Athens, where he was treated by the philoso- 
phers partly with contempt and partly with ridicule (Acts xvii. 16 ff.). 
But in that city, whence he despatched Timothy, who had in the mean- 
while again rejoined him, to Thessalonica (1 Thess. iii. 1 f£.), he was unable 
to found a church. The longer and more productive was his labour in 
Corinth, whither he betook himself on leaving Athens (Acts xviii. 1 ff.). 
There, where Silas and Timothy soon joined him, he founded the church 
which Apollos afterwards watered (1 Cor. iii. 6, 10, iv. 15, ix. 1); and for 
more than a year and a half (Acts xviii. 11, 18; a.p. 538 and 54)—during 
which period he received support from Macedonia (2 Cor. xi. 9), as he had 
previously on several occasions from the Philippians (Phil. iv. 15 f.)—over- 
came the wisdom of the world by the preaching of the Crucified One (1 Cor. 
ii. 1 ff). The relation here formed with his fellow-craftsman Aquila (Acts 
xviii.1 ff.), who as a Roman emigrant was sojourning with his wife Priscilla 
in Corinth, could not fail to exercise essential influence on the Christian 
church at Rome (Rom. xvi. 8). In Corinth he wrote also at this time the 
first of his doctrinal Epistles preserved to us—those to the Thessalonians. 


: Corinth was the terminus of his second missionary journey. From Corinth 


he started on his return, not however taking a direct course, but first mak- 
ing by way of Ephesus (whither he brought Aquila and Priscilla with him) 
a journey to Jerusalem to attend a festival (Acts xviii. 18-22; a.p. 55), 
whence, without prolonging his stay, he returned to the bosom of the 
Syrian mother-church. But he did not remain there long (Acts xviii. 23); 
his apostolic zeal soon impelled him to set out once more. 

(8.) He made his third missionary tour through Galatia and Phrygia, 
strengthening the churches which he had founded from town to town (Acts 
xviii. 23); and traversed Asia Minor as far as Ephesus, where for nearly 
three years (A.D. 56-58) he laboured with peculiar power and fervour and 
‘with eminent success (Acts xix. 1-xx. 1), although also assailed by severe 
trials (Acts xx. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 82, comp. 2 Cor. i. 8). This sojourn of the 


-Apostle was also highly beneficial for other churches than that at Ephesus; 


for not only did he thence make a journey to Corinth, which city he now 
visited for the second time (see on 2 Cor. introd. § 2), but he also wrote 
towards the end of that sojourn what is known to us as the First Epistle to 


the Corinthians, receiving subsequently intelligence of the impression made 
by it from Timothy, whom he had sent to Corinth before he wrote, as well 


as from Titus, whom he had sent after writing it. The Epistle to the Gala- 
ttans was also issued from Ephesus. He was impelled to leave this city by 
his steadfast resolution now to transfer his labours to the far West, and in- 


‘deed to Rome itself, but before doing so to revisit and exhort to steadfast- 


ness in the faith his Macedonian and Achaean converts (Acts xix. 21, xx. 2), 


as well as once more to go to Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21). Accordingly, after 


Demetrius the silversmith had raised a tumult against him (Acts xix. 24 ff.), 
which however proved fruitless, and after having suffered in Asia other se- 
vere afflictions (2 Cor. i. 8), he travelled through Macedonia, whither he 
went by way of Troas (2 Cor. ii. 12). And here, after having been joined 
by both Timothy and Titus from Corinth, Paul wrote the Second Epis- 


SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 9 


tle to the Corinthians. He then remained three months in Achaia (Acts xx. 
8) where he issued from Corinth—which he now visited for the third time 
(2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1)—his Epistle to the Romans. Paul now regards his 
calling in the sphere of labour which he has hitherto occupied as fulfilled, 
and is impelled to pass beyond it (2 Cor. x. 15 f.); he has preached the 
Gospel from Jerusalem as far as Illyria (Rom. xv. 19, 23); he desires to go 
by way of Rome to Spain, as soon as he shall have conveyed to Jerusalem a 
collection gathered in Macedonia and Greece (Rom. xv. 23 ff.). But it 
does not escape his foreboding spirit that suffering and tribulation await 
him in Judaea (Rom. xv. 80 ff.). ji 
The Apostle’s missionary labours may be regarded as closed with this last 
sojourn in Achaia ; for he now entered on his return journey to Jerusalem, 
in consequence of which the capital of the world was to become the closing 
scene of his labours and sufferings. Hindered solely by Jewish plots from 
sailing directly from Achaia to Syria, he returned once more to Macedonia, 
and after Easter crossed from Philippi to Troas (Acts xx. 3-6), where his 
companions, who had set out previously, awaited him. Coming thence to 
Miletus, he bade a last farewell with touching fervour and solemnity to the 
presbyters of his beloved church of Ephesus (Acts xx. 17 ff.) ; for he was firmly 
convinced in his own mind, filled as it was by the Spirit, that he was going 
to meet bonds and afflictions (xx. 23). At Tyre he was warned by the 
Christians not to go up to Jerusalem (xxi. 4); at Caesarean Agabus an- 
nounced to him with prophetic precision the approaching loss of his free- 
dom (xxi. 10 ff.), and his friends sought with tears to move him even now 
to return ; but nothing could in the least degree shake his determination to 
follow absolutely the impulse of the Spirit, which urged him towards 
Jerusalem (xx. 22). He went thither (a.p. 59) with heroic self-denial and 
yielding of himself to the divine purpose, in like manner as formerly the 
Lord Himself made His last pilgrimage to the Jewish capital. Arriving 
there shortly before Pentecost—for his object was not only to convey to the 
brethren the gifts of love collected for them, but also to celebrate the 
national festival, Acts xxiv. 17—he was induced by James and the, pres- 
byters to undertake immediately on the following day, for the sake of the 
Judaists, a Nazarite vow (xxi. 17 ff.). But, while it was yet only the fifth 
day of this consecration (see on Acts xxiv. 11), the Asiatic Jews fell upon 
him in the temple, accusing him of having, as an enemy of the law and the 
temple, brought Gentiles with him into the holy place ; and they would 
have killed him, had not the tribune of the fort Antonia rescued him by 
military force from their hands (xxi. 28-84). In vain he defended himself 
before the people (Acts xxii.), and on the following day before the Sanhedrin 
(xxiii. 1-10) ; but equally in vain was a plot now formed by certain Jews 
who had bound themselves by an oath to put him to death (xxiii. 11-22) ; 
for the tribune, when informed of it, had the Apostle conducted imme- 
diately to the Procurator Felix at Caesarea (xxiii. 28-35). Felix was base 
enough, in spite of Paul’s excellent defence, to detain him as a prisoner for 
two years, in the expectation even of receiving a bribe ; and on his depart- 
ure from the province, from a wish to gratify the Jews, left the Apostle to 


10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


be dealt with by Porcius Festus his successor (summer, A.D. 61), Acts xxiv. 
Even from the more equitable Festus, before whom the Jews renewed their 
accusations and Paul the defence of his innocence, he did not receive the 
justice that was his due ; wherefore he found himself compelled to make a 
formal appeal to the Emperor (xxv. 1-12). Before this date however, whilst 
living in the hope of a speedy release, he had written at Caesarea his Epis- 
tles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon (which are usually assigned to 
the Roman captivity) ; see on Eph. introd. § 2. His appeal, notwithstand- 
ing the unanimously favourable opinions pronounced regarding him (Acts 
xxvi.) after his solemn defence of himself before King Agrippa II. and his 
sister (xxv. 13 ff.), was necessarily followed by his transference from Caesarea 
to Rome. During the autumn voyage, 9n which he was accompanied by 
Luke and Aristarchus, danger succeeded danger, after the Apostle’s wise 
warnings were despised (Acts xxvii. 10, 11, 21) ; and it was only in conse- 
quence of his advice being afterwards followed (Acts xxvii. 30-36) that all 
were saved and, after the stranding of their vessel at Malta, happily landed 
to pass the winter on that island. In the following spring he saw Rome, 
though not—as it had been so long his earnestly cherished wish to visit it 
(Rom. i. 10 ff.)—as the free herald of the Gospel. Still he there enjoyed 
the favour—after receiving a custodia militaris—of being permitted to dwell 
in his own hired house and to continue without interruption his work of in- 
struction among all who came to him, This mild imprisonment lasted two 
‘full years (from the spring of 62): and as at this time his intrepid fidelity 
to his office failed not to make oral proclamation of the kingdom of God 
(Acts xxviii. 30, 31; Phil. i. 12 ff.), so in particular the Epistle to the Philip- 
pians, which emanated from this time of captivity, is a touching proof of . 
that fidelity, as well as of the love which he still received and showed, of the 
sufferings which he endured, and of the resignation and hope which alter- 
nated within him. This letter of love may be called his s:can’s song. The 
two years’ duration of his further imprisonment did not decide his cause ; 
and it does not make his release by any means self-evident,’ for Luke re- 
ports nothing from this period respecting the progress of the Apostle’s trial. 
But now all at once we lose all trustworthy accounts bearing on the further 
course of his fate ; and only thus much can be gathered from the testi- 
monies of ecclesiastical writers as historically certain, that he died the death 
- of a martyr at Rome under Nero, and nearly at the same time’ as Peter 
, suffered crucifixion at the same place. Sec the testimonies in Credner, Finl, 
I. p. 818 ff. ; Kunze, praecip. Patrum testim., quae ad mort. P, spect., Gott. 


1 In opposition to Stélting, Beitr. 2. Exeg. 
@. Paul. Br. p. 195. 

2 Whether Peter suffered martyrdom 
somewhat earlier than [Paul (Ewald), or 
some time later, cannot be made out from 
Clement, Cor. I. 5, any more than from 
other sources. ._Moreover this question is 
bound up with that as to the place and 
time of the composition of the First Epistle 
of Peter. But that Peter never came to 


Rome—as, following Baur and others, Lip- 
sius, Chronol. d. Rom. Bischdfe, 1869, and 
Quellen d. Rom. Petrussage, 1872, and Gun- 
dert in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1869, p. 306 ff., 
seek to prove (see the earlier literature on 
the question in Bleek's Finlettung, p. 562)— 
cannot, in view of the church tradition, be 
maintained. The discussion of this question 
in detall belongs to another place. 


SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. — 11 


1848 ; and generally Baur, Paulus, I. p. 248 ff. ed. 2; Wiescler, p. 547 ff. ; 
Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 149 ff. ; from the Catholic point of view, Déllinger, 
Christenth. und Kirche, p. 79 ff. ed. 2. 

The question however arises, Whether this martyrdom (beheading) was 
the issue of his trial at that time (Petavius, Lardner, Schmidt, Eichhorn, 
Heinrichs, Wolf, de altera Pauli captivit. Lips. 1819, 1821, Schrader, Hem- 
sen, K6éliner, Winer, Fritzsche, Baur, Schenkel, de Wette, Matthies, Wieseler, 
Schaff, Ebrard, Thiersch, Reuss, Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 549 f., 
Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Otto, Volckmar, Krenkel, and others, including 
Rudow, Diss. de argumentis historic., quibus epistolar. pastoral. origo Paul. 
tmpugnata est, Gott. 1852, p. 6 ff.), or of a second Roman captivity, as has 
been assumed since Eusebius (ii. 22) by the majority of ancient and modern 
writers, including Michaelis, Pearson, Hanlein, Bertholdt, Hug, Heiden- 
reich, Pastoralbr. I. p. 6 ff., Mynster, &l. theol. Schr. p. 291 f., Guericke, 
Bohl, Abfassungsz. d. Br. an Timoth. u. Tit., Berl. 1829, p. 91 ff., Kohler, 
Wurm, Schott, Neander, Olshausen, Kling, Credner, Neudccker, Wiesinger, 
Baumgarten, Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II. i. p. 386 ff., Bleck, Déllinger, Sepp, 
Gams, d. Jahr d. Martyrertodes d. Ap. Petr. u. Paul. 1867, Ewald, Huther, 
and others. Since the testimony of Eusebius, /.c., which is quite of a gen- 
eral character, confessedly has reference merely to a tradition (Aéyoc éyeu), 
which was acceptable to him on account of 2 Tim. iv. 16 f., the historical 
decision of this question turns on the statement of Clemens Romanus.* He 
says, according to Dressel’s text,* 1 Cor. 5: Ard (7Aov Kat 6 Matdog tropoviig 
Bpapeiov urioyer, extaxig deopa goptoac, guvyadevieic, ABacheic. Kijpv€ yevduevoc 
éy re Tg avaroAR Kai év TH dice, Td yevvaiov THE TioTEws adTod KAbo¢g EAaBev, dtxato- 
obvi dddEag bAov Tov Kéopov, xat Exi Td répua Tio dicews EADY, kal paprupfoac 
Ext trav fyovpivuev. Otzru¢ arnAAdyg Tov Kéopov, Kai ei¢ Tov Gytov Témav eEropetOn, 
brouovagg yevduevoc péytorocg troypauudc. This passage, it is thought, indicates 
clearly enough that Paul before his death, passing beyond Italy, had reached 
the farthest limit of the West, Spain,‘ and that therefore a second Roman 


t Who, curiously enough, further assumes 
a third and fourth captivity. 

2 Nothing at all bearing upon our question 
can be derived from the testimony of 
Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Euseb. if. 
25, to which Wiesinger still attaches weight. 
It merely affirms that Peter and Paul having 
come to Italy, there taught, and died as 
martyrs. Comp. Caius ap. Eus. j.c., Iren. 
Haer. {11.1; Tertull. Scorp. 15, praescr. 38; 
and even the «ijpvypza Mérpov (Clem. Strom. 
vi. 5). These testimonies do not in the least 
saggest the idea of a second presence in 
Rome. 

® Dressel] follows the recension of Jacob- 
son (Oxon. 1888, and 2d ed. 1840), who col- 
lated Cod. A anew, and carefully rectified 
{ts text of the Epistle first issued by Patri- 
clus Junius (Oxon. 1683), followed substan- 
tlally in that form by Cotelerius (Paris 1672), 
and then amended by Wotton (Cantabr. 


1718). The variations however of the dif- 
ferent revisions of the text, whichis only 


' preserved, and that in a very faulty form, 


in Cod. A, do not essentially affect the pres- 
ent question. Even the form in which 
Laurent (neulest. Stud. p. 105 ff., and In the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1870, p. 135 ff.) gives the text 
of the passage in Clement on the basis of 
Tischendorf’s reproduction of Cod. A, is 
without influence on our question. This 
holds true also with respect to the latest 
critical editions of the Clementine Epistles 
by Hilgenfeld (N. 7. extra canonem, 1866, I.), 
by Lightfoot (9. Clement of Rome. The two 
Epistles, etc. 1869), and by Laurent (Clem. 
Rom. ad Cor. enistula, etc. 1870). 

4 So also Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 620 ff. ed. 8, 
who supposes that, when Paul heard in 
Spain of the horrors of the Neronian perse- 
cutions, he hurried back to Rome to bear 
witness for Christianity ; that there he was 


12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 


imprisonment must be assumed. Sce especially Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon, 
p. 51 ff. ; Huther, Pastoralbr. Hint. p. 32 ff. ed. 3; Lightfoot l.c., who un- 
derstands by répyza r. 6. Gades. In opposition to this view we need not seek 
after any different interpretation of 1rd répua r. dicews ; whether it may be 
taken to signify the western limit appointed to Pawl (Baur, Schenkel, Otto)— 
which certainly would be very meaningless—or the line of demarcation be- 
tween East and West (Schrader, Hilgenfeld, apost. Vater, p. 109) ; or even 
the centre of the West (Matthies). But it is to be observed :—1st. That the 
language generally bears a highly rhetorical and hyperbolical character, and, 
‘were it only for this reason, it is very hazardous to interpret the ‘‘limit of 
the West” (rd répya tie dboews) with geographical accuracy. And is not 
even the immediately preceding dixaoc. diddéag bAov Tov xéopov a flourish of 
exaggeration? 2d. Clement does not speak of East and West from his 
own Roman standpoint, but, as was most naturally accordant with the 
connection and design of his statement, from the standpoint of Paul, into 
whose local relations he in thought transports himself. ‘While the Apostle 
laboured in Asia, he was in the Hast: then he passed over to Greece, and 
thus had become, from his Oriental point of view, a herald also in the West. 
But in the last crisis of his destiny he came even to the far West, as far as 
Rome : and for this idea how naturally, in the midst of the highly coloured 
language which he was using, did the expression ém? rd répya rij¢ dicews EAOOV 
suggest itself! It could not have been misunderstood by the readers, because 
people at Corinth could not but Anow the place where Paul met hisdeath. 3d. 
'E7?) rv pyounéver denotes (in allusion to Matt. x. 18) the rulers generally, be- 
fore whom Paul gave testimony concerning Christ (saprupfoac), after he had 
reached this répua ric dtoewe. If the latter denotes Rome, then we may without 
hesitation, on historical grounds, conclude that the rulers are those Roman 
magistrates before whom Paul made his defence in Rome. But if Spain 
should be the ‘‘ goal of the West,” we should find ourselves carried by the 
paptuphoac én? trav yyoup. to some scene of judicial procedure in Spain; and 
would it not in that case be necessary to assume a sojourn of the Apostle 
there, which that very trial would render specially memorable? But how 
opposed to such a view is the fact, that no historical trace, at all certain, is 
preserved of any church founded by Paul in Spain! For the testimonies to 
this effect adduced by Gams, Kirchengesch. 0. Spanien, p. 26, Sepp, Gesch. 
der Ap. p. 314, ed. 2, and others, contain nothing but traditions, which 
have merely arisen from the hypothetical Spanish journey of Paul. And to 
say with Huther that the Apostle had trarelled (é4fév) to Spain, but had not 
laboured there, is to have recourse to an explanation at variance with the in- 
trinsic character of Paul himself and with the context of Clement. Besides, 
according to Rom. xv. 28 f., Paul desired to transfer his ministry, that was 
accomplished in the East, to Spain. 4th. If éri 1d répua r. dboews EAPGY Was 
intended to transport the reader to Spain, then it would be most natural, 
since oi7w¢ sums up the previous participial clauses, to transfer the aznAadyy 


arrested, placed once more on trial, and the Book of Acts itself, at 1.8, points by 
condemned to death. According to Ewald way of anticipation to the Spanish journey. 








SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE. 13 


tov xéopuov also to Spain ; for just as this amyA1. r. «x. is manifestly correlative 
to the dixasocbyyy bidas. bAov tr. xécpov, 60 Eig T. aytov Témov ExopetOn Corresponds 
with the émi r. répya tr. dicewg x.t.A. ; 80 that Paul, starting from the répya 
r. dicewe, which he has reached, and where he has borne his testimony 
before the rulers, enters on his journey to the holy place. It is only, there- 
fore, when we understand Jialy as the western limit, that the language of 
Clement is in harmony with the historical circumstances of the case.' See, 
moreover, Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. ep. ad Cor. I. p. 129, and Chronol. d. rim. Bis- 
chofe, p. 163 ff. It cannot withal be overlooked that in the so-called Epist. 
Clem. ad Jacobum, c. 1, there is manifestly an echo of our passage, and yet 
Rome alonc is designated as the final goal of the Apostle’s labours : rdv éodp- 
evov ayafov dAy rE xbopy pyvboa Baoirta, pixypio Evravfa TA 'Pduy yevdpevoc, 
Geo 3ovagry didacxaXria odlwv avOpdrove, avrd¢ Tod viv Biov Biaiug Td Civ perhAdrater. 
After this the conjecture of Wieseler (and Schaff, Hist. of Apost. Church, 
p. 342), who, instead of é? rd répua, as given by Junius, would read wtzd 
rd répua, and explain it ‘‘before the supreme power of the West,” is un- 
necessary. It is decisive against this view that Jacobson, as well as 
Wotton, found é7i in the Cod. A, and that Tischendorf likewise has attested 
the existence of xa? éxi as beyond doubt. But, besides, Wieseler’s expc- 
dient would not be admissible on grounds of linguistic usage, for répya in 
the sense assumed is only used with éyev ; see Eur. Suppl. 617, Or. 1348, 
Jacobs. ad Del. epigr. p. 287. From the very corrupt text of the Canon 
Muratorii,’? nothing can be gathered bearing on our question, except that 


1 If we render paprupicas martyrium pas- 
sus (Credner, Lange, and older writers), this 
result comes out the more clearly, since at 
all events Paul died in Rome ; along with 
which indeed DGéllinger further finds in émit 
Twr iryoux. an evidence for the year 67 that 
has been the traditional date since Euse- 
bias, Chron. (comp. also Gams, Jahr d. 
Martyrertodes, etc.; and Sepp, é.c. p. 879), 
when Nero was absent and the Prefecis 
ruled in Rome. See his Christenth u. 
Kirche, p. 101, ed. 2. Against that chrono- 
logica] determination, see generally Bax- 
mann, dass Petr. u. Paul nicht am 2. Junius 
67. gemartert worden sind, 1867. 

The passage in question runs, “ Acta 
autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro 
sunt. Lucas optime Theophile comprindit 
(comprehendit), quia sub praesentia ejus 
singala gerebantur, sicati et semote pas- 
sionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed profeo- 
tionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficis- 
centis.”.". Wieseler conjectures that after 
proficiscentis the word omtttit has been left 
out ; that semote means: at a separate place, 
viz.not in the Acts of the Apostles, but in 
the Gospel, xxii. 31-838. A very forced con- 
jectare, with which nevertheless Volkmar 
(in Credner’s Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 348) agrees, 
supposing that a non has dropped out after 


proficiscentis. Credner, i.c. p. 155 f., con- 
jectured semofa (namely loca, which is sup- 
posed to refer to John xxi. 18 ff., and Rom. 
xv. 24), and then ef instead of sed. Otto, p. 
154, would read sic ed instead of eed ; mak- 
ing the meaning: ‘consequently (sic) he 
declares openly, that just as (uti ef) in his 
absence the martyrdom of Peter took place, 
80 likewise (sic ef) the journey of Paul,” eto. 
But how much must we thus introduce into 
the semote/ Laurent alters into: ‘ semota 
passione. . . et profectione,” etc. Various 
suggestions are made by others ; see Ewald, 
Jahrb. VII. p. 126, whose own procedure is 
the boldest. Hilgenfeld, Kanon u. Krit. d. 
N. 7., p. 42, thinks that the author has 
** guessed ** the martyrdom of Peter and the 
Spanish journey of Paul from the abrupt 
close of the Acts of the Apostles. Such a 
theory should have been precluded by the 
““evidenter declarat,” for which indeed 
Ewald would read ‘ evidenter decerpit”’ or 
**decoliat.” If we must resort to conjecture 
(and it is necessary), it seems the simplest 
course, instead of et semote, to insert id 
semotam, and then instead of sed, et. This 
would yield the sense: as this circumstance 
(id), viz. the writing down only what took 
place in his presence, evidently explains the 
exclusion (semotam) Of the passion of Peter and 


14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


the author was already acquainted with the tradition of the journey to 
Spain afterwards reported by Eusebius; not, that he wished to refute 
it (Wieseler, p. 536). On the other hand, Origen (in Euseb. iii. 1: 
th dei wept TlatAov Aéyery amd ‘lepovoaanu péyps tov 'lAAvpinovy remAnpwxdtog Td 
evayyfAiov tov Xpicrov xai torepov tv TH 'Poun éwi Népwvog pepaptupyxéroc) 
tacitly excludes the Spanish journey. The tradition regarding it arose very 
naturally out of Rom. xv. 24 (Jerome: ‘‘ad Italiam quoque et, wt tpse 
scrivit, ad Hispanias—portatus est’’), and served as a needed historical basis 
for the explanation of 2 Tim., acquiring the more general currency both on 
this account and because it tended to the glorification of the Apostle. It 
is further worthy of attention that the pseudo-Abdias, in his Historia Apos- 
tolica, ii. 7, 8 (in Fabricius, Cod. Apoer. p. 452 ff.), represents the execution as 
the issue of the captivity reported in the Acts. Had this author becn a be- 
liever ina liberation, as well as in a renewed missionary activity and 
second imprisonment, he would have been the last to refrain from bringing 
forward wonderful reports regarding them. Substantially the same may be 
said of the Acta Petri et Pauli in Tischendorf, Act. ap. apocr. p. 1 ff. 


Nole.—If we regard the Epistles to Timothy and Titus—which, moreover, stand 
or fall together—as genuine, we must take, as Eusebius in particular has done 
with reference to 2 Tim., the tradition of the Apostle's liberation from Rome 
and of a second captivity there as an historical postulate,! in order to gain the 
room which cannot otherwise be found for the historical] references of those 
Epistles, and the latest pussible time for their other contents. But the mure 
defective the proof of the second imprisonment is, the more warranted remain 
the doubts as to the genuineness of these Epistles, which arise out of their own 
contents ; while in virtue of these doubts the Epistles, in their turn, cannot 
themselves be suitably adduced in proof of that captivity. Besides, it cannot 
be left out of view that in all the unquestionably genuine Epistles which Paul 
wrote during his imprisonment, every trace of the previously (Rom. xv, 24) 
cherished plan of a journey to Spain has vanished ; and that in the Epistle to 
the Philippians, which was certainly not written till he was in Rome (i. 25 f., 
ii, 24), he contemplates as his further goal in the event of his liberation, not 
the far West, but Macedonia, or in other words a return to the East. From 
Acts xxiii. 11, however, no evidence can be adduced against the Spanish 
journey (as Otto contends), because in this passage there is no express mention 
of a last goal, excluding all further advance. 


oP the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. 
On both of these occasions the author 


calling in question a second captivity, as- 
cribes the Second Ep. to Timothy to the 


accordingly thinks that Luke was not pres- 
ent, and thereby the fact that he has 
omitted them in his book is explained. 

1 This isthe ground assumed by the latest 
expositors of the Pastoral Epistles, who 
maintain their genuineness, Wiesinger and 
Huther; whilst Rudow, again, in the al- 
ready mentioned Piasert. 1852, only rejects 
the First Ep. to Timuthy (comp. Bleek), and 


first imprisonment, and the Ep. to Titus to 
the sojourn at Ephesus. So also Otto, with 
respect to the two last-named Epistles ; 
but he regards the First Ep. to Timothy as 
aletter of instruction for Timothy in view 
of bis mission to Corinth, consequently as 
nearly contempvraneous with the Ep. to 
Ntus. See, in opposition to Otto, Huther 
on the Pastoral Epistles, Introd. ed. 8. 


THE CHRISTIAN CHUBCH AT ROME. 15 


§ 2. Tae Cristian Courcu at Rome.! 


That the Christian Church in Rome had been in existence for a consider- 
able time when Paul wrote to it, is clear from i. 8-13 and xiii. 11, 15 ; and 
that it was already a church formally constituted, may be gathered from 
the general analogy of other churches that had already been long in exist- 
ence, from xii. 5 ff., and less certainly from xvi. 5. Especially may the 
existence of a body of presbyters, which was essential to church organiza- 
tion (Acts xiv. 23), be regarded as a matter of course. In the Acts of the 
Apostles the existence of the Church is presupposed (xxviii. 15) as something 
well known ; and the author, who follows the thread of his Apostle’s biog- 
raphy, had no occasion to narrate its origin or development. 

The origin of the Roman Church cannot therefore be determined with 
certainty. It is not incredible that even during the lifetime of Jesus faith 
in Him had taken root, in individual cases, among the Roman Jews (comp. 
Clem. Recogn. i. 6). For among the pilgrims who flocked to the festivals at 
Jerusalem from all countries Romans also were wont to be present (Acts ii. 
10), and that too in considerable numbers, because the multitude of Jews in 
Rome had since the time of Pompey become extraordinarily great (see Philo, 
leg. ad. Caj. II. p. 568; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 6 ; Joseph. Antt. xvii. 11, 1), in- 
cluding Jews directly from Palestine (prisoners of war, see Philo, l.c.), of 
whom a large portion had attained to freedom, the rights of citizenship, and 
even wealth. Is it unlikely that individual festal pilgrims from Rome, im- 
pressed by the words and works of Jesus in Jerusalem, carried back with them 
to their homes the first seeds of the faith ? To this view it cannot be objected 
(as by Reiche), that Christianity did not spread beyond the bounds of 
Palestine until after the miracle of Pentecost ; for there is mention, in fact, 
in Matt. x. of the official missionary activity of the Apostles, and in Acts 
viii. 1 ff. of that of emigrants from Jerusalem. If the former and the latter 
did not labour in foreign lands until a subsequent period, this by no means 
excludes the possibility of the conversion of individual foreigners, partly 
Jews, partly proselytes, who became beliecers in Jerusalem. It is further prob- 
able that there were some Romans among the three thousand who came over 
to the Christian faith at the first Pentecost (Acts ii. 10) ; at least it would 
be very arbitrary to exclude these, who are expressly mentioned among the 
witnesses Of what occurred at Pentecost, from participation in its results. 
Lastly, it is probable that the persecution which broke ‘out with the stoning 
of Stephen drove some Palestinian Christians to take refuge even in the 
distant capital of the world, distinguished by its religious toleration, and in 
fact inclined to Oriental modes of worship (Athenaeus, Deipnos. I. p. 20 B., 
calls it émcrouiy rij¢ oixovupévyc, and says: xal ydp b4a ra bv GPpduwe airdie 


1 See Th. Schott, d. Rémerbriefs. Endeweck wu. Krit. 1867, p. 627 ff.; comp. also Grau, 2. 
u. Geiankengang nach, Erl. 1858; Mangold, infuhr.in d@. Schriftth. N. T., Stuttg. 1868, 
d. Rémerbr. u. ad. Anfdnge d. rdm. Gem. and his Entwickelungsgesch. d. neut. Schriftth. 
Marb. 1866; Wieseler in Herzog’s Encykl. II. 1871, p. 102 ff.; Sabatier, Papdtre Paul, 
XX. p. 588 ff. (1866) ; Beyschlag in the Stud. 1870. 


16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


ouvg~xtora’). For that this dispersion of the Christians of Jerusalem was not 
confincd to Samaria and Judaea (an objection here urged by Reiche and 
K@dllner), is proved by Acts xi. 19, where emigrants are mentioned who had 
gone as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus. And how easily might some find 
their way even to Rome, seeing that the brisk maritime intercourse between 
these places and Italy afforded them opportunity, and seeing that they 
might expect to find admittance and repose among their countrymen in 
Rome, who were strangers to the fanatical zeal of Palestine. But although, 
in consequence of the constant intercourse maintained by the Jews at Rome 
with Asia, Egypt, and Greece, and especially with Palestine (Gieseler, 
Kirchengesch. I. § 17), various Christians may have visited Rome, and vari- 
ous Jews from Rome may have become Christians, all the influences hitherto 
mentioned could not establish a Christian congregational life in Rome. In- 
dividual Christians were there, and certainly also Christian fellowship, but 
still no organized church. To plant such a church, there was needed, as is 
plain from the analogy of all other cases of the founding of churches with 
which we are acquainted, official action on the part of teachers endowed 
directly or indirectly with apostolic authority. 

Who the founder of the Roman congregational life was, however, is utterly 
unknown. The Catholic Church names the Apostle Peter ; concerning 
whom, along with the gradual development of the hierarchy, there has been 
a gradual development of tradition, that he came to Rome in the second 
year, or at any rate about the beginning of the reign of the Emperor 
Claudius (according to Gams, a.p. 41), to overcome Simon Magus, and re- 
mained there twenty-five years (Gams : twenty-four years and an indefinite 
number of days), till his death, as its first bishop. See Eusebius, Chron. (in 
Mai’s Script. ret. nov. coll. VIII. p. 876, 878) ; and Jerome, de oir. ill. 1.? 
But that Peter in the year 44, and at the date of the apostolic conference in 
the year 52, was still resident in Jerusalem, is evident from Acts xii. 4, xv. 
7, and Gal. ili. 1ff. From Acts xii. 7 a journey to Rome cannot be in- 
ferred.? Further, that still later, when Paul was living at Ephesus, Peter 
had not been labouring in Rome, is evident from Acts xix. 21, because Paul 
followed the principle of not interfering with another Apostle’s field of 
labour (Rom. xv. 20 ; comp. 2 Cor. x. 16) ; and, had Peter been in Rome 


1 See generally, Lipsius, d. Quellen d. Rém. 
Petrussage, Kiel, 1872. As to the way in 
which that tradition, the germs of which 
are found in Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb. 
Hi. E. ii. 25), gradually developed itself into 
the complete and definite form given above, 
see Wieseler, chronol. Synops. p. 571; regard- 
ing the motley legends connected with it, 
see Sepp, Gesch. d. Ap. p. 341, ed. 2; con- 
cerning the unhistorical matter to be elim- 
inated from the report of Jerome, see 
Huther on 1 Peter, Introd.; comp. Credner, 
Finl. If. p. 882. The alleged presence of 
Simon in Rome is probably the mere prod- 
uct of a misconception, by which Justin, 
Apol. i. 2 (comp. Irenaeus, Haer. i. 28), 


explained an old inscription as referring to 
Simon Magus. Comp. also Uhlhom, 4a. 
Homil, u. Recogn. d. Clem. p. 878 f., Méllerin 
Herzog's Encykl. XIV. p. 892 ff.; Bleek, p.563 f. 

2 Even if Peter had actually, in the course 
of his foreign travels (1 Cor. ix. 5), visited 
Rome once in the time of Claudius (comp. 
on Acts xii. 1), which Ewald (apost. Zeit. 
p. 606 f. ed. 8.) concedes to ecclesiastical 
tradition, not calling in question even a 
meeting with Simon Magus there, yet we 
cannot regard this as involving the founda- 
tion of the Roman church and the episcopal 
position. Otherwise Paul would have in- 
truded on another labourer's field. See the 
sequel. 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME. 17 


when Paul wrote to the Romans, he would have been saluted by the latter 
before all others ; for the numerous salutations in ch. xvi. presuppose an 
accurate acquaintance with the teachers who were then in Rome. Peter 
cannot have been labouring in Rome at all before Paul himself was brought 
thither, because the former, as Apostle to the Jews, would have brought 
Christianity into closer contact with the Jewish population there than is 
apparent in Acts xxvill. 22. - It is even in the highest degree improbable 
that Peter was in Rome prior to the writing of the Epistle to the Philip- 
pians—the only one which was certainly written by Paul in Rome—or at the 
time of its being written ; for it is inconceivable that Paul should not in 
this letter have mentioned a fellow-Apostle, and that one Peter, especially 
when he had to complain so deeply of being forsaken as at Phil. ii. 20. 
Consequently the arrival of Peter in Rome, which was followed very soon 
by his execution—and which is accredited by such ancient and strong tes- 
timony (Dionysius of Corinth, in Euseb. ii. 25; Caius, in Euseb. ii. 25 ; 
Origen, in Euseb. ili. 1; Irenaeus; Tertullian, etc.) that it cannot be in 
itself rejected—is to be placed only towards the end of Paul's captivity, sub- 
sequent to the composition of the Epistle to the Philippians. If, therefore, 
the tradition of the Roman Church having been founded by Peter—a view 
disputed even by Catholic theologians like Hug, Herbst, Feilmoser, Klee, 
Ellendorf, Maier, and Stengel, who however are vehemently opposed by 
Windischmann, Stenglein, Reithmayr, and many others’—must be en- 
tirely disregarded (although it is still defended among Protestants by Ber- 
tholdt, Mynster, and Thiersch), it is on the other hand highly probable, that 
a Christian church was founded at Rome only subsequent to Paul's trans- 
ference of his missionary labours to Europe ; since there is no sort of indi- 
cation, that on his first appearance in Macedonia and Achaia he anywhere 
found a congregation already existing. He himself in fact stood in need of 
a special direction from Christ to pass over to Europe (Acts xvi. 9 f.) ; and 
so another official herald of the faith can hardly before that time have pen- 
etrated as far as Italy. But, when Paul was labouring successfully in 
Greece, it was very natural that apostolic men of his school should find 
motive and occasion for carrying their evangelic ministry still further west- 


1 Ddllinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 95 ff. 
ed. 2, still seeks to support it on the usual 
grounds, and in doing so starts from the 
purely fancifal @ priori premiss, that the 
Roman Church must have been founded by 
an Apostle, with the equally arbitrary con- 
clusion: ‘‘and that Apostle can only have 
been Peter."’ He gives to the twenty-five 
years’ duration of the Petrine episcopatus a 
curious round-about interpretation, accord- 
ing to which the episcopate is made to 
mean merely ecclesiastical dignity in gen- 
eral; see p.817. The passage of Dionysius 
of Corinth in Euseb. fi. 2 is misinterpreted 
by him.—It ill accords with the Roman epis- 
oopate of Peter that in Euseb. ill. 2, and 
Trenaeus, iil. 3, Zinus is expressly named as 


the first Roman bishop; and in fact in the 
Constit, ap. vil. 46, 1, it is said that he was 
appointed by Paul; while Peter only nom- 
inated the second bishop (Clemens) after the 
death of Linus. According to this state- 
ment Peter had nothing to do with the 
founding of the Roman episcopate, and 
neither Paul nor Peter was bishop in Rome. 
On the whole it is to be maintained that no 
Apostle at all was bishopofachurch. The 
apostolate and the presbyterate were two 
specifically distinct offices in the service of 
the Church. In Rome especially the succes- 
sion of bishops can only be historically 
proved from Xystus onward (00. 125) ; see 
Lipsius, é. ¢. 


18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


ward,—to the capital of the Gentile world. The expulsion of the Jews 
from Rome under Claudius (Sueton. Claud. 25 ; Acts xviii. 2) served, under 
Divine guidance, as a special means for this end. Refugees to the neigh- 
bouring Greece became Christians, Christians of the Pauline type, and then, 
on their return to Rome, came forward ag preachers of Christianity and 
organizers of a church. We have historical confirmation of this in the 
instance of Aquila and Priscilla, who emigrated as Jews to Corinth, dwelt 
there with Paul for upwards of a year and a half, and at the date of our 
Epistle had again settled in Rome, where they appear, as previously in 
Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), according to Rom. xvi. 8 as teachers and the pos- 
-sessors of a house where the Roman church assembled.’ It is probable that 
others also, especially among the persons mentioned in ch. xvi., were in 
similar ways led by God ; but it is certain that a chief place among the 
founders of the church belongs to Aquila and Priscilla ; since among the 
many who are greeted by Paul in the 16th chap. he presents to them the 
Jirst salutation, and that with a more laudatory designation than is accorded 
to any of the others. 
_ Christianity, having taken root in the first instance among the Jews, found 
the more readily an entrance among the Gentiles in Rome, because the pop- 
ular heathen religion had already fallen into a contempt inducing despair 
both among the cultivated and uncultivated classes (see Gieseler I. i. § 11- 
14 ; Schneckenburger, neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 59 f.; Holtzmann, Judenthum u. 
Christenthum, p. 305 ff.). Hence the inclination to Monotheism was very 
general ; and the number of those who had gone over to Judaism was very 
great (Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff.; Tac. Ann. xv. 44, Hist. v. 5 ; Seneca, in 
Augustine, de civ. Dei, vii. 11; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 8, 5). How much at- 
tention and approval, therefore, must the liberal system of religion, elevated 
above all the fetters of a deterrent legal rigour, as preached by Aquila and 
other Pauline teachers, have met with among the Romans dissatisfied with 
heathenism ! From the description of most of the persons named in ch. xvi., 
from the express approval given to the doctrine in which the Romans had been 
instructed, xvi. 17, vi. 17, and even from the fact of the composition of the 
letter itself, inasmuch as not one of the now extant letters of the Apostle is 
directed to a non-Pauline church, we may with certainty infer that Pauline 
Christianity was preponderant in Rome ; and from this it is a further neces- 
sary inference that a very important part of the Roman church consisted of 
Gentile-Christians. This Gentile-Christian part must have been the prepon- 
derating one, and must have formed its chief constituent element (in oppoai- 
tion to Baur, Schwegler, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Volkmar, 
Reuss, Lutterbeck, Thiersch, Holtzmann, Mangold, Grau, and Sabatier), 


1 That this married pair came to Corinth, 
not as Christians, but as still Jews, and were 
there converted to Christianity through 
Paul. see on Acts xvill. 1,2. Comp. Reiche, 


J. p. 4 f.; Wieseler, J.c. p. 586.—Moreover, ' 


that the Christians (Jewish-Christians) res- 
ident in Rome were driven into exile along 
with other Jews by the edict of Claudius, 


can neither be proved nor yet controverted 
from the well-known passage in Sueton. 
Claud. 2% (see on Acts xviii. 1); for at that 
time the Christian body, which at all events 
was very emall and isolated, was not yet 
independent, but still united with the Jew- 
ish population. 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME, 19 


since Paul expressly and repeatedly designates and addresses the Romans in 
general as belonging to the é7 (i. 6, 18, xi. 18) ; and asserts before them 
the importance of his calling as Apostle to the Gentiles (xv. 15 f., 1. 5 ; comp. 
xvi. 4, 26). Comp. Neander, Gesch. d. Pflaneung, etc., ed. 4, p. 452 ff., 
Tholuck, Philippi, Wieseler, Hofmann. Indeed, we must presume, in ac- 
cordance with the apostolic agreement of Gal. ii. 7 ff., that Paul would not 
have written a doctrinal Epistle to the Romans, especially one containing 
his entire gospel, if the church had been, in the main, a church of the rep- 
rou# and not of the daxpofvoria.’ Even ch. vii. 1, where the readers are de- 
ecribed as yvéoxovrec véuov, as well as the numerous references to the Old 
Testament, and proofs adduced from it, are far from attesting the predomi- 
nance of Jewish Christianity in Rome.* They are fully explained, when we 
recollect that in the apostolic age all Christian knowledge was conveyed 
through the channel of the Old Testament (xvi. 26) ; that an acquaintance 
with the law and the prophets, which was constantly on the increase by their 
being publicly read in the assemblies (comp. on Gal. iv. 21), was also to be 
found among the Gentile-Christians ; and that the mingling of Jews and 
Gentiles in the churches, even without a Judaizing influence being exerted 
on the latter (as in the case of the Galatians), could not but tend to further 
the use of that Old Testament path which Christian preaching and knowl- 
edge had necessarily to pursue. The grounds upon which Baur (in the 
Tithing. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, p. 144 ff., 1857, p. 60 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 
843 ff. ed. 2 ; also in his Christenth. d. drei erst. Jahrb. p. 62 ff. ed. 2 ; see 
also Volkmar, d. Jtém. Kirche, p. 1 ff.; Holsten, 2. He. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 
411) secks to establish the preponderance of Jewish Christianity will be dealt 
with in connection with the passages concerned ; as will also the defence of 
that preponderance which Mangold has given, while correcting in many re- 
spects the positions of Baur. The middle course attempted by Beyschlag, 
Le. p. 640—that the main element of the church consisted of native Roman 
proselytes to Judaism, so that we should regard the church as Gentile-Chris- 
tian in its lineage, but as Jewish- Christian in its habits of thought—is unsupport- 
ed by any relevant evidence in the Epistle itself, or by any indication in par- 
ticular of a previous state of proselytism. 

But even if there was merely a considerable portion of the Christian church 
at Rome consisting of those who had been previously Jews (as, in particular, 
xiv. 1 ff. refers to such), it must still appear strange, and might even cast a 
doubt upon the existence of a regularly organized church (Bleek, Beitr. p. 
55, and Hénl. p. 412 ; comp. Calovius and others), that when Paul arrives 


* By this Epistle he would have gone be- 
yond the line laid down by him for his own 
field of labour (comp. 2 Cor. x. 18 ff.), and 
would have interfered in the sphere not 
assigned to him—the Apostleship to the Jews. 

3 Even in the Epistle of Clement, written 
in the name of the Roman Church, with its 
numerous O. T. references, the Gentile- 
Christian and Pauline element of thought 
predominates, although there is a manip- 


ulation of Pauline views and ideas in ac 
cordance with the “Christian legalism” 
(Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 274 ff.) of a later 
period. Comp. Lipsius, de Clem. Itom. Ep. 
ad Cor. pr. 185; and Mangold, p. 167 ff. IT 
cannot agree with Wieseler and others that 
this Epistle was written before the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, but with Ritschl and 
others assign it to the time of Domitian; 
comp. Cotelerius. 


20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


as a prisoner in Rome, and wishes to acquaint himself with the Jewish com- 
munity there, the leaders of the latter make no mention of a Christian con- 
gregation at Rome, but evince merely a superficial cognizance of the Christian 
sect in general (Acts xxviii. 22). But the Jewish leaders are here speaking 
as officials, and, as such, are not inclined without special immediate occasion 
to express their views before the captive stranger as to the position of the 
Christian body which existed in Rome itself. A designation of the Christian 
sect generally in accordance with its notorious outward reputation—such as 
might bring it into suspicion—is enough for them ; but as to the precise 
relation in which this sect stands to them in Rome itself they do not feel them- 
selves called upon to say anything for the present, and, with discreet reserve, 
are therefore wholly silent respecting it. This narrative therefore of Acts is 
neither to be regarded as a fiction due to the tendency of the author (Baur, 
Zeller, Holtzmann), nor to be explained, arbitrarily and inadequately, by 
the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius (Olshausen), which had induced 
the Roman Jewish-Christians to separate themselves entirely from the Jews, 
so that on the return of the latter from exile the former remained unnoticed 
by them. Neither is it to be accounted for, with Neander—overlooking the 
peculiar character of Jewish religious interests—by the vast size of the me- 
tropolis ; nor, with Baumgarten, bythe predominance of the Gentile-Chris- 
tians there ; nor yet, with older writers, by the hypothesis—unjust and inca- 
pable of proof—that the Roman Jews acted a dishonest and hypocritical part 
on the occasion. Not dishonesty, but prudence and caution are evinced in 
their conduct (comp. Schneckenburger, Philippi, Tholuck, Mangold), for 
the explanation of which we do not require, in addition to what they them- 
selves express in ver. 22, to assume any special outward reason, such as that 
they had been rendered by the Claudian measure more shy and reserved (Phi- 
lippi ; comp. Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 588, ed. 3) ; especially seeing that there 
is no just ground for referring the words of Suetonius, ‘‘ Judaeos impulsore 
Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit” (Claud. 25), to disputes between 
Jews and Christians relative to the Messiahship of Jesus, contrary to the 
definite expression ‘‘ tumultuare.” * 

We may add that our Epistle—since Peter cannot have laboured in Rome 
before it was written—is a fact destructive of the historical basis of the Papacy, 


1 The Chrestus of Suetonius was a Jewish 
agitator in Rome, who was actually so 
called. See on Acts xvill. 2, and Wieseler, 
p. 585. Every other interpretation is fanci- 
ful, including even the one given above, 
which is adopted by the majority of mod- 
ern writers, among others by Baur, Holtz- 
mann, Keim, Grau, and Mangold. Thiersch 
is peculiar in adding to it the groundless 
assertion, that “the disturbances arose 
through the testimony of Peter to the Mes- 
siah in Rome, but that Peter had again 
left Rome even before the expulsion of the 
Jews by Claudius.’* Groundless is also the 
opinion of Philippi, that, if CArestus is to be 
taken as an agitator, he must have been a 


pseudo-Messiah. The pseudo-Messiahs ap- 
peared much later. But after the analo- 
gies of Judas and Theudas, other insur- 
gents are conceivable enough—enthusiasts 
for political freedom and zealots. Bey- 
schlag, p. 652 ff., likewise taking Chrestus 
as equivalent to Christus, infers too rashly, 
from the passage in Suetonius, that the 
Roman Church was chiefly eomposed of 
proselytes, who, when the native - born 
Jews wore expelled, remained behind. 
Marcker (Lehre von der Erlis. nach d. 
Romerbr. Meining, 1870, p. 8) rightly rejects 
the interchange of the names Chresfus and 
Christus. 


OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 21 


in so far as the latter is made to rest on the founding of the Roman church 
and the exercise of its episcopate by that Apostle. For Paul the writing of 
such a didactic Epistle to a church of which he knew Peter to be the founder 
and bishop, would have been, according to the principle of his apostolic in- 
dependence, an impossible inconsistency. 


§ 3. Occasion, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.’ 


Long before writing this epistle (ard roAjGv érév, xv. 28) the Apostle had 
cherished the fixed and longing desire (Acts xix. 21) to preach the Gospel 
in person at Rome (i. 11 ff.)—in that metropolis of the world, where the 
flourishing of Christianity would necessarily exert an influence of the utmost 
importance on the entire West ; and where, moreover, the special relation 
in which the church stood to the Apostle through its Pauline founders and 
teachers, and through the many friends and fellow-labourers whom he pos- 
sessed in the city (ch. xvi.), claimed his ardent and loving interest. His 
official labours in other regions had hitherto prevented the carrying out of 
this design (i. 18, xv. 22). Now indeed he hoped that he should soon 
accomplish its realization ; but, partly because he wished first to undertake 
his collection-journey to Jerusalem (xv. 23-25), and partly because Spain, 
and not Rome (xv. 24-28), was to be the goal of his travels to the West, a 
lengthened sojourn in Rome cannot have formed part of his plan at that 
time. Accordingly, in pursuance of his apostolic purpose with reference to 
the Roman church, he could not but wish, on the one hand, no longer to 
withhold from it at least such a written communication of his doctrine, which 
he had so long vainly desired to proclaim orally, as should be suitable to 
the church’s present need ; and on the other hand, by this written com- 
munication to pave the way for his intended personal labours in such fitting 
manner as to render a prolonged etay there unnecessary. This twofold de- 
sire occasioned the composition of our Epistle, for the transmission of which 
the journey of the Corinthian deaconess Phoebe to Rome (xvi. 1) afforded 
an opportunity which he gladly embraced. He could not fail to possess a 
sufficient acquaintance with the circumstances of the church, when we con- 
sider his position towards the teachers saluted in ch. xvi., and the eminent 
importance of the church itself—of whose state, looking to the active inter- 
course between Corinth and Rome, he was certainly thoroughly informed— 
as well as the indications afforded by ch. xii. xiv. xv. That the Epistle was 
called forth by special communications made from Rome itself (possibly by 
Aquila and Priscilla) is nowhere apparent from its contents ; on the con- 
trary, such a view is, from the general nature of the contents, highly im- 
probable. Of all the Apostle’s letters, our present Epistle is that which has 
least arisen out of the necessity of dealing with special casual circumstances. 
According to Baur, the readers, as Jewish Christians (imbued also with 
erroneous Ebionite views), gave rise to the letter by their opposition to Paul, 
in so far, namely, as they saw in Paul’s apostolic labours among the Gentiles 


1 See, besides the works quoted in § 2, Riggenbach in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1868, p. $3 ff. 


22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


a detriment to the Jews, contrary to the promises given to them by God, 
and therefore asserted the national privileges of their theocratic primacy in 
an exclusive spirit as opposed to the universalism of the Pauline teaching. 
Comp. also Schwegler, nachapost. Zit. I. p. 285 ff. ; Volkmar, l.c. p. 7 ff. ; 
and also Reuss, Geach. d. N. T. § 105 ff. ed. 4. In this view the Epistle is 
made to assume a specifically polemic character, which it manifestly has not 
(how very different in this respect the Ep. to the Galatians and those to the 
Corinthians !) ; it is assumed that the Church was a Jewish-Christian one ; 
and an importance, too great in relation to the whole, and indefensible 
from an exegetical point of view,’ is attached to the section, chs. ix.—xi. 
(even in Baur’s second edition, which contains on this point a partial retrac- 
tation), while, on the other hand, the two last chapters have to be sacrificed 
to critical doubts that have no foundation. In no other Pauline Epistle is 
the directly polemical element so much in the background ; and where it 
does find expression, it is only for the moment (asin xvi. 17~-20),—a sure 
proof that it was least of all the concrete appearance and working of Anti- 
paulinism which the Apostle had occasion in this Epistle to oppose. 
Against that enemy he would have waged a very different warfare, as is 
shown in particular in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians, so nearly 
allied in its contents. Nor is that enemy to be discovered in the weak in 
faith of xiv. 1 ff. Of course, however, Paul could not present his Gospel other- 
wise than in antagonism to the Jewish righteousness of works and arrogance, 
which it had already overcome and would continue to do so ; for this an- 
tagonism belonged to the essence of his Gospel and had to assert itself, 
wherever there was Judaism—only in various forms and degrees according 
to the given circumstances—and therefore at Rome as well. The view of 
Thiersch (Kirche im apostol. Zeitalt. p. 166), that Paul desired to elevate the 
Jewish Christian church, which had consisted of the simple followers of 
Peter, from their still somewhat backward standpoint to more enlarged 
views, rests on the erroneous opinion that Peter had laboured in Rome. 

The object of our Epistle, accordingly, was by no means the drawing up of 
a systematic doctrinal system in general (see, against this view, Késtlin 
in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 68 ff. ; Grau, Hntwickelungsgesch. 
II. p. 114) ; but it is not on the other hand to be restricted more 
specially than by saying: Paul wished to lay before the Romans in 
writing, for their Christian edification (i. 11, xvi. 25), his evangelic doc- 
trine—the doctrine of the sole way of salvation given in Christ—viewed 
tn its full, specijic character as the superseding of Judaism, in such a way 
as the necessities and circumstances of the church demanded, and as he would 
have preached it among them, had he been present in person (i. 11). The mode 
in which he had to accomplish this was determined by the circumstance, 
that he deemed it necessary for his object fully to set forth before the 


1 Baur previously, after his dissertation | Huther's Zeeck u. Inhalt d.11 ersten Kap. 2. 
in the 7%). Zeitechr. 1886, 8, found even the Rdmerbdr. 1846, p.2%f. Baur, in his Chrie- 
principal theme of the whole Epistle in chs. tenth. d. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 62 ff. ed. 2, has 
ix.-xi., for which chs. {.-vifi. only serve modified his view on this point. 
as introduction. See against this view 





OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 23 


Roman church, in a manner proportioned to the high importance of its 
position, this Gospel as to which his disciples had already instructed them, 
in the entire connection of its constituent fundamental principles.’ In no other 
letter has he done this so completely and thoroughly ;* hence it is justly 
regarded as a grand scheme of his whole feaching,® in the precise form 
which he held to be suitable for its presentation to the Romans. How much 
he must have had this at heart ! How much he must have wished to erect 
such a complete and abiding memorial of iis Gospel in the very capital of 
the Gentile world, which was to become the Antioch of the West! Not 
merely the present association of Jews and Gentiles in the church, but, gen- 
erally, the essential relation in which according to the very Pauline teach- 
ing, Christianity stood to Judaism, required him to subject this relation in 
particular, viewed in its strong antagonism to all legal righteousness, to an 
earnest and thorough discussion. This was a necessary part of his design ; 
and consequently its execution, though on the whole based on a thoroughly 
didactic plan, nevertheless assumed, in the presence of the given points of an- 
tagonism, partly an apologetic, partly a polemic form, as the subject required ; 
without however any precise necessity to contend against particular doctri- 
nal misconceptions among the Romans, against divisions and erroneous views, 
such as had appeared, for example, among the Galatians and Corinthians ; 
or against a Judaistic leaven brought with them by the Jews and Jewish: 
Christians who had returned to Rome (comp. Grau). The actual dangers 
for the moment in the Church were more of a moral than a dogmatic’ char- 
acter—a remark which applies also to the opposition between the Gentile 
Christians strong in faith, and the scrupulous Jewish Christians—and have 
merely given occasion to some more special notices (xiii. 1 ff. ; xiv. 1 ff.), 
and hints (xvi. 1 ff.) in the hortatory portion of the Epistle. The Judaistic 
opponents of Pauline Christianity had not yet penetrated as far as Rome, and 
were not to arrive there till later (Ep. to the Philippians). It was therefore 
an untenable position when even before the time of Baur, who assumed the 
object of the Epistle to be the systematic and radical refutation of Jewish. 
exelusiveness, its aim was very frequently viewed as that of a polemic against 
Jewish arrogance, which had been specially aroused on account of the calling 
of the Gentiles (Augustine, Theodoret, Melanchthon, Michaelis, Eichhorn, 
Schmidt, Flatt, Schott, and others). The same may be said of the hypoth- 
esis that Paul wished, in a conciliatory sense, to obviate minunderstandings 
between Jewish and Gentile Christians (Hug). There is no evidence in 


1 Against which Hofmann unjustifiably 
urges dwo pdpove and as éravaptpvioxey 
tnds in xv. 15. See on that passage. 

3 80 completely, that we can well enough 
understand how this Ep. could become the 
basis of Melanchthon's loci communes. 

® Comp. Hausrath, neut. Zetigesch. II. p. 
814 ff. Observe, at the same time, that 
though the Epistle deals very much with 
legal notions, this does not arise from its 
being destined for the Romans to whom 


Paul had become a Roman (Grau, ic. p. 
118), but from the very nature of the Pau- 
Hine Gospel in general, and is therefore 
found ¢.g. also in the Epistle to the Gala- 
tians. 

‘Comp. van Hengel, who assumes that 
Paul desired to instruct the Romans how {0 
refute the sublleties of the Jews with reference 
to the calling of the Gentiles, and to free 
them from errors and doubts thence aris- 


24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


the Epistle of actual circumstances to justify any such special definitions of 
its object ; and even from xvi. 20 it cannot be assumed fhat Judaistic 
temptation had already begun (as Grau thinks). The comprehensiveness of 
the object of our Epistle—from which, however, neither the combating of 
Judaism, which arose naturally and necessarily out of.the nature of the 
Pauline Gospel, nor (seeing that the future coming forward of his opponents 
could not be concealed from the Apostle) the prophylactic design of it, may 
be excluded—has been justly defended by Tholuck, Riickert, de Wette, 
Reiche, Kéliner, Fritzsche, Philippi, Wieseler, Hausrath and others. Comp. 
Ewald, p. 317 f. Along withit, however, Th. Schott (comp. also Mangold, 
Riggenbach, Sabatier) has assumed a special personally apologetic purpose on 
the part of the Apostle ;* namely that, being now on the point of proceed- 
ing with his Gentile mission-work in the far West, Paul wished to gain for 
his new labours a fixed point of support in the Roman church,’ and on this 
account wished to instruct the Romans as to the significance and justifica- 
tion of the step, and to inspire them with full confidence regarding it, for 
which reason he exhibits to them in detail the nature and principles of 
‘his work. Against this view it may be urged, in general, that Paul no- 
where gives expression to this special purpose, though the announcement of 
it would have been of decided importance, both for his own official interests 
and for the information of the Roman church (they could not read it 
between the lines either in the preface, vv. 1-15, or in the conclusion, xv. 
14-44) ; and in particular, that the Apostle’s intention of visiting the 
Romans only in passing through, without making a lengthened sojourn, is in- 
compatible with the assumed purpose which he is alleged to have formed 
regarding the church. Moreover, a justification on so great a scale of the 
Gentile mission would presuppose not a Gentile-Christian, but a Jewish- 
Christian, church and its requirements. Hence Mangold, holding the same 
view that the Epistle contains a justification of the Gentile apostleship, has 
the advantage of consistency in his favour ; his theory is nevertheless based 
on the unsatisfactory ground adopted by Baur, namely, that the Church was 
Jewish-Christian. See, further, Beyschlag, Uc. p, 686 ff., and especially 
Dietzsch, Adam. u. Christus, p. 14 ff. 


1 Hofmann also makes the object of the 
Apostle personal. Paul assumes it to be 
a matter of surprise in Rome that he, the 
Apostle of the Gentiles, should have hither- 
to always kept aloof from the world's 
capital, and even now had not come to it. 
It might seem as if the ohurch, that had 
arisen without his aid, had no interest for 
him; or as if he were afraid to proclaim 
the message of salvation in the great 
centre of Gentile culture. This twofold 
erroneous notion he was especially desirous 
to refute. Asa proof how far he was from 
being thus afraid, he sets forth what in 
his view the message of salvation was, etc., 
etc. Thus he might hope that the church 


in the metropolis of the world would be 
just as steady a point of support for his 
ministry in the farthest West, as if it had 
been founded by himself. In this way, 
however, assumptions and objects are as- 
signed to the Epistle which are not ex- 
pressed in it, but are imputed to it on the 
ground of subordinate expressions, as will 
be shown in the exposition. 

* Compure also Sabatier, Papéire Paul, p. 
160 f., who at the same time affirms of the 
** grand missionaire :"" dont {ambition était 
auesi vaste que le monde. According to 
Sabatier, Paul gives down to chap. vilt. 
the defence of his doctrine, and in chaps. 
ix.-xi. that of his aposfeship. 


OCCASION, OBJECT AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 25 


As to contents, our Epistle, after the salutation and introduction (i. 1-15), 
falls into two main portions, a theoretical and a hortatory, after which 
follows the conclusion (xv. 14-xvi. 27). The theoretic portion (i. 16—xi. 36) 
bears its theme at the outset, i. 16, 17: ‘‘ Righteousness before God, for 
Jews and Gentiles, comes from faith.” Thereupon is established, in the 
first place, the necessity of this plan of salvation, as that which the whole 
human race required, Gentiles and Jews alike, because the latter also, even 
according to their own law, are guilty before God, and cannot attain to 
righteousness (i. 17-ili. 20). The nature of this plan of salvation is then 
made clear, namely, that righteousness really and only comes from faith ; 
which is especially obvious from the justification of Abraham (iii. 21-iv. 25). 
The blessed results of this plan of salvation are, partly the blissful inward 
condition of the justified before God (v. 1-11); partly that justification 
through Christ is just as universally effective, as Adam’s fall was once uni- 
versally destructive (v. 12-21) ; and partly that true morality is not only not 
endangered by the manifestation of grace in Christ, but is promoted and 
quickened by it (chap. vi.), and made free from the fetters of the law (vii. 
1-8). This last assertion demanded a defence of the law, as that which is 
in itself good and holy, but was abused by the sinful principle in man, 
against his own better will, to his destruction (vii. 17-25)—a sad variance 
of man with himself, which could not be removed through the law, but only 
through Christ, whose Spirit produces in us the freedom of the new divine 
life, the consciousness of adoption, and assurance of future glory (ch. viii.). 
From the lofty description of this blessed connection with Christ, Paul now 
suddenly passes to the saddening thought that a great part of that very 
Jewish people, so signally favoured of God, has rejected the plan of redemp- 
tion ; and therefore he develops at length a Theodicy with regard to the 
exclusion, apparently irreconcilable with the divine promises, of so many 
members of the theocracy from the attainment of salvation in Christ (chs. 
ix.-xi.). The hortatory portion (chs. xii.-xv. 13) gives the essentials of the 
Pauline ethical system, partly in the form of general exhortations (xii. 
1-21; xiii. 8-14), and partly in some special discussions which were 
deemed necessary in the circumstances of the Romans (xiii. 1-7, xiv. 1—-xv. 
13). The conelusion comprises in the first place—corresponding to the in- 
troduction (i. 8-15)—personal explanations with regard to the Apostle’s in- 
tended journey by way of Rome to Spain (xv. 14-33) ; then the recom- 
mendation of Phoebe (xvi. 1 ff.) and salutations (xvi. 3-16) ; a warning with 
a closing wish (xvi. 17-20) ; some supplementary salutations with a second 
closing wish (xvi. 21-24) ; and finally, a concluding doxology (xvi. 25-27). 

‘This Epistle is the true masterpiece of the N. T., and the very purest 
Gospel, which is well worthy and deserving that a Christian man should not 
only learn tt by heart, word for word, but also that he should daily deal with it 
as with the daily bread of men’s souls. For it can never be too much or too well 
read or studied ; and the more it is handled the more precious it becomes and 
the better it tastes,”—Luther, Preface. 


26 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


§ 4. Puace anp Time oF CoMPosITION.—GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Since the Apostle, when he composed his letter, was on the point of con- 
veying to Jerusalem the proceeds of a collection made in Macedonia and 
Achaia (xv. 25-27), and intended to journey thence by. way of Rome | 
to Spain (xv. 28, comp. Acts xix. 21), we are thus directed to his last 
sojourn—of three months—in Achaia, Acts xx. 3. His purpose was to 
cross over directly from Achaia to Syria in order to reach Jerusalem, 
but he was led, owing to Jewish plots, to take quite a different route, 
namely, back through Macedonia (Acts xx. 8). This change in the plan of 
his journey had not been made when he wrote his Epistle ; otherwise he 
would not have failed to mention in ch. xv.—where he had at vv. 25 and 81 
very immediate inducement to do so—a circumstance so remarkable on ac- 
count of its novelty and importance. We justly infer therefore—even apart 
from the fact that the composition of such an epistle presupposes a some- 
what lengthened and quiet abode—that it was written before Paul again de- 
parted from Achaia. Although Luke mentions no particular city as the 
scene of the Apostle’s three months’ residence at that time, still it is, @ 
priori, probable that he spent at least the greater part of the time in 
Corinth. For Corinth was the principal church of the country, and was in 
the eyes of the Apostle pre-eminently important and precious on account of 
his earlicr labours there. But our attention is also directed to Corinth by 
the passages 1 Cor. xvi. 1-7, 2 Cor. ix. 4, xii. 20-xiii. 8, from which it is 
plain that, on his journey down from Macedonia to Achaia, Paul had 
chosen that city as the place of his sojourn, where he wished to complete 
the business of the collection, and from which he would convey the money 
to Jerusalem. Now, since the recommendation of the deaconess Phoebe 
from the Corinthian seaport Cenchreae (xvi. 1, 2), as well as the salutation 
from his host Gaius (xvi. 23, comp. with 1 Cor. i. 14), point to no other 
city than Corinth, we may, beyond all doubt, abide by it as the place of 
writing, and not with Dr. Paulus (de orig. ep. P. ad Rom. paralip. Jen. 
1801, and Rémerbrief, p. 231), on account of xv. 19 (see on that passage) put 
forward a claim on behalf of a town in Illyria. Theodoret has admirably 
proved in detail its composition at Corinth. 

The time of composition accordingly falls in a.p. 59, when Paul regarded 
his ministry in the East as closed, and (see xv. 19, 23) saw a new and vast 
scene of action opened up to him in the West, of which Rome should be the 
centre and Spain the goal. 

The genuineness is decisively attested by the testimonies of the orthodox 
church (the first express and special quotations from it are found in Irenaeus, 
Haer. iii. 16, 8, 9, while previously there are more or less certain echoes of 
its language or traces of its use),' as well as of the Gnostics Basilides, Val- 
entinus, Heracleon, Epiphanes, and Theodotus ; and there is not a single 


1 Clem. Cor. 1.85; Polycarp, ad PAil.6; Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Euseb. 
Theoph. ad Autol. i. 20, ill. 14; letterofthe vy. 1. 


GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 27 


trace that even the Judaizing heretics, who rejected the authority of the 
Apostle, at all rejected the Pauline authorship of our Epistle. In order to 
warrant any doubt or denial of its authenticity, therefore, the most cogent 
internal grounds would need to be adduced ; and in the utter absence of 
any such grounds, the worthless scruples of Evanson (Dissonance of the four 
generally received Hoangelists, 1792, p. 259 ff.) and the frivolities of Bruno 
Bauer could find no supporters. The Epistle bears throughout the lively 
original impress of the Apostle’s mind, and his characteristic qualities, in its 
matter and its form ; is the chief record of his Gospel in its entire connec- 
tion and antagonism ; and is therefore also the richest original-apostolic 
charter and model of all true evangelical Protestantism. The opinion of 
Weisse (philosoph. Dogm. I. p. 146), which ultimately amounts to the sug- 
gestion of a number of interpolations as interwoven throughout the Epistle 
(see his Beitr. 2. Krit. d. Paul. Br., edited by Sulze, p. 28 ff.),. rests simply 
on a subjective criticism of style, which has discarded all weight of external 
evidence. 

The originality of the Epistle extends also to its language, the Greek, in 
which Paul dictated it to Tertius." The note of the Syrian Scholiast on the 
Peshito, that Paul wrote his letter in Zatin—a theory maintained also, but 
fora polemical purpose, by Hardouin, Salmeron, Bellarmine, Corn. a Lapide, 
and others—is based merely upon a hasty inference from the native language 
of the readers. Its composition in Greek however corresponds fully, not 
only with the Hellenic culture of the Apostle himself, but also with the 
linguistic circumstances of Rome (see Credner’s inl. II. p. 383 f.; Bern- 
hardy, Griech. Literat. ed. 2, p. 483 ff.), and with the analogy of the rest of 
the ancient Christian writings addressed to Rome (Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, 
eo al.). 

That the two last chapters are genuine and inseparable parts of the Epistle, 
see in the critical remarks on ch. xv. 


1 The reason why Paul himself did not in his apostolic position. In this, when he 
usually write his Epistles is to be sought, had to enter on written communication, 
not in a want of practice In the writing of instead of the oral preaching for which he 
Greek—which is a supposition hardly rec- was called, friendly and subordinate hands 
oncilable with his Hellenic culture—but were at his service. Comp. on Gal. vi. 11. 


28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


TIavdou éxioroAn pos ‘Powpatovs. 


The simplest and most ancient superscription is ; zpd¢ 'Pwyaiove, in ABO &. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. "Inootd X.] Tisch., following B, reads Xproroi "Incotd against decisive 
testimony.—In ver. 7 év ‘Poyuy, and in ver. 15 roic év ‘Puy, are wanting in G. 
Born; and on ver. 7 the scholiast of cod. 47 remarks : 10 év ‘Puuy ovre év T7 
éénynoet, ovre ev te /yTg pynuovevet (who? probably the codex, which lay before 
the copyist). This quite isolated omission is of no critical weight ; and is in 
no case to be explained by the very unnatural conjecture (of Reiche) that Paul 
in several Epistles (especiully in that to the Ephesians) addressed the readers 
simply as Christians, and that then the place of residence was inserted by the 
copyists in accordance with the context or with tradition. In ver. 7 the omis- 
sion might be explained by the reading év ayury which G and a few other 
authorities give instead of ayamyroi¢ ; but, since roi¢ év 'P. is wanting in ver. 15 
also, another unknown reason must have existed for this. Perhaps some 
church, which received a copy of the Epistle from the Romans for public read- 
ing, may have, for their own particular church-use, deleted the extraneous desig- 
nation of place, and thus individual codices may have passed into circulation 
without it. MRiickert’s conjecture, that Paul himself may have caused copies 
without the local address to be sent to other churches, assumes a mechanical 
arrangement in apostolic authorship, of which there is elsewhere no trace, and 
which seems even opposed by Col. iv. 16. — Ver. 8. éxép] A BC D* K, 8, min., 
Dam. read rep/, which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. and Tisch. have 
adopted : justly, on account of the preponderant attestation, since both prep- 
ositions, though trép less frequently (Eph. i. 16; Phil. i. 4), were used for the 
expression of the thought (in opposition to Fritzsche). — Ver. 13. The less 
usual position rivd xapzév (Elz. x. 7.) is established by decisive testimony ; 
as also 6 Oed¢ ydp (Elz. 6. y. O.) in ver. 19; and d2 «af (Elz. ré xaf) in ver. 27, 
although not on equally strong authority.—Instead of od 6éAw in ver. 13, D* E 
G, It. and Ambrosiaster read otx oinua:r. Defended by Rinck. But the very 
assurance already expressed in vv. 10, 11 might easily cause the od 6¢Aw to seem 
unsuitable here, if due account was not taken ot the new element in the prog- 
ress of the discourse contained in mpoeOéunv.—After evayy. in ver. 16 rod Xpio. 
tov (Elz.) is omitted on decisive authority ; mpdrov, however, which Lachmann 
has bracketed, ought not to be rejected on the inadequate adverse testimony of 
BG, Tert. as it might seem objectionable along with miorevovrs (not so in ii. 9 
f.).— Ver. 24. The «ai is indeed wanting after 6:6 in A BC &, min., Vulg. Or. 
al. ; but it was very easily passed over as superfluous ; comp. ver. 26; ii. 1. 
Nevertheless Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have deleted it. — éy éavroic¢] Lachm. and 
Tisch. read év atro following ABC D* &, min. But how frequently was 


CHAP. I., 1. 29 


the reflexive form neglected by the copyists. It occurred also in ver. 27 (B K). 
— Ver. 27. afpevec] B D* G, 73, Or. Eus. Oec. read dpcevec. Adopted by 
Lachm. Fritzsche and Tisch. (7). Since two different forms cannot be sup- 
posed to have been used in the same verse, and in that which follows dpcevec 
év dpceccis undoubtedly the true reading (only A* &, min., and some Fathers 
reading uniformly df. év dfs.), we must here adopt the form dpoeve¢ almost 
invariably used in the N. T. (only the Apocal. has 4$4.).— Ver. 29. ropveia] 
wanting after adc. in A BC K &, min., and several vss. and Fathers. 
Deleted by Lachm. Fritzsche, and Tisch., and rightly so ; it is an interpolation 
introduced by those who did not perceive that the naming of this vice was not 
again appropriate here. It was written in the margin, and introduced at dif- 
ferent places (for we find it after rovnpig also, and even after xaxiq), so that it 
in some instances even supplanted sorvnpig.—The placing of caxig immediately 
after adixcig (Lachm. on weak authority), or according toA &, Syr., after rovnpia, 
(Tisch. 8), is explained by the uggregation of terms of a similar kind.—Ver. 31. 
After aorépyove Elz. and Scholz read dorévdovc, which Mill condemned, and 
Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted. It is wanting in A B D* E G and 8*, 
Copt. Clar. Germ. Boern. and several Fathers. It is found before acrédpy. in 
17, 76, Theophyl. Taken from 2 Tim. iii. 3. — Ver. 32. After ém:yvévrec, D E 
Bas. read ot« événaqy, and G, ov« fyvwoay, That death isthe wages of sin—this 
Christian doctrinal proposition seemed not at all to correspond with the natural 
knowledge of the Gentiles.—Instead of aira rototow, GAAa Kai ovvevdoxoio: B 
reads avira mo.otvtec, GAAQ Kai ovvevdonotvres; 80 Lachm. in margin. This 
arose from the fact, that eiciv was erroneously taken for the chief verb in the 
sentence ; or else it was a consequence of the introduction of ot« éyvwoav, which 
in other witnesses led to the insertion of ydp or d2 after od pévov. 


Vv. 1-7.—The Apostolic salutation. 

Ver. 1. TMaiAoc] See on Acts xiii. 9. [See Note I. p. 72.] —dovdoe .. . 
evayy. Ocov is the exhaustive statement of his official dignity, proceeding 
from the general to the particular, by which Paul earnestly—as dealing 
with the Church of the metropolis of the world, which had as yet no person- 
al knowledge of him—opens his Epistle as an official apostolic letter; with- 
out, however, having in view therein (as Flatt thinks) opponents and calum- 
niators of his apostleship, for of the doings of such persons in Rome the 
Epistle itself contains no trace, and, had such existed, he would have set 
forth his dignity, not only positively, but also at the same time negatively 
(comp. Gal. i. 1). —In the first place Paul describes by dovAocg ’I. X. [See 
Note II. p. 73.]—his relation of service to Christ, as his Ruler, whose servant 
he is, and that in general (comp. on Phil. i. 1), just as the Old Testament 
MT IY expresses the relation of service to Jehovah, without marking off 
in itself exclusively any definite class, such as the prophetic or the priestly 
(see Josh. i. 1, xiv. 7, xxii. 4; Judg. ii. 8; Ps. cxxxi. 10; comp. Acts xvi. 
17). This relation of entire dependence (Gal. i. 10; Col. iv. 12) is then 
specifically and particularly indicated by xAyréc axéoroAoc, and for this reason 
the former dovAog ‘I. X. cannot be rendered merely in general Christi cultor 
(so Fritzsche), which is inadequate also at 1 Cor. vii. 22; Eph. vi.6. Paul 
was called to his office, like all the earlier Apostles; he did not arrive at it 


30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


by his own choice or through accidental circumstances. For the history of 
this divine calling, accomplished through the exalted Christ Himself, see 
Acts ix. (xxii. 26), and the remarks thereon. This xAyrdé¢ presented itself 
so naturally to the Apostle as an essential element ‘in the full description 
of his official position which he meant to give’ (comp. 1 Cor. i. 1), that the 
supposition of a side-glance at uncalled teachers (Cameron, Gléckler) seems 
very arbitrary. — agwpioptvog tig etayy. Oeov] characterizes the xAyrég amdéctrodog 
more precisely: set apart (definitely separated from the rest of mankind) for 
God's message of salvation, to be its preacher and minister (see on Eph. iii. 
7). The article before etayy. elsewhere invariably given in the N. T., is 
omitted here, because Paul views the message of God, of which he desires 
to speak, primarily under its gualitatire aspect (comp. also van Hengel and 
Hofmann). Concrete definiteness is only added to it gradually by the 
further clauses delineating its character. This mode of expression implies 
a certain festal tone, in harmony with the whole solemn character of the 
pregnant opening of the Epistle: for a gospel of God, which He promised 
before, etc. Still we are not to understand, with Th. Schott, a work of 
proclamation, since evayy. is not the work of conveying a message, but the 
message itsclf. Ocov is the genitive subjectt (awctoris), ver. 2, not obdjecti 
(Chrysostom). See on Marki. 1. It is God who causes the message of 
salvation here referred to, which is His Adyo¢ (Acts x. 86), to be proclaimed ; 
comp. xv. 16; 2 Cor. xi. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 2, 8, 9; 1 Pet. iv. 17. The desig- 
nation of Apostle to the Gentiles is involved in ddgup. cic eb. 0. though not 
expressed (against Beza and others). Further, since agup. is parallel with 
the previous xAyréc, it is neither to be explained, with Toletus and others, 
including Olshausen, by Acts xiii. 2, nor with Reiche, Ewald, and van Hen- 
gel (following Chrysostom and others) by Gal. i. 15, comp. Jer. i. 5; but 
rather by Acts ix. 15 (cxetog éxAoyjc), comp. xxvi. 16 ff. The setting apart 
took place as a historical fact in and with his calling at Damascus. Entire- 
ly different is the mode of presenting the matter in Gal. i. 15, where adopicag 
pe éx xowa. pytp. as the act of predestination in the counsel of God, is placed 
before the xadéoas, as the historically accomplished fact. The view of Dru- 
sius (de sectis, ii. 2, 6) and Schoettgen (comp. Erasmus and Beza), which 
Dr. Paulus has again adopted, viz. that Paul, in using the word dgup., al- 
ludes to his former Pharisaism (‘‘the true Pharisee in the best sense of the 
word ”’), is based on the Peshito translation (see Grotius), but is to be re- 
jected, because the context gives no hint of so peculiar a reference, for 
which also no parallel can be found in Paul’s other writings. 

Ver. 2. A more precise description of the character of this evayyfArov Geo, 
according to its concrete peculiarity, as far as ver. 5 inclusive, advancing 
and rising to a climax under the urgent sense of the sacredness of his office, 
which the Apostle has frankly to assert and to establish before the church of 
the metropolis of the world, personally as yet unknown to him. — 8 rpoenryyet- 
Aaro x.t.A.| How natural that the Apostle with his Old Testament training 
should, in the light of the New Testament revelation which he had re- 


1 Seo Weiss in the Jahrd. f. Deuteche Theol. 1857, p. 97 ff. 


CHAP. I., 3, 4. 31 


ceived, first of all glance back at the connection divinely established in the 
history of salvation between the gospel which he served and ancient proph- 
ecy, and should see therein the sacredness of the precious gift entrusted 
tohim ! To introduce the idea of an antithetic design (‘‘ ut invidiam novi- 
tatis depelleret,” Pareus, Estius, Grotius and others, following Chrysostom 
and Theophylact) is quite arbitrary, looking to the general tenor of vv. 1-7. 
The news of salvation God has previously promised (mpoernyyeidaro, 2 Cor. 
ix. 5; Dio Cass, xlii. 32) through His prophets, not merely in so far as these, 
acting as the organs of God (airov), foretold the Messianic age, with the 
dawn of which the evayyédov, as the ‘‘publicum de Christo erhibito prae- 
conium” (Calovius), would necessarily begin, but they foretold also this 
pracconium ttself, its future proclamation. Sce x. 18, xv. 21; Isa. xl. 1 ff, 
xlii. 4, lil. 1 ff.; Zeph. iii. 9; Ps. xix. 5, Ixvili. 12; Deut. xviii. 15, 18. It 
is the less necessary therefore to refer 6, with Philippi and Mehring, to the 
contents of the gospel. — rév rpogy7dv] is not to be limited, so as either to in- 
clude merely the prophets proper in the narrower sense of the word, or to 
go back—according to Acts iii. 24, comp. xilil. 20—only as far as Samuel. 
The following év ypagaic dy. suggests, on the contrary, a reference to all 
who in the O. T. hace prophesied the gospel (even Moses, David and others 
not excluded); comp. Heb. i. 1. — év ypagaic dyiacc] Not : in the holy Script- 
ures (so most expositors, even Fritzsche), in which case the article must 
have been used; but qualitatively: in holy writings. The divine promises 
of the gospel, given through the prophets of God, are found in such books 
as, being God’s records for His revelations, are holy writings. Such are 
the prophetic writings of the O. T.; thus designated so as to lay stress on 
their gualitatire character. Ina corresponding manner is the anarthrous 
ypagayv mpogytixnav to be understood in xvi. 26. 

Vv. 8, 4.! We must, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, set aside the view 
which treats rot yevouévouv . . . . vexpav, and vv. 5, 6, as parentheses, be- 
cause we have to deal with intervening clauses which accord with the 
construction, not with insertions which interrupt it. See Winer, p. 526 
[E.T. 565). — repi rot vloi airov)] [See Note LI. p. 78.] ‘‘ Hoc refertur ad illud 
quod praecessit evayyéAcoy ; explicatur nempe, de quo agat ille sermo bona 
nuntians,” Grotius. So, also, Toletus, Cajetanus, Calvin, Justiniani, Bengel, 
Flatt, Reiche, Kéllner, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Umbreit, Th. 
Schott, Hofmann, and others. But it may be objected to this view, on the 
one hand, that spi is most naturally connected with the nearest suitable 
word that precedes it ; and on the other that eiayy., frequently as it is used 
with the genitive of the object, nowhere occurs with repi in the N. T.;* and 
still further, that if this connection be adopted, the important thought in 
ver. 2 appears strangely isolated. Therefore, the connection of zepi with 
3 xpoernyy., is to be preferred, with Tholuck, Klee, Riickert, Fritzsche, 


1 Comp. Pflefderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitechr. would have only needed to repeat the eis 
1871, p. 502 ff. evayyéAvcoy with rhetorical emphasis, in order 

2 Hofmann erroneously thinks that Paul then to add the object in the genitive (rod 
could not have added the object of his di- _—viov 4.). Comp. Dissen. ad Dem. de cor. p. 
vine message otherwise than by wepf. He 815. 


32 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, and others, following 
Theodoret ; so that the great personal object is introduced, to which the divine 
previous promise of the gospel referred ; consequently, the person concerning 
whom was this promise of the future message of salvation. God could not (we 
may remark in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) have previously promised 
the gospel in any other way at all than by speaking of Christ His Son, who 
was to come and to be revealed ; otherwise his rpoerayyéAAecOat evayyéAsov 
would have had no concrete tenor, and consequently no object. — rod 
yevouévov down to vexpov describes under a twofold aspect (ard) the eralted 
dignity of Him who had just been designated by row viov avrov : (1) xara 
odpxa, Ile entered life as David's descendant ; (2) xara rvevya dytwo., He was 
powerfully instated as Son of God by His resurrection. Nevertheless 6 vid¢ 
Tov Geo, in the words zepi rov viov avrov (not airov), is not by any means 
to be taken in the general, merely historical theocratic sense of Messiah 
(Winzer, Progr. 1835, p. 5 f.; comp. also Holsten, 2. Ho. d. Paul. u. Petr. 
p. 424 ; and Pfleiderer, U.c.), because this is opposed to the constant usage 
of the Apostle, who never designates Christ as vid¢ Ocov otherwise > than 
from the standpoint of the knowledge which God had given to him by rev- 
elation (Gal. i. 16) of the metaphysical Sonship (viii. 3, 32 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Col. 
i. 13 ff.; Phil. ii. 6 ff. al.) ; and the hypothesis of a modification having 
taken place in Paul’s view (Usteri, Kéllner ; see, on the other hand, 
Rickert) is purely fanciful. Here also the vide rov Geov is conceived in the 
metaphysical sense as He who had proceeded out of the essence of the Father, 
like Him in substance (not, as Baur thinks, as organ of the Spirit, which is 
the purer form of human nature itself), and is sent by Him for the accom- 
plishment of the Messianic counsel. But since it was necessary for this 
accomplishment that He should appear as man, it was necessary for Him,— 
and these essential modal definitions are now added to the viod rov avtot,— 
as a human phenomenon, (1) to be born xara adpxe, and indced of the sced of 
David,? and yet (2) to be actually instated xara wvevpa, as that which, 
although from the time of His birth in appearance not different from other 
men (Phil. ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4), He really was, namely the Son of God. These 
two parallel clauses are placed in asyndetic juxtaposition, whereby the 
second, coming after the first, which is itself of lofty and honourable Mes- 
sianic significance, is brought out as of still greater importance.* Not per- 
ceiving this, Hofmann fails to recognize the contrast here presented between 
the two aspects of the Son of God, because Paul has not used xara trevpa dé 
épiofévroc in the second clause. — xara odpxa] in respect of flesh ; for the Son 
of God had a fleshly mode of being on earth, since His concrete manifesta- 
tion was that of a materially human person. Comp. ix. 5 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 
1 Pet. iii. 18; Phil. ii. 7; Rom. v. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 21; 1 Tim. ii. 5. To 


1 Comp. Gess, v. d. Pers. Christi, p. 89 ff.; the two main epochs in the history of the 
Weiss, Lidl. Theol. p. 309. Son of God, as they actually occurred and 
2 But at the same time the {dea of ‘‘anac- _ had been already prophetically announced. 
commodation to the Jewish-Christian mode ? See Bernhardy, p. 448; Dissen. ad Pind. 
of conception " (Holsten, z. Hv. Paul.u. Petr. Hac. ll., de Asynd. p. 275. 
p. 427), is not to be entertained. Paul gives 


CHAP. I., 3, 4. | 30 


the eépf belonged in the case of Christ also, as in that of all men, the puy4 
as the principle of the animal life of man ; but this sensuous side of His 
nature was not, as in all other men, the seat and organ of sin. He was not 
capxixéc (vii. 14), and yuyexde (1 Cor. ii. 14), in the ethical sense, like all 
ordinary men, although, in virtue of that sensuous nature, he was capable 
of being tempted (Heb. ii. 18; iv. 15). Although in this way His body 
Was & copa THe capxés (Col. 1. 22), yet He did not appear év capxi duapriac, 
but év duompare capxéc auapriag (Rom. viii. 2). With reference to His fleshly 
nature, therefore, i.e. in so far as He was a materially-human phenomenon, 
He was born (yevouévov, comp. Gal. iv. 4), of the seed (as descendant) of 
David, as was necessarily the case with the Son of God who appeared as the 
promised Messiah (Jer. xxiii. 5; Ps. cxxxii. 11; Matt. xxii. 42 ; John 
vii. 42 ; Acts xili. 23 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8). In this expression the éx orépuarog 
Aavid is to be understood of the male line of descent going back to David 
(comp. Acts ii. 30, é« xaprov r#¢ Gopboc), a3 even the genealogical tables in 
Matthew and Luke give the descent of Joseph from David, not that of 
Mary ;' and Jesus Himself, in John v. 27 (see on that passage), calls Him- 
self in contradistinction to His Sonship of God, son of a man, in which case 
the correlate idea on which it is founded can only be that of fatherhood. 
It is, therefore, the more erroneous to refer é« or. Aav. to Mary (‘‘ex 
semine David, i.e. ex virgine Maria,” Melanchthon ; comp. also Philippi), 
especially since Paul nuwhere (not even in viii. 3, Gal. iv. 4) indicates the 
view of a supernatural, gencration of the bodily nature of Jesus,? even apart 
from the fact that the Davidic descent of the mother of Jesus can by no 
means be established from the N. T. It is the more unjustifiable, to pro- 
nounce the metaphysical divine Sonship without virgin birth as something 
tneonceivable * (Philippi). — There now follows the other, second mode in 
which the Son of God who has appeared on earth is to be contemplated, viz. 


TIn opposition to Hofmann, (Welssag. wu. 
Prfil. Tl. p. 49(comp. the Erlangen Zettschr. 
1968, 6, p. 359 f.), who generalizes the 
sense of the words in such a way as to con- 
vey the meaning that Christ appeared as 
one belonging to the collective body which 
traces its descent back to David. But in fact 
it is simply said that Christ was Born of the 
seed of David. The reading yevvwuedvov (in 
min., and MSS. used by Augustine) is a 
correct gloss; and Hofmann himself grants 
(hell. Schrift N. 7., in loc.) that ylyvec@ar éx 
here signifies descent by dirth. And even 
if yevoudvov be taken as meaning: who ap- 
peared, who came (comp. on Mark i. 4; Phil. 
1i. 7; so Ewald), still the genetic relation to 
the oewdpua of David remainsthe same. He 
came cata cadpxa of the seed of David, and 
that in no other way than through His birth. 
This remark holds good also against other 
obscure evasions to which Hofmann resorts 
in his Schrifidew. II. 1, p. 118; in his eid. 
Schr. N. 7. he adheres substantially to his 


earller view (“‘ come of the race which called 
ttself after David, because tracing tls descent 
to his ancestry"). No, the omépya of David 
is nothing else than his semen virile, out (éx) 
of which, transmitted (comp. amd, Acts xii. 
28) through the male line from yevea to yeved 
(Matt. 1 6 ff.), at length the Son of God 
xara cépxa—Christ, the David's son of prom- 
ise—was born. See besides, against Hof- 
mann, Rich. Schmidt, /.c.—Because Christ 
was éx ondpuaros of David, He might also 
Himself be called omépyua of David. in the 
same way as He is called in Gal. fii. 16 
oxdépna ‘ABpadu ; and He Is so called Matt. 
1.1. Comp. further on é« omépuaros, In the 
sense of fatherhood, Soph. 0. C. 214: rivos 
el onéppatos ... warpobev, 

3 Usterl, Lehrbegr. p. 328; Rich. Schmidt, 
Paulin. Christol. p. 140 ff. ; Pficiderer, é.c. 

* This opinion rests on a premiss assumed 
d priori, on an abstract postulate, the pro- 
priety of which it is impossible to prove. 
Comp. on Matt. 1, 18, note. 


34 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


with reference to the apirit of holiness, which was in Him. The parallelism 
between xara odpxa and xara trevpa ay., apparent even in the position of the 
two elements, forbids us to understand xara wv. dywwo. as denoting the pre- 
supposition and regulative cause of the state of glorious power ascribed to 
the Son of God (Hofmann). In that case Paul must have used another 
preposition, conveying the idea on account of, perhaps é:4 with the accusative 
(comp. the 6:6, Phil. ii. 9), in order to express the thought which Hofmann 
has discovered, namely, that the holiness of His spirit, and therefore of His 
life, was to make His divine Sonship a state of glorious power. Regarding 
the view taken of é» duvduec in connection with this, see the sequel. ‘Ayiw- 
‘ivy, in Paul’s writings as well as in the Sept. (in Greek authors and in the 
other writings of the N. T. it does not occur), invariably means holiness 
(2 Cor. vii. 1 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; Ps. xcvi. 6, xevii. 12, cxliv. 5), not sanctifi- 
cation (as rendcred by the Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, and many others, 
including Gléckler and Schrader). So also in 2 Macc. iii. 12. The genitive 
is the gen. qualitatis,’ and contains the specific character of the rvetya. This 
mvevua aya. is, in contradistinction to the odpé, the other side of the being 
of the Son of God on earth ; and, just as the ocdpf was the outward element 
perceptible by the senses, so is the mvevua the inward mental element, the 
substratum of His vot¢ (1 Cor. ii. 16), the principle and the power of His 
INNER life, the intellectual and moral ‘‘ Ego” which receives the communi- 
cation of the divine—in short, the gow dvOpwrog of Christ. His mveiza also 
was human (Matt. xxvii. 50 ; John xi. 33, xix. 30)—altogether He was an 
entire man, and the Apollinarian conception is without support in the N. T. 
teaching—but it was the seat of the divine nature belonging to His person ; 
not excluding the specialty of the latter (in opposition to Beyschlag, Christol. 
pp. 212, 231), but being rather that which contained the metaphysical viéry¢ 
@rov, or—according to the Johannine type of doctrine—the seat and the 
organ of the Adyoc, which became flesh in the human person of Jesus, as 
also of the fulness of the Holy Spirit which bore sway in Him (John iii. 34 ; 
Acts 1.2; 2 Cor. iii. 17). Consequently the rveiya of Christ, although 
human (comp. Pfleiderer), was exalted above all other human spirits, 
because essentially filled with God, and thereby Aoly, sinless, and full of 
divine unpolluted life, as was no other human zveiya ; and for this reason 
His unique quality is characterized by the distinguishing designation zvevpa 
dywotvyc, t.e. spirit: full of holiness. This purposely-chosen expression, 
which is not to be abated to the studium sanctitatis (van Hengel), must, 
secing that the text sets forth the two sides of the personal nature of Christ, 
absolutely preclude our understanding it to refer to the mveipe adyiov,” the 
third person of the divine Trinity, which is not meant either in 1 Tim. iil. 
16, or in Heb. ix. 14. Nevertheless, the majority of commentators, since 
Chrysostom, have so explained it; some of them taking it to mean: 
“‘ secundum Sp. S. et divinitus concessum” (Fritzsche ; comp. Beza, Calixtus, 


1 Hermann, ad Viger, pp. 887, 891; Kiihner, 588, rveiua aywovrys, in so far as it produces 
TI. 1, p. 228. holiness. 
2 This is called in the Zest. XII. Pair. p. 


CHAP. I., 3, 4. 35 


Wolf, Koppe, Tholuck, and others),’ some referring it to the miraculous 
working of the Holy Spirit (Theodoret) or to the bestowal of the Spirit which 
took place through Christ (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, 
Estius, Béhme, and others). Since the contrast between odp& and rveiua 
is not that between the human and the divine, but that between the 
bodily and the mental in human nature, we must also reject the 
interpretation which refers the words to the divine nature (Melanchthon, 
Calovius, Bengel, and many others); in which case some take dywoivy, 
as equivalent to @edrm¢ @Winzer) ; others adduce in explanation of rveiya 
the here irrelevant via 6 Oedc, John iv. 24 (Beza, Winzer, Olshau- 
sen, Maicr, Philippi); others take the expression as substantially equiv- 
alent to the Johannine Adyo¢ (Riickert, comp. Reiche, ‘‘the principle of 
His higher essence”), and thus have not avoided an Apollinarian con- 
ception. The correct interpretation is substantially given by Kéllner, de 
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald (also in his Jahrb. 1849, p. 98), and 
Mehring. Comp. Hofmann (‘‘ spirit which supposes, wherever it is, a con- 
dition of holiness”), and also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 49, 
who nevertheless understands the divine nature of Christ as also in- 
cluded.*? — épiofévrog] The translation of the Vulgate, qui praedestinatus est, 
based on the too weakly attested reading spoopiaftvroc (a mistaken gloss), 
drew forth from old writers (see in Estius) forced explanations, which are 
now properly forgotten. ‘Opifev, however, with the double accusative, 
means to designate a person for something, to nominate, to instate (Acts x. 42 ; 
comp. Meleager in the Anthol. xii. 158, 7: o2 Oedv Spice daiuwv), nor is the 
meaning different here.? For although Christ twas already the Son of God 
before the creation of the world, and as such was sent (viii. 8; Gal. iv. 4), 
nevertheless there was needed a fact, by means of which He should receive, 
after the humiliation that began with His birth (Phil. ii. 7 f.), instating into 
the rank and dignity of His divine Sonship ; whereby also, as its necessary 
consequence with a view to the knowledge and conviction of men, He was 
legitimately established as the Son. The fact which constituted instatement 
was the resurrection, as the transition to His déga ; comp. on Acts xiii. 33 ; 
and éroince in Acts ii. 86. Inaccurate, because it confounds that consequence 
with the thing itself, is the gloss of Chrysostom: JdecyOévroc, aropaviévroc, 
xpdévrog ; and that of Luther: ‘‘shewn.” Umbreit’s rendering is errone- 


1 Comp. also Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1842, 
p. 486. In his view (2 Cor. iif. 17), the rvevpa 
is the element of which the higher person- 
ality of Christ consists. According to Baur, 
Paulus IL p. 87, it ts the Messianic spirit, 
the infrinete principle constituting the Mes- 
siahship of Christ. According to Holsten, z. 
Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 4%, it is in itself a 
transcendent pneumatic force, which produces 
the aywoovwn, a radiance of the divine rvevpua 
éyrov, : 

2A more accurate and precise definition 
of the idea may be found In Weiss, did. 
Theol. p. 818; also Rich. Schmidt, p. 10 f.; 


Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1871, p. 
160, 508 f. | 

3 But not in the sense: destined to become 
something, as Hofmann thinks: nor gener- 
ally, in the sense: qui deatinatus ext, but 
rather: qui conetitutus est (was instated). 
For otherwise the aorist participle would be 
unsuitable, since it must necessarily Indi- 
cate an act following the yevoudvou, etc. ; 
whereas the divine destination would be 
prior to the birth. Consequently, were that 
sense intended, it must have been, as in 
Acts x. 42, epicpdvov. 


ob THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


ous: ‘‘ separated,” namely from all men. — év duvvdyec] Not : through omnip- 
otence (Umbreit), but : mightily (Luther), forcibly ; for this installation of 
the Son of God as Son of God was a work of divine power, which (see what 
follows) was accomplished by means of the resurrection from the dead. 
Thus commanding power, divinely-energetic and effectual, forms the char- 
acteristic quality in which the dpioudc took place. On év, as paraphrase of 
the adverb (Col. i. 29; 2 Thess. i. 11), see Bernhardy, p. 209. év duv. is 
not, with Melanchthon, Schoettgen, Parcus, Sebastian Schmid, and others, 
including Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi,* Mehring, Holsten, Hof- 
mann, and Pfleiderer, to be connected with vloi Ocov (as the mightily powerful 
Son of God) ; for it was here of importance to dwell, not on a special pred- 
toate of the Son of God,’ but, in contradistinction to the éx orepy. Aav. xara 
odpxa, upon the divine Sonship in itself ; of which Sonship He was indeed the 
hereditary possessor, but yet needed, in order to become instated in it with 
glorious power, resurrection from the dead. Thus, however, év dvvdmet, even 
when rightly connected with dp:08., is not, with Chrysostom and Theophy- 
lact, to be taken as ‘‘per virtutem, i.e. per signa et prodigia” (Calovius, 
comp. Grotius) ; nor with Fritzsche : ci ei datd ; for Paul himself defines 
the how of the mighty dpropd by : éF avaor. vexpov. This, namely, was the 
causal fact, by virtue of which that dpozé¢ was accomplished ; for by the res- 
urrection of Christ, God, who raised Him up (comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4), accom- 
plished in point of fact His instating declaration : Thou art my Son, this day, 
etc., Acts xiii, 33. Paul might accordingly have written d:é, but é« is more 
expressive of the thought that Christ in virtue of the resurrection, etc. On 
éx, used of causal issuing forth, see Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 281 [E. T. 327] ; 
Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 550 f. The temporal explanation, since or after 
(Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Toletus, and others, including Reithmayr ; 
comp. Flatt, Umbreit, and Mehring) is to be rejected, because the raising up 
of Jesus from the dead was itself the great divine act, which, completed through 
‘the majesty of the Father (vi. 4), powerfully instated the Son in the Son’s 
position and dignities ; hence it was also the basis of the apostolic preach- 
ing, Acts i. 22, ii, 24 ff., xiii. 80, xvii. 31 f., xxvi. 23 ; Rom. iv. 24 ; 1 Cor. 
xv. 3 ff. Weare not to take the expression && avacr. vexp., a8 is often done, 
for é£ avaor. éx vexp., the second é« being omitted for the sake of euphony : 
but it must be viewed as a general designation of the category (vexpav, see on 
Matt. ii. 20): through resurrection of the dead, of which category the personal 
rising of the dead Jesus was the concrete case in point. Comp. xvii. 32. 


1 As if only a change of His attributes was 
concerned, or the transition into the full 
reality of the divine Sonship (Pfleiderer). 
The question concerned the installation of 
the Son of God as such, as it were His en- 
thronization, which had not taken place 
previously, but was accomplished by the 
resurrection with a mighty power. By 
means of the latter He received—as the Son 
of God, which from the beginning and even 
in the days of His flesh He really was—a de 


Sacto instatement, which accomplished 
itself in a way divinely powerful. What 
accrued to Him thereby, was not the full 
reality (see vill. 3; Gal. fv. 4), but the full 
efficiency of the Son of God; because He 
was now exalted above all the limitations 
of the state of His «évwore (Phil. fi.; 2 Cor. 
vill. 9); comp. eg. vi. 9; xi. 83 f.; v. 10; 2 
Cor. xili. 4; and numerous other passages. 
The Son was now the «vptos rdvrwy, had the 
name above every name, etc., etc. 


CHAP. I., 5. 37 


So, also, de Wette, Hofmann ; comp. Philippi, who however, following 
Erasmus and Bengel, introduces also the idea, foreign to this passage, that 
our resurrection is involved in that of Christ. — The following ’Incot Xpicrow 
is in apposition to rov viod avrov in v. 8 ; not necessary in itself, but in keep- 
ing with the fulness of expression throughout this opening portion of the 
Epistle, which exhibits a character of majesty particularly in vv. 3, 4. — Ob- 
serve, further, that the exhibition of the holy and exalted nature of Christ 
in our passage serves to express the high dignity of the apostolic office. 
Of diversities in faith and doctrine in Rome regarding the person of Christ 
there is not a trace in the whole Epistle.’ 

Ver. 5. To the general rov Kupiov juiv, which designates Christ as the 
Lord of Christians in general, Paul now adds the special relation in which 
he himself stands to this common xfpioc. He entertained too lively a con- 
sciousness of the bliss and dignity of that relationship, not to set it forth 
once more (comp. ver. 1) in this overflowing salutation ; this time, however, 
with closer reference to the readers, in accordance with his definite character 
as Apostle of the Gentiles. — Vv. 5, 6 are not to be enclosed in a paren- 
thesis ; and only a comma should be placed after ver. 6. — dc’ ov] through 
whom, denotes nothing elae than the medium ; nowhere, not even in Gal. i. 
1, the causa principalis. The view of the Apostle is, as Origen rightly per- 
ceived, that he had received grace and apostleship through the mediation 
of Christ, through whom God called him at Damascus. Regarding Gal. i. 
1, see on that passage. — éAdBouev] He means himself alone, especially since 
in the address he specifies no joint author of the letter ; not however—as 
Reiche, following Estius and many others, thinks—using the plural out of 
modesty (in the solemnity of an official epistolary greeting ?), but rather 
(comp. iii. 9) in accordance with the custom, very common among Greek 
authors, of speaking of themselves in the plural of category (Kriiger, § 61, 
2; Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2, 46). This is, no doubt, to be traced back 
to the conception ‘‘I and my equals ;” but this original conception was in 
course of use entirely lost. The opinion, therefore, that Paul here includes 
along with himself the other apostles (Bengel, van Hengel) is to be all the 
more rejected as unsuitable, since the subsequent év saoc roi¢g 26veorv points 
to Paul himself alone as the Apostle of the Gentiles. To understand Paul’s 
official assistants as included (Hofmann) is forbidden by the subsequent 
atooroAgv, which does not mean mission in general, but, as invariably in the 
N. T., specially apostleship. — ydpwv x. arooroAjy] grace (generally) and (in 
particular) apostleship. [See Note IV. p. 74.]  Xdpe is to be understood, not 
merely of pardoning grace (Augustine, Calvin, Calovius, Reiche, Tholuck, 
Olshausen, and others), or of the extraordinary apostolic gifts of grace (Theo- 
doret, Luther, and others, including Flatt and Mehring) ; for such special 
references must be demanded by the context ; but on the contrary gener- 
ally of the entire divine grace, of which Paul was made partaker through 
Christ, when he was arrested by Him at Damascus in his career which was 
hateful to God (Phil. iii. 12; 1 Cor, xv, 10), converted, enlightened (Gal. i. 


1 Comp. Geas, ton d. Pers. Chr. p. 56. 


38 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


16), and transferred into the communion of God's beloved ones and saints. 
The special object (Gal. i. 16) and at the same time the highest evidence of 
this yép¢¢ which he had received, was his reception of the azooroAg,' and 
that for the Gentile world. Others find here a é& dia dvoiv (Chrysostom, 
Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Glass, Rich. Simon, Wetstein, Semler, Koppe, 
Béhme, Fritzsche, Philippi, and others : ydépcv arootoAge. This might cer- 
tainly be justified in linguistic usage by the explicative xai ;* but it arbitra- 
rily converts two elements, which taken separately yield a highly appropri- 
ate sense, into one, and fails to recognize—what is involved in the union of 
the general and the particular—the fulness and force of the discourse 
moving the grateful heart. This remark applies also against Hofmann, 
according to whom the Apostle terms one and the same vocation ‘‘a@ grace 
and a mission ;” in which view azoor. is erroneously rendered (see above), 
and in consequence thereof cig trax. 7. is then joined merely to adp. K. GM., 
and not also to £448. — ei¢ trax. rior. | Object of the éAaB. ydp. wx. amoor. : in 
order that obedience of faith may be produced, 1.e. in order that people may sub- 
ject themselves to the faith, in order that they may become believing. [See 
Note V. p. 75.] Comp. xvi. 26; Acts vi. 7; 2 Cor. x. 5 f. ; 2 Thess. i. 8. 
To take rioreg for doctrina fidei (Beza, Toletus, Estius, Bengel, Heumann, 
Cramer, Rosenmitller, Flatt, Fritzsche, Tholuck, and others), is altogether 
contrary to the linguistic usage of the N. T., in which riot is always sub- 
jective faith, although often, as in the present instance, conceived of object- 
ively as a& power. Comp. xvi. 26; Gal. 1. 23. The activity of faith in 
producing works (Reithmayr), however, is not contained in the expression. 
The rior is, according to Paul, the conviction and confidence (assensus and 
Jiducia) regarding Jesus Christ, as the only and perfect Mediator of the 
divine grace, and of eternal life, through His work of atonement. Faith 
alone (to the exclusion of works) is the causa apprehendens of the salvation 
promised and obtained through Christ ; but, because it transfers us into 
living and devoted fellowship with Him, altogether of a moral character, 
it becomes the subjective moral power of the new life regenerated through 
the power of the Holy Spirit—of the life in Christ, which, however, is the 
necessary consequence, and never the ground of justification. See Luther's 
Preface. — The genitive miorewcs, in accordance with the analogy of the 
expressions kindred in meaning wtraxo) rov Xpeorot in 2 Cor. x. 5, and 
izax. THC GAnPeiac in 1 Pet. i. 22, necessarily presents itself (comp. Acts vi. 7 ; 
Rom. x. 16 ; 2 Thess. i. 8 ; also 2 Cor. ix. 18) as denoting that to which the 
obedience is rendered ; not (Grotius, following Beza) the causa efficiens : 
‘ut Deo obediatur per fidem,” in which explanation, besides, the ‘‘ Deo” 
is arbitrarily introduced.* Hofmann is also wrong in taking the genitive 


1 Augustine aptly remarks: ‘‘Gratiam * So also van Hengel, on the ground of 


cum omnibus fidelibus, apostolatum autem 
non cum omnibus communem habet." 
Comp. Bengel: ‘‘Gratia et singularis gratiae 
mensura apostolis obtigit.”’ 

3 Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 856; Niigelsbach, 
z. Ilias, \ii. 100. 


passages like v. 19; Phil. il. 12, where how- 
ever the sense of obedience fo God results 
from the context; and Ernesti, Uvrspr. d. 
Stinde, II. p. 281 ff., who urges against our 
view that it makes vumép rov dydu. avrov su- 
perfluous. But the glory of Christ is pre- 


CHAP. I., 6. 39 


wioreug as eperegetical (an obedience consisting in faith). — év maar roic Ebveorv] 
is to be joined with eic imax. riotewc, beside which it stands ; the é4v7, however, 
are not all nations generally, inclusive of the Jews (so most expositors, in- 
cluding Riickert, Reiche, KGllner, Fritzsche, Baur), but, in accordance with 
the historical destination of the Apostle (Gal. i. 16 ; Acts ix. 15, xxvi. 17 
f.), and in consequence of the repeated prominence of his calling as Gentile 
Apostle in our letter (ver. 13, xi. 13, xv. 16), all Gentile nations, to which 
also the Romans belonged (Beza, Tholuck, Philippi, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann and others) ; and these regarded not 
from a geographical point of view (Mangold, p. 76), but from a popular one, 
as 0°11 ; which precludes us from thinking—not as to a section, but at any 
rate as to the mass, of the Roman congregation—that it was Jewish-Christian, 
This his apostolic calling for the Gentiles is meant by Paul in all passages 
where he describes the 26v7 as the object of his labours (Gal. i. 16, 11. 2, 8, 
9; Eph. iii. 1, 8; Col. i. 27; 1 Thess. ii. 16).—tzép rot dvdp. abroi] 
belongs, in the most natural connection, not to 24éB. ... . amoor. (Riickert) 
or to di’ ov . . . . &veoww (de Wette, Mehring, Hofmann), but to e¢ vraxoqu 
. . . « &veow 3 ‘‘in order to produce obedience to the faith among all 
Gentile nations for the sake of (for the glorifying of, comp. Acts v. 41 ; Phil. 
ii. 18) His name.” Acts ix. 15, xv. 26, xxi. 13; 2 Thess. i. 12, serve to 
illustrate the matter referred to. The idea of wishing to exclude the glori- 
fying of Ais own name (Hofmann) is not for a moment to be imputed to the 
Apostle. He would have needed a very special motive for doing so. 

Ver. 6. Application of the contents of ver. 5 to the relation in which 
the Apostle stood to his readers, whereby he indicates how he is officially 
entitled to address them also, teaching, exhorting, and so forth — év oig éore 
nai bueig KAnroi ‘I. X.] To be written thus, without a comma after deic, with 
Heumann, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette, Hofmann, and Bisping : 
among whom also are ye called (ones) of Jesus Christ. Among the Gentile 
nations the Roman Christians were, like other Gentile-Christian churches, 
called of the Lord ; amidst the Gentile world, nationally belonging to it (in 
opposition to Mangold’s mere geographical interpretation), they also shared 
this high distinction. The reference of the xai to Paul (Th. Schott), and 
consequently the interpretation : as I, 80 also ye, is erroneous, because the 
Apostle has asserted concerning himself something far higher than the mere 
Christian calling. The common interpretation of xAyroi ’I. X. as an address 
(so too Riickert, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Mehring) makes the év oi¢ 
éore x. ty. quite a meaningless assertion ; for Bengel’s suggestion for meet- 
ing the difficulty, that év oi¢ has the implied meaning : among which con- 
verted nations, is purely arbitrary. — Since the calling (to the Messianic salva- 
tion ; see on Gal. i. 6 ; also 1 Cor. vii. 17) is invariably ascribed by Paul to 
God (viii. 30, ix. 24 ; 1 Cor. i. 9, vii. 15, 17; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 
14), we must explain it, not as : called by Christ (Luther, Riickert, Mehring, 


cisely the lofty end of all bwaxovew ry wiore. § 127: what Schmidt urges in opposition, in 
Where it takes place, it is acknowledged Rudelbach’'s Zeitschr. 1849, II. p. 188 ff. is 
that Jesus Christ is Lord, Phil. ff. 11. untenable. 

2 Comp. Usteri, p. 281; Welss, dil. Theol. 


40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Hofmann, and others), but as : called (by God) who belong to Christ (so Eras- 
mus, Beza, Estius, and most modern commentators, also Winer, p. 183 
[E. T. 195]). The genitive is possessive, just as in the analogous roi¢ éxAexroi¢ 
avrov in Matt. xxiv. 31. With the substantive nature of «Ayréc (comp. Butt- 
mann, neut. Gr. p. 147 [E. T. 169]) the genitive by no means admits mere- 
ly the interpretation which points to the calling subject, as in 2 Sam. xv. 
11; 1 Kingsi. 41,49; Zeph. i. 7 ; but admits of very different references, 
as e.g. in Homer, Od. xvii. 886, xAnroi ye Bporay are not those called by mor- 
tals, but those who are called among mortals (genitive totius). 

Ver. 7. Now for the first time, brought by ver. 6 nearer to his readers, 
Paul passes from the throng of the great intervening thoughts, ver. 2 ff., in 
which he has given full and conscious expression to the nature and the dignity 
of his calling, to the formal address and to the apostolic salutation. — rao 
x.7.A.} directs the letter to all beloved of God who are in Rome, etc., and there- 
fore to the collective Roman Christian church, Phil. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1 ; Col. i. 
1),’ but not, as Tholuck thinks,’ at the same time also to those foreign Chris- 
tians who were accidentally staying in Rome, for against this view ver. 8, 
in which trép wavrwv iudv can only refer to the Romans, is decisive. The 
raot would be self-obvious and might have been dispensed with, but in this 
Epistle, just because it is so detailed and is addressed to a great church 
still far away from the Apostle, raoc carries with it a certain diplomatic 
character. Similarly, though from other grounds, Phil. i. 1. —ayaryr. Ocoi, 
KAnroig dyiowg] Characteristic special analysis of the idea ‘‘ Christians” in 
accordance with the high privileges of their Christian condition. For, as 
reconciled with God through Christ, they are beloved of God (v. 5 ff., viii. 
39 ; Col. iii. 12); and, as those who through the divine calling to the Mes- 
sianic salvation have become separated from the xécyo¢g and consecrated to 
God, because members of the new covenant of grace, they are called saints ; 
comp. 1 Cor. i. 2. This saintship is produced through the justification of 
the called (viii. 30), and their accompanying subjection to the influence of 
the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. i..30). De Wette erroneously interprets : ‘‘ those 
who are called to be saints.” So also Baumgarten-Crusius. The calling 
always refers to the salvation of the Messiah’s kingdom. But that the 
aytérn¢ is to be understood in that Christian theocratic sense after the analogy 
of the Old Testament WI1P, and not of indicidual moral holiness (Pareus, 
Toletus, Estius, Grotius, Flatt, Glickler, de Wette, and others), is plain 
from the very fact, that al Christians as Christians are ayto..— ydpic . . . . 
tipfvy] See Otto, in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. Xdpec is the 
disposition, the subjective feeling in God and Christ, which the Apostle 
wishes to be entertained towards and shown to his readers ; cip#v7 is the 
actual result, which is produced through the manifestation of the yépi¢ : 


1 With these parallels before us, {it isun- stood innorelation whatever to the church. 
reasonable to ask why Paul does not desig- The dvres év Pwup «.7.A. are the church, and 
nate the readers asachurch. Bengel and it fs to the churches that he has written 
van Hengel are of opinion that no regular where he does not write to specified per- 
congregational bond was as yet in exist- = sona. 
ence. Th. Schott thinks that Paul as yet 3 Comp. Turretin, Wolf, and Boéhme. 


CHAP. I., 8. | 41 


grace and saloation (019), the latter in every aspect in which it presents it- 
self as the Christian issue of the yépec. Comp. Melanchthon. The spccifi- 
cally Christian element in this salutation’ lies in a7d Qcov warpdc . .. . 
Xpurov. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. 1.2; Eph. i. 2; Phil. i. 2; 1 Thess. 
1. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1 f. ; 1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 2; Tit. i. 4; Philem. 3. 
The special rendering of eip#v7, peace, which, following Chrysostom and 
Jerome, the majority, including Reiche, Olshausen, Tholuck, Philippi, Um- 
breit, and others retain (the higher peace which is given, not by the world, 
but by the consciousness of divine grace and love, see especially Umbreit, 
p. 190 ff.), must be abandoned, because ydpi¢ «ai elpfvn represent the general 
epistolary yaipe (Acts xv. 23 ; James i. 1), and thus the generality of the 
salutation is expressed in a way characteristically Christian. —zarfp pyav 
means God, in so far as we, as Christians, are His children through the 
viobecia (see on Gal. iv. 5 ; Rom. viii. 15). —xai xvpiov] i.e. nai ad xvpiov, not, 
as Gléckler, following Erasmus, takes it, ‘‘and the Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ,” for against this view stands the decisive fact that God is 
never called our and Christ’s Father ; see also Tit. i. 4 ; 2 Tim. i. 2. The 
formal equalization of God and Christ cannot be certainly used as a proof 
(as Philippi and Mehring contend) of the divine nature of Christ—which, 
however, is otherwise firmly enough maintained by Paul—since the different 
predicates xarpé¢ and xvpiov imply the different conceptions of the causa 
principalis and medians. For this purpose different prepositions were not 
required ; comp. on Gal. i. 1. 

Vv. 8-15. First of all the Apostle now—as under various forms in all his 
epistles, with the exception of that to the Galatians (also not in 1 Timothy 
and Titus)—expresses with thanksgiving towards God his pious joy at the 
faith of his readers ; and then assures them of his longing to be with them 
and to labour among them personally. The thanksgiving is short, for it 
relates to a church not only personally unknown to him, but also far 
removed from the sphere of labour which he had hitherto occupied ; but 
the erpression of it is in accordance with the position of the church in the 
metropolis of the world. 

Ver. 8. Iparov pév] [See Note VI. p. 75.] Tothat, which Paul desires first 
of all to write, there was meant to be subjoined something further, possibly by 
ézecra dé But, amidst the ideas that now crowd upon him, he abandons this 
design, and thus the zév remains alone. Comp. iii. 2; and on Actsi. 1; 1 
Cor. xi. 18.2— 16 Oe@ pov] ov eipi, y Kai Aarpebw, Acts xxvii. 23 ; comp. 1 Cor. 
i. 4; Phil. i. 3, iv. 19; Philem. 4.— dia "Inoot Xpiorov] These words—to be 
connected with eiyapiord, not with nov, as Koppe and Gléckler think, 
against which vii. 25 and Col. iii. 17 are clearly decisive—contain the medi- 
ation, through which the eiyapiord takes place. The Apostle gives thanks 
not on his own part and independently of Christ, not é:’ éavrov, but is con- 
scious of his thanksgiving being conveyed through Jesus Christ, as one who is 
present to his grateful thoughts ; inso far, namely, as that for which he thanks 


1 Regarding Otto’s attempted derivation * Schaefer, ad Dem. IV. p. 142; Hartung, 
of it from the Aaronic benediction, seeon1 Partikel. II. p. 410. 
Cor. i 8. 


42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


God is vividly perceived and felt by him to have been brought about through 
Christ. Comp. on Col. iii. 17 ; Eph. v. 20. Thus Christ is the mediating 
causal agent of the thanksgiving. To regard Him as its mediating presenter 
(Origen, Theophylact, Bengel, and others, including Hofmann) cannot be 
justified from Paul’s other writings, nor even by Heb. xiii. 15. Theodore 
of Mopsuestia well observes : rot Xprorov rabryc huiv rho evyaptotiag TH aiTiav 
rapacxouévov. —% wiattc tudy] quite simply : your saith (on Christ) ; the 
praiseworthy character of the rior 1s only set forth by the contert (xarayyéAa. 
év dA r. x.) afterwards. Everywhere one hears your faith openly spoken of. 
Comp. xvi. 19. Observe how this flattering expression of the Apostle and 
the thanksgiving coupled with it, as also the oryp:x6qvac x.7.A., in vv. 11, 12, 
point to the church not as Jewish-Christian, but as Pauline. Mangold's 
reference to Phil. i. 15-18, in opposition to this inference, leaves out of view 
the quite different personal situation under which the latter was written. 
Comp. on Phil. 1. 18, note. — év Aw r. xéouy] a popular hyperbole, but how 
accordant with the position of the church in that city, towards which the 
eyes of the whole world were turned ! Comp. 1 Thess. i. 8. It is, more- 
over, obvious of itself, that the subjects of the xcarayyéAAecw are the believers. 
As to the unbelievers, see Acts xxviii. 22. 

Ver. 9. Tép] The pith of the following proof of the assurance conveyed in 
ver. 8 lies in ddiadcizrwc, not in the desire to come to Rome, which is not 
subjoined till ver. 10 (Th. Schott). The interest felt by the Apostle in the 
Romans, which was so vivid that he unceasingly remembered them, etc., 
had even now urged him to his eiyapioré rH Ged x.t.A. —pdprug . . . . Bed¢] 
The asseveration in the form of an oath (comp. 2 Cor. i. 23, xi. 31 ; Phil. i. 
8) is intended solemnly to strengthen the impression of what he has to say ; 
viewed with reference to the circumstance which might readily excite sur- 
prise, that he, the Apostle of the Gentiles, had never yet laboured in the 
church—which nevertheless was Pauline—of the capital of the Gentile 
world, See vv. 10-18. The hypothesis of ‘‘ iniguos rumores,” that had 
reached his ears from Rome (van Hengel), is unnecessary and unsupported 
by any trace in the letter. — 6 Aarpetw x.r.A.] added to strengthen the assev- 
eration with respect to its sacred conscientiousness : to whom I render holy 
service in my spirit, i.e. in my moral self-consciousness, which is the living 
inner sphere of that service.’ This év r@ rv. uov, on which lies the practical 
stress of the relative clause, excludes indeed all Aarpetecy of a merely exter- 
nal kind, exercising itself in works, or even impure ; but is not intended 
to suggest a definite contrast to this, which would here be without due 
motive. It is rather the involuntary expression of the profoundly vivid 
JSeeling of inward experience. The Apostle knows and feels that the depths 
of his innermost life are pervaded by his Aarpetecv. Comp. @ Aarpetw.... 
év xaBapa ovvedioet, in 2 Tim. i. 8; also Heb. xii. 28. Tod mveiua pov cannot 
be the Holy Spirit (Theodoret),* but Paul bore the twottness of that Spirit in 


3 Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, TI. p.89 stowed on the Apostle (uov). See, against 
f.; see also on John iv. 2. this view, Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 
3 Holsten also (z. Er. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 83 ff. 
886) understands it of the Holy Spirit as e- 





CHAP. I., 10, 11. 43 


his own spirit (viii. 16 ; ix. 1). —év r@ evayy. 1. vlod abroi] in the gospel of his 
Son, which I preach, defend, etc. That is the great sphere to which He is 
called in the service of God, in the consciousness of which he is impelled by 
an inward necessity to devote to his readers that fervent sympathy of which 
he assures them. Grotius and Reiche think there is an implied contrast to 
the Aarpeia év tH véuy, Which however is quite foreign to the connection. 
Can we think of a side-glance at the Jewish style of teaching—when the 
discourse breathes only love and warmth of affection ? — d¢ adiad. ] o¢ does not 
stand for dr: (as following the Vulgate, the majority, including Fritzsche, 
think), but expresses the manner (the degree). God is my witness, how un- 
ceasingly, etc. Comp. Phil. i. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 15; 1 Thess. ii. 10; Acts x. 
28; Calvin ; Philippi ; van Hengel.' The idea of modaljty must be every- 
where retained, where a¢ takes the place of Src. *— pv. tu. roroip. ] make men- 
tion of you, viz. in my prayers. See ver. 10. Comp. Eph. i. 16 ; Phil. i. 3 ; 
1 Thess. i. 2. 

Ver. 10. Iavrore . . . deduevoc] annexes to d¢ adiad. the more precise defini- 
tion: in that (so that) J always (each time) in my prayers request. eri, which 
is to be referred to the idea of definition of time (Bernhardy, p. 246), indi- 
cates the form of action which takes place. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 2; Eph. 
i. 16; Philem. 4 ; Winer, p. 352 [E. T. 876]. —elruc 469 mort] if perhaps 
at length on some occasion. For examples of jjé7, already (Baeumlein, Part. 
p. 138 ff.), which, comparing another time with the present, conveys by the 
reference to something long hoped for but delayed the idea at length, see 
Hartung, Partikel. I. p. 238 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 607 ; comp. Phil. iv. 10, 
and the passages in Kypke. Th. Schott incorrectly renders rdvrore, under 
all circumstances, which it never means, and 77 rére as if it were §dy viv or 
épre. The mode of expression by eizwe implies somewhat of modest fear, 
arising from the thought of possible hindrances. * — evodw6ycouat] I shall have 
the good fortune. The active evodovy is seldom used in its proper signification, 
to lead well, expeditum iter praebere, as in Soph. O. C. 1437; Theophr. de 
caus, pl. v. 6, 7; LXX. Gen. xxiv. 27, 48; the passive, however, never 
means via recta incedere, expeditum iter habere, but invariably (even in Prov. 
xvii. 8) metaphorically: prospero successu gaudere.* Therefore the explana- 
tion of a prosperous journey, which besides amounts only to an accessory 
modal idea (Beza, Estius, Wolf, and many others following the Vulgate and 
Oecumenius ; including van Hengel and Hofmann), must be rejected, and 
not combined with ours (Umbreit). — ev rq 62. r. Geovjin virtue of the will 
of God ; on this will the evode6. causally depend. 

Ver. 11. ’Eriro@5] not valde cupio, but denoting the direction of the long- 
ing. Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 2; Phil. i. 8. — ydpioua rvevpartxdv] Paul calls that, 
which he intends to communicate to the Romans through his longed-for per- 
sonal presence among them (ideiv ; comp. Acts xix. 21, xxvili. 20) @ spiritual 


1 See also Ellendt, Ler. Soph. IT. p. 1000. “See Herod. vi. 78: 1 Cor. xvi. 2; 3 John 
®See the passages in Heindorf, ad Plat. 2; LXX.2 Chron. xiltf. 12; Ps. {. 8, and fre- 
Hipp. maj. p. 281, Jacobs. ad Ach. Tat. p. 566. quently ; Ecclus. xf. 16, xli. 1; Tob. iv. 19, v. 
*Comp. xi. 14; and on Phil. ill. 11; 1 16; Test. XII. Patr. p. 684, 
Macc. iv. 10. 


Ad THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


gift of grace ; because in his apprehension all such instruction, comfort, joy, 
strengthening, etc., as are produced by means of his labours, are regarded not 
as procured by his own human individuality, but as a result which the zvetya 
aycov works by means of him—the gracious working of the Spirit, whose organ 
heis. While it was highly arbitrary in Toletus, Bengel, Michaclis, and others 
to refer the expression to the apostolic miraculous gifts—against which the 
evayyeAicacfa in ver. 15 is conclusive—it was a very gratuitous weakening of 
its force to explain it (as is done by Morus, Rosenmiiller, K6llner, Maier, Th. 
Schott) as a gift referring to the (human) spirit; ‘‘a gift for the inner life,” 
Hofmann. In such an interpretation the specifically Christian point of 
view (1 Cor. xii. 4; comp. evioyia rvevuaring, Eph. i. 8) is left out of account ; 
besides, mvevyarexév would imply nothing characteristic in that case ; for 
that Paul did not desire to communicate any gifts of another sort, ¢.g. 
external, would be taken for granted. — The expression rz... ydp. is 
modest (ueTpidZovroc, Oecumenius). Note also the arrangement by which the 
words are made to stand apart, and this delicate r, the substantial ydpope, 
and the qualifying avevyarcxéy, are brought into the more special promi- 
nence.’ —ei¢ 7d oryp. tyac] Object of the intended communication of such a 
gift ; that ye may be established, namely, in the Christian character and life. 
[See Note VII. p. 75.] See ver. 12; comp. Acts xvi. 5; Rom. xvi. 25; 
1 Thess. iii. 2. The orypifa: is conceived as being divinely wrought by 
means of the Spirit, hence the passive expression ; it was to be accomplished 
however, as Paul hoped, through him as the instrument of the Spirit. Man- 
gold, p. 82, has, without any ground in the text, assumed that this estab- 
lishment has reference to ‘‘ their abandoning their Jewish-Christian seruples 
regarding the mission to the Gentiles,” whereas ver. 12 rather testifies to the 
Pauline Christianity of the Romans. This remark applies also against 
Sabatier, p. 166, who understands ‘‘une conception de l’évangile de Jésus 
plus large et plus spirituelle.” 

Ver. 12. Tovro dé tort] This, however, which I have just designated as my 
longing (namely, ideiy tuac, va . . . ornptx0. iuac) means, thereby I intend to 
say nothing else than, etc. By this modifying explanation, subjoined with 
humility, and expressed in a delicate complimentary manner (Erasmus puts 
the matter too strongly, ‘‘ pia vafrities et sancta adulatio”), Paul guards 
himself, in presence of a church to which he was still a stranger, from the’ 
possible appearance of presumption and of forming too low an estimate of 
the Christian standpoint of his readers.* — ovytapaxAnOjvac] must be under- 


10On perabiddva: rivi re (instead of revi 
tivos), cOMp. 1 Thess. fi. 8; Tob. vil. 9; 2 
Macc. i. 85. So sometimes, although sel- 
dom, in classic authors, Herod. vill. 5, ix. 4; 
Xen. Anab. iv. 5, 5; Schaef. Afeet. p. 21; 
Kiihner, IT. i. p. 295. 

* The delicate turn which he gives to the 
matter fs this: ‘“‘ fo see you, in order that I." 
etc., means nothing more than ‘fo be 
quickened along with and among you," etc, 
Consequently cvprapaxa. is parallel to the 


isecv: for both infinitives must have the same 
subject. If ovuwapaxd, «.7.A. had becn 
meant to be merely a delicate explanation 
Of ornprxOjvar vuas (the usual exposition 
after Chrysostom), then ¢u¢ must neces- 
sarily have been added to ovarapaxdA. Gro- 
tius aptly says: ‘“ cuswapaxaA. regitur ab 
emcxo0,’"" The true interpretation is given 
also by Bengel and Th. Schott; comp. 
Olshausen, Ewald, and Hofmann, who erro- 
neously imputes to me the common view, 


CHAP. I., 13. 45 


stood not, with the Peshito, Vulgate, Valla, Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, de 
Dieu, and many others, including Koppe and Ewald, in the sense of comfort 
or of refreshment (Castalio, Grotius, Cramer, Rosenmiiller, BOhme)—which 
it would be necessary that the context should call for, as in 1 Thess. iii. 2 ; 
2 Thess. ii. 17, but which it here forbids by the general ideiv tude, iva x.7.A. 
—but in the quite general sense of Christian encouragement and quicken- 
ing. The ovu.—however. is not to be explained by tyac¢ xai éuavrdéy ; on the 
contrary, the év tuiv renders it necessary that Paul alone should be con- 
ceived as the subject of cuzrapaxAntjva:c. He desires to be quickened among 
the Romans (év ipiv) at the same time with them, and this by the faith com- 
mon to both, theirs and his, which should mutually act and react in the 
way of the Christian sympathy that is based on specific harmony of faith. 
That the readers are not the subject of the ovurapaxd. (Fritzsche, van Hen- 
gel) is certain from év ipziv, which, if it meant in animis cestris (van Hengel), 
would be a perfectly superfluous addition. — The compound ovy7apaxd. occurs 
only here in the N. T., and is not found in the LXX. or Apocr. ;'—7 év aa- 
Afdotg wiores, More significant of the hearty character of the faith than 7 aa- 
AhAwy vier, is the faith of both viewed in its mutual identity, so that the 
faith which lives in the one lives also in the other. — tydy re xai Euov] placed 
in this order with delicate tact. | 

Ver. 13. My longing towards you has often awakened in me the purpose 
of coming to you, in order also among you, etc. Paul might have placed a 
xai before mpoef., but was not obliged to do so (in opposition to Hofmann’s 
objection); and he has not put it, because he did not think of it. The dis- 
course proceeds from the desire (ver. 11) to the purpose, which is coming 
nearer to realization. Hence it is the less necessary to transfer the weight 
of the thought in ver. 13 to the clause expressive of purpose (Mangold). — 
ov OéAw dé iu. ayv.] The Apostle lays stress on this communication. 
Comp. on xi. 25. The dé is the simple peraBarixév. —xai éxwd. dype row 
devpo] is a parenthesis separated from the structure of the sentence, so 
that iva attaches itself to mpoe?. 219. wp. tu. The «ai, however, is not to 
be taken as adversative, as Kéllner still thinks (see, in opposition to this, 
Fritzsche), but as the simple and marking the sequence of thought, which 
here (comp. John xvii. 10) intervenes parenthetically. For the view which 
makes it still dependent on ér:, so that it introduces the second part of 
what the readers are to know (Hofmann), is precluded by the following 
clause of purpose, which can only apply to that resolution so often formed. 
— devo] used only here in the N. T. as a particle of time, but more fre- 
quently in Plato and later authors; see Wetstein. That by which Paul had 
been hitherto hindered, may be seen in xv. 22; consequently it was neither 
by the devil (1 Thess. ii. 18) nor by the Holy Spirit (Acts xvi. 6 f.). Gro- 
tius aptly observes (comp. xv. 22): ‘‘ Magis urgebat necessitas locorum, in 
quibus Christus erat ignotus.” — iva riva xapzov x.7.4.] is entirely parallel in 
sense with iva te peradd x.7.4. in ver. 11, and it is a gratuitous refining on 
the figurative xaprév to find specially indicated here the conversion of unbe- 


2 But see Plat. Rep. p. 555 A; and Polyb. v. 83, 3, 


® 


46 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


lievers beyond the range which the church had hitherto embraced (Hofmann); 
comp. also Th. Schott, and even Mangold, who takes the Apostle as an- 
nouncing his desire to take in hand the Gentile mission also among his read- 
ers, so that the xapré¢ would be Gentiles to be converted. No; by xaprév 
Paul, with a complimentary egotism flattering to the readers, describes that . 
which his personal labours among the Romans would have effected—conse- 
quently what had been said without metaphor in ver. 11—according toa 
current figure (John iv. 86, xv. 16; Phil. i. 22; Col. i. 6), as harvest-fruit 
which he would have kad among them, and which as the produce of his 
labour would have been his (ideal) possession among them. But in this view 
the literal sense of éyecv (comp. vi. 21 f.) is not even to be altered by tak- 
ing it as consegui (Wolf, Kypke, Koppe, Kéllner, Tholuck, and others). 
To postpone the having the fruit, however, till the last day (Mehring) is 
quite alien to the context. — xafa¢ nai év roig Aowr 26v.] a8 also among the re- 
maining nationa, i.e. Gentiles (see on ver. 5), namely, I have fruit. In the 
animation and fulness of his thought Paul has inserted twice the «ai of 
comparison, inasmuch as there was present to his mind the twofold concep- 
tion: (1) ‘‘ among you also,’ as among ;” and (2) ‘‘ among you, as also among.” 
So frequently in Greek authors.* There is therefore no grammatical reason 
for commencing the new sentence with xa6é¢ (Mehring), nor is it in ac- 
cordance with the repetition of the é. 

Vv. 14, 15. Fuller explanation regarding the previous iva riva xapr. oxo 
Kalevtpiv, xabdg nai év rt. Aoew. &6veorv. — Respecting BdpBapos 
(6voua 7d ovxy 'EAAmixév, AMmonius), which, according to Greek feeling and 
usage, denotes generally all non-Greeks (Plat. Polit. p. 262 D)—all who were 
strangers to Greek nationality and language—see Dougt. Anal. II. p. 100 
f.; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 6, 1. How common it was to designate all 
nations by thus dividing them into ‘EAA. x. Bépf., seein Wetstein and Kypke, 
with examples from Philo in Loesner, p. 243. Of course the Hellenes in- 
cluded the Jews also among the SdpBapo: (a view which is attributed even to 
Philo, but without sufficient ground), while the Jews in their turn applied 
this designation to the Hellenes. See Grimm on 2 Macc. ii. 21, p. 61. Now 
it may be asked : did Paul include the Romans among the “EAAnvec or among 
the BapBapo. ? The latter view is maintained by Reiche and Kéllner, follow- 
ing older writers ; the former is held by Ambrosiaster, Estius, Kypke, and 
others, and the former alone would be consistent with that delicacy which 
must be presumed on the Apostle’s part, as in fact, since Hellenic culture 


That the “ you” must mean the Roman 
Christians, and not the still wnconveried 
Romans (Th. Schott), is clearly shown by 
all the passages, from ver. 8 onward, in 
which the duets occurs; and especially by 
the vuiy rois €v ‘Poy in ver. 15. As regards 
their nationality, they belong to the cate- 
gory of Gentiles. Comp. xi. 13, xvi. 4; Gal. 
if. 12, 14; Eph. ili. 1. But if Paul is the 
Apostle of the Gentiles, the Gentiles already 
converted also belong to his apostolic 
sphere of labour, as e.g. the Colossians and 


Laodiceans, and (vv. 5, 6) the Romans. 
Schott is compelled to resort to very forc- 
ed suggestions regarding éy vuiv and pir, 
especially here and in ver. 15; as also Mar- 
gold, who can only find therein a geograph- 
ical designation (comp. Hofmann: “he 
addresses them as a constituent portion Of 
the people of Rome*'). Comp. on ver. 15. 

2 See Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 158; Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 457 E; Winer, p. 
409 [E. T. 440}. 


CHAP. I., 14, 15. 4% 


had become prevalent in Rome, especially since the time of Augustus, the 
Roman community was regarded from the Roman point of view as separated 
from the barbaria, and only nations like the Germans, Scythians, etc., were 
reckoned to belong to the latter.’ But the following sogoi¢ re xat avojroc, as 
also the circumstance that the Romans, although they separated themselves 
from the barbarians (Greek authors included them among these, Polyb. v. 
104, 1, ix. 37, 5, Krebs and Kypke in loc.), are nowhere reckoned among the 
Hellenes or designated as such, make it evident that the above question is to 
be entirely ercluded here, and that Paul’s object is merely to set forth gener- 
ally his obligation as Apostle of the Gentiles in its universality. This he ~ 
does in the form of a twofold division, according to nationality, and accord- 
ing to condition of culture, so that the thought which he would express is : 
I am in duty bound to all Gentiles, without distinction of their nationality or 
of their culture ; therefore I am ready, to you also, etc. — dgecAérnc] Paul re- 
gards the divine obligation of office, received through Christ (ver. 5), as the 
undertaking of a debt, which he has to discharge by preaching the Gospel 
among all Gentile nations.*— otrw] so, that is, in accordance with this relation, 
by which I am in duty bound to the “EAAna r. x. BapB., to the cog. r. x. 
avoyr. It does not refer to xa6oc, ver. 13, which is dependent on the pre- 
ceding xa? év tiuiv, but gathers up in itself the import of “EAAyjo: . . . . etme: 
80 then, ita, sic igitur.* Bengel well says: ‘‘ est quasi ephiphonema et illatio 
a toto ad partem insignem.” — The otrw rd kar’ éué tpd0upov (sc. éori) is to be 
translated : accordingly, the inclination on my part [lit. the on-my-part inceli- 
nation] 78, so that rd belongs to mpdévyov, though the expression 1d xar’ ive 
apdOvuov, is not substantially different from the simple 1d mpd0uuéy pov, but 
only more significantly indicative of the idea that Paul on his part was will- 
ing, etc. Comp. on Eph.i.15. He says therefore : in this state of the case 
the inclination which exists on his side is, to preach to the Romans also. At the 
same time xar’ éué is purposely chosen out of a feeling of dependence on a 
higher Will (ver. 10), rather than the simple rd zpdé@vudv pov, instead of 
which 16 ézov mpdbvuov would come nearer to the expression by xar’ éyé.‘ 
The above connection of rd . . . . mpéGvuov is adopted by Seb. Schmid, 
Kypke, Reiche, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Mehring, and others. 80 
also Th. Schott, who however takes oirw in a predicative sense ; as does 
likewise Hofmann: Thus the case stands as to the fact and manner of the in- 
clination on my part. This however is the less appropriate, because ver. 14 
contains, not the mode, but the regulative basis of the zpo@vuia of ver. 15. 
If 7d nar’ éué be taken by itself, and not along with zpé@vyov, there would re- 
sult the meaning : there 7s, 80 far as I am concerned, an inclination ; comp. 
de Wette. But, however correct in linguistic usage might be 1rd xar’ iyé,* 


1 Comp. Cicero, de fin. il. 15, “non solum 4 On the substantival wpdéevpor, in the 
Graccia et Italia sed etiam omnis bar sense of xpoOvyia, comp. 8 Macc. v. 26; Plat. 


baria.”’ Leg. ix. p. 859 B; Eur. Med. 178; Thue. iil. 
2 Comp. in reference to this subject, Acts 82,8; Herodian, viii. 3, 15. 
xxvi.17f.; Gal. li. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 16. ® See Schaefer, ad Bos. Hu. p. 278; Mat- 


? See Hermann, ad Luc. de hist. conscr.p. _ thiae, p. 84. 
161; Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. 807 (E. T. 857]. 


48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


which would here yield the sense pro mea virili, as in Dem. 1210, 20, the 
rpédvyov Without a verb would stand abruptly and awkwardly, because not 
the mere copula éori, but éori in the sense of rdépeort, adest, would require to 
be supplied. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Tholuck, Rtickert, Kéllner, Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius, take rd xar’ éué as a periphrasis for éyé, so that zpé@vyov must be 
taken as the predicate (J on my part am disposed). Without sanction from 
the usus loguendi ; what is cited by Kéllner from Vigerus, p. 7 f., and by 
Tholuck, is of a wholly different kind. The Greek would express this mean- 
ing by 1d y’ éudv rpdtypov.'— xai tuiv] as also included in that general obliga- 
tion of mine ; and not: although ye belong to the oogoi (Bengel, Philippi), 
which the text does not suggest. But roi¢ év ‘Pduy is added with emphasis, 
since Rome (‘‘ caput ct theatrum orbis terrarum,” Bengel) could least of all 
be exempted from the task assigned to the Apostle of the Gentiles. Hof- 
mann erroneously holds (comp. Mangold, p. 84) that Paul addresses the 
readers by iziv, not in their character as Christians, but as Romans, and that 
evayyeAicacbac means the preaching to those still wnconcerted ; comp. Th. 
Schott, p. 91. No, he addresses the Christian church in Rome, to which he 
has not yet preached, but wishes to preach, the tidings of salvation, which 
they have up to the present time received from others. As in every verse, 
from the 6th to the 13th, so also here the ipei¢ can only be the «Ayroi ’I. X., 
ver. 6 f., in Rome.? 

Vv. 16, 17. Transition to the theme (ov yap ézacy. rt. evayy.), and the 
theme itself (divauig . . . . Shoerat). 

Ver. 16. Tap] Paul confirms negatively his zpofupia. . . . evayyedAicacbat, 
for which he had previously assigned a positive motive. — ov yap éraicy. T. 
evayy.] Written, no doubt, with a recollection of what he had experienced 
in other highly civilized cities (Athens, Corinth, Ephesus), as well as, gen- 
erally, in reference to the contents of the Gospel as a preaching of the cross 
(1 Cor. i. 18).2 Hence the negative form of the expression, as in contrast with 
the feeling of shame which that experience might have produced in him, as 
if the Gospel were something worthless, through which one could gain no 
honour and could only draw on himself contempt, mockery, etc. Comp. 2 
Tim. i. 12. — éxacoyivoua: (Plat. Soph. p. 247, D ; 2 Tim. i. 8), and aioytvopua, 
with accusative of the object : see Kihner, II. i. p. 255 f.; Bernhardy, p. 
113. — divayec yap cod éore] Ground of the ovx émacy. r. evayy. Power of God 
(genitive of the sudject) is the Gospel, in so far as God works by means of the 
message of salvation. By awaking repentance, faith, comfort, love, peace, 
joy, courage in life and death, hope, etc., the Gospel manifests itself as pover, 
as a mighty potency, and that of God, whose revelation and work the Gospel is 


1 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 583 A. 

® See besides, against Mangold, Beyschlag 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 642 f. 

? From his own point of view, viz. that 
the church in Rome was Jewtsh- Christian, 
Mangold, p. 98 f., suggests theocratic scru- 
ples on the part of the readers regarding 
the Apostle’s universalism. An idea incon- 
sistent with the notion conveyed by éracx., 


and lacking any other indication whatever 
in the text; for the subsequent ‘Iovdaigy re 
wpwroy «.v.A. cannot have been designed 
cautiously to meet such doubts (see, on the 
other hand, ii. 9); but only to serve as ex- 
pressive of the objective state of the case as 
regards the historical order of salvation, In 
accordance with the doctrinal development 
of principles which Paul has in view. 


CHAP. I., 17%. 49 


(hence rd evayy. rot Geov, xv. 16 ; 2Cor. xi. 7 ; 1 Thess. ii. 2). Comp. 1 Cor. 
i, 18, 24. The expression asserts more than that the Gospel is ‘‘a powerful 
means in the hand of God” (Riickert), and is based on the fact that it is the 
living self-manifestation and effluence of God, as Ajua Geov (Eph. vi. 17). 
Paul knew how to honour highly the message of salvation which it was his 
office to convey, and he was not ashamed of it. Here also, as in vv. 1, 9, 
7d evayy. is not the work or business of conveying the message (Th. Schott), 
but the message itself. — ei¢ owrnpiay] Working of this power of God : unto 
salvation, consequently with saving power. And what salvation is here meant, 
was understood by the reader ; for owrypia and odfecba are the standing ex- 
pressions for the eternal salvation in the Messianic kingdom (comp. Cfoerat, ver. 
17), the opposite of aréAea (Phil. i. 28 ; comp. Oévaroc, 2 Cor. ii. 16). Comp. 
generally, James 1. 21, rdv Adyov rév duvduevov cica rac Yuya tuov. As to 
how the Gospel works salvation, see ver. 17. — ravti rg miorebort:|] shows 
to whom the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. [See Note VIII. p. 
76.] Faith is the condition on the part of man, without which the Gospel 
cannot be to him effectually that power ; for in the unbeliever the causa ap- 
prehendens of its efficacy is wanting. Comp. ver. 17. Melanchthon aptly 
says : ‘‘ Non enim ita intelligatur haec efficacia, ut si de calefactione loquere- 
mur : ignis est efficax in stramine, etiamsi stramen nihil agit.” — ravri gives 
emphatic prominence to the universality, which is subsequently indicated in 
detail. Comp. iil. 22. —'Iovdaig re rpirov x. “EAA te . . kat denotes 
the equality of what isadded.' mpérov expresses the priority ; but not merely 
in regard to the divinely appointed order of succession, in accordance with 
which the preaching of the Messiah was to begin with the Jews and thence 
extend to the Gentiles, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, 
and many others, including Olshausen, van Hengel and Th. Schott, have 
understood it ; but in reference to the jirst claim on the Messianic salvation 
in accordance with the promise, which was in fact the ground of that external 
order of succession in the communication of the Gospel. So Erasmus, Calo- 
vius, and others, including Reiche, Tholuck, Riickert, Fritzsche, de Wette, 
Philippi, Ewald, Hofmann. That this is the Pauline view of the rela- 
tion is plain from iii. 1 f. ; ix. 1 ff. ; xi. 16 ff. ; xv. 9; comp. John iv. 22; 
Matt. xv. 24; Acts xili. 46. The Jews are the viot ri¢ Baod., Matt. viii. 
12, — °EAAmx] denotes, in contrast to 'Iovdaiy all Non-Jews. Acts xiv. 1; 1 
Cor. x. 32 al. 

Ver. 17 illustrates and gives a reason for the foregoing affirmation : diva - 
Ocov éoriw cig owr. 7. T. meot., Which could not be the case, unless d:xacocivy 
Ocov x.7.A. [See Note IX. p. 76.] — dixacocivy Ocov} That this does not denote, 
as in iii. 5, an attribute of God,’ is plain from the passage cited in proof’ 


1 See Hartung, Fartikell, I. p. 99; Bacum- 
lein, Part. p. 25. 

2It has been understood as the truthfal- 
ness of God (Ambroslaster) ; as the fustilia 
Dei cesentialie (Oslander); as the justitia 
distridutica (Origen, and several of the 
older expositors, comp. Flatt) ; as the good- 


ness of God (Schoettgen, Semler, Morus, 
Krehl); as the justifying righteousness of 
God (Marcker). According to Ewald it is 
the divine righteousness regarded as power 
and life-blessing, in the goodness of which 
man may and must fully participate, if he - 
would not feel its sting and its penalty. 


50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


from Hab. ii. 4, where, by necessity of the connection, 4 dixa:og must denote 
the person who is in the state of the dixacootvy Ocov. Comp. iii. 21 ff. It 
must therefore be an ethical relation of man that is meant ; and the genitive 
Gcov must (otherwise in Jas. i. 20)' be rendered as the genitive of emanation 
Jrom, consequently : rightness which proceeds from God, the relation of being 
right into which man is put by God (i.e. by an act of God declaring him 
righteous).? This interpretation of the genitive as gen. originis, acutely and 
clearly set forth anew by Pfleiderer,* is more specially evident from iii. 23, 
where Paul himself first explains the expression dixacootvy cov, and that by 
Stxatobuevor Swpedv tH avrov yxdpitt, Which is turned in ver. 26 to the active 
form : dixatovvra Tav éx riotews ; comp. ver. 30, viii. 33, according to which 
the genitive appears equivalent to éx @eov (Phil. ili. 9), in contrast to the 
éuf and idia dixatocivy (Rom. x. 8), and to the dicacoty éavrév (Luke xii. 15). 
The passage in 2 Cor. v. 21 is not opposed to this view (as Fritzsche thinks) ; 
see in loc. ; nor are the expressions dixasovo0a: évdimiov Oeod (ill. 20), and 
napa Ge@ (Gal. ili. 11), for these represent a special form under which the 
relation is conceived, expressing more precisely the judicial nature of the 
matter. Hence it is evident that the interpretation adopted by many 
modern writers (including K6llner, Fritzsche, Philippi, Umbreit), following 
Luther : ‘‘ righteousness before God,” although correct in point of substance, 
is unsuitable as regards the analysis of the genitive, which they take as geni- 
tive of the object. This remark applies also against Baur, who (Paulus, II. 
p. 146 ff.) takes the genitive objectively a3 the dixacoobvy determined by the 
idea of God, adequate to that idea ; whilst in his neutest. Theol. p. 134, he 
prefers to take the genitive subjectively: the righteousness produced through 
God, i.e. ‘‘ the manner in which God places man in the adequate relation to 
Himself.”—The following remarks may serve exegetically to illustrate the 
idea of dixatocivy Geov, which in the Gospel is revealed from faith :—Since 
God, as the holy Lawgiver and Judge, has by the law imposed on man the 
task of keeping it entirely and perfectly (Gal. iii. 10), He can only receive 
and treat as a dixawcg who is such, as he should be—as one normally guiltless 
and upright, who should be so, therefore, habitually—the person who keeps 
the whole law ; or, in other words, only the man who is perfectly obedient 
to the law can stand to God in the relation of dixasoctvy. Such perfection 
however no man could attain ; not merely no Gentile, since in his case the 
natural moral law was obscured through immorality, and through dis- 
obedience to it he had fallen into sin and vice ; but also no Jew, for natural 
desire, excited by the principle of sin in him through the very fact of legal 
prohibition, hindered in his case the fulfilment of the divine law, and ren- 


Comp. Matthias on fii. 21: a righteousness, Wette, Winer, p. 175 [E. T. 186]; Winzer 


such as belongs to God, consequently, ‘a 
righteousness which exists also inwardly 
and is in every respect perfect." 

1 Where whatis meant is the rightness re- 
quired by God, which man !s supposed to 
realize through exerting himself in works. 

2 Comp. Chrysostom, Bengel, and others, 
including Rickert, Olshausen, Reiche, de 


de vocid, Stxaros, Sixaocivy, et Sixacovy in ep. 
ad fom. p. 10); Bisping, van Hengel, Er- 
nesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, I. p. 153; Mehring; 
also Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 
627); Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 
408f.; Weiss, di. Theol. p. 330 f.; Rich. 
Schmidt, Paulin. Chris(ol. p. 10. 
3 In Hilgenfeld’s Zeilschr. 1872, p. 168 ff. 


CHAP. I., 17. 51 


dered him also, without exception, morally weak, a sinner and object of the 
divine wrath. If therefore man was to enter into the relation of a righteous 
person and thereby of a future participator in the Messianic blessedness, it 
was necessary that this should be done by means of an extraordinary divine 
arrangement, through which grace and reconciliation should be imparted 
to the object of wrath, and he should be put forward for the judgment of 
God as righteous. This arrangement has been effected through the sending 
of His Son and His being given up to His bloody death as that of a guiltless 
sacrifice ; whereby God’s counsel of redemption, formed from eternity, has 
been accomplished,—objectively for all, subjectively to be appropriated on 
the part of individuals through faith, which is the dpyavov Ayrrixéy. And, 
as this plan of salvation is the subject-matter of the Gospel, so in this Gospel 
that which previously, though prefigured by the justification of Abraham, 
was an unrevealed pvorfpiov, namely, righteousness from God, is revealed 
(GxoxaAtrrera:), Inasmuch as the Gospel makes known both the accomplished 
work of redemption itself and the means whereby man appropriates the 
redemption, namely, /uzth in Christ, which, imputed to him as righteousness 
(iv. 5), causes man to be regarded and treated by God out of grace and 
dwpedy (iii. 24) as righteous (dixatoc), so that he, like one who has perfectly 
obeyed the law, is certain of the Messianic bliss destined for the dixaco:.' 
The so-called obedientia Christi activa is not to be included in the causa 
meritoria of the divine justification ; but is to be regarded as the fulfilment 
of a preliminary condition necessary to the death of Jesus, so far as the jus- 
tification of man was objectively based on the latter ; without the complete 
actite obedience of Christ (consequently without His sinlessness) His passive 
obedience could not have been that causa meritoria (2 Cor. v. 21). — aroxa- 
Aixrera:] is revealed ; for previously, and in the absence of the Gospel, the 
Sixasoot-vy Geos Was and is something quite hidden in the counsel of God, the 


1 Justification is simply imputative, an 
actus forensis, not tnherent, and therefore 
not a gradual process, as Romang anew 
maintains, but produced by the imputation 
of faith. The new moral life in Christ is 
the necessary consequence (Rom. vi. 8), 80 
that regeneration comes after justification— 
a divine order of salvation inconsistent 
with all Osiandrian views. See Ritschl, in 
the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 795 ff., 
altkath. Kirche, p. 76 ff. The regenerate life is 
neither a part (Baumgarten-Crusius) nor the 
posilive side (Baur) of justification, the con- 
ceptiou of which is not tobe referred efther 
to the consciousness of liberation from guilt 
given with conversion (Schlelermacher) ; or 
to the unity of forgiveness with the instili- 
ing of love (Marheineke) ; or to an anticipa- 
tion of the judgment of God on faith in respect 
to the divine /ife which develops itself from 
it as ita frvié (Rothe, Martensen, Hundesha- 
gen, and others, including Tholuck on v. 9, 
and Catholics like Déllinger, see on iv. 3)— 


so that, with regard to its truth, it would 
have to be made dependent on sanciijfica- 
tion (Nitzsch), or the dying out of sin (Beck), 
and so forth,—or to the establishment of 
the new sanctified humanity in the person of 
Christ (Menken-Hofmann). The Form. Cone., 
p. 687, rightly warns: “ne ea quae fidem prae- 
cedunt et ea guae cam sequuntur articulo de 
justificatione, tanquam ad justificationem 
pertinentia, admisceantur.” Respecting 
the sensus forensis of justification, which is 
by no meansa product of medizval scholas- 
ticism (in opposition to Sabatier, p. 263), 
comp. Késtlin in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 
1856, p. 89 ff.; and in its purely exegetical 
aspect, especially Wlieseler on Gal. ff. 16, 
Pflelderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1872, p. 
161 ff., and Weiss, id!. Theol. $112. We may 
add that with Luther's doctrine of justifica- 
tion Zwingli substantially concurs. Seo, for 
defence of the latter (against Stahl), Ritschl, 
Rechtfert. u. Versdhnung, 1870, 1. p. 165 ff. 





52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


knowledge of which is first given in the Gospel (comp. xvi. 25; Acts 
xvii. 80). The prophecies of the Old Testament were only preparatory and 
promissory (ver. 2), and therefore were only the means of introducing the 
evangelical revelation itself (xvi. 26). The present is used, because the 
Gospel is conceived of in its continuous proclamation. Comp. the perfect, 
regavépwrat, ili. 21, and on the other hand the historical aorist gavepwhévrog 
in xvi. 26. Through the droxdavyc¢ ensues the ¢gavepoioba, through the 
revelation the being manifest as object of knowledge. — éx ricteu ei¢ riorw] 
may not be connected with dixatoo. (Luther, Hammond, Bengel, Koppe, 
Rickert, Reiche, Tholuck, Philippi, Mehring, and others), but rather—as 
the only arrangement which the position of the words admits without arbi- 
trariness—with azoxaAtrrerar. 8o also van Hengel and Hofmann ; comp. 
Luke ii. 35. The dixacooivy Cecov, namely, is revealed in the Gospel é 
wiorewc, inasmuch as in the Gospel faith on Christ is made knocn as the subjec- 
tive cause from which righteousness comes. Thus the Gospel, as the pjyua ric 
wiorewe (xX. 8) and Adyog rH¢ KaraAAay7e (2 Cor. v. 19), makes the divine right- - 
eousness become manifest from faith, which it in fact preaches as that 
which becomes imputed ; for him who does not believe the axo) ricreug 
(Gal. iii. 2), it leaves this dcasootvy to remain a locked-up wnrecealed bless- 
ing. But it is not merely éx ricrewc, but also cig riorw ; to faith (comp. 2 Cor. 
ii. 16). Inasmuch, namely, as righteousness is revealed in the Gospel from 
faith, faith is aimed at, i.e., the revelation spoken of proceeds from faith, 
and is designed to produce faith. This sense, equivalent to ‘‘ut jides 
habeatur,” and rightly corresponding alike with the simple words and the 
context, is adopted by Heumann, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl, Nielsen, and 
van Hengel. It is not ‘‘too meaningless” (de Wette), nor ‘‘ saying pretty 
nearly nothing” (Philippi); but is on the contrary emphatically appropriate 
to the purpose of representing faith as the Fac totum (‘‘ prora et puppis,” 
Bengel, comp. Baur, II. p. 161).'_ Therefore ei¢ rior: is not to be taken as 
equivalent to cig rdv moretovra, for the believer (Oecumenius, Seb. Schmid, 
Morus, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Reiche, de Wette, Olshausen, Reithmayr, 
Maier, and Philippi), a rendering which should have been precluded by 
the abstract correlative é« riocrew. Nor does it mean : for the furtherance 
and strengthening of faith. (Clem. Al. Strom. v. 1, II. p. 644. Pott., 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Beza, Cornelius & Lapide, and 
others, including Kéllner ; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, Klee, and Stengel ; 
for the thought : ‘‘from an ever new, never tiring, endlessly progressive 
faith” (Ewald) * is here foreign to the connection, which is concerned only 
with the great fundamental truth in its simplicity ; the case is different 
in 2 Cor. ili. 18. Quite arbitrary, moreover, was the interpretation : ‘‘e 
Jide legis in fidem evangelii” (Tertullian).* Finally, to take ziorw as faith- 
Julness, and to understand wiori¢ cig rior in the sense of faith in the 
JSaithfulness of God (Mehring), is to introduce what is neither in the words 


1 See also Hofmann, Schriftdew. I. p. 629 f. > Comp. Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret : 
Comp. vi. 19; 2 Cor. if. 16. dei yap micrevoat Tots wWpodyracs, cai & 

? Comp. Lipsius, Rechifertigungal.p. 7,116, éxeivev cis ry Tov evayyeAiou wlaorey 
and Umbreit. woénynPjvas:, Zeger, and others. 


OHAP. I., 18. 53 


nor yet suggested by the context. Ewald in his Jahrb. TIX. yp. 87 ff., inter- 
prets : faith in faith, the reference being to the faith with which man meets 
the divine faith in his power and his good will (7). But the idea of ‘faith 
from beneath on the faith from above,” as well as the notion generally of 
God believing on men, would be a paradox in the N. T., which no reader 
could have discovered without more clear and precise indication. After 
éx wior. every one could not but understand ¢i¢ wior. also as meaning human 
faith ; and indeed everywhere it is man that believes, not God. — xaic 
yéyparta] represents what has just been stated, dcxasootyy . . . . miotiv, as 
taking place in accordance with a declaration of Scripture, consequently 
according to the necessity of the divine counsel of salvation. He who from 
faith (on Christ) 7s righteous (transferred into the relation of the dccasocivy 
Ocov) shall live (be partaker of the Messianic eternal life). This, as the 
Messianic sense intended to be conveyed by the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1. 21) 
in the prophetic words, Hab. ii. 4, ‘‘ the righteous shall by his faithfulness * 
lire’ (attain the theocratic life-blessedness), is recognized by Paul, and ex- 
pressed substantially in the language of the LXX., rightly omitting the jov, 
which they inaccurately add to siorewe. In doing so Paul might, in ac- 
cordance with the Messianic reference of the passage, connect é« mioreu¢ 
(1N3%383)—seeing that on this causal definition the stress of the expression 
lies—with 6é dixa:og ; because, if the life of the righteous has zwiori as its 
cause, his d:xacootvy itself can have no other ground or source. That he has 
really so connected the words, as Beza and others rightly perceived (see 
especially Hélemann, de justitiae ex fide ambab. in V. T. sedibus, Lips. 1867), 
and not, as most earlier expositors have supposed (also de Wette, Tholuck, 
Delitzsch, on Hab. /.c., Philippi, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Ewald, 
and Hofmann, éx zior. Cgoera:, is plain from the connection, according to 
which it is not the life éx rior., but the revelation of righteousness éx rior. that 
is to be confirmed by the Old Testament. The case is different in Heb. x. 38. 
See further, generally, on Gal. iii. 11.—The dé is, without having any 
bearing on the matter, adopted along with the other words from the LXX. 
Comp. on Acts ii. 17. A contrast to the unrighteous who shall die (Hof- 
mann) is neither here nor in Hab. ii. 4 implied in the text. 

Vy. 18-32. [See Note X. p. 77.] Proof of ver. 17 deduced from experience, 
and that in the first instance with respect to Gentile humanity (the proof in 
regard to the Jews begins at ch. ii.). 

Ver. 18. This great fundamental proposition of the Gospel, ver. 17, is 
proved (yap) agreeably to experience, by the fact that, where there is no 
xiovic, there is also no aroxdAvyic of righteousness, but only of the wrath of 
God. ‘‘ Horrendum est initium ac fulmen,” Melanchthon, 1540. — aroxadir- 
terac] Emphatically placed, in harmony with the azoxad. in ver. 17, at the 
beginning. — opy? Ocov] The antithesis of dcxacoo. Oeov, ver. 16. The 6977 
of God is not to be explained with several of the Fathers (in Suicer), Eras- 


1 This fatéhfulness, in the prophet's sense, (rustful self-surrender to God. Comp. Um- 
the TIJION, and the sions in the Christian _ breit, p. 197. 
sense, have the same fundamental! idea, 


54 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


mus, and many later authorities, as poena divina, which is nothing but a 
rationalizing interchange of ideas, but rather in the proper literal sense : 
wrath, an affection of the personal God, having a necessary connection with 
His love. The wrath of God, the reality of which is indisputable as the 
very presupposition of the work of atonement, is the love of the holy God 
(who is neither neutral nor one-sided in his affection), for all that is good in 
its energy as antagonistic to all that is evil.’ See on Matt. iii. 7; Eph. ii. 
3. — arn’ ovpavov] is neither to be connected with 697?) Occ, as Beza, Estius, 
and many others hold, nor with the bare 6zeov (Mehring), but, as the order of 
the words and the parallel definition év avr@ in ver. 17 require, belongs to 
aroxadirrerac ; 80 that heaven, the dwelling-place and throne of God (comp. 
on Matt. vi. 9), is designated as the place from which the azroxdéAvyc¢ of 
the dpy? Ocot issues. ‘ Majestatem irati Dei significat,” Bengel. The reve- 
lation of righteousness takes place év evayyeAiw, ver. 17, as something spirit- 
ually brought home to the consciousness through the medium of the Gospel ; 
but that of the divine wrath descends from heaven, manifested as a divine 
matter of fact ; by which description, however, the destructive character of 
this working of divine power is not expressed (Th. Schott), although it is 
in fact implied in the entire context. But what revelation of divine wrath is 
meant? Paul himself supplies the information in ver. 24 ff., in which is 
described what God in His sufficiently well-grounded (vv. 19-23) wrath did 
(xapéduxev avtobc). God’s wrath therefore is revealed from heaven in this 
eay, that those who are the objects of it are given up by God to terrible 
retribution in unchastity and all vice. Against this interpretation (comp. 
Mebring), which is adopted also by Tholuck, Weber (vom Zorne Gottes, p. 
89), and Th. Schott, it cannot be objected, with Hofmann, that Paul must 
have written arexaAtoOy ; for he here in fact expresses the general proposi- 
tion of experience, to which the concrete historical representation subse- 
quently shall correspond ; the divine aziom is placed first (present), and 
then the history of it follows (avrist). Irrelevant is also the objection of 
Philippi, that azoxaAtrrev always denotes a supernatural revelation. For 
aroxaAbrrecy means to reveal what: was previously unknown, what was veiled 
from our cognition, so that it now becomes manifest ; and, in reference to 
this, it is a matter of indifference whether the revelation takes place in a 
natural orin a supernatural manner.? The mode of revealing is not indicated 
in the word itself, but in the context ; and hence according to the connec- 
tion it is used also, as here, of a revelation in fact, by which a state of things pre- 
viously unknown comes to our knowledge (Matt. x. 26; Luke ii. 85 ; 2 Thess. ii. 
3, 6, 8). Moreover, even according to our interpretation, a divine revelation 
is meant, by which there is certainly brought to light a pvorfpov, namely, 
the connection of the phenomenon with the divine épy%. ‘According to 


' The idea of the divine opy} is diamet- 
rically opposed to every conception of sin 


ramque partem moveri necesse est, aut in 
neutram.”’ 


as anecessity interwoven with human de- 
velopment. Even Lactantius has aptly re- 
marked, de ira Dei, v. 9: ‘“* Si Deus non iras- 
citur impiis et injustis, nec pios justosque 
diligit; in rebus enim diversis aut in ut- 


2 In this case it cannot make any dlffer- 
ence whether God is oris not the revealing 
subject, as is most plainly seen from Matt. 
xvi. 17, 


CHAP. I., 18. 55 


others, Paul means the inward revelation of the divine wrath, given by 
means of reason and conscience (Ambrosiaster, Wolf, and others, including 
Reiche and Gléckler), in support of which view they appeal to ver. 19. 
But, on the contrary, ax’ oipavov requires us to understand an dmoxdAvyec 
cognizable by the senses ; and ver. 19 contains not the mode of the manifesta- 
tion of wrath, but its moving cause (diér:). Others hold that the aroxdAvyu¢ 
of the divine wrath has come through the Gospel (‘‘ continens minas,” Grotius), 
and that év avrg is to be again supplied from ver. 17. So Aquinas, Bellar- 
mine, Corn. & Lapide, Estius, Grotius, Heumann, Semler, Morus, Béhme, 
Benecke, Maier ; comp. Umbreit, who includes also the Old Testament. It 
is decisive against this view that az’ ovpavoi, just because it is parallel to 
év avr@ in ver. 17, lays down a mode of manifestation quite different from 
év aiv@. Had the latter been again in Paul’s mind here, he would have 
repeated it with emphasis, as he has repeated the aroxaAtrrera:z. Others hold 
that the manifestation of wrath at the general judgment is meant (Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Toletus, Limborch, Koppe, 
Philippi, Reithmayr, and Ewald). The present, considered in itself, might 
be chosen in order to express a vivid realization of the future, or might be 
accounted for by the év airg, which, it is alleged, is to be again mentally 
supplied (Ewald) ; but the former explanation is to be rejected on account 
of the preceding purely present dmoxad. in ver. 17 ; and against the latter 
may be urged the very fact, that év airg is not repeated. Had this been the 
meaning, moreover, the further course of the exposition must have borne 
reference to the general judgment, which it by no means does ; and there- 
fore this interpretation is opposed to the connection, as well as unwarranted 
by ii. 5 (where the mention of the revelation of judgment belongs to quite a 
different connection) ; and not required by the idea of aroxaAbrrecy itself, 
since that idea is adequately met by the divine matter-of-fact revelation of 
wrath here intended (see above), and besides, the word is repeated inten- 
tionally for rhetorical effect. Lastly, while others have contented themselves 
with leaving the aroxdAvyc here in its entire generality (Olshausen, Tholuck ; 
comp. Calovius), and thus relieved themselves from giving any explanation 
of it, the reference to the religion of the O. T. (Bengel and Flatt) seems 
entirely arbitrary and groundless, and the interpretations which apply it to 
evils generally affecting the world as an expression of the divine wrath (Hof- 
mann), or to the external and internal distress of the time (Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius), are too general and indefinite, and thereby devoid of any concrete 
import in keeping with the text. —éwi rao. acéB. x. adtx. av6p.] contains the 
hostile direction (comp. Dem. 748, 22) of the aoxaAtmrerat . . . . ovpavod : 
against every ungodliness and immorality of men, which, etc. ’AcéBea and 
aduia* are distinguished as irreligiousness and immorality, so that both describe 
the tmprobitas, but under different aspects, in reference to the fear of God 
and to the standard of morals ; hence the former, as involving the idea of 
impiety, is the stronger expression.” That the distinction between them is 


? Plat. Prof. p. 823 E; Xen. Cyr. vill. 8, 7; 2 Comp. Dem. 348, 11: do¢dBypa, ove adicxpa 
Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 48. povov. 


56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


not to be understood, with K6llner, following Theophylact, Grotius, Calo- 
vius, Wolf, and many others, as profanitas in Deum and injuria in prozimum, 
is proved by the following év adixig xarex. —rav T. GAGO. év adic. xarey.] who 
keep down the truth through immorality, do not let it develop itself into 
power and influence on their religious knowledge and their moral condition. 
The article (quippe qui) introduces that characteristic of the avOpéruy, not 
yet more precisely defined, which excites the divine wrath. Rightly in the 
Vulgate : eorum qui. See Winer, p. 127 [E. T. 184]. It may be paraphras- 
ed: ‘‘of those, I mean, who.”” Comp. Kihner, ad Xen. Anad. ii. 7, 13. 
Bengel, moreover, aptly remarks : ‘‘ veritas in mente nititur et urget, sed 
homo eam impedit.” This is the peculiar, deeply unfortunate, constant 
self-contradiction of the heathen character.’ On xaréyecv, to hinder, comp. 2 
Thess. ii. 6 ; Luke iv. 42 ; 1 Macc. vi. 27.2 Against the interpretation of 
Michaelis, Koppe, and Baur, who take xaréyew here as meaning to possess (1 
Cor. vii. 30 ; 2 Cor. vi. 10), ‘‘ who possess the truth in unrighteousness, who 
know what God’s will is, and yet sin,” ver. 21 is decisive, where the contin- 
uous possession of the truth is negatived by éuarardOyoav . . . xapdia ; where- 
fore also it cannot be rendered with Melanchthon and van Hengel : who 
hold the truth in the bondage of immorality (vii. 6 ; Gen. xxxix. 20, xlii. 19). 
The aA#Geca is correctly interpreted in the sense of divine truth generally ; 
the mode of revelation, in which it is presented to man’s knowledge, is fur- 
nished by the context, here, by ver. 19 f., as the truth apparent by natural 
revelation in the works of God ; not therefore in the sense of the doctrine of 
the Gospel, which is hindered in its diffusion by Jews and Gentiles (Ammon, 
comp. Ewald). —év ad:xia] instrumental. To make it equivalent to adixuc 
(Reiche, following Theophylact, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Raphel, and others ; 
comp. év duvvduec in ver. 4) arbitrarily deprives the representation of an ele- 
ment essential to its fulness and precision, and renders it tame ; for it is 
self-evident that the xaréyew r. aA. is unrighteous or sinful, but not so much 
so that it takes place through sin. — Finally, it is to be noted that Paul, 
in avOpér, (correlative of @coi) rav r. aAgO. Ev adix. xatex., expresses himself 
quite generally, making apparent by avOpé. the audacity of this God-oppos- 
ing conduct ; but he means the Gentiles, as is indicated even by év aduia 
(comp. 1 Cor. vi. 1), and as is confirmed beyond doubt by the continuation 
of the discourse in ver. 19 ff. Koppe supposed that Paul meant the Jews 
especially, but included also the Gentiles ; Benecke, that he speaks of the 
whole human race in general, which view Mehring specially defends. But 
the peculiar character of what is contained in vv. 21-32 shows that the Jews 
are to be entirely excluded from the description which is carried on to the 
end of the chapter. It is not till ch. ii. 1 that the discourse passes over to 
them, and makes them suddenly see themselves reflected in the Gentile 
mirror. 

Ver. 19. Acére] propterea qguod—only to be separated by a comma from the 
foregoing—spccifies more precisely the causal relation, on account of which the 


1Comp. Nigelsbach, Homer. Theol. I. p. 2Plat. Phaed. p. 117 C; Soph. #2. 754; 
11 ff. Pind. Jsthm. iil. 2, and Dissen in loc. 


CHAP. I., 19. 57 


wrath of God comes upon such men, etc. (ver. 18). They keep down the 
truth through immorality ; if they did so out of ignorance, they would be 
excusable : but they do not do so out of ignorance, and therefore God's wrath 
is manifested against them. This view of the connection is suggested by the 
literal meaning of d:érz itself, and confirmed by eic¢ rd elvae airovg avarodoy. 
Comp. Hofmann. So also Fritzsche, who, however, takes d:érz as equivalent 
to ydép, as does also Philippi,—a use of it that never occurs, not even in Acts 
xviii. 10. This linguistically erroneous interpretation of d:érz condemns also 
the view of Tholuck, Riickert, de Wette, and Reithmayr, who discover here 
the proof, that the Gentiles keep down the truth by immorality ; or (so Th. 
Schott) that Paul rightly describes them as xaréyovreg «.r.A. No; for the 
tery reason that they hare the yrwordy rot Ocov, Which renders them inercus- 
able, does the wrath of God go forth against the xaréyovrec ; ver. 18. —7d 
ywuwordy tov Ocov] that which is known concerning God, not: that which is 
knowable concerning God, a signification which, though adopted by Origen, 
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, 
Grotius, Wolf, Koppe, Riickert, Ké6llner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, 
Ewald, Umbreit, Mehring, Hofmann, and others, is never conveyed by yoworéde¢ 
in the N. T. or in the LXX. and Apocrypha, though it frequently occurs in 
classic authors.’ In all the places where it occurs in the Scriptures, as also, 
though less frequently, in the classics,? it means quod notum est (Vulgate), 
and is therefore equivalent to yruwrd¢ or yrdpipoc, also in Acts iv. 16 ; Eccles. 
xxi. 7. The opposite: dyvworoc, Acts xvil. 23. Comp. Luther, 1545: 
‘+ das (nicht : dass) man weiss, das (nicht : dass) Gott sei.” That which is 
known of God excludes that which needed a special revelation to make it 
known, as in particular the contents of the Gospel ; the former is derived 
from the gencral revelation of nature. If we should take ywwordy as know- 
able, the assertion of the Apostle would be incorrect without some limiting 
qualification ; for the positively revealed belonged to that which was know- 
able, but not to that which was known of God,’ into which cateyory it was 
brought only through special revelation, which it would otherwise not have 
needed. — év airoic] i.e. in their consciousness, év taic¢ xapdiarg avtov, ii. 15. 
Comp. Gal. i. 16. The explanation inter ipsos, which Erasmus and Grotius 
(both referring it arbitrarily to the Gnosis of the philosophers among the 
Gentiles), Kéllner and Baumgarten-Crusius give, is to be rejected for this 
reason, that airoic egavépwoe, compared with vootyeva xafopara:, points to a 
manifestation of the yrwordy rov Oeov which is inward, although conveyed 
through the revelation of nature. — égavépwoe] God—and this subject is 


1 See the passages from Plato quoted by 
Ast, Lex. I. p. 401; Dorvill. ad Charité. p. 
602; Hermann, ad Soph. Oed. T. 861; comp. 
dyrworos, which in Plato invariably means 
unknowable 


2 Xen. Cyr. vi. 3, 4; Arrian. Fpict. il. 20, 
4; Aesch. Choeph. 702; Beck, Antiatt. p. 87, 
2. 

8 Which, however, is not to be trans- 
formed, with Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl, 
and others, into the subjective scientia Dei 


—which has no precedent in usage, is un- 
suitable to the following ¢davepdéy éon, and 
is not to be supported even by the LXX. 
Gen. ff. 9; In which passage, if the text be 
not corrupted, rd év¥Aov rou eiddvas yrwordy 
xaXdov «. rommpov must be rendered : the tree 
by which they were to learn what is known 
of good and evil, t.e. by which they were to 
become aware of that which they—by the 
very enjoyment—had known of good and 
evil. 


58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


again named with emphasis—has laid it clearly before them, made it lie 
openly before their view as an object of knowledge. Comp. on the matter 
itself Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 26 f. ; 1 Cor. i. 21. . 

Ver. 20 f. Ta yap adépara . . . . Oecéryc¢] Giving a reason for, and explain- 
ing, the previous 6 Oed¢ yap atrtoic épavépwce. — 1d Gdpata avtou] His invisible 
things, the manifold invisible attributes, that constitute His nature. [See 
Note XI. p. 77.] Paul himself explains it afterwards by 9 aidtog atrot divapic 
xai Becérn¢ ; therefore it is not actiones Dei invisibiles (Fritzsche ; comp. 
Theodoret). — vootyeva xafopara] through the works are seen becoming dis- 
cerned ; voobyzeva defines the manner in which the xafopara takes place, 
otherwise than through the senses (the voeiv, aAA’ obm Supace Oewpeiv, Plat. 
Rep. p. 529 B), in so far as it is effected by means of mental discernment, by . 
the agency of intelligent perception. The xa8opara: forms with dépara a strik- 
ing oxymoron, in which the compound selected for that purpose, but not 
elsewhere occurring in the N. T., heightens still further the idea conveyed 
by the simple form.’ — roi¢ wojyact] embraces all that God as Creator has 
produced, but does not at the same time include His governing in the world 
of history, as Schneckenburger thinks, Beitr. p. 102 f. ; for TYP, with 
which roinua corresponds (LXX. Eccles. ili. 11, vii. 13, al.), is the formal 
expression for God’s works of creation ; as also Paul himself, in Eph. ii. 10, 
describes the renewing of man as analogous to creation. It is only of the 
works of creation that the Apostle could assert what he here says, especially 
as he adds amd xricewg xéouov. Since, moreover, roig rouuact, by means of 
the works, contains the instrumental definition appended to vootueva xaBoparaz,” 
ard xric. xéouov cannot be taken in a causal sense (see Winer, p. 348 (E. T. 
370]), as the medium cognoscendi (so Luther and many others, including 
Calovius, Pearson, Homberg, Wolf, Heumann, Morus, and Reithmayr), but 
only in the sense of temporal beginning : since the creation of the world 
they are so perceived. —% re aidsog airov div. x. Oecéry¢] A more precise 
definition of the previous rd adépara avrov. 'Aidioc, everlasting, belongs to 
both substantives ; but xai annexes the gencral term, the category, of which 
the divaycc is a species. See Fritzsche ad Matt. p. 786. Its relation to the 
preceding ré consists in its completing the climax and cumulation, for 
which ré prepares the way. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 98. Hofmann is un- 
supported by linguistic usage in inferring from the position of ré, that aidtog 
is not meant to apply also to Gedr7c. It is just that position that makes 
aidtog the common property of both members (see especially Hartung, l.c. p. 
116 f.), so that, in order to analyze the form of the conception, we may again 
supply aide avrot after xat.* The Geéry¢ is the totality of that which 


2Comp. Xen. Cyr. iff. 8, 81: « yao. 
Nuas ob worduroe Oedcovras ... . waAtw xa8o- 
pwvres Huey 7d wANHO0s. Pind. Pyth. ix. 45. : 
ola@a .... 0 xafopgs. On the oxymoron 
itself, comp. Aristotle, de mundo, 6, p. 899, 
21. Bekk: a@ewpyros az’ avray twy éepywy 
Oawperrar (o Oeds). 

2Not merely to voovpeva (Hofmann), 
which is closely bound up with xaSopara: as 


showing the manner of it, so that both 
together are defined instrumentally by rocs 
rowjzact, On voerv, as denoting the inéel- 
lectual animadvertere in seeing (Hom. JZ. A. | 
599, in the inverse position: roy 8 ide» 
événoe), comp. Nagelab. 2. [lias, p. 416, ed. 3; 
Duncan, ed. Rost, p. 787. 

*Stallbaum, ad flat. Crit. p. 4 B.; 
Schaefer, Poet. gnom. p. 78; Schoemann, 


CHAP. I., 20. 59 


God is as a Being possessed of divine attributes, as Geiov,—the collective sum 
of the divine realities. This comprehensive sense must by no means be lim- 
ited. The eternal power—this aspect of His @ecér”¢ which comes into prom- 
inence at first and before all others—and the divinity of God in its collect- 
ive aspect, are rationally perceived and discerned by means of His works. 
Arbitrary is the view of Reiche, who holds that Paul means especially 
wisdom and goodness, which latter Schneckenburger conceives to be intended ; 
and also that of Hofmann (comparing Acts xvii. 29; 2 Pet. i. 4), that the 
spiritual nature of the divine being is denoted. We may add that Rickert 
holds the strange view, that 6e:6ryc, which could not properly be predicated 
of God, is only used here by Paul for want of another expression. It might 
be and was necessarily said of God, as being the only adequate comprehensive 
expression for the conception that was to be denoted thereby. For analo- 
gous references to the physico-theological knowledge of God, see Wetstein, 
and Spiess, Logos spermaticos, 1871, p. 212. The suggestion of Philo as the 
Apostle’s scource (Schneckenburger) is out of the question. Observe 
further how completely, in our passage, the transcendental relation of God to 
the world—the negation of all identity of the two—lies at the foundation 
of the Apostle’s view. It does not exclude the immanence of God in the 
world, but it excludes all pantheism. See the passages from the O. T. dis- 
cussed in Umbreit. — cic rd elvar atrot¢ avarod.| has its logically correct ref- 
erence to the immediately preceding ra yap dépata . . . . Oecérnc, and there- 
fore the parenthesis, in which Griesbach and others have placed ra yap adp. 
. . . « Oetérac, must be expunged. The eic cannot be said of the result, as 
Luther, and many others, including Reiche, Kéliner, de Wette, Riickert, 
Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Philippi, Ewald, following the Vulgate (ita ut sint 
inexcusabiles), have understood it ; for the view, which takes it of the pur- 
pose, is not only required by the prevailing usage of cic with the infinitive? 
(see on 2 Cor. viii. 6), but is also more appropriate to the connection, because 
the xafopara: is conceived as a result effected through God’s revelation of 
Himself (ver. 19), and consequently the idea of the divine purpose in ei¢ 7d 
eivac x.r.A. is not to be arbitrarily dismissed. Comp. Erasmus (‘‘ne quid 
haberent,” etc.), Melanchthon (‘‘ propter quas causas Deus,” etc.), Beza, Calvin 
(‘‘tn hoe ut’), Bengel, and others. But Chrysostom, even in his time, ex- 
pressly opposes this view (comp. also Oecumenius), and at a later period it 


ad Ie. p. 8 f.; also Winer, p. 520 [E. T. 


1QOn the difference between this word 
and 6eérys (Col. fi. 9), which denotes Dei/as, 
Godhead, the being God, see Elsner, Odes. p. 
6, and Fritzsche in loc. Van Henge! has er- 
roneously called in question the distinction. 
In Wisd. xviii. 9, namely, 6 tis OecéryTos 
rénos ig not the law of the Godhead, but the 
law whose nature and character Is divinity 
—of a divine kind; and in Lucian, de 
Calumn. 17, 7 ‘Hoacriavos Odrys is the di- 
vinity of Hephaestion, his divine quaiity. 
In Plutarch O«érys very frequently occurs. 


Appropriately rendered in Vulgate by di- 
vinitas. 

3 Ets, with an infinitive having the article, 
is not used in a single passage, of the Epistle 
to the Romans in particular, in any other 
than a félic sense. See i. 11, lil. 26, iv. 11, 16, 
18, vi. 12, vil. 4, 5, viii. 20, xi. 11, xi 2, 8 xv. 
8, 138,16. Far too hastily de Wette terms this 
interpretation in our passage senseless, 
and Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with him. 
Tholuck calls it grammatical terrorism. 
Hofmann recognizes the telic view as the 
true one in all cases where eis fs used with 
the infinitive. 


60 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


became a subject of contention between the Lutherans and the Reformed. 
Sce Calovius. The view, which interprets it of the result, hesitates to admit 
the conception of a divine decree, under which Paul places the inexcusable- 
ness of men ; and yet not only may this stand to the perception of God from 
Ilis works which has existed since the beginning in the relation of result, 
but, in accordance with the thoroughly Scriptural idea of destiny (comp. 
e.g. V. 20), it must stand to it in the relation of that decree. In this con- 
nection, which inserts the results in the divine counsel, the inexcusableness 
of man appears as telically given with the self-manifestation of God. Ver. 21, 
as in general even ver. 18, contains the perverse conduct of men manifesting 
itself in the course of human history, on account of which God, who foresaw 
it, has in His natural self-manifestation made their inexcusableness His aim. . 
Inexrcusable they are intended to be ; and that indeed on account of the fact, 
that, although they had known God (namely from that natural revelation), they 
have not glorified Him as God. — é:ér¢] as in ver. 19, only to be separated by 
a comma from what precedes : inexcusable on this account, because. [See 
Note XII. p. 78.] — yvdvrec] not ; cum agnoscere potuissent (Flatt, Nielsen ; 
also as early as Oecumenius) ; nor yet : although they knew God, so that it 
would be contemporaneous with ovy . . . . éddfacav. 80 Philippi and van 
Hengel ; also Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 346. They had attained the 
knowledge from the revelation of nature (for to this, according to vv. 19, 
20, we must refer it, and not, with Rickert, to the history in Genesis of the 
original revelation), but only actu directo, so far as that same sclf-manifesta- 
tion of God had presented itself objectively to their cognition ; the actus 
reflecus remained absent (comp. Delitzsch, p. 347), and with them who 
keep down the truth év adcxig, ver. 18, the issue was not to the praise of 
God, etc. ; so that yvérrec is thus previous to the ovy . . . . édéfacav. Paul 
sets forth the historical emergence of that for which they were inexcusable. 
They had known God, and yet it happened that they did not praise Him, 
etc. — ovx o¢ Oedv EddEaoav } yvxap.] It would have been becoming for them 
to have rendered to God as such, agreeably to His known nature, praise and 
thanks ; but they did neither the one nor the other. Regarding d¢ in the 
sense : according to the measure of His divine quality, comp. on John i. 14. 
The praising and thanksgiving exhaust the notion of the adoration, which 
they should have offered to God. —aA1’ éuar. év roi¢g dtad. avrav] but they 
were frustrated in their thoughts (comp. 1 Cor. iil. 20), so that the concep- 
tions, ideas, and reflections, which they formed for themselves regarding 
the Deity, were wholly devoid of any intrinsic value corresponding with the 
truth. Comp. Eph. iv. 17. The paracérn¢ is a specific attribute of Epa, | 
ism. Jer. ii. 5; 2 Kings xvii. 5; Ps. xciv. 11. Comp. also Acts xiv. 15 ; 
Judith vi. 4. —xai éoxorioOy x.t.4.] forms a climax to the foregoing. Comp. 
Eph. iv. 18, i. 18. Their heart that had been rendered by the éivaracéOycav 
unintelligent, incapable of discerning the true and right, became dark, 
completely deprived of the light of the divine aAfGea that had come to 
them by the revelation of nature. «xapdia, like 34, denotes the whole internal 
seat of life, the power which embraces all the activity of reason and will 
within the personal consciousness, Comp. on Eph. i. 18 ; Delitzsch, p. 250. 


CHAP. I., 22, 23. 61 


To take aciverog here in a proleptic sense (see on Matt. xii. 13) is quite inap- 
propriate, because it destroys the climax. Comp. moreover on aciverog, 
Wisd. xi. 15 ; as also on the entire delineation of Gentile immorality, ver. 
20 ff. ; Wisd. xiii-xv. This passage as a whole, and in its details, pre- 
sents unmistakable reminiscences of this section of the book of Wisdom.’ 
Without reason Tholuck argues against this view. 
Vv. 22, 23. In a false conceit of wisdom (comp. 1 Cor. i. 17 ff.) this took 
place (viz. what has just been announced in éuaramOyoav . . . xapdia), and 
what a horrible actual result it had !— The construction is independent, no 
longer hanging on the déérc in ver. 21 (Gléckler, Ewald); the further 
course of the matter is described. While they said that they were wise (comp. 
1 Cor. iii. 21), they became foolish. Comp. Jer. x. 24 f. This becoming 
foolish must be understood as something sel/-incurred—produced through 
the conceit of independence—as is required by the description of God’s 
retribution on them in ver. 24 ; therefore the ‘‘ dirigente Deo,” which Grotius 
understands along with it in accordance with 1 Cor. i. 21, is here foreign to 
the connection. The explanation of Kéllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
others, including Usteri : ‘‘ they have shown themselves as fools,” is erroneous, 
because the aorist passive in ver. 21 does not admit of a similar rendering. 
—For examples of gdoxew, dictitare, in the sense of unfounded assertion 
(Acts xxiv. 9, xxv. 19; Rev. ii. 2), see Raphel, Xenoph. and Kypke. 
Comp. Dem. Pail. i. 46, iii. 9 ; Herodian, iii. 12, 9. Their pretended 
wisdom was a pdtaiog dofocogia, Plat. Soph. p. 231 B. We may add that 
this definition is not aimed at the Gentile philosophers, who came much later, 
and in fact did not do what is declared in ver. 23 (comp. Calvin), but gen- 
erally at the conceit of wisdom (1 Cor. i. 21), which is necessarily connected 
with an estrangement from divine truth, and from which therefore idolatry 
also, with its manifold self-invented shapes, must have proceeded. For 
heathenism is not the primeval religion, from which man might gradually 
have risen to the knowledge of the true God, but is, on the contrary, the 
result of a falling away from the known original revelation of the true 
God in His works. Instead of the practical recognition and preservation 
of the truth thus given comes the self-wisdom rendering them foolish, 
and idolatry in its train. —xai #AAag. x.r.A.Jand they exchanged the maj- 
esty of the imperishable God for a likeness of an image of @ perishable man, 
etc., i.e. instead of making, as they ought to have done, the glory of the 
eternal God manifested to them in the revelation of nature—WM 133, 7.¢. 
His glorious perfection (ver. 20)—the object of their adoration, they chose 
for that purpose what was shaped like an image of a perishable man, etc. ; 
comp. Ps. cvi. 20; Jer. ii. 11. The éy (comp. Ecclus. vii. 18) is instru- 
mental, as is elsewhere the simple dative (Herod. vii. 152 ; Soph. Niod. fr. 
400, Dind.) : thereby, that they made and adored such an dyofuya, and on 
the other hand rejected the glory of God, which they ought to have wor- 
shipped. Comp. LXX. Ps. lc. 3; 9AAdEavro ri défav attov bv dyodpare 
pooxzov.? It is not mere similarity, but conformity with the object of compari- 


1 See Nitzach in the Deutsch. Zeitechr. 1850, 9 On the genitive eixévos comp. also 1 Macc. 
p- 887 ; Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p.840f. if. 48; Rev. ix. 7; and on dpotwua itself in 


62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


son concerned as agrecing therewith in appearance. '— xa? sreretv. x. TeTpaT. kK. 
épz.] No doubt as Paul, in using d:6pér0v, thought of the forms of the 
Hellenic gods, so in zwerecy. x.r.A. he had in his mind the Egyptian worship 
of animals (Ibis, Apis, serpents).7, We may add that, like the previous 
g0aprov avOpdrov, the genitives werecvov x.7.A. are dependent on eixévoc, not on 
duotéuare (van Hengel), which is less natural and not required by the singu- 
lar eixévoc, that in fact refers to each particular instance in which a man, 
birds, ctc. were copied for purposes of divine adoration by means of statues 
and other representations. 

Ver. 24. Wherefore (as a penal retribution for their apostasy) God also gate 
them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity. [See Note XIII. p. 78.] «ai, 
also, indicates the giving up as a thing corresponding to the guilt. Comp. 
on Phil. ii. 9. —év raig éai0. tr. x. avt.] contains that, in which they were in- 
colved, z.e. the moral condition in which they were found when they were 
given up by God to impurity. Comp. ver. 27 ; Eph. ii. 83; Bernhardy, p. 
209. The instrumental rendering (Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Gléckler, and 
Krehl) is unnecessary, because the immediate litcral sense of év is quite suf- 
ficient, and the former is less suitable as to sense, since it conveys something 
which is obvious of itself. — rapéduxev] expresses the real active giving up 
on the part of God. The favourite explanation of it by ciace, so often resort- 
ed to since Origen and Chrysostom, is nothing but a rationalizing gloss at 
variance with the literal meaning. To the Apostle God is the liring God, 
who does not passively permit the retributive consequences of fidelity or of 
apostasy—thus, as it were, letting them run their course, as an artificer does 
with his wheel work—but Himself, everywhere active, pervades and effect- 
ively develops the arrangements which He has made. If then God has so 
arranged that man by apostasy from Him should fall into moral impurity, 
and that thus sin shall be punished by sin (and this connection of sin with 
sin is in accordance both with experience and Scripture, Is. vi.10 ; Job viii. 
4; Ps. Ixix. 28, Ixxxi. 13 ; Mark iv. 12), this arrangement can only be car- 
ried out in reality through the effective action of its originator ; and God 
Himself must give up the apostates unto impurity, inasmuch as it is by His 
doing that that moral connection is in point of fact accomplished.? Con- 
sequently, if the understanding of rapéduxev in its strictly proper and posi- 
tive meaning is quite in kceping with the universal agency-of God, in His 
physical and moral government of the world, without, however, making 
God appear as the author of sin, which, on the contrary, has its root in the 


the sense of likeness, v. 14, vi. 5, vill. 3; 
Phil. ff. 7; Ecclus. xxxvill. 28 ; 2 Kings xvi. 
10; Isa. xl. 18; 1 Sam. vi. 5; Plat. Phaedr. 
p. 250 A; Parm. p. 182 D. 

2 See also Holsten, z. Ev. des Paul. u. Petr. 
p. 440; Pfleidererin Hllgenfeld's Zettschr. p. 
528 f. 

2 Philo. Leg. ad. Caj. p. 566, 570. For 
passages from profane authors respecting 
the folly (at which the ¢@aprov here also 
points) of image-worship, see especially 


Dougtaeus, Ana/. 69, p. 102, Grotius and 
Wetstein. 

27Comp. Acts vil. 42; Rom. ix. 19; also 
2 Thess. ii. 11 f.; and the rabbinical passages 
quoted by Schoettgen, especially from Pirke 
Aboth, c. 4: ‘‘ Festina ad praeceptum leve 
tanquam ad grave, et fuge transgressionem; 
praeceptum enim trahit praeceptum et 
transgressio transgressionem : quia merces 
praecepti praeceptum est, et transgressionis 
transgressio. 


CHAP. I., 24. 63 


ixdupia r. xapd., we must reject as insufficient the privative interpretation’ 
thst became current after Augustine and Oecumenius, which Calovius has 
adopted in part, and Riickert entirely. Comp. Philippi, who thinks of the 
withdrawal of the Divine Spirit and its results, though in the sense of a posi- 
tive divine infliction of punishment. This withdrawal, through which man 
is left in the lurch by God, is the immediate negative precursor of the zxapé- 
duxev (Ecclus, iv. 19). Reiche thinks that Paul here avails himself, with more 
or less consciousness of its being erroneous, of the general view of the Jews 
regarding the origin of the peculiar wickedness of the Gentiles (Ps. Ixxxi. 
18 ; Prov. xxi. 8; Ecclus. iv. 19; Wisd. x. 12, xiii. 1; Acts vil. 42) ; and 
that this representation of moral depravity asa divine punishment is to be dis- 
tinguished from the Christian doctrinal system of the Apostle. But how very 
inconsistent it is with the character of Paul thus consciously to bring forward 
what is erroneous, and that too with so solemn a repetition (vv. 26, 28) ! And 
is it not an arrangement accordant with experience, that apostasy from God 
is punished by an ever deeper fall into immorality ? Can this arrangement, 
made as it is by God ‘‘ justo judicio” (Calvin), be carried out otherwise than 
by God ? Analogous are even heathen sayings, such as Aesch. Agam. 764 
ff., and the heathen idea of the 6eoBAdBeca.* But just as man, while his 
fidelity is rewarded by God through growth in virtue, remains withal free 
and does not become a virtuous machine ; so also he retains his freedom, 
while God accomplishes the development of His arrangement, in accordance 
with which sin is born of sin. He gives himself up (Eph. iv. 19), while he 
is given up by God to that tragic nevus of moral destiny ; and he becomes 
no machine of sin, but possesses at every moment the capacity of perévora, 
which the very reaction resulting from the feeling of the most terrible mis- 
ery of sin—punished through sin—is designed to produce. Therefore, on the 
one hand, man always remains responsible for his deterioration (ver. 82, ii. 6, 
iii, 5, vii. 14) ; and, on the other, that punishment of sin, in which the teleo- 
logical law of the development of evil fulfils itself, includes no contradiction 
of the holiness of God. For this reason the view of K6llner—that the Apos- 
tle’s idea is to be separated from its Jewish and temporal form, and that we 
must assume as the Christian truth in it, that the apostasy of men from God 
has brought them into deepest misery, as certainly as the latter is self-inflict- 
ed—is a superfluous unexegetical evasion, to which Fritzsche also has re- 
course. — dxafapciayv] spurcitia, impurity, and that lustful (comp. Gal. v. 19 ; 
Eph. iv. 19 ; Col. iii. 5), as is plain from the following context ; not gen- 
erally : ‘‘all action and conduct dishonouring the creaturely glory of man” 
(Hofmann). The row areudfecbac may be taken either as the genitive of the 
purpose : that they might be dishonoured (Riickert, Philippi, van Hengel), 


11t fs at bottom identical with the per- 
missive rendering. Therefore Chrysostom 
not only explains it by «taceyv, but illustrates 
the matter by the instance of a general who 
leates his soldiers in the battle, and thus 
deprives them of his aid, and abandons 
them to the enemy. Theodoret explains 


it: ris oizelas wpopnOeias éyvuveoce, and em- 
ploys the comparison of an abandoned ves- 
sel. Theophylact Illustrates the wapedecey 
by the example of a physician who gives 
up a refractory patient (wapadiswoww avrdy 
Te ent wAdov voreiv). 

2 Comp. also Ruhnken, ad Vella. ii. 57, 8. 


64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


or as the genitive of more precise definition depending on axafapo. (impurity 
of the becoming dishonoured, i.e. which consisted therein ; so Fritzsche, Winer, 
Tholuck, and de Wette). The latter’ is the more probable, partly because 
the ariudfeodac x«.7.A. already constitutes the impurity itself, and does not 
merely attend it as a result ; and partly on account of the parallel in ver. 
28, where roceiv x.7.A. is likewise eperegetical, aripvdleoda: is not however the 
middle, whereby the avroradéc would be expressed, for which there is no 
empirical usage, but the passive: that their bodies were dishonoured among 
themselves, mutually. This év éavroi¢ refers to the persons (airav, not to be 
written abrdv), not asserting that the ariudfeocda: takes place on themselves, 
which is in fact already conveyed by ra cdézara avrav,* but rather based on 
the nature of participation in unchastity, according to which they bring one 
on the other reciprocally the dishonouring of the body. In this personal reci- 
procity of those who practise unchastity with each other lies the character- 
istic abominableness of the dishonouring of the body ; and this point is des- 
ignated by év éavroi¢ more expressly, because in contrast to non-participating 
third persons, than it would have been by év aaAgaac.*— The vices of un- 
chastity, which moreover are still here referred to quite generally (it is other- 
wise in ver. 26 f.), and not specially as unnatural, according to their dis- 
graceful nature, in whatever forms they may have been practised, are specifi- 
cally heathen (in fact, even partially belonging to the heathen cultws), asa 
consequence of apostasy from the true God (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 5). As they 
again prevail even among Christians, wherever this apostasy spreads through 
unbelief, they must verify even in Christendom their heathen nature, and, 
along with the likewise essentially heathen wAcovefia, pre-eminently exclude 
from the salvation of the Messiah (Eph. v. 5 f.; Col. iii. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f.). 
—With ariudl. r. odz. compare the opposite, 1 Thess. iv. 4, where ré éavrov 
oxevog must be explained of the body as the vessel of the Ego proper. 

Ver. 25. Oirivec perhAratay x.t.A.] as those who exchanged, etc. In this de- 
scription of the character of those who are given up, attached to ver. 2%, 
Paul makes once more apparent the motive which determined God to give 
them up. The words are a renewed tragic commentary (comp. vv. 22, 23) 
on the 6:4, ver. 24. On dortc, guippe qui, which brings up the class to which 
one belongs, and thereby includes the specification of the reason, see Her- 
mann, ad Soph. Oed. R. 688; Matthiae, p. 10738. Hofmann erroneously 
makes a relative protasis begin with oirivec, with which then dd rovvo x.7.A., 
ver. 26, would be connected by way of apodosis : them, who exchanged, etc., 
God has therefore given up. This would not be inconsistent with abrove in 
ver. 26, which would then be resumptive ; but the very praise of God, in 
which ver. 25 terminates, and still more the concluding ay#v, which can only 
indicate the end of the sentence (comp. ix. 5, xi. 36; Gal. i. 5 ; Eph. iii. 


1 See Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 20 f.[E.T.  semetipsis. With the reading év avrots we 
268]. should rather render {t simply: in order 
2 Hofmann refers the reading which he that among them (i.e. in their common inter- 
follows, ¢v avrots, to the cwyara, but ex- course) their bodies should be dishonoured. 
plains this: the body of each person in Such was to be the course of things among 
himself ; consequently, as if the expression them. 
were éy éavrots, and that in the sense tn 3 Kiibner ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 20. 


CHAP. I., 25. 65 


21), ought to have decidedly precluded such a forced intermixture of sen- 
tences, which is not to be justified by subtleties. — The compound pergAa. 
(exchanged) is more significant than 7AAagav (changed) in ver. 23. — r7v aan’. 
tov Oeov}] to be taken entirely in harmony with the expression r7v dégav rod 
Geov in ver. 23 ; therefore rod Ocov is to be taken as genitive of the subject: | 
the truth of God, the true divine reality,’ so as to make it in point of actual 
meaning, though not in the abstract form of the conception, identical with : 
‘true God” (Luther, and most expositors, including Riickert, de Wette, 
Tholuck, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel). It is differently rendered by 
Wolf, whom Ké@llner follows : the truth revealed to the Gentiles by God. 
Reiche and Mehring (following Pareus, Camerarius, Estius, Seb. Schmid, 
and Cramer) take it as the true knowledge of God, so that Ocov would be geni- 
tive of the object. Compare Piscator, Usteri, and Gléckler, who understand 
by it the original consciousness of God. Opposed to these views is the exact 
parallel in which ver. 25 stands to ver. 23, so that rot Oeot ought not to be 
taken without necessity as having a different reference in the two verses. 
tiv a249. T. Oeod is explained concretely by rdv xricavra in the second half of 
the verse. — év 1 Webdec] with the lie ; év as in ver. 23. By this Paul means, 
in contrast to rjv aAyd. r. Ocov (but otherwise than in iii. 7), the false 
gods, which are xar’ éfoyjv the weidoc in concreto, the negation of the truth 
of God. Comp. on 1 Cor. viii. 4 f., x. 20. Grotius has aptly said: ‘‘ pro 
Deo vero sumserunt imaginarios.” * — xai éoeBdodnoav. . . . xticavra] more 
precise explanation of the first clause of the verse. — éoef. x. éAdrp.] The 
former is general (coluerunt), the latter took place through sacrifices, and 
other definite rites and services; hence Paul designates his own specific 
service of God in ver. 8 by Aarpeiw. ceBdfoua:, in Homer : to be afraid of (dl. 
vi. 167, 417), is employed in the later Greek like oéBoua: in the sense to 
recere, Orph. Arg. 550, Aq. Hos. x. 5. In the N. T. it only occurs here. — 
TG xricec] Corresponding with the verb standing next to it, so that the ac- 
cusative is to be supplied with éocB. See Matthiae, § 428, 2. — rapa r. xri- 
cavra] in the sense of comparison: prae creatore, in which case the context 
alone decides whether the preference of the one before the other is only 
relative, or whether it excludes the latter altogether (see on Luke xviii. 14 ; 
and van Hengel on our passage). The second case is that which occurs 
here, in accordance both with the nature of the case, seeing that the Gen- 
tiles did not worship the Creator at all, and with the immediate connection 
(uer#AAagav. . . . ev rH webder). The sense therefore substantially amounts 
to praeterito creatore (Hilary), or relicto creatore (Cyprian), i.e. they honoured 
the creature and not the Creator, whom they ought to have honoured. 
Theophylact says aptly, with reference to the comparative rapa : ix rH¢ ovy- 
xpioews Td éyxAnua éraipwy. So in substance also Beza, Estius, and others, 
including Reiche, Tholuck, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Krehl, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, van Hengel. The relative interpretation : 


1 Not “the truth, which God Himsefis" of His &éa. 
(Hofmann) ; but that, which God ts in true 2 Comp. Is. xliv. 20; Jer. iff. 10, xfll. 25, 
reality. Thatis just the adequate substance xvi. 19, a/.; Philo, vit. Mos. p. 678 C, 679 A. 


66. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


more than the Creator (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Grotius, Ammon, 
Rickert, and others), is therefore in point of fact erroneous. The contra 
creatorem, which Hammond, Koppe, Flatt, Fritzsche, and Mehring find 
here, may likewise be traced to the sense of comparison,' but has against it 
the fact, that in the whole context Paul presents the matter in the light of 
& peTdAAaic, Of an exchanging the true for the false, not of hostility to the 
true. From that point of view the Gentiles have worshipped the creature, 
and not the Creator. Quite parallel is rap’ éxetvov in Luke, xviii. 14, Lachm. 
— The doxology : who is praised, 3113, not : celebrandus (comp. on Eph. i. 
8; 2 Cor. xi. 31; Mark xiv. 61), for ever / Amen,—is a natural effusion of 
deeply-moved piety, called forth by the detestable contrast of the Gentile 
abominations just described, without any further special design (Koppe : 
‘* ne ipse in majestatem divinam injurius videri possit ;” comp. Tholuck). 
Vv. 26. 27. Aca rovrvo] Beginning an independent sentence (against Hof- 
mann, see on ver. 25), refers to the description oiraweg . . . . xricavra con- 
tained in ver. 25. The giving up is set forth once more (comp. ver. 24, é16) 
as the punishment of apostasy, and now indeed with such increasing force 
of delineation, that out of the category which is kept quite general in ver. 
24 unnatural sensual abominations are specially adduced. —eic ré9n aripuiac] 
Genitive of quality.? Parallel to the passions of a disgraceful character is 
ei¢ axadapoiav in ver. 24; comp. Col. iii. 5; but the stronger expression 
here selected prepares the way for the following description of a pecul- 
iarly abominable form of vice. Still the wnnatural element is not implied 
in rdé3y artuiac itself (Hofmann: they are a dishonouring, not. merely 
of the body, but of ‘‘ humanity”), since morally dishonouring passions are 
the agents, not only in the case of unnatural, but also in that of natural 
unchastity.*—— The expressions 9#Arca and dpoevec, their females and their 
males, not yvvaixec and dvdpec, are chosen because the predominant point 
of view is simply that of sex; Reiche thinks: out of contempt, because 
' the words would also be used of beasts; but in fact, such unnatural 
things are foreign to the very beasts. Besides, the words are used even 
of the gods (Homer, Jl. viii. 7, and frequently). — rv gvoimnv ypzow] of 
their sex, not: of the male, which is unsuitable to the vice indicated. 
Regarding ypjorc in the sense of sexual use, see Wetstein and Kypke, also 
Coray, ad Heliodor. Aeg., p. 31.4—That duoiug 62 xat after the preceding 
ré makes the latter an anakoluthon, is commonly assumed, but altogether 
without foundation, because in ré ydp the ré does not necessarily require any 


1See Bernhardy, p. 29; Winer, p. 377 
(E. T. 404]; and the passages from Plato in 
Ast. Zea. III. p. 28. 

2 Comp. on xveiyua aywovrns in ver. 4, and 
Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 21. 

> Respecting ré yap, namgue, for... 
indeed (vii. 7; 2 Cor. x. 8), see Hermann, ad 
Soph. Trach. 1015; Hartung, I. p. 115; Klotz, 
ad Devar. p. 749 ff. 

4 How very prevalent among the Gentiles 
(it was found also among the Jews, see 


Schoettgen, Hor. in loc.) was the so-called 
Lesbian vice, AeoPidgew (Lucian, D. Mer. 5. 
1), women with women abusing their sex 
(tridades, in Tertullian /rictrices), see Sal- 
masius, foen. Trapez. p. 143 f., 152 f. ; and the 
commentators on Ael. V. ZZ. ili. 12. Comp. 
the érarpiorprar in Plat. Symp. p. 191 E, and 
the acéAyea spifaxy in Luc. Amor. 28; and 
see Ruhnken. ad Jim. p. 124, and generally 
Rosenbaum, Gesch. d. Lustseucheim Alierth. 
ed. 2, 1845. 


CHAP. I., 28. 67 


correlative. See Klotz J.c. If it were put correlatively, we should have 
in duotuc dé xai the other corresponding member really present (as is actually 
the case, ¢.g. in Plat. Symp. p. 186 E), which however would in that case 
inappropriately stand out with greater emphasis and weight than the former.’ 
The reading ré (instead of dé) in Elz., as well as the entire omission of the 
particle (C, min., Origen, Jerome), is a too hasty emendation. — éfexat37cav] 
Stronger than the simple form.” Such a state is the rvpotoda: in 1 Cor. 
vii. 9. Moreover, Paul represents here not the heat that precedes the act of 
unchastity, but that which is kindled in the act itself (xarepyaféuevot . . . . 
arodauBévorvrec). — dpoevec tv dpacar] whilst they, males on males, performed the 
(known, from ver. 26) wnseemliness. On the emphatic juxtaposition of dpc. 
év dpo. comp. generally Lobeck, ad Aj. 522, and in particular Porphyr. de 
abstin. iv. 20 ; and Wetstein in loc. On xarepyéfeo8a:, which is used both of 
evil (ii. 9, vii. 9, xv. 17 f.) and good (v. 8, xv. 18; Phil. ii. 12), but which, 
as distinguished from épyéfecda:, always expresses the bringing to pass, the 
accomplishment, comp, especially ii. 9, and van Hengel thereon ; 1 Cor. v. 
3; 2 Cor. vii. 10, and the critical remarks thereon. On aoynp. see Gen. 
XXXiv. 7. — rv avriuuoSiav x.7.A.] The aberration, which Paul means, see in 
Vv. 21-23, 28 ; it is the aberration from God to idols, not that implied in the 
sexual perversion of the divine order (Hofmann), which perversion, on the con- 
trary, is brought by dé in ver. 24, and by dd rovro in ver. 26, under the 
point of view of penal retribution for the rAdvy. By the recompense for the 
wAavy Paul does not at all mean that the men ‘‘ have that done to them by 
their fellows, which they themselves do to theirs” (Hofmann), but rather, in har- 
mony with the connection of cause and effect, the abominable unnatural 
lusts just described, to which God has given up the Gentiles, and thereby, 
in recompensing godlessness through such wicked excesses (ver. 18), re- 
vealed His opy#. Therefore also fv éde is added, namely, in accordance 
with the necessity of the holy divine order. See vv. 24, 26, 28. On avri- 
puodia comp. 2 Cor. vi. 138; Clem. Cor. II. 1. It occurs neither in Greek 
authors, who have the adjective avriuiodo¢ (Aesch. Suppl. 278), nor in the 
LXX. or Apocrypha. — év éavroic] on themselves mutually (év adAfAocic), as in 
ver. 24. It enhances the sadness of the description. For a number of pas- 
sages attesting the prevalence of unchastity between man and man, espe- 
cially of paederastia among the Gentiles, particularly the Greeks (it was for- 
bidden to the Jews in Lev. xviii. 22), see Becker, Charikl. I. p. 846 ff. ; 
Hermann, Privatalterth. § 29; Bernhardy, Griech. Lit. ed. 2, p. 50 fff. 
Moreover, Bengel aptly observes regarding the whole of this unreserved ex- 
posure of Gentile unchastity : ‘‘ In peccatis arguendis saepe scapha debet 


1 Stalibaum, ad Piat. Polit. p. 270 D, Rep. 
p. 367 C; Dissen. ad Pind. Ol. vill. 56; 
Klausen, ad Aesch. Choeph. p. 199. Hof- 
mann thinks that with dpoiws 8 «ai «.7.A, 
the argnment ascends fo the greater danger 
Sor the continuance of the human race. But 
that is a purely imported thought. The 
Apostie’s point of view isthe moral aripia, 
which, in the case of female depravity. 


comes out most glaringly. And therefore 
Paul, in order to cast the most tragic light 
possible on these conditions, puts the brief 
delineation of female conduct in the fore- 
ground, in order then symmetrically to 
subjoin, with dnoiws 2 «ai, the male vice as 
the second part of the filthy category. 

2 Comp. Alciphr. fil. 67; éfexavOny eis épwra. 


68 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE RBOMANS. 


scapha dici. Pudorem praeposterum ii fere postulant, qui pudicitia 
carent. . . . Gravitas et ardor stili judicialis proprietate verborum non 
violat verecundiam. ” Observe, nevertheless, how the Apostle delineates 
the female dishonour in less concrete traits than the male. He touches the 
matter in ver. 26 briefly and clearly enough, but with delicate avoidance of 
detailed description. 

Ver. 28. From the previous exclusive description of the sensual vice of 
the Gentiles, Paul now proceeds to a summary enumeration of yet other 
vices to which they had been given up by God in punishment of their apos- 
tasy. —xaddc] is not causal, but guemadmodum. The giving them up was 
something corresponding to their disdainful rejection of the knowledge of 
God, proportionate as punishment. — ovx édoxipacarv| they deem God not worth 
(1 Thess. ti. 4) ; ob yap ayvolac, GAAG medérne elvat gyot Ta roAufuata, Chrysos- 
tom. — éyewv év Extyvdcet] Their yvava rov Gedy, derived from the revelation 
of nature (ver. 21), ought to have been brought by cultivation to an ér:yvé- 
vat, that is, to a penetrating and living knowledge of God (see on Eph. i. 
17 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 12) ; thus they would have attained to the having God & 
émtyvdoee ; but they would not, and so became ra éOvy ra pd eidéra Tov Od», 
1 Thess. iv. 5; Gal. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 12; Acts xvii. 830. On éyew & with 
an abstract noun, which represents the object as appropriated in the action, 
so that it is possessed in the latter (here in ér:yrevar), comp. Locella, ad Xen. 
Eph. p. 255. Similar is év épym Evecv, and the like, Kriiger on Thucyd. ii. 8, 
3. —el¢ adéx. votv] An ingenious paronomasia with ov« édoxiy., to set forth 
the more prominently the recompense, to which the emphatically repeated 6 
@céc also contributes : as they did not esteem God worthy, etc., God gave 
them up to an unworthy, reprobate voi (the collective power of the mind’s 
action in theoretic and moral cognition.)' The rendering judicii expers 
(Beza, Gléckler and others) is opposed to the genius of the language, even 
as Bengel turns it, and Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 280, defines it. The adéxcuov of 
the voic is its blameworthiness according to an objective moral standard, but, 
docs not express the mode of thinking which they themselves must condemn 
among one another (Th. Schott ; comp. Hofmann), which is neither to be 
taken by anticipation from ver. 82, nor extracted from ys). — roveiv ra pi) 
xadhxovra] to do what is not becoming, what is not moral. Comp. 3 Macc. iv. 16. 
The Stoical distinction between xa9fxov and xarép9uua Paul has not thought 
of (as Vitringa conceives). The infinitive is epexegetical : 80 that they do. 
The participle with uf indicates the genus of that which is not seemly (Baeum- 
lein, Partik. p. 296) ; ra ov xadfnovra (comp. Eph. v. 4), would be the un- 
seemly. The negative expression is correlate to the adéxiuog votc. 

Vv. 29-81. IerAnpwuévovg réoy adixig] a more precise definition of roxeiv 
ra ph xadh.: as those who are full of every unrighteousness (ver. 18). This is 
the general statement, and all the points subsequently introduced are its 
several species, so that pearove g3dvov and then ydupiotag x.7.2. are appositions 


1 Comp. on vii. 28, and Kluge inthe Jahrd. not determine the ethical conduct in acoord- 
J. D. Th. 1871, p. 829. The vois is d&dacuos ance with it. 
when, not receptive for divine truth, it does 


CHAP. I., 29, 31. 69 


to wewAnp. x. adex. Similar catalogues of sins are 2 Cor. xii. 30; Gal. v. 19 
ff.; Eph. v. 3f.; 1 Tim. i. 9 f.; 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff. — rovypig. . . . xaxig] ma- 
lignity (malice), comp. Eph. iv. 31; Col. iii. 8; Tit. iii. 8... . vileness 
(meanness), the latter, in Aristotle and other writers, opposed to dper#, and 
translated in Cicero, T'usc. iv. 15, 34, by vitiositas. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 8.—_ 
¢évov] Conceived here as the thought which has filled the man, the pepynpifecv 
gévov, Homer, Od. xix. 2, comp. Acts ix. 1. On the paronomasia with 
g¥dévou comp. Gal. v. 21. The latter is just the onyeiov gbtoews ravrdract 
rovnpac, Dem. 499, 21. — xaxorSeiac] malicious disposition, whose peculiarity 
it is éx2 rd yeipov broAapBdvew Ta révra (Aristotle, Rhet. ii. 18). As the con- 
text requires a special vice, we may not adopt, with Erasmus, Calvin, and 
Homberg, the general signification perversitas, corruptio morum (Xen. Cyn. 
xill. 16 ; Dem. 542, 11; Plat. Rep. p. 348 D).'— wedup.] whisperers, tale- 
bearers, consequently secret slanderers (Dem. 1358, 6) ; but xardAaAor, calum- 
niators, detractors generally, not precisely open ones (Theophylact, Kéllner, de 
Wette, and others). Comp. yedupicpote te nai xaradadsdc, Clem. Cor. i. 85. 
The congtruction of xaraAéAoue 08 an adjective with ySvp (Hofmann), must be 
rejected, because none of the other elements has an adjectival definition an- 
nexed to it, and because xaraAda. would not add to the notion of yup. any- 
thing characteristic in the way of more precise definition. vp would be 
better fitted to form a limiting definition of xaraA. But in 2 Cor. xii. 20 
also, both ideas stand independently side by side. — Seoorvyeic] hated by 
God, Deo odibiles (Vulgate). This passive rendering of the word which be- 
longs especially to the tragedians (Pollux, i. 21), so that it is equivalent to | 
Oc ExyVatpsuevoc (comp. Soph. Aj. 458), is clearly attested by the usus 
loquendi as the only correct one.” Since no passage whatever supports the 
actice signification, and since even Suidas and Oecumenius clearly betray 
that they knew the active meaning adopted by them to be a deviation from 
the usage of the ancient writers,? we must reject, with Koppe, Riickert, 
Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Hofmann, the in- 
terpretation, Det osores, that has been preferred by the majority since the 
time of Theodoret.‘ Even the analogous forms that have been appealed to, 
Veoutohc, Bpotoorvyfe (Aesch. Choeph. 51, Prom. 799), are to be taken as 


1 See regarding the word generally Hom- 
berg, Parerg. p. 196 ; Kypke, II. p. 155 f. 

2See Karip. 7road. 1218, Cycl. 895, 598, 
Neophr. ap. Stob. serm. 20, p. 172. Comp. 
Geoorvynros in Aesch. Choeph. 685, Fritzsche 
in loc., and Wetstein. 

9 Sujdas says: @eoorvyeis Oeopionror, ot Uwd 
Geov prcovpevar Kai oi Gedy utoovrres: wapa &e 
TT awocTédy Geogrvycis ovxi of Ud Meov prcor- 
mevot, GAA’ of pucourvres Toy Ocdy. Oecume- 
nius: Geoorvyeis 82 ov Tove UTd Geod picovpe- 
vous, ov yap aurea rovro 8eifar mpdcecras vor, 
GAA Tove pigovvTas Oedy. These negative 
definitions, which both give, manifestly 
point to the use of the word in other 
authors, from which Paul here departs. It 
{s doubtful whether Clement, Cor. I. 3, 


where there is an echo of our passage, had 
in view the active or the passive sense of 
Oeoorvyeits. He uses indeed the evidently 
active Geoorvyia, but adds at the close of 
the list of sins: ravra oi mpdocorres orvyntoi 
Te Gep imdpxovery. Chrysostom does not 
express his opinion regarding the word. 

4 The Dei osores was taken to refer to the 
heathen vice of wrath against the gods con- 
ceived as possessing human passions. See 
Grotius and Reiche. Others have under- 
stood it variously. Tholuck thinks of ac- 
cusersof providence, Promethean characters; 
Ewald, of Wasphemere of God, Calvin, of 
those who have a horror of God on account 
of His righteousness. Thus there is intro- 
duced into the general expression what the 


70 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


passives, and therefore testify against the active interpretation.’ Comp. 
YeoBAaByc, stricken of God, Herod. viii. 137, al. In particular, Seausofe is 
quite the same as Yeoorvy7¢ the opposite of Jeog:Afe, beloved of God.* The 
accentuation Peoortyyc, approved of even by Grotius and Beza, to distinguish - 
it from the passive Seoorvyfe, is nothing but an ancient (Suidas) unsupported 
fiction.* God-hating is expressed by usodSeo¢, Lucian, Tim. 35, Aesch. Ag. 
1090 ; comp. ¢:Ad69e0¢, God-loving. The adoption, nevertheless, of the active 
sense was occasioned by the consideration : ‘‘ ut in passivo positum dicatur, 
nulla est ratio, quum P. hic homines ex vitiis evidentibus reos faciat,’’ Cal- 
vin ; but even granting a certain unsuitableness in the passive sense, still 
we should not be justified in giving an explanation contrary to the wsus 
loguendi ; we should be obliged to abide by the view that Paul had mixed 
up a less suitable term among the others. But this objection is diminished, 
if we take Seoor., in accordance with the idea of divine holiness, as a char 
acteristic designation of infamous evil-doers in general. So Fritzsche, and 
also Philippi.‘ And it vanishes altogether, if, leaving the word in its strict 
signification, hated of God, we recognize in it a summary judgment of moral 
indignation respecting all the preceding particulars ; so that, looking back on 
these, it forms a resting point in the disgraceful catalogue, the continuation 
of which is then carried on by wfpiorde x.7.A. According to Hofmann, 
Seoorvy. is an adjective qualifying iSpiorés. But we do not see why precisely 
this single point * in the entire catalogue, insolence (the notion of which is 
not to be arbitrarily heightened, so as to make it denote ‘‘the man-despiser 
who treads upon his fellows”), among so many particulars, some of them even 
worse, should be accompanied by an epithet, and one, too, of so extreme 
severity. — The continuation begins with a threefold description of self-eral- 
tation, and that in a descending climax. Regarding the distinction between 
bBpiorai, the insolent (qui prae superbia non solum contemnunt alios, sed 
etiam contumeliose tractant, comp. 1 Tim. 1. 18), irephdavor, the proud (who, 
proud of real or imaginary advantages, despise others), and adafévec (boast- 
ers, swaggerers, Without exactly intending to despise or insult others with 
their vainglory), see Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 73 f.° If trepng. be taken 
as adjectice with the latter (Hofmann), then the vice, which is invariably and 
intrinsically immoral,’ would be limited merely to a particular mode of it. 


context gives no hint of. This applies also 
to Luther's gloss: ‘‘the real ZEpicureans, 
who live as ff there were no God.” 

1 Even in Clem. Hom. i. 12, there is nothing 
whatever in the connection opposed to the 
passive rendering of Scoorvyeis. 

7See Plat. Rep. p. 612 E, Muth. p. 8 A; 
Dem. 1486, ult.; Arist. Ran. 448. Comp. 
Oep wconroi, Wisd. xiv. 9; and, as regards 
the idea, the Homeric is xe Ocotow awéxOyras 
paxdpecowy, Od. x. 74. 

3 See Buttmann, JI. p. 871, Winer, p. 58 [E. 
T. 58}. 

‘Comp. Plat. Legg. vill. p. 888 B: @eo- 
MoH... . Kab aigxpey aigxioTa, 


6 For neither caraAdA. nor vwepad. are to 
be taken as adjectives. See on those 
words. Hofmann seems to have adopted 
such a view, merely tin order to gain anal- 
ogies in the text for his inappropriate treat- 
ment of the objectionable Oeoorvyeis as an 
adjective. 

* Comp. Grotius and Wetstein ; on aAag. 
especially Ruhnk. ad. Tim. p. 28, Ast, ad. 
Theophr. Char. 2. 

7 See Xen. Mem. i. 7, 1 ff., where araloveia 
is the antithesis of apery. It belongs to 
the category of the wevsecGa:, Acsch. ads. 
Clesiph. 99; Plat. Lys. p. 218 D. Compare 
also 2 Tim. ili. 2; Clem. Cor. 1. 3. 


CHAP. I., 32. “1 


— igevp. xaxdv] devisers (Anacr. xli. 3) of evil things, quite general ; not to 
be limited to things of luzury, with Grotius ; nor, with Hofmann, to evils 
which they desire to do to others.'— aovvérove] irrational, unreflecting, who, 
in what they do and leave undone, are not determined by the civeorc, by 
morally intelligent insight. Luther rightly says: ‘‘Mr. Unreason going 
rashly to work [Hans Unvernunft, mit dem Kopfe hindurch].” So also 
Eccles. xv. 7. The rendering devoid of conscience (according to ®uidas) de- 
viates from the proper signification of the word. — acvv3éreve] makes a par- 
onomasia with the foregoing, and means, not unsociable (Castalio, Tittmann, 
Ewald, comp. Hofmann), for which there is no warrant of usage, but cove- 
nant-breakers.?, On aorépy. (without the natural affection of love) and aveAejy 
(unmerciful), see Tittmann, Synon. p. 69.— The succession of the accumu- 
lated particulars is not arranged according to a systematic scheme, and the 
construction of such a scheme leads to arbitrary definition of the import of 
individual points ; but still their distribution is so far in accordance with 
approximate categories, that there are presented :— 1st, The general 
heathen vices, wemtAnpwpuévovg . . . . waxig 3 2nd, dispositions inimical to 
others, pectov¢ . . . . xaxonSeiac, and calumniatory speeches, widvp., xaTadda. ; 
both series concluding with the general Oeoorvycic ; then, 3rd, The arrogant 
character, tBpiords . . . . adavévac ; and finally, 4¢h, A series of negative 
particulars (all with a privative), but headed by the positive, general égevp. 
xaxov. This negative series portrays the want of dutiful affection in family 
life (yor. azed.), of intelligence (acvér.), fidelity (aovvd.), and love, 
(aarépy. aveA.),—consequently the want of every principle on which moral 
action is based. [See Note XIV. p. 78.] 

Ver. 32. Oirwec] quippe qui, of such a character, that they, cannot be the 
specification of a reason, as in ver. 25, and cannot consequently be intended 
to repeat once more the laying of the blame on themselves, since ver. 32 
merely continues the description of the wickedness. It rather serves to 
introduce the awful completion of this description of vice; and that in 
such a way, that the Gentile immorality is brought clearly to light as an 
opposition to knowledge and conscience, and is thereby at the last very evi- 
dently shown to be wholly inexcusable (comp. ii. 1). — 1d dcxaiwua r. Oecd] 
i.c. that which God as Laugiver and Judge has ordained ; what He has deter- 
mined, and demands, as right.* Paul means the natural law of the moral 
consciousness (ii. 15), which determines : or: ol ra ro:avta mpdocovtec x.T.A. 
This érc x.7.A4. therefore is not to be treated as a parenthesis. — éxcyvévrec] 
although they have discerned (comp. on ver. 28), not merely yvévre¢ ; but so 
much the greater is the guilt. — davdrov] What in the view of the heathen 
was conceived of as the state of punishment in Hades (comp. Philippi and 
Weiss, ditt. Theol. p. 277), which was incurred through vice and crime, Paul - 
designates, in accordance with the truth involved in it (comp. Plat. Rep. p. 
330 D), from Ais standpoint as Sdvaroc, and by this he means eternal death 


3 Comp. 2 Macc. vii. 21,and the passages also Dem. 388, 6. 
from Philo in Loesner: also Tacit. Ann. iv. 2 Comp. Kriiger on 7huc. 1. 41, 1; and 
11, and Virg. Aen. il. 161. see on V. 16. 

3 Jer. ili. 8,10 f.; Suildas, Hesychius ; see 


72 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


(comp. 2 Thess. i. 8) ; not temporal (Bengel, van Hengel, Mehring) ; or 
execution (Grotius, Hofmann) ; also not indefinitely severe punishments,’ the 
misery of sin, and so forth (so even Fritzsche and de Wette). — ovvevdox. roic 
npdaa. | they are consenting with them that do them (comp. Luke xi. 48 ; Acts 
viii. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 12 ; 1 Macc. i. 60 ; 2 Macc. xi. 24. They not only do 
those things, but are also in their moral judgment (so wholly antagonistic to 
conscience has the latter become in the abandonment unto which God has 
decreed them, ver. 28) in agreement with others who so act. Bengel well 
remarks : ‘‘ pejus est cvvevdoxety ; nam qui malum patrat, sua sibi cupiditate 
abducitur,” etc., and how sharply are we otherwise ourselves accustomed to 
see and judge the mote in the eye of another! (Matt. vii. 8). This cli- 
max” to the description of immorality, moreover, is neither to be referred 
with Grotius and Baumgarten-Crusius to the philosophers, who approved of 
several vices (paederastia, revenge, etc.) or regarded them as adiaphora ; 
nor with Heumann and Ewald to the magistrates, who left many crimes 
unpunished and even furthered them by their own example ; but, in har- 
mony with the quite general delineation of Gentile depravity, to be taken 
as a general feature marking the latter, which is thus laid bare in the deep- 
est slough of moral perversity. — The rpdéocovrec and xpdocove: are more com- 
prehensive than the simple rotovaly (do), designating the press of these 
immoralities as the aim of their activity.’ 


Norres spy American Eprror. 


I. Ver. 1. IadAor. 


The view of the origin of the name Paul advocated by Meyer in his Introduc- 
tion to the Epistle, § 1, and in his notes on Acts xiii. 9—that it was received 
on occasion of the conversion of Sergius Paulus—is also given by Olshausen, 
Ewald, and some others, but it is rejected by most writers of recent times, and 
by Weiss in his edition of Meyer's work. Weiss holds that it is rendered 
improbable by the fact that the name is mentioned in the Acts three verses 
earlier than the statement of the conversion of the proconsul, It may be 
questioned whether this argument can be regarded as having, in itself, special 
or decisive force. But, when the manner of introducing the new name into 
the narrative is considered, as related both to the preceding and following con- 
text, it will be observed that there is nothing, except what may easily be a mere 
accidental juxtaposition of words to favor the derivation suggested ; while, on the 
other hand, there is, in addition to the improbability that the Apostle would 
have adopted a name from one of his converts, a noticeable absence of any such 
indication that he did thus adopt it, as might naturally be expected if the his- 
torian had intended to convey this idea. It seems better, therefore, to hold 
that the Apostle had two names : one connected with his Hebrew origin, and 
the other with his Roman citizenship. 


1 Melanchthon says well against this 2The dimaz lies necessarily in aAAd xoi 
view: ““P. non loquitur de politica guber- (in opposition to Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 6). 
natione, quae tantum externa facta punit : 2 See on John iil. 20. Comp. Rom. fi. 8, 
verum de judicio proprio in cujusque con- _vil. 15, xili. 4; Dem. de cor. 68: ri xpoojrov 
scientia intuente Deum.” . Hy éXdoOar wparrecy x. wovety. 


NOTES. q3 


II. dotAog "Incot Xpicrod. 


The word dodAor¢ involves two ideas—that of belonging to a master, and that 
of service as a slave. As connected with the latter idea, the dovAoe isina 
dov2eia, which answers to our conception of slavery; as connected with the 
former, though he may, indeed, be in this condition, yet he also may not be. 
When speaking of Christian disciples, Paul always uses the word in the former 
sense. To his view, the believer, so far as his work and life are concerned, 
pusses at his conversion out of the state of dovAeia into that of eAevbepia. The 
only slavery isthat of sin. The service of Christ is perfect freedom. Whether 
the word is here used as referring to official position or with a more general 
meaning, cannot be determined with absolute certainty. As we find it, how- 
ever, when employed in connection with the names of individual persons, 
always applied to those who had some special work as teachers or ministers, 
and as in most of the places where it is thus applied it occurs in the opening 
salutations of the Apostolic letters, it seems probable that it carries with it the 
official reference. Yet this reference must be regarded as quite general (as 
Meyer says), and the idea of the word—as when used of the private Christian 
—is that of wholly belonging to Christ. 


IM. Ver. 3. wep. rot viot airod, x.r.A. 


The following points must be regarded as established by the manifest 
parallelism of the clauses: (a) that two things are declared respecting the Son, 
one on the oapé side of his nature, and the other on the rvetyc side ; the mveiua. 
being, thus, not the Holy Spirit, but the Son’s own spirit, and dy. being a 
characteristic or descriptive genitive ; (6) that the former of these two things 
is his descent from David and birth in the line of David’s family, while the lat- 
ter is designated by dp:o8évroc—durduest. That odpf, as used in the former state- 
ment, does not, in itself, exclude the idea of.a descent from David so far as the 
human rveiua is concerned, is evidenced by the common representation, in the 
Pauline Epistles (as well as the other N. T. writings), of Jesus as a complete 
man, and by the fact that there is nothing in the contrast of this particular 
sentence which necessarily contradicts the general representation. That there 
is nothing of this character is clear, because the contrasted vetuc here may 
refer to the divine nature in Christ as distinguished from his human nature ; 
and if, on the other hand, it is interpreted as referring to his human spirit, the 
statement of the clause must be understood as made with reference to it,—and 
as declaring what was true of it,—only after the resurrection. It must be 
admitted, however, that the phrase ‘‘ according to the flesh '’ may be employed 
here, as often in the case of similar expressions in common speech, to call 
attention to the physical origin, without making prominent—though, indeed, 
it does not deny—the human-spiritual descent ; and thus that the mere use of 
this phrase cannot properly be considered as decisive proof that the human 
nature is contrasted with the divine, and that rveiiua must refer to the divine 
nature. 

The fact, however, that the contrast is thus filled out to greater fulness, 
and its introduction is more satisfactorily accounted for ; that the expression 
xvedua cy:wotvne is not only a peculiar one, which would not be expected when 
speaking of men, but one having a near affinity to rvedua dy:ov, the name given to 
the Divine Spirit ; and that Paul elsewhere exalts Christ above all other beings 


V4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


except God, or even gives him Divine exaltation, must be regarded as strongly 
pointing to the conclusion that something more is intended by the word than 
the mere ‘‘éow dtOpwroc, which receives the communication of the divine,” 
and that to the writer’s mind there was in Christ a peculiar divine element of 
nature, by virtue of and in accordance with which he was constituted Son of 
God with power by his resurrection. 

In respect to dpso8évroc, Meyer has satisfactorily shown that it is equivalent 
to qui constitulus est, The verb carries with it the idea of marking as bya 
boundary, and sv, when connected with the matter of office, position, etc., of 
constituting, appointing, in which sense it is used in Acts x. 42, xvii. 31. Itis 
evident, however, that the Apostle does not mean to affirm that Christ was 
constituted Son of God, in connection with his resurrection, in any such sense 
as would involve the declaration that he was not Son of God before this. 
Such a declaration would be clearly opposed to the Panline doctrine, as 
exhibited in all his Epistles. Moreover, the constituting did not consist sim- 
ply in a demonstrating or proving him to be Son of God to the view of men. 
This idea is neither presented in the participle itself, nor in any other words 
of the sentence. That the writer, however, in sucha statement, would not 
fail to set forth the precise sense in which he designed to use the word, is 
altogether probable. If we connect év duvduet with viot Oeot we have such an 
explanatory phrase which meets the demands of the case and accords with 
New Testament teaching. Otherwise there is none. We may regard this as 
the true construction, therefore, rather than that which is favored by Meyer 
(with whom de Wette, Godet, Alford, Gifford, Shedd, and others agree), 
although the possibility of the latter must undoubtedly be admitted. It was by 
the resurrection that Christ was made Son of God with power, as he had not 
been in his earthly condition and as born of the seed of David. Weiss ed. 
Mey. agrees with this view. 


IV. Ver. 5. yaptv xai drrocroAyy. 


The explanation of these words is to be sought, (a) in connection with such 
passages as Rom. xii. 6-8; Eph. iii. 7-12; Gal. ii. 9; Rom. xii. 3; xv. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 
10. From these passages it is evident, that, in addition to his conception of di- 
vine grace as bestowed upon all believers, and as lying at the basis of their 
Christian life, Paul had the thought of a special impartation of this grace to 
individual men, for the purpose of fitting them for various offices and duties. 
In his own case, it had been given in such measure and manner as to qualify 
him to be a preacher of the Gospel, an apostle, a missionary to the Gen- 
tiles rather than the Jews, a founder of churches in regions into which others 
had not previously entercd. It is also to be sought, (b) in connection with 
passages such as Gal. iv. 2, in which aword of amore specific character is 
added by «ai to one that is more general, the design of the addition being to 
point the reader to that particular application of the general word which is, 
at the time, in the writer’s mind. The form of expression in such cases is not 
precisely a hendiadys (as if in this verse, e.g. the words were equivalent to 
xapwv anooroaAg¢; but the latter word is nevertheless explanatory, and carries 
with it the principal thought. As the writer says of the heir of an estate in 
Gal. iv. 2, that, in his minority, he is under guardians (é7:rpérove, the general 
word), and [i.e.to mark more particularly the relation tothe point in hand] 


NOTES, 15 


guardians in the matter of property (olxovéuovc). So here he declares of him- 
self, that he had, through Jesus Christ, received grace, and, specially, the gift of 
and qualification for the apostolic office. The striking similarity in the main 
thought of this verse and that of xv. 15, 16 can scarcely fail to be noticed as 
confirming this view of the meaning here. It is this particular and peculiar 
gift of grace, on which the Apostle founds his claim to address and admonish 
the Gentile churches. 
V. Ver. 5. et¢ tbraxony ricrews. 


That Meyer is correct in his explanation of these words, as against the view 
of Calvin, Hofmann, Godet, and others, including Weiss ed. Mey., who regard 
wiorews 88 gen. appos., obedience which consists in faith, and that of Sanday, Shedd, 
and others, who hold it to be a gen. subj. obedience which springs from faith, is 
proved by the fact that in all other cases, where iaxo7 is used in 4 similar way, 
the gen., whether denoting a person or thing, is objective, and also by the 
fact that where a kindred expression is employed having the kindred verb 
traxoverv, the object and not the source, of the obedience is referred to. Philippi, 
de Wette, Alford, Gifford, Olshausen, Schaff, Beet, and others agree with Meyer, 
Godet and Weiss claim that faith is never in N. T. conceived of objectively 
a8 8 power, and hence that Meyer's view has no foundation. But this claim 
ean hardly be substantiated, in view of Acts vi. 7 ; Gal. i. 23 (cf. Gal. iii. 2, 5; 
2 Tim. iv. 7). The correctness of Meyer’s opinion, that zior¢ here means 
subjective faith, and not doctrina fidei or the gospel, is admitted by the larger 
part of the best modern commentators. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether 
faith is ever used in N. T. as having the sense of the faith, i.e. the system of 
Christian doctrine, and certain that it does not ordinarily have this meaning. 
The probability against this sense of the word is, therefore, exceedingly 
strong in this and all similar cases. 


VI. Ver. 8. mparov pév. 


The second point of the introductory passage, which is indicated by his use 
of xporov as in the writer’s mind, is his desire to visit the readers. He is led, 
however, in the progress of his sentences, to bring out this desire in a gram- 
matical subordination to the expression of his thankfulness for the widespread 
knowledge of their Christian life, and, thus, to abandon his original design of 
introducing it by a dedrepoy or éxeira. The presentation, in such a grammat 
ically subordinate way, of thoughts which are logically co-ordinate with others 
already expressed, belongs to the epistolary style as distinguished from that of 
a formal treatise, and is especially characteristio of the style of the Pauline 
letters. 

VIE. Ver. 11. ei¢ rd orgptyOijvas tude. 


This verb is found again in xvi. 25 ;—at the beginning, thus, and the end 
of the letter. It indicates what the Apostle hoped might be the result of a per- 
sonal visit to the readers, if he should be permitted to make such a visit, and 
also what he thought of as the great blessing which God was able to bestow 
tpon them. As this letter was apparently written in order that it might bea 
kind of representativeof himself, until the hoped-for visit should be accom- 
plished, we can scarcely doubt that in the idea of this verb isto be found 
the final purpose of his writing. However fully the epistle has the doctrinal 


76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

character, it was designed to accomplish a practical result—namely, to estab- 
lish and strengthen the Roman believers in the Christian life. This, and not 
the mere knowledge of true doctrine, was what he desired as the fruit of his 
labors (ver. 13), and by reason of this he expected to be encouraged when he 
saw the evidence of their faith (ver. 12), as, at the same time, he trusted that 
they would be encouraged by the manifestation of his own. 


VIII. Ver. 16. ravti r6 mioretovre. 


What the Apostle means by the word rayri is manifest from that which he adds 
at the end of the sentence—to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. The same thing 
is seen in ii. 9, 10, iii. 9, 19; cf. iii. 22, 23, 29; iv. 16; ef. iv. 11,12; that is, in 
all those passages (from the beginning to the end of his direct argument for his 
doctrine: of justification), in which the relations of the faith system and the 
legal system are set forth, in their contrast with each other, by the use of this 
word. It is of all men as distinguished from Jews only, and not of all men as 
opposed to all with the exception of a certain portion or number, that he 
speaks in his discussion of the method of salvation. The Pauline universalism 
finds its opposite in the limitations of Judaism. According to the latter, jus- 
tification is confined to those who are born into the Jewish nation, or are 
united with it as proselytes ; according to the former, it is open to men every- 
where, Gentiles equally with Jows,—to all who believe, without regard to na- 
tional distinctions or boundaries. 


IX. Ver. 17. dixacootrn yép Oeot x.1.A. 


Ver. 17 may be regarded as containing in itself the subject of the Epistle, or 
the proposition which the writer undertakes to establish and defend: Right- 
eousness is by faith. This proposition, however, is not presented in an indepen- 
dent and formal way. On the contrary, it is made, through the ydp at the 
beginning of the verse, to be a proof that the gospel is the power of God unto 
salvation to every believer ; and this latter statement, again, through the ydp 
by which it is introduced, is brought forward as the ground of the writer’s 
declaration, that he is not ashamed of the gospel. The form of expression in 
the 17th verse is naturally affected by this manner of its introduction, and hence 
we have the words as they stand: A (or the) righteousness of God is revealed 
in it [the gospel] as proceeding from faith. The argument which follows, 
however, is directed to the end of proving the truth of the proposition in its 
simplest statement. 

The interpretation of éx xlorewe as denoting the subjective source or cause from 
which righteousness comes is proved to be correct, (a) from the fact that this 
verse stands in the relation above described to the entire discussion of the 
Epistle, which is upon righteousness by faith ; (6) from the meaning of ix riorews 
in the confirmatory passage cited, in the latter part of the verse, from 
O. T. ; (c) from the use of sd ricrews in the parallel passage, iii. 21, 22 ; (d) 
from the fact that Paul in several places employs the expression dixaecivg 
éx mtotewg (e.g. ix. 30, x. 6; of. Gal. v. 5) in this sense, but never in any 
other. The explanation of e/¢ zicriv, on the other hand, is suggested by the 
mode of arguing adopted by the writer (see Note X. also). The phenomena of 
the case are as follows: The proposition presented in ver. 17 is proved by 
showing that the only other doctrine supposable—namely, that of justification 


NOTES. 17 


by works—cannot be maintained. This negative proof is evidently completed 
at iii. 20. The only thing remaining to be done, at that point, is, accordingly, 
to repeat the original proposition, as having been already established. There is, 
in fact, such a repetition in iii. 21, 22, as we must admit from the striking simi- 
larity, both in the thought and expression of those verses, to what is found in 
i. 17. Wecannot doubt, therefore, that the Apostle intended to restate, in the 
later verses, what he had said in the earlier ones, and that, if so, the two must 
throw light upon each other. As we examine the passages, however, we 
find that dixacoovvn Geod occurs in both ; that wegavépwra:c of the latter answers 
to aroxaAvrrerat of the former ; that dia ricrew corresponds with éx wiareus ; 
and that ywpic véuov suggests the idea of év avrg. This being so, the proba- 
bility becomes overwhelming that ei¢ rove micrevovrag answers to ei¢ mioriv 
so far as to give us the author’s meaning in the latter phrase. The zioric of 
i. 17 is, accordingly, that which is in the minds and hearts of the persons re- 
ferred to in iii. 22, and that which makes them of morevovreg It is that in 
them to which the revelation of righteousness comes and the offer of justifica- 
tion is presented. 


X. Ver. 18. dmoxaAvnteras ydp dpy?) Geos. 


The discussion, which is entered upon at the 18th verse and continued as far 
as iii. 20, assumes as athing admitted by both parties to the controversy, that 
there is a method by which men can be justified. It also assumes that, if 
there is such a method, it must be either in the line of fuith or in that of works. 
These things being granted at the outset, it was evidently necessary for the 
Apostle only to prove that justification is not by works, in order to the estab- 
lishment of the proposition that it is by faith. It is this indirect course which 
he takes in his argument—the direct proof being, in this part of the Epistle, 
left entirely without consideration. The negative argument is divided into 
two sections, the first having reference to the Gentiles, the second to the Jews. 
This division is connected with the defence of the doctrine as against Judais- 
tic views, for, whatever opinion we may have as to the design or character of the 
Epistle, it cannot be doubted that the discussion takes hold upon the great 
question between the Pauline and Jewish Christianity. 


XI. Ver. 20. ra adpara x.T.A. 


Evidently the invisible things are the everlasting power and divinity men- 
tioned afterward. The evidence for the existence of God here presented is 
that which the visible creation furnishes to the mind. The creation proves 
a creator with power adequate to produce it, i.e. an omnipotent creator ; om- 
nipotence carries with it the proof of the other divine attributes ; and thus 
the things that are made are, and ever since the beginning of time have been, 
bearing witness to God—a witness which is clearly understood, so soon as the 
voic is directed to it and it is intelligently considered (voovyeva). In this way 
the knowledge of God was manifested from the first, and is manifest still, to 
the Gentile nations ; and because of this fact, their turning away to idolatry is 
due, not to a want of revelation of the truth, but toa repressing of the truth, 
(carexévrwv ver. 18), and a preventing it from having its legitimate influence 
upon their minds, through their own unrighteousness. 


78 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


XIE. Ver. 21. didri—nbyapiornoay, GAA’ Euaraidbnoar. 


d.6rc justifies and confirms the preceding word, avarodoynrovc, and the two 
following verbs set forth the attitude which, as the natural and legitimate re- 
sult of knowing God, they should have held toward Him: they should have 
glorified Him for what He is in Himself, and have had thankfulness to Him for 
what He had given to them. Neither of these things had they done, but —the 
very opposite of this—they had turned away to the worship of idols. This 
turning to idolatry is set forth in éuarawé@noav x.t.A., as the result of the vain 
and empty speculations (d:aAoy:opoic) into which they were led by reason of 
wilfully preventing (év adixia) the knowledge of God from having its true influ- 
ence upon their thoughts, and of the consequent darkness and folly in which 
they were involved. Weiss ed. Mey. denies any immediate connection be- 
tween fuararcOnoay and the use of zdra:a as employed in O. T. of idols, such as 
Meyer and many others hold, and regards it as pointing only to the fact that 
they directed their thoughts, not tu the highest object of all thought, the true 
God, but to earthly things. He thus accords substantially with the view ex- 
pressed above. 


XIII. Ver. 24. dtd rapédwxev x. tT, A. 


The evidence that there is no justification by works for the Gentiles, but 
rather a revelation of wrath, is presented by a mere setting forth of the works 
which characterize them. For such works there can be nothing but condemna- 
tion. In his unfolding of the heathen sins, the writer lays the foundation of all 
in idolatry (vv. 18-23), and then brings forward other evils as the result of this. 
These other evils he divides into two sections—(1) the sins of impurity 
(vv. 24-27), and (2) all other sins (vv. 28-32). Among these other sins, 
it is noticeable that the first specific one is mAeovetia, covelousness (adixia, 
movnpia, and xaxia, having a general character). The relation of all sin among 
the Gentiles to idolatry, and the development of idolatry on the side of impu- 
rity and of covetousness, seem to have been prominent before the mind of Paul, 
as we find him connecting them elsewhere. He also presents these latter evils 
as the two chief and distinguishing evils of the heathen nations. The paral- 
lelizing of impurity, in the first of the two sections here, with sins of every 
other sort, as if in one great class, in the second, is very suggestive. It is 
noticeable, also, that these multitadinous evils which spring from idolatry are 
presented before the reader as arising from it in the way of a divine judgment : 
God gives over these who thus voluntarily abandon the truth respecting Him- 
self, to the consequences in moral action of their own chosen errors. 


XIV. Ver. 29-31. adcxia—averejuovec. 


That there is no designed arrangement according to a definite classification 
in vv. 29-31, is rendered altogether probable by the following considerations : 
(a) in the midst of a series of words which designate particular kiads of evil- 
doers, we find general words applicable to all evil-doers, Geocroyeic, épevpitac 
xaxov, [The explanation of the former of these by Meyer, as a general word 
closing the list which conveys the idea of hostility, and of the latter as a positive 
opening the negative series (with a privative), seems quite unsatisfactory, be- 
cause Geoorvyeis, on the one hand, is as truly inclusive of the words which im- 








NOTES. 79 


mediately follow it, as of those which precede, and é¢. xax., on the other, is 
not peculiarly related in its signification to the compound words which it is 
supposed to introduce] ; (0) the arrangement within the individual classes is 
not so accurate as such a purposed classification would call for ; e.g. the words 
from ¢4évov to xaxonfeiag ; (c) in other cases, where similar lists of words are 
found, there are difficulties of the same character in the supposition of any 
sach formal division, e.g. Gal. iii. 22, 23; Heb. xi, 36, 37 ; (d) these accumulations 
of descriptive terms generally occur (as here, and in Heb, /.c.), in parts of the 
author’s discourse where he is rising towards the climax of his thought, and 
also towards the highest point of feeling—that is, in just those places where he 
would be least disposed to classify with care. All these lists of this character. 
are, doubtless, to be explained as accumulations for rhetorical effect. In this 
way, rather than in any other, we may account in the present instance, not 
only for the insertion of general words, as indicated above, but also for the 
succession of negative compounds at the end, the force of which, as the apos- 
tle uttered them one after another when dictating to his amanuensis, can be 
easily appreciated. 


80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


CHAPTER II. 


Ver. 5. After azoxaA. D*** K L &**, min., and several versions and 
Fathers, including Or., read «ai, which is adopted by Mill, Wetst. Matth. and 
Fritzsche.! Against it isthe greatly preponderant authority of the uncials, 
and the suspicion of having been added by way of relief to the accumulation 
of genitives. — Ver. 8. nev after ave0. is wanting in B D* G ®*, and is omit- 
ted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8), but was easily psssed over from inattention as 
seeming superfluous. — The order 6p)? «at 6uudc (thus also Lachm. and Tisch.) 
is decisively attested. — Ver. 13. The article before yéuov, which Elz, and Fritzsche 
read both times, but which Lachm. and Tisch. both times omit, is wanting 
in A B D E (which however has it in the first case) G &, 31, 46, Damasc. ; and 
betrays itself in the general form of the saying as inserted in order to denote 
the Mosaic law. — Ver. 14, ro:g] Lachm. and Tisch. read zo:dorv, following A B 
®%, min., Clem. Or. Damasc. (D* G have srooto:v). The plural is an amend- 
ment suggested by, the context. — Ver. 16. Instead of dre Lachm. following A and 
some Fathers, has 7. ; an interpretation ; as is also év 9 juépa in B. — Ver. 17. 
ei dé] The too weakly attested Recepta ide or idé is either & mere copyist's error, 
or an alteration to get rid of the supposed anakoluthon. See Reiche, Comm. 
crit. 7 


Ver. 1.—ch. iii. 20. Having shown, ch. i. 18-32, in the case of the Gen- 
tiles, that they were strangers to the d:xacootvy Geot, Paul now, ch.1i.—iii. 20, 
exhibits the same fact with reference to the Jews, and thus adduces 
the second half of the proof as to the universal necessity of justification by 
faith. [See Note XV. p. 105.] Naturally the Apostle was chiefly concerned 
with this second half of the proof, as the ad:xia of heathenism was in itself 
clear ; but we see from ch. ii. that the detailed character of that deline- 
ation of Gentile wickedness was intended at the same time as a mirror for 
degenerate Judaism, to repress all Jewish conceit. Comp. Mangold, p. 102. 

Ver. 1. A:6] [See Note XVI. p. 105.] refers back to the main tenor of the whole 
previous exposition (vv. 18-32), and that indeed in its more special aspect as 
setting forth the moral condition of heathenism in respect to its inerewsable- 
ness, This reference is confirmed by the fact, that dvaroAdyyrog el is said 
with a manifest glancing back to i. 20 ; it is laid down by Paul as it were 
asa finger-post for his 6:6. The reference assumed by Reiche, Fritzsche, 
Krehl, de Wette, and older writers, to the proposition in ver. 32, that the 
rightful demand of God adjudges death to the evil-doers ; or to the cog- 
nizance of that verdict, in spite of which the Gentiles were so immoral 


1 Defended also by Philippi and Reiche, pearing not to receive more precise defint- 
Comm, crit., who thinks that the «ai has tion. See on the other hand van Hengel. 
been rejected on account of amsoxaA. ap- 


“ 


CHAP. II., l. 81 


(Philippi, Baur, Th. Schott, Hofmann, Mangold), has against it the fact 
that this thought formed only a subsidiary sentence in what went before ; 
whereas here a new section begins, at the head of which Paul very naturally 
has placed a reference, even expressly marked by avarodéyyroc, to the entire 
section ending with ver. 32, over which he now throws once more a retro- 
spective glance. The connection of ideas therefore is : ‘‘ wherefore,” i.e. on 
account of that abomination of vice pointed out in vv. 18-32, ‘‘ thou art in- 
excusable,” etc. ; ‘‘for"—to exhibit now more exactly this ‘‘ wherefore’— 
wherein thou judgest the other, thou condemnest thyself, because thou doest the 
same thing. In other words : before the mirror of this Gentile life of sin all 
excuse vanishes from thee, O man who judgest, for this mirror reflects thine 
own conduct, which thou thyself therefore condemnest by thy judgment. A 
deeply tragic de te narratur! into which the proud Jewish consciousness 
sees itself all of a sudden transferred. A proleptic use of 6:6 (Tholuck) is 
not to be thought of ; not even yép is so used in the N. T. (see on John iv. 
44), and 6:6 neither in the N. T. nor elsewhere. —& dvd3pwre mac 6 xpivwr] 
Just as Paul, i. 18, designated the Gentiles by the general term av3pdruv, 
. and only brought forward the special reference to them in the progress of 
the discourse ; so also he now designates the Jews, not as yet by name (see 
this first at ver. 17), but generally by the address adv3pu7re, which however 
already implies a trace of reproach (ix. 20);' while at the same time he 
makes it by his rac 6 xpivwy sufficiently apparent that he is no longer speak- 
ing of the class already delineated, but is turning now to the Jews con- 
trasted with them ; for the self-righteous judging respecting the Gentiles as 
rejected of God? was in fact a characteristic of the Jews. Hence all the more 
groundless is the hasty judgment, that this passage has nothing whatever to 
do with the contrast between Jews and Gentiles (Hofmann). Comp. ver. 
17 ff. And that it is the condemning xpivew which is meant, and not the 
moral capacity of judgment in general (Th. Schott) and its exercise (Hof- 
mann) (comp. on Matt. vii. 9), follows from the subsequent xaraxpivecg more 
precisely defining its import. Consequently the quite general interpreta- 
tion (Beza, Calovius, Benecke, Mehring, Luthardt, com freien Willen, p. 
416) seems untenable, as well as the reference to the Gentiles as the judging 
subjects (Th. Schott), or to all to whom 1. 32 applied (Hofmann), or even 
specially to Gentile authorities (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oc- 
cumenius, Cajetanus, Grotius).*—év »] either instrumental : thereby, that, 
equivalent to év robry d7¢ (Hofmann) ; or, still more closely corresponding to 
the rd yap avra mpdocec : in which thing, in which point. Comp. xiv. 22. 
The temporal rendering : ecodem tempore quo (Kéllner, Reithmayr), arbi- 
trarily obscures the moral identity, which Paul intended to bring out. The 
xataxpiver¢ however is not facto condemnas (Estius, van Hengel), but the 
judgment pronounced upon the other is a condemnatory judgment upon thy- 
self, namely, because it applies to thine own conduct. On the contrast be-. 


} Luke xil. 14; Plat. Prot. p.880D, Gorg. and many other passages. 
p. 42 B, and the passages in Wetstein, ® Regarding the nominative as further ethi-. 
Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 164. calepexogesisof thevocative, see Bernhardy, 
2 Midr. Tillin f. 6, 8; Chetubb. f. 3, 2; p. 67, Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 128 [E. T. 141.) 


82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tween érepov and ceavréy comp. ver. 21 ; 1 Cor. x. 24, 29; Gal. vi. 4; Phil. 
li. 4. —rta aird] the same sins and vices, not indeed according to all their 
several concrete manifestations, as previously described, but according to 
their essential moral categories ; see vv. 17-24. Comp. on the idea John 
vill. 7.— 64 xpivwv] with reproachful emphasis. 

Ver. 2. Oidayev] Paul means to pronounce it as in his own view and that of 
his readers an undoubted truth (comp. iii. 19), that the judicial decision which 
God will one day pronounce, etc. The dé carries on the discourse, and the 
entire sentence forms the propositio major to what is now (ver. 3) to be 
proved, namely, that the person judging (the Jew), who yet makes himsclf 
guilty of wickedness similar to the things (ra rovaira) in question, deceives 
himself if he thinks to escape the true judgment of God (ver. 5). Thus +6 
xpiua’ tr. Geov has the emphasis of contrast with that human judgment so 
inconsistent with their own conduct. The predicate of being xara aAjverav 
éxi rove «x.7.A. belongs not to the latter, but to the divine xpiza. Th. Schott 
erroneously emphasizes zpdovorrac, dislocating the clear train of thought, as 
if Paul were treating of the truth that the Gentile’s knowledge of what was 
right would not shield him from sin and condemnation. Hofmann also 
introduces a similar confusion. — xara aA73ecav) contains the standard, in 
accordance with which the judgment of God is pronounced against the -é 
Toavra mpdacovrec : in accordance with truth, so that it is, without error or 
partiality, entirely adequate to the moral condition of these subjects. Ra- 
phel, K6liner, Krehl, Mehring, and Hofmann take it as equivalent to aa7Jac, 
really (4 Macc. v. 15 ; and in Greek writers), so that the meaning would 
be : it is tn reality issued over them. But it could not be the object of the 
Apostle to remind them of the reality of the divine judicial sentence, which 
was under all circumstances undoubted and undisputed, so much as of its 
truth, for the sake of the Jews who fancied that that judgment would con- 
demn the Gentiles, but would spare the descendants of Abraham as such, 
and oh account of their circumcision and other theocratic privileges ; by 
which idea they manifestly denied the aA#¥era of the xpiva tov Ocot, as if it 
were an untrue false sentence, the contents of which did not ore pone to 
the existing state of the facts. 

Ver. 8. Antithesis of ver. 2, ‘‘That God judges evildoers according to 
truth, we know (ver. 2) ; but judgest thou (in the face of that proposition) 
that thou shalt . . . . escape?” This would indeed be at variance with the 
adfSea of the judgment. Comp. Matt. iii. 7; and the passages from pro- 
fane writers in Grotius. The non-interrogatice rendering of vv. 8, 4 (Hof- 
mann) is not called for by the connection with the assertive declaration in 
ver. 5 ; it weakens the lively force of the discourse, and utterly fails to suit 
the 7 in ver. 4, so prevalent in double questions. — rovro] preparing with 
emphasis (here : of surprise) for the following dre ob éxg. «.7.A.; Bernhardy, 
p. 284. — ov] Thou on thy side, as if thou madest an exception ; opposed 
to the Jewish self-conceit (Matt. iii. 7 ff.; Luke iii. 7 f.). The emphasis is 


1 Not «piua. With Lachmannit is to be 418. Lipsius is of a different opinion as 
accentuated «pina; see Lobeck, faralip. p. regardsthe N. T. (grammat. Unters, p. 40f.). 


