Skip to main content

Full text of "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans"

See other formats


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 maiginalia 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 tliis resource, we liave 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 fivm 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 attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming 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 liabili^ 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 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 

The International Critical Commentary 





•y THm UCT. 


uuyr MASGAKBT HtorsHOft or DivDtmr, and 




nttMClrAL or kimo's colxbcb, lomooh 



^'v. SL 

First Edition . . September 1895 

Fifth Edition . December 1902 

,, „ . Latest Reprint 1962 



The commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans 
which already exist in English, unlike those on some other 
Books of the New Testament, are so good and so varied 
that to add to their number may well seem superfluous. 
Fortunately for the present editors the responsibility for 
attempting this does not rest with them. In a series of 
commentaries on the New Testament it was impossible 
that the Epistle to the Romans should not be included 
and should not hold a prominent place. There are few 
books which it is more difficult to exhaust and few in 
regard to which there is more to be gained from renewed 
interpretation by different minds working under different 
conditions. If it is a historical fact that the spiritual 
revivak of Christendom have been usually associated with 
closer study of the Bible, this would be true in an eminent 
degree of the Epistle to the Romans. The editors are 
under no illusion as to the value of their own special con- 
tribution, and they will be well content that it should find 
its proper level and be assimilated or left behind as it 

Perhaps the nearest approach to anything at all dis- 
tinctive in the present edition would be (i) the distribution 
of the subject-matter of the commentary, (2) the attempt 
to furnish an interpretation of the Epistle which might be 
described as historical. 

Some experience in teaching has shown that if a diffioUt 


Epistle like the Romans is really to be understood and 
grasped at once as a whole and in its parts, the argument 
should be presented in several diflferent ways and on several 
different scales at the same time. And it is an advantage 
when the matter of a commentary can be so broken up that 
by means of headlines, headings to sections, summaries, 
paraphrases, and large and small print notes, the reader 
may not either lose the main thread of the argument in the 
crowd of details, or slur over details in seeking to obtain 
a general idea. While we are upon this subject, we may 
explain that the principle which has guided the choice of 
large and small print for the notes and longer discussions 
is not exactly that of greater or less importance, but rather 
that of greater or less directness of bearing upon the 
exegesis of the text. This principle may not be carried 
out with perfect uniformity : it was an experiment the 
effect of which could not always be judged until the 
commentary was in print ; but when once the type was 
set the possibility of improvement was hardly worth the 
trouble and expense of resetting. 

The other main object at which we have aimed is that 
of making our exposition of the Epistle historical, that is 
of assigning to it its true position in place and time— on 
the one hand in relation to contemporary Jewish thought, 
and on the other hand in relation to the growing body of 
Christian teaching. We have endeavoured always to bear 
in mind not only the Jewish education and training of the 
writer, which must clearly have given him the framework 
of thought and language in which his ideas are cast, but 
also the position of the Epistle in Christian literature. It 
was written when a large part of the phraseology of the 
newly created body was still fluid, when a number of words 
had not yet come to have a fixed meaning, when their 
origin and associations — to us obscure — were still fresh 
and vivid. The problem which a commentator ought to 
propose to himself in the fiist instance is not what answer 



cfoes the Epistle give to questions which are occupying 
•ncn's minds now, or which have occupied them in any 
past period of Church history, but what were the questions 
of the time at which the Epistle was written and what 
meaning did his words and thoughts convey to the writer 

It is in the pursuit of this original meaning that we have 
drawn illustrations somewhat freely from Jewish writings, 
both from the Apocryphal literature which is mainly the 
product of the period between loo B.C. and loo A.D., and 
(although less fully) from Eater Jewish literature. In the 
former direction we have been much assisted by the 
attention which has been bestowed in recent years on 
these writings, particularly by the excellent editions of the 
Psalms of Solomon and of the Book of Enoch. It is by 
a continuous and careful study of such works that any 
•draacc in the exegesis of the New Testament will be 
possible For the later Jewish literature and the teaching 
of the Rabbis we have found ourselves in a position of 
greater difficulty. A first-hand acquaintance with this 
literature we do not possess, nor would it be easy for most 
stiHlents of the New Testament to acquire it. Moreover 
complete agreement among the specialists on the subject 
does not as yet exist, and a perfectly trustworthy standard 
of criticism seems to be wanting. We cannot therefore feel 
altogether confident of our ground. At the same time we 
have used such material as was at our disposal, and cer- 
tainly to ourselves it has been of great assistance, partly as 
suggesting the common origin of systems of thought which 
have developed very difTerently. partly by the striking 
contrasts which it has afforded to Christian teaching. 

Our object is historical and not dogmatic Dogmatics 
are indeed excluded by the plan of this series of commen- 
taries, but they are excluded also by the conception which 
we have formed for ourselves of our duty as commentators. 
We have soueht before all things to understand St. Paul, 


and to understand him not only in relation to his sur- 
roundings but also to those permanent facts of human 
nature on which his system is based. It is possible that 
in so far as we may succeed in doing this, data may be 
supplied which at other times and in other hands may be 
utilized for purposes of dogmatics ; but the final adjust- 
ments of Christian doctrine have not been in our thoughts. 

To this general aim all other features of the commentary 
are subordinate. It is no part of our design to be in the 
least d^ree exhaustive. If we touch upon the history of 
exegesis it is less for the sake of that history in itself than 
as helping to throw into clearer relief that interpretation 
which we believe to be the right one. And in like manner 
we have not made use of the Epistle as a means for 
illustrating New Testament grammar or New Testament 
diction, but we deal with questions of grammar and diction 
just so far as they contribute to the exegesis of the text 
before us. No doubt there will be omissions which are not 
to be excused in this way. The literature on the Epistle 
to the Romans is so vast that we cannot pretend to have 
really mastered it. We have tried to take account of 
monographs and commentaries of the most recent date, 
but here again when we have reached what seemed to us 
a satisfactory explanation we have held our hand. In 
regard to one book in particular, Dr. Bruce's St. Paul's 
Conception of Christianity, which came out as our own 
work was far advanced, we thought it best to be quite 
independent. On the other hand we have been glad to 
have access to the sheets relating to Romans in Dr. Hort's 
forthcoming Introductions to Romans and Ephesians, which, 
through the kindness of the editors, have been in our 
possession since December last. 

The Commentary and the Introduction have been about 
equally divided between the two editors ; but they have 
each been carefully over the work of the other, and they 
desire to accept a joint responsibility for the whole. The 


editors themselves are conscious of having gained much 
by this co-operation, and they hope that this gain may be 
set oflT against a certain amount of unevenness which was 

It only remains for them to express theii obligations and 
thanks to those many friends who have helped them 
directly or indirectly in various parts of the work, and 
more especially to Dr. Plummer and the Rev. F. E. 
Brightman of the Pusey House. Dr. Plummer, as editor 
of the series, has read through the whole of the Com- 
mentary more than once, and to his courteous and careful 
criticism they owe much. To Mr. Brightman they are 
indebted for spending upon the proof-sheets of one half of 
the Commentary greater care and attention than many men 
have the patience to bestow on work of their own. 

The reader is requested to note the table of abbreviations 
on p. ex ff., and the explanation there given as to the 
Greek text made use of in the Commentary. Some addi- 
tional references are given in the Index (p. 444 ff). 

Oxnmo, WkHsMMtide, 1895. 



We are indebted to the keen sight and disinterested 
care of friends for many small corrections. We desire to 
thank especially Professor Lock, Mr. C. H. Turner, the 
Revs. F. E. Brightman^ W. O. Burrows, and R. B. Rackham. 
References have been inserted, where necessary, to the 
edition of 4 Ezra by the late Mr. Bensly, published in 
Tex/s and Studies, iii. 2. No more extensive recasting 
of the commentary has been attempted. 

OxroKO, Ltnt, 1896k 


The demand for a new Edition has come upon us so 
suddenly in the midst of other work, that we have again 
confined ourselves to small corrections, the knowledge of 
which we owe to the kindness of many friends and critics. 
We have especially to thank Dr. Carl Clemen of Halle, 
not only for a useful and helpful review in the Theo 
logische Literaturzeitung, No. a6, Nov. 7, 1896, p. 590, but 
also for privately communicating to us a list of misprints. 
We have also to thank the Rev. H. T. Purchas of New 
Zealand, Mr. John Humphrey Barbour of the U.S.A., 
and the Rev. C. Plummer for corrections and suggestions. 
We should like also to refer to an article in the Expositor 
(Vol. IV, 1896, p. 124) by the late Rev. J. Barmby, on Th$ 
Meaning of the 'Righteousness of God' in the Epistle to ik$ 
Romans^ in which he works out more fully the opinions to 
which we referred on p. 24. We are glad again to express 
our obligations to him and our sense of the loss of one who 
was a vigorous and original worker both in Church History 
and in New Testament Exegesis. 

We can only now chronicle the appearance of the first 

volume of the elaborate Einleitung in das N, 71 (Leipzig, 

1897) of Dr. Zahn, which discusses the questions relating 

to the Epistle with the writer's accustomed thoroughness 

and learning, a new improved' edition of the Einleitung kA 

Dr. B. Weiss, and an edition of the Greek text of the 

Pauline Epistles with concise commentary by the same 

author. Both these works have appeared during the present 

year. The volume of essays dedicated to Dr. B. Weiss 

on his seventieth birthday, TheoU Studien &*c. (Gottingen, 

1897), contains two papers which have a bearing upon the 

Epistle, Zur paulinisc/ien Thiodicie by Dr. Ernst Kiihl, and 

Beitrdge zurpaulin. Rhetorik by Dr. J oh. Weiss. We should 

hope to take account of these and other works if at tome 

future time we are permitted to undertake a fuller revision 

of our commentary. 


A« C« H« 

OzPORD. DtefmbiTf x89> 


Once more the call for a new edition has come upon 
OS suddenly, and at a time when it would not be 
possible for either of us to devote much attention to it. 
But apart from this, it would be equally true of both of 
08 that our thoughts and studies have of late travelled so 
br from the Epistle to the Romans that to come back to 
it would be an effort, and would require more leisure 
than we are likely to have for some years to come. We 
are well aware that much water has flowed under the 
bridge since we wrote, and that many problems would 
have to be faced afresh if a searching revision of our work 
were attempted. 

As we cannot undertake this at present, it may be right 
that we should at least suggest to the reader where he 
may go for further information. 

A very excellent and thorough survey of the whole 
•abject will be found in the article ' Romans ' in Hastings' 
Dictionary of thi Bible by Dr. A. Robertson. The corre- 
sponding article in the Encyclopaedia Biblica has not yet 
appeared. For more detailed exegesis the most important 
recent event b probably the appearance (in 1899) of the 
ninth edition of Meyer's Commentary by Dr. B. Weiss, who 
has done us the honour to include systematic reference to 
our own work. In any revision of this it would be our first 
duty to give to the points on which Dr. Weiss differs from 
OS renewed consideration. In English the most consider- 
able recent commentary is Dr. Denney's in the Expositor s 
Greek Testament (1900). There is also a thoughtful and 
useful Uttle commentary in the Century Bible by A. E. 

Perhaps the most conspicuous of the problems raised 
by the Epistle, which have been or are being carried on 
beyond the point at which we had left them, would be 


(i) the question as to the meaning of the * righteousness 
of God' in i. 17^ &c. Something was said on this subject 
in the New Testament portion of the article * God ' in 
Hastings' Dictionary', ii. aio-i», where reference is made 
to an interesting tract by Dalman, Die richterliche Gerech- 
tigkeit im A, T. (Berh'n, 1897), and to other literature. 
Something also was said in the Journal of Theological 
Studies^ i. 4860*., ii. 198 fT. And the question is again 
raised by Dr. James Drummond in the first number of the 
Hibbert Journal^ pp. 83-95. This paper is to be con- 
tinued; and the subject is sure to be heard of further, 
(ii) Another leading problem is that as to the relation of 
St Paul to the Jewish Law, on which perhaps the most 
important recent contributions have been those by SiefTert 
(' Die Entwicklungslinie d. paulin. Gesetzeslehre nach den 
4 Hauptbriefen d. Apost.*) in the volume of Studies in 
honour of B. Weiss (Gottingen, 1897) and by P. Peine 
{Dcu gesetzesfreie Evangelium d. Paulus, Leipzig, 1899). 
(iii) A third deeply important question is being much 
agitated at the present time ; viz. that as to the exact 
nature and significance of the ' Mystical Union ' described 
in Rom. vi and viii. This is even more a question of 
Biblical and Dogmatic Theology than of Exegesis, and it 
is from this side that it is being discussed in such books 
as Dr. Moberly's Atonement and Personality (1901), Mr. 
Wilfrid Richmond's Essay on Personality as a Philoso- 
phical Principle (190c), and more incidentally in several 
works by Dr. W. R. Inge, (iv) Various questions raised 
in the Introduction are discussed in Dr. Moffatt's Historical 
New Testament (Edinburgh, 1901). 

Two more general subjects are receiving special atten- 
tion at the present time. One of these is the his- 
torical position and character of New Testament Greek, on 
which much new light is thrown by the study of inscrip- 
tions and of the mass of recently discovered papyrL We 
associate these studies especially with the names of 
G. A. Deissmann, whose Bible Studies have recently been 

Eo^^A (Ecfiabcrgh, 1901)^ A. ThiunlK 

It is die ks aecessinr to 

as mn cxccUent account is 

dooe in a series of papefs by 

in die Eifmtitmy Tumts. voL xu (1901 V 

a p io D C cr of the newer moire- 

wish his JTii r* j 0/ Xew Ttstmwumt Gr^tlt^ 

i^5V We ought not howeTer to forget the 

of Dr. Hatch. Essmrs m Biilicmt Gr^i 

1SS91 vhich was really at the time in advance 

lescardi on the Continent. 

sobject might be described as the Rhetoric 
Xev Testament. A comprehensive treatment of 
ihftmi i ' j l prose in general has been undertaken 
hy ProC E. Norden of Brcslau in Du mmliJkf KiOis^frfum 
(Lagscg, i8^y Dr. Norden devotes pp. 451-510 to an 
asalvBS of style in the New Testament, and also pa>*s 
ipccal attention to the later Christian writers, both Gie^ 
sad T^trn. The 'Rhetoric of St. Paul' in particxilar is 
the s-jDJect ol a monograph by Dr. Johannes Weiss in the 
inoiome dedicated to his father. Nor should we close this 
mrrey without a special word of commendation for TAi 
JUiMfum of St. Piod to Omtemporary Jewish Thmght by 
Mr. H. St. John Thackeray (London, 1900). 

For the rest we must leave our book to take its place, 
floch as it is, in the historical development of literature on 
the Epistle. 


A. C* la* 


— 99 


4 I. Rome in A. D. 58 •••••••.. xiii 

3. The Jews in Rome ••#••»• zviii 

3. The Roman Church • • xzv 

4. Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose • • • zxzvi 
$. Argument xliv 

6. Language and Style ••••••• lii 

7. Text • • bdii 

8. Literary History •••••••• faodv 

9. Integrity .«•••••• .Izxzv 

la Commentaries ••••••• .xcviii 

Abbreviations •••••••• cx-cxii 


Dbtacubd Notes: 
The Theological Termhiology of Rom. 1. 1-7 • • • 17 

The word diiuuos and its cognates 28 

The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in some 

Jewish Writings 31 

The Righteousness of God 34 

St. Paal*s Description of the Condition of the Heathen 

World 49 

Useof the Book of Wisdom in Chapter! . • • • 51 
The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice • • . 91 
The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by 

St James los 

Jewish Teaching on Circumcision 108 

The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of 

St Paul 116 

Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of 

Justification? i3a 


The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement • • • .129 
The Effects of Adam's Fall in Jewish Theology • • .136 

St. Paul's Conception of Sin and of the Fall . • • • 143 
History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of 

dticatMo-ftr 147 

The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ • • .162 

The Inward Conflict 184 

St. Paul's View of the Law 187 

The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit • • • . 199 

The Renovation of Nature 210 

The Privileges of Israel 232 

The Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5 233 

The Divine Election 248 

The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament • • . 257 

The Power and Rights of God as Creator . • . . 266 

The Relation of St. Paul's Argument in chap, ix to the Book 

of Wisdom 267 

A History of the Interpretation of Rom. ix. 6-29 . • • 269 

^ The Argument of ix. 30-x. 21 : Human Responsibility • 300 

St. Paul's Use of the Old Testament 302 

The Doctrine of the Remnant 316 

The Merits of the Fathers 330 

, The Argument of Romans ix>xl 341 

St. Paul's Philosophy of History 342 

The Salvation of the Individual : Free- Will and Predesti- 
nation 347 

Spiritual Gifts 358 

The Church and the Civil Power 369 

The History of the word aydnti 374 

The Christian Teaching on Love 376 

The early Christian belief in the nearness of the vapowrim • 379 

The relation of Chapters xii-xiv to the Gospels . • .381 

What sect or party is referred to in Rom. xiv? • • • 399 

Aquila and Priscilla 418 


I Subjects ••••«••• 437 

II Latin Words • . 443 

III Greek Words • 443 



§ I. Rome in a.o. 58. 

It was during the winter 57-58, or early in the spring of the 
year 58, according to almost all csdculations, that St. Paul wrote 
his Epi^e to the Romans, and that we thus obtain the first trust- 
worthy information about the Roman Church. Even if there be 
some slight error in the calculations, it is in any case impossible 
that this date can be fan wrong, and the Epistle must certainly 
have been written during the early years of Nero's reign. It would 
be unwise to attempt a full account either of the city or the empire 
at this date, but for the illustration of the Epistle and for the 
comprehension of Sl Paul's own mind, a brief reference to a few 
leading features in the history of each is necessary ^ 

For certainly St Paul was influenced by the name of Rome. In 
Rome, great as it is, and to Romans, he wishes to preach the 
Gospel : he prays for a prosperous journey that by the will of God 
he may come unto them : he longs to see them : the universality 
of the Gospel makes him desire to preach it in the universal city . 
And the impression which we gain from the Epistle to the 
Romans is supported by our other sources of information. The 
desire to visit Rome dominates the close of the Acts of the 
Apostles : ' After I have been there, I must also see Rome.' ' As 
thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness 
also at Rome *.' The imagery of citizenship has impressed itself 
upon his language ^ And this was the result both of his experience 
and of his birth. Wherever Christianity had been preached the 
Roman authorities had appeared as the power which restrained 

> The main Mithorititfl used for thii section are Fameaax, 7^ Annah 9f 
TaeUutt vol. ii, and Schiller, Geschickts du Romuchin Kaissimuht umitf 
Itr Rtgurmng du Ntro. 

* Rom. i 8-1 5. 

* Acts six. ai ; ndlL 11. 

* Pldl. L211 iii }o; Eph. ii. 19: Acts xxiii i. 


the forces of evil opposed to it *. The worst persecution of the 
Christians had been while Judaea was under the rule of a native 
prince. Everywhere the Jews had stirred up persecutions, and 
the imperial officials had interfered and protected the Apostle. 
And so both in this Epistle and throughout his life St. Pau.' 
emphasizes the duty of obedience to the civil government, and the 
necessity of fulfilling our obligations to it. But also St. JPaul was 
himself a Roman citizen. This privilege, not then so common as 
it became later, would naturally broaden ihe view and impress the 
imagination of a provincial ; and it is significant that the first clear 
conception of the universal character inherent in Christianity, the 
first bold step to carry it out, and the capacity to realize the import- 
ance of the Roman Church should come from an Apostle who was 
not a Galilaean peasant but a citizen of a universal empire. ' We 
cannot fail to be siruck with the strong hold that Roman ideas had 
on the mind of St. Paul,' writes Mr. Ramsay, ' we feel compelled 
to suppose that St. Paul had conceived the great idea of Christianity 
as the religion of the Roman world ; and that he thought of the 
various districts and countries in which he had preached as parts of 
the grand unity. He had the mind of an organizer ; and to him 
the Christians of his earliest travels were not men of Iconium and 
of Antioch — they were a part of the Roman world, and were 
addressed by him as such '.' 

It was during the early years of Nero's reign that St Paul first 
came into contact with the Roman Church. And the period is 
significant. It was what later times called the Quinquennium of 
Nero, and remembered as the happiest period of the Empire since 
the death of Augustus *. Nor was the judgement unfounded. It is 

' s Thess. ii 7 ^ itarix'"*^% ^ ^^ icarixf^v. It is well known that the 
commonest interpretation of these words among the Fathers was the Roman 
Empire (see the Caiina of passages in Alford, lii. p. 56 ff.), and this accords 
most suitably with the time when the Epistle was written {c. 53 A.D.). The 
only argument of any valae for a later date and the nnanthentic character of 
the whole Epistle or of the eschatological sections (iL i-ia) is the attempt to 
explain this passage of the return of Nero, but such an interpretation is (juite 
unnecessary, and does not particularly suit the words. St. Paul's experience 
had taught him that there were lying restrained and checked great forces of 
evil which might at any time burst out, and this he calls the 'mystery of 
iniquity,' and describes in the language of the O. T. prophets. But everywhere 
the power of the civil government, as embodied in the Roman Empire (rd 
icor^X^*') <^<1 visibly perK>nified in the Emperor (6 Korixoi'^), restrained these 
forces. Such an interpretation, either of me eschatological passages of the 
Epistle or of the Apocalypse, does not destroy their deeper spiritual meaning ; 
for the writers of the New Testament, as the prophets of the Old, reveal to us 
and generalise the spiritual forces of good and evil which onderlie the surface 
of society. 

' Ramsay, Ths Church in the Roman EmpirSt pp. 147, 148; cf. also pp. 60, 
70, 158 n. See also Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. aoa-ao5. 

' Aur. Victor, Cois. 5, Epit. la, Unde qutdam prodidirts Traianum solitum 
ditift, pr$cul distort cunctos frincipes m Ntronis quinquennio. The expression 

§ L] SOMK Of A.D. 58 

pfobahle that evoi the wont excesses of Nero, like the worst cnidty 
of Tiherios, did little barm to the mass of the people even in Rome ; 
and manj even of the fanhs of the Emperors assisted in working 
out the new ideas which the Empire was creating. But at present 
we have not to do with fiialts. Members of court circles might 
have unpleasant and exaggerated stories to tell about the death of 
Britannicus; tales might have been circulated of hardlj pardon- 
able excesses committed bj the Emperor and a noisy band of 
companions wandering at night in the streets; the more respect- 
able of the Roman aristocracy would consider an illicit union 
with a freedwoman and a taste for music, literature, and the drama, 
signs of d^radation, but neither in Rome nor in the provinces 
would the populace be offended ; more far-seeing observers might 
be able to detect worse signs, but if any ordinary citizen, 01 
if any one acquainted with the provinces had been questioned, he 
would certainly have answered that the government of the Empire 
was good. This was due mainly to the gradual development of 
the ideas on which the Empire had been founded. The structure 
which had been sketched by the genius of Caesar, and built up 
by the art of Augustus, if allowed to develop freely, guaranteed 
naturally certain conditions of progress and good fortune. It was 
due also to the wise administration of Seneca and of Bumis. It 
was due apparendy also to flashes of genius and love of popularity 
on the part of the Emperor himself. 

The provinces were well governed. Judaea was at this time 
preparing for insurrection under the rule of Felix, but he was 
a legacy from the reign of Claudius. The difficulties in Armenia 
were met at once and vigorously by the appointment of Corbulo ; 
the ret)ellion in Britain was wisely dealt with ; even at the end of 
Nero's reign the appointment of Vespasian to Judaea, as soon as 
the serious character of the revolt was known, shows that the 
Emperor still had the wisdom to select and the courage to appoint 
able men. During the early years a long list is given of trials 
for repdwidai\ and the number of convictions, while it shows that 
provincial government was not free from corruption, proves that 
it was becoming more and more possible to obtain justice. It 
was the corruption of the last reign that was condemned by 
the justice of the present. In the year 56, Vipsanius Laenas, 
governor of Sardinia, was condemned for extortion; in 57, 
Capito, the 'Cilician pirate/ was struck down by the senate 
'with a righteous thunderbolt/ Amongst the accusations against 

Miifi^fmtnmum mmy hate been suggested by the ctrtamen ^inqucnnaU which 
Nero ibnnded in Rome, as Dio telU as, {ralp iri% ffvrrjpias r^t rt Siafwy^t roi 
afdrott avrov, Dio. £/^, hd. 21 ; Tac. Aim. xiv. ao; Saet. Nero 12; cf. the 
coins described, Eckhel, W. 264; Cohen. L p. a8a. 47-65. cer. quinq. 

loM 00. 


Suillius in 58 was the misgovemment of Asia. And no'c only were 
the favourites of Claudius condemned, better men were appointed 
in their place. It is recorded that freedmen were never made 
procurators of imperial provinces. And the Emperor was able in 
many cases, in that of Lyons, of Cyrene, and probably of Ephesus, 
to assist and pacify the provincials by acts of generosity and 
benevolence \ 

We may easily, perhaps, lay too much stress on some of the 
measures attributed to Nero ; but many of them show, if not the 
policy of his reign, at any rate the tendency of the Empire. The 
pdice regulations of the city were strict and well executed '. An 
attack was made on the exactions of publicans, and on the excessive 
power of freedmen. Law was growing in exactness owing to the 
influence of Jurists, and was justly administered except where the 
Emperor's personal wishes intervened *• Once the Emperor — ^was it 
a mere freak or was it an act of far-seeing political insight? — 
proposed a measure of free trade for the whole Empire. Governors 
of provinces were forbidden to obtain condonation for exactions by 
the exhibition of games. The proclamation of freedom to Greece 
may have been an act of dramatic folly, but the extension of Latin 
rights meant that the provincials were being gradually put more 
and more on a level with Roman citizens. And the provinces 
flourished for the most part under this rule. It seemed almost as if 
the future career of a Roman noble might depend upon the goodwill 
of his provincial subjects *. And wherever trade could flourish there 
wealth accumulated. Laodicea was so rich that the inhabitants 
could rebuild the city without aid from Rome, and Lyons could 
contribute 4,000,000 sesterces at the time of the great fire ^ 

When, then, St. Paul speaks of the * powers that be * as bein^ 
' ordained by God ' ; when he says that the ruler is a minister ol 
God for good ; when he is giving directions to pay * tribute ' and 
' custom ' ; he is thinking of a great and beneficent power which 
has made travel for him possible, which had often interfered to 
protect him against an angry mob of his own countr3anen, under 
which he had seen the towns through which he passed enjoying 
peace, prosperity and civilization. 

* For the provincial administration of Nero see Faraeanx, cp. eU, pp. 56, 57 ; 
W. T. Arnold, Thi l^ommft System of Prtvindal Admimstrmtion^ pp. 135, 137 ; 
Tac Ann. xiii. 30, 31, 33, 50, 51, 53-57. 

' Suetonins, Niro 16. SchiUer, p. 420. 

' Schiller, pp. 381, 38a: 'In dem Nfechanismus des geiichtlichen Ver* 
fahrens, im Priyatrecht, in der Ansbildnng tind Fordenmg der Rechtswissen- 
schaft, selbst aaf dem Gebiete der Appellation konnen gegriindete Vorwiirfc 
kanm erhoben werden. Die kaiserliche Regienmg liess die Verhaltnisse hiei 
nihie den Gang gehen, welchen ihnen friihere Regiemngea angewiesen hatten * 

* Tac. Ann. xt. 20, ai. 

* Arnold, p. 137. 

ROME IN A.D. 58 



But it was not only Nero, it was Seneca ' also who was ruling in 
Rome when Sl Paul wrote to the Church ciiere. The attempt lo 
find Any connexions literary or otherwise between St. Paul and 
Seneca way be dismissed ; but for the ^owth of Christian principles, 
still more perhaps for that of the principles which prepared the way 
for the spread of Christianiiy, the fact is of extreme significance. Il 
vas the first public appearance of Stoicism in Rome, as largely in- 
flurncing politics, and shaping the future of the Empire. It is a strange 
irony that makes Stoicism the creed which inspired the noblest 
representatives of the old r^ime, for it was Stoicism which provided 
the philosophic basis for the new imperial system, and this was not 
the last time that an aristocracy perished in obedience to their own 
morality. What is important for our purpose is to notice that the 
humanitarian and universalbt ideas of Stoicism were already begin- 
ning to permeate society. Seneca taugiit, for example, the equality 
in some sense of all men, even slaves ; but it was the populace who 
afewyearslater (a, D. 61) protested when the slaves of the murdered 
Pedinius Secundus were led out to execution*. Seneca and many 
at the Jurists were permeated with the Stoic ideas of humanity and 
benevolence; and however little these principles might influence 
ilieir individual conduct they gtadually moulded and changed the 
law and the system of the Empire. 

If we turn from the Empire to Rome, we shall find that just 
iho%e vices which the moralist deplores in the aristocracy and the 
Emperor helped to prepare the Roman capital for the advent ol 
Christianity. If there had not been large foreign colonies, there 
could never have been any ground in the world where Christianity 
could have taken root strongly enough to influence the sturounding 
population, and it was the passion for luxury, and the taste for 
philosophy and literature, even the vices of the court, which 
demanded Greek and Oriental assistance. The Emperor must have 
teachers in philosophy, and in acting, in recitation and in flute- 
playing, and few of these would be Romans. The statement of 
Chry«ostom thai St. Paul persuaded a concubine of Nero lo accept 
Oiristianily and forsake the Emperor has probably little foundation', 
the conjecture that this concubine was Acte is worthless ; but it may 
iQuktraie bow it was through the non-Roman element of Roman 
society that Christianity spread. It is not possible to estimate the 
exact proportion of foreign elements in a Roman household, but 
a tnidy of the names in any of the Columbaria of the imperial period 

■ See Ughtfoot. Si. Paul and Sttuca, f'kilifpiaits, p. «68. To ibi> period 
oT bb lite Uloiig Ilie inotaKot^yraxi.t, the £>t CUmmtia, the Dt Vil» Btaia, 
the fit Smficiii. uid the Dt Camiaitiia SafitnlU. S«e TcufTeJ, Uititry >/ 
Ktmam IMtraturi, IruiiUled by Wsrr, IL 41. 

' Tie. A^. ii», <i-4S' 

■ Chryiouom, Htm, tm .Irt. Aff. 46, ^ 


will illustrate how large that element was. Men and women of every 
race lived together in the great Roman slave world, or when they 
had received the gift of freedom remained attached as clients and 
friends to the great houses, often united by ties of the closest 
intimacy with their masters and proving the means by which 
every form of strange superstition could penetrate into the highest 
circles of society ^ 

And foreign superstition was beginning to spread. The earliest 
monuments of the worship of Mithras date from the time of Tiberius. 
Lucan in his Pharsalia celebrates the worship of Isis in Rome; 
Nero hunself reverenced the Syrian Goddess, who was called by many 
names, but is known to us best as Astarte ; Judaism came near to the 
throne with Poppaea Sabina, whose influence over Nero is first traced 
in this year 58; while the story of Pomponia Graecina who, in the 
year 57, was entrusted to her husband for trial on the charge of 
'foreign superstition' and whose long old age was clouded with 
continuous sadness, has been taken as an instance of Christianity. 
There are not inconsiderable grounds for this view; but in any 
case the accusation against her is an illustration that there was 
a path by which a new and foreign religion like Christianity could 
make its way into the heart of the Roman aristocracy*. 

f %. The Jews in RoME^ 

There are indications enough that when he looked towards 
Rome St Paul thought of it as the seat and centre of the Empire. 
But he had at the same time a smaller and a narrower object 
His chief interest lay in those little scattered groups of Christians 
of whom he had heard through Aquila and Prisca, and probably 

^ We liave collected the following names from the contents of one colom- 
barium (C. /. Z. vi. a, p. 941). It dates from a period rather earlier than this. 
It must be remembered that the proportion of foreigners wonld really be larger 
than appears, for many of them would take a Roman name. Amaranthns 5 1 80, 
Chnrsantus 5183, Serapio {bis) 5187, Pylaemenianns 5188, Creticus 5197, 
Ascfepiades 5201, Melicns 5217, Antigonus 5227, Cypare 5229, Lezbins 5221, 
Amaryllis 5258, Perseus 5279, Apamea 5287 a, Ephesia 5290, Alexandrianns 
5316, Phyllidianns 5331, Mithres 5344, Diadamenus 5355, Philnmenus 5401, 
Philogenes 5410, Graniae Nicopolinis 54 19. Corinthus 54391 Antiochb 5437, 
Athenais 5478, Eucharistns 5477, Melitene 5490, Samothrace, Mystius 5527, 
Lesbus 5529. The following, contained among the above, seems to have 
a special interest : 'Hdv/rof EuoSoG itptafiwr^ ^iwa-foptirww rSfw card B^^vopor, 
and 'Aevovpyof Biofjidffov vldt ipfojvths Xapfi^roir fiwntof€i»6t 5207. 

' Tac. Ann. xiiL 32 ; Ligbtfoot, Clement, L 30. 

' Since this section was written the author has had access to Berliner, 
Ceschkhte d,Juden in Rom (Frankfurt a. M. 1893), which has enabled him to 
correct some current misconceptions. The facts are also excellently put togethei 
by Schiirer, NeuUst. Zeit^euh. ii. 505 ff. 



*5 %."] THE JEWS IK ROME xlx 

through others whom he met on his travels. And the thought of the 
Chrisii»n Chiifth would at once connect iisclf with ihal larger 
community of which It must have been in some sense or other Etn 
oSshooi, the Jewish setilemem in the imperial city. 

(l) Hislory. The first relations of the Jews with Rome go back 
to (he time of the Maccabaean pnnces, when the struggling patriots 
of Judaea had some interest in common with the grca: Republic 
ind could treat wiih il on independent terms. Embassies were 
sent under Judas ' (who died in i6o b.c) and Jonathan ' (who died 
hi 143^ and at last a formal alli:ince wa» concluded by Simon 
Maccdbaeus in t^o, 139*. It was characteristic that on iliis last 
occasion the members of the embassy attempted a religious 
pro[ia^anda and were in consequence sent home by the praetor 

This was only preliminary contact. The first considerable 
»eitlemenl of the Jews in Rome dales from the taking of Jenisalem 
by Pompcy in b.c 63*. A number of the prisoners were sold as 
ilaves; but their obstinate adherence to iheir national customs 
proved troublesome to their masters and most of them were soon 
nunumitted. These released slaves were numerous and impor- 
tant enouf!:h to found a s>-n3gogue of their own *, to which they 
night resort when they went on pilgrimage, at Jerusalem. The 
poVcy of the early emperors favoured the Jews. They passionately 
bewailed the death of Julius, going by nighi as well as by day to 
his funeral pyre*; and under Augustus they were allowed to form 
a regular colony on the further side of the Tiber*, rouphly speak- 
ing opposite the site of the modem ' Ghetto,' The Jews' quarter 
was rrinoved to the left bank of the river in 1556, and has been 
finally done away with since the Italian occupation. 

• I M*ce, TiiL 17-31. * I Mice. di. I-4, 16. 
' r Uacc iiT. 14; n, 15-14. 

* Tbit Matcoiait ii made od tbe inthoritr of Viletini Maiimns I. iii. 1 

(Eiecrpt Pirid): Judatet fvi Saiaii 

Javit nillK 
Doubt i> ll 

• TWi too ll (jocsnuned bj Berliner (p. 5 ff. ., who points oat th«l Phflo, Ltg. 
W Cttmm IX, ftvm which Ibe ititement is taken, makei no mention ot Pompe;. 
teal it Is dimimlt to lee Mhat olljer ocention could uiiwer to the deionptioa, u 
ihi* docs TCTj welL Berliner howeTcr ii more protahly right id lupposing 
ikal there mast turn been other and older tctllcn in Rome 10 tccoiiDt loi the 
lnEV*e* f^ Cicero to oily u ■. c 59 1. we below). Tboe lettlen may have 
onBiC for porpots of trtdc. 

• ll w«i oiled «flcr them th« • lyiiMgogue of the Libertinl ' (Acti W, lo), 

• SaetoD. Collar 84. 

■ Tilts wu Ihe qtiuin titiall)' uueneil to priioacts of wu (fitiilartAiMg J. 
- - " p, m. Ui. S78). 


Here the Jews soon took root and rapidly increased in numbers. 
It was still under the Republic (&c. 59) that Cicero in his defence 
of Flaccus pretended to drop his voice for fear of them *. And 
when a deputation came from Judaea to complain of the mis- 
rule of Archelaus, no less than 8000 Roman Jews attached them- 
selves to it '. Though the main settlement was beyond the Tiber 
it must soon have overflowed into other parts of Rome. The 
Jews had a synagogue in connexion with the crowded Subura' 
and another probably in the Campus Martins. There were syna- 
gogues of Avyov<rT^a-iot and * Ay pminjaioi (i. e. either of the house- 
hold or under the patronage of Augustus * and his minister Agrippa), 
the position of which is uncertain but which in any case bespeak 
the importance of the community. Traces of Jewish cemeteries 
have been found in several out-ljring regions, one near the Porta 
PortuensiSy two near the Via Appia and the catacomb of S. Callisto, 
and one at Portus, the harbour at the mouth of the Tiber '. 

Till some way on in the reign of Tiberius the Jewish colony 
flourished without interruption. But in a.d. 19 two scandalous 
cases occurring about the same time, one connected with the priests 
of Isis, and the other with a Roman lady who having become 
a proseljTte to Judaism was swindled of money under pretence 
of sending it to Jerusalem, led to the adoption of repressive 
measures at once against the Jews and the Egyptians. Four 
thousand were banished to Sardinia, nominally to be employed in 
putting down banditti, but the historian scornfully hints that if they 
fell victims to the climate no one would have cared *. 

The end of the reign of Caligula was another anxious and 
critical time for the Jews. Philo has given us a graphic picture of 
the reception of a deputation which came with himself at its head 
to beg for protection from the riotous mob of Alexandria. The 
half-crazy emperor dragged the deputation after him from one point 
to another of his gardens only to jeer at them and refuse any further 

* The Jews were interested in this trial as Flaccus had laid hands on the 
money collected for the Temple at Jerusalem. Q'cero*s speech makes it clear 
that the Jews of Rome were a formidable body to offend. 

* Joseph. j4nt. XVn. xi. i ; B,/. IL yi. i. 

* There is mention of an Apxonf ^tfiovprfelMf, C. /. G, 6447 (Schiirer, 
Gtnuindeveffassung d. Tuden in Rom, pp. 16, 35 ; Berliner, p. 94). As 
synagogues were not allowed within the pomoerium {ibid. p. 16) we may 
suppose that the synagogue itself was without the walls, but that its frequenters 
came from the Subura. 

* Berliner conjectures that the complimentary title may haye been given as 
a sort of equivalent for emperor- worship Kop,cit. p. ai). 

* Data relating to the synagogues have been obtained from inscriptions, 
which have been carefully collected and commented upon by Schiirer in the 
work quoted above (Leipzig, 1879), also more recently by Berliner {fip, cU. 
p. 46 n.). 

* Tacitus, Ammal. ii. 85 si 9b gramkU^m cadi imUrisunt^ viU damnum. 


It to iheir peliiion '. Caligula insisted on the Betting up of 
n bust in the Temple at Jerusalem, and his opportune tiealh 
BlOfK saved the Jews from worse things than had aa yei befallen 
them (a.d. 4i). 

In ihe early pan of the reign of Claudius the Jew» had friends 
at court in ihe two Herod Agrippas, father and son. But a 
mysterious noiice of which we would lain know more shows them 
once again subject to measures of repression. At a dale which is 
calculated at about a.d. 5a we find Aquila and Prisca at Corinlh 
' because Claudius had commanded all die Jews to depart ftoin 
Rome' (Acts xviii. 1). And Suetonius in describing what is 
probably the same eveni sets it down to persistent tumults in the 
Jewish quarter 'at the instigation of ChrestusV There is at 
lea« a considerable possibility, not to say probability, thai in this 
enigmatic guise we have an allusion to the effect of the early 
preaching of Chrislianiiy, in which in one way or another Aquila 
and Prisca would seem to have been involved and on that account 
tpeciallj singled out for exile. Suetonius and the Ads speak of 
a general edict of expulsion, but Dio Cas^iius. who is mcire precise, 
would lead us to infer that the edict stopped short of this. The 
dub* and meetings (in the synagogue) n hich Caligula had allowed, 
were forbidden, but there was at least no wholesale expulsion '. 

Adj one of three ialerprelnIioDi may be put upca impuhin ChrtsU 
autdm tummlttuinui. il) The woidi latj U lakca literally an ihcy Eland. 
' Chictlu ' wu a commoti nune among tlavo, and (hue ma; hsve been nti 
■diriilaai of th>t Dinie who wu Ihe iDtboi of the distarbancci. Thii it the 
ilew of MF]«r uid Wieieler. (ii) Or it is very possible that thete may be 
■ cCDfosioa betweeD 'Ctatcftni' and 'ChriituL' Ttnulliui ■.ccioscs the 
Pteuit of piuDOOQciag the name 'ChrinUiu' wionglj as if it weie Chta- 
liaHt. attd to beuing cmconidous >iitiiess to the gentle uid kiodly chaiiclei 
of iboie who owned it. Std tl rum ptrpiram Chriiliaatu frvnuiuialur 
a Ewtif (rnim ntc aemitUt ana at nolilia ptnet imi'iJt atat/ilatt vtl binigni- 
lalt itmpMiiiim tsl (jifiol, j: cf Justin, Jfol. i. { 4). If we iiippoie some 
math nry oiiural confusion, then Uie ditlurbancFi miy have bad ibeir ongio 
la the eidtemcat caoicil by the MerauDic expectation which vai ready 10 
bnak out at diyhi provocation wherever Jewi coagregaied. Thii a the 
Ttew of l.inge aad othen including in part Lighifoat (^/'AUififiiaiu, p. i6g), 
(111 ■: TheiC remains the third pouibility, for which aom( prr/erence has been 
cipreiwd above, that Ihe disturbing caose wai not the Meuianic expedition 
is i;eneral bat the particnlai form of it iden1ifie<l with Chriilianit}'. It ii 
Ceiuiti ihat Chiislianity must have been pieadied at Rome ai early as this; 
■nd the pleaching of it was quite a* lilcely to lead to actual violence and 
fiol a* at Theualaoicx 01 Antloch ofPiiidia or Ljslta (Acta ivii. j; li* ig; 

' l4g. •/ I fliimi 44, 45. 

* Soeton. ClauJ. 15 Judatsi imfulstrt Ckrtsle aisiJut iwinllunntti Kama 

' Via CaslDS. Is. 6 Toii. r« 'Icwioioiii, wXtorAaavTai aUit Smrt X'^""' ^ 
fcn TOfoxiit i/wi fMi ix^-Bv aifvr riji 1 


ziiL 50). That it did so, and that this is the fact alluded to by Saetonins is 
the opinion of the majority of Gennan scholars from Bam- onwards. It is 
impossible to verify any one of the three hypotheses ; but the last would fit 
in well with all that we know and would add an interesting touch if it were 

The edict of Claudius was followed in about three years by his 
death (a. d. 54). Under Nero the Jews certainly did not lose but 
probably rather gained ground. We have seen that just as St. Paul 
wrote his Epistle Poppaea was beginning to exert her influence. Like 
many of her class she dallied with Judaism and befriended Jews. The 
mime Aliturus was a Jew by birth and stood in high favour*. Herod 
Agrippa II was also, like his father, a persona graia at the Roman 
court. Dio Cassius sums up the history of the Jews under the 
Empire in a sentence which describes well their forlimes at Rome. 
Though their privileges were often curtailed, they increased to such 
an extent as to force their way to the recognition and toleration of 
their peculiar customs '. 

(a) Organization, The policy of the emperors towards the 
Jewish nationality was on the whole liberal and judicious. They 
saw that they had to deal with a people which it was at once difficult 
to repress and useful to encourage; and they freely conceded 
the rights which the Jews demanded. Not only were they allowed 
the free exercise of their religion, but exceptional privileges were 
granted them in connexion with it Josephus [Ant. XIV. x.) 
quotes a number of edicts of the time of Julius Caesar and 
after his death, some of them Roman and some local, securing to 
the Jews exemption from service in the army (on religious grounds), 
freedom of worship, of building synagogues, of forming clubs and 
collecting conlribuiions (especially the didrachma) for the Temple 
at Jerusalem. Besides this in the East the Jews were largely 
permitted to have their own courts of justice. And the wonder 
is that in spite of all their fierce insurrections against Rome these 
rights were never permanently withdrawn. As late as the end of 
the second century (in the pontificate of Victor 189-199 a. d.) 

* A suggestion was made in the Church Quarterly Review for Oct. 1894, 
which deserves consideration; viz. that the dislocation of the Jewish com- 
munity caused by the edict of Claudius may explain < why the Church of the 
capital did not grow to the same extent as elsewhere ont of the synagogue. 
Even when St. Paul arrived there in bonds the chiefs of the restored Jewish 
organization professed to have heard nothing, officially or unofficially, of the 
Apostle, and to know about the Christian sect just what we may suppose the 
rioters ten years earlier knew, that it was "everywhere spoken against**' 

(p. 175). 
« VU. Joseph, 3; Ant. XX. viii. 11. 

' Dio Cassius xxxvii. 1 7 Ian ical irapcL roTf Tw/ia/oit t6 yipof rovro^ MokovffSiv 


Callistoa, who arierH-uds himself became Bishop of Rome, vas 
banished to the Sardinian mines for forcibly breaking up a Jewish 
meeting for worship (Hippol. Reful. Haer, ix. la). 

There was some natural difference between the East and the 
West corresponding to the difference in number and concentration 
of the Jewish population. In Palestine the cenica) judicial and 
■idounisiralive body was the Sanhedrin ; after the Jewish War the 
I^Me of the Sanbedrin was taken by ihe Ethnorch who exercised 
grest powers, the Jews of the Dispersion voluntarily submitting to 
tiim. At Alexandria also there was an Ethnarch, as well as a 
central board or senate, for liie management of the affairs of Ihe 
commuuity. At Rome, on the other hand, it would appear that 
each synagogue had its own separate organizaiion. This would 
consist of a ' senate ' (^jmvala), the members of which were the 
■elders' (npttrfSinpoi). The exact relation of these to the 'rulers' 
(•^iMTtt) b not quite clear : the two terms may be practically 
equivalent ; or Ihe Spx""'* "i^X ^^ ' ^i^ ^ committee within the 
larger body '. The senate had its ' president ' (yfpouiruipx^i) ; and 
among the rulers one or more would seem to have been charged 
with the conduct of the services in the synagogue (dp^imwivwyot, 
ai>][iwpiiy*ys>). Under him would be the urqix'rqc (Chaman) who 
perfonncd the minor duties of giving out and putting back the 
noed rolls (Luke iv. ao), inflicted scourging (Matt. x. 17), and 
acted U school master. The priests as such had no special itaim 
in the synagogue. We hear at Rome of wealthy and influential 
people who were called ' father ' or ' mother of the synagogue ' ; 
ihb would be an honorary title. There is also mention of a npn- 
vTOT^i o\ patronus, who would on occasion axx for the synagogue 
in its relation to the outer world. 

(3) Social ilalui ami condition. There were certainly Jews o( 
rank and position at Rome. Herod the Great had sent a number 
of his sons to be educated there (the ill-fated Alexander and 
Aristobulus as well asArchelaus, Antipas, and Philip the letrarch*). 
At a later date other members of the family made it their home 
(Herod the first husband of Herodias, the younger Arisiohulus, 
and at one time Herod Agrippa 1). There were also Jews attached 
in ooe way or another to the imperial household (we have had 
ncntion of the sj-nagogues of the AgripptsU AugittUsii"). These 
would be found in the more aristocratic quarters. The Jews' 

Ident):^ wilL tbe ' roleth' uid the d^x"""'"')™!'"' ■■ cbiet of the body. He 
would m«kc ibe fimctloDi of the -7tpuva>"^3t1< political rather than reJi^dDS, 
•dH he «p»k( of ibu olbce u if ii ireie conlined lo [he DispcriiDa ol the Weil 
iLi/» vd Tiawf, &£. L 438). Tbue >ie poiuti which mutt be [eganled u 

on <K Itn ouen. 

* Jm. AnI. XV. a. I i XVU. L ^ 


quarter proper was the reverse of aristocratic. The fairly plentiful 
notices which have come down to us in the works of the Satirists 
lead us to think of the Jews of Rome as largely a population of 
beggars, vendors of small wares, sellers of lucifer matches, collectors 
of broken glass, fortune-tellers of both sexes. They haunted the 
Aventine with their baskets and wisps of hay *. Thence they would 
sally forth and try to catch the ear especially of the wealthier 
Roman women, on whose sup>erstitious hopes and fears they might 
play and earn a few small coins by their pains '. 

Between these extremes we may infer the existence of a more 
substantial trading class, both from the success which at this periovl 
had begim to attend the Jews in trade and from the existence of 
the numerous synagogues (nine are definitely attested) which it 
must have required a considerable amount and some diffusion of 
wealth to keep up. But of this class we have less direct evidence. 

In Rome, as everywhere, the Jews impressed the observer by 
their strict performance of the Law. The Jewish sabbath was 
proverbial. The distinction of meats was also carefully maintained '. 
But along with these external observances the Jews did succeed in 
bringing home to their Pagan neighbours the contrast of their 
purer faith to the current idolatries, that He whom they served 
did not dwell in temples made with hands, and that He was not tc 
be likened to ' gold or silver or stone, graven by art and device 
of man.' 

It is difficult to say which is more conspicuous, the repulsion or 
the attraction which the Jews exercised upon the heathen world. 
The obstinate tenacity with which they held to their own customs, 
and the rigid exclusiveness with which they kept aloof from all 
others, offended a society which had come to embrace all the varied 
national religions with the same easy tolerance and which passed 
from one to the other as curiosity or caprice dictated. They 
looked upon the Jew as a gloomy fanatic, whose habitual expres- 
sion was a scowl. It was true that he condemned, as he had 
reason to condemn, the heathen laxity around him. And his 
neighbours, educated and populace alike, retaliated with bitter 
hatred and scorn. 

At the same time all — and there were many — who were in search 

' The purpose of this is somewhat uncertain: it may have been used to pack 
their wares. 

* The passages on which this description is based are well known Sma/i 
Trades : Martial, £^1^". I. xlii. 3-5 ; XII. Ivii. 13, 14. Mendicancy', Juvenal, 
Sat, iii. 14; vi* 54a ff> Proselytismi Horace, Sat. I. iv. 14a f. ; Juvenal, Smi, 
xiv. 96 ff. 

' Horace, Sai. L ix. 69 f. ; Juvenal, Sat, xiv. 96 ff. (of proselytes) ; Persius, 
Smi. y. 184 ; Sneton. Aug. 76. The texts of Greek and Latin authors relating 
to Judaism have recently been collected in a complete and convenient form bj 
Theodore Reinach {Tixtes rtiatifs au Judaismi, Paris, 1895). 


of a purer creed than their own, knew that the Jew had something 
to give them which they could not get elsewhere. The heathen 
Pantheon was losing its hold, and thoughtful minds were * feeling 
after if haply they might find ' the one God who made heaven and 
earth. Nor was it only the higher minds who were conscious of 
a strange attraction in Judaism. Weaker and more superstitious 
natures were impressed by its lofty claims, and also as we may 
believe by the gorgeous apocalyptic visions which the Jews of this 
date were ready to pour out to them. The seeker wants to be told 
something that he can do to gain the Divine favour; and of such 
demands and precepts there was no lack. The inquiring Pagan 
was met with a good deal of tact on the part of those whom he 
consulted. He was drawn on little by little ; there was a place for 
every one who showed a real sympathy for the faith of Israel. It 
was not necessary that he should at once accept circumcision and 
the whole burden of the Mosaic Law ; but as he made good one 
step another was proposed to him, and the children became in 
many cases more zealous than their fathers \ So round most of 
the Jewish colonies there was gradually formed a fringe of Gentiles 
more or less in active sympathy with their religion, the * devout 
men and women,' ' those who worshipped God ' {fvatfifU, <nfi6y.€voiy 

ar/3o^MM ro¥ Otov, <f>ofiov/uvoi r6y Of op) of the ActS of the ApOStleS. 

For the student of the origin of the Christian Church this class is 
of great importance, because it more than any other was the seed 
plot of Christianity ; in it more than in any other the Gospel took 
root and spread with ease and rapidity *. 

§ 3. The Roman Church. 

(i) Origin, The most probable view of the origin of the 
Christian Church in Rome is substantially that of the commen- 
tator known as Ambrosiaster (see below, § 10). This fourth- 
century writer, himself probably a member of the Roman Church, 
does not claim for it an apostolic origin. He thinks that it arose 
among the Jews of Rome and that the Gentiles to whom they 
conveyed a knowledge of Christ had not seen any miracles or any 
of the Apostles*. Some such conclusion as this fits in well with 

^ JiiTenal, Sdi. xiv. 96 ff. 

* See the rerj ample collection of mateiial on this tobject in Schiirer, 
Ntutest. Ziitgesek, ii. 558 ff. 

' Constat ita^tu temporibus apcstolorum ludaeos^ propterea quod sub regno 
/Romano agereni^ Romao kabitasse : ox quibus hi qui credidorant, tradidtruni 
Romumis ut Christum profiientes, Legem servarent . . . Romanis autem irasci 
mom debut/, sod et laudar* fe<iem Ulorum ; quia nutta insigtsia virtufum 


the phenomena of the Epistle. St Paul would hardly have written 
as he does if the Church had really been founded by an Aposde. 
He clearly regards it as coming within his own province as Apostle 
of the Gentiles (Rom. i. 6, 14 f.); and in this very Epistle he lays 
it down as a principle governing all his missionary labours that he 
will not 'build upon another man's foundation' (Rom. xv. 20). 
If an Apostle had been before him to Rome the only supposition 
which would save his present letter from clashing with this would 
be that there were two distinct churches in Rome, one Jewish- 
Christian the other Gentile-Christian, and that St. Paul wrote only 
to the latter. But not only is there no hint of such a state of 
things, but the letter itself (as we shall see) implies a mixed 
community, a community not all of one colour, but embracing 
in substantial proponions both Jews and Gentiles. 

At a date so early as this it is not in itself likely that the Aposdes 
of a faith which grew up under the shadow of Jewish particu- 
larism would have had the enterprise to cast their glance so far 
west as Rome. It was but natural that the first Apostle to do 
this should be the one who both in theory and in practice had 
struck out the boldest line as a missionary; the one who had 
formed the largest conception of the possibiUties of Christianity, 
the one who risked the most in the effort to realize them, and who 
as a matter of principle ignored distinctions of language and of 
race. We see St. Paul deliberately conceiving and long cherishing 
the purpose of himself making a journey to Rome (Acts xix. 2 1 ; 
Rom. i. 13 ; xv. 22-24). It was not however io found a Church, 
at least in the sense of first foundation, for a Church already 
existed with sufficient unity to have a letter written to it. 

If we may make use of the data in ch. xvi — ^and reasons will 
be given for using them with some confidence — the origin of the 
Roman Church will be fairly clear, and it will agree exactly with 
the probabilities of the case. Never in the course of previous 
history had there been anything like the freedom of circulation 
and movement which now existed in the Roman Empire \ And 
this movement followed certain definite lines and set in certain 
definite directions. It was at its greatest all along the Eastern 
shores of the Mediterranean, and its general trend was to and from 
Rome. The constant coming and going of Roman officials, as 
one provincial governor succeeded another ; the moving of troops 

videnies, mc aliquem apostoloruniy susceperant fidem CkrisH ritu lic$t Iudaic§ 
(S. Ambrosii Opp, iii. 373 f., ed. Ballerini). We shall see that Ambrosiaster 
exaggerates the strictly Jewish influeDce oo the Church, bat in his general 
conclusion he is more right than we might have expected. 

^ 'The conditions of travelling, for ease, safety, and rapidity, over the 
greater part of the Roman empire, were such as in part have only been reached 
again in Europe since the beginning of the present century^ (Friedlander, 
SUtfmgitckkkU Roms^ ii $)• 



frcm place (o place wilh ihe sending of fresh batches of recruits 
uid the retiremeni of veterans ; the incessant demands of an ever- 
increasing trade both in necessaries and luxuries; the atlraciion 
which the huge metropolis naturally exercised on ^e imagination 
of the clever young Orientals who knew ttut the best openings for 
a career were to be sought there ; a thousand motives of ambition, 
business, pleasute drew a constant stream from the Eastern pro- 
vinces to Rome. Among the crowds there would inevitably be some 
Christians, and those of very varied nationality and antecedents. 
Sl Paul himself had for the last three years been stationed at one of 
the greatest of the Levantine tmporia. We may say that ihe three great 
cities at which he had spent the longest time— Antioch, Corinth, 
Ephesus — were just the three from which (with Alexandria) inter- 
course was most active. We may be sure th^ not a few of his 
ovo disciples would ultimately find their way lo Rome. And so 
v« may assume that all the owners of the names mentioned In 
ch. xvi had some kind of acquaintance with him. In several cases 
he adds some endearing little expression which implies personal 
contact and interest : Epaenetus, Ampliatus, Stach}'s are all his 
'beloved'; Urban has been his 'helper'; the mother of Rufus had 
been also as a mother to liim ; Anrfronicus and Junia (or Juniasl 
and Hcrodion are described as his ' kinsmen ' — i. e. perhaps his 
fellow- tribesmen, possibly like him natives of Tarsus. Androntcus 
and Junias, if we arc to take the expression literally, had shared 
one of his imprisonments. But not by any means all were 
St. Paul's own converts. The same pair, Andronicus and Junias, 
were Christians of older standing than himself. Epaenetus is 
described as the first convert ever made from Asia : that may of 
course be by the preaching of St. Paul, but it is also possible that 
he maj' have been converted while on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 
If the Aristobutus whose household is mentioned is the Herodian 
prince, we can easily understand that he might have Christians 
about him. That Prisca and Aquila should be at Rome is just 
what we might expect from one with so keen an eye for the 
Kntrgy of a siiuaiion as St. Paul. When he was himself esta- 
blished and in full work at Ephesus with the intention of visiting 
Rome, it would at once occur to him what valuable work they might 
be doing there and what an excellent preparation they might make 
for his own visit, while in his immeiliaie sunoundings they were 
■tmovt tupcrOuous. So that instead of presendng any difficulty, 
thu he thould send them back to Rome where ihey were already 
known, b most natural. 

In this »ay. the previous histories of the friends to whom Si. Paul 
•end) greeting in ch. x^i may be taken as typical of the circum- 
■ttaccs which would bring together a number of similar groups of 
Chtto »M Bt Rome. Stnie from Palestine, some from Corinth, 


some from Ephesus and other parts of proconsular Asia, possibly 
some from Tarsus and more from the Syrian Antioch, there was in 
the first instance, as we may believe, nothing concerted in their 
going ; but when once they arrived in the metropolis, the free- 
masonry common amongst Christians would soon make them 
known to each other, and they would form, not exactly an organized 
Church, but such a fortuitous assemblage of Christians as was only 
waiting for the advent of an Apostle to constitute one. 

For other influences than those of St. Paul we are left to general 
probabilities. But from the fact that there was a synagogue specially 
assigned to the Roman *Libertini' at Jerusalem and that this 
synagogue was at an early date the scene of public debates between 
Jews and Christians (Acts vi. 9), with the further fact that regular 
communication would be kept up by Roman Jews frequenting the 
feasts, it is equally clear that Palestinian Christianity could hardly 
fail to have its representatives. We may well believe that the 
vigorous preaching of St. Stephen would set a wave in motion 
which would be felt even at Rome. If coming from such a source 
we should expect the Jewish Christianity of Rome to be rather of 
the freer Hellenistic type than marked by the narrowness of 
Pharisaism. But it is best to abstain from anticipating, and to form 
our idea of the Roman Church on better grounds than conjecture. 

If the view thus giyen of the origin of the Roman Church is correct, it 
involves the rejection of two other views, one of which at least has imposing 
authority ; viz. (i) that the Church was founded by Jewish pilgrims from the 
First Pentecost, and (ii) that its true founder was St. Peter. 

(i) We are told expressly that among those who listened to St. Peter*s 
address on the Day of Pentecost were some who came from Rome, both 
bom Jews of the Dispersion and proselytes. When these returned they 
would naturally take with them news of the strange things which were 
happening in Palestine. But unless they remained for some time in Jerusalem, 
and unless they attended very diligently to the teaching of the Apostles, 
which would as yet be informal and not accompanied by any regular system 
of Catechens, they would not know enough to make them in the full sense 
' Christians ' ; still less would they be in a position to evangelize others. 
Among this first group there would doubtless be some who would go back 
predisposed and prepared to receive fuller instruction in Christianity ; they 
might be at a similar stage to that of the disciples of St. John the Baptist at 
Ephesus (Acts xix. 2 ff.) ; and under the successive impact of later visits 
(their own or their neighbours*) to Jerusalem, we could imagine that their 
faith would be gradually consolidated. But it would take more than they 
brought away from the Day of Pentecost to lay the foundations of a 

(ii) The traditional founder of the Roman Church ii St. Peter. But it is 
only in a very qualified sense that this tradition can be made good. We 
may say at once that we are not prepared to go the length of those who 
would deny the connexion of St. Peter with the Roman Church altogether. 
It is true that there is hardly an item in the evidence which is not subject to 
some deduction. The evidence which is definite is somewhat late, and the 
evidence which it early is either too uncertain or too slight and vagne tc 


oury • clcai candniliin '. Mca decisive of all. if it held Eoodi irould be 
Oe allnsioii in SL Peter*! own Fint Epiaic if the ' Bat>ylon ' from wliicti he 
wMa (1 Pet. 1. 13) ii re»Uy A covert nunc for Rome. This wm the riew ol 
the Earljr Cboich, and >hbnu|>h peibapi not ibso lately certain it is inaccoid- 
uiee with ail [irobability. The Apocalypse coiiliesedl]i pati ' Bibjlon ' for 
RoRie (RcT. xiT. S; xvi. ig, &c). and when we reioenibeT the cotnmon 
pndice among the Jewiih Rabbii of disguising Ibcir allusions to the op- 
prtawr ', we ma; bcbe»e that Chriiliant also, when tbcy had once become 
Mtpected and pcnecaled. might have fallen into the habil of using a sectct 
laogoage aiDOitg themscWcs, ereo where there wat less occasion for ^ectety 
Vi'beo once we adopt thii view, a number of details ia the Epiilte (such 
a> tlie mcatioa of Silvanoi and Mark, and the points of conlacl belwetn 
I Peter and Romaiu] &ad an easy and natural eiplanalioD '. 

The genuine Epislle of Clement of RoTne U. 97 A.D.) couples ti^elhei 
St, Peter and St. Paol in a conleit dealing with persecution in inch a way 
•s to lend some inppoit 10 the tradition thnt both Aposlles had peii&hcd 
there*; and the Epitlle of Ignaliu addressed to Rome (c. iii; A.D.^ appeals 
-'-■-■ - • *-■ ■ oh the Roman Chorch would be likely to 

9 proves nothing as to the origin of the 
^DBTcn. nnen we OFScena a step laler, Dionysius of Corinth {t. 171 A.t>.) 
doei indeed conple Ih* two Apo^llei as having joined in 'planting' Ihe 
{'hflidi of Rome as they had Hone previoasly Ibat of Corinth*. Bat (bis 
Et'islle alone is proof that if Si. Panl could be said to have ' planted ' the 
Cfauich, it contd not be in Ihe sense of tint Ibandation ; and a lilie consldoa- 
tion must be taken (o qualify the staiements of trenaens'. i)y Ibe lieginnlng 
of ibe third century we gel in Tertalllan* and Caioa of Rome* eaplidi 
trferences 10 Rome as the scene of the double nurtynloni. The latter writer 
point* to the • trophies ' (rd rpiwaia ") of the two Apostles as eiisting in his 
day OB the Vatjcan and by Ihe Ostian Way. This is conclusive evidence M 
to the belief of the Roman Church aboal the year 300. And il is followed 
by another piece of cridencc whirh ia good and precise as fai a> it goes. 

' The mmmary which follows contains only the 1 
ta'^irect eiideace. For a luller prneotalion ihe 
Luhtfoot, St- Clemen/ ii. 490 ff., and Liptios. Afskr. Apostelgesik. ii. 1 1 (T. 

* On this practice, see Biricothal, TmilschrtibiH an dit HtbrSir, p. 3 IT. i 
«d for ■ defence of the view that St. Peter wrote bis tint Epislle from Rome, 
Ugbtfoot, .i'/. CUmami. 491 f.; Von Soden ia HoHtbommenlat 111.11 101; f. 
lie. Dr. Holt, who had paid special attention to this Epislle, seems to have 
held the aame opinion .Jtidaiilu Ckrislianitj, p. i£(|). 

* There b a nalonl lelnclance ia the lay mind to take b> Bn^uAwn in any 
ath« (tnse than literally. Still it is ceruinW to be so taken in Orai. Sibyll. 1. 
Iff (Jewish^ ; and it sbould be remembered thnC the advocates of this view 
inclnde men of the most diverse opinions, not only Ihe Eii);lista tcbolan 
mentioned above and Dbllinger, but Kenan and the Tiihingea school generally. 

» Ad C*r T. 4 ff. * Ad Htm. iv. J. 

• Eaa. H. E. II. ixt. B. ' Adv. Hatr. III. iii. ). 3. 

• St*rf. 15; Dt Pratirrift. 36. • Ens. //. E. 11. inf. 6, 7. 

" There has been mach discnailon as to the exact meaning of Ihii word. 
Tite leading Protestant archaeologists (Lipstos, Ertjes, V. .Schnltie bold that 
ll refer* 10 some coospicaons mark 01 ihe place of maityrdom la famons 
'tercMoth' near the naumaihiHm on the Vatican { Atari. PtI. tt Paul. 63) and 
a ' pine-tree ' near Ihe road to Oilia. The Roman Catholic anlborities would 
refer it to the 'tombs' or 'memorial cbapels' \mtmeriat\ it -eems to as 
probable ihat bcildingi of some kind were already in existence. Kor itatementi 
of the oppoting views see Lipains, Apokr. Aptiltigaih. ii 3i ; De Waal, Dit 
AfMifrmft ad Cataanmtai, p. 14 ff. 


Two fbnrth-oentury docamenti, both in texts which have imder]gone lome 
corruption, the Martyroh^um Hieronymianum (ed. Dachetne, p. 84) and 
a Depositio Martyrttm in the work of Philocalut, the to-called ' chronographer 
of the year 354,' connect a removal of the bodies of the two Apostles with 
the consulship of Tuscus and Bassos in the year 258. There is some 
ambiguity as to the localities from and to which the bodies were moved ; 
bnt Uie most probable view is that in the Valerian persecution when the 
cemeteries were closed to Christians^ the treasured relics were transferred to 
the site known as Ad Catacumhas adjoining the present Church of St 
Sebastian K Here they remained, according to one version, for a year and 
seven months, according to another for forty years. The later story of an 
attempt by certain Orientals to steal them away seems to have grown out of 
a misunderstanding of an inscription by Pope E^masus (366-384 A.D.)*' 

Here we have a chain of substantial proof that the Roman Church fully 
believed itself to be in possession of the mortal remains of the two Apostles 
as far back as the vear aoo, a tradition at that date already firmly established 
and associated with definite well-known local monuments. The tradition as 
to the twenty-five years* episcopate of St. Peter presents some points of re- 
semblance. That too appears for the first time in the fourth century with 
Eusebins (c. 325 A.D.) and his follower Jerome. By skilful analysis it is 
traced back a full hundred years earlier. It appears to be derived from a list 
drawn up probably by Hippolytus\ Lipsius would carry back this list 
a little further, and would maJce it composed under Victor in the last decade 
of the second century*, and Lightfoot seems to think it possible that the 
figures for the duration of the several episcopates may have been present in 
the still older list of Hegesippus, writing under Eleutherus {e. 175-190 A.D.)\ 

Thus we have the twenty-five yea.n* episcopate of St Peter certainly 
believed in towards the end of the first quarter of the third century, if not by 
the beginning of the last quarter of the second. We are coming back to 
a time when a continuous tradition is beginning to be possible. And yet the 
difficulties in the way of bringing St Peter to Rome at a date so early as the 
year 4a (which seems to be indicated) are so great as to make the acceptance 
of this chronology almost impossible. Not only do we find St Peter to all 
appearance still settled at Jerusalem at the time of the Council in a.d. 51, 
but we have seen that it is highly improbable that he had visited Rome 
when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church there. And it is hardly less 
improbable that a visit had been made between this and the later Epistles 
(Phil., Col., Eph.y Philem.). The relations between the two Apostles and of 
both to the work of missions in general, would almost compel some allusion 
to such a visit if it had taken place. Between the years 58 or 61-63 and 170 
there is quite time for legend to grow up; and Lipsius has pointed out 
a possible way in which it might arise *. There is evidence that the tradition 
of^our Lord's command to the Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for twelve 
years after His Ascension, was current towards the end of the second century. 
The travels of the Apostles are usually dated from the end of this period 

^ The best account of this transfer is that given by Duchesne, LiSir Pontifi' 
calis i. cvi f. 

' So Lipsius, after Erbes, Apokr, Apostelgesck, ii. 335 f., 391 ff. ; also Light- 
foot, Clement ii. 500. The Roman Catholic writers, Kraus and De Waal, 
would connect the story with the jealousies of Jewish and Gentile Christians in 
the first century : see the latter*s Die Aposteigruft ad Catacumbas, pp. 33 fi, 
49 ff. This work contains a full survey of the controversy with new archaeo* 
k^cal details. 

• Lightfoot, op, h^. L 259 ff. ; 333. 

• Ap. Lightfoot pp. a37i 333- * ^^^ P- 333- 

• Apokr, Apastelgesch, iL 27, 6^ 



(te. •boot 4l-4> *<!>.). Tben the iiaditiooal dale of the death of St. Peta 
if 67 or 68 ; sod tuhtiacting 41 Irom 67 we get jnsl the 15 yean required, 
ll *>i aasQrned that Si. Pcter'i episcopate dated from his linl anivat b 

So far the grotiad ii (tirly clear. Bat when Updtu goc* laither than th» 
■ad denies the Roman riilt i» /dM, his eiiticiSD) scfina to ns too drastic'. 
He irriret at hii roult thus. He trace* a douhle slieim in the tiitlition. 
Oa the one band there is the ' Petio-paulLae liadilian ' which [egaids the two 
Apofiles aa ettahliahiog the Chnrch in friendly co-operation *. The □Dllin» 
of thic hBTc been iliclchcd above. On the other hand there ii the IradilioD 
of the conflict of St. Peter with Simon Msgas. which under the figure of 
Simoa Mtgat route a diigoised alticit upon St. Paul '. Not only dot* 
Lipiini think thai this ii the carlie*! foim of the tradition, btit be icgardt it 
as the original of all other fonna which brought Si. Peter to Rome': the 
only hialoncal fronad for it which he woald allow it the visit of St. Paal. 
Tbu does oo< leem to us to be a aatisbctory eiplaoation. The tiacM of the 
Petro-panline ttudilioo are really earlier than ihoM! of the Ebionite legend. 
The way id which they are introduced is fiee from all auipidoD They are 
npported by collateral evidence (St. Peter's First Epistle and Ihe traditions 
leUtins toSt. Maik) the weight of which It consitlcrable. There ii practic- 
ally no conflicting tradition. The claim of the Roman Chnriih to joint 
immdalion by the two Apo>llei teems to have been nowhere dtipuleil. Antl 
(TO) the Ebionite ticlion ii more probable at a distortion of facts that have 
■ basis of truth than as pure invention. The visit of St. Peier to Rome, and 
hii death Ihert at lome nncertain date ', icem 10 ni. if not removed beyood 
■ibilily of donbt. yet u well establiihed u many of the leading facta 

ill poaaibili! 


(a) C^n/iMiiicH. The question as to the origin of the Roman 
OiiutJi has little more than an antiquarian interest ; il is an isobted 
fad or serin of facts which does not greatly affect either the picture 
which we form 10 ourselves of the Church or the sense in which 
we understand the Epistle addressed lo it. Il is otherwise with 
the qoestion as to its compositioti. Throughout the Apostolic age 
the defermining factor in most historical problenas is the relabve 

' It is lirnificaol that 00 this pc^t Weliiiicker parta company from Upsint 
iA/m. ZtitaU. p. 48i). 
' Of. tit. p. tits. ' Ibid. p. iS ft 

• Aid. p. fii ft 

* I'here ii no tubtlantial reason for npposing the death of St. Peter to have 
taken pUcc at the tame time aa that of St. Panl. Il U true thai the two 
Apoadet ue commemorated npon Ihe Mcne day (June 19), and that Ihe 
Cbraoicle of Eusebios refers ihdr deaths lo the same VMI (A.D. 67 Vers. 
Atmen. ; 68 Hieroo.). But the dsj is probably that of the deposition or re- 
mo*aJ of the bodies to or from the Chnrch of St. Sebastian (sec above) : and 
ior Ihe year ttie evii3ence is iny ininiiicieat. Profeuor Ramsay {Tht Ciurii 
M M< A'*mati Emfin, p. 179 ft) would pUce Ihe Fir^ Epistle of St. Peter in 
Ike middle of the Flavian period, A.D. 75-80 ; and it mnti be admitted that the 
astboiltiet are not tucb at to ioipcac an nbtolnle veto on this *iew. Tbe fact 
that tndllioo connecii the death of Sl PcIoi with the Vatican would seem to 
polBl to the great pei»catioa of A.D. G4 ; bat Ihe state of things im[>lied in 
tht Et^le doe* not look u if i[ were tnteiioi lo Ihit. On the other hand, 

' T Ramiay't aignmenli have greatly ihaken the objections to tbe tradi- 




preponderance of the Jewish element or the Gentile. Which of 
these two elements are we to think of as giving its character to 
the Church at Rome ? Directly contrary answers have been given 
to the question and whole volumes of controversy have grown up 
around it ; but in this instance some real advance has been made, 
and the margin of difference among the leading critics is not now 
very considerable. 

Here as in so many other cases elsewhere the sharper statement of 
the problem dates from Baur, whose powerful influence drew a long 
train of followers af^er him; and here as so often elsewhere the 
manner in which Baur himself approaches the question is deter- 
mined not by the minute exegesis of particular passages but by 
a broad and comprehensive view of what seems to him to be the 
argument of the Epistle as a whole. To him the Epistle seems to 
be essentially directed against Jewish Christians. The true centre 
of gravity of the Episde he found in chaps, ix-xi. St Paul there 
grapples at close quarters with the objection that if his doctrine 
held good, the special choice of Israel — its privileges and the 
promises made to it — all fell to the ground. At first there is no 
doubt that the stress laid by Baur on these three chapters in com- 
parison with the rest was exaggerated and one-sided. His own 
disciples criticized the position which he took up on this point, and 
he himself gradually drew back from it, chiefly by showing that 
a like tendency ran through the earlier portion of the Epistle. 
There too St Paul's object was to argue with the Jewish Christians 
and to expose the weakness of their reliance on formal obedience 
to the Mosaic Law. 

The writer who has worked out this view of Baur's most elabo- 
rately is Mangold. It is not difficult to show, when the Epistle is 
closely examined, that there is a large element in it which is 
essentially Jewish. The questions wiih which it deals are Jewish, 
the validity of the Law, the nature of Redemption, the principle on 
which man is to become righteous in the sight of God, the choice 
of Israel. It is also true that the arguments with which St Paul 
meets these questions are very largely such as would appeal 
specially to Jews. His own views are linked on directly to the 
teaching of the Old Testament, and it is to the Old Testament 
that he goes in support of them. It is fair to ask, what sort of 
relevance arguments of this character would have as addressed to 

It was also possible to point to one or two expressions in detail 
which might seem to favour the assumption of Jewish readers. 
Such would be Rom. iv. i where Abraham is described (in the 
most probable text) as * our forefather according to the flesh ' {row 

Wponaropa rffimw Kari adpKa), To that however it waS obviouS tO 

reply that in i Cor. x. i St. Paul spoke of the Israelites in the 


wflderness as ' our fathers/ though no one would maintain thai the 
CoriDthian Christians were by birth Jews. There is more weight 
— indeed there is real weight — in the argument drawn from the 
section, Rom. vii. i-6, where not only are the readers addressed 
as md*X<l>oi ftov (which would be just as possible if they were con- 
verts from heathenism) but a sustained contrast is drawn between 
an earlier state under the Law {6 pofios w. 1,4, 5, 6 ; not vv. 2, 3 
where the force of the article is different) and a later state of free- 
dom from the Law. It is true that this could not have been 
written to a Church which consisted wholly of Gentiles, unless the 
Apostle had forgotten himself for the moment more entirely than 
he is likely to have done. Still such expressions should not be 
pressed too far. He associates his readers with himself in a manner 
somewhat analogous to that in which he writes to the Corinthians, 
as if their spiritual ancestry was the same as his own. Nor was 
this without reason. Me regards the whole pre-Messianic period 
as a period of Law, of which the Law of Moses was only the most 
conspicuous example. 

It is a minor point, but also to some extent a real one, that the 
exhortations in chs. xiii, xiv are probably in part at least addressed 
to Jews. That turbulent race, which had called down the inter- 
ference of the civil power some six or seven years before, needed 
a warning to keep the peace. And the party which had scruples 
about the keeping of days is more likely to have been Jewish than 
Gentile. Still that would only show diat some members of the 
Roman Church were Jews, not that they formed a majority. Indeed 
in this instance the contrary would seem to be the case, because 
their opponents seem to have the upper hand and all that St. Pau? 
asks for on their behalf is toleration. 

We may take it then as established that there were Jews in the 
Church, and that in substantial numbers; just as we also cannot 
doubt that there was a substantial number of Gentiles. The direct 
way in which St Paul addresses the Gentiles in ch. xi. 13 ff. (vfuy 
df Xty^ TOW ZByfaur k.tX) would be proof sufficient of this. But it 
is further clear that Sl Paul regards the Church as broadly and in 
the main a Gentile Church. It is the Gentile element which gives 
it its colour. This inference cannot easily be explained away from 
the passages, Rom. L 5-7, 13-15; xv. 14-16. In the first St. Paul 
numbers the Church at Rome among the Gentile Churches, and 
bases on his own apostleship to the Gentiles his right to address 
them. In the second he also connects the obligations he is under 
to preach to them directly with the general fact that all Gentiles 
without exception are his province. In the third he in like manner 
excuses himself courteously for the earnestness with which he has 
written by an appeal to his commission to act as the priest who 
lays upon the altar the Church of the Gentiles as his offering. 



This then Is the natural construction to put upon the Apostle's 
language. The Church to which he is writing is Gentile in its 
general complexion; but at the same time it contains so many 
bom Jews that he passes easily and freely from the one body to 
the other. He does not feel bound to measure and weigh his 
words, because if he writes in the manner which comes most 
naturally to himself he knows that there will be in the Church 
many who will understand him. The fact to which we have 
already referred, that a large proportion even of the Gentile Chris- 
tians would have approached Christianity through the portals of 
a previous connexion with Judaism, would tend to set him still 
more at his ease in this respect. We shall see in the next section 
that the force which impels the Apostle is behind rather than in 
front It is not to be supposed that he had any exact statistics 
before him as to the composition of the Church to which he was 
writing. It was enough that he was aware that a letter such as he 
has written was not likely to be thrown away. 

If he had stayed to form a more exact estimate we may take the 
greetings in ch. xvi as a rough indication of the lines that it would 
follow. The collection of names there points to a mixture of 
nationalities. Aquila at least, if not also Prisca \ we know to have 
been a Jew (Acts xviii. a). Andronicus and Junias and Herodion 
are described as ' kinsmen ' (trvyytptU) of the Apostle : precisely 
what this means is not certain — perhaps 'members of the same 
tribe ' — but in any case they must have been Jews. Mary (Miriam) 
is a Jewish name ; and Apelles reminds us at once of ludaetis ApeUa 
(Horace, Sat, I. v. loo). And there is besides ' the household of 
Aristobulus,' some of whom — if Aristobulus was really the grandson 
of Herod or at least connected with that dynasty — would probably 
have the same nationality. Four names (Urbanus, Ampliatus, 
Rufus, and Julia) are Latin. The rest (ten in number) are Greek 
with an indeterminate addition in 'the household of Narcissus.' 
Some such proportions as these might well be represented in the 
Church at large. 

(3) Status and Condition, The same list of names may give us 
some idea of the social status of a representative group of Roman 
Christians. The names are largely those of slaves and freedmen. 
In any case the households of Narcissus and Aristobulus would 
belong to this category. It is not inconceivable, though of course 
not proveable, that Narcissus may be the well-known freedman of 
Claudius, put to death in the year 54 a.d., and Aristobulus the 
scion of the house of Herod. We know that at the time when 

* See the note on ch. xvi. 3, where reference it made to the view faTonred 
by Dr. Hort {Bom. and Eph. p. 1 2 ff.)» that Prisca was a Roman lady belonging 
to tbt well-known fiamily of that name. 


Sl Paul wrole lo the Philippians Christiantly had penetrated into 
ihe teUnue of the Emperor himself (Phil. iv. aa). A name like 
Philologus seems to point to a certain degree of culture. Wc 
shoultl therefore probably not be wrong in supposing that not 
only the poorer class of slaves and freedmen is represenied, And 
it must be remembered ihit the belter sort of Greek and some 
Orienial slaves would often be more highly educated and more 
refined in manners than their masters. There is good reason to 
think that Pomponia Graecina, the wife of Aulus Plauiius the 
conqueror of Britain, and that in the next giiieiaiion Flavins 
Clemens and Domililla, the near relations and victims of Domitian, 
bad come under Christian influence'. We should therefore be 
justified in supposing that even at this early date more than one of 
the Roman Christians possessed a not incon aiders tile social stand- 
ing and importance. If there was any Church in which the " not 
many nise men after the flrsh. not many mighty, not many noble,' 
had an exception, it was at Rome. 