CHAP. II., 4, 5. | §3 


not on cov (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others). — éxdetEy] not : through 
acquittal (Bengel),’ but inasmuch as thou shalt not be subjected to the xpipza 
of God, but shalt on the contrary escape it and be secure afar off from it. 
Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 26, vii. 85; 1 Thess. v. 3; Heb. ii. 8. According to 
the Jewish illusion only the Gentiles were to be judged (Bertholdt, Christol. 
p. 206 ff.), whereas all Israel were to share in the Messianic kingdom as its 
native children (Matt. viii. 12). 

Ver. 4. [See Note XVII. p. 106.] Or—in case thou hast not this illusion— 
despisest thou, etc. The 7 draws away the attention from the case first put as 
@ question, and proposes another ; vi. 8 ; 1 Cor. ix. 6, and often elsewhere.’ 
—The despising the divine goodness is the contemptuous unconcern as to its 
holy purpose, which produces as a natural consequence security in sinning 
(Eccles. v. 5 f.).— Tov rdobrov tij¢ xpnot.|] mAovToc, as designation of the 
‘‘abundantia et magnitudo” (Estius), is a very current expression with the 
Apostle (ix. 23, xi. 35; Eph. i. 7, ii. 4, 7, iii. 16 ; Col. i. 27), but is not a 
Hebraism (Ps. v. 8, Ixix. 17 al.), being used also by Greek authors ; Plat. 
Euth. p. 12 A, and see Loesner, p. 245.— ypyoréryroc] is the goodness of God, 
in accordance with which He is inclined to benefit (and not to punish). 
Comp. Tittmann’s Synon. p. 195. —avoyf and paxpod.. patience and long- 
suffering—the two terms exhausting the one idea—denote the disposition 
of God, in accordance with which He indulgently tolerates the sins and de- 
lays the punishments.* — ayvody] inasmuch as it is unknown to thee, that etc. 
By this accompanying definition of the xaragpoveic the (guilty) jolly of the 
despiser is laid bare as its tragic source. Bengel says aptly : ‘‘miratur 
Paulus hancignorantiam.” The literal sense is arbitrarily altered by Pareus, 
Reiche, de Wette, Maier, and others, who make it denote the not being zill- 
tng to know, which it does not denote even in Acts xvii. 28 ; Rom. x. 3; 
by Kéllner, who, following Grotius, Koppe, and many others, holds it to 
mean non considerans ; and also by Hofmann : ‘‘to perceive, as one ought.” 
Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 34. — dyer] of ethical incitement by influencing fhe will.‘ 
But it is not to be taken of the conatus (desires to urge), but of the standing 
relation of the goodness of God to the moral condition of man.* This re- 
lation is an impelling to repentance, in which the failure of result on the part 
of man does not cancel the act of the dye: itself. * 

Ver. 5. A vividly introduced contrast to the preceding proposition &r: rd 
xpnorov .... Gyec; nota continuation of the question (Lachmann, following 
Koppe and others ; also Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), but affirmative (by 
which the discourse becomes far more impressive and striking) as a setting 
forth of the actual position of things, which is brought about by man 
through his impenitence, in opposition to the drawing of the divine kind- 
ness ; for the words can only, in pursuance of the correct interrogative ren- 
dering of ver. 3, be connected with ver. 4, and not also (as Hofmann holds) 


1 Comp. Dem. 602, 2, Aristoph. Vesp. 157 al. 4 Plat. Rep. p. 572 D, al. See Kypke and 
$ Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 182. . Reisig, ad. Soph. O. U. 258. Comp. villi. 14. 
3See Wetstein, and the passages from ®§ Therefore no predestination to damna- 
the Fathers in Suicer, 7hes. II. p. 24 tion can be supposed. 
Comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 194. © Comp. Wisd. xi. 28; Appian. ff. 68. 


84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


with ver. 8. — xara] in accordance with ; in a causal sense. Comp. on Phil. 
iv. 11. On oxAnp x. Guerav. xapd. comp. Acts vii. 81. It is correlative with 
the previous ei¢ perdvoray. — Dnoaupilere ceavry opyjv] Wolf aptly says: ‘*in- 
nuitur.... irae divinae judicia paulatim coacervari, ut tandem universa 
promantur.”* The purposely chosen word glances back to the previous row 
mAobrov x.T.A. and ceaur@, to thyself, heightens the tragic nature of the foolish 
conduct that redounds to one’s own destruction ; comp. xiii. 2. — év hutpe opy.] 
not to be taken with Luther, Beza, Castalio, Piscator, Calvin, Estius, and 
many others as in diem irae (Phil. i. 10; Jude 6; Tob. iv. 9), belongs to 
opyfv : which breaks out on the day of wrath. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 13. Re- 
garding the repetition of opy¢ after opy#v Bengel correctly remarks: ‘‘ de- 
vétnc sermonis magna vi.”” Whose wrath, is self-evident, without its being 
necessary to connect dpyf¢ with 6eov (Hofmann), which is forbidden by the 
intervening amoxad. and by the previous absolutely put opy#v. The article 
was not required by juépg on account of the genitive definitions ; 1 Cor. vi. 
2; Eph. iv. 80 ; Phil. i. 6, a@/.*3— Paul characterizes the day of judgment, 
and with what powerful emphasis! by an accumulation of genitives and 
weighty expressions, with reference to the fate of the bad as juépa dpyge, but 
with reference to its general destination (afterwards ver. 6 ff. to be further 
carried out in detail) for good and bad as a day amoxaA dixacoxptc. Tt. cov, 1.¢. 
on which God's righteous judgment (which until then remains hidden) is re- 
vealed, publicly exhibited. With the exception of passages of the Fathers, 
such as Justin, de resurr. p. 223, dixacoxpicia occurs only in an unknown 
translation of Hos. vi. 5 (where the LXX. read «piva) and the Test. XII. 
Patr. p. 547 and 581. 

Ver. 6. Compare Ps. lxii. 13; Prov. xxiv. 12; analogies from Greek 
writers in Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 214. —xard ra épya avrov) 4.¢e. according 
as shall be commensurate with the moral quality of his actions. [Sce Note 
XVIII. p. 106.] On this, and on the following amplification down to ver. 16, 
it is to be observed :—(1) Paul is undoubtedly speaking of the judgment of 
the world, which God will cause to be held by Christ, ver. 16; (2) The 
subjects who are judged are Jews and Gentiles, ver. 9 ff., consequently all 
men, ver. 16. The distinction, as to whether they are Christians or not, is 
left out of view in this exposition, as the latter is partly intended to intro- 
duce the reader to a knowledge of the necessity of justification by faith 
(down to iii. 20) ; and it is consequently also left out of view that judgment 
according to works cannot result in bliss for the unbelievers, because thero | 
is wanting to them the very thing whose vital action produces the works in 
accordance with which the Judge awards bliss, namely, faith and the 
accompanying regeneration. (3) The standard of the decision is moral action 
and its opposite, vv. 6-10 ; and this standard is really and in fact the only 
one, to which at the last judgment all, even the Christians themselves, shall 


1 Comp. Calovius; and see Deut. xxxif. see Alberti, Obes. p. 207; Mfnthe in loc., 
83-85; Prov. i. 18, ii. 7; Eeclus. fil, 4. For from Philo: Loesner, p. 246. 
passages of profane writers, where @naavpds 2 Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 12%] ; Kdahner, IL 
and @ncavpigery are used toexpresstheaccu- 1, p. 5%. 
mulation of evils, punishments, and the like, 


CHAP. II., 7. : «BS 


be subjected, and by which their fate for eternity shall be determined, 
Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31 ff.; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 7 ff.; Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 
24; Rev. ii. 28, xx. 12, xxii. 12. But (4) the relation of moral action in 
the case of the Christian to the jides salvifica, as the necessary effect and 
fruit of which that action must be demanded at the judgment, cannot, for 
the reason given above under (2), be here introduced into the discussion. 
(5) On the contrary, the law only (in the case of the Jews the Mosaic, in the 
case of the Gentiles the natural), must be presented as the medium of the 
decision, ver. 12 ff.; a view which has likewise its full truth (compare what 
was remarked under (3) above), since the Christian also, because he is to 
be judged according to his action, must be judged according to law (compare 
the doctrine of the tertius legis usus), and indeed according to the rAjpware 
tow véuov introduced by Christ, Matt. v. 17. Comp. xxv. 31 ff.; Rom. xiii. 
8-10,—-although he becomes partaker of salvation, not through the merit of 
works (a point the further development of which formed no part of the 
Apostle’s gencral discussion here), but through faith, of which the works 
are the practical evidence and measure.’ Accordingly the ‘‘ phrasis legis” 
(Melanchthon) is indeed to be recognized in our passage, but it is to be 
apprehended in its full truth, which does not stamp as a mere theoretic 
abstraction (Baur) the contrast, deeply enough experienced by Paul him- 
self, between the righteousness of works and righteousness of faith. It is 
neither to be looked upon as needing the corrective of the Christian plan of 
salvation ; nor as an inconsistency (Fritzsche) ; nor yct in such a light, that the 
doctrine of justification involver a partial abrogation of the moral order of the 
world (Reiche), which is, on the contrary, confirmed and established by it, 
ill. 831. But our passage yields nothing in favour of the possibility, which 
God may grant to unbelievers, of turning to Christ after death (Tholuck), 
or of becoming partakers of the salvation in Christ in virtue of an exercise 
of divine power (Th. Schott): and the representation employed for that 
purpose,—that the life of faith is the product of a previous life-tendency, 
and that the épya perfect themselves in faith (Luthardt, Tholuck),—is erro- 
neous, because incompatible with the N. T. conception of regeneration as a 
new creation, as a putting off of the old man, as a having died and risen 
again, as a being begotten of God through the Spirit, etc., etc. The new 
life (vi. 4) is the direct opposite of the old (vi. 19 ff.). The possibility 
referred to is to be judged of in connection with the descensus Christi ad 
inferos, but is irrelevant here. 

Ver. 7. To those, who by virtue of perseverance in morally-good work seek to 
obtain glory and honour and immortality, eternal life sc. arodéce:. Conse- 
quently xa? iron épyov aya#, contains the standard, the regulative principle, 
by which the seeking after glory, honour, etc. is guided, and épyov ayatov,*® 


‘It {s rightly observed by Calovius: 2 The singular without the article indi- 
“secundum opera, t.e. secundum testimo- cates the thing in adbstracto,; the rule is for 
nium operum,” is something different every given case: perseverance in good work, 
from “* propter opera, t.e. propter meritum The idea that the work of redemption is re- 
operam.”’ Comp. Apol. Conf. A, art. 8, and ferred to (Mehring, in accordance with 
Beza in loc. Phil. i. 6), 80 that vmwou. py. ay., would be 


86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


which is not with Beza to be connected with défav, is the genitive of the 
object to which the tropovg refers (1 Thess. i. 3 ; Polyb. iv. 51, 1; Theophr. 
Ciar. 6, 1) ; while dogav x, riupv x. agape. is an exhaustive description of the 
future salvation according to its glorious appearing (2 Cor. iv. 17 ; Matt. 
xiii. 43), according to the honour united with it (for it is the prize of vic- 
tory, 1 Cor. ix. 25 ; Phil. iii. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 8; James i. 12; 1 Pet. v. 4, 
the joint heirship with Christ, vili. 17, the reigning along with Him, 2 
Tim. ii, 12), and according to its tmperishableness (1 Cor. xv. 52 ff.; Rev. 
xxi, 4; 1 Pet. i. 4). Paul presents the moral effort under a character thus 
specifically Christian, just because he can attribute it only to Christian Jews 
and Gentiles ; and hence he is only able to give his description of this first 
half of the subjects of future judgment, notwithstanding the generality of 
his language, in the Christian form, in which alone it really takes place. 
In keeping with this is also the Cw aiduoy, i.e. eternal life in the kingdom 
of the Messiah, v. 21, vi. 22 f.; Gal. vi. 8. The above construction of the 
words is already followed by Theophilus, ad, Autol. i. 20, ed. Wolf, and by 
most expositors, including Tholuck, Riickert, Kéllner, de Wette, Olshausen, 
Philippi, Maier, van Hengel, Umbreit. The objection raised against it by 
Reiche and Hofmann, that according to the analogy of ver. 6 xa¥ trop. épy. 
ay. must contain the standard of the azoddce:, and cannot therefore belong 
to Cyrovor, is untenable, because xav’ trou. Epy. ay., though attached to 
Cyrovor, nevertheless does contain (indirectly) the standard of arodéce ; 80 
that there remains only an immaterial difference, which however is in fact 
very consonant to the lively versatility of the Apostle’s thought. Still less 
weight attaches to the objection, that to seek glory and honour is not in 
itself a praiseworthy thing ; for the moral tenor of the (nreiv défav x.7.2. 
(comp. Matt. vi. 88 ; John v. 44) is most dcfinitely assured by «ad trop. 
épy. ay. Utterly unfounded, in fine, is the objection of clumsiness (Hof- 
mann) ; the symmetrical fulness of vv. 7, 8, has a certain solemnity about 
it. Reiche and Hofmann, following Oecumenius,' Estius, and others, arrange 
it so that to décav. x. reu. x. agdapaiav they supply arodéce:, whilst Cyrove: is to 
be combined with (wv aiov. and regarded as an apposition or (Hofmann) 
reason assigned to roi¢ uév,and xa’ trou. épy. ay. is the standard of arodwoet. 
Substantially so also Ewald. No syntactic objection can be urged against 
this rendering; but how tamely and heavily is the Cyrove: (wiv aidv. subjoined ! 
Paul would have written clearly, emphatically, and in harmony with the 
contrast in ver. 8: roi¢ . . . . ayadouv Cun al. Cyrovoe déEav x. Tip. K. aged. 
Ver. 8. Toic dé 2& épudeiac] sc. obot : paraphrase of the substantive idea, to 
be explained from the conception of the moral condition as drawing its 
origin thence (comp. iii. 26 ; iv. 12, 14; Gal. iii. 10; Phil. i. 17, al.). 


equivalent to vraxon wicrews, ought to have 
been precluded by the purallel in ver. 10. 
Comp. ver. 2. + 

1 Td urepBardy otTw raxréov’ Trois «ab vro- 
povny epyov ayabou Cnrover Cwiy aiwmoy, amro- 
deca. Sdfay cai... . ad@apciay. But there 
is no ground whatever for the assumption 
of a hyperbaton, in which Luther also has 


entangled himself. Very harshly Bengel, 
Fritzsche, and Krehl separate rots xa" 
Vropov. épyov ay. from what follows, and 
supply ovoc; and then take Sdfer.... 
Snroves as apposition to rots... . épyov, 
but make ¢éwyy ai. likewlse dependent on 
arobwoes, 


CHAP. II., 8. 87 


See Bernhardy, p. 288 f. Comp. the use of vioi and réxva in Eph. ii. 2. 
We are precluded from taking (with Hofmann) é« in a causal sense (in con- 
sequence of épieia), and as belonging to ared.x.7.A. by the xai, which would 
here express the idea, unsuitable to the connection : even.' This xai, tho 
simple and, which is not however with Hofmann to be interpreted as if 
Paul had written ua/Aov or rovvavrior (‘‘instead of seeking after eternal life, 
rather,” etc.), clearly shows that roic dé é& ép¢Seiac is to be taken by itself, as 
it has been correctly explained since the time of the Vulgate and Chrysos- 
tom. — ép:9eia}] is not to be derived from éme¢ or épifw, but from épi9oc, a 
hired labourer,” a spinner ; hence épidebw, to work for hire (Tob. ii. 11), then 
also : to act selfishly, to lay plots. Compare éfepiSetecda:, Polyb. x. 25, 9, 
and dvepiSetbroc (without party intrigues) in Philo, p. 1001 E. épdeia has 
therefore, besides the primary sense of work for hire, the twofold cthical 
signification (1) mercenary greed ; and (2) desire of intrigue, pursuit of par- 
tisan courses ; Arist. Pol. v. 2f. See Fritzsche, Ezeursus on ch. ii.; regard- 
ing the composition of the word, see on 2 Cor. xii. 20. The latter significa- 
tion is to be retained in all passages of the N. T. 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 
20; Phil. i. 16, ii. 3; James iii. 14, 16.—oi é& éprdeiag are therefore the 
intriguers, the partisan actors ; whose will and striving are conducive not to 
the truth (for that in fact is a power of an entirely different kind, opposed 
to their character), but to immorality, wherefore there is added, as further 
characterizing them: xai amrewovc:. Compare Ignatius, ad Philad. 8, 
where the opposite of ép«t. is the yproroud dea, i.6, the discipleship of Christ, 
which excludes all selfish partisan effort. Haughtiness (as van Hengel 
explains it), and the craving for self-assertion (Mchring and Hofmann) are 
combined with it, but are not what the word itself signifies. The intepre- 
tation formerly usual : gui sunt er contentione (Vulg.), those fond of strife 
(Origen, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, 
Calvin, etc.), which was understood for the most part as those rebelling 
against God, is based partly on the erroneous derivation from éprc, partly on 
the groundlcss assumption that in the oth’r passages of the N. T. the sense 
of guarrelsomeness is necessary. Since this is not the case, Reiche’s conject- 
ure is irrelevant, that the vulgar usus loguendi had erroneously derived the 
word from épcc and had Jent to it the corresponding signification. K6llner 
explains it rightly as partisanship, but gratuitously assumes that this was a 
special designation for ‘‘ godless character” in general. So in substance also 
Fritzsche : ‘‘homines neguam.” The very addition, further describing 
these men, xai areovot . . . . adixig, quite allows us to suppose that Paul 
had before his mind the strict and proper meaning of the word partisanship ,; 
and it is therefore unwarrantable to base the common but linguistically 
erroneous explanation on the affinity between the notions of partisanship and of 
contentiousness (Philippi). The question to be determined is not the cate- 
gory of ideas to which the ép:detew belongs, but the definite individual idea 
which it expresses. —op)7 x. Suudc}] sc. tora. In the animation of his 


! Bacuml. Partik. p. 150, also Xen. Afem.1. Dem. 1818, 6; LXX. Is. xxxviil. 12 See 
8 1. Valck. ad Theocr. Adoniaz. p. 878. Com- 


® Homer, xviil. 550, 560; Hesiod, épy.600f.; pare ovydpiéos frequent in Greek authors. 


| 


88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


description Paul has broken off the construction previously followed. To 
connect these words with what follows (Mechring) disturbs unnecessarily 
the important symmetry of the passage. On the distinction between the 
two words, see Tittman’s Synon. p. 181 ff. Supde : vehement passion, in Cic. 
Tuse. iv. 9, 21 rendered ezcandescentia, here, as also in Gal. v. 20, Eph. iv. 
31, Col. iii. 8, Rev. xvi. 19, xix. 15, often also in the O. T. and the Apoc- 
rypha, made known by its combination with 69)%, and by its being put last 
as the more vehement, as the holy divine wrath.' 

Vv. 9, 10. Emphatic recapitulation of vv. 7 and 8, inverting the order, 
and in addition, giving special prominence to the universality of the retri- 
bution. The placing the penal retribution first gives to this an aspect the 
more threatening and alarming, especially as the terms expressing it are now 
accumulated in one breath. — O2iic x. orevoxywpia] Tribulation and anguish, 
sc. ora. The calamity is thus described as pressing upon them from with- 
out (%Azyc), and as felt inwardly with the sense of its being beyond help 
(orevoy.), Vili. 85 ; 2 Cor. iv. 7, vi. 12 ; compare LXX. Is. xxx. 6 ; Deut. 
xxvili, 53. — ixi racav puy7v avdp.] denotes not simply ‘‘ upon every man” 
(so even Philippi), but ‘‘ upon every soul which belongs to a man” who practises 
evil. The yy is thereby designated as that which is affected by the J2iy. 
x. orevox. (Acts ii. 43 ; Matt. xxvi. 28, al.) ; comp. Winer, p. 147 [E. T. 
156]. It is the part which /eels the pain.? — zpérov] Quite as in i. 16. The 
Jews, as the people of God, in possession of the revelation with its prom- 
ises and threatenings, are therefore necessarily also those upon whom the 
retribution of judgment—not the reward merely, but also the punishment 
—has to find tn the first instance its execution. In both aspects they have 
the priority based on their position in the history of salvation as the theo- 
cratic people, and that as certainly as God is impartial. ‘‘ Judaei particeps 
Graecus,” Bengel. The Jewish conccit is counteracted in the first clause 
by 'Ievaiov re xperov, in the second by «ai “EAAym, and counteracted with 
sternly consistent earnestness. The second rpérov precludes our taking the 
first as ironical (Reiche). — eipfvy] welfare, by which is intended that of the 
Messiah’s kingdom, as in viii. 6. It is not materially different from the 
agvapcia and (uy aidvoc of ver. 7 ; the totality of that which had already 
been described in special aspects by déga and rug (comp. on ver. 7). — Re- 
garding the distinction between épyal. and xarepyal. (works and brings to 
pass) see on 1. 27. 

Ver. 11. Ground assigned for vv. 9 and 10, so far as concerns the "Iovd. 
mp. Kk. "EAAqv. — tpocwroAy pia} Partial preference from personal considera- 
tions. See on Gal. ii. 6. Melancthon : ‘‘ dare aequalia inequalibus vel 
inequalia aequalibus.”” The ground specified is directed against the Jew- 
ish theocratic fancy. Comp. Acts x. 34 f. ; Ecclus. xxxii. (xxxv.) 15. 

Ver. 12. Assigns the ground in point of fact for the proposition con- 
tained in ver. 11, in special reference to the future judgment of condemna- 
tion.* — avduuc] i.e. without the standard of the law (without having had it). 


1Compare Isoc. xil. 81: dpyns «. Ovuov 2 See Ernesti, Urepr. d. Sinde, II. p. 101 ff. 
meorot. Herodian, villi. 4,1: dpyy x. Ovpd ? Only in reference to the judgment of 
xpeevos. Lucian, de calumn. 2, al. condemnation, because the idea of a Messi- 


CHAP. I1., 13. 89 


[See Note XIX. p. 107.] Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 21; Wisd. xvii. 2. Those whose © 
sins were not transgressions of the Mosaic law (but of the moral law of 
nature), the sinful Gentiles, shall be transferred into the penal state of 
eternal death without the standard of the law, without having their con- 
demnation decided in accordance with the requirements of a véyzoc to which 
they are strangers. The arodotvra, which is to set in at the final judgment, 
not through natural necessity (Mangold), is the opposite of the owrypiu, i: 
16, of the Chaera:, 1. 17, of the Cu aiduoc, ii. 7, of the défa x.7.A., ii. 10 ; 
comp. John iii. 15 ; Rom. xiv. 15; 1 Cor. i. 18. This very dodcivraz 
should of itself have precluded commentators from finding in the second 
avduwc an element of mitigation (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius), as 
if it was meant to exclude the sererity of the law. The immoral Gentiles 
may not hope to remain unpunished on account of their non-possession of 
the law ; punished they shall be independently of the standard of the law. 
This is the confirmation of the azpoowroAypia of God on the one side, in re- 
gard to the Gentiles.—The xai before azod. is the also of a corresponding 
relation, but not between avduur and avéuwc, as if Paul had written xai avéu. 
atoa., but between juaprov and aod. : as they have sinned without law, so 
shall they also perish without law. In this way dvéuuc retains the emphasis 
of the specific how. Compare the following. The praeterite juaprov is 
spoken from the standpoint of the time of the judgment. — xai dco év véuw 
x.7.4.] This gives the other aspect of the case, with reference to the Jews, 
who do not escape the judgment (of condemnation) on account of their 
privilege of possessing the law, but on the contrary are to be judged by 
means of the law, so that sentence shall be passed on them in virtue of it 
(see Deut. xxvil. 26; comp. John v. 45). —év véuy}] Not on the law 
(Luther), which would be ei¢ véuov, but the opposite of avéuuc: with the lar, 
i.e. in possession of the law, which they had as a standard,’ Winer, p. 361 
[E. T. 386]. On véuoe without the article, used of the Mosaic law, see 
Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 123]. So frequently in the Apocrypha, and of partic- 
ular laws also in classical writers. To question this use of it in the N. T. 
(van Hengel, Th. Schott, Hofmann, and others) opens the way for artificial 
and sometimes intolerable explanations of the several passages. — «pido. | 
an unsought change of the verb, suggested by dca vduov. 

Ver. 13 proves the correctness of the proposition, so much at variance 
with the fancy of the Jews, dco: év véup quaprov, dia véuov xpe4jcovra.—The 
placing of vv. 13-15 in a parenthesis, as after Beza’s example, is done by 
Grotius, Griesbach, and others, also by Reiche and Winer, is to be reject- 
cd, because ver. 13, which cannot be placed in a parenthesis alone (as 
Koppe and Mehring do), is closely joined with what immediately precedes, 
and it is only in ver. 14 that an intervening thought is introduced by way 


anic bliss of unbelievers was necessarily 1 This opposition does notextend beyond 
foreign to the Apostle; as indeed invv. 7 the vonoy pin éxery and vopor exe, ver. 14. 
and 10 he was under the necessity of de- Therefore év vou is not: within the law as 
scribing those to whom Messtanio bliss was _— the divine order of common life (comp. fil. 
to be given in recompense, In terms of a 19) as Hofmann takes It. 

Christian character. 


90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 


of illustration. The parenthesis is (with Baumgarten-Crusius) to be limit- 
ed to vv. 14, 15, as is done also by Lachmann. See on ver. 16. — oi axpoa- 
rai] A reference to the public reading of the Thorah on the Sabbath. 
Comp. Acts xv. 21; 2 Cor. iii. 14; John xii. 84; Josephus, Ant. v. 1, 
26, v. 2, 7. The substantive brings out more forcibly than the participial 
form of expression would have done the characteristic feature : those, whose 
business is hearing.'— napa 7) Oe] éEvdrov avrod ili. 20, according to God's 
judgment. 1 Cor. iii. 9 ; 2 Thess. i. 6 ; Winer, p. 869 [E. T. 395].— dexaw- 
9i0.| They shall be declared as righteous, normal. See oni.17. This of rowy- 
rai vouov dixawtfoovra is the general fundamental law of God who judges 
with righteousness (Gal. iii. 12) ; a fundamental law which required to be 
urged here in proof of the previous assertion dca: év véuw Guapror, dia v. Kpidfe. 
Compare Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 87. How in the event of its being impossible 
for a man to be a true rorrie¢ véuov (iii. 9 ff.) faith comes in and furnishes 
& dixacooivn éx riorewc, and then how man, by means of the xacvérye Cwiz¢ (Vi. 
4) attained through faith, must and can fulfil (viii. 4) the law completed 
by Christ (the véuo¢ rot rvebparog ti¢ Cwec, Vill. 2), were topics not belong- 
ing to the present discussion. Compare on ver. 6. ‘‘ Haec descriptio est 
justitia legis, quae nihil impedit alia dicta de justitia fidei,” Melanchthon. 
Vv. 14-16. The ol woiyrai vépuov dixatwShoovra: just asserted did not require 
proof with regard to the Jews. But, as the regulative principle of the last 
judgment, it could not but appear to need proof with regard tothe Gentiles, 
since that fundamental rule might seem to admit of no application to those 
who sin avéuuc and perish avéuwc. Now the Gentiles, though beyond the pale 
of the Mosaic law and not incurring condemnation according to the standard 
of that law, yet possess in the moral law of nature a certain substitute for 
the Mosaic law not given to them. It is in virtue of this state of things 
that they present themselves, not as excepted from the above rule oj royra? 
véuou dixaw., but as subjected to it ; namely, in the indirect way that they, 
although dvouor in the positive sense, have neverthcless in the natural law 
a substitute for the positive one—which is apparent, as often as Gentiles 
do by nature that which the positive Mosaic law not given to them enjoins. 
The connection may therefore be paraphrased somewhat thus: ‘‘ With 
right and reason I say: the doers of the law shall be justified ; for as to the 
case of the Gentiles, that ye may not regard them as beyond reach of that rule, 
tt is proved in fact by those instances, in which Gentiles, though not in possession 
of the law of Moses, do by nature the requirements of this law, that they are the 
daw unto themselves, because, namely, they thereby show that its obligation stands 
written in their hearts,” etc. It is to be observed at the same time that Paul 
does not wish to prove a justification of the Gentiles really occurring asa 
result through the fulfilment of their natural law—a misconception against 
which he has already guarded himself in ver. 12,—but he desires simply to 
establish the regulative principle of justification through the law in the case 
of the Gentiles. Real actual justification by the law takes place neither 
' among Jews nor Gentiles ; because in no case is there a complete fulfil- 


1 Compare Thelle, ad Jac. 1. 22, p. 76. 


CHAP. II., 14. 91 


ment, cither, among the Jews, of the revealed law, or, among the Gentiles, 
of the natural law—which in fact is only a substitute for the former, but 
at the same time forms the limit beyond which their responsibility and 
their judgment cannot in principle go, because they have nothing higher 
(in opposition to Philippi, who refers to the rAfpwyua vdyuov, xiii. 10).—The 
connection of thought between ver. 14 and what precedes it has been very 
various!y apprehended. According to Koppe (compare Calvin, Flatt, and 
Mehring) vv. 14-16 prove the condemnation of the Gentiles asserted in 
ver. 12, and ver. 17 ff. that of the Jews ; while ver. 13 isa parenthesis, 
But, seeing that in the whole development of the argument yép always re- 
fers to what immediately precedes, it is even in itself an arbitrary proceed- 
ing to make bray ydp in ver. 14, without any evident necessity imposed by 
the course of thought, refer to ver. 12, and to treat ver. 13, although it 
contains a very appropriate reason assigned for the second part of ver. 12, 
as a parenthesis to be broken off from connection with what follows ; 
and decisive against this view are the words # xai arodoyouzévuv in ver. 15, 
which place it beyond doubt that vv. 14-16 were not intended as a proof 
of the amodctvra in ver. 12. Philippi regards ver. 14 as establishing only 
the first half of ver. 13 : ‘‘ not the hearers of the law are just before God, 
for even the Gentiles have a law, 7.¢. for even the Gentiles are axpoarai rov 
véuov.”” But we have no right to exclude thus from the reference of the 
yap just the very assertion immediately preceding, and to make it refcr to 
a purely negative clause which had mcrely served to pave the way for this 
assertion. The reference to the negative half of ver. 18 would only be 
warranted in accordance with the text, had Paul, as he might have done, 
inverted the order of the two parts of ver. 13, and so given to the negative 
clause the second place.’ And the less could o reader sce reason to refer 
the ydp to this negative clause in the position in which the Apostle has 
placed it, since ver. 14 speaks of Gentiles who do the law, by which the 
attention was necessarily directed, not to the negative, but to the affirma- 
tive, half of ver. 18 (ol romyrat «.7.A.).2, Such a mode of presenting the 
connection is even more arbitrary than if we should supnly after ver. 15 
the thought : ‘‘and therewith also the Gentiles” (K6llner and others), which 
however is quite unnecessary. Our view is in substance that given already 
by Chrysostom (ot« éxBdAAw rdv vdéuor, gyoiv, GARG Kal éEvreddev dixacd ra Edvn), 
Erasmus, and others ; more recently by Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, K6ll- 
ner, Fritzsche, de Wette, Baumgarten -Crusius, Reithmayr, van Hengel, 
Ewald, Th. Schott, though with very various modifications. 

Ver. 14. *Orav] quando, supposes a case which may take place at any 
time, and whose frequent occurrence is possible, as ‘‘cventus ad experi- 
entiam revocatus” (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 689) : in the case if, 80 often as. — 
yap] introducing the proof that the proposition of ver. 13 also holds of the 


1 Only thus—but not as Paul has actually Hofmann, who, substantially fike Philippi, 
placed it—could the negative clause be re- _—itakes vv. 14-16 as a proof, that in the matter 
garded as the chief thought, for which Phi- ofrighteousness before God nothing can depend 
lippi is obliged to take it, p. 54 f. 8d ed. on whether one belongs to the nunwber Of those 

3 These reasons may also be urged against who hear the law read (o them. 


92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Gentiles. See above. — #9v7] not to be understood of the Gentiles collectively, 
to which Reiche, de Wettc, Kéllner, Philippi refer it—for this must have 
been expressed by the article (against which view neither ix. 30 nor ili. 29, 
nor 1 Cor. i. 23, is to be adduced), and the putting of the case évav .. . 

story With respect to the heathen generally would be in itself untrue—but 
Paul means rather Gentiles among whom the supposed case occurs. — 7a us vdpov 
éxovra| they who hare not the law ; & more precise definition bearing on the 
case, and bringing forward the point on which here the argument turns. 
See Winer, p. 127 [E. T. 189]. Observe the distinction between 7 véuov 
éy. and véyuov yy éy. The former negatives—while the contrast of the gice 
floats before the mind—the possession of the law, instead of which they 
have merely a natural analogue of it ;’ the latter negatives the possession 
of the law, which is wanting to them, whilst the Jews have it. — gtce: ra tot 
véuov toy] Most expositors uphold this connection, including Rickert, 
2d ed. Onthe other hand Bengel and Usteri join gice: to py vdu. Eyovra, 
but thus make it superfluous and even unsuitable, and deprive it of all 
weight in the connection, especially as the word ¢to:¢ has here no other 
sense than nativa indoles, i.e. the original constitution given with existence, 
and not moulded by any extraneous training, culture, or other influence 
beyond the endowments of nature and their natura] development (comp. on 
Eph. ii. 3) ; gioec: ‘quia natura eorum ita fert,” Stalb. ad Plat. Phaedr. 
p. 249. The datire denotes the mediating cause. And that it is the 
moral prompting of conscience left to itself, which Paul means by ¢toer 7n con- 
trast to the divine leading of the law, is plain from ver. 15. The gicec roreiv 
lies beyond the sphere of positive revelation and its promptings, leadings, 
etc. It takes place in virtue of an indoles ingenita, not interventu disciplinae 
divinae formata, so that the thought of an opcration of grace or of the 
Logos taking place apart from Christ is quite foreign to this passage, and 
its affirmation is not in harmony with the truncus et lapis of the Formula 
Concordiac.* — ra rov véuov] what belongs to the law, i.e. its constituent ele- 
ments, its precepts. Paul does not say simply rév véuov ; for he is thinking 
not of Gentiles who fulfil the law as a@ «whole, but of those who in concrete 
cases by their action respond to the particular portions of the law concerned. 
Compare Luthardt lic. p. 409. The close relation, in which the roeiv ra 
vou véuov here stands to ogra? vdéuov in ver. 13, is fatal to the view of Beza, 
Joh. Cappell., Elsner, Wetstein, Michaclis, Flatt, and Mehring, who ex- 
plain it as quae lex facit, namely, the commanding, convincing, condemn- 
ing, etc. — éavroic cict véuoc] They are the law unto themselves, 2.e. their 
moral nature, with its voice of conscience commanding and forbidding, 
supplies to their own Ego the place of the revealed law possessed by the 
Jews. Thus in that zoeivy they serve for themselves as a regulator of the 
conduct that agrees with the divine law.* Observe further that here, 
where the participle stands without. the article—consequently not of véu. pu?) 


1 Compare Stalb. ad Plat, Crit. p. 47 D. 3 For parallels (Manil. vy. 495, a/. ; ipse aibt 

2 See the later discussions of dogmatic zx est, Arist. Nicom. iv. 14: vouos wvéaure 
writers as to this point in Luthardt, v. freien al.) see Wetstein ; compare also Porph. ad 
Willen, p. 360 ff. Marc. %, p. 34. 


CHAP. II., 15. 93 


Eyovrec (as previously rd 7). . . . Exovra)—it is to be resolved by since they, 
because they ; which however does not convey the idea: because they are 
conscious of the absence of the law (as Hofmann objects), but rather : be- 
cause this want occurs in their case. See Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 301 
[E. T. 306]. The resolution by although (Th. Schott) is opposed to the 
connection ; that by while (Hofmann) fails to convey the definite and logical 
meaning ; which is, that Gentiles, in the cases indicated by dérav «.r.2. 
would not be éavroi¢ véuoc, if they had the positice law.—The otroe com- 
prehends emphatically the subjects in question.’ 

Ver. 15. Oiriveg x.7.2.] quippe qui. See on i. 25. The ovroc of ver. 14 
are characterized, and consequently the éavroi¢ eic? véuog, just asserted, is 
confirmed : being such as show (practically by their action, ver. 14, make it 
known) that the work of the law is written in their hearts, wherevithal their 
conscience bears joint witness, etc.—That évdeixvuvrat should be‘understood of 
the practical proof which takes place by the roeiv ra rot vduov (not by the 
testimony of conscience, Bengel, Tholuck) is required by the ow in cvppap- 
rvpotonc, which is not a mere strengthening of the simple word (Kéliner, 
Olshausen ; comp. Tholuck, following earlier expositors ; sce, on the other 
hand viii. 16, ix. 1), but denotes the agreement of the internal evidence of 
conscience with the external proof by fact. It is impossible to regard the | 
ivdeixvuyvra: as taking place on the day indicated in ver. 16 (Hofmann), since 
this day can be no other than that of the last judgment. See on ver. 16. 
—rTd Epyov row véuov] The work relating to the law, the conduct corresponding 
to it, fulfilling it. The opposite is duaprfyara vépov, Wisd. ii. 12. Com- 
pare on Gal. ii. 16. The singular is collective (Gal. vi. 4), as a summing up 
of the épya r. véuov (iii. 20, 28, ix. 82; Gal. ii. 16, iii. 2, 5, 10). Compare 
ra Tow vépou above. This stands written in their hearts as commanded, as 
moral obligation,® as ethical law of nature. — yparrév] purposely chosen with 
reference to the written law of Moses, although the moral law is dypagog.*‘ 


1 Kfhner, Il..1, p. 568; Buttmann /.c. p. 
262 f. 


cording to Tholuck cv. indicates merely 
the agreement of the person witnessing 


3 Where ovppaprvpeiy appears to be equiv- 
alent to peprvp., it is only an apparent equiv- 
alence ; there is always mentally implied an 
agreement with the persom for whom witness 
is borne, as e.g. Thuc. viil. 61,2; Plat. Hipp. 
Maj. p. 22 B: cvpmaprvpnoa bé cou exw ore 
eAnOy Acyecs, if that is meant is not a testi- 
mony agreeing with others (as Xen. Hist. Gr. 
vil. 1, 2, {iL 3, 2), or, as here, one that agrees 
with a thing, a phenomenon, a proof by fact, 
or the ike. Compare Isoc. p. 47 A. Inthe 
passage, Plat. Legg. ill. p. 680 D, vumaprvpety 
is expressly distinguished from paprup ; for, 
after the ro oy Adyy force paprupeiy preced- 
ing, the var: fvuzmaprvpe: yép must mean: he 
is my joint-witness, whose evidence agrees 
with what I say. If the reference of cuz. 
in our passage to the proof by fact be not 
adopted, then atvrocs would need be sup- 
plied ; but wherefore should wedoso? Ac- 


with the contents of his testimony. This 
is never the case, and would virtually de- 
prive the ovu. of all significance. 

8 This inward law is not the conscience it- 
self, but the regulative contents of the con- 
sciousness of the conscience ; consequently, 
if we conceive the latter, and with justice 
(in opposition to Rud. Hofmann, Lehre tom 
Gewtesen, 1866, p. 54, 58 f.), as presented in 
the form of a syllogism, it forms the sub- 
ject of the major premise of this syllogism. 
Comp. Delitzsch, dit. Psychol. p. 186 f. 

4Plato, Legg. p. 481 B, Thue. fi. 37, 8, 
and Kriiger, in loc. p. 200; Xen. Mem. iv. 
4, 19; Soph. Ant. 450; Dem. 3817, 2%, 689, 22; 
Dion. Hal. vil. 41). Compare Jer. xxx!. 83; 
Heb. viii. 10, and the similar designations 
among the Rabbins in Buxtorf, Lex Talim. 
p. 852, 1849. 


94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


The supplying of 5» serves to explain the adjective, which is used instead 
of the participle to denote what continues and is constant.' — ovpuaprupotenc 
avTav ovvedqoewc, nai petagi x.7.A.] while they make known outwardly by 
their action that the épyor of the law is written in their hearts, their inner 
moral consciousness accords with it ; namely (1), in reference to their own, 
personal relation : the testimony of their own consciences ; and (2), in regard 
to their mutual relation : the accusations or vindtcations® that are carried on 
between Gentiles and Gentiles (ueragi GAAgAuv) by their thoughts, by their 
moral judgments. This view of the sense is required by the correlation of 
the points avrav and perafi aAAfAwv placed with emphasis in the foreground 
(ueragd occurring in Paul’s writings only here, and therefore all the more 
intentionally chosen in this case) ; so that thus both the personal individual 
testimony of conscience (airév) and the mutual judgment of the thoughts 
(uerasd GAAjAwy), are adduced, as accompanying internal acts, in confirma- 
tion of the évdcixmra:. The Gentiles, who do the requirement of the law, 
practically show thereby that that requirement is inscribed on their hearts ; 
and this is attested at the same time, so far as concerns the actors themselves, 
by their (following) conscience, and, so far as concerns their relation to other 
Gentiles, by the accusations or the vindications which they reciprocally practise 
in their moral thoughts, the one making reflections of a condemnatory or of 
a justifying nature on the other.* The prominence thus given to airay and 
petakd adAfiuv, and the antithetical correlation of the two points, have been 
commonly misunderstood (though not by Castalio, Storr, Flatt, Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius), and consequently x. per. aAA. trav diadoy. x.t.A. has been taken 
merely as an erplanatory description of the process of conscience, in which the 
thoughts accuse or vindicate one another (i.e. one thought the other) ; so that 
GAAfawy is referred to the thoughts, and not, as is nevertheless required by 
the airév standing in contradistinction to it, to the é3vy7. This view ought 
even to have been precluded by attending to the fact that, since ovypapr. 
. ovvedfoews must, in harmony with the context, mean the approring 
conscience [Sce Note XX. p. 108.], what follows cannot well suit as an exposi- 
tion, because in it the xar7zyopotyrwy preponderates. Finally, i€ was an arbi- 
trary expedient, rendering perafd merely superfluous and confusing, to 
separate it from 4@AA44., and to explain the former as meaning at a future 
time, viz. év quépa x.t.A. (Koppe), or between, at the same time (K6llner, 
Jatho). 
- Ver. 16 has its connection with what goes before very variously defined. 
While Ewald goes so far as to join it with ver. 5, and regards everything 
intervening as a parenthesis, many, and recently most expositors, have con- 
nected it with the immediately preceding ovyyapr. . . . . amodoy. ; in which 


view taken of the moral state of the Gen- 
tiles, that the carnyopeiy forms the rule. See 


1 Compare Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 
5,1; Symp. 4, 25. See the truly classic de- 


scription of this inner law, and that as di- 
vine, in Cicero, de Republi. iil. 23; of the 
Greeks, comp. Soph. O. 7’, 838 ff., and Wun- 
der, in loc. 

2The «ai added to the 9 is based on the 


Baeumlein, Partik. p. 126. 

3 Compare Weiss, bidd. Theol. p. 277: ‘It 
is testified by the conscience, which teaches 
them to judge the quality of their own and | 
others’ actions.”* 


CHAP. IT., 16. 95 


case, however, év #uépg cannot be taken for cic #uépav (Calvin), nor the pres- 
ent participles in a future sense (Fritzsche), since, in accordance with the 
context, they are contemporary with évdeixvyvrac. And for that very reason 
we must reject the view, which has been often assumed, that Paul suddenly 
transports himself from the present into the time of the judgment, when 
the exercise of conscience in the Gentiles will be specially active, and that 
for this reason he at once adds év jyépg x.t.A. directly without inserting a 
xai Touro pddiora, OF xal rovro yerfoera, or the like (Riickert, Tholuck, de 
Wette, Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Umbreit ; comp. Estius). The 
supposition of such an illogical and violent leap of thought in so clear and 
steady a thinker as Paul is thoroughly arbitrary and wholly without analogy. 
Moreover, the simple temporal self-judgment of the Gentiles fits into the 
conncction so perfectly, that Paul cannot even have conceived of it as an 
anticipation of the last judgment (Mehring). Quite an incorrect thought, 
repugnant to ver. 12 and to the whole doctrinal system of the Apostle, is 
obtained by Luthardt (0. freien Willen, p. 410 f.), when, very arbitrarily 
joining it only with 4 xai aroAoyouuzévwr, he discovers here the hope ‘‘ that to 
such the reconciling grace of Christ shall one day be extended.” This is 
not confirmed by ver. 26. A relative natural morality never in the N. T. 
supplies the place of faith, which is the absolutely necessary condition of 
reconciling grace. Compare ili. 9, 22, vii. 14 ff. al. Lastly Hofmann, who 
formerly held a view similar to Luthardt’s (sce Schriftbew. I. p. 669), now 
connects év yuépg x.t.A. to évdeixvyvras in such a way, that he explains ver. 
16 not at all of the final judgment, but, in contrast even to the latter, of 
erery day on which God causes the Gospel to be proclaimed among the Gentiles ; 
ecery such day shall be for all, who hear the message, a day of inward judg- 
ment ; whoever believingly accepts it, and embraces salvation, thereby 
proves that he himself demands from himself what the revealed law enjoins 
on those who possess it. This interpretation, which would require us to 
read with Hofmann «pivec (the present) instead of xpivei, is as novel as it is 
erroneous. For the expressions in ver. 16 are so entircly those formally 
used to denote the last judgment (comp. on #uépa 1 Cor. i. 8, v. 5 3 2 Cor. i. 
14 al. ; on xpwei, vv. 2, 3, 5, iil. 6 al. ; on Ocd¢ as the judge, iii. 6, xiv. 10, 
12, al. ; on rd xputrd, 1 Cor. iv. 5; on dead 'Inootw X. 2 Cor. v. 10; Acts 
Xvii. 31) that nothing else could occur to any reader than the conception 
of that judgment, which moreover has been present to the mind since 
ver. 2, and from which even xara ro evayy. zov does not draw away the at- 
tention. Every element in Hofmann’s exposition is subjectively introduced, 
so that Paul could not have wrapped up the simple thought, which is sup- 
posed to be expressed in so precious a manner, in a more strange disguise 
—a thought, moreover, which is here utterly irrelevant, since Paul has to 
do simply with the natural law of the Gentiles in its relation to the revealed 
véuog Of Judaism, and apart as yet from all reference to the occurrence of 
their conversion ; and hence also the comparison with Heb. iv. 12 is here 
out of place. The proper view of the passage depends on our treating as a 
parenthesis, not (with Winer and others) vv. 13-15, but with Lachmann, vv. 
14, 15. This parenthetical insertion is already indicated as such by the fact, 


96 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. | 


that the great judicial proposition previously expressed : ol wowra? vdpou 
dixawwSjoovrat is in vv. 14, 15 proved only with reference to a part of man- 
kind, with regard to which it might seem possibly doubtful : it is reguired 
by the circumstance, that without it év #uép¢ has no proper logical reference 
whatever ; and lastly, it is confirmed by the consideration that, if it is 
adopted, the whole is wound up not with an illustration having reference to 
the Gentiles, but—and how emphatically and solemnly !—with the leading 
thought of the whole discussion.'— rd xpurra rav avdp.] The hidden things 
of men, i.e. everything in their inner or outer life which does not come to 
the knowledge of others at all, or not according to its moral quality. This 
special characteristic of the judgment is given with reference to ver. 13, inas- 
much as it is just such a judging that is necessary for, and the preliminary 
to, the realization of what is affirmed in ver. 18. — xara rd evayyéA. ov] con- 
tains, according to the usual view, the accordance of the assertion xprvei 6 
Oed¢ Ta KpuTTa T. avdp. dia ’I. Xp. with the Apostle’s official proclamation of 
salvation. But the fact that God will judge, etc., was so universally known 
and so entirely undoubted, that the addition in that sense would have been 
in the highest degree superfluous ; and indeed the pov in that case would 
have no significance bearing on the matter, since no one proclaiming the 
Gospel could call in question that truth. We must therefore explain it, 
with Pareus, Calovius, and many others, including Umbreit and Hofmann, 
as referring to the manner of the xpivet. Paul was so certain of the sole 
truth of the Gospel committed to him (xvi. 25 ; Eph. iv. 20 f.) which he 
had by revelation of God (Gal. i. 11 f.) that he could not but be equally 
certain that the future judgment would not be held otherwise than according 
to his Gospel, whose contents are conceived as the standard of the sentence. 
In that same Gospel he knew it to be divinely determined, to whom the 
orkgavog tHe dixatosbvnc, the eternal life and its défa, or on the other hand its 
opposite, eternal aréAea, should be awarded by the judge. But he knew 
at the same time the axiom announced in ver. 13, with which ver. 16 con- 
nects itself, to be not at variance therewith (comp. ili. 31) ; as indeed on 
the contrary, it is just in the Gospel that perfection in the fulfilment of the 
law is demanded, and accordingly (see ch. vi. 8, xiii. 8 ff.) the judicial rec- 
ompense is determined conformably to the conduct, viii. 4 ; 2 Cor. v. 10; 
Eph. v. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 9f. ; Gal. v. 19-23. On uwov Calvin’s note suffices : 
suum appellat ratione ministerii, and that, to distinguish it from the preach- 
ing not of other apostles, but of false, and especially of Judaizing teachers. 
Comp. xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. The mistaken view is held by Origen, 
Jerome, and other Fathers,? that Paul meant by Ais Gospel that of Luke. — 
dia Incov Xp.] As He is the Mediator of eternal salvation, so also it is He 
who is commissioned by God to hold the judgment. Comp. Acts xvii. 30, 
31; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10 al. ; John v. 27; Matt. xxv. 31. 

Vv. 17-24. The logical connection of this ‘‘oratio splendida ac vehemens” 


1 There {s therefore the less reason for which was copied Into the text at the wrong 
assuming with Laurent that ver. 10 wasa __—spsiace. 
marginal note of the Apostle on ver. 138, * See Fabricius, Cod. apocr. p. 871 f. 


CHAP. I1., 17-20. 97 


(Estius), introduced once more in lively apostrophe,’ with what precedes is 
to be taken thus: Paul has expressed in vv. 13-16 the rule of judgment, 
that not the hearers but the doers of the law shall in the judgment be jus- 
tified. He wishes now vividly to bring home the fact, that the conduct of 
the Jews, with all their conceit as to the possession and knowledge of the 
law, is in sharp contradiction to that standard of judgment. The dé and 
the emphatic ci are to be explained from the conception of the contrast, 
which the conduct of the Jews showed, to the proposition that only the 
doers dixaww3hoovra. As to the construction of vv. 17-23, the common as- 
sumption of an anakoluthon, by which Paul in ver. 21 abandons the plan 
of the discourse started with ei, and introduces another turn by means of 
ovy*® is quite unnecessary. The discourse, on the contrary, is formed with 
regular and logically accurate connection as protasis (vv. 17-20) and apo- 
dosis, namely thus: But if thou art called a Jew, and supportest thyself on 
the law, etc., down to ver. 20, dost thou (interrogative apodosis, vv. 21, 22), 
who accordingly (ovv, in accordance with what is specified in vv. 17-20) 
teachest others, not teach thyself? Stealest thou, who preachest against stealing ? 
Committest thou adultery, who forbiddest adultery? Plunderest thou temples, 
who abhorrest idols? These questions present the contrast to the contents of 
the protasis as in the highest degree surprising, as something that one is at 
a loss how to characterize—and then follows in ver. 23, with trenchant pre- 
cision, the explanation and decision regarding them in the categorical 
utterance : Thou, who boastest thyself of the law, dishonourest God by the trans- 
gression of the law, a result which is then in ver. 24 further confirmed by a 
testimony fromthe 0. T. Ver. 23 also might indeed (as commonly explained) 
be taken as a question ; but, when taken as declaratory, the discourse pre- 
sents a form far more finished, weighty and severe. Paul himself, by 
abandoning the participial expression uniformly employed four times pre- 
viously, seems to indicate the cessation of the course hitherto pursued. Ac- 
cording to this exposition of the connection, in which it must not be over- 
looked that the force of the ovv in ver. 21 is limited solely to the relation of the 
6 dcddoxwy Erepov and the following participles to what has been said before,* 
we must reject the view of Benecke, Gléckler, and Hofmann that the apo- 
dosis only begins with ver. 23, but in ver. 21 f. there is a continuation of 
the hypothetical protasis—an idea which cannot be tolerated, especially at 
the beginning of the new form of discourse (the antithetical), without rep- 
etition of the ei. Paul would have written e obv 6 didéoxwy x.7.A. (compare 
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 178). Th. Schott erroneously finds in éravaraty and 
cavyaca the apodosis, which is then explained. 

Vv. 17-20 contain the protasis, whose tenor of censure (called in question 


1To the Jews, not to the Jewish- Chris- 
dans. Respecting the composition and 
character of the Roman congregation noth- 
ing can be inferred from this rhetorical form 
of expression. Comp. Th. Schott, p. 188 f. 

2 Seo Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 569], Buttmann, 
p. 381 [E. T. 386]. 

* This ig the well-known epanaleptic oty, 


gathering up and resuming what had been 
said previously. Regarding the frequency 
of its use also in Greek writers to introduce 
the apodosis, especially after a lengthened 
protasis, see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 2 f. ; 
Klotz, aed Devar. p. 718. Comp. Bengel on 
ver. 17, . 


98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


without ground by Th. Schott and Hofmann) reveals itself at first gently, 
but afterwards, ver. 19 f., with greater force. — ’Iovdaiog érovoudly] if thou art 
named ‘‘ Jew.” This was the theocratic title of honour opposed to heathen- 
ism (77 ‘1, see Philo, Alleg. I. p. 55 B, de plant. Nod, p. 2338 A). Comp. 
Rev. ii. 9. So much the less therefore is érovouds. to be here understood of 
a surname (Bengel). Full effect is given to the compound in classic writers 
aiso by the notion of name-giving, imposing the name. Van Hengel arbitra- 
rily imports the idea: pro veteri nomine (Israelitarum) nocum substituens. 
—éxavarain TO vdup) acguiescis, thou reliest (Mic. iii. 11; 1 Macc. viii. 12; 
see Wetstein) on the law, comp. John v. 45, as if the possession and knowl- 
edge of it were to thee the guarantee of salvation. The rest, of not being 
obliged first of all to seek what God’s will is (Hofmann), cannot be meant ; 
since such a seeking cannot be separated from the possession of the law, 
but is on the contrary directed to that very law (see ver. 18). But in the 
law the Jew saw the magna charta of his assurance of salvation. He relied 
upon it. —év @e~] As being the exclusive Father and Protector of the 
nation. Comp. Gen. xvii. 7; Is. xlv. 25; Jer. xxxi. 88. Observe the 
climax of the three points in ver. 17. The éy with «avy. (2 Cor. x. 15; 
Gal. vi. 18), a verb which in Greek authors is joined with ézi or ei¢ or the 
accusative, denotes that, «herein the xavy. rests, according to the analogy 
of yaipev, téprecdac étv.2— Ver. 18, rd SéAnua] nar’ ELoxiv. Whose will it 
was, that was to be obeyed on the part of man, was obvious of itself. Comp. 
on dvoua Actsv. 41. —donpdlere ra deagép.] Thou approvest the excellent. Re- 
specting the lerical correctness of this rendering comp. on Phil. i. 10. Its 
correctness in accordance with the connection is plain from the climactic re- 
lation, in which the two elements of ver. 18 must stand to each other. 
‘‘Thou knowest the will of God and approvest (theoretically) the excellent” 
—therewith Paul has conceded to the Jews all possible theory of the ethical, 
up to the limit of practice. Others, taking doxidfev as to prove, explain rd . 
diagépovra as meaning that which is different ; and this either (comp. Heb. 
v. 14) of the distinction between right and wrong (Theodoret, Theophylact, 
Estius, Grotius and others, including Reiche, Riickert, Tholuck, Fritzsche, 
Krehl, Philippi, van Hengel, Th. Schott), or that which is different from the 
will of God, i.e. what is wrong, sinful (Clericus, Gléckler, Mehring, 
Hofmann ; compare Beza). But, after yivdonere rd SéAnua, how tame and 
destructive of the climax is either explanation! The Vulgate rightly ren- 
ders: ‘‘probas utiliora.” Compare Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel, 
Flatt, Ewald. — xarnyobu. tx tr. véuov) Being instructed out of the law (through 
the public reading and exposition of it in the synagogues, comp. axpodéraz, 
ver. 13), namely as to the will of God, and as to that which is excellent. 
— Vv. 19, 20 now describe, with a reference not to be mistaken (in oppo- 
sition to Th. Schott and Hofmann) to the Jewish presumption and disposition 
to proselytize (Matt. xxiii. 15), the influence which the Jews, in virtue of 
their theoretic insight, fancied that they exercised over the Gentiles. Theo 


1 See Plat. Crat. p. 897 E, p. 406 A; Phaedr. Polyb. 1. 29, 2; comp. Gen. iv. 17, 2% f. 
p. 238 A al. ; Xen. Cec. 6,17; Thue. fi. 29, 8; 2 Bernhardy, p. 211; Ktihner, II. 1, p. 408, 


CHAP. II.,- 21, 22. 99 


accumulated asyndetic designations of the same thing lend lively force to 
the description. They are not to be regarded with Reiche as reminiscences 
from the Gospels (Matt. xv. 14; Luke xx. 82, ii. 82) ; for apart from the 
fact that at least no canonical Gospel had at that time been written, the 
figurative expressions themselves which are here used were very current 
among the Jews and elsewhere. See, ¢.g. Wetstein on Matt. xv. 14. Ob- 
serve, further, that Paul does not continue here with the conjunctive «ai, 
but with the adjunctive ré, because what follows contains the conduct de- 
termined by and dependent on the elements of ver. 18, and not something 
independent.’ — ceavrdv ddry. x.t.A.] that thou thyself for thy part, in virtue 
of this aptitude received from the law, ctc. émoWa, accompanied by the 
accusative with the infinitive, occurs only here in the N. T., and rarcly in 
Greek authors (Aesch. Sept. 444). — racdeuryv x.7.4.] trainer of the foolish, 
teacher of those in nonage.*—riyv udpowow tr. yvdo. x. t. adi] the form of 
knowledge and of the truth. Inthe doctrines and precepts of the law, re- 
ligious knowledge and divine truth, both in the objective sense, attain the 
conformation and exhibition (Ewald : ‘‘embodiment”) proper to them, .e. 
corresponding to their nature (hence rv pép¢.), 80 that we possess in the 
law those lineaments which, taken collectively, compose the oyqpariopdc 
(Hesychius) of knowledge and truth and thus bring them to adequate in- 
tellectual cognizance. Truth and knowledge have become in the law 
Eupopgoc (Plut. Num. 8, Mor. p. 428 F), or popgoesdg¢ (Plut. Mor. p. 735 A). 
Paul adds this Zyovra ry pépg. tr. yv. x. T. ad. agan illustrative definition (ut 
qui habeas, etc.) to all the points previously adduced ; and in doing so he 
places himself entirely at the Jewish point of view (comp. Wisd. xxiv. 32 ff.), 
and speaks according to their mode of conception ; hence the view which 
takes y«dép¢. here as the mere appearance (2 Tim. iii. 5), in contrast to the 
reality, is quite erroneous (in opposition to r:vé¢ in Theophylact, Oecumenius, 
Pareus, Olshausen). Even Paul himself could not possibly find in the law 
merely the appearance of truth (iii. 21, 31). 

Vv. 21, 22. Apodosis interrogating with lively indignation. See gen- 
erally, and respecting oiv, above on vv, 17-24. The form of the questions 
is expressive of surprise at the existence of an incongruity so much at variance 
with the protases, ver. 17 f.; it must have been in fact impossible. So also 
in 1 Cor. vi. 2.— Dost thou, who teachest others accordingly, not teach thine own 
self? namely, a bettcr way of thinking and living than thou showest by thy 
conduct.‘— The following infinitives do not include in themselves the idea 
of deiv or égeiva:,® but find their explanation in the idea of commanding, which 
is implied in the finite verbs.*—6 PdeAvocduevoe ra eldwia lepooviaeic] Thou, 
who abhorrest idols, dost thou plunder temples? This is necessarily to be 


1 Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 790. trast (comp. LXX. Ps. 1. 16 ff.; Ignat. Ep. 


3 Comp. Plat. Pol. x. p.598C: waidds re cai «=—-_-« 15) from Greek and Rabbinical authors may 
edpovac. be seen in Wetstein. 


20On pudppecrts compare Theophrastus fh. § See Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 758 f. 
pl. lil. 7, 4, and S&apdpheccs in Plut. Mor. p. ® See Ktihner, ad Xen. Mem. il. 2, 1, Anad. 
1028 C. v. 7, 84; Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. H6 B; 
* Analogous passages expressing this con- Wunder, ad Soph. O. C. 887. 


100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

understood of the plundering of idols’ temples (with Chrysostom, The- 
ophylact,’ Clericus, Wetstein, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Fritzsche, de Wette, 
Tholuck, Philippi, Mehring (Rickert indecisively) ; as is required by the anti- 
thetic relation in which lepoovieic stands to the BdcAvocdy. ra eldwAc. ‘‘ Thou 
who holdest all contact with idols as a detestable pollution—dost thou 
lay plundering hands on their temples?” Abhorrence of idols and (not, it 
might be, temple-destruction, Deut. vii. 25, but greedy) temple-plunder- 
ing ?—Paul could not have placed at the close of his reproachful questions 
a contrast between theory and.practice more incisively affecting Jewish feel- 
ing. That robbery of temples actually occurred among the Jews, may just- 
ly be inferred from Acts xix. 87, but especially from Josephus, Antt. iv. 8, 
10.* It is differently explained by Pclagius, Pareus, Toletus, Grotius, Heu- 
mann, Michaelis, Cramer, Reiche, Gléckler, Reithmayr, van Hengel, Ewald, 
and Hofmann, who understand it of robbing the Jewish temple by the em- 
bezzlement or curtailment of the temple-moneys and sacrifices (for proofs of 
this crime, see Josephus, Antt. viii.'8, 5 f.), by withholding the temple 
tribute, and the like.‘ Luther, Calvin, Bengel, and others, including Morus, 
Flatt, Kéliner, and Umbreit, interpret it, with still more deviation from the 
proper sense, as denoting the ‘‘ profanatio divinae majestatis” (Calvin) gen- 
erally. Compare Luther’s gloss, ‘‘Thou art a robber of God ; for it is 
God’s glory which all who would be holy through works take from Him.” 
Such unjustifiable deviations from the literal sense would not have been re- 
sorted to, if attention had been directed on the one hand to the actual unity 
of the object in the whole of the antitheses, and on the other to the appro- 
priate climax : theft, adultery, robbery of idols’ temples. 

- Ver. 23 gives to the four questions of reproachful astonishment the de- 
cisive categorical answer. See above on vv. 17-24. [See Note XXI. p. 108.] 
— dia Tio TwapaB. tr. vduov] To this category belonged especially the iepoov- 
Aeiv ; for in Deut. vii. 25 f. the destruction of heathen statues is enjoined, 
but the robbery of their gold and silver is repudiated. — rov Bedv areudtecc] 
How ? is shown in ver. 24. — rév Bedv] who has given the law. 

Ver. 24. For confirmation of his rdv Sedv ariudfec¢ Paul subjoins a Script- 
ure quotation, namely Is. lii. 5, in substance after the LXX., not the far 
more dissimilar passage Ezek. xxxvi. 22 f. (Calvin, Ewald, and others), 
which, according to Hofmann, he is supposed to express according to the 
Greek translation of Is. J.c. ‘‘more convenient” for him. But he applies 


1 Theophylact (whom Estius follows) very 
properly refers the iepoovAeis to the temples 
of idols, but limits it to the taking away of 
the avafjpara. His exposition, moreover, 
aptly brings out the practical bearing of 
the point: iepoovAtay Adyar Thy adalpeciy ray 
avaTiOendvwy Trois eidwAots. cai yap ei Kai éBde- 
Avccovro ta eidwAa, add’ Suws TH PcAoxpnmariq 
Tupayvovpevoe Hrrovro Tay eiswAccay avabyua- 
tw 8" aicxpoxepdiay, 

2 The objection urged by Reiche and van 
Frengel, that iepoovAety always refers to tem- 
ples which the speaker really looks upon as 


holy places, is irrelevant for this reason,that 
Paul was obliged to take the word, which 
he found existing in the Greek, in order to in- 
dicate temple-robbery, while he has al- 
ready sufficiently excluded the idea that the 
temples themselves were sacred in his eyes 
by 7a eidwAa, 
®See also Rabbinical passages in Dec- 
litzsch’s Hebrew translation, p. 77. 
“Compare Jest. XIT. Patr. p. 578. 
- § Olshausen thinks that avarice, as inward 
idolatry, is meant. 


CHAP. II., 25. 101 


the quotation in such a way that he makes it his own by the ydp not found in 
the original or the LXX.; only indicating by xadoc yéyparra: at the close, 
that he has thus appropriated a passage of Scripture. Hence xada¢ yéy. is 
placed at the end, as is never done in the case of express quotations of Script- 
ure. The historical sense ' of the passage is not here concerned, since Paul 
has not quoted it as a fulfilled prophecy, though otherwise with propriety 
in the sense of iii. 19. — de’ tac] i.e. on account of your wicked conduct. — 
BAraconpeita év toig E9vecr] among the Gentiles, inasmuch, namely, as these in- 
fer from the immoral conduct of the Jews that they have an unholy God 
and Lawgiver, and are thereby moved to blaspheme His holy name. Comp. 
Clement, Cor. I. 47. 

Ver. 25. Having in vv. 17-24 (not merely taken for granted, but) thrown 
a bright light of illumination on the culpability of the Jews in presence of 
the law, Paul now briefly and decisively dissipates the fancy of a special 
adcantage, of which they were assured through circumcision. ‘‘ For 
circumcision indeed, the advantage of which thou mightest perchance urge 
against this condemnation, is useful, if thou doest the law; but if thou arta 
transgressor of the law, thou hast as circumcised no advantage over the uncircum- 
cised.””— yép therefore annexes a corroboration of the closing result of vv. 
‘23, 24, and does so by excluding every advantage, which the Jew trans- 
gressing this law might fancy himself possessed of, as compared with the 
Gentile, in virtue of circumcision. Stat sententia! in spite of thy circum- 
cision ! Hofmann is the less justified, however, in taking the pév elliptically, 
with the suppression of its antithesis,” since against its correspondence with 
the immediately following dé no well-founded logical objection exists. — 
nepttouy] circumeision, without the article. It is not however, with Kéllner 
and many others, to be taken asa description of Judaism generally ; but 
definitely and specially of circumcision, to which sacrifice of the body—con- 
secrating men to membership of the people of God (Ewald, Alterth. p. 127), 
and meant to be accompanied by the inner consecration of moral holiness 
(see on ver. 28)—the theocratic Jewish conceit attributed the absolute value 
of a service rendering them holy and appropriating the Abrahamic promises. 
— Ggedei] seeing that it transfers into the communion of all blessings and 
promises conferred by God on His covenant people ; which blessings and 
promises, however, are attached to the observance of His law as their con- 
dition (Gen. xvii. 1 ff.; Lev. xviii. 5; Deut. xxvii. 26 ; Gal. v. 8), so that 
circumcision points at the same time to the new covenant, and becomes a 
sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith (see oniv. 11). This how- 
ever the Apostle has not yet in view here [See Note XXII. p. 108.]. — éav véxu. 
x.t.A.] Not on the presupposition that, but rather, as also the two following 
édv : in the case that, Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 293]. — axpoBvoria yéyovev] Has be- 
come mdr, has lost, for thee, every advantage which it was designed to 
secure to thee over the uncircumcised, so that thou hast now no advantage 


It refers to God’s name being dis- 2 Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 414, and gener- 
honoured through the enslaving of the ally Bacumlein, Paré. p. 163. 
Jews by their tyrants. 


102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

over the latter, and art, just as he is, no member of God’s people. Paul con- 
ceives of the latter as a holy people, like the invisible church of God, in 
which the mortua membra of the people have no part.!— yéyovev] Present 
of the completed action ; vii. 2; xiv. 28 ; John xx. 23. It is the emergent 
ethical result, which takes place. 

Ver. 26. Interrogative inference of the corresponding inverse relation, 
drawn from ver. 25. — 7 axpoBvoria avtov) referring to the concrete axpéBvero¢ 
understood in the previous axpoBvoria.*—ra dixacdpata +. vépov gvA.] The 
same as rd Tov véuou roeiv in ver. 14, as also the following r. véuov reAcioa of | 
ver. 27.% <A ‘‘ perfect, deep inner” fulfilment of the law ‘(Philippi), is a 
gratuitous suggestion, since there is no modal definition appended. Paul 
means the observance of the Mosaic legal precepts (respecting d:acéuara 
comp. on i. 82 and v. 16), which in point of fact takes place when the 
Gentile obeys the moral law of nature, ver. 14 f. —ei¢ repir. Aoyto9foerat] 
will be reckoned as circumcision (etc in the sense of the result, see ix. 8; 
Acts xix. 27; Is. xl. 17; Wisd. ix. 6; Theile, ad Jac. p. 138). The 
future is not that of the logical certainty (Mehring and older expositors), or 
of the result (Hofmann), which latter sense would be involved in a form of 
expression corresponding to the yfyove ; but the glance of the Apostle ex- 
tends (see ver. 27) to the last judgment. To the uncircumcised person, who 
observes what the law has ordained, ¢.e. the moral precepts of the law, shall 
one day be awarded the same salvation that God has destined, subject to 
the obligation of fulfilment of the law, for those who through circumcision 
are members of His people. As to the thought comp. Matt. viii. 11, iii. 9 ; 
1 Cor. vii. 19 ; Gal. v. 6. The reference to proselytes of the gate (Philippi) 
is not only arbitrary, but also incorrect, because the text has in view the 
pure contrast between circumcision and uncircumcision, without any hint 
of an intermediate stage or anything analogous thereto. The proposition is 
to be retained in its unlimited expression. The mediation, however, which 
has to intervene for the circumcised as well as for the uncircumcised, in 
order to the procuring of salvation through faith, is still left unnoticed here, 
and is reserved for the subsequent teaching of the Epistle. See especially 
ch. iv. 

Ver. 27. is regarded by most modern expositors, including Rickert, 
Reiche (undecidedly), Kéllner, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Philippi, Lachmann, 
Ewald, and Mehring, as a continuation of the question, so that oi yi is again 
understood before xpvei. But the sequence of thought is brought out 


1 The same idea is illustrated concretely 
by R. Berechias in Schemoth Rabb. f. 138, 18: 
**Ne haeretici et apostatae et impii ex Is- 
raelitis dicant: Quandoquidem circumcisi 
sumus, in infernum non descendimus. Quid 
agit Deus S.B.? Mittit angelum et prae- 
putia eorum attrahit, ita ut ipsi in infernum 
descendant.”’ See other similar passages in 
Eisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 889 f. 

2 See Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 145]. 

» roy véuorw TeAccy Means, as in James Ii. 8, 


to bring the law into execution. It is only dis- 
tinguished from ¢vAdccev and typety ropor 
by its representing the same thing on its 
practical side, so far as the law is accom- 
plished by the action which the law de- 
mands. Comp. Plat. Zeqg. xi. p. 926 A, xii. p. 
958 D; Xen. Cyr. viil. 1, 1; Soph. Aj. 528; 
Lucian. d. Morte Peregr. 88. On the whole, 
reAecy frequently answers to the idea pa- 
trare, facere. (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p, 804.) 


CHAP, IL., 28, 29. 103 
much more forcibly, if we take ver. 27 as affirmative, as the reply to the 
question contained in ver. 26, (as is done by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther, 
Bengel, Wetstein, and others ; now also by Tholuck, de Wette, van Hengel, 
Th. Schott, Hofmann). In this case the placing xpivei first conveys a 
strong emphasis ; and xai, as often in classic authors’ is the simple and, 
which annexes the answer to the interrogative discourse as if in continua- 
tion, and thus assumes its affirmation as self-evident.* And the natural un- 
circumcision, if it fulfils the law, shall judge, i.e. exhibit in thy full desert of 
punishment (namely, comparatione sui, as Grotius aptly remarks),* thee, who, 
etc. Compare, on the idea, Matt. xii. 41; the thought of the actual direct 
judgment on the last day, according to 1 Cor. vi. 2, is alien to the passage, 
although the practical indirect judgment, which is meant, belongs to the 
future judgment-day. — 7 éx ¢boewc axpof.] The uncircumcision by nature, i.e. 
the (persons in question) uncircumcised in virtue of their Gentile birth. 
This éx giceuc, which is neither, with Koppe and Olshausen, to be connected 
with rdv véu. reA., nor, with Mehring, to be taken as equivalent to év capxi, 
is in itself superfluous, but serves to heighten the contrast did yp. x. reper. 
The idea, that this axpoBvoria is a reprrouy év rvebparc, must (in opposition to 
Philippi) have been indicated in the text, and it would have no place in the 
connection of our passage ; see ver. 29, where it first comes in. — rév dia 
ypéup. x. wepit. wapaB. véuov) who with letter and circumcision art a trans- 
gressor of the law. 6:4 denotes the surrounding circumstances amidst which, 
i.e. here according to the context : in spite of which the transgression takes 
place.‘ Compare iv. 11, xiv. 20; Winer, p. 855 [E. T. 880]. Others take 
dé as instrumental, and that either: dia véuouv. . . . tpoaxdei¢ (Oecumenius ; 
comp. Umbreit) or: ‘‘occasione legis,” (Beza, Estius, and others ; comp. 
Benecke), or: ‘‘ who transgressest the law, and art exhibited as such by the 
letter,” etc. (Kéllner). But the former explanations introduce a foreign 
idea into the connection ; and against Kéllner’s view it may be urged that 
his declarative rendering weakens quite unnecessarily the force of the con- 
trast of the two members of the verse. For the most natural and most 
abrupt contrast to the uncircumcised person who keeps the law is he, who 
transgresses the law notwithstanding letter and circumcision, and is conse- 
quently all the more culpable, because he offends against written divine 
direction (ypauu.) and theocratic obligation (mepir.). 

Vv. 28, 29. Proof of ver. 27. For the true Judaism (which is not exposed 
to that xpivei) resides not in that which is external, but in the hidden world of 
the internal. — é tv r@ gavep@] 1.6. 8¢ by TH g. tort :* for he is not a Jew, whois 
80 openly, 1.e. not he who shows himself to be an 'Iovdajo¢ in external visible 


1 Thiersch, § 354, 5b.; Kaihner, ad Xen. 
Mem. ii. 10, 2 

2 Ellendt, Lez. Soph. I. p. 880. 

+ Not so, that God in judging will apply 
the Gentile obedience of the law as a stand- 
ard for estimating the Jewish transgression 
of it (Th. Schott), which is gratuitously 
introduced. The standard of judgment re- 
mains the law of God (ver. 12f.); but the 


example of the Gentile, who has fulfilled it, 
exposes and practically condemns the Jew 
who has transgressed it. 

4 Th. Schott arbitrarily: who with the 
possession of the law and circumcision does 
not cease to be a transgressor and fo pass for 
such, 

8 See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 116. 


104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

exhibition (in profession, circumcision, dress, ceremonial service, and the 
like) is a genuine, aAdcvdc, "Iovdaiog answering to the idea.’ The second 
half of ver. 28, in which év capxi forms an apposition to éy r@ gavep?, More 
precisely defining it, is to be taken as quite parallel. — Ver. 29 is usually 
rendered : But he who is a Jew in secret (scil. is @ true Jew), and circumcision 
of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter (scil. is true circumcision.) But 
against this view it may be urged that 6 év r@ xpurr@ is so completely par- 
allel to the 6 év ro gavep@ in ver. 28, that a different mode of connection 
cannot but seem forced. Hence the following construction and exposition 
result more naturally (comp. Luther, Erasmus, and others ; also Fritzsche) : 
But he is a Jew (in the true sense) who is so in secret (in the invisible inner 
life), and (instead of now saying, in parallel with ver. 28 : 4 év r@ xpurro 
weptrouf, Paul defines both the év ro «purr and the true spiritual mean- 
ing of zepirou# more precisely, and says) circumcision of the heart resides (the 
éort to be supplied) in the spirit, not in the letter.2 Stripped of figure, repr- 
tou; Kapdiac is ; the separation of all that is immoral from the inner life ; 
for circumcision was accounted even from the earliest times as cipBodory 
gdovav éxtoug¢e (Philo).* The uncircumcised heart is azeravéyroc, ver. 5. — 
év rvetpyarte] is the power, in which the circumcision of the heart finds its 
causal ground, namely, in the Spirit, 7.e. in the Holy Spirit, through whose 
power it takes place, not in the letter, which effects the outward circum- 
cision by its commandment. In true Judaism also the Holy Ghost is the 
divine active principle (comp. vii. 14). 80 much the less reason is there 
for making zveiua in our passage mean the true Jewish public spirit proceed- © 
ing from God (de Wette, comp. Tholuck), or the spirit of the law, in con- 
trast to its outward observance (van Hengel, who wrongly urges the ab- 
sence of the article); or the new life-principle in man, wrought in him by the 
Spirit of God (Riickert, comp. Luther’s gloss) ; on the contrary, the mveiya 
is to be left as the objective, concrete divine rvevua, as the Holy Spirit 
in the definite sense, and as distinguished from the spiritual conditions and 
tendencies which He produces. The correct and clear view is held by Gro- 
tius, Fritzsche, and Philippi ; compare Hofmann. Others, as Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius (Chrysostom and Theophylact express them- 
selves very indefinitely), Erasmus, Beza, Toletus, Heumann, Morus, Rosen- 
miiller, Reiche, Mehring, take mveiya as meaning the epirit of man. But 
that the circumcision of the heart takes place in the spirit of man, is self- 
evident ; and the similar contrast between mveiya and ypduya, vii. 6 and 2 
Cor. iii. 6, clearly excludes the reference to the human spirit. — ov] of tohich, 
is neuter, and refers to the entire description of the true Jewish nature in 








1 See Matthiae, p. 1583, Buttman, reut. Gr. 
p. 8385 f. [E. T. 392]. 

2 Ewald, who likewise follows our con- 
struction In the first clause of the verse, 
takes in the second half of it cap3ias as pred- 
icate : and circumcision tas that of the heart. 
But in that case, since weprrony in itself 
would be the érve circumcision, we should 
expect the article before it. 


8 See Lev. xxvi. 41; Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6; 
Jer. iv. 14, ix. 26; Ez. xliv.7; compare Phil. 
fil. 8; Col. if. 11; Acts vii. 51; Philo, de Sac- 
rif. p. 58: wepirduvecOe ras oxAnpoxapdias, 168¢ 
dots Tas wepiTTas dices TOU Hyeu~orccov, As ai 
dperpot Tay wabwy domecpay Te xai curnvénoay 
dpmai cai 6 xaxds Wuxns yewpyds edurevoey, 
adpoovvn, mera oxovdis awoxe(pecOe, See also 
Schoettgen, Hor. p. 815. 


NOTES. 105 


ver. 29. The epexegetical relative definition bears to it an argumentative 
relation : 7d quod laudem suam habet etc. ov ye would be still more em- 
phatic. To interpret it as masculine with reference to ‘Iovdaios (Augustine, 
Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, and many others ; including Reiche, Riickert, 
KGllner, de Wette, Olshausen, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Philippi, Ewald, and 
Hofmann ; compare van Hengel) is, especially seeing that Paul has not 
written «ov, as in iii. 8 (Schoem. ad Js. p. 248), a very unnecessary violence, 
which Grotius, who is followed by Th. Schott, makes still worse by twist- 
ing the construction as if the éoriy of ver. 28 stood immediately before ot (it 
ta not the evident Jew, etc., whose praise, etc). As is often the case in classic 
authors, the neuter of the relative belongs to the entire sentence.'—é &ra:voc] 
t.e. the dye praise (not recompense). See on 1 Cor. iv. 5. Compare, on the 
matter itself, John v. 44, xii. 43. Oecumenius rightly says : ri¢ yap xpumri¢ 
kai év xapdia mepitoune ovw tora: éraivétyc avOpwroc, aad’ 6 érdluv Kwapdiag xai 
vegpovg Ocdc. Compare the dé&a Qecod ill. 23. This praise is the holy satis- 
Jaction of God [His being well-pleased], as He has so often declared it to the 
righteous in the Scriptures.—Observe how perfectly analogous ver. 28 f. in 
its tenor of thought is to the idea of the invisible church. Compare on ver. 
25. 


Nores By AMERICAN EpDIror. 


XV. Ver. 1—ch. iii. 20. 


It may be said, with Meyer, that Paul ‘‘adduces here the second half of the 
proof as to the universal necessity of justification by faith,’ or, rather, as to the 
fact that there is no justification by works, which fact carries with it this uni- 
versal necessity, This second half of the proof is that with which the Apostle 
chiefly concerns himself, not only because the unrighteousness of the Gentiles 
was more plainly manifest, but also because the Jewish party would readily ad- 
mit that this unrighteousness excluded the Gentiles from justification—while, on 
the other hand, this party would not easily acknowledge the same thing, and 
make the same admission, respecting themselves. It is for this reason that 
he approaches the declaration of the fact as related to the Jews more gradually, 
and with more careful preparation of the way, than he had done in the other 
case. He begins his argument in the most general form, and only at the 17th 
verse does he make the direct application to the Jews of what has previously 
been said. 

XVI. Ver. 1 ff. d¢d avaroAdynrog el, «.7.A. 


The argument in the first verses may be considered in two aspects. (1) 
With reference to the main thoughts, ver. 2 contains the major premise: the 
judgment of God is against those who habitually commit such sins as are 
charged upon the Gentiles in the first chapter; ver. 1b.c. contains the minor 
premise : the person who condemns others (in the case supposed) habitually 
commits these sins; ver. 1a., we must conclude, therefore, that this person, 
whoever he may be, will be condemned at the Divine judgment. The ar- 
gament, as thus indicated, is complete and decisive ; and the conclusion must 
be of universal application, unless some way of escape from the general rule 


* 1 See especially Richter, de anac. gr. linguae, § 28; Matthiae, II. p. 987 f. 


\ 


106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


of the divine government can be discovered for the particular man in question. 
But is there any such way? If so, it must be either on the man’s side, because 
of some special privilege appertaining to himself as distinguished from others, 
or on God's side, because of His goodness, which is so great that it will forbear 
to inflict the penalty. The question as to these two suppositions is raised in 
the following verses: the former in ver. 3, and the latter jn ver. 4. To the 
former a negative answer is implied in the mode of presenting the question. 
To the latter is added a detailed proof of the negative, which extends from 
ver. 5 to ver. 16. The omission of a similar full statement as connected with 
ver. 3 is to be explained from the desire on the part of the author to defer it 
until after he should have applied his general reasoning to the Jews ; and, ao- 
cordingly, we find it set forth in vv. 25-29. (2) With reference to the grammat- 
ical connection and the sequence of the sentences. 6:6, whetheritisto be regarded 
as referring to i. 32 (with de Wette, Alford, and others), or to the main idea of 
i. 18-32 (with Meyer), brings the new affirmation respecting zd¢ 6 xpiver into 
close connection with the statements of the preceding chapter. Hence it is, 
that the order of thought is changed throughout ; the minor premise, as given 
above, being introduced as a proof of this affirmation, and the major premise 
placed in an independent sentence. According to the grammatical connection, 
the thought proceeds as follows: On the foundation of what is said in the 
first chapter, the man who condemns another must be declared to be without 
excuse, for in condemning the other he condemns himself, since he does the 
same things ; and we know that the judgment of God is against all who do 
these things. 


XVII. Ver. 4. 7—xaradgpoveic. 


This verse—as in some other cases in Paul’s writings, eg. Gal. ii. 17— 
seems to unite two sentences (one interrogative and the other declarative), in 
one; here, the question and its answer. The answer is found in the word 
xaragpoveic, and is further developed in ver. 5. The verb of the question is 
suggested by the context. Dost thou rely upon, or trust to, the riches of God's 
goodness to set thee aside from the rules of His general administration? To 
do so, while continuing in the sins described, is a treating his goodness with 
contempt (not recognizing even its object and purpose, which is to lead to re- 
pentance, and not to further wrong-doing), and a laying up for the final day a 
greater measure of divine wrath. 


XVIII. Ver. 6. &¢ droddce: éxdory xara Ta épya atrod. 


The question as to the consistency of this statement with the doctrine of 
salvation by faith has been unnecessarily raised by some writers. The Apostle 
is here speaking only of the legal system, and discussing the matter of jus- 
tification by works. On the legal system men are rewarded according to 
their works. When they sin, therefore, there is no hope of justification. 
He does not return to the matter of faith until iii. 21. This verse and its con- 
text are sometimes used as an argument against the view which holds that the 
heathen may have a probation hereafter, on the ground that they do not have 
a fair opportunity of obtaining salvation in this life. The argument rests, 
however, upon & misapprehension as to what the view in question necessarily 
involves. By having a fair opportunity, in the sense in which this term is 


of 


NOTES, 107 


employed, is not meant such an opportunity on the legal system. Both parties 
alike may admit Paul’s teaching to be, that all men—the heathen nations as 
well as others—have light enough to make their condemnation, on that system, 
jast. But a new system, through the mercy of God, has been introduced—one 
of faith and forgiveness ; and it is claimed by advocates of the opinion alluded 
to, that the question arises, in view of this fact, whether if, in His abound- 
ing goodness, God has thus opened to sinners, who had put themselves 
beyond all hope from law, a new way of entrance into His kingdom, it is not, 
by reason of that very goodness, probable that He will give all men alike the 
knowledge of this wonderful way—that He will grant such knowledge and the 
opportunity to use it for the end in view—hereafter, in case, for wise reasons 
of His own, He does not grant it here. Will He not give the unenlightened and 
the enlightened among mankind an equal possibility under the light of the faith- 
system? To this question this section of the Epistle, having reference only to 
works, gives no answer. Arguments against this view, when thus under- 
stood, may be drawn from other N. T. passages, or from the general indications 
of N. T. teaching, but not from these verses, 


XIX. Ver. 12, avéuuc—év vouy. 


That avduec and év véuy refer to the Mosaic law must be regarded as al- 
together probable, (a) Because the immediately preceding context presents 
before us the division of mankind into Jews and Gentiles. The close con- 
nection of this verse with vv. 9, 10, through the ydp which opens it and that 
which opens ver. 11, shows that the same division is intended here. The 
point of difference between the two, however, was the possession or non-pos- 
session of the Mosaic law. (b) Because ri roi vduov (ver. 14) clearly refers to 
the requirements of the law of Moses. This being so, the contrast of the verse 
naturally suggests the same law as intended by pu?) vduov Eyovra. (c) Because 
the thing which the Jews rested upon (ver. 17), and gloried in (ver. 23), was 
not law, but the law of Moses, (d) Because, in the contrast presented in 
vv, 25, 27, the keeping rév vdyuov (cf. rod vouov, ver. 26) is placed in opposition 
to transgression véuov. For the force of the contrast, véucv must be regarded 
as the same with ro’ véuov. (e) Because it is wholly unlikely that the writer 
meant a different thing by rapaBadceuc réov véuov in ver, 23 and rapaGarne [rapa- 
Béorw¢] véuov, only two verses afterward. The former expression, however, 
evidently refers to the Mosaic law. (f) Because circumcision, as a distin- 
guishing mark of the Jews, was connected with the law of Moses. When 
therefore practising what véuuc requires is declared to be essential to the en- 
joyment of any advantage from this distinction, véuo¢ must mean this partic- 
ular law. (g) Because all the kindred words throughout the entire passage, 
repitouy, yodupa, “lovdaioc, point to this law as in the mind of the author. (A) 
Because the doctrine of justification by works which Paul was here proving 
to be untrue was, as held by the Jewish party, connected with the law of Moses. 
Throughout these verses (12-29), accordingly, wherever véuoc occurs (with the 
possible exception of the last instance in ver. 14), it must be understood as 
the same with 4 véuor ;—this word being used as a kind of proper name (cf. 
Winer, p. 123). 

The true position with regard to this word seems to be this : that, whether 
with or without the article, it means the Mosaic law, in all cases in Paul's 


108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Epistles, except a very insignificant number in which either the necessities of 
the sentence itself, or the unquestionable indications of the context, prove, 
beyond a doubt, that it does not have this meaning. 

Weiss ed. Mey., Bp. Lightfoot, and some other recent writers oppose the 
view above stated, and hold that vdéuo¢ without the article denotes any positive 
law, or positive law in the abstract. Their presentation of the matter appears 
unsatisfactory and their arguments inconclusive ; and it seems scarcely too 
much to say, with Meyer, that their view ‘‘ opens the way for artificial and 
sometimes intolerable explanations.’’ The question can be properly settled by 
a careful examination of all the cases where the word occurs. Such an ex- 
amination, it is believed, will confirm, at every step, the position taken in 
this note, 


XX. Ver. 15. cugpaprupotons—drodoyoupévur. 


Weiss ed. Mey.—though denying the position of Meyer, that the context 
shows the reference to be to the approving conscience—objects to the view 
against which Meyer is arguing, that such a wavering of judgment (as the 
application of per. dAA, Aoy. x.7.A. to the process of conscience in the individu- 
al man implies), would tend rather to render doubtful, than to prove the ex- 
istence of an objective rule or standard in the heart. The Apostle, however, 
does not speak of such a wavering of judgment, as Weiss supposes, but to the 
approving or condemning judgment which the particular case may call for. 
Weiss also holds that xarnyotvrwv x.t.A. is not to be joined with Aoy:oper as 
forming a second gen. abs. clause, but as an attributive phrase—there 
being but one gen. abs. clause, in which ovuzpaprupovons is united both 
with ovved. and with d4o;. Holsten takes the same view, but Godet, with 
reason, objects to this construction as forced. Godet, Alford, Shedd, Schaff 
(Pop. Comm.), Philippi, agree with de Wette and others in holding that a/An- 
Ady refers to Aoyiouav. ‘‘ There takes place, as it were, a dialogue between the 
thoughts, one accusing, the other acquitting’’ (Phil.). The argument for this 
view is, that the other parts of the description seem to be limited to the indi- 
vidual soul in itself, and not to refer to any relations to others. The emphatic 
position of neraéd aad, and the suggestion of contrast with airov are the strong 
points favoring Meyer's explanation. 


XXI. Ver. 23. d¢ év véuw xavydoat. 


The change in the form of expression in this clause, as compared with those 
which precede, does not, indeed, prove Meyer’s view of the verse, as a categor- 
ical answer, to be correct, but it suggests that it may be; and the sentence 
gains in emphasis and force, if explained in this way. 


XXII. Ver. 25. meprroun piv ydp ageret, 


OgeAez carries back the thought to the emphatic ov of ver. 3, and in sub- 
stance, though not in form, confirms the negative answer to the question of that 
verse. While admitting that there is a certain advantage connected with cir- 
cumcision (to be more fully explained at a later point], provided the cir- 
cumcised person fulfils the requirements of the law, the Apostle denies to 
the Jew, so long as the law is not fulfilled, any such favored position as he 





NOTES. 109 


was prone toclaim with respect to the judgment and the application of the rules 
of the Divine administration. The ydp, which opens this verse, connects it with 
the statement implied in ver. 23—namely, that condemnation will rest upon 
those who thus dishonour God, no matter how much they may glory in the law, 
for circumcision will avail nothing while they commit such sins. 


110 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver, 2. nev yép) Lachm. following B D* E G, min. vss., Chrys. Aug. reads 
pév. The ydp was easily lost in consequence of its seeming unnecessary, and 
of the recollection of i. 8 ; but is supported by 1 Cor. xi. 18.—Ver. 9. xpoeyéue6a} 
D* G 31, Syr. Erp. Chrys. ms. Theodoret have mpoxaréyouer (or xaréy.) wepiooor, 
and, with several other authorities, omit ob rdvrwc. This rpoxar. xepioc. is an 
erroneous gloss ; and the omission of ov mavrw¢ is explained by its being no 
longer suitable after the adoption of ri odv mpoxaréyouev mepioody ; see Reiche, 
Comm. crit, — Ver. 11. In important codices the article is wanting before 
ovviey and éxfyroy. But see LXX. Ps. xiv. 2.—Ver. 22. nat émi aavrac) is 
wanting in A BC P &*, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Erp. Clem. Or. Cyr. Aug. Deleted 
by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But when we consider that a gloss on ei¢ révrag was 
quite unnecessary, and on the other hand that «ai émi mdvrag was equally un- 
necessary to complete the sense, we may assume that the twice repeated mdvrac 
may have even at a very early date occasioned the omission of xa) évi mdvrac. 
—Ver. 25. ri¢ xior.] tp¢ is Wanting in C* D* F G X&, min., and several Fathers 
(A and Chrys. omit the whole dia r. wior.). Suspected by Griesb., and deleted 
by Lachm. and Tisch. Still the omission of the article might easily occur if 
the copyist, as was natural, glanced back at did sior., ver. 22.—Ver. 26. xpd¢ 
évdec€é.] Following A B C D* P 8, min., we should read with Lachm. and 
Tisch. mpd¢ rjv évderé&. The article was passed over in accordance with ver. 25. 
—'Inood is wanting in F G 52 It.; and is expanded in other authorities (Xprorow 
"Inoot, or Tov xupiov ju. ’Inoos Xprorod). Notwithstanding the preponderating 
testimony in its favour, it is properly deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. 7. Sup- 
plied from looking back to ver. 22.—Ver. 28. ydp] Elz. and Tisch. 7. read ot», 
against very preponderating testimony, by which also the arrangement dix. 
niot. dvOpwrov (Elz.: z. 6. 4.) is confirmed. Since according to the different 
modes of apprehending the connection, the emendation might be ody as well 
as ydp, external attestation only can here be regarded as decisive.—Ver,. 29. 
The reading pévwyr (so Tisch. 7. instead of pdévov) is insufficiently attested by B, 
min. and Fathers ; and arose easily out of the context.—ovdyi xai] Elz.: otyi da 
xai, against decisive testimony. The 62? was easily introduced into the text by 
the contrast, whether the two questions might be taken separately, or togeth- 
er as one —éreitep] A BC D** &, min., Clem. Or. Cyr. Didym. Damasc. : eizep. 
Recommended by Griesb.; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily 
may the éxeirep only occurring here in the N. T., and therefore unfamiliar to 
the copyists, have been exchanged for the familiar eZrep! 


Vv. 1,12. Asan inference (otv) from ii, 28, 29, the objection might now 
be made from the Jewish standpoint against the Apostle, that he quite 


1On chap. iil. see Matthias, ereget. gramme), Hanan 181;and the same author's 
Abhandlung tiber vv. 1-% (a school-pro- work: das dritte Kap. d. Br.an da. Rom., 








CHAP. III., 1, 2. 111 


does away with the advantage of Judaism and the benefit of circumcision. 
This objection he therefore raises in his own person, in order to remove it 
himself immediately, ver. 2 ff. — 1d mepcoodv x.r.A.] [See Note XXIII. p. 146.] 
the superiority ' of the Jew, i.e. what he das as an advantage over the Gen- 
tile, the Jewish surplus. The following 7 (or, to express it in other words) 
cle 9 ogld. r. wepet. presents substantially the same question in a more spe- 
, cific form. — oA] Much, namely, is the sepsoody of the Jew or the benefit 
_of circumcision.? The neuter comprehends the answer to both ; and it 
must not therefore be said that it applies only to the first question, leaving 
the second without further notice. It is moreover clear from what pre- 
cedes and follows, that Paul meant the zep:cody not in a moral, but ina 
theocratic sense ; comp. ix. 4 f.— xara wévta rpéxov] in every way (Xen. 
Anab. vi. 6, 30), in whatever light the matter may be considered.* It is an 
undue anticipation to take the expression as hyperbolical (Reiche), since we 
do not know how the detailed illustration, which is only begun, would be 
farther pursued. — xparov] jirst of all, firstly, it is a prerogative of the Jew, 
or advantage of circumcision, that, etc. The Apostle consequently begins 
to illustrate the oA according to its individual elements, but, just after 
mentioning the first point, is led away by a thought connected with it, so 
that all further enumeration (possibly by elra, Xen. Mem. iii. 6, 9) is dropped 
(See Note XXIV. p. 146.] and not, as Grotius strangely thinks, postponed to 
ix.4. Compare on i.8 ; 1Cor. xi. 18. As the pév was evidently meant to be 
followed by a corresponding dé, it was a mere artificial explaining away of 
the interruption of the discourse, to render zpérov praecipue (Beza, Calvin, 
Toletus, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Koppe, Gléckler, and others ; compare 
also Hofmann : ‘before all things”), or to say with Th. Schott that it indi- 
cates the basis from -which the zoAt follows. — bri érwor. +. ASyta T. Oecd] that 
they (the Jews) were entrusted with the utterances of God, namely, in the holy 
Scriptures given to them, devoutly to preserve these Aéy:a as a Divine treas- 
ure, and to maintain them for all ages of God’s people as their and their 
children’s (comp. Acts ii. 89) possession. On the Greek form of expression 
siretouai re (1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7%), see Winer, p. 244 [E. T. 260]. — ra 
Mya +. Oeov) eloqguia Dei. [See Note XXV. p. 146.] That by this general ex- 
pression (ypyopoi¢e avroig dvutev xaryvexdévras, Chrysostom), which always 


da eveg. Versuch, Cassel 1857; James Mori- fact onward to ver. 8, as the sentiments of 
son, A erifical exposition of the Third Chap- adew to be summarily dealt with, who in 
lr of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Lond. sxperoy had it in view to enumerate yet 
1986. further advantages, but whose mouth was 
1Matt. v. 47, xi. 9; Plat. Ap. S.p.20C. closed by ver.9. The unforced exposition 
lacian. Prom. 1; Plut. Demoseth. 8. of the successive verses does not permit 
‘This answer is (Ae Apostie’s, not the re- this view; and il. 25-290 is not at variance 
py ofa Jew asserting his sepccdy, whom with ver. 2, but, on the contrary, leaves 
Paul then interrupts in ver. 4 with u} yévo:ro ~— sufficiently open to the Apostle the recog- 
(Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 69)—a nition of Jewish privileges, which he begins 
braking up of the text into dialogue, to specify; comp. il. 25and ix. 4 f. 
which is neither necessary nor in any way 3 See examples in Wetstein. The oppo- 
indicated, and which is not supported by site: «ar’ ovédva tpéwor, 2 Maco. xi. 31; 
anyanalogy of other passages. According Polyb. iv. &, 8, vill. 27, 2 
toMebring, Paul has written ver. 2, and in 


112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

receives its more precise definition from the context (Acts vii. 38 ; Heb. v. 
12; 1 Pet. iv. 11), Paul means here xar’ éfoy7v the Messianic prophetic ut- 
terances, is shown by ver. 3, where the azorta of the Jews leaves no room 
for mistake as to the contents of the Aéya. Compare al érayyedia:, ix. 4. 
These Ady:a 7. Ocot are contained not merely in the prophets proper (Acts iii. 
24), but even in the Pentatcuch (covenant with Abraham, the promise of 
Moses) ; yet the law is not meant, nor even jointly included (Matthias), 
against which ver. 8 testifies. Just as little is there meant: all making 
known of God in the history of salvation (Hofmann), which is too general, 
and is extended by Hofmann even to the New Testament revelations. 

Ver. 3. Not an objection to the preceding [See Note XXVI. p. 147.], but a 
guarantee of the ixioret3. ra Adyia tr. Ocov just mentioned, as something that 
has not been cancelled and revoked through the partial unbelief of the peo- 
ple. ‘‘ For how? what is the case?* If some refused the faith, will their un- 
belief make void the faithfulness of God ?” will it produce the effect that God 
shall now regard the promises once committed to the Jews as void, and 
Himself as no longer bound to His word therein pledged? The griorycay 
and the admoria are by the context necessarily referred to the Ady:a r. Oeod ; 
the unbelief of a part of the Jews in the promises manifested itself, namely, 
by their rejecting the Messiah who had appeared according to the promise. 
So in substance also Matthias, who nevertheless apprehends the notion of 
amor. as unfaithyulness towards what was entrusted to them, which the riéve¢ 
did not use for the purpose of letting themselves be led thereby to Christ. 
But azoreiv and amoria (even in 2 Tim. ii. 18) mean specifically throughout 
the N. T. (see in this Epistle iv. 20, xi. 20, 23 ; compare Morison, p. 238) un- 
belief not unfsaithfulness, although Hofmann also ultimately comes to adopt 
this notion. This remark also applies against the supposition of K6llner, de 
Wette, Mehring, and older writers, that Paul meant the unfaithfulness (the 
disobedience) of the Jews in the times before Christ. Such a view is opposed to 
the context ; and must not the idea, that the earlier breaches of covenant on 
the part of the Jews might possibly annul the Aéya, have been wholly 
strange to Paul and his Jewish readers, since they knew from experience 
that, even when the Jews had heaped unfaithfulness upon unfaithfulness, 
God always committed to them anew, through His prophets, the promises 
of the Messiah? In the mind of the Apostle the idea of the répeoc ray 


1 Compare the passages from the Septua- 
gint in Schleusner, 7hes. III. p. 464, from 
Philo in Loesner, p. 248; and see especially 
Bleek on Hed. II. 2, p. 114 f. 

® Regarding the classic use of Aéyta, proph- 
écles, see Kriiger on Thuc. ii. 8, 2, and gen- 
rally Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 152f. The 
word is not a diminutive form (Philipp, 
who finds in it the usual drerify of oracular 
utterances), but the neuter form of Aéytos. 
The diminutive conception, lilule ullerances, 
is expressed not by Adyiov, but by Aoyidscor 
Plat. Eryz. p. 401 E. This applies also in 
opposition to Morison. 


* si ydp ; compare Phil. {. 18 Elz., Ben- 
gel, and Lachm. place the sign of interroga- 
tion after mvés. Van Hengel follows them, 
also Th. Schott and Hofmann. It is impos- 
sible to decide the question. Still even in 
classic authors, the ri ydp ; standing alone 
is frequent, “ub! quis cum alacritate qua- 
dam ad novam sententiam transgreditur,”* 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ti. 6, 2; Jacobs. ad Del, 
epigr. vi. 60; Baecumlein, Partik. p. 73 f. 

4 Especially would rives be quite unsuita- 
ble, because it would be absolutely untrue. 
All were disobedient and unfaithful. See 
ver. 9 ff. 


CHAP, III., 4. 113 


Tpoytyoirey duaprnudroyv was fixed (ver. 25; Acts xvii. 80). Therefore we 
cannot understand (with Philippi) unbelief in the promises shown in the 
period lefore Christ to be here referred to. But according to the doctrine 
of faith in the promised One who had come, as the condition of the Mes- 
sianic salvation, the doubt might very easily arise: May not the partial 
unbelief of the Jews since the appearance of Christ, to whom the Adyia re- 
ferred, possibly cancel the divine utterances of promise committed to the 
nation? Notwithstanding the simple and definite conception of éamoreiv 
throughout the N. T., Hofmann here multiplies the ideas embraced so as to 
include as well disobedience to the law as unbelief towards the Gospel and 
unbelief towards the prophetic word of promise—a grouping together of 
very different significations, which is the consequence of the erroneous and 
far too wide sense assigned to the Aéy:a r. Geov. —r#v riot Tr. Ocov] The gen- 
itive is necessarily determined to be the genitive of the subject, partly by 
¥ axtozia avrav, partly by ver. 4, and partly by Oeot dixacoc. in ver. 5. There- 
fore ; the fides Dei in keeping the Asya, keeping His word, in virtue of which 
He does not abandon His promises to His people.' Compare 2 Tim. ii. 13, 
and the frequent riord¢ 6 Oedc, 1 Cor. i. 9, x. 18; 2 Cor. i. 18 ad.—Observe 
further that Paul designates the unbelievers only by revéc, some, which is not 
contemptuous or tronical (Tholuck, Philippi ; compare Bengel), nor intended 
as a milder expression (Grotius), but is rather employed to place in a stronger 
light the negation of the effect under discussion ; and, considering the relative 
import of revéc, it is not at variance with the truth, for although there were 
many (rig nat woAAoi ye, Plat. Phaed. p. 58 D), still they were not all. 
Compare xi. 17, and on 1 Cor. x. 7; Kriiger, § 51, 16, 14. 

Ver. 4. [See Note XXVII. p. 147.] Let it not be (far be it)! but God is 
to be truthful, i.e. His truthfulness is to be the actual result produced 
(namely, in the carrying out of His Messianic plan of salvation), and every 
mana lar. To this it shall come; the development of the holy divine 
economy to this final state of the relation between God and men, is what 
Paul knows and wishes. — pu yévorro] The familiar formula of negation by 
which the thing asked is repelled with abhorrence, corresponding to the 
mon (Gen. xliv. 17; Josh. xxii. 29 ; 1 Sam. xx. 2), is used by Paul par- 
ticularly often in our Epistle, elsewhere in Gal. ii. 17, iii. 21, 1 Cor. vi. 15, 
always in a dialectic discussion. In the other writings of the N. T. it oc- 
curs only at Luke xx. 16, but is current in later Greck authors.?—yviodu] 
not equivalent to gavepobadw, drodexvoodu (Theophylact), but the historical 
rault which shall come to pass, the actual Theodicée that shall take place. 
This indeed in reality amounts to a ¢gavepotoda:, but it is expreased by yv- 


‘It is the fides, qua Deus promissis stat, be moved by that dmozvia rever to become 
notin reality different from the idea ofthe likewise amovos, which He would be if He 
yi in ver. 4. The word sions, however, left His own Aéyia committed to the Jews 
is wlecied as the correlative of dmoria. De- unfulfilled. He will not allow this case of 
spite the Jewish dmwvia it continues the the annulling of His riers to occur. Com- 
case, not that God has been wioros (inthat, pare 2 Tim. fi. 18. 
namely, He has spoken among the people, * Raphel, Arrian. in loc.; Sturz, de dtal. 
Hofmann thinks), but that He ts wicros,in Al. p. 204. 
that, namely, He doves notallow Himself to 


114 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

fo, according to its objective reality, which demonstrates itself. In that 
which God (and man) does, He becomes actually what according to His 
nature He is. — rag dé dvd p. pebor.] By no means unessential (Riickert), or 
merely a concomitant circumstance (Th. Schott), is designed, and that all 
the more forcibly without a preceding pév, to appropriate the a/7dea 
exclusively to God, in contrast to 7riav. revec, ver. 3, outbidding this revéc by 
rac. Every man isa liar, if he does not perform the service to which he 
has become bound, as is brought to light in the case of the revéco by their 
arcioria, since as members of the people of God they had bound themselves 
to faith in the divine promises. That Paul had Ps. cxvi. 11 in view 
(Calvin, Wolf, and many others) is the more doubtful, seeing that he im- 
mediately quotes another passage. — brug av dix. x.t.A.] Ps. li. 6 exactly 
after the LXX. Independently of the more immediate conncction and 
sense of the original text, Paul seizes on the type of the relation discussed 
by him, which is involved in the words of the Psalm, in the form in which 
they are reproduced by the LXX.' and that in the sense : that thou mayest 
be qustified, i.e. acknowledged as faultless and upright, in thy words, and pre- 
vail (in substance the same as the previous dixacwSGe) when thou disputest, 
namely, with men against whom thou defendest and followest out thy right. 
From this second clause results that wag d2 dvip. weborn¢. The exact appro- 
priateness of this view in the connection is decisive against the explanation 
commonly adopted formerly after the Vulgate and Luther, and again pre- 
ferred by Mehring, which takes xpiverdac as passire (when thou art subjected 
to judgment).? —év toig Adyate cov] 1.€. in that which thou hast spoken. And 
that is the category to which those Aéy:a belong, as to which the Apostle has 
just repelled the idea that God will not keep them on account of the amoria 
of the rivéc and will thereby prove untrue. The sense ‘‘in sententia ferenda,” 
when thou passest a sentence (Philippi), cannot be taken out of é r.Ady. gov, 
since God is not represented as judge, but as litigant, over whom the justi- 
fying judicial decision is pronounced. The view of Hofmann is also er- 
roncous : that it denotes the accusations, which God may bring against men. 
For the text represents God indeed as the party gaining the verdict and 
‘prevailing, but not as the accuser preferring charges ; and the Adyo., in re- 
spect of which He is declared justified, point back so directly to the Aéyra 
in ver. 2, that this very correlation has occasioned the selection of the par- 
ticular passage from Ps. li. —we«av, like cvincere, used of prevailing in a 
process ; compare Xen. Mem. iv. 4, 17; Dem. 1436, 18 al. The opposite : 
yTracVar. — On dzuc (here in order that in the event of decision) see Hartung, 
Partikell, II. p. 286, 289 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 685. 


The inaccuracies in the translation of 
the LXX. must be candidly acknowledged ; 
still they do not yield any essential differ- 
ence of sense from the idea of the original 
text. These inaccuracies consist in NIN 
(insons sis) being rendered in the LXX. by 
vajons, and JODWA (cum fudicas) being 
translated éy rw xpiverdai ce. 


* On the use of the middle, to dispute with, 
compare LXX. Job ix. 3, xifl. 19,and other 
passages in Schleusner, 7hes. JIT. p. 385 f. 
This use has been properly maintained by 
Beza, Bengel, and others; also Matthias, 
Tholuck, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Hof- 
mann, and Morison. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 1; 
Matt. v. 40. 


CHAP. III., 5, 6. 115 


Vv. 5, 6. In vv. 8 and 4 it was declared that the unbelief of a part of 
the Jews would not make void the truthfulness of God, but that, on the 
contrary, the latter should be triumphantly justified. But how easily might 
this be misconstrued by a Jew of the common type as a pretext for his im- 
morality : ‘‘the unrighteousness of man in fact brings out more clearly the 
righteousness of God, and therefore may not be righteously punished by 
God !” To preclude this misconception and false inference, which so ab- 
ruptly run counter to his doctrine of universal human guilt, and to leave no 
pretext remaining (observe beforehand the ri obv 5 mpoeydueda in ver. 9), 
Paul, having in view such thoughts of an antagonist, proposes to himself and 
his readers the question : ‘‘ But if our unrighteousness show forth the right- 
eousness of God, what shall we say (infer)? Js God then unrighteous, who 
inflicteth wrath?” And he disposes of it in the first instance by the categor- 
ical answer (ver. 6) : No, otherwise God could not be judge of the world. The 
assumption, that this question is occasioned really and seriously by what gocs 
before, and called forth from the Apostle himself (Hofmann), is rendered 
untenable by the very addition xara dvOpwrov Afyw. — 4 adtxia Hudv}] Quite 
general : our unrighteousness, abnormal moral condition. To this gencral 
category belongs also the arioria, ver. 38. Paul has regarded the possible 
Jewish misconception, the notion of which occasions his question, as a gen- 
eral, but for that reason all the more dangerous inference from vv. 3 and 4, 
in which the twcords aédixia and dixacooivy are suggested by the passage from 
the Psalms in ver. 4. — juév] is said certainly in the character of the ddcxos 
tn general, and standsin relation to the wa¢ d2 dv9puroc Weboryg in ver. 4. 
But as the whole context is directed against the Jews, and the application 
to these is intended in the general expressions, and indeed expressly made 
in ver. 19, Paul speaks here also in such a way that the Jewish conscious- 
ness, from which, as himself a Jew, he speaks, lies at the bottom of the 
general form of his representation. — The protasis ei. . . . ovviorgot 18 & con- 
cessum, which is in itself correct (ver. 4) ; but the inference, which the Jew- 
ish self-justification might draw from it, is rejected with horror. Observe 
in this protasis the emphatic juxtaposition judy Ocod ; and in the apodosis 
the accent which lies on dd:cog and rv dpyfv. — Oecd dixaioc. cvvictyat| proves 
God's righteousness (comp. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. vi. 4, vii. 11 ; Gal. ii. 18 ; Susann. 
61; frequently in Polyb., Philo, etc.) ; makes it apparent beyond doubt, that 
God is without fault, and such as He must be. The contrast to 9 adixia yay 
requires d:xazoo. to be taken thus generally, and forbids its being explained 
of a particular attribute (truth: Beza, Piscator, Estius, Koppe, and others ; 
goodness: Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, Rosenmiiller), as well as its be- 
ing taken in the sense of i. 17 (van Hengel). — The ri épotyev (3 Esr. viii. 
82) is used by Paul only in the Epistle to the Romans (iv. 1, vi. 1, vil. 7, viii. 
31, ix. 14, 30).?— pA ddixog 6 Ged 6 émig. Tr. Opyfv] [See Note XXVIII. p. 147.]. 
This question? is so put that (as in ver. 3) a negative answer is expected, 
since Paul has floating before his mind an impious objection conceived of 


1 Compare, however, generally on such Aesch. Fers. 1018, Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 
questions arousing Interest and enlivening 3846 f. 
the representation, Blomfield, Gloss. in 2 After uf, dpovmer is not again to be un- 


116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

cara avOpurov.! Hence: God is not unrighteous then, who dealeth wrath? 
This in opposition to Riickert and Philippi, who make the questioner ex- 
pect an affirmatire answer, which can never be the case. In those passages 
in Greek authors, where an affirmative reply notwithstanding follows, it in- 
variably does so contrary to the expectation of the questioner ; see Kihner, 
II. 2, p. 1024. adcxoc, prefixed with emphasis, is, on account of its relation 
to 6 éxig. tr. dpy#v, to be understood in the strict judicial signification un- 
righteous, which is confirmed by vv. 6 and 7.7. The article with the parti- 
ciple indicates the relation as well-known ; and rv dpyiv (Sin.* adds airov) 
denotes the wrath definitely conceived of as judicial, inflicted at the judg- 
ment.?—xard dv3pwrov A£yw] To preclude his being misunderstood, as if 
he were asking ei d2 } adixia hudy . . . . 7) Gdtxog x.7.A. from his own enlight- 
ened Christian view, Paul remarks parenthetically that he says this accord- 
ing toa human standard ‘ after the fashion of ordinary humanity, quite 
apart from his own higher standpoint of divine enlightenment, to which the 
idea expressed in that question would be foreign, and speaking only in ac- 
cordance with mere human reason. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 8; Gal. iii. 15 ; 
Soph. Aj. 761: xar’ dvSpuroy gpovei. ‘‘I say this just as an ordinary man, 
not under the influence of the divine Spirit, may well say it.” Respecting 
the expression xara é3p., which is capable according to the context of great 
variety of meaning, compare Fritzsche in loc. It is wrongly inferred from 
xata dvdp, Afyw that the question p7 ddixoc x.r.A. was meant to reccive an 
affirmative answer, because asa negative query it would not be xara drJp. 
(see Philippi). But this view overlooks the fact that the whole thought, 
which is implied in the question calculated though it is for a negative reply, 
—the thought of the unrighteousness of God in punishing—can in fact 
only be put into expression xara dv38pwrov ; in the higher Christian insight 
a conception so blasphemous and deserving of abhorrence can find neither 
place nor utterance. The apology however, involved in xara av¥p. Afyo, is 
applicable only to what goes before, not to what follows, to which Mechring, Th. 
Schott and Hofmann refer it. This is the more obvious, since what immce- 
diately follows is merely a repudiating yp) yévorro, and the éref x.7.4., which 
assigns the ground for this repudiation, is by no means an idea outside the 
range of revelation, the application of which toa rational inference, and one 
too so plainly right, cannot transfer it to the lower sphere of the xara dv8p. 
déyewv. — Ver. 6. érei] gives the ground of the pu yévorro ; for (if the God 
who inflicts wrath is unrighteous) how will it be possible that He shall judge the 
world? The future is to be left in its purely future sense, since it refers to 
a future act taking place at any rate, as to which the only difficulty would 
be to sce how it was to be accomplished, if, etc. On ézei, for otherwise, see Butt- 





derstood, and then aécxos «.7.A. to be taken 
as a question ensuing thereon (Mangold, p. 
108). A breaking up of the construction 
without due ground. Compare, rather, ix. 
14, a passage which In form also is perfectly 
parallel to this one. 

18ee Hermann, ad Viger. p. 789, 810; 


Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 159; Baeumlein, 
p. 802 f. ; 

2 For examples of éxcdépew used to ex- 
press the practical infliction of wrath or 
punishment, see Raphel, Polyd.; Kypke, II. 
p. 160. 

> Compare Ritschl, de ira Del, p. 15. 

4 Bernhardy, p. 241. 





CHAP. IIL, %. 117 


mann, neut. Gr. p. 308 [E. T. 859].- xpcvei has the emphasis. — rdv xéopyov is 
to be taken, with most expositors, generally as meaning all mankind (com- 
pare ver. 19). To be judge of the world and yet, as ém:dépwy r. dpy., to be 
ddixoc, is & contradiction of terms ; the certainty that God is the former 
would become an impossibility if He were the latter. Compare Gen. xviii. 
25. Koppe, Reiche, Schrader, Olshausen, and Jatho, following older author- 
ities, take it only of the Gentile world (xi. 12 ; 1 Cor. vi. 2, xi. 82): ‘¢In that 
case God could not punish even the Gentile world for its idolatry, since it is 
only in contrast therewith that the true worship of God appears in its full 
value” (Reiche). But, in this explanation, the very essential idea: ‘‘ since 
. .. . appears” has first of all to be imported, an expedient which, in pres- 
ence of the simplicity and clearness of our view, cannot but seem arbitrary. 
Even the following proof, ver. 7 f., does not present a reference directly to 
the judgment of the Gentiles. The argument itself rests on the premiss that 
God can carry out the judgment of the world only as One who is righteous in 
His decreeing of wrath. The opposite would be impossible, not only sub- 
jectively, in God Himself (Th. Schott), but also objectively, as standing in 
contradiction to the notion of a world-judgment. See ver. 7 f. This 
proposition however is so perfectly certain to the consciousness of faith, out of 
which Paul asserts it, that there is no ground either for complaining of the 
weakness of the proof (Riickert), or for reading the thoughts that form the 
proof between the lines (Fritzsche and Mehring, with varying arbitrariness) ; 
the more especially as afterwards, in ver. 7, a still further confirmation of the 
bret. . . . wécnov follows. 

Ver. 7 f. The éei ric 6 xpivei Oed¢ 7. xdou. receives its illustrative confirma- 
tion ; for as to the case of God, who would thus be unrighteous and never- 
theless 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. 
Comp. Th. Schott, and in substance also Hofmann and Morison. The ar- 
gument accordingly rests on the basis, that in the case put (é7ei from ver. 6) 
the relation of God to the judgment of the world would yield two absurd 
consequences. (See this, as early as Chrysostom.) Another view is that 
of Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and many others, including Rickert, K6ll- 
ner, Tholuck, Philippi, and Umbrcit, that the objection of ver. 5 is here am- 
plified. But it is quite as arbitrary and in fact impossible (hence Philippi 
resorts to the violent expedient of putting in a parenthesis not only xara 
évdp. Aéyw, but also pu7 yévorro . . . . xéopov), with the reference of ydp, to 
overleap cntirely ver. 6, as it is strange to make the discourse so completely 
abrupt and to represent the Apostle as making no reply at all to the first 
part of the alleged amplification of the objection (to ver. 7), and as replying 
to the second part (ver. 8) only by an anathema sit! (cv r. xp. évd. 2.). 
Against the view of Reiche, who, following Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and 
Flatt, thinks that the Gentile is introduced as speaking in ver. 7 (compare 
Olshausen), we may decisively urge the close connection therewith of ver. 


118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 

8, where Paul includes himself also, but does not ‘‘ take speech in hand again” 
(Reiche). See besides on rév xécpov, ver. 6. —GA7Sea and pebouar: are terms 
chosen in reference to ver. 4, because the question proposed in ver. 5 was 
in fact suggested by that verse ; but they represent, as ver. 5 proves, the 
ideas of d:xacoobvy and ddixia ; hence: the moral truth, i.e. the holy right- 
eousness of God (see on John iii. 21; Eph. v. 9; Phil. iv. 8), and the moral 
Salsehood, i.e. the immorality (Rev. xxii. 15), wickedness of man.’— é7epio- 
cevoev eic Tr. 66€. avrov| has abounded richly to His glory, that is, has shown 
itself in superabundant measure, which redounds to His glory. The stress 
of this protasis lies on év r@ éu@ pebopar:. — The aorist denotes the result of 
the having abounded, which subsists at the day of judgment (realized as 
present by ri . . . . xpivouat) as up to that point accomplished fact. — ér/] 
namely, after that assumed result has occurred. — xayé] emphasizing the 
contradictory relation to the contents of the protasis, according to which 
this éyé seems actually to have deserved something of God : eren J (Baeum- 
lein, Partik. p. 150) who have notwithstanding glorified God through my 
wevoua. So in substance (‘‘ just I” according to Hermann, ad Viger. p. 837) 
also Tholuck and Morison ; compare Philippi : ‘‘ even J still.” There lies in 
the expression something of boldness and defiance ; but it is not equivalent 
to xai avréc, or avréc éyd, to the meaning of which Th. Schott and Hofmann 
ultimately bring it (‘‘even personally still’). We may add that this first 
person, individualizing just like the preceding one (é r. éuo w.), of course 
represents the sinner in general (with an intended application to the Jews, 
see on ver. 5 f.), and not the Apostle himself, as Schrader and Fritzsche 
think. Against this latter theory it is decisive that xpivoua after ver. 6 
must indicate, not the judgment of enemies, but necessarily the divine act 
of judging. —a¢ duapr.] as a sinner, not ‘‘as a Gentile” (Reiche, Mehring, 
and others.) — Ver. 8. «ai u4] Before u4# we must again supply ri: and why 
should we not, etc. Respecting ri 4, guidni, see Hartung, Partikell. II. 
p. 162. Accordingly, as xai continues the question, only a comma is to be 
placed after xpivoua:.— As regards the construction, Paul has dropped the 
plan of the sentence begun with xa? pf (and why should we not do evil, etc.), 
being led away from it by the inserted remark, and has joined ér: rorjoupev 
in direct address (let us do) to the Aéyev, so that dr: is recitatire. But on 
account of this very blending there is no necessity either to make a paren- 
thesis or to supply anything.? Many erroneous attempts have been made 
by commentators (see the various explanations in Morison) to bring out an 
unbroken construction, as ¢.g. the supplying of épovyev or some such word 
after uf (Erasmus, Calvin, Wolf, Koppe, Benecke, and others, also van 
Hengel). Even the expedient of Matthias is untenable.* The same may 


1 Those who take ver. 7 f. as spoken in 
the person of the Gentile (see especially 
Reiche) explain the aAjdea Geov of the true 
religion (how entirely opposed to ver. 43), 
Pevouate Of idolatry, and auaprwAcs as Gen- 
tile. 

*For similar attractions (compare es- 
pecially Xen. Angad. vi. 4,18)in which tho 


discourse is interrupted by an intervening 
clause, and then continued in a regimen de- 
pendent on the latter and no longer sult- 
able to the beginning, see Hermann ad 
Viger. p. 745, 894 ; Bernhardy, p. 464; Dissen, 
ad Dem. de cor. p. 346, 418; Kriiger, gramm. 
Unters. p. 457 ff. 

§ He brings forward the modal definition : 


CHAP, III., 8. 119 


be said of that of Hofmann, who supplies an éoriv after xa? u7, and renders: 
‘“‘ Why does it not happen to me according to that, as (xaddc) we are slandered,” 
etc. But if it is quite gratuitous to supply éori, it is still more so to make 
this éori equivalent to yiverat yor. Besides the negation, which, according 
to our construction, harmonizes with the deliberative sense, would neces- 
sarily be not 44 but od, since it would negative the reality of the elva: under- 
stood (1 Cor. vi. 7; Luke xix. 23, xx. 5al.). The correct view is held also 
by Winer and Buttmann (p. 235, 211), Philippi and Morison. —xado¢ 
Bracgqu.| as we (Christians) are calumniated, namely, as if we did evil in 
order that, etc. Then the following kai xadoc ... . Aéyev contains the 
accusation, current possibly in Rome also, that the Christians were in the 
habit of repeating this maxim even as a doctrinal proposition. As to the 
distinction between gyi (to assert) and Af;w, compare on 1 Cor. x. 15. 
What may have occasioned such slanders against the Christians? Certainly 
their non-observance of the Mosaic law, to which they ventured to deem 
themselves not bound, in order to gain eternal life by the grace of God 
through faith in the redemptive work of Christ, which was an offence to 
the Jews. The plural is not to be referred to Paul alone, which would 
be arbitrary on account of the preceding singular; the Christians are 
conceived as Pauline (comp. Acts xxi. 21) ; and on the part of Jews and 
Judaizers (rivéc, certain people, as in 1 Cor. xv. 12) are slanderously and 
falsely (for see v. 20, vi. 1, 15 ff.) accused of doing evil that good might come 
(might ensue as result). Under this general category, namely, the calumni- 
ators reduced the bearing of the Christians, so far as the latter, without 
regulating their conduct by the Mosaic law, were nevertheless assured, and 
professed, that they should through faith in Christ obtain the divine bless- 
ings of salvation. _That gencral accusation was an injurious abstract infer- 
ence thence deduced. — dv] 7.e. of those, who follow this principle de- 
structive of the whole moral order of God. They form the nearest logical 
subject. With just indignation the Apostle himself, having a deep sense 
of morality, makes us feel in conclusion by dy 76 xpiya x.7.2. how deserving 
of punishment is the consequence, which, if God be regarded as an unright- 
eous judge of the world, must ensue for moral conduct from the premiss that 
God is glorified by the sin of men. The reference of dv to the slanderers 
(Theodoret, Grotius, Tholuck, Mehring, Hofmann) is unsuitable, because it 
separates the weighty closing sentence from the argumentation itself, and 
makes it merely an accessory thought. —rd «piva|] The definite judicial 


wt duapredds as the main element; then the 
modality of the «pivoza: opposed to this is 
nai mn cadwe BAaodny. x.t.A.: ‘* Why then am 
even [I still judged like a sinner, and not 
rather according to that, which we are 
slanderously reported of, and which some 
affirm that we say: namely, according to 
this, Let us do evil, that good may come?" 
Instead of saying : cai ni ws wortoas Ta ayadd, 
Panl, in the indignation of excited feeling, 
gives to the thought which he had begun 
the different turn which it presents in the 


text. With this artificial interpretation, 
we must remember that Paul would have 
written «ai ov instead of «ai 1%, since {t is an 
objective relation that js here in question 
(compare Col. il. 8 a@i.); that instead of 
xadws we should have expected the repeti- 
tion of the as ; and that the notion of xpivets, 
as it prevails in the conncction (compare 
also the following ro cpiua), does not sult 
the assumed thought, os woijoas ta ayadd, 
Comp. also Morison, p. 79. 


120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
sentence, decree of punishment at the last judgment. — évdicov] accordant 
with justice, rightful. Compare Heb. ii. 2. Frequently used in classic 
writers. 

Ver. 9. When Paul, in vv. 6-8, has defended the righteousness of God as 
decreeing wrath (ver. 5) in the face of the proposition, correct in itself, 
that human sin turns out to God’s glory, he has thereby also deprived the 
sinner of all the defence, which he might derive from the misapplication of 
that proposition. This position of the case, as it results from vv. 6-8 (ctv), 
he now expresses, and that in the lively form of an interrogation, here accom- 
panied by a certain triumph: What then? Are we in the position to apply a 
defence for ourselces? We cannot therefore with most expositors (including 
Tholuck, Philippi, Bisping) assume that Paul here reverts to ver. 1. — That 
the punctuation should not be ri obv rpocxéueda ; as it is given by Oecu- 
menius, 1, Koppe, Th. Schott) is plain from the answer, which is not ovdéy 
révtuc, but ov mavroc. And that in adopting the general inclusive form 
Paul speaks from the standpoint of the Jewish consciousness, and not in 
the person of the Christians (Hofmann), is apparent from the context both 
before (see vv. 3, 5, 7) and after (‘Iovdaiovg re xa? “"EAA., and see ver. 19). — 
ti ob] sc. éori (Acts xxi. 22; 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26), what takes place then? how 
is then the state of the case? Compare vi. 15, xi. 7 ; frequent in classical 
writers ; comp. on vv. 8, 5. — mpoexéueda] Do we put forward (anything) in 
our defence? Is it the case with us, that something serves us as a defence, 
that can secure us against the punitive righteousness of God? spoéyerv, 
which in the active form means to hold before, tohare in advance, to bring 
Jorward, and intransitively to be prominent, also to excel (sec Wetstein, also 
Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 24), has in the middle simply the signification 
to hold before oneself, to have before oneself, either in the proper sense, e.g. of 
holding forth spears for defence (Hom. JU. xvii. 355), or of having oxen in 
front (Od. iii. 8), or of holding in front the ram’s head (Herod. ii. 42), etc., 
or in the ethical sense : to put forward, rpécxnpa roeicSat, to apply something 
Jor one’s own defence, as in Soph. Ant. 80: ov pév tad Gv rpot yor’, Thue. i. 
140, 5 and Kriiger in loc., and also Valckenaer, ad. fr. Callim. p. 227.' 
This sense of the word is therefore rightly urged by Hemsterhuis, Venema, 
Koppe, Benecke, Fritzsche (‘‘ wtimurne praeteztu ?”), Krehl, Ewald, Mor- 
ison ; compare also Th. Schott. This explanation is the only one war- 
ranted by linguistic usage,” as well as suited to the connection (see above). 


1 More frequent in Greek writers is the 
form xpoicxer dar, in this sense, as ¢.g. Thus. 
{. 26,2. Compare also rpopacwy xpoicxerdat, 
Herod. vi. 117, vill. 3; Herodian, iv. 14, 3; 
Dem. in Schol. Hermog. p. 106, 16: mpoio- 
xevdat vouor. 

§ Also adopted by Valok. Schol. in Lue. p. 
258. Still he would read wrpoexywueda and take 
ti ov mpoex. together. But the absolute 
position of mpoex., which has been made an 
objection to our explanation (Rickert, 
Tholuck, de Wette, Philippi, Hofmann), 
does not affect it, since all verbs, if the ob- 


ject be self-evidently implied in the idea {t- 
self, may be used so that we can mentally 
supply ari (Winer, p. 552 (E. T. 593 f.J). And 
the subjunctive, which van Hengel also re- 
gards as necessary with our view, is not re- 
quired ; the indicative makes the question 
more definite and precise (Winer, p. 267 
[E. T. 284]). Ewald likewise reads ri ot» 
apoexwpneda (subjunctive); but expunges 
yap afterwards, and takes ov interroga- 
tively, “ What shall we now put forward in 
acfence ? did we not already, at the outsct, 
proce altogether that Jews,” eto. But the 


CHAP. III., 9. 121 
The most usual rendering (adopted by Tholuck, Kéllner, de Wette, Rickert, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Baur, Umbreit, Jatho and Mangold) is that 
of the Peshito and Vulgate (praccellimus eos?), and of Theophylact : 
Fyouéy re TAbov . . . . Kai evdoxipovpev oi 'loudaiat, a¢ tév vépov Kai THY TEpiTouRY 
defduevor. Compare Theodoret: ti obv xatéyouev repioodv; Philippi: ‘‘ Have 
we any advantage for ourselves?” and now also Hofmann (who held 
the right view formerly in his Schriftbew. I. p. 501): ‘‘Do we raise our- 
selves above those, upon whom God decrees His judgment of wrath ~” 
But the mere usus loquendi, affording not a single instance of the middle 
employed with the signification antecellere, raising oneself above, surpassing, 
or the like, decisively condemns this usual explanation in its different mod- 
ifications.' And would not the answer ov rdvrwc, in whatever sense we take 
it, so long as agreeably to the context we continue to understand as the 
subject the Jewish, not the Christian we (as Hofmann takes it), be at variance 
with the answer zodi xara révra tpdrov given in ver. 2? The shifts of ex- 
positors to escape this inconsistency (the usual one being that Paul here 
means sudjectire advantages in respect of justification, while in ver. 2 he 
treats of objective theocratic advantages) are forced expedients, which, not 
at all indicated by any clause of more precise definition on the part of Paul 
himself, only cast suspicion on the explanation. Wetstein, Michaelis, 
Cramer, Storr, and recently Matthias, take zpoey. as the passive : are sur- 
passed: [See Note XXIX. p. 148.] ‘‘Stand we (at all) at a disadvantage ? 
Are we still surpassed by the Gentiles ?”? But how could this question be 
logically inferred from the foregoing without the addition of other thoughts ? 
And in what follows it is not the sinful equality of the Gentiles with the 
Jews, but that of the Jews with the Gentiles which is made conspicuous. 
Sec also ver. 19. Mehring, in thorough opposition to the context, since 
not & single hint of a transition to the Gentiles is given, makes the question 
(comp. Oecumenius, 2), and that in the sense ‘‘ Are we at a disadvantage ?” 
be put into the mouth even of a Gentile, — ob ravrug] Vulgate : nequaguam ; 
Theophylact : oidayzéc. This common rendering (compare the French point 
de tout) is, in accordance with the right explanation of zporydueda, the only 
proper one. The expression, instead of which certainly wdvrw¢ ob might 
have been used (1 Cor. xvi. 12), is quite analogous to the ov révv, where it 
means in no wise,* so that the negative is not transposed, and yet it does 


omission of yap is only supported by D*. 
Van Hengel despairs of a proper explana- 


derstands nevertheless the first person of 
Paul himself, and that in the sense: ‘‘ num. 


tion, and regards the text as corrupt. 

1 Reiche (and similarly Olshausen) retains 
the same exposition in his exegetical Com- 
mentary; but takes xpoex. as passive, are 
preferred, referring in support of his view 
to Plat. de Stoic. contrad. 18 (Mor. p. 1088 C), 
where, however, in trois ayadois waci ravra 
wpoonce car’ ovdéy mpocxonevots Ud TOU Atos, 
the meaning of’ this rpoexonevors 1s becoming 
surpassed. In his Commentar. crit. I. p. 
23 ff., ho has passed over to the linguis- 
tically correct rendering praelerere, but un- 


Judaeis peccandi praetextum porrigo ?” But 
the middle means invariably to hold some- 
thing (for protection) before oneself; as 
mpopacigozat also, by which Hesychius prop- 
erly explains the word, always refers to 
the subject, which excuses itse{f by a pre- 
text. 

2 Compare Xen. Anab. ili. 2,19; Plut. Mor. 
p. 1088 C., 

3 As in Xen. Afem. fil. 1.11; Anab.1. 8.143 
Herodian, vi. 5,11; Dem. OJ. fil. 21; Plat. 
Lach. p. 189 C; Lucian, Zim. 24 (see Har- 


122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

not cancel the idea of the adverb, but on the contrary is strengthened by 
the adverb. By this means the emphatic affirmation, which would have 
been given by the wdvru¢ alone, is changed into the saute Compare 
Winer, p. 515 f. [E. T. 554 f.]. The comparison with 72—-®? (Buttmann, 
neut, Gr. p. 334) [E. T. 389] is utterly foreign, since the expression is a pure 
Greek one.?. The explanation, on which van Hengel also insists : not alto- 
gether, not in every respect (Grotius, Wetstein, Morus, Flatt, Kéllner, Mat- 
thias, Umbreit, Mehring, and Mangold), as in 1 Cor. v. 10, fails to tally with 
the true explanation of zpoeyéueda and the unrestricted character of the fol- 
lowing proof. — mpoyriacdyeda] namely, not just from ver. 5 onward (Hof- 
mann), but, in accordance with the following 'Iovdaioug re x. “EAAqvag, in ii. 1 
ff. as to the Jews, and ini. 18 ff. as to the Gentiles.* It is therefore as in i. 5 and 
frequently elsewhere, the plural of the author, not : we Christians (Hofmann). 
As to the construction, révrag may either be joined as an adjective to *Iovd. 
r. x. "EAA., or as a substantive to the infinitive, in either case expressing 
the idea of all collectively, nemine excepto. The latter mode of connection is 
preferable, because it gives a more marked prominence to the idea of total- 
ity, which harmonizes with the following vv. 10-12. Hence: we have before 
brought the charge against Jews and Gentiles, that all, etc. Comp. Hofmann 
and Morison. There is elsewhere no instance of the compound zpoacr. ; 
the Greeks use rpoxariyopeiv. — ig’ duapt. elva:}] They are—while still unre- 
generate, a more precise definition that is self-evident—all under sin, an ex- 
pression denoting not merely a state of sin in general, but moral dependence 
on the power of sin. Compare vii. 25 ; Gal. iii. 22. But if this be the case 
with Jews and Gentiles (not mercly on the Gentile side), then the Jew, after 
the way of escape indicated in ver. 5 has been cut off by vv. 6-8, has no 
defence left to him as respects his liability to punishment any more than 
the Gentile.‘ Accordingly the idea of liability to punishment is not yet ez- 
pressed in i’ duapr. elva:, but is meant only to be inferred from it. 

Vv. 10-18. Conformity with Scripture of the charge referred to, 'Iovdaiovg 
te xal "EAAnv. avr. ig’ au. elvac, 80 far (ver. 19) as this charge cuts off from 
the Jews every mpoéyeoda: of ver. 9. — The recitative dr: introduces citations 
from Scripture very various in character, which after the national habit 
(Surenhusius, xaraAA. thes. 7) are arranged in immediate succession. They 
are taken from the LXX., though for the most part with variations, partly 


tung, Partikell, 11. p. 87). Those passages 
where ov wavv negatives with a certain sub- 
tlety or ironical turn (not quite, not just), are 
not cases here in point ; see Schoemann, ad 
Js. p. 276. 

1 Bengel: ‘‘Judaeus diceret wdvyres, at 
Paulus contradicit.” 

® Compare Theognis, 805, Bekker : oi xaxoi 
ov wavrws (by no means) «xaxot éx yaorpds 
yeyévaow. Ep. ad Diogn. 9: ov wavrws 
epynédpevos. (Dy no means rejoicing) tots 
Guapripaciw nuwy, add avexduevos. Pcr- 
fectly similar is also the Homeric ov rayprap, 
decidedly not ; see Nigelsbach on the Jiiad, 


p. 146, ed. 8; Duncan, Lez. Hom. ed. Rost, 
_ Pp. 888. Compare ovééy wdvrws, Herod. vy. 
84, 65. 


* Paul however does not say Gentiles and 


_ Jews, but the converse, because here again, 


as in previous cases where both are group- 
ed together (in the last instance Ii. 9 f.), he 
has before his mind the divine historical 
order, which in the very point of sinfulness 
tells against the Jew the more seriously. 

‘For statements of Greek writers re- 
garding the universality, without any ex- 
ception, of sin, see Spiess, Logos spermat, p. 
220 f. 


CHAP. III., 10-18. 123 
due to quotation from memory, and partly intentional, for the purpose of 
defining the sense more precisely. The arrangement is such that testimony 
is adduced for-—1ist, the state of sin generally (vv. 10-12) ; 2nd, the practice 
of sin in word (vv. 13, 14) and deed (vv. 15-17) ; and 3rd, the sinful source 
of the whole (ver. 18). More artificial schemes of arrangement are not to 
be sought (as e.g. in Hofmann), not even by a play on numbers.'— ovx éor: 
dixacog ovdé cig] There exists not a righteous person (who is such as he ought 
to be), not even one. Tuken from Ps. xiv. 1, where the Sept. has rodv 
Xpnorétyra instead of dixasoc ; Paul has put the latter on purpose at once, in 
accordance with the aim of his whole argument, prominently to characterize 
the ig’ duapr. elvas as a want of dixasootvy7. Michaelis regards the words as 
the Apostle’s own, ‘‘ under which he comprehends all that follows.” §8o also 
Eckermann, Koppe, Kéllner, and Fritzsche. But itis quite at variance 
with the habit of the Apostle, after using the formula of quotation, to pre- 
fix to the words of Scripture a summary of their contents ; and this suppo- 
sition is here the more improbable, seeing that the Apostle continues in 
ver. 11 in the words of the same Psalm, with the first verse of which our 
passage substantially agrees.*— Ver. 11 is from Ps. xiv. 2, and so quoted, 
that the negatice sense which results indirectly from the text in the Hebrew 
and LXX. is expressed by Paul directly : there exists not the understanding 
one (the practically wise, z.¢. the pious one; see Gesenius, Thes. 8. 0. ODN): 
there exists not the seeker after God (whose thoughts and endeavors are dircct- 
ed towards God, Heb. xi. 6, and sce Gesenius, s. 0. W1). The article de- 
notes the genus as a definite concrete representing it. Compare Buttmann’s 
neut. Gr. p. 253 f. [E. T. 295] * — éxf7r.] stronger than the simple form ; com- 
pare 1 Pet. i. 10 ; very frequent in the LXX. — Ver. 12. From Ps. xiv. 3 closely 
after the LXX. ¢éééxA:vav, namely from the right way, denotes the demor- 
alization (see Gesenius, s. 0. 30), as does also 7ypeddyoar, NN) ; they 
have become useless, corrupt, good for nothing, aypeio: (Matt. xxv. 30); 
Polyb. i. 14, 6, i. 48, 9. The following ody» ypyoréryra is correlative. 
This aya (altogether) nyperdd. has still révrec for its subject. — éu¢ évdg] The 
ot« gory holds as far as to one (inclusively), so that therefore not one is ex- 
cepted. Compare Jud. iv. 16. Hebraism, sce Ewald, Lehr’. § 217, 3. 
The Latin ad unum omnes is similar. — Ver. 13 as far as édoA. is from Ps. v. 
10, and thence till airév from Ps. cxl. 4, both closely after the LXX.‘ — 
régog avewyp. 6 Adp. avt.] Estius : ‘‘Sicut sepulcrum patens exhalat tetrum 


1 According to Hofmann the first and 
second parts consist each of seven propos!- 
tions. Thus even the conclusion of ver. 12, 
ova forw éws évds, is to bereckoned as a 
separate proposition ! How all the parallel- 
ism of Hebrew poetry is mutilated by such 
artifices | 

2? Regarding ov8é els see on 1 Cor. vi. 5, and 
Stallbanm, ad Plat. Symp. p. 214 D. 

3 On the idea, which is also classical, of sin 
as folly, see Nigelsbach, Hom. Theol. VI. 2. 
The form cvrier,so accentuated by Lach- 


mann ; compare Buttmann, I. p. 543), or 
ovvuev (though the former is the more 
probable ; compare Winer, p. 7 f. [E. T. 81), 
also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. p. 768), is the 
usual one in the Sept. (instead of cumeis, 
Ps. xxxili. 15). Ps. xif. 1; Jer. xxx. 12; 
2 Chron. xxxiv. 12 e¢ al. 

«The MSS. of the LXX. which read the 
whole passage vv. 18-18 at Ps. xiv. 8, have 
been interpolated from our passage in 
Christian times. See Wolf, Cur. on ver. 10. 


124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


ac pestiferum foetorem, ita ex ore illorum impuri, pestilentes noxiique 
sermones exeunt.” Comp. Pelagius, Bengel, Tholuck, Mehring, and Hof- 
mann. But it is more in harmony with the further description, as well as 
the parallel in Jer. v. 16 (where the quiver of the Chaldeans is compared 
with an open grave), to find the comparison in the point that, when the 
godless have opened their throats for lying and corrupting discourse, it is 
just as if a grave stood opencd (observe the perfect) to which the corpse 
ought to be consigned for decay and destruction.’ So certainly and una- 
voidably corrupting is their discourse. Moreover Adpvyf, which is here to 
be taken in its original sense (as organ of speech, not equivalent to gépryé, 
the gullet) is more forcibly graphic than ordua, representing the speech as 
passionate crying. Compare Aapvyyifev, Dem. 823, 1, and Aapvyyopuds, of 
crying lustily. — édodotcav] they were deceiving. The imperfect denotes 
what had taken place as continuing up till the present time ; and on this 
form of the third person plural, of very frequent occurrence in the LXX., 
see Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 60; Ahrens, Dial. II. p. 304, I. p. 237. — ide aoridur] 
The poison of asps, a figure for the insidiously corrupting.*—Ver. 14 is from 
Ps. x. 7, taken freely from the LXX., who however with their wixpiag devi- 
ate from the Hebrew 41D'VD, because they cither read it otherwise or trans- 
lated it erroneously. — mixpia, figurative designation of the hateful nature. 
Comp. Eph. iv. 31 ; Acts vili. 23; James iii. 14 ; see Wetstcin.—Vv. 15- 
17 are from Is. lix. 7, 8, quoted freely and with abbreviations from the 
LXX. — év raic¢ ddoig avtav] Where they go, is desolation (fragments W) and 
misery, which they produce. — ddov eip. oix éyv.] i.e. a way on which one 
walks peacefully (the opposite of the édo/, on which is civrpipa x. tadar.), 
they have not known (2 Cor. v. 21), it has remained strange to them.—Ver. 
18 is from Ps. xxxvi. 1. The fear of God, which would have preserved 
them from such conduct and have led them to an entirely different course, 
is not before their eyes. ‘‘ There is objectivity ascribed to a condition 
which is, psychologically, subjective.” Morison. 

Ver. 19. The preceding quotations (‘‘in quibus magna est verborum 
atrocitas,” Mclanchthon) were intended to prove that Jews and Gentiles are 
collectively under the dominion of sin (ver. 9); but how easily might it be 
imagined on the part of the conceited Jews? that the above passages of 
Scripture (of which those in vv. 10, 11 and 12, taken from Ps. xiv., really 
refer originally to the Gentiles, to Babylon), however they might affect the 
Gentiles, could have no application to themselves, the Jews, who had no 
need therefore to take them to themselves, as if they also were included in 
the same condemnation. Such a distinction, however, which could only 
promote a self-exaltation and self-justification at variance with the divine 
purpose in those declarations of His word, they were to forego, seeing that 
everything that the Scripture says has its bearing for the Jews. The 


1 The metaphorical representation in 2 Sec similar passages in Alberti, Odss. p. 
classical passages, in which, eg., the 9301. 
Cyclops is termed gw ripBos (Anth. Pal. xiv. * See especially Eisenmenger's enfdecktes 
109, 8), or the vultures éupvxor rador (Gore Judenthum, L. p. 568 ff. 
giaSf ap. Longin. 3), is not similar. 


CHAP, III., 19. 125 
Apostle therefore now continues, and that with very emphatic bringing out 
of the dca in the first half of the verse and of the ray and rac in the second : 
we know howecer (as in ii. 2) that whatsoever the law saith, it speaketh to those 
that are in the law, consequently that the Jews may not except themselves 
from the reference of any saying in Scripture. — éca] whatsoever, therefore 
also what is expressed in such condemnatory passages as the above, with- 
out exception. — 6 vduo¢] in accordance with its reference to vv. 10-18, is 
necessarily to be taken here as designation of the 0. T. generally (comp. 1 
Cor. xiv. 21; John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25 ; 2 Macc. ii. 18); not, with Hun- 
nius, Calovius, Balduin, and Sebastian Schmid, of the law in the dogmatic 
sense (comp. Matthias); or of the Mosaic law, as Ammon and Gléckler, Th. 
Schott and Hofmann take it, confusing in various ways the connection.’ 
80 also van Hengel, who quite gratuitously wishes to assume an enthymeme 
with a minor premiss to be understood (but the law condemns all those sin- 
ners). The designation of the O. T. by 6 véuoc, which forms the first, and 
for Israel most important, portion of it, was here occasioned by roic¢ év rp 
vouy, 7.6. those who are in the law as their sphere of life. — Aéyer . . . . Aadei] 
All that the law says (materially, or respecting its contents, all Adyo of the 
law), it speaks (speaks out, of the outward act which makes the Adyo: be 
heard, makes known through speech) to those who, etc. Comp. on John 
viii. 43 ; Mark i. 34; 1 Cor. ix. 8, xii. 8. The dative denotes those to 
whom the Aadciv applies (Kriiger, § 48, 7, 13). Those who have their state 
of life within the sphere of the law are to regard whatsoever the law says as 
addressed to themselves, whether it was meant primarily for Jews or Gentiles. 
How this solemnly emphatic guaecunque heaps upon the Jews the Divine 
sentence of ‘ guilty,” and cuts off from them every refuge, as if this or 
that declaration did not apply to or concern them ! — iva rap oréua x.t.A. | 
in order that every mouth (therefore also the Jew) may be stopped (Heb. xi. 33; 
Ps. cvii. 42; Job v. 16; and see Wetstein), etc. This, viz. that no one 
shall be able to bring forward anything for his justification, is represented 
in iva—which is not ita ut—as intended by the speaking law, t.e. by God 
speaking in the law. Reiche unjustly characterizes this thought as absurd 
in every view and from every standpoint ; the iva wav x.7.A. does not an- 
nounce itself as the sole and exclusive end, but on the contrary, without 


1 According to Hofmann (compare his 
Bchriftbeweis, I. p. 628 f.; 80 too, in sub- 
stance, Th. Schott) the train of thought is: 
after ver. 9 ff. the only further question 
that could be put is, whether anything is 
given to Christians that exempts them from 
the general guilt and punishment. The 
law possibly? No, “they know that this 
law has absolutely (60a) no other tenor than 
al which it preaents to those who belong lo 
tle domain, for this purpose, that the whole 
world, in the same extent in which ilis under 
sin, must in ils own lime (this idea being con- 
veyed by the aorists ¢payy and yernra:), 
when if comes to stand before God its Judge, be 


dumb before Him and recognize the justice of 
Mis condemning sentence.” This interpreta- 
tion, obscuring with a far-fetched in- 
genuity the plain sense of the words, and 
wringing out of it a tenor of thought to 
which it is a stranger, is a further result of 
Hofmann’s having misunderstood the xpoe- 
xopeda in ver, 9, and having referred it, as 
also the subsequent spontiacdueda, to the 
Christians as subject, an error which neces- 
sarily deranged and dislocated for him the 
entire course of argument in vv. 9-20. At 
the same time it would not be even Aisfor- 
ically true that the law has absolutely no 
other tenor, eto. 


126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

negativing other and higher ends, merely expresses one single and special 
teleological point, which is however the very point which the connection 
here required to be cited. The time to be mentally supplied for ¢pay9 and 
yévyrac is the future generally reckoned from the present of Aaiei, not that 
of the jinal judgment, which does not harmonize with the thought in ver. 9 
to which the series of Scripture testimonies in vv. 10-18 is appended. — 
inddixoc|] punishable, xatdxpitoc, anappnciacroc, Theophylact; frequently used 
by classic writers, but elsewhere neither in the N. T. nor in the LXX. or 
Apocrypha. — r¢ Oe] belongs, not to gpay# (Matthias), but, after the man- 
ner of the more closely defining parallelism, merely to imdédix. yévyrac : to 
God, as the Being to whom the penalty is to be paid.’ — yévyra:] The result 
which is to manifest itself, as in ver. 4. — rac 6 xéopuoc] quite generally (ver. 
9); comp. Eph. ii. 3. And if Paul has described * this generality (comp. 
also ver. 23) thus ‘‘insigni figura et verborum emphasi” (Melancthon), the 
result extending to all humanity is not contradicted by the virtue of indi- 
viduals, such as the patriarchs ; for from the ideal, but at the same time 
legally true (comp. Gal. iii. 10), standpoint of the Apostle this virtuousness 
is still no d:xatocivy (but only a minor degree of the want of it), and does 
not therefore form an exception from the category of the imddixov elva: 7p 
Ocg@. See ver. 20. Though different as respects degree, yet all are affected 
and condemned by the declarations quoted ; every one has a share in this 
corruption.’ 

Ver. 20. [See Note XXX. p. 148.] Acér:] propterea quod, i. 19, not prop- 
terea (Beza, Rosenmiiller, Morus, Tholuck), is to be divided from the pre- 
ceding only by a comma, and supplies the objective reason of that iva x.t.A. 
of the law : because the relation of righteousness will accrue to no flesh from 
works of the law. For if dixacoct'vyg should come from works of the law, the 
law would in fact open up the way of righteousness, and therefore that iva 
wav «.T.A. would not be correct.‘ As to raca cdf, equivalent to ra¢ dvd pure, 
but conveying the idea of moral imperfection and sinfulness in presence of 
God, see on Acts ii. 17; 1Cor. 1. 20 ; and compare generally on Gal. ii. 16. 
That with regard to the Gentiles Paul is thinking of the natural law (ii. 14) 





1The opposite is avairioe adavdroo, 
Hesiod, épy. 825, and deois avaprAdxnros, 
Aesch. Agam. 852. Comp. Plat. Legg. viil. 
p. 816 B: vmodcxcos éorw ty PAaddévre, p. 868 
D, 11, p. 982; Dem. 518, 8 al. 

3 From the poetic tenor of the passage 
twa way «.7.A. Ewald conjectures that it re- 
produces a passage from the O. T. that is 
now /ost. But how readily may it be con- 
ceived that Paul, who was himself of a 
deeply poetic nature, should, in the vein of 
higher feeling into which he had been 
brought by the accumulated words of 
psalm and prophecy, spontaneously ex- 
press himself as he hasdone! That wimdé- 
«cos does not again occur in his writings, 
matters not; évdcos also in ver. 8 is not 
again used. 


® Compare Ernesti, Urspr. d@. Stinde, II. 
p. 152 f. 

4 According to Hofmann, in pursuance 
of his erroneous interpretation of ver. 19, 
é&cdtc w.7.A. is meant to contain the speci- 
fication of the reason “ why the word of the 
law was published to the Jews for no other ob- 
ject, than that the whole world might be pre- 
cluded from all objection against the condemn- 
tng sentence of God.’ Compare also Th. 
Schott. But Paul has not at all expressed 
in ver. 19 the thought **for no other object ;” 
he must in that case, instead of the simple 
tva which by no means excludes other ob- 
jects, have written udvov iva, or possibly eis 
ovdéy ei uy iva, or In some other way con- 
veyed the non-expressed thought. 





CHAP. III., 20. 127 
cannot be admitted, seeing that in the whole connection he has to do with 
the law of Moses. But neither may the thought be imported into the pas- 
sage with reference to the Gentiles : ‘‘if they should be placed under the 
law and should have épya véyov” (Riickert, comp. Philippi and Mehring), 
since, according to the context, it is only with reference to the Jews (ver. 19) 
that the question is dealt with as to no flesh being righteous—a general re- 
lation which, as regards the Gentiles, is perfectly self-evident, seeing that 
the latter are dvoyo:, and have no épya véuov in the proper sense whatever.— 
Respecting ipya véuov,’ works in harmony with the law of Moses, the épya 
being the prominent conception, works which are fulfilments of its precepts, 
comp. on ii. 15. Moreover that it is not specially the observance of the 
ritual portions of the law (Pelagius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Semler, Ammon), 
but that of the Mosaic law in general which is meant, is clear partly from 
the expression itself, which is put without limitation, partly from the con- 
textual relation of the clause to what goes before, and partly from the fol- 
lowing dia yap véuov x.t.A., from which the ethical law is so far from being 
excluded,’ that it is on the contrary preciscly this aspect of the véuo¢ which 
is specially meant. — ob dixatwd4o.] See oni. 17. The future is to be un- 
derstood either of the moral possibility, or, which is preferable on account 
of iii. 20, purely in the sense of time, and that of the future generally: ‘‘In 
every case in which justification (¢.e. the being declared righteous by God) 
shall occur, it will not result from,” etc., so that such works should be the 
causa meritoria. The reference to the future judgment (Reiche) is contro- 
verted by the fact that throughout the entire connection justification is re- 
garded as a relation arising immediately from faith, and not as something 
to be decided only at the judgment. See ver. 21 ff. and chap. iv. For 
this reason there is immediately afterwards introduced as the counterpart of 
the d:xacocivn, which comes directly from faith, the émiywworg duapriac, which 
comes directly from the law. It is certain, moreover, that in ob dixaw?. 
«.t.A. Paul had Ps. cxliii. 2 in view, but instead of mac fav he put aoa 
oépf as more significant for the matter in hand. — Jn that sense now shall 
no one from works of the law become righteous before God, i.e. such that God 
looks upon him as righteous?* Not in the sense that perfect compliance 
with the law would be insufficient to secure justification, against which the 
fundamental law of the judge : of roirai vdzov dixatwPfoorra (il. 18), would 
be decisive ; but in the sense that no man, even with an outwardly faultless 
observance of the law (comp. on Phil. iii. 6), is in a position to offer to it 
that full and right obedience, which alone would be the condition of a jus- 


3 For épyer youov cannot be taken as law 
of works, as Marcker uniformly wishes. 
Comp. on fi. 15. 

9 Paul always conceives the law as an un- 
divided whole (comp. Usteri, p. 86), while 
he yet has in his mind sometimes more the 
ritual, sometimes more the moral, aspect 
of this one divine vdésnos, according to his 
object and the connection (Ritschl, adt- 
kathol. K. p. 78). Comp. on Gal. il. 16. 


*In opposition to Hofmann, who In his 
Schriflb. I. p. 612 urges the évwmiory avrov 
against the imputative sense of the passive 
Sicarcovoda, see Wieseler on Gal. p. 192 f. 
It is quite equivalent to wapa r. Oey, judice 
Deo, Gal. ill. 11. See generally the thor- 
ough defence of the sensus forensis of 
&cxacovoda in the N. T., also from classic 
authors and from the O. T. in Morison, p. 
168 ff. 


128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE BROMANS. 


tification independent of extraneous intervention ; in fact, it is only through 
the law that man comes to aclear perception and consciousness of his moral 
imperfection by nature (his unrighteousness). See Luther’s preface. That 
this was the Apostle’s view, is proved by the reason which follows : d:a yap 
vépov «.t.A, See, besides, especially chs. vii. and viii.; Gal. iii. 10. There 
is here no mention of the good works of the regenerate, which however are 
only the fruits of justification, ch. vi. viii. 2 ff; Eph. ii. 10 al. Comp. 
Philippi and Morison. — dia yap vépou éxiyy. du.] The law, when it places its 
demands before man, produces in the latter his first proper recognition of his 
moral incongruity with the will of God. ‘‘ With these words Paul strikes 
at the deepest root of the matter,” Ewald. Respecting yép Calvin’s note is 
sufficient : ‘‘ a contrario ratiocinatur. . . . quando ex eadem scatebra non 
prodeunt vita et mors.” The propricty of the argument however rests on 
the fact that the law does not at the same time supply the strength to con- 
quer sin (viii. 3), but stops short at the point of bringing to cognition the 
‘interiorem immunditiem ” which it forbids; ‘‘hanc judicat et accusat 
coram Deo, non tollit,” Melanchthon. It is different in the case of civil laws, 
which are designed merely to do away with the externa scelera, and to judge 
the works in and for themselves, xiii. 3 ff. 

Vv. 21-30. [See Note XXXI. p. 149.] Paul has hitherto been proving that 
all men are under sin, and guilty before God. This was the preparatory por- 
tion of the detailed illustration of the theme set forth in ch. i. 17; for be- 
fore anything else there had to be recognized the general necessity of a 
dixatootvn not founded on the law—as indeed such a legal righteousness has 
shown itself to be impossible. Now however he exhibits this d:xacoobvy pro- 
vided from another source—the righteousness of God which comes from 
Jaith to all without distinction, to believing Jews and Gentiles. Hofmann 
rejects this division, in consequence of his having erroneously taken zpoe- 
aoueSa in ver. 9 as the utterance of the Christians. He thinks that the 
Apostle only now comes to the conclusion, at which he has been aiming 
ever since the fifth verse: as to what makes Christians, as distinguished 
from others, assured of salvation. 

Ver. 21.' Nuvi is usually interpreted here as a pure adverb of time (“ nostris 
temporibus hac in parte felicissimis,” Grotius). 80 also Tholuck, Reiche, 
Riickert, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Winzer, Reithmayr, Philippi, van 
Hengel, Mehring, Th. Schott, and others. But since what precedes was 
not given as delineation of the past, there appears here not the contrast - 
between two periods, but that between two relations, the relation of depend- 
ence on the law and the relation of independence on the law (6:4 véuov . . . . 
zupic véuov). Hence with Beza, Pareus, Piscator, Estius, Koppe, Fritzsche, 
de Wette, Matthias, and Hofmann, we render : but in this state of the case.* 
— xupic¢ vduov] placed with full emphasis at the beginning as the opposite of 
6: véuov, belongs to wefav. Aptly rendered by Luther: ‘‘ without the ac- 


1 See Winzer, Comm. in Rom. ili. 21-28, Part. p. 9%; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 181. 
Partic, I. and IL. 1820. Comp. vii. 17; I. Cor. v. 11, xi. 18, xiii. 138, 

* See regarding this dialectio use of the al.; 4 Maco. vi. 38, xill.8. By Greek authors 
yoy Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 26; Bacuml. _»vvi is not thus used, only viv. 


CHAP. III., 22. 129 
cessory aid of the law,” t.e. so that in this revelation of the righteousness of 
God the law is left out of account. Reiche’ joins it with dicaoc.: ‘‘the 
righteousness of God as being imparted to the believer without the law, 
without the Mosaic law helping him thereto.” Compare also Winzer, 
Klee, Mehring. But apart from the coactior constructio, with which Estius 
already found fault, we may urge against this view the parallel of dd 
vduov, ver. 20, which words also do not belong to éxiyywore duapr. but to 
the verb to be supplied. — regavépwra:] is made manifest and lies open to view, 
so that it presents itself to the knowledge of every one ; the present of the 
completed action, Heb. ix. 26. The expression itself presupposes the pre- 
vious xpurréy (Col. ili. 3 f.; Mark iv. 22), the having been hidden, in accord- 
ance with which the righteousness of God has not yet been the object of ex- 
perimental perception. To men it was an unknown treasure. The mode of 
the zegavépwrac however consists in the d:xasoc. Ocot having become actual, 
having passed into historical reality, and having been made apparent, which 
has been accomplished without mixing up the law as a co-operative factor 
in the matter. — paprep. id Tr. vou. x. tr. mpog.] An accompanying charac- 
teristic definition of d:xasoofvy Oeov, so far as the latter is made manifest : 
being witnessed, etc. If it is thus the case with regard to it, that in its 7reg- 
avépwraz it is attested by the witness of the law and the prophets, then this 
precludes the misconception that the d:xacoobvy revealed yupi¢ véuov is oppos- 
ed or foreign to the O. T., and consequently an innovation without a back- 
ground in sacred history. Comp. xvi. 26 ; John v. 39. ‘‘ Novum testa- 
mentum in vetere latet, vetus in novo patet,” Augustine. In this case we are 
not to think of the moral requirements (Th. Schott), but of the collective Mes- 
sianic types, promises and prophecies in the law and the prophets, in which is 
also necessarily comprised the d:xavdotvy Geov as that which is necessary to 
participation in the Messianic salvation. Comp. i. 2, iil. 2; Acts x. 48, 
xxvill. 23 ; Luke xxiv. 27 ; from the law, the testimony of Abraham, iv. 8 ff. 
and the testimonies quoted in x. 6 ff. — Observe further that paprvpovy. has 
the emphasis, in contrast to yupic, not imd tov véuov (Bengel, Fritzsche and 
others). We may add Bengel’s apt remark : ‘‘ Lex stricfe (namely, in yupic 
vouov) et late (in vd rov véuov) dicitur.”’ 

Ver. 22. A righteousness of God, however, (mediated) through faith in Jesus 
Christ. On dé, with the repetition of the same idea, to be defined now 
however more precisely, the dixaoovvy Ocov (not merely dixacootyy, as Hof- 
mann insists contrary to the words) ; comp. ix. 80. See on Phil. ii. 8. — 
The genitive 'I. X. contains the object of faith? in accordance with prevail- 


1 Following Augustine, de grat. Chr. 1, 8, 
and de spir. ef. lit. 9, Wolf, and others. 

*This view of the genitive is justly ad- 
hered to by most expositors. It is with 
siete as With ayérn, in which the object is 
likewise expressed as well by the genitive 
asby cis. Nevertheless, Scholten, Rauwen- 
hoff, van Hengel, and Berlage (de formulae 
Paulinae sions "1. Xpicrod signif., Lugd. B. 
1866) have recently taken it to mean the 


** fides, quae auctore Jesu Christo Deo 
habetur" (Berlage). Against this view we 
may decidedly urge the passages where the 
genitive with iors is a thing or an abstract 
idea (Phil. i. 27; 2 Thess. il. 13; Acts ili. 16; 
Col. ii. 12); also the expression xiors Geov 
in Mark xi. 22, where the genitive must 
necessarily be that of the object. Comp. 
the classical expressions zion Seay and 
the like. See besides Lipsius, Rechtfer- 


130 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

ing usage (Mark xi. 22; Acts iii. 16 ; Gal. ii. 16, 20, iii. 22 ; Eph. iii. 12, 
iv. 18; Phil. iii. 9; Jamesii.1). The article before d:a rior. was not need- 
ed for the simple reason that dixaootvy Ocod is without it. Therefore, and 
because the point at issue here was not the mode of becoming manifest, but 
the specific characterizing of the righteousness itself that had become mani- 
fest, neither dia rior. (Fritzsche, Tholuck) nor the following ei¢ mdvrac RA 
(de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Winer, Mehring and others) is to be made 
dependent on xegavépwra:. —eic wdvrag x. emt m. 7, mor.] scil. oboa.’ The 
expression is an earnest and significant bringing into prominence of the uni- 
versal character of this diaasootvy dia rior. 'I. X.: which is for all, and upon 
all who believe. Both prepositions denote the direction of aim, in which the 
dixacooivn presents itself, though with the special modification that under 
the cic lies the notion of destination (not ‘‘ the immanent influx,” Reithmayr), 
under the éri that of extending itself over all. On the peculiar habit, which 
the Apostle has, of setting forth a relation under several aspects by different 
prepositional definitions of a single word, see Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 418] ; 
compare gencrally Kiithner II. 1, p. 475 f. While recent expositors (includ- 
ing Riickert, Reiche, Kollner, de Wette) have often arbitrarily disregarded 
the distinction in sense between the two prepositions,* and have held both 
merely as a strengthening of the idea all (‘‘ for all, for all without exception,” 
Koppe), the old interpreters, on the other hand, forced upon the ei¢ and ézxi 
much that has nothing at all in common with the relation of the prepositions ; 
e.g. that eic r. applies to the Jews and ém? 7. to the Gentiles.*—0b yép éore dracr. | 
Ground assigned for the mévrac r. mor. ‘‘ For there is no distinction made, 
according to which another way to the d:xacoobvn Geov would stand open for 
a portion of men, perchance for the Jews,” and that just for the reason that 
(ver. 23) all have sinned, etc. 

Ver. 23. “Hyuaprov] [See Note XXXII. p. 149.] The sinning of every man 
is presented as an historical fact of the past, whereby the sinful state is 
produced. The perfect would designate it as a completed subsisting fact. 
Calvin, moreover, properly remarks that according to Paul there is nulla 
justitia ‘‘ nisi perfecta et absoluta,” and ‘‘ si verum esset, nos partim operibus 
justificari, partim Dei gratia, non valeret hoc Pauli argumentum.” Luther 
aptly observes : ‘‘ They are altogether sinners, etc., is the main article and 
the central point of this Epistle and of the whole Scripture.” — xai torep. } 
They have sinned, and in consequence of this they lack, there is wanting 
to them, etc. This very present expression, as well as the present participle 


rison, p. 220 ff.) have already done. After 


tigungel. p. 109 f.; Welss, bidt. Theol. p. 
885 


1 See Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. 4, 2. 

2 For in none of the similar passages cre 
the prepositions synonymous. See ili. 20, 
xi. 86; Gal. 1 1; Eph. iv. 6; Col. 1.16. See 
also Matthias and Mehring in loc. The lat- 
ter, following out his connection wedavép., 
explains: ‘‘ manifested éo all men and for 
all delierers.” But it is arbitrary to tako 
Tovs morevorras as defining only the second 
waytas, as Morus and Flatt (see also Mo- 


the emphatic dcxcatovtmn 8@ @eotd ca wier 
rews the morevey is so much the specific 
and thorough mark of the subjects, that 
Tovs muorevoyras must define the wdyras in 
doth instances. 

> Thus Theodoret, Oecumentius, and many 
others, who have been followed by Bengel, 
Bébme, and Jatho (and conversely by Mat- 
thias, who explains é« and eis in 1. 17 in the 
same way). 


CHAP. III., 23. 131 


Stxatobpevor, Ought to have kept Hofmann from understanding révre¢ of all 
belvevers ; for in their case that torepeiodac no longer applies (v. 1 f., viii. 1 aJ.), 
and they are not dixaotpevoe but dixarwSévreg ; Dut, as becoming believers, they 
would not yet be morebovrec. — rig d6En¢ r. Oeov] The genitive with torepeioda 
(Diod. Sic. xviii. 71 ; Joseph. Antt. xv. 6, 7) determines for the latter the sense ’ 
of destitut. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 237. Comp. on1Cor.i.7. They lack 
the honour which God gives,’ they are destitute of the being honoured by 
God, which would be the case, if the #uaproy did not occur ; in that 
case they would possess the good pleasure of God, and this, regarded 
as honour, which they would have to enjoy from God : the déga row Geo. 
Comp. ii. 29 ; John xii. 48, compared withv. 44. Kéllner’s objection to this 
view, which first offers itself, of r. Oeot as the genitive auctoris, which is 
also held by Piscator, Hammond, Grotius, Fritzsche, Reiche, de Wette, 
Tholuck, and others, following Chrysostom (comp. Philippi), that it is not 
the fault of men if they should not have an honour, which proceeds from God, 
is of no weight ; since it certainly is the fault of men, if they render it im- 
possible for a holy God to give them the honour which proceeds from Him. 
Moreover, K6llner’s own explanation : honour before God (quite so also Cal- 
vin ; and comp. Philippi), which is said according to the analogy of human 
relations, in point of fact quite coincides with the above view, since in fact 
honour before God, or with God (Winzer), is nothing else than the honour 
that accrues to us from God’s judgment. Comp. Calvin : ‘‘ ita nos ab hu- 
mani theatri plausu ad tribunal coeleste vocat.” Accordingly, the genitive 
is here all the less to be interpreted coram, since in no other passage (and 
especially not in dixacoo. Oeov, see on i. 17) is there any necessity for this 
interpretation. This last consideration may also be urged against the inter- 
pretation of others : gloriatio coram Deo; ‘‘non habent, unde coram Deo 
glorientur,” Estius. So Erasmus, Luther, Toletus, Wolf, Koppe, Rosen- 
miller, Reithmayr, and others. It is decisive against this view that in all 
passages where Paul wished to express gloriatio, he knew how to employ 
the proper word, xabynorg (ver. 27; 2 Cor. vii. 14, villi. 24 af). Others, 
again, following Oecumenius (Chrysostom and Theophylact express them- 
selves too indefinitely, and Theodoret is altogether silent on the matter), 
explain the défa r. Geov to mean the glory of eternal life, in so far as God 
either has destined it for man (Gléckler), or confers it upon him (Béhme, 
comp. Morison) ; or in so far as it consists in partaking in the glory of God 
(Beza, comp. Bengel and Baumgarten-Crusius). Mehring allows a choice 
between the two last definitions of the sense. But the following dixacobpevor 
proves that the défa rov @cov cannot in reality be anything essentially dif- 
ferent from the dicacoobvq Ocov, and cannot be merely future. Utterly erro- 
neous, finally, is the view of Chemnitz, Flacius, Sebastian Schmid, Calovius,* 


1The genitive r. @ecov cannot, without God,” t.e. the glory of personal holiness. 
arbitrariness, be explained otherwise than 2 He takes &£a rov Gcov as *‘ gloria homini 
was done in the case of &i«atoovm 7. Geov. ja Deo concessa in creatione;” this gloria 
In consequence of his erroneous exposition having been the divine image, which we 
of a&xasoc. tr. Geod (soe on |. 17), Matthias forfeited after the fall 
understands here ‘glory such as is that of 


132 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

Hasaeus, Alting, Carpzov, Ernesti, recently revived by Riickert, Olshausen, 
and Mangold, that the déga rov Oeov is the image of God ; ‘a godlike d6&a,” 
as Riickert puts it, and thus gets rid of the objection that défa is not synon- 
ymous with cikov. But how arbitrarily is the relation of the genitive thus 
defined, altogether without the precedent of a similar usage (2 Cor. xi. 2 is 
not a case in point)! That the idea of the image of God is not suggested 
by anything in the connection is self-evident, since, as the subsequent 
dixacotuevo: x.T.A. abundantly shows, it is the idea of the want of righteous- 
ness that is under discussion. Hofmann and Ewald have explained it in the 
same way as Riickert, though they take the genitive more accurately (a déé 
such as God Himself possesses). The latter’ understands ‘‘the glory of 
God which man indeed has by creation, Ps. viii. 8, but which by sin he 
may lose for time and eternity, and has now lost.” Compare Hofmann: 
‘* Whatsoever is of God has a share, after the manner of a creature, in the 
glory of God. If this therefore be not found in man, the reason is that he 
has forfeited the relation to God in which he was created.” But even apart 
‘from the fact that such a participation in the glory of God has been lost 
already through the fall (v. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22), and not for the first time 
through the individual juaprov here meant, it is decisive against this exposi- 
tion that the participation in the divine déga nowhere appears as an original 
blessing that has fallen into abeyance, but always as something to be conferred 
only at the Parousia (v. 2 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12) ; as the owdofac9jva: with Christ 
(viii. 17 f.; Col. iii. 4) ; as the glorious xAypovouia of God (comp. also 2 
Tim. iv. 8; 1 Pet. v. 4); and consequently as the new blessing of the future 
aidv (1 Cor. ii. 9). That is also the proleptic édé6€ace in vili. 830, which how- 
ever would be foreign to the present connection. 

Ver. 24. Arxaobuevar] [See Note XXXIII. p. 149.] does not stand for the 
finite tense (as even Riickert and Reiche, following Erasmus, Calvin and 
Melanchthon, think) ; nor is, with Ewald, ver. 23 to be treated as a paren- 
thesis, so that the discourse from the accusative in ver. 22 should now’ 
resolve itself more frecly into the nominative, which would be unnecessarily 
harsh. But the participle introduces the accompanying relation, which here 
comes into view with the tiorepovvra: rie déEn¢ Tr. Oeov, namely, that of the 
mode of their dixaiworg : 80 that, in that state of destitution, they receive justi- 
Jication in the way of gift. Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘repente sic panditur 
scena amoenior.” The participle is not even to be resolved into xai dixaoiv- 
tat (Peshito, Luther, Fritzsche), but the relation of becoming justified is 
to be left in the dependence on the want of the éé&a Oeov, in which it is con- 
ceived and expressed.?— dupedv] gratuitously (comp. v. 17, and on the 
adverb in this sense Polyb. xviii. 17, 7; 1 Macc. x. 33; Matt. x. 8; 2 Thess. 
lil, 8 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7) they are placed in the relation of righteousness, so that 


1 Similarly already Melanchthon: “ gloria 
Dei, i.e. duce Dei fulgente in natura incor- 
rupta, seu ipso Deo carent, ostendente se et 
acoendente ardentem dilectionem et alios 
motus legi congruentes sine ullo peccato.” 
Previously (1540) he had explained : ‘‘ gloria, 


quam Deus approbat.” 

2 Against the Osiandrian misinterpreta- 
tions in their old and new forms see Me- 
lanchthon, Znarr. on ver. 21; Kahnis, Dogm. 
I. p. 599 ff.; and also Philippi, Glaudensiehre, 
IV. 2, p. 247 ff. 


CHAP. III., 25. 133 


this is not anyhow the result of their own performance ; comp. Eph. ii. 8 ; 
Tit. ill. 5. — rg avrov yép. dia tio aroA. THe év X. I.) in virtue of His grace 
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. This redemption is that which 
Sorms the medium of the justification of man taking place gratuitously 
through the grace of God. By the position of the words rg airotv yépite, 
the divine grace, is, in harmony with the notion of dwpedv, emphasized pre- 
cisely as the divine, opposed to all human co-operation ; comp. Eph. ii. 8. 
In azodirpwore ' the special idea of ransoming (comp. on Eph. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. vi. 
20 ; Gal. ili. 13) is not to be changed into the general one of the Messianic 
liberation (viii. 23 ; Luke xxi. 28 ; Eph. i. 14, iv. 30; and see Ritschl in 
the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1863, p. 512) ; for the Airpoy or avridurpov (Matt. xx. 
28 ; 1 Tim. i. 6) which Christ rendered, to procure for all believers remis- 
sion of guilt and the dixa:ooivy Oeov, was His blood, which was the atoning 
sacrificial blood, and so as equivalent accomplished the forgiveness of sins, 
i.e. the essence of the aroAtrpwos. See ver. 25; Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14; 
Heb. ix. 15 ; comp. on Matt. xx. 28 ; 1 Cor. vi. 20 ; Gal. ili. 13; 2 Cor. 
v. 21. Liberation from the sin-principle (from its dominion) is not the 
essence of the azoAtrpwore itself,? but its consequence through the Spirit, if it 
is appropriated in faith (viii. 2). Every mode of conception, which refers 
redemption and the forgiveness of sins not to a real atonement through the 
death of Christ, but subjectively to the dying and reviving with Him guar- 
anteed and produced by that death (Schleiermacher, Nitzsch, Hofmann, 
and others, with various modifications), is opposed to the N. T.—a mixing 
up of justification and sanctification.* — év X. ’Inooi] i.e. contained and rest- 
ing in Him, in His person that has appeared as the Messiah (hence the 
Xpeoro is placed first), To what extent, is shown in ver. 25.—Observe 
further that justification, the causa efficiens of which is the divine grace (ry 
aivov yapi7:), is here represented as obtained by means of the aroAbrpwoic, 
but in ver. 22 as obtained by means of faith, namely, in the one case object- 
icely and in the other subjectively (comp. ver. 25). But even in ver. 22 the 
objective element was indicated in rior. ’"Incov Xpcorod, and in ver. 24 f. 
both elements are more particularly explained. 

Ver. 25.'— dv rpoéSero «.7.A.] whom God has openly set forth for Himself.* 
This signification, familiar from the Greek usage,® is decidedly to be 
adopted on account of the correlation with ei¢ évdecgcv x.7.4. (Vulgate, Pela- 
gius, Luther, Beza, Bengel and others ; also Riickert, de Wette, Philippi, 


1 Comp. Plat. Pomp. 24, Dem. 159, 15. 


up to view as iAacrypiov. In Greek authors 


2 Lipsins, Rechf{fertigungal. p. 147 f. 

3 Comp. on ver. 26; also Ernesti, Hthik d. 
Ap. P. p. 27 f. 

« See on ver. Hf. Ritachl,in the Jahrd. f. 
Deuteche Theol. 1863, p. 500 ff.; Pfleiderer in 
Hiigenfeld’s Zeilechr. 1872, p. 177 ff.; the 
critical comparison of the various explana- 
tions in Morison, p. 268 ff. 

® Which has been done by the crucifizion. 
Compare the discourse of Jesus where 
He compares Himself with the serpent of 
Moses, John iil. Christ has been thus hed 


the word spotiderda is specially often used 


to express the exhibition of dead bodies 
(Kriiger on Thuc. ii. 84, 1; Stallbaum, ad 
Plat. Phaed. p. 115 E.). Weare not to sup- 
pose however that éAis usage influenced 
the Apostle in his choice of the word, since 
he had Christ before his eyes, not as a dead 
body, but as shedding His blood and dying. 

® Herod. ill. 148, vi. 21; Plat. Phaed. p. 115 
E; Eur. Alc. 667; Thuc. ii. 34. 1, 64, 3; Dem. 
1071, 1; Herodian, viil. 6, 5; also in the 
LXX. 


134 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

Tholuck, Hofmann and Morison) ; and not the equally classic signification : 
to propose to oneself, adopted by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Toletus, Pareus, de Dieu, Elsner, Heumann, Bédhme, Flatt and Fritzsche 
(i. 138; Eph. i. 9 ; 8 Macc. ii. 27): ‘‘ quem esse voluit Deus piaculare sacri- 
ficium,” Fritzsche.’ In that case an infinitive must have been required ; 
and it was with the publicity of the divine act before the whole world that 
the Apostle was here concerned, as he has already indicated by mrr¢avépwra: 
in ver. 21. Matthias explains it : whom He caused fo be openly made known, 
to be preached. But the classical use of rpori9nus, in the active and middle, 
in the sense of promulgare is here foreign, since it refers to the summoning 
or proclamation of assemblies * or to the promulgation of laws. Besides the 
évderéig THE duxacoobyn¢e Of God rests, in fact, not on the preaching of the atoner, 
but on the work of atonement itself, which God accomplished by the =xpoé- 
Yero x.t.A. — God's own participation therein (for it was His V.acrgpiov, willed 
and instituted by Himself) which is expressed by the middle, is placed be- 
yond question by the ei¢ fvdecEv «.7.4., and decisively excludes Hofmann’s 
conception of the death of Christ as a befalling. Compare on ver. 26. — 
tAaorfprov} is the neuter of the adjective iAaorfpioc, used as a substantive, and 
hence means simply erpiatorium in general, without the word itself convey- 
ing the more concrete definition of its sense. The latter is supplied by the 
context. Thus, for example, in the LXX. (in the older profane Greek the 
word does not occur) the lid of the ark of the covenant, the Kapporeth, as 
the propitiatorium operculum, is called ré iAaorgpiov (see below), which des- 
ignation has become technical, and in Ex. xxv. 17 and xxxvii. 6 receives 
its more precise definition by the addition of ézideua. They also designate 
the ledge (choir) of the altar for burnt offerings, the ‘WY, (Ez. xliii. 15, 17, 
20) in the same way, because this place also was, through the blood of rec- 
onciliation with which it was sprinkled, and generally as an altar-place, 
a place of atonement. When they render “ADD in Amos ix. 1 (knod) by iAao- 
thp.ov, it is probable that they read NBD. See generally Schleusner, Thea. 
III. p. 108 f. The word in the sense of offerings of atonement does not oc- 
cur in the LXX., though it is so used by other writers, so that it may be 
more specially defined by iepév or Yiva.? Even in our passage the context 
makes the notion of an atoning sacrifice (comp. Lev. xvii. 11) sufficiently 
clear by év r. avrov aivat: ; compare Pfleiderer l.c. p. 180. The interpreta- 


1 Ewald has in the translation predestined, 
but in the explanation exhidifed. Van Hen- 
gel declares for the latter. 

* Soph. Ant. 160, and Hermann tn loc.; 
Lucian, Necyom. 19, and Hemsterhuis in doc. ; 
Dion. Hal. vi. 15 al., see Schoem. Comit. p. 
104; Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 266 f. 

§ Thus in Dio Chrys. Orat. xi. 1, p. 355 
Reiske : itAagrijprov “Axatot rp "Adnrg TH 'TAcabe, 
where a votive gift bears this inscription, 
and jis thereby indicated as an offering of 
atonement, as indeed votive gifts generally 
fall under the wider idea of offerings 
(Ewald, Allerth. p. 96; Hermann, gottesd. 


Alterth. § 25, 1); again in Nonnus, Dionys. 
xifl. p. 888: iAcorjpra (the true reading in- 
stead of ixacrjpta) Topyots. 4 Macc. xvii. 
22: Sta tov aiparos tay evoeBawy exeivery Kai TOU 
iAacrnpiov rou [The article 1s, critically, un- 
certain; but at all events the blood is con- 
ceived as atoning sacrifice-blood; comp. 
ver. 19.] davarouv avrey. Hesych.: iAacrapior: 
cadapovov. Comp. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 487, 
where Awdyia iepd is explained by ef:Aac- 
thpva; also the corresponding expressions 
for sacrifices, cwrypiov (Xen. Anabd. ili. 2,9; 
v.1,1; LXX. Ex. xx. 24); «addpocov (Herod. 
1. 85; Aeschin. p. 4, 10) ; ca¥apriprov (Poll. 1. 


CHAP, III., 25. 135 
tion earpiatory sacrifice is adopted by Chrysostom (who at least represents 
the acrfp. of Christ as the antitype of the atimal offerings), Clericus, Bos, 
Elsner, Kypke, and others, including Koppe, Flatt, Klee, Reiche, de Wette, 
KOliner, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Messner and Ewald ; Weiss (bil. Theol. p. 
324) is in doubt between this and the following explanation.’ Others, as 
Morus, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Usteri and Gléckler, keep with the Vulgate 
( propitiationem) and Castalio (placamentum), to the general rendering : means 
of propitiation. So also Hofmann (comp. Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 388 f.), com- 
paring specially 1 John iv. 10, and owrfpov in Luke ii. 30; and Rich. 
Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 84 ff. But this, after the rpofSero which points 
to a definite public appearance, is an abstract idea inappropriate to it (as 
‘* propitiation”), especially seeing that év . . . . aivate belongs to mpoédero, 
and seeing that the view of the death of Jesus as the concrete propitiatory 
offering was deeply impressed on and vividly present to the Christian con- 
sciousness (Eph. v. 2; 1 Cor. v. 7; Heb. ix. 14, 28; 1 Pet. i. 19; Johni. 
29, xvii. 19 a/.). Origen, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Piscator, 
Pareus, Hammond, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others,” have 
rendered iAacrfprov in quite a special sense, namely, as referring to the can- 
opy-shaped cover suspended over the ark of the covenant (see Ewald, Alterth. 
p. 164 ff.), on which, as the seat of Jehovah’s throne, the blood of the sac- 
rifice was sprinkled by the high priest on the great day of atonement (Ex. 
xxv. 22 ; Num. vii. 89; Lev. xvi. 18 ff. ;? and which therefore, regarded as 
the vehicle of the divine grace,‘ typified Christ as the atoner.® That the 
Kapporecth was termed JAacrjpiov is not only certain from the LXX.° (Ex. 
xxv. 18, 19, 20, xxxi. 7 al.), but also from Heb. ix. 5, and Philo (o2t. Mos. 
p. 668, Dand £ ; de profug. p. 465 A), who expressly represents the covering 
of the ark as a symbol of the itew dvvduews of God. Compare also Joseph. 


8): xapcorypeow (Xen. Cyr. iv. 1,2; Polyb. 
xxi. 1, 2); evyaptornpiow (Polyb. v. 14, 8). 
Compare also such expressions a8 éemyvyixa 
Over; and see generally Schaefer, ad Bos. 
Fl. p. 191 ff. 

} Estius also explains riclimam . .. propi- 
tiatoriam, but yet takes iAacrt, as masculine. 
It was already taken as masculine (propitia- 
tor) in the Syriac (compare the reading 
propitiatorem in the Vulgate) by Thomas 
Aquinas and others: also Erasmus (in his 
transtation), Melanchthon and Vatablus ; 
more recently also by Vater, Schrader, 
Reithmayr and van Hengel. But to this it 
may be objected that there is no example 
of iAaorypios used with reference to persone. 
This remark also applies against Mehring, 
who interprets powerful for atonement. 
Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 584, and similarly Man- 
gold properly retain the rendering. expia- 
tory offering ; and even Morison recognizes 
the sacrificial conception of the “ propitia- 
tory,” although like Mehring he abides in 
substance by the idea of the adjective. 

8 Also Olshausen, Tholuck (ed. 5), Philippi, 


Umbreilt, Jatho, Ritschl in the Jahrb. f- 
Deutsche Theol. 1868, p. 247, and altkathol. 
Kirche, p. 8; Weber, vom Zorne Gottes, p. 
278 ; Delitzsch on Hebd. p. 719, and in the il- 
lustrations to his Hebrew translation, p. 79; 
Marcker, and others. 

3 Keil, Arch. I. § 84, and generally Lund, 
Jid. Heiligth. ed. Wolf, p. 87 ff. 

4See Bahr, Symbolik, I. p. 887 ff ; Hengs- 
tenberg, Authent. des Pentateuches, Il. p. 
642; Schulz, alttest. Theol. I. p. 208. 

8 So also Funke, in the Stud. u. Arit. 1842, 
p. 814 f. The old writers, and before them 
the Fathers, have in some instances very 
far-fetched points of comparison. Calo- 
vius, ¢.g., specifies five: (1) quoad causam 
efficientem ; (2) quoad materiam (gold and 
not perishable wood—divine and human 
nature); (8) quoad numerum (only one); 
(4) quoad objectum (all); (5) quoad usum 
et finem. 

¢ The LXX. derived the word Kapporeth, 
in view of the idea which it represented, 
from 5, condonarif. Comp. also the Vul- 
gate (‘‘ expiatorium"’). 


136 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Antt. iii. 6, 5. There is consequently nothing to be urged against this expla- 
nation, either as respects the wsus loguendi or as respects the idea, in accord- 
ance with which Christ, the bearer of the divine glory and grace, sprinkled 
with His own sacrificial blood, would be regarded as the antitype of the 
Kapporeth. But we may urge against it : (1) that rd lAacrfp. does not stand 
with the article, as in the Sept. and Heb. ix. 5, although Christ was to be des- 
ignated as the realized idea of the definite and in fact singly existing D5 
(rd GAnSivdv lAaorfpiov, Theodoret) ; (2) that even though the term iMacrfpiov, 
as applied to the cover of the ark, was certainly familiar to the readers from 
its use by the LXX., nevertheless this name, in its application to Christ, 
would come in here quite abruptly, without anything in the context prepar- 
ing the way for it or leading to it ; (3) that rpoéero would in that case be 
inappropriate, because the ark of the covenant, in the Holy of Holies, was 
removed from the view of the people ; (4) that, if Christ were really thought 
of here as NW, the following ei¢ évdecE tHe dexatoabyng avrov would be 
inappropriate, since the 1.95 must have appeared rather as the évdecfcc of 
the divine grace (comp. Heb. iv. 16) ; (5) and lastly, that the conception of 
Christ as the antitype of the cover of the ark is found nowhere else in the 
whole N. T., although there was frequent opportunity for such expression ; 
and it is therefore to be assumed that it did not belong to the apostolic modes 
of viewing and describing the atoning work of Christ. Moreover, if it is ob- 
jected that this interpretation is unsuitable, because Christ, who shed His own 
blood, could not be the cover of the ark sprinkled with foreign blood, it ison 
the other hand to be remembered that the Crucified One sprinkled with His 
own blood might be regarded as the cover of the ark with the same propri- 
ety as Christ offering His own blood is regarded in the Epistle to the He- 
brews as High Priest. If, on the other side, it is objected to the interpre- 
tation expiatory offering (sec Philippi), that it does not suit zpoéde_ero because 
Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice to God, but God did not present Him 
, a8 such to humanity, the objection is untenable, since the idea that God 
has given Christ to death pervades the whole N. T.—not that God has there- 
by offered Christ as a sacrifice, which is nowhere asserted, but that He has 
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. An 
exhibition through preaching (as Philippi objects) is not to be thought of, 
but rather the divine act of redemption which took place through the sacri- 
ficial death on Golgotha. — é:a r7¢ riorews] may be connected either with 
mpoéSero (Philippi, following older writers) or with iacrfpiov (Riickert, 
Matthias, Ewald, Hofmann, Morison, and older expositors). The latter is 
the right construction, since faith, as laying hold of the propitiation, is the 
very thing by which the iaorfpiov set forth becomes subjectively effective ; 
but not that whereby the setting forth itself, which was an objective fact 
independent of faith, has been accomplished.’ Hence: asa sacrifice pro- 


1 Even had no one believed on the Cruci- view of the divine sxpcyrwors could not 
fied One—a contingency indeed, which in really occur—He would still have been set 


CHAP. III., 25. 137 
ducing the iAdoxeoSa through faith. Without faith the iAaoripcov would not 
be actually and in result, what it is in itself ; for it does not reconcile the 
unbeliever. —év 1@ avrot aiuat:] belongs to mpoéVero x.t.2. God has set 
forth Christ as an effectual expiatory offering through faith by means of His 
Wood ; 4.e. in that He caused Him to shed His blood, in which lay objectively 
the strength of the atonement.’ Observe the position of avrov : “‘ quem 
proposuit ipsius sanguine.” Kriiger, § 47, 9, 12. Comp. xi. 11 ; Tit. iii. 
5; 1 Thess. ii. 19 ; Heb. ii. 4al. Comp. ver. 24. Still év r. abr. atu. is not 
to be joined with iMaorfpiov in such a way as to make it the parallel of 
dia tr. wior. (Wolf, Schrader, Kéllner, Reithmayr, Matthias, Mehring, Hof- 
mann, Mangold, and others) ; for ei¢ évdecEcv x.7.2. requires that év r. avr. alu. 
shall be the element defining more closely the divine act of the mpotSero x.t.A., 
by which the divine righteousness is apparent ; wherefore also év. r. air aip. 
is placed immediately before ei¢ évdecEv x.7.A.. and not before lacrfpiov 
(against Hofmann’s objection). Other writers again erroneously make éy 

. aizat: dependent on ricrewe (Luther, Calvin, Beza, 8eb. Schmid, and 
others ; also Koppe, Klee, Flatt, Olshausen, Tholuck, Winzer, and Morison), 
joining d:@ r. rior. likewise to lAaoripiov : through faith on His blood. In that 
case ¢v would not be equivalent to eic, but would indicate the basis of faith 
(see on Gal. iil. 26) ; nor can the absence of the article after rior. be urged 
against this rendering (sce on Gal. /.c.) : but the év r@ air. aiz. becomes in 
this connection much too subordinate a point. Just by means of the shedding 
of His blood was the setting forth of Christ for a propitiatory offering accom- 
plished ; in order that through this utmost, highest, and holiest sacrifice of- 
fered for the satisfaction of the-divine justice—through the blood of Christ— 
that justice might be brought to light and demonstrated. From this connec- 
tion also we may easily understand why év r@ air. aiz., which moreover, fol- 
lowing Uacrfprov, was a matter of course, is added at all ; though in itself un- 
necessary and self-evident, it is added with all the more weight, and in fact 
with solemn emphasis. For just in the blood of Christ, which God has not | 
spared, lies the proof of His righteousness, which He has exhibited through 
the setting forth of Christ as an expiatory sacrifice ; that shed blood has at 
once satisfied His justice, and demonstrated it before the whole world. 
On the atoning, actually sin-effacing power of the blood of Christ, according 
to the fundamental idea of Lev. xvii. 11 (compare Heb. ix. 22), see v. 9 ; 
Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Acts xx. 28; Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14; Rev. v. 9 al. ; 2 Cor. 
v. 14, 21; Gal. iii. 18 al. Comp. Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 270 ff., 584 f. 
Reiche considers that dia tie rior. should be coupled with dcxacotu., and 
ov... . bsaor. should be a parenthesis, whilst év r. air. aiu. is to be co- 


forth as a propitiatory offering, though this 
offering would not have subjectively ben- 
cfited any one. 

1This é re avrov atuan secures at all 
events to the Apostle’s utterance the con- 
ception of a sacrifice atoning, i.e. doing 
away the guilt, whichever of the existing 
explanations of the word iAagrijpioy we may 
adopt. This also applies against Rich. 


Schmidt /.c., according to whom (comp. 
Sabatier, p. 262 f.) the establishment of the 
iAagriproy consisted in God actually passing 
sentence on sin itself in the flesh of His 
Son, and wholly abolishing it as an object- 
{ve power exercising dominion over hu- 
manity—consequently in the destruction of 
the sin principle. Regarding vill. 8 see on 
that passage. 


138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

_ ordinated with the dia r. rior. But by this expedient the discourse is only 
rendered clumsy and overladen. — eic¢ évdeck. r. dix. avrov}] purpose of God in 
the mpoéSeto . . . . aivare. The dexaocivy is righteousness, as is required by 
the context (did tr. mdpeowy . . . . év TH avoyH T. Geov), not: truth (Ambro- 
siaster, Beza, Turretin, Hammond, Locke, Béhme), or goodness (Theodoret, 
Grotius, Semler, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Morus, Reiche, also Tittmann, 
Synon. p. 185)—significations which the word never bears. It does not 
even indicate the holiness (Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Klaiber, Neander, Gurlitt 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 975 ; Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 146 ff.) ; 
or the righteousness, including grace (Ritschl) ; or generally the Divine moral 
order of justice (Morison) ; or the self-eqguality of God in His bearing (Hof- 
mann) ; but in the strict sense the opposite of dd:xoc in ver. 5, the judicial 
(more precisely, the punitive) righteousness (comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde. 
I. p. 169 ff.), which had to find its holy satisfaction, but received that sat- 
isfaction in the propitiatory offering of Christ, and is thefeby practically 
demonstrated and exhibited. On adéeé, in the sense of practical proof, 
comp. 2 Cor. vili. 24, and on ei¢ Eph. ii. 7: iva évdeiEyrar. Following ver. 
26, Chrysostom and others, including Krehl and Baumgarten-Crusius, take 
it unsatisfactorily as justifying righteousness. Anselm, Luther, Elsner, 
Wolf, and others, also Usteri, Winzer, van Hengel, and Mangold, hold that 
it is, as in ver. 21, the righteousness, that God gives. On the other hand, 
see the immediately following eg . . . . dixascov. — dia tv mapeoty K.T.A.] On 
account of the passing by of sins that had previously taken place, i.e. because He 
had allowed the pre-Christian sins to go without punishment, whereby His 
righteousness had been lost sight of and obscured,’ and therefore came to 
need an évdecEig for men.? Thus the atonement accomplished in Christ be- 
came the ‘‘divine Theodicée for the past history of the world” (Tholuck), 
and, in view of this évdecéc¢, that mdpeorg ceases to be an enigma. — wépeaie, 
which occurs only here in the N. T.* ; erroneously explained by Chrysostom 
as equivalent to véxpworc, is distinguished from d¢eorg in so far as the omis- 
sion of punishment is conceived in rdpeoe as a letting pass (imepidév, Acts 
Xvi. 80 ; comp. xiv. 16), in d¢eoue (Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14) as a letting free. 
Since Paul, according to Acts l.c., regarded the non-punishment of pre- 
Christian sins as an ‘‘ overlooking” (comp. Wisd. xi. 23), we must consider 
the peculiar expression, dpeac, here as purposely chosen. Comp. rapiévaz, 
Ecclus. xxiil. 2. If he had written dgeorc, the idea would be, that God, 
instead of retaining those sins in their category of guilt (comp. John xx. 
23), had let them free, i.e. had forgiven them.‘ He has not forgiven 


1 Compare J. Miller, v. d. Siinde, 1. p. 852, 
ed, 5. 

3 The explanation that ‘‘ a here indicates 
that, whereby the &xacorvsy manifests it- 
self ** (Reiche ; so also Benecke, Koppe, and 
older expositors) is incorrect, just because 
Paul in all cases (even in vill. 11and Gal. fv. 
18) makes a sharp distinction between é&4 
with the accusative and with the genitive. 
This interpretation has arisen from the er- 


roneous conception of dtxarocvw (as good- 
ness or truth). 

3 See however Dionys. Hal. vil. 37 ; Phalar. 
Epist. 114; Xen. de praef. eg. 7,10; and 
Fritzsche tn loc. ; Loesner, p. 249. 

4In adeorcs the guilt and punishment are 
cancelled ; in wapeots both are tacitly or ex- 
pressly left undealt with, but in their case 
it may be said that ‘‘ omittance is not acquit- 
tance.’ For the idea of forgiveness ddears 








CHAP. III., 25. 139 


® 
them, however, but only let them go unpunished (comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 10), 
neglerit, The wrath of God, which nevertheless frequently burst forth 
(comp. i. 17 ff.) in the ages before Christ over Jews and Gentiles (for Paul, 
in his perfectly general expressions, has not merely the former in view), 
was not an adequate recompense counterbalancing the sin, and even in- 
creased it (i. 24 ff.) ; so that God’s attitude to the sin of the time before 
Christ, so long as it was not deleted either by an adequate punishment, or 
by atonement, appears on the whole.as a letting pass (comp. Acts xiv. 16) and 
overlooking. As the correlative of répeocc, there is afterwards appropriately 
named gvoy# (comp. ii. 4), not yépec, for the latter would correspond to 
dyer, Eph. i. 7. — The pre-Christian sins are not those of individuals prior 
to their conversion (Mehring and earlier expositors), but the sum of the 
sins of the world before Christ. The laorfpiov of Christ is the epoch and 
turning-point in the world’s history (comp. Acts xvii. 30, xiv. 16.) —é rg 
awyy tr. Seo] in virtue of the forbearance (tolerance, comp. ii. 4) of God,? 
contains the ground which is the motive of the rdpeoic. It is not to be at- 
tached to xpoyey. (Oecumenius, Luther, and many others ; also Rtickert, 
Gurlitt, Ewald, van Hengel, Ritschl, and Hofmann), which would yield the 
sense with or ‘‘ during the forbearance of God.” Against this view we may 
urge the very circumstance that the time when the sins referred to took 
place is already specified by zpoyeyovérwy, and expressed in a way simply 
and fully corresponding with the contrast of the viv xa:pé¢ that follows, as 
well as the special pertinent reason, that our mode of connecting év r. avoyg 
t. @. with did tr. wépeocy x.7.A. brings out more palpably the antithetical re- 
lation of this zrdépeccg to the divine dixaoofvy. Moreover, a8 avoyf is a moral 
attribute, the temporal conception of év is neither indicated nor appropriate. 
What is indicated and appropriate is simply the use, so common, of év in 
the sense of the ethical ground. Reiche connects év rj avoxg r. Gcod with 
tic évd. +. dex. avt., making it co-ordinate with the did... . duapr.: ‘‘the 
ducaocivg showed itself positively in the forgiveness of sins, negatively in 
the postponement of judgment.” Incorrect, on account of the erroneous 
explanation of 6:4 and dicaoo. thus necessitated.—Our whole interpretation 
of the passage from 6:4 r. répectv to Ocod is not at variance (as Usteri thinks) 
with Heb. ix. 15 ; for, if God has allowed pre-Christian sins to pass, and 
then has exhibited the atoning sacrifice of Christ in proof of His righteous- 
ness, the death of Christ must necessarily be the Aérpov for the transgres- 
sions committed under the old covenant, but passed over for the time being. 
But there is nothing in our passage to warrant the reference to the sins of 
the people of Jerael, as in Heb. J.c. (in opposition to Philippi). 





and a¢céva: alone form the standing mode 
of expression in the N. T. And beyond 
doubt (in opposition to the view of Luther 
and others, and recently Mangold) Paul 
would here have used this form, had he in- 
tended to convey that idea. The wdpeacs is 
intermediate between pardon and punish- 
ment,, Compare Ritschl in the Jahro. f. D. 
Th. , p. 501. 


1 Paul writes @eov, not again avrov, be- 
cause he utters the da riyyv wdpeow.... 
@eovd from his own standpoint, so that the 
subject is presented objectively. Comp. Xen. 
Anad.\. 9,15. But even apart from this the 
repetition of the noun instead of the pro- 
noun is of very frequent occurrence in all 
Greek authors, and also In the N. T. (Winer, 
p. 186 [E. T. 144)). 


140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Ver. 26. IIpd¢ riv évdec&v] Resumption of the ei¢ évdecEv in ver. 25, and 
that without the dé, ver. 22 (comp. on Luke i. 71); while ci¢ is exchanged 
for the equivalent rpéc¢ unintentionally, as Paul in ver. 30, and also frequent- 
ly elsewhere (comp. on Eph. i. 7 and Gal. ii. 16) changes the prepositions.’ 
The article, however (see the critical notes), serves to set forth the definite, 
historically gicen vdecéi¢, Which is in accord with the progress of the repre- 
sentation ; for Paul desires to add now with corresponding emphasis the 
historical element év + viv xa:p@ not previously mentioned. The resumption 
is in itself so obvious, and also in such entire harmony with the emphasis 
laid upon the évderéi¢ tig Sixacootvyc avrov as the chief point, that for this very 
reason the interpretation of Riickert and Gurlitt (comp. Beza), which joins 
apog THv evdecév x.t.A. With did tr. maépeowy . . . . Oeov, and takes it as the 
aim of the rdpeorg or the avoyf# (Baumgarten-Crusius ; comp. Hofmann and 
Th. Schott), at once falls to the ground. Mcehring, rendering zpé¢ in ref- 
erence to or in view of, understands the dixacoobvy in ver. 26 to mean imputed 
righteousness, and finds the évdecéc¢ of the latter, ver. 26, in the resurrection 
of Jesus ; but a decisive objection to his view is that Paul throughout gives 
no hint whatever that his exprcssions in ver. 26 are to be taken in any other 
sense than in ver. 25 ; and a reference to the resurrection in particular is 
here quite out of place ; the passage goes not beyond the atoning death of 
Christ. — ei¢ rd elvac x.r.A. cannot stand in an epexegetical relation to the 
previous cic évdecErv x.7.A. because that évdecér¢ has in fact already been doubly 
expressed, but now the further element xai dixacovvyra x.7.A. is added, which 
first brings into full view the teleology of the iacripiv. ei¢ rd elvac x.7.A. is 
therefore the definition presenting the final aim of the whole affirmation 
from év rpofSero to xaipp. It is its keystone : that He may be just and justi- 
Jying the believers, which is to be taken as the intended result (comp. on ver. 
4): in order that, through the MAcaorfpiov of Christ, arranged in this way and 
for this évdergic, He may manifest Himself as One who is Himself righteous, 
and who makes the believer righteous (comp. iAacr#p. did Tr. ziotews, Ver. 25). 
He desires to be both, the one not without the other. The elvac however is 
the being in the appearance corresponding to it. The ‘‘ estimation of the 
moral public” (Morison) only ensues as the consequence of this. Regarding 
Tov &xk wior. COMp. On oi é£ épiVeiacg, 11. 8. The avréy however has not the 
force of zpse or even alone (Luther), secing it is the subject of the two predi- 
cations dixaov x. dixatovvta ; but it is the simple pronoun of the third person. 
Were we to render with Matthias and Mehring * xai d:xacotvra : even when He 
justifies, the xaf would be very superfluous and weakening ; Paul would have 
said dixacov dixacotvra, or would have perhaps expressed himself pointedly by 
dixaov x. Stxaovvta adixove év mistrews I. Observe further that the justus et jus- 
tificans, in which lies the summum paradozon evangelicum as opposed to the 
O. T. justus et condemnans (according to Bengel), finds its solution and its 
harmony with the O. T. in rdv éx micrews (see chap. iv., i. 17). The Roman 
Catholic explanation of inherent righteousness (see especially Reithmayr) is 
here the more inept. It is also to be remarked that according to vv. 24-26 


2 Comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 475 f. 2 They are joined by Ernesti, Hthik d. Ap. P. p. 82. 





CHAP. III., 27. 141 
grace was the determining ground in God, that prompted Him to permit the 
atonement. He purposed thereby indeed the revelation of His righteousness ; 
but to the carrying out of that revelation just thus, and not otherwise, 
namely, through the iaorgpiov of Christ, He was moved by His own yépuc. 
Moreover the évdecéi¢ of the divine righteousness which took place through the 
atoning death of Christ necessarily presupposes the satisfactio vicaria of the 
asripay, Hofmann’s doctrine of atonement (compensation) * does not per- 
mit the simple and—on the basis of the O. T. conception of atoning sacrifice 
—historically definite ideas of vv. 25, 26, as well as the unbiassed and clear 
representation of the aroAtrpworc in ver. 24 (comp. the Atrpov dvri, Matt. 
XX. 28, and avriAvrpov, 1 Tim. ii. 6) to subsist alone with it. On the other 
handf these ideas and conceptions 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 
tvading and explaining away the N. T. type of doctrine, with which the 
point of view of a ‘‘befalling,” the category in which Hofmann invariably 
Places the death of Jesus, is especially at variance. And Faith in the aton- 
ing death has not justification merely ‘‘in its train” (Hofmann in loc.), but 
justification takes place subjectively through faith (vv. 22, 25), and indeed in 
sich a way that the latter is reckoned for righteousness, iv. 5, consequently 
immediately (¢£aigvnc, Chrysostom). 

Ver. 27. Paul now infers (otv) from vv. 21-26—in lively interchange of 
question and answer, like a victor who has kept the field—that Jewish 
boasting (not human boasting generally, Fritzsche, Krehl, Th. Schott) is 
excluded.* [See Note XXXIV. p. 149.] The article indicates that which 


1“Tn consequence of man's having allowed 
himself to be induced through the working 
of Satan to sin, which made him the object 
of divine wrath, the Triune God, in order 
that He might perfect the relation consti- 
tuted by the act of creation between Him- 
eifand humanity into a complete fellow- 
thip of love, has had recourse to the most 
extreme antithesis of Father and Son, which 
was possible without self-negation on the 
part of God, namely, the antithesis of the 
Father angry at humanity on account of 
ao, and of the Son belonging in sinlessness 
to that humanity, but approving Himself 
under all the consequences of its sin even 
wto the transgressor’s death that befell 
Him through Satan's agency ; so that, after 
Satan had done on Him the utmost which he 
was able to do to the sinless One in conse- 
quence of sin, without obtaining any other 
result than His final standing the test, the 
relation of the Father to the Son was now 
a relation of God to the humanity begin 
ning anew in the Son—a relation no longer 
determined by the sin of the race spring- 
ing from Adam, but by the righteousness 
of the Son." Hofmann in the 27. Zeitachr. 
1%, p. 179 f. Subsequently (see espec. 


Schrifié. Tl. 1, p. 186 ff.) Hofmann has sub- 
stantially adhered to his position. See the 
literature of the entire controversy car- 
ried on against him, especially by Philipp!l, 
Thomasius, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Schneider, 
Weber, given by the latter, vom Zorne 
Gottes, p. xlili. ff. ; Welzsiicker in the Jahrb. 
J. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 154 ff. It is not to 
the ecclesiastical doctrine, but to Schleier- 
macher’s, and partially also Mencken’s sub- 
jective representation of it, that Hofmann's 
theory, although in another form, stands 
most nearly related. Comp. on ver. &: 
and for a more detailed account Ritschl, 
Rechtfertigung und Versdhnung, 1870, I. p. 
569 ff., along with his counter-remarks 
against Hofmann at p. 575 ff. As to keeping 
the Scriptural notion of imputed right- 
eousness clear of all admixture with the 
moral change of the justified, see also Kést- 
lin in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 
105 ff., 118 ff., Geass, in the same, 1857, p. 679 
ff., 1858, p. 718 ff., 1859, p. 467 ff. ; compared 
however with the observations of Philippi 
in his Glaubenslehre, iv. 2, p. 287 ff., 2nd edi- 
tion. 

2 Hofmann’s misconception of ver. 9 still 
affects him, so as to make him think here 


' 


142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


is known, and has been before mentioned (ii. 17 ff.), looking back to vv. 9 
and 1.— ov] As it were, seeking that which has vanished from the sphere 
of vision, Luke vili. 25 ; 1 Cor. i. 20, xv. 55; 1 Pet. iv. 18; 2 Pet. iii. 4; 
also frequently used thus by classic writers. — The xabyyotc is not the object 
of boasting (Reiche), which would be xatynua, but the vaunting itself, which 
is presented with vivid clearness as that which no longer exists. — éfexAeio- 
_ 9n] ob« Ere zopav Exer, Theodoret. — did roiov vduov ;] scil. éexretodn, not 
dtxacobueda, which Mehring, following Michaelis, wholly without logical 
ground wishes to be supplied. The exclusion, namely, must necessarily 
have ensued through a law no longer allowing the xatynoig ; but through 
what sort of a law ? of what nature is it? Is it one that demands works? 
No, but a law of faith. In these attributes lies the rocérn¢g of the law, which 
is the subject of inquiry. This cannot have the quality of the Mosaic law, 
which insists upon works, but thereby fosters and promotes the parade of 
work-rightcousness (1i. 17) ; it must, on the contrary, be a law that requires 
Jaith, as is done by the Christian plan of salvation, which prescribes the 
renunciation of all merit through works, and requires us to.trust solely in 
the grace of God in Christ. The Christian plan of salvation might be in- 
cluded under the conception of a véuoc, because the will of God is given in 
it by means of the Gospel (comp. 1 John iii. 23), just as in the O. T. revela- 
tion by means of the Mosaic law. And the expression was necessary in the 
connection, because the question d:4 rofov véuov ; required both the old and 
new forms of the religious life to be brought under the one conception of 
véuoc. Therefore the literal sense of véuo¢ remains unchanged, and it is 
neither doctrine (Melanchthon and many others) nor religious economy. 
Comp. ix. 31. 

Ver. 28 gives the ground of the oiyi x.7.4. — AoyiCépeda] obx eri augeBoriag 
Atyerac (Theodore of Mopsuestia) : censemus, we deem, as in ii. 3, viii. 18 ; 
2 Cor. xi. 5. The matter is set down as something that has now been 
brought between Paul and his readers to a common ultimate judgment, 
whereby the victorious tone of ver. 27 is not damped (as Hofmann objects), 
but is on the contrary confidently sealed. —xiorec] On this, and not on 
dtxaovoSa: (Th. Schott, Hofmann), lies the emphasis in accordance with the 
entire connection ; ywpi¢ épy. véuov is correlative. Paul has conceived 2oy. 
y. ux. together, and then placed first the word which has the stress ; compare 
the critical observations, The dative denotes the procuring cause or medi- 
um, just like dia wiorews. Bernhardy, p. 101 f. The word ‘‘alone,” added 
by Luther—formerly an apple of discord between Catholics and Lutherans 
(see the literature in Wolf)—did not belong to the translation as such,' but 
is in explanation justified by the context, which in the way of dilemma ‘‘cuts 
off all works utterly” (Luther), and by the connection of the Pauline doc- 
trinal system generally, which excludes also the fides formata.* All fruit 
of faith follows justification by faith ; and there are no degrees in justifica- 


of Christian cavxnots. Comp., forthe right ‘only through faith.” 

view, especially Chrysostom. 2 See Form. Conc. p. 385 f., 691. Comp. on 
1 Luther has not added itin Gal. ff. 16, Gal. ff. 16, Osiander in the Jahrd. f. Deuteche 

where the Nirnberg Bible of 1488 reads Theol. 1863, p. 708 f.; Morison in loc, 





CHAP. III., 29, 30. 143 


tion.’— yupic épy. vduov] Without the co-operation therein of works of the 
law (ver. 20), which, on the contrary, remain apart from all connection with 
it. Comp, ver. 21. — On the quite general 4v9pwrov, 2 man, comp. Chrysos- 
tom : 7% oxounévg Tae Ohpac avolEac rir ouwrnpiac, ¢noiv, dv3purrov, Td Korvdv THE 
Goce bvoua Selo. See afterwards mepiroupy . . . . Kat dxpoBvor., ver. 80. 
Comp, Gal. ii. 16. 

Ver. 29. Or—in case what has just been asserted in ver. 28 might still be 
doubted—is it only Jews to whom God belongs ? and not also Gentiles? He 
must, indeed, have only been a God for the Jews, if He had made justifica- 
tion conditional on works of the law, for in that case it could only be 
destined for J ews,” insomuch as they only are the possessors of the law. 
Consequently vv. 29, 80 contain a further closing thought, crowning the 
undoubted accuracy of the confidently expressed Aoy:Zéueda x.7.A. in ver. 28. 
The supplying of a predicative Oed¢ (Hofmann, Morison, and earlier expos- 
tors) is superfluous, since the prevailing usage of elvai rivoc is amply suf- 
ficient to make it intelligible, and it is quite as clear from the context that 
the relationship which is meant is that of being God to the persons in 
question. Hdw much the va? xai é9vev, said without any limitation whatever 
~—in their case, as with 'Iovdaiwy, God is conceived as protecting them, and 
guiding to salvation—run counter to the degenerate theocratic exclusive- 
hess? But Paul speaks in the certain assurance, which had been already 
given by the prophetic announcement of Messianic bliss for the Gentiles, 
but which he himself had received by revelation (Gal. i. 16), and which the 
Roman church, a Pauline church, itself regarded as beyond doubt. 

Ver. 80 is to be divided from the previous one merely by acomma. Re- 
gurding éxeirep, whereas (in the N. T. only here) introducing something 
undoubted, see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 786 ; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 842 

£; Baeumlein, p. 204.—The unity of God implies that He is God, not merely 
of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles ; for Otherwise another special Deity 
must rule over the Gentiles, which would do away with monotheism. — d¢ 
buaice| who shall (therefore) justify. This exposition contains that which 
necessarily follows from the unity of God, in so far as it conditions for both 
parties one mode of justification (which however must be yupic épywy, ver. 
28). For Jews as well as for Gentiles He must have destined the way of 
righteousness by faith as the way of salvation. The future is neither put 
for daxazot (Grotius, and many others), nor to be referred with Beza and 
Fritzsche to the time of the final judgment, nor to be taken as the future of 
inference (Rickert, Mehring, Hofmann), but is to be understood as in ver. 
2) of every case of justification to be accomplished. Erasmus rightly says, 
“Respexit enim ad eos, qui adhuc essent in Judaismo seu paganismo.”— 
The exchange of é« and dia is to be viewed as accidental, without real dif- 
ference, but also without the purpose of avoiding misconception (Mehring). 
Comp. Gal. ii. 16, iii. 8 ; Eph. ii. 8. Unsuitable, especially for the impor- 


1Comp. Riggenbach (against Romang)in they would cease to be Gentiles. 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 227 ff. 3See on Matt. ffi. 9, and in Eisenmen- 


‘Not for the Gentiles also, unless they  ger’s entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 587 f. 
beoome proselytes to Judaism, whereby 


144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

tant closing thought, is the view of Calvin, followed by Jatho, that there 
is an irony in the difference : ‘‘Si quis vult habere differentiam gentilis a 
Judaeo, hanc habeat, quod ille per fidem, hic vero ez fide justitiam con- 
sequitur.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, Wetstein, Bengel, Hofmann, and 
others explain it by various other gratuitous suggestions ;' van Hengel is 
doubtful—The interchange of riorews and rie rior. (from faith through the 
faith), in which the qualitatire expression advances to the concrete with the 
article, is also without special design, as similar accidental interchanges 
often occur in parallel clauses (Winer, p. 110 [E. T. 116]). 

Ver. 31—iv. 24. The harmony of the doctrine of justification by faith with 
the law, illustrated by what is said in the law regarding the justification of 
Abraham.—The new chapter should have begun with ver. 31, since that 
verse contains the theme of the following discussion. If we should, with 
Augustine, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon, Bengel, and many others, including 
Flatt, Tholuck, Kéllner, Riickert, Philippi, van Hengel, Umbreit, and Meh- 
ring, assume that at iv. 1 there is again introduced something new, so that 
Paul does not carry further the véuov icrduev, v. 31, but in iv. 1 ff. treats of 
a new objection that has occurred to him at the moment, we should then 
have the extraordinary phenomenon of Paul as it were dictatorially dismiss- 
ing an objection so extremely important and in fact so very naturally suggest- 
ing itself, as véuov obv xarapyovpev x.t.A., merely by an opposite assertion, 
and then immediately, like one who has not a clear case, leaping away to 
something else. The more paradoxical in fact after the foregoing, and 
especially after the apparently antinomistic concluding idea in ver. 30, the 
assertion vdéuov icréyuev must have sounded, the more difficult becomes the 
assumption that it is merely an anticipatory declaration abruptly interposed 
(see especially Philippi, who thinks it is enlarged on at viii. 1 ff.); and the 
less can ver. 20, dia y. véuov éxiyvwog duapr. be urged as analogous, since 
that proposition had really its justification there in what preceded. Accord- 
ing to Th. Schott, véuo¢ is not meant to apply to the Mosaic law at all, but 





1 Bengel : ‘‘ Judael pridem in fide fnerant; 
gentiles fidem ab illis recens nacti erant."’ 
Comp. Origen. Similarly Matthias: in the 
case of the circumcised faith appears as the 
ground, in that of the uncircumcised as the 
means of justification; ée« mwior. signifies: 
because they believe,d&a r. wior: {f they be- 
lieve. In the case of the circumcised faith 
is presupposed as covenant-faithfulness. 
Comp. also Bisping. According to Hof- 
mann, Paul is supposed to have said in tho 
case of the circumcised in consequence Of 
JSaith, because these wish to become right- 
eous in consequence of legal works ; but In 
the case of the uncircumcised by means of 
faith, because with the latter no other pos- 
sible way of becoming righteous was con- 
ceivable. In the former instance faith Is the 
preceding condition; in the latter the faith 
existing for the purpose of justification 
(therefore accompanied by the article) is 


the means, by which God, who works it, 
helps to righteousness. This amounts toa 
subjective invention of subtleties which 
are equally incapable of proof as of refuta- 
tion, but which are all the more groundless, 
seeing that Paul is fond of such inter- 
changes of prepositions in setting forth the 
same relation (comp. ver. 25 f., and on 2 Cor. 
iif. 11, and Eph. {. 7). How frequent are 
shnilar interchanges also in classic authors ! 
Moreover, in our passage the stress is by 
no means on the prepositions (Hofmann), 
but on weptropyy and axpofvoriay. And as 
to the variation of the prepositions, Augus- 
tine has properly observed (de Spir. et lit. 
29) that this interchange serves non ad 
aliguam differentiam, but ad varielatem locu- 
tionis. Comp. on é« wiotrews Scxarovy (hero 
said of Jewez) also of Gentiles, Gal. fil. 8; 
Rom. ix. 80, and generally !. 17. 


CHAP. III., 31. 145 


to the fact that, according to ver. 27, faith is a véuoc, in accordance with 
which therefore Paul, when making faith a condition of righteousness, as- 
cribes to himself not abrogation of the law, but rather an establishment of 
it, setting up merely what God Himself had appointed as the method of 
salvation. The discourse would thus certainly have a conclusion, but by a 
jugglery’ with a word (»éuoc) which no reader could, after ver. 28, under- 
stand in any other sense than as the Mosaic law. Hofmann explains sub- 
stantially in the same way as Schott. He thinks that Paul conceives to 
himself the objection that in the doctrine of faith there might be found a 
doing away generally of all laze, and now in opposition thereto declares that 
that doctrine does not exclude, but includes, the fact that there ds a divine 
order of human life (?). 

Ver. 31. (See Note XXXV. p. 150.) Otv] The Apostle infers for himself 
from his doctrine of justification é& micrewo .... yupi¢ Epywv vdéuov—just 
discussed—a possible objection and reproach : Do we then make away with 
the law (render it invalid) through faith ? — véuov] emphatically put first, and 
here also to be understood neither of the moral law, nor of every law in 
general, nor of the entire O. T., but, as is proved by the antithesis between 
réuog and xiorcg and the reference as bearing on ver. 28, of the Mosaic law. 
Comp. Acts xxi. 28, Gal. iv. 21 f. — dia rij¢ rior. ] i.e. thereby, that we assert 
JSaith as the condition of justification. — vdyzov lordpuev] Not : we let the law 
stand (Matthias), but : we make it stand, we produce the result that it, so 
far from being ready to fall, in reality stands upright (BeBarovpev, Theodoret) 
in its authority, force, and obligation. Comp. 1 Macc. xiv. 29, li. 27 ; Ec- 
cles. xliv. 20-22. This iordvev of the law, whercby there is secured to it sta- 
bility and authority instead of the xarapyeioda:, takes place by means of (see ch, 
iv.) the Pauline doctrine demonstrating and making good the fact that, and 
the mode in which, justification by the grace of God through faith is already 
taught in the law, so that Paul and his fellow teachers do not come into antag- 
onism with the law, as if they desired to abolish and invalidate it by a new 
teaching, but, on the contrary, by their agreement with it, and by proving 
their doctrine from it, secure and confirm it in its position and essential 
character.?— The vdéyuov icrduev, however, is so little at variance with the 
abrogation of the law as an institute of works obligatory in order to the becom- 
ing righteous, which has taken place through Christianity (x. 4; 2 Cor. iii. 
7; Gal. lil; Rom. vii. 4; Gal. ii. 19; Col. ii. 14), that, on the contrary, 
the law had to fall in this aspect, in order that, in another aspect, the same 
law, so far as it teaches faith as the condition of the d:xacootvy, might be by 
the gospel imperishably conjirmed in its authority, and even, according to 
Matth. v. 17, fulfilled. For in respect of this assertion of the value of faith 
the law and the gospel appear one. — If the véuov icrayev and its relation 
to the abrogation of the law be defined to mean that ‘‘ from faith proceeds 
the new obedience, and the love develops itself, which is the wAgpwpya vdpov, 
xiii. 10” (Philippi ; comp. Rickert, Krehl, Umbreit, Morison), as Augus-. 


1 This objection in no way affects the very soiov placed along with tf requires the 
question é&4 soiov vénov, ver. 27 (in opposi- general notion of rdpov. 
tion to Hofmann’s objection), where the 2 Comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 388. 


146 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tine, Melanchthon, who nevertheless mixes up with it very various elements, 
Luther, Calvin, Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, and others assumed (comp. also 
Apol. C. A. p. 88, 223), the further detailed illustration of ch. iv. is quite 
as much opposed to this view, as it is to the interpretations which conceive 
the law as pedagogically leading to Christ (Grotius, Olshausen), or as /wlfilled 
in respect of its object, which is justification by faith (Chrysostom, Oecume- 
nius, Theophylact, and others.") In the case of the two latter views, faith 
appears as something added to the law, which is just what Paul combats in 
ch. iv. On the form iorduer, from icréu, see Matthiae, p. 482, Winer, p. 75 
[E. T. 78]. Still the lorévouev, recommended by Griesbach and adopted by 
Lachmann and Tischendorf, has preponderant attestation (so also x* ; but 
x** has icrdpuev), which is here decisive (in opposition to Fritzsche), espe- 
cially when we take into account the multitude of other forms in MSS. (ora- 
vopev, toTapev, CvvioTamev, ouviordvopuer et al.). 


Nores sy AMERICAN Eprror. 


XXITI. Ver. 1. rod repicody. 


Td wrepioody is the superiority of the Jew over the Gentile, which was con- 
nected with the old covenant, and 7 dgéAeca the advantage which circumcision 
gave, as the sign of this superiority. To the Judaistic party of the Apostle’s 
day the position taken in ii, 25-29 would naturally seem to deny any superi- 
ority whatever ; and thus the objection was sure to arise, at this point, which 
the Apostle now proceeds to meet. He explains that the Jew stands at an ad- 
vantage in many points, which are summed up, indeed, in the possession of the 
O. T. Scriptures—and that this is the true meaning of that in which they 
gloried ; but that, in the matter of justification by works before God, they 
were on the same level with the Gentiles. All alike must fail ef such justi- 
fication, because all alike had sinned. 


XXIV. Ver. 2. rpdrov pev yap x.7.A, 


The explanation given by Meyer of the omission of other points which would 
naturally follow the first is undoubtedly correct—that the writer was led away 
from his original intention by the question of ver. 3. We may believe, how- 
ever, that he did not return to the plan of enumerating the other advantages, 
after concluding the line of thought in vv. 3-8, because he felt that the one 
mentioned really involved in itself all the rest. 


XXV. Ver. 2. rad Adyta rot Geos. 


The oracles of God, in the sense here intended, are the O. T. Scriptures, 
viewed as containing the covenant of God with its law and promises, and not 
merely the Messianic prophetic utterances, The argument for the latter 
reference, which is founded on a supposed necessity of giving to amoria and 


1°O yap Feeder 3 duos, rourdert 7d Sixaudoas Terevor duod ydp TE morevoa Tiva SicaovTas, 
evOpuwoy, ove toxvee 88 worhoas, rovTO HW wigmis Theophylact. 


NOTES, 147 


axcoreiy the sense of unbelief, is, as Weiss also intimates, unsound ; the contrary, 
being proved, as he says, by 2 Tim. ii. 13, The entire view of Meyer with 
regard to these words in this and the following verse is, as de Wette well re- 
marks, altogether opposed to the Apostle’s standpoint in these verses, which 
is outside of the Christian system, and to the connection with the preceding 
and following context, in which the transgressions of the law on the part of 
the Jews, and the judgment of God on purely legal principles, are under dis- 
cussion, 


XXVI. Ver. 3. ri yap et #xlomhody river ; 


The more probable view of this verse is, that the Apostle anticipates a 
question which might be pressed by an opponent in the discussion—namely, 
does not this statement, that the Jews have the O. T., involve the admis- 
sion of all that they claim (cf. ov, ii. 3), for, surely, the want of faithfulness to 
the covenant on the part of some will not destroy God’s fidelity to His promise. 
To this latter point (ver. 3) he replies by the emphatic x?) yévorro, which involves 
two elements—a negative answer to the question, and an utter rejection of the 
thought as abhorrent to right feeling. It is to the second of these two elements 
that ver. 4, with its Psalm-quotation, attaches itself. In a similar way, at ver. 
5, he again supposes a question suggesting itself from the other party: If, as 
is implied in ver. 4, God’s righteousness is even rendered conspicuous by their 
unrighteousness, does it not show injustice in God to inflict a penalty on those 
who thus contribute to His glory? To this question he replies with the same 
emphatic phrase, and attaches to the first of its two elements (see above), the 
following verses, which contain a confirmation of the negative. Such a posi- 
tion would do away with all Divine judgment, and would lead to the pernicious 
and untenable doctrine, that we may do evil that, good may come. 


SXVIL. Vv. 5, 6. 4) yévotto, —xard Gv6pwror. 


#) yévorro is used by Paul only in the Epistles of the same section and class 
to which this Ep. belongs (Rom., Gal., Cor.). It always has the meaning given 
inthe preceding note, and the connection of the following words with it may 
vary in different cases, as it does in this context. «xara dyOpwrov also occurs 
only in these Epistles—everywhere meaning, afler the manner of a man outside 
of the Divine sphere. Tho particular signification, within the limits of this gen- 
eral sense, is determined in each instance by the context. 


XXVIII. Ver. 5. s) ddcxog 6 Oedc. 


The Apostle is not to be regarded, in this passage (vv. 1-8), as introducing 
&) opponent into his discdurse, as if in a dialogue, or directly quoting his 
language. The form of the question in ver. 5, ys) ddcxo¢ x.t.4. is clear evidence 
of thia, for the objector would have put the inquiry in the form which looks 
foram affirmative answer, and not, as here, for a negative one. On the other 
hand, he carries forward his entire argument in his own person, and formulates 
for himself the objections, difficulties, or questions which, as he conceives, 


night be presented. 


148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


XXIX. Ver. 9, mpoeyépeGa. 


The explanation of zpoeyéue$a, to which Meyer here refers, has in its favor 
the fact that the passage from Plutarch may be cited as justifying it, while no 
passage is found sustaining the interpretation given by Tholuck, de Wette, and 
others, or, where the verb stands without an obj. accusative, that given by 
Meyer himself. Every other argument which the case affords, however, seems 
to bear against this explanation--are we surpassed. (a) There is nothing in 
the preceding context, or in the position which Paul maintains anywhere, to 
suggest such a question. (b) His entire course of reasoning from ii. 1 onward 
is intended to show that the Jew is on a level with the Gentile in respect to 
justification by works, not that he stands on a lower position. (c) The follow- 
ing verses do not harmonize with this view of the word. They do not set 
forth the proof that the Gentiles are not better than the Jews, but that the 
Jews are not better than the Gentiles. (d) Such a question would not readily 
come from the Jewish side. (e) Ver. 19 shows that in vv. 10-18 he had 
special reference to the Jews, and that his object in this passage is the same as 
that which he had in view in the previous chapter. This explanation, which 
is adopted in R. V. by the English revisers, must, accordingly, be rejected. 
The view of Meyer must also be set aside. It has no greater support from 
usage than that of de Wette and A. V. Indeed, it is less difficult to suppose 
that the writer uses the middle voice of this verb, after the analogy of many 
other verbs, in the simple active sense, or, with Grimm and Philippi, as mean- 
ing have we an advantage for ourselves, than that he fails to insert 7, which is 
called for by Meyer’s view, and could so easily have been expressed. More- 
over, the following context is not suited to the question, Do we put forward 
anything in our defence (as Weiss ed. Mey. also agrees), while it is precisely 
adapted to the question, Have we any advantage or superiority? The American 
revisers have rightly favored this latter explanation (R. V., Appendix). The 
objection made by Meyer to this view of the word, that it is at variance with 
ver. 2, is without force, since, after showing that the possession of the O. T., 
though giving the Jews a superiority to the Gentiles in a certain degree, did not 
place them at any advantage in respect to the matter in discussion (i.e. the 
escaping the divine condemnation), it was most natural that the question 
should be renewed, Do the Jews have any real advantage in this vital point? 
The view of Godet, that the verb means are we sheliered, seems to accord 
neither with usage nor with the context. 


XXX. Ver. 20. diére && Epywv vduov, «.7.A. 


This verse is grammatically connected with the preceding, as Meyer explains. 
At the same time, the first part of the verse contains what is, in substance, a 
statement of the result of the foregoing argument, i. 18-iii. 19—namely, that 
from works of the law there is no justification for any one. This negative re- 
sult being reached, the positive conclusion follows without proof (see note on 
i. 17 above) in ver. 21 ff. The second part of the verse adds a confirmation of 
this negative statement, by pointing to the fact that the law leads to a full 
knowledge of sin—thus, to a very different end from justification. The author 
does not dwell on this latter point, as it is outside of the line of his present 
thoughttodo so. His purpose is answered here by the mere presentation of it. 


NOTES. 149 


XXXI. Ver. 21. veri 8 yupic vduov dtxatoovrn x.1.A. 


In vv. 21, 22, the proposition of i. 17 is repeated, as now established. ydp of 
the last clause of ver. 22 introduces this clause as connected with wdvrag rove 
x.or.—all, for there is no distinction, and then ver. 23 is added in immediate 
connection with this ; there is no distinction, for (ydép, ver. 23) all sinned, etc. 
These clauses, in their relation to each other and to the ontire preceding argu- 
ment, clearly show, that the distinction referred to is that between Jews and 
Gentiles, and that al/ means Jews as well as Gentiles, as opposed to Gentiles only. 
Vv. 23-26 are subordinate to vv. 21, 22 through these two particles (ydp) ; never- 
theless, in these verses the writer incidentally and easily passes to a more full 
statement—almost a definition—of justification by faith. They constitute in 
one aspect, therefore, a very important part of this passage in which the origi- 
nal proposition is repeated. 


XXXII. Ver. 23. mdvre¢ yap fuaprov. 


This verb is translated in A. V. and R. V. have sinned. The aor. is to be ex- 
plained from the standpoint taken by the author :—the sinning is a thing defi- 
nitely past when the question of their present position before God is raised. 
De. Charles Hodge says on this word, as here used, ‘‘The idea that all men 
now stand in the posture of sinners before God might be expressed either by 
saying all have sinned (and are sinners), or all sinned. The latter is the form 
adopted by the Apostle.’’ Cf., however, his view of the same verb and tense 
in v. 12. 


XXXL Ver. 24. dexasovpevoe x.7.A, 


Sixarotvpevor is, viewed grammatically, a circumstantial participle connected with 
totepoovrar. According to the underlying thought, this word, with the following 
context, brings out the only method of justification for all who have sinned. 
In the explanation of the method thus given, we find (a) the gratuitous char- 
acter of the justification, dupedy ; (b) the origin of it (here expressed, indeed, 
by the dat. instrum.) 79 airov xdpitc ; (c) the objective means, dca rig aroA ; (d) 
the subjective means, dia sicreuc ; (e) the relation to it of Christ’s sacrifice, 
xpoéGero LAaornpiov év rH abr. aluate ; (f) the reason for this sacrifice, ei¢ tvdecécv 
tH¢ Ocx. «.7.A ; (g) the final purpose, ei¢ rd elvac—’Inood. 


XXXIV. Ver. 27. rod obv 7 xavynore. 


Two points should be noticed here. (1) The glorying alluded to in the pre- 
vious part of the Epistle is that of the Jews concerning the advantageous po- 
sition which they claimed for themselves as related to the judgment of God. 
This glorying, therefore, must be that which is intended by # xatynoic of this 
verse. (2) The question which is raised and answered respecting this glory- 
ing is introduced by the particle odv. It is, accordingly, suggested to the writ- 
ers mind as a natural result of the immedisutely preceding verses (21-26). 
In view of these points, we must hold that Meyer’s understanding of this verse 
and those which follow (28-30) is correct, and that we have here an inference 
or corollary from the proposition, vv. 21, 22. This proposition, being estab- 
lished, carries with it the exclusion of all such Jewish boasting. Godet’s expla- 
nation, which makes vv. 27-31 a proof of the harmony of justification by 


150 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


faith with the true meaning of the law (vv. 27, 28 showing that the gospel ex- 
cludes justification by works, as vv. 9-20 had already shown that the law ex- 
cluded it), is contrary to the indications of the passage as stated above, and is 
so artificial as to render it improbable. Weiss ed. Mey. agrees with Fritzsche 
and Sohott in referring the xatynorc to “‘ human glorying in general.’’ But this 
view is at variance with the points indicated above. 


XXXV. Ver. 31. vdpuov otv xarapyotmuev x.T.A. 


We may determine the meaning and connection of this verse by the obser- 
vation of certain facts in the case. (1) »duov, as here found, immediately fol- 
lows voyuov of ver. 28 (vv. 29, 30 being merely a proof of the statement of ver. 
28). The reference in the two cases must, therefore, be to the same law. In 
the former verse, however, inasmuch as it is connected with épywy and contrast- 
ed with riore:, yéuov means the Mosaic law. The view of Hofmann, therefore 
(with whom, on this point, Weiss ed. Mey. apparently agrees), that the refer- 
ence in ver. 31 is to ‘‘a divine order in human life,’’ must be rejected. Hof- 
mann argues for his view from »duov of ver. 27, but the word is evidently there 
used in a peculiar sense, for the special purposes of that verse. Moreover, as 
vouov has there a connection with faith as well as with works (the one economy or 
system being contrasted with the other), the question of ver. 31, had this senke 
been intended, would hardly have been presented with vdyoyv only ; it would 
have asked as to the doing away with any divine ordering, or all idea of divine 
ordering. (2) The next chapter discusses the case of Abraham; that is, it 
presents the proof of justification by faith which is derived from the fact that 
this was the system involved in the covenant with the father of the Jewish 
people. This is the same argument for the Pauline doctrine which is brought 
forward in the Epistle to the Galatians, chap. iii. vv. 6-10. The first half of 
this fourth chapter (vv, 3-12) corresponds very closely with Gal. iii. 6, 7, and 
the second half, ver. 13 ff. with Gal. iii. 8-10. Following the more general 
argument (i. 18—iii. 30) we have, therefore, that which comes from the older 
Scriptures ; and between the two this verse is inserted. This position of the 
new question and its answer indicates that they are designed by the writer to 
be in the direct line of his argument, and thus that they open the way for 
the fourth chapter. The view of Shedd, Hodge, Philippi, Morison, and others, 
that the question has reference to a nullification of the law in its moral obli- 
gation, or that the Apostle’s reply defends the faith-system from the charge of 
having an antinomian tendency, is accordingly excluded. This view of these 
writers is also rendered improbable by the fact alluded to by Meyer, that, if it 
be adopted, we must regard the Apostle as having raised an objection of a very 
serious character, which he dictatorially dismisses with no proof of his neg- 
ative answer. 


CHAP. IV., l. 151 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 1. "ABpacu . . . etpyxévac] Lachm. and Tisch. (8) read etpnx. ’ABp. rép 
xpotaropa huwy, Which Griesb. also approved. This position of the words has 
indeed preponderant attestation (AC DE FG X&, min., Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. 
and several Fathers), but may be suspected of being a transposition intended to 
connect «ard cdpxa with tov zarépa jy., as in fact this construction was prev- 
alent among the ancients. spomdropa (Lachm.) though attested by A B C* &, 
5, 10, 21, 137, Syr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. and Fathers, appears all the more proba- 
bly a gloss, since zarépa here is not used in a spiritual sense as it is afterwards 
in vv. 11, 12, 17, 18. — Ver. 11. mepsrouje}] Griesb. recommended zeprtoz7v, which 
however is only attested by A. C*, min., Syr. utr. Arm. and some Fathers ; and 
on account of the adjoining accusatives very easily slipped in, especially in 
the position after éAaBe. — xat avroic] xai is wanting in A B &*, min. Ar. pol. 
Vulg. ms. Orig. in schol. Cyr. Damasc. Condemned by Mill and Griesb., 
omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8). But after the final syllable NAJ the «ai, 
not indispensable for the sense, was very easily overlooked. On the other hand 
the ground assumed for its addition, by Reiche, that ‘‘ the copyists would not 
have the Jews altogether excluded,” cannot be admitted as valid, because in 
fact the Jews are immediately after, ver. 12, expressly included. — The article 
before dixatocwvnv, which Tisch, (8) has omitted, has preponderant attestation. 
Its omission is connected with the old reading (A) cic dixacootvny (comp. ver. 9, 
v. 3). Ver. 12. ri¢ év 7 axpof. zior.]. The reading ry¢ ior. rig év Tt. axpop., 
recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Scholz, lacks the authority of most 
and the best uncials, and seems a mechanical alteration after ver. 11. The 
article rg howeveris, with Tisch. in accordance with decisive testimony, to be 
deleted, and to be regarded as having been likewise introduced from ver. 11 (not 
as omitted after ver. 10, as Fritzsche thinks). — Ver. 15. ob ydp] ABC &*, min., 
Copt. Syr. p. (in margin), Theodoret, Theophyl. Ambr. Ruf. read ov dé. 
Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. (8). An 
alteration, occasioned by the contrast on failing to perceive the appropriateness 
of meaning in the ydép. — Ver. 17. éxistevoe] F G and some vss. and Fathers 
read éxlorevoa¢g (so Luther). The xarévavri of «.7.A. was still regarded as belong- 
ing to the passage of Scripture. — Ver. 19. ob] Wanting in A BO 8, 67**, 93, 
137, Syr. Erp. Copt. Chrys. Damasc. Julian. Condemned by Griesb. and 
deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (8). But this omission of the ot, as well as the 
very weakly attested d¢ and licet, manifestly arose from incorrectly having re- 
gard here to Gen. xvii. 17 (as is done even by Buttmann, new. Gr. p. 305 f. 
[E. T. 355 £.] and Hofmann). See the exegetical remarks. — #é7] Wanting in 
B F G 47 az. al. and several vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. deleted by 
Fritzsche and Tisch. It is to be regarded as an addition, which suggested it- 
self very easily, whereas there would have been no reason for its omission. 


152 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

Ver. 1. Oiv] Accordingly, in consequence of the fact that we do not abro- 
gate the law through faith, but on the contrary establish it.’ This odv 
brings in the proof to be adduced from the history of Abraham (‘ confir- 
matio ab exemplo,” Calvin), for the véuov iorauev just asserted (iii. 31), in the 
form of an inference. For if we should have to say that Abraham our father 
has attained anything (namely, righteousness) «ard odpxa, that would presup- 
pose that the law, which attests Abraham’s justification, in nowise receives 
establishment did ti¢ miorewe (ili. 31). Hence we have not here an objection, 
but a question proposed in the way of inference by Paul himself, the an- 
swer to which is meant to bring to light, by the example of Abraham, the 
correctness of his véuov ior. [See Note XXXVI. p.178.] His object isnot to 
let the matter rest with the short and concise dismissal of the question in iii. 
81, but to enter into the subject more closely ; and this he does now by at- 
taching what he has further to say to the authoritatively asserted, and in 
his own view established, véuov lordvozev in the form of an inference. More- 
over, the whole is to be taken as one question, not to be divided into two 
by a note of interrogation after épotuev ; in which case there is harshly and 
arbitrarily supplied to etpyxévac (by Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Wetstein, 
and Michaelis) d:xacootvyy, or at least (van Hengel) the pronoun # represent- 
ing that word, which however ought to have been immediately suggested 
by the context, as in Phil. iii. 12.7 In the affirmation itself ’Afp. is the sud- 
ject (quid dicemus Abrahamum nactum esse?). Th. Schott, by an unhappy 
distortion of the passage, makes him the object (‘‘ why should we then say that 
we have gained Abraham in a fleshly, natural sense for our ancestor ?”) This 
misconception should have been precluded by attending to the simple fact, 
that in no passage in our Epistle (and in other Epistles the form of expres- 
sion does not occur) does the ri in ri obv épotuev mean why. Hofmann, who 
had formerly (Schrift. II. 2, p. 76 ff.) apprehended it in substance much 
more correctly, now agrees with Schott in so far that he takes ri ob ipotpyev 
as a question by itself, but then explains ’Afpadu likewise as the object, so 
that the question would be, whether the Christians think that they have found 
Abraham as their forefather after the flesh? ‘‘The origin of the church of 
God, to which Christians belong, goes back to Abraham. Jn fleshly fashion 
he is their ancestor, if the event through which he became such (namely, 
the begetting of Isaac) lie within the sphere of the natural human life ; tn 
spiritual fashion, on the other hand, if that event belong to the sphere of 
the history of salvation and its miraculous character, which according to 
the Scripture (comp. Gal. iv. 23) is the case.” This exposition cannot be 
disputed on linguistic grounds, especially if, with Hofmann, we follow 
Lachmann’s reading. But it is, viewed in reference to the context, errone- 
ous. For the context, as vv. 2, 3 clearly show, treats not of the contrast 








1 Observe, In reference to ch. iv. (with 
fil. 81), of what fundamental and profound 
importance, and how largely subject to 
controversy, the relation of Christianity to 
Judaism was in the Apostolic age, particu- 
larly in the case of mixed churches. The 


minute discussion of this relation, there 
fore, in a doctrinal Epistle so detailed, can- 
not warrant the assumption that the church 
was composed mainly of Jews, or at least 
(Beyschlag) of proselytes. 

2 Comp. Nigelsbach on J/. 1, 76, 302, ed. 3. 


CHAP. IV., 1. 155 
between the fleshly and the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham in the case of 
Christians, but of the justification of the ancestor, as to whether it took place 
xara odpxa or by faith. Moreover, if ’ASp. was intended to be the object, 
Paul would have expressed himself as unintelligibly as possible, since in vv. 

'2, 3 he in the most definite manner represents him as the subject, whose ac- 

tion is spoken of. If we take Hofmann’s view, in which case we do not at 
all see why the Apostle should have expressed himself by evpyxéva:, he would 
have written more intelligibly by substituting for this the simple elva:, so 
that ’A8p. would have been the subject in the question, as well as in what 
follows. Finally the proposition that Abraham, as the forefather of belier- 
ersas such, was 80 not xara cadpxa, was 80 perfectly self-evident, both with 
reference to the Jewish and the Gentile portion of the "Icpa72 Oeoi, that Paul 
would hardly have subjected it to discussion as the theme of so earnest a 
question, while yet no reader would have known that in card capxa he was 
to think of the miraculous begetting of Isaac. For even without the latter 
Abraham would be the zpordrwp of believers xara wvevya, namely, through 
his justification by faith, ver. 9 ff. —7. warépa yu.] ‘‘fundamentum conse- 
quentiae ab Abrahamo ad nos,” Bengel. Comp. ver. 11 f. juaév however 
(comp. James ii. 21) is said from the Jewish standpoint, not designating 
Abraham as the spiritual father of the Christians (Reiche, Hofmann, Th. 
Schott), a point that is still for the present (see ver. 11) quite out of view. 
—nkata cdpxa] [See Note XXXVII. p. 174] is, following the Peshito, with 
most expositors to be necessarily joined to eipyx.; not, with Origen, Ambro- 
siaster, Chrysostom, Photius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Toletus, 
Calvin, whom Hofmann, Th. Schott, Reithmayr, Volkmar in Hilgenfeld’s 
Zeitechr. 1862, p. 221 ff., follow, to r. warépa ju. (not even although Lach- 
mann’s reading were the original one); for the former, and not the latter, 
needed the definition. Abraham has really attained righteousness, only not 
xara odpxa, and é& épywy in ver. 2 corresponds to the xara oépxa. Besides with 
our reading the latter connection is impossible. — The odpé on its ethical 
side ' is the material-psychic human nature as the life-sphere of moral weak- 
ness and of sinful power in man, partly as contrasted with the higher intel- 
lectual and moral nature of the man himself, which is his rveiyza along with 
the voic (i. 9, vii. 18, 25, and see on Eph. iv. 23), and partly as opposed to 
the superhuman divine life-sphere and its operation, as here ; see the se- 
quel. Hence xara cdépxa is: conformably to the bodily nature of man in ac- 
cordance with its natural power, in contrast to the working of divine grace, 
by virtue of which the eipyxévac would not be xara odpxa, but xara rvedua, 
because taking place through the Spirit of God. Comp. on John iii. 6. 


3 The most recent literature on this sub- 
ject: Ernesti, Urspr.d Sinde, I. p. 71 ff.; 
Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, 83; Hahn, 
Theol. d. N. Test.1. p. 426 ff.; Delitzsch, 
Prychol. p. 374 ff.; Holsten, Bedeutung des 
Wortes céptim N. Test. 1855, and Ev. d. Paul. 
wu. Petr. p. 365 ff. ; Baur in the Theol. Jahrod. 
1857, p. 96 ff.; and Neut. Theol. p. 142f.; 
Wieseler on Gal. p. 443 ff. ; Beck, Lehrwies. 


§ 22; Kling in Herzog's EncyX. IV. p. 419 ff.; 
Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 557 ff.; Weber, 
vom Zorne Gottes, p. 80 ff.; also Ritschl, 
altkath. Kirche, p. 66 ff.; Luthardt, rom freien 
Willen, p. 894 ff.: Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. 
Christol. 1870, p. 8 ff. ; Weiss, bidt. Theol. § 98 5 
Philippi, Glaubensl. III. p. 207 ff., and the 
excursus thereon, p. 281 ff., ed. 2. For the 
earlier literature see Ernesti, p. 50. 


154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Since the épya are products of the human phenomenal nature and conditioned 
by its ethical determination, not originating from the divine life-element, 
they belong indeed to the category of the xara cdépxa, and é¢ épyuwy is the cor- 
relative of xara cdpxa (wherefore also Paul continues, ver. 2, ci yap "Ap. é: 
épywv x.7.4.), but they do not exhaust the whole idea of it, as has often been 
assumed, following Theodoret (card odpxa riv év Epyotc, Abyet, éxesdirep d1a 
Tov adbpatoc éxtAnpotpev ta Epya), and is still assumed by Reiche. Ké&llner, 
limiting it by anticipation from ver. 4, holds that it refers to the human 
mode of earning wages by labour. Entirely opposed to the context, and also 
to the historical reference of ver. 3, is the explanation of circumcision (Pela- 
gius, Ambrosiaster, Vatablus, Estius, and others ; including Koppe, Flatt, 
Baur, and Mehring) which Riickert also mixes up, at the same time that he 
explains it of the fpyoc. Philippi also refers it to both. — On eipyx., adep- 
tum esse, comp. etpetv xépdoc, Soph. El. 1297, apziv, Dem. 69,1. The middle 
is still more expressive, and more usual ; sce Kriiger, § 52, 10, 1, Xen. ii. 1, 
8, and Kiihner in loc. The perfect infinitive is used, because Abraham is 
realized as present ; see ver. 2. 

Ver. 2. The question in ver. 1 contained the negative sense, which had 
therefore necessarily to be limited by xara cdpxa : ‘‘ We may not assert that 
Abraham has obtained anything according to the flesh.” The reason for 
this is now assigned (yép) : ‘‘ For, assuming that Abraham has been justified 
by works” (as was the Jewish opinion),' ‘‘he has cause for boasting,” namely, 
that he has attained righteousness through his actions, but he has not this 
ground of boasting with respect to God (as if his justification were the 
divine act), since, namely, in the case supposed it is not God to whom he 
owes the justification, but on the contrary he has himself earned it, and God 
would simply have to acknowledge it as a human self-acquirement. God 
has not, in that supposed case, done anything for him, on account of which 
he might thus boast with regard to God as his justifier ; for 4 rov ayadar 
Epywv TAfpworg GUTOVC OTEdPaVvni TOVS EpyalopivoreE, THY d2 Tr. Oeov 
grAavdpuwriay ov deixvvorv, Theodoret. Comp. also Chrysostom, Oecu- 
menius, and Theophylact. Thus for the proper understanding of this 
difficult passage (Chrysostom : aca¢éc 7d eipnuévov) we must go back to the 
explanation of the Greek expositors, which is quite faithful both to the 
words and the context. Comp. on vv. 8, 4. This interpretation, now 
adopted also by Tholuck (comp. Reithmayr and Th. Schott), has especially 
this advantage, that édé:xaciy is not taken otherwise than in the entire 
development of the dixacootvg Gcov, not therefore as somewhat indefinite and 
general (‘‘ justus apparuit,” Grotius), in which case it would remain a ques- 
tion by whom Abraham was found righteous (Rickert, Philippi ; comp. 
Beza and others ; also Grotius and Koppe, and, with trifling variation, de 
Wette, likewise Spohn in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 429 ff., Volkmar, and 
others, That Abraham was justified with God was known to no Jew other- 


1In the Talmud it iseveninferred from 2; Beresch. rabba f. 57,4. Comp. the pas- 
Gen. xxvi.5 that Abraham kept the whole sages from Philo quoted by Schnecken- 
law of Moses. Kiddusch f.82,1; Jomaf.28, burger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 135. 


CHAP. IV.; 2. 155 

wise,’ and no reader could in accordance with the entire context understand 
édcxazo3n otherwise, than in this definite sense, consequently in the solemn 
absolute sense of the Apostle (in opposition to Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 
35). The only question was, whether é& épyuy or éx wicrewe. If we suppose 
the former case, it is indeed for Abraham worthy of all honour, and he may 
boast of that which he has himself achieved, but with reference to God, as 
if He had justified him, he has no ground for boasting.* Observe besides, 
that zpé¢ is used not in the sense of évdmov, coram (Hofmann : over against), 
or apud (Vulgate), but in accordance with the quite common usage of éyevv 
with the object of the thing (to have something to do, to say, to boast, to 
ask, to censure, etc.), and with specification of the relation of reference to 
some one through mpéc teva. The opposite of éxew xabynua rpc is Exe 
pouery mpdc, Col. ill. 18. The special mode of the reference is invariably 
furnished by the context, which here, in accordance with the idea of 
dixatootvy Ocov, suggests the notion that God is the bestower of the blessing 
meant by xatynua. To that the éxew xatxnua of Abraham does not refer, if 
he was justified by works. In the latter case he cannot boast of himself : 
6 Oed¢ ut édtxaivoe, Oecv Ts ddpov. Reiche and Fritzsche, following Calvin, 
Calovius, and many others, have discovered here an incomplete syllogism. 
[See Note XXXVIII. p. 174], in which aA0’ ov rpdc r. Ocdv is the minor 
premiss, and the conclusion is wanting, to this effect : ‘‘Si suis bene factis 
Dei favorem nactus est, habet quod apud Deum glorictur. . .. ; sed non 
habet, quod apud Deum glorietur, quum libri s. propter jidem, non propter 
pulchre facta eum Deo probatum esse doceant (ver. 3)... . ; non est 
igitur Abr. ob bene facta Deo probatus,” Fritzsche.* Forced, and even 
contrary to the verbal sense ; for through the very contrast a2 ot 1. Tr. O. 
the simple xatynua is distinguished from the xabynyua mpo¢ r. Oedv, as one that 
takes place not mpdc rév Gedy. Paul must have written : éxec xabynua mpd¢ 
tov Oedv’ GAA’ (Or GAAG pyv) ovx Eye. Mehring takes a2’ ov mpdc Tov Gedy a8 a 
question: ‘‘If Abraham has become righteous by works, he has glory, but 
has he it not before God?” But in what follows it is the very opposite of 
the affirmation, which this question would imply, that is proved. If the 
words were interrogative, 4/Ad 7 must have been used instead of aA’ ob (but 
yet not before God?) Hofmann, in consequence of his erroneous exposition of 
ver. 1, supposes that Paul wishes to explain how he came to propose the ques- 
tion in ver. 1, and to regard an answer to it as necessary. What is here 
involved, namely, is nothing less than a contradiction between what Chris- 
tians aay of themselves (when they deny all possibility of becoming righteous 


1 Comp. Eccles. xliv. 19 ff.; Manass. 8; own interpretation in the 1st ed. (making 
Joseph. Anti. xi. 5,7; Elsenmenger, entdeckt. ei... . édixasusdy the question, and then 
Judenth. I. p. 822, 348. éxee. . . . Oecv the answer negativing it) 

*? Van Hengel places a point after xavx., see Philippi. The ei must be the dialectic 
and takes dA’ ov xpds 7. Gedy as an inde- if. 


pendent sentence, in which he supplies ee- 
cundum literas sacras, making the sense: 
**Atqui gloriandi materiam Deum Abra- 
hamo denegare videmus in libris sacris."’ 
But that ts, in fact, not there. Against my 


3 Soin substance also Kraussold in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 788; Baur in the 7heoé. 
Jahrb. 1857, p. 71; Késtlin in the Jahro. f. 
Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 9. 


156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


by their own actions), and what holds good of ‘‘an Abraham,” the father of 
the people of God. If the latter has become righteous through his own 
action, he has glory, and by this very circumstance his ancestorship is dis- 
tinguished from that of all others. But then the Scripture teaches that 
what God counted worthy in Abraham was his faith, and it is therefore 
clear that the glory which he has, if he has become righteous by works, is 
no glory in presence of God, and consequently is not fitted to be the basis of his 
position in sacred history. This is a chain of ideas imported into the pas- 
sage ; instead of which it was the object of the Apostle himself merely to 
set forth the simple proposition that Abraham was not justified by works, 
and not at all to speak of the mode in which the Christian ancestorship of 
the patriarch came to subsist. —xatynua (comp. on Phil. i. 26, ii. 16) is 
throughout the N. T. materies gloriandi ; as also in the LXX. and Apoc- 
rypha ; although in classic authors’ it also occurs as the equivalent of 
xavynotc, gloriatio. In Gal. vi. 4, also, it is joined with éyev. 

Ver. 3. I am right in saying : ov mpd¢ rdv Gedy, for Scripture expressly de- 
rives the justification of Abraham from his fazth, not from his ecorks, and 
indeed as something received through imputation ; so that he consequently 
possesses, not the previously supposed righteousness of works, but the 
righteousness of faith as a favour of God, and has ground for boasting of 
his righteousness in reference to God. That righteousness by works he would 
have earned himself. Comp. ver. 4. The emphasis lies on éziorevoe and 
édoyiodn, not on r~ Oem (Mechring). See ver. 4 f. The passage quoted is 
Gen. xv. 6, according to the LXX., which renders the active N21") by the 
passive x. éAoyicdn. In the Hebrew what is spoken of is the faith which 
Abraham placed in the divine promise of a numerous posterity, and which 
God put to his account as righteousness, 1)2T¥, ¢.¢. as full compliance with 
the divine will in act and life; comp. on Gal. iii. 6. Paul however has not 
made an unwarrantable use of the passage for his purpose (Rickert), but has 
really understood d:xa:octvy in the dogmatic sense, which he was justified in 
doing since the imputation of faith as 1)T¥ was essentially the same judi- 
cial act which takes place at the justification of Christians. This divine 
act began with Abraham, the father of the faithful, and was not essentially 
different in the case of later believers. Even in the moretew ro Gey on the 
part of Abraham Paul has rightly discerned nothing substantially different 
from the Christian riortg (compare Delitzsch on Gen. 7.c.), since Abraham’s 
faith had reference to the divine promise, and indeed to the promise which 
he, the man trusted by God and enlightened by God, recognized as that 
which embraced in it the future Messiah (John viii. 56). Tholuck, because 
the promise was a promise of grace, comes merely to the unsatisfactory view 
of ‘‘a virtual parallel also with the object of the justifying faith of Chris- 
tians.” Still less (in opposition to Neander and others) can the explanation 
of the subjective nature of faith in general, without the addition of its spe- 
cific 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 


1 Pind. Jsthm. v. 65; Plut. Ages. 31. 


CHAP, IV., 4, 5. 157% 


in him a pre-formation of faith as respects its psychological quality gener- 
ally, 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 right- 
eousness from faith, but the imputation of the latter, serves asa proof of 
justification being an actus forensis; and what the Catholic expositors 
(including even Reithmayr and Maicr) advance to the contrary is a pure 
subjective addition to the text.’ It is well said by Erasmus: that is im- 
puted, ‘‘ quod re persolutum non est, sed tamen ex imputantis benignitate pro 
soluto habetur.”? Instead of the «ai in the LXX., Paul, in order to put the 
extor. with all weight in the foreground, has used dé, which does not other- 
wise belong to the connection of our passage. — ei¢ dix.] Comp. ii. 26. [See 
Note XXXIX. p. 174.]—-On the passive éAoyio3y see Bernhardy, p. 341 ; 
Kfihner, II. 1, p. 105. 

Vv. 4, 5. These verses now supply an illustration of ver. 3 in two general 
contrasted relations, from the application of which—left to the reader—to the 
case of Abraham the non-co-operation of works (the ywpi¢ pywr, ver. 6) in 
the case of the latter’s justification could not but be clear. — dé] is the sim- 
ple peraBarixdv. — 1H épyalopévy| to the worker, here, as the contrast shows, 
with the pregnant sense : to him who is active in works, of whom the épya 
are characteristic. Luther aptly says: ‘‘ who deals in works.” —4é pode] 
z.e. the corresponding wages (comp. ii. 29), justa merces. The opposite : 
4 dinn, merita poena ; see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 8, 20.—ot Aoyif. xara 
xapiv, AAG xaTa dgeiAnua| [See Note XL. p. 175.] Comp. Thuc. ii. 40, 4: 
ov é¢ ydpev aA’ é¢ ddeiAnua tiv aperiy arodéouv. The stress of the contrast 
lies on «x. yap. and «x. ogeiA., not in the first part on Aoyifera: (Hofmann), 
which is merely the verb of the Scripture quotation in ver. 8, repeated for 
the purpose of annexing to it the contrast that serves for its illustration. 
Not grace but debt is the regulative standard, according to which his wages 
are awarded to such an one ; the latter are not merces gratiae, but merces 
déits. As in Abraham’s case an imputation xara yépew took place (which 
Paul assumes as self-evident from ver. 8) he could not be on épyafduevoc ; the 
case of imputation which occured in relation to him is, on the contrary, to be 
referred to the opposite category which follows : but to him that worketh not, 
but believeth on Him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as right- 
eousness. Looking to the exact parallel of vv. 4 and 5, the unity of the cate- 
gory of both propositions must be maintained ; and ver. 5 is not to be re- 
garded as an application of ver. 4 to the case of Abraham (Reiche), but as 
likewise a locus communis, under which it is left to the reader to classify the 
case of Abraham in accordance with the above testimony of Scripture. 
Hence we cannot say with Reiche : ‘‘ the ua tpyaléuevoc and aoeffe is Abra- 
ham.”* On the contrary, both are to be kept perfectly general, and dacefiec 


1 Not even with the exception of Déllinger ness. Comp. however on i. 17, note. 
( Christenth u. K. p. 188, ed. 2), who says that 2 Comp. also Philipp! in loc., and Hoele- 
God accounts the principle of the new free mann, de fustitiae ex fide ambabus in V. T. 
obedience (the faith) as already the whole ser- _sedibus, 1867, p. 8 ff. 
vice lo be rendered, as the finished rizghteous- 3 acefjs in his view is an allusion to the 


158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

is not even to be weakened as equivalent to dd:xor, but has been purposely 
selected (comp V. 6), in order to set forth the saving power of faith’ by as 
strong 8 contrast as possible to dicacotvra. —On morebev évi twa, expressing 
faith in its direction towards some one, comp. ver. 24; Acts ix. 42, xi. 17; 
Wiad. xii. 2. 