Wlien we look again at the lis! we see that it has a tendency to 
m into groups. We hear of Prisca and Aquila, " and the Church 
that is in their house,' of the household of Arisiobiiius and the 
ChrisiiiUi memliers of the household of Narcissus, of A-;yncritus, &c. 
'and the hreihren that are with them,' of Philologus and certain 
companions '■md all the saints that are with tlicm.' It would only 
be what we should expect if the Church of Rome at this time 
consuted of a number of such little groups, scaitered over the 
great city, each with its own rendejnrous but without any complete 
Uid Ccniraliied organization. In more than one of the incidental 
iKNiccK of the Roman Church it is spoken of as ' foumlei) ' {Ircn. 
Ade. Hatr. 1 11. i. t ; til. 3) or ' planted " (Dionysius of Corinth in 
Eoj. H. E. 11. XXV. 8) by St. Peter and St. Paul, It may well be 
that iJihough the Churth did not in the strict sense owe lo these 
Apostles its origin, it did owe to them its first existence as an 
organized wliole. 

We must not however exaggerate the want of organization at 
the time when St. Paul is writing. The repeated allusions to 
' labouring * (■r.Brio*) in the case of Mary, Tryphaena and Tryphosa, 
and Persia — all, as we observe, women — points to some kind of 
regular ministry (cf. for ihc quasi-technical sense of hitmf i Thesi. 
V. i»; I Tim. V. 17). It is evident that Prisca and Aquila took 
the lead which we should expect of ihem ; and ihey were veil 
trained In St. Paul's methods. Even without the help of an 
Apostle, the Church had evidently a life of its own ; and where 
there ts life there is sure to be a sponLineous tendency to definite 
tnkulation of function. When Sl Paul and Sl Peter arrived we 

' Uithtfoot, CUmtmi, L 30-39. ftfr 


may believe that they would find the work half done ; still it would 
wait the seal of their presence, as the Church of Samaria waited for 
the coming of Peter and John (Acts viii. 14). 

§ 4* The Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose, 

OF THp Epistle- 

(i) Time and Place. The time and place at which the Epistle 
was written are easy to determine. And the simple and natural 
way in which the notes of both in the Epistle itself dovetail into the 
narrative of the Acts, together with the perfect consistency of the 
whole group of data — subtle, slight, and incidental as they are — in 
the two documents, at once strongly confirms the truth of the 
history and would almost alone be enough to dispose of the 
doctrinaire objections which have been brought against the 

St. Paul had long cherished the desire of paying a visit to Rome 
(Rom. i. 13; XV. 33), and that desire he hopes very soon to see 
fulfilled; but at the moment of writing his face is turned not 
westwards but eastwards. A collection has been made in the 
Greek Churches, the proceeds of which he is with an anxious mind 
about to convey to Jerusalem. He feels that his own relation and 
that of the Churches of his founding to the Palestinian Church is 
a delicate matter; the collection is no lightly considered act of 
passing charity, but it has been with him the subject of long and 
earnest deliberation ; it is the olive-branch which he is bent upon 
offering. Great issues turn upon it ; and he does not know how it 
will be received ^ 

We hear much of this collection in the Epistles written about 
this date (i Cor. xvi. iff.; a Cor. viii. iff.; ix. i ff.). In the 
Acts it is not mentioned before the fact; but retrospectively in 
the course of St. Paul's address before Felix allusion is made to 
it: 'after many years I came to bring alms to my nation and 
offerings' (Actsxxiv. 17). Though the collection is not mentioned 
in the earlier chapters of the Acts, the order of the journey is 
mentioned. When his stay at Ephesus was drawing to an end 
we read that ' Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed 
through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying. After 
I have been there, I must also see Rome' (Acts xix. ai). Part of 
this programme has been accomplished. At the time of writing 
St. Paul seems to be at the capital of Achaia. The allusions 

* Od this collection see an excellent article by Mr. Kendall in The Expositof y 
1893, ii. aai fL 


which point to this would none of ihem taken separately be 
ceitain, but ia combinaiion they amount to a degree of pro- 
bability wbich is liule short of certainty. The hearer of the 
Epistle appean to be one Phoebe who is an active, perhaps an 
official, member of the Church of Cenchreae, the harbour ol 
Corinth (Rom. xvi. i). The house in which St. Paul is staying, 
which is also the mceiing-place of the local Church, belongs to 
Giiiti (RoR). xvi 33); and a Gaius St. Paul had baptized at 
Corinth (t Cor. i. 14). He sends a greeting also from Eiastus, 
iriio is described as 'occonomus' or 'Keasurer' ol the city. The 
office b of some importance, and points to a cily of some im- 
portiuice. This would agree with Coiinih; and just at Coiinlh 
wc learn from a Tim. iv. 30 thai an Erastus was left behind on 
Si. Paul's latest journey— naiu rally enough if it was his home. 

The visii 10 Achaia then upon which these indications converge 
is ihal which is described in Acts zs. a, 3. It occupied three 
months, which on the most probable reckoning would fall at 
tbc be);inning of the year 58. St. Paul has in his company at 
this time Timothy and Sosipater (or SopaLer) who join in the 
greeting of the Epistle (Rom. zvi. 31) and are also mentioned 
in Acts XX. 4. Of the remaining four who send their greetings 
we recognize at least Jason of Thessalonica (Rom. xvL at ; cf. 
Acts xviL 6). Just the lightness and unoblrusivencss of all these 
mutual coincidences affixes to ll>e works in which they occur 
tbc stamp of leaJity. 

Tbc date thai doiIy indicUed bring! the Epiille to the Romani into 
doM coaociioi] with the two Epistlei ta Corintliiimi. anil less ctttBinly with 
the Epistle to GatiiiAiu. We bsTc leen bow the collection for the Charcbes 
ol Judses it one of lb« tick* wbich bind logctber the Gr&t thiee. Many 
othci nMlci iracei of lynchronism in tbooghl and ityle hive been poinled 
ool bdoeCD all (bat (npeciiUy by Bp. Ligbtroot ia Jaunt, if Clou, and 
Smr. PhiUt. iii {1857], p. 9898.1 ■leo Galaliaiu, p. 43 E, ed. 1). The 
rtltthre potitlon of 1 and i Cotiothiini and Romans is fixed and certain. 
If RAtnan* was wiilten in the early i|iring of a.o. jB, then ) Corinthian* 
woold lall in (he ipiing and t Corinlhiiins in tbe ■ulumii of A. D. £7 '. In 
regaiil to GilalUns the data are not to dEi;l-iTe. and dilVerent liewa aie held. 
Tbe older opinioo, aod thai which woaliJ lecm to be (till dominant in 
tlrRDany (it ii nuintained by Lipuut wiiiiag in 189I), ii that Galitlnni 
belccic> to the euty put al St. Panl'i long nay at E|>heius. A. D, ;;4 or fj. 
la England Up. Lighlfoot lounil a numbci of foUowcri in bringing it into 
cJowi juilapoiition nilb Ronun^, abont ibe wiuler of a.d. f7-5d. The 

Soeitlon biivicver h*> been recently reopened in two ap|iuii<e dinctiona; oo 
ir one baud by Dr. C. Clemen ^Ckronebgit litr faulininAtn Britfc. Halle, 
■^SJ)! "Im would place iE after Kouiaiit; and on the othei hand by 

■ JUIu:hct, u hi* 
Corlolhmoa by an * 

I* recml Einttilung, p. 61, wpaiatet the two Epi&Itei to tbe 
i.aiuiiuuiDa uj ui inlerval of ci|;lilcen nionlhi; nor can Ihii opinion be at once 
nXfi onl of court, though it leeitis opuotcd 10 i Coi. xii. 8, from which we 
Rthei that when he wrotr (he lint Epistle bl. Pan! did not contemplate Hayug 
n £f4>uBl lMi£ei titan the aax aucceding tentecoiL 


Mr. F. Rendtll in 7%e Expositor for April, 1894 (p. 354 ff.), who would 
place it tome years earlier. 

Clemen, who propounds a novel yiew of the chronology of St. PaQl's life 
generally, would interpose the Coandl of Jerusalem (which he identifies with 
5ie visit of Acts xxi and not with that of Acts xv) between Romans, which 
he assigns to the winter of A.D. 53-54> and Galatians, which he places towards 
the end of the latter year ^. His chief argument is that Galatians represents 
a more advanced and heated stage of the controversy with the Tudaizers, and 
he accounts for this by the events which followed the Council (Gal. ii. i a ff. ; 
i. 6 flf.)* There is, however, much that is arbitrary in the whole of this 
reconstruction ; and the common view seems to us Car more probable that 
the Epistle to the Romans marks rather the gradual subsidence of troubled 
waters than their first disturbing. There is more to be said for Mr. Rendall's 
opinion that Galatians was written during the early part of St. Paul's first 
visit to Corinth in the year 51 (or 5 a). The question is closely connected 
with the controversy reopened by Professor Ramsay as to the identity of the 
Galatian Churches. For those who see in them the Churches of South 
Galatia (Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe) the earlier date 
may well seem preferable. If we take them to be the Churches of North 
Galatia (Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium), then the Epistle cannot be earlier 
than St. Paul's settlement at Ephesus on his third journey in the year 54. 
The argument which Bishop Lightfoot based on resemblances of thought and 
language between Galatians and Romans rests upon facts that are indisput- 
able, but does not carry with it any certain inference as to date. 

(a) Occasion. If the time and place of the Epistle are clear, 
the occasion of it is still clearer; St. Paul himself explains it 
in unmistakable language twice over. At the beginning of the 
Epistle (Rom. i. 10-15) he tells the Romans how much he has 
longed to pay them a visit ; and now that the prospect has been 
brought near he evidently writes to prepare them for it. And 
at the end of the Epistle (ch. xv. 22-33) ^^ repeats his explanation 
detailing all his plans both for the near and for the more distant 
future, and telling them how he hopes to make his stay with them 
the most important stage of his journey to Spain. We know that 
his intention was fulfilled in substance but not in the manner 
of its accomplishment. He went up to Jerusalem and then 

^ Dr. Clemen places St. PauFs long stay at Ephesus (2| years on his reckon- 
ing) in 50-53 A.D. In the course of it would fall our i Corinthians and two 
out of the three letters which are supposed to be combined in our a Corinthians 
(for this division there is leally something of a case). He then inserts a third 
missionary journey, extending not over three months (&• Acts xx. 3), but 
over some two years in Macedonia and Greece. To this he refers the last 
Corinthian letter (a Cor. i-viii) and a genuine fragment of £p. to Titus 
(Tit. iii. ia-14). Ep. to Romans is written from Corinth in the winter 0/ 
A.D. 53-54. Then follow the Council at Jerusalem, the dispute at Antioch, 
Ep. to Galatians, and a fourth journey in Asia Minor, with another genuine 
fragment, a Tim. iv. 19-ai. This fills the interval which ends with the arrest 
at Jeiusalem in the year 58, Epp. to Phil., Col., Philem. and one or two more 
fragments of Past. Iipp., the Apostle's arrival at Rome in A.D. 61 and hit 
death in a d. ^4. The whole scheme stands or falls with the place assigned to 
the Council of Jerusalem, and the estimate formed of the historical character 
of the Acts. 





M Rome, but only afler two yeass' forcible detention, and ai 
a prisoner awaiting his trial. 

(3) Purpose. A more complicated question meets us when 
from the occasion or proximate cauiie or the Epistle to the Romans 
we pass to its purpose or ulterior cause. The Apostle's reasons 
for writing to Rome lie upon the surface ; his reasons for writing 
the pajticular letter be did write will need more consideration. 
No doubt there is a providence in it. It was willed that such 
a letter should be written for the admonition of ailer-ages. But 
through what psychological channels did that providence work ? 

Here we pass on to much debated ground ; and it will perhaps 
help u5 if vl begin by presenting the opposing theories in as 
antithetical a form as possible. 

When the different views which have been held come to be 
examined, tbey will be found to be reducible to two main types, 
which diifer not on a single point but on a number of co-ordinated 
points. One might be described as primarily historical, the other 
primarily dogmatic ; one directs attention mainly to the Church 
addiessed, the other mainly to the writer ; one adopts the view 
of a predominance of Jewish-Christian readers, the other pre- 
supposes readers who are predominantly Gentile Christians. 

Here again the epoch-making impulse came from Baur. It was 
Baor who first worked out a coherent theory, the essence of which 
wu that ii claimed to be historical. He argued from the analogy 
of tbe other Epistles which he allowed to be genuine. The cir- 
cnmstances of the Corinthian Church are reflected as in a glass in 
the Epistles to tbe Corinihi;ins ; the circumstances of the Galatian 
Cfaorcbes come out clearly from that to the Galaiians. Did it not 
follow that the circumsunces of the Roman Church might be 
directly inferred from the Epistle to the Romans, and that the 
Epbtle itseir was written with deliberate reference to them } Why 
all this Jewish-sounding argument if the readers were not Jews f 
Why these constant answers to objections if there was no one to 
object? The issues discussed were similar in many respects to 
those in the Episde to the Galatians. In Galatia a fierce con- 
trovcny was going on. Must it not therefore be assumed that 
there was a like controversy, only milder and more tempered, at 
Rome, «nd that the Apostle wished to deal with it in a manner 
correspondingly milder and more tempered? 

There was liu^h in all this; but it was truth to some extent 
one-sided and exaggerated. A little reflexion will show thai tbe 
cases of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were not exactly 
ptrallel 10 that of Rome. In Galatia St. Paul was dealing with 
a perfecdy definite state of things in a Church which he hirasell" had 
(bunded, and tbe circumstances of which he knew from within and 
not nereiy by hearsay. At Corinth he had spent a still longer 


time; when he wrote he was not far distant; there had been 
frequent communications between the Church and the Apostle; 
and in the case of i Corinthians he had actually before him a letter 
containing a number of questions which he was requested to 
answer, while in that of a Corinthians he had a personal report 
brought to him by Titus. What could there be like this at Rome ? 
The Church there St. Paul had not founded, had not even seen ; 
and, if we are to believe Baur and the great majority of his followers, 
he had not even any recognizable correspondents to keep him 
informed about it. For by what may seem a strange inconsistency 
it was especially the school of Baur which denied the genuineness 
of ch. xvi, and so cut away a whole list of persons from one or 
other of whom St Paul might have really learnt something about 
Roman Christianity. 

These contradictions were avoided in the older theory which 
prevailed before the time of Baur and which has not been without 
adherents, of whom the most prominent perhaps is Dr. Bemhard 
Weiss, since his day. According to this theory the main object of 
the Episde is doctrinal; it is rather a theological treatise than 
a letter ; its purpose is to instruct the Roman Church in central 
principles of the faith, and has but litde reference to the circum- 
stances of the moment 

It would be wrong to call this view — at least in its recent forms 
— onhistorical. It takes account of the situation as it presented 
itself, but looks at another side of it from that which caught the 
eye of Baur. The leading idea is no longer the position of the 
readers, but the position of the writer : every thing is made to turn 
on the truths which the Apostle wished to place on record, and for 
which he found a fit recipient in a Church which seemed to have so 
commanding a future before it 

Let us try to do justice to the different aspects of the problem. 
The theories which have so far been mentioned, and others of 
which we have not yet spoken, are only at fault in so far as they 
are exclusive and emphasize some one point to the neglect of the 
rest Nature is usually more subtle than art. A man of St. Paul's 
ability sitting down to write a letter on matters of weight would be 
hkely to have several influences present to his mind at once, and 
his language would be moulded now by one and now by another. 

Three factors may be said to have gone to the shaping of this 
letter of St. Paul's. 

The first of these will be that which Baur took almost for the 
only one. The Apostle had some real knowledge of the state of 
the Church to which he was writing. Here we see the importance 
of his connexion with Aquila and Prisca. His intercourse with 
them would probably give the first impulse to that wish which he 
tells us that he had entertained for many years to visit Rome in 




When first he met them at Corinth they were newly 
rnnivtd from the capital; be would hear from ihcm of the state of 
lhinj;s they left behind ihem ; and a spark would be enough to 
Gfc hU imagination at the prospect of winning a foothold for Christ 
and the Gospel in ttie seat of empire kself. We may well 
believe — if the speculations about Prisca are valid, and even with- 
out drawing iipon these — that the two wanderers would keep up 
conununicaiion with the Chrisiinns of their home. And now, very 
probably at the instance of the Apostle, they had returned to 
prepare the way for his coming. We cannoi afford to lose so 
vaJuable a link between St. Paul and the Church he hnd set his 
heui on visiting. Two of his most trusted friends are now on the 
ipot, and they would not fail to report all that it was essentia! to 
the Apostle to know. He may have had other correspondents 
besides, but ihey would be the chief. To this source we may look 
for «ba( there is of local colour in the Epistle. If the argument is 
addressed now to Gentiles by birth and now to Jews; if we c»lch 
a ghmpse of parlies in the Church, 'the strong' and 'the weak'; 
if there is a hint of danger threatening the peace and the faith of 
ibc community (as in ch. ivL ij-io) — it is from his friends in 
Rome that the Apostle draws his knowledge of the conditions with 
which he is dealing. 

The second factor which helps in determining the character of 
ibe Epistle has more to do with what it is not than with what it b: 
il prevents it from being as it was at one time described, ' a com- 
pendium of the uhole of Christian doctrine.' The Epistle is not 
this, because like alt St. Paul's Epistles il implies a common basis 
of Christian teaching, those irupaioinit as they are called elsewhere 
(t Cor. xi. a ; ■ Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6). which the Aposde is able to 
take for granted as already known to his readers, and which he 
therefore ihinks it unnecessary to repeat without special reason. 
He will not 'lay again' a foundation which is already laid. He 
will Doi speak of the 'first principles' of a Christian's belief, but 
will • go on unto perfection.' Hence it is that just the most funda- 
mental doctrines — the Divine Lonlship of Christ, the value of His 
Deiib, the nature of the Sacraments — are assumed rather than 
stated or proveii. Such allusions as we get to these are concerned 
not with the rudimentary but with the more developed forms of the 
doctrines in question. They nearly always add something to the 
comiDOn stock of teaching, give to it a profounder significance, 
or apply it in new and unforeseen directions. The last charge 
thai could be brought against the Epistle would be that it consistL-d 
of Christian commonplaces. It is one of the most original ol 
writings. No Christian can have read ii for the first time without 
fi»liiig that he was introduced to heights and depths of Chri^iianiiy 
ol whicb be bad never been conscious before. 


For, lasdy, the most powerful of all the influences which have 
shaped the contents of the Epistle is the experience of the writer. 
The main object which he has in view is really not far to seek. 
When he thought of visiting Rome his desire was to ' have some 
fruit ' there, as in the rest of the Gentile world (Rom. i. 13). He 
longed to impart to the Roman Christians some ' spiritual gift,' 
such as he knew that he had the power of imparting (L 1 1 ; xv. 
19). By this he meant the effect of his own personal presence, 
but the gift was one that could be exercised also in absence. He 
has exercised it by this letter, which is itself the outcome of a 
wvntiAonKhv x^^^l^t & word of instruction, stimulus, and warning, 
addressed in the first instance to the Church at Rome, and through 
it to Christendom for all time. 

The Apostle has reached another turning-point in his career. 
He is going up to Jerusalem, not knowing what will befall him 
there, but prepared for the worst. He is aware that the step which 
he is taking is highly critical and he has no confidence that he wiU 
escape with his life \ This gives an added solemnity to his utter- 
ance ; and it is natural that he should cast back his glance over 
the years which had passed since he became a Christian and sum 
up the result as he felt it for himself. It is not exacdy a conscious 
summing up, but it is the momentum of this past experience which 
guides his pen. 

Deep in the background of all his thought lies that one great 
event which brought him within the fold of Christ. For him it 
had been nothing less than a revolution ; and it fixed permanently 
his conception of the new forces which came with Christianity into 
the world. * To believe in Christ,' * to be baptized into Christ,' 
these were the watchwords ; and the Apostle felt that they were 
pregnant with intense meaning. That new personal relation of 
the believer to his Lord was henceforth the motive-power which 
dominated the whole of his life. It was also met, as it seemed, in a 
marvellous manner from above. We cannot doubt that from his con- 
version onwards St. Paul found himself endowed with extraordinary 
energies. Some of them were what we should call miraculous; 
but he makes no distinction between those which were miraculous 
and those which were not. He set them all down as miraculous 
in the sense of having a direct Divine cause. And when he looked 
around him over the Christian Church he saw that like endowments, 
energies similar in kind if inferior to his own in degree, were 
widely diffused. They were the characteristic mark of Christians. 
Partly they took a form which would be commonly described as 
supernatural, unusual powers of healing, unusual gifts of utterance, 
an unusual magnedc influence upon others ; partly they consisted 

*■ This ii impretsively itated in Hort, R^m, and Eph, p. 4a C 




in a atraD^ elation of spirit which made suJTering and toil seem 
light and insignificant ; but most of all the new impulse was moral 
m its woTking, it blossomed oui in a muliiiude of allractive traits — 
■love, joy, peace, iongsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 
meekness, temperance.' These Si. Paul called ' fruits of the 
SpiriL" The act of faith on the part of man, the influence of the 
Spirit (which was only another way of describing the influence of 
Christ Himself) from the side of God, were the two outstanding 
facts which made the hves of Christians di0er from those of Otlier 

These are the posmlates of Christianity, the forces to which the 
ApostJe has to appeal for the solution of ptactical problems as ihey 
present themselves. His time had been very largely taken up 
with such problrms. There had been the great question as to 
the tenns on which Gentiles » ere to be admitted to the new society. 
On this head Sl Paul could have no doubt. His own ruling 
principles, ■ faith ' and ' the Spirit,' made no distinciion between 
Jew and Gentile ; he had no choice but to contend for the equal 
rights of boih — a certain precedence might be yielded to the Jews 
as the chosen people of the Old Covenant, but that was all. 

This battle bad been fought and won. But it left behind 
a qnesdon which was intellectually more troublesome — a question 
brought liome by the actual effect of the preaching of Christianity, 
ray largely welcomed and eagerly embraced by Gentiles, but as 
a rule spumed and rejected by the Jews— how it could be that 
Israel, the chosen recipient of the promises of the Old Testament, 
thould be excluded from the benelit now that those promises came 
to be fiillilled. Clearly this question belongs to the later reflective 
stage of the controversy relating to Jew and Gentile. The active 
contending for Geniile lil)erties would come liisC, the philosophic 
ot theological assignment of the due place of }ev and Geniile in 
the Divine scheme would naturally come afterwards. This more 
advanced stage has now been reached ; the Apostle has made up 
hii mind on the whole series of questions at issue; and he lakes 
the opportunity of writing to the Romans at the very centre of the 
empire, to lay down calmly and deliberaiely the conclusions to 
which be has come. 

The Epistle is the ripened fruit of ihe thought and struggles of 
the eventful years by which it had been preceded. It is no merely 
abstract disquisition but a letter full of direct human interest in the 
penoos lo whom it is written ; it is a letter which contains here 
and there ade-giances at particular local circumstances, and a) 
least one emphatic warning (ch. xvi. 17-10) against a danger 
wbkh bad not reached tlie Church as yet, but any day might reach 

* 8m the Dota on eh. vliL 9-17 ; compue tlto dt tL 1-14. 


it, and the full urgency of which the Apostle knew only too well ; 
but the main theme of the letter is the gathering in of the harvest, 
at once of the Church's history since the departure of its Master, 
and of the individual history of a single soul, that one soul which 
under God had had the most active share in making the course of 
external events what it was. St. Paul set himself to give the 
Roman Church of his best ; he has given it what was perhaps in 
some ways too good for it — more we may be sure than it would be 
able to digest and assimilate at the moment, but just for that very 
reason a body of teaching which eighteen centuries of Christian 
interpreters have failed to exhaust. Its richness in this respect is 
due to the incomparable hold which it shows on the essential 
principles of Christ's religion, and the way in which, like the 
Bible in general, it pierces through the conditions of a particular 
time and place to the roots of things which are permanent and 

5 5. The Argument. 

In the interesting essay in which, discarding all tradition, he 
seeks to re-interpret the teaching of St. Paul directly from the 
standpoint of the nineteenth century, Matthew Arnold maps out the 
contents of the Epistle as follows : — 

' If a somewhat pedantic form of expression may be forgiven for 
the sake of clearness, we may say that of the eleven first chapters 
of the Epistle to the Romans — the chapters which convey Paul's 
theology, though not • . . with any scholastic purpose or in any 
formal scientific mode of exposition — of these eleven chapters, the 
first, second, and third are, in a scale of importance, fixed by 
a scientific criticism of Paul's line of thought, sub-primary; the 
fourth and fifth are secondary; the sixth and eighth are primary; 
the seventh chapter is sub-primary ; the ninth, tenth, and eleventh 
chapters are secondary. Furthermore, to the contents of the 
separate chapters themselves this scale must be carried on, so far as 
to mark that of the two great primary chapters, the sixth and 
eighth, the eighth is primary down only to the end of the twenty- 
eighth verse ; from thence to the end it is, however, eloquent, yet 
for the purpose of a scientific criticism of Paul's essential theology 
only secondary' (S/. Paul and Pro/es/a/t/ism, p. 92 f.). 

This extract may serve as a convenient starting-point for our 
examination of the argument : and it may conduce to clearness of 
apprehension if we complete the summary analysis of the Episde 
given by the same writer, with the additional advantage of presenting 
it in his fresh and bright manner i— 




•The first chapter b to the Gentiles — its purport is: You have 
not righteoiisneSB. The Becond is to the Jews— ils purport 
ia: No more have you, though you think you have. The ihiid 
chapter assumes faith in Christ as the one source of right- 
eousness for all men. The fourth chapter gives to the notion 
of righteousness through faith the saTiction of ihe Old Testament 
and of the history of Abraham. The fifih insists on the causes for 
thanlcfulness and exultation in the boon of righteousness through 
fiiith in Chriit; ami applies illustratively, with this design, the 
history of Adam. The sixth chapter comes to the all-importani 
question : " What is thai faith in Christ which I, Paul, mean ? " — 
and answers it. The seveniii illustrates and explains the answer. 
But the eighth down to ihe end of the twenty-eighth verse, develops 
attd completes the answer. The rest of the eighth chapter expresses 
the sense of safety and gratimde which the solution is fitted to 
inspire. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters upliold the second 
chapter's thesis — so hard to a Jew, so easy to us — thai righteous- 
ness is not by the Jewish law ; but dwell with hope and joy on a 
final result of things which is to be favourable to Israel' <;i/i/. p. 93). 

Some such outline as this would be at the present stage of in- 
vestigation generally accepted. It is true that Baur threw the 
wnire of gravity upon chapters ix-xi. and held that the rest of the 
Epistle was written np to these : but this view would now on 
almost all hands be regarded as untenable. The problem discussed 
in these chapters doubtless weighed heavily on the Apostle's mind 1 
in Ihe circumstances under which he was writing it was doubtless 
a problem of very considerable urgency ; but for all that it is 
a problem which belongs rather to the circumference of St. Paul's 
thought than to the centre ; it is not so much a part of his funda- 
menul teaching as a consequence arising from its collision with an 
anbelicvfns world. 

On this head the scholarship of ihe present day would be on the 
side of Matthew Arnold. It points, however, to the necessity, in 
any attempt to determine what is primary and what is not primary 
in the argument of the Epistle, of starling with a clear understanding 
of the point of view from which the degrees of relative itnportance 
are to be assigned Baur's object was historical— to set the 
Epistle in relation to the circumstances of its composition. On 
that assumption his view was partially — though still not more than 
partially — josti6cd. Matthew Arnold's object on the other hand 
was what he calls ' a scientific criticism of Paul's thought ' ; by 
which he seems to mi^an (thoui^h perhaps he was not wholly clear 
in his own mind) an attempt to discriminate in it those elements 
nhich are of the highest permanent value. It was natural that he 
should attach the greatest importance to those elements in particular 
vfaicb Mcmcd to be capable of diiecl personal verification. From 


this point of view we need not question his assignment of a primary 
significance to chapters vi and viii. His reproduction of the thought 
of these chapters is the best thing in his book, and we have drawn 
upon it ourselves in the commentary upon them (p. 163 f.). There 
is more in the same connexion ihat well deserves attentive study. 
But there are other portions of the Epistle which are not capable of 
verification precisely in the same manner, and yet were of primary 
importance to St. Paul himself and may be equally of primary 
importance to those of us who are willing to accept his testimony 
in spiritual things which lie beyond the reach of our personal 
experience. Matthew Arnold is limited by the method which he 
applies — and which others would no doubt join with him in 
applying — to the subjective side of Christianity, the emotions and 
efforts which it generates in Christians. But there is a further 
question how and why they came to be generated. And in the 
answer which St. Paul would give, and which the main body of 
Christians very largely on his authority would also give to that 
question, he and they alike are led up into regions where direct 
human verification ceases to be possible. 

It is quite true that * faith in Christ ' means attachment to Christ, 
a strong emotion of love and gratitude. But that emotion is not 
confined, as we say, to ' the historical Christ,' it has for its object 
not only Him who walked the earth as ' Jesus of Nazareth ' ; it is 
directed towards the same Jesus ' crucified, risen and ascended to 
the right hand of God.' St. Paul believed, and we also believe, 
that His transit across the stage of our earth was accompanied by 
consequences in the celestial sphere which transcend our faculties. 
We cannot pretend to be able to verify them as we can verify that 
which passes in our own minds. And yet a certain kind of indirect 
verification there is. The thousands and tens of thousands of 
Christians who have lived and died in the firm conviction of the 
truth of these supersensual realities, and who upon the strength of 
them have reduced their lives to a harmonious unity superseding 
the war of passion, do really afford no slight presumption that the 
beliefs which have enabled them to do this are such as the Ruler of 
the universe approves, and such as aptly fit into the eternal order. 
Whatever the force of this presumption to the outer world, it is one 
which the Christian at least will cherish. 

We therefore do not feel at liberty to treat as anything less than 
primary that which was certainly primary to St Paul. We entirely 
accept the view that chapters vi and viii are primary, but we also 
feel bound to place by their side the culminating verses of chapter 
iii. The really fundamental passages in the Epistle we should say 
were, ch.i. 16, 17, which states the problem, and iii. 21-26, vi. 1-14, 
viii. 1-30 (rather than 1-28), which supply its solution. The 
problem is. How is man to become righteous in the sight of God ? 

4 B.) tHB ARGUMENT xlvfl 

And the answer is (i) by certain great redemptive ads on the 
pan of God which talie effect in the sphere above, lliougli their 
consequences are feh lliroughout the sphere below ; (a) itirough 
a ccrtiin anient apprehension of these acts and of their Author 
Christ, on the part of the Chrisilan ; and (3) through his con- 
tinued self-surrender to Divine influences poured out freely and 
unremittingly upon him. 

It is superfluous to say that there is nothing whalever that is new 
in ibb statement. It does but reproduce the belief, in part implicit 
father than explicit, of the Early Church ; then further defined and 
empltasized more i-iftorously on some of its sides at the Reformation ; 
and lastly brought to a more even balance (or what many would 
Uia make a more even balance) by the Church of our own day. Of 
cotme it is liable to be impugned, as it is impugned by the 
attractive writer whose words have been quoted above, in the 
interest of what is thought to be a stricter science, But whalever 
the value in itself of the theory which is substituted for it. we may 
be tare that it does not adequately represent the mind of St. Paul. 
Id the present commentary our first object is to do justice 10 this. 
How it is afterwards to be worked up into a complete scheme of 
re&giont belief, it lies beyond our scope to consider. 

For the sake of the student it may be well to draw out l!ie 
contents of the Epistle in a tabular analytical form. St. Paul, as 
Matthew Arnold rightly reminds us, is no Schoolman, and his 
method is the very reverse of ail that is formal and artificial. But 
it is undoubtedly helpful to set before ourselves the framework of 
bis thought, just as a knowledge of anatomy conduces to the better 
oodentaiuling of the living human frame. 

L — IntTodootioD (). 1-15 . 

a. The Aposlalic SalutalioD (L 1-7I. 
0. in. Paul and t!ie Rodud Ciiardi (L S-I5). 
IL — DootrlsaL 

Tua Great Thesis. Problem : How U Righteotiiiim to be iIUtnedT 
AotwFi ; Not by mvt't woik, but by God's gift, Ihrongh Failll, or 
loTil Uuuhmnil to Chriil (i. t6, 17). 
A. Rif^iieonmcn u ■ it>te or condiiion in the sight of God (Justificalioa) 

I. Righleonraesa not hilbnto Dnuned (i. iS-iii. ]o). 

[Ratliei, by conlrut, ■ (ccne which beapeski impeniJing Wntb], 
m. F«iTare of the Geniile (1. 18-31). 
(L) Naioril Religioa (L iS-)o); 
(ii) dewiled for IdoUviy (i. ii-)5} ; 

(lii.) hcDce judicial ■bunloomcDl to abominable lini (>< -*), to 
erety kiad of moral depiavily (1S-31), cttk to pecTenion ot 


(i.) Jewish critic and Gentile sinner in the same position (it 1-4). 
(li.) Standard of judgement : deeds, not pririleges (ii. 5-1 1) 
(Ui.) Rale of judgement : Law of Moses for the Jew ; Law of Con 
science for the Gentile (ii. ia-i6). 
Y. Failure of the Jew (ii. 17-29). Profession and reality, as regmrdt 
(L) Law (ii. 17-34^; 
di.) Circnmcision (ii. 25-29). 
i, [Parenthetic]. Answer to casuistical objections from Jewish stand- 
point (iii. 1-8). 
(i) The Jew*s advantage as recipient of Divine Promises 

(iii. 1,2); 
|ii.) which promises are not invalidated by Man*t unfaithfalncss 

(iii. 3, 4)- 
(iii.) Yet God*s greater glory no excuse for human sin (iiu 5-8). 
i. Universal failure to attain to righteousness and earn acceptance 
illustrated from Scripture (iii. 9-20). 

t. Consequent Kxposition of New Svstem (iii. 21-31) : 
«. (i.) in its relation to Law, independent of it, yet attested by it 


(iL) in its universality, as the free gift of God (22-24) ; 

(iiL) in the method of its realization through the propitiatory Death 
of Christ, which occupies under the New Dispensation the 
same place which Sacrifice, especially the ceremonies of the 
Day of Atonement, occupied under the Old (25) ; 

(Iv.) in its final cause — the twofold manifestation of God's righteous- 
ness, at once asserting itself against sin and conveying pardoa 
to the sinner (26). 
3* Preliminary note of two main consequences from this : 
(L) Boastmg excluded (27, 28) ; 

(ii.) Jew and Gentile alike accepted ( 29-31 )• 

f. Relation of this New System to O. T. considered in reference to the 
crucial case of Abraham (iv. 1-25). 
(i.) Abraham's acceptance (like that described by David) turned 

on Faith, not Works (iv. 1-8) ; 
0i) nor Circumcision (iv. 9-12) 

[so that there might be nothing to prevent him from 
being the spiritual father of uncircumcised at well as 
circumcised (11, 12)], 
(iii.) nor Law, the antithesis of Promise (iv. 13-17) 

[so that he might be the spiritual father of «// believers, 
not of those under the Law only]. 
(it.) Abraham's Faith, a type of the Christian's (iv. 17-25) : 
[he too believed in a birth from the dead]. 

4. Blissful effects of Righteousness by Faith (v. 1-21). 
a. (i.) It leads by sure degrees to a triumphant hope of final sal- 
vation (v. 1-4). 
(ii.) That hope guaranteed a fortiori by the Love displayed in 
Christ's Death for sinners (v. 5-11). 
d. Contrast of these effects with those of Adam's Fall (v. ia-21) : 
(i.) like, in the transition from one to all (12-14); 
(li.) unlike, in that where one brought sin, condemnation, death, the 
other brought grace, a declaration of unmerited righteous* 
ness, life (15-17). 
(Itt.) Summary. Relations of Fall, Law, Grace (18-21) 

[The Fall brought sin; Law increased it; but Grace most 
than cancels Sie ill effects of Law]. 

I 5.] 


H. ProgmsiTe Rigfateonsnets in the Christum (Sanctification) (vi-viii). 
1. Reply to farther casuistical objection : ' If more sin means more 
grace, why not go on sinning f* 
The immersion of Baptism carried with it a death to sin, 
and union with the risen Christ The Christian there- 
fore cannot, most not. sin (vi. 1-14). 
t. The Christian's Release : what it is, and what it b not : shown by 

two metaphors. 
«. Servitude and emancipation (vi. 15-33). 
fi. The marriage-bond (vii. 1-6;. 

[The Christian's old self dead to the Law with Christ ; so that 
he is henceforth free to live with Him]. 
^ Judaistic objection from seeming disparagement of Law : met by an 
analysis of the moral conflict in the soul. Law is impotent, 
and gives an impulse or handle to sin, but is not itself sinful 
(vii. 7-S4). The conflict ended by the interposition of 
Christ (as). 

4. Penpective of the Christian's New Career (^iii). 
The Indwelling Spirit, 
a. Failure of the previous system made good by Christ's Incarnation 

and the Spirit's presence (viii. 1-4). 
fi. The new regime contrasted with the old— the regime of the Spirit 

with the weakness of unassisted humanity (viiL 5-9 '. 
-y. The Spirit's presence a guarantee of bodily as well as moral 

resurrection (viii. 10-13); 
K also a guarantee that the Christian enjoys with God a son's relation, 

and will enter upon a son's inheritance (viii. 14-1 7). 
«. That glorious inheritance the object of creation's yearning (viii. 

and of the Christian's hope (viii. 13-35). 
If. Human infirmity assisted by the Spirit's intercession (viii a6, 27) ; 
#. and sustained by the knowledge of the connected oiain by which 

God worics out His purpose of salvation (viii. 28-30). 
«. Inviolable security of the Christian in dependence upon God's 

favour and the love of Christ (viii. 31-39). 

C Problem of Israel's Unbelie£ The Gospel in history (ix, x, xi). The 
rejection of the Chosen People a sad contrast to its high destiny and 
privileges (ir. 1-5). 

I. Justice of the Rejection (ix. 6-39). 
a. The Rejection of Israel not inconsistent with the Divine promises 

fi. nor with the Divine Justice (ix. 14-39). 

(L) The absoluteness of God's choice shown from the O. T. (u. 

(ii.) A necessary deduction from His position as Creator (ix. 

(iiL) The alternate choice of Jews and Gentiles expressly reserved 
and foretold in Scripture (ix. 34-39). 

«. Cause of the Rejection. 

« Ismel sought righteousness by Works instead of Faith, in their own 
way and not in God's way (ix. 30 -x. 4). 
And this although God's method was — 
(L) Not difficmt and remote but nestr and easy (x. 5-10) ; 
(ti.) Within the reach of all, Jew and Gentile alike (x. 11-13). 
#. Nor can Israel plead in defence want of opportunity or warning — 
(L) The Gospel has been frilly and universally preached (x. 14-18). 



(II.) lirael had been wmxned beforehand by the Prophet that the^ 
would reject God*s Message (x. ip-ai). 

|. Mitigating considerations. The purpose of God (xi). 
«. The UnCelief of Israel is now as in the past only partial (xi. i-io). 
fi. It is only temporary — 

(L) Their fall has a special purpose — the introduction of the 

Gentiles (xi 11-15). 
(iL) That Israel will be restored is vouched for by the holy stock 
from which it comes (xi. 16-24). 
7. In all this may be seen the purpose of God working upwards 
through seeming severity, to a beneficent result — the final 
restoration of all (xi. S5-31). 
Dozology (xi. 33-36). 

in. — Fraotioal and Hortatory. 

(i) The Christian sacrifice (xii. i, a). 

(a) The Christian as a member of the Church (xii. 3-8). 

(3) The Christian in his relation to others (xii. 9- si). 
The Christian's Tengeanoe (xii. 19-si). 

(4) Church and State (xiii. 1-7). 

(5) The Christian's one debt ; the law of love (xiii. 8-10). 
The day approaching (xiii 11 -14). 

(6) Toleration ; the strong and the weak (xiv. i-zr. 6). 
The Jew and the Gentile (xv. 7-13). 

IV« — Bpilogue. 

cu Personal explanations. Motive of the Epistle. Proposed vkit to 

Rome (xv. 14-33). 
fi. Greetings to various persons (xvi. 1-16). 
A warning (xvi 17-30). 
Postscript by the Apostle's companions and amanuensis (xvL 

Benediction and Doxology (xvi 24-27). 

It is often easiest to bring out the force and strength of an 
argument by starting from its conclusion, and we possess in the 
doxology at the end of the Epistle a short summary made by 
St. Paul himself of its contents. The question of its genuineness 
has been discussed elsewhere, and it has been shown in the 
commentary how clearly it refers to all the leading thoughts of the 
Epistle ; it remains only to make use of it to help us to understand 
the argument which St. Paul is working out and the conclusion to 
which he is leading us. 

The first idea which comes prominently before us is that of * the 
Gospel' ; it meets us in the Apostolic salutation at the beginning, 
in the statement of the thesis of the Epistle, in the doxology at the 
end where it is expanded in the somewhat unusual form ' according 
to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ.' So again in 
xi. 28 it is incidentally shown that what St Paul is describing is the 
method or plan of the Gospel. This idea of the Gospel then is 
a fundamental thought of the Episile ; and it seems to mean this. 
There are two competing systems or plans of life or salvation 
before St PauFs mind. The one is the old Jewish system, a know- 
ledge of which is presupposed ; the other is the Christian system. 



a luMynrlcifge of which again b presupposed. St. Paul is nol 
expounding the Christian religion, he is writing to Christians : 
■ hat he aims at expounding is ihe meaning of ihe new system. 
This Tiay perhaps explain ihe manner in which he varies between 
ihe expressions ' the Gospel,' or ' the Gos|iel of God,' or ' ihe Gospel 
of Jesus Christ,' and 'my Gospel.' The fonner represents the 
Climiian religion as recognized and preached bj- all. the latter 
represents his own personal exposition of its plan and meaning. 
The main purpose of the argument then is an explanation of the 
meaning of the new Gos[«l of Jesus Christ, as succeeding to and 
taking the place of the old method, but also in a sense as embracing 
and continuing it, 

St Piul begins then with a theological descripiion of the new 
(setbod. He shows the need for it, he explains what it is — emphasir- 
ing its distinctive features in contrast to those of the old system, and 
at Ihe same lime proving that it is the necessary and exjiected oul- 
oome of that old system. He then proceeds to describe the work- 
ing of this system in the Christian life ', and lastly he vindicates 
fnt it its true place in history. The universal character of the new 
Cosfiel has been already emphasised, he must now trace the plan 
by which it is to attain ihif universality. The rejection of the Jews, 
(be calling of the Gentiles, are both steps in this process and 
necessary steps. But the method and plan pursued in these cases 
«nd partially revealed, enable us to learn, if we have faith to do 
•o, Dial ' mystery which has been hidden from the foundation 
of the world,' but which has always guided the course of human 
history — the purpose of God to ' sum up a!i things in ChiisL' 

If this point has been made clear, it will enable us to bring out 
tbe essential unity and completeness of the argument of the 
Epistle. We do not agree as we have explained above with the 
optoion of Baur, revived by Dr. Hort, that chap, ix-xi represent 
the etaeniial part of the Epistle, to which all the earlier part is but 
an introduction. That is certainly a one-sided view. But Dr. 
HoTt's examination of the Epistle is valuable as reminding us that 
neither are these chapters an appendix accidentally added which 
might be omitted without injuring St. Paul's argument and plan. 

We can trace incidentally the various diflicuhies, partly raised by 
opponents, partly suggested by his own thought, which have helped 
to shape differeni portions of the Epistle. We are able to analyM 
■nd aeparate the diherent stages in the argument more accurately 
and distinctly than in any other of St. Paul's writings. But this 
must not bhnd us to the fact that the whole is one great argument; 
die por|<ose of which is to explam Uie Gospel of God in Jesus the 
Mctsah, and to show its cRects on human life, and in the history 
of tbe race, and thus to vindicate for it the right to be considered 
the Bttimaie and final revelation of God's purpose tor mankind. 


§ 6. Language and Style. 

(i) Language'^. It will seem at first sight to the uninitiated 
reader a rather strange paradox that a letter addressed to the 
capital of the Western or Latin world should be written in Greek. 
Yet there is no paradox, either to the classical scholar who is 
acquainted with the history of the Early Empire, or to the ecclesias- 
tical historian who follows the fortunes of the Early Church. Both 
are aware that for fully two centuries and a half Greek was the 
predominant language if not of the city of Rome as a whole yet of 
large sections of its inhabitants, and in particular of those sections 
amonp: which was to be sought the main body of the readers of 
the Epistle. 

The early history of the Church of Rome might be said to fall 
into three periods, of which the landmarks would be (i) the appear- 
ance of the first Latin writers, said by Jerome ' to be ApoUonius 
who suffered under Commodus in the year 185, and whose 
Apology and Acts have been recently recovered in an Armenian 
Version and edited by Mr. Conybeare ', and Victor, an African by 
birth, who became Bishop of Rome about 189 a. d. (a) Next 
would come in the middle of the third century a more considerable 
body of Latin literature, the writings of Novatian and the corre- 
spondence between the Church of Rome and Cyprian at Carthage. 
(3) Then, lastly, there would be the definite Latinizing of the capital 
of the West which followed upon the transference of the seat of 
empire to Constantinople dating from 330 a. d. 

(i) The evidenoe ot Jnvenal and Martial refers to the latter half of the 
first century. Juvenal speaks with indignation of the extent to which Rome 
was being converted into ' a Greek city *. Martial regards ignorance of Greek 
as a mark of rusticity*. Indeed, there was a double tendency which em- 
braced at once classes at both ends of the social scale. On the one hand 
among slaves and in the trading classes there were swarms of Greeks and 
Greek-speaking Orientals. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was 
the fashion to speak Greek ; children were taught it by Greek nurses ; and in 
after life the use of it was carried to the pitch of afTectation *. 

For the Jewish colony we have the evidence of the inscriptions. Out of 
thirty-eight collected by Schiirer^ no less than thirty are Greek and eight only 

' The Question of the use of Greek at Rome has been often discussed 
and the evidence for it set forth, but the classical treatment of the subject is by 
the late Dr. C P. Caspari, Professor at Christiania, in an Excursus of 200 
pages to vol. iii. of his work Quellen zur Geschichti dis Taufsymbols (Chris- 
tiania. 1875). 

* De Vir. Ill, liii. Tertullianus presbyter nunc demum primut post Victorem 
If ApoUonium Latinorum ponitur, 

* Monuments of Early Christiemity (London, 1894), p. 29 ff. 

* Juv. Sat, iii. 60 f. ; cfl vi. 187 flf. » iipig. xW. 58. 

* Caspari, Quellen turn Tauf symbol, iii. 286 f. 

* Gtmeindever/assungf p. 33 flf. 1'he inscriptions referred to are all froiw 
Roman sites. There is also one in Greek from Portus 



Litio I Bod if oDc of the Greek inscriplion* i* in Latin chaiacten, codvciwIj 
Atm of the Lniin ■» in Grtek chumcters. Th«c do not seem lo be aiiy in 
Urine* '. 

Of ChriitUa inKriptioni the ptoponionof Gieelt to Latia woald >etm to be 
•boot ■ : 1. But Che great masi o[ these nould belong to a period later Ihon 
llal«f whicb we are apeak ing. De Roui' dtimales the aumber for the period 
bctwtcB H. Anielias and Septimiiu SeTemiat about 160, of which lomething 
lite half would be Greek. Beyond this we can hBrdly go. 

But u to the Chriatiin Church there i* a qnaatity of other cvidenee. The 
bishop* of Rome from Liniu to Elculhirns (c. 174-180 a.t>.) are twelve in 
nnmhei: of theie not more than thtee (Clement, Si xlui I'<XyttDs, I'iusj bear 
Latin namei. But althongh the names of Clement and Plni are I^lin the 
cxtaot Ep.ille o( Clement ii written in Greek ; we know also that Heima*. 
the aolhor of ' The Shepherd,' wai the brother of Pins', and he wrote in Greek. 
Indeed all the liteiatDte that we can in anj way connect with Christian Rome 
down to the end of the leign of M. Anrelins is Creek. Besides the woiltl ol 
CUment and Hcrmii we have ilill surriving the letter addressed to the Church 
at Rome bj Igcalitu ; and later in the period, the letter written by Sotei 
(c. l66-t74 l.D.', 10 the Coiinlliun Church was evidently in Greek' Justin 
•sd Titian who were settled in Koine wrote in Greek ; to too did Rbodon, 
a pBpil ol Tatian'* at Rome who carried on their tradition '. Greek wai the 
langoa^ of Polyearp and Hege^ippui who paid visits to Rome of shorter 
dmaitiaa. A number of Gnostic writers established ihemselvei there and used 
Greek for the vehicle of their teaching : ao Cerdon, Marcion, and Vslentinos, 
who were all in Home aboat 140 a.d. Valentinn; left behind a considerable 
ichool, and the leading reprcumtattve* of the 'Italic* branch, Plolemaeui 
■nd Heracleon, holh wrote in Greek. We may assume the same thing of the 
cither Gnoslici combated by Justin and Irenaeus. Irenaeus himself spent some 
time at Rome in the Episcopate ol Lleulheros, and wrote hii great woik 
in Greek. 

To (hii period may also be traced back the oldett form of the Creed ol 
tiK Komsn Cbnrch now known as Che A|)ost!es' Creed*. I'bii was in Creek. 
And Ihcte are stray Greek fra(;meDts of Western Litorgics which ullimalely 
go lack to the >ame olace and time. Such would be the HymHta aagtiieui 
[Lnke ii. I4) repeated in Greek at Christmas, the Triihagjen, AVr/t iliiion 
and Cirisit lUtan. On certain act days (at Christmas, Laiter, Ember daya. 
and )ome others) lections were read in Creek as well as Latin : hymns were 
occaaioiially sung in Creek ; and at the formal commiiial of the Creed lo the 
candulate* for baptism (the M-called Traditit and Rcddiliii SymUtC) both 
Utt Af^tlea' Creed (in its longer and ibotter forms) and the Niccne were 

' Conp^ atw Berliner. L 54. * Af. Caspiii, p. 303. 

* PIfU IS detcribed in the lAier PtHtificalii as natiane JioIhi . . , dt tivilati 
Afmltia: but Ihere is reason to think that Hennas was a nalife oj Aruulia. 
Toe aaaigamcnti of nationality to the earliest bishops arc of very doubtful 

' II wu lo )« kept in the irchivet and read on Sundays like the letter of 
ClemBtl lEus. M. E. IV. uiiL 11). 

* Loa. H. E. V. aiii. 1. 

* II vat in pnmil of the origin of this Creed that Caspaii was drawn into 
bia eUborale leseaichei. It is gcinetally agreed that it was In use at Rome by 
the muddle of the tecond century. The main question at the presecl moment 
M whether it was atto composed there, and if not wlic"ce it came. Caspari 
would derive il frum Asia Minor and the circle of SI. John. This is a problem 
which we may look to have solved by Dr. Katlentiuscb of Giessen, who it 
raatlnillng Ca^uri'i laboon |Z>«r AfetUliichi SymM, Bd, I. Leipzig, 


ledted uid the qvestioni put first in Greek and then in Latin ^. These are 
tM tnrvivaU of Roman usage at the time when the Church was bilbguaL 

(a) The dates of ApoUonios and of Bp. Victor are fixed, but rather more 
uncertainty hangs OTer that of the first really classical Christian work in 
Latin, the (ktavius of Minudns Felix. This has been much debated, but 
opbioD seems to be veering ronnd to the earlier date', which wonld bring him 
faito near proximity to ApoUonins, perhaps at the end of the reign ol 
M. Anrelins. The period which then b^ins and extends from c 180-250 A.D. 
shows a more even balance of Greek and Latin. The two prominent writers, 
Hippol]rtas and Caius, still make nse of Greek. The grounds perhaps pre> 
ponderate for regarding the Muratorian Fragment as a translation. But at the 
beginning of the peri(3 we have Minncius Felix and at the end NoTatian, 
and Latin begins to hare the upper hand in the names of bishops. The 

glimpse which we get of the literaryactivity of the Church of Rome through 
le letters and other writings preserved among the works of Cyprian shows us 
at last Latin in possession of the field. 

(3) The Hellenizing character of Roman Christianity was due in the first 
instance to the constant intercourse between Rome and the East. In the 
troubled times which followed the middle of the third century, vrith the decay 
of wealth and trade, and Gothic piracies breaking up the pax Romianm on the 
Aegean, this intercourse was greatly interrupted. Thus Greek influences lost 
their strength. The Latin Church, Rome reinforced by Africa, had now 
a substantial literature of its own. Under leaders like TertuUian, Cyprian, 
and Novatian it had begun to develop its proper individuality. It could 
stand and walk alone without assistance from the East. And a decisive 
impulse was given to its independent career by the founding of Constantinople. 
The stream set from that time onwards towards the Bosphorus and no longer 
towards the Tiber. Rome ceases to be the centre of the Empire to become 
in a still more exclusive sense the capital of the West 

(a) Style. The Epistles which bear the name of St Paul present 
a considerable diversity of style. To such an extent is this the 
case that the question is seriously raised whether they can have had 
the same author. Of all the arguments urged on the negative 
side this from style is the most substantial ; and whatever decision 
we come to on the subject there remains a problem of much 
complexity and difficulty. 

It is well known that the Pauline Epistles fall into four groups 
which are connected indeed with each other, but at the same time 
stand out with much distinctness. These groups are : i, 2 Thess.; 
Gal., I, a Cor., Rom. ; Phil., Col., Eph., Philem. ; Past Epp. The 
four Epistles of the second group hang very closely together; 
those of the third group subdivide into two pairs, Phil. Philem. on 
the one hand, and Eph. Col. on the other. It is hard to dissociate 
Col. from Philem. ; and the very strong presumption in favour of 
the genuineness of the latter Epistle reacts upon the former. The 
tendency of critical inquiry at the present moment is in favour of 
Colossians and somewhat less decidedly in favour of Ephesians. 
It is, for instance, significant that JUlicher in his recent EinUitung 

> More precise and full details will be found in Caspari*s Excursus, Op, tit, 
p. 466 if. 
• Kriiger, AUckritti. LU, p. 8S. 



(Frrtbnrg i. B. Uid Leipzig, 1S94) sums up rather on this side of 
ibc qacsiion ihan the other. We believe tliat this points to what 
will be the ultimate verdict. BuE in the matter or style it must be 
confessed thai Col. and £ph. — and more especially Eph. — stand at 
the furthest possible remove from Romans. We may laLe Eph. 
and Rom. as marking the extreme poles of difference wiiliin the 
Epistles claimed for St. Paul '. Any other member of the second 
group Kould <io as well; but as we are concerned specially with 
Rom., we may institute a comparison with it. 

The difference is not so mudi a difference of ideas and o( 
vocabulary as a difference of structure and composition. Thereare. 
it is true, a certain number of new and peculiar expressions in the 
later Ejiistle ; but these are so balanced by points of coincidence, 
and the novel element has so much of the nature of simple addi- 
tion raiher than contrariety, that to draw a conclusion adverse to 
St Paul's authorship would certainly not be warranted. The sense 
of dissimilarity reaches its height when we turn from the materials 
(if we may so speak) of the style to the way in which they are 
ptu together. The discrepancy lies not in the anatomy but in the 
surface distribution of light and shade, in the play of feature, in 
the temperament to which the two Epistles seem to give expression. 
We will enlarge a little oo this point, as the contrast may help us 
to understand the individuality of the Epistle to the Romans. 

This Epistle, like all the others of the group, is characterized 
by A remarkable energy and vivacity. It is calm in the sense 
that il is not aggressive and that the rush of words is always wtll 
under control Still there is a rush of words, rising repeatedly to 
pUMges of splendid eloquence ; but the eloquence is sponianeou;^, 
the outcome of strongly moved feeling ; there is nothing about it 
of laboured oratory. The language is rapid, terse, incisive; the 
argument is conducted by a quick cut and thrust of dialectic; it 
nminds us of a fencer with his eye always on his antagonisL 

We sbui the Episile to the Romans and wc open that to the 
Epbcsians; how great is the contrast I We cannot tpeak here oi 
rmdxy, hardly of energy ; if there is energy it is deep dovin 
betow the surface. The rapid argumentative cut and thrust 13 
gone. In its place we have a slowly-moving onwards-advancing 
maai, like a glacier working its way inch by inch down the valley. 
The periods are of unwieldy length ; the writer seems to stagger 
under his load. He has weighty truths to express, and he strugi^K-a 
10 eipresi ihem — not without success, but certainly with hilie 
flcxibiliiy or ease of composition. The truths unfolded lead like 
tbtuact truths, ideal verities, ' laid up in the heavens ' raiher tlian 
embodying themselves in the active controversies of earth. 

on ibe tide wc an coniiilciuig ii 
d ihc PutoiaU. 


There is, as we shall see, another side. We have perhaps 
exaggerated the opposition for the sake of making the difference 
clear. When we come to look more closely at the Epistle to the 
Romans we shall find in it not a few passages which tend in the 
direction of the characteristics of Ephesians ; and when we examine 
the Epistle to the Ephesians we shall find in it much to remind us 
of characteristics of Romans. We will however leave the com- 
parison as it has been made for the moment, and ask ourselves 
what means we have of explaining it. Supposing the two Epistles 
to be really the work of the same man, can the difference between 
them be adequately accounted for ? 

There is always an advantage in presenting proportiont to the eye and 
reducing them to some sort of numerical estimate. This can be done in 
the present case without much difficulty by reckoning up the number of 
longer pauses. This is done below for the two Epistles, Romans and Ephe- 
sians. The standard used is that of the Revisers' Greek Text, and the 
estimate of length is based on the number of orixof or printed lines K It 
will be worth while to compare the Epistles chapter by chapter :— 


•T/xoi. (•) (.) (d 

Ch. L 64 13 14 ^ 

II. 51 14 7 8 

IIL 47 so IS 16 

IV. 45 6 14 7 

V. 47 6 15 - 

VL 4a S 14 8 

VII. 49 16 ao 5 

VIIL 70 17 26 14 

IX. 55 8 19 10 

X. 37 6 16 9 

XI. 65 16 a; II 

Total for doctrinal portion 570 130 184 88 



Total for the Epistle 


























Here the proportion of major points to ot/xo< is for the doctrinal dia|^ 
ters 403:570 » (approximately) I in 1*4; and for the whole Epistle not 
very different, 563:7^9*1 ^ 1*418. The proportion of interrogative 
sentences is for the whole Epistle, 9a : 789, or i in 8*6 ; for the doctrinal 
chapters only, 88 : 570, or i in 6<5 ; and for the practical portion only, 
4 : 319, or I in 55. This last item is instructive, beoiuse it shows how very 

* The counting of these is approximate, aujrthing over half a line being 
reckoned as a whole line, and anything less than half a line not reckoned. 




(■icatly, even io (he urif Epislte, the imotint of iDtcrrogation Taitea with 
tbe (object-nulter. Vi'e also obterve that in iwo even or £e doctrinil chap- 
Itxi iDterroi^ve Knlcncn ue winting, They lie indeed in patcbea o' 
Ui'fk dulrri. and sic not distiibuted r<|ujtll; tbroughout the EpiatU; 
Now we tuni to Epbeiiiiu, ItU wbich the dnla iic u followi ; — 

TkU pve» B TBty diflerent rcsnlt. The pioponion of major point* U fot 
Eph. l-iij. muchly ipealiiQg. 1 in 4, u against 1 ia l<4 for Kotn. i-iii, and 
fcr the wbole £piitle nlbei moie ibaa 1 in 3, u a^'sintt i In 1-41S. Tbe 
propoition of icteiiogatiotia ii 1 in 170 compated with 1 io B-6 or 6-5, 

In illustrating the nature of the difference in style between 
Romans and Ephcsians we have left in suspense for a time ihe 
quesdiM as to its caui>e- To this we will now return, and set down 
some of the inSuentes which may have been at work — which we 
may be sure were at work — and which would go a long way to 
uxount for it. 

(1) First would be /At Hatural variation of styli which comes 
frem dtating with diffirtnl tubjetl-maller. The Epistles of the 
KCond group are eiU very largely concerned willi the controversy 
at 10 Circumcision and the relations of Jeivish and Gentile 
Christians. In the later Epistle this controversy has retired into 
the background, and other topics have taken its place. Ideas are 
abroad as to the mediating agencies between God and man which 
inpair the central significance of the Person of Christ; and the 
multiplication of new Churches with the growing organization of 
intercommunication between those of older standing, brings to the 
front (be conception of the Church as a whole, and invests it with 
iocfcased impressiveness. 

Thcte bcU arc rrfldrtcd on the VDcabuluy of the two Epitltn. Th« 
coauutersy with Ibc Jadiiicii givca a marked colour to the whole group 
•b'ch inclndei the Epiille Id the Romani. Thia will appear on the face 
«f the itatitlici ot o^age aa 10 ibe liequency with which the leading teimi 
oocBi Id thcH Epiiiles and in th>^ real of the Pauline Cerfut. Of contK 
•om* of the Inslaocet wd! be accidental, bol by far the greater number are 
^[DifiiaiiL ThoK which fallow b»e a direct bearing od the Jndaiitic 
toUatfutrtj. ' Elacwhete ' meant elsewhere in Ihe Pauline Epinlea. 


*■ 'Afipadft Rom. 9, a Cor. I, Gal. 9 ; not elsewhere in St Pan]. [(Vwippm 
'AfipaAfA Rom. 2, 2 Cor. I, GaL i.] 

AMpofivoria Rom. 5, i Cor. 2, Gal. 5 ; elsewhere 3. 

ivoaroA^ Rom. I, i Cor. i, Gal. I ; not elsewhere in St Pant 

9titcuow Rom. 15, i Cor. 2, GaL 3; elsewhere a. 

itttcdwfia Rom. 5 ; not elsewhere. 

itttaiejctt Rom. a ; not elsewhere. 

nrapTfuw Rom. 6, i Cor. 9, a Cor. 4, Gal. 5 ; elsewhere 4. 

r6/Aot Rom. 76, i Cor. 8, Gal. 3a ; elsewhere 6. 

wtpiTOfifi Rom. 15, I Cor. i, GaL 7 ; elsewhere 8. 

vvipfM Rom. 9, I Cor. i, a Cor. i, Gal. 5; elsewhere i. 
Connected with this controversy, though not quite so directly, would be :— 

da$ttrfi$ Rom. I, I Cor. 10, a Cor. i, Gal. i ; elsewhere I. 

da$tvftt Rom. 4, I Cor. a, a Cor. 6 ; elsewhere a. 

da$4yua Rom. a, i Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6, Gal. i ; elsewhere I. 

dffBivrjfjui Rom. i ; not elsewhere. 

iktvOtpot Rom. a, i Cor. 6, Gal. 6 ; elsewhere a. 

kktvOtpifW Rom. 4, Gal. i ; not elsewhere. 

kktvStpia Rom. i, I Cor. i, a Cor. i, Gal. i ; not elsewhere. 

HavxaaBai Rom. 5, I Cor. 5 (i v.L), a Cor. 30, GaL a ; elsewhere 3. 

aavx^/ia Rom. i, i Cor. 3, a Cor. 3, Gal. i ; elsewhere a. 

Kavxrjoit Rom. a, i Cor. i, a Cor. 6; elsewhere i. 

Karaxavx^'J^fu Rom. 2 ; not elsewhere. 

^(tX^Ti/r Rom. 3, Gal. i ; not elsewhere. 

h!p*lkfii»a Rom. I ; nbt elsewhere. 

9it6ylaXo¥ Rom. 4, I Cor. i, Gal. I ; not elsewhere. [^/raySaX/fsir 
I Cor. 2, a Cor. i, Rom. 1 v. 1.] 

it^iK9i¥ Rom. I, I Cor. a, GaL i : ^i\9ia Rom. i ; neither elsewhere. 
Two other points may be noticed, one in connexion with the large use ci 
the O.T. in these Epistles, and the other in connexion with the idea ol 
tnccessive periods into which the religious history of mankind is divided : — 

yiypawTOA Rom. 1 6, 1 Cor. 7, a Cor. a. Gal. 4; not elsewhere in 
St. Paul. 

Axpif ol Rom. I, I Cor. a, Gal. a (i v.L) ; not elsewhere. 

i<p* Boop xp^^^^ Rom. I, I Cor. i. Gal. i ; not elsewhere 
These examples stand out very distinctly ; and their disappearance from 
the later Epistle is perfectly intelligible : cessante tausa^ casat tffectus, 

(a) But it is not only that the subject-matter of Ephesians difTers 
from that of Romans, the circumstances under which it is presented 
also differ. Romans belongs to a period of controversy, and 
although at the time when the Epistle is written the worst is over, 
and the Apostle is able to survey the field calmly, and to state his 
case uncontroversially, still the crisis through which he has passed 
has left its marks behind. The echoes of war are still in his ears. 
The treatment of his subject is concrete and not abstract He 
sees in imagination his adversary before him, and he argues much 
as he might have argued in the synagogue, or in the presence of 
refractory converts. The atmosphere of the Epistle is that of 
personal debate. This acts as a stimulus, it makes the blood 

^ These examples are selected from the lists in Bishop Lightfoot's classical 
may 'On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galatian%* injoum, 0/ 
CUut. and Saer. FhUol, liL (1857) 308 ff. 



cireolate more rapidly in the veins, and gives to the style a liveti- 
ness and directness which might be "anting when the pressure waa 
removed. Between Romans, written to a deRnile Church and 
gmthering up the result of a time of great activity, the direct out- 
come of prolonged diatusiion in street and house and school, and 
Ephniana, written in all probability not to a single Church but to 
4 group of Churches, with its personal edge thus taken 09", and 
wrilien loo under confinement after some three yeara of enforced 
inaction, it would be natural that there should be a difference. 

(3) This brings as to a third point which may be taken with the 
bst, the allowance which ought to be made for lAe special tempera' 
mfmt of ihe Apostle. His writings furm^^h abundant endence of 
a highly strung nervous organization. It is likely enough that the 
;^ysical infiimity from wh^ch he sutfered, the ' thorn in the flesh ' 
wlucb had such a prostrating effect upon him, was of nervoui 
origio. But constuutiong of this order are liable to great fluctua- 
tions of physical condition. There will be ' lucid moments,' and 
more than lucid moments— months together during which [be 
brain will work not only wiJi ease and freedom, but with an 
intensity and power not vouchsafed to other men. And times such 
u these will alternate with periods of depression when body and 
mind alike are sluggish and languid, and when an effort of will is 
needed to compel production of any kind. Now the physical 
cooditiont under which St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans 
would aa naturally belong to the first head as diose under which he 
wrote the Epi&lle which we call ' Ephi^sians ' would to the second. 
Once more we should expect antecedently that they would leave 
■ strong impress upon the style. 

Tbc diffeirace in Ryte between Rom, and Eph. would Kzm to he very 
lar^lr B d^lTcrence in llic amount of rati eacigy thrown into the two 
EpiitUt. Vivaci\j ii a distingDiiliing mnik of Ihe one u ■ ccitaia slow and 
kboBied movement is ol the other. We mav trace to tha ciiiw the 
phenomena which have been almdy noted— the inorter lentencei of Romini, 
tbc long in'uUed pcriodi of Ephesians, the fiequency ot intenogalion on tlie 
ooe haod, It* abicnce on the olbei. In Rom. we have the chani|nOD ol 
Cnitile t'htnteiHloni with hii iwotd drawn, prepared to meet all comers; in 
Eph. we hate 'inch an one u Faul the aged, and uow ■ pn«uner also ol 
Jcuu Chhri.' 

Among the npresioni ipcdalljr chanictt:[islic of this aipect of Ep. to 
RoDiuu wonld be the jotlowing: — 

^1, ticf^imiiig a Knience, Rom. g, 1 Cot. i , ) Cot. «, Gal. f ; eUevrheie 
typ. I'aul.j, Heb. i. [ipa nSr Rom. 8 (or 9 T.L], Gal. I ; tlitvt.'nt 
3 : ifa witboDt ei* Rom. I (ot * *. L), I Cor. 1, GaL a, Heb. ■■] 

Auul U-jti Rom. ). 

A^ U (i*L 1. 

A^T* ttr Kom. 1. 

Ut- a ftATB El. I Cot. I. 

mU» kty 1 Cot *. 


roOro 8) \iy» Gal I. 

It^ naSXot X^Tw 6/4cV 5ri GaL I. 
vov ; wov €^; Rom. I, I Cor. 8, Gal. i ; not eliewhere. 
T( olr; ris oty; Rom. ii, I Cor. 5, GaL i ; not elsewhere. Iri •£» 

ipoviup; Rom. 6; ri ipov/Atp; Rom i.] 
ri Xiyw {kiyu, &&) Rom. 3, GaL i ; not elsewhere. 
ttarl Rom. i, I Cor. a, a Cor. i ; not elsewhere. 
Mp, nnusnal compoonds of — 

inrtptKTiiyup 2 Cor. I. 

inripklaif 2 Cor. a. 

Vntpt^utaM Rom. I. 

ivtfmtpiaviriuv Rom. I, a Cor. i. 

{fvtp^popw Rom. I . 

(4) A last cause which we suspect may possibly have been at 
work, though this is more a matter of conjecture, is /he employment a/ 
different amanuenses. We know that St Paul did not as a rule 
write his own letters. But then the question arises, How were 
they written ? It seems to us probable that they were in the first 
instance taken down in shorthand — ^much as our own merchants or 
public men dictate their correspondence to a shorthand writer — 
and then written out fair. We believe this to have been the case 
from the double fact that dictation was extremely common — so 
that even as early as Horace and Persius dictare had already 
come to mean ' to compose * — and from the wide diffusion of the 
art of shorthand. We know that Origen's lectures were taken 
down in this way, and that fair copies were made of them at 
leisure (£us. H. K VI. xxiii. a). But we can well believe that if 
this were the case some scribes would be more expert than others, 
and would reproduce what was dictated to them more exactly. 
Tertius, we should suppose, was one of the best of those whom 
St. Paul employed for this purpose. An inferior scribe would get 
down the main words correctly, but the little connecting links he 
may have filled in for himself. 

This is rather speculation, and we should not wish to lay stress npoa it in 
any particular instance. It is however interesting to note that ii^we look 
below the superficial qualities of style at the inner tendencies of mind to 
which it gives expression the resemblance between Ephesians and Romans 
becomes more marked, so that we may well ask whether we have not before 
us in both the same hand. One of the most striking chaiacteristics of 
St. Paul is the sort of telescopic manner, in which one clause is as it were 
drawn out of another, each new idea as it arises leading on to some further 
new idea, until the main thought of the paragraph is reached again often by 
a circnitoos route and not seldom with a somewhat violent twist or turn at 
the end. This is specially noticeable in abstract doctrinal passages, just as 
a briefer, more broken, and more direct form of address is adopted in the 
exhortations relating to matters of practice. A certain laxity of grammatical 
structure is common to both. 

We will place side by side one or two passages which may help to show 
the fundamental resemblance between the two Epistles. [For a defence ol 
the punctuation of the extract from Romans reference may be made to the 
noXtA ml Uc."] 



Rom. lii. ti-i6, 

©mi n^arlftrTOi, lafTvpmiiihn) lii 

X(aaT(iv (l> niipiot rett ■ioTrfi»T"C 
•£ 7*^1 l«r. htamoylf -w&rtn yAf 

roil ^Dv^ itiHitaVinyot &vp<ily r^ 

f>«im|pior Sid iqi visTiait <■ j^ 
«jp<)< «ir«il, 9id rifr nipiaiir twr 
dr*x$ Tni StuD apAt n^ f>ifif<r 

Eph. hi. 1-7. 

nv XpiarBV Itiaai btip titivf raw 
iStalr. — itff >}*<»^''°''< r^' olmrofwiK 
T^t ydpiToi ToS eiov T^ Jatfdoijt fU« 
(It u^t. 5ri card dneniAv^r t7*v- 
^iT^ ^w *J (iv<rr/ipior, nnHI^ rpo- 

Tf fiiwTjjp(»i ToE X., S hJpan ynnii 
eif i'lrmpioBt] Tnii lAoli tot itSpinivr, 
iij rvr Ar-wtitoXi^dq Toft i-yiots dvooTi/- 
\mt oiTev to) wjwif^Tnii )>■ nuii^mTi* 
ttnutHtrii Bii-fi\'jpor6fa talaiaiieiiia 
•ml evix^iroxa T^r <ra-n"Aiai *> X. 1. 
Did ToD tia-iryiAioi/ ot J^h^Hw Jiii- 
Korot totJ F^r j^fdr x^t xaptTot tov 
atoC T71 lD«(fo7t fioi jurd n^ ir^^ 
7iiaj' Ttji twdfitait aSiroS, 

ts tbe Romaai pasugc we hive fint the rerflatha of the Hghteomn 
God, tben ■ ipecincitioii of tbe pkitieular aipecl of that lighlMumei! 

■ >ci«« vpoo It* nDJiemlity, then tbe more direct isKFtion of ibii u 
MI1I7, lollowed in loote constmction (tee tbe note aJ lee.) by id inn 
moil of the free chandei of tbe Tedemption wrought by Christ, thco > fuller 
OonmcDtOD the method of thii tedemplioo, ittobject, the cin» which tendaed 
ll naxusaij, iti object agiia, and it> motive. A wonderfol ;eii» of conteoti 
tocoow from 1 lingle sentence, like those Chinne boiei in which one box 
b cDiuiogly fitted wilbin uiolhei, each imitlcc than the Isil. 

Tbe pasiage from Ephentuti io tike tnannet begini with a stalement of the 
durance which the Apostle is sctfeiing (or the Gentiles, then goes off to 
eiplain why ipecjally for the Gentiles, 10 leading on to the HDiTiipidv on 
whicb tbftt n]is>.lisi to tbe Gentiles U baled, tben refen back lo the pieviouii 
mmtion of this foiirriipier, which the readns are (dvised to consult, then 
E)*es ■ faller deseiiplioa of its character, and at last itatirs delinilcl)' its 
•QbiltDce. Dr. Gilford hat pointed out (on Rom. iii. 16) haw tbe *rgn- 
(Dcnl worici round in Eph. to the tame word itva-Hfpiot u in Rom, to the 
■ame word twiti(ir. And we bsie similar eximpies in Rom. ii. 16 and iii. 8, 
whcie two diuuict trains of thought uiA of constiuction cnnveige npon 

■ dame wUch ii made to do duty at the vme time for both. 

Tbe particular passage of Epbesians was chosen as illuslratirrg this peca- 
Bnity. Bat the general tendency to the formation of periods on whnl we 
liai« called the 'telescopic* method— not conforming to a plan of structure 
deliberately adopted from the first, bat linking on claose to clause, each sug- 

Ked In tbe last — runs through the whole of the firrt three chapters o( 
I. acd has atnudant analo^ei in Rom. (i. 1-7, iB-14 : iu fi-lfi ; iii. ai- 
)6; It. 11-17; t. ia-14: ii. ai-ig; iv. t4~iS). The pasaaj^es from 
tUnn. are ai we haTc said somewhat more lively than those from Eph.; 
they faaTc a more argnmeatatiTe cast, Indicated by the frequent use of 70*1; 
whereas ihoae from Eph. are not so much argumentative as eiposilory, and 
contitt rather of a SDcceiiiari of clauses connected by relative). But tbe 
difletence i* really superficial, and the underlying resemblance a great. 

Juat one other ipecimen may be given of marked resemblance of a some 
what diflcroil kiod — the use of a quotation from the O. T, with running 
la tim instance we may strengthen the impression by printing 
ID a third passage from Ep. to Calatiani 


Rom. s. 5-S. Eph. W. 7-1 i. 

Mflipffft y^ 7P^0«( 2n ri^ Suneuo- *Er2 Sk Udor^ ^ti&y iMif ^^ x^ 

wAmpf T^ j« p6fto» 6 wotffffat ^ gard t6 /Urpov r^t 8a>/>caf rov XptaroS, 

§po»9tn (ffetrm Ir atr^. A 8i l« 9t6 kiyti^ 'Am/Sclf (If 0,Aof pxAuiA^ 

viffTtut iutoioa^rfi oCrm Xryti, Mi^ rtvcfv olxMoActfaiar, «a2 l&twc &i/iaTa 

ffvpt jr rp «a/)8(f 90V Tit 4ya^- rofr &v$p&ntoit. (rd 8i ^Avifitf ri lanw 

etrm cit rir oOpopSi^ ; (roOr* l<m, il ;<j) 8r« uai learifirj c/r rd learimfa 

TLpt9rhi9 Karorfirftw-^ f, Tit «ora- lUpri r^t T^t; 6 inira/Sctt oJbr^ kon 

fi^9rm fit vi)r iSveow ; (tout* «ra< 6 dya/Scb hittpavw wdvrcav rSfp obpa- 

Ian, X^<rrdF l« r*i€pS» dvayayuv.) vw, ipa wKrjpaHrn rd w&irra.) mai airdi 

d\XA tI kiyu ; ^Ettm aov rd ^ak& ISomtc to^ f»ir Mrotrr^owt «.r A. 
karip, kv r^ ffrSfmri vov ical h rp 
Mxpdif aov* rovT* ItfTi ri /^/m t^ 
wiarnn h Ktfpvaffo/ntw, 

Gal. W, J5-31. 

T6 8) "Ayap %pa Spot kvriv Iv rj ^Apafitq, ewrrotxti M Tp rur 'If />ov<mXi(;r 
3ovX«i;ci 7cii> ficTct ran' rlxrw alritt, 1i h\ drca 'UpovoaXilfi iXtv$ipa kffT'», 
{nt iffrl fiinjp i^ft&y. yiypawrat ydp, E{f<ppAy$tiTi, arttpa i) oh riicrovira . • . 
iftttt 94, dScX^y Mord Iffcubr kvayy tXias riteya hafiiv, dKK* &aw*p rdrt I 
Hard vdpica ytyytiO^h IStoNTf r6¥ leard IlycOfia, oSrca gat rvy. dXAil W kiy§i 
4 yp"^ » "Eff/SoXf r^ wcuSiom/w leat r6p vliv ahr^f, ob ydp /t^ tcKrjpovofxfof 
i vifdt T^ *cu8/ain/t /Mrd rov v/ov r^t lAci/tfi/wt. 81^, dScA^, oi&« la/A^ 
«cu8iVin;t W«ya, dAXd r$t IXcv^/pat. 

It would be interesting to work ont the comparison of this passage of 
Eph. with the earlier Epistles phrase by phrase (e. g. q). Eph. iv. 7 wiUi 
Rom. zii. 3) 6 ; i Cor. zii. 1 1 ; a Cor. z. 1 3) ; but to do this would be realh 
endless and would have too remote a bearing on our present subject Enough 
will have been said both to show the individuality of style in Ep. to Romani ' 
and also to show its place in connexion with the range of style in the Pauline 
Epistles generally, as seen in a somewhat extreme example. It is nsoal, 
especially in Germany, to take Ep. to Romans with its companion Epistles 
as a standard of style for the whole of the Corpus Paulinum. But Bp. Light- 
foot has pointed out that this is an error, this group of Epistles having been 
written nnder conditions of high tension which in no writer are likely to 
have been permanent. ' Owing to their greater length in proportion to the 
rest, it is probably from these Epistles that we get our general impression of 
St Paul's style ; yet their style is in some sense an exceptional one, called 
forth by peculiar circumstances, just as at a late period the style of the 
Pastoral Epistles is also exceptional though in a different way. The normal 
ftyle of the Apostle is rather to be sought for in the Epistles to the Thessa- 
lonians and those of the Roman captivity V 

When we look back over the whole of the data the impression 
which they leave is that although the difference, taken at its 
extremes, is no doubt considerable, it is yet sufficiently bridged 
over. It does not seem to be anywhere so great as to necessitate 
the assumption of different authorship. Even though any single 
cause would hardly be enough to account for it, there may quite 

* Besides the passages commented upon here, reference may be made to the 
marked coincidences between the doxology» Rom. xv. 35-27, and Ep. to 
Ephesians. These are fully pointed out aial he., and the genuineness ol the 
dozology is defended in § 9 of this Introduction. 

' Jcum. tf Class, and Sacr, PhiloL, ut sup., p. 30a. 


wcD have tx-en a concurrence of causes. And on (he other hand 
ihe posilive reasons for sii|>|)osing ihai the two Epistles had really 
the urne author, are weighty enouj;h to supjKiri Che conclusion. 
Between ihe limits thus set. it seems lo us that the phenomena of 
Kyle in the Epistles atlribuied to St. Paul may be ranged without 

§ 7. The Text. 

(l) Aulhoriliei. The authoriiies quoted for the various readings 
to the text of the Epistle are taken directly from Tischendorf's 
great collection (Nov. Ttst. Grate, vol. ii. ed, 8, Lipsiae, 1871), 
"iih some verification of the Patristic testimony. For a fuller 
sceouni of these auihorities the smdent must be referred lo ihc 
Prcitgomtna to TisehendoifB edition (mainly the work of Dr. C. R, 
Gregory. 1884, 1890, 1894). and to the latest edition of Scrivener's 
hiroduction (ed. Miller, London, 1894). They may be briefly 
(numerated as follows : 

(1) Crsex Makuscriptl 
Prinsary uncials. 
t4 Cod. Sinaiticus, sacc. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the 
Convent of St. Caiherine on Mt. Sinai ; now at St. Petersburg. 

Contains the whole Epiitle complete. 
Its correctors arc 

M' contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second 

MS. ol high value; 
K* altribuled by Tischendorf to saec, vi; 
H* attributed to the beginning of aaec. vii. Two hands of 

about this dale are sometimes distinguished as N" and 

K. Co<)- Alexandrinus. saec. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library 
at Aleiandria ; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles I 
In i6a8. and now in the British Museum. Complete. 
B- Cod. Vaticanus. saec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly 
since 1533 ' (BaiifTol, La Vaticant dt Paul tii a Paul v, 
p. 86). Complete. 

The corrector B' is nearly of the same dale and used 
a good copy, though not quite so good as the originaL 
Some sii centuries later the faded characters were re- 
traced, and a few new teadinga introduced by B'. 
C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, saec, v. In the National Library 
at Paris. Contains the whole Etiiailc, with the exception ol 

the following passages : it. 5 ta]r6 ii riir . . . ini toi vij^mi 

p, j6o}, bat M. BatUTol could find 0, 

:e of the MS in the eulier liiU- 


iii. fli ; ix. 6 o^ olov . • . ^ay x. 15 : xi. 31 ^nujOtfotaf Tf 
. . . wkrip^fta xiii. 10. 

D. Cod. Claromontanus, saec. vL Graeco-Latinus. Once at 
Clermont, near Beauvais (if the statement of Beza is to be 
trusted), now in the National Library at Paris. Contains the 
Pauline Epistles, but Rom. L i, nm\of . . . dyajn^nHr e€ov 
L 7» is missing, and i. 27 t(ticav6rjirav . . . ft^pm^f iroicttv L 30 
(in the Latin i. 24-27) is supplied by a later hand. 

L Cod. Sangermanensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Formerly 
at St. Germain-des-Pr^s, now at St Petersburg. [This MS. 
might well be allowed to drop out of the list, as it is nothing 
more than a faulty copy of D.] 

F Cod. Augiensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Bought by Bentley 
in Germany, and probably written at Reichenau (Augt'a 
Major); now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Rom. i. I DavXoff . . . fV rf i^M^] iii. 19 is missing, both 
in the Greek and Latin texts. 

G. Cod. Boemerianus, saec. ix ex. Graeco-Latinus. Written at 
St. Gall, now at Dresden. Rom. i. i a<^purficM>ff . . . nlartm 
i. 5i ^^^ ^. 16 r^ Kfnmrii . . • v6fAov §s ii. 25 are missing. 
Originally formed part of the same MS. wiih ^ (Cod. San- 
gallensis) of the Gospels. 

It has been suggested by Traobe (Wattenbach, AnUitung tur GrUch, 
PalaographU^ ed. 3, 1895, p. 41) that this MS. was written by the same 
hand as a well-known Psalter in the library of the Arsenal at Paris which 
bears the signature Zi/SvXiot Zc^rrot 170; fypatf/a. The resemblance of the 
handwriting is close, as may be seen by comparing the facsimile of the Paris 
Psalter published by Omont in the Milanges Graux, p. 313, with that of the 
St. Gall Gospels in the Palaeographical Society's series (i. pi. 179). This 
fact naturally raises the farther question whether the writer of the MS. of 
St. Paul's Epistles is not also to be identified with the compiler of the com- 
nentary entitled Collectanea in (mines B. Pauli Epistelas (Migne, Patrol. 
Lot, ciii. 9-128), which is also ascribed to a ' Sedulius Scotus.* The answer 
mnst be in the negative. The commentary presents none of the charac- 
teristic readings of the MS., and appears to represent a higher grade of 
scholarship. It is more probable that the scribe belonged to the fratns 
hellenui who formed a sort of guild in the monastery of St. Gall (see the 
authorities quoted in Caspari, Quellen %um Taufsymhol^ iii 475 n, and 
compare Beiger, HUtoire de la Vulgate, p. 137). There are several instances 
of the name ' Sedulius Scotus ' (Migne, P. L. ut sup,). 

It should be noted that of these MSS. t) A B C are parts of what 
were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter 
throughout the LXX and Greek Testament ; D £ F G are all 
Graeco-Latin, and are different MSS. from those which bear the 
same notation on the Gospels and Acts. In Westcott and Hort's 
Introduction they are distinguished as D, £, F, G,. An important 
MS., Cod. Coislinianus (H or H,), which, however, exists only in 
fragments, is unfortunately wanting for this Epistle : see below. 


Secondary uncials. 

Cod. MotqucDsu, «tec- jx. Uroagbt to Moscow frnm Ibe monisteiy al 
S^ Dioayiiiu on Mount Atbos. Coiitiini Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. PkuL 
Rom. X. |8 oKKA \(7« to [be cad is misaing. 

Cod AngtlicB*, tatc. ii. In th« Angelicoa Library of tbe Anenstiniui 
■Dooli) at Koow. Coatuni Acti, £pp. Cslh., Epp- Panl. Romuu com- 

Qoi- PorphyrUnns, ucc. U in. A p»limp5est bionght from the East by 
TudtcDdorf and called aliet iti present owner liisliop Porphyry. Corilaini 
AcU, Epp. Cilh., Epp. PsdL, Apoc Kom. ii. ij [ducAtrTov^/itVi* . . . 
t Uc.h 4[/A.] ill. 5 ; tiii. 35 e>d. i J.«ii. . . . f«i 4 ™[r- U>.<r^,] 
tx. II ; li. 11 ■al dvDTDfiiBt . . .Svasar lii. i are mbiiae- 

Cod- Alhont Lanrae, uec. *iii-ii. Id tbe monasleiy Lauia on Monnl 
Athoa. Coolaiai Adi, Epp. Catb., Epp. Paal. Romans complete. Tbii 
MS. baa not yet been collaicd. 

Cod. Patirieniii, lacc. *. Fonnerly belonpng to the Batilinn monki 
c^ the abbey of Sta. Maria de lo PatiiF near Rossano, now in (he 
VatlcuL There is wme leasoD lo Ihink tbat the MS. may have come 
oricioally bom Constantinople {id. BatilTol, L'Abbayi di Rossana, pp. 6, 
79 and oi, 71-74). TweBty-ODc palimpsest Icbtcs, conlaining potlions 
o( Acts, Epp. Caib., Epp. Paul. These inclmie Horn. »iii. 4-iv 9. 
A study of teadingi bom this MS. Ii pnbliihed in Ibe Kttntd Biiliqiir 
for April, 1895. 


A fcw oaly of tbe leadiog mLDnsCDln can be given. 
^ (" Ett. 5, Act. 5), IMC. liir. At Paris; al one lime in Calabria, 
r. (- E»v. 33, Act 131, laec, ii (Omont, ii-i GiegoryJ. At Pans 

Called by ^chborn 'the queen of COrsives.' 
I. (-Act. »s. Apoc 7). \\niieD 10S7 a.o. Belonged to John CovclL 

Encliib chaplain Bi Conriantinople about 1675 : now in the Britiih 

%l. ( — Ad. >6 1, uec. oi. Haa a timiUr bistory to the last. 
17- t- Et», 69, Act. ,11. Apoc I4I, aaec iv. The well-known • Leicester 
US'; ooe of the Feirar group,' the archetype of which was probably 
wrillcD in Caljbria. 
47. Smc *i. Now in tbe Bodleian, but at one time belonged to tbe monas' 

lery of the Holy Trinity on the island of Cbalcis. 
67. (- Act 66, Apoc. 34], aaec. xi. Now at Vienna: at one tine in ihc 
poneisioD of Aneiilu*. anhbishop of Monemvasia in Kpidaums. The 
Dtaiginal corrector (67**] drew from a MS. containing many peculiar 
and ancieat roding* akin to those of M Paul., which is not extant for 
Cp. lo Ronujii. 
71. Sacb i-xL At Vienna. Thonght to have been written in Calabria. 
So. (a Act 73), Mec lu In the Vatican. 
93. (- A«t. Bj. Apoc 09), taec. ni [Grrgory). 
been eompaied witli > MS. of Pan ^ ■ ' 
a tew placrt. 

137. (■>£*▼. )6}, Act. It;), laec, iKi-xiv. At Paris. 

Sjj. (Gregoiy, »6o ScriTcnei - Ew. 489. Greg., 507 Scht. ; Act. 195 Greg., 

f«4 SeriT.). In the library of Trin. Coll., Camliridge. Wrillen on 

Moant Sioal in tbe year 1316, 

Tbeae MSS. are ptrtly those which have been noticed ai giving con- 

i|dcDoitt readinKf in the commenIar>. partly Ibosc on which stress is bid 

br Hort {tmtrad. p. 166). and pwtly those wbjcb Uonsset conuecU with bi* 

■Codei Pampbili (see below). 


(a) Versions. 

The versions quoted are the following : 

The Latin (Latt). 

The Vetus Latina (Lat VctJ, 

The Vulgate (Vulg.). 
The Egyptian (Aegypt), 

The Bohairic (Boh.>. 

The Sahidic (Sah.). 
The Syriac (Syrr.). 

The Peshitto (Pesh.). 

The Harclean (HarcL>. 
The Armenian (Arm.). 
The Gothic (Goth.). 
The Ethiopic (Aeth.). 

Of these the Vetus Latins is Tcry imperfectly presenred to is. Wc 
possess only a small number of fragments of MSS. These are : 

gtie. Cod. Guelferbytanos, saec. vi, which contains fragments of Rom. si 

33-«ii- 6; ^ 17-xiii. 5 ; »▼. 9-ao; xv. 3-13. 
r. Cod. Frisingensis, saec ▼ or ri, containing Rom. xJt. io-zt. 13. 
If. Cod. Gottvioensis, saec Ti or vii, containing Rom. ▼. i6-vi. 4; 


The texts of these fragments are, however, neither early (relatively to the 
history of the Version) nor of much interest To supplement them we have 
the Latin versions of the bilingual MSS. D E F G mentioned above, usually 
quoted as d e f g, and Quotations in the Latin Fathers. The former do not 
strictly represent the underlying Greek of the Version, as they are too much 
oonformea to their own Greek, d (as necessarily e) follows an Old -Latin text 
not in all cases altered to suit the Greek ; g is based on the Old Latin 
but is very much modified ; f is the Vulgate translation, altered with the 
help of g or a MS. closely akin to g. For the Fathers we are mainly 
indebted to the quotations in Tertullian (saec. ii-iii), Cyprian (saec. iii), 
the Latin Irenaeus (saec. ii, or more probably iv\ Hilary of Poitiers (saec. 
it), and to the so-called Speculum S, Augustint (cited as m), a Spanish 
text also of the fourth century (see below, p. 124). 

One or two specimens are given in the course of the commentary of the 
evidence furnished by the Old-Latin Version (see on L 30 ; v. 3-5 ; viii. 36), 
which may also serve to illustrate the problems raised in connexion with the 
history of the Version. They have however more to do with the changes 
in the Latin diction of the Version than with its text. The fullest treat- 
ment of the Vitus Latina of St. Paurs Epistles will be found in Ziegler, 
Dii UUeiniscAgn Bibeliibtruttungin vor Hieronymus^ Miinchen, 1879; 
but the subject has not as yet been sufficiently worked at for a general 
agreement to be reached. 

For the Vulgate the following MSS. are occasionally quoted ! 

am. Cod. Amiatinus c 700 a. d. 
fuld. Cod. Fuldensis c. 546 a. d. 
harl. British Museum Harl. 1775. Saec. vi or viL 
toL Cod. Toletanus. Saec. z, or rather perhaps viii (see Berger, Hu- 
Uirt di la Vulgatt, p. 14). 

The Vulgate of St. Paul's £i)istles is a revision of the Old Latin so slight 
~ dUBory as to be hardly an independent authority. It was however vdSA% 



with the help of the Grwlt MSS., end wc have Ihe eipren ■lulement ol 
Si Jerome himte'f Ihit in Kom. lii. ir he pr-fcne-l lo follow Gieek MSa 
Uid lo Uf y tfnifu tervicHia lor Itmftri strvienlis of the o!<ler Vcisloo 
f £>. ««riL 3 oi/ Maruliam). And ihu reading is fonod In the text of (be 

Of Ibe ^Tftleii Version*, Bohdric ii the! uniBllj known M Memphltlc 
(- *ne.' V\ H.) knd cited bfTiKh. u 'Coptic' ('cop.'), For the rexooi 
^lich mike it correct to dnciibe it u Bohaircc Ke Scrtvoier, /rurad. ii. io\ 
ed 4. It It DinillT cited Bccocding to TiKbeadorf (who Bppeen in Ibe 
bpJillo to h»Te followed Wilkin*; see Tiich. N.T, p. cciiiiiv, ed. 7), bnt 
in •ome few inttancci on tefening 10 Ihe origind it bai become clear that 
bit qnotationi cannot alwiyi be trnited : Ke the notes on t. 6; viil. i3; 
L A : tM. fj. Thii mgge^ts thai not onlj' > Ireih edilioa of the text, bat 
•lio • Irnh coiiition with ibe Greek, i> much needed. 

In Ibe S»hidic (Thebaic) Vertion [--Mih.' Tiach,. 'the.' WH.) tome 
few i«iLliacs bare been idded from Ihi- fragmenti publiihed b; Am^lineaa 
in the Zritukrifl fur Atgypt. Sfraikt, 1 887. Theie frsgnienti contain vi. 
lo-ij ; Til, i-Ji ; Tiii. 15-38 ; it 7-J3 : li. 31-36; »iL 1-9. 

The reader may be reminded that Ihe Peshillo Syriac wa* certainly cnrrent 
mnch in its pteseni focm early in the fonilh century. How mndi earlier 
than thii il was in use. and what amouni of cbnn^ It hnd previously onder- 
£Diu, are qoeiiioni nill being debated. In an; case, there ii no other form 
of ibe Venion uianl for Ibe Pauline Epiitlei. 

The HareleanSyiiac (- -lyr. pfostecior] " TiMh., -hi; \VH.^ is a re- 
CBiuon made br the MoDOphyslle Thomas of Hirlibel or Heradea in 616 
4 D., of Ihe oldtr Philoienian Venion of 508 A. D., which for this part 
of [be N.T. is now lost. A speciil importance altachei to the readings, 
sometimes in the teit bat mote often in the msigin, which appear to be 
deiiTCd frcm ' three (i, L two) approved and accurate Greek copies' in the 
Bonastery of the tjiaton near AJeiandria (WH. Intrad. p. 156 f). 

The Gothic Venion is also definitely dated at about the middle of the 
knrth cenlnrj. and Ibe Armenian at abool the middle of the fifth. The dates 
of Ihe two it^yptian Venions and of Ihe Lthiopic are still nnceruin 
(S«rntnei. iHlrad. ii. 105 1., lu. c'. i). It is of mure import.ince to know 
ml the types of teat whicn they represent are in any csk early, the 
Errpiiui lomewhal the older. 

Tne abbreviations in references to the Patristic wrilingt are tti^h as it li 
Iwptd will caase no difficulty (hut see p. ci). 

(1) fnitrnal Grouping of Aulknrititt. The most promising and 
sDix«s&ftil of 2II tht dirccliotis in which texiual criticism is being 
poriued ai this moment is ibat of isolating comparatively small 
gronpa of authoriiies, and investig:atii)g their muiual relations and 
origin. For the Pauline Epistles the groups most aSecied by 
ROent researches are NB ; M'H, Arm., Euthal., and in less degree 
B number of minuscules ; D [E] F G. 

»blcb hai bee^ beld (1 

fniud Vtrtitn f/ l\t Hnl Thru t 

CaUatttn »f Ltd. Simai/itui, p. xxivii f), but without rei'ing upon any very 

nlid atgnraenti. And il must always be remembered ao eicclleni 

a palaeoEiaphei at Dr. Ceiiani of Milan (a/. Scrivenrr, Intrtd. i. 111, ed. 4) 

fboaght that B was wtitlcb in luly ^Magna Gratciai, and that Dr. Hott 


mlio givci tome leftioos for ascribing an Italian origin to this MS. Wo aic 
however ooofiFoiited bj the fact that there is a distmct proUability that both 
MSS. if they were not written in the same place had at least in part the same 
scribes. It was fiist pointed oat bj Tischendorf ( Al T, Vmi,^ Lipciae, 1867, 
pp. zxi-sdii), 00 groonds which seem to be soffident, that the writer wfaooi 
he calls the 'fourth scribe' of K wrote also the N.T. portico of B. And, as 
it has been said« additional arguments are becoming aTailable for oonaectiBg 
M with the library at Caesarea (see Rendel Harris, Stickmmtiry^ p. 71 C; 
and the essay of Bonsset referred to below). 

The frovtnanee of M would only carry with it approximately and Ml 
exactly that of B. The conditions would be satisfied if it were possible, or 
not difficult, for the same scribe to have a hand in both. For int^«*»rr. the 
▼iew that M had its origin in Palestine would not be inconsistent with tiie 
older riew, recently revived and defended by Bonsset, that B was an Egyp- 
tian MS. There would be io much coming and going between Palestine 
and Ejnrpt, especially among the followers ofOrigen, that they would belong 
Yirtnafly to the same region. But when Herr Bousset goes fnither and main- 
cains that the text of B represents the recension of Hesychius ^ that is another 
matter, and as it seems to us, at least ^ima facU. by no means probable. 
The text of B must needs be older than the end of the third century, which is 
the date assigned to Hesychius. If we admit that the MS. may be Egyptian, 
it b only as one amongst sereral possibilities. Nothing can as yet bt 
regarded as proved. 

Apart from such external data as coincidences of handwriting which con- 
nect the two MSS. as they have come dovim to us there can be no doubt that 
they had also a common ancestor far back in the past The weight which 
their agreement carries does not depend on the independence of thdr testi- 
mony so much as upon its earlv date. That the date of their common 
readings is in fact extremely eariy appears to be proved by the number ol 
readings in which they differ, these divergent readings being shared not by 
any means always by the same but by a great variety of other authorities. 
From this variety it may be inferred that between the point of divergence 
of the ancestors of the two MSS. and the actual MSS. the fortunes of each 
had been quite distinct Not only on a single occasion, but on a number of 
successive occasions, new strains of text have been introduced on one or 
other of the lines. M especially has received several side streams in the 
course of its history, now of the colour which we call ' Western * and now 
'Alexandrian*; and B also (as we shall fee) in the Pauline Epistles has 
a clear infusion of Western readings. It is possible that all these may Iuitc 
come in from a single copy; but it is less likely that all the 'Western* or 
all the 'Alexandrian* readings which are found in K had a single origin 
Indeed the history of M since it was written does but reflect the history of 
its ancestry. We have only to suppose the corrections of K' embodied in 
the text of one MS., then those of K** first inserted in the margin and then 
embodied in the text of a succeeding MS., then those of K** in a third and 
K*^ in a fourth, to form a mental picture of the process by which our present 
MS. became what it is. It remains for critical analysis to reconstruct this 
process, to pick to pieces the different elements of which the text of the 
MS. consists, to arrange them in their order and determine their *ffinitiet 
This analysis will doubtless be carried further than it has been. 

K«H, Arm.. EothaL 

A number of scholars working on M have thrown out suggestions which 
woidd tend to group together these authorities, and possibly to bring them into 
some further connexion with K B. The MS. H Paul, (unfortunately, as we have 

* A similar view is held by Corssen. He regards the modem text based 00 
M B as nur tin Spi$gtlbild eintr willhurlUh JixUrien Rtctnsum des viirten 
/akrhumUrts {Dir Cy^riammki Tsxt d. Acta Apastohrum^ Berlin, 189a, p. 34) 




nld. Dot otuit for RoCDUii^ bHrsopon ils face Ibe tTaces of !t! connexion with 
(he Ubtsiy of Ciemu, u tbe nlncription to Ep. to Tilol tialel eipicMl; 
Itut lb? KIS. wu comcted 'wilh the copy >l Caesinti !□ the libruy of thi 
boljt Puapbiliu wtilleo with his own hud.' Now in June, LE93. Dr. Rendel 
tliiiu pointed oal ■ coaneiion bctWHa thii MS. H Pial. and Euthaliiu 
\Sttti»milry. p. 88). Thai had alio been noticed by Dr. P. Corsten In the 
■teond ol the two programme! cited below i.p. Ii), Early in 1894 Hcrr 
W. BoButT brovgbl out to Gebhaidt and Hamsck'i TtiU u. Unltr- 
tmtAwngm « tenrs of Tiit-kriliuhi SludUu mm N. T.. in the courae ol 
arbich (withoot any concert wilh Dr. Kcndel Harria, but peibapt with 
•one koowleilge of Comec] he not only addaced futlbei evidence of ihU 
cooBcuoD. but alio broaght into the gtoap the third conectoi of M (K<). 
A note at the end of the Book of Either said to be by hi* hand ipcaki 
la sniDhic lermi of a MS. conecled by the HeiapU of Oii^, com- 
pHed by Anioninai a confeuor, and collected by Pamphilus ' m piiwD ' 
(i. t. jutt before liii death in the penecution of Diocletian). AtteatioD bad 
oitCD been diawo to thii note, bal Herr bonnet wai the fiiit lo make the 
foil Die of ii which it deserved. He fonnd on eiamination that the presump- 
tioo DJied by it wai verilied and tbat tbete was a leal and cloie coonexioD 
between the reai]iagi of K* and those of H and h^nlhaliai which were iade- 
pcadently auodated with Pamphiliu'. Lastly, to complete the teiiei ol 
N*«cl and Mrilcing obtemtions. Mr. F. C. Conylieaie coioei forward in the 
cwiai niunbei of Vat Jeitrnal ^ Pkiletegy (no, ^6. 1S9O and inaintaini 
■ fartba cooneiion til the group with the Aimecian Veraion. Theie 
nwanhe* are at prexut ia full iwing, and will doabtlcit lead 1^ debtees 
Id Dore en lee definite reanlti. The c^iayi which have been nienlioned 
ril contain nmc more ipecclatiTe mattei in addition to what hai been 
Tntinnrd. bat it ii alio piobable that ihey hare a ceitaio amount of lolid 
■■denL [l i» only jnit what we ihould have eipected. The libraiy 
louded b; Famphilus at Coesarea was the greateil and motf lamoui ol 
^ tbe bocA-ColIectioni In the early ChHsIian centiuie&; it was alio the 
gteateW centre of lilerary and copying activity juat at the momenl when 
OirlMianily tcoeiired its greatest expanitoa ; tbe pieslige not only ol 
taiebiHi and Pamphiltu. but of the (till moie potent name l,foi some time 
|>«i t« «omej of Origen. attached lo it It would have been itringe if It had 
BM bees eoimlied iiom far and wide and if the inilsenoe of it Wen not felt 
ta many paru ol Chiiitendom. 

Nol only 11 E a mac copy of D, hot there i> a very cloie relation betwees 
V and t^. opoiiatly in the Ureek. It is not aa yet abtolutelj delcrmmed 
what that relation ii. In an evay written Id 1S71 (reprinted in Ijghlfoot. 
JIMitml Eiiayi.y.iii R.) Dr. Hon Ualeihii opinion that F Creek iia direct 
copy of G, F Latin a Vulgate text partly aisimilateri to tbe Greek and wilh 
■Mdaiive readings from the Latin of G. Later (/Mm/, p. ijoi he wrilca 
that F b -ai ceitaialy in iU Greek text a IranacHpi of G a& E of D : if not 
it ia an mferior copy ol tbe tame inunediaCe exemplar.' 1'hii second alterna- 
tive ia the older view, adopted by Scrivener {/lUrad. p. iSi. ed. 3) and 

Vt. p. Conteo (£//. /'ailin. Ledd. Aug. BoerH. Ciarom., 1687 and 1889). 

' Stnoe the above *ai written all speculation! on the object orEuihaliushave 
n npeneded by Prof, Armilage Koliinson"* admirable eisay in Ttxli and 
^diti. iiL > Both the (tit of Euthalins and that of the Codm Famphili are 
•■a to be aa yet very nncettain qnantittes. Still it ii probable that the aulbotlliet 
.qaeUion are teslly connected, nnd that ibete ate elementi in theii text which 
mf be iiaocable to Euthabu* on ibe one hajud and the Caesaican Ubiaiy oa 


We are not rare that the question can still be regarded as settled in this 
sense, and that Dr. Hort's original view is not to be preferred. Dr. Corssen 
admits that chexe are some phenomena which he cannot explain (1887, p. 13). 
These would fall naturally into their place if F Gk. is a copy of G; and the 
arguments on the other side do not seem to be decisive. In any case it 
should be remembered that F GJc and G Gk. are practically one witness and 
not two. 

Dr. Corssen reached a number of other interesting conclusions. Examining 
the common element in D F G he showed that they were ultimately derived 
from a single archetype (Z), and that this archetype was written ptr cola et 
€9mmatat or in clauses corresponding to the sense (sometimes called 
arixot), as may be seen in the Palaeographical Society*s facsimile of D 
(ser. L pi. 63, 64). Here again we have another coincidence of inde- 
pendent workers, for in 1891 Dr. Rendel Harris carrying further a suggestion 
of Rettig's had thrown out the opinion, that not only did the same system of 
colometry lie behind Cod. A £w. (the other half, as we remember, of 
G Paul.) and D £w. Act (Cod. Bezae, which holds a like place in the 
Gospel and Acts to D Paul.), but that it also extended to the other impor- 
tant Old-Latin MS. k (Cod. Bobiensis), and even to the Curetonian Syriac 
— to which we suppose may now be added the Sinai palimpsest If that 
were so— and indeed without this additional evidence — Dr. Corssen probably 
puts the limit too late when he says that such a MS. is not likely to have 
been written before the time of St. Chrysostom, or 407 a. d. 

Thus Dr. Corssen thinks that there arose early in the fifth centurr 
a ' Graeoo-Latin edition,' the Latin of which was more in agreement with 
Victorinus Ambrosiaster and the Spanish Speculum. For the inter-connexion 
of this group he adduces a striking instance from i Cor. xiii. i ; and he 
argues Uiat the locality in which it arose was more probably Italy than 
Africa. As to the place of origin we are more inclined to agree with him 
than as to the date, though the Speculum contains an African element He 
then points out that this Graeco-Latin edition has affinities with the Gothic 
Version. The edition did not contain the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and the 
Epistle to the Romans in it ended at Rom. xv. 14 (see % 9 below) ; it was 
entirely without the doxology (Rom. xvi. 25-37). 

Dr. Corssen thinks that this Graeco-Latin edition has undergone some 
correction in D by comparison with Greek MSS. and therefore that it is in 
part more correctly preserved in G, which however in its turn can only be 
used for reconstructing it with caution. 

Like all that Dr. Corssen writes this sketch is suggestive and likely to be 
fruitful, though we cannot express our entire agreement with it We only 
regret that we cannot undertake here the systematic inquiry which certainly 
ought to be made into the history of this group. The lines which it should 
follow would be something of this kind. U) It should reconstruct as far as 
possible the common archetype of D and G. (ii) It should isolate the 
peculiar element in both MSS. and distinguish between earlier and later 
readings. The instances in which the Greek has been conformed to the Latin 
will probablv be found to be late and of little real importance, (iii) The 
peculiar and ancient readings in Gg should be carefully collected and 
studied. An opportunity might be found of testing more closely the hvpo- 
thesis propounaed in ( 9 of this Introduction, (iv) The relations of the 
Gothic Version to the group should be determined as accurately as possible. 
(▼) The characteristics both of D and of the archetype of D G should be 
compared vrith those of Cod. Bezae and the Old-Latin MSS. of the Gospels 
and Acta. 

(3) The Textual Criticism of Epistle to Romans. The textual 
criticism of the Pauline Epistles generally is inferior in interest to 

THE ■ 



that of the Hisiorical Books of the New Testament. When this ii 
■aid it ■> not meant that invesiigations such as ihose outlined above 
aie not full of attraction, and in their way full of promise. Any- 
thing which throws new light on the history of the test \vill be found 
in the end to throw new light on the history of Christianity. But 
what is meant is that the textual phenomena aie less marked, and 
have a less distinctive and individual character. 

Tills may be due to two causes, both of which have really been 
U work. On the one hand, the latitude of variation was probably 
aever from the 6rst so great ; and an the other hand the evidence 
"hich has come down to us is mferior both in quantity and quality, 
so thai there are parts of the history — and those just the most 
inieresiing parts — which we cannot reconstruct simply for want of 
material. A conspicuous instance of boih conditions is supplied 
by the state of what is called the ' Western Test.' It is probable 
thai this text never diverged from the other branches so widely as 
It does in the Gospels and Acts; and just for that section of it 
wMcb diverged most we have but little evidence. For the oldest 
forms of this text we are reduced to the quotj^lions in Terlullian 
Ukd Cyprian. We have nothing like ihe best of the Old-Latin MSS. 
of the Gospels and Acts ; noiliins like forms of the Syriac Versions 
tucb as the Curetonian and Sinailic ; noihing like the DiaUssaron. 

And yet when we look broadly at the variants to the Pauline 
EpJElles we observe the same main lines of distribution as in the 
rol of the N.T. A glance at the apparatut criticus of the Epistle 
to the Romans will show the tendency of Ihe aurhoriiies to fail 
into the groups DEFG; NB; HACLP. These really corre- 
spond to like groups in the other Books : DEFG correspond 
to the group which, in the nomenclature of Westcolt and Hort. is 
called ■ Western ' ; M B appear {with other leatiing MSS. added) to 
mark the Une which they would call ' Neutral' ; NAC L P would 
fiuludt, but would not be identical with, the group which they call 
■ Akzandrian.' The later uncials generally (with accessions every 
now and then from the older ranks) would constitute the family 
which they designate as ' Syrian,' and which others have called 
' Antiochenc,' 'Byzantine." 'Constantinopoliian,' or 'Ecclesiastical.' 

Ejtoeption is taken to some of these tiiles, especially to the term 
' We.'ittm,' which is only retained because of its long-esublished 
DM, and no doubt gives but a very imperfect geographical descrip- 
tioo of the tacts. It might be proposed to substitute names 
SBggeslcd in most cases by the leading MS. of the group, but 
generalized so as to cover other authorities as well, For in-lance, 
we might speak of the 8-iew( = "Wetiem'), the p-iexi( = ' Neutral'), 
ibe »-ieit ( = ' Alexandrian'), and the (-text or »- text ( = 'Ecciesi- 
asucal'or 'Syrian'). Such terms would beg no questions; they 
■tmpljr describe facts. It would be an advantage that the 


same tenn "B-lexl ' would be equally suggested by the leading MS. 
in the Gospels and Acts, and in ihe Pauline Epistles ; the tenn 
' p-iexi.' while suggested by B, would carry with it no assumption 
of superiority ; ' a-text ' would recall equally ' Aleiandrian ' and 
'Codex Alesandrinus ' ; and '€-lexi' or 'ff-text' would not imply 
any inherent inferiority, but would only describe the undoubted 
facts, either that the text in question was that generally accepted by I 
the Church throughout the Middle Ages, or thai in its oldest form I 
it can be traced definitely to the region of Antioch and northern 
Syria. It is cerLiin that this text (alike for Gospels, Acts, and 
Epistles) appears in the fourth century in this region, and spread 
from it ; while as to the debated point of its previous history nothing 
would be either aRirnied or denied. 

If towt inch Tuxnenclnture » this writ adopttd ■ Turther st«p might bl | 
taketi bj ditongui^ing the eulier >nd later itiget o( Ibe ume leil i " 
B*, Sk., r^, v'. See. It wddIcI slso b«ve to be nwri (hit kllhoaeh ii 
vaM majorit; of cas» the ^np would inclode the MS. from which it 1 
took Iti Dime, flill In lomc instuices it would pot iDclnde it. and it mighl | 
even be ranged on (he opposite &ide. This wontd occni mast oflcn with 1 
the o-text and A, hot it would occur also occastoDallj with the P-texl and | 
B (u CMitpicnouily Id Rom. iL 6). I 

Sucb being the broad ootlinei of the dfttribotioa of lathoritie* oo (ha I 
Epistle to the Romui, we uk, What are its dislinctive and individoal I 
leaturesl Thue are for the moit part shared with ihc reit of Ihc Panliot ] 
Epiitlei. One of the adTantigei which most of the olhei Epistki poss 
Romans ii without : none of Sac extant fragmcati of Cod. H belong tc 
This deprive* u of one important ctilerioo ; but conclusJoni obtained foi I 
the other Epiillei may Ik applied to tbia. For instance, the student will 1 
obserre cBrtfuIly the leadinea of K* and Arm. Snihcient oote has >infor- 1 
lunatclf not been tikcQ of them in the commentary, ■■ the clue wat not Id | 
the Biiter't hands when it was written. In Uiie respect the reader d 
asked (o iD|]plemtnt it. He should of coDrte apply the new teat with ] 
caulioD, and judge each case on its merits : only careJul Dse c 
extent It 1* valid. \\ hen we con^der the miied origin of nearly all audent ' 
texts, sweeping propolitioos and absolute rules aie leei 

The specific characteristics of the teMnal appaiatas of Romans may be 
said to be these t (i) Ihe general jnfeiiorily in botdnas and originality of the 
8- (or Western) text ; (ii) the &ct that there is a dislmd Western clement in 
B. which therefore when it ii combined with authorities of (he 8- or Westem 
type it diminished in value ; (iill tbe consequent rise in importance of the 
group KAC ; tivl the existence of a few tcniteied reaiTingi eliher of K alone 
or ofB in combinatii'D with one or two other ftutborities which have coO' 
siderable intiinnc probability and may be lighL 

We proceed to say a few wordi on eadl uf these bends. 

(i) The tirst must be taken with ihe reservaljons noted above, llw 
Wexleta or E-text has not it is troe the bold and interesling varialions which 
■le found in the Gospels and Acts, It has none of (he striking inter- 
polations which in those lioolu often bring in ancient and valuable matter. 
That Qiny be due malTily to (he fact [hat Ihe interjHilalions in question are 
for tiie mosi part bistorical. and therefore would naturally be looked for in 
(he Historical Books. In Ep. to Romans the more important 6-variaati 
u« bM inteipolttioiu boi omissioni (ai e. g, in the Uocpel of St. Lnk«). Still 


B.g.ixi.9 Tf », 

a of correct! on and panphraae to 

oitoTixoyif tipmao* ; D* G, Chryt. Orig.-Ut al, : rl iXf ; 

i*. 19 w cqiniijKv D E F G, &c Orig.-Ut. Epiph. Ambtitr. ml. : 

niTf >a^irir It A B C a/, 
f. 14 III roil if(opTil<nj*roi 6j. 63, 6^*', Orig.-Ut. Cada. Lai. ef. 

Ang,, Ambrstt. : i«i roii pi) dfiopnjaayrai re/. 
Tii 6 ToO ftffOTov D E F G, r«W. o/. Orig..I«t. al. : awoBavirrrt re/. 
ilL II Tf caip$ SovAfiWrti D* t G, Ca£/. Z^. a/. Hieioi). afi. 
Orig.'lat. Ambrstr. ; -ry S-vpiv SovKtiorra rtl. 
13 nut fAiiW T£iK d-rlw D'FG, CooV. afi. Theod. Mops. a/. 
(Wg.-laL HiL Ambisn. a/.: Toil XP''"" ''""' ^7"'" "W. [Theie 
two mdingi were pcihapi due in the Gist indaDce to acculeiiul 
emm of traaicriptioii.] 
sv. 13 wktjpn^p^aai B F G : wXripihaai rtt. 
21 niXAiini B D E F G : ti roJUri rv/. 
31 Itipapofia B D* F G, Ambistr. : i,a*oria r*t. 
The most Inteiesting *;pccl of Ibis bisuch of the Icit n the histoiy of iti 
■nttcedecti u lepccicated iiy the commoD archetype of D G, und even moic 
bf the pcCDliat element m O. The most piomineDl of tbeie leadings aie 
diicnBcd below in t 9, bal a still further investij^ntion of them in cooneiioD 
with allied phenomena in other Epi^tlea it deairablc. 

(ii) It will have been seen that m the last thiee readings jnit given B joins 
with tke DnmiEtakably Weilern authoiities. And thii pbeDOmenon u io 
poiM «f Ua freq<icntl}> repealed- We have it alio in the omission ol 
'fv^wTcw L t6; om, lip ill. a \ om. r$ tltrtit t. 1 ; *ini. litr tL it ; jhi) ri 
JpsMwt aitm Duvia viiL 1 1 (where howerei there ii a great mus of othet 
■Dthonliei) ; *om. 'ItboCi and *cim. In rf*p£ni viii. 34 ; 4 )<<>^7«I ii- 4 '. i>»- 
wki is. 19; 'irrt aRcr v6ium and '■^alrri im. aftet aoTijirai x. 5 ; jr [tdi'i] i. 
10; 'am. Ydfi zi«. $ ; om. oSr, dmSa^fi, tom. t£ ei^ liv. 11 ; 'add 4 cwar- 
■MtflTOI 4 Jvfl'Mrxl*. II ; ^fut IT. 7; T^r \mu-ffivi*] iv. t3|. 

It la peihipi liciiiiicanl that in all the initances marked with * the group 
it jowted by M*. It ma; be thiougli a copy related to the 'Cod^i Pam- 
pUU ' thai the*e readings cnme inlo B. We alio note thai Ifae laietl and 
WDtit «f all tbe leadinel foimd io 8, the long addition in il. 6 (I SI i( tp-fo* 
tMrt (om. Iml iS) xanr 1x1 rd l^or aUin larl yiif'f {licB; Ipynr al.) 
» thared by B wiib K^L. In the instances marked with t, and in iv. 13 
Aqrafo^iiirai. B agrwi not with D but wiOi G: but (jo tbe utber hand in 
«iii 34 (on. "Iqomii and in it. 7 it agrees with I) if^it C ; so that the 
laeoibbuMe to the pecnliar element in the lattei MS. doei not ilood oat 
qaitc clearly. In the other instances both D and G are repiescnled. 

(Hi) When B thus poei over to the Wetiem or B-sioop tbe main support 
of tbe sltenialiTe reading is oaturally thrown upon K A L. T)>is ia a gtoap 
which octude tbe Gospels and Acts and especially in Fast. Epp- Heb. asd 
Apoe. (wilb or wilhoul othri support) has not fcldom preserved the right 
(Cading, It becomes in fact tbe main giuap wherever B is not cilant 'IIk 
prindpal difbcnlly— and il is one ol the cHief of the not very numerous 
•artnU difficDllies io Romans— it to delennine wbclhei these MSS. realty 
Ktain tbe original text or whether Ibeir reading it one of the &aei Aleiin- 
driaa coirectioiu. This ambiguity besets us (e.g,) in the very cam[<lei 
illialitliiii of Tiii. II. The eombinatioa is tlrengtbened where KA aie 
ioitvd by the Wiilemt u in iii. ifj. In this instance, as in a few others, 
tlwy are opposed by K C, a pair which do not cany quite as much weight 
kl tbe Epitltcs as lliey would in the Gosf>ela, 

liv} It may appear paradoxical, but tbe ralne of B seems to rise when 
■■ ■_ 1 ..1 t... _.i _| jjjjrty all other nneial* Appearances may b* 

liv} It may appe 
k ta dMcttad by a 


deoeptiTe, Imt there it not a little reason for thinking that tht following 
leadugs belong to the soundest innermost kernel of the MS. 

IT. I om. th/niMipai, 

▼, 6 rf ft. 

viL 35 x^/Nt rf ef^ 

▼iiL 2A bydp Mwti, rit i\wl(H ; 

I. 9 rd firjfia . . • 5n Ki/piof Irjcodt, 

zIt. 13 om. wp^Mo/jifM . • . ^. 

z¥. ip IIyfi;/iarot without addition. 

As all these readings have been discnsied more or lest felly in the com 
mcntary, they need only be referred to here. Two more readings present 
considerable attractions. 

ix. 33 om. scaL 

TfL 37 om. f. 

They are however open to some suspicion of being corrections to ease the 
construction. The question is whether or not they are Talid exceptions to 
the rule that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. Such exceptions 
there undoubtedly are; and it is at least a tenable Tiew that these are 
among them. 

Other singular, or subsingular, readings of B will be found in sv. 4, 13, 
|Oy 3a. But these are less attractive and less important 

§ 8. Literary History. 

The literary history of the Epistle to the Romans begins earlier 
than that of any other book of the N.T. Not only is it clearly 
and distinctly quoted in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, but 
even within the N.T. canon there are very close resemblances both 
m thought and language between it and at least three other books ; 
these resemblances we must first consider. 

We shall begin with the first Epistle of St Peter. In the 
following table the passages in which there is a similarity between 
the two Epistles are compared : 

Rom. ix. 35 KokiffM r6v o^ ka6w i Peter ii. 10 oi wot^ oi ka6t, rw 

fiov kaov fioVy Koi T^y oifM ^yamj' 8i kads Btov, ol ov4r ^jkfrjfAivoi, vw 

fAivrfV ^yawrjfA^vrp^, 8i l\€ff$ivrtt. 

Rom.ix. ^2, a vpoff 4 itofffav T^ i Peter ii. 6-8 'l9o^, riBtifAi iw 

kt$^ Tov vpoaicofifiaroSf im$an ^tatv klBor ^poywyicuaif iKktxritf, 

yiyparrcu, *l5oij, riBrjiii kv J,ioiv (vrtfAOV ital 6 wiortvww kv* aifx^ 

ki$ov V pooit6/ifiaTot Ital ir^T> oit fiil Maraiax^^^V • • • o^ot 

pav a*avidkov' Mai 6 vtiTTtvwv iytvri0rj (fr ict<f>akilv ywyiaSf '«ai 

Iv' air^ oit ttaraiax^^'^i' ki$os vpoaMdfifiarot xal wirpa 

srcTcu. ffKavidkotf, ot wpoffitdwrovai rf 

A4$79» dwu$ovvr€S, (If h Mai Iri* 

Rom. xii. i wapaff-nftrat rd aitfiara 1 Peter iL 5 dt^tviyMot vrtvfuxTtMdt 

VftSiv Bvaiav fjuaav^ dyiaVf tlaptC' $voias titwpoaifMTovt Off Sid 'I. 

toy T^ 6cffy T^ koyiMT^v karptiay Xp. 

Rom. xii. 2 fii) av^xv/*^^^ ^ Peter L 14 ^t^ o'v^'x^Marif^ 

f«rtfff tf oittfTt Toi&T^, fxtvoi rats trpdnpoy Ir rj dyrol^ bftSm 



The following passages seem 
thougbia and words: 

Ron. lii. 3 AMi ^poi-tr* «ti ri 
««^^i>ytiV . .. 

T^ Xof* *^ tiittltav 4^v Sid- 
^pa... fir* Biaasriai', Ir rp 

CL also Rom. xiiL 11-14; 8-10; 


be modelled on St. Paul's 


1 Titer ir. j-ii •ivrH* »» rt tI\m 
ffvifipo^iaaTt otv nal nj- 

fli laiToit il7il»T)r Jimi^ Jx"*""!. 
Sn iItiiii^ mAvirrti >Xq$ui d^iapnui' 

Bfiot- I*aOTOi icaBui jAaa» X^P"' 
»ia, ill taurobi nird Biaaorouvrtt, 
iis mit.iil oUmiim raglXiii x^P*'"" 
etti- <t III AoAii, lb XiJ7.a S>aC' it 

i e<^ 

Rom. xii. 9 4 J7a»7 drv>^ 

I Peter i. 3) rdj i^xAt t/wr 47*^~ 
iTev j« nopNof liA^qAovt il7ai>4- 

Rom. dL t6 ri oirl <tf dXXifAsM 

1 Peter iii- S. 9 ri 3) rJ\M. nivrtt 

»,<.r.ivT.r ^4 ri t^-jXd *,,o. 

i^i^po,,,, ou,<im»trt. *i*4JtA^i, 

vavriti, dAjU TD» Tuxiyaii 

.BffiAa7i™. Taitf.>.£4>fi»<>, f<4 

n>^*..T^>..m. ^ 7i*tff(. *p.i«^ 

d.oI.aD>rTit .a.i.. d»»J .o.aS 

•a^' i-wv'i. 

17 ^ttiyt tamir Arrl Hanoi 

N l.>Ao70i;rrit. It, di tov» JirX4- 

itQtiSirrtr tpvraoiiuiiti coA^ 

Moiw ■orrvr iy9pir.«. 

11 l»A<»iTw ii dirJ .0.0 f, ml 

iS •! hiMiT<>, tJ il ifisr, «ura 

.■.■voriTw i-,,tiy Ci,ri,oiL«> tlp^Ki^r 

tiit^ irttumif ilpiiniotitt. 

Ml &«fuT« air^-. 

CL .Iw. ". 9, 14- 

Rom. illL t •oca i^ixh 'fawfoii 

1 Peiecii. 13-17 tiiOTil7ijTf miof 

• ■•^•veiloaM l>OTaav<a«>r 

IrSpov.tu KTinti J>d tJ>' KtipiDf, 

« 70, t<rr., ii««,ia >i ^), M «,cS, 

.r.. SaaJL«, .h t w.,. J X ">■*', tl" 

■J U aioai £nr<t «iou riTa7fHVai 

*7>tHjff.F, lif a.' oSruO wtt^wciUrci all 

•Iffl-. . 

l<6i«<lili>' ■a*oii>,£> Iitoiror Si 

3 ol T^fl a;PX<WT« o(« ,tal ^fioi 

a7afloiioir«'' Ht. oCra™ J«-.Jri«AT,^ 


dliA^nira dTaidri- ri>- Sfdr 


7 ^V^AvTl VOffl TOT £^|A^ r^ 

fir ^O^r TJv ^'pw, tV tA t<Am 

Allbough equal stress cannot be laid on all these passages the 
reacmblance is too great and too constant to be niercl)' acci- 
deotal. In 1 Pet ii. 6 we have a quotation from the O.T. with 
the nine variations from the LXX that we find in Rom. ix. 3a 
{•ee the noie). Not only do we find the same thoughts, such as 
(be m«ia[(hofical use of the idea of sacrifice (Rom. xii. t ; i Pet. 
■L 5), and ihc same rare words, such as rtiaxnii^'Ctafiiu, nivtri- 
tfint, but in one passage (Rom. xiii. 1-7; ■ PeL ti. 13-17J we 


have what must be accepted as conclusive evidence, the same ideas 
occurring in the same order. Nor can there be any doubt that of 
the two the Epistle to the Romans is the earlier. St Paul works 
out a thesis clearly and logically; St. Peter gives a series of 
maxims for which he is largely indebted to St. Paul. For example, 
in Rom. xiii. 7 we have a broad general principle laid down, 
St« Peter, clearly influenced by the phraseology of that passage, 
merely gives three rules of conduct In St. Paul the language 
and ideas come out of the sequence of thought; in St. Peter 
they are adopted because they had already been used for the same 

This relation between the two Epistles is supported by other 
independent evidence. The same relation which prevails between 
the First Epistle of St Peter and the Epistle to the Romans is also 
found to exist between it and the Epistle to the Ephesians, and 
the same hypothesis harmonizes best with the facts in that case 
also. The three Epistles are all connected with Rome: one of 
them being written to the city, the other two in all probability 
being written from it. We cannot perhaps be quite certain as 
to the date of i Peter, but it must be earlier than the Apostolic 
Fathers who quote it ; while it in its turn quotes as we see at least 
two Epistles of St. Paul and these the most important We may 
notice that these conclusions harmonize as far as they go with the 
view taken in § 3, that St. Peier was not the founder of the Roman 
Church and had not visited it when the Epistle to the Romans was 
written. In early church history arguments are rarely conclusive ; 
and the even partial coincidence of different lines of investigation 
adds greatly to the strength of each. 

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews again was probably 
indebted to the Romans, the resemblance between Rom. iv. 17 
and Heb. xl 11 is very close and has been brought out in the 
notes, while in Rom. xii. 19, Heb. x. 30, we have the same 
passage of Deuteronomy quoted with the same marked diver- 
gences from the text of the LXX. This is not in itself conclusive 
evidence; there may have been an earlier form of the version 
current, in fact there are strong grounds for thinking so ; but the 
hypothesis that the author of the Hebrews used the Romans is 
certainly the simplest. We again notice that the Hebrews is 
a book closely connected with the Roman Church, as is proved by 
its early use in that Church, and if it were, as is possible, written 
from Rome or Italy its indebtedness to this Epistle would be 
accounted for. The two passages referred to are quoted below; 
and, although no other passages resemble one another sufficiently 
to be quoted, yet it is quite conceivable that many other of the 
words and phrases in the Hebrews which are Pauline in character 
may have been derived from an acquaintance with this Epistlc« 




The pauagES referred to are the following : 

Heb. li. 1 1 , II tl<rrti «al airij Sa/ipo 
lllini*ll» til laTaBo^'S' OlipiiaTOi 

liiror Sii mi) iip' jrat J7<iiijftjr7iu', 

Rom. i», 17-11 wrirarn oi M- 

*itpeil...iiai flit iaei>'fiaai rg 
9ioT9t nrfrtf^fff ri lavrov dUfia 

^^at Xn^^r til N iV J«07- 
Y«X<av To« 9iov ov JiM^i'Sij »5 

vfvTli, tovl ti(ar rf a<v> ■°' 

■ vrarot JOTi caj mq^o,. 

Rom lil 19 Jfiol laSi'n;vii, ifii 
drmvSAo*, Ai7(> KiI^M. 

19 Ko^iaifH¥ 

. JO tfio! f«tl«QBIf, ifoi 

When we piss to ihe Epistle of St. James we approach a much 
more difficult problem. The relation between it and the Epistle 
10 ihe Romans has been often and hotly debated; for it is 
a theological as well as a literary question. The passages which 
resemble one another in the two Epistles are given at length by 
Prof. Mayor in bis edition of the Epistle of St. James, p, xciii, who 
argues strongly in favour of the later date of the Romans. The 
following are among the most important of these ; we have not 
thought it necessary to repeat all his insiances ; 

Rom. iL 1 Sii AraroKiyriTBi tt. Si 
bttvwt rsf i Hplttir 1> f yif 

fimf tA i>d^ aiira wpaaaut i 
Rocn. ii, IJ til -fAf ol ixfoaral 

Rom. i*. I ri vSr J^fitr tlfriKiiat 


'ABpain til' 
■ard aipma; 

Rom. ii. 10 <lt a 111* iiiayf*.iar 
rtn 04W at lititpiti! tj driirrlf, 

'. 3-S ■ 

I»ijiltr, 4 H (o«i|.4 IXitJJa- )t 
N lAn't sit •oraiiTtM'li, Sri 4 iiatn) 

• The rXX of Dent B 

Jtaitt iT. tl ^ nrraAaXfrri lUX^. 
Xan', dJiAfioi. A laTaAoAur .iRiA^u, 1) 

■jfiop. •at cpiVii r^fiw •! tl rd^v n^i- 
Vf II, fftv tJ woiijrifl rifun, liAAil *P<'"^t 

Ad>i(^/«»di iauioiit, 

JunH iL II 'ABpaiii i tar^f 
*;.». ot_. i( ip7«^ i^, «,»».;. 

Jimei L 6 alrtfrai 8) J> niari, 
Itfoi lam «AiiE<vri SaAAaaifi drfju- 

JaDiu i. 1-4 >a(»ir K<ipdr ^T^vairSt 
Jw »ipaafi«i wlftwIatiTi wontfAnn, 

m'lJTtm taTipyn{ltai 4itij;io>'^>'. f) ji 

FoHt ir ffljff injllic^lliu llfTB 




Rom. yii. 23 fiXiwv 8) inpen^ r^/iov 
hf ro€S fi4\tat fiov, dyTiarpa- 
rt»6fi§¥oy rf 96/1^ rov woot fiov. 
Mat olxAUiA«T((orrd fu kv t& v6ii^ rift 
A§MifirUu rif 2m kv roTr fitktoi /lov. 

Rom. xiii. I a dwo$MfAt$a oZp 
rd fpTfa rev ai€6royt, kvdwri/fAtOa 8) 
rd SwXa rov ^wr^r. 

James W. i w6$t¥ ft6X9fmi mi w6$€9 

^hovwv Vftur rSnf arpartvofiivrnw iw 
ToTt /liX c ai 9 lf*w ; 

Jamet i. ai dwoBifitvoi wSum 
fvmpiay Kol wtpiiratiay tcoMiea iv vpffd- 
njri fif(aa$t r6v ift^vrov \6ycw rby 
ivpdfuvw aStaai rds ^X^* ifiuv. 

We may be expressing an excessive scepticism, but these resem- 
blances seem to us hardly close enough to be convincing, and the 
priority of St James cannot be proved. The problem of literary 
indebtedness is always a delicate one ; it is very difficult to find 
a definite objective standpoint; and writers of competence draw 
exactly opposite conclusions from the same facts. In order to 
justify our sceptical attitude we may point out that resemblances 
in phraseology between two Christian writers do not necessarily 
imply literary connexion. The contrast between dxpoaTol and noiriToi 
was not made by either St. Paul or St. James for the first time ; 
metaphors like ^<ravpiC«ir, expressions like <V ripjpa opyfis compared 
with iy fit^^P9 (T<l>ayrjt (both occuT in the O.T.), the phrase udpLos 
iktvBtptat might all have independent sources. Nor are there 
any passages where we find the same order of thought (as in 
I Peter) or the same passage of the O.T. quoted with the same 
variations — either of which would form stronger evidence. The 
resemblance is closest in Rom. v. 3-5 = James i. a-4 and in 
Rom. vii. 23 = James iv. i, but these are not sufficient by them- 
selves to establish a case. 

Again, if we turn to the polemical passages, we may admit 
that *Paul betrays a consciousness that Abraham had been died 
as an example of works and endeavours to show that the word 
XoyiCotuu is inconsistent with this.' But the controversy must have 
been carried on elsewhere than in these writings, and it is equall} 
probable that both alike may be dealing with the problem as il 
came before them for discussion or as it was inherited from the. 
schools of the Rabbis (see further the note on p. 102). There is, 
we may add, no marked resemblance in style in the controversial 
passage further than would be the necessary result of dealing 
with the same subject-matter. There is nothing decisive to prove 
obligation on the part of either Epistle to the other or to prove 
the priority of either. The two Epistles were written in the same 
small and growing community which had inherited or created 
a phraseology of its own, and in which certain questions early 
acquired prominence. It is quite possible that the Epistle of 
St. James deals with the same controversy as does that to the 
Romans; it may even possibly be directed against St. Paul's 
leaching or the teaching of St. Paul's followers; but there is no 



:ien with ft knowledge of the 

I Btyic sufficient lo prove literary 


proof that dther Epistle was wri 
other. There are no resemblances ir 

One other book of ihe N.T. may just be mentioned. If the 
doiology at the erid of Jude be compared with that at the end of 
Romans ii ia difficult to believe that they are quite independeni. 
It may be that lliey follow a common form derived from Jewish 
dosologies, bm it is more probable that the concluding verses of 
the Romans formed a model which was widely adopted in the 
Christian Church. We certainly seem to find doxoloeiea of the 
same type as these iwo in i Clem.-Rom. btiv, Ixv. 3 ; Mart. Polyt. 
zx ; it is followed also in Eph. iii. ao. The resemblance in form 
of the dozologiee may be seen by comparing them with one 

. *5-]J rf H Sura- 

p4rv tfiOi ariifUM . . . 1,6*^ 4>ii>^[iu 

#D^ ei^. tid 'Iigoeir XfnOTsi, , . . dfji'iiavt . . . fidr^ Sffi oot^/h 

I4\i *'<^ *'* *'"■ <>'^>'<>i- ^/i^.&iiliiroSX/i.aTavTnilKvfiJau 

ifivf. Si[a, luyaXaiaifj), irpdrot mi 

Jfoiwlo, wpi nrrdf rou alutot gal nr 

When we enter the sub-apostolic ape the teslimony to the use 
oT the Epistle ia full and ample. The references to it in Clement of 
Rome are numerous. We can go further than this, the discus- 
nons on wtmr and SiKateavH) (see p. 147) show clearly that Clement 
vsed this Epistle at any rate as a theological authority. Bishop 
Lightfoot b^ well pointed out how be appears ta reconciling and 
combining four ditTerent types of Apostolic teaching. I be Apostles 
belong to an older generation, their writings have become subjects 
of discussion. Clement is already beginning to build up, however 
inadequately, a Christian tlicology combining the teachmg of the 
different writers of an earlier period. If we turn to Ignatius' 
kttere what will strike us is that the words and ideas of the Apostle 
bate become incorporated with the mind of the writer. It is not 
to raacb that he quotes as that he can never break away from 
ibc circle of Apostolic ideas. The books of the N.T. have given 
him his vocabulary and form the source of his thoughts. Polycarp 
quotes more freely and more definitely. His Epistle is almost 
a cento of N.T. passages, and among them are undoubted quota* 
ttoos from the Romans. As the quotations of Polycarp come from 
Rotn., I Cor., a Cor., Gal., Eph., Phi!., i Tim., 2 Tim., it is 
difficult not to believe tliat he possessed and made use of a collec- 
tion of the Pauline Epistles. Corroborative evidence of ibis might 
be found in the desire he shows to make a collection of the letters 
of Ignatius. He would be more likely to do this if he alreadv Dos- 
•esKd collectiODs of letters; and it is really impossiMe to mainiain 




that the Ignatian letters were formed into one collection before 
those of St. Paul had been. Assuming then, as we are entided to 
do, that the Apostolic Fathers represent the first quarter of the 
second century we find the Episile to the Romans at that time 
widely read, treated as a standard authority on Apostolic teaching, 
and taking its place in a collection of Pauline letters. 

The following are quotations and reminiscences of the Epistle 
in Clement of Rome : 

Rom. i. ai koKorlcBti i^ dff^- 
Ptrot a^rSfv Kapiiti, 

Rom. ii. 34 t6 yoip Bvona rov 

roTr i$vi<nv, iea$un yiypavrat, 

Rom. It. 7 "Maitdpiot Siv d^i- 
Bffaay at dvS/iiai ical Sir lire- 
ita\i6<p$Tf<ray nl d/iaprlai' 

8 iiandpiot dviip f 06 fi^ 
koylffffrai K^pios d/iaprlav* 


?6 fiaitapifffi^t o^ oSror 
r^ ntpiTOfx^r; 1j itai M r^r 

Rom. Ti. I rt oZv kpov/itw; 
wKwitdojf I fxil yivoiTO. 

Rom. L 39 9€wkijpcoiii¥ovt m&oi; 
dZiicitff trovfipi(^f wk€0W9(l<ff Kojcia, 
liMTCvs ^6voVf <f>6yoVf ipttos, So- 
TaXdXovt, Otoffrvyttt, vfipurrds, 
bwtpfjtpdvovff dXa(6vatti<p€vpt' 
rds KtucwVf yovtvatv dirct^crt, dffvyi- 
rovt, dtrwBirovSf dffrSpyovt, dytXt^ 
ftovas* otriviSj t6 Zucaitofxa rov 6cov 
iinyy6ms, on of rd roiavra 
vpdffffoyrts d^ioi Bardrov tlffiv, 
o^ fi6yov airrd woiovffiVf dkkd itat 
avwtvUoicovffiP rois itpdacrowrir, 

Rom. iz. 4, 5 £r . . . 1) karptla 
Mol al kvayytklai, £r of wariptt, koX 
k^ Snf 6 Xpcardff rh xard adpma. 

Rom. xiii. i, 9 imo-a ^x^ liov- 
0lait vw§pfxovo<ut inroraacioOw od 
'fdp iariv k^ovaia §1 fx^ ivti 6cov, ai 
ti oSffcu inrb Btov rtrayfUvat tlctw, 
I^T« 6 dwTiTaffff6fU¥os rp l^ovm'f 

Clem. 36 9td toi&tov 4 dfftiwtrot 
imi kffMOTVfiivff dtayota ^fiww dro- 
BdXXu ctt rd Bavfioardv aurov ^Sn. 

Clem. 51 Aid T^ oic\ripwOfjy€u 
nitrwv rds dffvvirovt icapSiat. 

Clem. 47 &<rrc koI fiXaaprffxias 
ivt(p€pfo$ai 7f) drd/jLari Kvplov Sid 
T^i' {/iitripay dtppofr&njy. 

Qem. 50 W.aicdpioi &v d^4- 
Brjaav al dvofilai icai cDv Iwtita- 
Xiu<t>$riffaw al dfiaprlav fjiaudpios 
dvilp f 06 fi^ XoyioTfrai Kripios 
dfiaprlav, 068^ kffrtv ir t^ aTd/MTt 
airrov 8<$Xor. oLtos 6 fiaxapicfibt 
lyiytrc iwl roi/t kicXtXtyfUyovt Vw6 rov 
6coS «.rA. 

Clem. 33 ri oZy wotrfowfup, dScX- 
ipoi; dpyrjaoffity dv6 r^t dyn^owoiUu 
leat iyKaToXtimaiuv r^y dydmjy; paj' 
OaftSn TovTo Idocu 6 tifffwdrrp 4^' ^pup 
yt yiyi^ycu, 

Clem. 35 dvoppi^Hurrts dip' iairrcD» 
vda<ty d5i4r la r icai dyoplaVf itXto- 
yt^lay, Ipcif, MaitcrfBtias rt irai 
96Xovtt tjfiBvpiofio^s re koI Kara- 
Tff irai dXa(oPtlay, Kcvodo^loy tc «ra2 
dcpiXo^tyiaw, ravra ydp ol rpda* 
ffoyrcr arvyrjroi rf) 6C91 b-wdpxovaiy 
o(t pi6yoy 9i ol wpdotovrts avrdy 
dXAd mU of ovytvZoKovyrts aitroU. 

Clem. 3a l£ aifTov ydp UptU koX 
Atwrai irdrrfft of ktirovpyovyrtt r^ 
$v<n<umjpi^ rov Bcov* 1^ ttbrwi 6 
Kvpiot 'Irfffovt rb itard trdpita' i( 
aitrov fiaaiXtis Moi Sipxoyrts leai i^tou- 
pifyoi icard rby loi/Say. 

Clem. 61 ffv, ZiaworOj iZoiitas r^ 
l^ovciay r^r fiaaiXtUu airots 8td rov 
fAtyakonp§irovi leal dytglkiiy^rov Mpd' 
rovt aov, eft rd yiy^itoyraf ^puu r^ 
int6 ffov airroif dtiopUy^w 8^or jmJ 




References in the letters of Ignatius are the following : 

Rom. L 3 rov ytvouhov iic awip- 
ftmros Aafili Mara adpita, rod 
6piir04wrot vlov 9«ov Ir dvrdfici. 

Rom. iL 34. 

Rom.iiLa7 vov o2r ^ttavxv^*** 

Rom. tL 4 oCrof Mat ^futt iw 
Rom. tL 5 ; yiii. 17, ig. 

Smjrr. i dkrfBwt Sm-a l« y^vom 
Aafiii MardL odpita, vl6¥ 9€ov 
itard $i\rffta mt d^va/Atw. 

Cf. Trail. 8 (both quote O. T.). 

Eph. 18 vov itavxi^^^ ''^ k^yo- 

(Close to a qaotation of i Cor. i. ao.) 

Eph. 19 6foS dvBpofwivoft <pavtpo»' 
fiivov fit Maiv6rffTa iXf^ov (wrjt. 

Mag. 5 81' oS Idv fx^ av0atp4r9n 
ix^fjLtv r6 dvoOtuffiv tit rd abrov 
wa$otf r6 ^ avrov o{nt tcriv h i)fuV. 

Trail. 9 card rd d/Aoioi/ia tt Kal ^/xat 
robt mortHorrat €At& o6ro» iy^pti 6 
warifp avrov h X. 1., oS X^P^* ^ 
dkffBwdv Qv o6m ix^t*^' 

Mag. 6 cir riwor »at 9idax^^ 

Mag. 9 ol Iv waXatait wpdy/tofftv 
damarpaiipirr€t fit itai¥6rfira iXvjSoi 

TralL g tt itai dktfi&t ^*p0rf dwb 
wtMpwv, kytlpavrof aitriv rov 
warpds airrov, 

Eph. 9 wpoijroi/juiafiivoi cIr oiKO- 
ioft^y 6cov warp6t. 

Trail, a ob ydp fipwfidrip Mat 
wor&v tlaiv dKLroKoi. 

Eph. X by t^xopoi Mard 1. X. bp8s 
dTav^y, mU viyras hpas airrf kw 6fUH6» 
rtjrt ^rat. 

The following resemblances occur in the Epistle of Polycarp : 

Ron. tL 17 «lt 5r waptMrjrt 
r4trcv 8180x^7'. 

Rom. Tii. 6 6<rr§ SovXc^civ i)/iat 
hp aaa^^mfrt. wwtiparot Moi ob toXoi^ 
r^i ypdmuKTot. 

Rom. TiiL 11 8 kyipas X. X 
km w9Mpm9, 

Rom. iz. 33 ffmi^ IXiovt A «po- 
ifroipaatw (Ir So^or. 

Rom. ziT. 17 06 ydp lariv ij 
^b^riXcIa rov 9cov fip&o tt MOl 

Rom. XT. 5 rd ovrd fpwttif kw 
iXX4\«r MTcl X. X 

Rom. tI. 13 mx2 rcl fi^ v/iwr 
iwka hiMaioavnp, 

Rom. ziiu la kvbvoitiitBa 8i 
r«l tvXa Tov ^ondt, 

Rom. ziL 10 rp ^cXa8cX^/a 
«lf dXXi(Xovr ^iX^aTo/>7ei, rp 
rif^ dXXi(Xevt wpotjyovfitwoi. 

Rom. ziii. 8 8 7^^ &7avciir r^ 
tftpatf 9d^m w*wk^poiM§¥ M.r.K 

Pol. 4 6vXia<(;/<c^a rer? 5irXoit 
ri^t diMaioavvrjt, 

PoL 10 fratemitaHs amatoru 
dUigentes invicsm^ in veritate sociati, 
mansoerudincm Domini aiterutri 
prmistoloHtiSf nallom despiciente& 

Pol. 3 ii» ydp Tir rovrofw krrbt f 
w9v\'^pcJM€¥ kvroX^v buconoirirffr 6 
ydp ixajy dydvrjv /uutpdw iarirvcunfl 


Rom. xiT. lo vdrrct yAp wapth PoL 6 mt wiwras ScT va^ch 

• . • Kol l/rao'Tor ivlp lavrov k6yow 

12 Sipa [o2r] l/ra^rof ^ftu¥ ntpt SoSrai. 
lavToS X^7or Bdirtfc** [r^ ecf]". 

It is hardly worth while to give evidence in detail from later 
authors. We find distinct reminiscences of the Romans in Aristides 
and in Justin Martyr \ Very interesting also is the evidence of the 
heretical writers quoted by Hippolytus in the RefutoHo omnium 
haeresium ; it would of course be of greater value if we could fix 
with certainty the date of the documents he makes use of. We 
find quotations from the Epistle in writings ascribed to the Naas- 
senes ', the Valentinians of the Italian school*, and to Basileides^. 
In the last writer the use made of Rom. v. 13, 14 and viiL 19, 2 a 
is exceedingly curious and interesting. 

If we turn to another direction we find interesting evidence of 
a kind which has not as yet been fully considered or estimated. 
The series of quotations appended from the Testament of the 
Twelve Patriarchs can hardly be explained on any other hypo- 
thesis than that the writer was closely acquainted with the Epistle 
to the Romans. This is not the place to enter into the various 
critical questions which have been or ought to be raised concern- 
ing that work, but it may be noticed here — 

(i) That the writer makes use of a considerable number of 
books of the N. T. The resemblances are not confined to the 
writings of St. PauL 

(a) That the quotations occur over a very considerable portion 
of the book, both in passages omitted in some MSS. and in 
passages which might be supposed to belong to older works. 

(3) The book is probably older than the time of Tertullian, 
while the crude character of the Christology would suggest a con- 
siderably earlier date. 

Rom. L 4 ToS ^^KT^^vTot v/ov 6co8 Test. Levi. 18 icaX rnvv/ia dyiv^ 

i¥ hwaiui «OTd vrcv/ia iiyiof' trvvrjs i<rrai iv* atnois. . . . 

Rom. ii. 13 od 7^ ol dtcpoarai Test. Aser. 4 oi ydp dyoBoi dvSpci 

p6fiov dlitaici napd rt^ 9tf, .... ^titaiol cicrc vapd rf 9cf. 

' Tov XptoTov Western and Syrian. 
" dvoi&ffu BDFG. 

* ry ecf; om. B F G. 

* Rom. ii 4 « Dial 47 ; Rom. iii. 11-17 - Dial. a7 ; Rom. It. 3 - Dial. 23 ; 
Rom. ix. 7 - Dial. 44 ; Rom. ix. 27-29 -= Dial. 32, 55, 64; Rom.z. 18 - 
ApoL i. 40 ; Rom. xi. 2, 3 — Dial. 39. 

* Hipp. I^rf. ▼. 7, pp. 138. 64-140. 76 = Rom. i. 20-26 

* Ibid, vi, 36, p. 280. 9-10 — Rom. yiii. ii. 

* Ibid. tU. 35, p. 370. 80 m, Rom. ▼. 13, 14; ibid. p. 368. 75 i- Rom. viii 

t 9.1 UTBRARV 

B. V. A tn -fip ifiurrh JtvTo* 
tpttr irSttiai In nrd naifAr bwif 

Rom. H I JviuJrwutr rn 

Rom. ti, J i ^d^ dwuftuw 

Rom. *ii. 8 d^p^)v i) \aBaitra 

HISTORY Ixxxill 

Test. Bcoj. I dni«idpnrnif iwlf 
iaiBSi* a ■<.«>!> •17 0.. 

Tesl. Leri, 4 at iv9fanw dnimwrTa 

Test, Sym, 6 £ 

♦ d.. 

1 )kd r^t Jn 

R«m. TiiL jS a(Si|M> t« 5n tiu'i 
dT«a£*i rdr «fdr rirra awr- 

Ron. ii. 11 t) ai» fx" 'fovvfor 

Rost. liL 1 1 fot nw inrd rn uuw, 
dMldrtsa Jrrf d^nff^rdnaiidr. 

Rom. xiii. 11 dTs#^>><Ai oSr rd 
Jf>a rn osiravt. irAwr^^Ai N 
rdS>AB r*;t«r4i. 

Rom. KT. j3 d t) Btdt Tijt 

Rom. in. 10 d M S<dt r^ il^nfi 

lives d«d 

Te«, Neph. 8 lal Ho J^roXo) 

J. ■ mi .1 f<i) viM*™. *.• idf .1 atrS., 

Test. B«DJ.4dd7a»oirBiwr...Tf 



W ir rdxi.- 

TcJl. Ncph. 1 miiiifAp J J 

T«L B^rnj. 4 aSroft ^ d7a#ai 

TctL Dan. J lx«"«i T 

Test. Atet. 7 lol If 
Tpi0ir T^r M^faXllr rev 
■■- Caarn. 

So far we have had no direct citation from the Epistle by name. 
AUboD^b Clement refera expressly to the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians, and Ignatius may refer to an Episile to the Epheaians, 
aeitber ihey nor Polycarp, nor in fact any other writer, expressly 
■KiUions Romans. It is with Marcion (^. 140) that we obtain 
oar fim direct evidence. Romans was one of the ten Epistles 
te inclnded in his Apotlolieon, ascnbing it directly to St. Paul. 
'Nor have we any reason to think that he originated the idea of 
making a collection of the Pauline Epistles. The very fact, as 
Zahn points out, thai he gives the same short tides to the Episilet 
Ihat we find in our oldest MSS. (irp^i pwf««'auc) implies that these | 
bad formed part of a collection. Such a title would not be 
sufficient unless the books were included in a collection wtuch had 
a diuiDguishing title of its own. In the ApostoHcon of Marcion tbe 
^tiatka were airanged in the following order; (i)Gal., (2) i Cor^ 
(3) a Cor, (4) Rom.. (5) 1 Thess., (6) a Thess., (7) Laodic. = 
^e*. (8) Col., <9) Phil, (lo) Philem. The origin of tbit 


arrangement we cannot conjecture with znj certainty ; bat it may 
be noted that the Epistle placed first — the Galatians — is the one on 
which Marcion primarily rested his case and in which the anti- 
Judaism of St« Paul is most prominent, while the four Epistles of the 
Captivity are grouped together at the conclusion. Another interest- 
ing p>oint is &e text of the Episdes used by Mardon. We need 
not stop to discuss the question whether the charge against Marcion 
of excising large portions of the Epistles is correct. That he did 
so is undoubteid. In the Romans particularly he omitted chaps. 
L 19-iL I ; iii. gi-iv. 15; ix. 1-33; x. 5-xi. 3a; xv.-xvi. Nor 
again can we doubt that he omitted and altered short passages in 
order to harmonize the teaching with hb own. For instance, in 
X. a, 3 he seems to have read ayvoovvnt y^ r6v Ocoy. Both these 
statements must be admitted. But two further questions remain * 
Can we in any case arrive at the text of the Epistles used by 
Marcion, and has Marcion's text influenced the variations of our 
MSS. ? An interesting reading from this p>oint of view is the omis- 
sion of wpiarop in i. i6 (see the notes, p. 24). Is this a case where 
his reading has influenced our MSS., or does he preserve an early 
variation or even the original text ? 

We need not pursue the history of the Epistle further. From the 
time of Irenaeus onwards we have full and complete citations in 
all the Church writers. The Epistle is recognized as being by 
St. Paul, is looked upon as canonical S and is a groundwork of 
Christian theology. 

One more question remains to be discussed — its place in the 
collection of St. Paul's Epistles. According to the Muratorian 
fragment on the Canon the Epistles of St. Paul were early divided 
into two groups, those to churches and those to individuals ; and 
thb division permanently influenced the arrangement in the Canon, 
accounting of course incidentally for the varying place occupied by 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is with the former group only that 
we are concerned, and here we find that there is a very marked 
variation in the order. Speaking roughly the earlier lists all place 
the Epistle to the Romans at the end of the collection, whilst later 
Usts, as for example the Canon of the received text, place it at 
the beginning. 

For the earlier list our principal evidence is the Muratorian 
fragment on the Canon : cum ipse beatus apostolus Paulus, sequens 
prodecessoris sui lohannis ordinem^ nonnisi nominatim sepiem ecclesiit 
scribat or dine tali: ad Corinthios (prima), ad Ephesios {secunda), ad 
Philippenses (/erlia), ad Colossenses (quarta)^ ad Galatas {quinla\ ad 
TTussalonicenses (sex/a), ad Homanos {septima). Nor does this 

- On Haraack*s theory that the Paoline Epistles bad at the close of the 
Mcond century less canonical authority than the Gospels, see Sanday, BmmpUm 
Luturut pp> 10^ 66. 


•land alotir. The same place appurenily was occupied by Romans 
in ihe coliectioa used by Teriullian, probably in thai of Cyprian. 
Il a suggested thai it influt^nced ihe order of Maicion. who per- 
haps (ouQil in his copy of the £pisiles Corinthians standing first, 
while the position of Romans at ihe end may be implied in 
a pas^ge of Origen. 

The iaier order (Rom., Cor.. Gal.. Eph.. PhiL, Col., Thess.) is 
Ihal of all wnLcrs from the fourth ceniury onwards, and, with the 
exception of changes caused by the insenion of the Kpisile to the 
Hebrews, and of certain small variations which do not affect the 
point under discussion, of all Greek MSS., and of all MSS. of 
V'ersions. This widespread testimony implies an early dale. But 
the amngement is clearly not traditional. It is rousi;hIy based on 
the length of the Epistles, the Romans coming first as being the 

The origin of the early order is by no means clear. Zahn'g 
conjecture, that it arose from the fact that the collection of Pauline 
Epistles was fir>t made at Corinth, is ingenious but not conclusive, 
wtiile Clem. Rom. 47, which he cites in support of his theory, will 
baritly prove as much as he wishes'. 

To Eum u|> briefly. DurinK the first century the Epistle to the 
Romans was known and u>^ed in Rome and perhaps elsewhere. 
Diumg Ihe first quarter of the second century we find it forming 
pan of a collection of Pauline Epistles used by the principal Church 
wriiers of that lime in Aniioch, in Rome, in Smyrna, probably also 
in Corinth, By the middle of that century it had been included iu 
■n abbreviated form inMarcion's Apotialiton; by the end it appears 
lo be definitely accepted as canouicaL 

% 9. Integrity of the Epistle. 

Tbe ntrvcy which hu twr'n giTcn of th: literary history of the Eptitlc to 
. c Koiuaiu ni»ke» it prrfeclly clear thai Ihe nlerail crulcnoe m fnvour of iu 
■atly date i* col only rEliiivelj' but atisolnicly nrj iirong. Sciime uidv 
' 'till! qsalition*. kIihom every Chiittian wiiler of the eirly pail of Ihe 
■d ceotDcy Di*ke« um of ■(; it V4f co>iI*iiie<t in Mircioo't canon; and 
I CluutiBa llltratuie becomei exleoiive, the qnotitioni arc almoil 
mnit (BODgh lo eoilile ni 10 reconitruct the whole Epulle. So itiong 
ii tbi* eriileiiw and lo de» 

are the inlemal miTki of ■utheittidlT that 
if the lait Ivo chapirn ol which we ihill >| 

■I will If 1 hai been alioou ontverully admiited to be a i;euuine wuili of 
Bt. faaL It wa* ac^jited m tuch by Baur, and in con-«queDC« by all inemWra 
ti the TUl4i>uoi Klioul , It it acceiiteil at Ihe [neienl day by crilici of every 
Mitrt* of opiiiioD, bry llitgrnfeli, llolumajiii, Weiui^er. Lipuiu, llvaack, 
^hiuuly to by tboK who art luually claned a« coiiieiTatiire. 

' Od thia rabjed aec Zahn, Gtichichlt. ftc, tt. p, 344, 



r:il t 




c ta 

tknozii luvr c?e LiSsr x: 
iiiCTLl:'' ui. a^K.- wr* I3r &^. Kelts' o 

ml c ''snuLcsc Tit-, slta L2s&i: vrm.' r.i—'TiTBC tr itnair 
: S^ jszjc. ue Bit rj i 

; "Jj=">--'i:~?r «-a:^. ■^r'lTB. ^ =iir^.:« c« a^is.'ss:. tor & ::s;: 

»•::_ rrj-,in. :. i-ist re r.-:- .*:;:» a 1:5- u, 

U.-S7! : 1:. 2jsr- ::if;-ti:u sns^xxcs niv.iB. ^:=aiL :&£^ 

ae ^r 2li: :cz:.1 * sx&si3c& 12?* .i<i>. ^1 &1m9 2e res zc ihe 

ifi"' «— * ^*T* "^ W^^**"^ -Z9L1 f%» "^^ — _- - ■_ «» v*^ # n«^ 


Ik ' 

UI ir :: 

2i. « «Mi*^. mSL. 

E vaw • ^^^^ V 

- ■ •* a. 

>.*. A. 

.1 ai-: N, 

•mm " r -" 




iku-.'fe 1 -■>. 

.*^ <.'j 

- :i:c* 

^ t n 


»■ r- 

t t. >-. 

,=- — • i 

.ijCAM -'< 

■-si-.i-l . .-V^"*. 



f"* ^& • c 


■ i ■ 


f 0.] INTEGRITV Ixxxvii 

k teoer* wliich be wrote in order to make Dp fat ha own pOTcit^ of religiou 
■net pblloiophical ideu. An cuinitiitioii of tbcit treatment of ■ luigte chaplet 
may be mppcaded. The buii of ch. ti ii > Jewiib fragiDeiiE {admcdum 
ta a K v at i it) which extendi from lec. } to ver. ii. This (raginent Paulai 
EplKopni tiSLtcd in his nmal maimer. He brgioi wilb the fooliih question 
of *«T. 1 which thow» thai he doci not onderataDd Ibe ai^mrnt that followL 
He added interpolation; in Ter. 4. Ilidtm adoramur manum tiut vei. t. 
If we omll T ji itKmiiart in ver. f the diiHcalty in it vaniihes. Ver. 8 agaia u 
licble and tbeiefore was the work of Pnnlui Eptscopas; nan tnim crtdimui 
mu tut viilKTtt, ltd ntrviiHui ma vittrt iVer, 11), t*. 11-13 "'*'• the ex- 
ception appueDtljr of Ter. 14, 15 which have been miiplaced, are the work 
of thii intopolatot who ipoiJed the Jewish fragment, and in these verm 
■dsptt what ha* preceded to the uses of the Chnich ', It will piobabl j nol 
lie tbMght necetiai7 to ponae this sabjecl fmther. 

ilicJ>el»n' basing hi* theory to a certain cxleol on the phenomena of the 
Ian two chapter! considered that towards the end of the second century 
Uwce tcccnnon* of the Epistle were in existence. The Eastem containine 
cfa. t-lvL »4; the WetlerD ch. i-xiv and i«L 15-37: the Maicionite c£ 
t-xtr. The ledactor who put together tbete recensions was howcTcr also 
tclpocuible for a considerable nnmbcr of intcrpolarions which Michdien 
SBdertakes to diitingniih. Volter's* theory is more elaborate. The original 
Epistle according to him coclained the following poniom of the Epislle. 
L l«.7i S.6; S-17: T. andvi. (exceplv. 13, 14, jo; vi. 14. 15); xii, xi<i ; 
IT. 14-.^] 1 xvi. II- 13. This bears all ihe maiki of originality; its Chrislology 
k primitive, free &om any theory of pre-exist(jce or of two nature*. To the 
finl mtcrpolalor we owe i, iS ; iii. lo (except ii. 14, ijl ; viii. i, 3-39; 
V ■b-4. Heie the Cbristology is dajTercot ; Christ is the pre-existent Son of 
God. To the second InterpoUtoi we owe iii 11— i*. 15; t. 13, 14, 10; vi. 
I4. ij : liL 1-6; ii. i; xi*. I — xr. 6. This writer who worked abont the year 

Cwat a determined Anlinonuui, wbo coold not ice anything bat evil in the 
«. A tiiiid Interpolator Is responsible for vii. 7-15 ; *jii, 1 1 a footth for 
si; iL 14, 15; s*. 7-13; a iifthfoiKri. 1-10; a siitti for ivi. 34; a sevcatb 
fcczvL »S~)7- 

VaaUanen* is diitingnished for bi> Tigoroas attacks on his predeceison ; and 
tor basing hi* own theory of interpolations on a reconstmction of the Marcioaite 
teat which he hold* to be original. 

ll has been lomcwhat tedioni work ennmenting these tbcories, which will 
■ecm probably to molt rcaden hardly worth while repealing i so (abjective 
tad ftrbitraiy is the whole criticism. The only conclusion that we can arrive 
•t is thai if early Christian docna)e:iI* have been systemitically tampcn.'d with 
In a Ditnner wUch would justify any one of tbeie theories, ihcn the stody of 
ChriMiAn bisloiy wonld be lutiU. There it no criterion of style or of langiiage 
wbkh Ciables u to diitingulib a document from Ihe interpolations, and we 
■hoasld be compelled to make use of a number of writings which we conld not 
(H eriticiie. If the documents are not traslworthy, neither is onr 

necessary, and it may be worth while to 
cenain reasons which enable os to feel 
docnments of early Chriitiaaity. 

rf(.,pp. 139-143- 

(J. H. A.), Thnhgisth Tijdichri/t. 1SB6. pp. 371 ff , 473 ff.; 
tM;. p. 163 ff. 