Vv. 6-8. Accordance (xaférep) of ver. 5 with an assertion of David, ‘that 
great and revered Messianic authority. That it is only what is said in ver. 
5 that is to be vouched by David's testimony, and consequently that the 
quotation forms only an accessory element in the argument, appears from its 
being annexed by xafdrep, from the clear intended relation in which » 6 
Ozd¢ Aoy. dix. appears to Aoy. }. lor. avr. ei¢ dix. Ver. 5, a8 well as yupic épyuv 
to r@ up tpyaz. in the same verse, and from the fact that Paul immediately, 
in ver. 9, returns to Abraham. Vv. 6-8 cannot therefore be regarded as a 
second example of justification from the O. T. (Reiche and many others), or 
even as the starting-point of the reply to the question of ver. 1 (Hofmann). 
This is forbidden by the proper conception of yvéuo¢ in iii. 81, in accordance 
with which Paul could only employ an example from the daw. and such an 
example was that of Abraham, Gen. xv., but not that of David. —Atye r. 
paxap.] asserts the congratulation ; paxapiopég Goes not mean dlessedness, not 
even in Gal. iv. 15, see in loce.*—Aoyileras dexatocivyv] Here duaootyy is 
conceived directly as that, which God reckons to man as his moral status. 
The expression AcyicecOai rivi duapriav is perfectly analogous. In the classics 
Aoyiecbai revi te is also frequently met with. — yupic Epywv] belongs to 
Aoyiferaz. For, as David represents the AoyifecBa: dixa:ootyny as the forgive- 
ness of sins, it must be conceived by him as ensuing without any participa- 
tion (iii. 21) of meritorious works. —paxépro: x.t.A.] Ps. xxxii. 1, 2 exactly 
after the LXX. — érexadtg6.] The amnesty under the figure of the covering 
over of sin. Comp. Augustine on Ps. l.c., ‘‘Si texit Deus peccata, noluit 
animadvertere ; si noluit animadvertere, noluit punire.”” Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 8.— 
ob pi) Aoyionrat| will certainly not impute. It refers to the future generally, 
without more precise definition,® not specially to the jinal judgment (de 
Wette). 

Vv. 9, 10. From the connection (xa6arep, ver. 6) of this Davidic uaxapioc- 
péc With what had previously been adduced, vv. 3-5, regarding Abraham, 


earlisr idolatry of Abraham, reported by 
Philo, Josephus, and Maimonides, on the 
ground of Joshua xxiv. 2. This was also 
the view of Grotius, Wetstein, Cramer, 
Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and Koppe; comp. 
also Déllinger, Christenth u. K. p. 197, ed. 
2. The rabbins have a different tradition, 
to the effect that Abraham demolished the 
idols of his father Terah, etc. ; see Eisen- 
menger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 490 ff., 941. 

1 Consequently subjective faith is meant, 
not its objective ground, the righteousness 
of Christ, £¢. acoording to the Form. Cone. 
p. 884 f., the active and passive obedience of 
Christ, which is “applied and appropriated” 
to us through faith. The merit of Christ al- 


Ways remains the causa meritoria, to which 
we are indebted for the imputation of our 
faith. But the apprehensio Christi, which is 
the essence of justifying faith, must not be 
made equivalent to the apprehensus Christus 
(Calovius; comp. Philippi). The former 
is the subjective, which is imputed; the 
latter the objective, on account of which the 
imputation by God takes place. The For 
mula Concordiae in this point goes ultra quod 
ecriptum est. 

* Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 01D; Aristot. Raet. 
1. 9, 4. 

* Hermann, ad Soph. Oecd. C. 858; Hartung, 
Partikell. Il, p. 156 f. 


CHAP. IV., 11.. 159 


it is now inferred (ob) that this declaration of blessedness affects, not the 
circumcised as such, but also the uncircumcised [See Note XLI. p. 175] ; for 
Abraham in fact, as an uncircumcised person, was included among those 
pronounced blessed by David. — éqi r. repit.] The verb obviously to be sup- 
plied is most simply conceived as éori (the paxapiopde extends to etc.; comp. 
ii. 9; Acts iv. 33 e al.). Less natural is Aéyerae from ver. 6 (Fritzsche); 
and xirre: (Theophylact, Bos) is arbitrary, as is also 4776ev (Oecumenius), and 
Epxera: (Olshausen). Comp. ver. 13, and see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 120 f. 
[E. T. 136 f.].— én? r. mepir. x.t.A.] to the circumcised, or also to the uncircum- 
cisal? ~The xat shows that the previous é7? r. zepir. is conceived as atclusive, 
consequently without a pévov. — Atyouev ydp x.t.4.] In saying this, Paul can- 
not wish first to explain, quite superfluously, how he comes to put such ques- 
tions (Hofmann), but, as is indicated by Aéyouev, which lays down a prop- 
osition as premiss to the argument that follows, he enters on the proof (yp) 
from the history of Abraham for the xa? ézi r. axpo3. which is conceived as 
affirmed. The present denotes the assertion pointing back to ver. 8 as con- 
tinuing : for our assertion, our proposition is, etc. The plural assumes the 
assent of the readers. The emphasis however is not on r@ ’AGp. (Fritzsche, 
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Philippi, and others), which Paul 
would have made apparent by the position of the words Sr: r¢ 'Afp. éAoyloby ; 
nor on éAoyio6y, which in that case would necessarily have a pregnant mean- 
ing not indicated in the whole connection (as a pure act of grace, indepen- 
dent of external conditions) ; but on # mioric ei¢ dexacoobvyy (and thus pri- 
marily on wioree brought together at the end, by which the import of ver. 3, 
ixiorevoe . . . . dixacootvyy, is recapitulated. — ré¢ obv toyio67] The prop- 
Osition, that to Abraham, etc., is certain ; consequently the point at issuc is 
the question guomodo, viz. under what circumstances as to status (whether in 
his circumcision, or whilst he was still uncircumcised) that imputation of 
his faith to him for righteousness took place.’ Hofmann places the first 
mark of interrogation after sréi¢ obv, s0 that the second question is supposed 
to begin with ‘ioyio#7. But without sufficient ground, and contrary to the 
usage elsewhere of the interrogative 7a¢ by Paul, who has often put ri ody 
thus without a verb, but never zé¢ ovv. We should in such case have to un- 
derstand éAcyiof, ; but this word, according to the usual punctuation, is 
already present, and does not therefore need to be supplied. — ovx év mepirop§, 
GA’ tv axpoB.} scil. dvrz. The imputation in question took place as early as 
Gen. xv. ; circumcision not till Gen. xvii. ; the former at least fourteen 
years earlier. 

Ver. 11. [See Note XLII. p. 176.] An amplification of the oix é& repir., 
GAA’ éy axpoB. viewed as to its historical bearings, showing namely the re- 
lation of Abraham’s circumcision to his d:xaootvy, and therefore only to be 
separated by a comma from ver. 10. ‘‘ And he received a sign of circumcision 
as seal (external confirmation, 1 Cor. ix. 2, and see on John iii. 88) of the 
righteousness of faith (obtained through faith, vv. 3, 5), which he had in un- 


3 Respecting the form of the discourse, ma, cujus altera parte rejecta alteram 
Erasmus aptly observes: “ Practer interro- evincit. Nullam enim argumentandi genus 
gationis gratiam multum lucisaddit dilem- _vel apertius vel violentius.” 


160 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 

circumcision.” That rico év rt. axpoZ. is not to be connected with dixacoc. 
(Rickert, Reiche) is plain from the following context (morevévrwy de’ axpo- 
Bvoriac ver. 11, and ri¢ év rp axpoB. miorewc ver. 12). The genitive reprrouse 
is usually taken as that of apposition: the sign consisting in circumeision. 
But in that case the article could not be omitted before onyeiov (the absence 
of it drove van Hengel to the reading repiroufv, which Hofmann also pre- 
fers),’ since the concrete, historically definite sign would here be meant 
(compare 2 Cor. v. 5; Eph. ii. 14 et al.). It is therefore to be rendered : 
And a sign, which took place through circumcision, a signature which was 
given to him in the fact that he was circumcised, he received as seal, etc. 
The genitive is thus to be taken simply as completing the notion of onyciov, i.e. 
as defining it more precisely as respects its modal expression. Observe at the 
same time the dislocation in the order of the words, which brings into em- 
phatic relief the idea of the onueiov. According to Gen. xi. 17 circumcision 
was the sign of the covenant® which God made with Abraham. But with 
correct dogmatic consistency Paul represents it as the significant mark 
which had been the seal of the righteousness by faith, since in that covenant 
what God promised was the Messianic xAypovouia (Gen. xv. 5, 18), and 
Abraham on his part rendered the faith (Gen. xv. 6) which God imputed to 
him for righteousness. — cic rd elvac airov x.t.A.] in order that he might be, 
etc., contains the divinely appointed aim of the oyeiov tae reper. x.1.A. 
This ¢elic rendering is grammatically necessary (see on i. 20), as more in 
keeping with the biblical view* and with the importance of the matter, 
than the ecbatic explanation kai otrug éyévero rathp, which has been justly 
abandoned of late. — rarépa révruv trav maior. dv’ axpoB.] The essence of this 
spiritual fatherhood is the identity of the relation forming the basis of the 
sacred historical connection of all believers with the patriarch without in- 
tervention of circumcision—a relation which began with Abraham justified 
through faith whilst still uncircumcised. Thus the Jewish conception of 
the national-theocratic childship of Abraham is elevated and enlarged by 
Paul (comp. Matt. iii. 9; John viil. 87, 39), into the idea of the purely 
spiritual-theocratic childship, which embraces, not Jews and proselytes as 
such, but the believers as such—all uncircumcised who believe, and (ver. 12) 
the believing circumcised. For Abraham’s righteousness through faith was 
attained, when as yet there was no distinction between circumcised and un- 
circumcised ; and to this mode of becoming just before God, independent 
of external conditions, Christianity by its dixasootvy ix ricrewe leads back 


1 Hofmann explains: and asa sign he re- 
ceived circumcision, as sea (apposition to 
ont.) In that case wepcroxyy must have had 
the article (John vil. 22; otherwise in ver. 
2%). For to take Aapfdvey weptromyy as 
equivalent to wepirépverda: is forbidden by 
onueiov, with which the wepcroxy can be cor- 
relative only as asubstantive conception. 

2 In the Talmud also it is presented as 
the sign and seal of the covenant. See 
Schoettgen and Wetstein. To the formula- 


ry of circumcision belonged the words: 
“‘Benedictus sit, qui sanctificat dilectum ab 
utero, et signum (FIN) posuit in arne, et 
fillos suos sigillavit (DIM) signo foederis 
sancti.” Berachoth f. 18, 1. 

30 ydp Tay SAwy Dede wpoedws ws eds, ae 
éva Aady ef evar xai "lovéaiwy adpoioe xai &d 
wioTews avTOLS THY CuTnpiay wapéfe, ey TES wa- 
tpidpxy 'ABp. dudérepa wpodi¢ypaye, Theodo- 
ret. 


CHAP. IV., 12. 161 
again, and continues it. — di’ axpoB.] with foreskin, although they are un- 
circumcised. — ei¢ rd Aoy:otjva: x.7.A.] is taken by many, including Tholuck 
and Philippi, as a parenthetical illustration of cic rd iva: abrov warépa x.T.A. 
But as we can attach eic¢ rd Aoy:oOjvat x.r.A. without violence or obscurity to 
scorevévrwy, there is no necessity for the assumption of a parenthesis (which 
is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, and 
Hofmann). Nevertheless ei¢ rd Aoyw#. is not : who believe on the fact, that 
to them also will be imputed (Hofmann), for the object of faith is never ex- 
pressed by cic with a substantival infinitive ;* but, quite in accordance with 
the telic sense of this form of expression (as in the ei¢ 7d elvae previously) : 
who believe (on Christ) in order that (according to the divine final purpose 
ruling therein) to them also, etc. —xai airoig] to them also, as to Abraham 
himself ; r7v dixaoctvy expresses the righteousness which is under dis- 
cussion, that of faith. 

Ver. 12. The construction carries onward the foregoing zarépa mévruv 
a.t.a, : and father of circumcision, i.6. father of circumcised persona (not of all 
circumcised, hence without the article). And in order to express to what 
circumcised persons this spiritual fatherhood of Abraham belongs, Paul adds, 
by way of more precise definition : for those (datious commodi, comp. Rev. 
xxi. 7; Luke vil. 12) who are not merely circumcised (comp. ii. 8), but also 
ealk in the footsteps, etc. With this rendering (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and others ; including Ammon, 
Béhme, Tholuck, Klee, Riickert, Benecke, Reiche, Gléckler, Kéllner, de 
Wette, Philippi, and Winer) it must be admitted (against Reiche and K6llner, 
whose observations do not justify the article) that roi¢ is erroneously repeated 
before croczovor. [See Note XLII]. p. 176.] Paul unsuitably continues 
with 4/24 xa/, just as if he had previously written an oi udvov roic. As any 
other rendcring is wholly inadmissible, and as xai roi¢ cannot be an inver- 
sion for roi¢ xai (Mehring), we are driven to the assumption of that errone- 
ous insertion of the article, as a negligence of expression. The expression 
in Phil. i. 29 (in opposition to Fritzsche) would be of the same nature only 
in the event of Paul having written roic . .. . ov pévov roic Ex meptrouye, 
GAAG Kal. . . . TOig orotxyovot x.t.A. Others take roi¢ ovx for ov roi¢ (as 37, 
80, Syr. Arr. Vulg. Slav. and several Fathers read as an emendation), thus 
making a distinction to be drawn here not between merely circumcised and 
unbelieving Jews, but between Jews and Gentiles (adda kai reic¢ x.7.A.). So 
Theodoret, Luther, Castalio, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Schrader (Grotius 1s doubt- 
ful). But such an inversion is as unnatural (comp. ver. 16) as it is unpre- 
cedented (it is an error to refer to ii. 27; 1 Thess. i. 8) ; and how strange 
it would be, if Paul should have once more brought forward the fatherhood 


3 Comp. on Ii. 27, Barnab. Zp. 13: rédecca 
oc warépa covey twy muorevovtwy 5e' axpoBvatias 
Te Kvpi. 

2 Not even in ver. 18. And Acts xv. 11, to 
which Hofmann appeals as an analogous 
passage, tells directly against him, because 
there the construction of the infinitive ob- 
tains in the usual way, that the subject of the 


governing verd is understood, as a matter of 
course, with the Infinitive, Comp. Hofmann 
himself above on ver. 1 ; Krfiger, § 55, 4, 1. 
Besides the result, according to Hofmann’s 
interpretation, would be an awkward 
thought, not in keeping with the faith of 
Abraham. 


162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


as to the believing Gentiles, but should have left that relating to the Jews 
altogether without conditioning definition! Hofmann (comp. also his 
Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 82) understands zrepirouge, after the analogy of 6 Ocd¢ ri¢ 
d65n¢ «.t.A., as the genitive of quality (‘‘a father, whose fatherhood is to be 
designated according to circumcisedness ;” as a circumcised person he has begot- 
ten Isaac, etc.) ; then assumes in the case of roi¢ ovx éx mepitoun¢ pdvov the 
suppressed antithesis to complete it, a2Aa xai éx wiorews.; and finally explains 
GAAa xal Toig crory. aS a BUpplementary addition, while he takes ad «ai to 
mean not but also, but also however. A hopeless misinterpretation ! For, 
as genitive of quality, repitoujc must have had the article (comp. Acts vii. 
2; 2Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 17 al.), and every reader must have understood repi:- 
roun¢c in conformity with wdvruv x.r.A., ver. 11, as a specification whose father 
Abraham further is. The reader could all the less mentally supply after 
TOiC OUK Ex TrepiT. & suppressed Contrast, since the expressed contrast follows im- 
mediately with a24a xai ; and for that reason, again, it could occur to no one 
to understand this aAA@ xai in any other sense than elsewhere after negations, 
namely, but also, not also however. (How inappropriate is Hofmann’s cita- 
tion of Luke xxiv. 22, where no negation at all precedes !) Wieseler's at- 
tempt (in Herzog’s Encyklop. XX. p. 592) is also untenable, since he imports 
into roig ovKx éx mepit. udvov the sense : ‘‘ who do not make circumeision the ex- 
elusive condition of salvation,” and likewise renders aA14 xai also however ; thus 
making Paul indicate (1) the Jewish Christians who were not rigid partisans 
of the law (such as were to be found in Palestine especially), and (2) the 
Pauline Jewish Christians. — roi¢ iyveos x.r.A.] who so walk (see on Gal. v. 
25) that they follow the footsteps which Abraham has left behind through his 
faith manifested in his uncircumcised condition, 7.e. who are believers after 
the type of the uncircumcised Abraham. The dative, commonly taken as 
local, is more correctly, in keeping with the other passages in which Paul 
uses the dative with crocyeiv (Gal. v. 16, 25, vi. 16 ; Phil. iii. 16), interpret- 
ed in the sense of the norm. 

Ver. 13. Ground assigned for the foregoing, from ei¢ rd elvac avrov rarépa 
onwards. ‘‘The father of all believing Gentiles and Jews ;” for it izas 
not the law, but the righteousness of faith, that procured for Abraham or his 
seed the promise of possessing the world. [See Note XLIV. p. 177.] Had 
the law been the agent in procuring that promise, then the Jews, as posses- 
sors of the law, would be the children of Abraham who should receive what 
was promised ; as it is, however, 1t must be the believers, no matter whether 
Jews or Gentiles, since not the law has been at work, but on the contrary 
the righteousness of faith. — dia vépov] [See Note XLV. p. 177] through the 
agency of the law, is not to be arbitrarily limited (Piscator, Calovius, 
and others : per justitiam legis ; Pareus and others : per opera legis) ; for, 
as the Mosaic law ' was not yet even in existence, it could in no way procure 
the promise. Hence it is not to be rendered with Grotius : ‘‘ sub conditione 
‘observandi legem Mosis,” because did dixacoc. zior. does not admit of a cor- 


1 For to fhis &a yvépov must be referred brought under the wider conception of the 
‘(gee ver. 14 ff.) not to circumcision, which is law (Mebring), 


CHAP. IV., 13. 163 


responding interpretation. — } érayyeAla] scil. éorz. The supplying of this 
(usually : éyévero) is quite sufficient ; comp. on ver. 9, The relation is real- 
ized as present. — # 79 oépy. avtov| neither to Abraham nor to his seed, etc. 
With 47 r6 orépy. air. Paul takes for granted that the history of the promise 
in question is known ; and whoare meant by the ozépya under the Messianic 
reference of the promise cannot, according to the context (sce especially ver. 
11), be doubtful, namely the believers, who are the spiritual posterity of 
Abraham (ix. 6 ff.; Gal. iv. 22 ff.); not Christ according to Gal. iii. 16 
(Estius, Cornelius & Lapide, Olshausen); but also not the descendants of 
Abraham proper (van Hengel). — rd xAnp. avr. elvar xédouov] Epexegesis of 7 
éxayyedia.’ The airév, referring to Abraham, is so put not because # r. on. 
avrov is only incidentally introduced (Riickert), but because Abraham is 
regarded as at once the father and representative of his oxfpua included 
with him in the promise. — xéczov] The inheritance of the land of Canaan, 
which God promised to Abraham for himself and his posterity (Gen. xii. 7, 
xiii. 14, 15, xv. 18, xvii. 8, xxii. 17 ; comp. xxvi. 3; Ex. vi. 4), was in the 
Jewish Christology taken to mean the universal dominion of the Messianic the- 
ocracy, which was typically pointed at in these passages from Genesis.* The 
idea of Messianic sovereignty over the world, however, which lies at the bot- 
tom of this Jewish particularistic conception, and which the prophets in- 
vested with a halo of glory,’ is in the N. T. not done away, but divested of 
its Judaistic conception, and raised into a Christological truth, already 
presented by Christ Himself (comp. Matt. v. 5) though in allegoric form 
(Matth. xix. 28 ff.; Luke xxii. 30 ; Matt. xxv. 21). Its necessity lies in 
the universal dominion to which Christ Himself is exalted (Matt. xxviii. 18 ; 
John xvii. 5 ; Phil. ii. 9 ff.; Eph. iv. 10 al.), and in the glorious fellowship 
of His believers with Him. Now as the idea of this government of the 
world, which Christ exercises, and in which His believers (the spiritual 
children of Abraham) are one day to participate, was undeniably also the 
ideal of Paul (viii. 17 ; 1 Cor. vi. 2 ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 12), it is arbitrary to 
take «écouov here otherwise than generally, and either to limit it to the sphere 
of earth (Koppe, Kéllner, Maier), or to explain it as relating to the dominion 
of the Jews over the Gentile world (van Hengel), or the reception of all peo- 
ples into the Messianic kingdom (Beza, Estius, and others) or Aessiante bliss 
generally (Wetstein, Flatt, comp. Benecke aud Gléckler), or the spiritual 
dominion of the world (Baumgarten-Crusius), as even Hengstenberg does : 
‘the world is spiritually conquered by Abraham and his seed ” (Christol. 1. 
p. 49). The interpretation which takes it to mean the extension of the 
spiritual fatherhood over all nations (Mehring) would only be possible in the 
absence of # 76 oxépuart avrov, and would likewise be set aside by the firmly 
established historical notion of the MM). The «Anpovdpov elvar rod xéguov of 
believers is realized in the new glorious world (év r§ madsyyevecig, Matt. 
xix. 28, comp. Rom. viii. 18, 2 Pet. iii. 18) after the Parousia ; hence the 
Messianic kingdom itself and all its déga, as the completed possession of 


1 See KiGhner, IT. 1, p. 518, and ad Xen. dum dedit coelum et terram,"’ Tanchuma, p. 
Asad. fi. 5, 22. 165, 1, and see Wetstein. 
2“ Abrahamo patri meo Deus possiden- 2 Comp. Schultz, alttest. Theol. I. p. 2% ff. 


164 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


salvation promised to believers, is designated by the theocratic technical 
term «Anpovouia (see on Gal. iii. 18). — did dix. wior.] Since the véuoe was not 
the procurer of the promise, but Abraham was righteous through faith (ver. 
8), the d:xacocivn rictews Must necessarily have been that which procured the 
promise (moved God to grant it). See ver. 14. It is true that the promise 
in question was given to Abraham prior to his justification by faith (Gen. xii. 
7, xiii. 14 f.); but it was renewed to him subsequently (xv. 18, xvii. 8); hence 
Wwe must assume that here Paul had only these latter passages in view. 

Vv. 14-17. Proof of the antithesis ov did véuov . . . . GAAd «.t.4. in Ver. 
18, conducted not historically (as in Gal. ili. 13 ff.), but dogmatically, a 
priori, from the nature of the law, from which results the opposite of the 
latter, the ziortc, as cause of the xAnpovoyia. 

Ver. 14. Here also vdéuoe is not (as Flatt and others take it) the moral law 
(to which however the saying may certainly be applied), but the laze of 
Moses, viewed in ercluding antithesis to the iors. By ol éx véuov, ‘‘ those 
of the law” (Luther), are meant those who belong to the law, are as such 
subjected to it ; consequently the Jews at all events, but just so far as they 
are not believers, not belonging to the 'Icpa?A rov Ocov (Gal. vi. 16). The 
opposite : of é« miorewc, iii. 26, Gal. ill. 7. That they wish to attain to the 
xAnpovonia by the way of the law, is true in itself, but is not expressed in the 
mere ol éx véuov (in opposition to Hofmann). — xexévwras 4 riottg «.7.2.] then 
SJaith is made void and the promise done avay, i.e. faith is thereby rendered 
inoperative and the promise of no effect. If it be true that to be subject to 
the law is the condition of obtaining the possession of the world, nothing 
further can be said either of a saving power of faith (comp. 1 Cor. i. 17), or 
of the validity of the promise (comp. iii. 31, Gal. iii. 17). And why not ? 
Because (ver. 15) the law, to which in accordance with that protasis the 
xAnpovonia would be appended, has an operation so entirely opposed to the 
essence of faith (which trusts in the divine yépic) and of the promise (which 
is an emanation from this ydp:c), (comp. ver. 16), that it brings about the 
divine wrath, since its result is transgression. On this ground (dia tovro, ver. 
16) because the law worketh wrath, its relation to the xAypovouia, laid down 
in ver. 14, cannot exist ; but on the contrary the latter must proceed from 
Faith that it may be according to grace, etc., ver. 16.— The ior is the 
Christian saving faith, of which Abraham’s faith was the beginning and 
type, and the érayyedia is the Divine promise of the xAzpovouia, given to 
Abraham and his seed, ver. 13. 

Ver. 15. On the connection see above. The assigning of a reason (yap) 
has reference to the previous xexévwrac } wioti¢ K. xathpy. }. Etayy., Which are 
closely connected (sce ver. 16), and not merely to the xarfpy. 4 éxayy. (Chry- 
sostom, Fritzsche, Mehring, and others). The law produces wrath. It is the 
divine wrath that is meant, not any sort of Auman wrath (against the judg- 
ment of God, as Melanchthon thought). Unpropitiated, it issues forth on 
the day of judgment, ii 5 ff., iii. 5, ix. 22; Eph. ii. 8, v. 6; Col. iii. 6 al., 
Ritschl, de ira Dei, p. 16 ; Weber, com Zorne Gottes, p. 826 f. — ov yap ovx 
éore véuocg x.t.A.] [Sce Note XLVI. p. 177.] Proof of the proposition that 
the law worketh wrath: for where the law is not, there is not even (ovdé) 


CHAP. Iv., 16, 17. 165 


tranagression, namely, which excites the wrath of God (the Lawgiver). This 
short, terse and striking progf—which is not, any more than the three 
previous propositions introduced by yép, to be reduced to a ‘‘ justifying 
explanation” (Hofmann), or to be weakened by taking oidé to mean ‘‘ just as 
dittle” (Hofmann)—proceeds a causa ad effectum ; where the cause is want- 
ing (namely, zapdéfacrc), there can be no mention of the effect (apy#). This 
negatice form of the probative proposition includes—in accordance with the 
doctrine of the Apostle elsewhere regarding the relation of the law to the 
human ézévpia (Rom. vii. 7 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 56; Gal. iii. 19 al.), which is 
kindled on occasion of the law by the power of sin which exists in man— 
the positive counterpart, that, where the law is, there is also transgression. 
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 
preponderates ; 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. 
Observe moreover that he has not written oid? duapria, which he could not 
assert (ver. 13), but obdé rapdBacrc, as the specific designation of the duapria 
in relation to the daw, which was the precise point here in question. Comp. 
ii. 23, 25, 27, v. 14; Gal. ii. 18, iii. 19. Sins without positive law (ver. 18) 
are likewise, and indeed on account of the natural law, ii. 14, objects of the 
divine wrath (see i. 18 ff.; Eph. ii. 3); but sins against a given law are, in 
virtue of their’ thereby definite quality of transgression, so specifically and 
specially provocative of wrath in God, that Paul could relatively even deny 
the imputation of sin when the law was non-existent. See on ver. 13. 

Ver. 16 f. Acé rovro] Inference from ver. 15, consequently from the 
wrath-operating nature of the law, on account of which it is so utterly in- 
capable of being the condition of the xAypovoyia, that the latter must on the 
contrary result from the opposite of the law—from faith, etc. Comp. on 
ver. 14 f. This conclusion is so evident and pertinent that it required only 
the incomplete, but thus all the more striking expression : ‘‘ therefore of 
faith, in order that according to grace,” to the end that, etc. — é mioreuc] 
scil. of xAnpovéuor cici, according to ver. 14. The supplying, by Fritzsche and 
others, of 4 éxayyedia yivera: or éyévero from ver. 18 is forbidden by the con- 
trast in which éx zior. stands to éx véuov, ver. 14. — iva xara zaptv] The pur- 
pose of God in éx ticrewg : ‘‘in order that they might be so by way of grace,” 
not by way of merit. Comp. ver. 4 and dupedy ili. 24. — ei¢ rd elvar BeBaiav 
«.7.2.] contains now in turn the divine purpose,’ which prevails in the xara 
xapyw. They shall be heirs by way of grace ; and why by way of grace? In 
order that the promise may be sure, i.e. may subsist in active validity as one 
to be realized (the opposite of xarfpynta:, ver. 14) for the collectite posterity 
(i.e. for all believers, see v. 11, 13), not for those alone, who are such out of the 
law (not solely for believers who have become so out of the legal bond of 
Judaism), but also for those who ure such out of the faith of Abraham,’ t.e. 


} Here also the peculiar deeper scope of 3 dy wior. ‘ABpadp goes together (in oppo- 
the view given is often left unnoticed, and sition to Fritzsche, who has conceived the 
cis Td eivacis taken as inference; sothat, etc. oxdppart to be supplied as before 'ABp., and 
See on the other hand on i. 20. made the genitive "ASpadu dependent on It), 


166 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

whose Abrahamic kinship is based on Abraham’s faith, the uncircumcised 
believers.’ If anything else than yéprc (such as dgeiAnua) were the reason 
determining God to confer the x27povouia, then both halves of the ozépya, in 
their legal imperfection, would be unsecured with respect to the promise. 
As it is, however, believing Jews as also believing Gentiles have in the 
divine yép¢ the same guarantee that the «Aypovouia shall be imparted to 
them éx miorews. —d¢ tots wat. wavtT. yudv] reiterated (comp. vv. 11, 12) 
solemn setting forth of the fatherhood of Abraham for all (ravruyv) believers 
(juv), which was indeed the pith and fundamental idea of the entire argu- 
ment (since ver. 9) ; there is therefore no new point raised here (Hofmann), 
but this fatherhood of the patriarch in the history of salvation, already 
clearly laid down, is summarily expressed afresh, in order (ver. 17), after 
the insertion of a testimony from Scripture, to present it, by means of 
xatévavtt ov x.t.A., in its holy, divine guarantee and dignity. — dr: warépa 
woAAav x.t.A.] Gen. xvii. 5, closely after the LXX.; therefore 6r:, for, which 
in the original text specifies the reason of the name Abraham, is repeated 
by Paul without any special bearing on his connection, simply as forming 
part of the words of Scripture. — arépa woAadv tv.) Aptly explained, in 
the sense of the Apostle, by Chrysostom and Theophylact : oi xara gvouyy 
ovyyévetav, GAA Kar’ oixeiwov tictewe. In this spiritual sense—which the 
passage of Scripture expresses typically—he is constituted by God as father 
of many nations (in so far, namely, as all believers from among the Jews 
and all Gentile peoples arc to be, in the history of salvation, his spiritual 
orépua), 1.€. appointed, and thus made so.* Even the original text cannot 
have meant by 0°13 merely the twelve tribes of Israel (Hofmann). It means 
the posterity of Abraham, in so far as Gentile peoples also shall be sub- 
jected to it. The Israelite tribes would be DO’). —xarévavri ov Eior. Ozov) 
is connected, after the parenthesis (xafoc . . . . oe), With b¢ éore xarip mavr. 
yuav. To get rid of the parenthesis by supposing a suppressed intervening 
thought (Philippi), or an asyndeton, as if it were xal xatévavte «.t.A. (van 
Hengel), is a harsh and arbitrary course ; while it is impossible to regard 
xarévavte x.T.A. as explanation of the xafo¢ yfyparra: (Hofmann), because 
xafoc yéyp. can only be taken as the quite common (occurring thirteen times 
in our Epistle) simple formula for quoting a Scripture proof, and not as : 
“in harmony with the Scripture passage.” — xarévavr:, equivalent to the 
classical xarevavtiov, means over against (Mark xi. 2, xii. 41 ; Luke xix. 30), 
2.€. here: in presence of (xarevorciov), coram, as after the Heb. frequently in 
the LXX. and Apocrypha.* The attraction is to be resolved into : xarévarr: 
Tov Oeod, xatévavte ov Exiatevoe : coram Deo, coram quo credidit. Quite anal- 


since it {is not Jews and Christians, but Jew- 
tsh and Gentile believers who are placed side 
by side, and in the latter the faith of Adra- 
ham (comp. ver. 10) is the characteristic. 

1 Theophylact: wayrire owdppan, rovréore 
Wact TOS FieTEeVovaty: OV mOVOY TOLS Ex VOLOL, 
TouTéate Tog euwepiTdémots, GAAG Kai TOLS axpo- 
Bvotots, otrivds ciot omeppa ABpadyu ex migrews 
aury yerndévres. 


2 Compare Heb. i. 2; 1 Macc. x. 68, xiv. 84; 
Hom. Od. xv. 253, ll. vi. 800; Plat. Theaet. 
p. 169 E; Pind. Ol. xilf. 21. 

3 See Biel and Schleusner. 

4 The coram, in presence df, is neither to 
be explained ad exemplum (Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact and others), nor 
** according to the will’ (Reiche, Krehl and 
others), nor “according to the judgment” 


CHAP. IV., 17. 167 
ogous are such passages as Luke i. 4, rept dv xarnyfine Adywr, instead of repi 
Tav Aédywv mepi ov xatnx., Matt. vii. 2. al. So also rightly Philippi and Hof- 
mann ;* comp. Mircker. The mode of resolving it adopted by most com- 
mentators (Thomas Aquinas, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Er. Schmid, Grotius, 
Estius, and others ; also Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, K6llner, Fritzsche, 
Ewald, van Hengel, Buttmann) : xarévavt: Oeov @ émiorevoe, is at least nt 
variance with the wsval mode of attraction, since the attraction of the rela- 
tive, which, not attracted, would stand in the dative, has no precedent in 
the N. T., and even in Greek authors very seldom occurs.* Finally, the ex- 
planation which takes xarévavri oi as equivalent to xarévayte robrov, 61, and 
the latter as equivalent to avf ot, propterea quod, and in accordance with 
which @cov x.7.A. is then taken as genitive absolute (‘‘ whilst God, who quick- 
eneth the dead, calleth also to that which is not, as though it were present,” 
Mehring), is wrong just because «arfvayvrs has not the sense supposed. — rov 
fwor. T. vexpoic, xat x.7.A.] Distinguishing quality of God as the Almighty, 
selected with practical reference to the circumstances of Abraham (vv. 
18-21) : ‘‘who quickeneth the dead and calleth the non-existent as though it 
tere,” and certainly, therefore, can quicken the decayed powers of procrea- 
tion, and dispose of generations not yet in existence. A reference to the 
offering of Isaac, whom God could make alive again (Erasmus, Grotius, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, and Mangold), is so foreign to the conncction that it 
would have required definite indication. The (woroiv rovg vexpot¢ is a 
formal attribute of the almighty God. 1 Sam. ii. 6 ; Wisd. xvi. 18 ; Tob. 
xiii. 2; comp. Deut. xxxii. 9. See also John v. 21; 2 Cor. i. 9; 1 Tim. 
vi. 18. Origen, Ambrosiuster, Anselm, erroneously hold that the vexpoi are 
spiritually dead, a view which the context must have rendered necessary ; 
comp. Olshausen, who holds that {wor and xed. indicate typically the 
spiritual awakening and the new birth ; also Ewald, who will have the ap- 
plication made to the revivifying of the dead Gentiles into true Christians. 
—xarotvtog ta pd dvta d¢ bvral 7.e. ‘‘who utters His disposing decree over that 


(Rickert, K6llner, Fritzsche, Maier, Um- 
breit and others), nor * vi atque potestate 
divina’’ (Koppe), nor “before the omnis- 


cience of God ” (Olshausen), but is to be left 


without any modifying explanation. Abra- 
ham is realized as present, just as he stands, 
waTap tavrev nnev face lo face with the God 
who had appeared to him, and has become 
a believer in conspectu Dei. This vivid reali- 
gation of the believing patriarch, as if he 
were standing there as father of us all be- 
fore the face of God, just as formerly in 
that sacred moment of history, is a plastic 
form of presentation which, inaptly con- 
demned by Hofmann, quite accords with 
the elevated and almost poctic strain of the 
following words. It also fully warrants 
the ooupling of xcerévayr: «.7.A. with os éore 
waren wéstey jyer ; it is unnecessary to seek 
a connection with or warépa . . . rédeuca oe, 
either with Bengel, who compares Matt. 


ix. 6, or with Philippi, who, thereby getting 
rid of the parenthesis, {nserts after rédeucd 
oe the thought: “ and as such he has been 
appointed.” 

1 See Bornemann, Schol.in Luc. p. 177; 
Schmid in the 7tib. Zeilschr. f. Theol. 1631, 
2, p. 187 ff.; Winer, p. 155 f. [E. T. 164] ; 
comp. on Acts xxi. 16. 

2 Who, nevertheless, in consequence of 
his incorrect view of xadws yéyparrat, pro- 
fesses to {illustrate the carévarr: thus: ‘* Aé 
that time, when he believed, he stood face to 
Jace with God as Him who quickeneth the 
dead, etc.; and by the fact, that God has 
shown Himeelf to be just the same as Him 
before whom he then stood, it has so come to 
pass, that he is now before Him, the father of 
us all."’ 

3 Ktihner, ad Xcn. Mem. il. 2, 5, Gramm. 
II. 2, p. 914. 


168 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

which does not exist, equally as over the existing.” What a lofty expression of 
all-commanding power! And how thoroughly in harmony with the then 
position of Abraham! For as he stood before God and believed (Gen. xv. 
6), God had just showed to him the stars of heaven, with the promise ovrw¢ 
fora: 76 onipua cov! So that God hereby issued his potent summons (so 
shall it be‘) to something that was not (the orépya of Abraham) as though 
it had been. This explanation (followed also by Riickert and Philippi) is 
perfectly faithful to the sense of the words, and as much in harmony with 
the vividly realized situation of Abraham, as it is appropriate to the paral- 
lelism ; for the latter is climactic, leading from the vexpoic to the ra py dyra. 
kadziv like RP, docs not here mean to name Hofmann, (comp. Loesner and 
Benecke), which would refer to the name of father pronounced by God, and 
have in view the divine knowledge, but on the contrary, correlative with the 
mighty Gworoeiv tr. vexp. (comp. duvarés ver. 21), it denotes the call of the 
Ruler, which He issues to that which is subject to His power. Comp. Ps. 
1. 1; Is. xl. 26 ;* dc is the simple as of comparison. Parallels in point are 
found in Philo, de Jus. p. 544 C, where it is said of the force of imagination, 
that it pictures ra yp} dvta Se Svra ; and Artemidor. i. 53, p. 46, ed. Rigalt. 
where it is said of the painter, that he represents ra yy évta o¢ bvra. Paul 
could also have, like Clement, Cor. II. 1, used ra ovx dvra (the non-exist- 
ent, Xen. Mem. ii. 2, 3), as the contradictory antithesis of ra évra (comp. 
also Plat. Jtep. p. 476 E); but the negation is conceived subjectively, from 
the standpoint of the subject who calls : he calls the things, which he knows 
as non-existent, as if they were.? Still what Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 37 f., 
deduces from ra 7 6v7a—that that which enters into historical existence was 
not previously an absolute nothing, but an object of divine knowledge—is 
based on the common conception of xadeiv in the sense of creative activity, 
which is erroneous. No doubt «adciv, as is well known, often denotes the 
creating call of God (Isa. xxii. 12, xli. 4, xlviii. 18 ; 2 Kings viii. 1; Wisd. 
xi. 25 ; Philo, de creat. prine. p. 728 B, where ré pa Svra éxddecev is further 
defined by cic rd elvac ; comp. de Opif. p. 13 E). In this case we should 
have to think by no means of the historical act of creation out of nothing 
(Piscator, Estius and others), but rather, on account of the present participle, 
either of the continuous creative activity (Kiéllner), or (better still on ac- 
count of the parallel of (aoz.) of an abiding characteristic of God generally, 
from which no time is excluded. But this whole interpretation of xa/siv is 
set aside here by &¢ dvra. For d¢ cannot be taken for ei¢ (Luther, Wolf, 
and others), because an use so utterly isolated in the N. T. is in itself very im- 
probable, and because, where ¢ stands in classic authors in the sense of ei, it 


1 Quite contrary to the context Erasmus, 
Ch. Schmid, Koppe and Béhme take cadctvin 
the dogmatic sense. And yet even Fritzsche 
and Mangold have gone over to this ex- 
planation: ‘* homines nondum imlucem edi- 
tos ad vitam aeternam invitat.” Van Hengel 
takes caAeiv as arceasere, and Ta wn Geta that 
which is of no account (see on 1 Cor. 1. 28), so 
that the sense would be: ‘‘ quaecunque nul- 


Tius numeri sunt arcessivit (to the childship 
of Abraham), quasi sint in pretio.”” But this 
peculiar interpretation of «» o»ra and orra 
must have been specifically suggested by 
the context, especially as it strips off the 
whole poetical beauty of the expression. 

* Comp. Xen. Anabd. ty. 4, 15, and Kihner 
tn loc. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278. 


CHAP. IV., 19-21. 169 


is only so used in reference to persons,’ or, at the most, where what is personal 
is represented by neuter objects.* Some desire o¢ dyra to be taken for we éod- 
peva (de Wette), or as a summary expression for ei¢ 7rd elva: w¢ dvra (Reiche, 
K6llner, Tholuck, de Wette, Bisping), but these expedients are arbitrary in 
themselves, and, in the case of the latter especially—seeing that 6vra would 
have to be taken in the sense of the result, as only adjectives are elsewhere 
used (see on Matt. xii. 43, and Breitenbach, ad. Xen. Occ. 4, 7)—dé¢ would 
only be superfluous and confusing. 

Vv. 18-21. More particular setting forth of this faith of Abraham, ac- 
cording to its lofty power and strength. Eldeg mae riOyor xai ra KwAtpara Kat 
THY UpHARY tov dixaiov yuounv Tavta iTepBaivovoav, Chrysostom. 

Ver. 18. *O¢] Parallel to the d¢ gore x.7.4. ver. 16 ; therefore only a comma 
or a colon need be put after o¢ dvra. — én’ éAridi] on hope, is the basis of the 
exior. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 10; frequent in Greek authors. See also Tit. i. 2. 
Abraham's faith was opposed to hope (xap’ éArida, frequent in classical 
writers) in its objective reference, and yet not avéAmoroc, but rather based on 
hope in its subjective reference, —a significant oxymoron. —ei¢ rd yevéobat x.r.A. | 
Rightly Luther : in order that he might be. Comp. Riickert, Tholuck, 
Philippi. It contains the end, ordained by God, of the érior., thus ex- 
hibiting Abraham’s faith in its teleological connection with the divine de- 
cree, and that in reference to the word of God, ver. 17 ; hence, it is less in 
harmony with the context to take cic rd yevéofa: «.r.A. a8 the purpose of 
Abraham. Ver. 11, ei¢ 1d elvac avrov x.7.2. is quite analogous. Following 
Beza, many writers (including even Reiche, Kéllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Krehl, Mehring, Hofmann, take ei¢ rd yev. as the object of ézior.; quite 
contrary to the usage of the N. T. ; see on ver. 11. Here, as in every case 
previously, the object of faith (the divine promise) is quite self-evident. 
The view which explains it of the consequence (Béhme, Flatt, Fritzsche, 
following older writers) for xai obtwe éyévero, 18 linguistically erroneous (see 
on i. 20), and quite at variance with the tenor of the discourse; for in vv. 
19-21 the delineation of the faith itself is still continued, so that at this stage 
the result (it is introduced in ver. 22) would be quite out of place. — xara 
Td eipyu.| belonging to yevéoOac x.7.A., not to ériorevoe (Hofmann, in accord- 
ance with his incorrect view of ei¢ Td x«.t.A.). —otrwo] What is meant by 
this, Paul assumes to be familiar to his readers ; and therefore the corre- 
sponding part is by no means wanting. F G and several Fathers (also Vulg. 
ms.) have after cov the addition : we ol aorépes tov otpavov Kai 4 dupog Tti¢ 
6azécon;. The first half only is a proper gloss ; the xai 7 du. r. 6aa. docs not 
lie in the ovrwe, Gen. xv. 5, but is imported from Gen. xii. 16. 

Vv. 19-21 are still dependent on dc, completing the description of the 
believing Abraham : and (who), because he was not weak in faith, regarded not 
his own dead body.* Theophylact has properly expressed the meivusis in yu? 
Go0.: uy aobevgoas TH TioTeL, GAA’ ioxupdy aiTay Exwv. By v7 the dover. is neg- 


1 Hermann, ad Viger. p.858; Poppo,ad dead. Therefore veveep. without the article. 
Thuc. Ill. 1, p. 318 ff. Comp. Ktihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 6,1; Stall- 

2 See Déderlein, philolog. Beitr. p. 308 ff. baum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 578 A. 

9 i.e. his own body: which was one already 


170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

atived from the point of view of the subject. Comp. on ver. 17. — ov 
xatevénoe| [See Note XLVII. p. 178.] he did not fix his attention thereon. 
Comp. Heb. iii. 1, x. 24 ; Luke xii. 24 ; Judith x. 14. This remark is no 
historical blunder inconsistent with Gen. xvii. 17 (de Wette; comp. 
Riickert), but is quite in harmony with the account given in Gen. xv. 5, 6, 
where, immediately after the divine promise ovrw¢ gorat rd orépya cov it is 
said: xai émicrevoev Ap. te Oeg. This (and not what is related in 
Gen. xvii. 17) is the fact which Paul here exhibits in greater dctail, inas- 
much as he depicts the xai éricrevoe of Gen. l.c., in its strength at first neg- 
atively (in the non-consideration of bodily obstacles) and then positively. 
The immediately decided faith of Abraham in Gen. xv., to which Paul here 
refers, is not inconsistent with the subsequent hesitation, Gen. xvii. (the 
account of which, moreover, belongs to another author) ; the latter is a 
wavering which may easily be understood from a psychological point of 
view. Comp, the doubt of the Baptist as to the Messiahship of Jesus, Matt. 
xi. 2 ff. — vevexpwpévov and véxpworg conveying the idea of decrepitude with 
reference to the powers of procreation and of conception respectively. 
Comp. Heb. xi. 12; Kypke, II. p. 164. — éxarovraérye x.7.4.] although so 
advanced in years that he might naturally have regarded, etc., yet he did 
not do so. The zov is the circiter in approximate statements of number ; 
Herod. i. 119; vii. 5; Diog. L. viii. 86. Comp. Xen. Oec. 17, 3. Not 
used by Paul elsewhere. Abraham was then ninety-nine years old. See 
Gen. xvii. 1, 17, xxi. 5. ‘‘Post Semum nemo centum annorum generasse 
Gen. xi. legitur,” Bengel.’—- Observe, as to «ai r. véx., that the negation ov 
xatévoyoe extends to both the objects of the sentence. Hofmann’s objection 
to our reading,’ and his declaration that instead of xai we should expect 
ovdé are erroneous.* The véxpworc is the deadness of the womb attested as 
having already sect in at Gen. xviii. 11. Was Sarah still to become a 
mother éx moAca¢ yaotpd¢ (Pind. Pyth. iv. 98) !— eic dé ryv tmayyeAiay x.7.A.] 
[See Note XLVIII. p. 178.] The negative proposition in ver. 19 is, in the 
first place, still more specially elucidated, likewise negatively, by ei¢ .. . . 
amotia (dé, the epexegetical autem), and then the positive opposite relation is 
subjoined to it by ada’ évedvv. x.7.A. In the former negative illustrative 
clause the chief element giving the information is ei¢ r. éxayy. t. Geov, 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. 





1 With regard to the children subsequent- 
ly begotten with Keturah, Gen. xxv. 1 ff., 
the traditional explanation, already lying 
at the foundation of Augustine, de Civ. D. 
xvi. 28, is sufficient, viz. that the power of 
begetting, received from God, continued 
after the death of Sarah.—On exarovraérys 
comp. Pind. Pyth. iv. 508. According to the 
uncertain canon of the old grammarians 
(see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 406 f.) it ought to 
have been written here as an oxytone (so 
Lachmann) because It is the predicate of a 
person. Comp. Kiihner, I. p. 420. 


2 With the reading zi thout ov (see the crit. 
remarks) the thought conveyed is: ana 
without having been weak in faith he regarded, 
etc., but did not become doubtful in respect to 
the promise of God, etc. Comp. Hofmann. 
But «y acd. +. xior. would thus be super- 
fluous, and even logically unsuitable in re- 
lation to ver. 20. Simply and clearly Paul 
would only have written: xai xarevonce per 
vd €avTov cwpa K.7.A, eis 82 Thy Ewayy. K.T.A, 

3 See Winer, p. 460 [E. T. 498 f.]; Butt- 
mann, neut. Gr. p. 815 [E. T. 368 f.]. Comp. 
also Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. vi. 10, not. crit. 





CHAP. IV., 19-21. 171 


Since in this way the discourse runs on very simply and suitably to the 
sense, it is unnecessary to resort to the more awkward suggestion, that 
Paul already begins the antithetic statement with dé (however, see Hartung, 
Partikell. I. p. 171), to which nevertheless he has again given the emphasis 
of contrast through the negative and positive forms (Philippi, who, how- 
ever, admits our view also; comp. Tholuck and others), In no case, 
however, can it be said, with Riickert, that Paul wished to write ei¢ 
é2 tr. érayy. T. Ocov érior. undév draxpivduevoc, but that his love for antitheses 
induced him to divide the idea of ézior. into its negative and positive 
elements, and that therefore eig should be referred to the ézicr. at first 
thought of. De Wette (comp. Krehl) conjectures that, according to the 
analogy of miovevev eic, cig is the object of diexp. It is the quite usual in 
regard to, as respects; see Winer, p. 371 [E. T. 397]. — dtaxpiveoba:] To 
warer, the idea being that of a mental struggle into which one enters, xiv. 
23 ; Matt. xxi. 21; Acts x. 20; see Huther on James i. 6. This usage is 
so certain in the N. T., that there is no need to translate, with van Hengel : 
non contradizit, referring to Gen. xvii. 17 ff., in which case rg amorig is 
supposed to mean : ‘‘quanquam in animo volvebat, quae diffidentiam inspi- 
rarent.”” Such a thought is foreign to the connection, in which everything 
gives prominence to faith only, and not to a mere resignation. —rg amorig, 
is instrumental, in the sense of the producing cause, but rg miore, on 
account of the correlation with dofev. r9 wiote: in ver. 19, is to be taken as 
the dative of more precise definition, consequently : he wavered not by means 
of the unbelief (which in such a case he would have had), but became strong 
as respects the faith (which he had). Hofmann’s explanation is erroneous, 
because not in keeping with the do6ev. r. rior. above. He takes rg ziore: as 
causal : by faith Abraham was strengthened ‘to an action in harmony with 
the promise and requisite for its realization.” This addition, which can 
hardly fail to convey a very indeclicate idea, is a purely gratuitous impor- 
tation. — évedvvaudtn] became strong, heroic in faith ; passive. Comp. Aq. 
Gen. vii. 20: évedvvaudbn 76 tdwp. Heb. xi. 34 ; Acts ix. 82 ; Eph. vi. 10; 
LXX. Ps. lii. 7: évedvvaydy Ext r9 paratéryte avvov. In Greek authors the 
word does not occur. — dov¢ défav rH Oey] while he gave God glory, and’ 
was fully persuaded (xiv. 5; Col. iv. 12) that, etc. The aorist participles 
put the didévac dé€av x.7.4. not as preceding the évedvvaudiy, or a8 presupposed 
in it, but as completed simultaneously with it (comp. on Eph. 1. 5). — d:dévas 
ééfav (W393 {D2) rH Ges denotes generally every act (thinking, speaking or 
doing) that tends to the glory of God (Josh. vii. 19 ; Jer. xin. 16 ; Esr. x. 
11; Luke xvii. 18; John ix. 24; Acts xii. 28) ; and the context supplies 
the special reference of its meaning. Here: by recognition of the divine 
omnipotence (not circumcisione subeunda, as van Hengel thinks), as is shown 
by what follows, which is added epexegetically. ‘‘Insigne praeconium 
fidei est, gloriam Deo tribuere,” Melanchthon. The opposite: 1 Johnv. 10. 
— érfyyeArac] in a middle sense. Winer, p. 246 [E. T. 262]. 


1The evidence against «ai is too weak. _ the dovs 8.7. ©. Oecumentus has aptly re- 
Without it An_pod, would be subordinated to marked on sAnpod.: ovx elwe migrevoas, 


172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

Ver. 22. Result of the whole disquisition, emphatically pointing back to 
ver. 3 (éAoyia6y ait ei¢ dixacooivyy). — 61d wal] on which account also (i. 24), 
namely because Abraham believed so strongly as is described in vv. 18-21. 
— The subject of éAoyioty (it was reckoned) is self-evident, viz. the believing. 
Comp. Nigelsbach, zur Ilias, p. 60, ed. 3. 

Vv. 23-25. Relation of the Scripture testimony as to Abraham’s justifi- 
cation to the justification of Christians by faith ; with which the proof for 
the véyuov iorayev dia tH TioTews (iii. 31) is completed. — dr avrév] on his ae- 
count, in order to set forth the mode of his justification. Then, corresponding 
thereto : dc’ jac. Comp. Beresch R. 40, 8: ‘‘Quicquid scriptum est de 
Abrahamo, scriptum est de filiis ejus.” On the idea generally comp. xiv. 
4; 1 Cor. ix. 10, x. 6, 11; Gal. iii. 8. — péAAee Aoyifecha:] namely the m.- 
tevecv, which, in accordance with the divine ordination, is to be reckoned 
to us Christians (uéAAec),—to us, as those who believe on Him that raised up 
Jesus. péAdecy(comp. on viii. 13) is therefore not to be taken for éuedAe, 
(Béhme, comp. Olshausen), but contains what God has willed, which 
shall accomplish itself continuously as to each concrete case (not for the first 
time at the judgment, as Fritzsche thinks) where Christ is believed on. 
The wueic, t.e. the community of believers (not however conceived as becom- 
dng such, as Hofmann supposes), are the constant recipients of the fulfilment 
of that which was once written not merely for Abraham’s sake but alsu for 
theirs. — roig miotetovow] not : who from time to time become believing (Hof- 
mann), which is not consistent with judas, but: quippe gui credunt. The 
éxi tov éyeipavra x.t.A. that is added then points out the specific contents, 
which is implied in the péAAe Aoyifeo6a:, for the morebecy that has not yet 
been more precisely defined. In and with this faith we have constantly the 
blessing of the AoyiZecHac divinely annexed to it. Comp. viii. 1. And the 
éxi Tov éyeipavra x.7.4. (comp. xX. 9) is purposely chosen to express the charac- 
ter of the faith, partly on account of the necessary analogy with ver. 17,’ 
and partly because the divine omnipotence, which raised up Jesus, was at 
the same time the strongest proof of divine grace (ver. 25). Regarding ézi, 
comp. on ver. 5. — wapedé@n] standing designation for the divine surrender of 
Christ, surrender unto death (viii. 82), perhaps after Is. liii. 12. It is at the 
same time se/f-surrender (Gal. ii. 20; Eph. v. 2), since Christ was obedient 
to his Father. — dia ra rapazr. judy] on account of our sins, namely, that they 
might be atoned for by the iaorpiov of Jesus, iii. 24 f., v. 8 f. — da rHv 
Sixaiwow yuav| on account of our justification, in order to accomplish on us 
the judicial act of transference into the relation of dixasooivy7. Comp. v. 18. 
For this object God raised Jesus from the dead ;? for the resurrection of 


GAN’ eudarcxwtepov. It corresponds with the 
Sull victory of the trial of the patriarch’'s 
faith at the ciose of its delineation. 

1 But in point of fact to ‘believe on 
Christ’ and to ‘‘ believe on God who ralsed 
Christ," are identical, because in both cases 
Christ Is the specific object. 

® Compare Weiss, 5tb/. Theol. p. 820. For 
the view which the older Reformed theolo- 


gians (comp. also Gerhard fn Calovius) took 
of the state of the case as an acqui/tal from 
our sins, which was accorded to Christ and 
to us with Him through His resurrection, 
see Ritschl, Rechtifertigung und Versdhnung, 
I. p. 283 f. According to Beza, Christ could 
not have furnished the atonement of our 
sins, if He had not, as the risen victor, van- 
quished death. But the case is rather 





NOTES. 173 
the sacrificed One was required to produce in men the faith, through which 
alone the objective fact of the atoning offering of Jesus could have the ef- 
fect of dixaiwore subjectively, because Christ is the Maorhpov did rij¢ riorews, 
iii. 25. Without His resurrection therefore the atoning work of His death 
would have remained without subjective appropriation ; His surrender da 
ta napantr. yuov would not have attained its end, our justification. Comp. 
especially 1 Cor. xv. 17; 2 Cor. v. 20 f., xv.; 1 Pet. i. 21. Moreover the 
two definitions by 6:4 are not two different things, but only the two aspects 
of the same exhibition of grace, the negative and the positive ; of which, 
however, the former by means of the parallelism, in which both are put in 
juxtaposition, is aptly attributed to the death as the oljective lAaorfpiov, and 
the latter to the resurrection, as the divine act that is the means of its ap- 
propriation.’ Melanchthon has well said: ‘‘Quanquam enim praccessit 
meritum, tamen ita ordinatum fuit ab initio, ut tunc singulis applicaretur 
cum fide acciperent.”” The latter was to be effected by the resurrection of 
Jesus ; the meritum lay in His death, but the raising Him up took place for 
the dixaiworc, in which His meritum was to be realized in the faithful. Comp. 
viii. 34. Against the Catholic theologians, who referred dix. to sanctification 
(as Maier, Bisping, Déllinger, and Reithmayr still do), see Calovius. Nor 
is intercession even (viii. 34) to be introduced into dia rv dixaiwow gud 
(Calvin and others; also Tholuck and Philippi), since that does not take 
place to produce the d:xasootvy, but has reference to those who are already 
justified, with a view to preserve them in the state of salvation ; consequently 
the dixaiwore of the subjects concerned precedes it. 


Notes spy AMERICAN EpITor. 


XXXVI. Ver. 1. ri otv epodpev etpyxévat ’ABpadu xara ocdpxa ; 


It seems better to regard this question as involving an objection or difficulty 
anticipated by the Apostle as arising from the cther side. If the doctrine of 
faith establishes the law in its truest meaning and follows out the line cf the 
O. T., it was natural to ask from the Judaistic standpoint, What can we hold that 


Abraham gained according to the flesh, i.e. in the sphere to which works belong?. 


To this question, as taken up into the Apostle’s discourse and presented in his 
own language, the answer is, Nothing—nothing, that is, in respect to the great 
matter under consideration. The question implies this answer, and the fol- 
lowing verses confirm it. Weiss ed. Mey., indeed, declares this to be an arbi- 
trary assumption, and maintains that a question involving such a negative 


conceived as the converse: Christ could 
not have risen, if His death had not exp!l- 
ated oursins. In this way Christ has not 
merely died vwép yyev, but has also been 
raised again (2 Cor. v. 15); without His sav- 
ing power, however, having been in itself 
conditioned only by the resurrection (to 
which. {n the main, the views of Ottinger 
and Menken ultimately come). 

1 The reference to the fellowship with the 


death of Christ, whereby believers have 
died to their former life, and with His res- 
urrection as an entrance into & new state 
of life no longer conditioned by the flesh 
(see Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 74), 
{is inadmissible ; because it does not corre- 
epond to the prototype of Abraham, which 
determines the entire representation of 
justification in this chapter. 


174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


could not be derived from iii. 31, because in that verse there is no indication 
of anything calling for it. But is an assumption arbitrary which enables us 
to connect with this verse the following context in a natural and a simple way, 
and saves the necessity of giving to ydp, as Weiss does, the sense (very auncom- 
mon, if ever found in the N. T. in such sentences) of namely, or indeed? And as 
for iii. 31, there was surely, to the Jewish mind, if not to the mind of the mod- 
ern commentator, a suggestion in the claim of that verse of a depreciation of 
the glory of Abraham, and just such a suggestion as might call for and occasion 
the entire course of reasoning which fills this fourth chapter. 


XXXVII. Ver. 1. xara ocdpxa. 


The words xara odpxa, whether we read evpnxévac after nudyv, with T. R. Meyer, 
Godet, etc., or after époduev, with Tisch., Weiss, etc., are probably to be connected 
with that verb (so Meyer, Weiss). The question considered in the next verses 
is, not whether he gained anything, but whether he gained anything «ara odpxa. 
R. V. text makes according to the flesh qualify forefather. A. R. V. joins the 
phrase with the verb. The text of Westcott and Hort omits etpyxéva: altogether, 
with B and 47. The meaning, then, is, What shall we say of Abraham our 
forefather according to the flesh? This text is recognized in R. V. marg. 


XXXVITI. Ver. 2. e yp ’ABpady x.t.A. 


After all the discussion of this verse, and the various attempts made to ex- 
plain it, the view of Calvin, Hodge, etc. seems to be the most satisfactory 
that can be offered. The only serious objection to it is that which Meyer sug- 
gests—that the words mpd¢ @Qedv occur only after aA4’ ot, instead of being in- 
serted after tye: xavynua of the preceding clause. But when we consider that, 
if this view be adopted, we have a simple and complete proof of the negative 
answer which is suggested by ver. 1; that we have the O. T. argument for 
the Pauline doctrine introduced, in a most natural way, as starting from the 
question of that verse; and that the writer may have placed the words zpd¢ 
Gedy where they are, because the following verses were to direct attention to 
God's accounting of faith as righteousness,—while they would easily be carried 
back by the reader’s mind to the previous clause also, inasmuch as glorying 
_ before God is manifestly in the line of thought,—this objection loses much of 
its force, and must be regarded as overbalanced by the other considerations. 


XXXIX. Ver. 3. boyicAy eic dixaroovnyy. 


The meaning of the phrase éAoyic@n ci¢ dixatoctvny is candiored clear, (a) by 
the passages in which Paul uses this verb (with cic) with reference to other 
subjects than the one here under consideration, Rom. ii. 26, ix. 8 (cf. Acts 
xix. 27) ; (b) by the passages in which he uses the same verb with oc, Rom. 
villi. 36; 1 Cor. iv. 1. (cf. Rom. vi. 11, a kindred passage, although coc is 
omitted) ; (c) by the passages in which the verb occurs, with either of the two 
prepositions, in the LXX. (eic, 1 Kings i. 13; Job xli. 23; Ps. cv. 31; Isa. 
xxix. 17; xxxii. 15; xl. 17; Lam. iv. 2; Hos. viii. 12—dc, Gen. xxxi. 15; Job 
xli, 20; Ps. xliii. 22 ; Isa. v. 28, xxix. 16, xl. 15; Dan. iv. 32; Amos vi. 5); (d) 
by kindred passages in the Apoc. books (with eic, Wisdom of Sol. ii. 16, ix. 6 ; 
1 Mace. ii. 52—with dc, Eccl. xxix. 6). The comparison of these passages 


NOTES. 175 


proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the phrases éAoylo67 eic and éA, dc are sub- 
stantially equivalent to each other. They differ only as our expressions : to 
count a person for a wise man, and to count him asa wise man. To urge, as 
some have done, that ei¢ owrnpiay, cic uerdvaay, etc., sometimes, in other con- 
nections, mean, that they might be saved, etc., has no force. We have here a 
peculiar phrase, used by many of the Scripture writers. They all employ it 
with asingle and definite meaning. They never, when using it, give the telic 
sense tothe preposition. If they do not give it this sense where there iy no 
reference to the case of Abraham, the conclusion is irresistible that they do 
not where there is such a reference. When Abraham believed, therefore— 
such is the Apostle’s statement—his faith was reckoned to him by God for, i.e. 
as if it were, actual righteousness. Faith is not actual righteousness, but, 
in view of the provision made by the grace of God for the forgiveness of sins, 
it ig accounted as if it were: compare ii. 26, where the uncircumcision of the 
Gentile, in the supposed case, is reckoned as circumcision, though actually it 
isnot cireumcision. Faith, in the Christian system, is thus accepted of God 
in the place of the perfect righteousness which, on the legal method, was 
Tequired for justification ; and the man who believes is declared right before 
the Divine tribunal—all obstacles on the governmental side having been 
removed by the sacrifice of Christ (cf. iii. 24-26). It may be noticed, also, 
that in no passage in Paul's writings, or in other parts of the N. T. where 
oyikeofa, ec, or the verb alone, is used, is there a declaration that anything 
belonging to one person is imputed, accounted, or reckoned to another (the 
ume of the kindred verb éAAéya (Philem. 18) constituting no proper excep- 
tion), or a formal statement that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. 
It is the believer's own faith—as it was in the case of Abraham—which is 
reckoned to him. 


XL. Ver. 5. Aoyilerai—eic dixatocbyyy, 


The parallelism of vv. 4 and 5 would call for the words od Aoylferat xara 
bpci)qua, GAAd xara ydpw at the end of verse 5, instead of those which are found 
there. The substitution of these latter words is easily accounted for as arising 
from the inserted miorevovri x.r.A., and also as designed to meet the thought of 
the following verse ; and even more easily, on account of the fact that the sub- 
stituted words carry with them, also, the idea of those whose place they fill. 


XLI. Ver. 9. 0 paxapiopde ody otros x.7.A. 


The question suggested here is the one which naturally follows after the 
preceding context. If justification is shown in the O. T. to be by faith, 
because Abraham was thus justified, how far does it extend? Is it limited 
to the circumcision, or does it reach out to the uncircumcision also? The 
question is suitably put in this form, because Abraham was, in the course of 
his life, in both conditions ; and it can be readily answered by noticing the 
fact, that he is spoken of in the history as having had his faith accounted to 
him for righteousness while he was yet uncircumcised. 

In the manner of introducing the question of this verse, a peculiarity of 
Paul's style may be observed. The allusion to David is not for the purpose of 
bringing forward a second example, but only (as Meyer also says) to give a 
confirmation from David's words of what is established by the single example 


176 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


of Abraham. This passage concerning David’s macarism, therefore, is paren- 
thetical as related to the main line of thought. But here, as in other places in 
his epistles, when the Apostle returns, at the end of the parenthesis, to the 
direct course of the argument, he remains, in his phraseology, under the 
influence of what he has just before been saying. A striking instance of this 
may be seen in v. 18, 19, comp. with v. 15-17. Here it may be noticed in the 
words paxapiouo¢ avy ovTog. 


XLO. Ver. 11. cig rd elvace avrov marépa, x.7.A, 


In vv. 11, 12 we find a correspondence with Gal. iii. 7. The grammatical 
connection with the immediately preceding context is different, indeed, in the 
two passages, and consequently the presentation of the thought in its details is 
also different. But the central point in relation to the reasoning is the same. 
In both cases we have—in substance here, and formally in Gal.—the conclusion 
which follows from the fact that Abraham was justified by faith. If he re- 
ceived his justification by this means, all believers (whether Gentiles or Jews) 
may likewise receive it. In Gal. this thought is expressed by saying that 
those who have faith (and they only) are sons of Abraham ; in these verses, 
by saying, that Abraham is the father of all who have faith. 


XLITE. Ver. 12. aad xat roic orotyovory. 


Westcott and Hort suppose roi¢ to be a ‘‘ primitive error [the original read- 
ing not having been rightly preserved in any existing document] for avroic.” 
Alford says, ‘‘ The inversion of the article appears to be in order tu bring out 
more markedly” the two ideas—‘‘who are not only of éx weprr., but also of 
croy.” Shedd, with a similar thought apparently, regards the second arti- 
cle ag employed for the purpose of more emphatically calling attention to the 
added characteristic. Godet considers the first roi¢ as a pronoun, but the 
second as a simple definite article: ‘those who are not only of the circum- 
cision, but, at the same time, the (individuals) walking, etc.’’ Weiss ed. Mey. 
suggests that the true explanation may be in the fact, that here also, as in 
ver. 11, the essential condition to a sharing in what Abraham had is a similar 
faith to his—to those who are not only circumcised, but—also in this case, 
only to those who walk, etc. Philippi says, ‘‘It is to be borne in mind that 
negligences of expression occur in the most practised and correct writers.”’ 
Gifford supposes that the Apostle himself, or his amanuensis, or one of the 
earliest transcribers of the Epistle, inserted a superfluous article. The exple- 
nation of Godet appears fanciful, and is contrary to all the probabilities of the 
case. That of Weiss involves, to say the least, a very unusual form of express- 
ing the supposed idea. That of Alford and Shedd assumes an emphasis which 
can hardly be proved to inhere in the repeated article. The Greeks did not, 
apparently, adopt this course to secure emphasis, and it is doubtful whether 
any such design on the part of the writer would have been suggested to the 
reader’s mind by the repetition, The textual conjecture of Dr. Hort (W. & H.) 
may be an ingenious one, but has no external support. It seems better to 
hold, with Meyer, de Wette, etc., that the article is erroneously repeated, or, as 
Winer and Philippi say, that there is here an instance of negligence of style. 
The irregularity may, very probably, be explained in connection with the fact 
that Paul was not writing, but dictating. 


NOTES. 177 


XLIV. Ver. 13. ob yap d:é vépov 4 émayyedia x.T.A. 


At ver. 13 the thought—although, here again, the grammatical connection 
and the manner of introducing the new point are different—turns to what in 
the Epistle to the Galatians is presented in iii. 8-10. The O. T. proof 
for justification by faith, as founded on the case of Abraham, rests not 
only upon the fact that he was justified in this way, but also upon the 
peculiarity of the promise which was given tohim. The argument in Galatians 
is this: The promise was a promise of blessing ; those who are of the law are 
under a curse, and hence cannot be sharers in the blessing ; consequently the 
men who receive the fulfilment of the promise must be believers, and only 
believers. In the passage before us, it is changed somewhat by reason of the 
exigencies of the context, but, in substance, it isthe same. The promise is 
here described in its relation to Abraham—that he should be heir of the 
world ; in Galatians, in its relation to his believing successors—that all the 
nations should be blessed in him. Of this promise it is said that it did not 
come to Abraham through the law, but through faith, and the proof presented 
is (like that in Galatians), that the law works toward a result opposite to the 
one indicated in the promise— namely, toward wrath, and not blessing. The 
experience of the fulfilment of the promise, therefore, could not be secured to 
any—much less to all the true seed of Abraham (both Jews and Gentiles), if it 
were attainable only through the law. On the other hand, it is and can 
made sure only through faith. 


XLV. Ver. 13. dead vduov. 


That vduoc, in vv. 13, 14, means the Mosaic law is evidenced, (a) by the fact 
that, when the Apostle presents in ver. 15 the proof of the statement which he 
makes respecting »éduo¢c in ver. 14, he uses the words 6 yéuoc. In order to the 
completeness of this proof, the two expressions must refer to the same thing ; 
(*) by the parallelism, in its main thought, of this passage with Gal. iii. 
8-10. The proof there offered (ver. 10) requires the same correspondence 
between the two which is demanded here; (c) by the contrast, in the verses 
which immediately follow, both here and in Galatians, between faith and the 
law —where the reference is clearly to the law of Moses; (d) by the fact that 
in Gal. iii. 18—where a similar statement is found to that of ver. 14 here, 
and vézov is used —the preceding verse to which this statement is subordinate 
has 6 réuzoc, and is in the midst of asurrounding context which deals especially 
with the position and effect of that particnlar law which the Jews knew. 
Meyer holds that véuo¢ of the last clause of ver. 15 also means the Mosaic 
law—wohere the law is not, etc.—and this is very probably, though not certainly, 
the true explanation. If, however, this be not the meaning, the peculiar form 
of expression—with the negative—must be regarded as indicating the more 
universal sense, where there is no law. 


XLVI. Ver. 15. otd2 rapaBacis. 


rapeBaccc, rapafarnc, and zapagaivw, refer to that particular sort of sin or 
wrong which consists in transgression of positive or revealed or written law. The 
use of the first of these words here, therefore, shows that Paul certainly did 
not mean by véyo¢ of this verse any law whatever, whether revealed law or the 
law of nature. This view of the meaning has been held by some writers, but 


178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TU THE ROMANS. 


is quite indefensible, ‘‘ Transgression,’’in the Pauline language, always pre- 
supposes the existence of revealed or pusitive law. The evidence respecting 
the use of these words may be seen by examining the passages in which they 
occur: zapaGaive, Matt. xv. 2,3; Acts i. 25; 2 John 9 (T. R.); wapadarne, 
Rom. ii. 25, 27; Gal. ii. 18 ; James ii. 9, 11; zapdBaorc, Rom. ii. 23, iv. 15, v. 
14; Gal. iii. 19; 1 Tim. ii. 14; Heb. ii. 2, ix. 15. 


XLVII. Ver. 19. od xarevéncev. 


In opposition to the view of Meyer, who adopts oi, T. RB. (see his critical 
remarks at the beginning of the chapter), W. & H., 'Tisch., Treg., Weiss, Godet, 
and others, omit it. Weiss ed. Mey. claims that Meyer’s explanation of the 
negative u7 before doGevycac, as being from the point of view of the subject, is 
to be rejected because Abraham cannot be regarded as reflecting on the char- 
acter of his faith, and that a rhetorical meiosis, such as is supposed by Mey, 
Philippi, and others (following Theophylact), would certainly have been 
expressed with ot«. The uy, he thinks, can only deny such an aofleveiy as 
apparently would be necessarily united with xarevinoev ; and hence he holds 
that the ov before the last mentioned verb cannot have been in the original 
text. As against Meyer's view respecting uz Weiss seems to be correct, but it 
is doubtful whether his own positive position can be maintained. Can we not, 
with Winer, p. 486, account for sy (if we read ot xarevénoev), as introducing a 
supposition or conception which 1s to be denied? Philippi claims, on the 
other hand, that the ot cannot be dispensed with, because the subjoined dé 
(ver. 20) would, in that case, hnve required tho insertion of uév after xarervéncev. 
Buttm. (p. 356), however, shows that while yuév would be demanded ina 
classical writer, there is more looseness of usage in the case of Paul and the 
other N. T. authors. The attempt to determine on absolute grounds that the 
one or the other reading must, of necessity, be adopted seems to be vain, and 
the question must be decided according to the probabilities of the case, both 
external and interna]. The external evidence undoubtedly favors the omission 
-of ob. The internal argument is more evenly balanced, but the connection 
with ver. 18, in which Abraham is represented as resting his belief upon hope 
in God, where there seemed to be no ground for hope on the human side, and 
the fact that Gen. xvii. 17 is the passage in the O. T. narrative to which the 
language of the verse is most nearly conformed, may be regarded as, on the 
whole, confirming the evidence of the oldest mss. If ov is omitted, pj acvevnoac 
may be translated, with R. V. and Weiss, without being weakened [or weak) in 
faith, or, perhaps better, with Buttm. (cf. Godet), not being weak, etc. —the clause, 
as Godet expresses it, ‘‘ controlling all that follows,’’ as if a sort of negative cause. 
The former rendering is exposed, in some degree, to the objection presented 
‘by Meyer, that the clause thus becomes superfluous. He holds, however (see 
his note), that this is the true rendering of the text, if read without ov, and 
presents the objection as an argument against that text. 


XLVOI. Ver. 20. cig dd rav éwayyeriar. 


If ob is omitted before xarevéncerv, dé is to be explained as equivalent to on the 
other hand, or yet; although he considered the facts which made the result 
‘promised seem impossible, he yet was so far from wavering through unbelief, 
that he was even strengthened, etc. 





CHAP. V. 179 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 1. Zyouev] Lachm. (in the margin), Scholz, Fritzsche, and Tisch. (8) read 
éyupev, following A B* C D K L #*, min., several vss. (including Syr. Vulg. 
It.) and Fathers. But this reading, though very strongly attested, yields a 
sense (let us maintain peace with God) that is here utterly unsuitable ; because 
the writer now enters on a new and important doctrinal topic, and an exhortation 
at the very outset, especially regarding a subject not yet expressly spoken of, 
would at this stage be out of place! Hence the éyouer, sufficiently attested by 
B** X** F G, most min., Syr. p. and some Fathers, is to be retained ; and the 
subjunctive must be regarded as having arisen from misunderstanding, or 
from the hortatory use of the passage. — Ver. 2. 19 wiore] wanting in BD EF 
G, Aeth. It. ; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. (7), as also by Ewald. Following 
ver, 1, it is altogether superfluous ; but this very reason accounts for its omis- 
sion, which secured the direct reference of ei¢ r. ydp. tavr to mpocay. The gen- 
uineness of 14 vicve: is also attested by the reading év rg riorec (80 Fritzsche) 
in A X** 93, and several Fathers, which points toa repetition of the final letters 
of toxnxayxEN.— Ver. 6. After aofevay preponderating witnesses have ér:, which 
Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have adopted. A misplacement of the ér: before 
yép, because it was construed with ac@svay, along with which it came to be 
written. Thus ér: came in twice, and the first was either mechanically allowed 
to remain (A C D* &), or there was substituted for it ciye (B), or eig ri (F G), or 
ei yap. The misplacement of the ér: came to predominate, because a Church- 
lesson began with Xpiorés. — Ver. 8. 6 Oedc, which a considerable number of 
witnesses have before eic¢ fudc (so Tisch. 7) is wanting in B. But as the love 
of Christ, not that of God, appeared from ver. 7 to be the subject of the dis-- 
course, 6 Océ¢ was omitted. — Ver 11. xavyoueva] F G read xavyopev ; L, min., 
and several Fathers xavyouefa. Also Vulg. It. Arm. Slav. express gloriamur, 
An erroneous interpretation. See the exegetical remarks, — Ver. 12. The sec- 
ond é 64varoc is wanting in DE F G 62, It. Syr. p. Aeth. and most Fathers, also 
Aug. In Syr. with an asterisk; Arm. Chrys. Theodoret place it after dijAGev. 
Tisch. (7) had omitted it. But as the word has preponderant testimony in its 
favour, and as in order to the definiteness of the otherwise very definitely ex- 
pressed sentence it cannot be dispensed with, if in both halves of ver. 12 the 
relation of sin and death is, as is manifestly the design, to be expressly put for- 
ward, 6 O4varoc, omitted by Tisch., must be defended. Its omission may have 
arisen from its apparent superfluousness, or from the similarity between the 
final syllables of av@psIIOYE and 6avaTOS. — Ver. 14. y7] is wanting in 62, 63, 
67**, Or. and others, codd. in Ruf. and Aug., and is declared by Ambrosiaster 


! This even, in opposition to the opinion vero non videtur.” Hofmann also has not 
of Tisch. (8), that on account of the welghty been able suitably to explain the éxeper 
testimony in its favour éxwuev cannot be which he defends. See the exegetical re- 
rejected, “ nisi prorsus ineplum sit; inepltum —s marks. 


180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


to be an interpolation. But it is certified partly by decisive testimony in its 
favour; partly by the undoubted genuineness of the xai; and partly because 
the 7 apparently contradicts the erroneously understood é9’ @ (in quo) mavtec 
fyuuprov in ver. 12. See Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 39 ff. — Ver. 16. duapry- 
cavtoc] DE F G, 26, 80, and several vss. and Fathers read duaptiputoc, which 
Griesb. recommended. A gloss occasioned by the antithesis &« woAA. rapar- 
twpatwv, — Ver, 17. ry Tov évd¢g maparrwpatc) So also Lachm. and Tisch. 
(8) following BC K L P X&, vas.,and Fathers, But A FG read év é&i zapanz., 
D E év rq & rapanr. 47, Or. év évog naparr. The original reading was most prob- 
ably the simplest, év évi raparr., which, though not most strongly, is neverthe- 
less sufficiently attested (also recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Tisch. (7), 
because from it the rise of the other variations can be very naturally explained. 
By way of more specific indication in some cases, the article was added (D E), 
in others évi was changed into évéc (47, Or.). But, seeing that in any case the 
sense was quite the same as in the r@ rod évocg waparr. read in ver. 15, this was 
at first written ulongside asa parallel, and then taken into the text. 


CoNTENTS.—Paul has hitherto described the d:xacootvy éx riorews in respect 
of its necessity (i. 18-iii. 21); of its nature (iii. 21-30); and of its relation 
to the law (ili. 31-iv. 25). He now discusses the blessed assurance of salvation 
secured for the present and the future to the dixawbévre¢ éx miorews (ver. 1-11); 
and then—in order clearly to exhibit the greatness and certainty of salvation 
in Christ, more especially in its dirine world-wide significance as the blissful 
epoch-forming counterpart of the Adamite ruin—he presents us with a de- 
tailed parallel between this salvation and the misery which once came through 
Adam (vv. 12-19), and was necessarily augmented through the law (vv. 20, 
21). 

Ver. 1.’ Oty draws an inference from the whole of the preceding section, 
ii. 21-iv. 25, and develops the argument in such a form that d:xawhérrec, 
following at once on d:4 r7 dixaiwowv yu., heads the sentence with triumph- 
ant emphasis. What a blessed assurance of salvation is enjoyed by believers 
in virtue of their justification which has taken place through faith, is now 
to be more particularly set forth ; not however in the form of an erhortation 
(Hofmann, in accordance with the reading éywuev) ‘‘to let our relation to 
God be one of peace” (through a life of faith), in which case the emphasis, 
that obviously rests in the first instance on dcaiw. and then on eipi#ym, is 
taken to lie on did rov xvupiov ju. I. X. — eipyvgv Ex. wm. 7. Ocdv] [See Note 
XLIX. p. 220.] He who is justified is no longer in the position of one to 
whom God must be and is hostile (éy@pi¢ Oeov, ver. 9 f.), but on the con- 
trary he has peace (not in a general sense contentment, satisfaction, as Th. 
Schott thinks) in his relation to God. This is the peace which consists in 
the known objective state of reconciliation, the opposite of the state in which 
one is subject to the divine wrath and the sensus trae. With justification 
this peace ensues as its immediate and abiding result.?, Hence d:xawOévre¢ 

. . éyouev (comp. Acts ix. 31; John xvi. 33). And through Christ (da 


o 
1 On vv. 1-8 see Winzer, Commentat. Lips. 1869, p. 8 ff. 
1882. On the entire chapter Stdélting, Bei- 2 Comp. Dorner, die Rechtfert. durch den 
trage 2. Exegese d. Paul. Briefe, Gottingen, Glauben, p. 12 f. 


CHAP. V., 2. 181 ' 
row «upiov x.7.A.) a3 the eipyvorode is this pacem obtinere (Bremi, ad Isoer. 
Archid. p. 111) procured ; a truth obvious indeed in itgelf, but which, in 
consonance with the strength and fulness of the Apostle’s own believing ex- 
perience, is very naturally again brought into special prominence here, in 
order to connect, as it were, triumphantly with this objective cause of the 
state of peace what we owe to it respecting the point in question, ver. 2. 
There is thus the less necessity for joining da Tov xvpiov x.7.A. with eipfuy 
(Stdlting) ; it belongs, like zpd¢ r. Gedy, in accordance with the position of 
fxouev, to the latter word. — xpo¢ (of the ethical relation, Bernhardy, p. 265), 
as in Acts ii. 47, xxiv. 16.’ It is not to be confounded with the divinely 
wrought inward state of mental peace, which is denoted by eipfvy tov Ocod in 
Phil. iv. 7 ; comp. Col. iii. 15. The latter is the subjective correlate of the 
objective relation of the eipyv7, which we have mpd¢ rov Gedy, although in- 
separably combined with the latter. 

Ver. 2. Ac’ ov xai x.r.A.] Confirmation and more precise definition of the 
preceding da. . . . 'Incov X. The xai does not merely append (Stélting), 
but is rather the ‘‘also” of corresponding relation, giving prominence pre- 
cisely to what had here an important practical bearing ?.e. as proving the 
previous dca xvpiov x.r.A. Comp. ix. 24; 1 Cor. iv. 5; Phil. iv. 10. The 
elamactic interpretation here (KGllner: ‘‘a heightened form of stating the 
merit of Christ ;” comp. Rickert) is open to the objection that the zpocaywy9 
ei¢ 7. yap. 19 not something added to or higher than the eip#v7, but, on the 
contrary, the foundation of it. If we were totake cai. . . . xaiin the sense 
‘as well. . . . as” (Th. Schott, Hofmann), the two sentences, which are 
not to be placed in special relation to iii. 23 would be made co-ordinate, 
although the second is the consequence of that which is affirmed in the first. 
—tHv tpocaywyi] the introduction,? Xen. Cyrop. vii. 5, 45 ; Thuc. 1. 82, 2; 
Plut. Mor. p. 1097 E, Lucian, Zeur. 6 ; and see alsoon Eph. ii. 18. Through 
Christ we have had our introduction to the grace, etc., inasmuch as He 
Himself (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18) in virtue of His atoning sacrifice which re- 
moves the wrath of God, has become our zpoceywyetc, or, as Chrysostom 
aptly expresses it, paxpdv dvtac¢ tpoo7zyaye. In this case the preposition d:d, 
which corresponds with the d:4 in ver. 1, is fully warranted, because Christ 
has brought us to grace in His capacity as the divinely appointed and di- 
vinely given Mediator. Comp. Winer, p. 354 f. [E. T. 378 f.]. — Tor. mpooay. 
toxyx. belongs eig r. ydprv tabryy ; and ra wiatet, by means of faith, denotes the 


1 Comp. Herodian, viii. 7, 8: avyre roAduov 
acy eipyrny éxovtes wpds Deovs. Plat. Pol. v. 
Pp. 465 B: cipyyny wpds adAyArovs ol avédpes 
éfoverwy; Legg. xil. p. 955 B; Alc. J. p. 107, 
D; Xenoph. and others. 

2 [pocayewyy ought not to be explained as 
access (Vulg. acceasum, and so most inter- 
preters), but as leading towards, the mean- 
ing which the word always has (even in 
Eph. ii. 18, fif. 12). See Xen. /.c.; rovs euovs 
didovs Scopdvous xpovaywyns. Polybius uses 
jt to express the bringing up of engines 
against a besieged town, ix. 41, 1, xiv. 10, 


9 ; comp. 1.48, 2; the bringing up of ships to 
the shore, x. i. 6; the bringing of cattle into 
the stall, xii. 4, 10. In Herod. fi. 58 also the 
literal meaning is: a leadingeup, carrying 
up in solemn procession. Tholuck and van 
Hengel have rightly adopted the active 
meaning in this verse (comp. Weber, vom 
Zorne Goltea, p. 816); whilst Philippi, Um- 
breit, Ewald, Hofmann (comp. Mehring) 
abide by the rendering “access.*? Chrysos- 
tom aptly observes on Eph. il. 18: ov yap 
ad’ éavtay mpoonAdoner, add’ Ue avlros 
wrpognxdnuer. 


182 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

subjective medium of r. rpocay. éoxfxavev. On the other hand, Oecumenius, 
Bos, Wetstein, Michaelis, Reiche, Baumgarten-Crusius take r. rpncaywy. ab- 
solutely, in the sense of access to God (according to Reiche as a figurative 
mode of expressing the beginning of grace), and eic rv yép. tabr. as belong- 
ing to rg riorex. In that case we must supply after tpocay. the words zpic 
rt. Gedv from ver. 1 (Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12) ; and we may with Bos and Michae- 
lis explain mpocaywy; by the usage of courts, in accordance with which 
access to the king was obtained through a rpocaywyet¢, sequester (Lamprid. 
in Aler. Sev. 4). But the whole of this reading is liable to the objection 
that rioric cic Hv yéptv Would be an expression without analogy in the N. T. 
— éoyfxauev] Not : habemus (Luther and many others), nor nacti sumus et 
habemus (most modern interpreters, including Tholuck, Riickert, Winzer, 
Ewald), but habuimus, namely, when re became Christians. So also de Wette, 
Philippi, Maier, van Hengel, Hofmann. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 9, ii. 13, vii. 5. 
The perfect realizes as present the possession formerly obtained, as in Plat. 
Apol. p. 20 D, and see Bernhardy, p. 379. — etc rv yap. rabr.] The divine 
grace of which the justified are partakers’ is conceived as a field of space, into 
which they have had (écyjxauev) introduction through Christ by means of 
faith, and in which they now have (éyouev) peace with God. — év 9 éorpxauer} 
does not refer to rg wiorec (Grotius), but to the nearest antecedent, rjv yapr, 
which is also accompanied by the demonstrative : in which we stand. The 
joyful consciousness of the present, that the possession of grace once en- 
tered upon is permanent, suggested the word to the Apostle. Comp. 1 Cor. 
xv. 1; 1 Pet. v. 12. —xa? xavyépueba] [See Note L. p. 221.] may be regarded 
as a continuation either of the last relative sentence (é» 9 éor#x., 30 van 
Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, Stélting), or of the previous one (d:’ ob Kai «.7.4.), 
or of the principal sentence (eipfv. éxouev). The last alone is suggested by 
the context, because, as ver. 3 shows, a new and independent element in the 
description of the blessed condition is introduced with xai xavyéuefa. — 
xavyacba expresses not merely the idea of rejoicing, not merely ‘‘the inward 
elevating consciousness, to which outward expression is not forbidden” 
(Reiche), but rather the actual glorying, by which we praise ourselves as 
privileged (‘‘ what the heart is full of, the mouth will utter"). Such is its 
meaning in all cases, — On ézi, on the ground of, i.e. over, joined with cavy., 
comp. Ps. xlviii. 6; Prov. xxv. 14; Wisd. xvii. 7; Ecclus. xxx. 2. No 
further example of this use is found in the N. T.? It is therefore unneces- 
sary to isolate xavywueba, 30 as to make é7’ eAridc independent of it (iv. 18 ; 
so van Hengel). Comp. on the contrary, the ceuviveofa éxi ree frequent in 
Greek authors. The variation of the prepositions, é7i and in ver. 3 &, is 


1 For to nothing else than the grace ex- 
perienced in justification can eis 7. xap. tr. be 
referred in accordance with the context 
(d.aacwdevres)—not to the dlessings of Chris- 
lianily generally (Chrysostom and others, 
including Flatt and Winzer; comp. 
Riickert and K@Gllner); not to the Gospel 
(Fritzsche) ; and not to the eipyvn (Mehring, 
Stolting), which would yield a tame tautol- 


ogy.—The demonstrative ravrny implies 
something of triumph. Compare Photius. 
The joyful consciousness of the Apostle is 
still full of the high blessing of grace, 
which he has just expressed in the terms 
8taaiwors and Sxarcwdévres. 

2 But see Lycurgus in Beck. Anecd. 275, 4; 
Diod. S. xvi. 70; and Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 436. 


CHAP. V., 3, 4. 183 
not to be imputed to any set purpose ; comp. on iii. 20 ; iii, 25 f. al. — The 
é6£a Tr. @cov is the glory of God, in which the members of the Messiah’s 
kingdom shall hereafter participate. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; John xvii. 22, 
also viii. 17 ; Rev. xxi. 11 ; 1 John iii. 2 ; and see Weiss, dil. Theol. p. 376. 
The reading of the Vulg.: gloriae jiliorum Dei, is a gloss that hits the right 
sense. Reiche and Maier, following Luther and Grotius, take the genitive 
as a genit. auctoris. But that God is the giver of the dé£a, is self-evident and 
does not distinctively characterize it. Riickert urges here also his exposition 
of ili. 23; comp. Ewald. But see on that passage. Flatt takes it as the 
approcal of God (iii. 23), but the éA7id:, pointing solely to the glorious future, 
is decisive against this view. It isaptly explained by Melanchthon : ‘‘ quod 
Deus sit nos gloria sua aeterna ornaturus, i.e. vita aeterna et communicatione 
sui ipsius.” 

Vv. 3, 4.’ Ob pdvov dé] scil. Kavyduefa én’ Amide rig dbEne T. Ozov.? — év Taig 
Oniw.| of the tribulations (affecting us), as commonly in the N. T. év is con- 
nected with xavyao6ac (ver. 11 ; 2 Cor. x. 15; Gal. vi. 13). Comp. Senec. 
de prov. iv. 4: ‘‘gaudent magni viri rebus adversis non aliter quam fortes 
milites bellis triumphant.” As to the ground of this Christian xabynoic, see 
the sequel. On the thing itself, in which the believer's victory over the 
world makes itself apparent (viii. 35 ff.), comp. 2 Cor. xi. 30, xii. 9; Matt. 
v. 10, 12 ; Acts v. 41; 1 Pet. iv. 12 f. Observe further, how with the joy- 
ful assurance of ample experience the triumphant discourse proceeds from 
the iAric rij¢ déEnc, a3 subject-matter of the xavyaofa:, to the direct opposite 
(év taig OAipeorv), which may be likewise matter of glorying. Others 
(Gléckler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Stélting) erroneously render év as in, which 
the contrast, requiring the object, does not permit, since év r. 6A. is not oppos- 
ed to the év 9 in ver. 2. — trouovfy] endurance,’ namely, in the Christian 
faith and life. Comp. ii. 7; Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13. Paul lays down the # 
Azivng trou. xatepyal. unconditionally, because he is speaking of those who 
have been justified é« riotewc, in whose case the reverse cannot take place 
without sacrifice of their faith. — doxeuqv] triedness, 2 Cor. ii. 9, viii. 2, ix. 
13; Phil. ii. 22, ‘‘ quae ostendit fidem non esse simulatam, sed veram, vivam 
ct ardentem,” Melanchthon. Triedness is produced through endurance (not 
made known, as Reiche thinks); for whosoever does not endure thereby be- 
comes adéx:yoc. There is here no inconsistency with Jamesi. 3. Sec Huther. 
— éArida] namely, r7¢ défn¢ r. Geov, as is self-evident after ver. 2. The hope, 
it is true, already exists before the dox:uj ; nevertheless, the more the Chris- 
tian has become tried, the more also will hope (which the adéxyo¢g loses) con- 


1 See a climax of description, similar in 
point of form in the Tractat. TIO 9, 15 
(see Surenhb. ITI. 309): ** Providentia parit 
alacritatem, alacritas, innocentiam, inno- 
centia puritatem, puritas abstinentiam, ab- 
stinentia sanctitatem, sanctitas modestiam, 
modestia timorem, timor sceleris pieta- 
tem, pietas spiritum sanctum, et spiritus 
sanctus resurrectionem mortuorum.” In 
contrast with this, how fervent, succinct, 


and full of life is the climax in our passage ! 
For other chains of climactic succession, 
see viii. 20 ff., x. 14 ff. ; 2 Pet. 1 5 fff. 

2 Examples of the usage (ver. 11, viii. 28, 
ix. 10; 2 Cor. vill. 19) may be seen in Kypke, 
II. p. 165 ; Vigerus. ed. Herm. p. 543; Heind. 
and Stallb. ad Phaed. p. 107 B. Comp. 
Legg. vi. p. 752 A; Men. p. 71 B. 

3“*In ratione bene considerata stabilis 
et perpetua permansio,”’ Cic. de inv. il. 54, 


184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

sciously possess him. Comp. James i. 12. Hope is therefore present, and 
yet withal is produced by the emergence of the doxczq, just as faith may be 
present, and yet be still further produced through something cmerging 
(John ii. 11).1— Observe further, how widely removed from all fanatical 
pride in suffering is the reason assigned with conscious clearness for the 
Christian xavyao0a: év rai¢g OAieotin our passage. In it the éA=i¢ is uniformly 
meant and designated as the highest subjective blessing of the justified person, 
who is assured of the glorious consummation (not in ver. 3 f. as conduct and 
only in ver. 2 as blessing, as Hofmann thinks).’? 

Ver. 5. 'H dé éAricg} not, ‘* the hope thus established ” (Oecumenius, Olshau- 
sen, Stélting), but, in accordance with the analogy of the preceding ele- 
ments, and without any excluding limitation, the hope (of glory), as such, 
consequently the Christian hope. This deceives no one who has it. It is 
self-evident, and the proof that follows gives information as to the fact, that 
this is uttered in the consciousness and out of the inward assurance of real 
living justification by faith.* — ov xaraoyiver] maketh not ashamed, i.e. ‘‘ ha- 
bet certissimum salutis (of the thing hoped for) exitum,” Calvin, as will be 
shown at the judgment. ‘‘ Spes erit res,” Bengel. Comp. ix. 33 ; Ecclus. 
ii. 10 ; Bar. vi. 39 ; Ps. xxii. 6. Comp. also Plat. Cone. p. 188 E, Adyore 
Kai tbxocxfoeg naraoyxtvac. Polit. p. 268 D ; Dem. 314, 9. The expression 
of triumphant certainty in the present is not to be removed by changing it 
into the future (Hofmann, who would read xaracoyevei). — dre ) ayazy Tt. Oop 
x.7.A.] Ground of 4 dé éAric ov kataax. The divine love,‘ effectually present 
in the heart through the Holy Spirit, is to the Christian consciousness of 
faith the sure pledge that we do not hope in vain and so as to be put to 
shame at last, but that God will on the contrary fulfil our hope. coz is 
the genitive of the subject ; the love of God to us (so most expositors follow- 
ing Origen, Chrysostom, and Luther), not of the object : lore to God (Theo- 
doret, Augustine, Anselm, and others ; including Klee, Glickler, Umbreit, 
Hofmann, Stélting), which appears from ver. 8, as incorrect. Comp. viii. 
39 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 13. As respects the justified, the wrath of God has given 
place to His love, which has its presence in them through the Spirit, its 
dwelling and sphere of action in believing hearts ; and thus it is to them. 
like the Spirit Himself, apjaBov of the hoped-for défa, 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5. — 
éxxéxurat] Figure for abundant, living effective communication (Acts ii. 17. 
x. 45). The idea of abundance is already implied in the sensuous image of 
outpouring, but may also, as in Tit. ili. 6, be specially expressed.* — é» rai¢ 
xapdiac] denotes, in accordance with the expression of the completed fact, 
the being spread abroad in the heart (motus in loco). Comp. LXX. Ps. xlv. 
2. — dia mvetuaroc x.t.A.]| Through the agency of the Spirit bestowed on us, 


1 Comp. Lipstus, Rechtfertigungesl., p. 207 f. 

2 Comp. the néeta eAmis, Which aet rapeore, 
in contrast to the ¢nv pera caxns eAmiéos in 
Plato, Rep. p. 331 A. 

3Comp. Diisterdieck in the Jahrb. f. D. 
Th. 1870, p. 668 ff. 

As is well said by Calovius: ‘quae 
charitas effusa in nobis non qua inhaesionem 


subjectivam, sed qua manifestationem et qua 
¢ffectum vel sensum ejusdem in cordibus 
nostris effusum.” Comp. Melanchthon 
(against Osiander). 

6 Among Catholics this explanation of ac- 
tive love was favoured by the doctrine of 
the fustitia tnfusa. 

* Comp. generally Suicer, Thes. I. p. 1078. 


CHAP. V., 6. 185 
who is the principle of the real self-communication of God, the divine love 
is also poured out in our hearts ; see viii. 15, 16 ; Gal. iv. 6. 

Ver. 6. Objective actual proof of this aydém7 r. Ocot, which through the 
Spirit fills our heart. Comp. as to the argument viii. 89. ‘‘ For Christ, 
tchen we were yet weak, at the right time died for the ungodly.” — érc] can in 
no case belong to a7éOave (Stdlting), but neither does it give occasion for 
any conjecture (Fritzsche : 7 7). Paul should perhaps have written : ére 
749 bvruv gu. aoGevav Xpiorée x.t.A., OF : Xpiordg yap Sbvrwv hudv aobevav Ere 
«.t.4, (hence the second ér: in Lachmann) ; but amidst the collision of em- 
phasis between gre and the subject both present to his mind, he has ex- 
presed himself inexactly, so that now ér: seems to belong to Xpcoréc, and 
yet in sense necessarily belongs, asin ver. 8, to dvruv x.7.A.' To get rid of this 
irregularity, Seb. Schmid, Oeder, Koppe, and Flatt have taken ér: as insuper, 
and that either in the sense of adeo (Koppe, also Schrader), which however 
it never means, not even in Luke xiv. 26; or so that a ‘for further, for 
moreoter” (see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 119) introduces a second argument for 7 
dé édxic ob xaracy. (Flatt, also Baumgarten-Crusius). Against this latter 
construction ver. 8 is decisive, from which it is clear that vv. 6—8 are meant 
to bee nothing else than the proof of the dyézyr. @cov. On é7: itself, with the 
imperfect participle in the sense of tune adhuc, comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 
p. 693, It indicates the continued existence, which the earlier condition 
still had.?— dvrev qu. dobevav] when we were still (éri) without strength, still 
had not the forces of the true spiritual life, which we could only receive 
through the Holy Ghost. The sinfulness is purposely described as weakness 


‘Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 508 E: ére 8% & rére 
fapeiner viv Aéyouer ; p. 868 D: of 8 ére rovTwy 
BaxpoTépous axoreivovot piodovs (Where é7: 
ought to stand before maxp.). Achill. Tat. 
V.18: ey 8 éx: cot ravTa ypadw wapdévos, and 
see Winer, p. 515 [E. T. 558]. Buttmann, 
neul. Gr. p. 383 f. (EK. T. 889] ; and Fritzsche 
in loc. Van Hengel decides in favour 
of the reading with the double é (Gries- 
bach, Lachmann, see the critical remarks) ; 
he thinks that Paul had merely wished to 
Say: én yap X. xara cap. Uw. ageB. awéd., but 
had in dictation for the sake of clearness 
inserted after Xpiords the words Svrer nuwy 
ed. én. Mehring also follows Lachmann’s 
Teading. He thinks that Paul intended to 
Write, with emphatic repetition of the ére: 
‘TN yap Xporos, Ere Urep doeBav axddave, but 
interrupted the sentence by the insertion 

M évrwy iy. acd. Ewald, holding ei ydp or 
“ye to be the original (see critical remarks) 
and then reading é7: after aodevay, finds in 
Ver. 9 the apodosis of ver. 6, and takes vv. 
7.8 asa parenthesis. Comp. also Usteri, 
Lehriegr, yp. 119. Th. Schott also follows 
the reading ei yép (and after dod : ér:), but 
finds the apodosis so early as ver. 6, by 
"Upplying after aod. éri: awédave ; whereas 


Hofmann (in his Schriftbew. IT. p. 34%), fol. 
lowing the same reading, like Ewald, made 
ver. 9 fill the place of the apodosis, but now 
prefers to read é7: at the beginning as well 
as also after agdevay, and to punctuate 
thus: ére y. Xptovds ovtwy nuov acdevay, ért 
KaTa katpoy Ur. ageB. aréd. With this read- 
ing Hofmann thinks that the second ér: be- 
gins the sentence anew, so that with 
Xpiords amdédavey an ere stands twice, the 
first referring to édvtev yuov agdevav, and 
the second to trép aceBov. But itis self- 
evident that thus the difficulty is only 
doubled, because érs would both times be 
erroneously placed, which would yield, es- 
pecially in the case of the second ér,a 
strange and in fact intolerable confusion, 
since there would stand just beside it a 
definition of time (xara xatpév), to which 
nevertheless the word elsewhere, so fre- 
quently used with definitions of time, is 
not intended to apply—a fact which is not 
to be disguised by subtleties. Mircker 
also would read ér twice, but render the 
first é¢r ‘“‘ moreover,” which, however, 
would be without reference inthe text. 

3 Bacumlein, p. 118; Schneider, ad Fiat. 
Rep. p. 449 C. 


186 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

(need of help), in order to characterize it as the motive for the love of God 
interfering tosave. The idea of disease (Theodoret : ric doeBeiag repixetpévwn 
tTHv vdcov; comp. Theophylact, Umbreit, and others), or that of minority 
(van Hengel), is not suggested by anything in the context. — xara xa:pér'} 
may either (1) be rendered according to the time, according to the nature of 
the time, so that with Erasmus, Luther, Flacius, Castalio, Pareus, Seb. 
Schmid, also Schrader and Th. Schott, it would have to be connected with 
aof, ;' or (2) it may belong to imép aoeB. avéGave, and mean, in accordance 
with the context, either at the appointed time (Gal. iv. 4), as it is here taken 
usually, also by de Wette, Tholuck, Philippi, Maier, Baumgarten-Crusius ; 
or (3) at the proper time (see Kypke) ;* the same as év xacp@, é¢ xaipdv, éxi 
xacpov ; Phavorinus : xara tov ebxaipov x. mpooyjKxovra xaipév ; and so the bare 
xaipév (Bernhardy, p. 117), equivalent to xa:piwc, the opposite of a7d xa:pod 
and apd xa:pév. In the jirst case, however, x. x. would either assign to the 
ao0. an inappropriate excuse, which would not even be true, since the aoféveza 
has always obtained since the fall (ver. 13) ; or, if it was meant directly to 
disparage the pre-Christian age (Flacius, ‘‘ ante omnem nostram pietatem,” 
comp. Stéltihg and Hofmann), it would characterize it much too weakly. 
In the second case an element not directly occasioned by the connection 
(proof of God’s love) would present itself. Therefore the third interpre- 
tation alone : at the right time (so Ewald and van Hengel) is to be retained. 
The death of Jesus for the ungodly took place at the proper season, because, 
had it not taken place then, they would, instead of the divine grace, have 
experienced the final righteous outbreak of divine wrath, seeing that the 
time of the mrdpearc, iii. 25, and of the avoy/ of God had come to an end. 
Comp. the idea of the w2fpupa tv xatpov, Eph. i. 10; Gal. iv. 4. Now or 
never was the time for saving the aor;3ei¢ ; now or never was the xarpoc¢ dextéc, 
2 Cor. vi. 2; and God’s love did not suffer the right time for their salvation 
to elapse, but sent Christ to die for them the sacrificial death of atonement.* 
— winép] for, for the benefit of.‘ Soin all passages where there is mention of 
the object of Christ’s death. Luke xxii. 19, 20; Rom. viii. 32, xiv. 15; 1 


1Comp. Stédlting: “conformadly to the 
time,’ i.e. as it was suitable for the time, 
namely, the time of ungodliness. Similarly 
Hofmann, ‘‘in consideration of the time,” 
which was a time of godlessness, ‘* without 
the fear of God on the part of individuals 
making any change thereon.” 

2 Comp. Pind. /sthm. ii. 82; Herod. {. 30; 
Lucian, Philops. 21; LXX. Is. lx. 22; Job v. 
16 ; xxxix. 18; Jer. v. 24. 

* According to my former explanation of 
the passage the meaning would be, that, if 
Christ had appeared and died la/er, they 
would have perished unredeemed in their 
acgdéveca, and would have had no share in 
the act of atonement. But this view is un- 
tenable; because Paul cannot have looked 
on the divine proof of love, given in the re- 
deeming death of Christ, otherwise than in 


a quite general light, @¢. as given to all 
mankind, as it appears everywhere in the 
N. T. since John ifi. 16. Comp. Philippi, 
with whose view I now in substance con- 
cur, although in «ard xa:péy, by explaining 
it as ‘‘ seasonably,”’ I find more directly an 
element of the love, which the context pro- 
poses to exhibit. 

Comp. Eur. Alc. 701: ny Svnon’ vetp 100d" 
avdpds ovd’ éyw mpd cov, Iph. A. 13889; Soph. 
Trach. 705; Aj. 1290; Plat. Conv. p. 179 B: 
evdeAjoaca povn Umep Tov auTHs avdpds azoda- 
very: Dem. 690, 18; Xen. Cyr. vii. 4, 9 f.; 
Isocr. iv. 7%; Dio. Cass. Ixiv. 18; Ecclus. 
Xxix. 15: édwxe yap Thy puny avrov umép gov ; 
2 Macc. vi. 2, vii. 9, vili. 21; comp. also 
Ignatius, 7@ Rom. 4: urép @cov awodviacne. 
Comp. the compound vrepdvyccev with 
genit., so frequent especially in Euripides. 


CHAP. V., 7, 8. 187% 
Cor. i. 13; 2 Cor. v. 14; Gal. iii. 13; Eph. v. 1; 1 Thess. v. 9, 10; 1 
Tim. i. 6; Tit. ii. 14.1 That Paul did not intend by tzép to convey the 
meaning instead of, is shown partly by the fact, that while he indeed some- 
times exchanges it for the synonymous? zepi (Gal. i. 4, like Matt. xxvi. 20; 
Mark xiv. 25), he does not once use instead of it the unambiguous dyri 
(Matt. xx. 28), which must nevertheless have suggested itself to him most 
naturally ; and partly by the fact, that with tzép as well as with zepi he 
puts not invariably the genitive of the person, but sometimes that of the 
thing (c4uaptiv), in which case it would be impossible to explain the prepo- 
sition by instead of (viii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 3). It is true that he has certainly 
regarded the death of Jesus as an act furnishing the satisfactio vicaria, as is 
clear from the fact that this bloody death was accounted by him as an expi- 
atory sacrifice (iii. 25; Eph. v. 2; Steiger on 1 Pet. p. 342 f.), comp. 
avriduvrpov in 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; but in no passage has he expressed the substitu- 
tionary relation through the preposition. On the contrary his constant con- 
ception is this : the sacrificial death of Jesus, taking the place of the pun- 
ishment of men, and satisfying divine justice, took place as such in com- 
modum (irtp, zepi) of men, or—which is the same thing—on account of their 
sins (in gratiam), in order to expiate them (epi or trép duaptiov). This we 
hold against Flatt, Olshausen, Winzer, Reithmayr, Bisping, who take wrép 
as loco. That irép must at least be understood as loco in Gal. iii. 13 ; 2 Cor. 
v. 14 (notwithstanding ver. 15) ; 1 Pet. iii. 18 (Riickert, Fritzsche, Phi- 
lippi), is not correct. See on Gal. l.c. and 2 Cor. lc. ; Philem. 18 is not 
here a case in point. —aceBiv] Paul did not write juev, in order that after 
the need of help (aoevav) the unworthiness might also be made apparent ; 
ace3or Is the category, to which the nueic have belonged, and the strong ex- 
pression (comp. iv. 5) is selected, in order now, through the contrast, to set 
forth the more prominently the divine love in its very strength. 

Vv. 7, 8. Illustrative description (yap) of this dying izép aceZav as the 
practical demonstration of the divine love (ver. 8). Observe the syllogistic 
relation of ver. 8 to ver. 7 ; which is apparent through the emphatic éavroi. 
— Scarce, namely, for a righteous man (not to mention for acePeic) will any one 
die. This very contrast to the daefecic completely shuts out the neuter inter- 
pretation of dixaiov (‘‘ pro re justa,”” Mclanchthon, comp. Olshausen, Jerome, 
Erasmus, Annot., Luther). On account of the same contrast, consequently 
because of the parallel between tép roi ayabot and izép dixaiov, and because 
the context generally has to do only with the dying for persons, roi ayabod 
also is to be taken not as neuter,® but as masculine ; and the article denotes 
the definite ayafbs who is in question in the case concerned. Since, moreover, 
an essential distinction between dixacog and ayaféc ‘ is neither implied in the 


1See also Ritschl in the Jahrd. fir 
Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 242. 

? Bremi ad Dem. Ol. ili. 5, p. 188, Goth. 

» Koster also in the Stud. u. Avrit. 1854, p. 
312, has taken both words as neuter: 
‘hardly does one die for others sor the 
sake of their (mere) right; sooner at all 
events for the sake of the manifestly good, 


which they have.”’ 

Comp. on the contrary Matt. v. 45; 
further, avg ayadds «. Sicacos in Luke xxill. 
50; } evroAn ayia x. &xaia «x. ayady in Rom. 
Vil. 12; 6 Sixatos uty avarépavtas wy ayados 
re xai codés, Aesch. Sept. 576; Eur. Hipp. 
4m ; Thes. fr. villi. 2. 


188 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


context, where on the contrary the contrast to both is aseBav and dyaprwdéy, 
nor is in the least hinted at by Paul, no explanation is admissible that is 
based on an essential difference of idea in the two words ; such as that row 
ayatiot should be held to express something different from or higher than 
Stxaiov. Therefore the following is the only explanation that presents itself 
as comformable to the words and context: After Paul has said that one 
will hardly die for a righteous man, he wishes to add, by way of confirma- 
tion (yap), that cases of the undertaking such a death might possibly occur, and 
expresses this in the form : for perhaps for the good man one even takes it upon 
him to die. Thus the previously asserted irép dixaiov tig axofaveira, although 
one assents to it eiz et aegre, is yet said with reason,—it may perhaps occur. 
Paul has not however written rov d:xaiov in the second clause of the verse, 
as he might have donc, but introduces rov aya6ov, and prefixes it, in order 
now to make still more apparent, in the interest of the contrast, the category 
of the quality of the person for whom one may perhaps venture this self- 
sacrifice. This is substantially the view arrived at by Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, in the Paraphr., Beza, Calvin (‘‘rarissimum sane 
inter homines exemplum exstat, ut pro justo mori quis sustineat guamguam 
illud nonnunquam accidere possit’’), Castalio, Calovius, and others ; recently 
again by Fritzsche (also Oltramare and Reithmayr) ; formerly also by Hof- 
mann (in his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 348). It has been wrongly alleged that it 
makes the second half of the verse superfluous (de Wette) and weakening 
(Kéllner and Riickert) ; on the contrary, in granting what may certainly 
now and again occur, it the more emphatically paves the way for the con- 
trast which is to follow, that God has caused Christ to die for quite other 
persons than the dixaiovg and ayafotc—for us sinners. Groundless also is the 
objection (of van Hengel), that in Paul’s writings the repeated ric always 
denotes different subjects ; the indefinite ric, one, any one, may indeed even 
here represent in the concrete application different subjects or the same. 
Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 20. And, even if d:xaiov and rov dyafov be regarded as two 
distinct conceptions, may not the second ric be the same with the first ? But 
the perfect accordance with the words and context, which is only found in 
the exposition offered, shuts out every other. Among the explanations thus 
excluded, are: (1) Those which take roi ayafot as neuter, like the render- 
ing of Jerome, Erasmus, Annot. (‘‘bonitatem”), Luther, Melanchthon (‘‘ pro 
bona ct suavi re, i.e. incitati cupiditate aut opinione magnae utilitatis”), 
and more recently Riickert (‘‘for the good, i.e. for what he calls his highest 
good’), Mehring (‘‘ for for his own advantage some one perhaps risks even life’) ; 
now also Hofmann (‘‘ what is in itself and really good .... a@ moral calue, 
for which, when it is endangered, one sacrifices life, in order not to let it 
perish”). — (2) Those explanations which indeed take ov ayafov properly as 
masculine, but yet give self-invented distinctions of idea in reference to 
dixaiov : namely (a), the exposition, that 6 aya8é¢ means the benefactor: hardly 
does any one die for a righteous man (who stands in no closer relation to him) ; 
Sor for his benefactor one dares perchance (out of gratitude) to die. So Flacius,' 


1 Clav. I. p. 698. ‘‘ Vix accidit, ut quis eo tamen, qui alicul valde est uliiis, forsitan 
suam vitam profundat pro justissimis; pro |§ mori non recuset.” 


CHAP. V., 7%, 8. 189 
Knatchbull, Estius, Hammond, Clericus, Heumann, Wolf, and others ; in- 
cluding Koppe, Tholuck, Winer, Benecke, Reiche, Gléckler, Krehl, Maier, 
Umbreit, Bisping, Lechler, and Jatho. They take the article with ayafc 
as: the benefactor whom he has, against which nothing can be objected 
(Bernhardy, p. 315). But we may object that we cannot at all see why 
Paul should not have expressed benefactor by the very current and definite 
term evepyétnc ; and that ayaféc must have obtained the specific sense of be- 
neficence (as in Matt. xx. 15 ; Xen. Cyr. iii. 3, 4, al. ap. Dorvill. ad Charit. 
p. 722; and Tholuck in loc. from the contert—a want, which the mere ar- 
ticle cannot supply (in opposition to Reiche). Hence, in order to gain for 
ayalécs the sense beneficent in keeping with the context, dixacog would have to 
be taken in the narrower sense as just (with Wetstein and Olshausen), so as 
to yield aclimax from the just man to the benevolent (who renders more than 
the mere obligation of right binds him to do).* But in ver. 8 there is no 
reference to ayaféc in the sense assumed ; and the narrower sense of dixarog 
is at variance with the contrasting duaprwAdv in ver. 8, which demands for 
dix precisely the wider meaning (righteous). Besides the prominence which 
Paul intends to give to the love of God, which caused Christ to die for sin- 
ners, while a man hardly dics for a dixasog, is weakened just in proportion 
as the sense of dixaog is narrowed. The whole interpretation is a forced 
one, inconsistent with the undefined rot ayafov itself as well as with the en- 
tire context. — (b) No better are the explanations which find in row ayafov 
a greater degree of morality than in dixaiov, consequently a man more worthy 
of having life sacrificed for him. So, but with what varied distinctions ! 
especially Ambrosiaster (the dixaco¢g 1s such exercitio, the ayaféc natura), Ben- 
gel (dix. homo tnnoxius, 6 ayabéc, omnibus pietatis numeris absolutus. ... V. g. 
pater patriae), Michaclis, Olshausen, K6llner (dix.: legally just, aya@.: per- 
fectly good and upright), de Wette dix. : irreproachable, a)a0. : the noble), 
Philippi and Th. Schott (both substantially agreeing with de Wette), 
also van Hengel (dix. : probus coram Deo, i.e. venerabilis, aya0. : bonus in 
hominum oculis, i.c. amabilis), and Ewald, according to whom dix. is he 
‘‘who, in a definite case accused unto death, is nevertheless innocent in 
that particular case,” while the aya0éc¢ is ‘‘he, who not only in one such in- 
dividual suit, but predominantly in his whole life, is purely useful to others 
and guiltless in himself ;? comp. Stélting, who finds in dix. the honest up- 
right man, and in adyaéc him whom we personally esteem and love. But all 
these distinctions of idea are artificially created and brought in without any 
hint from the context.” — On rdya, fortasse, perhaps indeed, expressing possi- 


1An apt illustration of this would be- 


Cieero, de gf. Sil. 15: ‘‘Sivir bonus is est, 
qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini, 
recte fjuxtum virum, bdonum non facile re- 
periemus.”’ 

2 Ewald supposes an allusion to cases like 
these in 1 Sam. xiv. 45, xx. 17; but that it is 
also possible, that Paul might have in view 
_ Gentile examples that were known to him- 
self and the readers. 

3 Kanze, in the Slud. u. Krit. 1850, p. 407 


ff., also rightly recognizes this; but cx- 
plains the second half, contrary to the 
words, as if the proposition were expressed 
conditionally (e «ai), ‘for tf eren some one 
lightly ventures to die for the good man, 
still however God proves his love,” etc. 
Comp. Erasm. Paraphr.—Mircker explains 
it in the sense of one friend dying for an- 
other ; and suggests that Paul was thinking 
of the example of Damon and Pythias. 


190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


bility not without doubt, comp. Xen. Anab. v. 2, 17; Philem. 15 ; Wisd. 
xiii. 6, xiv. 19. In classic authors most frequently réy’ dév.—xai roApua] 
etiam sustinet, he has even the courage,' can prevail upon himself, audet. The 
xai is the also of the corresponding relation. In presence of the good man, 
he ventures also to die for him. — We may add, that the words from tixép yap 
Tov ayafov down to azofaveiv are not to be put (with Lachmann) in 4 paren- 
thesis, since, though they form only a subordinate confirmatory clause, they 
cause no interruption in the construction. — Ver. 8. dé] Not antithetical 
(‘‘such are men, but such is God,” Mchring), as if the sentence began with 
6 d2 Océ, but rather carrying it onward, namely, to the middle term of the 
syllogism (the minor proposition), from which then the conclusion, ver. 9, 
is designed to result. — ovviorgo:] proves, as in 111.5. The accomplished fact 
of the atoning death is conceived according to its abiding effect of setting 
forth clearly the divine love ; hence the present. The emphasis indeed 
lies in the first instance on ovviorgjo: (for from this proof as such a further 
inference is then to be drawn), but passes on strengthened to rv éavrov be- 
cause it must be God’s own love, authenticating itself in the death of Christ, 
that gives us the assurance to be expressed in ver. 9. God Himself, out of 
His love for men, has given Christ to a death of atonement ; iii. 24, viii. 
32 ; Eph. ii. 4 ; 2 Thess. ii. 16; John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 10e¢ al. To find 
in r. gavrov aya. the contrast to our love towards God (Hofmann ; comp. 
on ver. 5) is quite opposed to the context, which exhibits the divine demon- 
stration of love in Christ’s deed of love. That is the clear relation of ver. 
8 to ver. 6 f., from which then the blessed inference is drawn in ver. 9. 
Hence we are not to begin a new connection with ovviorga: dé x.7.A. (Hofmann, 
‘¢God lets us know, and gives us to experience that He loves us ; and this 
He does, because Christ,” etc.). The dr: cannot be the motive of God for His 
cuviornot x.t.A., since He has already given Christ out of love ; it is meant on 
the contrary to specify the actual ground of the knowledge of the divine proof 
of love (= eig¢ éxeivo, érz4, comp. on 2 Cor. i. 18; John ii. 18). — ele jude} 
belongs to ovvior. — ére duapt. dvr. ju.| For only through the atoning death 
of Christ have we become dixawhéivrec. See ver. 9. 

Ver. 9. To prove that hope maketh not ashamed (vcr. 5), Paul had laid 
stress on the possession of the divine love in the heart (ver. 5) ; then he had 
proved and characterized this divine love itself from the death of Christ 
(vv. 6-8) ; and he now again infers, from this divine display of love, from 
the death of Christ, that the hoped-for cternal salvation is all the more as- 
sured to us. — 7022 otv nGAdov] The conclusion does not proceed a minori ad 
majus (Estius and many, including Mchring), but, since the point now turns 
on the carrying out of the divine act of atonement, @ majori (vv. 6-8) ad 
minus (ver. 9). — woAA@ paddAav] expresses the enhancement of certainty, as 
in vv. 15-17 : much less therefore can it be doubted that, etc. ; viv stands in 
reference to ire duaptwAdv bvtuv judy in ver. 8. — owhnoduefa ard Tr. opyyc] we 
shall be rescued from the divine wrath (1 Thess. i. 10 ; comp. Matt. iii. 7, 


1 Respecting roAuav see Wetstein, who Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 360 B; Monk, 
properly defines it: ‘“‘quidpilam grave in ad ur. Alc. 24; Jacobs in Addit. ad Athen. 
animum inducere et sibiimperare.’’ Comp. p. 309 f. 


CHAP. V., 10. 191 


so that the latter, which issues forth at the last judgment (ii. 5, iii. 5), does 
not affect us. Comp. Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 621] ; Acts ii. 40.° This negative 
expression for the attainment of the hoped-for déga renders the inference - 
more obvious and convincing. For the positive expression see 2 Tim. iv. 
18. — d? avrot} t.e. through the operation of the ezalted Christ, év 19 fug 
avvov, ver. 10. — Faith, as the Aymrixéy 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. If 
faith were in the judgment of God the anticipation of moral perfection (but 
see note on i. 17), least of all could it have been left unmentioned. Observe 
also how Paul has justification in view asa unity, without different degrees, 
or stages. 

Ver. 10. More special development (ydp, namely) of ver. 9. — éx6poi] 
namely, of God, as is clear from xar7AA. r@ cg. But it is not to be taken in 
an actice sense (hostile to God, as by Riickert, Baur, Reithmayr, van Hengel, 
Mehring, Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 515 f. ; Weber, 
tom Zorne Gottes, p. 293, and others ; for Christ’s death did not remove the 
enmity of men against God, but, as that which procured their pardon on 
the part of God, it did away with the enmity of God against men, and thcre- 
upon the cessation of the enmity of men towards God ensucd as the moral 
consequence brought about by faith. And, with that active conception, 
how could Paul properly have inferred his zoA4@ uad2ov x.7.2., since in point 
of fact the certainty of the owyoduefla is based on our standing in friendship 
(grace) with God, and not on our being friendly towards God ? Hence the 
passice explanation alone is correct (Calvin and others, including Reiche, 
Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Philippi, Hof- 
mann : enemies of God, i.e. those against whom the holy eocexOpia, the opy4 
of God on account of sin, is directed ; Ocoorvyei¢, i. 80 ; réxva opy7c, Eph. 11. 
3. Comp. xi. 28; and see on Col. i. 21.’ This does not contradict the 
aydnn Ocov praised in ver. 8 (as Riickert objects), since the very arrange- 
ment, which God made by the death of Jesus for abandoning His enmity 
against sinful men without detriment to His holiness, was the highest proof 
of His love for us (not for our sins). — Consequently xarnAddyquev and 
aaradAayévres must also be taken not actively, but passicely : reconciled with 
God, so that He is no longer hostile towards us, but has on the contrary, on 
account of the death of His (beloved) Son, abandoned His wrath against 
us, and we, on the other hand, have become partakers in His grace and 
favour ; for the positive assertion (comp. ver. 1 f.), which is applicable to all 
believing individuals (ver. 8), must not be weakened into the negative and 
general conception ‘‘ that Christians hate not God against them” (Hofmann). 
See on Col. i. 21 and on 2Cor. v. 18. Tittmann’s distinction between 
duaAAérrev and xaraAddrrew (see on Matt. v. 24) is as arbitrary as that of 
Mehring, who makes the former denote the outward and the latter the in- 
ward reconciliation.* — év rg (wy abtov) by Hislife; more precise specification 


1 Comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeiz- 2 Against this view, comp. also Philippi's 
achr. 1872, p. 182. Glaubenslehre, Il. 2, p. 270 ff. 


192 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

of the import of d¢ avrov in ver. 9 ; therefore not ‘‘ cum vitae ejus simus 
participes” (van TIengel, comp. Ewald). The death of Jesus effected our 
reconciliation ; ali the less can His exalted /ife leave our deliverance unfin- 
ished. The licing Christ cannot leave what His death effected without final 
success. This however is accomplished not merely through His znterceasion, 
viii. 84 (Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius), but also through His whole work- 
ing in His kingly office for His believers up to the completion of His work 
and kingdom, 1 Cor. xv. 22 ff. 

Ver. 11. Ob pdvov dé] Since xavyduevor cannot stand for the finite tense (as, 
following Luther, Beza, and others, Tholuck and Philippi still would have 
it) ov pévov dé cannot be supplemented by owlyoduefa (Fritzsche, Krehl, 
Reithmayr, Winer, p. 329, 543 [E. T. 351, 583], following Chrysostom), so 
as to make Paul say : we shall be not only sared (actually in itself), but also 
sated in such a way that we glory, etc. Moreover, the present xavyacbas 
could not supply any modal definition at all of the future culycduefa. No, 
the participle cavyouz. compels us to conceive as supplied to the elliptical ov 
uévov dé (comp. on ver. 3) the previous participle xaraAAayévres (KGllner, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann ; formerly also Fritzsche) ; every other ex- 
pedient is arbitrary.’. This supplement however, according to which the 
two participles answer to each other, is confirmed by the concluding refrain : 
Jv’ ov viv tT. xataa2. éAdB., which is an echo of the xavadAayévreco understood 
with ot yévov dé. Accordingly we must render : not merely howecer as recon- 
ciled, but also as those who glory, etc. Thus the meaning is brought out, 
that the certainty of the ow6jcccba: év r. Cw avod (ver. 10) is not only based 
on the objective ground of the accomplished reconciliation,. but has also 
subjectively its corresponding vital expression in the xavyaoOa: iv rp Oeg 
x.T.4., in which the lofty feeling of the Christian’s salvation reveals itself.— 
év t@ Ocd] Luther’s gloss is apt: ‘‘ that God is ours, and we are His, and 
that we have in all confidence all blessings in common from Him and with 
Him.” That is the bold and joyful triumph of those sure of salvation. — 
dia tT. xupiov x.t.A.] This glorying is brought about through Christ, because 
He is the author of our new relation to God ; hence: dv ov viv tr. xarazA. 
éaaB. The latter is that xarnAAdynuev of ver. 10 in its subjective reception 
which has taken place by faith. — viv is to be taken here (differently from 
ver. 9) in contrast, not to pre-Christian times (Stélting), but to the future 
glory, in reference to which the reconciliation received in the present time 
(continuing from the conversion of the subjects of it to Christ) is conceived 
as its actual ground of certainty. 

Vv. 12-19. Parallel drawn betieen the salvation in Christ and the ruin that 
has come through Adam. [See Note LI. p. 221.] — Eizayv, bri édtxaiwaey puac 6 
Xptoric, avarpéxet Emi ray pilav tov kano, tH cuaptiay kai Tov Odva- 


1 Most arbitrary of all is the view of Meh- 
ring, that ov zovoy 8¢ refers back to év rp 
wy avrov ; and that Paul would say: not 
merely on the dife of Christ do we place our 
hope, but also onthe fact that we now 
glory in our unify with God(?). Th. Schott 


refers it to cwdyncdpeda, but seeks to make 
kavxwuevoe Suitable by referring it to the 
entire time, in which the salvation is still 
future, as if therefore Paul had written: 
od pdvoy S€ cwdnadueda, GAAG Kai viv, OF é» Te 
vuY Katpw Kavxwpeda, 


CHAP. V., 12. 193 
roy, xal deixyvory bri Tavta Ta dto dt’ évdg avOpdrov, rod Addu, eionAfev etc Tov 
céopov. . .. . xai av dv évog avgpéOnaav avipadrov, Tov Xprotov, Theophylact ; 
comp. Chrysostom, who compares the Apostle here with the physician who 
penetrates to the source of the evil. Thus the perfect objectivity of the sal- 
vation, which man has simply to receive, but in no way to earn, and of 
which the Apostle has been treating since chap. i. 17, is, by way of a grand 
conclusion for the section, set forth afresh in fullest light, and represented 
in its deepest and most comprehensive connection with the history of the 
world. The whole pvorjpov of the divine plan of salvation and its history 
is still to be unfolded before the eyes of the reader erc the moral results 
that are associated with it are developed in chap. vi. 

Ver. 12.' Acd rovro] Therefore, because, namely, we have received through 
Christ the xara2Aayf and the assurance of eternal salvation, ver. 11. The 
assumption that it refers back to the whole discussion from chap. i. 17 
Cheld by many, including Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, K6llner, Holsten, 
Picard) is the more unnecessary, the more naturally the idea of the xaraA- 
Aa)# itself, just treated of, served to suggest the parallel between Adam 
and Christ, and the 6? ov rv xaradAaynv éAdBouev in point of fact contains 
the summary of the whole doctrine of righteousness and salvation from i. 
17 onward ; consequently there is no ground whatever for departing, as to 
é:a tovro, from the connection with what immediately precedes.? This re- 
mark also applies in opposition to Hofmann (comp. Stdélting and Dictzsch), 
who refers it back to the entire train of ideas embraced in vv. 2-11. A re- 
capitulation of this is indeed given in the grand concluding thought of 
ver. 11, that it is Christ to whom we owe the reconciliation. But Hofmann 
quite arbitrarily supposes Paul in dia rovro to have had in view an evhorta- 
tion to think of Christ conformably to the comparison with Adam, but to 
have got no further than this comparison. — dSorep| There is here an avavra- 
<édorov as in Matt. xxv. 14; and 1 Tim. i. 3. The comparison alone is ex- 
pressed, but not the thing compared, which was to have followed in an 
apodosis corresponding to the dorep. The illustration, namely, introduced 
in vv. 13, 14 of the é¢' ¢ mdvre¢ juaproy now rendered it impossible to add 
the second half of the comparison syntactically belonging to the dozep, and 


1 See Schott (on vv. 12-14) in his Opusc. I. 
p. 318 ff. ; Borg, Diss. 1839; Finkhinthe 72. 
Zeitachr. 1830, 1, p. 126 ff.; Schmid in the 
same, 4, p. 161 ff.; Rothe, never Versuch e. 
Aualegung d. paul. Stele Rom. v. 12-21, 
Wittemb. 1836; J. Miller, v. @. Stinde, IT. p. 
481, ed. 5; Aberle in the dheol. Quartalschr. 
1854, p. 455 ff.; Ewald, Adam u. Christus 
Bom. v. 12-21, in the Jahrd. f. dtl. Wis- 
aensch. IT. p. 166 ff. ; Picard, Eesai exegét. sur 
fom. v. 12 ff. Strassb. 1861; Hofmann, 
Schriffbew. 1. p. 526 ff.; Ernesti, Urspr. d. 
Sé@nde, II. p. 184 ff.; Holsten, z. Zv. d. Paul. 
w. Petr. p. 412 ff.; Stdlting, Zc. p. 19 ff. ; 
Klopper in the Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 496 ff. ; 
Dietzsch, Adam u. Christus Rom. v. 12 ff., 
Bonn 1871. Compare also Lechler’s apost. 


Zeit. p. 102 ff. 

2 The close junction with ver. 111s main- 
tained also by Kloépper, who unsuitably. 
however defines the aim of the section, vv. 
12-21, to be, to guard the readers against a 
timid littleness of faith, as though, notwith- 
standing justification, they were still with 
reference to the future of judgment not 
sure and certain of escaping the divine 
wrath;a timid mind might see in the tribu- 
lations anticipations of that wrath, eto. 
But how far does the entire confession of 
vy. 1-11 stand elevated above all such little- 
ness of faith! In the whole connection 
this finds no place whatever, and receives 
therefore in vv. 12-21 not the slightest men- 
tion or reference. 


194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


therefore the Apostle, driven on by the rushing flow of ideas to this point, 
from which he can no longer revert to the construction with which he 
started, has no hesitation in dropping the latter (comp. generally Buttmann’s 
neut. Gr. p. 331 [E. T. 386] ; Kithner, II. 2, p. 1097), and in subsequently 
bringing in merely the main tenor of what is wanting by the relative clause 
attached to "Addu: &¢ gore tiro¢ Tov péAdovroe in ver. 14. This ac... . 
uéAA. is consequently the substitute for the omitted apodosis, which, had it 
not been supplanted by vv. 13, 14, would have run somewhat thus : se also 
through one man has come righteousness, and through righteousness life, and % 
life has come to all. Calvin, Flacius, Tholuck, Kéllner, Baur, Philippi, 
Stélting, Mangold, Rothe (who however without due ground regards the 
breaking off as intended from the outset, in order to avoid sanctioning the 
Apokatastasis) find in d¢ gove rim. r. wé2A., in ver. 14, the resumption and 
closing of the comparison,’ not of course in form, but in substance ; com- 
pare also Melanchthon. According to Riickert, Fritzsche (in his commen- 
tary), and de Wette, Paul has come, after vv. 13, 14, to reflect that the 
comparison begun involved not merely agreement but also discrepancy, and 
has accordingly turned aside from the apodosis, which must necessarily 
have expressed the equivalence, and inserted instead of it the opposition in 
ver. 15. This view is at variance with the entire character of the section, 
which indeed bears quite especially the stamp of most careful and acute 
premeditation, but shows no signs of Paul’s having been led in the progress 
of his thought to the opposite of what he had started with. According to 
Mehring, ver. 15, following vv. 18, 14 (which he parenthesises) is meant to 
complete the comparison introduced in ver. 12, ver. 15 being thus taken 
interrogatively. Against this view, even apart from the inappropriateness 
of taking it as a question, the 442’ in ver. 15 is decisive. Winer, p. 503 
[E. T. 570] (comp. Fritzsche’s Conject. p. 49), finds the epanorthosis in 
TOAAG maAdov, ver. 15, which is inadmissible, because with @2% ovy in ver. 
15 there is introduced the antithetical element, consequently something else 
than the affirmative parallel begun in ver. 12. Others have thought that 
vv. 13-17 form a parenthesis, so that in ver. 18 the first half of the compar- 
ison is resumed, and the second now at length added (Cajetanus, Erasmus, 
Schmid, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Heumann, Ch. Schmid, Flatt, and 
Reiche). Against this view may be urged not only the unprecedented 
length, but still more the contents of the supposed parenthesis, which in 
fact already comprehends in itself the parallel under every aspect. In ver. 
18 f. we have recapitulation, but not resumption. This much applies also 
against Olshausen and Ewald. Others again have held that ver. 12 contains 
the protasis and the apodosis completely, taking the latter to begin either 
with xai otrwe (Clericus, Wolf, Glockler), or even with xa? d:é (Erasmus, 
Beza, Benecke), both of which views however are at variance with the par- 
allel between Adam and Christ which rules the whole of what follows, and 


1The objection of Dietzsch, p. 43, that bring forward a very definite special state- 
tvmos asserts nothing real regarding the ment regarding the typical relation which 
second member of the comparison, is un- he now merely expresses in general terms. 
satisfactory, since Paul Is just intending to 


CHAP. V., 12. 195 


are thus in the light of the connection erroneous, although the former by 
no means required a trajection (xai ovtwe for obrw nai). While all the ex- 
positors hitherto quoted have taken dozep as the beginning of the first 
member of the parallel, others again have thought that it introduces the 
second half of the comparison. So, following Elsner and others, Koppe, who 
after did rovro conceives éAdBouev xataAAayny d¢ airov supplied from ver. 11 ; 
so also Umbreit and Th. Schott (for this reason, because we owlyodpueba év 
+9 $wy avrov, Christ comes by way of contrast to stand just as did Adam). 
Similarly Mircker, who attaches d:d rovro to ver. 11. These expositions are 
incorrect, because the wnirersality of the Adamite ruin, brought out by 
®orep x.z.2., has no point of comparison in the supplied protasis (the expla- 
nation is illogical) ; in Gal. iii. 6 the case is different. Notwithstanding van 
Hengel (comp. Jatho) thinks that he removes all difficulty by supplying 
éori after did rovro ; while Dietzsch, anticipating what follows, suggests the 
supplying after dia rovro : through one man life has come into the world. — é¢ 
ivi¢ avOperov] through one man, that is, d’ évi¢g duaprfoavtocg, ver. 16. A 
single man brought upon all sin and death ; @ single man also righteousness 
and life. The causal relation is based on the fact that sin, which previously 
had no existence whatever in the world, only began to exist in the world (on 
earth) by means of the first fall. Hee, so far as the matter itself is con- 
cerned (Ecclus. xxv. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 14; Barnab. Zp. 12), 
might as well as Adam be regarded as the ei¢ dvOp. ; the latter, because he 
sinned as the first man, the former, of whom Pelagius explained it, because 
she committed the first transgression. Here however, because Paul's object 
is to compare the One man, who as the bringer of salvation has become the 
beginner of the new humanity, with the One man who as beginner of the old 
humanity became so destructive, in which collective reference (comp. Hof- 
mann’s Schriftbew. I. p. 474) the woman recedes into the background, he has 
to derive the entrance of sin into the world from Adam, whom he has in 
View in de’ évog avfpdorov. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 21 f., 45 f. Thisis also the 
common form of Rabbinical teaching. — 7 duapria] not : sinfulness, habitus 
peccandi (Koppe, Schott, Flatt, Usteri, Olshausen), which the word never 
means ; not original sin (Calvin, Flacius, and others following Augustine) ; 
but also not merely actual sin in abstracto (Fritzsche : ‘‘nam ante primum 
facinus patratum nullum erat facinus”), but rather what sin is according to 
its idea and essence (comp. Hofmann and Stdlting), consequently the deter- 
mination of the conduct in antagonism to God, conceived however as a force, 
as a real power working and manifesting itself—exercising its dominion— 
in all cases of concrete sin (comp. ver. 21, vi. 12, 14, vii. 8, 9, 17 al.). 
This moral mode of being in antagonism to God became existent in the 
human world through the fall of Adam, produced death, and spread death 
over all. Thus our verse itself describes the duapria as a real objective 
power, and in so doing admits only of this explanation. Compare the not 
substantially different explanation of Philippi, according to which the 


1 Not merely came fo light as known sin 2 See Elsenmenger's entdeckt. Judenth. IL. 
(Schleiermacher, Usterl). See Lechler, p. p. 81 f. , 
104. 


196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

actual sin of the world is meant as having come into the world potentialiter 
through Adam ; also Rothe, who conceives it to refer to sin as a principle, 
but as active ; and Dietzsch. — On ei¢ r. xécuov, which applies to the earth 
as the dwelling-place of mankind (for in the universe generally sin, the devil, 
was already in existence), comp. Wisd. ii. 24, xiv. 14; 2 John 7; Clem. 
Cor. I. 8; Heb. x. 5. Undoubtedly sin by its entrance into the world 
came into human nature (Rothe), but this is not asserted here, however de- 
cisively our passage stands opposed to the error of Flacius, that man 13 
in any way as respects his essential nature duapria.1— The mode in which 
the fall took place (through the devil, John viii. 44 ; 2 Cor. xi. 8) did not 
here concern the Apostle, who has only to do with the mischievous effect 
of it, namely, that it brought dyapria into the world, etc. —xai dia r. dyapr. 
6 favarog] scil. eg r. xdopov eionAbe. The @dvaroc is physical death (Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, Augustine, Calovius, Reiche, Fritzsche, Maier, van Hengel, 
Klépper, Weiss, and many others), viewed as the separation of the soul 
from the body and its transference to Hades (not as ‘‘ citation before God's 
judgment,” Mehring), with which however the conception of the ¢@opé and 
patatérne Of the xrioig in ch. viii., very different from the @évaroc of men, 
must not be mixed up (as by Dictzsch), which would involve a blending of 
dissimilar idcas. The interpretation of bodily death is rendered certain 
by ver. 14 as well as by the considerations, that the text gives no hint 
of departure from the primary sense of the word; that the reference 
to Gen. ii. 17, iii. 19 could not be mistaken by any reader ; and that on 
the basis of Genesis it was a universal and undoubted assumption both 
in the Jewish and Christian consciousness, that mortality was caused 
by Adam’s sin.* Had Paul taken @avarog in another sense therefore, he 
must of necessity have definitely indicated it, in order to be understood.? 
This is decisive not only against the Pelagian interpretation of spiritual 
death, which Picard has repeated, but also against every combination what- 
ever—whether complete (see especially Philippi and Stélting), or partial—of 
bodily, moral (comp. vexpéc, Matt. viii. 22), and eternal death (Schmid, 
Tholuck, Kéllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Olshausen, Reithmayr ; 
Rickert undecidedly) ; or the whole collective evil, which is the consequence 
of sin, ae Umbreit and Ewald explain it ; compare Hofmann: ‘‘all that 
runs counter to the life that proceeds from God, whether as an occurrence, which 
puts an end to the life wrought by God, or as a mode of existence setting in 
with such occurrence.” As regards especially the inclusion of the idea of 


1 Compare Holsten, zum Ev. d. Paul. u. 
Par. p. 418: who thinks that the unholi- 
ness lying dormant in human nature first 
entered actually into the visible world asa 
reality in the transgression of Adam ; also 
Baur, neut. Theol. p. 191, according to whom 
the principle of sin, that from the beginning 
had been immanent in man, only came forth 
actually in the wapdBacrs of the first parent. 
In this way sin would not have come into the 
worid, but must have been in the world al- 


ready before the fall, only not having yet 
attained to objective manifestation. 

2 See Wisd. fi. 24; John viil. 44; 1 Cor. xv. 
21; Wetstein and Schoettgen, in loc.; and 
Elsenmenger's entdeckt. Judenthum, UI. p. 
81 f. Compare respecting Eve, Ecclus. 
XXV. 24. 

3 This remark holds also against Mau in 
Pelt's theol. Mitarb. 1838, 2, who understands 
the form of life after the dissolution of the 
earthly life. 


CHAP. V., 12. 197 
moral death (the opposite of the spiritual (w4), the words Oévaroc and 
azroGvijcxecy are never used by Paul in this sense ; not even in vii. 10 (see in 
foe.), or in 2 Cor. ii. 16, vii. 10, where he is speaking of eternal death.’ The 
reference to spiritual death is by no means rendered necessary by the con- 
trast of dixasoc. Cujo in ver. 18, comp. ver. 21; since in fact the death 
brought into the world by Adam, although physical, might be contrasted 
not merely in a Rabbinical fashion, but also generally in itself, with the (u4 
that has come through Christ ; for to this (wf belongs also the life of the 
glorified body, and it is a life not again subject to death. — xai oizwe] and 
an such manner, i.e. in symmetrical correspondence with this connection 
between the sin that entered by one man and the death occasioned by it. 
Fuller explanation is then given, by the 颒 6 rdvte¢ juaprov, respecting the 
emphatically prefixed ei¢ ravrac, to whom death, as the effect of that first 
sin of the One, had penetrated. Since ovrwe sums up the state of the case 
previously expressed (comp. ¢.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 25 ; 1 Thess. iv. 17) any further 
generalization of its reference can only be arbitrary (Stdlting : ‘‘ through 
sin”). Even the explanation : ‘‘in virtue of the causal connection between 
sin and death” (Philippi and many others) is too general. The oirw¢, in 
fact, recapitulates the historical state of the case just presented, so far as it 
specifies the mode in which death has come to all, namely, in this way, that 
the One sinned and thereby brought into the world the death, which conse- 
quently became the lot of all. — d:jAbev] came throughout (Luke v. 15). 
This is the progress of the cic rov xécpov eio7Ade in its extension to all indi- 
viduals, cig tdvtacg avOpdér. [see Note LIT. p. 222], which in contrast to the dé’ 
évd¢ arfp. is put forward with emphasis as the main element of the further de- 
scription, wherein moreover 0i7A0ev, correlative to the eio7abe, has likewise em- 
phasis. On d:fpycofat cig reva comp. Plut. Alcid. 2. Compare also éxi riva in 
Ez. v. 17 and Ps. Ixxxvii. 17. More frequent in classic authors with the simple 
accusative, as in Luke xix. 1. — 颒 @ wévrec juaprov]? [see Note LIII. p. 222}, 
on the ground of the fact that, i.e. because, all sinned, namely (and for this the 
momentary sense of the aorist is appropriate?) when through the One sin 
entered into the world. Because, when Adam sinned, ali men sinned in and 
with him, the representative of entire humanity (not : ‘‘evemplo Adami,” 
Pelagius ; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.), death, which came into the world 


1In 2 Tim. 1.10 Sdvaros Is used in the’ v. 15. It is mere empty arbitrariness in 


sense of efernal death, which Christ (by His 
work of atonement) has done away; the 
opposite of it is ¢w% cai afdapoia, which He 
has brought to light by His Gospel. Not 
less is Eph. ii. 1 to be explained as meaning 
eternal death. 

* The most complete critical comparison 
of the various expositions of these words 
may be seen in Dietzsch, p. 50 ff. 

® Hofmann erroneously holds (Schrifibew. 
fe.) that the imperfect must have been used. 
What is meant is in fact the same act, 
which in Adam's sin is done by all, not 
another contemporaneous act. Comp. 2 Cor. 


Thomastius /.c. p. 816, to say that our ex- 
planation is grammatically unjustifiable. 
Why so? Stélting (comp. Dietzsch) objects 
to it that then 6 Sdvaros &HAdey must also 
be taken in the momentary sense. But 
this by no means follows, since ¢¢'q@ wdvrr. 
yu. 18 a special relative clause. Neverthe- 
Jess even that 8 Sdvar. &Ad. is not some- 
thing gradually developing itself, but a 
thing done In and with the sin of the One 
man. This One has sinned and has become 
liable to death, and thereby a have be- 
come mortal, because Adam’s sin was the 
sin of all. 


198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


through the sin that had come into it, has been extended to all in virtue of 
this causal connection between the sin that had come into existence through 
Adam and death. Al became mortal through Adam’s fall, because this 
having sinned on the part of Adam was a having sinned on the part of all ; 
consequently 16 rov évd¢ raparrépare ol roAdoi aréGavov, ver. 15. Thus it is 
certainly on the ground of Adam that all die (év r@ Addu wévrec aroOvijcxovetr, 
1 Cor. xv. 22), because, namely, when Adam sinned, all sinned, all as duaprwioi 
xatecrdOycav (ver. 19), and consequently the death that came in through his 
sin can spare none. But it isin a linguistic point of view erroneous, accord- 
ing to the traditional Catholic interpretation after the example of Origen, 
the Vulgate, and Augustine (Estius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Klee ; not Stengel, 
Reithmayr, Bisping, and Maier ; but revived by Aberle), to take é# » as 
equivalant to év ¢, in quo scil. Adamo, as also Beza, Erasmus Schmid, and 
others do ; compare Irenacus, Haer. v. 16, 8. The thought which this expo- 
sition yields (‘‘omnes ille unus homo fuerunt,” Augustine) is essentially 
correct, but it was an error to derive it from 颒 o, since it is rather to be 
derived from mrévre¢ juapror, and hence also it is but arbitrarily explained 
by the sensuous notion of all men having been in the loins (Heb. vii. 9, 10) 
of Adam (Origen, Ambrosiaster, Augustine). Chrysostom gives in general 
the proper sense, though without definitely indicating how he took the ig’ 
@: ‘ri dé éorey 颒 q KavTEg juaprov ; Exeivov meadvTog Kal ol uy gaydyTes axd TUw 
Ebdov yeyévaow é& éxetvov wdvreg Gyro.” So also substantially Theophylact, 
though explaining, with Photius, ¢¢’ © as equivalant to éxi r@ ’Addu. The 
right view istaken by Bengel (‘‘ quia omnes peccarunt. . . . Adamo pec- 
cante”) ; Koppe (‘‘ipso actu, quo peccavit Adamus”), Olshausen, Philippi, 
Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 126, 369, and Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 590, III. p. 308 f. ; 
comp. also Klépper.’. The objection that in this way the essential defini- 
ition is arbitrarily supplicd (Tholuck, Hofmann, Stélting, Dietzsch, and 
others) is incorrect ; for what is maintained is simply that more precise 
definition of qguaprov, for which the immediate connection has necessarily 
prepared the way, and therefore no person, from an unprejudiced point of 
view, can speak of ‘‘an abortive product of perplexity impelling to arbi- 
trariness’ (Hofmann). Nor is our view at variance with the meaning of 
ovtwe (a8 Ernesti objects), since from the point of view of death having been 
occasioned by Adam’s sin (otrwc) the universality of death finds its explana- 
tion in the very fact, that Adam's sin was the sin of all. Aptly (as against 
Dietzsch) Bengel compares 2 Cor. v. 14: & el¢ orép mévtwv avéfave, apa ot 
mdvreo avéBavov (namely, Christo moriente) ; see on that passage. Others, 
and indeed most modern expositors (including Reiche, Riickert, Tholuck, 
Fritzsche, de Wette, Maier, Baur, Ewald, Umbreit, van Hengel, Mehring, 
Hofmann, Stélting, Thomasius, Mangold, and others), have interpreted 
juaptov of individual sins, following Theodoret : ov yap dca tiv tov mporatupog 


1 Who, although avoiding the direct ex- as God punished the fault of Adam so 
pression of ourinterpretation, nevertheless thoroughly that his sin became shared by 
in substance arrives at the same meaning, all hisdescendants.” For Klopper properly 
p. 505: ‘All however sinned, because’ explains the 颒 ¢ defining the relation as 
Adam's sin penetrated to them, {inasmuch éimputation of Adam's sin to all. 


CHAP. Y., 12. 199 
Guaptiav, GAAG dia THY oixeiay Exactog déxeTat Tov Bavdrov Tov bpov. [See Note LIV. 
p. 224.] Compare Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 263 ; Miarckerl.c. p. 19. But the tak- 
ing the words thus of the universal having actually sinned as cause of the 
universal death (see other variations further on) must be rejected for the sim- 
ple reason, that the proposition would not even be true ;’ and because the 
view, that the death of individuals is the consequence of their own 
actual sins, would be inappropriate to the entire parallel between Adam 
and Christ, nay even contradictory to it. For as the sin of Adam brought 
death to all (consequently not their own self-committed sin), so did the 
obedience of Christ (not their own virtue) bring life to all. Comp. 1 Cor. 
xv. 22. This objective relation corresponding to the comparison re- 
mains undisturbed in the case of our exposition alone, inasmuch as 颒 ¢ | 
sayvr. juapr. shows how the sin of Adam necessarily brought death to all. 

To explain jyaprov again, as is done by many, and still by Picard and 
Aberle : they were sinful, by which is meant original sin (Calvin, Flacius, 
Melanchthon in the Znarr.: ‘‘omnes habent peccatum, scilicet pravita- 
tem propagatam et reatum”), or to import even the idea poenam luere 
(Grotius), is to disregard linguistic usage ; for juaprov means they have 
sinned, and nothing more. This is acknowledged by Julius Miiller (0. d. 
Sande, Il. p. 416 ff. ed. 5), who however professes to, find in ég’ ¢ 7m. qu. 
only an accessory reason for the preceding, and that in the sense : ‘‘ as then” 
all would besides have well deserved this severe fate for themselves by their actual 
sins. Incorrectly, because é¢ g does not mean ‘as then” or ‘‘as then also” 
(i.e. d¢ xai) ; because the statement of the reason is by no means made ap- 
parent as in any way merely secondary and subjective, as Neander and Mess- 
ner have rationalised it, but on the contrary is set down as the single, com- 
plete and objective ground ; because its alleged purport would exercise an 
alien and disturbing effect on the whole development of doctrine in the pas- 
sage ; and because the sense assigned to the simple #jyapropr (this severe fate 
they would have all moreover well merited) is purely fanciful. Ernesti takes 
ég’ » not of the objective ground, but as specifying the ground of thinking 
so, i.e. the subjective ground of cognition: ‘‘ about which there can be no doubt, 
tn 80 far as all have in point of fact sinned ;” this he holds to be the logical 


1 Namely, in respect to the many millions 
of children who have not yet sinned. The 
reply made to this, that Paul has had in 
view only those capable of sin (Castalio, Wet- 
stein, Fritzsché, and others) is least of all 
applicable in the very case of this Apostle 
and of the present acutely and thoroughly 
considered disquisition, and just as little is 
an appeal to the disposition to sin (Tholuck) 
which children have (Paul says plainly 
nuaprov.) This way out of the difficulty 
issues in an exegetical self-deception.—He 
who seeks to get rid of the question re- 
garding children must declare that it is not 
bere raised, since the passage treats of the 
buman race az a whole (comp. Ewald, Jahrb. 
VL p. 182, also Mangold, p. 118f.) This 


would suffice, were the question merely of 
universal sinfulness; for in such a case 
Paul could just as properly have said 
ndvres Huaprov here, with self-evident refer- 
ence to all capable of sin, as in iil. 238. 
But the question here is the connection be- 
tween the sin of all and the dying of all, in 
which case there emerges no self-evident 
limitation, because al, even those still in- 
capable of peccatum actuale, must die. 
Thus the question as to children still re- 
mains, and is only disposed of by not taking 
jmaproy in the sense of having individually 
sinned ; comp. Dietzsch, p. 57 f. This also 
applies against Stélting, according to whom 
Paul wishes to show that sin works death 
in the case of ali sinners without exception. 


200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

ground for the obru¢ «.r.A. But, as there is no precedent of usage for this 
interpretation of ég' ¢ (Phil. iii. 12 is unjustifiably adduced), Ernesti is com- 
pelled to unite with ég’ » vv. 13 and 14 in an untenable way. See on ver. 
13 f., remark 1, and Philippi, Glaubensl. III. p. 222 ff. ed. 2. — Respect- 
ing é9' ¢, which is quite identical with é9’ otc, we have next to observe as 
follows : It is equivalent to éz? rotty ot1, and means on the ground of the fact 
that, consequently in real sense propterea quod,’ because (dieweil, Luther), of 
the causa antegressa (not jinalzs), as also Thomas Magister and Favorinus have 
explained it as equivalent to d:é7. So in the N. T. at 2 Cor. v. 4. and Phil. 
iii. 12.2. Rothe (followed by Schmid, bibl. Theol. p. 260) has taken it as: 
“Sunder the more definite condition, that” (ézi rovrw dore), so that individual 
sins are the consequence of the diffusion of death through Adam's sin over 
‘mankind. But this view is wholly without precedent in the usus loquendi, 
for the very frequent use of 颒 ¢, under the condition, that (usually with the 
infinitive or future indicative), is both in idea and in practice something 
quite different ; see Kihner, II. 2, p. 1006.* Ewald formerly (Jahrb. U. p. 
171), rejecting the second 6 @dvaroc, explained : ‘‘ and thus there penetrated 
to all men that, whereunto all sinned,” namely death, which, according to Gen. 
ii. 17, was imposed as punishment on sin, so that whosoever sinned, sinned 
so that he had to dic, a fate which he might know beforehand. In this 
way the ¢y’ @ would (with Schmid and Gléckler, also Umbreit) be taken of 
the causa jinalis‘ and the subject of 6:7A0ev (rovro) would be implied in it. 
But, apart from the genuineness of 6 @dvaroc, which must be defended, there 
still remains, even with the explanation of 颰 ¢ as final, so long as juaproy 
is explained of individual actual sins, the question behind as to the truth of 


1 Baur also, IT. p. 202 (comp. his neutest. 
Theol. p. 188), approves the rendering Jle- 
cause, but folsts on this because the sense: 
** which has as its presupposition.” Thus it 
should be understood, be thinks, also in 2 
Cor. v. 4 and Phil. ili. 12; and thus Paul 
proves from the universality of death the 
universality of sin. See, in opposition to 
this logical inversion, Ernesti, p. 212 ff. 

2 Comp. Theophilus, ad Autol. fi. 40, ed. 
Wolf: é$' d ovx icxuce Yavarwaaat avrovs (de- 
cause he was unable to put them to death), 
Diod. Sic. xix. 98: ¢'@ .... Td pew peigoy 
xadovort Tavpoy, TO dé cAagcov pécxov (because 
they call the greater a bull, etc.); just so 
颔 ols, Plut. de Pyth. orac. 29. Favorinus 
quotes the examples: é¢' @ Thy KAomhy 
elpyacw, and e" ois tov vdéuov ov tTnpeis, 
xoAacdnon. Thomas Magister cites the ex- 
ample from Synesius ep. 73: 颰 @ Tevvadiov 
€ypavev (propterea quod Gennadium accu- 
sasset, comp. Herm. ad Viger. p. 710). An- 
other example from Synesius (in Devarius, 
ed. Klotz, p. 88) is: éf’ ols yap Zexovvdor ed 
éwoinaas (on the ground of this, that, i.e. be- 
cause thou bast done well to Secundus) 
Quads erinyoas, xai éf' ols odtw ypddwy Tings, 


efnprigw cavrov «. éwoingas elvat covs. See 
further Josephus, Anil. i. 1, 4: 0 Sdis 
ovrdtaitwuevos Te. Te “Adduw kal TH yuracci 
Pdovepang elxev, ep’ ols (proplerea quod) avrovs 
evdaiorvngety weTw wWemEetapEevoUs Tois TOY Bcov 
mapayyéApact, <Antl. xvi. 8, 2: cat 71d dicaieng 
avrot madeiv, €f' ols aAArAous noixnoay, 
mpodAauBavortes povoy, 

3 Of a similay nature are rather such pas- 
sages as Dem. 518, 26 ; év yap prndev cor, ed’ 
@ Tory wexpayuévwy ov Sixatos ay amoAwAcrvas 
gavygera [upon the ground of which he will 
not seem worthy, etc.) ; de cor. 114 (twice) ; 
as well as the very current use of ézi rovre, 
propterea (Xen. Mem. {. 2, 61) of ex atry 
toute, for this very reason (Dem. 578, 26; 
Xen. Cyr. ii. 3, 10), etc.; and further, such 
expressions as éwi pig 694 wore Sixy wAnyas 
éAaBov (Xen. Cyr. {. 3, 16), where ex with 
the dative specifies the ground (Kiihner, II. 
1, p. 436). 

*Xen. Cyr. viil. 8, 24: ov8€ ye sperayn- 
Pdpots ert xpwrtat, éh' m Kipos avra exoujaaro, 
fii. 3, 36, vwoutmvnoney, ed’ ols re Erpedoucda, 
Thuc. i. 134, 1, al.; and see especially Wisd. 
fl. 22. 


CHAP. V., 12. 201 
the proposition, since not all, who die, have actually sinned ; and indeed 
the view of the death of all having been caused by the actual sins of all is 
incompatible with what follows.'| Sce also Ernesti, p. 192 ff. ; comp. his 
Ethik. d. Ap. P. p. 16 f. Moreover the telic form of expression itself would 
have to be taken only in an improper sense, instead of that of the necessary, 
but on the part of the subjects not intended, result, somewhat after the idea 
of fate, as in Herod. i. 68 : ézi xax@ avOparov aidnpoc aveipyrac. Subsequently 
(in his Sendschr. d. Ap. P.) Ewald, retaining the second 6 @dvaroc, has as- 
sumed for 颒 ¢ the signification, so far as (so also Tholuck and van Hengel) ; 
holding that by the limiting phrase ‘‘ so far as they all sinned,” death is thus 
set forth the more definitely as the result of sin, so that 颒 © corresponds to 
the previous ovrws. But even granting the not proved limiting signification 
of ¢¢ » (which 颒 dcov elswhere has, xi. 18), there still remain with this 
interpretation also the insurmountable difficulties as to the sense, which 
present themselves against the reference of juaprov to the individual sins. 
Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. I. p. 529 f.) refers 颒 @ to 6 @dvaroc, 80 
that it is equivalent to ot zapévro¢ : amidst the presence of death ; making 
the emphasis to lie on the preposition, and the sense to be: ‘‘death was 
present at the sinning of all those to whom it has penetrated ; and it has not been 
intariably brought about and introduced only through their sinning, nor always 
only for each indicidual uho sinned.” Thus éxi might be justified, not indeed 
in a temporal sense (which it has among poets and later prose writers only 
in proper statements of time, as in Homer, Jl. viii. 529, éxi vuxri), but per- 
haps in the sense of the precailing circumstance, like the German ‘‘ bes” [with, 
amidst? (see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 434). But apart from the special tenor of the 
_ thought, which we are expected to extract from the bare éy’ ¢, and which 
Paul might so easily have conveyed more precisely (possibly by éo’ @ #éy 
sapévre OF ov 757 wapévroc), this artificial exposition has decidedly against it 
the fact that the words 颒 @ mévre¢ juaprov must necessarily contain the ar- 
gumentative modal information concerning the preceding proposition x. obtu¢g 
tig ravrac avdpwrove 6 Odv. di7ABev, Which they in fact contain only when our 


view is taken.? 


1 Along with which it may be observed 
that there is the less warrant for mentally 
supplying, in the contrasted propositions 
on the side of salvation, a condition corro- 
sponding to the 颒 @ =. nuapr. (Mangold: 
¢ay wdvtres miotevcworv, Which is implicitly 
involved in AayuSadvorvres, ver. 17), the more 
essential this antitypical element would be. 

3 So also Dietzsch has taken It, in sub- 
stantial harmuny with Hofmann, less arti- 
ficially, but not more tenuably : amidst the 
presence of death. He thinks that the Apos- 
tle desires to emphasize the view that 
death, originating from the One, is and pre- 
vails in the world, quite apart from the 
sinning of individuals ; that independently 
of this, and prior to it, the universal do- 
minion of death springing from Adam is 
already in existence. But with what 


They must solve the enigma which is involved in the mo- 


strange obscurity would Paul in that case 
have expressed this simple and cleur idea ! 
How unwarranted it is to attach to his 
positive expression the negative significa- 
tion (apart from, independently of 1 With 
just as little warrant we should have to 
attach to the wavres, since Inno case could 
it include the children who have not yet 
sinned, a limitation of meaning, which yet 
it is utterly incapable of bearing after the 
eis wavtas avdpwrous just said. The exposi- 
tion of Dietzsch, no less than that of Hof- 
mann, is a laboriously far-fetched and 
mistaken evasion of the proposition clearly 
laid down by Paul : *‘ because they all sinned," 
namely, when through one man sin came 
into the world and death through sin. 

3 This applies equally against the similar 
exposition of Thomasius (Chr. Pers. wu. 


* 


202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


mentous ovrwe of that clause ; and this enigma is solved only by the state- 
ment of the reason : because all sinned, so that the @avdéoiuocg duapria of Adam 
was the sin of all. Against Hofmann, compare Philippi’s Glaubensl. III. p. 
221 f. ed. 2. 


Remark 1. The Rabbinical writers also derived universal mortality from the 
fall of Adam, who represented the entire race in such a way that, when Adam 
sinned, all sinned. See the passages in Ammon, Opuse. nov. p. 72 ff. Even 
perfectly righteous persons are ‘‘comprehensi sub poena mortis’’ (R. Bechai in 
Cadhackemach f. 5, 4). It may reasonably be assumed therefore that the doc- 
trine of the Apostle had, in the first instance, its historical roots in his Jew- 
ish (comp. Ecclus. xxv. 23 ; Wisd. ii. 23 f.; xiv. 14) and especially his Rabbin- 
ical training, and was held by him even prior to his conversion ; and that in 
his Christian enlightenment he saw no reason for abandoning the proposition, 
which on the contrary he adopted into the system of his Christian views, and 
justified by continuing to assert for it in the development of the divine plan 
of redemption the place which is here assigned to it, as even Christ Himself 
traces death back to the fall (John viii. 44). Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22: éy ro 'Adap 
mavrec axoOvnoxovo.y, on Which our passage affords the authentic commentary. 
We may add that, when Maimonides is combating (More Nevoch. iii. 24) the 
illusion that God arbitrarily decrees punishments, there has been wrongly 
found in the dogmatic proposition adduced by him, “ non est mors sine peccato, 
neque castigatio sine iniquitate,’’ the reverse of the above doctrine (see espe- 
cially Fritzsche, p. 294). The latter is on the contrary presupposed by it. 

Remark 2. That Adam was created immortal, our passage does not affirm, 
and 1 Cor. xv. 47 contains the opposite. But not as if Paul had conceived 
the first man as by his nature sinful, and had represented to himself sin ass 
necessary natural quality of the odp£ (so anew Hausrath, neut. Zeilgesch. IL p. 
470), but thus : if Adam had not sinned in consequence of his self-determina- 
tion of antagonism to God, he would have become immortal through eating of 
the tree of life in Paradise (Gen. iii. 22), As he has sinned, however, the 
consequence thereof necessarily was death, not only for himself, seeing that 
he had to leave Paradise, but for all his posterity likewise.! From this conse- 
quence, which the sin of Adam had for all, it results, in virtue of the neces- 
sary causal connection primevally ordained by God between sin and death, by 
reasoning back ab effectu ad causam, that the fall of Adam was the collective 
fall of the entire race, in so far as in fact all forfeited Paradise and therewith 
incurred death. — If 颒 @ wévrec fyuaprov be explained in the sense of individual 
actual sins, and at the same time the untenableness of the explanation of Hof- 
mann and Dietzsch be recognized, it becomes impossible by any expedients, 
such as that of Rothe, I. p. 314, ed. Schenkel, to harmonize the view in our 
passage with that expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 47 ; but, if it be referred to the fall 
of Adam, every semblance of contradiction vanishes. 


Ver. 13f. Demonstration, that the death of all has its ground in the sin of 


Werk. I. p. 816 f.), amidst the presence of impossibility, which Finckh also presents. 
which relation (e as neuter). As if pre- 1Comp. Jul. Miiller, dogmat. Abhandl. 
viously a ‘ relation” had been expressed, 1870, p. 89 f. Schultz, alftest. Theol. 1. p. 
and not a concrete historical fact! Weisse 3%. 

took 颒¢ even as although, —a linguistic 








CHAP. Y., 13. 203 


Adam and the causal connection of that sin with death. This argument, 
conducted with great conciseness, sets out from the undoubted historical 
certainty (it is already sufficiently attested in Gen. iv.—vi.) that during the 
entire period prior to the law (Gype véuov = amd 'Adap péxpt Muicéwe, ver. 14) 
there was sin in humanity ; then further argues that the death of individuals, 
which yet has affected those who also have not like Adam sinned against a 
positive command, cannot be derived from that sin prior to the law, because 
in the non-existence of law there is no imputation ; and allows it to be thence 
inferred that consequently the death of all has been caused (é9’ & wavre¢ yuaprov) 
by the sin of Adam (not by their individual sins). Paul however leaves 
this inference to the reader himsclf ; he does not expressly declare it, but 
instead of doing so he says, returning to the comparison begun in ver. 12: 
bg eate rixo¢ Tov péAAovroc, for in that death-working operation of Adam’s 
sin for all lay, in fact, the very ground of the typical relation to Christ. 
Chrysostom aptly says: ci yap é& duapriag 6 Odvarog trav pilav ~oxe, véuov dé ovK 
Svrog 4 dpuaptia ovK éAAoyeiras, mao 6 Odvatog Expdrec; BOev d7ZAov bre ovK avTy 4H 
Guaptia % T7¢ Tov vépov Tapadoewc, GAA’ Exeivy tT7¢ ToU'’AdGu Tapaxogs, abty Hv 9 
sdvTa Avpacvoplyy. Kat tig 1) rovrou arddetéig 3 Td Kat mpd Tov véuou mavTac arob- 
vionew* éBacidevoe yap x.t.2. Compare Oecumenius. — dype véuov] [See Note 
LV. p. 224] i.e. in the period previous to the giving of the law, comp. ver. 
14; consequently not during the period of the law, éw¢ 6 vduo¢ éxpdres,' Theodo- 
ret ; comp. Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. — éAdoyeirac] 
preserved nowhere else except in Boeckh, Jnscript. I. p. 850 A, 35, and Phi- 

lem. 18 (text rec.), but undoubtedly meaning : ts put to account (consequent- 
ly equivalent to Aoyifera:, iv. 4), namely, here, according to the context, for 
punishment, and that on the part of God ; for in the whole connection the sub- 
ject spoken of is the divine dealings in consequence of the fall. Hence we are 
neither to understand ab judice (Fritzsche), nor : by the person sinning ; 80 Au- 
gustine, Ambrosiaster, Luther, (‘‘ then one does not regard the sin ”?) Melanch- 
thon (‘‘ non accusatur in nobis ipsis,””) Calvin, Beza, and others, including 
Usteri, Rickert, J. Miiller, Lipsius, Mangold, and Stdélting (‘‘ there 
the sinner recognizes not his sin as guilt’), whereby a thought quite 
irrelevant to the argument is introduced. —j dvtog véuov] without the 
existence of the law ; véuoc, as previously aypc vduov, meaning the Mosaic law, 
and not any law generally (Theodore of Mopsuestia, and many others, in- 
cluding Hofmann), as ¢cyapria already points to the dicine law. Comp. iv. 
15. The proposition itself : ‘‘ Sin isnot imputed, if the law is absent,” is set 
down as something universally conceded, as an axiom ; therefore with repeti- 
tion of the subject (in opposition to Hofmann, who on account of this 
repetition separates duapria dé x«.7.A. from the first half of the verse and 
attaches it to what follows), and with the verb in the present. The propo- 
sition itself, inserted as an intervening link in the argument with the 
metabatic dé, without requiring a preceding vév, which Hofmann is wrong 


1 As is well known, Peyrerius (Praead- law given to Adam in Paradise ; and found 
amitae s. exercilat. exeg. in Rom. v. 12-14, | thus a proof for his Preadamites. 
Amst. 1655) referred the voxov here to tho 


204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


in missing (see Dietzsch and Kiihner, II. 2, p. 814), has its truth as well as 
its more precise application in the fact, that in the absence of law the 
action, which in and by itself is unlawful, is no transgression of the law 
(iv. 15), and cannot therefore be brought into account as such. That Paul 
regarded the matter in this light, and had not, as Hofmann thinks, sinning 
generally, ‘‘as it was one and the same thing in the case of all,” in view 
apart from the sins of individuals, is plain also from kai émi rov¢g uy apapr. 
éxl t¢ duotwpate THE Tapafde. ’Addu, in ver. 14. His thought is : If the death 
of men after Adam had been caused by their own sin, then in the case of 
all those who have died during the period from Adam till the law, the sin 
which they have committed must have been already reckoned to them as 
transgression of the law, just as Adam's sin was the transgression of the 
positive divine command, and as such brought upon him death ; but this 
is inconceivable, because the law was not in existence. In this Paul leaves 
out of consideration the Noachian commands (Gen. ix.), as well as other 
declarations of God as to His will given before the law, and likewise 
individual punitive judgments, such as in the case of Sodom, just because 
he has only the strict idea of real and formal legislation before his mind, 
and this suggests to him simply the great epochs of the Paradisaic and 
Sinaitic legislations. A view, which does not subvert the truth of his 
demonstration, because mankind in general were without law from Adam 
until Moses, the natural law, because not given positively, remaining out of 
the account ; it makes the act at variance with it appcar as sin (dyapria), 
but not as zapéBaate véuov, which as such éAdoyeivaz. — Ver. 14. a22'] at, yet, 
although sin is not put to account in the absence of the law. It intro- 
duces an apparently contradictory phenomenon, confronting the duapria ovx 
éAdoyeitat x.t.A. ; one, however, which just proves that men have died, not 
through their own special sin, but through the sin of Adam, which was put 
to their account. — éBacidevoev] prefixed with emphasis : death has not per- 
chance been powerless, no, it has reigned, i.e. has exercised its power 
which deprives of life (comp. vv. 17-21). Hofmann (comp. also Holsten, 
Aberle, and Dietzsch) finds in the emphatic éfac. the absolute and abiding 
dominion, which death has exercised independently of the imputation of 
sins (4224 being taken as the simple but), ‘‘ just as a king, one by virtue of 
his personal position once and for all entitled to do so, exercises dominion 
over those who, in virtue of their belonging to his domain, are from the 
outset subject to him.” But no reader could educe this qualitative definite 
sense of the BaciAciecv, with the highly essential characteristic elements 
ascribed to it, from the mere verb itself ; nor could it be gathered from the 
position of the word at the head of the sentence ; on the contrary, it must 
unquestionably have been expressed (by érupdvvevoev possibly, or rupaverxac 
éBacidevoev) secing that the subsequent xai (even over those, ctc.) does not 
indicate a mode of the power of the (personified) death, but only appends 
the fact of its dominion being without exception. — uézpe Muie. ] equivalent 
to dype véuov in ver. 13. <A distinction of sense between péyp: and ayp: 13 
(contrary to the opinion of Tittmann, Synon. p. 33f.) purely fanciful. See 
Fritzsche, p. 308 ff. and van Hengel in loc. —xai éxi rove py) duaprioavrac 


CHAP. V., 14. 205 
«.r.A,] even over those ' who have not sinned like Adam, that is, have not like 
him transgressed a positive divine command. [Sce Note LVI. p. 224.] Even 
these it did not spare. It is erroneous with Chrysostom (but not Theodoret 
and Theophylact) to connect ézi r@ duodpare x.7.A. with éBacid.2, Erroneous 
for this reason, that Paul, apart from the little children or those otherwise 
incapable of having sin imputed, whom however he must have indicated 
more precisely, could not conceive at all (ili. 23) of persons who had not 
sinned (ui? duapricavrec without any modal addition more precisely defining 
it), and a limitation mentally supplied (sine lege peccarunt, Bengel) is purely 
fanciful. The «ai, even, refers to the fact that in the period extending from 
Adam till Moses, excluding the latter, positively given divine commands 
were certainly transgressed by individuals to whom they were given, but it 
was not these merely who died (as must have been the case, had death been 
brought on by their own particular sins); it was also those,* who etc. Their 
fin was not ézi rq duotwu. THO Tapaf. 'Adép (éxi used of the form, in which 
anything occurs, see Bernhardy, p. 250); they did not sin in such a way, 
that their action was of like shape with the transgression of Adam, ‘‘ quia non 
habebant ut ille rerelatam certo oraculo Dei voluntatem,” Calvin. For other 
definitions of the sense see Fritzsche, p. 316, and Reiche, Commentar. crit. 
I. p. 45 ff. Reiche himself explains it of those who have transgressed no 
command expressly threatening death. 8So also Tholuck. But this peculiar 
limitation is not suggested by the context, in which, on the contrary, it is 
merely the previous 7) dyrog véuov which supplies a standard for determining 
the sense of the similarity. According to Hofmann xai ézi rove down to 
"Addu is meant to be one and the same with the previous a7d Aday péype 
Mutotwc, inasmuch as a transgression similar to that of Adam could only 
then have occurred, ‘‘«when God placed a people in the same position in which 
Adam found himself, when he receiced a divine command on the observance or 
transgression of which his life or death depended.” 'This misconception, spring- 
ing from the erroneous interpretation of 颒 ¢ mévre¢ qucprov, is already ex- 
cluded by «ai,‘ as well as, pursuant to the tenor of thought, by the fact 
that in the pre-legal period in question all those, who transgressed a com- 
mand divinely given to them by way of revelation, sinned like Adam. 
Their sin had thereby the same moral form as the act of Adam; but not only 
had they to die, but also (xai) those who had not been in that condition of 
sinning. Death reigned over the latter also.—The genitive with duodp. is 
not that of the subject (Hofmann), but of the object, as in i. 23, vi. 5, viii. 3 ; 
the sins meant are not so conceived of, that the wapéBaore of Adam is homo- 


1 Bastrevew with éxiis a Hebraism (47). 
Compare Luke i. 33, xix. 14; 1 Sam. viii. 9, 
11; 1 Macc. |. 16. 

2 So Finckh again does, following Castalio 
and Bengel: ‘quia fllorum eadem atque 
Adami transgredicntis ratio fult.... Le. 
propter realtum ab Adamo contractum.”’ 

* Consequently the two classes, formed by 
Paol, are not to be so distinguished that 
the one shall embrace men before Noah, 
and the other the Noachian race (van 


Hengel). Both classes are included in the 
whole period from Adam till Moses. 

4 Which necessarily assumes a class of 
sinners in the pre-legal period, whose sin 
was homogeneous with that of Adam. 
This also, in opposition to Mangold, p. 121, 
and Dietzsch, p. 98; according to whose 
and Hofmann’'s definition of the sense, 
Paul ought either to have omitted the cai 
altogether, or to have inserted it before 
awd Addu, 


206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


geneously repeated in them, but so that they are, as to their specific nature, 
of similar fashion with it, and consequently belong to the same ethical cate- 
gory. They have morally just the same character. As to dyofwua see on 1. 
23. —o¢ éore riog row péAAovTo¢g) who—to educe now from vv. 13, 14 the result 
introduced in ver. 12, and so to return to the comparison there begun—is 
type of the future (Adam). Theophylact correctly paraphrases: o¢ yap 
6 madaidc ’Adau révrag Urodixove éroince TH olxeiy mraicuate (by bringing upon 
them death), xairot py xraicavrag, ovtws 6 Xprorég édixaiwoe wavrac, Kaitot pH 
dixaidcewe afia roiwjoavtag. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 45. Koppe, following 
Bengel, takes uéAa. as neuter (of that, which should one day take place), and é¢ 
for 6. Thisagreement of the relative with the following substantive would 
perhaps be grammatically tenable,’ but seeing that ’Addu immediately pre- 
cedes it, and that the idea of Christ being 6 éoyaroc Addy is a Pauline idea 
(1 Cor. /.c.), it is quite unjustifiable to depart from the reference of the d¢ to 
Adam ; and equally so to deny to the péA2uy its supplement from the immce- 
diately preceding ’Adéu, and to take it as ‘‘ the man of the future” (Hofmann), 
which would nevertheless yield in substance the same meaning. — ti-roc] 
type, so that the péAdwv is the anti-type (1 Pet. iii. 21). The type is always 
something historical (a person, thing, saying), which is destined, in ac- 
cordance with the divine plan, to prefigure something corresponding to it In 
the future,—in the connected scheme of sacred historical teleology, which is 
to be discerned from the standpoint of the antitype. Typical historical 
parallels between Adam and the Messiah (so that the latter is even ex- 
pressly termed the last Adam) are found also in Rabbinical authors ,* and 
are based in them on the doctrine of the azoxardoracte rdvtwv.? Paul based 
this typology of his on the atoning work of Christ and its results, as the 
whole discussion shows ; hence in his present view Christ as the pédjuw 
"Addu 1s not still to come, but is already historical.‘ For this reason how- 
ever 6 péAAwy may not, with Fritzsche and de Wette, be referred to the last 
coming of Christ; but must be dated from the time of Adam, in so far, 
namely, as in looking back to the historical appearance of Adam, Christ, as 
its antitype, 7s the future Adam (comp. 6 épydpevoc). 


RemakkK 1. Those who refer 颰 @ mavte¢ fuaprov to the proper sins of indi- 
viduals, or even to the principle of the duaptia dwelling in them, ought not to 
find, as Baumgarten-Crusius, Umbreit, and Baur still do, the proof for the 
ravteo #uaptov in ver. 13 f. for how in the connection of the passage could any 
proof for the universality of sin be still required? Certainly just as little as in 
particular for the fact, that, with death already existing in the world (Dietzsch), all 
individuals have sinned. Consistently with that reference of the 颒 6 mr. fuaproy 
there must rather have been read from ver. 13 f. the proof for this, that the 


} Hermann, @d Viger. p. 708; Heind. ed ? Compare the passages in Eisenmenger, 
Phaedr. p. 279. entdeckt, Judenth. I. p. 819, 823 ff. 

2E.g. Neve Schalom f. 160, 2: ‘*‘Quemad- * Comp. Chrysostom; also Theodore of 
modum homo primus fuit primus in pec- Mopsuestia: aowep &° éxeivou (Adam) rar 
cato, sic Messias erit ultimus ad auferen- _=xetpdvew 7 wdposoo éyévero, ovre ba TovTOU THE 
dum peccatum penitus ;” Nere Schalom9,9: tev «xperrévey amwodavcens Tay adopuap 
Adamus postremus est Messias."’ eFdpeda, 


CHAP. V., 13. 207 


death of all results from the proper sins of all. But how variously has this 
demonstration been evolved! Either: although sin has not until Moses been impu- 
table according to positive law, yet each one has brought death upon himself by his sin 
(ver. 14), which proves the relative imputation thereof. So de Wette. Or: although 
sin, which even from Adam till Moses was not lacking, be not imputed by a human 
judge in the absence of positive law, yet the reign of death (ver. 14) shows that God 
has imputed the pre- Mosaic sins. So Fritzsche. Or: in order to show ‘‘in Adamo 
causam quaerendam esse, cur hominum peccata mors secuta sit,’’ Paul declares that 
death has reigned over all from Adam till Moses, whether they sinned like Adam, 
or differently. So van Hengel ; comp. also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 264. Or: not 
even in the period from Adam till Moses was sin absent; but the clear proof to the 
contrary is the dominion of death in this period. So Baur, and with a substantially 
similar view of the mode of inference ab effectu ad causam,' Rothe also. But 
however it may be turned, the probative element has first of all to be read into 
the passage ; and even then the alleged proof (ver. 14) would only be a reason- 
ing backwards from the historical phenonenon in ver. 14 to the cause asserted by 
&¢' © t. fuap7., and consequently a mere clumsy argument in a circle, which 
again assumes the assertion to be proved—id quod erat demonstrandum—in 
the phenomenon brought forward in ver. 14; and moreover utterly breaks 
down through the proposition that sin is not imputed in the absence of law. 
Ewald, in his former view (Jahrb. II.), rightly deduces from ver. 14: conse- 
quently it only appears the more certain, that death propagated itself to them only by . 
means of Adam’s,” but attributes to this inference, consistently with his view 
of ¢¢’ © 7. fyu., the sense: ‘that they all sinned unto death just in the same way as, 
and because, Adum had sinned unto it.’’ In his latter view (Sendschr. d. Ap. P.) 
he supposes that in connection with é9’ © mdvre¢ fuaptov the possible doubt 
may have arisen, whether it was so certain thal death had come upon those oldest 
men from Adam till Moses in consequence of their sins ? which doubt Paul prop- 
erly answers in ver, 13 f:, thereby all the more corroborating the truth. But 
the emergence of a doubt is indicated by nothing in the text ; and that doubt 
indeed would have been dissipated by the very fact that those men were dead, 
which does not prove however that they died on account of their sins. Thus 
also the matter would amount to a reasoning inacircle. According to Tho- 
luck the argument is: that death has passed upon all through the disposition to 
death (?) introduced in Adam, and not through their own sins, is plain from the fact, 
that pre-Mosaic sin, through not positively threatened with death, as in the case of 
Adam and in the law, was nevertheless placed under its dominion.” Only thus, he 
holds, is the logical relation between the clauses apparent. In general this is 
right ; but by this very circumstance Tholuck just attests the correctness of 
our explanation of juaproy, namely, that it is not meant of individual sin. The 
caution which he inserts against this inference, namely, that Paul regards the 
actual sins ‘‘ only as the relatively free manifestations of the hereditary sinful 
substance,” is of no avail, seeing that they remain always acts of individual 
freedom, even though the latter be only relative, while the argument in our 
passage is such that the individual’s own sins, as cause of death, are excluded. 
Ernesti joins duapria d2 «.7.A. with 颒 @ «.7.4.: ‘‘since indeed all have sinned, 
but sin is not placed to account,’’ etc. The dy... .xdozm standing in 
the way, he encloses in a parenthesis. But why this parenthesis? The rdvre¢ 


1 According to the correlation of the ideas sin and death, comp. Baur, neut. Theol. p. 188. 


208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


fuaprov, in the sense of iii. 23, needed no proof; and it could not occur to 
any one to date sin only from the epoch of the law. Thedyp ... . xéopw 
acquires its pertinent significance when, as an essential element in the syllo- 
gistic deduction, it is closely united with the axiom dyapria a3 of EAAoy. w.7.A 
attached to it, and is not set aside in a parenthesis as if it might equally weil 
have been omitted. According to Holsten the argument turns on the fact that 
objective sin entered the world through Adam, and death along with it ; thas 
death has passed upon all because all were sinners (in the objective sense)—a 
diffusion by means of one over the whole, which is illustrated by the thought 
that, while sin was in the world until the law, this sin could not,-in the ab- 
sence of law, be imputed as subjective guilt ; but death became ruler, in accord- 
ance with the objective divine law of the universe, with a tyrannical power 
not conditioned by the subjects of its rule, even over those who were indeed 
(objectively) sinners, but not (subjectively) transgressors like Adam. Holsten 
has certainly in this way avoided the error of making universal death condi- 
tioned by the subjective sin of the individuals ; but he has done so by means 
of a distinction between objective and subjective sins, which is so far from 
being suggested by the text, that it was just through Adam that the subjective 
sin, joined with the consciousness of guilt, entered the world, and therefore the 
divine action, in decreeing death upon sin, could not be conceived as indiffer- 
ent to the subjectivity. Hofmann—who sees in dyp: . . . . xdovw a [very un- 
necessary] ground assigned for the &¢9’ © x. fyaprov, upon which there follows 
in duapria di «.r.A. a declaration regarding death in the pre-legal period, ac- 
cording to which this could not have been caused by the sinning of that pe- 
riod, seeing that on the contrary the latter took place when death was already 
present—confuses the entire exposition of the passage, and by his artificial 
rendering of &¢’ © mdvrec fuaprov makes the understanding of it impossible. In 
general the entire history of the interpretation of our passage shows that when 
once the old ecclesiastical explanation of ¢¢’ @ (this however taken as propterea 
quod) ravre¢ fuaprov is regarded as the Charybdis to be shunned at all hazards, 
the falling into the Scylla becomes unavoidable. Even Klipper, in attributing 
to mdvrec Huaprov the underlying thought that Adam's sin penetrated to all, 
and Dietzsch, by his simplifying and modification of Hofmann’s exposition, 
have not escaped this danger, 

Remagk 2. Since Paul shows from the absence of imputation (éAAoyeirat) in 
the absence of law, that the death of men after Adam cannot have been occa- 
sioned by their own individual sins, but only by Adam’s, in which all were 
partakers in virtue of their connection with him as their progenitor, he must 
have conceived that Adam’s sin brought death not merely to himself but also 
at the same time to all by way of impuiation ; and therefore the imputatio peccati 
Adamitici in reference to the death, to which all are subjected, certainly results 
from our passage as & Pauline doctrine. But as to original sin (not however as 
to its condemnableness in itself), the testimony of our passage is only indirect, 
in so far, namely, as the &¢’ © rdvrec fyuaprov, according to its proper explana- 
tion and confirmation in ver. 13 f., necessarily presupposes in respect to 
Adam’s posterity the habitual want of justitia originalis and the possession of 
concupiscence. 

Remanzx 3. The view of Julius Miller as to an original estate and original 
fall of man in an extra-temporal sphere (comp. the monstrous opinion of 


CHAP. V., 15. 209 
Benecke, p. 109 ff., and in the Sud. u. Arif. 1832, p. 616 ff.) cannot be reconciled 
with our passage and its reference to Gen. iii.! See Ernesti, p. 247 ff., and 
among dogmatic theologians, especially Philippi, III. p. 92 ff.; and (against 
Schelling and Steffens) Martensen, § 93, p. 202 ff. ed. 2. 


Ver. 15. But not as is the trespass, 80 also is the gift of grace. (See Note 
LVII. p. 225.) Although Adam and Christ as the heads of the old and new 
humanity are typical parallels, how different nevertheless are the two facts, 
by which the former and the latter stand to one another in the relation of 
type and antitype (on the one side the zapérrwyua, on the other the yépiopua) 
—different, namely (ci yap x.r.4.), by the opposite effects* issuing from those 
two iacts, on which that typical character is based. The question is not as 
to the different measure of efficacious power, for this extends alike in both 
cases from one to all ; but as to the different specific kind of effect ; there 
death, here the rich grace of God—the latter the more undoubted and cer- 
tain (0A waAdov), as coming after that deadly effect, which the rapéarupa 
had. ‘ For if (ci purely hypothetical) through the trespass of one the many 
died, much more has the grace of God and the gift by grace of the one man Jesus 
Christ become abundant to the many.” On 1d rapérrwya comp. Wisd. x. 1. 
The contrast is rd ydpioua, the work of grace, i.e. the atoning and justifying 
act of the divine grace in Christ,? comp. ver. 17 ff. — ol roAdoi] the many, 
namely, according to ver. 12 (comp. ver. 18), the collective posterity of 
Adam. It is in substance certainly identical with zévrec, to which Mehring 
reverts ; but the contrast to the cig becomes more palpable and stronger by 
the designation of the collective mass as of roAdoi. Grotius erroneously 
says : ‘‘ sere omnes, excepto Enocho,” which is against vv. 12, 18. Sucha 
unique, miraculous exception is not taken into consideration at all in this 
mode of looking at humanity as such ona great scale. Erroneous also is 
the view of Dietzsch, following Beck, that oi roAAoi and then rot¢ roAAote 
divide mankind into two classes, of which the one continues in Adamite cor- 
ruption (7) while the other is in Christ raised above sin and death. This 
theory breaks down even on the historical aorist aréf6avov and its, accord- 
ing to ver. 12, necessary reference to the physical death which was given 
with Adam’s death-bringing fall for all, so that they collectively (including 
also the subsequent believers) became liable to death through this rapéz- 
topa. See on ver. 12. It is moreover clear from our passage that for the 
explanation of the death of men Paul did not regard their individual sin as 


! Nor with the N. T. generally, which 
teaches an extra-temporal mode of exist- 
ence only in the case of Christ. The extra- 
temporal condition and fall supposed by 
Méler are not only ouéside of Scripture, but 
at rariance with it. 

3 This contrast forbids the taking 4A.’ 
om... . xénona interrogalively (Mehring 
and earlier expositors), and so getting rid 
of the negation. 

3The unhappy and happy consequences 
respectively of the sapdwrexa and the 


xa@proua are not included in these concep- 
tions themselves (In opposition to Dietzsch). 
Nor is wapawreya to be so distinguished 
from wrapdBacrs, that the former connotes the 
unhappy consequences (Grotius, Dietzsch). 
On the contrary, the expressions are popu- 
lar synonyms, only according to different 
Sgures, \ike fall (not falling away) and fres- 
pass. Comp. on sapdrr. Ez. xiv. 18, xv. 8, 
XVifi. 24, 26, 11. 20; Rom. iv. 2%, xi.11; 2Cor. 
v. 19; Gal. vi. 1; Eph. ff. 1 e ad. 


210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

the causa efficiens, or even as merely medians ; and it is a meaning gratui- 
tously introduced, when it is explained : ‘‘ the many sinned and found death, 
like the one Adam,” (Ewald, Jahrb. II., van Hengel and others). — 1072.0 
paddov] as in ver. 9, of the logical plus, i.e. of the degree of the evidence as 
enhanced through the contents of the protasis, multo potius. ‘‘If Adam’s 
fall has had so bad an universal consequence, much less can it be doubted 
that,” etc. For God far rather allows His goodness to prevail than His se- 
verity ; this is the presupposition on which the conclusion rests. Chrysos- 
tom has correctly interpreted 7. naAA. in the logical sense (70116 yap rovro 
evAoyrepov), as does also Theodoret, and recently Fritzsche, Philippi, Tho- 
luck (who however takes in the quantitative plus as well), van Hengel, Man- 
gold, and Klépper. The quantitatire view (Theophylact : ov rocovroy péror, 
gnotv, wgéAnoev 6 Xpiordc, dcov &BAawpev 6’Adéu ; also Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, 
Calovius and others ; and in modern times Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, Rothe, 
Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Hofmann, and Dietzsch) is opposed 
to the analogy of vv. 17, 18 ; and has also against it the consideration, that 
the measure of punishment of the rapdrrwya (viz. the death of all) was already 
quantitatively the greatest possible, was absolute, and therefore the meas- 
ure of the grace, while just as absolute (ci¢ rove roAAotc), is not greater still 
than that measure of punishment, but only stands out against the dark 
background of the latter all the more evidently in its rich fulness.’ — 4 ydpe¢ 
tT. Oeov x. 4 duped] the former, the grace of God, richly turned towards the 
many, is the principle of the latter (} duped = 16 ydpioua in ver. 15, the gift of 
justification). The dwped isto be understood xar’ é€ox4, without supplying row 
Ocov ; but the discourse keeps apart with solemn emphasis what is cause and 
what is effect. —év ydpitt ... . Xpcotov is not with many expositors (in- 
cluding Rothe, Tholuck, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Mehring, Hofmann, 
and Dietzsch) to be joined with 7 duped (the gift, which is procured through 
the grace of Christ), but with Fritzsche, Riickert, Ewald, van Hengel, and 
others, to be connected with éepicoevoe (has become abundant through the grace 
-af Christ)—a construction which is decisively supported, not indeed by the 
absence of the article, since 7 dwped év yéprrs might be conjoined so as to 
form one idea, but by the reason, that only with this connection therg@... . 
mapanTouare in the protasis has its necessary, strictly correspondent, correla- 
tive in the apodosis. The divine grace and the gift have abounded to the 
many through the grace of Christ, just as the many died through the fall 


1 The way would have been logically pre- means tenable. For even in the case of 


pared for the quantitative plus by the hypo- 
thetical protasis only in the event of that 
which was predicated being in the two 
clauses of a similar (not opposite) kind; in 
the evenftherefore of its having been possi- 
bla to affirm a salutariness of the raparrwna 
in the protasis. Comp. xi. 12; 2 Cor. fil. 9, 
11; Heh. ix. 13 f., xif. 9, 25. The main ob- 
jection which Dietzsch (following Rothe) 
raises against the interpretation of the 
logical plus, on the ground that we have here 
two historical realities before us, is by no 


two facts which have taken place, the one 
may be corroborated and inferred from 
the other, namely, as respects its certainly 
and necessity. If the one has taken place, it 
is by so much the more evident that the other 
also has taken place. The historical reality 
of the one leaves all the less room for 
doubt as to that of the other. The second 
does not in this case require to be some- 
thing still future, especially if it be an oc 
currence, which does not fall within the 
range of sensuous perception. 


CHAP. V., 16. 211 


of Adam. The xépr¢ "Incot Xpcorod is—as the genitive-relation naturally sug- 
gests of itself, and as is rendered obviously certain by the analogy of 4 ydpre 
vt. Geoi—the grace of Jesus Christ, in virtue of which He found Himself 
moved to accomplish the idaorfprov, in accordance with the Father’s decree, 
and thereby to procure for men the divine grace and the duped. It is not 
therefore the favour in «which Christ stood with God (Luther, 1545) ; nor the 
grace of God received in the fellowship of Christ (van Hengel) ; nor is it the 
steadily continued, earthly and heavenly, redeeming efficacy of Christ's grace 
(Rothe, Dietzsch). Comp. Acts xv. 11; 2 Cor. vill. 9; Gal. i. 6 ; Tit. iii. 
G6 ; 2 Cor. xii. 8, xiii. 18. The designation of Christ : rot évog avxOpdrov 'I. 

X., is occasioned by the contrast with the one man Adam. Comp. 1 Cor. 
xv. 21; 1 Tim. ii. 5. To describe the divine glory of this One man (Col. 
i. 19) did not fall within the Apostle’s present purpose ; but it was known 
to the reader, and is presupposed in His yépic (John i. 64). — rH row] ‘ arti- 
culi nervosissimi,” Bengel. — ei¢ rove roAAoi¢] belongs to érepico. The rod- 
oi are likewise here, just as previously, all mankind (comp. ravrag avOpdrove, 
ver. 18). To this multitude has the grace of God, etc., been plentifully im- 
parted (eig tr. m. érxepiooevoe, comp. 2 Cor. i. 5), namely, from the objective 
point of view, in so far as Christ’s act of redemption has acquired for all the 
divine grace and gift, although the subjective reception of it is conditioned 
by faith. See on ver. 18. The expression érepicorvoe (he does not say 
merely éyévero, or some such word) is the echo of his own blessed experi- 
ence. 

Ver. 16. Continuation of the difference between the gift of grace and the 
consequence of the fall, and that with reference to the ‘causal origination on 
either side in a numerical aspect.'— And not as through one, who has sinned, 
so is the gift, i.e. it is not so in its case—the state of the cuse there is the very 
reverse—as if it were occasioned dé’ évi¢ dyuapryo. (like death through Adam). 
The d’ évd¢ duapr#c. indicates the unity of the person and of the accom- 
plished sinful act ; comp. Stélting. Beyond the simple éori after dp7ua noth- 
ing is to be supplied (so also Mangold), because the words without supple- 
ment are quite in accordance with the Greek use of d¢,? and yield an appro- 
priate sense, whereas none of the supplements that have been attempted are 
suggested by the context. It has been proposed, e.g. after duapr. to supply 
Odvatos eic7Abcv (Grotius, Estius, Koppe), or rd xpiva or xardxpiua (Bengel, 
Klee, Reiche, Kéllner) ; or after &¢: 7ré (Beza), which is indeed impossible, 
but is nevertheless resorted to even by de Wette : ‘‘and not like that which 
originated through one that sinned, so is the gift,” and Tholuck : ‘‘the gift 
has a different character from that which has come through the one man sin- 
ning.” Comp. Philippi, who like Rickert and Dietzsch supplies merely 
éyévero after duapr. (and then after dwp.: éorf),—which however still yields 


1 Dietzsch takes it differently, finding the  justification—an intermingling to be avoid- 
progress of the argument in this, that at ed throughout the entire train of thought 
the end a state of life adequate to the divine in our passage ; comp. Pflelderer in Hilgen- 
law may be established. This view how-  feld’s Zeilechr. 1872, p. 167. 
ever rests on an erroneous exposition of 2 Bernhardy, p. 352, Stallbaum, ad@ Fiat. 
&xaiena (see below), and generally on an Sympos. p. 170 E. 
erroneous mixing up of sanctification with 


212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

no complete sentence, since the ¢yévero is without a subject. The correct view 
in substance is taken by Rothe, Ewald, and van Hengel ; while Fritzsche 
still calls in the aid of asupplement after dyapr. (rd rapdwrwpa éyévero); 
and Hofmann even wishes mentally to supply to xai. . . . ddépnua from what 
precedes, to which it is attached, cic rove moAAove éxepicoevoev as predicate ;* 
whereas Mehring puts his rendering, which erroneously makes it a question 
(comp. on ver. 15), in this form: ‘‘ And ought not the gift to be, as it was 
through one that sinned ?” — rd pév yap xpipa x.t.A.] sc. éovi 5 explanation of 
the point of difference previously specified : For the judicial sentence redounds 
Jrom a@ single one to a sentence of condemnation, but the gift of grace from many 
trespasses to a sentence of justification. — rd xpiua] quite general : the sentence 
which God pronounces as judge ; comp. 1 Cor. vi. 7. For the kind of sentence, 
which this shall prove to be in the concrete result, is indicated only by the 
following ci¢ xaréxpeyua. The explanation which refers it to the divine an- 
nouncement contained in Gen. ii. 17 (Fritzsche, Dietzsch) is erroneous, be- 
cause the latter is a threat, and not a xpiua ; and because the act of Adam 
must have already preceded the xpiza. Others understand by it the sentence 
of punishment pronounced against Adam, which has become a sentence of 
punishment (sentence of death) against his posterity (xardxpiua) (Reiche, 
Riickert, Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, de Wette, Maier, Hofmann) ; 
but wrongly, because they thus neglect the pointed interchange of xpiya and 
xardxpiza, and in eig xardxpiza place the stress on the condemned subject, 
which however is not even mentioned. Linguistically erroneous is the view 
of Beza, Calixtus, Wolf, and others, that r. xpiva is the guilt. Nor does it 
mean the state of being jinally adjudged (Stélting). Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, 
and van Hengel hold the right view ; while Rothe, with unnecessary refin- 
ing and gratuitous importation, takes rd zév and 1d dé by themselves as sub- 
ject, xpiza and ydpcya as predicates (‘‘ the one effect is a mghteous judg- 
ment. . . . the other on the contrary a gift”). Dietzsch still more breaks 
up the sentence, making xpiza and ydpiopa appositions, the former to rd pév, 
and the latter to rd dé. — é& évéc] has, like éx moAAdy raparr. afterwards, 
the chief emphasis ; évéc¢ is masculine on account of the previous dé: évd¢ 
duapryo., not neuter (zaparréparoc), as Rothe, Mehring, Dietzsch, Stélting 
and others think. This masculine however does not necessitate our taking 
moAAay also as masculine (Hofmann), which would in itself be allowable 
(comp. on 2 Cor. i. 11), but is here opposed by the consideration that Paul 
would have expressed the personal contrast to ¢£ évég more symmetrically and 
thoughtfully by the bare éx moAAév. The Vulgate gives the right sense : 
‘* ex multis delictis."” — é£] points to the motive cause, producing the event 
from itself : forth from one, see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 8399. Just in the same 
way the second éx. — ei¢ xardéxp:za] sc. éovi, as in the first half of the verse,? 


1 It would runthus: ‘* The gift has not 
accrued abundantly to the many and passed 
over to them, as was the case when such a be- 
stowal ensued through one that sinned.” 
This supplement is already guarded against 
by the fact that «. ovx down to &spnyua Is the 
obvious parallel of ovx ws r. raparr. down 


to xdpiona, and hence, like the latter, may 
not be supplemented further than by éori. 
Any other course is arbitrary and artificial. 

3In consequence of the way in which 
Hofmann has supplemented the first half 
of the verse, we should now take, in the 
one instance, ef évds cig xaréxpya cis rods 


CHAP. V., 17. 213 
‘* ut una cum praesentibus practerita tamquam cadem in tabella repraesent- 
et,” van Hengel. One was the cause (moving the divine righteousness) 
that the judgment of God presents itself in the result as a punitive judgment 
(namely, that on account of the sin of one all should die, ver. 12) ; many 
sins [see Note LVIII. p. 225], on the other hand, were the cause (moving 
the divine compassion) that the gift of grace results 2 concreto as a judg- 
ment of justification. In the one case an unity, in the other a multiplicity, 
was the occasioning cause. In the second clause also, following the analogy 
of xpiza in the first, rd ydpioua is conceived of generally and abstractly ; the 
AxGpeouc redounds in the concrete case cig dixaiwza, When God, namely, for- 
gives the many sins and declares their subjects asrighteous. d:xaiwua, which 
ig not, with Dietzsch, to be understood in the sense of the right framing of 
liye through sanctification of the Spirit—a view contrary to linguistic usage 
and the context—is here also (comp. i. 32, ii. 26, viii. 4 ; Luke i. 6; Heb. 
ix. 1,10; Rev. xv. 4; frequently in LXX. and Apocr., see Schleusner, Thes. 
II. p. 167 f.), according to its literal signification, in itself nothing else than 
judicial determination, judicial sentence; but it is to be taken here in the 
Pauline sense of the divine d:xacovv, hence : the sentence defining righteousness, 
the ordinance of God in which He completes the dcxaiwore as actus judicialia, 
the opposite of xardxpiua. Condition of righteousness (Luther and others), 
‘* the actual status of being righteous” (Hofmann), would be represented by 
dixawocivy ; satisfaction of justice, compensation of justice (Rothe, Mchring 
following Calovius, and Wolf), in accordance with which idea it may even 
designate punishment in classical usage (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 864 E), it might 
mean (Aristot. Eth. Nic. v. 7,17: éravépOupya tov adixtuatoc), but never does 
so in Biblical usage, to which this special definition o1 the sense is foreign. 
Paul could convey the sense declaration as righteous, cerdict of justification, 
the more appropriately by dicaiwua, since in Bar. 11. 17 the word is also sub- 
stantially thus used (décovor dégav x. dixaiwua TH xvpiy, in Hades they shall 
not praise God and declare Him righteous). Compare also 2 Sam. xix. 28 ; 
Jer. xi. 20; Prov. viii. 20; Rev. xv. 4, and xix. 8.1 The right view is 
taken by Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, 
van Hengel, Holsten, Klépper, and Pfleiderer ; Riickert (also Maier) abides 
by means of justification, following merely the form of the word without 
empirical proof, while de Wette is undecided, and Stélting, without prece- 
dent from linguistic usage (comp. above Luther and Hofmann), understands - 
the state of justification into which the state of grace (the yépopa) has passed. 
These two conceptions however exclude any idea of succession, and are con- 
current. — The addition Cujc in D. Vulg. is a correct gloss ; comp. ver. 18. 
Ver. 17. The 1d 62 yépioua éx woAA. maparrt. ei¢ duxalwpa, just asserted in 
contrast to the xaré«piza proceeding from One, has now the seal of confirma- 


wedAovs éwepiogevoervas predicate to 
ro cpiua; and in the other instance, é&« 
wodAsy wapantuparwy cis Sixaimpa cigs TOUS 
wedAovs iwepiogevcey as predicate to 
Td xépoue,—notwithstanding that in both 
cases a definition with es is already given 
by Paul himself. How enigmatically and 


misleadingly he would have written ! 

1 Where 1a dcacspata twy ayiwy are the 
divine verdicts of justification, which the 
saints have received. The pure byssus is 
their symbol. Compare Ewald, Joh. Schr. 
in loc. p. 330. Diisterdieck understands it 
otherwise (righteous acts). 


214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tion (ydép) impressed on it through the triumphant certainty of the reign of 
life, which must belong to the recipients of the d:xaiwza in the approaching 
completion of the kingdom through the One Jesus Christ all the more un- 
- doubtedly, since the rapérruua of the One Adam brought death to reign. 
The effect of the second One (the Adam éAAwv) in the direction of salvation 
cannot in fact remain behind the effect which proceeded from the first One 
in the direction of destruction. On this rests the evidence of the blissful 
assurance, which with xroA4 uaAAov stands forth as it were fromthe gloom 
of the death previously described (comp. vv. 15, 9). The view that ver. 17 
adduces the proof of the first half of ver. 16 being really proced by its second 
half (Hofmann), is to be rejected for this very reason, that the demonstra- 
tion in ver. 16 is so full and clear in itself, especially after ver. 15, that there 
is no longer any necessity for receiving proof of its probative power, and no 
reader could expect this. It is quite arbitrary in Rothe, especially looking 
to the regular continuation by yép, to take ver. 16 as a parenthesis, and to 
attach ver. 17 to ver. 15. For other views of the connection see Dietzsch, 
who, in accordance with his own unsuitable rendering of d:xaioua, finds here 
the inner righteous condition of life verified by the final reign of life as its 
outward manifestation. — dia rov évéc] through the medium of the One, is 
added, although év {2 mwaparréyar: had been already said (see the critical 
remarks), in order to prepare the way with due emphasis for the dca rov évoc 
"Inood Xpiorov of the apodosis. Comp. on 2 Cor. xii. 7. — roAA@ paAAov] 
Here also, as in ver. 15, the logical plus, the far greater certainty and evidence. 

—ol AauBévovrec] not those who believingly accept (Bengel, Rothe, van Hen- 
gel, and others), but simply the recipients. [See Note LIX. p. 226.] The 
present participle denotes the presence of the time of grace introduced by 
Christ, which stands in the middle between the former reign of death and 
the reign of life in the blissful future and determines the subjects of the lat- 
ter ; comp. ver. 11.— 1 mepicoeiav] the abundant fulness (comp. ii. 4) of 
grace, referring to émepicsevae in ver. 15. — ri¢ xdp x. t. dupedc] distinguished, 

as in ver. 15. But the emphasis of the description, climactic in the enthusi- 
asm of victory, lies in the first instance on yép:roc, and then, as it advances, 

on dixacootvyc, in contrast to the former tragic rapdérrupa. — rH7¢ dixatoc.] is 
that, in which the dwpeé consists. The whole characteristic description of 
the subjects by of . . . . AauBdvorres already implies the certainty with 
which one may reckon in the case of those, who are honoured to receive 
such abundance, on the final Baoideterv tv Sw through Christ. — év (wy BacoA- 
etcovor| The word aor. itself, and more especially the future, renders it 
certain that the future Messianic (a4 is here meant ; in which, as the oppo- 
site of the 6évaroc, the pardoned and justified shall have the joint-dominion 
of the new world (viii. 21), the xAypovoyuia and its défa (vill. 17), under Christ 
the Head (1 Cor. iv. 8, vi. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 12), in whose final manifestation 
their life shall be gloriously manifested (Col. iii. 8 f.) Observe, further, 

that in the apodosis Paul does not say } (wf BaciAeboe émi roig . . . . AauBa- 
vovrac in accordance with the protasis, but appropriately, and in harmony 
with the active nature of the relation, ¢.e. of the future glorious liberty of 
the children of God, places the subjects actively in the foreground, and 


CHAP. Y., 18. 215 


affirms of them the reigning in life. — The 'Ijoot Xpiorcd is added as if in 
triumph, in contradistinction to the unnamed but well-known els, who occa- 
sioned the dominion of death. Finally, we should not fail to notice how in 
this passage the glance proceeds from the status gratiae (AauBévevres) back- 
Ward to the status irae (éfaciAevoe), and forward to the status gloriae (BaciA- 
evoovar). 

Ver, 18 f. Summary recapitulation of the whole parallel treated of from 
ver. 12 onwards, so that the elements of likeness and unlikeness contained 
in it are now comprehended in one utterance. vAAoyilera: bvratOa 7d ray, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia. The emergence of the dpa otv now ushering in the 
Conclusion, ag well as the corresponding relation of the contents of ver. 18 f. 
to the indication given by &¢ éore rimog tov uéAAovrog in ver. 14, carries us 
back to ver. 12 ; not merely to ver. 16 f. (de Wette, Fritzsche) ; or merely 
to vy. 15-17 (Hofmann, Dietzsch). The right view is taken by Philippi, 
Ewald, Holsten. — dpa obv| conclusive : accordingly then,’ in very frequent 
use by the Apostle (vii. 8, 25, viii. 12, ix. 16, 18, xiv. 12, 19; Gal. vi. 10; 
Eph. ii. 19¢ al.), and that, contrary to the classical usage,” at the beginning 
Of the sentence. For the necessary (contrary to Mehring’s view) completion 
of the two sentences, which are in the sharpest and briefest manner com- 
pressed as it were into a mere exclamation (Ewald), it is sufficient simply . 
to supply : res cessit, it has come, aréBy (Winer, p. 546 [E. T. 587]), or éyévero 
(Grotius). See Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 838 [E. T. 894]. As it therefore has 
come to a sentence of condemnation for all men through One trespass, so also it 
has come to justification of life (which has for its consequence the possession 
of the future Messianic life, comp. ver. 21; John v. 26, 29) for all men 
through One justifying judgment. The supplying of 12 xpiya éyévero to the 
first, and r3 yépcoua éyévero to the second half (so Fritzsche and Riickert), 
considering the opposite sense of the two subjects, renders the very com- 
Pressed discourse somewhat singular. — d’ évd¢ dix.] through one judicial 
terdict (see on vv. 16, 19), namely, that which was pronounced by God on 
count of the obedience of Christ rendered through His death. In strict 
logic indeed the dixaiwua, which is properly the antithesis of xardxprye (as in 
Ver, 16), should not be opposed to zapdérrwpa ; but this incongruity of a 

lrely interchange of conceptions is not un-Pauline (comp. ver. 15). And 
4 18 thoroughly unwarranted to assign to d:xaiwya here also, as in ver. 16, 
"gnifications which it has not ; such as actual status of being righteous (Hof- 
mann, §Stélting), fulfilment of right (Philippi, Mangold), making amends 
Rothe), righteous deed (Holsten), righteous life-condition of Christ (Dietzsch), 

which a new humanity begins, act of justification (Tholuck), virtuous- 
= (Baumgarten-Crusius), obedience (de Wette), and the like—definitions, 
" Which for the most part regard is had to the act of the death of Jesus 
tlso ly with and partly without the addition of the obedientia activa (comp. 

EK lpper), while Fritzsche explains it of the incarnation and bumilia- 


Le 
ieee ‘‘ad internam potius causam cy; Baeumlein, p. 85; comp. Ktihner, IL. 
Hote. t,” ogy, “magis ad externam,” p. 887. 
20 ae @d Devar. p.717. Comp. p. 178 The * Herm. ad Antig. 628, ad Viger. p. 828. 
FVesy specifically for dialectic accura- 


216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tion of Christ (Phil. ii. 5, 8) as His recte factum. Ewald interprets rightly : 
‘‘through One righteous sentence ;” so also van Hengel and Umbreit. 
This alone is permitted by ver. 16. It is the One declaration of what is now 
of right, that is, the judicial verdict of the being reconciled, which took place 
on the part of God, on the ground of Christ’s sacrificial death—the conse- 
quence therefore, of His ixaxoy rendered in dcath—and which so far may 
appear as the antithesis to the fall of Adam with the same right as in ver. 
15 the grace and gift were adduced as the contrast to that fall. To take 
the évég as masculine (Vulgate, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, 
Calvin, and many others, including Tholuck, Fritzsche, Nielsen, Picard, 
Kldpper, Philippi, and Hofmann), is, secing that no article is annexed, 
unwarranted according to the analogy of the immediate context, vv. 17, 19 ; 
or Paul would have only expressed himself in a way liable to be misunder- 
stood (how differently in ver. 16 !). Equally unwarranted is it to conceive 
the verb to be supplied in the apodosis as in the future (Philippi, Dietzsch). 
The judicial verdict is given and has redounded once and for ever to justifi- 
cation of eternal life for all ; that is the great historical fact of salvation, 
which Paul has in view and sets forth as a concrete event (not under the 
point of view of a timeless abstraction, as Rothe thought) without con- 
sidering how far it is now or in the future appropriated through faith by 
the subjects.—In both halves of the verse mdvre¢ avOpwro: is simply all sen, 
asin ver. 12. At the same time it must be noted that in the second half 
the relation is conceived in its objectivity. On the part of God it has come 
to justification for all; thus the case stands objectively ; the subjectire attain- 
ment of this universal justification, the realization of it for the individuals, 
depends upon whether the latter believingly apprehend the dicaiwya for their 
own subjective dicaiwors, or unbelievingly reject it. This dependence on a 
subjective condition, however, did not belong to the scope of our passage, 
in which the orfly object was to set forth the all-embracing blessed objec- 
tive consequence of the év dcxaiwua, in contrast to the all-destructive 
objective consequence of the év rapdrrwyza. Hence just as little can any- 
thing be deduced from our passage as from xi. 32 in favour of a final 
amoxaréoraae. The distinction imported by Hofmann and Lechler: that 
xévteo GvOpwroe means all without distinction, and mévreg ol drOpw7o, on the 
other hand, all without exception, the sum total of mankind, is purely 
fanciful ; rdvreg means omnes, nemine excepto, alike whether the substantive 
belonging to it, in accordance with the connection, has or has not the 
article (‘‘articulus, cum sensus fert additus vel omissus, discrimen sen- 
tentiae non facit,” Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 519). Only when the article 
stands before révrec (consequently ol mdvrec dv0.) does the distinction emerge, 
that we have to think of ‘‘cunctos sive universos, i.e. singulos in unum 
corpus colligatos” (Ellendt, p. 521) ; comp. Kriiger, § 50, 11, 12 ; Kthner, 
II. 1, p. 545. 

Ver. 19. This final sentence, assigning reason, now formally by the 
recurrence of the écmep points back to ver. 12, with which the whole chain 
of discourse that here runsto an end had begun. [See Note LX. p. 226.] 
But that which is to be established by yédp is not the how of the parallel com- 


CHAP. Y., 19. 217 
parison, which is set forth repeatedly with clearness (in opposition to 
Rothe), but the blissful conclusion of that comparison in ver. 18: ei¢ 
Stxaiwoty Cunjc, upon which what is now expressed in ver. 19 impresses the 
seal of certainty. Dietzsch thinks that the purport, which is kept general, 
of ver. 18 is now to be established from the personal life. But the right 
interpretation of dixaiwua and of dixacoe xatacraftjcov7a is opposed to this 
view. — duaprw2oi Kareord@. ol roddoi] [See Note LXI. p. 227.] The many 
were sct down as sinners; for according to ver. 12 ff. they were indeed, 
through the disobedience of Adam, put actually into the category of sinners, 
because, namely, they sinned in and with the fall of Adam. Thus through 
the disobedience of the one man, because all had part in it, has the position of 
all become thut of sinners. The consequence of this, that they were subjected 
to punishment (Chrysostom, Occumenius, Theophylact and others), were 
treated as sinners (Grotius, Flatt, BGhme, Krehl and others), and the like, is 
not here expressly included, but after the foregoing is obvious of itself. 
Fritzsche (comp. Koppe and Reiche) has: through their death they ap- 
peared as sinners.’ On the one hand this gratuitously imports something 
(through their death), and on the other it does violence to the expression 
xareoTaé., Which denotes the real putting into the position of sinners, where- 
by they de facto came to stand as sinners,* peccatores constituti sunt (James 
iv. 4; 2 Pet. i. 8; Heb. v. 1, viii. 3; 2 Macc. xv. 2; 3 Macc. i. 7; Plat. 
Rep. p. 564 A ; Conv. p. 222 B ; examples from Xenophon in Sturz, II. p. 
610), as is required by the ruling normal clause é¢ @ xdvre¢ juaprov in ver. 12. 
The Apostle might have written éyev#Ojcav (as Dietzsch explains the xareor.), 
but he has already in view the antithesis dixacoe caracr., and expresses himself 
in conformity to it : hence also he docs not put wdvreg (which might have 
stood in the first clause), but ol roaAoi. — dia imaxoyc] through obedience. The 
death of Jesus was war’ éiox4v His obedience to the will of the Father, Phil. 
ii. 8; Heb. v. 8. But this designation is selected as the antithesis to the 
sapaxor; of Adam, and all the more certainly therefore it does not here mcan 
‘‘the collective life-obedience” (Lechler, comp. Hofmann, Dietzsch and 
others), but must be understood as the decd of atonement willed by God 
(ver. 8 ff.), to which we owe justification, and the ethical premiss of which 
on Christ’s side is righteousness of life, although Hofmann improperly 
rejects this view as a groundless fancy.—vixator xatacrafyoovrar] shall be placed 
in the category of righteous. The future refers® to the future revelation of 


1 So also Julius Miller, v. d. Sinde, IT. p. 
455, ed. 5, evading the literal sense: ‘‘the 
many have become declared (as it were 
before the divine judgment-seat) as sinners 
through the disobedience of the one man 
(as the determining initial point of sinful 
development), by the fact, that they have 
been subjected to death."" See on the 
other hand Hofmann, who properly urges 
that they did not become sinners only 
along with their dying, but immediately 
through Adam's disobedience. But the 
how of their doing so is infact just the e¢’ 


@ mavres Huaproy, according to our concep- 
tion of these words. 

2 Dietzsch should not have raised the ob- 
jection that it ought to have been eis 
apaptwAous, OF vy auaptrwaos, See generally 
Kihner, IT. 1, p. 274. 

3 Corresponding to the BasAevcover in 
ver. 17, and hence not to be explained in a 
mere general way of the certain expecta- 
tation or conviction (Mehring), as Hof- 
mann also takes it in the sense of péAAe 
Aoyigeodar, tv. 24. Comp. on the other 
hand fi. 18, 16; and see on Gal. v. 5. 


218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

glory after the resurrection (Reiche, Fritzsche, Kl6pper) ; not to the fact 
that the multitude of believers is conceived of as not yet completed, and 
consequently the justifying of them is chiefly regarded as a succession of 
cases to come (comp. ili. 20, 30). The how of the dixaro: xaracraf. cannot be 
found in an actual becoming righteous, as result of the divine work of grace, 
at the close of the saving process (Dietzsch), which would offend against the 
whole context since ver. 12, and anticipate the contents of ch. vi. In truth 
the mode which Paul had in view is beyond doubt, after the development 
of the doctrine of justification in chs. iii. iv. God has forgiven believers 
on account of the death of Christ, and counted their faith as righteousness. 
Thus the obedience of the One has caused that at the judgment the z0A20i 
shall by God’s sentence enter into the category of the righteous,' as the dis- 
obedience of the One had caused the 7oA2o0i to enter the opposite. In both 
cases the causa meritoria is the objective act of the two heads of the race 
(the sin of Adam—the death of Christ), to whom belong the zo4Aoi on both 
sides ; while the subjective mediating cause is the individual relation to those 
acts (communion in Adam’s fall—faith). It is a mistake therefore to quote 
this passage against the Protestant doctrine of justification (Reithmayr and 
Bisping), as if the making righteous were designated as sanctification. 
But we are not entitled to carry the comparison between Adam and Christ 
further than Paul himself has done. 

Vv. 20, 21. The comparison between Adam and Christ is closed. But 
in the middle between the two stood the law! [See Note LXII. p. 227.] 
How therefore could Paul leave unnoticed the relation of the law to both, 
the relation of this essential intervening element in the divine plan of sal- 
vation, the continuity of which was not to be hindered by the law, but, on 
the contrary, advanced to its blissful goal? The mention of it presented 
itself necessarily to him, especially after the utterance already contained in 
ver. 13, even without our thinking of an opponent’s objection,’ or, at least, of 
persons who fancied that they must themselves furnish something in order 
to secure for themselves eternal life (Hofmann) ; but it cannot be regarded 
as the proper goal of the entire discussion (Th. Schott), which would not at 
all correspond to so succinct an indication. — rapeoqAfev] there came in 
alongside (of the auapria, which had already come in, ver. 12) into the 
world.* The notion of secrecy (Vulgate: subintravit, comp. Erasmus, 
Annot., Send.) is not implied in zapé in itself, but would require to be sug- 
gested by the éontert, as in Gal. iil. 4; Pol. i. 7, 3; i. 8, 4; ii. 55, 3 (where 
AéOp¢ stands along with it); comp. rapewodyw, rapecodbw, tapeogépw x.7.A., 
which likewise receive the idea of secrecy only from the context. But this 


1 Consequently not through any internal 
communication or infusion of the moral 


Mangold. The latter finds here a proof of 
the preponderantly Jewish- Christian char- 


quality of righteousness ; comp. Ddollinger, 
Christenthum u. K. p. 200 f. 190, ed. 2. See 
on the other hand KG6stlin in the Jahrb. f. 
D. Theol. 1856, p. 95. Ddllinger erroneously 
explains catragradje.: ‘established in right- 
eousness.”" 

23So even Cyril and Grotius ; compare 


acter of the readers. But with as little 
right as it might be found in Gal. ili. 

% See Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 651; and van 
Hengel in loc. Comp. Philo in Loesner, p. 
252, especially de temul. p. 268 C, where 
mapeceAdecy éwoa means jurta se intrare 
sinens. On the idea comp. Gal. fii. 19. 


CHAP. V., 20, 21. 219 


is not at all the case here, because this idea would be at variance with the 
solemn giving of the law (Gal. ili. 19 ; Acts vii. 53), and the reverence of 
the Apostle for it (Rom. vii. 12 ff.). Reiche, Rothe, Tholuck, Rickert, and 
Philippi import the idea that the law is designated as an accessory insti- 
tution, or its coming in as of subordinate importance in comparison with 
that of sin (Hofmann), as an element not making an epoch (Weiss, Dietzsch), 
It was not such, Gal. iv. 24, nor is this sense implied in the word itself. 
Linguistically incorrect (for wapeépy. does not mean coming in between, 
but coming in alongside) is the view of others: that it came in the middle 
between Adam (according to Theodoret and Reithmayr, Abraham) and 
Christ (Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Usteri, Ewald, Bis- 
ping, and others). Nor does zape:o#Afev mean: it came in in opposition 
thereto, i.e. in opposition to sin (Mehring). Such areference must nec- 
essarily have been implied, as in Gal. ii. 4, in the context, but would be out 
of place here on account of the following iva «.r.4., which Mehring inap- 
propriately takes as painful irony. Finally that wapé means obiter, ad tem- 
pus (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cornelius 2 Lapide) isa pure fancy. — iva 
nieovéon To napérr.| tn order that thegransgression might be increased. [See 
Note LXIII. p. 227.] The mrapérrwua can only be intended in the sense in 
which the reader must have understood it in virtue of the preceding text, 
ver. 15 ff., therefore of the Adamite transgression. This was the concrete 
destructive evil, which existed in the world as the beginning of sin and the 
cause of universal death. By the law, however, it was not to be abolished 
or annulled, but on the contrary (observe the prefixing of mAzovdoy) it was 
to be increased, i.e. to obtain accession in more and more saparréyan. If 
therefore 76 rapdrrwya is not to be taken collectively (Fritzsche, de Wette, 
van Hengel, and others) just as little is iva rieovdéay to be rationalized so 
that it may be interpreted logice, of greater acknowledgment of sin (Grotius, 

Wolf, Nielsen, Baur), or of the consciousness of sin (J. Miller), since the 
corresponding imeperepios. cannot be so taken ; nor so, that iva is to be ex- 
plained as ecbatic (Chrysostom, and several Fathers quoted by Suicer, Thes. 

I. p. 1454, Koppe, Reiche), which is nerer correct, and is not justified by 
the groundless fear of a blasphemous and un-Pauline idea (Reiche). Comp. 

Gal. iii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56 ; and generally on i. 24. Augustine (in Ps. cii. 

c. 15) rightly says by way of describing the intervening aim referred to: 
‘“‘non crudeliter hoc fecit Deus, sed consilio medicinae ; ... . augetur 
morbus, crescit malitia, quaeritur medicus et totum sanatur.” — rapémrrupa 
and dyapria are not certainly distinguished as Tittmann, Synon. p. 47, de- 
fines ; nor yet, as Reiche thinks, simply thus, that both words indicate the 

same idea only under different figures (this would be true of rapdzropa and 

dudptnua) ; but in this way, that rd rapdrrwya invariably indicates only the 

concrete sin, the sinful deed ; while } duapria may have as well the concrete 

(as always when it stands in the plural, comp. on Eph. ii. 1) as the abstract 

sense. It has the latter sense in our passage, and it appears purposely 

chosen. For if the Adamite transgression, which was present in the world 

of men as a fact and with its baneful effect, received accession through the 

law, so that this evil actually existing in humanity since the fall increased, 


220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


the sum total of sin in abstracto, which was among men, was thereby en- 
larged ; the dominion of sin became greatcr, both extensively and intensively 
(comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 78). Therefore the discourse pregresses 
thus : ov dé éxAedvacev 4 duapria, and then éBaai?. 7 duaptia. — ov] where, local, 
of the domain, where etc. This jield is generally the world of men, in which, 
however, the increase in sin here meant came from the people of the law, from 
Israel ; but without the sphere of the ov being limited to the latter, since 
immediately, in ver. 21, he brings forward the universal point of view as it 
prevails throughout the section (in opposition to Hofmann). The temporal 
rendering : when (Grotius, de Wette, Fritzsche, Stélting) is likewise lin- 
guistically correct (time being represented under the aspect of space, comp. 
ag’ ov and the like), but less in harmony with the analogous passages, iv. 
15 ; 2 Cor. ill. 17 (ob . . . . éxei). — treperepico.] it became over-great, supra 
modum redundavit. The éAsévacev had to be surpassed. Comp. 2 Cor. 
vii. 4; 1 Tim. i. 14; Mark vii. 87; 2 Thess. i. 8. But that it had sur- 
passed itself (Hofmann), is a definite reference gratuitously introduced. 
The two correlative verbs are related simply as comparative and superlative. 
—iva donep k.t.A.] in order that, just as (formerly) sin reigned in cirtue of 
death, 80 also (divine) grace should reign by means of righteousness unto eternal 
life through Jesus Christ our Lord. This is the whole blessed aim of the 
imeperepioc. 7 xdptc. Rothe incorrectly desires to treat ov dé . . . . apes as 
a parenthesis. This proposition is in fact so essential, that it is the nec- 
essary premiss for the opening up of that most blessed prospect. See more- 
over Dictzsch. —év r@ OGavatw)] not unto death (Luther, Beza, Calvin, and 
many others), nor yet in death as the sphere of its rule (Tholuck, Philippi), 
but instrumentally, corresponding to the antithesis dca dixatocivng eig Fur 
aidviov (which belong together). Sin has brought death into the world 
with it, and subjected all to death (ver. 12), ig’ @ zdvre¢ guaprov ; thus sin 
exercised its dominion in cirtue of death. This dominion however has 
given way to the dominion of grace, whose rule does not indeed 
abolish death, which having once entered into the world with sin has 
become the common lot of all, in itself, but accomplishes its object all the 
more blissfully, in that it confers a righteousness redounding to everlasting 
life. And grace exercises this bliss-bringing rule through the merit of its 
personal Mediator (mpégevos, Chrysostom) Christ, who has earned it for men 
through His expiatory death. The full triumphant conclusion, 61a "Inoov 
Xptorov tov xvpiov yudv (comp. vil. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 57 al.) belongs to the 
entire thought 4 ydpic Baowteton . . . . 6. aidviov, upon which it impresses 
the seal. Here, also, the d:xcacootvy is the righteousness of faith (not of life). 


Norres By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XLIX. Ver. 1. éyouev. 


The textual question of this verse is one of extreme difficulty. That the 
weight of external authority is in favor of Zywuev cannot be doubted. But it is 


1The pregnant sense, which Hofmann, seeks to apply analogically here also (comp. 
on ver. 14, attributes to the Bagivevew, and Dietzsch), is here least of all appropriate. 


NOTES. 221 


equally beyond doubt that the internal argument points toward the indicative. 
The remark of Godet is justified by an examination of what the advocates of 
the other reading have brought forward in its support: ‘‘No exegete has been 
able satisfactorily to account for this imperative suddenly occurring in the 
midst of a didactic development.’’ The Apostle seems clearly, in these verses, 
to be presenting the blessed consequences of the doctrine which he has estab- 
lished by argament. That, in such a presentation, he should state the first of 
these consequences (or, indeed, the second and third also), only in the form of 
an exhortation to lay hold upon it, is, though not impossible, contrary to all 
probability. 
L. Ver. 2. xai xavyduesa, 


xai, as Meyer holds, is to be connected with fyouev of ver.1. There are three 
consequences of justification by faith, which the Apostle mentions in the first 
half of the chapter (1-11): peace with God, joy in hope of the future glory, 
and joy in present tribulations, These are the main pdints of the section, and 
are set forth in co-ordinate sentences. The other parts of the passage are subor- 
dinate : d:’ od. . . éorjxauev of ver. 2 to the statement of ver. 1, and vv. 3b-11 to ver. 
3a. The cause or ground of the believer's rejoicing in tribulations is, that he 
knows that, ina certain way and by acertain process, they lead to the confirma- 
tion of his hope of the future. Tribulation works out the result for him of stead- 
fast endurance ; this, in its turn, the result of ‘‘triedness” (doacuy7 apparently 
does not mean probation (proving), as R. V., but approval, or the condition of one 
who, having been tested and tried, has stood the test and is approved] ; and this 
tested and approved character, again, naturally and necessarily strengthens hope 
—which hope is one that does not disappoint the man who has it. The founda- 
tion of the confidence that it will not prove disappointing is the greatness of the 
love of God. This greatness is exhibited and proved in vv. 6-8, and the conclu- 
sion resting upon it—that the Divine love will, beyond all doubting, bring to its 
end that which it has, by the provision of a reconciliation through Christ, so 
wonderfully begun—is declared and emphatically repeated in vv. 9-11. 


LI. Ver. 12. dd rotro x.1.A. 


The second section of this chapter (12-19) presents another blessed conse- 
quence of the proof that justification is by faith: namely, that in this doc- 
trine we have a universal system of salvation—not limited to one nation as 
was the law, but open to all nations alike. In order to the setting forth of 
this universality in an impressive way, the parallelism with the case of Adam is 
introduced. As evil came from him, not to one section of mankind, but to all 
sections, so it is with the blessings from Christ. To Paul’s mind this univer- 
sality and ‘‘ world-wide significance’ was the glory of Christianity. It was 
natural, therefore, that he should give it special prominence, and should pre- 
sent it to his readers, as he does in this long paragraph, as standing over 
against or equalling all the other and special results to which he had just 
referred. To suppose that he here turns to consider the subject of original 
sin, for the purpose of enunviating fully the true doctrine concerning it, is 
to misapprehend the writer’s design. It is also to suppose that from the out- 
break of the joyous feeling ofa full heart, in the preceding verses, he snddenly 
turns to the darkest and saddest side of human history, and then, after writing 
a few statements respecting it, leaves it entirely, to discuss another and quite 


R22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


different matter. We must believe that the introduction of Adam and his rela- 
tion to the world is altogether in the way of illustration, and is of secondary 
importance, as compared with the main object in view. This being the char- 
acter of the passage, we can readily see how the writer should have limited 
himself—as we find that he does—to the one point which he had in mind, 
and should not have cared to express himself, with definiteness or fulness, as 
to the entire doctrine of the relation of Adam’s sin to the condemnation of 
his posterity. That there is a consequential connection between that sin and 
the condemnation, it was necessary to his purpose to state. But it was by 
no means necessary to explain, in all its details, the mode of this connection. 


LI. Ver. 12. eci¢ rdvrac avOpdrove. 


With reference to rdvrac, see note on page 76. The fact there mentioned re- 
specting the use of this word in the course of the argument (i. 18-iv. 25), ren- 
ders it altogether probable that ‘‘alJ men’’ here means all, without national lim- 
itations, rather than all without the exception of any single individual. <A 
writer is to be interpreted according to the thought which he is manifestly de- 
veloping. The thought of the Apostle, for the setting forth of which he wrote 
his Epistle, is that righteousness is by faith for every one, whether Jew or Gen- 
tile. This proposition he has proved, and he is now declaring, with joy, that 
its truth involves universality of blessing. What is this universality but that 
which includes Gentiles as well as Jews ? 


LHI. Ver. 12. wdvre¢ fuaprov. 


The aorist tense in this verb seems to require explanation. Neither here 
nor in tii. 23 and ii. 12, is it to be regarded as equivalent to the perfect or 
present. In this case it carries back the thought to the time of Adam's sin. 
But in what sense all men are declared to have sinned when he did is not 
determined by the mere fact that the aorist is used. The writer may be intend- 
ing to state an actual participation in the first sin, or he may be expressing 
himself in a figurative or semi-figurative way. That the former of these sup- 
positions is not true is rendered probable by the acknowledged independence 
on the part of each man of the sins of hisancestors. All admit that a man isin 
no litera] sense, either physically or morally, one with his remotest forefather 
next this side of Adam. If no such union exists with the last but one in the 
ascending series, we naturally conclude that there is none with the last. 
This conclusion may not, indeed, be a necessary one. It is not. But it is so 
probable, that it may set us on an inquiry as to whether some other explana. 
tion cannot be found, which will relieve us of this difficulty ; and, if such an 
explanation is discovered, it may give the weight of a strong presumption in its 
favor. The usage of Paul in employing the aorist, and the indications of the 
passage, point to the discovery. Of the view in question, Dr. Charles Hodge 
fitly says, ‘‘Even on the extremest realistic assumption that humanity as such 
is an entity, the act of Adam was not the act of all men. His sin was an in- 
telligent act of self-determination ; but an act of rational self-determination 
is a personal act. Unless, therefore, all men as persons existed in Adam, it is 
impossible that they acted his act. To say that a man acted thousands of 
years before his personality began does not rise even to the dignity of a con- 
tradiction : it has no meaning at all. It is a monstrous evil to make the Bible 


NOTES. rs 223 


contradict the common sense and common consciousness of men ” (Comm. p. 
236). The view adopted by Hodge himself, with others of similar theological 
Opinions, gives to the verb the meaning ‘‘ were accounted as sinners ;’’ that is, 
all men were regarded and treated as sinners on account of Adam’s offence, 
although they, in no actual sense, participated in it. He was their represen- 
tative, and they are subjected to penal evils because their representative sinned. 
This explanation is not only exposed to the objection that it contravenes our 
ordinary ideas of justice—an objection which, if not absolutely fatal, at least 
throws a strong presumption against it, and impels us to search for some more 
reasonable account of the meaning—but is also inconsistent with the uni- 
versal sense of the verb (Gen. xliii. 9, xliv. 32; 1 Kings i. 21, the only pas- 
sages which are even claimed as exceptions, not being properly applicable 
to the case in hand], and is directly contradicted by what is said in vv. 18, 
19. Dr. Shedd, who favors the view of actual participation, says of this mode 
of interpreting the words, ‘‘The clause is introduced to justify the infliction 
of death upon all men. But it makes an infliction more inexplicable, rather 
than less so, to say that it is visited upon those who did not commit the sin 
that caused the death, but were fictitiously and gratuitously regarded as if 
they had.” (Comm. on Rom. p. 125.) The reader may be referred to the 
commentaries of these two writers, opposing each other, for a satisfactory 
refutation of the views of both. We are led, accordingly, by the failure of 
the literal explanation, to ask for another. And here we notice that Paul 
repeatedly uses the aorist tense in a semi-figurative or figurative sense, in cases 
analogous to the present. In the next chapter, vv. 4, 6, 8, he says that he and 
his Christian readers were buried with Christ, that their old man was crucified 
with Him, that they died with Him. Gal. ii. 20, he declares that he had 
been crucified with Christ. In passages like these he does not mean that the 
Roman believer, who became a Christian perhaps many years after the death 
of Jesus, was actually put on the cross with Him and participated in His dy- 
ing. He means, simply, that by reason of his becoming a believer, and when- 
ever he does so, any person is, ipso facto, so closely united with Jesus that it is as 
if he had been actually placed upon His cross, In a similar sense, the posterity 
of Adam sinned in his sin. As their individual sins were, in some way, a 
consequence of his sinning, and his sin, thus, in some way set the course of 
things sin-ward, they are said—though having no actual share in the commit- 
ting of his: act, and not born, even for many centuries after his time—to 
have sinned when he did. It is as if they had actually done so. That 
this mode of representing the matter was especially adapted to the case before 
us is clear from the fact that the object which the Apostle has in view is to 
compare Adam, and the results which flowed from his act, with Christ and 
those which are derivedfrom Him. Here, therefore—beyond most other places 
in his letters—the impulse to centralize all in the two, in this figurative way, 
must have affected him. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews represents 
Levi as participating in Abraham’s payment of tithes to Melchizedek, since he 
was then in the loins of Abraham. Being a more careful writer, in such 
minor points, than Paul, and leaving less to be supplied by the reader's mind, 
he adds to his statement that the sharing of the descendant in his ancestor's 
act was only a ‘‘so to speak” sharing. The participation of Adam's descend- 
ants in the committing of Adam's sin was, after a similar sort, a figurative 


participation. 


224 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


LIV. Ver. 12. fpaprov. 


So, likewise, Weiss ed. Mey., who properly says that the words cannot, unless 
arbitrarily, be understood of anything except theindividual sins of individual 
men. Healso justly holdsthat, when interpreted in the right way, vv. 13, 14, 
which some commentators regard as favoring the other views, afford no such 
evidence as is claimed. In respect to the objection urged by Meyer (and by 
many writers who explain the verb here as referring to actual sinning in Adam, 
or as having the sense were regarded as sinners) against the reference to individual 
sins, that ‘‘all’’ includes the millions of children who have died without commit- 
ting actual sin (i.c.in infancy), Weiss says that this objection overlooks the 
fact that Paul enters upon this whole matter only in order to develop the anal- 
ogy between Adam and Christ by showing that sin and death come from the 
former, as righteousness and life from the latter. As certainly, therefore, as 
the Apostle has in mind only such as are capable of appropriating to them- 
selves the salvation which is provided, so certainly he is thinking only of those 
in whose case actual sinning can be predicated. To these suggestions might 
well have been added that the right understanding of the word all (see note 
viii.) a8 meaning all without national limitations, and not all without excep- 
tion of any individuals (even infants), deprives this objection of Meyer's of all 
force. The Apostle had no thought of the “ millions of young children” in 
what he here says of Adam and Christ. 


LV. Ver. 13. d&ype vduov. 


Weiss ed. Mey. holds that vdézeu of this verse means a law, but admits it to 
be evident that, in both instances of its occurrence, it designates not any law 
whatever (whether written or on the conscience), but one of the same char- 
acter with the Mosaic. He admits, also, that the period referred to is that 
which preceded the giving of the Mosaic law. The manifestly parallel expres- 
sion in ver. 14 (from Adam until Moses) makes this admission necessary, so far, 
at least, as the first instance is concerned. Not only this, it also shows that 
the probability is very strong against the view of Weiss, and in favor of under- 
standing by dype véuov until the law (i.e. of Moses). A similar strong probabil- 
ity in the case of yu) dvro¢ vdéuov is indicated by the contrast between ver. 13 and 
ver. 14. But whatever may be said as to the possibility that the second véuov 
may mean any positive law, the connection of these verses and the Pauline 
usage everywhere renders it clear that it does not mean any law whatsoever— 
whether given by revelation or by the light of nature. 


LVL Ver. 14. éxi rode duapracavras x.7.A. 


The view of Meyer is, that Paul had in his thought two classes of persons 
living between Adam and Moses—namely, those to whom positive divine com- 
mands were given, and those (the great majority indeed) to whom no such com- 
mandscame. The former class, in sinning, transgressed as Adam did; the 
latter did not sin in this way. Yet even over the latter death reigned. This 
view is a perfectly legitimate one, so far as the use of «ai is concerned ; but 
Weiss objects to it, with some reason, on the ground that the Apostle seems to 
characterize the entire ante-legal period as without positive law, and certainly 
the numbers who had such law were insignificant. The opinion that Paul re- 


~ 


NOTES. 225 


fers here to infants, which has been held by many in former times, is rightly 
rejected by almost all the best commentators of recent date (Meyer, de Wette, 
Tholuck, Philippi, Godet, Alford, Weiss, and others). That there is no such 
reference is manifest, (a) from the fact that the words are not adapted to de- 
scribe infants. If infants actually participated in Adam’s sin, or were one with 
him, they are not those who did not sin after the likeness of his trangression ; 
(6) from the fect that, as the infants of the time indicated, differed, as to the 
matter under consideration, in no respect from all other infants, there could be _ 
no occasion for designating them as a class of persons of that period especially ; 
() from the fact that the reasoning of the Apostle in these verses (13, 14) 
neither requires nor is strengthened by such a reference ; (d) from the fact that 
the contrast between rapdjacrc and duaptia indicates an intention on the part 
of the writer, in saying that these persons did not sin in the way of transgres- 
sion, to convey the idea that they did actually sin in some other way. But 
this is not true of infants. The words refer either to all, or (as Meyer says) 
to some men who lived in the ante-legal period, and they describe them as sin- 
ning against the law of nature, and not, as Adam did, against a revealed com- 
mand of God. More probably the reference is to all in those ages of the world. 


LVIL. Ver. 15. GAA’ oby o¢ 7d wapdérroua x.7.A, 


That the Apostle turns aside, at this point, to introduce a parenthetical pas- 
sage, is evident. He takes up the thought of ver. 12 again in vv. 18,19. The 
design of vv. 15-17 is to show that the correspondence between Adam and 
Christ is not complete in every sense. The statement that it is not thus com- 
plete is made in ver. 15 a, and repeated, in substance, in ver. 16a. The proof 
of its truth is contained in 15b and 16). As the two verses are connected by 
cljand as the language in the second clauses of the verses does not, necessarily 
orevem probably, convey the same idea (as that of the first clauses does), we 
may hold that these second clauses are intended to indicate two points in 
which the exact correspondence fails. But, while we can proceed thus far 
With great confidence, the decision of the question as té®*what the two points 
are is a matter of much difficulty, and commentators have offered many expla- 
nations. The most satisfactory view is the following: that, in ver. 15, the 
difference in the character of the results is set forth—death in the one case, 
life in the other (cf. also ver. 17), and in ver. 16, the difference in the principles 
of the divine action, or, as it were, in the causes of the results—justice on the 
one hand, and superabounding mercy on the other. 


LVI. Ver. 16. é« roAAcv rapartopdroy. 


These words have been erroneously translated by many writers, as if they 
followed dixaiwpza, and the meaning were justification from many offences. The 
correspondence of the two clauses, on the other hand, clearly proves that they 
have the same relation to the thought which the words é& évéc have. As the 
latter expression qualifies the statement by pointing out the occasioning cause 
—the judgment (which might have been favorable or unfavorable), became as 
the result of one sin a condemnatory judgment; so the former expression 
answers a similar purpose—the free gift (which might have been in one form 
or another), became, as the resuli of many offences, a gift of justification. The 
abounding of sins, which had put men beyond all possible hope of legal jus- 


226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tification, was the occasioning cause of the introduction of the wonderful plan 
of forgiveness and salvation by faith, provided in Christ. 


LIX. Ver. 17. of rv repioociav—AauBavovrec. 


That of AauBavovres means, not those who believingly accept, but simply the 
recipients—the idea being rather of the more passive, than the more active 
reception—is proved by the parallelism in the expressions of this verse with 
those of ver. 15. The parallelism seems to be complete, excepting that what 
is made the subject in the first of the clauses in ver. 15 becomes the object 
(i.e., as involved in the predicate) here, and the predicate of ver. 15 the sub- 
ject here ; and, in the second clauses, the opposite change takes place. of 
woAAoi aré$avov thus answers to 6 Oivaroc tRacisevoev ; and 80 ei¢ rove TroAAode 
érepicoevoev corresponds with of rv mepioceiav . . . AauBavovrec. The Aapudavey 
is that which is involved in the very fact of the repocevery, and not that which 
consists in a subjective and willing acceptance. The persons designated by ol 
AauBdvovrec are the same with of roAAoi of vv. 15, 19, and the same with warrec 
évOpwrur of ver. 18. The subject treated of in this chapter is, not the mode 
of appropriating the justification provided in Christ, or the acceptance of it 
by faith on the part of the individual, but the happy results which belong to 
it as a system, as contrasted with the legal system. 


LX. Ver. 19. domep yap dca tH¢ mapaKo7ne «.7.A. 


It is evident that ver. 19 (yap) gives the ground and proof of the statement 
of ver. 18. Condemnation comes upon all men by means of one offence, 
because all men xureoralyoav duaptwAoi by means of the disobedience of the 
one. The verb xafitorava: is used in only one other passage in the Pauline 
Epp. (Titus 1, 5), where it means to appoint to office. This is-the common sig- 
nification of the word inthe N. T. It is used in this sense, however, only in 
cases where the meaning is plainly indicated by the thought. Here this mean- 
ing is altogether inappropriate. [The suggestion that to appoint is equivalent, 
in such a case, to to regard (Hodge), involves the confounding of two different 
notions.] We are turned, therefore, to another signification of the word, of 
which we find instances both in the classics and in the N. T.—namely /o make or 
render, in the active voice ; fo become or be, in the passive (cf. James iii. 6, iv. 4 ; 
2 Pet. i. 8). This sense being given to the verb brings it into harmony with 
fuaptov of ver. 12. The two verses, accordingly, declare that condemnation 
comes upon all by means of Adam’s sin, because all by means of his sin them- 
selves become sinners—the verbs being thrown into the past tense in the 
same manner, and for the same reason, as in ver. 12. The declaration of the 
Apostle, accordingly, is that the sin of Adam is the occasioning cause of the 
death of all, because, and by means of the fact that it is the occasioning cause 
of their sinning. A consequential relation between his sin and their sins is thus 
declared. But even here, where the matter is presented more fully than in 
the earlier part of the passage, this relation is not explained with definiteness 
as to its precise character. (See Note LI. above.) It will be noticed that the 
writer uses in every case (except ver. 16), either the instrumental dative or the 
instrumental preposition (dia); thus showing that his idea was of an occasioning 
as distinguished from an efficient cause. é£, which can signify the former, is mani- 
festly to be explained by dia, which cannot signify the latter. 


NOTES. 22% 


LXI. Ver. 19. of woAAoi, 


That of woAtoi and xdvre¢ are co-extensive in meaning is placed beyond 
doubt by vv. 18,19. The former expression only brings out more definitely 
the contrast with the one. That the two expressions, as used on the two sides 
of the comparison, are equally universal, is clear from the entire passage. The 
idea that the all on the one side are all who belong to Christ as his chosen and 
willing followers, while the all on the other are all the posterity of Adam— 
and thus, in the former case, a more limited number is spoken of than in the 
latter—is without foundation. 


LXIL. Ver. 20. wéuoc d2 rapecoprGev. 


yuo in this place, again, is made by Weiss ed. Mey. and others to mean 
¢law, but yet one which corresponds in character with the Mosaic. The in- 
correctness of this view is indicated by two facts, which may be observed by 
thereader. (1) This verse is, in a sense, the foundation of the thought of the 
next two chapters. The Apostle, in the development of this thought, raises 
two questions, one in vi. 1, and the other in vii. 7. These two questions, as 
the language clearly indicates, are connected with and suggested by the words 
here employed : vi. 1, corresponding with the clause ot . . . ydpic, and vii. 7 
With yor. . . rapdxtupa. In vii. 7 ff., however, the reference is confessedly 
to the Mosaic law (cf. also vii. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, of the next preceding passage). 
(2) The passage (Gal. iii. 19), which is more strikingly similar to this verse 
than any other in the Pauline Epp., and in which, as it can scarcely be ques- 
tioned, the Apostle had in mind a thought answering to that here expressed, 
hasd Ȏyor, and certainly refers to the law of Moses. It may also be added 
that the connection of this verse with vv. 18, 14, where the words ‘‘ until 
Moses” show what law was under consideration, confirms the argument 
founded upon these two facta. 


LXIIl. Ver. 20. iva rAcovdog 1d wapdrrupa, 


The design or purpose here referred to is not the primary or chief design. 
The lawgiver gives the law that it may be obeyed. But it is a design, i.¢ an 
intervening (Meyer) or intermediate, secondary, one. The law in its actual re- 
sults was, as it were, taken up into the Divine providential plan or arrangement, 
ead made an occasion for the abounding of grace in the opening of the new 
Way to justification and life. 


228 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


CHAPTER VI. 


Ver. 1. érizévupev] approved by Mill, Griesb. and others; adopted by 
Lachm. Tisch. and Fritzsche. The Recepta is ériuevotuev, contrary to decisive 
evidence (A B D E F G, min.); also contrary to K P &®, min., which have 
éxcuévouev. Brought into conformity with épotyev.— Ver. 11. After pév Elz. 
has elva: against preponderating evidence. Supplementary addition, which is 
also variously placed. Notwithstanding Tisch. (8) has adopted it, but before 
vexpovc, following B C ®*. — ro xupiy nudy also, which Elz. has after 'Insov, is, 
according to decisive testimony, not genuine (an ascetic addition). — Ver. 12. 
érax. Taig éri8. avrov] so also Lachm. and Tisch. following A B C* X, min., 
and most vss. and Fathers. DEF G Clar. Boern. Iren. Tert. Vict. tunun., 
have vraxovey aiz7. Preferred by Rinck, and adopted by Scholzand Fritzsche. 
The reading of Elz. : trax. abrg év raic émc9. abrot has least evidence. The 
most strongly attested tax. raic é716. avrod appears to have been the original. 
From it the brax. airg arose through air7 being marginally annexed to rai¢ 
éxi0. avr. as a gloss, to render it apparent, that in the case of the lusts of the 
body the dyapria (original sin) was to be understood. This gloss was adopted 
partly instead of r. ém8. avrod (80 bax. avrg arose); and partly along witht. 
éxiO, aitod, which latter course occasioned a connecting év, and gave rise to 
the Recepta. — Ver. 15, duaprjcopery] A BC DE KL PR, min. and Clem. 
have duaptjowuev. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and 
Fritzsche, and rightly on account of the decisive evidence in its favour. — Ver. 
21. rd ydp réAoc] Lachm. reads rd pév yap réAoc in agreement with B D* EF G ®* 
§ 73, Syr. p. Theodoret. Rightly: how easily might the pév solitarium be lost . 
under the hands of unskilled copyists! Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 313 
[E. T. p. 365.) 


Chs. vi.-viii. Moral results from the dixatootvy Geov.1 Chapter vi. shows 
how it, so far from furthering immorality, on the contrary excludes the lat- 
ter from the Christian state, and for the first time rightly establishes, pro- 
motes, and quickens true morality. Chap. vii. shows the same in relation 
to the law ; and ch. viii. sets forth the blessed condition of those who 48 
justified are morally free. [See Note LXIV. p. 252.] 

Ch. vi. 1-14. Continuance in sin in order that grace may abound—that is 6 
thing utterly opposed to the fellowship with Christ, into which we are brought by 
baptism ; for we are thereby rendered dead unto sin, and translated into a new 


1 Thus Paul certainly passes over from _as unnecessary, but as the contrast to the 
the field of the gaining salvation tothatof state of grace (ver. 14 f.); and ch. vil. 1s 00 
its moral preservation; but not, as Th.  cupied with something far loftier than its 
Schott thinks, with a view to show thenon- non-necessity. Of the justification of his 
necessity of the law for the latter and soto apostolic working among the Gentiles, and 
justify his acting as Apostle to the Gentiles. of its bearing on the law, the Apostle say§ 
In ch. vi. the law in fact {s mentioned not nothing. 





CHAP. VI., 1-3. 229 


moral life. Correspond therefore (vv. 12-14) to this new relation (your ideal, 
ver. 14) by your conduct. 

Ver. 1. Oty] In consequence of what is contained in v. 20, 21. — With 
éxepévopev x.7.2. Only Paul proposes to himself, as a possible inference from 
what he had just said ‘‘de pleonasmo gratiae” (Bengel), the problem, whose 
solution in the negative was now to be his further theme—a theme in itself 
of so decisive an importance, that it does not require the assumption of a Jew- 
ish- Christian church (Mangold) to make it intelligible. On the introduction 
in interrogatice form by ri otv épotuev, comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 346 
(ri otv pypi deitv 5). As however the ‘‘ what shall we say then ?” inquires after 
a mazim in some sort of way to be inferred, the deliberative ‘‘ shall we con- 
tinue de. ?” could at once follow directly, without any need for supplying 
before it a repeated épotpev, or up épovpev S71, and for taking émipévopev in a 
hortatory sense (van Hengel, Hofmann). — ériuéverv ri duapr., to continue in 
sin, not to cease from it. Comp. xi. 22 f.; Col. i. 23; 1 Tim. iv. 16; Acts 
xiii, 43 ; Xen. Hell. iii. 4, 6 ; Oec. 14, 7: émiuévery rH py adexeiv. 

Ver. 2. M7 yévorro] Let it not be (see on iii. 4), namely, that we continue in 
sin. — oirevec} as those who, contains the reason (of the még éri x.r.4.). See 
on i. 25. The relative clause is put first with rhetorical emphasis, in order 
at once to make the absurdity of the maxim plainly apparent.'— ameOdy. r. 
auapr.]. [See Note LXV. p. 252.] The dying to sin, which took place by 
baptism (see ver. 3), is the abandonment of all life-communion with it experi- 
enced in himself by the convert (Col. ii. 20; Gal. ii. 19, vi. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 
24). Comp. Theodoret : ypvifnc, gdnot, ryv duapriav Kal vexpd¢ aitg ytyovac. 
This moral change, which has taken place in him, has put an end to the de- 
termining influence of sin over him ; in relation to it he has ceased to be still 
in life. Similar is the Platonic conception in Macrob. Somn. Scip. i. 13 : 
‘‘mori etiam dicitur, cum anima adhuc in corpore constituta corporeas ille- 
cebras philosophia docente contemnit et cupiditatum dulces insidias reli- 
quasque omnes exuit passiones.”” Michaelis, Cramer, Storr, Flatt, Nitzsch 
(de diser. revelat. ete. TI. p. 233) take the sense to be : we who on account of 
sin have died (with Christ), i.e. who have to regard ourselves as if, on ac- 
count of sin (or Nitzsch : ‘‘ad eripiendam peccati vim mortiferam”), we 
had ourselves endured what Christ suffered. But in this view the main 
point ‘‘ with Christ” is arbitrarily imported ; and see ver. 11. — rac] denotes 
the possibility which is negatived by the question. The having died to sin, 
and the living in it (as the life-element, comp. Gal. ii. 20), are mutually ex- 
clusive. — Cfoouev] purely future. How is it possible that we shall be living 
in it (in its fellowship) still (ér:), namely, at any future time whatever 
after the occurrence of that arefdvouev? The very weakly attested reading 
preferred by Hofmann, (#owyuev, is only a case of mechanical conformity with 
exipévouer in ver. 1, 

Ver. 3. *H] or, if this (ver. 2) should still appear doubtful.* Comp. vii. 1. 
—ayvoeire] presupposes an acquaintance with the moral nature of baptism ; 


1 Comp. Kohner, IT. 5, p. 1104; Bernhardy, * See Hartung, Partikell. II. p.61; Baeum-- 
p. 209. lein, Partik. p. 18. 


230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

it must in fact have been an experimental acquaintance. With this 
knowledge, how absurd would be that Cjoouev év airy | Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 2. 
— ba0:] all we who, not stronger than oirivec, but put differently ; not char- 
acterizing, but designating the «hole collectively. — iBanrioOnper eig X. ‘1. tig 
rov Ody x.7.A.] we, who were baptized in reference to Christ Jesus’ (we who 
through baptism became those specifically belonging to Him), tere baptized 
tn reference to His death ; i.e. we were brought through our baptism into the 
fellowship of His death ; so that we have a real share ethically in His death, 
through the cessation of all our life for sin. Theodore of Mopsuestia : ré 
Bdxricpa Kotvwvodt¢ moet tov Oavdrov tov Xpeorov. Ambrosiaster : ‘‘cum bap- 
tizamur, commorimur Christo ;” Bengel : ‘‘ perinde est, ac si eo momento 
Christus pro tali homine, et talis homo pro Christo pateretur, moreretur, 
sepeliretur.”” This interpretation, namely of the spiritual fellowship produc- 
ed through baptism (prepared for by the repentance and zioz:¢ that preceded 
baptism, accomplished by the baptism itself, Gal. iii. 27 ; Col. ii. 11 f. ; Tit. iii. 
5), is required by the context in ver. 2 (are@dvopuev), ver. 4 (ovverdgnuev) and ver. 
5f. Itis therefore not the idea of imitation (Reiche, K6llner, following Grotius 
and others), but that of the dying along with (ovoravpovoba, ver. 6 ; Gal. ii. 
20 ; comp. 2 Cor. v. 14) unto which, 7.e. in order to the accomplishment of 
which in us, we were baptized. The efficient cause of this fellowship of 
death is the divine grace, which forgives sin and grants the Holy Spirit to 
him who becomes baptized ; the means of this grace is baptism itself ; the 
appropriating cause is faith, and the causa meritoria the death of Christ.* 
Observe here also, however, that the spheres of justification and sanctification 
are not intermixed. The justified person becomes sanctified, not the converse. 
In baptism man receives forgiveness of sins through faith (comp. Acts ii. 38, 
xxii. 16); justified by which he also becomes partaker of the virtue of the 
Holy Spirit in the sacrament unto new life (Tit. iii. 5). ‘‘ Liberationem a 
reatu peccati vel justificationem consequitur liberatio a dominio peccati, ut 
justificati non vivant peccato, sed peccato mortui Domino,” Calovius. Com- 
pare areAotoacbe, tyytdoOyre 1 Cor. vi. 11, and the remarks thereon. The lat- 
‘ter is the fellowship in dying and living with Christ, which is accomplished 


1 Banrifew eis never means anything else 
‘than fo baptize in reference to, in respect to; 
and the more special definitions of its im- 
port are furnished simply by the context. 
Comp. on Matt. xxvill. 19; 1 Cor. x. 2; Gal. 
‘$if, 27.—On eis X. "Incovry comp. Acts il. 38, 
-viil, 16, xix. 5. Undoubtedly the name 
** Jesus’ was named in baptizing. But the 
conception of becoming immersed into Christ 
in Riickert and others, and again in Weiss, 
bil. Theol. p. 848) is to be set aside, and is 
not to be supported by the figurative ex- 
pression fn Gal. ili. 27. The mystic char- 
‘acter of our passage is not produced by so 
vague a sensuous conoeption,—which more- 
over has all the passages against it in which 
Bantiger is coupled with svoua (Matt. 
xxviii. 19; Acts fi. 38, x. 48, xix. 5; 1 Cor. t. 