' Voclter (Daniel\ Thnlogiiik Tijdichrifi, 1889. p. >65ff.-, and DU Cam. 
t^tttmi iir foal. Hatifltriif: !. Dir Rbmtr- und Galalirbric/. TB90 

• Van Maaec (W, C.), T/uohgiich TijduhH/l, 1887. Alarxun'i eritfiMn 
JWi'aii itan dt Galali/i, pp. .:ii]-404, 4J>-jUi "'^ J'mi/iu H, Dt 6ri^ 
•aa da kmuintm. Ludco, 1891. 


It has been pointed out that interpolation theories are not as absurd as they 
might prima jacU be held to be, for we have instances of the process actually 
taking place. The obvions examples are the Ignatian letters. But these are 
not solitary, almost the whole of the Apocryphal literature has undergone the 
same process ; so have the Acts of the Saints ; so has the Didache for example 
when included in the Apostolic Constitutions. Nor are we without evidence ol 
interpolations in the N. T. ; the phenomenon of the Western text presents 
exactly the same characteristics. May we not then expect the same to have 
happened in other cases where we have little or no information? Now in 
dealing with a document which has come down to us in a single MS. or 
version, or on any slight traditional evidence this possibility must always be 
considered, and it is necessary to be cautious in arguing from a single passage 
in a text which may have been interpolated. Those who doubted the genuinenesi 
of the Armenian fragment of Aristides for example, on the grounds that it 
contained the word Theotokos, have been proved to be wrong, for that word as 
was suspected by many has now been shown to have been interpolated. 
But in the case of the N. T. we have so many authorities going back in- 
dependently to such an early period, that it is most impro&ble that any 
important variation in the text could escape our knowledge. The different 
lines of text in St Paul's Epistles must have separated as early as the 
beginning of the second century ; and we shall see shortly that one displacement 
in the text, which must have been early, and may have been very early, has 
influenced almost all subsequent documents. The number, the variety, and 
the early character of the texts preserved to us in MSS., Versions, and Fathers, 
is a guarantee that a text formed on critical methods represents within very 
narrow limits the work as it left its author's hands. 

A second line of argument which is used in favour of interpolation theories 
is the difficulty and obscurity of some passages. No doubt there are passages 
which are difficult ; but it is surely very gratuitous to imagine that everything 
which is genuine is easy. The whole tendency of textual criticism is to prove 
that it is tne custom of * redactors' or 'correctors' or ' interpolators' to produce 
a text which is always superficially at any rate more easy than the genuine 
text. But on the other side, although the style of St. Paul is certainly not 
always perfectly smooth ; although he certainly is liable to be carried away by 
a side issue, to change the order of his thoughts, to leap over intermediate 
steps in his argument, yet no serious commentators of whateve** school would 
doubt that there is a strong sustained argument running through the whole 
Epistle. The possibility of the commentaries which have been written proves 
conclusively the improbability of theories implying a wide element of in< 
terpolation. But in the case of St. Paul we may go further. Even where there 
is a break in the argument, there is almost always a verbal connexion. When 
St. Paul passes for a time to a side issue there is a subtle connexion in thought 
as in words which would certainly escape an interpolator's observation. This 
has been pointed out in the notes on xi. lo; xv. 20, where the question of 
interpolation has been carefully examined; and if any one will take the 
trouble to go carefully through the end of ch. v and the beginning of ch. vi, 
he will see how each sentence leads on to the next. For instance, the first 
part of V. 20, which is omitted by some of these critics, leads on immediately 
to the second (irA.cov(i<r^ . . . \'wK^6vaatv)^ that suggests tntptwtpiaatvatv, then 
comes w\(o¥dajf in vi. r ; but the connexion of sin and death clearly suggests 
the words of ver. 2 and the argument that follows. The same process may 
be worked out through the whole Epistle. For the most part there is a clear 
and definite argument, and even where the logical continuity is broken there 
Is always a connexion either in thought or words. The Epistles of St Paul 
present for the most part a definite and compact literary unit. 

If to these arguments we add the external evidence which is given in detail 
above, we may feel reasonably confident that the historical conditions imder 

'rang in doing k 

ID bit wiempt to 
Dl it u hardly likely that 
cuired onlr in one place 
S. we might ascribe il to 
1 acixpl il ■« an ciisting 


bf Dr. lion; but it may be dcnibtfal if tl 
opUio iway the nnatiun. Tbe cviileiice u iii| 
It UOK ninply thtoimh Inntcriplional error, ll 
Ihit mlgbl be lullicieni . if il ocunned only in o 
Ibc ilrliiuiBeiictet oF a lingtc uunbe; at il is, «( 
isriatloa Hiiiiviiied l>y ilight eiidcoce, but 
dcnuiul u eiplanalion. 

(i) Then II coniiilFfabte variation in eiiiling MSS. concerning the place ol 
ibe fiiul do»ulogy t«Ti JS-J?). 

a. U M U C D E minuu. paut. todd »p. OriE-Ul, d e f VqIe- Pc»h. Boh. 
Acllu, Oiig.-lat Ambnir. PeUgius it occun at the end of chip. xt). and then 

tt. U L rninuti. flus ^uam ]00, ^«/i/. a/. Orig -lat. Hircl., Chry). Theodtt. 
Ja-D*inuc. it occun it Ihi: end ol chap, xiv and there onlj. 

e. la A P f. 17 Arm. ladj. ii it inserterf in both [ilaces, 

d. Id f.G rt*i/ j^. Ilieron. ',« El h. iil.jt, b, Mareioo(Biaii»/Vii) it ll 
^lltdj omllled. It mnj be noted that G leaves a blank ipace si tlie end ol 
dup al*, (ltd that i \> taken ilitecl from the Vulnie, ■ ipace lieing left in K 
■I Uir Uirrii coiretpuodini; to ihrK veisei. Indirecll)' D and Seduliua alto 
■nr-l the omiauoii by Dlatiiie the Bern dint ion allei ver. 14, ■ tianipouilon 
vbich •mid be made (tee below) owing to that Terie being in thete copies 
■I tbe eMi e>r tbe Epitilc. 

fa RTVieving ihii eviitence h beconiei clear (i) thai the weight of good 
■atliarBjr it in favour of placing Ihit doxoliigy at the end of the Epinl«. and 
Iheec 00I7. lU) Tliat the vunation in poution — a •ariation which muit be 
cafjained — il early, probably eailier than the time of Ungen, allhungh we 
can nevet bare eufli|ilele >»>tilidciice in Kulinni' Iransltlioi' (iill That the 
ewence for Cum, lele omuiton goet bach to Marciori. and ihal very ptubably 
btt eicinoD of (be words may have influenced tbe omiuioo in Western 

' Tlie FjigUih radtr will find a very foil acc^nnt of this Dutch ichoot of 
oklci in Knowliiie. 7^ fVilHtu of tki Efitllti. pp, ijj 143. A very 
Otrlul eomoilaiioii of ihr mulu arrived at u given by Dr. Carl Clemen. Dit 
BimhtUtu$Juit ibr PauliHiahtn Biit/i. To both thew works we oiuu 
ili^atiotw. and 10 ihem we miiit refei any who wish loi fiiither 

n the last two ciisplen 


(J) Then li VEiy coaiidenble cridcnoe that Mudoii omitted the whole • 
the lut two chipten. 

a. Origen {int. Rnf.) x. 43, *□!. ▼>>, p- 453, ed. Lomin. writu : C^tU km 
Afarritn, a ftu Scriplurat EvaHgtlicat a/giu Afaalelkai inlerfelaiai nail, di 
hat tfitlela ftnilut atsltUU ; tt km itlum koe, ltd il at le loee, itH itriftum 
fll: omne autem qnod Don est ei fide, peccatum est : usfue aJJtium euitcla 
Jiiittuil. In 0/111 vtrt ixtmPlariiiu , id tit, in kii gnat tton sunt a Martum 
Itnurata. kx iptum laput drvtru fcnium imiemmus, in HoitHvUii tttnim,.— 
taditiiui fieit turn locum, ftiem lufira diximui Am at: omne aaltm qood noSifl 
est ei fiJe, peccatum est: llalim cektrtni kaittur: c\ autem, qui potens eit ■ 
vot coafinnare. Alii vtrs leditti in jSiu id, ut huik til feiitum, cenlitumL 
Tbl> extract is quUe precise, box it the ntlempt made by Hart to emend it at 
>11 luccessful. He reads lit (or ai, having for lliis ibe lupport of a Puis MS., 
and ihcD emcndi Ak iaio kit ; reading tl nan lelum kit ltd tt in to lece, H-c , 
■□d trsnslaling * and oot only hei« but alw,' at liv. ij ' he cut out ever}lhiiig 
quite to the end.' He applies the words to the Doxology alone. The changes 

1q Ibe text are slight and might be justified, but with this change the words 
that follow become quite meaningleis : uiqui adfintei amria diisiiuit can 
oaly apply to the whole of the two chaplera. If Oiigea meant the doxology 
alone Ihey would be quite pointless. 

b. But we have other evidence for Marcion'i text Terloliiao.WA'. jMIih.t, j 
14, quoting tbe words trUmnal Ckrisli ^xi>. 10), Males that they occi 
tlatuuta of the Epittle. The argumeot ii not conclusive but the 1 
probably imply that in Marcion'i copy of the Epistle, if not b all those knov 

to Tertullian, the Ust two cbipleis were omitted. 

Thete two witnesses make tt almost certain that Marcion omitted not only 
the dniology but the wliule of the li " " 


«. It is pointed out that Tertultian, MarcioD, irenaeui. and probably Cyprian , 
ncfci quote from these last two cbaplen. The argument however is of littl 
Talue, because the same may be said of I Cot. rri. The chapter* 
quoted because there was little or nothing in Ihem (o quote. 

b. Ad argument of greater weight is found in certain systems of capita- 
tions in MSS. of tbe Vulgate. In Codex Amlatinns the table a( contents givi 
fifty-one sections, and tbe fiftieth section ii descritied thus : Dt pirititlo ett 
triitatui fratrtm mum tiea tua, et quod rum tit rtgiatm Dri aca it petut it 
iattilia tl par tl gauJium i» Spirilu Saiulo ; this is followed by the lifty-fir^ 
and last section, which is described as Di myiltris Domini antt paiHmtm A 
Hittitie habilB, pesi ftusionim vire ipiim nvtlale. The obvious deductioii || 
that this system was drawn up for a copy which omitted the greater part ai 
rate of chaps, xr and ivi. This lyilem appears to have prevailed very widel^ 
In the Codex Fuldeosis there are given in the table of content* til\ 
sections ; of these the hnt twenty-three include the whole Epistle up ti 
end of chap. liv, tbe la^t sentence being headed Quod fidtlti Dti nt» itbtamt 
ittviicm iudiiori turn uniuqtiisqiu iciii/idum regulai mandalemm ipsi si 
dibial divine iuduit fraeparart ul anil tribunal Dti tint nmfatient possU 
tptrum suorum prcustart ralionem. Then follow the last twenty-eight section! 
of the Amialine system, beginning with the twenty-fourth at ix. i. Henc» I 
chaps, ii-xiv are described twice. The scribe seems to have had before hJMM 
an otherwise unrecorded system which only embraced fonnern chapta 
then added the remainder from where he could get them in older to make B|S 
what he felt to be the right number of fifly-or- ™ 

Both these systen ..... 

nay give for th( 

(S) 1 

,11,, ■ 

two Other points. 

exclude the last two chapters, whatever t 

re discovered a certain amount of sigtuficance II 


•. The fttjet tt th« end of chmp. it U tuppoied to repraent, either wltb 
ar wUhoal tke JM* (which ii omittci] in Kime MSS., probably inconeclly). ■ 
GCBcIsBca of the Epiille. A> a mtttei of fact the foniiuU does not repreieni 
vay known fbnn of eading^ and maj be pariiUelcd from places in the bodj of 

h. The tiro conclnsioni ivi lO and 14 of the T R are inpposed to represent 
eodinfft to two difierent teceniiooi of the EpUlle. But ai will be srca by 
wtdeniag to the note on the piuagc, this ii bucd upon a misieuding. The 
reading of the T R ii a Ule conflation of the two oldci form* o( the tezL The 
ba>cdieij(ia Kood originally at vei. 10 and only there, the tctsci that followed 
beJBK a (ort of poiuciipl. Certain MSS. which weie without the doiology (lee 
■bem) moved it to their end of the Epistle after ler. 13, while certain olben 
pbMO it after tci. 17. The douUe benediction of the TR arose by the 

~~" est of conllalioa. The Eignificance of this In coitoborating the 

n early teit which omilled the doiology hat been pointed oat ; 
•e Tcnes will Dot support the deductions made from them by 
Renaa, Giflord, and others- 
He aiMve, stated as shortly as possible, are the diplomatic facta which 
d ciplinatioo. Already in the aeventeentb century some at any rale bad 
ed notice, and Semier (1769^ Gricibach (1777) and others developed 
elaborate theoiiet to account for them. To sitcnipl to enumerate aU the 
diflereul *iewi would be beside our purpose: it will be more coavenient to 
onUic onnelTc* 10 certain typical illnstrationa. 

I. An hypotbciis which would accoiml for mod (a)tliasgh not all) of the 
facta slated woold be to suppose that (he last two cbaplets were not genuine. 
This opinion was held by llaur ', althouch, as was tisnal with him. on purely 
• friari giouDda, and with an only incidental reference to the MS. evidence 
wDicli inigbt have been [be stron|^ icpport of bis theocT. The m 

whick induced him to ei 

S (hat Cbriti wu 
«itb bis Tiew of 
igoroui eiamuu. 


lUuciiioQ.' whii;h 
Sc Psol's doctrine: and be lupparted hi: 
OOB of the style and contents of thcie two chapteii. Mil 
noticed ',10 far as leemed necessary) in the commentary, 
a lar^ number of critics in cooderaning tbe result ma 
ihem in fnrtbrcr detail. Doctrinally bis views were only 
iided theory of the Pauline position and teaching, and if that theory is given 
up then bii arguiaentB become untenable. At legaids hit literary crilicism the 
upinioil of Kenan may be accepted: 'On est inrpris qu'on critique ausii 
tiaUle ipic Itaur te toll content^ d'une solution auni groiaieit!. Foutquoi on 
fsnssaiw annit-il invente de si iuiignifi cants detailtt f auiqnoi aurail-tf ajontt 
I t'oavnge aaere one liite de nomt propies'l '• 

Bui «re are not without strong positive argmnents in favoor of the genuine- 
n^ of at any rate the fifteenth chapter. In the first place a careful 
emnsnation of^the first thiiteen verses shows concluuvely tlkai they are closely 
eownedwl with the previous chapter The break after kit. 13 is purely arbi- 
vaart, and tbe pusage that follows to tbe end of ver, 6 is merely a conclusion 
o( IBc pmloiu argument, without which the former chapter is incomplete, and 
■hidh It i* inconceivable that an interpolator could have either been able or 
doired to inaeit; while in vt. 7-13 the Apostle connecti the special subject 
ofwUcli be has been treating wiib the genctal condition of tbe Church, and 
Hsporta his main contention by a sericx of texts drawn from the O T. Both 
iB toe (Ppeal to Sciiplare and in the introduction of broad and general pria- 
dple* this ooncluaon may be euctly paralleled by tbe cnitom of St. Faol 
I lai ■ fn 1 1 in tbe Eputle. No theory tbetefore can be accepted which docs not 


recognite that xir and zr. 13 form a single paragraph which mast not be 
split np. 

But further than this the remainder of chap, xy shows every sign of being 
a genuine work of the Apostle. The argument of Paley based upon the collec- 
tion for the poor Christians at Jerusalem is in this case almost demonstrative 
(see p. xxxvi). The reference to the Apostle*s intention of visiting Spain, to the 
drcnmstances in which he is placed, tne dangers he is expecting, his hope of 
visiting Rome fulfilled in such a very different manner, are all inconsistent with 
sporiousness; while most readers will feel in the personal touches, in the 
combination of boldness in asserting his mission with consideration for the 
feelings of his readers, in the strong and deep emotions which are occasionally 
allowed to come to the surface, all the most characteristic marks of the 
Apostle's writing. 

Baur's views wre followe<l bv Scbwegler, Holstcn, Zeller, and others, 
but have been rejected by Mangold. Hilgenfcld, Pflciderer. Weizsacker, and 
Lipsius. A modified form is put forward by Lucht S who considers that parts 
arc genuine and part spurious : in fact he applies the interpolation theory to 
these two chaptert (being followed to a slight extent by Lipsius). Against 
any such theory the arguments are conclusive. It has all the disadvantages of 
the broader theory and does not either solve the problem suggested bv the mann- 
script evidence or receive support from it. For the rejection of the last two 
chapters as a whole there is some support, as we have seen ; for believing that 
they contain interpolations (except in a form to be considered immediately) there 
if no external evidence. There is no greater need for suspecting interpolations 
in chap, xv than in chap. xiv. 

a. We may dismiss then all such theories as imply the spuriousness of the last 
two chapters and may pass on to a second group which explains the pheno- 
mena of the MSS. by supposing that our Epistle has grown up through the 
combination of different letters or parts of letters cither all addressed to the 
Roman Church, or addressed partly to the Roman Church, partly elsewhere. 
An elaborate and typical theory of this sort, and one which has the merit ol 
explaining all the facts, is that of Kenan \ He supposes that the so-called 
Epistle to the Romans was a circular letter and that it existed in four different 

(i) A letter to the Romans. This contained chap, i-xi and chap. xv. 
(ii) A letter to the Ephesians. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 1-20. 
(iii) A letter to the 1 hessalonians. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 21-34. 
(iv) A letter to an unknown church. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 25-27. 

In the last three letters there would of course be some modifications in 
chap, i, of which we have a reminiscence in the variations of the MS. G. 

This theory is supported by the following amongst other arguments : 

(i) We know, as in the case of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that St. Paul 
wrote circular letters, (ii) The Epistle as we have it has four endings, xv. 33, 
xvi. 20, 24, 25-27. Each of these really represented the ending of a separate 
Epistle, (iii) There are strong internal giounds for believing that xvi 1-20 
was addressed to the Ephesian Church, (iv) The Macedonian names occurring 
in xvi a 1-24 suggest that these verses were addressed to a Macedonian 
church, (v) This explains how it came to be that such an elaborate letter 
was sent to a church of which St. Paul had such little knowledge as that 
of Rome. 

This theory has one advantage, that it accounts for all the facts ; but there 
are two arguments against it which are absolutely conclusave. One is that 
there are not four endings in the Epistle at all ; xv. 35 is not like any of the 

* Lucht, Cher dii beiden lettten Capitel des Rbmerbriefs^ 1871. 

* Renan, St. Paui^ pp. Ixiii ff. This theory is exammed at great length by 
Bp. Lightfoot, op, cit. pp. 293 ff. 



^dinei of St. PidI'i Eptitles: while, u li ahown than, the origfai of the 
dapllutc bti«iliclion, ivi. ir and 14, muBL be explained od piucly lextiul 
nosudt. ir Kenui'i tbenrv bail been correct then we thonld doI have both 
beatdidioai in the late MSS. but in tbe earlier. As it is, it ii clear that the 
dupticatioo aimply aro<ie from conflation. A second argnmmt. in onr opinion 
Miully concluilve againtt Ihit Ibeory, ii tliat it wparalei chap liv bom tbc 
tint Ibineen vena of chap, iv. The arguments on tbi> subject need not be 
repeated, bol it maj' be pointed onl that ih<r/ ate ai conclusive against Kenan'i 
hf pothena aa agiinst that of IJauc. 

J. ((aian'i Iheoiy hai not leccived acceptance, but there it one portion of it 
wUch ha* been more generally held than any other with rcEard to tbew final 
chapteni that namely which conildris that the list of names in chap, it! 
btlongatoaletter addieited lo Ephnus and not to one address to Rome. Thii 
rirw. liRt pat fonrard by Schuiz (1819). h» been idoptid by Ewald, Mangold, 
Laveai. Hititg. Rents, Ritxhl, Lnohl. Holnen, Lipiius. Krenkel, Koeni-'ker, 
Wem. Weiuacker, Firrar. It has two torms; lome hold ver. 1. ) to belong 
to the Romans, otben consider them also pan of ibe Hpbesian letter. Nor is 
it aiill« certain where the tphesinn tiaginent ends. Some considn that it 
Includa VT. 17-11, others make it Mop al vet. 16. 

Tbe arpimentj in bvunr of this view are a) follows: i. It is pointed out 
ibat It is baldly likely that SL Psal should have been acquainted with such 
a larp nsmber of persons in a cbutch like thai of Kutne which he hod neiei 
irialcd, and lliat this feeling ii coirobocated by the nnmbei of pcrvlnal delaiU 
that be adds^ references to companions in captivity, to relations, lo fellow- 
laboaren. All tbew allusions are easily eiiilicnble on the theory that the 
Epistle is addiessed to the Epheiiisa Church, bat Dot if it be adilres»d lo the 
Roiaan. 1. This opinion is coirobotated, it it said, by an eiaminalion of the 
Utt tlseif. Aquila and Prisdila and the chnrch that is in their houte are men- 
tiooedsbonlj before this date as being al Ephesus, and shortly atleiwards they 
ire •gmtn mentioned as bring in the same city (1 Cor. ivi. ig; i Titn. It, 19). 
Tbc raiy next name Epaenetus is clearly described at a native of the province 
of Aaia. Of the otheis many are Jewish, many Greek, aod it la more likely 
thai they should be natives of Epbetna Ihan nalivei of Rome. 3. That the 
warning agaiiBI false Icachen ii quite incnnsistcnl with the whi^e tenor of 
dw letter, which elsewhere oerei relen to false teachers as being at work in 

In eaamining this hypolhesn ue must notice al once that il does not in 
aoT way help w to sufvc the teilual difliculiic*. and receives no assitlance 
&oin ibein. The problems of tbe cooctuding doxology and of the omiasioo of 
the last two chapters remain as they were. It is only if we inieit a bcne- 
dktieo both al ?er. lo and al ver. 14 that we get any assistance. In that oue 
we Blight oplain the duplicate benediction by supposing Ibal the first wu 
the coDclution of the Ephsian teller, tlie second (he coocTution of the Roman. 
An wc have tern, tbe teitoal pbenomena do not tuppon \hu view. The theory 
tbertfote most be eiamined on its own merits, and the burdeo oF proof is 
ibnwo on the opponents of the Roman destinilion of the EpI^lle. for ai has 
beca ibown tbe only ciiticj) basis we can slait from, in discussing Su Paul's 
" ' ' --'--' ' ^yf (onie down to us sabstaottnlly in ine form in 
oiileu reiy attong evidence i* bionghi forward to the 

Bm Ibis evidence cannot be cslled very strong. It is admitted by Weiss 
•od Mangold, for instance, that ibe d fifitri arguments against St. Paart 
•oqnaintaocc with some twenly-fovt persons in Ihi- Roman community are of 
lligfat weight. Chtiitinnity was pieiihctl amongst jutt that portion of the 
pnpalntHM of the £jn(j| re which would t>e must nomadic In cbitacier. Il is 
■djaittcd again that it would be lutnrat that, in writing lo a strange church, 
fctm Aaold lay spcoal ttreta no all thote with whom he wa« acquainted «■ 



of whom he b«<l beard, in ordci thit he might Ihu commend himielf to tbetn. 
Afilo, when we came to examine Ibe nimei, we linilt that those aclnally con- 
oected irith Ephemi are ontj three, and of ihete pcnoos two are Iidowq (o 
ha»e origiDallf come from Rome, while tbf third alone can hardlj be con- 
wdered soflicienl loppoil for thit theory. When afiain we come to 
the warning against herelict, we lind thnt after all It i> perfectly Ci 
with the bodj of the Epistle. If we conceive it to be a wamiog against faUe 
leachen whom St Paul fears maj come bnt who have oot yet dooe so, il 
exactly tntts the litaation, and helps to explain the motives be bad in writing 
the Epiitle. He definitely ilatei that he ii only waruiag [hem that they may 
be wise iToceailon arlw. 

The argumenti againit thew Terse* are not strong. What i« the valne of 
tbe definite eridence In their favour? This is oF two classui. ^i) The 
■ichaeological eridence Cot conneciing the samn b the Epiitle with Rotpe: 
(il) The archaeological aod literary evidence for connecting any of the persons 
BCntioDed here wiu the Komao Chnrch, 

(ij In hi* eonunenlary on the Phiiippians, starting from the teit Phil, i 
ni^orrai t/iat . . . iii\iaTa at I* tdv Kaiaapoi olimr, Bp. I.igh ' 
e lilt of name* in Rom. avi in the light of Roma 
We happen to hive preserved to u* almost completely the fimereal iniciipUons 
of certain celumbaria in which were depoiitcd the aiho of member* of the 
imperial household. Some of these date a little earlier than the Epistle to the 
Romans, some of them are almost coDlempotary, iksides these we hare 
a large nambcr of insciiptiani conlainmg namei of fieedmen and otheia belinDg- 
ing to the imperial household. Now eiamples of almoit every name In Rom. 
zvi. j-i(i may be found amongst these, and the publication of the sixth 
Tolume of the C»rpiu of Latin Inieripliani haa enabled ui to add (o [he 
instancei quoted. Practicnity eiery name may b« illustrated In Rome, and 
almost every name in the Inscriptions of the household, although some of Ihem 


1. I.ightfoot proceed* 

Now what does this prove? It does not prove of conrse that these are 
tbe persons to whom the Epistle was written ; nor lioes il gire overwhelming 
evidence that the names are Roman. It show* that snch a combioation of 
names wai possible in Rome : but il shows something more than this. Man- 
^Id aslu what is the value of this invettigatioo as the same names arc foimd 
onlride Rome? The answer is thai for the most part they are very lare. 
Updo* make* varion* alteoipta to illustrate the n»mes from Adalic iiiscrip- 
tioni, but not very successfully ; uor does Mangold help by sbnwing that the 
two common names Narcissus and Hermai may be paralleled elsewhere. We 
have attempted to institute some comparison, but it it not very easy and will 
oot be imlil we have more satisfactory collections of Greek inscriplions. If 
we take the Greek Corpus we shall find that in the hisciiptiona of Ephesn* 
only three names out of the twenty-four in this list occnrjif we extend our 
survey to the province of Asia we shall find only twelve. Now what Ihli 
comparison suggesti is that such a combination of names — Greek, Jewish, and 
Latin — could as a matter of lact only be found in the mixed population which 
formed the lower and middle classes of Rome. This evidence is not con- 
clusive, but it shows that there is no ditrwrt improbability in Ibe name* being 
Roman, and that it would be difGcuIr anywhere else to illustrate such an 
heteiogeneoDS collection. 

To thi* we may add the further evidence afforded by the explanation given 
by Bishoj) Lightfoot and repealed in the notes, of the households of Naicissnt 
and Aristobulns ; evidence again only corroborative bat yet of some weight. 

(ii) The more direct archaeological evidence is that for connecting the names 
of Ptisca, Amplias, Nerens, and Apelle* definitely with the eatty history ol 
Roman Chrislianlly. These points have l«en discussed suflieienlly in tbe 
■Otu, aod it il only aecessaij to lay here that it would be an aceM ol 




•ceptkbtm U look apao nch eridence u worthleu, ilthough it might doI 
w^h Bodi if then wen Hrong crideacc on the Dther side. 

■fa tarn op then. There ii no eilemJ eridence «g»inBt thi» lection, nor 
ioe% the eiclniioii of it from tbe Roman letter help in any way lo lolve the 
prablenu pteiented by ihe teiL The xigsmenti againit the Roman des- 
bnatioD ire pniely a priori. Thev cui thercfoie have little valoe. On being 
HUnined they wete faand not to be valid ; white Ftidence not conclusive bnl 
coiuidettble hu been brongbt forw»id in favour of the Roman desllnatiun, 
For tbeM retioDi we have used the liiteentb chapter <vilboDt hesitBtioD m 
wriliog ui account of the Ronuta Church, and any soccers we hive had in the 
drawing of the pictaie which we have been able to preicnt must be allowed tu 
wei^ in the evidence. 

4. Reiche «iii 1833) inggested that Ihe doxology wif not genuine, and hii 

S*[iioD hai been largely nillowed, combined in some cases with theories as 10 
ominian of other parts, in lome cases not. It ii well lenown that possagei 
which did ort originally (onn patl of the leit are inserted in different plaoes in 

t» ; for instance, the (mVii^ fli/k//mi/ is found in "' — — 

iciitt to !ind a leason for the i 
r particular place at the end of chap. liv, but 1 
t it it not gennine will account tor Its omission altogether in 
I its ioteition in different places in others. We ask then what 
e thete is for this omis).ion, and are confronted with a large 
_ iments which inform as that it is clearly unpanline because it 
• in ttyle, in phraseology, and in subject-matter with non-pasline 
'that lo the Ephesiani and the Paslonl Epistles. This aicnnieiit 
t tell in different ways to diffecent critics. It will be very Mrooi;, if not 
9 those who consider that these Epiilles are not Pauline. T« 
those however who accept them ai gCDHine thete aigomenti will rather coo- 
bm Ibeir belief in tbe Piuliae authorship. 

{. But Ibeie is an alternative hypothesis which may demand more careful 
constferation ftam oa, that although it comei ftom St. Paul il belongs to rather 
a Win period in hit life. It is this consideration amongst othert which form; 
tbe baaii of the theory pot forward by Dr. Lighlfoot He considEri that the 
origitial Epistle to the Romans written by St. I'aol contained b.!! onr pruienl 
E[nRle except ivL JJ-J; r thai at a somewhat later period— the period per- 
haps of bis Roman imprisonment, St. Paul turned this into a circular tetter; 
be cut off the last two chapters which contained for Ibe most pari purely 
pCTMcal matter, he omitted the words tr'Fiiii^ in i. 7 and 15: and then added 
the doaologr ■■ '*>< end becaote he tclt the need of some more lilting con- 
diuioD. Then, at a later date, in order to make the original Epistle complete 
tbe doxology was added from Ibe later receniioD to the earlier. 

Dr, Lightibot points oot that this hypothesis solves all the problema It 
eaplaln* the eiiitence ol a ihortet tecension, it eiplaios the presence of the 
doxolcvy In both places, it aplains the peculiar style of the doiology. We 
may a&iit this, bat there is one point it does not eiplain ; il does not explain 
bow or why &. Psal made tbe divisioa it the end of chap. xiv. There is 
r^tVig In the next thirteen verses which onfits them for general drculalion. 
Tklf are in fact more suitable for an encyclical letter than is chap. xiv. It is 
la d* tnajnceivable that St. Paul should have himself mutilated his own argu- 
BMSt by CBlting off the conclusion of it. This contidcralioD therefore seenu 
to aa decirive agaiosl I>r. Lightfoot's theory. 

6. Dr. Hon has snbjecled the argument! of Dr. XJghtfoot to a very close 
rvamhnlion. He begins by a careful study of Ihe doxology and his shown 
clm-lyGmof all that the parallels between it and passages in the four icknow- 
Iti^eil ^telei are much commoner and nearer tlian was thought to be the case: 
MiJ tondly that it exactly reprodacr^ and sums up the whole argument ol 
~ —->-'- On U* iav«ieali«n we have baaed our commentary, and wt 


most refer to that and to Dr. Hort*s own essay for the reasons which make ai 
accept the doxology as not only a genuine work of St. Paul, but also as ao 
integral portion of the Epistle. That at the end he shuuld feel compelled 
once more to sum np the great ideas of which the Epistle is full and put them 
clearly and strongly before his readers is quite in accordance with the whole 
mind of the Apostle. He does so in fact at the conclusion of the Galatian 
letter, although not in the form of a doxology. 

Dr. Hort then proceeds to criticize and explain away the textual phenomena. 
We hare quoted his emendation of the passage in Origen and pointed ont that 
it is to us most nnconvincing. No single argument in favour of the existence 
of the shorter recension may be strong, but the combination of reasons b 
in our opinion too weighty to be explained away. 

Dr. Hort's own conclusions are: (i) He suggests that as the last two 
chapters were considered unsuitable for public reading, they might be omitted in 
systems of lectionaries while the doxology— which was felt to be edifying — was 
appended to chap, xiv, that it might l^ read. (2) Some such theory as this 
might explain the capitulations. ' The analogy of the common Greek capitu- 
lations shows how easily the personal or local and as it were temporary portions 
of an epistle might be excluded from a schedule of chapters or paragraphs.' 
(3) The omission of the allusions to Rome is due to a simple transcriptional 
accident (4) ' When all is said, two facts have to be explamed, the insertion 
of the Doxology after xiv and its omission.' This latter is due to Mardon, 
which must be explained to mean an omission agreeing with the reading in 
Marcion's copy. 'On the whole it is morally certain that the omission ii 
his only as having been transmitted by him, in other words that it is a genuine 
ancient reading/ Dr. Hort finally concludes that though a genuine reading it 
is incorrect and perhaps arises through some accident such as the tearing oil 
of the end of a papyrus roll or the last sheet in a book. 

While admitting the force of some of Hort's criticisms on Lightfoot, and 
especially his defence of the genuineness of the doxology, we must express 
our belief that his manner of dealing with the evidence is somewhat arbitraiy, 
and that his theory does not satisfactorily explain all the facts. 

7. We ourselves incline to an opinion suggested first we beliere by 
Dr. Gifford. 

As will have already become apparent, no solution among those offered has 
attempted to explain what is really the most difficult part of the problem, 
the place at which the division was made. We know that the doxology 
was in many copies inserted at the end of chap, xiv ; we have strong grounds 
for believing that in some editions chaps, xv and xvi were omitted ; why is it 
at this place, certainly not a suitable one, that the break occurs ? As we have 
seen, a careful examination of the text shows that the first thirteen verses of 
chap. XV are linked closely with chap, xiv — so closely that it is impossible to 
believe that they are not genuine, or that the Apostle himself could have cut 
them off from the context in publishing a shorter edition of his Epistle in- 
tended for a wide circulation. Nor again is it probable that any one arranging 
the Epistle for church services would have made the division at this place. 
The difficulty of the question is of course obscured for us by the division 
into chapters. To us if we wished to cut off the more personal part of the 
Epistle, a rough and ready method might suggest itself in the excision of the 
last two chapters, but we are dealing wiUi a time before the present or 
probably any division into chapters existed. 

Now if there were no solution possible, we might possibly ascribe this 
division to accident ; but as a matter of fact internal evidence and external 
testimony alike point to the same cause. We have seen that there is con- 
siderable testimony for the fact that Marcion excised the last two chapters, and 
if we examine the beguming of chap, xv we shall find that as far as regards 
the first thirteen verses hardly any otner course was possible for him, if he held 



the o^iinion* which »re wcnbed to him. To bfgin wiih. fi-re af thttt mtm 
coriun quoUtioBf from tlie U. T. ; bul fuithei ver. S conUini tn eipiebion 
Ki-J*! T^/ Xfitarir hanimr fiftr^Sai ir(fiiTD>i^T uwlfi iKifitiat Sfou, wbich be 
nmt ccfUinlr eoald ncX hive nwal, Sfill more U this Xht cite with tegtid ic 
m. 4. •hich dircctl)- contiidjijts the whole o( liis special teaching. The 
irtnils at (he end of diap. liv might iceni to make a more laiiable ending 
Ibao either of the neit two veiNei. and it this place the diniioa vrai drawn. 
The mnaiadei of thoe (*□ cluplert codd be omitted simply bccaUM \hey 
«nac BKlea for the dcRnile dogmatic pnrpote Marcion had in view, aad (he 
I>oMdo£I which be could not quite like would go witb them. 

If we ortcc asiume thii eiciiion by Maicion it may perhapi eiplain the 
phenoaMna. Dr. Hort bai painted onl against Di. LighlFool'i ibeory of 
a Anna lecennon with the doxolc^ that all the direct evidence for omitting 
■lie latt two chapter! a alio in favuur of omitting the Uoxolo{^, * tor the 

■ail ]Kt the one incontrovertible fact aboal him i> that he omitted the Doaotogy. 
tl G U to be added on the ttitnph of the blank ipace alter xiv, yrt again it 
(eava ont the Doiolo^;)'.' We may add alto the oapilnlfllinnt of Codea 
Fnldeniit which again, as Di. Hoit paints out. have no trace of the Doiotogy 
Our evidence tbeieforc poinU to the eiiilence of ■ receiUiion aimply leaving 
onl (he lait two chapter*. 

Now il U becoming more generally admitted that Marclon'i Apeslfli'tan had 
■ome— if not greal - inRuen>x on variationi in the text of the N.T. Hi> 
eilitiim had considerable circnlalioa, eipecialiy at Kome, and theiefoie 
picraiDKbly in the Wen, and it it from the Weil that our evidence tnotlly 
oooNS When in adapting the text for the purposes of chorcb use it WM 
tboBcfal adviiable to omit the lait portions as too personal and not sufficiently 
ediiyiDi;, it (rai natural to make (he division at i place where in ■ cuirent 
cdioon the break bad already been made. The subsequent steps would then 
be linilai to those Ensealed by Dr. HorL It was natural to add Ihe 
Doonlo^ In order to give i more suitable conclusion, or to preserve it for 
pobUc reading at Ibis place, and anbseqacntly il dropped ont 11 the Inlet 
place. That is the order suggested by the manutcript evidence. All our best 
' X it at the end; AP Arm. — representing a later but itill 
— have it io both places; bier aDtboritieS for (he moat part 
place it only at xiv. 13, 

It remiins lo aecotint for the omission of any reference to Rome in the Gnt 
cbapler of G. This may of course be a mere idioiynciacy of thai MS-, arising 
ctlberfron carelessness of tranicnplioQ: a cause wbidi >vecan hardly accept) or 
btm B desire to make Ihe Epistle more general in its character. Hnl il does not 
•EOB (o tta at all improbable that Ibis omission may also be due to Marcion. 
IIU ciLtion was maoc with a strongly dogmstic purpose. Local and personal 
■Ihaicaa WOnld have little interest 10 him. The words Ir *FiumP could easily be 
MBiUed wilhoM iojuiiog the conlexl. The opinion is peibaps corroborated 
hf Urn duuactcf of the MS. in which Ihe omission occurs. Allusion hat Icen 
■M)e (p. Uix) to two ditstrtationt by Dr. Cortien on ihe allied MhS. D F G. 
Is ibc teoond of thcie. he tuggestt that ihe archetype from which these MSS. 
a*e lioiMil (Z) ended at xv. 13. Even if his arcumenl were correct, it would 
mcA take away from the foice of ibe other facts which have been menlioned. 
We shoald still have to explain how it wax (hat Ihe Doiology was inserted 
■1 the cod of cbap. xiv, and the previous discussion would itand at it is : only 
■ ovw tad woulii have lo be accounted for. When, however, we come to 
nanunc Di. Conacn's arguments they hardly teem lo snppon his con- 
trnbun. It may be admitted indeed, that ihe capiiulitiona of the Codei 
AmialUnu mii^bl have been made for a copy which ended at av. 1 ,), but the; 
pcetcnl DO solid argument for the existence of such ■ copy. Or, Corssoi 
fMMi ool that in the xcliaa xr. 14— xvi. ij, there a 


of vuiilloni in the leil, mil su^gciti ihai that implies ■ difletent k 

the te« of thai portiOD of Ihe cpislle. The nnmtjer of virialions 

firkeft adtitttra* ire. it is well Icnowti, considerable; and in the sa 

be would ugne thattbii poitlon whicli hu all these vari at iooB mast co 

a separate source. Hut tbe facti do not support his conientjon. Ii 

that in (oity-lhree Terse* be Is able to ennmeiate Iwenty-fonr variations . 

we examine tbe IWEtily-tbree verses of chap, xiv we ibsll find fonrtefl 

variations, a still target proportion. Moreover, in liv. 13 tlietear 

and as Important viiiations ■> in any of tbe following verses. Dr. Cor 

■igumenli do not bear onl bia conclusion. As ■ matter of fact, as Dr. HM 

pointed ont against Dr. Lightfool, the ten of D F G present! »act1y the si 

phenomena throughout the Epistle, and tbat ■ug(;estE, althouj;h it does n 

Gtha]Jl prove, that the archetype Cirntained the last two chapters. The scrjbrl 
wever was probably acquainted wllh a copy which omitted Ihem. ThJn [ 
archetype ts atone or almost atone amongst out sources tor the te>t 
omttling tbe Doxology. It also omiti as we have teen Jr 'Pwfi]) ia both plac 
We would haiard tbe suggestion Ibal all these variations were due directly M 
Indirectly to the same cause, the text of Marcion. 

Id oar opinion then the text as we have it represents snbstaotialty the ^ist 
that St. Paul wrote to the Komani, and it reioBins only to explain brielly tl 
somewhat complicated ending. Ai iv. 13 tbe didBt;lic portion of it is o 
ctnded, and (be remainder of the chapter is devoted to tbe Apostle's pers« 
relations with (he Koman Church, and a sketch of his plans. This paragiajp 
ends with a short prayer called forth by tbe mingled hopes and fean wblchUu " 
plans for ibe future inggeit. Then comes tbe commendation of Phoebe, t 
bearer of tbe letter (rvi. i. 1] ; then salutations (3-16). The Apostle 1 
now close the Epislte, but his sense of the danger to which Ihe Roman C 
may be exposed, if it it visited by false teachers, such as he is acquainted m 
in the East, leads him to give a (inal and direct warning against them. ^ , 
find a not dissimilar phenomenon in the Epistle to the Philippians. There t| 
Ui. I he appears to l>e concluding, but before be concludes be breaks oot b*^ 
■ strong, even Indignant warning against false teachers (iii. s-it), i~'' ~~ 
after that du ells long and feelingly over his salutations. Hie same < 
of ending need not therefore surprise ns when we meet it in tbe Roman 
Then comes [xvi. 10) tbe conclnding benediction. After this a postscript w 
salutations fvom the companions of St. Paul. Then tiiially Ihe Apostle, w' 
ing perhaps, ai Dr. Hort suggests, to raise the Eplstte once more to the lei 
tone which has cbaracteiiied it throughout, adds tbe concluding DoiolM 
summing up the whole argument of tbe Epistle. There is (nrely nothl 
unreasonable in supposing that there would be an absence of complete 1 
ness in tbe cottslmction of the diflerenl tetters. It is not likely that all \ 
exactly correspond to the same model. Tbe form in each ca^e would I 
altered and changed in eccordojicc with the feelings of the Apostle, and than 

§ 10. Commentaries. 

A ver7 complete and careful bibliography of the Epistle to tl 
Romans was added by the editor, Dr. W. P, Dickson, to lb»1 
English translation of Meyer's Commatlary. This need not be 
repeated here, But a few leading works may be mentioned, 
especially such as have been most largely used in tbe preparation 



of this edition. One or iwo which have not been used are added 
u links in the historical chain. Some conception may be formed 
of the general characieristics of the oMer commentators from the 
sketch which is given of their treatment of particular subjects ; e. g. 
of the doctrine «f iutaiuan at p. 147 ff., and of the interpretation of 
ch. ix. 6-39 on p. 369 ff. The arrangement i^ roughly speaking, 
chronological, but modern writers are grouped rather according to 
their real affinities than according to dates of publication which 
would be sometimes misleading. 

I. Greti Wrilert. 

Ukigkw fOrig.) ; ob. 153 : Commtnt. in Epitt. S. Fault aa 
Romandfs in Origents Opera ed. C. H. E. Lommatztch, vols, vi, vii : 
Berolmi. 1836, 1837- The standard edition, on which that of 
LommWEBch b based, is that be^un by Charles Delarue, Bene- 
dictine of the congregation ofSt. Maur in 1733, and completed after 
Ui death by his nephew Charles Vincent Delarue in 1759- The 
Commentary on Romans comes in Tom. iv, which appeared in 
ibe latter year. A new edition — for which Che beginnings have 
been nunie. in Germany by Dr. P. Kociscliau, and in England by 
Prof. Armitage Robinson and others — is however much needed. 

The Commentary on our £i<istle belongs lo the latter part 01 
Origen's life when he was seiUed at Caesaiee. A few fragments ol 
the original Greek have come down to us in the Philocaha (ed. 
Robinson, Cambridge, 1893), and in Cramer's Catena, Tom. iv. 
(Ozon. 1844) ; but for the greater part we are dependent upon the 
condensed translation of Rutinus (hence ' Orig.-lat.'). There is no 
doabt that Rufinus treated the work before him with great freedom. 
Iti text in particular is frequently ad.ipted to that of the Old-Latin 
copy of the Epistles which he was in the habit of using ; so ih&t 
'Orig.-lac' more often represents Rulinus than Origen. An ad- 
mirable account of the Commentary, so far as can be ascertained, 
m both its forms is given in Dr. Westcoll's article Origkwfs in 
DkI. Ckr. Biog. Iv. 115-118. 

This work of Origen's is unique among commentaries. The 
reader is asionished not only at the command of Scripture but at 
'Jhe range and subtlety of thought which it displays. The questions 
raised are often remarkably modem. If he had been as successful 
in answering as he is in propounding them Origen would have left 
tittle for those who followed him. As it is he is hampered by 
defects of method and especially by the fatal facility of allegory ; 
ibe discursiveness and prolixity of treatment are also deterrent to 
the average reader. 

Chktsostom (Chrys.); ob. 407: HomiL in £piil. ad fiomanot. 
ed. Field : Oxon. 1849 ; a complete critical edition. A translation 


(not of this but of Savile's text which is superior to Montfaucon's), 
by the Rev. J. B. Morris, was given in the Library of the Fathers^ 
vol. vii : OxK)rd, 1 84 1 . The Homilies were delivered at Antioch 
probably between 387-397 a.d. They show the preacher at his 
best and are full of moral enthusiasm and of sympathetic human 
insight into the personality of the Apostle ; they are also the work 
of an accomplished scholar and orator, but do not always sound the 
depths of the great problems with which the Apostle is wrestling. 
They have at once the merits and the limitations of Antiochene 

Theodorkt (Theodrt., Thdrt) played a well-known moderating 
part in the controversies of the fifth century. He died in 458 a. d. 
As a commentator he is a pedisequus — but one of the best of the 
mzxij pedisequi — of St. Chrysostom. His Commentary on the Ep. 
to the Romans is contained in his Works, ed. Sirmond : Paris, 
164a, Tom. iii. 1-119; also ed. Schulze and Noesselt, Halle, 

Joannes Damascknus (Jo.-Damasc.) ; died before 754 a. d. His 
commentary is almost entirely an epitome of Chrysostom ; it is 
printed among his works (ed. Lequien : Paris, 17 12, tom. il 
pp. 1-60). The so-called Sacra Parattela published under his 
name are now known to be some two centuries earlier and 
probably in great part the work of Leontius of Byzantium (see the 
brilliant researches of Dr. F. Loofs : Studien Uher die demjohanms 
von Damascus zugeschriebencn ParalUlen, Halle, 189 a). 

Oecumenius ^ecum.) ; bishop of Tricca in Thessaly in the 
tenth century. The Commentary on Romans occupies pp. 195- 
413 of his Works (ed. Joan. Hentenius: Paris, 163 1). It is prac- 
tically a Catena with some contributions by Oecumenius himself; 
It includes copious extracts from Photius (Phot.), the eminent 
patriarch of Constantinople (r. 8ao-€'. 891) ; these are occasionally 

Theophylact (Theoph.) ; archbishop of Bulgaria under Michael 
VII Ducas (107 1-1078), and still living in 1 1 1 8. His Commentary 
Is one of the best specimens of its kind ^Opp. ed. Venet, 1754- 
I7^3> tom. ii. 1-118). 

EuTHTMius Zigabenus (Euthym.-Zig.) ; living after 11 18; monk 
in a monastery near Constantinople and in high favour with the 
emperor Alexius Comnenus. His Commentaries on St Paul's 
Epistles were not published until 1887 (ed. Calogeras : Athens); 
and as for that reason they have not been utilized in previous 
editions we have drawn upon them rather largely. They deserve 
citation by their terseness, point, and general precision of thought, 
but like all the writers of this date they follow closely in the foot- 
steps of Chrysostom. 



. £,a/ia Writers. 

AxntosiASTEE {Ambrstr,}. The Epislle to the Romans heads 
a Wfies of Commeniaries on thirteen Episiles of Sl Paul, whuh in 
sone {(houi;h not ihe oldest) MS5. bear the name of Si. Ambrose, 
and from thai circumstance catne to be included in the printed 
editioDS of his works. The Benedictines, Du Frische and Le 
Nourrf in 1690, argued against their genuineness, uhich has been 
defended witli more courage than success by the latest editor, 
P. A. Ballerini {S. Ambrosii Optra, tom. iii, p. 350 IT. ; Mediolani, 
1877). The real authorship of this work b one of the still open 
problems of lilcraiy criticism. The dale and place of composition 
are fairly fixed. It was probably wrillen at Rome, and (unless 
the text is comipt) during the Episcopate of Damasus about the 
year 380 a. d. The author for some lime supposed to be 
a ceilxin Hilary the Deacon, as a passage which appears in the 
commentary is referred by St. Augustine to lanclut Hilariut 
(Contra dtias Epp. Ptlag. iv. 7). The commentary cannot really 
proceed from the great Hilary (of Poitiers), but however the fact is 
10 be eiplained it is probably he who is meant. More recently an 
eUborate attempt has been made by the Old-Catholic scholar. 
Dr. Langcn, to vindicate the work for Eausiinus, a Roman pres- 
byter of the required date. [Dr. Langen first propounded his 
viens in an address delivered at Bonn in 1880, but has since given 
the nibsiance of (hem in his Geschichu d. rom. Kircht, pp. 599- 
4ia.] A case of some strength seemed to be made gut, but it 
■a» replied to with arguments which appear to preponderate by 
Harold in Hilgcnfetd's Ztittrhrift for 18S3, pp. 415-470. Unfor- 
tanaiely the result is purely negative, and the commentary is stili 
withow an owner. It has come out in the course of discussion 
that h presents a consider.ible resemblance, though not so much 
aa 10 imply identity of authorship, with (he Quatttiona tx ulroqut 
Ttttameni», printed among the works of St. Augustine. The com- 
mraiator was a man of intelligence who gives the best account we 
bave from antiquity of ihe oriRin of iIil Roman Church {see above, 
p. axv), bat it has been used in this edi;:on more for its inletesling 
ICXI than for the permanent value of its exegesis. 

['u^oius (Pelag.). In the Appendix to liie works of St Jerome 
(ed. klignc xi. {P. L- xix.], col. 659 ff.) there is a series of Com- 
mentartes 00 St. Paul's Epistles which is now known to proceed 
really from the author of Pelagianism. The Commentary was 
probably written befure 410. It consists of brief but well written 
fcboha rather dexterously turned so as not to clash with his 
ncultar views, Bui it has not come down to us as Pelaciug left it 
Ca»iodonis, and pethaps others, made excisions in the i 

of onhodoir' 


Hugh of St. Victor (Hugo a S. Victore, Hugh of Paris); 
r. 1 09 7-1 141. Amongst the works of the great mystic of the 
twelfth century are published Allegoriae in Novum Testamenium, 
Lib. VL Alkgorioi in Episiolam PauU ad Romanes (Migne, 
P. Z. clzzv, col. 879), and QuatsHones et Decisiones in EpistoUu 
D, Paulu I. In Episiolam ad Romanes (Migne, clxxv, col. 431). 
The authenticity of both these is disputed. Sl Hugh was a typical 
representative of the mystical as opposed to the rationsdizing 
tendency of the Middle Ages. 

PsTRR Abklard, 1079-1142. Petri Abaelardi commeniariorum 
super S* Pauli Episiolam ad Romanos libri quinque (Migne, P. L, 
clxxviu. col. 783). The commentary is described as being ' literal, 
theological, and moral. The author follows the text exactly, 
explains each phrase, often each part of a phrase separately, and 
attempts (not always very successfully) to show the connexion of 
thought. Occasionally he discusses theological or moral questions, 
often with great originality, often showing indications of the opinions 
for which he was condemned ' (Migne, op, cii. coL 30). So fieur as 
we have consulted it, we have found it based pardy on Origen partly 
on Augustine, and rather weak and indecisive in its character. 

Thomas Aquinas, c, 1225-1274, called Doctor Angelicus. His 
Expositio in Episiolas omnes Divi Pauli Aposioli (Opp, Tom. zvL 
Venetiis, 1593) formed part of the preparation which he made for 
his great work the Summa Theologiae — a preparation which consisted 
in the careful study of the sentences of Peter Lombard, the Scriptures 
with the comments of the Fathers, and the works of Aristode. His 
commentary works out in great detail the method of exegesis started 
by St Augustine. No modem reader who turns to it can fail to 
be struck by the immense intellectual power displayed, and by the 
precision and completeness of the logical analysis. Its value is 
chiefly as a complete and methodical exposition from a definite 
point of view. That in attempting to fit every argument of 
St. Paul into the form of a scholastic syllogism, and in making 
every thought harmonize with the Augustinian doctrine of grace, 
there should be a tendency to make St. Paul's words fit a precon- 
ceived system is not unnatural. 

3. Reformaiion and Posi- Reformation Periods. 

CoLiT, John (f. 1467- 151 9); Dean of St. Paul's. Colet, the 
friend of Erasmus, delivered a series of lectures on the Epistle to 
the Romans about the year 1497 in the University of Oxford. 
These were published in 1873 with a translation by J. H. Lupton, 
M.A., Sur-Master of St. Paul's School. They are full of interest 
ts an historical memorial of the earlier English Reformation. 

Erasmus, Desiderius. 1 466-1 536. Erasmus' Greek Testameni 




with k new translation and annoiations was published in 1516, 
bis Paraphrasit Nmi TfSlamenti. a popular work, in 153a. He 
wai gteaier always in whai he conceived and planned than in the 
manner in which he accomplished ii. He published the first 
ediuon of the Greek New Testament, and the first commentary on 
it which made nse of the learning or the Renaissance, and edited 
iot iht first time many of the early fathers. But in all that he did 
there are great defects of execution, defects even for his own time. 
He was more successful in raising questions than in solving them ; 
and his commentaries suffer as much from timidity as did those of 
Lather from excessive boldness. His aim was to reform the Church 
by publishing and interpreting the records of early Christianity — an 
aim which harmonized ill with the times in which he lived. His 
wor4 was rather to prepare the way for future developments. 

LuTHEB. Martin, 1483-1546. Luther's contribution to the 
literature of the Romans was confined to a short Preface, published 
in 1593- But as marking an epoch in the study of St. Paul's 
writings, the most important place is occupied by his Commentary 
on the Galalians, This was published in a shorter form, In tpisl. 
P. ad Galaio) Marl. Lulheri commetU. in 1519; in a longer form. 
In tpitl. P. ad Gal. eommaUarius ex pratUcliombiit Marl. Lulhtri 
(MttHa, 1535. Exegesis was not Luther's sirong point, and his 
cominentariea bristle with faults. Tliey are defective, and prolix ; 
full irf bitter conuoversy and one-sided. The value of his contribu- 
lioo 10 the study of St, Paul's writings was of a diflerent character. 
By grasping, if in a one-sided way, some of St. Paul's leading 
ideas, and by insisting upon ihem with unwearied boldness and 
pCTEisienoe, be produced conditions of religious life which made 
the comprehension of part of the Apostle's leaching possible. His 
exegebul notes could seldom be quoted, but be paved the way for 
a correct exegesis. 

Mklamchthok, Philip (1497-1560), was the most scholarly of 
ibe Reformers. His Adnolalionet in ep. P. ad Rom. with a preface 
by Luther was published in isaa, his Commrnlarii in Ep. ad Rom. 
in 1540 

Caltix, John (1509-1564). His Commentarii in omnts ^isloltu 
Paub' Ap«tl. was first published at Sirassburg in 1 539. Calvin was 
bj far the greatest of the commentators of the Reformation. He 
I* dear, locid, honest, and straightforward. 

[uotioo il in inlere*tiae oae, how fv Calvin brocght hit pecaliu 

t (ludjr of the Epislle boiI how far lie dcriied them 

oriiiiiag eict;ou, we *re glkd to place tierocc the 

, DC vbo li familiii with Catvin'i wntion (Dr. A. M. 

I, Piindpil of Multlield Colicgc). 'The firat cditioii of the 

tituln «i> puliliihed io 1536. It hia li*idly uy detailed czpositioc of 

Usfacr Csmniitk doctrine, bsl it made np of lii parti: upoMlloM 

sftbc Decalogue -, (ii) of the AtJoitoUc Creed ; U") of^lhe Lord'* Ptajee; 

Lt Oeauc! 
a If t>7 ai 


0t) of the Sacraments; (▼) of the Roman or £Use doctrine of Sacraments, 
and (vi) of Christian Liberty or Church Polity. There is just a single para- 
graph on Election. In 1 539 he published two things, the Commentcay pm 
Homafu and the and edition of the InstUuits, And the latter are greatly 
expanded with all his distinctiye doctrines fully developed. Two things are, 
I think, certain: this development was due to his study (i) of Augustine, 
especially the Anti- Pelagian writings, and (a) of St. Paul. But it was St. 
Paul read through Augustine. The exegetical stamp is peculiarly distinct 
in the doctrinal parts of the Institute ; and so I should say that his ideal 
were not so much philosophical as theological and ex^etical in their basis. 
I ought to add however as indicating hb philosophical bent that his earliest 
studies — before he became a divine — were on Seneca, Dt CUmeniia,* 

Beza, Theodore (15 19-1605). His edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment witli translation and annotations was first published by 
H. Stephanas in 1565, his Adnotaitoms majores in N. T, at Paris 
in 1594. 

Arminius (Jakob Hannensen), 1 560-1 609, Professor at Leyden, 
1603. As a typical example of the opposite school of interpretation 
to that of Calvin may be taken Arminius. His works were com- 
paratively few, and he produced few commentaries. Two tracts of 
his however were devoted to explaining: Romans vii and ix. He 
admirably illustrates the statement of Hailam that ' every one who 
had to defend a cause, found no course so ready as to explain the 
Scriptures consistently with his own tenets.' 

The two principal Roman Catholic conmientators of the seven- 
teenth century were Estius and Cornelius a Lapide. 

CoRNXuus A Lapidx (vau Stein), ob. 1637, a Jesuit, published 
his CommerUana in amnes d. Paidi eputolas at Antwerp in 16 14. 

EsTius (W. van Est), ob. 1613, was Provost and Chancellor of 
Douay. His In amnes Pauli d aliorum apostolor, episiolas cam- 
mefUar. was published after his death at Douay in 1 614- 161 6. 

Grotius (Huig van Groot), 1583-1645. His Annda/ianes 
in N. T. were published at Paris in 1644. This distinguished 
publicist and statesman had been in his younger days a pupil of 
J. J. Scaliger at Leyden, and his Commentary on the Bible was 
the first attempt to apply to its elucidation the more exact philo- 
logical methods which he had learnt fix>m his master. He had 
hardly the philological ability for the task he had imdertaken, and 
although of great personal piety was too much destitute of dogmatic 

The work of the philologists and scholars of the sixteenth and tbe 
first half of the seventeenth century on the Old and New Testament 
was summed up in Critici Sacri, first published in 1660. It 
contains extracts from the leading scholars from Valla and Erasmus 
to Grotius, and represents the point which philological study in the 
N. T. bad up to that time attained. 

Two English oommentatorsbebnging to the seventeenth centoiy 



Hamxoks. Henry (1605-1660), Fellow of Magdalen CoIIegCi 
Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. Hammond was well known 
u & roialisL He assisied in (he produciion of Walton's Polyglelt 
His Paraphrait and Annolaliom 0/ tkt New Ttslamml appeared in 
1653. a few years before his death, at a lime when the disturbances 
of the Civil War compelled him to live in retiremenL He has 
been stjlc't the faLher of English commentators, and certainly no 
considerable exegciical work hefore his time had appeared in this 
COUDUy. But he has a further title to fame. His commentary 
iindotibtedly deserves the title of ' historical.' In his interpretation 
be has detached himself from the dogmatic struggles of the seven- 
teenth century, and throughout he attempts to expound the Aposde 
in accordance with his own ideas and those of the times w'len be 

Locke. John (1663-1704), ihe well-known philosopher, devoted 
bis last yesrs to the study of St Paul's Epistles, and in 1 705-1 707 
mere published A Paraphrase and Notes to the EpistU 0/ St. Paul 
Iq Ike Galaliam, the fsrsl and second Ephtles h llu Corinlhiam. and 
the Eptstles to tht Romans and Ephesians. Apiiended is an Essay 
for lit understanding of St. Paul's Epistles by consulting St. Paul 
hsmsilf. A study of this essay is of great interest. It is full of 
icuic ideas and thoughts, and would amply vindicate the claim of 
the author to be classed as an ' historical interpreter. The com- 
mentaries were translated into German, and must have had some 
influence on the future development of Biblical Exegesis. 

Bkmoel, J. A. (Beng.), 1687-1751; a Lutheran prelate in 
Wfinemberg. His Gnomon Novi Teslamenli (1741) stands out 
among the ezegetical literature not only of the eighteenth cemury 
boi of aU centuries for its masterly terseness and precision and 
for its combination of spiritual insight with the best scholarship of 
hi* lime. 

WiTSTsm (or Welt.Mcin). J. J., 1693-1754 ; after being deposed 
from oQice ai Basel on a charge of heterodoxy he became Pro- 
lessor in the Remont>l rants' Collejre at Amsterdam. His Greek 
Testament appeared 1751, 1751. Wetstein was one of those inde- 
hbgable students who»e first-hand researches form the base of 
oUier men's laboais In the history of textual cridcism be deserves 
10 be named by the side of John Mill and Richard Bentley; and 
besides his collation of MSS. he collected a mass of illustrative 
maitcf on the N. T. from classical, patristic, and rabbinical source! 
wtuch is still of great value. 

4. Modrrn Period. 

Tboluci, F. a. G., 1799-1877 ; Professor at Halle. Tholuck 
«M a man of large sympathies and strong religious chftractcf, and 


both personally and through hb commentary {which came out first 
m 1834 and has been more than once translated) exercised a wide 
influence outside Germany ; this is specially marked in the American 

Fritzsche. C. F. a. (Fri.), 1801-1846, Professor at Giessen. 
Fritische on Romans (3 vols. 1836-1843), like LOcke on St, John 
and Bleek on Hebrews, is a vast quarry of materials to which all 
subsequent editora have been greatly indebted. Fritzsche was one 
of those philologisla whose researches did most to fix the laws of 
N. T. Greek, but his exegesis is hard and rationalising. He 
engaged in a controversy with Tholuck the asperity of which be 
r^iretted before his death. He was however no doubt the better 
scholar and stimulated Tholuck to self-improvement in this resgi'ect. 

Meter, H. A. W. (Mey.), 1800-1873; Consistorialrath in the 
kingdom of Hanover. Meyer's famous commentaries first began 
to appear in 1831, and were carried on with unresting energy in a 
succession of new and constantly enlarged editions until his death. 
There is an excellent English translaiion of the Commentary on 
Romans published by Messrs. T. and T, Clark under the editor- 
ship of Dr. W. P. Dickson in 1873, 1874. Meyer and De Wette 
n.ay be said to have been the founders of the modem style ol 
commenting, at once scientific and popular : scientific, through its 
ri^rous — at times too rigorous — application of grammatical and 
philological laws, and popular by reason of its terseness and power 
of presenting the sifted results of learning and research. Since 
Meyer's death the Commentary on Romans has been edited with 
equal conscientiousness and thoroughness by Dr. Bemhard Weiss, 
Professor at Berlin (hence ' Mey.-W.'). Dr. Weiss has not alt his 
]tredecessor's vigour of style and is rather difficult 10 follow, but 
especially in textual cridcism marks a real advance. 

Dx Wkttk, W. M. L. (De W.), 1780-1849; Professor for a short 
time at Berlin, whence he was dismissed, afterwards at Basel. His 
Kursge/assles txegetischts Handbuch turn Nrum Teslament first 
appeared in 1 836-1848. De Wette was an ardent lover of freedom 
and rationalistically inclined, but his commentaries are models o( 
brevity and precision. 

Stuart, Moses, 1780-1653; Professoral Andover, Mass. Coram, 
on Roman! first published in 183a (British edition with preface by 
Dr. Pye-Smith in 1833). At a lime when Biblical exegesis was 
not being very actively prosecuted in Great Britain two works of 
solid merit were produced in America. One of these was by 
Mo.=e8 Stuart, who did much to naturalize German methods. He 
expresses large obligations to Tholuck, but is independent as 
a commentator and modified considerably the Calvinism of his 
turroun dings. 

HoDGX, Dr. C, 1797^1878; Professor at Princeton, New Jersey. 


His C*Bim. OH Jiomum first published in 1835, rewritten in 1864, 
IS s weighty and learned doctrinal exposition based on the principles 
of ibc Westminster Confession. Like Moses Stuart, Dr. Hodge 
also owed much of bis philological equipment to Germany where 
be had studied. 

ALFOitD, Dr. H. (Alf.), 1810-1871 ; Dean of Canterbury. Hi-^ 
GraM Ttitanunt {1849-1861, and subsequently) was the first to 
tnipon the results of German exegesis into many circles in England 
Nooconlormists (headed by the learned Dr. J. Pye-Smith) had been 
to advance of the Established Church in this respect. Dean AUord- 
laborious work is characterized by vigour, good sense, and scholar 
i^p, sound as far as it goes ; it is probably still the best cooipleir 
Greek Testament by a single hand. 

Wordsworth, Dr. Christopher. 1809-1885; Bishop of Lincoln 
Bbhop Wordsworth's Gruk Tttlament (1856-1860, and subse- 
quently) is of an older type than Dean Alford'a, and chiefly valuable 
for its patristic learning. The author was not only a distinguished 
prelate but a literary scholar of a high order (as may be seen by 
hit Aihttu and Al/ica, Conjectural Emendations 0/ Ancient Authors, 
aitd many other publications) but he wrote al a time when the 
reading public was less exigent in matters of higher criticism and 

jowETT, B., i8r7-i893; widely known as Master of Balliol 
Cc^ge and Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford. 
His eididon of St. PauVi EpittUs to the Thasalonians, Galatimts, 
anJ Rcmaiu &t%\ appeared in 1855; second edition 1S59; recently 
re-ediied by Prof. L. Campbell. Professor Jowelt's miiy be siud to 
hawe been the first attempt in England at an entirely modem view 
rf (he Epistle. The essays contain much beautiful and suggestive 
writing, but the exegesis is loose and disappointing. 

V*06HAN, Dr. C. J. (Va.); Dean of Llandaff. Dr. Vaughan's 
editioD first came out in 1859, and was afterwards enlarged; the 
dtitiOD used for this commentary has been the 4th (1874). It is 
a ckwe study of the Episile by a finished scholar with little further 
bdp than the Concordtmte to the Septuaglnt and Greek Tesiament : 
)U greatest value lies in ihe careful selection of illustrative passages 
from these sources. 

KtiiliTi W.; associated al one time with the textual critic 
Tr^elles. His Nottt on lie Epistle to the ^nmnfir (London, 1873), 
arc wriltCD from a detached and peculiar standpoint ; but ihey are 
ibe fniit of sotind scholarship and of prolonged and devout study. 
and tbey deserve more attention than ihcy have received. 

But, Dt, J. Agar; Tutor in the Wesieyan College, Richmond. 
Dr. Beer's may be descnbed as the leading Wesieyan commentary; 
it aurts from a very careiul exposition ol the text, but is intended 
throughout as a contribution to systematic theology. The first 



edition appeared in 1877, the second in 1881, and there have been 
several others since. 

GoDET, Dr. F. (Go.), Professor at Neuchatel. Commeniain mr 
VEpUre aux Romaim, Paris, ftc, 1879, English translation in 
T. and T. Clark's series, 1881. Godet and Oltramare are both 
Franco- Swiss theologians with a German training ; and their com- 
mentaries are somewhat similar in character. They are extremely 
full, giving and discussing divergent interpretations under the names 
of their supporters. Both are learned and thoughtful woiks, 
strongest in exegesis pro[)er and weakest in textual criticisot 

Oltramarx, Hugues (Oltr.), 1813-1894; Professor at Geneva. 
Cammmiatre sur lEpUre aux Romains, published in iSdi, i88a 
(a volume on chaps, i-v. 11 had appeared in 1843). Resembling 
Godet in many particulars, Oltramare seems to us to have the 
stronger grip and greater individuality in exegesis, though the 
original views of which he is fond do not always conmiend them- 
selves as right 

MouLX, Rev. H. C. G. (Mou.); Principal of Ridley Hall, 
Cambridge. Mr. Moule's edition (in the Camhridgt BtbU for 
Schools) appeared in 1879. It reminds us of Dr. Vaughan's in 
its elegant scholarship and seeming independence of other com- 
mentaries, but it is fuller in exegesis. The point of view approaches 
as nearly as an English Churchman is likely to approach to Cal- 
vinism. Mr. Moule has also commented on the Epistle in Tkt 
Expositor's Bible. 

GiFFORD, Dr. £. H. (Gif.) ; sometime Archdeacon of London. 
The Epistle to the Romans in T7u Speakers Commenlary {iSSi) 
was contributed by Dr. Gifford, but is also published separately. 
We believe that this is on the whole the best as it is the most 
judicious of all English commentaries on the Epistle. There are 
few difficulties of exegesis which it does not fully face, and the 
solution which it offers is certain to be at once scholarly and well 
considered : it takes account of previous work both ancient and 
modern, though the pages are not crowded with names and 
references. Our obligations to this commentary are probably 
higher than to any other. 

LiDDON, Dr. H. P. (Lid.) ; Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's 
Epistle to the Romans, published posthumously in 1893, after being 
in an earlier form circulated privately among Dr. Liddon's pupils 
during his tenure of the Ireland Chair (1870-1882). Tht Analysis 
was first printed in 1876, but after that date much enlarged. It is 
what its name implies, an analysis of the argument with very full 
notes, but not a complete edition. It is perhaps true that the 
analysis is somewhat excessively divided and subdivided; in 
exegesis it is largely based on Meyer, but it shows everywhere the 
hand of a most lucid writer and accomplished theolofrian. 

i 10.] COMMENTARIES c!x 

Barmbt, Dr. James; formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield's 
Hall, Durham. Dr. Barmby contributed Romans to the Pulpii 
CammifUary {J^ndoTi, 1890); a sound, independent and vigorous 

Lipsius, Dr. R. A. (Lips.), 1830-1892 ; Professor at Jena. This 
most unwearied worker won and maintained his fame in other 
fields than exegesis. He had however written a popular com- 
mentary on Romans for iht Protesianienbibel {YA\gY\^\\ translation, 
published by Messrs. Williams ft Norgate in 1883), and he edited 
the same Epistle along with Galatians and Piiilippians in the 
Handccmmentar zum Neum Testament (Freiburg i. B., 1891). 
This is a great improvement on the earlier work, and is perhaps 
in many respects the best, as it is the latest, of German commen- 
taries; especially on the side of historical criticism and Biblical 
theology it b unsurpassed. No other commentary is so different 
from those of our own countrymen, or would serve so well to 
supplement their deficiencies. 

ScHAXFKR, Dr. A.; Professor at MUnster. Dr. Schaefer's Er- 
kldmng d. Brief et an die Romer (Mtinster i. W., 1891) may be 
taken as a specimen of Roman Catholic commentaries. It is 
pleasantly and clearly written, with fair knowledge of exegetical 
literature, but seems to us often just to miss the point of the 
Apostle's thought Dr. Schanz, the ablest of Roman Catholic 
ccmunentators, has not treated St. Paul's Epistles. 

We are glad to have been able to refer, through the kindness of 
a friend, to a Russian commentary. 

Thxophanks, ob. 1893 ; was Professor and Inspector in the 
St. Petersburgh Ecclesiastical Academy and afterwards Bishop of 
Vladimir and SuzdaL He early gave up his see and retired to 
a life of learning and devotion. His commentary on the Romans 
was published in 1890. He is described as belonging to an 
old and to a certain extent antiquated school of exegesis. His 
commentary b based mainly on that of Chrysostom. Theophanes 
has both the strength and weakness of his master. Like him he ii 
often historical in his treatment, like him he sometimes £uls to 
grasp the more profound points in the Apostle's teaching. 


EccksiasHeal Wnkn (i 

see p. 



Amb. . • • • 

• AmbrosCi 

Ambrstr. • • 

) ■ 

> • Ambrosiaster. 

Ath. . 

• Athanasius. 

Aug. • 

• Augustine. 

Bas. . 

I • < 

• • Basil. 


1 4 < 

« Chiysostom. 


• Clement of Alexandria. 


• Clement of Rome. 

Cypr. . 

• Cyprian. 

Cyr.-Alex. . 

» 1 

• Cyril of Alexandrim. 

C>T.-Jcrus, . 

. Cyril of Jerusalem. 


. Epiphanius. 

KU8. . 

> • Eusebius. 


• Eutliymius Zigabeoua. 

HippoL • 

• • Hippolytus. 

Ign. . . , 

• Ignatius. 

Jcr. (Hieron.) , 

• • Jerome. 

Jos. . 

• Josephus. 


• Methodius. 


• • Novatian. 

Oecum. • 

> • Oecumenius. 

Orig. . 

. • Origen. 

Orig.-lat . 

• Latin Version of Origen 


• Pelagius. 

Phot . 

. . Photius. 

Ruf. • 

» • Rufinus. 

ScduL . 

> • Sedulius. 

Tcrt . 

» • Terttillian. 

Theod.-Mopt. « 

• 1 

• Theodore of M(^)8iiessia. 

Theodrt • 

• 4 

» • Theodoret 

Theoph. • 



• Theophykct 


Vtrtimu (we p. Izvi £). 

AegyptL , 

» • • • • Egypdaiie 

Boh. . 

» • Bohairic 

Sah. . 

» • Sahidic 

Aeth. . 

» • Ethiopia 

Ann. • a 

^ • Armenian. 

Goth. . 

» • Gothic. 

Latt . 

• Latin. 

Lai. Ve 

t . 

• Vetus Latina. 

Vnlg. . 

• Vulgate. 

SjflT. • 

1 • Syriac. 

Peth. . 

• Peshitto. 


» • Harclean. 

Gov. . 

• Coverdale. 

Genev. . 

• Geneva. 

Rhem. . 

• Rheims (or Douay ;. 

Tjn. . 

^ . Tyndale. 

Wic . 

. Wiclif. 

AV. . 

• Authorized Versmn. 

RV. . . 

. Revised Version. 

Edilart (we p. cv 



. Teztus Receptus. 


, • Tischendorf. 


, . Tregelles. 


. Westcott and Hon. 

Alf. . 

, • Alford. 


» . BengeL 

DcL . 

• Delitzsch. 


. De Wette. 

EIL . 

. Ellicott. 

Fri. . 

. Fritzsche (C. F. A.)i 

Gi£ . 

. Giflford. 

Ga . 

. Godet. 

Lft. . 

. Lightfoot 

LkL . 

» • Liddon. 

lip*. . 

» • Lipsius. 

Mej. • 

• . Meyer. 

Mey.-W. , 

. Meyer-Weiiik 

Okr. . 

» • Oltramare. 

Vt. . 

1 • Vaughan. 




CJ.G. . . . • • 

Corpui Intcriptionum 



Corpus InscripHonum 


Grm.-Th»^. : • . . 

Grimm -Thayer's Lexi- 

Trench, Syn 

Trench on Synonyms. 


Winer's Grammar 



Journal of the Sociefy of 

Biblical Literature 

and Exegesis, 

Zw7\ , . • . • 

Zeitschrift fUr wis sen- 

scha/tliche Theologii, 

fpid. ^ • • . • • 

addit, addunt, kz. 

at. ..... . 

alii, alibi. 

cat, {caien,) 


codd, . % „ . • • 


edd. . . . , . . 

cditores. • • • • . 

editores priores (oldei 


omit tit, omittunty Ac. 

pane. •••.•• 






praem. • • • • • 

praemittit, praemittunt, 




«/3» 4/5. &€..••. 

twice out of three times, 

four out of five times, 


In text-critical notes adverbs (3w, semel, &c.), statistics (Vt, Vg) and 

cod, codd,^ ed. edd., &c., always qualify the word which precedes, not 

that which follows : ' Vulg. cadd! = some MSS. of the Vulgate, 

Epiph. cod, or Epiph. ed, =: a MS. or 

some printed edition of 


N.B. — TbA text oommented upon is that oommonly known as the 

BeviBers* Greek Text (i. e. the Greek Text presupposed in the Berised 

Version of 1881) published by the Clarendon Press. The few instances 

in which the editors dissent from this text 

are noted as they ooour. 





1. 1, 7. * Pauly a divinely chosen and accredited Apostle^ 
^ves Christian greeting to the Roman Churchy itself also 
divinely called. 

'Paul, a devoted servant of Jesus Christ, an Apostle called 
bj divine summons as much as any member of the original 
Twelve, solemnly set apart for the work of delivering God's 
message of salvation ; *Paul, so authorized and commissioned, 
gives greeting to the whole body of Roman Christians (whether 
Jewish or Gentile), who as Christians are special objects of the 
Divine love, called out of the mass of mankind into the inner 
society of the Church, consecrated to God, like Israel of old, as 
His own peculiar people. May the free unmerited favour of 
God and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him be 
jTOurs I May God Himself, the heavenly Father, and the Lord 
Jesus Messiah, grant them to youl 

I. 2-6. I preach, in accordance with our Jewish Scrip- 
tures, Jesus the Son of David and Son of God^ whose 
commission I bear, 

*The message which I am commissioned to proclaim is no 
startling novelty, launched upon the world without preparation, 
bat rather the direct fulfilment of promises which God had 
inspired the prophets of Israel to set down in Holy Writ 'It 
relates to none other than His Son, whom it presents in a twofold 
a!^)ect ; on the one hand by physical descent tracing His lineage 

* In thii ooe instance we haye Tentnred to break up the long and heayily- 
freif hted aeotence in the Greek, and to treat its two main divisions separately. 
Bot tlie second of these if not in the strict sense a parenthesis : the constnictioo 
•f tke iriMile panfiaph is continnovti 


to David, as the Messiah was to do, ^and on the other hand, i«*!i 
virtue of the Holiness inherent in His spirit, visibly designated or 
declared to be Son of God by the miracle of the Resurrection. He, 
I say, is the sum and substance of my message, Jesus, the Jew's 
Messiah, and the Christian's Lord. *And it was through Him that 
I, like the rest of the Apostles, received both the general tokens o( 
God's favour in that I was called to be a Christian and also the 
special gifls of an Apostle. *My duty as an Apostle is among 
all Gentile peoples, and therefore among you too at Rome, to win 
men over to the willing service of loyalty to Him ; and the end 
to which all my labours are directed is the honour of His Holy 

1-7. In writing to the Church of the imperial city, which he 
had not yet visited, St. Paul delivers his credentials with some 
solemnity, and with a full sense of the magnitude of the issues in 
which they and he alike are concerned. He takes occasion at 
once to define (i) his own position, (ii) the position of his readers, 
(iii) the central truth in that common Christianity which unites 

The leading points in the section may be summarized thus: 
(i) I, Paul, am an Apostle by no act of my own, but by th'* 
deliberate call and in pursuance of the long-foreseen plan of God 
(w. I, 7). (ii) You, Roman Christians, are also special objects of 
the Divine care. You inherit under the New Dispensation the 
ssune position which Israel occupied under the Old (w. 6, 7). 
(iii) The Gospel which I am commissioned to preach, though new 
in the sense that it puts forward a new name, the Name of Jesus 
Christ, is yet indissolubly linked to the older dispensation which 
it fulfils and supersedes (w. a, 7 ; see note on K\fjToU Ayiois), (iv) 
Its subject is Jesus, Who is at once the Jewish Messiah and the 
Son of God (w. 3, 4). (v) From Him, the Son, and from the Father, 
may the blessedness of Christians descend upon you (ver. 7). 

This opening section of the Epistle affords a good opportunity 
to watch the growth of a Christian Theology, in the sense of 
reflection upon the significance of the Life and Death of Christ 
and the relation of the newly inaugurated order of things to the 
old. We have to remember (i) that the Epistle was written about 
the year 58 a.d., or within thirty years of the Ascension; (a) that 
in the interval the doctrinal language of Christianity has had to 
be built up from the foundations. We shall do well to note which 
of the terms used are old and which new, and how far old terms 
have had a new face put upon them. We will return to this poin* 
at the end of the paragraph. 


L BouXoi 'l*)viMi XpiffTou : ioCXoc Btoi or Ku/uou is an Old Tesla- 
ment pbraie, applied lo the propliets in a body from Amos onwards 
(Am.iu.7; Jer. vii. 35 and repeatedly; Dan.ix.6; EzraiJt.ii); 
alio triih slight variations to Moses {$fpan4t« Josh. i. z), Joshua 
(Josh. xxiv. jj ; Jud, ii. 8), David (title of Ps, xiivi, [xitxv.]; Pss. 
Izxviil [ixxviij 70: Ixxxix. [Ixxxviii.] 4, ai ; also trait Kvpinv, title 
of Pa. x™i. [xvii.l), Isaiah (noit Is. xx. 3); but applied also to 
wors^iippers generally (Pss. xxxiv. [xxxiiL] »3 ; cxiii. [cxii.] i 
miitt: cxixvi [cxxxv.] 23 of Israel, Ac). 

Tbis is the first instance of a similar use in the New Testament ; 
it b found also in the greetings of Phil., Tit., Jas., Jude, a Pet., show- 
ing that as the Aposioiic age progressed the assumption of the title 
became established on a broad basis. But it is noticeable how 
quietly Sl Paul steps inio the place of the prophets and leaders of 
the Old Co^'enaot, and how quietly he subsliiuies the name of His 
own Master in a connexion hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah. 

1t|voC XpumiO. A imall quntiitn of reuluig arises here, which ii per- 
hipa ei taaiewhti more Importance Ihwi ma; ;i(>peir at iini tight In the 
epcsine rtne* of most of St. J'aul'i Episllei the MSS. vary between lijiroi 
Xpiimv and Xpiirroii l^miv. Thcie is also evidcnily a certain method in the 
nriatioo. The eiidence tlandi thua (where that on one >itii< on!}' ii given 
it may be aHUned that all remaining aulboriliei are on the other) ; — 

■ Then. L I Itfiitv XfHarf unqnnlioned, 

* Then. i. 1 'li)osC XfHffTf) Edd. 1 X^iirrf 'ti^irDu DEF^G, AmDcAl. 
(tiftd. BatlEriuii. 

GaL i. 1 'Iriaai Xftarov unqocstioued. 

I Cor. L I XpHTTw 'I1JO0C BDKl' G (7 a/, fane., Vulg. tedJ., Cbrys. 
Anbntr. Aog. leaul, Tisch . ^^'H. marj. 

• Cor.i. I Xf^DiwIqirini KBMP17 nor/., Hnid, Eutbal.rn/.Theodit 
T^dL WH. RV. 

Ram. 1. I Tptajoy 'lifuoi B, Votg. ttdd., Orig. iit {ttnira Oiig.-laL 6is) 

Aug. itmtl Amb. Atntnitr. ai. Lat., Ti»ch. WH. xtarg. 
Pba. L I X(>.ff>Ml V™ K K IJ E. "ol^. Tilth. WH. KV. 
Eph. L t Xp«>rw lijiTdi) UDtlPiT, Vnlg. cvdd. Ifoh. Goth. Hard, 

Orig. f«« Cfl/(n.) Jo.-DaiiiaK. Amtinlr., Tuch. WH. RV. 
CeL i. 1 X/i.«'<>£ Ineoi K A tl F C L P 17, Vnlg. ctdd. Boh. Hard., EuChaL 

Md- Io.-Daniaic. Ambnlr. Hicron. al.. Tiach. WH. RV. 
PbllciD- i. 1 Xf oToB I^BoI KAtWFCKPCA/ B), it. Bob., Hierou. 

{mtvid.) Ambratr. a^, Tlsch. WH. RV. 

■ Tin. L t XiMTmi 'Iqaoi M D F G P I.Jt/. Bi, Vulg. ctdd. Boh. Haicl , 

to-Damasc. Ambnir., Ti»ch. WH. RV. 
tTlin. L I XpoToC 'VoC KDEFGKP \di/. B) 17 «/.. Vnlg. cedJ. 
Boh. Sah. Hard., EnthiL <»/. Jo..Dama»c Amijistr. a/.. Tlsch. WH. 
Tit. L I tijaoC X/narov KI>>EFG &c.. Vnlg. iix&/, Goth. Pesh. Aim. 
Aetb., Chryj. Futhal. ad. Ambntr, (ed. iiallerio.) a/., Tiach. WH. 
(nrf X(ii»Tmi ['lijaoS] "arf) RV.; X/hotoi; ■iTaoC A au'iour. »■«, Vulg. 
ttdd. Boh, HaicL, CauioJ. ; ^aroC laHtum D—. 
It will be obHireii that the Epistles l>eing pUcci in a roughly chiono- 
logtaU order, those at ihc head of the list rend iiidnbitibly 'Ir/^rou XpiaraS 
(or X^vt£ , while iboae in the latter pan (with the ilagle ciceptioo of Til., 
•hkh Ii jndldouly tf««t«d by WH.) a* indobiiably read I^orn iTaoi. 


Tost about the group i and a Cor. Rom. there is a certain amomit ol 

Remembering the Western_element which enten into B in Epp. PanL. it 
looks as if the evidence for xv iu in Cor. Rom. might be entirely Western ; 
but that is not quite clear, and the readin^^ may possibly be right. In any 
case it wonld seem that jost about this time St. Pan! fell into the habit of 
writing Xpiordf ^Ifjcovt. The interest of this wonld lie in the &ct that in 
XpiorSff *Ii70-ovt the first word wonld seem to be rather more distinctly a 
proper name than in *lfj<r<nh Xpi<rr6s. No donbt the latter phrase is rapidly 
passing into a proper name, bnt X^or^ wonld seem to have a little of its 
sense as a title still cimging to it : the phrase would be in fiict transitional 
between Xpt<rr6s or 6 JLpiaris of the Gospels and the later TLptorbt lij^ovr or 
Z/NO-7^ simply as a proper name (see Ssnday, Bamptan Littufigs,jx aSof., 
and an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in Expos. 1888, i. 386 £t.). The 
subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction. 

kXt|t^ dir6<rroXo«. Kkrjats is another idea which has its roots in 
the Old Testament Eminent servants of God become so by an 
express Divine summons. The t3rpical examples would be 
Abraham (Gen. xii. 1-3), Moses (Ex. iii. 10), the prophets (Isa. vi. 
S> 9 f Jcr* i* 4i 5» ^c.)* The verb aaXrlv occurs in a highly typical 

passage, HoS. xi. I f$ AlyvTrrov fitrtKoXftra ra rtKva fuw. For the 

particular form icXi^rdr we cannot come nearer than the ' guests ' 
faXi^ro/) of Adonijah (i Kings i. 41, 49). By his use of the term 
St. Paul places himself on a level at once with the great Old 
Testament saints and with the Twelve who had been 'called' 
expressly by Christ (Mark i. 17; ii. 14 D)* The same combina- 
tion Kkrrr6v dn6<rr. occurs in I Cor. i. I, but is not used elsewhere 
by St. Paul or any of the other Apostles. In these two Epistles 
St Paul has to vindicate the parity of his own call (on the way 
to Damascus, cf. also Acts xxvi. 17) with that of the elder 

On the relation of MXijr^ to ixXtirrSt see Lft. on Col. iii. la. There is 
a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. In the Gospels 
MkfjToi are all who are invited to enter Christ's kingdom, whether or not they 
accept the invitation ; the UKtKToi are a smaller group, selected to special 
honour (Matt xxii. 14). In St Paul both words are applied to the 
same persons; ickqrSt implies that the call has been not only given but 

dir^oToXos. It is well known that this word is used in two 
senses ; a narrower sense in which it was applied by our Lord 
Himself to the Twelve (Luke vi. 13 ; Mark iii. 14 v. I.), and a wider 
in which it includes certainly Barnabas (Acts xiv. 4, 14) and 
probably James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 19), Andronicus and 
Junias (Rom. xvi. 7), and many others (cf. i Cor. xii. 28 ; Eph. 
iv. 11; DidacM xi, xii, Ac. ; also esp. Lightfoot, GaL p. 92 ff. ; 
Harnack in Texte u. Uniersuch, ii. 1 1 1 ff.). Stricdy speaking 
St Paul could only claim to be an Apostle in the wider accepta- 
don of the term ; he lays stress, however, justly on the fact that he is 
thrrhi aw6<rrokot, L e. not merely an Apostle by virtue of possessing 



>uch qualiGcadons as are described in Acts i. ai, ai, bal through 
a direct inlervention of Christ. At the same time it should be 
reroembeied iha.t St. Paul lays stress on this fact not with a view 
10 personal aggtancliictnent, but only with a view to commend his 
Gospel with the weight which he knows that it deserves. 

A^tipunUnt: in a double sense, by God (as in Gal. i. 15) and 
by man (Acts xiii. a). The first sense is most prominent here ; or 
niher it includes the second, which marks the historic rut61ment of 
the Divine purpose. The free acceptance of the human commis- 
sion may enable us to understand how there is room fot free will 
even m the working out of that which has been pre-ordained by 
God (see below on cb. xi). And yet the three terms, ftuij^oi. 
tkrrrii, aipvpuriiirat, aU serve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural 
doctrine that human ministers, even Apostles, are but instruments 
in the hand of God, with no iniiiative or merit of their own. 

Tbtt coDception it not confined to the CiDonical Booka ; it ii foond alio 
M Aatmf. Msyu i. 14 ilaqut ticoplavil 11 invmH mi, qui at inilit erbii 
Itrmmm fratfaralia lum, nt sim arbilir lutamtnli itlius. 

*i% cdayyAtoi' etov. The particular function for which St. Pauj 
is ' set apart ' is to preach the Gospel of God. The Gospiel ia 
■omeiimes described as ' of God ' and sometimes ' of Christ ' (e. g. 
M«rk i. i). Here, where the thought is of the gradual unfolding 
in time of a plan conceived in eternity, ' of God ' is liie more appro- 
priate. It is probably a mistake in these cases to restrict tbe force 
of the gen. to one particular aspect (' the Gospel of which God 
is the author,' or 'of which Christ is the subject'): all aspects are 
included in which the Gospel is in any way related to God and 

(OaYyAtof. The fundamental passage for the use of this word 
appears 10 be Mark i. 14, 15 (cf. Mail. iv. 33). We cannot doubl 
that our Lord Himself described by this term {or its Aramaic 
equimlcnt) His announcement of the arrival of the Messianic 
Time. It d-">es not appear to be borrowed directly from the LXX 
(where the word occurs in all only two [or three] times, and once for 
■ (he reward of good tidings ' ; the more common form is <uo77*Aio), 
It would seem, however, that there was some influence from the 
rather frequent use (twenty limes) of (ioyy-XiC"*, •iarr/i\i(ia6ai, 
especially in Second Isaiah and the Psalms in connexion with the 
new« of ihe Great Deliverance or Restoration from the Captivity. 
A conspicuous passage is Isa. Ixi. i, which is quoted or taken as 
a text in Luke iv. iS. The group of words is well established in 
Synoptic u^ge {i'unyyl\ui'; Maithew four limes, Matk eight. Acts 
two; **aT7<X.'f»<rS'^ Matthew one, Luke ten, Acts fifLeen;. It 
evideiuJy took a strong liold on ihe imagination of Sl Paul in 
with his own call to mi.-isionary labours (tvayyAioi' silt) 


times in Epp. Paal, besides in £pp. and Apoc. only twice ; c^- 
yt\iC«a6<u twenty times in Epp. Paul., besides once mid. seven times 
pass.). The disparity between St Paul and the other N. T. writert 
outside Ew. Synopt Acts is striking. The use of rvoyycAcov for 
a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday, Bamp. LecL p. 3i7ff.)i 
the way is prepared for it by places like Mark i. i ; Apoc. xiv. 6. 

2. irpoCTnr|YYC^<3iTO. The words rirayycXia, fnoyycXXro^ai OCCUr 

several times in LXX, but not in the technical sense of the greai 
'promises' made by God to His people. The first instance of 

this use is Ps* Sol, Xii. 8 koI 6aioi Kvpiov KkTjpovofAfi(Tattp arayytkiat 
Kvpiov : cf. vii. 9 rov fXtrjaai t6v oUop 'laxa)3 tit fifitpajf tv § imfyyfikt 
avTcis, and Xvii. 6 oU ovk imfyytiko^y firra filas a^ciXoyro : a grOUp of 

passages which is characteristic of the attitude of wistful expecta- 
tion in the Jewish people during the century before the Birth of 
Christ. No wonder that the idea was eagerly seized upon by the 
primitive Church as it began to turn the pages of the O. T. and to 
find one feature after another of the history of its Founder and of 
its own history foretold there. 

We notioe that in itrict accordance with what we may believe to have been 
the historical sequence, neither iwayytkia nor inayyiWtaOai (in the technical 
sense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke zxiv. 49, where I«a7- 
yt\ia is used of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit ; but we no sooner cross 
over to the Acts than the use becomes frequent The words cover {{) the 
promises made by Christ, in particular the promise of the Holy Spirit (which 
IS referred to the Father in Acu L 4) ; so inayytKia three times in the Acts, 
GaL iii. 14, and £ph. i. 13 ; (ii) the promises of the O. T. fulfilled in Chris- 
tianity; so lim77cXia four times in Acts (note esp. Acts ziii. 3a, xxvi. 0;, 
some eight times each in Rom. and Gal, both ivayytkia and kmyyiKktaStu 
repeatedly in Heb., 8cc ; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet 
fulfilled or unfulfilled, e.g. a Cor. i, ao oacu ydp iirayytkiai Stov (cf. »i. i) ; 
I Tim. iT. 8 ; a Tim. i. i ; a Pet iii. 4 1) iwayy€\ia r^s vapovaioK Jirrcv, 

Iv Ypa^ais dyiais : perhaps the earliest extant instance of the use 
of this phrase (Philo prefers UpaX ypa<l>al^ Itpal iSt'/SXoi, 6 Upht Xoyor: 
cf. Sanday, Bamp. LecL p. 72) ; but the use is evidently well estab- 
lished, and the idea of a collection of authoritative books goes 
back to the prologue to Ecclus. In ypa<paU 6yiait the absence of 
the art throws the stress on dylai^ ; the books are * holy ' as con- 
taining the promises of God Himself, written down by inspired 

men {dth t&v irpo(t)rjToi>» avTov), 

8. ycKOfi^Kou. This is contrasted with 6pta6(urot, ytyofUvov denot- 
ing, as usually, ' transition from one state or mode of subsistence 
to another ' (-5^. Comm, on i Cor. i. 30) ; it is rightly paraphrased 
' [Who] was born,' and is practically equivalent to the Johannean 

Ik onrlppaTos AaPiS. For proof that the belief in the descent of 
the Messiah from David was a living belief see Mark xii. 35 ff. 

Xryov(riy ol ypafiuartif ori 6 Xpioror vios ttm Ao^cd ; (cf. Mark 



n. lO and z. 47 f.) : also Pt. Sol. xvu. J3 ff. Xh, rCpu, «'■ dKionun* 

u nrl *Iirpni)X iriuAd ami c.rA, ; 4 Ezm lii. 3a (in three of the 
exUDlversions. Syr. Arab. Armen.); and the Talmud and Targumt 
(paS5>g«s in Weber, Allsyn. Thtol. p. 341). Our Lord Himself 
appru^ 10 have made liitle use of this liile : he raises a diOiculty 
about it (Mark xiL 35-3? 3)- ^"' ''^'^ verse of £p. to Romans 
shows thai Christians early pointed to His descent as fulfilling one 
of Uie conditions of Wessiahship ; similarly 3 Tim. ii. 8 (where the 
assertion is made a part of St. Paul's " Gospel ') ; Acts ii. 30 ; Heb. 
vti. 14 'ii Is evident that our Lord bath sprung out of Judah' (see 
also £113. H. E. \. vii. 17, Joseph and Mary from the same tribe). 
Neither St. Paul nor the Acta nor Epistle to Hebrews defines more 
nearly how ihe descent is traced. For this we have to go to 
the First and Third Gospels, the early chapters of which embody 
wholly di&tinct traditions, but both converging on this point. There 
is good reason to think that St. Luke i, ii had assumed substan- 
li^y its present shape before a.d. 70 (cT. Sweie, Apost. Creed, 

Is Tktl. XII. Pairiar<h. we lind tbe theorj of a double descent riom LctI 
•ud from Judah (Sym. 7 iyatrriiatt ^dp Kiiyaoi Ji ran Amtt in ipxi'pia lal J( 
TM IsMa in 0aoiXia, »tir «t! ir^ftan : G^. 8 Srvi Tifiif<rawiv louSar «aJ 
Anti- !ri i( airrSir duartXii Kipiat, Btiriif r^ 'lapo^X. &c. ; cf. Haniaek'l 
note, Fair. Afoil i. Jt]. Thic is do doubt an ioreieace from the itlmioailiip 
of the Motbcr of OUT Laid to Eliiabeih (Lake L 36). 

sarA oa'pxa . . . Kara icvtv^ are opposed to each other, not as 
bumao ' to ' divine,' bui as ' body ' to ' Bpirii,' both of which in 
Chris are human, tiiough the Holiness which is the abiding pro- 
perty of His Spirit is Bomelliing more than human. See on lura 

navfL Ayitta. below. 

4. ipirfrf^os : ' designated.' It is usual to propose for this 
word an allernative beiween (i) 'proved to be,' 'marked out as 
beioff ' (8«ix^>To(, onrKjatfli'mM Chfys.), and {ii) 'appointed,' ' in- 
Mituted,' ' installed,' in fact and not merely in Idea. For this latter 
sense (which is that adopted by most modem commentators} tJie 
porallela are quoted. Acts z. 4a sfroc imn & iipianirot Iwi roi) Btoi 

*titT^ (iMTvy «al HKpioi; and svii. 31 ^'XXn tplmt . , . ir ai'ipi if 

ifn*. The word itself does not determine the meaning eithei 
way : it must be determined by the contest. But here the particular 
coaiexi is also neutral ; so that we must look to the wider context 
of Sl Paul's teaching generally. Now it is certain that St, Paul 
did not hold that the ?on of God beeamt Son by the Resurrection 
The undoubied Ejjisiles are cldr on this point (esp. a Cor. iv. 4 ; 
nil. 9 ; cf. CoL i. I5-I9y. At the same time he did regard the 
Rewifrection as making a difference — if not in the transcendental 
relation* of the Father \a Uie Son (which lie beyond our cogni- 


sance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to 
the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil. ii. 9 di^ ml 6 Bt^s oMv 

VR-fpi^ciMrc, ical c'xuptVaro avr^ r6 Svoixa t6 xmip wa» ivoiu^ This IS 

sufficiently expressed by our word 'designated/ which might 
perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Ai^ 
It is true that Christ becomes Judge in a sense in which He does 
not become Son ; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external 
creation but by an inherent right. The Divine declaration, as it 
were, endorses and proclaims that right. 

The Latin yersions are not yery helpful. The commoo rendering wms 
praedestinatus (so expressly Rnfinns [Orig.-lat.] ad Ice, ; ct Introd. § 7). 
Hilary of Poitien has destinaius, wluch Rnfinns also prefers. TertidUan 
reads definitus, 

uloC ecou. ' Son of God/ like ' Son of Man/ was a recognized 
title of the Messiah (cf. Enoch cv. 2 ; 4 Ezra vii. 28, 29 ; xiii. 32, 
37, 52 ; xiv. 9, in all which places the Almighty speaks of the 
Messiah as * My Son/ though the exact phrase ' Son of God * does 
not occur). It is remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely 
find it used by our Lord Himself, though in face of Matt, xxvii. 43, 
John X. 36, cf. Matt. zxi. 37 f. a/., it cannot be said that He did 
not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made 
upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mark iiL 11, v. 7 | ; the cen- 
turion, Mark xv. 39 o), and it is implied by the words of the 
Tempter (Matt iv. 3, 6 n) and the voice from heaven (Mark 
i. II II, ix. 7 B)* The crowning instance is the confession of 
St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Lcgia, 
* Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God/ Matt. xvi. 16. It 
is consistent with the whole of our Lord's method that He should 
have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims, and that 
He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spon- 
taneous working of the minds of His disciples. Nor is it sur- 
prising that the title should have been chosen by the Early Church 
to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of 
Christ : see esp. the common text of the Gospel of St. Mark, L i (where 
the words, if not certainly genuine, in any case are an extremely 
early addition), and this passage, the teaching of which is very 
direct and explicit. The further history of the term, with its 
strengthening addition /Aovoyrv^f, may be followed in Swete, Apast 
Creed, p. 24 ff., where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of 
Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed. 
In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates 
from the Resurrection: but we have also seen that St. Paul re- 
garded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation; 
and it is as certain that when he sp)eaks of Him as 6 Sdtof vl&t 
(Rom. viii. 32), 6 iavrov vl6s (viii. 3), he intends to cover the period 
of pre-existence, as that St. John identifies the i»owoy€viis with the 


ps«-«zistent Logos. There is no sufficient reason to think thai 
the Early Church, so far as il reQecied upon these icnna, under- 
stood them differently. 

Thete are Ihiec momcDts 10 eich of which ate ipplicd with Tiriitioiu ifac 
vofdi of Pt. li. 7 ■ Tbon ait my Son ; thii day bave 1 bcgoltca Ibee.' Thcj 
uc ("0 «1>» Baptism (Mark 1. [ 1 |) ; (il) the Tranilifnration tMiil: ii. 7 O I 
(iii) (he Rccarrcction (Acts liii. 33). We can tee bete the oripiii of the Ebio- 
nile Idea of pmi^tetuTe cxaltatloD, which ia howercr held la check by the 
docrrise of [be Logoi in both Iti foims, Panliiie (i Cor. ir. 4,&c, tii mf.) 
mad Johanneaa (Joho L i S.). The momtnts ui tjuEacion aie so maoy BtcpB 
Id Ibe puuge through «i earthlj' life of One who came foith from God and 
retumed to Cod, oot stages in the giidual deification of one who be);>n hii 
caieer u |(<Am drtpatwm. 

ir Sur^t : not wiih uioC Biov, as Wciss, Lips, and others, ' Son 
of God in pmufr' opposed to the present stale of humiliaiion, but 
raifaef adverbially, qualifying 4p"tA'itoc, 'declared wiih nii^'ht to be 
Son of God.' The Resurrection is regarded as a 'miracle' or 
■ ttgnal roanirestation of Divine Power.' Comp. esp. j Cor. xiii. 4 
tarttvpit^it »■{ mrfltMi'qt, liXXi ^, <V hvvifitv% BtoC. This parallel de- 
termines the connexion of i* Ivr. 

mTA wv<ii[ia h.>(\ttairt^<i : not (i) = nwC/io'Ayioi', thc Third Person 
in the Trinity (as the Pairisiic writers generally and some moderns), 
because the aniitl)esis of a<ipf and nwifio requires that ihey shall 
be in the same person ; nor (ii), with Beng. and oLher moderns 
(even Lid.t= thc Divine Nature in Christ as if the Human Nature 
were coextensive with the cofif and the Divine Nature were co- 
extensive with the mtiiia, which would be very hke the error of 
Apollinaris; but (iii) the human isttl^a, like the human trajif. 
distinguished however from thai of ordinary hum.miiy by an 
exceptiotial and transcendent Holiness (cf. Heb. ii. 17; iv. 13 'It 
behoved Kim in all things to be made like utito His brethren . . 
yet without tin '). 

It^imvi^ Dot fomid In profane liCeratnie, occnn thiee timn in LXX of 
the PMlmi, not alwayi io agreement (nib Heb. (Pn. icv. 6 [icri, 6 
•Mfenph'I: icTi. 11 [icvii, n 'holy name.' lit. 'memorial']; caliv. 5 
[«]*. 5 'hoaour']). Id all Ihiec placet il it nied of the Divine at'riliuic; 
bet in 1 M»c«, Hi. u we hare 4 eoS tarou d-yniiaiM). In Tul. XJl. Pair. 
Levi 18 the ideiiticil phrase mvfi. dTiaw. occun of ibe taints in Paradise. 
The paisagc it Christian In iti character, but may belong to the Original 
work (ad ii in any caw probably early. If so, (he me of the phiaic is so 
difltrBTl from thai in the teit. thai the presamption voold be that It was not 
oMOed for the first time by St. PanL The same instance wonld ihow (hat 
ifae pbrate doei nol of iticU and alone neceiaarily imply diTiitity. The 
nii'iiB <t->>«Tvi'Tii, though not the Divine niture, is that in which ihe Divinity 
or Divine Persorjalily resided. The clear Helinition of thii point was one of 
tbr lul mull* of ihe Chn^lolo^'ii^al conlrovcr^ies of the hfib and sixth 
eouaiiei 'Loufi, Otgwimgtttk. i 39, 31. For i-jtam. see od 07101 ver. 7. 

i{ Araffrdffcwf rtufitv : a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ. 
His was not a ' resurrectioD of dead persons ' (' ajenrisynge of dead 


men' Wic.) bat of a single dead person. We might expect rather 
9€Kpov or cV v€Kpav (as in i Pet. i. 3) ; and it is probable that this 
form is only avoided because of c^ diwrrda-^ns coming just before. 
But ptKp&p coalesces closely in meaning with draor., so as to give it 
very much the force of a compound word, 'by a dead-rising' 
{TodieTuuiferstehung)^ ' a resurrection such as that when dead per* 
sons rise.' Christ is ' the first-born from the dead' (CoL I 18). 

Tou Kuptou V||iu>K. Although in O. T. regularly applied to God 
as equivalent of Adonaiy Jakoeh^ this word does not in itself 
necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah 

(Mark xii. 36, 37 D ; Ps, SoL xvii. 36 iSao-iXcvc mnSiv xpvrrhi fcvpux) 

without thereby pronouncing Him to be 'God'; they expressly 
distinguished between the Messiah and the Memra or ' Word ' of 
Jehovah (Weber, Alisyn, TheoL p. 178). On the lips of Christians 
Kvp«of denotes the idea of ' Sovereignty/ primarily over themselves 
as the society of believers (CoL i. 18, &c.), but also over all creation 
(Phil. ii. 10, II ; Col. L 16, 17). The title was given to our Lord 
even in His lifetime (John xiii. 13 'Ye call me, Master (6 Ma- 
QKxxkoi)^ and, Lord (6 Kuptor) : and ye say well ; for so I am '), but 
without a full consciousness of its significance : it was only after 
the Resurrection that the Aposdes took it to express their central 
belief (Phil. ii. 9 (F., &c.). 

6. IXdPof&cK. The best explanation of the plur. seems to be that 
St. Paul associates himself with the other Aposdes. 

X<ipi« is an important word with a distinctively theological use 
and great variety of meaning: (i) objectively, 'sweetness,' 'at- 
tractiveness,' a sense going back to Homer (Od, viii. 175); Ps. zlv. 

(xliv.) 3 ifyyfvQ^ X^P^s ^ X'(Xc<r/ O'ovl £ccl. X. 12 \6yoi arofutras 

tnxfxiv xap*f» Luke iv. 22 \6yoi x^p"^ • (a) subjecdvely 'favour,' 
'kindly feeling,' 'good will,' especially as shown by a superior 
towards an inferior. In Eastern despotisms this personal feeling 
on the part of the king or chieftain is most important : hence 
fvpilp x^P*" is the commonest form of phrase in the O. T. (Gen. 
vi. 8 ; xviii. 3, Ac) ; in many of these passages (esp. in anthropo- 
morphic scenes where God is represented as holding colloquy 
with man) it is used of ' finding favour ' in the sight of God. Thus 
the word comes to be used (3) of the ' favour ' or ' good will ' 
of God ; and that (a) generally, as in Zech. xii. 10 fKx*» . . iri'f Ofui 
xdpiTos Koi ohcripfiov^ but far more commonly in N. T. (Luke iL 40 ; 
John i. 14, 16, Sec); (3) by a usage which is specially characteristir 
of St. Paul (though not confined to him), with opposition to 
6<f>tiKfjfjM, ' debt * (Rom. iv. 4), and to ?pya, * works ' (implying merit, 
Rom. xi. 6), 'unearned favour' — with stress upon the fact that 
it is unearned, and therefore as bestowed not upon the righteous 
but on sinners (cf. esp. Rom. v. 6 with v. 2). In this sense the 
word takes a prominent place in the vocabulary of Justification. 


(4) The cause being pui Tor the effect x^f^ denotes (a) • ihe slate 
of greet or favour' which the Christian enjoys (Rom. v. a), or 
(a), like ;t<ip<(rpi. any particular gift or gifts of grace (nX^pijt x"*"™« 
Acts vL 8), We note however that the later technical use, esp, 
of the Latin gratia, for the Divine prompting and help which 
precedes and accompanies right action does not correspond exactl}' 
10 the usage of N. T. (5) As x^P" or 'kindly feeling' in the 
donor evotes a corresponding x^p'' or ' gratitude ' in ibe recipient 
it comes to mean simply ■ thanks' (i Cor. x, 30). 

xipir here = that general favour which the Ap. shares with all 
Christians and by virtue of which he is one ; dwoinoX^r = the mom 
peculiar gifts of an Apostle. 

We observe that St. Paul regards this spiritual endowment as 
confened upon bim by Christ (V oi) — we may add, acting through 
His Spirit, as the hke gifts are described elsewhere as proceeding 
from the Spirii (i Cor. xii, Ac). 

(It hra«of|f niirrcwt : may be rendered with Vulg. ad obedimdum 
fidti provided thai vurr. is not hardened too much into the sense 
which it afterwards acquired of a ' body of doctrine ' (with art. 
rj ctorii Jude 3). At this early dale a body of formulated doctrine, 
though it is rapidly coming to exist, does not siill exist: nlam 
is nil. what it is predominantly to St. Paul, the lively act or impulse 
at adhesion to Christ. In confessing Christ the lips ' obey ' this 
impuliw of the bean (Rom. x. 10). From another point of view, 
going a step funher back, we may speak of 'obeying ihp Gosper 
(Ren. z. iti). Faith is the act of assent by which the Gospel is 
appropriated. See below on ver. 17, 

iw wotfi Toij iivtuiv. Gif. argues for the rendering ' among all 
natioat' on ilie ground that a comprehensive address is best suited 
to the opening of the Epistle, and to ihe proper meaning of the 
phrase itnrra TO M«) (cf. Gen. xviii. 18, Ac). But St, Paul's com- 
mission as an Apostle was specially to the GenliUt (Gal. ii. 8), and it 
n DiDrc pointed 10 tell the Roman Christians that they thus belong 
to his special province (ver. 6)^ than to regard ihem merely as one 
among the ma^-s of nations. This is also clearly the sense in which 
the word is used in ver. 13. Cf. Hon. Rom. arid Epk. p. 31 f. 

inXp TOO dniiuxTot nuToO. This IS rather more than simply 'for 
His glory." 'The idea goes back to the O. T. (Ps, cvi, [cv.] 8; 
Efk. XX. 14; Mai. i. 11). The Name of God is intimately 
d with the revelation of God Israel is the instrument or 
r of that revelation ; so ihst by the fidelity of Israel the 
Kveiadon it»elf is made more imjjressive and commended in the 
eyes of other nations. But the Christian Church is the new Israel : 
and hence tlie gaming of fresh converts and their fidelity when 
gained serves in like manner to commend the further revelation 
made 61 God in Christ (ovrov, cf. Acts v. 41 ; Phil. ii. 9). 


e. h ots : not merely in a geographical sense of a Jewish com- 
munity among Gentiles, but clearly numbering the Roman Church 
among Gentile communities. 

kXtitoI 'lT|aoC XpurroC: 'called ones of Jesus Christ': gen. of 

7. iv 'P^pD : om. G g, ScAol. cod, 47 {t6 iv 'P^fiff oifrt h rf 4(riyriatt 

olht f¥ rf p^r^ fjLyrffiovtvtL, i. e. some commentator whom the Scholiast 
had before him). G reads ira<n rols cZfriv cV ayann Btov (similarly 
d* Vulg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. seem to imply 

ira<r« rol^ oZ<rt» i» *P<0M27 *^ ayaiqj 6cov). The Same MS. OmitS role 

h 'P^fiji in ver. 15. These facts, taken together with the fluc- 
tuating position of the final doxology, xvi 25-27, would seem 
to give some ground for the inference that there were in circulation 
in ancient times a few copies of the Epistle from which all local 
references had been removed. It is however important to notice 
that the authorities which place the doxology at the end of ch. xiv 
are quite different from those which omit tv *P»/ji27 here and in 
ver. 15. For a full discussion of the question see the Introduction, 


kXtitois dyiois. KX?n^ Ayla represents consistendy in LXX the 
phrase which is translated in AV. and RV. *an holy convocation' 
(so eleven times in Lev. xxiii and £x. xii. 16). The rendering ap- 
pears to be due to a misunderstanding, the Heb. word used being one 
with which the LXX translators were not familiar. Whereas in 
Heb. the phrase usually runs, ' on such a day there shall be a holy 
convocation,' the LXX treat the word translated convocation as an 
adj. and make 'day' the subject of the sentence, 'such a day 
(or feast) shall be kKtitti Ayia, i.e. specially appointed, chosen, 
distinguished, holy (day).' This is a striking instance of the way 
in which St. Paul takes a phrase which was clearly in the first 
instance a creation of the LXX and current wholly through 
it, appropriating it to Christian use, and recasts its mean- 
ing, substituting a theological sense for a liturgical. Obviously 
KkriToif has the same sense as KXrtr^s in ver. i : as he himself was 
* called ' to be an Apostle, so all Christians were * called * to be 
Christians; and they personally receive the consecration which 
under the Old Covenant was attached to ' times and seasons.' 

For the following detailed statemen** of the evidence respecting cXiyrJ^ Ayia 
we arc indebted to Dr. Driver : — 

MkrfHi corresponds to ^^, from ^"^^ to call, a technical term almost 
wholly confined to the Priests* Code, denoting apparently a special religions 
meeting, or ' convocation,' held on certain sacred days. 

It is represented by xAi/n;, Ex. xii. 16 b; Lev. xxiii. 7, 8, 27, 35, 36; 
Num. xxviii. 25. Now in all these passages, where the Heb. has *am such 
a day there shall be a holy convocation/ the LXX have ' such a day shall 
be KktfHi dyla,' i.e. they alter the form of the sentence, make day subject, 
and use tcktrrfi with its proper force as an adj. 'shall be a calUd (i.e 


■ <pcd>tlj appoinled, cht»eo, dininguisbed *), Atfy (dif) ' ; c)L «A. in //. is. 
l6j >oiI Rom. 1. I. Tbr7 read uialogoD&lr with K^i^D in Lev. iiiii. i ol 
JepnJ nyi'ov, li (ii>,j«it< ovtcIi cATTiif d7iai {ct. t. 371, ji cai laXietrt 
rBVTiTT tV W?a» «*7r^»* iyia tuToi iiur. In Lt». ixiii. 3 [cf. T. 14), 
sAqr^ iyr'a mnii !o be in tppoiition with itifiavirii. The nssge of «X7ril 
in Ler. xxiii is, boiteTer, inch u [o inggeiL that it wu probably fell to 
have the foioi of a lubit. (ic 4/iJpa) ; cf. J>f«A7T«. 

TTiia view of ■>.. ii rapported by their rendering of Vr\l^ elsewbere. In 
Ex. lii. 16 a, Le*. xiiiL 4 they also alter tbe luim of tbe wntence, and 
lender it by a ctrt, nAi^inrai iyia. and dYioi coXladi respectively. 

In Noa. xiTili, 18, a6 (m( rp iJ^Jpf t£v !■/»* .... iwi'ji^ijTot ifia tarm 
ffuV: timilaily ixix. t, 7, 11), they express it by InliArfTn {the same won] 
■^"l C4 4p'f 4 f^l lirf(Ai7TDi dint (OTiu £|iiV) (f. L 16 J uvi. 9, foi the 
ordinary partic. calliJ, mmmaind), Le. I nippoK in the same leaw of 
qxcially appointed |ct Josh, ii, 9 a) »lA«ii ol im'rtijToi loit ulnii 'lr7/joi)A), 

Is. L 13 ' tbe calling of a ccnvocalion ' it reprnenled in LX.K by /n^ipar 
prii*.ll», and i*. 5 ' all her coDTOCationt ' by to iifp<(i<jiAti airiji ocean to roe that tbe LXXwerenolfimiliBr with tbe term 
inpO, am) did not know what it meant. I think it probable that tbey pro- 
BODDoed II not aa a sobit. K^^, but u a partiHpU '^'^9 (' <^^ *)■ 

Aywiv. The history of this word would seem to be very parallel 
to that of nXiiTutt. It is more probable that its meanit^g developed 
by a process of deepening from without inwards than by extension 
from within outwards. lis connotation would seem to have been 
It first physical and ceremonial, and to have become gradually 
more and more ethical and spiritual, (i) The fundamental idea 
appears to be that of ' separation.' So the word ' holy ' came 
to be applied in all the Semitic languages, {%) to thai which was 
' set apart ' for the service of God, whether things {e. g. i Kings vii. 
5' [37])o''PC'"sons(e.g.Ex. MIL. 31 [29]). Bui (3) inasmuch as 
that which was so ' set apart ' or ' consecrated ' lo God was required 
to be free from blemish, the word would come to denote ' freedom 
from blemish, spot, or stain" — in the first instance physical, but 
by degrees, as moral ideas ripened, also moral. (4) At first the 
idea of ' holiness,' whether physical or moral, would be dirccdy 
associated with the service of God. but it would gradually become 
detached from this connexion and denote ' freedom from blemish, 
spot, or stain,' in itself and apart from any particular destination. 
In this sense it might be applied even to God Himself, and we 
find it so applied even in the earliest Hebrew literature (e, g. 
■ Sam, vi. ao). And in proportion as the conception of God itself 
becaine elevated and purified, the word which expressed this 
central attribute of His Being would contract a meaning of more 
Kvere and awful purity, till at last it becomes the culminaiing 
and supreme expression for the very essence of the Divine Nature. 
When once this height had been reached the lense so acquired 

* Bid {L»x. m LXX.) dtes from PbaTorinu tbe gloss, ak., 4 JHoAtn^ mi 4 


would be reflected back over all the lower uses, and the tendency 
would be more and more to assimilate the idea of holiness in 
the creature to that of holiness in the Creator. This tendency 
is formulated in the exhortation, * Ye shall be holy ; for I, the 
Lord your God, am holy ' (Lev. xix. a, Ac). 

Such would appear to have been the history of the word up to 
the time when St. Paul made use of it He would find a series of 
meanings ready to his hand, some lower and some higher ; and he 
chooses on this occasion not that which is highest but one rather 
midway in the scale. When he describes the Roman Christians as 
^04, he does not mean that they reflect in their persons the attri- 
butes of the All-Holy, but only that they are * set apart ' or * conse- 
crated ' to His service. At the same time he is not content to rest 
in this lower sense, but after his manner he takes it as a basis or 
starting-point for the higher. Because Christians are * holy ' in the 
sense of * consecrated,* they are to become daily more fit for the 
service to which they are committed (Rom. vi. 17, 18, 22), they are 
to be 'transformed by the renewing* of their mind (Rom. xii. a). 
He teaches in fact implicitly if not explicitly the same lesson as 
St. Peter, * As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves also 
holy in all manner of living (AV. conversation); because it is 
written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy ' (i Pet i. 15, 16). 

We note that Ps, SoL had already described the Messianic 

people as Xa^r Sytov {koL avud(fi \a6v iyiov, ot a^rjyrja-frai iv ddcaMxrvyg 

xvii. 28; cf. Dan. vii. 18-27; ^^^^' ^4)* Similarly Enoch ciii. 2; 
cviii. 3, where * books of the holy ones = the roll of the members 
of the Kingdom * (Charles). The same phrase had been a designa- 
tion for Israel in O. T., but only in Deut (vii. 6 ; xiv. 2, 21 ; xxvi. 
19; xxviii. 9, varied from Ex. xix. 6 tBvos 6yiov), We have thus 
another instance in which St. Paul transfers to Christians a title 
hitherto appropriated to the Chosen People. But in this case the 
Jewish Messianic expectation had been beforehand with him. 

There is a certain element of conjecture in the abore sketch, which is 
Inevitable from the fact that the earlier stages in the history of the word had 
been already gone through when the Hebrew literature begins. The instances 
above given will show this. The main problem is how to account for the 
application of the same word at once to the Creator and to His creatures, 
both things and persons. The common view (accepted also by Delitzsch) is 
that in the latter case it means ' separated * or ' set apart ' for God, and in 
the former case that it means ' separate from evil * {sejunctus ah omni vitU, 
labis expert). But the link between these two meanings is little more than 
verbal ; and it seems more probable that the idea of holiness in God, whether 
in the sense of exaltedness (Baudissin) or of purity (Delitzsch\ is derivative 
rather than primary. There are a number of monographs on the subject, of 
which perhaps the best and the most accessible is that by Fr. Delit&Krh 
in Hei log's /^etU-Encyklopadie, ed. a, s. v. ' Heiligkeit Gottes.' Instruc- 
tive discussions will be found in Davidson, Ezekiel^ p. zxxix. 1 ; Robertson 
Smith, Religion of the Semites^ pp. 13a ff., 140 (140 n., 150 ed. a) ; Schultx, 
Thsology of the Old Testament, iL 131, 167 ff. A treatijc or Dr. J. Agaf 


Beet !■ QQ a good method, but it fomewhat affected by critical qaestioni •• 
to the lequence of the documents. 

There is an interesting progression in the addresses of St. Paul s 

Epp. : I, 8 ThesS. GaL r^ cVxXi^o-i^ {rcuv tKKKrialcut)', I, a Cor. r^ 
fiocX. -f VMf Ayiou ; I Cor. Rom. KkrfroU Syiois ; Rom. Phil, naai ToU 
iyioit ; £ph. Col. roU Ayiois xai niaroU. 

The idea of the local Church, as a unit in itself, is more promi- 
nent in the earlier Epp.; that of individual Christians forming part of 
the great body of believers (the Church Catholic) is more prominent 
\n the later. And it would be natural that there should be some 
SQch progression of thought, as the number of local churches multi- 
plied, and as the Apostle himself came to see them in a larger 
perspective. It would however be a mistake to argue at once 
from this that the use of tmckriaia for the local Church necessarily 
came first in order of time. On the other side may be urged the 
usage of the O. T., and more particularly of the Pentateuch, where 
iKKkfiala constantly stands for the religious assembly of the whole 
people, as well as the saying of our Lord Himself in Matt, xv: iC 
But the question is too large to be argued as a side issue. 

Rudolf Sohm*8 elaborate Kirchenrecht (Leipzig, 189a) starts from the 
assumption that the prior idea is that of the Church as a whole. But just 
this part of his learned work has by no means met with general acceptance. 

X^pif ftol cipi^KT|. Observe the combination and deepened re- 
ligious significance of the common Greek salutation x^^P^^^j ^^^ 
the cc»nmon Heb. salutation Shalom, * Peace/ x^P^^ ^"^ tlpjjvri are 
both used in the full theological sense : x^P^^ = ^he favour of God 
fifftjjwfi = the cessation of hostility to him and the peace of mind 
which follows upon it. 

There are four formulae of greeting in N. T. : the simple 
xcupciir in St. James; x°P*f *«* tipriur) in Epp. Paul, (except i, 2 Tim.) 
and in I, a St. Peter; x«P*f» ?Aeof, tlpi^vr) in the Epistles to Timothy 
and a Sl John ; IXcoc Koi uprivij Koi dydirrj in St. Jude. 

clp^m|. We have seen how x^p^f had acquired a deeper sense in 
N. T. as compared with O. T. ; with ttpfjini this process had taken 
place earlier. It too begins as a phrase of social intercourse, 
marking that stage in the advance of civilization at which the 
assumption that every stranger encountered was an enemy gave 
place to overtures of friendship (Elpfjvrf aoi Jud. xix. 20, Sec). But 
the word soon began to be used in a religious sense of the cessation 
of the Divine anger and the restoration of harmony between God 

and man (Ps. XZix. [xxviii.] 11 Kvpios tvXoyr^ati t6v Xa^y avrnv iy 
tip^ ' IxZXV. [Ixxxiv.] 8 XaX^(rci flprivrjv cVl tov \a6» avrov I ibid. 10 
iucmoarvrri «u tlpriwri icaT€<l>tkTjaap : cxix. [cxviii.] 165 tlprpfrj noWfj toIs 
mytmrno't r^ pd/iop : Is. liii. 5 irai^tia tlprivrjt ripMv cir* axn6v : Jer. xlv. 
13 SkSlBmwf mH flfnfvtip dwr» tn\ r^f yrjs : £zek XXXiv. 25 diaOrfo-ofiai 


n^ Aovid dio^injy fipfiurjs [cf. xxxvii. 26]. Nor is this use confined 
to the Canonical Scriptures : cf. Enoch v. 4 (other refif. in Charles, 
ad ioc,); Jubilees i. 15, 29 ; zxii. 9; xxxiii. 12, 30, Ac. ; it was one 
of the functions of the Messiah to bring ' peace ' (Weber, Alisyn. 
Thiol 1^. 362 f.). 

The nearest parallel for the use of the word in a salutation as here Is 
Dan. iii. 98 [31]; ir. 54 (LXX); iii. 98 [31]; Ti. 25 (Theodot.) cI/wJm; iiu9 

dir6 6cou irarp^s VjfiuiK ical Kupiou 'ifiaou Xpurrou. The juxta- 
position of God as Father and Christ as Lord may be added to the 
proofs already supplied by w. i, 4, that St. Paul, if not formally 
enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which 
cannot really be distinguished from it. The assignment of the 
respective titles of * Father ' and * Lord ' represents the first begin- 
ning of Christological speculation. It is stated in precise terms 
and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate prepositions 

in I Cor. viii. 6 d\\* rifuu th Qf6s 6 narripy t( ol r^ ndtrrOf kcu ^fult tU 
avT6vf Ka\ tls Kvptov *lTj<yov$ Xptards, di' o^ ra ndvra, Koi fiptls di* ovrov. 

The opposition in that passage between the gods of the heathen 
and the Christians' God seems to show that 4/ia>y = at least primarily, 
* us Christians ' rather than ' us men.' 

Not only does the juxtaposition of * Father* and * Lord ' mark 
a stage in the doctrine of the Person of Christ ; it also marks an 
important stage in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is 
found already some six years before the composition of £p. to 
Romans at the time when St Paul wrote his earliest extant Epistle 
(i Thess. i. i ; cf. 2 Thess. i. 2). This shows that even at that 
date (a. D. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. It 
is well also to remember that although in this particular verse of 
£p. to Romans the form in which it appears is incomplete, the 
triple formula concludes an Epistle written a few months earlier 
(2 Cor. xiii. 14). There is nothing more wonderful in the history 
of human thought than the silent and imperceptible way in which 
this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle and 
without controversy among accepted Christian truths. 

irarp^s i^fiwK. The singling out of this title must be an echo of 
its constant and distinctive use by our Lord Himself. The doctrine 
of the Fatherhood of God was taught in the Old Testament (Pa. 
Ixviii. 5; Ixxxix. 26; Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixiii. 16; Ixiv. 8; Jer. 
xxxi. 9; Mai. i. 6; ii. 10); but there is usually some restriction or 
qualification — God is the Father of Israel, of the Messianic King, of 
a particular class such as the weak and friendless. It may also be 
said that the doctrine of Divine Fatherhood is implicitly contained 
in the stress which is laid on the * loving-kindness ' of God (e. g. in 
such fundamental passages as Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7 compared with Ps. 
ciiL 13). But this idea which lies as a partially developed germ Id 


the Old Teitunent breaks into full bloom in the New. It it 
pUced by our Lord Himself in the fore-froni of the conception of 
God. li takes however a iwo-fold ramificaiioii ; o irnr^p uuJiv [S^i*. 
aav, ovTw] (e. g. twenty times in St. Matt,), and i nan)p iu>v [6 tntr^p] 
{e.g. twenty-three times in St. Matt.}. In particular this second 
phrase marks the distinction between the Son and the Father ; so 
thai when ihe two are placed in juxtaposition, as in the greeting of 
ibis and other Epistles, A aarw is the natural term lo use. The 
mere fact of juxtaposition sufficiently suggests the narfifi ni Ku/iiov 
Jiiimr 'l^mi XfxoTou (which is expressed in full in 3 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 
3; CoL 1.3; cf. Rom. XV. 6; 3 Cor. xi. 31, but not Eph. iii. 14; CoL 
u. a); >o that the Apostle widens the reference by throwing in 
if, to bring out the connexion between the source of ' grdce and 
peace' and its recipients. 

It is no doubt true that nariip is occasionally used in N. T. in the 
more general sense of 'Creator' (James i. 17 'Father of lights,' 
I L e. in the first instance, Creator of the heavenly bodies ; Heb. xii. 9 
I 'Father of spirits'; cf. Acts xvii, 26, but perhaps not £]>h. iv. 6 
W..r, where «««■■» may be tnasc). It is true also that i 
r dXw in this sense is common in Philo. and ihai similar 
phrases occur in the early poat-apostoiic writers (e. g. Clem. Rom. 
mJ Ctr. xix. a ; Justin, Apel. i. 36, 61 ; Talian. Or. e. Grate. 4), 
But when Harnack prefers to give this interpretation to Paler in 
the earliest creeds (Dai Apost. GlauiaisitAermtniis, p. 10), the 
immeRse preponderance of N. T. usage, and the certainty that the 
Creed is based upon that usage (e. g. in 1 Cor. viii. 6) seem 10 be 
decisive against him. On the early history of the term see egp. 
Swete, Afioit. Creed, p. ao ff. 

TAr Theological Terminology of Rom. i. 1-7. 

iking back over these opening verses it is impossible not to 
\ by the definiteness and maturity of the theological teach- 
lined in them. Ii is remarkable enough, and characteristic 
I primiuve Christian literature, especially of the Epistles of 
' St. Paul, that a mere salutation should contain so much weighty 
teaching of any kind ; but it is still more remarkable when we think 
' what that teaching Is and the early date at whicb it was penned. 
I There aie no less than five distinct groups of ideas all expressed 
I with deliberate emphasis and precision: (t) A complete set of 
I idcM as to the commission and authority of an A[K>stIe ; U) A 
I conidcte lel of ideas as 10 the status in the sight uf Go<l of a Chris- 
tian community ; (3) A clear apprehension of the relation of the 
new order of things 10 the oid; (4) A clear assertion of what we 
•faould call summarily the Divinity of Christ, which 5c. Paul re- 
guded both in the hght of its relation to the expeciaiiotis of bii 

1 8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [l. 8-15. 

countrymen, and also in its transcendental reality, as revealed by or 
inferred from the words and acts of Christ Himself; (5) A some- 
what advanced stage in the discrimination of distinct Persons in 
the Godhead. We observe too how St. Paul connects together 
these groups of ideas, and sees in them so many parts of a vast 
Divine plan which covers the whole of human history, and indeed 
stretches back beyond its beginning. The Apostle has to the fiill 
that sense which is so impressive in the Hebrew prophets that he 
himself is only an instrument, the place and function of which are 
clearly foreseen, for the accomplishment of God's gracious pur- 
poses (compare e. g. Jer. i. 5 and Gal. i. 15). These purposes are 
working themselves out, and the Roman Christians come within 
their range. 

When we come to examine particular expressions we find that 
a large proportion of them are drawn from the O. T. In some 
cases an idea which has been hitherto fluid is sharply formulated 
(xXip-ciff, a<lxopiafji€vot) ; in Other cases an old phrase has been 
adopted with comparatively little modification {vnip tov 6v6iiaTot 
avTov, and perhaps tlprimj); in others the transference involves 
a larger modification (dovXor 'li^o-ov XpurroVf x^^^f "^^7^ ^^^ 
Ktipioff, Bthg narrjp) ; in Others again we have a term which has ac- 
quired a significance since the close of the O. T. which Christianity 

appropriates (cVoyyrX^ [irporirTyyriXaro], ypa<f)a\ clyioi, dpaaraa-it rrcpMr, 

2yioi) ; in yet others we have a new coinage (dirikrroXor, ffuay/cXiov), 
which however in these instances is due, not to St. Paul or the 
other Aposdes, but to Christ Himself 


I. 8-16. God knows how long I have desired to see you 
— a hope which I trust may at last be accomplished — and 
to deliver to you, as to the rest of the Gentile worlds my 
message of salvation* 

•In writing to you I must first offer my humble thanks to 
God, through Him Who as High Priest presents all our prayers 
and praises, for the world-wide fame which as a united Church you 
bear for your earnest Christianity. 'If witness were needed to 
show how deep is my interest in you, I might appeal to God Himseli 
Who hears that constant ritual of prayer which my spirit addresses 
to Him in my work of preaching the glad tidings of His Son. 
'* He knows how unceasingly your Church is upon my lips, and how 
every time I kneel in prayer it is my petition, that at some near day 



I Ttaj U last, in the course which God's Will marks out for me, 
really have my way made clear to visit you, " For I have a great 
desire lo see you and to impart to you some of those many gifts 
<of instmction, comron, edification and the lilce) which [he Holy 
Spirit has been pleased to bestow upon me, and so to strengthen 
yooi Christian character. "I do not mean that 1 am above 
receiving or that you have nothing to bestow, — far from it, — but 
that I myself may be cheered by my intercourse with you (•» in'it). 
or thai we may be mutually cheered by each other's faith, I by 
yoors and you by mine. " I should be sorry for you lo suppose 
(hat this is a new resolve on my part. The fact is that I often 
intended lo visit you — an intention until now as often frustrated 
— in the hope of reaping some spiritual harvest from ray labours 
among you, as in the rest of the Gentile world. "There is no 
limit to this duty of rnine to preach the Gospel. To all withou' 
iiitinction whether of language or of culture, I must discharge 
ibe debt which Christ has laid upon me. " Hence, so far as the 
<ledsioii rests with me, I am bent on delivering the message ol 
nhwion to you too at Rome. 

Agfre auStm Deo gratiat, kec tsl saerifieium laudtx 
el idte addit per Jesum Christum; velul per Pontificen 
Apwr. For a further discussion of this word see below 
on wr. 17. Here it is practically equivalent to ' your Christianity,' 
the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian carrying with it 
the direct consequences of that act upon the character. Much 
confusion of thought would be saved if wherever ' faith ' was 
mentioned the question were always consciously asked. Who or 
what is its object ? It is extremely rare for faith to be used in 
the N. T. as a mere abstraction without a determinate object In 
this Epistle ' faith ' is nearly always " faith itt Chriti! The object 
is expressed in iii. ti, a6 but is left lo be understood elsewhere. 
In the case of Abraham ' faith ' is not so much ' faith in God ' as 
• faith in the firamiu* of God,' which promises are precisely those 
which are fulfilled in Christianity. Or it would perhaps be more 
Btiictly true to say that tlic immtdiate object of faith is in most 
cases Christ or the promises which pointed to Christ, At the same 
time there is always in the background the Supreme Author of 
thu whole 'econony' of which the Incarnation of Christ formed 
a pin. Thus it is God Who justifies though the moving cause of 
Joaiificaiion 18 usually defined as " faith in Christ.' And inasmuch 
ts It ts Me Wiio both promised that Christ should come and also 


Himself broDght about the fulfilment of the promise, even justifTing 
faith may be described as * faith in God' The most conspicuous 

example of this is ch. iv. 5 rf dc fiij cpya^o/icy^, iriorrvoirt dc M r&9 
iutaiovwra r^y datfirj, \oyi(tTai ^ niaru avrov th dutOMKrvyi/ir. 

8. XarpcJtt connected with Xarpit, 'hired servant/ and X6rpop, 'hire': 
(i) already in classical Gk. applied to the service of a higher power 
{diii rffp rov 0tov \arptiaw Plato, ApoL 23 B) ; (ii) in LXX alwajrs of 
the service either of the true God or of heathen divinities. Hence 
Augustine : Aarptla . . . aut semper aut iatn frequenter ut fen 
temper ^ ea diciiur serviius quae pertinet ad colendum Deum (Trench, 
Syn, p. i2of.). 

Aarpt^ip is at once tomewhat wider and somewhat narrower in meanine 
than \9trovpy*iy : (i) it is used only (or almost wholly) of the service of God 
where KuTovpytiv {XtirovpySs) is nsed also of the service of men (Josh. i. I 
T. 1. ; I Kings i. 4, xix. ai ; 3 Kings iv. 43, vL 15, Sec) ; (ii) bnt on the other 
hand it is nsed of the service both of priest and people, esp. of the service 
rendered to Jahveh by the whole race cf Israel (Acts xzvi. 7 rd dct^ffd^Xor 
kp {irrcvcff Xarpcvoy, cf. Rom. is. 4); \€iTovpyup is appropriated to the 
ministrations of priests and Levites (Heb. x. 11, &c.). Where Xurovpyaw 
(\9trovfiy6s) is not strictly in this sense, there is yet more or less conscious 
reference to it (e. g. in Rom. xiii. 6 and esp. xv. 16). 

iv ff vKcJf&arC |&ou. The wivfm is the organ of service; the 

rvoyycXioy (^ ro Krjpvyfia rov cvoyycXiov) the Sphere in which the 

service is rendered. 

im TWK irpocreuxuK fiou ; ' at my prayers,' at all my times of prayer 
ycf. I Thess. i. a ; £ph. i. 16 ; Philem. 4). 

10. fCirus. On the construction see Bnrton, Afcpds and Tenses^ f 376. 

^m TTOT^ : a difficult expression to render in English ; ' now at 
length' (AV. and RV.) omits wort, just as *in ony maner sumtyme' 
(Wic.) omits ffif\ ; ' sometime at the length ' (Rhem.) is more accu- 
rate, ' some near day at last.' In contrast with yOv (which denotes 
present time simply) ffif\ denotes the present or near future in 
relation to the process by which it has been reached, and with 
a certain suggestion of surprise or relief that it has been reached so 
sooi] as it has. So here ^di; = * now, after all this waiting ' : frorc 
makes the moment more indefinite. On {^di; see B^umlein, Griech. 
Partikeln, p. 138 ff. 

cfioS(i>8i^(rofi,ai. The word has usually dropped the idea of 6M 
and means * to be prospered ' in any way (e. g. i Cor. xvi. % I n 
h» (voda0rac, where it is used of profits gained in trade ; similarly in 
LXX and Test. XI L Patr. Jud. i, Gad 7) ; and so here Mey. Gif. 
RV., Ac. It does not, however, follow that because a metaphor is 
often dropped, it may not be recalled where it is directly suggested 
by the context. We are thus tempted to render with the earlier 
English Versions and Vulg. prosperum iter habeam ('I have 
a spedi wey' Wic). 


fr TY t«X^)ian Toii SioS. St. Paul has a special i 
hjing Ktress on the fact that all his movements are in the hands of 
God. He has a strong sense of the risks which he incurs it 
up to Jenisalem (Rom. xv. 30 f.), and he is very doubtful whether 
anjrlhiog that he intends will be accomphshed (Hon, Rom. aitd 
£fiA. p. *a ff.). 

JXfcbr : pfotablf foe &att Ixaur (BuitOD, I 37 1 <). 

U. InwoSfi : «n- marks the direction of the desire, ' to you- 
ward ' ; thus by laying stress on the personal object of the verb it 
rather strengthens its emotional character. 

X^f>«)ia wrtupaTiK^r. St. Paul has in his mind the hind of gifts 
— partly what we should call natural and partly transcending the 
ordinary workings of nature— described in i Cor. xii-xiv; Rom. 
zii. 6 S. Some, probably most, of these gifts he possessed in an 
eminent degree himself (i Cor. xiv. 18), and he was assured that 
when he came to Rome he would be able 10 give the Christians 
there the fullest benefit of them (Rom, iv. 29 cmSo 8< iu ipxit-"^ 

apin ufioT n> nXrfpaiioTi iSi\oytat Xptimii Atiaajiat), His was con- 

•I'iraouely a case which came under the description of John vii. 38 
'He thai beJieveih on Me, as die scripture hath said, out of his 
belly shall flow rivers of hving water,' i. e. the believer in Christ 
•liould himself become a centre and abounding source of spiritual 
infliKDce and blessing to others. 

cipreuing porpoK 'ia cmplajred 
in tXio in Heb. r " ' ^ ■ - ■ 

•tt ri <m|pix9f|vai : (t> r6 with Infin. 
*!th tpeciil fiequencj bf Ptnl, but occt 
iBnrUn), { 409J. 

I Pet vid J>* 

12. n|iwa)>aKXi]6i)va[ : the subject is ipi, which, from the a 
w^apank. and » iiiut, is treated in the latter part of the Si 
cquivaleal to q*M<i. We noie of course the delicacy with which the 
Apostle suddenly checks himself in the expression of bis desire to 
impwt boia his own fulness 10 the Roman Christians : he will not 
Msiimc any airs of superiority, but meets tbcm frankly upon their 
ovD lerd : if he has anything to confer upon them they in turn 
will confer an equivalent upon him. 

arbUrtr d e g Anibritc. ; 


•Xi.^'1 raij get: 

14. *EXXi|Vi r* Kai pap^dpois : a resolution into its parts of wdm 
m 1*^, according to (i) divisions of language, (ii) degrees of culiure. 

U. tA >ar' i}U. It b perhaps best, with Gif. Va. Mou., to take 
TO uT* >')i> as subject, iipi^iK}ii as predicate : so g Vulg. guod in mt 
fremJum itl. In that case rA nor' t,ii will = ' I, so far as it rests 
«ub me,' t. e. ' under God ' — L' hommt propost, Dieu dispose; cf. A 
r^ AXqjton rob Btoi above. Differently Orig.-lat. (RuRnus) who 


makes r& no/ ^/u adverbial, gnod in me est promtut turn : so too 
d e Ambrstr. The objection to this b that St. Paul would have 
written trp6Bvf»6s tliu, Mey. Lips, and others take t6 kot i/U irp6Bv 
ftop together as subject of [c oriv] cvayycXi(ra(r^i, ' hence the eager- 
ness on mj part (is) to preach/ In £ph. vi. ai ; Phil. L la ; CoL 
iv. 7 ra KOT ifU = * my affairs.' 



I. 16, 17. TAat message^ humble as it tnay seem^ easts 
a new light on the righteousness of God: for it tells how 
His righteousness flows forth and embraces man, when it is 
met by Faith^ or loyal adhesion to Christ. 

^ Even there, in the imperial city itself, I am not ashamed of my 
message, repellent and humiliating as some of its features may 
seem. For it is a mighty agency, set in motion by God Himself, 
and sweeping on with it towards the haven of Messianic security 
every believer — first in order of precedence the Jew, and after him 
the Gentile. ^* Do you ask how this agency works and in what it 
consists ? It is a revelation of the righteousness of God, manifested 
in a new method by which righteousness is acquired by man, — 
a method, the secret of which is Faith, or ardent loyalty to Jesus 
as Messiah and Lord ; which Faith is every day both widening its 
circles and deepening its hold. It was such an attitude as this 
which the prophet Habakkuk meant when, in view of the desolating 
Chaldaean invasion, he wrote : ' The righteous man shall save his 
life by his faith, or loyalty to Jehovah, while his proud oppressors 

16. Iiraurxi^t^ofioi. St. Paul v as well aware that his Gospel wa^ 
* unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles foolishnesb ' 
(i Cor. i. as). How could it be otherwise, as Chrysostom says, he 
was about to preach of One who ^ passed for the son of a carpenter, 
brought up in Judaea, in the house of a poor woman . . . and who 
died like a criminal in the company of robbers ? ' It hardly needed 
the contrast of imperial Rome to emphasize this. On the attraction 
which Rome had for St. Paul see the Introduction, § i ; also HicLi 
in Studia Biblica^ iv. ii. 

We hate an instance here of a corrnption coming into the Greek text 
ttiroagh the Latin : i-Koifrx* '«^ ^^0774X10^ G, tntbese^ super eoangelium g, 


t0mfHnJ*r di nangtiie Aug. The Latin rendering! need Dot \idv\j mdj 
Tarioai tuding. Tbe barbariim In G. which It will be lemembeieu hu aa 
inlerUneu' venion, aroie riom tlie aiumpt to lind > GrMk equivalent for 
emj WQid in Ibe Latio. Tbii ii oalj meotioDed u ■ clear cue of a kind ol 
corruption which doubtleu opcrsled eUcwhere, «s notablj' in Cod, B««e. 
ll t* to be ob&CTTCd, however, that leidingi o( this kiod are neceuiiil; qnite 

(wVofut is the word propetly used of the manirestatJons of Divine 
power. Strictly indeed iitaius is the inherent attribute or faculty. 
ir^pytut is the attribute or faculty in operaiion. But ihe two words 
are closely allied to each other and Sivo^n is so often used for 
eiencd power, especially Divine superhuman power, that it practi- 
cally covers iripytm. St. Paul might quite well have wriiten 
mpy<ta bere, but the choice of Swa/itc throws the stress rather more 
OD the tource than on ihc procttt. The word iiyaiur in a context 
like this is one of those to which modern associations seem to give 
a greater fulness and vividness of meaning. We shall no[ do wrong 
if we think of the Gospel as a ' force ' in the same kind of sense as 
that in wbicb science has revealed to us the great ' forces ' of nature. 
It b a principle operating on a vast and continually enlarging scale, 
and taking effect in a countless number of individuals. This con- 
ception only differs from the scientitic conception of a force like 
' beat ' or ' electricity ' in that whereas the man of science is loo apt 
to abElTBcl his conception of force trom its origin, St. Paul con- 
ceives of it as essentialty a mode of personal activity ; tlie Gospel 
his aO God's Omnipotence behind it. As such it is before all 
iturigs a rial force, not a sham force like so many which the 
.A[io5tle saw around him ; its true nature might be misunderstood, 
bo( thai did not make it any less powerful : i \->/<i< y'lp 6 roi mavpoi 

I Cor. L i8 ; cf. i Cor. ii. 4, iv. ao; i Thess. L 5, 

■tt ovnipiav. The fundamenial idea contained in aartjpln is the 
removjj of dangers menjctng to life and the consequent placing 
of life in conditions favourable to free and healthy expansion. 
Hence, as we might expeci, there is a natural progression corre- 
sponding to the growth in the conception of life and of the dangers 
by vhicb it is ihrcaiened. (i) In the earlier books of the 0. T. 
rar. IS situply deliverance from physical peril {Jud. xv. 18; i Sam. 
xi. 9, 13. Sec), (ii) Bu[ the word has more and more a tendency 
to be appropriated to the great deliverances of the nation (e. g. Ex. 
siv. 13, XV. 1, the Passage of the Red Sea; Is. xlv. 17, xlvi. 13, lii. 
10, tc, Ihe Return from Exile), (iii) Thus by a natural transition 
it is associated with the Messianic deliverance ; and that both (j"^ in 
the lower forms of the Jewish Messianic expectation {Ps. Soi. x. 
9; liL j: cf. Ta/. X/ 1. Pair. Sym. T, Jud. a»; Benj.9, 10 [the form 
used in all these passages is ai,Ti,t,io*] ; Luke i. 69, 71, 77), and {ff) 
ta Ifae higher form of the Christian hope {Acts iv. is; Xiii.i6.&c). 


In this latter sense a^TTjpia covers the whole range of the Messianic 
deliverance, both in its negative aspect as a rescuing from the 
Wrath under which the whole world is lying (ver. i8 ff.) and in its 
positive aspect as the imparting of ' eternal life ' (Mark z. 30 1 ; 
John iii. 15, 16, &c.). Both these sides are already combined in 
the earliest extant Epistle {Sri ovk c^ro riftas 6 Ot6s tls opyrfv, aXX* tts 

ntpivtHTffruf anrripius dm rov Kvpiov ^fmv 'li^erov XpurroVf rov mnBa3f6mt 
vnip 4fia>yy mi cere ypfjyopSiiuw ffcrr KaOtvdntfjLMv ILpa aw aur^ {fiampjip 
I Thess. V. 9, 10). 

irpwTOK: oM, BGg, Tert. adv. Marc. Lachmann Treg. WH. 
bracket, because of the combination of B with Western authorities ^ 
but they do no more than bracket because in £pp. Paul. B has a slight 
Western element, to which this particular reading may belong. In 
that case it would rest entirely upon Western authority. Mardon 
appears to have omitted npitrop as well as the quotation from 
Habakkuk, and it is possible that the omission in this small group 
of Western MSS. may be due to his influence. 

For the precedence assigned to the Jew comp. Rom. iii. i, ix. i ff., 
xi. 16 ff., XV. 9 ; also Matt. xv. 24; Jo. iv. 2a ; Acts xiii. 46. The 
point is important in view of Baur and his followers who exaggerate 
the opposition of St. Paul to the Jews. He defends himself and 
his converts from their attacks ; but he fully concedes the priority of 
their claim and he is most anxious to conciliate them (Rom. xv. 31 ; 
cf. ix. I ff., X. I ff.; XV. 8, Ac: see also Introduction § 4). 

17. SiKaioo-umri ecoC. For some dme past it has seemed to 
be almost an accepted exegetical tradition that the * righteous- 
ness of God * means here * a righteousness of which God is the 
author and man the recipient,' a righteousness not so much ' q/ 
God' as */rom God,' i.e. a state or condidon of righteousness 
bestowed by God upon man. But quite recently two protests 
have been raised against this view, both English and both, as 
it happens, associated with the University of Durham, one by 
Dr. Barmby in the Pulpit Commentary on Romans, and the other 
t^y Dr. A. Robertson in The Thinker for Nov. 1893 *; comp. also a 
concise note by Dr. T. K. Abbott adloc. There can be little doubt 
that the protest is justified ; not so much that the current view is 
wrong as that it is partial and incomplete. 

The ' righteousness of God * is a great and comprehensive idea 
which embraces in its range both God and man ; and in this 
fundamental passage of the Epistle neither side must be lost sight 
of. (i) In proof that the righteousness intended here is primarily 
*the righteousness of God Himself it may be urged: (i) that this 
is consistently the sense of the righteousness of God in the Old 
Testament and more particularly in passages closely resembling the 
present, such as Ps. xcviii. [xcvii.] a, ' The Lord hath made 

* The point is, however, beginning to «itract some attention in Germnny. 



known His tahalion: His nghfiousnist hath He reotaltd (airimi- 
Xv^t) in the si^hi of the nations,' which contains the three key- 
words of the verse before us; (ii) that elsewhere in the Epistle 
tu. eiov = 'the righLeousness of God Himself (several of the 
passages, e. g. iii, zi, zz, x. 3, have the same ambiguity as the 
;ex[. but iii. 5. 35, a6 are quite clear); (iii) that the marked 
uiuihesis avoKoKvinttai yap i^yr) Bioi in ver. 18 compared with 
itauoainn} yap e<i>b dvoiuXirrrrtTm in Ver. 1 7 requires that the gen. 
Qtii shall be taken in the same sense in both places. These are 
a/gxunents too strong to be resisted. 

(1) But at the same time those which go to prove that im. BioC ig 
a gift of righteousness bestowed upon man are hardly less con- 
vincing, (i) The righteousness in question is described as being 
(ewaled (■ in'imaii lit iriarur ; and in the parallel passage iii. az it is 

qualified as Aut. 8iaC iii irlartm 'Jf)itni Xpiaroi tti tidtrat rovt irnrrti-o)- 

ni, where its relation to the human recipient is quite unmistak- 
able, (ii) This relation is further confirmed by the quotation from 
Habakkuk where the epithet SUaios is applied not to God but to 
man. Oliserve the logical connexion of ihe two clauses, liKiuxrutq 

■jair 61OV (nc'iioX ffTTfrai , . , taffat yiypawrai, 'O $t iUniat ii nlmm 

Cvrn-iu. (iii) Lastly, in the parallel Phil. iii. 9 the thought of the 
Apostle b made quite explicit : pi/ ix'^f ipi]r luuuoinivt]* r^v « vipov, 

•XU T51P iia vioTtioc Xpurroii, r^* it &to\i JiicoioffOi')!' Arl T% iriirni. The 

inMTlioo of the prepo^iion » transfers the righteousnes:> from 
God to man, or we may say traces the process of extension by 
which ii passes from Its source to its object 

For (3) the very cogency of the arguments on both sides is 
enough to show that the two views whicti we have set over against 
each other are not muiually exclusive but rather inclusive. The 
righteousness of which the Apostle is speaking not only proceeds 
from God but u the righieousness of God Himself: it is this, how- 
ever, not as inherent in the Divine Essence but as going forth and 
emtM^cing the personalities of men. It is righteousnesa active and 
energizing; the righteousness o( the Divine Will as it were pro- 
jected and enclosing and gatheringintoiiself human wills, St. Paul 
fixes this sense upon it in another of the great key-verses of the 

Epistle, cb. iii. 36 tit ri itra- ai-iv lUaioir Km btauoinrra rir (V ^iartms 

'Ifvsv. The second half of this clause is in no way opposed to the 
firat, but follows from it by natural and ineviiabic sequence: God 
aitr'.bnies righteousness to the believer because He is Himselj 
n^tbteoui. The whole scheme of things by which He gathers to 
Himself a n)^hteous fieople b the direcl and spontaneous expression 
of Hii own inherent righteousness : a necessity of His own Nature 
impels Him to make ihem like Himself. The story liow He has 
done 30 u ilic burden of the ' Gospel' For a fuller developmen' 
of tlie tdca coDiained in ' the righteousness of God ' see below. 


Ik v(oT«ttt. This root-conception with St Paul means in the 
first instance simply the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah 
and Son of God ; the affirmation of that primitive Christian Creed 
which we have already had sketched in w. 3, 4. It is the ' Yes ' of 
the soul when the central proposition of Christianity is presented to 
it We hardly need more than this one fact, thus barely stated, to 
explain why it was that St Paul attached su^h immense importance 
to it It is so characteristic of his habits uf mind to go to the root 
of things, that we cannot be surprised at his taking for the centre of 
his system a principle which is only less prominent in other writers 
because they are content, if we may say so, to take their section of 
doctrine lower down the line and to rest in secondary causes instead 
of tracing them up to primary. Two influences in particular seem 
to have impelled the eager mind of St Paul to his more penetrative 
view. One was his own experience. He dated all his own spiri- 
tual triumphs from the single moment of his vision on the road to 
Damascus. Not that they were all actually won there, but they 
were all potentially won. That was the moment at which he was 
as a brand plucked from the burning : anything else that came to 
him later followed in due sequence as the direct and inevitable out* 
come of the change that was then wrought in him. It was then 
that there flashed upon him the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth, 
whom he had persecuted as a pretender and blasphemer, was really 
exalted to the right hand of God, and really charged with infinite 
gifts and blessings for men. The conviction then decisively won 
sank into his soul, and became the master-key which he applied to 
the solution of all problems and all struggles ever afterwards. 

But St. Paul was a Jew, an ardent Jew, a Pharisee, who had 
spent his whole life before his conversion in the study of the Old 
Testament. And it was therefore natural to him, as soon as he 
began to reflect on this experience of his that he should go back to 
his Bible, and seek there for the interpretation of it When he 
did so two passages seemed to him to stand out above all others. 
The words triWif, morfvcu are not very common in the LXX, but 
they occurred in connexion with two events which were as much 
turning-points in the history of Israel as the embracing of Chris- 
tianity had been a turning-point for himself. The Jews were in 
the habit of speculating about Abraham's faith, which was his 
response to the promise made to him. The leading text which 
dealt with this was Gen. xv. 6: and there it was distinctly laid 
down that this faith of Abraham's had consequences beyond itself : 
another primary term was connected with it : * Abraham believed 
God and it (his belief) was reckoned unto him for righteousness.* 
Again just before the beginning of the great Chaldaean or Baby- 
lonian invasion, which was to take away their * place and nation ' 
from the Jews but which was at the same time to purify them in 


the famact of affliction, the Prophet Habakkuk had announced that 
one class of persons should be eiempted on the g^round of this 
Tcrj quality, ' faith.' ' The just or righteous man shall hve by 
faitli.' Here once more failh was brought into direct connexion 
with righteousness. When therefore St. Paul began to interrogate 
his own espeiience and to ask why ii was that since his conversion, 
i.e. since his acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Lord, it had 
become so much easier for him to do right than it had been before ; 
and when he also brought into the account the conclusion, lo which 
the same conversion had led him, as to the significance of the Life 
and Death of Jesus for the whole Church or body of believers ; what 
could lie nearer at hand than that he should associate faith and 
(ighlCOUEness together, and associate them in the way of referring 
iD thai made the condition of righteousness so much more possible 
Diidet Christianity ihan it had been under Judaism, objectively to 
the «-ork of the Messiah, and subjectively to the appropriation of 
that work by the believer in the assent which he gave to the one 
propon'ion which expressed its value I 

It will be seen that there is more than one element in this con- 
ception which has to be kept distinct As we advance further in 
tfae £pi5lle, and more particularly when we come to the great 
pauage iii. 3i-s6, we shall become aware that St. Paul attached to 
ibe Death of Christ what we may call a sacrificial efficacy. He 
regarded it as summing op under the New Covenant all the func- 
tions that the Mosaic Sacrifices had discharged under the Old. As 
they lud the effect, as far as anything outward could have the 
effect, of placing the worshipper in a position of fitness for ap- 
proach to God ; so once for all the sacrifice of Christ had placed 
the Christian worshipper in this position. That was a fact objec- 
tive ami external lo himself of which the Christian had the benefit 
simply by being a Christian; in other words by the sole act of 
faith. If besides this he also found by experience that in following 
with his eye in loyal obedience (like the author of Ps. cxxiii) his 
Uaster Christ the restraint of selfishness and passion became far 
easier &a him than it had been, that was indeed a different matter ; 
but that too was ultimately referable to the same cause; it too 
dated from the same moment, the moment of the acceptance of 
CiirisL And although in this case more might be said to be done 
by the man himself, yet even there Christ was the true source of 
■trcDgth and inspiration ; and the more reliance was placed on this 
strength and inspiration the more effeciive it became ; so much so 
that Sl Paul glories in his infirmiues because they threw him back 
opoa Christ, so that when he was weak, then he became strong. 

On this side the inlluence of Christ upon the Christian life was 
a coDlinooDa influence extending as long as Ufe itself. But even 
here the critical mon^ ni was the first, because it established the 


relation. It was like magnetism which begins to act as soon as 
the connexion is complete. Accordingly we find that stress is 
constantly laid upon this first moment — the moment of being 
' baptized into Christ ' or ' putting on Christ,' although it is by no 
means implied that the relation ceases where it began, and on the 
contrary it is rather a relation which should go on strengthening. 
Here too the beginning is an act of faith, but the kind of faith 
which proceeds cV tricrrfwr th marw. We shall have the process 
described more fully when we come to chapters vi-viiL 

<ic TTurrcAis els iriorir. The analogy of Ps. Ixxxiii. 8 (buxiv. 7) 

fic dvMifictfff §U dvvafUM, and of a Cor. ii. 16 cV Bavarov th 66paTWf • • • 

€K C»rjs €h C^¥, seems to show that this phrase should be taken as 
widely as possible. It is a mistake to limit it either to the deepen- 
ing of faith in the individual or to its spread in the world at large 
(ix fide predicantium in fidem crtdentium Sedulius): both are 
included : the phrase means ' starting from a smaller quantity of 
faith to produce a larger quantity,* at once intensively and ex- 
tensively, in the individual and in society. 

6 SiKaios ^K moTeci>s. Some take the whole of this phrase 
together. ' The man whose righteousness is based on faith,' as if 
the contrast (not expressed but implied) were between the man 
whose righteousness is based on faith and one whose righteousness 
is based on works. It is true that this is quite in harmony with 
Sl Paul's teaching as expressed more fully in Rom. iii. 2 a, 25; 
Gal. ii. 16 : but it was certainly not the meaning of Habakkuk, 
and if St Paul had intended to emphasize the point here it lay 
very near at hand to write 6 dc U maTtt^s HlKaios, and so remove all 
ambiguity. It is merely a question of emphasis, because in the 
ordinary way of taking the verse it is implied that the ruling 
motive of the man, the motive which gives value to his righteous- 
ness and gains for him the Divine protection, is his faith. 

A few authorities (C*, Vulg. cadd. mm opt. Hard., Orig.-lat. Hieron.) 
iusen /lov {b Si di«. liov kic niartott, or i h\ Hk. hie wlffrtcas fjuw ("qCfTai) from 
the LXX. Marcion, as we should expect, seems to have omitted not only 
wpSrrov bat the quotation from Habakkuk; this would naturally foUow 
from his antipathy to eyerything Jewish, though he was not quite consistent 
in cutting out all quotations from the O. T. He retains the same quotation 
(not, however, as a quotation) in Gal. iii. 4, the context of which he is able 
to turn against the Jews. For the best examination of Marcion's text see 
Zahn, Gesck. d, Neutest Kamms, ii. 515 if. 

The word bUaios and its cognates, 

SCkovos, Sucoieowi). In considering the meaning and application of these 
terms it is important to place ourselves at the right point of view — at the 
point of view, that is, of at Paul himself, a Jew of the Jews, and not either 
Greek or mediaeval or modem. Two main facts have to be borne in mind 
in regard to the history of the words ^koios and Sumuooi^. The first is that 
although there was a sense in which the Greek words covered the whole 


nne« of right xtioD [E/i. Nic. V. L is antoiooi*);— T«Xtfn ilpir^ with the 
■tnele qaaliliollon tbat it ii vpji ittpaw, ihe duty to one'* neighbanr * ', ycl 
io pnicllce it wit hj more Goinmoiil)' ascA ia Ihe DUroirei khsc of Joslloe 
(diitdbntiTC tu corrcctiTe ibiJ. i CT.). The PUtooic dciigDatioD of ii«aiDoi'>^ 
at nae o( Ihe four cudiaR) virtues (Wiidom. TempcTance, aQd Comage or 
FortilDde, bdD|; the othen] had a deciure and lasting Influence on ihe whole 
tobsequeut hulorj' of the won) in ihe mage of deck philoHiph;, and a( all 
those moral sjrttcmt which have their cooCi in thai fertile loil. In eiving 

* more limited tcope to the wotd Plato was only following the feniu of his 
people The real ttaadatd at Ciieek morali wai rather ri iiaxir — that which 
wai morally noble, impmiiTc, admirable — than ri Siiniiiir. And it Ihcre 
Dai Ibis tendency to throw the liiger wnie oibitauminj into the ba.;kgrouad 
in Gre^ moraU, that tendeacy wai still more inlensilied when Ihe )cene wni 
ehan)^ bom Greece to Rome. The Latin UDguBge had no equivalent at 
all fox the wider meaning of SunuDovn). Il had to fall bade apoaj'iulilia, 
which in Christiui cirdea indeed could not help being alicclcd by the domi- 
aant nie in the Bible, hot which could never wholly throw off the limiting 
coadilioni ot it> oiigio. Thii is the lecond fact of gteal and outslanding 
flfoificancx. We have to nrmcmbcr that the Middle Arcs derived one half of 
ila liM of viituei throngh Cicero from the Stoics and Plato, and that the fonr 
Pann virtue* were itill further thrown into the shade by the Christian triad. 