18)—but is based simply on the ethical con- 
sciousness of that intimate appertaining to 
Christ, into which baptism translates its re- 
cipients. 

2 Namely as the aloning death (v. 6, 19, 21), 
the appropriation of which shall be at 
tended with the saving effect of a new life 
belonging to Him, 2 Cor. v. 14,15. If this 
death thus becomes “* the end, once for all ex- 
istent, of the relation of the world lo God as 
determined by sin’ (Hofmann), that is the 
divinely willed ethical result, which faith ob- 
tains from tho ‘Accrypiov, inasmuch as the 
believer realizes his being dead to the 
power of sin with Christ, who in His expia- 
tory death underwent the killing power of 
sin and therewith died to that power (vv. 
9, 10). Comp. ver. 10 f. 


CHAP. VI., 4. . 231 
in baptism by the operation of the Spirit ; see on Gal. iii. 27 ; 1 Cor. xii. 
13 ; Acts xix. 2 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 345 f. But it is of course obvious 
that the idea of the baptism of children was wholly foreign to this view of 
the Apostle based on experience. 

Ver. 4. An inference from ver. 8, by which the impossibility indicated in 
ver. 2 is now made completely evident. — Buried with Him therefore (not 
merely dead with Him, but, as the dead Christ was buried in order to rise 
again, buried with Him also) were we, in that we were baptized into His death. 
[See Note LXVI. p. 252.] The recipient of baptism, who by his baptism 
entcrs into the fellowship of death with Christ, is necessarily also in the act 
of baptism ethically buried with Him (1 Cor. xv. 4), because after baptism 
he is spiritually rzsen with Him. In reality this burial with Him is not a 
moral fact distinct from the having died with Him, as actual burial is dis- 
tinct from actual dying ; but it sets forth the fulness and completeness of 
the relation, of which the recipient, in accordance with the form of baptism, 
so far as the latter takes place through xarddvorg and avddvorg (see Suiccr, 
Thes.), becomes conscious successively. The recipient—thus has Paul figura- 
tively represented the process—is conscious, (a) in the baptism generally; 
now am I entering into fellowship with the death of Christ, cig rév Odvarov 
aivov anrigoza: ; (6) in the immersion in particular: now am I becoming 
buried with Christ ; (c) and then, in the emergence : now I rise to the new 
life with Christ. Comp. on Col. ii. 12. — cig rdv Oavarov] is necessarily, after 
ver. 3, to be joined with dia rot Barrion., in which case, since one can say 
Barrifeoac etg rt, the connecting article was not required (comp. on Gal. iii. 
26 ; Eph. iii. 13) ; consequently : through baptism unto death. It is not how- 
ever specially the death of Christ that is again meant, as if airé were again an- 
nexed ; but the description is generalized, agreeably to the context, in a way 
that could not be misunderstood. Whosoever, namcly, as Paul has just set 
forth in ver. 3, has been baptized unto the death of Christ, has in fact thereby 
received baptism unto death ; i.e. sucha baptism that, taken away by it from 
his previous vital activity, he has become one belonging to death, one who 
has fallen under its sway. This however is just that relation of moral death, 
which, in the concrete, is the fellowship of the death of Christ. The con- 
nection with ovverd¢., in which ei¢ r. @dvarov is sometimes referred to the 
death of Christ (Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), and sometimes to the death 
of sin (Calovius, Wolf, Winzer, Progr. 1831), is erroneous, for this reason, 
that whosoever is buried does not come into death, but és in it already ; and 
hence ‘‘ The becoming buried into death” would yield quite an incongruous 
conception. This also applies against the expedient tried by Hofmann of 
making @dvaroc¢ here the death-state of Christ, unto which we were given up. 
Even in this view that incongruity continues :’ but after ver. 3 @4varoc can 


1 This cannot be got rid of by any artifi- 
cial turns (like that of Hofmann: ‘“ His 
burial removed Him from the sphere of sin 
expiated through His death... . whereby 
His existenoe in the world of sin came loa 
complete close’). Certainly the ddvaros of 


the Lord, even regarded as a state, oo 


curred at that great moment when He cries 


His rerdAeoras and departs; and in nowise 
has He been (ransiated into the ddvaros 
through His durial. 


232 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

only be again death simply, not state of death (asif Paul could not have con- 
veyed that sense by cic rd pvgyeiov, or eic rovg vexpot¢, or in some other suitable 
way). Observe, moreover, how Paul here also, since he has the bodily res- 
urrection of Christ in view,’ mentions specially the correlative of the burial 
that preceded it. Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 4. — iva] purpose of the ovverdgquev 
. . . . O64varov, and this statement of purpose has the chief importance, cor- 
responding to the mac ért Cyoopev év avrg in ver, 2.— dia tHe d6E. T. ratpdc] 
through the majesty of the Father was the resurrection of Christ brought 
about. The dééa, 33, the glorious collective perfection of God, certainly 
effected the raising of Jesus chiefly as omnipotence (1 Cor. vi. 14 ; 2 Cor. 
xiii. 4; Eph. i. 19 f.) ; but the comprehensive significance of the word— 
selected with conscious solemnity, and in highest accordance with the glo- 
rious victory of the Son—is not to be curtailed on that account (in opposi- 
tion to Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earlicr expositors).' According to 
the invariable representation of the N. T. God is the raiser of Jesus (iv. 24. 
viii. 11 ; Acts ii. 24, 31 ff. et al. ; see on John i. 19) ; but yet the déza of 
(tod does not in this case any more than elsewhere in the N. T. denote 
God Himself.* Erroneously however Theodoret, Theophylact, and several 
Fathers explain : dia r. dd. tr. watp., tovrtott dia Tie oiKeiag Oedrytog. Lin- 
guistic usage admits as in itself allowable the view of Castalio and Carpzov : 
‘*in paterna gloria resurrexit,” so that é:éd would be used of the state ; to 
which also van Hengel inclines. But, had Paul desired to express a relation 
corresponding to the év «av. ¢. in the apodosis, he must have inserted é 
also ; since the conception of the raising of Jesus through the Father was 
one of so solemn importance, and all the more appropriate here, since 
believers also owe their moral resurrection-life to the Father of Christ (Eph. 
ii. 10 al.) ; it is in fact the life of regeneration. Besides, the paterna gloria 
was attained by Christ only through His ascension. See on Luke xxiv. 26. 
— tv xawéryre Conc) in a new (moral) constitution of life ;* a stronger way of 
bringing out the idea of xarvérnc, than év Cwm xaivy would be, for which it 
does not stand (in opposition to Grotius, Koppe, Reiche, and others). See 
Winer, p. 221 [E. T. 236]. Comp. vii. 6. According to van Hengel Cure 
is the genitive of apposition: ‘‘in novo rerum statu, gui vita est.” But this 
qui vita est is self-evident ; and therefore the emphasis must remain upon 
xarvétytt. This newness is the cthical analogue of the new state in which 
(‘hrist was alive from the dead, conceived in contrast to the radtaérn¢ which 
prevailed prior to baptism. Comp. ver. 8. 

Ver. 5. Confirmatory elucidation (yép) of the previous iva Somep x.7.4. — 


body. Thus the resurrection of Josus 
would be nothing else than the change of 
body that took place in death. 

3 Langer, Judenth. in Paldst. p. 210 ff. 


3 rhyy catyny wodtTeiay Thy KaTd Tor wapoeTa 


? i.e. His resurrection as respects the buried 
body ; so that the latter no longer remained 
in the grdve, but came forth thenoe living 
and immortal. That the body of Christ 
““nantshed™* and ‘*made room’ for a new 


pneumatic body (Holsten, z. Zv. d. Paul u. 
Petr. p. 188), is an unsuitable conception, 
seeing that the pneumatic body must neces- 
sarily have been assumed even in death, 
and independently of the burial of the old 


Biov, éx THs Tey Tpéwey y.vopdrny. “Owov yap o 
wdpvos yévnrat cwdper cai 6 wAcovextys éAcripmwr 
cai 6 rpaxvs Fuepos, cat dvravda avdoraccs yé<- 
yover, Chrysostom. 


CHAP. VI., 5. 233 


otuevroc, which in classic authors usually means innate, naturally belonging to 
(see the passages from Plato in Ast, Lez. III. p. 318, Eur. Andr. 955 ; comp. 
2 Macc. iii. 22), is here grown together (Theophr. de caus. plant. v. 5,2; 
LXX. Zech. xi. 2; Amos ix. 14). This figurative expression represents the 
most intimate union of being, like our coalescent with anything (qui or quod 
coaluit cum aliqua re).' In the classics cvudvs¢ is the more usual form for 
this idea, especially with yiveoOa:.* Hence : For, if we have become (through 
baptism, vv. 3, 4) such as are grown together with that which is the likeness of 
fis death (comp. on i. 23), 7.e. persons, to whose nature it inseparably be- 
longs to present in themselves that which resembles His death, so also shall 
we be grown together with the likeness of His resurrection. On dyuoiwua comp. i. 
23, v. 14, vili. 3. The rendering of cipgvra by complantati (Vulgate, 
Luther), in connection with which Chrysostom, Origen, Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza, and others explain the figure of the 
plant by the fruits of the cthical burial, is linguistically incorrect, as if the 
word came not from ovugiw, but from ovuguretw.* The interpretation en- 
grafted (Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Klee) is likewise with- 
out linguistic evidence, and does not suit the abstract ré duombpart. — 1G 
duotau. tov Oavdrov airov] t.e. the condition corresponding in similarity of 
form to His death, which has specifically and indissolubly become ours. 
This ethical conformity with His death, however, the growing together with 
which took place through our baptism, is just that moral death to sin, vv. 
3, 4, in which the spiritual communion in death with Christ consists, —r. 
ou. tT. 0. a. is to be joined with cipyévroe (Vulgate, Chrysostom, Beza, Cal- 
vin, Estius, Koppe, Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, Olshausen, de Wette, Phi- 
lippi, and others ; now including Hofmann). Others however take it as the 
dative of the instrument, and supply r6 Xpror@ to otudvra : ‘for, if we have 
entered into close union with Christ through the duoiwua of His death,” etc. So 
Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Flatt, Fritzsche, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, 
Baur, van Hengel, and Reithmayr ; also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 344. Never- 
theless it is arbitrary to separate rq) du. from cbug. yey., seeing that it stands 
beside it and in a structural respect presents itself most naturally with it, 
and also as belonging to it yiclds a very appropriate sense ; and on the other 
hand to attach to cing. a word which Paul fas not put in, and which he 
must hare put in, if he would not Iead his readers astray. Still more mis- 
taken is the view of Bisping, that ciu¢. belongs to rov Oavar. avtov, and that 
r® éuodu. comes in between them instrumentally. Hofmann has rightly 
abandoned this tortuous interpretation, which he formerly followed.‘— 
aida nai] but also. adad, for the speedy and more emphatic introduction of 
the contrasted element, as frequently also in the classics, at the head of the 
apodosis ; see on 1 Cor. iv. 15 ; Col. ii. 5. — r#¢ avacrdéceug] cannot, in keep- 
ing with the protasis, depend directly upon the cbugvra to be again under- 


1 Plat. Phaedr.p.2%6A; Aesch. Ag. and ad¢vrevros, Xen. Osc. 2, 2. 


Klausen in loc. p. 111. ‘Comp. on the right connection Cyril, 
2 Plato, Soph. p. 247 D, Tim. p. 45 D, p. 88 Catech. iii. 12; and even Martyr. Ignat.5: 
A; Plut. Lycurg. B. ¢uavroy . . . . otpduroy Odcdar Ty TOU 


Comp. ¢vrevrés, Plat. Rep. p. 510 A, avdrov avrov duowpars, 


234 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


stood (Erasmus, Calvin, and others ; including Rickert, Olshausen, de Wette, 
and Krehl), but only upon the ro duompare to be supplied (Beza, Grotius, 
Estius, and many others ; including Winzer, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Maier, Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, van Hengel, and Hofmann), so that when 
completed it would run : add xai rp duoidpatt THE avactdcewg aiTod oipguToE 
éoduefa. The former view is indeed likewise unobjectionable grammatically, 
for cipovroe may also stand with the genitive ;' but the latter is suggested 
by the context, and presents itself easily enough and without harshness. 
Further, it is self-evident, after ver. 4, that in r. avacr. we are not to think 
of the resurrection of our body (Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, 
Oecumenius, Cornelius 3 Lapide, and others ; comp. also Ewald), or of this 
as included (Koppe and Klee). — éoduefa] receives its only correct interpreta- 
tion from its relation to, and bearing on, the clause expressive of the 
purpose, iva... . év xacv. ¢. wepir. in ver. 4, according to which it must 
express the necessarily certain.2 Compare mac ére Cyoouev ver. 2. The 
sense of willing (‘‘ut reviviscamus curabimus,” Fritzsche) is not suggested 
by the connection ; nor is that of a summons (Olshausen, Rickert, and 
older expositors) ; but it is rather the expression of what shall certainly be 
the case, as the consequence of the ofuguroe yeydv. te duo, Tov Oavatov arrow 
assumed as real in the protasis ; 7 cannot be otherwise; with the having 
become abygvro: this éocofa: is given ; with that fact having begun and taken 
place is posited this further development, which necessarily attaches itself 
thercto. 

Ver. 6. Totto yevéoxovrec] Definition to ry¢ avacrdc. toduefla, which objectire 
relation is confirmed by the corresponding experimental conscious knowledge 
(comp. cidérec in ver. 9) : since we know this ; not a mere continuation of the 
construction instead of «. rovto y:vdoxouev (Philippi), as the participle is 
never so used, not even in ch. li. 4; nor yet to be conceived as in the train 
of the écduefa (Hofmann), as if Paul had expressed himself by some such 
word as ore, or with the telic infinitive (yvévac). Respecting rovro see on ch. 
ii. 3. — 6 rad. Hu. avOp.] z.e. our old ego—our personality in its entire sinful 
condition before regencration (John iii. 8 ; Tit. ili. 5). Comp. Eph. iv. 22 ; 
Col. iii. 9. From the standpoint of the xa:véry¢ rvetuaroc, constituting the 
Christian self-consciousness, the Christian sees his pre-Christian ethical per- 
sonality as his old self no longer to be found in life, as the person which he 
had formerly been. Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. ii. 10. — ovvecravpé6y] 
namely, when we were baptized and thereby transplanted into the fellowship 
of death. Sce on vv. 3, 4. This special expression of the being killed with 
Him is selected simply because Christ was slain on the cross ; not as Grotius 
and others, including Olshausen, hold : ‘‘ quia sicut per crucem non sins 
gravs dolore ad exitum pervenitur, ita illa natura (the old man) sine dolore 
non extinguitur.”” Compare Umbreit. The simple iva xarapy. is not at all in 
keeping with this far-fetched reference, which is not supported by Gal. 
ii. 19 f. ; but just as little with the reference to the disgrace of crucifixion 


2 Plat. PAu. p. 51 D, Def. p. 418 C, Bern- 2? Matthiae, p. 1122; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 148, 
hardy, p. 171. ed. 2, 


CHAP. VI., 7. 235 


-C(Hofmann). — iva rarapy.| Design of the 6 ad. ju. avOp. ovvecr. : in order 
that the body of sin might be destroyed, i.e. the body belonging to the power of sin, 
ruled by sin.' [See Note LXVII. p. 253.] Comp. vii. 24. The old man 
had such a body ; and this cjza was to be destroyed, put out of existence 
by the crucifixion with Christ ; consequently not the body zn itself, but in 
so far asit is the sin-body, becoming determined by sin in its expressions 
of life to sinful zpdgeo (viii. 13). The propriety of this interpretation 
appears from vv. 7, 12, 13, 23. Comp. on Col. ii. 11. If we explain it 
merely of ‘‘ the body as seat or organ of sin,” the idea would not in itself be 
un-Pauline, as Reiche thinks ; for the cjua would in fact appear not as the 
soliciting agent of sin (not as the cdépé), but as its vehicle, in itself morally 
indifferent, but serving sin as the organic instrument of its vital activity 
(see Stirm in the Tiibing. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1834, 3, p. 10 ff.) ; but xarap- ° 
yy is decisive against this view. For this could neither mean destroyed, 
annihilated, because in fact even the body of the regenerate is a oaya r. 
duapriac in the sense assumed (ver. 12) ; nor even evacuaretur (Tertullian, 
Augustine), rendered inactive, inoperative, partly because then the idea of 
odp£ would be assigned to cua, and partly because it is only the conception 
of the destruction of the body which corresponds to the conception of cruci- 
fixion. Others take the corpus peccati jiguratively ; either so, that sin is 
conceived under the figure of a body with significant reference to its being 
crucified (so Fathers in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1215, Piscator, Pareus, Castalio, 
Hammond, Homberg, Calovius, Koppe, Flatt, and Olshausen ; also Reiche, 
conceiving sin asa monster) ; or, similarly to this mode of apprehending it, 
in such a way as to find the sense : ‘‘the mass of sin,” tiv ard tev dtagopav 
pepov wovnpiacg ovyxemévyy . . . . xaxiav, Chrysostom. So Ambrosiaster, 
Pseudo-Hieronymus, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius & Lapide, Grotius, 
Estius, Reithmayr, and others; so also Calvin, who however takes the 
corpus peccati as a designation of the natural man itself, which is a massa, 
ex peccato confiata. Philippi also ultimately comes to the massa peccati, 
which is conceived as an organism having members, as caya ; 80 likewise 
Jatho and Julius Miller, 0. d. Siinde, I. p. 460, ed. 5 ; also Baur (‘‘as it 
were the substance of sin”). But all these interpretations are at variance 
partly with the Pauline usus loquendi in general, and partly with ver. 12 in 
particular, where év r@ Gvy7@ tu. oduare by its reference to our passage con- 
firms our view of the céza. The right view is held substantially by Theo- 
doret, Theophylact 2, Bengel, and others, including Tholuck, Kéliner, de 
Wette, Riickert, Fritzsche, Maier, Nielsen, Hofmann, and Weiss ; whereas 
Baumgarten-Crusius, and also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 118, convert 
oda into the idea of state of life. — rot pnxére dova. x.t.A.] ‘* finem abolitionis 
notat,” Calvin. The sin, which is committed, is conceived as a ruler to 
whom service is rendered. See John viii. 34. 

Ver. 7. Establishment of the rov pnxére dova. hu. ro. du. by the general prop- 
osition : whosvcever is dead, is acquitted from sin. — 6 aro@av.] is explained by 


1 It is self-evident that Paul might have saying ris anaprias. He might even have 
eaid also rd cama THs capeds, as in Col. ff. 11. written merely » odpf, but 7d copa was 
But his whole theme (ver. 1) suggested his givenin the immediate context (cvvecravp.). 


236 ° THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

many of ethical death. So Erasmus, Calovius, Homberg, Bengel, and others, 
including Koppe, Flatt, Gléckler, Olshausen, Tholuck (who regards sin as 
creditor), de Wette (‘‘ whosoever has died to sin, he—alone—is acquitted 
from sin”), Rothe, Krehl, Philippi (whosoever is ethically dead, over him 
has sin lost its right to impeach and to control, just as Bengel explains it), 
also van Hengel, Jatho, and Mircker. But neither the nature of the general 
proposition, which forms in fact the major premiss in the argument, and of 
which only the application is to be made (in the minor proposition) to ethi- 
cal dying ; nor the tautological relation, which would result between subject 
and predicate, can permit this explanation. The conception of ethécal dying 
recurs only in the sequel, and hence civ Xprore is added to amebévouev in ver. 
8, so that Paul in this development of his views draws a sharp distinction 
between the being dead in the spiritual (vv. 6, 8) and in the ordinary sense. 
We must therefore explain ver. 7 as a general proposition regarding death 
in the ordinary sense, and consequently regarding physical death (so rightly 
Hofmann), but not specially of the death by erecution, through which sin is 
expiated (Alethacus, Wolf, and others : with this view they compare dedu., 
the juristic expression : he is justified ; sce Michaelis’ note) ; for any such 
peculiar reference of the still wholly unrestricted azofavdév is forbidden by 
the very generality of the proposition, although for ded:caiwrac passages might 
be cited like Plat. Legg. TI. p. 9384B; Aristot. Eth, v. 9. —dedux. axé r. ay.] 
[See Note LXVIII. p. 253.] ‘‘ The dead person is made just from sin,” te. he 
is in point of fact justified and acquitted from sin, he is placed by death in 
the position of a dixaio¢, who is such thenceforth ; not as if he were now 
absolved from and rid of the guilt of his sins committed in life, but in 
Sar as the dead person sins no more, no longer dovdaete: t7 duaprig, from whose 
power, as from a legal claim urged against him during his life in the body, 
he has been actually released by death ds through a decrce of acquittal.’ 
Just for this reason has Paul added azé rip duapriag (comp. Acts xiii. 38 ; 
Eccles, xxvi. 29; Test. XII. patr. p. 541), which would have been quite 
superfluous, had he taken ded:xaiwra: justus constitutus est, in the dogmatic 
sense of his doctrine of justification. The proposition itself, moreover, is an 
axiom of the popular traditional mode of view, which Paul uses for his purpose 
as admitted. This axiom has also its relative truth, and that partly in so far 
as the dead person has put off the caiua rij¢ capxédg With which he committed 
his sins (Col. ii. 11), partly in so far as with death the dominion of law over 
the man ceases (vii. 1), and partly in so far as in death all the relations are 
dissolved which supplied in life the objects of sinning.* For the discussion 
of the question as to the absolute truth of the proposition, in its connection 


1 Comp. Késtlin In the Jahrb. f. Deutsche 
Theol. 1856, p. 98f.; Th. Schott, p. 260, and 
Hofmann; also Baur, neut. Theol. p. 161 f.; 
Delitzsch, Illustrations to his Hebrew ver- 
sion, p. 84. 

2 The Greek expositors—who already give 
substantially our explanation—have con- 
fined themselves to this point. Chrysostom : 
awfAAaxtas 7d Aowwoy Tov apapTdvey vexpds 


xeiuevog, Theodoret : ris yap ededcaro meawore 
vexpoy  ‘yapuoy adAdtptoy Stopurrovra, % 
piaidovig ras xetpas douwirrovra «.7.A. Me- 
lanchthon compares the proverb : vexpds ov 
daxver, Beza the saying of Anacreon : 6 vexpos 
ovx emdunet, Grotius that of Aeschylus: 
ovdérv aAyos drreras vexpwv, Comp. Soph. 0.C. 
955. 


CHAP. VI., 8. 237 


with Biblical anthropology and eschatology, there was no occasion at all 
here,’ where it is only used as an auxiliary clause, and ex concesso, Comp. 
1 Pet. iv. 1. Usteri mistakenly explains it : by death man has suffered the 
punishment, and thus ezpiated his guilt. For that Paul does not here ex- 
press the Jewish dogma: ‘‘death as the punishment for sin erpiates the 
guilt of sin” (sce Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 288 f.) is proved 
partly by the irrelevancy of such a sense to the context (yép) ; and partly 
by its inconsistency with the doctrines of the Apostle as to justification by 
faith and as to the judgment, according to which death cannot set free from 
the guilt-obligation of sin. Ewald makes a new idea be brought in at ver. . 
7: ‘*Even in common life, in the case of one who is dead, the sins of his 
previous life cannot be further prosecuted and punished, he passes for justi- 
fied and acquitted of sin. ... ; if in addition sin as a power has been bro- 
ken by Christ (ver. 9 f.), then we may assuredly believe,” etc., ver. 8. But 
ydp in ver. 7 indicates its connection with that goes before, so that it is only 
with the dé in ver. 8 that a new thought is introduced. Besides, we should 
expect, in the case of the assumed course of thought, an oy instead of the 
dé in ver. 8. Finally, it is not clear how that rule of common law was to 
serve as a joint ground for the faith of becoming alive with Christ. 

Ver. 8 f. Carrying onward the discussion by the metabatic dé; and thcre- 
by passing from the negative side of the having died with Christ as proved 
in personal consciousness (roi'ro yivdoxovrec, ver. 6) in. vv. 6, 7, to its positive 
side, which is likewise exhibited as based on the consciousness of faith 
(miorefouev). ‘‘ But if we have died (according to vv. 6, 7) with Christ, we 
believe that we shall also dice with Him, since we know,” etc. etc. — moret- 
ozev] expresses, not confidence in the divine aid (Fritzsche), or in the divine 
promise (Baumgarten-Crusius), or in God not leaving His work of grace in 
us unfinished (Philippi) ; but simply the being convinced of our ovvjoopev ait? ; 
in so far, namcly, as the having died with Christ is, sccing that He has 
risen and dieth no more, in the consciousness of faith the necessary premiss, 
and thus the ground for belief as to our becoming alive with Him. If the 
former, the ameOdvouev civ Xpiorg, be true, we cannot doubt the latter. — 
ovcncouey avt@}] must necessarily be understood, in accordance with the pre- 
ceding and following context (ver. 11), of the ethical participation in the 
new everlasting life of Christ. Whosoever has died with Christ is now also 
of the belief that his life, 7.e. the positive active side of his moral being and 
nature, shall be a fellowship of life with the exalted Christ ; that is, shall 
be able to be nothing else than this. This communion of life is the é 
Xporg and Xpioréy év huiv elvaz. In the full consciousness of it Paul says : (a 
52 obxkre ey, CH dd ev tuol Xpiorde (Gal. ii. 20). At the same time it is not 
to be explained as if an aei or the like stood beside ov{foouer (without fall- 
ing away), as is done by Tholuck ; compare Theophylact. Others, in 
opposition to the context, hold that what is meant is the future participa- 
tion of Christians in the bliss of the glorified Saviour (Flatt, Reiche, Maier, 


' Compare Mclancbthon: “Ceterum hoc omni aeternitate horribilla peccata facere, 
sciamus, diabolos et omnes damnatos fin quia sine fine irascuntur Deo,” etc. 


238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

following Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, and Heumann) ; and 
others still, at variance alike with the definiteness and unity of the sense, 
interpret it of the earthly moral and the eternal blessed life together (Sebas- 
tian Schmid, Béhme, Rosenmiiller ; and not rejected by de Wette). The 
reference or joint-reference to the future glory is not required either by the 
Suture, which, on the contrary, demands the same rendering exactly as 
éoduefa in ver. 5, nor by micretouev (see above). — ieddreg, ote x.t.A.] since we 
know, that, etc. Were we, namely, obliged to fear that Christ is still sub- 
ject to the power of death,’ that His life is not a perfected life, in that case 
we should lack the adequate secure ground of faith for that meoreiouev «.7.A. 
The being assured that Christ liveth eternally and dicth no more (Acts xiii. 
84), lends to our faith in our own moral communion of life with Him its 
basis and firm footing ; without that knowledge this faith would be want- 
ing in that which gives it legitimacy and guarantee. For who can cherish 
the conviction that he stands in that holy communion of resurrection-life 
with Christ, if he should be compelled to doubt whether his Lord, though 
indeed risen, might not again fall a victim to death? This thought would 
only keep us aloof from that faith and make it a moral impossibility for us, 
since it would set before us the prospect of a similar perishing of the new 
life which we had gained. Hofmann, who makes a new sentence begin with 
eidérec, which is to continue till ver. 11, might have been warned against 
doing so by the absence of a particle (oi) ; and should have been decisively 
precluded from it by the tortuous way in which, if ver. 10 is set aside ina 
parenthesis, it is necessary to obtain a forced regimen for the passage. — 
Odvarog aitov ovxéte xvp.] no longer dependent on dr, but an independent and 
therefore all the more emphatic repetition of the important thought : death 
ts no longer Lord ocer Him, has no more power over Him, such as it once had 
at the crucifixion. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 25. 

Ver. 10. Proof of the @dvarog atrov ovxéte xupteber.7—d yap aréOave) & is in 
any case the accusative of the object. But whether Paul conccived it as: 
Jor as to what concerns His death (see Vigerus, ed.. Herm. p. 34 ; Frotscher 
and Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. 6, 12 ; Matthiae, p. 1063), or «haut, i.e. the 
death which He died (so Riickert, Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi ; see Bern- 
hardy, p. 106 f.; comp. on Gal. ii. 20) cannot be determined, since both 
renderings suit the correct interpretation of what follows. Yct the latter, 
analogous to the expression @dvarov Oaveiv, is to be preferred as the more 
simple, and as uniform with Gal. ii. 20. — rg duapria azéé.] the relation of 
the dative is to be determined from vexpotc rg du. in ver. 11 ; therefore it 
can be nothing else than what is contained in areOdv. rH du. in ver. 2 
(comp. Hofmann), namely : 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 





1 Death had become lord over Him, because 
in obedience to God (Phil. if. 6 ff.) Christ 
had subjected Himself to its power, so that 
He éoravpwdn e& agdevecas (2 Cor. xiii. 4). 
The cvpreverw of death over Him was there- 
fore a thing willed by God (v. 8-10), and 
realized through the voluntary obedience 


of Jesus. See John x. 18; Matt. xx. B. 

2 Not a parenthetical interrening claus 
(Hofmann), which is appropriate neither to 
the essential importance of the sentence In 
the train of thought, nor to the application 
which it receives in ver. 11. 


CHAP. VI., 11. 239 


world, conctived 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 submitted Himself to its power in His death, but through that death He 
has died to ita power.’ 80 also have we (ver. 11) to esteem ourselves as dead 
to sin (vexpovce r7 du.), as rescued from its grasp through our ethical death 
with Christ, in such measure that we are released from and rid of the influ- 
ence of this power antagonistic to God. The close accordance of this view 
of 19 du. azé9. with the context (according to vv. 11 and 2) is decisive against 
the explanations of the dative deviating from it, such as: ad erpianda pec- 
cata (Parcus, Piscator, Grotius, Michaelis, and others including Olshausen) ; 
or: ad erpianda tollendaque peccata (Koppe, Flatt, Reiche, Fritzsche, Phi- 
lippi) ; or : in order to destroy the power of sin (Chrysostom, Beza, Calvin, 
Bengel, and others, including Ewald and Umbreit). Rickert, Kéllner, and 
de Wette wish to abide by an indefinite reference of the death of Jesus to sin 
as the remote object ; but this simply explains nothing, and leaves only a 
formal parcllelism remaining. — igdaé] for once, with emphasis, excluding 
repetition, once for all. Comp. Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, x. 10 ; Lucian, Dem. 
enc. 21. — C9 r. Ocq@] ciwit Deo, namely so, that now in His estate of exalta- 
tion, after He has through His death died to the power of sin, His life 
belongs to God, 2.e. stands to God in the relation of being dependent on, and of 
being determined by, Him. The contrast to the preceding yields the excluding 
sense. Christ’s earthly life, namely, was also a (7 r@ Oey, but was at the 
same time exposed tothe death-power of human sin, which is now no longer 
the case, inasmuch as His life rescued from death is wholly determined by 
the fellowship with God. This latter portion of the verse belongs also to 
the proof of ver. 9, since it is in fact just the (exclusive) belonging to God 
of Christ’s life, that makes it certain that death reigns no longer over Him ; 
as (ov *@ Oeg he can no longer be ra@yré¢ (Acts xxvi. 23), which He previ- 
ously was, until in obedience to God é& ao$eveias He was crucificd (2 Cor. 
xlil. 4). 

Ver. 11. Application of ver. 10 to the readers.—Although in ver. 10 
there was no mention of a AoyiZeoOat on the part of Christ, we are not, with 
Gricsbach and Koppe, to break up the discourse by the punctuation : viru 
kai ipeic Aoyifeobe x.7.A. (comp. on the contrary Luke xvii. 10).—<According- 
ly reckon ye yourselves also (like Christ) as dead, etc. Aoyilecbe, namely, con- 
taining the standard by which they are to apprehend their moral life-posi- 
tion in its reality, is not, with Bengel and Hofmann, to be taken as indica- 
tare, but rather, secing that here the discourse passes over to the second per- 
son and proceeds in exhortation in ver. 12 ff., with the Vulgate, Chrysostom 
and Luther, as imperative. — iv Xp. ’I.] These words, which Riickert, K6ll- 
ner, de Wette, and others quite arbitrarily join merely with Cavrag de 7. Oe9, 
belong to both portions of the summons ; and do not mean per Christum 


1 Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 85, upon Himself, in the death of the cross, 
justly insists that Christ for His own person _ the curse of the law; after which human 
died to sin, but further on (p. 59), ends in sin had now no longer any power over Him. 
finding an ideal, not a real relation. But | Compare on ver. 3. 

He died realy to sin, inasmuch as He took 


240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


_ (Grotius and others, including Fritzsche), but denote rather the specific ele- 
ment, in which the being dead and living take place, namely, in the cthical 
bond of fellowship, which is just the civac év Xprozq. 

Ver. 12 f. Oiv] in consequence of this Aocyijeo6e, for the proof of it in the 
practice of life. For this practice the Aoyilecfa: x.r.A. is meant to be the reg- 
ulative theory. The negative portion of the following exhortation corre- 
sponds to the vexpots uev tH duaptia in ver. 11 ; and the positive contrast aa 
x.T.A. to the Cavrac d2 rH Och. — py Baora.] With this nothing sinful is ad- 
mitted (comp. Chrysostom) ; but on the contrary the influence of the (per- 
sonified) sin, conquering the moral ego, is entirely forbidden,’ as the whole 
connection teaches. — év r@ OvgT@ iu. odpu.]) év simply indicates the seat and 
sphere, in which the forbidden dominion would take place (not by means o/, 
as Th. Schott thinks). As to fyr@, every explanation is to be avoided 
which takes the word in any other sense than the ordinary one of mortal 
(comp. viii. 11), because it has no other signification (see all the examples 
in Wetstcin), and because the context contains nothing at all in favour of 
giving any other turn to the notion of the word. We must reject therefore 
the opinion that it is equivalent to vexpo, as taken in the cthical sense : dead 
Jor sin (Turretin, Ch. Schmidt, Ernesti, Schleusner, Schrader, and Stengel). 
Directly affirmed of the body, the mortality could not but be understood 
by every reader quite definitcly as the physical. The purpose of the epithet 
however must manifestly result from the relation of motire, in which the 
mortality of the body stands to the prohibition of the reign of sin in the 
body. And the more precise definition of this motive is to be derived from 
the previous vexpov¢ piv r9 duaptia, Cavrac dé ty Oey. If we are convinced, 
namely, that we are dead for sin and alive for God ; if we account ourselves 
as those who have put off the ethical mortality (G¢ ix vexpav Cavrag, ver. 13), 
then it is an absurdity to allow sin to reign in the body, which in fact is 
mortal, This quality stands in a relation of contradiction to our immortal 
life entered upon in the fellowship of Christ, and thus the dominion, for 
which we should deliver over our body to sin, would prove that we were 
not that for which, nevertheléss, in genuine moral self-judgment, we have 
to take ourselves ; since in fact the mortal life of the body, if we yield it to 
the government of sin, excludes the immortal Christian life described in ver. 
11. Hofmann imports more into the passage than its connection with ver. 
11 suggests ; namely the double folly, that such an one should not use the 
power, which the life of Christ gives him over the mortal body and there- 
with over sin ; and that he should permit himself to be entangled in the death 
to which his body falls a victim, while he possesses a life of which also his 
body would become joint-participant. This is a fine-spun application of the 
true interpretation. Different is the view of Kéllner (comp. Calvin: “ per 
contemtum vocat mortale”), that it is here hinted how disgraceful it is to 
make the spirit subordinate to sin, «which only dwells in the perishable body ; 
and of Grotius : ‘‘de vita altcra cogitandum, nec formidandos labores haud 


1 But Luther's gloss is good: ‘‘ Mark, the they do not follow.” Comp. the carrying 
saints have still evil lustsinthe flesh, which outof the idea in Melanchthon. 


CHAP. VI., 12. 241 


sané diuturnos” (comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret ; so also on the whole 
Reiche). But the context contains neither a contrast between body and 
spirit, nor between this and the other life. Flatt thinks that Paul wished 
to remind his readers of the brevity of sensual pleasure ; comp. Theophylact. 
But how little would this be in keeping with the high standpoint of the 
moral sternness of the Apostle! According to others, Paul desired to re- 
mind them warningly of the destructiveness of sin, which had brought death 
on the body (de Wette, Krehl, Nielsen, Philippi, also Maier). But this 
point of view as to destructiveness is remote from the connection, in which 
the pervading theme is rather the unsuitadleness of the dominion of sin to 
the communion of death and life with Christ. Others still explain it va- 
riously.’ — cwuari| body, as in ver. 6 ; not a symbolic expression for the en- 
tire ego (Reiche, following Ambrosiaster and various carly expositors) ; nor 
yet body and soul, so far as it is not yet the recipient of the Spirit of God 
(Philippi) ; for even in all such passages as viii. 10, 13, 23 ; xii. 1 capa re- 
tains purely its signification body. But sin reigns in the body (comp. on ver. 
6), so far as its material substratum is the cdps (Col. ii. 11), which, with its 
life-principle the yvz%, is the seat and agent of sin (vii. 18 ff. al.). Hence 
the sinful desires are its desires (airov), because, excited by the power of sin 
in the flesh, they are at work in the body and its members (vii. 5, 23 ; Col. 
lii. 5). Sin aims at securing obedience to these desires through its dominion 
in man. Consequently ei¢ rd imax. tr. éxif. avr. implics the—according to 
ver, 11 absurd—tendency of the allowing sin to reign in the mortal body, 
which the Apostle forbids. — u7dé] also especially not (as e.g. 1 Cor. v. 8). — 
wapiordvete] present, i.c. place at the disposal, at the service. Matt. xxvi. 58 ; 
Acts xxiii. 24 ; 2 Tim. ii. 15; Athen. iv. p. 148 B; Lucian, d. Mar. 6, 2; 
Diod. Sic. xvi. 79 ; Dem. 597. pen. — ra wéAn ipev] your members, which sin 
desires to use as executive organs, tongue, hand, foot, eye, etc. The mental 
powers and activities, feeling, will, understanding, are not included (in op- 
position to Erasmus, Reiche, Philippi, and others) ; but Paul speaks con- 
cretely and graphically of the members, in reference to which the mental ac- 
tivities in question are necessarily presupposed. Comp. Col. iii. 5. — dria 
adixiac] as weapons of immorality, with which the establishment of immorali- 
ty is achieved. The duapria is conceived as a ruler employing the members 
of man as weapons of warfare, wherewith to contend against the government 
of God and to establish dd:xia (opposite of the subsequent dixaoctvnc). It 
injures the figure, to which ver. 23 glances back, to explain érAa (comp. 59) 
instruments, as is done by many (including Rickert, Kéllner, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Krehl, Fritzsche, dec Wettc, and Ewald), a meaning which it indeed 
frequently bears in classic Greek since Homer,? but never in the N. T. 
Comp. especially 2 Cor. vi. 7, x. 4. — zapacrfcare] the aorist here following 


1 Olshausen connects thus: ‘let not the But, had Paul desired to set forth the moral 
sin manifesting itself in your mortal body death through the adjective by way of mo- 
reign in you.” In that case Paulmusthave _ tive, he must then have written, after ver. 
repeated the article after au. According 11, «» roe vexpy vyuev owyan, which after 
to Baur there lies in dvnry the idea: ‘‘ whose what goes before would not have been 
mortality can only remind you of that, liable to any misconception. 

Which it even now is as vexpdv Tr) auaprtiq.”’ * See Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost, p. 844. 


242 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 

the present (comp. Bernhardy, p. 393), marking the immediateness and ra- 
pidity of the opposite action which has to set in. It stands to wapioravere in 
a climactic relation. See Winer, p. 294 [E. T. 314], Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 158. — 
éavrotc] yourselves, your own persons, and specially also your members, etc. —é¢_ 
Ex vexp. Cavrac] as those that are alive from the dead (risen), 7.e. those who have 
experienced in themselves the ethical process of having died and attained 
to the resurrection-life with Christ. Only thus, in the sense of the moral 
renovation discussed in vv. 2-11—not in the sense of Eph. ii. 1 (Philippi 
and older expositors)—can it be explained agreeably to the context, especial- 
ly as &¢ corresponds to the Aoyifeobe x.t.A. In ver. 11. This d¢, guippe, with 
the participle (as in xv. 15, and very frequently), expresses, namely, the re- 
lation of the case, in which what is demanded is to appear to the readers as 
corresponding to their Christian state, which is described as life from the 
dead.' — r¢ Oeq] belonging to God, as in vv. 10, 11. 

Ver. 14. Not the ground and warrant for the exhortation (Hofmann), in 
which case the thought is introduced, that obedience is dependent on the 
readers ; but an encouragement to do what is demanded in vv. 12, 13, through 
the assurance that therein sin shall not become lord over them, since they 
are not in fact under the law, but under grace. Comp. the similar encour- 
agement in Phil. ii. 13. In this assurance lies a ‘‘ dulcissima consolatio,” 
Melanchthon, comp. Calvin. They have not to dread the danger of failure. 
Understood as an expression of good confidence, that they would not allow 
sin to become lord over them (Fritzsche), the sentence would lack an ele- 
ment assigning an objective reason, to which nevertheless the second half 
points. Heumann, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and Umbreit take the future 
emperatively, which is erroneous for the simple reason that it is not in the 
second person (Bernhardy, p. 378). —ov yap éore bd véuov (Gal. iv. 21), a4? 
tro xapiv : For not the law but divine grace (revealed in Christ) és the power 
under which you are placed. [See Note LXIX. p. 258.] This contrast, accord- 
ing to which the norm-giving position of the law is evcluded from the Chris- 
tian state (it is not merely the superfluousness of the law that is announced, a8 
Th. Schott thinks), is the justification of the encouraging assurance pre- 
viously given. Had they been under the law, Paul would not have been 
able to give it, because the merely commanding law is the divaycg rH¢ apapriag 
(1 Cor. xv. 56), and accumulates sins (v. 20), in which reference he intends 





1The ows {fs not the ‘like’ of comparison 
(Hofmann, who, following Lachmann, pre- 
fers with A BC WX the woei, which does not 
elsewhere occur in the writings of Paul), 
but the ‘‘ as” of the gvality, in which the 
subjects have to conceive themselves. 
Comp. Wunder, ad Soph. Trach. 894, p. 94; 
Kiihner, IT. 2, p. 649. According to Hof- 
mann the comparative ace is only to ex- 
tend to éx vexpar (and gwyras to be predica- 
tive): as liring persona like ae from the 
dead. But such a mere comparison would 
be foreign to the whole context, according 
to which Christians are really alive (with 


Christ) from the dead, and paralyzing the 
pith of the view, which does not lie in a 
quasi, but in a tanguam. The Vulgate ren- 
ders correctly: ‘‘tanguam ex mortuis ti- 
ventes.”’ He who participates ethically in 
the resurrection-life of the Lord is alive 
Srom death, but not alive as if from death ; 
just as little is he as if alive from death. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia rendered the ec, 
which he read, in the latter sense; refer 
ring it to é« vexp. dovras together, and ex- 
plaining the meaning to be that, previous to 
the actual resurrection, only 4% «erd 7 
dvvtrdy wlwyoes is required. 





CHAP. VI., 15, 16. 243 


to discuss the matter still further in ch. vii. But they stand under a quite 
different power, under grace; and this relation of dependence is quite calcu- 
lated to bring to the justified that consecration of moral strength, which 
they require against sin and for the divine life (v. 21 ; vi. 1 ff.). ‘‘ Gratia 
non solum peccata diluit, sed ut non peccemus facit,” Augustine. 

Vv. 15-23. This ovx elvae ixd véuov, Gada’ id yépiv does not therefore give us 
Sreedom tosin. From the ov ydp . . . . ydpev, namely, the inference of free- 
dom to sin might very easily be drawn by immoral Christians (comp. ver. 
1), which would be exactly the reverse of what the Apostle wished to estab- 
lish by that proposition (du. iz. ov xvp. ver. 14). Paul therefore proposes to 
himself this possible inference and negatives it (ver. 15), and then gives in 
ver. 16 ff. its refutation. Accordingly vv. 15-23 form only an ethico-polem- 
ical preliminary to the positive illustration of the proposition, ‘‘ ye are not 
under the law, but under grace,” which begins in ch. vii. 

Ver. 15. [See Note LXX. p. 254.] Ti otv] sc. tor: 5 what ts then the state 
of the case? Comp. iii. 9. Shall this Christian position of ours be misused 
for sinning ?—With the reading duaprfoouev the sense would be purely /u- 
ture: shall we sin? will this case occur with us? But with the proper 
reading duaprfowuev Paul asks : Are we to sin? deliberative subjunctive as in 
ver. 1. To the ériuévou. tr. duapr. in ver. 1 our duapr#owuev stands related as 
a climaz ; not merely the state of perseverance in sin, but every sinful action 
is to be abhorred ; the former from the pre-Christian time, the latter in the 
Christian state of grace. — bri ovx eopuév id vduov x.7.A.] emphatic repetition. 

Ver. 16. Paul begins the detailed illustration of the uy yévorro with an 
appeal to the consciousness of his readers, the tenor of which corresponds 
to the saying of Christ : ‘‘ No man can serve two masters.” This appeal 
forms the propositio major ; the minor then follows in ver. 17 f., after which 
the conclusion is obvious of itself.—‘* Know ye not, that, to whom ye yield 
yourselves as slaves for obedience, ye are slaves of him whom ye obey?” Here 
the emphasis is not on éore (slaves ye are in reality, as de Wette and others 
think), or even on the relative clause @ éaxotere (Hofmann), but, as is re- 
quired by the order of the words, and the correlation with rapior. éavroic, 
on devia. [See Note LXXI. p. 254.] Whosoever places himself at the dispo- 
sal of another for obedience as a slave, is no longer free and independent, 
but is just the slave of him whom he obeys. — rapiordvere] The present, as 
expressing the general proposition which continues to hold good.*— 
imaxotere}] tchom ye obey (erroneously rendered by Reiche and Baumgarten- 
Crusius : hate to obey). By this, instead of the simple atrow or rotrov, the 
relation of subjection, which was already expressed in the protasis, is once 
more vividly brought into view : that ye are slaves of him, whom ye, in con- 
sequence of that rapiordvecy éavtov¢ dotAove to him, obey. The circumstantial- 
ity has a certain earnestness and: solemnity. If ye yield yourselves as slaves 
for obedience, then ye are nothing else than slaves in the service of him 
whom ye obey. The less reason is there for attaching ei¢ tvax. to the apo- 


'Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 8, 17, 3 See Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 115. 
Schol. tn Lue. p. xxxix., 


va 


244 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

dosis (Th. Schott, Hofmann). — yro auapriac] sc. dovAoc.’ Respecting the 
disjunctive #ro, aut sane, found nowhere else in N. T., see especially Klotz, 
ad Devar. p. 609, Bacumlein, Partik. p. 244. It lays strong emphasis on 
the first alternative. Very frequently thus used in Greek authors. Comp. 
Wisd. xi. 18. — ic 6dvarov] result, to which this relation of slavery leads. 
The Odvarog cannot be physical death (Reiche, Fritzsche, van Hengel), since 
that is not the consequence of individual? sin (see on v. 12), and is not 
averted from the dotAog taxoze [See Note LXXII. p. 254] ; nor is it, either 
generally, the misery of sin (de Wette), or specially spiritual death, alicn- 
ation from the truce ¢w7, an idea which Paul never conveys by @dvarog ; but 
rather, secing that @dvaroc, as is more precisely indicated in ver. 21, and is 
placed beyond doubt by the contrast of {w7) aiévoc, must be conceived as the 
téidog of the bondage of sin ; eternal death (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and 
others, including Riickert, Reithmayr, and Tholuck). Comp. i. 32. This 
is not at variance with the antithesis cic dixasooivyy, which is not to be taken 
(as in ver. 13) in the sense of moral righteousness (Philippi and others) ; for 
this is not the reswlt, but is itself the essence of the dotdAov elvar uraxofe (comp. 
v. 19), since iaxof#, in contradistinction to the duapria, is obedience to the 
divine will. On the contrary dcxaocivy, antithetically correlative with the 
Gavaroc, must be conceived as the final result of that dovAov eivar vxaxoge, and 
apply to the time of final perfection in the aidv uéAdwv, when the faithful, 
who have not relapsed into the service of sin, but in their faith have been 
servants of obedience, on account of the death of Christ dixa:w xatacrabyoovraz, 
v. 19. It is therefore the righteousness which is awarded to them in the 
judgment.* If it were the righteousness of faith even now attained (Th. 
Schott), imxaxoze would need to be taken, with Schott, of becoming a belierer 
(i. 5), which is contextually inadmissible, since what is spoken of is the 
state of grace already evisting (ver. 15), in which service is rendered to the 
obedience of God only, and not to sin. In accordance with the misconcep- 
tions of Hofmann, already noticed in detail (see above), there results as his 
sense of the whole : ‘‘ To whom ye place yourselves as servants at his disposal, 
ye are servants for the purpose of obedience ; ye are 80 to him whom ye obey, ser- 
cants either—for there is no third alternatice—who act contrary to their master’s 
will and thereby merit death, or such as live in obedience and are therefore right- 


1 Consequently servants of sin, who are 
serviceable to that which is sin ; and then: 
servants of obedience, who are in the service 
of the opposite of avzapria, in the service of 
divine obedience. Hofmann erroneously 
takes the genitives as genitives of quality 
(servants who sin and who obey) ; see Winer, 
p. 222 (E. T. 237]. What reader could, after 
éovAoe (comp. John villi. 84), have stumbled 
on this singular relation of quality ; the as- 
sumption of which ought to have been pre- 
cluded by vv. 17, 20. Comp. 2 Pet. il. 19. 

2 Philippi here observes, with the view of 
including bodily death also in the idea, that 
it ‘‘ is personally appropriated and merited 


by the individual through his own act.” 
This is not Pauline, and is at variance with 
the true interpretation of the ed’ ¢ wdvres 
nuaproy inv. 12. It is not with death as it 
is with the atonement, which Is objectively 
there for all, but must be appropriated by 
something subjective. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 2. 
Moreover, such personal appropriation 
would be inconceivable in the case of all 
children dying without actual sin. 

8’ Késtlin has also justly directed atten- 
tion in the Jahrb. f. deutache Theol. 1856, p. 
127, to the sensus forensis of Sxasocvrn in our 
passage. 


CHAP. VI., 17%. 245 


eous in the presence of their master... What kind of a 6dvaroc, and in what 
sense dicacocivy 18 meant, is supposed accordingly to be self-evident. And 
by the following thanksgiving, ver. 17, the Apostle is alleged ‘‘as it «were half 
to take back” his question, Whether they do not know ctc., so that the me- 
dium of transition to ver. 17 is ‘‘ why yet still the question?” A series of 
gratuitously imported fancies. 

Ver. 17. Propositio minor. [See Note LXXIII. p. 255.] — ydpec d2 7H Ocg, 
é7:] animated expression of picty ; ‘‘ ardor pectoris apostolici,” Bengel. 
Comp. vii. 25. — ért gre dotvAoe t. du., ink. x.7.2.] gre has emphasis : that ye 
eere slaves of sin (that this condition of bondage is past), etc. Comp. Eph. 
v. 8. The prefixing of #7re, and the non-insertion of a pév, clearly prove 
that this is the true interpretation, and not that, by which the main idea is 
discovered in the second half : ‘‘ non Deo gratias agit, quod servierint pec- 
cato, sed quod, qui servierint peccato, postea obedierunt evangelio,” Gro- 
tius. In that case yév at least would be indispensable in the first clause. 
The mode of expression is purposely chosen, in order to render more forcibly 
apparent their earlier dangerous condition (whose further delineation in 
ver. 19, moreover, points to the former heathenism of the readers). — éx 
xapdiac] ovdé yap qvayxdoOnre, ovde EBidoOyte, GAN’ ExdvTec peta mpodvuiac artoryrte, 
Chrysostom. Comp. Job viii. 10; Mark xii. 30; Wisd. viii. 21 al. ; 
Theocr. xxix. 4; also éx O@vyov, é£ etevdv orépvwr, and similar phrases in 
Greck writers. The opposite : é« Siac. — cic dv raped. tim. did.) May either 
be resolved : 16 rixy tig did., cig bv waped., with Chrysostom and others, 
including Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, Tholuck, de Wette, Fritzsche, Winer, 
and Philippi ;* or: cig tr. rim. tH¢ did., et¢ bv zaped. (as in iv. 17) ; or: ei¢ 7. 
ton. TH¢ 6d., bv raped. 1.6. 5¢ maped. iuiv (sce Castalio and Grotius on the pas- 
sage, Kypke, II. p. 167, Ewald and Hofmann). It is decisive in favour of the 
first mode of resolution that iraxoterv ei¢ te i898 never equivalent to wraxoverv 
rai; * while to take ur7xotcare absolutely cither in the sense of the obedience 
of faith, i. 5 (Ewald), or in that of absolute obedience (‘‘as obedient servants 
in contrast to sinful ones,” Hofmann), is inadmissible, because iyxotcare 
in its antithetical correlation with dovAo t7¢ duapriag needs a more precise 
definition. And this it has precisely in cic 6v tapeddo. x.7.A.. which cannot 
therefore indicate whereunto (Ewald and Hofmann) the iaxotev has taken 
place,—an artificial far-fetched expedient, which is wrung from them, in 
order to get instead of obedience towards the doctrine obedience as effect 
of the doctrine (comp. Matt. xii. 41, where however perevéyjcav stands by 
its side, which is in fact of itself a complete conception). The rioc didayx7c, 
et¢ bv maped. is usually (and still by Hofmann) understood of Christian doc- 
trine generally, so far as it is a definite, express form of teaching. But 
since the singular expression ri-ro¢ does not thus appear accounted for, and 
since the Roman church was undoubtedly planted through the preaching 
of Pauline Christianity, which is certainly a particular type, different from 


1 See Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 183, Conject.p. obey in reference to something, to be obedi- 
34; Bornemann, Schol. in Luce. p. 177. ent in a matter. Reiche’s judgment of 

3In the passages quoted by Kypke from __ these passages is erroneous. See on 2 Cor. 
Greek authors twaxovey cis rs means to ii. 9. 


246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Judaistic forms of Christian teaching and in various points even contrast- 
ing with these, it is preferable to understand by it the distinct expression 
which the Gospel had received through Paul, consequently the doctrinal 
form of his Gospel (ii. 16, xvi. 25), in opposition to anti-Paulinism (Rickert, 
ed. 1, de Wette, comp. Philippi). This ci¢ 6v raped. is decisive in favour of 
the interpretation ‘‘form of doctrine” in an objective sense, and against the 
subjective explanation : image of the doctrine, which is impressed on the 
heart (Kypke). Following Theodore of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius, Calvin, 
Grotius, Calovius, and many others, Reiche (as also Olshausen, Reithmayr 
and Krehl) take réro¢ in the sense of evemplar, ideal which the doctrine holds 
up, consequently in that of the ethical rule, which as model of life is con- 
tained in the Gospel (d:day).’ This is in harmony neither with the traxotecy 
nor with the ei¢ dy raped. Unsuitable to the former is also the interpreta- 
tion of Beza and others, to which Tholuck inclines,:that the evangelical 
doctrine is ‘‘ quasi instar typi cujusdam, cui celuti immittamur, ut ejus fig- 
urae conformemur.” Van Hengel understands tzyxotcare in the sense of 
Obedience toward God, and eic as quod attinet at; Paul in his view says : 
‘‘obedivistis Deo ad sequendam quam profiteri edocti estis doctrinae for- 
mam.” This form of doctrine, to which the Romans were directed at the 
founding of their church, had been, he conccives, probably more Judaistic 
than purely Pauline. But against the absolute interpretation of wryxoic. 
see above ; while the assumption of a rizo¢ didayge not truly Pauline is ir- 
reconcilable with the expression of thanksgiving, and is not supported by 
Phil. i. 15, a passage which is to be explained from the peculiar situation 
of the Apostle. We may add that Paul aptly specializes the tzaxof#—-which 
was set forth in the major, in ver. 16, quite generally (as obedience to God 
in general)—at the subsumption in the minor, ver. 17, as obedience to his 
Gospel. — napedd0.| tiv tov Ocov BofOecav aivirrerat, Chrysostom. The refer- 
ence to God, which is also to be observed for the passives in ver. 18, is 
plain from ydépic rH Oc. That it is not to be taken as middle (to yield them- 
selves, so Fritzsche) is shown by the same passives in ver. 18. Tlapadidwue 
cither with the dative or with cic, in the sense of delivering over to the dits- 
posal and power of another, is very current everywhere in Greek literature 
(Judith x. 15; Rom. i. 26; Xen. Hell. 1, 7, 3; Dem. 515, 6, 1187, 5) ; but 
whether in a hostile sense or not, is conveyed not by the expression itself, 
but simply by the context. To the expression itself the abolition of one’s 
own self-determination is essential. So also here. The Christian has at 
his conversion ceased to be sui juris, and has been given over to the morally 
regulative power of the Gospel.* 

Ver. 18. ‘‘But, freed from sin, ye have become servants of righteous- 
ness.” This is not to be regarded as the conclusion from the two premisses, 
vv. 16, 17 (Riickert, Reiche), because ov» is not used, and because substan- 


1So probably Chrysostom took it, who Rep. p. 412 B: ot riot rijs wa8eiac, p. 897 C: 
explains 6 rvwos +. SdayRs by dpdws Cyy cal = riz rhe Adgews, Jamblichus /.c. 23: roy ruwow 
peta wodtreias apiorys. SoalsoTheophylact. ris ddacxadias, Isoc. Antid. 188: 5 réwos ree 

2On trios ddaxys comp. Jamblichus, de ¢rceodias. 
Pythag. vit. 16: ris nasdevcews 6 TUos, Plat. 


CHAP. VI., 19. 24% 


tially the same thought was already contained in ver. 17. Paul rather ex- 
presses once more the happy change in his readers just described ; and does 
so in a thoughtfully chosen antithetical form, no longer however dependent 
on dr, but independent and thus more emphatic (hence acolon is, with 
Lachmann, to be inserted before éAev8.). But he leaves the reader to draw 
for himself the conclusion, namely : this uy yévorro is therefore fully justified. 
— The dé is the autem of continuation ; the transition, however, is not from 
activity (imyxoicare) to passiveness (Hofmann, comp. Th. Schott), for the 
latter is already given in rapedd6yre, but from the state of the case expressed 
in ver. 17 to a striking specification, in a more precise form, of the revolution 
in the relation of service, which was accomplished in them. — a7é r. dyapr.} 
that is, from the relation of slavery to it. — édova. ri dixatoc.) ye have been 
placed in the slave-relation to righteousness ; a representation of the complete 
dependence on the moral necessity of being righteous, implied in conversion. 
On the dative comp. 1 Cor. ix. 19 ; Tit. ii. 3; 2 Pet. 1.19. This slavery, 
where the dixacoctvy is the mistress, is consequently the true moral freedom 
(thevOeporpenic dé } aperh, Plat. Ale. I. p. 185 C.). Comp. the similar para- - 
dox in 1 Cor. vii. 22. 

Ver. 19. Paul had, in vv. 16-18, represented the idea of the highest 
moral freedom—in a form corresponding indeed with its nature as a moral 
necessity (‘‘ Deo servire vera libertas est,’’ Augustine), but still borrowed 
from human relations—as dovieta. He now therefore, not to justify himself, 
but to induce his readers to separate the idea from the form, announces 
the fact that, and the reason why, he thus expresses himself regarding the 
loftiest moral idea in this concrete fashion, derived from an ordinary human 
relation. J speak (in here making mention of slarery, vv. 16-18) that is 
human (belonging to the relations of the natural human life) on account of 
the (intellectual) tceakness of your flesh, t.e. in order thereby to come to the 
help of this your weakness. [See Note LXXIV. p. 255.] For the setting 
forth of the idea in some such sensuous form is the appropriate means of 
stimulating and procuring its apprehension in the case of one, whose know]l- 
edge has not yet been elevated by divine enlightenment to a highcr plat- 
form of strength and clearness released from such human forms. Respecting 
aviporevov see the examples in Wetstein. It is the antithesis of 6ciov, Plat. 
Rep. p. 497 C. The expression xaré dvOpwrov Aéyw in ch. iii. 5 is in sub- 
stance equivalent, since afpdérivov also necessarily indicates the form and 
dress employed for the idea, for whose representation the Apostle has 
uttered what is human. The adpé, however, i.e. the material human nature 
in its psychical determination, as contrasted with the divine pneumatic in- 
fluence (comp. on iv. 1), is weak for religious and moral discernment, as well 
as for good (Matt. xxvi. 41) ; hence the cogia capxixy (2 Cor. i. 12) is foolish- 
ness with God (1 Cor. iii. 19). Others, taking it not of intellectual weak- 
ness, but of moral weakness, refer it to what follows (Origen, Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Hammond, Wetstein, and others, in- 
cluding Klee, Reithmayr, and Bisping), in the sense: ‘‘I do not demand 
what is too hard (avfpéx., comp. 1 Cor. x. 18); for although I might re- 
quire a far higher degree of the new obedience, yet I require only the same 


248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


as ye have formerly rendered to sin.” ' But the following domep . . . . obvw 
introduces not the equality of the degree, but, as is plain from ver. 20, only 
the comparison in gencral between the former and the present state. Be- 
sides, the demand itself, which by this interpretation would only concern 
a lower stage of Christian life, would be inappropriate to the morally ideal 
character of the whole hortatory discourse, which is not injured by the con- 
crete figurative form. This remark also applies to the dismembering ex- 
planation of Hofmann (comp. Th. Schott), who makes av@péziwov A£y0 form 
a parenthesis, and then connects dia ri dobéveray tr. capxd¢ tpov with édov 
Adtinre th dixatocivg, 80 that the thought would be : the weakness of our in- 
born nature gives occasion that our translation into the life of righteousness 
is dealt with as an enslavement thereto, while otherwise it would be simply 
restoration to the freedom of doing our own will ; according to this weak- 
ness what is right is not done freely of itself, but in the shape of a serrice. 
But how could Paul have so degraded the moral loftiness of the position of 
the dovAwhévrec tH dixacocivy! To him they were indeed the dov2uhivres 75 
Or@ (ver. 22), and in his estimation there was nothing morally more exalted 
than to be dotAo¢g Ocov, as Christ Himself was. The Christian has put on 
Christ in this respect also (Gal. iii. 27), and lives in the spirit of the holiest 
freedom (2 Cor. iii. 17 f.) ; his subjection to the service of d:xatocivy has not 
taken place on account of his inborn nature incapacitating him for moral 
freedom (as though it were a measure of compulsion) ; but on the contrary 
he has put off the morally weak old man, and so he lives as a new creature 
—by means of the newness of the spirit, and in virtue of his communion 
in the resurrection-life of Christ—in the condition of righteousness, which 
Paul has here under the designation of bendage, accommodating himself by 
the ordinary human expression to the natural weakness of the understanding, 
brought into contrast with the having been freed from sin. — do7ep yép x.r.A.] 
Practical assigning of a reason for the proposition just affirmed ar Opurivus 
in ver. 18, in the form of a concrete demand. In opposition to Hofmann, 
who (at variance with his own interpretation of xiii. 6 !) declares it impos- 
sible to clothe the assigning of a reason in the dress of an exhortation, see 
Bauemlein, Partik. p. 86. Heb. xii. 3 (see Delitzsch) is to be taken in the 
same way ; comp. Jamesi. 7 ; and sceon 1 Cor. i. 26. Hence : for, as ye hate 
placed your members at the disposal, etc., 30 now place, etc. Since the discourse 
proceeds indced in the same figurative manner, but yet so that it now as- 
-sumes the hortatory form, avOpémiwov . . . . capxdc tyev is not to be put ina 
parenthesis, but with Fritzsche, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, to be separated 
from dorep by a period. — ri axafapsia x. tH avozig] The two exhaust the 
notion of dyapria (ver. 13), so that axa6. characterizes sin as morally defiling 
the man (see on i. 24), and avou. (1. John iii. 4) as a violation of the divine 
law.? — cic tiv avou.| on behalf of antagonism to law, in order that it may be 
established (in facto). The interpretation ei¢ rd érimA£ov avoueiv, Theophylact 
-(so also Oecumenius, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, Kéllner, Ewald, and 


1So also probably Theodoret: 17 ¢vcee cwpmare xivovpeva radn. 
MeTpwo THY wapaiveoty: olda yap Ta ev TH DYnTE 2 See Tittmann, Synon., p. 48. 


CHAP. VI., 20-22, 249 
, \ 


others), is, in its practical bearing, erroncous, since it is only the yielding 
of the members to the principle of avouia that actually brings the latter 
into a concrete reality. — ci¢ aytacpdv) in order to attain holiness (1 Cor. i. 80 ; 
1 Thess. iv. 3 f. 7 ; 2 Thess. li. 13), moral purity and consecration to God. 
To be an dyog in mind and walk—that goal of Christian development—is 
the aim of the man, who places his members at the disposal of d:xacootvy as 
ruler over him. The word dy:acude is found only in the LXX., Apocr. and 
in the N. T. (in the latter it is always holiness, not sanctification,’ even in 
1 Tim. ii. 15 ; Heb. xii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 2), but not Greek writers.” ‘Aysaoudv 
stands without the article, because this highest moral goal is conceived of 
qualitatirely. 

Vv. 20-22. [See Note LXXV. p. 255.] With yép Paul does not introduce 
an illustration to ver. 19 (Fritzsche), but rather—seeing that ver. 20 through 
ovv in ver. 21, as well as through the correlative antithesis in ver, 22, must 
necessarily form a connected whole in thought with what follows till the 
end of ver. 22—the motive for complying with what is enjoined in ver. 19 ; 
and that in such a way, that he first of all prepares the way for it by ver. 20, 
and then in ver. 21 f., leading on by oiv, actually expresses it, equally impres- 
sively and touchingly, as respects its deterrent (ver. 21) and inviting (ver. 
22) aspects. The fact that he first sets down ver. 20 for itself, makes the 
recollection which he thus calls up more forcible, more tragic. Observe also 
the emphasis and the symmetrical separation of the several words in ver. 20. 
— cei. fre TH dtxatoc.] Ye were free in relation to righteousness, in point of 
fact independent of its demands, since ye were serving the opposite ruler 
(the duapria). Ovdé yap dtevépere tho dovAsiag Tov tpdrov TH Stxatootvy Kal TH auap- 
zig, GAA’ bAwe Eavrovs ELedidote TH Tovnpia, Chrysostom. A sad truth based on 
experience ! not a flight of irony (Koppe, Reiche, Philippi, and others), but 
full of deep moral pain. — Ver. 21. otv] in consequence of this freedom. — 
tia... . emacxiveode 18 with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Castalio, Beza, 
Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, Bengel, and others, including Winer, 
Reiche (but see below), Fritzsche, Jatho, and Hofmann, (but see below)— 
in harmony with the punctuation of the ¢tezt. rec.—to be regarded as 
one connected question [See Note LXXVI. p. 256], so that the reason to 
be given for replying in the negative sense to this question is then con- 
tained in 7d yap réAog Exeivwy Odvarog ; namely, thus: what fruit, now, had 
ye then (when ye were still in the service of sin, etc., ver. 20) of things, 
on account of which ye are now ashamed ? i.e. ye had then no fruit, no moral 
gain, etc., and the proof thereof is: for the final result of them (those 
things) is death. What leads at last to death, could bring you no moral 
gain. For the grammatical explanation éxeivev is to be supplied before 颒 
a¢ (which in fact is perfectly regular, Winer, p. 149 [E. T. 158]), and to 
this the éxeivwy in the probative clause refers. . Regarding tracy. eri reve, 
to be ashamed over anything (not merely of the being put to shame by the 


1In opposition to Hofmann, on ver. 22. Spirit. Comp. Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 82. 
But to the Christian consciousness it is 2In Dion. Hal. i. 21, it is a false reading, 
self-evident that holiness canonly be at- as also in Diod. iv. 39. 
tained under the influence of the Holy 


250 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


JSact of something not proving to be what we thought it, as Th. Schott weakens 
the sense) comp. Xen. Hell. v. 4, 33 : évi ri qyerépa giAle aioxuvbic, Plat. Rep. 
p. 396 C: obk aicyvveiobar emt re toabry puupoe, LXX. Is. xx. 5, i. 29; 1 
Macc. iv. 31 ; also Dem. 426, 10. Reiche makes the double mistake of 
very arbitrarily referring 颒 oi¢ to xaprév, which is to be taken collectively ; 
and of explaining xaprév éyew as meaning to bring forth fruit (which would 
be x. roiv, gépetv), 80 that the sense would be: ‘‘ what deeds, on account 
of which ye are now ashamed, proceeded from your service of sin ?” Hof- 
mann, resolving the expression into él rotro a viv inaccyivecbe, wishes 
to take éri in the well-known sense of addition to, so that Paul asks : ‘‘ what 
fruit had ye then over and above those things of which ye are now ashamed ?” 
those things being the former disgraceful enjoyments, with which they now 
desired to have nothing further todo. But how could the reader think of 
such enjoyments without any hint being given by the text ? And how arbi- 
trary in this particular place is that interpretation of éwi, especially when the 
verb itself is compounded with éri, and that in the sense : to be ashamed 
thereupon, and accordingly indicates how 颒 ol¢ is to be resolved and proper- 
ly understood !? Many others (Syriac, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Erasmus Schmid, Heumann, 
Carpzov, Koppe, Tholuck undecidedly, Riickert, Kéllner, de Wette, Ols- 
hausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Philippi, Reithmayr, 
Ewald, van Hengel, and Th. Schott) end the question with rére, so that é¢' 
ol¢ viv éracox. becomes the answer, of which again rd ydp réA. éx Ody. is the 
proof : ‘‘ what sort of fruit had ye then? Things (ye had as fruit) of ehich 
ye are now ashamed ; for the end of them is death.” Kapzév is likewise regard- 
ed as a figurative description either of gain or reward (‘‘ignoble and perni- . 
cious joys and pleasures,” Ewald), or of actions, which are the penal conse- 
quence of reprobate sentiments. But fatal to all this explanation, which 
breaks up the passage, is the antithesis in ver. 22, where the having of fruit, 
not its quality, is opposed to the preceding ; if Paul had inquired in ver. 21 
regarding the quality of the fruit, he must have used in ver. 22 some such 
expression as vuvi d?. . . . Tov dy:acudy Exere Tov xaprov tpav. Besides, we 
cannot well see why he should not have written either rivac xaprots or &¢’ 
and éxeivov ; he would by annexing the plurals, though these were in them- 
selves admissible on account of the collective nature of xapméc, have only ex- 
pressed himself in a fashion obscure and misleading. Finally, it is to be 
observed that he never attributes xapréy or xaprot¢ to immorality ; he attrib- 
utes to it goya (Gal. v. 19), but uses xapméc only of the good ; he speaks of 
the xaproc¢ tov mvebuaroc, Gal. v. 22 ; of the xapric rod gdroc, Eph. v. 9 ; of the 
xapro¢ dexatootyyc, Phil. i. 11 ; of the xapr. épyov, Phil. i. 22 ; comp. Rom. i. 13; 
in fact he negatives the idea of xapréc in reference to evil, when he describes 
the épya tov oxérove a3 dxapra, Eph. v. 11 ; comp. Tit. iii. 14. With this type of 
conception our interpretation alone accords, by which in the question rive 
xaprvov x.T.a. (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 18) there is contained the negation of xaprd¢ in 


1 See generally on éwi with the dative, as = tion, Ktihner, IT. 1, p. 496, and with aicxvy. 
specifying the ground with verbs of emo- _sSII. 2, p. 881, rem. 6. 


CHAP. VI., 23. 251 


the service of sin, the dxaprov eivaz. The most plausible objection to our 
explanation is this, that in accordance with it 颒 oi¢ viv éracay. becomes merely 
an incidental observation. But an incidental observation may be of great 
weight in its bearing on the matter in hand. It is so here, where it contains 
a trenchant argumentative point in favour of replying in a negative sense to 
the question. Calvin aptly says: ‘‘non poterat gravius exprimere quod 
volebat, quam appellando eorum conscientiam et quasi in eorum persona 
pudorem confitendo.” Compare also Chrysostom. — éxeiver] neuter: those 
things, on account of which ye are now ashamed, the pre-Christian sins and 
tues. Bengel well remarks : ‘‘ remote spectat practerita.” — 6dvaroc] death, 
i.e. the eternal death, whose antithesis is the (w aidmoc, ver. 23 ; not the 
physical (Fritzsche), comp. on ver. 16. —The péy before ydp (see the crit. 
remarks) does not correspond to the following dé ; on the contrary, we must 
translate : for the end indeed (which however excludes every fruit) is death. 
Ver. 22. vvi dé x.7.4.] But now (ye are no longer without fruit, as formerly; 
no, now) ye possess your fruit unto holiness, so that its possession has as its 
consequence holiness for you (cig consecutive). The dy:acudc is consequently 
not the fruit (the moral gain) itself, which they already have (that would also 
be at variance with ovrw viv mapaot. .... ei¢ dyaoudév in ver. 19), but the 
state, which the txew of their fruit shallin future bring about. The fruit itself 
—and xapré¢ is to be taken, quite as in ver. 21, as ethical product—is con- 
sequently the new, Christian morality (comp. the xacéry¢g Cw7¢ in ver. 4), the 
Christian virtuous nature which belongs to them (izév), and the possession 
of which leads by the way of progressive development to holiness. — rd dé 
réhog Cuny aiav.] as the final result however (of this your fruit) eternal life in 
the kingdom of Messiah. This possession is now as yet an ideal one (viii. 
24). Hofmann erroneously takes 7d 62 réAoc adverbially (1 Pet. iii. 8 ; comp. 
on 1 Cor. xv. 24), which is impossible after ver. 21, in accordance with 
whieh the word must here also be the emphatic substantive, the finale of the 
xap7z6¢ ; hence also (um aidvuoy is dependent not on ei¢ (Hofmann), but on 
iyere. — The circumstance, moreover, that Paul in ver. 22 says dovAw. rq Geg 
while in ver. 18 he has said édovd. ry dixacootvy, is rightly illustrated by 
Grotius : ‘‘ qui bonitati rebusque honestis servit, et Deo servit, quia Deus 
hoc semper amavit et in evangelio apertissime praccepit.” Comp. xii. 2. 
And precisely therein lies the true freedom, 1 Pet. ii. 16 ; John viii. 36. 
Ver. 23. Ta oydva] the wages. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 7; Luke ili, 14. ’Owd- 
ov Kupiuc AtyeTac TO Toi¢g OTpaTiGrae Tapa Tov Bactlkuc dedouévov octnptoiov, The- 
ophylact.? The plural, more usual than the singular, is explained by the 
various elements that constituted the original natural payments, and by the 
coins used in the later money wages. — The wages which sin gives stands in 
reference to ver. 18, where the duapria is presented as a ruler, to whom the 
subjects tender their members as weapons, for which they receive their 
allowance ! — @4varoc] as in ver. 22. — rd dé ydpioua +r. Ocov] Paul docs not say 
7¢ Odea here also (‘‘ eile verbum,” Erasmus), but charactcrizes what God 


1 See Hartung, Partitell. II. p. 414, Winer, 2Comp. Photius, 367. See Lobeck, ad 
p. 584 f. (E. T. 575). Phryn. p. 4%. 


202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


gives for wages as what it is in its specific nature—a gift of grace, which is 
no avriradavtevectac (Theodoret). To the Apostle, in the connection of his 
system of faith and doctrine, this was very natural, even without the sup- 
position of any special design (in order—it has been suggested—to afford no 
encouragement to pride of virtue or to confiding in one’s own merit). —& 
Xpior@ «.t.A.] In Christ is the causal basis, that the zdpiopza r. Oecd is eter- 
nal life ; a triumphant conclusion as in v. 21 ; comp. viii. 39. 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 
LXIV. Ver. 1. éxipévapev 79 dpaprig. 


To make the defence of his doctrine as the truth complete, the Apostle was 
obliged, not only to establish it by direct proofs, but also to meet the objec- 
tions which might naturally arise. There were two of these which he mast 
have often encountered, and which, in this Ep., he anticipates and answers. 
The first is the one presented in all ages against the doctrine—namely, that it 
tends toward immorality. As justification does not rest upon works, as for- 
giveness is always ready for the sinner who trusts in Christ, and as the abound- 
ing of sin causes grace to abound still more, will not the believer be careless 
about sinning, and even disposed to continue in sin? The second objection 
was peculiar to the age when the Judaistic views were held and the relation of 
the Jews to the old covenant was still pressed—namely, did not the doctrine 
of faith, which excluded all unbelieving Jews from salvation, involve unfaitb- 
fulness of God to His promises given to His peculiar people? The Apostle con- 
siders the first of these objections in chaps. vi.-viii., and the second in chaps. 
ix.-xi. He limits himself to the two, because he regarded them, probably, as 
containing in substance the sum of what could be urged against the faith- 
system, 


LXV. Ver. 2. oirives amefdvouev 77 duaprig. 


The aorist tense points to the time of entrance upon the Christian life. 
According to the doctrine of faith, the relation of the man to sin terminates at 
the moment of conversion. He dies, so far forth as sin is concerned, at that 
moment. Hence it is contrary to the very idea of the doctrine, that he should 
continue to live insin. This thought is emphatically repeated in ver. 3 ff. ,as 
connected with the figure of burial and resurrection, and with that of cruci- 
fixion. It will be observed that Paul is considering the doctrine, and presenting 
the evidence that it does not tend towards immorality, and not describing 
ordinary experience. The ideal of Christian living involves dying absolutely to 
the old life, as soon as the new one begins. In ver, 12 f. he exhorts the 
readers to live in accordance with the ideal standard. 


LXVI. Ver. 4. cvveradnuer odv atzg. 


It does not seem to be necessary to regard cvveragnuev as referring to bap- 
tism by immersion. It may be that the thought of burial, being naturally 
sufgested by that of death, is added only for the purpose of emphasis. It is 
clear, however, that, if it has this reference, the use of the verb is more fully 
and satisfactorily accounted for, and not improbably, to say the least, there is 
an allusion to this mode of baptizing. 





| 


NOTES. , 253 


LXVII. Ver. 6. 1d cde rij¢ dpapriac. 


The explanation of Td oda Tij¢ cuapriag given by Meyer seems to be the most 
natural and satisfactory one. The body, according to the view of Paul, is evi- 
dently not evil in itself. On the other hand, it is an instrument which may be 
used either in the service of sin or of God. As the man dies to sin without 
dying in the ordinary sense, so his body is destroyed, so far forth as it be- 
longs to sin and is given up to its control, without being actually destroyed. 
This view makes the words correspond with the thought or phraseology of the 
Apostle elsewhere (cf. vv. 12, 13, also vii. 24, etc.). It also brings ducpria, as 
no other explanation does, into accordance with the use of the word through- 
out this section of the Epistle—sin being, in many instances, evidently per- 
sonified as a master (cf. e.g. vi. 12, 13, 16, vii. 14, 17, 23). 


LXVII. Ver. 7. dedixaiwra: ard rij¢ dpuapriac. 


Godet, who holds the same view of ver. 7 with Meyer, says that “ d:xacotcOar 
signifies, in this connection, to be free from blame in case of disobedience 
to be legally entitled not to obey;’’ and he adds that the meaning of the 
Apostle is, ‘One who is dead, no longer having a body to put at the service of 
sin, is now legally exempted from carrying out the wishes of that master, who 
till then had freely disposed of him. Suppose a dead slave : it will he vain 
for his master to order him to steal, to lie, orto kill. He will be entitled to 
alswer, My tongue, hands, and feet no longer obey me. How, then, could he 
be taken to task for refusing to serve?” Gifford, Beet, Sanday, and others, 
‘mong the most recent commentators, regard dzofavdv as having the physical 
*ehse. Gifford views the sentence as containing ‘‘the general maxim, that 
death puts an end to all bondage.’’ Beet says that dic. here means to make 
"Meous, + Death separates & man even from his sins. The thief and the 

ufderer will steal and kill no more. By death they have been forcibly made 
righteous, The statement of this ver. is implied in a still wider one, viz., that 
death separates a man completely from his former life. Whatever he was be- 
fore, by death he ceases to be.” Sanday renders by ‘‘absolved,’’ and adds, 


Wines dead man is no longer liable to have the charge of sin brought against 


LXIX. Ver. 14. ob ydp tore ord vdpov. 


The question, What is the meaning of the words not under the law? may be 
nee ered by noticing the connection with the next preceding (v. 20), and the 
_ xt following (vii. 1-6) statements in respect to the law. V. 20 presents the law 
(ct “Ausing the offence to abound ; vii. 1-6 sets forth the same idea substantially 

~ 3p. ver. 5). The pointing of both alike is toward a kindred sense here. 

"Teover, the connection in thought (whatever may be said of the immediate 
the matical sequence of the sentences), between this verse and vii. 1, shows 
bee iter’s conception to be, that the lordship of sin ceases for the believer 
his “ge that of the law cesses ; that the latter ceases because the man, through 
ing “Xion with Christ, dies, so far as the law is concerned ; and that, thus dy- 
h —— man serves sin as a slave no longer, but serves a new master with 
Qs y ©ssof spirit. The reference in this verse is, therefore, to the legal system, 
mene 38 naturally towards the dominion of the sin-power. The develop- 

© of the thought suggested by these words is suspended, by reason of the 


264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 


question of ver. 15, until the seventh chapter. It is there presented in the first 
six verses, which by their statements and expressions lead to the inquiry of 
vii. 7, founded upon the earlier part of ver. 20. That this view of vi. 14 makes 
it anticipate the thought of chap. vil. and renders vi. 15-23 substantially, or 
at least in a sense, parenthetical, is, when the progress of the discourse is 
rightly apprehended, no valid objection to it. The Apostle arrests his thought 
for the moment, as it occurs to him that the same question may be asked in 
view of what he is saying, which was raised in the first verse. 


LXX. Ver. 15. ri ctv; duapraowper x.T.A. 


On ver. 15 Philippi says : ‘‘ 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 multiplied, so the statement of 14) might awaken 
the idea that with freedom from the law license is given to sin. This idea 
the Apostle repels with the utmost energy. But yet he does not here so much 
develop the inner psychological impossibility 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 me- 
diates 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 domin- 
ion of grace a freedom from sin.’’ This is the correct view of the passage, 
and thus there is a certain parallelism between these verses and ver. 1 ff., al- 
though the relation to sin and righteousness is set forth by a new figure—that 
of slavery and freedom, instead of that of dying and living. 


LXXI. Ver. 16. dotAol tore @ vraxovere. 


Weiss ed. Mey. holds that the emphasis is not on dovAn alone (as Meyer 
maintains), but also on the relative clause, as indicated by the repetition of 9, 
and by the following alternative. The idea conveyed, accordingly, is that the 
man is a slave of the one master or the other, and also that the particular 
slavery, by reason of the very fact that the man surrenders himself in obedi- 
ence to one only, is exclusive of any other. Both of these suggestions are 
probably contained in the words, but the principal emphasis is on dovAo, and, 
indeed, this word carries in itself the thought of entire and exclusive sur- 
render. 


LXXII. Ver. 16. duapriac ele O6varoy. 


Weiss regards O4varoc here as meaning physical death. Godet, Gifford, and 
others urge against this view, as Meyer does, that this death befalls the ser- 
vants of righteousness. But Weiss answers that physical death, when, as in 
the case of these, there is a resurrection to eternal life, ceases to be the punish- 
ment of sin. Where there is no such awakening, however, it becomes eternal 
death, and so there is nothing in the word which contradicts the idea that 
obedience to sin leads to the latter. Godet holds that the meaning is, ‘‘death 
in fhe sense of moral corruption, and consequently of separation from God 
here and hereafter.” Beet says, ‘‘the death of body and soul ;” Gifford, 
‘‘eternal death ;’ Shedd, ‘‘ death physical, spiritual, and eternal.” Hodge 
says, ver. 16, ‘spiritual and eternal ;’’ ver. 21, ‘‘death of the soul, final and 


NOTES. 255 


hopeless perdition.” The argument for Weiss’s view here is much weaker than 
it is for the same view in vv. 12-19. 


LXXIII. Vv. 17, 18. ydpic rp Oew bre Hre SovAos k.7.A, 


The thought of vv. 17, 18 seems to be involved in the contrast of yre dovAor 
Tig Gz. and édovAdOyre TF dix.—as if the form of the sentence were the follow- 
ing: ‘‘that your slavery to sin is a thing of the past [this is the force of the 
emphatic jre], and that, having yielded obedience from the heart to that form 
of teaching whereunto you were dclivered [i.e. the Pauline gospel, with its 
doctrine of grace and faith], and being thereby made free from sin as 4 master, 
you came into [the aorist tenses pointing to the time of conversion] the rela- 
tion of bond-servants to righteousness.” As there must be service to one or 
the other, and asthe former service is ended in the case of the believer, and 
the new one begun, the Christian doctrine, which teaches this, cannot en- 
courage sin. It must, on the other hand, direct the man who accepts it—as 
in vv. 19, 20—to present his members for service to righteousness, now that 
he has become a Christian (and to do it at once and once for all), as fully and 
without reserve as, in his former life, he presented them to sin; and how 
fully he did this he may know from his own experience, for, when he was the 
slave of sin, he was altogether free as related to righteousness (ver. 19). 


LXXIV. Ver. 19. avOpumivov Aéyw did riyv dobeveray Tij¢ capKds. 


avOparivoy corresponds substantially with xara dvOpwov, and refers to the 
figures of slavery and freedom derived from ordinary human life, which are 
used to describe the relations to sin and righteousness, dia rT. aof. T. cupnd¢ 
probably refers to the intellectual, not the moral, weakness of the readers, ang 
is to be explained in connection with the thought that we must represent 
moral and spiritual ideas in earthly figures, or with Meyer's suggestion that 
“the odpé, as the material human nature in its psychical determination, is weak 
for religious discernment.’’ The reference to moral weakness, which Weiss 
ed. Mey., Godet, and some other recent writers favor, does not seem to be well 
founded. That the suggestion of the figure of bondage comes, as Godet con- 
jectures, from the feeling sometimes arising in the Christian mind that perfect 
righteousness is an exacting and harsh master, and that it is employed, on the 
other hand, as Weiss intimates, because of the tendency to press Christian 
freedom even to libertinism, are suppositions of which no hint whatever is 
found in the context. The Apostle is only presenting the idea of bondage as 
showing that the man who comes under the new master cannot remain in the 
service of the old one. These writers connect the words with what precedes. 
The view of those writers, who make them refer to moral weakness, but connect 
them with the following sentence, is sufficiently answered in Meyer’s remarks. 


LXXV. Ver. 21. riva otv xdprov x.T.A. 


The turn of thought is at ver. 21, ver. 20 being connected (see note LXXIII.) 
with ver. 19. This connection is not disproved by what Meyer suggests. The 
ovv of ver. 21 shows, indeed, that the Apostle is led to present the question of 
that verse by his thought of their former condition, which is refcrred to in the 
words of ver. 20, as, also, it is in vv. 17,19. But the question itself turns the 


256 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE BOMANS. 


reader’s mind to the matter of results, giving this prominence as a new point. 
If the intention of the writer had been to make vv. 20-23, through the yép of 
ver. 20, 8 ground of the exhortation of ver. 19—this ground being the issues 
on the two sides—he would more naturally have omitted the oty altogether, 
and arranged the construction in vv. 20, 21 as we find it in ver. 22. The pres- 
ence of ody (ver. 21), therefore, is rather an argument for, than against, uniting 
ver. 20 with ver. 19. The mere fact that ver. 22 is antithetical in its form of 
expression to ver. 20, does not, it may be added, prove their immediate con- 
nection, for this antithesis is found in the entire thought of the paragraph. 
Weiss ed. Mey. favors the connection of ver. 20 with ver. 19, as Meyer himself 
did in one of his earlier editions. 


LXXVI. Ver. 21. riva ody . . . éxaicyvecbe ; 


Westcott and Hort and Tregelles place the interrogation mark after éxay., 
as Meyer does. Weiss ed. Mey. (and so Godet) agrees with Tischendorf in 
placing it after rére. The considerations presented by Meyer are forcible, and 
we may regard the arrangement favored by him as the more probable one. 
The possibility of the other, however, cannot be denied. R. V. and A. V. both 
read according to Meyer’s view. 


CHAP. VII. 257 


CHAPTER VII. 


Ver. 6. aro6avdyrec] Elz. reads arofavévroc, which was introduced as a con- 
jecture by Beza, without critical evidence, solely on account of some misunder- 
stood words of Chrysostom (see Mill, Bengel, Appar., and especially Reiche, 
Commend. crit. I. p. 50 ff.). The arofavdévrec, adopted by Griesb. Matth. Lachm. 
Scholz, and Tisch., following Erasmus and Mill, is the reading inABCK L 
P %, min., and most vss. and Fathers, DEF G Vulg. It. codd. in Ruf. and 
Latin Fathers read rod Oavérov. Preferred by Reiche. But especially when 
we consider its merely one-sided attestation (the Oriental witnesses are want- 
ing), it seems to be a gloss having 4 practical bearing (see ver. 5) on rod véuov 
which has dispossessed the participle regarded as disturbing the construction. — 
Ver. 13. yéyove] Lachm. and Tisch. (8), following A B C D E P X, 47, 73, 80, 
Method. Damasc. read éyévero. Some Latin codd. have est. F G have no verb 
at al]. With the preponderance, thus all the more decisive, of the witnesses 
which favour iyévero, it is to be preferred. — Ver. 14. capxixédc¢] The adpxivog 
adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, and Tisch. is attested by ABCDEFG 
¥°, min., and several Fathers, For this reason, and because the ending xé¢ was 
easily suggested by the preceding mvevuarixdc, as in general capxixés was more 
familiar to the copyists (xv. 27; 1 Cor. ix. 11 ; 2 Cor. x. 4; 1 Pet. ii. 11) than 
edpxivoc (2 Cor. iii. 3), the latter is to be assumed as the original reading. — Ver. 
17, oixotca] Tisch. (8) reads évocnovca, which would have to be received, if it 
were attested in more quarters than by B &. — Ver. 18. ody evpicxa] ABC ®&, 47, 
67°°, 80, Copt. Arm. Procl. in Epiph. Method. Cyr. codd. Gr. ap. Aug. have 
merely of. Approved by Griesb.; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. But if there 
had been a gloss, the supplement would have been rapdéxerraz. The omission 
on the other hand is explained by the copyist's hurrying on from OYX to the 
OT at the beginning of ver, 19. — Ver. 20. 6éAu tyo] Since éyo is wanting in B OC 
DEFG, min., Arm. Vulg. It. and several Fathers, but is found in 219, Clem. 
after rovro, in Chrys. before ov; and since it is, according to the sense and the: 
analogy of vv. 15, 19, inappropriate, it has rightly been deleted by Lachm. and 
Fritzsche, and is to be regarded asa mechanical addition from what immediately 
follows. If ¢yS were original (and had been omitted in accordance with 
vv. 15, 19), it must have had the emphasis of the contrast, which however it 
has not. — Ver. 25. ebyapiord] Lachm. and Tisch. read ydpic, which Griesb. also. 
approved of, following B and several min., vss. and Fathers, Fritzsche reads 
xépic 6¢ in accordance with C**, ®**, min., Copt. Arm. and Fathers. Both 
are taken from the near, and, in the connection of ideas, analogous vi. 17 (not 
etzyap. from i. 8). The reading # yépc¢ r. Qeos (D E and some Fathers), or 
# x. t. evptov (F G), is manifestly an alteration, in order to make the answer 
follow the preceding question. 


Vv. 1-6. The Christian is not under the Mosaic law; but through his 
Jedlowship in the death of Christ he has died to the law, in order to belong to the 
Risen One and in this new union to lead a life consecrated to God. 


258 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Ver. 1.’ *H ayvocire] Paul certainly begins now the detailed illustration, 
still left over, of ov ydép éore, vi. 14 ; but he connects his transition to it with 
what immediately precedes, as is clear from the nature of 7 (comp. vi. 3). 
[See Note LX XVII. p. 289.] Nevertheless the logical reference of # ayvocire 
is not to be sought possibly in the previous 76 xupiy yuov, with which the 
following xvpcefec is here correlative (Reiche), since that xvpiw has in fact no 
essential importance at all and is for the progress of the thought immaterial ; 
but rather in the leading idea last expressed (ver. 22), and established (ver. 
23), namely, that the Christian, freed from the service of sin and become the sr- 
vant of God, has his fruit to holiness, and, as the final result, eternal life. 
This proposition could not be truth, if the Christian were not free from the 
law and did not belong to the Risen Christ instead, etc., vv. 1-6. — ase/ga'} 
address to the readers collectively (comp. i. 18), not merely to the Jewish 
Christians (Toletus, Grotius, Estius, Ch. Schmidt, and others, including 
Tholuck and Philippi), because in that case an addition must have been 
made excluding Gentile Christians, which however is so far from being con- 
tained in ydoxover, especially when it is without the article, that in the 
case of Christians generally the knowledge of the O. T. was of necessity to 
be presupposed ; see below. This applies also against Hofmann's view, 
that Paul, although avoiding a specific express designation, has in view that 
portion of his readers, which had not been capable of the misconception 
indicated in ver. 15. This limitation also—and how easily could the adroit 
author of the Epistle have indicated it in a delicate way !—cannot be de- 
duced either from adeAgoi or from yiwwonover x.7.A. — yevdox. yap vop. 2.) Jus 
tifies the appeal to the readers’ own insight : for I speak to such as know 
the law. We may not infer from these parenthetical words, or from vv. 4-4, 
that the majority of the Roman congregation was composed of Jewish-Chriz- 
tians ;* for, looking to the close connection subsisting between the Jewish 
and Gentile-Christian portions of the Church, to the custom borrowed 
from the synagogue of reading from the Old Testament in public, and to 
the necessary and essential relations which evangelical instruction and 
preaching sustained to the Old Testament so that the latter was the basis 
from which they started, the Apostle might designate his readers generally 
@3 ywvdoxovrec Tov véuov, and predicate of them an acquaintance with the law. 

‘Comp. on Gal. iv. 21. The less need is there for the assumption of a pre- 
vious proselytism (de Wette, Beyschlag, and many others), with which 
moreover the adeAgé¢ addressing the readers in common is at variance ; comp. 
1. 13, vili. 12, x. 1, xi. 238, xii. 1, xv. 14, 30, xvi. 17. —6 vduoc] not every 
law (Koppe, van Hengel) ; nor the moral law (Glickler) ; but the Mosaic, 
and that in the usual sense comprehending the whole ; not merely of the 
law of marriage (Beza, Toletus, Bengel, Carpzov, Chr. Schmidt ; comp. 


1 On the entire chapter, see Achelisin the we should not be able at all to see why 
Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 670 ff. Paul should have specially noticed it. 

20On the contrary, the inference would But as converted Gentiles the readers had be 
‘be: If the Church had been a Jewish-Chris- come acquainted with the law. This also 
tian one, the ywoocey véoxov would in its applies against Holtzmann, Judenth, x. 
case have been so entirely se//-erident, that Christenth, p. 783. 


CHAP. VII., 2. 209 


Olshausen). This is required by the theme of the discussion generally, and 
by the foregoing yiwaox. y. véu. Aa40 in particular. — rod avOpdrov] is not to 
be connected with 6 véuo¢ (Hammond, Clericus, Elsner, and Mosheim), but 
belongs, as the order of the words demands, to xupeeber. — 颒 dc0v xp. 69] For 
so long time as he liveth (éri as in Gal. iv. 1 in the sense of stretching over a 
period of time,’ the (personified) law is lord over the man who is subjected to 
it (rov avOp.). That 6 drvOpwroc is the subject to (4, is decided by vv. 2, 3, 4. 
By the assumption of 6 véuo¢ as subject (Origen, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Vat- 
ablus, Grotiusy Estius, Bengel, Koppe, and Flatt), in which case ¢% is sup- 
posed to signify viget or calet (in spite of vv. 2, 3), the discourse is quite 
disarranged ; for Paul is not discussing the abrogation of the law, but the 
fact that the Christian as such is no longer under it. Nor do vv. 2, 8 re- 
' quire 6 véyoc as subject, because the point there illustrated is, that the death 
of the man (not of the law) dissolves the binding power of the law over 
him.* The proposition in vi. 7 is similar, and presupposes this thought. 
To take ¢7 as equivalent to (iv év capxi (‘‘80 long as the man continues to 
lead his old natural life, he is a servant of the law,” Philippi, also Umbreit), 
is quite opposed to the context : see Cavre and Cévro¢ in vv. 2, 3, with their 
antitheses. The emphasis, moreover, is not on ¢f (Hofmann), but, as is 
shown by the very expression dcov, on 颒 dcov ypdvov, for the entire time, 
that he lives ; it does not lose its power over him sooner than when he dies ; 
ao long as he is in life, he remains subject to it. If this is attended to and 
there is not introduced a wholly irrelevant ‘‘ only so long as he liveth,” the 
thought appears neither trivial nor disproportionate to the appeal to the legal 
knowledge of hisreaders. For there is a peculiarity of the véuoc in the fact, 
that it cannot have, like human laws, merely temporary force, that it cannot 
be altered or suspended, nor can one for a time be exempted from its con- 
trol, etc. No, so long as man’s life endures, the dominion of the véuo¢e over 
him continues.* Nor is the proposition incorrect (because that dominion 
ceases in the case of the believer, Philippi) ; for it simply contains a general 
rule of law, which, it is self-evident, refers to the GvOpwro¢ évvopog as such, 
If the Jew becomes a Christian, he dies as a Jew (ver. 4), and the rule in 
question is not invalidated. 

Ver. 2. [See Note LX XVIII. p. 289.] Concrete illustration of the propo- 
sition in ver. 1, derived from the relation of the law to marriage and 
its dissolution, which in the woman’s case can only take place through the 
death of the husband, so that it is only after that death has occurred that 
she may marry another. This example, as the tenor of the following text 
shows (in opposition to Hofmann), is selected, nut because the legal ordi- 
nance in question was in its nature the only one that Paul could have 
employed, but because he has it in view to bring forward the union with 
Christ, which takes place after the relcasc from the law, as analogous to a 


1 See Bernhardy, p. 2%2; Comp. Nigels- Tarz. Ps. Ixxxvill. 6 in Wetstein on ver. 38. 
bach, z. Ilias, ii. 209, ed. 8, Ast, Ler. Plat. I. Comp. Th. Schott, p. 267; Hofmann 
p. 768. formerly held the right view (Schriftbew. TI. 

2 Comp. Schabb. f. 151, 2: “postquam 1, p. 888). 
mortuus est homo, liber est a pracceptis ;” 


260 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


new marriage, and does soin ver. 4. The illustration is only apparently 
(not really ; Usteri, Riickert, and even Umbreit in the Stud. u. Krit. 1851, 
p. 643) awkward, in so far namely as the deceased and the person released 
from the law through the event of death are represented in it as different. 
This appearance drove Chrysostom and his followers to adopt the hypothesis - 
of an inversion of the comparison ; thus holding that the law is properly 
the deceased party, but that Paul expressed himself as he has done out of 
consideration for the Jews (comp. Calvin and others), whereas Tholuck 
contents himself with the assumption of a (strange) pregnancy of expression 
which would include in the one side the other also ; and Umbreit regards 
‘the irregularity in the change of person” as unavoidable. But the sem- 
blance of inappropriateness vanishes on considering xai tpeic in ver. 4 (see 
on that passage), from which it is plain that Paul in his illustration, ver. 2f., 
follows the view, that the death of the husband implies (in a metaphorical 
sense by virtue of the union of the two spouses in one person, Eph. v. 28 ff.) 
the death of the woman also as respected her marriage relation, and con- 
sequently her release from the law, so far as it had bound her as a irardpor 
yvv4 to her husband, so that she may now marry another, which previously she 
could not do, because the law does not cease to be lord over the man before he is 
dead. So in substance also Achelis /.c. Consequently ver. 2 f. is not to be 
taken allegorically, but properly and concretely ; and it is only in ver. 4 that 
the allegorical application occurs. It has been allegorically explained, either 
so, that the wife signifies the soul and the husband the sin that has died with 
Christ (Augustine, comp. Olshausen) ; or, that the wife represents humanity 
(or the church) and the husband the law, to which the former had been 
spiritually married (Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, and others, including Klee, 
Reiche, and Philippi). But the former is utterly foreign to the theme of 
the text ; and the latter would anticipate the application in ver. 4.— 
travdpoc] viro subjecta, married ; also current in later Greek authors, as in 
Polyb. x. 26, 8, Athen. ix. p. 888 C ; in the N. T. only here.’— 76 (av 
avdpi] to her (7G) living husband. avr: has the emphasis, correlative to the 
Eg Scov ypdvov Ff in ver. 1. On déderac comp. 1 Cor. vil. 27. — vduq] by the 
law. For by the law of Moses the right of dismissing the husband was not 
given to the wife.* Paul however leaves unnoticed the case of the woman 
through divorce ceasing to be bound to her husband (Deut. xxiv. 2);* regard- 
ing the matter, in accordance with his scope, only in such a way as not 
merely seemed to be the rule in the majority of cases, but, also harmonized 
with the original ordinance of the Creator (Matt. xix. 8). — xargpynrat amd rt. 
véuov tr. avdp.] [See Note LXXIX. p. 289.] that is, with respect to her hith- 
erto subsisting subordination under the law binding her to her husband she is 
absolced, free and rid of it. See on Gal. v.4. The Apostle thus gives 
expression to the thought lying at the basis of his argument, that with the 
decease of the husband the wife also has ceased to exist as respects her 


1 See Wetstein and Jacobs, ad Ae. N. A. 3 Kiddusch. f. 2, 1: ‘‘ Muller possidet se 
fil. 42, ipsam per libellum repudii et per mortem 
2 Michaelis, Mos. R.§ 120; Saalschitz, p.  mariti.” 
606 f. 








CHAP. VII., 3, 4. 261 
legal connection with him ; in this legal relation, from which she is fully 
released, she is no longer existent. Comp. on azé 2 Cor. xi. 8. She is still 
there, but no longer as bound to that law, to which she died with the death 
of her husband ; comp. ver. 6. The joining of 6 véyoc with the genitive of 
the subject concerned (frequent in the LXX.) is very common also in classic 
authors. Th. Schott, following Bengel, erroneously takes r. avdp. as geni- 
tive of apposition ; the law being forthe wife embodied in the husband. 
The law that determines the relation of the wife to the husband is what is 
intended, like 6 véyoc 6 wepi tov avdpdc ; see Ktihner, IT. 1, p. 287. 

Ver. 8. *Apa otv} See on v. 18. — ypnyarice:] she shall (formally) bear the 
name. See Acts xi. 26.1 The future corresponds to the following : éay 
yévyras avdpi érépp] if she shall have become joined to another husband (as wife). 
Comp. Deut. xxiv. 2; Ruth i. 12; Judg. xiv. 20; Ez. xvi. 8, xxiii. 4. 
It is not a Hebraism.*—ard rov véuov] from the law, so far, that is, as it 
binds the wife to the husband. From that bond she is now released, ver. 
2. — tov un elvae x.t.A.] Not amore precise definition (Th. Schott) ; nor yet a 
consequence (as usually rendered), which is never correct, not even in Acts 
vii. 19 (see Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 845 ff.) ; but rather: in order that she 
be not an adulteress. That is the purpose, involved inthe divine legal ordi- 
nance, of her freedom from the law. 

Ver. 4. *Qore] does not express the ‘‘agreement” or the ‘‘ harmony” with 
which what follows connects itself with the preceding (Hofmann), as if 
Paul had written ofrus or duoiwe. It is rather the common itaqgue (Vulgate), 
accordingly, therefore, consequently, which, heading an independent sentence, 
draws an inference from the preceding, and introduces the actual relation 
which results from vv. 1-3 with respect to Christians, who through the 
death of Christ are in a position corresponding with that of the wife. This 
inference lays down that legal marriage relation as type. — xai ipeic] ye also, 
like the wife in that illustration quoted in vv. 2, 8, who through the death 
of her husband is dead to the dominion of the law. In this, in the first 
instance (for the main stress falls on ei¢ rd yevéoOar x.7.A.), lies the point of 
the inference ; analogously with the case of that wife Christians also are 
dead to the law through the death of Christ, because, in their spiritual 
union with Him, they have suffered death along with Him. Van Hengel 
takes xai iveic in the sense: ye also, like other Christians, which, however, 
since ver. 4 begins the application of what had previously been said of the 
ttoman, is neither in harmony with the text nor rendered necessary by the 
first person xaptogop. — éavar. TO véuy] ye were rendered dead to the law,’ so 


' Plut. Mor. 148 D; Polyb. v. 27, 2, 5, xxx. 
24 

3 See Kypke, II. p. 170; Kihner, II. 1, p. 
384. 

* This is expressed from the Jewish- Chris- 
Gan consciousness, nevertheless it includes 
indirectly the Genlile-Christians also; for 
without perfect obedience to the law no 
man could have attained to salvation, 
wherefore also obedience to the law was 


expected on the part of Judaists from the 
converted Gentiles (Acts xv.). As the argu- 
ment advances, the language of the Apostle 
becomes communicative, so that he includes 
himself with his readers, among whom he 
makes no distinction. Compare villi. 15; 
Gal. ili. 14, iv.6. By our passage therefore 
the readers are not indicated as having 
been, as respects the majority, Jews or at 
least proselytes. 


262 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


that over you as dead persons it rules no longer (ver. 1). The dative as in 
vi. 2, 10. The passive (not ye died) is selected, because this (ethical) death 
of Christians is fellowship with the death of Christ, which was a violent 
one. Therefore : dia rov cdyu. r. X.] by the fact, that the body of Christ was 
put todeath. The conception of the participation of believers (as respects 
their inner life and its moral self-consciousness) in the death of their Lord, 
according to which the putting to death of their Master included their own put- 
ting to death, is justly assumed by Paul, after ch. vi., as something present 
to the consciousness of his readers, and therefore views deviating from this 
(e.g. that dd r. odpu. r. X. applies to the atoning sacrificial death, which did 
away the dominion of the law) are to be rejected as herc irrelevant, and 
not in keeping with the proper sense of é6avar.. For that éavar. 7. véuy is 
meant to be a mild expression for 6 véuoc eavaraby, aréOavev iuiv (Koppe 
and Klee, following Calvin, Grotius, and others, also several Fathers ; 
comp. on ver. 2), is an assumption as gratuitous, as is a ‘‘contraction of 
the thought and expression,” which Philippi finds, when he a¢ the same time 
introduces the conception of the putting to death of the law through the 
body of Christ, which is here alien. —ei¢ rd yevéofar tac érépw} [See Note 
LXXX. p. 290.] inorder to become joined to another (than the law)—this is the 
object which the é@avar. r. véup x.7.A. had, and thereby the main point in the 
declaration introduced by ore, parallel to the rob pp eivac. x.7.A. in ver. 3. 
Paul apprehends the relation of fellowship and dependence of the Chris- 
tian’s life to Christ—as he had prepared the way for doing so in vv. 2, 3, 
and as was in keeping with his mode of view elsewhere (2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph. 
v. 25 ff.)—under the image of a marriage connection in which the exalted 
Christ is the husband of His Church that has become independent of the 
law by dying with Him. — r@ éx vexp. éyepO.] apposition to érépy, in sig- 
nificant historical reference to dia r. oéu. r. X. 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 indissoluble union. The 
importance of this addition in its bearing on the matter in hand lies in the 
xarvrnc Cope (vi. 8, 11, 13, 22) which, on the very ground of the ethical 
communion with the Risen One, issues from the new relation. Certainly 
the death of Christ appears here ‘‘as the end of a sin-conditioned state of 
the humanity to be united in Him” (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 354) ; 
but this great moral epoch has as its necessary presupposition just the vi- 
carious atoning power of the iAaorfpiov which was rendered in the death of 
Jesus ; it could not take place without this and without the faith appropn- 
ating it, li. 21 ff. ; v. 1 ff. —iva xaprod. r. Ge@] The aim not of éx vexpor 
éyepfévre (Koppe, Th. Schott, Hofmann), but rather—because the belonging 
to is that which conditions the fruit-bearing—of the yevéo@ar ipac étrépy, TP 
éx vexp. éy., conscquently the final aim of the éavar. r@ vduw. There is here 
(though van Hengel and others call it in question, contrary to the clear 
connection) a continuation of the figure of marriage with respect to its 
Jruitfulness (Luke i. 42 ; Ps. cxxvii. 3, Symm. and Theod. Ps. xci. 15). 
The morally holy walk, namely, in its consecration to God is, as it were, the 
fruit which issues from our fellowship of life with Christ risen from the 








CHAP, YVII., d, 263 


dead as from a new marriage-union, and which belongs in property to God as 
the lord-paramount of that union (the supreme ruler of the Messianic the- 
ocracy) ; the bringing forth of fruit takes place for God. The opinion of 
Reiche and Fritzsche that xaprog. taken in the sense of the fruit of marriage 
yields an undignified allegory (the figure thercfore is to be taken as bor- 
towed from a field or a tree, which Philippi, Tholuck, and Reithmayr also 
prefer) is untenable, seeing that the union with Christ, if regarded as a mar- 
riage at all, must also necessarily, in accordance with its moral design, be 
conceived of as a fruitful marriage.’ 

Ver. 5. Confirmation of the iva xapwog. tr. Gcg. That we should bring 
forth fruit to God, I say with justice ; for formerly under the law we bore 
fruit to death, but now (ver. 6) our position is quite different from what it 
was before. — dre quev év TH capxl] This is the positive and characteristic 
expression for the negative : when we were not yet made dead to the law. 
Then the cdpi—the materially human element in us, in its psychically de- 
termined antagonism to the Divine Spirit and will—was the life-element in 
which we moved. Comp. viii. 8f.; 2 Cor. x. 8. We are év r. odpuari, 1 
Cor. v. 8 (2 Cor. xii. 2), even after we have died with Christ, because that 
is an ethical death ; but for that very reason we are now, according to the 
holy self-consciousness of the new life of communion with the Risen One, no 
longer év r. capxi ; and our body, although we still as respects its material 
substance live in the flesh (Gal. ii. 20), is ethically not a capa reo capKég any 
more, Col. ii. 11. The interpretation of Theodoret : rg xara véuov roduteia 
(so also Oecumenius), though hitting the approximate meaning of the mat- 
ter, has its inaccurate arbitrariness exposed by the reason assigned for it : 
Gapxa yap Ta¢ Tt” capi dedouévac vopuobeciag wrduace, Tag meEpi Bpdoews x. TéCEWC. 
The description év rj capxi must supply the ethical conception which corre- 
sponds with the contents of the apodosis. Therefore we may not render with 
Theodore of Mopsuestia : when we were mortal (the believer being no longer 
reckoned as mortal) ; but the moral reference of the expression requires at 
least a more precise definition of the contents than that the existence of the 
Christian had ceased to be an existence locked up tn his inborn nature (Hofmann). 
— ta xa. tov duapr.| the passions through which sins are brought about, of 
which the sins are the actual consequence. On wa6jpara compare Gal. v. 24, 
and zat, i. 26. They are the passive excitations (often used by Plato in 
contrast to vojara), which one experiences (rdoye:). Comp. esp. Plat. 
Phil. p. 47 C. — ra did r. vépov] sc. bvta, which are occasioned by the law ; How 
see vv. 7, 8. It is erroneous in Chrysostom and Grotius to supply ga:véyeva. 
Comp. rather 1 Cor. xv. 56. — évypyeito] were active, middle, not passive 
(Estius, Glickler), which would be contrary to Pauline usage. See 2 Cor. i. 
6, iv. 12 ; Eph. iii. 20 ; Gal. v. 6 ; Col. i. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 13 ; 2 Thess. ii. 


7. The Greeks have not this use of the middle. — év r. yéA. fu.) in our 


3 This view is the one perfectly consistent view: «ai eredn cvvddecay x. yauor thy eis roy 
with the context, and should not be super- «vptoy spoonydpevoe miotiy, eixdérws Seixvvor 
seded by the prudery of modern canons of «ai roy rot yauou xaprév. Comp. Theo- 
taste (Fritzsche terms It jefunam et obscoe- _phylact. 
nam). Theodoret already has the right 


264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


members (as in ver. 28 and vi. 13) they were the active agent. — ei¢ 1d xapmog. 
t. Gavdty] This is the tendency (the parallel iva xaprog. r. Oe in ver. 4 is de- 
cisive here against the interpretation, everywhere erroneous, of the conse- 
quence) which the passions of sin, in their operation in our members, had 
with us : that we should bring forth fruit unto death, that is, divested of 
figure : that we should lead a life falling under the power of death. The sub- 
ject #uac is supplied, as often along with the infinitive,’ naturally and easily 
from the immediately preceding judy (comp. 1 Cor. viii. 10 ; 2 Thess. 
iii. 9; Heb. ix. 14). There is therefore the less reason to depart from 
the mode of conception prevailing in ver. 4, and to understand the rafipate 
as the fruit-bearing subjects (Hofmann ; comp. Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, 
and others), in which case there is imported the conception that the occur- 
rence is something foreign to the man himself (Hofmann). The @évatoc 
personified as the lord-paramount opposed to7@ Oe¢ in ver. 4, is not physical 
(Fritzsche) but eternal death, vi. 21, 28, which is incurred through sinful 
life. The xaprog. however retains here the figure of the fruit of marriage, 
namely, according to the context, of the marriage with the law (ver. 4), 
which is now dissolved since we have died with Christ. Comp. Erasmus, 
Paraph,: ‘‘ex infelici matrimonio infelices foetus sustulimus, quicquid nas- 
ceretur morti exitioque gignentcs.” In Matt. xii. 89 the conception is dif- 
ferent. But comp. James i. 15. 

Ver. 6. xatnpy.] See on ver. 2. —amofavéyreg év © xatery.] dead (see ver. 4) 
to that (neuter) wherein we were held fast. So also Fritzsche and Reiche in 
his Comm. crit. The construction is consistent and regular, so that rotry is 
to be understood before év @ (Winer, p. 149 f. [E. T. 158 f.]). That where- 
in we were held fast (as in a prison), is self-evident according to the text ; 
not as the gocernment of sin (van Hengel, Th. Schott), or as the odp& (Hof- 
mann), but as the law, in whose grasp we were. Comp. Gal. iii. 28. Were 
we with the majority (including Riickert, de Wette, Kéllner, Krehl, Philip- 
pi, Maier, Winer, Ewald, Bisping, and Reithmayr) to take év © as masculine 
(and how unnecessarily !), the amo@avévre¢ as modal definition of xarnpy. 
would have an isolated and forlorn position ; we should have expected it 
behind wi dé. — dote dovdctew x.t.A.] actual result, which has occurred 
through our emancipation from the law : so that we (as Christians) a@re ser- 
viceable in newness of spirit, and not in oldnessof letter ; that is, so that our 
relation of service is in a new definite character regulated by spirit, and not 
in the old constitution which was regulated by literal form. That the dov 
Acbecv in Kaevérnc mvebp. Was a service of God, was just as obvious of itself to 
the consciousness of the readers, as that in wraAacérn¢ ypdup. it had been a 
service of sin (vi. 20.) On account of this self-evident diversity of reference 
no definition at allis added. On the ot in the contrast (not 7) see Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 800 [E. T. 8349].—év indicates the sphere of activity of the dovActecy, 
and is to be understood again along with wad.; comp. ti. 29. . The qualita- 
tively expressed zvetaroc, meaning in concrete application the Holy Spirit as 
the efficient principle of the Christian life, and the qualitative ypéyuarog, 


1 Comp. Ktihner, ad Xen. Mem. Sil. 6, 10; Anad. ii. 1, 12. 


CHAP. VII., 7-13. 265 


characterizing the law according to its nature and character as non-living 
and drawn up in letters, are the specifically heterogeneous factors on which 
the two contrasted states aredependent. The zada:éry¢—in accordance with 
the nature of the relation in which the law, presenting its demands in the 
letter but not inwardly operative, stands to the principle of sin in man—was 
necessarily sinful (not merely in actual abnormality, as Rothe thinks ; see 
ver. 7 ff., and comp. on vi. 14) ; just as on the other hand the xa:véry¢, on 
account of the vitally active rvevyza, must also necessarily be moral. Where 
this is contradicted by experience and the behaviour of the Christian is im- 
moral, there the mvevyza has ceased to operate, and a xavdrye rvebyarog is in 
fact not present at all. Paul however, disregarding such abnormal phenom- 
ena, contemplates the Christian life as it is constituted in accordance with 
its new, holy, and lofty nature. If it is otherwise, it has fallen away from 
its specific nature and is a Christian life no longer. [See Note LXXXI. 
p- 290. } 

Vv. 7-13. How easily might the Jewish Christian, in his reverence for 
the law of his fathers, take offence at ver. 5 (rd did r. vduov) and 6, and draw 
the obnoxious inference, that the law must therefore be itself of immoral 
nature, since it is the means of calling forth the sin-affections, and since 
emancipation from it is the condition of the new moral life ! Paul therefore 
proposes to himself this possible inference in ver. 7, rejects it, and then on to ver. 
13 shows that the law, while in itself good, is that which leads to acquaintance 
with sin, and which is misused by the principle of sin to the destruction of men. 

Paul conducts the refutation, speaking throughout in the jirst person sin- 
gular (comp. 1 Cor. vi. 12, xiii. 11). This mode of expression, differing 
from the peracynparicpdss (see on 1 Cor. iv. 6), is an idiwore ; comp. Theodore 
of Mopsuestia on ver. 8: rd ty Epo? bre Afyet, 7d Roevdy Atyer Tav avOpGrur, 
and Theophylact on ver. 9: év r6 oixely 3 mpccdTy Ty GVOpuTivany gdbow 
Aéyec. Thus he declares concerning himself what is meant to apply to every 
man placed under the Mosaic law generally, in respect of his relation to that law 
—tefore the turning-point in his inner life brought about through his con- 
nection with that law, and after it. The apostle’s own personal experience, 
so far from being thereby excluded, everywhere gleams through with pecul- 
iarly vivid and deep truth, and represents concretely the universal experi- 
ence in the matter. The subject presenting itself through the éyd is there- 
fore man in general, in his natural state under the law, to which he is bound, as 
not yet redeemed through Christ and sanctified through the spirit (for 
which sce chap. viii.) ; without, however, having been unnaturally hardened 
by legal righteousness or rendered callous and intractable through despising 
the law, and so estranged from the moral earnestness of legal Judaism. 
Into this earlier state, in which Paul himself had been before his conversion, 
he transports himself back, and realizes it to himself with all the vividness 
and truth of an experience that had made indelible impression upon him ; 
and thus he becomes the type of the moral relation, in which the as yet un- 
regenerate Israelite stands to the divine law. ‘‘ He betakes himself once 
more down to those gloomy depths, and makes all his readers also traverse 
them with him, only in order at last to conclude with warmer gratitude that 


4 
° 


, 266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


he is now indeed redeemed from them, and thereby to show what that 
better and eternal law of God is which endures even for the redeemed,” 
Ewald. Augustine (prop. 45 in ep. ad Rom. ; ad Simplic. i. 91; Conf. vii. 
21), in his earlier days, acknowledged, in harmony with the Greek Fathers 
since Irenaeus, that the language here is that of the unregenerate man ; 
though later, in opposition to Pelagianism (especially on account of vv. 17, 
18, 22 ; see Retract. i. 23, 26, ii. 8 ; ¢. duas ep. Pel. i. 10 ; c. Faust. xv. 8), 
he gave currency to the view that the ‘‘ J” is that of the regenerate. In this 
he was followed by Jerome, who likewise held a different opinion previ- 
ously ; and later by Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza (not by Bucer and 
Musculus), Chemnitz, Gerhard, Quenstedt and many others, more, however, 
among Protestant than among Catholic commentators (Erasmus says of 
him : ‘‘ dure multa torquens ;” and see especially Toletus). On the other 
hand, the Socinians and Arminians, as also the school of Spener, returned 
to the view of the Greek Fathers, which gradually became, and has down 
to the present day continued, the dominant one. See the historical clucida- 
tions in Tholuck and Reiche ; also Knapp, Ser. var. arg. p. 400 ff. The 
theory that Paul is speaking simply of himself and exhibiting his own experi- 
ences (comp. Hofmann), must be set aside for the simple reason, that in that 
case the entire disquisition, as a mere individual psychological history (7-18) 
and delineation (ver. 14 ff.), could have no gencral probative force what- 
ever, which nevertheless, from the connection with what goes before and 
follows (viii. 1), itis intended to have, Others, like Grotius, who correctly 
referred it to the state anterior to regeneration, and among them recently 
Reiche in particular, represent Paul as speaking in the person of the Jewish 
people as a people.’ But, so far as concerns vv. 7-13, it is utterly untrue that 
the Jewish nation previous to the law led a life of innocence unacquainted 
with sin and evil desire ; and as concerns ver. 14 ff., the explanation of the 
double character of the ‘‘I,” if we are to carry out the idea of referring it 
to the nation, entangles us in difficulties which can only force us to strange 
caprices of exegesis, such as are most glaringly apparent in Reiche. 
Fritzsche also has not consistently avoided the reference of the ‘‘I” to the 
people as such, and the impossibilities that necessarily accompany it, and, in 
opposition to the Augustinian interpretation, has excluded, on quite insuf- 
ficient grounds, the apostle himself and his own experience. Paul, who had 
himself been a Jew under the law, could not describe at all otherwise than 
from personal recollection that unhappy state, which indeed, with the lively 
and strong susceptibility of his entire nature and temperament, he must 
have experienced very deeply, inorder to be able to depict it as he has done. 
Testimonies regarding himself, such as Phil. iii. 6, cannot be urged in oppo- 
sition to this, since they do not unveil the inward struggle of impulses, etc. 
Similarly with Paul, Luther also sighed most deeply just when under the 
distress of his legal condition, before the light of the gospel dawned upon 
him, and he afterward lamented that distress most vividly and truly. 


1 Jerome on Dan. had already remarked: enumerat persona sua, quod et apostolum 
**Peccata populi, quia unus e populo est, in ep. ad Rom. fecisse legimus.” 


Vere 


CHAP. VII, 7-13. 267 


Philippi has rightly apprehended the “I” coming in at ver. 7 as that of the 
Unregenerate man ; but on the other hand, following the older expositors, 

has discovered from ver. 14 onward the delineation of the regenerate state 

of the same ‘I, —a view inconsistent in itself, opposed to the context 
(Since Paul does not pass on to the regenerate till viii. 1), and, when ap- 
Plied to the details, impossible (see the subsequent exposition). Hammond 
Very truly observes : ‘‘ Nihil potest esse magis contrarium affectioni animi 
hominis regenerati, quam quae hic in prima persona Ego exprimuntur.” 
Stil] Umbreit, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1851, p. 638 ff., has substantially reverted, 

‘8 regards the entire chapter, to the Augustinian view, for which he espe- 
Cally regards ver. 25 (abrdc éyd) as decisive ; and no less have Delitzsch (sec 
“pecially his Psychol.-p. 887 ff.) ; Weber, ». Zorne Gottes, p. 86 ; Thoma- 
Sus, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 275 f. ; Jatho ; Krummacher in the Stud. w. 
Er wl. 1862, p. 119 ff. ; and also Luthardt, v. freien Willen, p. 404 f., adopted 
View with reference to ver. 14 ff. Hofmann, who in his Schriftbew. 

I P- 556 to all appearance, though he is somewhat obscure and at variance 
with himself (see Philippi, p. 285 f., and G@laubenslehre, III. p. 243), had 
returned to the pre-Augustinian interpretation, in his N. T., hampers a more 
clear and candid understanding of the passage by the fact that, while he 
decidedly rejects the theory that the ‘‘I” of ver. 7 is that of the unregen- 
emete man, he at the same time justly says that what is related of that “I” 
(which is that of the apostle) belongs to the time which lay away beyond his 
fate as a Christian ; and further, by the fact, that he represents vv. 14-24 
*®poken from the same present time as ver. 25, but at the same time leaves 
= €nigma unsolved how the wretched condition described may comport 
hi that present ; and in general, as to the point in question about which 
Pin a differ, he does not give any round and definite answer. For if 
the ae to be supposed, according to Hofmann, in ver. 14 ff., not to treat of 
moray 27a man, and nevertheless to depict himself in the quality of his 
hone State apart from his life in Christ, we cannot get rid of the contradic- 
the aot the ‘‘] ” is the regenerate man apart from his regeneration, and of 
view. Scuring and muffling up of the meaning thereby occasioned. The 
der Ne hich takes it of the unregenerate is followed by Julius Miller, Nean- 
’ *“Atzsch, Hahn, Baur, Tholuck, Krehl, Reithmayr, van Hengel, Ewald, 
hott, Ernesti, Lipsius, Mangold, Messner (Lehre der Ap. p. 220), and 
Chr Others, including Schmid, 670/. Theol. Il. p. 262 ; Gess, vo. d. Pers. 
p& os: 838 ; Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 97 ; Kahnis, Dogm. I. 
Cis 3 the anonymous writer in the Erlangen Zeitschr. 1863, p. 377 ff. ; 
126 S, bibl. Theol. § 95; Mircker, p. 28; Grau, Hntwickelungsgesch. II. p. 
stat, The just remark, that the apostle depicts the future present of the 
pr © (Th. Schott) does not affect this view, since the future state realized as 
“Sent was just that of the unregenerate Israelite at the preliminary stage of 


1 : Comp. Calovius on ver. 14: “‘ Postquam jam ait et fustificatus."" See also Calvin on 
“Rem divinam vindicavit vel pravae con- ver. 14: ‘‘Exemplum proponit hominis re- 
“Ulscentiae omnem culpam transscriben- generat, in quo sic carnis reliquiae cum 
docuit, ejJus vim sese etiamnum expe- _lege Domini dissident, ut spiritus el libenter 

Tit ingemiscit apostolus, eflamsi renatus | obtemperet.” 


268 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


moral development conditioned by the law. Compare Ritschl, altkath. 


Kirche, p. 70 f. ; Achelis,’ lc. p. 678 ff. ; Holsten, 2. Ho. d. Paul u. Petr. 
p. 406. 


Ver. 7. [See Note LXXXII. p. 290.] ‘0 véuoc duapria;] Is the law sin? a 
something, whose cthical nature is immoral? Comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 
46 ; Winzer, Progr. 1832, p. 5 ; also Fritzsche, Riickert, de Wette, Tholuck, 
and Philippi. For the contrast see ver. 12, from which it at once appears 
that the formerly current interpretation, still held by Reiche and Flatt, 
‘‘originator of sin’’ (dcdxovog duapriac, Gal. ii. 17), is, from the connection, 
erroneous ; as indeed it would have to be arbitrarily imported into the word, 
for the appeal to Mic. i. 5 overlooks the poetical mode of expression in that 
passage. The substantive predicate (comp. viii. 10; 2 Cor. v. 21, al.) is 
more significant than an adjectival expression (dvaprwAdc), and in keeping 
with the meaning of the remonstrant, whom Paul personates. The question 
is not to be supposed preposterous, setting forth a proposition without real 
meaning (Hofmann), since it is by no means absurd in itself and, as an ob- 
jection, has sufficient apparent ground in what precedes.—After aad we 
are no more to understand épotuev again (Hofmann) than before 6 ré6u. dyapr., 
for which there is no ground (it is otherwise at ix. 80). On the contrary, 
this 4414, but, brings in the real relation to sin, as it occurs in contrast to that 
inference which has just been rejected with horror: dyapria pév ovx tori, 
gnol, yrupiotixdc dé duapriac, Theophylact. — ry du. ob« éyver, ei upd. vdpor] 
[See, with reference to the development of thought in vv. 7-13, Note 
LXXXIII. p. 291.] Sin Ihave not become acquainted with, except through the 
law. The dyapria is sin asan active principle in man (see vv. 8, 9, 11, 13, 
14), with which I have become experimentally acquainted only through the law 
(comp. the subsequent ov« gdecv), 80 that without the intervention of the law 
it would have remained for me an unknown power ; because, in that case 
(see the following, and ver. 8), it would not have become active in me through 
the excitement of desires after what is forbidden in contrast to the law. The 
THv au. ovx. éyv., therefore, is not here to be confounded with the érij wore 
du. in iii. 20, which in fact is only attained through comparison of the moral 
condition with the requirements of the law (in opposition to Krehl) ; nor 
yet is it to be understood of the theoretic knowledge of the essence of sin, 
namely, that the latter is opposition to the will of God (Tholuck, Philippi ; 
comp. van Hengel and the older expositors), against which view ver. 8 (ywpi¢ 
véuov duapt. vexpd) and ver. 9 are decisive. The view of Fritzsche is, how- 
ever, likewise erroneous (see the following, especially ver. 8) : I should not 
have sinned, ‘‘cognoscit autem peccatum, qui peccat.”— ove évwv is to be 
rendered simply, with the Vulgate : non cognovi. The sense : I should not 


1 Who transfers the personal experience ing off, and that so accurately, a definite 
of the apostle, so far as it is expressed in period in Paul’s life. We may add that 
ver. 14 ff., fo the last stage of his Pharisaism, Achelis has aptly and clearly set aside the 
consequently to a period shortly before his interpretation of the regenerate in the case 
conversion. But we have not sufficient of the several features of the picture 
data in the text and inthe history formark- sketched by Paul. 


CHAP. VII., 8. 269 


have known, would anticipate the following clause, which assigns the reason. 
The vduog is nothing else than the Mosaic law, not the moral law generally 
in all forms of its revelation (Olshausen) ; for Paul is in fact declaring his 
own experimental consciousness, and by means of this, as it developed 
itself under Judaism, presenting to view the moral position (in its general 
human aspect) of those who are subject to the law of Moses. — ri re yap 
éxO. x.t.A.] for the desire (after the forbidden) would in fact be unknown to 
me,' if the law did not say, Thou shalt not covet. The reason is here assigned 
for the foregoing : ‘‘ with the dawning consciousness of desire conflicting 
with the precept of the law, I became aware also of the principle of sin 
within me, since the latter (see vv. 8, 9) made me experimentally aware of 
its presence and life by the excitement of desire in presence of the law.” 
What the law forbids us to covet (Ex. xx. 17 ; Deut. v. 21), was no con- 
cern of the apostle here, looking to the universality of his representation ; 
he could only employ the prohibition of sinful desire generally and in itself, 
without particular reference to its object. —Onré.. . yap, for. . . indeed, 
comp. i. 26 ; it is not to be taken climactically (van Hengel), as if Paul had 
written xai yap rhv éx0. OF ovd2 yap Trav éerO. 9d. To the re, however, corre- 
sponds the following dé in ver. 8, which causes the chief stress of the sen- 
tence assigning the reason to fall upon ver. 8 (Stallb. ad Plat. Polit. p. 
270 D) ; therefore ver. 8 is still included as dependent on yap. Respecting 
the imperative future of the old language of legislation, see on Matt. i. 21. 
Ver, 8. Aé] placing over against the negative declaration of ver. 7 the 
description of the positive process, by which the consciousness of desire of 
ver. 7 emerged : but indeed sin took occasion, etc. In this dgopyufy placed 
first emphatically, not in 3 duapria (Th. Schott), lies the point of the rela- 
tion. — 4 duapria] as in ver, 7, not conceived as xaxodaizwy (Fritzsche) ; nor 
yet the sinful activity, as Reiche thinks ; for that is the result of the éruyia 
(Jas. i. 5), and the sin that first takes occasion from the law cannot be an 
action.—For examples of agopuiy AauB., to take occasion, see Wetstein and 
Kypke. The principle of sin took occasion, not, as Reiche thinks, received 
occasion ; for it is conceived as something revived (ver. 9), which works. — 
6:d tig evroAjc] through the command, namely, the ovx éxuz. of ver. 7. This 
interpretation is plainly necessary from the following xare:pydoaro x.1.A. 
Reiche, following De Dicu and several others, erroneously (comp. Eph. ii. 
15) takes évroA# as equivalent to véuoc. We must connect did r. évr. with xa- 
teppy. (Rickert, Winzer, Benecke, de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Umbreit, 
van Hengel, and Hofmann), not with dgopu. AaB. (Luther and many others 
including Reiche, Kéllner, Olshausen, Philippi, Maier, and Ewald), be- 
Cause ddopy. Aauavecv is never construed with dd (frequently with éx, asin 
Polyb. iii. 82. 7, iii. 7. 5), and because ver. 11 (d¢ airgc¢ afar.) and ver. 18 
confirm the connection with xarecpy. — xateipy. év éuol macay éxiO.] it brought 
about in me all manner of desire. Respecting xarepyéf., see oni. 27. Even 
without the law there is desire in man, but not yet in the ethical definite 


1 ova Bar, [should not know, more definite II. 1, p. 175 f. Comp. also Stallb. ad Plat, 
and confident than ov« ay j8eay. See Kihbner, Symp. p. 190 C. 


e 


270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

character of desire after the forbidden, as ir:6vpia is conceived of according 
to ver. 7; for as yet there is no prohibition, and consequently no moral 
antithesis existing to the desire in itself (‘‘ ignoti nulla cupido,” Ovid, A. A. 
397), through which antithesis the inner conflict is’first introduced. Erery 
desire is, in accordance with the quite general ovx érduujoerc, to be left with- 
out limitation. No desire (as respects category) was excluded. A reference 
to the desires, which the state of civilization joined with a positive legisla- 
tion calls forth (de Wette), is foreign to the connection. Comp. Prov. ix. 
17. — yupic yap véduou duaptia vexpa] se. éott, NOt Av (Beza, Reiche, Krum- 
macher), just because the omission of the verb betokens a general proposi- 
tion : for without the law, z.e. if it do not enter into relation with the law,' 
sin, the sinful principle in man, is dead. i.e. not active, because that is want- 
ing, by which it may take occasion to be alive. The potentiality of the 
nitimur in vetitum is indeed there, but, lacking the veto of the vdyog (rod 70 
mpaxttov trodecxvivtog nal TO ov mpaxtéoy amayopebovroc, Theodoret), can ex- 
hibit no actual vital activity ; it does not stir, because the antithesis is 
wanting. Hence the law becomes the divayic ri¢ duapriac, 1 Cor. xv. 56, 
though it is not itself rot rapavopeiv rapaircog (Chrysippus in Plut. de Stoic Rep. 
33). Erroneous is the view held by Chrysostom, Calvin, Estius, Olshausen, 
and others, that vexpd implies the absence of knowledge of sin (ov obrw yropr 
poc). The véyo¢ is here, as throughout in this connection, the Mosaic law, 
which contains the évroA7 (vv. 7, 9, 12). That this may be and is misused 
by the principle of sin, in the way indicated, arises from the fact, that it 
comes forward merely with the outward command (thou shalt, thou shalt not), 
without giving the power of fulfilment ; comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungel. 
p. 63 ff. And the analogous application, which the general proposition ad- 
mits of to the moral law of nature also, is indeed self-evident, but lies here 
aloof from the apostle’s sphere of thought. 

Ver. 9. But I was once alive without the law. éyo dé, the antithesis of 
duaptia ; &uv,* antithesis of vexpd ; véuov, just as in ver. 8. — eur] The sense 
is, on account of the foregoing (vexpd) and the following (daré@avov, ver. 10) 
contrast, necessarily (in opposition to Reiche and van Hengel) to be taken 
as pregnant; but not with the arbitrary alteration, videdar mthi virere 
(Augustine, Erasmus, Pareus, Estius), or securus eram (Luther, Melanchthon, 
Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Bengel, and others, including Krumma- 
cher), thus representing Paul as glancing at his Pharisaic state, in which 
the law had not yet alarmed him,—a view which is at variance with the 
words themselves and with the antitheses, and which is certainly quite in- 
admissible historically in the case of a character like Paul (Gal. i. 14, iii. 
23 ; Phil. iit. 6), who could testify so truly and vividly of the power of 








1 According to Krummacher, indeed, the 
simple xwpis véuov is held to mean: without 
knowing and laying to heart the significance 
of the law, which extends to the most se- 
cret motions, and condemns them. The 
dawning of this significance on the con- 
sciousness is then held to be eAdvovens ris 


évroAjs. In this way people read between 
the lines whatever they conceive to be 
necessary. 

2On the forms ¢f{wv and é¢nv, which are 
both classical, see Ellendt, Lez. Soph. I. p. 
738; Kiihner, I. p. 829. 





CHAP. VII., 9. 251 
sin and of the curse of the law. No, Paul means the death-free (ver. 10) 
life of childlike innocence (comp. Winzer, p. 11; de Wette and Ewald in 
le. ; Umbreit in the Stud. u. Krit. 1851, p. 637 f. ; Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, 
I. p. 101 ; Weiss, didi. Theol. p. 287 ; also Delitzsch), where—as this state of 
life, resembling the condition of our first parents in Paradise, was the 
bright spot of his own earliest recollection ’—the law has not yet come to 
conscious knowledge, the moral self-determination in respect to it has not 
yet taken place, and therefore the sin-principle is still lying in the slumber 
of death. Rightly explained already by Origen : rag yap avOpwroc 86 ywpic 
vopov tor’, ote radiov #v, and by Augustine, c. duas ep. Pelag. i. 9. This is 
certainly a status securitatis, but one morally indifferent, not immoral, and 
not extending beyond the childhood unconscious of the évroaz. Hence, in 
the apostle’s case, it is ncither to be extended till the time of his conversion 
(Luther, Melanchthon, etc.), nor even only till the time of his having per- 
ceived that the law demands not merely the outward act, but also the in- 
ward inclination (Philippi and Tholuck)—which is neither in harmony with 
the unlimited ywpi¢ véuov (Paul must at least have written yupi¢ rH¢ évToAge), 
nor psychologically correct, since sin is not dead up to this stage of the 
moral development. From this very circumstance, it is clear also that the 
explanation of those is erroneous, who, making Paul speak in the name of 
his nation, are compelled to think of the purer and more blameless life of 
the patriarchs and Israelites before the giving of the law (so Grotius, Turretin, 
Locke, Wetstein, following several Fathers, and recently Reiche ; comp. 
Fritzsche).—The pregnant import of the 2{wv lies in the fact that, while the 
sin-principle is dead, man has not yet incurred eternal death (physical death 
has been incurred by every one through Adam's sin, v. 12); this being 
alive is therefore an analogue—though still unconscious and weak, yet 
pleasingly presenting itself in the subsequent retrospect—of the true and 
eternal Cu (comp. Matt. xvill. 3) which Christ (comp. ver. 24 f.) has pro- 
cured through His atoning work. The theory of a pre-mundane life of the 
pre-existent soul (Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1871, p. 190 f.) is a Platonism 
forced on the apostle (comp. Wisd. viii. 20, and Grimm in luc.) in oppo- 
sition to the entire N. T. — éAotone 62 rho évrod.] but when the command, 
namely, the ov« émibupgoec of the Mosaic law, had come, i.¢. had become pres- 
ent to my consciousness. To the person living still in childlike innocence 
the évroAg was absent ; for him it was not yet issued ; it had not yet presented 
itself. Comp. on Gal. ill. 23. Reiche, consistently with his view of the 


Comp. Mimnerm. ff. 3: wjxusor emi 
xpovev dvdeacy nBns Teprdpeda pds Sewr cibdres 
ovre xaxov Ovr ayaddéy. This recollection 
every one may have in looking back on the 
history of his own moral life; and even the 
realization of the moment, at which the 
life of childlike innocence took its end, is 
by no means inconceivable (as Hofmann 
objects). A dogmatic judgment cannot 2 
priori be pronounced respecting such psy- 
chological experiences in the inner Ilife. 
Hofmann himself declares that a living and 


dying of the personal Ego is meant: ‘so 
long as this Ego was not confronted by the 
command, it continued in the life given to it 
by God its Creator, which really deserved, as 
such, to be called a life.’ But how the look- 
ing back, which our passage expresses, to 
thie former life differs essentially and 
materially from the recollection of that of 
childlike innocence, 1s not clear to me. That 
égwy is, at any rate, the lost paradise Of the 
individual taner history. 


272 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. © 


entire section, explains it, as does also Fritzsche, of the historical Mosaic 
legislation. — aré{noev] is by most modern commentators rendered came to 
life. So Tholuck, Riickert, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
Maier, and Hofmann. But quite contrary to the usus loguendi (Luke xv. 
24, 32; Rom. xiv: 9; Rev. xx. 5), in accordance with which it means: 
came again to life. See also Nonnus, Joh. v. 25 : aizig avatijoworv, where (in 
opposition to the view of Fritzsche) aizic is added according to a well- 
known pleonasm ; comp. éravalece, reviciscet, Dial. Herm. de astrol. i. 10, 
42; respecting the case of avaBiéru, usually cited as analogous, see on 
John ix. 11.' So, too, advafudw in Aquila and Symmachus means reciviscere 
facio. Sce Schlieusner, Thes. I. p. 219. And also the frequent classical 
avafia and avafidoxoua: always mean to come to life again ; Plat. Rep. p. 
614 B; Polit. p. 272; Lucian, Q. Aist. 40: aveBiovy azobavdv, Gall. 18. 
Comp. avafiworc, 2 Macc. vii. 9. It is therefore linguistically correct to ex- 
plain it, with the ancients, Bengel, and Philippi : sin lized again (recirit, 
Vulgate) ; but this is not to be interpreted, with Bengel, following Augus- 
tine and others : ‘‘sicut vixerat, cum per Adamum intrasset in mundum” 
(comp. Philippi), because that is forcign to the context, inasmuch as Paul 
sets forth his expericnce as the expression of the expericnce of every 
individual in his relation to the law, not speaking of humanity as a whole. 
The avéfyoev, which is not to be misinterpreted as pointing toa pre-~mun- 
dane sin (Ililgenfeld), finds its true explanation, analogously to the 
avaBdérw in John ix. 11, in the view that the duapria, that potentiality of sin 
in man, is originally and in its nature a living power, but is, before the 
évroA# comes, without expression for its life, vexpé ; thereupon it resumes 
its proper living nature, and thus becomes alive again. Comp. van Hengel : 
‘‘e sopore vigorem recuperavit.” 

Ver. 10. ’Axé@avov] correlative of avéfncev, antithesis of wv. It is neither 
to be understood, however, of physical nor of spiritual death (Semler, BOhme, 
Riickert ; comp. Hofmann and others), but, as the contrast ci¢ (a7 requires, 
of eternal death. This was given with the actual sin brought about through 
the sin-principle that had become alive ; the sinner had incurred it. Paul, 
full of the painful recollection, expresses this by the abrupt, deeply tragic 
aréOavov. — 1 ei¢ Cwfv] sc. otea, aiming at life. For the promise of life (in 
the Messianic theocratic sense, Lev. xviii. 5 ; Deut. v. 33; Gal. iii. 12), 
which was attached to the obedience of the Mosaic law generally, applied 
also to the évro247. — etp£6n] was found, proved and showed itself in the ac- 
tual experimental result ; comp. Gal. ii. 17 ; 1 Pet.i.7. Chrysostom has well 
said : ovx elre* yéyove Odvatoc, ovdé Erexe Odvatov, adr’ eb ptOn, Td Katvov Kai 
napddofov tHe atoiag ovTu¢ Epunvetwr, kal Td av cic Tov Exeivov (Of men) repe- 
tpéruv xega2tv. —aity] haec. To be written thus, and not air#, ipsa (Bengel 
and Hofmann), after the analogy of ver. 15 f.,19f. It has tragic emphasis. 
Comp. on Phil. i. 22. 

1 Generally, the citation of other verbs in which avagq_y means merely to come to 
compounded with avd, in which the latter _life, especially as the analogy of the clas- 
means not again, but wp, aloft (and thatis, sical avafrod»y is against it. This remark 


in fact, the case with very many), has no applies also against Hofmann's citations. 
probative force. Passages should be quoted 


CHAP. VII., 11-13. 273 


Ver. 11. Tlustration of this surprising result, in which 7 duapria, as the 
guilty element, is placed foremost, and its guilt is also made manifest by 
the did rH¢ évrod. placed before éEnrdr. Sin has by means of the commandment 
(which had for its direct aim my life) deceived me, inasmuch as it used it 
for the provocation of desire. An allusion to the serpent in Paradise is 
probable, both from the nature of the case, and also from the expression 
(LXX. Gen. ili. 13). Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2. But such an allusion would be 
Inappropriate, if it were ‘‘ the struggle of the more earnest Pharisaism” (Phi- 
lippi), and not the loss of childlike innocence, that is here described. As 
to the conception of the éyréryoe (sin held out to me something pernicious 
as being desirable), comp. Eph. iv, 22, Heb. iii. 18.— aréxrecvev] like awé@avov 
in ver. 10. 

Ver. 12. *Qore] The result of vv. 7-11.— 6 pév vépoc] The contrast for 
which pév prepares the way was intended to be: ‘‘ but sin has to me re- 
dounded unto death through the law, which in itself is good.” This fol- 
lows in ver. 13 as regards substance, but not as regards form. See on ver. 13. 
— The predicates—ayiog (holy, as God’s revelation of Himsclf, ver. 14 ; 2 
Macc. vi. 23, 28), which is assigned to the Mosaic law gencrally, and dyia, 
duaia (just, in respect to its requirements, which are only such as accord 
with the holiness), and aya67 (excellent, on account of its salutary object), 
which are justly (comp. Acts vii. 38) attributed to the évroA#—exhaust the 
contents of the opposite of duapria in ver. 7. They are accumulated on} 
évroAg, because the latter had just been specially described in ver. 7 ff. as 
that which occasioned the activity of the sin-principle. 

Ver. 13. Paul has hardly begun, in ver. 12, his exposition of the result 
of vv. 7-11, when his train of thought is again crossed by an inference 
that might possibly be drawn from what had just been said, and used 
against him (comp. ver. 7). He puts this inference as a question, and now 
gives in the form of a refutation of it what he had intended to give, accord- 
ing tothe plan begun in ver. 12, not in polemical form, but in a sentence 
with dé that should correspond to the sentence with pév. — 4224 7) duapria] 
ac. Euoi tylveto Oavaroc. Altogether involved is the construction adopted by 
Luther, Heumann, Carpzov, Ch. Schmidt, Béhme, and Flatt: aaaa 4 
Guaptia da tov ayabov pot xatepyaloulyy (7v) Odvarov, iva gavy duaptia. — iva 
gary x.t.4.] in order that it might appear as sin thereby, that it wrought death 
Jor me by means of the good. iva introduces the aim, which was ordained by 
God forthe 9 dy. éuot tyévero Bdvatoc. This purposed manifestation (¢av@ has 
the emphasis) of the principle of sin in its sinful character served as a nec- 
essary preparation for redemption,—a view, which represents the psycho- 
logical history of salvation as a development of the divine poipa. — duapria 
is certainly shown to be the predicate by its want of the article and the par- 
allel duaprudade in the second clause. The predicate attributed to the law in 
ver. 7 is appropriated to that power to which it belongs, namcly, sin. 
Ewald : that it might be manifest, how sin, etc. But dyuapria, because it 
would thus be the sin-principle, must have had the article, and the ‘‘ how” 
is gratuitously imported. — iva yévyra: x.r.A.] Climactic parallel (comp. on 2 
Cor. ix. 3; Gal. iii. 14) to iva gavg x.7.4., in which yévyra: is to be taken of 


274 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

the actual result ; sec on iii. 4. The repetition of the subject of jévyra: (4 
duapria), and of the means employed by it (dia rie évroAge), may indeed be 
superfluous, because both are self-evident from what goes before ; but it 
conveys, especially when placed at the close, all the weightier emphasis of 
a solemnly painful, tragic effect. The less, therefore, is } duapria did Tr. évro2. 
to be separated from yévyra:, and regarded as the resumption and comple- 
tion of 7 duapria (8c. iuoi éy. Odvaroc) ; in which view there is assigned to the 
two clauses of purpose a co-ordinate intervening position (Hofmann), that 
renders the discourse—running on so simply and emphatically—quite unnec- 
essarily involved. xaf? tvep3., in over-measure, beyond measure. Comp. 1 
Cor. xii. 138 ; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17; Gal. i. 18; and see Wetstein. — dia ris 
évrod.] by means of the commandment, which ayabsy it applied so perniciously; 
a pregnant contrast. — Observe the pithy, climactic, sharply and vividly 
compressed delineation of the gloomy picture. 

Vv. 14-25. Proof not merely of the foregoing telic sentence (Th. Schott), 
but of the weighty main thought ju yévorro: aAAa } duapria. ‘For the law 
is spiritual, but man (in his natural situation under the law, out of Christ) is 
of flesh and placed under the power of sin ; against the moral will of his 
better self, he is carricd away to evil by the power of the sinful principle 
dwelling in him.” [See Note LXXXIV. p. 292.] 

Ver. 14. Oidapyerv] ‘Qoavei tAeyev Guodoynplvov rovro x. d7A6v éott, Chrysostom. 
Comp. ii. 2, iil. 19. Itis not to be written olda uév (Jerome, Estius, Semler, 
Koppe, Flatt, Reiche, Hofmann, Th. Schott), since the following 62 wou!d 
only correspond logically with the ué, if Paul, with a view to contrast the 
character of the Jaw with his own character (so Hofmann), had said : oida 
yap, ote 6 pév vdéuog x.t.A.; OF, In case he had desired to contrast his character 
with his knowledge (so Schott) : oida pév yap x.7.A., odpxivog di cis, OF cipi dé 
.cdpkivoc, omitting the éyé, which is the antithesis of the véyuo¢. — rveruarixés 
‘obtains its definition through the contrasted cdpxivoe. Now cépé is the ma- 
terial phenomenal nature of man opposed to the divine veya, animated 
and determined by the yuy# (comp. on iv. 1, vi. 19), and consequently 
adpxivog (of flesh) affirms of the é7, that it is of such a non-pneumatic nature 
and quality.’ So mrvevyarixéde must affirm regarding the law, that its essence 
(not the furm in which it is given, according to which it appears as ypayua) 
as divine = spiritual: its essential and characteristic quality is homogeneous 
with that of the Holy Spirit, who has made Himself known in the law. 
For believers no proof of this was needed (oidauev), because the véyorc, a3 
véuoc Ocov, must be a holy self-revelation of the Divine Spirit ; comp. ver. 12 ; 
Acts vii. 38. In consequence of this pneumatic nature the law is certainly 
SiddoKaros aperag nat xaxiag moA£ueog (Chrysostom), and its tenor, rooting in 


will and the law ineffectual (ver. 14 ff., viil. 
3), and—in the case of the regenerate—to 
react against the Holy Spirit. Thus the 


1 Not merely direction of life (Ernesti, 
Urspr. a. Stinde, I. p. 77 ff.). Least of all is 
this rendering sufficient here, looking to the 














strength of the expression capxivos. Not, 
however, as though the cdpé in itself were 
evil, something originally evil; but it is the 
seat of the sin-principle, by which it is used 
as its organ to make through it the moral 


capt itself is opposed to God, and has evil 
lusts and works, not in virtue of the 
necessity of its nature, but as the seat and 
tool of the sin-principle. 





CHAP. VII., 14. Rid 
the Divine Spirit, is only fulfilled by those who have the zveiya (Tholuck, 
with Calovius, joining together different references), as indeed the neces- 
sary presupposition is that it Oeiw éypddy rveipare (Theodorct), and the con- 
sequence necessarily bound up with its spiritual nature is that there subsists 
no affinity between the law and death (Hofmann) ; but all this is not con- 
veyed by the word itself, any more than is the impossibility of fulfilling the 
law’s demands, based on its pneumatic nature (Calvin : ‘‘ Lex coelestera 
quandam et angelicam justitiam requirit”). Following Oecumenius 2, and 
Beza, others (including Reiche, Kéllner, and de Wette) have taken rretya 
of the higher spiritual nature of man (i. 9 ; Matt. xxvi. 41), and hence have, 
according to this reference, explained zvevparixéds very variously. £.g. 
Reiche : ‘‘in so far as it does not hinder, but promotes, the development 
and expression of the zvevua 3” de Wette : ‘‘of spiritual tenor and charac- 
ter, in virtue of which it puts forward demands which can only be under- 
stood and fulfilled by the spiritual nature of man.” So too, substantially, 
Rickert. But vv. 22, 25 show that wvevyarixéc characterizes the law as vdépzoc 
Ocov ; conscquently the zveiya is just the divine, which the natural man, who 
knows and has nothing of the Spirit of God, resists in virtue of the hete- 
rogeneous tendency of his odpf. — iy dé] but J, 7.e. according to the idiwarc 
pervading the entire section : the man, not yet regenerate by the Holy Spirit, 
in his relation to the Mosaic law given to him,—the still unredeemed é)4, who, 
in the deep distress that oppresses him in the presence of the law, ver. 24, 
sighs after redemption. For the subject is in vv. 14-25 necessarily the 
same—and that, indeed, in its unredeemed condition '—as previously gave 
its psychological history prior to and under the law (hence the preterites in 
vv. 7-13), and now depicts its position confronting (dé) the pneumatic nature 
of the law (hence the presents in ver. 14 ff.), in order to convey the informa- 
tion (yap), that not the law, but the principle of sin mighty in man himself, 
has prepared death for him. It is true the situation, which the apostle thus 
exhibits in his own representative Ego, was for himself as an individual one 
long since past ; but he realizes it as present and places it before the eyes 
like a picture, in which the standpoint of the happier present in which he 
now finds himself rendcrs possible the perspective that lends to every feat- 
ure of his portrait the light of clearness and truth. — cépxivoc made of flesh, 
consisting of flesh, 2 Cor. lil, 3; 1 Cor. iii. 1.2. The signification fleshy, 
corpulentus, Polyb. xxxix. 2. 7, is here out of place. It is not equivalent to 
the qualitative capxixéc, fleshly (sce Tittmann’s Synon. p. 23), that is, affect- 
ed with the quality that is determined by the odp& The odpxevoc, as the 
expression of the substance,’ is far stronger ; and while not including the 
negation of the moral will in man (see ver. 15 ff., 22, 25), indicates the odpé 


} Ewald: “ He speaks, if possibie even more 
than previously, from the standpoint of one 
not yet redeemed, who finds himself face to 
face with the law merely as a simple man, 
and consequently as stil] lacking all higher 
light and heavenly ald.’’—In fact, if all that 
follows can be asserted of the regenerate 
person, “the regenerate man would ¢hus be 


also the unregenerate ;*’ Baur, in the theo. 
Jahro. 8537, p. 192; neut. Theol. p. 148. 

2 Comp. Plat. Leg. x. p. 906 C; Theocrit. 
xxi.66; LXX.2 Chron. xxxii.8; Ezek. xi. 19, 
xxxvi. 26; Addit. Esth. fv. 8: BactAda adp- 
KLVOY, 

* Comp. Holsten, 2. Fv. des Paul. u. Petr. 
p. 897. 


216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
—that unspiritual, material, phenomenal nature of man, serving by way of 
vehicle for sin—as the element of his being which so preponderates and ren- 
ders the moral will fruitless, that the Apostle, transporting himself into his 
pre-Christian state, cannot—in the mirror of this deeply earnest, and just as 
real as it was painful, self-contemplation—set forth the moral nature of the 
natural man otherwise than by the collective judgment, I am of flesh ; the 
cap£, my substantial element of being, prevails on me to such an extent that 
the predicate made of flesh cleaves to me as if to a nature consisting of mere 
cépf. This is the Pauline rd yeyewnplvov éx ri¢ aapxdc odps éorev (John iii. 6). 
The Pauline rd yeyevv. Ex tov wvebparoc mvevyd éotev follows in chap. viii. 
Since the cdpé is the seat of the sin-principle (see ver. 18, comp. ver. 23), 
there is connected with the odpx:voc also the werpayuévog ixd tiv duapr., sold, 
as a slave, under the (dominion of) sin 7.e. as completely dependent on the 
power of the sin-principle’ as is a serf on the master to whom he is sold : 
4 ™wpacig SovAov mavTw¢ Toei Tov mempapévoy bd TH THC imypeciag KaboTapevuy 
avadyxyv, Theodore of Mopsuestia. Comp. 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25 ; 2 Kings 
xvii. 17; 1 Macc. i. £5. The passive sense of rerpay. finds its elucidation in 
ver. 23. merpéoxeoba:, in Greek authors (Soph. Tr. 251; Dem. 1304. 8; 
Lucian, Asin. 832) with revi (comp. also Lev. xxv. 39; Deut. xxviii. 68; 
Isa. 1. 1; Baruch iv. 6), is here coupled with ird (comp. Gal. iv. 8) for the 
more forcible indication of the relation, Compare mimpdoxecy cic tag yeipac, 
1 Sam. xxiii. 7; Judith vii. 25 ; and on the matter itself, Seneca, de brer. 
vit. 8. 

Ver. 15 elucidates and assigns the reason of this relation of slavery. 
** For what I perform I know not,” i.e. it takes place on my part without 
cognition of its ethical bearing, in the state of bondage of my moral reason. 
Analogous is the position of the slave, who acts as his master’s tool without 


perceiving the proper nature and the aim of what he does. 


} These very predicates, as strong as pos- 
sible, expressed without limitation, and in 
contrast to wavevparixds, should have pre- 
cluded men from explaining It of the regen- 
erate man, of the condition in the state of 
grace. Paul would have been speaking in 
defiance of his own consciousness (vi. 14, 
22, villi. 2). See, moreover, Achelis, p. 681 
ff. Theodoret has the true view: ray rpd 
THS Xaptros avdpwroyv eicdye woAcopxoupe- 
voy Uwd Tey wadwv capxikoy ydp kad roy 
wndéwa THS TWHEVMRaTLKHS EwtKeoupiags 
Teruvxynxéra. Itistrue that there are, in 
the case of the regenerate man also, ‘in 
natura carnali reliquiae priorls morbi" 
(Melanchthon), and flesh and spirit are at 
warfare in him (vill. 5, Gal. v. 17); but he 
is not cdpavos as opposed to xvevmarinds, 
and nota slave sold to sin, else he must have 
fallen back again from his regenerate state. 
Very characteristic is the distinction, that 
in the case of the regenerate man the con- 
flict is between flesh and spirit (i.e. the Holy 


Augustine, 


Spirit received by him); but in that of the 
unregenerate man, between the flesh and 
his own moral reason or wows, which latter 
succumbs, whilst in the regenerate the vic- 
tory in the conflict may and must fall] to 
the Spirit. Comp. on Gal. v. 17; also Baur, 
Pau. WI. p. 158 f. All who have taken the 
subject in our passage to be the man al- 
ready redeemed have necessarily fallen into 
the error (especially apparent in the case of 
Krummacher) of confounding the struggle 
between flesh and Spirit in the case of the 
regenerate person, with that described in 
our passage in the case of the still unre- 
generate man, who js not yet able to oppose 
the rvevza, but only his own too weak vous, 
to the power of sin in the flesh. From this 
error they should have been deterred by 
the very circumstance that in the entire 
passage (how wholly different in vili. 2f. 5 
Paul is quite silent regarding the wvevpna.as 
& power opposed to the cépf and the auep- 
tha, 





CHAP. VII., 16. 2779 


Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Flatt, Gléckler, Reiche, and 
Reithmayr, erroneously take y:vioxuw as I approve, which it never means, not 
even in Matt. vii. 23; John x. 14; 1 Cor. viii. 3; Rom. x. 19; 2 Tim. 
ii. 19; Ps. i. 6; Hosea viii. 4 ; Eccles. xviii. 27. Hofmann’s view, how- 
ever, is also incorrect, that the cognition is meant, ‘‘ which includes the 
object in the subjectivity of the person knowing,” so that the passage denics that 
the work and the inner life have anything in common. In this way the idea 
of the dicine cognition, whose object is man (Gal. iv. 9 ; Matt. xii. 23), is 
extraneously imported into the passage. — oi yép 8 0éAw x.r.A.] The proof of 
the 6 xarepy. ov ywwdoxw. For whosoever acts in the light of the moral cogni- 
tion does not, of course, do that which is hateful to him following his 
practical reason (6 yod), but, on the contrary, that towards which his 
moral desire is directed (3 6é4w). The person acting without that cognition, 
carried away by the power of sin in him, docs not pursue as the aim of his 
activity (xpdoce:, comp. on i. 82) that which in the morally conscious state 
he would pursuc, but, on the contrary, does (zoe) what in that state is 
abhorrent to him.' The ethical power of resolution, which decides for 
the good, is inactive, and man does the evil that he abhors. Paul consc- 
quently ascribes to the unregenerate man also the moral wish,’ which he 
has in rational self-determination ; but he denies to him the action corre- 
sponding thereto, because his moral self-determination does not come into 
exercise in the state of his natural bondage, but he is, on the contrary, 
hurried away to the performance of the opposite. His 6éAev of the good 
and his pcceiv of the evil are not, therefore, those of the regenerate man, be- 
cause the new man, in virtue of the holy zvevya, emerges from the conflict 
with the odp§ as a conqueror (against Philippi) ; nor yet the weak velleitas 
of the schoolmen (Tholuck, Reithmayr, comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) ; buta 
real, decided wishing and hating (comp. ver. 16), which present, indeed, 
for the moral consciousness the theory of self-determination, but without 
the corresponding result in the issue. The ‘‘I” in 4s and juoa is con- 
ceived according to its moral self-consciousness, but in mpécow and rad, 
according to its empiric practice, which runs counter to the self-determina- 
tion of that consciousness. Reiche, in consistency with his misconception 
of the entire representation, brings out as the pure thought of ver. 15: 
‘‘the sinful Jew, as he appears in experience and history, does the evil 
which the Jew free from sin, as he might and should have been, does not 
approve.” As profane analogies of the moral conflict meant by Paul, comp. 
Epict. Enchir. ii. 26. 4 : 5 pév OéAee (6 duaprdvuy) ov roel, Kal d yA BéAee rrocei 5 
Eur. Med. 1079 : Ovpdc d2 xpeicouy (stronger) trav éudv Bovdevudtwy, and the 
familiar ‘‘video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor” (Ovid, Met. vii. 19). 
See also Wetstein, and Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 228 f. 

Ver. 16. Not an incidental inference (Rickert), but an essential carrying 


1 The pow must not be weakened, as¢.g.  thardt, v. freien Willen, p. 405), is perfectly 
by Th. Schott, who makes it equivalent to foreign to the expression, especially in its 
ov déAw in ver. 16. close connection with ver. 14, and Is a puro 

3 For the idea that this déAev hasonly importation. 
come to exist through regeneration (Lu- 


278 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


on of the argument, from which then ver. 17 is further inferred. For the 
relation of the éys to the law is in fact the very aim of the section (see ver. 
25). — 6 ot GéAw)] whereto I am unwilling, for in fact I hate it, ver. 15. By 
ov the #éAev is turned into its opposite. Comp. Baeuml. Partik. p. 278; 
Ameis on Homer, Odys. iii. 274. — cbugnus rH véuy, Stet naAde) since indeed 
the law also desires not what I do. My conduct, therefore, so far as my 
desire is opposed to it, appears, according to this contradiction, as a proof 
that I concur with the law, that it is beautiful, i.e. morally good ; the morat 
excellence which the law affirms of itself (¢.g. Deut. iv. 8) I also agree with 
it in acknowledging ; in point of fact, I say yes to it. Comp. also Philippi 
and Hofmann. The wswal view : I grant to the law, that, etc., overlooks the 
ovy, and the reference of the r¢ véup to ovv (I say with). We may add that 
Chrysostom, in loc., has appropriately directed attention to the oixzia 
evyfveca of the moral nature of man. \ 

Ver. 17. Nui dé] does not introduce a minor proposition attaching itself 
with a ‘‘dut now” (Reithmayr and Hofmann)—a view which is unsuitable 
to the antithetical form of the expression ; nor is it to be taken, with 
Augustine, as ‘‘nunc in statu gratiae ;” but it is the quite common and, in 
Paul’s writings especially, very frequent as it is, however (see on iii. 21), 
that is, in this actual state of the case, however ; namely, since my 6éAev, not- 
withstanding my conduct, is not opposed to the law, but on the contrary 
confirms it. In connection with this view ovxér: also is not, possibly, 
temporal, ‘‘pointing back to a time in which it was otherwise with the 
speaker” (Hofmann), namely, to what is related in vv. 7-11, but logical, as 
in ver. 20, xi. 6 ; Gal. iii. 18. What is indicated by vvvi dé stands to a 
xarepy. avré in an evcluding relation, so that after the former there can be no 
mention of the latter. It is the dialectic non jam, non item (Bornemann ad 
Xen. Cyr. 1. 6, 27; Winer, p. 547 f. [E. T. 618] ; comp. Ellendt, ez. 
Soph. II. p. 482). — éyé] with emphasis : my personality proper, my self- 
consciousness, which is my real, morally wishing Ego. It is not this ‘‘I” 
that performs the evil (aird, 7.e. 6 ot GéAw, ver. 16), but the principle of sin, 
which has its dwelling-place in me (the phenomenal man), enslaving my 
better—but against its power too weak—will, and not allowing it to attain ac- 
complishment. That év éyoi is not, like ¢)é, to be taken of the moral self-con- 
scious ‘‘J,” is affirmed by Paul himself in ver. 18. But it is erroneous to 
infer, from what he here says of the é;4, the necessity of the explanation in 
the sense of the regenerate person (see especially Calvin and Philippi) ; for 
if the power practising the evil be not the ‘‘I,” but the potentiality of sin, 
this accords perfectly with the state of the capxixéc, yuyexde (1 Cor. ii. 14), 
id THY auapriav wetpaputvog (ver. 14), conscquently of the unregenerate, in 
whom sin rules, and not the grace and power of the Holy Spirit leading the 
moral Ego to victory. In the regenerate man dwells the Spirit (vill. 8 ; 
Gal. v. 16 f. ; 1 Cor. iii. 16), who aids the ‘‘1” in conquering the sin-power 
of the flesh (viii. 13 ff. ; Gal. v. 24). 


1 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 608 B. Theaet.p.199 858; Eur. ZZippol. 265; Sturz, Lex. Yen. IV. 
C, Phaed. p. 64B; Soph. Aj. 271, Ocd. R.  p. 153. 


CHAP, VII., 18, 19. 279 


Ver. 18. Basing of the a1’ 4 oixotoa év éuot duapria in ver. 17 on the human 
(not : Christian) experimental consciousness of the éugvrov xaxév (Wisd. xii. 
10). — rovr’ éoriy év Ty capxi pov] More precise definition to éy éuoi, by which 
it is designated, in order to make the meaning clear beyond all doubt, ac- 
cording to its aspect of self-verification here meant ; and the latter is ex- 
pressly distinguished from that of the moral self-consciousness, conveyed 
by the eyé in ver. 17. — That good, that is, moral willing and doing, conse- 
quently the opposite of duapria, has its abode in the odp£ of man, 7.e. in his 
materio-physical phenomenal nature (comp. on ver. 14),' is negatived by 
ove ouei, . . . ayafév, and this negation is then proved by rd ydp OéAew x.t.A. 
If the oép£, namely, were the seat of the moral nature, so that the will of the 
moral self-consciousness and that residing in the odpf harmonized, in that 
case there would be nothing opposed to the carrying out of that moral ten- 
dency of will ; in that case, besides the willing, we should find also in man 
the performance of the morally beautiful (rd xa4é6v, ‘‘quod candore morali 
nitet,” van Hengel). Onthe identity of the caddy and the ayafév, accord- 
ing to the Greek view of morality, see Stallb. ad Plat. Sympos. p. 201 C. — 
wapdxecrai pot] lies before me (Plat. Tim. p. 69 A, Phil. p. 41 D ; 2 Macc. iv. 
4)—a plastic expression of the idea: there is present in me. Paul presents 
the matter, namely, as if he were looking around in his own person, as in a 
spacious sphere, to discover what might be present therein. There he sces 
the OéAecy (rd xaAév) immediately confronting him, before his gaze ; but his 
searching gaze fails to discover (ovy eipioxw) the xarepydlecOac rd xaAdv. The 
performance of the good, therefore, is something not characteristic of the 
natural man, while that 6éAev~ of the moral ‘‘I” is present with him. 
‘* Longe a me abest,” says Grotius aptly in explanation of the reading ov se. 
napaxecrat, With which, however, ovy eipioxw is perfectly cquivalent in sense ; 
so that to render the latter ‘‘I gain it not, i.e. Ican not” (Estius, Kypke, 
Flatt, Tholuck, and Kdllner), or, ‘‘it is to me wnattainable” (Hofmann), is 
inconsistent with the correlative wapdxecrai or, as Well as the etpicxw in ver. 
21. Theodorct has rightly noted the ground of the ovy cipioxw: acbevo. ... 
Kepl ri mpakiy, étépav Exixovpiav (namely, that of the Holy Spirit) ovx« &yur. 
But the éyé, which has the willing, can not at all be the xa:vdg rvevparixde 
avfpuroc (against Philippi), whose 0éAev is the ‘‘jidet promptitudo” (Calvin), 
because that éyé, clogged by the sinful power of the flesh, is naked and 
void of the xarepyéfeofa:. The latter is the simple to bring about, to bring 
into execution (see on i. 27) ; and if, in order to interpret it appropriately of 
the regenerate person, it be made to mean, fo live quite purely (Luther), or 
the ‘‘implere gua decet alacritate”’ (Calvin), or the act which is in harmony 
with the will sanctified by the Spirit of God (Philippi), these shades of mean- 
ing are purely imported. 

Ver. 19. Proof of 7d 62 xarepy. 7d xaZov oy etpioxw in ver. 18. For the good 
that I desire I do not ; but the evil that I desire not, that I pursue. Respect- 


?Jul. Miller, I. p. 458, ed. 5, wrongly life.” See against this especially vv. 15, 8. 
takes it here as morally indifferent, “ofthe — villi. 3 ff. Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, Paud. 
cullective phenomenal reality of humcn Chriatol. p. 14. 


280 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


ing the interlocking of the relative and main clauses, see Winer, p. 155 
[E. T. 164]. 

Ver. 20. From this follows, however, the very proposition to be proved, 
ver. 17, that it is not the moral sel, but the sin-principle in man, that per- 
forms the evil. — oi 0é4.] as in ver. 16. 

Vv. 21-23. Result from vv. 14-20. 

Ver. 21. Among the numerous interpretations of this passage, which 
Chrysostom terms doagés eipguévov, and the exposition of which has been 
given up as hopeless by van Hengel and Rickert, the following fall to be 
considered :'—(1) rdv véuov taken generally as rule, necessity, and the like : 
‘* 7 find therefore for me, who am desirous of doing the good, the rule, the una- 
voidably determining element, that evil lies before me ,;” so that it is substan- 
tially the érepoc véuog év toig péAeot, ver. 28, that is here meant. So, in the 
main, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, and others, including 
Ammon, Boehme, Flatt, Kéllner, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Nielsen, 
Winer, Baur, Philippi, Tholuck, Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 379, Umbreit, 
Krummacher, Jatho, and the latest Catholic expositors, Reithmayr, Maier, 
and Bisping. But it is fatal to this view, that 6 véuoc, in accordance with 
the entire context, can be nothing else than the Mosaic law, since a defini- 
tion altering this wonted reference of the meaning is not appended, but is 
only introduced in ver. 28 by the addition of érepov ; further, that ore éuoi rd 
xaxdv Tapdxecraz is not a relation that presents itself in idea as a véuoc, but, on 
the contrary, as something empirical, as a phenomenon of fact ; and lastly, 
that we should have to expect rév véuov, in that case, only before dr: (2) 
Tov véuov understood of the Mosaic law : ‘‘ I jind therefore in me, who am de- 
sirous of doing the law, (namely) the good, that evil lies before me.” According 
to this view, consequently, 7d xaaév is in apposition with r. véuov, and ore 
x.7.A. is the object of etpicxw. So, in substance, Homberg, Bos, Knapp, Ser. 
var. arg. p. 389, Klee, Bornemann in Lue. p. lxvii, Olshausen, Fritzsche, 
and Krehl. But after what goes before (vv. 15-20), it is inconsistent with 
the context to separate woeiv rd xaAdv ; and, besides, the appositional view 
of 75 xadév is a forced expedient, feebly introducing something quite super- 
fluous, especially after the rév véuov prefixed with full emphasis. (3) vor 
vouov likewise taken of the Mosaic law, and ar: taken as because: ‘I sind 
therefore the law for me, who am disposed to do the good, because evil lies before 
me ;” i.e. I find therefore that the law, so far as I have the will to do what 
is good, is by my side concurring with me, because evil is present with me 
(and therefore I need the law as cuviyopov and éxcteivovta rd BobAnpa, see Chry- 
sostom). So substantially the Peshito, Chrysostom, Theophylact (cipicxe 
apa Tov vduov ovvnyopovvrTd prot, OéAovre pév moveiv TO Kadov, pH TOLoUYTE 
2, didre uot zapdKertat Td Kaxév) ; comp. also Origen, Theodore of Mopsues- 
tia, Oecumenius (less clearly Theodorct), Hammond, Bengel, Semler, Mo- 
rus, and my own second edition. But the idea, which according to this 
view would be conveyed by the dative rq OéAovre Evol x.7.A., must have been 


1 Leaving out of account Relche’s misinterpretation as to a double “I” of Jewish 
humanity. 


CHAP. VII., 21. 281 
more definitely and expressly indicated than by the mere datious commodi ; 
moreover, this explanation does not harmonize with the apostle’s purpose 

-of summing up now, as the result of his previous view, the whole misery, 
in which the natural man sees himself when confronted with the law ; 
see vv. 22-25. Hofmann also, modifying his earlier similar view 
(Schriftbee. I. p. 549), now understands under +r. véuov the Mosaic 
law, and takes ér: in the sense of because, but 7d xaddv, as predicate 
to r. véuov, the dative as depending on rd xadév, and roaeiv, which is 
supposed to be without an object, as belonging to 6é4. The speaker 
thus declares what he recognizes the law as being, ‘‘namely, as that which 
to him, who is willing to do, is the good ;” and he finds it so, ‘‘ because the 
ectl iz at hand to him,” when he ‘‘comes to act,” the evil is there also, and 
presents itself to him to be done ; which contradiction between the thing 
willed and the thing lying to his hand makes him perceive the harmony be- | 
tween his willing and the law, so that, namely, he ‘‘ would be doing what he 
wills, if he were doing that which the law commands.” This extremely tortu- 
ous explanation, which first of all imports the nucleus of the thought which 
is supposed to be expressed so enigmatically, breaks down at the very out- 
set by its assumption that zoeiy is meant to stand trithout object (when I 
come to act !), although the object (comp. vv. 15-20) stands beside it (76 
xadév) and according to the entire preceding context necessarily belongs to it, 
—a statement as to which nothing but exegetical subjectivity can pronounce 
the arbitrary verdict that it is ‘‘ groundless prejudice.” ' (4) Ewald’s attrib- 
utive reference of 1d xaxév to the law is utterly erroneous : ‘‘ I find therefore 
the law, when I desire to do what is beautiful, how it lies at hand to meas the 
evil.” Paul assuredly could not, even in this connection, have said rd xaxdv 
of the divine law after vv. 12, 14; comp. ver. 22. (5) Abandoning all 
these views, I believe that rév véuov is to be understood of the Mosaic law 
and joined with r¢ @éZovr:, that roeiv is to be taken as infinitive of the pur- 
pose (Buttmann, p. 224, E. T. 261), and dre x.1.a. as olyect of eipioxw (comp. 
Esr. ii. 26) : ‘‘ it results to me, therefore, that, while my will is directed to the 
law in order to do the good, the evil lies before me.” What deep wretched- 
ness! My moral will points to the law in order to do the good, but the 
evil is present with me in my fleshly nature, to make the @é2e void ! 
What I will, that I cannot do.* In connection with this view, observe : (a) 


1 Th. Schott does not indeed commit the 
mistake of separating wocecvy from rd «addy, 
bat he fintroducesin another way what Is 
notin thetext: ‘I find the law for me, who 
am willing to do good, such an one as leares 
the matter on the footing, that to me, etc."’ 

2The objections urged against my ex- 
planation are very unimportant. It is said, 
in particular, that the inversion rdv vopzov 
te ddédovre is harsh (Delitzsch), forced (Phi- 
lippi), strange and meaningless (Hofmann). 
But it is not Aarsher than the numerous per- 
fectly similar hyperbata found in all classic 
authors (comp. e.g. Xen. Afem. 1. 6. 18, where 
the Sophists are termed rv codiay 01 wwAouy- 


tes, Plat. Apol. p. 89 C: tpas ot eAdyxorres, 
Herod. vil. 184: rds capnAovs rods ¢Aavvortas, 
Thue. vi. 64.5: ratra rovs fuvdpdcorras, and 
Poppo in loc. ; also Kiihner, Gramm. II. 1, 
p. 582); and so far‘from being meaningless, 
the inverted arrangement, very appropri- 
ately to the sense, lays a great emphasis up- 
On roy yovov. For the vouos, as the divine 
record of the caddy, in contrast to the «<axd» 
which lies in man, has the stress, which 
does not rest upon déAovr: (Hofmann). Ob- 
serve how the idea of thc law is prominent 
and pervading down to the end of the chap- 
ter, and then again in vill. 2 ff. Least of all 
in the case of such an extremely difficult pas- 


282 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

That the position of the words rdv vdéuov rH OéAovre Evol serves, without any 
harshness, to set forth rév véuov emphatically, just as often also in classical 
writers the substantive with the article is emphatically prefixed to the par- 
ticiple with the article, on which it depends (see Kiihner ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 
13 ; Bornemann and Kiihner ad Anab. v. 6, 7 ; Kriger, § 50, 10. 1 ; Bern- 
hardy, p. 461) ;—()) That 6éAecv with the accusative as object of the will- 
ing, i.e. of the moral striving and longing, of desire and love, is particu- 
larly frequent in the LXX. (see also Matt. xxvii. 43 and the remark there- 
on) ; compare here, especially, Isa. v. 24 : ov yap 7biAnoav rv vépov Kupior. 
(c) Finally, how aptly the ovvfdoua yap rH vduy x.7.A. in the illustrative 
clause that follows, ver. 22, harmonizes with the rov véuov re OéAovre euol ; 
while the subsequent B2érw dé érepov vépov x.t.A., in ver. 23, answers to the 
drt Epoi Td Kaxdv rapdxecta. [See Note LXXXYV. p. 294. ]—The dative 16 béAove 
évot is that of the ethical reference: deprehendo mihi, experience proves it 
tome. Comp. cipéOy por, ver. 10.' 

Vv. 22, 23. Antithetical illustration of ver. 21. — ovv#dopaz 7. vduy 7. Ocor'] 
The compound nature of the verb is neither to be overlooked (as by Beza and 
others, including Riickert and Reiche), nor to be taken as a strengthening 
of it (KGllner), or as apud animum meum laetor (Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius, de Wette, Tholuck, and Philippi). It means: J rejoice with, which 
sense alone consists with linguistic usage.” By this, however, we are not to 
understand the joy ozer the law, shared with others (van Ilengel and others)— 
an idea here foreign to the connection ; nor yet the joyful nature of taking 
part in the law (Hofmann), whereby the necessary conception of joy in com- 
mon falls away ; but rather: I rejoice ewith the law of God, so that its joy 
(the law being personified) is also mine. It is the agreement of moral sym- 
pathy in regard to what is good. Comp. on oto in ver. 16. So also 
ouurevOeiv tit, ouvadyeiv tit, «.t.A. 3 similarly ovAAvrotyevoc, Mark iil. 5. 
Rightly given in the Vulgate : ‘‘condelector legi (not lege) Dei.” Comp. 1 
Cor. xill. 6: ovyyaiper ri aAnbeia. The Afosaic law is described as vduoc Oeot 
(genit. auctoris) in contrast to the érepo¢ véuoc, which is the law opposed to 
God. — xara r. éow GvOp.| The rational and moral nature of man, deter- 
mined by conscience (ii. 15), is, as the inward man, distinguished from the 
outward man that appears in the body and its members.’ 6 voi¢ in its cor- 


man (Luther, Melanchthon,Calvin,Calovins, 
Krummacher, and others), or to say (as 


sage should people suppose that they may 
dismiss a linguistically unassailable explana- 


tion by vague and merely dogmatical ob- 
jections. 

1 Hom. Od. xxi. 304: of & avrey mpwre xaxdy 
evpeto oivoBapetwy, Soph. Aj. 1144: © dve- 
yu’ av ove av eipes. O. R. 546: ducpevn yap 
mat Bapuy a” evpn« euoi. Oed. C. %0: ove av 
éfevports euor apaptias dvecdos ovdev. Plat. 
Rep. p. 421 E; Eur. Jon, 1407. 

2 Plat. ep. p. 462 E; Dem. 519. 10, 579. 
19; Soph. Qed. C. 1398; Eur. Med. 136; 
Sturz, Ler. Xen. IV. p. 184; Reisig, Hnarr. 
Soph, Oed. C. 1898. 

3?It is erroneous to discover in the ex- 
pression the designation of the regenerate 


Delitzsch does) that Paul means the higher 
better self produced or liberated by the 
grace of the discipline of the law (Prychol. 
p. 880). The unregenerate man _ also, 
whether the law have already taken him 
into its training or not, has the ecw ardpe- 
wos, and the connection alone must decide 
whether the écw avdpwros of the passage 
relates to the redeemed or the unredeemed. 
The inner man fs that which receives the 
Spirit and grace (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. 
iii. 16), and not the work of these. The 


latter is the new man (Eph. fi. 10, iv. %). 


In our passage the entire connection de- 


CHAP. VII, 22, 23. 283 
trast to cdpé designates the same thing a potiori ; see on Eph. iii. 16, 2 Cor. 
iv. 16; also 1 Pet. iii. 4, and Huther tn loc. Philo (p. 533, Mang.) terms 
it aGvOpwroc év avfpdry. [See Note LXXXVI. p. 294.]— BAéru] Here also 
Paul represents himself as a spectator of his own personality, and as such he 
sees, etc. — érepov] a law of another nature, not dAAov. Comp. ver. 4, and on 
Gal. i. 6. —év roi¢ péAeoi pov] sc. dvta, correlative, even by its position, with 
xara Tov éow dv9pwror. Fritzsche and Hofmann join év roi¢ péA. pov avriorpar.," 
whereby, however, the importance of the added elements aytiorpar. x.1.A. is 
more subordinated to the év r. néA. wov, and the symmetry of the discourse 
unnecessarily disturbed ; comp. below, r@ dvre év roig péA. pov. The mem- 
bers, as the instruments of activity of the odpé, are, seeing that the odpé it- 
self is ruled by sin (vv. 18, 25), that in which the power of sin (the dictate 
of the sin-principle, 6 véuo¢ r#¢ duapr.) pursucs its doings. This activity in 
hand, eye, etc. (comp. vi. 13, 19), is directed against the dictate of the 
moral reason, and that with the result of victory ; hence the figures drawn 
from war, avriorpar. and also aiyuadur.-— The vépuoe rov vodc—in which the 
genitive is neither to be taken as that of the subject (Fritzsche : ‘‘ quam 
mens mea constituit ;’ comp. Hofmann, ‘‘ which man gives to himself’), 
nor epexegetically (Th. Schott), but locally, corresponding to the év roi¢ yéA. 
pov—is not identical with the véuoc r. Oeov in ver. 22 (Usteri, Kéliner, Ol- 
shausen, and others), just because the latter is the positive law of God, the 
law of Moses ; but itis the regulator of the ovviderSat rQ véuy Tov Oecd (ver. 22), 
implied in the moral reason and immanent in the vovc. As to vovc, which is 
here, in accordance with the connection, the reason in its practical activity, 
the power of knowledge in its moral quality as operating to determine the 
moral will,? see Stirm inthe Tid. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 46 ff. ; Beck, didi. 


cides that it is the éce avdpwros of the un- 
regenerate man which is meant, in his re- 
lation to the law; to him also belongs, as 
respects his moral “I"" (although this is 
quite arbitrarily denied by Philippi, follow- 
ing Melanchthon, and many others), the 
curAopa: Te vou T. Geov (comp. fi. 15), and 
it must belong to him, since the sinful 
nature has its seat and home in the capf, 
vv. 18, 25, as the antithesis of the vous. 
This does not indeed consist with the as- 
sumption that it is preciscly the higher 
powers of the natural man that by nature 
ure at diametrical variance with God and 
Nis law (Form. Conc. p. 640 f.), but it 
nevertheless rests on an exegetic basis. 
Comp. on Eph. fii. 16. The odpt, however, 
with the power of sin dwelling in it, over- 
powers the vovs so that it becomes in 
bondage, darkened, and in the activity 
of its conscience blunt and perverted ; 
hence it requires renewal (xit. 2): comp. 
Weiss, bit. Theol. § 95. There remains, 
therefore, the necessity for redemption of 
the whole natural man, as also his incapac- 
ty for seff-attainment of salvation; and it 


is an error to see in that contradiction to 
the Formula Concordiae aught to shake the 
Pauline doctrine of atonement and justi- 
fication by faith alone (Delitzsch). De- 
litzsch brings against me the charge of 
being un-Lutheran and unbiblical. The 
latter I must deny; the former does not 
affect me as exegete, since as such I have 
only to inquire what is exegetically right or 
erong. Philippi, p. 307, ed. 8, note, quotes 
against me authorities (of very various 
kinds) which as such prove nothing; and 
reminds me of the position of investigation 
astothe idea of the capg. I may be trusted 
to possess some acquaintance with the po- 
sition of such investigations, including 
even those which the respected theologian 
has not embraced in his quotations and to 
some extent could not yet do so. 

1 Compare Th. Schott, who however ren- 
ders év: in the power of my members. 

2 Consequently the morally willing facully 
of the human wrvevua. Comp. (against Hol- 
sten) Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld's Zetéschr. 1871, 
p. 165 f.; Kluge é.¢. 


284 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
Seelenl. p. 49 ff. ; Delitzsch, p. 179 ; Kluge in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1871, p. 

327. The form vodé¢ belongs to the later Greek. See Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 

453. — wal aiyuad. x.7.2.] and makes me prisoner-of-war to the law of sin (makes 

me subject to the power of the sin-principle) «hich is in my members. The 

ze does not denote the inner man, the vovc (Olshausen), for it, regarded in 
itself, continues in the service of the law of God (ver. 25) ; but the appar- 
ent man, who would follow the leading of the wic. He it is, for the con- 
trol of whom the law of sin contends with the moral law. The former con- 
quers, and thereby, while the moral law has lost its influence over him, 
makes him its prisoner-of-war (Luke xxi. 24 ; 2 Cor. x. 5) ; so that he is 
now—to express the same idea by another figure—zerpayévog ixo t. dyuaptiar, 
ver. 14,—a trait of the gloomy picture, which likewise does not apply to 
the condition of the redeemed, viii. 2. —r6 véuy TH¢ Guapt.] is identical with 
the véuoc that was previously, without more precise definition, called érepor 
véuoc. Instead, namely, of saying: ‘‘ and made me ?7¢s prisoner,” Paul char- 
acterizes—as he could not avoid doing in order to complete the antithesis 
—the victorious law, not previously characterized, as that which it is, and 
SAYS : alyuaa. we Tt. véuw duapt. Here r. auapr. is the geniticvus auctoris; +. 

véuy, however, is not instrumental (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact), 
but can only be taken as the dative of reference (commodi). The observa- 
tion r@ dure év roi¢ uéAeoi pov, emphatically added to make the disgrace more 
palpably felt, obviates the misconception that a power different from the 
érepoc véuoc was meant. [See Note LXXXVII, p. 295.] We must dismiss, 
therefore, the distinctions unsupported by evidence that (following Origen, 
Jerome, and Oecumenius, but not Ambrosiaster) have been attempted ; «9. 
recently by Kéllner, who thinks that the érepoc véuog means the demands of 
the sensuous nature, so far as they manifest themselves in individual cases 
as bodily lusts, while the véuo¢g 7. duapr. is the sensuous nature itself con- 
ceived as a sinful principle ; or by de Wette, who thinks that the former is 
the proneness to sin which expresses itself in the determinableness of the 
will by the sensuous nature, while the latter is the same proneness, so far as 
it conflicts with the law of God, and by the completed resolution actually en- 
ters into antagonism thereto (comp. Umbreit) ; or by Ewald (comp. also 
Grotius and van Hengel), who thinks that Paul here distinguishes two pairs 
of kindred laws : (1) the eternal law of God, and alongside of it, but too weak 
in itself, the law of reason ; and (2) the law of desire, and along with it, as 
still mightier, the law of sin. Similarly also Delitzsch, Reithmayr, and 
Hofmann. The latter distinguishes the law of sin from the law in the mem- 
bers, in such a way that the former is prescribed by sin, as the lawgiver, to 
all those who are subject.to it ; the latter, on the contrary, rules in the bod- 
ily nature of the individual, as soon as the desirc arises in him,’ — aizparu- 








1 Calovius gives the right view: ‘Lex 
membrorum et lex peccati idem sunt, ut e 
verbis apostoli (¢v) re véum THs auaptias Te 
OvTs €v rots méAect pov liquet.” The 
clear words themselves do not convey, 
moreover, the distinction between the pro- 


duced and the producer (Delitzsch) ; but, 
on the contrary, the law of sin coincides 
completely with the law of the members, 
as already Augustine perceived, de nupt. 
et concup. {. 30: “‘captivantem sub lege pec- 
cali, h. e. sub ee ipsa.” Comp. also Theo- 





CHAP. VII., 24. 285 
tia belongs to the age of Diodorus, Josephus, etc. (aizyadturetw is still 
later).? 

Ver. 24. The marks of parenthesis in which many include vv. 24, 25, 
down to judy, or (Grotius and Flatt) merely ver. 25 down to juev, should be 
expunged, since the flow of the discourse is not once logically interrupted. 
— Tahainwpog x.t.2.] The oppressive feeling of the misery of that captivity 
finds utterance thus. Here also Paul by his ‘‘I” represents the still wnre- 
deemed man in his relation to the law. Only with the state of the Jatter, 
not with the consciousness of the regenerate man, as if he ‘‘ as it were” were 
crying ever afresh for a new Redeemer from the power of the sin still re- 
maining in him (Philippi), does this wail and cry for help accord. The 
regenerate man has that which is here sighed for, and his mood is that 
which is opposite to the feeling of wretchedness and death, v. 1 ff., viii. 1 ff. ; 
being that of freedom, of overcoming, of life in Christ, and of Christ in 
him, of peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, of the new creature, to which old 
things have passcd away. Comp. Jul. Miiller, v. d. Sinde, I. p. 458 f., 
ed. 5. The objection of Reiche, that Paul would, according to this view, 
speak of himself while he was thinking of men of quite an opposite frame 
of mind, is not valid ; for that longing, which he himself had certainly felt 
very deeply in his pre-Christian life, and into whose painful feelings he 
transports himself back all the more vividly from the standpoint of his bliss- 
Sul state of redemption,*® could not but, in the consistent continuation of the 
idiosis, be here individualized and realized as present through his éyo. . And 
this he could do the more unhesitatingly, since no doubt could thereby be 
raised in the minds of his readers regarding his present freedom from the 
taza:twpia over which he sighs. Reiche himself, curiously enough, regards 
ver, 24 as the cry for help of Jewish humanity, to which ‘‘a redeemed one 
replies” in viii. 1; ver. 25, standing in the way, being a gloss !— radairn. 
ty dv3p.] Nominative of exclamation : O wretched man that I am/ See 
Kihner, II. 1, p. 41; Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 182.] —radaiz., Rev. iii. 17, 
very frequent in the tragedians: Plat. Euthyd. p. 302 B; Dem. 548. 12, 
425. 11. — picera:] Purely future. In the depth of his misery the longing 
after a deliverer asks as if in despair: who will it be? —ix rov aduarog +. 
Bavdrov tobrov] robrov might indeed grammatically be joined to ocdparog 
(Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many others, including Olshausen, 
Philippi, Hofmann, and Th. Schott), since one may say, 7d capa tr. 9. toro ; 
but the sense is against it. For that which weighs upon him, namely, the 


dore of Mopsuestia, who declares himself 
expressly and decidcdly against the intcr- 
pretation of our passage as pointing to 
Sour laws. 

1 See Thom. Mag. p. 23; Lobeck ad Phryn. 
p. 442. 

* This applies also against Delitzsch’s as- 
sertion, that the very form of this lamen- 
tation shows that it proceeds from the 
breast of a converted person. How nat- 
ural is it, rather, that Paul should repre- 
sent the redemption, as he had himself ex- 


perienced it, and whose triumphant bliss 
he bore in his own bosom, as the object of 
the longing and sighing of the still unre 
deemed! And who can assert that he him- 
self sighed otherwise, before Christ laid 
hold on him? Thus we here listen to the 
echo of what was once forced from his 
own breast. Where such sighing occurs, it 
is not the state of grace of the converted, 
but merely the operation of the so-called 
gratia praeveniens (comp. the Erlangen 
Zeitschrift, 1864, 6, p. 878 ff.). 


286 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


being dependent on the body as captive of the law of sin, lies in the fact 
that the body belongs to this death, é.e. to the death incurred by sin (which 
is not physical, but eternal death, comp. ver. 10 ff.), consequently to this 
shameful death, as its seat ;' not in the fact that this relation takes place in 
the present body, or in a present time posited with the quality of the 
earthly body. [See Note LXXXVIII. p. 295.] If the words of the person 
who exclaims should amount to no more than ‘‘ the hopeless wish to get rid 
of the body, in which he is compelled to lice,” without expressing, however, 
the desire to be dead (Hofmann), they would yield a very confused concep- 
tion. Moreover, by postponing the pronoun, Paul would only have ex- 
pressed himself very unintelligibly, had his meaning been hoe corpus mortia, 
and not corpus mortis hujus (Vulgate). Comp. Acts v. 20, xili. 26. The 
correct explanation therefore is: ‘‘ Who shall deliver me, so that I be no longer 
dependent on the body, which serves as the seat of so shameful a death ?” or, in 
other words : ‘‘ Who shall deliver me out of bondage under the law of sin into 
moral freedom, in which my body shall no longer serve as the seat of this shameful 
death ?” Comp. viii. 9, vi. 6, vii. 5, 10 ff. ; Col. ii. 11. With what vivid and 
true plastic skill does the deeply-stirred emotion of the apostle convey this 
meaning ! underneath which, no doubt, there likewise lies the longing 
‘after a release from the sinful natural life” (Th. Schott). In detail, ri¢ pe 
pboera corresponds with the aiyparuril. pe te véuw tHo au. in ver, 23; éx 
rov ou. with the r@ dvre év roi¢ pé2ect pov in ver. 23 ; and robfrov denotes the 
death as occasioned by the tragic power of sin just described also in ver. 
23 ; the genitive relation is the same asin vi. 6. The rendering ‘‘ mortal 
body’? is condemned by the close connection of robrov with Yavdérov, whether 
(inconsistently enough with the context, see vv. 23, 25, viii. 1, 2) there be 
discovered in the words the longing for death (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theo- 
phylact, Erasmus, Pareus, Estius, Clericus, Balduin, Koppe, and others), 
or, with Olshausen (introducing what is foreign to the argument), the long- 
ing ‘‘only to be redecmed from the mortal body, t.e. from the body that 
through sin has become liable to perish, so that the Spirit may make it alice.” 
Finally, as in vi. 6, so also here, those explanations are to be rejected 
which, in arbitrary and bold deviation from the Pauline usage, take coye 
not of the human body, but as ‘‘mortifera peccati massa” (Calvin, Cappel, 
IIomberg, Wolf) ; or: ‘‘the system of sensual propensities (caya), which 
is the cause of death” (Flatt) ; or: ‘‘death conceived as a monster with a 
body, that threatens to devour the ¢yé” (Reiche). 

Ver. 25. Not Paul himself for himself alone, but, as is shown by the fol- 
lowing dpa oty x.r.2., the same collective ‘‘I” that the Apostle has person- 
ated previously, speaks here also—expressing, after that anguish-cry of 
longing, its feeling of deep thankfulness toward God that the longed-for 
deliverance has actually come to it through Christ. There is not change of 
person, but change of scene. Man, still unredeemed, has just been bewail- 
ing his wretchedness out of Christ ; now the same man is tn Christ, and 
gives thanks for the bliss that has come to him in the train of his cry for 


1 Comp. Ex. x. 17 : wepteAdre ax’ éuov roy Sdvaroy rovror, 


CHAP. VII., 25. 28% 
help. —eiyapioré tr. OeG] For what? is not expressed, quite after the 
manner of lively emotion; but the question itself, ver. 24, and the da’I. X., 
prevent any mistake regarding it. [See Note LX XXIX. p. 296.] — da 'Incob 
Xpecrov] airiov dvro¢ rig evxapotiag tov Xprorov' avrdg yap, dnoi, naTop9woev 
G 6 vépuoc ov Aduvf9n* abré¢g ue Eppicato ex THC aoSeveiag TUY CHpuaToc, Evdvvaydoac 
atté, Gore unxéte TupavveioVat vmd Tio auaptias, Theophylact. Thus, to the 
apostle Christ is the mediator of his thanks,—of the fact ttse/f, however, 
that he gives thanks to God, not the mediator through whom he brings his 
thanks to God (Hofmann). Comp. on i. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 57; Col. iii. 17; 
similar is év ovéuzart, Eph. v. 20. — dpa ov] infers a concluding summary of 
the chief contents of vv. 14-24, from the immediately preceding ebyaptota 
-...muav. [See Note XC. p. 296.] Secing, namely, that there lies in the 
foregoing expression of thanks the thought : ‘‘it is Jesus Christ, through 
whom God has saved me from the body of this death,” it follows thence, 
and that indeed on a retrospective glance at the whole exposition, ver. 
14 ff., that the man himself, out of Christ—his own personality, alone and 
confined to itself—achieves nothing further than that he serves, indeed, 
with his vove the law of God, but with his odpé is in the service of the law 
of sin. It has often been assumed that this recapitulation does not connect 
itself with the previous thanksgiving, but that the latter is rather to be 
regarded as a parenthetical interruption (see especially Riickert and 
Fritzsche); indeed, it has even been conjectured that dpa obv .. . . duapriac 
originally stood immediately after ver. 23 (Venema, Wassenbergh, Keil, 
Lachmann, Praey’. p. X, and van Hengel). But the right sense of aird¢ éya 
is thus misconceived. It has here no other meaning than J myself, in the 
sense, namely, I for my own person, without that higher saving intervention, 
which I owe to Christ.' The contrast with others, which avrég with the 
personal pronoun indicates (comp. ix. 8, xv. 14 ; Herm. ad. Vig. p. 735 ; 
Ast, Ler. Plat. I. p. 317), results always from the context, and is here 
evident from the emphatic é:d 'Ijcov Xp:orov, and, indeed, so that the 
accent falls on avréc.? Overlooking this antithetic relation of the ‘I my- 
acl f,” Pareus, Homberg, Estius, and Wolf conceived that Paul wished to 
obviate the misconception as if he were not speaking in the entire section, 
and from ver. 14 onwards in particular, as a regenerate man ; K6llner 
thinks that his object now is to establish still more strongly, by his own 
feeling, the truth of what he has previously advanced in the name of hu- 
manity. Others explain: ‘‘just J,” who have been previously the subject of 
discourse (Grotius, Reiche, Tholuck, Krehl, Philippi, Maier, and van 
Hengel ; comp. Fritszche : ‘‘ipse ego, qui meam vicem deploravi,” and 


1So also, substantially, Hofmann and 
Th. Schott; comp. Baur, Reithmayr, Bis- 
ping, Marcker, and Delitzsch, p. 3883 
Wrongly interpreted by Thomasius, I. p. 
28 : according to my Ego proper. The avris 
éyw, is, in fact, at the same time the subject 
of tho second clause. 

2 It is maintained without due reason by 
Stallbaum, ad Piat. Phaed. p.91 A, that if 


avrés stand before the personal pronoun (as 
here), the /atier has the emphasis, and vice 
versa. The striking vivacity of Greek dis- 
course has not bound itself down so me- 
chanically. Comp. Bremi ad Dem. Phil. 
I. 24, p. 128; Herm. Opusc. I. p. 822 ff. In 
the particular cases the connection must 
decide. 


288 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

Ewald) ; which is indeed linguistically unobjectionable (Bernhardy, p. 
290), but would furnish no adequate ground for the special emphasis 
which it would have. Others, again, taking airés as equivalent to 6 avzor 
(see Schaefer, Melet. p. 65 ; Herm. ad Soph. Antig. 920, Opuse. I. p. 382 f.; 
Dissen ad Pind. p. 412) : ego idem: ‘cui convenit sequens distributio, qua 
videri posset unus homo in duos veluti secari,” Beza. So also Erasmus, 
Castalio, and many others ; Klee and Riickert. But in this view also the 
connection of dpa ovv x.r.4. with the foregoing thanksgiving is arbitrarily 
abandoned ; and the above use of airég as synonymous with 6 avréc, is 
proper to Ionic poetry, and is not sanctioned by the N. T. Olshausen, 
indeed, takes avr. éyé as J, the one and the same (have in me a twofold 
element), but rejects the usual view, that dpa. . . . duapriag is a recapitula- 
tion of ver. 14 ff., and makes the new section begin with ver. 25 ;! so that, 
after the experience of redemption has been indicated by evyapore x.7.2., 
the completely altered inner state of the man is now described ; in which 
new state the voig appears as emancipated and serving the law of God, and 
only the lower sphere of the life as still remaining under the law of sin. 
But against this view we may urge, firstly, that Paul would have expressed 
himself inaccurately in point of logic, since in that case he must have 
written : dpa ov avrég éyo Ty pév canst dovdetw vdug duaptiac, TH dz voi rduw 
Gcov ; secondly, that according to vv. 2, 3, 9 ff. the redeemed person is en- 
tirely liberated from the law of sin ; and lastly, that if the redeemed person 
remained subject to the law of sin with the odpé, Paul could not have said 
ovdév kardxpiya x.t.A. in ver. 1; for sec vv. 7-9. Umbreit takes it as : even 
I; a climactic sense, which is neither suggested by the context, nor in keep- 
ing with the deep humility of the whole confession. — dovAciw véuqy Ocod] in 
so far as the desire and striving of my moral reason (sec on ver. 23) are 
directed solely to the good, consequently submitted to the regulative 
standard of the divine law. At the samc time, however, in accordance 
with the double character of my nature, I am subject with my odp£ (see on 
ver. 18) to the power of sin, which preponderates. (ver. 23), so that the 
direction of will in the vote does not attain to the xarepydfeoVar. 


Remark 1. The mode in which we interpret vv. 14-25 is of decisive impor- 
tance for the relation between the Church-doctrine of original sin, os more ex- 
actly expressed in the Formula Concordiae,? and the view of the apostle ; inas- 
much as if in ver. 14 ff. it is the unredeemed man under the law and its disci- 
pline, and not: the regenerate man who is under grace, that is spoken of, then 
Paul affirms regarding the moral nature of the former and concedes to it what 
the Church-doctrine decidedly denies to it comparing it (Form. Conc. p. 661 


1 The section is also made to begin with 
ver. 2% by Th. Schott and Hofmann; the 
former with dpa ody. and the latter with 
evxapiore, But it is only with ovdev cardxpr- 
pa that the new scene opens, of which the 
cry of thanksgiving, ver. 25, was only a 
previous glimpse broken off again by dpa ody 
Qurds éyw «.7.X. 

3JIt employs our passage (see p. 060) for 


the inference: ‘‘Si autem in beato ap. 
Paulo et allis renatis hominibus naturale 
vel carnale liberum arbitrium etiam post 
regenerationem legi divinae repugnat, guanto 


' magts ante regenerationem legi et voluntati 


Dei rebellabit et inimicum erit.”’ 
?Comp. Jul. Miller, ev. d. Sténde, II. p. 
238 {., ed. 5. 


NOTES. 289 


f.) with a stone, a block, a pillar of salt—in a way that cannot be justified (in 
opposition to Frank, Theol. d. Concordienformel, I. p. 138 f.). Paul clearly as- 
cribes to the higher powers of man (his reason and moral will) the assent to 
the law of God ; while just as clearly, moreover, he teaches the great dispro- 
portion in which these natural moral powers stand to the predominance of the 
sinful power in the flesh, so that the liberum arbitrium in spiritualibus is wanting 
to the natural man, and only emerges in the case of the converted person (viii. 
2). And this want of moral freedom proceeds from the power of sin, which is, 
according to ver. 8 ff., posited even with birth, and which asserts itself in op- 
position to the divine law. 

Remark 2.-How many s Jew in the present day, earnestly concerned about 
his salvation, may, in relation to his law, feel and sigh just as Paul has here 
done ; only with this difference, that unlike Paul he cannot add the ebyapiord 
ty Oey «7.2, | 


Nores By American Epiror. 


LXXVII. Ver. 1. # dyvoeire «.17.A. 


On this point Philippi says : ‘‘ In the nature of things, # 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 actually 
the case. The proposition vi. 14 might, as vi. 15 shows, lie open to a danger- 
ous misconstruction. This must first of all 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.” He allows, however, the connection suggested by Meyer, 
if the necessity is felt of thus formally connecting with what immediately pre- 
cedes. Whatever may be said upon this matter, it cannot be doubted that 
these early verses of ch. vii. are united in thought to vi. 14. Weiss ed. Mey. 
holds vi. 15-23 to be a development of the first half of vi. 14, and vii. 1-6 of 
the second half of that verse. 


LXXVII. Ver. 2. # yap éravdpog yivy «.7.A. 


The illustration here given is adopted, as we may suppose, because it pre- 
sents a case to which that of the Christian is analogous—namely, where, with- 
out actually dying, a person dies, or is as it were put to death, so far as the. 
law is concerned. véyoc, in all cases of its occurrence in these verses, refers to. 
the Mosaic law—unless it be at the end of ver. 2, where the addition of the 
genitive, ros avdpéc, may determine its meaning to be ‘“‘the legal power with 
which the husband isinvested’’ (Godet). But probably, even in this instance, . 
it means the Mosaic law, so far as this law relates to the husband, or that pro- 
vision of it which bears on the marriage bond. 


LXXIX. Ver. 2. xatipynrat ard rod vépov rob avdpés. 


The view of Meyer that xarjpyyra: has a sense corresponding to é6avardGyre 
of ver. 4, (though Weiss ed. Mey. holds that this isan undue pressing of the 
word), seems to be justified by the point of the illustration. The adoption of 
this view, which naturally carries with it also Meyer’s view of xai dueic of ver. 


290 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


4, gives a far simpler and more natural explanation of the «ai of that phrase 
than the one which Weiss resorts to, namely, you also, like all who, according to 
this analogy, are released from a legal obligation. xaryjpynta: means, destroyed s0 
far as she is related to the law, and thus freed from it. 


LXXX. Ver. 4. ei¢ rd yevéoOar tuac érépy. 


The point of the analogy is simply the termination of relations to the old 
state. In respect to this there is a strict parallelism between the believer and 
the married woman whose case is supposed. The other elements of the illus- 
tration, with which the Apostle deals in a measure for the purpose of emphasis, 
are of secondary importance, and hence the correspondence so far as these are 
concerned is not to be pressed, and the search for exactness will be vain. No 
confident judgment can be pronounced as to whether the Apostle had definitely 
in mind a ‘first husband” in the case of the Christian, or, if so, whether it 
was sin or the law; and, for the same reason, it cannot be decided with 
certainty whether the figure of marriage is continued, as Meyer supposes, in 
xapxogopjowuev, Among the most recent commentators, Godet says of this verb, 
‘* By this expression he unmistakably continues and completes the figure which 
he began, namely, that of marriage.’’ while Weiss ed. Mey. claims that the 
finding a continuance of the figure in the word is the result only of an ar- 
tificial mode of interpreting. The true view lies, doubtless, between the two— 
that it may be continued, and may not, 


LXXXI. Ver. 6. Gore dovAeveww nude x«.7.A. 


The expressions used in vv. 5, 6 anticipate, on the one hand, the thought 
which is brought out later in this chapter (see vv. 22, 23), and, on the other 
hand, carry the mind of the reader back to the preceding chapter (see vv. 4, 6, 
18, etc.). This fact indicates the close connection of these six verses with 
what goes before, and also confirms the probability, derived from other 
parts of the two chapters, as well as from chap. viii. that the writer is pursuing 
a single line of thought throughout this entire section of the Epistle (chapters 
vi, 1-viii. 39). 


LXXXII. Ver. 7 ff. ri ov fpovpev; 6 vduo0¢ duapria ; 


At this point the Apostle takes up the second of the two questions men- 
tioned in a previous note, which are naturally suggested by v. 20—the verse 
in connection with which the present section of the Epistle (vi.—viii.) is intro- 
duced. If the doctrine of justification by faith does not directly lead to con- 
tinuance in sin, does it not involve the. view of the divine (Mosaic) law which 
makes that law ‘‘a something, whose ethical nature is immoral?” In the in- 
mediate sequence of thought and grammatical connection, however, the ques 
tion arises out of what is said of the law in vv. 5, 6—od»v pointing to those 
verses. The answer to the question is presented in the same form as in Vi. 2; 
but the proof confirming the negative is set forth in a less direct way. In the 
confirmatory passage containing this proof, vv. 7-13, there are several ele- 
ments : In the order of succession, (a) the statement that the law ia not sin, but 
the means of the knowledge of sin; (b) the way by which it becomes the 
means to this end ; (c) the condition of the man to whom the law comes, both 


| NOTES, 291 
before and after its coming ; (d) sin, not the law, is the sinful thing, as made 
manifest by the fact that it uses the holy law as a means to bring about its 
own ends. Jn the order of importance, as related to the question of ver. 7, a 
and d are of primary consequence, and @ contains the positive statement 
which is in direct contrast with the negative in the phrase 7 yévorro ; band e¢, 
however, are further developed, and brought into special prominence in vv. 14— 
23, and the writer thus shows that they involve thoughts of especial interest 
in his discussion. ° 

LXXXUOL Vv. 7-13. 


With respect to the development of the thought in vv. 7-13, the following 
points may be noticed : (1) aAAd, of ver. 7, evidently does not express the 
absolute contrast, which is commonly set forth in such sentences by the use 
of this word after a negative particle. Possibly the Apostle, in using it, may 
have had in mind the thought of the 13th verse, and have supposed that the 
reader would adjust the relations of the passage properly when he should have 
reached that verse. In Gal. iv. 8, dAAé contrasts with the idea of the sonship 
into which the readers had been brought (see the preceding verses), that of 
desiring and turning to a new bondage. Yet the latter idea is not found in 
the clause which is opened by the daad, but in a succeeding one introduced by 
wo. This and similar passages, though not in exact correspondence with the 
cae here presented, may serve to illustrate the freedom of Paul’s method of 
Writing in reference to such words. The 8th verse here, with its dé, belongs in 
close connection with the clauses from 4424 to émiGuyujoec of ver. 7, and fills 
out to completeness the thought of those clauses. Ver. 8, however, anticipates 
in substance the idea of ver. 13.—(2) Meyer seems to be correct in holding that 
the meaning of odx éyrwv is I did not know—pointing to the Apostle’s own 
history—and not I should not have known. ‘ The reference, also, is, as Meyer 
says, to the consciousness of sin as a power and active principle. This is 
clearly indicated by the following verses. The meaning of oix géecv, on the 
other hand, is probably, though not certainly, equivalent to ota dv gdeww (only, 
“more definite and confident,’’ Mey.). It seems not improbable, also, that the 
Apostle may have intended to carry the gdev back to a time antecedent to the 
tyov, and thus have meant J should not have known—except the law had said 
(80 Godet), rather than I should not know—except the law said (so Mey., Weiss 
ed. Mey., etc.). Holsten, Gifford, and some others prefer to give to #derv, as 
to tyruv, the simple force of the indicative—J did not know. érOuuia and obx 
énGushoece manifestly have a more extended reference than is given in Exod. 
1. 17, though the latter words are, doubtless, quoted from that passage. That 
the law produces conviction of sin—in the ordinary sense of this phrase—is 
hot the direct and immediate statement of this and the following verses ; but 
this idea is, nevertheless, suggested, and vv. 14-23 present the condition and 
experience of one who is under such conviction.—(3) The meaning of dé6avov, 
Sévaroc, tw, eto., is discovered by observing the fact that a new paragraph 
begins with ver. 7; also, that, in this paragraph, the state of the man under the 
power of sin asa controlling master is set forth; and that, in ver. 24, this 
state is apparently described by the word @draroc. The indications, thus, are 
that neither physical nor eternal death is referred to in this word, but spiritual 
death, This view is, also, given by Weiss ed. Mey., in opposition to Meyer, 
who understands by it eternal death. When the Apostle says, I died, accord- 


292 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 


ingly, he means that he passed into this state of spiritual death, whereas, 
during the period referred to in (wv, he had been in the opposite condition. 
As the verb avéfnoev, ver. 9, however, means came to life again, and not simply 
came to life—and thus vexpd does not involve the idea of an actually dead con- 
dition, as if there were and had been no existence of the sin-principle, but 
only of an inactive condition (dormant, ‘‘exhibiting,” as Meyer says, ‘no 
vital activity”), it seems probable that he has in mind, in the living and dy- 
ing, the absence and presence not so much of sin, in every sense, as of sin in 
its working power and in the manifestation of that power to his consciousness. 
The time indicated by é{wv . . . . mére is the time previous to this manifests- 
tion (the time of ‘‘ childlike innocence” (Mey.), which, in some cases, may be 
extended beyond the limits of early childhood, if the knowledge of the divine 
law does not immediately after that period come tothe soul. In Paul's om 
experience, it ended when he began to understand the significance of the 
Mosaic law, to which véyo¢ in all instances throughout the passage, from ver. 
7 to ver. 20, refers.—(4) It must be admitted—as Weiss ed. Mey., also allows 
—that, in ver. 10, the contrast between eic (wv and el¢ Odvarov points to the 
idea of eternal death following upon, and in a sense involved in, spiritual 
death as before the writer's mind. Yet even there this idea is suggested only | 
secondarily, the primary reference being to the spiritual condition which has 
already begun.—(5) The 12th verse is introduced, through dere, as the result 
and conclusion of the preceding verses, and the 13th asa question which 
might be suggested by this conclusion in its reference to what goes before. 
These verses, however, in their main thought, contain what might naturally 
have followed the question of ver. 7, and, as Meyer says, they answer to one 
another as if ver, 13 were opened by the particle dé, corresponding with év of 
ver. 12.—(6) By reason of the manner in which, in the progress of his sen- 
tences, the Apostle is led to introduce ver. 13, the 14th and ffg. verses are made 
to be a proof (yép) of ui) yév. GAAG f duapria. These verses present in themselves, 
however, a further development of the thought suggested by é¢yo a7éGavov, and 
carry the man forward in his experience under the power and conviction of sin 
(vv. 14-23) to the turning point of his life (vv. 24, 25). They thus give, in 
substance, a part of the answer to the question of ver. 7. 


LXXXIV. Vv. 14-23, — 


That the passage from ver. 14 to ver. 23 refers to the unregenerate man, and 
not the regenerate, is proved by the following considerations. (a) The most 
prominent words of a descriptive character are appropriate to the former, but 
are wholly inappropriate to the latter. (1) In ver. 14 the correct textual read- 
ing is undoubtedly odpxivoc, which is a stronger word than oapkixéc, as Meyer 
shows, and signifies made out of flesh—the adjectives in croc having this mean. 
ing. By his first sentence, accordingly, Paul declares the ‘«I°’ tu be so thor- 
oughly carnal as to justify the expression made of the evil principle. The regen- 
erate person is not in this condition. (2) The next succeeding clause, in 
similarly emphatic language, pronounces him to be sold under sin. The 
‘thought is, unquestionably, of a being sold as a slave to a master who has 
complete dominion and ownership. This thought is confirmed and established 
by the following verses. The Christian, however, asthe Apostle repeated!y says, 
is free from such complete dominion. (3) Ver. 21 presents the general rule or 





NOTES. 253 


the uniform experience of the life of the person under consideration as this : 
that when he desires to do what is good, evil is present with him ; and ver. 23 
declares, as the evidence that such is the rule, the fact that the law in the mem- 
bers (the appetites and passions) overpowers the law of the mind and brings the 
man into captivity toitself. But thisis neither the uniform experience nor the 
general rule of the regenerate life. The true Christian may sometimes yield 
to temptation and fall into sin; he may even become oapxixdéc. But he is 
never oapx:vog ; he is never sold under sin as an absolute slave ; comp. ch. vi. 
The dotAo¢ duapriac is not a Christian. (b) The words, which seem, at the first 
view of them, to favor a reference to the regenerate person, are easily recon- 
ciled with the other reference, when the passage is carefully examined. It 
may be noticed, (1) that the ¢ys may be ruled over by two masters and in- 
volves two elements. The two masters are sin, and righteousness or God ; the 
two elements are the conscience and the passions, the better and worse side of 
the man. These two elements are always in the éyo, but may, either of them, 
be more or less active, or, on the other hand, more or less dormant. When 
the man becomes convinced of sin, and is roused to a vigorous struggle to free 
himself from its power—and it is of such a condition that the Apostle is here 
speaking—he finds the two elements in conflict with each other. But he isso 
far under the dominion of the sin which holds him as a slave, that he does, 
not what his better nature wishes, but what it abhors. There is a desire, 
which accords with the demand of conscience and thus with the law of God, 
but the opposite force is too strong. The ruling power accomplishes its own 
will. (2) As the éyo is thus conceived of for the purpose which the writer has 
in mind, we are not to understand the éyo, in vv. 17, 20, as the man in a regen- 
erate state, and the 7 olxovoa ev éuol dzapria as the lingering remains of sin 
abiding with him ; but the eyo is the entire man, who is at one time occupied 
and ruled over, as a domain, or as a slave, by duapria, and at another by dixaco- 
civn. The Apostle is setting forth the power of sin, and the consciousness of 
it in his own experience. To this end he adopts this method of representa- 
tion. Sin governs him completely in his unregenerate condition. It is this 
master, taking up its abode with him and in him, which overcomes all his 
better desires and impulses, defeats all his efforts, wars against his conscience, 
and, whenever he wishes to do good, brings him into captivity to evil. So ex- 
ceedingly sinful is it, and such is its deadly effect.—As these two points are 
observed, it will be seen that such words as 6fAw, yiod, ovKére Ey KaTenyafouat, 
are properly applicable to the unregenerated man awakened to the conscious- 
ness of sin, and are used consistently with the object which the Apostle has in 
view. (c) The progress of thought in chaps. vii. and viii. is reconciliable only 
with the reference of vv. 14-23 tothe unregenerate. If we do not hold that viii. 
land the following verses refer to the regenerate person as such, we must either 
suppose that they describe him in some higher stage of development, either in 
this world or in heaven, which is contradicted by the very first words of those 
verses—the language being simply those who are in Christ Jesus; or that there 
is an entirely new section opened with the eighth chapter, which cannot be 
accepted because of the manifest connection of this chapter with the seventh 
and the striking similarity in phraseology. But if viii. 1 ff. describes the re- 
generate as such, and from the turning point of conversion, vii. 14-23 must set 
forth the condition previous to this great change. (d) The most natural, not 
to say the necessary, interpretation of airéc, vii. 25, is that it means in and of 


294 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


myself, as apart from Christ. If this be the true explanation, however, the 
words connected with it show that the state described in vv. 14-23 is the state 
apart from Christ, and before the deliverance through Him is gained. 


LXXXYV. Ver. 21. cipioxa rdv vépov rH BéAovre x.7.A, 


Weiss ed. Mey. rejects the explanation which Meyer gives of these words, 
and says that nothing can be adduced sufficient to sustain such an artificial 
construction as it involves. He adopts substantially—and this seems quite 
clearly to be the correct view of the sentence—the interpretation given by 
Luther, de Wette, and most others, making rdv véuov mean the constant rule of 
experience. The objections urged by Meyer against this view are without real 
force. The dr: clause involves, in opposition to his statement, ‘‘a definition’’ 
of the 1éu0¢, so far as to account for its use in a sense different from that which 
it has in other cases in the context. The position of véuory after evpicxw is the 
natural position, and the placing of r@ GéAovri «.r.A. before dr: for the purposes 
of emphasis does not require the placing these words also before roy véuovr. 
Finally, the suggestion that dr: . . . wapdxe:raris not a vdyoc, but “‘ something 
empirical, a phenomenon of fact,” furnishes no argument, for the calling such 
a uniformly occurring experience a law or rule is allowable for any writer. As 
Weiss remarks, however, this véuo¢ is by no means to be identified with the 
Erepog véuog év toig wéAect of ver. 23. The grounds for rejecting the other views 
alluded to by Meyer are presented, with sufficient fulness, in his notes. If 
véuo¢ in this sentence is, thus, to be regarded as not referring to the Mosaic 
law, it is because the indications of the sentence manifestly require another 
meaning ; and the exception to the general usage with respect to this word, 
which is here presented, accords with the statement made in a previous note. 


LXXXVI. Ver. 22, xara rov éow dvOpuror, 


The fow dvfpwroc is, as Meyer holds, substantially the same with the wir. 
It is, says Godet, ‘‘ the organ with which the human soul is endowed to per- 
ceive the true and good, and to distinguish them from the bad and false ;’’ to 
approve, we may add, the former. It is that side of the ego which sympathizes 
with the law of God (comp. Weiss), and answers to the moral sense or con- 
science. That it does not necessarily or probably mean, in this passage, 
either the moral sense under the guidance and control of the Divine Spirit, as 
in the regenerate person, or ‘‘the new man,” 6 xaivd¢ 4vGpw7r0c,—that, on the 
other hand, it has, in all probability, no such signification, is proved by all the 
considerations, already presented, which show that Paul is speaking through- 
out the entire passage of the unregenerate, and also by the fact, alluded to in 
Meyer's foot-note, * p. 282 that the expression ‘‘inner man,” as it occurs in other 
places (see 2 Cor, iv. 16 ; Eph. iii. 16), denotes ‘‘that which receives the Spirit 
and grace, and not the work of these” which is the new man. The argument 
derived from the fact that voic is contrasted with odpé in v. 25, which is urged 
by some writers as proof that both this word and 6 éow dv6p. refer to the re- 
generate, has no decisive force. The question in that verse depends wholly 
on what the contrast intended is; and this question is answered by the other 
emphatic contrast of the verse, which is implied in atrdc éyd. When rightly 
viewed, therefore, the 25th verse, so far from establishing what is claimed by 


NOTES. 295 


these Writers, confirms the opposite. Godet says, ‘‘We must beware of con- 

founding the inward man with the new man,” and Dr. Gifford, in the Speaker's 

Comm, , after remarking that ‘‘it is now admitted by all candid and competent 
Interpreters that this expression is not in itself equivalent to the new man,” 

Very fitly adds, ‘« that the context only can decide whether the inward man is 
Tegarded as in his natural or his regenerate state.’’ This is the true position. 

The context, however, determines the former state to be the one referred to. 

The closing words of Meyer's foot-note, already mentioned, are omitted by 

Weiss in his recent edition of Meyer, doubtless because they seemed to have 
only a personal reference and @ passing importance. But they are worthy of 
preservation in this American edition, as indicating the character of the au- 
thor and the great and true work as a biblical interpreter which he did ; and 
also, mulatis mutandis, as having a wide application. <‘‘ Delitzsch,’’ he says, 
“brings against me the charge of being un-Lutheran and unbiblical. The 
latter I must deny ; the former does not affect me as exegete, since as such I 
have only to inquire what is exegetically right or wrong. Philippi quotes 
against me authorities (of very various kinds) which as such prove nothing ; 
and reminds me of the position of investigation as to the idea of the odpé I 
may be trusted to possess some acquaintance with the position of such inves- 
tigations, including even those which the respected theologian has not em- 
braced in his quotations, and to some extent could not yet do so.” ‘The fact 
that Meyer was able to say—as the principle of his working—what he does in 
answer to Delitzsch, shows his great superiority as an exegetical scholar; and 
his words might well be made a motto for all rising scholars in this depart- 
ment. What he says of Philippi, on the other hand, will find as response in 
the experience of every widely read student who has been drawn by theologi- 
cal enemies into controversy. 


LXXXVII. ver. 22, 23. 


The question as to the number of laws alluded to in these verses, which has 
divided commentators—whether there are three or four—may be answered by 
observing two facts which the several clauses present: (1) that, whereas the 
Apostle, in designating the law of God, of the mind, and of sin, uses the geni- 
tive of the author or of possession, he describes the érepov véuorv, on the other 
hand, as a law in the members, using the local preposition ; (2) that, in the 
lutter part of ver. 23 he states, respecting the law of sin, that it is the one which 
is in the members (ro dvr x.t.A.). These facts seem to make it evident that the 
trepog véuoc and the vduoc t7¢ duapriag are the same thing, and that three laws 
only are spoken of—namely, the law of God, the law of the mind, and the law 
of sin which is in the members. 


LXXXVIII. Ver. 24. éx rot cduarog tot Oavdrov rotrov. 


The construction of rovrov with cauaros is justly objected to by Meyer, on the 
ground that ‘‘ the sense is against it.”’ The liability to misunderstanding on 
the part of the reader, which would have arisen from the position of the pro. 
noun after Gavdrov, had this been the writer's idea, is also alluded to by him, 
and is urged by Godet, Weiss, and others. Philippi, on the contrary, says that 
the latter argument rests on a very precarious canon, inasmuch as ‘a writer 
often intends a particular definite collocation of words, without reflecting that 


296 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


forthe reader it may be ambiguous.’’ He claims, moreover, that, Gdvaro¢ not 
being the subject of thought in vv. 14-24, and vv, 10 ff. being too remote, the 
reference must be to the body which is spoken of as the seat of duapria. To 
this it may be answered that, although the word 6dvaroc does not occur in vv. 
14-28, the condition described in those verses is that of spiritual death con- 
sciously realized by the ego, and realized in such a way and degree as naturally 
to make him cry out for deliverance : who shall deliver me from the body of this 
death—i.e. so far forth as it is given up to this dreadful condition and this ter- 
rible master. The man, under conviction of sin, and seeing his own efforts to 
free himself from its dominion to be fruitless and hopeless, is in an agony of 
desire to find some helper who shall thus rescue him, but knows not whither 
to turn until Christ is revealed to his mind. 


LXXXIX. Ver. 25. yvépic ro Seq dia "Igoov Xpicros. 


The textual reading 4 xépic tov Oeod in this verse, though manifestly, as 
Meyer says in his critical notes at the beginning of the chapter, an alteration 
of the true text, may be regarded not only as arising from the desire to give an 
answer to the preceding question, but also as suggesting the idea which was in 
the Apostle’s mind in connection with the deliverance—namely, that it was 
through the great gift of the grace of God in the person of Jesus Christ. For 
this the man, as he is brought to know the help and the helper for whose ap- 
pearance he has despairingly cried out, gives thanks to God through Christ. 


XO. Ver. 25. dpa ovw atréc éyd . . . . duapriag. 


dpa ov introduces a concluding summary (as Meyer says) of the chief con- 
tents of vv. 14-23. Its position after the first clause of the verse does not in- 
dicate that the condition of the man described in the following words is his 
condition subsequent to the time of his deliverance through Christ. On the 
contrary, the emphatic avroc, as already stated in previous notes, proves that 
it is not so. The true explanation of the matter seems to be this :—that the 
Apostle, according to his purpose and plan, carries forward the experience of 
the man to the time of conversion ; that vv. 24 and 25a describe the passing 
to the new life, the last step of the old and the first of the new ; and that 
then, in a single sentence, he looks back and reviews the unregenerate state as 
preparatory to a setting forth of the opposite character of the regenerate con- 
dition in the next chapter. In order that he may not break the close con- 
nection, and thus the rhetorical force of vv. 24, 25a, he defers writing the 
words of 25b until after he has given in 25a the statement of what, in point of 
time, actually follows the experience which they describe, 


CHAP. VIII. 297 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Ver. 1. After "Incot Elz. has pu) xaTd odpxa mepitarovatv, aAAd Kata nvevua, 
which, following Mill, Griesb. and subsequent critics have expunged. The 
words are wanting either entirely, or at least as to the second half, in a pre- 
ponderance of codd., vss., and Fathers, and are an old inapposite gloss from 
ver. 4. — Ver. 2. we] BF G &, Syr. Tert. Chrys. have ce, which Tisch. 8. has 
adopted. Repetition in copying of the preceding syllable. — Ver. 11. dia rd 
évorxoiv avtov zvevua) So Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 
7., following Erasmus, Mill, and Bengel. The Recepta, again adopted by 
Tisch, 8., is dia rod évorxobvrog avrov mvetparoc. The witnesses (for an accurate 
examination of which see Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 54 ff.) are so divided, 
that there is on neither side a decisive preponderance, although, besides A and 
C, & also supports the genitive. The thought of itself, also, equally admits 
either reading. A decision between them can only be arrived at through the 
circumstance that the passage came to be discussed in the Macedonian con- 
troversy, wherein the Macedonians accused the orthodox of having falsified the 
ancient codices, when the latter appealed to the Recepta and asserted that it 
stood in all the ancient codd. See Maxim. Dial c. Maced. 3. in Athanas. Opp. II, 
p. 452. This charge, though retorted by the orthodox on the Macedonians, is 
worthy of credit, because dia ro «.7.A. already predominates in Origen and the 
oldest vss. (also Syr. Vulg.) ; consequently that assertion of the orthodox appears 
erroneous. The Recepta, indeed, is found in Clem. Strom. II. p. 344, Commel. 
545. Pott.; but this single trace of its high antiquity loses its weight in opposi- 
tion to the here specially important vss. and Origen (also Tert. and Iren.), and 
in the face of these bears the suspicion of orthodox alteration having been 
wrought on the text of Clement. It is possible, however, that even long pre- 
vious to the Macedonian controversy the questions and disputes respecting the 
Holy Spirit may have occasioned now and again the changing of da ro x.r.A into. 
d:a row x.7.A, At all events, the dogmatic interest attached to both readings is 
too great and too well attested to admit of dui rov x.r.A. being referred, with 
Bengel and Fritzsche, to a mere error in copying. In the controversy the geni- 
tive only (as introducing a relation different from that obtaining with the pre- 
vious abstracts 2’ duapriav and d:a d:xaiooivyv) must have been welcome to the 
orthodox in defending the personality of the tvetza. Among modern commen- 
tators, Riickert, Reiche, Philippi, van Hengel, and Hofmann have declared for 
the accusative; whilst de Wette, Krehl, Tholuck, and also Ewald, adopt the 
genitive. — Ver. 13. tov cdu.] DE F G, Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, gives both 
readings) al. read rij¢ capxdés, which Griesb. recommended. An interpretation 
in the sense of the preceding. — Ver. 14. eiocv vioi Occt] Since among the un- 
cials AC DE & read vioi evi eic., while B F G have vioi eioty Ocod (830 Lachm. 
and Tisch.), we must regard the Recepta as at all events too weakly attested, 
The preference belongs, however, to vini eiosv Ocov, because the omitted eiciv 
(it is absent also in the Sahid.) would be more easily inserted again at the be- 
ginning or end than in the middle. — Ver. 23. xa? avrot rnv ar. 7. wv. by. K. nueig 
avroi] 8o Elz, The variations are very numerous. The readings to be taken 


298 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

into account, besides the Recepta, are—(1) xa) abrot r. amapy. rov mvevn. Ey. wai 
avtoi: so B, Meth. Tisch. 7. ;—(2) x. quei¢ atrol tr. awapy. Tt. wv. Ey. abtrol : so D 
FG, Ambros. Fritzsche ;—(3) «. avro) r. an, r. wv. Ex. [pueic) nai avroi: so Lachm. 
and, without bracketing jyeic, Tisch. 8., following A C &, min. Copt. Dam. 
The first of the three seems to have been the original reading ; jyeic is an ad- 
dition by way of gloss, which was written, in some cases, immediately beside 
the first cai avroi (thus arose the reading of Fritzsche), and in some cases only 
beside the second, thus producing the reading of A C &, as well as the Recepta. 
With the reading of Fritzsche the second xai disappeared, because, after the in- 
sertion of jueic had taken place in the first part, the subsequent xai avroi was 
no longer taken analeptically, and therefore xai was found to be merely confus- 
ing. The reading avro2 ol +r. ax. Tt. mv. Ey. K. nuei¢ avrot has so exceedingly 
weak attestation, that on that very ground it ought (against Bengel and Rinck) 
to be rejected. — viofeciav] wanting in D F G, codd. of It. Ambrosiaster. But 
how easily it came to be omitted, when the vio§ecia was viewed as something 
already possessed ! — Ver. 24. ri xai] B** E F G, Syr. Vulg. codd. of It. and some 
Fathers have only ri. So Lachm. But the very absence of need for the xai 
occasioned its omission. — Ver. 26. rg aof.] Approved by Griesb., adopted also 
by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. and Scholz have rai¢ do§eveiac, against deci- 
sive testimony. The sing. is also supported by 77¢ dejoews in F G, which is an 
explanatory addition to rj dcfev. Comp. Ambros. : ‘‘infirmifatem nostrae ora- 
tionis."’ The plural was substituted for the collective singular.—The reading 
tpocevguueba (Griesb. and others have spocevSéueba) is decisively attested.— 
After urepevrvyy. Elz. and Scholz have trép nudy, which, folowing ABDFG 
N* al. Arm. and Fathers, Lachm. and Tisch. have expunged. A defining ad- 
' dition. — Ver. 28. After ovvepyei Lachm. reads 6 Oed¢, in accordance with A B, 
Or. It was readily believed that, on account of ver. 27 and 29, zavra must be 
understood as accusative and God as subject. — Ver. 34. uaAdov dé xai] Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8. have only nad. dé, in accordance with A BC &, min. vss. and 
Fathers. But between JE and Ey. the seemingly unmeaning «ai was easily 
overlooked and omitted.— The omission of the second «ai (behind the first o¢) 
is less strongly attested by AC &, and may be sufficiently explained by non- 
attention to the emphasis of the thrice-used word. — Ver. 36, évexa] According 
toABDFGL N1V7. al. fvexev is, with Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., and Scholz, to 
be substituted. See LXX. Ps. xliv. 23. — Ver. 37. rot ayaz.] D E F G, vss. and 
Fathers read rév ayazyoarvza, which has against it the Oriental witnesses, and 
seems to be an alteration in accordance with an erroneous exposition of r, adyar. 
7. Xptorov in ver. 35 (see the exegetical remarks on that passage). — Ver. 38. otre 
Eveot. otre pé2d., otte duvduerc] So also Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., and Scholz. 
But Elz. has otre duvay., obre éveot. ofre peaA, Against greatly preponderating 
evidence, A transposition, because dvy. seemed to belong to the category of 
apxai. The evidence in favour of ofre duvdu., moreover, is so decisive and so 
unanimous, that it cannot, with Fritzsche, be regarded as an addition from 
1 Pet. iii, 22, 1 Cor. xv. 24, or Eph. i. 21. Tholuck, Philippi, and Ewald reject 
these words. But their different position in different witnesses is quite ex- 
plained by supposing that their place behind e(A., as well as their general 
isolation, were regarded as surprising and confusing. 


Chap. viii. Happy condition of man in Christ. — The certainty of salvation, 
which is represented in chap. v. 1 f. as the effect of justification by faith, 


CHAP, VIII., 1. | | 299 


appears here as brought about through the moral freedom attained in Christ. 
We see from this, that Paul conceived of faith not otherwise than as pro- 
ducing this freedom ;- so that faith is not only that which appropriates the 
atonement, but also the continuous subjective source and motive power of 
the divine life up to the final attainment of bliss. See Luther’s Preface, 
also his utterances quoted by Ritschl, Rechtfert u. Versdhnung, I. p. 142 ff., 
180 f. 

Vv. 1-11.’ Accordingly, the Christian is aloof from all condemnation, because 
he is free from the law of sin—a result which the Mosaic law could not accomplish, 
but which God haa accomplished through Christ. Yet he must live according to 
the Spirit, and not accordiny to the flesh; for the latter works death, but the 
Jormer life. 

Ver. 1. "Apa] draws an inference from the immediately preceding atric 
éy0. . . . Guapriac. If L, for my own person, left to myself, am subject 
indeed with the reason to the law of God, but with the flesh to the law of 
sin, then it follows that now, after Christ (as deliverer from the law of sin, 
ver. 2) has interposed, there is no condemnation, etc. This inference, and 
not that one must be in Christ, in order to get rid of every condemnation (Hof- 
mann), is indicated by ydp in ver. 2 as a matter of fact that has become his- 
torical. It is arbitrary to seek a connection with anything more remotely 
preceding (Hofmann, Koppe, Fritzsche, Philippi, and Bisping, with ciya- 
puta. . . . sudv in vil. 25 ; according to Bengel, Knapp, and Winzer, with 
vii. 6) ; but to suppose in dpa ‘‘a forestalling of the following ydép” (Tho- 
luck), is linguistically just as mistaken as in the case of d:6 in ii. 1. More- 
over, the emphasis is not upon viv, but on the prefixed ovdév : no condemna- 
tion therefore, none is now applicable, after that atré¢g éyd x.7.A. has been 
changed through Christ, etc. This applies against Philipp?’s objection, that, 
according to our conception of the connection, viv should have been placed 
at the beginning. But the objection, that Paul must have continucd with 
dé instead of dpa, is removed by the observation that in the airic éyé, prop- 
erly understood, really lies the very premiss of the altered relation. — viv] 
temporally, in contrast to the former state of the case. Comp. vil. 6. [See 
Note XCI. p. 345.] Philippi erroneously holds dpa viv as equivalent to dpa 
ovv—which it never is—being forced thereto by the theory that the regen- 
erate person is the subject of discussion in chap. vii. 14 ff. Hofmann’s 
view, however, that viv contrasts the present with the future aidy (eren nov, 
during the life in the flesh), is also incorrect. Nothing in the context sug- 
gestsit, and it must have been expressed in some such way as by #7, or by 
a defining addition. — ovdév xardéxpiya] se. éote : no sentence of condemnation 
(ver. 16), whereby God might deny them eternal life, affects them. The 
reason see in ver. 2. — roig év X.’I.] i.e. to those in whose case Christ is the 
clement, in which they are (live and move). The same in substance, but 
different in the form of the conception, is tveipa Xpiorov Exeev and Xprorog & 
tuiv in vv. 9, 10. 


1 On vv. 1-11 see Winzer, Progr. 1828.— mart capxds apaprias, see Overbeck in Hil- 
On ver. 4, particularly the words ¢» duow- genfeld’s Zeitschr. 1869, p. 178 ff. 


300 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Ver. 2.’ [Sec, with reference to several words and phrases in vv. 2-11, 
Note XCII. p. 346.] For the law of the Spirit leading to life delitered me in 
Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For the right explanation, it is to 
be observed—(1) The véuog 7. au. x. tov Yay. necessarily, in view of the con- 
nection, receives the definition of its meaning from chap. vii. 23, 25, as 
indeed 72evd. answers to the aiyyadwriZ. in ver. 28. For this very reason 
neither the moral law (Wolf) nor the Mosaic law (Pareus, de Dieu, Semler, 
Béhme, Ammon, and Reiche) can be meant ; the latter cannot, for the fur- 
ther reason that, after vii. 7, 12, 16, Paul could not thus name the Mosaic 
vénoc here, as Chrysostom has already urged. It is rather the law in our 
members, the power of sin in us, which, according to vii. 24, comp. vii. 10, 
18, is at the same time the power of (eternal) death (xat rot Savdrov), that is 
meant. The two are one power, and both genitives are genitives of the sub- 
ject, so that sin and death are regarded as ruling over the man. — (2) Since 
the réuog r. du. x. tT. Sav. cannot be the Mosaic law, so neither can the con- 
trasted véuog rt. rv. tho Cone be the Christian plan of salvation, like véyog zior. 
in iii. 27, but it must be an inward power in the man by which the law of 
sin and death is rendered powerless. It is not, however, the réyog rot vode 
(which had become strengthened through Christ), as, following older ex- 
positors, Morus, K6llner, and Schrader think ; because, on the onc hand, 
vovg and zveiya are specifically different, and if Paul had meant the law of 
the vows, he must have so designated it, as in vii. 23; and, on the other 
hand, there would result the utterly paradoxical idea, that the law of reason 
(and not the divine principle of the zvevua) makes man morally free. The 
7d wrevpa THC Cwnc is rather the Holy Spirit, who, working inwardly in the 
Christian (ver. 5), procures to him eternal life (comp. 2 Cor. iii. 6) ; and 6 
véuog tov mvevtuatog THC Cwhe 18 the ethically regulative government exercised by 
the rvevua (not the Spirit Himself, as Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Maier, and Th. Schott understand it, but His ruling power). — év X. ’I.] 
On account of ver. 3, to be connected neither with ry Cw7¢ (Luther, Beza, 
and others, including Béhme, Klee, Ewald, and Hofmann), nor with row 
rveby. (Flatt ; Tholuck : ‘‘ the sphere, in which the Spirit of life operates”), 
nor with véuzo¢ (Semler, Reiche), nor with 6 vdu. +. rv. r. ¢. (Calvin, Kollner, 
Gléckler, Krehl, and others), but with 7Aevdépwoe. So Theodoret, Erasmus, 
Melanchthon, Vatablus, and others, including Riickert, Olshausen, de 
Wette, Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, and Bisping. Jn Christ, the 
law of the Spirit has made us frec ; for out of Christ this emancipating ac- 
tivity could not occur (comp. John viii. 36) ; but in the fellowship of life 
with Him, in the being and living in Him (ver. 1), the deliverance which 
has taken place has its causal ground. The view which takes it of the od- 
jective basis that is laid down in the appearance and work of Christ, is un- 
suitable, because the discourse treats of the subjective ethical efficacy of the 
Spirit, which has the elva: év Xpror@ as the necessary correlative. — jAevd. } 


1 In vv. 2,8, we have one of the passages the Sonof God would have appeared as man, 
that are decisive in opposition totheaffirm- had man not become sinful. See generally 
ative answer which men have often at- Julius Maller, dogm. Adnh. pp. 66 ff., 82 f. 
tempted to give tothe question, whether 





CHAP. VIII., 3. ‘301 


aorist. For it is a historical act, which resulted from the effusion of the 
Spirit in the heart. The progressive sanctification is the further develop- 
ment and consequence of this act. 

Ver. 3. An illustration justifying the év Xpior@ ’Iqcot dev. x.7.A., just 
asserted, by a description of the powerfully effective actual arrangement, 
which God has made for the accomplishment of what to the law was impos- 
sible. — +6 yap adivarov rov véuov is an absolute nominative, prefixing a judg- 
ment on the following xaréxpive «.r.A. ‘‘ For the impossible thing of the 
law—God condemned,” etc. That is, God condemned sin in the flesh, which 
was a thing of impossibility on the part of the law. See Kriiger, § 57. 10, 12. 
Comp. also Heb. viii. 1, and on Luke xxi. 6 ; Wisd. xvi. 17 ; Kiihner, IT. 1, 
p. 42. It could only be accusative, if we should assume a general verb (like 
ézoinoe) out of what follows, which would, however, be an arbitrary course 
(in opposition to the view of Erasmus, Luther, and others). The prefizing 
z. y. adtv. r. v. has rhetorical emphasis, in contrast with the év X. ’I. in ver. 2.! 
On the genitive, comp. Epist. ad Diogn. 9 : rd adivaroy rig juertpac gboeuc, what 
our nature could not do. By a harsh hyperbaton Th. Schott takes a sense out 
of the passage, which it does not bear : because the impotence of the law became 
still wrecker through the flesh. Erroneous is also Hofmann’s view : ‘the 
impotence of the law lay or consisted therein, that it was weak through the flesh.” 
The abstract sense of ‘‘ powerlessness,” or incapacity, is not borne by rd adivarov 
at all ; but it indicates that which the subject (here the véuo¢) is not in a po- 
sition for, what is impossible to it. See especially Plat. Hipp. maj. p. 295 
E; comp. 9. 22; Xen. Hist. i. 4.6: awd tov rio médews dvvaroi, t.e. from 
what the city is in a position to tender. Moreover, since the words taken 
independently, with Hofmann, would only contain a preparatory thought 
for what follows, Paul would not have had asyndetically 6 Oeé¢, but must 
have proceeded by a marking of the contrast, consequently with 4 d2 Oed¢ ; 
so that these words, down to xara mveiya in ver. 4, would still have been in 
connection with yép. And even apart from this, the supplying of the sub- 
stantive verb would at most only have been indicated for the reader in the 
event of the proposition having been a general one with éori’ understood, 
and consequently if acdevei, and not 7odévec, were read. — év » 708. dia rf. 
capx. | because it was weak (unable to condemn sin) through the flesh, as is de- 
scribed in chap. vii. On év ¢, comp. 1 Cor. iv. 4; John xvi. 80 ; Winer, 
p. 362 [E. T. 387]. It is our causal in that ; dia r. capx. is the cause bringing 
about the nodive : through the reacting influence of the flesh, vii. 18 ff. — 6 Ocd¢ 
tov éavrov x.7.A.] God has, by the fact that He sent His own Son in the likeness 
(see on i. 23) of sinful flesh, and on account of sin, condemned sin in the flesh, 
that is, ‘‘God has deposed sin from its rule in the odpé (its previous sphere 
of power), thercby that He sent His own Son into the world in a phenome- 
nal existence similar to the sinful corporeo-psychical human nature.” — The 
participle xéuya¢ is not an act that preceded the xaréxp:ve (Hofmann, referring 


* Comp. Dissen, ad. Pind. Pyth. iv. 152. Hofmann, #»v would not be a mere copula, 

* Like ver. 1. Paul would have written but would mean situm erat, constitit in. 
intelligibly: 1d yap advvar. rov vou. év rovrp Miircker, p. 2, nevertheless agrees with 
dy ore aoddvec; especially as, according to Hofmann. 


302 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

it to the supernatural birth) ; on the contrary, God has effected the xazaxpi- 
oc inand with the having sent the Son. Respecting this use of the aorist 
participle, comp. on Acts i. 24 ; Eph. i. 5 ; Rom. iv. 20. — éavrot] strength- 
ens the relation to év du. o. du., and so enhances the extraordinary and ener- 
getic character of the remedial measure adopted by God. Comp. ver. 32. 
We may add, that in the case of éavroi, as in that of réupac (comp. Gal. iv. 
4) and év du. o. au. (comp. Phil. ii. 7), the conception of the pre-existence 
and metaphysical Sonship of Christ is to be recognized (in opposition to 
Hofmann) ; 80 that the previous op¢) Ocov forms the background, although, 
in that case, the supernatural generation is by no means a necessary presup- 
position (comp. on i. 3 f.)’—év duzormpuars oapxd¢ dpzapriac] in the likeness of sin- 
Jui flesh ; auapr. is the genitive of quality, as in vi. 6. He might indeed 
have come év pop¢% Ocot, Phil. ii. 6. But no : God so sent His own Son, that 
He appeared ina form of existence which resembled the fieshly human nature 
affected by sin. The év indicates in what material mode of appearance God 
caused His sent Son to emerge. He came in flesh (1 John iv. 2), and was 
manifested in flesh (1 Tim. iii. 16). Yet He appeared not in sinful flesh,* 
which is otherwise the bodily phenomenal nature of allmen. Moreover, His 
appearance was neither merely bodily, without the yy (Zeller), which, on 
the contrary, necessarily belongs to the idea of the odpé ; nor docetic (Krehl ; 
comp. Baur’s Gesch. d. 8. erst. Jahrh. p. 310), which latter error was already 
advanced by Marcion ; but it consisted of the general bodily material of 
humanity, to which, however, in so far as the latter was of sinful quality, 
it was not equalized, but—because without that quality—only conformed. 


Comp. Phil. ii. 7; Heb. ii. 14, iv. 15. 


1 See generally, Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, 
I. p. 285 ff.; Weiss, bib. Theol. p. 817. 

2In which, however, the idea is not con- 
veyed, that, like a sacrifice, He was loaded 
with the sin of others (Reiche), which was the 
case only in His death, not at His sending. 
Holsten, following the precedent of Genna- 
_ dius in Cramer’s Cat. p. 123, has erroneous- 
ly apprehended the cdpé of Christ as having 
been really cdpé auaprias, and as having thus 
had the objective principle of apapria, 
which in his case, however, neither attained 
to subjective consciousness nor to subject- 
ive act. See Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. 
p. 486 ff.; comp. also Hausrath, neut. 
Zeitgesch. Il. p.481f. But if this was the con- 
ception which Paul had, what was the ex- 
pression év duotwwpzare meant for? In it liesthe 
very negation of the capt anaprias—of the 
oapé, therefore, 60 far as it had the quality 
of sin. What Holsten advances in explana- 
tion of this expression is forced and irrele- 
vant, as if it were precisely the reality of 
the being affected by sin that is affirmed. 
Comp. against this, Sabatier, Uapdire Paul, 
p. 285.—Overbeck, along with various ap- 
propriate remarks in opposition to Holsten, 


The contrast presupposed in the 


comes nevertheless likewise to the conclu- 
sion that év énowuare bears, not a negative, 
but an affirmative relation to the capé 
apaptias, although the auapria of the adpt 
of Christ never in His case became conscious 
wapaBacts. But that the Son of God was 
sent in sinful flesh—which, according to 
Pfleiderer also (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeilechr. 
1871, p. 523), is assumed to be implied in our 
passage as an ethical antinomy—would be 
& paradox opposed to the entire New Tes- 
tament, which Paul could by no means 
utter (2 Cor. v. 21); and which, in fact, he 
with marked clearness and precision guards 
against by saying, not ¢v capxi auaprias, but 
év Ouotwuart o. au., and that in contrast to 
the quality of the odpf of all others, of 
which he had just predicated by év ¢ novdere 
éca tHe capxés & POWer 80 antagonistic to 
God. That paradox would have run: ev 
GWapxi wey auaptias, xwpis b@ tapaBdcews. See 
also Zeller in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitechr. 1870, p. 
801 ff., who rightly comes to the conclusion 
that the capé of Christ was of like nature to 
the capé auaprias, in so far as the latter was 
acdpt, but of unlike nature, inso far as it 
was affected by sin. 


CHAP. VIII., 3. 303 

specially chosen expression is not the heavenly spirit-nature of Christ 
(Pfleiderer)—to which the mere év capxi, or év duotdpate avd pdzev, as in Phil. 
ii. 7, would have corresponded—but rather holy unsinfulness.— The fol- 
lowing x. zepi duapr. adds to the How of the sending (év du. capx. duapr.) 
the Wherefore. The emphasis is accordingly on zepi: and for sin, on ac- 
count of sin,—which is to be left in its generality; for the following xaré- 
xptve x.t.A. brings out something special, which God has done with reference 
to the duapria by the fact that He sent Christ zepi duapriag. We are there- 
fore neither to refer rept aduapr., which affirms by what the sending of the 
Son was occasioned, exclusively to the expiation (Origen, Calvin, Melanch- 
thon, and many others, including Koppe, Béhme, Usteri ; comp. Baum- 
garten-Crusius), in which case Suciav (Lev. vil. 37 al. ; Ps. xl. 6; Heb. x. 
6, 18) was supplicd ; nor, with Theophylact, Castalio, and others, also 
Maier and Bisping, exclusively to the destruction and dving away of sin. 
It contains rather the whole category of the relations in which the sending of 
Christ was appointed to stand to human sin, which included therefore its 
expiation as well as the breaking of its power. The latter, however, is 
thereupon brought into prominence, out of that general category, by xaré- 
xpive x.7.A. as the element specially coming into view. Hilgenfeld, in his_ 
Zeitschr. 1871, p. 186 f., erroneously, as regards both the language and the 
thought (since Christ was the real atoning sacrifice, iii. 25), makes xai repi 
auapt., which latter he takes in the sense of sin-offering, also to depend on 
év duotmpatt. — xatéxpive r. du.| This condemnation of sin (the latter conceived 
as principle and power) is that which was impossible on the part of the law, 
owing to the hindrance of the flesh. It is erroneous, therefore, to take it 
as: ‘‘ He exhibited sin as worthy of condemnation” (Erasmus, de Dieu, Ecker- 
mann), and : ‘‘ He punished sin” (Castalio, Pareus, Carpzov, and others, in- 
cluding Koppe, Rickert, Usteri; comp. Olshausen, and Késtlin in the 
Jahro. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 115). Impossible to the law was only such 
a condemnation of sin, as should depose the latter from the sway which it 
had hitherto maintained ; consequently : He made sin forfeit its dominion. 
This de facto judicial condemnation (a sense which,.though with different 
modifications in the analysis of the idea conveyed by xaréxp., is retained by 
Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Valla, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Bengel, 
Reiche, Kdllner, Winzer, Fritzsche, Baur, Krehl, de Wette, Maier, Umbreit, 
Ewald, and others) is designated by xaréxpeve, without our modifying its 
verbal meaning into interfecit (Grotius, Reiche, Gléckler, and others), in 
connection with which Fritzsche finds this death of the duapria presented 
as mors imaginaria, contained in the physical death of Christ. Various ex- 
positors, and even Philippi, mix up the here foreign idea of atonement (‘‘ to 
blot out by atoning” ’) ; comp. also Tholuck and Hofmann. The expres- 


1 8ee, against this, also Rich. Schmidt, 
Paul. Christol. p. 49 ff. He, however, takes 
wéeuyas likewlse (comp. Hofmann) as prior 
to the cardcpive, holding that the latter, 
which took place through the death of 
Christ, had for its immediate object the capé 
and sin only asa mediate object. The mean- 


ing, in his view, is: ‘‘ God has pronounced 
sentence on the flesh, and therewith at the 
same time on the sin dwelling in tl." The de- 
struction of Christ’s flesh is thus an act of 
universal significance, by which the flesh in 
general, and therewith also sinitec/f/, has 
been condemned. But the text clearly and 


304 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


sion xaréxpive is purposely chosen in reference to xaréxpiua in ver. 1, but de- 
notes the actual condemnation, which consisted in the dominion of the 
duapria being done away,—its power was lost, and therewith God’s sentence 
was pronounced upon it, as it were the staff broken over it. Comp. on 
John xvi. 11 ; and see Hofmann’s Schriftd. II. 1, p. 855, and Th. Schott, 
p. 286. Yet Hofmann now discovers God’s actual condemnation of sin 
(‘‘the actual declaration that it is contrary to what is on His part rightful, 
that it should have man like a bond-serf under its control’) in the eman- 
cipation of those who are under sin by bestowal of the Spirit,—a view by 
which what follows is anticipated, and that which is the divine aim of the 
xatéxpive is included in the notion of it.—Observe further the thrice-repeated 
duaptia ; the last alone, however, which personifies sin as a power, has the 
article. —év rg capxi] belongs to xaréxp., not to ri du. (Bengel, Ernesti, 
Michaelis, Cramer, Rosenmiiller, and Hofmann), because it is not said ry év 
r. o., and because this more precise definition, to complete the notion of the 
object, would be self-evident and unimportant. But God condemned sin 
én the flesh: for, by the fact that God's own Son (over whom, withal, sin 
could have no power) appeared in the flesh, and indeed epi auapriac, sin has 
lost its dominion in the substantial human nature (hitherto ruled over by it). 
The Lord’s appearance in flesh, namely, was at once, even in itsel/, for sin 
the actual loss of its dominion as a principle ; and the aim of that appear- 
ance, mepi duaptiac, which was attained through the death of Christ, brought 
upon sin that loss with respect to its totality. Thus, by the two facts, God 
has actually deprived it of its power in the human odpé ; and this phenom- 
enal nature of man, therefore, has ceased to be its domain. Hofmann, 
without reason, objects that r. duapr. must in that case have stood before 
xatéxpive. The main emphasis, in fact, lies on xaréxpive tr. duap7., to which 
then éy r. capxi is added, with the further emphasis of a reference to the 
causal connection. Many others take év r. capxi as meaning the body of 
Christ ; holding that in this body put to death sin has been put to death at 
the same time (Origen, Beza, Grotius, Reiche, Usteri, Olshausen, Maier, 
Bisping, and others) ; or that the punishment of sin has been accomplished 
on His body (Heumann, Michaelis, Koppe, and Flatt). But against this it 
may be urged, that plainly év r. capxi corresponds deliberately to the pre- 
vious dca r. capxéc ; there must have been aizov used along with it. Comp. 
Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 160f. 

Ver. 4. The purpose which God had in this xarkxp. r. du. év r. o. Was: in 
order that (now that the rule of sin which hindered the fulfilment of the law 
has been done away) the rightful requirement of the law might be fulfilled, etc. 
— 7d dix. T. vduov] Quite simply, as in i, 32, ii. 26 (comp. also on v. 16, and 
Kriiger on Thue. i. 41. 1): what the law has laid down aa its rightful de- 
mand. The singular comprehends these collective (moral) claims of right 
asa unity.' Others, contrary to the signification of the word, have taken 


expressly assigns, not the flesh, but th» material aphere, the act of the xcaraxpiveyr tiv 
Guapriavy, as the immediate object of «aré- apapr. has taken place. 

epive, So that an impartial exegesis can only 1 Many of the older dogmatic exegetes 
discover in év ry capxi, where, i.e. in what (see especially Beza, Calvin, Calovius, and 


CHAP. VIII., 4. 305 
it as justificatio (Vulg.) understanding thereby sometimes the making right- 
eous as the aim of the law, which desires sinlessness (Chrysostom and his 
followers, including Theodore of Mopsuestia), sometimes the satisfaction of 
justice (Rothe ; comp. on v. 16). K6llner, following Eckermann, makes it 
the justifying sentence of the law: ‘that the utterance of the law, which de- 
clares as righteous, and thus not only frees from the punishment of sin, but 
secures also the reward of righteousness, might be fulfilled on us, if we,” 
etc. Substantially so (dix. = sententia absolutoria), Fritzsche, Philippi, and 
Ewald (‘‘ the verdict of the law, since it has condemnation only for the sin- 
ners, and good promises for the remainder, Deut. xxviii. 1-14”). But against 
this it may be urged, first, that dixaioua r. véuov, because the genitive is a 
rule-prescribing subject, cannot, without urgent ground from the context, 
be taken otherwise than as demand, rightful claim (comp. also Luke i. 6 ; 
Heb. ix. 1, 10; LXX. Num. xxxi. 21) ; secondly, that vv. 3, 4 contain the 
proof, not for ovdéy xardxpeyua in ver. 1, but for ver. 2, and consequently 
ive . . . quiv must be the counterpart of the state of bondage under the law 
of sin and death (ver. 2)—the counterpart, however, not consisting in the 
freedom from punishment and the certainty of reward, but in the morally 
free condition in which onc does what the law demands, being no longer 
hampered by the power of sin and death, so that the fulfilment of the 
dixaiwua tov véuov is the antithesis of the duapria so strongly emphasized pre- 
viously ; thirdly, that rote uw . . . rvedua is not the condition of justifica- 
tion (that is faith), but of the fulfilment of the law ; and finally, that in ver. 
7, TO yap véuw T. Oeov ovy brordoceral, ovdi yap divarae 13s manifestly the coun- 
terpart of 1d dix. r. véuov tAnpwSh In ver. 3. — rAnpwhG] as in Matt. ili. 15 ; 
Acts xiv. 26; Rom. xiii. 8; Gal. v. 14, al. Those commentators who take 
dixaiwua as sententia absolutoria take rAnp. as may be accomplished on us (év 
Huiv).—év quiv] Not: through us, nor yet: in us, which is explained as 
either : in our life-acticity (de Wettc), or as referring to the inward fulfill- 
tng of the law (Reiche, Klee, and Hofmann), and to the fact that God 
fulfils it in man (Olshausen ; comp. Tholuck) ; but, as shown by the fol- 
lowing roig . . . xepirarovoty x.7.A. : on us, 80 that the fulfilling of the law’s 
demand shall be accomplished and made manifest in the entire walk and conver- 
sation of Christians. This by no means conveys the idea of merely outward 
action (as Hofmann objects), but includes also the inner morality accordant 
with the law.’ Regarding this use of év, see Bernhardy, p. 211 f. ; Winer, p. 
361 [E. T. 386]. The passive form (not : iva tAnpdouuer] is in keeping with 
the conception that here the Jaw, and that so far as it must be fulfilled, stands 
out in the foreground of the divine purpose. The accomplishment of its 
moral requirement’is supposed to present itself as realized in the Christian, 
and that adivarov rov véuov of ver. 3 is assumed to be thereby remedied. — 


Wolf tn loc.) have explained the demand of 
the law, and the mode of its fulfilment, 
contrary to the context (since what is here 
spoken of is the proper morality of the 
Christian as emancipated), in such a way 
that the law's demand is to be understood 
as well of the punishments which it would 


require for transgression, as of the perfect 
obedience which it desires to have ; Christ 
having fulfilled both by His double obedi- 
ence in our stead, so that the demand of 
the law is fulfilled In us (by imputation). 

1 Comp. Ernesti Ethik d. Ap. P. p. 69 f. 


306 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


roi¢ wi) Kata odpxa x.t.A.] quippe qui ambularemus, etc. These words give neg- 
atively and positively the specific moral character, which is destined to be 
found in Christians, so far as the just requirement of the law is fulfilled in 
them. The py is here, on account of the connection with iva, quite according 
torule ; Bacumlein, Partik. p. 287f. In what that fulfilment manifests itself 
(Hofmann) Paul does not say,’ but he announces the moral regulative that 
is to deternine the inward and outward life of the subjects. He walks ac- 
cording to the flesh, who obeys the sinful lust dwelling in the oépé (vii. 18) ; 
and he walks according to the Spirit, who follows the guidance, the impelling 
and regulating power (ver. 2), of the Holy Spirit. The one excludes the 
other, Gal. v. 16. To take rveiya without the article (which, after the nature 
of a proper noun, it did not all need), in a sudjective sense, as the pneumatic 
nature of the regenerate man; produced by the Holy Spirit (see esp. Harless 
on Eph. ii. 22, and van Hengel)—as it is here taken, but independently of 
the putting the article, by Bengel, Riickert, Philippi, and others, following 
Chrysostom—is erroneous. See on Gal. v. 16. It never means, not even 
in contrast to odps,’ the ‘‘ renewed spiritual nature of man” (Philippi), but 
the sanctifying divine principle itself, objectively, and distinct from the hu- 
man zveiua. The appeal to John iii. 6 is erroneous. See on that passage. 

Ver. 5. The apostle regards the description just given, roi¢ yy Kata capxa 
x.T.4., a8 too important not to follow it up with a justification corresponding 
with its antithetical tenor. This he bases on the opposite ¢poveiv of the sub- 
jects, according to their opposite moral quality, so that the emphasis lies, 
not upon évrec and ¢povovorwy (Hofmann, ‘‘ as the being of the Ego is, s0 is 
also its mental tendency”), but, as shown by the antithesis of dé «.r.4., simply 
on xara odpxa and «. rvevua. The dvrec might be entirely omitted ; and ¢p0- 
vovorv is the predicate to be affirmed of both parties, according to its differ- 
ent purport in the two cases. — oi xara a. dbvrec] A wider conception (they 
who are according to the flesh) than oi x. o. wept. The latter is the manifes- 
tation in life of the former. — ra rao o. gpov.] whose thinking and striving are 
directed to the interests of the flesh (the article rjc. o. makes the cap objective 
as something independent) ; so that thus, according to vii. 21 ff., the fulfil- 
ment of the law is at variance with their efforts. Comp. on ¢pov., Matt. xvi. 
23 ; Phil. ii. 19 ; Col. ii. 2; Plat. Rep. p. 505 B ; 1 Macc. x. 20. 

Ver. 6. A second yép. The former specificd the reason (ver. 5), this 
second is erplicative (namely) ; asimilar repetition and mutual relation of yap 
being common also in Greek authors. Comp. xi. 24 ; see on Matt. vi. 32, 
xviii, 11 ; and Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 340 ; Kihner, II. 2, p. 856. — The 
striving of the flesh, namely (comp. voir rH¢ capxéc in Col. ii. 18), tends to 
bring man to (eternal) death (through sin), but the striving of the Holy Spirit 
to conduct him to (eternal) life and blessedness (of the Messianic kingdom). 
The explanation : the striving . . . has death as its consequence (Rickert, de 


1This would have required the odjective of dependence is given In the text. See 
negation, since the negation would attach Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 182. 
to xara adpea, In Plut. Lyc. 10, 19 (in oppo- 2 Observe that in ver. 10 the contrast is 
sition to Hofmann), the negation stands not capé, but caua—in opposition to Pfiei- 
-along with the participle, and the relation dererin Hilgenfeld's Zeifechr. 1871, p. 177. 


CHAP. VIII., 7—9. 307 


Wette, and many others), is right as to fact (comp. vi. 21), but fails to bring 
out the personifying, vivid form of the representation, which, moreover, 
does not permit us to introduce the analytic reflection, that the enmity 
against God is the desire of the fiesh ‘‘of itself,” and that it is death ‘‘on 
account of God” (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 563). That death is God’s penal 
decree, is true ; but this thought does not belong here, where it is simply 
the destructive effort of the odp£ itself that is intended to be conveyed, and 
that indeed, in accordance with the prevailing concrete mode of descrip- 
tion, as a conscious effort, a real gpoveiv, not as an impulse that makes the Ego 
its captive (Hofmann), since the same predicate ¢pévzya applies to the odps 
as well as to the mvevya. On eipyvy, blessedness, comp. ii. 10. Understood 
in the narrower sense (peace with God), it would yield a hysteronproteron, 
which Fritzsche actually assumes. 

Ver. 7. Acét:] propterea quod, introduces the reason why the striving of the 
flesh can be nothing else than death, and that of the Spirit nothing else than 
life and blessedness : for the former is enmity against God, the source of life ; 
comp. Jas. iv. 4. The establishment of the second half of ver. 6 Paul leaves 
out for the present, and only introduces it subsequently at vv. 10, 11, in 
another connection of ideas.—The ?y8pa ei¢ Ocdv has its ground assigned 
by ro y. vduy rT. O. obx trordacera, of which 7d ¢pdynua rig capxéc is still the 
subject (not 7 odpé, as Hofmann quite arbitrarily supposes) ; and the inward 
cause of this reality based on experience is afterwards specificd by ovd2 yap 
divaras (for it is not even possible for it). — divara:] namely, according to its 
unholy nature, which maintains an antagonistic attitude to the will of God. 
This does not exclude the possibility of conversion (comp. Chrysostom), 
after which, however, the odp§ with its gpdvnuc is ethically dead (Gal. v. 24). 
Comp. vi. 6 ff. 

Ver. 8. Aé] is not put for ov (Beza, Calvin, Koppe, and others ; comp. 
also Riickert and Reiche), but is the simple peraBarixéy, (autem), which, after 
the auxiliary clauses roy. véuy . . . dbvara:, leads over to a relation correspond- 
ing to the main proposition 7d ¢p. 7. odpx. ExIpa eic Gedy, and referring to the 
persons in the concrete. The propriety of this connection will at once be 
manifest if rpy. véuy . . . divarac be read more rapidly (like a parenthesis). 
According to Hofmann, the progress of thought is now supposed to 
advance from the condemnation of sin to the freedom from death. But such 
a scheme corresponds ncither with the preceding, in which sin and death 
were grouped together (vv. 2, 6), nor with what follows, where in the first 
Instance there is no mention of death, and it is only in ver. 10 f. that the 
special point is advanced of the raising from the dead. — év capxi] is in sub- 
stance the same as xara odpxa in ver. 5; but the form of the conception is : 
those who are in the flesh as the ethical life-element, in which they subsist, 
and which is the opposite of the eiva: év rvetyar: in ver. 9, and év Xpior@ in 
ver. 1. Comp. on vii. 5. The one excludes the other, and the former, as 
antagonistic to God, makes the apfoa: Ge@ (comp. 1 Thess. ii. 15, iv. 1) an 
im poasibility. 

Ver. 9. Antithetic (ye on the other hand) application of ver. 8 to the 
readers. —eizep] To take this word as guandoquidem, with Chrysostom and 


308 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


others, including Olshausen, is not indeed contrary to linguistic usage, since, 
like ei in the sense of érei (Dissen, ad Dem. decor. p. 195), eizep also is used 
in the sense of éveizep (see Kithner, ad Xen. Anabd. vi. 1. 26). But in the 
present instance the context does not afford the smallest ground for this 
view ; on the contrary, the conditional signification : if certainly, if other- 
wise (sce Klotz, ad Devar. p. 528; Baeuml. Partik. p. 202), is perfectly 
suitable, and with it the following antithetic ei dé corresponds. It con- 
veys an indirect incitement to self-examination. We may add that Paul 
might also have written eiye without changing the sense (in opposition 
to Hermann’s canon, ad Viger. p. 834). See on 2 Cor. v. 3; Gal. iii. 4 ; 
Eph. iii. 2. — oixet év tuiv] That is, has the seat of His presence and activity 
inyou. The point of the expression is not the constantly abiding (‘‘ stabile 
domicilium,” Fritzsche and others ; also Hofmann) $ in that case it would 
have needed a more precise definition (see, on the contrary, the simple oi« 
éyec that follows). Respecting the matter itself and the conception, see 
1 Cor. iii. 16, vi. 17, 19; 2 Tim. i. 14; John xiv. 23.’ The & mvetyari, 
which is not to be taken as ‘in the spiritual nature” (Philippi), and the a». 
Ocov oixei Ev beiv said with a significant more precise definition of rveiya, 
stand towards one another in an essential mutual relation. The former is 
conditioned by the latter; for if the Spirit of God do not dwell in the 
man, He cannot be the determining element in which the latter lives. Com- 
pare the Johannine: ‘‘ ye in me, and I in you.” According to Hofmann, 
the relation consists in the Spirit being on the one hand,” ‘‘as actire life- 
ground,” the absolutely inward, and on the other ‘‘as active ground of all 
life,” that which embraces all licing. This, however, is a deviation from the 
specific strict sense of the rveiua, which, in accordance with the context, 
can only be that Holy Spirit who is given to believers ; and the concrete 
conception of the apostle receives the stamp of an abstraction. — ei dé 
Ti¢ wvevpa Xpiorov x.t.A.] Antithesis of cimep . . . tiv, rendering very 
apparent the necessity of that assumption. ‘‘ Jf, on the other hand, any one 
hare not the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him,” is not in communion 
of life with Christ, is not a true Christian ; for airov refers to Christ, not to 
God (van Hengel). Moreover, it is not the non-Christians, but the sceeming- 
Christians (comp. 1 John iv. 13), who are characterized as those who have 
not the Spirit. —rvetya Xpiorov] (comp. Phil. i. 19; 1 Pet. i. 11) is none 
other than the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God. He is so called because the 
exalted Christ really communicates Himself to His own in and with the 
Paraclete (John xiv.), so that the Spirit is the living principle and the 
organ of the proper presence of Christ and of His life in them.* Comp. on 
2 Cor. iii. 16; Gal. ii. 20, iv. 6; Eph. iii. 17; Col. i. 27; Acts xvi. 7. 
That this, and not perchance the endowment of Christ with the Spirit 
(Fritzsche), is the view here taken, is clearly proved by the following ¢ 6 


1 Comp. also Ev. Thom. 10: svevpa Geov si”. p. 268. 
évornet év tp wardi rovTy. See passages from * Bengel : ‘‘testimonium Illustre de sancta 
Rabbinic writers on the dwelling of the ‘Trinitate ejusque oeconomia in corde 
Holy Spirit in man, quoted by Schoettgen, _fidelium.” 
p. 527; Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenthum, 


CHAP. VIII., 10. 309 
Kpeordc¢ év tiv. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 346. The designation of 
the Holy Spirit by rv. X ps arod is purposely selected in order to render very 
conspicuous the truth of the oi« gory aitov. Kéllner wrongly lays down 
a distinction between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ ; making 
the former the highest rveiua, the source and perfection of all rveiza, and 
the latter the higher God-resembling mind that was manifested in Christ. 
But a distinction between them is not required by vv. 10, 11 (see on that 
passage), and is decisively forbidden by Gal. iv. 6, compared with Rom. 
vili. 14-16. Wecannot even say, therefore, with Umbreit : ‘‘the Spirit of 
Christ is the medium, through which man obtains the Spirit of God ;” nor, 
with van Hengel, who compares Luke ix. 55: ‘‘si vero quis Spiritum, qui 
Christi est, cum eo non habet communem,” with which Paul would here be 
aiming at the (alleged) Judaism of the Romans. 

Ver. 10. The contrast to the foregoing. ‘*‘ Whosoever has not the Spirit of 
Christ, is not His ; if, on the other hand, Christ (i.e. rvevua Xpiorov, sce on 
ver. 9) is an you,” then ye enjoy the following blissful consequences :—(1) 
Although the body is the prey of death on account of sin, nevertheless the 
Spirit is life on account of righteousness, ver. 10. (2) And even the mor- 
tal body shall be revivified by Him who raised up Christ from the dead, 
because Christ’s Spirit dwelleth in you, ver. 11.—Vv. 10 and 11 have been 
rightly interpreted as referring to life and death in the proper (physical) 
sense by Augustine (de. pecc. merit. et rem. i. 7), Calvin, Beza, Calovius, 
Bengel, Michaelis, Tholuck, Klee, Flatt, Riickert, Reiche, Gléckler, Usteri, 
Fritzsche, Maier, Weiss l.c. p. 372, and others. For, jirst, on account of 
the apostle’s doctrine regarding the connection between sin and death (v. 
12) with which his readers were acquainted, he could not expect his r. cia 
vexp. 6’ au. to be understood in any other sense ; secondly, the parallel be- 
tween the raising up of Christ from death, which was in fact bodily death, 
and the quickening of the mortal bodies does not permit any other vicw, 
since (wor. stands without any definition whatever altering or modifying 
the proper sense : and lastly, the proper sense is in its bearing quite in har- 
mony with the theme of ver. 2 (which is discussed in vv. 8-11): for the 
life of the Spirit unaffected by physical death (ver. 10), and the final reviv- 
ification also of the body (ver. 11), just constitute the highest consumma- 
tion, and as it were the triumph, of the deliverance from the law of sin 
and death (ver. 2). These grounds, collectively,’ tell at the same time 
against the divergent explanations : (1) that in vv. 10, 11 it is spiritual 
death and life that are spoken of ; so Erasmus, Piscator, Locke, Heumann, 
Ch. Schmidt, Stolz, Béhme, Benecke, K6llner, Schrader, Stengel, Krehl, 
and van Hengel. (2) That ver. 10 is to be taken in the spiritual, but ver. 
11 in the proper sense ; so Origen, Chrysostom, Theodorct, Oeccumenius, 


1 They do not permit, moreover, any such 
widening of the idea, as Philippi and Hof- 
mann give to it. The former declares death 
to be, like the capa itself, spiritual-bodily ; 
as such itis even now theoverruling princi- 
ple, inhabiting soul and body. According 


to Hofmann, the body {is meant asin ¢haé 
death-condition which only finds its conclu- 
sion in dying, but in virtue of all this thero 
is already present that, which makes the 
body incapable of being a@ manifestation Of 
true life. 


310 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Grotius, Koppe, Olshausen, Reithmayr, and others ; de Wette unites the 
moral and physical sense in both verses, comp. also Nielsen and Umbreit ; see 
the particulars below. — vexpév] With this corresponds the $vy7d in ver. 11. 
It conveys, however, the idea ‘‘ conditioni mortis obnozium” (Augustine) more 
forcibly, and so as vividly to realize the certain result—he is dead !—a pro- 
lepsis of the final fate, which cannot now be altered or avoided. ‘Well is 
it said by Bengel: ‘‘magni vi; morti adjudicatum deditumquc.” Our 
body is a corpse! Analogous is the éya dé aréYavov in vii. 10, though in that 
passage not used in the sense of physical death ; comp. Rev. iii. 1.1 The 
commentators who do not explain it of physical death are at variance. And 
how surprising the diversity ! Some take vexp. as a favourable predicate, 
embracing the new birth = Vavarwiév ry duaprig (so with linguistic inaccu- 
racy even on account of d¢ du., Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, and with various modifications, also Erasmus, Raphel, Grotius, 
Locke, Heumann, Béhme, Baumgarten-Crusius, Reithmayr, and Miarcker ; 
comp. van Hengel, ‘‘mortui instar ad inertiam redactum”). Others take 
it as: miserable by reason of sin (Michaelis, Koppe, Kéllner), comp. de 
Wette : ‘‘Even in the redeemed there still remains the sinful inclination as 
source of the death, which expresses its power ;” Krehl as: ‘‘ morally 
dead ;” Olshausen : ‘‘not in the glory of its original destiny ;” Tholuck : 
in the sense of vii. 10 f., but also ‘‘including in itself the elements of moral 
life-disturbance and of misery.” Since, however, it is the body that is just 
spoken of, and since d:’ duapriav could only bring up the recollection of the 
proposition in v. 12, every view, which does not understand it of bodily 
death, is contrary to the context and far-fetched, especially since S:7r4 in 
ver. 11 corresponds to it. — de’ duapriav] The ground : on account of sin, in 
consequence of sin (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 419), which is more precisely known 
from v. 12. Death, which has arisen and become general through the en- 
trance of sin into the world, can be averted in no case, not even in that of 
the regenerate man. Hence, even in his case, the body is vexpdv dv’ duapriay. 
But how completely different is it in his case with the spirit! Td zveipa, 
namely, in contrast to the caua, is necessarily not the transcendent (Holsten) 
or the Holy Spirit (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, and others) ; 
nor yet, as Hofmann turns the conception, the spirit which we now have 
when Christ is in us and His righteousness is ours; but simply our hu- 
man spirit, t.e. the substratum of the personal self-consciousness, and as 
such the principle of the higher cognitive and moral activity of life as 
directed towards God, different from the yy, which is to be regarded as 
the potentiality of the human natural life. The faculty of the rveiya is the 
voc (vii. 25), and its subject the moral Ego (vii. 15 ff.). That the spirit of 
those who are here spoken of is filled with the Holy Spirit, is in itself a 
correct inference from the presupposition ei Xprord¢ év tuiv, Dut is not im- 


1 Also éuyvxov vexpov, Soph. Ant. 1167; not again rule.”’ Comp. van Hengel: “ne 
Epict. fr. 176 : wuxdpror ef Baordgov vexpor. peccati principio eerviat."". But how gratul- 
2Even though it be explained with tously is this negative sense imported into 
Ewald, referring to vi. 2 ff., ‘‘ dead on ac- the positive expression ! 
count o& sin, in order that the latter should 


CHAP. VIII., 11. 311 


plied in the word rd zveiya, as if this meant (Theodorct and de Wette) the 
human spirit pervaded by the Divine Spirit, the pneumatic essence of the 
regenerate man. That is never the case ; comp. on ver. 16. — (w#] i.e. life 
is his essential element ; stronger than ¢%, the reading of F. G. Vulg. and 
uss. of the It. Comp. vii. 7. With respect to the spirit of the true Chris- 
tian, therefore, there can be no mention of death (which would of necessity 
be eternal death) ; comp. John xi. 26. He is eternally alive, and that é:a 
Sixatoovvyy, on account of righteousness ; for the eternal fw4 is based on the 
justification th:.2 has taken place for Christ’s sake and is appropriated by 
faith. Riickert, Reiche, Fritzsche, Philippi (comp. also Hofmann), fol- 
lowing the majority of ancient expositors, have properly taken dcxacocivyy 
thus in the Pauline-dogmatic sense, seeing that the mural righteousness of life 
(Erasmus, Grotius, Tholuck, de Wettc, Klee, and Maier) because never 
perfect (1 Cor. iv. 4; Phil. iii. 9, a/.), can never be ground of the (u4. If, 
however, d:d dixacocivyy be rendered : for the sake of righteousness, ‘‘ in order - 
that the latter may continue and rule” (Ewald, comp. van Hengel), it 
would yield no contrast answering to the correct interpretation of vexpdy de’ 
au. It is moreover to be noted, that as d:’ duapr. does not refer to one's 
own individual sin (on the contrary, see on 颒 ¢ mdvte¢ quaptov, v. 12), so 
neither does did dixatooivgy refer to one’s own righteousness. — Observe, 
further, the fact that, and the mode in which, the dixacoofvy may be lost 
according to our passage, namely, if Christ is not in us,—a condition, by 
which the moral nature of the dixacoafvq is laid down and security is guard- 
ed against. . 

Ver. 11. According to ver. 10, there was still left one power of death, 
that over the body. Paul now disposes of this also, and hence takes up 
again, not indeed what had just been inferred (Hofmann, in accordance 
with his view of rd rvetua, ver. 10), but the idea conditioning it, ci dé X. év 
tu. ; not, however, in this form, but, as required by the tenor of what he 
intends to couple with it, in the form : « dé +. rv. row éyerp. "I. éx vexp. oiKet 
év tuiv. In substance the two are identical, since the indwelling of the 
Divine Spirit in us is the spiritual indwelling of Christ Himself in us. See 
on ver. 9.—The dé, therefore, simply carries on the argument, namely, from 
the spirit which is (uf (ver. 10), to the quickening that is certain even in 
the case of the mortal body (for observe the position of the xa). The 
apostle’s inference is: ‘‘The Spirit who dwelleth in you is the Spirit of 
Him that raised up Jesus ; consequently God will also, with respect to your 
bodies, a3 dwelling-placcs of His Spirit, do the same as He has done in the 
case of Christ.” The self-evident presupposition in this inference is, that 
the Spirit of God dwelt in Jesus during His earthly career (Luke iv. 1, 14, 
18; Acts i. 2; John iii. 84, xx. 22). — Cworomoe:] Not éyepet, but the 
correlate of Cwh ver. 10 (comp. ver. 6), and counterpart of vexpdv and Syyrd, 13 
purposely selected. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22. — 3:774] What he had previ- 
ously expressed proleptically by vexpéy, he here describes according to the 
reality of the present by 3v7rd. Observe, moreover, that Paul leaves out of 
view the fate of those still living at the Parousia. Their change is not included 
in the expression (wowace (Hofmann), a view which neither the sense of 


312 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


the word (comp. iv. 17 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 36 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18 ; John v. 21) nor 
the correlation with éyeipag permits. But to the readers’ consciousness of 
faith it was self-evident from the analogy of what is here said to them with 
reference to the case of their being already dead at the Parousia ; 1 Cor. 
xv. 51; 2 Cor. v. 2-4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15-17.—On the interchange of 'I7jcowv 
and rév Xpioréy Bengel rightly remarks : ‘‘ Appellatio Jesu spectat ad ipsum ; 
Christi refertur ad nos ;” for Jesus as Christ is destined to be the archetype 
for believers even in an eschatological respect. — dca 1d évorxovv x.7.4.] On 
account of Ifis Spirit that dwelleth in you. Observe the emphatic prefixing 
of the avrod relating to God. How could God, the Raiser up of Chnst, who 
was the possessor of His Spirit, leave the bodies of believers, which are the 
dwelling-places of the same Spirit, without quickening ? The more char- 
acteristic évocxovy (previously it was only oixei) is a climax to the representa- 
tion.—K6llner’s explanation may serve to exemplify the conception of our 
- passage in an ethical sense (Erasmus, Calvin, and many others) : ‘‘So will 
He who raised up Jesus from the dead bring to life also your bodies that 
are still subject to death (sinand misery), that is, ennoble also your sensuous 
nature and 8o perfect you entirely.” But even apart from this arbitrary inter- 
pretation given to the simple 3v7rd (which ought rather with van Hengel to 
be interpreted : ‘‘quamquam mortalia ideoque minoris numeri sunt”), how 
diffuse and verbose would be the whole mode of expressing the simple 
thought |! How utterly out of place this dualism of the representation, as if 
the divine work of the moral revivification of the body were something inde- 
pendent, alongside of and subsequent to that of the spirit ! See, moreover, 
generally on ver. 10,and the appropriate remarks of Reiche, Commentar 
crit. I. p. 62 ff. Lastly, according to de Wette’s combination of the two 
senses—the moral and the physical—the thought is: ‘‘This death-over- 
coming Spirit of God shall destroy more and more the principle of sin and 
death in your bodies, and instead of it introduce the principle of the life- 
bringing Spirit into your whole personality, even into the body itself,”— 
a thought which opens up the prospect of the future resurrection or change 
of the body. But the resurrection will be participated in by all believers 
at once, independently of the development noticed in our passage, by which 
their bodies would have first to be made ripe for it ; and even the change of 
the living at the Parousia is, according to 1 Cor. xv. 51 ff., not a process 
developed from within outwardly, but a result produced in a twinklinz 
from without (at the sound of the last trumpet),—a result, which cannot be 
the final consequence of the gradual inward destruction of the principle of 
sin and death, because in that case all could not participate in it simultane- 
ously, which nevertheless is the case, according to 1 Cor. xv. 51. Notwith- 
standing, this vicw, which combines the spiritual and bodily process of 
glorification, has been again brought forward by Philippi, according to 
whom what is here meant is the progressice merging of death into life, which 
can only be accomplished ' by the progressive merging of sin into the righteous- 


3 If it be attempted to apply this view to of application to all those to whom no 
the different subjects concerned, the ab- time is afforded between their conversion 
surdity is encountered, that itis incapable and their death, or between their conver- 


CHAP. VIII., 12, 138. 313 


ness of life, and of the coya into the mrveiya (7). The simple explanation of 
the resurrection of the body is rightly retained by Tholuck, Umbreit, Hof- 
mann, Weiss, and others ; whilst Ewald contents himself with the indeter- 
miinate double sense of eternal life beginning in the mortal body. 

Vv. 12-17. Accordingly we are bound not to live carnally, for that brings 
death ; whereas the government of the Spirit, on the other hand, brings life, be- 
cause we, as moved by the Spirit, are children of God, and as such are sure of 
the future glory. 

Ver. 12. "Apa otv] Draws the inference not merely from ver. 11, but from 
the contents closely in substance bound up together of vv. 10, 11. ‘‘ Since 
these blissful consequences are conditioned by the Spirit that dwelleth in 
us, we are not bound to give service to the flesh.” That has not deserved 
well of us !—ov rq capxi . . . G#v] In theslively progress of his argument, 
Paul leaves the counterpart, a44a 16 mvebuati, row Kata rvevua Cyv, without 
direct expression ; but it results self-evidently for every reader from ver. 13. 
[See Note XCIII. p. 348.] — row x. o. Cyr] inorder to livecarnally. This would 
be the aim of our relation of debt to the flesh, if such a relation existed ; 
we should have the carnal mode of life for our task. Fritzsche thinks that 
it belongs to og. : ‘‘Sumus debitores non carni obligati, nempe debitores 
vitae ex carnis cupiditatibus instituendae ;” so also Winer, p. 306 [E. T. 
326]. But in Gal. v. 3 Paul couples it with the simple infinitive ; as in 
Soph. Aj. 587, Eur. Rhes. 965. Since he here says row ¢#v that ¢telic view is 
all the more to be preferred, by which the contents of the obligation (so 
Hofmann) is brought out as its destination for us. The idea conveyed by 
xata odpxa (qv is that of being alive (contrast to dying) according to the rule 
and standard of odpé, 80 that cdpé is the regulative principle. The more pre- 
cise and definite idea : carnal bliss (Hofmann), is not expressed. We should 
note, moreover, ri capxi with the article (personified), and xava odpxa with- 
out it (qualitative), ver. 5. 

Ver. 13. Reason for ver. 12—‘“‘ for so ye would attain the opposite of your 
destination, as specified in vv. 10,11.” The pé22ev (comp. iv. 24) indicates 
the ‘‘certum et constitutum esse secundum vim (divini) fati.” Ellendt, Lez, 
Soph. Il. p. 72. — arodvioxewv] The opposite of the fw4 in ver. 10 f. ; conse- 
quently used of the being transferred into the state of eternal death ; and 
then (feco00e in the sense of eternal life (see ver. 17). Comp. vii. 10, 24, viii. 
6, 10. This dying does not exclude the resurrection of the body (Riickert), 
but points to the unblissful existence in Hades before (Luke xvi. 23) and 
after (comp. Matt. x. 28) the judgment. If it were true that Paul did not 
believe in a resurrection for unbelievers, he would stand in direct antago- 
nism to John v. 28f.; Acts xxiv. 15; Matt. v. 29 f., x. 28 ; and even 1 
Cor. xv. 24 (see on that passage). Here also Philippi combines bodily, spir- 
itual, and eternal death ; but see above, on Rom. v. 12. And here it may 
be specially urged against this view, that the dying and living are assigned 
purely to the region of the future. Oecumenius aptly says : rdv addvaropv 
sion and the Parousia, for the develop- yields an idea which would even @ priori, 


ment of the alleged spiritual-bodily process in the generality in which Paul would have 
of glorification. This exposition, therefore, expressed it, lack fruth. 


314 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Vdvarov ev ra yebvvy. —rvebyati] i.e. by means of the Holy Spirit, comp. vv. 4, 
5, 6, 9, and the following mvetyat: Oeov ; consequently here also not sub- 
jective (Philippi and others: ‘‘ pneumatic condition of mind”). — rag 
mpaserc tov owu.] The practices (tricks, machinations, see on Col. ii. 9 ; Luke 
xxiii. 51 ; Acts xix. 18 ;? which the body (in accordance with the vouog év roic 
uédect, Vii. 23) desires to carry out. These we make dead (Savaroire), when 
the Ego, following the drawing of the Holy Spirit, conquers the lusts that 
form their basis ; so that they do not come to realization, and are reduced 
to nothing. dpa is not used here for odp£ (Reiche and others) ; Paul has 
not become inconsistent with his own use of language (Stirm in Tid. 
Zeitschr. 1834, 8, p. 11), but has regarded the (in itself indifferent) coxa a3 
the executive organ of the sin, which, dwelling in the odpg of the body, 
rules over the body, and makes it the caua duapriag (vi. 6), if the Spirit does 
not obtain the control and make it His organ. The term zpééerc,‘ further 
used by Paul only in Col. iii. 9 (not épya), is purposely selected to express the 
evil conception, which Hofmann (‘‘ acts”) without any ground calls in ques- 
tion. It is frequently used thus by Greek authors, as also zpdypara. —The - 
alternating antithesis is aptly chosen, so that in the two protases living and 
putting to death, in the apodoses death and life, stand constrasted with one 
another. 

Ver. 14. Reason assigned for the {gae0%e. ‘* For then ye belong, as led 
by God, to the children of God (for whom the life of the Messianic king- 
dom is destined, ver. 17 ; Gal. iv. 7).”” Theodore of Mopsucstia : d7Aov otv 
Ste ol Totovror THY paKapiay Cwiyy Tapa Te eavTav Tarpi Cyoorrat. — Gyovra) 2.¢. are 
determined in the activity of their inward and outward life. Comp. i. 4 ; 
Gal. v. 18; 2 Tim. iii. 6.% The expression is passive (hence the datite), 
though without prejudice to the freedom of the human will, as ver. 13 
proves. ‘ Non est enim coactio, ut voluntas non possit repugnare : trahit 
Deus, sed volentem trahit,”” Melanchthon. — viot Geov] Thus Paul elevates the 
hallowed theocratic conception, ix. 5, to the purely moral idea, which is real- 
ized in the case of those who are Iced by the Divine Spirit (which is granted 
only to those who believe in Christ, Gal. ili. 26). The otro: is therefore not 
unemphatic (Hofmann)—which would make it quite superfluous—but has 
an excluding and contrasting force (these and no others, comp. Gal. iii. 7). 
Next to it viot has the stress (hence its position immediately after ovro, see 
the critical remarks), being conceived already as in contrast to dovAo, see ver. 
15. The vioi Gcov are those who have been justified by faith, thereby law- 
fully reccived by Him into the fellowship of children with a reconciled 
Father (ver. 15), governed by the Holy Spirit given unto them (comp. Gal. 
iv. 6), exalted to the dignity of the relation of brethren to Christ (ver. 29). 
and sure of the eternal glory (of the inheritance). For a view of the rela- 
tion in question under its various aspects in Paul, John, and the Synoptics, 
see on John i. 12. 


2Dem. 126. 22; Polyb. il. 7, 8, fi. 9. 2, iv. C. 254 (Reisig, Enarr. p. LX1.) ; Plat. Phaad. 
8. 8, v. 96.4; and Sturz, Lex. Xen. Ill. p. pp. 94 E: dyeodar vwd rev rod caparos tadyea- 
646. Tw, 
2 Soph. Ant. 620: ory dpévas deds ayer, Oed. 


CHAP. VIII., 15. 315 

Ver. 15 assigns the ground for ver. 14 in application to the readers. 
For ye received not, when the Holy Spirit was communicated to you, a spirit 
of bondage, that is, a spirit such as is the regulating power in the state of 
slacery.' This view of the genitive (Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi) is 
required by the contrast ; because the viodecia, when the Spirit is given, is 
already present, having entered, namely, through faith and justification 
(Gal. iv. 6). Hence it cannot, with others (Kéllner, Riickert, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Hofmann, Reithmayr, following Theodore of Mopsuestia and 
others), be taken as the genitive of the effect (who works bondage). This 
also holds against Lipsius, Rechtfertigungslehre, p. 170. — rédAw ei¢ o6fBor] 
again to fear, conveys the aim of the (denied) £24. rv. dovd., so that wéAcv, 
as its very position shows, gives a qualification, not of é44f., but of ei¢ 
963. : ‘in order that ye should once more (as under the law working 
wrath) be afraid.” — rveiua viodes.] i.e. a spirit which, in the state of adoption, 
is the ruling principle. Yiodecia is the proper term for adoption (SéoIat vid, 
Plat. Legg. xi. p.929C ; Arr. An. i. 23. 11) ; see Grotius and Fritzsche, 
in loc. ; Hermann, Pricatalterth. § 64. 15 ; comp. on Gal. iv. 5 ; also Weiss, 
bibl. Theol. p. 340. Therefore not sonship in general (the Patristic viéryc), 
as is the view of the majority ; it is rightly rendered in the Vulgate: 
‘* adoptionis filiorum ;” it does not represent believers as children of God by 
birth, but as those who by God’s grace (Eph. i. 5-8) have been assumed into 
the place of children, and as brethren of Christ (ver. 29). Those thus 
adopted receive the Spirit from God, but are not begotten to sonship through 
the Spirit (Hofmann) ; comp. Weiss, l.c.—The repetition of éAéfere 
wvevpa has a certain solemnity. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Phil. iv. 17. —é 9] 
in whom, as in the element that moves our inner life. Comp. on 1 Cor. 
xii. 3; Eph. it. 18. —«pdfouev] we ery, the outburst of fervid emotion in 
prayer. Comp. on Gal. iv. 6. The transition to the jirst person takes place 
without special intention, under the involuntary pressure of the sense of 
fellowship. —'AZBa] See on Mark xiv. 36, and Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 20. 
From the three passages, Mark, /.c., Gal. iv. 6, and our present one, it may 
be assumed that the address 838 was transferred from the Jewish into the 
Christian prayers, and in the latter received the consecration of special 
sanctity through Christ Himself, who as Son thus addressed the Father. 
This *AZfa gradually assumed the nature of a proper name; and thus it 
came that the Greek-praying Christians retained the Chaldee word in a 
vocative sense as a proper name, and further, in the fervour of the feeling 
of sonship, added along with it the specifically Christian address to the 
Father, using the appellatice 6 rarfp in the appositional nominative (Kiihner, 


1 Tvevssa Sova. is therefore what the Holy 
Spirit received ia not, Comp. 2 Tim. 1. 7. 
Altogether contrary to the context, Gro- 
tius, Michaelis, and others understand 
affectus servilis, taking it consequently not 
of the objective spirit, but subjectively ; as do 
also Reiche, Baumgarten-Crusius, and de 
Wette, with whom Philippi agrees: “‘ a dis- 


posttion ef mind such as one has in slavery 
(childhood). Vv. 14, 16 ought to have 
precluded sucha view. Chrysostom, The- 
odoret, and others understood it directly 
of 7d ypduma Tov vopov ws rapa TOU Mvevparos 
pev S0dev, SovdAous 82 padAov apudcgov, Theoph- 
ylact. Comp. Oecumentus: 7d» rvevparicdy 
oyai vouoy, 


316 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


II. 1, p. 42) ; so that the ‘‘ Abba, Father,” now became fixed.’ It has been 
frequently supposed (and is still by Rickert, Reiche, and KGllner) that 
Paul added 6 zarfp by way of explanation. But against this view it may be 
urged, that in passages so full of fecling as Rom. vili. 15 and Gal. iv. 6, an 
interpretation—and that too of a word which, considering the familiarity 
with Jewish modes of expression in the churches of Rome and Galatia, 
undoubtedly needed no explanation, and was certainly well known also 
through the evangelistic tradition as the form of address in prayer that 
had flowed from the mouth of Jesus—seems unnatural and out of place. 
Besides, in all three instances, in Mark? and Paul, uniformly the mere '43,34 
6 matyp is given without any formula of interpretation (rovr gov: or the like) 
being added. Other views—destitute, however, of all proof—are : that the 
custom which insinuating children have of repeating the father’s name is 
here imitated (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsucstia, Theodoret, and Gro- 
tius) ; or that the emphasis affectus (Erasmus) is here expressed (either view 
would be possible only in the event of the passage standing as 'A3,3d, 
'A3,3a) ; or even that it is meant to signify the Fatherhood of God for Jeis 
and Gentiles (Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Estius, and others). With our 
view Philippi is substantially agreed. Against the objections of Fritzsche, 
who regards 6 zaz7/p as an explanatory addition grown into a habit, see on 
Gal. iv. 6. — The Futher-name of God in the Old Covenant (Ex. xx. 2; 
Isa. Ixiii. 16 ; Hos. xi. 1; Jer. iii. 19, xxxi. 9) only received the loftiest 
fulfilment of its meaning in the New Covenant through the vio¥eoia accom- 
plished in Christ.? 

Ver. 16. More precise information respecting the preceding év @ «pas. 
"A334 6 7. —avrTd TO mveiwa x.7.A.] Not He, the Spirit (Hofmann, inappro- 
priately comparing ver. 21 and 1 Thess. iii. 11) ; but, since aird¢ in the 
casus rectus always means zpse, the context supplying the more special 
reference of the sense : ipse spiritus, that is, Himself, on His own part, the 
(received) Spirit testifies with our spirit ; He unites His own testimony that 
we are children of God with the same testimony borne by our spirit, which 
(1 Cor. ii. 11) is the seat of our self-consciousness. — In cuuuapr. the crv 
and its reference tor. rv. ju. are not to be neglected, any more than in il. 
15, ix. 1, as the Vulgate, Luther, Grotius, and Fathers, also Koppe, 
Rickert, Reiche, Kéllner, de Wette, and others have done. Paul dis- 
tinguishes from the subjective self-consciousness : Jam the child of God, 
the therewith accordant testimony of the objective Holy Spirit : thou art 
the child of God ! The latter is the yea to the former ; and thus it comes 
that we cry the Abba év 7@ rvetyare. Our older theologians (see especially 
Calovius) have rightly used our passage as a proof of the certitudo gratiae in 
Opposition to the Catholic Church with its mere conjectura moralis. Comp. 


‘It was owing simply tothe provincial foot, Zor. p. 654 f. 
dialect of Palestine that NIN and not SN 27In Mark xiv. 36 the expression is put 
wasused. Alberti, Tholuck, and Olshausen into the mouth of Jesus from a later age. 
think it due to the former having a more See in loc. 
childlike (lisping) sound. Other precarious 3 Comp. Umbreit, p. 287 f.; Schultz, all- 
views may be seen in Wolf, Cur.; Light- test. Theol. II. p. 98. 





CHAP. VIII., 17. 317 
Eph. i. 18, iv. 80; 1 John iii. 24, iv. 18. At the same time, it is also a 
clear dictum probans against all pantheistic confusion of the divine and the 
human spirit and consciousness, and no less against the assertion that Paul 
ascribes to man not a human rveiya, but only the divine rvetya become sub- 
jective (Baur, Holsten). Against this view, see also Pfleiderer, in Hilgen- 
feld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 162 f., who nevertheless, at p. 177 f., from our 
passage and chap. viii. generally, attributes to the apostle the doctrine that 
in the Christian the real divine mvevya has become the proper human one, 
and tice tersa ; comp. on ver. 26. Against the Fanatics Melanchthon truly 
observes, that the working of the Spirit in the believer begins ‘‘ praelucente 
voce evangelii.” — réxva] The term children, expressive of greater tender- 
ness, called forth by the increasing fervour of the discourse.’ Comp. 
ver, 21. The aspect of the legal relation (of the viodecia) at the same time 
recedes into the background. Comp. Phil. ii. 15. 

Ver. 17. From the truth of the filial relation to God, Paul now passes 
over by the continuative dé to the sure blissful consequence of it,—and that 
indeed in organic reference to the (jceo%e promised in ver. 13. — From our 
childship follows necessarily our heirship. Comp. Gal. iv. 7. Both are to 
be left perfectly general, without supplying @ecov, since it is only what fol- 
lows that furnishes the concrete, more precise definition, in which here the 
general relation is realized. — xAnpovéuoe Ocov] The inheritance, which God 
once on a time transfers to His children as their property, is the salvation 
and glory of the Messianic kingdom. Comp. iv. 14. God is, of course, in 
this case conceived not as a dying testator, but as the licing bestower of His 
goods on His children (Luke xv. 12). However, the conclusion (ver. 17) 
forbids us to disregard the idea of inheritance, and to find only that of the 
receiting possession represented (in opposition to van Hengcl). — obyxanp. dé 
Xpicrov}] Not something greater than xAnpov. Gcot, on the contrary in sub- 
stance the same, but specifically characterized from the standpoint of our fel- 
lowship with Christ, whose co-heirs we must be as xAypov. Oeov, since, having 
entered into sonship through the vio¥ecia, we have become Christ’s brethren 
(ver. 29). Moreover, that Paul has here in view, not the analogy of the 
Hebrew law of inheritance that conferred a man’s intestate heritage only on 
sons of his body, if there were such, but that of the Roman law (Fritzsche, 
Tholuck, van Hengel ; see more particularly on Gal. iv. 7), is the historical- 
ly necessary supposition, which can least of all seem foreign or inappropri- 
ate in an epistle to the Romans. — cvurday.] [See Note XCIV. p. 849.] 
Whosoever, for the sake of the gospel, submits to suffering (Matt. x. 38, xvi. 
24), suffers with Christ ; i.e. he has actual share in the suffering endured by 
Christ (1 Pet. iv. 13), drinks the same cup that He drank (Matt. xx. 22 f.). 
Comp. on 2 Cor. i. 5 ; Phil. iii. 10 ; Col. i. 24. This fellowship of suffer- 


1 Hofmann incorrectly {mports the idea 
that vics emphasizes the connection of life, 
and réxvor the descent ; hence Christ is not 
called réxvov, but only vids. This view is 
demolished by the fact that, precisely in 
virtue of His descent as the povoyenjs and 
spwrétoxos, Christ is the vies. He is not 


called réx<vov, simply because viés was the 
prophetic and historical designation of the 
Messiah consecrated by ancient usage. In 
fact, the LXX. render promiscuously 13 as 
well as ao (which Hofmann compares) 
sometimes by vids and sometimes by réxvov. 


318 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
ing Paul regards as that which must be presupposed in order to the attain- 
ment of glory, of participation in the déga of Christ (eiwep, as in ver. 9) ; not 
indeed as meritum, or pretium vitae aeternae, but as obedientia propter ordi- 
nem a Deo sancitum, Melanchthon. Comp. 2 Tim. ii..11f. This conviction 
developed itself, especially under the external influence of the circumstances 
of an age fruitful in persecution, just as necessarily and truly out of the in- 
ward assurance that in the case of Jesus Himself His suffcring,’ willed by 
God, and undertaken and borne in obedience to the Father, was the condi- 
tion of His glory (Luke xxiv. 26 ; Phil. ii. 6 ff., a/.), as it in its turn became 
a rich spring of the enthusiasm for martyrdom. Olshausen (comp. also Phi- 
lippi) mixes up an element which is here foreign : ‘‘ participation in the con- 
flict with sin in themselves and in the world.” Even without introducing 
this element foreign to the word itself, the cvyrdoyev, as the presupposition 
involved in the joint-heirship, has its universal applicability, based not 
merely on the general participation of all in the ‘suffering of this time, but 
especially also on the relation of the children of God to the ungodly world 
(comp. John vii. 7, xv. 18 f., xvii. 14). — iva xai ovvdog.] in order to be also 
glorified with Him ; dependent not on ovyxanp. (Tholuck), but on ovpracy., 
the divine final aim of which, known to the sufferer, it subjoins. 

Vv. 18-31." Grounds of encouragement for the avuracyew iva x. avvdok. — 
Namely, (1) The future glory shall far outweigh the present sufferings, vv. 
18-25. — (2) The Holy Ghost supports us, vv. 26, 27. — (3) Generally, all 
things must serve for good to those who love God, vv. 28-31. [Sce Note, 
on the connection of thought in vv. 18-25, XCV. p. 849. ] 

Ver. 18. [See, on several words and phrases in vv. 18-25, Note XCVI. p. 
850.] AoyiZouzac] I reckon, as in iii. 28 ; 2 Cor. xi. 5; Phil. ili. 13. In the 
singular we are not to discover a turn given to the argument, as if the apos- 
tle found it necessary to justify himself on account of the condition cizep 
cunracy. (Hofmann). Just as little here as in the case of wémecoua: in ver. 
88. He simply delivers his judgment, which, however, he might have ex- 
pressed with equal propriety in a form inclusive of others, as subsequently 
he has written oidauev (ver. 22). Such changing of the person is accidental 
and without any special design, especially as here he does not say éya yap 
Aoyiz., OF Aoyifouat yap abrds éy4, or otherwise give himself prominence. A 
certain Jitotes, however, lies (not indeed in the singular, but) in the use of 
Aoyifouae itself, which really contains an oida and a wérecopar. — ovx afta} not 
of equal importance, not of corresponding weight ; they are unimportant. On 
apéc, in comparison with, in relation to, comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 471 E : ovdevos 
GSi6¢ govt mpdc tiv GA*Veav, Protag. p. 856 A ; Winer, p. 378 [E. T. 405]. 
On ovx d&iév gov: itself, however, in the sense : non operae pretium est, sec 


1 Here also set forth by Hofmann under 
the aspect of treatment encountered by Him 
at the hands of the enemies of the work of 
salvation. 

2 See, on the section about the groaning 
of the creature, Késter, in Stud. u. Krit. 1862, 
p. 755 ff.; M. Schenkel, con d. Seu“zen der 
Creatur (Schulprogr. Plauen), 1862; From- 


mann, in the Jahrb. f. Deuteche Theol. 1868, 
p. 26 ff.; Zahn, in the same, 1865, p. 511 ff.; 
Graf, in Heidenhelm’s Vierteljahraschr. 1867, 
8; Engelhardt, in the Luther. Zeitschr. 18:1, 
p. 48 ff. (against Frommann) ; and against 
Engelhardt, see Frommann in the same 
Zeitschrift, 1872, p. 83 ff. 


CHAP, VIII., 19. 319 


Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vi. 5. 13.' On the subject-matter, see especially 2 
Cor. iv. 17. — rod viv xa:pov] of the present time-period. (See Note XCVILI. 
p. 851.] The viv xaipéc marks off from the whole aidv otrog (see on Matt. xii. 
32) the period then current, which was to end with the approaching Parousia 
(assumed as near in xiii. 11, 12, 1 Thess. iv. 17, 1 Cor. vii. 29, and in the 
entire N. T.), and was thus the time of the crisis. — wéAA. d6£. arox.] péAAov- 
cav (see on ver. 13) is, as.in Gal. iil. 23, prefixed with emphasis, correlative 
with the foregoing viv. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 22; Plat. Rep. p. 572 B: xai 
wave doxovoty juav éviow petpiog eivat. See Stallbaum in loc. — aroxad.] Name- 
ly, at the Parousia, when the défa which is now hidden (in heaven, comp. ° 
Col. iii. 3 f. ; 1 Pet. i. 4) is to be revealed. — cig yuac] on us, so that we are 
those, upon whom (reaching unto them) the azoxaAvyic takes place. Comp. 
Acts xxviii. 6. The doa comes to us, therefore, from without (with Christ 
descending from heaven ; comp. Col. iii. 4 ; Phil. iii. 21; Tit. ii. 18) ; but 
is not conceived as having already begun inwardly and then becoming ap- 
parent outwardly (in opposition to Lipsius, Rechtfert. p. 206). 

Ver. 19. Tap] introduces, from the waiting of the creation (to whose 
groaning that of Christians thereupon joins itself in ver. 23) for this glori- 
ous consummation, a peculiar confirmation, couched in a poetic strain, of 
the fact that the daroxdAvwic rye déEnc is really impending ; and thus lends 
support to the comforting certainty of that future manifestation, that is, to 
the element involved in the emphatically prefixed péAoveav ; comp. Calo- 
vius, Fritzsche, de Wette, Krehl, Rcithmayr, and Bisping. From Origen 
and Chrysostom down to Hofmann, there has usually been discovered here 
a ground assigned for the greatness of the glory. But this is neither con- 
sistent with the emphatic prominence of ué2Aoveav, nor with the subsequent 
ground itself, which proves nothing as to the greatness of the déga, but 
stands to the indubitableness of the latter, otherwise firmly established and 
presupposed, in the relation of a sympathetic testimony of nature.? Least of 
all can yap introduce a ground of the apostle’s belief for his own Aoyifoua 
x.t.4. (van Hengel). According to Philippi, what is to be established is, 
that the dééa is not already present, but only future, which, however, even 
taking into account human impatience, was quite self-evident. For the 
nearness of the déga (Reiche), just as before it was not expressly announced 
in the simple uéAAoveav, the sequel affords no proof, since the element of 
speediness is not expressed. — 7 aroxanpadoxia] The verb xapasdoxeiv (Xen. Mem. 
lii. 5, 6, frequent in Euripides) strictly means : to expect with uplifted head, 
then to erpect generally, to long for (Valck. ad Herod. vii. 168 ; Loesner, Odsa. 
p. 256 f.); and xapadoxia means erpectatio (Prov. x. 28; Aq. Ps. xxxvill. 7). 
The strengthened (Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 582 ; Tittmann, Synon. p. 106 ff.) 
azoxapadoxeiy (Joseph. Bell. Jud. iii. 7. 26; Polyb. xvi. 2. 8, xviii. 81. 4, 
xxii. 19. 8; Aq. Ps. xxxvi. 7; Alberti, Gloss. p. 106 ff.) and droxapadoxia 
(only elsewhere in Phil. i. 20) is the waiting expectation (not anxious expec- 


1 Comp. Dem. 800 ult. ; Polyb. iv. 20. 2. haec enim spes nostra tantae est certitudinis, ut 

32 The train of thought may therefore, confirmetur totius naturae ad eundem finem 
expressed in Latin, be paraphrased some- _nostruim lendentlis expectatione suspiriteque." 
what thus: ‘ryv udddoveay «.7.A. inguam, 


320 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tation, as Luther has it) that continues on the strain till the goal is attained. 
See espccially Tittmann, l.c. ; Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opuscul. p. 150 ff. 
Without warrant, Loesner, Krebs, Fischer, de cit. Ler. p. 128 f., and others, 
including Rickert, Reiche, and van Hengel, have refused to recognize the 
strengthening element of aré, already pointed out by Chrysostom and Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia, although Paul himself gives prominence to it repeated- 
ly in azexdéx. (comp. vv. 23, 25 ; 1 Cor. i. 7; Gal. v. 5; Phil. iii. 20). — 
tij¢ kticewc] Genitive of the subject. The waiting of the «rio is with rhe- 
torical emphasis brought into prominence as something independent. See 
Winer, p. 221 [E. T. 236]. ‘H xriotg means—(1) actus creationis ; so i. 20, 
corresponding to the classic usage in the sense of establishment (Pind. 01. 
13. 118 ; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 13), founding (Polyb., Plut., and others), plant- 
ing, etc. — (2) The thing created, and that (a) where the context supplies no 
limitation, quite generally like our creation, Mark x. 6, xiii. 19 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4 ; 
Judith xvi. 14 ; Wisd. ii. 6, al.; and (6) where the context does limit it, in 
a more or less special sense, as in Mark xvi. 15, Col. i. 23 (of that portion of 
the creation, which consists of mankind), Col. i. 15, Heb. iv. 13 (of every 
individual creature) ; comp. i. 25, vill. 39 ; also «a:vy xriowe in 2 Cor. v. 17, 
Gal. vi. 15. Since, then, the absolute # xriosg must receive its limitation of 
sense simply from the connection, the question is, What does the text in 
our passage exclude from the meaning of ric xricewe ? ~There are plainly ex- 
cluded not only the angelic and demoniac kingdom (sce ver. 20), but also 
Christians collectirely, as is clear from vv. 19, 21, and 23, where the Chris- 
tians are different from the «rio, and even opposed to it, so that they cannot 
be regarded (according to the view of Frommann) as forming a partial con- 
ception, embraced also in the xriovs.' But is the non-Christian portion of hu- 
manity to be excluded also? If not, it must be meant either along with 
something else, or else alone. If the former, then Paul, seeing that irra- 
tional nature at any rate remains within the compass of the idea, would 
have included under one notion this nature and the Jewish and heathen 
worlds, which would be absurd. But if non-Christian humanity alone be 
meant, then—(1) we should not be able to see why Paul should have 
chosen the term «xrio:c, and not have used the definite expression xécpos, 
which is formally employed for that idea elsewhere in his own writings and 
throughout the N. T. Besides, the absolute xriocg nowhere in the entire N. T. 
means non-Christian mankind (in Mark xvi. 15 and Col. i. 23, xaoy stands 
along with it); and, indeed, waca 9% xriow¢ (Mark) and aoa xriorg (Col.) 
mean nothing else than the whole creation and every creature, and in these 
cases it is purely the context that shows that created men are meant, while 
at the same time it is self-evident ex adjuncto (for the discourse concerns the 
preaching of the gospel to the «riorc) that Christians are not to be under- 
stood. (2) The hostile attitude of the then existing xécoyoc towards the 
Christian body would cause the assertion respecting it of a sympathetic and, 
as it were, prophetic yearning for the manifestation of the children of God 


1 Frommann unjustiflably appeals to 2Cor. vil. 7. See, on the contrary, also Zahn, lc. 
p. 516 f., and Engelhardt, p. 40. 


CHAP. VIII., 19. 321 


to seem a curious paradox, which, moreover, as a truth, in the case of 
the Jews and Gentiles, would rest on quite a different foundation, namely, 
the expectation of the Jewish Messianic kingdom, and on the other hand, 
the yearning dream of a golden age. (8) Again, the expressions in ver. 
20 are of such a character, that they in no way make us presuppose in the 
writer such a conception of humanity subjected through sin to the bdvarog 
as Paul had, but allow us just to think of the «rics as having fallen a prey 
to the lot of mortality, not by its own free action, but innocently, and 
by outward necessity ; the apostle would not have left the Sdvaroc unmen- 
tioned.’ (4) Further, the hope of attaining to the freedom of the glory 
of the children of God (ver. 21) was only left to the xéoyoc, in so far as it 
should be converted to Christ ; but ver. 21, in point of fact, merely asserts 
that on the entrance of that glory the xriotg is to be glorified also, without 
touching, in regard to mankind, on the condition of conversion—which as- 
suredly Paul least of all would have omitted. (5) Finally, Paul expected 
that, previous to the entrance of the Parousia, the fulness of the Gentiles and 
all Israel would become christianized (xi. 25, 26), and had to shape his concep- 
tion, therefore, in such a way as to make humanity, taken asa whole, belong to 
the vioi¢ Geov when the manifestation of the kingdom should appear. And 
as to that, ver. 21 decidedly forbids the connecting of the notion of mankind 
with 1 xriocc. — There remains, therefore, as the definition of the notion of 
4 xrtovg in accordance with the text : the collective non-rational creation, ani- 
mate and inanimate, the same which we term in popular usage ‘‘all nature” 
(comp. Wisd. v. 18, xvi. 24, xix. 6), from which we are accustomed to ex- 
clude intelligent beings. In view of the poetically prophetic colouring of 
the whole passage, the expressions of waiting, sighing, hoping, of bondage 
and redemption, excite the less surprise, since already in the O. T. instances 
of a similar prosopopoeia are very common (Deut. iv. 34 ; Ps. xix. 2, xviii. 
17, xevili. 8, cvi. 11; Isa. ii. 1, xiv. 8, lv. 12; Ezek. xxxi. 15 ; Hab. ii. 
11 ; Bar, iii. 34 ; Job xii. 7-9, al.) ; and Chrysostom very aptly remarks : 
Gore dé eudavtixdrepoy yevéiodat tov Adyov, kai Tpoowrorotel TOV KéouoY GmTayTa TOUTOV 
arep Kat ol mpogyrat roovaty, ToTapmovs KpoTrouvrag yepolv eiodyovrec x.t.A. Comp. 
Oecumenius and Theophylact. The idea of the glorification of all nature 
cannot be accounted unpauline, for the simple reason that it is clearly ex- 
pressed in our passage ; and because, moreover, as being connected with 
the history of the moral development of humanity according to Gen. iii. 
17 f., and necessarily belonging to the idea of the aoxaréoracic wévtwy (Matt.. 
xix. 28; Actsiii. 21; 2 Pet. iii. 10 ff.; Rev. xxi. 1), it may be least of all 
disclaimed in the case of Paul, since it emanates from the prophets of the Old 
Testament (Isa. xi. 6 ff.; Ezek. xxxvii.; Isa. lxv. 17, lxvi. 1; comp. Ps. 
cli. 27 ; and see Umbreit, p. 291 ff.), and has thence passed over into the 
Rabbinical system of doctrine.?_ The above interpretation, therefore, of the 


? An antinomy of two different concep- 367 ff., 824 ff.; Schoettgen, Hor. II. pp. 71, 76, 
tions as to the origin of death (Frommann, 117 ff.; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 214; Corrodl, 
1872, p. 58) is certainly not to be found in Chiliasm. I. p. 876 ff.; Ewald, ad Apocai. p. 
Paul's writings. See on v. 12;1 Cor. xv. 47ff. 307 f.; Delitzsch, Pridut. z. 8. Hebr. Uobers. p. 

3 See Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. Ul. p. 8%. 


‘ 


322 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

xtiotg has been rightly adopted—only that the intelligent creatures have not 
in all cases been expressly or exclusively separated from it (e.g. Theodoret 
includes also the adpara, angels, archangels, etc., as Origen previously, and 
Erasmus and others subsequently, have also done)—by the majority of ex- 
positors, following most of the Fathers (in the first instance Irenacus, Haer. 
v. 82. 1), by Luther, Erasmus, Beza, Mclanchthon, Calvin, Cornelius a 
Lapide, Balduin, Estius, Grotius, Cocceius, Calovius, Calixtus, Seb. Schmid, 
Wolf, Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Tholuck, Klee, Usteri (in Stud. 
uw. Krit. 1832, p. 835 ff., and Lehrbegr. ed. 4 and 5, pp. 373, 399 ff.), 
Riickert, Benecke, Schneckenburger, Reiche, Gléckler, de Wette, Neander, 
Nielsen, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, Ewald, Umbreit, Bisping, Lechler, 
apostol. Zeitalt. p. 148, Delitzsch, Ruprecht in the Stud. u. Arif. 1851, p. 
214 ff., Zahn, Mangold, Hofmann, and Engelhardt ; comp. also M. Schenkel 
and Graf. Among these, however, are several who, like Luther, Beza, 
and also Fritzsche, wish to understand it too narrowly, merely of the inani- 
mate creation,—a limitation not given in the text, and moreover antipro- 
phetic (Tertullian, ad Hermog. 10); while, on the other hand, KGliner, with 
whom Olshausen agrees, takes it too widely of all created things generally. 
See, against this, the textual limitation explained above. If, however, in 
accordance with the above, the removal of intelligent beings from the com- 
pass of the xriowg must be regarded as decided, the decision is fatal to the 
view of others, who, following the example of Augustine, explain 7 «ric: as 
mankind ; and that either in the quite comprehensive sense of mankind col- 
lectively (in the state of nature), as, following older expositors especially 
scholastic and Roman Catholic, Déderlein, Gabler, Ammon, Keil (Opuse. 
p. 207), Grimm (de 0% vocabuli xrio., Lips. 1812), Schulthess (erangel. Belehr. 
ab. d. Hrneuer, d. Nat., Zurich 1888), Geisler (in the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 
1835, Jan. p. 51 ff.), Schrader, Krehl, van Hengel, Frommann, and others 
do ; or, with exclusion of the Christians, in the sense of mankind still uncon- 
verted,’ as Augustine himself suggested,? by which again, however, many 
understood specially the unconverted Gentiles (Locke, Lightfoot, Knatch- 
bull, Hammond, Semler, and Nachtigall), and various others the unconverted 


180 Wetstein, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ja- 
tho, and Késter ; formerly (in eds. 1,2, 8) 
also Usteri, following Schleiermacher. 

2 His entire exposition (see Axrpos. quar. 
propos. ex ep. ad. Rom. 58) runs thus :—“‘ Sic 
intelligendum est, ut neque sensum dolendl 
et gemendli opinemur esse in arboribus et 

-oleribus et lapidibus et ceteris hujuscemodl 
creaturis (hic enim error Manichaeorum 
‘est); neque angelos sanctos vanitati sub- 
_jectos esse arbitremur: sed omnem creatu- 
ram in {ipso homine sine ulla calumnia cogi- 
temus. ... Omnieautem est etiam in hom- 
ine, et spiritualis et animalis et corporalis, 
quia homo constat spiritu et anima et cor- 
‘pore. Ergo creatura revelationem filiorum 
Dei exspectat, quicquid nunc fn homine la- 
borat et corruptioni subjacet. Erant enim 


adhuc credituri, qui etiam spiritu subjace- 

bant laboriosis erroribus. Sed ne quis pata- 

ret, de ipsorum labore tantum dictum esse, 

adjungit etiam de ifs, qui Jam crediderant. 

Quamquam enim spiritu, i.e. mente, jam 

servirent legi Del: tamen, quia carne servi- 

tur legi peccati, quamdiu molestias et sollic- 

itationes mortalitatis nostrae patimur, ideo 

addit dicens : Von solum, etc. (ver. 283). Non 
solum ergo ipsa, guae tantummodo creatura 
dicitur tn hominibus, qui nondum credide- 
runt, ef tdeo nondum in fliorum Dei numerum 
constituli, congemiscit ac dolet: sed etiam 
nosmet ipsi, qui credimua et primitias Sp. ha- 
bemus, quia jam spiritu adhaeremus Deo 
per fidem, ¢¢ ideo non jam creatura, sed filii 
Dei appellamur,” eto, 


CHAP. VIII., 20, 21. 323 
Jews (Cramer, Béhme, and Gersdorf). Others have even explaincd it of 
Christians collectively, as the new creature (Vorstius, Deyling, Nésselt, Soci- 
nians and Arminians). And just as little can «rice be equivalent to ywy7 
(Marcker) or to odp£, and be supposed to designate the creaturely element in 
the regenerate (Weissbach in the Sdchs. Stud. J. p. 76 ff., and Zyro in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1845, 2, 1851, p. 645 ff.). Compare also, regarding the vari- 
ous expositions, M. Schenkel, p. 9 ff.; and against the view which takes it 
of mankind, Engelhardt, l.c. — rv, amoxdd. r. vidv r. Occ] The event, the 
blissful catastrophe, whereby the sons of God become manifest as such (in 
their défa). How exalted the dignity in which they here appear above the 
xtioig | Bengel : ‘‘ad creaturam ex peccato redundarunt incommoda ; ad 
creaturam ex gloria filiorum Dei redundabit recreatio.” The xrio:c, in virtue 
of its physical connection with that aoxdAvyc, shall be a partaker in the 
blissful manifestation. 

Vv. 20, 21. Ground of this longing. —rg aradér.] Prefixed with em- 
phasis : canitati, to nothingness. The substantive (Pollux, vi. 134) is no 
longer found in Greek authors, but frequently in the LXX. (as in Ps. xxxix. 
6). See Schleusner, 7hes. III. p. 501. It indicates here the empty (i.¢. as 
having lost its primitive purport, which it had by creation) quality of being, 
to which the «rioe was changed from its original perfection. — imerdyn] was 
subjected, was made subject to, as to a ruling power formerly unknown to it. 
This historical fact (aorist) took place in consequence of the fall, Gen. iii. 
17.'| The reference to an original yaratérnc, introduced even by the act of 
creation (Theodoret, Grotius, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, and 
Késter), is historically inappropriate (Gen. i. 81), and contrary to ovy 
éxovoa, GAAd x.7.A.. Which supposes a previous state not subject to the yar. 
Further, since the iordéac is subsequently mentioned, the interpretation se 
subjecit (Fritzsche) is thereby excluded. — ovy éxovoa, GAda did t. trordé] 
This must occasion their expectation all the more ; for their subjection is at 
variance with their original state and the desire of immunity founded 
thereon, and it took place ‘‘ invita et repugnante natura” (Calvin, namely, 
through the guilt of human sin), on account of the suljector (d:é with the accusa- 
tive, comp. on John vi. 57), that is, because the counsel and will of the sub- 
jecting God (the contrast to one’s own non-willingness) had to be thus 
satisfied.2 The idea of another than God in rdv trordé. (Knatchbull and 
Capellus : Adam; Chrysostom, Schneckenburger, Bisping, and Zahn : 
man ; Hammond and others, quoted by Wolf: the devil) is forbidden by 
the very absence of a defining statement, so that the subject is assumed as 
well known. According to Gen. iii. 17, it was indeed man through whose 
guilt the subjection ensued ; but God was the subjector (6 irord£ac). — én’ 


1Comp. Beresh. rabb. f. 2, 8: ‘ Quamvis 
creatae fuerint res perfectae, cum primus 


the connection and construction proceed 
without a break. This applies also agains‘ 


homo peccaret, corruptae tamen sunt, et 
ultra non redibunt ad congruum statum 
suum, donec veniat Pherez, h. e. Messias."’ 
See also Zahn, p. 582. 

2 The marks of parenthesis before ovx 
and after vwor. are to be expunged, since 


Frommann, who assigns to this parenthe- 
sis merely the object of explaining the pas- 
sive uretdyn. Ewald puts ina parenthesis 
the entire verse, thus making en’ éAwié& con- 
nect itself with awexddxera:. But for this 
there appears likewise no reason. 


B24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


éAride bre x.7.A.] on hope (iv. 18) that, etc., may be joined either with troréé. 
(Origen, Vulgate, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, and others, in- 
cluding Ch. Schmidt and Olshausen) or with trerdyn. The latter conjunc- 
tion brings out more forcibly the én’ Arid: ; for this contains a new element 
by way of motive for the expectation of nature. éi, spe proposita, indicates 
the condition which was conceded in the ierdyn, as it were, the equivalent 
provisionally given forit, Acts ii. 24.’ — dr] that, object of the hope (Phil. 
i, 20 ; not nam, as it is taken by most expositors, who join én’ éAxids with 
Gores among others by Schneckenburger, Breitradg. p. 122, who assigns 
as his reason, that otherwise the air?) # xriot¢ could not be repeated. But 
that repetition is necessitated by the emphasis of the similarity of the rela- 
tion, which avr? 4 «rice has over-against the children of God, for which 
reason Paul did not write dr: xa? éAevdepudqoera: (in opposition to Hofmann’s 
objection). Besides, the purport of the éAric had necessarily to be stated, in 
order to give the ground of the expectation of the xricte as directed precisely 
to the manifestation of the sonsof God. The indefinite én’ éArid: would sup- 
ply a motive for its expectation of deliverance in general, but not for its 
expectation of the glory of the children of God. This applies also against 
Hofmann, who refers ér: «.r.A., as statement of the reason, to the whole preced- 
ing sentence, whereby, besides, the awkward idea is suggested, that the sub- 
jection took place on account of the deliverance to be accomplished in the 
future ; it had, in fact, an entirely different historical ground, well known 
from history, and already suggested by the dia rév ivo7rdé., namely, the im- 
plication of the xriowc in the entrance of sin among mankind. — xai arr 9 
ktiowg] et ipsa creatura, that is, the creature also on its part, not merely the 
children of God. There is simply expressed the similarity ; not a climaz 
(even), of which the context affords no hint. — z¢ pbopac] Genitive of appo- 
sition : from the bondage that consists in corruption. See ver. 23. Incor- 
rectly paraphrased by K6llner : ‘‘ from the corruptible, miserable bondage.” 
At variance with this is ver. 20, according to which r. $0. cannot be made an 
adjective ; as is also the sequel, in which ry» édevd. corresponds to ric 
dovAeiag, and rig déEn¢ rT. téxv. 7. Ocov to the rye g¥opac. The gvopd (antith- 
esis = agdapoia, 11. 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 42-50) is the destruction, that develops 
itself out of the paradrnc, the xardAvoire opposed frequently in Plato and 
others to the yéveorg (Phaed. P. 95 E; Phil. p. 55 A; Lucian, A. 19). 
Comp. on Gal. vi. 8. It is not the g¥opé in the first instance that makes the 
state of the xriocc a state of bondage, as Hofmann apprehends the genitive ; 
but the existing bondage is essentially such, that what is subjected to it is 
liable to the fate of corruption. —ei¢ r. éAevd.] 13 the state, to which the 
xriotc shall attain by its emancipation. An instance of a genuine Greek 
pregnant construction. See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 322; Winer, p. 577 
[E. T. 621]. — rye déEne 7. 7. tr. O.] Likewise genitive of apposition : into 
the freedom which shall consist in the glory of the children of God, i.e. in a 
glory similar thereto (by participation in it); not, as Hofmann thinks : 
which the glory of the children of God shall have brought with it. If with 


1 Xen, Mem. il. 1, 18, and Kihner in /oc., Ast, Lex Fiat. I. p. 767; Bernhardy, p. 250. 


CHAP. VIII., 22. 325 
Luther and many others, including Béhme and Kdllner, ric déénc be treated 
as an adjective : ‘‘to the glorious freedom,” we should then have quite as 
arbitrary a departure from the verbal order, in accordance with which ray 
zéxv. belongs most naturally to ri¢ déé., as from the analogy of the preceding 
TH¢ dovA. tHe g8opac. The accumulation of genitives, r. dd&y¢ «.7.A., has a 
certain solemnity ; comp. ii. 5 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Eph. iv. 13, al. — Observe, 
further, how Paul has conceived the catastrophe, of which he is speaking, 
not as the destruction of the world and a new creation, but, in harmony 
with the prophetic announcements, especially those of Isaiah (Isa. xxxv., 
Ixv. 17, Ixvi. 22),' as a transformation into | more perfect state. The 
passing away of the world is the passing away of its form (1 Cor. vii. 31), 
by which this transformation is conditioned, and in which, according to 2 
Pet. iii. 10, fire will be the agent employed. And the hope, the tenor of 
which is specified by dr: «.r.4., might, in connection with the living personi- 
fication, be ascribed to all nature, as if it were conscious thereof, since the 
latter is destined to become the scene and surrounding of the glorified chil- 
dren of God. But that éAris does not pertain to mankind, whose presenti- 
ment of immortality, by means of its darkened original consciousness of 
God (Frommann), does not correspond to the idea of éAric ; comp., on the 
contrary, Eph. ii. 12 ; 1 Thess. iv. 18. If, on the other hand, the Gentile 
hope, cherished amidst the misery of the times, as to a better state of 
things (according to poets: the golden age of the Saturnia regna), were 
meant as an image of the Christian hope (Késter), then Paul would have 
conceived the é2ev3epwhfoera as conditioned by the future conversion of the 
Gentiles. But thus the éAri¢ would amount to this, that the Gentiles 
should become themselces children of God, which is inconsistent with ver. 19. 
There, and likewise in ver. 21, the sons of God are the third element, for 
whose transfiguration the «rioie waits, and from whose glorification it hopes, 
in ver. 21, that the latter shall benefit ¢¢ also—the xriou—through participa- 
tion therein ; and be to it also deliverance and frecdom from its hitherto 
enduring bondage. This is applicable only to the wadcyyevecia (see on Matt. 
xix. 28) at the Parousia. 

Ver. 22. Proof, not of the azoxapadoxia tij¢ xricewe (Philippi), which is 
much too distant, and whose goal remains quite unnoticed here ; nor yet of 
the dovieia ri¢ g¥opag (Zahn), which was not the point of the foregoing 
thought at all; but of what was announced by é7’ éAmidz, dre x. a. } xr. 
thevOepudfoera x.t.A. Forif that hope of glorious deliverance had not been 
left to it, ail nature would not have united its groaning and travailing watil 
now. ‘This phenomenon, so universal and so unbroken, cannot be conduct 
without an aim ; on the contrary, it presupposes as the motive of the pain- 
ful travail that very hope, towards whose final fulfilment it is directed.* 


*Comp. Zahn, p. 587; Schultz, attest. 
Theol. U1. p. 27. 

32 Consequently the element of proof does 
not lie in otdapner, but in the ore waca «.7.A., 
introduced as well known. This in opposi- 


tion to Hofmann, who refers otdaper yap «.7.A. - 


back as probative to the thought ry yap 
paradérnre «.7.A. in ver. 20; and gives asthe 
sense of the argument: ‘ The Christian 
would not speak of a subjection Of the creature 
under vanity, if he looked upon tts present ex 
islence as one satiafied in itselfand this world 


326 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
The oldayev (comp. ii. 2, iii. 19, vii. 14) is sufficiently explained as an appeal . 
to the Christian consciousness, in which the view of nature stands in con- 
nection with the curse of sin.’ The perfectly superfluous assumption, that 
the apostle had a book before him containing a similar deduction (Ewald), 
is suggested by nothing in the text. — In ovorevdfer and ovvediver the ovr is not 
a mere strengthening particle (Loesner, Michaelis, Semler, Ernesti, and K6ll- 
ner), but, on the contrary (comp. Beza), finds its natural reference in zaca, and 
denotes ‘‘gemitum et dolorem communem inter se partium creaturae,” Es- 
tius.? Calvin, Parcus, Koppe, Ewald, and Umbreit, following Oecumenius, 
have indeed referred ovy to the groaning being in common with that of the 
children of God ; but against this view ver. 23 is decisive, and the refer- 
ence to men generally, with whom the x«riovg sighs (Fritzsche), is foreign to 
the context. Fritzsche, without due reason, asserts the want of linguistic 
usage in favour of our view. For it is unquestionable that, in accordance 
with the usage of analogous verbs, cvorevafecv may denote the common sigh- 
ing of the elements comprised in the collective aoa 7 xriowe among them- 
selves * (comp. Eph. iv. 16 : ray 7d c@ua ovvappodoyobpevov, comp. Li. 21 ; Plat. 
Legg. ili. p. 686 B : éret yevouévy ye 4 tére didvota Kai ovudwrgcaca eig év, Dem. 
516. 7: ovvopy:odeic 6 Sjuoc, T75. 18: cuvTaparrerae wag 6 THE WéAEWE KdopPOS). 
That concrete eramples of that nature cannot be quoted, is not decisive 
against it, since ovorevéjev (Eur. Jon. 935, comp. ovoréve, Arist. Eth. ix. 
11) and also ovwdiveey (Eur. Hel. 727; Porphyr. de abst. iii. 10) are only 
extant in a very few passages. Comp. generally Winer, de verb. compos, LI. 
p. 21f. Just the same with ovvadyeiv, Plat. Rep. p. 462 D, and ovisumciova 
p. 462 E. — cuvmpdiver] Not an allusion to the WWAn San (Reiche), because 
the dolores Messiae (see on Matt. ii. 3) are peculiar sufferings, that shall 
immediately precede the appearance of the Messiah, whilst the travail of 
nature has continued since as early as Gen. iii. 17 (ver. 20). But the figure 
is the same in both cases—that of the pains of labour. All nature groans 
and suffers anguish, as if in travail, over-against the moment of its deliver- 
ance. The conception of the ddivecv is based on the fact that the painful 
struggling of the xriow is directed towards the longed-for change, with the 
setting in of which the suffering has accomplished its end and ceases. 
Comp. John xvi. 21. — dyp: rov viv] that is, up to the present moment ; so 
incessantly has the sighing continued. Formerly Frommann imported the 
thought : until now, when the revelation of the true goal in Christ has taken 
place ; see, against this, Zahn, p. 524 f. However, Frommann has now 
corrected his view. Hofmann erroneously takesit as : now still, in contrast 
to the future change. Comp. rather Phil. i. 5. The point of beginning of 


Matt. xix. 28. Hence Frommann is in error 
in discovering in the above oiégayey the over- 


as the best world.” But itcould not at all be 
an object to prove that relation of para:drns 


(who can be supposed to have doubted it 9); 
but it wasan object to prove the en’ éAmé& 
ore x.7.A.; this is the punctum saliens, which 
is then further brought out in ver. 23 ff. 

1 This consciousness is the necessary 
premiss of the Christian idea of the Palin- 
genesia of the universe at the end of history, 


throw of our explanation of «riots. 

2So already Theodore of Mopsuestia : 
BovAerar S€ ciety, Crt TUR GwWVws exiderxrvTat 
TOUTO WACaYH KTiots. 

* Comp. also Niagelsbach, z. Jiias, p. 1%, 
ed. 3. 


CHAP. VIII., 23. 827 


the sighing and travailing is that irerdyy in ver. 20. Comp. also éwe rod viv 
in Matt. xxiv. 21. Now still would be ér: viv, 1 Cor. iii. 2. 

Ver. 23. Climax of the foregoing proof that the én’ éAmié:, rc x.7.2. of the 
xviowg, Ver. 21, is well founded. ‘‘ Otherwise, indecd, we Christians also 
would not join in that sighing.” — ov pdévov dé] scil. taca 7 Ktiowg orevdler. — 
What follows must be read : 4224 cai atroi, rjv arapyyy tov rvet- 
marog éxyovrec, kai avrol év-éavtroic arevédCopev. See the critical 
remarks. But wealsoon our part, though we possess the first-fruits of the Spirit, 
sigh likewise in ourselves. — tiv azapy. t. tvebu.] t. rv. is the partitire geni- 
tive, as is involved in the very meaning of amapxf. Comp. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. 
xv. 20, xvi. 15 ; Jas. i. 18 ; and all the passages of the LXX. and Apocr., 
where az. stands with the genitive of the thing, in Biel and Schleusner.' 
By the possessors, however, of the awapy7 Tov mvetyaroc, are not exclusively 
meant the apostles, who at Pentecost had received the first outpouring of 
the Spirit, and among whom Paul includes himself on account of his mirac- 
ulous conversion (Origen, Oecumenius, Melanchthon, Grotius, and others). 
He means rather the Christians of that age generally, since in fact they—in 
contrast to the far greater mass of mankind still unconverted, for whom, 
according to Joel iii. 1, the receiving of the Spirit was still a thing of the 
future (xi. 25 ff.)—were in possession of that, which first had resulted from 
the communication of the Spirit, and which therefore stood related to the 
collective bestowal as the daybreak. So, on the whole, Erasmus, Wetstein, 
Morus, Reiche, Kéllner, de Wette, Olshausen, K6ster, and Frommann.,? 
Paul does not say simply rd mveiwe éxovrec, but, in the lofty fecling of the 
privilege,* which he discovered in the earlier calling and sanctification of 
the then Christians : rjv atapy. t. mv. Ex. 3 ‘Seven we, though favoured so 
pre-eminently that we possess the jirst fruit gift of the Spirit, cannot re- 
frain from sighing likewise.” This we remark in opposition to the oft- 
repeated objection, that it was not an element of importance whether they 
had received the rveiya at the first or a few years later ; and also in oppo- 
sition to the quite as irrelevant objection of Hofmann, that the conception 
of a measure of the Spirit to be given forth by degrees is nowhere indicated. 
This conception has no place here, and the Spirit is one and the same ; 
but if, in the first instance, only a comparatively small portion of mankind 
has received it, and its possession in the case of the remaining collective 
body is still in abeyance, this serves to constitute the idea of an arapyq in 
relation to the whole body. Nevertheless, the sense : best gift of the Spirit 
(Ch. Schmidt, Rosenmiiller), is not conveyed by r. azapyiv, because that 
must have been suggested by the context, and also because Paul could not 
have regarded the later communication of the Spirit as less vaiuable. 
Further, the sense of a merely provisional reception of the Spirit, taking 


1Comp. Herod. 1. 92; Plat. Legg. vil. p. 2See also Miillerin the Luther. Zeilechr. 
806 D; Dem. 104. 21; Thuc. ili. 58. 3; Soph. 1871, p. 618. 
Trach. 758; Eur. Or. 96; Phoen. 864; Jon. 3 This is certainly no ‘‘ side-glance at other 


402; alsu anapyxyn rhs codias, Plat. Prot. p. Christians’’ (as Philippi objects), which 
8138 A; and amapxai awd didogodias, Plut. would be both a far-fetched and a disturb- 
Hor. p. 172 C. ing element. 


328 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


place, as it were, on account, in contrast to the future full effusion in the king- 
dom of heaven (Chrysostom and other Fathers, in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 423 ; 
Calvin, Beza, Pareus, Estius, Calovius, Semler, Flatt, Tholuck, Philippi, 
and Bisping ; comp. also Pficiderer), is not contained in az. r. rv., because 
Paul, had he wished to speak here of a preliminary reception in contrast to 
the future plenitude, must necessarily, in accordance with the connection, 
have so spoken of that of the vio¥ecia or déga, not of the Spirit, and because 
a full effusion of the Spirit at the Parousia is nowhere taught in the N. T. 
The Spirit already receiced, not a new and more perfect reception of it in 
the future aidév, by its quickening activity leads to and conditions the eternal 
Cw, in which God is then all in all (1 Cor. xv. 28). Others, again, make 
T. Ty. an epexegetical genitive of apposition ; the Spirit as firet-fruits, namely, 
of the state of glory. So Bengel, Keil, Ojuse., Winer, p. 495 [E. T. 531], 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Reithmayr, Riickert, Maier, Hofmann, Zahn, and En- 
gelhardt ; comp. also Flatt. But however Pauline the idea may be (2 Cor. 
i. 22, v. 3; Eph. i. 14 ; comp. Rom. ii. 5), it would, when thus expressed, 
be liable to be misunderstood, since the readers were accustomed to find in 
the genitive with azapy4 nothing else than that, of which the latter is a 
portion ; and how intelligibly Paul might have expressed himself, either in 
accordance with 2 Cor. l.c. and Eph. l.c. by rov appafova, or by r. az. (seid. 
rij¢ vlodes.) év TH wvebu. | This applics, at the same time, against Fritzsche, 
who takes rov vey. as genitive of the subject, and the jirst gifts of the Spint 
as in contrast to the owr7pia which the Spirit will give to us in the aidv péAAuv. 
Against this it may also be urged that the Holy Ghost is not described in 
the N. T. as the Giver of eternal life (not even in such passages as 2 Cor. i. 
22, v. 5; Eph. i. 14, iv. 830; Gal. vi. 8). It is God who, in like manner as 
He calls and justifies, confers also the eternal déga (ver. 30). The Spint 
operates to eternal life by His government (ver. 2), and is the ground (ver. 
11) and pledge (appafev) of that life ; but He does not give it.’ — xai avro)} 
Repeated and placed along with év éavroig with earncst emphasis : et ipsi in 
nobia ipsis. The latter is not equivalent to év aaAjio¢ (Schulthess and 
Fritzsche), but denotes, in harmony with the nature of the deep, painful 
emotion, the inward sighing of the still longing of believers ; which suffers, 
is silent, and hopes, but never complains, being assured of the goal that 
shall be finally reached. Hofmann incorrectly would join x. avrot év éavroi¢ 
with éyovres. But this would leave the «ai, which, according to the common 
connection with orevéf., has its appropriate correlative in the sighing of the 
xtioic, Without a reference. For, when Hofmann sets it down as the object 
of the xai to emphasize personal possession on the part of the Christians in 
Contrast to the future participation of the xrioic, there is thus forced on this 
xai the meaning of already; and this all the more arbitrarily, since «ai 
airoi just precedes it in the quite common sense of ef ipsi,* and its emphatic 


1 Hence also the expression used by Lu- _ brought out, however, In the Larger Cate- 
ther, in the explanation of the third article | chism. 
in the Smaller Catechism, does not accord 2 Baeumlein, Parlik. p. 151; Breitenbach, 
with the New Testament modeof expres- ad Xen. Hell. iii. 1. 10. 
sion. The sense in which he meant it is 


CHAP. VIII., 24. 329 


repetition is very appropriate to the lively emotion of the discourse. — 
viodeo. amexdex.| whilst we wait for the adoption of children. It is true, 
believers hace already this blessing (ver. 15), but only as inward relation 
and as divine right, with which, however, the objective and real state does 
not yet correspond. Thus, looked at from the standpoint of complete real- 
ization, they are only to receive viodeciav at the Parousia, whereupon the 
arondAuyic Tov vidv Tt. Ocov and their défa ensues. Comp. also Matt. v. 9, 45 ; 
Luke vi. 15. In like manner the d:xacootvy is a present possession, and also 
one to be entered on hereafter. Comp. on v. 19; and see on Gal. v. 5; 
Col. iii. 3 f. Lutherincorrectly joins vio¢ec. with orevat., which, with an ac- 
cusative, means to bemoan or bewail something.’ — ryv aoa. T. oop. Hu.) ep- 
exegesis : (namely) the redemption of our body from all the defects of its 
earthly condition ; through which redemption it shall be glorified into the 
coua agVaproy similar to the glorified body of Christ (Phil. iii. 21 ; 2 Cor. v. 
2 ff. ; 1 Cor. xv. 51), or shall be raised up as such, in case of our not sur- 
viving till the Parousia (1 Cor. xv. 42 ff.). So, in substance (rov cdu. as 
gen. subj.), Chrysostom and other Fathers (in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 463), Beza, 
Grotius, Estius, Cornelius 8 Lapide, and most modern expositors. On the 
other hand, Erasmus, Clericus, and others, Including Reiche, Fritzsche, 
Krehl, and Ewald, take it as : redemption from the body. This is linguis- 
tically admissible (Heb. ix. 15); we should thus have to refer it, not to 
death, but to deliverance from this earthly body through the reception of the 
immortal and glorious body at the Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 51. But in that 
case Paul must have added to rov cdpar. judy & qualitative more precise 
definition, as in Phil. iii. 21. 


Remark.—I£ we adopt the common reading (dAAd «ai abrot riv dm, Tt. Tv. 
Eyovres, xai jueic abroi x.r.4.), Which Ewald and Umbreit follow, while Rickert, 
Philippi, Tholuck, and Hofmann declare themselves in favour of ours (see the 
crit. remarks), aivol . . . éyovrec is understood, either as meaning the Chris- 
tians of that age generally, and xa) jueic avrol the apostles (Kdllner, following 
Melanchthon, Wolf, and many others), or Paul alone (Koppe, Reiche, Umbreit, 
and many others) ; or, the former is referred to beginners in Christianity, and 
the latter to those who have been Christians for a longer time (Gléckler) ; or, 
both (the latter per analepsin) are referred to the apostles (Grotius), or to the 
Christians (Luther, Beza, Calvin, Klee, Maier, Késter, and Frommann). The 
interpretation referring it tothe Christians is the only right one; so that 
fueitc brings into more definite prominence the repeated subject. The ézovrec, 
without the article, is fatal to every reference to subjects of two sorts. 


Ver. 24. Tj yap éAr. éowd.] Ground of the viodeciav arexd., 80 far as the 
viobecia is still object of expectation; for in hope we were made partakers of 
salvation. The dative, ‘‘non medii, sed modi” (Bengel), denotes that to which 
the od3. is to be conceived as confined (Winer, p. 202) [E. T. 215], and ry 
éAr. is prefixed with the emphasis of the contrast of reality ; for ‘‘sic libe- 
rati sumus ut adhuc speranda sit haercditas, postea possidenda, et ut ita 


1 Soph. Ant. 873; Oed. C’. 1668; Dem. 690. 18; Eur. Supy. 104; and often elsewhere. 


330 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


dicam, nunc habemus jus ad rem, nondum in re,” Melanchthon. Comp. 
Tit. ili. 7; Col. iii. 8f. Following Chrysostom, others (recently Riickert, 
K6llner, and de Wette) take the dative in an instrumental sense : by hope— 
thus assuming that Paul characterizes faith, the proper medium of salvation, 
as hope. Incorrectly, because in general Paul specifically distinguishes faith 
and hope (1 Cor. xiii. 13),’ while he always bases salvation only on faith, 
from which hope thereupon proceeds (comp. Col. i. 27) ; and here espe- 
cially, as is shown by what follows, he brings into prominence the definite 
conception of hope, which as défa pedAAdvrwv (Plat. Legg. I. p. 644 C) rests in 
the mpooSoxia ayadov (Plat. Def. p. 416 A). Hofmann also takes rj éAz. in 
the sense of the means, but so that it shall signify the benefit hoped for, the 
object of the waiting, which God has offered to us in the word, by which ue 
acere concerted to fuith (Col. i. 5). Thus, however, the thought that we 
have been saved by hope (instead of by faith, Eph. ii. 8) is set aside only by 
the insertion of parenthetical clauses. And in Col. i. 5, the blessing hoped 
for, heard of through preaching, is set forth as the ground, not of conver- 
sion or salvation, but of love.—éAmig 62 x.7.2.. . . . amexdex.] is a deduction 
from ri éAr. éowd., Closing the first ground of encouragement, and meaning 
substantially : ‘‘ the nature of hope, however, involves our patiently waiting 
Sor.” — Birexouévn] But a hope (dé peraBartixcv) that 18 seen, i.e. whose object 
lies before the eyes (comp. on the objective éazic, Col. i. 5; 1 Tim. i. 1; 
Heb. vi. 18; Thuc. iii. 57. 4 ; Lucian, Pisce. 3; Aeschin. ad Ctesiph. 100). 
Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 18. — ri nai éamigec;] Why doth he still hope for it? By xai 
is indicated the—in the supposed case groundless—accession of hope to 
sight (1 Cor. xv. 29). Comp. generally, on this strengthening use of the 
kai, ctium, in lively interrogation, Klotz, ad Derar. p. 633 f., and on 1 Cor. 
l.c. Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘ cum visione non est spe opus.” 

Ver. 25. Av’ tzou.] With patience, perseveringly. Heb. xii. 1 ; IKithner, IL 
1, p. 418.—The indicative azexdey., which is not, with Estius, Koppe, 
KGllner, and others, to be taken as exspectare debemus, does not announce 
the virtuous operation (Grotius), but simply the situation, which the circum- 
stance that we hope without sccing involves. The ethical position assigned 
to us is, that we patiently wait for the object of our hope. 

Ver. 26. The second ground of encouragement (sce on vv. 18-31), con- 
nected with the immediately foregoing by doattruc.?— rd rvevua] The objec- 
tive Holy Spirit. See vv. 16, 23, and what follows, where the activity of the 
xvevpa ig described as something distinct from the subjective consciousness. 
KGllner incorrectly takes it (comp. Reiche) as : the Christian life-element ; 
and van Hengel : ‘‘ fiduciae sensus a. Sp. s. profectus.” — ovvavrid.] The 


1 See even Melanchthon, whorightly ob- we with patience walt ; but likewise (2) on 
serves: “* Differunt autem fides et spes. (¢he footing, that the Spirit helps us.” The 
quia fides in praesentia accipit remissionem wcavtws, pariler ac, itidem (see generally 
peccatorum .. . sed spes est exspectatio Kithner, IT. 1, p. 564), introduces a symmet- 
Juturae liberationis.” Faith precedes the = rical corresponding relation, which is added 
latter. on the divine side to our waiting. Comp. 

2 The progress of thought fs simple: “If Mark xiv. 81; 1 Tim. v. 25; Tit. 1.6; Plat. 
we hope for what we see not, then the mat- Symp. p. 186 E, al.; 2 Macc. xv. 89; 3 Macc. 
ter stands with us, (1) on the footing, that vi. 33. 


CHAP. VIIT., 26. 331 
ovy must neither be neglected (as by many older expositors, also Olshausen), 

nor regarded as a mere strengthening adjunct (Rickert and Reiche). Beza 
gives the right explanation : ad nos laborantes refertur.” He joins His ac- 
tivity with our weakness, helps it. See Luke x. 40; Ex. xviii. 22; Ps. 
IXXXxvlll. 22.— 179 aodeveig judv] Not specially eeakness in prayer (Ambrosi- 
aster and Bengel), for in what follows there is specified only the particular 
mode of the help, which the Spirit renders to us in our infirmity. It is there- 
fore to be left general : «ith our weakness, —so far, namely, as in that wait- 
ing for final redemption adequate power of our own for troxzovy fails us. — 
7d yap vi zpooerg. x.t.2.] Reason assigned, by specifying how the Spirit, etc. ; 
in prayer, namely, He intercedes for us. —On 16, sec Winer, p. 103 [E. T. 

109]. It denotes what of praying comes into question in such a position. 

Comp. Kriiger, Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 17. — ri rpooervs. xadd dei] what we ought to 
pray for according as it is necessary, in proportion (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 12; 1 
Pet. iv. 13) tothe need. The latter is the subsequently determining clement ; 
it is not absolutely and altogether unknown to us what we ought to ask, but 
only what it is necessary to ask according to the giten circumstances. Usually 
aavo dei is taken in reference to the form of asking, like xé¢ in Matt. x. 19 ; 
but thus the distinctive reference of the meaning of cao, prout (comp. Plat. 

Soph. p. 267 D; Baruch i. 6) isneglected. Chrysostom rightly illustrates 
the matter by the apostle’s own example, who trép tov oxdAorog tov dedopévov 
av7@ év 7H capxi (2 Cor. xii.) had prayed for what was not granted him. 

According to Hofmann, «add dei connects itself with ov« oidezerv, so that the 
thought would be : ‘‘ we do not so understand as it would be necessary.” But 
how much too feeble in this connection would be the assertion of a merely 

insufficient knowledge ! — irepevrvyxaver] t.€. évtvyxdvee iréip yudv, He applies 
Himself for our benefit (counterpart of xi. 2), namely r@ ©6e¢, which ad- 

dition is read by Origen. The double compound is not elsewhere preserv- 

ed, except in the Fathers, but it is formed after the analogy of ireperoxpivo- 
pat, vtepaodoyéouar, and many other words. The superlative rendcring of 
it (Luther : ‘‘ He intercedes for us the best”) is improbable, since évruyyévec. 
does not already express the notion of that which is much (v. 20) or trium- 

phant (vill. 37 ; Phil. ii. 9), or the like, which would admit of enhancc- 

ment. — orevayp. a2adrgrosc] i.e. thereby that He makes unutterable sighs, sighs 
whose meaning words are powerless to convey. The idea therefore is, that 
the Holy Spirit sighs unutterably in our hearts (ver. 27), and thereby inter- 

_cedes for us with God, to whom, as heart-searcher, the desire of the Spirit 
sighing in the heart is known. It was an erroneous view, whereby, follow- 

ing Augustine, 7r. VI. on John ii., most expositors, who took rd wv. rightly 
as the Holy Spirit, held the crevayuz. aaa. to be unutterable sighs which the 
man, incited by the Spirit,’ heaves forth. The Spirit Himself (comp. also 


1 According to Philippi: ‘‘the sanctified 
Auman spirit,’ whose sighing is traced back 
to its ultimate origin, the Spirit of God 
Himself. In the cordial marriage of the 
Spirit of God with that of man, there takes 
place, as it were (%), an incarnation of the 


former. This mysticism is not in harmony 
with the N. T., which always distinguishes 
clearly and specifically between the Holy 
Spirit and the human spirit, as in ver. 16. 
This applies also against Pfleiderer in Hil- 
genfield's Zeitschr. 1871, p. 178 f.; who thinks 


332 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

Hofmann) must sigh, if He is to intercede for us with sighs, and if God isto 
understand the ¢pévnya of the Spirit (ver. 27) ; although the Spirit uses the 
human organ for His sighing (comp. the counterpart phenomenon of 
demons speaking or crying out of men), as He likewise does elsewhere for 
His speaking, Matt. x. 20. See also on Gal. iv. 6. The tongue is anal- 
ogously, in the case of speaking with tongues, the organ of the Spirit who 
speaks. The necessary explanation of the wvetya as meaning the Holy 
Spirit, and the fact that the sighs must be His sighs, overturn the ration- 
alizing interpretations of Reiche : ‘‘ Christian feeling cherishes, indeed, 
the quict longing in the heart, and therewith turns, full of confidence, to 
God, but nevertheless does not permit itself any inquisitive wishes to- 
wards him ;” and of Kéllner: ‘‘ The Spirit gained in Christ . . . works 
in man that deep and holy emotion in which man, turned towards God 
in his inmost feeling, cannot, in the fulness of the emotion, express his 
burden in words, and can only relieve his oppressed heart by silent groan- 
ings.” A mere arbitrary alteration of the simple verbal sense is to be 
found in the view to which Chrysostom, Occumenius, Theophylact, and 
others have recourse, that the Spirit is here the ydpeoua evyfe, in virtue of 
which the human soul sighs. Comp. Theodoret, who thinks that Paul 
means not ryv ixdoracw tov xveiparoc, but tiv dedouevyy toig weoTebvover yapr’ 
twd yap taityc dueyetpéuevoe xatavuTTéueda, wrpoevduevoe xpoduudtepov mpooevyz- 
peda x.t.A. The question whether, moreover, a4a2. should, with Beza, 
Grotius, Wetstein, Koppe, Flatt, Gléckler, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Reithmayr, van Hengel, Késter, and others, be rendered unerpressed,' t.¢. 
dumb, not accompanied with words, or, with the Vulgate and the majority 
of commentators, inexpressible (for the expression of whose meaning words 
are insufficient), is decided by the fact that only the latter sense can be 
proved by linguistic usage, and it characterizes the depth and fervour of the 
sighing most directly and forcibly.’ 

Ver. 27. '0 épevv. zag xapd.] Traditionally hallowed (1 Sam. xvi. 7; 
1 Kings viii. 39 ; Ps. vii. 10 ; Prov. xv. 11 ; Jer. xvii. 9 f.), description of 
God, bearing on the subject in hand ; for it is in the heart, as in the central 
laboratory of the personal self-conscious life (comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 
254), that the praying Spirit sighs, Gal. iv. 6. —67:] Not for, as many think, 
including Tholuck, Riickert, de Wette, Philippi, Ewald, and Umbret. 
What follows in fact conveys no real ground, since God would in ercry @* 
know the purpose of the Spirit, and to take oide in the pregnant sense: 
understands and hears (so Riickert, following Calvin), is utterly unjustifiable, 


that our spirit is to be distinguished from 
the divine Spirit dwelling in us only in such 
a way, that the two stand related merely as 
the form to the real contents of self-con- 
sciousness. In cases such as our passage, 
according to his view, the Ego knows itself 
in objective consciousness as furnished 
with the Divine Spirit, without feeling itself 
to be so in the subjective consciousness. 
In this way there is substituted for the two- 


fold spirit in our passage a twofold form 
and activity of the Christian conscic@usne> 
which the plain words do not perm it. 

1 As dppyros may be used ; but not eHr 
ros, which always means, unuttercable, UP 
speakable. : 

2 Comp. also 2 Cor. ix. 13; 1 Pet | 8 
Anth. Pal. v. 4 (Philodem. 17); The. 
(according to Stob. Serm, 36, p. 216). 


CHAP. VIII., 28. 333 


especially after 6 gpevy. «.r.4. The rc is rather that, annexed by way of 
explanation : that He, namely. Comp. Grotius, Estius, Benecke, Reiche, 
Fritzsche, Maier, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Reithmayr, van 
Hengel, and Hofmann. See on Phil. i. 27, ii. 22, al. — xara Oe6v] This, ex- 
plained by Origen ‘‘ secundum divinitatem,” does not mean : on the instiga- 
tion of God (Tholuck, appealing improperly to 1 Cor. xii. 8), but : in accord- 
ance with God, i.e. 30 as God desires it, xata yvdunv avtov, Theodore of Mop- 
suestia. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10; 4 Macc. xv. 2; Plat. Apol. pp. 22 A, 23 
B. The sense : in pursuance of the Divine Ree) more common in classic 
usage (see Wetstein on the passage, and Vaicken. ad Herod. iii. 158), is here 
foreign. Béhme, Reiche, and Fritzsche render it before God, with God (‘‘in 
Deum quasi conversus”). This is indeed justifiable from a linguistic point 
of view (Bernhardy, p. 240), comp. Wisd. v. 1, Eccles. xxxiv. 6 ; but how 
superfluous and unsuited to the emphasis of the prominent position assigned 
to it! With the emphasis on xara 6eéy it cannot appear strange that Paul 
has not written xar’ avréy, but has rather named the subject. Comp. Xen. 
Mem. i. 8. 2: ebyero d2 mpde roig Yeotc, . . . d¢ rove Yeote KdA2oTa eidérac 
x.t.A. The omission of the article, which does not render the expression 
adverbial (against Hofmann), establishes in the case of Oeéc no difference of 
sense (Winer, p. 115 f. [E. T. 122]). — irép dyiav] for saints, without the 
article because qualitative ; ‘‘ sancti sunt et Deo propinqui et auxilio digni, 
pro quibus intercedit,” Bengel. On évrvyy. ixép revoc, to pray for any one, 
see Bahr on Plut. Flamin. p. 83. 

Ver. 28. Third ground of encouragement ; comp. on ver. 26. — oldayev dé] 
It is known to us, however (as in ver. 22). This dé is not : on the other hand, 
howecer, in contradistinction to the sighing discussed since ver. 22, as Hof- 
mann thinks—a reference, that must have been marked in some way or 
other (at least by the stronger adversative aAAd). It is the usual peraSarixdv, 
and carries us from the special relation discussed in ver. 26 f. over to a gen- 
eral one, the consciousness of which must finally place the good courage of 
the believer on a footing all the more sure. — roi¢ ayar. r. Oedv] the dative 
of communion. Paul characterizes as lovers of God (xar’ éfoy.) the true 
Christians (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9, iii. 8; Eph. vi. 24 ; Jas. i. 12), as is plain 
from roi¢ xara x.r.A.' — wdvra] everything, i.e., according to the context, all 
destined events, even those full of pain not excepted (ver. 35). On the 
thought, comp. Plat. Rep. p. 6138 A. — ovvepyei] works along with, that is, 
contributes ; Bondei, Hesychius. See Wetstein. The ovy does not refer to 
the common working together of the elements contained in révra (comp. 
ver. 22), but to the idea of the fellowship in which he who supports necessari- 
ly stands to him who is supported. Comp. on ver. 26. — cic ayadév] indefi- 
nitely : for good ; it works beneficially. Comp. Theogn. 161; Hom. J7. x. 
102 ; Plat. Rep. l.c.; Eccles, xxxix. 27; Rom. xiii. 4. Reiche erroneously 
takes it as: ‘‘the good of the Christians, their eternal welfare.” In that 


1 In this very description of the Christian Wofmann finds a retrospective glance at v. 
estate there is implied a ground of conviction 1 ff., but only by means of his incorrect 
of the odauer, the certainty of which is view of » aydxn rov Geoi, V. 5. 
thereupon still more precisely explained. 


334 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


case, the article at least must have been used as in xiv. 16 ; and some wit- 
nesses in reality add it. Bengel has the right view : ‘‘in bonum, ad glorifi- 
cationem usgue” (ver. 30). —roic cata p60. KAyroig ovow] [See Note XCVIII. 
p. 852.] These words may mean cither (odow as predicate, joining on) : ‘‘ since 
they are the called according to His purpose” (so Hofmann), or (taking roi¢ in 
conjunction with otorv), as to those who (quippe qui, i.e. since they indeed) are 
the called according to His purpose. So usually ; and this latter is the true ren- 
dering, because otherwise oto:v would be put not only quite superfluously, but 
also in a way very liable to misconception, since it would occur to every 
reader, at the first glance, to join rot¢ with oiccxv. Had Paul meant what Hof- 
mann thinks he did, he would have written simply roi¢ x. 7. xAyroic without 
ovowv, or possibly oirivéc eiory ol x. 7. xAntol. — Respecting the idea itself, there is 
causally involved in the relation of being the called according to His purpose 
(for the emphasis rests on xAyroic), the certainty that to them all things, etc.; 
for otherwise that high distinction, which God has conferred upon them 
according to the purpose of His grace, would be vain and fruitless, which 
is impossible (ver. 30). The rpdédcore here meant is the free decree formed 
by God in eternity for imparting bliss to believers through Christ (ix. 11; 
Eph. i. 11, iii. 11; 2 Tim. i. 9; Eph. i. 9). Im accordance with that 
decree, the call of God to the Messianic salvation through the preaching of 
the gospel (x. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 14) has gone forth to those comprehended 
in that decree. Therefore, when Paul terms‘the Christians xAyro/, it is self- 
evident that in their case the call has met with success (1 Cor. i. 24), conse- 
quently has been combined with the converting operation of the divine 
grace,—without the latter, however, being found in the werd itself, or the 
word being made equivalent to éxAexroi.’ Christians are at the same time 
KAnroi, éxdextoi (ix. 11), adycoe x.7.A.; but the significations of these predicates 
correspond to different characteristic qualities of the Christian state. Con- 
sequently, just as it was quite a mistaken view to interpret rpddcare of the 
personal self-determination of the subjects (Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
others), so also it was an unbiblical and hazardous distinction (see against 
this, Calovius) to put the called xara zpéSecrv in contrast with those who 
are called yu?) xara p63. (Augustine, Estius, Reithmayr, and others). Weiss 
aptly observes, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 79: ‘‘ Election and 
calling are inseparable correlative ideas ; where the one takes place, there 
the other takes place also ; only we cannot take cognizance of the former 
as an act before all time and within the divine mind, while the latter 
becomes apparent as a historical fact.” Comp. also his bibl. Theol. p. 386 f. 

Vv. 29, 30. More detailed development and expression of roi¢ x. zpdd. «A. 
ovo.v,— as a continued confirmation of the oldauev, bri x.t.A. ‘* For this di- 
vine plan of salvation advancing from the rpd0eor¢ to the xrjowc, leads the Chris- 
tian safely and surely to the dé&a ;” hence it is not conceivable that anything 
whatever, in opposition to this plan, should exercise other than a beneficial 
influence upon them (ver. 31 ff.). — zpotyvw] foreknew, namely, as those who 
should one day, in the way of the divine plan of salvation, become cbupopda ric 


1 Comp. Lamping, Paull de praedest. decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 40 f. 


CHAP. VIII., 29, 30. 335 
eixdvog T. viow abrov.' [See Note XCIX. p. 352.] That this character, in which 
they were foreknown by God, presupposes the subjection to faith (the iaxop 
siorews 1. 5), was self-evident to the Christian reader. Erasmus aptly re- 
marks : ‘‘ Non temere elegit Deus quos elegit, novit suos multo antequam vo- 
caret.” The text merely gives the terminus of the rpo in zpofyvw and rpodpice 
quite indefinitely, namely : before their calling. More precise definitions, 
therefore (¢.g. that of Tholuck : ‘‘ before the foundation of the world,” though 
in itself correct, Eph. i. 4, iil. 11), should not be here given. The taking of 
the zvoéyvw in the sense of prescience, demanded by the signification, of the 
word, has been followed (though with various, and in part very arbitrary, 
attempts to supply that, as which the persons concerned were foreknown by 
God) by Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Theophy- 
lact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Paraphr., Toletus, Calovius, and others, including 
Reiche, Neander, Tholuck, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, van Hengel, Hahn, 
Ewald, Weiss, and others. The question whether this exposition or the other 
of the pre-election (Calvin and others, including Riickert, Usteri, Kéllner, 
de Wette, Fritzsche, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Lamping), is the truc 
one, cannot be got rid of by mixing up the two conceptions (Umbreit) ; 
nor is it to be decided by dogmatic presuppositions, but simply by the 
usage of the language, in accordance with which zpoy. never in the N. T. 
(not even in xi. 2, 1 Pet. i. 20) means anything else than to know beforehand 
(Acts xxvi. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 17; Judith ix. 6; Wisd. vi. 18, viii. 8, xviii. 6). 
Comp. Philippi in loc., and his Glaubenslehre, IV. 1, p. 117 ff., ed. 2. That 
in classic usage it ever means anything else, cannot be at all proved.?, Comp. 
also zpéyvwore and rpoyvworrkdc. An appeal is made to the familiar use of 
ywvéox. in the sense of judicial cognizance, or even of other resolutions and 
decisions (Herod. iv. 25, i. 74, 78; Thuc. iv. 30, iii. 99, and many other 
instances). But, in the first place, it is never in this sense joined with the 
accusative of the person without an infinitive ; and secondly, there is no 
such precedent of usage for the compound mpoyivdoxerv, current as it was 
in Greck authors; for the few passages in which it means to take fore- 
thought about something (Thuc. ii. 64.5; Xen. Cyr. ii. 4, 11, with a very 
doubtful reading) are not suitable for comparison, either as regards the 
sense, or as respects the union with the personal accusative in our pas- 
sage. The incorrectness of this explanation is confirmed, moreover, by 
the analogy of the following clauses, which always add another and 
different idea to the one preceding. The right interpretation remains, 
therefore : praecognovit (Vulg. = praescivit), which, however, is neither to be 
altered, with Augustine, Vatablus, Grotius, Estius, and others, into appro- 
bavit jam ante, to which view also Tholuck and Riickert incline (see on vii. 


1 This filling up of the idea of spo¢yvw Is 
implied, namely. in what follows. If God 
has destined them beforehand to a future 
fashioning in the likeness, etc., He must 
also have already known them beforehand 
as those who should one day be thus fash- 
foned. Consequently we are not to under 
stand the predisposition to love (ver. 28) as 


the object of the rpo¢yrw (Weiss U.c. p. 74f., 
and didi. Theol. p. 885). Bengel well re- 
marks on cupudppovs «.7.A.: ' Hic est char 
acter praecognitorum et glorificandorum. 

2See, on the contrary, Hom. Cer. 258; 
Xen. Ap. 30; Plat. Rep. p. 4% C; Theaet. p. 
208 D; Zim. p. 70C; Eur. Hipp. 1072; Dem. 
861. 13; Lucian, Prom. 2 


336 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


15) ; nor to be taken, with Hofmann, in that sense of ycvdoxerv which obtains 
in 1 Cor. viii. 3, xiii. 12, Gal. iv. 9, 2 Tim. i. 19 (an appropriating cogni- 
zance of what is akin and homogeneous, according to Hofmann). The latter, 
to which also Delitzsch ultimately comes, Psychol. p. 39,’ is incorrect, 
because in accordance with it the mpéyvwor¢ would be a relation of com- 
munion already entered into actively by God, which would necessarily 
include the mpoopiouéc, and consequently exclude the latter as a special 
and accessory act. For to suppose that Paul, with mrpofyww and xpo- 
apie, Goes not mean two acts following each other in succession, but 
asserts the former of the persons, and the latter of the character ascribed to 
them (Hofmann), is wholly groundless in presence of the clearly progressive 
description of the apostle. The right view, since faith is the subjective 
ground of salvation, is that held by Calovius and our older dogmatists : 
‘¢ quos credituros praevidit vel suscepturos tocationem.” Itis God’sbeing aware 
in His plan, by means of which, before the subjects are destined by Him to 
salvation, He knows whom He has to destine thereto. Comp. on xi. 2. —xai 
mpowpice| them He destined also beforehand. To what? ouypdpd. tic eix. Tr. vi. 
aur. : to be conformed to the image of His Son, i.e. to be such as should present 
the image of His Son in their conformation. From the following ei¢ ré elvaz 
x.7.A. it is plain that Paul here means the same which in ver. 23 he has des- 
ignated as viofeciav, tiv aroAitpwov Tov obuatoe Huov, Consequently the glory 
to which God has predestined them, the state of the péAdovea défa (ver. 18), 
so far as this shall be the same (even in respect of the glorified body, Phil. 
iii. 21, 1 Cor. xv. 49) as that which the exalted Christ has. Comp. 2 Cor. 
iii. 18, 1 John iii. 2. The fellowship in suffering (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, 
and others) is here remote. What Paul has in view must be the same as he 
denotes in ver. 30 by éddface, consequently the conformitas gloriae. This 
very thought of the entire glorious appearance, which he means, has sug- 
gested the vivid expression cuppép¢. 7. etxdvog 3 wherefore we are not, with 
Chrysostom (é7ep yap 6 povoyerge qv gicet, TovTO Kai avTot yeyévact Kara yxdprv), 
Theophylact, Bengel, and others, to refer it to the present viodecia. Theo- 
doret has the right view. The conformity of the inner being is not con- 
veyed in the expression (Hofmann understands it as included), but is the 
moral presupposition of the glory meant. — ofupopdo¢ (Lucian, Amor. 39), in 
Phil. iii. 21 with the dative, here with the genitive. See Bernhardy, p. 171 ; 
Kiibner, IT. 1, p. 295. — ei¢ rd eivac «.7.A.]} Not an inferential clause (see on 
i. 20), but—as the very notion of zpodp. embraces the purpose—the final aim 
of rpodp. ovuudpd. x.t.A. Nor is the main thought contained in év roz2. 
édeAg., as de Wette very arbitrarily supposes ; but, on the contrary, Paul 
contemplates Christ as the One, to whom the divine decree referred as to its 
Jinal aim, Christ was to fulfil His lofty commission not merely by standing 
in the relation of His glory to the Father as the povoyevfc, but by being the 
First-born among many brethren, 7.e. among many who through Him, the 
essential and primordial Son of God, should, as adopted vini Geot, and conse- 


1 Comp. Calvin: the rpéyyworsisan‘*adop- _vit ;’’ this notitla being dependent a dene- 
tio, qua filios suos a reprobissemperdiscre- placito of God. 


CHAP. VIII., 31-39. 337 


quently in so far as his brethren, have attained to the same défa of sharing 
the possession of the dignity and privilege (Col. i. 18) of the First-born.’ 
Comp. also Heb. 1. 6, and Liinemann in loc. — éxadece}] Like xAnroic in ver. 
28. For those who despised the invitation to salvation conveyed to them 
through the preachers of the gospel did not belong to the called, whom 
God zpoéyvw and rpodpice ; the following rotrove x. édix. also presupposes that 
the calling has been attended with the result of the isaxo) riorewe. Comp. 
on ver. 28. Hence the divine saving grace is to be conceived as working by 
means of the word on those who become called, namely, in opening and pre- 
paring the heart for the reception of the word,’ Acts xvi. 14 ; Phil. i. 6, 29 ; 
John vi. 44. God has fore-known those who would not oppose to his gra- 
cious calling the resistance of unbelief, but would follow its drawing ; 
thereafter He has fore-ordained them to eternal salvation ; and when the 
time had come for the execution of His saving counsel, has called them, etc. 
(ver. 30). With the xAgore begins the execution of the zpoopropde, in accord- 
ance with the rpdéyvworr ; and the subjects concerned are, in contrast to the 
multitude standing outside of this divine process of salvation, the éxiexroi 
(ver. 33). — éidixaiwoev] Justification is consequently the sole ground of the 
glorifying ; sanctification is added to it, in order that the justified may 
attain that goal in the way that God desires. — édéface] Justification, as & 
divine act of imputation, is really (not merely ideally or in principle, in 
opposition to Lipsius, Rechtfert. p. 48 f.) accomplished ; but the glorification 
falls to the future (ver. 21, v. 2, and constantly in N. T. ; comp. also 1 Cor. 
ii. 7, Rom. ix. 28). Notwithstanding, the aoris¢t neither stands for the 
Suture nor for the present (in opposition to Kéllner ; see Herm. ad Viger. p. 
746) ; nor does it express anywhere in the N. T. a habit, as Flatt thinks— 
against which vicw, in the present instance, the analogy of the preceding 
aorists is decisive ; but it represents the de facto certainly future glorification 
as so necessary and certain, that it appears asif already given and completed 
with the édiaiwcev. ‘‘Whom He has justified, them He has—viewing the 
relation from its final aim—therewith also glorified.’ In ordcr thus to place 
the glorification on the same platform of certainty with the tpofyvo, mpodpiae, 
éxadeoce, and édix., Paul selected the proleptic aorist. On the other hand, the 
triumphant flow of the great chain of thought and the thoroughly Pauline 
boldness of expression (comp. on Eph. ii. 5) are misapprehended, if the act 
be regarded as accomplished only in the decree of God (Grotius, Reiche, and 
Umbreit) ; or if the expression be referred to the glory of God possessed ‘‘ at 
Jirst only inwardly and secretly” (Hofmann), or to ‘‘repute with God” 
(Marcker), or to the bestowal of grace and vioecia here below (Chrysostom and 
his followers, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, and Erasmus), to which also van 
Hengel adheres, appealing to John xii. 28. 

Vv. 31-39. Inference from vv. 29, 30. So, then, the Christian has to fear 
nothing that might be detrimental to his salvation ; but on the contrary he is, 
ecith the love of God in Christ, assured of that salvation. — This whole passage 


‘Comp. Philippi, Glaudensi. IT. p. 214, Jullus Mtiller, dogmat. Abhandl. 24ff. — 
ed. 2. * See Herm. ad Viger. p. 747; Kihner, II. 
2 Comp. Luthardt, r. Freien Willen, p. 427 ; 1, p. 142. 


338 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


is (observe the logical relation of dr: in ver. 29, and ofy in ver. 31) a commen- 
tary on ver. 28. And what acommentary! ‘‘ Quid unquam Cicero dixit 
grandiloquentius ?” Erasmus on ver. 35. Comp. Augustine, de doctr. chr. 
iv. 20. A sublime dyxog rac 2éfeuc (Arist. Rhet. iii. 6) pervades the whole, 
even as respects form. 

Ver. 31. What shall we thercfore say (infer thence) with respect to these 
things (vv. 29, 30) ?— ei 6 @ed¢ x.7.A.] Herewith begins a stream of trium- 
phant questions and answers (on to ver. 37) which contains what we say. — 
The 6 Oed¢ trép yudv briefly sums up the divine guardianship according to 
the tenor of vv. 29, 30. — ric xa®? yudv ;] a question not of challenge (Hof- 
mann), with which the following does not accord, but of the sure, already 
triumphant certainty that all hostile power must be unsuccessful and harm- 
less for us. On elvac xard tevog, comp. Ecclus. vi. 12 ; Wisd. iv. 6 ; Plut. 
Nic. 21 ; and on the contrast of ixép and xard, 2 Cor. xiii. 8. 

Ver. 82. The answer to the foregoing question,’ likewise interrogative, 
but with all the more confidence. — édcye] quippe qui, He, who indeed, brings 
into prominence causally the subject of what isto be said of him by rac x.7.2.* 
This causal clause is with great emphasis prefized to the wé¢ «.7:4., of which 
it serves as the ground (the converse occurs e.g. in Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 14 ; 
Aristoph. Ran. 739). — rod. idiov} full of significance, for the more forcible 
delineation of the display of love. A contrast, however, to the viot¢ 6eroi-¢ 
(Theophylact, Pareus, Wetstein, Tholuck, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Fritzsche, Philippi) is not implied in the text. Comp., rather, viii. 3: rav 
éavrov vidv. — ov égeicato] Comp. xi. 21; 2 Cor. xiii. 2; 2 Pet. ii. 4, 5; fre- 
quent also inclassic authors. ‘‘ Deus paterno suo amori quasi vim adhibuit, ” 
Bengel. The prevalence of the expression, as also the fact that Paul has 
not written rot viot rov ayaryrov, makes the assumption of an allusion to 
Gen. xxii. 12 seem not sufficiently well founded (Philippi, Hofmann, and 
many older commentators). The juxtaposition of the negative and positive 
phrases, ov« é¢., Gaa’. . . mwapéd., enhances the significance of the act of 
love. On rapéduxev (unto death), comp. iv. 25. civ avrg : with Him tho, 
given up for us, has by God’s grace already become ours. Thus everything 
else stands to this highest gift of grace in the relation of concomitant accessory 
gift. — rac ovyzi nai] how is it possible that He should not also with Him, etc. ? 
The xai belongs, not to zé¢ ot xi (Philippi), but to ov air ; comp. iii. 29 ; 
1 Cor. ix. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 19. The inference is a majori ad minus. ‘‘ Minus 
est enim vobis omnia cum illo donare, quam illum nostri causa morti tra- 
‘dere,” Ambrosiaster. Comp. Chrysostom. — 1rd rdvra] the whole, of what He 
has to bestow in accordance with the aim of the surrender of Jesus ; that is, 
not ‘‘ the unicerse of things” (Hofmann), the xAnpovoyia of the world, which is 
here quite foreign, but, in harmony with the context, vv. 26-80: the col- 


1 That question no longer required acor. lendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 87: Baeumlein, 
voboration (Hofmann) after ver. 2% ff. Be- Pariik. p. 62; Kthner, II. 2, p. 734. 
sides, Paul would have expressed this 2See Baeumlein, Partik. p. 87 f.; Borne- 
meaning by ydp. Regarding the frequent mann, ad Xen. Symp. iv. 15; Maetzn. ad Ly- 
use of yé to introduce the answer in classic-  curg. p. 28. 
al Greek, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 292f.; El- 


CHAP. VIII., 33. 339 
lective saving blessings of His love shown to us in Christ. This certainty 
of the divine relation toward us, expressed by még x.r.4., excludes the possi- 
bility of success on the part of human adversaries. 

Ver. 33 ff. It is impossible that this civ avrg ra wdvra juiv yaploerac should 
be frustrated, either on the side of God, with whom no accusation of His 
elect can have the result of their condemnation (ver. 33, down to xaraxpivwy 
in ver. 34), or on that of Christ, whose death, resurrection, etc., afford the 
guarantee than nothing can separate us from His love (ver. 34, Xpiord¢ 6 
arobavev, on to ver. 36). In the analysis of this swelling effusion we must 
return to the method for which Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and other 
Fathers paved the way, and which Erasmus followed : namely, that to the 
question tig éyxadéoet x.t.2. the answer is : Oed¢ 6 dixacOv* tig 6 xataxpivuy ; and 
then follows, moulded in similar form to that answer, the expression, pass- 
ing over from God to Christ, Xprordcg . . . quar’ Tig yao xwpicet K.T.A. 3 80 
that after dicaiov, and also after izép judy, only a colon is to be inserted. 
Who shall raise accusation against the elect of God? Answer, in a boldly tri- 
umphant counter-question, — God is the Justifier, who the condemner ? (there is, 
consequently no one there to condemn, and every accusation is without re- 
sult ! Comp. Isa. 1. 8). And as regards Christ: Christ is He that has died, 
yea rather also has risen again, who also is at the right hand of God, who also 
intercedes for us: who shall separate us from the love of Christ? This view 
(followed also by van Hengel, but by Hofmann only with respect to the 
first portion as far as xataxpivwy), though abandoned by nearly all modern 
expositors,’ is corroborated by its entire accordance with the sense, by the 
harmony of the soaring rhetorical form, and by its freedom from those insu- 
perable difficulties which beset the modes of division that differ from it. 
[See Note C. p. 353.] Of the latter, two in particular fall to be considered. 
1. Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, and many others, includ- 
ing Ammon, Tholuck, Flatt, Fritzsche, Philippi, Reithmayr, and Ewald, 
take Oco¢ 6 dixa:dv as affirmative answer to rig éyxaAéoe: x.t.A. ; then rig 6 xara- 
xpivwy AS a hew question, and as the affirmative answer thereto : Xpuordc 6 
ato@avav «.t.A., thus: Who shall accuse, etc.? God is the justifier (conse- 
quently no accuser shall succeed). Who is thecondemner? Christ is He that 
has died, etc. (so that He cannot, therefore, condemn us in judgment). 
But against this view it may be urged, (a) that Oed¢ 6 dixacav and ri¢ 6 xara- 
xpivuy are, as regards both substance (d:ca:év and xaraxpev.) and form (Paul 
has not written ric xaraxpevei to correspond with rig éyxaAéoe:), correlative, 
and therefore may not, without arbitrariness, be separated ; (>) that in ver. 
34 Christ is not at all described as a judge, which would be in keeping with 


‘The difficulty started by Philippi, that 
corresponding to the ris éyxaA. xara exdA. Oeov 
in ver. 88, there is introduced, with the ris 
ae. xwp. «.7.A. Of ver. 35, a question for 
which nothing prepares the way, and which 
fs not answered in the foregoing ver. 34—is 
incorrect {n {tself, since the answer to this 
question is certainly yielded by ver. 84; and 
it mistakes, moreover, the truly /yric char- 


acter of the magnificent passage. Tholuck's 
objections, as also those of Hofmann, re- 
garding the second half (from Xpiords 6 
anxodavwy OnWE..ds), are quite unimportant. 
The latter lays particular stress on the fact 
that Paul has not added umrép nua to awodar- 
wv, As if that purpose of the aod. were 
not perfectly self-evident, especially amidet 
such a vehement flight of the discourse ! 


840 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


the 6 caraxptvuv, but, on the contrary, as redeemer and intercessor ; (c) that. 
if rig éyxaAéoec is at once disposed of by Ocd¢ 6 dixacay, it must be already 
quite self-evident that there can be no xaraxpivev, and consequently rig é 
kaTax, 8S & new question, would be something superfluous and out of keeping 
with so compressed an utterance of emotion ; (d) and, finally, that in the 
entire context there is no mention of the last judgment. 2. The theory, 
that came into vogue after Augustine, doctr. Chr. ili. 3, and Ambrosiaster 
(adopted in modern times by Koppe, Reiche, Kéllner, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, de Wette, and Maier, also by Griesbach and Lachmann ; 
Tholuck is undecided), consists in supplying éyxaAéoee with Oed¢ 6 dixaroy, and 
taking it as a question, and dealing in a corresponding manner with Xproroc 
. . . gudv also: Who shall accuse? Shall God do so, who justifies? Who 
shall condemn? Shall Christ do so, who has died, etc.? But against this view 
it suffices to urge the decisive reason, that to conceive of God as accuser (be- 
fore Christ) is destitute of scriptural analogy, and could not at all have oc- 
curred to the apostle. Hofmann takes Xpiord¢. . . évrvyy. vrép ju. asa question 
with two dissimilar relutive adjuncts, of which the first declares how it was possi- 
ble, after the question ri¢ 6 xaraxp., to subjoin the further question, whether it 
might not be feared with regard to Christ that He should condemn where 
God acquits ; while the second shows the impossibility of such a fear. But 
this artificial interpretation, in connection with which the first and second 
xai (see the critical remarks) are condemned as not genuine and this con- 
demnation is acutely turned to account, fails, so far as the substance is con- 
cerned, on the very ground that the thought of its being possible perhaps 
for Christ to condemn where God acquits would be an absurd idea, which 
could not occur to a Christian consciousness ; and, so far as form is con- 
cerned, on the ground that the second relative clause is annexed to the first 
with entire similarity, and therefore does not warrant our explaining it, as 
if Paul, instead of &¢ xa? évr., should have written add xai évr. — In detail, 
observe further: The designation of Christians in ver. 33 as éxAexroi Ocod is 
selected as having a special bearing on the matter, and renders palpable at 
once the fruitlessness of every éyxAnote ; while Ged¢ coming immediately after 
@cov has rhetorical emphasis. — xara éxA. Ocov] +e. against those whom God 
has chosen ' out of the xéazog (John xvii. 6) to be members of His Messianic 
peculiar people to be made blessed for Christ’s sake, according to His eter- 
nal decree (Eph. i. 4) ; comp. on ver. 80. This is the Christian conception 
(comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9) of the Old Testament éxdexr. (Ps. cv. 48, evi. 5; Isa. 
xlii. 1, Ixv. 9; Wisd. iii. 9, al.). The elect constitute the Israel of God, 
Gal. vi. 16. Regarding the genitive Ocov (éxA. is used quite as a substan- 
tive ; comp. Cdl. iii. 12 ; Matt. xxiv. 31 al.), see Fritzsche, Diss. IT. p. 31 ; 
Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 1185. The absence of the article (comp. ver. 27) in the 
case of é«2. Oecd brings out the quality of the persons. — The predicates of 
Christ in ver. 34—under which His death is to be conceived as an atoning 
death, His rising again as having taken place did rv dixaiwor quay (iv. 25), 


1 Against Hofmann, who (Schriftbevw. I. p. 228 f.) calls in question the reference to others, 
non-elect, see on Eph. I. 4. 


CHAP. VIII., 33. 341 


and His being at the right hand of God as personal participation in the gov- 
ernment of the world (Eph. i. 20, Col. iii. 1, al. ; comp. also Dissen, ad 
Pindar. Fragm. xi. 9) in the heavenly dwelling-place of the Father’s glory 
(see on Matt. vi. 6)—exclude the possibility of any one separating us from 
the love of Christ. For, as regards His past, He has proved by His death 
the abundance of His love (v. 6 f. ; Eph. iii. 18 f.), and this demonstra- 
tion of His love has been divinely confirmed by His resurrection ; and as 
regards His present, through Mis sitting at the right hand of God He possesses 
the power to do for His own whatever His love desires, and through His 
intercession He procures for them every protection and operation of grace 
from the Father (Heb. vii. 25, ix. 24; 1 John ii. 1). But this intercession 
(comp. ver. 26 f.) is the continuous bringing to bear of His work of atone- 
ment, completed by His itaovypiov, on the part of Christ in His glory with 
the Father ; which we are to conceive of as real and—in virtue of the glori- 
fied corporeity of the exalted Christ, as also in virtue of the subordination 
in which He even as civOpovog stands to the Father—as request properly so 
called (évrevéic) through which the ‘‘continuus quasi vigor” (Gerhard) of 
redemption takes place. Comp. John xiv. 16. There has been much dog- 
matic and philosophical explaining away of this passage on the part of sys- 
tematists and exegetes. Some apt observations are to be found in Diister- 
dieck on 1 John ii. 1, who nevertheless, without assigning his exegetical 
grounds, calls in question that the intercession is cocalis et oralis. As such, 
however, it must be conceived, because it is made by the glorified God-man ; 
though the more special mode in which it takes place is withdrawn from 
the cognizance of our earthly apprehension. Comp. Philippi, Glaubenel. 
IV. 2, p. 3836, ed. 2. — paAdov dé is the imo cero, tel potius, by which the 
speaker amends his statement (see on Gal. iv. 9) ; for what would Christ’s 
having died have been of itself ? how could it have been to us the bond and . 
the security of His love against all distresses, etc., ver. 85 f., if the divine 
resurrection had not been added to it? Paul therefore appends to the bare 
azofavev, by way of correction : imo vero etiam resuscitatus, in which the xai, 
also, signifies : non solum mortuus, sed etiam resusc. ; comp. Eph. v. 11. It 
is thus clear that (contrary to Hofmann’s view) this xai was quite essential 
and indispensable ; for it was not the drofavev itself, but its having been 
mentioned alone and without the resurrection belonging to it, that needed 
correction. It is, moreover, self-evident that all this application of the cor- 
rective expression is here merely of a formal nature, serving to bring into 
marked prominence the two elements in their important correlation. — The 
é¢ xai Occurring twice has a certain solemnity. — Ver. 35. ric] Paul puts the 
question by ric, not ri, in conformity with the parallel ri¢ 6 xaraxpivwv. The 
circumstance that he subsequently specifies states and things, not persona— 
which, however, naturally suggest themselves to the conception of the 
reader—cannot lead any one astray, least of all in such a bold flight of 
rhetoric. — aro rij¢ aydz. r. Xpeorov] Most expositors take rov X. (comp. Eph. 
ili, 19) as genitive of the subject, and rightly, because this view was already 
prepared for by ver. 34 (in which the great acts of Christ’s love toward us 
are specified), and is confirmed by ver. 37 (dia rov ayam. judas), and by ver. 


342 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


39, where the aydz7 rov Ocot 7 év Xpeor@ comes in the place of the ayéxy red 
X. This excludes the interpretation of others, who understand it of the love 
to Christ (Origen, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Majus, Heumann, Morus, K6llner, 
and Ewald). Kd6llner’s objections to our view do not touch its true sense, 
since the point in question is not a possible interruption of the love of Christ 
to us, nor yet the hindering of our access to it (Philippi), but a possible sep- 
aration from the love of Christ (that helps to victory, ver. 37) through hin- 
drances intervening between it and us, which might nullify its manifestation and 
operation upon us and might thus dissolce our real fellowship with it.' It was 
therefore very unwarranted in de Wette (comp. Calvin, Riickert, and Tho- 
luck), to convert, in accordance with v. 5, the love of Christ into ‘‘ the joy- 
ful feeling of being loved by Christ,” which ver. 37 does not permit, where 
manifestly the aid of the exalted Christ, who has loved us (comp. Matt. 
xxviii. 20 ; Phil. iv. 13), is meant. 

Ver. 36. The marks of parenthesis are to be expunged, because the con- 
struction is unbroken, and aA’ é rotr. raoww in ver. 37 refers to ver. 35 and 
ver. 86. On the accumulation of designations that follows, comp. 2 Cor. 
vi. 4 f. ; and on the so frequently repeated 7, Xen. Mem. i. 1. 7, Soph. O. C. 
251. By way of scriptural proof for the most extreme element mentioned, 
for  pudyza:pa, Paul quotes a passage, in accordance with which even the 
slaying sword has here its place already prophetically indicated beforehand. 
In Ps. xliv. 23 (quoted exactly from the LXX.), where the historical mean- 
ing refers to the daily massacres of Jews in the time of the Psalmist (in an 
age after the exile, but not so late as the Maccabean), he recognizes a type 
of the analogous fate awaiting the Christian people of God, as their sacred- 
historic destiny. Kardaandog roig mpoxerpévorg 4 uaprupia® éx zpoammov yap 
avdpav eipytat tov avrov éaxnxétwv oxordy, Theodoret. Therein lies the justift- 
cation of this typical view. But since our passage specially mentions only 
the being put to death and the slaying, we have no right to make the refer- 
ence which Paul gives to them extend, with Hofmann, to the treatment in 
general which the Christians should have to experience, instead of leaving 
it limited to uéza:pa.—éri] for. A part of the quotation, without relevant 
reference to the connection in our passage. — évexev cov] There is no reason 
whatever for departing, with Kéllner (comp. Hofmann), from the reference 
of the original text to God, and referring cov to Christ. For, in the first 
place, the probative point of the quotation does not lie in évexev cov (but in 
Gavar. and éAoy. a&¢ 7p63. og.); and In the second place, the very massacres of 
the Christians took place on account of God, because they continued faithful 
to Him in Christ, while the denial of Christ would have been a denial of 
God, who had sent Him. Hence martyrdom was regarded as a dofdcew 
Oavétw rov Oedv (John xxi. 19), — dAqv ryv ju.] Not quotidie (Castalio, Gro- 


1 The tribulations, etc., are, forsooth, not act uponus. Philipp! introduces a foreign 
something which might form a wall of sep- element, when he holds that the tribula- 
aration between us and the love of Christ, tions might seem to us signsof the dirine 
such as they might produce perhapsinhu- wrath, and thus mislead us into undelicf in 
man fellowship—so that the affection of — the existence of the divine love. 
any one should be unable to reach us or 


CHAP. VILL, 37-39. 343 


tius, and Gldckler); Paul follows the LXX., who thus translate oY0-%9. 
It means : the tohole day (comp. x. 21; Isa. Ixii. 6; Ex. x. 13; 1 Sam. 
xix. 24 ; 1 Macc. v. 50) are we murdered, so that at every time of the day 
murder is committed upon us (now on this one, now on that one of us); it 
ceases not the livelong day. And this is the consequence of the fact, that we 
have been counted (aorist) as sheep for the sale a reckoned like sheep des- 
tined for slaughter. 

Ver. 37. But in all this—namely, what is specified in vers. 35 and 86—1we 
conquer, etc. This adda does not break off an incomplete sentence (Hof- 
mann), but is rather the simple antithetic at, but, whatever sufferings and 
dangers may await us. — imepvex.] We gain a victory that 1s more than victory ; 
we are over-cictorious. Luther well renders : ‘‘ weovercome far.”” Comp. v. 
20. It does not involve more than this ; neither the easiness of the victory 
(Chrysostom, Theophylact), nor the ‘‘in eruce etiam gloriamur” (Beza), 
which is rather the consequence of this victory ; for a sublime testimony to 
the lattcr, see 2 Cor. iv. 8-11. In the ancient Greek izeprix. is not extant, 
but it occurs in Socr. H. Z. iii. 21, Leo Tact. xiv. 25, although in a deroga- 
tory sense (vixav pév caddy, bwepvixay dé Exigfovov). Nevertheless there is con- 
tained in our passage also a holy arrogance of victory, not selfish, but in the 
consciousness of the might of Christ. — dia rov ayar. judo] He who hath 
loved us is the procurer of this our victory, helps us to it by His power. 
Comp. esp. 2 Cor. xii. 9. That it is not God (Chrysostom, Estius, Grotius, 
Bengel, and others, including Reiche, K6llner, Olshausen, and van Hengel) 
that is meant, but Christ (Rickert, de Wette, Philippi, Tholuck, Ewald, 
and Hofmann), follows, not indeed from Phil. iv. 13, but from the necessary 
reference to rig ju. yop. amd tr. ay. tr. X. in ver. 35 ; for ver. 37 contains the 
opposite of the separation from the love of Christ. — ayaw#o.] denotes the act 
of love xar éox4v, which Christ accomplished by the sacrifice of His 
life. This reference was self-evident to the consciousness of the readers. 
Comp. v. 6 ; Gal. ii. 20 ; Eph. v. 2, 25. 

Vv. 38, 39. Paul now confirms what hc had said in ver. 87 by the enthu- 
siastic declaration of his conviction that no power, in whatever shape it 
may exist or be conceived of, etc. For the singular rémecouac there is as 
little necessity for seeking a special reason (Hofmann, e.g., thinks that Paul 
wished to justify the conjidence with which he had expressed ver. 37) as in the 
case of Aoyifova: in ver. 18, especially as ver. 37 contains only the simple as- 
sertion of a state of fact, and not a how of that assertion. — The following 
expressions (Gavarog x.r.4.) are to be left in the generality of their sense, 
which is, partly in itself and partly through the connection, beyond doubt ; 
every arbitrary limitation is purely opposed to the purpose of declaring 
everything—everything possible—incapable of separating the believers from 
the love of God in Christ. Hence: otre @dvarog obte Cui : neither death nor 
life, as the two most gencral states, in which man can be. We may die or 
live : we remain in the love of God. The mention of death first was 
occasioned very naturally by ver. 36. It is otherwise in 1 Cor. iii. 22. 
Grotius (following Chrysostom and Jerome, ad Aglas. 9) imports the idea : 
‘(metus mortis ; spes vitae,” which Philippi also regards as a ‘‘ correct pare- 


344 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


phrase of the sense.” — obre dyyeAo: obre apxat] Neither angels (generally) nor 
(angelic) powers (in particular). éyy. is, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Beza, Tholuck, Philippi, Fritzsche, Hofmann, and others, to be understood 
of good angels, because the wicked are never termed dyyedoe without some 
defining adjunct (Matt. xxv. 41; 2 Cor. xii. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 4; comp. Jude 
6). The objection repeated by Reiche (who, with Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Toletus, Grotius, Estius, and others, understands it of wicked angels), that 
an attempt on the part of the good angels to separate Christians from God 
is inconceivable, does not hold, since, according to Gal. i. 8, the case of 
such an attempt falling within the sphere of possibility could certainly be 
—not beliecel, but—conceiced ex hypothesi by Paul. Theophylact already 
aptly says : ovy &¢ tov ayyéAwy agioTovtuy Tovo avOparove ard Xprorow, a424 
xa?!’ wrdteow tov Adyov rifeic. Against the view that dyy. denotes good and 
wicked angels (Wolf, Bengel, Koppe, and van Hengel), the linguistic usage 
is likewise decisive, since according to it the absolute ayy. signifies nothing 
else than simply good angels. Comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 9. —apyai] obtains, 
through its connection with ayy., its definite reference to particular powers 
in the cateyory of angels—those invested with power in the angelie world. 
Paul recognizes a diversity’ of rank and power in the angelic hierarchy (of 
the good and the wicked), and finds occasion, especially in his later epistles, 
to mention it (Col. i. 16 ; Eph. i. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. vi. 12 ; Col. ii. 
15) ; without, however (comp. on Eph. i. 21), betraying any participation in 
the fluctuating definitions of the later Jews.” Olearius, Wetstein, Loesner, 
Morus, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and Weiss, &bl. Theol. p. 460, refer apy. to human 
ruling powers ; van Hengel to ‘‘ principatus quoslibet.” Against these its con- 
nection with ayy. is decisive, because no contrast is suggested of non-angelic 
powers. Just as little, because without any trace in the text, are we to 
understand with Hofmann the apyai, in contrast to the good God-serving 
ayyeAo, as spirits ‘‘ that in self-will exercise a dominion, with which they do not 
live to the service of God,” i.e. as evil spirits. —obre éveordra obre péAAovea] 
neither that which has set in nor that which is future. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 22. 
Quite general, and not to be limited to sufferings (Vatablus, Grotius, Flatt, 
and others). évecr., however, does not absolutely coincide with the idea 
things present (as it is usually taken), which is in itself linguistically possible, 
but is never the case in the N. T. (see on Gal. i. 4) ; but it denotes rather 
what is in the act of having set in, has already begun (and peda. that, the 
emergence of which is still future). So, according to Gal. i. 4 ; 1 Cor. iii. 
22, vii. 26 ; 2 Thess. ii. 2. Aptly rendered by the Vulgate : ‘‘instantia.” 
Comp. Lucretius, i. 461: ‘quae res instet, quid porro deinde sequatur.” — 
obre duvapetc] nor powers ; to be left in its utmost generality, personal and im- 
personal (Hofmann arbitrarily limiting it to the latter). The common inter- 
pretation, angelic powers, would be correct, if its position after apyai were 
right ; but seethe crit. remarks. The incongruity of the apparent tsolation of 


1 In opposition to Hofmann, who without 2 See, respecting these definitions. Barto- 
any reason denies this (Schristbew. I. 347). locei, Bidl. rabd. I. p. 27 ff.; Eisenmenger, 
See Hahn, Theol. N. 7. I. 22ff.; Philippi,  entdecktes Judenthum, II. p. 300 ff. 
Glaubens!. II. 507 ff., ed. 2 


NOTES, 345 


this link vanishes on observing that Paul, in his enumeration, twice arranges 
the elements in pairs (Gdvarog . . . apxai), and then twice again in threes (viz. 
obte éveor. obte wéAA. obre duvau., and obte iywua obte BaBoc obte rig Kriowe érépa), 
and the latter indeed in such a way, that to the two that stand contrasted 
he adds a third of a general character. — obre dywua ove dbo} neither height 
nor depth ; likewise without any alteration or limitation of the quite general 
sense of the words. No dimension of space can separate us, etc. Arbitrary 
definitions are given : heaven and hell or the nether world (Theodoret, Bengel, 
Wetstein, Michaelis, Klee, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and Hofmann) ; 
hearen and earth (Fritzsche ; comp. Theophylact, Morus, and Flatt) ; the 
height of bliss and the depth of misery (Koppe) ; spes honorum and metus 
ignominiae (Grotius, Rosenmiiller) ; sapientia haereticorum and communes 
vulgs errores (Melanchthon) ; neque altitudo, er qua quis minaretur praecipi- 
tium, neque profundum, in quo aliquis minaretur demersionem (Thomas 
Aquinas, Anselm, Estius). —obze rig xriowg érépa] nor any other created thing 
whatever, covers all not yet embraced in the foregoing elements ; and thus 
the ideaof ‘‘ nothing in the world in the shape of a creature” is fully exhausted. 
The attempt to bring the collective elements named in their consecutive 
order under definite logical categories leads to artificialities of exposition, 
which ought not to be applied to such enthusiastic outbursts of the moment. 
— Instead of rij¢ ay. tov Xprorod (ver. 35), Paul now says, ri¢ ay. tov Oeov rae 
év X. ’I., not thereby expressing something different, but characterizing the 
love of Christ (toward us) as the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. The 
love of Christ, namely, is nothing else than the love of God Himself, which 
has its seat and place of operation in Christ. God is the original fountain, 
Christ the constant organ and mediating channel of one and the same love 3 
so that in Chrisé is the love of God, and the love of Christ is the love of God 
in Christ. Comp, v, 6, 8. 


Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror. 
XCI. Ver. 1. ovdev dpa viv xurdxpipua x.7.A, 


cpa viv Meyer affirms, as against Philippi, never to be equivalent to dpa ovv. 
This position seems to be correct. Here, at least, it may be confidently held 
that viv has the temporal sense, referring to the state following the interven- 
tion of Christ which is alluded to in vii. 25. To what is there said, as con- 
nected with what precedes it: (also summed up in 25d), dpa points, and draws 
from it the declaration of this verse agan inference. The progress of the thought 
and its connection with the foregoing context, thus, show what is in the au- 
thor’s mind. The deliverance through Christ is from the condition described 
in vii. 14-23 ; that condition is one in which, whatever may be the better im- 
pulses or the interior conflict, the man is uniformly and hopelessly subjected 
as a slave tosin as his master. It is from the power and dominion of this mas- 
ter that Christ frees him. Throngh the aid of this Divine helper he ceases to be 
a dovAog auapriac, and becomes é/Zevepoc. The fact that he is thus free, accord- 
ingly, is the ground of the fact that there is for him now no condemnation. This 
view of the meaning is confirmed by the following verses, The reason given in 
ver. 2 for this statement of ver. 1, that there is no condemnation, is that ‘‘ the law 


346 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


of the Spirit freed me (or thee) from the law of sin ;” ie. that the man has pass- 
ed out of the control of sin into a new and opposite condition. And the aorist 
tense #Aev)épwoev declares that this change was wrought at the time indicated 
in vii. 25a. Ver. 4 ff. also set forth, (1) the idea of a fulfilling of the require- 
ments of the law in the case of those who come under the controlling influence 
of the new principle ; (2) the fact that, where this new principle thus gains 
control, the ‘‘ mind’’ is wholly turned towards the things of the Spirit, which 
are the exact opposite to those of the flesh ; and (3) the declaration that if a 
man has this ‘‘mind’’—though his bodily part remains still subject to death 
on account of sin—his spiritual part is already possessed of life because of 
righteousness. The entire context, therefore, points in one direction and to 
one conclusion. The same general thought is brought out in Gal. v. 18 ff., 
where the statement that, in case we are led by the Spirit, we are not under 
the law [i.e. its condemnation], is founded upon an enumeration of the fruits 
of the Spirit, against which the law has no condemnatory judgment to pro- 
nounce. The man has ceased to sin, having been made free, and hence can- 
_ not be condemmed. 

It must be borne in mind here, as in chap. vi., that the Apostle is in this en- 
tire section of the Epistle discussing an objection to his doctrine—that it tends 
to sin,—and is showing that there is no such tendency. When he describes 
the state of the man who has become a Christian, therefore, he naturally pre- 
sents it in accordance with the ideal involved in the doctrine. In the realiza- 
tion of this ideal there is and must be a complete change of masters and govern- 
ing principles at the turning-point of life. All before this is under sin ; all 
after this under Christ, the Spirit, righteousness. The doctrine is thus com- 
pletely vindicated, when it is exhibited in its true light. That individual hu- 
man experience does not always answer to this ideal is plainly admitted by the 
Apostle in the fact that, immediately after these verses, he exhorts the Chris- 
tian readers to conform their lives to the doctrine, ver. 12 (cf. vi. 12, Gal. v. 
25). But whether the individual believer does thus live or not, the legitimate 
tendency of the doctrine itself is the same; and, wherever he does not, the 
same exhortation, and this only, is the one to be given. 


XCIL. Ver. 2-11. 


In the passage extending from ver. 2 to ver. 11 the following points may be 
noticed. (a) The connection of év Xp. ’Inoov (ver. 2) with 7AevOépwcer, which 
is favored by Meyer, is to be preferred. Meyer founds this view of the con- 
struction upon ver. 3. Weiss, in his ed. of Mey., inserts, in place of ‘ ver. 3,°’ 
*‘ the manifest reference to roic¢ év Xp. "Inc. ver. 1." We may properly include 
both of the verses alluded to, and also vii. 25a, in the argument, for this 
verse has a close relation to them all, and they all support this understanding 
of the sentence. (b) The textual reading ce after 7Aev8. is placed by West. and 
Hort. (as by Tisch., 8th ed.) in the text. They indicate doubts, however, re- 
specting its genuineness, and in their ‘‘Notes on Select Readings,’ after 
presenting the facts of the case, they say, ‘‘The distribution of documents, 
combined with internal evidence, favors the omission of both pronouns ;” 
adding the remark (comp. Meyer), ‘‘oe, a very unlikely reading, is probably only 
an early repetition of—ce.” [i.e. from #AevOépwoe.]. Weissed. Mey., on the 
other hand, seems to regard the substitution of pe for ce by a copyist as readily 


NOTES. 347 


to be supposed, by reason of the J and me of the preceding context. The con- 
nection of the verse with the preceding context certainly favors strongly the 
reading ze, as compared with ce. But, while it must be admitted that this fact 
might have induced a copyist to change the text from ce to ye, a careful obser- 
vation of the progress of the thought will lead rather to the conviction that the 
Apostle himself wrote ye, as still bringing forward his own personality. (c) 
The law of sin and of death, from which the man is freed, is the same law which 
is mentioned at the end of vii. 23, to whose power he was always brought into 
captivity before the deliverance. The addition of rot Qavdrov is suggested by 
vii. 24. (d) The sense in which xaréxpive (ver. 8) is to be understood must be 
determined (1) by the force of the verb itself ;—it is a judicial word, and hence 
we must find in it this element ; (2) by év rg capxi, which qualifies the verb ;— 
this denotes the sphere within which the condemnation was effective ; (3) by 
7d adwaroyv tov véuov ;—this phrase, being appositional with the sentence of 
which curéxpeve is the leading verb, shows that the condemnation referred to is 
one which the law could not accomplish ; (4) by é © fo8ives dia Tig cupKds ;— 
these words contain the ground of this inability of the law; (5) by the fact 
that throughout the entire passage from vii, 14 to this point duapria is con- 
ceived of in the light of a masterand lord. Sinis declared in this verse, 
therefore, to be condemned, not in the ordinary meaning of the word, but in a 
peculiar one. In the ordinary sense, the law could condemn it. It could pro- 
nounce judgment and secure the infliction of penalty. To this end there was 
no weakness of the law through the flesh. But in the sense of a judicial deposing 
of sin from its lordship, and of excluding it from the domain where it had held 
sway, the Mosaic law had no power of condemnation. It was hopelessly weak 
as related to the accomplishment of this result, because of that element of 
man’s nature over which sin ruled. Itcould reveal the will of God and demand 
righteousness, but, by reason of what is set forth in vii. 14-23, could do no 
more. This practical, or as Meyer calls it de facto, condemnation is, according- 
ly, what was in the writer's mind. (e) The means by which God effected 
what the law had not been able to accomplish was the sending of his Son év 
éuowpart capxoe duapriac Kal epi duapriac. In the former of these two phrases 
the genitive duapriac is not to be explained, with Meyer, as a gen. of quality, 
but, with Weiss ed. Mey., as expressing the relation of sin as a master. In the 
latter phrase the same idea is probably suggested, and thus the preposition, 
which is indefinite in itself, is to be taken, not as involving the thought of an 
offering for sin, but as referring to the destruction of sin’s power. As Weiss 
justly remarks, these verses speak of sin only with respect to this point. The 
Son was sent éy capxi (as Meyer also says), but not év capxi duapriac, only év 
dunou. capx, du. He was sent with reference (epi) to sin in different senses, 
but here the attention of the reader is confined to the one sense indicated by the 
context. Meyer, on the other hand, holds that in epi du. is contained the 
whole category of the relations in which Christ stood to sin. (jf) In accordance 
with all that has been said, and with all the indications of the passage, dixaiwya, 
ver. 4, must be interpreted as meaning ordinance, requirement, ‘‘ what the law lays 
down as its rightful demand ’’ (Meyer), The end in view of the condemnation 
is the fulfilment of this demand. This verse, accordingly, confirms the view 
of the preceding verse which has been stated, and, in its turn, has its own true 
meaning indicated and established by what the former verse declares. (g) In 
ver. 76 the ground on which is founded the affirmation that the mind of the flesh 


348 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 


is enmity against God is set forth in the words, ‘‘for it does not subject itself 
to the law of God ;” and then this latter statement is strengthened by the 
clause ‘‘for not even can it do so.”’ This ot dévara: and similar phrases else. 
where are not to be regarded us stating anything respecting the ability or ina- 
bility of the will, as a faculty, to rid itself of the dominion of sin. What is 
said here is only that the mind of the flesh cannot subject itself, etc. It can- 
not, because a thing cannot be its opposite. If the man, in the exercise of his 
will, submits to God, the mind of the flesh, ipso facto and at that moment, 
ceases to exist. (h) Vv. 10, 11 state what is already secured for the Christian 
while he lives on earth, according to the proper idea of the doctrine of justifica- 
tion by faith, ‘and what will be realized hereafter, Already in this life, so far 
as the 7vevua is concerned, there is (w7 because of righteousness, but neverthe- 
less the body is dead. Hereafter the body of the believer is to share in the 
Cw, and thus the work of the deliverer from the power of sin is to be completed. 
That d:xa:oowvy here means conformity to right, and not righteousness by faith, 
is indicated by the context, even from the beginning of this section. Weiss 
ed. Mey. recognizes this, rejecting the view of Meyer. vexpdéy clearly refers to 
physical death (comp. @vyrd, ver. 11), and the sentence is put in this form for the 
purpose of contrast with (w7:—the spirit is life, the body is dead. So far as 
relates to the matter of time, the death of the body is, for the living man, a 
thing of the future. Meyer takes the sentence proleptically. Weiss regards it 
as said from the standpoint of the end of life, when the result which Christ 
accomplishes for us here is made manifest. The view of Meyer seems more 
correct, for the declaration with regard to the spirit (us shown by the preced- 
ing verses) has reference to what is before the end. (i) With respect to the 
manner of the (woroeiv, or the view which we are to regard the Apostle as 
holding concerning the resurrection, it is to be remarked that his most full 
and distinct utterance on this subject is found in 1 Cor. xv. Expressions of a 
more general nature, like the present—at least those written so soon after- 
wards—must be explained, in their minuter points, by that chapter. Evident- 
ly Paul did not look for a literal resurrection of the earthly body. (j) As to 
the textual reading in ver. 11, it must be admitted that the thought of the pre- 
ceding verses points strongly towards dia 1d évocxoty... mvedvua. The fact, also, 
which is urged by many, that the Spirit is not represented in the N. T. as the 
instrumental agent in the resurrection, favors the same text. In a case where 
the external evidence is so nearly evenly divided as it is here, the evidence 
derived from the passage itself may properly have great weight. Tisch. 8th 
ed., West. and Hort, R. V., adopt the genitive reading ; W. & H. and R. V., 
however, record the other in the margin. Tregelles, Alford, Godet, Weiss, 
Gifford, and others prefer the accusative reading. 


XCIII. Ver. 12. dpa oby dpecaérar eopuév x.1.A, 


The remarks of Meyer on this verse are evidently correct. It may be added, 
(a) that the statement of the former part of the verse involves and (though the 
thought is expressed only on the negative side) is equivalent in substance to 
an exhortation to the readers to make their living correspond with the ideal 
indicated (see preceding notes) ; and (b) that the cause of the omission of the 
positive part (but to the Spirit, etc.) is undoubtedly the same which we 
discover in many other instances—namely, that the writer is led away by his 


NOTES. 849 
desire to introduce the proof of the negative part, and, after this has been 
presented, regards the positive as suggested with sufficient clearness for his 
purpose. 


XCIV. Ver. 17. elrep oupmdoxopey tva xad ovvdotacbaper, 


The connection both of the clauses and the thought is very close from ver. 12 
to ver.17a. But a new thought is evidently suggested in ver. 17b. «We 
are heirs, if we suffer,” etc. To this new thought the entire passage vv. 18-39 
is attached. It may be noticed, as connected with 17), that iva seems to ex- 
presa the end in view which belongs to the very idea of ovurdayouev, rather 
than that which alone moves the man thus to suffer : If we move on in that course 
of suffering in union with Christ which looks, as it also leads, to a union with Him in 
glory. It may also be remarked that elrep assumes the condition as a fact, and 
although the position of Hermann ad Viger. p. 834, referred to by Grimm and 
many commentators, may be admitted— that this particle.is used ‘‘ de re, quae 
esse sumitur, sed in incerto relinquitur utrum jure an injurin sumatur’’— 
yet inthe N. T. it is found almost universally (if not, indeed, without any 
exception in cases where it is not joined with some other particle), as it is 
here, in suppositions which are clearly regarded by the writer as jusily assumed. 
As in ver. 9 he takes it for granted, since they are Christians, that the readers 
(dueic) have the Spirit of God dwelling in them—and considers himself justified 
in so taking it,—so here he presents a condition which, as he holds, will nat- 
urally be fulfilled by the followers of Christ to whom he was writing. For the 
use of eizep comp. ver. 9, also Rom. iii. 30 (where some texts read éveizep), 
1 Cor. viii. 5 ; 2 Cor. v.3 (where Tisch. and W. & Hort read eZye); 2 Thess. i. 6 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 3 (when ®* A B read ei). With dpa it occurs in 1 Cor. xv. 15, where 
épa conveys the idea of in the case supposed in the preceding context. In that 
case it may be justly held that the dead are not raised. 


XCY. Ver. 18 ff. 


The relation of vv. 18-39 to ver. 176 is correctly given by Meyer. The pas- 
sage sets forth three grounds of encouragement to endure the sufferings which 
are toend in the glory. The first of these is connected with the future and 
with hope. The other two relate to the present life. Weiss ed. Mey. objects 
to this view on the ground that ver. 17 does not contain an exhortation. It does 
not, indeed, in form, but it does by way of suggestion and through its close union 
with ver. 18, That the latter verse is introduced as s reason for something 
which precedes it, is evident from the yép with which it opens. That the 
particular thing to which it refers is the entire clause, cvyrdcyouev iva cai 
ovrdofacGGuev, is indicated by the fact that it compares the sufferings with the 
glory. That the reference is to this clause as suggesting an exhortation we must 
hold, because there is no proof given in the verse of the only fact stated in ver. 
176—namely , that we are God’s heirs and Christ's fellow-heirs if, or only if, we 
suffer, etc. Weiss admits that this fact, considered in itself, is not established 
by ver. 18, but regards the verse as proving that, whereas the suffering might 
seem to be inconsistent with that fatherly love of God on which our confidence 
in the fina] consummation of our salvation must depend, there was, nevertheless, 
to the mind of Paul, no such inconsistency. To any inconsistency of this sort 
or any difficulty likely to arise in connection with it, however, there is no 


350 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


allusion in ver. 18 or the verses which follow ; the first clearly manifest sug- 
gestion of such an idea being found near the close of the chapter, and in what 
must be considered as another paragraph, —at vv. 35, 36. 

According to Godet, ‘‘Paul seemed, in the previous verses, to assume that 
the work had already reached ita goal, and that nothing remained but to pass 
into glory.’ The words of 17b are added to remove this possible misapprehen- 
sion of his meaning, and in connection with them he is led to “ develop two 
ideas,’’ ver. 18 ff. : (1) ‘the world’s state of misery in its present condition 
demonstrated by the groaning of the creation, by that of believers themselves, 
and by that of the Holy Spirit,” and (2) the certainty, notwithstanding all, of 
the future glory. But this view seems less simple, natural, and accordant with 
the progress of the thought, and must be rejected. 


XCVI. Ver. 18-26. 


The relation of the verses in this passage is indicated by the repeatedly 
occurring yép. (a) Ver. 19 is introduced as a confirmation of ver. 18. Meyer 
thinks it is intended to prove the cerfainty suggested by the emphatic péAAovear ; 
but, though this participle has a prominence by reason of its position, it does 
not apparently contain the main thought of the verse—which is, that the 
glory, which is certainly to be revealed, far outweighs the present sufferings. It 
is, then, the greatness of the glory, rather than its indubilableness, which we 
must regard as in the Apostle’s mind in ver. 18 also. If even the xrioic (the 
entire irrational creation) is patiently waiting for the revelation of this 
glory, with earnest expectation, it must be something with which “the light 
afflictions which are but for a moment” can bear no comparison. (b) Vv. 20, 21 
give the ground of the fact that the «riovc thus waits with expectation—namely, 
because its original subjection to the law of decay was accompanied by a hope 
for itself of future deliverance from the bondage of corruption, and of participa- 
tion in the freedom therefrom which belongs to the glorified state of the chil- 
dren of God. (c) Ver. 22 presents a proof of the statement of vv. 20, 21. This 
statement is not that the «rioce was subjected to vanity, but that it was thus 
subjected in hope. The view of Meyer, at this particular point, must, therefore, 
be correct. The ever-continued sighing fur deliverance indicates the hope of 
it. (d) With regard to ver. 23, however, it seems better, with Weiss ed. Mey., 
to hold that its connection is with ver. 18, and that it has a sort of parallelism 
with ver. 19, than, with Meyer, to make it a climax of the proof of the éz’ 
éAride of ver. 20. From ver. 19 to ver. 22 the waiting expectation of the xrioi¢ 
is presented and explained. The similar longing and waiting of the children 
of God themselves is now set forth. We who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, 
Paul says, groan within ourselves, waiting out the completeness of our adoption, 
the redemption of the body. This, which has been already alluded to in 
vv. 10, 11, as not yet accomplished, but as the promise of the future, is the 
final consummation of that which Christ works out for us through the deliver- 
ance referred to in vii. 25. The body is redeemed from the power of sin, 
which causes its death, and is made free from the bondage of corruption. (e) 
Ver. 24 adds a reason for ‘‘our” groaning and looking forward ; that the salva- 
tion which ‘ we’’ gained as we entered the Christian life was a salvation in 
hope, and not in the actual experience of all that it involves. By this word 
**hope,” the thought is brought into a correspondence with the idea of hope as 


NOTES. 351 


predicated of the «riowe ; and the two together give the double proof, not simply 
of the certuinty, but of the greatness of that which awaits the sons of God. 
(f) Having thus developed his thought, the Apostle turns, at the close of the 
paragraph, to an inference which includes within itself an exhortation. If our 
condition is one of hopeful expectation of a glory which we do not yet realize, 
we may well wait for it with a steadfast endurance under whatever sufferings 
we may be called to experience. 


XCVITI. Vv. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. 


As regards the individual words and phrases of the passage, the following 
points may be noticed : (a) rov viv xarpov does not necessarily indicate that the 
Parousia was, to the Apostle’s thought, near at hand, but may imply this, and is 
entirely consistent with any statements of the Epistles which convey this iden. 
The evidence for or against the view that he had this thought must, however, 
be sought elsewhere. (0) ei¢ nudc. This form of expression shows, not that 
the revelation of the glory is ¢o us or in us, but that it finds its end—terminates, 
as it were—inus. Hence we have, also, in ver. 19 the revelation of the sons of 
God. R. V. renders ‘‘ to us-ward.’’ Godet says, ‘‘in and sor us.” (c) amoxapa- 
doxia, atexdéverat. There is here a personifying of the «rio. so far that the 
imperfection and perishableness seen everywhere in nature, which suggest the 
idea of, and seem to demand, an answering perfection, are conceived as a 
longing desire and earnest hope for this completeness. (d) That the explana- 
tion of xzviow given by Meyer is the right one is satisfactorily proved by the ar- 
guments and suggestions presented in his note. (e) uataérnt: refers to the 
perishableness alluded to above, or the law of decay to which all things in the 
natural world are subject. The subjection, however, is not a hopeless and 
perpetual one. (/f) o7. Tisch. (8) reads with 8 D* FG, diédri, and Weiss 
ed. Mey. regards this as probably the original text, the first syllable having 
subsequently been omitted by reason of the occurrence of the same letters at 
the end of the next preceding word, éArid:. If we read didri we must, and if dr: 
we may, translate because. It is apparently, however, much more in the Apos- 
tle’s line of thought here to state the contents of the hope—namely, thal there 
will be a deliverance, than to declare this fact as a ground of the affirmation 
that there was a subjecting in hope. This being the case, and the external evi- 
dence being strong for ors (A BC D°E K LP, etc.), it seems better to adopt 
this reading with W. & Hort, and to translate, as R. V. text, that. The other text 
and rendering are, however, properly recognized by R. V. in the margin. (q) 
That doén¢ is not equivalent to an attributive adjective belonging to eAeviepiay 
(A. V. the glorious liberty), is clear not only from the universal usage of the N. T., 
but also because of the dovdciag ri¢ ¢90pd¢ which precedes. The genitivesin both 
cases, it may be added, are not gen. of apposition (the bondage which consisle 
in corruption, etc.), as Meyer holds, but rather gen. of possession or the gen. 
indicating that the bondage and freedom appertain to the corruption and glory. 
The contrast between g/opdc¢ and déénc¢, and the connection with para:déryt: and 
earvide Of the previous clause, make it evident that ¢50pd, as here used, corre- 
sponds substantially with perarérn¢. (h) avroi tiv arapyny Tov mvevparog Exovres. 
The view of Meyer with reference to these words must be rejected, because 
there seems to be no occasion for thus referring to the first believers in distinoe- 
tion from others ; because we do not find this idea expressed elsewhere by 


Joa THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


similar words ; and because there is nothing in the context to suggert such an 
interpretation. The context, on the other hand, suggests the thought of the 
perfected condition connected with the déga. The first-fruit of this perfec- 
tion is the gift of the Spirit bestowed already upon the Christian. The evident 
connection in thought between this verse and vv. 10, 11 renders it almost 
certain that this is the true meaning, and that the genitive mvevyaroc is apposi- 
tional. (i) viofecia in connection with azexdexy is used in a peculiar sense. 
It does not here designate the adoption which takes place at the beginning of 
the Christian life (cf. ver. 15 ; also Gal. iv. 5; Eph. i. 5), but the full realization 
of what that adoption involves in itself and brings to the soul in thefuture. (j ) 
The word arodtirpwore is used, apparently, because, in the passage to which this 
paragraph is attached (vii, 25-viii. 17), the Apostle has set forth the effects of 
Christ's work of deliverance, together with their present limitations. In the 
redemption from the power of sin, the body participates latest. Death is the 
last enemy destroyed (1 Cor. xv. 26). (k) rg eAmids Ecobnpev] The aorist tense 
points to the time of conversion (vii. 25), and éAide denotes the respect in 
which salvation was then secured. The dative, as Winer and Meyer express 
the idea of it, ‘‘ designates the sphere to which the predicate is to be conceived 
as confined.’’ Jn hope, not by hope, is thus the meaning. So the Amer. Ap- 
pendix to R. V., as against the rendering of R. V. text. That this is the cor- 
rect view is indicated (1) by the fact that this clause is introduced as account- 
ing for our longing desire for a future completeness. We have this longing 
because we have thus far attained full salvation only in hope ; (2) by the 25th 
verse, which refers to us as having something before us not yet realized, and 
accordingly as being still within the region of hope and expectation ; (3) by the 
parallelism of ver, 23 with vv. 21, 22, which is connected with this word ; (4) 
by the fact alluded to by Meyer and others, that, while Paul represents us as 
saved by faith, he does not represent us as saved by hope, 


XCVIITI. Ver. 28. roi¢ xara rpdbeow KAnroic. 


These words are added as confirming the statement of the earlier part of the 
verse. The purpose of God is placed at the foundation of tho assurance that 
all things do, and must, work together for good to those who love Him. The 
strength of the assurance is the certainty (vv. 29, 30) that God’s purpose 
will be carried out. The persons whom He foreknew and predestinated He 
will glorify at the end, No sufferings or afflictions can prevent the result, or 
issue in final evil. The doctrine of predestination, so far as it is alluded to 
here, is not presented for its own sake, as if the Apostle would set it forth in 
detail ; it is introduced incidentally, and as subordinate to the main thonght 
which is expressed in ver. 28a. It will be noticed, also, that it is introduced— 
as, indeed, it is generally by the N. T. writers who refer to it at alli—at the 
point where it gives encouragement to the believer. If he believes and loves 
God he may have all hope and confidence, for his eternal life rests on the pre. 
destinating purpose. The presentation of it where it burdens the mind with 
difficulties and throws it into doubts belongs to post-apostolic times. 


XCIX. Ver. 28. zpoéyvo. 


That mpoéyyw hasa different meaning from spowpicev is proved not only by 
the fact that they occur, as different words, in the same sentence, but also by 
the manifest intention of the Apostle to move on from step to step in a progress 


| NOTES. 353 


from the first beginning to the final consummation. This progressive devel- 
opment of the sentence, moreover, shows that what is indicated by mpofyvw pre- 
cedes in the order of sequence that to which zpodp. refers. Meyer maintains 
that xpofyvw never in the N. T. means anything else than to know beforehand, 
and affirms, also, the impossibility of proving that in classic usage it ever has 
any other signification. But, whether this view is pressed to an absolute nega- 
tive or not, both common usage and the facts of vv. 29, 30 render it altogether 
probable that foreknow is the meaning here. Before the adoption of His plan 
of creation, God foreknew what persons under the circumstances and con- 
ditions involved in the plan would love Him. These persons He—even by and 
with the adoption of the plan—predestinated to be conformed to the image of 
His Son. In the development of the plan He calls and justifies them, and, at 
the end, He will give them the glory of the sons of God. The successive parts 
of the fulfilment which are accomplished in the present or the future are all 
carried by the Apostle’s form of expression into the past (see the aorist tenses 
throughout), since he desired to gather them up into and centre them all in the 
eternal purpose, 


C. Vv. 33-35. Oedc 6 dixatov «.7.A, 


The explanation of these clauses given by Meyer, following Erasmus and 
the Greek fathers, is, as Dr. Gifford says, ‘‘the only one that fully preserves 
the simplicity, freedom, and vigor of this loftiest flight of Christian elo- 
quence.’’ Meyer's argaments for this explanation and against others are 
sufficient. Among the very recent commentators, however, Godet and Weiss 
object to this view and adopt that of Luther, Calvin, and others, mentioned in 
Meyer’s note. Godet’s objections are the following : (1) The question : who 
will condemn, cannot be the reproduction, negatively, of the question, who will 
accuse. To this may be answered : It is not such a reproduction ; it is a part 
of the reply to that question. The thought, presented apart from the inter- 
rogative form, is this: If no one can condemn when God justifies, there will 
appear no accuser to bring any charge against those for whom God’s justifying 
jadgment is sure. (2) A then would be indispensable in the questions, who 
shall condemn and who shall separate. But why indispensable? It might have 
been inserted, had such been the desire of the writer. But, when we consider 
the form of the sentence, ‘‘ God is the one who justifies, who is the one who 
condemns?” the insertion cannot be deemed necessary. Indeed, such an 
insertion would weaken the force of the two abruptly contrasted clauses, (3) 
The question, who shall separaie, finds its answer in ver. 39: nothing shall 
separate, and hence cannot express the conclusion of what precedes. The more 
correct view of ver. 39, or of vv. 35d-39, however, is that they do not so much 
answer the question of ver. 35a, as unfold the negative which is involved in it, 
These verses add no new idea to that which ver. 35a has already suggested. (4) 
This question, who shall separate, is followed by an enumeration of the sufferings 
which are calculated to separate the believer from his Saviour, and thus we are 
prohibited from regarding this question asa conclusion. The reply to this is 
very simple. They may be ‘‘calculated,” indeed, thus to separate him ; he 
may be apprehensive that they will ; but the declaration of the Apostle is that 
they actually will not, and this is the very conclusion involved in the question, 
‘*who shall separate us?’ Weiss, on the other hand, calls the explanation 
unnatural, and says that it forces a meaning upon what, when taken in a 


354 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


natural and simple way, would not suggest it. It seems difficult to understand, 
however, in what manner Paul could have expressed himself more simply and 
naturally, if he had desired to bring the two clauses into a contrasted paral 
lelism with each other, than by writing these words, Oed¢ 6 dixaidy’ tic 6 
xataxpivev; Why, in case he wished to make the latter question parallel with zis 
éyxadéoe (as Weiss holds), did he take pains to put it in a form which corre 
sponds, not with this phrase, but with the other? The course adopted might, 
at the least, mislead the reader. Paul must have known, it would seem, that it 
probably would mislead him. 





or 


CHAP. IX. 30 


CHAPTER IX. 


Ver. 3. The verbal order ardOeva elvar avroc yd (recommended by Griesb., 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.) receives preponderant attestation from A B D 
E F G, min., vss., and Fathers ; as also from ¥&, reading elvac before avdé. 
Erroneously attached to yvyéunv, avtog ty became placed before ava), (Elz.). 
— Ver. 4. ai diafijxac] B DE F G, min., Vulg., with several Fathers, read 4 
d:a9nxn, which Lachm. has adopted. An alteration, because the plural was 
understood of the Old and New Test. (Gal. iv. 24), and yet the latter could not 
be considered as a privilege of the Jews. — Ver. 11. xaxév] Lachm. and Tisch. 
read gavAov, according to A B &, min., Or. Cyr. Damasc. Rightly; the more usual 
opposite of a)a6év easily intruded. — Ver. 15. The order 1 Moicei ydp is 
decidedly to be received, with Lachm. and Tisch., following BDEFG X. 
The Recepta r. y. M. isa mechanical alteration. — Ver. 16. éAcovvroc] A B* D E 
FGP ®&, 39, read éAedvro¢ ; 80 Lachm. and Tisch. But since in no other pas- 
sage of the N. T. is ¢Aedu, the form belonging to the xosvy (see Etym. M. 327. 30), 
to be found ; and in ver. 18 only D* F G have éAed instead of éAcei (and yet in 
both places Paul doubtless used one form) ; it is most probable that @ instead 
of OY was merely an early copyist’s error, which, as the form -aw was actually 
in existence, became diffused, and also induced in some Codd. the alteration 
éaeg in ver, 18(so Tisch. 7). — Ver. 27.xardAeupu] A B N* Eus, read brdAcuua ; 
so Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; see LXX. Isa. x. 22. — Ver. 28. év dixacocdvy, 
ove Adyov ovvretunuévoy] is wanting in A B &*, 23°, 47°, 67**, Syr. Aeth. Erp. 
Cupt. Eus. Damasc. Aug. It certainly bears the suspicion of being an addition 
from the LXX. ; but its deletion, which Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have carried out, 
is precluded by the ease with which it was possible for transcribers to turn 
from ovvréuzver at once to ovrretunuévov, — Ver. 31. The second dixaiocvyng is 
wanting inABDEG X&, 47, 67°*, 140, Copt. It. Or. and several Fathers, and 
is marked with an obelus in F. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the 
omission udmits of no sense accordant with the context. See the exeg. notes. 
The weight of the omitting codd. is much diminished by the counter-testimony 
of ancient vas. (including Syr. and Vulg.) and of most Greek Fathers. The 
omission itself might easily, from the frequent recurrence of the word in vv. 
30, 31, occur through a homoeoteleuton, which led, in the first instance, to the 
disappearance of the words el¢ vdéu. dixatoovvns (they are still absent from 2 
min.), followed by their incomplete restoration. — Ver. 32. véuov] Wanting in 
AB F GR*, min., Copt. Vulg., and several Fathers, Rightly deleted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. A defining addition. — The ydp after zpocéxopav, which is 
wanting in AB D* FG ®* 47°, Copt. It. Vulg. ms, Goth. Ambr. Ruf. Dam. 
(and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), is simply a connective insertion. — 
Ver. 33. wdc] has preponderant evidence against it, and must, with Lachm. 
and Tisch., be struck out. An addition from x. 11, where it stands in all the 
witnesses. 


356 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Chap. ix.-xi.’ (See Note CI. p. 8396.] On the non-participation hitherto of 
the greater part of the Jews in the Christian plan of salcation ; and specially 
(a) the lamentation over this (ix. 1-5) ; (0) the Theodicée on its account (ix. 
6-29) ; (c) the fault thereof, which rests upon the Jews themselves (ix. 30- 
33 and x. 1-21) ; (d) the consolation in reference to this (xi. 1-32), with 
final giving glory to God (xi. 33-36). Paul could not do otherwise, he must 
still settle this great problem ; this is inevitably demanded by all that had 
gone before. For if the whole previous treatise had as its result, that only 
believers were the recipients of the promised salvation, and if nevertheless 
the Messianic promise and destination to salvation had their reference in 
the first place (comp. i. 16) to the Israelites, concerning whom, however, 
experience showed that they were for the most part unbelieving (comp. John 
i. 11), this contradictory relation thus furnished an enigma, which Paul, with 
his warm love for his people, could least of all evade, but in the solution of 
which he had on the contrary to employ all the boldness and depth of his clear 
insight into the divine plan of redemption (Eph. iii. 4 ff.). The defence of the 
efficacy of hisGentile apostleship (Th. Schott, and in another way Mangold and 
Sabatier) is not the object of the section—that object Paul would have known 
how to meet directly—but such a defence results indirectly from it, since we 
see from the scction how fully the apostle had recognized and comprehended 
his place in connection with the divine plan of salvation. The problem ited/, 
the solution of which is now taken in hand by the apostle, was sufficiently 
serious and momentous to be treated with so much detail in this great and 
instructive letter to the important mixed community of the world’s capital, 
which, however, does not thereby appear to have been a Jewish-Christian 
one. 

Vv. 1-3.4} The new section is introduced without connection with the 
foregoing, but in a fervent outburst of Israelitish patriotism, the more sorrow- 
ful by contrast with the blessedness of the Christian previously extolled and 
so deeply experienced by the apostle himself. This sorrow might be deemed 
incredible, after the joyous triumph which had just been exhibited. Hence 
the extremely urgent asseveration with which he begins : truth I speak in 
Christ, that is, in my fellowship with Christ ; é X. is the element, in which 
his soul moves. Just so Eph. iv. 17; 1 Thess, iv. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 17, xu. 19 
The explanation adopted by most of the older commentators (especially 
Joh. Capellus, Clericus, Locke), and by Ndésselt, Koppe, Béhme, Flatt, 
Reiche, Kéllner, and others, of év in the sense of adjuration, is a perfectly 


1 On this section, see Nésselt in his Opusc. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 54 f.; Lamping, Paul 
I. p. 141 ff.; Beck, Vers. e. pneumatisch her- —_ de praedest. decreta, Leovard. 1888, p. 127 ff.; 
meneulischen Entwickel. d. neunten Kap.,  Beyschlag,d. Paulin. Theodicce Rom. ix.-x1., 
etc., Stuttg. 1838; Steudel in the T7vib. 1868; also Th. Schott and Mangold. — Ac- 
Zeitschr. 1836, 1. p. 1 ff.; Baur, id. ITI. p.59 ff.; cording to Weisse’s criticism, based on 
Haustedt in Pelt’s Mitarbeiten, 1888, 8; style, the whole section, chap. ix.-xi. 
Meyer, i0.; Hofmann, Schristbew. I. p. 240ff.; | would be an interpolation ; according tothe 
Krummacher, Dogma von der Gnadenwahl, view on which Baur proceeds (see Introd. 
Duisb. 1856, p. 142 ff. (though less for the § 8), the three chapters would be the chi¢ 
purpose of strict scientific exegesis); Weiss, portion of the whole epistle. 
Pridestinationslehre d. Ap. P.in the Jahrb. f. 2 On vv. 1-5, see Winzer, Progr. Lips. 182. 








CHAP. IX., 1-3. 357 


arbitrary departure both from the manner of the apostle, who never swears 
by Christ, and also from Greek usage, which would have required zpéc 
with the genitive (Kihner, II. 1, p. 448 ; Ellendt, Zev. Soph. II. p. 647) ; 
and cannot at all be justified from Matt. v. 34, LXX. Jer. v. 7, Dan. xii. 7, 
Rev. x. 6, because in these passages duviecy expressly stands beside it. — ov 
webdouar| mpdrepov dé diaBeBarovrat wepi ov péArer Aéyecv’ Step TwoAdoic Fog Toceiv, 
érav péAdwoi te Aéyerv Tapa Toi¢g ToAACIg amcorotuevoy (comp. e.g. Acts xxi. 21), 
xai irép ov agddpa éavroic eior wemecndrec, Chrys. Compare 1 Tim. ii. 7. Con- 
versely, Lys. iv. 12: peiderac x. obk GAN} Aéyet. — ovppapr. pot Tie ovvecd. pov] 
ground assigned for the ov wetd.: since with me (agreeing with my express 
assurance) my conscience gives testimony. Compare ii. 15, viii. 16. — év rvei-p. 
ayiy] is by no means to be connected with ric cuvecd. pov (Grotius and sev- 
eral others, Semler, Ammon, Vater: ‘‘conscientia a Spiritu sancto guber- 
nata’’), because otherwise r7¢ would not be wanting ; but cither with oi 
wetdoua (Cramer, Morus, Nésselt, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Winzer, 
Reiche, K6llner, Fritzsche ; of whom, however, only Winzer and Fritzsche 
take it not as an oath, but as equivalent to d¢ év rvebyare dyiw ov), or—which 
is the nearest and simplest—with ouupuapr. (Beza, B6hme, Tholuck, Riick- 
ert, de Wette, Maier, Philippi, van Hengel, Hofmann, and others). Com- 
pare Matt. xxii. 48 ; Luke ii. 27 ; Mark xii. 86 ; 1 Cor. xii. 83. The testimony 
of his conscience, Paul knows, is not apart from the zvevua that fills him, but 
‘‘Spiritu sancto duce et moderatore” (Beza) in that tveiua. And thus the 
negative ov yebd. receives its sacred guarantee through a concurrent testi- 
mony of the conscience év rvetyare dyiy, as the positive a47@. Aéyw had 
received it through év Xpiorg. This very appropriate symmetry dissuades 
us from joining ovppapr. po x.t.A. to aA7zO. Aéyw, 80 that ov eid. would be 
only ‘‘ thrown in between” (Hofmann). — are Aimy x.t.2.] that, etc. A comma 
only preceding. Over what is this sorrow? Over the exclusion of a great 
part of the Jews from the Messianic salvation. With tender forbearance 
Paul does not express this, but leaves it to be gathered by the reader from . 
what follows, in which he immediately, by ydp, assigns the ground for the 
greatness and continuance of his sorrow. — riyéunv] I would wish, namely, 
if the purport of the wish could be realized to the advantage of the Israel- 
ites. Comp. on Gal. iv. 20, where also no dy is annexed. But van Hengel 
takes it of a wish which had actually arisen in the mind of Paul amidst 
his continual sorrowfulness. So also Hofmann: the wish had entered 
his mind, though but momentarily. But a thing so incapable of being ful- 
filled he can scarce have actually wished ; he would only wish it, if it were 
capable of being fulfilled ; this is expressed by 7iyéuny, and that without ar, 
as a definite assurance ; comp. on Acts xxv. 22; Gal. iv. 20; Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 187 [E. T. 217] ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 178. On the wish itself, 
comp. Ex. xxxiil. 82 .—avdfeua] or, in the Attic form, avdé67ua,' in Greek 
writers (also Luke xxi. 5; 2 Macc. ii. 13, e¢ al.) a votive offering, corre- 
sponds frequently in the LXX. to the Hebrew OW, and means something 
devoted to God without redemption (Lev. xxvii. 28) ; then—in so far as such 


1 Lobeck, ad Paryn. pp. 249, 445, and Paralip. p. 891 ff. 


358 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


a thing was devoted to the divine wrath, and destined to destruction (see 
Ewald, Alterth. p. 101 ff.)—something abandoned to destruction; a curs- 
offering. Sointhe N. T. See Gal. i. 8, 9, 1 Cor. xii. 8, xvi. 22, which 
passages at the same time prove that the (later) special sense of ON, as 
denoting the Jewish curse of excommunication, is not to be here introduced. 
The destruction, to which Paul would fain yield himself on behalf of his 
brethren, is not to be understood ‘of a@ violent death (Jerome, Limborch, 
Elsner, and others, also Michaclis, Nésselt, Flatt), but, as ad r. X. renders 
necessary, of the everlasting andéaea. It has been objected that the wish 
must thus be irrational (Michaelis : ‘‘a frantic prayer”) ; but the standard of 
selfish reflection is not suited to the emotion of unmeasured devotedness 
and love out of which the apostle speaks. Groundlessly, and contrary to 
Paul's usage elsewhere, Hofmann weakens the positive notion of the ex- 
pression into the negative one of the being ercluded from Christ. This ele- 
ment is implied in a7é rop X. as the specific accompanying relation of the 
avdOeua. Bengel well remarks that the modulus ratiocinationum nostrarum 
as little comprehends the love of the apostle, as does a little boy the animas 
heroum bellicorum. — avrig éyé] belonging to eivac by attraction (Kihner, I. 
2, p. 596) : I myself, I, as far as my own person is concerned. Comp. on vii. 
25. Paul sees those who belong to the fellowship of his people advancing 
to ruin through their unbelief ; therefore he would fain wish that he himadf 
were a curse-offering, if by means of this sacrifice of his own self he could 
only save the beloved brethren. The contrast} with reference to which avrir 
é;@ is here conceived, lies therefore in itp rév adeAg. pov, whose unhappy 
state appears already in vv. 1, 2 so sad in the eyes of the apostle ; not in 
the duty of the apostle’s calling (Th. Schott) ; and least of all in a ‘“nescio 
quis alius” (Fritzsche). Theodoret and Theophylact (comp. Chrysostom) 
refer back to vill. 39 (I myself, whom nevertheless nothing can separate, 
etc.) ; but this lies too far off. Van Hengel (after Krehl) : ‘‘Ipse ego, qui 
me in Christi communione esse dizi.” But év X. in the previous instance was 
“merely an accessory definition. — 47d rov X.] away from Christ, separated 
from Him. Comp. 2 Thess. i. 9; Gal. v. 4; 2 Cor. v. 6, xi. 3; Lev. 
xxv. 29 ; and see generally, Nigelsbach on Ilias, p. 188, ed. 8 ; Ameis on 
fom. Od. Anh. &, 525 ; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 277 [E. T. 822]. Christ is not 
conceived as author of the avd0. (Nésselt, Morus, Flatt, and others) ; for azo 
(comp. Lev. xxvii. 29) does not stand for izé, which latter D E G actually 
read in consequence of this erroneous view. — trip trav adeAd. pov] trép is 
here also not instead of (Riickert, Tholuck, Olshausen, and many others), but 
Jor the advantage of, for their deliverance. Grotius aptly paraphrases : ‘‘Si 
ea ratione illos ad justitiam veram et ad acternam salutem possem per- 
ducere.” — xara o.] subjoined, without the connective of the article, as 8 
familiar accessory definition, which blends with the principal word into 8 
single notion. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 18; Eph. ii. 11, vi. 5. Moreover, there 
lies in the addition r. ovyy. u. x. o. already something conveying with it the 
wish of love, and that from the natural side ; the theccratie grounds for it 
follow, ver. 4 ff. 


Ver. 4. Oirevec «.7.2.] quippe qui, who indeed ; a description—assigning the 





CHAP. IX., 4.. 359 
motive for what is said in ver. 8—of the adeAgdv xara . . . odpxa according 
to their theocratic privileges, and first of all by significant designation ac- 
cording to their ancient and hallowed (Gen. xxxii. 28, xi. 1 ; 2 Cor. xi. 21 
f.; Phil. iii. 5 ; John i. 48) national name ’Icpaydira. To the latter are 
then attached the relative definitions, which are threefold (Gv... Gv... é& 
év) ; the first of them embraces siz particulars connected by «ai,—purely 
sacred-historical divine benefactions. — 7 vioecia] the adoption. They are 
those adopted by God into the place of children, which must of course be 
understood, not in the Christian (chap. viii.) but in the old theocratic sense, 
of their adoption, in contradistinction to all Gentile peoples, to be the people 
of God, whose Father is God. Comp. Ex. iv. 22 ff., xix. 5; Deut. xiv. 1, 
xxxii. 6 ; Hos. xi. 1, et al. In the vioGeoia of the N. T. (see on viii. 15), the 
specific essence of which is the reconciliation obtained for Christ’s sake, 
there has appeared the antitype and the completion of that of the O. T. — 
xal 3) d6fa] The fivefold wai lends an emphatic weight to the enumeration. #7 
é6£a is the glory nar’ é€oxty, i.e. MM W332 (Ex. xxiv. 16, xl. 34, 85 ; 1 Kings 
viii. 10, 11 ; Ezek. i. 28 ; Heb. ix. 5), the symbolically visible essential com- 
munion of God, as it was manifested in the wilderness as a pillar of cloud 
and fire, and over the ark of the covenant ; the same as 7}°9¥, of which the 
Rabbins maintained (erroneously, according to Lev. xvi. 2) that it had hov- 
ered as a cloud of light continually over the ark of the covenant. See 
Ewald, ad Apoc. p. 311. But 4 déga is not the ark of the covenant itself 
(Beza, Piscator, Hammond, Grotius), for in 1 Sam. iv. 22 the ark of the 
covenant is not called ‘‘the glory of Israel,” but this is only predicated of it. 
Others understand the whole glory of the Jewish people in general (De Dieu, 
Calovius, Estius, Semler, Morus, Béhme, Benecke, Kdéllner, Glockler, 
Fritzsche, Beck). Incorrectly, since it is merely individual privileges that 
are set forth. — ai d:aOjxac] not the tables of the law (Beza, Piscator, Pareus, 
Toletus, Balduin, Grotius, Semler, Rosenmiiller), which it cannot denote 
either in itself or on account of the following voyod.; nor yet the O. and 
N.T. (Augustine, Jerome, Calovius, and Wolf, in accordance with Gal. iv. 
24), which would be entirely unsuitable in respect of the N. T. ; but the: 
covenants concluded by God with the patriarchs since Abraham. Compare 
Wisd. xviii. 22 ; Ecclus, xliv. 11; 2 Macc. viii. 15; Eph. ii. 12. —# voyo- 
Gccia] The (Sinaitic) giving of the law. This is ‘‘una et semel habita per: 
Mosen ;” but the ‘‘ testamenta /requenter statuta sunt,” Origen. There is no. 
ground for taking it, with others (including Reiche, de Wette, Fritzsche), 
not of the act, but of the contents, like véuo¢ (why should not Paul have 
written this 7). Certainly, he who has the vounGeoia has also the véuoe ; but 
on that account the two signijications are to be kept distinct even in places. 
like 2 Macc. vi. 23. The giving of the law was a work (comp. Plat. Legg. 
vi. p. 751 B: peyddou riz¢ voyobeciag Epyou bvto¢), by which God, who Himself 
was the vouobé-7¢, had distinguished the Israelites over all other peoples. — 
4 Aarpeia] the cultus nar’ e£oxfv, the service of Jehovah in the temple. Comp. 
Heb. ix. 1. It corresponds to the voyo#., in consequence of which the Aarpeia. 
came into existence ; just as the following ai émrayyeAia: (kar é€oxhv, the col- 
lective Messianic promises) is correlative to the al d:a6jxa:, on which the érayy. 


360 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


were founded. The chiasmus in this order of sequence (comp. Benge) is not 
accidental ; but al érayyeAia: is intentionally put at the end, in order thst 
now, after mention of the fathers, to whom in the first instance the promises 
were given, the Promised one Himself may follow. 

Ver. 5.' Now, after that first relative sentence with its six theocratic dis 
tinctions, two other relative clauses introduce the mutually correlative per- 
sons, on whom the sacred-historical calling of Israel was based and was to 
reach its accomplishment. — oi rarépec}] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who 
are per excellentiam the patriarchs, Ex. iii. 18, 15, iv. 5 ; Acts iii. 13, vi. 
32. — xal ¢€ dv x.7.4.] The last and highest distinction of the Israelites: 
and from whom Christ descends, namely, according to the human phenomentl 
nature, as a human phenomenon, apart from the spiritually-divine side of His 
personality, according to which He is not from the Jews, but (as vidc Ore? 
xara mveipa dywotwyc, 1. 4) is é« tov Ocov. Regarded in the light of His 
supernatural generation, He would be also xara oépxa of God. Comp. Clem. 
Cor. I. 82 : && avrov 6 xbpiog "Inootc rd xatad odpxa. On the article rd x- %) 
sce Heind. ad Gorg. p. 228 ; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 84 [E. T. 95 f.]. The «ai 
before é¢ Sv forbids the reference of the latter to ol rarépec. — 6 dy ent Kor 
tuv Ged evdocy. et¢ Tr. aidvac] This passage, which has become of dogmnstic 
importance, has received two different leading interpretations, by the side 
of which yet a third way, namely, by taking to pieces the relative senteD™ 
came to be suggested. (1) The words are referred (placing a comma after 
odpka) to Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever.» 80, substantially, lr 
naeus (Haer. iii. 16. 8), Tertullian (ado. Praz. § 13, p. 2101, ed. Sem), 
Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mop 
suestia, Augustine, Jerome, Theodoret, and later Fathers ; Luther, Ens 
mus, Paraphr., Flacius, Calvin, Beza, and most of the older expositors 5 
of the later, Michaelis, Koppe, Tholuck, Flatt, Klee, Usteri, BenecK©&> Ols 
hausen, Nielsen, Reithmayr, Maier, Beck, Philippi, Bisping, Gess, Krum 
macher, Jatho, Hahn, Thomasius, Ebrard, Ritschl, Hofmann, We1S3, bibl 
Theol. p. 306, Delitzsch, and others ; in a peculiar fashion also, em 
Schultz (see below) ; de Wette is undecided. (2) The words are re ed 
(placing a period after cépxa, as do Lachm. and Tisch.) as a domology & Ge, 
isolated from the foregoing : ‘‘ Blessed for ever be the God who is of ET alt 
So none of the Fathers (as to those erroneously adduced by Wetste?”? ©” 
Fritzsche, p. 262 ff.*), at least not expressly ; but Erasmus in his Ann, 


1 See on ver. 5, Herm. Schultz, in the 
Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1868, p. 462 f., 
where also a list of the earlier literature is 


wévrwy, that Christ is designated 9° ni 
raliter Deus. 4s in- 
3 Yet the non-reference to Chris® guter 


given; Grimm, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeilschr. 
1869, p. 311 ff. Among the English oppo- 
nents of the Unitarians there is to be es- 
pecially noted, in defence of the orthodox 
‘explanation, Smith, Scripture Testimony to 
the Messiah, 1847, ed. 4, IT. p. 870 ff. 

2 So also the Catech. Racov. 159 f. But, in 
its view, since there are not two Gods, 
“qui natura sit Deus” cannot be under- 
-stood. Conversely, Flacius infers from éwi 


directly implied in Ignatius, Ta75- | | 4) 
pol. 5 (ove avrés éorcy do éwi wavrwr e@<ds *- God 
and PAil. interpol. 7. Thereferenc© 
is also found ina fragment ascribed t 
orus, in Cramer, Caten. p. 162, w? 
said: e£ atvrav dyow 6 Xprords. or eds. 
wévoy auray, GAAd Koy éwi wavTwr eor* was 
In the Arian controversies our passare 4 it 
not made use of. But at a later P© aginst 
was triumphantly made available 


CHAP. IX., 5. 361 
Wetstein, Semler, Stolz, and several others, and recently Reiche, K6llner, 
Winzer, Fritzsche, Gléckler, Schrader, Krehl, Ewald, van Hengel, and, 
though not fully decided, Riickert.'. Now the decision, which of the two 
leading interpretations fits the meaning of the apostle, cannot be arrived at 
from the language used,* since, so far as the words go, both may be equally 
correct [See Note CIL p. 396.]; nor yet from the immediate connection, 
since with equal reason Paul might (by no means : must, against which is 
the analogy of ver. 8 ; and the divine in Christ did not belong here, as in i. 
3, necessarily to the connection) fee] himself induced to set over-against the 
human side of the being of Jesus its divine side (as ini. 8), or might be de- 
termined by the recital of the distinctions of his nation to devote a doxology 
to God, the Author of these privileges, who therefore was not responsible 
for the deeply-lamented unbelief of the Jews ; just as he elsewhere, in pe- 
culiar excited states of piety, introduces a giving glory to God (i. 25 ; 2 
Cor. xi. 81 ; Gal. i. 5; comp. 1 Tim. i. 17). Observe, rather, with a view 
to a decision, the following considerations : Although our passage, referred 
to Christ, would term Him not 6 Oed¢, but (who is God orer all) only Oed¢ pre- 
dicatively (without the article), and although Paul, by virtue of his essential 
agreement in substance with the Christology of John, might have affirmed, 
just as appropriately as the latter (i. 1), the predicative Ged¢ (of divine essence) 
of Christ, because Christ is also in Paul’s view the Son of God in a meta- 
physical sense, the image of God, of like essence with the Father, the agent 
in creation and preservation, the partaker in the divine government of the 
world, the judge of all, the object of prayerful invocation, the possessor of 
divine glory and fulness of grace (i. 4, x. 12; Phil. ii. 6; Col. i. 15 ff., ii. 
9; Eph. i. 20 ff. ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4, viii. 9) ; yet Paul has never’ 


the Arians. Thus Oecumentus, ¢g. ex- 
claims: ¢vrav@a Aauwpdérara Gedy rov Xprordy 
bvoudgee & awderodos’ aicxvvOnr. Tpicddrce 
“Apece, axovwy wapa [lavAou S0foAcyoumevor roy 
Xpeorov Gedy adnOvdy! Comp. Theophylact ; 
also Proclus, de Ade, p. 58, who says gener- 
ally of our passage: rapetaduvoww cvcoparrias 
a@wooreyxiges roig dcAoAoddpors. In Cyril of 
Alexandria this passage is insisted on in 
opposition to the assertion of Julian, that 
only John calls Christ God; whilst the 
wpaatixa Of the Synod of Ephesus make no 
reference to it, which fs, however, care- 
fully done in the Synod of Antioch. See 
the passages in question in Tisch. 8, who 
also observes that, among the codd. C. L. 5, 
47, place a full stop after cdpxa. 

2 Seo also Baur, II. p. 281; Zeller, in the 
Theol. Jahrd. 1842, p. 51; Rabiger, Chriztol. 
Paul. p. 2% f.; Beyschlag, Christo. p. 210. 

2 As van Hengel has attempted, who 
starts from the idea that the contrast to be 
thought of in 1rd «ard cdpxa (according to 
him: “non quatenus spiritus divini partl- 
oops erat’) ercludes a wider antithesis, and 
therefore a point must necessarily be 


placed after odpxa. Such prepositional 
definitions with the accusative of the ar- 
ticle 76 or ra (see also Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 272) 
certainly denote a complete contrast, 
which is either expressly stated (ase.g. Xen. 
Cyr. ¥v. 4.11, viv rd ev en” ewot oixouas, 7d 8° 
éwi got odgwopas: Plat. Min. p. 80 C; Rom. 
xii. 5, ra 52 «a6 els), or may be self-evident 
from the context, as i. 15, xii. 18, and very 
frequently in the classics. The latter would, 
however, be the case in our passage ac- 
cording to the ancient ecclesiastical expo- 
sition, Inasmuch as the contrast obviously 
implied In rd cara odpxa would permit us 
mentally to supply a rd xara wvevma as sug- 
gesting itself after day. That self evident 
negative antithesis: non quoad spiritum, 
would thus have in 6 &» éwi wavrwr Oed¢ «.7.A. 
its positive elucidation. 

3? Not even in 2 Thess. i. 12 (in opposition 
to Hofmann's {nvention), or in Eph. v. 5. 
As regards the Pastoral Eptetles, \f they 
actually denominated Christ @edés, this 
would be one of the signs of a post-apos- 
tolic epoch. But not once do they do this. 
The most specious passage is still Tit. fi. 13, 


362 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
used the express Ozé¢ of Christ, since he has not adopted, like John, the 
Alexandrian form of conceiving and setting forth the divine essence of 
Christ, but hus adhered to the popular concrete, strictly monotheistic termin- 
ology, not modified by philosophical speculation even for the designation of 
Christ ; and he always accurately distinguishes God and Christ ; see, in 
opposition to such obscure and erroneous intermingling of ideas, Rich. 
Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 149 ff. John himself calls the divine nature 
of Christ @cé¢ only in the introduction of his Gospel, and only in the closest 
connection with the Logos-speculation. And thus there runs through the 
whole N. T. a delicate line of separation between the Father and the Son ; 
80 that, although the divine essence and glory of the latter is glorified with 
the loftiest predicates in manifold ways, nevertheless it is only the Father, 
to whom the Son is throughout subordinated, and never Christ, who is act- 
ually called God by the apostles (with the exception of John i. 1, and the 
exclamation of Thomas, John xx. 28)—not even in I Johnv. 20. Paul, 
particularly, even where he accumulates and strains to the utmost expressions 
concerning the Godlike nature of the exalted Christ (as Phil. ii. 6 ff. ; Col. 
i. 15 ff., ii. 9), does not call Him @eé¢, but sharply and clearly distinguishes 
Him i the xfprog from Ged¢, even in x. 9, 1 Cor. xii. 8 (in opposition to 
Ritschl, Altkath. K. p. 79 f.). The post-apostolical period (and not at all 2 
Pet. i. 1, see Huther) first obliterated this fine line of separation, and often 
denominated Christ Gedc, 6 @ed¢ yuav, and the like. S§o, ¢.g., already several 
of the Ignatian epistles in the shorter recension (not those ad Magnes., ad 
Philadelph., ad Trall., not even chap. vii.) and the so-called second epistle— 
not the first '—of Clement, nor the epistle of Polycarp. In the closest inter- 
nal connection herewith stands the fact, that in the properly apostolical writ- 
ings (2 Pet. iii. 18 does not belong to them, nor does Heb. xiii. 21) we never 
meet with a doxology to Christ in the form which is usual with doxologies to 
God (not even in 1 Pet. iv. 11) ; therefore, in this respect also, the present pas- 
sage would stand to the apostolic type in the relation of a complete anomaly.” 
Besides the insuperable difficulty would be introduced, that here Christ would 
be called not merely and simply 9eéc, but even God over all, and consequently 
would be designated as @ed¢ xavroxpérwp, which is absolutely incompatible 
with the entire view of the N. T. as to the dependence of the Son on the 
Father (see Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 157 ff. ; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 457 ff.), 
and especially with passages like viii. 34 (évrvyydve:), 1 Cor. iii. 28, viii. 6, 
xi. 8, Eph. iv. 5, 6, and notably 1 Cor. xv. 28. Accordingly, the doxology 
of our passage cannot be referred to Christ, but must be referred to God ; 


respecting which, however, Huther is in the 
right, and Philipp!, GlaudbensleAr. TI. p. 208, 


ed. 2, is incorrect. In 1 Tim. iif. 16, 8s isto. 


be read, with Lachm. and Tisch. ; on Tit. 4. 4 
even Philippi desires to lay no particular 
stress ; it has, in fact, no bearing whatever on 
our passage, any more than Col. fi. 2 (see 
in loc.). 

1 There certainly occurs at chap. fi. in 
Clement, the expression ra weOjara avrod 


(1.6. rod @eot), where we are not to correct 
it into maGypara, with Hilgenfeld. This ex- 
pression, however, is fully explained, with- 
out Christ being named @eés, from the 
Pauline view: @Qeds%» ev Xpwre xécnor 
xatadAAdcowyr éauty, % Cor. Vv. 19. 

2 The doxology in xvi. 27 does not refer 
to Christ. 2 Tim. iv. 18 certainly refers to 
Christ; but this is just one of the traces of 
post-apostolic composition. 


CHAP. IX., 5. 363 
although Philippi continues of opinion that the former reference has all in its 
favor and nothing against it. On the other hand, Tholuck (see also Schmid, d70/. 
Theol. Il. p. 540, ed. 2) does more justice to the objections against the old 
ecclesiastical interpretation, which Messner also, Lehre d. Ap. p. 236 f., prefers, 
but only with a certain diffidence ; whilst Herm. Schultz (comp. Socinus, in 
Calovius, p. 153) comes ultimately to a lower acceptation of the notion of Oc6c, 
which is meant not metaphysically, but only designates the fulness of power 
committed toChrist for behoof of His work, and excludes neither dependence and 
coming into being, nor beginning and end. Against the latter suggestion it 
may be decisively urged, that thus characteristics are attached to the notion 
@cé¢, which, compared with the current Pauline mode of expression, directly 
annul it, and make it interchangeable with xipcoc, as Paul uses it of Christ 
(Eph. iv. 5, 6; Phil. ii. 11; 1 Cor. viii. 6, and many other passages). Sce, 
in opposition to it, also Grimm. If we suppose the quite singular case here 
to occur, that Paul names Christ God, yea God over all, we need not shrink 
from recognizing, with the orthodox interpreters, an expression of the fact 
that Christ is not nuneupatice, but naturaliter God (Flacius, Clav. II. p. 187). 
(3) Another way, that of taking to pieces the relative clause, was suggested 
by Erasmus, who proposed to place the point (as in Cod. 71) after ravruv 
(in which Locke, Clark, Justi, Ammon, Stolz, Grimm, J.c., and in de Johann. 
Christol. indole Paulinae compar. p. %5 f., Baumgarten-Crusius, Ernesti, 
Urspr. d. Sinde, I. p. 200 ff., and Mircker follow him), so that qui est super 
omnia (or omnes) refers to Christ (comp. Acts x. 36), and then the doxology 
to God follows. But how intolerably abrupt is this !—not merely the brief 
description given of Christ, but also the doxology itself, which with 6 dv én 
savtev loses its natural connection with the preceding. Again, with this 
separation would disappear the motive for Paul’s not having put evioy. in the 
Jirst place, as usually (comp. 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3 ; also the doxologies in 
the LXX). This motive is, namely, the emphasis which Oedé¢ obtains by the 
characteristic description 6 dv énxi mavruv (the God who is over all).' Still more 
disjointed and halting the language becomes through the punctuation of | 
Morus (who, however, concurs, in referring the whole to Christ): 6 dv éri 
wavTuv, O2d¢, evaoy. ei¢ t. al.2 Why Reiche, whom Krehl and van Hengel 
have followed, although rightly referring the whole to God, has adopted this 
punctuation (Ze who is over all, God, be praised for ever), we cannot perceive; 


2 With emphasis, too, in the LXX. Ps. 
Ixvili. 20, cvpios o Geds appears to be prefixed 
to evacy. Yet the translator must have had 
p32 twice in the original text. 

2 Otherwise Hofmann (comp. his Schrift 
bew. I. p. 144; also Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p. 453 
f.): Paul predicates 6 av éwi wayrwr of 
Christ, and then causes @eds evaoy. eis rt. 
aier. to follow asa second predicate. But if 
we once believe that the sentence must be 
referred to Christ, it is in any case far more 
in keeping with the emotional flow of the 
language to leave the whole unbroken, 
without making an artificial abatement 


from the result, that Paul has named Christ 
6 &y éwi wavtey Oads. This artificial abate- 
ment is thus brought out by Hofmann: he 
takes éwi rdyrwy asin contradistinction to 
éf Sy, and @eds as in contradistinction to 
nara odpxa, after which arbitrary analysis 
the twofold antithetic sequence of thought 
is supposed to be: ‘“* He who supremely rules 
over all has come forth out of this people, and, 
in respect Of the self-tranemitling human cor- 
poreal nature, there has come forth out of this 
peowle He whois God.” As though Paul had 
written: é€ dS» o Xprordc 6 ei wdvtey 7d Kara 
odpxa, 6 wy Beds evAoynros eis 7. alwvas, Geass. 


364 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


6 dv iti mévrov Oedc, taken independently, forms in fact, according to 4 
quite customary manner of expression, one phrase, so that Oed¢ is not with- 
out the article. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 7; Kiihner, II. § 464, 8, ¢. Finally, 
Grotius (not also Schoettgen, as Schultz states) would consider Geé¢ as not 
genuine, and would refer 6 ov émi? x. eva. to Christ, to whom ‘* laus et honor 
debetur supra omnes, i.e. etiam supra Abrah., Isaac. et Jacob.” But that 
Oedc is not wanting in the Peshito, as Grotius maintains, is decisively settled 
(see Koppe), and the witnesses who actually omit it (edd. of Cyprian, and 
Hilary, Leo once, Ephraem) are much too weak and doubtful ; sce Bengel, 
Appar. crit. in loc. Quite arbitrary is the conjecture of Sam. Crell (Arte- 
monius) : dv 6 évi x.t.A. —éni radvrwv} neuter. The limitation which takes 
it as masc. (Syr., Beza, Grotius, Socinus, Justi, Hofmann, and others), in 
which case it is by some held to apply to men gencrally, by others to the 
patriarchs,’ must have been presented by the context ; but it is not at all 
suggested by anything, not even in the reference of the sense, which 
Fritzsche introduces : ‘‘ qui omnibus hominibus prospicit Deus, ut male 
credas Judaeos ab eo destitutos esse, etc.”” —é7i indicates the relation of the 
rule over all things.*. God is the ravroxpdrwp, 2 Cor. vi. 18 ; often in the 
Apocalypse, 4 pévog duvdorge 6 Baoidetg tov Baoidevévrev x.7.A., 1 Tim. 
vi. 15, 16. 

Vv. 6-18. First part of the Theodictée: God's promise, howerer, has not be- 
come untrue through the exclusion of a part of the Israelites ; for it applies only 
to the true Israclites, who are such according to the promise, which is confirmed 
from Scripture. 

Ver. 6. Having in vv. 4, 5 adduced the great divine prerogatives of bis 
people, and given honour to God for them, as his Israelitish sympathies 
impelled him to do,? his thought now recurs to that utterance of grief in 
vv. 2, 8, over-against which (sé) he now proposes to justisy the God of his 
people. [See Note CIII. p. 399.] Quite unnecessarily Lachmann has pat 
vv, 3-5 in a parenthesis, —oiy oiov 62, drt] does not mean : but it is not possi- 
ble that (Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Homberg, Semler, Ch. Schmidt, Morus, 
Béhme, Rosenmiiller, Benecke, Ewald) ; for in that case dr: would not be 
allowable, but the infinitive must follow (Matthiae, § 479 ; Kriiger, § 55. 3. 
1) ; moreover as Calvin has rightly observed, oiév re would be found, at least 
according to the invariable usage (4 Macc. iv. 7; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 3, vil 
7. 22; and Bornemann, in loc. ; de Rep. Ath. ii. 2; Mem. iv. 6. 7; Thue. 
vii. 42, 8; Soph. Phil. 918; O. C. 1420; Ast. Ler. Plat. Il. p. 42), 
instead of which scarcely an uncertain example (as Gorgias, pro Palam, in 
Wetstein) is forthcoming of the simple oiov without ré, whilst the masculine 
oté¢ eye (without ré) is frequent (see Schémann, ad Js. p. 465 ; Weber, Den. 
Aristocr. p. 469 ; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 702. 580). It is rather to be explained 
by the very current usage in later Greek (Lennep. ad Phalar. p. 258; 


1 Van Hengel assumes that the Jeraelites 3 And yet Hofmann terms the words 6 
and patriarchs and Christ are intended. dxi wavtwy eds «.7.A., taken as a doxology: 

2See Lobeck, ad Herodian. p. 474, ad an uncalled-for, and aimless, insufferable *- 
Phryn. pp. 164, 174; B&br, ad Pfut. Ale.p. terruption. Psychologically, a very un{ast 
162 judgment. 


CHAP, IX., 6. 365 


Fritzsche on our passage) of ovy olov with a following finite tense ; (e.g. ovy 
viov opyifoua: in Phryn. p. 872, and the passages from Polybius in Schweig- 
hiiuser, p. 403). According to this usage, the attracted olov is not to be re- 
solved, with Hermann, ad Viger. p. 790, into roiov oiov, because the following 
verb does not suit this, but with Fritzsche into rocotrov ore : the matter is not 
of such a nature, that. But since Paul has here expressed ir, he cannot have 
conceited it as contained in oiov : in reality he has fallen into a mixing up of 
two kindred modes of expression—namely, of oiy oiov with a finite tense, 
and ovy or, i.¢. ovy Epo dre.’ Without this intermingling he would have 
written ovy oiov dé éxmémruxev ; but consequent on this intermingling he wrote 
ovx ov dé, ore éxx., Which accordingly may be analyzed thus : ov roiov d2 
Aéyw. olov ort, I do not speak of a thing of such kind, as (that is) that. So also 
substantially Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 319 [E. T. 372 f.], and previously, by 
way of suggestion, Beza. The deviation from Greek usage into which Paul 
has fallen renders also necessary this solution, which deviates? from the 
analysis of the Greek ovy oiov dé éxrénr. (without 672) ; and we have here, 
amongst the many solecisms falsely ascribed to the apostle, a real one. Ob- 
serve, moreover, the strength of the negation implied in ovy olov ; for this 
affirms that the lament of the apostle was to be somethiag quite other than a 
lament over the frustration of the divine word. According to Hofmann, 
yvxéunyv is to be again supplied to ovy olov, and drz to be taken as because,* so 
that thus Paul would deny that he had for that wish the ground which is 
named is or: éxxéwruxev x.t.A. This is—independently of the arbitrariness of 
the insertion of 7iy~é6uq-—incorrect, just because the thought that this 7iyéunv 
could have had that ground would be an absurd thought ; for it would sup- 
pose a fact, which is inconceivable as a motive of the wish. — éxrémruxev] has 
Sullen out of its position, i.e. fallen through, become unavailing, without re- 
sult.* So dtavizrev, Josh. xxi. 45 ; Judith vi. 9; and wirrew, Josh. xxiii. 
14 ; both in use also among the Greeks ; comp. éx;3dAAeofa:, Dissen, ad 
Pind, Nem. xi. 830. The opposite is péverv, ver. 11. Comp. also 1 Cor. xiii. 
8. — 6 46;0¢ tr. Ocov] namely, not the Dei edictum (ver. 28) as to the bestowal 
of blessing only on the election of the Israclites, as Fritzsche, anticipating, 
would have it, but generally the promise given by God to the Israelites, by 
which the assurance of the Messianic salvation is obviously intended. This 
sense the context yields generally, and especially by é& dv 6 Xprord¢ 7d x. o., 
ver. 5, without our having exactly to think of Gen. xii. 3, where the promise 
is to Abraham (Th. Schott). —-ob yap rdvreg x.7.A.] for not all who spring 
JSrom Israel, not all vint Iopaja (ver. 27), are Israelites (Israel’s children, ac- 
cording to the divine idea), so as to be all destined to receive the salvation 
promised to the Israelites. Comp. Gal. iv. 29, vi. 16. The jirst 'Icpaa is 


1See Tyrwhitt, ad Ariet. Poet. p. 128; Hengel proposes to resolve the expression 
Hartung, Partikell. I. p.158f.; Ktthner, II. thus: rowdvde Aéywv, olov rovrd éoriv, oD Adyes 
2, p. 800 f. bre. 

3 Fritzsche prefers to assume a constructio ®Comp. also Erasmus, Castalio, Reith- 
wpds Td onmavopevoy, 80 that Paul has mayr. 
written or because in ov, otow 8¢ lies the 4 See Plut. 7%d. Gracch. 21; Ael. V. 7. iv. 
essential meaning : sed multum abest.—Van 7; Kypke, II. p. 178 f. 


366 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


the name of the patriarch ; the second, instead of which the old reading 
’Iopandizat (D. Chrys.) contains a correct gloss, is the name of his people (xi. 
2, 7, 26, al.). Mistaking the subtle emphatic character of this mode of ex-' 
pression, Hofmann, in spite of the clear oi é£, takes the first 'Icp. also asa 
name of the people, so that the sense would be : the unity of the people is 
something other than the sum of its members. To oi é& Iop. corresponds 
onépua 'A3p., ver. 7. 

Ver. 7. Nor yet, because they are descendants of Abraham, are they all (his) 
children.—Before oid a colon only is correct, because the discourse proceeds 
continuously, annexing denial to denial. —eici] The subject is that of the 
previous clause, oi é£ 'IopayzA. The réxva of Abraham, as significantly con- 
trasted with the mere bodily descendants (oxépua), are those destined by 
God to receive the promised salvation. Comp. Matt. iii. 9 ; John viii. 38, 
39 ; Justin, c. Tryph. 44. That it is not God's children that are to be 
understood (although they are such), as, after Theodoret and several others, 
Glécker afresh takes it, is manifest from the foregoing parallel otro: ’IcparA, 
and from the fact that it is not till afterwards that réxva r. Oeod are spoken 
of.—Wrongly, but in consequence of his erroneous understanding of the 
érz, ver. 6, Hofmann regards ovd dr: eici on. ’ABp. a8 the negation of § 
second ground of the 7ixéuyy, so that then a new sentence begins with 
navrec téxva. This view the obvious correlation of ots . . . réxva with the 
preceding ov yap wdvrec x.t.A. should have precluded. — After a72' we are 
not to supply yéyparra: or obtuc éppé6y, which would be quite arbitrary ; but 
the saying in Gen. xxi. 12, which is well known to the reader as a saying of 
God, is subjoined unaltered and immediately (comp. Gal. iii. 11, 12; 1 Cor. 
Xv. 27) without a xad¢ yéyparra (xv. 8; 1 Cor. i. 81) or the like being 
introduced, or the second person being altered into the third ; simply be- 
cause it is taken for granted that the saying is one well known, — év'Ic. xi4p. 
cot orépua] closely after the LXX., which renders the original literally. [0 
the original text we read )U 1? KP" PNY'Z: through Isaac posterity 
shall be named to thee, i.e. through Isaac it will come to pass to thee, that 
posterity of thine shall have the status and the name of the onépya’A/}p. 
(comp. Heb. xi. 18) ; the descendants of Isaac (consequently not the Ish- 
maelites) shall be recognized as thy posterity (and therewith as the heirs of 
the divine promise).' But the apostle has otherwise apprehended the sense of 
the passage according to its typical reference ; for it is evident from the rela- 
tion of ver. 9 to ver. 8, that he limited that saying to the person of Isaac him- 
self, who (not Ishmael) was the promised child of Abraham, and _ thus repre 
sented in himself the character of the true posterity of Abraham accounted 
assuch by God. Hence, in the sense of the apostle: ‘‘In the person of Isaac 
will a descendant be named to thee ;” 1.6., Isaac will be he, in whose person 
the notion ‘‘ descendant of Abraham ” shall be represented and recognized, 


1 According to Hofmann, the sense is: quire Pry" DwW3, and in the Greek ry 
“The race, whose ancestor Abraham {s vouar. (Isa. xliii. 7} or (xlvili. 1) éi t¥ 
assumed to be, shall bear Isaac’s name.” dyrduare ‘load, 

This sense would, instead of pry?3, re- 





CHAP. 1X.,9 — 367 


Paul finds in this divine declaration the idea enunciated (ver. 8), that not 
on bodily descent (which was also the case with Ishmael), but on divine 
‘promise (which was the case with Isaac, ver. 9), the true sonship of 
Abraham is founded. Usually (not by Philippi and Ewald, who concur, 
with our view) the passage is understood, conformably to the historical 
sense of the original, not of the person of Isaac, but of his posterity ; which, 
because Isaac himself was the son of promise, represents the true descend- 
ants of Abraham according to the promise. But to this posterity al 
Israelites certainly belonged, and it would therefore be inappropriate to set 
them down, by virtue of their extraction from Isaac, as the type of the true 
sonship of Abraham, when the very claim to that sonship, resting upon 
bodily descent, isto be withdrawn from them. The person of Isaac himsel/, 
as contrasted with Ishmacl, was this type,which was thereupon repeated 
in Jacob, as contrasted with Esau (in their persons), vv. 10-13. Chry- 
sostom aptly indicates the reference to Isaac himself: dia yap rovro elrev- 
év "Io. KA. 0. o7., iva pddge, ote ol TH Tpdéty TobTw yervouEvoe TH KaTGA TdY 
"loadx, ovrot pédord ciot 1d orépua tov ’ABpadu’ mac ovv 6 'Ioadx tyevrfOy; 
ov xatd vépov gboeuws, ovde card dbvautv capKdc, GAG Kata dbvaperv 
exayyedrlag. —KAnOnoera] nominabditur.' The opinion of Reiche, that «aa. 
denotes to call out of nothing (see on iv. 7), which it signifies also in Gen. 
xxi. 12, so that the sense would be: ‘‘In the person of Isaac a descendant 
will be imparted to thee,” is erroneous, because that saying of God was 
uttered after the birth of Isaac. — co:] Dative of ethical reference. — ror’ 
éoriv] This purports, thereby the idea is expressed. Rightly Grotius : ‘‘ Hacc 
vox est explicantis irévoav latentem, quod W715 dicitur Hebraeis.” — réxva 
r. Geov] Paul characterizes the true descendants of Abraham, who are not so 
from bodily generation, as God's children, that is, assuch descendants of the 
ancestor, whose Abrahamic sonship is not different in the idea of God from 
that of sonship to Him, so that they are regarded and treated by God as His 
children. — ré réxva rig érayy.] might mean : the promised children (so van 
Hengel) ; for the promised child of Abraham was Isaac (ver. 9), whose birth 
was the realization of a promise, (and so Hofmann takes it). But that Paul 
had the conception that Isaac was begotten by virtue of the divine promise, is 
evident from Gal. iv. 23 (see in loc.), and therefore the genitive (as also pre- 
viously t7¢ capxéc) is to be taken causatively: the children of Abraham who 
originate from the divine promise, who are placed in this their relation of 
sonship to Abraham through the creative power of the divine promise, 
analogously to the begetting of Isaac ; 4 rij¢ érayyediag ioyic érexe TO Tasdiov, 
Chrysostom. — Aoyiferac] by God. Comp. iv. 8, 5. —ei¢ oxépua] that is, as 
an Abrahamic posterity. See ver. 7. To understand Gentiles also, is here 
foreign to the context (in opposition to Beyschlag); see vv. 9-13. Adra- 
ham’s race is treated of, to which not all who descend from him are without 
distinction reckoned by God as belonging. 

Ver. 9. Proof of the foregoing GAAd ra réxva rig érayyeaiag. ‘‘The chil- 
dren of promise, I say, for a word of promise is that which follows: about this, 


1 See Winer, p. 571 f. (E. T. 615]; Eur. ZHec. 625, and Pflugk in loc. 


368 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


time, etc.” Hence, therefore, we see that not the bodily descent, but the 
divine promise, constitutes the relation of belonging to Abrahain's father- 
hood. The quotation is frecly put together from Gen. xviii. 10 and 
xviii. 14, after the LXX. — To xara rov xatpov rovrov, as this time (namely, 
of the next year), corresponds M1) Hyd in the original (comp. 2 Kings iv. 
16, 17; Gen. xvii. 21), which is to be explained : as the time revives, that 
is, when the time (which is now a thing of the past and dead) returns to 
life ; not with Fritzsche : in the present time (of the next year), which 
suits the words of the LXX.,—where, by way of explanation, the classical 
eic Gpac, over the year, is added,—but not the Hebrew. See Gesenius, Thes. 
I. p. 470 ; Tuch and Knobel on Gen. xviii. 10. On the whole promise, 
comp. Hom. Od. xi. 248 f., 295. 

Ver. 10. A fresh and still more decisive proof (for it might be objected 
that, of Abraham's children, Sarah’s son only was legitimate) that only the di- 
vine disposal constituted the succession to Abraham which was true and valid 
in the sight of God. Comp. Barnab. 18. The more definite notion of 
promise, which was retained in the preceding, is here expanded into the 
more general one of the appointment of the divine will as made known. —o 
pévov dé] See generally on v. 3. What is supplied must be something that 
is gathered from the preceding, that fits the nominative 'PeZéxxa, and that 
answers as regards sense to the following éppé67 avr7. Hence, because 79 
Lappe precedes, and with 4424 xai another mother’s name is introduced, we 
must supply, as subject, not Abraham (Augustine, Beza, Calvin, Reithmayr, 
van Hengel ; comp. also Hofmann, who however thinks any completing 
supplement useless), but Z4ppa ; and moreover, not indeed the definite Adyor 
émayyediag elev OF éexnyyeaAuévy qv (Vatablus, Fritzsche, Winer, Krehl, Baum- 
garten-Crusius), but the more general 2éyov or pjya Ocod eizev, which is 
suitable to the subsequent éppé97 , as well as to the contents of the sayings 
adduced in vv. 12, 13: ‘‘ But not only had Sarah a saying of God, but also 
Rebecca, etc.” We must therefore throw aside the manifold arbitrary sup- 
plements suggested, some of which are inconsistent with the construction, 
not suiting the nominative 'Pef., as e.g. : ‘‘ non solum id, quod jam diximus, 
documentum est ejus, quod inferre volumus ; Rebecca idem nos docet” (50 
Grotius, also Seb. Schmid, Semler, Ch. Schmid, Cramer, Rosenmiiller, and 
several others ; comp. Tholuck and Philippi) ; or: rovro qv (Riickert, de 
Wette), so that the nominative 'PeZ. forms an anacoluthon, and the period be- 
gun enters with ver. 11 upon quite another form (how forced, seeing that vv. 
11 and 12 in themselves stand in perfectly regular construction !). It is only 
the semblance of an objection against our view, that not Sarah, but Abraham, 
reccived the word of promise, ver. 9 ; for Sarah was, by the nature of the 
case, and also according to the representation of Genesis, the co-recipient 
of the promise, and was mixed upin the conversation of God with Abraham 
in reference to it (Gen. xviii. 18-15) ; so that Paul, without incurring the 
charge of contradicting history, might have no scruple in stating the con- 
trast as between the mothers, as he has done. — é& évd¢ xoirgv Exovea] Who had 
cohabitation of one (man), the effect of which was the conception of the twin 
children. The contextual importance of this addition does not consist in 








CHAP. Ix., 11, 12. 369 
its denying that there was a breach of conjugal fidelity, but in its making 
palpably apparent the invalidity—for the history of salvation—of bodily 
descent. She was pregnant by one man, and yet how different was the 
divine determination with respect to the two children ! — é¢ évé¢] mascu- 
line, without anything being supplicd ; for ’Ic. r. wr. ju. is in apposition. 
xoitn, couch, bed, often marriage bed (Heb. xiii. 4), is found seldom in the 
classical writers,’ with whom evv# and Aéyoc often have the same sense, eu- 
phemistically used as equivalent to concubitus, but frequently in the LXX. 
See Schleusner, Thes. TIT. p. 347. Comp. Wisd. iii. 13, 16. — row zazp. ju.) 
from the Jewish consciousness ; for the discourse has primarily to do with 
the Jews. Comp. iv. 1. If Isaac were to be designated as the father of 
Christians (Reiche, Fritzsche), the context must have necessarily and defi- 
nitely indicated this, since believers are Abraham’s (spiritual) children. We 
may add that ‘Ic. row zarp. judy is not without a significant bearing on the 
argument, inasmuch as it contributes to make us fecl the independence of 
the determination of the divine will on the theocratic descent, however 
legitimate. 

Vv. 11, 12. Although, forsooth, they were not yet born, and had not done any- 
thing good or evil, in order that the purpose of God according to election 
might hace its continued subsistence, not from works, but from Him who calls, it 
was said to her, etc. [See Note CIV. p. 399. ]—yArw] not obtw, because the 
negative relation is intended to be expressed subjectively, that is, as placed 
before the view of God and weighed by Him in delivering His utterance.’ 
—The subject (airy) to the participles is not expressed, according to a well- 
known classical usage (Matthiae, § 563 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 1%), 
but it would be self-evident to the reader from the history familiar to him, 
that the twins of Rebecca were intended ; Winer, p. 548 [E. T. 589]. — The 
sentence expressive of purpose, iva . . . xadovvroc, is placed with emphasis be- 
fore éfpé0n, and therefore not to be placed in a parenthesis. —iva] introduces 
the purpose which God had in this, that, notwithstanding they were not yet 
born, etc., He yet gave forth already the declaration of ver. 12. He thereby 
purposed, namely, that His vesolve—conceived in the mode of an election made 
amongst men — to bestow the blessings of the Messianic salvation should subsist, 
etc.—7 xar’ éxAoy. wpéfectc*] can neither be so taken, that the éxAjoy# precedes: 
the zpé@core in point of time (comp. viii. 28), which is opposed to the nature 
of the relation, especially secing that the zpé@eci¢ pertains to what was ante- 
cedent to time (see on viii. 28) ; * nor so that the éxdoy4 follows the rpdfeace, 


1 Eur. Med. 151, Hippol. 184; not Anacr. 
23, see Valck. Schol. II. p. 594. 

4 See Winer, p. 450 (E. T. 488 f.]; Baeum- 
lein, Partik. p. 29. Comp. Xen. Cyr. fii. 1. 37. 

? Taken by Beck in a rationalistic sense: 
“ The fundamental! outline which serves as 
a standard for the temporal training of the 
icAoyy, and pervades their temporal devel- 
opment tn all] its parts’’. 

* Since the divine wpdOecrs is antecedent to 
fie (Eph. iti. 11; 2 Tim. 1. 9), as is also the 
dxAoy4 (Eph. 1. 4; and see Weiss, bid. Theol. 


§ 126), we cannot, with Beyschlag, p. 88, 
understand it of the plan developing itself 
in history, pertaining to the history of God's 
kingdom, as God forms it in the calling of 
Abraham and executesit up to the apostolic 
present. Mistaken also is van Hengel’s 
view, acoording to which the «ar’ éxAoy. 
=p68 is to be limited to the determination: 
of choice respecting the two brothers, and 
advy to the abiding realization of it in the 
posterity of both sides, while ov« é€ épywv, adr” 
dx tov xadovrros is supposed to be a gloss. 


870 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


whether it be regarded as the act of its fulfilment (Reiche) or as its aim 
(Krehl). These latter interpretations might certainly be justified linguisti- 
cally (see Kithner, IT. 1, pp. 412, 413), but they would yicld no specific peeu- 
liarity of the act of the rpd6ects. Yct, since xav éxAoyf#v must be the char- 
acteristically distinctive mark of the purpose, it cannot by any means de- 
note ; the resolution adopted in respect of an election (Grotius, Riickert) ; 
but it must be apprehended as an essential inherent of the rpdbeac, exnressing 
the model character of this divine act : the purpose according to election, i.c. 
the purpose which was so formed, that init an election was made. The zpiAreic 
would have been no rpd0. xar’ éixAoyiv, no ‘‘ propositum Dei electicum” 
(Bengel), if God had resolved to bless all without exception. His resolve to 
vouchsafe the Messianic blessedness did not, however, concern all, but those 
only who were to be comprehended in this very resolve (by virtue of Mis 
mpdbyvworc, Vill. 29), and who were thereby, by means of the xpééeare itself, 
chosen out from the rest of men (xi. 5), and thus the rpé@eare was no other 
than 7 xar’ éxAoypv mpdbeote (comp. Bengel, Flatt, Tholuck, Beck, Fritzsche, 
Philippi, Lamping). In a linguistic aspect xaz’ ixAoy. (frequently in 
Polybius, see Raphel) comes under the same category with the well-known 
expressions xara xpétoc, xa brepoagy x.t.A.1 Comp. xi. 21; 1 Tim. vi. 3. 
But it is incorrect to alter, with Carpzov, Ernesti, Cramer, Béhme, Ammon, 
Rosenmiiller, the signification of é«A., and to explain # xar’ éxA. xpd0. a8 
‘“propositum Dei likerum.” For, a3 election and freedom are in themselves 
different conceptions, so in those passages which are appealed to (Joseph. 
Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14; Psalt. Sal. ix. 7), é«a. is none other than electio ; and 
especially in the N. T. éxtoy7, éxAfyeoOar, and éxAexrd¢ are so statedly used for 
the dogmatic sense of the election to salration, that no alteration can be ad- 
mitted. In general, Hofmann has rightly understood it of the quality, which 
the purpose has from the fact that God chooses ; along with which, however, 
he likewise transposes the notion of the éxAoy4 into that of the free act of will. 
‘which has its presupposition only in the chooser, not on the side of the 
chosen.” This anticipates the following, which, moreover, joins itself not 
to ixdoyf, but to the abiding of the xar’ éxa. wpdGeors ; hence éxAo;+4 must 
be left in its strict verbal sense of election. The éxdoy# may in and by itself 
be even an unfree act of will ; its freedom does not lie in the notion in itself, 
but it is only to be inferred mediately from what is further to be said of the 
péverv of the nar’ iA. wp d0e org, Viz. ovn & Epywv x.t.2. — pévg] The opposite 
of éxrémruxev, ver. 6.2 It is the result aimed at in such a declaration as God 
-caused to be given to Rebecca before the birth of her two sons : His purpose 
according to election is meant to remain unchangeable, etc., so much He 
would have to be settled in His giving that declaration. — ob« && Epyuv «.1.4.| 
is by most joined, through a supplied oica, to zpédeore r. Oeod ;* by Fritzsche 


1 Bornem. ad Cyrop.i. 4. 28; Bernhardy, arp. But this last has already its defining 


'p. 241. clause in pyrw «.7.A., and that a clause 
2Comp. Xen. Anabd. il. 8. 24; Eurip. Jph. after which ove ¢§ ¢pywy «.7.A., annexal 
‘T. 959; Herod. iv. 201. to the éppé6y atrp as a definition of mode. 


3Zuther, however, with whom agree would be something self-evident and su- 
Hofmann and Jatho, connects with épéy  perfluous. Hofmann insists, quite ground- 


CHAP. Ix., 11, 12. 371 
regarded even as a supplementary definition to nar’ éxAoy#v, in which he is 
followed by Lamping, as though Paul had written 7 oi é& épywv «.7.2. But 
for rejecting the natural and nearest connection with pévy there is absolutely 
no ground from the sense which thus results : the elective resolution must 
have its abiding character not on account of works, which the subjects concerned 
would perform, but on account of God Himself, who calls to the Messianic salva- 
tion.’ Accordingly, ov« é& épywy «.t.A. is a causal specification annexed to 
the—in itself independent—yévy, namely, of its objective actual relation 
(hence ov, not #4), and should be separated from pévy by a comma (Paul 
might more formally have written : xai rovro ovx é& Epywv x.7.2.). Hence the 
objection that yévecy éx is not found is of no importance, since uévy in 
itself stands absolutely, and é« is constantly employed in the sense of by vir- 
tue of, by reason of. Sce Bernhardy, p. 230; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 551.” 
— On the form éppé@y, which, instead of the Recepta £6)76y, is to be adopted 
with Lachmann and Tischendorf, following the preponderance of testimony, 
in all passages in Paul, see on Matt. v. 21, and Kiihner, I. p. 810 f.—The 
quotation is Gen. xxv. 23, closely following the LXX. ; dr: forms no part of 
it, but is recitative. In the connection of the original tezt, 6 peitwv and 6 éAdec., 
the greater and the smaller, refer to the two nations represented by the elder 
and younger twin sons, of which they were to be ancestors ; and this pre- 
diction was fulfilled first under David, who conquered the Edomites (2 Sam. 
viii. 14) ; then, after they had freed themselves in the time of Joram (2 
Kings viii. 21), under Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 7 ; 2 Chron. xxv. 11) and 
Uzziah (2 Kings xiv. 22 ; 2 Chron. xxvi. 2), who again reduced them to 
slavery ; and lastly, after they had once more broken loose in the time of 
Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 17 ; according to 2 Kings xvi. 6, they had merely 
wrested the port of Elath from the Jews), under Johannes Hyrcanus, who 
completely vanquished them, forced them to be circumcised, and incorpo- 
rated them in the Jewish state (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9. 1). Paul, however, has. 
in view, as the entire context vv. 10, 11, 13 evinces, in 6 weit. and r@ éAdoo., 
Esau and Jacob themselves, not their nations; so that the fulfilment of the 
dova. is to be found in the theocratic subjection into which Esau was reduced 
through the loss of his birthright and of the paternal blessing, whereby the 
theocratic lordship passed to Jacob. But inasmuch as in Gen. l.c. the two 
brothers are set forth as representatives of the nations, and their persons and 
their destiny are not consequently excluded,—as, indecd, the relation indi- 
cated in the divine utterance took its beginning with the brothers them- 
selves, by virtue of the preference of Jacob through the paternal blessing 


leasly, that, according to the ordinary 
cpnnection of ov« cf épyev «.7.A., instead of 
ovc, 4} must have becn used. On account 
of the following 4AA’ «.7.A., on which the 
main stress is meant to be laid, ove, even 
in a sentence expressing purpose, is quite 
In its place. See Buttm. Neut. Gr. p. 802, 
8 [E. T. 852]. The negation adheres to the 
éf ¢pywr, see Kiihner, II. 2, p. 747 f. 

! This characteristic designation of God 
as 6 xeAwo» makes it apparent that the at- 


tainment of the salvation entirely depends 
on Him. 

2 Not essentially different from our view 
{s that of Tholuck, de Wette, Philippi, who 
regard ov« ¢f épywy «.r.A. asa subjoined def- 
inition of the whole final clause : * And this 
indeed was not to be effected by virtue of 
works, etc.”” (Philipp!). But Riickert in- 
correctly explains it, as though the passage 
ran pévp un ef py. «.7.A. 


372 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


(Gen. xxvii. 29, 37, 40),—-the apostle’s apprehension of the passage, as he 
adapts it to his connection, has its ground and its warrant, especially in 
view of similar hermeneutic freedom in the use of O. T. expressions. —é 
peifwv and ro é2déoc. have neither in the original nor in Greek the signifia- 
tion: the first-born and the second-born, which indeed the words do not 
denote ; but Esau, who is to come to birth first, is regarded as the greater 
of the twins in the womb, and Jacob as the smaller. 

Ver. 13. ‘‘ This utterance (é))é47) took place in conformity with the er- 
pressly testified (in Mal. i. 2, 3, freely cited from the LXX.) love of God 
towards Jacob and abhorrence of Esau.” Thus, that utterance agrees with 
this. But just like Paul, so the prophet jimself intends by "IaxéB and "Hoa, 
not the two nations Israel and Edom, but the persons of the two brothers; 
God loced the former, and hated the latter (and therefore has exalted Israel 
and destroyed Edom).—The aorists are, in the sense of the apostle—as the re- 
lation of xafic yfyp. to the preceding, imparting information respecting the 
subjective ground of the divine declaration in ver. 12, shows—to be I 
ferred to the love and abhorrence entertained towards the brothers before 
their birth, but are not to be understood of the de facto manifestation of love snd 
hatred by which the saying of Gen. xxv. 23 had been ‘in the result confirmed 
(van Hengel). ‘Eyuioyoa, moreover, is not to have a merely privative sense a& 
cribed to it : not to lore, or to love less (as Fessel, Glass, Grotius, Estius, and 
many, including Nusselt, Koppe, Tholuck, Flatt, Beck, Maier, Beyschlsg), 
which is not admissible even in Matt. vi. 24, Luke xiv. 26, xvi. 13, John 
xii. 25 (see, against this and similar attempts to weaken its force, Lamping); 
but it expresses the opposite of the positive yydr., viz. positice hatred. Se 
Mal. i. 4. And as that love towards Jacob must be conceived of as com- 
pletely independent of foreseen virtues (ver. 11), so also this hatred towards 
Esau as completely independent of foreseen sins (in opposition to the Greek 
Fathers and Jerome on Mal. i.). Both were founded solely on the free elec- 
tive determination of God ; with whom, in the necessary connection of that 
plan which He had freely adopted for the process of theocratic develop- 
ment, the hatred and rejection of Esau were presupposed through their op 
posite, namely, the free love and election of Jacob to be the vehicle of the 
theocracy and its privileges, as the reverse side of this love and choice, 
which the history of Edom brought into actual relief. 

Vv. 14-18. [See Note CV. p. 400.] Second part of the Theodicce: God 
does not deal unrighteously, in that His ~pdAeorg according to election is to hase 
tts subsistence, not if ipywv, but ix tov Kadovvrog; for He Himself math 
tains in the Scripture His own freedom to have mercy upon or to harden whom 
He will.—This reason has probative force, in so far as it is justly presupposed 
in it, that the aziom which God expresses respecting Himself is absolutely 
worthy of Him. Hence we are not, with Beyschlag, to refer the alleged 
injustice to the fact that God now prefers the Gentiles to the Jevs, which is 
simply imported into the preceding text, and along with which, no less gr® 
tuitously, the following receives the sense. ‘‘the Jews have indeed becomé 
what they are out of pure grace ; this grace may therefore once again be directed 
towards others, and be withdrawn from them” (Beyschlag). 





CHAP. IX., 14-16. 373 


Ver. 14. A possible inference, unfavourable to the character of God, from 
vv. 11-13, is suggested by Paul himself, and repelled. — yu} adi. rapa rh 
Ozp 3} Sut ts there not unrighteousness with God? Comp. the question in iii. 
5. apa, with qualities, corresponds to the Latin in. See Matthiae, § 588. 
6. Comp. ii. 11. | 

Ver. 15. Reason assigned for the yx? yévorro, not for the legitimacy of the 
question 7) adiucia 7. r. 8. (Mangold, p. 134), so that the opponent's language 
continues, until it ‘‘culminates in the audacious exclamation of ver. 19.” 
Tap after p7 yévocro always relates to this. Bengel rightly remarks on ydp : 
‘- Nam quod asserimus, Dei assertum est irrefragabile.” —1O Mwio. y. (see 
critical remarks) brings into strong relief the venerated recipient of the word, 
which makes it appear the more weighty (comp. x. 5, 19). The citation is 
Ex. xxxiii. 19, verbally following the LXX. (which would have more closely 
translated the Heb. by é/ed év ay éheqow x.7.A.).' In the original text it is an 
assurance by God to Moses of His favour now directly extended towards 
him, but expressed in the form of a divine aziom. Hence Paul, following 
the LXX., was justified in employing the passage as a scriptural statement 
of the general proposition : God's mercy, in respect of the persons con- 
cerned, whose lot it should be to experience it, lets itself be determined 
solely by His own free will of grace: ‘‘Z will have mercy upon whosoever is 
the object of my mercy ;” so that I am therefore in this matter dependent on 
nothing external to myself. This is the sovereignty of the divine compas- 
sionating will. Observe that the future denotes the actual compassion, ful- 
filling itself in point of fact, which God promises to show to the persons 
concerned, towards whom He stands in the mental relation (éAe6, present) of 
pity. The distinction between éA¢d and oixreipw is not, as Tittmann, Synon. 
p- 69 f., defines it, that £2. denotes the active mercy, and oixr. the compas- 
sionate kindness, but that the same notion misereri is more strongly expressed 
by oir. Sce Fritzsche. Comp. Plat. Euthyd. p. 288 D : éAchoavré pe Kat 
oiateipavre. The latter denotes originally bewailing sympathy, as opposed 
to paxapifey (Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 19). Comp. olxrog (to which ddupyée, Plat. 
Rep. iii. p. 387 D, corresponds), oixrifw, oixtpd¢ x.7.A. On the form oixre:pqou, 
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 741. — év av] The av is that everywhere usual with 
the relative in the sense of cunque. Hence conditionally expressed : if to 
any one I am gracious, etc. See generally Hartung, Partikell, II. p. 298 f. ; 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 119. Consequently, not merely the mercy in itself, 
but also the determination of those who should be its objects, is designated 
as a free act of God, resting on nothing except on His elective purpose, and 
affecting the persons according to it ; for the emphasis lies in the relative 
clause on the repeated 6y dy, as dv generally has its place after the emphatic 
word. 

Ver. 16. Paul now infere from this divine word the doctrine implied in 
it of the causality of the divine redemption. — ot row OéAovtac] sc. éori. 
Accordingly, therefore, it (the participation in that which has just been des- 


2 Even thus é¢Aejow would be future indic- Xen. Apol. 16; Poppo, ad Cyrop. il. 1. 18; 
atice, not subjunctive (in opposition to  Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 61.5 D. 
Fritzsche’s criticlsm). See Bornemann, ad 


374 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

ignated in the divine utterance as Z4eo¢ and oixzipydc) is not of him that 
wills, nor of him that runs, but of God who is merciful ; it depends not on 
the striving and urgent endeavour of man, but on the will of the merciful 
God.' The relation of the genitive is: penes. See Bernhardy, p. i65; 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 316 f. —rpéyev, a figurative designation of strenuously 
active endeavour, borrowed originally from the competitive races (1 Cor. ix. 
24). Comp. Gal. ii. 2, v. 7; Phil. ii. 16; also in the classical writers 
Incorrectly, Reiche (following Locke and others) thinks that @é/orroc was 
probably chosen with reference to the wish of Abraham to instal Ishmael, 
and of Isaac to instal Esau, in the heirship ; and rpé7. with reference to the 
fruitless running in of Esau from the chase (Theophylact understands it of 
his running off to the chase). For Paul, in fact, draws an inference with 
his dpa ovv only from the divine utterance issued to Moses ; and hence we are 
not even to conjecture, with van Fengel, a reference to Pharaoh's hasty 
pursuit of the Israclites. Not on the runner himself depends the successful 
struggle for the prize (in opposition to Reiche’s objection), but he, whom 
God has chosen to obtain it, now on his part so runs that he does obtain it. 
Consequently the conception is, that man by his rpéyeev never meritoriously 
acquires the divine favour ; but, fulfilling the predctermination of God, he, 
in the power of the grace already received, demeans himself conformably toit; 
hence Paul, in another place, where the context suggests it, erhorts to the 
rpéyev (1 Cor. ix. 24). Beck’s opinion, that @éZev and rpéyew are here 
intended not in the moral sense, but metaphysically and juridically, is noth- 
ing but an exegetically groundless deviation from the simple and clear mean- 
ing of the words. —r. éAenivroc Ocov] to be taken together. Had Paul intend- 
ed 7. éAsovvrog as independent, and Oeov as an apposition, he would have only 
weakened the antithetic emphasis by the very superfluously added coi (in 
opposition to Hofmann). 

Ver. 17. Tap] Establishment of this doctrine ¢ contrario,? as the inference 
of ver. 18 shows. — 7 ypagf] for in it God speaks ; comp. Gal. iii. 8, 22. —t 
éapaé] Paul has selected two very striking contemporancous and historically 
connected examples, in ver. 15 of election, and here of rejection. The que 
tation is Ex. ix. 16, with a free and partly intentional variation from the 
LXX. —8r:] does not form part of the declaration, but introduces it, as in 
ver. 12, — ig aird rovro] brings the meaning into stronger relicf than the 
évexev totrov of the LXX. : for this very purpose (for nothing else). Comp. 
xiii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 6, vii. 11; Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8. — é#yecpé oe] The 


1The proposition in the generality with 
which it is expressed forbids the uassump- 
tion of a particular reference to Jsrael (Bey- 
schlag), whose moral and religious endeav- 
our (ver. 21) hinders not the right of God's 
world-ruling majesty to open the heart of 
the Gentiles for the gospel, and not that of 
the Jews. 

2 The counterpart of that €Acos Is, namely, 
the divine hardening ; and if this likewise 
presents itself as dependent only on the 
divine determination of will,—as the lan- 


guage of Scripture to Pharaoh testifies,— 
what is said in ver. 16 thus receives a further 
scriptural confirmation from the correlative 
counterpart. Beyschlag also recognizes & 
reasoning ¢ contrario, but sees in Pharaoh 
the type of Israel, unto whom the Gospel 
has not merely remained strange, but has 
tended to hardening. Thus in this typ 
“the present exchange of rie between 
Israel and the Gentile world is illustrated in 
a terrible manner.” This change of rie is 
imported. 





CHAP. IX., 1%. 375 
LXX. translates TPHTVIRI by deernphOnc, 3.6. virus servatus es, and so far, 
leaving out of view the factitive form of the Hebrew word (to which, how- 
ever, a reading of the LXX. attested in the Hexapla with dserfpyod ce corre- 
sponds), correctly in the historical connection (see Ex. ix. 15). Paul, 
however, expands the special sense of that Hebrew word to denote the whole 
appearance of Pharaoh, of which general fact that particular one was a 
part ; and he renders the word according to this general rclation, which 
lies at the bottom of his view, and in reference to which the active form 
was important, by : I have raised thee up, that is, caused thee to emerge ; thy 
whole historical appearance has been brought about by me, in order that, 
etc. Comp. the current use of éyeipecv in the N. T., as in Matt. xi. 11, xxiv. 
11; John vii. 52, et al.; Ecclus. x. 45; 1 Macc. iii. 49 ; and the Hebrew 
D’p. So, in substance, Theophylact (cic rd uéoor fyayov), Beza, Calvin, 
Piscator, Bengel, and various others, including Reiche, Olshausen, Riickert, 
Beck, Tholuck, Philippi ; formerly also Hofmann ; comp. Beyschlag : ‘‘T 
have allowed thee to arise.” The interpretation : civcum te servavi (Vorstius, 
Hammond, Grotius, Wolf, and many, including Koppe, Morus, Béhme, 
Rosenmiiller, Nésselt, Klee, Reithmayr), explains the Hebrew, but not the 
expression of the apostle ; for Jas. v. 15 ought not to have been appealed 
to, where the contert demands the sense of ‘‘ erigere de lecto graviter decum- 
bentem.” Yet even now Hofmann compares Jas. v. 15, and explains 
accordingly : I have suffered thee to rise from sickness. But this would only 
be admissible, provided it were the sense of the original text, which was 
assumed by Paul as well known ; the latter, however, simply says : J allow 
thee to stand for the sake of, etc: (comp. Knobel, zn loc.), with which also 
the LXX. agrees. Others explain : I have appointed thee to be king (Flatt, 
Benecke, Gléckler). Others : I have stirred thee up for resistance (Augus- 
tine, Anselm, Kéllner, de Wette, Fritzsche, Maier, Bisping, Lamping, comp. 
Umbreit), as éyeipecv and igeyeip. denote, in classical usage, to incite, both in 
a good and bad sense ; comp. 2 Macc. xii. 4 ; Hist. Sus. 45. But these 
special definitions of the.sensc make the apostle say something 80 entirely 
different both from the original and from the LXX., that they must have 
been necessitated by the connection. But this is not the case ; not even in 
respect to the view of Augustine, etc., since in ver. 18 dv dé OéAe1, oxAnpiver 
is not inferred from the verbal sense of fy. ce, but from the relation of the 
brug «.t.a. to the éEnyeipa oe (cig av7d Trovro evinces this),—a relation which 
would presuppose a hardening of Pharaoh on the part of God, and for the 
reader who is familiar with the history (Ex. iv. 21, vii. 3, xi. 10, xiv. 4, 
et al.), actually presupposes it. — drw¢ évdeis. x.7.A2.] namely, by means of thy 
final overthrow ; not: by means of the leading out of Israel (Beyschlag), 
against which is év ooi. — évdeif] may show, may cause to be recognized in 
thy case. Comp. iii. 25 ; Eph. ii. 7 ; 1 Tim. 1. 16. — divawy] LXX.: loxtr. 
With Paul not an intentional alteration, but another reading according 
to the Hexapla (in opposition to Philippi). — d:ayy.] might be thoroughly 
published. Comp. Luke ix. 60; Plat. Protag. p. 317 A; Pind. Nem. v. 5; 


2 ** Deus Pharaonem asc profectum dicit eique haunc impositam esse personam.”’ 


376 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Herodian, i. 15. 3, ii. 9. 1; Plutarch. Camill. 24. —1d dvouzd pov) As naming 
Him who has shown Himself so mighty in the case of Pharaoh. For the 
opposite, sce li. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 1.—év raoy tH yq) in the whole earth; 4 
result, which in the later course of history (comp. Eusebius, praep. et. ix. 
29), especially was fulfilled in the dispersion of the Jews and the spread of 
Christianity, and continues to be fulfilled. The explanation : inthe whole 
land (van Hengel), is less in keeping with the tendency of the original text 
than the all-comprehensive destination of this great judgment of God. 

Ver. 18. Result from vv. 15-17. — oxanpive] Opposite of é2eci, not merely 
negative like oix éAeei (Bengel), but positive : He hardens him, makes him 
thereby incapable of being a oxevog éAéove (ver. 23). Such an one become 
axAnpéc Te Kai auetdorpogog (Plato, Crat. p. 407 D), od. xai azredtic (Plato, 
Leer. p. 104 C), in a moral respect.!| Comp. Acts xix. 9 ; Heb. iii. 8, 18 
15, iv. 7 ; oxAnpoxapdia, Matt. xix. 8; Mark xvi. 14 ; Rom. ii. 5.2% Vv. 19 
ff. prove that all warping or alteration of this sense of the word is errone- 
ous ; that the suggestion, e.g., in Origen and several Fathers, in Grotivs, 
Koppe, Flatt, Klee, Maier, and others, that only the divine permission 1s 
intended (comp. Melanchthon : ‘‘Indurat, i.e. sinit case durum, nec COD 
vertit eum”), is erroneous ; and equally erroneous is the interpretation 
duriter tractat (Carpzov, Semler, Cramer, Ernesti, Schulthess, Ezeg. Forsch. 
II. p. 186 ; comp. Beck, p. 75 f.), which is contrary to the signification of 
the word (also in the LXX. Job xxxix. 16).° Evidence to the same effect 
is supplied by the twofold representation given of the hardening of Pharaoh 
in Exodus, where it appears partly as sel/-produced (viii. 15, 32, ix- 34 | 
comp. 1 Sam. vi. 6), partly as effected by God (iv. 21, vil. 3, ix. 12, X- 20, 
27, xi. 10). Of these two ways of regarding the mattcr, however, P aul, 
suitably to his object, has expressly adopted the latter ; Pharaoh hardend 
by God is to him the type of all who obstinately withstand the divine COU” 
sel of salvetion, as Israel docs. In opposition to Beck’s evasive expedients 
sce Lamping. On the hardening itself Olshausen remarks :—(1) That 
presupposes already the beginnings of evil. But this is at variance ¥? 
by OéAer und éx Tov abtod dupdéuaroc, ver. 21. (2) Thatit is not an aggraval™ 
of sin, but a means of preventing its aggravation. But Pharaoh’s nistoy 
is against this. (3) That the total hardening is an expression of simple 
penal justice, when sin has become sin against the Holy Ghost. But 19 thst 
case there could be no mention of a év 64. The clear and simple sem 
of the apostle is, that it depends on the free determination of Gocl'sS ls 
whether to bless with His saving mercy, or, on the other hand, to put into 


1¥For an analogous pagan conception, a. Stinde, p. 118 ff. 


comp. especially Euripides, in Lycurgus 
adv. Leocr. p. 198 (§ 92) : 
Stay yap opyn Satudvwy BArAarry trv, 
Tour avTo mpwrov efadacpetrac Ppevwy 
Tov voor Tov éaOAdy, cis be THY xe(pw TpEéEL 
yuuuny, cv’ edn andévy ay apaprave, 
See also Ruhnken, ad Vell. Paterc. ii. 57, p. 
265 ff. 
32 See also Soph. 4j. 1840, Trach. 1250; Lo- 
beck, ad Aj. p. 884; fromthe O. T., Umbreit 


3 In Job, é.c., aweoxAnpuve, LXX., 15 said 
the ostrich, which renders hard, t-€- 
hardy, its young ones. Comp. Leon. 
11; Athen. L. p. 24D; Theophr. ¢. P#- 
2, v. 15. 6. 


areit. 
iii 16 


of 
Such is also the meanine 


arogxAnpow. The sense of the @ 
(VBP is not decisive. The L&X- ‘i 
understood it as dweaxAnp. Comp. La™mP™ 
p. 188 f. 


CHAP. IXx., 18. 377 
that spiriiual condition, in which a man can be no object of His saving 
mercy (but rather of His opyf# only). Accordingly, the will of God is here 
the absolute will, which is only in the éAeci a will of grace, and not also in 
the oxAyjpive: (in opposition to Th. Schott). Of the style and manner in 
which the older dogmatic interpreters have here introduced qualifying 
clauses in the interests of opposition to absolute predestination, the devel- 
opment of the matter by Calovius may serve as an example. He main- 
tains, that when it is said that God hardens, this is not to be taken évepyyrt- 
nag or effective, but (1) ovyxuwpytixac, propter permissionem ; (2) adopynrixac, 
propter occasionem, quam ex lis, quae Deus agit, sumunt reprobi ; (3) éyxara- 
Aecrtexac, Ob desertionem, quod gratia sua deserat reprobos ; (4) rapadorixéc, 
ob traditionem in scnsum reprobum et in ulteriorem Satanae potestatem. 
But Philippi’s suggestion of the immanent law which the divine freedom 
carries within itsclf,—according to which God will have mercy upon him 
who acknowledges His right to have mercy on whom He will, and to harden 
whom He will; and will harden Aim who denies to Him this right, —will only 
then come into considcration by the side of what Paul here says, when (see 
remarks after ver. 33) we arc in a position to judge of the relation of our 
passage and the connection that follows it to the moral sclf-determination 
of man, which the apostle teaches elsewhere ; seeing that no further guiding 
hint is here given by Paul, and, moreover, that immanent law of the divine 
freedom, as Philippi himself frankly recognizes, is not at all here expressed. 
For now the apostle has been most sedulously and exclusively urging 
nothing but the complete independence of the divine willing in éAcciv and 
oxAnpiverv,! which the Form. Cone. p. 821 does not duly attend to, when it 
maintains that Paul desired to represent the hardening of Pharaoh as an 
example of divine penal justice. Not ‘‘ut eo ipso Dei justitiam declararet,” 
has Paul adduced this example, although it falls historically under this 
point of view, but asa proof of the completely free se!f-determination of God 
to harden whom He will. Accordingly, the hardening here appears by no 
means, as has been lately read between the lines, ‘‘ as a consequence of pre- 
ceding conceited sel f-righteousness” (Tholuck), or ‘‘ such as the man himself has 
willed it” (Th. Schott), or conditioned by the divine standard of holiness 
confronting human sin (Weiss), or with an obvious presupposition of human 
self-determination (Beyschlag). Elsewhere the hardening may be adjudged 
as a punishinent by God (Isa. vi. 9 ff. ; Ps. Ixix. 28 ; sce Umbreit, p. 310 
f.), but not so here. The will of God, which in truth can be no arbitrary 
pleasure, is no doubt holy and just ; but it is not here apprehended and 
set forth under this point of view, and from this side, but in reference to its 
independence of all human assistance, consequently in accordance with its 
absolute aseitas, which is to be retained in its clear precision and without 
any qualifying clause to the words dv 6é2cc éAcei,? and must not be obscured 
by ideas of mediate agency that are here forcign. 


1 Observe that in 6» 6éA« the emphasis 
falls on 6éAe, not—as in ver. 15, where ay 
was added—on ov. In the second clause 
this emphatic ov @érAe is then repeated, on 
which occasion 8 (again, on the other hand) 


brings out the corresponding symmetry of 
the relative definition on both sides (Iar- 
tung, Partik. I. p. 168 f.). 

2 Hofmann rightly remarks: the éAcety {Is 
designated as an act, whose object one is, in 


378 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Vv. 19-21. Zhird part of the Theodicée : But man is not entitled to dis- 
pute with God, why He should still find fault. For his relation to God isas 
that of the thing formed to its former, or of the vessel to the potter, who hus 
power to fashion out of a single lump vessels to honour and dishonour. 

Ver. 19. An objection supposed by the apostle (comp. xi. 19) which might 
be raised against ver. 18, not merely by a Jew, but generally. — ovv]} 1m pur- 
suance of the év dé béAe¢ oxAnpiver. — érc] logical, as iniii. 7, and frequently : 
If He hardens out of His own determination of will, why does He still find 
Sault? That fact surely takes away all warrant from the reproaches which 
God makes against hardened sinners, since they have been hardened by the 
divine will itself, to which no one yet offers opposition (with success). —T? 
yap Bova. «.r.a.] ground assigned for the question, ré &re uéug. — avbéotme] 
Who withstands? whereby, concretely, the irresistibility of the divine decree 
is set forth. The divine decree is exalted above any one’s opposition, Accord- 
ing to the present opinion of Hofmann (it was otherwise in the Schriftbew. |. 
p. 246 f.), the opponent wishes to establish that, if the words dy @é2€¢, 90 
pover be correct, no one may offer opposition to that which God wills,\and there- 
fore God can in no one have anything to censure. But thus the thought of 
the question tig av0éoryxe would be one so irrational and impious (as though, 
forsooth, no sinner would be opposed to God), that Paul would not eve® hare 
had ground or warrant to have invented it as an objection. That question 
is not impious, but tragic, the expression of human weakness in presen of 
the divine decree of hardening. — On the classical fotAjua (more frequently 
fobsevua), the thing willed, i.e. captum consilium (only here in Paul), S¢¢ 
Hengel, Lobeck, ad Aj. 44. Comp., as to the distinction between (ob hopa 
and @éAw (Eph. i. 11), on Matt. i. 19. 

Ver. 20. Mevotvye] Imo cero, here not without irony: Yea cerily, aigsh 
(li, 1), who art thou (quantulus es) who repliest against God? See on Luke »- 
28 ; also Ast, Ler. Plat. I. p. 303. On ov rig ci, comp. xiv. 4 ; Plato: Gorg. 
p. 452 B: cid. . . tigel, & advOpwre; Paul does not give arefutation of the ™ 
ért péug., but he repudiates the question as unteurranted ; ‘‘abrumpit Quer j 
onem” (Melanchthon), and that wholly from the standpoint of the ent ai 
unlimited divine omnipotence, on which he has placed himself in the whe 
of the present connection, and consistently with that standpoint. — é man 
roxpiv.] For in ri ére. . . avOéor. there is contained an oppositional TeP if 
namely, to God's finding fault, not to the saying of Scripture, ver. 17 rae 
mann), which the apostle’s present train of thought has already left Laan 
On the expression, comp. Luke xiv. 6 ; Judg. v. 29 ; Job xvi. 8, xxxH- 1 
The word is not found in the Greek writers. But avraroxpiveoOa:, say® ane 
as little belongs to man against God, as to the thing formed belovS* ’ 
question addressed to its former: Why hast thou made me thus (as I am) 


sul. 


virtue of the fact that God willato makehimits [Widerpart] does not correspond with oT 


object. Just so it stands with the o«Anpiver, ficient definiteness to the notion of ae e 
by which God fulfils His own will in the — «e, since the latter everywhere sig" “paul 
person concerned, without having his real and active resistere. So als0O “Com. 
action and character as a ground of deter- (xill. 2; Gal. if. 11; Eph. vi. 13)- 
mination in the matter. Soph. Fragm. 234; Dindorf : rpas5 77” 

1The general expression ‘‘opposition’”  ov3’°Apns avOiorara: Plato, Symp. P- 


var? 
196 D- 


CHAP, IX., 21. 379 


This comparison is logically correct (in opposition to Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 269), 
since the tertium comparationis generally is the constituting of the quality. 
As the moulder produces the quality of the vessel formed by him according 
to his own free will, so God constitutes the moral quality (fitted for blessed- 
ness or not so) of men as He will. Only when it is maintained that the 
comparison with the thing formed must properly refer only to the first for- 
mation of men, and not to the subsequent ethical moulding of those created 
(as in Pharaoh’s case, whom God hardened), can its logical correctness be 
denied. But Paul wrote in a popular form, and it is to do him injustice to 
press his simile more than he himself, judging by the tenor of the entire 
connection, would have it pressed. Gléckler (following Pareus) finds in 
yp épei «.7.4. and ver. 21 an argumentatio a minoread majus: ‘‘If not even in 
the case of an effigy can such a question be addressed to its former, how 
much less can man, etc.” But this also is to be quite laid aside, and we 
must simply abide by the conception of a simile, since that question on the 
part of the thing formed cannot certainly be conceived as really taking 
place, and since the simile itself is of so frequent occurrence in the O. T., 
that Paul has doubtless employed it by way of reminiscence from that source. 
See Isa. xxix. 16, xlv. 9; Jer. xviii. 6; Wisd. xv. 7; Ecclus. xxxvi. 18. 
Vv. 21-23 also show that Paul scts forth God Himself under the image of 
the potter. According to Hofmann, the sense of the question resolves it- 
self into a complaint over the destiny, for which the creature is created by 
God. But the contextual notion of roceiv is not that of creation, but that of 
preparation, adjustment (vv. 21, 22), correlative to the making of the potter, 
who does not create his vessels, but forms and fashions (rAdcavr:) them thus 
or thus ; and oiruc simply specifies the mode of the making : in such shape, in 
such a kind of way, that I have not issued from thy hands as one of another 
mould. Comp. Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 465]. It is the rpérog of the rozeiv, 
which presents itself in the result. 