Happily for ooTielvei we have in Eni;lish two distinct words for the two 
diitincl coDceptioni, 'jastice' and ' righteousness.' And lo especially (loni 
the time ot the translation of the Bible into the vemacular, the conception 

* hghteoncics* ' b»i gone far to recover tls central importance. The taire 
may pcrhapi be (aid of the Teutonic nations generally, ihrou^^h the stiength 
of the Biblical influence, though the German branch has tmt the single woid 
G^rulMglUit to eipresi the two ide». Wilb them it ii probably tmc 
that the wider sense take) precedence of the narrower. But at the litne 
m'bea SC Paul wrote the Jew stood alone in maintaining the larger tciiie ol 
tbc word full and undiminished. 

It il a nibordinale queition what was the origin of the tUDdflmental idea. 
A recent wiitet (Smend, AUUsl. Rctigiansgiith. p. 410 B.) puts forward the 
view that this was the ' beine in the right,' as a parly to a suit in a court of 
law. It may well be true tbat ai Sin; meant in the lint instance 'Bsage,' 
■sd then came to menn ' right ' because usage was the earliest standaid ol 
light, in like manner the larger idea ot • ri»;hieonsnesi ' may have grown 
op out of the practice of primitive juilice. It may have been finl applied 
to Ihe liligiQt who was adjudged to be 'in the right,' and to the judge, who 
•warded 'the right' carefully and Impartially. 

Thia ia mailer, more or lesa, of ipeculatioD. In any case the Jew of 
St Panrs day, whatever hia fanlu, assigned no inadequate place to 
RigbteotianeM. Il was with him leally the highcM moral ideal, the principle 
«f til tcbon, the goal ol all efTort. 

If the Jew had a fault it was not that righteousneti oecngned an inadequate 
place in hU Ihooghu ; it wat rather thai he went a wrong way to attain to 
k Itfolfi^ Ii &^>«ir rufior Uiaunairtp tli ni^or •>£> t^Aut, it SI. Paul's 
noumtul venlict (Rom. ii. 31). For a Jew the whole sphere of righleonsness 
■•• taken up by the Motaic Law. Hii one idea of righteouuiess was thai 
«f conformity to this Righleotunes* was for him nsentially obedience 
to the law. No doubt it waa Ifaia in the first instance out of legtrd to the 
law aa the eapresied Will of God. But the danger lay in lesliug loo much 
B the code aa a code and losing sight of the personal Will of a holy and 
nod Cod behind it The Jew made ihia mistake \ and the coniequence was 
Wat bii VKW of obedience to the law became lormai and meihinical. It is 
iMpOMible itK an impartial mmd not to be deeply touched by the spectacle 

* Aiwtotk qtiole* the proverb \r >1 dmioTivrp f*U^9^ m^ if^ 1*'^ 


of the religions leaden of a natioo devoting themseWes with to much esnest* 
nesf and leal to the ttndy of a law which they beliered to come, and which 
in a certain lenfe and measure lealW did come, from God, and yet failing so 
disastrously as their best friends lUlow that they did faU in grasping the 
]aw*B true spirit No one felt more keenly than St Paul himself the full 
pathos of the situation. His heart bleeds for them (Roul is. a) ; he cannot 
withhold his testimony to their seal, though unhappily it is not a seal 
according to knowledge fRom. z. a). 

Hence it was that all this mass— we must allow of honest though Hi- 
directed effort — needed reforming. The more radical the reformation the 
better. There came One Who laid His finger upon the weak place and 
pointed out the remedy — at first as it would seem only in words in ipdiich the 
Scripture-loTing Rabbis had been before Him : ' Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind . . . 
and . . . Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself* (Matt. xxii. 37, 39 |), 
and then more searchingly and ¥rith greater fulness of illustration and 
application, ' There is nothing from wimout the man that going into him 
can defile him : but the things which proceed out of the maii are those that 
defile the man ' (Mark yii. 15 ||) ; and then yet again more searchingly stilly 
' Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden . . . Take My yoke 
upon you and learn of Me . . . For My yoke is easy, and My burden is lig^ * 
(Matt. zi. S8-30). 

So the Master ; and then came the disciple. And he too seized the heart 
of the secret. He too saw what the Master had refrained from putting with 
a degree of emphasis which might have been misunderstood (at least the 
majority of His reporters might leave the impression that this had been the 
case, though one, the Fourth Evangelist, makes Him speak more plainly). 
The later disciple saw that, if there was to be a real reformation, the first 
thin^ to be done was to give it a personal ground, to base it on a personal 
relationship. And therefore he la3rs down that the righteousness of the 
Christian is to be a ' righteousness of faith* Enough will have been said in 
the nezt note and in those on kic wiffrtcat and 81x01001^ Btov as to the 
nature of this righteousness. It is sharply contrasted with the Jewish con- 
ception of righteousness as obedience to law, and of course goes far deeper 
than any Pagan conception as to the motive of righteousness. The specially 
Pauline feature in the conception ezpressed in this passage is that the 
' declaration of righteousness * on the part of God, the Divine verdict of 
acquittal, runs in advance of the actual practice of righteousness, and comes 
forth at once on the sincere embracing of Christianity. 

SucoioOv, 8ucaloOaOa^ The verb ^iKaiovv means properly ' to pronounce 
righteous.* It has relation to a verdict pronounced by a judge. In so far as 
the person ' pronounced righteous * is not really righteous it has the sense of 
'amnesty* or 'forgiveness.' But it cannot mean to 'make righteous.* 
There may be other influences which go to make a person righteous, but 
they are not contained, or even hinted at, in the word 81/caiovv. That word 
means ' to declare righteous,' ' to treat as righteous * ; it may even mean ' to 
prove righteous * ; but whether the person so declared, treated as, or proved 
to be righteous is really so, the word itself neither affirms nor denies. 

This rather sweeping proposition is made good by the following con- 
siderations : — 

(i) By the nature of verbs in -^w : comp. Sp. Comm. on i Cor. vi. 1 1 
•How can iiKatow possibly signify **to maii righteous?** Verbs indeed of 
this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use, e. g. 
rv<p\o\fVy *' to make blind." But when such words are derived from adjectives 
of moral meaning, as d^iovr, Soiovy, ^koiovw, they do by usage and must 
from the nature of things signify to deemf to mccount^ to prove^ or to trcai 
mt worthy, holy, righteous.* 




(u) B; tbc ' ;:ul>i toe of ibc won). Coiict Ip. 191}) miltei a bold 
UKittOD. whtch be IS hufdly likely to hive verified, bni jei which ii probably 
light UmI there is no cumple in ihe whole of clajsictl lilerature where the 
word— 'tamoibrighleoii*.' The word bon'cver ii not of frequent oGcarrFiice. 

(liil Fntm Uie u-nstuit augc of the LXX (O. T. and Apocr.). where Ihe 
voii] occsrt tome forty-live timet, ilwiyi oc almo^l siwayi with the foremic 
aij»dici>l wtuc- 

la the e^cit BiKjonly of catei this kdm ii nnmiitakable. The nearest 
■ppnMcb to an exce[>tloa is P*. Iixili [liiiij 13 ipa furiuan ISixalBiaa -n)* 
ia*i»»>|gu, where, however, the word seems to ^^ ' prononnceil righ\ei>DS,' in 
etker wonia, ' I called my conidence cl^ar." In Jn. iiL II ; Eiek. ivi 51, 
5J liK. — ' prove righieons.' 

(W; From a Uke dje')^ in the Ptendepi^iphic Book* : e. (■- A. Sal. ii. 16 ; 
Ii. 5; 1*. 9i viii. 7. 17. 31 ; ix. 3 (i° 'ne>e piueages the word i> aied con- 
Rttcnlljr oS 'vindicating' the character o( Godi; Jiuli/iea 4 Exr. Iv. iS; 
L 1$ i lii. 7 ; I Eir. ii. 10 (£iM. Afwr. ed. O. P'. t'rittsche, p. 643)— at) 
tbeM pMMgei are (oreniic ; Aftt. Bantck. (in Cerimi's itanslation from 
the SyrlacJ KxL 9. 1 1 ; niv. I— where the word ii applied to tliose who are 
'dtcuied inaoi-ciit' a* opposed to 'sinners.' 

(v) From the oo ten predominant atid unmistakable asag« of the N. T. : 
Hatt, iL iq; >ii. 37 ; Lolie viL ><^ 35 : x- 19: xvi. 1; : xviii. 14^ Rom. ii. 
13: ^' 4; I Cor. IT. 41 1 Tim. iii. 16— to quote only passagei which are 
kbaoloiely uBambi^^otu. 

(*i) The mtanine ii bronght ont in liill in ch. It. j vfi Bl jii^ l^afofi/rrf, 
■tVTttfotri ii iii tA SuhudCvts vur aafSi\, ApyiCtroi ^ mo-vii tiinm fit Sinio- 
trnft. Here it is eipresily stated that the person justified has nothing 
Id show in the way of meiitorious acts 1 bit one asset (so to ipeak) U faith, 
■Dd this fiith ii UJcrn ai an ' e([iuvalcnt for ligbleuusaess.* 

Wc content onndvei for the present with stating this rtsalt as a philo- 
logkkl fact Wb« further coDiequeni:ei it has, and bow It tils into the 
leAching o( St. Panl, will appear later ; see the notes oB iimiDirvnj Sioii 
above ud below. 

the force of the termination -fu reference ahonld be made 
by the late T. S. Evans in 5/. Onn. on i Cor. v. ft, part of which 
a quoted in this commenliir on Rom. iv. 1. Imalai^ u tbe definite con- 
crete eipreasion of the act 01 IiniWii: we might dehne it ai 'a declualion 
that a thing is Sisamr. 01 that a person is Dinun.' From the lint nse we get 
the common sense of ' ordmance,' ' statote,' ai in Luke i. 6 1 Rom. L 31, ii. 
16, and practically vlii. 4 ; from the second we get the more cbarscteristically 
raollne use in Rum. v. 16, IB. For the special shades of meaning in these 
parages tee tbe notes npon them. 

SisaLwu. This word occnn only twice in this Epistle fir. ij. v. 18), 
•nd not at all besides in the N. T. Its plice is taken by the verb ItmumiY, 
jnM as Id the Gopel of SL John the verb wtffvu'tir occnn no lea than 
nlnety-ei^l times, while the inbitanlive vioru is entirely absent. In 
meaning jl>ii<ua>r preserves the proper force of the lerminalion -irit ; it 
denotes the * proccu 01 act of proooondng righteoni,' in tbe case of nnneii, 
* the act of aoqnittal.' 

Tkt Meaning of Faith in Ike New Testament and in 
some Jewish Writings. 

The word vfarii has two leading senies, ! 1) fidelity and (*1 belleC The 
MOOnd seese, as we have laid, has its more exact lignificince detennincil by 
Its ob)cet^ it may mean. (0 belief in God; Ul) belief in the ptomisr^ oi 

God; <iii) lirliefinChmt; Liv;bclieflDMnieputletilBrtir- '- 

fcaniisc of God or Christ. 


The last of these senses is the one most common in the Synoptic Gospels. 
' Faith * is there usually ' belief in the miracle-working power of Christ or of 
God through Christ* It is i^a) the response of the applicant for relief— 
whether for himself or another — to the offer expressea or implied of that 
relief by means of miracles (Mark y. 34 ; z. 52 (1). The effect of the 
miracle is usually proportioned to the strength of this response (Matt. iz. 39 
Kard r^v wiarw vfi&v ytyrfB^u v/uV : for degrees of faith see Matt. viiL 10, 
s6 ; Luke xyii. 5, 8cc), In Acts iii. 16 the faith which has just before been 
described as ' faith in the Name ' (of Christ) is spoken of as ' faith brought 
into being by Christ * (,1) iriaris ^ 81* a&rov). Faith is also (/9) the confidence 
of the disciple that he can exercise the like miracle-working power when ex- 
pressly conferred upon him i^Mark xi. 33-S4 1|). This kind of faith our Lord 
m one place calls 'faith in God* (Mark xi. 33). There is one instance of 
' faith ' used in a more general sense. When the Son of Man asks whether 
when He comes He shall find faith on the earth (Luke xviii. 8) He means 

• faith in Himself.* 

Faith in the performance of miracles is a sense which naturally passes 
oyer into the Acts (Acts iiu 16 ; xir. 9). We find in that book also * ikt fiaith ' 
{ij irliTTis Acts vi. 7; xiiL 8; xiv. 33; xri. 5; xxir. 24), i.e. ' the faith distinctive 
of Christians/ belief that Jesus is the Son of God. ' A door of faith ' (Acts 
xiT. 37) means 'an opening for the spread of this belieC When wlant is 
used as an attribute of individuals {wKrip/rjs martott Acts vi. 5 of Stephen ; xi. 
24 of Barnabas) it has the Pauline sense of the enthusiasm and force of 
character which come from this belief in Jesus. 

In the Epistle of St. James wions is twice applied to prayer (Jas. L 6 ; t. 
15)1 where it means the faith that God will grant what is prayed for. Twice 
it means 'Christian faith* (Jas. i. 3; ii. i). In the controversial passage, 
Jas. ii. 14-36, where Faith is contrasted with Works, the faith intended k 

* faith in God.' One example of it is the ' belief that God is One * (Jas. ii. 
19) ; another is the trust in God which led Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Jas. ii 
31), and to believe in the promise of his birth (Jas. ii. 33). Faith yrith 
St. James is more often the faith which is common to Jew and Christian ; 
even where it is Christian faith, it stops short of the Christian enthusiasm. 

In St. Jude, whose Epistle must on that account be placed late in the 
Apostolic age, faith has got the concrete sense of a *body of belief' — not 
necessarily a large or complete body, but, as we should say, ' the essentials 
of Christianity.* As the particular point against which the saints are to 
contend is the denial of Christ, so tne faith for which they are to contend 
would be the (full) confession of Christ (Jude 3 f., 20). 

In the two Epistles of St. Peter faith is always Christian faith (i Pet. i. 5, 
7-9 ; ii. 6; 2 Pet. i. i, 5), and usually faith as the foundation of character. 
When St. Peter speaks of Christians as 'guarded through faith unto salva- 
tion * ( I Pet. i. 5) his use approaches that of St Paul ; faith is treated as the 
' one thing needful.* 

St. John, as we have seen, very rarely uses the word lAarvs (i Jo. v. 4), 
though he makes up by his fondness for vtarciJai. With him too fiaith is 
a very fundamental thing ; it is the ' victory which overcometh the world.* 
It is defined to be the belief * that Jesus is the Son of God* (i Jo. t. 5). 
Compared with St. Paul*s conception we may say that faith with St. John is 
rather contemplative and philosophic, where with St. Paul it is active and 
enthusiastic. In the Apocalypse faith comes nearer to fidelity ; it is belief 
steadfastly held (Rev. ii. 13, 19; xiii. 10 ; xiv. la ; cf. also vior^ i. 5 ; ii. 
10, &c.). 

The distinctive use of ' faith ' in the Epistle to the Hebrews is for fisith in 
the fulfilment of God's promises, a firm belief of that which is still future and 
unseen {hkwi^oiUvotv inriataan^ irpayfiaTtJv iktyxos 06 ^XtmoiUvon^ Heb. zL I). 
This use not only runs through chl xi, but is predominant in all the places 
where the word occurs (Heb. iv. a ; vL 1 ; x. 33 f^ ; xiL a ; xiii. 7) : it is not 


foenil in St. Paal of piomiKt the fuHilmeDt of which is ttlU fuloie (for Ihii 
be prtfen IXsit ; cf. Koro. viti, 15 ii bi t uu SUra^ir i\tiioiuy. Si' vmrfiorrii 
dnaatx^XiAi). Sl Paul do« however dm ■ laith ' lot ihc cunlideiice of O.T. 
■ftinli ID (lie ialklairat of particular promiics made to tbera |,so o( Abiabun 

u Roiu. i* I. 

GtOBg oal>ii)e the N. T. it ii Damml that Ihe dk of ' failh ' ihontd be 
DcilhcT K) liigh Dor so dFrmite. Still the uord U foLinil, md freqncDlly 
enough to ihow thai tluB ide» " wo* In the air' aod wailing only lor an objecl 
wonSjr of it. ' Futh ■ enlera nilher Urgrly Inlo the esohatuloglcal teachitig 
TapMng the Messianic lime. Here it apprari to have the KDse of lidelily 
to the U. T. tcligio.'.' Id ihe Piatim t/Sfhmtm it is characteniUc of the 
Meitiah Himtelt : Pi. Sol. irii. 45 m>iai>«v rh woiiiriar Kifiiov Ir thru «d 
^m•«^rf. In Ihe other Biioks It is characleristic ol Hil subjects. Thui 
4 En. Ti. tSJlerMf au/im/li^ei 1/ Pimtlur earrvpeih; Tii. 34 vtritas Uaiil 
tl fidei cfmaietcU ; 441 1 ^^\le!tltal^t iHlimperanlia.abiciaaal iaeredulilai 
( — dna-riaj. In Apte. Bamti. :jnd AaMmf. MeyJ. the word has this sense, 
tml DOE quite in the lame eonnciion : ApK. Bar. Ilv. j rtvtlas ahuondila im' 
maatlahs foi in fidt suHvtnml st liH it Ugi luai; it glarificabu fidila 
uulajiftmitmm -, Wn.iimridulis ititaiHiumigMiiTtstrva/um; Ass. Mnyi. 
iv. K lAui oMtim tribut ftrmantbtttU mfraifotilafidc. In ApB€. Bar Mi, 1 we 
have It in the sense of failh in the piophecv of coining judgement : JIdit iuditii 
fmmri turn gigntbamr. Sereral times, id opposition to the use in St, Paul, 
■e taui 4ptra 4ifid»t combined, siiU in cooneiioii with Ihe ' lasi things ' but 
miospeciivety with Tefeience to ihe life 00 earth. So 4 Eiini ii. 7, G (/ tril, 
tmmii fit salvtufiuitu fttrit tt jm' pelirit tffugtri pir eprra tua vtl ptr 
/Utm in fua (rtdiiiil, ii nlinqutltir it fnuditlis ptricuiis it vidtUt laiulan 
miim in Irrra mta 11 infimSui mils; liii. 13 ifiit atslodibit qui in ptriiuU 
imtJirint, ii sunt fui Jusl-int Optra it Jidtm ad Forliisimum. ^^'e might 
•ell believe thai both iheae passages were Buggested, though perhaps some- 
what rcBotely. by the verse of Habakknk which St. Paul qunies, Thesame 
aiajr be said of j Ezr. ti. .V 4 ntt lurbtHt U incrtdMlilatis Jirmlium, 
fimiiam *innit tmnJuliu in incnJulilati ma meriitnr (Lii6. Apocr. p. 641;, 
ed O. F. Ftiiuche). 

AnoDC all these Tiriaus osages, in Canonical Boots as well as Extra- 
caoonieal, the usage of Si. FbdI stands out markedly. It forms a climax to 
them all with the angle exception of Si. John. There is baldly one of the 
onlinary tttes which is not tepicsenled \a Ihe Pauline Epistles. To coafine 
oonelves to Ep. 10 Romans; we have the word (i) clearly nsed in the sense 
«( 'fidelily' ot 'faithfolnesa' (the faithfulness of God in performing His 
ptomise*). Rom. iii. 3 : alto (il^ in the sense of a faith which is practically 
that of the miracle- worker, faith as the foundation for ibe exercise of spirimal 
^ilu. Rom lii. 3, 6. We have it (iii) for a faith like thai of Abraham in 
ilie foUilnient of the ptomisel of which he was the choKU recipient, Rom. iv. 
faiiim The faith of Abraham however becoioes mmelhuig tatm than 
a paitlcniar altitude in regard to particular promises: il is (iv) a standing 
attilwle, deliberate hilh in God. the key-note of hit character; in ch. iv. the 
last stDie is constantly glidine ioto this. A faith like Abraham's is typical of 
the Christian'l laiih, which riBS however both a lower sense and a higher; 
aometunet ',*) it is in a general sense the acceptance of Christianity, Rom. i, 
J ; I. 8, 17; xvi. )6; bnt it Is also |vi) that specially strong and conliilent 
aoceptaoce, that Arm planting of the character upon the service of Christ, 
wkich eeablcs b man to disregard imall acmpla, Kom. aiv. 1, is l.t cf. i. 
■ 7. The (BiUc and mainspring of this hi);her form of faith ii (vii) defined 
men oncllj ** ' &ilh in Jesus Chiisi,' Rom. iii. 1> a. v., 16. This ii the 
uuniilug and characleristiG sense with St. Paul ; and it is really Ihii which 
be hM n Ticw wherever he ascribes lo Inilh the decisive sigmhcance whicn 
feedocauciitie toiI,ev(ii thou]^ the object is not expicised (as in I, 17 i iii. 

34 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [l. 16, 17. 

S7 IT. ; ▼• t, a). We ha^e leen that it is not merely anent or adherioa but 
entkusiastU adhesion, personal adhesion; the highest and most effective 
motiTe-power of whidi nnman character is capable. It is well to remember 
that St Paul has all these meanings before him ; and he glances from one to 
another as the hand of a Tiolin-pUjer rans oyer the strings of hb violin. 

The Righteousness of GoeL 

The idea of the righteousness of God, imposing as it is in the 
development given to it in this Epistle, is by no means essentially 
a new one. It is one of those fundamental Biblical ideas which 
ran through both Testaments alike and appear in a great variety of 
application. The Hebrew prophets were as far as possible from 
conceiving of the Godhead as a metaphysical abstraction. The 
I AM THAT I AM of the Book of Exodus is very different from 
the Hvrmt Up, the Pure Being, without attributes because removed 
from all contact with matter, of the Platonizing philosophers. The 
essential properties of Righteousness and Holiness which charac- 
terized the Lord of sdl spirits contained within themselves the 
springs of an infinite expansiveness. Having brought into existence 
a Being endowed with the faculty of choice and capable of right 
and wrong action they could not rest until they had imparted to 
that Being something of themselves. The Prophets and Psalmists 
of the Old Testament seized on this idea and gave it grand and 
far-reaching expression. We are apt not to realize until we come 
to look to what an extent the leading terms in this main pro- 
position of the Epistle had been already combined in the Old 
Testament Reference has been made to the triple combination of 
•righteousness/ * salvation' and 'revelation' in Ps. xcviiL [xcviL] a: 
similarly Is. Ivi. i ' My salvation is near to come, and My righteous- 
ness to be revealed.' The double combination of * righteousness ' 
and 'salvation' is more common. In Ps. xxiv. [xxiii.] 5 it is 
slightly obscured in the LXX : ' He shall receive a blessing from 
the Lord and righteousness {(tXtrjfAoavtnjv) from the God of his 
salvation {napa Gcov a^pos avrov),' In the Second Part of Isaiah 
it occurs frequently: Is. xlv. a 1-35 * There is no God beside Me ; 
a just God and a Saviour {SUatos koI aarrip). Look unto Me and 
be ye saved . . . the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteous- 
ness and shall not return (or righteousness is gone forth from My 
mouth, a word which shall not return R. V. marg,) • • . Only in 
the Lord shall one say unto Me is righteousness and strength. . • . 
In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified (atro Kvpcov 
diicaftt^crovrai), and shall glory': Is. xlvi. 13 'I bring near My 
righteousness ; it shall not be far off, and My salvation shsdl not 
tarry : and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel My glory ' : la. 
IL 5, 6 ' My righteousness is near, My salvation is gone forth • . • 



Mjr salvation shall be for ever, and My righteousness shall not be 

In all these passages the righteousness of God is conceived as 
'going forth,' as projected from the Divine essence and realizing 
itself among men. In Is. liv. 17 it is expressly said, 'Their 
righteousness [which] is of Me * ; and in Is, xlv. 15 the process is 
described as one of justification (' in the Lord shall all the seed of 
Israel be justified': see above). In close attendance on the 
righteousness of God is His salvation ; where the one is the other 
immediately follows. 

These passages seem to have made a deep impression upon 
Sl Paul. To him too it seems a necessity that Che righteousness 
of God should be not only inherent but energijiing, that it should 
impress and dilTuse itself as an active force in the world. 

According to St. Paul the manifestation of the Divine rightenus- 
ness takes a number of different forms. Four of these may be 
specified, (i) It is seen in the fidelity with which God fulfils His 
prmniscs (Rom, iii, 3, 4). (a) It is seen in the punishment 
which God metes out upon sin, especially the great final punish- 
ment, the niup" ipy'i' <"ii BB-QHaXt^itjc iuniOKpmiat roii Biut (Rom. 

ii. 5). Wrath is only the reaction of the Divine righteousness 
when it comes into collision with sin. (3) There is one signal mani- 
iesCaiion of righteousness, the nature of which it is difficult for us 
wholly to grasp, in the Death of Christ, We are going further 
than we have warrant for if we set the Love of God in oppoMtion 
to His Justice ; but we have the express warrant of Rom. iii. 35, 16 
Cor regaidmg the Death on Calvary as a culminating exhibition of 
the Divine righteousness, an exhibition which in some mysterious 
way explains and justifies the apparent slumbering of Divine re- 
cetitment against sin. The inatlequate punishment hitherto in- 
flicted Dpon sin, the long reprieve which had been allowed man- 
kind to induce them to repent, all looked forward as it were to that 
colminating event. Without it they could not have been ; but the 
shadow of it was cast before, and the prospect of it made them 
possible. (4) There is a further link of connexion between what is 
said as to the Death of Christ on Calvary and the leading pro- 
position laid down in these verses (i. 16, 17) as 10 a njihteousness 
of God apprehended by faith. The Death of Christ is of the 
nantre of a sacrifice (<> t^ ofrov aifuiTi) and acts as an Aaimjpinr 
(iii- as q- '■) by virtue of which the Righteousness of God which 
reaches its culminating expression in it becomes capable of wide 
dtfinsioQ amongst men. This is the gicat ' going forth ' of the 
Divine Righteousness, and it embraces in its scope all believers. 
Tlie essence of it, however, is — at least at first, whatever it may he 
akimatcly — that it consists not in making men actually righteous 
bat in ' justifying ' or treating ihem as if they were righleoua 

3/6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS p. 16» 17. 

Here we reach a fundamental conception with St. Paul, and one 
which dominates all this part of the Epistle to the Romans, so that 
it may be well to dwell upon it in some detail. 

We have seen that a process of transference or conversion 
takes place ; that the righteousness of which St Paul speaks, though 
it issues forth from God, ends in a state or condition of man. How 
could this be? The name which St. Paul gives to the process 
is dacaia)(rtir (iv. 25, V. 1 8). More often he uses in respect to 
it the verb ducaiovaOai (iiL 34, 38, v. i, 9, viii. 30, 33). The ftill 
phrase is diKoioOa-^at ^k nlartw : which means that the believer, bj 
virtue of his faith, is ' accounted or treated as if he were righteous' 
in the sight of God. More even than this: the person so 'ac- 
counted righteous' may be, and indeed is assumed to be, not 
actually righteous, but dtrtfifis (Rom. iv. 5), an ofifender against 

There is something sufficiently startling in this. The Christian 
life is made to have its beginning in a fiction. No wonder that 
the fact is questioned, and that another sense is given to the words 
— that dcfcacoOo-^at is taken to imply not the attribution of righteous- 
ness in idea but an imparting of actual righteousness. The facts 
of language, however, are inexorable : we have seen that dueoioCv, 
6iKaiov(r$M have the first sense and not the second ; that they are 
rightly said to be ' forensic' ; that they have reference to a judicial 
verdict, and to nothing beyond. To this conclusion we feel bound 
to adhere, even though it should follow that the state described 
is (if we are pressed) a fiction, that God is regarded as dealing 
with men rather by the ideal standard of what they may be than by 
the actual standard of what they are. What this means is that 
when a man makes a g^eat change such as that which the first 
Christians made when they embraced Christianity, he is allowed 
to start on his career with a clean record; his sin-stained past 
is not reckoned against him. The change is the great thing ; it 
is that at which God looks. As with the Prodigal Son in the 
parable the breakdown of his pride and rebellion in the one cry, 
'Father, I have sinned' is enough. The father does not wait 
to be gracious. He does not put him upon a long term of 
probation, but reinstates him at once in the full privilege of 
sonship. The justifying verdict is nothing more than the 'best 
robe' and the 'ring' and the 'fatted calf' of the parable (Luke 

ZV. 33 f.). 

When the process of Justification is thus reduced to its simplest 
elements we see that there is after all nothing so very strange 
about it It is simply Forgiveness, Free Forgiveness. The Parable 
of the Prodigal Son is a picture of it which is complete on two 
of its sides, as an expression of the attitude of mind required in 
the sinner, and of the reception accorded to him by God. To] righteousness of god by FArrn 


insist that it must also be complete in a n^gaitve sense, and thai 
it excludes any further conditions of acceptance, because no such 
conditions are mentioned, is to forget the nature of a paralile. 
It would be as reasonable to argue that the father would be 
indifferent to the future conduct of the son whom he has recovered 
because the curtain falls upon the scene of his recovery and is 
not again lifted. By pressing the argument from silence in this 
war ** should only m<ike the Gospels inconsistent with them- 
selves, because elsewhere they too (as we shall see] speak of 
fonber conditions besides the aililude and temper of the sinner 

W« see then that at bottom and when we come to the essence ol 
things the teaching of the Gospels is not really different from the 
icsLbing of St. Paul. It may be said that the one is tenderly and 
pathetically human where the other is a system of Jewish Scho- 
Usticism. But even if we allow the name it is an encouragement 
to as lo Bcek for the simpler meaning of much iljat we may be 
inclined to call ' scholastic' And we may also by a little inspection 
discover that in following out tines of thought wliich might come 
under this description St. Paul is really taking up the threads of 
grand and far-reaching ideas which had fallen from the Prophets 
of leiact and had never yet been carried forwards to their legitimate 
ianies. The Son of Man goes straight, as none other, to the 
heart of our common humanity ; but that does not exclude the 
right of ptiilosophizing or theologizing on the facts of religion, and 
(hat b surely not a valueless theology which has such facts as its 

What has been thus farurged may serve to mitigate the apparent 
ttrangeness of St. Paul's doctrine of Justiticaiion. But there is 
much more to be said when we come to take that doctrine with 
its context and lo put it in its proper place in relation to the whole 

In ibe first place ii must be remembered that the doctrine belongs 
sulaljr apeakmg only to the beginning of the Chnslian's career. 
It marks the initial stage, the entrance upon the way of life. Il 
was pointed out a moment ago that in the Parable of the Prodigal 
Son ibe curtain drops at the readmission of the prodifcal to his 
home. Wc iiave no further glimpse of his home life. To isolate 
the doctrine of Justification is lo drop the curtain at the same 
pUce, as if the justified believer had no after-career lo be re- 

Bat St. Paul does not so isolate it. He takes it up and foUows 
e»ery step in that after-career till it ends in the final glory {oti it 
iittm,0«t, Tomvt «i •iojiwi viii. 30). We may say roughly thai 
the first five chapters of the Epistle are concerned with the dcx:trine 
of JusiificaiioD, in itself (i. 16-— iii. 30), in its relation to leading 
foUaraof ibe Old Covenant (iii 31 — iv. 85) and in the consc- 


qnences which flowed from it (v. i-a i). But with ch. vi another 
hctOT is introduced, the Mystical Union of the Christian with the 
Risen Christ This subject is prosecuted through three chapters, 
vi-viii, which really cover (except perhaps the one section viL 
7-25) — and that with great fulness of detail — the whole career 
of the Christian subsequent to Justification. We shall speak of 
the teaching of those chapters when we come to them. 

It is no doubt an arguable question how far these later chapters 
can rightly be included under the same category as the earlier. 
Dr. Liddon for instance summarizes their contents as ' Justification 
considered subjectively and in its effects upon life and conduct 
Moral consequences of Justification. (A) The Life of Justification 
and sin (vi. 1-14). (B) The Life of Justification and the Mosaic 
Law (vL 15 — vii. 25). (C) The Life of Justification and the work 
of the Holy Spirit (viii.).' The question as to the legitimacy of 
this description hangs together with the question as to the meaning 
of the term Justificadon. If Justification =/2tf/2/2ii2 infusa as well 
as imputata^ then we need not dispute the bringing of chaps, vi-viii 
under that category. But we have given the reasons which compel 
us to dissent from this view. The older Protestant theologians dis- 
tinguished between Justification and Sanctification ; and we think 
that they were right both in drawing this distinction and in 
referring chaps, vi-viii to the second head rather than to the first 
On the whole St Paul does keep the two subjects separate from 
each other ; and it seems to us to conduce to clearness of thought 
to keep them separate. 

At the same time we quite admit that the point at issue is rather 
one of clearness of thought and convenience of thinking than 
anything more material. Although separate the two subjects run 
up into each other and are connected by real links. There is an 
organic unity in the Christian life. Its different parts and functions 
are no more really separable than the different parts and functions 
of the human body. And in this respect there is a true analogy 
between body and soul. When Dr. Liddon concludes his note 
(p. 18) by saying, 'Justification and sanctification may be dis- 
tinguished by the student, as are the arterial and nervous systems 
in the human body ; but in the living soul they are coincident and 
inseparable/ we may cordially agree. The distinction between 
Justification and Sanctification or between the subjects of chaps, 
i. 16 — V, and chaps, vi-viii is analogous to that between the arterial 
and nervous systems; it holds good as much and no more — ^no 
more, but as much. 

A further question may be raised which the advocates of the 
view we have just been discussing would certainly answer in the 
afiirmative, viz. whether we might not regard the whole working 
out of the influences brought to bear upon the Christian in chaps. 


vi-viii, as jet a fifth great expression of the Righteousness of God 
as energizing amongst men. We too think that it might be so 
regarded. It stands quite on a like footing with other manifesta- 
tions of that Righteousness. All that can be said to the contrary 
is that St Paul himself does not explicitly give it this name. 


1. 18-82. This revelation of Righteousness^ issuing forth 
from God and embracing tptan, has a dark background in 
thai other revelation of Divine Wrath at the gross wicked- 
ness of men (ver, i8). 

There are three stages: (i) the knowledge of God which 
all might have from the character imprinted upon Creation 
(w. 19-20) ; (2) the deliberate ignoring of this knowledge 
and idle speculation ending in idolatry (w. 21-23) 5 (3) '^ 
judicial surrender of those who provoke God by idolatry U 
every kind of moral degradation (w, 24-32). 

* This message of mine is the one ray of hope for a doomed 
world. The only other revelation, which we can see all around 
us, is a revelation not of the Righteousness but of the Wrath 
of God breaking forth — or on the point of breaking forth — from 
heaven, like the lightning from a thundercloud, upon all the 
countless offences at once against morals and religion of which 
mankind are guilty. They stifle and suppress the Truth within 
them, while they go on still in their wrong-doing (cV adac.). ^* It is 
DOC merely ignorance. All that may be known of God He has 
revealed in their hearts and consciences. '^For since the world 
has been created His attributes, though invisible in themselves, 
are traced upon the fabric of the visible creation. I mean, His 
Power to which there is no beginning and those other attributes 
which we sum up under the common name of Divinity. 

So plain is sdl this as to make it impossible to escape the 
responsibility of ignoring it ^ The guilt of men lay not in their 
ignorance; for they had a knowledge of God. But in spite of 
diat knowledge, they did not pay the homage due to Him as 


God: they gave Him no thanks; but they gave the rein to futile 
speculations; they lost sdl intelligence of truth, and their moral 
sense was obscured, " While they boasted of their wisdom, they 
#ere turned to folly. ''In place of the majesty of the Eternal 
God, they worshipped some fictitious representation of weak and 
perishable man, of bird, of quadruped or reptile. 

** Such were the beginnings of idolatry. And as a punishment 
for it God gave them up to moral corruption, leaving them to 
follow their own depraved desires wherever they might lead, even 
to the polluting of their bodies by shameful intercourse. ■• Repro- 
bates, who could abandon the living and true God for a sham 
divinity, and render divine honours and ritual observance to the 
creature, neglecting the Creator (Blessed be His name for ever I). 

"Because of this idolatry, I repeat, God gave them up to the 
vilest passions. Women behaved like monsters who had forgotten 
their sex. "^ And men, forsaking the natural use, wrought shame 
with their own kind, and received in their physical degradation 
a punishment such as they deserved. 

•• They refused to make God their study : and as they rejected 
Him, so He rejected them, giving them over to that abandoned 
mind which led them into acts disgraceful to them as men: 
•• replete as they were with every species of wrong-doing; with 
active wickedness, with selfish greed, with thorough inward de- 
pravity : their hearts brimming over with envy, murderous thoughts, 
quarrelsomeness, treacherous deceit, rank ill-nature; backbiters, 
^ slanderers ; in open defiance of God, insolent in act, arrogant in 
thought, braggarts in word towards man; skilful plotters of evil, 
bad sons, '*dull of moral apprehension, untrue to their word, 
void of natural duty and of humanity : '-^ Reprobates, who, knowing 
full well the righteous sentence by which God denounces death 
upon all who act thus, are not content with doing the things which 
He condemns themselves but abet and applaud those who practise 

18. There is general agreement as to the structure of this 
part of the Epistle. St. Paul has just stated what the Gospel 
is; he now goes on to show the necessity for such a Gospel 
The world is lost without it. Following what was for a Jew 
the obvious division, proof is given of a complete break-down in 
regard to righteousness (i) on the part of the Gentiles, (ii) on the 


part of the Jews. The summary conclusion of the whole section 
L 1 8 — ill. 20 is given in the two verses iii. 19, ao: it is that the 
whole world, Gentile and Jew alike, stands guilty before God. 
Thus the way is prepared for a further statement of the means of 
removing that state of guilt offered in the Gospel. 

MATcion retained ver. 18, omitting: Btov, perhaps throLgh some accident 
00 his own part or in the MS. which he copied (^Zahn, 11/ iup»p. 516; the 
rather important cnrsive 47 has the same omission). The rest of^the chapter 
with ii I he seems to have excised. He may have been jealous of this 
trenchant attack npon the Gentiles. 

'AvoKaXinrrcTOi. How is this revelation made ? Is the reference 
to the Final Judgement, or to the actual condition, as St Paul 
saw it, of the heathen world ? Probably not to either exclusively, 
but to both in close combination. The condition of the world 
seems to the Apostle ripe for judgement; he sees around him 
on all hands signs of the approaching end. In the latter half 
of this chapter Sl Paul lays stress on these signs : he develops 
the iBTomXvvrcTm, present. In the first half of the next chapter 
he brings out the final doom to which the signs are pointing. 
Observe the links which connect the two sections : anoKokwrrrrak 

iL I. 

4py9| ecotf. (i) In the O. T. the conception of the Wrath of 
God has special reference to the Covenant-relation. It is inflicted 
either (a) upon Israelites for gross breach of the Covenant (Lev. 
X. I, a Nadab and Abihu; Num. xvi. 33, 46 ff. Korah; xxv. 3 
Baal-peor), or (/3) upon non-Israelites for oppression of the Chosen 
People (Jer. L 11-17; Ezek. xxxvi. 5). (a) In the prophetic 
writings this infliction of * wrath' is gradually concentrated upon 
a great Day of Judgement, the Day of the Lord (Is. ii. 10-22, ftc; 
Jer. XXX. 7, 8 ; Joel iii. 12 ff. ; Obad 8 ff. ; Zeph. iii. 8 ff.). (3) Hence 
the N. T. use seems to be mainly, if not altogether, eschatological : 
dL Matt iii. 7; i Thess. L 10; Rom. ii. 5, v. 9; Rev. vi. 16, 17. 
Even I Thess. iL 16 does not seem to be an exception: the state 
of the Jews seems to St. Paul to be only a foretaste of the final 
woes. See on this subject esp. Ritschl, Rechtfertigung u. Versoh- 
nung, iL 124 ff. ed. 2. 

Sbnilarly Eathym.- Zig. 'AvoffaX^vrtrai «.t.X. h ^fi4p^ ^tjkov&n mplfftmt. 
We most remember however that St. Paul r^arded the Day of Judgement as 
near at hand. 

iw dSiKi^ ' living in unrighteousness M^ wht'/e* Moule. 

Barcx^w*^. KorMx^uf := (i) ^ to hold fast' Lk. viii. 15 ; i Cor. xL 2, 
XV. a, Sec ; (ii) ' to hold down,' * hold in check ' 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7, 
where to mrtxcw, 6 mrcxwysthe force of [Roman] Law and Order 
bj which Antichrist is restrained: similarly liere bat in a bad 


sense ; it is the truth which is ' held down,' hindered, thwuted, 
checked in its free and expansive operation. 

19. Si^ : always in Gk. Test. = * because.' There are three uses : 
(i) for bi ^ rt = propter quod^ guamodrem, ' wherefore/ introducing 
a consequence ; (ii) for duk rovro in = propkrta quod^ or quia^ 
'because/ giving a reason for what has gone before; (iii) from 
Herod, downwards, but esp. in later GL = 2n, ' that' 

T& YKtNrr^r. This is a similar case to that of 9hob<»&ii<rQitiu above : 
yvwrr6i in Scripture generally (both LXX and N. T.) means as 
a rule 'known (e.g. Acts i. 19, ii. 14, xv. 18, Ac.); but it does 
not follow that it may not be used in the stricter sense of 
*knowable/ 'what may be known' ('the intelligible nature' 
T. H. Green, The Witness of God^ p. 4) where the context favours 
that sense: so Orig. Theoph. Weiss. Gif., against Chr3rs. Mey. 
De W. Va. There is the more room for this stricter use here 
as the word does not occur elsewhere in St. Paul and the induction 
does not cover his writings. 

{i' a^Tois, ' within them.' St. Paul repeatedly uses this preposi- 
tion where we might expect a different one (cf. GaL i. 16; Rom. 
ii. 15): any revelation must pass through the human conscious- 
ness : so Mey. Go. Oltr. Lips., not exactly as Gif. (' in their very 
nature and constitution as men *) or Moule (' among them)/ 

Compare also Luther, Table Talk, Aph. dxlix : ' MeUnchthon discouiiiM 
with Luther touching the prophets, who continoAllj boast that : *' Thus saiin 
the Lord/' asked whether God in person spoke with them or na Lather 
replied : " They were yery holy, spiritual people, who seriously contemplated 
upon holy and divine things: therefore God spake with them in their 
consciences, which the prophets held as sure and certain revelations.*' * 

It is however possible that allowance should be made for the wider 
Hebraistic use of Iv, as in the phrase KaKtiy iy rivi (Habak. IL i dvocKO' 
9€vaoj Tov tb€iy ri KaXr^^ti Iv ifiol: cf. Zech. i. Q, 13, 14, 19 ; ii. 3 ; It. 4. 5 ; 
T. 5, 10 ; TL 4 ; also 4 £zr. t. 15 angelus out Icquebatur in me. In that 
case too much stress must not be laid on the preposition as describing an 
internal process. At the same time the analogy of KoKhv kv does not cover 
the very explicit ^vtpov lartv Ik avrois : and we must remember that 
St. Paul is writing as one who had himself an 'abundance of revelations* 
(3 Cor. xii. 7), and uses the language which corresponded to his own 

20. dir& KTicretfs K^crfMii. Gif. is inclined to translate this ' from 
the created universe,* * creation * (in the sense of ' things created ') 
being regarded as the source of knowledge: he alleges Vulg. 
a creatura mundi. But it is not clear that Vulg, was intended 
to have this sense; and the parallel phrases «ijr* apxrit Koa/tom 
(Matt. xxiv. 21), M icara/SoX^r K6afiov (Matt zzv. 34; Luke zi. 50; 
Rev. ziii. 8 ; zvii. 8), an dpxrjs Kviatms (Mark z. 6; ziii. 19; 2 Pet 
iii. 4), seem to show that the force of the prep, is rather temporal^ 
^ since the creation of the universe' (d<^* of xp^^'^ ^ 6paTf»s tKrlaBii 
w^iioi £uthym.-Zig.). The idea of knowledge being derived from 


tlie bbric of die created world ia in any case contained in the 

Bee Lft, Col. p. 214. Kr'uru has three senses: (i) the 
act of creating (as here) ; (ii) the result of that act, whether (a) the 
aggregate of created things (Wisd. v. 18 ; zvi. 14; Col. i. 15 and 
prt^ubly Rom. viii. ig ff.); or (|S) a creature, a single created thing 
(Hcb. iv. 13, and perhaps Rom. viii. 39. q. v.). 

KaSoj^Srcu : commonly explained to mean ' are clearly seen ' 

(«ra with intensive force, as in taratuivBavtiy, naTarKtlv) ; so Fri, 

Grm.-Thay. Gif. ftc. It may however relate rather to the direction 
of light, 'are surveyed,' ' contemplated' ('are under observation' 
Mode). Both senses are represented in the two places in which 
t!)e word occurs in LXX : (i) in Job x. 4 ^ &trmp ffiKrrU 6p^ taSup^t ; 

(u) in Num. zxiv. a BbXr^^ . . . taSup^ rdv 'lapat]\ tarparonfiivicura 

dfSiot : aiXiSnjt is a Divine attribute in Wisd. ii. ^3 (v. l, see 
below); cf. also Wisd. vii. 16 <t>aTit aiilov. Jude 6. 

The argument from the nature of the created world to the 
character of its Author is as old as the Fsaller, Job and Isaiah : 
Pu. ziz. I ; xciv. 9; cxiiii. 5; Is. xlii. 5; zlv. 18; Job zit. g; 
sxvi. 14; xxxvi. 34 S. ; Wisd. ii. 23 ; xiii. 1, 5, Ac. It is common 
to Greek thought as well as Jewish: Arist. Zfe Munda 6 aetiiprfrot 
U avriir ri» ."..yB* Btapflrai [i &i&t] (Lid.). This argument is very 
fully set forth by Philo, D4 Pratm. et Poen. 7 (Mang, ii. 415) 
After describing the order and beauty of Namre he goes on : 
' Admiring and being struck with amazement ai these things, they 
arrived U a conception consistent with what (hey had seen, that 
all these beauties so admirable in their arrangement have not come 
into being spontaneously (oU aTravTt,iiana6irT» yiyoiti.), but are the 
»otk of some Maker, the Creator of the world, and that tliere must 
needs be a Providence (npSrouui) ; because it is a law of nature 
that Ibe Crcalive Power (ri ■oro.rjutt) must take care of that which 
has come into being. But these admirable men superior as they 
are to all others, as I said, advanced from below upwards as if 
by a kind of celestial ladder guessing at the Creator from His 

works by probable inference (o'a Sui rvir alixaiimi tXifiaicoi dira rav 
t^y* <l«iTi Xoyto/il^ irmx"traiiirat Tiir iijiunvpyA*), 

ttUrnt : fiiiWrit = Divine Personality, fl(uinj» = Divine nature and 
propertiea : Svrafut is a single attribute, ininis ia a summary term 
for those other attributes which constitute Divinity : the word 
appean in Biblical Ck. first in Wisd. zviii. 9 rd* r^i Sfiifniiot »6^ini 

»(,T*in.iL ii; Migne, />. C. i 
_ i^r^ bere, ud it ii fomid in one ma., r. 
la oerulol^ loniewlut mange thai to geaeisl a lerm a. 
" ■ '"' " n deoonng a puQculat atlribuW 111 

t, 6S4) acccKS the betetica ol 


the signification of 96(a, the diTioe glory or splendour. It it inggested 
that wis word was not used because it seemed inadequate to describe the 
nniqueness of the Divine Nature (Rogge, Die Anschauungen d, Ap, Paulm 
vom d. religiossUtL Chardkt, d, HeuUntums^ Leipzig, 1888, p. 10 £) 

els t6 et^ai : cfr r<S denotes here not direct and primary purpose 
but indirect, secondary or conditional purpose. God did not 
design that man should sin ; but He did design that if they sinned 
they should be without excuse : on His part all was done to 
give them a suflficient knowledge of Himself. Burton however 
(Moods and Tenses, § 411) takes tU t6 here as expressing not 
purpose but result, because of the causal clause which follows. 

* This clause could be forced to an expression of purpose only by 
supposing an ellipsis of some such expression as xal ovrw 9UriM, 
and seems therefore to require that tU rh €uku be interpreted as 
expressing result' There is force in this reasoning, though the use 
of €h TO for mere result is not we believe generally recognized 

21. <S<S$acraK. do(aCa> is one of the words which show a deepened 
significance in their religious and Biblical use. In classical Greek 
in accordance with the slighter sense of ^(a it merely = ' to form 
an opinion about ' (do^afd/xcvor 5dticos, * held to be unrighteous/ Plato, 
Rep, 588 B) ; then later with a gradual rise of signification * to do 
honour to ' or * praise ' (cW* aper^ Mo^aafJvoi Mptt Polyb. VI. liii, 
10). And so in LXX and N. T. with a varying sense according 
to the subject to whom it is applied : (i) Of the honour done by 

man to man (Esth. iiL I tdo^aa-tv 6 0aaiXtvs 'hfyra^tp^s *Afiav); 

(ii) Of that which is done by man to God (Lev. x. 3 cV wdaij rj 
avvayotyfi ^o^aOrjaofuu) ; (iii) Of the glory bestowed on man by God 
(Rom. viii. 30 ots dc c'ddcaitto-r, Tovrovs «cal cdd^oo'c) ; (iv) In a sense 
specially characteristic of the Gospel of St. John, of the visible 
manifestation of the glory, whether of the Father by His own act 
(Jo. xii. 28), or of the Son by His own act (Jo. xi. 4), or of the Son 
by the act of the Father (Jo. vii. 39; xii. 16, 23, &c.), or of the 
Father by the Incarnate Son (Jo. xiiL 31 ; xiv. 13 ; xviL i, 4, &c.). 
<fiaTai^9T)aaK, * were frustrated,' * rendered fiitile.' In LXX to 
fMaraia = * idols ' as * things of nought.' The two words occur 

together in a Kings Xvii. 15 "^^^ €iroptvdrj(rav oniact rwv fiarainp «u 

SiaXoyiafiois : as usually in LXX and N. T. in a bad sense of 

* perverse, self-willed, reasonings or speculations ' (cf. Hatch, JExx. 
m Bibl Gk, p. 8). 

Comp. Enoch xcix. 8, 9 ' And they will hecome godless hy reason of the 
foolishness of their hearts, and their eyes will be blinded through the fear of 
their hearts and through visions in their dreams. Through these they will 
become godless and fearful, because they work aU their works in a lie and 
they worship a stone.' 

napSia : the most comprehensive term for the human faculties. 


the seat of feeling (Rom. ix. a ; x. i) ; will (i Cor. iv. 5 ; vii, 37 ; 
cd Rom. zvL 18); thoughts (Rom. x. 6, 8). Physically icapdio 
belongs to the (rvXdyxvo (> Cor. vi. 11, 12); the conception of its 
functions being connected with the Jewish idea that life resided in 
the blood : morally it is neutral in its character, so that it may be 
either the home of lustful desires (Rom. i. 24), or of the Spirit 
(Rom. V. 5). 

28. JiXXa{ar <r: an imitation of a Heb. construction: cf. Ps. 
en. (cv.) ao ; also for the expression Jer. ii. 1 1 (Del ad he) ftc. 

S^ar = 'manifested perfection.' See on iii. 23. 

Comp. with this rerse Philo, Vit. Mos. iii ao (Mang. ii. 161) of rov 
iXi\l9ti 9§^ KOToXiT^rrcf tovs tftvbcayvfwvt idrffitotipyrjaayy <p6ai>Taif ical yfyrjnus 
oickus riji^ rev dytvrfrov koI dipBdprov wp6<rpr)aty imifnj fuoay T€t : also Dt Ebriit. 
38 (Mang. i. 374) vap' h mcH dfowXxurruy dp£cifAfyos dyaXftarcuv koI (odyeop moI 
SXXotif iwpUfW d^ipVfMTuv Ifkous 9iaip6p<HS TtTfxyirtvfiivojp KariwKrjfft Hfif 
oUovfUtnfif . . . Harfipydfforo t6 ivctyrloy <^ wpoff€B6KrfO€Vf dtrrl iai&rrirot 
iaififiea^-'-r^ ydp wo\v$90v iv reus rwr d^poyow i^vxw dBtSrrif, koI Btov rtfirjs 
dXMTftficw (A rd 0injprd ^ci^orrcf— oft ovk l^^picco'cy ^Xiov ncd etk^rrfs . . . 
fic^pot 9tawXAaaa$ai, dXX' IjSij ical dX6yois (iiois mal <^oif r^s rtUr dipBdpmf 

vap^MKCK : three times repeated, here, in ver. 26 and in 
ver. 28. These however do not mark so many distinct stages in 
the punishment of the heathen ; it is all one stage. Idolatry leads 
to moral corruption which may take different forms, but in all is 
a proof of God's displeasure. Gif. has proved that the force of 
vaptimKtp is not latTtiy permistive (Chrys. Theodrt Euthym.-Zig.*), 
through God permitting men to have their way; or privative^ 
through His withdrawing His gracious aid ; hMi judiaal, the appro- 
priate punishment of their defection : it works automatically, one 
evil leading to another by natural sequence. 

This is a Jewish doctriDe : Pirqi Aboth^ iv. a < Every fulfilment of duty it 
rewarded by another, and every transgression is punished by another ' ; Shah- 
kctk 104* ' Whosoever strives to keep himself pore receives the power to do 
so, and whosoever will be impure to him is it [the door of vice] thrown 
open ' ; Jems. Talmud, ' He who erects a fence round himself is fenced, and 
he who gives himself over is given over * (from Delitzsch, Notes on Heb. 
Vexsioo of £p. to Rom.). The Jews held that the heathen because of their 
rejectioo of the Law were wholly abandoned by God : the Holy Spirit was 
withdrawn from them (Weber, AUsyn. ThioL p. 66). 

lrd>Tois MA BCD* several cursives; tviavroU ]>EFGKLP, 
*c., printed editions of Fathers, Orig. Chrj s. Theodrt., Vulg. (m 
coniumeliis adficiant corpora sua in tpst's). The balance is strongly 

* Similarly Adrian, an Antiochene writer (c. 440 a.d.) in his Elffaywyfi di 
Tcb iuas ffo^ds, a classified collection of figures and modes of speech em- 
ployed in Holy Scripture, refers this verse to the head T^ knl rw dy$ponriro^ 
«a«fir ^vyx^pffffv row S4ov dn w/kd^ty oArw kiyn* iwtiSi^ kiXvcoi Sm^apityot, 
vovr»«& wmu. 


in favour of avrolr. With this reading dnpdteo^ai is pass., and 99 
amols = * among them ' : with cV iavrois, drifi. is mid. (as Vulg.). 

On the forms, ai^ov, a&rov and lavrov see Battmann, Gr, of N, T, Gi. (tc 
Thayer) p. 11 1 ; Hort, Introd,y Notes on Orthography, p. 144. 

In N. T. Greek there is a tendency to the disuse of strong reflexiire forms. 
Simple possession is most commonly expressed by o^rov, aur^, &c. : only 
where the reflexive character is emphasized (not merely suum, but tumm 
ipsims) is lavrov used (hence the importance of such phrases as t^k kavrw 
vl^v wifopas Rom. viii. 3). Some critics have denied the existence in the 
N. T. of the aspirated airrov : and it is true that there is no certain proof of 
aspiration (such as the occurrence before it of oOx or an elided preposition; 
in early MSS. breathings are rare), but in a few strong cases, where the 
omission of the aspirate would be against all Greek nsage, it is retained by 
WH. (e.g. in Ja ii. 34; Lk. xxiiL la). 

26. oiTiKfs: Saris, often called *rel. of quality/ (i) denotes 
a single object with reference to its kind, its nature, its capacities, 
its character (' one who/ * being of such a kind as that ') ; and thus 
(ii) it frequently makes the adjectival sentence assign a cause for 
the main sentence : it is used like qui\ or quippe qui, with subj. 

T^K dXi^OeiaK . . . Tw ijrcuSei : abstr. for concrete, for rhv oKnfiufhv 

Btop . . . roif ^ffvdc(n ^foir, cf. I Thess. i. 9. 

icrePdaOricraK. This use of atpdCfaOtu is an dira( Xry6/uvop ; the 
common form is atfitaOM (see Va.). 

vapd t6k KTicravra = not merely * more than the Creator ' (a force 
which the preposition might bear), but 'passing by the Creator 
altogether/ * to the neglect of the Creator.' 

Ct Philo, De Mund. Opif. 2 (Mangey, i. a) nvh yiLp rdv m6vi»w /uikXow i) 
^v KoaiMftoibv BavfidoavTMS (Loesner). 

Ss ioTiK efiXoytjT^s. Doxologies like this are of constant occurrence 
in the Talmud, and are a spontaneous expression of devout feeling 
called forth either by the thought of God's adorable perfections or 
sometimes (as here) by the forced mention of that which reverence 
would rather hide. 

27. diroXajiPdi'orres : dno\.= (i) * to receive back* (as in Luke vi. 
34) ; (ii) * to receive one's due * (as in Luke xxiii. 41) ; and so here. 

28. 4SoKif&acraK : doicifuiCw = (i) *to test* (i Cor. iii. 13, &c.); 
(ii) * to approve after testing' (so here; and ii. 18 ; xiv. 22, &c); 
similarly ddoKifiov = * rejected after testing,* * reprobate.' 

i¥ imyv6(T€i : €niyv<oais = * a/jfer knowledge ' : hence (i) recogni- 
tion (vb. =:'to reco-inize,* Matt. vii. 16; xvii. 12, &c.) ; (ii)* ad- 
vanced ' or * further knowledge,' * full knowledge.' See esp. Sp, 
Comm. on i Cor. xiii. 1 2 ; Lft. on Phil. i. 9. 

¥o\iy = the reasoning faculty, esp. as concerned with moral 
action, the intellectual part of conscience : pois and (rwti^rjais are 
combined in Tit. i. 15 : vovs may be either bad or good ; for the 
good sense see Rom. xii. a ; £ph. iv. 23. 


ti aeBTfKxurm : a technical term with the Stoics, ' what b morallj' 
lilting ' ; cf. abo 2 Mace vi. 4. 

SD. We must beware of atl-emptinR 10 force the catalogut 
which follows into a logical order, though here and there a certain 
aiDouQi of grouping is noticeable. I'he lirsi four are general 
terms for wickedness ; then toltons a group headed by the allilera- 
li«e ^6mu, ^rov, ntth other kindred vices ; then two forms of 
backbiting: then a group in descending ciimax of sins of arro- 
gmce; then a someuhat miscellaneous assortment, in which again 
aJliteraiion plays a part. 

dSiRif : a comprehensive term, including all that follows, 

Topnia : om. M A B C K ; probably suggested by slmilarily in 

sound to iTorq/iif , 

«on|pif : contains the idea of ' activt mischief (Hatch, Bfi/. Gk, 
p. 77 t; Trench, Syn. p. 303). Dr. T. K. Abboli {Etsays. p. 97) 
railier contests the assignment of this specific meaning to torr)pia ; 
and no doubt the use of the word is extremely wide : but where 
dc6rution is needed it is in this direction that it must be sought. 

Koais : as compared with vorrniia denotes rather inward vicious- 
nest of disposition (Trench, Syn. p. 36 f.). 

Tlie MSS, Tuy u to the order of the three wordi wor^^ wKionftq, laiiif, 
VH. ttst RV. leuin ibii order witb BL, *c.. Horcl. Ann., Ba». Greg.- 
Kjw. */.: TUch. \VH. moiy. rend »onjA «ur. tiKtwi. wllh HA, Pe<ih. ■/ : 
tfU. marg. alio rtcogcliet nan. tartp. wKtor. with C. Bnh. a/ 
^** — ^tf. On the «Kenipt which I* loroetimes made to give to this wonl 
e of ' imparity ' lee Lfu on Col. iii, 5. The word itself mrans only 
I gntA' wfaich may bowerer be exhibited under circum^tiiDca wheie 
tj lir» neat al hand : e.g. in 1 The», iv. 6 wAtwiarnV u nied of 
7, but tatber ta ■ wrong done to another Ibao u ■ vice. 

saxortBcCat : the tendency to put the worst construction upon 
everything (Arist. Rhel. a. 13 ; cf. Trench, Syn. p. 38). The word 
occurs several limes in 3 and 4 Maccabees. 

30. ^ihpivTCtt, laTaXtlXouc. The idea of secresy is contained in 
the first of these words, not in the second: ^ifl. susurralora 
Cypr. Lucif. Ambrstr. susurroius Aug. Vulg. ; rtamX. ditractores 
Cypt. Aug. Vulg., dilriclatQTtt {detract-) Lucif. Ambrstr. al. 

4m«t«v*^ : may be either (i) passive, Dee odibiltt Vulg. : so 
Mejr. Weiss Fri. Oltr. Lips. Lid. ; on the ground that this is the 
constant meaning in class. Gk.. where the word is not uncommon ; 
or (it) active, Dti otorts = abhorrtnia Dto Cypr.; so Euthym.-Zig. 
(rovt rAr 0(^ >uoovrrai). Tyn, and Other English versions not derived 
6oin Vulg., also GiC Go. Va., with some support from Clem. Rom, 
oJ Cor. XXXV. 5, who in paraphrasing this passage uses Sioarvyia 
cleaHy with an active signification, though he follows it by aTvyqiai 
Tf e«f. As one among a catalogue of vices this would give the 
more pointed sense, imless we might suppose that Aoo-rtrytic had 
come to b>Te a meaning like our ' desperadoes.' The three ten<is 


which follow remind us of the bullies and braggarts of the Elixa- 
bethan stage. For the distinction between them see Trench, Spu 
p. 96 flF. 

It is well preserved in the Cyprianic Latin, iniuriosiy tuperbif iactantis sui. 
For the last phrase Lncif. has glorianUs ; either woold be better than the 
common rendering tlatos (Cod. Clarom. Cod. Boem. Ambrstr. Ang. Vulg.)- 

{nrcp'fi^vot. Mayor (on Jas. it. 6) derives this word from the adjectival 
form vwfpot (rather than inrip Trench) and ^cuko;, comparing kka^fioXot from 
ikatpot and fi6XXw : he explains it as meaning ' conspicnons beyond others/ 
' outshining them/ and so ' proud/ ' haughty ': see his note^ and the exx. 
there quot^ from Ecclus. and Pss, Sol. 

81. Ao^n^Tovt : dowciSTrovf (* without conscience ') £nthym.>Zig. How 
closely the two woxdi c^*ai% and awii^c it are related will appear from 
Polyb. XVIIL zzvL 13 oiiMs oCran otrrt fi&pTvs iarl <po0*p^t o(n§ xar^yopot 
Scivdt cbr 1) o^ccit 1) kytcaroiKovaa rtut l«a(rraFK ifnrj(ms, [But is not this 
a gloss, on the text of Polyb. t It is fonnd in the margin of Cod. Urbin.] 

daui^^Tous, ' false to their engagements ' (<rvp6ijK(u) ; of. Jer. iii. 7, 

doir^KSous after aarSpyovt (Trench, Sym. p. 95 fif.) ia added 
from a Tim. iu. 3 [C K L ?]. 

82. oZtikcs : see on ver. 25 above. 

t6 Skiiaicdfut : prob. in the first instance (i) a declaration that 
a thing is dUatop fro duco/oo/ia rot) v6fMov = ' that which the Law lays 
down as right/ Kom. viii. 4] ; hence, ' an ordinance ' (Luke i. 6 ; 
Rom. ii. a6 ; Heb. ix. i, 10) ; or (ii) ' a declaration that a person 
is dueoiof/ 'a verdict of not guilty/ 'an acquittal': so esp. in 
St Paul (e.g. Rom. v. 16). But see also note on p. 31. 

Itrvyv^vrtt : l«i7ii^a«orrit (B) 80, WH. marg, 

iroiouaii' . . . av¥€u%0Koufn. There has been some disturbance of 
the text here : B, and apparently Clem. Rom., have iroiourrfr . . . 
{TWfv^oKovvTts ; and so too D £ Vulg. (am. fuld.) Orig.-lat. Lucif 
and other Latin Fathers, but inserting, nan inteUixerunt (ovk 
€v6rjaa¥ D). WH. obelize the conmion text as prob. corrupt : they 
think that it involves an anticlimax, because to applaud an action 
in others is not so bad as to do it oneself ; but from another point 
of view to set up a public opinion in favour of vice is worse than 
to yield for the moment to temptation (see the quotation from 
ApoUinaris below). If the participles are wrong they have probably 
been assimilated mechanically to irpda-aovrts. Note that iroUip = 
/acere, to produce a certain result ; npdaattw = agere, to act as 
moral agent : there may be also some idea of repeated action. 

ouKcuSoKouai denotes ' hearty approval ' (Rendall on Acts xxiL 
ao, in Expos, 1888, il 209) ; cf. i Mace. i. 57 <rw€vdoff«i r^ v6\ui^ : 
the word occurs four tunes besides in N. T. (Luke, Epp. Paul.). 

iL/*^ATtpoi 8) worripol, Kai 6 leardp^aff »at 6 aw^pa/t^. rov 8^ vecfik 
T^ ffwtvboMW X''/*^*' ri$nffi card r6 Aryo^roy, ci i0cii#fir mXiw^^w^ 


i ^i ffV¥9v9ogSaw, Ijrrdt Sfv rov wdtfovr, wortipiq xP^t^^^^f owrpix*^ ^9* «curf 
(ApoUioaris in Cramer^s Catena), 

•S/. Paul's Description of the Condition of the 

Heathen World. 

It would be wrong to expect from St. Paul an investigation of 
the origin of different forms of idolatry or a comparison of the 
morality of heathen religions, such as is now being instituted in the 
Comparative Science of Religion. For this it was necessary to 
wait for a large and comprehensive collection of data which has 
only become possible within the present century and is still far from 
complete. St. Paul looks at things with the insight of a religious 
teacher ; he describes facts which he sees around him ; and he con- 
nects these facts with permanent tendencies of human nature and 
with principles which are apparent in the Providential government 
of the world. 

The Jew of the Dispersion, with the Law of Moses in his hand, 
could not but revolt at the vices which he found prevailing among 
the heathen. He turned with disgust from the circus and the 
theatre (Weber, Altsyn, TheoL pp. 58, 68). He looked upon the 
heathen as given over especially to sins of the flesh, such as those 
which St Paul recounts in this chapter. So far have they gone as 
to lose their humanity altogether and become like brute beasts 
{ibid. p. 67 f.). The Jews were like a patient who was sick but 
with hope of recovery. Therefore they had a law given to them to 
be a check upon their actions. The Heathen were like a patient 
who was sick unto death and beyond all hope, on whom therefore 
the physician put no restrictions (ibid. p. 69). 

The Christian teacher brought with him no lower standard, and 
his verdict was not less sweeping. 'The whole world,' said St. 
John, * lieth in wickedness,' rather perhaps, * in [the power of] the 
Wicked One' (i Jo. v. 19). And St Paul on his travels must 
have come across much to justify the denunciations of this chapter. 
He saw that idolatry and licence went together. He knew that 
the heathen myths about their gods ascribed to them all manner 
of immoralities. The lax and easy-going anthropomorphism of 
Hellenic religion and the still more degraded representations, with 
at times still more degraded worship, of the gods of Egypt and the 


50 EPISTLE TO THE RO&fANS [l. 18-32. 

East, were thrown into dark relief by his own severe conception of 
the Divine Holiness. It was natural that he should give the 
account he does of this degeneracy. The lawless fancies of men 
invented their own divinities. Such gods as these left them free to 
follow their own unbridled passions. And the Majesty on High, 
angered at their wilful disloyalty, did not interfere to check their 
downward career. 

It is all literally true. The human imagination, following its 
own devices, projects even into the Pantheon the streak of evil by 
which it is itself disfigured. And so the mischief is made worse, 
because the worshipper is not likely to rise above the objects of 
his worship. It was in the strict sense due to supernatural influ- 
ence that the religion of the Jew and of the Christian was kept 
clear of these corrupt and corrupting features. The state of the 
Pagan world betokened the absence, the suspension or with- 
holding, of such supernatural influence ; and there was reason 
enough for the belief that it was judicially inflicted. 

At the same time, though in this passage, where St. Paul is 
measuring the religious forces in the world, he speaks without 
limitation or qualification, it is clear firom other contexts that con- 
demnation of the insufficiency of Pagan creeds did not make him 
shut his eyes to the good that there might be in Pagan characters. 
In the next chapter he distinctly contemplates the case of Gentiles 
who being without law are a law unto themselves, and who find in 
their consciences a substitute for external law (ii. 14, 15). He 
frankly allows that the ' uncircumcision which is by nature ' put to 
shame the Jew with all his greater advantages (ii. 26-29). We 
therefore cannot say that a priori reasoning or prejudice makes 
him untrue to facts. The Pagan world was not wholly bad. It 
had its scattered and broken lights, which the Aposde recognizes 
with the warmth of genuine sympathy. But there can be equally 
little doubt that the moral condition of Pagan civilization was such 
as abundantly to prove his main proposition, that Paganism was 
unequal to the task of reforming and regenerating mankind. 

There is a monograph on the subject, which however does not 
add much beyond what lies fairly upon the surface : Rogge, Dii 
Anschauungen d, Ap. Paulus von d. religios'siiilichen Charakter d 
HeideniumSf Leipzig, 1888. 



If the tUtementt of St. Paul otnnot be taken at oDce as sapplying the place 
of ideiitific inquiry from the side of the Comparative History of Religion, so 
neither can they be held to fnmish data which can be utilized jost as they 
stand by the historian. The standard which St. Paul applies is not that of 
the historian but of the preacher. He does not judge by the average level of 
moral attainment at different epochs but by the ideal standud of that which 
ought to be attained. A calm and dispassionate weighing of the facts, with 
dne allowance for the nature of the authorities, will be found in FriedUinder, 
SiUtmgttckkkti J^pms, Leipzig, 1 869-1 871. 

Uu tftlu Book of Witdom in ChapUr /. 

I. iS-3a. In two places in Epist to Romans, ch. i and ch. iz, there are 
dear indications of the use br the Apostle of the Book of Wisdom. Such 
Indications are not wanting elsewhere, but we have thought it best to call 
attention to them especially at the points where they are most continuous and 
most striking. We begin by placing side by side the language of St. Paul 
and that of Uie earUer work by which it is illustrated. 

L so. fd 7d^ iMfata ol^ttw dvd irrf- 

f r« itBiat ofrov Hpofut mat 9«Arffr 

A r^ «&«« mOtdit drawokoyinmr 

SI. IfaaraMijeai' kw roit 810X9719- 

mtrriif mp9ia, 

as. ^aamemt dfot 00^ k/mpAw' 

13. mat fiXAa^ar ri)r 96(a» rov df- 
$aprov Btov Ir dfiOMftari <I«oKOf ifBap- 
rov 6yBpiiw9o nX wtrnnjif mi tct/mi- 
w6itm mat 


xiii. I. Mai l« Twy opcjfiivoiv dya$S» 
otfK tffxyaay tlHivtu r6v ovra ovrt roct 
ipTfoit npoaix"*^^** inifywoap rdv 

xiii. 5. Ik y^p fuyi$ovt ical xdKXovijt 
MTiandTuv da^aXdycjt 6 '^fivtfftovpydt 
aitrSiv OfOjpurM. 

ii 23. [6 S(6s ficTKTt . . . r6y &vBpo^ 
way . . . fl/€6ya r^ lilat di^uTrjrot ^ 
(Cod. 348 a/., Method. Athan. Epiph. ; 
t&<$ri7Tot KAB, Clem.-Alex. &c.) 

xviii. 9. T^f rrjs OttSrrjrot v6fAov. 

xiii. 8. wdAiy ik ov6* aifrol avryvm- 

xiii. I. tiSiTonH ycip vdvm dv0pcavot 
^vaci, oU wap^v $fov dyvojaia "f. 

xii. 34. Mol y^p T&y wKavrjs 6iary 
puutpuTtpov lw\aKfi$rjaaiy Oiovs l/noXafA- 
fiavovTff rd icai Iv ^^<hs twv kxOpwv 
drifiOf mjwlafy Zixtfy i/^Swcay ^vaOiv» 


xii. I. rb &tpOapr6v aov vnv/ia, 
xiv. 8. rd fie ^aprbv B<ur dwofii- 


xiii. 10. raXcuvejpot 82 icai Iv wfMpctt 

al iKviSit ainSiVf oiTivts itcdXtaap 

$€ovt ipyo, x**^p^y iyOponrw. 

* The more recent editors as a rule 
read lUimjrot with the uncials and 
Gen. i. 36 f. ; bat it is by no means clear 
that they are right: Cod. 348 em- 
bodies very ancient elements and the 
context generally favonrs ^UrSt^v-i/rot. 
It ttill woold not be certain tiiat St 

Paul had this passage in his mind. 

t The parallel here is not quite 
exact. St. Paul says, ' They did know 
but relinquished their knowledge,' 
Wisd. 'They ought to have known 
but did not.' 



[I. 18-8S. 

95. ofrirtff /MT^AAa^ay rifif dX^^cior 
rov Ofov Iv rf ^ci$dct, «a2 l<rt^dir$rf» 


94. 8td 9ap49Me€y ic r. X. 

t6. 8id rovro «a^9a«cv «. T. X. 

n7pif , rAcorf^/f, k€UU<i^ fitcrovt ipOivoVf 
<p>6voVf (fkdosy t6\ov, leaKorjOtias, tffiOv- 
piffrdSf Karttk&kovtf 0*oCTvy€is^ iffipi' 
ardsj (nrfpfij<pdifovtf dAaf^of, i^cvpcrdr 
Mtucwri yovfvaiv dv€t$ttt, dffwtrovSf 
<Urw0«rovt, dffrSpyovSj dKcAc^/ioKot. 

ziii. 13, l^. drc{«affcv a^d ctcoit 
dif0pwwoVf 4 V^ ^'''^ c^cXf r &/UHtoaf9 

xiii. 17 sqq. o^ir oio-xvyrroi r^ 
d^^fi vpoo'AoAftb^ KO^ wtpi fjtir &yiciaf 
rd d<ri9frir iwiKoXuraif w€pl 82 (a;^ rd 

V€Mpo¥ d^lOC «. T. A. 

xW. II. 8td rovro ira2 Ir ilSdEiAoif 
Itfvctfy irMTirovi^ l<rrcu, 5ri Ir rri^fian 
•cot; cir ^8(Av7/la I7ci^(^i70'ay. 

ziv. ai. rd dirocycOviTror 6rofia X£9ms 
ira2 ^i^Aoir w€pi40€oa¥, 

ziy. 13. dpx^ 7d/> ropyc^att l«£roMi 
f /ScuAow, tbpiff tit ii a^fiy <p$opA C^^' 

ziy. 16. cfra |y XP^^^ KparvwBlw rh 
doffih iOot &t v6no% k^vXax^ri, 

ziy. a a. cTr* oiir ijpmtfft to vAoya- 
a Au rcpl ri^y rov 6<ov jvSiCWy 6XXd mi 
iv twyiSiX^ (wrrcff dywt^t wokift^ rd 
ro4fai}ra komcL tlp^rtiv wpoaayop€vovatP, 
23. 4 7^ rtKVo^rovt rcAcrdt 4 *pi^a 
fivar^pia 4 lAiftarcir 2^aAA«r Ota/tajv 
KUfjLovt AyovTitf 24. o^c 3tovf o^« 
7d/iovr ira(^apoi>f In ^vAdiro'OMrtr, Irf- 
pot 8' trtpow 4 Aoxwy dpoipu 4 PoBt^cn 

25. vdrra 81 Iri/i2£ Ixct affHi «cu 
<^vos «Aoir4 «a2 SdAot, ^op&j dviorto, 
rdpaxot, iwiopKiaf Bdpufiot dyaOw, 
26. x<^/x^o' dfjonfffloj }f/vxw¥ /uour/ios, 
7cv<ac«M (sez) IroAAaT^, yd/torn dra^io, 
fioixcto «a2 d^r^Aycta. 

27. ^ ydp rSfv dvonrittav f/8arA«r 
OpijffKUa wayr^t dpx^ kokov koi oirio 
icax wtpat loTtv. 

It will be seen that while on the one hand there can be no question of 
direct qaotationi on the other hand the resemblance is so strong both as to 
the main lines of the argument (i. Natural religion discarded, ii. idolatry, 
iii. catalogue of immorality) and in the details of thought and to some 
eztent of ezpression as to make it clear that at some time in his life St. Paul 
must have bestowed upon the Book of Wisdom a considerable amount of 

[Compare the note on ix. 19-29 below, also an essay by E. Grafe in 
T/tio/. Ahkandlungen C. von Weiudcker gewidmet, Freiburg, i. B. 1899, 
p. 251 ff. In this essay will be found a summary of previous discussions of 
the question and an estimate of the extent of St PauFs indebtedness which 
agrees substantially with that expressed above. It did not extend to any of 
the leading ideas of Christianity, and affected the form rather than the 
matter of the arguments to which it did extend. Rom. L 18-32, ix. 19-23 
are the most conspicuous examples.] 

X A.V. expands this as ' [spiritual] bad something to do in suggesting the 
fornication * ; and so most modems. thought of St. PauL 
but even so the phrase might haw 



ATiTETFi aniIiTY. 

II. 1-16. TAts state of things puts out of court the [yewisfi\ 
critic who is himself fto better than the Gentile, He can 
claim no exemption, but only aggravates his sin by im- 
penitence (w.1-5). Strict justice will be meted out to all— 
the Jew coming first then the Gentile (w. 6-1 1). The Jew, 
will be judged by the Law of Moses, the Gentile by the Law 
of Conscience, at the Great Assize which Christ will hold 
(w. I a- 1 6). 

' The Gentile sinner is without excuse ; and his critic — who- 
ever he may be — is equally without excuse, even though [lik« 
the Jew] he imagines himself to be on a platform of lofty superiority. 
No such platform really exists. In fact the critic only passes 
sentence upon himself, for by the fact of his criticism he shows that 
he can distinguish accurately between right and wrong, and his 
own conduct is identical with that which he condemns. ' And we 
are aware that it is at his conduct that God will look. The 
standard of His judgement is reality, and not a man's birth or 
status as cither Jew or Gentile. "Do you suppose — ^you Jewish 
critic, who are so ready to sit in judgement on those who copy your 
own example — do you suppose that a special exemption will be 
made in your favour, and that you personally {<rv emphatic) will 
escape ? ^ Or are you presuming upon all that ibundant goodness, 
lorbearance, and patience with which God delays His punishment 
of sin? If so, you make a great mistake. The object of that long- 
suffering is not that you may evade punishment but only to induce 
you to repent * While you with that callous impenitent heart of 
yours are heaping up arrears of Wrath, which will burst upon you 
in the Day of Wrath, when God will stand revealed in His character 
as the Righteous Judge. • The principle of His judgement is clear 
and simple. He will render to every man his due, by no fictitious 
standard (such as birth or status) but strictly according to what 
be has done. ' To those who by steady persistence in a life-work 
of good strive for the deathless glories of the Messianic Kingdom, 


He will give that for which they strive, viz. eternal life. *But to 
those mutinous spirits who are disloyal to the right and loyal only 
to unrighteousness, for such there is in store anger and fury, 
'galling, nay crushing, pain: for every human being they are in 
store, who carries out to the end his course of evil, whether he 
be Jew or whether he be Gentile — ^the Jew again having prece- 
dence. '^On the other hand the communicated glory of the Divine 
Presence, the approval of God and the bliss of reconciliation with 
Him await the man who labours on at that which is good — be he 
Jew or Gentile; here too the Jew having precedence, but only 
precedence : ^^ for God regards no distinctions of race. 

^ Do not object that the Jew has a position of privilege which 
will exempt him from this judgement, while the Gentile has no law 
by which he can be judged. The Gentiles, it is true, have no law ; 
but as they have sinned, so also will they be punished without one 
[see w. 14, 15]. The Jews live under a law, and by that law they 
will be judged. ^'For it is not enough to hear it read in the 
synagogues. That does not make a man righteous before God. 
His verdict will pronounce righteous only those who have dem 
what the Law commands. '^I say that Gentiles too, although 
they have no written law, will be judged. For whenever any of 
them instinctively put in practice the precepts of the Law, their 
own moral sense supplies them with the law they need. "Be- 
cause their actions give visible proof of commandments written not 
on stone but on the tables of the heart. These actions themselves 
bear witness to them; and an approving conscience also bears 
them witness ; while in their dealings with one another their inward 
thoughts take sometimes the side of the prosecution and some- 
times (but more rarely) of the defence. *• These hidden workings 
of the conscience God can see ; and therefore He will judge 
Gentile as well as Jew, at that Great Assize which I teach that He 
will hold through His Deputy, Jesus Messiah. 

1. The transition from Gentile to Jew is conducted with much 
rhetorical skill, somewhat after the manner of Nathan's parable 
to David. Under cover of a general statement St. Paul sets be- 
fore himself a typical Jew. Such an one would assent cordially 
to all that had been said hitherto (p. 49. sup,). It is now turned 
against himself, though for the moment the Apostle holds in 
suspense the direct affirmation, ' Thou art the man.' 