Ver. 21. "H] The sense, without an interrogation, is : Unless perhaps the 
potter should not hare power over his clay (rot maior), to make (xotjoat, the in- 
finitive of more precise definition,) etc. Comp. Wisd. xv. 7. —éx rov avrov 
gupéu.] The gfpaua (comp. on xi. 16 ; 1 Cor. v. 6) is the lump of the rnAde, 
mixed with water and kneaded, out of which the potter makes the different 
vessels. In the application of the simile, the same lump denotes human 
nature in and by itself, as it is alike in all with its opposite moral capabili- 
ties and dispositions,’ but not yet conceived of in its definite individual 
moral stamp. Out of this, like the potter out of the clay-dough which is 
susceptible of various moulding, God—who does not merely ‘‘ allow to come 
into being” the different moral quality of individuals, in order then to fulfil 
on them the éAceiv or oxAnpivery which Ife will (Hofmann), but effectively 
produces it—makes partly such as are destined to stand in honour (namely, 
as partakers of the Messianic glory), partly such as are to stand in dishonour 


1This massa is by Augustine onesidedly munturinqratiam, and the vessels eis atisiay 
viewed as ‘“peccato originali infecta, cor- those which ad luendum debdilum relinquun- 
rupla damnationique obnozia,” sothatthen = tur. 
the vessels cis rin are those which assu- 


380 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


(namely, through the cternal ardaea). Comp. vv. 22, 23. See also 2 Tim 
ii. 20, 21. The former is the effect of His é/cciv, as in the case of Moses; 
the latter that of [lis oxAypivecv, as in the case of Pharaoh. Much too gen- 
eral and rationalizing, in opposition to the text, is van Hengel’s view, that 
the figure refers generally to the ‘‘inexplicabiles divini rerum humanarum 
regiminig rationes ;"” and Beyschlag’s view amounts to the same thing: 
‘out of the material of the human race (?) which is at His disposal sit 
continucs to come into existence, to stamp individuals with this or that histor 
tcal destination” (2). — ei tysiv] This is the destination of the vessel ; itis 
either to be honoured, so that it has reyqp (as e.g. a sacred vase), or is to expe 
rience the opposite, so that aria cleaves to it (as ¢.g. an utensil destined to 
foul usc). — Observe the purposely-chosen arrangement of the words: the jut 
taposition of otx éyee (or lacks), the juxtaposition of 6 xepausic row Aro 
(although rov 7A, belongs to éovc. ; comp. Buttmann, veut. Gr. p- 332, 
[E. T. 387]) and the prefixing of et¢ riya. 

Vv. 22-29. Fourth part of the Theodicée : God, full of long-suffering, has 
borne with ressels of wrath, in order withal to make known Ilia glory on & estels 
of mercy, aa which Te has also called us Christians both out of the Jews and out 
of the Gentiles. Comp. on vv. 22, 23; Wisd. xii. 20, 21. These two kinds 
of oxetn are necessarily the same as those meant in ver. 21 (in opposition 
Weiss, p. 66 f., and bibl. Theol. p. 383). This is shown by the retention of 
oxen, as well as by the attributes xarypriopéva and a rpo7toipaceyv correspond: 
ing to the xoujoa: of ver. 21, just as cic azd2ecav aptly corresponds to the +s 
ariuiav, and eic¢ dofav to the el¢ tiujv, ver. 21. The former vessels aS cee 
riouéva cic dxwAerav are necessarily oxet:7 dpy7c, for the divine opy7 and arora 
are correlates, which suppose one another. But the guilt, which is supped 
by the notion of opy#, is, in the entirely consistent connection of OUF il 
sage, presented—by the xaraprifecy which precedes the guilt, and 1D yun’ 
of which God has made them such as they are and not otherwise—®* 
consequence of the moral development conditioned by this previous prep® 
ration. Weiss fails to recognize the onesidedness of the mode of view here 
necessarily intended and boldly carried out by the apostle, which w i]] not 
moreover, bear the attempts of Hofmann to explain it away, or those © 
Beyschlag to twist the notion ; the latter least of all, on the subjec 
ground that the strictly understood notion of oxety ép;7¢ is incapable ef Ss yf 
ment, which at the absolute standpoint of the text it is not. 

Ver. 22 f. forms a conditional interrogative sentence, the a 
which is not expressed, but is gathered from the context, viz. : Wilt 
be able to centure the avraroxpivecba: t@ Org of ver. 20 f.? Must thou not ut 
become dumb with thy replies? Comp. on John vi. 61; Acts xx11?- 
Luke xix. 41.1 This aposiopexis with ci J? corresponds perfectly to out od i 
how if, etc. It is to be translated : ‘‘ But how if God, although mind ; 
manifest Ilis wrath and to make known ITis power, has endured with much se 
suffering vessels of wrath, which are nevertheless adjusted for destructio”™ 


2See also Calvin and Calovius, in édoc.; Fritzsche, Conject. p. 830; Hartung, park 
II. p. 212; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. IN. 


CHAP. IX., 22. 381 


order also to make known the riches of Tis glory on vessels of mercy, which He 
has prepared beforehand for glory?” Paraphrased, the sense is: ‘‘ But if God, 
notwithstanding that His holy will disposes Him not to leave unmanifested His 
wrath and His power, but practically to make them known, has nevertheless 
hitherto, full of long-suffering, endured such as are objects of His wrath, and 
spared them from the destruction, to incur which they are nevertheless constituted 
and fitted like a vessel by the potter—endured them and spared them not merely 
as a proof of such great long-suffering towards them, but also with the purpose 
in view of making known, during the period of this forbearance, the fulness of 
His glorious perfection in respect to such as are objects of His mercy, whom He, 
as the potter fashions a vessel, has prepared beforehand, and put in order for 
eternal glory,—how, in presence of that self-denying long-suffering of God 
towards ressels of wrath, and in presence of this gracious purpose, which He 
withal, at the same time, cherishes towards the vessels of mercy, must any 
desire to dispute with God completely depart from thee !"—in detail the 
following points are to be observed : 62 is neither equivalent to otv, nor re- 
sumptive, but the simple peraZarixév, making the transition to something 
Surther, namely, from the previous dismissal of the objector to the refutation 
which puts himto shame.' Tholuck (comp. also Weiss, Reithmayr, and 
others) takes it antithetically, so that the sequence of thought would be : 
‘*T assert this as God's absolute right against you, if you choose to take 
your stand on the point of right ; but how if God has not s0 much as even 
dealt thus, etc. ?’ But such an interpretation, which would require the 
contrast to be much more strongly marked than by the mere dé, is at vari- 
ance with the reteution in the scquel of the figurative oxei7 and their pre- 
paredness ; because it is thence evident, that what Paul had previously said 
concerning the freedom of God to prepare men of different character and 
destiny like potters’ vessels, he by no means intended to cancel, as if God 
had not thus dealt. @éAwv is, with Fritzsche, Philippi, Lamping, and 
several others, to be resolved by although, because only thus is there yielded 
the logically correct preparation for the notion of 7oAA paxpofvyia, which is 
a self-denying one ; the OéAev évdei—achat x.7.A. is the constant essential char- 
acteristic of the holy God, and yet He has borne, etc. The analysis : because 
God willed (so most, including de Wette, Riickert, van Hengel), yiclds the 
sense that God has, in order thereupon to issue all the more evidently a penal 
judgment, endured patiently, etc. ; but this would not amount to a 7oAA7 
paxpoOvupzia, but in fact toa delay occasioned by an ungodlike motive, and 
having in view the heaping up of wrath. Unworthy of God, and only ren- 
dered possible by the importation of parenthetical thoughts, is the sense 
which Hofmann educes: God has not so borne with those men, that He 
would first see how it would be with them, in order then to deal with them 
accordingly ; but He has done so with the will already withal firmly settled, 
to prove, etc. That negative and this already firm settlement of will are 
read between the lines. —OéAwy is placed at the head of the sentence, in 


1 Hofmann asserts, with singular dogma- to a atronger reply. Why not? It intro- 
tism, that the metabatic &¢ (Hartung, I.p. duces a new point (Bauemlein, p. 90). 
165) is not fitted to introduce the transition 


382 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

order by contrast the more forcibly to prepare the mind for the notion for 
which it is intended to prepare, that of the paxpofupia. Td duvardyv atzoi is 
what is possible to Him, what He is in a position to do. Comp. viii. 3, 16 
adivarov rot vouov. Xen. Hell. i. 4. 18, tov r7¢ wéAewe Svvatov. As to the 
matter itself, see 8 Macc. ii. 6. The aorist #veyxey does not refer to the long 
forbearance with Pharaoh (Chrysostom, de Wette, and most) ; the reference 
to him has been already concluded with ver. 18 ; but Paul intends generally 
the time hitherto (which will in like manner run on under this divine long- 
suffering up to the Parousia), when God has still restrained the will of His 
holiness, and has not yet accomplished the destruction of the objects of His 
wrath, which He will do for the first time in judgment. The cxei7 opy%; 
without the article, vessels of wrath, denotes not some, but such oxet'7 gen- 
erally,' qualitatively understood, namely, vessels which are prepared (Ver. 
20 f.) to experience God's wrath on themselves, to be the objects of it. 
The effect of this wrath, which will go forth at the judgment, is ecerlasting 
destruction ;? hence xarnpr. cig avo2., adjusted for destruction (not ‘‘ ripe for 
destruction,” as Weiss and Ifofmann explain), serves to bring the pax pobiyia 
into still clearer relief, which is not that which «waits for the self-decisum of 
human freedom (Beyschlag), especially for amendment (in opposition to 
Bengel, Tholuck, and others), but that which delays the penal jgudgmat 


(comp. on Luke xviii. 7), the prolongatio irae, Jer. xv. 15, et al. [See 
Note CVI. p. 401.] The passage ii. 4 f. is no protest against this so 
self a 


since the apostle does not there, as in the present passage, place bim™® 
the standpoint of the absolute divine will. The subject who has ad justed 
those concerned for azd2ea is God ;* and any saving clause whereby the 
passive sense is made to disappear, or the passive expression—whicb, ter 
ver. 20 f., not even a certain refinement of piety is to be suggested #9" 
derlying—is made to yield the sense that they had adjusted themsclte ae 
destruction, or had deserved it (see Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumen 
Theophylact, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, and many ; also Steudel, Olshause?, 


iteral 
Reithmayr, Beck, Hofmann, and Krummacher), is opposed to the ge 
Meaning and to the context (ver. 21). See also Lamping, p. 213- aad 
mann’s interpretation especially : ‘‘who had advanced to that po a 


Sound themselves therein,” is wrecked on his incorrect explanation ©" |. 
étoinoac ovrwc, ver. 20. In xai iva x.7.4., wal is also, introducing, in addin 
to the object involved in the previous év 7oAAg paxpofuuig, that a 26:16 
ject which God had in view in enduring the vessels of wrath in refer™ 


- er. 
cessels of mercy (the use of the genit. éAfove corresponds to that of 4977/5" i 


ira 
1 And that so that both kinds of vessels against this view. Comp. Ritschl. Joins 


exist among Jcws and Gentiles (see ver. 
24); in opposition to van Hengel, who 
thinks that the vessels of wrath represent 
only the Jewish people; comp. also Welss 
and others. 

2Wahn, Theol. d. N. 7.1. p. 166 f., errone- 
ously refers the dpy) and the azuwAea to 
time, as opposed to eternity. The employ- 
ment of cis dédfay in contrast is decisive 


Dei, p. 15. This remark also applie* 
Beyschlag, p. 57, who thinks that !°" 07, 
notions pertaining to the history of 
kingdom into abstract dogmatic OF @ ever 
though the everlasting amwAca und Case? of 
lasting dofa were not precisely the 
that kingdom's history ! apo. 
3Comp. also Estius and Lecble*- 
Zeit, p. 123. 


CHAP. IX., 22, 23. 383 


22). Besides His great long-suffering towards those, He would also make 
known how rich in glory He was towards these. For had He not so 
patiently tolerated the oxety épyjc¢, but already caused the penal judgment 
to set in upon them (which is to be thought of as setting in along with the 
Parousia, not antecedently to this, like the destruction of Jerusalem), He 
would have had no space in which to make known His glory on oxeieow 
é2£ovce. ([Sce Note CVII. p. 401.] But this purpose was to be served ex- 
actly by that long period of forbearance, during which such oxeiy as were 
prepared beforehand by God for eternal défa should through their calling 
(ver. 24) be led to Christ, and thereby the fulness of the divine glory should 
be made known in respect to them ; which making known is matter of fact 
(Eph. iii. 10). In rio 66g. avrov, the context directs us to think of the 
divine majesty in relation to its beneficent glory, its glory in the bestowal of 
blessing ; but cic défav, as the opposite of cic aaA., denotes the everlasting 
Messianic glory (viii. 21, 30). The verbs éromudfecv and xaraprifery are not as 
different from one another as eristence (Dasein) is from mode of existence 
(Sosein),—an assertion of Hofmann’s as incorrect as it is devoid of proof, — 
but éra:uafev also denotes to constitute qualitaticely, to prepare in the cor- 
responding quality (1 Cor. ii. 9; Eph. ii. 10; Philem. 22; Matt. iii. 3 ; 
Luke i. 17, ii. 31 ; John xiv. 2, e¢ al.). Comp. here especially 2 Tim. ii. 
21. Against such an error the well-known reflexive use of érowudfew éavrdév 
(Rev. viii. 6, xix. 7) should have warned him, as well as the equivalent use 
of the middle (1 Macc. v. 11, xii. 27, and very frequently in the classics). 
It is solely with a view to variety and illustration that Paul uses for the 
same notion the two verbs, of which Hofmann rationalizes the érocuéZev to 
mean : ‘that it is God who has caused those who attain to glory to come in- 
to being for the end of possessing the glory, to which they thereupon attain 
by the fact that Ile pours forth His own upon them.” Nor is there any- 
thing peculiar to be sought behind the change from passive to active ; the 
transition to the active was more readily suggested by the thought of the 
activity of lore. The xpo in xpoyroizacey is not to be disregarded (sce on 
Eph. ii. 10) ; nor is it to be referred to the time before birth, nor to the 
aeterna electio (the latter is the act of God, which before time preceded the 
praeparatio) ; but to the fact that God has so previously fashioned the oxeiy 
éA£ove, before He makes known His glory on them (just as the potter fash- 
ions the vessel), that is, has constituted in them that ethical personality, 
which corresponds to their destination to obtain eternal déa through Christ.’ 
In éxi the act of making known is contemplated as extending over the men, 
who are its objects. If, with Beza and Fritzsche (Conject. p. 29; not 
abandoned in his Comment. p. 343 f., but placed alongside of the ordinary 
mode of connection), we should make kai iva ywwpioy x.7.A. dependent, if not 


1 Thus the mpoerommdge, fo prepare before- Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 40, amounts, who rep- 
hand, is to be understood according tothe resents God as having eternally before Him 
context (vv. 21, 22), in the real sense, there- “the whole future state of the facts as lo the 
fore. of actual constituting, as previously — decizion"’ of the subjects, and dealing ac- 
xarnpr., and notin the sense of the mere cordingly. Comp. Matt. xxv. 84, 41; 2 Tim. 
predestination in the divine counsel (Phi- 1.21; Eph. iL 10, 
lipp!), to which also the explanation of 


384 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

simply on xarypriopzéve (Riickert), yet on xarypr. ei¢ arddecav (so also Bey- 
schlag), in which case xai would have to be taken most simply as and, the 
entire balance of the discourse would be deranged, inasmuch as the impor- 
tant thought «ai iva yrwpicy x.7.4., on which the whole sequel depends, 
would be subordinated to a mere secondary definition. The centre of 
gravity of the argument lies in the bearing with the vessels of wrath on the 
part of the divine long-suffering ; and therzof in ver. 23 there is brought 
forward an explanation glorifying God, which is added in respect to the 
oxein éAéouc.! The connection above referred to would also certainly yield a 
severity of thought, a rigour of telic view, which, granting all the boldness 
of deduction with which Paul follows out the idea of predestination, yet 
finds nothing further in accord with it in the whole treatise ; the thought, 
namely, that God has made ready the oxety opyf¢ for destruction, in order, 
through the effect of the contrast,* the more fully to make known His glory in 
the oxeteor éAéouc. — It is further to be remarked, (1) That the interrogative 
conditional sentence forming an aposiopesis terminates with ver. 23, and is 
not (with Fritzsche) to be extended to ver. 24, since all that follows from 
ver. 25 onward belongs to the topic started in ver. 24. (2) That we are not, 
following Reithmayr and older commentators with Philippi,* to supply a 
second ct between xaf and iva in ver. 23, and to assume that Paul had intended 
at the close of ver. 23 to say, éxddecev avrobc, but that he at once directed 
his glance at the concretes, and therefore wrote ofc nai ixéAecev qyac instead 
of éxdAecev abrobc. Thereby a rambling and confusion in the presenting of 
his thoughts is, quite unnecessarily, imputed to the apostle, which would be 
very glaring, particularly in a dialectic passage so stamped throughout with 
clearness, definiteness, and precision as the present. Similarly, but still 


1 Beyschlag incorrectly objects, that thus 
the notion of long-suffering is deprived of 
its value ; for it isno more such. if it ts ex- 
ercised not for the sake of its objects, but 
for the love of others. This does not take 
account of the fact that Paul has certainly 
expressed with sufficient definiteness, by his 
«ai before iva, that he is speaking only of 
an aim which subsisted along with others, 
not of that which took place alone. 

2 Beyschlag here pushes to the utmost 
his explanation from the history of God's 
kingdom, in order to obtain the very oppo- 
site of this rigour: ‘If God now drives the 
Jewish people through hardening towards 
destruction, He does certainly no more 
towards them than what they have richly 
deserved (%); but, at the same time, by 
breaking the brittle shell of Judaism, in 
which the gospel has germinated (?), He 
turns the same to account for the unfet- 
tered adoption of the Gentile world, and 
brings in, along with the day of judg- 
ment (%) on Israel, the day likewise (?) of the 
glorification of the community chosen (?) 
by Him out of all the world." This is con- 


sistent interpolation, with an clastic inter- 
pretation of the strict notions conveyed by Ure 
words. 

3In regard to my explanation, Philippi 
stumbles especially at the fact that Paul 
has not written ewi rAciova oxen érdovs. 
But the apostle has in truth the two kinds 
of oxevy in view solely according to their 
quality » the opposition thought of by him 
is purely qualitative; a numerical compar 
fson did not concern him. Had God not 
been so long-suffering towards tressels of 
wrath, He would not have been able to 
make known how richin glory He was 
towards men of an opposite sort—towards 
vessels of grace. The reflection is not con- 
cerned with how many of one and the other 
class were in reality extant; but with the 
fact that God, with His long-suffering exer- 
cised in spite of His holy will towards the 
first category, had purposed at the same 
time the making known of His d6éa respect- 
ing the second category. Philippi’s doubt, 
still expressed in the third edition, touches 
Fritzsche’s exposition, but hardly mine. 


CHAP. IX., 24, 25. 385 
more confusedly, Tholuck. The language in vv. 22, 23 is condensed and 
rich in thought, but runs on according to plan and rule in its form. (8) 
The apodosis (which on our understanding is not expressed) is not to be 
found in ver. 23, because this would only be possible by arbitrarily supplying 
hoc fecit, or the whole preceding chief sentence. So Ewald : ‘‘ so He did that 
also, in order that He might make known, on the other hand, the riches of | 
His glory, etc. ;” so also Th. Schott and Hofmann. — With our explanation 
agree substantially Calvin, Grotius, and several others ; including Winer, 
p. 530 [E. T. 570] ; Baur, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 200 ; Lamping and 
van Hengel, whilst Umbreit educes something which has no existence in the 
passage, as though it ran: ei dé deAev 6 Oedc . . . . GAN qveynev x.t.A. (He 
has, on the contrary, endured, etc.). 

Ver. 24. [See Note CVIII. p. 401.] Not a confirmation of the design of 
the divine endurance expressed in ver. 23 (Hofmann), but as the continu- 
ation of the relative construction most readily suggests, the concrete more 
precise designation of those intended by oxein éXéovc, and that for the confirma- 
tion of what was said of them by 4 rporroipacev tig défav, The xai denotes what 
is added to this rpoyroip. ¢. 6. : a8 which oxein He has also called us to this 
glory of the Messianic kingdom. — otc] attracted by jyuac into the same gen- 
der. See Bernhardy, p. 302; Winer, p. 156 f. [E. T. 166]. The relative 
after an interrogative sentence has the emphasis of an oiro¢ yép (Kithner, ad 
Xen. Mem. i. 2. 64) ; but the masculine is first introduced here, not in the 
preceding relative sentence (against Hofmann's objection), because the 
neuter expression 4 mpoyroiu. was required by the conformity with the cor- 
relate xarnptiopéva. — ov pdvov x.t.A.] Therefore without preference of the 
Jews. ‘‘ Judaeus credens non est eo ipso vocatus, guod Judacus est, sed 
vocatus est ex Judaeis,” Bengel. 

Ver. 25. Of the xa? é& évév' it is shown that it is in accordance with (d¢) a 
divine prophetic utterance. The 2¢ 'Iovdaiwy required no confirmation from 
prophecy ; but the other statement required it the more, inasmuch as it was 
exactly the Gentiles who had become believing that had been introduced 
a8 oxein etAfovc, in place of the Jews who had remained unbelieving. — 
év tO ‘'Qo.| in libro Hoseae: comp. Mark i. 2; John vi. 45 ; Acts vii. 42. 
The passage Hos. ii. 25 (the citation varies both from the LXX. and the 
original text) treats of the idolatrous people of the ten tribes, to whom God 
announces pardon and renewed adoption as the people of God. The apostle 
recognizes in this pardon the type of the reception of the Gentiles to salva- 
tion, and consequently, as its prophetically Messianic sense, a prediction of 
the calling of the Gentiles ; and from this point of view, which has its war- 


1 According to Hofmann (comp. his Weis- 
sag.u. rf. Il. p. 218, and Schriftbew. I. p. 251), 
Paul has referred the quotation to the Jew- 
ish people, in so far, namely, as it was 
called out of free grace, according to which 
the bestowal of grace promised by Script- 
ure appears as an act of God not founded 
on the condition of the subjects. But this 
after the immediately preceding GAAG cai ef 


¢@veyv is quite inadmissible, as it is also for- 
bidden by the transition to Jerael, which 
first appears in ver. 27. Very rashly, Hof- 
mann terms the establishing of the typt- 
cally prophetic reference to the Gentiles 
an ‘idle talk." Comp. 1 Pet. ff. 10, with 
Wiesinger and Huther thereon. See also 
on x. 2. The simply correct view is 
already given by Chrysostom. 


386 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


rant in the likeness of category to which the subjects belong (comp. Heng- 
stenberg, Christol. I. p. 251), he has also introduced the deviations from the 
words of the original and of the LXX., transposing the two parallel sen- 
tences, and rendering the thought ipa 7 av Aaw pou x.7.4. (LXX.) by xatiow 
x.7.A., because the divine xAjore of the Gentiles loomed before him as the 
Messianic fulfilment of the saying. Yet we are not thereby justified in 
understanding xaAéow and xAnfyoovrar, ver. 26, immediately in the sense of 
rocation (Fritzsche) ; for xadeiv revd rt, to call any one to something, is without 
linguistic warrant, and the departure thus assumed from the original and 
from the LXX. would be unnecessary, and would amount to a mechanical 
proceeding. On the contrary, xadeiv is to be left in its ordinary significa- 
tion to name (comp. Hos. i. 6) ; the divine naming, however, as ‘‘ my people, 
my beloved,” of which the Gentiles were previously the very opposite, is in 
point of fact none other than just their calling to Messianic salration, in con- 
sequence of which they are then named also from the human side vic! Oe 
Savro¢ (ver. 26), and are therewith recognized according to the theocratic 
status which they have obtained. The vivid thought laid hold of the ex 
pression «a2éow the more readily, since in this word to call and to name form 
a single notion. Accordingly we must translate : I will name that whichis 
not my people, my people; and her who is not beloved, beloved. Both expres 
sions refer in the original to the significant names of a son (‘D} x) and of a 
daughter (WON) ®) of the prophet, which he had been directed to give 
them as symbolically significant of the rejection of the people, Hos. i. 6-9. 
—On the ov standing beside the noun with the article, where the denial 
refers to a concrete definite subject, see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 276. 

‘Ver. 26. Hos. ii. 1 (almost literally from the LXX., i. 10) is joined to the 
former passage, so that both are regarded as forming one connected decla- 
ration. Often so in Rabbinical usage, even when the passages belong '0 
different writcrs. Sce Surenhusius, xara2/., p. 464. 45. — «ai éora:] TM, 
and it (the following) will come to pass. Comp. Acts. ii. 21. These words 
-are included in those of the prophecy (see also the LXX.), and therefore 4 
colon is not to be placed after xa/, as though they were the apostle’s (Hof- 
mann and others).—These words also treat, in Hosea himself, of the theo- 
cratic restoration of the exiled people of the kingdom of Ephraim, so that 
‘tv 7@ térw ov' denotes Palestine, whither the outcasts were to return (not the 
place of exile, as Hengstenberg, I. p. 248, and others think). But Paul 
recognizes the antitypic fulfilment, as before at ver. 25, in the calling of the 
Gentiles, who, previously designated by God as not His people, become now, 
in consequence of the divine calling, sons of the living (true) God. Sce on ver. 
25. But in this sense of Messianic fulfilment, according to Paul, the 7é=0 
ov épptOn avroic x... cannot be Palestine, as it is in the historical sense of the 
prophet ; nor yet is it ‘‘the communion of saints” (de Wette, comp. Baum- 
garten-Crusius : ‘‘the ideal state, the divine kingdom”), nor the ‘‘ cvedus 
Christianorum, ubi diu dubitatum est, an recte gentiles reciperentur” 
(Fritzsche) ; but simply—and this is also the ordinary explanation—the local- 


! For analogous examples of of after év r. réxy, see Bornemann, Schol. in Lue. p. 18. 





CHAP. IX., 27, 28. 387 
tty of the Gentiles, the Gentile lands. There, where they dwelt, there they, 
called by God to the salvation of the Messiah, were now named sons of the 
true God ; and there, too, it had been before said to them: Ye are not my 
people ! in so far, namely, as this utterance of rejection was the utterance 
of God, which, published to the Gentiles, is conceived, in the plastic spirit 
of poetry, as resounding in all Gentile lands. To suppose the locality with- 
out significance (Krehl), is inconsistent with its being so carefully designated. 
And to take év ra rér7yw ov, with Ewald, not in a local sense at all, but in 
that of instead that, even if it agree with the Hebrew (comp. Hitzig), can- 
not be made to agree with the Greek words. The LXX. understood and 
translated WR 0))'93 locally, and rightly so. 

Vv. 27, 28. Ef Paul has, in vv. 25, 26, shown aAAa xai && eAvdv to be based 
on prophecy, he now begins, seeing that the accepted Gentiles have taken 
the place of the excluded Jews, also to adduce prophetical evidence of the 
exclusion of the greater part of Israel. — dé] leads over to another prophet,’ 
who prophesies something further, and that concerning Jsrae: ‘‘ But 
Esaias cries respecting Israel, etc.”” — xpagec] Of the loud crying, and there- 
with peculiarly impassioned, profoundly moved, and urgent call of the 
speaker, comp. Acts xxiii. 6, xxiv. 21; John vii. 28, 37, xii. 44, i. 15. — 
irép| Like repi, in respect off as, since Demosthenes, frequently with verbs 
of saying. The quotation is Isa. x. 22 f., not quite closely following the 
LXX., and with a reminiscence (6 app. tr. vidv "Iop.) of Hos. ii. 1. — 71d 
irdAecupa ow.) The remnant concerned (with emphatic accentuation, i.e. not 
more than the remnant) will be saved ; that is, in the sense of the apostle : 
out of the countlessly great people only that small number which remains after 
the rejection of the hardened mass will attain to the Messianic salvation.* With 


1 Only this view agrees with the connec- 
tion, since the prophet Hosea was previous- 
ly cited by name, and now another is like- 
wise introduced by name. Therefore we 
are not tosay, with van Hengel, that by é¢ 
the prophet is placed in contradistinction 
to God Himsef speaking. But Hofmann'’s 
opinion, that the position of vwrép tov “Iap. 
(for Paul has not placed vumép & tov ‘lop. 
first) proves that ver. 25 refers to Israel, is in- 
correct ; because, if ver. 25 did not refer to 
the Gentiles, Paul would have had no rea- 
son for here adding vrép +. "Iop., since in 
the very passage under citation Israel is ex- 
pressly named. The train of thought is: (1) 
Hoeea gives the divine prediction respect- 
ing the not-God's-people (respecting the 
Gentiles) vv. BM, 2; (2) but Jsaiah utters a 
prophecy which contains information re- 
specting the relation of Jerae to the recep- 
tion of salvation. Thus both propheis eatab- 
lish what was said in ver. 24, ov udvow ef 
"lovSaiey, aAAd cat éf éOvar,—namely, Hosea 
the cai ¢£ éOvwy, and Isaiah the ov pdvoy ef 
‘lovéacer. Thus the emphasis in ver. 27 
lies primarily on "Heaias 8¢, whose prophecy, 


differing from the oracle of Hosea, is to be 
introduced by the significant xpdgec vip +. 
‘Iop. Paraphrase somewhat thus: But 
Isaiah, what do we hear from him? We 
hear the cry respecting Jerael, etc. 

2 Hofmann misinterprets the passage in 
Isaiah, making it to mean that ¢he whole 
people Israel, which shall return, be it never so 
numerous, is called a ‘‘ remnant,’ for the 
reason that it bas come out of a severe time 
of distress. In correspondence with this 
sense, the passage, which is incorrectly 
translated by the LXX. (because they have 
édy yévyras, and add avray to caraAciuua), 1s 
held to be rightly understood by Paul: 
** that the remnant which odtains salvation is 
one wtih the people, of which the case ta aup- 
posed, that tt is then as numerous as the sand 
by the sea.” Against this it may be urged 
(1) that 13 33¥* INW according to the con- 


text (comp. also vii. 3) cannot mean: the 
return of the people will be the return 
of a remnant, so that the latter would be 
the people itself, but only: a remaining 
part (not the mass) will return in Use people, 


388 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

this understanding Paul employed the translation in the LXX.—not verb- 
ally exact, but corresponding to the Messianic reference—of 23% by cudjer- 
tat (which they understood of the deliverance by a return into Palestine) in 
the Messianic sense. In Isaiah the word refers to the return to God, is con- 
verted, of which the Messianic cdfeofa: is just the consequence. 

Ver. 28. The Hebrew runs : \}7% TY INQ 792 °2 APIy AoW ynn [M2 
IRI? TPR My Niwgy MYT, Letirpation is decided,’ streaming justi 
(i.e. penal justice) ; for extirpation and decision (penal decision) the Lord 
Jehovah Zebaoth makes (i.e. is on the point of executing) in the midst of the 
whole earth (on Zion). The LXX. did not understand these words, and 
translated them incorrectly (on how they came to do so, see Fritzsche, also 
Maier, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1845, I. p. 190 f.). This cannot be denied ; nor 
are we, with Olshausen, to attempt to conceal or smooth over the fact by. 
arbitrary interpretation of the Hebrew. Paul has nevertheless felt no 
scruple in abiding by their translation with a few unimportant deviations, 
since its sense is not less suitable than that of the original to the connection 
and object which the declaration here subserves. The words, as Paul has 
them, mean : ‘‘ For utterance-accomplishing and (as matter of fact, through 
a speedy execution of it) short-cutting in righteousness (is He) ; for a short- 
cut utterance (i.e. a saying in which the whole penal decision is summarily 
included) will the Lord bring to pass on the carth.” In reference to single 
expressions, remark : (1) Aéyov, which belongs to both participles, is neither 
decree (usually so taken, but this is not its meaning), nor matter of fad 
(Beza, Melanchthon, Castalio, Calvin, Koppe, Reithmayr, formerly also 
Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. Il. p. 213, and various others), which it never 
denotes with Paul, nor reckoning,* which, in connection with roiv, would 
be contrary to idiom, but dictum, an utterance, which He has delivered ; 
and this indeed, in the first clause of the verse, which expresses the exect- 
tive justice of God in general, is to be understood quite generally ; comp. 
Erasmus, Paraphr. : ‘‘ quicquid dixit, plene praestet et quidem compendio.” 
In the second clause, on the other hand, which adduces proof of that gen- 


i.e. among the people,—the rest not. (2) 
The LXX. have understood the original 
substantially with perfect correctness, 
inasmuch as, instead of writing word 
for word +r. cardA. owOno. év avrois, they 
give the explanation: 1. «ardA. atvray 
awOro. (3) Paul follows the LXX. in this, only 
passing over the self-understood avrayv. 
That the LXX. render a by yérnra:, and 
Paul writes j instead, is entirely unessen- 
tial. 

1 According to Hofmann, yon must be 
not predicate, but adjective : ‘* an end-mak- 
ing, which actually and truly makes an end," 
which permits no further extension of the 
present state of the world; such an end- 
making will bring in the state of righteous- 
ness as with the force of waves. Incor- 
rectly, because thus ww is made to con- 
tain something which is not in It (even at 


Job xv. 1), and because mpw is understood 
with Drechsler contrary to the context, 
and unsuitably to the figurative oe 
(comp. viii. 7, xxvifi. 15, 18). 

2 So now Hofmann, omitting (see critical 
notes) the words ev dtaaroavry: 61 Acyor our 
retuns. The Acyov roecy is supposed to be 
the appointment of an accounting, which is 
designated by curreAciv as a settlement Of a 
count, and by ovyrévrvev as an abridged pro 
cess of accounting. The notion of holding & 
reckoning is certainly expressed in the 
Greek writers by the familiar phrases 
yor AapBavery, Urd row Adyor ayey, Aéyor airy 
etc., but not by Adyow woeiv, which has 
quite other significations, and in which 
Adyos never means reckoning. Besides, w~ 
téuvey with Acyor demands for the latter, 
according to constant usage, the significa 
tion of speech, saying. 





CHAP. IX., 29. 389 
eral description of God with the concrete case, the occurrence of which is 
predicted, the divine saying of ver. 27, delivered through the prophet, is in- 
tended. (2) owréuvew, used of something that is said (speeches, answers, 
and the like), like cuva:peiv, never denotes in Greek anything else than to 
cut short,' and it is therefore inadmissible to depart from this signification 
of the ovvrouia Adywv (Plato, Phaedr. p. 267B). We must, however, observe 
that in owréuven this ‘ comprising in short” must be a matter of fact, con- 
sisting in the short summary despatch of the matter (comp. LXX. Isa. xxviii. 
22 ; Eur. Rhes. 450), like our ‘‘cut it short ;” while, on the other hand, 
ouvrerunptvoy (perfect) refers to the concise, short, and stern style in which 
the saying itself is conceived (rd imdéAenupa cwOpoera !).2 Passages in which 
ouvréuvew denotes overtake and the like (as Soph. Ant. 1090) have no bearing 
on the present one. Neither are we to adopt what Tholuck reads into it, 
that God will accomplish the promise delivered in Isa. x. 20, 21, only with 
great limitation of the number of the people, which would, besides, be not at 
all suitable to the perfect participle ouvvrerunuévov. Moreover, the LXX. 
cannot have meant Aéyov of the word of promise, but, according to the sense 
of the original, only of the penal judicial declaration. (3) év dixacoobvy does 
not stand for the righteousness of faith (Fritzsche), but is to be referred, ac- 
cording to the context, as in the Hebrew, to the judicial righteousness of 
God. (4) The participles ovyrer. and ovyréuvwy require only éori to be sup- 
plied.* See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 776 ; Bernhardy, p. 470 ; Kihner, II. 
1, p. 37. And (5) as respects the argumentative force of the yép, it lies in- 
the fact that, if God causes such a penal judgment to be issued on Israel, 
the part of the people remaining spared, which obtains salvation, can only 
be the iréAecuua out of the mass, that which remains over. Incorrectly Hof- 
mann, in accordance with his erroneous interpretation of vv. 27, 28, ex- 
plains : So long as this present world-period endures, Israel’s final salvation 
might remain in suspense ; ‘' but Jehovah leaves it not on this footing, He makes 
an end and settles accounts with the world, and the remnant which is then Israel's 
people returns to Him and attains to salvation.” 

Ver. 29. Since the preceding prophecy was not introduced by xaOd¢ or dc, 
we must here punctuate kal, xafi¢ mpoeipnxev ‘Hoalac, et v7 x.T.A., 80 that Paul 
adopts as his own‘ the words of Isa. i. 9 (closely following the LXX.): 


1 Plato, Protag. p. 34 D, Ep. 3, p. 318 B; 
Aeschines, p. 82 2; Euripides, Jph. A. 
1249, Acol. fr. v.2; Lucian, bis. accus. 2% ; 
Soph /fragm. 411, Dind.; 2 Macc. x. 10; 
Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 1180. 

2The Vulgate has, with literal correct- 
ness, rendered brevians and breviatum. Van 
Hengel abides by this signification, but as- 
saumes as the sense of currduvery: de ipsa 
tamen minalione nonnihil detrahens, so that 
God, in virtue of His righteousness, does 
not reject all, but saves a small part, con- 
sisting of the less refractory ; currerunpdvoy 
he then makes dependent on roujou: “ fa- 
ctet, ul dictum suum inctsum sit, t.e. ut mina- 
tio sua plerosque lantum Judaeorum attin- 


gat, de ea detrahens ad salutem pauciorum." 
But so overduvev would amount to the 
sense of subjecting something in part to de- 
duction; but it is not employed thus of 
speeches, but only of things, Thuc. vill. 45. 2 
Thy Te picOodopav fuvéresev), Xen. Lier. iv. 9, 
(rag 8aravas cuyrépvecy). 

3 The sudjecf, God, is here understood of 
itself according to the following context, 
so that it is unnecessary to parenthesize 


Gre... wotyoe in order to gain xvptos a8 
subject, as van Hengel artificially pro- 
poses. 


4To supply an apodosis (Philippi: ore xai 
vuy exec) is therefore completely superfluous, 
and consequently arbitrary. 


390 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


‘* And, as Isaiah has prophesied, if the Lord of Zebaoth had not left behind ts 
us a seed (in the sense of the apostle, this is that very téZeupa of ver. 2%, 
which, like seed out of which new fruit grows, preserves and continues the 
true people of God), «we should hare become as Sodom, and like to Gomorrah ;” 
the whole nation (by exclusion from Messianic salvation) would have with- 
out exception perished (fallen unto dmdAeca). — xpoeip.] Not to be under- 
stood, with Baumgarten-Crusius and van Hengel, following Erasmus, Bers, 
Calvin, Grotius, Michaelis, and others: has said at an earlier place, for local 
specifications of this kind are quite unusual in quotations with Paul, and 
here such reference would be without significance. It is used in the pr- 
phetic sense ; the prophet has said of the fate of the people in Ais time, with 
a forecast of its corresponding fate in the present time, what holds good 
of Israel's present ; the mass of its people is hardened by divine judgment, 
and forfeits salvation, and only a holy ovépyua is left to it.’ — d¢ Tép.] Two 
modes of conception are intermixed : become like, and become as, LXX., Hos. 
iv. 6 ; Ezek. xxxii. 2; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 140 f. Compare the classical 
connection of énoc0¢ and duoiwe With oc and cozep. 

Vv. 30-33. [See Note CEX. p. 402.] The blame of their exclusion ress 
upon the Jews themselves, because they strove after righteousness not by faith, but 
by works ; they took offence at Christ. Observe how Paul here ‘with the 
fewest words touches the deepest foundation of the matter” (Ewald). 

Vv. 80, 31. From the preceding prophecies, ver. 25 ff. (not with particular 
regard to ver. 16, as de Wette), Paul now, in order to prepare the transition 
to the diari; &re x.7.4., ver. 82, draws the historical result, and that in the 
form of question and answer : ‘‘ What shall we say then ? (we shall say) that 
Gentiles, they who strove not after righteousness, have obtained righteous 
ness, but righteousness which proceeds from faith ; while Israel, on the 
contrary, in spite of its endeavour after the law which justifies, has not 
attained to this law.” Others take dre . . . é0ace to be a question, namely 
either: ‘‘ What are we to say to the fact, that Gentiles, etc.?” So, following 
Theodore of Mopsuestia and others, IIeumann, Flatt, Olshausen, also Morus, 
who takes dr: as because. Or: ‘‘ What are we therefore to say ? Are we to 
say that Gentiles, etc. ?” So Reiche, who is then compelled to consider é«. 
d2 tiv éx riot, as an answer inserted as in a dialogue, and to sce in ver. 3 
the ‘removal of the ground of the objection by a disclosure of the cause of 
the phenomenon, which has now no longer anything surprising init.” But 
Reiche’s view is to be rejected, partly on the ground that the insertion of 
supposed answer, dc. dé tr. éx w., is a makeshift and unexampled in Paul's 
writings ; partly because 7: . . . ég@acr, even with the exclusion of du. # 
r. éx 7., contains complete Pauline truth, and consequently does not at all 
resemble a problematic inquiry, such as Paul elsewhere introduces by 
Epodyev, and then refutes as erroneous (see iv. 1). This, too, in opposition to 
Th. Schott, who, taking ri otv .. . dixaosivay; as a single independent 
question (What shall we now say to the fact, that Gentiles, etc.), then finds 


1Comp. on mpoep,, Acts i. 16; Plato, Rep. p. 619 C; Lucian, Jor. Frag. ¥: Pals? 
vi. 3. 2. 


CHAP. IX., 31, 32. 391 


the answer in dixatootvyy d2 ix ricrewc, but afterwards, no less strangely than 
groundlessly, proposes to connect dari immediately, no punctuation being 
previously inserted, with the proposition ‘Icpa7A dé x.7.2. Finally, it is 
decisive against Heumann and others, that the answer of ver. 32, dr: ov« x.7.A., 
does not concern the Gentiles at all (see ver. 30). — dy] Gentiles (comp. ii. 
14), not the Gentiles as a collective body. On the part of Gentiles righteous- 
ness was obtained, etc. — rd ps) didx.] They, whose endeavour (for they had 
not a revelation, nor did they observe the moral law) was not directed towards 
becoming righteous, they obtained righteousness, but— and hereby this 
paradox of sacred history is solved—that which proceeds from faith. In 
the first two instances dc. is used without any special definition from the 
Christian point of view ; the latter only comes to be introduced with the 
third dix. — d2] comp. iii. 22 ; Phil. ii. 8. — On the figurative d:dxec, borrow- 
ed from the running for the prize in the racecourse, as also on the correlate 
xataAauBaverv, comp. Phil. ili. 12-14; 1 Cor. ix. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 11, 12; 
Ecclus. xi. 10, xxvii. 8 ; on didxew dixacootvyr, Plato, Rep. p. 545 A. Ob- 
serve the threefold dixaootv7, as in ver. 31 the repetition of véyuov dixacoc. 
The whole passage is framed for pointed effect : ‘‘ Vechementer auditorem 
commovet ejusdem redintegratio verbi . . . quasi aliquod telum saepius 
perveniat ineandem partem corporis.” Awuet. ad Herenn. iv. 28. 

Vv. 31,' 82. Israel, on the contrary, striving after the law of righteousness, 
has (in respect to the mass of the people) not attained to the law of righteous- 
ness. —vépov dtxacoo.] The law affording righteousness. Quite erroneous is 
the view of Chrysostom, Theodorct, Calvin, Beza, Piscgtor, Bengel, Heu- 
mann, that it is a hypallage for dixacootvyy véuov ; and that of Rickert and 
K6liner is arbitrary, that Paul, in his effort after brevity and paradox, has 
used a condensed phrase for rdv véuov o¢ véuov dix. On the contrary, the jus- 
tifying law is in both instances (comp. dcxasootyqy, ver. 30) to be left with- 
out any more precise concrete definition, and to be regarded as the ideal 
(comp. also Fritzsche and Philippi), the reality of which the Israelites strove 
by their legal conduct to experience in themselves (to possess), but did not obtain. 
The justifying law ! this is the idea, which they pursued, but to the reality 
they remained strangers. If, finally, we chose, with many others (including 
Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Reiche, Kéllner, Krehl, de Wette), to understand the 
first véu. dcx. of the historical Mosaic law, and the second of Christianity, 
d:axuv would be opposed to us ; for this, according to ver. 30, expresses not 
the endeavour to fulfil the law, but the endeavour to possess the law, as, indeed, 
ovx EpOace ei¢ must correspond to xaréAaZe in ver. 30, and therefore must sim- 
ply denote non pervenit (Vulg.), not : non praevenit (Erasmus, Estius, Ham- 
mond, and others, including Ewald and Jatho). Comp. on Phil. iii. 16. 
The reading of Lachmann, ei¢ véuov ovx épOace, Which Hofmann follows, is ex- 
plained by the latter : Israel was set upon fulfilling a law which teaches what is 
right (Stoxuv vdpuov dixacoctryc), but did not thereby succeed, did not become 


1 Ver. 31, although belonging to the an- dent proposition, because thus more em- 
swer to the zi od» cpovyev, and therefore  phatic, and because é:ari, ver. 82, refers 
regarded by many as still dependent onér, — only to ver. S81. 
is nevertheless better taken as an indepen- 


392 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Evvonog (eig véuov ovx épface) ; because the law remained for it, likes 
shadow, ever only near, but unattainable, thus Israel had not at all come 
to hdve its standpoint generally in a law and to live in it, neither in that of the 
Old Testament, which it sought to follow, nor in that of the New Testament, 
on which it turned its back. An entirely subjective artificial complication 
of ideas, with invented accessories, and not even historically correct, since 
in fact the Israelites stood and lived only too much éy véuy and as dropo, 
but could not withal attain to the véuoc diexacocbyng. This dixatocrvys 
is the tragic point of the negative counter-statement, and hence is indis- 
pensable in the text. — did ri] 8c. cig véuov dix. ob éGOacev ; answer : drt ote ik 
siorewc. 8c. ediwfav véuov dix. For, had they started from faith in their striv- 
ing, they would have obtained in Christianity the realization of their ¢0- 
deavour, the véuov dixacootvye ; through faith in Christ, to whom the law l- 
ready points (iii. 31, x. 5 ff. ; John v. 46), they would have become right- 
eous, and would thus in the gospel have really attained what floated before 
them as an idea, the justifying law. — we é& ipy.] d¢ can neither denote ® 
hypocritical conduct (Theophylact), nor presumed works (Fritzsche), 2% 
quasi (van Hengel, following the Vulgate) ; for, indeed, the Jews really wt 
out from the works of the law in their endeavour. On the contrary; it 
means : Because their didcecy was in the way, in which a dubxec starting from 
works is constituted ; the (perverted) kind and quality of the endeavour ''8 
designated, comp. 2 Cor. ii. 17; John i. 14. The és épy. is by o¢ OF ought 
into fuller relief ; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 757 f. — rpocixowav x.t.7.] without 
yap (see critical remarks), but thus coming in all the more strikingly - they 
stumbled, etc. ; that is the fatal fact, which befell them in their didxee*s and 
caused that they oix x wicrews x.7.A. Tad they not stumbled at the stone ° 
stumbling, they would have entered on the right line of endeavour éx 7/07 
instead of their perverted one d¢ é¢ Jpyuv vépov. The simple appropriate? 
clearness, and force, with which the zpooéxopay «.r.2. is thus introduc 
must.exclude the connection with aA’ we é& Epywv véuov (LachmanD): fol- 
lowed also by Th. Schott (‘‘ but, as could not but happen in conseque Pee ; 
works, came to ruin on the stone of stumbling”). The A@o¢ xpooxou“per 
the stone on which one stumbles (trips), is Christ, in so far as occasion JOT i 
belief is taken at his manifestation (especially at His death on the cros=: 
Cor. i. 23). Comp. Luke ii. 34 ; 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8. The figure is in peri 
correspondence with the conception of the didxecv, and was perhaps select 


Tav amotyoayTuy wrduactat 6 Xpioté¢g’ avto¢ yap ka éavrov BepéAog nai ESpatee 
eréOn. 


Ver. 88. This rpoofcopay ro Aidy Tt. tpoox. ensued—and this is the 0<¢4 pore 


has, 
1To this, according to the real sense, of Suwxe» can be supplied. Hofman™ pder- 


Philippi’s explanation amounts; taking ws, in consistency with his erroneous 
however, of the eudjectire conception of the standing of ver. 381, extorted from acto 
dwweortes, equivalent to ws P@ncéuevon «.7.A. words thesense, “that Jsrad fancied J fue 
This is inadmissible, because, as with é& be in the position of a doing, by €#7" » » 
nior., 8S0also with ¢¢ épywy, only the notion  arhich tt was in pursuit of the law of 


the 


CHAP. IX., 33. 393 


herein—in conformity with the prophetic declaration, according to which 
Christ is laid as the stone of stumbling in Isracl (év Ecdv, as the theocratic seat 
of the people), and faith on Him would have been that very thing which 
would have preserved them from the forfeiture of salvation.—Isa. xxviii. 16 
and viii. 14 are blended into one declaration, with a free but pertinent va- 
riation both from the original and also from the LXX. With Jeaiah, in the 
Jirst passage, the theocracy—the kingdom of Jehovah,’ whose sacred basis 
and central seat is the temple—is the stone laid by God ; and in the second, 
God Himself is the stone of stumbling and the rock of offence for His enc- 
mies, But Paul (comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6-8) justly perceives in the passages proph- 
ecies of the Messiah (as do also the Rabbins), and, in connection with the Messi- 
anic character, of all the glory and triumph of the theocracy, the fulfiller of 
which is the Messiah. — 6 mor. éx. avt@] he who relies on Him, in the Messi- 
anic fulfilment : he who believes on Christ. Comp. x. 113; 1.Tim. i. 16; 1 
Pet. ii. 6; Luke xxiv. 25. Christ, the object of faith, is conceived of as 
He to whom faith adheres as its foundation (comp. Bernhardy, p. 250) ; 
there is therefore no need of the circumlocution : ‘‘fidem in Deo ponit 
Christo fretus” (van Hengel). See also on Matt. xxvii. 42, and comp. éAzi- 
lev éxi, xv. 12. We may add that zac, if it were the genuine reading, 
would not have the emphasis ; but the latter lics upon 6 moretwv, as the op- 
posite of xpooxémrev. — xatatcyvvOjoerat] The LXX. have this verb (xazaco- 
xvv69), apparently deviating from the original text, Isa. xxviii. 16, where 
probably they have merely given an inaccurate translation of WM, accord- 
ing to the approximate sense, and have not adopted another reading, namely 
Zw" (Reiche, Olshausen, Hofmann).—In the sense of the Messianic fulfil- 
ment of the saying, ‘‘ he will not be put to shame” means, ‘‘ he will not for- 
JSeit the Messianic salvation.” Comp. on v. 5. : 


Remark.—The contents of ix. 6-29, as they have been unfolded by pure ex- 
egesis, certainly exclude, when taken in and by themselves, the idea of a decree 
of God conditioned by human moral self-activity, as indeed God’s absolie activ- 
ity, taken as such by itself, cannot depend on that of the individual. On the 
other hand, a fatalistic determinism, the ‘‘tremendum mysterium” of Calvin, 
which, following the precedent of Augustine, robs man of his self-determination 
and free personal attitude towards salvation, and makes him the passive ob- 
ject of divine sovereign will, may just as little be derived as a Pauline doctrine 
from our passage. It cannot be so, because our passage is not to be considered 
as detached from the following (vv. 30-33, chap. x. xi.); and because, gener- 
ally, the countless exhortations of the apostle to obedience of faith, to steadfast- 
ness of faith and Christian virtue, as well as all his admonitions on the possi- 
bility of losing salvation, and his warnings against falling from grace, are just 
sO many evidences against that view, which puts aside the divine will of love, 
and does away the essence of human morality and responsibility. See also, 
against the Calvinistic exposition, Beyschlag, p. 2 ff. If we should assume, 
with Reiche and Kd6liner, Fritzsche and Krehl, that Paul, in his dialectic 


1 8ee the varying Interpretations In Gesenlus, Drechsler, Hofmann. The latter under- 
stands the house of David. 


394 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

ardour, has allowed himself to be carried away into self-contradiction,' we 
should thus have a self-contradiction so palpable, and yet so extremely grave 
and dangerous in a religious and ethical aspect, making the means of grace il- 
lusory, and striking so heavily at the Christian moral idea of divine holiness 
and of human freedom,—that we should least of all suppose this very apostle 
to be capable of it; for, on the one hand, his penetration and his dia- 
lectic ability well might, just as, on the other hand, his apostolic illumina- 
tion in particular, and the clearness and depth of his own moral experience 
must, have guarded him against it. But this affords no justification of 
the practice which has been followed by those of anti-predestinarian views 
from the time of Origen and Chrysostom (see Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. 
14 ff.) until now (see especially Tholuck on vv. 16-18, 20-22, and also Weiss, 
ib.; comp. Gerlach, lelde Dinge, 1869, p. 159), of importing into the clear 
and definite expressions of the apostle in this place, and reading be- 
tween the lines, the moral self-determination and spontaneity of man as the 
correlate factor to the divine volition.? On the contrary, a correct judgment 
of the deterministic propositions of vv. 15-23 lies in the middle between the 
admission, which is psychologically and morally impossible, of a self-contradic- 
tion, and the importation, which is exegetically impossible, of conceptions of 
which the apostolic expression is the stark opposite—somewhat as follows. 
Seeing that the mode of the concurrence, so necessary in the moral world, of 
the individual freedom and spontaneity of man on one side, and the absolute 
self-determination and universal efficiency of God on the other, —which latter, 
however, as such by no means lacks the immanent law of holiness (against 
the objection of Beyschlag, p, 20),—is incomprehensible by human reflection, so 
long, that is, as it does not pass out of the sphere of the Christian fundamental 


1 Fritzsche, IT. p. 550: ** Melius sibi Pau- 
las consensisset, si Aristotelis, non Gamaili- 
elis alumnus fuisset.”’ 

2This practice of importing {s obvious, 
among the Greek Fathers, especially in 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and among 
modern theologians since the precedent of 
Arminius (see Beyschlag, p. 9 ff.), but espe- 
cially in Tholuck’s paraphrase of the pas- 
sages in question. Thus he paraphrases, 
e.g., ver. 17: “‘How greatly this is the case, 
is shown according to Scripture in Pharaoh, 
of whom, tn sptie of his running against the 
divine sill, it is said, etc.’ Again, in ver. 
18: ‘“‘Thus God executes His decree of 
mercy on those who desire to become blessed 
through mercy [dv 6éAe. 1], and hardens those 
who in their resistance reject such decree 
of grace” [6» @éAec]. It is self-evident that, 
with such importations and alterations of 
the sense, no text. is any longer sufficiently 
safe from the subjectivity of its interpreter. 
See, against such methods, the in the main 
apt observations of Baur in the Theol. Jahrod. 
1857, p. 196 ff., and in his V. 7. Theol. p. 182 
ff. Lechler also, Apost. Zeit. p. 122 ff., 
passes an unprejudiced and correct judg- 
ment; whilst Weiss, by the mediating sug- 


gestion that God may determine, according 
to His unlimited will, to what condition He 
will annexe His grace, can by no means avail 
against the clearness and definiteness of 
the text; and Hofmann, by the intermin- 
gling of rationalizing attempts to explain 
the details, cannot remove the difficulties. 
Philippi (Glaubensi. IV. 1, p. 118) rightly 
leaves the absolute divine freedom in the 
bestowal of salvation, as Paul dwells on it, 
intact, and connects with this result the 
solution which is disclosed by Paul himself 
in reference to that, at first sight, one-sided 
theory at the close of this very chapter, and 
in chap. x. and xi. The doctrine of election 
of Schlefermacher pours unbiblical notions 
into the mould of biblical expressions, and 
finishes with a general apokotastasis ; whilst 
in the Hegelian school, to which evil is a 
necessary element in the absolute process, 
the positive fundamental doctrines of the 
gospel as to sin, grace, regeneration, and 
reconciliation with God, when they are 
thought to be raised at all to their notion 
[Begriff], find no longera place. For the 
history of doctrine in modern times here 
concerned, see Luthardt, vom freien Willen, 
p. 866 ff. 


CHAP, IX., 33. 395 


view into the unbiblical identity-sphere of the pantheistic view, in which indeed 
freedom has no place at all;' as often as we treat only one of the two truths : 
‘*God is absolutely free and all-efficient,” and ‘‘ Man has moral freedom, and 
is, in virtue of his proper self-determination and responsibility as liberum 
agens, the author of his salvation or perdition,’’ and carry it out in a consistent 
theory and therefore in a one sided method, we are compelled to speak in such 
a manner, that the other lruth appears to be annulled. Only appears, however ; for, 
in fact, all that takes place in this case is a temporary and conscious withdraw- 
ing of attention from the other. In the present instance Paul found himself in 
this case, and he expresses himself according to this mode of view, not merely 
in a passing reference, vv. 20, 21 (Beyschlag), but in the whole reasoning of vv. 
6-29. In opposition to the Jewish conceit of descent and of works, he desired 
to establish the free and absolute sovereign power of the divine will and action, 
and that the more decisively and exclusively, the less he would leave any ground 
for the arrogant illusion of the Jews, that God must be gracious tothem. The 
apostle has here wholly taken his position on the absolute standpoint of the 
theory of pure dependence upon God, and that with all the boldness of clear 
consistency ;? but only until he has done justice to the polemical object 
which he has in view. He then returns (see vv. 30 ff.) from that abstraction to 
the human-moral standpoint of practice, so that he allows the claims of both 
modes of consideration to stand side by side, just as they exist side by side 
within the limits of human thought. The contemplation—which lies beyond 
these limits—of the metaphysical relation of essential interdependence between 
the two, —namely objectively divine, and subjectively human, freedom and ac- 
tivity of will,—necessarily remained outside and beyond his sphere of view ; 
as he would have had no occasion at all in this place to enter upon this prob- 
lem, seeing that it was incumbent upon him to crush the Jewish pretensions 
with the one side only of it—the absoluteness of God. The fact that, and the 
extent to which, the divine elective determination is nevertheless no ‘‘ delectus 
militaris,"’ but is immanently regulated in God Himself by His holiness, and 
consequently also conditioned by moral conditions on the human side, does 
not enter into his consideration at all forthe moment. It is introduced, how- 
ever, in ver. 30 ff., when the one-sided method of consideration temporarily 
pursued is counterbalanced, and the ground, which had been given up fora 
while in an apologetic interest to the doctrinal definition of an absolute decree, 
is again taken away. Comp. also Beck l. c. and Baur, new. Theol. p. 182 ff. 
But when Beyschlag places chap. ix. under the point of view, that the discus- 
sion therein relates not to a decree, antecedent to time, for men's everlasting salva- 
tion or perdition, but only to their adoption or non-adoption into the historical 
kingdom of God (thus into Christianity), and that of the Jews and (Gentiles as 
the two groups of mankind, not of individual men, and when he finds the true 
key of exposition in this view ; his idea cannot be justified by the simple ex- 


1 To say nothing at all of the modern ma- 
terialism (Vogt, Moleschott, Biichner, and 
others), according to which spirit is replac- 
ed by the exertion of force in brain-sub- 
stance, nerve-material, change of matter, 
and in material substrata generally. See on 
it, and its relation to theology, Rosenkranz 
in Hilgenfeld, Zeitechr. 1864, p. 235 ff. 


3He says by no means only how God 
could proceed without violating a claim of 
right (Jullus Miiller, v. d. Sdnde, I. p. 514, 
ed. 5), but how He does proceed. Older ex- 
positors have also endeavoured to help 
themselves with this problematic paraphra- 
sis. See, ¢.g., Flacius, Clav. II. p. 887. 


3896 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


egesis of chap. ix., and .without anticipating the contents of chap. x. and xi. ; 
und the difficulty in principle, which is involved in the entirely free self-deter- 
mination of the divine will, remains—while it is transferred to the sphere of 
the action of God in the historical government of the world—even thus unremoved. 


Notes sy AMERICAN EpIToR. 
CI. Chaps. ix.-xi. 


In chapters ix.-xi. the second main objection to the doctrine of justification by 
faith is considered—namely, that, by reason of the rejection of all unbelieving 
Jews which it involves, it contradicts the promises of God and His covenant with 
His chosen people. The preceding section (vi.—viii.) has reference to an objec- 
tion of a general character ; this section refers to one that arises from the Jewish 
standpoint and belongs in the sphere of the thought and controversy of the time 
when the Epistle was written. (See Note LXIV.) Accordingly we find the Apos- 
tle, as he turns to the discussion of this difficulty, proceeding in a similar course 
to that which he takes in ch. ii. He prepares the way carefully—in this case, 
by a declaration of his affection for and sympathy with the Jews as his own 
countrymen—for the statement of the true view of the covenant and promises 
which they had fatally misinterpreted. This declaration is repeated, in sub- 
stance, at the opening of chs. x. and xi.—a fact which shows the delicacy of the 
task which he was now undertaking. There are in this section three principal 
subdivisions, which correspond very nearly with the arrahgement of the 
chapters ; only that the second one begins at ix. 30, instead of x.1. The sub- 
ject of these divisions is given in Meyer's note introductory to the chaptera. 
The final purpose of the Apostle is to show that in this darkest and most mys- 
terious part, as it might seem, of God's administration of the world, the end in 
view was mercy and blessing to all—Jews and Gentiles alike. The summation 
of the whole, as it were, is in the exclamation of wonder and praise, xi. 33-36. 
As everywhere in the Epistle, so even in this portion of it, Paul’s mind is filled 
with a sense of the infinite goodness of God, and with joy in the thought of 
the free salvation which was designed for men of all nations, and was finally to 
be extended to all. 


CIL. Ver. 5. 6 dv émi rdvtrwv Oed¢ evdoynrés x.t. A. 


Meyer admits that these words may be interpreted as referring to Christ, and 
thus makes the question concerning them one of probabilities. The unpreju- 
diced investigator of the meaning will accept the latter position, as well as the 
former. He will also admit that they may refer to God, even though believ- 
ing, for himself, that they have reference to Christ. The grounds on which 
Meyer rests his view—that the words are a doxology to God—are substantially 
the same with those presented by other advocates of that understanding of the 
clause. They are the following : (1) that Paul does not, elsewhere, apply the 
name Ged¢ to Christ ; (2) that some passages in his Epistles (e.g. 1 Cor. vill. 6 ; 
Eph. iv. 5, 6) make a marked distinction between Christ and 4 éz? rdvrwr eds 
or Gedc ; (3) that doxologies to Christ are not found in the writipgs of the 
Apostles ; (4) that evAoynrée is not used of Christ in the N. T. 

To the first of these arguments it is answered : (a) that Christ is called Ged¢ 
by Paul in Acts xx. 28 ; Tit. ii. 13 (some also hold the same view with respect 


NOTES. 397 


to Col. ii. 2 ; Eph. v.5 ; 2 Thess. i. 12), [to which, however, reply is made that 
such an interpretation of the passage in Acts is founded on a wrong text, and 
of the one in the Ep. to Titus on a wrong construction] ; (0) that, even admit- 
ting that there is no such use of Oed¢ elsewhere in Paul's Epistles, he may have 
given this name to Christ in a single instance, as John does in only one or two 
cases, though he employs the word Gedc (referring to God) quite as many times 
as does Paul in proportion to the extent of his writings [but to this, also, a reply 
is made that John uses the word in connection with the Logos idea pecul- 
iar to his writings, and that the calling Christ God over all is incompatible with 
the N. T. view of the dependence of the Son on the Father).—To the second 
argument it is answered, that the distinction made in the verses alluded to is 
not inconsistent with the application of the name @edéc to Christ here. He may 
be Ged and 6 dv éxi rdvrav Oe6¢ in His own nature and in Himself ; and yet, as 
distinguished frofh the Father and as related to the work of redemption 
[Eph. iv. 3 ff., through the expressions, one body, one hope, one faith, one bap- 
lism, turning the reader’s thought to this work], He may be called xipioc, 
while the Father is described as Oed¢ xad warjp révTwv, 6 evi ravrev.—In an- 
swer to the third argument, instances are pointed out where dorologies refer to 
Christ : e.g., as some maintain, 1 Pet. iv. 11; as most writers admit, 2 Tim. iv. 
18 ; and, beyond question, 2 Pet. iii. 18; Rev. i, 6, v. 18. [Reply, however, is 
made with regard to the first of these cases, that, when the verse is properly 
explained, the reference to God becomes clear, and with regard to all the others, 
that they occur in non-apostolic writings).—The fourth argument is answered 
by calling attention to the fact that the number of instances in which the word 
evAoynréc occurs (only four others in Paul’s Epp. and seven in the entire N. T.) 
is too small to afford any such evidence of usage as to exclude the possibility 
of employing it with reference to Christ. 

On the other side, the following points are urged by those who regard the 
words as descriptive of Christ : (1) That, inasmuch as Xproréd¢ immediately pre- 
cedes 6 wv at the opening of this clause, it is the most natural and simple ex- 
planation of the sentence to make these words refer to Xp. as an antecedent. 
This argument has been pressed by some authors beyond its legitimate force ; 
and the affirmation, as thus understood, has been denied. Itis believed, how- 
ever, that the greater simplicity of this construction, unless overborne by 
other considerations, will be admitted by all as favoring, at least in some de- 
gree, the reference to Christ. (2) That 1d xard cdpxa suggests a contrast, and 
that the expression, rather than the omission, of that which forms the other 
side of the contrast is to be expected—some claim that it is demanded. To 
this argument, even in the milder form of stating it, a reply is offered, (a) by 
calling attention to cases where the antithesis is omitted—one such case occur- 
ring only two verses earlier than that which contains this clause ; (0) by saying 
that there is an implied antithesis, which answers the demands of the case here, 
of another sort than that suggested by interpreting these words of Christ— 
namely, the relation of Christ in his redemptive work to all men, as contrasted 
with his membership as aman in the Jewish race ; and (c) on van Hengel’s 
part, by declaring that 1d xara capxa, according to the usage of Greek writers, 
requires a period after it, and cannot be followed by such an antithetical clause. 
This position of van Hengel’s, however, is not defended by most others, and it 
seems to be untenable. If itis abandoned, the case stands thus with respect 
to xard odpxa. This phrase naturally suggests to the reader’s mind an anti- 


398 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


thetical statement. There is a certain antecedent probability that this state- 
ment would be made in words by the author, and not left to be supplied in the 
thought of the reader. If the clause 6 jv «.r.4. is regarded as descriptive of 
Christ, the author gives such an expression of the contrast ; otherwise he does 
not. That which is expressed in these words, as thus explained, is the antithe- 
sis adapted to the Apostle’s purpose, which is to set forth the honor put upon 
the Israelites by God. «ard odpxa, therefore, points towards this construction 
of the sentence. — (3) That the position of edAoynréc in the clause is the right 
and natural one if the words ere descriptive of Christ, but not so if a doxology 
to Godisintended. This word, it is claimed, is in all instances of doxologies of 
this character throughout the Scriptures placed at the beginning of the sentence 
(the case in LXX. Ps. Ixvii. 20, which is sometimes cited, forming no proper 
exception) ; and not only this, but it is affirmed also that it is of the very nature 
of such a sentence that this should be the arrangement. It is maintained, in 
answer to this argument, that the entire matter of the order of words ina 
Greek sentence is dependent on emphasis ; and that while, in ordinary doxo- 
logical sentences, the doxological word is designed to be emphatic, this is not 
necessarily the case ; and furthermore, that it is not so in this particular sen- 
tence. The fact that God is over all is suggested by the previously-mentioned 
blessings ; and, —as this is the natural suggestion, —when the thought turns from 
an enumeration of His gifts to Himself as their author and source, ruling over 
all, the words describing Him must be most emphatic. It is denied, however, 
by advocates of the reference to Christ, that the Scriptural writers varied their 
usage respecting the doxological word, whatever emphasis might appertain to 
the subject of the sentence; and it is added that, if the subject in this 
clause had been designed to be made so much more prominent than the word 
of blessing as to necessitate its holding the first position, it would have been 
placed in the dative, r@ dvre érl wévrwv GeG—a mode of expression which 
would have prevented all misunderstanding.—(4) That the use of the words 6 
Ov éxi wavrTwv is readily accounted for if the writer wished to set forth the 
glory and exaltation of Christ, but is not so well adapted to express the idea of 
the superintending providence of God as connected with the blessings be- 
stowed upon the Jewish people. Some other expression for the latter idea 
would have been more appropriate. It is claimed by some, also, that if the 
Apostle had desired to introduce an ascription of praise to God with reference 
to the gifts which had just been mentioned, he would have glorified Him for 
His goodness, and not for His controlling providence or power. —(5) That a dox- 
ology to God is out of place here, at the close of a passage which is a lamenta- 
tion over the lapse of the Jews. To this, however, it is answered that there is 
here, not a lamentation, but an enumeration of privileges and distinguishing 
honors, and for these it was most natural to praise God, who in His sovereignty 
hed ordered it thus.—(6) That this interpretation was given by the Christian 
Fathers, or the great majority of them. It is claimed on the other side, how- 
ever, that the Fathers are not so unanimous as has been supposed ; that many 
of them simply adopted that view of an ambiguous passage which agreed with 
their doctrinal opinions ; that as exegetes they do not in many or most cases 
deserve special regard—their qualifications in this respect being often moder- 
ate and their interpretations sometimes fanciful or even absurd. The English 
Revisers of the Auth. Ver. of the N. T. seem to have given much weight to the 
views of the Fathers respecting this clause, for, in recording other explanations, 


NOTES. 399 


they refer to them as represented by ‘‘ some modern interpreters”—words which 
are not elsewhere used in their marginal notes. 

The strength of the argument for the reference of the words to Christ lies in 
the fact that each phrase and element of the clause indicates a probability, as 
connected with itself, that this is the true explanation. That of the argument 
for the other view—that they are a doxology to God—is centred, mainly or 
wholly, in the fact that Paul uses the word Océ: in only one or two other in- 


stances (as affirmed by the advocates of this view, in no other instance), as - 


descriptive of Christ. When, however, it is borne in mind that the apostolic 
writers, by reason of the very work to which they were consecrated—the per- 
suading men to become reconciled to God through Christ—were naturally led 
to speak of Christ almost wholly as in his mediatorial office and as man, the 
force of the alleged fact is very largely diminished. It is believed that it can- 
not sustain the weight of the opposing considerations, and that the interpreta- 
tion which applies the word to Christ must be adopted as the more probable 
one. 

The construction of the words which places a period after rdvrwv has less 
ground for acceptance than that which makes the whole a doxology, for by it 
all supposed justification for placing evAoyyré¢ after the subject is taken away, 
and the words which are regarded as alluding to the superintending providence 
of God—and thus as connecting the ascription of praise with the statement of 
the privileges—are removed from the doxological sentence. - 

A full discussion of this matter cannot be presented within the limits here 
allowed. The object of this note is to set forth, in outline, the considerations 
urged by the two parties, and to indicate what conclusion the probabilities of 
the case may lead us to adopt. The reader will find in the Journal of the 
(American) Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1881 an extended 
paper on the subject by Professor Ezra Abbot, defending with great learning 
and ability the view which refers the words as a doxology to God, and in the 
same Journal a paper advocating the other view by the writer of this note. 
The latter paper was prepared on a somewhat different plan from Prof. 
Abbot’s, and is much shorter, but was designed to give a full and fair presenta- 
tion of the case. It may be added, that Weiss, in his edition of Meyer's work, 
rejects the view of Meyer and adopts the opposite one, applying the words to 
Christ. 

CITT. Ver. 6. otk olov d2 Sri txvéxtuxev K.7.A. 


The explanation of these words and of their connection with vv. 2, 3, which 
is given by Meyer, is to be accepted. As related to the main thought and 
progress of discussion in the Epistle, this verse may be regarded as carrying 
with it the declaration, that the doctrine of faith which the Apostle defends 
does not involve in itself any failure of God's promises to His people. In this 
way he meets, at the beginning of the section, the objection or difficulty which 
made the writing of these chapters necessary. 


CIV. Ver. 11. pyre yap yevondévrur yndé rpakdvrwv tt dyabov } gaddov. 


The object of these words is evidently to show that God's choice in such 
cases is not made in dependence on, and after, hnman action. It is, on the 
other hand, determined before such action. That the passage refers to an 


400 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


election to salvation in Jacob’s case and a non-election in that of Esau cannot 
be proved, for the context does not necessitate the giving of this meaning 
to the illustrative example, and we are nowhere informed in the Scriptures that 
Esau failed of salvation. That Esau and his descendants were not placed by 
God in the historic line of the spiritual plan is evident, but nothing beyond 
this. Dr. Shedd, following Calvin, Augustine, and some others, holds that while 
these two children had as yet no actual sin, they had original sin as being 
descendants of Adam. They were not innocent, he says, because salvation to 
which one of them was elected presupposes sin and condemnation. Having 
already a physical and psychical existence in the mother’s womb, they became 
subject to the divine decision, and this decision was for eterna) life for one of 
the two, not for the other. . That they had such a physical and psychical exist- . 
ence he founds upon Heb. vii. 10.—the only N. T. passage cited. This passage 
states that Levi was in the loins of his great-grandfather, but can scarcely be 
understood as affirming that he had a psychical and physical life when Mel- 
chisedek met Abraham. Of the only action assigned to Levi by the verse, also, 
it is said that it was action in a figurative sense. The bearing of Levi's ex- 
perience therefore on original sin, or on the innocent condition of Jacob and 
Esau just before birth, does not seem to be more decisive than does that of the 
context here or the O. T. history on the eternal future of the two. Godet re- 
marks, in his annotations on these verses: ‘‘In speaking of Jacob and Esau, 
either as men or as nations, neither Genesis, nor Malachi, nor St. Paul has 
eternal salvation in view ; the matterin question is the part they play regarded 
from the theocratic standpoint.” The view of Godet is favored by all the in- 
dications which the passage and the relation of these chapters to the plan of the 
Epistle afford. 


CV. Ver. 14. pu) Gdixla rapa TH Oe ; 


The evidence that God's plan involves selection, which is furnished by the 
cases occurring in the earliest stage of its development, having been given, the 
Apostle now proceeds to consider the question whether such selection shows 
injustice on God’s part. This question, like similar ones arising in previous 
chapters from the opposite side in the discussion (e.g. vi. 1, vii. 7, ef. vi. 15), is 
introduced by ri ody épodyev ; itis answered by yu? yévocro ; and the negative is 
then proved. The proof, inthis case, consists of two points: (1) An argument 
addressed to those on the Jewish standpoint :—the O. T., in what it says re- 
specting Moses and Pharaoh, declares that God acts in this way. A represen- 
tation of God, however, which is found in the O. T., the Jew must admit to 
be consistent with justice. To this extent it isan argumentum ad hominem. 
(2) The dealing of God with ull in the way of long-suffering and mercy is ir- 
reconcilable with such an idea of Him as the question suggests. His benevo- 
lence establishes the fact of Hisrighteousness. This argument is equally adapt- 
ed to the minds of all, Gentiles or Jews. It is prefaced, in vv. 19-21, bya 
passage which is designed to rebuke the presumption of the objector and ex- 
press the shocked feeling of the Christian mind at the presentation of the 
question. That this is the true view of these three verses, and that they are 
not strictly a part of the proof, is indicated by the fact that they are not neces- 
sary to the argument, and, also, by the additional fact that no valid argament 
can be drawn for the justice of God in relation to the destiny of immortal and 


NOTES. 401 


intelligent creatures from the right which the potter has to fashion lifeless clay 
according to his arbitrary will. It is evident, accordingly, aa this paragraph 
(vv. 14-29) is carefully examined, that the main point in the writer’s mind is the 
goodness of God —long-suffering even towards those who are rejected. This 
fact may well be borne in mind in interpreting the statement with regard to 
Pharaoh. In connection with the same statement the primary reference of the 
entire section to nations, and not to individuals, should be remembered. 'The 
same thing is worthy of consideration as we inquire as to the meaning of spe- 
cial words in the 22d verse. 


4 


CVI. Ver. 22. év roAAg paxpoOvpia. 


The view of Meyer that uaxpobvyia here means the prolongatio irae, and not 
that which waits for the self-decision of human freedom, is justly rejected by 
Weiss, who says that the latter idea is evident from the very nature of the case, 
and is distinctly declared by Paulin ii. 4. Godet also calls attention to the 
fact that this human self-decision is brought forward in the next following 
context, ver. 30 ff. Weiss further holds, as against Meyer, that oxein dpyi¢ does 
not denote the vessels which are prepared to experience God’s wrath on them- 
selves—to serve for a manifestation of His wrath, which, especially in connec- 
tion with ver. 21, would require ox. ei¢ dpynv, but vessels which appertain to, 
ie. have fallen under His wrath, i.e. through their own acts, xatnpriouéva he 
regards as to be taken in an adjective sense, ready, ripe for (so also Godet). He 
refers, as a proof that it does not mean prepared or fitted by God, to the variation 
from the construction d mponroinacey of the next verse, which is apparently in- 
tentional. The observation of such points as these makes evident the weak- 
ness of the supports on which the more extreme views of individual election, 
as connected with these verses, rest. Individual election is an inference from 
what is said in the chapter, rather than a distinct declaration of any of its 
words. 


CVI. Ver. 23. tva yrwploy x.1.A. 


The relation of ver. 23 to ver. 22 isas given by Meyer. The vessels of wrath 
are borne with in mercy and long-suffering to give them opportunity for repent- 
ance, but there is also an additional purpose—namely, that God may make 
known the riches of His glory (i.e. in the manifestation of it in mercy and 
blessing) to the vessels of mercy. This view does not involve the idea that 
God’s design of good for the vessels of mercy is of secondary importance ; but 
only that their good is, in the matter of His dealing with the vessels of wrath, 
a thing secondary to His purpose with reference to the latter class. The ex- 
planation of this second design by supposing the Apostle to mean that, if 
penal judgment had come upon the oxevy édpyi¢ Without such delay, no time 
would have been open for the exhibition of mercy to the oxetn eAéove, is not 
necessary, though it may be not improbable. A thought somewhat similar to 
this, though connected with a different subject and a different class of persons, 
may be found in Heb. xi. 39, 40. 


CVIII. Ver. 24. od¢ nad éxuiAccev x.7.A.. 


The Apostle now declares the vessels of mercy to be called of God not merely 
from among the Jews but also the Gentiles. Three points may be noticed : 


a o 
402 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


(1) that he again expressly sets forth the division into the two classes which 
have been so prominent throughout the Epistle, and the union of which makes 
the rdévrec of whom he thinks; (2) that in the words ‘lovd. x.r.A, and also in 
the proof-passages cited from the O, T. in the following verses, the national, 
and not the individual, reference of the thought is manifested ; (3) that the 
course of God’s action and the sovereignty of His plan with regard to the 
Jews (and now, at the end, the Gentiles also), in the historic development of the 
spiritual system are the things set forth in the entire passage vv. 6-29. This 
is true of what is said of Sarah and Rebecca and their children (comp. also 
Gal. iv. 24 ff.) ; of God’s word to Moses, also, and to Pharaoh ; of the potter 
and the clay ; of the vessels of wrath, and of the call of Gentiles and Jews who 
are vessels of mercy. This view gives unity to this chapter as related to the 
two which follow, and also as related to the whole doctrinal part of the Epistle. 
Paul is not discoursing upon a series of doctrines, as if in a treatise on The- 
ology, but is discussing a single subject of vital interest, at the time, in con- 
nection with the controversy between Judaistic views and the Pauline Chris- 
tianity ; and he follows the course of his thought steadily and undeviatingly 
through the proofs and the objections and difficulties. Everywhere the uni- 
versal and national ideas are prominent. 


C1IX. Ver. 30. 


At ver. 30 we have the reason of the lapse of the Jews introduced. This 
reason is stated briefly, at first, vv. 30-33, and then, after a few words of the 
same general character with those at the opening of this chapter, it is develop- 
ed more fully x. 3-21. In presenting the reason for the lapse, however, he 
adds at the beginning a word (as was natural because of the preceding context) 
respecting the ground of the acceptance of the Gentiles. The fact which has 
been referred to as connected with the sovereign and independent choice of 
God is now traced to its source in human action. The Jews failed because 
they did not submit themselves to God’s method of justification. 


CHAP. X., l. 403 


CHAPTER X. 


Ver. 1. 7 before mpéc is wanting according toa large preponderance of ev- 
idence, and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A hasty grammatical emendation, 
as éoriv before cic is supplied in Elz, — avrav] Elz: rod ’IopanA, against deci- 
sive evidence. With ver. 1 a church-lesson begins. — Ver. 3. After idiav, dixacoo- 
Uvny is wanting in A B D EP, min., and several versions (including Vulg.) and 
Fathers. Omitted by Lachm. But the very emphasis of the thrice-occurring 
word, so obviously intended (comp. ix. 30), speaks for its originality ; and how 
easily the omission of the second d:xacoovvny might arise, as that of a supposed 
quite superfluous repetition !— Ver. 5. avroic] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : avrg, ac- 
cording to A B &*, 17, 47, 80, Copt. Arm. Vulg. Germ. Damasc. Ruf. But this 
would involve that, with the most of these, and with yet other witnesses, the 
preceding avrd should be omitted, as also Tisch. 8. has done. However, both 
avrg and the omission of avrd appear like an emendatory alteration, since the 
context contains no reference for avrd and avroic. In the same light we must 
also regard the reading or: riv dixacoovyvny rv Ex vduov (instead of riv dix. . . . 
érc), a8 Tisch. 8. has it, in A D* &*, and some min., Vulg., and some Fathers. 
— Ver. 15. eipyynv, rov evayy.] is wanting in A B C &*, min., Copt. Sah. Aeth. 
Clem. Or. Damasc. Ruf. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Copyist’s omis- 
sion, through the repetition of evayy. If it had been interpolated from the 
LXX. (Isa. lii. 7), axojv eipnvnc would have been written instead of the mere 
eipyuns. The article before dyad is, with Lachm., on decisive evidence to be 
omitted, although it is also wanting in the LXX. — Ver. 17. Ocov] Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8 : Xprorod, according to B C D* E &*, min., several vss., Aug. Pel. Am- 
brosiast. There is no genitive at all in F G, Boern. Hilar. But how readily 
this omission might suggest itself by a comparison of ver. 8! Xpiornd, how- 
ever, appears to be a more precise definition of the sense of the divine pia, the 
expression of which by 4. Ozod is found already in Syr. and Clem. — Ver. 19. 
The order ’Iop, ovx £yvw is supported by decisive evidence ; Elz; otvx Fyvw lop. 


Vv. 1-13. More particular discussion of the guilt of the Jews specified in ix. 
32 ; introduced (vv. 1, 2) by a reiterated assurunce of the most cordial interest 
tn their salvation. 

Ver. 1. ’AdeAgoi] Address to the readers, expressive of emotion. Comp. 
1 Cor. xiv. 20 ; Gal. iii. 15. — yév] without a corresponding dé ; the thought 
following in ver. 3 loomed before the apostle, as standing in the relation of 
opposition to his heartfelt interest, of which the solicitude thus remained 
unfulfilled through the perverted striving after righteousness of the people. 
—evdoxia] does not denote the wish, the desire (Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, and many, including Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner, de Wette, 
Olshausen). It may mean pleasure, delight (Bengel : ‘‘lubentissime auditu- 
rus essem de salute Israelis ;’ comp. Philippi), Matt. iii. 17, xi. 26; or 


404 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


goodwill (Phil. i. 15, ii. 18), te. propensa animi roluntas. See generally 
Fritzsche. The latter signification is that most immediately suggested by 
the connection here ; comp. van Hengel, ‘‘ benerola propensio.” It is indeed 
the intention of the will (Hofmann), but conceived of and designated as the 
being well-disposed of the heart, as it was such.—rpd¢ rov Gedy is joined to} 
dénotc, hence there was no need of the (not genuine) article (Acts viii. 24; 
Winer, p. 128 f. [E. T. 135]) ; to the connection with iori to be understood, 
evdoxia would not be suitable. Hence: The goodwill of my heart and my 
petition to God are on their behalf towards this end, that they might dtatn 
salvation ; owrypia is the goal which my eidoxia wishes for them, and my 
prayer entreats for them. In this view irép abrav belongs so necessarily 
to the completeness of the thought, that we are not to assume a tacit con- 
trast to a card (Hofmann). The article before dénoig represents, sccord- 
ing to the context, the personal pronoun (¥ éu 6.); Winer, p. 103 [E. T. 
108]; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 515. —On the distinction between déjorg and 7p00- 
ux, petition and prayer, see on Eph. vi. 18. Benge] aptly remarks: 
‘* Non orasset Paulus, si absolute reprobati essent.” 

Ver. 2. Reason assigned why 7 evdoxia . . . cig cwrnpiav. — CyAov Oro’ zeal 
for God. Comp. Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 3; Gal. i. 14 ; John ii. 17; 1 Mace. 
ii. 58. Thistheir zeal makes them worth that interest of my heart. —0w sr 
ériyvworv] knowledge is not that, according to the measure of which they ar 
zealous for God. We must here again (comp. on i. 28) note the componle 
expression ; for the Jews were not wanting in yvéore generally, but just in 
the very point, on which it depended whether their yraore was the right 
and practically vital ériyvworc. 

Ver. 3. Confirmatory elucidation of ob xar’ ériyvwor : ‘for else they 
would not, unacquainted with the divine righteousness (see on i. 17), have 
insisted on their own righteousness, and striven against the divine.” This 
is just the actual proof that their zeal for God is wanting in knowledge. — 
ayvouivreg] does not mean any more than at ii. 4, 1 Cor. xiv. 38,' anything 
clse than not knowing ; Reiche, de Wette, Tholuck, Ewald, and several 
others : misapprehending ; Hofmann : overlooking. The guilt of this mn 
knowing Paul does not further enter into, not so much (comp. Acts iii. 1%, 
xvii. 30) from mild forbearance (Riickert and others), but because he 
simply nothing else than the ot xar’ éxiyrwotv to explain. — rv idiav dinar 
otwny] tiv éx tov véuov, THY EE Epywv idiwy Kal mévwv Katoplorvuév, Theophy lact. 
Comp. Phil. iii. 9, and see on i. 17. —orgoar] stabilire, to make calid. Comp. 
iii. 31; Heb. x. 9.—dterdynoav] The dix. Ocov is conceived of as § an 
ordinance, to which one subjects oneself (through faith). The sense is 0% 
that of the passive, as viii. 20, but that of the middle, as in viii. 7, sil | 
and frequently, expressing the obedience. As to the subject-matter, comp. 
mpootxowpayv K.7.7., 1X. 82. 

Ver. 4. For the validity of the law has come to an end in Christ, in order 
that every beliecer may be a partaker of righteousness. Herewith Paul, for the 


is 
1 In the classical passages also, which are Dem. 151. 7, e¢ al.), the sense of nol know 
adduced for the signification misapprehend to be maintained. 
(as Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 2, 29, Cyr. iv. 1. 16; 


CHAP. X., 5. 405 


further confirmation of what was said in ver. 3, lays down the great prin- 
ciple of salvation, from the non-knowledge of which among the Jews that 
blinded and perverted striving after righteousness flowed. — TéAoc vépov, 
which is placed first with great emphasis, is applied to Christ, in so far as, 
by virtue of His redemptive death (Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5), the divine dispensa- 
tion of salvation has been introduced, in which the basis of the procuring 
of salvation is no longer, as in the old theocracy, the Mosaic véuoc, but faith, 
whereby the law has therefore ceased to be the regulative principle for the 
attainment of righteousness.’ Only this view of réAoc, end, conclusion (adopt- 
ed after Augustine by most of the modern expositors), is conformable to 
what follows, where the essentially different principles of the old and new 
dixacoocivn are stated. For its agreement with the doctrinal system of the 
apostle, see vii. 1 ff. [See Note CX. p. 421.] Contrary to the meaning of the 
word rédjog (even in 1 Tim. i, 5), and contrary to the inherent relation of 
what follows, Origen, Erasmus, Vatablus, Elsner, Homberg, Estius, Wolf, 
Ch. Schmidt, Jatho, and several others, take it as: fulfilment of the law 
(*‘ quicquid exigebat lex moralis pracstitit perfectissime,” Calovius), which 
many dogmatic expositors understood of the satisfactio activa, or of the activa 
and passiva together (Calovius). Linguistically faultless, but at the same 
time not corresponding to the connection, is the interpretation of Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, Melanchthon, Beza, Michaelis, and others, that the object 
and aim of the law was the making men righteous, and that this was accom- 
plished through Christ ; or (Theodoret, Toletus, Vorstius, Grotius, Wetstcin, 
Loesner, Heumann, Klee, Gléckler, Krummacher), that Christ was called 
the object and aim of the law, because everything in the law, as the radayu- 
yos ei¢ Xpiordv (Gal. iii. 24), led up to Him ; ‘‘quicquid praecipiat, quic- 
quid promittat, semper Christum habet pro scopo,” Calvin. Observe fur- 
ther, that Xp:oré¢ must be the definite historical person that appeared in Jesus, 
and not the promised Saviour generally, without regard to whether and in whose 
person He appeared (Hofmann), an abstraction which would have been im- 
possible to Paul, particularly here, where all righteousness is traced back 
only to definite faith in contrast to works—as impossible as is the reference 
combined with it, of véu0c to any law whatever, no law has validity any 
longer, if the promised Saviour be at hand. See, in opposition to this, im- 
mediately below, ver. 5 ff. — ig dixaioc. ravti tO mor.] aim, for which Christ 
is the end of the law : in order that every one who believes may obtain right- 
eousness. The principal stress lies on mor., as the opposite of that which 
the law required in order to righteousness ; see vv. 5, 6, iii. 21 ff. 

Ver. 6. Now follows, as far as ver. 10, the proof of ver. 4, and that from 
Moses himself. — ypager tiv dix.) writes concerning righteousness, John i. 46 ; 
Hermann, ad Hur. Phoen, 574. As to the use of the present tense, comp. the 
frequent Aéyec in scriptural citations. — The passage introduced by the reci- 
tative dr: is Lev. xviii. 5, almost exactly after the LXX. Comp. Neh. ix. 


1 The wArpwors rov vduov, Matt. v.17, does | which Christ has freed from Its limitations. 
not conflict with the present passage. For See on Matt. i.c. Comp. also Lipsius, 
the ideal, purely moralimport of the law Rechifert. p. 8 ff. 
cannot be annulled, and it is cxactly this 


406 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


29 ; Ezek. xx. 21; Gal. ili. 12. — avrd] refers in the original, and so also 
here, to the zpoordypara Ocov, which Paul supposes as well known ; but the 
principal stress lies upon zro:joac : he who shall have done them, so that thus 
Moses exhibits the doing as the condition of the attainment of (wf (which is 
referred by Paul not to the happy and prospcrous life in Palestine, but to its 
antitype, the (u# aidwoc). — év abroic] i.e. by the fact, that they are fulfilled. 
Vv. 6-8. [See Note CXI. p. 421.] The righteousness which comes from 
faith is personified (comp. Heb. xii. 5), so that the following words of 
Moses, in which Paul recognizes an allegorically and typically prophetic deserip- 
tion of this righteousness, appear as its self-description. An increasing anima 
tion, and indeed triumphant tone in the representation, which thus intro- 
duces over-against that dark background (ver. 5) the bright picture the 
more immediately in concrete vividness. Hofmann artificially imports the 
antithesis, that the righteousness of the law is found only in a description of the 
lawgicer, but the righteousness of faith itself speaks as one existing and present. 
There is the less room for this supposition, since vv. 6 ff. are also Mosaic 
expressions. But that Paul actually regarded the words of Moses as a pro- 
phetical testimony to the nature of the righteousness of faith, is an opinion 
sanctioned only by a minority of expositors (Augustine, de nat. et grat. 83; 
Bucer, Balduin, Calovius, Semler, Ch. Schmidt, Reiche, K6llner, Olshausen, 
Benecke, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Umbreit). The majority, 
on the other hand, assume that Paul only clothed his own thoughts in the 
words of Moses, and used the latter asa suitable substratum for the former. 
So Tholuck, Flatt, Riickert, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi: ‘‘a holy and 
charming play of the Spirit of God upon the word of the Lord ;” van Hen- 
gel and several others, as formerly Chrysostom, Luther,' Beza, Calvin, Cor- 
nelius 8 Lapide ; Bengel : ‘‘suavissima parodia.” But against this view is 
the fact that ver. 5 begins with y¢p a demonstration of the réAog vépuov Xpiords, 
of which ver. 5 contains only the one, and vv. 6-8 the other, side ; both 
sides, however, unite their probative force in Mwiays yap ypager. Therefore 
it is quite wrong (see esp. Riickert, Philippi) to look upon # dé é« mor. du. 
as the opposite to Mwicyc, and to suppose that the parallel would be more 
sharply drawn if Paul had said : But Christ speaks thus, etc. No, dé places 
the righteousness of faith in opposition to the previously mentioned dca 
aivn 1) éx Tov véuov ; and for these tco modes of righteousness the testimony 
of the lawgiver himself is introduced by Muiofs yap ypéder. ‘‘ For Moses 
writes of the righteousness of the law, etc.; but the other kind of right- 
eousness, the righteousness of faith, says (in the same Moses) thus, etc.” 
The Mois. y. yp. thus holds good not only for ver. 5, but also covers vv. 6-8 ; 
therefore the absence of a formula of quotation before ver. 6 is no valid 
argument against our view. This applies likewise against Hofmann, accord- 
ing to whom that, which the righteousness of faith speaks, is intended to 
recall Deut. U.c. ;?_ in such a way, however, that the word of which Moses 


1 Luther, on Deut. /.c., says that Paul has, 2 Hofmann arrives at the sense: " What 
abundante epiritu, taken occasion from Israel could not say in respect of there 
Moses against the jus(itiarios relut norumet _ vealed law of God, after possessing It, that 
proprium textum componendi. should he, to whom the righteousness of 


CHAP. x., 6-8. 407 
speaks is related to that which the righteousness of faith means, as the O. T. 
T. to the N. T.,'and thus the former is a prediction of the latter. Ground- 
less is the further objection, that Paul nowhere else thus mixcs up a 
biblical passage with comments. For we are acquainted with comments in 
the style of the Midrash in Paul’s writings (ix. 8; Gal. iii. 16, iv. 23, 24) ; 
and that they are here interspersed is unessential, and was very naturally sug- 
gested by the opposed ava. cic r. ovpavév and xaraf. cig t. dBvocov. In con- 
clusion, we must further observe that, if Paul had given the biblical words 
only as the clothing of his own representation, yet we should have to assume, 
and that for the very sake of the honesty of the apostle (which Philippi 
thinks endangered by our view), that he actually found in the saying the 
typical reference to the righteousness of faith ; even the holy ‘‘ play” upon 
words of the Spirit can be no erroncous play. Theodoret took the right 
view : diddoxee radi véuou cal xzdpitog ri diagopav, ai, angotéipwr eicdye 
Muiota rdv vouotétyy diddoxadov. Erasmus, Paraphr.: ‘‘utriusque justitiae 
imaginem Moses ipse depinxit.” Comp. also Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. I. 
p- 217. The Mosaic declaration itself is Deut. xxx. 12-14, with free devia- 
tions bearing on his dbject, from the original and the LXX. Moses has 
there said of the commandment of God to Israel to fulfil His law (for the 
passage speaks of nothing else according to its historical sense) in ver. 11, 
that this commandment does not transcend the sphere of what is capable of 
accomplishment, nor does it lie at strange distance ; and he then adds, ver. 
12 ff., in order more precisely to depict this thought : It is neither in heaven 
nor beyond the sea, 80 that one must first ascend to the former or sail over the 
latter (comp. Bar. iii. 29, 30) to fetch it, that one may hear and do it ; rather 
is it quite near, in the mouth and in the heart (and in the hands, an addition of 
LXX., and in Philo) ; that is, the people itself carries it in its mouth, and 
it is stamped upon its heart, in order that they may accomplish it Anwy), 
Paul finds here a type, and therewith an indirect prophecy, of the demand 
which the righteousness of faith presents, entirely different from that roceiv 
which is demanded by the righteousness of the law, inasmuch as the righteous- 
ness of faith forbids only unbelief in reference to Christ, as though He had not 
come from heaven, or had not risen from the dead, and directs men, on the other 
hand, to the word of faith, which, through tts preachers, is laid in their mouth 
and heart. The sum and substance of this typically prophetic sense is there- 
fore : ‘‘ Benot unbelieving, but believing ,;’? and here the grand historical points, 
to which faith as well as unbelief relate, could not be brought into relief more 
definitely and significantly * than by means of the Xprordv xarayayeiv and ava- 


faith speaks, not think in respect of the re- 
vealed and perfect Saviour.” But how 
oould Paul, without any indication what- 
ever, have expected of the reader that he 
should infer, from mere reminiscence of 
the Mosaic words, the point of the thought 
intended, that what the one covld not, the 
others should not? 

1 But for this purpose Hofmann employs 
an incorrect reference and understanding 
of dn, ver. 9. : 


2 The allegorical and typical signification 
of the apostle finds its correct logical point 
of connection in the fact that every one 
who, instead of bearing the pyuaof God in 
his mouth and in his heart, asks, Who will 
ascend into heaven for us, and bring it to 
us? puts a question of unbelief. 

3 For he who thinks that one must ascend 
into heaven to bring Christ down, Cenies 
thereby that Christ has come in the flesh ; 
and he who supposes that one must de- 


408 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


yayeiv (in opposition to Tholuck’s objection). According to Fritzsche (comp, 
Calovius), the sense meant is : no one can become righteous through works, 
‘* faciendo et molicndo,” vv. 8, 7; for in fact one must otherwise have been 
able—since the becoming rightcous rests upon the incarnation, death, and 
resurrection of Christ—to ascend into heaven in order to bring Him down, 
or to descend into the lower world in order to bring Him up ; but (ver. 8) 
after that salvation has been obtained by Christ, we are to have faith only. 
But in this case, vv. 6, 7 would surely be a warning from the mouth of the 
righteousness of faith against a facere et moliri, which would be of qui 
another kind than that of the righteousness of the law, and which even would 
have included in abstracto, as a presupposition, this very faith in the incarns- 
tion, death, and resurrection of Christ. Still less can we, with Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, and several others (comp. also Reithmayr, 
Philippi, and Krummacher), find in vv. 6, 7 the denial of the difficulty, and 
then in ver. 8 the assurance of the facility, of becoming righteous. For 
against this view is the fact, in the first place, that in what Paul subjoins, 
ver. 9 ff., nothing at all is said of difficulty and facility ; secondly—and this 
is decisive—the fact that vv. 5-8 is to be a proof founded on Moses of the 
statement, ré2oc véuov Xpioréc ; but it isevident, that not from the facility of 
the Christian d:casocivy, but from its being essentially different from the od 
(the latter resting on doing, the former on faith), it follows that with Christ, 
the Mediator of the new d:xacocivy, the véuoc must have reached its end. 
This, too, ifreply to Knapp, Ser. car. arg. II. p. 558 f., who, besides the 
erroncous point of view of difficulty and facility, reads otherwise between 
the lines the most essential points of his interpretation. See, on the other 
hand, van Hengcl, who, however, on his side assumes that Paul desired 
‘‘arocare” unsettled Jewish Christians ‘‘a salutis duce longe quaerendo, que™ 
quisque, qui Christi communione utatur, per sidem in Deo positam possideat, 0%, 
ut ex legis alicujus observatione, sic etiam aliunde afferri non possit.”” The coo 
nection with ver. 4 likewise tells against this vicw, as does also the circu 
‘ stance that, if only the longe guaerere were the conception presented, it would 
not be easy to see why Paul should have inserted at all his explanations row fo"! 
x.t.4., and why he should not have retained in ver. 7 the words of the LX: 
rig dtatepacoet muiv eig rd xépay tie Oaraconc. — ud eine ev Tt. napd. cov] LX. : 
2éywv, Heb. 1282, wherein, according to the connection (‘It is mot 1 
heaven that one might speak,” ctc.), the forbidding sense indirectly lits 
This Paul expresses directly, because his quotation is severed from the ¢o™ 
nection of the original ; and he adds év r. xapd. cov, because unbelief has its 
seat in the heart, and the expression ‘‘ to speak in the heart” (as Ps. xiv. !: 
Matt. iii. 9; Rev. xviii. 7) was very current in the mention of unholy 
thoughts and dispositions (Surenhusius, xaraA2., p. 479). — rig avaZ. tic 7 op] 
Who will ascend into heaven? In the sense of the apostle, the inquiry is 00° 


scend into the lower world to bring Christ an tmpoesibility—namely, an ascent into 
up from the dead, denies that Hearose from _ heaven, ora descent into the lower world— 
the dead. This likewise against Hofmann, would be requisite. Therein lies the folly, 
p. 486, according to whom it isonly meant = as if that which we have were at unallain 
to be said, that tn order to produce Christ, able distance. - 


CHAP. X., 6-8. 409 
not expressive of a wish (‘‘ utinam quis sit, qui nos c longinquo in viam salu- 
tis ducat,” van Hengel), nor yet of despair, but—correlative of that rq xco- 
rebovre in ver. 4, and opposed to the 6 ro:foac, ver. 5—the inquiry of unbelie/, 
which holds the appearance of Christ from heaven, 7.e. His incarnation, as 
not having taken place, and as an impossibilty. Therefore Paul adds the 
Midrashistic interpretation : that expresses, that signifies : in order to bring 
Christ down—this is the object, which is implied in avafjoeraz cig r. ovp., and 
by its addition Paul thus contributes a more precise explanation of the ques- 
tion (rovr’ gor: : scilicet), namely, as respects its tendency, as respects that at 
which it aims.’ Thus more exactly defined, the question would presuppose, 
that he who puts it does not believe that Christ has come out of the heavenly 
world and has appeared in the flesh (comp. viil. 3), év duocduate avflpdrur 
(Phil. ii. 6, 7; comp. 1 John iv. 2). Following Melanchthon, Castalio, 
Calvin, and others, Reiche thinks that unbelief in regard to the session of 
Christ on the right hand of God is meant. But if there were here a prohibi- 
tion of the desire to behold with the eyes this object of faith (Reiche), the 
second question, which nevertheless is manifestly quite parallel, would be 
highly inappropriate ; for then an existence of Christ in the dBucco¢ would of 
necessity be an object of faith, which yct it is not at all. Nor could we see 
why Paul should have said xarayayeiv in ver. 6, since the matter would in fact 
turn only on a seeing of Christ in heaven. Moreover, Paul, considering the 
freedom with which he handles this passage from Moses, would have trans- 
posed the two questions, in order to avoid the glaring historical prothysteron 
which occurs, if the:first question refers to the session of Christ at the right 
hand of God, to which van Hengel also refers it. According to Glickler, 
the question, Who will go up into heaven ? means to ask, Who will accom- 
plish redemption ? for the ascension was a necessary requisite for the Media- 
tor ; and therefore roi’ éor: signifies : this would mean to deny the ascension 
of Christ. Consistently, Glickler then understands the second question as, 
Who will (voluntarily) go into death ? this would mean to deny the death of 
Christ. But by this necessarily consistent view of ver. 7 the whole exposi- 


1 Many others (Erasmus, Calvin, Cornelius 
& Lapide, Bengel, Usteri, Rickert, Gléckler, 
etc.) regard rovr’ éors as the ground of the 
prohibition, and that in the sense: ‘hat ts 
just as much as, etc. So also Philippi: 
** Righteousness is for me as distant and 
high as if it were in heaven and I must fetch 
it down from thence; ... that is just as 
much as if thou wouldest bring down Christ 
from heaven, as if thou didst deny that He 
has already come down from heaven and 
become man;”? and afterward, ver. 7: 
that is just as much as to deny that He has 
already risen from the dead. But it is in- 
appropriate to conceive of righteousness 
itself as the imagined distant (and to-be- 
fetched) object, because righteousness 
itself is speaking. and because Paul names 
Christ Himself as the object to be fetched. 
Inappropriate, too, is the idea of allowing 


righteousness in any way to be represented 
as found in Hades, and brought up thence, 
from whence Christ, indeed, has not 
brought it with Him. To this connection 
belongs van Hongel’s view: ‘ Haec quae- 
rere nihil aliud est quam Christum indigne 
tractare, tanquame locte remolis, at ealutis 
auctor sit,in terram revocandum.” In this 
case the Christum indigne tractare is 1m- 
ported. Further, it makes absolutely no 
difference to the sense of rovr’ éor:, whether 
it is written divided (Lachm., Tisch.) or 
united (rovreory, Hofmann). The codd. 
yield no certain basis ; see Lipsius, gramm. 
Untera. p. 181 ff. Tovro is the subject, and 
éor: the copula of that which is to be pred- 
icated epexegetically of the subject. 

2 The Xpicrdy catrayayety presupposes the 
certainty of the personal pre-existence. 
Comp. Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 50. 


410 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tion is overthrown. For ver. 9 proves that ver. 7 refers to the resurrection 
of Christ ; nor did unbelief, in truth, deny the death of Christ, but took 
offence at it. Like Gléckler, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 102 /f., has essen- 
tially misunderstood both verses, and Riickert the question of ver. 7.— 
} tig xataB. cig tr. &B.;] The colon after # isto be omitted. The question 
is, in the sense of the apostle, likewise a question of unbdelief, and that in 
reference to the fact and the possibility of the resurrection of Christ ix 
vexpav (i.e. out of Scheol, 43vecoc). The LXX., following the original, bas: 
tic dtarrepdoet tiv eig Td wépav.ty¢ BaAdoons ; But Paul, in his typical refer- 
ence toChrist, had sufficient cause and liberty, from the standpoint of the 
historical fulfilment, to put expressly, instead of zépav ric Gardoone, even 
without reflecting that the springs of the sea lie in the lowest depth of the 
earth (see Ewald, Jahrb. III. p. 112), the familiar contrast to heaven, «it. 
a3vccov (Job xi. 8; Ps. cvii. 26, cxxxix. 8 ; Amos ix. 2; Ecclus. xvi. 18, 
xxiv. 5). For Christ is the object of justifying faith, not merely as He who 
came from heaven, but also as He who descended into Hades, and came up 
again thence, and rose from the dead.'— ada ti Aéyee;] But what says it (the 
righteousness of faith) ? An unexact contrast to pu eiryc, ver. 6, as though 
previously the negation had stood with Aéye:, ver. 6 (oty obtw Déyee" eixe 
«.T.4.). The interrogative form serves ‘‘ad attentionem excitandam,” Dissed, 
ad Dem. decor. p. 186, 347. Comp. Gal. iv. 80. -—é ry ard. 0. x. bv 7. & 6] 
Epexegesis of éyyé¢ aot éoriv. — rovr’ gore x.t.4.] This pjua, so designated by 
the righteousness of faith, signifies the word of faith. The genitive +. zicr. 
is genit. objecti (comp. Acts xx. 82; Heb. v. 13; Eph. i. 13, vi. 15; Gal. 
iii. 2). Note here the two articles ; for that pjua intended by the righteous- 
ness of faith is not generally ‘‘a word of faith,” whose contents desire to be 
believed as historical reality (as Hofmann takes it), but the definite specific 
xfpvyua, whose entire summary contents are faith in Jesus Christ ; comp. 
vv. 4, 9 ff., i. 5, 17. — xnpicooper] we preachers of the gospel. 

Ver. 9. Not a statement of the contents of the pjya,? but assigning the 
ground of the immediately previous roir’ fore rd Aqua tHe TicTews 8 xqplos.” 
The force of the argument lies in the fact that, in respect of the pia pub- 
lished by its preachers, conyession and faith (mouth and heart) must be con- 
sentaneous in order to obtain salvation, which is what Moses also means of 
the pjua (ver. 8). — duod. év r. ardéu. cov] corresponds to év r@ ordu. cov (éo7!) 
in ver. 8, as afterwards zior. év r. xapd. cov to év r. xapd. cov in ver. 8, — xipiow 
as Lord (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 8, viii. 6 ; Phil. ii. 11). ‘‘In hac appellatione 
est summa fidei et salutis,” Bengel. It refers to the question ri¢ dvaj. tig t 


1 The deacensus Christi isin any case the pletely defined. 
undoubted presupposition, which led Paul to * Which is not with Hofmann to be 
substitute the words of our passage for leaped over, so that or: refers to éyyis cov 7 
those of the original. The passage has ya éon, and introduces the reason why itis 
therefore more probative force in favourof (hat we have this word so near, in Ure mouth 
that doctrine than Gtider, Lehre von der and in the heart. Hofmann strangely ob 
Erschein, Christi unter d. Todten, p. 20 f.,is jects to the view taken above, that not on, 
willing to accord to it. but yép, must then have been used. Why 
280 van Hengel and others. But by ris 80? 
wiotews the pyua in ver. 8 is already com- 





¢ 


CHAP. X., 10-12. All 


ovp., ver. 6 ; for the whole acknowledgment of the heavenly xupidry¢ of 
Jesus as the ofOpovoc of God is conditioned by the acknowledgment of the 
preceding descent from heaven, the incarnation of the Son of God ; viii. 8 ; 
Gal. iv. 4; Phil. ii. 6, e¢ al. — yerpev éx vexpov] corresponds to the question 
of ver. 7. — ow6foq] corresponds to C#oerac in ver. 6, but characterizes the 
latter, according to the doctrinal system of the apostle (i. 16, v. 9, 10, e¢ al.), 
as a deliverance from destruction to the Messianic salvation. — The confes- 
sion of the mouth (of high essential importance for the relations of every 
time, and peculiarly of that time !) and faith in the heart are not separate 
things, as though one without the other had as its consequence the ournpia, 
but they are mutually dependent requisites. Comp. Knapp, p. 565 ff. — 
The resurrection of the Lord here appears, as suggested by ver. 7, and accord- 
ing to iv. 25 quite justly, as the object of that faith which makes blessed. 
Without it, His death would not be the atoning death, 1 Cor. xv. 17, 18, 
nor would He Himself be the Son of God, i. 4. 

Ver. 10. Elucidation of ver. 9. With mor. and duod. Jesus is not to be 
supplied as subject (Hofmann), which is not even in accordance with the 
linguistic usage of the N. T., for 1 Tim. iii. 16 has a singular poetical style ; 
but the contents of the faith and of the confession are understood, according 
to ver. 9, entirely of themselves. ‘‘ With the heart, namely (yép), one believes 
unto righteousness, but with the mouth confesses unto salcation.” In the style 
of Hebrew parallelism the thought is thus expressed : ‘‘ With the faith of 
the heart is united the confession of the mouth to the result that one obtains 
righteousness and salvation.” The righteousness obtained through faith 
would, forsooth, fall to the ground again, and would not be attended by 
salvation, if faith had not the vital force to produce confession of the mouth 
(which speaks out of the fulness of the heart) ; see Matt. x. 832 ; comp. 2 
Cor. iv. 13. We have thus here no merely formal parallelism, but one 
framed according to the actual relation of the dispensation of salvation ; 
and in this case, moreover, Paul observes the genetic sequence in xapdig. . 
oréuart, because he is now no longer dependent on ver. 8. | 

Ver. 11. Now, after that grand proposition : réAo¢ véuov Xprorée x.7.A. (ver. 
4), has been proved from Moses himself (vv. 5-8), and this proof has re- 
ceived its confirmatory discussion (vv. 9, 10), Paul brings forward, as if for 
the solemn sealing of all this, once more that weighty word of Scripture which 
he has already adduced in ix. 88. But this scriptural saying (Isa. xxviii. 
16) now receives, with the object of closely connecting with it what is fur- 
ther to follow, the significant addition of the universal clement rac (perhaps 
already with a regard to Joel iii. 5), which indeed is found neither in the 
LXX. nor in the Hebrew ; but in the unlimited 6 moretuv in Isaiah, ground 
and justification for its appearance was found to the apostle’s mind, since 
he had the sacred historical fulfilment of the prophecy before his eyes, and 
therein its more particular definitive character. 

Ver. 12. Elucidation of rac. — ov yép éore dtact. Iovd. re nat “EAA.] In re- 
spect, namely, to the bestowal of blessing on the believing, ver. 11. Comp. 
ili. 22. — For the Lord of allis one and the same. This xiprog is Christ [See Note 
CXIL. p. 423.] (Origen, Chrysostom, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Bohme, Tholuck, 


8 
412 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Flatt, Rickert, de Wette, Fritzsche, Philippi, Hofmann, and several others), 
the atzé¢ of ver. 11, and the xipioc of ver. 18, who is necessarily identical 
with this aizéc. Were God intended (Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, and 
many, including Ammon, Reiche, Kéllner, Ewald, Umbreit, van Hengel, 
Krummacher), it would in fact be necessary first to suggest the Christion 
character of the demonstration (as Olshausen : ‘‘God in Christ’’), — xipios 
sdvrwv} comp. Phil. ii. 11; Acts x. 36; Rom. xiv. 9. — rAouré) comp. 
Eph. iii. 8: ‘‘Quem nulla quamvis magna credentium multitudo exhaurire 
potest,” Bengel. Jn what He was rich, the Christian consciousness under- 
stood of itself ; it is contained also in the previous xara:syuvOqoera: and in 
the subsequent ow6jceva1,—namely, in grace and salration. Comp. v. 15, x. 
38, and on 2 Cor. xiii. 13. — cig rdvrac] for all, for the benefit of all. See 
Bernhardy, p. 219 ; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. 85. — The calling upon Christ, who 
nowhere in the N. T. appears as identical with the Jehovah of the 0. T. (in 
opposition to Philippi), is not the worshipping absolutely, as it takes place 
only in respect of the Father, as the one absolute God ; but rather worship 
according to that relativity in the consciousness of the worshipper, which is 
conditioned by the relation of Christ to the Father (whose Son of like nature, 
image, partner of the throne, mediator and advocate on behalf of men, cte., 
He is). This is not imported as an Origenistic gloss (Philippi), but is nec- 
essarily founded on the dependence and subordination in which even the 
glorified God-man Christ, in virtue of His munus regium, stands in relation 
to the Father ; see on 1 Cor. iii. 23, xi. 8, xv. 28.' He who calls upon 
Christ is conscious that he does not call upon Him as the absolute God, but 
as the divine-human Representative and Mediator of God exalted to the 
divine glory, in whom God's adequate revelation of salvation has been given. 
To the mediatorial relation of Christ Hofmann also reverts.?_ Comp. on Phil. 
ii, 10, 11; 1 Cor. i. 2. 

Ver. 18. Ground assigned for eig mdvrag roicg éxcxaA. abrév, ver. 12, and 
that with words of Scripture from Joel iii. 5. This passage (LXX. il 32, 
closely following the LXX.) treats of the coming in of the Messianic ers; 
hence Paul might refer «vpfov, which in the original points to God, justly 
to Christ, who has appeared in the name of God, and continually rules 33 
His Representative and Revealer, and Mediator, whose name was nov the 
very specific object of the Christian calling on the Lord. That Paul 
writes not airot, but cupiov, is from no particular motive (against Hofmann) ; 
he simply reproduces the words of Scripture, which he presumes to be 
well known and makes his own. 

Vv. 14-21. [See Note CXIII. p. 423.] In order to realize this calling uP 
on the Lord, proclaimers of the gospel had of necessity to be sent forth ; 
nevertheless all did not obey the gospel ; in which case neither does this 
excuse avail, that they had not heard the preaching (ver. 18) ; nor that, 
that Israel did not recognize the universality of the preaching (ver. 19 £). 


1 Comp. Liicke, de invocat. J. Chr., Gott. garded by the Apostle as valid in New 
1843. Testament times, for those, and those 00), 

2 According to Hofmann, the promise who place their confidence of salvation on Jesus 
attached to the calling on Jehovah isre- and thus call on Him. 


CHAP. X., 14, lo. 413 
Thus, following up 1-13, taere is still further set forth the people’s own guilt 
in their exclusion. ; 
Vv. 14, 15. Introduction : In order now that men should call on the name of 
the Lord, it is necessary that they should have been believing, hearing, preaching, 
and that the sending forth of preachers should have taken place, which send- 
ing forth also the Scripture prophesies. The object of this introduction is 
not already to cut off every way of escape from the Jews (Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, and several others, including Kéllner), for this is spoken of for 
the first time in ver. 18 ff. ; but the necessity of the evangelical amocroAh is 
Jirst of all to be established generally, in order then to make the disobedience of 
the Jews stand out with the force of contrast. Grotius and Michaclis see in 
vv. 14, 15 a Jewish objection, which alleges that the gospel had not been 
preached to all the Jews in the world, etc. ; Paul then answers in ver. 16 ff. 
But how unsuitably he would have answered ! Must he not, before every- 
thing else, make good—what he only brought in at ver. 18—that all Jews 
had heard the announcement of the gospel? The objection here assumed is 
made by Paul himself in ver. 18. — oiv]draws an inference from ver. 13 : How 
shall they accordingly (in pursuance of the requirement of ém:xaAciofa contained 
in ver. 13) call on, etc. ? On the future of ethical possibility, see Winer, p. 262 
[E. T. 279]. Important codd. and Lachm. have, instead of the futures, the 
deliberative subjunctive aorists : How should they, etc.? The attestation in the 
case of the different verbs of which Tisch. 8. likewise reads the subjunctive 
forms, although he retains instead of dxotcworw the future form axoboovrar, is 
so uncqual, that we can come to no decision. Comp. gencrally Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 734 f. The subject to émixadécovra: x.t.A. 18 those who, according 
to the passage of Scripture in ver. 13, shall attain to salvation through 
calling on the name of the Lord ; that to xypbfovory and azmoorda., the xypto- 
covtec. The impersonal rendering (Fritzsche, de Wette, Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius, Philippi, van Hengel, and several others) has against it the fact that 
xnpv&. has not the same general subject as the foregoing verbs. — cig dv ovx 
éxior.] Him, on whom they have not become believing ; see Buttmann, neut. Gr. 
p. 92 [E. T. 105]. — mag d2 meoretcovory «.7.A.] Rightly the Vulg. : ‘‘Quomodo 
credent ei, guem non audierunt.” ov is not an adzerb of place (Hofmann) ; 
for thus after eis 6v the symmetry of the discourse would only be hetero- 
geneously disturbed. Nor can it denote de guo (Luther, Castalio, and many, 
including Philippi and van Hengel), since axoterv rivd¢ in the sense of ax. 
rspi tevoc, Without a participle annexed, is entirely foreign both to the, 
N. T. and to Greek prose (Xen. Afem. iii. 5. 9 is a case of attracted gen- 
itive) ; and in Homer only, Qd. iv. 114, is the solitary instance of it found.! 
Just as little is the object, i.e. the contents of the preaching heard, meant by 
ov, which would rather be expressed by év (Eph. iv. 21) ; but rather the 
speaking subject, who is listened to as he from whom the discourse proceeds 
(Mark vi. 20, vii. 14 ; Luke ii. 46, e¢ al. ; Winer, p. 187 [E.T. 199] ), Christ 
being in this case conceived of as speaking through His preachers (see the 


18ee Kihner, IT. 1, p. 809: Buttmann, and nevt. Gr. p. 144 f. [E. T. 166}. Comp. 
Progr. tib. ad. syntakt. Verbind. der Verda the Homeric rvv@dvec@ai trvos, equivalent to 
acoveww and axpoagGa, Potsd. 1855, pp. 7,12, wept trivos (Nagelsbach, Jlias, p. 104, ed. 8). 


414 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


following) ; comp. Eph. ii. 17. Onthe general thought, comp. Plat. Rep. 
p. 827 C : 4 Kai divacof av, 4 0 b¢, weicas py axobovrac ; — xwpi¢ Kyptoo.| with- 
out their having a preacher, apart from a preacher. Comp. Tittmann, 
Synon. p. 95 ; who, however, wrongly explains, ot zcoretoavres TH xypicoort, 
— arocrataa| Whence? dia phuarog cov, ver. 17, informs us.—The form 
of the argument is a sorites, and its conclusion : The appointment of evan- 
gelical heralds is the first condition in order to bring about the calling upon 
the Lord. This retrograde sorites thus leads us back to the source ; and of 
the arocroA} thus suggesting itself as primarily necessary, the prophetic con- 
Jirmation from Isa. lit. 7 (not closely after the LXX.) is then given. This 
‘‘dulcissimum dictum” (Melanchthon), because it speaks of the message of 
blissful liberation from exile, therein possesses the Messianic character, 8s 
concerning the restoration of the theocracy ; and therefore is legitimately’ 
understood by Paul—in connection with the Messianic idea and its historical 
fulfilment—as a prophecy of the evangelical preachers. These preach sal- 
vation (DIY, meaning in Isaiah also not merely peace, but the theocratic 
saving deliverance), preach good (2\0) ; that is, still more generally, omne 
quod feliz faustumque est, which is to be received through Christ, the accom- 
plisher of the divine dominion. That the Rabbins also understood the 
passage in a Messianic sense, and in what way, see Wetstein.—The opposite 
of the poetical : how pleasant are the feet (i.e. how welcome the arrival), etc., 
at iii. 15 ; Acts v. 9; Neh. i. 15.? 

Ver. 16. ’AAA’] contrast to the prophetic saying of ver. 15 : But—notwith- 
standing that accordingly the blessed sending forth of messengers of salva- 
tion did not fail to take place—all did not obey the message of salvation, all did 
not submit to the requirement (of faith), which the glad news concerning Mes 
siah and His kingdom placed before them ; comp. i. 5, xvi. 26 ; 2 Thess. 1. 8. 
With Theodore of Mopsuestia, who takes 422’ ov x.r.A. as a question (comp. 
Theodoret), Reiche thinks that 442’... . ebayy. is an opponent’s objection, 
which Paul accordingly repels by the passage from Isaiah. Against this view 
the presence of the following y4p would not be decisive—it would rather be 
quite in its proper place in the reply (Herm. ad Viger. p. 829 ; Hartung Per- 
tikell. I. p. 473 f.)—but vv. 18 and 19 (comp. xi. 1, 11), to which Reiche ap- 
peals, testify directly against it, because there Afyw is found. Fritzsche, 
following Carpzov, refers ob révrec to the Gentiles, of whom, however, a: 
though van Hengel also understands them to be intended in wv. 14, 19, 
nothing is said in the whole context ; hence it is not to be even taken quite 
generally (Hofmann), but is to be referred textually to the Jews, of whom 9 
many, notwithstanding that the lovely feet of the messengers of salvation 
came to tread amongst them, yielded no result. The negative expression 
for this multitude is a litotes, forbearing, but making it felt quite travically 
enough, that the opposite of ob révre¢ should have been found. Comp. iil 
3: yriornoav tives. — yép] prophetic confirmation of the sad phenomenon (00 
mavre¢ x.T.A.), Which thus, as already predicted, enters into the connection of 


1 Comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 292. Expl. Pind. p. 281; Wander, ad Soph. B. 
3 See Schaefer, ad Kur. Or. 1217; Boeckh, 1357 f. p. 120. 
+ 


CHAP. X., 1%. 415 
divine destiny, and is not an accidental occurrence. This Hofmann misap- 
prehends, extending the reference of the yép to the following dpa 7 riori, 
x.T.A., which is impossible on account of the dpa commencing a new sentence, 
since Paul has not written ei ydp 'Hoatac Abyet n.t.A. . . . Gpa } mlorig x.T.A., 
whereby to these latter words would fall the definition of the citation, as 
Hofmann thinks.—TIn the lament of the author of Isa. liii. 1 (closely follow- 
ing the LXX., even with the xtpie added by them) over the unbelief of his 
time in the prophetic preaching (axof, see on Gal. iii. 2), Paul sees—and on 
account of the Messianic character of the entire chapter justly—a prophecy 
of the Jewish unbelief of Christian times in the Christian preaching. Comp. 
John xii. 38. Following Syr., Calovius, and others, Umbreit and Heng- 
stenberg, Christol. II. p. 307, take axof as the thing heard, i.e. ‘‘ that which 
is announced to us through the word of God (@y revelation). But the very 
following 4 ioric é& axo7j¢ shows, that Paul did not wish to be understood 
as meaning the divine communication which the preacher received, but 
the preaching of that word heard by the listeners. The historic aorist cor- 
responds closely to tzfxovoav. We may add that Theophylact rightly re- 
marks : 70 tig avri rod omdviot Keitae EvraiOa’ rovréotiy OAiyot Exlarevoay. 

Ver. 17. Inference from the prophetic passage, with the view of substan- 
tially recapitulating what was said in ver, 14, and then pursuing the sub- 
ject in ver. 18. — axof] the same as in ver. 16, the announcement, which is 
heard ; comp. on John xii. 38. From this comes faith ; the heard preach- 
ing of the gospel brings about in men’s minds faith on Christ ; but preaching 
is brought about by God's behest (Luke iii. 2; Matt. iv. 4; Heb. xi. 8), set to 
work by the fact that God commands preachers to their office. Rightly 
have Beza, Piscator, Semler, Cramer, Fritzsche, Gléckler, Tholuck, Baum- 
garten-Crusius so understood pjua Ocov. For the ordinary interpretation 
of it, also followed by Hofmann, as the preached word of God, is incorrect 
for this reason, that according to it Ajua Ocov in point of fact would not be 
different from dxof ; and this Aja Ocov does not point back to ver. 8, but 
to azooraido: in ver. 15, as the remaining contents of the verse show, so that 
the signification saying obtains textually the more precise definition of its 
sense as behest. But when axo7' has been taken in two different senscs in 
ver. 16 and ver. 17, so that in ver. 16 it signifies the preaching, but in ver. 
17 the hearing (Riickert, de Wette, Philippi, according to whom the preach- 
ing is to be analyzed into its two elements, the hearing and the word of 
God, comp. Tholuck) ; or when in dé pfyaroc Geoi, instead of ‘‘ God's 
word,” divine revelation has been substituted (Reiche, van Hengel, comp. 
Olshausen, who explains it as equivalent to dia wvebyaroc Oeov) : these are 
just makeshifts in order to separate the incorrectly assumed notion of pjya 
Geov from that of axof.?—How could Paul infer also } 62 axon dia phuatrog Ocov 


1 That aco may denote hearkening, listen- 
ing to, is undoubted. See Plato, Theaet. p. 
142 D; Diod. xix. 41. But more usually it 
denotes, even in the classics, either the 
Saculty of hearing, or, as here, the thing 
heard. Comp. on Gal. iil. 2 

2 In which they cannot succeed, however, 


for é£ axons In fact could not be a hearken- 
ing in the abstract, but only the hearkening 
to the word of God (the gospel). Soalso, the 
thing heard would be even in itself the word 
of God ; therefore we are not to explain, 
with van Hengel: ‘id vero, quod auditum 
est, debetur palefactioni divinae.” 


416 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Jrom Isaiah? Certainly not from the mere address «tpce, but rather from 
the whole attitude of the prophet towards God, as it is expressed in ripu 
.. » Muov,—an attitude in which the prophet stands as the servant and an- 
bassador of God, so that God thus appears as He on whose saying, i.e. on 
whose command, the axo# is preached. 

Ver. 18. A perhaps possible exculpation for the Jews is suggested by Paul 
as a spontaneous oljection, and that in the form of a question to be zegaticed, 
and is then repelled with words from Scripture. ‘‘ But I ask : Was it then 
in any way not possible for them to come to faith é£ axoj¢ ? The preaching 
surely did not remain unheard by them, surely did not fail to come at all to 
their cars?’ The correct view is simply and clearly given by Chrysostom. 
Incorrectly Hofmann : After Paul has introduced the prophet as speaking, 
he leaps over to the saying something himself, which that prophetic saying 
suggests to him. Against this may be urged, (1) that not here for the first 
time, but already in ver. 17, it is Paul who speaks ; (2) that he, in placing 
himself in contradistinction to the prophet, must have written not merely 
GAAa Atyw, but aad’ éy Aéyw ; (3) that 42/44 4. is not to be taken, with Hof- 
mann, ‘‘ Well! then I say,” since in that case 444d would have the sense of 
agreement or concession (see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 16), which is suitable 
neither here nor in ver. 19.1. The 44/4 is the quite customary aA/d of objection, 
which is made by oneself or inthe name of the opponent ; Baeumlein, p. 13. 
— On the following question : Surely it cannot be that they hare not heard? 
observe that oix is closely joined to fxovsay, expressing the opposite of 
jxovsav (Bucumlein, p. 277 f. ; Winer, p. 476 [E. T. 511] ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 
4, xi. 22), and that the interrogative y# supposes the negatire answer : by no 
means has it remained unheard by them, which negation of the ot« jxovcay im- 
plies the assertion of the jxovcav. — jxovoav] se. tiv axoyv. The subject is 
those who remained unbelieving (ov wdvre¢ trfx., ver. 16), by whom Paul 
certainly means the Jews, although without expressing it directly and exclu- 
sively. The reference to the Gentiles (Origen, Calvin, Fritzsche, and others, 
including van Hengel and Krummacher) is quite foreign to the connection ; 
comp. on ver. 15. — pevoivye] imo cero. See on ix. 20.—ci¢ sacar «.1.4] 
from Ps. xix. 5 (close after the LXX.), where the subject spoken of is the 
universally diffused natural revelation of God ; Paul clothes in these 
sacred words the expression of the going forth (é:728ev, aor.) everywhere of 
the preaching of the gospel. Comp. Justin, c. Tryph. 42, Apol. i. 40.—4 
$0syyo¢ aitav] their sound, the sound which the preachers (to these, accord- 
ing to the connection, avrév refers, which in the psalm refers to heaven, the 
handiworks of God, day and night) send forth while they preach. In the 
LXX. it is a translation of 03P, which some have understood, with Luther, 
as their measuring line (comp. Hupfcld), some, and rightly so, according 
to the parallelism, with the LXX., Symm., Syr., Vulg., and most exposi- 


1 Hofmann appeals without pertinence to = mevodvye éwi AVoes xéxpyra, ... Avart? 
Hartung, Ll. p. 35. Forthe proindainchal- ¢nrovuevov. Comp. on the pér ody intro- 
lenges or exclamations is here entirely ducing a correcting answer, Hermann. ad 
heterogeneous. Viger. p. 845; Pflugk, ad Eur. He. 121; 

? Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly says: 7d ##Kiihner, II. 2, p. 7il. 


CHAP. X., 19. 41% 


tors, as their sound. — The answer pevowvye x.t.A. (in which, moreover, Paul 
does not adduce the passage from the Psalms as a quotation) confutes the ovx 
ixovoayv very forcibly, because it argues @ majori, and even applies to all the 
Jews of the dispersion. But the conclusion that, according to our present 
passage, the gospel had at that time actually penetrated everywhere (even 
to China, America, etc.), is simply an arrant mistake, contrary to the nature 
of the popularly poetical expression, although, in imitation of the older 
commentators, renewed by Liéhe (». d. Kirche, p. 34 ff.), and Pistorius in 
the Luther. Zeitschr. 1846, II. p. 40. The universal extension of the gospel 
(comp. Col. i. 6, 28 ; Clem. Cor. i. 5) set on foot by the apostles on a suffi- 
ciently large scale, is continually in course of development. Comp. xi. 25, 26. 

Ver. 19. A further possible exculpation,' introduced in emphatic con- 
formity with the preceding, and the repelling of it by means of scriptural 
declarations down to ver. 21. On d2Ad Theodore of Mopsuestia rightly ob- 
serves : mdAw érépavy avridecey exdyet. — un 'lopayA oix Eyvw;] surely it did 
not remain unknown to the Israelites ?? The *‘it” to be supplied with éyw 
(see Niigelsbach, 2. Ilias, p. 120, ed. 3) is: dre ei¢ macav tiv yi ekeretcerat 6 
gObyyo¢ avrav x.t.A, This universal destination of the preaching of Christ 
expressed in ver. 18 must have been known by the Jews, for long ago Moses 
and also Isaiah had prophesied the conversion of the Gentiles — Isaiah 
likewise, the refractory spirit of opposition thereto of the Jews (vv. 20, 21). 
This reference of ovx éyvw alone (followed also by de Wette, Fritzsche, and 
Tholuck) flows purely in accordance with the text from what immediately 
precedes, and is at the same time naturally in keeping with the contents of 
the corresponding biblical passages ; for the conversion of the Gentiles and 
the universality of Christianity are one ; since the former was prophesied to 
the Jews, the latter could not be unknown to them ; and they could not 
therefore allege as the excuse for their unbelief : We did not know that 
Christianity is destined for the whole of humanity—the less could they do 
so, since Isaiah places before them the true source of their unbelief in their 
own spirit of resistance. The view of the passage which comes substantially: 
nearest to ours, is that of Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, 
Pareus, Toletus, Calovius, Turretine, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Koppe, Benecke, 
Kdllner, Ewald (comp. Tholuck), who supply with otx éyww: that the Gospel’ 
would pass over from the Jews to the Gentiles. So Pelagius and Theodore of 
Mopsuestia: 1d rote && é6vév mpooeiAjgha cig rHv evotBecav. But this is wrong, 
in so far as the object to be supplied is not purely borrowed from the preced- 
ing, but is already in part anticipated from what follows. Beza has vaguely 
and crroneously supplied Deum with éyw ; Reithmayr, on the other hand,, 
thinks no object is to be supplied ; while others imagine the gospel to be the 
object (‘‘ Have they not learnt to know the gospel, in order to be able to 
believe in it?”), So Chrysostom, Vatablus, Gomarus, Hammond, Estius, 


? The correctness of which would inturn indicates a climax of the increasing urgency 
weaken the blamableness pointed out in of the question, and which Is the more natue 
ver. 18. Comp. Chrys. rally suggested to Paul,since he has already 

* Those previously meant (in oppositionto in view a prophecy directed to the people. 
Hofmann) are here expressly named—which  incontrast to the Gentiles (ver. 21). 


418 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

and several others, including Riickert, Olshausen, van Hengel, Beyschlag, 
Mangold, and, with a peculiar turn, Philippi also ; similarly Hofmann and 
others, taking up the following rpérog (see below). In that case—against 
which there is no objection in itself —9 "Ippaz? ovx éyvw would be so com- 
plete a parallel to 9 ovx jovoay in ver. 18, that here, as there, the gospel 
would have to be supplied. But as this is by no means necessary (in oppo- 
sition to Hofmann)—since it fully satisfies the symmetry of the discourse, if 
in both instances a/Ad 2 has its reference to what immediately precedes— 
so it is directly opposed by the fact, that the following reply beginning with 
npatog would not be suitable. For if we were to assume that Paul has 
given an indirect answer (‘‘ when he shows that the Gentiles believe, he says : 
How should not, could not Jerael have believed, if it had willed ?” Olsh.), 
this would only be a makeshift, in which the answer would appear the more 
unsuitable in proportion to its indirectness, and still leave open the possi- 
bility of the ovx Zywu. Or if we were to suppose with Rickert, that the 
thought is: ‘‘ Want of knowledge is not the cause, but God is now putting 
into penal execution what He has threatened, and is allowing salvation to 
pass over to the Gentiles, in order thereby to convert the Jews to a better 
disposition,” the point of the yw would not be entered into at all, and 
moreover, the essential part of the interpretation would simply be supplied 
by the reader. This objection is at the same time valid against van Hengel, 
according to whom it is to be made to appear from the following prophetic 
quotations that Israel had indeed known, but had shamefully despised, the 
gospel. Orif, finally, with Philippi, we are to say that the passages from 
the prophets contained not a refutation, but a substantiation, of the fact that 
verily Israel’ had rejected the gospel (which rejection lies in ov« évw), this 
would be inconsistent with the interrogative form with yf (comp. on ili. 5), 
which necessarily presupposes the denial® of the ovx éyvw (consequently the 
affirmative : éyww). In entire deviation from the views just given, Reiche 
thinks that 'Iopa#A is accusative, and Océc to be supplied as subject. ‘‘ Did 
not God recognize Israel for His people ? How could He permit it to be so 
blinded and hardened ?” Itis decisive against this view, that to supply 
‘Oed¢ as subject, especially after ver. 18,is highly arbitrary, and that the 
following passages of Scripture would be quite inappropriate. — mpéroc} not 
in the sense of rpérepoc (which, regarded by itself, might indeed be the case 
according to the context ; see on John i. 15); but, since Moses is quoted, 


} Philippi paraphrases: ‘Is it concelv- 
:able that Israel precisely, the chosen people 
-of God, did not recognize the Messianic 
cempia destined in an especia] manner 
for it, or the preaching thereof, while yet 
the Gentiles attained to this knowledge*" 
*“ The adduced passages from the prophets 
show now that there was by no means any 
cause of wonder over this fact, for thus exact- 
ly it had been predicted in the divine word, 
—namely, that the Gentiles would aecept, 
but Israel would reject, the salvation.” 

® Philippi, indeed, in ods. 2 and 8, pro- 


poses, in the event of the denia/ of the ques- 
tion being retained,— which, however, he 
does not concede,—the expedient, that then 
the prophetic passages might serve to prove 
that the fact of the prophecy, which ap- 
peared in itself incredible, had neverthedess 
occurred in correspondence therewith. 
But the contents of this thought would be 
invented, not gathered from the language ; 
and self-contradictory besides, for the no 
would be involved in the question, and in 
apetos «.7.A. the yes, which had yet oc 
curred in accordance with prophecy. 


CHAP. X., 20, 21. 419 
with whom the testimony of God in the O. T. begins : at the jirst (who in 
Scripture comes forward in opposition to this) speaks Moses. Of the later 
testimonies of Scripture, Paul then contents himself with adducing only the 
bold divine utterances of Isaiah. Theodore of Mopsuestia well gives it: 
etvdd¢ Muitofe. Wetstein, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Hofmann, connect rpéro¢ 
with ov« éyvw. But the supposed sense : ‘‘ Did not Israel first learn to know 
it (the gospel)?” or, as Hofmann expresses it : ‘‘ Was it possibly to stand in 
such a position, that Israel did not obtain the first experience of it ?” must have 
been expressed without ph.'— tye wapat. x.7.A.] Deut. xxxil. 21, almost 
exactly after the LXX. God there, in the song of Moses, threatens the 
idolatrous Israelites, that He on His part (éyé) will bless a Gentile people, and 
thereby incite the former to jealousy and to wrath, as they had incited Him 
by their worship of idols. Paul recognizes in this—according to the rule of 
the constancy of the divine ways in the history of the development of the 
theocracy—a type of the attaining of the Gentiles to participation in the 
communion of God’s people, whereby the jealousy and wrath of the Jews 
will be excited. — éx’ otx é@vec] OY 83, in respect to a not-people ; for only 
the people of God was the real one, the people corresponding to the divine 
idea of a people ; every other is the negation of this idea. Comp. ix. 25 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 10. On the connection of ov with nouns, cancelling the notion 
objectively, see Ilartung, Partikell. II. p. 129; Grimm on 2 Macc. iv. 13. 
Often found in Thucydides (Kriiger on i. 187. 4). On ézi, orer, on the 
ground, that is, on account of, comp. Demosthenes, 1448. 4: rapofuviivruy ézi 
rp yeyevnuévy, Polyb. iv. 7, 5. —acuvérw] ti yap 'EAAfvav dovvetorepov fiArore 
nai 2iBo1g mpooxexnvétwrv ; Theophylact. Comp. i. 21. 

Vv. 20, 21. Aé] marking the transition to another prophet, as at ix. 27. 
—amoroAud x. Aéyec] is emboldened and says. The latter is the immediate 
consequence of the former ; hence here not a Hebraizing mode of expression 
for the adverbial notion (he jreely speaks out), but azorodp. is absolute (Hom. 
Il. x. 232, xii. 51, et al.).? — amoroAud] éBidoaro yumi eireiv tH adAjOear nai 
nvduvevoa f avoaurpoat, Theophylact. Yet the prophet of bold speech is 
represented as present, as previously Moses in Aéye. The citation is Isa. Ixv. 
1, freely from the LXX., and with undesigned transposition of the two 
parallel clauses. According to its historical sense, the passage refers to the 
Jews? who had become apostate from God through immorality and idolatry, 
on whose behalf the prophet has just begged for grace, to which entrcaty 


1 By taking wperos with ¢yvw, there would 
result the quite preposterous sense of the 
question : Surcly it is not possibly the case 
that Israel first remained unacquainted 
with it? i.e. that the Israelites were the 
first to whose knowledge the gospel had 
not come? Hofmann groundlessly refers 
to Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. 214 [E. T. 248], 
and explains as though ove did not qualify 
tyre, but wpwros, as though consequently 
Paul had said: wy ‘IopaiA ov mpwros ¢yvw; 
This would be: Surely Israel has not expe- 
rienced it only in the second place (the Gen- 


tile world in the frst)? With strange incor- 
rectness, Hofmann says that, according to 
our way of taking spwros, elrev should stand 
instead of A¢ye. Moses speaks and writes 
(ver. 5) still al this day as mpwros in the O. T. 

2Comp. Winer, p. 437 f. [E. T. 468 f.], 
Buttmann, p. 249 [E. T. 290]; and see 
Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 178; Nom. J7. 1. 92: 
Odpance cai nuda partis. 

S Not to the Gentiles (Calvin, Vitringa, 
Philipp!). See, on the other hand, Delitzsch 
on Isa. 


420 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Jehovah begins His answer by reminding them how He had given Himself 
to be found, and revealed Himself with prevenient undeserved kindness to 
the faithless people. But in the apostate Israel, which was in fact sunk 
into an idolatrous condition (see esp. Isa. Ixiv. 6, lxv. 3 ff.), and in the re 
lation to it which Jehovah here affirms of Himself, Paul sees a typical repre- 
sentation of the Gentile world, which (as deo év rH xéouy, Eph. ii. 12) did 
not concern itself about God, but to which God has given Himself to be 
found, and (epexegetic parallel) to be recognized in His self-revelation 
(through the gospel). The Gentiles have accepted this prevenient divine 
compassion, but Israel in its obstinate apostasy has resisted it ; hence Paul 
continues in ver. 21 with mpog dé rdv 'IopapA Atyer. The latter clearly indi- 
cates that Paul really found in ver. 20 the prophetic reference to the Ga- 
tile world (of which Israel is the opposite) ; and not, as Hofmann with strict 
adherence to the historical sense of the original supposes, the _fruitlessness 
of the divine long-suffering towards Israel, which justifies God's dealing if He 
noo rests not until He has requited its disobedience. According to this inter- 
pretation, mpdc rdv 'Iopaf7a would have been already said in ver. 20, against 
which view ver. 21 testifies. — eipé@y] not : ‘‘I have allowed myself to be 
found” (Reiche and others), but : J have been found. On the sense, comp. 
Acts xvii. 27; and on the connection of etp. and éug. éyev., Wisd. iif 
The aorists are, in the sense of the apostle, to be understood of that which 
has taken place in the Christian present. — roi¢ gua py érepwr.] who inquired 
not of me, namely, respecting revelation ; comp. Ezek. xx. 1 ; Dem. 1072. 
12. — Ver. 21. zpé¢] not adversus (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Toletus, 
Grotius, Cramer, Koppe), since in itself—without a more special indication 
of the text which would yield the hostile sense—it denotes only the simple 
placing in contrast. Hence, either : in reference to Israel (Estius, Wolf, Cb. 
Schmidt, and others, including Tholuck, de Wette, Fritzsche, Philippi), 
like Heb. i. 7, 8, Luke xii. 41, xx. 19 ; or, “in the case of Israel He declares” 
(Kéllner, Riickert, Ewald, and others, following Luther and Vulg.). The 
former view, which is adopted also by van Hengel, is to be preferred for this 
reason, that dé introduces a contrast, not with those to whom the previous 
passage was directed, but with those to whom it refers in respect of its fig- 
urative application. — A¢yer] Isaiah, namely. That he speaks in the ame 
of God, is understood of itself. — dAyv rv fukp.] the whole day, like viii. %. 
Expresses the unremitting nature of the love. — amei0. x. avTiAtyovra] present 
participle, denoting the continuance of the conduct. ayvr:Afy. is not @ be 
explained, with Grotius, Reiche, Fritzsche, van Hengel, and most, as t@ 
refractory, which it does not mean, but to contradict. The J ews—although 
God stretched out His saving hands towards them from early morning 
evening (comp. Prov. i. 24)—are disobedient, and say : We will not / Comp. 
Matt. xxiii. 837 ; Tit. ii. 9; 3 Macc. ii. 28; Lucian. D. M. xxx. 3; and se 
on John xix. 12, Also in Achilles Tatius, v. 27 (in opposition to Kypke a4 
Fritzsche), avr:Aéyerv is conceived as contradiction ; as also avridoyia, Heb. 
xii. 83. Note how opposed the passage is to absolute predestination, 
particularly to the Calvinistic ‘‘ voluntas beneplaciti et signi.” 


NOTES. 421 


Norges spy AMERICAN Eprror. 
CX. Ver. 4. rédo¢g ydp véuouv Xproréc, 


That Meyer's view of rédoc is correct is shown both by the preceding and 
by the following context. The idea of the Apostle in ix. 30-32, and in the 
third verse of this chapter, is that of two opposite and mutually exclusive 
systems. The same is true of vv. 5 ff. In these verses he is not discussing 
the matter which is under consideration in Gal. iii. 23 ff., but that which 
is noticed in Gal. iii. 11, 12. According to the plan adopted, indeed, and 
the line of argument pursued, he introduces the point ina different place 
and connection in the two Epistles. But the point itself is the same. The 
law-system and the faith-system are, in their very nature, contrary to each 
other. That which lies at the foundation in the one case is doing: in the 
other, it is believing. It will be observed, also, that the same passage from the 
O. T. (Levit. xviii. 5) is cited here which appears in Gal. iii. 12. The thought 
connected with réAo¢ must, accordingly, be this: When Christ, who brings in 
the completeness of the faith-system, enters upon His work, the law-system is 
ended and excluded. Hence, also, it follows that the Jews, in holding to the 
law-system, fail of righteousness, which comes only by faith. 

The connection, in this underlying idea, between the present passage and 
Gal. iii. 11 f., has also an important bearing on the meaning of vduov in this 
verse. In Gal. iii. the fact that 6 yéu0¢, which must mean the Mosaic law, occurs 
both in ver. 10 and ver. 12, together with the fact that the proof given of the 
subjection of those who are é£ fpywy vduov to a curse is the declaration of the 
O. T., that every man who does not continue in allthe things which are written 
in the book of the law (rod véuov) is accursed, makes it manifest that vdéuov and 
rod véuouv are intended by the writer to refer to the same thing. If, however, 
this is true in the corresponding verses in the letter to the Galatians, it must 
be admitted to be true also in the verses now before us, for we find here the 
same principal thought confirmed by the same O. T. passage, and not only so, 
but we find the cited words, which in the original refer to the Mosaic law (i.e. 
6 véyoc), used as giving Moses’ description of the dixaioovvy vouov. 

That zav7! in this verse has the same sense with that mentioned in Note 
VUL, p. 76, is evident from the words ‘Iovdaiov te nai “EAAnvog of ver 12 (comp. 
xuvtac, ver, 12, nds, vv. 11, 13), and also from vv, 18-21. 


CXI. Vv. 6-9. 


The citation here is from Deut. xxx. 11-14. There can be no doubt that this 
passage, as it occurs in the O. T., refers to the law of Moses, and declares to 
the people that, inasmuch as that law had been clearly set before their minds, 
the fulfilment of its duties was a thing close at hand for them in their daily 
living. It is applied, however, by Paul to the faith-system, as descriptive of 
its distinguishing peculiarity in contrast with the law-system. In connection 
with this fact the following points may be noticed. (a) The writer allows him- 
self to use an O. T. citation in a sense different from the primary sense of the 
original. That there was a secondary meaning in the passage quoted, which 
answers to the one brought out by the Apostle, is indicated only by tho fact 
that he employs the words as he does. (6) In his peculiar use and application 


422 TILE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


of the words, the Apostle changes the original expressions so far as to adapt 
them more fully to his purpose: e.g. ‘‘who shall descend into the abyss,'’ 
instead of ‘‘ who shall go over the sea for us.’’ (c) He also adds explanatory 
words which are connected with his application of the passage, and, in the in- 
stance just mentioned, such explanatory words as seem to indicate plainly his 
object in altering the original. (@) He does not, however, formally declare that 
Moses describes the righteousness of faith in this language, but simply appro- 
priates the words of Moses for the purpose of setting forth the description of it. 
The passage serves, thus, to show the freedom which the writer exercises in 
the matter of quotation, and its phenomena, with those which kindred passages 
present, must be fairly considered in any examination or discussion of the 
question as to the use made by N. T. writers of words from the O. T. 

In the attempt to determine the precise thought which the Apostle intends to 
express by ri¢ dvaBjoera x.T.A., a8 he makes the words descriptive of faith, we 
must observe : (1) That the main design of the introduction of the passage is 
to set forth the contrast with the law-system. The central idea, thus, is be- 
lieving as opposed to doing. (2) That the questions ri¢ «.7.A. in the O. T. verses 
refer to the difficulty and remoteness of the thing in question, as if it must be 
brought to us from heaven, or from beyond the sea, in order to our hearing or 
doing it. (3) That, in the use of the citation by Paul, we must look for the 
second idea (2) as well as the first (1), if we would reach the full significance 
of it to his mind. He denies, in the earlier and negative part, that the faith- 
system involves the necessity of any great or impossible work, and affirms, in 
the positive part, the simple demand for believing. (4) The explanation of the 
added words, to bring Christ down from heaven, or up from the dead, is most readi- 
ly suggested by the fact that, as connected with the system of faith, His de- 
scent to this world and resurrection from the dead accomplished the two great 
things which were essential to be done. These two things have been already 
accomplished, and the Christian has only to accept them by faith. The un- 
derstanding of these questions, therefore, as questions of unbelief, as Meyer 
and some others explain them, is unnecessary, and also contrary to the 
indications of the passage. Meyer urges that vv. 9 ff. suggest nothing of diffi- 
culty and facility. This suggestion is made, however, by the éyyv¢ «.r.A. of ver. 
8 in contrast with 7) elmyc ... tic x.7.A. of ver. 6 (comp. the verses in Deut.), and 
is carried over, without further repetition of it, into vv. 9 ff. He also presses, 
as if decisive, the fact that vv. 5-8 are designed to be ‘‘a proof, founded on 
Moses, of the statement réAo¢ véuov Xpiords,’’ and that the force of the proof 
depends on the essential difference between the faith dixccocévy and that of the 
law, and not on the facility of the former. No doubt it does thus depend on 
the difference. But in the investigation of the ri¢ questions we are consider- 
ing not the central idea of the passage alone, but the cause for introducing certain 
words. These words, which are in the negative part of what is said, contain 
something more than the mere foundation thought of that part, ie. not doing. 
They refer to the not doing a particular thing, and the point to be determined 
is why this particular thing is mentioned. Meyer himself is compelled to 
give an answer to this inquiry, and to say that the words imply a denial that 
Christ has come in the flesh. There is no hint of such a denial, however, in 
any simple application of the O. T. verses, and no necessary suggestion of it 
in anything which the Apostle says. 


NOTES. 423 


CXII. Ver. 12. 6 yap avré¢ xvpiog wdvrav. 


" ‘That xvptog here refers to Christ cannot be considered certain. That this 
reference is probable, however, must be admitted, because we find the same 
word in ver. 9 as the predicate in the confession Jesusis Lord ; because it 
occurs here in a sentence introduced for the purpose of proving that every one, 
whether Jew or Gentile, who believes on Him, will not be ashamed ; because 
with the idea of calling upon this xvpioc, which is presented in the last clause 
of the verse, is connected the idea of believing, ver. 14 ; and because the hear- 
ing, which is intimated to be the necessary antecedent condition to believing, 
is said in ver. 17 to come through the word of Christ [Xpiorot is the true 
reading in that verse]. 

The remark of Meyer (who accepts the reference of xvpio¢ to Christ), that 
‘*the calling upon Christ —-who nowhere in the N. T. appears as identical with 
the Jehovah of the O. T.—is not the worshipping absolutely, as it takes place 
only in respect of the Father, as the one absolute God ; but rather worship ac- 
cording to that relativity in the consciousness of the worshipper, which is con- 
ditioned by the relation [i.e. of ‘dependence and subordination ’] of Christ 
to the Father,” is not suggested by anything in this chapter or verse. What- 
ever foundation may be claimed for it must be discovered elsewhere. Alford, 
on the other hand, affirms that ‘there is hardly a stronger proof, or one more 
irrefragable by those who deny the Godhead of our Blessed Lord, than the 
unhesitating application to Him of the name and attributes of Jehovah,”’ 


CXIII. Ver. 14-21. 


The verses from ix. 30 to x. 13 set forth directly the cause of the failure of the 
Jews. Vv. 14-21 show that, as related to this cause, they were without excuse. 
The cause is their failure to accept and adopt the way of righteousness which 
God has provided—righteousness by faith. The only two excuses for this fail- 
ure, which they could present, were, first, that they had not heard of the faith 
system, and secondly, that, having heard it, they had found it to be a system so 
inconsistent, in respect to its universality, with the teachings of the O. T. 
Scriptures as to render it natural for them to reject it. Both of these points 
are considered, and the Apostle gives, in citations from the O. T., a denial of 
each of them. The Jews had heard, since the messengers had gone forth far 
and wide. The prophets, and even Moses, had pointed to the ingathering of 
the Gentile nations, and also to the disobedience and gainsaying of the Jews. 
But, after they had heard, they had not yielded to God’s method, vv. 16-18; 
and, notwithstanding they had known, they would not accept and believe, vv. 
19-21. To these verses, as Meyer also says, a prefatory passage, vv. 14, 15, is 
prefixed, which allows that there would be an excuse were there no preachers’ 
sent forth by the Lord to proclaim the truth. The form and phraseology of 
vv. 14, 15 are determined by the preceding verses, out of which they naturally 
spring in the progress of the sentences. But in relation to the main line of 
the thought, they open a new paragraph. 


424 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


CHAPTER XI. 


Ver. 1. After r. Aaov atrot, A D* ®** and some Fathers have év tpotyw. 
So Lachm. in brackets. An addition from ver. 2. — Ver. 2. After 'IopayA Elz 
has Aéywv, against decisive evidence, — Ver. 3. ra Ovoraor.] Elz.: xai rd 6ve., 
against so important witnesses, that xai would appear a connective addition. 
Comp. the LXX. — Ver. 6. The addition in Elz., e da && Epywyv, otxéti éorl xdpur 
éret 7d Epyov ovréte éoriv Epyov, is wanting in AC DEF GP 8%, 47, Copt. Sab. 
Arm. Vulg. It. Dam. Rufin., and all the Latin Fathers. An old interpolation 
(found already in B L &**, Syr. Arr. Chrys.), with a view to the completion of 
the proof ; rejected by Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachm.; 
adopted, indeed, by Tisch. 7, but again omitted in ed. 8; after Beza, Bengel, 
Matthiae, Rinck, defended most thoroughly by Fritzsche and Reiche (in opp. 
to his Commentary) in the Comment. Crit. I. p. 68 ff. But considering the pre 
ponderance of the opposing testimony, the completely superfluous character of 
the proposition in the argument, and the anomalous form in which the words 
appear in the principal Codex which contains them (B: ei d2 # épywr, otxin 
Xapic’ Evel rd Epyov ovnéTs EoTev yaptc), and also the other variations in detail 
(see Tisch. 8), the defences of them are not convincing. See also van Hengel. 
The argument for retaining them, on the ground that an interpolator would 
have framed them more closely in conformity with the first half of the verse, 
is weakened by the fact that very ancient authorities have éoriv instead of yive- 
rat also in the first half of the verse. — Ver. 7. rovro] Elz.: roévov, against de 
cisive evidence. An emendation in accordance with the usual construction. — 
Ver. 13. yap] Lachm., Tisch. 8: dé, according to A B P &, min. Syr. Copt 
Damasc. Theodoret. ms. ; C has odv ; Aeth. utr. no particle. With such divided 
testimony, dé is the best supported, and to be preferred ; it came to be glossed by 
more definite particles. — yév] is wantingin DEF G, min., which was occasioned 
by the apparent absence of reference for the pzév. Lachm., Tisch. 8: pév ov, 
according to ABC P X&, Copt., which has therefore the external attestation de- 
cidedly in its favour, but is to be explained from the fact that the unrelated 
pév was glossed by ovv (a new sentence was commenced with £9’ dcov) ; therefore 
these authorities indirectly pass over to the side of the otherwise weakly ac- 
credited Recepta. — Ver. 17. rij¢ pitn¢ xai] This xai is wanting in BC &*, Copt. 
Omitted by Tisch. 8; but how easily it might be suppressed, owing to the ho- 
moeoleleuta |! In D* F G, codd. It. Ir., ric Jitn¢ is also wanting from the like 
cause. — Ver. 19. xAddo:] So Rinck, Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. 8, according to de- 
cisive testimony. But Elz. and Tisch. 7 have oj «Addo, the article being me- 
chanically introduced in imitation of rév «Addwv, vv. 17, 18. Were oi original, 
and had it been desired through its omission to designate the revé¢ rar xAddev 
in ver. 17 (Matth., Fritzsche), it would have more readily occurred to the me 
chanical tendency of copyists to insert r:véc instead of of. — Ver. 20. tmAodporet) 
Lachm. and Tisch. 8: tynAd godver, according toA B®. Resolution of the 
word—which is only found besides in 1 Tim. vi. 17—into its elements in con- 


CHAP, XI, 1. — 425 


formity with xii. 16. — Ver. 21. uy7wc) is wanting in A BC P 8, min., Copt. 
Damasc. Ruf. Aug. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the offence which 
was taken partly at the apparent unrelatedness of pyxwe (which is therefore 
exchanged in Or. for méow pdAdov and zicw rAfov), partly at the following 
future, readily induced the omission. For ¢geicyra:, which Elz. has instead of 
geicerar, is very feebly supported by evidence, and has manifestly come in in 
accordance with the original u7mrwc ; wrongly defended anew by Rinck. See 
ithe exegetical notes ; comp. also Beng. Apparat. Crit. — Ver. 22. In the second 
clause Lachm. and Tisch. have, instead of azorouiav, dxoroyia, and instead of 
xpnotétnta, xpnororn¢ Ocot ; the former according to A BC &%*, 67**, Or. Da- 
masc. ; the latter according to A B C D*¥ (8 has ypyordrnroc Seow), 67**, Arm. 
Or. Eus. Damasc. Rightly; the common reading is a hasty grammatical 
emendation. Oeco7, too, bears, in its belonging to the reading ypyororns, the 
stamp of genuineness, — Ver. 25. ap’ éavr.] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: év éuvr., 
according to A B, Damasc. The latter is to be preferred (rap' éavr. was intro- 
duced through a comparison of xii. 16), and it explains, too, the origin of the 
bare éavroic in F G; for by the omission of the N the preposition would easily 
come to be dropped. — Ver. 30. dpueic] Elz., Scholz: xai tueic, against decisive 
evidence. — Ver. 31. Before 2Aej$. B D* &, Copt. Dam. have viv ; so Lachm. 
in brackets, and Tisch, 8. Inappropriate addition, arising from misconception, 
instead of which some min. have forepov. — Ver. 32. rode mavrac.] Instead of 
the first r. 7., D. Ir. ef al. have rd wdavra, and FG rdvra. Also Vulg. It. ex- 
press the neuter, which, however, is taken from Gal. iii. 22. 


ConTENTS :—After the humiliation hitherto expressed, there now fol- 
lows the consolation in respect to the exclusion of a large part of Israel. (1) 
God has not cast off His people, but has allowed a part of them, according 
to a gracious election, to attain to salvation, and has hardened the remain- 
der, vv. 1-10. (2) Yet God wills not their final destruction ; nay, their un- 
belief subserves the salvation of the Gentiles, and their conversion will have 
yet more happy consequences. This is matter for hope, and the Gentile 
Christians may not therefore give way to self-exaltation, vv. 11-24. (3) 
For the hardening of a portion of the people will last no longer than until 
the whole of the Gentiles have become Christians ; and then Israel will ob- 
tain salvation, vv. 25-32. How unfathomable are the riches, wisdom, and 
knowledge of God! To Him be glory ! vv. 33-36. 

Ver. 1. Aéyw otv] [See Note CXIV. p. 458] corresponds to the twofold ada 
Aéyw, x. 18, 19, but so, that now this third interrogative Aéyw is introduced 
in an inferential form. In consequence, namely, of what had just been clear- 
ly laid down in x. 18 ff., as to the guilt of resistant Israel in its exclusion 
from salvation in Christ—over-against the Gentiles’ acceptance of it—the 
difficult question might arise : Surely God has not cast off His people? Surely 
it is not so tragic a fate, that we must infer it from that conduct of the 
people?’ Paul states this question, earnestly negatives it, and then sets 


} Namely, as a divine measure of retri- ing off from Himself 1s not viewed as the 
bution taken in consequence of their spirit cause (against this is x. 21), but as the penal 
of resistance to the message of salvation consequence, of the disdaining God's loving 
preached tothem. The divine act of cast- _—_—will. 


426 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


forth the real state of the matter. The opinion of Ifofmann, that the apos- 
tle starts this question because the scriptural passages x. 18 ff. show that it is to 
be negatived, is the consequence of his incorrect interpretation of those script- 
ural sayings, and is confuted by the fact that the negation is first given and 
supported in what follows, not drawn from what precedes, but made good by 
a quite different scriptural proof, ver. 2. — 4? andcaro x.7.a.] Comp. Ps. xciv. 
14, xcv. 3; 1 Sam. xii. 32 ; on the form, see Winer, p. 86 [E. T. 90]. Reiche 
thinks, but erroneously, that the question is not expressed sharply enough, 
and that dzavra is to be supplied. ’Amdécaro has in truth the emphasis, and 
is placed first on that account ; so that Paul’s simple idea is, that the casting 
off of God’s peopie, exclusion from the divine decree of the bestowal of sal- 
vation, recall of this destination to salvation, may not be inferred from what 
has gone before. Rightly, too, Bengel remarks : ‘‘ Ipsa popudli ejus appella- 
tio rationem negandi continet.” This ratio negandi is then, in ver. 2, addi- 
tionally strengthened by év mpoéyvw. — The uA yévorro expresses horror at the 
ardécaro, not at the Aéyw (van Hengel), as though Paul had written simply 
andoaro Without yi. —xai yap éyo x.7.A.] For I also, etc., expresses the motive 
for 4“) yévorro |! For Paul, as a true Israelite of patriotic feeling, cannot, in 
virtue of his theocratic self-esteem, admit that ardécaro, but can only repel 
the suggestion with abhorrence. Comp. de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. 
A peculiar proof of the oix arécato was yet to follow. Usually it is thought 
that Paul proves the negation by his own example, since he in truth was not 
cast off. So also Philippi. But apart from the consideration, that the ex- 
ample of a single elected one, however highly favoured,’ would be far from 
convincing, we sce no reason why Paul should have added éx ovépp. 'ASp., 
gua. Bevau. ; Moreover, it appears from ver. 2, where he defines the negation, 
emphatically reiterates it, and then confirms it from Scripture, that he did 
not intend till ver. 2 to adduce the argument against the arécarw, which he 
had only provisionally rejected in ver. 1. Without the least indication from 
the text, Hofmann introduces into «. éyé the reference : Even I, the apostle 
entrusted with the calling of the Gentile world (which is supposed to imply § 
sealing of the sacred historical call of Israel) ; even I, a8 once upon a lime 
persecutor, deserving of rejection. — ix orépu. 'ABp., ova. Beviap.] added, in 
order to exhibit the just and genuine privileges of his birth. Comp. Phil. 
iii. 5 ; Acts xiii. 21; Test. XII. Patr. p. 746 f. The tribe of Benjamin was 
in truth, along with that of Judah, the theocratic core of the nation after 
the exile. Es. iv. 1, x. 9. 

Ver. 2. ‘Ov xpoéyrw}] An element which renders the impossibility of axecaro 
at once palpable ; comp. ver. 29. Others take it as a limiting definition, 
zév A. avrov bv rp. being understood of the spiritual people of God destined to 
the Christian salvation (Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, and 
others, including Heumann, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Gléckler). But 
against this view it is decisive that r. Aadv abr. in ver. 1, without any limi- 
tation, denotes the Jewish nation, and consequently Paul himself would n0¥ 


1 Theodore of Mopsuestia asks: was yap wiore ceuruvopevoy cai wepi ravrns bddoxey 
oloy ... Te Rv anrwoacdat Toy Gedy Tov ewi 7 «= Umtaxvoumevoy eTdpors ; 


4 


CHAP. XI., 3. 427 


completely disarrange the point in question; the whole chapter has for its 
subject, not the spiritual Israel, but the fate of the nation in respect to the 
salvation of Messiah. Hence, too, we are not to supply, with Philippi, p. 
554, after 6v zpoéyyw the limitation : as seminary of the spiritual orippa. — 
The sense of zpoéyvw has been understood as variously as in viii. 29, but is to 
be taken just as there : God knew His people as such beforehand, before it 
actually existed ; that is to say, it was to Him, to whom the whole future 
development of sacred history was present in His pretemporal counsel and 
plan, known and certain : Israel is my peculiar people! And consequently 
God cannot have afterwards rejected Israel ; for this would in truth pre- 
suppose that which is inconceivable with God (comp. Acts xv. 18), and 
irreconcilable with the ayerdé@erov rig BovAge avrov (Heb. vi. 17), namely, 
that he had been deceived in His zpoéfyvw ; comp. ver. 30 ff. To suppose 
the gualitas mala of the people as that which God foreknew (van Hengel) is 
inadmissible, for the reason that zpdéyvwor¢ must be the premiss of the 
mpoopicecy of the people of God (comp. viii. 29) ; hence, too, it is not to be 
objected, with Hofmann,’ against our view, that God would surely have 
been able to foresee the fact that, and the time when, His people would 
cease to be His people. — 7 ovx oidare x.r.4., down to ver. 4, adduces a proof 
for ove ardécaro from an historical example of Scripture, according to which 
a case analogous to the present of the resistance of the people to God had 
once occurred, but God has made the declaration that He had (not indeed 
cast off His people, but) reserved to Himself, in the midst of the depravity of 
the mass, a number of faithful ones. So (ver. 5) too now there has taken 
place, not a rejection of the people, but rather a gracious election out of the 
people. [See Note CXV. p. 458]. — év ’Hiig] belongs to ri Aéyer, but is not : 
de Elia (Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Castalio, Calovius, and 
others), which would be linguistically erroneous, but : in the passage treat- 
ing of Elwas. Comp. Thuc. i. 9. 8, where év rov oxgrrpov dua Ty mapadécet 
eipnxey means : at the passage, where he (Homer) treats of the yielding of the 
sceptre, he has said, etc. Very prevalent is this mode of quotation in Philo, 
and also in the Rabbinical writings (Surenhusius, xaraAaa. p. 493.) Comp. 
also Mark xii. 26 ; Luke xx. 37, but not Heb. iv. 7. — we évrvyy. r. 0. xara 
z. 'Iopaqa] dependent on ov« oidare, a8 & more precisely defining parallel of 
év "HA. ri Abyee yp. Comp. Luke vi. 4, xxii. 61; Acts xi. 16, xx. 20, e¢ 
al. ; Gdller and Kriiger on Thuc. i. 1. 1. On évrvyydvew (viii. 27, 34; 
Heb. vii. 25), with dative of the person concerned (frequently in Plutarch, 
Polyb., Lucian, etc.), comp. Acts xxv. 24; Wisd. viii. 21, xvi. 28. On 
card (accusing), comp. 1 Macc. viii. 82 ; 2 Mace. iv. 36. 

Ver. 8. 1 Kings xix. 10, 14, freely from the LXX.—azé«r.] The Israel- 
ites, namely, under Ahab and Jezebel. 1 Kings xviii. 4, xiii. 22. — xaréo- 
xay.] have thoroughly destroyed, have razed. Comp. Soph. Phil. 986 : Tpoiav 

. kataoxawa. Eur. Hee. 22 (of the domestic altar) ; Dem. 361. 20 ; Plut. 


1 Who also here (comp. on viil. 29) takes This would amount to the notion of the 
wpo¢yre as an act ofthe will, by which God  wpoeromdgew in the divine decree (comp. 
has beforehand constituted Israel what it, | Eph. ff. 10). 
in accordance therewith, actually became. 


428 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Popl. 10; 2 Macc. xiv. 88 (7d @vocacrfpiov). — ra Ovoract.] On the plural, 
as the temple in Jerusalem was the place exclusively destined ‘for worship, 
the view of Estius suffices : ‘‘ Verisimile est, Eliam loqui de altaribus, quae 
passim in excelsis studio quodam pietatis Deo vero erecta fuerant ; maxime 
postquam decem tribus regum suorum tyrannide prohibitae fuerunt, ne 
Jerusolymam ascenderent sacrificii causa. Quamvis enim id lege vetitum 
essct [see Lev. xvii. 8, 9 ; Deut. xii. 13, 14] ac recte fecerint Ezechias et 
Josias, reges Judae, etiam ejusmodi aras evertendo, tamen impium erat cas 
subvertere odio cultus Dei Israel.” Comp. Grotius, also Keil, on the books 
of Kings, p. 262, Archdol. I. § 89. — imedAcig0. pdvoc] in the sense of Elias: 
alone of the prophets; but according to the application designed by the 
apostle, as ver. 4 shows : as the only one of Thy faithful. But in this case 
we are not to assume, as Hofmann and others wish to do, that Paul, in order 
to suggest this sense, has transposed the original order of the two clauses of 
the verse—which is rather to be regarded as accidental ; and this, consider- 
ing the freedom of citation otherwise used, we need the less hesitate about, 
since Paul could not, even in the original order, see the reference of the 
verse which was in his thoughts to be excluded. — On Cyreiv r. yoy. tam, 
to seek after one’s life, see on Matt. ii. 20. 

Ver. 4. ’A4’4] But, although Elijah complained that he had been left 
sole survivor. —é ypnyatiopuse] the divine oracular utterance (replying to this 
accusation). Found here only in N. T. (in the Apocrypha, 2 Mace. ii. 4. 
xi. 17) ; but see Diod. Sic. i. 1, xiv. 7, and Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1582 ; and 
respecting ypyuarilu, on Matt. ii. 12. —karéAurov «.7.a.] 1 Kings xix. 18, 
with free deviation, bearing on his object, both from the LXX. and from 
the original. It means: J have left remaining, so, namely, that they are 
not slaughtered with the rest. Comp. Xen. Anab. vi. 3. 5: dxra pdvory 
xatéirov (superstites, vivos reliquerunt) ; 1 Macc. xili. 4. Hofmann incorrect- 
ly takes xaréA. as the third person plural, having the same subject as azék- 
revav. A groundless departure from the Hebrew text and from the LXX.,, 
according to which God is the subject. And it is God who has guided and 
preserved those who remained over. — éuaur}] i.e. to myself as my property, 
and for my service, in contrast to the idolatrous abomination. — oireve¢ «.7.A. | 
ita comparatos ut, etc. —yédvv] Not a knee has been bowed by them; 
hence the singular, comp. Phil. ii. 10. —7rg Baad] Dative of tcorship. Bern- 
hardy, p. 86. Comp. xiv. 11. The Phoenician divinity 5v3, the adoration 
of which was very widely diffused (Keil, § 91) amongst the Jews, especial- 
ly under the later kings, though not of long subsistence (see Ewald, Alterth. 
p. 304), is most probably to be regarded as the sun-god (Movers, Phéniaer, 
I. p. 169 ff. ; J. G. Miiller in Herzog’s Encyklop. I. p. 639 f.), not as the 
planet Jupiter (Gesenius in the Z/all. Encyklop. VIII. p. 384 ff.). It 1s re- 
markable—secing that ya (according to different local and ritual forms 
also in the plural) is a masculine noun—that in the LXX. and in the Apoc- 
rypha it has sometimes, and most frequently, the masculine article (Num. 
xxii. 41; Judg. ii. 18; 1 Kings xvi. 31, et al.), sometimes the feminine 
(Zeph. i. 4; Hos. ii. 8; 1 Sam. vii. 4; always in Jer. ; Tob. i. 5, e¢ a). 
That the LXX. should have thought 533 to be of the common gender, and 


CHAP. XI., 5. 429 


to denote also Astarte (Reiche), is not probable for this reason, that in the 
LXX. not merely are the masculine Baal and Astarte often mentioned to- 
gether (Judg. ii. 13, x. 6, e¢ al.), but also the feminine Baal and Astarte (1 
Sam. vii. 4). The view that the feminine article was assigned to Baad con- 
temptuously (Gesenius, in Rosenmiiller’s Repert. I. p. 139), as also Tholuck 
and Ewald, Alterth. p. 302, assume, finds no sufficient support—seeing that 
bys was a very well known divinity—in the feminine designation of idols 
unknown to them in the LXX. at 2 Kings xvii. 30, 31 ; cannot be justified 
by comparison of the Rabbinical designation of idols as MINOW ; and cannot 
be made good in the particular passages where the LXX. has the masculine 
orthe feminine. To refer the phenomenon solely to an opinion of the LXX., 
who held J'3 to be the name of a god and also that of a goddess, and there- 
fore, according to the supposed connection, used now the masculine and 
now the feminine article,—the latter particularly, where the word occurs 
along with NNIAYY (Fritzsche), as in Judg. ii. 13, x. 6, 1 Sam. vii. 4,—is 
improbable in itself (because of the unity of the Hebrew name), and cannot 
be maintained even in passages like Judg. iii. 7, 2 Kings xxi. 8 (comp. with 
1 Sam. xii. 10 ; Hos. ii. 10, 15), without arbitrariness. An historical reason 
‘Must prevail, and it appears the most feasible hypothesis that Baal was con- 
ceived as an androgynous divinity (Beyer, ad Selden. de Diis Syr. p. 2738 f., 
Wetstein, Koppe, Olshausen, Philippi), although more precise historical 
evidence is wanting. The feminine article has been also explained by sup- 
plying a substantive (eixéve by Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and 
others ; o77Ay by Glass, Estius ; @pyoxeig by Cramer ; even daydaee by Dru- 
sius, after Tob. i. 5, but see Fritzsche on Tob.) ; but this is both erroneous 
and arbitrary, because at least the expression must have run rg rov Baad, 
since 29 has always the article. This linguistic incongruity van Hengel 
avoids only by the precarious conjecture that 4 Bdad signifies the column of 
Baal, and 6 Béaa the god Baal.—We have to remark, morcover, that the 
LXX. have in our passage the masculine article ; but Paul, acquainted with 
the use also of the feminine article, has, in quoting from memory, changed 
the article. According to Fritzsche and Ewald, he had found rg in his copy 
of the LXX. ; but rg is now found only in more recent codd. of the LXX., 
into which it has found its way mercly from our passage. 

Ver. 5. In this way, corresponding to this Old Testament historical 
precedent, therefore (in order to make the application of vv. 8, 4), there 
has been (there has come into existence, and actually exists—perfect) also in 
the present time, in consequence of an election made out of grace,a remnant, 
namely, a small part taken out of the hardened mass of the people, z.¢. the 
comparatively insignificant number of beliering Jews, whom God’s grace has 
chosen out of the totality of the people. It is related to the latter as a re- 
mainder (Herod. i. 119 ; 2 Kings xix. 4) to a whole, from which the largest 
part is removed (vv. 8, 4, ix. 27, 29), notwithstanding Acts xxi. 20. The 
point of comparison is the notion of the Zeizuza in contrast to the remaining 
mass; the latter in the typical history has perished, but in the antitypical 
event has forfeited saving deliverance. — nar’ ixr. xép.] opposed to the pre- 
sumption in reference to works of the Jewish character ; hence, too, the 


430 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. — 


emphatic declaration in ver. 6. It is to be connected not with Aeipya as its 
more precise definition (Hofmann), but with yéyorev as its mode. Thisis 
evinced by the following ei dé ydpirt, sc. yéyovev, where ydpire is equivalent 
to the xaz’ éxAoy. ydpirog. 

Ver. 6. This thought is not merely by the «ay and incidental (Kopp, 
Riickert, de Wette, Fritzsche, Maier, and others), but it belongs essentially 
to the development of the apostle’s thought to set forth the mode accord- 
ing to which Aeinpya yéyove, not only positively (xar’ éxA. xép.), but also nege- 
lively (ovx && Epy.); because he then, in ver. 7, goes on to argue: 8 émjrei 
"Topayja x.t.a., which éaicyreiv, in fact, took place exactly é& &pyur, ix. 32.— 
ei dé yapirt] but if through grace, sc. Aeiupa yéyove. — ovxére &€ Epyur] As previ- 
ously the individuals who compose the Aciuzua are conceived as the objects 
of the divine grace, through which they belong to the Acizpa ; so are they 
also (not the people generally, as Hofmann takes it) conceived in this con- 
trasted negative statement as the subjects, who do not owe it to legal works 
that in them is present the Ae7zua composing the true community of God. 
On the logical otxér:, see on vil. 17. Of é& ipywv there can be nothing more 
said. — éret 4 ydpic K.t.A.] because (otherwise) grace ceases to be grace (namely, 
if ¢£ épywv Asiupa yfyove)—since in truth ‘gratia nisi gratis sit, gratia non 
est,” Augustine. 'H ydprc is the definite grace, which has made the election, 
and yivera: (not equivalent to éorf) means : it ceases, in its concrete manife- 
tation, to become, i.e. to show itself as, that (comp. on Luke x. 18, ¢ 4.) 
which according to its nature it is. Positively expressed : it becomes what 
according to its essencc it is not ; it gives up its specific character. 

Ver. 7%. Ti otv] infers the result from vv. 5 and 6. Since a Azinpa hes 
been constituted according to the election of grace, and therefore not poss- 
bly from the merit of works : accordingly Israel (as regards the mass) has 
not obtained that which it strives after (namely, dixacocivy, as is known from 
ix. 80 ff.)—for it strives, in fact, é& ipyw»—the election, on the other hand, 
namely, that chosen Acizpza, has obtained it (for they were the objects of the 
divine yépec) ; but the rest were hardened. In this manner the true state of 
the case is now set forth, in contrast to arécaro, without its being necess#! 
on this account to refer zi obv to the whole preceding vv. 2-6 (de Wette, 
Fritzsche, Philippi, and others) ; since the reference to vv. 5, 6 is quite 
sufficient, and quite in keeping with the logical progression. Reiche (com? 
Lachm., who places a note of interrogation after ri oby and after ixétva" 
makes the question extend to éérvyev, to which question of wonder Pa 
then answers by # dé éxA. «.7.A. But the futility of Israel’s endeavou! has 
already been long (ix. 31, 32) known to the reader, and is therefore not 8p" 
propriate as the subject of such a question. Hofmann also takes 6 enh 

. éxérvyev asa question, but in the sense whether that which Israel 
not obtained is the same thing as that to which its quest and striving tend 
(namely, its own righteousness) ? To the self-evident negation of this que 
tion dé then relates in the sense of nevertheless, and after the second £&™ a 
there is to be supplied, not 8 éri{yr. "Iopaza, but merely 8 éri{yrei (nam? a 
to be, out of grace, the people of salvation). This complete distortio® ° 
the sense falls to the ground from the very fact, that for the second be Etex™ 


CHAP. X1., 8. 431 
since 8 éx:fyret_ is not appended, no other object can be thought of without 
the greatest arbitrariness than that of the first éxéruvyey, namely 6 émityrei 
"IopayA ; and also, as respects the contents of the question, from the consid- 
eration, that if we should not be able to say that Isruel has not obtained 
that for which it strove, this would stand in contradiction to the universal 
Pauline dogma of the impossibility of righteousness by the law. — émi¢yrei 
does not denote the zealous pursuit (Fritzsche, Philippi), but its direction, 
correlative to éxérvyev. See on Matt. vi. 33 ; Phil. iv. 17. By the present, 
the continuance of the endeavour is admitted.—The roiro (on the accusative 
instead of the customary genitive, see Matthiae, § 328 ; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. 
II. p. 861) has tragic emphasis : even this it has not reached. — 7 62 éxdoy#] 
that is, here ‘‘reliquiae illius populi, quas per gratiam suam Deus elcgit,” 
Estius. Comp. the use of zepirouf, etc., Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 469.—The 
mdapwots, hardening (not blinding, as Hofmann thinks ; see on 2 Cor. iii. 14), 
is the making unsusceptible in understanding and will as respects the ap- 
propriation of salvation in Christ. Fritzsche, a@ Mare. p. 78; Winzer, 
Progr. 1828, p. 8. The subject who hardens is God. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 14, 
and on ix. 8. | 

Ver. 8. This érwpdé@ycav ensued in conformity with that which stands 
written, etc. That which is testified of the hardening of the people in the 
time of Isaiah, and as carly as that of Moses, has its Messianic fulfilment 
through the hardening of the Jews against the gospel, so that this hardening 
has taken place xaflic yéyparrat x.r.A. This prophetic relation is groundlessly 
denied by Tholuck and Hofmann. The agreement denoted by xa@. yéyp. is 
just that of prophecy and fulfilment according to the divine teleology. 
Comp. Matt. xv. 7.—In the citation itself, Isa. xxix. 10 (as far as xaravté.) 
and Deut. xxix. 3 (not Isa. vi. 9) are combined into one saying, and quoted 
very freely from the LXX. Deuteronomy /.c. has after axobecv : éwe rij¢ hutpac 
ratryc, hence éu¢ r7¢ ofu. ju. belongs to the quotation ; and the words xafic 

. Gxotecy must not be put in a parenthesis, as Beza, Wolf, Griesbach, and 
others have donc. — éduxev] He gave’ not mere permission (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and many). — wvevyua karavifewc) Teb. WTA 11, 2.6. a spirit 
producing stupefaction, which is obviously a daemonic spirit. Comp. 2 Cor. 
iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2. Elsewhere the LXX. translate TOTW by éxcraowe (Gen. 
ii. 21, xv. 12), or @4u0¢ (1 Sam. xxvi. 12), or avdpéyvvov (Prov. xix. 15). 
They gave the approximate sense of the word differently according to the 
connection. But that they understood xardévvéic actually as stupefaction, in- 
torication, is clear from Ps. lx. 5, where they have rendered NIA pie 
intoxiwating wine, by olvov xaravégews. See in general, Fritzsche, Hze. p. 
558 ff. This sense of xarévvéec is explained by the use of xaraviocecfa:, com- 
pungi, in the LXX. and the Apocrypha to express the deep, inward para- 
lyzing shock caused by grief, fear, astonishment, ctc., whereby one is stupe- 
fied and as if struck by a blow (Schleusner, Zhes. III. p. 256 ; comp. on 
Acts ii. 37). In classical Greek neither the substantive nor the verh is found. 
We may add that every derivation is erroneous, which does not go back to 


1 LXX. Isa. xxix. 10: wewéricey yas xvpios wvevmare caravifeus. 


432 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


voocey (comp. viérc, Plut. Mor. p. 930 F) ; nor is it admissible (since Paul 
certainly knew that xardv. expressed MT) to seck explanations which 
depart from the notion of WOWW, Soeg. Calvin: ‘‘ Spiritum vocat... 
compunctionis, ubi scilicet quaedam fellis amaritudo se prodit, imo etiam 
Juror in respuenda veritate.” Similarly Luther (‘‘an embittered spirit”) and 
Melanchthon. Chrysostom, indeed (and Theophylact), hits the thing itsdf 
rightly : xardvugiv évraifa tiv mepi rd yelpov Fw tHe Wuxge nol Tv aridtug 
éxovoay xai auetabétwc, but his analysis of the word : xaravvyqva: yap ovdiy 
érepdv tot TO eu maygvar Tov Kai tpoonAdcOac, is arbitrarily far- 
fetched. — rov yp Brérew] A fatally pregnant orymoron. The genit. is that 
of the aim : eyes, in order that they may not see, etc. Linguistically correct 
is also the rendering of Grotius : eyes of not-seeing, i.e. ‘‘ oculos ad viden- 
dum ineptos,” Fritzsche, comp. Philippi and van Hengel. But the former 
view corresponds better at once to the original text (LXX. ovx éduxe ... 
bp8aApovts BAérev x. Ota axoberv), and to the telic rov py BAérecy, ver. 10. 
Comp. Isa. vi. 9, 10; John xii. 40; Acts xxviii. 27. — éwe 7. ofp. quip. 
belongs to the whole affirmation éduxev x.7.A. Thus interruptedly God dealt 
with them. The glance at a future, in which it was to be otherwise (Hof- 
mann), is here (comp. ver. 10) still quite remote. 

Vv. 9, 10. A further Scripture proof of érupd&6yoav,' and that from Ps. 
Ixix. 28, 24, quoted with free deviation from the LXX. The composer of 
this psalm is not David (in opposition to Hengstenberg, Hiivernick), but 
some one of much later date ; a circumstance which we must judge of anal- 
ogously to the expression of Christ, Matt. xxii. 43. The suffering theo- 
crat of the psalm is, as such, a type of the Messiah, and His enemics a type 
of the unbelieving Jews ; hence Paul could find the fulfilment of the pas- 
sage in the répwarc of the latter. Consequently, in pursuance of this typi- 
cal reference, the sense in which he takes the words is as follows: ‘‘ Lé 
their table become to them for (\ct it be turned for them into, comp. John xvi. 
20) a enare, and for a chase, and for a trap, and (so) for a retaliation ;” 1.¢. 
while they feast and drink securely and carelessly at their well-furnished table,’ 
let the fate of violence overtake them unancares, just as wild beasts are surprised 
in a snare, and by the capture of the chase, and by a trap; and so must 7¢ 
taliation alight upon them for that which they have done (in rejecting, 
namely, faith on Christ). But what violent calamity is meant, the sequel 
expresses, namely : ‘‘ Darkened must their eyes become, that they may not set,” 
t.c. they must become spiritually blinded, incapable of discerning the truth 
of salvation ; and finally the same thing under another figure: “ And 
bend their back always,” denoting the keeping them in bondage, and that, 
in the sense of the apostle, the spiritual bondage of the unfree condition 
of the inner life produced by the répwarc.* The hardening, therefore, 


1 With the simple xa, and, to take which mann)in which they entangle themselves. 
climactically (Hofinann) is justified neither {sto come very unnecessarily and arbitrarl- 
by the name of David northe contentsof ly tothe aidof the boldness of the poet! 
the passage. It would place a quite un- expression. 
called-for emphasis on Aavié (even David). 8 Those who have found in ver. 9 the 

2 To conceive of the fable asan outspread destruction of Jerusalem predicted (Mi: 
coverlet (Gesenius, Thes. IU. p. 1417, Hof- chaelis, after Grotius, Wetstein, and ma2)) 


CHAP. XI., 11. 433 


which Paul recognizes as predicted in the passage, does not lic in } rpd- 
mela avtov (Fritzsche),—which is not to be explained ‘‘of the daw and its 
works, which was Israel’s food” (Philippi, following older expositors, also 
Tholuck),—but in yevybirw ei¢ waxida x.7.A., and is more precisely indicated 
in ver. 10. The express repetition in ver. 10 of the becoming blinded, already 
designated in ver. 8, forbids our explaining the prophetic images in vv. 9, 
10 generally as representations of secere divine judgments like Pharaoh's over- 
throw, in which case the specific potnt of the citation would be neglected 
(in opposition to Hofmann). — xai eic 6jpav] stands ncither in the Hebrew nor 
in the LXX. ; but @7pa means chase, not net (Tholuck, Ewald), to establish 
which signification the solitary passage Ps. xxxv. 8, where the LXX. render 


AW inexactly by 6jpa, cannot suffice. 


It often means booty (van Hengel) 


in the LXX. and in classical Greek ; but this is-not appropriate here, where 
the ‘‘ becoming for a booty” is said not of such as men, but of the rpdzeCa. 
This shall be turned for them into a chase, so that they, in their secure feast- 
ing, become like to the unfortunate object of the chase, which is captured 
by the hunter.’— oxdvdadov] corresponding primarily to the classical cxav- 
daArOpov, the stick set in a trap (Schol. Ar. Ach. 687), is frequently in the 
LXX. (see Schleusner, Thes. V. p. 88), and so also here, the translation of 
WP, snare, by which we must therefore abide.—avrarédoua is not found in 
classical Greek, but often in the LXX. and Apocrypha, Luke xiv. 12. — xai 
Tov voor x.T.A.] is to be taken, according to the context, as the expression 
of the idea of hardening (represented as a bending together under the yoke 
of spiritual servitude), not, with Fritzsche, of rendering miserable through 
the withdrawal of the Messianic salvation. On the masculine é véroc, see 


Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 290. 


Ver. 11.7 At this point begins the teleological discussion respecting the 
ol 62 Zorot Exwpabyoav, ver. 7. See the contents above. — A‘yu ov] quite as 
in ver. 1 : J ask therefore, attaching it by way of inference to the éxwpdAgcav 
just supported by Scripture. [See Note CXVI. p. 459.] — ya érracay, iva réo.] 
But their stumbling had not the aim (ordained by God) that they should fall? 
t.e., by the fact of their stumbling at Christ (ix. 32, 33), and refusing faith 
to Him, has the divine purpose not aimed at their everlasting azdéAea ? 
This emphasis on ziows (come to be prostrate) involves the climactic relation 
to éxraioav (to stumble),—a relation which Hofmann loses sight of when he 
makes the question express nothing further than : whether the fall which 


Israel suffered had been its own aim ? 


Photius aptly remarks : rd rraicua 


,avTav ovyzl ei¢ xataztwow Theav ylyovev, GAA pdvoy oiuv txeoxe2icbyoav. Others 


so as to refer trparega to the Passover meal, 
for the celebration of which the Jews were 
in Jerusalem at the very time the city was 
invested (Josephus Bell. Jud. vi. 9. 8, 4), or 
even (Grotius) to the altar in the templo; 
and those who have regarded ver. 10 («ai 
Tov yuroy «.7.A.) as a prophecy of the servi- 
tude of the Jews to Rome (so some of the 
Fathers) ; could not have given an explana- 
tion more opposed in sense to the connec- 


tion. 

1 How very often Opa, 6npay and OnpacGas 
are used also in classical Greek in the fig- 
urative sense, see in Dorvill, ad Charit. p. 
539; Heind. ad Plat. Theaet. p. 143. 

7 On vv. 11-33, see Luthardt, Le/re ron d. 
letzten Dingen, p. 106 ff.; von Octtingen, 
Synagogale Elegik des Volks Israels, 1858, p. 
133 ff. 


434 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


have found the point of the question not purely in the climax of the two 
figurative verbs, but in definitions mentally supplied, which, however, 3 
such, cannot be admitted. So, in particular, Augustine and many : only 
in order that they should fall, as though it ran yzévov iva, as Umbreit still 
takes it (comp. Hofmann) ; further Melanchthon : ‘‘non sic impegerunt 
Judaei, ut in tota gente nemo sit salvandus,” as though it ran iva rdvreg ; and 
yet further, Ewald : ‘‘that they might purely in accordance with the divine 
design, and therefore without their freedom and their own will, fall into sin 
and into destruction,” as though it ran iva é£ avdyxyc, or the like. We must 
simply abide by the view, that mrafecy is a figure for the taking offence at 
Christ which refuses faith, and zimrrecy a figure for the being involved in 
everlasting destruction ; comp. Heb. iv. 11, Ecclus. ii. 7. In the former 
the datter was not present as the aim of God’s purpose. — On érraiay, comp. 
the proverb : pu? di¢ mpog rov abrov AiPov rraies, Polyb. xxxi. 19. 5, xxxi. 20, 
1; and on the sense of moral stumbling, Jas. ii. 10, iii. 2 ; 2 Pet. i. 10; 
Eur. Aeg. fr. ii. 1: mraicavr’ aperav arodeigachar. The subject is the Aomoi of 
ver. 7, the mass of the people not belonging to the éxAoy#. — r@ aitaw tapers. | 
through their fault consisting in the refusal of faith, through their offence. 
Tlaparr. does not refer to zéowor (Reiche, Tholuck, and several others),— 
which the emphatic sense of réc. forbids ; but in substance that rreiope is 
meant, which is morally characterized by means of zapdzzwya as delictum 
(so rightly Vulg.) as duapria (comp. John xvi. 9), according to its stated fig- 
urative designation (comp, also iv. 25, v. 15). Quite against the usage of 
the N. T., Tholuck renders: defeat (Diod. xix. 100). — roic iveow] &. 
yiyovev, That through the despising of the Messianic salvation on the part 
of the Jews its attainment by the Gentiles was effected—this experience 
Paul had learnt to recognize as that which it actually was, as the way which 
the fulfilment of the divine arrangement, 1. 16, took. Comp. Matt. xxi. 43, 
xxli. 9; Acts xiii. 46, xxviii. 28. —ei¢ rd mapal. avroi¢] aim; comp. Calo- 
vius : ‘‘Assumtio novi populi directa fuit ad veteris provocationem ad 
aemulationem, ut nempe Israelitae . . . seria aemulatione irritati, et ipst 
doctrinae ev. animos suos submitterent.”. Comp. x. 19. With this ¢ic 72 
napat. avt., exactly the counterpart of iva rfower is expressed. 

Ver. 12. Aé] peraBarixdv, leading over from what has been said in ver. 11 
to a very joyful prospect thereby opened into the future. — The conclusion 
is a ‘‘felici effectu causae pejoris ad fel:ciorem effectum causae melioris.” 
— niovrocg] for the Gentile world (xéczoc) became enriched with the curnpia 
(ver. 11), through the zapérrwya of the Jews, — 1d grrqgya ait. whoit. ibrar] 
and their overthrow riches for Gentile peoples, Parallel to the foregoing. [See 
Note CXVII. p. 459.] — #rrnya] is not found in the old Greek, but only in 
the LXX. Isa. xxxi. 8, and 1 Cor. vi. 7 ; it is, however, equivalent to the 
classical grra, which is the opposite of vixy, 1 and, corresponding to the 
signification of yrracOa:, profligari, cinci, means clades, both in its proper 
sense, and also generally : succumbing, decline (comp. Dem, 1466. 28, 7t72 
tig mpoapécewc),. loss suffered (1 Cor. vi. 7%), getting the worse.* Here the 


1 Plato, Lach. p. 196 A, Legg. i. p. 688 A; 2 See lerizon. ad Ad. V. 7. i. BS 
Dem. 1486. 8; Xen. Cyr. ill. 1. 19, 20. 


a 


CHAP. XI., 12, 435 
proper signification is to be retained, and that, as the contrast of 1d rA7pwpya 
requires, in a numerical respect. So now also Tholuck, likewise Mangold. 
Through the fact that a part of the Jews was unbelieving, the people has 
suffered an overthrow, has, like a vanquished army, been weakened in num- 
bers, inasmuch, namely, as the unbelieving portion by its unbelief practi- 
cally seceded from the people of God. Comp. Vulg.: ‘‘diminutio eorum ;” 
Luthardt : ‘‘loss in amount.” If it be explained as : loss of the Messianic 
salvation, which they have suffered (Fritzsche and others),’ or : the loss which 
the kingdom of God has suffered in their case (Philippi, comp. Kahnis, Dogm. 
I. p. 578), the former is not appropriate to the contrast of tA7puya, and the 
latter introduces the reference to the kingdom of God, as that which has 
suffered the detriment, the more unwarrantably, inasmuch as the genit. 
avrav is expressed. The threefold avrév is to be taken with the like refer- 
ence as the genitive of the subject, and applies in cach instance to the people 
Israel as a whole (whose collective guilt also is the rapdaruya), in contrast 
to the x«éopoc and the é6v7—which likewise is not preserved in Philippi’s view. 
This very circumstance, and more decisively the utter absence of linguistic 
proof, tells also against the traditional usual rendering, according to which 
To #7THua is supposed to signify the minority : ‘‘ paucitas Judaeorum creden- 
tium” (Grotius). 80, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodorct, Erasmus, Beza, 
Estius, Wetstein, Bengel, and many others, including Reiche, Olshausen, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Bisping, Reithmayr ; comp. Ewald: ‘their 
remaining behind.” —réop paddov rd TAGpwpa aiTév] 8c. THOVTOG LAVEY yevhoe- 
taz; how much more their becoming full, that is, how much more will it issue 
in the enrichment of the Gentiles with the Messianic salvation, if the Jews, 
after.the defeat which they have suffered, shall again be reinstated to their 
plena copia, so that they will then again in their full amount (ver. 26), as 
an integral whole, belong to the people of God,—which will take place 
through the conversion of all Israel to Christ (not would, as Luther has it).? | 
The 7rrjua avroy is then compensated, and the rAgpwua airév brought in, 
which, moreover, may take place even with a continuance of the d:aorupa. 
On rAfpwua generally, sec Fritzsche, II. p. 469 ff. Comp. on Eph. i. 10. 
The numerical reference of the 7/4pwpa avrév is suggested by the correlative 
TO TA;pwua Tov éOvov in ver. 25 ; and in so far the view which takes it of 
the full number of the Jews (Theodoret : rdvre¢ mioreboavrec pecCévwv ayabav 
‘cacty avOpdrac éyévovto av xpdfevot, 8O Most) is correct. Comp. Ewald : 
“their full admission, supplying what is wanting.” With this Umbreit 
yaixes up at the same time ‘‘ the fulfilment of their predestination ;” whilst 
van Hengel sees in the rfp. avr., not absolutely the full number, but only 
the collective body of those destined by God to conversion, which, however, 


18o also de Wette; similarly Ruckert: 
“the loss of their original dignity and glory 
as the people of God ;** and Hofmann : *‘ their 
hurt, in that they, by virtue Of their unbelief, 
are not what they should be." Comp. KGll- 
ner and Gléckler. Among the older Iinter- 
preters, Calvin: “ Diminutio honoris sui, 
qui fuerant populus Dei gloriosus." 


* Philipp! also explains vv. 12 and 15 not 
of an actual, but only of a _ possible 
mpdoodnycs Of Israel (p. 554). Vv. 18, 14 are 
not in favour of this, where Paul has in 
view the intermediate time until the final 
spécdnics of the wAjpepa; and ver. 26 is 
decisive against it, 


436 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


is not expressed, but is supplied by the reader. The various views corre- 
spond to the varying explanations of jrryua. So'e.g. Fritzsche : the fulness 
of Messianic salvation, which they will possess ; Philippi : the filling up 
—which takes place through their conversion—of the blank in the king- 
dom of God which arose through their unbelief ;' Rickert, K6llner : the 
restoration of Israel to its befitting position ; Hofmann : the status, in 
which they are fully and entirely that which they ought to be (qualitative). 
Luthardt also takes the correct view. 

Vv. 18, 14. [See Note CXVIII. p. 460.] Not a parenthetical thought 
(Reiche), but the connection with the preceding and following is : “zou 
addon rd wAhpwua aitrav I say: but you precisely, the Gentile Christian,— 
who might think that my office belongs only to you and the Gentiles, and 
that the conversion of the Jews lies less in my vocation,—you * I hereby make 
to know (ipiv A£yw), that I, as apostle of the Gentiles, etc. ; for (motive) the 
conversion of the Jews will have the happiest consequence (ver. 15). —roig the 
ov] to the (born) Gentiles, denotes, as an apposition to iyiv, the readers a- 
cording to their chief constituent element, in virtue of which the Christian 
Gentile body is represented in them ; comp. i. 18. Observe that Paul does 
not write roig dé 2Oveow év iuiv Aéyw, as though he intended only a Gentile 
Sraction of the otherwise Jewish-Christian community (in opposition to Man- 
gold). In contradistinction to his readers, the Jews, although his flesh, are 
to him third persons, whom he, as apostle of the Gentiles, might mediatdy 
serve. Baur fails to recognize this, I. p. 371. — é¢' dc0v] not temporal (quai 
diu, Matt. ix. 15 ; 2 Pet. i. 18), but : in quantum, in as far as I, etc. Comp. 
Matt. xxv. 40 ; Plato, Rep. p. 268 B; Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 68. Just so sic dow 
and xa dcov. — pév] as so often in Paul without a corresponding dé. But 
we see from the following that the train of ideas passing before his mind 
was this: ‘‘I seck indeed, so far as I am one who has the commission of 
Apostle to the Gentiles (observe the emphatic éyé, in which a noble self- 
consciousness is’ expressed), to do honour to my office, but I have in view 
withal (for see x. 1, ix. 2, 8) to incite my kinsmen to emulation, etc.”— 
eitwc] whether in any way. The practical honouring of the office, which 
consists in a true discharge of it, is an acting, whereby the desired attain- 
ment is attempted, see on i. 10 ; Phil. iii. 11; Acts xxvii. 12 ; Buttmana, 
neut. Gr. p. 220 [E. T. 256]. Less in accordance with the text—since the 
very eltuc rapa. x.7.4 presupposes an actual dofdlew (2 Thess. iii. 1; John xiL 
28).— Reiche and Ewald (after Grotius and many others, including Flatt) 
take it as : I boast, hold my office something high and glorious. Hofmann, 
indeed, understands an actual glorification, but conditioned by e mac 6.7.) 
so that the latter is not whether possibly, but if possibly. From this the illog- 
ical relation of present and future which thus arises* must deter us (Paul 


1 Comp. Melanchthon: ‘*Complementum — Jevs. 
integrae ecclesiae convertendae ex semine ® Hofmann adduces as an example Xen. 
Abrahae.”” Similarly Origen. Anabd. iv. 7.3. But such passages are of a 
2 According to the reading tui» 8¢ (see quite different kind (see Brunck, ad Arid, 
the critical notes). This éé forms a con- Put. 1064; Maetzner, ad Lycury. P. BN); 
trast with the perspective just opened by and tothe necessary connection exp 
Bod. GAA. 7. wArp. altav in savour of the in them of the consequence with the cor 


CHAP. XI., 15. 437 


must have used the future dofdow). — wapaz. and cdécw] future indicative, like 
1.10. On odow, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 16 ; 1 Cor. vii. 16, ix. 22. The enclitic 
pov standing before the noun cannot be emphatic (van Hengel), but repre- 
sents, at the same time, the dative of interest (whether I shall perhaps rouse 
tome my flesh to jealousy), like 1 Cor. ix. 27, Phil. ii. 2, Col. iv. 18, et al., 
and frequently in classical Greek. —airév] refers to those intended by the 
collective rv odpxa. Ldpxa 62 eimdv yvyotéryta Kal gtAootopyiav éEvégnve, Theo- 
phylact. Theodoret quite erroneously thinks that Paul wished to intimate 
a denial of spiritual fellowship. On the contrary, rAéov abroic oixecotpevog 
(Oecumenius), he says uz. +r. odpxa, which is like rove ovyyevei¢ pov Kata odpxa, 
ix. 3, but more strongly significant. Gen. xxxvii. 27; Judg. ix. 2; 2 Sam. 
v. 1. Comp. Isa. lviii. 7. Note the modesty of the expression rivd¢, which, 
however, was suggested by the experience of the difficulty of the conversion 
of the Jews ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 22. 

Ver. 15. By way of inference, like ver. 12; yép assigns a motire for vv. 
13, 14. — a70,3024, casting away; Plato, Legg. xii. p. 493 E. 944 C; Aq. 
Prov. xxviii. 24. By this is meant their exclusion from the people of God 
on account of their unbelief, and the opposite of it is their rpdécanuc, recep- 
tion in addition (Plato, Theaet. p. 210 A), by which they, having become 
believing, are adopted by God into the fellowship of His people. The view 
of az0,3077 a8 loss (Acts xxvii. 22; Plato, Phaed. p. 75; Lach. p. 195 E ; 
Plut. Sol. 7) is less suitable to this contrast (in opposition to the Vulg., 
Luther, Bengel, and others, including Philippi, who understands the loss, 
which the kingdom of God hes suffered in their case). — xataAAay? xécpov] in 
so far, namely, as the conrerted portion of the Gentiles has attained to dixar- 
ootvy through faith, and is no longer subjected to the opy4 of God ; and 
therewith reconciliation of the Gentile world with God has begun. Comp. v. 
11. Itis amore precise definition of the notion expressed in ver. 12 by 
adovrog Kéopov. — Cun éx vexp.] i.e. life, which proceeds from the dead (namely, 
when these arise). [See Note CXIX. p. 460.] The mpdo2Anyr¢ of the still un- 
converted Jews, Paul concludes, will be of such a kind (ric, not ri, is his 
question), will be of so glorious a character (comp. Eph. i. 18), that it will 
bring with it the last most blessed development, namely, the life beginning 
with the resurrection of the dead in the aid 6 péA2uv, the fw aiwveoc, which 
has the awakening from death as its causal premiss. Hence Paul does not 
SAY avdoraote éx vexpov (as Philippi objects) ; for his glance is already pass- 
ing beyond this event to its blessed consequence. The transformation of the 
living is included in this last development (1 Cor. xv. 51), which is here des- 
ignated a potiori ; comp. viii. 11. The conclusion of the apostle docs not, 
however, rest on Matt. xxiv. 14 (Reiche after Theodorct), but on the fact of 
the xara?Aayy xécuov, whose most blissful final development (as it, according 
to Paul, must necessarily be occasioned by the blissful opposite of the azo- 
fo77) can be none other than the blessed resurrection-life which will sect in 
with the Parousia (Col. iii. 8, 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 14 ff.). The view which takes 


dition, the “ff in any way" (possibly), which Kiihner, ad Xen. ic. and Gramm. II. 1, p. 
would make the condition proMematic, 120. 
would be wholly unsuitable. Comp. also 


438 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Sut) éx vexp. in the proper sense has been held by Origen, Chrysostom, Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Anselm, Erasmus, Toletus, Semler, Reiche, 
Gléckler, de Wette, Nielsen, Fritzsche, Riickert, Reithmayr, Bisping, Hol- 
mann, Beyschlag, and others. Approaching it, but taking the resurrection 
by way of comparison, stands the view of Ewald : ‘‘ The final completion of 
all history down to the last day, and like the very resurrection itself, which 
is expected on this day.” Luthardt, too, is substantially in the right, tak- 
ing, however, vexpov in the ethical sense : from the dead Israel the new bodi- 
ly life of glorification will proceed. A heterogeneous mode of viewing the 
contrasts, for which the text affords no support. The non-literal interpreta- 
tion of the ‘‘ futura quasi resurrectio ex mortuis” (Melanchthon), i.e. of the 
‘“novitas vitae ex morte peccati ” (Estius ; so in substance Calvin, Hunnius 
Calovius, Vorstius, Bengel, Carpzov, Ch. Schmidt, Cramer, Béhme, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Maier; also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 129; 
Krummacher, p. 172 f. ; and Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 574), is to be set aside on 
the ground that then nothing higher than the xaraAAayh (and it must be 
something far higher) would be expressed,’ but only its ethical consequence 
in the activity of life. Olshausen, too, understands it primarily of the spir- 
itual resurrection, yet thinks that the notion ‘‘ plays into the bodily resurre- 
tion” (7). Umbreit finds spiritual and bodily revival from death conjoined. 
Others explain the expression metaphorically, as designating aummum gaud:- 
um (Grotius after Oecumenius) or summa felicitas (Hammond, Koppe, Kill- 
ner). Comp. Theophylact (a7e:pa éye64), Beza, Flatt, van Hengel, and nov, 
too, Tholuck, who recurs to the general thought of the most important pon- 
tion in the history of the divine kingdom to be occupied by converted Israel. 
But interpretations of such a non-literal character must be necessitated by 
the context ; whereas the latter by the relation, in accordance with the 
connection, of fu éx vexpov to the quite proper xata?A. xécpov requires us to 
abide by the literal sense. Hence we are not to understand, with Philippi, 
at once both the extensive diffusion of the kingdom of God, and a subjec- 
tive revivification of Christendom, which had again become dead, ‘and 
thus a glorious flourishing time for the church on earth.” So, again, Auberlen 
supposes a charismatic life of the church, and depicts it with the colours of 
the palingenesia of the golden age. No such ideas are here expressed ; and 
it would have been peculiarly necessary to indicate more particularly the 
dead state into which Christendom was again to fall, especially after the s- 
radday) kéouov already including within itself spiritual revical, And by 0 
means is the supposed flourishing time (the time of worship (!) Auberlen 
calls it, as opposed to the present time of preaching) compatible with the 
nearness of the Parousia (xiii. 14 ; 1 Cor. vii. 29, et al.), with the évayxy IM 
mediately preceding it (1 Cor. vii. 26 ; Matt. xxiv. 29), and with the 7 
pla of the last period (on Gal. 1. 4). 

Ver. 16. Aé] continuative ; but this zpécAnyuc, how well it corresponds to 
. the character of holiness, which has been associated with the people of 


eo Calvin's excuse: “‘Nam etsi una res deris,"" only shows the baldness of this 
est, verbis tamen plus et minus inest pon- interpretation. 





CHAP. XI., 16. 439 
Isracl from its origin till now ! The two figures are parallel, and sct forth 
the same thought. [See Note CXX. p. 461.] — azap x7] obtains the genitival 
definition to be mentally supplied with it through 7d ¢ipaya, just as in the 
second clause f pifa is the root of the xAddo. The arapx? tov dupdparog is 
known from Num. xv. 19-21 to be a designation of the jirst of the dough ; 
that is, from every baking, when the dough was kneaded, a portion was to 
be set aside and a cake to be baked therefrom for the priests.*- This arapyé, 
as the first portion devoted to Jehovah from the whole, was designed to 
impart the character of its consecration to the remainder of the lump. The 
article with gtpaua denotes the lump of dough concerned, from which the 
arapyf is separated ; hence dAoy did not require to be expressed (in opposi- 
tion to Hofmann’s objection). Grotius and Rosenmiiller take r. ¢gip. to be 
the corn destined for the baking, and azapyq to be the first-fruits. But (ix. 
21) dipaya always denotcs a mass mired (with moisture or otherwise), par- 
ticularly a kneaded one, and is in the LXX. (Ex. xii. 84) and in Paul (1 Cor. 
v. 6, 7; Gal. v. 9) the standing expression for dough. Estius, Koppe, 
K6llner, Olshausen, Krehl rightly take it so, but nevertheless understand by 
avapxf the sacred first-fruits (comp. Ex. xxiii. 10) which were employed for 
¢¢paza. But in that case arapyzf obtains a genitival definition not presented 
by the text ; and this can the less be approved, since arapy7 gupdéuaros, in 
fact, was the stated expression from Num. l.c. This applies also against 
Hofmann, who likewise explains the azapyq as the firstling-sheaf, but con- 
siders the ¢ipaua to be the dough worked up from the harvest-fruit generally. 
—The figure is correctly interpreted, when by 7 axapx4 we understand the 
patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), and by rd ¢tp. the whole body of the 
people, to whom the character of holincss—of consecration in property to 
God—passed over from the former. With the holincss of the marépeg, ix. 
4-13 (in accordance with which we are not here to think of Abraham alone), 
is given also the holiness of the theocratic people, their posterity, according 
to the divine right of covenant and promise. Comp. ix. 4, 5. But this 
holiness, which Paul looks upon, as respects the national whole, in the light 
of a character indelédilis, is not the inner moral, but (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 14) 
the theocratic legal holiness (‘‘ quod juribus ecclesiace ct promissis Dei frui 
possint,” Calovius). The expression is taken of the patriarchs by Chry- 
sostom, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Calovius, 
Bengel, and others, including Koppe, Tholuck, K6llner, Olshausen, 
Fritzsche, Philippi, Maicr, de Wette, Krehl, Umbreit, Ewald, Reithmayr, 
Hofmann (though the latter thinks only of Abraham). This is correct, be- 
cause the second figure (ei d2 piga x.r.2.) is capable of no other interpretation 
(see below ; but to explain the two figures differently, as Toletus and Stolz,? 
Reiche and Ruckert,* Gléckler, Stengel, Bisping, van Iengel, after Theo- 


1 8ee Philo, de sac. hon. IT. p. 22; Jose- 
phus, Ant. iv. 4. 4 ; Saalschutz, #7. 2. p. 347; 
Keil, Archdof. I. § 71; and the Rabbinical 
prescriptions in Mischn. Surenh. p. 289 ff. 

2 Toletus and Stolz suppose the awapyy¥ 
to be the Jews who first accepted Christian- 
ity, and tho $vpaue to be the remaining part 


ofthe nation. The second figure they sup- 
pose to denote our first parents and their 
posterity. So, too, van Hengel. 

8In substance like Toletus and Stolz. 
On the first figure Reiche remarks: “ As the 
whole, whereof a firstling gift is consecrat- 
ed to God, is something excellent, worthy 


440 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 

dore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret,? have in manifold ways arbitrarily done, 
is simply a violation of the parallelism.? This holds also against the inter- 
pretation of the Jews who have become beliering, and of the remaining maa of 
the people (Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Anselm, Toletus, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, 
Reiche, Riickert, Bisping). — 7 fica and of xAddoe arc the patriarchs and their 
theocratic bodily descendants, the Jews. As the azapy% is related to the 
gipaua, 80 is the pifa to the xAddo: ; comp. on the latter, Menander, 711: 
dxapwéc forw ottog amd p.Sn¢ wKAddoc. The divergent interpretation, which 
may deserve to be considered in opposition to this usual one, is, that the psa 
is the first primitive or mother church consisting of the believing Jews, and 
that the «2adoeare the Jets, in so far as they in virtue of their national posi- 
tion were primarily called thereto. This exposition (substantially in Cor- 
nelius 2 Lapide, Carpzov, Schoettgen ; Semler and Ammon suppose oi xado 
to be the Gentile Christians), is still considered possible by de Wette. Its, 
however, unsuitable ; for the (natural) «Adéee must have proceeded from the 
pta, must have their origin from it (comp. Ecclus, xxiii. 25, x]. 15), and the 
broken-off branches (ver. 17) must have earlier belonged to the pija,—which 
is not the case, if pila is the Christian mother-church of which they were 
never «2ddot. The true theocracy (the olive tree, comp. Jer. xi. 16; Hos. 
xiv. 7; Zech. iv. 11 ; Neh. viii. 15) did not begin in the Christian mother- 
church (as its root), but in the patriarchs, and Christ Himself was xaré capss 
from this sacred root, Matt. i.1f. In this view it is clear that the un- 
believing Jews, in so far as they rejected Christ, ceased thereby to belong 
to the true people of God, and fell away from their root. They werenow— 
after the light, and with it judgment, had come into the world (John iii. 19) 
—broken-off branches, apostate children of Abraham (John viii. 37, 89, 40), 
children of the kingdom who were to be cast out (Matt. viii. 12). Comp. 
the figure of the vine in John xv. See also Rom. ix. 6 ff. 

Vv. 17-24.* In pursuance of the figure, a warning to the Gentile Christians 
against self-presumption, and an exhortation to humility, down to ver. 24 
— vvéc] some, a portion of the branches ;* comp. on iii. 8. — éfexAdod.] tere 
broken off (Plat. Rep. p. 611 D), «Adw being the proper word for the breaking 
of the young ticigs («?.ddo:) ; Theophrastus, c. pl. i. 15.1. They were broken 
off on account of their unfitness for bearing. — od dé] individualizing address 
to each Gentile Christian. — ayptéd, dv] although being of the wild olize. 4;p. 
is here an adjective, like tx ti¢ ajpteraion, ver. 24. This view is assured by 
linguistic usage,° and necessary ; for the traditional interpretation : ‘‘oleaster, 


of God, or by the very offering of it is de- 
clared to be such, so is also the Jewish 
people through the fact, that a part of it 
has been received into God's fellowship, 
declared to be a noble people, worthy to 
be wholly accepted, so soon as it only ful- 
fils the conditions.” 

1 Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret 
explain the arapyy of Christ, and the piga of 
the patriarchs ; while Origen interprets doth 
figures as referring to Christ. 

2 The identity of the thought expressed 


by a twofold figure is also confirmed by 
the fact, that in what follows Paul pursues 
only the one figure, and entirely drops the 
first. 

2 On vv. 17, 18, see Matthias in the Stud 
u. Arit. 1866, p. 519 ff. 

4 Without indicating the great multitude 
of them, in order not to promote Gentile 
Christian self-exaltation (ver. 18). 

S Eryc. 4, in Anthol. 1x, 287: oxvredyy 
aypuéAqcov, Theocr. xxv. 255; see Jacobs, 
Delect. Evigr. p. 83; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 5% 


CHAP. XI., 1%. 441 
t.e. surculus oleastri,” is as arbitrary as the apology for the expression when 
so explained, on the ground that Paul wished to avoid the prolirity of the 
distinction between tree and branch, is absurd (in opposition to Hofmann), 
inasmuch as he would only have nceded to employ the genitive instead of 
the nominative, and consequently to write not a word more, if he wished to 
be thussparing. The opinion of Reiche, Riickert, K6llner, Philippi, Krehl, 
Ewald, van Hengel—that the collective body of the Gentiles is conceived as 
an entire tree—is inappropriate to the relation portrayed by the figure, because 
the ingrafting of the Gentiles took place at first only partially and in single 
instances, while the of addressed cannot represent heathendom as a whole, 
and is also not appropriate to the jigure itself, because in fact not whole 
trees, not even quite young ones (in opposition to de Wette), are ingrafted 
either with the stem, or as to all their branches ; besides, ver. 24 contra- 
dicts this opinion. Matthias also takes the right view. — év airoic] may 
grammatically be equally well understood as among them (the branches of the 
noble olive tree generally)—so Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and many others, 
including Riickert, Fritzsche, Nielsen, Tholuck, Philippi, Maier, Reithmayr, 
Hofmann—or as : in the place of the broken-off branches (Chrysostom, Beza, 
Piscator, Semler, and others, including Reiche, Kéllner, de Wette, 
Olshausen), which, however, would have to be conceived of, not as ordina- 
rily, in locum, but in loco eorum (Olshausen has the right view). The first 
rendering is preferable, because it corresponds to the notion of the ovyxowe- 
vécg. [See Note CXXI. p. 461.] — rie pitne x. 7. xeér. 7. é2.] of the root (which 
now bears thee also ,among its own branches, ver. 18) aad futness which 
now goes jointly to thee) of the olire tree. On the lattcr, comp. Judg. ix. 9. 
The assumption of a hendiadys (of the fat root) (Grotius and others) is 
groundless and weakening.’ The sense without figure is : ‘‘ Thou hast at- 
tained to a participation in holy fellowship with the patriarchs, and in the 
blessings of the theocracy developed from them,”—both which the unbe- 
lieving Jews have forfeited.— Zlas Paul here, ver. 17 ff., had in view the pro- 
cess, really used in the East, of strengthening to renewed fertility olive trees by 
grafting scions of the wild olive upon them ?? Answer : The subject-matter, which 
he is setting forth, required not at all the figure of the ordinary grafting of 
the noble scion on the wild stem, but the converse, namely, that of the in- 
grafting of the wild scion and itsennoblement thereby. The thing thus re- 
ceiving illustration had taken place through the reception of Gentile members 
into the theocracy ; and the thing that had taken place he was bound to rep- 
resent (figuratively depict) as it had taken place, ‘‘Ordine commutato res 
magis causis quam causas rebus aptavit,” Origen. But that, while doing 
this, he had before his mind that actual pomological practice, and made 
reference to it (Matthias : in order to exhibit the rapalyAwOjvac of the unbe- 


1 rys wiornros Would only represent the ad- 
jectival notion, if <ei—omitted by B C &* 
Copt. Dam.— were not genuine, as Buttmann 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 366, pronounces 
{t. Tisch. 8omits it. But D* F Gand Codd. of 
It. omit rhs paccns nai (manifestly through a 
copyist’s error) ; therefore tis pigns without 


cai appears as an incomplete restoration. 

2 See Columella, v. 9. 16; Pallad. xiv. 53; 
Schulz, Leit.d. Hdchsten, V. p. 88: Michae- 
lis, ortent. Bild. X. p. 67 ff., and note, p. 129; 
Bredenkamp in Paulus, MMemorad. I. p. 149 
ff. 


442 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


lieving Jews, ver. 13), is not to be assumed for this reason, that here, 
conformably to the following xai ovyxocvevog x.7.4., there is conceived as the 
object of the ingrafting the ennobled fertilization of the graft itself ; where- 
as, in the practice referred to, the ingrafted scion was not to receive the fat- 
ness from the noble tree, not to become fertilized, but to fertilize; for 
‘*foecundat sterilis pingues oleaster olivas, et quae non novit munera, ferre 
docet,”’ Palladius. 

Ver. 18. 1) xatax. tov xAdd.] Boast thyself not against (comp. Jas. ‘ii. 13, iil. 
14 ; also in the LXX., not in classical Greek) the branches. These are not 
the broken-off branches, of which he has just been speaking (Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, and many others, including de 
Wette, Riickert, Ewald), but, according to vv. 16, 17, the branches of the 
olive tree generally (of which some have been broken off) ; without figure, 
therefore ; the people Israel, but by no means merely those now composing 
the non-Christian Israel (Hofmann). The latter, because the Christian 
raelites also still belonged to the branches of the olive tree, must, as well 38 
the broken-off xAddo:, have been more precisely designated (against which 
Hofmann urges subtletics) ; moreover, the following warning would not be 
suitable to the broken-off ones, because they no longer stand in any connec: 
tion with the root. The «Addo: standing on the root of the patriarchs ar 
the Israelites, whether believing or unbelieving ; but under the broken-of 
ones, which are therefore no longer borne by the root, we are to think not 
gencrally of all those Jews who at the time had not yet become believers in 
Christ (vv. 13, 14)—otherwise the apostolic mission to the Jews would in 
truth have no meaning (in opposition to Hofmann's denial of this distinc: 
tion)—but only of those who had rejected the Christ preached to them (Acts 
xxviii. 28, 24), and therefore were already no longer in living communion 
with the patriarchal root, excluded in God's judgment from the theocracy 
borne by this root (ix. 7, 8). Hence, too, we are not, with Fritzsche, ' 
think in rév x2dduv merely of the conrerted Jews, as indeed to give a partict- 
lar warning against pride towards Jewish- Christians was foreign here to the _ 
object of the apostle. — ei dé xatax. x.7.4.] But if the case occur, that thou 
boastest against them, then know, reflect : it is not thou who bearest, etc. 
without figure : Thy theocratic position is not the original theocratic 00 
but only a derived one, proceeding from the patriarchs and imparted to thet 
conditioned by the relation into which thou hast entered towards them; 
thou therefore standest likewise only in the relation of a branch to the root, 
which is borne by the latter, and not the converse, and which may 00% 
therefore bear itself proudly towards its fellow-branches, as though it ¥e™ 
something better. In these words there lies a warning hint beforehand 0 
the possibility which Paul afterwards, vv. 21, 22; definitely expresses. — The 
ov ov Tt. pit. Baor x.r.2. is to be taken declaratirely. See Winer, P- 515 
' [E. T. 619] ; Buttmann, p. 338 [E. T. 895]. Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 16. ibs 
fact itself is quite independent of the case supposed in ei x.1.4., but oe 
brought to mind. 

Ver. 19. Oiv] therefore ; since this reason (ob ob rv pilav «.7.A.) forbids thee 
kataxavxaoba:, thou wilt have something else to allege. — éfexA. x.1.2.] bre 


CHAP. XI., 20-23. 443 
were broken off (see critical notes), in order that I, etc. This iva éyé has the 
stress of arrogant self-esteem, which, however, is not to be extended also to 
x2.adoe' forming the simple subject, and not even standing in the first place 
(Hofmann : ‘‘branches which were 80 are broken off”). (See Note CXXII. 
p. 462. ] 7 

Vv. 20, 21. By xaaae Paul admits the fact ; but in what follows he points 
out its cause, as one which must prevent haughtiness, and inspire fear and 
anxiety respecting the duration of the state of grace ; assigning the reason 
in ver. 21.—xaddc] Good! recte ais.?— The ri amorig and ry riores placed 
first with emphatic warning means: on account of unbelief, etc. Comp. 
ver. 80. See on Gal. vi. 12. —éoryxac] thou standest, namely, as a branch 
upon the olive tree. As the figure is present, both before and afterwards, 
it is opposed to the context to take éorjx. absolutely, as the opposite of ziz- 
rev (vv. 11, 22, xiv. 4; Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl, Philippi—the latter 
doubtfully). — tyyAodpoveiv, to be haughty (1 Tim. vi. 17), is foreign to classi- 
cal Greek, which has peyadodpoveiv ; yet see scholion on Pind. Pyth. ii. 91 : 
twq2odpovowvra Kal KavyOuevov xataxdurrec 6 Oedc. The adjective tyyAddpev is 
found in the classics in a good sense : high-spirited. — goo] ‘‘timor oppo- 
nitur non fiduciac, sed supercilio et securitati,” Bengel. Secure haughti- 
ness fears not the possible loss. — rév xara gio] those according to nature, 
not ingrafted. — phru¢ ovd? o. geic.] to be referred to the underlying con- 
ception : i¢ is to be feared * (Winer, pp. 469 f., 442 [E. T. 504, 474] ; Baeum- 
lein, Partik. p. 288 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. TI. p. 835). The future is more defi- 
nite and certain than the subjunctive.‘ At the same time the specially cho- 
sen mode of expression with p#rwc (Paul does not say directly oid? aot 
geicerat, as Lachmann reads) is sufficiently mitigating and forbearing. 

Vv. 22, 23. An exhortation inferred from ver. 21, and corresponding to 
HH ynAogpdver, aAAG goj/3ov in ver. 20. — Behold, therefore, the goodness and the 
severity of God, how both divine attributes present themselves before thee 
side by side. That ypyor. and amor. should be without the article is, on ac- 
count of the following @cov* being anarthrous, quite regular, and does not 
entitle us artificially to educe (as Hofmann does) the sense of ‘‘ a goodness” 
(which is here exhibited), etc. According to the correct reading (see the 


1 Were we to read, with the Rec., ot «Ad- 
8, the article would have to be taken decx- 
vues Of the branches concerned, not the 
collective branches, from the haughty stand- 
point of the opponents, as Philippi holds. 
The sitnple «cadws of the apostle does not 
suit this. 

2Demosth. 996. 24; Plat. Phil. p. 3 B; 
Enr. Or. 1216; Lucian, Deor. Jud. 10. 

3 Observe, however, that uyrws «7A. fs 
not an actual formal apodosis (in opposition 
to van Hengel's difficulty, by which he sees 
himself compelled to adopt Lachmann's 
reading) ; that, on the contrary, a formal 
apodosis, as frequently along with condi- 
tional protases (seo Winer, p. 556 [E. T. 598] ; 
Buttmann, p. 880 (E. T. 885 f.]), is by anacolu- 


thon suppressed, and Instead of it the fear 
hiwws x.7.A. is independently introduced, in 
keeping with the emotional vividness of the 
discourse. Consequently: ** For if God has 
not spared the natural branches, . .. He will, 
I am apprehensive, also not spare thee.*’ 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 199 E, rightly 
observes that the suppression of the apo- 
dosis after a conditional protasis has mini- 
mum offensionis in famillari colloquio.” 
And such we have here, vv. 19-21. 

* See Hermann, ad £7. 992, Aj. 272, Med. p. 
$57, Elmsl. ; Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Rep. p. 451 
A: Hartung, Partikell. IT. p. 140. 

® Comp. Elwert, Quaest. ad philolog. sacr., 
Tiib. 1860, p. 7 f. 


444 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


critical notes), a point is, with Lachmann, to be placed after azorouiav 6:08 ; 
and with the following nominatives, azorozia and ypyorérng Ocot, ior: isto be 
supplied :' ‘* Towards the fallen there is secerity, but towards thee (directed to 
thee) goodness.” The fallen are the Jews who have refused to believe,—ao 
designated, because they are conceived as branches broken off and thereby 
fallen from the tree. Comp. éornxas, ver. 20. In allusion to this, the sererity 
of God is also designated as azorouia (only here in the N. T., but see on 2 
Cor. xiii. 10: Kypke, If. p. 179 ; Grimm on Wisd. v. 21). This reference 
to the figure, which certainly pervades the whole representation, it is arbi- 
trary to deny (de Wette, Fritzsche). — éav éxipeiv. ty ypnorér.) if thou shalt 
abide (see on vi. 1) by the goodness, i.e. if thou shalt not hare separated thysif 
Jrom the divine goodness (through apostasy from faith), but shalt have r- 
mained true to it; comp. Acts xill. 43. Rightly, therefore, as respects 
the mode of the émiuévery rt. yp., Clemens Alex. Paedag. I. p. 140 Pott: 9 
cig Xptordv riovee. But it is erroneous, because contrary to the context (for 
the emphasis lies on éripeiv., and 7% ypyorér. is but the repetition of the di- 
vine attribute just mentioned) and un-Pauline, to take ypyoréry, with 
Fritzsche, following Ch. Schmidt, in the sense of human rightness of condud 
(iii. 12). Comp. rather on ypyorér., ii. 4, and on Eph. ii. 7 ; also Tit. il 
4, —imei Kai ci éxxorioy] for otherwise thou also (like those broken-of 
branches) shalt be cut off. The threatening tenor of the discourse suggests 
unsought the stronger word éxxor., which is also in ver, 24 retained of the 
wild olive tree. — Since kaxeivoc? d2 «.7.4. does not depend on the condition 
previously to be supplied with é7e/, but has its own conditional sentence, 4 
point is to be placed (in opposition to Hofmann) after éxxor. ; and with 
xakeivoe Jé a new sentence, still further repressing Gentile self-exaltation, must 
be begun, which usual punctuation Lachmann, ed. maj., has again adopted : 
And those, too, if they shall not have persisted in unbelief, will be grafted in, 
—whereby the reception into the true divine community (vv. 25, 31) is fig- 
uratively depicted. The «ai puts the éxe‘voc on a parallel to the ingrafted 
wild olive branches (ver. 17.) — dvvaré¢ yap] if, namely, the cause has ceased 
to exist, on account of which God had to break off these branches, the poier 
of God (comp. iv. 21, xiv. 4) leaves no doubt, etc. In zdéAw the concep 
tion is, that by the ingrafting their restoration to their previous condition is 
accomplished. Comp. Winer, p. 576 [E. T. 620].—We may notice that this 
is a probative passage for the possibility of forfeiture of the state of grace, 
for the conrersio resistibilis and for reiterabilitas gratiae, and also against ab- 
solute predestination. 

Ver. 24. Tap] does not serve to assign the reason of derardc x.7.A., so that 
the ability of God for that reingrafting would be popularly illustrated from 
the facility of this process as according to nature (the ordinary view). 


1To assume epexegetic nominatives ad- _— tence. 
olute (Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. v. 48), with 2 Such, with Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, 
Buttmann, neuf. Gr. p. 820 [E. T. 884], is - Tisch., according to a large preponderance 
inappropriate, because the appended éay _ of evidence, is to be the reading, instead of 
ériuecy. x.7.A. can no longer be dependent on ~— xai éxetvor, 
idé, but presupposes an independent sen- 


CHAP. XI., 25. 445 
[See Note CXXIII. p. 463.] Against this it may be decisively urged, that 
—apart from the difficulty which experience attests in the conversion 
of unbelieving Jews—the power of God is the correlative, not of that which 
is easy, but precisely of that which is difficult, or which humanly speak- 
ing appears impossible (iv. 21, xiv. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 8; Rom. ix. 22; 
Matt. xix. 26 ; Luke i. 87, e¢ al.), and that réow yaddov, as a designation 
of greater casiness, must have found in the context a more precise expla- 
nation to that effect, if it was not intended to express generally, as else- 
where (comp. Philem, 16, and the similar use of 70/26 waddov), the greater 
degree of probability or certainty. Rightly, therefore, have Winzer, Progr. 
1828, Reiche, Philippi, and Tholuck, referred the yép to the main thought 
of the previous verse, to éyxevtpeoffoovraz. Yet they should not have taken 
this yép as purely co-ordinate with the preceding yap, but—as must always 
be done with two such apparently parallel instances of yap—as explicative 
(see on Vili. 6) namely, so that after the brief ground assigned for éyxevtpio- 
Ofoovrat (duvaro¢ x.t.A.), the same is now yet more fully elucidated in regard 
to its certainty, and by this elucidation is still further confirmed. To this 
the confirmatory reference to éyxevr. in Hofmann substantially amounts. — 
ov] Gentile-Christian. — éx r7¢ Kata giow . . . aypea.] out of the wild olive, 
which is so according to nature, which by nature has grown a wild olive. 
— rapa dior] for the grafting, as an artificial proceeding, alters the natural 
development, and is so far contrary to nature (i. 26). The interposition of 
é€exox. brings out more markedly the contrast between xara giow and rapa ¢. 
Very violently the simple words are twisted by Hofmann as follows : aypre- 
Aaiov 18 in apposition to éx tie Kata gow ; while for the latter there is to be 
borrowed from aypiedaiov the more general notion of the olive tree, and # xara 
giorv is the tree, which isso for the branch in a natural manner, — rig xaAAcéA. } 
into a (not the) noble olive tree. The word is also found in Aristotle, Plant. 
1, 6, in contrast to aypiéA. —oiro:] the Jews who have refused to believe. 
— oi cata giorv] sc. dvrec,’ those according to nature. In what reapect they are 
so, the context exhibits, namely, as the original branches of the holy olive tree, 
whose root the patriarchs are, ver. 16. — r# idig ¢2.] for they have originally 
grown upon it, and then have been cut off from it ; hence it is still their 
own olice tree. 

Vv. 25-32. [See Note CXXIV. p. 463.] The formal and unconditional 
promise of the collective conversion of the Jews, and the confirmatory proof 
of this promise, now follow down to ver. 32. — yép] introduces the corrobo- 
ration of the previous éyxevtpicOhoovra: : ‘‘ they shall be grafted in, I say ; for 
be it not withheld from you,” etc. —ov Aw iuac ayvoeiv] not a mere formula 
of announcement gencrally (Riickert), but always of something important, 


1 Fritzsche takes ot as the relative oc: 
how much more shall these be grafted Into 
the olive tree, cho, according to nature, 
shall become grafted into their own ollve 
tree! Superfluous in ftself,—and what dif- 
fuse and unwieldy circumstantiality of ex- 
pression! Hofmann has nevertheless ac- 
ceded to this reading of oi, in which case, 


through the punctuation obro:, of card diow 
(ac. éyxevtpicOncovrar) eyxerrpicPncovtas TH 
(dq eAaia, nothing is gained. How simply 
and clearly would the thought thus artlfi- 
cially made out have been expressed, if 
Paul had only left out that alleged relative 
ot! 


« 
446 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


which Paul desires to be specially noticed, i. 18 ; 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 15 2 Cor. 
i. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 18. That which is addressed, under the fervent addition 
of the adeAgoi embracing all readers, is the whole church, although it stands 
before the apostle’s cyes such as it was, namely, in its predominantly Ger- 
tue-Christian character. Comp. vv. 18, 28, 30. — rd prorfpeov] has not in 
the N. T. the sense in which profane writers speak of mysteries (something 
mysterious in itself, comprehensible only by the initiated, and to be con- 
cealed from the profane).’ But it signifies that which, undiscerned by men 
themselves, has been made known to them by divine aroxdAvync, and always refers 
to the relations and the development of the Messianic kingdom (Matt. xiii. 
11). Thus it frequently denotes with Paul the divine counsel of redemp- 
tion through Christ,—as a whole, or in particular parts of it,—because it 
was veiled from men before God revealed it (Rom. xvi. 25 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7-10; 
Eph. iii. 3-5). Whether the contents of a mystery have already become 
known through the preaching of the gospel, may be gathered from the 
scope of the particular passages, That, however, which Paul here means 
by wrergp., is something the droxéavye of which he is conscious of having 
received by divine illumination (just as in 1 Cor. xv. 51), and he declaresit 
as a prophet év droxadipe (1 Cor. xiv. 6, 80) ; without presupposing that 
the church, personally still strange to him, was already acquainted with 
the peculiar point of doctrine, as is evinced by iva ua qre ev éavroic eptr. 
He desires, namely, by a disclosure of the pvarfprov, to take care that his 
readers, from their Gentile-Christian standpoint, should not, under a mu- 
apprehension of the divine counsel, hold for truth their own ciews on the 
exclusion of the Israclitish people, and therewith be wise in themselces (e 
éavr., sce the critical notes), i.e. in their own judgment (comp. Jas. i. 4). 
What Luther has : ‘‘that ye be not proud” (comp. Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, 
Calovius), is not directly expressed, but is rightly pointed out by Theodorct 
as a consequence, Comp. Isa. v. 21; Soph. El. 1055 f. — dre a.7.2.] Contents 
of the yvorfp., namely, the duration of the hardening of Israel, which vill 
not be permanent. — rdépworc] See on ver. 7.— amd pépovc] is to be con- 
nected with yéyovev, not, as by Estius, Semler, Koppe, Fritzsche, contrary 
to the construction, with 7p "Iopa#a._ Hardening has partially befallen the 
people, in so far as ob mdvreg griotevoay’ moAAai yap && éxeivwy éxiorevoar (The- 
odoret). Comp. xv. 15. It is therefore to be understood extensively (comp. 
oi Aouroi, ver. 7 ; tives, ver. 17), not intensively, as Calvin takes it (attaching 
it to mépwoic) : guodammodo, which was intended to soften the severity of 
the notion. So taken, it would not modify the conception, but alter it 
(ver. 7 ff.). K@llner finds in ad p». the statement of @ single ground of the 
divine arrangement, leaving it undecided whether other reasons, and what, 
were in the mind of the apostle : on the one part the hardening had been de- 
creed by God over Israel only for the end, that first, etc. But in that case 
avd yz. must have referred to an expressed iva or the like. The temporal 
view, ‘‘sor a while” (Hofmann), is here as contrary to usage as in 2 Cor. 


1 See on pve and nvorjp., Creuzer on Plotin. de Puler. p. 857 f. ; Lennep. tym. p. Hl; 
comp. Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p. 85 ff. 


CHAP. XI., 25. 447 
14, ii. 5. Paul would have known how to express this sense possibly by 
ro viv, or by the classical réuc. — yéyovev] from whom? is known from ver. 8. 
— dypic ov] usque dum intraverit. Then—when this shall have taken place 
—the hardening of Israel shall cease. Calvin's ita ut is intended, in spite 
of the language, to remove the idea of a terminus ad quem; and for the same 
reason Calovius and others employ much artifice in order to bring out the 
sense, that down to the end of the world the partial hardening will endure, 
and therefore, too, the partial conversion, but only that which is partial. — 
TO TAKp. Tov EOvav] In opposition to Gusset, Wolfburg, and others named by 
Wolf, also Wolf himself, Michaelis, Olshausen, Philippi, who understand 
only the complementum ethnicorum serving to make up for the unbelieving 
Jews (‘‘ the recruitment from the Gentiles,’’ Michaelis), the wsus loguendi is not 
decisive ; for according to usage that, with which something else is made 
full, might certainly be expressed by the genitive with rAgpwya (Mark viii. 20, 
and see on Mark vi. 43 ; comp. Eccles. iv. 6). But how enigmatically, and 
in a manner how liable to misapprehension, would Paul have indicated the sup- 
posed thought, instead of simply and plainly writing rd tAjpwpua avrov rd éx 
tov éfvaev | especially as already, in ver. 12, the analogous expression rd 7Ag- 
popa avtov was used in the sense of ‘their full number.” Fritzsche also 
finds too little : caterva gentilium, so that only a great multitude is meant. 
Comp. on Eph. iii. 19. We must observe the correlation of ad uépoug. . . 
wAhpoua ... wag: apart of [srael is hardened, until the Gentiles collec- 
tively shall have come in, and, when that shall have taken place, then all 
Israel will be saved. The conversion of the Gentiles ensues by successive 
stages ; but when their éotality shall be converted, then the conversion of 
the Jews in their ¢otality will also ensuc ; so that Paul sees the latter— 
which up to that epoch certainly also advances gradually in individual cases 
—ensuing, after the full conversion of the Gentiles, as the event complect- 
ing the assemblage of the church and accomplishing itself probably in rapid 
development.’ All this, therefore, before the Parousia, not by means of tt. 
Comp. on Acts ili. 20. The expression 1d rAfpuya tr. éOvav is therefore to be 
taken numerically: the plena copia of the Gentiles (of whom in the first in- 
stance only a fraction has come and is coming in), their full number. Rightly 
Theophylact : réyrec, but with arbitrary limitation he adds: of mpocywwoué- 
vot éOvixoi. Just so, in substance, Augustine, Oecumenius, and many others, 
including even van Hengel : ‘‘plenus numerus gentilium, guotquot compre- 
hendebant proposita Dei,” comp. Krummacher : ‘‘only the elect among the 
Gentiles.” The collective multitude of the Gentiles in the strict sense Hof- 


1 There would have been no offence taken 
at the full sense of the wArpwpa rwr Over, as 
well as of the correlate was ‘Iopana, ver. 26, 
and there would have been no occasion to 
seek artificial limitations of the fulness of 
these notions, had it been sufficiently con- 
sidered that Paul is speaking apocalyptically, 
in virtue of his prophetic contemplation of 
the last sacred-historical development be- 
fore the Parousia. The prophet (comp. ¢.g. 
Acts if. 17, x1. 28) contemplates and speaks 


of the grand things in the perspective 
opened to his view in the bulk and summa- 
rily, without being answerable for such ut- 
terances according to atrict mathematical 
precision. By a restrictive explaining away 
and modification of these utterances the 
prophetic character and spirit suffers a vio- 
lence foreign to it, against which the sim- 
ple and clear words do not cease to offer 
resistance. 


448 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


mann seeks to get rid of, by making rd xAfpwua serve only to emphasize the 
fact that ra v7 is to be thought of ‘‘in the full compass of the notion,” s0 
that by ro xzAjp. r. éOvav no other full amount is intended than that which 
would be expressed by ra é@vy itself. Thus there would result as the sense : 
until no people of the Gentile world is any longer found outside the church. 
This is decidedly at variance with ver. 12, and with the whole context 
down to its evident concluding verse (ver. 82), according to which not the 
peoples as auch (in the lump, as it were), but all persons who compose them, 
must be the subjects of the entrance into the church and of the divine mercy. 
The above interpretation is a process of rationalizing, artificial and far- 
fetched, and contrary to the language and the context, by interpreting 
what is said of the indiziduals as applying to the nations ; just as Beyschlag, 
p. 75, understands the two great groups of mankind to be thought of here 
and in ver. 26. — cicéA#y] namely, into the community prefigured by the 
holy olive tree, i.e. into the people of God. There is not yet mention of 
the kingdom of Messiah ; its establishment is later. The passage Col. i. 131s 
wrongly employed with a view to supply ei¢ r. Baca. Gcot. See in lu. 
Ver. 26 f. Kai otrw] And so, namely, after the rAjpupya rev ervey shall have 

come in. The modal character of the ovtw therefore lies in the succession of 
time conditioning the emergence of the fact (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 28), as it also 
in the classics, in the sense of so then, embraces what has been previously 
said." Theodoret rightly says : trav ydp éOvév deEauévun rd xypuypa motets 
xaxeivor, and that, according to ver. 11, under the impulse of powerful em- 
ulation. We may add that this great final result is brought into more in- 
portant prominence, if we take xai obtw«.7.A. independently, than if ¥é 
make it form part of the statement dependent on 67 (Lachmann, Tischet- 
dorf, Fritzsche, Ewald, Hofmann, and others). — é¢ "Iopaya] This notion, 
so definitely expressed, of the totality of the people isin no way to be lim- 
ited ; the whole of those are intended, who, at the time that the fulness of 
the Gentiles shall have come in, will compose Israel. AW Israelites who up 
to that time shall be still unconverted, will then be converted to salvation, 
so that at that term entire Israel will obtain the saving deliverance ; but 
comp., as to the quite unlimited expression, the remark on ver. 25. Lin- 
itations from other interests than that of exegesis have been suggested : 
such as that the spiritual Israel, Gal. vi. 16, is meant (Augustine, Theodoret, 
Luther, Calvin,? Grotius, and others, including Krummacher) ; or only the 


1See Schweighiuser, Lex. Herod. IT. p. ly self-evident ! 
167; Thucyd. iii. 96.2; Xen. Anab. lil. 5. 6; 2 ** Ego Israelis nomen ad totum Del pop- 
Dem. 644. 18, 802. 20. Hofmann, in connec- —ulum extendo, hoc sensu : Quum gentes In- 
tion with his incorrect explanation of awd —gressae fuerint, simul et Judaei ex defecti- 
éMépous, Ver. 25, refers ovrw to the femporal one se ad fidel obedientiam recipient, atque 
limitation of the Jewish hardening; through ita complebitur salus tofus Jsradis Dei, 
the fact that the latter touk place in the quem ex utrisque colligi oportel.”—The Re 
frat instance only and thus in its time ceases, formers were induced to depart from the 
there is given to the people the possibil- _Hteral sense of the apostle, not by exegett 
ity (?), eto. In this way this definitely pro- cal, but by dogmatic considerations, and 
phetic element, which lies in the «ai otre also by their bad opinion of Jewish deprav- 
joined to what immediately precedes, is re- ity (‘‘a@ Jew or Jewish heart is as hard @ 
moved, and resolved into something entire- _—_ stock, stone, iron, or devil, so as in no way lo 


| CHAP. XI., 26, 449 
select portiof of the Jews (Calovius, Bengel, and several others, including 
Olshausen : ‘‘all those members of the Israelitish people who from the be- 
ginning belonged to the true Azizua”) ; or that mac is to be taken compara- 
ttrely only of the greater number, of the bulk (Oecumenius, Wetstein, Riickert, 
Fritzsche, Tholuck). To this comes in substance also Hofmann’s explana- 
tion : ‘‘that the people, as a people, will be converted ;” but rag ’Icpaza is, 
in fact, not ‘‘ Zerael us a whole,” but rather the entire Israel, as is also meant 
in 2 Chron. xii. 1 and in all O. T. passages, in contrast to ard pépove, ver. 
25. Comp. zae olxog 'Iop., Acts li. 36, mag 6 Aade "Iop., and the like. This 
also against Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 404. —owSjoera:] will be saved, unto Mes- 
sianic salvation, by their conversion to Christ. — xafoc yéyp.] For mac ’Iap. 
owe. Paul finds a Scripture warrant,’ not merely a substratum for his own 


be moved,” etc., Luther, 1548, who passed a 
milder judgment at an earlier period). Still 
the literal interpretation remained predom- 
inant amongst the Reformed through the in- 
fluence of Beza; and through Calixtus and 
Spener it became so again in the Lutheran 
Church, in which it had even at an earlier 
period asserted its claims, through Hunnius, 
Balduin, and others, in spite of Luther's 
authority. Melanchthon held simply by 
the statement (see his Enarratio, 1856) : ‘* fu- 
turum esse ut sudinde usque ad finem mun- 
di aligui ex Judaeis convertantur.”’ The 
modest addition which he made at an ear- 
lier period (1540), of a possible universal 
conversion of the Jews, is not found in 
this, his last exposition of the epistle. Fol- 
lowing Luther, Calovius also explains it 
only of a successive conversion of the Jews, 
which is gradually to ensue up to the end 
of the world, so that there !s merely meant 
& magnus numerus still to be converted. 
80, too, others in Calovius, and now also 
Philippi (p. 557 ff.) joins them: Israel is 
partially hardened until the entrance of the 
pleroma of the Gentiles; and in this way, 
namely, that out of the only partially har- 
dened people a great assemblage of believing 
ones ts continually being formed until the end 
oD the days, will the entire Israel properly 
aimed at by the O. T. divine word, accord- 
ing to the prophetic passage, be saved. It 
is self-evident that thus all the elements 
which form the points properly so called 
of this interpretation are forced upon the 
text, and the result fs an historical process 
recognizable by any one, concerning which 
it is not easy to see how Paul could in- 
troduce it asa pvoriporv.—On the history 
of the exposition of this passage, see, more- 
over, Calovius, p. 190 ff., and Luthardt. 

1 Not, however, as though Paul had de- 
rived his prophecy from Isa. J.c., for the ors 
wapwois ... Kai ovtee he could noi derive 


thence. Rather has he—after having év 
amoxaAvwes recognized the declared pvor}- 
ptov—now also recognized an QO. T. proph- 
ecy In reference to that constituent of it 
which is contained in was "Iopand cabijceras 5 
this, therefore, pertains no longer to the 
anroadAuyis, by which the pvoriproyv itself 
was disclosed to him, but {fs to be as- 
cribed to his own apprehension of the 
meaning of Scripture. The Messianic 
prophecy of Isa. lix. 20, 21 (also with the 
Rabbins a solemn Messianic utterance ; see 
Schoettg. Hor. II. pp. 71, 187), refers merely 
to the Israelites turning from apostasy, and 
appears therefore incapable of warranting 
was "IopanA owljcerat, We have, however, 
to observe that, according to the apostle's 
view and exposition in ver. 17 ff., It is only 
those who reject Christ among the Jews who 
have fallen away from the true theocracy 
(from the olive tree); consequently, if 
these are converted, entire Jerael is recon- 
ciled, because they who remained and do. 
remain in the theocracy are those who 
have accepted and accept the preaching of 
Christ—of whom the cwrpia is therefore. 
self-evident. This mode of apprehending 
the quotation, corresponding to the con- 
textual view of the state of the matter, ex- 
cludes the far-fetched and artificial expe- 
dient which Fritzsche offers, when he 
brings out from the anarthrous déceBeias, 
and from rds auaprias having the article 
(aliqua peccata—all sins), the result that in 
the first half only the eéect Israelites, but in 
the second the entire people, are meant.— 
Following Calvin and others, Gléckler 
again belleves that ver. 27 Is borrowed 
from Jer. xxx!. 81-34; but this must be re- 
jected, because «ai airy .... b:adjen 
stands in Isa. lix. 21, while oray «.7.A. stands 
literally in Isa. xxvii. 9. Philippi also 
thinks that the contents of the passage in 
Jeremiah floated before the mind of the 


450 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


idcas (Tholuck), in Isa. lix. 20, 21 (not quite closely after the LXX,, and, 
from érav onwards, with a bringing in of xxvii. 9; see Surenhus. carat. 
p. 503 f.) ; to the prophetic sense of this passage the future salvation of all 
Isracl corresponds as result. — ix Xidv] for from God will the deliverer come ; 
the theocratic central-point and dwelling-place of the divine kingdom is the 
holy mount of Zion. Comp. Ps. xiv. 7, liii. 7, et al. See also ix. 33, The 
LXX. have, following the original, iverev Sidv (1°99, i.e. for Zion). Our ix 
2:év is a variation of memory, occasioned by the reminiscence of other passages 
(comp. Ps. xiv. 7, lili, 7, cx. 2) ; for évexev Z. would have been quite as 
suitable to the apostle’s purpose (in opposition to Reiche, Fritzsche, van 
I{engel) ; hence to discover intentional reasons for this deviation (Philippi : 
in order to bring into stronger relief the claim of the people as contrasted 
with the Gentiles) is groundless, Nor was this deviation more conteniet 
(Hofmann) for the apostle, namely, in order to designate Christ's place of 
manifestation ; but it involuntarily on his part found its way into the 
citation freely handled. — 6 pvéuevoc] i.e. not God (Grotius, van Hengel), 
who first emerges in ver. 27, but the Messiah. In the Heb. we find 7, 
deliverer, without the article, by which, however, no other is intended. 
The future coming of the deliverer which is here predicted is, in the sense 
of the fulfilment of this prophecy, necessarily that whereby the sag 'Iopas 
owSijcerat Will be effected ; consequently not the Parousia, because the con- 
version of all Israel must be antecedent to this, but rather that specially 
efficacious self-revelation of Christ in the preaching of His gospel (comp. Eph. 
ii. 17), to be expected by the future, whereby He will bring about that 
final sacred-historical epoch of the people, the conversion of its totality. 
Erroncously, however, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Beza have 
supposed it predicted that Elijah or Enoch would appear before the end of 
the world as converter of the Jews, —droorp. doeB. ard "Iax.] He will tura 
away, i.e. (comp. Bar. iii. 7; 1 Macc. iv. 58) remove, do away with impicties 
from Jacob, By this, in the sense of the apostle, is meant the atoning, 
reconciling work of the Messiah (comp. John i. 29: aipwy rt. dyapr), which 
He will accomplish in Israc] by its conversion. Hence there follows, as the 
-correlative to this in ver. 27, the forgirencss of sins on the part of God, pro- 
‘cured through Him, and that as the actually saving essence of the covenant, 
which the people possesses from God.' Compare the original text, which, 
however, instead of x. aroorp. aceB. axd "Iaxdf has aps3 yea "200, and for 
those turning from apostasy in Jacob. Paul, however, because following gen- 
erally in this quotation the LXX., retains also its deviation from the orig- 
inal text, but not as if this could have been more welcome to him for his 
object, for in that respect he might have just as well made use of the words 
-of the original. — airy] points to the following (comp. 1 John v. 2), so that 
the sense of ver. 27 is: ‘‘ And when I shall hace forgiven their sins, this, this 
remission of sins conferred by me, «ill be my covenant to them, i.e. they will 


‘apostle, If this were the case, why should rejection of the people of God (ver. 1), the 
he not have cited this well-known leading covenant of God with them now subsists 
‘passage in reference to the new covenant? in its entire fulfilment ! 

1 How happy a final result! Instead ofa 





CHAP. XI., 27. 451 


therein have from me the execution of my covenant.” Both in the orig- 
inal and in the LXX. airy points to the following, in which the words of 
the covenant (7d zvebua TO évdv . . . . ov pa xAliry Ex Tov oTrdu. K.T.A.) are ad- 
duced ; but instead of them, Paul, for the object which he has in view, 
puts Stray agéAwyar x.7.A. from Isa. xxvii. 9, where likewise a preceding dem- 
onstrative (rovrdé éorw 9 evAoyia aivrov) points forward to bray. Hence we 
may not, with others (including K6llner and Hofmann), refer airy to the 
preceding, in which case azoozp. aceBeiac amd ’Iax. is supposed to point to the 
moral conversion, and aged. tr. duapt. avr. to the forgiveness, on the ground of 
which that conversion takes place (see Hofmann). According to this view, 
the essence of the covenant would lie in sanctification, not in reconciliation, 
which would be conceived rather as antecedent to the covenant,—a view 
which runs counter to the N. T. doctrine (Matt. xxvi. 26; Heb. ix. 15 ff£., 
x. 29, xii. 24, xiii. 20).—7 wap’ éuov dtabjxy] The covenant which proceeded 
Jrom me, which was made on my part. See Bernhardy, p. 255 f. ; Fritzsche, 
ad Mare. p. 182 f. ; van Hengel, in loc. 


Remarx.—The conversion of entire Israel promised by Paul as a pvorgpiov re- 
vealed to him, has noi yet taken place ; for the opinion, that the promise had 
been fulfilled already in the apostolic age through the conversion of a great 
part of the people (comp. Euseb. H. £. iii. 35 ; Judaizantes in Jerome ; Grotius, 
Limborch, Wetstein), is set aside, notwithstanding Acts xxi. 20, by the literal 
meaning of wd¢ 'Iopa7zA and of rAnpuopa rwv eOvorv. The fulfilment is to be re- 
garded as still future, as the last step in the universal extension of Christianity upon 
earth. In respect of time no more special definition can be given, than that the 
conversion of the totality of the Gentiles must precede it ; whence only this is 
certain, that it is sfill a time very distant. Paul has certainly viewed the matter 
as near, seeing that he conceived the Parousia itself to be near (not merely, 
perhaps, its possible, but its actual emergence—in opposition to Philippi),—a 
conception which was shared by him with the whole apostolical church, al- 
though it remained without the verification of the event, as this was conceived of. 
But the promise of the conversion of the people of Israel is not on that account 
itself to be regarded as one, the fulfilment of which is no longer to be hoped for, 
—as though, with the non-verified conception of the time of the event, the event 
itself should fall to the ground (Ammon, Reiche, Killner, Fritzsche) ; for it is 
the fact in itself, and not the epoch of it, which is disclosed by the Apostle as 
part of the nvor7p:ov which was revealed to him ; and therefore this disclosure 
rested on the dzoxdAvyc received, not on individual opinion and expectation. 
The duration of time until the Parousia was not subject-matter of revelation, 
Acts i. 7, and the conception of it belongs, therefore, not to that in the apos- 
tolic teaching which has the guarantee of divine certainty, but to the domain 
of subjective hope and expectation, which associated themselves with what 
was revealed, —a distinction which even Philippi does not reject. The latter, 
however, endeavours to remove from the category of error the upostolic expec- 
tation of the nearness of the Parousia, because it was not cherished with that 
divine certainty ; but cannot thereby prevent it, where it is presupposed so 
definitely, as e.g. xiii. 11, or is expressed so unconditionally, as e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 
51, 52, from being characterized by an unprejudiced mind as a human error, 
which did not, however, exclude occasionally other moods, as in 2 Cor. v, 8, 


452 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Phil. i. 28. Of such human mistakes and vacillations, which lie outside the 
range of revealed truth, that trnth is independent (against Hoelemann, neve 
Bibelstud, p. 232 ff., and others).—We may further notice that our passage 
directly controverts the Ebionitish view, now renewed in various quarters (Chr. 
A, Crusius, Delitzsch, Baumgarten, Ebrard, Auberlen, and others ; expositors 
of the Apocalypse), of an actual restoration of Israel to the theocratic kingdom 
in Canaan, as to be expected on the ground of prophetic predictions (Hoa. ii. 
2, 16 ff., iii. 4, 5; Isa. xi. 11, xxiv. 16, chap. lx, ; Jer. xxxiv. 33, ef al). Isreel 
does not take in the church, but the church takes in Israel ; and whenever 
this occurs, Israel has in the true sense again its kingdom and its Cansan, 
Comp. Tholuck on ver. 25 ; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 576 f. ; Hengstenberg, Christal 
I. p. 256 ; and see especially Bertheau, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1859, 
p. 353 ff. 


Ver, 28 ff. Yet a final summary gathering up of the sacred-historical 
relation of Israel to God, and (vv. 29-32) discussion of it ; in which, how- 
ever, the reference, bearing on the apostle’s object, to the statement sl 
obtw wae "IopanA owSfoerac does not require the parenthesizing of caf yéyparra: 
x.7.A, (Ewald), asin ver. 28 the substantive verb is easily and obviously 
supplicd.—The unbelieving Israelites as such are the subject (avrén, ver. 27). 
—katTa 1d evayy.] The relation is thereby designated, according to which 
they are éyfpot. (See Note CKXV. p. 464.] The gospel was preached to 
them ; but they rejected it, in which relation they are hated of God. In 
conformity with the message of salvation, which reached them, but was 
despised by them (comp. ver. 25), they must necessarily be éy@poi ; since in 
fact, not accepting the d:xacootvy proffered in the gospel, they remained under 
the wrath of God (ver. 7). According to the context, we must think of the 
areiBeca of the Jews, ver. 80 ; and therefore neither of their exclusion from 
the gospel (Fritzsche), nor even of the diffusion of the latter (Rickert). — 
ExOpoi| not my enemies (Theodorct, Luther, Grotius, Semler, and others), nor 
yet enemics of the gospel (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Michaelis, Morus, 
Rosenmiiller), That, on the contrary, Oe (see on Gal. iv. 16) is to be sup- 
plied, as @cod with ayaryrol, is evident generally from the connection with 
vv. 27 and 29 ; and that éyfpoi is to be explained not in an active (Olshausen, 
van Hengel, Ritschl, and older interpreters), but in a passive sense (to whom 
God is hostile), is shown by the contrast of ayaryroi. Comp. on v. 10.—# 
tuac] for your sake, because you are thereby to attain to salvation, ver. 11.— 
xaraé Tv éxA.] is usually taken : as fellow-members of the nation elected to be 
the people of God ; comp. ver. 2. But éxaoy#—differently from the mpoly1, 
ver. 2—has already been clearly defined in vv. 5, 7 as the elect Acizua, and 
hence, with Ewald, is here also to be taken in this sense. Consequently: 
in conformity with the fact, however, that among them is that elect remnant. 
This believing éxioy7 is the living testimony of the undying love of God 
towards the people. Comp. ver. 5.— dd roi¢ rar.] for the fathers sake. 
Calvin aptly remarks : ‘‘ Quoniam ab illis propagata fuerat Dei gratia ad 
posteros, secundum pacti formam : Deus tuus et seminis tui ;” comp. Vé. 
16 ; Luke i. 54, 55. 