Tbei* it eridcnoe that Mircion keptTv. i, 11-14, 16, io(fronifxo*'"'V'9S 
fct tbe rot erideoct luU. We nl^hi iopp(H« that Hircion would omit rv, 
IJ-M, wbicb record 1 howcvet iroDiOil];) uie piirilegei of the Jew ; but the 
Rtattlon of the last cUoie of Tct. 10 ii tgainu Ihli. 

ii4 links this section closely to the last ; it is veil led up to b; 
L 31, but dxairoX. pointing back to i. lo shows that the Aposile had 
more than this in bis mind. 

a. tUSaiirrSiAB 

1 4c.. Harcl-,Orie,-lat. Teit Ambr^tr. Theodrt. «/. WH. 
ttil KV, uxf: ai/aiittfip KC iTal- ftau. LatL («::£■. g) Boh. Ann,. Chryt, 
TUck. WH. ttarg. RV. tnarg. Ac even balance of authorities, bolh side* 
dcawis)' their evidence from laried qoartcrs. A more po^Iive decitioD than 
thai of WH. RV. would hanlly be jiutilied. 

oZEofur : wSa = to know for a Tact, hy external testimony ; 
r<Tr>(r<w = to know by inner personal experience and appro- 
priation : see Sp. Comm. iii. 399 ; Additional note on i Cor. vili. 1, 

8. ai emphatic; 'thou, of all men.' There is abundant illus- 
tration of the view current among the Jews that the Israelite was 
secure simply as such by virtue of his descent from Abrafaatn and 
of his possession of the Law : cf. Matt. iii. 8, 9 • Think not to say 
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father ' ; Jo. viii, 33 ; 
GaL ii 15; the passages quoted by Gif. ; Weber, Allsyn. Thiol. 
p. 69 f- 

There may be an element of popular misunderstanding, there is 
cerUinly an element of inconsistency, in some of these passages. 
The story of Abraham sitting at the gate of Paradise and refusing 
10 turn away even the wicked Israelite can hardly be a fair 
specimen of the teaching of the Rabbis, for we know that they in- 
sisted strenuously on the performance of the precepts of the Law, 
moral as well as ceremonial. But in any case there must have 
been a strong tendency to rest on supposed religious privileges 
apart from the attempt 10 make practice conform to them. 

4. fsii^niTT{-n»%: ionilatit Vulg., in Tit. iii. 4 benigniltu: see 
LfL on Gal. V. aa. ;tP'<"^<^' = ' kindly disposition '; /uuipoBviiia 
= '{laiience,' opp, to efudifiia a 'short' or 'quick temper,' 'irasci- 
bility ' (cf. iVi3ur ill Spytiv Jas. i. 19) ; aroxri = ' forbearance,' 
'delay of punishment.' cf. inxn/ui 10 bold one's hand. 

Conp. Philo, Lrf. AUigsr. L 13 (Mang. L 50) 'Oto» fip Sp ^iv Mrd 

W'lih iiatpati/iilin comp. a grnphlc image in /f/oc. BarmK tX\. 4 Evigi- 
ItHl rtmtrm It /mrer f ui num m IpngaitimUati ioHquam in /rtnit rtti- 

ThE (nllowing 1* alio an imprenive KalemeDt of lhi« ^ide of the Diniiie 
Mtnbotn: 4 En.vfl.tii-tiS {131-138^ SeU, Dtmint, jtuHtam {-in 'that') 
■niw Ptta/m tst Aldmmai miiirittn, in m nwi/ miiertnlHr kit qui tttmliim 
in putiilf aJviHtriiHl : it miurattr in te fuaJ misirtlur iliit qui nnvinivmn 
fatiunt If) Ugl tint : U Itngaitimit, qiiontam IsHgiimmilattm firatiliU kit 
fui f*"evtrHnt piaii mii uprrtl-HJ ; tl itiinifiu'l. quenmrn qnidim Jgnar* 


mUt pro exigin; et multat misericordiae, qucniam muiiiplicat magis miseri- 
cordias his ^i praesentes sunt €t qui praeterisrunt et qui futuri sunt : si 
enim nan multiplicaverit^ mm vivtficabitur saeculum cum his qui inkahitani 
in eo ; et donator^ quoniam si nan danaverit de banitate sua ut ailevemur hi 
qui iniquitatem fecerunt de suis iniquitatibus, nan poterit decies millesima 
pars ffivificari hominum. 

tcaTo^povfis : cf. Apoc. Baruch. zxi. 20 Innatescat potentia tua iUis qui 
pMiant langanimtlatem luam esse infirmitatem, 

els f&craKoiaV ac dyci : its purpose or tendency is to induce you 
to repenu 

* The Conativc Present is merely a species of the Progressive Present. A 
verb which of itself suggests effort when used in a tense which implies action 
in progress, and hence incomplete, naturally suggests the idea of attempt ' 
(Burton, §11). 

'According to R. Levi the words (Joel ii. 13] mean: God removes to 
a distance His Wrath. Like a king who had two fierce legions. If these, 
thought he, encamp near me in the country they will rise against my subjects 
when they provoke me to anger. Therefore I will send them far away. 
Then if my subjects provoke me to anger before I send for them (the legions) 
they may appease me and I shall be willing to be appeased. So also said 
God : Anger and Wrath are the messengers of destruction. I will send them 
far away to a distance, so that when the Israelites provoke Me to anger, they 
may come, before I send for them, and repent, and I may accept their 
repentance (cf. Is. xiii. 5). And not only that, said R. Jizchak, but he 
locks them up (Anger and Wrath) out of their way ; see Jer. 1. 25, which 
means : Until He opens His treasure-chamber and shuts it again, man 
returns to God and He accepts him* {7ract. Thaaniik ii. i ap. Winter a. 
Wiinsche, yiiV/. Litt. i. 307). 

6. Kard : ' in accordance with/ secundum duritiam tuam Vulg. 
h^rf{\y : see on i. 18 above. 

h{ef^¥ iv V^P? ^PY^s : to be taken closely together, ' wrath (to 
be inflicted) in a day of wrath.' 

The doctrine of a ' day of the Lord ' as a day of judgement is taught by 
the Prophets from Amos onwards (Amos v. 18 ; Is. ii. la ff.; xiii. 6 ff.; xxiv. 
ai ; Jer. xlvi. 10; Joel ii. i ff". ; Zeph. i. 7 fF. ; Ezek. vii. 7 fF. ; xxx. 3 ff. ; Zech. 
ziv. I ; MaL iii. a ; iv. i. It also enters largely into the pseudepigraphic 
literature : Enoch zlv. a ff. (and the passages collected in Charles' Note) ; 
Ps. Sol. XV. 13 ff. ; 4 Ezr. vi. 18 ff., 77 ff. [vii. loa ff. ed. Bensly] ; xii. 34; 
Apoc. Banuh. Ii. i ; Iv. 6, &c 

SiKaioKpiaias : not quite the same as ^txaius xpiaeas a Thess. i. 5 
{cf.justjjudicu Vulg.), denoting not so much the character of the 
judgement as the character of the Judge {diKowicpiTTis a Mace. xii. 
41 ; cf. 6 dUaios Kpirfis 2 Tim. iv. 8). 

The word occurs in the Quinta (the fifth version included in Origen*s 
HexapUi) of Hos. vL 5 ; it is also found twice in Test. XII Patriarch. Levi 3 
6 htvrtpos lx<( in;/), X'^''^ mpvoraXXov troifta ctr ^fi4pay rpoardy/iaros Kvplov 
iy Tp ittcatoKpiffiq tov Qtov, Ibid. 1 5 X^\f/€a$€ 6v€tlii(TfJL6y koX alaxivffy tdu^iw 
wapa rijs iiieaioKpioiat tov Bcov. 

6. Sf diroSftfaci : Prov. xxiv. 1 2 (LXX). The principle here laid 
down, though in full accord with the teaching of the N. T. 


generally (Matt xvi. 27 ; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 7; Eph. vi. 8; 
CoL iiL 34, 25; Rev. ii. 23; zx. 12; zxii. 12), may seem at first 
sight to conflict with St. Paul's doctrine of Justification by Faith. 
But Justification is a past act, resulting in a present siate : it 
belongs properly to the beginning, not to the end, of the Christian's 
career (see on ducauoBrjaomai in ver. 13). Observe too that there is 
no real antithesis between Faith and Works in themselves. Works 
are the evidence of Faith, and Faith has its necessary outcome in 
Works. The true antithesis is between earning salvation and 
receiving it as a gift of God's bounty. St. Paul himself would 
have allowed that there might have been a question of earning 
salvation if the Law were really kept (Rom. x. 5 ; Gal. iii. 12). 
But as a matter of fact the Law was not kept, the works were not 

7. Ka0* ihrofiOKf}i' Ipyou dyaOou: collective use of ^pyw, as in 
ver. 15, ' a lifework,' the sum of a man's actions. 

8. Tois ^ ii 4pi9cias : ' those whose motive is factiousness,' opp. 
to the spirit of single-minded unquestioning obedience, those who 
use all the arts of unscrupulous faction to contest or evade com- 
mands which they ought to obey. From HpiBos * a hired labourer ' 
we get tpiBfvn 'to act as a hireling,' ipiOtvoyMi a political term 
left ' hiring paid canvassers and promoting party spirit : ' hence 
ipiBtla = the spirit of faction, the spirit which substitutes factious 
opposition for the willing obedience of loyal subjects of the king- 
dom of heaven. See Lft. and £11. on Gal v. 20, but esp. Fri 
ad he. 

The tncients were strtngely at sea abont this word. Ilesycbius (cent. 5) 
derived IpiOot from ipa * earth ' ; the Etymclogicum Magnum (a compilation 
perhaps of the eleventh century) goes a step further, and derives it from tpa 
^ agritola mttxidt condtuhu ; Greg. Nyssen. conoecti it with Ipiw * wool * 
{(piBct was nsed ipecially of wool workers) ; bnt most common of all is the 
coimezion with $fHs (so TheodrL on Phil. ii. 3 ; cf. Vnlg. Ais qui 4X con- 
ieniiofu [per conteniumem Phil. ii. 3 ; rixas Gal. ▼. ao] ). There can be 
little doobt that the use of IpiBua was affected by association with Ipit, 
thoogh there is no real connexion between the two words (see notes 00 
TOP id. 7, iBOTayv^Mtfr xi. 8). 

i^/ft\ . . . ^|idf : see Lfl. and Ell. on Gal. v. 20 ; Trench, Syn, 
p. 1 25 : ipyii is the settled feeling, dvti6i the outward manifestation, 
' outbursts ' or ' ebullitions of wrath.' 

6pi(oirrai 6prfffif dyaBv/uw/Unjv «a2 ^oiiaivovcav Orig. (in Cramer's Catena). 

0. 6Xii|ris Kai (rr€vox^lo. : tribulatio ( pressura in the African form 
of the Old Latin) ei angusiia Vuig., whence our word ' anguish ' : 
#Tf rox«fMa is the stronger word=' torturing confinement ' (cf. 2 Cor. 
IT. 8). But the etymological sense is probably lost in usage; 
taUuniioi ei angusHae h. e, summa calamitas Fri. p. 106. 


Foi limilir combinations ('d«y of Iribulatiun «inl piio.' 'of tribnUlJon 
Chuln' note on Eiuch iIt. i. 

TtpyolojiMii =' carry to the end'; tm-d either strengthening 
the force of the simple vb., as p*r in perfictrt, or giving it a bad 
sense, as m perptlrare Fri. p. 107. 

U. -irpucrinmoKTi+tQ : peculiar to Biblical and Ecclesiastical Greek 
(Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 15; Jas. ii. 1 ; cf. jrjjooMjroJi^wnjt Acts x. 34 j 

wpoaariTakrpiTfiii Jas. ii- 9; inrjiocrunrnXiiTrrwt I Pet. i. 17): KpiavnOH 

XawSriwip = (i) to give a gracious reception to a suppliant or suitor ' 
{Lev. xix. 15) ; and hence (ii) to show parlialily, give corrupt judg^ 
menu In N. T. always with a bad sense. 

Tbe Idea eoei back to Dent. i. l^ i 0<df . . . oA 9aviaiti wpSvtnat obS 
oi fi^ \i0j Swpov, which is adopted in Pi. Sul. Ii. ig i ei'n ipir^f iimiot ml 
at laviiiau vpimuwoy, and cipluaed iajubilett v, 15 ' Aad He ■■ not ooe 
who will regard the pereoD (of taj) aoi receive gifu ; wliea He layi that He 
will eiecate judgement on eacb: if one gave biia everything thai is on (he 
eaith, He will not regard the gitti or the petsoa (of any), nor accept ui]f> 
tbing at his hand*, for he is a Righteous Judge ' i cf. Afoc. Banuk. eii. 7, 
Pirg/ Abotk iv. 31 ' He ii about to judge with whom there ii no iniqnitf, 
Doi torgetlulueu, Doi rcipect of penoni. dot taking of a btibe,' 

12. 18. vj)iof and & v6)io(. The diillnctlon between ibeie two fonnt did 
Dot escape the Gcholarship of Ongen. whose comment on Rom. ill. a I readi 
thus Id Kuiinui^' traoslatioa (cd. LoniDiatisoh, vi 101): Marii at ttfud 
GratCQS ftominibus dpOpa frtieponi, qitat apttd nsj possunt articull namin&ri^ 
Si fuamie igilur Moiii Itgtm neminal, lolilvm ncmini pratmilHl ar/icu/um: 
n qtuuidt vire rmStiraUm tmll inlilUgi, iiiu artttulc HtmintU Ugtm. This 
dlilinctiou however, Ihoneh it holds good geuerally, do« not covet all the 
caset. There are really tliree mam UK> : (1) i y6,iot . ibe Law of Moms i , 
the art. denotes something with which the readen are fnmiliai, 'IMr miti 
lam,' which Cbiistiani in some sense inherited (tam the Jews through the O. T. 
(j I ri^i-law in genera] (e.g-iL 11,14; ""i- ^°'-- i»- '51 *■ 'J. *=0- (3) Hot 
there is yet a Ihitd osage where fi/uif without art. really meaiu the Law of 
Moses, but the absence of the art. calls attention to it not at proceeding from 
Moses, but in its quality of /aw ; xitH^Hid Jifeiii ledquiaUx a* Gif. eapreuea 
it in hii commeot od Gal. ii. ig ',p. 46). St- Paul iegii<.l( the Pre-Meiiianic 
period as essentially a period of Law, both for Jew inii for Gentile. Hence 
when he wishes to bring out this he nies viimt wiihont art. even where he is 
referring to the Jews ; because hia main point is that ihey weR under 
'a legal syateoi' — who gave it aad wbat name it bore was a secondary COD- 
tideratlon. The of the Jews was only a typical example of a state of 
things that was nniversal. This will explain patasages like kam, t. 10, i. 4. 

There will remain a few places, which do not come under any of these 
headi, where the absence of the art. is accounted for by the influence of the 
canleit, usually acting thiongh the law of grammatical sympathy by which 
when one word in a phrase drops the article anotliei also tliopt it 1 some of 
ibebc passages involve talhet nice points of schotarihip (see the note* od 
IL ij; iii. jl ; nil. 8). On the whole subject compare esp. GiC p. 47 ff. ; 
also a monograph by Grafc, Di4 fauUnuchi Likrt von (7«*/t, Fteiborg i. B. 
18S4, ed. 3, 1893. Di, Grafe gues rather too far m denying the distincliOD 
between tiitot and i yiiui%, but bis paper contains many juit remark! and 

la. dfi^wt. The heathen are represented as dehberately rejecting 


not only ihe Law of Moses but even the Noachic orditiatices. 
Thus ibey have become enemies of God and as such are doomed 
K) destruction (Weber, Aiftyit. Thtol. p. 65), 

fjiupm. Burton i\ 54) cnlls Ihit • 'collective Aoriit,' reptesented in 
EnijIUli bj ihe l"e[fe>;l. ■ From the point of view from which the Apostle 
is speaking, the fia of eacli ofTender is simplj ■ past fact, and the lin d( all 

■ ten« or Bg^p-egite of btU logethei, conatituting > put fact. But 
iDumiich as this ieri« is not separsted fiom the time of apeikiDg we muit 
u in iii. 13 employ an Eoglish Perfect in transUtion.' Prof. Burton 
sngge'ti an alternative po&sibilily that the aor. may be praUpiic, as if it 
were spoken looking backwards from the Last Judgement of the sias wbich 
will then be post; but the paialleli of iii. 13,*. \i are against this. 

13. at dipoaTal v£|iau : cf. (HT'ixci'fO'o: '■ toS r^^ov Ter. iS ; also Ptrif 
R. Meir 6 I^Si^ingi af the Jnoiih ' Jatksrs, ed. Taylor, ji. 1 1 5) ■ Thorah is 
uqaired ... by learning, by a listeoicg ear,' &c. It it interesting to note 
thai among the aiyiugs ascKtied )o Simeon, very possibly SL Paol'i own 
dau-male and Eon of (ianialiei bis teacher, ia this ; 'oat leaiaing but doing 
lathe groundwork: and whoso mul 1 1 pliei words occasions sin' {^Firqi Abolh. 
L iS, ed. Taylor; reCT. from Delitisch). 

*4|uni Hnt orlic. bit KABDG. The absence of the art. again (as in the 
last verse) geoctaliies the form of statement, ' the heareil and the docn of 
Uw ' (whatever that law may be] ; cf. vii. 1. 

SiKaLufl^aorrtiL. The word is used here in its universal sense of 
'a judicial verdict,' but the fut. lense throws forward that verdict 
to the Final Judgement. This use must be distinguished from 
that which ha.s been explained above (p. 30 f.), the special or, so to 
speak, technical use of the term JusLificalion which is characteristic 
of St. Paul. It is not that the word has any different sense but 
that it is referred to the past rather than to the future (JSitau^Bivrtt 
aor. cf. V. 1. 9); the acquittal there dates from the moment at 
which the man becomes a Christtan; it marks the initial step in 
his career, his right to approach the presence of God as if he were 
righteous. Sec on ver, 6 above. 

1^ ISvT) : TO tSvjf would mean all or most Gentiles, i6>n\ means 
only some Gentiles ; ihe number is quite indefinite, the prominent 
point being their character as Gentiles. 

I quidtm fir HamiKu mviniti iiroaiu wumJata 

t4 (if) viiiw t%«irroi, (he force of ji^ is ' ■vho ex hypolhffi have not 
a law,' whom we conceive of as not having a law ; cf. rk fii) ima 
I Cor, i. 36 {quae pro nihilo habentur Grimm). 

JouToIf fioi t^fLot; ubi iegii impleiio. ibi lex P Ewald. 

The doctrine of ihia verse was lilierat doctrine for a Jew. The Talmud 
KCOgnii'i no menl m llie good deeds of heatlien nnlest tiicy are accompanied 
by a deiinite wish for admissioa to the privileges of Judaism Even tl 

■ bettben were lo keep the whole law it would avail him nothing wilhoul 
-' ="-n {Diiarim A'aUa 1). If he prayi U Jeho>-ah his prayer if not 


heard (fHd.), If he commits nn and rfpents, that too does not help him 
{Pluikta 156*). Even for hit almi he gets no credit {Pesikta la**). *In 
their books* (Le. in those in which God sets down the actions of the 
heathen) ' there is no desert ' {Shir Rabba 86«). See Weber, AHsyn. TJuol 
p. 66 f. Christian theologians have expressed themselves much to the same 
effect Their opinions are summed np concisely by Mark Pattison, Estays, 
ii. 61. 'In accordance with this view they interpreted the passages in 
St. Panl which speak of the religion of the heathen; e.g. Rom. li. 14. 
Since the time of Angnstine {De Spir. ei Lit, % 27) the orthodox interpreta- 
tion had applied this verse, either to the Gentile converts, cr to the favoured 
few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine usistance. The 
Protestant expositors, to whom the words " do by nature the things containeo 
in the law " could never bear their literal force, sedulously preserved the 
Augustinian explanation. Even the Pelagian Jeremy Taylor is obliged to 

Sloss the phrase " by nature/* thus : " By fears and secret opinions which the 
pirit of God, who is never wanting to men in things necessary, was pleased 
to put inty* the hearts of men '* {Duct, Dubit. Book II. ch. i, § 3). The 
rationalist^ however, find the expression " by natore," in its literal sense, 
exactly conformable to their own views (John Wilkins [161 4- 167 a]. Of Nat, 
Rtl. XL c. 9), and have no difficulty in supposing the acceptableness of those 
works, and the salvation of those who do them. Burnet, on Art XVIII., 
in his usual confused style of eclecticism, suggests both opinions without 
seeming to see that they are incompatible reUcs of divergent schools of 

16, oItikcs: see on L 25. 

JKBciKKum-ai : cydft^cr implies an appeal to facts; demonstralio 
rtbus gesHs facta (P. Ewald, De Vocis Sv.'cid^trrwf, &c., p. 16 n.). 

ih Ipyov Tou KOfiou : ' the work, course of conduct belonging to ' 
(i.e. in this context 'required by' or Mn accordance with') 'the 
Law ' : collective use of fpyov as in ver. 7 above. 

[Probably not as Ewald op, rt/. p. 1 7 after Grotius, opus Ugis est id, quod 
Ux in Judaeis efficit, mmpe cognitio liciti et illiciii.'] 

<nifiifiiapTupouaT]s oMav rvjs auKciSi^ae&is. This phrase is almost 
exactly repeated in ch. ix. i avfifiapr, fiot ttjs avvtid, ftov. In both 
cases the conscience is separated from the self and personified as 
a further witness standing over against it. Here the quality of the 
acts themselves is one witness, and the approving judgement passed 
upon ihem by the conscience is another concurrent witness. 

ffwud^oton. Some such distinction as this is sugc^ested by the original 
meaning and use of the word awtibrjatSf which i* ' co-knowledge,' the know- 
ledge or reflective judgement which a man has fy the side of ox in conjunction 
with the original consciousness of the act. This second consciousness is easily 
projected and personified as confronting the first 

The word is quoted twice from Menander (342-291 B. c), Monost, 597 
(cf. 654) ^itadiv ^/oV ^ avvi[hr)(Si% BtSt ^ed. Didot, pp. loi, 103). it is sig- 
nificaiit that both the word and the idea are completely absent from Aristotle. 
They rise into philosophical importance in the more introspective moral 
teaching of the Stoics. The two forms, t6 <Tvy(id6t and 1) awddrfctg appear 
to be practically convertible. Epictetus {J*ragm. <')7) compares the con- 
science to a vailkifoayof in a passage which is closely j. parallel to the comment 
of Origen on this verse of £p. Rom. (ed. Lommatzsch, n. 107) sfiritmt . . . 


V€lui poidagogus ei [sc. animae] quidam sociatus et tutor ut earn de nulioribui 
tmomat v€i dt culpis castiget et arguat. 

In Biblical Greek the word occars first with its fall sense in Wisd. zrii. la 
rilj ^l M wpoettkr^ rd yak^''^ [vovi/pia] frvv^xoiiiyri rp ffi/i^fid^ffci. In 
Fhilo rd 9V¥*Mt is the form nsed. In N. T. the word is mainly Pauline 
(occurring in the speeches of Acts xziii. i, xxiv. i6; Rom. i and a Cor, 
Past. Epp., also in Heb.) ; elsewhere only in i Pet. and the Pf^- adult. 
lohn Tiii. 9. It is one of the few technical terms in St Panl which seem to 
liaTe Greek rather than Jewish affinities. 

The ' Consdenoe ' of St. Paul is a natual facnlty which belongs to all 
men alike (Rom. ii. 15), and prononnces upon the character of actions, both 
their own (a Cor. Lis) and those of others (2 Cor. iv. 3, v. 1 1). It can be 
over-scmpolons (i Cor. x. 35), but is blnnted or ' seared ' by neglect of its 
warnings (i Tim. ir. 3). 

The usage of St. Panl corresponds accurately to that of his Stoic con- 
temporaries, bat is somewhat more restricted than that which obtains in 
moaem times. Conscience, with the ancients, was the faculty which passed 
judgment npon actions after tfuy were done (in technical language the con- 
ecUntia cmuequtns moralis), not so much the general source of moral 
obligation. In the passage before us St Paul speaks of such a source 
(iovroTr tlai woftot) ; but the law in question is rather generalized from the 
dictates of conscience than antecedent to them. See on the whole subject 
a treatise by Dr. P. Ewald, De Voeis :iwu^aiw apud script. N. T. vi at 
poteOate (Lipsiae, 18S3). 

fftCToid dXXi^Xitr. This clause is taken in two ways : (i) of the 
'thoughts,' as it were, personified, Conscience being in debate 
with itself, and arguments arising now on the one side, and now on 
the other (of. Shakspeare's * When to the sessions of sweet silent 
thought, I summon up remembrance of things past ') ; in this case 
p0Ta^ ak\iikm¥ almost = 'alternately/ 'in mutual debate'; (ii) 
taking the previous part of the verse as referring to the decisions 
of Conscience when in private it passes in review a man's own 
acts, and this latter clause as dealing rather with its judgements on 
the acts of the others ; then iitrf^v oXX^Xov will = * between one 
another/ ' between man and man,' ' in the intercourse of man 
with man ' ; and Xoyurfuov will be the ' arguments ' which now 
take one side and now the other. The principal argument in 
favour of this view (which is that of Mey. Gif Lips.) is the em- 
phatic position of lura^ aXX^Xtfv, which suggests a contrast between 
the two clauses, as if they described two different processes and 
not merely different parts or aspects of the same process. 

There b a curious parallel to this description in A stump. Afoys. i. 13 
Creavit enim orbem terrarum propter plebem suam^ et non coepit earn 
imcepimum creaturae . . . palam faceret ut in ea gentes arguarUur et humili' 
ttr inter se disputationihus arguant se. 

Xoyurplir : the Xoyurftoi are properly ' thoughts ' conceived in 
the mind, not ' arguments ' used in external debate. This appears 
from the usage of the word, which is frequently combined with 

aapdif (iroXXoi Xoytafuii cV mpdif dvdp6t ProV. xix. 2 1 ; cf. Ps. XXxii. 1 1 ; 

FroT. vL 18): it is used of secret 'plots' (Jer. xviiL 18 dfOrf 


Xoyurt^fitSa M 'Uptfitap XoyurfiSv, ' devise devices '), and of the Divine 
intentions (Jer. zxix [xxxvi] ii Xoytovfuu t<t>* vfias XoytafAov ci^vi^r). 
in the present passage St. Faul is describing an internal process, 
though one which is destined to find external expression ; it is the 
process by which are formed the moral judgements of men upon 
their fellows. 

' The conscience ' and ' the thonghts ' both belong to the same persona. 
This is rightly seen by Klopper, who has written at length on the passage 
before ns {Pamlinische Siudten, Konigsberg, 1887, p. 10) ; bnt it does not 
follow that both the conscience and the thoughts are exercised npon the same 
objects, or that ^tra^b dXXi7Xa;i' mnst be referred to the thonghts in the 
sense that influences from without are excluded. The parallel quoted in 
support of this (Matt xriii. 15 /xcro^d <rov icai avrov f»6pov) derives that part 
of its meaning from ia6vov^ not from /ura^^, 

<| Kail *or even,' *or it may be,' implying that dnoK. is the ex- 
ception, Karrjy. the rule. 

16. The best way to punctuate is probably to put (in English ^ 
a colon after ver. 13, and a semi-colon at the end of ver. 15: ver 
16 goes back to diKai(oBfi<rovTai in ver. 13, or rather forms a conclu- 
sion to the whole paragraph, taking up again the cV rintp^ of ver. 5 
The object of w. 13-15 is to explain how it comes about that 
Gentiles who have no law may yet be judged as if they had one : 
they have a second inferior kind of law, if not any written precepts 
yet the law of conscience ; by this law they will be judged when 
quick and dead are put upon their trial. 

Grig., with his usual acuteness, sees the difficulty of connecting yer. 16 witi 
rer. 15, and gives an answer which is substantially right The 'thoughts 
accusing and condemning * are not conceived as rising up at the last day but 
now. They leave however marks behind, ve/ut in ceris^ ita in cordi nostro 
These marks God can see (ed. Lomm. p. 109). 

4v \\\Lkp<^ Srf {€t \VH. marg.) : Iv f fnxifx^ B, WH. text: Iv ij/iip^ f A. 
Pesh. Boh. a/., WH. marg. 

8icl Tt|o-oO Xpurrov {et WH. marg,"" : 810I X/xoroO'Ii^ffovKB, Grig., Tisch. 
WH. text. 

Kpivtl : might be rpiW, as RV. marg,, fut. regarded as certain. 

xarA TO cuayY^KSt" fiou. The point to which St. Paul's Gospel, 
or habitual teaching, bears witness is, not that God will judge the 
world (which was an old doctrine), but that He will judge it through 
Jesus Christ as His Deputy (which was at least new in its applica- 
tion, though the Jews expected the Messiah to act as Judge, Enoch 
xlv, xlvi, with Charles' notes). 

The phrase Korh. rh €^077. ftov occurs Rom. xvi. 35, of the specially 
Pauline doctrine of 'free grace*; a Tim. ii. 8, (i) of the resurrection ii 
Christ from the dead, (ii) of His descent from the seed of David. 

We note in passing the not very intelligent tradition (introduced by ^aai 
M, Eus. H. E. 111. iv. 8 J, that wherever St. Paul spoke of * his Gospel* he 
meant the Gospel of St. Luke. 


JI. 17-aB. The JfM may boast of his possession of a special 
Rntlatitm ami a written I- aw. but all the time his practice 
tfuTUis that he is really no better than the Gentile (w. 17-24). 
And if he takes kis stand on Circumcision, that too is of 
value only so far as it is moral and spiritual. In this moral 
and spiritual circumcision the Gentile also may share (w, 

''Do you leH me that yoo bear the proud name of Jew, that 
yoa repose on a written law as the charier of your salvation? Do 
jon boast that Jehovah is your God, "that you are fully ac- 
quainted with His revealed Will, that you adopt for yourself a high 
standard and listen to the reading of the Law every Sabbath-day \ 
"Do you give yourself out with so much assurance as a guide 10 
the poor blind Gentile, a luminary lo enlighten his darkness } ••Do 
you call your pupils dullards and yourself iheir schoolmaster P Are 
ihey mere infants and you their teacher f You, who have all 
knowledge and all truth visibly embodied for you in the Law ? 
"BoasiJal Jew! How does your practice comport wiih your 
theory? So ready lo teach others, do you need no teaching your- 
self? The eighth "and seventh commandments which you hold 
up to others — do you yourself keep them f You profess to loathe 
and kbhof idols ; but do you keep your hands from robbing their 
temples? "Vou vaunt the possession of a law; and by the 
violation of that law you affront and dishonour God Who gave it. 
"As Isaiah wrote that the Gentiles held the Name of God in 
coniempt because they saw His people oppressed and enslaved, so 
do tbejr now for a different reason — because of the gross incon- 
nstcncy in practice of those who claim to be His people. 

* True it is that behind the Law you have also the privilege of 
Ciicvmcision, which marks the people of Promise. And Circum- 
cision hu iu value if you are a law-performer. But if you are 
« law-breaker you might as well be uncircumcised. * Does it not 
foUow that if the uncircumcised Gentile keeps the weighiier staiuies 
of (be Moral Law, be will be treated as if be were circumcised? 
* Aod nndfcumcised aa he is, ovring to his Gentile birth, yet if be 


fulfils the Law, his example will (by contrast) condemn you who 
with the formal advantages of a written law and circumcision, only 
break the law of which you boast. * For it is not he who has the 
outward and visible marks of a Jew who is the true Jew ; neidier 
is an outward and bodily circumcision the true circimicision. 
•• But he who is inwardly and secretly a Jew is the true Jew ; and 
the moral and spiritual circumcision is that which really deserves 
the name. The very word * Jew ' — descendant of Judah — ^means 
'praise' (Gen. xxix. 35). And such a Jew has his 'praise/ not 
from man but from God. 

17. El U t< A B D» tf/., Latt. Pesh. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Sec : *l«€ 
D^L a/., Harcl., Chrys. al. The authorities for tl dc include all the 
oldest MSS., all the leading versions, and the oldest Fathers : Vit is 
an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the construction 
slightly easier. Reading §1 dc the apodosis of the sentence begins 
at ver. 21. 

'louSaios : here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew 
it would have a tendency to do) to Icrpoi^Xin/r, a member of the 
Chosen People, opposed to the heathen. 

Strictly speaking, 'Efifteuot, opp. 'EXAi7riar4t, culls tttention to language ; 
louScuot, opp. 'EXAi/r, calls attention to nationality ; 'laparjktTTff ■=s a noember 
of the theocracy^ in possession of foil theocratic privileges (Trench, Syn, 
f xxxiz, p. 13a if.). The word lovScuot does not occnr in LXX (though 
loi/daf<r/idr is found four times in a Mace), bnt at this date it is the common 
word ; 'E/3/xuot and laparjXirrjt are tenns reserved by the Jews themselves, 
the one to distinguish between the two main divisions of their race (the 
Palestinian and Greek-speaking), the other to describe their esoteric status. 

For the Jew*s pride in his privileges comp. 4 Em. vi. 55 f. haec auiem 
omnia dixi coram ie, Domine^ quoniam dixuti eas (sc. gentes) nil esse^ ei 
quoniam saiivae assimilatas sunf, €t quasi stillicidium di vast similasH 
kabundantiam eorum. 

4iroKop,d(T| : ' bearest the name ' : fVovo^d^fif = ' to impose a name,' 
pass. * to have a name imposed.' 

4iraKairauD v6^ : ' have a law to lean upon ' : so (without art.) 
M A B D* ; but it is not surprising that the later MSS. should 
make the statement more definite, * lean upon i?ie Law.' For cVair. 
(requtescis Vulg.) cf. Mic. iii. 1 1 ; £zek. xxix. 7 : the word implies 
at once the sense of support and the saving of ill-directed labour 
which resulted to the Jew from the possession of a law. 

Kcauxaaai iv ecu : suggested by Jer. ix. 24 Met him that glorieth 
glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am 
the Lord.' 

Kavxoo-ai: for icavxit stopping at the first step in the process of con- 
tiaction ^«cavxdc<rai, /ravxo^oi, «avx$). This is one of the forms which used 


■ndnn«,' but whicb *itDpI; belong l< 
(,Hort. JMrvd. p. J04), mmx^'f"' <> 
Rom. iL iB : comp. Llviaax Lake i 
t Lake ini. 8, Jiim. 
ii. J*;p, 90). 

the popular GimK 

18. tA 9ai|(ia. Bp. LigbtToot has shown that this phrase was 
■0 constantly used Tor ' the Divine Will ' that even without the an. 
it might have that signification, as in i Cor. xvi. la {On Reiiisian, 
p. 106 eA I, p. 118 ed j). 

SoKtfi^cii tA Sia^^potra ; probas utiliora Cod. Clatom. Rulin. 
Vu!g. ; non modo prat mail's bona ted in Bonis optima Beng. on 
Phil. L 10, where the phrase recurs exactly- Both words are 
ambigtiaus: (ox^fim = (i) 'to lest, assay, discern'; (ii) "to 
approirc after tesiing' (sec on i. 38); and rk XuKp^pi.vra may be 
either ' things which differ,' or ' things which stand out, or excel.' 
Thus arise the two interpretations represented in RV. and RV, 
marg., with a like division of commeniaiors. The rendering of 
RV. marg. ('provest the things that differ,' 'hast experience of 
good and bad Tyn.) has the support of Euthym.-Zig. (iuiKpimt ri 

tta^parra A\fii.tiii- otai' (oAiv col auiv, apiriiv cai nuciav), Fri, De W. 

Oltr. Go. Lips. Mou. The rendering of RV, ('approvest the 
things that are excellent') is adopted by Lait. Orig. {ita ul mm 
solum fuae sin/ tona scias, vcnim ttiam quae sint meliora <t uliUora 
disetmas), most English Versions, Mey. Lft. Gif Lid. (Chrys. does 
not distinguish; Va is undecided). The second tendering is the 
more pointed. 

man\,xvaitM»^ hi nw! nS)iau : cf. Acts xv. ji. 

.. The commoa coniticclioa after tirmtat it Sri ; acC. 
and JofiD. is tctj nie. It leemi betlet, «ilh Vaogban, to take aiaurit 
clMcly with •<>e<Aii, ' aod ait peimided u to Ihysell Ibat ihoa art,' Ac 

Uinir . . - TipiAa». It ii natoral to compare Malt it. 14 rvfXol tlair 
i^TT* Tv^AAr jr.T.A. ; alto iiiil. 1 6, 14. Lips, thiaka that tbc first saying wu 
prcKDt lo ibe mtod of the Apoitle. It would not of conne follow that it 
wuCQirent ID writing. Ihongb Ihat too ii possible. On ibe other hand Ihe 
npreMiii'D may hiTt b«n more or less proverbial : comp. Wiinsche, Eriaul. 
d. £MHg. on MaLt. iilii. 16. The tame epithet nas giTCD b; a tjalilaean 
10 R. Chaida. Baia Kama fol. 51 a. ' When the Shepherd ii aogiy with the 
ibMB he btiodi their letdet; i.e. when Cod determlDea to pnnub the 
Ianelile% He fire* tben uiwonh; mien.' 

90. «n(S«vTi)v: 'a schoolmaster,' with the idea of discipline, 
correction, as «clt aa teaching; ct Heb, xii, 9. 

■^nuw: 'in/ants.' opp. to tAmoi, 'adults,' as in Heb. v. 13, 14. 

fi^^taaw : ' outline,' ' delineation,' ' cmbodimenL' As a rule 
vj^fut !^ outward form as opp. to inward substance, while ^op^ii 
= ouiiaard form as determined by inward substance ; so thai 
a-p^a is the variable, fio/i^ the permanent, element in things : see 
LfL Phil. p. iisff.; Sp, Comm. on i Cor. vti. 31. Nor does ihe 
pteteai passage confiict with this distinclioiL llie Law was a real 


expression of Divine trath, so far as it went It is more difiScult to 
account for a Tim. iii. 5 (x^yv'f ft6pff>oHrip tv99^Las riiw di dvmofup 

minijs tipmnUvoi, 

Sec however Lft in Joum. of Class, and Saer, Philol. (1857) iii 115 
' They will obsenre that in two passages where St Paul does tpoJc of that 
which is unreal or at least external, and does not employ oxyiyua^ he still 
avoids asing iiofxp^i as inappropriate, and adopts fi6p<pei>att instead (Rom. iL 
ao ; a Tim. iii. 5), where the termination -wtu denotes '*the aiming after or 
affecting the iiof^y * Can this quite be made good f 

21. oSk : resumptive, introducing the apodosis to tlie long pro- 
tasis in w. 1 7-20. After the string of points, suspended as it were 
in the air, by which the Apostle describes the Jew's complacency, 
he now at last comes down with his emphatic accusation. Here 
is the * Thou art the man ' which we have been expecting since 
ver. I. 

KX^irrtiv : infin. because Kripi6oov¥ contains the idea of command. 

22. pScXiKTo-^fjici^ : used of the expression of physical disgust, 
esp. of the Jew's horror at idolatry. 

Note the piling np of phrases in Dent viL 26 leat otic dcolatit fi^kvyfA 
[here of the gold and silver plates with which idols were overlaid] fit 
rby t^Kov cov, Kal tain iydOijfM &<rirfp tovto, wpoffox^^ffpari wpoffox^tnt iui 
fibiXvypari $B€Kv(jj, in iyA0rjfid iarty. Comp. also Dan. xii. II ; Matt xnw, 
15, &c. One of the ignominies of captivity was to be compelled to carnr 
the idols of the heathen : Assump, Mays. viii. 4 eogentur paiam baiulari id«ia 
§omm inquinata, 

tepoo^uXcis. The passage just quoted (Deut. vii. a6 with 25), 
Joseph. AnL IV. viii. 10, and Acts xix. 37 (where the town-clerk 
asserts that St. Paul and his companions were ^ not Up6av\oi) show 
that the robbery of temples was a charge to which the Jews were 
open in spite of their professed horror of idol-worship. 

There were provisions in the Talmud which expressly gnarded against 
this : everything which had to do with an idol was a $6i\vypa to him unless 
it had been previously desecrated by Gentiles. But for this the Jew might 
have thought that in depriving the heathen of their idol he was doing a good 
work. See the passages in Delitzsch ad loe. ; also on hpocvXla, which must 
not be interpreted too narrowly, Lft., Ess. on Supem. Rtl. p. a99 £; 
Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empirt^ p. 144 n., where it is noted 
that IfpoavXia was just one of the crimes which a provincial governor could 
proceed against by his own imperium. 

The Eng. Versions of UpoavKus group themselves thus : ' robbest God of 
bis honour' Tyn. Cran. Genev. ; 'doest sacrilege' (or equivalent) Wic. 
Rhem. AV. RV. marg. ; * dost rob temples' RV. 

28. It is probably best not to treat this verse as a quesdon. 
The questions which go before are collected by a summary accu- 
sation. Gif., with a delicate sense of Greek composition, sees 
a hint of this in the change from participles to the relative and 

indie, {fi didaa-Kav , , , ts Kavxcurai). 

Fn. M-w] 



Ibe puticu 

24- A free adapblion of Is. lii. s (LXX). Heb. -And con- 
tinually all the day Jong My Name is blasphemed ' : LXX adds to 
this >t vfui and «>- ro« Ururt^. Si. Paul omits BmnoH-iSt and changea 
pmi to ToC e«>v. 

Tbc orij;inal meant [hat the Name of God was reviled by the 

lyranla and oppreriors of Israel: St. Paul, following up a suggestion 

in the LXX (&' i^), traces this reviling to the scandal caused 

br Israel's inconsistency. The fact that the fotmula of quotation 

I B thrown to the end shows that he is conscious of applying the 

I nastagt freely : it is almost as if it were an after-thought that the 

I iuignagc he has just used is a quotation at aU. See the longer 

Mte on ch. z, below. 

K. (iiur vpoov^ On (be (iImfom of tbe art. Ke Mpeciill; the scbolaitj 
DOte in Va. : ' II ii alnost u if ru^or rpaaetir uid ri/uiv Bapaffittit wen 
fcvoillf like roiioSiTtb, rc/uKfivXamir, &c., roiioBiTit, ratmSMaiiaKiK, JKc, 
HOC com pound woid: ^ thttt bt a la'at-deer . . . if tksu it a la-w-transgn$s«T, 
ftc in<)intii>g the iMarcittr of ih; ptr>on, rainei than catting altentioa to 

.1 tticulsr form ot lUngnalieH of ibc law, whlcii cUinii otwaieoce.' 

■ hy thai ^cry fact iKComc.' Del. <]uoles the Rillitic ca- 
ll picn to llui idea in Ibc Jewish fancy Ibal God would tend hit 
■Qgd to idDOTe the mailu of clrmniciuon oa the wiclted 

36. (It W(piTO|iT)r XoYi<r6ii<rcTai : Xoyi^taOm its ti ^ XoyiitaOat tit tA 

URb ri, lit denoting result, ' so as to be in place of,' ' reckoned ai 
ft sobsuiute or equivalent for ' (Fri., Gnn.-Thay. s. v. Xoyifo^i i a). 

Of tbe ajDOD JBU r^/na; ^vXiaBiir, tiXuV; r^fA • 'totieep an ereaponv* 
'to iiIkii 'I arefaltj' (and then do) ; ipiiXAirauii - ' to gaaid ■> a depotiv 
'to jir ta e n t intact' igaiait violeaee fcom withoat or within; tiXmv - 'to 
bring (a law} l« in proper hiKilnieat ' in action; rij^ar and fvk&aotiy an 
both fitna llie point of new of the agcat. nAiiV from ibat of the law wblch 
U abejtA. S«e Walcoit on Ja ira. u ; i Jo. ii. j. 

S7. Kfir*!: most probably categorical and not a question aa 
AV. and RV. ; = 'condemn' by comparison and contrast, as in 
MaiL xii. 4I. 43 'the men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judge- 
neoi with this generation and shall condemn it,' ftc. Again we 
are pointed back to w. 1-3; the judge of others shall be himself 

4 Ja ^&icwi dxpoPutrrio : un circumcision which physically re- 
inaiDS as it was born. The order of the words seems opposed to 
Prot Buxton's rendering, * the un circumcision which by nature 
folfils the law' {U if>ia.=<t,iau V. 14). 

Ztii of 'attendant circumstances ' as in iv. 11, viil 15, xiv. 30; 
Anglici 'with,' with all your advantages of ciicumcision and the 
pO^»«sS]OQ of a written law. 

The disiinciion between the literal Israel which is after the flesh 
and the true spiritual Israel is a leading idea with St. Paul and 
il wstked out at length in ix. 6 fT. ; see also pp. a, 14W/. We may 


compare PliiL iiL 3, where Su Pkul claims that Christians represent 
the true circumcision. 

28. & Iv T^ ^^"cpf • 'nie Gredc of dib and the next ^pcne is dlipdcd, 
and there is some ambigmtj «s to how much belongs to the sobject and how 
much to the predicate. Eytn accomplished scbolais like Dr. Giffoid and 
Dr. Vangban differ. The latter has some admantage in sjmmetiy, maldiig 

die missing words in both clauses belong to the sabiect (' Not he who fm 
fa Jew] outwardly is a Jew . . . but he who is [a Jew] in secret is a Jew*) ; 
bat it is a drawback to this view of the coDStmctioo that it separates frfprroi4 

and KapSias : Gif., as it seems to ns rightly, combines these ^' he iHiich is 
inwardly a Jew [is truly a Jew], and circamdsioo of hcait . • • [is tme 
drcamdsion ']). Similarly Ups. Weiss (but not Mey.). 

29. vtpiTOfi^ KopSiof. The idea of a spiritual (heart-) drcam- 
dsion goes back to the age of Deuteronomy ; Deut x. 16 vt/ntv- 

lUia6€ rrpf mtkripOKap^iap vftm^ : Jer. iv. 4 wcpcrfuy^ijrc r^ Oc^ v/imp, km 
wtptriittaBt rffp aKXfjpoKapiiap vfimp I cf. Jer. ix. a6 ; Ezek. xliv. 7 9 
Acts vii. 51. Justin works out elaborately the idea of the Christian 
circumcision, Dial, c, Tryph 114. 

6 liroiKos. We believe that Dr. Gifford was the first to point 
out that there is here an evident play on the name ' Jew ' : Judah 
k' Praise ' (cf. Gen. xxix. 35 ; xlix. 8). 

OASinsTicAii OBjEcnoirs answered. 

m. 1-8. This argument may suggest three objections: 
(1) If the moral Gentile is better off than the immoral Jew^ 
what becomes of the Jevfs advantages ? — ANSWER. He still 
has many. His [e.g.) are the promises (w. 1-2). (ii) But 
has not the Jews unbelief cancelled those promises? — 
Answer. No unbelief on the part of man can affect the 
pledged word of God: it only serves to enhance His faithful- 
ness (w. 3, 4). (iii) If that is the result of his action, why 
should man be judged? — Answer. He certainly will be 
judged: we may not say (as I am falsely accused of saying\ 
Do evil that good may come (w. 5-8). 

' If the qualifications which God requires are thus inward and 
spiritual, an objector may urge, What becomes of the privileged 
position of the Jew, his descent from Abraham, and the like? 
What does he gain by his circumcision ? * He does gain much 
on all sides. The first gain is that to the Jews were committed 


the prophecies of the Messiah. [Here the subject breaks off; 
a fuller enumeration is given in ch. ix. 4, 5.] 

*Yoa saj, But the Jews by their unbelief have forfeited their 
share in those prophecies. And I admit that some Jews have 
rejected Christianity, in which they are fulfilled. What then? 
The promises of God do not depend on man. He will keep His 
word, whatever man may do. *To suggest otherwise were 
blasphemy. Nay, God must be seen to be true, though all man- 
kind are convicted of falsehood. Just as in Ps. li the Psalmist 
confesses that the only effect of his own sin will be that (in 
forensic metaphor) God will be ' declared righteous ' in His sajrings 
[the promises just mentioned], and gain His case when it is brought 
to triaL 

*A new objection arises. If our unrighteousness is only 
a foil to set off the righteousness of God would not God be unjust 
who punishes men for sin ? (Speaking of God as if He were man 
can hardly be avoided.) ' That too were blasphemy to think I K 
any such objection were sound, God could not judge the world. 
But we know that He will judge it. Therefore the reasoning must 
be fallacious. 

^Uf you say, as in the case before us, the truthfulness of 
God in performing His promises is only thrown into relief by my 
infidelity, which thus redounds to His glory, why am I still like 
other offenders {koi) brought up for judgement as a sinner ? 

* So the objector. And I know that this charge of saying 
' Let OS do evil that good may come ' is brought with slanderous 
exaggeration against me — as if the stress which I lay on faith 
compared with works meant. Never mind what your actions are, 
provided only that the end you have in view is right 

AU I will say is that the judgement which these sophisdcal 
reasoners will receive is richly deserved. 

lie It is characteristic of this Epistle that St Paul seems 
to imagine himself face to face with an opponent, and that he 
discusses and answers arguments which an opponent might bring 
against him (so iii. iff., iv. iff., vi. iff., 15 ff., viL 7 ff.). No 
doubt this is a way of presenting the dialectical process in his own 
mind. But at the same time it is a way which would seem to 
have been suggested by actual exi>erience of controversy with 
jews and the narrower Jewish Christians. We are told expressly 


that the charge of sajing 'Let us do evil that good may come' 
was brought as a matter of fact against the Apostle (ver. 8). And 
vi. I, 15 restate this charge in Pauline language. The Apostle 
as it were takes it up and gives it out again as if it came in the 
logic of his own thought. And the other charge of levelling down 
all the Jew's privileges, of ignoring the Old Testament and dis- 
paraging its saints, was one which must as inevitably have been 
brought against St. Paul as the like charges were brought against 
St Stephen (Acts vi. 13 f.). It is probable however that St Paul 
had himself wrestled with this question long before it was pointed 
against him as a weapon in controversy; and he propounds it in 
the order in which it would naturally arise in that stress of reason- 
ing, pro and con., which went to the shaping of his own system. 
The modified form in which the question comes up the second 
time (ver. 9) shows — if our interpretation is correct — that St Paul is 
there rather following out his own thought than contending with 
an adversary. 

L t6 vcpiov^K. That which encircles a thing necessarily 
lies outside it Hence n-cpt would seem to have a latent meaning 
* beyond/ which is appropriated rather by frcpo, irc'pay, but comes out 
in vtpiirtr6ty ' that which is in excess/ * over and above/ 

2. vpwToi' |Uk : intended to be followed by lircira dc , but the line 
of argument is broken oflf and not resumed. A list of privileges 
such as might have followed here is given in ch. ix. 4. 

wpShw §jAv ydf : om. ydp B D* £ G minuse. pauc»f verss, pittr., Chrfk 
Orig.-lat «/., [ri/>] WH. 

4irurTfv0i|<rav. vi<rrci}w, in the sense of ' entrust,' ' confide/ Ukes aoc. ci 
the thing entrusted, dat. of the person ; e. g. Jo. ii. 24 6 Zl 'hjaovt ovk kiA- 
crwtv kavrhw [rather ahrhv or avT($y] ahrott. In the passive the dat 
becomes nom., and the ace. remains unchanged { Buttmann, pp. 1 75, 189, 190 ; 
Winer, nudi. 5 [p. aSy] ; of. i Cor. iz. 17 ; Gal. ii. 7). 

fA X^uu St. Paul might mean by this the whole of the O. T. 
regarded as the Word of God, but he seems to have in view rather 
those utterances in it which stand out as most unmistakably Divine ; 
the Law as given from Sinai and the promises relating to the 

The old account of \6yiO¥ as a dimin. of K6yos is probably correct, though 
Mey.-W. make it neut. of K^yios on the ground that X071&01' is the proper 
dimin. The form Koyihw is rather a strengthened dimin., which by a process 
common in language took the place of koyiov when it acquired the special 
lense of 'oracle.* From Herod, downwards \6fiov = * oracle' as a brief 
condensed saying; and so it came to = any 'inspired, divine utterance*: 
e. g. in Philo of the ' prophecies* and of the ' ten commandments* (vf^ rwr 
hima koylonf is the title of Philo's treatise). So in LXX the expression ii 
used of the ' word of the Lord * five times in Isaiah and frequently in the 
Psalms (no less than seventeen times in Ps. cxix [cxviii]). From this usage 
it was natural that it should be transferred to the 'sayings' of the Lord 
Jesus (Polyc ad Phil. vii. i dr &y /ic^oScvp rd A^Tia raw Kvpion : d Iitn. 


A^, Hatr. I pnxl ; also WcUs. Einl. { 5. 4). But Uom Che time of Philo 
ocwanli Iho wotd wu Uicd of any lacied wrillng, whethei dlSLounc 01 
lurT&tJTe ■ >0 thai it ii a ditpaltd point whelhti the \&fia tou Kvp*o]s which 
Papk* Udibe* to St ^titlhcw, u wdl u bi> own Xa7fu' nfiwiar IfYTie'it 
(Eu. jy. £'. III. Kxxii. 16 uid I) w(ie or were not timiled to disconree (lec 
tspeeMj LJchtfoot, £». tt Saftm. Ail. p. 1 7a ff.). 

8. 4tiwn)ffar . . . diTLirria. Do these words refer to ' unbelief* 
(Mr J. Gif. Lid. Olir. Go.) or to ' unfaithfulness ' (Dc W. Weiss 
Lips. Va.)? Probably, on the whole, the former: because (i) ihe 
train point in the context is the disbelief in ihe promises of the 
0. T. and the refusai to accept them as fullilled in Chrisi ; (ii) 
chaps, ii-xi show thai the problem of Israel's unbelief weighed 
htaviljr on the Apostle's mind ; (lii) ' unbelief is the constant sense 
el the word (oihttiw oicurs seven times, in which the only apparent 
exception to this sense is a Tim, ii. 13, and axurria eleven times, 
with DO clear exception) ; (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. xi. ao 
t-g MiirTif i(tAaaSr]trar, av !U rg niorri (irr>ii<at. At the same time 
the one s«nse rather suggests than excludes the other; so that the 
•iruTria of man IE Daturally contrai^ted with the nlimt of God 
(cf. Va.). 

noTtr : ' faithfulness ' to His promises ; cf. Lam. iii. 13 icoXX^ q 

«i»Tu OW T Pi. Sol. viii. 35 S jrioTK ami /uff ijfiii'. 

K«T«py4|««l. itaTapyu' (from tara causative and opyis = aipym) 

^' to render inert or inactive ' : a characteristic word with St. P&ul, 
occurring twenty-five times in his writings (including 1 Thess. 
EfA. I Tim.), and only twice elsewhere {Lk. Heb.) ■ = (i) in 
a material sense, ' to make sterile or barren,' of soil Lk. xiii. 7, 

cf. Rom. vi. 6 Ira taTapyrfSg ri (ru^ rqc ifuipriac, ' that the body as 

an instnimeni of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless') 
fii) in a figurative sense, ' to render invalid,' ' abrogate,' ' abolish ' 
(r^ ArayyfXuu Ga). iii. t^ ; 'iiior Rom. iii. 31). 

4. f>^ yitotro: a fomiula of negation, repelling with horrot 
sometliing previously suggested. 'Fourteen of the fifteen N. T. 
instances are in Paul s wniings, and in twelve of them it expresses 
the Apostle's abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be 
folKly drawn from hts argument ' (Burton, Jlf. and T. { 177 ; cf. 
alto LfL on GaL ii. 17). 

It ii diancleriitic of Ibe vehement impntsive Mylc of Ihii groop of Epp. 
thai tbe pbrut i* oonliiied 10 tliem (tm iimcs in Rom., once in i Coi., twice 
h G«L ). It ocean live time* in LXX, not tiowcvcr HBodiog aloae »i here, 
bM worked into the body of the Kutence (cf. Geo. itiv. 7, 17 ; Joib. ixii. 19, 
ni*. t*; I KisEi u [ui]. 3). 

yipJoftN : see on i. 3 above ; the transition which the verb 
deiwies is often from a latent conditi'in to an apparent coiidiiioti, 
um) so here, ■ prove to be,' ' be seen to be.* 

<X>|^: as keeping His plighted word. 


4rcu9Ti)s : in asserting that God's promises have not been fulfilled. 

Ka6&s Y^Ypainrai : ' £ven as it stands written.' The quotation is 
exact from LXX of Ps. li [1]. 6. Note the mistranslations in LXX 
(which St. Paul adopts), puefians (or MK^o-ctr) for vuans sts, iv r^ 
icpivta-dai (pass.) for tn iudicando or dum iudicas. The sense of the 
original is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God*s 
judgement upon him. The result of his sin is that God is pro- 
nounced righteous in His sentence, free from blame in His judging. 
Sl Paul applies it as if the Most High Himself were put upon trial 
and declared guiltless in respect to the promises which He has 
fulfilled, though man will not believe in their fulfilment 

SiTMs dv: 4r points to an unexpressed conditioo, 'in case a decision ii 

BiKaiu6]3s: 'that thou mightest be pronounced righteous* bj 
the judgement of mankind ; see p. 30 f. above, and compare Matt xL 

19 icoi cdocatw^ fi aotfiia dn6 tw tpytav (v. L r€amw I ct, Lk. vii. 35) 
avr^ff. Tesf, XII Patr, Sym. 6 on-wr ducaiw^w 6nh r^ff Afiapritu rmp 

^)fip vfiav, Ps» Sol. ii. 16 (yo> dicoioxro* at 6 Gff($f. The usage 
occurs repeatedly in this book ; see Ryle and James ad loc. 

i¥ Tois X^yois oov ; not * pleadings ' (Va.) but ' sayings/ L e. the 
X(Syia just mentioned. Heb. probably = ' judicial sentence.* 

nicVja^dS : like vtncere, of ' gaining a suit/ opp. to ^rraaBag : the 
full phrase is vucav ri^y dUfjp (Eur. £1. 955, &c.). 

narf|<r|ts, B G K L &c ; pttcr/fftit MADE, minuse. aliq. Probably yijn7<rfn 
u right, because of the agreement of K A with the older types of Western 
Text, thus representing two great families. The reading mxiitrgt in B appa- 
rently belongs to the small Western element in that MS., which wonld seem 
to be allied to that in G rather than to that in D. There is a similar 
fluctuation in MSS. of the LXX : vncticint is the reading of M B {def. A), 
piKtiaM of some fourteen cursives. The text of LXX used by St Paul differs 
not seldom from that of the great uncials. 

apii'caBai : probably not mid. (* to enter upon trial/ ' go to law/ 
lit. 'get judgment for oneself) as Mey. Go. Va. Lid., but pass, 
as in ver. 7 (so Vulg. Weiss Kautzsch, &c. ; see the arguments 
from the usage of LXX and Heb. in Kautzsch, De Vet, Test. Locts 
a Paulo allegatis^ P* ^4 n.). 

6. 4 ABiKia ^yMv\ a general statement, including ixsiaxla. In 
like manner ecov hviLa%ouvvr\¥ is general, though the particular 
instance which St. Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God 
to His promises. 

cruKiOTTio-i : avvlarrjfu {avpiardw)) has In N. T. tWO COnspicuOUS 

meanings : (i) * to bring together ' as two persons, ' to introduce ' 
or ' commend ' to one another (e.g. Rom. zvi. i ; a Cor. iiL i ; iv. a; 

V. I a, &C. ; cf. avaTariKoi imvroKal 2 Cor. iii. l); (ii) ' tO put 

together' or 'make good' by argument, 'to prove/ 'establish' 


{camposiUs eoUectisque quae rem cantineant argumentis aliquid docec 
Fritzsche), as in Rom. v. 8 ; a Cor. viL 11 ; Gal. ii. 18 (where see 
Ul and £U.). 

Both meanini;;! are recognized by Hesych. {cwicrfivtar ivuvtiv^ ^rcpovf , 
fi^BoioSv, wofortBivai) ; but it is strange that neither comes out clearly in the 
met of the word in LXX ; the second is found in Sasann. 6 1 aviorqcav ixA 
ro^ b6o wfiHTfivraSf Srt av^iarriatv oindbs AoyiijX ifftvio/AaprvpriaayTas (Tlieod.). 

Ti iftovyMv: another phrase, like iiff yivoiro^ which is charac- 
teristic of this Epistle, where it occurs seven times ; not elsewhere 

f^ cScKos : the form of question shows that a negative answer is 
expected (/t^ originally meant ' Don't say that/ &c.). 

i hn^iptev 7^v i^¥ : most exactly, ' the inflicter of the anger ' 
(Va.). The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on L 18, 
xii. 19. 

Butoo however makes 6 Iwi^ipoav strictly equiTalent to a relatiTe clause, 
md like a relative clause suggest a reason ('Who Tisiteth'— 'because He 
visiuth ') M,9mdT,\ 428. 

safd ay6p«nroy Xfyti : a form of phrase which is also charac- 
teristic of this group of Epistles, where the eager argumentation of 
the Apostle leads him to press the analogy between human and 
divine things in a way that he feels calls for apology. The exact 
phrase recurs only in Gal. iii. 15 ; but comp. also i Cor. ix. 8 

|n} aora h/6p*aK0¥ rax/ra XoXw; % Cor. xi. 1 7 ^ XoXio, ov Koxa Kv/}(oy 

6. <vci «6f ftpcrci : St. Paul and his readers alike held as axio- 
matic the belief that God would judge the world. But the objection 
jost urged was inconsistent with that belief, and therefore must 
fidl to the ground. 

WfL : ' linoe, if that were so, if the inflicting of punishment necessarily 
implied injustice.' 'Eve/ gets the meaning * if so,' ' if not ' (' or else '), from 
the coDteit, the clause to which it points being supposed to be repeated : 
here l«W t& cl ^Surot iarfu 6 ivtfiptiv r^ ^PTl^ C^f- Buttmann, Gr. ^ A. T, 
Ck. p. 359). 

T^ K69|ior: all mankind. 

7. The position laid down in ver. 5 is now discussed from the side 
of man, as it had just been discussed from the side of God. 

«l 81 M A minute, paue., Vulg. tod. Boh.. Jo.-Damasc., Tisch. WII. text. 
RV. text. ; c/rSpBDEGKLP &c., Vulg. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. ai, WH. 
wunj. RV. marg. The second reading may b« in its origin Western. 

dXi^cia: the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises; 
^€v<rfia, the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as 
in ver. 4). 

aAy«S: 'I too,' as well as others, though my falsehood thus 


that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse, 
and that all mankind might be held accountable to God. 

^ This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By works of 
Law (i. e. by an attempted fulfilment of Law) no mortal may hope 
to be declared righteous in God's sight For the only effect of 
Law is to open men's eyes to their own sinfulness, not to enable 
them to do better. That method, the method of works, has 
failed. A new method must be found. 

9. Tt o3k ; ' What then [follows] ? ' Not with nftotx^fJ^^, because 
that would require in reply ovdcy vavros, not ov ndm^s, 

Tpocx^)ic6a is explained in three ways : as intrans. in the same 
sense as the acdve irpocx«, as trans, with its proper middle force, 
and as passive, (i) wpotx^fitOa mid. = wpotxofuv (pratceUimus eos 
Vulg. ; and so the majority of commentators, ancient and modem, 

AfNi irtpura^p tx^t^'^^^P^ Tovs''EXkrjims', £uthym.-Zig. «xo^cy ri irXfov 

KOI ndoKinovfitv ol *lovdatoft ; Thcoph. ' Do we think ourselves better ?* 
Gif.). But no examples of this use are to be found, and there 
seems to be no reason why St. Paul should not have written 
npo€xofuv, the common form in such contexts, (ii) vpotx^iuBa trans, 
in its more ordinary middle sense, ' put forward as an excuse or 
pretext * (* Do we excuse ourselves ? ' RV. marg,^ * Have we any 
defence?* Mey. Go.). But then the object must be expressed, 
and as we have just seen W oZv cannot be combined with npo€x6iifBa 
because of ov ndvT»s, (iii) vpotx'&iitOa passive, ' Are we excelled ? ' 
* Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles) ? ' a rare use, but still 
one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, OL Narv. Ill ad 
loc,). Some of the best scholars (e. g. Lightfoot, Field) incline to 
this view, which has been adopted in the text of RV, The prin- 
cipal objection to it is from the context. St. Paul has just asserted 
(ver. 2) that the Jew has an advantage over the Gentile : how then 
does he come to ask if the Gentile has an advantage over the Jew ? 
The answer would seem to be that a different kind of * advantage ' 
is meant. The superiority of the Jew to the Gentile is htstaric, it 
lies in the possession of superior privileges ; the practical equality 
of Jew and Gentile is in regard to their present moral condition 
ch. ii. 17-29 balanced against ch. i. 18-32). In this latter resi>ect 
t. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places 
(ii. 25-29). A few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take irpo€x6fie6a as pass., 
but give it the same sense as npo€xofxt¥, * Are we (Jews) preferred 
(to the Gentiles) in the sight of God ? ' 


^pofx^fi€$a I ▼. 1. wpoKar4xot*€¥ v€pifftr6v D* G, 31 ; Antiochene Fathen 
(Chiyi. [ed. Field] Theodt. Scverianus', alsoOrig.-lat Ambrstr. (fome MSS. 
bvt not the best, tentmus amplius) : a gloss explaining vpo«x* in the same 

m. «. lo-l 


quoted iboT«. A L read 

*4 vdrruf. Strictly speaking oi should qualify iravrmt, ' noi 
alingcther,' 'not emirely,' as in i Cor. v. lo iu nuyrvi toTi v6ptnt 
rou t6iTfitw TovTou: but in some cases, as here, ndrrat quallTics oi, 
'altogether not,' 'entirely not,' i.e. 'not at all' (negua^uam Vulg., 
aMniHM Theoph.). Compare the similar idiom in ob irarv ; and see 
Win. Gr. Ixi. s- 

vfwijTiairtCficOa : in the section i. i8-ii. 39. 

t+' iaaptiav. In Biblical Creek bri with daf. hai giveD place entirely to 
hrJ Willi aco. Matt viii. 9 irepoHtit •(»» u«A ifou^W is a strung case. The 
chingt hu already taken place la LXX ; e. g DeuL uxiii. 3 wimt of 
^aetiivoi bwi rdi x«V^' "<>*'> ""^ aEroi tri erf dm. 

10. The long quotation which follows, made up of a number of 
passages taken from diffetenl parts of the O. T., and with no 
apparent break between them, is strictly in accordance with the 
Rabbinical practice. ' A favourite method was that which derived 
its name from the stringing together of beads ' Charat), when a 
preacher having quoted a passage or section from the Pentateuch, 
Strang on 10 it another and like- sounding, or really similar, 
from the Prophets and the Hagiographa ' (Edersheim, Lift and 
Tima, Ac. i. 449)- We may judge from this instance that the 
fimquoiation did not always necessarily come from the Pentateuch 
— though no doubt there is a marked tendency in Christian as 
compared with Jewish writers to equalize the three divisions of the 
O. T. Other examples of such compounded quotations are Rom. 
ix.agf.; 37 r.; xi. 16 f. ; 34 f. ; sii. 19 f.; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Here the 
passages are from Pss. liv [liiij. 1-3 (=Ps. liii. 1-3 [lii. 3-4]), 
ver. t &ee, ver. a abridged, ver. 3 exact ; v. 9 [10] exact ; cxl. 3 
[cxxzix. 4] exact : x. 7 [ix. 18] free ; Is. lix. 7, 8 abridged ; Ps. 
sxxvi [xxivl. I. The degree of relevance of each of these 
passages to ine argimient is indicated by the paraphrase : see also 
the additional note at the end of ch. x. 

Ai a whole Ihii coDgloraenite of qaotatloni hu bad a cnrioni hiitoiy. 
The qDotaUoM in N.T. Tteqaeatly react upon the text of O.T., aad they haTC 
done u> here: w. 13-18 got imported bodily into Ps. lir [xill LXX J ai an 
■ppendaee to rer. 4 in the 'coDUnoa' teat of ibe LXX i4 na-y^, Le. ibe 
nniriiied leil cnmnt in the time of Origen). They arc iiill found in Codd. 
K* B K U and many cutstve MSS. of LXX (om. K<-A), though the Greek 
ccmmentalon oa the Psalms do not tecogniie them. From imeipolated 
MSS. rach as theae they found theii way into Lat.-Vet,, and 10 iolo 
jMome's first edition of the Fiallci |lhe 'Romao'l, nlw into hii ieeond 
p'iliim |(he 'Galilean,' based upon Origen's Hixapla'. though marked with 
•n oljclu* after the etample of Oiigen. The obelus dropped out, and they 
air commonly printed in the Vulgile teat of the Psalms. whiJi is practically 
Ibe GaUicaii. From the Volgite ihcy (ravelled mlo Covcrdale's Uible 
(A.D. 1535); fram ilieucc Into Malihen'i ^Rogen'j Bible, whlcli in tb« 


Pialter reprodncet Corerdale (A.D. 1537), and also into the 'Great Bible* 
(first isaneo by Cromwell in 1539, *^^ afterwards with a preface by Cranmer, 
whence it also bears the name of Cranmer*s Bible, in 1540). The Psalter of 
the Great Bible was incorporated in the Book of Common Prayer, in which 
it was retained as being familiar and smoother to sing, even in the later 
lerision which substituted elsewhere the Anthorixed Version of 161 1. The 
editing of the Great Bible was doe to CoTcrdale, who put an ^ to the 
passages fonnd in the Vulgate but wanting in the Hebrew. These marks 
nowever had the same fate which befell the obeli of Jerome. They were 
not repeated in the Prayer- Book ; so that English Churchmen still read the 
interpolated verses in Ps. idr with nothing to distinguish them from the rest 
of the text. Jerome himself was well aware that Siese verses were no part 
of the Psalm. In his commentary on Isaiah, lib. xyi, he notes that St. Paul 
quoted Is. liz. 7, 8 in Ep. to Rom., and he adds, fuoJ muUi ignorantgs^ de 
Uriw tUcimc pseUmo sumptum putant^ qui versus {arixoi^ in edition* Vulgaia 
[i. e. the «coii^ of the LXX] cuUiiti sunt et in Hebraic^ non habentmr (Hieron. 
Ofp.tA, Migne, iv. 601 ; comp. the preface to the same book, ibid, coL 568 1 ; 
auo the newly discovered Cmnm*ntarioli in Psalmos, ed. Morin, 1895, p. 24 C). 

10. Some have thought that this verse was not part of the 
quotation, but a summary by St. Paul of what follows. It does 
indeed present some variants from the original, bUaun for woc^ 
XpfioT^nfTa and ovdf ciir for ovk Itrrw c«»r ^M^f. In the LXX this clause 
is a kind of refrain which is repeated exactly in ver. 3. St Paul 
there keeps to his text ; but we cannot be surprised that in the 
opening words he should choose a simpler form of phrase which 
more direcdy suggests the connexion with his main argument 
The ducoior ' shall live by faith ' ; but till the coming of Christianity 
there was no true dueaiof and no true faith. The verse runs too 
much upon the same lines as the Psalm to be other than a 
quotation, though it is handled in the free and bold manner which 
is characteristic of St. Paul. 

U. o^K coTiK 6 oukiuk: nan est qui inttlligat (rather than qui 
intelligit) ; Anglic^, * there is none to understandL' [But A B G, 
and perhaps Latt. Orig.-lat Ambrstr., WH. text read (rvvUiv, as also 
{B)C WH. text «fi7T«v, without the art. after LXX. This would = 
turn est intelligens, non est requirens Deum (Vulg.) * There is 
no one of understanding, there is no inquirer after God.' j 

h owiAv : on the form see Win. Gr, § xiv, 16 (ed. 8 ; xiv, 3 £. T.) ; Hoit, 
Intr, Notes on Orthog, p. 1 67 ; also for the accentuation, FrL p. 1 74 f. 
Both forms, aviiioi and cwioi^ are found, and either accentuation, ovriwr or 
cwicjVf may be adopted : probably the latter is to be preferred ; cf. f^c from 
dtftiu Mk. L 34, xL 16. 

12. Jlfus : ' one and alL' 

4jxpcuS0i)(ra»' : Heb. = ' to go bad/ ' become sour/ like milk ; 
comp. the dxpuog dovXos of Matt. xxv. 30. 

iroiAv {tins artie,) A B G &c. WH. text. 

Xpi\aT6Ti\Ta = ' goodness ' in the widest sense, with the idea of 
* utility ' rather than specially of * kindness/ as in ii. 4. 


Vitt Mt : q>. the Latin idiom tui unum cmms (Vulg. literally msfui md 
mmmm). B 67^, WH. mar^. omit the second otic ianv [ov« iori¥ whw 
XFl^rdnfta tm ivity The readings of B and its allies in these yerses are 
open to some snspioon of assimilating to a text of LXX. In Ter. 14 B 17 
add o^rfiv (ir r6 cr6iia ainSrv) corresponding to a^ou in B*s text of Ps. x. 7 
[ix. a8]. 

18. H/^ . • . ^XioOaar. The LXX of Ps. v. 9 [10] corre- 
sponds pretty nearly to Heb. The last clause = rather linguam 
mam blandam reddunt (poliunf), or perhaps lingua sua hlandiuntur 
(Kautzschy p. 34) : * their tongue do they make smooth ' Cheyne ; 
• smooth speech glideth from dieir tongue ' De Witt. 

l8oXu>09<ur : Win. Gr, f xiii, 14 (ed. 8 ; xiii, a/. E. T.). The termina- 
tion •^ov, extended from imperf. and snd aor. of Terbs in -fu to Terbs in -a>, is 
widely (bond ; it is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek, hot by no 
means confined to it ; it is frequent in Boeotian inscriptions, and is called by 
grammarian a ' Boeotian form, as by others ' Alexandrian.' 

Us dvTiStir: Ps. cxl. 3 fcxxxix. 4]. The position of the poison- 
bag of the serpent is rightly described. The venom is more 
correctly referred to the bite (as in Num. xxi. 9; Prov. xxiii. 32), 
than to the forked tongue (Job zx. 16): see art. 'Serpent' in 

14. Ps. X. 7 somewhat freely from LXX [ix. 28]: ol dpat rh 
rr6fia aurov ytiui Koi vu^piat Koi tSkov, St. Paul retains the rel. but 
changes it into the plural : aro/ia avr^v B 17, Cypr., WH. marg. 

vucpia : Heb. more lit. ^/raudes, 

15-17. This quotation of Is. lix. 7, 8 is freely abridged from the 
LXX ; and as it is also of some interest from its bearing upon 
the text of the LXX used by St. Paul, it may be well to give the 
original and the quotation side by side. 

Rom. iii. 15-17. Is. lix. 7, 8. 

^(ftr cH irtSdrr avrS»» tKXfcu aifior ol d« ir6fi€£ avTS>v [ciri irovrtplop 

^vrrpi/ifui cm rdkeuw^pla *v rait rpcp^ovo-t] raxivol €Kxt€u alua [col o] 
idoit airmp, aol 6^v tlpfinjt ova diakoyia-fjioi airrS>v dioXoytcr/Aol an6 
hprn^atf, ^vflDv]. trvvrptfifia icol raXaiiroi»pui 

4p raiff 6doic avTS>p Ka\ 6d6v tlp^tnjs 
ovK dSkuri [icai ovk (Ioti Kplais cV 
rair odoir atfrStv^, 

alfm. iwalrttm Theodotion, and probably also Aqnila and Symmachna. 
[From the Hexapla this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX.] 

if ^rtnr (for M iphvwi) A N : oXhaai K' B Q^, &c. : ifwwtav A (^ marg, 
(Q » Cod. Marchalianns, XII Holmes) minusc, aliq. 

19* What is the meaning of this verse ? Does it mean that the 
pAsaages just quoted are addressed to Jews (4 i^/Aot = 0. T. ; 

•o EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [m. 10, 90. 

r^fMT 17/9 rnXoicb' ypaxfyfjp ^Mfui^irc, {(r f^poff tA rpo^iTrurcS EudlJlIL- 

Zig.), and therefore they are as much guiltj before God as the 
Gentiles? So most commentators. Or does it mean that the 
guilt of the Jews being now proved, at they sinned they most also 
expect punishment, the Law {6 vo/Aor = the Pentateudi) affirming 
the connexion between sin and punishment So Gif. Both interpre- 
tations give a good sense. [For though (i) does not strictly prove 
that all men are guilty but only that the Jews are guilty, this was 
really the main point which needed proving, because the Jews were 
apt to explain away the passages which condemned them, and held 
that — whatever happened to the Gentiles — they would escape.] 
The question really turns upon the meaning of 6 961109, It is 
urged, (i) that there is only a single passage in St Paul where 
6 96fiO£ clearly=0. T. (i Cor. xiv. ai, a quotation of Is. xxviii. 11) : 
compare however Jo. x. 34 (s Ps. Ixxxii. 6), zv. 25 (= Ps. 
zxxv. 19) ; (ii) that in the corresponding clause, roU h r^ ytf/ifli 
must = the Law, in the narrower sense ; (iii) that in ver. ai the 
Law is expressly distinguished from the Prophets. 

Yet these arguments are hardly decisive : for (i) the evidence is 
sufficient to show that St Paul might have used i w6fto9 in the wider 
sense ; for this one instance is as good as many ; and (ii) we must 
not suppose that St Paul always rigidly distinguished wnich sense 
he was using ; the use of the word in one sense would call up the 
other (cf. Note on 6 Azntror in ch. v. la). 

Oltr. mlso goes a way of hit own, hut makes 6 wSfiot » Law in the 
abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience, and for the 
Jew the Uw of Moses), which is contrary to the nse of ^ r^fiot. 

X^ci • . . XaXci : XcyccF calls attention to the substance of what 
is spoken, XoXcTy to the outward utterance; cf. esp. M^^Clellan, 
Gospels, p. 383 ff. 

tpAYlf : cf. ovofroXcSyi^ror i. ao, ii. I ; the idea comes up at each 
step in the argument 

uiroSiRos: not exactly 'guilty before God,' but 'answerable to 
God/ imddiKos takes gen. of the penalty ; dat of the person injured 

to whom satisfaction is due {t»v durXao-ittF vtroiucos l(rr» rf Pka/f>$hri 

Plato, Legg- 846 B). So here : all mankind has offended against 
God, and owes Him satisfaction. Note the use of a forensic 

20. Si^: 'because/ not 'therefore,' as AV. (see on i. 19). 
Mankind is liable for penalties as against God, because there is 
nothing else to afford them protection. Law can open men's 
eyes to sin, but cannot remove it Why this is so is shown in 
vij. 7 ff. 

S^aaiwOi^acTai : 'shall be pronounced righteous,* certainly not 
' shall be made righteous ' (Lid.) ; the whole context (Zra wop vroma 

m. ai-86.] THE NEW SYSTEM 8l 

^payji vw6ducosy ivrnnunf avrov) has reference to a judicial trial and 

vooa adpi : man in hb weakness and frailty (i Cor. i. 29 ; i Pet 
L 24). 

imyvuan: 'dear knowledge'; see on L 28, 32. 


m. 21-26. Here then the new order of things comes in. 
In it is offered a Righteousness which comes from God but 
embraces man, by no deserts of his but as a free gift on the 
part of God, This righteousness, (1) though attested by the 
Sacred Books, is independent of any legal system (ver. 21); 
(ii) it is apprehended by faith in Christ, and is as wide as 
mans need (w. %2, 23); (iii) // is made possible by the 
propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ (w. 24, 25) ; which Sacrifice 
at once explains the lenient treatment by God of past sin 
and gives the most decisive expression to His righteousness 
(w. 25, 26). 

** It is precisely such a method which is offered in Christianity. 
We have seen what is the state of the world without it But now, 
since the coming of Christ, the righteousness of God has asserted 
itself in visible concrete form, but so as to furnish at the same 
lime a means of acquiring righteousness to man — and that in 
complete independence of law, though the Sacred Books which 
contain the Law and the writings of the Prophets bear witness to 
it "This new method of acquiring righteousness does not turn 
upon works but on faith, i. e. on ardent attachment and devotion to 
Jesus Messiah. And it is therefore no longer confined to any 
particular people like the Jews, but is thrown open without distinc- 
tion to all, on the sole condition of believing, whether they be Jews 
or Gentiles. **The universal gift corresponds to the universal need. 
All men alike have sinned ; and all alike feel themselves far from 
the bright effulgence of God's presence. "^Yet estranged as they 
are God accepts them as righteous for no merit or service of theirs, 
by an act of His own free favour, the change in their relation to 
Him being due to the Great Deliverance wrought at the price of the 
Death of Christ Jesus. **When the Messiah suffered upon the 


Cross it was God Who set Him there as a public spectacle, to 
be viewed as a Mosaic sacrifice might be viewed by the crowds as- 
sembled in the courts of the Temple. The shedding of His Blood 
was in fact a sacrifice which had the effect of making propitiation 
or atonement for sin, an effect which man must appropriate through 
faith. The object of the whole being by this public and decisive 
act to vindicate the righteousness of God. In previous ages the 
sins of mankind had been passed over without adequate punishment 
or atonement : ** but this long forbearance on the part of God had in 
view throughout that signal exhibition of His Righteousness which 
He purposed to enact when the hour should come as now it has 
come, so as to reveal Himself in His double character as at once 
righteous Himself and pronouncing righteous, or accepting as 
righteous, the loyal follower of Jesus. 

21. wKi ti : * now/ under the Christian dispensation. Mey. De 
W. Oltr. Go. and others contend for the rendering * as it is,' on the 
ground that the opposition is between two s/a^s^ the state under 
Law and the state without Law. But here the two states or 
relations correspond to two periods succeeding each other in order 
of time ; so that pwi may well have its first and most obvious 
meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Rom. xvi. 
a5) a6 fivarrjplov . . • <lxiv€pm6€VT0S . . . vvp, £ph. ii. 12, 13 w>4 
dc . . . iytVTiBffrt ryyvr, Col. i. 26, 27 fivarrjpiop to airoMKpvfifjJpop . . . 
vvv dc €<f>av€poi)6fjf 2 Tim. i. 9, 10 X^t^*"^ ^^'^ ^oBtla-ctv . . . frp6 xjpovwr 
ah»vmv (fMytpoiBtlaap dc ia)v, Heb. ix. 26 pvpi dc dira( cVc crvvrcXf/i^ 

rS>p alaptow . . . fF«^aP€p<arrai, It may be observed (i) that the N. T. 
writers constantly oppose the pre-Christian and the Christian 
dispensations to each other as periods (comp. in addition to the 
passages already enumerated Acts xvii. 30 ; Gal. iii. 23, 25, 
iv. 3, 4 ; Heb. i. i) ; and (ii) that <f>aptpovaBai is constantly used 
with expressions denoting time (add to passages above Tit. i. 3 

icaipoU id/oir, I Pet. i. 20 fir icrx^Tov rwv XP^*^^)* ^^'^ leading 

English commentators take this view. 