Ver. 29. Confirmation of the second half of ver. 28 by the axiom: “ 





CHAP. XI., 30-32. 453 


repented, and so subject to no recall, are the displays of grace and (especially) 
the calling of God.” The application to be made of this general proposition 
is : Consequently God, who has once made this people the recipient of the 
displays of His grace and has called them to the Messianic salvation, will 
not, as though He had repented of this, again withdraw His grace from 
Israel, and leave and abandon Ilis calling of Israel without realization. — 
On ayerapéAnroc, comp. 2 Cor. vii. 10. 

Vv. 80, 31. [dp] not referable to ver. 28 (Hofmann), introduces that, 
which, according to the economy of salvation under the divine mercy, will 
emerge as actual proof of the truth of ver. 29. — 7redjoare] have refused obe- 
dience, which came to pass through unbelief. For the elucidation of this, sce 
i. 18 ff. — viv dé] contrast to the time before they become Christian (:oré), 
Eph. ii. 8. — 9Ae%@7re] For the reception into Christianity with its blessings 
is, as generally, so in particular over-against the preceding #re:Ofoare, on 
God’s part solely the work of mercy. — ry rotrwy are0.] through the disobedi- 
ence of these; for they are éy6poi dt’ iuac, ver. 28. Comp., besides, vv. 11 f., 
15, 19 f. The non-compliance of the Jews with the requirement of faith in 
the gospel brought about the reception of the Gentiles. The latter, the con- 
verted Gentiles, are individualized by the address to the Gentile-Christian 
community of the readers (imeic). — 7reiOycav) namely, through rejection of 
the gospel. — re iuerépy éAéec] is, on account of the parallelism, to be joined 
to the /followtng (iva x.7.4.), and the dative to be taken in the sense of medi- 
ate agency, like rj rotr. ame. : in order that through the mercy that befell you 
(which may excite them to emulation of your faith, ver. 11) mercy should 
also accrue to them. The position of +r. tip. éA. before the introductory 
conjunction is for the sake of emphasis ; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 7 ; Gal. iv. 10, 
@ al.; Winer, p. 522 [E. T. 561]. Hence the parallelism is not to be 
sacrificed by placing a comma after éAéec. Nevertheless such is the 
course followed—and with very different views of the dative, arbitra- 
rily departing from the datival notion in rg robr. arebeiga—by the Vulgate 
(‘‘in vestram misericordiam’’), Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Estius, 
Wolf, Morus, Lachmann, Gléckler, Maier, Ewald (‘‘so these also became 
now disobedient alongside of [bei] your mercy”), Buttmann in the Stud. u. 
Krit. 1860, p. 867 (‘‘in favour of your mercy, that you might find mercy”), 
and others. —iva] the divinely ordained aim of the yreifyoav. On the em- 
phatic éuerépy in the objective sense, see Winer, p. 145 [E. T. 153] ; Kiihner, 
If. 1, p. 486. 

Ver. 82. Establishment of ver. 30 f., and that by an exhibition of the 
unicersal divine procedure, with the order of which that which is said in ver. 
81 of the now disobedient Jews and their deliverance is incorporated. Thus 
ver. 32 is at once the grand summary and the glorious key-stone—impelling 
once more to the praise of God (ver. 83 ff.)—of the whole preceding section 
of the epistle.'— ovyxdeia eic : to include in (2 Macc. v. 5, comp. Luke v. 6), 
has, in the later Greek (Diod. Sic. xix. 19, comp. xx. 74, frequently in Poly- 


1“ Note this prime saying, which con- ness, and alone exalts God's mercy, to be 
demns all the world and man's righteous- obtained through faith’ (Luther's gloss). 


454 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


bius), and in the LXX. (after the Heb. Y293 with 5), also the metaphorical 
sense : to hand over unto or under a power which holds as it were in ward. 
Comp. on Gal. iii. 22, 23. Correspondent, as regards the notion, is <apé- 
duxe, i, 24. The compound expression strengthens the meaning ; it does not 
denote simul (Bengel and others).—The effective sense is not to be changed, 
which has been attempted by taking it sometimes as deelaratice (Chry- 
sostom, Theodoret, Grotius, Zeger, Glass, Wolf, Carpzov, Wetstein, Ch 
Schmidt), sometimes as permissive (Origen, Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, and 
many others, including Flatt and Tholuck). — ei¢ arei#.] towards God ; see 
vv. 80, 31. — roig ravrac] Of Gentiles (ieic) and Jews (oiroc) Paul has pre- 
viously spoken ; hence oi rdvrec now comprises the totality, namely all Jews 
and Gentiles jointly and severally,— ‘‘cunctos 8. universos, i.e. singulos in 
unum corpus colligatos,” Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 521. Comp. on the 
subject-matter, iii. 9, 19 ; Gal. iii. 22. So necessarily also the following 
rove wavrag. The view which understands only the two masses of Jews and 
Gentiles, these two halves of mankind in the gross (usually so taken recently, 
as by Tholuck, Fritzsche, Philippi, Ewald, Weiss), cannot suit the compre- 
hensive r. rdvra¢ (as if it were equal to rove apydorépovs), since it is by no 
means appropriate to the mere number of two, but only to their collective sub- 
jects, Not even the Jewish éxAoy7, vv. 7, 28, is to be excepted (Maier, van 
Hengel), because its subjects were also before their conversion sinners (il. 
23), and therefore subjected to the power of disobedience towards God ; for 
the ovvéxdecce . . . ameOciay points back, in the case of each single member 
of the collective whole, to the time before conversion and until conversion. 
If we should desire to refer ol wdvre¢ merely to the Jews (van Hengel by way 
of a suggestion, and Hofmann), who are meant as a people in their collective 
ahape (consequently not in all individuals ; see Hofmann), the close relation- 
ship between ver. 30 and ver. 31 would be opposed to it, since the reference 
of ydp merely to the apodosis in ver. 31 is quite arbitrary ; and, indeed, the 
bold concluding thought in ver. 82 possesses its great significance and its 
suitableness to the following outburst of praise, simply and solely through 
its all-comprehensive contents. And even apart from this, rove wdvra¢ in fact 
never denotes : them asa collective whole, as a people,’ but, as universally (ia 
1 Cor. ix. 22, x. 17; 2 Cor. v. 14; Phil. ii. 21; comp. Eph. iv. 13; 2 Mace. 
xi. 11, xii. 40, e¢al., and in all the classical writers) all of them, as also only 
in this sense does the suitable emphasis fall on the repetition in the apodosis. 
—iva t. 7. édefoy] in order that He may have mercy upon all. This divine 
purpose Paul saw to be already in part attained,—namely, in the case of all 
already converted ; but its general fulfilment lay, to his view, in the devel- 
opment of the future on to the great terminus expressed in ver. 251. We 
may observe that our passage is at variance not merely with the derawm 
reprobationis (‘‘ hanc particulam universalem opponamus tentationi de pal 
ticularitate . . .; non fingamus in Deo contradictorias voluntates,” 
Melanchthon), but also with the view (Olshausen, Krummacher, and older 


1 oi wdyres has, as fs well known, the sense of in ai in the case of numbers. See 
Krier, § 50. 11. 13; Kébner, IT. 1, p. 345. 





CHAP. XI., 33. 455 
expositors) that Paul means the collective body of the elect. See rather ver. 
25 f. The azoxardoraci¢ is not, however, to be based on our passage for 
this reason, that the universality of the divine purpose of redemption (comp. 
1 Tim. ii. 4), as well as the work of redemption having taken place for the 
justification of all (ver. 18), does not exclude its final non-realization in part 
through the fault of the individuals concerned,’ and cannot do away with 
either the applicability of the purpose-clause exhibited in principle and 
summarily in prophetic fashion (comp. remark on ver. 25), nor with the 
divine judgment on final concrete self-frustrations of the counsel of salva- 
tion. And this the less, because such misinterpretations of the universal- 
istic axiom are opposed by the apostle’s doctrine of election as a sure cor- 
rective. There has been incorrectly discovered in such general expressions 
a want of consistency on the part of Paul, namely, ‘‘ undeveloped outlines of 
a liberal conception” (Georgii inthe Theol. Jahrb. 1845, I. p. 25). 

Ver. 33. [See Note CXXVI. p. 464.] The great and holy truth containing 
the whole divine procedure in preparing bliss (ver. 32),—with which Paul 
now arrives at the close of his entire development of doctrine in the epistle, 
—compels first an enraptured expression of praise to God from his deeply- 
moved heart, before he can commence the erhortations, which he then 
(chap. xii.) purposes to subjoin. —& £460] Oavydlovrég éorw 1) paors, ovx 
eidérog rd wav, Chrysostom. — The depth is an expression of great fulness and 
superabundance, according to the very prevalent mode of expressing also in 
the classics greatness of riches by Bdfo¢ rAobrov.2 By this sense we are here 
to abide, just because rAobrov, is added, and without deriving the ex- 
pression from the conception of subterranean treasure-chambers (van 
Hengel) ;* and we are not to find in it the sense of wnsearchableness 
(Philippi), which is not expressed even in 1 Cor. ii. 10, Judith viii. 14, and 
is not required by the following ac aveé. «.r.4., since this rather characterizes 
the Bado¢ cogiag xai yrooews from the point of view of human knowledge, to 
which it must necessarily be unfathomable, but in a peculiar relation. In 
its reference to cogiag x. yvdcews, namely, Sdboc is the depth of wisdom, t.e. the 
fulness of wisdom, which is acquainted with the nature and the connection 
of its objects not superficially, but exhaustively and fundamentally, and is 
therefore incomprehensible by human judgment.‘ — rdotrov] is either re- 
garded as opening the series of genitival definitions of Ba0o¢ : O depth (1) 
of riches, and (2) of wisdom, and (3) of knowledge of God (so Origen, Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Flatt, Tholuck, 
K6liner, de Wette, Olshausen, Fritzsche, Philippi, Ewald, Hofmann, Man- 


1 Comp. Gerlach, @. letzten Dinge, p. 154 


ff. ; Schmid, in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1870, © 


p. 138. 

* Soph. Aj. 180, and Lobeck, in loc. ; but 
comp. with Ellendt, I. p. 286, Badvs wAovros 
(Ael. V. 7. ili. 18), Ba@v wAovreiy (Tyrt. itl. 
6), BaOvwAoutos, very rich (Aesch. Suppl. p. 
549, Crinag. 17), Ba@urAoveros (Poll. fli. 109). 
Comp. Dorville, ad Charit. p. 222; Blom ficid, 
Gloes. ad Aesch. Pers. 471. 


* This idea might have been precluded 
by the fact that the expression Bd@os caxey 
(Eur. Hel. 810) and the like are used. 

4 See on Babos and favs, as applying to 
mental depth (Plat. Theaet. p. 188 E; Poly- 
bius, xxvii. 10. 8, vi. 24. 9, xxi. 5. 5), Dissen, 
ad Pind. Nem. iv. 7, p. 896; Blomfield, ad 
Aesch. Sept. 878; Jacobs, ad Anthol. X1. p. 
252. Comp. Badv¢pwv, Pind. Nem. vil. 1; 
Plut. Sed. 14; Ba@vBovaAos, Aesch. Pers. 188. 


456 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


gold, and others) ; or the two other genitives are subordinated to rioirov 
(Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Wolf, Koppe, Reiche, van 
Hengel, and others), in which casc, however, #40. rAotr. is not to be re 
solved into deep riches, but is to be taken: O depth of riches in wisdom a 
well as in knowledge of God ; comp. Col. ii. 2; Rom. ii. 4. The decision 
between these two suppositions is given by what follows, of which 6 pate 
. . . Geod is the theme. As vv. 33, 84 describe the cogia and yvaore, and wv. 
35, 86 the rAovroc Ocov, the former view, which also primarily and most 
naturally presents itself, is to be preferred. Aowrocs, however, is usually 
understood of the divine riches of grace (comp. ii. 4, x. 12 ; Eph. i.7, i. %) ; 
see ver. 82. To this ver. 35 aptly corresponds ; and see x. 12. But since no 
genitival definition is appended, we must content ourselves simply with the 
sense of the word itself : how superabundantly rich is God ! Phil. iv. 19. 
Comp. Riickert, Fritzsche, Philippi, Hofmann. — Logia and yvéoic are cer- 
tainly to be distinguished (comp. on Col. ii. 3), but popularly, so that the 
former, the more general, is the wisdom of God (comp. xvi. 27 ; Eph. ii. 
10), ruling everything in the best way for the best end ; while the latter, 
the more special, is the knowledge pertaining to it of all relations, and thus 
especially of the means which He therein employs, of the methods which 
He has therein to take. To the latter—the yraoic—are to be referred ai édot 
avrod, i.c. His measures, modes of procedure, ai oixovouiar, Chrysostom (comp. 
Heb. iii. 10, Acts xiii. 10, according to the Heb. 375, and also to classical 
usage) ; to the former—the cogia—belong 14 xpiuara airod, 4.6. decisions, Fe- 
solves formed, according to which His action proceeds (comp. Zeph. iii. 8; 
Wisd. xii. 12), as He, e.g., has decided, according to ver. 32, that all should 
be disobedient, in ordcr that all might find mercy. On account of the 
deep cogla of God His xpivara are unsearchable for men, etc. — dvegepeiv7rar, 
unsearchable, is found only in Heraclitus as quoted in Clement and Sym- 
machus, Prov. xxv. 8, Jer. xvii. 9, Suidas ; avegcxviacroc, untraceable (Eph. 
iii. 8), ob und ixvoc éariy eipeiv (Suidas), corresponds to the metaphorical ééo, 
Comp. Job v. 9, ix. 10, xxxiv. 24 ; Manass. 6 ; Clement, ad Cor. i. 20. 
Ver. 34. Paul, by way of confirming his entire exclamation in ver. 33 
(not merely the second half), continuing by ydp, adopts the words of Isa. 
xl. 13 (almost quite exactly after the LXX.) as his own. Comp. 1 Cor. iL 
16; Judith viii. 13, 14 ; Wisd. ix. 17 ; Ecclus. xviii. 2 ff.—The first half 
has been referred to yraorc, the second to the cogia (Theodoret, Theophylact, 
Wetstein, Fritzsche), and rightly so. Paul goes back with his three ques- 
tions upon the yréorc, to which the vovc, the divine reason as the organ of 
absolute knowledge and truth, corresponds ;’ upon the cogia, which has no 
obuBovdog ; and (ver. 85) upon the rAotroc, from which results the negation 
of rig mpofduxev x.t.A. Philippi is opposed to this view, but can at the same 
time (similarly van Hengel and Hofmann) only bring out in a very far- 
fetched and indirect manner the result, that ver. 35 also sets forth the divine 
wisdom and knowledge (so far, namely, as the latter is not bound from 
without). — ri¢ o6B. avtod éyév.] Who has become his adviser, His counsel- 


1 Comp. Kluge in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1871, p. 894 ff. 





CHAP. Ix., 35, 36. 457 
giving helper? ‘‘ Scriptura ubique subsistit in eo, quod Dominus voluit et 
dixit et fecit ; rationes rerum universalium singulariumve non pandit ; de 
iis, quae nostram superant infantiam, ad aeternitatem remittit fidcles, 1 Cor. 
xiii. 9 ss.,” Bengel. For parallels in Greek writers, see Spicss, Logos Sper- 
mat. p. 240. 

Ver. 35. Description of the $é60¢ rAovrov by words which are moulded 
after Job xli. 8, according to the Hebrew, not according to the LXX. (xli. 
11), whose translation is quite erroneous.’ — xai dvtarod. aire] and will it 
be recompensed again to Him? With whom does the case occur, that he has 
previously made a gift to God, and that a recompense will be made to him 
in return for it ? Change of construction by xai . . . avrg, here occasioned 
by the Heb. D9W#1. But for the Greek usage, comp. Bernhardy, p. 304; 
Kihner, I. 2, p. 936. 

Ver. 36 does not apply to all the three foregoing questions (Hofmann), 
but simply the last of thei is established by the connective ér: (for truly) as 
regards its negative contents: ‘‘ No one has beforehand given to God,” 
etc.—All things are from God (primal cause), in so far as all things have 
proceeded from God's creative power ; through God (ground of mediate 
agency), in so far as nothing exists without God’s continuous operation ; for 
God (jinal cause), in so far as all things serve the ends of God (not merely : 
the honour of God, as many think). Comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Col. i. 16; 
Heb. ii. 10. These passages speak quite against the opinion, that in the 
present passage the relation of Father, Son, and Spirit (Olshausen, Philippi, 
Thomasius, Jatho, Krummacher, following Ambrosiaster, Hilary, Toletus, 
Estius, Calovius, and others) is expressed—a view which is also quite remote 
from the connection.?, The context speaks simply of God (the Father), to 
whom no one can have given anything beforehand, etc., because He, as 
Bengel aptly expresses it, is Origo et Cursus et Terminus rerum omnium. 
This may be recognized by the exegesis that has the deepest faith in Script- 
ure without any rationalistic idiosyncrasy, as the example of Bengel him- 
self shows. With reason neither Chrysostom, nor Oecumenius, nor Theo- 
phylact,? neither Erasmus, nor Melanchthon, nor Calvin, nor Beza have 
expressed any reference to the Trinity in their explanations ; but Augus- 
tine has this reference, against which also Tholuck, Hofmann, and Gess (0. 


1In the LXX. Isa. xl. 14, Cod. A, as also 
&, has our words, but certainly through in- 
terpolation from the present passage. Ac- 
cording to Ewald, Paul probably found 
them in his copy of the LXX. just after Isa. 
xi. 18. 

* With the same warrant, or, in other 
words, with the same arbitrariness, the 
Trinity might be found, with Origen, in ver. 
88; and in particular, rAovrov might be re- 
ferred to the Father, godias to the Son 
(Luke xi. 49), and yrwoews to the Holy Spirit 
(1 Cor. il. 10, 11); in consistency with 
which, moreover, the fdéos, belonging to 
all three elements, might have been ex- 
plained of the mystery of the Trinitarian 


relation. This observation {is not meant 
to sound like ‘* Gnostic mockery” (Philipph) ; 
such is far from my intention. That the 
doctrine of the Trinity (that of the New 
Testament, namely, which is Subordination) 
was vividly before the consciousness of the 
apostle, no unprejudiced person denies; 
but here he has neither stated not hinted at 
it, as the third element eis avrdédy shows suf- 
ficiently in and by itself, for all things can 
have their delic reference to none other than 
to the Father or (Col. {. 16) to the Son. 

3 Theodoret argues from the first two 
statements the equality of the Father and 
the Son; he says nothing concerning the 
Spirit. 


458 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


d. Pers. Chr. p. 158) have been sufficiently unbiassed to declare themselves. 
— é¢ avrov] God is mediate cause of all things by His upholding and ruling. 
Comp. Heb. ii. 20. To refer, with others, this statement to creation (Theo- 
phylact : 6 rowri¢ mévruv 3 comp. Occumenius, Riickert, Fritzsche), would 
fail to bring out at least any popular distinction from é¢ airoi, and—which 
is decisive against such reference—that would be affirmed of the Father 
which pertains to the Son (Col. i. 16; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; John i. 2). Theo 
doret rightly remarks : avrig ra yeyovéra diaredei xuBepvav. — cig airév] All 
things serce Him (comp. Heb. ii. 10) as their ultimate end. This is explained 
by Occumenius, Theophylact, and Fritzsche of the upholding (ovviyovta: im 
orpaupéva mpd¢ avrév). On the whole, comp. what Marcus Antoninus, iv. 23, 
says Of gborg : Ex cov révra, tv aol ravra, ei¢ of xdvta, and Gataker in loc. —} 
dé§a] sc. cig; as at xvi. 27: the befitting glory. Gal. i. 5 ; Eph. iii 21. 


- 


Notrres By AMERICAN Eprror. 


CXIV. Ver. 1. Aéyw odv, ui) Gxdecaro K.1.A. 


Having presented in ch. ix. the fact that the promise and covenant of God were 
consistent with a lapse and rejection of the Jews and, also, with making all de 
pendent on faith, and in ch. ix. 30-x. 21 the cause of the lapse and its iner- 
cusableness, the Apostle now raises the question whether the rejection thus 
occasioned involved in itself an entire casting off of the chosen people. Did 
the nation stumble to the end that it should utterly fall? This thought he re- 
pudiates os abhorrent to his holy feeling, and especially to his Jewish national 
sentiment. How can God reject forever His people whom He foreknew? Can 
the poéyvw fail to be realized in the dogdfecv, in any and every part of God's 
spiritual plan, from the beginning with Abraham to the final consummation? 
(Compare viii. 29.) This cannot be. The losses and failures must be partial and 
temporary, but the end will show the depth of the riches both of wisdom and 
knowledge. 

Tov Aadv airod refers to the nation, not to individuals, and thus accords with 
the preceding chapters, as well as with all that follows, as showing that the ns 
tional reference is the primary, if not the exclusive one throughout the entire 
section. ‘Ov zpofyvw is not a limitation of Aadv, which would, as Meyer 54y8, 
make the Apostle disarrange completely the point in question. The careful 
observation of the progress of thought makes it evident that what the Apostle 
means to declare is, that though, as in the time of Elijah, there has been & 
great falling away and the remnant only holds fast, yet God does not forget 
His promise. His gifts and calling are without repentance. The nation is 
beloved for the fathers’ sake. 


OXV. Ver. 2. # ovx oidare x.7.A. 


The particle 7 here, asin other similar instances (cf. vi. 3, vii. 1), introduces 
a confirmatory proof of what precedes by presenting the only alternative in the 
case ; and ovx oidare indicates that this cannot be thought of as true. The facts 
of the Israelitish history in the time of Elijah were too familiar to the readers 
to whom the writer especially refers for him to suppose, for a moment, thst 


NOTES, 459 


they were notin their minds. But, ifthey were thus in mind, they must make 
the great fact evident that God keeps His hold upon the nation as His own, 
however many of its individual members may turn away from His service and 
Himself. The selected few receive the blessing, and pass it on to a better age. 
It is not, however, the salvation of the individuals making up this chosen few 
which constitutes the chief thought of the passage ; but, as Godet has well ex- 
pressed it, ‘‘the indestructible existence of a believing remnant at all periods 
of their history, even in the most disastrous crises of unbelief.’’ This secar- 
ing such a remnant involves the fact of an election of grace. As Weiss ed. 
Mey. remarks, we have in kar’ éxAoynv yapitog yéyovev an added thought, not 
essential to the proof of ver. 2. It recalls what was said in ix. 11, and sug- 
gests with regard to the Aciuua what was true in the case of Jacob and Esau. 
The selection has been manifest through all the history. It has made the 
progress of the Divine plan of redemption an unbroken one in its course. But 
it has never in a single instance been due to works in any degree more than it 
was in the beginning. It is God’s favour that has made it, and so, as He has 
never forgotten His people, He never will utterly reject them. 


OCXVI. Ver. 11. Aéyw ody, nu Exraicav Iva réawotv; 


The subject of érra:cav may be the Ao:7ol (ver. 8), or it may be the nation which, 
as a whole, stumbled in their being hardened. The general subject through- 
out the chapter and the avrdv in the phrase rAypwpua aitdv point toward the 
latter view. The same view is favored by vv. 25-28. On the other hand, the 
fact that ol Aocrof is the nearest subject to which the word can refer in the con- 
text, and that the verb itself is plural, while érérvyev is singular in ver. 7, 
where the nation is mentioned by its collective name, suggest the other ex- 
planation. Though the particular idea of the sentence will be modified, in 
some degree, according as this point is determined, the main, thought of the 
passage will be substantially the same—namely, that this stumbling was not 
to the end of a final and remediless fall of the Jews, but to the end of securing 
salvation for the Gentiles, and of bringing, through what should be accomplished 
for them, a reacting influence upon the chosen nation itself, which should 
lead it also to salvation. Probably the nation is to be regarded as the subject 
of the verb. 

The view of some writers, following Augustine, that the meaning is, Did 
they stumble merely that they should fall? Was there not some further design? 
must be rejected, with Meyer, because there is no ‘‘merely” in the text, and 
also because it loses sight of the emphatic contrast between récworr, as denoting 
absolute fina] fall, and érracoay, referring to a temporary lapse. 


CXVII. Ver. 12. rd §rrnua abrav — 1d cAnpwpa avrov. 


That avrév in these phrases refers to the Jews as a nation, and not to the 
individuals among them, or the portion of the people who were hardened, seems 
to be proved by the words connected with it. The 7rrnya, as contrasted with the 
rAgpwua, is the loss or diminishing which is occasioned by, and involved in, 
the frraicay, and the zapézrwua. [This is the fundamental idea, even if we 
give to f#rrnua, with Meyer, the sense of clades—as, not improbably, we should. ] 
The nation suffered a disaster or loss in this unbelief and rejection of the 


460 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Aocnroi, and its numbers are made full (xAjpwya) when all believe (ver. 26). The 
same thing is indicated by ver. 15, and also by vv. 16 ff. This reference of ciriv 
(cf. also rapafnAdoat avrovc, ver. 11, tiv cdpxa pov, ver. 14, rdpwor ard pépors 
tw ‘lopandA yéyovev, ver. 25) favors strongly the view that the subject of éz-accr, 
also, is the nation, and that the Apostle conceives of the nation as stumbling 
in the action of the unbelieving part of it. mA7pwyua here, and probably in all 
cases in the N. T., means that by which something is made full. 

The plan of God is stated in ver. 11 in relation to the first stages of its de 
velopment and influence ; in ver. 26 in respect to its consummation; in w. 
31, 32 in its grand sweep and its purpose of mercy for all. It is declared to be 
the Divine plan in vv. 11, 12, and the declaration is confirmed in wv. 13 ff. by 
setting forth the fact that, as the divinely commissioned apostle to the Gen- 
tiles, Paul was himself laboring in the line of this plan and for the accomplish- 
ment of it. 


CXVIII. Ver. 13. tuiv dé Abyw roicg 2Oveory, 


That dé is the correct reading here (rather than T. R. ydp) is rendered prob- 
able, not only by the external evidence (see Meyer’s textual note at the begin- 
ning of the chapter), but also by the progress of the thought of the passage. 
ydép was, not improbably, introduced because the sentence was supposed to state 
a reason for the prominence given to the Gentiles in the preceding verse. But 
the writer is making a transition (see Note CXVI.) from the statement of the 
Divine plan, to the statement of his own course of working in the line of that 
plan, and dé is thus the particle which is appropriate to the clause. The verse 
being introduced in this way, its genera] bearing on the previous verses will be 
the same, whether we read yév ovv after 9’ dcov, or wév only. If, however, ¥é 
read pév, Aéyw is probably to be translated say: And I say to you who are Ger 
tiles, that inasmuch, etc., while if the reading pév otv is adopted, Aéyw may mean 
speak: But I speak to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch, then, ete., I glorify, etc. 
The emphasis is evidently on tiv, and, in case we read with od», the attention 
of the readers is called to the fact that what is said (though referring to the 
Jews) is addressed to them as Gentiles ; and they are then, in an independent 
sentence, reminded that in all his labors for the Gentile nations he has the good 
of his own also in view. I glorify my office as an apostle of the Gentiles, be 
says, by so directing my efforts that, if by any means possible, I may provoke 
the Jews to emulation. 


CXIX. Ver. 15. (wi) éx vexpar., 


In the attempt to determine what the Apostle has in mind in the use of these 
words, the following points may be noticed: (1) The form of expreasion in the 
verse indicates that (wu?) éx vexpwv is something beyond xaraAAay7. (2) The same 
thing is indicated by ver. 12. (3) The chapter evidently carries forward the 
development of the plan of salvation until all nations, Gentiles and Jews 
alike, are saved. (4) The last thing in the progressof the plan is the bring- 
ing in of all the Jews. (5) The representation of the N. T. seems to be that 
when the plan is accomplished, the end will come. (6) The view of the Apostle 
in the eighth chapter, vv. 11, 23, and in 1 Cor. xv. 23 ff., is that, at the end, 
the resurrection takes place, and that this is introductory to the consummation 
of blessedness for those who are saved. These indications of Paul’s thought 





NOTES. 461 


in these verses of the present chapter, and in the other passages alluded to, 
point very strongly, as it must be admitted, towards the view advocated by 
Meyer (that (w? refers to the (w?) atmo in the aidy péAAwy, beginning, in its 
most blessed development, with the resurrection of the dead) as the right one. 
At the same time, the fact that ver. 12 does not necessarily, in the roAA@ uaAAov 
clause, suggest anything more than a larger measure of what is referred to in 
the xAotroc of the previous clause, and that the writer is evidently highly rhe- 
torical in the whole passage, makes it doubtful whether the considerations above 
mentioned can be insisted upon with as much confidence as they might be 
under other circumstances. 


CXX. Ver. 16. ei d2 4} awapy7 dyia, x.7.A, 


This verse is regarded by some writers as belonging with those which pre- 
cede it. Tisch. makes it close the paragraph which begins with ver. 11. 
Westcott and Hort make a half-paragraph begin with ver. 17. Meyer regards - 
the dé as continuative, and gives the verse a special relation to zpécampec which 
precedes. The thought of the paragraph opening with ver. 11 seems, however, 
to be brought to its natural conclusion in ver. 15, while that uf this verse has a 
closer connection with what follows, of. vv. 24, 28, 29. In preparation for what 
he is to say to the Gentiles (that they should not boast, etc.), and for his dec- 
laration that all Israel shall be saved, as well as for the purpose of arresting 
attention, he places the words of this verse, with emphasis, at the beginning of 
the new paragraph. The paragraphs of the chapter are as follows: Vv. 1-10, 
God has not cast off His people—a remnant is reserved and is kept in the en- 
joyment of the blessing, when the main part of the nation proves unfaithful. 
—Vv. 11-15. The stumbling of the nation through this unfaithfulness is not, 
in the Divine plan, to the end of s complete and final fall, but in order that 
salvation may go out to the Gentiles, and may react in its power from them 
upon the Jews. — Vv. 16-24. The Gentiles should not glory over the Jews be- 
cause of this temporary stumbling, whereby the Jews have become secondary 
in a sense to them (rejected, even, for their benefit), for, as the branches are 
holy when the root is holy, God can restore the Jews.—Vv. 25-32. This resto- 
ration will take place when the appointed time shall come ; and thus the en- 
tire plan will be manifest, as arranged with a merciful end in view for all, 
Jews and Gentiles alike. — Vv. 33-36. An exclamation of praise and wonder 
in the thought of this marvellous plan. 


CXXI. Ver. 17. évexevrpioOye ev avroic. 


Meyer admits that évy may, grammatically, be understood as equivalent to in 
loco (eorum). Weiss ed. Mey., on the other hand, claims that this is very doubt- 
fal. That it is impossible to give the preposition this sense can scarcely be 
affirmed, but it must be admitted that it is much more in accordance with 
general usage in such cases to assign to it the meaning among. The context, 
when rightly interpreted, favors the same view. Accordingly, avroi¢ does not 
refer to rivec, i.e. the broken-off branches in whose place the Gentiles were 
grafted, but to the «Addo: in general. The conception of the writer is of the 
Jewish nation as a tree, from whose life some branches have been cut off, but 
which remains a living tree because the root (and therefore all the branches, 


462 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


whether few or many, which have a vital connection with the root) has true 
life. Into this living tree, and among its remaining natural and living branch- 
es, the wild branch is grafted, and thus draws life from the root. That the 
wild branch is inserted in the place of the cut-off branches is an incidental 
thought, rather than the main one of the passage. The main thought (comp. 
also the previous verses) is that, in connection with the cutting off, the inser- 
tion of the branches from the wild olive is accomplished ; that the union of 
the wild olive with the life of the good tree is made, thus, both possible and 
actual. The Gentiles, however, should not glory over the Jews (the natural 
branches of the tree), because for their ingrafting the tree had lost some part 
of its outgrowth, since all the source of their life, which comes through the 
ingrafting, is derived from the tree’s root. The life-force and the blessing are 
received by the Gentile through the Jew, and not by the Jew through the Gen- 
tile. The spiritual plan moves from the Abrahamic covenant downward, and 
from the Israclitish nation outward. 


CXXII. Ver. 19. é&exAdoOncav xAddoc tva x.7.A. 


The external evidence here is decisive in favour of xAddoc as the true reading, 
rather than of x«Addo:. The indication of this fact is that the writer does not 
refer in this word to rav «Adduv of ver. 18, but that, on the contrary, in that 
verse he is speaking of the branches in general, while here those that were 
broken off are specially alluded to. Two reasons are presented in the two 
verses, and in those which immediately follow, for the bidding, which is given 
to the Gentiles, not to boast against the Jews :—/first, because the Gentiles owed 
everything to their incorporation into the spiritual body of which the Jewish 
fathers were the beginning (ver. 18; see also note CXXI.); and secondly, 
because for both parties alike the continuance in the spiritual body and the 
final reception of the blessing were dependent wholly on faith (ver. 19 ff.). 
The second reason is, however, set forth in a more indirect manner than the 
first. The Apostle supposes that, on the presentation of the first reason, the 
Gentile replies, ‘‘Even if I am thns dependent on the Jewish root, certain 
branches («Addo1) were broken off that I might be grafted in, and I may glory on 
thisaccount.” To this tho answer is immediately given, They were, indeed, thus 
broken off, but it was only because of their unbelief, and all alike must stand 
upon faith. If the Gentile fails in this, he will be cut off asthe Jew was. If 
the Jew returns to this, he will be again received as the Gentile has been re- 
ceived. It will be even a thing of less difficulty to restore the natural branches 
to their own tree, than it has been to ingraft into the tree the branches which 
were wholly foreign to it, and which belonged to an olive wild by nature. 

The paragraph commencing with ver, 16 and continuing as far as ver. 24, ac- 
cordingly, by its peculiar figure of the olive tree, into which the wild branch is 
grafted ; by the special words employed in the unfolding of the figure, (e.g. the 
root, the fatness passing from the root to the branches, the cutting off and 
grafting into the tree which keeps throughout its entire vital force, the restora- 
tion of the severed branches) ; and, particularly, by the use of of xAdda:, vv. 16, 
18, as contrasted with «Addo, ver. 19, reveg trav KAddwr, ver. 17, confirms the 
view, which the other parts of the chapter, each of them in and for itself, es- 
tablish, that the writer is speaking of the Israelitish nation and its place in the 
spiritual plan. 


NOTES. | 463 


CXXIII. Ver. 24. zéey pdArov — évnevtpio9noovrat. 


Meyer objects to the explanation of réoy udAAov which makes it designate 
greater easiness of a restoration of the natural branches than of an ingrafting of 
the wild shoots, (1) on the ground that experience testifies to the extreme diffi- 
culty of converting unbelieving Jews, and (2) because the power of God is 
correlative not of that which is easy, but of that which is difficult. But, as 
Weiss ed. Mey. urges in reply, the Apostle’s words do not refer to the conver- 
sion of unbelieving Jews, but the reingrafting of those who have become 
believing, and the argument is presented from the standpoint of human judg- 
ment—if the one thing is less difficult than the other, we may readily believe 
thatit will be done. Paul is merely setting before the man who boasts against 
the Jew, on the ground that the latter has been cast off, a consideration which 
might appeal forcibly to his mind,—the greater easiness, etc. Meyer’s view of 
the verse involves giving to ydp the explicative sense namely, which is improb- 
able (according to N. T. usage) where the ordinary meaning for will satisfy the 
conditions of the sentence ; and, in addition to this, it makes ver. 24 a mere 
unfolding of the certainty of évxevrprofycovrat of the 23d verse, which certainty 
is again declared as the revelation of a zvorypov in ver. 25. By this threefold 
repetition of the idea of certainty, with little or no advance in the thought re- 
specting it, the force and emphasis of the final presentation of it in ver. 25 is 
diminished. The ordinary view (which is also favoured by Weiss) is therefore 
to be adopted with reference both to réow uddAov, and to the relation of ver. 
24 as a reason justifying duvarog «.7.A. 


CXXIV. Ver. 25, 26. mrapwoig ard ubpove—ow0yoerat. 


The Apostle here states—as a proof (yap) of eyxevrpioOycovrat of ver. 23—the 
pevotnpiov Which had been given to him to make known. This pvorjov in- 
volves the entire plan of God with reference to Jews and Gentiles, which 
has been spoken of throughout the chapter, with its final and glorious consum- 
mation. Hardening has partially befallen Israel until the fulness of the Gen- 
tiles shall have entered in, and then all Israel isto be saved. The fulness of the 
Gentiles and all Israel are expressions which show, at the end of the entire doc- 
trinal discussion, what has been manifested at its beginning and in its progress 
—that the universalism of the Apostle is that which includes all nations ; that 
mavrec means Gentiles as well as Jews, as contrasted with one of the two parties 
only. 

rAnpwua—meaning that by which the 247 are made full—must, it would 
seem, have reference to the idea of number, and this numerical idea is not lim- 
ited by any word except é9vav. Idc, in like manner, is limited only by *Iopa7. 
In the phrases themselves, accordingly, we have universality with respect both 
to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Does the Apostle declare, then, in these 
verses, that every individual Gentile and Jew will, at the time indicated, be in- 
cluded inthe church of God? This view, which Meyer holds, is certainly 
favored by the phraseology which is employed in the statement of the 
pvorypiov. A degree of doubt, however, is occasioned by the fact that, in the 
previous part of the chapter, the writer has reference to nations as a whole, 
and not to individuals. Still, it must be borne in mind that the expressions 
have a universal character which goes beyond any other words of the chapter, 


464 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


and hence the burden of proof falls upon one who would deny to them absolute 
universality of meaning. The reference is to the last times, evidently, and no 
affirmation is made as to the salvation of all men of all ages. This subject 
does not even come before the writer’s mind in this passage. He is speaking 
of a different matter, which had a vital and important bearing on his argu- 
ment for his doctrine of justification, and which concentrated all his present 
interest on itself. The doctrine of universal salvation, as now understood, 
like the doctrine of the election or reprobation of individuals, is not directly 
alluded to in this section of the Epistle (chaps. ix.-xi.). If discovered at all, 
they are discovered by inference from what is said on another universalism 
and another election and rejection. It need scarcely be said, that there is 
nothing in these chapters which disproves the doctrine of individual election, 
or which proves the actual restoration or salvation of all. But the teaching of 
Paul with reference to both of these subjects is to be sought for in other parts 
of his writings where he expresses himself more directly respecting them, and 
in his whole theological system as discovered by an examination of all his 
epistles. 


CXXV. Ver. 28. xara pv 7d ebayyédoy x.7.A, 


The subject of eiciv, to be supplied in this verse, is regarded by Meyer and 
many others as the unbelieving Israelites, the lapsed portion of the people. 
More probably, as in ver. 11, it ,is the entire people who stumble and have a 
hardening 470 pépovc in the lapse of the great majority. The nation, in its re- 
lation to the gospel, is in the év@pdc condition, so far as the rejection referred 
to in the previous verses and paragraphs is concerned ; but, in relation to the 
election of the nation made by God and recognized in His covenant, it is be- 
loved. If éxAoy7 is to be explained, with Meyer and Ewald, as meaning the 
elect remnant (cf. ver. 7)—which view Weiss ed, Mey. rejects—the expla- 
nation of the entire verse will be, that the nation is éy6pdé¢ so far as related to 
the Aorrol (ver. 8), but ayarnréc as related to the Zeiuya (ver. 5.). exOpoi is, 
doubtless, to be explained as having a passive sense, and is connected, in its 
idea, with the various words suggesting the thought of casting off, eto. Ver. 
29 adds a confirmation of the last clause of ver. 28, which is founded upon the 
unchangeable purpose of God. He will not be unfaithful to His covenant and 
promises. The seeming rejection of His chosen people will be only for a time, 
and for a merciful end, vv. 30-32. 


CXXVI. Ver. 33-36. 


This exclamation of praise to God evidently has reference to and arises out 
of the thoughts of this chapter primarily. As this chapter, however, is only 
the closing part of the section ix.-xi., it reviews, as it were, all that has been 
said from ix. 1. onward. It must be explained, accordingly, as praise to God 
for His wonderful plan of mercy for all, even in the shutting up of all under 
sin (vv. 30-32). In this darkest part of His administration of the world His 
love and goodness manifest themselves. The words of the passage are chosen 
as referring to the plan. Zogia is, thus, the wisdom which forms the plan, 
xpliuara are the judgments or decisions which the wisdom makes in its forma. 
tion, avefepavivnra describes the xp/uara, and consequently the wisdom, as un- 


NOTES. 465 


searchable to human powers. yvdoic, on the other hand, is the knowledge 
which knows the ways (ddoi) of carrying out the plan decided upon, which, in 
their turn, are beyond the ability of man to trace from the beginning to the 
end. Ver. 34 is probably a passage quoted from the O. T. as expressing the 
two thoughts corresponding with cogia and yvaoics, and confirming aveSepavynra 
and avef yviaoro: (34a answering to cog. and avefep., and 34) to yv. and avetiyy.). 
TlAovrov is, thus, to be taken as connected with both cogiag and yrvacewcs : O 
the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge. Ver. 35, contain- 
ing the third part of the O. T. quotation, carries back the thought, at the end, 
to the zAovrov. Who has been able to give to Him, the possessor of this wealth 
of wisdom and knowledge, so as to claim in return a recompense for his gift? 
This seems to be the simplest and most natural explanation of the verses and 
words. It must be admitted, however, that Meyer's view (held also by many 
others), which makes zAovrov an independent word parallel with oog. and yv., 
may be correct. 


466 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 


CHAPTER XII. 


Ver. 2. Instead of the imperatives, which Tisch. also defends, Lachm. has, 
what Griesb. already approved ; ovoyquarifec$ar and perauopdovofa:, according 
to A B** D FG, min. Theoph. The preponderating evidence of the codd. is 
in favour of the infinilives, while that of the vas. (Vulg. It. Syr. etc ) and Fathers 
is in favour of the imperatives. But, since the frequent practical use of the pre- 
cept in the direct paraenelic form of expression at any rate suggested—espe 
cially considering the closely similar pronunciation of the infinitives and imper- 
atives—the writing of the latter rather than the former, the infinitive reading 
is to be preferred, which Nalso supports by reading perayopgoicéa:, although it 
has ovoynuarivecfe. — dudv] is wanting in A B D* FG, 47, 67*, Copt. Clem. Cypr. 
Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. The preponderance of evidence, as well as the 
circumstance that tuov very readily suggested itself to mechanical copyists for 
repetition from ver. 1, justifies the omission. — Ver. 5. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : 7, 
according to A B D* FG P 8, 47*, Antioch. Damasc. Rightly ; rd dé xa6’ els, not 
being understood, was exchanged with 6 d? xa@’ elc, as the antithesis of ol roAA0i. 
— Ver. 11. ry xatpp] So Griesb., after Erasm. 2, Steph. 3, Mill, and others. But 
Erasm. 1, Beza, Elz, Matth., Lachm., Scholz, Tisch., and Rinck have rq «vpiy. 
The former is found in D* FG, 5, and Latin Fathers; the latter in AB D* 
ELPX, and most min. vss. and Greek Fathers. See the accurate examination 
of the evidence in Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 70 ff., who decides for xvpiy, and in 
Tisch. 8. Kuvpiy is certainly the oldest and most diffused reading. Neverthe 
less, if it were original, we cannot well see why xaipg should have been substi- 
tuted for it ; for dovA. 7 xupiy isa very usnal Pauline thought (Acts xx. 19; 
Eph. vi. 7; Rom. xiv. 18, xvi. 18 ; Col. iii. 24, ef al.), and would suit our passage 
very well. It would be far easier to take exception to xa:pw than to «vpig (88 
in xiii, 11, instead of xacpdv, the reading xdpiov is already found in Clement) 
especially as the principle itself, TG xa:py dovaAedery, might readily seem some- 
what offensive toa prejudiced moral feeling. Hardly can «vpiw, considering its 
great diffusion, be a mere copyist’s error (in opposition to Fritzsche). — Ver. 
13. ypeiary] D* F G, Clar. Boern. codd. Lat., in Rufinus and some Latin 
Fathers : pveiae (defended by Mill). Its origin is due to the reverence for 
martyrs: ‘“lectio liturgica pro tempore ficta,” Matth.— Ver. 17. éumor] 
A** has éviriov Toi Ocot, cal évoreov. FG, Arm. Goth. Vulg. and several 
Fathers : 0d ydvov évdrtov r. Oeov, GAAG nat évoriov. Ascetic amplification, after 
Prov. iii. 4; 2 Cor. viii. 21. — Instead of rdévrwy Lachm. has roy, according 
to A** D* F G, min. It. Harl. Guelph. Tol. Tert. Lucif. Probably, however, 
this was connected with that amplification. — Ver. 20. édv otv] A BP ¥, min. 
Copt. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Bas. Dam.: 4244 éév (so Lachm. and Tisch. 8). D* 
F G, min. Goth. : éév, which is to be preferred, with Griesb. ; the other 
readings aim at furnishing a connection. 








CHAP. XII., 1. 467 


4 THE SECOND, OR PRACTICAL PART OF THE EPISTLE.’ 


(Ter. 1 f. General exhortation to sanctification. [See Note CXXVII. p. 482. ] 
—oiv] drawing an inference, not from the whole dogmatic part of the 
epistle, beginning with i. 16 (Calvin, Bengel, and many others, including 
Reiche, Kéllner, de Wette, Philippi, Hofmann),—as also in Eph. iv. 1 and 
1 Thess, iv. 1, the ody which introduces the practical portion is not to be 
taken so vaguely,—but from xi. 35, 36, where the riches of God were de- 
scribed as, and shown to be, imparted apart from merit. This connection 
is, on account of did rév oixtipy. r. cov, more readily suggested and simpler 
than that with ver. 82 (Riickert, Fritzsche, and several others). — did rap oixr. 
T. Gcov] by means of the compassion of God, reminding you of it. Just so dda 
in xv. 30, 1 Cor. i. 10, 2 Cor. x. 1. The exhortation, pointing to the com- 
passion of God, contains the motive of thankfulness for compliance with it. 
‘* Qui misericordia Dei recte movetur, in omnem Dei voluntgtem ingreditur,” 
Bengel. — On oixripyot, see Tittmann, Synon. p. 68 ff. On the singular, 
comp. Pind. Pyth. i. 85 ; Eccles. v. 6; Bar. ii. 27; 1 Macc. iii. 44. The 
plural conforms, indeed, to D°D1M, but is conceived according to the Greek 
plural usage of abstract nouns (see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 15 f. ; Maetzner, ad 
Lycurg. p. 144 f.) : the compassions, i.e. the stirrings and manifestations of 
compassion. — sapacrjcac] selected as the set expression for the presenting of 
sacrificial animals at the altar ; Xen. Anab. vi. 1. 22 ; Lucian, de sacrif. 13 ; 
and see Wetstein and Loesner, p. 262, Paul is glancing at the thank-offer- 
ing (dia Tr. oixtipp. tr. ©.), and raises the notion of sacrifice to the highest 
moral idea of self-surrender to God ; comp. Umbreit, p. 343 ff. — ra owuara 
tuav] not, on account of the figure of sacrifice, instead of tae avroi¢ (so 
usually ; still also Philippi), as if cya might denote the entire person, con- 
sisting of body and soul (but comp. onvi. 12). Onthe contrary, the apostle 
means quite strictly : your bodies, reserving the sanctification of the voi for 
ver, 2, so that the two verses together contain the sanctification of the «hole 
man distributed into its parts,—that of the outer man (set forth as the offer- 
ing of a sacrifice), and that of the inner (as a renewing transformation). 
Fritzsche also takes the correct view ;? comp. Hofmann. Other peculiar 
references of r. odu. iu. (KGllner: ‘‘ the sensuous nature of man, which 
draws him to sin ;” Olshausen : ‘‘in order to extend the idea of Christian 
sanctification down even to the lowest potency of human nature”) are not 


1 See Pet. Abr. Borger, Diesertatto de parte 
epistolae ad Rom. paraenetica, Lugd. Bat. 
1840.—The subdivision of what follows into 
Woda (chap. xil.), woAcreed (chap. xili.), and 
iepariad (Chap. xiv. f.) Is, considering the 
miscellaneous character of the contents, 
an untenable formal scheme (in opposition 
to Melanchthon, Beza, and others). Paul 
proceeds from the general to the partic- 
ular, and vice versed. 

3 The ordinary objection brought against 
this view in its literal fidelity, that the body 


could not be sacrificed to God without tho 
soul, is just in itself, but does not exclude 
the supposition that Paul might formady 
separate the bodily self-sacrifice and the 
spiritual renewal. He passes from the or- 
ganism of the bodily life, in which the Inner 
is made manifest, over to the latter ; comp. 
1 Cor. vii. 34. In passages also of the Greek 
writers, In which cwua is apparently used 
for the personal pronoun (as Eur. Alc. 647 ; 
see Brunck in loc.), capa is simply ody. 
Comp. also Soph. 0O.C. 355, e¢ al. 


468 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


indicated by the text. The following r. Aoyix. Aarp. is not opposed to our 
view ; for, in truth, bodily self-sacrifice is also an ethical act, 1 Cor. vi. 2. 
Comp. on the subject-matter, vi. 18, 19. —@voiav Cicav] as a sacrifice which 
lices. For the moral self-offering of the body is the antitypical mAspuor of 
the ritual sacrificial-service, in which the sacrifice dies ; whereas that ethical 
sacrifice is no doubt also connected with dying, as to sin namely, in the 
sense of vi. 2, vil. 4 ff., Col. ii. 20, iii. 5, Gal. ii. 19, but it is precisely out 
of this death that the being alive here meant proceeds, which has van- 
quished death (Gal. ii. 20, e¢ al.). Such a sacrifice is also, in the eminent 
sense of antitypical fulfilment, dyia (as pure and belonging to God in an 
ethical relation) and eidpeoroc ry Oe (comp. Eph. v. 2). That r. eg is not, 
with Estius, Bengel, and Koppe, to be connected with zapaor., is shown by 
its very position, as well as by the superfluous character of a +. 6e¢ with 
sapact.— Passages from Porphyry, Hierocles, Philo, Josephus, and the 
Rabbins, in which likewise moral devotion to God is set forth as self-sacri- 
fice, see in Wetstein and Koppe. On the asyndeton, as strengthening the 
furce of the predicative notion, in dy., evdp. r. @., comp. Nagelsbach, z. Ilias, 
p. 50, ed. 3. — rv Aoy. Aarp. iu.) accusative of eperegesis,—an appositional 
definition, and that, indeed, not to the mere @vcia»y (to the notion of which 
the wider notion of Aarpeiav does not correspond), but to the whole zapaczy- 
oa x.t.4., containing, respecting this whole act of presenting offering, th 
judgment, what it ought to be; see Winer, p. 496 [E. T. 583] ; Kiihner, IL 
1, p. 243 f. Luther aptly remarks : ‘‘ the which is your reasonable service.” 
Aatpeia] service of worship, as in John xvi. 2. See on that passage. Comp. 
ix. 4. Zoysxdc, rational (1 Pet. ii. 2 ; Plato, Zoer. p. 99 E, 102 E; Polyb. 
xxv. 9, 2), is not in contrast to (aa ddoya (Theodoret, Grotius, Koppe, and 
many others), which at most would only be to be assumed if Aazpeia were 
equivalent to @vcia, but generally to the ceremonial character of the Jewish 
and heathen worship,—designating the Aarpeia here meant as a@ spiritual xr- 
vice, fulfilling itself in moral rational activity,—of which nature the opus 
operatum of the Jewish and heathen cultus was not. The Test. XII. Patr. 
p. 547 calls the sacrifice of the angels Aoy:xv Kk. avainaxtoy xpoogopdv. On the 
idea, comp. John iv. 24; Rom. i. 9; Phil. iii. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; Athenag. 
Teg. 138. Melanchthon : ‘‘ Cultus mentis, in quo mens fide aut coram in- 
tuctur Deum, et vere sentit timorem et laetitiam in Deo.” The opposite is 
the character of mechanical action, the dioyog tpi37 Kai éureipia (Plat. Corg. 
p. 501 A). 

Ver. 2. Infinitives (see the critical notes) : oveyquatizecbar, to become like- 
shaped, and perapoppoveba, to become transformed. The two verbs stand in 
contrast only through the prepositions, without any difference of sense in the 
stem-words. [See Note CXXVIII. p. 488.] Comp. the interchange of 
popoy and cyqpa in Phil. ii. 7, also the Greek usage of cynuariZecy and popper, 
which denote any kind of conformation according to the context (Plut. Mor. 
p. 719 B: rd pepopdwpévov nai éoynuatiopévov, Eur. Iph. T. 292 : poppis oxt 


'Comp. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 519; NAgelsbach, z. JJ. ili. 51; Buttmann, reué. Gr. p. 1H 
[E. T. 153]. 





CHAP. XII.. 2. 469 


pata): Here of moral conformation, without requiring us to distinguish 
pope and oxijua as inner and outer (Bengel, Philippi), or as appearance to . 
others and one’s own state in itself (Hofmann).’ On the interchange of the 
infinitive of the aorist (sapaozjea:) and present, comp. on vi. 12. —76 aicv 
tout] to the present age, running on the Parousia, 13 poy (see on Matt. 
xii. 32), the character (ethical mould) of which is that of immorality (Eph. 
ii. 2; Gal. i. 4; 2 Cor. iv. 4, et al.).  cvexquarizecba: is also found in rheto- 
siciane with the dative (as also 1 Pet. i. 14), instead of with mpdé¢ or cic. — 
Th avaxay. t. vod] whereby the uerapopd. is to be effected : through the renewal 
of the thinking power (voic here, according to its practical side, the reason in 
its moral quality and activity ; see on vii. 23; Eph. iv. 23). It needs this 
renewal in order to become the sphere of operation for the divine truth of 
salvation, when it, undcr the ascendency of dyapria in the odps, has become 
darkened, weak, unfree, and transformed into the adéxipog vovc (i. 28), the 
voc tie capxée (Col. ii. 18). Comp. on vii. 28. And thi& renewal, which 
the regenerate man also needs on account of the conflict of flesh and spirit 
which exists in him (viii. 4 ff. ; Gal. v. 16 ff.) through daily penitence (Col. 
iii. 10 ; 2 Cor. vii. 10 ; 1 Thess. v. 22, 28), is effected by means of the life- 
element of faith (Phil. iii. 9 ff.), transforming the inner man (Eph. iii. 16, 
17 ; 2 Cor. v. 17), under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Eph. iv. 23, 24 ; 
Tit. iii. 5. This influence restores the harmony in which the vie ought to 
stand with the divine rvevya, not, however, annulling the moral freedom 
of the believer, but, on the contrary, presupposing it ; hence the erhorta- 


tion: to be transformed (passive). As to the avd in avaxav., see on Col. iii. | 


10. —ei¢ rd doxeu.] belongs not merely to avaxaivworc tr. vooc tu. a8 its direction 
(Hofmann), but (comp. Phil. i. 10 and on Rom. i. 20) specifies the aim of 
the perayopd. r. avax. r. v. iuav. To the man who is not transformed by the 
renewal of his intellect this proving—which is no merely theoretical busi- 
ness of reflection, but is the critical practice of the whole inner life—forms 
no part of the activity of conscience. Comp. Eph. v. 10. The sense : to 
be able to prove (Riickert, Kdllner), is as arbitrarily introduced as in ii. 18. 
He who is transformed by that renewal not merely can do, but—which Paul 
has here in view as the immediate object of the perapyopdovcba x.7.A.—actually 
does the doxudfecv, and has thereby the foundation for a further moral de- 
velopment ; he does it by means of the judgment of his conscience, stirred 
and illuminated by the Spirit (2 Cor. i. 12). On 7d 6é4nya coi, what is 
willed by God, comp. Matt. vi. 10; Eph. v. 17, vi. 6; Col. i. 9; 1 Thess. 
iv. 8. —1d dyafdv x. evdp. x. ré4.] is, by the Peshito, the Vulgate, Chrysos- 
tom, and most of the older interpréters, also by Rickert and Reiche, united 
adjectivally with rd 6é4. But as eidp. would thus be unsuitable to this, we 
must rather (with Erasmus, Castalio, and others, including Tholuck, Flatt, 
Kéllner, de Wette, Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Hofmann) 
approve the substantival rendering (as apposition to rd 6A. r. Orov) : that 
which is good and well-pleasing (to God) and perfect. The repetition of the 

* According to the latter supposed dis- _ that ver. 1 contains how the Christian shornld 


tinction, Hofmann hits upon the arbitrary stand towards God, and ver. 2 how he should 
definition of the relation of ver.1tover.2, present himself to those who surround him. 


470 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


article was the less necessary, as the three adjectives used substantively 
exhaust one notion (that of moral good), and that climactically.' 

Ver, 3. The exhortation now passes on fo single duties, amongst which that 
of humility and modesty, generally (vv. 3-5), and in respect of the individ- 
ual yapiouara in particular (vv. 6-8), is the first—the first, too, compliance 
with which was indispensable to a prosperous life of the church. And Paul 
must have known how very necessary this same injunction was in the Ro- 
man community. [See Note CXXIX. p. 483.]—ydp] jor. The special re- 
quirement which he is now to make serves in fact by way of confirmation to 
the general exhortation of ver. 2. As toAéyw in the sense of enjoining, see on 
li. 22. — did ri¢ xp. TH¢ 608. wor] Paul does not command 4? éavroi, but by 
means of, t.e. in virtue of the divine grace bestowed on him. It is thus that he‘ 
characterizes—and how at once truly and humbly! (1 Cor. xv. 10)—his 
apostleship. Comp. xv. 15 ; 1 Cor. iii. 10; Eph. iii. 7, 8. This zaps was 
given to Aim (uo), not in common with Christians generally (ipiv. ver. 6). 
—mavri . . . tiv] to every one in your community ; none among you is to be 
exempt from this exhortation ; not : to every one who thinks himself to be 
something among you (Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius). — 7 imepdpov. x.1.).] 
not loftily-minded ought the Christian to be, going beyond the standard-rule of 
that disposition which is conformable to duty (rap’ & dei dp.) ; but his disposition 
should be such as to have wise discretion (1 Pet. iv. 7) for its aim (comp. Hon. 
Il. xxiii. 805 : cig ayaOd gpovéwy, Eur. Phoen. 1135 : ei¢ udyqv gpoveiv). Par- 
onomasia. Comp. Plat. Legg. x. p. 906 B: cugpoctyy pera gpovfeeuc, Eur. 
Heracl. 888: raév gpovnudrov . . . tév ayav brepppdvur ; and see Wetstein. 
— éxdoty oc] éxdory depends on évépioce (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 5, vii. 17, and on 
Rom. xi. 31), not on Aéyw (Estius, Kéllner)—which view makes the already 
said ravri . . . tiv to be once more repeated, and, on the other hand, de- 
prives éyépice of its essential definition. ‘Qc designates the scale according to 
which each one ought ¢poveiv cic rd cugpoveiv, and this scale is different in 
persons differently furnished with gifts, so that for one the boundary, be- 
yond which his gpoveiv ceases to be cic 76 cwdpovetv, is otherwise drawn than 
it is for another. The regulative standard, however, Paul expressly calls the 
measure of faith, which God has assigned. This is the subjective condition 
(the objective is the divine ydpic) of that which every one can and ought 
to do in the Christian life of the church. According, namely, as faith in 
the case of individual Christians is more or less living, practical, energetic, 
efficacious in this or that direction,—whether contemplative, or manifest- 
ing itself in the outer life, in eloquence and action, etc.,—they have withal 
to measure their appointed position and task in the church. He, there- 
fore, who covets a higher or another standpoint and sphere of activity in 
the community, and is not contented with that which corresponds to the 
measure of faith bestowed on him, evinces a wilful self-exaltation, which is 
without measure and not of God—not that spirit wherein the Christian 
perptoppootvy consists, the ¢poveiv cic rd owdpoveiv, Exdorwy O¢ K.t.A. The riers 
is therefore to be taken throughout in no other sense than the ordinary 


1 Comp. Winer, p. 121 (E. T. 127 f.] ; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 873 f. ; Kabner, Il. J, p. 8% 





CHAP. XII., 4-8. 471 


one : faith in Christ, of which the essence indeed is alike in all, but the in- 
dividually different degrees of strength (comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 2), and peculiari- 
ties of character in other respects (vv. 4 ff.), constitute for individuals the 
pétpov riorewc in quantitative and qualitative relation. Comp. Eph. iv. 7. 
This likewise holds in opposition to Hofmann, who with violence separates 
pérp. xiatews from éuépeoe, and takes it as an accusative of apposition, like 
Ti Aoyix. Aarpeiav pov, ver. 1; holding wicrews to be the genitive of quality, 
which distinguishes the measure within which the thinking of the Christian 
is confined, from that which the natural man sets up for himself. Comp., 
in opposition to this strange separation, 2 Cor. x. 13, and in opposition to 
this artificial explanation of the genitive, 2 Cor. x. 13 ; Eph. iv. 7, xiil. 16.’ 

My Vv. 4, 5 ff. Motive for compliance with the previous exhortation. —For the 
prevalence of the parallel between a human body and a corpus sociale (1 Cor. 
xii.) also among the ancients, see Grotius and Wetstein. — ra dé péAn révra 
x.T.A.] 4.€. but the members, all of them, have different activity ; thus, ¢.g., the 
eyes another than the ears, the fect another than the mouth. Wrongly van 
Hengel takes the expression, as though oi wdvra were the reading, so that 
only some—namely, those we possess in pairs—would be meant, not all. — 
oi roAAoi] the many, %.e. the multiplicity of Christians taken together, in op- 
position to the unity of the body which they compose. Comp. v. 15. — é» 
Xpiorg~] The common element in which the union consists ; out of Christ we 
should not be év cayza, but this we are in Him, in the fellowship of faith and 
life with Christ. He is the Head (Eph. i. 22, 23, iv. 15; Col. i. 18, ii. 19), 
—a relation which is understood of itself by the consciousness of faith, but 
is not denoted by év Xprorg (as if this meant on Christ), as Koppe, Rosenmil- 
ler, and older interpreters hold. — rd d2 xaf cic] but in what concerns the in- 
dividual relation. In good Greck it would be rd dé xa? éva (see on Mark xiv. 
19, and Bernhardy, p. 329; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 414) ; but «af eic, in which 
xaré has quite lost its regimen, is a very frequent solecism in the later Greek 
writers (Mark, J.c. ; John viii. 9 ; 3 Macc. v. 84).* Td xaf etc 18 groundlessly 
condemned by Fritzsche as ‘‘commentitia formula.” If xa? et¢ and é xa? 
el¢ were in use (and this was the case), it follows that rd caf cic might be 
just as well said as 1d xaf éva (comp. 1d xa? éavrév and the like, Matthiae, 
§ 283 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 272). See also Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 26 f. [E. T. 
80]. 

Vv. 6-8. In the possession, however, of different gifts. This txovre¢ d2 xa- 
picuara x.t.A. corresponds to ra dé uéAyn révra ov rHv ari éxee wpakiv, ver. 4.— 
As regards the construction, the view adopted by Reiche, de Wette, and 
Lachmarn makes éyovrec a participial definition of éovev, ver. 5 ; according- 
ly, eire mpopyreiay and eire dcaxoviay depend on éyovrec as a specifying appo- 
sition to yapiopara ; whilst the limiting definitions xara rv avad. tr. rior., bv 
Ty dcax., dv rp didaox., év ty Tapaxd, x.t.A. are parallel to the xara ry xdpev dof. 
juiv, and with eire 6 diddoxuy the discourse varies, without however becom- 


' Plat. Theaet. p. 161 E: puérpe ... rie 2 See Lucian Soloec. 9, and Graev. in loc. ; 
avrov godias. Soph. E71. 220: uérpoy caxéryros. Thom. Mag. p. 488; Wetstein on Mark, l.c. ; 
Eur. Jon, 854: “Bus pérpoy. Pind. Jethkm.i. Winer, p. 234 [E. T. 249]. 

87 : xepddwy pw. 


472 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


ing directly hortatory. Comp. also Rickert. But usually xara rv aved 2. 
miot., év ry dcax. x.t.A., are regarded as elliptical hortatory sentences, whilst 
‘yovrec is by some likewise attached to the foregoing (Theodoret, Erasmus, 
Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Estius, and others, including Flatt, Tholuck, 
Reithmayr), and with others éyovrec begins a new sentence (so Olshausen, 
Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, van Hengel, Hofmann, following 
Beza). The usual construction is the only correct one (in which, most suit- 
ably to the progressive dé, a new sentence commences with 2 yovrec), because, 
under the mode followed by Reiche and de Wette, the alleged limitations 
iv 79 dtax., év ty didaox., and év ri wapaxa. either express nothing, or must be 
taken arbitrarily in a variety of meaning different from that of the words 
with which they stand ; and because év drAdryzt, év orovdg, and év idapéryt, 
ver. 8, are obviously of a hortatory character, and therefore the previous ex- 
pressions with év may not be taken otherwise. By way of jilling up the 
concise maxims thrown out elliptically, and only as it were in outline, itis 
sufficient after card tiv avadoy. tr. rior. to supply : xpogyretwper, after & 7 
Staxovia : dev, after év ry didacxadia: éorw, the same after éy 79 rapaxiyce ; 
and lastly, after the three following particulars, év dx2érqre «.1.4., the im- 
peratives of the corresponding verbs (ueradidérw x.7.A.). Comp. the similar 
mode of. expression in 1 Pet. iv. 10, 11. — yapicpara] denotes the different 
peculiar aptitudes for the furtherance of Christian life in the church and of 
its external welfare, imparted by God's grace through the principle of the 
Holy Spirit working in the Christian communion (hence svevpariad, 1 Cor. 
xii. 1). On their great variety, amidst the specific unity of their origin from 
the efficacy of this Spirit, see esp. 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff.—Paul here mentions by 
way of example (for more, see 1 Cor. xii.), in the first instance, four of such 
zapiouara, namely : (1) mpogyreia, the gift of theopneustic discourse, which 
presupposes azoxdAvyi¢, and the form of which, appearing in different ways 
(hence also in the plural in 1 Cor. xiii. 8 ; 1 Thess. v. 20), was not ecstatic, 
like the speaking with tongues, but was an activity of the voi¢ enlightened 
and filled with the consecration of the Spirit’s power, disclosing hidden 
things, and profoundly seizing, chastening, elevating, carrying away me's 
hearts, held in peculiar esteem by the apostle (1 Cor. xiv. 1). Comp. on 1 
Cor. xii. 10. Further, (2) d:axovia : the gift of administration of the external 
affairs of the church, particularly the care of the poor, the sick, and strangers; 
comp. 1 Cor, xii. 28, where the functions of the diaconia are termed arts 
weee. Acts vi. 1 ff. ; Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 8,12; 1 Pet. iv. 11 ; Rom.sv.1. 
The service of the diaconate in the church, which grew out of that of the 
seven men of Acts vi., is really of apostolic origin : Clem. Cor. I. 42, 44; 
Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 359; Jul. Miller, dogmat. Abh. p. 560 ff. (3) 
The d:daoxa?/a, the gift of instruction in the usual form of teaching directed 
to the understanding (é£ oixeiag d:avoiac, Chrysostom, ad 1 Cor. xii. 28), see 
on Acts xiii. 1; Eph. iv. 11; 1 Cor. xiv. 26. It was not yet limited toa 
particular office ; sce Ritschl, p. 350 f. (4) wapéxAnocc, the gift of hortatory 
and encouraging address operating on theheart and will, the possessor of which 
probably connected his discourses, in the assemblies after the custom of the 
synagogue (see on Acts xiii. 15), with a portion of Scripture read before the 


CHAP. XII., 6-8. 473 


people. Comp. Acts iv. 36, xi. 23, 24; Justin, Apol. I. c. 67. —xara riv 
avaa. tT. wior.] Conformably to the proportion of their faith the prophets have 
to use their prophetic gift, z.e. (comp. ver. 8) [See Note CXXX. p. 484] : 
they are not to depart from the proportional measure which their faith has, 
neither wishing to exceed it nor falling short of it, but are to guide them- 
selves by it, and are therefore so to announce and interpret the received 
azoxdéAuyc, as the peculiar position in respect of faith bestowed on them, ac- 
cording to the strength, clearness, fervour, and other qualities of that faith, 
suggests—so that the character and mode of their speaking is conformed to 
the rules and limits, which are implied in the proportion of their individual 
degree of faith. In the contrary case they fall, in respect of contents and 
of form, into a mode of prophetic utterance, cither excessive and over- 
strained, or on the other hand insufficient and defective (not corresponding 
to the level of their faith). The same revelation may in fact—according to 
the difference in the proportion of faith with which it, objectively given, 
subjectively connects itself—be very differently expressed and delivered. 
avadoyia, proportio, very current (also as 8 mathematical expression) in the 
classics (comp. esp. on xara r. avadoy. Plato, Polit. p. 257 B, Locr. p. 95 B ; 
Dem. 262. 5), is here in substance not different from pérpov, ver. 3 ; comp. 
Plato, Tim. p. 69 B: avddoya xai Ebuperpa. Hofmann groundlessly denies 
this (in consequence of his incorrect view of uérpov micrews, ver. 8), yet like- 
wise arrives at the sense, that prophetic utterance must kecp equal pace with 
the life of faith. Paul might, in fact, have written ovupérpwe ry wiore:, and 
would have thereby substantially expressed the same thing as xara r. dvaa. 
t. wlor. OF avadéywor. x. The old dogmatic interpretation ’ (still unknown, 
however, to the Greek Fathers, who rightly take r. ziorewe subjectively, of 
the fides gua creditur) of the regula fidei (xiortc in the objective sense, fides 
quae creditur), i.e. of the conformitas doctrinae in scripturia (sce esp. Calovi- 
us), departs arbitrarily from the thought contained in ver. 8, and from the 
immediate context (xara r. ydp. r. do? qmuiv), and cannot in itself be justified 
by linguistic usage (see on i. 5). It reappears, however, substantially in 
Flatt, Klee, Gléckler, Kéllner, Philippi (‘‘to remain subject to the norma 
et regula fidei Christianae”), Umbreit, Bisping, although they do not, like 
many of the older commentators, take prophecy to refer to the explanation 
of Scripture. — év rq diaxovig] If it be the case that we have diaconia (as ya- 
pioua), let us be in our diaconia. The emphasis lies on év. He who has the 
gift of the diaconia should not desire to have a position in the life of the 
church outside of the sphere of service which is assigned to him by this en- 
dowment, but should be active within that sphere. That by draxovia is not in- 
tended any ecclesiastical office generally (Chrysostom, Luther, Reithmayr, 
Hofmann), is shown by the charismatic elements of the entire context. 
On elva: tv, versari in, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 15; Plato, Prot. p. 317 C, Phaed. 
p. 59 A ; Demosth. 301. 6, e¢ al. ; Krtiger, ad Dion. Hist. p. 269, 70. — ire 
6 ddéoxuv] Symmetrically, Paul should have continued with eire didacxadiav 


2 Comp. Luther's gloss: “ All prophecy, Christ as the only consolation, however 
which leads to work and not simply to valuable it is, {s nevertheless not like faith.” 


474 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


(sc. Eyovrec), as A actually reads. Instead of this, however, he proceeds in 
such a way as now to introduce the different possessors of gifts in the third 
person, and therefore no longer dependent on the ete implied in zyorrer. 
The change of conception and construction may accordingly be thus exhib- 
ited : ‘‘ While, however, we have different gifts, we should, be it prophecy 
that we have, make use of it according to the proportion of our faith,—be 
it diaconia that we have, labour within the diaconia,—te it that it is the 
teacher, (he should) be active within the sphere of teaching, etc.” Afteré 
diddoxuv, simply éori is to be supplied : if it, viz. one charismatically gifted, 
1s the teacher. The apostle, in the urgent fulness of ideas which are yet to 
be only concisely expressed, has lost sight of the grammatical connection ; 
comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 331 [E. T. 386]. Hofmann’s expedient, that 
here cite. . . eire are subordinated to the preceding év rg draxovig, and 4 
didaoxuv ond 6 wapaxadev are to be taken as a parenthetical apposition to the 
subject of the verb to be supplied (‘‘ be it that he, the teacher, handles teach- 
ing,” etc.), is an artificial scheme forced upon him by his incorrect view of 
dtaxovia, and at variance with the co-ordinated relation of the first two cases 
of elre. 

Ver. 8. ‘0 peradidoi¢ x.7.A.] [See Note CXXXI. p. 484.] The detailed 
exposition with cire ceases as: the discourse flows onward more vehemently, 
but the series of those charismatically endowed ts continued, yet in such a way 
that now there are no longer mentioned such as possess a ydéprone for a def- 
inite function in the church, but such as possess it generally for the actitity 
of public usefulness in the social Christian life. Hence, because with & ar/- 
ryti x.t.a. the continuance of the exhortations is indicated, we are to place 
before 6 weradidoi¢ not a full stop, but 1 comma, or, better, a colon. The 
reference of these last three points to definite ministerial functions (such 3% 
that 6 peradsd. is the diaconus who distributes the gifts of love ; 6 mpoiordp. the 
president of the community, bishop or presbyter ; 6 éAeav he who takes charge 
of the sick) is refuted, first, by the fact that the assumed references of eradid. 
(according to Acts iv. 85, we should at least expect d:adidot:¢) are quite 1n¢4- 
pable of proof, and indeed improbable in themselves ; secondly, by the con- 
sideration that such an analysis of the diaconal gift would be out of due 
place, after mention had been already made of the dcaxovia as a whole ; and 
thirdly, by the consideration that the position of the mpoiordwevos, a8 the 
presbyter, between two diaconal functions, and almost at the end of the 
series, would be unsuitable. But if we should wish to explain zpoicrau. % 
guardian of thestrangers (my first edition ; Borger), there is an utter want of 
proof both for this particular feature of the diaconia and for its designation by 
mpoiorau. (for the mpoordrns at Athens, the patron of the metocci, was some 
thing quite different ; Hermann, Staatealterth. §115. 4). — 6 peradidoty] he 
who imparts, who exercises the charisma of charitableness by imparting of 
his means to the poor, Eph. iv. 28; Luke iii. 11. To understand the im- 
parting of spiritual good (Baumgarten-Crusius), or this along with the other 
(Hofmann), receives no support from the context, especially sceing that the 
spiritual imparting has already been previously disposed of in its distinctive 
forms. — év driér.] in simplicity, therefore without any selfishness, without 


CHAP. XII., 9. 475 


boasting, secondary designs, etc., but in plain sincerity of disposition. 
Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11, 18, and the classical collocations of dzAvi¢ nai 
GAnOic, ard, K. yevvaiog «.r.A. On the subject-matter, comp. Matt. vi. 2 ff. — 
6 xpolorduevoc| the president, he who exercises the yapoua of presiding over 
others as leader, of directing affairs and the like (comp. mpoiorac#a rév mpay- 
peétuv, Herodian, vii. 10. 16), consequently one who through spiritual 
endowment is yyeuovixd¢ nai apyixés (Plato, Prot. p. 852 B). This ydpioua 
mpoorarixév had to be possessed by the presbyter or éricxoroc for behoof of 
his work (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 28) ; but we are not to understand it as apply- 
ing to him exclusively, or to explain it specially of the office of presbyter, 
as Rothe and Philippi again do,’ in spite of the general nature of the con- 
text, while Hofmann likewise thinks that the presbyter is meant, not as 
respects his office, but as respects his activity. What is meant is the category 
of charismatic endowment, under which the work destined for the presby- 
ter falls to be included. — tv orovdg| with zeal ; it is the earnest, strenuous 
attention to the fulfilment of duty, the opposite of gavAdérng. — 6 édedv] he 
who is merciful towards the suffering and unfortunate, to whom it is his 
xdpioua to administer comfort, counsel, help. — év iAapér.] with cheerful, 
JSriendly demeanour, 2 Cor. ix. 7, the opposite of a reluctant and sullen 
carriage.’— Observe, further, that ¢v aAér., év orovdg, and év lMapér. do not 
denote, like the preceding definitions with év, the sphere of service within 
which the activity is to exert itself, but the quality, with which those who 
are gifted are to do their work ; and all these three qualities characterize, 
in like manner, the nature of true cw¢poveiv, ver. 3. 

Vv. 9-21. Erhortations for all without distinction, headed by love / 

Ver. 9. ‘H aydrn avuréxp.| 8c. torw [See Note CXXXII. p. 485.] The sup- 
plying of the imperative (comp. ver. 7), which is rare in the classical 
writers (Bernhardy, p. 831; Kithner, II. 1, p. 87), cannot occasion any 
scruple in this so briefly sketching hortatory address. avvmrdxpire¢ is not 
found in classical Greek, but it occurs in Wisd. v. 19, xviii. 16, 2 Cor. vi. 
6, 1 Tim. i. 5, 2 Tim. i. 5, Jas. iii. 12, 1 Pet. i. 22. Antoninus, viii. 5, has 
the adverb, like Clem. Cor. II. 12. — The absolute # ayéy is always love 
towards others (see esp. 1 Cor. xiii.), of which g:AadeAgia is the special form 
having reference to Christian fellowship, ver. 10. As love must be, so must 
be also faith, its root, 1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. i. 5. — The following participles 
and adjectives may be taken either together as preparing for the evAoyeire roi¢ 
dvix. in ver. 14, and as dependent on this (Lachm. ed. min.) ; or, as corre- 
sponding to the personal subject of 7 aydmy avuméxp. (so Fritzsche), see on 2 
Cor. i. 7 ; or, finally,’ by the supplying of éoré as mere precepts, so that after 
avuréxp. there should be placed a full stop, and another after d:dxovre¢ in ver. 
18. So usually ; also by Lachmann, ed. maj., and Tischendorf. The latter 
view alone, after 7 dydrn avuméxp. has been supplemented by the imperative 
of the substantive verb, is the natural one, and correspondent in its concise 
mode of expression to the whole character stamped on the passage ; the 


1 So also Jul. Miller, Dogmat.Abh. p. 582. 
2 Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 12; iAapai 8¢ avri oxvOptewer. 


476 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


two former modes of connection exhibit a formal interdependence on the 
part of elements that are heterogeneous in substance. — aoorvyowvrec} abhor- 
ring. The strengthening significance of the compound, already noted by 
‘Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, has been ground- 
lessly denied by Fritzsche ; it is quite appropriate in passages like Herod. 
ii. 47, vi. 129; Soph. Oed. C. 186, 691 ; Eur. Jon. 488 ; Parthen. Erot. 8. 
—rd rovypdv and re aya’p are to be taken generally of moral evil and good ; 
abhorrence of the one and adherence to the other form the fundamental 
moral character of unfeigned love. The evil and good which are found is 
the object of love (Hofmann) are included, but not specially meant. Comp. 1 
Cor. xiii. 6. | 

Ver. 10. Ty giAudeAg.] In respect of (in point of) brotherly lore (love 
towards fellow-Christians, 1 Thess. iv. 9 ; Heb. xiii. 1 ;1 Pet. i. 22; 2 Pet.i. 
7). On its relation to aydry, comp. generally Gal. vi. 10. — gcAdoropyor} fond- 
ly affectionate ; an expression purposely chosen, because Christians are brothers 
and sisters, as the word is also in classical Greek the usual one for family a/- 
Section. Comp. also Cicero, ad Att. xv. 17. — rg rv] in the point of moral 
respect and high estimation. — poryotuevo} not : excelling (Chrysostom, Morus, 
KGliner), nor yet: anticipating (Vulgate, Theophylact, Luther, Castalio, 
Wolf, Flatt), but, in correspondence with the signification of the word: 
going before, as guides, namely, with conduct that incites others to follow. 
Without the support of usage Erasmus, Grotius, Heumann, Koppe, and 
Hofmann take zpovyeiofa as equivalent to yyeiofa: ixeptyovrac (Phil. ii. 3), 
se ipso potiores ducere alios, which would be denoted by #yeiofa: xpd tarror 
aaa. (Phil. ii. 8). In Greek it does not elsewhere occur with the aceusatite, 
but only with the dative (Xen. Cyr. ii. 1. 1; Arist. Plut. 1195 ; Polyb. 
xii. 5. 10) or genitive of the person (Xen. Hipp. 4. 5 ; Herodian, vi. 8.6; 
Polyb. xii. 18. 11) ; with the accusative only, as in Xen. Anad, vi. 5, 10, 
pony. Od6v. 

Ver. 11. Ta oxovdy] in respect of zeal, namely, for the interests of the Chris 
tian life in whatever relation. — r@ rv. Céovreg] seething, boiling in spirit, the 
opposite of oxvnpol ri oxovdy ; hence rd rveby. is not to be understood of the 
Holy Spirit (Oecumenius and many others, including Holsten, Weiss), but 
of the Auman spirit. Comp. Acts xvili. 25. That this fervent excitement 
of the activity of thought, feeling, and will for Christian aims is stirred up 
by the Holy Spirit, is obvious of itself, but is not of itself expressed by ré 
mvetuart. Zéw of the mental aestuare is also frequent in the classics.'— ‘9 
xatp@ dova.] consigns—without, in view of the whole laying out of the dis- 
course as dependent on 4 ayérq avuréxp., ver. 9, requiring a connective éé 
(against van Hengel)—the fervour of spirit to the limits of Christian pru- 
dence, which, amidst its most lively activity, yet in conformity with true 
love, accommodates itself to the circumstances of the time,” with moral discretion 


1 Plato, Rep. iv. p. 440C, Phaedr. p. 251 B; model! 1 Cor. ix. 19 ff. ; Phil. tv. 12, 18; 1 
Soph. Ged. C. 485; Eur. Mec. 1055; and Cor. iv. 11 ff., vifl. 18; Acts xx. %& xvi. 
Pflugk in foc. See also Jacobs, ad Anthol. xxi. 28 ff. To the Sovdqvew re caps. in the 
IX. p. 208; Dorville, ad Charit. p. 288. noble sense here meant, belongs also the 

2 How much was Paul himedfinthismat- having as though one had not, etc., in 1 Cor. 
ter, with all his fervour of spirit, ashining vii. 20 ff. 


CHAP. XII., 12-16. 479 






does not aim at placing itself in independence of them or oppose thé taught 
headlong stubbornness, but submits to them with a wise self-denial ( 
xiii. 4-8). Comp. on the dova. rq xaipg (tempori servire, Cicero, ad Div. No, 
17, Tuscul. iii. 27. 66) and synonymous expressions (xaip@ Aarpeberv, Toig Karp.’ 
axoAovdciv), which are used in 3 good or bad sense according to the context, 
Wetstein and Fritzsche in loc.; Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 261. On the 
thing itself, see Cic. ad Div. iv. 6: ‘‘ad novos casus temporum novorum 
consiliorum rationes accommodare.” [See Note CX XXIII. p. 485. ] 

Ver. 12. In virtue of hope (of the future déga, v. 2) joyful. The dative de- 
notes the motive (Kiihner, II. i. p. 380). — rg 6A. trop. | in the presence of tribu- 
lation holding out, remaining constant in it. On the dative, comp. Kihner, 
l.c. p. 885. Paul might have written ryv OAipw trou. (1 Cor. xiii. 7 ; 2 Tim. 
ii. 19; Heb. x. 32, ef al., and according to the classical use); he writes, 
however, in the line of formal symmetry with the other expressions, the 
dative and then the absolute irouév. (Matt. x. 22 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12 ; Jas. v.11 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 20). — 1. rpocevyi) mpoox.] perseveringly applying to prayer, Col. iv. 
2; Acts i. 14. 

Ver. 13. Having fellowship in the necessities’ of the saints (comp. xv. 27), 
i.¢. 80 conducting yourselves that the necessities of your fellow- Christians may be 
also your own, seeking therefore just so to satisfy them. Comp. on Phil. iv. 
14. The transitive sense: communicating (still held by Riickert and Fritzsche, 
following many of the older interpreters), finds nowhere, at least in the 
N. T., any confirmation (not even in Gal. vi. 6). The ayo: are the Christians 
in general, not specially those of Jerusalem (Hofmann), who are indicated in 
xv. 25, but not here, by the contect. — ry gidrof.] studying hospitality. 
Comp. Heb. xiii. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 9. A virtue highly important at that time, 
especially in the case of travelling, perhaps banished and persecuted, Chris- 
tian brethren. Comp. also 1 Tim. v. 10; Tit. i. 8. That those in need of 
shelter should not merely be received, but also sought out, belongs, under 
certain circumstances, to the fulfilment of this duty, but is not expressed by 
duxovrec (a3 Origen and Bengel hold),? 

Ver. 14. Tote didn. iu.) who persecute you (in any respect whatever). The 
saying of Christ, Matt. v. 44, was perhaps known to the apostle and here 
came to his recollection, without his having read however, as Reiche here 
again assumes (comp. on li. 19), the Gospels. 

Ver. 15. Xaipecv] t.€6. yaiperv tude dei, infinitive, as a briefly interjected ex- 
pression of the necessary behaviour desired. See on Phil. iii. 16. On the 
subject-matter, comp. Ecclus. vil. 34. Rightly Chrysostom brings into 
prominence the fact that «Aaiew «.7.4., yevvaiac ogédpa deirar woxye, GoTe TH 
evdoxinovvre 7 pdvov un POoveiv, GAAd nai ovvAdecbat. 

Ver. 16. These participles are also to be understood imperatively by sup- 


1The reading pveias yields no sense, 
although Hofmann commends it and seeks 
to acquire for it, by a comparison of Gal. fi. 
10and Phil. 1.4, the sense of renderings of 
assistance, which isa linguistic impossibility. 
Yet even Theodore of Mopsuestia wished to 
assign to this reading, which is found in 


some copies, the senso: ori dicacoy vuas 
MYNHOVEVELY WAVTOTE TOY AYiwe. 

2Comp. ix. 80; aperhy duce, Plato, 
Theaet. p. 176 B; 1d ayaboy &wxeev and the 
like, Ecclus. xxvii. 8, ef al. adixiay Ssanecy, 
Plat. Rep. p. 545 B. 


ee 


478 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


plying éceo6e (comp. on ver. 9), and not to be joined to ver. 15, nor yet to 
Ly yiveoOe gpdv. rap’ éavr, — Td avtd cig GAA. gpovoivrec}] characterizes the loving 
karmony, when each, in respect to his neighbour (ei¢, not év as in xv. 5), has 
one and the same thought and endeavour. Comp. generally xv. 5 ; Phil. ii. 
2, iv. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 11. According to Fritzsche, rd airé refers to what 
follows, so that modesty is meant as that towards which their mind should be 
mutually directed. But thus this clause of the discourse would not be inde 
pendent, which is contrary to the analogy of the rest. — 9 ra ivqia dpovie 
tec] not aiming at high things,—a warning against ambitious self-seeking. 
Comp. xi. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 7. — roi¢ rarecvoic] is neuter (Fritzsche, Reiche, 
Kéllner, Gléckler, de Wette, Baumgarten Crusius, Borger, Reithmayr, 
Philippi, Maier, Bisping, following Beza and Calvin): being drawn onward 
by the lowly ; i.e. instead of following the impulse to high things, rather 
yielding to that which is humble, to the claims and tasks which are pre- 
sented to you by the humbler relations of life, entering into this impulse 
towards the lower strata and spheres of life, which lays claim to you, and 
following it. The razed ought to have for the Christian a force of attrac- 
tion, in virtue of which he yields himself to fellowship with them (ow), and 
allows himself to be guided by them in the determination of his conduct. 
Thus the Christian holds intercourse, sympathetically and effectively, in the 
lower circles, with the poor, sick, persecuted, etc.; thus Paul felt himself 
compelled to enter into humble situations, to work as a handicraftsman, to 
suffer need and nakedness, to be weak with the weak, etc. With les 
probability, on account of the contrast of ra@ iy7Ad, others have taken toic 
rareiv. a8 masculine,—some of them understanding razeivdc of inferior rank, 
some of humble disposition, some blending both meanings—with very dif- 
ferent definitions of the sense of the whole, ¢.g. Chrys. : ei¢ rv éxeiver evrédeay 
xatdBnth, cvupmepipépov, uy arAde TH dpovfpate ovvrametvod, GAA Kai BotPet Kas 
zeipa opéyov x.t.4.; similarly Erasmus, Luther, Estius, and others ; Grotius 
(comp. Ewald): ‘‘modestissimorum exempla sectantes;” Riickert (comp. 
van Hengel) : ‘‘let it please you to remain in fellowship with the lowly;” 
Olshausen : Christianity enjoins intercourse with publicans and sinners in 
order to gain them for the kingdom of Christ ;' Hofmann: ‘to be drawn 
into the host of those who occupy an inferior station and desire nothing 
else, and, as their equals, disappearing amongst them, to move with them 
along the way in which they go.” —ovvaray.] has not in itself, nor has it 
here, the bad sense: to be led astray along with, which it acquires in Gal. 
ii, 18, 2 Pet. iii. 17, through the context. —¢dpévinor map’ éavr.} wise accord- 
ing to your own judgment Comp. Prov. iii. 7; Bernhardy, p. 256 f. One 
must not fall into that conceited self-sufficiency of moral perception, whereby 
brotherly respect for the perception of others would be excluded. Simi 
lar, but not equivalent, is év éavr., x1. 25. 

Vv. 17-19. The participles—to be supplemented here as in ver. 16—ar 
not to be connected with yu? yiveobe gpév. zap’ éavt. — pndevi] be he Christian 


1 Certainly not here, for the discourse concerns the relations of Christians éo one another 
(not to those who are without). 


CHAP. XII., 17-19. 479 


or non-Christian. Opposite : rdvrev avipdzuv. The maxim itself taught 
also by Greek sages, how opposed it was to the adcxeiv rp adcxovvre Of common 
Hellenism (Hermann, ad Soph. Philoct. 679 ; Jacobs, ad Delect. Epigr. p. 
144 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 49 B, ad Phileb. p. 49 D) and to Phari- 
saism (see on Matt. v. 48) !— rpovootpevoc] reminiscence from the LXX., 
Prov. iii. 4. For this very reason, but especially because otherwise an entircly 
unsuitable limitation of the absolute moral notion of xaaé would result, 
évériov x.t.4. is not to be joined to xaaé (Ewald, Hofmann) ; it belongs to 
xpovootu. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 21 ; Polycarp, ad Phil. 6. Before the eyes of all 
men—so that it lies before the judgment of all—taking care for what is good 
(morality and decency in behaviour). Verbs of caring are used both with 
the genitive (1 Tim. v. 8) and with the accusative (Bernhardy, p. 176), which 
in the classics also is very frequently found with xpovociofa. Rightly 
Theophylact remarks on évdr. mavtwv avfp. that Paul does not thereby ex- 
hort us to live rpd¢ xevodogiav, but iva pu? rapéxuuev nal’ udu agopyac toig Bov- 
Aouévorc, he recommends that which is doxavddAcotov x. arpdoxorov. — ci duvarov, 
To é& iuev pera x.7.A.] to be so punctuated. For if the two were to be joined 
together (‘‘as much as it is possible for you,” Gléckler), the injunction 
would lose all moral character. Still less are we to suppose that ci duvaréy 
belongs to the preceding (Erasmus, Cajetanus, Bengel), which indeed ad- 
mits of no condition. Grotius’ view is the correct one : ‘‘omnium amici 
este si ficri potest ; si non potest utrimque, certe ex vestra parte amici este,” 
so that ei duvardy allows the case of objective impossibility to arail (how often 
had Paul himself experienced this !) ; 7d é iver (adverbially: as to what 
concerns your part, that which proceeds from you ; see generally on i, 15, 
and Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 225) annuls any limitation in a subjective 
respect, and docs not contain a subjective limitation (Reiche), since we for 
our part are supposed to be always and in any case peaceably disposed, so 
that only the opposite disposition and mode of behaviour of the enemy can 
frustrate our subjective peaceableness. — ayaryroi] urgent and persuasive. 
Comp. 1 Cor. x. 14, xv. 58; Phil. ii. 1, iv. 1. —aAAa dére «.7.2.] The con- 
struction changes, giving place to a stronger (independent) designation of 
duty. See Winer, p. 535 [E. T. 575].! Give place to wrath (xar éfoyiv, that 
of God), i.e. forestall it not by personal revenge, but let it have its course and 
tts sway.” The morality of this precept is pased on the holiness of God ; 
hence, so far as wrath and love are the two poles of holiness, it does not 
exclude the blessing of our adversaries (ver. 14) and intercession for them. 
The view, according to which ri épy@ is referred to the divine wrath (comp. 
v. 9; 1 Thess, ii. 16)—as the absolute 4 xépcc is the divine favour and grace 
(comp. v. 9; 1 Thess. i. 10, ii. 16)—is rightly preferred by most interpreters 
from the time of Chrysostom down to van Hengel, Hofmann, Delitzsch ; 
for, on the one hand, it corresponds entirely to the profane (Gataker, ad 
Anton. p. 104 ; Wetstein in loc.) and Pauline (Eph. iv. 27) use of rérov (or 


1 Comp. here especially Viger. ed. Herm. Sohar, p. 95: ‘‘ Homo non debet properare, ut 
Pp. 469. vindiclam sumat (comp. un eavrovs exdicovy- 

* Quite analogous to the sense and se- res); meliuve est, si vindiclam commitlit alli” 
quence of thought of our verse is Synops. (Deo), comp. adAdd Sére réx. TH dpy7. 


480 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

xpav) didéva:—which primarily denotes to make place for any one (Luke xiv, 
9), then to give any one full play, time and opportunity for activity (Eph. lc, 
comp. Eccles, xiii. 21, xix. 17, xxxvili. 12, xvi. 14; Philo in Loesner, p. 
263) ; and on the other hand it is most appropriate to the following Script- 
ural proof.’ Non-compliance with the precept occasions the opyiteota sci 
duapraverv, Eph. iv. 26. Comp. on the thought 1 Pet. ii. 23 ; 1 Sam. rxiv. 
13, 16. Others interpret it of one’s own wrath,? which is not to be allowed to 
break forth. So de Dieu, Bos, Semler, Cramer, and Reiche : ‘ Wrath pr- 
duces terrible effects in the moment of its ebullition ; give it time, and it 
passes away.” The Latin use® of irae spatium dare agrees indeed with 
this interpretation, but not the Greek use of rézov didévac — not even in the 
well-known expression in Plutarch (de ira cohib. p. 462) that we should not 
even in sport didévae rérov to anger, i.e. give it full play, allow it free course. 
Since this ‘‘ giving way to wrath” (justly repudiated by Plutarch as highly 
dangerous) cannot be enjoined by Paul, he must have meant by r. op) the 
divine wrath. For the interpretation given by others of the wrath of a 
enemy, which one is to give place to, to go out of the way of (Schoettgen, 
Morus, Ammon), must be rejected, since this, although it may be linguis- 
tically justified (Luke xiv. 9; Judg. xx. 86), and may be compared with 
Soph. Ant. 718 (see Schneidewin in loc.) and with tne Homeric cise bug, 
yet would yield a precept, which would be only a rule of prudence and not 
a command of Christian morals. This applies also in opposition to Ewald: 
to allow the wrath of the other to expend itself, which, as opposed to personal 
revenge, has no positive moral character (it is otherwise with Matt. v. 39) ; 
not to mention that the injury, the personal avenging of which is forbidden, 
by no means necessarily supposes a wrathfsul offender. — yéyp. yap] Deut. 
xxxii. 35, freely as regards the sense, from the Hebrew (to me belongs revenge 
and requital), but with use of the words of the LXX., which depart from 
the original (é» juépg éxdixfoews vraroddcu), and with the addition of “# 
xtpioc. The form of this citation, quite similar to that here used, which 
is found in Heb. x. 80, cannot be accidental, especially as the characteristic 
éy avraxod. recurs also in the paraphrase of Onkelos CODw NM!), But 
there are no traces elsewhere to make us assume that Paul made use of - 
kelos ; and just as little has the view any support elsewhere, that the writer of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews followed the citation of Paul (Bleek, Delitzsch). 
Hence the only hypothesis which we can form without arbitrariness 
is, that the form of the saying as it is found in Paul and in Heb. x. 30 had 


1 Yet it must be admitted, that either of 
the two other explanations (see below) 
would not be opposed to the sense of the 
following passage of Scripture, if only one 
of them were otherwise decidedly correct. 

2So Zyro in a peculiar manner in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 891f.: ‘* Give place to 
wrath, when it comes and seeks to get pos- 
session of your mind, and go from it (turn 
your back upon it). This would be psycho- 
logically inappropriate (for wrath is in man, 


an emotion which indeed is stirred ap from 
without, but does not come thence, MP. 
Eph. iv. 31; Col. iif. 8; John xi. 38, 8804 
at the same time how strange in polat of 
expression! 

2 Livy if. 56, vill. 32; Seneca, de ira, ti ®. 
Comp. especially Lactantius, de 7% 18: 
“ Ego vero laudarem, si, cum fuisset iran 
dedisset trae suae spatium, ut, residenle PT 
intervallum temporia animi tumor, 
modum casligatio.”’ 


CHAP. XII., 20-21. 481 
at that time acquired currency in the manner of a formula of warning which 
had become proverbial, and had influenced the rendering in the paraphrase 
of Onkelos. The Aéyec xfpro¢ Paul has simply added, as was frequently done 
(comp. xiv. 11) with divine utterances ; in Heb. x. 30 these words are not 
genuine. 

Ver. 20. Without ot» (see the critical notes), but thus the more in conform- 
ity with the mode of expression throughout the whole chapter, which pro- 
ceeds for the most part without connectives, there now follows what the 
Christian—seeing that he is not to avenge himself, but to let God’s wrath 
have its way—has rather to do in respect of his enemy.—The whole verse is 
borrowed from Prov. xxv. 21, 22, which words Paul adopts as his own, 
closely from the LXX. — péuve] feed him, give him to eat. See on 1 Cor. 
xiii. 1; Grimm on Wisd. xvi. 20. The expression is affectionate. Comp. 
2 Sam. xiii. 5; Bengel: ‘‘manu tua.” Eccles. vii. 32. — dvOpaxac zvpd¢ 
oupeto. éxt tiv xed. avtov] figurative expression of the thought : painful shame 
and remorse wilt thou prepare for him. §8o, insubstance, Origen, Augustine, 
Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Wolf, Bengel, and others, 
including Tholuck, Baumgarten-Crusius, Riickert, Reiche, Kéllner,de Wette, 
Olshausen, Fritzsche, Philippi, Reithmayr, Bisping, Borger, van Hengel, 
Hofmann ; comp. Linder in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 568 f. Glowing 
coals are to the Oriental a figure for pain that penetrates and cleaves to one,' 
and in particular, according to the context, for the pain of remorse, as here, 
where magnanimous beneficence heaps up the coals of fire. Comp. on the 
subject-matter, 1 Sam. xxiv. 17 ff. See the Arabic parallels in Gesenius in 
Rosenmiiller’s Repert. I. p. 140, and generally Tholuck in loc. ; Gesenius, ° 
Thesaur. I. p. 280. Another view was already prevalent in the time of 
Jerome,’? and is adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact, Photius, Beza, Camerarius, Estius, Grotius, Wetstein, and others, 
including Koppe, Béhme, Hengstenberg (Authent. d. Pentat. II. p. 406 
f.),—namely, that the sense is : Thou wilt bring upon him severe divine pun- 
tshment. Certainly at 4 Esr. xvi. 54 the burning of fiery coals on the head 
is an image of painful divine punishment ; but there this view is just as cer- 
tainly suggested by the context, as here (see esp. ver. 21) and in Prov. l.c., the 
context is opposed to it. For the condition nisi resipiseat would have, in the 
first place, to be quite arbitrarily supplied ; and how could Paul have con- 
ceived and expressed so unchristian a motive for beneficence towards 
enemies |* The saving clauses of expositors regarding this point are fanci- 
ful and quite unsatisfactory. 

Ver. 21. Comprehensive summary of vv. 19, 20.—‘' Be not overcome (carried 


2 Not for softening (from the custom of 
softening hard meats by laying coals upon 
the vessel), as Gléckler, following Vorstius 
and others, thinks, nor for inflaming to love 
(Calovius and others). The Jesuit Sanctius 
(see Cornelius A Lapide in loc.) even found 
in the figure an indication of the Wush of 
shame. 8So again Umbrelt, p. 858; comp. 
also van Hengel. 


*“*Carbones igitur congregabis super 
caput ejus, non in maledictum et condem- 
nationem, ul plerigue existimant, sed in cor- 
rectionem et poenitudinem,”’ Jerome. 

® Augustine, Propose. 71: ‘“‘Quomodo quis- 
quam diligit eum, cul propterea cibum 
et potum dat, ut carbones ignis congerat 
super caput ejus, si carbones ignis hoe 
loco aliquem gravem poenam significant?” 


482 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


away to revenge and retaliation) by evil (which is committed against thee), 
but overcome by the good (which thou showest to thine enemy) the evil,” bring- 
ing about the result that the enemy, put to shame by thy noble spirit, ceases 
to act malignantly against thee and becomes thy friend. ‘‘ Vincit malos per- 
tinax bonitas,”’ Seneca, de benef. vii. 81. Comp. de ira, ii. 32 ; Valer. Max 
iv. 2,4. On the other hand, Soph. Zl. 808 f. : év roi¢ xaxoig | MoA24 ‘or 
Gvdyxy xamirndebery xaxd. We may add the appropriate remark of Erasmus 
on the style of expression throughout the chapter : ‘‘ Comparibus membris 4 
tncisis, similiter cadentibus ac desinentibus gic totus sermo modulatus et, 
nulla cantio possit esse jucundtor,” 


Nores spy American Eprror. 


CXXVII. Ver. 1. mapaxadre ody bude. 


Whether we hold with Meyer or not, that the immediate connection of this 
verse through the particle ov» is with xi. 35, 36, there can be little doubt that 
the Apostle intends to place the practical section of the Epistle over against the 
doctrinal section, and to found upon the latter the first and comprehensive ¢- 
hortation of the opening verses of this 12th chapter. The exhortation is 
pressed upon the readers by the mercies of God, which are set forth in ch. 1, 
but which are also manifested in the progress and development of that plan 
of salvation whose central doctrine is justification by faith. 

The explanation which Meyer gives of the contents of the exhortation is to 
be accepted, because it meets satisfactorily the demands of the case, snd be- 
cause the appeal to the readers thus to consecrate themselves to God, both in 
the outer and inner man, is the most natural outgrowth of the preceding 
chapters. In those chapters the doctrine had'been exhibited in its universality 
of blessing for all men, and in its universality of influence throughout the 
life of each man—tending to make every one who should receive it into his 
heart die to sin and live to holiness, and promising to every one at the end 
not only life for the spirit, but complete redemption for the body also. The 
objection urged against this view, which Meyer notices in his foot-note, is 
answered fully by him, and it is unnecessary to modify what he says, eveD 9% 
far as Weiss ed. Mey. does, so that ver. 2 is regarded as making the renewal of 
the voic the means of the apacr#ca: ta oduata. As Meyer expresses it, Paal 
formally separates the two. The objection, that r)v Aoytxdv Aarpeiay is opposed 
to such a separation, is not well founded, for this phrase is used with especial ref- 
erence to the external and ceremonial offerings of the Jewish system, and hence 
is especially suited to this part of the exhortation. Philippi objects that the 
different tenses (aorist and present) are inconsistent with the parallelizing of the 
two verses, but the aorist in ver. 1 is easily accounted for as connected with 
the figure of offering a sacrifice—a single and definite act. In fact, the de 
mand of the Christian teaching is as truly to renew the mind at once and by§ 
single act, as it is to devote the body, or, as Philippi would say, the entire ff 
thus immediately toGod. Theaccount given above of the use of the acrist, 
therefore, is probably the true one, 





NOTES, 483 


CXXVIIL Ver. 2. cvoynparilecPe—perapogpoiobe, 


That Greek authors never used the words oyjua and pop¢7, or their com. 
pounds, in the same sense, it may be difficult to affirm. The tendency of 
language is to some degree of freedom in such cases. It seems evident, how- 
ever, that they have different meanings at the foundation, and in their ordi- 
nary use ; and there is, apparently, no reason for denying that the Apostle inten- 
tionally employs the two words, in this place, because he desires to express 
two different shades of thought. Indeed, the fact that we find the two verbs, 
instead of one, and that their peculiarities of signification, as distinguished 
from each other, give additional force and emphasis to the entire sentence, ren- 
ders it probable that such was his intention, 


CXXTX. Vv. 3-8, 


These verses are subordinated to vv. 1, 2. Some writers regard ydp ag 
explicative (e.g. Ruckert, de Wette, Philippi, Shedd) ; others as causal (e.g. 
Meyer, Godet, Gifford, Beet). Probably the latter view is correct, and the pre- 
cise relation of thuught expressed by the ydp is this :—I give the exhortation 
to complete consecration of the whole man to God, because it involves in it- 
self, and leads to the fulfilment of, all the particular duties of the Christian 
life which I have to urge upon you as members of the Christian church in 
Rome. The particle is grammatically, indeed, confined in its force to the 
single verse in which it stands, but in the writer’s mind it extended, no doubt, 
over all that follows. 

The first of the specific exhortations is contained in these six verses. That 
it relates to modesty and humility, as Meyer says, is evident. There is, how- 
ever, such a prominence given to the matter of gifts and offices of the spiritual 
life, that we must regard the Apostle as having a special reference, in what he 
says, to humility with respect to these. Totheend of securing that proper 
and modest estimation of oneself which is a part of true Christian living, the 
limitation of oneself, in a Christian wuy, within the sphere of the divinely- 
assigned gifta, is essential, The ‘‘regulative standard’’ for this due estimate 
is mentioned in the words cc 6 Oede éuépicev pétpov ricrewc, to which cara ri 
évadvyiav ric wiorews (ver. 6) corresponds, as is made evident by the connection 
in thought of the verses throughout the paragraph. The explanation of the 
meaning of uétpov ricrews is rightly given in Meyer's note. Paul seems evi- 
dently in many places to look upon faith as developing its vital force in differ. 
ent lines—as, for example, here, in the qualification for special works and the 
exercise of special gifts, and, in ch. xiv., in the matter of Christian knowledge 
(comp. 1 Cor. viii. 1 ff.) as related to conscientious scruples. One man, thus, has 
** faith” to be a prophet, another has ‘faith’’ to ‘eat all things,’’ and ‘‘ what- 
soever is not of ‘faith’ is sin.” Paul himself had ‘‘faith” to be an Apostle to 
the Gentiles in the regions where others had not preached, just as he had 
“ grace given to him’’ for this end. This was his ydp:oua ; that is, it was that 
for which the particular development of the life-principle of Christianity with- 
in his mind and soul fitted him. It was his duty to have a sober-minded judg- 
ment of himself in accordance with this fact (cwépoveiv), and not to go beyond 
this (brepgpoveiv rap’ 3 dei gpoveitv). And so with other men. Oompare what 
Paul says of himeelf, 2 Cor. x. 13 ff. 

The fourth and fifth verses give a ground for the bidding of ver. 3, and, at 


484 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, | 


the same time, carry on the thought, by way of transition, to vv. 6-8. The 
reason for the sober-minded estimate of oneself, as here stated, is that the 
church is an organism, like the human body, wherein it is for the good, and 
even the life, of the whole that the several members should have different 

. functions. But, inasmuch as this is so, those who have particular gifts (ver. 
6 ff.) should devote themselves to the exercise of those gifts. 


CXXX. Ver. 6. xara riv avadoylay rij¢ rlorews. 


The argument presented by Meyer with regard to the construction of these 
words seems decisive. They are to be connected with mpognrevuper, which is 
supplied in thought. Weiss. ed. Mey., who, asalso Tisch. 8, favors the uniting 
of the entire clause with écyuev of ver. 5, urges against this view, that the pro- 
phetic gift was conditioned upon a divine inspiration and impulse, not upon 
faith, and that faith, though a necessary antecedent to the reception of the gift, 
is not the energizing force in it. These two things are true, no doubt, but this 
fact is not inconsistent with an exhortation to the prophet, such as is here given. 
All the gifts are bestowments of the grace of God—the prophetic gift more 
exclusively so, perhaps, than any other, in so far as it involves an immediate 
and momentary inspiration ;—but they are all alike (this one, as well as the 
others) bestowed according to what the Apostle here means by the perpov zic- 
rewc, and they are to be used as they are bestowed. The mpogirns, like the 
diddoxadoc, or the didxovoc, should move within the sphere of that which the 
xépic and the wiori¢ had qualified him for, and should not, by reason of a 
trepdpovetv, reach out beyond it. The unity of the entire paragraph indicates 
this to be the thought of the writer, and, as it does this, it determines both the 
construction and the meaning of these particular words (xara x.r.A.). 

The view of this phrase which makes it mean according to the proportion, 
analogy, rule of faith (faith being taken in the sense of truths to be believed or 
.a system of doctrine), is neither required by the word avadoyiav, nor consistent 
‘with Paul’s use of ziorcc, nor harmonious with any of the parallel phrases (év 
Tg dcaxovig, év TG diWaoxadiqg, «.t.A.), nor suggested by anything in the contert, 
nor within the line of the thought of ver. 3, to which vv. 6-8 are subordinate 
-a8 giving special applications of what it suggests. 

That avadoyia unswers in idea to uérpov is satisfactorily shown by Meyer, and 
hence the fact of the selection of a new word in this verse, which has been 
‘urged by some writers, cannot be considered an objection of any weight against 
tthat interpretation which makes the words equivalent to each other. 


CXXXL. Vv. 7, 8. eire 6 diddoxwy x.7.A, 


There can be no doubt, it would seem, that the one who teaches and the one 
~who exhorts belong in that ‘‘ teaching’ class of which the prophet is a member, 
‘and, by reason of his special inspiration, an exalted member. On the other 
hand, it may be regarded as probable that the ‘‘ giver’ and the one who “ shows 
mercy” are in a kindred sphere with the dé:dxovoc, as distinguished from the 
sphere of the diddoxadoc. That the latter, however, are officials in the church 
‘is not to be inferred from any such general relationship of work. (1) There is 
no evidence that there was such a multiplication of offices in the small and 
scattered Christian bodies at this early period. (2) The probabilities in the 


NOTES. 485 


case are altogether against any such condition of things. No such offices are 
alluded to even in the latest of the Pauline Epistles—no offices, indeed, except 
that of éwicxorog or mpeovirepoc and that of didxovoc, unless possibly shat of 
widows. The context has no suggestion of offices in the technival sefise, but 
only in the sense in which gifts involve offices. (3) The exhortation on which 
the paragraph depends is addressed to all the members of the church, and has: 
reference, accordingly, to gifts which any one among them might have. (4) 
The two words kindred with didxovog are separated by a word of a different 
sort (rpotorduevoc), and one which has a closer relation with diddoxadoc. (5) 
These two words are, in themselves, not adapted to the description of church 
officials :—yeradidobs meaning giving or imparting, as of what belongs to the 
giver, rather than distributing. as of what belongs to the Christian company, 
and éAeay being, in its natural and ordinary use, characteristio of. individuals. 
The fact that the participle zporcrayévouc is employed, in 1 Thess, v.12, as de- 
scriptive of persons who, also, ‘‘ labor among you and admonish you,” and mpoec- 
rorec, in 1 Tim. v. 17, in speaking of certain elders, cannot be regurded as evi- 
dence that here, where the word is used independently, it designates elders ; 
—especially considering the position which it has between two other words, 
whose relation (if, indeed, there is any such relation at all) is with an entirely 
different office. It may be held, rather, that the use of the participle in 1 Tim. 
iii. 4, where it is applied to the ériaxoros, i.e. the zpecGurepoc, with reference to 
his presiding over his own family, is a proof that, in itself, it has no such 
technical signification. 


CXXXII. Ver. 9. # dydirn avurd«pitoc. 


The transition here is not from offices and official duties to the duties of all 
members of the Church, but from that due estimate of oneself, which leads 
the Christian to move in the line of his own gifts and qualifications as one of 
a body (for the common benefit of which all are to work), to the suggestion 
of varied lines of action to which love, as the uniting principle of the common 
life of the body, would naturally lead. Hence we find the exhortation, let love 
(i.e. love to one another, not here meaning love to God) be without hypocrisy, 
placed at the beginning. This is followed by the words abhorring, eto, If 
there be a guileless love which joins itself to an abhorrence of whatever is evil 
and an ardent attachment to whatever is good, there is preparation in the man 
for each and every one of the works of the Christian life which are mentioned 
in the following verses, 


CXXXITI. Ver. 11. 16 xupig dovAevorrec, 


Meyer (see his critical notes at the beginning of the chapter) adopts the 
reading «aco» on internal gruunds. The external evidence, however, is very 
strong for xvpfy, and this reading is now generally adopted. (So also Weiss 
ed. Mey., and Westcott and Hort). The insertion of so general and compre- 
hensive a duty as ‘‘serving the Lord’’ in the midst of a series of such special 
and individual matters is an argument against xvpiy not lightly to be set aside. 
Such an insertion seems more improbable in a case like this, than the somewhat 
similar insertions of general words in i. 29-32 and elsewhere. Serving the op- 
portunity, the occasion or critical season, on the other hand, is a suggestion most 
appropriate as following and modifying the other two exhortations of the verse. 


486 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


It has been objected to by de Wette and others, on the ground that it savors of 
worldly policy, rather than Christian morality, but when we observe what the 
Apostle has in mind, we find no foundation for this statement. It belongs 
both to Christian duty and to the highest Christian wisdom for the man who 
is not sluggish in respect to zeal, but fervent in spirit, to serve the occasion so 
far asto temper and direct his zeal by what it demands. The remark of de 
Wette, that the Christian may and should make use of time and opportunity, 
but should not serve it, is true, if serve be understood in a particular sense, but 
not so if it be taken in another sense. That other sense, given by Meyer in 
his note, is undoubtedly the one which Paul had in mind if he wrote xazp¢, 
The textual question, therefore, lies between the external and the internal evi- 
dence, which are here opposed to each other. Generally, no doubt, the exter. 
nal authorities must decide in such casea. 


CHAP. XIII., 1-7. 487 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Ver. 1. a6} Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : 46, which Griesb. also approved, accord- 
ing to preponderant evidence. But d7é also retains considerable attestation 
(D* E* F G, min., Or. Theodoret, Dam.), and may easily have been displaced 
by a bvé written on the margin from the following. After otca: Elz. has égovcia:, 
which, according to a preponderance of evidence, has been justly omitted 
since Griesb. as a supplement; and ov also before the following Geo is too 
feebly attested. — Ver. 3. ry ayabm Epyw, GAAG Tw xaxq] commended by Griesb., 
adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Fritzsche, according to AB D* FG P 8, 6. 67%, 
several vss., and Fathers. But Elz., Matth., Scholz have rav aya6év ipywr, Gada 
rév xaxav, A presumed emendation in case and number. — Ver. 5. avdyxn bro- 
ragoeobar] D E F G, Goth. It. Guelph. Ir. have merely trordocecbe. Com- 
mended by Griesb. A marginal gloss, as the reading avdyxn (or avdyxy) vrordo- 
ceode (Lect. 7, 8, Aug., Beda, Vulg. : necessitate subditi estole ; so Luther) plainly 
shows. — Ver. 7. odv] is wanting in A B D* &*, 67#*, Copt. Sahid. Vulg. ms. 
Tol. Damasc. Cypr. Aug. Ruf. Cassiod. Omitted by Lachm., Tisch., Fritzsche. 
Rightly ; for there was no ground for its omission, whereas by its insertion the 
logical connection was established. — Ver. 9. After xAépe:c Elz. has ov pevdouap- 
rupyjoec, against decisive evidence. Inserted with a view to completeness, — éy 
Tt] bracketed by Lachm., is wanting in B F G, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. 
But its striking appearance of superfluousness might so readily prompt its 
omission, that this evidence is too weak. — Ver. 11. The order fén hud is deci- 
sively supported. So rightly Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Yet the latter has instead 
of fudc: tuds, according to ABC P &*, min. Clem., which, however, appeared 
more suitable to eidérec and more worthy of the apostle. — Ver. 12. xai ivdve.] 
Lachm. and Tisch. : évdvo. dé, which also Greisb. approved, according to impor- 
tant witnesses ; but it would be very readily suggested by the preceding adver- 
sative connection. 


Vv. 1-7.! The proud love of freedom of the Jews (see on John viii. 83 ; 
Matt. xxii. 17), and their tumultuary spirit thereby excited, which was 
peculiarly ardent from the time of Judas Gaulonites (see Acts v. 37 ; Josec- 
phus, Ant. xviii. 1. 1) and had shortly before broken out in Rome itself 
(Suetonius, Claud. 25 ; Dio Cassius, lx. 6 ; see Introd. § 2, and on Acts 
Xviii. 2), redoubled for the Christians—among whom, indeed, even the Gen- 
tile-Christians might easily enough be led astray by the Messianic ideas 
(theocracy, kingdom of Christ, freedom and xAnpovoyia of believers, etc.) 
into perverted thoughts of freedom and desires for emancipation (comp. 1 
Cor. vi. 1 ff.)--the necessity of civil obedience, seeing that they, as confess- 
ing the Messiah (Acts xvii. 6, 7), and regarded by the Gentiles as a Jewish 


1 For good practical observations on this passage, see Harless, Staat u. Kirche, 1870. 


488 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


sect, were much exposed to the suspicion of revolutionary enterprise. The 
danger thus lay, not indeed exclusively (Mangold, Beyschlag), but primari- 
ly and mostly, on the side of the Jewish-Christians, not on that of the Gen- 
tile-Christians, as Th. Schott, in the interest of the view that Paul desired 
to prepare the Roman church to be the base of operations of his western 
mission to the Gentiles, unhistorically assumes. And was not Rome, the 
very seat of the government of the world, just the place above ail others 
where that danger was greatest, and where nevertheless the whole Christian 
body, of the Jewish as well as of the Gentile section, had to distinguish it- 
self by exemplary civil order? Hence we have here the—in the Pauline 
epistles unique—delailed and emphatic inculcation of obedience towards the maq- 
astracy, introduced without link of connection with what precedes, as a new 
subject." Baur, I. p. 384 f., thinks that Paul is here combating Ebionttic 
dualism, which regarded the secular magistrate as of non-divine, derilish 
origin. As if Paul could not, without any such antithesis, have held it to 
be necessary to inculcate upon the Romans the divine right of the state- 
authority !| Moreover, he would certainly not merely have kept his eye upon 
that dualism in regard to its practical manifestations (Baur’s subterfuge), 
but would have combated it in principle, and thereby have grasped it at the 
root.—The partial resemblance, moreover, which exists between vv. 1-4 
and 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14 is not sufficient to enable us to assume that Peter made 
use of our passage, or that Paul made use of Peter’s epistle ; a view, which 
has been lately maintained especially by Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 416 ff., 
and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, 4; see, on the other hand, Huther on 1 Pet. 
Introd. § 2. Paul doubtless frequently preached a similar doctrine orally 
respecting duty towards the heathen magistracy. And the power of his 
preaching was sufficiently influential in moulding the earliest ecclesiastical 
language, to lead even a Peter, especially on so peculiar a subject, involun- 
tarily to echo the words of Paul which had vibrated through the whole 
church. Compare the creative influence of Luther upon the language of 


the church. 


Ver. 1. Idoa yvyz4] In the sense of every man, but (comp. on ii. 9) of man 
conceived in reference to his soul-nature, in virtue of which he consciously 
feels pleasure and displeasure (rejoices, is troubled, etc.), and cherishes 
corresponding impulses. There lies a certain pathos in the significant : 
every soul, which at once brings into prominence the universality of the duty. 
Comp. Acts ii. 48, iii. 28 ; Rev. xvi. 8. [See Note CKXXIV. p. 500.] — éfav- 
olaic Umepex.| magistrates high in stqnding (without the article). dtmepex. (sce 


2 It is vain to seek for connections, when 
Paul himself indicates none. Thus, ¢.g., we 
are not to say that the mention of private 
injuries leads him to speak of behaviour 
towards the heathen magistracy (Tholuck 
and older expositors). He does not in fact 
represent the latter as hostile. Arbitrarily al- 
so Th. Schott (comp. Borger) thinks that the 
discourse passes from subordination under 
God, to whom belongs vengeance, to sub- 


ordination under the executors of the divine 
éxdianors. As though Paul in xil 19 could 
have thought of such an éxdicyois! Just as 
arbitrary, without any hint tn the text, is 
the view of Hofmann: Paul makes the tran- 
sition from the sovial life of men In general 
to their conduct in political organization, 
which also belongs to the good, wherewith one 
is to overcome the evil, 


CHAP. XIII., 2. . 489 
Wisd. vi. 5 ; 1 Pet. ii. 18 ; 1 Tim. ii. 2 ; 2 Macc. iii. 11) is added, in order 
to set forth the trordoc. —irép and iné being correlative—as corresponding 
to the standpoint of the magistracy itself (comp. the German : hohe Obrig- 
keiten) ; the motive of obedience follows.— There is no magistracy apart 
rom God expresses in general the proceeding of all magistracy whatever from 
God, and then this relation is still more precisely defined, in respect of those 
magistracies which exist in concreto as a divine institution, by id Geov rerayp. 
eiciv.' Thus Paul has certainly expressed the divine right of magistracy, 
which Christian princes especially designate by the expression ‘‘ by the grace 
of God” (since the time of Louis the Pious), And ai dé ovca, the extant, 
actually existing, allows no exception, such as that possibly of tyrants or 
usurpers (in opposition to Reiche). The Christian, according to Paul, ought 
to regard any magistracy whatever, provided its rule over him subsists de 
facto, as divinely ordained, since it has not come into existence without the 
operation of God’s will ; and this applies also to tyrannical or usurped 
power, although such ao power, in the counsel of God, is perhaps destined 
merely to be temporary and transitional. From this point of view, the 
Christian obeys not the human caprice and injustice, but the will of God, 
who—in connection with His plan of government inaccessible to human in- 
sight—has presented even the unworthy and unrighteous ruler as the oica 
éfovoia, and has made him the instrument of His measures. Questions as to 
special cases—such as how the Christian is to conduct himself in political 
catastrophes, what magistracy he is to look upon in such times as the ota 
éfovcia, as also, how he, if the command of the magistrate is against the 
command of God, is at any rate to obey God rather than men (Acts v. 29), 
etc.—Paul here leaves unnoticed, and only gives the main injunction of 
obedience, which he does not make contingent on this or that form of con- 
stitution.” By no means, however, are we to think only of the magisterial 
office as instituted by God (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others), but 
rather of the magistracy in its concrete persons and members as the bearers 
of the divinely ordained office. Comp. oj dpyovrec, ver. 8, and vv. 4, 6, 7 ; 
Dion. Hal. Anét. xi. 82; Plut. Philop. 17 ; Tit. ili. 1; also Martyr. Polyc. 
10.—Observe, moreover, that Paul has in view Gentile magistrates in con- 
creto ; consequently he could not speak more specially of that which Chris- 
tian magistrates have on their part to do, and which Christian subjects in 
their duty of obedience for God and right’s sake are to erpect and to require 
from them, although he expresses in general—by repeatedly bringing for- 
ward the fact that magistrates are the servants of God (vv. 38, 4), indeed 
ministering servants of God (ver. 6)—the point of view from which the dis- 
tinctively Christian judgment as to the duties and rights of magistrate and 
subject respectively must proceed. 
Ver. 2. ‘Qore] Since it is instituted by God. —é avritracc.] Note the cor- 
relation of avritace., vroraca., and rerayu. The latter stands in the middle. 
— éavroic] Dativus incommodi: their resistance to the divinely-ordained 


1 Comp. Hom. JJ. i!. 204 ff., ix. 38, 98 ; Soph. 2 Comp. Jul. Miiller, dogmat. Abdh. p. 051. 
Phil. 140, e¢ al.; Xen. Rep. Lac. 15. 2. 


490 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

magistracy will issue in their own self-destruction ; comp. ii. 5; 1 Cor. xi. 
29. According to Hofmann (who in his Schri/thew. II. 2, p. 443, even im- 
ported a contrast to r@ «vpiy, as in xiv. 6, 7), éavroi¢ is to be viewed as in 
contrast to the Christian body as such; the punishment to be suffered isa 
judgment which lights on the doers personally, and is not put to the account 
of their Christian standing. This explanation (‘‘ they hare to ascribe the pun- 
ishment to themselves solely”) is incorrect, because it obtrudes on the texts 
purely fictitious antithesis, and because the apostle lays down the relation 
to the magistracy quite generally, not from the specific point of view of Chris 
tian standing, according to which his readers might perhaps have supposed 
that they had become foreign to the political commonwealth. Had this 
comprehensive error in principle been here in Paul’s view, in how entirely 
different a way must he have expressed what he intended than by the single 
expression éavroic, into which, moreover, that alleged thought would have 
first to be imported !— xpiua] a judgment, is understood of itself, according 
to the connection, as a penal judgment. Comp. ii. 2, 8, iii. 8; 1 Cor. x 
29; Gal. v. 10; Mark xii. 40. From whom they will receive it, is decided 
by the fact that with oi d? avOeornxérec, according to the context, rq roi Geet 
dtaray® is again to be supplied. It is therefore a penal judgment of (od, a8 
the erecutors of which, however, the dpyovrec are conceived, as ver. 3 proves. 
Consequently the passage does not relate to eternal punishment (Reiche and 
others), but to the temporal punishment which God causes to be inflicted 
by means of the magistrates. Philippi prefers to leave «pixa without more 
special definition (comp. also Rickert) ; but against this is the consider 
tion, that ver. 3.can only arbitrarily be taken otherwise than as assigning 
the ground of what immediately precedes. 

Ver. 8. Ol yap... . xaxg] Ground assigned for éavroic xpiuza Afpovra.’—T 
ayabo Epyy] The good work and the evil work? are personified. We are not 
here to compare ii. 7 or li. 15 (Reiche, de Wette). — 9680¢] a@ terror, i.e. for- 
midandi.* — dé] the simple peraparixév. The proposition itself may be either 
interrogatory (Beza, Calvin, and others, including Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Ewald, Hofmann), or as protasis in categorical form (see on 1 Cor. vii. 18 
and Pflugk, ad Kur. Med. 886). So Luther and others, including Tholuck 
and Philippi. The former is more lively, the latter more appropriate snd 
emphatic, and thus more in keeping with the whole character of the adjoit- 
ing context. — éraivov] praise, testimony of approbation (which the magistrate 


} For if resistance to the éfovoia were not 
to draw the divine punishment after it, the 
relative position of rulers and subjects 
would necessarily be such, that in good be- 
haviour people would have to stand in fear 
of them (which would in fact annul the di- 
vine ordinance) ; the converse, however, {s 
the case with them, viz., they are a terror 
to ecid deeds. The ydp consequently estab- 
lishes neither, generally, the duty of obedi- 
ence to the magistracy (Philippi), nor the 
sense imported by Hofmann into éavrois. If 
the bearers of magisterial power were a 


terror to good works, the maxim of rest 
ance (to obey God rather than men) would 
assert Its right, and we should hare to say 
with Neoptolemus in Soph. Philod. 135 
(1251): fur rep dexaigy rdv ody od raphe d6for 

2 Beyond the work, and to th in/ention, 
the prerogative of the magistrate does not 
extend. Comp. Harless, /.¢. 

? For examples of the same use, 
Kypke, I. p. 188. Comp. Lobeck, Paruitp. 
p. 513; just so the Latin mor, ¢.g. Propert. 
iif. 5. 40. 


CHAP, XIII., 4. 491 


is wont to bestow ; see also Philo, Vit. M. i. p. 626 C) ; not any more than 
in ii. 29, 1 Cor. iv. 5, reward (Calvin, Loesner, and others). Grotius rightly 
remarks : ‘‘Cum haec scriberet Paulus, non saeviebatur Romae in Chris- 
tianos.” It was still the better time of Nero’s rule. But the proposition 
has a general validity, which is based on the divinely-ordained position of 
the magistracy, and is not annulled by their injustices in practice, which 
Paul had himself so copiously experienced. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 14. 

Ver. 4. Geov . . . dya0év] Establishment of the preceding thought—that 
the well-doer has not to fear the magistrate, but to expect praise from him 
—by indicating the relation of the magistracy to God, whose servant (d:4- 
xovoc, feminine, as in xvi. 1; Dem. 762. 4, and frequently) it is, and to the 
subjects, for whose benefit (defence, protection, blessing) it is so. The coi is 
the cthical relation of the @eov didxov. éort, and cig rd ayafév adds the more 
precise definition. — ov yap eixg] for not without corresponding reason (fre- 
quently so in classical Greek), but in order actually to use it, should the 
case require. — rjv pdyarp. gopei] What is meant is not the dagger, which 
the Roman emperors and the governing officials next to them were accus- 
tomed to wear as the token of their jus vitae et necis (Aurel. Vict. 18 ; Gro- 
tius and Wetstein in loc.) ; for uéyarpa, although denoting dagger = rapa- 
€epé6¢ in the classics,’ means in the N. T. always sword, viii. 85, according to 
Xen. 7. eg. xii. 11 (but comp. Kriiger, Xen. Anabd. i. 8. 7), differing by its 
curved form from the straight é¢o¢ ; and also among the Greeks the bear- 
ing of the sword (Philostr. Vit. Ap. vii. 16) is expressly used to represent that 
power of the magistrates. They bore it themselves, and in solemn proces- 
sions it was borne before them. See Wolf, Cur. On the distinction be- 
tween gopéw (the continued habit of bearing) and ¢épw, sce Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 585. — Ocov yap did. x.t.A.] ground assigned for the assurance ovx eixy 
Tt. “. g., in which the previously expressed proposition is repeated with em- 
phasis, and now its penal reference is appended. — éxd:xoc cig opypv x.t.2.] 
avenging (1 Thess. iv. 6 ; Wisd. xii. 12 ; Ecclus. xxx. 6 ; Herodian, vii. 4. 
10 ; Aristaenet. i. 27) in behalf of wrath (for the execution of wrath) for 
him who does evil, This dative of reference is neither dependent on éoriv, 
the position of which is here different from the previous one (in opposition 
to Hofmann) nor on ei¢ dpyf#v (Flatt) ; it belongs to éxdinog ei¢ opy. Etc opyfv 
is not ‘‘superfluous and cumbrous” (de Wette),” but strengthens the idea. 
We may add that our passage proves (comp. Acts xxv. 11) that the abo- 
lition of the right of capital punishment deprives the magistracy of a power 
which is not merely given to it in the O. T., but is also decisively confirmed 
in the N. T., and which it (herein lies the sacred limitation and responsi- 
bility of this power) possesses as God's minister ; on which account its ap- 
plication is to be upheld as a principle with reference to those cases at law, 
where the actual satisfaction of the divine Nemesis absolutely demands it, 


28ee Spitzner on Hom. Ji. xviii. 597; ER®* 1.38.4, ef al. Chrys. Theodoret, d<fore 
Duncan, Lez. ed. Rost, p. 715. éxé.c0s, Which Rinck approves, is to be ex- 
2 The same opinion gave rise to the omis- plained by an incorrect restoration of the 
sion of els opy. in D*® FG, 177. et al. Clar. dropped-out word. 
Boern. And the fact that it is found in 


492 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


while at the same time the right of pardon is still to be kept open for 
all concrete cases. The character of being unchristian, of barbarism, etc. 
does not adhere to the right itsel/, but to its abuse in legislation and practice. 
Ver. 5. The necessity of obedience is of such a character, that it is not 
merely externally suggested (by reason of the punishment to be avoided), 
but is based also on moral grounds ; and these.two considerations are ex- 
hibited by d:é6 as the result of all that has been hitherto said (vv. 1-4). It 
is clear, accordingly, that avdyxy is not specially the moral necessity, but isto 
be taken generally, as it is only with the second d:é that the moral side of 
the notion is brought forward. — dia riv dpyi] on account of the magistrate’s 
wrath, ver. 4.— did ri ovveid.] on account of one’s own conscience, du 7% 
mAnpoiy ta mpoofxovra, Theodorect. It is with the Christian the Christian con- 
science, which as such is bound by God’s ordinance. Hence 1 Pet. ii. 13: 
dia tov xipoov. Aptly Melanchthon : ‘‘ Nulla potentia humana, nulli exer- 
citus magis muniunt imperia, quam haec severissima lex Dei : necesse est 
obedire propter conscientiam.” Both definitions given with 6:é belong, 
however, to dvdyxy (se. éori), which bears the emphasis, like Heb. ix. 23. 
Ver. 6. For on this account you pay taxes—this is the confirmation of ver. 5, 
JSrom the actually subsisting payment of tazes ; yép retains its sense assigning 
a reason, and the emphatic dia rovro (from this ground) is exactly in accord- 
ance with the context : dri ob pdvow dia ry Opyiy, GAA Kai dea TH ovveidyow 
avdyxy gory tnordcaeofa. At the basis of the argument lies the view, that 
the existing relation of tax-paying is @ result of the necessity indicated in ver. 
5, and consequently the confirmation of it. If 6:4 rovro be referred to vv. 
1-4: ‘‘ut magistratus Dei mandatu homines maleficos puniant, proborum 
saluti prospiciant,” Fritzsche (comp. Calvin, Tholuck, de Wette, Borger), 
ver. 5 is arbitrarily passed over. It follows, moreover, from our passage, 
that the refusal of taxes is the practical rejection of the necessity stated in 
ver. 5. Others take reAeire as imperative (Heumann, Morus, Tholuck, Klee, 
Reiche, Kdllner, Hofmann). Against this the yap, which might certainly 
be taken with the imperative (see on vi. 19), is not indeed decisive ; but 
Paul himself gives by his ody, ver. 7, the plain indication that he is passing 
for the first time in ver. 7 to the language of summons, which he now also 
introduces, not with the present, but with the aorist. — xai] also denotes the 
relation corresponding to ver. 5. It is not ‘‘ a downward climaz” (Hofmann: 
‘even this most erternal performance of subjection”), of which there is 10 
indication at all either in the text or in the thing itself. The latter 3s, 
on the contrary, the immediate practical voucher most accordant with the 
experience of every subject. —reAcire] Paul does not in this appeal to bis 
readers’ own recognition of what was said in ver. 5 (the summons in ver. 7 18 
opposed to this), but to what subsists as matter of fact. — Aecrovpyoi yap Seo 
x.t.A, ] justifies the fundamental statement, expressed by dca reiro, of the act- 
ual bearing of the payment of taxes : for they are ministering servants of God, 
persevering in activity on this very behalf (on no other). The thought in ver. 
4, that the magistracy is Ocoi didxovoc, is here by way of climaz more precisely 
defined through 2erovpyoi (which is therefore prefized with emphasis) 8 
cording to the official sacredness of this relation of service, and that conform- 


CHAP, XIII., 7. 493 


ably to the Christian view of the magisterial calling. Accordingly, those 
who rule, in so far as they serve the divine counsel and will, and em- 
ploy their strength and activity to this end, are to be regarded as persons 
whose administration has the character of a divinely consecrated sacrificial 
service, a priestly nature (xv. 16 ; Phil. ii. 17, e¢ al.). Thisrenders the prop- 
osition the more appropriate for confirmation of the dia rovro x.7.4., which 
is a specifically religious one. — Aecrovpyot Oecd] is predicate, and the subject 
is understood of itself from the context : they, namely magisterial persons (oi 
épyovrec). Incorrectly as regards linguistic usage, Reiche, K6llner, Olshausen 
take mpocxapr. to be the subject, in which case certainly the article before 
the participle would be quite indispensable (Reiche erroneously appeals to 
Matt. xx. 16, xxii. 14). — ei¢ aird rovro] Telic direction not of Ae:rovpy. (Hof- 
mann), but of mpooxapt. : for this very object, by which is meant not the ad- 
ministration of taz-paying (Olshausen, Philippi, and older interpreters), but 
the just mentioned Ae:rovpyetv rH Oeg, in which vocation, so characteristic- 
ally sacred, the magistracy is continually and assiduously active, and the 
subject gives toit the means of being so, namely, taxes. Thus the payment 
of taxes is placed by Paul undor the highest point of view of a religious con- 
scicntious duty, so that by means of it the divine vocation of the magistracy 
to provide a constantly active sacrificial cultus of God is promoted and facili- 
tated. If cig aird rovro was to be referred to the administration of taxes, this 
would not indeed be ‘‘ nonsensical” (Hofmann), but the emphatic mode of 
expression avrd rovro would be without due motive, nor could we easily per- 
ceive why Paul should have selected the verb zpooxapr., which expresses the 
moral notion perseverare. The reference of it to the ncarest great thought, 
Aetroupyol x.T.A., excludes, the more weighty and appropriate that it is, any 
other reference, even that of Hofmann, that atré rovro points back to the same 
proposition as é:4 rovro.—Instead of ei¢ aird rovro, Paul might have said airy 
rovtw (xii. 12) ; he has, however, conceived zpocxapr. absolutely, and given 
with ei¢ the definition of its aim. Comp. on the absolute mpooxaprepeivy, Num. 
xiii. 20 ; Xen. Hell. vii. 5, 14. 

Ver. 7. Hortatory application of the actual state of the case contained in 
vv. 5, 6: perform therefore your duties to all (comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 8), etc. 
—a brief summary (arédore . . . ogecA.) and distributive indication of that 
which is to be rendered to all magisterial persons generally (aor), and to in- 
dividuals in particular (tax officers, customs officers, judicial and other 
functionaries), both really (¢époc, réAoc) and personally (9680¢, riz). [See 
Note CXXXV. p. 501.]— rac] to be referred to magistrates, not to all men 
generally (Estius, Klee, Reiche, Gléckler, comp. also Ewald) ; this is mani- 
festly, from the whole connection—and especially from the following speci- 
fication, as also from the fact that the language only becomes general at 
ver. 8—the only reference in conformity with the text. — rg rdv ddpor] se. 
axaitowwrs, which flows logically from amddore maotr. 69. (Winer, p. 548 
[E. T. 590]; Buttmann, p. 338 [E. T. 895]), and is also suitable to r. ¢6fov 
and r. ryufv ; for, in fact, the discourse is concerning magistrates, who— 
and that not merely as respects the notions of that time—do certainly, in ac- 
cordance with their respective positions of power and performances of service, 


494 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


demand fear and honour. — ¢épo¢ and réAoc are distinguished as tazes (on per 
sons and property) and customs (on goods). See on Luke xx. 22. — 43x, 
tiuh, fear (not merely reverence), veneration. The higher and more power 
ful the magisterial personages, the more they laid claim, as a rule, to be 
Seared ; otherwise and lower in the scale, at least to be honoured with the 
respect attaching to their office. 

Vv. 8-14. General exhortation, to love (vv. 8-10), and to a Christian walk 
generally (vv. 11-14). 

Ver. 8. Mydevi undév dgeidere] negatively the same thing, only generally re- 
Jerred to the relation to everybody—and therewith Paul returns to the general 
duty of Christians—which was before said positively in ver. 7 : arédore rast 
tac ogecAdc. By this very parallel, and decisively by the subjective nega- 
tions, dgeiAere is determined to be imperative: ‘‘ Leave toward no one any 
obligation unfulfilled, reciprocal love excepted,” wherein you neither can, nor 
moreover are expected, ever fully to discharge your obligation. The tez- 
haustibility of the duty of love, the claims of which are not discharged, but 
renewed and accumulated with fulfilment, is expressed. Comp. Origen, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Beza, Grotius, 
Wetstein, Bengel (‘‘ amare debitum immortale”), and many others, inclad- 
ing Tholuck, Riickert, Reithmayr, de Wette, Philippi, Ewald, Umbreit, 
Hofmann. The point lies in the fact that, while ogeiAere applies to those er- 
ternal performances to which one is bound (‘ obligatio civilis,” Melanch- 
thon), in the case of the ayavay it means the higher moral obligation, in vit- 
tue of which with the quotidie solvere is connected the semper debere (Origen). 
The objections of Reiche to the imperative rendering quite overlook the fact, 
that with ei y) rd GAAGA. ay. the ogeiaere again to be supplied is to be taken 
not objectively (remain owing mutual love !), but subjectively, namely, from 
the consciousness of the impossibility of discharging the debt of love. But 
Reiche’s own view (so also Schrader, following Heumann, Semler, Koppe, 
Rosenmiiller, B6hme, Flatt, and by way of suggestion, Erasmus), that 6g. is 
indicative: ‘‘all your obligations come back to love,” is decidedly incor- 
rect, for ct must then have been used, as ¢.g. in Plato’s testament (Diogenes 
Laert. iii. 48) : dgeiAw & cider? ovdév. The passages adduced on the other 
hand by Reiche from Wetstein are not in point, because they have p4 with 
a participle or infinitive. Fritzsche (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and Krehl) : 
Be owing no one anything ; only ‘‘ mutuwm amorem vos hominibus debere cen- 
scte,”” Thereby the whole thoughtfulness, the delicate enamel of the pas 
sage, is obliterated, and withal there is imported an idea (censete) which is 
not there. — é yap dyan. x.7.A.) A summons to unceasing compliance with 
the command of love having been contained in the preceding «i pa 1) a4 
ove ayarav, Paul now gives the ground of this summons by setting forth the 
high moral dignity and significance of love, which is nothing less than the 
fulfilment of the law. Comp. Gal. v. 14; Matt. xxii. 84 ff. —rav érepor] 
belongs to ayarév : theother, with whom the loving subject has to do (comp. 
ii. 1, 21; 1 Cor. iv. 6, vi. 1, xiv. 17; Jas. iv. 12, et al.). Incorrectly Hof- 
mann ' holds that it belongs to véuov: the further, the remaining law. For 


1 Who objects with singular erroneousness to the ordinary connection with éys™ 


CHAP. XIII., 9. 


£96 


the usage of Erepoc and dAAoc in the sense of otherwise « 

Kriger, Xen. Anab. 1. 4. 2 ; Niigelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 256 

applicable ; Paul must at least have written xai rac 

also Luke xxiii. 32 ; Plato, Rep. p. 357 C, and Stallbay 

intelligibly and simply he would have written rav mé 

14. It is impossible to explain the singular 6 érepoc collec. 
relevant appeal to Rost, § 98, B. 3. 5); érepog véuoc could only be ~. 
(second) law (comp. Rom. vii. 23), and 4 érepog v., therefore, the definite 
other of two ; Kithner, II. 1, p. 548. — mrerAgpone] ecel of the completed 
action, asin ii. 25 ; in and with the loving there has taken place (comp. on Gal. 
v. 14) what the Mosaic law prescribes (namely, in respect of duties towards 
one’s neighbour, see vv. 9, 10; inasmuch as he who loves does not commit 
adultery, does not kill, does not steal, does not covet, etc.). But though 
love is the fulfilment of the law, it is nevertheless not the subjective cause 
of justification, because all human fulfilment of the law, even love, is in- 
complete, and only the complete fulfilment of the law would be our right- 
eousness. Rightly Melanchthon: ‘‘ Dilectio est impletio legis, item est 
justitia, si id intelligatur de idea non de tali dilectione, qualis est in hac 
vita.” 

Ver. 9. 'Avaxega2acovra:} ovvréuwc nai év Bpayei 1d wav araprilerac rdv évroAay 
rd épyov, Chrysostom. But ava is not to be neglected (is again comprised ; 
see on Eph. i. 10), and is to be referred to the fact that Lev. xix. 18 recapitu- 
lates, summarily repeats, the other previously adduced commands in reference 
to one’s neighbour. Comp. Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr. p. 228.— The arrange- 
ment which makes the jifth' commandment follow the sizth is also found in 
Mark x. 19, Luke xviii. 20 (not in Matt. xix. 18), Jas. ii.11, in Philo, de 
decal., and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. vi. 16. The LXX. have, accord- 
ing to Cod. A, the order of the Masoretic original text ; but in Cod. B the 
sixth commandment stands immediately after the fourth, then the seventh, 
and afterwards the fifth ; whereas at Deut. v. 17, according to Cod. B, the 
order of the series is: siz, five, seven in the LXX., as here in Paul. The 
latter followed copies of the LX X. which had the same order. The deviations 
of the LXX. from the original text in such a case can only be derived from a 
diversity of tradition in determining the order of succession in the decalogue, 
not from speculative reasons for such a determination, for which there is no 
historical basis.? — On ayar. &¢ éavrév,* see on Matt. xxii. 89.. 





that Paul would surely (1) have written 3 
yap Tov érepoy dyarwy Troy véuow wewAtp, AS 
though the very order 4 dyaswy rov érepoy 
were not the most common of all ‘(viil. 38, 
37; 1 Cor. 11.9; Gal. 11.203 Eph. v. 28, e¢ ai.) ! 
Quite as common is the use of yépos without 
the article for the (comp. ver. 10) Mosaic 
law ; see on fi. 12. 

1 Reckoning according to the Lutheran 
mode of division. 

2 This also against Hofmann, who thinks 
that the order of succession in our passage 
might be founded on the fact that the rela- 


tion of man and woman according to the order 
Of creation is earlier than that of man and 
man,etc. An arbitrarily invented reason, 
which indeed must have occasioned the 
transposition of the fourth commandment - 
to a place after the sixth. 

* Of the reading ceayrév (Lachm., Tisch.), 
although preponderantly attested, we must 
judge asin Gal. v. 4. In the Greek writers 
also the emendation ocavr. is very frequent- 
ly found in the codd. instead of éavr., where 
by the latter the second person is meant. 
See especially Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 9. 


496 - THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 


Ver. 10. Since all, that the law forbids us to do to our neighbour, is 
morally evil, Paul may now summarily conclude his grounding of the com. 
mandment of love, as he here does. — épyéfeoflac with revi re instead of re 1 
is also found, though not frequently, in the Greek writers ; comp. 2 Mace. 
xiv. 40; Eur. Hee. 1085 and Pflugk in loc.; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 277.—sifpopa 
véuov } aydrn) dé yap ayarav tov Erepov véuov mem2jpuxe, Ver. 8. Other inter- 
pretations of wAfpwua (‘‘id quod in lege summum est,” Ch. Schmitt, 
Rosenmiiller ; ‘‘ plus enim continet quam lex, est everriculum omnis injus 
titiae,” Grotius ; see on the other hand Calovius) are opposed to the con- 
text. Comp. Gal. v. 14, where the point of view of the fulfilment of the 
law by love is still more comprehensive. Observe, moreover, that cigs 
is not equivalent to zAgpworc, but in the love of one’s neighbour that whereby 
the law is fulfilled has taken place and is realized.—The commentary on this 
point, how love works no ill to one’s neighbour, is given by Paul in 1 Cor. 
xili. 4-7. 

Ver. 11. For compliance with the preceding exhortation to love, closing 
with ver. 10, Paul now presents a further weighty motive to be pondered, 
and then draws in turn from this (vv. 12 ff.) other exhortations to a Chns- 
tian walk generally. —xai rovro] our and that, i.e. and indeed, especially a 
you, etc. It adds something peculiarly worthy of remark—here a further 
motive particularly to be noted—to the preceding. Sce on this usage, 
prevalent also in the classics (which, however, more frequently use xai raita), 
Hartung, I. p. 146; Bacumlein, Partik. p. 147. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 6, 8; 
Eph. ii. 8 ; Phil. i. 28 ; Heb. xi. 12. That to which here roiro points back 
is the injunction expressed in ver. 8, and more precisely elucidated in vv. 
8-10, pydevt unddv dgeidere, ei pw x.t.A. The repetition of it is represented by 
rovro, 80 that thus eidérec attaches itself to the injunction which is agais 
present in the writer’s conception, and hence all supplements (Bengel and 
several others, roretre ; Tholuck, rocdpev) are dispensed with. The connec- 
tion of rovro with eidérec (Luther, Gléckler) complicates the quite simple lan- 
guage, as is also done by Hofmann, who makes rév xacpdv the object of rei 
eidérec, and brings out the following sense : ‘‘and hating this knowledge of 
the time, that, or, and 80 knowing the time, that.” Even in Soph. 0. T.37' 
xai rave’ is simply and indeed ; the use of rovro as absolute object is irrelevant 
here (sec Bernhardy, p. 106 ; Kihner, II. 1, p. 266), because roizo in the 
sense of in such a manner would necessarily derive its more precise contents 
from what precedes. That which Hofmann means, Paul might have express 
ed by x. rovro eid. rov xapov : Kithner, II. 1, p. 238. —eidérec] not consider 
antes (Grotius and others), but : since you know the (present) period, namely, 
in respect of its awakening character (see what follows). — dre dpa «.7.7.] 
Epexegesis of eidér. rdv xa:pév : that, namely, it is high time that we finally 
(without waiting longer, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 600) should wake out of 
sleep. én does not belong to dpa, but to quae 2& trvav ty., and by invor 8 
denoted figuratively the condition in which the true moral activity of life ws 
bound down and hindered by the power of sin. In this we must observe with 


1 Hofmann (citing ver. 42) professes to _ ever, makes noremark upon the «ai rez’ of 
have compared Wunder in loc., who, how- __ the passage, p. 18, ed. 8. 


CHAP. XIII., LL. 497 


what right Paul requires this éyepfijva: é& irvov of the regenerate (he even in- . 
cludes himself). He means, forsooth, the full moral awakening, the ethical 
elevation of life in that jinal degree, which is requisite in order to stand 
worthily before the approaching Son of man (see immediately below, viv yap 
x.T.A.)3 and in comparison with this the previous moral condition, in which 
much of a sinful element was always hindering the full expression of life, 
appears to him still as drvoc, which one must finally lay aside as on awaken- 
ing out of morning slumber. The Christian life has its new epochs of 
awakening, like faith (see on John ii. 11), and love to the Lord (John xiv. 
28), and the putting on of Christ (ver. 14). This applies also in opposition 
to Reiche, who, because Christians were already awakened from the ethical 
sleep, explains izvoc as an image of the state of the Christian on earth, in 80 
Jar as he only at first forecasts and hopes for blessedness,—quite, however, 
against the Pauline mode of conception elsewhere (Eph. v. 14 ; 1 Thess. 
v. 6 ff.; comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 34). — viv yap «.t.A.] Proof of the preceding 
Gpax.t.a. The viv is related to #é7 not as the line to the point (Hofmann, 
following Hartung), but as the objective Now to the subjective (present in con- 
sciousness); comp. on the latter, Baeumlein, Partik. p. 140 ff. viv is related 
to dpr: (comp. on Gal. i. 10) as line to point. — juév] Does this belong to the 
adverb étyyirepov (Beza, Castalio, and others, including Philippi, Hofmann), 
or to 9) owrnpia (Luther, Calvin, and others, following the Vulgate)? The 
former is most naturally suggested by the position of the words ; the latter 
would allow an emphasis, for which no motive is assigned, to fall upon juav. 
— owrnpia] the Messianic salvation, namely, in its completion, as introduced 
by the Parousia, which Paul, along with the whole apostolical church, 
regarded as near, always drawing nearer, and setting in even before the decease of 
the generation. Comp. Phil. iv. 5 ; 1 Pet. iv. 7 ; see also Weiss, bid]. Theol. 
p. 426. Not recognizing the latter fact,—notwithstanding that Paul brings 
emphatically into account the short time from his conversion up to the 
present time of his writing (viv),\—commentators have been forced to very 
perverted interpretations ; ¢.g. that deliverance by death was meant (Photius 
and others), or the destruction of*Jerusalem, a fortunate event for Chris- 
tianity (Michaelis, following older interpreters), or the preaching among the 
Gentiles (Melanchthon), or the inner owrnpia, the spiritual salcation of Chris- 
tianity (Flacius, Calovius, Morus, Flatt, Benecke, Schrader, comp. Glickler). 
Rightly and clearly Chrysostom says: éri Gipacrg yap, gnoiv, 6 THE 
Comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia : ournpiav 62 judy 
xadei tiv avacraciy, Exedy réte Tie GAnOiv7G aToAabouev owrnpiac. But the nearer 
the blessed goal, the more wakeful and vigilant we should be. — # dre émior. 


apicewc éornxe xaipdc. 


1 yoy, as well as éyyvrepov Huey alld 7 cwrnpia, 
the latter in the final-historicai sense, is to be 
left textually in the clearand definite literal 
meaning, in contradistinctlon to which 
inexact and vacillating generalizations of 
the ooncrete relation expressed by Paul, 
which mix up the nearness of time with the 
ethical approach, appear inadmissible. 
This applies also against Hofmann, accord- 


ing to whom the expectation of the near 
return of Christ is not found at all fn the 
Epistle to the Romans (see Hofmann on 
Col. p. 181); and Paul is here supposed to 
say that salvation came near to them,at the 
time when they became believers through the 
very fact of their becoming belierers (?), dué 
that now, after that they are believers (1), 
stands so much (%) the nearer to them, 


498 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
than when we became believers ;! 1 Cor. iii. 5, xv. 2; Gal. ii. 16; Mark xvi 
16; Acts xix. 2, and frequently. 

Ver. 12. To irvoc corresponds here as correlate 7 vit, t.e. the timebefore the 
Parousia, which ceases, when tzith the Parousia the day arrives. vit and jpipe 
are accordingly figures for the aidv otroc and péAduv, and jyépa is not equicalent 
to awrnpia (de Wette), but the day brings the owrnpia. [See Note CXXXVI p. 
502.] Comp. Heb. x. 25. — The image is appropriate ; for in regard to the 
knowledge, righteousness, and glory which will have a place in the future 
aiév, this approaching blessed time will be related to the imperfect present 
time as day to night. Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly remarks : 4 uépav xa/zi 
rovare tic tov Xplarov wapuvoiag xarpév. . . vinta dé Tov Tpd TobToV xpbrov. — 
mpokxowpev] not : is past (Luther), but : has made progress, processit (see Gali. 
14; Lukeii. 52 ; 2 Tim. ii. 46 ; Lucian, Soloec. 6 ; Joseph. Bell. iv. 4. 6), 80 
that the day is no longer distant. It is very possible that Paul conceived 
to himself the time of the approach of the Parousia as the time of twilight, 
with which conception both the preceding pa #uae dy «7.2. and the follow- 
ing arofdyeda aptly agree. — érofdpeba] as one puts off garments. This way of 
conceiving it (in opposition to Fritzsche and Hofmann) corresponds to the 
correlate évdvodiueba, comp. on Eph. iv. 22. The épya rov oxérow, t.¢. the 
works, #hose element, wherein they are accomplished, is darkness (comp. 
Eph. v. 11), the condition of spiritual want of knowledge and of the domin- 
ion of sin, are regarded as night-clothes, which the sleeper has had on, and 
which he who has risen is now to put off. — évdvodueba] of the putting on of 
arms (ora, as vi. 13), which in part are drawn on like garments. Comp. 
Eph. vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 8.— rov gwrd¢] not glittering arms (Grotius, Wet- 
stein), but in contrast to rov oxérovg: arms (i.e. dispositions, principles, 
modes of action) which belong to the element of (spiritual) light, which one bas 
as megutiouévoc by virtue of his existence and life in the divine truth of sal- 
vation. roi guréc, has the spiritual sense, as also previously roi oxérov, 
being in the application of that which was said of the v6é and #uépa ; but the 
metaphorical expressions are selected as the correlates of viz and Hutps. — The 
Christian is a warrior in the service of God and Christ against the kingdom 
of darkness. Comp. Eph. vi. 11, 12; 2 Cor. vi. 7, x. 43; 1 Thess. v.83 1 
Tim. i. 18 ; Rom. vi. 13.? 

Ver. 13.* ‘Qe év qukpa] as one walks in the day (when one avoids everything 
unbecoming). This in a moral sense, Paul desires, should be the ruling 
principle of the Christian, who sees the day already dawning (ver. 12).— 
eiaynusvec] becomingly, 1 Thess. iv. 12 ; 1 Cor. vii. 35, xiv. 40. It is moral 
decorum of conduct. — xdporg x.7.2.] The datives are explained from the no- 
tion of the way and manner in which the weperareiv, t.e. the inner and outward 
conduct of life, ought not to take place (Kithner, II. 1, p. 382), namely, 


1Incorrectly Luther: “than when we tine’s eye and heart on his opening 
‘believed it.” He appears, with Erasmus, to Bible, decided him, already prepared : 
chave thought of the belief, that salvation the preaching of Ambrose, to final sai 
“was to be obtained under the law, by works. ance andto baptism. Confess. vill. 1% % I. 

2 For profane analogies, see Gataker,ad See Bindemanp, d. hei. Auguatinus, I. P 
Anton. p. 58. 281 f. 

2This verse, which once struck Augus- 


CITAP. XIII, 14. 499 


not with revellings (kSuou ; see respecting this, on Gal. v. 21; Welker in 
Jacobs, Philostr. i. 2, p. 202 ff.) and carousals (comp. Gal. v. 21), etc. The 
local view (Philippi) is less in keeping with the particulars mentioned, and 
that of dativus commodi (Fritzsche, comp. van Hengel) less befits the figura- 
tive verb. — xoirasg] congressibus venereis (comp. on ix. 10), Wisd. iii. 13, and 
see Kypke, II. p. 185. — aceAyetarc] wantonness (especially of lust). See Titt- 
mann, Synon. p. 151.'— C4Aw] jealousy (1 Cor. i. 11, ili. 3) ; neither anger 
(Fritzsche, Philippi, and others), which is not denoted by (7A0¢ (not even 
in 1 Cor. iii. 2; 2 Cor. xii. 20 ; Gal. v. 20), nor ency (Photius, Luther, and 
others), which is less in accordance with the preceding (xoir. «. aceAy.), 
whilst strife and jealousy follow in the train of the practice of lust.—The 
three particulars adduced stand in the internal connection of cause and effect. 

Ver. 14. ’Evdicacfe +r. xbp. °I. Xp.] This is the specifically Christian 
nature of the eioyyudvuc reper. But the expression is figurative, signifying 
the idea: Unite yourselves in the closest fellowship of life with Christ, 80 that 
you may wholly present the mind and life of Christ in your conduct. In 
classical Greek also evdteafai r:va denotes to adopt any one’s mode of sentiment 
and action. See Wetstcin and Kypke. But the praesens efficacia Christi (see 
Melanchthon) is that which distinguishes the having put on Christ from the 
adoption of other exemplars. Comp. Gal. iii. 27 ; Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 
12; and on the subject-matter, viii. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 17; Photius in Oecu- 
menius : rac dé avtév évdutiov; et wdvta juiv avroc ein, EowHev nal EEWOev Ev qyiv 
gavéuevoc. Observe further, that the having put on Christ in baptism was 
the entrance into the sonship of God (Gal. iii. 27), but that in the further 
decelopment of the baptized one each new advance of his moral life (comp. on 
ver. 11) is to be a new putting on of Christ ; therefore it, like the putting 
on of the new man, is always enjoined afresh. * — xa? ri¢ capxdg x.t.A.] and make 
not care of the flesh unto lusts, i.e. take not care for the flesh to such a degree, 
that lusts are thereby excited. By py the rpdvorav roceiofat cig ExiO. together is 
forbidden, not (as Luther and many) merely the ei¢ é78., according to which 
the whole sentence would resolve itself into the two members : ry¢ 0. rpdvoray 
péy moreiobe, GAAG pn cig érc8. In that case yu? must have stood after raeiobe 
(see xiv. 1) ; fora transposition of the negation is not to be assumed in any 
passage of the N. T. — ri¢ capxéc] is emphatically prefixed, adding to the put- 
ting on of the Lord previously required, which is the spiritual mode of life, 
that which is to be done bodily. The odpé is here not equivalent to caua (as 
is frequently assumed ; sce on the other hand Calovius and Reiche), but is 
that which composes the material substance of man, as the source and seat of 
sensuous and sinful desires, in contrast to the rvet ua of man with the voir. Paul 
purposely chose the expression, because in respect of care for the body he 
wishes to present the point of view that this care nourishes and attends to 
the cépf, and one must therefore be on one’s guard against caring for the 
latter in such measure that the lusts, which have their seat in the odpé, are 
excited and strengthened. According to Fritzsche, Paul absolutely forbids 
the taking care for the cdp£ (he urges that odpé must be libidinosa caro). But 


3 On the sense of the plurai,see Lucian, > Comp. Lipsius, Rechifertigungal. p. 186 f. 
Amor. 21: iva pysdv ayvon wépos doedyeias, 


500 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


‘ to this the expression mpdévorev roreiofe is not at all suitable. The flesh, s0 
understood, is to be crucified (Gal. v. 24), the body as determined by it is to 
be put off (Col. ii. 11), it8 rpdgep are to be put to death (Rom. viii. 13), be- 
cause its ¢pévzua is enmity against God and productive of death (viii. 6, 7). 
The odpé is here rather the living matter of the coua, which, as the st of 
the éx:6vuia:, in order to guard against the excitement of the latter, ought 
to experience a care that is to be restricted accordingly, and to be subsrdi- 
nated to the moral end (comp. on odpé, 1 Cor. vii. 28, xv. 50 ; 2 Cor. iv. 10,» 
11, vii. 1, 5, xii. 7 ; Gal. ii. 20, iv. 13, 14), In substance and in moral 
principle, the agedia cduaroc (Col. ii. 23) is different from this. Chrysostom 
aptly observes : Gorep yap ov 70 mivery éxdAvoev, GAAA Td peflvecy, ove? Td yaptiy, 
GANG Td doEdAyeiv, ovTwWE OVE Td Mpovoeiv THO GapKdC, GAAG Td ei¢ ExcBvpias, olor 70 
riv xpelav imepBaiverv. Moreover it is clear in itself, that Paul has added the 
second half of ver. 14 in view of what is to be handled in chap. xiv., and 
has thereby prepared the way for a transition to the latter. 


Nores spy AmEnrican Eprror. 


CXXXIV. Vv. 1, 2. mdoa wy) . . . . troraccioby x.t.4. 


Meyer supposes that Paul in the use of rdca wuy7 conceives of ‘man in 
reference to his soul-nature, in virtue of which he consciously feels pleasure and 
displeasure, etc., and cherishes corresponding impulses.” Weiss ed. Mey. de- 
nies this, and claims that the expression is employed because the thought tums 
here from duties of the common life of the Christian body to those of the i- 
dividual life (the yvy7 being the seat of the individuality of the man). Godet 
thinks it is connected with the idea that the obligation referred to is not one 
arising from the spiritual life of the believer, but belonging to the psychical life, 
which is common to all mankind. The use of the expression elsewhere, hov- 
ever, shows that no such special sense is required, and it is much more probe 
ble that the meaning is every soul, as equivalent to every man. (Comp. iii. 20; 

1 Cor. i. 29; cf. also ii. 9). So Philippi, Rickert, de Wette, Shedd, and others 

Meyer, and Weiss apparently agrees with him in this point, holds that = 
xovoac refers to the higher authorities. The exhortation has its greatest &™ 
phasis, no doubt, with reference to these, but the participle is apparently ™ 
tended to designate all magistrates. To all such, according to their statio?® (cf. 
ver. 7), the Romun Christian is bidden to submit himself. The different words 
connected with the root of rdoow are especially noticeable in this and the tol 
lowing verses ; troracofofu, tetaypévat, avtiradodurvoc, diatays. ; 

ai d? ovoa refers to the then existing authorities, but suggests the same thing 
as relating to all times and places. Civil government is ordained of 
It should be recognized and obeyed by the subject of it as Divinely institatet 
The Apostle is not discoursing or philosophizing on civil government, howe 
as if for the sole purpose of unfolding its true theory. He isin the midst ° 
practical exhortations which bear upon the daily living of his readers. C°™ 
quently he moves in his expressions within the sphere of their life ; calling 
attention to the actual magistrates under whom they were placed, to the fan’ 
tions which these magistrates exercised, to the powers which they posses8©"’ 
the duties and obligations owed to them, to the evil of resisting their author: 


NOTES, 501 


What he says, accordingly, is to be interpreted (and to receive its proper 
limitations also) in view of this fact. The opinion entertained by some writers, 
that he denies here the right of revolution, is entirely without foundation. 
There is no reference to this subject in the passage. This right, if it exists 
under any circumstances, is like that of self-defence, and the discussion of the 
question of its existence is altogether outside of the sphere of his present 
thought. In like manner, there is no ground in these verses for the idea that 
Paul declares capital punishment to be a right whose exercise by the supreme 
magistracy, in the case of certain crimes, should be continued during all ages. 
He simply refers to the power to inflict it as possessed by the government under 
which the readers lived, and as one ground of fear in case they did evil. A 
reference of this character added impressiveness to the suggestions of duty 
which he was giving fortheir guidance. But there was no occasion to go beyond 
this, and to announce the Divine will for other and distant times. The deci- 
sion of such questions, appertaining to the welfare of society and the methods 
of administration, is left to the enlightened Christian mind under the general 
influence of Christian truth. 

The exhortation here given to obey civil magistrates [as, also, those given 
elsewhere to wives and slaves, that they should yield obedience to their hus- 
bands and masters] was, doubtless, pressed by the Apostle with special earnest- 
ness, because of the doctrine of Christian equality which he had so emphati- 
cally preached. His converts and all who entered the new life were in danger 
of carrying this doctrine of equality into the sphere of social and family rela- 
tionships, and thus not only of falling into error, but of bringing reproach 
upon the Church and endangering the success of the cause. The understand.- 
ing of all such practical directions in his Epistles, having reference to matters 
within this sphere, is to be influenced by this circumstance. The same direc- 
tion may have a deeper meaning or a greater emphasis in one age than in 
another, though it may not lose all force in any age. It. may, possibly, have 
great significance at an earlier period, and at a later one have even none 
at all. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 5 f. as illustrating this point and presenting an in- 
stance of practical advice or commands, which no Christian thinks of as literally 
applicable to the ordinary life of to-day. Another instance is found in1 Tim. 
hi. 2, where the writer says that a bishop or elder should not marry a second 
time (i.e. after the death of his first wife). 


CXXXV. Ver. 7. amodére maou rag dgetAds, x.7.A. 


This verse is commonly regarded(so Meyer) as belonging with those which 
precede it, and wdot is supposed to mean all magistrates. Weiss ed. Mey. (with 
Reiche and others) connects it with ver, 8 ff. as a positive exhortation, to which 
ver. 8 answers a8 & negative. dor, thus, refers to all men. The most correct 
and satisfactory view may be that it is a transition verse, taking hold both of - 
what goes before and what follows. The words custom and tribute are especially 
appropriate to the relation of the reader to the officers of state. Fear and honour, 
on the other hand, have no such limited application. The meaning is proba- 
bly this ; Pay to all men their dues, whether these be tribute and custom, as to 
the civil authorities, or honour and fear or reverence, as to any who may deserve 
such respect. And then, passing to the new paragraph, the writer adds, Owe 
no man anything, except the debt which, though you are always paying it, can 


502 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


never be fully paid. In these words there is an implied exhortation to love all, 
and a reason for this is found in the next clause: 6 yap ayamrdp rov brepov vdzor 
rerAnpuxev. That vduov in this sentence, ver. 8, meansthe Mosaic law is evident 
from the fact that the proof (ver. 9) of its fulfilment is the fulfilling of the 
commands of the law of Moses. As yvéuo¢ stands on both sides of ver. 9 (vv. 8, 
10), and in immediate and necessary connection with it, it must refer to the 
same thing which is distinctly presented in that verse. 


CXXXVI. Ver. 12. 9 w& rpotxoper, 4 SE Huépa Hyyener. 


. This compound sentence, together with the verse which precedes it, is intro- 
duced as an additional and special reason for giving heed to the words of er- 
hortation already presented. Upon the thought which it expresses, however, 
is founded, also, the urgent appeal of the following verses to lay aside the 
works of darkness and to put on the armour of light. That the idea which it 
suggests is not that of the approach of the end of the eurtbly life for the in- 
dividual believer, but that of the nearness of the Parousia, is admitted by 
most of the recent commentators. That the latter idea, if fuand in all the 
phrases used in the passage, gives a significance and impressiveness to the 
words, which otherwise they cannot have, is beyond question. That the same 
is the case with other passages of a similar character, wherever they occur in 
the Pauline Epistles, is also true. Thut such forms of expression as occur iD 
1 Cor, xv. 51, 52 and 1 Thess. iv. 15-17 are not easily explained except as in- 
volving this idea, will be evident to any one who considers how strange, of 
even impossible, it would be fora writer, having the ordinary view of the 
second coming which characterizes men of our own age, to use them in ad- 
dressing his fellow-Christians :—After those who have died shall have been 
raised from the dead, we who survive to the coming of the Lord shall be caught 
up in the clouds for a meeting with the Lord ; and, while the dead are thus to 
be raised, we shall be changed. The time of the Parousia was distinctly de- 
clared by Christ (Acts i. 7) to be outside of the limits of the Divine commun- 
cation to the Apostles. They were left, therefore, to the judgments and expec- 
tations of their own minds, Indeed, it seems to have been God’s method inall 
matters of prophecy to reveal to His messengers the things which were to take 
place in the future, but to reserve within His own knowledge the date of their 
occurrence. 

The genitive fuav in ver. 11, by reason of its position in the sentence, 1s 
probably to be regarded as depending on éyytrepov. The emphasis of this and 
the other expressions is very marked. The brief, critical season ; the hour has 
already come to awake ; nearer to us now is the end than when we first be 
lieved ; the night is far on ; the day is at hand ; let us put off what belongs to 
the darkness and put on what belongs to the light ; let us live as if already in 
the day ; let us take to ourselves the spirit and character and life-principle of 
the Lord, whom we are to meet at His coming. How impressively the words 
must have sounded, as Paul uttered them, and how powerfully they must have 
moved the Roman believers, if the full establishment of the kingdom seemed 
to their thought a thing of the near future. And with what force and earmest- 
ness must these phrases, following each other in rapid succession, have filled 
the exhortations, which had just been given, to love all men and do every 
duty of the Christian life, consecrating body and mind alike to God. 


CHAP. XIV. 503 


CHAPTER XIV. 


Ver. 3. xa? o) Lachm. and Tisch: 6 dé, according to ABC D* &* 5. Clar. 
Goth. Clem. Damasc. Mechanical repetition from ver. 2. — Ver. 4. duvaré¢ }ap 
éorvvy]) ABC D* FG ®& have duvarei yap (commended by Griesb., adopted by 
Lachm. and Tisch.) ; D*** Bas. Chrys. : duvarog yap (so Fritzsche). The origi- 
pal is certainly duvarei ydp ; for dvvaréw is found elsewhere in the N. T. only in 
2 Cor. xiii. 3, and was there also in codd. exchanged for more current and bet- 
ter known expressions — 6 Océ¢] A B C* P &, Copt. Sahid. Arm. Goth. Aeth. 
Aug, ed al. « 6 xvpcoc (so Lachm. and Tisch.), the origin of which, however, is 
betrayed by dominus ejus in Syr. Erp. It was here (at ver. 3 the connection 
furnished no occasion for it) written on the margin as a gloss, and supplanted 
the original 6 @edc. — Ver. 5.] Instead of d¢ viv, AC P ¥*, Vulg. codd. of It. 
Goth. and some Fathers have d¢ pzév yap ; so Lachm. (bracketing ydp, however) 
and Tisch. 8. But the testimony in favour of the mere é¢ pév is older, stronger, 
and more diffused ; as is frequently the case, yap was here awkwardly inserted 
to connect the thought. — Ver. 6. xa) 6 ui) gpovar riv jpépar, Kupip ov dpovei] is 
wanting inABC* DEF GR, 23. 57. 67.** Copt, Aeth. Vulg. It. Ruf. Ambro- 
siast. Pel. Aug. Jer. al. Lat. ; Chrys. and Theodoret have it in the tert. Con- 
demned by Mill, omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly, since the evidence 
for omission is so decisive, and since the interpolation was so very readily sug- 
gested by the sense of a want of completeness in the passage, in view of the 
following contrast, that the explanation of the omission from homoeoteleuton 
(Rickert, Reiche, de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Philippi, Tischendorf, and 
several others)— however easily it might have been occasioned thereby (espe- 
Cially as xai before 6 éofiwyv, which Elz. has not, is undoubtedly genuine)—appears 
nevertheless insufficient. Among the oldest witnesses, Syr. is too solitary in 
its support of the words not to suggest the suspicion of an interpolation in the 
text of the Peshito. — Ver. 8. arofvjoxuuev] Lachm. both times has drofyjoxopuer, 
according toA DEF GPmin. But Paul has in no other place éév with pres. 
indic. (in Gal. i. 8 only K and min. have the indic.), and how easily might a 
slip of the pen take place here !— Ver. 9. Before dréGave Elz. and Scholz have 
nai, against decisive testimony.— After améAave Elz. has xa? aviorn (which is 
wanting in A B C &*, Copt. Arm. Aeth. and Fathers), and afterwards, instead 
of -énaev, avéfnoev (agninst largely preponderating evidence), Further, F G, 
Vulg. Boern. Or. Cyr. (twice) Pel. Ambr. Fulgent. have not é¢(noev at all, although 
they have avéory (therefore aréave xai avéorn) ; D E, Clar. Germ. Ir. Gand. have 
even f{noe x. anlOave x. avéorn, but D** L P N** Syr. p. and several Fathers : 
aréGave x. avéotn x. ECqoe. The origin of all these variations is readily explained 
from aréOave xa? é¢yoev (Lachm. and Tisch.), the best attested, and for that very 
reason, among the many differences, to be set down as original. First éJnoev 
was glossed by dvéorn, comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14. Thus there arose, through the 
adoption of the gloss instead of the original word, the reading dré@ave xa} 
aviorn ; and by the adoption of the gloss along with the original word, in some 


504 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


cases amiQuve x. ilnoe x. avéorn, in some cases amiGave x. avéoty x. Enoev (30 
Matth.) —whence there then arose, by an accidental or designed repetition of 
the AN, the a7é0. x. avéotn x. dvignoev of the Recepta (very feebly attested, and 
diffused by Erasmus), Finally, the transposition énoe x. axéGave x. aviory 
was formed, after aréGave x, aviorn was already read, by mistaken criticism, in- 
asmuch as there was a desire to restore the original é{70e, but the non genuine 
ness of avéocry was as little known as the proper place for i{nce, and hence the 
Jatter, explained of the earthly life of Jesus, was placed before amé6. — Ver. 10- 
Xpicrov] A BC* D E F G 8* and several vas. and Fathers : Qcot. So Lachm. 
and Tisch., also Fritzsche. Rightly ; Xp:crod was introduced from the preced- 
ing, and perhaps also (comp. Rufinus) through comparison of 2 Cor. v. 10.— 
Ver. 12. duce) Lachm. : drodice, according to B D* F G 39. Chrys, But this 
compound is the usual expression with Adyov. — Ver. 14. avroi] Elz. : davroi, 
instead of udrot (see exegetical notes). So again Tisch. 8, but only according 
to BC &, Chrys. Dam. Theophyl. A reflexive more precise definition. — Ver. 
15, dé] Lachm. and Tisch. : yép, which Griesb. also commended, according to 
decisive testimony. — Ver. 18. Instead of the Rec. év rovro:c, Lachm. and Tisch. 
have év ruity, according to ABC D* FG P &*, 5. Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. Ruf. 
Aug. But the Rec., sufficiently attested by D**#* E L &**, and almost all min., 
Syr. utr. Goth. Chrys. Theodoret, Tert., is the more to be defended, since & 
rovr might very easily have intruded through the immediately preceding & 
avevuati ayi@. It was less likely that rovrm should be converted into rovroir on 
account of the plurality of the particulars contained in ver. 17. The latter is 
rightly retained by Beng. Matth. Reiche, Fritzsche, van Hengel, and various 
others. — Ver. 19, diwixwyev] The reading dicxouev, adopted by Tisch. 8, although 
in A BF GLP, is an old error of the pen, attested by no version, sbaD- 
doned rightly also by Lachm. ed. maj. (in the ed. min. he had adopted it, written 
dpa, and taken the sentence interrogatively). — After 44274. D E F G, Vulg. It. 
and a few Fathers have ¢uAcéwuev. A supplement. — Ver. 21. } oxavd. j uo6.] 
omitted by Tisch. 8, is wanting in A C 67.** Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. and some 
Fathers, including Origen. The former is suspicious as an addition from ¥¢- 
13, the latter as a gloss. However, in the case of synonyms, one or the other 
was often omitted, as e.g., in ver. 13, mpécxoupa (and therewith #) is wanting 4 
B, and the evidence in favour of omission is not here sufficiently strong to 
demn the words. Instead of mpoox. }} cxavd, 7 ac8., ®* has merely Avreiral, & 
gloss in itself correct according to ver. 15. — Ver. 22. After rior: Lachm. ® 
Tisch. 8 have #v, according to A BC &, Copt. Ruf. Aug. Pel. A double 
writing of IN, or explanatory resolution, to which the weight of evidence of al- 
most all vss. and Greek Fathers especially is opposed. — On the doxology: ae 
25-27, not belonging to the end of chap. xiv., see critical notes on chap. *¥" 


As elsewhere (Acts xv. 1, 5; Gal. fii. 1 ff. ; Col. ii. 16 ff.), so there ¥™ 
even in the predominantly Gentile-Christian community at Rome, among 
the Jeiish- Christian minority’ belonging to it, persons who sought stil . 
retain the standpoint of pre-Christian legalism. But these J ewish-Christ™™ 
in Rome had not, as elsewhere, come forward as the defenders of circum 
cision, or generally in an aggressive anti-Pauline attitude. Hence 


1 Comp. Beyschlag In the Stud. u. Arit. 1867, p. 645. 








CHAP. XIV. 505 


speaks of them in so forbearing and mild a way, and keeps direct polemics 
entirely in the background. They were men not of hostile, but only of 
prejudiced minds, whose moral consciousness lacked the vigour to regard 
as unessential a peculiar asceticism, according to which they ate no flesh (ver. 
2), and drank no wine (ver. 21), and still held to the observance of the Jewish 
JSeast-days (ver. 5), passing judgment withal, as is usually the case with 
men of a separatist bias, on those who were more free, but only carning the 
contempt of these in return. In presence of this asccticism, and in respect 
of its main feature, namely, abstinence from fiesh and wine, the question 
arises : Was it based gencrally (Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, 
Calovius, and many others, including Reiche and K6llner) on the Mosaic- 
Jewish ordinances respecting meat and drink ? or, in particular (Clement 
of Alexandria, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Michaclis, Anm., Flatt, Neander, 
Reithmayr, Tholuck, Philippi), on the dread of heathen sacrificial flesh and 
sacrificial wine (comp. the apostolic decrees, Acts xv.) ? or on both (Eras- 
mus, Toletus, and others, including Riickert, Borger, de Wette) ? Against 
the jirst of these three possibilities it may be urged that vv. 2 and 21 do 
not allow us to assume any limitation of the abstinence at all, but require it 
to be understood of flesh and wine generally ; while, on the other hand, 
the law does not forbid all flesh and does not forbid wine at all, and the 
Rabbins forbid only the flesh slaughtered by the Goyim and the wine of 
the Goyim (see Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. pp. 616 ff., 620 ff.). To 
assume now, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, that those 
persons had abstained from all flesh for the reason that they might not be 
blamed by the others on account of their despising swince’s flesh, or from 
contempt towards the Gentiles (r«ég in Theodorct), would be completely 
arbitrary, indecd opposed to the text ; for they themselves were on one 
side the censurers, on the other the despised, ver. 3. Against the second 
opinion, that the abstinence in question referred only to the flesh offered in 
sacrifice to idols (Acts xv.) and the wine of libation (see Mischn. Surenh. TV. 
pp. 369, 384 ; Eisenmenger, /.c. p. 621), it may be urged that the whole 
section contains not a word on the sacrificial character of the flesh and wine, 
while yet we are bound to conclude from 1 Cor. viii. and x. that Paul would 
not have passed by this essential aspect of the matter without touching on 
it and turning it to account. Hence also the third view, which combines 
these, cannot be approved. In fact, the Jewish-Christian abstinence in 
question appears rather to be a supra-legal anxiety, such as was nothing rare in 
Judaism at that time (Philo, in Eusebius, Praep. ev. viii. yin. ; Josephus, Vit. 
2, 3 ; Grotius on ver. 2 ; Ritschl, in the theol. Jahrb. 1855, p. 353), under the in- 
fluence of Essenic principles (see Ritschl, altkath. K. pp. 184, 187). It appears 
certainly as an ‘e2o8pyoxeia, brought over from Judaism into Christianity 
by persons of Essenic tendencies, and fostered by the ethics of Christianity, 
which combated the flesh.’ By its adherents, however, among the Jewish-Chris- 


1 Respecting the Apostle Matthew, Cle- of the Lord, Augustine, ad Faust. xxif. 3, 
ment of Alexandria, Paedag. i!.1, p. 174 relates that he had used neither flesh nor 
Pott., informs us that he ate only vegeta- wine. Comp. Hegesippus in Eusebius ff. 
bles no flesh ; and of James, the brother 2. But see Ritschl, p. 24f. The Peter of 


506 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tians of Rome at that time, it was not maintained in opposition to justification 
by faith, but was so practised without pretentiousness and polemics (and 
in particular without separation from a common table with the Gentile 
Christians), that the wisdom of the apostolic teaching deemed it inappro- 
priate to enter into special conflict with such a remnant of an Essenic ’Iov- 
daifecy, or to speak of it otherwise than with the most cautious forbearance. 
Baur, I. p. 381 ff., declares those persons to be Hbionite Christians (accord- 
ing to Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 15, the Ebionites abstained from all use of 
flesh, because flesh originated from generation ; see Ritschl, p. 205). But 
against this view it may at once be urged,’ that complete abstinence from 
wine on the part of the Ebionites is nowhere expressly attested ; and fur- 
ther, that, if the weak brethren at Rome had been persons who regarded 
the use of jlesh as on principle and absolutely sinful, as was the case with 
Ebionitism, Paul would not have expressed himself so mildly and tolerantly 
respecting an error which would have been fundamental, dualistic as it 
was and opposed to justification by faith. Moreover, the Ebionites date 
only from the destruction of Jerusalem (see Uhlhorn, d@. Homil. u. Recogn. d. 
Clem. p. 387 ff.); hence the Roman weak brethren could only be termed 
Ebionitic in so far as their abstinence had the same root with the asceticism 
of the Ebionites, viz. Essenism. That among the numerous Roman Jews, 
who had arrived as prisoners of war from Palestine, there were various 
Essenes who thereafter became Christians, cannot be subject to any well- 
founded doubt (comp. Ritschl, p. 233 f.). And the less reason is there to 
call in question not merely the Ebionitic, but also the Zssenic, roet of the 
phenomenon (Th. Schott). To refer it to the general interest of world-deny- 
ing holiness does not suffice for the explanation of the several passages, and 
in particular does not explain the observance of days and the impure char- 
acter which was attributed to the use of flesh (ver. 14). Hence, too, we 
are not, with Hofmann, to abide by the mere general conclusion, that doubt 
prevailed as to whether it was compatible with the holiness of the church 
of God to use such food as man had not assigned to him from the beginning, 
and as the Christian should for this very reason rather dispense with than 
enjoy for the sake of good cheer. Thus the matter would amount to an odd 
theoretic reflection, without any connection with historical concrete ante- 
cedent relations,—a view with which we can the less be content, since the 
observance of days cannot exegetically be got rid of asa point which had 
likewise occasioned dispute (see on ver. 5). Eichhorn takes the weak 
brethren to be earlier, mostly Gentile-Christian adherents of ascetico-philo- 
sophic, chiefly Neo-Pythagorean principles. There was certainly at that time 
diffused among the Gentiles, through the influence of the Neo-Pythagorean 
philosophy, an abstinence quite analogous to that Jewish one, as we know 
from Senec. Zp. 108, Porphyr. De abstin., and others (see Grotius on ver. 2, 
and Reiche, II. p. 463 f.); but, on the other hand, that view is at variance 
partly with ver. 5 (comp. Col. ii. 16, 17), partly with xv. 8, 9, where Paul 


the Clementines also practises this absti- may be derived from Essenism (the ord! 
nence. nary view, ably defended by Ritsch! in op- 
1 Whether the Ebionites of Epiphanius _ position to Schliemann) or not. 


CHAP, XIv., 1. 50? 
sedulously brings into view the theocratic dignity of the Jews, while he bids 
the Gentiles praise God on account of grace—which is most in harmony with 
the view that the despised weak ones are to be sought among the former. 
It may be also conjectured @ priori that our ascetics, if they had arrived at 
their habit by the path of philosophy, would hardly have behaved them- 
selves in so passive and unpretentious a manner and have. been merely re- 
garded by Paul just as weak ones.' We may add that vv. 5, 6 do not jus- 
tify us in assuming two parties among the Roman weak brethren, so that the 
xpivovrec huépav wap’ yuépav, ver. 5, are to be distinguished from the Adyava 
éodiovrec, ver. 2,—-the former as the stricter and probably Palestinian, the 
latter as the freer and probably Hellenistic, Jewish-Christians (so Philippi). 
As the observance of the feast days, especially of the Sabbaths, was essen- 
tially bound up with the Essenic tendency, the assumption of such a sepa- 
ration cannot be justified exegetically (from the xpivec). Just as little is 
there exegetical ground for the view that the community addressed and in- 
structed in xiv. 1 ff. is notified as being Jewish-Christian in its main com- 
position ; whereas xv. 1 ff. betrays a Gentile-Christian minority, which had 
been more exclusive and intolerant towards the weak than the great body 
of the church, the relation of whom to the weak the apostle has in view 
in chap. xiv. (Mangold, p. 60 ff.) 

Vv. 1-12. Summons to brotherliness towards the weak ones (ver. 1). First 
point of difference between the two parties, and encouragement in relation to it 
(vv. 2-4). Second point of difference, and encouragement in relation to it (ver. 
5). The right point of view for both in their differences (ver. 6), and reason 
assigned for it (vv. 7-9) ; reproof and disallowance of the opposite conduct (vv. 
10-12). 

Ver. 1. Aé] passing over from the due limitation of care for the flesh (xiii. 
14) to those who, in the matter of this limitation, pursue not the right course, 
but one springing from weakness of faith. —rov acfevoivta ry riote| [Sec 
Note CXXXVII. p. 522.] That wicri¢ here also denotes faith in Christ, is 
self-evident ; the infirmity, however, is not conceived of—according to tne 
general rdvra duvara 79 morevovre (Mark ix. 23 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 2)—in a general 
sense and without any more precise character, but, in conformity with the 
context (see vv. 2, 14, 22, 23), as a want of that ethical strength of faith, in 
virtue of which one may and should have, along with his faith, the regu- 
lative principle of moral conviction and certuinty corresponding to its nature 
and contents. In this more definite and precise sense those ascctics wero 
weak in faith. Had they not been so, the discernment of conscience and 
assurance of conscience, analogous to faith, would have enabled them to be 


! Against Eichhorn’s view also, as it seems 
to me, the passage in Origen militates: opa 
&2 cai rnv Stadopay rov aitiou THs Ter Eupixwy 
awox#s Tev awd Tov IvOaydpov xai Ter ev 
Hiv aoaatev, “Exeivor wey yap bia row wepi 
Wuxys mereverwparoupdrns pvPoy eupuyey awe: 
xovras . . . Hpueig 52 Kay Td TOLOUTO mpaTTwer, 
wotoumer ard, drei Vrwmidgopey Td CHA Kai 
SovAaywyouper «.7.A. (c. Cele. 4), where Origen 


distinguishes expressly the Pythagorean 
abstinence as something fundamentally 
(ideally) different from the Christian, and 
traces the latter to an idea, which quite 
merited the lenient treatment of the apos- 
tle and makes the continuance of this as- 
ceticism in the Christlan Church very 
readily intelligible. 


£08 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


free from doubt and scruple in respect to that which, in the life of faith, 
was right or wrong, allowable or not allowable, and to act accordingly ; 
and consequently, in particular, to raise themselves above the adiaphora 48 
such, without prejudice and ethical narrowness. It is therefore evident that 
the ao0évera 79 Tiorer carries with it defectiveness of moral yvéearc, but this does 
not justify the explaining of rior as equivalent to yrdorc (Grotius and others), 
or as equivalent to doctrine believed (Beza, Calvin). — rpooAauBadveate] take to 
you, namely, to the intercourse of Christian brotherly fellowship. The oppo- 
site would be an éxxAciocas OéAecv (comp. Gal. iv. 17), whereby they, instead of 
being attracted, might be forced to separation. So in substance, Erasmus, 
Grotius, Estius, Semler, Reiche, K6llner, Fritzsche, Riickert, de Wette, 
Tholuck, Philippi, Hofmann, etc. But others take it as : interest yourselces 
in him, ‘‘of furthering, helpful support” (Olshausen, comp. Chrysostom), 
which, however, mpocAauPBavecfai tiva does not mean. Acts xxviii. 2 is ap- 
pealed to, where, however, zpood. is to take to oneself',—a meaning which is 
here also required by mpooeAdfero, ver. 8, as wellas by xv. 7, comp. also xi. 15. 
— ph cig dtaxpicers dtadoy.] not to judgings of thoughts. [See Note CXXXVIII. 
p- 523.] dtaxpicerg dtadoy. is a result, which in the case of the enjoined zpos- 
Zau;3. must not be come to, so that thus p7 cic diaxp. dead. contains a negative 
more precise definition of xpooAauBaveobe, in the sense, namely : not in sucha 
manner that the rpoctauBdvecba, which you bestow on the weak, tasues t# 
judgments passed on the thoughts. Those persons formed their ideas under 
the influence of conscience ; such scruples should be indulgently treated by 
the stronger, and criticisms passing judgments on them should not be insti- 
tuted, whereby the rpooAaufdvecba: would be abused. Thus dcdapios, dijt- 
dicatio, retains its usual signification (Heb. v. 14 ; 1 Cor. xii. 10 ; Plato, Lay. 
vi. p. 765 A, xi. p. 987 B; Lucian, Herm. 69) ; and dradroytopde likewise 
(Matt. xv. 19; Mark vii. 21 ; Luke ix. 46, etal. ; Rom. i. 21 ; 1 Cor. iil. 20). 
Nothing is to be supplied, but ei is simply to be taken in the sense of the 
result (as just previously ei¢ éc0., xiii. 14), not even as wsgue ad (Reiche). 
Substantially in agreement with this view of d:axpic. d:adoy. are Chrysostom, 
Grotius, and others, including Kéllner, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Reithmayr, Fritzsche, Krehl, Tholuck, Hofmann, likewise Reiche, ¥5°, 
however, makes the prohibition apply to both parties, which is opposed s 
the text, since the exhorted subject is the church, in contradistinction to us 
weak members, while the weak alone are the object of the exhortation. 4U- 
gustine aptly, Propos. 78 : ‘‘non dijudicemus cogitationes infirmorum, 4445! 
ferre audcamus sententiam de alieno corde, quod non videtur.” thers 
take daxpiser¢ as doubts, which are not to be ezcited in the thoughts of the 
weak. So Luther, Bengel, Cramer, Ernesti, Morus, Béhme, Ammon, Fistt, 
Klee, Olshausen, Philippi, Umbreit. But didxpeotwe never means doubt,’ and 
therefore is not to be explained with Ewald, who takes the words as 42 = 
dition by way of exclamation : ‘‘ may it not come from doubts to thoughts. 
may such an one not become uncertain in his conscience!” ‘Following the 


1 Neither in the N. T. nor elsewhere in distinction; as also in Oecumenius 
Greek. Theodoret on ver. 2f.is appealed — ver. 2. 
to, but there dtdcpiors i to be taken as 


CHAP. XIV., 2-4. 509 


Vulgate, Beza, Camerarius, Er. Schmid, Toletus, Estius, Gléckler, and oth- 
ers, didxp. has also been explained as dispute, which is not unfrequently its 
meaning in the classics (Plato, Legg. vi. p. 768 A ; Polybius, xviii. 11. 8). 
But dispute concerning thoughts would be at Icast far from clearly expressed 
by the mere genitive (instead of epi diadoy.) ; and the notion disceptatio 
(Zarnorc, ovlitnos) is nowhere denoted in the N. T. by didxpeore. + Riickert 
takes it as separation: ‘‘ But be on your guard lest the consequence thereof 
may possibly be this, that thoughts and sentiments are severed, become more 
abruptly parted.” Acdxpiorg may certainly bear this meaning (Job xxxvii. 
16 ; Plato, Phil. p. 82 A) ; but in that case the article must have stood be- 
fore dtadoy., and th® climactic sense (snore abruptly) would be gratuitously 
imported. 

Ver. 2. More particular discussion of the subject, and in the first place, 
exhibition of the first point of difference between the two parties. — ¢ pév] without 
a corresponding d¢ dé, instead of which there is at once put the definite 6 dé 
aod.: theone (i.e. the strong) believes, etc. ; but the weak, etc. Comp. Kihner, 
ad Xen. Anab. ii. 8. 15 ; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 507. — movebe: gayeiv révra 
may mean : he is convinced that he may eat ali things, so that the notion éfeivac 
is implied in the relation of the verbal notion to the infinitive (Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 753f.; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 285 [E. T. 278 f.}) ; 80 Tholuck, 
Borger, and older interpreters. But more agreeable to the rj riorec, ver. 1, 
and to the contrast 6 aofev., is the rendering : hehas the confidence, the assur- 
ance of faith, to eat all things ; Winer, p. 302 [E. T. 322]. Comp. Dem. 866. 
1, and generally Kriger, § 61. 6. 8. To supply Gore (van Hengel) is in ac- 
cordance with the sense, but unnecessary. — 2d vava] excludes, according to 
the connection, all use of flesh, not merely that of Levitically unclean ani- 
mals, or of flesh sacrificed to idols, or on feast and fast days,— limitations 
of which nature are introduced by most interpreters (including Reiche, 
K6llner, Neander, Tholuck, Philippi). The weak in faith eats no flesh, but 
vegetables are his food. Comp. Wiescler in Herzog’s Encyklop. XX. p. 595. 
[See Note CXXXIX. p. 524.] 

Ver. 3. Prohibition for each of the two parties. [See Note CXL. p. 524.] 
The self-consciousness of strength misleads into looking down with contempt 
on the weak ; the narrowness of weakness is unable to comprehend the free 
thinking of the strong one, and judges it. —xpivérw) defined by the connec- 
tion as a condemning judgment, pronouncing against the true Christian char- 
acter, as in ii. 1 and frequently. — 6 @cd¢ yap «.7.A.] ground assigned for pz) 
xpivérw ; hence airév is to be referred to rév éofiovra (i.e. him who eats all 
things), not with Reiche (following Calvin and others) to both, the strong 
and the weak, against which ver. 4 is also decisive. — rpoceAdBero) has 
taken him to Himself, namely, into His fellowship (comp. ver. 1) through 
Christ ; not: into His house as servant (see on ver. 4), as Vatablus, Reiche, 
and Hofmann hold. — In 6 @ed¢ yap «.r.4. is contained the contrariety to God 
of this xpivecv, and its consequent impiety ; and 

Ver. 4 then adds what a presumptuous intermeddling such a xpiverv is. In 
this the emotion rises to an animated apostrophe, addressed to the weak in 
Jaith who passes judgment, not to both parties, as Reiche and Tholuck think ; 


510 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


for xpivwy corresponds to the xpivérw of ver. 8.—ovd ric et] comp. ix. 20. It 
discloses the presumption, without however standing in the relation of 
apodosis to the preceding 6 Ord¢ atrév mpoceAdBero (Hofmann), which is no- 
wise indicated and is forbidden by the fact that the following relation of 
domestic slave points to Christ as Master. — adAérpiov otxéryy] who is not in 
thy domestic service,’ butin that of another. This otheris Christ (see ver. 6), 
not God, who is rather distinguished from the master by duv. yap x.t.4.—16 
idiy xupiy | tohisouwn master. The dative denotes the relation of subordination to 
the interest of the idtog «iproc (Bernhardy, p. 85). His own master, and no 
other, is interested therein ; whence the incompetence of the xpivew is 
obvious. — The figurative standing and falling is either explained of standing 
Jirm (Ps. i. 4 ; Luke xxi. 36), and of being condemned (causa cadere) in the 
dicine judgment (Calvin, Cornelius & Lapide, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, and 
others, including Reiche, K6llner, Borger, Tholuck, Philippi), or, asin 1 Cor. 
x. 12, of continuance and non-continuance in the state of true Christian faith 
and life. So in substance, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Toletus, Bengel, 
Semler, and others, including Flatt, de Wette, Fritzsche, Riickert, Maier, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Umbreit, van Hengel, Hofmann. The use of sistem 
would not tell against the former (Hofmann), for it would have its warrant 
as contrast to the odSec6a: in the divine judgment figuratively set forth by 
the standing; 7 but the second explanation is to be preferred, partly because 
the unwarranted xpiverv denied to the more free the possession of a right 
Christian frame of life, partly because of the following duvarei yap x.t.?. 
For to make to stand in the judgment, 7.e. without figure, to acquit and pro- 
nounce righteous,* is not the work of divine power, but of grace. But accord- 
‘ing to His power (against Reiche’s objection to this, see Eph. iii. 20) God 
effects an inner strengthening, so that the Christian stands in that which is 
good, and even he who thinks more freely does not succumb to the dangers 
to which the nature of his Christian faith and life is exposed by the very 
fact of his freer principles, but perseveres in the true Christian state. For 
this Paul looks to God’s power, and promises it. When Tholuck, on the 
ground of the reading 6 xtpcog finds the thought, that the Judge will even find 
out sufficient reasons for erculpation, this is a pure importation into the text. 
duvarsi] See on 2 Cor. xiii. 8. Comp. Clem. Hom. i. 6. 

Ver. 5. Second point of difference, as is evident from the contents them- 
selves, and in particular from the general laying out of the representation, 
which is quite similar in form to ver. 2. Hence we are not here to find, 


1 oixérys Is nowhere else found in Paul; Anabd., iv. 5. 83, vi. 1), is here irrelevant; 
in the N. T. it occurs in Luke xvi. 18, Acts but see Wesseling, ad Herod. p. @!. 
x. 7, 1 Pet. fi. 18. It fs a more restricted 2 Soph. Trach. 84, and see Ellendt, lit. 
notion than 80vAos: the otcérns is a house- Soph. II. p. 568. 
servant (Dem. 1359 wll. ; oixérns Scdxovos), ®? Not, according to the mediate turn, de 
more closely bound to the family than parting from the preceding and hence ul 
other slaves ; hence: oixéras re xai 8ovAovs, warranted, which Philippt now gives to 
Plat. Legg. vi. p. 763 A, comp. fx. p.853 E.; the sense of the figurative expression: [0 
80, too, oixércs, housemaid; both together, uphold in judgment, so far as God upholds 
oixereia, domestics. The fact that these in that which ts good, which alone subsists 
words are used in the classics also of the inthe judgment. 
members of the family themselves (as Xen. 


CHAP. XIV., 5. 511 
with Hofmann (who defends the reading ¢ uév ydp), merely the first member 
of a chain of thought which is intended to make good the correctness of 
the proposition duvarei yap x.7.A.,'—s0 that Paul does not pass over to another 
controverted point. [See Note CXLI. p. 524.] The fact that he does not 
thereupon enter at length on the question of days, but returns immediately 
in ver. 6 to the question of fovd, indicates that the latter formed in the 
church the controversy most prominent and threatening in an ascetic point of 
view.* Moreover, what he had said on the point of food might so readily of 
itself find its application in an analogous manner to the question of days, 
that an entering into equal detail in regard to both points was not required. 
— xpivee fu. wap’ ju.| he sets his judgment on day before day, i.e. he is for 
preferring one day to another, so that he esteems one holier than another. 
This refers to the Jewish feast and fast days? still observed by the weak in 
faith. The classical #uépa rap’ juépav, in the sense alternis diebus,‘ does not 
apply here (in opposition to Fritzsche, who imports into our passage the 
notion that the people had ascetically observed, in addition to the Sabbath, 
the second and fifth days of the weck). Of so surprising a (pharisaical, Luke 
xviii. 12) selection of days there is no single trace in the Epistles to the 
Galatians (not even juépac, iv. 10) and Colossians, and hardly would 7#¢ have 
met with such lenient treatment at Paul’s hands. But the Jewish observance 
of days, continued under Christianity, so naturally agrees with the Essenic- 
Jewish charactcr of the weak in faith generally, that there is no sufficient 
ground for thinking, with Ewald, of the observance of Sunday (at that time 
not yet generally established), and for seeing in vv. 5 and 6 only an example 
illustrating the preceding, and not areal point of difference (comp. Hof- 
mann).° — xpivec racav juépar] not omnem diem judicat diem (Bengel, Philippi), 
but corresponding to the first half of the verse : he declares himself for each 
day, so that he would have each esteemed equally holy, not certain days before 
others. — éxaoro¢ x.7.4.] Here too, as in the case of an adiaphoron, no more 
than in ver. 2, an objective decision, who is or is not in the right ; but 
rather for both parties only the requisite injunction, namely, that each should 
have a complete assurance of faith as to the rightness of his conduct, without 
which persuasion the consciousness of the fulfilment of duty is lacking, and 
consequently the adiaphoron becomes sinful (vv. 20, 23). — Anpod.] Comp. 
iv. 21. — év 7. idiw voi] i.e. in the moral consciousness of his own reason (vii. 
23), therefore, independently of others’ judgment, assured in himself of the 
motives of action. 


1This was in fact only an auxiliary 
sentence, which, as obvious In itself, might 
have been omitted. Were the reading és 
yey yap correct, Paul would be introducing 
that which he has to say of the second 
matter of controversy, in the form of a 
confirmation of that which is just adduced 
respecting the fret. 

* It must have been a matter of practical 
offence, especially at the agapae. 

3? Comp. Col. fi. 16; Gal. iv. 10. To think 
merely of fast days (Mangold, comp. Weiss, 


vidl. Theol. p. 414) is an arbitrary limitation, 
without any ground in the text. 

* Bernhardy, p. 2%8; Lobeck, ad Aj. 473, 

On xpivey nm, in the sense of to declare 
oneself for something, 1.0. aliguid probare, 
eligere, comp. Aesch. Agam. 471 (xpive & 
addovow SABov), Suppl. 308 (cpive odBas 1d wpds 
dew); Plat. Rep. p. 899 E; Xen. Hell. 1. 7. 
11; Isocr. Paneg. 46. On wapa in the sense 
of preference, Xen. Mem. |. 4. 14, and Kiithner 
inloc. ; but in Soph. Aj. 4735, wap’ iuap nudpa 
is (In opposition to Valckenaer, Sckoé. Il. p. 


512 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Ver. 6. The right point of view, according to which each must have his 
own full persuasion, expressed not imperatively, but indicatively, as the 
Christian axiom in these matters, which conditions and regulates that rAp- 
gopia. — 6 gpovev tiv nutpav x.7.A.] he who directs his carefulness to the day, 
exercises this carefulness in his interest for the Lord, namely, in order thereby 
to respond to his relation of belonging to the Lord. Tiwv juép. with the 
article denotes textually the day concerned, that which comes into consider- 
ation conformably to the xpivecy jutpay wap’ juépav, not the day aa it happens 
(Hofmann). By xtptoc most understand God, others (as Estius, Rickert, 
KGllner, Fritzsche, Philippi) Christ. The former appears to be correct, on 
account of ciyap. ydp r. Oeg ; but the latter is correct, on account of ver. 9. 
The absence of the article is not at variance with this.’ — «vpiy icfie:) using 
his Christian freedom in regard to the use of flesh in the interest of the Lord, 
which definite ethical direction of his éofiiey he attests by his ev yapureir ro 
Oem therein. [Sce Note CXLII. p. 526.] This refersto the prayer at table, 
and, as is also the case with the subsequent ey. r. @., not to that offered 
after the meal (Hofmann), but to that before it ; comp. Matt. xv. 36, xxvi. 
26; Acts xxvii. 85; 1 Cor. x. 80, xi. 24; 1 Tim. iv. 4. The thankagicing 
to God, consecrating the partaking of food, presupposes the conviction that 
one does the éoffiey in the capacity of belonging to Christ, and conformably 
to this specific relation ; for anything that is opposed to Christ the Christian 
cannot thank the Father of Christ. — xaié ui tof. x.r.a.] The opposite of the 
preceding point (the observance of days) Paul has not added (see critical 
notes), because he has not at the beginning of ver. 6 planned his language 
antithetically ; and it is only on the mention of the second more important 
point that the conception of the opposite occurs to him, and he takes it up 
also. To append the antithesis also to the first clause of the verse, was 
indeed not necessary (Philippi) ; but neither would it have been confunng 
(Hofmann), especially as the selecting of days and its opposite, as well as 
the eating and not-eating, were for thoso respectively concerned equally 
matters of conscience. — xvpiy ovn éobie:] for the Lord he refrains from the eating 
(of flesh), persuaded that this abstinence tends to serve the interest of Christ. 
—xai ebyap. t@ Oe] That which was previously conceived as the reason (yap) 
is here conceived as the consequence (cai) ; and 80 he utters his thankagicing 
table-prayer to God, namely, for the other, vegetable food, which forms 
the meal to be enjoyed by him. He is enabled to do so by the conviction 
that his oi« éofiew has its holy ethical reference to the Lord. 

Vv. 7-9. Proof for the threefold xvpfw, ver. 6, and that generally from 
the whole subjective direction of the life of Christians towards Christ. Paul does 
not mean the odjectice dependence on Christ (Riickert, Reiche, Ernesti, 
Urspr. d. Siinde, II. p. 19), because it would not prove what was said in ver. 
6, but would only establish the obligation thereto. — éavrg [4] so that he 
believes that his life belongs to himself, that he lives for his own interest and 
aims. 2 Cor. v. 15. Conrp. the passages in Wetstein and Fritzsche. The 


158 ff.) to be otherwise understood: see Eri. 1898; Gramm. p. 118 [E. T. p. 124]; 
Lobeck ad loc. Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 578. 
1 Seo Winer, de sensu vocum xipios ef 0 xvp., 


CHAP. xIVv., 9, 10. 513 
dative is thus to be taken in the ethically telic sense, and so, too, in éavrg 
aroOvfoxe: ; for also the dying of the Christian—in so ideal a manner is Paul 
conscious of the moral power and consecration of fellowship of life with 
Christ—is a moral act (Bengel : ‘‘eadem ars moriendi, quae vivendi,” in the 
relation of belonging to Christ, in which the Christian at death feels and 
knows that he has stood with his life, and is now also to stand in his dying. 
Such is the conscious év xupiy arobvfoxev, Rev. xiv. 13. Comp. Phil. i. 20; 
Rom. viii. 38. — Ver. 8 contains the positive counterpart, proving the nega- 
tive contents of ver. 7, and is likewise to be understood as a subjective 
relation. — On ré yap. . . ré, for aswell . . . as also, see Hartung, Partikell, 
I. pp. 88, 115 ; Baeumlein, Part. p. 219. — row xupiov éouev] the Lord’s prop- 
erty are we. This now derives the sum of the entire specifically Christian 
consciousness from its previously adduced factors. —In the threefold emphat- 
ic r@ xvpiy (rod xvpiov) observe the ‘‘divina Christi majestas et potestas ” 
(Bengel), to which the Christian knows himself to be completely surren- 
dered. 

Ver. 9. Objective historical relation, on which this subjective attitude 
towards Christ, ver. 8 (éav re obv «.r.A), is founded.— éyae] became alive, to 
be understood of the resurrection life. Comp. Rev. ii. 8, xx. 4, 5 ; Rom. v. 
10; 2 Cor. iv. 10. The aorist denotes the setting in of the state ; Kihner, 
ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 18. Wrongly Olshausen (so also Schrader) thinks that 
the carthly life of Jesus is meant, so that there occurs a hysteron proteron ; 
in which view he overlooks, first, that the mutual reference of the two ele- 
ments in protasis and apodosis is only formal,’ and secondly, that it was 
not Jesus’ life and death, but rather His death and life (resurrection), which 
led to His attainment of the heavenly xvpiéryc. Comp. viii. 84, vi. 9, 10 ; 
Phil. ii, 8, 9; Luke xxiv. 26; Matt. xxviii. 18.—iva] destination in the 
divine counsel, This aimed, in the death and resurrection of Christ, at the 
establishment of His munus regium, and that over the dead (in Scheol, Phil. 
ii. 10) and living ; hence Christians are conscious of belonging to Him in 
living and dying (ver. 8). Unsuitably to é{yoev, since the raising up of the 
Lord is certainly, in the apostle’s view, the work of God (i. 4, iv. 24, vi. 4, 
vill. 11, and many other passages), Hofmann sees in iva Christ's own purpose 
expressed. 

Ver. 10. LX dé] discloses the contrast to the xupiéry¢ of Jesus. — The first 
of addresses the weaker, the second the /reer Christian, as is clear from ver. 
3. — ydp] justifies the censure of presumption which lies in the preceding 
questions : for all, etc., and therefore in both cases thou as well as he. — 
wapaorna., 6 shall stand before, ‘‘stare solent, quorum causa tractatur,” 


' Paul, namely, does not say: Christ died, 
in order that He might be Lord over the 
dead, and lired,in order that he might be 
Lord over the living; but He died and be- 
came alive (both logether had the end in 
view), én order that He might rule over dead 
and living (both together). Fritzsche also, 
although rightly understanding énee of the 
resurrection life, urges the mutual refer- 


ence of arédave and vecpwy, and of écnos 
and gwvrey: By the death of Jesus, God de- 
sired to make known that He was Lord over 
the dead, and by the new /ife of Christ, that 
He was Lord over the living. But this 
merely declarative view is quite arbitrary ; 
moreover, the (wy in ¢¢nce would be quite 
another than the ¢e% of the qwrrer. 


51+ THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMAKXS. 


Grotius ; Acts xxvi. 6 ; Matt. xxv. 33.—ro B7u. r. Grow (see critical notes) : 
for God will cause the judgment to be held (John v. 22) by Christ (ii. 16; 
Acts x. 42, xvii. 31). So the judgment-seat upon which Christ will st (3 
Cor. v. 10; Polycarp, ad Phil. 6 ; Matt. xxv. 31) is God’s.—Note how deci- 
sive is the testimony of such passages against any limitation of the univer- 
sality of the final judgment.’ 

Ver. 11. Scripture proof for the rdvre¢ rapactnodsuefa «.r.A., ver. 10. The 
point of its bearing on the matter lies in the universality, as is clear from the 
reference of ray and aoa, ver. 11, to mrdvre¢ above, ver. 10. Thus the 
proposition of ver. 10, mdvrec yap x.r.A.—although in and by itself it re- 
quired no scriptural proof—receives, nevertheless, a hallowed confirmation, 
which makes the injustice of the previously censured judging and despising 
the more apparent, because it encroaches on the universal final judgment of 
God.—The citation is Isa. xlv. 23, quoted very freely with deviations, partly 
of memory, partly intentional, from the LXX., and abbreviated. In Isaiah, 
God certifies upon His oath that all men (including the Gentiles) shall ren- 
der to Him adoring homage. This divine utterance—Messianic, because 
promising the universal triumph of the theocracy—is here taken by Paul in 
the light of that highest jinal historical fulfilment which will take place at 
the judgment of the world. — [6 éyé] Instead of xar énavrow opvbu, as the 
LXX. following the Hebrew have it, Paul uses, by a variation of memory, 
a frequently-occurring verbal formula of the divine oath : °J8 ‘) (Num. 
xiv. 21, 28; Deut. xxxii. 40, e¢ al. ; Dan. xii. 7; Ruth iii. 13 ; Judith ii 
12).—Aéyee xbpeog] is added by Paul according to the elsewhere familiar 
O. T. formula. Comp. xii. 19. — érc] that, because in (& éyé is involved the 
assurance on oath, that, etc. Comp. 2 Chron. xviii. 13; 1 Sam. xiv. 44; 
Judith xi. 7 and Fritzsche in loe. — éuoi] tome, asthe Judge (so in the sense 
of the apostle) for homage and submission. — é€ouo2oy. tr. Ge@] Aeparting from 
the LXX., which, following the Hebrew, has éyeira: waca yA. row Gedy, for the 
reading of Cod. A of the LXX. (also & on the margin), é£opoAoyfaera: instead 
of dueirar, was probably—seeing that the Scptuagint has very frequently 
undergone similar alterations of the text from N. T. citations—first intro- 
duced from our passage, and not a reading which Paul found in his copy of 
the LXX. (Fritzsche), as is too rashly inferred from Phil. ii. 11. The var- 
ation itself is—as was allowed by the freedom in the handling of Messianic 
proof-passages—intentional, because Paul required, instead of the oath of 
God, a more general conception, which, however, lies at the basis of that 
special conception ; for the swearing is the actual acknowledgment and 
glorification of God as the Judge. The correct explanation is: and ctéry 
tongue shall praise God (as the Judge), and therewith submit to His judi- 
cial authority—parallel in sense to éuoi xdupe: rav yévv. efopoAoyeioba with 
the dative always denotes to praise (xv. 9 ; Matt. xi. 25 ; Luke x. 21; fre 
quently in the LXX. and Apocrypha, see Biel and Schleusner, s.9.): it only 
denotes to confess, as in later Greek, with the aceusatice of the object, Matt. 


1 This applies also in oppositionto Ger- 16, iff.6; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. wi.7f.; Acts 
lach, d. kelzten Dinge, p. 1086 ff. Comp.1.6, xvii. 81. 


CHAP. XIV., 12-14. 515 


iii. 6; Jas. v. 16; Tob. xii. 22. Hence the explanation of Er. Schmid, 
Reiche, Kdllncr, following Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, is erro- 
neous : to confess sins, which would only then be admissible if the parallel- 
ism obviously suggested the supplying of ra¢ duzapriac. — With the reading 
r¢ j3guate Tov Xptoroi, ver. 10, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oecu- 
menius, Luther, Calvin, and many others, including Philippi, have found in 
ré Geo a proof forthe divinity of Christ. There would rather be implied 
the idea, that it is God, whose judgment Christ is entrusted by the Father 
to hold ; and this thought is contained also in the reading r. f. r. Ocod, 
ver. 10. 

Ver. 12. What follows from the preceding (from mdvreg yap . . . onward). 
— The emphasis is neither on epi ¢avrov (so usually) nor on r@ Od (Phi- 
lippi), but on the éxaorog for that purpose prefixed, which corresponds to the 
emphatic mdvrec, tav, taca, vv. 10, 11 ; hence it alone bears the stress, not 
sharing it with rep? éavr. and rq Ge (Hofmann). Fach of us, none excepted, 
will respecting himself, etc. How at variance with this, therefore, to judge 
or to despise, as though one were not included in the subjection to this our 
unitersal destiny of having to give a personal account to God ! — déce:] 
purely future in sense, like the preceding futures. 

Vv. 13-283. Christians ought not, therefore, mutually to condemn one another, 
but rather to hare the principle of giving no offence, ver. 18. Further eluci- 
dation of this principle, and exhortations to compliance with it. . 

Ver. 13. Myxére (no more, as hitherto) aAAgAoue xpivwuev is deduced (obv) from 
éxaoroc judy «.t.A. ; but «pivouev here refers, as 447A. shows, to both parties. 
[See Note CXLIII. p. 526. ] — xpivare] antanaclasis: the same word, in order 
to make the contrast striking (for to the xpivecy which is against one's duty 
that which is in accordance with duty is opposed), is repeated, but with the 
modification of reference and of sense, that it addresses the freer Christians 
(for it was they who gave the offence), and means in general : let this be 
your gudgment, your moral maxim in this point. [See Note CXLIV. p. 526. } 
On the infinitive with the article aftera preparatory demonstrative, comp. 
2 Cor. ii. 1.'— mpécxoupa and oxdvdarov : both quite synonymous in the 
metaphorical sense : moral stumbling-block, an occasion for acting contrary 
to conscience. But r:févac refers to the original proper sense of the two 
words. Comp. on ix. 82, 83, xi. 9; LXX. Lev. xix. 14 ; Judith v. 1. The 
twofold designation is an earnest and exhaustive expression of the idea ; 
hence to attempt a real distinction between the synonyms, which differ only 
figuratively (stone . . . trap), is arbitrary. 

Ver. 14. (See Note CXLV. p. 527.] Discussion of the preceding injunction, 
giving information regarding it. Paul grants, namely, in principle, that the 
freer brethren are right, but immediately adds an exception which arises in 
practice, and, in assigning the reason for this addition, declares (vcr. 15) the 
not attending to the exception a proof of want of love. — xai rémecopac Ev xvp. 
'T.] More precise definition of the preceding oida. — év xup.] t.e. in my fellow- 
ship with the Lord ; ovx dpa avOpwrivne dtavoias 4 Widoc, Chrysostom. — xorvdy] 


1 Xen. de Rep. Lac. 9. 1, and see Haase in loc. ; Breitenbach, ad Xen. Oec. 14. 10. 


516 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


corresponding to the Bé3nAov of the Greeks : profane, axé@aprov (Chrysostom), 
Acts x. 14, 28, xi. 8 ; Heb. x. 29. Thus the eating of flesh was held to be 
unholy and unclean, and therefore a thing at variance with the holiness of 
a Christian’s position. Comp. Ezek. xlii. 20 ; 1 Macc. i. 47, 62. — dv avroi] 
‘Since the reflerive airov (with the rough breathing) is generally doubtful in the 
N. T. (comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 97 f. [E. T. 111]), and here the personal 
avrov (with the soft breathing) is quite sufficient and appropriate in sense, the 
latter is to be preferred (Bengel, Matthaei, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 7, Hof- 
mann) ; not, however, to be referred to Christ (Theodoret, Bisping, Jatho, 
and others), but to be explained : through itself, i.e. through tts nature. Ind 
avzov is thus implied the oljectizely existing uncleanness, in contrast (see below) 
to that which subjectively accrues per accidens. On account of the laws relat- 
ing to food of the O. T., Olshausen thinks that the thought of the apostle 
is intended to affirm that ‘‘ through Christ and His sanctifying influence the 
creation has again become pureand holy.” This arbitrary importation of a 
meaning (followed by Bisping) is overthrown by the very circumstance that 
the abstinence of the Roman ascetics was by no means founded on the law 
—which did not in fact forbid the use of flesh generally—but was of a supra- 
legal Essenic character. Moreover, Paul was clear and certain, so far as 
concerns the O. T. laws of food, that they had outlived the time of obliga- 
toriness appointed for them by God, and were abolished by God Himself, 
inasmuch as in Christ the end of the law had come, and the temporary di- 
vine institute had given place to the eternal one of the gospel as its fulfil- 
ment, Matt. v. 17. Comp. on x. 4; Col. ii. 16 ff. ; also on Acts x. 15, 16. 
—ei u#] not equivalent to aA4d, but nisi, which, without taking é ira 
also into account, applies merely to ovdév xowdv. Comp. on Matt. xii 4: 
Gal. ii, 16. — éxeivw xocvév] éx. with emphasis, as in 2 Cor. x. 18, Mark vi. 
15, 20, and very frequently in John. The uncleanness is in euch a case s- 
jective, coming into existence and subsisting actually for the individual 
through the fettered condition of his own conscience. 

Ver. 15. Tap] According to this reading critically beyond doubt (see the 
critical notes),—-which, however, Philippi, on account of the sense, regards 
as ‘‘absolutely untenable,’—the apostle specifies the reason, why he hase 
pressly added the exception ei uy Tp Aoyil. w.t.A. The yap belonging to the 
principal sentence is, according to a very prevalent usage (see Bacumleit. 
Partik. p. 85), taken into the prefixed accessory sentence, so that the atgu- 
mentative thought is: ‘‘not without good moral ground do I say: # #4 

. xovév ; for it indicates a want of love, if the stronger onc has not tf 
gard to this relation towards the weaker.” — dia Bpaua] on account of food, 
i.e. because of a kind of food, which he holds to be unclean and secs thet 
eat. — Aureira:] not : is injured, which would consist in the azdéAAvober (Phi- 
lippi, contrary to N. T. usage), but of moral affliction, i.e. vexation of 
science, which is occasioned by the giving of a oxdvdadov (ver. 18), Analogou* 
is Eph. iv. 30. [See Note CXLVI. p. 527.] To understand it of the #o%"7 
roproaches on account of narrow-mindedness (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Ewald), 
is gratuitously to import the substance of the thought, and docs not car™ 
spond to the connection (vv. 13, 14, 20, 21). — ovxére xara aydn. mepirareit] ++ 


CHAP. XIv., 16. 517 
in that case thou hast ceased to bear thyself conformably to love. This is the 
actual state of things which subsists, when what is expressed in the protasis 
occurs ; the Avuzeira:, namely, is conceived as the fault of the subject addressed.’ 
On ei. . . odxérz, comp. vii. 20, xi. 6 ; Gal. iii. 18. To take the apodosis 
interrogatively (Hofmann), is—considering the definite character, quite in 
keeping with the context of the Avreiras which is occasioned by the offence 
given—quite unwarranted, and does not suit the words.?— The azdédAve is 
the possible result of the Avumreira: : destroy him not, bring him not into de- 
struction, namely, through his being seduced by thy example to disregard 
his conscience, and to fall out of the moral element of the life of faith into 
the sinful element of variance with conscience. That we are to explain it 
of the efernal arwdeca, is clear from irép ot X. aréOave ; for in order to re- 
demption from this Christ offered up His life—therefore thou oughtest not 
to thrust back into azédea thy (so dearly bought) brother through the 
loveless exercise of thy free principles. Comp. 1 Cor. vili. 11, 12. ‘‘Ne 
pluris feceris tuum cibum, quam Christus vitam suam,” Bengel. 

Ver. 16. M7 BAacgyueicbw}| namely (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 12), 
through your fault. — tuadv 7d ayabéy] your good Kar’ tEoxiv, t.€. } Bactdeia rov 
Geov, ver. 17. [See Note CXLVII. p. 528.] So also Ewald and Umbreit. 
It is the sum of the péAAovra ayabd, Heb. ix. 11, x. 1. How easily it might 
come to pass that a schism, kept up by means of condemnation and con- 
tempt, on account of eating and drinking, might draw down on that jewel 
of Christians—the object of their whole endeavour, hope, and boast—calum- 
nious judgments at the hands of unbelievers, as if maxims respecting eat- 
ing and drinking formed that on which the Christian was dependent for 
attaining the blessing of the kingdom! In opposition to the context in 
ver. 17, following the Fathers (in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 14), de Wette holds 
that faith is meant ;* Luther, Calovius, and others, including Philippi : the 
gospel ; Origen, Pelagius, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, 
including Flatt, Borger, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Reithmayr, Maier, Bisping, with irrelevant appeal to 1 Cor. x. 80: Chris- 
tian freedom ; van Hengel generally : quod in robis Romanis bonum est ; bet- 
ter Hofmann : that which, as their essential good, gives Christians the advan- 
tage over non-Christians,—a view, however, which leaves the precise defini- 


? Note that the presents Auvreirac and wepi- 
wareis coincide in fime, as indeed the two 
regarded practically coincide in reality. 
For that, which causes to the weak one dis- 
tress of conscience 44 Bpwpa, ls simply the 
unsparing conduct of the strong one no 
longer under the guidance of love. 

3.According to Hofmann, ov«dr: «.17.A. is 
designed simply to submit to the person 
addressed the question whether he really al- 
lows himself to be induced—through the weak- 
ness Of hia fellorc- Christian in falling into con- 
cern on account of a particular food—lo alter 
his conduct #0 as lo behave witha want of love. 
In that case, the apostle must at least have 


expressed himself by the future reprrarjoecs 
(wilt thou then no longer behave in con- 
formity with love), or by déAccs weptwareiy, 
or, most clearly, because implying a negative 
Answer: “Hy ovKdr. «K. ay. weptrarnons (thou 
wilt not thus cease, etc.’); comp. x. 18; 1 
Cor. ix. 4. 

3 Among the Fathers, Chrysostom’s view 
is very vacillating and Indefinite: 4 rnv sie- 
Tuy dynoiv, 7 THY méAAOVGAY eAnioa TwY ewadAme, 
Hrhy dwnpricneyvny evodBecay’ mH xpw Kaxws 
reradryri cov, unde woiee ravtny BAacdypeio- 
das. Theodoret explains definitely of /aits ; 
so also Photius, 


518 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tion of the notion unsettled. With tyér, Paul, after having previously ad- 
dressed a single party in the singular, turns to all ; hence we are not, with 
Fritzsche, to think in iu. of the strong believers only (and in ico¢. of the 
weak believers). Note, further, the emphasis of the prefized ipév (comp. 
Phil. iii. 20): the possession belonging to you, to you Christians, which 
you must therefore all the more guard against slander from without. 

Ver. 17. Motive for complying with the u? BAcogny. x.7.2., with reference 
to the contents of the possible slander. — 4 Baca. r. Geov] is not anywhere 
(comp. on Matt. iii. 2, vi. 10; 1 Cor. iv. 20 ; Col. i. 18), and so is not here, 
anything else than the Messiah’s kingdom, the erection of which begins with 
the Parousia,’ belonging not to the aidy ovroc, but to the aidv pé2dor (1 Cor. 
vi. 9, 10, xv. 24, 50; Gal. v. 21; Eph. v. 5 ; Col. iv. 11 ; 1 Thess, ii 12; 
2 Thess. i. 5) ; not therefore the (invisible) church, the regnum gratiae, or 
the earthly ethical kingdom of God (Reiche, de Wette, Philippi, Lipsius. fol- 
lowing older expositors), res christiana (Baumgarten-Crusius), and the like. 
‘The Messianic kingdom is not eating and drinking ;” i.e., the essential char- 
actcristic of this kingdom does not consist in the principle that a mas, in 
order to become a member of it, should eat and drink this or that or every- 
thing without distinction, but in the principle that one should be upright, 
etc. Less accurate, and, although not missing the approximate sense, readily 
liable to be misunderstood (see Calovius), is the view of the Greek Fathers, 
Grotius, and many others : the kingdom of God is not obtained through, ete. 
Comp. on John xvii. 8. [See Note CXLVIII. p. 529.] — Bpéaic, eating, 1.6 
actus edendi, different from Spdua, food, ver. 15 (comp. Tittmann, Synon. Pp. 
159), which distinction Paul always observes (in opposition to Fritzsche) ; 
sec on Col. ii. 16. — dcxasoobvy x. eip#vy] can, according to the entire context 
(comp. esp. ver. 15), and specially according to ver. 18 (dovAebwv ro X.) and 
ver. 19 (ra ri¢ eipfync), be taken only in the moral sense, and therefore 4 
ethical uprightness and peace (concord) with the brethren ; not in the d0- 
matic sense : righteousness and peace (of reconciliation) with God (Calvin, 
Calovius, and many others, including Rickert, Tholuck, and Philippi; 4¢ 
Wette blends the two meanings). But that these virtues presuppose faith 
in Christ as the soil from which they sprang, and as the fundamental prit- 
cipium essendi of the kingdom, is self-evident from the whole connection. 
— yupa év mvety. dy.] forms one phrase. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 6. It is the Holy 
joyfulness, the morally glad frame of heart which has its causal basis and atb- 
sistence in the Holy Spirit, who rules in the Christian ; comp. Gal. ¥. ™*, 
also Phil. iv. 4. It is present even in tribulation, 2 Cor. vi. 10, and does 00 
yield to death, Phil. ii. 17. The transitive explanation of the joy wphich the 
Christian diffuses over others (Grotius, Koppe, Reiche, and others) is YP 
ported neither by the simple word nor by N. T. usage elsewhere. 

Ver. 18. Not an explanation, why he has mentioned by name these three P™ 
ticulars, as those in which the kingdom consists (Hofmann), but a confirma 
tion of the contents of ver. 17 ; and how greatly must this confirmation have 
conduced to the recommendation and support of the precept jj [000% 


1 wera Thy avacoraow, Theodore of Mopsuestia. 





CHAP. XIV., 19, 20. 519 
Cd 

x.t.A. of ver. 16 as established by ver. 17 !— éy robroig] (see the critical 
notes) refers to the just mentioned three great moral elements. IIe who in 
these (not therefore possibly in Bpdorg and méorc, and the like unspiritual 
things) serves Christ, etc. On é» with dovieiecv, denoting its moral life- 
sphere, comp. vil. 6. — evapeor. r. Og} ‘‘testimonium, quod expresse adfir- 
mat bona opera renatorum placere Deo,” Melanchthon. — déx:uog roi¢ avép. | 
approved’ by men ; such is the relation according to its moral nature,—a fact 
not annulled by abnormal manifestations, in which misapprehension, perver- 
sion of the moral judgment, and the like are at work. ‘‘ Paulus hic de sin- 
cero judicio loquitur,” Calvin. 

Ver. 19. Exhortation, inferred from the doctrinal proposition, ver. 17 ; 
not a question (Buttmann). — ra rig cip.] what belongs to peace, composes the 
substance of peace, not different in matter of fact from r7v eipfvzv. See Bern- 
hardy, p. 325 f.; Kiithner, II. 1, p. 230. — rig oixodouge] figurative designa- 
tion of perfecting (here active) in the Christian life. Comp. 2 Cor. x. 8, xiii. 
10; 1 Cor. xiv. 4. According to the context in each case, the individual, 
as here, or the church, or the whole Christian body, is a building of God 
(of which Christ is the foundation, 1 Cor. iii. 11 ; Eph. ii. 20, 21), on which 
the work of building is to proceed until the Parousia, — cig a4AGA.] oixodopeire 
eig rov éva, 1 Thess. v. 11. 

Ver. 20. Prohibition of the opposite of ra rig oixodopuse tig Wig GAAGA. — 
cardAve] pull down. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 1; Gal. ii. 18; Matt. xxvi. 61.— 10 
Epyov rou Geow}] here, according to the context, the building of God, by which, 
however, is represented not what is mentioned in ver. 17 (the dexasoobvy x.7.A. 
so Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius) ; nor yet the faith of one’s fellow-Chris- 
tian (Theodoret, Reiche) or his eternal salvation (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact) ; nor all blessings vouchsafed through Christ (Kéllner, comp. 
Borger) ; but, according to ver. 15, the Christian as such, in so far as his 
Christian life, his Christian personality, is God’s work (viil. 29, 30 ; 2 Cor. 
v. 17; Eph. ii. 10). Aptly Estius says : ‘‘fratrem, quem Deus fecit fide- 
lem.” Accordingly, what was expressed in ver. 15 by py éxeivoy ardAdve, brép 
ov X. anéGave, is here expressed by p7 xardAve 7d épyov tr. Oeod ; but it is dif- 
ferently conccived and presented, in such a way that the brother is thought 
of there in his relation of redemption to Christ, here in his relation of spirit- 
ual origin to God. The importance of the latter conception is rightly point- 
ed out by Calovius: ‘‘non levis est culpa, sed horribilis Geozazia, opus Dei 
destruere.” — rdvra pév xafapa x.r.A.] the same thought as in ver. 14, repeat- 
ed in order to enter further into the pa évexev Bpdparog. ‘‘ All (all food) tn- 
deed is clean (not immoral to enjoy in and by itself), but it is stnful for the 
man who eats amidst offence,” who nevertheless uses a food, although he experi- 
ences moral offence in the using it—so that he thus against his conscience imi- 
tates the freer Christian. Comp. 1 Cor. viii. 9, 10. This reference of the 
ethical dative 79 avOpérw 1 dia mpook. icf. to the weak in faith (Chrysostom, 
Luther, Beza, Carpzov, Semler, and others, including Rickert, K6llner, 

1So Sdéacuoe in all N. T. passages (not: however prefers the reading oxipors in B 


worthy, esteemed, and the like); see Butt- G®* 77 (a copyist's error). 
mann, in the Stud. u. Arit. 1860, p. 368, who 


520 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Philippi, Tholuck, Hofmann) is confirmed by the parallel in vv. 13, 14, and 
admirably suits the connection, inasmuch as @2Aé «.7.2. unfolds the way and 
manner in which Evexev Bpouarog destruction may befall the work of God. 
Hence we must reject the explanation (Pelagius, Grotius, Bengel, and others, 
including Reiche, de Wette, Nielsen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Fritzsche, Reith- 
mayr, Krehl, Umbreit, van Hengel) of the strong in faith, who acts wrongly in 
eating under offence given, t.e. although to the offence of the weak. For in 
that case we should have here no reference at all relevant to the xarédvor of 
the épyov r. Geov, but only the vague remark that it is wrong to eat to the 
offence of others. — ada] after uév ; see Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 536; Har- 
tung, Partikell. II. p. 403 f. ; Baeumlein, p. 170. — xaxév] not Aertful (Riick- 
ert), nor yet dad in the sense of what is not good for him (Hofmann), but sin- 
ful, the ethical contrast of xafapéd. The subject (it) is to be understood of 
itself from what precedes, namely 7rd xafapéy, the pure in itself. Others 
supply wav (Reiche), rd Bpaua (Grotius), 7d éofiew (Rickert), rd mévra gayeiv 
(Fritzsche, Philippi). Hofmann also renders incorrectly, as though it ran, 
xaxdv TH avOpdoTyw Td dia mpooxduparog écHierv. — dia] asin ii. 27. 

Ver. 21. Maxim for the strong in faith, which results from the preceding 
G2AG kaxdv x.t.A.: ‘It is excellent, morally right and good, to eat no flash, and 
to drink no wine, and (generally) to do nothing whereby thy brother takes offene,” 
etc. Comp. 1 Cor. viii. 13. On uw), as joined to the infinitive with the 
article, see Bacumlein, p. 296. The article belongs only to py gay. xp. With 
the second y7dé, the general zoeiv is simply to be supplied * (Winer, p. 542 
(E. T. p. 583] ; Buttmann, p. 336 [E.T. 398]), and é& ¢@ elso refers back to 
the eating of fiesh and drinking of wine. Rickert and K@llner (following 
Luther, Grotius, Flatt) are mistaken in holding that xaAdv is to be taken cmm- 
paratively, and that the comparison lies in év @«.7.4.; in which case we should 
have very arbitrarily to assume that the apostle, instead of following it up with 
an 7#«.7.A. (sce on Matt. xviii. 8), had been led away from the construction. 
According to Hofmann, we should read p72 iv. But this would in fact 
denote, not, as Hofmann thinks, nor yet anything at all, but neque uaum, 
ne unum quidem (see on 1 Cor. vi. 5 ; Johni. 8), which would be unsuitable 
here. Quite unfounded withal is the objection against the reading 4% 
that rpooxérrev with évis not elsewhere found ; for rpooxémrec is to be taken 
by itself (absolutely), and év ¢ means «whereby, as év is also to be understood 
in Ecclus. xxx. 18 ; see Fritzsche on Kcelus. p. 167. On the absolute °p™ 
xorr. comp. Ecclus. xxxiv. 17, xiii. 23, also John xi. 9, 10. — The following 
threefold designation of the same thing, namely, of the giving occasion for 
conduct opposed to conscience (comp. ver. 13), is explained by the #74 
of the sorrowful thought. — aofevei] not : becomes weak, but, as it always 
denotes : is weak, i.e. morally powerless to withstand temptation and 
follow his moral conviction,—not different in substance from the two Pr 
ceding jiguratice designations already employed in ver. 13.—Further, that 


1The zeugmatic breviloquence, which mer onward among the Greek write™ (se6 
leaves the reader to supply, after special  Nigelsbach, ¢. Ztiae, p. 179, ed. 3). COmP 
notions (such as ¢ayeiv and mew here),a generally, Kriiger, § 62. 3 
more general word, is found also from Ho- 


CHAP. XIV., 22, 23. §21 


in ver. 21 not a merely problematic extension of abstinence is expressed, as 
those suppose who hold the abstinence on the part of the weak not to refer 
to all flesh, and to refer to wine either not at all, or only to the wine of 
libation (see introd. to the chapter, and on ver. 2), is evident from ver. 2, 
where abstinence from all flesh is expressed ; and hence here, alongside of 
the yy gayeiv xpéa, the uyd2 meiv olvov admits of no other conclusion than that 
the weak in faith drank no wine, but held the use of it likewise (see ver. 14) 
to be defiling. 

Vv. 22, 23. Xb rior éyero] [See Note CXLIX. p. 530.] may be viewed 
cither concessirely (Luther, Beza, and many others, including Scholz, Tischen- 
dorf, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Hofmann) or interrogatively (Calvin, Grotius, 
Calovius, and most moderns). Comp. on xiii. 3. The latter (already in 
Oecumenius, and probably also Chrysostom) corresponds better to the increas- 
ing animation of the discourse. Paul hears, as it were, how the strong in 
faith opposes him with an éyo rior 2yu, and he replies thereto : Thou hast 
Jaith? Thou partakest of the confidence of faith grounded on Christ, re- 
specting the allowableness of the eating and drinking (vv. 2, 21), which is 
here in question ?—Have it for thyself (apxeirw cov 1d ovverdéc, Chrysostom) 
before God, so that God is the witness of thy faith, and thou dost not make 
a parade of it before men to the offence of the weak. ‘‘Fundamentum verae 
prudentiae ct dissimulationis,” Bengel. —éye] not: thou mayest have it 
(Reiche), which deprives the imperative expression of its force. — xard ceav- 
tév] for thyself alone ; see Kithner, IT. 1, p. 414.'— waxdprog . . . xataxéxpitat 
forms a twofold consideration, which must influence the strong one not to 
abuse his strong faith to the prejudice of the weaker ; namely, (1) he has in 
truth on his side the high advantage, which is expressed by paxdpic . . . 
doxiuéfec ; On the other hand, (2) the danger is great for the weak one, if he 
through the example of the strong one is tempted to a partaking contrary 
to his conscience (6 d2 d:axpivduevoc x.7.2.). How shouldest thou not content 
thyself with that privilege, and spare this peril to the weak !| On the formal 
mutual relation of xpiv., diaxpiv., and xaraxpiv., comp. 1 Cor. xi. 81, 32, 
where, however, the definition of the sense is not as here. — paxdproc] for the 
Messianic blessedness, which has been acquired for him through Christ, docs 
not become lost to him through conscientious doubts in the determining of 
his action. — xpivev] not equivalent to xaraxpivwy, as, since Chrysostom, most 
interpreters think ; against which the climax xpivuy, d:axpivduevoc, xatraxéxpiras 
is decisive. It means: he who does not hold judgment upon himself, i.e. he 
who is so certain of his conviction, that his decision for this or that 
course is liable to no sclf-judgment ; he does not institute any such 
judgment, as the anxious and uncertain one does.— iv © doxipdte] in 
that which he approves, i.e. ‘‘ agendum eligit” (Estius). Luther aptly ren- 
ders: in that which he accepts.*— Ver. 23: But he who wavers (da- 
xcpiv., gui dubius haeret., sce on iv. 20), as to whether, namely, the cating is 
really allowed or not, is, if he shall have eaten, condemned, eo ipso (comp. on 


1 Comp. Hellodornus, vil. 16: xara cavrdy 2 Comp. 2 Macc. iv. 8; Dem. 1381.6; Plato, 
éxe nai pnoeri dodge, also the classical avrds Legg. p. 679 C; Diod. Slo. iv. 7. 
«xe, keep it for thyseif. 


§22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


xiii. 8 ; John iii. 18) liable to the divine penal judgment, the opposite of paxe- 
ptog ; comp. améAdAve, ver. 15. The matter is apprehended from the point of 
view of morally ideal strictness. Actual self-condemnation (Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Grotius, and others, including Hofmann) would have required a 
more precise designation. — dre ov« Ex wiotewc] 8c. gaye. — Trav 62 x..A.] May 
be still connected with ir: : because he ate not from faith, but all, that comes 
not from faith, is sin. If itis taken independently, however, the sense is more 
emphatic. In the conclusion, which proves the xaraxéxprra:, way 62. . - 
duapt. éoriv is the major, and oi« éx miorews sc. Eoaye the minor premiss. — 
mioree is here also none other than faith according to its moral quality (‘‘con- 
scientiam informans et confirmans,” Bengel), z.e. faith in Christ, so far as it 
brings with it the moral confidence as to what in general, and under given 
circumstances, is the right Christian mode of action. Respecting the con- 
duct of the Christian, Paul lays down the axiom which regulates it gener- 
ally, and more especially in adiaphéra, that all which does not proceed from 
that confidence of faith as the moral spring of action is sin ; to express 8 
moral fundamental law beyond the Christian sphere of life, is foreign to his 
intention. Hence it was an alien proceeding to draw from the present 
expression, indirectly or directly,—in disregard of the natural law of con- 
science (ii. 14, 15),—the inference that the works and even the virtues of 
unbelievers were all of them sins (Augustine, c. Julian. iv. 3, et. al.; Luther ; 
Form. Cone. p. 700 ; Calovius, and others). Very correctly Chrysostom : 
ravta dé rdvra repi tie mpoKeysévng brobéceus eipytac TS TLataw, ov repi wart. 
But against the abuse of this passage, as though it made all accountability 
dependent only on subjective moral conviction,’ sec Jul. Miiller, von d. 
Sinde, I. p. 285, ed. 5 ; comp. also Delitzsch, Psychol. I. p, 139. 


Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror. 


CXXXVII. Ver. 1. rdv acOevoivra r9 rioret. 


The use of the word mior¢ here is kindred to that in xii. 3, though the 
special application is not the same. It is evident that the writer's thought is 
not of the strength or weakness of the principle of trust in Christ in itself con- 
sidered, but as viewed in its relation to questions of conscience and practice. 
As faith develops itself to its full measure in the soul, its natural result is to 
give intelligence and Christian freedom in all points belonging to the sphere of 
the adiaphora. Faith is not knowledge ; but it manifests itself on the side of 
knowledge, so that as the believer grows in his faith he comes more and more 
to understand (if, indeed, the faith-growth is a legitimate one) that the adia- 
phora are not in themselves wrong. The man who has the fulness of faith 
knows that, as there is no idol-god, there can be no polluting influence in 
meats taken from animals which have been sacrificed to idols, and that, as the 
earth with all that it furnishes for the support of life belongs to God, no food 
can be unclean in itself. Hence we find the Apostle speaking of himself, 10 


1 In this view, the objective will of God would have been exempted from respons 
would cease to be the standard of account- ibility. 
ability. The bloody deed of Sand, ¢.7., 


NOTES, 523 


ver. 14, as knowing and being persuaded in the Lord Jesus of this truth re- 
specting meats, and, in 1 Cor. viii. 1 ff., of all who had fully received his 
teaching as having knowledge of the nothingness of eldwAa. Paul’s conception 
of faith, thus, is that of the vital and all-pervading force of the Christian’ s life, 
which not merely secures him justification and becomes the source of holy liv- 
ing, but gives him true understanding in questions of duty and fitness for his 
special work, to which he is called of God. Weiss ed. Mey. holds that the 
weakness of faith here spoken of consists in such a fear that salvation may 
easily be lost as leads one anxiously to avoid, or painfully to do, things which 
are irrelevant to its attainment, in order that it may not be forfeited. If this 
be accepted as the true explanation, and not improbably it should be, we must 
still hold that, as this weakness gives way to growing strength, the knowledge 
which removes the fear enters the mind, and thus the increase of faith gives 
the man power to do what he shrank from doing before. That such fear and 
weakness sometimes arose in the apostolic age from the remaining influence of 
old beliefs (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 7) is not to be doubted, but we cannot affirm that 
they did in every individual case. That they were always attended by con- 
scientious scruples was natural or even necessary. 


CXXXVIITI. Ver. 1. xu} elg dtaxpicerc dcadoyroper, 


The meaning of this expression, though so uncertain as to preclude any ab- 
solute affirmation respecting it, seems to be indicated by the following points. 
(a) mpocAayuavecbe is addressed to the ‘‘strong’’ party, i.e. those who are free 
from the weakness referred to. This is evident, because the subject of the 
verb is contrasted with the object. It must be the ‘‘not weak'' who are to 
receive the ‘‘weak.” Nor will it be otherwise if, with Meyer, we say ‘‘the ex- 
horted subject is the church, in contradistinction to the weak members ;” for 
the church, as thus contradistinguished, is the strong party. That this is the cor- 
rect view is confirmed by the fact that in Gal. v. 13 ff. (where Paul, not im- 
probably, has the same general subject of thought in his mind) and 1 Cor. 
viii.-x. the exhortations are mainly addressed to this party in their relation to 
the other. If, however, the demand is made of the strong in faith, that they 
should take to their kindly fellowship their weaker brethren, it would seem 
probable that whatever words are added as bearing upon the purpose of the 
reception must describe what the strong are to do, or are to avoid doing, re- 
specting the condition of the weak. (b) su ei¢ «.7.A., as indicating the purpose, 
sets forth also, as Meyer remarks, a negative more precise definition of the 
verb. The reception to fellowship, that is, was to be a reception yz) «.r.A. 
The words draxpicec dtadoy:ouav imply, therefore, an unkindly attitude towards 
the weak party, and the most natural suggestion is that the unkindness, if 
manifested, would consist in some action bearing upon their thoughts or feel- 
ings. (c) The primary idea of diadoytoude is a thinking through or over as with 
one’s self, or in one's own mind. Hence it comes to mean, in the plural, 
speculations or reasonings. This primary idea is apparently suggested directly 
or indirectly in most, if not indeed all, of the N. T. passages where it occurs. 
It is thus adapted to express that mental state which, in connection with ques- 
tions such as are here under consideration, is described by our word scruples. 
(d) dtdxpicig does not seem to derive from its corresponding verb the meaning 
doubts. Of the other possible significations, it is probable that decision or 


524 TOE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


judgment is the one here intended, because d:dxp:oic¢ in the two other cases 
where it occurs in the N. T. (1 Cor. xii. 10; Heb. v. 14) has this meaning or 
the one which lies at the basis of it; and because a dispule or discussion 
respecting the subject of the scruples would not, in itself, be necessarily other- 
wise than beneficial. The impropriety or undesirableness of it would depend 
on the spirit in which it was carried on. On the other hand, the passing of 
condemnatory judgments could not but be evil.—The probabilities as to the 
sense of each of the two words and the indications of the two clauses of the 
verse as related to each other, accordingly, combine together in favour of the 
explanation, not for the purpose of passing judgments upon their scruples. Such a 
purpose would be contrary to kindly fellowship. 


CXXXIX. Ver. 2. d¢ pév miorever x.7.A. 


That mioreves means here not believes that he may, but has faith to, eat all things, 
is clear from the ac@evotvra 79 wiore: of ver. 1, and from the éx ricrewe of ver. 
23. There seems to be no reason discoverable from the chapter to lead us to 
the belief that any limitation should be put upon the language used in this 
verse ; and hence we may hold, with Meyer, that the weak man is represented 
as refusing all meats, and not merely all ceremonially unclean meats, or all flesh 
sacrificed to idols. The extreme cases are taken for the purpose of emphasis. 


CXL. Ver. 3. éfovOevelrw — xpwétu. 


After setting forth the condition of the two parties, as represented by two 
supposed cases, the bidding appropriate to each is given. The one who is free 
from scruples must not have contempt for the Christian brother who is under 
bondage to them ; and the latter must not judge or condemn the former. The 
grounds for the command are added : because God has accepted as His own 
the one on whom judgment is passed ; because, being the servant of God, he 
in responsible to God only ; and because the subjects referred to are such as 
involve no sin, provided the man is fully persuaded in his own mind—he may 
live to the Lord equally whether he eats or declines to eat. 


CXLI. Ver. 5. &¢ uév ydp xpive: jutpay x.7.A, 


Tisch. (8) adopts yép. Treg. Alf. reject it. W.& Hort place it in brackets. 
The commentators generally, with Meyer, do not accept it as belonging to the 
text. If it is read, the passage respecting ‘‘days” is evidently introduced in a 
subordinate way, as an illustrative proof of what is said concerning the matter 
of eating, or, according to Hofmann, of the sentence duvare? . . . avréy (ver. 4). 
If, on the other hand, yép is omitted, there is a certain parallelism between 
this verse and ver. 2. The fact alluded to by Meyer, however,—that there is 
only a passing reference to this subject, while the other matter fills the whole 
remaining portion of the chapter,—makes it evident that the observance or 
non-observance of days was a thing of secondary importance to the Apostle’s 
present thought. The main point is the question of meats. 

We may infer from Gal. iv. 10 and Col. ii. 16, which are apparently kindred 
in thought to this verse, that the days here referred to were those observed by the 
Jews. Meyer regards them as including both feast and fast days. Weiss ed. 
Mey. would limit them to the latter. There seems, however, to be no sufficient 


NOTES. 52d 


ground for this limitation. The different attitude which Paul takes in the 
three Epistles does not show that he is thinking of different observances. It 
is perfectly explicable without this supposition. He is here, asin the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians, addressing the church members with regard to 
their private and social life in these matters. They were holding different 
opinions, as connected with the stronger or weaker measure of their faith, and 
were passing judgments privately on actions and scruples. Under such cir- 
cumstances he could write calmly—telling them that the questions of this class 
were not of vital importance ; that the kingdom of God was not eating and 
drinking, but righteousness ; that, whether one should eat all things or vegeta- 
bles only, he would neither gain nor lose anything at the day of final judgment, 
that there was no sin in freedom ; that freedom in such things was even the high- 
est and normal state for the intelligent believer ; but that, as some believers 
were still under the bondage of conscientious scruples, the rule of the Christian 
society should be, here as it was everywhere, love to the brethren. Each one 
should, for himself, see that he was, before acting, fully persuaded in his own 
mind. Each one should, in his relations to others, be animated by the spirit 
of Christ. There should be no condemnation of the strong by the weak, and 
no contempt of the weak on the part of the strong. In the case of the Galatian 
and Colossian churches, on the contrary, there was quite a different condition of 
things. In Galatia, he saw his converts, under the influence of teachers who 
bitterly opposed his doctrine, moving away from the freedom of the gospel to 
the bondage of Judaistic views. At Colossae, there were men who insisted upon 
these observances as essential to the highest life, in connection with the idea 
of matter as the source of evil. The truth of Christianity was, thus, involved by 
reason of the assanits of dangerous and insinuating enemies. He was com- 
pelled to arouse his unthinking followers by the sound of alarm, and to bid 
them claim independence for themselves as related to the judgment or de- 
mand of any who would condemn them. But the subject of controversy was 
the same in all cases. The difference was only in the position of the adversa- 
ries, and, consequently, of the Apostle himself. 

The bearing of this verse upon the observance of the Christian Sunday is 
discussed by many writers. The following points may be noticed in a candid 
and impartial examination of this question. (a) The primary, and probably 
exclusive direct reference of the words, as related to the differences in the 
churches addressed by Paul, was to Jewish, not to Christian observances. 
(6) An agreement respecting the latter, connected with a difference respecting 
the former, is conceivable. (c) The writer may possibly, therefore, have had 
no intention of including the Christian Sunday among the days whose 
observance or non-observance might be left to the individual judgment. 
(d) On the other hand, the contrast in the words of the verse is between 
esteeming one day above another and esteeming every day alike. The 
universality of the expression is noticeable. (e) No command is given by 
the Apostle in any of his Epistles with reference to the Christian Sunday, 
and no referenee is made to it except in 1 Cor. xvi. 2. (f) The mode of 
dealing with the general subject of ‘‘ days” must be considered. Is it prob- 
able or improbable that Paul would have written as he did in the three Epie- 
tles, if the error of the Sabbath. observers had been simply, or mainly, an error 
in keeping the seventh day instead of, or in addition to, the first? The deter- 
mination of these points and their adjustment in relation to one another are 


526 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


necessary to a decision. The decision when made, will not in itself settle the 
question as to the grounds or the proper character of Sunday-observance, but 
it must find its place in the main argument on that question. What Paul's 
view of the matter was is an important element in the discussion as to whether 
the Christian Sunday depends on, and finds its inviolable Divine ordinance in. 
the Fourth Commandment. The question in its wider range, however, extends 
beyond this point of the relation of the Christian institution to the Mosaic 
Law. 
CXLI. Ver. 6. 6 éofiay xupiy boGier x.7.A. 


Paul recognizes the fact that both the eater and the non-eater take the course 
of action which they follow with that regard for the Lord and their duty to 
Him, which animates the Christian in everything. Whether he lives or dies, 
it is not for himself, but for Christ. It is to be observed here, (a) that avpiy 
refers to Christ, because the believer, according to the Pauline phraseology, is 
doviAoc (here oixétne, ver. 4) Xpicrov, and because Xprorée is used in ver, 9 with 
manifest reference to xupiy (comp. also xupievoy, ver. 9). (2) that living and dy- 
ing are mentioned, as in viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22, as the two extremes between 
which everything else must be included :—if for Christ in these, for Him in all 
things ; (3) that the proof on which he rests his statement that both parties act 
with true regard to the Lord's service is, that they each of them offer the prayer 
of thanksgiving for that which they eat ; (4) that the use of the words no man liv- 
eth to himself (ver. 7), which is often made in public discourse, as meaning that 
the Christian, according to the law of his life, should live for others, is not jus- 
tified by the thought of the passage. Living for others is a teaching of Chris- 
tianity, but not of these words. 


CXL. Ver. 13. ynxére otv GAARAov’ Kplywpev. 

The immediate connection of ody is (as Meyer also says) with éxacroc x.7.A. of 
ver. 12. In the progress of the thought, however, it may be regarded as intro- 
ducing a conclusion from all that has been said. As the Christian is not his 
brother-Christian’s servant, but Christ's ; as the one who eats the meats and 
the one who does not both act in devotion to the common Master ; and as the 
judgment of God is to decide all questions at the end, the duty of the two par- 
ties is to refrain from judging each other. The two words éfovGeveiy and xpivecy 
are here included in xpiywyev, because the éfovd. is really a xpivecv, 


CXLIV. Ver. 13. aAAd rovro xplvare pdA2ov, x.7.A. 


From the negative exhortation zyx... . xplv., which is addressed to both 
parties, and in which he also includes himself, Paul turns immediately to a 
positive one directed to the ‘‘strong’’ section only. The remainder of the 
chapter appeals to them ; bidding them resolve to put no hindrance in the way 
of the Christian life and progress of the weak, and setting forth reasons why 
they should follow the bidding. These reasons, which, in the earnestness and 
natural flow of the thought, are not presented in carefully arranged succession, 
are the following : (1) that the weak will be ‘grieved ;”’ (2) that the one for 
whom Christ died and in whose life is God's work may be thus injured or 
even destroyed ; (3) that the danger of this injury and loss is occasioned for the 
sake of what is not essential to the kingdom of God, but is comparatively 
unimportant. 


NOTES. 527 


CXLV. Vv. 14-23. 


The doctrine of Paul on the subject of the adiddopa, as indicated in these 
verses, involves the following points. (a) There is no real ground for con- 
scientious scruples in such matters. He distinctly declares himself to be of the 
strong and free party. As living in the sphere uf Christ, and taught by Him, 
he is persuaded, he even knows that nothing is unclean in and through itself. 
(b) The man who has this knowledge and persuasion (i.e. this faith to eat all 
things) is to be called happy, and may rightly for and by himself enjoy his 
freedom before God. (c) The man who is not fully persuaded, i.e., who thinks 
a certain thing to be unclean, will do wrong if he eats. His subjective state 
makes the action wrong, not in itself, but for him. (d) The strong, as they are 
brought into relations with the weak, must not insist upon the exercise of that 
liberty which they may indulge in private, because Christian love must help 
and not hinder or harm the weak. (e) The principle of action in all such matters 
must be love. 

It is evident, however, that Paul did not hold the view that the Christian 
body should always limit its opinions, or its acts, by the limitations of those 
among its members whose knowledge and faith, in the sense here indicated, are 
at the lowest point. He asserts most definitely and emphatically the rights of 
the individual conscience. ‘‘ Why is my liberty judged by another man’s con- 
science,” 1 Cor. x. 29. He affirms that conscientious scruples of the class 
referred to belong to and are occasioned by imperfect Christian knowledge. 
Growth in faith will remove them. Freedom from them is a blessedness. If 
they do not exist, they are not to be originated by anxious questioning (comp. 
1 Cor. x. 25-27), He expresses apprehension in the case of those who are fall- 
ing back into them (Gal. iv. 11), that his labour for their conversion and Chris- 
tian life has been in vain. He boldly advocates freedom against the Judaistic 
party. Ina word, he preaches the Pauline Gospel. 

No interpreter can understand the Apostle’s whole doctrine, who does not 
take both sides of the matter into his consideration. No body of Christian 
believers, it may be added, can fulfil the apostolic injunction so long as the 
men of freedom respecting the indifferent things are alone called upon to obey 
its voice, and cease to despise their weaker brethren. The weaker party must 
. also do what has often been forgotten in later times, as it was in Paul's day— 
cease to condemn those who are raised, through faith and knowledge, into the 
understanding that none of these things are unclean in themselves, but that 
they are so only to him who thinks them to be so. 


CXLVI. Ver. 15. et yap... . 6 adeAgoc Avreirat. 


Avreira: evidently is not the same word us d7dAAve, but the connection of 
the sentences shows that it must be either equivalent to that verb or must de- 
note something in the line of its meaning. It cannot, therefore, be the mere 
feeling of pain that another person does something which we regard as wrong. 
It must involve ag injury to our Christian life, of greater or less moment. 
Whether, however,—this being admitted,—Avveiy is to be regarded (with 
Philippi and others) as directly conveying the idea toinjure, or (with Weiss ed. 
Mey.) as pointing to it more indirectly, in that the weaker person, being led 
on by the example of the strong, is thrown into much internal conflict and 
sorrow, is more difficult todetermine. The comparison of this expression with 


528 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


1 Cor. viii. 9, 10, 11, 12, where there is much similiarity in language to the 
present passage, though indeed a reference toa different subject, would suag- 
gest the latter idea. Comp. especially ovveidnoig avToi dofevoig dvro¢g oixodopy- 
Gyoera ei¢ TO... EoGiery and Turrortec abrav TH ovveidgay aobevovear. 


CXLVI. Ver. 16. pu) BAacdnpeicbw otv tyor 7d aya4dr. 


The similarity of the entire passage to what is found in 1 Cor. viii. suggests 
that the reference in rd d)a9%dv is to the “‘ liberty” of the strong party. This 
explanation, which is favored by many writers (so Fritzsche, Tholuck, Godet, 
Gifford, and others), is rejected by Meyer, Weiss ed. Mey., Hofmann, de Wette, 
Alford, Philippi, and others. The last mentioned writers, however, differ in 
their views, as to what the good thing referred to is (see Meyer’s note). The 
objections urged against the reference to liberty seem to have no real founda- 
tion. They are the following : (a2) That the plural ‘‘ you’’ being used here, in- 
stead of the singular as in ver 15, shows that the writer is addressing the whole 
church, and not the strong party. But it should be noticed, (1) that the plural 
is used in ver. 13 in addressing this party, and (2) that the whole church is 
nowhere spoken of throughout the entire chapter except with the use of the 
first person plural. (6) That the emphatic position of tuav indicates a ref- 
erence to the church. But the position of tyov is altogether consistent with a 
designed prominence given to the strong party in contrast with the weak. Paul 
was exhorting the strong with respect to that which belonged to them alone. 
Comp. the emphatio ov, ver. 22. (c) That the reading #6, found in D and 
some later authorities, also in the Peshito, indicates the same reference. But 
guov simply unites the writer with the persons to whom he directs his remarks, 
and is just as applicable to the free party as it is to the whole body of believers. 
Comp. fueic of duvatoi xv. 1, 1 Cor. xv. 52, and other passages, where Paul refers 
to a class of persons and adds himself to them by the use of the ‘‘communi- 
cative we.’’ Moreover, this reading may have been, at the most, what some 
copyist thought to be the Apostle’s meaning, and may have been due to an 
error on his part as to what that meaning was. (d) That the verb SAuc¢queicty 
points to reproaches of unbelievers against the church. It is to be admitted 
that the verb often. has this reference, but that it may be used of believers 
also, is heyond doubt. It is thus used in 1 Cor. x. 30, where Paul is speaking 
of a matter kindred to that which is alluded to here. The argument derived 
from that passage as proving the same sense in this place is a very strong one. 
(e) That ver. 17 favors the interpretation of iva» as meaning all the church 
members. Not so, it may be answered, when the force of ver. 17 is rightly un- 
derstood. As, in 1 Cor. viii. 8, the Apostle urges, as a reason why the strong 
party should not allow their liberty to become a stumbling-block to the weak, 
the fact that food will not commend (or present) us before the Divine judgment- 
seat ; so here he presses the same thing on the ground that the kingdom of 
God does not consist in eating and drinking. (f) That rotc adv@pazoec (ver. 18) 
shows that the BAacdgnuia is that of unbelievers. But there is neither any 
statement by the writer, nor any decisive evidence, that avOpdzacc means only 
unbelievers, and, if it does, there is no evidence that the 18th verse has any 
force except as confirming the declaration of ver. 17, or, in other words, that 
it has an immediate connection with ver. 16 of such a sort as to have any bear- 
ing whatever on the question under consideration. It is worthy of notice that 


NOTES. §29 


there is no allusion to unbelievers anywhere else in the chapter, but, on the 
other hand, that all the other suggestions of every sort have reference to the 
two parties of believers in their relation to each other. When we take this fact 
into view, und at the same time the insufficiency of the counter arguments, 
the parallelism of the expressions in the passage in the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians must be allowed its full weight. This parallelism and the natural- 
ness of the interpretation when the verse and the context are considered by them- 
selves, render the reference of 16 dya§év to the liberty of the strong party alto- 
gether probable. 


CXLVIII. Ver. 17. od ydp éorcy 7) BactAcia tod Oeov x.7.A, 


Meyer claims that the kingdom of God here, and everywhere else, signifies 
‘‘nothing else than the Messiah's kingdom, the erection of which begins with 
the Parousia, belonging not to the aid» obroc, but to the atdv uéAzAwy.” Weiss 
ed. Mey. admits that this is the ordinary meaning of the phrase in Paul's 
writings, but he denies that the reference here is to the kingdom as established 
hereafter. It is, rather, to the essential idea of the kingdom, which is not 
such that a man must eat and drink this or that in order to participate in it. 
The view of Weiss is more nearly correct. The vital element of the kingdom 
is not eating and drinking, but righteousness. The atmosphere of the king- 
dom is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For those whose 
life is in this atmosphere the minor questions pertaining only to the physical 
life (cf. 1 Cor. vi. 13a) are insignificant. 

In regard to the words dixacoovvn and eipyrn, on the other hand, Meyer seems 
to have the right view as compared with Weiss. The latter, with Rickert, 
Tholuck, Philippi, Shedd, and others, holds that dcx. here means dix. éx stio- 
rewo and refers to justification, and that eio. means reconciliation with God. 
The ordinary sense of dix. is more appropriate to the context and the chapter 
—conformity &) what one ought to be and do. The context also points to 
peace with one another, rather than peace with God, as the idea in the writer's 
mind, Comp. vv. 18,19. Itis certainly more natural to use the form of ex- 
pression found in ver. 18, 6 dovAetwr Xpiorg év rovry or rovrors, if the words 
have the latter meaning. The whole chapter, also, has reference to actions 
and relations to the Christian brethren. It is not sufficient to urge, as counter- 
balancing the force of these suggestions, that the Apostle is stating what the 
essence of God's kingdom consists in ; for though the things which are funda- 
mental to that kingdom are justification and reconciliation, yet, in a true and 
proper sense, the essence of the kingdom is righteousness of life and peace, 
which is the fruit of love. Weiss objects that love is not mentioned, but it is 
plainly suggested in the use of eipjvn, and the circumstances of the case called 
especially for the mention of this particular manifestation of love. 

The words yapa év mveduarc dyiy have been made an objection to the refer- 
ence of dix. and eipqvn favored by Meyer. It is affirmed that this joy is not an 
active virtue, but a mere condition subjective to the individual mind. In 
answer to this, however, it may be said that joy may here be referred to as 
both the origin of and the attendant upon the state of Christian peace, or that 
it may be mentioned as one of the chief fruits of the Spirit in connection with 
the others, although it is not intended to have precisely the same application. 
The strongest argument for the other view is that connected with this ex- 


530 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


pression. But everything else points so decidedly towards Meyer's expls- 
nation, that it is to be regarded—not, indeed, as certain—but as the more 
probable of the two. Godet, Gifford, Beet, Sanday, Hofmann, and others 
among the most recent writers agree substantially with Meyer. Grimm Lex. 
N. T. is doubtful. Both views are united by de Wette. If Meyer's explanation 
ix adopted, the righteousness and peace are (as he also says himself) those of 
the Christian life ;—having faith in Christ as the soil from which they spring 


CXLIX. Vv. 22, 23. op mire iy Eyecc, «7.4. 


(1) Meyer, with whom, among recent commentators, Godet, Weiss ed. Meyer, 
Philippi, and some others agree, rejects 77. He supposes it to be oceasioned by 
a double writing of the last two letters of ricriv, or to have been added as ex- 
planatory. Philippi regards it asa paraphrastic gloss. Godet decides against its 
insertion on the ground that the ancient versions generally do not favour it, and 
that it is not in keeping with the context. Weiss thinks that if it had been gen- 
uine, we should have found rq zicriy in the text, and not rioviv. The external 
evidence is admitted to be favourable to its insertion, and it is adopted by Treg. 
Tisch. (8), W. & Hort. With 7v the sentence is certainly affirmative ; without j7 
it is probably so, though possibly interrogative. R. V. accepts jj as the true 
reading. (2) wiovcv, by reason of the connection of thought throughout the 
chapter, must mean faith in the sense and application of the word suggested 
in vv. 1,2. (3) xara ceavrév, The emphasis is evidently upon these words. 
This, however, does not prove that the sole purpose of the sentence is to for- 
bid the pressing of one’s freedom in the presence and to the injury of the 
weak. The following clauses, as well as the wording of this clause itself, make 
it probable that, along with this idea, it is also implied that the strong may retain 
and enjoy and exercise the freedom of his faith when he is ‘by himself,” and 
‘‘before God’? only. (4) “axdpio¢ is referred by Meyer to the fact that “the 
Messianic blessedness [i.e. in the established Messianic kingdom] does not 
become lost to him through conscientious doubts.’’ But, more probably, it re 
fers to the present happiness, which the believer who is not troubled by such 
doubts in the sphere of the adiaphora must necessarily have. (5) The expla- 
nation given by Meyer of 6 7 xpivuy . . . . doxdtec is undoubtedly correct. 
The man asks no questions for conscience’ sake (1 Cor. x. 25) before the action, 
and subjects himself to no self-judgment in and after it. As he practically ap- 
proves it (dox:udfer), 80 he has no inward doubt that it is right. He has faith 
for ‘‘all things.” (6) On the other hand, the one who doubts is condemned, 
provided he eats. He moves forward to action before he is inwardly ready for 
it. diaxpivecfar is here used in the same sense as in Matt. xxi. 21. As Godet 
says, ‘‘Conscience has not yet reached oneness with itself; hence the term 
dtaxpir, to be divided into two men, the one of whom says yes, the other no.” 
xataxéxpita refers apparently to God's judgment (Meyer says, ‘is liable to the 
divine penal judgment’), but does not carry with it the idea that the persod 
will, necessarily, be a subject of eternal condemnation. (7) rc ov« éx TicTes. 
The reason of the condemnation is because the eating, in the case supposed, 
does not originate in, have its source in, faith. The man eats all things ("er 
2) while he has faith only to eat vegetables. (8) wav dé 5 ovx Ex wiateus duapr's 
éoriv. miotic in this clause is to be understood in the sense in which it is used 
throughout the chapter. The interpretation of the clause is determined by 





NOTES. 531 


this fact. Paul is speaking of the action of Christians in the region of the 
adiaphora, and of this only. The explanation which applies the words to all 
actions and life, and which even makes them apply to. unbelievers, declaring 
that everything which they do is sin because they do not believe in Christ, is 
founded on a misapprehension of what the Apostle’s purpose is. He has no 
reference to this ‘matter, nor indeed to anything beyond the limits of the 
chapter. 


532 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


CHAPTER XYV.' 


Various writers formerly, from the days of Semler,’ disputed, not that Paul 
was the author of chap. xv. and xvi. (as to the doxology, xvi. 25-27, see, how- 
ever, the critical notes on chap. xvi.), but that chap. xv. and xvi. along with chap. 
i.-xiv. compose one epistle. Semler himself thought that Paul had given to the 
bearers of the letter—of which Phoebe was not the bearer—a list, which they 
might exhibit, of the teachers whom they were to visit on their journey by way 
of Cenchreae (where Phoebe dwelt) and Ephesus (where Aquila dwelt), and to 
whom they were to hand a copy of the letter. This list was in his view chap. 
xvi., of which, however, vv. 25-27 had their original place after xiv. 23 (which 
also Paulus, Griesbach, Flatt, Eichhorn assumed) ; and chap. xv. was an open 
letter to those same teachers, with whom the travellers were to confer respect - 
ing the contents.—Paulus (de originib. ep. ad Rom., Jen. 1801, and in his Kom- 
mentar, z. Gal. u. Rom. 1831, Introd.) held chap. xv. to be an appended letter 
for those who were enlightened, and chap. xvi. to have been a separate leaf for 
the bearer of the letters, with commendations to the overseers of the church and 
commissions to those whom they were particularly to greet from Paul. Gries- 
bach (curae in hist. text. Gr. epp. P. p. 45, and in his Opusc. ed. Gabl. vol. ii. p. 
63 ; comp. in opposition to him, Gabler himself in the Preface, p. xxiv.), 
whom in the main Flatt followed, saw in chap. xv. an appendix for the further 
discussion of the last subject, subjoined after the conclusion of the letter, while 
chap. xvi. consisted originally of various appended leaflets. A similar hypoth- 
esis was constructed by Eichhorn (Einleit. III. p. 232 ff.), who, however, re- 
garded xvi. 1-20 as not belonging to Rome at all, but as a letter of commen- 
dation for Phoebe, probably destined for Corinth, but taken along with her to 
Rome. Among all the grounds by which these varied assumptions have been 
supported, there are none which are valid, not even those which appear the 
least to rest on arbitrary assumption. For the statement that Marcion did not 
read chap. xv. and xvi. amounts to this, that he, according to his fashion 
(see Hahn, d. Ev. Marcion's, p. 50 ff.), excised them.? See, besides, Nitzsch 
in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1860, I. p. 285 ff. Further, that Tertullian, c. 


1 Comp. Lucht, 1. d. betden letzt. Kap. d. 
Rémerbriefs, eine krit. Unters., Berlin 1871. 

2 Keggemann, praes. Semler de duplici ep. 
ad Rom. anpendice, Hal. 1767, and afterwards 
in Semler’s Paraphrase, 1769. See in oppo- 
sition to him, Koppe, Frc. II. p. 400 ff., ed. 
Ammon, Flatt, and Reiche. 

§ Origen on xvi. 25: “‘Caput hoc (viz. xvi. 
23-27) Marcion, a quo scripturae evange- 
licae et apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de 
hac epistola penitus abstulit ; et non solum 
hoo, sed et ab eo loco, ubi scriptum est (xiv. 
28): omne autem, quod non ex fide est, pec- 
catum est, usque ad finem cuncta dissecuil,” 


—which dissecuié cannot denote a mere mu- 
tilatton (Reiche and others), but must be 
equivalent in sense to the preceding adety- 
it. The validity of this testimony cannot 
be overthrown by the silence of Epipbanius 
on this omission of Marvion. as a merely 
negative reason against it. Marcion'’s stum- 
bling-blocks, as regards chap. XvV., were 
probably vv. 4 and 8 in particular. Alto- 
gether Marcion allowed himself to use 
great violences to this epistle, as he, for ex- 
ample, extruded x. 5-xi. 8; Tertullian, ec. 
Marc. v.14. Comp. generally, Hilgenfeld, in 
the Zetischr. f. hist. Theol. 1855, ili. p. 426 ff. 


CHAP. XV. | 533 


Mare. v. 14, designates the passage xiv. 10 as to be found in clausula of the 
epistle, is sufficiently explained from the fact that he is arguing ayainst Murcion 
and hence refers to his copy. Comp. also Rénsch, d. N. 7. Tertullian’s p. 350. 
Again, the repeated formulae of conclusion before the final close of the letter 
(xvi, 20, 24 ; xv. 33 is merely the concluding wish of a section) are most readily 
and naturally understood from the repeated intention of the apostle actually 
to conclude ; which was to be done first of all at xvi. 16, but was frustrated 
through the intrusion of the further observation ver. 17 ff., and was deferred till 
ver. 20, after which, however, some further commissions of greeting were in- 
troduced (vv. 21-23), so that not until ver. 24 did the last wish of blessing— 
and now, for the complete conclnsion of the whole, the ample doxology, vv. 
25-27—finish the epistle. Most plausible are the two difficulties felt in refer- 
ence to chap. xvi.; namely, (1) that Paul would probably not have had so many 
acquaintances in Rome, where he had not yet been at all, as he greets in chap. 
xvi., especially seeing that, in the epistles subsequently written from Rome, he 
mentions none of them ; and (2) that Aquila and Priscilla could hardly at thut 
time have been in Rome (xvi. 3), because they not long before were still dwell- 
ing in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), and were at a later period likewise in Ephesus 
(2 Tim. iv. 19). This has been regarded as the most serious difficulty by Am- 
mon (Praefat. p. 24)—who held chap. xvi. to be a letter of commendation written 
by the apostle for Phoebe to Corinth after the imprisonment at Rome—and re- 
cently by Dav. Schulz (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 609 f£.), Scholt (Isag. p. 249 
ff.), Reuss (Gesch. d. h. Schrift. § 111), Ewald, Laurent, Lucht. Schulz regards 
chap. xvi. as written from Rome to Ephesus; while Schott’s judgment is as 
follows : ‘*Totum cap. xvi. compositum est fragmentis diversis! alius cujusdam 
epistolae brevioris (maximam partem amissae), quam Paulus Corinthi ad coe- 
tum quendam Christianum in Asia Minori versantem dederat, ita ut qui schedu- 
las singulas haec fragmenta exhibentes sensim sensimque deprehendisset, 
continua serie unum adjiceret alteri.’” Reuss (so also Hausrath and Sabatier) 
sees in xvi. 1-20 a letter with which Phoebe, who was travelling to Ephesus, was 
entrusted to the church there ; while Ewald (comp. Mangold, also Ritschl in 
the Juhrb. f. D. Theol. 1866, p. 352) cuts out only vv. 3-20, but likewise regards 
this portion as having originally pertained to an epistle of the apostle to the 
Ephesians, which, according to ver. 7, was written from the Roman captivity ; 
as, indeed, also Laurent (neutest. Stud. p. 31 ff.) extracts from vv. 1-24 a special 
commendatory letter for Phoebe, written by the apostle’s own hand to the Ephe- 
sians, assuming at the same time marginal remarks ;* and Lucht assigns the 
commendation of Phoebe, and the greetings by name in vv. 3-6, to a letter to 
the Ephesians, but the greetings following in ver. 7 ff. to the editor of tho 
Epistle to the Romans. But (1) just in the case of Rome it is readily con- 
ceivable that Paul had many acquaintances there, some of whom had come 
from Asia and Greece, and had settled in Rome, whether permanently or tem- 
porarily (several perhaps as missionaries) ; while others, like Aquila, had been 
banished as Jews under Claudius, and then had returned as Pauline Christians. 
(2) It is by no means necessary that Paul should have known the whole of those 


1 These being vv. 1-16, vv. 17-20, vv. 21-44, than vv. 21, 28, 2. See, in opposition, 
VY. 2-27, Ritschl, /.c., and Lucht, p. 2 f.—Welsse 
2 And that to snch an extent, that of the would have chap. xvi. together with chap. 
16th chapter nothing further is supposed to _{x.-xi. directed to Ephesus. 
have been written by Paul forthe Zomans 


534 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


saluted by sight ; how many might, though personally unknown, be saluted by 
him! (3) The fact that Paul at a later period, when he himself was a prisoner 
in Rome and wrote thence (in my judgment, the Epistle to the Philippians here 
alone comes into consideration ; see Introd. to Eph. and’ Col.; the Pastoral 
Epistles, as non-apostolic, must be disregarded), does not again mention any 
one of those here saluted, may have arisen from the altered circumstances of 
the time ; for between the composition of the epistle fo Rome and the apostle’s 
sojourn in Rome there lies an interval of three years, during which the major- 
ity of those referred to might have obtained other places of destination. 
Besides, the salutation which Paul in the Epistle to the Philippians offers to 
others (iv. 22) is merely a quite summary one. (4) There exists no ground at 
all for denying that Aquila and Priscilla might, after the writing of our First 
Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi. 19), have returned from Ephesus to 
Rome and have informed the apostle of their sojourn and activity there. (5) 
The greeting from all churches in ver. 16 is suitable enough for an epistle ad- 
dressed to the church of the capital city of the empire ; and the first-fruits of Asia, 
ver. 5, was everywherea distinguishing predicate, so that it does not presuppose 
one living precisely in Ephesus.! (6) Were vv. 3-20 a portion cast adrift of an 
epistle to the Ephesians, or even a separate small letter to the Ephesians, it 
would not be easy to see how it should have come precisely to this place; it must 
have from the outset lost every trace of the tradition of its original destination to 
such an extent, that no occasion was found even afterwards, when an epistle to 
the Ephesians was already in ecclesiastical use, to subjoin it to that epistle. 
From all this there just as little remains any sufficient ground for severing, in 
opposition to all testimony, chap. xvi., as there is for severing chap. xv., having 
otherwise so close an external and internal connection with chap. xiv., from the 
Epistle to the Romans, and giving up the unity of the latter as handed down. 
It was reserved at last for the criticism of Baur to contest the apostolic origin 
of chap. xv. xvi. (in the 7ib. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, and Paulus, I. p. 394 ff., ed. 2 ; 
comp. also in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, 4, p. 493 ff. ; Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. 
p. 123 ff. ; Volkmar, in the theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 321 f., and Rém. Kirche, 1857, 
p. 3). Baur finds in the last two chapters a making of advances towards the 
Jewish Christians,? such as does not suit the tenor of the rest of the epistle. 
In this view he objects particularly to vv. 3, 8, 14 in chap. xv.; vv. 9-12 isa 
mere accumulation of Bible passages to pacify the Jewish Christians ; ver. 15 
is irrelevant, ver. 20 no less so; the statement of ver. 19: from Jerusalem to 
Iyricum, is unhistorical, derived from a later interest ; vv. 22, 23 do not agree 
with i. 10-13; vv. 24, 28, intimating that Paul intended to visit the Romans 
only on his route to Spain, ate surprising ; vv. 25, 26 have been taken by the 
writer from the epistles to the Corinthians for his own purpose, in order to win 
over the Jewish Christians ; the long series of persons saluted in chap. xvi.— 
a list of notabilities in the early Roman church—was intended to afford proof 
that Paul already stood in confidential relations to the best known members of 
the church, in connection with which several names, among them the ovyysvei¢ 


1 Comp. besides, on the arguments num- 
bered 1-5, van Hengel, II. p. 788 ff. 

2The two chapters are supposed, for- 
sooth, to belong to a Pauline writer, ‘* who, 
in the spirit of the author of the book of Acts, 
wished to oppose to the sharp anti-Judaism of 


the apostle a softening and soothing counter- 
poise in favor of the Judaists, and in the 
interesis of unity.“ The 15th chapter is 
supposed to have its original in 2 Cor. x. 
13~-18.—Hilgenfeld has nof adhered to Baur’s 
view. 


CHAP. XV. 5393 


of the apostle as well as Aquila and Priscilla, and their characterization are sus- 
picious ; vv. 17-20 are unsuitably placed, and without characteristic colouring ; 
the position of the final doxology is uncertain ; the entire complaisance towards 
the Jewish Christians conflicts with Gal. i. and ii. But this same (so-called) 
complaisance (according to Volkmar, ‘‘ with all manner of excuses and half com- 
pliments’’) is assumed utterly without ground, especially seeing that Paul had 
already in an earlier passage expressed so much of deep and true sympathy for 
his people (comp. ix. 1 ff., x. 1, 2, xi. 1, 2, 11 ff., ef al.) ; and whatever else is 
discovered to be irrelevant, unsuitable, and unhistoric in the two chapters is 
simply and solely placed in this wrong light through the interest of suspicion ; 
while, on the other hand, the whole language and mode of representation are so 
distinctively Pauline, that an interpolation so comprehensive would in fact 
stand unique, and how singular, at the same time, in being furnished with such 
different conclusions and fresh starts! See, further, Kling in the Stud. u. Art. 
1837, p. 308 ff. ; Delitzsch in the Luther. Zeilschr. 1849, p. 609 ff. ; Th. Schott, 
p. 119 f£ ; Wieseler in Herzog’s Encyklop. XX. p. 598 f. ; Mangold, p. 67 ff. ; 
Riggenbarch in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 41 ff.—Nevertheless Lucht, l.c., 
has once more come into very close contact with Baur, in proposing the hy- 
pothesis that the genuine epistle of Paul, extending to xiv. 23, existed in an 
incomplete state ; that thereupon, one hand, summing up the main points of 
the epistle in the (un-Pauline) doxology, added the latter after xiv. 23 ; while 
another further continued the theme broken off at xiv. 23, and subjoined an 
epilogue, along with greetings, tothe Roman’. Inthis way two editions arose, of 
which one (A) contained chap. i.-xiv. and xvi. 25-27 ; while the other (B) con- 
tained chap. i.-xiv. and xv. 1-16, 24; A and B were then supplemented from 
one another. That which Paul himself had appended after xiv. 23, was removed 
from it by the Roman clergy, and laid up in their archives (out of consideration 
for the ascetics, namely); but subsequently it, along with fragments of an 
epistle to the Ephesians, which had also been placed in the archives, had been 
worked in by the composer of chap. xv. and xvi. This entire hypothesis turns 
upon presuppositions and combinations which are partly arbitrary in them- 
selves, and partly without any solid ground or support in the detailed exegesis. 

Ver. 2. After é«aoroc Elz. has ydp, against decisive witnesses. — Ver. 4. Instead 
of the second zpoeypdd7, BC DE F G &*, 67**, 80, most vss., and several Fa- 
thers have éypa¢7. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Fritzsche. 
Rightly ; the compound is an intentional or mechanical repetition. — Not 
so strongly attested (though by A B C*L 8) is the dia repeated before ti¢ 
mapaxA in Griesb., Lachm., Tisch. 8, which, since the article again follows, 
became easily added. — Ver. 7. tudc] Elz. : #uds, against AC D**, EF GL, 
min., most vss., nnd several Fathers. A correct gloss, indicating the reference 
of iudgto the Jewish and Gentile Christians. — Ver. 8. y4p] approved by 
Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. and Fritzsche have 6 ; 
against which the evidence is decisive. Moreover, 2éyw dé is the customary 
form with Paul for more precise explanation, and hence also slipped in here. —- 
yeyevijo0a:) Lachm. : yrvéofa:, according to B C* D* FG, Arm. Ath. But how 
readily one of the two syllables TE might be passed over, and then the familiar 
(comp. also Gal. iv. 4) yeréo0a: would be produced!—Ver. 11. After mdAcv 
Lachm. has Aéyer, according to BD E F G, 1, and several vss, ; manifestly an 
addition in accordance with ver, 10. —ézarvécare] Lachm. and Tisch. : éracve- 
odtwoav, according to ABC DE 8, 39, Chrys. ms. Dam. Both readings are 


536 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


also found in the LXX., and may be borrowed thence. The circumstance that 
after aiveire the form éxaivécare, ak more conformable, readily offered itself, 
speaks in favour of évarvecdrwoay. — Ver. 15, adeAgni] is wanting indeed in A B 
C &8*, Copt. Aeth. Cyr. Chrys. Ruf. Aug. (omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), 
and stands in 3, 108, after uépovc ; but why should it have been added? On 
the other hand, its omission was readily suggested, since it had just appeared 
for the first time in ver. 14, and since it seemed simply to stand in the way of 
the connection of a7d pép. ; hence also that transposition in 3, 108. — Ver. 17. 
xavynotv]| Rightly Lachm. and Tisch. : rv xatyno.v, The reference of the pre- 
ponderantly attested article was not understood. — Ver. 19. ayiov] So AC D 
E F G, min., and most vss. and Fathers. Adopted also by Griesb, Lachm., 
and Scholz, Bat Elz. (so also Matth., Fritzsche, Tisch. 8), in accordance with ¥ 
and D** L P, most min., Syr. Chrys. and others, has Ocov. In B, Pel. Vigil. 
there is merely zvevuaruc. So Tisch. 7. Since there is absolutely no reason why 
ay. OF Geov should have been omitted or altered, probably the simple vevparec 
is the original, which was only variously glossed by dy. and Geos. — Ver. 20. 
gAoriuovuuevoy]) Lachm. : ¢:2oriuotuar, according toB D* F GP. To facilitate the 
construction, — Ver. 22. ra roAAa] BD EF G: motddxtc, so Lachm. An inter- 
pretation in accordance with i. 13. — Ver. 23. 3ro4A46v) Tisch. 7 : Inavev, accord- 
ing to B C, 37, 59, 71, Dam. A modifying gloss, according to an expression 
peculiarly well known from the book of Acts. — Ver. 24. After Dzaviay Elz. and 
Tisch. 7 have éAevcouat rpd¢ tudc, which is omitted by Griesb., Lachm., and 
Tisch. 8. A contrast to ver. 22, written nt the side, and then introduced, but 
rejected by all uncials except L 8**, and by all vss, except Syr. p. ; attested, 
however, among the Fathers by Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, and 
preserved in nearly all the cursives. This old interpolation occasioned the 
insertion of an illustrative ydp after é47z/{w (so Elz., Tisch., and also Lachm.), 
the presence of which also in principal witnesses (as A BC &), in which ¢/ew. 
mp. ve. is wanting, does not point to the originality of these words, but only to 
a very early addition and diffusion of them, so that in fact those witnesses 
represent only a half-completed critical restoration of the original text, whilst 
those which omit both (as F G) still contain the original text or a complete 
purification of the text. — Instead of tg’ tuev, Lachm. and Tisch. 7 have a 
‘uor, according to D EF G, min., which presents itself as genuine, and is e:- 
plained by t¢’ tuav on account of the passive. B has ad tyov. — Ver. 22. 
Xporot) Elz. : rov ebayyediov tov X., against decisive evidence. A gloss, — Ver. 
31. dtaxovia] Lachm. : dwpogopia, according to B D* F G, which, however, Paul, 
cunsidering the delicacy of designation here throughout observed, can hardly 
have written ; it appears to be an explanation. — The repetition of fa before 7 
Siax. (in Elz.) is, according to A B C D* F G &*, 80, justly also omitted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. — Instead of # ec Lachm. has 7 év, according to B D* F G, 213. 
Both prepositions are suitable to the sense ; but the omission of the article in 
the majority of witnesses enables us to perceive how 7 ¢v arose. This omission, 
namely, carried with it the alteration of ec into ty (66, Chrys. really have 
merely év), and then # év arose through ap only partial critical restoration. — 
Ver. 32. 2AQu) AC &*, Copt. Arm. Ruf. : £265» with omission of the subse- 
quent «ai. Too weakly supported ; an emendation of style, yet adopted by 
Tisch. 8. —Instead of Ocov, B has xvpiov "Incot (so Lachm.); DE F G, It.: 
Xpiorod "Inoot ; &*: "Incos Xp. But the apostle never says dui Geanu. X peoror, 
but always d. 6. Ocov (comp. i. 10; 1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 1, viii. 5, et al.), as 





me 


CHAP, XY., 1. 537 


throughout he uses 9e27ua constantly of God, when there is mention of His 
omnipotence or gracious will ; where said of Christ, the QeAnjua is for him only 
the moral will (Eph. v. 17). Hence those readings are to be regarded as un- 
suitable glosses after vv. 29, 30. — cai cuvavar, iyiv] has been omitted by Lachm. 
on the authority of B only, in which he is followed by Buttmann. From i. 12 
CuntapaKaAn)ivac would have been employed as an addition, and not cvvavar. ; 
D BE have dvaypvsu uc’ tua (2 Tim. i. 16). — Ver. 33. The omission of the ayqv 
(bracketed by Lachm.) is too weakly attested. 


Vv. 1-13.' More general continuation of the subject previously treated : 
Exhortation to the strong to bear with the weak, according to Christ’s example (vv. 
1-4); @ blessing on concord (vv. 5, 6); and a summons to receive one another as 
brethren, as Christ has received them, Jews and Gentiles (vv. 7-12). Blessing 
(ver. 13). 

Ver. 1. Connection: To the preceding exposition of the perniciousness of 
the cating indicated in xiv. 23, Paul now subjoins the general obdligation,* 
which is to be fulfilled by the strong, over against (dé) that imperilling of 
the weak. The contrast of dvvaroi and advvaro: is just as in chap. xiv. ; the 
rg wiore. of more precise definition in xiv. 1 is so fully understood of itself 
after the preceding discussion, that we have here no right either to general- 
ize the contrast (Hofmann : of the soundness and frailty of the Christian 
state of the subjects generally), or to single out the duvaroi as a peculiar extreme 
party which in their opposition to the weak had gone further and had de- 
manded more than the remaining members of the church who did not be- 
long to the weak (Mangold, employing this interpretation in favour of his 
view as to the Jewish-Christian majority of the church, as if the duvaroi had 
been a Gentile-Christian minority). Against this, queic is already decisive, 
whereby Paul, in agreement with xiv. 14, 20, has associated himself with 
the strong, making his demand as respects its positive and negative portions 
the more urgent. — rd adovevfjyara] the actual manifestations, which appear as 
results of the aofeveiv ry riorec (xiv. 1). The word is not found elsewhere. 
These imbecillitates are conceived as a burden (comp. Gal. vi. 2) which the 
strong take up and bear from the weak, inasmuch as they devote to them, in 
respect to these weaknesses, patience and the helpful sympathy (2 Cor. xi. 
29) of ministering love.* Thus they, in themselves strong and free, become 


1 According to Lucht, p. 100 ff., the entire 
passage vv. 1-3 is post-apostolic, not merely 
in the mode of Its presentation, but also in 
that ofits view. In comparison with chap. 
xlv., all Is delineated too generally and ab- 
stractly ; the example of Christ has in no 
other place been applied by Paul as it is 
here in vv. 3-7; the citations are after tho 
manner of a later point of view; the argu- 
ment in vv. 9-12 is not free from Jewish- 
Christian prejudices, etc. All of them 
grounds, which do not stand the test of an 
unprejudiced and unbiassed explanation of 
details—evil legacies from Baur's method 
of suspicion. 

* In opposition to Hofmann, who, assign- 


ing to the concluding verses of the epistle 
(xvi. 25-27) their place after xiv. 28, places 
odecAozery in connection with ty de duvandvp 
«.7.A., XVI. 25; see on xvi. 25-27. 

3 Bacragerw can the less indicate, as the 
subjects of the present exhortation, per- 
sons who were distinct from thoso ad- 
dressed by wpocAaufdaveode, xiv. 1 (Man- 
gold), because in fact mpocAayf. recurs in 
ver. 7. How frequently does Paul give 
different forms to the same injunctions! 
Mangold also lays an incorrect stress on 
the &é, with which chap. xv. opens, as 
though, according to our view, od» should 
have been used. 


538 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

servants of the weak, as Paul was servant of all, 1 Cor. ix. 19, 29. — yp éer- 
toig apéioxecv] not to please ourselves (1 Cor. x. 33); ‘‘ quemadmodum solent, 
gui proprio judicio contenti alios secure negligunt,” Calvin. This is moral 
selfishness. 

Ver. 2. ei¢ 1d dyad.) for his benefit. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 33; 1 Thess. ii. 4. 
A more special definition thereof is mpog oixodouyy, in order to build up, to 
produce Christian perfection (in him). See on xiv. 19. According to 
Fritzsche, ci¢ 16 ayad. is in respect of what is good, whereby immoral men- 
pleasing is excluded. But its exclusion is understood of itself, and is also 
implied in wpd¢ oixudoufv. On the interchange of cic and zpé¢, comp. iii. 25, 
26. 

Ver. 3. Establishment of this duty by the pattern : for Christ also, ete. — 
adda, xabac x.7.A.] but, as it is written, the reproaches of those reproaching 
thee fell on me. After a424 a comma only is to be placed, and nothing is to 
be supplied, neither sii displicuit with Erasmus, nor fecit with Grotius and 
others, nor éyévero (Borger) and the like. Had Paul desired to express him- 
self in purely narratire form, he would have written instead of cé: Oedér, 
and instead of évé: airév. But he retains the scriptural saying, which he 
adduces, literally, enhancing thereby the direct force and vivacity of the 
discourse. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 831; Winer, 534, 556 [E. T. pp. 574, 599].— 
The passage is Ps, lxix. 10 (literally after the LXX.), where the suffering 
subject is a type of the Messiah (comp. xi. 9 ; John ii. 17, xv. 25, xix. 28). 
— That the reproaches of the enemies of God fell on Christ, i.e. that the enemies 
of God vented their fury on Christ, proves that Christ was bent on pleasing 
not Himself (for otherwise He would have abstained from taking these His 
sufferings upon Himself ; comp. Heb. xii. 2, 3, Phil. ii. 6-8), but men, in- 
asmuch as He in order to their redemption surrendered Himself, with full 
self-renunciation of His airdpxeca, to the enmity against God of His adver- 
saries. Calvin and others: ‘‘Ita se Domino devovisse, ut descinderetur 
animo, quoties sacrum ejus nomen patere impiorum malcdicentiae viderct,” 
so that the idea of self-denying devotion to the cause of God (so also de Wette 
and Philippi) is expressed. But according to the connection, it is the de- 
votion of Christ, not for the cause of God, but for the salration of humanity 
(see ver. 2), into fellowship of suffering with which He entered, that is to 
be proposed as an example. Comp. Matt. xx. 28. — dvecdsoude belongs to 
later Greek. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512. 

Ver. 4. In O. T. words Paul had just presented the example of Christ as 
an encouragement, and not without reason: for all that tas preriously 
written, ctc. This reason! might, in truth, cause the example of Christ set 
before them to appear all the more inviting and involving the more sacred 
obligation to follow it. — rpoeypd¢y] zpo clearly obtains its definition through 


3 Even if the closing verses of chap. xvi. 
had their critically correct position at the 
end of chap. xiv., we still could not, with 
Hofmann, put the yap in our passage into 
relation to the designation of God contained 
in thore concluding verses. This—even apart 
from the fact that xvl. 25-27 is an inde- 


pendent doxology—would be impossible on 
account of the already interposed vv. 2 and 
8, and after the cadws y¢yparra: just preced- 
ing (to which every reader must have re- 
ferred the zpoeypddy, ver. 4). Comp. 1 Cor. 
x. 11. 


CHAP. XV., 5. 539 


the #juerépav in the second clause, prefixed with emphasis ; hence : all that 
was written before us, befure our time,’ by which is meant the collective con- 
tents of the O. T. Wrongly, therefore, Reiche and Hofmann think that it 
refers to the Messianic oracles written before their fulfilment. On didacx. comp. 
2 Tim. iii. 16. — dia rio trop. x. Tr. wapaKA. t. yp.] through the perseverance and 
the comfort which the Scriptures afford tous. That rt. tou. is to be connected 
with rav ypad. (in opposition to Melanchthon, Grotius, Ammon, Flatt, van 
Hengel, and others), is clear from the fact, that otherwise 7. izoz. would 
stand severed from the connection, as well as from ver. 5: 6 Oré¢ ri¢ bron. 
x. Tt. wapaxA. The trouovy is here also, according to ver. 3, and conformably 
to the connection with rapdxAnog, self-denying endurance in all sfferings 
(see on v. 3), opposed to éavtg apéoxecy ; and the ypagai are conceived as 
‘‘ ministerium spiritus” (Melanchthon). Incorrectly Hofmann understands 
the tropov7 rt. ypad. as the waiting upon Scripture (namely, upon that which 
stands written in it), upon its fulfilment. Thus there is substituted for the 
notion of trouovy that of aroxapadoxia (viii. 19), or avazovy (Symmachus, Ps. 
XXXviii. 8, Ixx. 6), which even in 2 Thess. iii. 5 it by no means has (sec 
Liinemann) ; and how strangely would the only once used rév ypag. be forced 
into two entirely different references of the genitive !— rqv éAvida Eywuev de- 
notes having the hope (i.e. the definite and conscious Christian hope of the 
Messianic glory) : for to promote the possession of this blessed hope by means 
of patience and comfort in Christians, is the object for which the contents of 
the O. T. were written for the instruction of Christians. Accordingly 
neither is éywu. to be taken as teneamus, with Beza and others ; nor is éAz., 
with Reiche and others, of the object of hope. Against the latter (sce on Col. 
i. 5) militates the fact that éAvida éyecv never denotes anything else than the 
subjective spem habere. Acts xxiv. 15; 2Cor. x. 15; Eph. ii. 12; 1 Thess. 
iv. 13 ; 1 John iii. 3, e¢ al. ; Wisd. iii. 18 ; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 28; Polyb. i. 
59. 2. Comp. Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p. 70. But that the é/zic refers to the 
conversion of the world of nations is a misunderstanding of Hofmann’s, which 
is connected with his erroncous reference of yép, ver. 4 (sce on ver. 4). It is 
the hope of eternal salcation which, warranted and fostered by the influence 
of Scripture imparting patience and consolation, can and should merge and 
reconcile all separate efforts of atrapéoxerca, which divide men, into the mu- 
tual unanimity of Christian sentiment. Comp. Eph. iv. 3, 4. | 

Ver. 5. Aé] leading over to the wish that God may grant them the concord 
which it was the design of the previous exhortation, vv. 1-4, to establish. — 
The characteristic designation of God as the author of the persererance and 
of the consolation,’ is intended not merely to supply an external connection 
with ver. 4, but stands in an internal relation to the following 7d ard gpo- 
veiv, since this cannot exist if men’s minds are not patient and consoled, ¢v 
that they do not allow themselves to be disturbed by anything adverse in 


1The compound is then followed (see  patientiae et consolation{s auctor est, quia 
critical notes) by the simple expression,—a utrumque cordibus nostris instillat per 
frequent interchange also in the classics; Spiritum suum; verbo tamen suo velut fu- 
see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 59 B. strumento ad Jd utitur.”’ 

® Calvin aptly remarks: ' Solussane Deus 


740 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


the like effort which must take place in their mutual fellowship (é» a7Ay?.). 
Through this identity (rd avré, comp. on xii. 16) of purpose and endeavour 
there exists in a church 7 xapdia xai } Wy?) wia, Acts iv. 32.1’— xara X.’I.] 
conformably to Christ. Either Christ is conceived as the regulative ideal of 
the frame of mind, according to which each is to adjust himself for his part 
in the common 10 avréd gpoveiv ; or : according to the will of Christ (comp. 
John xvii. 21), like xara Ocdv, viil. 27. The first is to be preferred, since the 
model of Christ, ver. 3 (comp. ver. 7), is still the conception present to the 
apostle’s mind. Comp. Col. ii. 8; Phil. ii. 5 3 xara «ipiov, 2 Cor. xi. 17, is 
somewhat different. 

Ver. 6. 'Ev évi oréuare] By this the preceding dyo6vuadéy is not explained 
(Reiche)—which is an impossible notion—but duo. specifies the source of 
the éy évi or., and is to be closely joined with it: unanimously trith one 
mouth, not : unanimously, with one mouth. It is otherwise, ¢.g., with Dem. 
147. 1: du0bvuaddy éx wag yvdunc, where the explanatory addition has a place. 
If God is so praised, that cach is led by the like disposition to the like ut- 
terance of praise, then all dissension is removed, and the unanimity of the 
fellowship has found in this ciuguvoc tuvydia (Theodore of Mopsuestia) its 
holiest expression. On év évi oréuar: (instrumental), comp. the classical 
é& évdc orduaroc, Plato, 640 C, p. 364 A ; Legg. i. p. 634 E; Rep. Anthol. xi. 
159. — rov xvpiov «.r.A.] belongs simply to rarépa, not also to Océ in opposi- 
tion to Grotius, Bengel, and others, including Riickert, Reiche, Tholuck (?). 
Fritzsche), and xai adds epexegetically the specific more precise definition. 
[See Note CL. p. 558.] So throughout with this description of God _ habit- 
ually used by the apostles, as 2 Cor. i. 8, xi. 31; Eph. i. 3; Col. i. 3; 1 
Pet. i. 3. This is clear from the passages, in which with xer. the genitive 
(‘Incov X.) is not subjoined, as 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; Eph. v. 20 ; Col. iii. 17 ; Jas. 
i. 27, iii. 9. See on 1 Cor. v. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 831; Eph. i. 3. It ought not to 
have been objected, that the form of expression must either have been sav 
Ocdv judy x. rarépa ‘I. X. or tov Oedv rav war. 'I. X. Either of these would be 
the expression of another idea. But as Paul has expressed himself, rév binds 
the conceptions of God and ‘‘ Father of Christ” into unity.* Rightly Theo- 
doret : judy Ocdv Exadeoa rdv Oedv, Tov dé xvpiov marépa. 

Ver. 7. Acé} in order, namely, that this object, ver. 6, may be attained, 
that its attainment may not be hindered on your part.* — zpoo2au3.] See on 
xiv. 1. That not the strong alone (Hofmann), but both parties, and thus the 
readers collectirely, are addressed, and that subsequently tude refers to both 
(not merely or principally to the Gentile-Christians, as Riickert and Reiche 
think), follows from aAAnAous ; and see vv. 8, 9. — zpoceAa Beto] ‘‘ sthi sociarit.” 
Grotius. Comp. xiv. 8.—ei¢ défav Geov] belongs to zpocrAdf. ipac, beside 
which it stands, and to which, in accordance with vv. 8, 9 ff., it is alone 
suitable. Hence it is not to be connected with zpoo2au). aAAga. (Chrysostom, 


* 10n the form 8», instead of the older * Hofmann incorrectly (in accordance 
Attic 80in, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 846; with his incorrect reference of ver. 1 ff. to 
Kitihner, I. p. 644. xvi. 25-27) renders: “for the sake of the 


2 Comp. Dissen ad Dem. decor. p. 873f.; hope,’ which you may learn from Scripture. 
Kahner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 1.19, ad Anad. il. 2. 8. 


CHAP. XV., &, 9. 541 


Oecumenius, Erasmus, and others); and just as little with the latter imme- 
diately, but with rpoceAdB. iuac only mediately (as Hofmann splits the refer- 
ence). But it means: that God might be thereby glorified, not: ‘‘ut ali- 
quando divinae gloriae cum ipso simus (sitis) participes,” Grotius (80 also 
Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Klee, Benecke, Gléckler), which is condemned by 
vv. 8, 9 ff. as opposed to the context. Comp. Phil. ii. 11; Eph. i. 12. 

Vv. 8, 9. A more precise explanation—which furnishes a still more defi- 
nite motive for compliance with the mpoodau. aAA.—respecting 6 Xprori¢ 
mpooeaa,3. tu. ei¢ 5df. Ocov, first in respect of Jewish-Christians (ver. 8), and 
then of Gentile-Christians (ver. 9), and that in such a manner that the con- 
nection of the former with Christ appears as the fulfilment of their theocratic 
claim, but that of the latter as the enjoyment of grace ;—a distinction so set 
forth, not from the Jewish-Christian narrowness of the author (Lucht), but 
designedly and ingeniously (comp. xi. 28, 29), in order to suggest to the 
Gentile-Christians greater esteem for thcir weaker Jewish brethren,’ and 
humility. — 4#yw yap] I mean, namely, in order more particularly to explain 
myself respecting the wpooceAdsero tuac «.7.A.; otherwise in xii. 3. But 
comp. 1 Cor. i. 12; Gal. iv. 1, v.16. Frequently thusin the Greek writers. 
— didkovov yeyev. meptt.] dtdx. has emphasis, in order to bring out the original 
theocratic dignity of the Jewish - Christians. [See Note CLI. p. 558.] 
Christ has become minister of the circumcised ; for to devote [is activity to 
the welfare of the Jewish nation was, according to promise, the duty of 
His Messianic office. Comp. Matt. xx. 28, xv. 24. —tzép adn. Ocov] more 
particularly explained at once by what follows ; hence: for the sake of the 
truthfulness of God, in order to justify and to demonstrate it through the 
realization of the hallowed promise given to the fathers ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 20. 
Thus the zpocesd3ero tuac in respect of the Jewish-Christians redounded tig 
défav Ocov; but it redounded to this quite otherwise in respect of the Gen- 
' tile- Christians, ver. 9. — trép éAéovg] contrast to urép adnf. Ocov, ver. 8: on 
behalf of mercy, i.e. for mercy, which God has evinced towards them by His 
making them joint partakers in redemption. The references of ivép in the 
two cases are thus not alike. —dofdoa, ordinarily understood as dependent 
on Aéyw, may neither denote : have praised (namely, at their adoption), as 
Reiche, Rickert, de Wette, Bisping would explain it, which not merely 
introduces an irrelevant idea, but also runs counter to the usage of the aorist 
infinitive (even 2 Cor. vi. 1, see in loc.); nor: hace to praise (Tholuck, 
Philippi, and most), for there is no mention of a duty according to the par- 
allelism of the two verses, since Afyw ydép has not here the sense of command- 
ing (see on xii. 3, ii. 22); nor, finally, is it an infinitive without reference to 
time (I say, that the Gentiles praise), as Winer, p. 311 f. [E. T. p. 832], and 
Fritzsche, after the Vulgate, Luther, and others, take it, which would have 
required the present infinitive, because Aéyw does not here express the notion 


'The contrast of Jewish and Gentile our passage to the supposed editor of tho 
Christianity is so essentially and radically epistle (Lucht), who has worked up the 
connected with the difference respecting Pauline portion of the letter, following xiv. 
the use of food, that it is wholly groundless 23, into conformity with a later, entirely 
to ascribe the treatment of that contrastin altered state of things. 


542 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


of willing, hoping, and the like (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 749), but simply 
that of affirming with statement of the object. Moreover, the aorist infinitive 
necessarily leads to this, that dofdca: is parallel to the preceding f¢fa:dca:, 
and consequently is not governed by 2éyw at all, but is connected with eic 7a, 
us Castalio and Beza have rightly perceived ; comp. also Bengel (‘‘ gloriji- 
carent”) and van Hengel. Hence: ‘‘in order that He might ratify the 
promises of the fathers, but that the Gentiles, on behalf of mercy, might praise 
God.” The former, namely, trip aAnOciac Ocov cig 7d BeBarsoar x.7.2., was the 
proximate design of Christ’s having become minister of the circumcised; and 
the more remote design, which was to be attained through the passing of 
salvation from the Jews to the Gentiles (comp. Gal. iii. 14), consisted in 
this, that on the other hand the Gentile should praise God on account of mercy. 
Incorrectly, Hofmann takes dogdoa: as optative: Paul wishes that the Gen- 
tiles, etc. In this way the cic dézav Oeov, ver. 7, would be something which 
was still only do set in, although it had set in long ago (comp. ix. 24, 25, and 
see xv. 16-24). Without ground, Hofmann imports into the simple ra vy 
the idea of ‘the Gentile world asa whole ;” it can in fact according to the 
context denote only the Gentile portion of those, whom Christ xpoceAd Zero 
cig défav Ocov. — Observe, moreover, how logically correct is the contrast 
of trép a7. and ump édéove (in opposition to Olshausen, Fritzsche) ; for 
although God had promised the future rpécanyic uf the Gentiles also (in the 
prophets), Ie nevertheless cannot have promised it to the Gentiles themselves, as 
He has given the Messianic promise to the Jews themselces and chosen them for 
His people, in accordance with which, He, by virtue of His truthfulness, was 
bound to His word, and consequently the Jews, not the Gentiles, were de jure 
the children in terms of the covenant and heirs of the kingdom ; comp. ix. 
4,5; Acts iii. 25 ; see also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 397. —x«clo¢ yé>p.}] This 
praising by the Gentiles takes place in conformity with (as a fulfilment of) 
Ps. xviii. 50, which passage is quoted after the LXX. The historical sub- 
ject of the passage, David, is a type of Christ ; hence neither the Gentile- 
Christian (Fritzsche), nor the apostle of the Gentiles as the organ of Christ 
(Hofmann, comp. Reiche), nor any messenger of salcation generally to the 
Gentile world (Philippi), is in the sense of the apostle the subject of the 
fulfilment of the prophecy, but only Christ can be so. The latter says to 
God that He, as present among the Gentiles (whom He has made His own 
through their conversion), will magnify Him. This, however, is a plastic 
representation of the praise of the Gentiles themselves, which in fact takes place 
év ovéuare xupiov "Incov and de’ avrov (Col. ili. 17). Comp. already Augustine: 
‘*tibi per me confitebantur gentes.”” Bengel aptly says : ‘‘ Quod in psalmo 
Christus dicit se facturum, id Paulus gentes ait facere ; nempe Christus 
JSacit in gentibus, Heb. ii. 12.” — dia rovro] included as a constituent part of 
the citation, but without reference to the matter in hand in Paul’s text. — 
év &Gvecc] to whom He, through the Spirit, by means of the preaching of the 
gospel has come, and has placed them in communion with Himself.—As to 
éfoundoy. with the dative, comp. on xiv. 11. It presupposes, as well as ya7o 
and the corresponding verbs, vv. 10, 11, the divine éAeo¢, which had been 
vouchsafed to the Gentiles, as motive. 


CHAP. XV., 10-12%. 543 

Ver. 10. Ilda] Again, namely, in another passage containing the same 
thing. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 20 ; Matt. iv. 7, v. 83. —Aéyec] ac. 4 ypagy, which 
is to be taken from yéyparra, ver. 9. — The passage is Deut. xxxil. 43, 
closely following the LXX., who, however, probably following another 
reading (19-8 in Kennicott), deviate from the Hebrew.’ 

Ver. 11. Ps. cxvii. 1 (closely following the LXX., but see the critical 
notes) contains a twofold parallel summons to the praise of God, addressed 
to all Gentile peoples.?, In this case aiveiy and éracveiv are not different in 
degree (Philippi), but only in form, like praise and bepraise [loben and 
beloben}. 

Ver. 12, Isa. xi. 10, with omission of év rip juépa Exeivy after éoraz, literally 
after the LXX., who, however, translate the original inaccurately. The 
latter runs: ‘‘ And it comes to pass at that day, that after the root-shoot of 
Jesse, which stands as a banner of peoples (DD) D3?) Gentiles shall inquire. °”* 
But the words of the LXX., as Paul has quoted them, run as follows: 
‘* There shall be the root-shoot of Jesse and (i.e. and indeed, explanatory) Tle 
who arises (raises himself) to rule over Gentiles ; on Him shall Gentiles hope.” 
This passage and its entire connection are Messianic, and that indeed in so 
far as the idea is therein expressed, that the promised descendant of David, 
the ideal of the theocratic king, will extend His kingdom over Gentiles also, 
and will be the object of their desire (according to the LXX. and Paul : of 
their believing hope). This prophecy likewise Paul sces fulfilled through 
the magnifying of the divine mercy by the already converted Gentiles (vv. 
7, 9). Observe that é6vaév and fv are «without the article, and hence do not 
denote ‘‘the Gentile world” (Hofmann). —7 pifa is here, according to the 
Heb. WW, the root-shoot ; comp. Ecclus, xlvii. 22; Rev. v. 5, xxii. 6 ; 1 
Macc. i. 10; Eccles. xl. 15. He is the root-shoot of Jesse, because Jesse is 
the root from which He springs, as the ancestor of the Messianic king, 
David, Jesse’s son, sprang from it. This descendant of Jesse is the Messiah 
(comp. Isa. xi. 1, lili. 2), who (according to the original text) is a banner for | 
peoples, and consequently their leader and ruler. Christ has entered on this 
dominion at His eraltation, and He carries it out by successive stages 
through the conversion of the Gentiles. — ix’ avrg! of the resting of hope upon 


! The original, according to the present 
reading, does not mean : *‘ Rejotce, ye tribes, 
Ifis people" (de Wette and others; comp. 
Luther: “all ye who are His people”), since 
0°11 cannot denote the tribes of the Jewish 
people ; but, as the Hiphil WI allows, 
either with the Vulgate: ‘ laudate, gentea, 
populum dus’ (so Gesentus, Thee. I. p. 27%, 
and Umbrelt, p. 358; comp. Kamphausen, 
Lied Mos. p.219f.); or: “* make to shout for 
Joy, ye Gentiles, His people,” which, however, 
does not fit the connection ; or (with Aquila 
and Theodotion, comp. Hofmann), Shout 
Sor joy, ye Gentiles, ye who are His peopie. 
The latter is to be preferred, because 
"Vil in the sense of Kal, in the few pas- 


sages where it is so found, {s not joined with 
the accusative, but either is joined with 
the dative (5)—as Ps. lxxxi. 2—or stands 
absolutely (Ps. xxxif. 11). 

2The Messianic fulfilment of this sum- 
mons is recognized by Paul in the mag- 
nifying of God on the part of the Gentiles 
conrerted to Christ from all nations. This 
fulfilment he looks upon already as present 
(for see ver. 7), not merely as a fact of the 
Suture, “ when the Gentile world az aunited , 
whole’ magnifies God (Hofmann). 

3 See Umbreit In the Stud. u. Krit. 1885, p. 
553, and the explanation in reference 
thereto, p. 880 f.; Drechsler and Delitzsoh. 
in loc. 


544 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Him,* 1 Tim. iv. 10, vi. 17; LXX. Isa. xlii. 4. Comp. soreieen tv ate, is. 
33, x. 11. The contents of the hope is the attainment of eternal saleatiun, 
which will be fulfilled in them at the Parousia. 

Ver. 13. As vv. 1-4 passed into a blessing (vv. 5, 6), so now the hortatory 
discourse, begun afresh in ver. 7, passes into a blessing (dé), which forms, 
at the same time, the close of the entire section (from chap. xiv. onwards). 
— 6 @ei¢ tH¢ éAridoc] God, who produces the hope (of eternal glory), namels, 
through His Spirit ; see the closing words of the verse. This description 
of God (comp. on ver. 5) attaches itself formally to éA-zrcoverv, ver. 12,” but 
rests upon the deeper substantive reason, that the becoming filled with joy- 
fulness and peace here wished for is not possible without having hope as its 
basis, and that, on the other hand, this becoming filled produces the rich in- 
crease of hope itself (ci¢ 78 wepioo. x.7.4.). — mde. yapac x.7.A.] tcith all, i.e. with 
highest joyfulness.* yapd and eipjvy (peace through concord), as xiv. 17.— 
év tp meoreve] in the beliering, to which without yapa and eip#vr the fruits 
would be wanting, and without which no yapé and ecip#vq could exist. 
Comp. xiv. 17. —ei¢ rd wepioo. «.7.4.] Aim of the zAypdca: x.7.2. : in order 
that ye, in virtue of the power (working in you) of the Holy Spirit, may ls 
abundant in hope, may cherish Christian hope in the richest measure (comp. 
1 Cor. xv. 58 ; 2 Cor. villi. 7 ; Phil. i. 9; Col. ii. 7). 

Vv. 14-33.‘ The apostle has now come to an end with all the instructions 
and exhortations, which he intended to impart to the Romans. Hence ke 
now adds, up to ver. 33, an epilogue (which, however, he then follows up in 
chap. xvi. with commendations, greetings, etc.). [See Note CLII. p. 558.] 
In this epilogue, which in substance corresponds to the introduction, i. 8-16, 
and by no means applies only to the section respecting the weak in faith 
(Melanchthon, Grotius), but to the whole epistle, he testifies his good conf- 
dence towards the readers, and justifies his in a partial degree bold writing by his 
Centile-apostolie calling (vv. 14-16) and working (vv. 17-21), which latter had 

also been usually the hindrance to his coming personally to Rome (ver. 22). 
' This observation leads him to his present plan of travel, the execution of 
which will bring him, in the course of his intended journey to Spain, to 
Rome, after he has been at Jerusalem (vv. 23-29). For this impending jour- 
ney he finally begs the prayers of the Romans on his behalf (vv. 30-33), and 
then concludes with a blessing (ver. 33). 

Ver. 14, Mérecouae dé] but I am of the conviction ; viii. 38, xiv. 14. The 
dz is the simple yeraSarixéy, leading over to the concluding portion of the 
epistle. — xat aizd¢ éyd] et ipse ego; comp. on vii. 25. The apostle is, inde- 
pendently of the general advantageous estimation in which the Romaa 


1 Hemsterh. ad Xen. Eph. p. 128. historically correct, but also incorrect 
2 An attachment which, since vaasthen statements, and, on the whole, a n0n- 
addresses the church, does not suit the view Pauline tendency. The parallels with pas 
which holds the latter to be a Jewish- sages inthe Epistles to the Corinthians ar 


Christian one (Mangold). to be explained simply by dependence on 
* Comp. Theile, ad Jac. p.8; Wunder, ad _ the latter, etc. ; p. 18 ff. These are self: 
Soph. Phil. 141 f. deceptions of a fanciful criticism, against 


* According to Lucht, vv. 14-38 contain which it is vain to contend. 
much that is Pauline and various matters 


CHAP. XV., 15. 549 
church stood with othera (i. 8), also for his own personal part of the convic- 
tion, etc. The emphasis lies on avréc. If the thought were : ‘‘even J, who 
have hitherto so unreservedly exhorted you” (Philippi, comp. de Wette, 
Fritzsche, and older interpreters), éyo would have the emphasis (comp. xaye 
avréc, Acts x. 26) ; but xa? avrég corresponds entirely to the following xai 
avroi, et ipsi, i.e. even without first of all requiring influence, exhortation, etc., 
on the part of others, Comp. afterwards xai aAAjAovc.. Thus, accordingly, 
Paul denotes by «. avré¢ éye the autonomy of his judgment, but with a subtle 
indication of the judgment of others as coinciding therewith. Comp. Ben- 
gel: ‘‘ Non modo alii hoc de vobis existimant.” Paul intends therewith 
to obviate the idea as if he for his part judged less favourably of the church, 
with reference to the fact, not that he had eritten this letter gencrally 
(Hofmann), but that he had written it in part roAuypérepov. This is 
shown by the contrast, ver. 15. — ayafwoivys] goodness, excellence generally 
(that you also of yourselves are very excellent people), not equivalent to ypyorériye 
(as Thom. Mag. p. 391 states), not even in Gal. v. 22. Comp. 2 Thess. i. 11 ; 
Eph. v. 9; Eccles, ix. 18. The word is not found in the Greek writers. — 
The three predicates, peoroi x.t.2., advance in co-ordination from the general 
to the particular. — nai 44441.) also to admonish you among one another, with- 
out having need for a third, who should admonish you. On vovfereiv, in 
which the notion of its being well-meant, though not involved in the word 
of itself, is given by the conncction or (as in Isocr. de pace, 72) by express 
contrast, see on 1 Cor. xiv. 14, Eph. vi. 4. Paul does not express in this verse 
something more than he strictly means (Reiche), but that which he really be- 
lieves of the Roman church, taken as a whole ; at which favourable convic- 
tion he—apart from the universally-diffused good report of the church (i. 8) 
—has arrived by means of experiences unknown to us, and perhaps also in 
virtue of his feeling assured that he might draw from the individuals and 
influential persons with whom he was acquainted a conclusion respecting 
the whole. But the fact that he does erpress it, this commendation, —rests 
on his apostolic truth, and on that wisdom of teaching which by good and 
real confidence attracts a zeal of compliance. 

Ver. 15. More boldly, however (than so good a confidence appears to im- 
ply), I wrote to you in part, etc. ‘‘ Quasi dicat : oreidovra xai avrdv otpive,” 
Grotius. — roAunpérepov] adverbially.' The comparative sense is not to be ob- 
literated (Bernhardy, p. 433 ; Winer, p. 228[E. T. p. 243]), but may not 
be derived from the lesser right of the apostle* to write to a church not founded 
by him (Hofmann); comp. Bengel, who introduces the further idea : ‘‘ cum 
potius ipse venire debcrem.” It must, in fact, especially seeing that the more 
precise definition ad pépove is added, be necessarily a specification of the 


2 Thuc. fv. 126.8; Polyb. 1. 17. 7; Lucian, «pecial liberty? He had to glorify Ais office 


Iearom. 10. 

* This lesser right is assumed quite with- 
out warrant. Paul certainly wrote to 
other churches of Gentiles not founded by 
him (Colossians, Laodiceans); and how 
could he, as the apostle of the Gentiles, be of 
opinion that he thereby was taking any 


(xi. 18), In doing which his care for ad 
churches (2 Cor. xt. 28) certainly suggested 
no limitation of epistolary intercourse to 
such ashe himself had founded, as if it were 
a boldness in him needing excuse, when he 
also wrote to others. 


546 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 
mode, expressing the how of the éypaga. The repetition of ade2¢oi flows from 
the carnestness of feeling. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 10, 11 ; Gal. v. 11, 13; Jaa 
v. 7%, 9, 10. — ard pépove] belongs not merely to rodu. (‘‘ paulo liberius,” 
Grotius, following the Peshito), but, as its position shows, to roty. iypade 
together : partly, i.e. in particular places, I wrote more boldly. This refers 
to passages like vi. 12 ff., 19, vill. 9, xi. 17 ff., xii. 3, xiii. 3 f£., 18, 14, xiv. 
8, 4, 10, 18, 15, 20, xv. 1, etal. In ard pépovg is implied the contrast, that 
he has not written roAunpérepov all that he has written (comp. xi. 25 ; 2 Cor. 
i. 14), but only a part thereof. Hofmann has now exchanged his earlier 
incorrect view, ‘‘ provisionally and in the meantime” (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 95), 
for another also incorrect (similarly Th. Schott), namely piecemeal, in con- 
trast to a complete exposition of Christian truth, thus equivalent to & plpow, 
1 Cor. xiii. 10 (not also in 1 Cor. xii. 27). Besides, this arbitrarily import- 
ed contrast would suit no Epistle less than the Epistle to the Romans, which 
treats the whole gospel in the most complete manner. According to Lucht, 
the expression in this passage is only the product of a post-apostolic effort 
to wipe away the ‘‘bad impression” of the epistle on the highly esteemed 
church, which had in fact been founded by Peter (comp. Theodore of 
Mopsuestia). — dc éravapu. tude] as again reminding you,' i.e. in the way and 
manner of one who reminds you, etc.*— dca r7v yxdp.} t.€. in order to comply 
with the apostolic office, with which God has favoured me. See ver. 16. 
Ver. 16. Eig rd elva: «.7.A.] Specification of the object aimed at in 7 
dobeicdv por td Tt. Ocov. — Aecrovpyév] Comp. on xiii. 6. Paul sets forth the 
service of his apostolic office, in the consciousness of its hallowed dignity, 
not merely as a public oixovoyia (Ewald : ‘‘ steward of the people”), but as 
a priestly service of offering, in which 'Ijoot X. expresses the Azcrovp) d¢ a8 of 
dained by Christ. That Christ should be conceived of as He to whom the offering 
is presented (Reiche), is contrary to the conception of offering, which always 
refers to God as the receiver of it. Comp. xii. 1; Eph. v. 2; Phil. ii. 1%. 
But neither is Christ to be conceived of (as by Bengel and Riickert) as high 
priest (a conception not of Paul, but rather of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
and applying to Christ as the sole Atoner, in which case the idea of inferior 





1In opposition to Baur's erroneous ex- 
planation of eravay., ‘further therein to re- 
roind,”’ and its reference to what follows, 
see Mangold, p.69, who, however, on his 
part, in virtue of the assumption of the 
Jewish-Christian character of the church, 
limits the amd ywdpovs arbitrarily to those 
portions of the epistle (especially chap. ix. 
and x.) in which, in the interest of the 
Gentile-Christian apostolate, Jewish- Chris- 
tian pretensions had been combated. It is 
just such entirely doctrinal discussions as 
chap. ix. x. which answer least to the 
character of roAunpérepoy, which presup- 
poses the ready possibility of offence being 
given. The exculpation implied in ver. 
15 is not calculated for a Jewish-Christian 
church (Mangold, p. 72), but rather fora 


church as yet strange to the apostie and 
held in very good repute, towards which 
he felt himself not in a like relation 38 
e.g. to the Galatians and Corinthians, bat in 
one more delicate and calling for more for 
bearance. Artfully and gently, too, is the 
@s dvaucuy. «.7.A. added, as if what was 
written roAunporepoy was only meant to bea 
help to their memory. “Avéprqos & tory 
erippon Hpovicews awoAetwovons, Plat. L677. ¥- 
p. 7382 B. 

2See Bernhardy, p. 476; Buttmann, nev6 
Gr. p. 268 [E. T. 307] ; Kahner, I. 2 p. 6498.3 
1 Thess. fi. 4; Heb. xiif. 17. éavam. denotes 
in memoriam revocare, See Plat. Legg. it 
p. 688 A; Dem. 74. 7 Comp. éxerénrne% 
Dion. Hal. Rhet. x. 18. Theodore of Mop 
suestia : cis Uxduryow ayew dy pepedeere 


CHAP. XV., 17%. 547 


priests is out of place), but as Lord and Ruler of the church, who has ap- 
pointed His apostle, i. 5. Lucht oddly thinks that the writer did not vent- 
ure to call Paul, in consequence of his disputed position, ardéorodoc, but only 
Aectroupyéc. — ei¢ ra EOvy] in reference to the Gentiles ; for these, as converted 
by the apostle, are to form the offering to be presented.—In the sequel, 
lepoupyovvra rd evayy. T. Geov contains the more precise explanation of Aerovpy. 
I. X., and iva yévyrac 9 mpocdopa trav éfvav «.t.A. that of eig ra fy ; hence 
the latter belongs not to iepovpy. (Th. Schott, Hofmann), but to what pre- 
cedes, and is not (with Buttmann) to be omitted on the authority of B. — 
iepoupy. Td evayy. tT. Oeov] in priestly fashion administering the gospel of God, 
i.e. ‘‘administrans evang. a Deo missum hominibus, eoque ministerio velut 
sacerdotio fungens,” Estius ; comp. Chrysostom, Erasmus, and most older 
interpreters, also Riickert, Tholuck, Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi. This 
usage of lepovpy. is confirmed by passages like Herodian. v. 3. 16 ; Joseph. 
Antt. vi. 6. 2; also by 4 Macc. vii. 8, where idiy aipzar: is to be connected 
with lepouvpyoivracg tov véuov (in opposition to Hofmann, who will not admit 
the priestly notion in the word), not with imepaorifovras (see Grimm, Handb, 
p. 329 f.).?. Without warrant, Hofmann insists on adhering to the concep- 
tion of ‘‘ administering holy service.” The gospel is not indeed the offering 
(Luther and others), which is presented, but the divine institute, which is 
administered—is in priestly fashion served—by the presenting of the offer- 
ing. <As to evayy. Oecd, see on i. 1. — 4 mpoodopa trav evar] the offering of 
the Gentiles, i.e. the offering which the Gentiles are, Heb. x. 10 ; Eph. v.: 
2. The Gentiles converted, and through the Spirit consecrated as God's 
property, are the offering which Paul, as the priest of Jesus Christ, has 
brought to God. Observe, however, the stress laid on the prefixed yévyra ‘ 
in order that there may prosper (see on this use of yivecfa: as regards offer- 
ings, Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd, vi. 4. 9), in accordance with which evrpdéod. is 
then attributire (as well-pleasing), and dy:acp. é. rv. dy. is subordinated to the 
latter as its ground : sanctified through the Holy Spirit, which is received 
through the gospel in baptism, Gal. iii. 2, 5; Tit. iii. 5; Eph. v. 26. A 
contrast to the ceremonial consccration of the Levitical offerings, Comp. 
xii. 1. 

Ver. 17. [See Note CLIII. p. 559.] How readily might what was said in 
ver. 16 carry with it the appearance of vain self-boasting !_ To obviate this, 
the apostle proceeds : [have accordingly (in pursuance of the contents of ver. 
16) the boasting (rij xabyznoww, see the critical notes) in Christ Jesus in respect of 
my relation to God ; i.e., my boasting is something which, by virtue of my con- 
nection with Christ (whose Aecrovpyé¢ Iam, ver. 16), in my position towards God 
(for I administer God’s gospel as an offering priest, ver. 16), properly belongs 
tome. The éyw is prefixed with emphasis : it does not fail me, like a some- 
thing which one has not really as a possession but only ventures to ascribe to 
himself ; then follows with év X. 'I. and ra mp. r. 6., a twofold more pre- 
ciscly defined character of this ethical possession, excluding everything sel /- 


2 Comp. Sufcer, Thes. 8.0. ; Kypke in loc.; Joseph. Anét. viil. 4. 5: iepovpyia, 4 Macc, 
also icpovpyés, Callim. fr. 450; iepovpynua, iv. 1; Plat. Legg. p. 774 E; Pollux, {. 2. 


548 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tah.’ Accordingly, we are not to explain as though év X. ’I. bore the main 
stress and it ran év Xpiot@ ovy tiv Kabxynow Exo x.T.A. (which is Fritzache's 
objection to the reading rv xabz.); and xaiyyorg is neither here nor else- 
where equivalent to xcaixnpa (materies gloriandt), but is gloriatio (comp. 1 Cor. 
xv. 31), and the article marks the dejinite self-boasting concerned, which Paul 
makes (vv. 16, 18). Reiche connects év X. with 1. xaiznorv, so that 1d sav- 
xaofa: ev X. is to be explained as the boasting onself of Christ (of the aid of 
Christ). Comp. also Ewald. Admissible linguistically, since the construc- 
tion xavyaofa év (Vv. 3, ii. 17, 23 ; Phil. iii. 3) allowed the annexation with- 
out the article ; but at variance with the sequel, where what is shown is not 
the right to boast of the help of Christ (of this there is also in ver. 16 no 
mention), but this, that Paul till never boast himself otherwise than 43 
simply the instrument of Christ, that he thus has Christ only to thank for 
the xavyaofa:, only through Him is in the position to boast. — ra pig r. Ocdr] 
Comp.: Heb. ii. 17, v. 1. Semler and Rickert take the article in a limiting 
sense: at least before Gud. But the “at least” is not expressed (ré ye mp. 7 
Q., OF mpdg ye r. O., OF ra mp. Tr. O. ye), and Paul has indeed actually here and 
elsewhere frequently boasted before men, and with ample warrant, of his 
sacred calling.—We may add that this whole assertion of his calling, vv. 
17-21, so naturally suggested itself to the apostle, when he was on the 
point of extending his activity to Rome and beyond it to the extreme west 
of the Gentile world, that there is no sufficient ground for seeking the occa- 
sion of it in the circumstances and experiences of the Corinthian church at 
that time (so especially Riickert, comp. also Tholuck and Philippi); espe- 
cially since it is nowhere indicated in our epistle (not even in xvi. 17), that 
at that time (at alater epoch it was otherwise, Phil. i. 15 ff.) anti-Pauline 
efforts had occurred in Rome, such as had emerged in Corinth. See 
Iutrod. § 3. 

Ver. 18. Negative confirmation of what is asserted in ver. 17. The cor- 
rect explanation is determined partly by the connection, to be carefully 
observed, of ov with xareipy., partly by the order of the words, according to 
which ov xarespydcaro must have the emphasis, not Xpioréc (Theodoret and 
others, including Calovius, Olshausen, Fritzsche, Tholuck). Hence: ‘for 
I will not (in any given case) embolden myself to speak about any of those things 
(to boast of anything from the sphere of that) which Christ has not brought 
about through me, in order to make the Gentiles obedient to Him, by means of 
word and work.” That is, affirmatively expressed : for I till venture to ld 
myself be heard only as to such things, the actual fulfilment of which has taken 
place by Christ through me, etc. ; I will therefore never pride myself on any- 
thing which belongs to the category of those things, which hace not been put 
into execution by Christ through me.* This would be an untrue speaking of 


1 Not exactly specially “the conscious- might be conceived,” is a mere empty 
ness of superior knowledge or singular subtlety. Had Paul, ¢.., boasted that 
spirituality," Hofmann. Comp. generally Christ had wrought many conversions 
1 Cor. xv. 10. through him when he wasin Athens, be 

*The objection of Hofmann: ‘The non- would havespoken about something which 
actual forms no oollective whole, as a would have been a single instance ott of 
constituent element of which a single thing the category of the non-actwal, namely, of 





CHAP. XV., 19. 549 


results, as if the Lord had brought them about through me—which neverthe- 
less had not taken place. — ric trax. i6vav] namely, through the adoption of 
faith in Him ; comp. i. 5. — Adyw x. %pyp} applies to xareppy . . . . evar. 
Ver. 19. In virtue of what powers Christ, by means of word and work, 
has wrought through the apostle as His organ : (1) év duvap. onpeiwy x. tep., 
—this refers back.to ipyw ; (2) év duv. rveiparoc,—this applies to Adyw and 
épyy together, and is co-ordinated to the above év dvv. on. x. tep, not subor- 
dinated, as Beza, Glickler, and others think, whereby the language would 
lose its simplicity and half of its import (the divayic rvei. would pass into 
the background). According to Hofmann, who reads in ver. 20 ¢:Aor:uod- 
pac (see the critical notes), a new sentence is meant to begin with Ady «. 
épyw, the verb of which would be ¢:Aoriwotva:. This yields, instead of the 
simple course of the language, a complicated structure of sentence which is 
in nowise indicated by Paul himself, as he has not written éy Adyw x. &pyw 
(confurmably to the following). Besides, the evayyerifecfa: by word and 
deed (thus the preaching through deeds), would be a modern conception 
foreign to the N. T. The épya accompany and accredit the preaching (John 
x. 38, xiv. 11), but they do not preach. Comp. Luke xxiv. 19; Acts vii. 
22; 2Cor. x. 11. If gcAor¢uotpa is to be read, then with Lachmann a new 
sentence is to be begun with ver. 20, so that all that precedeg remains as- 
signed to the efficiency of Christ, which is not the case with the view of 
Hofmann, although it is only in entire keeping with the language of hu- 
mility which Paul here uses. The genitives are those of derivation : power which 
went forth from signs and wonders (which Paul, as instrument of Christ, has 
performed), and power, which went forth from the (Holy) Spirit (who was 
communicated to the apostle through Christ) upon the minds of men. Comp. 
on év duv. mvetp., 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. —onyeia x. répara] not different in sub- 
stance ; both miracles, both also denoting their significant aspect. See 
Fritzsche, p. 270 f. The collocation corresponds to the Heb. D°’NDDI Nine, 
hence usually (the converse only in Acts ii. 22, 48, vi. 8, vii. 36, comp. il. 
19) onueia stands first, and where only one of the two words is used, it is 
always onueia, because NW was the striking word giving more immediately 
the character of the thing designated. Contrary to the constant usage of 
the N. T., Reiche understands not outward miraculous facts, but mental 
miracles, which the preaching of the gospel has produced in the hearts of 
the newly-converted. Even 2 Cor. xii. 12 is not to be thus understood ; 
see in loc. Miracles belonged to the onyeia tov azoord2ov (2 Cor. l.c.), hence 
there is already of itself motive enough for their mention in our passage, 
and there is no need for the precarious assumption of a reference to pseudo- 
apostolic jugglers in Rome (Ewald). —év duvéy. rveiu. ay.) is related, not 
“awkwardly” (Hofmann), to ov ov xarespy. Xprorég ; for Christ has, for the 
sake of His working to be effected through the apostle (d¢ ipo), given to 


that which Christ has not wrought. The conrerting the Gentiles. But thus, through 
view of Hofmann himself amounts to the ‘the contrast of his omwn and the work of 
sense, that the apostle wished to set aside Chriat, the emphasis would be transposed, 


» all his own, which waanot awork of Christ resting now on Xprords, as if it ran &» ov 


performed through him, with the object Qf Xprords careipydcaro &' énou, 


550 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

him the Spirit. Very unnecessarily, and just as inappropriately,—since 
jore must comprise all the preceding elements,—Hofmann forces év éuv. rv. 
dy., by means of an hyperbaton, into special connection with Gore. — dere 
x.7.2.] Result, which this working of Christ through Paul has had in refer- 
ence to the extension of Christianity. — a0 ‘Iepovc.] From this spot, where 
Paul first entered the apostolical fellowship, Acts ix. 26 ff. (he had already 
previously worked three years, including the sojourn in Arabia, at Damas- 
cus, see on Gal. i. 17, 18), he defines the terminus a quo, because he intends 
to specify the greatest extension of his working in space (from south-east to 
north-west).’ — xai xixAw] enlarges the range of the terminus a quo: and round 
about, embracing not merely Judaea, but, in correspondence to the magni- 
tude of the measure of length, Arabia and Syria also. Of course, however, 
xixAy is not included in the dependence on azé6, but stands in answer to the 
question Where? inasmuch as it adds to the statement from whence the 
working took place, the notice of the local sphere, which had been jointly 
affected by that local beginning as its field of action : from Jerusalem, and 
in a circuit round, Paul has fulfilled the gospel as far as Illyria. Flacius, 
Calovius, Paulus, Gléckler, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others, 
refer xixaw to the arc which Paul described in his journey from Jerusalem 
by way of Syria, Asia, Troas, Macedonia, and Greece to Illyria. According 
to this, xix4 would specify the direction in which he, starting from Jerusa- 
lem, moved forward. So also Hofmann. This direction would be that of 
acurce. But xix4y never denotes this, and is never merely the opposite of 
straight out, but always circumcirca (comp. Judith i. 2; Mark iii. 34, vi. 6, 
36 ; Luke ix. 12 ; Rev. iv. 6; very frequently in the Greek writers) ; and 
the addition ‘‘and in the are of a circle,” would have been very superfluous 
and indeed like an empty piece of ostentation, seeing that in truth the 
straight direction from Jerusalem to Illyria passes for the most part through 
water. No reason also would be discoverable for Paul’s adding the «ai, and 
not merely writing «‘xAw, in order to express : from Jerusalem ia a circular 
direction as far as Illyria. — péxpi tov IAAvp.] The idea that Paul, as has 
recently been for the most part assumed, did not get to Illyria at all, but only 
to the frontier of this western region during a Macedonian by-journey, throws 
upon him an appearance of magnifying his deeds, for which the silence of the 
Acts of the Apostles, furnishing, as it does, no complete narrative, supplies 
no warrant. Now, since in ver. 23 Illyria may not, without arbitrariness, 
be excluded from the regions where he has already laboured, because this 
country would otherwise have still afforded scope for labour, we must as- 
sume that Paul had really made an intermediate journey to Illyria. From 
what starting-point, cannot indeed be shown ; hardly so soon as Acts xviii. 
11, but possibly during the journey mentioned in Acts xx. 1-3 (see Anger, 


1Yet he does not say “from Arabia” 
(Gal. Z.c.), because it was very natural for 
him significantly to place the beginning at 
that spot where all the other apostles had 
begun their work and the apostolic church 
itself had arisen—in doing which, however, 
he, by adding «ai cvcAw, does nothing tothe 


prejudice of history. The less is there to 
be found In awd ‘lepove. an inconsistency 
with the statements of the Epistle to the 
Galatians. This in opposition to Lucht, 
who sees also in péxpe 7. “LAAvp. an incorrect 
statement, and attributes to both points s 
epectal design. 


CHAP. XV., 20, 21. 551 


temp. rat. p. 84), so that his short sojourn in Illyria took place not long before 
his sojourn in Achaia, where he at Corinth wrote the Epistle to the Romans. 
Tit. iii. 12 can only be employed in confirmation of this by those who as- 
sume the authenticity of the Epistle to Titus, and its composition thus 
early (see Wieseler, Philippi). — mewAnpoxévar ro evayy. tr. X.] have brought to 
fulfilment (comp. Col. i. 25) the gospel of Christ. This x/ypoiv has taken 
place in an ertensice sense through the fact that the gospel is spread abroad 
everywhere from Jerusalem to Illyria, and has met with acceptance. Anal- 
ogous is the conception : 6 Adyo¢ rov Oeov yb Eave, Acts vi. 7, xii. 24, xix. 
20. So long as the news of salvation has not yet reached its full and des- 
tined diffusion, it is still in the course of growth and increase ; but when 
it has reached every quarter, so that no place any longer remains for the 
labour of the preacher (ver. 23), it has passed from the state of growing in- 
crease into the full measure of its dimensions. This view of the sense is alone 
strictly textual (see ver. 23), while closely adhering to the literal significa- 
tion of evayy., which denotes the message itself, not the act of proclamation 
(Th. Schott, Mangold) ; and hence excludes the many divergent interpre- 
tations, namely: (1) That of Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel, de Wette, 
Rickert, in substance also Kéllner, Tholuck, van Hengel, and permissively, 
Reiche, that evayy. is equivalent to munus praedicandi evang. which it does 
not mean ; similarly Ewald ; the executed commission of preaching. (2) 
That of Luther, Flacius, Castalio, and others: ‘‘that I have fulfilled every- 
thing with the gospel,’ which is opposed to the words as they stand, although 
repeated by Baur. (3) That of Theophylact, Erasmus, and others, includ- 
ing Reiche and Olshausen : w/np. 7d evayy. denotes completely to proclaim 
the gospel. But the ‘‘ completely” would in fact have here no relevant 
weight at all (such as at Acts xx. 27); for that Paul had not incompletely 
preached the gospel, was understood of itself. Others arbitrarily take it 
otherwise still, e.g. Calvin : ‘‘ pracdicationem ev. quasi supplendo diffundere ; 
coeperunt enim alii priores, sed ipse longius sparsit ;’ Krehl: that I have 
put the gospel into force and validity ; Philippi: that I have realized the 
gospel, have introduced it into life (the gospel appearing as empty, before 
it is taught, accepted, understood) ; Hofmann, with comparison of the not 
at all analogous expression mrAnpovv rov véuov: the message of salvation 
misses its destination, if it remain unproclaimed—whereby z/yporv would be 
reduced simply to the notion of xypiocev.—The whole of the remark, ver. 
19 f., connected with ver. 24, is to be explained, according to Baur, I. p. 
807, simply from the intention (of the later writer) to draw here, as it were, 
a geographical line between two apostolic provinces, of which the one must 
be left to Peter. In opposition to such combinations, although Lucht still 
further elaborates them, it is sufficient simply to put into the scale the al- 
together Pauline character and emotional stamp of the language in v¥. 19-83, 
in its inner truth, simplicity, and chasteness, 

Vv. 20, 21. But prosecuting it asa point of honour to preach in this tay, 
the oivu is now first negatively stated : not where Christ was named, then 
positively : but, agreeably to the word of Scripture, etc. Hence oty orov, not 
brov ovx. — giAores.] Aependent on pe, ver. 19. On gidoriucioba, to prosecute 


552 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 


anything 80 that one secks one’s honour in it, comp. 2 Cor. v. 9 ; 1 Thess. iv. 
11 ; see Wetstein and Kypke. This full signification (not merely the more 
general one : eealously to prosecute) is to be maintained in all passages, in- 
cluding the classical ones, and admirably suits the context. The matter 
was a special point of honour with the apostle in his working ;' 2 Cor. x. 15, 
16. — avoudo6y] His name, as the contents of confession, has been nemed, 
namcly, by preachers and confessors. Sce ver. 21. — iva wy x.7.A.] ie, in 
order not simply to continue the work of conversion already begun by otb- 
ers. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10. The reason why Paul did not desire this, lay in 
the high consciousness of his apostolic destination (Acts xxvi. 17, 18), accord- 
ing to which he recognized the greatest and most difficult work, the found- 
ing of the church, as the task of the apostle, and found his apostolic honour in 
the solution of thistask.* Others, as Reiche, specify as the reason, that he 
had sought on account of his freer system of doctrine to avoid polemical 
controversies. This would be a principle of practical prudence, correspond- 
ing neither to the apostolical idea, nor to Paul’s magnanimous character in 
following it out. — xaOo¢ yéyp.) Isa. lii. 15, closely cited after the LXX., 
who took WX in each case as masculine. The passage runs according to 
the original: ‘‘ What was never told to them, they see; and what they hate 
never heard, they perceice ;” and the subject is the fings, who become dumb 
before the glorified Servant of God, not the nations (Hengstenberg, Christal. 
II. p. 305 ; Philippi). But the actual state of the case—seeing that, along 
with the kings, their peoples also must see the glory of the Servant of God 
—allowed the apostle here to put the nations as the subject, the Gentile. 
peoples, to whom, through him, the Servant of God as yet unknown to them 
is made known, i.e. Jesus Christ, in whom the Messianic fulfilment of that 
prophetic idea concerning the Servant of God, as the ideal of Israel, had ap- 
peared realized.? — repi avrov] addition of the LXX.— dyovras] they shall xz, 
namely mentally, in knowledge and faith, i¢ (that which the preaching now 
brings before them). — of ov« axyx.] namely, the news of Him (the gospel). 
— ovvioovet] shall understand it (this news). Comp. Matt. xiii. 23, xv. 10. 

Ver. 22. A:é] because, namely, my apostolic mode of working, just de- 
scribed (vv. 20, 21), did not yet permit me to depart from the districts 
mentioned, inasmuch as there was still work to do in founding. [See Note 
CLIV. p. 560.] Comp. Beza: ‘‘dum huc et illuc avocor, interpellatus et 
ita prohibitus.” Incorrectly Bengel, Reiche, and others : because in Rome 
the foundation was laid by others. Ver. 23 is decisive against this. —*é 
mozAd] more than woAAdaic, i. 13 (woAAd): in the most cases (xeiora, Plat. 


?Lucht here conceives the writerto be to Spain. But to address defters toa charch 
dependent even on a mistaken understand- of a Pauline stamp, which had nevertheless 
ing of 2 Cor. x. 15, 16. been founded by others, such ag, in fact, be 

2 The objection of Baur, il. p. 899, thatin wrote to the Colossians and Laodiceans, 
truth, if this had been really Paul's princl- | was not excluded by the above principle, 
ple, the Epistle to the Romans itself would _‘ the point of which was rather the personal 
stand in contradiction to it, is invalid, presence at the founding of churches, and the 
since that principle referred only to his eral proclamation of salvation. 
working as present in person; whence he 2 Comp. Schultz, alttestam. Theol. I. P. 
thought of visiting the Romans only asde- 268 ff. 
topevouevos (ver. 24), on his intended journey 





CHAP. XV., 23, 24. 553 
ilipp. maj. p. 281 B), as a rule, not ‘‘8o often” (Th. Schott). The Vulgate 
renders correctly : plerumque.’ Paul has had other hindrances also, but 
mostly such as had their ground in the above regulative principle of his 
working. Hofmann understands évexomr. of external hindrances ; so that Paul 
means that he, even if he would, could not come otherwise than in pursu- 
ance of that principle, to Rome (whither that principle did not lead him). 
This is at variance with the following mv? dé x«.7.2., which in ynxére réov 
éyuv év r. KA. tr. expresses the removal now of the hindrance meant by éve- 
KovTT. — Tov é2feiv| genitive dependent on the verb of hindering. See Borne- 
mann, ad Xen. Anab, i. 7. 20; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 845. 

Vv. 23, 24.? But since [have now no longer room (scope, t.e. opportunitatem, 
see on xli. 19 ; Kypke, II. p. 190) in these regions (from Jerusalem to Illyria, 
ver. 19). Pau] had in all these countries founded churches, from which 
Christianity was now spreading through other teachers, and especially 
through his own disciples, over the whole ; and consequently he considered 
his apostolic calling to be fulfilled in respect of the region mentioned. His 
further working was to belong to the far west, where Christ was not yet 
named ; hence he meditated, in the next instance, transferring his activity 
in founding churches to Spain—a design, indeed, which Lucht denies that 
the apostle entertained, and imputes it to a later conception of his task, in 
accordance with which the plan of a journey to Spain was inrented. Prob- 
ably the comprehensive maxim, that he had no longer a sphere of activity 
where Christianity might be planted at the principal places of a district by 
his personal exertions, was connected with the expectation of the nearness 
of the Parousia, before which the 1?jpuua of the Gentiles, and in conse- 
quence of this also all Israel, had to be brought in (xi. 25). — éerofiay} not 
summum desiderium (Beza), but see on iv. 11. The word is not found clse- 
where ; but comp. ézimdOyotc, 2 Cor. vii. 7. — rot é2Geiv] genitive dependent 
On éxino8, — amd TOA. Er.) now for many years; comp. Luke vili. 43. — oc 
Gv] simulatque, so svonas, See on 1 Cor. xi. 34; Phil. ii. 23. It is a more 
precise definition to zchat follows, not to the preceding é26eiv rpdc tuac (Hof- 
mann), because otherwise Paul must have had in mind the plan of the journey 
to Spain for many years, which cannot be supposed either in itself or on ac- 
count of Acts xvi. 9. This applics also against Tischendorf in his 8th edi- 
tion. — Iraviav] The usual Greck name is '13ypia (Herod. i. 163; Strabo, 
ili. 4. 17, p. 166), but Yravia (although in the passages in Athenaeus and 
Diodorus Siculus the variation 'Iezavia is found) was probably also not rare, 
and that as a Greek form (Casaubon, ad Athen. p. 574). The Roman form 


1 See Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 427; Ast, ad 
Plat. Leqq. p. 6 f. 

3 With the omission of éAevooua wpds vuas 
after Zraviay, and of yap after éAmi¢w (see 
the critical notes), the course of the passage 
flows on simply, so that vuri 82, ver. 23, is 
connected with éAmigw, and all that inter. 
venes is parenthetical. If éAcvo. wpds vas 
only be struck ont and the yap be retained, 
with Lachmann, Hofmann, Tischendorf. 8, 
a striking interruption of the construction 


results. To parenthesize éAmigw ydp. . . éu- 
wAnodw (Lachmann, followed by Buttmann. 
Zc. p. 252 [E. T. 294], comp. also Hofmann) is 
not suitable to the contents of the continua- 
tion, ver. 2. Ewald extends the parentheses 
from é¢Awiges yap even to Acrovpynaat avrois, 
ver. 27. But considering the entirely calm 
tenor of the whole passage, the probabllity 
of such large parentheses, with all their in- 
termediate clauses, is just asslight as the 
probability of an anacoluthia (Tisch. 8). 


554 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


was ‘Ioravia (1 Mace. viii. 3). Itis the entire Pyrenaean peninsula. See 
Strabo, U.c.—That this project of a journey to Spain was not - executed, see 
Introd. § 1. Primasius aptly remarks : ‘‘ Promiserat quidem, sed dispen- 
sante Deo non ambulavit.” Already at Acts xx. 25 a quite different certain- 
ty was before the apostle’s mind, and in his captivity he no longer enter- 
tained that plan of travel, Philem. 22, Phil. ii. 24. — dsaropevéy.] * quia 
Romac jam fundata est fides,” Bengel. — ag’ izay] (see the critical notes) : 
JSrom you away. — mporengd. éxei] comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 2 Cor. i. 16, and on 
Acts xv. 8. As was his wont on his apostolical journeys, Paul hoped (‘‘ quasi 
pro jure suo,” Bengel) to obtain an accompaniment on the part of some be- 
longing to the church from Rome to Spain, by which we must understand an 
escort all the way thither, since Paul would without doubt travel by sa from 
Italy to Spain, the shortest and quickest way. éxei, in the sense of éxeise, 
according to a well-known attraction. See John xi. 8, e¢ al., and on Matt. 
li, 22. — azo pép.] ‘‘non quantum vellem, sed quantum licebit,” Grotius. 
It is a limitation out of compliment. Comp. Chrysostom. But the reservation 
of later complete enjoyment (Hofmann) is an idea imported : zpdror denotes ia 
the first place (before I travel further), as Matt. vi. 33, vii. 5, viii. 21, and 
_ frequently. — éurano6a] of spiritual satisfaction through the enjoyment of 
the longed-for personal intercourse (ijzav).1 The commentary on this is 
given at i. 12. 

Ver. 25. Nuvi dé] is not, like the above vi dé (ver. 23), to be regarded as 
resumptive, as Buttmann and Hofmann, in consequence of the reading ézifu 
yép, ver. 24, take it,—-a view with which what was previously said of the 
journey to Spain by way of Rome does not accord,* and the passage itself 
assumes a very stiff, contorted form. Observe, rather, that the first vi dé, 
ver. 23, was said in contrast to the past (évexorréuqy x.t.4.), but that the 
second vvvi dé, ver, 25, commencing a new sentence, is said in contrast to 
the promised future. ‘‘So I design and hope to do (as stated in ver. 24): 
but at present a journey to Jerusalem is incumbent upon me ; after ils ac- 
complishment, I shail then carry out that promised one by way of Rome to 
Spain (ver, 28).”. This vvvi dé is more definite than if Paul had said, ‘but 
beforehand” (which Hofmann with this view requires) ; for he thinks that 
now he is just on the point of travelling to Jerusalem, whereas ‘‘ but beforehand” 
would admit a later term of the ropetoua:. — dtaxovaav roig dy.] in service Jor 
the saints (Christians in Jerusalem), consequently not delaying the Romano- 
Spanish journey in his own interest. The present participle (not future, 38 
Acts xxiv. 17, and see Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 17) designates the 
very travelling itself as part of the service.*— The intention, ascribed to the 
apostle, of protecting himself in rear by the collection-journey, before he 
passed into the far west (Th. Schott), is a purely gratuitous assumption. 


21Comp. Hom. It, xi. 452; Kypke, IL p. would otherwise at this time see himedf datin- 
191. ed and impelled.” This is certainly not ex 
? TlIofmann imports the connection: The __ pressed. 
participial sentence, ver. 23, is intended to 2See Markland and Matthiae, ad 2. 
express, ‘‘ under what circumstances Paul ig — Suppl. 154; Heindorf, ad Phaed. p. 49 t.; 
now setting oul on a journey lo Jerusalem," Dissen, ad Pind. p. 81. 
instead of coming to Rome, whither he 





CHAP. XV., 26, 27. 595d 


Ver. 26. More precise information respecting the d:axovay roic dy. : ‘* Pla 
cuit enim Macedonibus,” etc. On evdéx., they have been pleased, comp. Luke 
xii. 32 ; 1 Cor. i. 21; Gal. i. 15 ; Col. 1.19; 1 Thess. ii. 8. — xowur. r.14 
mono. K.T.A.] to bring about a participation, in reference to the poor, i.e. to 
make a collection for them. The contributor, namely, enters into fellowship 
with the person aided, in so far as he xocuvei raicg ypeiass avrov, xii. 13 3 Koe- 
vuvia is hence the characteristic expression for almsgiving, without, however, 
having changed its proper sense communio into the active one of communica- 
tion; ‘‘honesta et acquitatis plena appellatio,” Bengel. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 
13 ; Heb. xiii. 16. The added riva, of some sort or other, corresponds to the 
freedom from constraint, and the consequent indefiniteness, of the amount 
to be aimed at. On the collection itself, see 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ff. ; 2 Cor. viii. 
9; Acts xxiv. 17. — rove rrwyzoig trav ay.] the poor among the saints at Jcru- 
salem. These were thus not all of them poor. Comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 
290. Of the community of goods there is no longer a trace in Paul. Phi- 
lippi incorrectly holds that the mrwyoi ray dyivy are the poor saints generally. 
Since the genitive is in any case partitive (even in the passages in Matthiae, 
§ 320, p. 791), the expression must at least have been rots (not sav) év 
‘lepovo. 

Ver. 27. Information, why they did so, by way of more precisely defining 
the mere eidéxyoay previously expressed.’ ‘‘ They hace been pleased, namely, 
to dv it, and (this is the added clement) their debtors they are.” —The Gentiles 
have acquired a share (éxorvdvgoav) in the spiritual possession of the Chris- 
tians of Jerusalem (avrév), in so far as the mother church of Christianity was 
in Jerusalem, so that thus the spiritual benefits of Christianity, which in 
the first instance were destined for and communicated to the Jews and sub- 
sequently passed over also to the Gentiles, have been diffused from Jerusa- 
lem forth over the Gentile world (which march of diffusion so begun con- 
tinues), as indeed in Antioch itself the first church of Gentile Christianity 
was founded from Jerusalem (Acts xi. 20). — roi¢ rvevparex} for the benefits 
of Christianity (faith, justification, peace, love, hope, etc.) proceed from the 
Holy Spirit, are ra rov mvetuarog dopa ; comp. on Eph. i. 3. — roi¢ capxixoic] 
for the earthly possessions concern the material and physical phenomenal na- 
ture of man, which is his bodily form of existence. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 11. 
— The conclusion is a majori, which they have received, ad minus, with which 
they are under obligation to requite it. Comp. Chrysostom. By Aezouvp)7%- 
oat, Paul places the almsgiving of love under the sacred point of view of a 
sacrificial service (see on xiii. 6, xv. 16), which 1s performed for the benefit 
of the recipients. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 12; Phil. ii. 80, ii. 25. — That further, 
as Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, and many, including Rickert and Olshau- 
sen, assume, Paul intended ‘‘ courteously and gently” (Luther) to suggest 
to the Romans that they should likewise bestow alms on those at Jerusalem, 
is very improbable, inasmuch as no reason is perceivable why he should not 
have ventured on a direct summons, and sceing, moreover, that he looked 
upon the work of collection as concluded, ver. 25. Without any particular 


1** Est egregta avagopa simul cum éwavopdwoe,”’ Grotius. 


556 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 

design in view (Th. Schott thinks that he desired to settle the true relation 
between the Gentile Christians and the apostle to the Gentiles), he satisfies 
merely his own evident and warm interest. 

Ver. 28. Tovro] This work of service for Jerusalem. — x. o¢payis. x.1.4.] 
and when I shall have sealed to them this fruit, t.¢. shall hace confirmed the 
produce of the xowwvia, ver. 26, to them, secured it as their property. 
ogpayif. in the jfiguratire sense : to confirm, to ratify (see on John iii. 33) ; 
for by delivery of the moneys they were, on the part of the apostle, con- 
firmed to the recipients as the fruit collected for them, after the manner of 
the law of possession, as with seal impressed.' The expression chosen has 4 
certain solemnity ; the apostle is moved by the thought that with the close of 
the work of love to which he refers he was to finish his long and great 
Jabours in the East, and was to take in hand a new field in the far West. 
In these circumstances, an unusual thoughtful expression for the concluding 
act offers itself naturally. But that which Fritzsche finds in it (rendering 
of an account and other formalities) neither lies in the simple figurative 
word, nor was it doubtless intended by Paul, considering his apostolical dig- 
nity. Others take ogpayro. in the proper sense, either thus: ‘when I hate 
brought over the money to them, sealed” (Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Estius), which, however, the words do not express at all, and how paltnly 
unapostolic the thought would be! or, referring atvoi¢ to the Greek 
Christians (so already Theodoret) : ‘‘ when I hare made them secure with letter 
and seal respecting the right delivery of their collection” (Gléckler, and 8 
already Michaclis), against which, apart from the .unsuitableness of the 
sense, it is decisive that airoig brooks no other reference than aviv and 
airoig, ver. 27 (comp. roi¢ ayio, ver. 25). This also against Reithmayr, 
who brings out even a depositing for the almsgivers in God's treasury ! 

Ver. 29. Paul is convinced that his advent to the Romans will not be 
without rich blessing from Christ ; he will bring with him a fulness (copia, 
sce on Eph. iii. 19) of Christ's blessing. On the matter itself, comp. i. 11. 
— iv is to be explained : furnished with. See Bernhardy, p. 209, and on 1 
Cor. iv. 21. Quite contrary to the words, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Calvin, 
and others: ‘‘Scio me . . . vos inventurum repletos omnibus donis spit- _ 
itualibus,” Estius. — épydénevog with the same verb é2ecouae ; see Kihner, 
II. 2, p. 656, and ad Xen. Mem. iv. 2.21. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 1; Phil. ii. 2. 

Vv. 30, 31. Even now (comp. Acts xx. 22, 23, xxi. 10 ff.) Paul antic- 
pates that persecutions await him in Judaea on the part of the unbeliecing 


1The act of handing over itself, namely, 
was the odpayis of the collection for the 
recipients. Hefore the delivery the moneys 
were indeed deatined forthem, but not yet 
de facto assured to them as property on the 
part of the apostle, the bearer. Theodore 
of Mopsuestia well explains the cdpayrcdu. 
by aroxopicas cai Sedwxuws, and adds, by way 
of assigning the reason : « yap «ai th youun 
twv Sebwxdtwy rédccos hv 0 Kapmrds, adda TH 
xpetq aredns, ovmw Sefanerwy avmep ody evexey 


«860m. Without any ground in the text, 


Hofmann introduces dearers appointed on 
the part of the church, whom the apostle 
himself conducts to Jerusalem, thereby 
designating the gift to the recipients as one 
destined for them with his knowledge and will. 
Hofmann's objection, that the interpreta- 
tion given ahove rather suggests that it 
should be termed an wnsealing than a #al- 
ing, is a cavil running counter to the figa- 
rative usage elsewhere of odpayifew and 
odpayis, and which might just as aptly be 
applied to Hofmann’s own explanation. 


CHAP. XV., 32, 33. 557 


(areBotvruv, inobedientium, who refuse the imaxo? wiotews ; comp. xi. 30, 31 ; 
John iii. 36 ; Acts xiv. 2) ; but even onthe part of the Palestinian Christians 
(r. dyiocc), he is not sure of a good reception for his d:axovia, because he, the 
anti-Judaic apostle (comp. x. 21 ; Acts xxi. 21),had set on foot and conduct- 
ed a Gentile-Christian collection. Hence the addition of the exhortation 
(tapaxada) to the readers, subjoined by the continuative dé, and how urgent 
and fervent! — d:4] belonging to rapax.: by means of amoving reference to 
Christ, as xii. 1, 2 Cor. x. 1. — The aydmy rot mvebu. is the love wrought by the 
Holy Spirit (Gal. v. 22) ; i¢ Paul calls in specially by way of inciting his 
readcrs to compliance. — omaywv. pot év taig mpocevy.] to contend along with 
me in the prayers which you make, hence : in your prayers. A very correct 
gloss is tev (after mpooevy.) in codd. and vss.; not one disfiguring the sense, 
as Reiche thinks, who explains : in my prayer. So also Ewald. Paul 
might certainly, according to the sympathy of the fellowship of love, claim 
the joint striving of the readers in Ais prayers ; but izép évov, which would 
otherwise be superfluous, points most naturally to the conclusion that the 
mpocevyai are those of the readers ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 11; Col. iv. 12. The 
trép éuov mpdc tov Gedv is closely, and without the article, attached to rai¢ 
mpooevyaic (similarly to rpocebyecbac ixép, Col. i. 9, et al.): in the prayers 
which you address to God for me (for my welfare). Fervent prayer is a strir- 
ang of the inner man against the hostile or dangerous powers, which it is 
sought to avert or overcome, and for the aims, which it is sought to attain. 
Comp. on Col. l.c. —iva pvo8e ard x.t.4.] Aim of the joint striving : in order 
that I may be delivered from, etc. See on Matt. vi. 13. It did not pass into 
fulfilment ; even now the counsel of his Lord, Acts ix. 16, was to be accom- 
plished. — # dian. pov 7 ei¢ ‘lepove.| my rendering of service destined for Jerusa- 
lem. See vv. 25, 26. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1. 

Vv. 32, 83. "Iva] Aim of ver. 31, and so jinul aim of ovvaywvicacbat x.7.2., 
ver. 80. Comp. Gal. iv. 5. —év yap¢] in joyfulness.' But as a@ prisoner lic | 
came to Rome, whither the will of God (dia 6eAjp. Oeov) led him, neverthe- 
less, otherwise than it had been his desire (comp. i. 10). — ovvavaraiounar) 
refresh myself with you, namely, through the mutual communication of faith, 
of inward experiences, of love, of hope, etc. Comp. cuprapaxAnfizvat, i. 12. 
" —In the closing wish, ver. 33, the designation of God as 4 Ged¢ ri¢ eiphync, 
the God who brings about peace, was the more naturally suggested, as 
the forebodings of the opposite of eipfvy which he was going to encounter 
had just been before the apostle’s mind. Hence we have neither to assume a 
reference to the differences in xiv. 1 ff. (Grotius and others), nor to take 
eipyvn of the peace of reconciliation, v. 1 (Philippi), or in the wide sense of 
salus (Fritzsche). Comp. rather 1 Cor. xiv. 33 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Phil. iv. 
9; Rom. xvi. 20: 1 Thess. v. 28. 


1It would even with the reading éAduv follows, belong to éAls word, beside which 
(see the critical notes), which Hofmann it stands, not to cvvavaw (Hofmann.) 


558 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


Notes py AMERICAN Eprror. 


CL. Ver. 6. rév Oedv xai rarépa rov Kupiov hucy T. Xp, 


That this phrase may mean the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot 
be questioned. Meyer urges against this interpretation the cases in which 6 
Oedc xal watyp Occurs with no genitive following. These cases may be regarded 
as having weight, although it may, perhaps, be claimed that a genitive is sug- 
gested to the mind in every such instance. Wieseler urges that in cases where 
xai is omitted (as Rom. i. 7, 1 Cor. i. 3) rar7p is evidently appositional and ex- 
planatory, showing how God is related to the defining genitive ; and Ellicott 
presses the fact that, inasmuch as God is an absolute word and Father a relative 
one, it is more natural to connect the genitive with the one only which needsit. 
These considerations, when taken together, favor very strongly the view which 
makes rov xvpiov "I. X. depend on zarépa, and not also on Gedy, 


CLI. Vv. 8, 9. Aéyw yap... yeyevijobat «.7.A. 


If yeyevjof%a: is the correct textual reading, as it probably is, the constraction 
of dofacar as parallel with #eBu:doar and dependent on ei¢ ré, which is favoured 
by Meyer, seems to be the one most accordant with the language. The more 
common view, however, regards dof., like yeyev., as dependent on Afyo. Weiss 
(who, however, reads yevéo§ac) calls Meyer’s construction artificial. On the 
contrary, the parallelism in forin of the two verbs, dof. and ef., as distin- 
guished from yeyev., and the fact that Paul’s representation elsewhere is that 
Christ came in the line of the Jews to benefit also the Gentiles, comp. Gal. 
iii. 13, 14 (see also xi. 12 ff.), make this the simplest and most natural con- 
struction of the passage. The verse is introduced ()dp) as a ground of the pre- 
ceding statement. It thus explains who are meant by jude of ver. 7, and con- 
sequently indicates that, in the use of aAAnAove of that verse, Paul had in mind 
the division between Jews and Gentiles in the church as, approximatively at 
least, answering to that between the weak and strong parties. 

Whether there is an intentional contrast between trip aAnfeiacg and trip 
éAéove is uncertain, but not improbably this is the case. It was on behalf of 
God’s truth, and in fulfilment of the promises, that Christ appeared among and 
for the Jews. Though the declarations of the O. T. foreshadowed blessings . 
also for the Gentiles, the relation of the spiritual plan to them was, in 8 
certain peculiar sense and degree, a matter more completely of mercy. 


CLIT. Vv. 14-33. 


In this passage, as Meyer remarks, we find the conclusion or epilogue of the 
epistle ; the Pauline letters generally having both an introductory and a conclud- 
ing section, each consisting of a few verses and being of a more or Jess general 
character. In this case, the conclusion is partly apologetic, and partly expres- 
sive of his desire and purpose with respect to visiting Rome. In both parts, 
but especially in the latter, there is a correspondence with the introductory 
passage, i. 8-15. In that passage he first expresses his thanks to God in view 
of their Christian position and advance in faith ; here, again, his apology is 
occasioned by his conviction that they have made such progress in knowledge 
and goodness as to be able to dispense with his admonitions. The apology 





NOTES. 559 


which he presents, however, justifies his boldness in writing, in parts of the 
epistle, by the special commission which he hasfrom God. This commission he 
sets forth with greater minuteness than we find in almost any other place, and 
thus, as mentioned in a former note, we get the idea which he had of ydpi¢ as 
employed in such cases. His ydpoua, as stated, also, in that note, was to be a 
minister of Christ to the Gentiles in regions where Christ had not been named. 
The second thought of the introduction—his long-cherished wish to see the 
Roman Christians which he had been prevented from accomplishing thus far, 
but hoped that he might now at last realize—is only presented more definitely 
in these verses, both as to the past and the future. 


CLI. Ver. 17 ff. yw ovv riv xavynow x.7.A. 


These verses, 80 far as the main thought is concerned, serve only to define 
more precisely the Apostle’s mission and work, as giving him the right to ad- 
dress the church as he does. In their grammatical connection they are founded, 
as an inference or conclusion, on the statement of ver. 16. The position of 
éxyw indicates (as Meyer says) a special emphasis, which is connected with the 
manner in which, in the progress of the sentences, the thought is brought out. 
Paul claims that he has, as something which properly appertains to him, the 
glorying to which he gives expression,—but it isa glorying in Christ Jesus, 
and not in anything which Christ has not wrought by his means. The con- 
struction of the following sentences is peculiar and somewhat involved. ydp 
of ver. 18 confirms the declaration that his boasting is in (not outside of) 
Christ Jesus. The confirmatory words are put in the negative form, but they 
suggest also the corresponding positive. With that suggested positive, the 
connection of date x.r.A. becomes free of difficulty. Christ has accomplished 
through me results, to the end of bringing about obedience to faith among the 
Gentiles, by means of my teaching and working accompanied by miracles and 
the power of the Divine Spirit ; and this, moreover, so far that I have com- 
pleted the work of preaching the gospel from Jerusalem and the region around 
it to lyricum, always making it my special aim not to preach where there had 
been preachers before me, and thus not to build upon foundations laid by 
another. 

In regard to the individual words and phrases of this passage the following 
points may be noticed. (1) xavynor¢ denotes not the ground of glorying (kavynuc), 
but the glorying itself. This the Apostle declares to belong to him rightfully. 
(2) ob ydp roAujow. If he had ventured beyond these things, the boasting in 
Christ would not have been thus rightfully his. (3) Aédyw and fpyw are so far 
correlative with ev duv. mv. dy., év duv. on. x. tepér., that the latter words ao- 
company in each case the former. (4) «txi is to be connected with ‘Tepove, (so 
Meyer and many others), and not with 'I2Avp. It refers to the circuit, whether 
smaller or larger, around Jerusalem, where Paul’s first labours in the gospel were 
put forth, not to a circuit which he made in his work of preaching from 
Jerusalem to Illyria. (5) werAnpwxévat rd evayyéaiov, It seems unnecessary to 
adopt Meyer’s explanation of these words, as if, so long as the gospel has not 
reached every place, it has not attained the full measure of its dimensions, but 
is only in a state of growth and increase. It would appear to be according to 
the natural usage of any language to make the gospel. in such a sentence, 
equivalent to the preaching of the gospel; and the evayyeAifesba: of ver. 20 


560 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


favours such a sense in thin case. (6) d:Aotiuovuevov is regarded by Meyer as 
having here its strict and full meaning, making it a point of honour, and this is, in 
all probability, the correct view. (7) ov« Grov. The corresponding affirmative 
adda orov x.t.A, is found in ver. 21, not in form, but substantially—the construc- 
tion being changed to introduce a citation from the O. T. (comp. 1 Cor. i. 31 
and other passages). 


CLIV. Ver. 22. dtd xai évexotréuny x.7.2. 


The reason of the’ éxwavInv dype tot deitpo of i. 13 is here given, or rather the 
main reason, for Meyer has probably the right explanation of ré@ 70424, in most 
cases, plerumque, for the most part. There were other hindrances, but the chief 
one, and the one ordinarily standing in his way, was the labour which he had 
to perform before reaching the limits next eastward of Italy. Now, however, 
this hindrance was removed, because the work was done. 

The view which Paul had as tothe completion of the work of preaching the 
gospel from Jerusalem to the western boundary of Ilyria, and the outlook 
towards the regions beyond which seemed to bring the remainder of that 
preaching (which was to be, in the largest sense, the tAnpoty 70 evayytdwv), 80 
near, suggest two things respecting the state of his thought. (1) He must, ap- 
parently, have regarded the gospel as ‘‘made known”’ in a large region of 
country, when churches had been founded in a few of the more prominent 
places within its limits. There were many parts of the different provinces 
which he had visited, as he well knew, where no sound of the Divine message 
had been heard. (2) When we consider the light as compared with the dark- 
ness, at the time of his writing these words, and think how great was the 
latter and how small the former, it would seem as if he must have expected 
some great Divine manifestation, or the Parousia itself, at an early date,—as if 
only such an expectation as this could have enabled him to write with such a 
feeling, that the work had been accomplished in the east, and would so soon be 
accomplished even in the farthest west. 


_~ 


CHAP. XVI. 56] 


CHAPTER XVI. 


Ver. 3, Ipioxav] Elz. : MWplox:AAav, against decisive evidence. After Acts 
XViii. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 19 (Elz), — Ver. 5. 'Aciac] Elz. has ’Ayaiac, against almost 
equally decisive evidence ; but it is defended by Ammon and de Wette on the 
testimony of the Peshito, and because 1 Cor. xvi. 15 might certainly give occa- 
sion for changing ’Ay. into’Ac. But the reading ’Ay. might readily also have 
come into the text through the mere marginal writing of the parallel passage 
1 Cor. l.c., especially if it was considered that Paul wrote his letter in Achaia ; 
hence the greatly preponderant external attestation in favor of ’Ao. retains its 
validity. — Ver. 6. sudc] approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. and Tisch. 
8, according to A B C* &* min. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. But Elz., Scholz, 
Tisch. 7, Fritzsche havo judc. Since Paul in the context sends greeting to 
persons who stood in a peculiar relation fo himself, and thereby the alteration 
of bude into nude Was very easily suggested, the more does the external evidence 
turn the scale in favour of tydc, especially as the reading éy wuiv in DEF G, 
Vulg. It. Ruf. Ambrosiast. attests the original ei¢ tudc (of which it is an inter- 
pretation). — Ver. 7. of ... yféyovr]J DE FG: roi¢g xpd éuot. Gloss, following 
on a mistaken reference of the relative to droardéAowe. — Ver. 14. The order of 
the names: 'Epyjv, Tlarpefgav, 'Epudv (so Lachm. and Tisch., also Fritzsche) is 
rendered certain by A B C D* F GP 8, min. vss. Ruf. — Ver. 16. rdcac) is 
wanting in Elz., but is justly adopted by Griesb., following Mill, and by later 
editors on decisive evidence, and because it might easily give offence. —- Ver. 
18. xal evAoyiac) is wanting in DEF G, min. It. Omitted through the homoeo- 
teleuton. — Ver. 19. 颒 tuiv]) The ordinary reading of ré before 颒 tyiv has the 
greatest preponderance of evidence against it. Lachm. and Tisch. : é9¢’ tyiv 
ovv yaipuw as A BC L P8*, min. Dam. Ruf. read. Rightly : the sequence of the 
words in the Recepta (yaipw ovy first) is the ordinary one. — After ver. 20, auzjv 
in Elz. is condemned by decisive testimony. — Ver. 21. cordfovra:] Decisive 
witnesses have dordfera:. Commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Tisch., 
and Fritzsche. The plural came to be introduced on account of the plurality 
of persons. — Ver. 24 is wanting entirely in A BC &, 5, 137, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. 
ms. Harl.* Ruf. ; it is found after ver. 27in P, 17, 80, Syr. Arm. Aeth. Erp. 
Ambrosiast. Omitted by Lachm, and Tisch. 8; rejected also by Koppe and 
Reiche, who think that it is an interpolated repetition of the benediction, ver. 
20, which, after the transference of vv. 25-27 to the end of chap. xiv., was 
added in order not to leave the epistle without aconclusion. But the witnesses 
for omission are precisely those which have the doxology vv. 25-27 in the ordi- 
nary place, either merely in this place (as B C &, 137), or likewise also after chap. 
xiv. (as A P, 5); and the witnesses for the transposilion of the verse to the end 
are likewise not those, which have the doxology merely after chap. xiv. or not 
at all. Hence we may with safety conclude that ver. 24 was omitted or trans- 
posed for the reason that copyists stumbled partly at the fact that Paul, contrary 
to his manner elsewhere, should havo joined a blessing and a doxology together, 


562 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
and partly at least at the circumstance that he should have placed tho latter 
after the former (all other epistles conclude with the blessing). 

On the doxology, vv. 25-27. This is found (1) at the end of chap. xvi., in BC 
D* E X&, 16, 66,! 80, 137, 176, codd. in Ruf. codd. in Erasm. Syr. Erp. Copt. 
Aeth. Vulg. ms. and ed. Clar. Germ. Ruf. Ambrosiast. Pel. and the other 
Latin Fathers. (2) It is found at the end of chap. xiv. in Li’ and almost all min. ; 
further, in the Greek lectionaries, the Arab. vss., in polyglots, Syr. P. Goth. (7) 
Slav. ms. and ed. codd. in Ruf. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Ocecum. 
Theodul. (3) It is found at both places in A P, 5, 17, 109, lat. Finally (4), it 
is not found at all in D**** F G (where, however, after chap. xiv. a gap of six 
lines is left), codd. in Erasm. codd. in Jerome,? Marcion. See the complete 
examination of the evidence in Reiche, comm. crit., and Tisch. 8, also Lucht, 
p. 49 ff. — Among the critics and exegetes, (1) the ordinary position in chap. xvi. 
has been maintained by the Complut. Erasm. Steph. Beza (ed. 3-5), Calvin, 
Bengel, Koppe, Béhme, Rinck, Lachmann, Kéllner, Scholz, Fritzsche, de Wette, 
Rickert, Reithmayr, Philippi, Tischendorf, Tholuck, Ewald, van Hengel, and 
others. (2) The position after xiv. 23 has been approved by Grotius, Mill, 
Wetstein, and Semler, following Beza (ed. 1 and 2) ; Griesbach and Matthiae re- 
moved it to that place in their critical texts ; and Morus, Paulus, Eichhorn, 
Klee, Schrader, Hofmann, Laurent, and others agree thereto. (3) The verses 
were rejected as spurious by Schmidt, Hinl. in’s N. T. p. 227, Reiche, Krehl, 
Lucht.—Now the question is: Js the dozology genuine? and if it is, has i its 
original position at the close of chap. xiv. or of chap.xvi.? Weanswer: I. The dow- 
ology is genuine. For (ac) the witnesses for entire omission are, as against the 
preponderance of those who have it in one of the two passages or in both, 
much too weak, especially as the transposition and double insertion are very 
capable of explanation (see below). (6) The language and the entire character 
of it are highly Pauline,—a fact which even opponents must admit, who ac- 
cordingly assume its compilation out of Pauline phrases.‘ (c) The contents of 
it admirably suit the entire contents of the epistle. (d) The internal reasons 
adduced against it by its assailants are completely untenable. It is maintained 
(see especially Reiche, and comp. Lucht) : (2) That at each place, where the 
doxology appears, it is unsuitable. But it appears as disturbing the connec- 
tion only after xiv. 23, and it is not at all unsuitable after chap. xvi., where 
it rather, after the closing wishes more than once repeated, forms with 
great appropriateness and emphasis the main conclusion which now actually 
ensues. (8) That it has not the simplicity of the Pauline doxologies, is pom- 
pous, overloaded, etc. It is certainly more bulky and laboured than others ; 
but no other Pauline doxology stands at the end of an entire epistle where the 


1A transcript of the first Erasmian edi- 
tion, which, however, has on the margin the 
observation, that éy rots raAaios avtiypadors 
this doxology stands at the end of chap. 
xiv. © 

23n D, namely, the doxology from the 
Jrst hand stands after chap. xvi., but the 
emendator indicates it as to be deleted, 
without assigning it to the end of chap. xiv. 

3 Jerome on Eph. iif. 5: “Qui volunt 
prophetas non intellexisse, quod dixerint 
. . . ud quoque, guod ad Rom. tn plerisque 


codd, invenitur, ad confirmationem sul dor- 
matis trahunt legentes: ei autem, qul 
potest vos roborare, etc.” But that already 
before Marcion the doxology was wanting in 
codd., there is no certain trace. 

4Tn-Pauline constituent elements and 
modes of representation, which Lucht be- 
lieves are to be found generally in the two 
last chapters, have no existence In reality ; 
the grounds of offence are disposed of by 
tho exposition. 


CHAP. XIV. 563 


great power of thought in the writing concentrated itself in feeling—no other 
at the end of a section, the purport and importance of which can be compared 
with that of the entire Epistle to the Romans. Hence it can by no means 
appear strange that such a doxology has obtained the character of overflowing 
fulness from the whole recollection of what had been written,—a collective 
recollection which, so far from being fitted to beget in a rich and lively dispo- 
sition only an ordinary and plain thanksgiving to God, is fitted rather to pro- 
duce an outpouring of fervor and fulness of thought, under the influence of 
which the interest of easy expression and of simple presentation falls into the 
background. (y) That the whole conception is uncertain, many expressions 
and combinations are obscure, unusual, even quite unintelligible ; and (d) that 
the conjunction of etayy. pov nai tr. xypvyza "I, X. is un-Pauline and unsuitable ; 
as is in like manner ¢avepw9évtoc, which verb is never used by Paul of the utter- 
ances of the prophets,—groundless occasions of offence, which are made to disap- 
pear by a correct explanation. On such internal grounds Reiche builds the 
hypothesis, that in the public reading the merely epistolary last two chapters were omit- 
ted ; that the public reading thus ended at xiv. 23 ; and the dozology spoken at the end 
of that reading was written first on the margin, afterwards also in the text, consequently 
after xiv. 23, whence copyists, on recognizing its unsuitable position, removed it to the 
end of the epistle. It is thus the work of an anagnostes, who compiled it clumsily 
from Pauline formulas, and that in imitation of the conclusion of the Epistle of Jude.! 
In opposition to this whole view, it is particularly to be borne in mind: (1) 
that. the assumption that only the doctrinal part of the epistle was publicly 
read is a pure fancy, and is as much at variance with the high reverence for 
what was apostolic, as with the circumstance that, according to the lection- 
aries, these very chapters xv. and xvi. consist wholly of sections for reading ; 
(2) that at least xv. 1-18 would have been included in the reading, and the 
doxology must thus have obtained its place after xv. 13 ; (3) that the presumed 
custom of uttering a doxology when the reading of an apostolic writing was 
finished, does not at all admit of proof ; (4) that a Pauline doxology would have 
been chosen for imitation more naturally than that of Jude 24, 25, as indeed, 
conversely, Jude i.c. would more naturally presuppose an acquaintance with 
our passage ; (5) that 7rd evayy. pov was not at all suitable to the person of an 
anagnostes ; and indeed an imidative reader was hardly in the position and 
mood to pour forth an expression of praise in so overflowing a gush, and 
thereby in anacoluthic construction. But when Lucht refuses a Pauline char- 
acter to the doxology, in respect not merely of form and diction, but also of 
the thought which it contains, and recognizes in it a gnosticizing and concil- 
iatory stamp, this judgment rests on misinterpretations in detai] and on pre- 
suppositions, which lie altogether outaide the range of the N. T., along with a 
recourse to the rejection of the genuineness not merely of the Pastoral epistles, 
but also of the so-called epistles of the captivity.—II. The posttion of the dozolo- 
gy after xvi. 24 is the original one. For (a) the external witnesses for this view 
are preponderant, not indeed in number, but in value. See above, and com- 
pare Gabler, Praef. ad Griesb., Opuse. p. 24. (b) Ita position at the end of 
chap xvi. was quite fitted to excite offence and to occasion a transposition, 
partly because no other epistle of the apostle concludes with a doxology ; partly 


1In the Comment. crit. p. 116, Reiche fs of opinion that it may have meen added Hy 
homtine privato, qui ingenio suo indulgeret." 


564 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


because here even the usual formal conclusion of an epistle (the apostolical 
blessing) immediately precedes ; partly because tudc ornpigfae seemed specially to 
refer back to the section respecting the weak in faith. The latter point was 
decisive at the same time as to the place to which—the connection between 
chap. xiv, and xv. as a unity being far from sufficiently appreciated—the dox- 
' ology was referred, namely after xiv. 23, where there is the last direct men- 
tion of the weak, while xv. 1 then turns directly to the strong. Several other 
defenders of the ordinary position (see especially Koppe, Exc. II. p. 404 ; Gab- 
ler, Lc. p. 26; Bertholdt, Hinleit. VI. § 715; Hug, Hinl. Il. p. 397, with whom 
Reithmayr agrees) thought, indeed, that the omission of at least chap. xvi. in the 
reading of the letter had occasioned the beautiful and weighty doxology, which 
it was desired should not be excluded from the reading, to be placed after chap. 
xiv.—not after chap. xv., either (Bertholdt, Hug) because chap. xv. has already 
a conclusion, or because the supposed reference of ornpita: to the weak in faith - 
pointed out that place. But the whole supposition that an integral portion of 
the epistle was omitted in reading is entirely incapable of being established. 
Not more plausible is the theory to which Rinck has recourse (comp. already 
Zeger and Béhme): ‘Jn codd. ex recensione Marcionis perscriptis librarios, ipso 
fortasse Marcione auctore, clausulam ex fine epistolae assuisse, el postquam quod dee- 
rat a correctoribus suppletum esset, alios hanc clausulum ilerasse, alios hinc, alios 
illinc, alios utrimque ejecisse” (Lucubdr. crit. p. 135). Marcion himself and his 
disciples rejected (Origen, interpr. Ruf.), indeed, the doxology on account of its 
contents (see especially ver. 26, did re ypagav zpogyrixov) ; but the orthodox 
certainly did not concern themselves with Marcionitic copies ; indeed, Ori- 
gen says expressly, that in the copies ‘‘quae non sunt a Marcione temerata,” 
the doxology is found differently placed either after chap. xiv. or after 
chap. xvi. Ewald, regarding vv. 3-20 as the fragment of an epistle to the 
Ephesians, believes that a reader somewhere about the beginning of the 
second century Observed the heterogeneous character of that portion, but then 
excised too much, namely chap. xv. and xvi. Such acopy, in his view, Marcion 
had ; but now that chap. xiv. was without a proper conclusion, at least the 
doxology xvi. 25-27 came to be appended thereto by other copyists. But apart 
from the above opinion respecting vv. 3-20 in itself (see, in opposition to it, 
the critical notes on chap. xv.), it would not be at all easy to see why they 
should not have removed merely vv. 3-20 from the copies, and why, instead of 
this, chap. xvi. should have been entirely excised, and even chap. xv. in addi- 
tion. To explain this, the smaller importance of this chapter—which, more- 
over, is assumed without historical warrant—does not suffice.—Further, if the 
genuineness of the doxology itself, as well as its customary position, is to be 
esteemed assured, it follows at the same time from what we have said (1) in re- 
spect of the duplication of the doxology after chap. xiv. and xvi. in critical au- 
thorities, that it proceeds from those who, while aware of the difference as to 
the place of the words, were not able or did not venture to decide respecting 
the original position, and hence, taking the certain for the uncertain, inserted 
the words in both places ; (2) in respect of the entire omission in authorities, that 
it is the work of an old precarious criticism, which drew from the uncertain 
position the conclusion of non-genuineness, along with which there operated 
.the consideration that the doxology was unsuitable after xiv. 23 as interrupt- 
-ing the connection, and after xvi. 24 as having its place even after the con- 
cluding wish. 


a 
CHAP. XVI., 1-4. 565 

Vv. 1, 2. Recommendation (ovviornu:, comp. 2 Cor. v. 12, et al. )' of Phoebe, 
who is held to be the bearer of the epistle,—a supposition which there is 
nothing to contradict. In the twofold predicate, adeAg. judy (our, i.e. My 
and your Christian sister) and otbcav did. x.7.2., there lies a twofold motive, 
&@ more general and a more special one, for attending to the commendation. 
— didxovorv] feminine, as Dem. 762. 4: didxovov, 9 tig Expyto. The designa- 
tion by the word d:axévicca, not used in classical Greek, is found only sub- 
sequently, as frequently in the Constitutt. apost. Sce, on these ministrae, as 
they are called in Pliny, Ep. x. 97, the female attendants on the poor, sick, 
and strangers of the church, Bingham, Orig. I. pp. 341-366 ; Schoene, 
Geschichtsforsch. ib. d. kirchl. Ger. TI. p. 102 ff. ; Herzog, in his Encykt. 
III. p. 368 f. Very groundlessly Lucht, because this service in the church 
was of later date (but comp. xil. 7; Phil. i. 1), pronounces the words 
ovoav . . . Keyyp. not to belong to Paul, and ascribes them to the supposed 
editor. Respecting the y#pa:, 1 Tim. v. 9, see Huther in loc. — Keyxpeai 
eastern port of Corinth, on the Saronic Gulf. See Wetstein. Comp. on 
Acts xviii. 18. —iva airtiy, x.r.4.] Aim of the commendation. — év xvpiy] 
characterizes the mpoodéyeoba as Christian ; it is to be no common service 
of hospitality, but to-take place in Christ, i.e. so that it is fulfilled in the 
fellowship of Christ, in virtue of which one lives and moves in Christ. 
Comp. Phil. ii. 29. — afiwe rau dyiuv] either : as it is becoming for saints (Chris- 
tians) to receive fellow-Christians (so ordinarily), or: ‘‘ sicut sanetos excipi 
oportet,” Grotius, Chrysostom. The former (so also Fritzsche und Philippi) 
is the correct explanation, because most naturally suggesting itself, as modal 
definition of the action of receiving. — xai yap aiz4| nam et ipsa, for she also on 
her part (not airy haec). — zpoordric) adirectriz, protectress.* She became (i.e. 
se praestitit Kithner, ad Xen. Anabd. i. 7. 4) a patrona multorum through the 
exercise of her calling. Paul might, indeed, have written zapaordric, cor- 
responding to zapaorqre ;* but he selects the word which is conformable to 
her official position, and more honourable. — xai avroi éuot] and of myself, 
my own person (see on vil. 25). Historical proof of this cannot be given. 
Perhaps Paul had once been ill during a sojourn with the church of Cen- 
chreae. 

Vv. 38-16. The apostle’s salutations. 

Vv. 3, 4. MHpicxa (2 Tim. iv. 19) is not different from MpionAda ; comp. 
on Acts xviii. 2.— Her husband‘ Aquila was a native of Pontus (Acts 
xvill. 1), and Reiche incorrectly conjectures that he was called Pontius 
Aquila, which name Luke erroneously referred to his native country ;° for, 


18ee Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 488; 
Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. iv. 68, p. 154. 

3 Luctan, dts accus. 22; Dio Cass. xlil. 30; 
Dindorf, Soph. O. C. 459, and Praef. ad 
Soph. p. LXI.; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 271. 

3 Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8; Soph. Trach. 891, 
Oed. C. 559; comp. év vécas wapacratis, 
Musontius, in Sfod. fi. p. 416, 43. 

*That Paul names the wife fra?, is not to 
be regurded as accidental. Probably the pre- 


ponderant Christian activity and estimation 
were on her side. Hence here, where both 
are saluted (comp. 2 Tim. iv. 19), the prece- 
dence of the wife,—a distinction for which 
in 1 Cor. xvi. 19, where both salute, no occa- 
sion was given. On the precedence given 
to the wife in Acts xvilf. 18, see in doc. 
5 Aquila also, the translator of the Bible,’ 

was, as is well known, from Pontus (Sinope). 


4 


566 ' HE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, 


looking to the close connection in which Aquila stood with Paul, and Paul 
ugain with Luke, a correct acquaintance with the matter must be presumed 
in the latter. This married couple, expelled from Rome as Jews under 
Claudius, had been converted at Corinth by Paul (see on Acts xviii. 1), had 
then migrated to Ephesus (Acts xvili. 18, 26 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 19), are now again 
in Rome, but, according to 2 Tim. iv. 19, were at a later period once more 
in Ephesus. —év Xpior@ 'Ijoor] Distinctive character of ovwvepycis ; for la- 
bour for the gospel lives and moves in Christ as its very element. Comp. 
vv. 9, 12. — Ver. 4. The marks of parenthesis are to be omitted, because 
the construction is not interrupted. — oiriveg «.7.4.] Note the peculiar grounds 
assigned (quippe qui) for this and several following greetings. — tzép] not 
instead of, but jor, in order to the saving of my life. — rov éaur. rpdyyr. iit 
nxav| hare submitted their own neck, namely, under the erecutioner's are. In 
the absence of historical information we can just as little decide with cer- 
tainty on the question whether the expression is to be taken /iterailly, that is, 
of a moment when they were to be actually cxecuted but in some way or 
other were still saved, or (so the expositors) jiguratirely, of the incurring 
of an extreme danger to life—as on the question where the incident referred to 
took place ? whether at Ephesus, Acts xix. ? or 2 Cor. i. 8? or at Corinth, 
Acts xviii. 6 ff.? or elsewhere ? or, generally, in the midst of labour and 
tribulation shared with Paul? Wetstein, Heumann, and Semler think of 
bail (ifOyxav would then be : they gave pledge ; see Lobeck, ad Phyrn. p. 
468). Possibly ; but the nearest conception which offers itself as the words 
stand is that of rpayndoxoreiv (Plut. Mor. p. 398 D), whether it be thought 
of as a reality or asa figure. The latter, however, is, as being said of both, 
the most probable. The readers knew what was meant. — rav ériv] On 
account of this sacrifice for me, the apostle of the Gentiles. The notice con- 
templates the inclusion of the Reman church, which in fact was also a (er 
tile church. 

Ver. 5. Kai tiv waz’ oix. air. éxxa.] and the church which is in their houx. 
Considering the size of Rome, it may be readily conceived that, besides the 
full assembly of the collective church, particular sectional assemblies were 
also formed, which were wont to meet in the houses of prominent members 
of the church. Such a house was that of Aquila and Priscilla, who had also 
in Ephesus given their dwelling fora similar object, 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 
15 ; Philem. 2. Such house-churches are related therefore to the collective 
community, to which, as such, the epistles are directed, simply as the part, 
which has in addition its own special greeting, to the whole. Others (fol- 
lowing Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, etc., with Koppe, Flatt, Klee, 
Gléckler) hold that the inmates of the household are intended. An arbitrary 
assumption of an unexampled hyperbole in the use of ExxAyoia. That all 
the following saluted persons, up to ver. 12, were members of the hous 
church of Aquila and Prisca (Hofmann), is an arbitrary assumption, which is 
rendered very improbable by the repeated aomdoaofe, forming in each case & 
fresh beginning. — ’Ezaiverov’] Unknown like all the following down to ve. 


1 On the accentuation of the name, aswell gramm. Unters. p. 30. The name itself is 
as that of "Epacros, ver. 22, see Lipsius, also frequently found in the Greek writers 








CHAP. XVL., 6, 7. 56% 
15, but see the note on ‘Poiger, ver. 13. The traditions of the Fathers made 
most of them bishops and martyrs (see Justiniani, Comm., and Braun, Sed. 
sacr. i. 2. 29 ff.), and the Synopsis of Dorotheus places most of them among 
the seventy disciples. That Epsenetus had come to Rome with Aquila and 
Prisca (Hofmann), is very precariously conjectured from his being mentioned 
immediately after that couple. — arapyz) ri¢'Ac. ei¢ X.) sirst-fruite of Asia 
(partitive genitive, see on viii. 23) in reference to Christ, i.c. that one of the 
Asiatics, who had first been converted to Christ.’—’Ac. is the western por- 
tion of Asia Minor, as in Actsii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Cor. 1.8. 

Ver. 6. How far Mary had toiled much for the Romans (ei¢ iuas), was as well 
known to the readers and to the apostle himself, who awards to her on that 
account the salutation of acknowledgment and commendation, as it is un- 
known to us. It may have happened abroad (as van Hengel and others 
think) or in Rome itself through eminent loving activity, possibly in a 
special emergency which was now past (hence not xorg, but the aorist). 
Reiche refers éxor. to activity in teaching, for which, however, since the text 
annexes no definition (asin 1 Tim. v. 17), and since Mary is not more specially 
known, there is no reason, and generally, as respects public teaching (1 Cor. 
xiv. 34, 35), little probability. On cic, comp. Gal. iv. 11. 

Ver. 7. 'Iovviay] is taken by Chrysostom, Grotius, and others, including 
Reiche, as feminine (Junia, who is then to be regarded probably as the wife 
or sister of Andronicus) ; but by most of the more recent expositors as a 
masculine name, Junias, equivalent to Junianus (therefore to be accented 
"Iovnac). [See Note CLV. p. 581.] No decision can be arrived at, although 
the following description, ver. 7 (in opposition to Fritzsche), commends the 
the latter supposition. — ovyyeveic] is explained by many (including Reiche, 
de Wette, Hofmann) as member of the same race or people (according to ix. 
3). But the explanation kinsmen isto be preferred, partly because the word 
itself, without other definition in the context, immediately points to this 
(Mark vi. 4; Acts x. 24, e¢ al.); partly because it is only in this sense that 
it has a significance of special commendation ; especially as in Rome there 
were many Jewish-Christians, and hence one docs not see how the epithet 
was to be something characteristic in the particular case of those named, if 
it signified only kindred in the sense of belonging to the same people. We 
know too little of the apostle’s kindred (comp. also Acts xxiii. 16), to reject 
this explanation on account of vv. 11, 21, or to venture to employ it in 
throwing suspicion on the genuineness of the chapter (Baur). But Reiche’s 
reason—that Andronicus and Junias are expressly designated as Jews, 
because it would just be non-Jews who were saluted—is quite futile, since 
the nationality of those previously saluted is unknown to us, and Aquila and 
Prisca were likewise Jews.* Just as groundlessly, Hofmann thinks that in 


1 With the reading dwapy} ris ‘Axalas, It 
was necessary, in order not to fall into 
variance with 1 Cor. xvi. 15, to take awapx 7%, 
asa frst-fruit, one Of the frat converled,— 
certainly an explanatory makeshift, which 
weakens greatly the significance of the 
notice, and by which 1 Cor. i.c. would also 


be affected. Not less forced would be the 
combination, by which we should regard 
Epaenetus as an inmate of Stephanas' 
house, who had been converted at the same 
time with him (Tholuck, yet only permis- 
sively, following older interpreters). 

2 Probably Mary also—the name aircady 


568 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

an epistle to the Gentile-Christian church the kinsmen of the apostle would 
be Jews. This is purely arbitrary, and yields, besides, for the designation 
of the persons intended an element, which, in the casc of the actual relatives 
of the Jewish-Christian apostle, is quite obvious of itself, and the mention 
of which, moreover, in presence of the Gentile-Christians, would have been 
somewhat indelicate.— Where and in what manner they had been imprisoned 
with Paul,’ is, owing to the incompleteness of the information in the book 
of Acts (comp. on 2 Cor. vi. 5), entirely unknown. Clement, 1 Cor. v., 
states that Paul had seren times borne fetters. Ewald, in connection with 
his view that we have here a fragment of an epistle to the Ephesians, as- 
sumes that Andronicus and Junias, while Paul was imprisoned in Rome, lay 
at the samc time confined in Ephesus ; and Lucht perceives only the anach- 
ronism of a forger. — ézionyo évt. aroor.] éExionuoc, like insignis, a voz media 
(comp. Matt. xxvii. 16), here in the good sense: distinguished, i.e. most honour- 
ably known by the apostles.?, So Beza, Grotius, and others, including Koppe, 
Flatt, Reiche, de Wettc, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Hofmann, and 
rightly ; for axécrodog is used by Paul only in 1 Cor. xv. 7 in the wider 
sense (comp. Acts xiv. 4, 14), nevertheless even there with such restriction 
that James and the twelve are included in the reference. Hence we must 
not, especially considering our entire ignorance of the two persons, explain, 
with Origen, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Estius, Wolf, and many others, 
including Tholuck, K6llner, Riickert, Reithmayr, Ewald, distinguished among 
the apostles (in other words distinguished apostles). That Andronicus and 
Junias were held in peculiar honour by the apostles, does not exclude their 
repute with the Christians generally, but rather points, for their especial 
commendation, to closer relations which they had with the apostles. Lucht 
misinterprets the expression oi aéor. of the original apostles in contrast to 
Paul. — zpo éuov] That they had been converted exactly at Pentecost (Grotius, 
Koppe), is just as little capable of proof, as that they had been the first 
preachers of the gospel in Rome (Wolf). — yeyévaciw év X.] not : became 
apostles in Christ (Reithmayr, following Origen), but: became Christians, 
entered the fellowship of Christ, attained to the év Xpior@ elvar. They were 
thus apyaio: pabyrai (Acts xxi. 16). ‘‘ Venerabiles facit aectas, in Christo 
maxime,” Bengel. On yiveoflac ev, sec Niigelsbach, 2. Ilias, p. 295, ed. 3 ; 
comp. on Phil. ii. 7. 


points to this—was a Jewess; indeed, 
Epaenetus himself appears to have been a 
Jew (against Hofmann), since he is charac- 
terized generally as the first-frults of Asia, 
not a8 awapyn tev é€dvay of this country, 
and according to history, the Christian 
first-fruits of a country inhabited also by 
Jews were, as a rule, Jews. Comp. Acts 
xvill. 6, xxvill. 24 ff. 

1 The expression itself places the relation 
of their captivity under the figurative con- 
ception of captivity in ewar (vii. 28; 2 Cor. 
x. 5; Eph. iv. 8). Comp. Lucian, Asin. 27; 
Photius, Bil. p. 183, 8. As the Christians, 
and peculiarly the teachers and overseers 


in the service of Christ, their commander-in- 
chief, are ovoetparwra: amongst one another 
(sce on Phil. fi. 85, Philem. 2), so also are 
they, in captivity with one another, cvray 
padwroe (see On Cul. iv. 10, Philem. 23). An 
arbitrary play of interpretation occurs in 
Hofmann: those tchom Chriat has won from 
the world and made His own, just as the 
apostle himself. Aptly Chrysostom points 
out the fellowship of suffering with Paul, 
implied {in ovvacypaA, as the most glorious 
crown of these men. 

2 Comp. Eur. /ec. 879: éwioguos év Aporeis, 
Iinpol. 108; Polyb. x. 8.8, xv. 34. 8; Lucian, 
mere. cond. B. 


CHAP. XVI., 8-13. 569 

Vv. 8, 9. ’Aurdsav] the abbreviated 'Auzjdrov, as codd., vss., and Fathers 
actually read, a name which (in form like Donatus, Fortunatus, etc., see 
Grotius) was frequent ; see Gruter, Ind. — év xvpiy] gives to the aya. pn. the 
specific Christian character ; comp. on ver. 2. —r. ovvepy. judv] juov refers, 
since Paul speaks always of himself in the singular here, to the readers along 
with himself, comp. ver. 1, not to those named in vv. 38-8 (van Hengel). He 
was probably a stranger who was at this time in Rome, and united his activity 
with that of Roman Christians towards the extension and furtherance of the 
gospel, whereby he was a fellow-labourer of the apostle and of the readers. 
— The name Erdyve : Inser. 268. 

Ver. 10. Apelles (comp. Hor. Sat. I. v. 100) is not to be confounded with 
the celebrated Apollos (Acts xviii. 24 ; 1 Cor. i. 12, ili. 4), as Origen, Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, and others have done. Whether he was a 
freedman remains an open question, owing to the frequency of the name, 
which also occurs of freedmen. — rév déxipov év X.] 2.6. the tried Christian. 
Christ, the personal object of his believing fidelity, is conceived as the ele- 
ment wherein he is approved. Comp. ¢pdéviuoc év X., 1 Cor. iv. 10, and 
similar passages. — roi¢ ix Tav 'ApiotoBotAov] those of the people (perhaps : 
slaves) of Aristobulus, comp. 1 Cor. i. 11. That Paul means the Christians 
among them, is self-evident ; in the similar salutation, ver. 11, he adds it 
redundantly. Aristobulus himself was therefore no Christian ; unless he (so 
Grotius) had been already dead, in which case he might have been a Chris- 
tian. 

Vv. 11, 12. Narcissus is by Grotius, Michaelis, and Neander, held to be 
the powerful freedman of Claudius (Suet. Claud. 28 ; Tacit. Ann. xi. 29 ff., 
xii. 57). It is possible, although Narcissus, according to Tacitus, Ann. xiii. 
1, was already dead (see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 371 ff.). A decision, however, 
cannot be arrived at ; but, considering the frequency of the name, the sus- 
picion of anachronism (Lucht) is groundless.—The three women, ver. 12, 
perhaps deaconesses, are otherwise unknown. Note how Persis is distin- 
guished above the two previously named women ; as also how delicately 
Peul has not added pov, after rAv ayarnriv, as with the men’s names, vv. 8, 
9, although he means his sentiment of love towards Persis. Observe, also, 
the distinction between xomidoac (present) and éxoviacev. The particular cir- 
cumstances of the case are unknown to us. 

Ver. 13. Rufus may be the son of Simon of Cyrene, Mark xv. 21. Comp. 
in loc. The fact that in Mark, who probably wrote in Rome, the man is as- 
sumed to be well known, would agree with the culogy here : rov éxAexrav év 
xupiy, the elect one in the fellowship of” the Lord, i.e. who is distinguished as a 
Christian.! For if these words denoted merely the Christian,‘‘ who in fel- 
lowship with the Lord is chosen to blessedness” (Reiche), they would not 


2On éxAexrés, exrquisiiua, in the sense of 
excellens (comp. 1 Tim. v. 21; 1 Pet. fi. 4; 2 
John i. 13; Wisd. Hii. 14; Bar. fil. 80), boe- 
cause it is just the selected that is wont to 
be the eminently qualified, see Schleusner, 
Thes. II. p. 289. But Hofmann explains as 
if [It ran rdw éxAexréy pov: who isto mea choice 


Christian brother; he calls the ordinary in- 
terpretation unapostolic (wherefore *), and 
groundlessly appeals to ry ayarnrny, ver. 
12. In the case of the latter the loving sub- 
ject le, according to a very common usago, 
self-evident. 


570 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 

—as is, nevertheless, the case with all the remaining predicates—express a 
special element of commendation. — xai éuov] pregnant, delicate, and grate- 
ful hint of the peculiar love and care which Paul (where and how, is entirely 
unknown’) had enjoyed at her hands. Comp. ver. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Phi- 
lem. 11 ; and see on 1 Cor. i. 2. . 

Vv. 14, 15. Hermas was not, as already Origen declared him to be, the 
composer of the book ¢ zocui,? which, according to the Canon Muratorianus, 
is said to have been composed by a brother of the Roman bishop Pius L, 
and in any case belongs to no earlier period than the second century. — «. r. 
ov autp adedAg.] It is possible, but on account of the more general designa- 
tion deviating from ver. 5, not probable, that those named here as well as in 
ver. 15 were members, well known to the apostle, of two éx«yoiac in Rome 
(so Hofmann), according to which view by the brethren with them would be 
meant the remaining persons taking part in these assemblies, for the most part 
doubtless unknown to him. It is possible also that some other Christian as- 
sociations unknown to us (Fritzsche and Philippi think of associations of 
trade and commerce) are intended. We have no knowledge on this point. 
Reiche thinks of two mission-societies. But mdvtec, ver. 15, points to a con- 
siderable number, and there is no trace in the Book of Acts of so formal and 
numerous mission-societies ; they were doubtless still foreign to that period. 
Probably also Paul would have given some thoughtful indication or other of 
this important characteristic point.—The whole of the names in vv. 14, 15 
are found in Gruter and clsewhere.—Julia appears to have been the wife of 
Philologus ; the analogy of the following Nypéa x. tiv dde%g7v avrov makes it 
less probable that the name denotes a man (Julias, comp. on ver. 7). 

Ver. 16. The series of greetings which Paul has to offer from himself is 
concluded. But he now desires that his readers should also exchange greet- 
ings among one another, reciprocally, and that with the loving sign of the 
holy kiss. The subject of this greeting is thus every member of the church 
himself, who kisses another (sec on 1 Cor. xvi. 20), not Paul, so that meo 
nomine should be supplied (Bengel, Koppe). This is forbidden by aAagiar. 
Comp. 1 Cor. lc. ; 2Cor. xiii. 12 ; Justin, Ap. i. 65. The case is otherwise 
with 1 Thess, v. 26 (see Liinemann in loc.). The ancient custom, especially in 
the East, and particularly among the Jews, of uniting a greeting witha kiss, 
gave birth to the Christian practice of the ay:ov giAqua (1 Pet. v. 14),* termed 
aytov, because it was no profane thing, but had Christian consecration, ex- 
pressing the holy Christian-fellowship of love.* — zacac] From meny churches 


1 Hofmann entertains the conjecture, 
which is in no way capable of proof, that 
Rufus lived with his mother in Jerusalem 
when Paul himself sojourned there; and 
that then Paul dwelt in the houso of the 
mother, and enjoyed her motherly care.— 
If, again, the demonstration of love in- 
tended falls in a dater period of the apostle’s 
life, his expression in our passage {fs the 
more ccurteous; hence it by no means re- 
quires the above precarious combination. 

2 The critical discussions as to this work, 


¢ 


quite recently conducted by ° Zahn, and 
Lipsius in particular, have no bearing here. 

3 diAnua ayanns ; Const. ap. it. 57. 12, viil. 
5.5: 7d ev cupim diAnua, Tertullian, de orat. 
4: osculum pacis. 

That Paul actually desires that the re- 
ciprocal greeting by a kiss on the part of 
all should take place after the reading of 
the epistle, ought not to have been disput- 
ed (Calvin, Philippi). A ceremony indeed 
he does not desire ; but he summons not 
merely to love, but to the kiss of love. 


_ CHAP. XVI., 17%. 571 
greetings had been doubtless entrusted to the apostle for the Romans, since 
he had certainly not previously withheld from them his project of travelling 
to Rome (perhaps also, of writing thither beforehand). Concerning the 
rest, what Erasmus says holds good : ‘‘Quoniam cognovit omnium erga 
Romanos studium, omnium nomine salutat.” The universal shape of the ut- 
terance by no means justifies us in pronouncing this greeting not to be the 
apostle’s, and deriving it from 1 Cor. xvi. 19, 20 (Lucht) ; it rather corre- 
sponds entirely to that cordial and buoyant consciousness of fellowship, in 
which he did not feel himself prompted narrowly to examine his summary 
expression. Others arbitrarily limit raca: to the Greek churches (Grotius), 
or simply to the churches in Corinth and its ports (Michaelis, Olshausen, and 
others), or at least to those in which Paul had been (Bengel). 

Vv. 17-20. A warning, added by way of supplement, against the errone- 
ous teachers who were then at work. This very supplementary position 
given to the warning, as well as its brevity, hardly entering at all into the 
subject itself (comp. on the other hand, the detailed treatment in chap. xiv. 
xv. of a less important contrast), evinces that Paul is not here speaking, as 
Wieseler, following older interpreters, holds, against such as already were 
actually making divisions in Rome. He would have treated so dangerous an 
evil.in the doctrinal connection of the epistle and at length, not in such a 
manner as to show that it only occurred to him at the close to add a warn- 
ing word. Hence this is to be regarded as directed against an evil possibly 
setting in. Doubtless he was apprehensive from the manifold experience 
acquired by him, that, as elsewhere (comp. Gal. ili. 6, 11 ff. ; Col. ii. 8 ff. ; 
Phil. iii. 2 ff., 18, 19 ; 2 Cor. xi. 13 ff.), so also in Rome, Jewish zealots for 
the law* might arise and cause divisions in their controversy with Pauline 
Christianity. This occasioned his warning, from which his readers knew to 
what kind of persons it referred,—a warning, therefore, against danger, such 
as he gave subsequently to the Philippians also (Phil. iii.), to whom the 
evil must have been all the nearer. Paul might, however, the more readily 
consider it enough to bring in this warning only supplementarily and briefly, 
since in Rome the Gentile-Christian element was the preponderant one, and 
the mind of the church in general was so strongly in favour of the Pauline 
gospel (vv. 19, 20, vi. 17), that a permanent Judaistic influence was at pres- 
ent not yet to be apprehended. How, notwithstanding, an anti-Pauline 
doctrinal agitation took place later in Rome, sce Phil. i. 15 ff. Morcover, 
the precautionary destination of our passage, and that in presence of the 
greatness of the danger, is sufficient to make us understand its contents and 
expression as well as its isolated position at the close. At least there does 
not appear any necessity for setting it down as an original constituent por- 


1 The brief indications, vv. 17, 18, do not 
suggest philosophical (Gentile - Christians 
(Hammond, Clericus), but (see on ver. 18) 
Judaizers, against whom Paul offers his 
warning. Hofmann prefers to abide by 
the generality of the warning, whether the 
troubles might be of Gentile origin or might 
arise from doctrines of Jewish legalism. 


But this view does not satisfy the concrete 
traits in vv. 17, 18, 20. See the correct in- 
terpretation already in Chrysostom and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia. The latter says: 
Adyar 8@ wepiray awd ‘lov8aiwy,ot ararv- 
Taxdce wepcidvTres Trois and tOvwy morev- 
ovra¢c THS VOouLKHS ExerVar waparnpycews Teiday 
ereipwrro. 


572 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


tion of an cpistle addressed to a church founded by Paul himself, namely, 
to the church of the Ephesians (Ewald, Lucht). 

Ver. 17. Sxoreiv] to hace in view, in order, namely, to guard against ; 
comp. BAéxere, Phil. iii. 2; but cxoreiv speculari, is stronger, comp. also 
Phil. iii. 17. — rag diyoor.] [See Note CLVI. p. 582.] comp. Gal. v. 20; 1 
Macc. iii. 29." The article denotes those anti-Pauline divisions and offences, 
oxavda2a,—t.e. temptations to departure from the true Christian faith and 
life, cell known to the readers, —which at that time arose in so many quarters 
in Pauline churches, and might readily threaten the Romans also. — ixs?i- 
vate am’ avrov] turn away from them, shun them, go out of their way. Comp. 
1 Pet. iii. 11; Ps. cxix. 102; Ecclus. xxii. 11; Thucyd. v. 73. 3; more 
usually with the accusative. Grotius rashly concludes: ‘‘ non fuisse tunc 
conventus communes aut presbyterium Romac ; alioquin voluisset tales ex- 
communicari.” Paul rather counsels a rule of conduct for each individual 
member of the church, leaving the measures to be adopted on the part of 
the church, in case of necessity, to the church-government there (which was 
one regularly organized, in opposition to Bengel, see xii. 6 ff.). The disturb- 
ers, besides, against whom they are warned, are in fact viewed not as members 
of the church, but as intruders from without. Comp. Acts xv. 1 ; Gal. ii. 
4.—The reference to the doctrine received certainly implies a church having 
Pauline instruction, but not exactly one founded by Paul himself (Ewald), 
like that at Ephesus. Comp. vi. 17 ; Col. i. 23. 

Ver. 18. Reason assigned for the injunction of ver. 17. —ol rozovror] ‘‘ hi 
tales; notatur substantia cum sua qualitate,” Bengel. — ov dova.] Note the 
position of the negation ; the thought is: to the Lord they refuse service, but 
their own belly they serce. Thereby they belonged to the category of the 
éyfpoi tov otavpov tr. Xp., Phil. iii. 18.—On 719 xnocdig dovdactbecr, 9 
yaorpi dovacbey abdomini servire (Seneca, de benef. vii. 26), asa designation of 
selfishness, bent only on good cheer in eating and drinking, comp. on Phil. 
iil. 19 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 416. For this object the sectaries sought 
to make use of the influence and following which they obtained. Comp. 
Lucian, de morte Peregr. 11 ff. Behind their teaching, although this was 
not itself of an Epicurean nature (Hofmann), there lurked, hypocritically 
concealed, the tendency to epicurean practice. — dia tio ypnoToA. x. evaoy.] by 
means of the kind (having a good-natured sound) and fair-set language, which 
they hold.? The two words characterize contents (ypyorod.) and form (ct2.) ; 
hence it is preferable to'take evjoy. in the above signification thanin the or- 
dinary one of praise, extolling (Philippi). Comp. Luther : stately language. 
— tav axdkwr] of the guileless (Heb. vii. 26), who themselves have nothing 
evil in their mind, and are prepared for nothing evil.?—The assertion that 
Paul appears too severe in the accusation of his opponents (Riickert) cannot 
be made good. He writes from long and ample experience. 


1 Dem. 423.4; Plat. Legg. i. p. 680 A ; Dion. evAoyia, language finely expressed (here: 


Hal. viii. 72. fine phrases), Plat. &ep. p. 400 D; Lucian, 
20On xpnoroA, comp. Jul. Capitol. cit. Pere Leriph.1; Aesop. 229. 
fin. 13; Eustath. p. 1487, 58, and the classi- 3 See Wetstein in loc. ; Ruhnken, ad Tim. 


cal Aéyot xpnoroi, Aéyew xpnora «.7.A.; on pp. 56; Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p. 842. 


CHAP. XVI., 19, 20. me) 


Ver. 19. Not a second ground assigned for, or justification of, the 
warning of ver. 17 (Tholuck, de Wette, Philippi ; comp. also Reithmayr 
and Hofmann) ; for this use of a second really co-ordinated yép is nowhere 
to be assumed in the N. T. See, on the contrary, on viii. 6. Nor is it to 
be taken, with Fritzsche: ‘‘nam vos innocentibus qui facile decipiuntur 
hominibus annumerandos esse, ex eo intelligitur, quod vos Christo obedientes 
esse nemo ignorat ;” for the latter is exactly the opposite of ready liability 
to seduction. Nor with Rickert : for the general diffusion of the news 
that you are such good Christians will soon bring those men to Rome, that 
they may sow their tares ; which is not expressed. Nor yet again with 
Calvin and others, Reiche, and Kéllner : for you are indeed good Chris- 
tians, whereat I rejoice ; but I desire, etc.—against which the expression, 
especially the want of uév and the presence of ovv, is decisive. In order to 
@ correct understanding, one should note the emphatically prefixed tyédv, 
which stands in correlation—and that antithetic—with rév axéxwv. Hence 
(as also Philippi admits, comp. van Hengel) : ‘‘ not without reason do I 
say : the hearts of the guileless ; for you they will not lead astray, because 
you do not belong to such as the mere dxaxo:, but distinguish yourselves 80 
much by obedience (towards the gospel), that this has become universally 
known ; respecting you therefore (here, too, 颒 tuiv stands first emphatically ; 
sec the critical notes) I rejoice,’ yet desire that you may be wise and pure,” 
—a delicate combination of warning with the expression of firm confidence. 
Strangely, Lucht, comparing Acts xx. 29, assigns ver. 19 to an epistle to 
the Ephesians. — ei¢ rd ayaf.| in reference to the good, which you have to do. 
By this general expression Paul means specially fidelity towards the pure 
gospel. — axepaiovg cig rd xaxév] pure in reference to evil, so that you keep 
yourselves unmized with it, free from it. Comp. Phil. ii. 15, Matt. x. 16; 
and see respecting axepaiog generally, Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 18. 

Ver. 20. Encouraging promise ; hence overpipve is not with Flatt to be 
taken as optative, contrary to linguistic usage, nor is the erroneous gloss 
of the reading ovyrpipac (A, 67**, Theodorct, Oec., Jer., Ambros., Rup.) to 
be approved.—Paul regards the sectaries, because they are servants not of 
Christ, but of their belly (ver. 18), as organs of Satan (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15) ; 
hence his figurative expression of the thought, founded on Gen. iii. 15: 
‘“‘The God of peace will grant you (when the authors of division appear 
amongst you) shortly the complete victory over them.”—As Osd¢ rH¢ eiptune 
( pacificus) God appears in contrast to those rocotvre¢ tag dtyooraciag (ver. 17). 
Comp. on xv. 83.—The bruising of Satan and treading him under feet takes 
place in God's power; hence 6 @edc x«.r.A. Comp. 1 Macc. iii. 22 (and 
Grimm in loc.), iv. 10, e¢ al. — 9 ydpic x.7.A.] The grace of our Lord, ete. ; 
therewith, as with the usual concluding blessing of his epistles, Paul would 


2 In the reading of the Recepta defended 
by Hofmann, xaipw ody rd ép’ tiv, yaipew 
would not have to be supplied after ré (as 
Hofmann very oddly thinks); but rd 颒 
bury ec. dv would, according to a well-known 
usage (see Bernhardy, p. 820; Kriiger, § 68. 


41.9; Schaefer, ad Boe. EU. p. 277; Kihner, 
II. 1, p. 484), be a more precise definition to 
xaipw: I rejoice, as lo what concerns you. 
In this case, 颰 vuiy would be by no means 
dependent on the notion xaipe, but the 
latter would stand absolutely. 


574 _THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


close. ° But he has as yet delivered no special greetings from those around 
him at Corinth, whether it be that they are now for the first time entrusted 
to him, or that he now for the first time observes that he has not yet mentioned. 
them in what precedes (as after ver. 16). This induces him now further to 
add vv. 21-23 after the conclusion already written down in ver. 20; then 
to repeat the above blessing in ver. 24 ; and finally, after recalling ancw all 
which he had delivered to the Romans, in a full outburst of deeply moved 
piety to make the doxology, vv. 25~27, the final close of the entire letter. 

Ver. 21. Tcué8.] It may surprise us that he is not brought forward at the 
head of the epistle as its joint writer (as in 2 Cor. i. 1; Phil. i. 1; Col. i. 
1; 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1), since he was at that time with Paul. But it 
is possible that he was absent just when Paul began to compose the epistle, and 
hence the apostle availed himself in the writing of it of the hand of a more 
subordinate person, who had no place in the superscription (ver. 22) ; it is 
possible also that the matter took this shape for the inward reason, that 
Paul deemed it suitable to appear with his epistle before the Roman church, 
to which he was still so strange, in all his unique and undivided apostolic 
authority. — Aobxcoc] Not identical with Luke, as Origen, Semler. and others 
held ;! but whether with Lucius of Cyrene, Acts xiii. 1, is uncertain. Just 
as little can it (even after Lucht’s attempt) be ascertained, whether ‘Idcuv is 
the same who is mentioned in Acts xvii. 5. Xweirarpoc may be one with 
Laérarpoc, Acts xx. 4; yet both names, Xwoir. and Zdr., are frequently 
found in the Greek writers. — ovyyeveic] as vv. 7,11. Why it should be 
reckoned ‘‘more than improbable” (Hofmann) that Paul had at that time 
three kinsmen in Rome (vv. 7, 11), and three in his neighbourhood at the 
time of writing, it is not at all easy to see. 

Ver. 22. Tertius, probably an Italian with whom the readers were ac- 
quainted, was at that time with Paul in Corinth, and wrote the letter, which 
the apostle dictated to him. The view that he made a fair copy of the apos- 
tolic draught (Beza, Grotius) is the more groundless, since Paul was wont to 
dictate his epistles (1 Cor. xvi. 21; Gal. vi. 11 ; Col. iv. 16 ; 2 Thess. iii. 
17). In his own name Tertius writes his greeting ; for it was very natural 
that, when he called the apostle’s attention to his personal wish to send a 
greeting, his own greeting (which Grotius and Laurent, without sufficient 
ground, relegate to the margin) would not be dictated by the apostle, but 
left to himself to express. In ver. 23, Paul again proceeds with his dicta- 
tion. Quite groundlessly, Olshausen (following Eichhorn) thinks that Paul 
wrote the doxology immediately after ver. 20, and did so on a small sepa- 
rate piece of parchment, the other blank side of which the scribe Tertius 
used, in order to write on it in his own name vv. 21-24. But how incon- 
testably 6 cuvepyéc pov, ver. 21, points to Paul himself !— é» xvpiy] To be 
referred to aor.; the Christian salutation, offered in the consciousness of 
living fellowship with Christ. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. 

Ver. 23, I'dioc] Perhaps the same who is mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 14; ; it 


1 Considered probable also by Tiele inthe the name of the bishop of Cenchreae ap- 
Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 78 ff.—In the Con- _ pointed by Paul. 
sti. ap. vii. 46. 2, Lucius 1s mentioned as 


CHAP. XVI., 24. 575 


may at the same time be assumed, that the person mentioned in Acts xx. 4 

@ (not also he who appears in Acts xix. 29) is not a different onc, against which 
the circumstance that he was of Derbe-is no proof. But considering the great 
frequency of the name (see also 8 John 1 ; Constitt. ap. vii. 46. 1; Martyr. 
Polyc. 22), no decision can be given. Origen: ‘‘ Fertur traditione majorum, 
quod hic Cajus fuit episcopus Thessalonicensis ccclesiae.” — £évoc, guest- 
Sriend, is in the Greek writers not merely the person entertained, but also, as 
here, the entertainer.’ Paul lodged with Caius, as during his first sojourn in 
Corinth with Aquila, and then with Justus (Acts xviii. 1-7). — kai rij¢ éxxd. 6A. ] 
Whether this be a reference to the circumstance that Caius gave his house for 
the meetings of the church (Grotius), or to the fact that, while the apostle 
lodged with him, there were at the same time very numerous visits of persons 
belonging to the church of Corinth, whom Caius hospitably received, —a view 
which corresponds better to the thoughtfully chosen designation—in any case 
févog does not stand tory¢ éxxa. 6A. in the same strict relation as to jov. 
Comp. ver. 13, r7v untépa airod cai éuvov. If the lodging of those coming from 
abroad (Hofmann, following Erasmus and others) were meant, r7¢ éxxA. dAn¢ 
would have been understood of the collective Christian body, and the 
hyperbolical expression would appear more jesting than thoughtful. Comp. 
rather on 7 éxxAyoia 6An, 1 Cor. xiv. 28, also v. 11, xv. 22. Nor is the ex- 
pression suitable to the Roman church, in so far, namely, as Paul converted 
many of its members during their exile (Mircker), because it would be too 
disproportionate. — "Epacoroc] Different from the one mentioned in Acts xix. 22 
and 2 Tim. iv. 20 ; for the person sending greeting here was not, like Timo- 
thy, atravelling assistant of the apostle, but administrator of the city-chest, 
city-chamberlain in Corinth (arcarius civitatis, see Wetstein) ; unless we 
should assume—for which, however, no necessity presents itself—that he 
had given up his civic position and is here designated according to his for- 
mer office (Pelagius, Estius, Calovius, Klee, and others, comp. also Reiche). 
For another, but forced explanation, see Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 55. The 
name Erastus was very frequent. The less are we, with Lucht, to discover 
an error in Acts xix. 22 and 1 Tim iv. 20. Grotius, moreover, has rightly 
observed : ‘‘ Vides jam ab initio, quamquam paucos, aliquos tamen fuisse 
Christianos in dignitate positos.” Comp. 1 Cor. i. 26 ff. — Respecting 
Quartus absolutely nothing is known. Were adcagée a brother according to 
the flesh, namely of Erastus, Paul would have added airow (comp. ver. 15) ; 
hence it is to be understood in the sense of Christian brotherhood, and to be 
assumed that the relations of this Quartus suggested to the apostle no more 
precise predicate, and were well known to the readers. 

Ver. 24. In 2 Thess. iii. 16, 18, the closing blessing is also repeated. 
Wolf aptly observes : ‘‘Ita hodienum, ubi epistola tale dicto consummata 
est, et alia paucis comniemoranda menti se adhuc offerunt, scribere solemus : 
vale iterum.” 

Vv. 25-27. [See Note CLVII. p. 582.] Asa final complete conclusion, 
we have now this praising of God, rich in contents, deep in feeling (perhaps 


1 See Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 218; Duncan, ed. Rost. p. 790. 


e 


576 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL, TO THE ROMANS. 


added by the apostle’s own hand), in which the leading ideas contained in 
the whole epistle, as they had already found in the introduction, i. 1-5, ° 
their preluding keynote, and again in xi. 33 ff. their preliminary doxological 
expression, now further receive, in the fullest unison of inspired piety, their 
concentrated outburst for the ultimate true consecration of the whole. No 
one but Hofmann, who assigns to these three verses their place after xiv. 23 
(see the critical notes), could deny that they form a dozology at all. Accord- 
ing to him, 7@ dé dvvauévy is to be connected with ogeiAouev, xv. 1, and to be 
governed by this verb (thus: to Him, who is able. . . we are dators, etc.). 
This is, however, nothing less than a monstrosity of exegetical violence, 
and that, first, because the verses carry on their front the most immediate 
and characteristic stamp of a doxology (comp. especially Jude 24, 25), in 
which even the azév is not wanting (comp. ix. 5, xi. 86) ; secondly, because 
the fulness and the powerful pathos of the passage would be quite dispropor- 
tionate as a preparatory basis for the injunction that follows in xv. 1, and 
would be without corresponding motive ; thirdly, because in ver. 25 tyzd¢ 
stands, but in the supposed continuation, xv. 1, queic, which is an evidence 
against their mutual connection ; and lastly, because the dé, xv. 1, stands 
inexorably in the way. This dé, namely, cou:d not be the antithetic dé of the 
apodoxis and after participles, especially after absolute participles (Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 372 ff. ; Kiihner, IT. 2, p. 818 ; Baeumlein, Partik. pp. 92 f., 94), 
but only the resumptice (Kihner, II. 2, p. 815 ; Baeumlein, p. 97) ; and 
then Paul must have written not dgeiAouev dé, but either aire dé ddelPoury, 
which ai would reassume the previously described subject, or he must 
have put his dé in ver. 27 along with udévy cogs Ocy, and therefore some- 
what thus : pérvy dé cog@ OG . . . ageiAoper. 

Ver. 25. Irnpiza] to make firm and stedfast. Luke xxii. 82 ; Rom. i. 11; 
1 Thess. iii. 2 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17, etal. The description of God by 76 durauéry 
um“ac aornpigsac corresponds to the entire scope of the epistle. Comp. i, 11 
(in opposition to Lucht). —tya¢] tuéyv rag xapdiac, 1 Thess. iii. 13. — «ata 7d 
evayy. pov] is closely connected with ornp. (to strengthen in respect of my gos- 
pel), so that we are not to supply in jide (Koppe, de Wette, van Hengel) or 
the like (Reiche : ‘‘in the religious and moral life,”) ; but the sense is not 
different from oznp. év r@ evayy. pov (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 17 ; 2 Pet. i. 12), 
namely: so to operate upon you that you may remain stedfastly faithful to 
my gospel, and not become addicted to doctrines and principles deviating 
from it. More far-fetched is the explanation of others (taking xara in the 
sense of the rule) ; ‘‘ so to strengthen you, that you may now lite and act accord- 
ing to my gospel” Kéllner (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
Wolf, Koppe, Tholuck) ; or (xaré of the regulative modal character) : after 
the fashion of my gospel (Hofmann).—The expression 12 evay7éA. pov, the 
gospel preached by me, cannot, secing that in Rome Pauline Christianity was 
in the ascendant, be accounted, on an impartial consideration of the apostol- 
ic consciousness, and in comparison with li. 16 (see also 2 Thess. i. 14 ; 2 
Tim. ii. 8; Gal. ii. 2), as in itself surprising, least of all when we attend to 
the added : kat 1d «jpvypa "Incov Xprorov. This, namely, far from aiming at 
a conciliatory comparison with the preaching of the other apostles (Lucht), is 


CHAP. XVI., 25. 577 


a more precise definition of rd etayy. ov, proceeding from the humble piety 
of the apostle. As he wrote or uttered the latter expression, he at once 
vividly felt that Ais gospel was withal nothing else than the preaching which 
Christ Himself caused to go forth (through him as His organ) ; and by making 
this addition, he satisfies his own principle: ov yap roAujow AaAciv v1 wv ov 
xareipydcato Xpiotog Je’ Euov Ady. x. Epyy, XV. 18. Comp. on the thought, 
Eph. ii. 17 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 3. This humility, amidst all the boldness in other 
respects of his apostolic consciousness, suggested itself the more to his heart, 
because in connection with a praise of God. With this view of the genitive 
agree substantially Riickert, de Wette, Fritzsche, Baumgartcn-Crusius, 
Ewald. The more usual explanation: the preaching concerning Christ 
(Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and many others, including Kéllncr, Tholuck (4), 
Reithmayr, Philippi), yields after ro evayy. nov somewhat of tautology, and 
forfeits the thoughtful correlation between yov and 'Iycot Xpiorov. The 
personal oral preaching of Christ Himself during His earthly life (Grotius, 
Wolf, Koppe, Béhme, Hofmann), to which Paul never expressly refers 
in his epistles (not even in Gal. v. 1) is not to be thought of. — xara amoxd- 
Avyuv protnp. «.T.A.] co-ordinated to the preceding xara . . . Xproroi, and like- 
wise dependent on or7piga. In the exalted feeling of the sublime dignity of 
the gospel, in so far as he has just designated it as the xjpvyyaof Jesus Christ, 
the apostle cannot leave the description of its character without also desig- 
nating it further according to its grand and sacred contents (not according to 
its novelty, as Hofmann explains, which lies neither in the text nor in the 
connection), and that with a theocratic glance back upon the primitive counsel 
of salvation of God : as rerelation of a secret kept in silence in eternal times (comp. 
Col. i. 26 ; Eph. iii. 9, i. 4; 1 Cor. ii. 7). Note the dipertite character of 
the designation by the twofold xara, according to which Paul sets forth the 
gospel, (1) ratione subjecti, as his gospel and xjpvypya of Christ, and (2) ratione 
objecti, as the revelation of the primitive sacred mystery. — The second xara is 
to be taken quite like the first (comp. Col. ii. 8) ; but Paul designates the 
divine decree of the redemption of the world! as pverhorw (comp. gencrally on 
xi. 25), in so far as it, formed indeed by God from eternity (hidden in God, 
Eph. iii. 9), and in the fulness of time accomplished by Christ, was first 
disclused* through the gospel, i.e. laid open to human contemplation (Eph. 
iii. 4, 8, 9, vi. 19) ; hence the gospel is the actual droxd2vy¢ of this secret. 
The article was not requisite with arox., since the following genitive has no 
article, and, besides, a preposition precedes (Winer, p. 118f. [E. T. p. 125] ; 
comp. 1 Pet. 1. 7). But pvornpiov, if it was to be in itself the definite secret, 
must have had the article (Eph. iii. 3, 9 ; Col. i. 26) ; hence we must explain 
‘‘ of a secret,” eo that it is only the subsequent concrete description which 


1 The bestowal of blessing on the Gentiles preaching of the gospel (1. 17; Gal. fil. 28) is 
(Eph. fil. 6) is an essential feature of tho meant according to the context, and not 
contents of the puoripoy; but to refer the  ‘* mthidata patefactio” (van Hengel), which 
latter in our passage to this alone (Beza, Paul elsewhere, when he means It, actually 
Bengel, Philippi, Tholuck, and othcrs), is expresses. Comp. Gal. 1. 16; Eph. iff. 8; t 
not justified by the context. Cor, fl. 10; Eph. ill. 5; Gal. i. 12. 

* This disclosure made to men through the 


578 TILE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


expresses tchat secret is meant : ‘‘in respect to the revelation of a secret, which 
was kept silent in eternal times, but now has been brought to light,” etc. Among 
the carying explanations, the only onc linguistically correct is that of Fritzsche 
(comp. KGliner, Rickert, Tholuck, and Philippi), who makes cava drox. pov. 
dependent not merely on orypiga, but on ro dé dvvay. tuag ornp. taken 
together, and takes xard as in consequence of, thus namely : ‘‘ qui potest vos 
corroborare in . . . secundum patefactionem arcani, h. e. postquam facta est 
patefactio arcani, 7. g. éret amexadigfy pvotipiov ;” more exactly Rickert, 
Philippi, Tholuck : in correspondence with the revelation, etc. But no neces- 
sity exists for taking «aré here in another sense than previously, (as ¢.. 
there is such a necessity, obviously, with xar éxcrayjv immediately below) ; 
on the contrary, after the words, ‘‘ who is in a position to strengthen you 
in respect of the gospel,” the idea ‘‘ secundum patefactionem arcani ” would 
be superfluous and self-evident, and therefore the weighty mode of its ex- 
pression would be without. motive and turgid. It would be otherwise if 
Kara droKnd2vyuv «.7.A. were intended to establish not the ability of God, but 
His zcillingness. Incorrectly, in fine, Olshausen and older expositors think 
that 1d yeyevnuévov should be supplied : ‘‘ «hich preaching has taken place 
through revelation of a secret,” etc. This Paul would have known how to 
+ say properly, had he meant it. — ypdvog aiwyv. | Period in which the aeory. took 
place ; Acts vill. 11, xiii. 20; Josh. ii. 20 ; Winer, p. 205 [E. T. p. 218]; 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 386. From the very beginning down to the time of the 
N. T. proclamation reach the ypévoe aidvor, which are meant and popularly 
so designated. Bengel : ‘‘ tempora primo sui initio aeternitatem quasi prae- 
viam attingentia.” Comp. 2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i. 2. As at almost every word 
of the doxology, Lucht has taken offence at the expression ypdvog aier.’ 
And Reiche incorrectly understands the course of eternity down to the time of 
the prophets. For by azoxddA. prvoznp. x.7.A. Paul wished to designate the 
New Testament gospel (xgpvypa 'Inoov Xprorov), which therefore had noé been 
preached lefore Christ ; but he thinks of the prophetical predictions as the 
means used (ver. 26) for the making it known, and justly, since in them the 
publication has not yet taken place, but there is contained merely the still 
obscure preindication and preparatory promise (i. 2) which were only to 
obtain their full and certain light through the far later azoxdauwue of the 
mystery, and consequently were to serve as a medium of faith to the preach- 
ing which announces the secret of salvation. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 
293. Suggestively Bengel remarks: ‘‘ V. T. est tanquam horologium in suo 
cursu tacito ; N. T. cst sonitus ct pulsus acris.” The silence respecting the 
secrct was first put an end to by the preaching of the N. T., so that now the 
gavépwoic came in its place ; and up to that time even the prophetic language 
was, in reference to the world, as yet a sdlence, because containing only ovre- 
oxtacpévwce (Theodoret) what afterwards (‘‘a complemento,” Calovius) was to 
become through the ecangelical preaching manifest, brought clearly to light 


1 The fashion, in which he professes to Thus. ¢.g., xpov. aiwy. is held to refer to the 
explain the separate elements from a Gnos- Gnostic aeons, veorynn. to the Gnostic Sige, 
tic atmosphere, is so arbitrary as to placo é:a ypad. rpopyr. to the yrwors of allegorical 
itself beyond the pale of controversy. explanation of Scripture. 


CHAP. XVI., 26. 579 
(comp. i. 19, iii. 21; Col. iv. 4; 1 Pet. i. 10, 11, 20 ; Tit. i. 2,3; 2 Tim. 
i. 10). 

Ver. 26. Contrast of ypdvore aiwy. ceory. — But which has been made mans- 
Jest in the present time, and by means of prophetic writings, according to the 
commandment of the eternal God, in order to produce obedience of faith, has been 
made known among all nations. In this happy relation of the present time, 
with regard to that which the ypévor aidvioe lacked, how powerful a motive 
tothe praise of God ! — gavepwhévrog 62 viv] Comp. Col. 1. 26, veri dé Egavepan, 
in the same contrast ; but here the stress lies, in contradistinction to the 
immediately preceding ocorynu. on gavepwf. Reiche’s observation, that the 
gavépwoie is never attributed to the prophets, is not at all applicable ; for it 
is not in fact ascribed to the prophets here, and ¢avepw. is not even con- 
nected with dia ypad. tpog., which re’ undoubtedly assigns to the following 
participle ywupiof.? The mystery has, namely, in the Christian present been 
clearly placed in the light, has been made an object of knowledge (comp. on 
i. 19), a result obviously accomplished through the gospel (comp. Col. i. 26; 
Tit. i. 3); and with this gavépworc, In and by itself, there was connected in 
further concrete development the general publication of the secret, as it is 
more precisely designated by dtd re ypagav . . . . yrupiof. This general 
publication was, namely, one which took place (1) by means of prophetic 
writings (comp. 1. 2), inasmuch as, after the precedent of Jesus Himself 
(John v. 89 ; Matt. v. 17 ; Luke xxiv. 27, 44), it was brought into connec- 
tion with the prophecies of the O. T. testifying beforehand (1 Pet. i. 11), 
the fulfilment of the same was exhibited, and they were employed as a proof 
and confirmation of the evangelical preaching (comp. also Acts xvii. 11), 
and generally as a medium enabling the latter to produce knowledge and 
fuith. (2) It took place at the command of God (x. 17; Tit. i. 3), whose 
servants (i. 9) and stewards of His mysteries (1 Cor. iv. 1). the apostles are, 
conscious of His command (Gal. i. 1, 15). (8) It was made in order to pro- 
duce obedience towards the faith (comp. oni. 5), and that (4) among all nations. 
— Tov aiwviov Oeov| aiwv. is not a faint allusion to ypdvae aiwriotg (Reiche) ; 
but stands in a very natural and apt relation of meaning thereto, since it is 
only as eternal (Baruch iv. 8, 22 ; Hist. Susann. 42) that God could dispose 
of the eternal times and of the present, so that what was kept silent in the 


1Téis wanting indeed in D E &, 87, Syr. 
Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. Vulg. Clar. 


Germ. Chrys. and some Latin Fathers; but. 


this is to be regarded as a hasty deletion, 
occasioned by the fact that, without precise 
consideration of the sense and of the fol- 
lowiug connection, Sa ypad. mpod. was 
mechanically attached to ¢aveped. as near- 
est in position, and the necessity in point of 
construction for its belonging to yrwpiod., 
widely separated by the intervening notices, 
Was not perceived. In order thereupon to 
supply the want of connection between the 
two participles, which arose through the 
omission of the 7¢, an e¢ was inserted before 


xaz’ in versions (Syr. Erp. Acth.). 

2 This, too, against Hofmann, who makes 
&a ypad. wpod. be added to vuv by means 
of ré, in the sense of *' just as also.’’ But the 
vé must have added to the vvy something 
homogeneous, supplementing (Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 211; Kiihner, IT. 2, p. 787), not a 
notion dissimilar toit. Generally, it would 
not be easy to see why Paul should not 
have placed his ré only after car’ émirayny, 
and thereby have given to the second par- 
ticipial sentence—which, according to Hof- 
mann’s explanation, follows without con- 
necting particle—a connecting link in con- 
formity with the sense. 


580 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


former should be made known in the latter. — cic 7. r. 2vq] Consequently 
the publication was not confined to the Jews, but was accomplished among 
all Gentile peoples ; comp. i. 5. As to ei¢ of the direction, comp. John viii. 
26, and sce on Mark i. 39, xiv. 9. 

Ver. 27. Mévy cogg Or dia "Igcov X.] to be closely connected (without 
acomma after @c@) : to the through Jesus Christ only wise God, i.e. to the 
God who through Christ has shown Himself as the alone wise, so wise, that in 
comparison with Him this predicate can be applied to no other being (comp. 
Luke xviii. 19 ; John xvii. 3; 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16, 1. 17 ; 2 Macc. i. 25), the 
absolutely wise.' The connection : ‘‘to the alone wise God be the glory 
through Christ” (Pesch., Chrysostom, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, 
Morus, van Hengel, and several others), is inadmissible because of ¢, which 
indeed is omitted by Beza and Grotius after the Complut. edition, but is 
critically so certificd (it is wanting merely in B) that it can only appear to 
have been omitted with a view to relieve the construction ; although Rick- 
ert also sees himself forced to omit it, and Ewald (comp. Marcker, p. 8), 
while retaining the », so translates as if it ran @ dia 'I. X. 7 défa. Thus, 
too, Hofmann connects the words, secking through the dative pdve cog¢ 
Ge to bring them into government with dgeiAovev, xv. 1 (see on vv. 25-27). 
Instances of such a prefixing of parts of sentences having an emphasis before 
the relative are found, indeed, in the Greek writers ;* yet in the N. T. we 
have no passage of this kind (wrongly Hofmann adduces 1 Pet. iv. 11, Heb. 
xiii. 21, as bearing on this) ; and it would not be easy to perceive any spe- 
cial reason why Paul should have so uniquely laid stress on da ’I. X. — The 
description of God, begun on the side of His power, in ver. 25, passes over 
at the conclusion of the doxology into the emphasizing of His zzisdom, to 
which the representation of the gospel as azoxdAvye pvotnpiov . . . yrwpic- 
6£vroc involuntarily led him in a very natural process of thought ; for so long 
as the mystery was covered by silence, the wisdom of God in its highest 
potency waz not yet brought to light,—a result which took place by the 
very means of that azoxdAvy¢. Comp. xi. 82-84. This at the same time 
applies against Reiche, who believes pévy cog to be unsuitable here and to 
be taken from Jude 25 var. (the spurious addition cog, Jude 25, as also in 
1 Tim. i. 17, has manifestly flowed from our passage). — 6:4 Ijoov Xprarot') 
i.e. through the appearance and the whole work of Jesus Christ. Thereby God 
caused Himself to be practically recognized as the alone wise. Comp. xi. 
33 ff. ; Eph. iii. 8 ff. Similarly, in Jude 25, dtd "Igcov Xproroi x.7.2. is con- 
nected, not with the following défa, but with the preceding ourfpe jpér. 
Too narrowly, Fritzsche limits dd "I. X., in accordance with Col. ii. 3 (but 
see in loc.), to the contents of His teaching. It is precisely the facts which 
bring to light the wisdom of the divine measures in the exccution of the 
plan of redemption through Christ,—the death and the resurrection and 
exaltation of Jesus (iv. 24, 25, viii. 34, e¢ al.),—that form the sum and sub- 
stance of the conception of our d:4 'Iycot Xpiotov. —] In the lively pressure 


1 Comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 278 D; Diog. baum, ad Plat. Phaedr. pp. 238 A, 368 A; 
Laert. i. 12; Philo, de migr. Abr. I. p. 457. 4. comp. on Acts I. 2. 
* Schaefer, App. ad Dem. IV. p. 462; Stall- 


NOTES. 581 


of the great intermediate thoughts connected with the mention of the gos- 
pel, vv. 24, 25, the syntactic connection has escaped the apostle. Not tak- 
ing note that r¢@ 62 duvayévy and the resumptive pdvw cogq Oe@ are still with- 
out their government, he adds, as though they had already received it at 
the beginning of the over-full sentence (through ydpic dé rH duvapévy x.t.A. 
or the like), the expression—still remaining due—of the praise itself by 
means of the (critically certain) relative, so that now the above datives are 
left to stand as anacoluthic. Comp. Acts xxiv. 5, 6, and the remark thereon. 
See also Wincr, p. 528 [E. T. p. 567] ; Buttmann neut. Gr. p. 252 [E. T. 298). 
Others, indeed, think that Paul allowed himself to be induced by the inter- 
mediate thoughts to turn from the doxolgy to God at first designed, and to 
direct the tribute of praise to Christ instead, the Mediator and Revealer of 
the wisdom of God, so as thereby mediately to praise God Himself. Sec 
especially Philippi, also Reithmayr, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Tholuck 
(doubtfully). Such doxologies as if to God, are found addressed to Christ 
doubtless in Heb. xiii. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 18, Rev. 1. 6, and later in Clement et 
al,, but in the really apostolical writings nowhere at all (see on ix. 5) ; and 
that Paul here still, even after the intermediate observations, retained the 
idea of praising God, so that that > must accordingly be referred not to 
Christ, but to God, is quite clearly proved by the resumptive péry cope Oe. 
For a formally quite similar anacoluthon’ in the doxology, see Martyr. Polye. 
20 : rp duvapévy mavracg nude eicayayeiv ev T] avTOV yapiTt K. dwpED Eig THY ai@vor 
avrov Bactieciav dta Tov ratdd¢ av7ov povoyevovg 'Incov Xprotov, @ 7 dda, Tim, 
xpdtos, peyadwoivy eig aia@vac. — 7 dé€a] 8c. ely, not eori, according to 1 Pet, 
iv. 11 (Hofmann), where the connection is different and zor; must be writ- 
ten (Lachm.), and its emphasis is to be noted. The article designates the be- 
Jitting honour, as in xi. 36, 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 
CLV. Ver. 7. érionuo: év toig adroordAore. 


The two explanations mentioned by Meyer in his note being alike possible, it 
cannot be determined with certainty whether Andronicus and Junias are here 
called apostles or not. As we have no mention of them elsewhere, however, and 
as the title of apostle, when applied to others than the Twelve, was apparently 
limited to a very few of the leading men in the Church, such as Barnabas and 
James, the Lord’s brother, it seems probable that the interpretation which 
Meyer gives to the words should be adopted. If the two wero ‘ apostles,”’ 
the person whose name in the accusative is ’Jovviay could not have been a 
woman, as there is no reason to believe that a woman ever had this title. 
The nominative must, in this case, be "Iovveuic.: If they were not themselves 
apostles, but were most honorably known by the apostles, the nominative cor- 
responding to 'Iovviay may be either masculine or feminine. That these two 
persons were relatives of Paul is, perhaps, not to be confidently affirmed ; but 


1 For the suggestion that in this passage simply a violent and very unsuitably devin- 
from the Martyr. Polyc. re dvvay. isdepend- cd evasion. Dressel has the unblassed and 
ent on the preceding écAcyds (Hofmann) {is _ correct panctuation. 


582 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 


from the word that is used, it would seem not improbable that this was the 
fact. 


CLVI. Ver. 17. cove rag dtyoorasiag . . . . motobrrac. 


There are two noticeable points connected with these words and those 
which surround them, which may have an important bearing on the true 
understanding of the passage. (1) The articles with d:yooraciac and oxdvdara, 
the addition to those words of zapa rv diayny x.t.A., and the words in ver. 18 
- descriptive of the persons alluded to, indicate that Paul has in mind op- 
posers of his doctrine. This being the case, and the’date of the Epistle being 
near to the dates of those addressed to the Galatians and Corinthians, it 
must be regarded as probable that the references in all the letters are to 
teachers and adversaries of the same general class. The question may be 
raised, however, whether the words of ver. 18 do not appear more character- 
istic of such adversaries as they were a few years later ; and if such is the fact, 
this verse may have some relation to the time of the writing of the present 
chapter as compared with the rest of the Epistle. See, however, Meyer's notes 
on vv. 17-20. (2) The fact that the whole subject of such adversaries and 
their influence is passed over with so brief a reference shows that they could 
not have, as yet, wrought any considerable evil in the Roman church. Meyer 
thinks, and this may be the correct view, that they had not yet actually 
appeared at Rome. It was not unnatural that tendencies of this sort should 
have manifested themselves in some small beginnings, or, if they had not, that 
the Apostle should have apprehended their existence and evil effects in the 
future. The presence of such an exhortation in the chapter is not inconsistent 
with the Pauline authorship of it. s 


CLVII. Ver. 25 ff. rq d2 duvayéve tude ornpigas x.7.4. 


This final doxology is Pauline in its character and forms an appropriate close 
to the Epistle. It gathers into itself (as Meyer also says) some of the funda- 
mental thoughts on which the Epistle rests : that his gospel and the preach- 
ing of Jesus Christ were for the establishment and confirmation in the Chris- 
tian life of the readers, orjpifac (comp. i. 11 and note); that the revealed mys- 
tery was so far contained in the writings of the prophets that when pro- 
claimed now, it could be made manifest by their means ; that the end of the 
preaching and the revelation, as related to the apostolic mission assigned to 
him, was obedience to faith among the Gentiles ; that the whole plan and its 
outworking belonged to the marvellons wisdom of the one God. But these 
thoughts are wrought into a single truly characteristic Pauline sentence—ex- 
pressing praise to God, and, at the same time, showing the desire of his heart 
that God would strengthen the Roman church in the truth and in the true way 
of living. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


A. 


ABRAHAM, justified by faith, 152, 172 ; 
according to the flesh, 152-175 ; 
the promise unto, 162, 177; his 
promise of fatherhood, 166; an ex- 
ample of faith, 168-178 ; receiving 
righteousness, 172; his descendants, 
366 seq. 

Adum, and sin, 193 seq.; death 
through, 198 seq.; created mortal, 
202. 

Adiaphora, The Law of, 522, 530. 

Adoption, 315 ; waiting for the, 329. 

Adultery, 261. 

Analogy of faith, 472, 484. 

Ananias, 4. 

Anathema, 397 seq. 

Andronicus, 567 seq., 581. 

Animal wors ip, 62. 





Asceticism, Jewish; eq. 

Assurance, of salvation, 180 ; of son- 
ship, 316, 

Atonement of Christ, 134-141; for 
our sins, 172; for the ungodly, 
185-190 ; its ethical result, 230. 

Authorship of Chapters xv. and xvi., 
532 sey. 


B. 


Baal, 428 seq. 

Baptism, into Christ's death, 230 seq., 
252. 

Barbarians, The, 46. 

Barnabas, 5; his controversy with 
Pani, 7. 

Benevolence, Apostolic, 5; in Provi- 
dence, 333 ; to the poor, 555 seq. 
Blessings, implored, 544, 557, 573, 

578. 
Blood of Christ, The, 137 : atones, 190. 
Boasting in vain, 141, 149. 
Body, ‘The human, 310 seq.; sanctifi- 
cation of, 467 seq., 482. 
Brotherly Love, 476. 


C. 


Called of Christ, 39; as Christians, 
40; of God, 335. 


Calvin, nnd the decrees, 393 seq. 

Capital Punishment, 501. 

Charity, the gift of, 474; to the 
brethren, 477. 

Children of God, 314 seq.; receiving 
heirship, 317, 349; in truth, 366 
seq. 

Christ. His two natures, 31, 73; the 
Holy Spirit in, Jo ; His resurrecticn 
from the dead, 36; thanksgiving 
through, 41; His obedience, 52; 
the propitiator, 134-140 ; His sacri- 
fice, 172 ; secures peace and rejoic- 
ing, 181 ; dies forthe ungodly, 185 - 
190 ; His obedience, 217, 227 ; union 
with, 233; the Deliverer, 286 seq., 
296 ; frees from condemnation, 299 
seq., 345; His person and nature, 
301 seq.; and His heirs, 317, 349; 
Divinity of, 360 seq., 396 seq.; 
the corner-stone, 393; the end of 
the law, 405, 421; descent into 
Hades, 410; as Lerd, 411, 423; the 
head, 471 ; the Lord and judge, 513 ; 
pleased not Himself, 538; a minister 
of the circumcised, 541; God is 
praised through, 581 seq. 

Christians, how called, 40 ; how slan- 
dered, 119; bound unto rightcous- 
ness, 248; not under the Mosaic 
law, 257 seq.; belong to Christ, 258 
seq.; married to Christ, 261 seq., 
290 ; delivered from fear, 316, 337 ; 
heirs of Christ, 317, 349; conqueriny 
throngh Christ, 343; inseparable 
from Christ, 343 seq.; their mutual 
relations, 471 ; to bo zealous, 476 ; 
adapting themselves in service, 477, 
485; to be charitable and hospitable, 
477; barmonious and self-sacrific- 
ing, ‘478 ; loving and forgiving, me 
8eq. ; and their enemies, 481 ; 
obey the civil authorities, 489 oe 
to pay tribute, 492 seq.; to perform 
all duties, 493 seq.; to walk worthi- 
ly,496 seq. ; to forbear with the weak, 
507 seq., 522 seq., 537 seq.; forbid- 
den to judge one another, 510 seq., 
524 seq., 515, 519 seq. 526 ; living for 
Christ, 512 seq., 526 seq.; accounta- 
ble to God, 515 ; not to give offence, 


584 


515, 526 seq.; to follow after peace, 
519 ; to be in harmony, 540 seq.; 
helping one another, 555 seq.; to 
practise hospitality, 565; to be 
wise and good, 571 seq. 

Church, The, in the family, 566. 

Church Invisible, The, 103-105, 

Churches founded by Paul, 550, 553. 

Circumcision, for Christians, its bear- 
ing on the law, 101, 108; its ben- 
efits, 111, 146 ; by taith, 143 ; asign 
of the covenant, 160, 176. 

Clement, Epistle of, 19. 

Coals of fire, 481. 

‘olossians, Epistle to the, 10. 
Commandments fulfilled in love, 495. 
Communism, none in Paul, 555. 
Concord, prayer for, 53918eq. 
Condemnation, through Adam, 215, 

226; none in Christ, 299 seq., 345 
seq., 339 seq., 353. 
Confession of Faith, 410 seq. 
Conscience, of the Gentiles, 92-94. 
Consecration of man to God, 470 seq., 


Contentiousness, 87. 

Conversion of Jews, 445, 448 seq., 463. 

Corinthians, First Epistle to the, 8. 

Council, Apostolic, 7. 

Creator, The, 58 ; dishonoured by the 
Gentiles, 65. 

Creation, 58 ; longing for deliverance, 
320 ; and the fall of man, 323; to 
be delivered, 324. 


D. 


Death, physical, 196 seq., 222 seq., 
309 seq.; ethical, 236 seq , 253 ; re- 
leasing from sin, 253; eternal, 244 
seq., 264, 272 ; its power over the 
body, 311 seq., 348. 

Deaconesses, 565, 569. 

Decrees, Divine, 60, 378 seq., 393 seq. 

Desire, begotten by sin, 269 seq. 

Descent into Hades, 410. 

Destructiveness of Sin, 241. 

Determinism, 393. 

Diaconate, The, 472, 484 seq. 

Disobedience, of Adam, 216 seq. 

Divinity of Christ, 360 seq., 396 seq., 
a15. 

Divorce, 260. 

Doxology, to God in Christ, 360 seq.. 
396 seq ; the closing, 562 seq., 576 


BAq. 
Duties, to be fulfilled, 493 seq. 


E. 


Ebionites, 506. 
Edification, 538. 
Election, 334 seq., 352 seq., 356 seq., 


TOPICAL 


NS ee SSS SA 


INDEX. 


365 seq., 372 seq., 378 seq., 393 seq.: 
399 seq., 429 seq., 453 seq. 

Encouragement, in the Spirit, 330 
seq. ; in God’s will, 333 

Endurance, 183. 

Enjoyments, immoral, 250. 

Enmity against God, 307. 

Epaenetus, 566 seq. 

Ephesians, Epistle to the, 10. 

Epicureanism, 572. 

Epilogue, 544, 558. 

Errorists, A warning against, 571 seq, 
582. 

Esau, and his birthright, 371 seq. 

Essenes, 506. 

Eternal Life, 86 ; the gift of God, 251 
seq. ; for righteousness’ sake, 311. 

Europe, receives the Gospel, 7. 

Evil, to he punished, 88 ; for the sake 
of good, 119; to be abhorred, 475, 
485 ; overcome by good, 481, 482. 

Exegesis, true, 283, 295. 

Exhortation, The gift of, 472, 484 seq. 

Experience, 183 ; constant rule of, 282, 
294 ; and conversion, 296. 


F. 


Faith, 25; apprehending salvation, 
38 ; obedience to, 39; as a condi- 
tion, 49, 85 ; aimed at by the gospel, 
52; begetting life, 53; securing 
righteousness, 129-141 ; alone jus- 
tifies, 142 ; imputed, 156 seq., 174 ; 
illustrated in Abraham, 168-171, 
178 ; unto righteousness, 172 ; jus- 
tifies, 180; its righteousness, 406 
seq., 421 seq. ; of the heart, 411 ; 
conditions of, 413; its measure, 
470, 483; analogy of, 472, 484; a 
weak, 507 seq., 522 seq. ; towards 
the weak brethren, 521, 530. 

Fall, The, of man, 323. 

Family Religion, 566. 

Fear, removed, 337 seq. 

Fellowship, social, 43; spiritual, of 
Christ, 230, 262 seq., 308, 499 seq. ; 
practical, 555 seq.; commended, 
565. 

First-fruits, 439. 

Flesh, The, its striving, 306 ; its rule, 
313; to be crucified, 500; absti- 
nence from. 505 seq., 516 seq., 519 
seq., 527 seq. 

Forbearance with the weak, 507 seq., 
522 seq., 537 seq. 

Foreknowledge of God, 334 seq., 426 
seq., 458 seq. 

Forgiveness of sins, 133-140; pro- 
duces happiness, 158. 

Formula Concordiae, The, and origi- 
nal sin, 288 seq. 

Freedom, 73; under the law, 243, 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


254 ; from sin, 246, 264 seq.; the cry 
for, 286, 295 ; moral, 288 seq.; from 
condemnation, 299 seq., 345. 


G. 


Gaius, or Caius, 575. 

Galatians, Epistle to the, 8. 

Gamaliel, 2. 

Gentiles, The, 46; Paul's relation to, 
47 ; forsaking God, 60, 78 ; are in- 
excusable, 60 ; conceited in wisdom, 
61; abandoned by God, 6, 68; 
perverting the truth, 65; worship- 
ping the creature, 66; their moral 
condition, 80 ; how judged, 89-94 ; 
their relation to law and conscience, 
90-93 ; called of God, 385 seq., 401, 
434; hear and accept the Gospel, 
420, 423 ; grafted on the theocratic 
tree, 441 seq., 460 seq.; their uni- 
versal salvation, 447, 463; should 
aoe God's mercy, 542 seq., 558; 

ope in the Messiah, 643; to be- 
lieve in the Gospel, 579, 582. 
Gifts of Grace, 338; diversity of, 471 


seg., 484. 

Glorified with Christ, 318, 336 seq., 
350 sexy. 

God, Knowledge of, 57; through 
creation, 58 ; His power and divini- 
ty, 59; His punishment of immoral- 
ity, 62 ; as Judge, 94seq.; his pood- 
ness despised, 83; faithfulness of, 
112 rneq.; a righteous judge, 115; 
His glory, 132; justifying the be- 
liever, 140; quickening the dead, 
167 ; His great love to man, 343 seq. ; 
deals righteously, 372 seq., His sov- 
ereignty, 373 seq., 378 seq.; His rela- 
tion to man, 378 seq.; His forbear- 
ance, 380 seq.; His goodness and 
severity, 443 seq.; great mercy of, 
453 ; wisdom and knowledge of, 455 
Req., 464; the source of all, 457; 
the author of consolation and persc- 
verance, 539 ; to be glorified, 540, 
558 ; praised by the Gentiles, 542, 
seq., 508 ; His power to overcome 
Satan, 573 ; is praised, 575 seq., 580 
seq., 582. 

Gospel, The, as the power of God, 
48 ; produces faith, 52, 413 ; its joy- 
ful message, 414 ; not obeyed by all, 
414; proclaimed to the Jews, 417 
seq.; refused by them, 420, 423; 
proclaimed to the Gentiles, 420, 423; 
conveys a blessing, 556; obedience 
to the, 573; is the preaching of 
Christ, 577 seq.; to produce obedi- 
ence, 579 seq. 

Government, “Givi, obedience to the, 
488 seq., 500 seq.; ita divine author. 


585 


ity, 489 seq.; ground of obedience 
to the, 492. 

Grace, through Christ, 37 ; for special 
offices, 74 ; its outcome in man, 41 ; 
in righteousness, 157 ; assures God's 
promise, 165; abundantly given, 
209; and the law, 219 seq., 227; 
continuance in, 229, 252 ; sovereign 
in God’s will, 373 seq.; as saving 
power, 429 seq.; may be forfeited, 
444; implored, 575. 


H. 


Hades, 410. 

Happiness through forgiveness, 158 ; 
upon the faithful, 159, 175 ; through 
faith, 182 ; in Christ, 298 seq. 

Harmony, commended, 478. 

Heart-belief, 411. 

Hermas, 570. 

Holiness, its fruit, 251. 

Holy Spirit, The, 35; and justifica- 
tion, 40 ; gifts of social fellowship, 
43; of love, 184 ; helping man, 330 
seq.; renews the mind, 469; in 
righteousness, 518. 

Homage to God, 614, 

Hope, 183, 184; saved by, 329 seq. ; 
joyful in, 477. 

Hospitality, commended, 477, 565. 

Humility, 470, 483, 478; Paul’s lan- 
guage of, 549. 


I. 


Idolatry, 60, 78. 

Idols’ temples, plundered, 100. 

Immersion, 252. 

Immorality, punished, 62; ends in 
death, 250. 

Imputation, of Righteousness, 141, 
156-158, 161, 174; through faith, 
172 ; of sin, 203. 

Infants, mortality and salvation of, 
199 seq., 224; their relation to 
Adam's sin, 205, 209, 224. 

Innocence, pre-Mosaic, 271 seq. 

Intercession, by the Spirit, 331; by 
Christ, 341. 

Inward Man, The, 283, 294. 

Isaac, and his posterity, 366 seq. 

Israelites, The true, 359 seq. ; not 
cast away, 426 seq., 458 seq.; aA rem- 
nant of, faithful, 428 seq., 452. 


J 


Jacob and God's oe 371 seq. 

Jerusalem, The Church at, 555 seq. 

Jews, The, their expulsion from 
Rome, 18; their conduct before 
Paul, 20 ; strangers to God’s right- 
eousness, 80 ; their treatment of the 
law, 96 seq. ; their life previous to 


086 TOPICAL 


the law, 266 seq.; a remnant saved, 
388 seq. ; their exclusion, self-im- 
posed, 390 seq., 402; their guilt, 
403 seq.; having zeal without 
knowledge, 404 ; and righteousness, 
404 seq. ; receive the Gospel, 417 
seq. ; reject the Gospel, 420, 423 ; 
their treatment of God's prophets, 
427 seq.; hardened because of 
unbelief, 430 seq. ; as a spiritual 
tree, 441 seq., 461 seq.; as fallen, 
444; their universal conversion, 
445 seq., 453 seq., 463 seq. ; not 
cast off, 426 seq., 458 seq. ; their 
restoration , 463 seq. 

Joy, in Christ, 192, 414 ; thespirit of 
the kingdom, 518. 

Judaism, True, 103, 359 seq. ; not 
cast off, 426, 458 seq. 

Judgment Day, The, 84. 

Judgments of God, 5d ; judicial, 82 ; 
revealed on the last day, 84, 94; in 
righteousness, 116 seq. ; upon the 
Jews, 432 seq. 

Judgments, self-righteous, 81. 

Junias, 567, 581. 

Justification by faith, imputative, 51 ; 
universal, 76; Paul's argument as 
to, 77 ; by the law, 90, 126, 148 ; by 
grace, 132, 149; by faith alone, 142; 
assured to Abraham and to all 
Christians, 172 ; not sanctification, 
173 ; its blessedness, 180 ; its con- 
sequences, 221; the ground of 
glorification , 337. 


K. 
Kiss, The holy, 570 seq. 
Knowledge of sin, 268, 291 seq. 


L. 

Law, The Moral, and sin, 89; and 
the Gentiles, 90 ; and the Jews, 96 
seq. ; and circumcision, 101, 107, 
108 ; fulfilled in righteousness, 102 
seq. ; established throngh faith, 
145, 150 ; working wrath, 164, 177 ; 
its relation to sin and grace, 218 
seq., 227 ; the life of sin, 27() seq. ; 
is holy, 273 ; is spiritual, 272 seq. ; 
its moral excellency, 278 ; a rule of 
experience, 282, 294; the end of, 
405, 421 ; fulfilled in love, 495 seq. 

Law, The Mosaic, not binding, 258 ; 
and marriage, 260; not immoral, 
265 seq., 290; man’s relation to, 
265 seq. 

Law, Natural, 90. 

Letter, serving the, 264 seq. 

Liberty, Christian, the law of, 509 seq., 
515 seq., 520 seq., 524 seq., 526 seq., 
530 seq. 


INDEX. 


Life, with Christ, 237 sey. ; eternal, 
250 seq. ; pre-mundane, 271 seq. ; 
of the world, 306 seq. ; of Chris- 
tians, 307. 

Logos, The, 34. 

Long-suffering of God, 380 seq., 400 
seq., 420. 

Love, for the good, 475, 485 ; exhor- 
tation to, 494 ; the fulfilment of the 
law, 495 seq. 

Love of Christ, to the Christian, 344 


seq. 

Love of God, 184, 334 seq. ; assured 
through Christ’s death, 183; all- 
comprehensive, 343 seq. 


M. 


Mankind under sin, 120 seq., 130, 
275 seq. 

Man, unregenerate, 275 seq., 292 seq.; 
in misery, 285; his relation to 
God, 378. 

Marriage, 259, 289; how dissolved, 
260 seq. 

Mary, saluted, 567. 

Messianic Kingdom, enlarged, 435; 
to be glorified, 438 ; its fulness, 447 
seq. ; drawing near, 497 seq. ; not 
eating and drinking, 518 seq., 529 
5eq. 

Messianic Sovereignty, 163 ; promises 
of, 359. 

Mind, Renewal of the, 469. 

Miracles, Apostolic, 549 seq. 

Modesty, 470, 483 seq. 

Morality, a standard of, 84; its rela- 
tion to faith, 85 ; promoted by right- 
eousness, 228 seq., 252 ; Christian, 
251 ; demanded, 3U5 seq. ; exhorta- 
tion to, 498 seq. 

Mortality, universal, 198 seq. 

Mosnie Law, The, not binding, 258 : 
and marriage, 260 seq.; not im- 
moral, 265 ; man's relation to the, 
265 seq. 

Moses and righteousness, 406 seq., 
421 seq. 

N. 


Nature, under sin, 324 seq. ; to be 
glorified, 325. 


O. 


Obedience, active and passive, 51; to 
God, 245 seq., 399 seq. ; to the gos- 
pel, not universal, 414 seq. ; civil, 
487 seq., 500 seq.; of Christians, 573. 

Observance of days, 511 ; of Sunday, 
511 seq., 524 seq. 

Omniscience of God, 332 seq. 

Oracles of God, 111, 146. 

Original Sin, 205-209, 288 seq. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


P. 


Paederastia, 67. 

Pantheism, excluded, 59. 

Parousia, 451 ; drawing near, 497 seq. ; 
expected by Paul, 560. 

Partisanship, 87. 

Passions, Evil, 263. 

Patience, 183 ; in hope, 330. 

Paul, his birth and parentage, 1 ; his 
names ; 72 ; education and occupa- 
pation, 2; Pharisaism and conver- 
sion, 3; apostolic labors, 4 ; ecstat- 
ic vision, 5 ; first missionary jour- 
ney, 6 ; second missionary journey, 
7; third missionary journey, 8 ; 
experience at Jerusalem, 9 ; impris- 
onment at Rome, 10; martyrdom, 
11 ; sojourn in Spain, 12; origin of 
this tradition, 14; theory of a sec- 
ond captivity, 14 ; his teaching, 23 ; 
apostleship, 29, 72; called through 
grace, 37 ; in sorrow over the Jews, 
357 ; wishes himself accursed, 358 ; 
his interest in their salvation, 403 
seq. ; glorifying his office, 436 seq., 
460 ; justifies his boldness, 545 seq. ; 
exalts his office, 546 seq., 599; 
glories in Christ, 547 seq. ; works 
miracles, 549 seq. ; his preaching 
circuits, 550 seq., 560 ; as a founder 
of churches, 550, 553 ; contemplates 
a journey to Spain, 553; asks for 
prayers, 557 ; salutes the saints, 569 
seq. ; warns against false teachers, 
571 seq., 582 ; dictates this Epistle, 
574 ; concludes with a “Doxology, 
575 seq., 582, 

Peace, 41 ; through justification, 181 ; 
the spirit of the Kingdom, 518; im- 
plored, 557, 573. 

Perseverance, 85. 

Peter, 16; his arrival in Rome, 17. 

Pharaoh, as God's instrument, 376 seq. 

Philemon, 10. 

Philippians, Epistle to the, 10. 

Phoebe, 565. 

Plan of salvation, God’s, 456 seq. 

Popes, succession of, 17 ; against the 
Scriptures, 20. 

Prayer, help in, 331 ; persevering in, 
477 ; for others, 557. 

Preaching, the necessity of, 413 seq. ; 
heard everywhere, 416 ; of Christ, 
the mystery revealed, 577 seq. ; to 
produce obedience, 579 seq. 

Predestination, 334 seq., 352 seq., 356 
seq., 365 seq., 399 seq., 372 seq., 
378 seq., 393 seq., 444 8eq., 403 seq. 

Presumption, warned against, 440 seq., 
462. 

Pride, spiritual, warned against, 443. 


Priscilla, 565 seq. 

Probation, after death, 85. 

Promises of God, 165, 364 seq.; faith- 
fully kept, 458 ; fulfilled in Christ, 
541; encouraging, 573. 

Prophecy, of the O. T., 52 ; fulfilled, 
387 seq., 411, 543, 551 seq., 579 seq. ; 
the gift of, 472. 

Proselytes of the Gate, 102. 

Providence, benevelent, 333 seq., 352 
seq. 

Punishment of sin, 71 ; in righteous- 
ness, 115, 147. 

Punishment, temporal, 490. 


R. 


Rabbis, Jewish, and Adam’s sin, 202. 

Rebecca, and her sons, 370 seq. 

Reconciliation, through Christ's death, 
192. 

Redemption in Christ, 133. 

Remnant, A faithful, 429 seq., 452. 

Renovation, Moral, 242, 264, 469. 

Reprobacy, 68, 430 seq. 

Resolution, The power of, 277. 

Restoration, Future, 448 seq., 463 seq. 

Resurrection, of Christ, 232, 341; 
moral, of man, 232, 312; with Christ, 
237, 

Revenge, Personal, 
forbidden, 481. 

Revolution, the right of, 501. 

Righteousness, 25 ; not an attribute of 

God, 49; a relation of man, 50 ; 
how procured, 51; of faith and 
works, 85 ; the fulfilling of the law, 
102 seq. ; not possessed under the 
law, 122 seq.; through faith in 
*Christ, 129-141 ; imputed, 140, 156 
seq., 174; a sign of the covenant, 
160, 176 ; through Christ’s obedi- 
ence, 219; promotes morality, 228 
seq., 202; moral, 244; obligatory 
upon Christians, 348 seq., 255 seq. ; 
gives eternal life, 311, 348 ; not ac- 
complished by the Jews, 391 seq. ; 
their efforts for, 404 seq. ; as tho 
end of the law in Christ, 405 seq., 
421 seq.; the essence of Christ’s 
kingdom, 518 seq. , 529 seq. 

Rome, The church at, 15 ; its founder, 
15 ; constituent members, 18, 258 ; 
praised by Paul, 545, 573. 

Rome, The city of, 16. 

Romans, The, 46. 

Romans, Epistle to the, 9; against the 
Papacy, 20 ; occasion of, 21 ; object 
of, 22; contents of, 25; place and 
time of composition, 26 ; genuine- 
ness of, 26 ; its address, and when 
omitted, 28, 40. 


unlawful, 479 ; 


588 


8. 
Sabbath, The Christian, 511 seq., 524 


seq. 

Sacrifice, Self-, 467 seq., 482. 

Saints saluted, 569. 

Saintship, how produced, 40. 

Salutation, Apostolic, 29; 
saints, 5669 ; by kissing, 570. 

Salvation, apprehended by faith, 38 ; 
its trne meaning, 49 ; its universal- 
ity, 192 ; its occasioning cause, 212 
seq., 225 seq. ; through Christ, 215 ; 
by hope, 329 seq. ; made certain, 
337 seq. ; its cause in God, 374 ; free 
and universal, 412 ; conditions of, 
413 seq. ; to be enlarged in scone, 
437 seq., 460 seq. ; universal, 445 
seq., 463 seq. ; through God’s mer- 
cy, 453 seq.; fulness of, 455 seq., 
464 ; drawing near, 497 seq. ; the 
comfort of, 539. 

Sanctification, 467 seq., 482. 

Sarah, and her son, 368 seq. 

Satan, to be bruised, 573 seq. 

Scriptures, The Holy, a source of com- 
fort, 539. 

Selfishness, condemned, 538. 

Self-seeking, condemned, 478, 572. 

Servants of righteousness, 246. 

Sin, and the law, 89, 219 seq., 227 ; 
universal, 123, 130, 149 ; knowledge, 
128 ; how forgiven, 133, 140; none 
without law, 165 ; universal through 
Adam, 193 seq., 222 8eq. ; imputed, 
203 seq. ; original, 205 seq. ; dying 
to, 229, 252; destroyed, 234 seq., 
253 ; not to reign, 239 ; its destruc- 
tiveness, 241; its wages, 251 ; be- 
gets desire, 269; dead withont the 
law, 270 seq. ; its power, 274 seq.; 
active in man, 280; its bondage, 
286 ; condemned in the flesh, 303. 

Slaves, and Slavery, 73 ; to immoral- 
ity, 243 seq. 

Soul-conflict, 274 seq., 292 seq. 

Soul, Sanctification of the, 467 seq., 
482. 

Spain, 553. 

Spiritual Light, dawning, 498. 

Spirit, serving the, 264 seq. ; the law 
of the, 300; its striving, 306 ; im- 
parted, 315 ; testifying within man, 
316 ; communicated, 327. 

Stumbling-blocks, 516 seq., 526 seq., 
519 seq. 


to the 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


Suffering, for Christ’s sake, 317 seq. 
ee seq., 342 seq. ; holding out in, 
Subordination of Christ, 457. 


T: 


Taxes, to be paid, 492 seq. 

Teaching, The gift of, 473, 484 scq. 

Tertius, 574. 

Thanksgiving, 
food, 512. 

Thessalonians, Epistle to the, 8. 

Timotheus, 574. 

Tribulation, 183. 

Trinity, The Doctrine of the, 457. 

Truth hindered by immorality, 56. 


U. 


Unbelief of man, 112, 147. 

Unchastity, 64, 66. 

Union with Christ, 233, 262 seq., 
471, 499 seq. 


expressed, 42: for 


¥. 


Vanity, the creation subject to, 323 
seq. 

Vengeance, belongs to God, 479 seq. 

Victory, with God, 338. 


Ww. 


Wickedness, universal, 122 seq. 

Will of God, The, 334 seq. ; discern- 
ed, 469. 

Will, The human, enslaved, 281. 

Wine, abstinence from, 505 seq., 516 
seq., 519 seq., 527 seq. 

Wisdom, human and false, 61. 

Word of God, The, begetting faith, 
415 ; preached everywhere, 416 seq. 

Works, 85 ; of the law, 126, 148; do 
not justify, 142, 154; not the cause 
of election, 430. 

World, The, longing for redemption, 
320 seq. 

Wrath of God, The, 54; why visited 
upon men, 57; foretold, 88; in 
righteousness, 116; worked by the 
law, 164, 177; removed, 190, 191; 
exhibited after long-suffering, 381 
seq., 401 seq. ; not to be hindered, 
479. ; 


Zeal, without knowledge, 404 ; for the 
Christian life, 476. 


CATALOGUE OF 


FUNK & WAGNALLS’ 
Publications. 


Young’s Analytical Bible Coneordance. 

On an entirely new plan.. Containing every word in 
Alphabetical Order, arranged under its Hebrew or Greek original, 
with the Literal meaning of Each, and its Pronunciation. Exhibiting 
about 311,000 References, marking 30,000 various readings in the 
New Testament. With the latest information on Biblical Geogra- 

hy and Antiquities. Designed for the simplest reader of the English 

ible. By RospertT Younc, LL.D., author of ‘A New Literal 
Translation of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures,” etc., etc. Fourth 
Rensed, Authorized Edition. Printed on heavy paper, One large 
volume, 4to, cloth $5.00; sheep $6.00; Fr. im. morocco, $7.00; half 
morocco, ¢9.00. full morocco, $12 00. Every copy of this, the author- 
ized and correct, edition has on the title-page “ Authorized Edition,” 
and at the bottom of the page our imprint. 


Analytical Bible Treasury. 

Designed for the use of Teachers and Divinity Students. 
By Rosert Youne, LL.D., author of the Analytical Concordance, 
etc., 4to, cloth, $2.00, CONTENTS: (1) Analytical Survey of all 
the Books, (2) Of all the Facts, (3) OF all the Idioms of the Bible. 
(4) Bible Themes, Questions, Canonicity, Rationalism, etc, (5) A 
complete Hebrew and English Lexicon to the Old Testament. (9) 
Idiomatic use of the Hebrew and Greek Tenses, (7) A complete 
Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament. 


Concordance tothe Revised New Testament. 
An Analytical Concordance to Eight Thousand Changes 
of the Revised New Testament. By Ropert Younc, D.D., LL.D. 
author of Young’s Concordance to the Bible, etc. 8vo, 25 pp., price 

40 cents. I2mo, 72 pp., price, paper, 40 cents, 


Apostolie Life. 

Apostolic Life as revealed in the Acts of the Apostles, from 
the Ascension of Christ to the Withdrawal of Peter. By JoszPH 
ParKER, D.D. Author of ‘Ecce Deus,” “ Inner Life of Christ,” 
etc. 8vo, cloth. Price, $1.50. 


Ra The above works will be sent, post paid, on receipt of price. 


a PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK & WAGNALLS, NEW YORE. 





Biblical Lights and Side Lights; or, 


Ten Thousand Biblical Illustrations, with Thirty Thousand 
Cross References, consisting of Facts, Incidents, and Remarkable 
Statements for the use of Public Speakers and Teachers; and also 
for those in every kind of Profession, who for illustrative purposes 
desire ready access to the numerous and interesting narratives con- 
tained in the Bible. By Rev, CHARLES E. LITTLE, 8vo, cloth. 
Price, $4.00. 


Biblical Notes and Queries. 


A general medium of communication regarding Biblical 
Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, Ecclesiastical History, An- 
tiquities, Biography and Theological Science, Reviews, etc. It 
answers thousands of questions constantly presented to the minds of 
clergymen and Sunday-school teachers. By RoserT Younc, LL.D., 
author of the Analytical Concordance to the Bible. Royal 8vo, cloth, 
40opp. Price, $1.75. 


Bible Work; or, 


Bible Readers’ Commentary on the New Testament. 
The text arranged in Sections; with Readings and Comments select- 
ed from the Choicest, most Illuminating and Helpful Thought of 
the Christian Centuries. In two volumes. Vol. I. The Fourfold 
Gospel. Vol. II. The Acts, Epistles and Revelation. With Maps, 
Illustrations and Diagrams. By J. GLENTWORTH BuT =r, D.D. 
Royal 8vo, cloth, 800 pp., per vol., $5.00; sheep, $6,00; half morocco, 
$7.50; full morocco, gilt, $10.00, 


Blood of Jesus. 


By Rev. Wm. Reip, M.A. With an Introduction by Rev. 
E. P, Hammond. Paper, 1o cents; cloth, 40 cents. 


Burial of the Dead. 


A Pastor's Complete Hand-Book for Funeral Services and 
for the Consolation and Comfort of the Afflicted. By Rev. GEoRGE 
DUFFIELD, D.D., and Rev, SAMUEL W, DUFFIELD. Entirely prac- 
tical, wholly unsectarian, and far in advance of all other Manuals of 
the kind. Cloth, 75 cents; limp leather, $1.00. Arranged, for ease 
of reference, in four parts: I, Scriptural Forms of Funeral Service. 
II. An exhaustive Biblical Study on the subject of Death. III. A 
short treatise on the Funeral itself, as it is found in the Bible. IV. 
Texts, Topics and Hints for F iperal Sermons and Addresses. 


Christian Sociology 


By J. H. W. Stucxenserc, D.D., Professor in the Theo- 
logical Department of Wittenberg Coilege. A new book ina fresh 
field. Exceedingly suggestive and practical. 12mo, cloth, 382 pp., 
$1.00. 





Ma The avove works will be seni, post-paid, on receipt of Avice. 


PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &@ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. 8 





oe 


Commentary on Exodus. 


A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of 
Exodus, with a new translation by JAMES G. MureHy, D.D. New 
Unabridged Edition, with Preface and Notes by John Hall, D.D. 
2 vols., paper, 233 pp., $1.00; 1 vol., cloth, $1.50. 


Commentary on Mark. 


Studies in the Book of Mark, for Teachers, Pastors and 
Parents. By Rev. D.C. HuGHEs. Critical, Exegetical, and Hom- 
iletical. 8vo, cloth, $1.50. 


Commentary on Luke. 
A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. By F. Goper, 


D.D., Professor of Theology, Neufchatel. ‘Translated from the 
Second French Edition. With Preface and Notes by Jokn Hall, 
D.D. New Edition, printed on heavy paper. 2 vols., 8vo, 584 pp. 
paper, $2.00; 1 vol., 8vo, cloth, $2.50. 


Commentary on Luke. 


A Suggestive Commentary on Luke, with Critical and 
Homiletical Notes. By W. H. VAN Loren, D.D. Edited by Prof. 
James Kernahan: London. 4 vols., 8vo, 1104 pp., paper $3.00; 2 
vols., 8vo, cloth, $3.75. 


Commentary on Acts. 


A Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Acts of the 
Apostles. By HEINRICH A. W. MEYER, Th.D. With Preface, In- 
dex, and Supplementary Notes to the American Edition. By Willian 
Ormiston, D.D., LL.D. _ 1 vol., 8vo, cloth, $3.00. 

An American Edition of Meyer's valuable, critical and exegetical com- 
mentaries by HeINRICH A. W. MEysgR, with Preface, Notes and In- 
troduction, by several eminent American scholars, will be issued 


during the year at the very low price of $3.00 per volume. Uniform 
with Meyer's Commentary on Acts, 


Commentary on Romans. (Meyer’s ) 
Edited by TimorHy Dwicut, LL.D., of Yale. (Ready.) 


Commentary on I.and II.Corinthians. (Meyer’s) 
Edited by TaLpot W. Cuamsers, D.D., New York. 
(2 Press.) 
Commentary on St. John. (Meyer’s.) 
Edited by Prof. A. C. Kenprick, D.D., Rochester. (J 
Press). 
Commentary on St. Matthew. (Meyer’s.) 


Edited by Geo. R. Crooxs, D.D., Drew Seminary. (Jz 
Press.) 





AM The above works will be sent, post-paid, cn receipt of price. 


4 PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. 


Commentary on Mark and Luke. (Meyer’s.» 
Edited by M. B. Rippt£, Rochester. (Jn Press.) 


Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians and 
Philemon. (Meyer’s.) 
Edited by . (dn Press). 


Commentary on Romans. 

Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle tothe Romans. By F. 
Gopet, D.D., Professor of Theology, Neuchatel. Translated from 
the French by Rev. A. Cusin, M.A., Edinburgh. The Translation 
Revised and Edited, with an Introduction and Appendix by Tat- 
BoT W. CHAMBERS, D.D._ 1 vol., 8vo, 544 pp., cloth, $3.00. Uni- 
form with Meyer’s Commentary on Acis. 


Commentary on the Catholic Epistles. 


Commentary on the Catholic Epistles. By Joun T. DEm- 
AREST, D.D. A thorough work. 8vo, 650 pp., $2.00. 


Godet on John. 

An entirely new American Edition, translated a novo, and 
edited by TIMOTHY Dwicut, LL.D., will appear ina few weeks, 
Those who purchased Godet on Luke and Romans need no com- 
mendation on this work. 1 vol., 8vo, cloth, $3.00. 


Companion to the Revised New Testament. 
Explaining the reason for the changes made on the Au. 
thorized Version. By ALEX. Roperts, D.D., member of the Eng- 
lish Revision Committee, with Supplement by a member of the 
American Committee. Also, a full Textual Index. Assfhorized Eai- 
tion. 8vo, 117 pp., paper, 25 cents; 16mo, 213 pp., oloth, 75 cents. 


Companion to the Revised New Testament. 
Contributions to a New Revision ; or, a Critical Compan- 
ion to the New Testament. By ROBERT Younc, D.D., LL.D. 


12mo0, 392 pp., cloth, 75 cents. : 
#..*One-half of each page is left blank for notes. Prominent words in 


the text are numbered. 


Compend of Baptism. 
The cream of the literature on the Baptism Controversy. 
Its aim is, by brief but exhaustive exegesis, to elucidate and establish 
the fact clearly that affusion is at least as classical and scriptural a 
mode of Baptism as immersion, and that infants are entitled to it as 
their biblical right. By WILLIAM HAMILTON, D.D. 12mo, 390 
pp., cloth, price, 75 cents. 


Complete Preacher. 

A Sermonic Magazine. Containing nearly one hundred 
sermons in full, by many of the greatest preachers in this and other 
countries in the various denominations. 3 vols., 8vo, cloth, each 
$1.50; the set, $4.00. 


wa The above works will be sent, post-paid, on receipt of price. 


FUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &4 WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. & 





Conversion of Children. 

Can it be Effected? How Young? Will they Remain 
Steadfast? What Meansto be Used? When to be Received and 
how Trained inthe Church? By Rev. E. P. HAMMOND, the Chil- 
dren’s Evangelist. Should be studied by all lovers and teachers of 
children. Paper, 30 cents; cloth, 75 cents. 


Early Days of Christianity. 

By Canon Farrar, D.D., F.R.S. This standard work 
needs no commendation. Printed from imported plates without 
abridgment. Paper and press-work excellent. Substantially bound 
in brown or green cloth. Authorised Edition. 8vo, cloth, 75 cents; 
paper, 40 cents. 


From Gloom to Gladness. | 
Illustrations of Life from the Biography of Esther. By 
Rev. JosepH S. VAN Dykg. A companion book to “ Through the 
Prison to the Throne.” Rich in suggestive and practical thoughts. 
16mo, 254 pp., cloth, $1.00. 


Fulton’s Replies. 


Punishment of Sin Eternal. Three Sermons in reply to 
Beecher, Farrar, and Ingersoll. ByJusTIN D. FULTON, D.D. 8vo, 
paper, 10 cents. 


Gilead: An Allegory. 
Gilead; or, the Vision of All Souls’ Hospital. An Allegory. 


By Rev. J. FLYATT SMITH, Congressman from New York. Revised 
Edition. 12m0, cloth, 350 pp., $1.00. 


Gospel of Mark. 


From the Teacher's Edition of the Revised New Testament, 
with Harmony of the Gospels, List of Lessons, Maps, etc. Paper, 
1§ cents, cloth, §0 cents. 


History of the Cross. 


The Lamb in the Midst of the Throne; or, the History of 
the Cross. A theological work, treating the condition and tenden- 
cies of modern religious thought as pied to the pulpit, and some of 
the grave questions oithe day, The author has sought to bring out 
the universality of the relations of Christ’s death as an expiation 
for sin, and as a moral reconciling force. The style is fresh and vig- 
orous.. By James M. SHERWOOD, D.D., editor for many years of 
The Presbyterian Review. 8vo, 525 pp., cloth, $2.00, 


History of English Bible Translation. 
Revised and Brought down to the Present Time by THOMaS 
J. Conant, D.D., Member of the Old Testament Revision Commit- 
tee, and Translator for the American Bible Union Edition of the 
Scriptures. A Complete History of Bible Revision from the Wickliffe 
Bible to the Revised Version. 2 vols,, paper, 8vo, 284 pp,, 50 cents; 
1 vol., 8vo, cloth, $1.00. 


Ma The above will be sent, post paid, on receipt of price. 


6 PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORE. 


Holy Bible. 


The “ Perfect * Edition of the Holy Bible, containing the 
Old and New Testaments, together with Cruden’s Concordance ; the 
Psalms in Meter; A.Comprehensive Bible Dictionary fully illustrat- 
ed ; a Pictorial History of each of the Books of the Bible; Biograph- 
ical Sketches of the Translators and Reformers; the Lives and Mar- 
tyrdom of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists; Egyptian, Jewish and 
Biblical Antiquities; Cities of the Bible, with descriptive Scenes and 
Events in Palestine; Biblical Scenery, Manners and Customs of the 
Ancients ; Natural History, Religious Denominations, Science and 
Revelation; Temple of Solomon ; History of Jewish Worship, etc., 
etc. Profusely illustrated, elegantly bound. Royal 4to, 1663 pp. 
A, American morocco, raised panel, gilt back, $9.00, A, fine 
French morocco, antique panel, full gilt, $11.00; C, fine German 
morocco, massive panel, full gilt, $13.50; 0, genuine turkey 
morocco, elegant panel, full gilt, $16.50. 


Home Altar. 


An Appeal in Behalf of Family Worship. With Prayers 
and Hymns for Family Use. By Rev. CHARLES F. DEEMs, LL.D., 
Pastor of the Church of the Strangers. Zhird Edition. 12mo, cloth, 
281 pp., 75 cents. 





Homileties. 


A Standard Work, invaluable toClergymen. By JamEs M. 
Hoppin, D.D., Professor in Yale College. Mew Eadtiéion. 8vo, 809 
pp., cloth, price, $3.00. 


Homiletiec Encyclopedia. 


A Homiletic Encyclopedia of Illustrations in Theology 
and Morals. Selected and arranged by Rev. R. A. BERTRAM. Roy- 
al 8vo, cloth, 892 pp., $2.50; sheep, $3.50; half morocco, $4.50. 


Homiletie Monthly. 

Devoted to Homiletics, Biblical Literature, Discussion of 
Living Issues, and Applied Christianity. I. K. FUNK, D.D., Editor. 
Subscription price, $2.50 per year; single numbers, 25 cents. Vol- 
umes III., IV, V., VI., each 8vo, cloth, 724 pp., $3.00. 

The Homilist. 


By Davin Tuomas, D.D., author of “ The Practical Philos- 
opher,” “ The Philosophy of Happiness,” etc., etc. Editor’s Series. 
12mo, cloth, 368 pp., tinted paper, $1.25. 


How to Pay Church Debts 
And How to Keep Churches out of Debt. By Rev. Sytva- 


NUS STALL, 12mo, cloth, 280 pp., $1.50. 


The above works will be sent, post-paid, on receipt of price, 


PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &@ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. 7 








Inner Life of Christ. 


These Sayings of Mine. Sermons on St. Matthew’s Gos- 
1, Chaps, I.-v II. By JosEpH PARKER, D,.D, With Introduction 
y Dr. Deems. 8vo, cloth, $1.50. 


Servant of All. Sermons on St. Matthew’s Gospel, Chaps. 
VIII-XV. By JosepH Parker, D,D, A sequel to the above vol- 
ume, 8vo, cloth, $1.50. 


Things Concerning Himself. Sermons on St. Matthew’s 
Gospel, Chaps, XVI-XVIII. A sequel to the above volumes, By 
JosErH PaRKER,D,D, 8vo, cloth, $1, 50, 


Manual of Revivals. 


Practical Hints and Suggestions from the Histories of Re- 
vivals, and Biographies of Revivalists, with Themes for the use of 
Pastors, before, during, and after special services, including the Texts, 
Subjects, and Outlines of the Sermons of many distinguished Evan- 
gelists. By G, W. Hervey, A,M. 12mo, cloth, $1.25. 


Metropolitan Pulpit. 
The Metropolitan Pulpit, containing carefully prepared 


Condensa‘ions of Leading Sermons, preached in New York and 
Brooklyn, Outlines of Sermons preached elsewhere, and much other 
homiletic matter. Vol. I. Royal 8vo, cloth, 206 pp., $1.50. Vol. 
II., cloth, enlarged. (Metropolitan Pulpit and Homiletic Monthly.) 
388 pp., $2.75. The set $4.00. 


Preacher’s Cabinet. 
A Handbook of Illustrations. By Rev. Epyarp P. 
THWING, author of ‘‘Drill-Book in Vocal Culture.”” Fourth Edition, 
2 vols,, 12mo, paper, 50 cents, 


Popery. 
Popery the Foe of the Church and of the Republic. By 
Rev. Jos. S. VAN Dyke, author of “Through the Prison to the 
Throne,” etc, 8vo, cloth, 304 pp., $1.00. 


Pulpit and Grave. 

A volume of Funeral Sermons and Addresses, from leadin& 
Pulpits in America, England, Germany and France; Sketches o! 
Sermons, Obituary Addresses, Classified Texts, Scripture Readings» 
Death-bed ‘Testimonies, Point on Funeral Etiquette, etc. Edited by 
E. J. WHEELER, A. M. 8vo, 365 pp., cloth, $1.50. 


Pulpit Talks 


On Topics of the Time, including ‘Religion and Science,” 
‘‘Religion and Social Organization,” ‘‘ Religion and Popular Lit- 
erature,” “Religion and Popular Amusements.” By Rev. J. H. 
Rytance, D. D. 12mo, 46 pp., paper, 25 cents. 


R@ The above works will be sent, post-paid, on receipt of price. 


8 PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORE. 





Revised New Testament 
With New Index and Concordance, Harmony of the Gos- 
pels, Maps, Parallel Passages in full, and many other Indispensable 
Helps. All most carefully prepared. Cloth, $1.50. Other bind- 
ings, from $2.50 to $10.00, 


Revisers’ English. . 


A Spicy Criticism on the English of the Revisers of the 
New ‘Jestament. By Rev. Gro. WASHINGTON MOON. 12mo, 
cloth, 75 cents. 


Sehaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge. 

A Religious Encyclopedia; or, Dictionary of Biblical, 
Historical, Doctrinal and Practical Theology. Based on the Real- 
Encyklopadie of Herzog, Pitt and Hauck. Edited by Philip Schaff, 
D. D., LL. D., Professor in the Union Theological Seminary, New 
York, assisted by Rev. Samuel M. Jackson, M. A., and Rev. D. S. 
Schaff. Complete in three large volumes. Royal 8vo, ser volume, 
cloth, $6.00; sheep, $7.50; half morocco, $9.00; full morocco, gilt, 
$12.00. Sold only by Subscription, (Full descriptive circulars 
with Testimonials sent, gratis, to any address. 


The Theoeratic Kingdom. 


The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus the Christ, as 
covenanted in the Old, and presented in the New Testament. An 
exhaustive work on Eschatology from the pre-millenarian stand~- 

int. By Rev. G. N. H. Peters, A.M. In three large vols., 
Bro, cloth, $3.00 each. (In press.) Send for aw exhaustive pros- 
pectus and specimen pages. 


Theology of the Old Testament. 

By Dr. Gust. Fr. OEHLER, late Professor Ordinarius of 
Theology in Tubingen, Leipzig. This American edition is edited by 
Prof. Gro. E. Day, D. D., of Yale College, and compared with the 
latest German Edition (1882). A very great work, It has been in- 
troduced as a text book in Yale, Princeton, New Brunswick, Lane 
(Cincin.), and other Seminaries. Royal 8yo, cloth, $3.00. (3 Send 
for prospectus. 

Thirty Thousand Thoughts. 


This great work contains the best thoughts, Illustrations 
and Literary Gems of the world’s ablest books on almost every sub- 
ject, homiletically arranged. It is the result of researches made by 
a score of contributors. Edited by Rev, CANON SPENCE, M. A., 
Rev. J.S. EXELL M. A., Rev. C. Net, M. A., Rev. I, STEPHEN- 
son, M. A. A most valuable, and carefully arranged work. To 
be completed in six or seven volumes, large 8yo, cloth, per volume, 
$3.50. To be issued every three months. 


KB” The above works will be sent, post Zaid, on receipt af price. 


” 


PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, FEW YORK. 9 


Thoughts of John Foster. 


John Foster ranks among the most original and suggestive 
writers of this century. His style equals the terseness and strength 
of that of Butler, Clark or Barrow ; his imagination is more ardent 
and powerful than that of Taylor or Coleridge, and his conceptions 
dazzle with their splendor, and awe with their majesty. By W. W. 
Everts, D.D. Cloth, 12mo, $1.00. 


Through the Prison to the Throne. 
Illustrations of Life from the Biography of Joseph. By 
Rev. J.S.VAN DykE, author of “ Popery the Foe of the Church and 
of the Republic.” 16mo, cloth, 254 pp., $1.00. 


Treasury of David. 

Containing an Original Exposition of the Book of Psalms : 
A Collection of Illustrative Extracts from the whole range of litera- 
ture; a series of homiletical hints upon almost every verse, and lists 
of writers upon each verse. By Rev, CHARLES H. SPURGEON. 8vo, 
cloth, per volume, $2.00; sheep $2.75. Complete in Seven Volumes, 
Six now ready. (G9™ Sold separately or in the Set, 

Vol. I., Psalms 1-26 one Vol. II. Psalms 27-52; Vol. III., 
Psalms 53-68; Vol. IV., Psalms 69-103; Vol. V., Psalms 104-118; 
Vol. VI., Psalms 119-124; Vol. VII., Psalms 125-150. 


BMliscellaneous Corks. 


Bulwer’s Novels. 
Leila; or, the Siege of Granada: and, The Coming Race ; 
or, The New Utopid. By Enwarp BuLWER, Lord Lytton. 12mo, 
284 pp., leatherette, 50 cents ; cloth, 75 cents. 
Child’s Guide to Heaven. 
By Rev. E. P. Hammonp. Paper, ro cts., leatherette, 25 cts. 


Christmas Books. 

Containing A Christmas Carol, the Chimes, the Cricket on 
the Hearth, The Battle of Life, The Haunted Man. By CHARLES 
DICKENS. 2 vols., paper, 270 pp., 8vo, 50 cents; I vol., 8voa, 
cloth, 75 cents, 


Calvin. 


John Calvin. By M. Guizor, Member of the Institute of 
of France. 4to, paper, 15 cents; 12mo, 160 pp., cloth, 50 cents. 


Cyclopedia of Quotations. 
The Cyclopedia of Practical Quotations, English and Latin, 
with an Appendix, containing Proverbs from the Latin and Modern 
Languages; Law and Ecclesiastical Terms and Significations ; 
Names, Dates and Nationality of Quoted Authors, etc., with Copious 
Indices. Contains 17,000 classified quotations and 50,000 lines of 
Concordance. By J. K. Hoyt and ANNA L. WARD. Royal 8vo, goo 
pp-, cloth, $5.00; sheep, $6.50 ; half mor., $8,00 ; full mor., $10,00, 


Rw The above works will be sent, post-paid, on receipt of price. 











10 PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &@ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. 


Deems Birthday Book. 

Selections from the Writings of Rev. CHARLES F. Drems, 
D.D,, LL.D., Pastor of the Church of Strangers, New York, Ar- 
ranged by SARAH KEaBLES Hunt, The book has for a frontispiece 
a very fine vignette portrait of Dr. Deems. Cloth, $1,00; gil 
edges, $1.25. 

Diary of a Minister’s Wife. 


By AtmepiA M. Brown. (Complete Edition.) 8vo, paper, 
30 cents; cloth, handsomely bound, $150, 


Drill Book in Vocal Culture. 


Drill Book in Vocal Culture and Gesture. Rev. Pror. 
EpwarD P. THWING, (Sixth Edition.) 12mo, paper, 115 pp., 25 cts. 


Eastern Proverbs and Emblems 
Illustrating Old Truths. Selected from over 1,000 volumes, 
some very rare, and to be consulted only in libraries in India, Russia, 
and other parts of the Continent, or inthe British Museum, All are 
classified under subjects. This book isa rich storehouse of emblems 
and proverbs. By Rev. A. Lonc, member of the Bengal Asiatic 
Society, 8vo, 280 pp., cloth, $1,00, 
Gathered Lambs; 
Showing how Jesus “the Good Shepherd” laid down His 


life for us, and how many little Lambs have been gathered into 
His fold. By Rev. Epwarp Payson HAMMOND, author of 
“ Child’s Guide,” etc. A book for children. 12mo, 176 pp., 
paper, Io cents ; cloth, 40 cents, 

Gems of Illustration. 

From the writings of Dr. THomas Gururte, classified and 
arranged, A priceless book for clergymen and ail public teachers, 
Second Edition, 8vo, 196 pp., cloth, $1.50. 

Giving or Entertainment; Which? 

A Clear, Concise Discussion on Church Entertainments in 
Contrast to Giving. By Rev. JosepH S, VAN DyKkE, author of 
“Through the Prison to the Throne,” etc, 1I2mo, 32 pp., paper, 
25 cents, ‘ 

Gospel by Mark, in Phonetie Spelling. 

The Gospel by Mark, in Phonetic Spelling. By C. W. K. 
Issued to illustrate the reform in spelling as suggested by an able 
advocate of this movement. Paper, 15 cents; cloth, 40 cents, 

Henry Ward Beecher. 

A Sketch of his Career, with analysis of his power as a 
Preacher, Lecturer, Orator, and Journalist, and incidents and 
reminiscences of his Life. By Lyman Axpsotr, D.D. Finely 
illustrated. 8vo, 600 pp., cloth, $3.00; sheep, $4.50; half morocco, 
$6,00 ; full morocco, gilt, $7.00; memorial copy, extra fine, $10,00, 

BS Send for tliustrated circular, 
The above works will be sent, post-paid, on receipt of price. 





PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &@ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. 11 


Statement of his Doctrinal Beliefs and Unbeliefs before 
the Congregational Association of New York and Brooklyn, Oc- 
tober 10, 1882, Paper Io cents, 


Heroes and Holidays. 

Talks and Stories about Heroes and Holidays. Short 
illustrated lectures to Boys and Girls by twenty-one preachers in 
United States and Great Britain, Edited by Rev. W. F, CRaFts, 
A.M. I2mo, 265 pp., cloth, $1.25. 


History of England. 

A Popular History of Society and Government in England 
from the Earliest period to the Present Times, By CHARLES 
KNIGHT, Tables of Contents, Index, Appendix, Notes and Let- 
terpress unabridged, 8 vols., 4to, paper, 1370 pp., $2.80; 2 vols., 
4to, cloth, $3.75; 4 vols., $4.40; I vol., sheep, €4.00; 2 vols., 
$5.00; 1 vol., Fr. im, morocco, $4.50; 2 vols,, $25.50. 

This is the most complete, and in every way the most desirable 
History of England ever wntten: The former price of this His- 
tory was $18,00 to $25.00, 


How to Enjoy Life. 

Clergymen’s and Students’ Health; or, Physical and Mental 
Hygiene, the True Way to Enjoy Life. By WiLL1AM MASON Cor- 
NELL, M.D, LL.D., Fellow of the Massachusetts Medical Society, 
Member of the American Medical Association. (/i/th £ditton), 
12m0, cloth, 360 pp., $1.00, 

Hymns for All Christians. 

Compiled by CuarLes F. Deems, D.D. LL.D., and Purse 

Cary. (fifth Edition). tamo, cloth, 75 cents. 
In Memoriam.—Wm. Cullen Bryant. 

A Funeral Oration. By Henry W. BELLows, D.D. 8vo, 
paper, Io cents, 

Is Romanism Good Enough for Romanists ? 

This is a sermon in tract form, very earnest, bristling with 
facts. It has excited already wide interest. By Justin D, FuLTon, 
D.D, Single number, 6 cents; 50 copies, $2.50 ; 100 copies, $4.00. 

Lothair. 

By Rt. Hon. B. DisRaE i, Earl of Beaconsfield, 2 vols., 

paper, 256 pp. 50 cents; 1 vol., 8vo, cloth, $1.co. 
Lectures by Pere Hyacinthe. 

‘©Respect for the Truth,” ‘“ Reformation of the Family.” 
“The Moral Crisis.’’ Translated from the French by Rev. Lzon- 
AED WOLSEY BACON. 8vo, paper, 15 cents. 

Leech’s Reply. 

An Incisive Reply to Ingersoll’s Attack on the Bible. By 

S. V. Leecu, D. D. 8vo, paper, 10 cents. 


' Ba The above works will be sent, post-paid, on receiph of price. 


13 PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &@ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. 


**My St. John.” 
A remarkable pastoral experience by JamMEs M. LupLow, 
D.D. “A most pathetic and interesting story, which has brought 
tears from many eyes.’”” 32mo, I0C.; 50 copies, $3.50; 100, $6. 


Pastor’s Record. 
For Study, Work, Appointments and Choir for one year. 
By Rev. W.T. WYLIE, 12mo, paper, 50 c.; cloth, 75, leather, $4. 


Robert Raikes’ Centennial Addresses. 
Delivered at the Raikes Centennial Celebration, by Rev. 
Drs. J. P. Newman, Thos. Armitage, Rufus W. Clark, Chas. S. 
Robinson, R. S. Storrs; and others. 8vo, paper, 10 cents. 


Rock that is Higher than I. 
This is a beautiful gift book suitable at all seasons. By 
Rev. JOHN EDGAR JOHNSON. 8vo, cloth, 75 cents. 


Sartor Resartus. : 
The Life and Opinions of Herr Teufelsdrockh. By 
THOMAS CARLYLE. Paper, 176 pp., 25 cents; 8vo, cloth, 60 cents, 


Standard Hymns. 
With Biographical Notes of their Authors, Compiled by 
Prof. Ep. P, THWING. 1!2mo, paper, 6c.; fifty or more, Sc. each. 


Talks to Boys and Girls about Jesus. 
With Bible Links to make a Complete and Chronological 
Life of Christ for the Young. Edited by Rev. W. F. Crarts. 
12mo, 400 pp, cloth, 75 cents, illustrated, $1.50. 


Talks to Farmers. 
A new book of nineteen Addresses to Farmers. 12mo0, 360 
pp., cloth, $1.00, By Rev. CHARLES H. SPURGEON. 


Traps for the Young. | 
A new, thrilling, but prudent description of the author’s 
adventures with crime, and in bringing the victims to justice. <A 
book for parents, divested of all improper: language or representa- 
tions, By ANTHONY ComMsTocK, of the Society for the Suppres- 
sion of Vice, uthor of ‘Frauds Exposed.” 12mo, cloth, $1.00. 


Wall Street in History. 


Giving the History of this Street from Colonial Times to the 
resent date. By MARTHA J. Lams, author of “ History of New 
ork,” editor of ‘‘ Magazine of American History,” Copiously 

illustrated ; 4to, cloth, $2.00. 


What our Girls Ought to Know. 

A book of practical hygiene for girls, containing excellent 
advice and va'uable information. The author was a physician 
of large practice; a graduate, resident physician and teacher of 
Natural Sciences, in the Mass. State Normal School; graduate of 
the Woman's Medical College, New York. t2mo, 261 pp.,cloth, $1, 

Ma The above works twill be sent, post paid, on receipt cf prick. 





PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. 


The Standard Series. 


Best Books for a Trifle, printed in readable type, on fair paper, and in manilla, 
wholly without abridgment except Nos. 6-7,9-10. All Books with star(*) (15 
vols.) are also bound one volume, cloth, $3.50. Ma Books with dagger (t) are 
oe bound separately in cloth. Bee prices elsewhere. ' 





*]. John Ploughman’s Talk. C.. 
H. Spurgeon. Carlyle on 
Choice of Books. 4to. 

#3, Manliness of Christ. Thomas 
Hughes. 4to.. ee 

8. Essays. Lord Macaulay. dto. 

4. Light of Asia. E. Arnold. 4to. 

*5. Imitation of Christ. Thomas 
a& Kempis. 4to...... 

*6.-7. Life of Christ. Canon Far- 
rar. 4to. 

Eesays. Thomas Carlyle. Ato. 
09.10. Life and Work of St ae 
Canon Farrar. 4to, bota.. 

#11. Self -Culture. Prof. J. 
Blackie. 4to. weweceom 

12-19. Koight’s Populer History 

of d. 4to, both...... 

20-21. Ruskin’s Letters to Work- 
men and Laborers 4to both, 

22. Idyls of the King. Alfred 
Tennyson. 4to _......... 

98. Life of Rowland Hill. Rev. 
V. J. Charlesworth. 4to ... 

%. Town Geology: Chatios 
Kingsley. 

25. Alfred ie ger “Thos. 
Hughes. 4to.. Gtetalahae muah 

26. Ou oor Life in Europe, Rev. 
E. P. Evrae: Peep eoseeee 


37. Calamities of Authors. IL D’- 
Israeli. 4t0.... 1... cece ewes 

28. 8alon of Madame Necker. 
Part 1. 4to.. es eeoeneee 


29. Ethics of the "Dust. John 
Ruskin. @eseee58 eeseer+eseeea @- 
30-31. Maniccicn of My Exile. 


°33. Mister Horn and His Friends, 
Tlustrated. Ato 
ica Orations of Demosthenes. 


85. rons Agrestes. ‘John Bus 
86. Joan of Arc. Alphonse de 
Lamartine. 4to............ 
37. Thoughts of ML Aurelius An- 
toninus. 4to...........-.6.. 
08 Balon of Madame Necker. 
Part 11. 4to......... w.ccce 
$9. The Hermits. 
ley. 40... ccccsccrcocccecee 
40. John Ploughman’ 6 5 ccuree: 
CO. H. 8pu 
*41. _ 7 


say. 
42. Bible and Newanee Oo. H. 
urgeon. dto..... ea eiece ss 
43. mn. Kev. 0. Colton. 


Both $0 12 


10 


S 8S & && 


rary 
C—] 


SeeRSBsBSREaBS B 


0 
16 
20 


45. America Revisited. 
Augustus Sala. 4to........ 

46. Life of C. H. Spurgeon. &vo 
147. John Calvin. M. Guizot. 4to 
$48-49 Dickens’ pr hea ae 
Dlustrated. §Svo.. 


" ligion. BVO sass isis Scntsees 
151-52. Godet’s po ncora Gan 
Luke. Ed. by Dr. John 

Svo, 2 parts, both....... . 
+63. Diary of a Minister's Wife. 


$057 Van Doren’s Suggestive 
Commentary on Lune. New 
edition, enlarged. 8vo...... 

t68. Diary of a Minister's Wife, 
Part Il. 8vo .......... 


“Carlyle. 4to........-....5.. 
t61-62. Lothair. Lord Beacons- 
field. 8v0.......... 


_63.The Persian Queen and 


Other Pictures of Truth. Rev. 

E. P. Thwing, 8vo.......... 

64. 8alon of Madame 

Part ITT. 4to.......0.. cee 

765-66. The Popular History of 

Ta h Bible Translation. 
.Conant. 8vo. both.. 

67. Tacerecil Answered. Joseph 
Parker. D. D. 8vo..... .. 

+68-69, Nighes 6 Ba Mark. D. 0. 
es. Svo.intwo parts.. 

10. Job’s Comftorter’s. A Reli- 

gous Satire. Joseph Parker, 

D. (London.) 16mo .. . 

f71. Reviser’s Englieb. G. Wasb- 

ington Moon. F.B.8.L. 12mo0 

t72. The Conversion of Children 

Rev. Ed. P Hammond. 12mo 

73. New Testament Helps. Rev. 

W. F. Crafts. S8vo.......... 

74. Opium—England’s Coercive 

Etres' f Rev. J. Liggins. 8vo. 

of Jesus. Rev, Wm. A, 

With introduction by 

P. Hammond. 12mo.. 
76. Lesson in the Closct. Chas. 
Deems, D.D. 12mo.. 

177-18; Heroes and Holidays, 
Rev. W. F. Crafts. 12mo, 2 

ts., Doth............6. eawea’s 

79. iniscences of Rev. Ly- 

man Beecher, D.D. 8vo.... 


Ma The above works will be sent, post paid, on receigh of price. 


1d 





3 00 


15 


& 


>’ 885 8&8 & 


BS 85 


14 


PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &@ WAGNALLS, NEW YORE. 





The Standard Library, 1883. 


Previous Numbers (1-79) of this Library are known as STANDAED SERIES. 


The 


81. 


ef 


84. 


86. 


"Or 


set (26 books), 


ager, $5.00; cheap cloth, $10.00; fine ig paper, 


Fa 
$16.00. 26 adsustable covers, with name of cach book on 
U/or paper edition), $2.75 ; single cover, 15¢. 
May All books of this series are 12mo in size. 


Oliver Cromwell. His Life, 
Times, Battlefields and Con- 
temporaries. By PAXTON 
Hoop, author of *‘ Christmas 
Evans,” etc. Paper, 25 cents, 
cloth, $1.00. . 
Science in Short Chapters, 
By W. MatTrigzu WILLIAMS, 
F.R.A.S. Author of ‘‘ Fuel 
of the Sun,” etc. A leading 
scientist in England. 312 pp. 
Paper, 25 cents, cloth, $1.00. 


American Humorists. By 
Rev. H. R. Hawes, M.A. A 
distinguished clergyman of 
London. Author otf ‘‘ Music 
and Morals, etc. 192 pp. 
Paper, 15 cents, fine cloth, 75c. 


Lives of Illustrious Shoe- 
makers, By WILLIAM Ep- 
WaRD Links. A book of 
“Self Help.’’ 288 pp. Pa- 
per, 25 cents, fine cloth, $1.00. 


Flotsam and Jetsam. A 
Yachtsman's Experiences at 
Sea ana Ashore. By THos. 
GIBSON BOWLES, Master Ma- 
rine. 276 pp. Paper, 25 
cents, fine cloth, $1 oo. 


ighways of Literature. 
hat to Read and How 
to Read. By Davip Prypk, 
M.A., LL.D. Author of 
‘‘Great Men of European 
History,” etc. 168 pp. Pa- 
per, I§ cents, fine cloth, 75c. 


Colin Clout’s Calendar. 
The Record of a Summer— 
April to October. By Grant 
ALLEN, author of “ Vignettes 


87, 


89 


90 


of Nature,” etc. 235 pp. 
Paper, 25 cents, clot h,§1.0o. 


The Essays of George 
Eliot. Collected and - 
ranged, with an Introduction 
to her “ Analysis of Motives.” 
By NATHAN SHEPPARD, au- 
thor of ‘Readings from 
George Eliot,” etc. Paper, 
25 cents, fine cloth, $1.00. 


Charlotte Bronte. An 
Hour with Charlotte Bronté; 
or, Flowers from a Yorkshire 
Moor. By Laura C. Hot- 
LOWAY, author of ‘* Mothers 
of Great Men and Women,” 
etc. 156 pp. Paper, 35 cents; 
fine cloth, with steel engray ing 
of Charlotte Bronté, 75 cents. 


Sam Hobart. The Loco- 
motive Engineer. A work- 
ingman’s Solution of the 
Labor Problem. By JusTIN 
D. Futon, D.D, 255 pp. 
Paper, 25 cents, cloth, $1.00. 


Successful Men of To-Day, 
and what they Say of Success. 
Based on facts and opinions 
gathered from Five Hundred 
Prominent Men. By Rev. 
WI LeuRr F. Crarts, A.M. A 
Book of Self Help. 276 pp. 
Paper, 25 cents, cloth, $1.00. 


91. Nature Studies. By Grant 


ALLEN, ANDREW WILSON, 
THOMAS FOosTER, EpWarRD 
CLoop and RICHARD A. 
Procror. AQ sterling vol- 
ume. 264 pp. Paper, 25 
cents, fine cloth, $1.00, 


BB The whove works will be sent, post-paid, on receipt of price, 





PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORE. 15 





92. India: What can it Teach 
Us? A course of lectures de- 
livered before the University 
of Cambridge. By F. MAx 
MiiLter, K.M. With an In- 
troduction and Notes by 
Prof. Alexander Wilder, M.D. 
288 pp. Paper, 25 cents, fine 
cloth, $1.00. 

A Winter in India. By 
Rt. Hon. W. E. BAXTER, 
M.P. A fascinating story of 
a journey through India. 
With map. 154 pp. Paper, 
15 cents, fine cloth, 75 cents. 


Scottish Characteristics. 
By Paxton Hoop, Author of 
“Oliver Cromwell,” “ Christ- 
mas Evans,’ etc. 315 pp. 
Paper, 25 cents, fine cloth, 
$1.00. 

95. Histcrical and Other 

Sketches. By JAMES AN- 

THONY FROUDE. Edited with 

an Introduction by David H. 

Wekeeler, LL.D. 288 PP. 

Paper, 25 cents, fine cloth, 

$1.60. 

Jewish Artisan Life in 

the Time of Jesus. By Prof. 

FRANZ DELITSCH.  Trans- 

' lated from the Jatest German 
edition, by Bernhard Pick, 
Ph.D. Paper, 15 cents, fine 
cloth, 75 cents. 

97. Scientific Sophisms, A re 
view of current Theories, con- 
cerning Atoms, Apes and 
Men. By SAMUEL WAIN- 
WRIGHT, D.D., author of 
**Christian Certainty,” etc. 
Paper, 25 cents, fine cleth, 
£1.00. 

98. Illustrations and Medita- 

tions; or, Flowers from a 

Puritans Garden, distilled 

and dispensed by C. H. Spur- 

GEON. Paper, 25 cents, fine 

cloth, $1.00. 


93 


94 


96 


99. French Celebrities. Part 
- Brief Biographies of Mar 
shal De MacMahon, Leon 
Gambetta, Jules Grévy, Louis 
Blanc, Charles De Freycinet, 
Victor Hugo, Ferdinand De 
Lesseps. By ERNEST DAU- 
DET, and others. Paper, 15 
cents, fine cloth, 75 cents. 


100. By-Ways of Literature. 
Or Essays on Old Things and 
New, in the Customs, Educa- 
tion, Character, Literature, 
and Language of the English- 
speaking People. By DAVID 
H. WHEELER, LL.D. Paper, 
25 cents, fine cloth, $1.00. 


101. Martin Luther. His Life 
and Times. By Dr. WILLIAM 
REIN, Ejisenach, Germany. 
Based upon Késtlin’s “Life 
of Luther.” Translated. Pa- 
per, 25 cents, cloth, $1.00. 


102. French Celebrities Part 
II, Brief Biographies of 
Jules Ferry, George Clemen- 
ceau, Emest Renan, Henri 
Rochefort, Challemel, Lacour, 
Jules Simon, Erckman-Chat- 
rian, Paul Bert, and Alphonse 
Daudet. By JuLES CLARETIE, 
and others. Paper, 15 cents, 
fine cloth, 75 cents. 


103. Christmas in a Palace. 
A traveler's story by Ep- 
WARD EvEretTT HALE, I2mo. 
Paper, 25 cents, fine cloth, 
$1 00; Holiday edition, cloth, 
£1.00. 


104. With the Poets. A selec- 
tion of English poetry. By 
CANON FARRAR. Paper, 25 
cents, cloth, $1.00. 


105. The Life of Zwingli. The 
Swiss Reformer. By JEAN 
Gros. Translated. Paper 


25 cents, cloth, $1.00. 


Rar The above works will be sent, post patd, on recetpt of price. 


PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORE. 





Che Standard Pibrary, 1884. 


ISSUED BI-WEEKLY. 


Set, 26 Books in Paper, $5; Adjustable Covers (#6) with name of 
each book on back, $2.75. Set, 36 Books, in cheap Cloth, 
$10. Set, 86 Books, fine Cloth, extra paper, $16. 


Announcement. 


4. The Standard Library, 1884 
Sertes, will contain 26 books, one 
to be tssued every twoweeks. The 
paper, binding, etc., will be the 
same as ** 1883 Series.” 

2. Some nine of the books will be 
Action, by many of the ablest of our 
writers; the other books will be, 
also, all new—not heretofore pub- 
lished tn America, 

3. Each book will be s2mo in 
size, with clear type, gbod paper, 


Prices:—Paper, 15c. 


and bound in signatures (not inset), 
the same as csoth books are bound, 

¢. The books will be bound tn 
heavy cover paper, with artistic de- 
sign printed in two colors, making 
the book an ornament for any par- 
lor table. 

5. The books will stand erect om 
the Library shelf the same as a2 
cloth-bound book. THE TITLE 
will be PRINTED ON THE BACK, 
also on the side. 


and 25c. per volume; cloth, 7§¢. and $1.00. 


Subscription (26 Books), paper, $5.00; cloth, $16.00. 
2B" Send for “ Standard Library” Catalogue. 


106. Story, of the Merv. Epi- 
mized from the ‘ Merv 


Oasia.” by the author, Ep- 
MOND O’DONOVAN. A Story 
of travel in Central Asia. 
_&2mo, paper, 25 cents; fine 
cloth, $1.00, 

107. Mumu and the ne Diary ot of 
a Superflueus 


Novels. By oe Turce- 
NIEFF. Translated from the 
Russian, 1I2mo, paper, 15 


cents; fine cloth, 75 cents. 


108. Memorie and Rime. A 
story of Western Life, sketches 
of travel in Europe, and va 
rious poems. By JOAQUIN 
MILLER. I2mo, paper, 25 
cents; cloth, $1.00, 


109. Christianity Triumphant. 
Its defensive and aggressive 
victories. By J. P. NEWMAN, 
D.D. 1!2mo0, paper, I5 cents; 
fine cloth, 75 cents, 





NEW BOOKS BY 


JULIAN HAWTHORNE, 
JOAQUIN MILLER, 


EORGE P. LAT at tg 
» Etc. 


EDWARD EVERETT HALE, 


 bediaey HARBERTON, 
Capt. ROLAND COFFIN, 


Digitized by Google 


Digitized by Google 


Digitized by Google 





MICHIGAN 


uN 


110 1457