An allusion of TertuUian's makes it probable that Mardon retained thii 
verse ; evidence fails as to the rest of the chapter, and it is probable that he 
cut ont the whole of ch. iv, along with most other references to the history 
of Abraham (Tert on Gal. iv. ai-a6. Adv. Marc. v. 4). 

X<i>pls v6p.ou: 'apart from law,' 'independently of it/ not as 
a subordinate system growing out of Law, but as an alternative for 
Law and destined ultimately to supersede it (Rom. x. 4). 

SiKaioaunri 6cou: see on ch. i. 17. St. Paul goes on to define 
his meaning. The righteousness which he has in view is essentially 

m. 21* 2S.] THE NEW SYSTEM 83 

the righteousness of God; though the aspect in which it is 
regarded is as a condition bestowed upon man, that condition is 
the direct outcome of the Divine attribute of righteousness, working 
its way to larger realization amongst men. One step in this 
realization, the first great objective step, is the Sacrificial Death of 
Christ for sin (ver. 25) ; the next step is the subjective apprehension 
of what is thus done for him by faith on the part of the believer 
(ver. 28). Under the old system the only way laid down for man to 
attain to righteousness was by the strict performance of the Mosaic 
Law ; now that heavy obligation is removed and a shorter but at 
d^ same time more effective method is substituted, the method of 
attachment to a Divine Person. 

vc^Kcpi^rai. Contrast the completed <^v4pwTis in Christ and 
the continued mroicaXv^tf in the Gospel (ch. i. 16) : the verb 
<f>ampowrBak is regularly used for the Incarnation with its accompani- 
ments and sequents as outstanding facts of history prepared in the 
secret counsels of God and at the fitting moment ' manifested ' to 
the sight of men; so, of the whole process of the Incarnation, 
I Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. L 10; i Pet i. 20; i Jo. iii. 5, 8: of the 
Atonement, Heb. iz. 26 : of the risen Christ, Mark xvi. 12, 14; 
John xxi. 14: of the future coming to Judgement, i Pet. v. 4; 
I Jo. ii. 28. The nearest parallels to this verse which speaks of 
the manifestation of Divine ' righteousness' are 2 Tim. i. 10, which 
speaks of a like manifestation of Divine ' grace/ and i Jo. i. 2, 
which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the 
principle of ' life.' 

|MipTvpouyUinf| k. t. X. : another instance of the care with which 
St Paul insists that the new order of things is in no way contrary 
to the old, but rather a development which was duly foreseen and 
provided for : cf. Rom. L 2, iii. 31, the whole of ch. iv, ix. 25-33; 
X. 16-21; xi. I'lo, 26-29; XV. 8-12; xvi. 26 &c. 

22. ti turns to the particular aspect of the Divine righteousness 
which the Apostle here wishes to bring out ; it is righteousness 
apprehended by faith in Christ and embracing the body of believers. 
The particle thus introduces a nearer definition, but in itself only 
marks the transition in thought which here (as in ch. ix. 30; i Cor. 
ii. 6 ; Gal. iL a ; PhiL ii. 8) happens to be from the general to the 

vioTcws 'Ifjaov XpioTou: gen. of object, 'faith in Jesus Christ' 
This is the hitherto almost universally accepted view, which has 
however been recently challenged in a very carefully worked out 
argument by Prof. Haussleiter of Greifswald {Der Glaube Jesu 
ChritHu, der chrutliche Glaube, Leipzig, 1891). 

Dr. Haussleiter contends that the gen. is subjective not objective, that like 
the '£uth of Abraham* in ch. iv. 16, it denotes the faith (in God which 
Christ Himself maintained eren through the ordeal of the Cmcifizion, that 


this fkith is here put forward as the central feature of the Atooement, and 
that it is to be grasped or appropriated by the Christian in a similar manner 
to that in whidi be reprodnces the faith of Abraham. If this liew held 
good, a number of other passages ^notably i. 17) would be affected by it 
But, although ably carried out, the interpretation of some of these pasages 
seems to us forced ; the theory brings together things, like the wiartt lnivoS 
X/>cff7ov here with the wiaris Btov in iii. 3, which are really disparate; and 
it has so far, we believe, met with no acceptance. 

Tijo-oO XpuTToO. By and apparently Mardon as quoted by TextnlUan, 
drop *lrf<rov Tso too WH. marg.) ; A reads kv TLpurrS I1790D. 

Kol M irdtrra« om. K* A B C, 47. 67**, Boh. Aeth. Arm., Clem.-Alei. 
Orig. Did. Cyr.-Alex. Aug.: ins. DEFGKL &c. M wdrrot alone is 
found in Jo. Damasc Vnlg. cadd., so that c(f vt&yrat got M trArrat woald 
seem to be a conflation, or combination of two readings originally alterna- 
tives. If it were the trae reading elf would express 'destination for' all 
believers, M * extension to ' them. 

23. od ydp iaji BiooroXi^. The Apostle is reminded of one of 
his main positions. The Jew has (in this respect) no real advantage 
over the Gentile ; both alike need a righteousness which is not their 
own ; and to both it is offered on the same terms. 

^I&aproy. In English we may translate this 'have sinned' in 
accordance with the idiom of the language, which prefers to use 
the perfect where a past fact or series of facts is not separated by 
a clear interval from the present : see note on ii. 12. 

doTcpoCrroi : see Monro, Homeric Grammar^ § ^ (3)> ™id« voice ss 
^fal want.' Gif well compares Matt. zix. 20 n tri wmpA; 

S objective, 'What, as a matter of fact, is wanting to me?') with 
!^uke XV. 14 Ka\ aMs flp$aTo vartptlaOai (subjective, the Prodigal 
begins io/eei his destitution). 

TT|s S<S$T|s. There are two wholly distinct uses of this word : 
(i) = 'opinion' (a use not found in N. T.) and thence in 
particular 'favourable opinion,' 'reputation' (Rom. iL 7, 10; 

{ohn xii. 43 &c.); (2) by a use which came in with the 
*XX as translation of Heb. *rt33 = (i) * visible brightness or 
splendour' (Acts xxii. 11 ; i Cor. xv. 40 fif.); and hence 
(ii) the brightness which radiates from the presence of God, 
the visible glory conceived as resting on Mount Sinai (Ex. 
xxiv. i6)y in the pillar of cloud (Ex. xvi. 10), in the tabernacle 
(Ex. xl. 34) or temple (i Kings viii. 11; 2 Chron. v. 14), and 
specially between the cherubim on the lid of the ark (Ps. Ixxx. i ; 
Ex. XXV. 22; Rom. ix. 4 &c.); (iii) this visible splendour 
symbolized the Divine perfections, 'the majesty or goodness of 
God as manifested to men' (Lightfoot on Col. i. 11; comp. Eph. 
L 6, 12, 17; iii. 16); (iv) these perfections are in a measure 
communicated to man through Christ (esp. 2 Cor. iv. 6, 
iii. 18). Both morally and physically a certain transfiguration 
takes place in the Christian, partially here, completely hereafter 
(comp. e.g. Rom. viii. 30 cdd£aovy with Rom. v. a nr' c'Xir^^ njt 

in. 98, S4.] THE NEW SVSTEH 85 

M(i}t mv e«ra, Tiii. 18 ri7r itiXXovaof i6far dirontXt^l^rat, 3 Tint. 
n. 10 Wf<)t almvimi). The Rabbis held that Adam by the Fall losi 
fix things, 'the glory, hfe {immortality), his stature (which was 
above ihu of his descendants), the fruit of the field, the fruits of 
trees, and the light (by which the world was created, and which 
was withdrawn from it and reserved for the righteous in the world 
to come).* It is explained that ' the glory ' was a reflection from 
the Divine glory which before the Fall brightened Adam's face 
(Weber, Ailtyn. Thiol, p. 314). Clearly St. Paul conceives of this 
glory as in process of being recovered : the physical sense b also 
enriched bj its es tension to atlribiitea that are moral and 

The meuiinf of Ufa in this conoeiian is well lllastrsled b; 4 En. rli, 4) 
[*d. B«»ly ~ tL 14 O- F. Fritiithc, p. 607], where tiie state of the blessed 
u dambcd as tuqnt mrridieit, ntjtit nKlim. titpu axft imini [perb. for 
•ab/HnHX ; vid. Bently aJ /rv.], nefUf HtUrcni, tuqttt tlarilalen, tuqtu 
itKrm, niti ulummede iplmdertm tlaritatu Atlissimt [p<rh. - A,Tim-iiviiia 
iaift T|UiFTav]. In quoting this psuigc Ambrose hss t»la Dti /ulgtiil 
eUirilai; Deminut mim tril lux nmnium (cf. Re». dL 34), Tbe blessed 
Ibcmselves thiae with s brig htn ess which is reflected fiom the face of Godr 

r 97, sSfBcnsly 

- 7E, 71 O. ¥. FriuscJiel auemede imipitt ((«'\*n) 
'tut lel. H fuemale intifiiml slillariim adiimilari 

. . ./tiliHaHt fnim vidtrt nullum [*«t 
ttififU iltruti mtrctdim rttiptrt (cf. Mi 

i. 43)- 

S4. ttauwJfMroi. The constniction and connexion of this word 
arc difficult, and perhaps not to be determined with certainty. 
(i> Many leading scholars (De W. Mey. Lips. Lid. Win. Gr. \ xlv. 
(b)inake haatou^nrn mark a dciail in. or assign a proof of, the 
ecndilJon described by vnTipovrrax.. In this case there would be 
% iHgbt stress on ISvpti*: men are far from God's glory, Becatae tbe 
State of righteousness has to be given them ; they do nothing for 
it Bot thb is rather far-fetched. No such proof or further 
description of MmpoiJiTiu is needed. It had already been proved 
by tbe actual condition of Jews as well as Gentiles ; and to prove 
it by tbe gratuitousness of Uie justification would be an inversion 
of the logical order, (ii) v<mpoi<rrai kueaioiiurot is taken as = wtt»- 

Qovrtm Hal tltiiumrrot (Fri.) Or = lirrifioiintmt Snaiovinu (Tholuck). 

But this is dubious Greek, (iii) iuoMvutvoi is not taken with what 
precedes, but is made to begin a new clause. In that case there is 
an anacotuthon, and we must supply some such phrase as nwt 
tavxi-iuSa; lOltr.). But that woiild be harsh, and a connecting 
panicle seems wanted, (iv) Easier and more natural than any of 
these cipcdients seems to be. with Va. and Euald, to make oi ydp 
. . . {nmpoirTat practically a parenthesis, and to take the noro. 
tiMtuoiimoi ' as tuggtiUd by trilrrti In ver. 13, but in sense referring 
ntber to nw» «t«xiiJarrii( in ver. >j.' No doubt such a construction 
vould be inegular, but it may be questioned whether it ia too 


irregular for St Paul. The Apostle frequently gives a new turn to 
a sentence under the influence of some expression which is really 
subordinate to the main idea. Perhaps as near a parallel as any 
would be a Cor. viii. iS, 19 vwnr^n^ltatup dc r&y ddcX^ . • . o^ 
6 thraivos iw rf cvoyytX/iy • • . o& il6vow dc, dXX^ noH x'^P^'^^'^'l^^^ (^ ^ 
ts araivtiTM had preceded). 

Sttpcdr T^ oAtoC x^*!^* Each of these phrases strengthens the 
other in a very emphatic way, the posidon of avrov further la3ring 
stress on the fact that this manifestation of free favour on the part 
of God is unprompted by any other external cause than the one 
which is mentioned (di^ rfjt inaKvrpSatc^s), 

dvoXvTfKriacMf. It b contended, esp. by Oltramare, (i) that 
Xvrp6» and 6!trokvTp6» in classical Greek = not ' to pay a ransom/ 
but ' to take a ransom/ ' to put to ransom/ or 'release on ransom/ 
as a conqueror releases his prisoners (the only example given of 

taroXvrpwatf is PluL Pomp. 24 noXimp alxfuiXcnwp Ofrokvrpwrnt, where 

the word has this sense of ' putting to ransom '); (ii) that in LXX 
XvrpovaBtu is frequently used of the Deliverance from Egypt, the 
Exodus, in which there is no question of ransom (so Ex. vL 6, 
XV. 13; Deut vii. 8; ix. 26; xiii. 5, Ac: cf. also arrokvrpJfvti 
Ex. xxi. 8, of the 'release' of a slave by her master). The subst 
oiroXvrpaicrtr occurs Only in one place, Dan. iv. 30 [29 or 32], LXX 
6 xfi^vos lAov rj)( afroKvTpv^crttot ^\$€ of Nebuchadnezzar's recovery 
from his madness. Hence it is inferred (cf. also Westcott, Hei. 
p. 296, and Ritschl, RtchtftrL u. Versdhn, ii. 220 fif.) that here and 
in similar passages airoXvrpa)cr«r denotes ' deliverance ' simply without 
any idea of 'ransom.' There is no doubt that this part of the 
metaphor might be dropped. But in view of the clear resolution of 
the expression in Mark x. 45 (Matt xx. 28) bovp<u i^p ^xn^ avrov 

XvTpop drri iroXXoiv, and in I Tim. ii. 6 6 dour ica/rhp dvrikvrpop (nrip 

wavraVf and in view also of the many passages in which Christians 
are said to be * bought,' or * bought with a price ' (i Cor. vi. 20, 
vii. 23; Gal. iii. 13; 2 Pet. ii. i ; Rev. v. 9: cf. Acts xx. 28; 
I Pet. i. 18, 19), we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea 
of the XvTpov retains its full force, that it is identical with the rtpSf, 
and that both are ways of describing the Death of Christ The 
emphasis is on the cos/ of man's redemption. We need not press 
the metaphor yet a step further by asking (as the ancients did) to 
whom the ransom or price was paid. It was required by that 
ultimate necessity which has made the whole course of things what 
it has been ; but this necessity is far beyond our powers to grasp 
or gauge. 

<H|t Iv X|H<rr^ lT|<roO. We owe to Hanssleiter (Der Claude /$sm Christie 
p. 116) the interesting observation that wherever the phrase iv Xpiffr^ or Ir 
XpiffT^ ^ffoov ocean there is no single instance of the variants ip *lff<rov ot 
ip Imjcov Xpiarf, This is significant, because in other combinations the 


nx. S4, ».} 

taiianli >rc firqneni. It U alto what we should expect be 
•nil hr Xpirtfi It^. always telale to the glonlieiJ CKiut, ni 

2ft. -npo&tn may = either (i) ' whom God proposed to Himself,' 
' purpoaed,' ' designed ' (Orig. Pesh.) ; or (ii) ' whom God aei forth 
pnblkly' iprepotuil'V\^.). Both meanings would be in full ac- 
cccdaDce wiih the teaching of St. Paul both elsewhere and in this 
Epistle. For (i) we may compare the idea of the Divine ispi8taa 
in ch. is. 11 (viii. 28); Eph. iii. 11 (i. 11); 1 Tim. i. 9; also 
I Pet. L 10. For (ii) compare esp. Gal. iii. 1 oU hot itiiBakfiaU 

'Itamt XpXTTJc npi-rypaipii ioTovpuiiti-ol, But when we tUTU lO the 

immediate context we find it so fuU of lenns denoting publicity 
(■'•^aWfnrriu, ttt fVfliifu'. irp&c riif (tAfifiv) thai the latter sense seems 
pte/crablc. The Death of Christ is not only a manifestation of tlie 
righteousness of God, but a visidU manifestation and one to which 
sppral can be made. 

tXovWipMi': usually subsi. meaning strictly 'place or vehicle of 
propiliaiion,' but originally neuL of adj. ikaaTJiptot (iXairr^pair 
rwi6t)Hi Ex. XXV. 16 [17], where however Gif. takes the two words 
as substantives in apposition). In LXX of the Pentateuch, as in 
Heb. ix. 5, the word constantly stands for the ' lid of the ark.' or 
' iDercy-«at,' so called from the fact of its being sprinkled with ihe 
blM)d of the sacrifices on ihe Day of Atonement. A number of 
the best authorities (esp. Gif. V3. Lid. Ritscbl, Raht/ert. u. Vertohn. 
ii. 169 ff. ed. 3) take the word here in thb iiciise, arguing (i) that 
il suits the emphatic airoO in .V t^ uutou qVuti; (ii) thai through 
LXX it would be by far the most familiar usage; (iii) that ilw 
Greek commeniaiors (as Gif. has shown in detail) unanimously give 
ii this sense; (iv) that the idea is speiially appropriate inasmuch as 
on Christ rests the ftdncss of the Divine glory, ' the true Slielcinah,' 
and il is naiural to connect with His Death the culminating rite in 
the culmiitaiing service of Atonement. But, on the other hand, 
Ihefe is great harshness, not to say confusion, in making Christ at 
once priest and victim and place of sprinkling. Origen it ia true 
does not shrink from this ; he says expressly imientes igi/ur . . . use 
^atm tl ^opiliatorimn el pentificem tt hostiam quae effertur pre 
ptfmte (ni Rom. iiL 8, p. 113 Lomm.). But although there is 
a [anial analogy for this in Heb. ix. it-14, >3-x. 31, where 
Christ is both priest and victim, it is straining the image yet further 
to idcoiify Him wiiii the iAain^jiiov. The Christian Xi.aaT%pmv, or 
■place of sprinkling.' in the literal sense, is rather the Cross. Ii is 
alM) sometiiing of a point (if we are right in giving the sense of 
publicity 10 wpuidiro) that the sprinkling of ihc mercy-seat was just 
the one rite which was withdrawn from the sight of the people. 
Another way of taking anar^fHoi- is to supply with it 6vpa on the 
aoaJogy of avr^pair, TiXctrTq^r, xa/jiffi^poi'. Thiii 100 IS Strongly 


snpported (esp. by the leading German commentators, De W. FrL 
Mey. Lips.). But there seems to be no clear instance of IXaor^piop 
used in this sense. Neither is there satisfactory proof that IKaar, 
(subst) = in a general sense * instrument or means of propitiation.* 
It appears therefore simplest to take it as adj. accus. masc. added 
as predicate to 6w, There is evidence that the word was current as 
an adj. at this date (tXaor^pioF funjfjM Joseph. Antt XVL vii. i ; 
Ikaarrfpiov Bavarov 4 Macc. zvii. 22 , and Other exx.). The 
objection that the adj. is not applied properly to persons counts 
for very little, because of the extreme rarity of the sacrifice of 
a person. Here however it is just this personal element which ib 
most important. It agrees with the context that the term chosen 
should be rather one which generalizes the character of propitiatory 
sacrifice than one which exactly reproduces a particular feature of 
such sacrifice. 

The Latin versions do not help ns : they give all three renderings, pr^ 
pitiatoriumj tropitiatortm^ and propitiationem. Syr. is also ambiguous. 
The Coptic clearly favours the masc. rendering adopted above. 

It may be of some interest to compare the Jewiui teaching on the subject 
of Atonement. ' When a man thinks, I will just go on sinning and repent 
later, no help is given him from above to make him repent. He who 
thinks, I will but just sin and the Day of Atonement will bring me forgive- 
ness, such an one gets no forgiveness through the Day of Atonement 
Offences of man against God the Day of Atonement can atone ; offences of 
man against his fellow-man the Dav of Atonement cannot atone until he has 
given satisfaction to his fellow-man ; and more to the same effect (Mishnah, 
Tract, Jotna, viii. 9, ap. Winter u. Wiinsche, Jiid, Lit, p. 98). We get 
a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta, Tract. JomOy v : ' R. Ismael 
said, Atonement is of tour kinds. He who transgresses a positive command 
and repents is at once forgiven according to the Scripture, ** Return, ye back- 
sliding children, I will heal your backslidings ** (Jer. iii. 23 [2a]). He who 
transgresses a negative command or prohibition and repents has the atone- 
ment held in suspense by his repentance, and the Day of Atonement makes 
it effectual, according to the Scripture, " For on this day shall atonement be 
made for yon " (Lev. xvi. 30). If a man commits a sin for which is decreed 
extermination or capital punishment and repents, his repentance and the 
Day of Atonement together keep the atonement in suspense, and suffering 
brings it home, according to the Scripture, *' I will visit their transgression 
with the rod and their iniquity with stripes*' (Ps. Ixxxix. 33 [33]}. But 
when a man profanes the Name of God and repents, his repentance has not 
the power to keep atonement in suspense, and the Day of Atonement has 
not the power to atone, but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone 
one third, sufferings on the remaining days of the year atone one third, and 
the day of death completes the atonement according to the Scripture, 
'^ Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till you die '* (Is. xxii. 1 4). 
This teaches that the day of death completes the atonement. Sin-offering 
and trespass-offering and death and the Day of Atonement all being no 
atonement without repentance, because it is written in Lev. xxiii. ai (?) 
"Only," i.e. when he turns from his evil way does he obtain atonement, 
otherwise he obtains no atonement' {op. cit. p. 154). 

* Some MSS. read here 5<d . . • tov IkaaTrjpiov rod $aydrov avTwr (O. F. 
Fritsschc ml he,). 

m. 16.] THE NEW SYSTEM 89 

M 'ii^ «(<rr«Mt: M wiartft KC^D'FG 67** ai., Tisch. WH. text. 
The ait. seems here rather more correct, pointing back as it would do to Sid 
wiartwt *L X. in Tcr. aa ; it is found in B and the mass of later authorities, 
hot there is a strong phalanx on the other side ; B is not infallible in such 
company (c£ xi. 6). 

iit tf odrou otf&oTi : not with ni<rrt»f (though this would be 
a quite legitimate combination ; see Gif. ad ioc), but with npoidtro 
IkaarffpuHH the shedding and sprinkling of the blood is a principal 
idea, not secondary. 

The significance of the Sacrificial Bloodshedding was twofold. 
The blood was regarded by the Hebrew as essentially the seat of 
life (Gen. ix. 4 ; Lev. xvii. 1 1 ; Deut. xii. 23). Hence the death 
of the victim was not only a death but a setting free of life ; the 
application of the blood was an application of life; and the 
offering oi the blood to God was an offering of life. In this lay 
more especially the virtue of the sacrifice (Westcott, Ep.Jo, p. 34 ff. ; 
Hth, p. 293 f.). 

For the prominence which is given to the Bloodshedding in 
connexion with the Death of Christ see the passages collected 

cis Iy5ci{ir : ciV denotes the final and remote object, ^f»6i the 
nearer object The whole plan of redemption from its first 
conception in the Divine Mind aimed at the exhibition of God's 
Righteousness. And the same exhibition of righteousness was 
kept in view in a subordinate part of that plan, viz. the forbearance 
wiuch God displayed through long ages towards sinners. For the 
punctuation and structure of the sentence see below. For (Kdf<^ 
see on ch. iL 15 : here too the sense is that of ' proof by an appeal 
to fact' 

cU Mci{ir Ti)s SiROiooiSinf|« odrou. In what sense can the Death 
of Christ be said to demonstrate the righteousness of God? It 
demonstrates it by showing the impossibility of simply passing over 
sin. It does so by a great and we may say cosmical act, the 
nature of which we are not able wholly to understand, but which 
at least presents analogies to the rite of sacrifice, and to that 
particular form of the rite which had for its object propitiation. 
The whole Sacrificial system was symbolical ; and its wide diffusion 
showed that it was a mode of religious expression specially 
appropriate to that particular stage in the world's development 
Was it to lapse entirely with Christianity? The writers of the 
New Testament practically answer, No. The necessity for it still 
existed ; the great fact of sin and guilt remained ; there was still the 
same bar to &e offering of acceptable worship. To meet this fact 
and to remove this bar, there had been enacted an Event which 
possessed the significance of sacrifice. And to that event the N. T. 
writers aiq[)ealed as satisfying the conditions which the righteousness 


of God required. See the longer Note on ' The Death of Christ 
considered as a Sacrifice ' below. 

Sid T^r vdpcair : not ' for the remission/ as AV^ which gives 
a somewhat unusual (though, as we shall see on iv. 25, not 
impossible) sense to dia, and also a wrong sense to frdptav, but 
'because of the pretermission, or passing over, of foregone sins.' 
For the difference between nafxat^ and ^^crir see Trench, Syn. 
p. 1 10 ff. : ndpta-is = ' putting aside* temporary suspension of 
punishment which may at some later date be inflicted ; a<^a-u s 
' putting away,' complete and unreserved forgiveness. 

It is possible that the thought of this passage may have been laggetted by 
Wisd. xi. 33 [34] «a? wapop^s dftapT^/MTa &$p6nrM^ c(f iur6Mouaf, There 
will be found in Trench, op. cit. p. 1 1 1, an account of a controversy which 
arose out of this verse in Holland at the end of the sixteenth and beginning 
of the seventeenth centuries. 

d|&opTT||MlTWK : as contrasted with Aiuipria, ofiApnifia s the single 
act of sin, dfiaprta = the permanent principle of which such an act 
is the expression. 

iv TQ d^oxfi • *^ either (i) denotes motive, as Mey., Ac. (Grimm, 
Lex, s. V. cV, 5 ^) ; or (ii) it is temporal, ' during the forbearance of 
God.' Of these (i) is preferable, because the whole context deals 
with the scheme as it lay in the Divine Mind, and the relation of 
its several parts to each other. 

dKoxfi • s^c OQ ^. 4, and note that eafoxh is related to rcipc<nf aa 
X<{pcf is related to &<l>tais, 

26. irp^s T^i' Ifi^Sci^ik : to be connected closely with the preceding 
clause : the stop which separates this verse from the last should be 
wholly removed, and the pause before did r^v waptaw somewhat 
lengthened ; we should represent it in English by a dash or semi- 
colon. We may represent the various pauses in the passage in some 
such way as this : ' Whom God set forth as propitiatory — through 
faith — in His own blood — for a display of His righteousness; 
because of the passing-over of foregone sins in the forbearance of 
God with a view to the display of His righteousness at the present 
moment, so that He might be at once righteous (Himself) and 
declaring righteous him who has for his motive faith in Jesus.' Gif. 
seems to be successful in proving that this is the true constnicdon : 
(i) otherwise it is difficult to account for the change of the preposi- 
tion from f iV to np6i ; (ii) the art. is on this view perfectly accounted 
for, ' the same display ' as that just mentioned ; (iii) rS>v rpoycyo- 
v6T<av &pLapTr)pdru>w seems to be contrasted with iv r^ vvv K<upf ; (iv) the 
construction thus most thoroughly agrees with St. Paul's style 
elsewhere : see Gi (ford's note and compare the passage quoted 
Eph. iii. 3-5, also Rom. iii. 7, 8, ii. 14-16. 

SiKOiok Kai SiaaiouKTa. This is the key-phrase which establishes 
the connexion between the diKauKrvvti eeov, and the ducauHrvvri m 

nZ. tl-M.] THE NEW gVSTEH 91 

rbrntt. It is not that ■ God is righteous and yd declares righteoui 
(he believer io Jesus,' but that ' He is riglilcous and aho, we might 
almost BAj and thertfert. declares righteous the believer.' The 
words indicate no opposition between justice and mercy. Rather 
that which seems to us and which really is an act of mercy is the 
direct outcome of the ' righteousness ' which is a wider and more 
adequate name than justice. It is the essential righteousness of 
God which impels Him to set in motion thai sequence of events in 
the sphere above and in the sphere below which leads to the free 
forgiveness of the believer and starts him on his way with a clean 
ptge to bis record. 

T&r in Ti«-r«wT: 'him whose ruling motive is failh'; contrast 
oj t\ JpiStins ch. ii. 8 ; Sam ■£ i/ryvr nium (' as many as depend on 
works of law') Gal. iii. 10. 

TMi Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice. 

It is impossible to get rid From this passage of the double idea 
(l) of » sacrifice ; {a) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory. In any 
case the phnse ir r^ avT.<i mtan carries with it the idea of sacrificial 
blooUsheddmg. And whatever sense we assign to fXaor^pHir — 
whether we directly supply Bviia, or whether we supply iniO/fui and 
regard it as equivalent to the mercy-seat, or whether we take it as 
an adj. in agreement with at — the fundamental idea which underlies 
the word must be that of propitiation. And further, when we ask, 
Who ii propitiated ? the answer can only be ' God.' Nor is it 
pcBsible to separate this propitiation from (he Death of tlie Son. 

Quite apan from this passage It is not diificoll to prove that these 
two ideas of sacrifice and propitiation lie at the root of the leaching 
not only of St. Paul but of the New Testament generally. Before 
COtttidering their significance it may be well 61st to summarize this 
evidence briefly. 

{■) As in the passage before us, so elsewhere, the stress which is 
laid on ai'iifl is directly connected with the idea of sacrifice. We 
have it in St. Paul, in Rom. v. 9 ; Eph. i. 7, ii. 13 ; Col. i. ao (AiJi rai 
iJiiBTot nv aravpov). We havc it for St. Peter in 1 Pel. i. a (poirnrfiir 

aSitarot) and 19 (ri^'f alpITi ix dfuvu o(iiiiiov tai amriXoi)). FoT 

St John we have it in 1 Jo. 1, 7, and in v, 6, 8. It also comes 
out distinctly in several places in the Apocalypse (i. 5, v. 9, vii. 14, 
lit. ■ I, liii. 8). It is a leading idea very strongly represented in 
Ep, to Hebrews (especially in capp. ix. x, liii). "There is also the 
strongest reason to think that this Apostolic teaching was suggested 
by words of our Lord Himself, who spoke of His approaching 
death in terms proper to a sacrifice such as that by which the First 
Covcjiant had been inaugurated (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 15 with Matt, 
nvi. 18 ; Mark xiv. 24 [perhaps not Luke sxii. ao]). 


Many of these passages besides the mention of bloodshedding 
and the death of the victim (Apoc. v. 6, la, xiii. 8 dpvlov itr^iUpov : 
cf. V. 9) call attention to other details in the act of sacrifice (e. g. 
the sprinkling of the blood, pajmafiSs i Pet. L a ; Heb. xii. 24 ; 
cf. Heb. ix. 13, 19, 21). 

We observe also that the Death of Christ is compared not only 
to one but to several of the leading forms of Levitical sacrifice : to 
the Passover (John i. 29, xix. 36 ; i Cor. v. 8, and the passages 
which speak of the * lamb ' in i Pet and Apoc.) ; to the sacrifices 
of the Day of Atonement (so apparently in the passage from which 
we start, Rom. iii. 25, also in Heb. ii. 17; ix. 12, 14, 15, and 
perhaps i Jo. ii. 2,iv. 10; i Pet. ii. 24); to the ratification of the 
Covenant (Matt. xxvi. 28, &c.; Heb.ix. 16-22); to the sin-oflfering 
(Rom. viii. 3; Heb. xiii. 11 ; i Pet iu. 18, and possibly if not 
under the earlier head, i Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10). 

(2) In a number of these passages as well as in others, both 
from the Epistles of St. Paul and from other Apostolic writings, 
the Death of Christ is directly connected with the forgiveness of 
sins (e.g. Matt xxvi. 28; Acts v. 30 f., apparently; i Cor. xv. 3; 
2 Cor. V. 21 ; Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14 and 20 ; Tit ii. 14 ; Heb. L 3, 
ix. 28, X. 12 al. ; i Pet ii. 24, iii. 18 ; i Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10 ; Apoc. L 5). 
The author of £p. to Hebrews generalizes from the ritual system 
of the Old Covenant that sacrificial bloodshedding is necessary in 
every case, or nearly in every case, to place the worshipper in a 
condition of fitness to approach the Divine Presence (Heb. ix. 21 

Ktu crxf^op iv aifuiri ndvra Ka6api(tTai Karii t6v voftov, k<u X^P^' 

aiiAaTtKxyalat ov ytvtTM Si<f>ta'is), The use of the different words 
denoting ' propitiation ' is all to the same effect (Ikatrnipiov Rom. 
iii. 25 ; iXao-Mor i Jo. ii. a, iv. 10 ; tXao-itco^m Heb. li. 17). 

This strong convergence of Apostolic writings of different and 
varied character seems to show that the idea of Sacrifice as applied 
to the Death of Christ cannot be put aside as a merely passing 
metaphor, but is interwoven with the very weft and warp of 
primitive Christian thinking, taking its start (if we may trust our 
traditions) from words of Christ Himself. What it all amounts to 
is that the religion of the New Testament, like the religion of the 
Old, has the idea of sacrifice as one of its central conceptions, not 
however scattered over an elaborate ceremonial system but concen- 
trated in a single many-sided and far-reaching act. 

It will be seen that this throws back a light over the Old 
Testament sacrifices — and indeed not only over them but over the 
sacrifices of ethnic religion — and shows that they were something 
more than a system of meaningless butchery, that they had a resd 
spiritual significance, and that they embodied deep principles of 
religion in forms suited to the apprehension of the age to which they 
were given and capable of gradiud refinement and purification. 

m. «-»«.] 



In this connexion it may be worib while to quote a striking 
pajsage from a. writer of great, if intermit lent, insight, who approaches 
ihe subject from a thoroughly detached and independent stand- 
poinL In his last scries of Sladc lectures delivered in Oxford (7& 
Art of England, 1884, p. 14 f.), Mr. Ruskin wrote as follows: 
' None of you, who have the least acquaintance with the general 
tenor of my own teaching, will suspect me of any bias towards the 
doctrine of vicarious Sacrifice, as it is taught by the modern 
Evangelical Preacher. Bui the great mystery of the idea o( 
Sacrifice itself, which has been manifested as one united and 
solemn instinct by all tbougi^tful and alTeclionale races, since the 
world became peopled, is founded on the secret truth of benevolent 
energy which all men who have tried to gain it have learned — thai 
yoti cannot save men from death but by facing it for them, nor 
ftoffi sin but by resisting it for them . . . Some day or other 
— probably now very soon^ — too probably by heavy afflictions ot 
the State, we shall be taught . . . that all the true good and 
glory even of this world — not to speak of any that is to come, must 
be bought still, as it always has been, with our toil, and with our 

After all the writer of this and the Evangelical Preacher whom 
be repudiates are not so very far apart. It may be hoped that ihe 
Preacher too may be willing to purify his own conception and to 
Strip it of some quite unbiblical accretions, and he will then Gnd 
tbai the central verity for which he contends is not inadequately 
Mated in the impressive words just quoted. 

The idea of Vicarious Suffering is not the whole and not 
perhaps the culminating point in the conception of Sacrifice, for 
Dr. Westcott seems to have sufficiently shown that the centre of 
the symbolism of Sacrifice lies not in the death of the victim buc 
in the offering of its life. This idea of Vicarious Suffering, which is 
oei-enheless in all probability the great difficulty and stumbling- 
block in the way of the acceptance of Bible teaching on this head, 
was revealed once and for all lime in Isaiah liii. No one who 
reads that chapter with attention can fail to see the profound truth 
which lies behiDd it — a truth which seems to gather up in one all 
that is most pathetic in che world's history, but which when it has 
done so turns upon it the light of truly prophetic and divine inspira- 
tion, gently lifts the veil from the accumulated mass of pain and 
sonow, and shows beneatli its unspeakable value in the working out 
of human redemption and regeneration and the sublime consolations 
by which for those who can enter into them it is accompanied. 

I said that this chapter gathers up in one all that is most pathetic 
in the world's history. It gathers it up as it were in a single 
typical Figure. We look at the lineaments of that Figure, and 
then we iiaosfer our ga« and we recognize them all translated 

94 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [m. 27-81. 

from idea into reality, and embodied in marvellous perfection upon 

Following the example of St. Paul and St. John and the Epistle 
to the Hebrews we speak of something in this great Sacrifice, which 
we call 'Propitiation.* We believe that the Holy Spirit spoke 
through these writers, and that it was His Will that we should use 
this word. But it is a word which we must leave it to Him to 
interpret. We drop our plummet into the depth, but the line 
attached to it is too short, and it does not touch the bottom. The 
awful processes of the Divine Mind we cannot fathom. Sufficient 
for us to know that through the virtue of the One Sacrifice our 
sacrifices are accepted, that the barrier which Sin places between us 
and God is removed, and that there is a ' sprinkling ' which makes 
us free to approach the throne of grace. 

This, it may still be objected, is but a ' fiction of mercy.' All 
mercy, all forgiveness, is of the nature of fiction. It consists in 
treating men better than they deserve. And if we * being evil * 
exercise the property of mercy towards each other, and exercise it 
not rarely out of consideration for the merit of someone else than 
the offender, shall not our Heavenly Father do the same ? 


III. 27-81. Hence it follows (i) that no claim can he 
made on the ground of human merits for there is no merit 
in Faith (w. 27, 28) ; (a) that Jew and Gentile are on the 
same footing, for there is but one God, and Faith is t/ie only 
means of acceptance with Him (vv. 29, 30). 

An objector may say that Law is thus abrogated. On the 
contrary its deeper principles are fulfilled, as the history of 
Abraham will show (ver. 31). 

" There are two consequences which I draw, and one that an 
objector may draw, from this. The first is that such a method of 
obtaining righteousness leaves no room for human claims or merit. 
Any such thing is once for all shut out For the Christian system 
is not one of works — in which there might have been room for 
merit — but one of Faith. " Thus (oUi^, but see Crit, Note) we believe 
that Faith is the condition on which a man is pronounced righteous, 
and not a round of acts done in obedience to law. 

''The second consequence [already hinted at in ver. a 2] is that 


Jew and Gentile are on the same footing. If they are not, then 
God must be God of the Jews in some exclusive sense in which 
He m not God of the Gentiles. "* Is that so ? Not if I am right 
in affirming that there is but one God, Who requires but one 
condition — Faith, on which He is ready to treat as 'righteous' 
alike the circumcised and the uncircumcised — the circumcised with 
whom Faith is the moving cause, and the uncircumcised with whom 
the same Faith is both moving cause and sole condition of their 

" The objector asks : Does not such a system throw over Law 
altogether ? Far from it Law itself (speaking through the Penta- 
teuch) lays down principles (Faith and Promise) which find their 
true fulfilment in Christianity. 

97. l{cKXciaOi| : an instance of the ' summarizing ' force of the 
aorist ; * it b shut out once for all,' * by one decisive act' 

St Paul has hit eye rather upon the decisiveness of the act than npon its 
continued result In English it is more natural to ns to express decisiveness 
by laying stress npon the result — ' is shut out' 

Sid iro^ou r6|iou : ¥6fiov here may be paraphrased ' system,' ' Law ' 
being the typical expression to the ancient mind of a * constituted 
order of things.' — Under what kind of system is this result obtained ? 
Under a system the essence of which is Faith. 

Similar metaphorical uses of y6/Aos would be ch. vii. ai, 33 ; viii. a ; a. 31, 
€D which tee the Notes. 

28. oZ¥ recapitulates and summarizes what has gone before. 
The result of the whole matter stated briefly is that God declares 
righteous, Ac. But it must be confessed that ydp gives the better 
sense. We do not want a summary statement in the middle of an 
argument which is otherwise coherent The alternative reading, 
X«yi{6fu^ yap, helps that coherence. FThe Jew's] boasting is 
excluded, ^rata/ justification turns on notning which is the peculiar 
possession of the Jew but on Faith. And so Gentile and Jew are 
on the same footing, as we might expect they would be, seeing 
that they have the same God. 

eZw BCD«KLP &c; Syrr. (Pcsh.-Harcl.) ; Chrys. Thcodrt. a/. ; Weiss 
RV. WH. mar^.: y6p KAD*EFG aJ. plur.; Latt. (Vet.-Vulg) Boh. 
Arm.; Orig.-lat. Ambrst Aug.; Tisch. WH. Uxt KV. marg^. The evidence 
ior yof is largely Western, but it is combined with au element ;,K A, Boh.) 
which in this instance is probably not Western ; so that the reading would 
be carried back beyond the point of divergence of two most ancient lines of 
tf at Od the other hand B admits in this Epistle some comparatively late 
readings (cf. zi. 6) and the authorities associated with it are inferior (B C in 
£pp. if not so strong a combination as BC in G^spp.), We prefer the 
fcadiog Y^. 


SiKOiouaOoi : we must hold fast to the rendering 'is declared 

righteous/ not < is made righteous ' ; cf. on i. 1 7. 

MptavoYi any human being. 

29. i) presents, but only to dismiss, an alternative hypothesis oo 
the assumption of which the Jew might still have had something to 
boast of. In rejecting this, St. Paul once more emphatically 
asserts his main position. There is but one law (Faith), and there 
is but one Judge to administer it. Though faith is spoken of in 
this abstract way it is of course Christian faith, faith in Christ 

|i6vov : iiSvw B a/, //vr., WH. marg, ; perhaps assimilated to lovdaicuy 
• . . kqX IBvSjv, 

so. ctircp : decisively attested in place of iirthtp. The old distinction 
drawn between c7 vtp and <f y* was that cf wtp is used of a condition which 
is assamed withoat impl3ring whether it is rightly or wrongly asstimed, cf 71 
of a condition which carries with it the assertion of its own reality (Hermann 
on Viger, p. 831 ; Banmlein, GrUch. Pariikeln, p. 64). It is donbtfol 
whether this distinction holds in Classical Greek ; it can hardly hold for 
N.T. Bat in any case both cf ire p and cf 7c lay some stress on the condition, 
as a condition: cf Monro, Homfric Grammar, §§ 353, 354 'The Particle 
trip is evidently a shorter form of the Preposition nipt, which in its adverbial 
use has the meaning beyond, exceedingly. Accordingly nip is intensive, 
denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree, in 
its fullest sense, &c. ... 7c is used like trip to emphasise a particular word 
or phrase. It does not however intensify the meaning, or insist on the fact 
as true, but only calls attention to the word or fact. ... In a Condi tioral 
Protasis (with 5f, 5rc, cl, &c.)t 7< emphasizes the condition as such : hence 
cf 7f if only, always supposing that. On the other hand cf wtp meant 
supposing ever so much, hence if really (Lat. siquidem).^ 

CK iricrrccus * • • Bi^ tt]s iriorcois : cV denotes * source,' dm ' attend- 
ant circumstances.* The Jew is justified cV Triorcwr iih nrfHTonrjf : 
the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is 
circumcision. The Gentile is justified cV iriWcox kqI d*a rrjs nloTtas : 
no special channel, no special conditions are marked out ; faith is 
the one thing needful, it is itself * both law and impulse.' 

8id rfjs irioTcus = ' the same failh/ ' the faith just men- 

81. KOTapyoGpieK : see on ver. 3 above. 

v6]Loy l(rrCt}L€y, If, as we must needs think, ch. iv contains the 
proof of the proposition laid down in this verse, vofiov must = ulti- 
mately and virtually the Pentateuch. But it = the Pentateuch not 
as an isolated Book but as the most conspicuous and representative 
expression of that great system of Law which prevailed everywhere 
until the coming of Christ. 

The Jew looked at the O. T., and he saw there Law, Obedience 
to Law or Works, Circumcision, Descent from Abraham. St Paul 
said, Look again and look deeper, and you will see — not Law but 
Promise, not works but Faith — of which Circumcision is only the 
seal, not literal descent from Abraham but spiritual descent All 
these things are realized in Christianity. 


And then further, whereas Law (all Law and any kind of 
Law) was only an elaborate machinery for producing right action, 
there too Christianity stepped in and accomplished, as if with the 
stroke of a wand, all that the Law strove to do without success 
(Rom, ziii. 10 irX^pwfui ovy vofjLov ^ ayatni compared with Gal* v. 6 


IV. 1-8. Take tfie crucial case of Abraham. He, like 
the Christian, was declared righteous, not on account of his 
works — €U something earned, but by the free gift of God in 
response to his faith. And David describes a similar state 
of things. The happiness of which he speaks is due, not to 
sinlessness but to God' s free forgiveness of sins. 

' Objector. You speak of the history of Abraham. Surely 
be, the ancestor by natural descent of our Jewish race, might plead 
privilege and merit. ' If we Jews are right in supposing that God 
accepted him as righteous for his works — those illustrious acts of 
his — be has something to boast of. 

St. Paul. Perhaps he has before men, but not before God. 
' For look at the Word of God, that well-known passage of Scrip- 
ture, Gen. XV. 6. What do we find there ? Nothing about works, 
but ' Abraham put faith in God,' and it (L e. his faith) was credited 
to him as if it were righteousness. 

* This proves that there was no question of works. For a work- 
man claims his pay as a debt due to him; it is not an act of 
favour. * But to one who is not concerned with works but puts 
fiuth in God Who pronounces righteous not the actually righteous 
(in which there would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly — to 
such an one his faith is credited for righteousness. 

'Just as again David in Ps. xxxii describes how God 'pro- 
nounces happy ' (in the highest sense) those to whom he attributes 
righteousness without any reference to works : ' * Happy they,' he 
says, — not *who have been guilty of no breaches of law,' but 
'whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are 
veiled from sight. ' A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will 
oot enter in His booL' 


Iff The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but 
the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure, due 
as it would seem to the crossing of other lines of thought with 
the main lines. The proposition which the Apostle sets him- 
self to prove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch, 
is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches. 
But the way of putting this is affected by two thoughts, which still 
exert some influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to 
the advantage of the Jew, (ii) the pride or boasting which was 
a characteristic feature in the character of the Jew but which 
St. Paul held to be ' excluded.' Hitherto these two points have 
been considered in the broadest and most general manner, but 
St. Paul now narrows them down to the particular and crucial case 
of Abraham. The case of Abraham was the centre and strong- 
hold of the whole Jewish position. If therefore it could be shown 
that this case made for die Christian conclusion and not for the 
Jewish, the latter broke down altogether. This is what St. Paul 
now undertakes to prove ; but at the outset he glances at the two 
side issues — main issues in ch. iii which become side issues in 
ch. iv — the claim of ' advantage,' or special privilege, and the pride 
which the Jewish system generated. For the sake of clearness we 
put these thoughts into the mouth of the objector. He is of course 
still a sttf^sed objector ; St. Paul is really arguing with himself; 
but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met 
with in actual controversy (see on iii. i ff.). 

1. The first question is one of reading. There is an important 
variant turning upon the position or presence of cdpi|K^Kai. (i) 
K L P, &c., Theodrt. and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which 
are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after r^y 
wponaropa rifxav. It is then taken with KoriL adpKa I * What shall we 
say that A. has gained by his natural powers unaided by the grace 
of God ? ' So Bp. Bull after Theodoret. [Euthym.-Zig. however, 

even with this reading, takes Korii adpKa with itoripa : xmtp^arhy yap 

r6 Karh adpKo]. But this is inconsistent with the context The 
question is not, what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or 
without it, but whether the new system professed by St. Paul left 
him any gain or advantage at all. (2) H A C D £ F G, some cur- 
sives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place 
after ipovfuv. In that case nark adpica goes not with cvpijircwu but 
with t6v wponoTopa fifi&v which it simply defines, ' our natural pro- 
genitor.' (3) But a small group, B, 47*, and apparendy Chrysostom 
from the tenor of his comment, though the printed editions give it 
in his text, omit cvpi^KcW altogether. Then the idea of 'gain' 
drops out and we translate simply 'What shall we say as to 
Abraham our forefather ? ' Ac, The opponents of B will say that 
the sense thus given is suspiciously easy : it is certainly more 



sadafactory than that of either of die olher readings. The point is 
not what Abraham got by his righteousness, but how he got his 
righleoQBDess — by ihe method of works or by that of faith. Does 
the nalore of A.'a righieouaness agree belter with the Jewish 
system, or with St. Paul's? The idea of 'gain' waa naturally 
impoited from ch. iii. i, 9. There is no reason why a right reading 
should not be preserved in a small grou^i, and the fluciuating 
positioQ of a word often points to doubiful genuineness. We 
therefore regard the omi.ision of «ipij«Viii as proliable with WH. 
text Tr. RV. mtirg. For the construction comp. John i. 15 oCrot 

1-*. One or two »ni»II qneitioni of fonn ni»y be noticed. In tct. I 
tpnirofa fK*"' A B C* a/.J a dediively Wtcsled for waripa, which il 
ioDsd in Uw Uter MSS. uid cotnmciitalorE. In <ei. .t the acute and ilEcpleu 
critic Oiigen thtaki that St. Paul wrote '/iSpaii (.with Heb. of Gen, rr ; cf. 
Gen. urii, 5), bot thtt Geolile icribo who were leas icropnloua a* to iht 
ten of Scnpture inUiitDted 'ASfioiiji, Ii is more pioboble that St. Paol had 

t bit mind the eiublithed uid tlgnifioinl name throaghout : he qnot* 

irii. s in yet. 17. In yet. 5 a amall eronp (K R" i G) h«»e djiflV, 

which fonn sec V/H. /Htmd. App. p. i£7f.; win Gr ed. 8, { ix. 8; "Hich. 

Get). K 

jail eroop (K D- i G) Uye iaiB 
., . 'S7'-: "i" Cr ed.8,i ix.8: 
a Heb. vi. 19. In thii initance the atteslatioD aiij be wboUj' Wcitcm, bu 
DM la olfacn. 

rir vpointnpa ^fiAv. This description of Abraham as ' our fore- 
father' is one of the arguments used by those who would make the 
Kmjorily of the Roman Church consist of Jews. St. Paul is not 
very careful to distinguish between himself and his readers in such 
a nuuier. For instance in writing to the Corinthians, who were 
undoubtedly for Ihe most part Gentiles, he speaks of ' mir fathers ' 
as being under the cloud and passing through the sea ( 1 Cor. x. 1 V 
Tfaerc is the less reason why he should discriminate here as he is 
just about lo maintain that Abraham is the father of ail believers, 
Jew and Gentile alike, — though it b true that he would have added 
' not after the fiesh bui after the spirit.' Gif. notes the further point, 
thai ibe question is put as proceeding from a Jew: along with 
Orig. Chrys, Phot. Eutliym.-Zig. Lips, he connects tit itponaT. ^,1, 
with tttti (ra/Ko, It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort 
{Xom. and Eph. p. ag f.) though relegating (i,)i)«iKu to the margin, 

still does not take rari cfopua wjlh rar irpo)ruro(Hi ijuai», 

9- aotixiF^ = ' ^i^' malerits gleriundi as Meyer, but rather 
ghriatu, as Bengel, who however might have added ^zr/a ' (T. S. 
Evans in Sp. Comtn. on i Cor. v. 6). Tlic termination -fin denotes 
not ao much the thing dont as the completed, determinate, act ; 
for other eiamples see csp, Evans ul tup. It would not be wrong 
to translate here 'has a ground of boasting,' but the idea <^ 
'ground' is contained in <^>, or raiht:r in the context. 

iXX* od wpit rir Sidv. It seems best to explain the introduction 
of lUs duiM by some such cliipse as that which is suppUed in the 


paraphrase. There should be a colon after Kovxniuu St Paul 
does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a Kavxni^ 
absolutely — before man he might have it and the Jews were not 
wrong in the veneration with which they regarded his memory, — 
but it was another thing to have a mvxnt^a before God. There is 
a stress upon t6v ef6v which is taken up by rf Oc^ in the quota- 
tion. ' A. could not boast before God» He might have done so 
if he could have taken his stand on works ; but works did not 
enter into the question at alL In God he put faith.' On the 
history and application of the text Gen. zv. 6, see below. 

8. iXoyurOr) : metaphor from accounts, ' was set down/ here * on 
the credit side.' Frequently in LXX with legal sense of imputation 
or non-imputation of guilt, e.g. Lev. viL 8 e^ dc <l>ay^v if>ayfj • • • ov 

The notion arises from that of the ' book of remembrance ' (Mai. 
iii. 16) in which men's good or evil deeds, the wrongs and 
sufferings of the saints, are entered (Ps. Ivi. 8 ; Is. Izv. 6). Oriental 
monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the 
merit or demerit of their subjects (Esth. vi. i ff.), and in like 
manner on the judgement day Jehovah would have the ' books ' 
brought out before Him (Dan. vii. 10; Rev. xz. la; comp. also 
* the books of the living,' * the heavenly tablets,' a common expres- 
sion in the Books of Enoch, /udilees, and TesL XII Pair.^ on which 
Bee Charles on Enoch xlvii. 3 ; and in more modem times, 
Cowper's sonnet ' There is a book • . . wherein the eyes of God 
not rarely look '). 

The idea of imputation in this sense was familiar to the Jews 
(Weber, Alisyn. TheoL p. 233). They had also the idea of the 
transference of merit and demerit from one person to another 
(tbt'd. p. 280 ff. ; £zek. xviii. 2 ; John ix. 2). That however is not 
in question here ; the point is that one quality faith is set down, or 
credited, to the individual (here to Abraham) in place of anothei 
quality — righteousness. 

{XoyiaOTi adr^ els 8iKaioaunf|K : was reckoned as equivalent to, as 
standing in the place of, * righteousness.' The construction is 
common in LXX: cf. i Reg. (Sam.) L 13; Job zli. 23 (24); Is. 
xxix. 17 (=xxxii. 15); Lam. iv. a; Hos. viii. la. The exact 
phrase tKoylaOr} avT^ fU diicaiocr. recurs in Ps. cv [cvi]. 31 of the 
zeal of Phinehas. On the grammar cf. Win. § xxix. 3 a. (p. 229, 
ed. Moulton). 

On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. Weber, AUsyn, PaUUL 
Theologie, p. 255 ff. Abraham was the only righteous man of his 
generation ; therefore he was chosen to be ancestor of the holy 
People. He kept all the precepts of the Law which he knew 
beforehand by a kind of intuition. He was the first of seven 
righteous men whose merit brought back the Shekinah which had 


retired bilo the seventh heaven, so that in the days of Moses it 
could inke op its abode in the Tabernacle (I'ii'd. p. 1 83). According 
to the Jews ihe original righteousness of Abraham, who began 10 
serve God at the age of three (t'jti/. p. 118) was perfected (l) by his 
circumcision, (a) by his aniicipaiory fulfilment of the Law, Bui 
the Jews also {on the strensth of Gen. xv. 6) attached a special 
imporiaoce to Abraham's /aiiA, as constituting merit (see Mtchilla 
on Ex. ziv. 31, quoted by Dclilzsch ad lot. and by Ltghtfoot in the 
ez:ract given below), 

4, S. An illusiraiioD from common life. The workman earns 
his p»7, snd can claim it as a right. Therefore when God bellows 
the gin of righteousness, of His own bounty and not as a riglit, [hat 
is proof that the gift must be called forth by something other than 
works, vijj. by faith. 

E. iwl rif SLHatoufTti: "on Him who pronounces righteous* or 
'acquits,' i.e. God. It is rather a departure from St. Paul's more 
usual practice to make ihe object of faith God the Father rathei 
than God the Son. But even here the Christian scheme is in view, 
and faith in God is faith in Him as the alternative AuEhor of thai 
scheme. See on i. 8, 17, above. 

W« mnl not be misled tn the commeDt of Euthym.-Zig. rovriim ntmiam 

tipAaat coAdatwt, IMA aoJ Bixaiov ■ai^aai (comp. Ibe ume wrilet an vei, 15 

Ira iuBtoit iiiiS.1 TDn^Bp), The evidence i* too deciiive (p. 30 f. tup. < thai 

iMaitC* •• not ' to miikc righleoui ' but ' to declare rigbteoai u a ju^lgr.' 

It might however be infeired from Jfofft^r that Uvuov xm^ooi wu to be 

Ulcm aomeiirbjil looicly in ihe seme of Mreal u rightcoui,' The Gieck 

ikeologian* had oot ■ cleu coocepuoD of the doctiioe of Jnstificalion. 

ri* Aatfifi : not meant as a description of Abraham, from whose 

case St. Paul is now generalizing and appl}'ing the conclusion to 

his own lime. The strong word aatS'i is probably suggested by 

the qtiolation which is just coming from Ps. xxxii. 1. 

6. AapiS (Aau«iS). Both Heb. and LXX ascribe Ps. xxzii lo 
David. In two places in the N.T.,Acts iv. as, 36 (= Ps. ii. 1,3), 
Heb. iv. 7 (= Ps. xcv. 7) Psalms are quoted as David's which have 
no title in the Hebrew (though Ps. xcv [xciv] bears the name of 
David in rhc LXX). showing that by this date the whole Psalter 
was known by his name. Ps. xxxii was one of those which Ewald 
thought might really be David's : see Driver, Introduction, p. 35J. 

i4i> pi«apiiT|i^K : not ' blessedness,' which would be ^nua^iiirfl 
but a ' prt^toundng blessed'; tii»apif»iF T<Hi = 'to call a person 

blessed or happy * {™ur n ydp Btaiit paxapl^ayx* . . . an'i Tir avfipia* 

row AwTdrnvi tuwnpifo^ti. Arisl. Elk. Nic. I. xii. 4 \ comp, Euihym.- 
Zig- Viriran* hi (nl tnptKp^ rifi^t irai Siif^t i fi'iiiafiujfuSf, ' Felicitation is 
Ihe strongest and highest form of honour and praise '). Si. Paul 
use« the word again Gal. iv. 15. Who is it who thus prenounttta 
man blessed } God. The Psalm describes how He does so. 


7, 8. MaK({piOi, K.T.X. This quotation of Ps. zxxiL i, a is the same 
b Heb. and LXX. It is introduced bj St« Paul as confirming his 
interpretation of Gen. xv. 6. 

|Muc(£pioi is, as we have seen, the highest term which a Greek 
could use to describe a state of felicity. In the quotation just given 
from Aristotle it is applied to the state of the gods and those nearest 
to the gods among men. 

fo«l&^ So K*ACD«FKL&c.: oSo&Ah) M6DE(r)G,67**. oS b 
also the reading of LXX (f ^C^ R*). The aathorities for ol are superior as 
they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission 
(K B + D) and it it on the whole more probable that ^ has been assimilated 
to the construction of koyi(ta$cu in w. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that 6i has been 
assimilated to the preceding £v or to the O.T. or that it has been affected 
by the following p6 : f naturally established itself as the more euphonious 

o& f&^ XoyiotiTfu. There is a natural tendency in a declining 
language to the use of more emphatic forms; but here a real 
emphasis appears to be intended, ' Whose sin the Lord will in no 
wise reckon': see £11. on i Thess. iv. 15 [p. i54]i and Win. § IvL 
Si P- 634 f- 

TA€ History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul 

and by St, Barnes. 

It is at first sight a remarkable thing that two New Testament 
writers should use the same leading example and should quote the 
same leading text as it would seem to directly opposite effect. 
Both St. Paul and St. James treat at some length of die history of 
Abraham; they both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, as the 
salient characterization of that history ; and they draw from it the 
conclusion — St. Paul that a man is accounted righteous niarti x^p'^ 
tpytav (Rom. iiL 28 ; cf. iv. 1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is 
accounted righteous c( ?py&)y xm oIk tK nifmias fi6uov (Jas* ii. 24). 

We notice at once that St. Paul keeps more strictly to his text. 
Gen. XV. 6 speaks only of faith. St. James supports his contention 
of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident in Abraham's 
life, the offering of Isaac (J as. ii. 21). St. Paul also appeals to 
particular incidents, Abraham's belief in the promise that he should 
have a numerous progeny (Rom. iv. 18), and in the more express 
prediction of the birth of Isaac (Rom. iv. 19-21). The difference 
is that St Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own 
spiritual experience confirms the unqualified affirmation of the 
Book of Genesis ; and he is therefore able to take it as one of the 
foundations of his system. St. James, occupying a less exceptional 




ftandpoint, and taking words in ihe avera^ sense put upon them, 
has recourse lo the context of Abraham's life, and so hiirmonizes 
the text with the requirements of his own moral sense. 

The fact is that Sl James and Sl Paul mean different things by 
' faitfa,' and as vas natural they impose these different meanings on 
the Book of Getiesis, and adapt the rest of their conclusions lo 
them. When St. James heard speak of ' faiih,' he understood by 
it what the letter of the Book of Genesis allowed him to understand 
by it, B certain belief. It is what a Jew would consider the fimda- 
menlal belief, belief in God, belief that God was One (Jas. ii. 19). 
Christianily is with him so much a supplement to the Jews' ordinary 
creed that it does not seem to be specially present 10 his mind 
when he is speaking of Abraham. Of course he too believes in the 
' Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Gloiy ' (Jas. ii. i ). He lakes that 
belief for granted ; it is the tubtlrahtm or basement of life on which 
are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality 
(irpMrwvaXij^i'a). If he were questioned about it, he would put it on 
the same tooling as his belief in God. But Si. James was a 
thoroughly honest, and, as we should say, a ' good ' man ; and this 
did Dot satisfy his mural scn^e. What is belief unless proof is given 
of its sincerity i Behef must be followed up by action, by a line 
of conduct conformable to iL St. James would have echoed 
Matthew Arnold's proposition that ■ Conduct is three-fourths of 
life.' He therefore demands — and from his point of view rightly 
demands — that his readers shall authenticate their beliefs by putting 
ihem in practice. 

St. Paul's is a very different temperament, and he speaks from a 
very different esperience. With him too Christianity is something 
added 10 an earlier belief in God ; but the process by which it was 
kdded was nothing less than a convulsion of his whole natme. It 
is tike the stream of molten lava pouring down the volcano's side. 
Christianity is with him a tremendous over-mastering force. The 
crisis came at the moment when he confessed his faith in Christ ; 
there was no oilier crisis worth the name after that. Ask such 
an one whether bis failh is not to be proved by action, and the 
question will seem to him trivial and superfluous. He will almost 
suspect the questioner of altempling to bring back under a new 
name the old Jewish notion ot religion as a round of legal 
observance. Of course action will correspond with faiih. The 
believer in Christ, who has put on Christ, who has died with Christ 
■nd risen again with him. must needs to the very utmost of his 
power endeavour to live as Christ would have him live. St. Paul 
is going on presently to say this (Rom. vi. i, la, 15), as his 
opponents compel him to say it. But to himself it appears a 
iniiatD, which is hardly worth detinitely enunciating. To say thai 
% man is a Christian should be enoughl 


If we thas understand the real relation of the two Apostles, it wiO 
be easier to discuss their literary relation. Are we to suppose that 
either was writing with direct reference to the other ? Did St Paul 
mean to controvert St. James, or did St. James mean to controvert 
St. Paul? Neither hypothesis seems probable. If St. Paul had 
had before him the Epistle of Sl James, when once he looked 
beneath the language to the ideas signified by the language, he 
would have found nothing to which he could seriously object. He 
would have been aware that it was not his own way of putting 
things; and he might have thought that such teaching was not 
intended for men at the highest level of spiritual attainment ; but 
that would have been all. On the other hand, if St. James had 
seen the Epistle to the Romans and wished to answer it, what he 
has written would have been totally inadequate. Whatever value 
his criticism might have had for those who spoke of ' faith ' as 
a mere matter of formal assent, it had no relevance to a faith such 
as that conceived by St Paul. Besides, St. Paul had too effectually 
guarded himself against the moral hypocrisy which he was con- 

It would thus appear that when it is examined the real meeting- 
ground between the two Apostles shrinks into a comparatively 
narrow compass. It does not amount to more than the fact that 
both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, and both treat it with 
reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith. 

Now Bp. Lightfoot has shown {Gala/tans^ P* '57 ^'t c^* 2) that 
Gen. XV. 6 was a standing thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools. 
It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: 'Was not 
Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him 
for righteousness ' (i Mace. ii. 5a) ? It is repeatedly quoted and 
commented upon by Philo (no less than ten times, Lft). The 
whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate 
allegory. The Talmudic treatise Mechilia expounds the verse at 
length : ' Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake 
and the world was. For as a reward for Israel's having believed in 
the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in them ... In like manner thou 
findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world 
to come solely by the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the 
Lord ; for it is said, " and he believed in the Lord, and He counted 
it to him for righteousness " ' (quoted by Lft. ut sup, p. 160). Taking 
these examples with the lengthened discussions in St Paul and 
St. James, it is clear that attention was being very widely drawn to 
this particular text : and it was indeed inevitable that it should be 
so when we consider the place which Abraham held in the Jewish 
system and the minute study which was bemg given to every part of 
the Pentateuch. 

It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason 


diat the two New Testament writers are discussing independently 
of each other a current problem, and that there is no ground for 
supposing a controversial relation between them. We are not sure 
that we are prepared to go quite so far as this. It is true that the 
bearing of Gen. xv. 6 was a subject of standing debate among the 
Jews; but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of 
raith and Works. The controversy connected with this was 
essentially a Christian controversy ; it had its origin in the special 
and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. It seems to us therefore 
that the passages in the two Episdes have a real relation to that 
controversy, and so at least indirecUy to each other. 

It does not follow that the relation was a literary relation. We 
have seen that there are strong reasons against this *. We do not 
think that either St. Paul had seen the Epistle of St. James, or 
St. James the Episde of St. Paul. The view which appears to us 
the most probable is that the argument of St. James is directed not 
against the writings of St. Paul, or against him in person, but 
against hearsay reports of his teaching, and against the perverted 
construction which might be (and perhaps to some slight extent 
actually was^ put upon it. As St. James sate in his place in the 
Church at Jerusalem, as yet the true centre and metropolis of 
the Christian world; as Christian pilgrims of Jewish birth were 
constandy coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts, 
especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and 
Greece, the scene of Sl Paul's labours ; and as there was always 
at his elbow the little coterie of St. Paul's fanatical enemies, it would 
be impossible but that versions, scarcely ever adequate (for how 
few of St Paul's hearers had really understood him 1) and often more 
or less seriously distorted, of his brother Apostle's teaching, should 
reach him. He did what a wise and considerate leader would 
do. He names no names, and attacks no man's person. He does 
not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true 
reports. At the same time he states in plain terms his own view 
of the matter. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him 
to be needed, and which tlie very language of St. Paul, in places 
like Rom. vL i ff., 15 if., shows to have been really needed. And 
thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths, 
suited to different types of mind and different circumstances, are 
stated side by side. We have at once the deeper principle of 
action, which is also more powerful in proportion as it is deeper, 
though not such as all can grasp and appropriate, and the plainer 

^ Betides what b said abore, see Introdtiction § 8. It is a satisfaction to 
find that the view here taken b substantially that of Dr. llort, JudaiitU 
Christianity f p. I48, 'it seems more natural to suppose that a misuse or 
misandersuuiding of St Panrs teaching 00 the part of others gave rise to 
8c JaBO*s carerally gnmrded language.' 


practical teaching pitched on a more every-day level and appealing 
to larger numbers, which is the check and safeguard against possible 


IV. 0-12. The declaration made to Abraham did not 
depend upon Circumcision. For it was made before he was 
circumcised; and Circumcision only came in after the fact, 
to ratify a verdict already given. The reckon being that 
Abraham might have for his spiritual descendants the un- 
circumcised as well as the circumcised 

*Here we have certain persons pronounced 'happy.' Is 
this then to be confined to the circumcised Jew, or may it also 
apply to the uncircumcised Gentile ? Certainly it may. For there 
is no mention of circumcision. It is his faith that we say was 
credited to Abraham as righteousness. ^And the historical 
circumstances of the case prove that Circumcision had nothing 
to do with it Was Abraham circumcised when the declaration 
was made to him? No: he was at the time uncircumcised. 
"And circumcision was given to him afterwards, like a seal 
affixed to a document, to authenticate a state of things already 
existing, viz. the righteousness based on faith which was his before 
he was circumcised. The reason being that he might be the 
spiritual father alike of two divergent classes : at once of believing 
Gentiles, who though uncircumcised have a faith like his, that they 
too might be credited with righteousness ; " and at the same time 
of believing Jews who do not depend on their circumcision only, 
but whose files march duly in the steps of Abraham's faith — that 
faith which was his before his circumcision. 

10. St. Paul appeals to the historic fact that the Divine 
recognition of Abraham's faith came in order of time before his 
circumcision : the one recorded in Gen. xv. 6, the other in 
Gen. xvii. lo ft Therefore although it might be (and was) 
confirmed by circumcision, it could not be due to it or conditioned 
by it. 

11. oTificioK ircpiTOfif)s. Circumcision at its institution is said to 
be €v arifMi^ duxBrficris (Gen. xvii. ii), between God and the 





n tK^paylr was transferred from 
n baptism. See the passages 
ii. 6 {Clem. Rom. ii. 316), also 
md Haich, Hibkert Lectures, 
: Of the ■ ■ 

drcumcised. The gen. iri^iTo^^t is a geniiive of apposition or identity, 
a sign ' amiUting in circumcision,' ' which waa circumcision.' Some 
ftutboriiies (A C a/.) read irtpirDnijv. 

•^pByiScL The prayer pronounced at the circumcising o( 
a child runs thus: 'Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved 
from the womb, and put His ordinance upon His flesh, and sealed 
Hia offspring with the Ei^rn of a holy covenant.' Comp. Targum 
CaiU. iii. 8 'The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was 
sealed in the flesh of Abraham ' ; Shemolh R. 19 ' Ye shall not eal 
of the passover imless ihe seal of Abr.iham be in your flesh.' 
Many other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad he. (cf. also 

At a veiy early date the same te: 
the rite of circumcision to Christi 
collected by Lighlfoot on 2 Clem. 
Gebhardt and Hamack ad loc., 
pi. 195. Dr. Hatch connects th< 

mysteries and some forms of foreign cult'; and it may have 
cooleaoed with language borrowed from these ; but in its origin it 
appean to be Jewish. A similar view is taken by Anrich, Das 
cUti/tt Myskrifnwesrtt t'n teincm Einflust auf das Christeniutn 
(GOningen, 1894), p. no ff., where the Christian use of the word 
v^fMfii is fully discussed. 

Bvastu (ix. 6) termi to refer (0. aitd refo(«. the Jewish doctrine which 

ba pot! in the month of to abjeclor: dAA' (far Kal nijr -wifnirtirniu I 
Kait th ai^paytia. iKXi iroi lipei (ul 'Apai^ nal nivT>i si IipfiV Twr •IZmXwv. 
ifa ob- tSxIim la r^ tin^KTi nirair flair ; iXAi mi ul Al7nT>iH tv wipi- 
T»iii, ttalt. The fad that so many beithen PBtioiu ircre drcumcued proved 
thai ciTcnnidiiDa coald act be the leol of > ipecial covumiL 

•(t t4 (tciu, h.tX Even circumcision, the strongest mark of 
jevisb separation, in St. Paul's view looked beyond its imtnoliate 
CXdusivcneBs to an ultimate inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews. 
a nothing more than a ratiJication of Abraham's faith. F.iith 
was ibe real motive power ; and as applied to the present condition 
" " ' j», Abraham's faith in the promise had its counterpart in the 
Christian's faith in the fulfilment of the promise (i. e. in Christ). 
Thus a new division was made. The true descendants of Abra- 
' ham were not so much those who imitated his circumcision (Le. 
ail Jews whether believing or not), but those who imitated his 
£ulh (i.e. believing Jews and believing Gentiles). •« nS denotes 
that ail thb was contemplated in the Divine purpose. 

waWpa ■wirT»i¥ Tur vivrfuovrwi'. Delitzsch {ad ioe.) quotes one 
of the prayers for the Day of Atonement in which Abraham is 
called ' the first of my faithful ones,' He also adduces a passage, 
Jems. Gemara on Bicctirim, i. i, in which it is proved that even 
the proedyle may claim the patriarchs as his U'O^^K because 


Abram became Abraham, ' father of many nations/ lit ' a great 
multitude ' ; ' he was so/ the Glossator adds, * because he taught 
them to believe.' 

8i* dxpopuoTias : ' though in a state of uncircumcision.' bta of 
attendant circumstances as in dm ypdfifiaros km wtpiTOfiSjt iL 27f i^ 

d<a •npo(TK6yniaT0i taBlovTi xiv. 20. 

12. Tois oToixoGo-i. As it stands the art. is a solecism : it would 
make those who are circumcised one set of persons, and those who 
follow the example of Abraham's faith another distinct set, which 
is certainly not St. Paul's meaning. He is speaking of Jews who 
are do/A circumcised and believe. This requires in Greek the 
omission of the art before oroixovaiu. But rois or. is found in all 
existing MSS. We must suppose therefore either (i) that there 
has been some corruption. WH. think that to7s may be the 
remains of an original avroU: but that would not seem to be a very 
natural form of sentence. Or (2) we may think that Tertius made 
a slip of the pen in following St. Paul's dictation, and that this 
remained uncorrected. If the slip was not made by Tertius 
himself, it must have been made in some very early copy, the 
parent of all our present copies. 

oToixoCo-i. aroixflp is a well-known military term, meaning 
strictly to ' march in file ' : Pollux viii. 9 r6 dc ^dOot trrolxos jGoXctroi, 

Koi t6 fiiv f^f^r ro^oi icar^ fi^KO£ {vyiii^ t6 dc f(f>c^r Karii ^Bot arotxWt 

* the technical term for marching abreast is Cvyci*"! for marching in 
depth or in file, (rroixtlv ' (Wets.). 

On ou |i6vov rather than fiil fUvw in this verse and in rer. 16 see Bartoiv 
M. and T. i 4S1, 

Jewisk Teaching on Circumcision, 

The fierce fanaticism with which the Jews insisted upon the rite 
of Circumcision is vividly brought out in the Book 0/ Jubilees 
(xv. 25 ff.) : ' This law is for all generations for ever, and there is 
no circumcision of the time, and no passing over one day out of 
the eight days ; for it is an eternal ordinance, ordained and written 
on the heavenly tables. And every one that is bom, the flesh of 
whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs not to 
the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham, 
for he belongs to the children of destruction ; nor is there moreover 
any sign on him that he is the Lord's, but (he is destined) to be 
destroyed and slain from the eanh, and to be rooted out of the 
earth, for he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God, . . . 
And now I will announce unto thee that the children of Israel will 
not keep true to this ordinance, and they will not circumcise their 
sons according to all this law ; for in the flesh of their circumcision 


they win omit this circumcision of their sons, and all of them, soni 
of Belial, will have their sons uncircumcised as they were born. 
And there shall be great wrath from the Lord against the children 
of Israel, because they have forsaken His covenant and turned away 
from His word, and provoked and blasphemed, according as they 
have not observed the ordinance of this law ; for they treat their 
members like the Gentiles, so that they may be removed and rooted 
oat of the land. And there will be no pardon or forgiveness for 
them, so that there should be pardon and release from all the sin 
of this error for ever/ 

So absolute is Circumcision as a mark of God's favour that if an 
Israelite has practised idolatry his circumcision must first be 
removed before he can go down to Gehenna (Weber, Alisyn, TheoL 
p. 51 f.)* When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took 
a part in the act (ibid, p. 253). It was his circumcision and antici- 
patory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the 
' father of many nations ' {ibid. p. 256). Indeed it was just through 
his circumcision that Isaac was born of a ' holy seed/ This was 
the current doctrine. And it was at the root of it that Sl Paul 
strikes by showing that Faith was prior to Circumcision, that the 
latter was wholly subordinate to the former, and that just those 
privileges and promises which the Jew connected with Circumcision 
were really due to Faith. 


IV. 18-17. Again the declaration that was made to 
Abraham had nothing to do with Law. For it turned on 
Faith and Promise which are the very antithesis of Law. 
The reckon being that Abraham might be the spiritual 
father of all believers^ Gentiles as well as Jews^ and that 
Gentiles might have an equal claim to the Promise, 

^Another proof that Gentiles were contemplated as well as Jews. 
The promise made to Abraham and his descendants of world-wide 
Messianic rule, as it was not dependent upon Circumcision, so also 
was not dependent upon Law, but on a righteousness which was 
the product of Faith. ^If this world-wide inheritance really 
depended upon any legal system, and if it was limited to those who 
were under such a system, there would be no place left for Faith 
or Promise : Faith were an empty name and Promise a dead letter. 
^For Law is in its effects the very opposite of Promise. It only 


serves to bring down God's wrath by enhancing die guilt of sin. 
Where there is no law, there is no transgression, which implies 
a law to be transgressed. Law and Promise therefore are matually 
exclusive; the one brings death, the other life. ^* Hence it is that 
the Divine plan was made to turn, not on Law and obedience to 
Law, but on Faith. For faith on man's side implies Grace, or free 
bvour, on the side of God. So that the Promise depending as it 
did not on Law but on these broad conditions, Faith and Grace, 
might hold good equally for all Abraham's descendants — not only 
for those who came under the Mosaic Law, but for all who could 
lay claim to a faith like his. ^*Thus Abraham is the true ancestor 
of all Christians (4/Moy), as it is expressly stated in Gen. xvii. 5 
'A father' (i.e. in spiritual fatherhood) 'of many nations have 
I made thee *.' 

18-17. In this section St. Paul brings up the key-words of his 
own system Faith, Promise, Grace, and marshals them in array 
over against the leading points in the current theology of the 
Jews — Law, Works or performance of Law, Merit Because the 
working of this latter system had been so disastrous, ending only 
in condemnation, it was a relief to find that it ¥ras not what God 
had really intended, but that the true principles of things held out 
a prospect so much brighter and more hopeful, and one which 
furnished such abundant justification for all that seemed new in 

18. ou ydp. K.T.X. The immediate point which this paragraph 
is introduced to prove is that Abraham might be, in a true though 
spiritual sense, the father of Gentiles as well as Jews. The ulterior 
object of the whole argument is to show that Abraham himself 
is rightly claimed not as the Jews contended by themselves but 
by Christians. 

Si& K<S)iou: without art., any system of law. 

4 iirayYcXia: see on ch. i. a (frpocTnjyyciXaro), where the uses of 
the word and its place in Christian teaching are discussed. At the 
time of the Coming of Christ the attention of the whole Jewish race 
was turned to the promises contained in the O. T. ; and in 
Christianity these promises were (so to speak) brought to a head 
and definitely identified with their fulfilment 

The foUowing examples may be added to those quoted on ch. L 9 to 
Ulnstrate the diffusion of this idea of ' Promise ' among the Jews in the fint 
century A.D. : 4 Ezra iv. ay ncn capiet portarg quae in temporUms iustu 

* There is a slight awkwardness in making our break in the middle of 
a verse and of a sentence. St. Paul glides after his manner into a new subject, 
suggested to him by the verse which he quotes in proof of what has gone befoie 


rtfrtmitia nml \ rU. 14 li frgn ntm ingr tUmlii ingrtsn fuirint qta efcitnl 
atigHila tt fund kaic. ttort poUrun! niipm fuai imhI rtpeiila ! -='ii ano- 
iiiiHia Gen. ilu, to' : t^tu!. 411 ( 1 19 S. juid iHim netii frvdtil li frvinismm 
*il wMf immerlaU Itmfui, luu verv morlaJia tffra t^mui f Jtc jifw. 
£amt\, %iv. 13 proplir hoc ttiam ipii tint limsir rtiinqUHtU munaum 
ittuiK. afidauu ik laililia ifinml » nriflum mundum qtum pnmiiitti 
rii It will be obKrved ibat all these puugei ue apocalyptic and eichala- 
loeieaL Tfae Jewish idea of rtomue li vague and fiituie; the ChristiaB idea 
it definite and uaociated with a itate of thinei alreatlf inanguiaieil. 

T& KXi]f>orj)Lor aurir tlt^i aoojiou. What Promise b [his? Thete 
b none in these words. Hence (i) some ihink that it means the 
posseuioD of the Land of Canaan {Gen. xii. 7 ; xiii. 14 f. ; iv. iS ; 
xvii. 8 ; cf. xxw. 3 ; Ex. vj, 4) taken as a type of the world-wide 
Messianic reign; ^a) others think that it must refer lo the particular 
promise faiih in which called down the Divine blessing — that 
A. Aoald have a son and descendants like the stars of heaven. 
Probably (his is meant in the first instance, but the whole series 
of promises goes together and it is implied (i) thai A. should have 
a son ; fii) that this son should have numerous descendants ; 
(iii) that m One of those descendants the whole world should be 
blessed ; (iv) that through Him A.'s seed should enjoy world-wide 

k& St«aioffiin]t moTcut : this ' foith-righteousness ' which St. 
Paul has been describing as characteristic of the Christian, and 
before him of Abraham. 

14. «l <■ rd^iou: 'the dependants of law,' 'vassals of a legal system,' 
such as were the Jews. 

KX^pot^pot. If the right to that universal dominion which will 
belong to the Messiah and His people is confined to those who are 
subject to a law, like that of Moses, what can it have to do either 
with the Promise originally given to Abraham, or with Faith to 
which that Ptomise was annexed ? In that case Faith and Promise 
would be pushed aside and cancelled altogether. But they cannot 
be cancelled ; and therefore the inheritance must depend upon them 
and not upon Law. 

16. This verse is parenthetic, proving that Law and Promise 
cannot exist and be in force side by side. They are too much 
opposed in their eTects and operation. Law presents itself to 
St. Paul chiefly in this light as entailing punishment. It increase? 
the guilt of sin. So long as there is no commandment, the wrong 
act is done as it were accidentally and unconsciously ; it cannot be 
called by the name of transgression. The direct breach of a known 
taw b s far more heinous matter. On this disastrous effect of Law 
•ee iii >o, v. 13, ao, vil 7 ff. 

•C U lot fl yif a detitivelr alteUrd K A BC &cl 

wmfifia9\% is (he appropriate word for the direct vioiaiiou 01 


a code. It means to overstep a line clearly defined : peccare esi 
tramUire lineas Cicero, Farad, 3 {ap. Trench, Syn. p. 236). 

16. Ik moTCtts. In his rapid and vigorous reasoning St Paul 
contents himself with a few bold strokes, which he leaves it to the 
reader to fill in. It is usual to supply with U vitm^s either 
^ KkTjpovofita €arip from v. 14 (Lips. Mey.) or 17 iwayytXia ianw from 
V. 13 (Fri.), but as r^y arayytXiav is defined just below it seems 
better to have recourse to some wider thought which shall include 
both these. 'It wat'='The Divine plan was, took its start, from 
faith.* The bold lines of God's plan, the Providential ordering 
of things, form the background, understood if not directly expressed, 
to the whole chapter, 

els T^ cTkcu. Working round again to the same conclusion as 
before ; the object of all these pre-arranged conditions was to do 
away with old restrictions, and to throw open the Messianic 
blessings to all who in any true sense could call Abraham 'father,' 
i.e. to believing Gentile as well as to believing Jew. 


IV. 17-22. Abraham' s Faith was remarkable both far its 
strength and far its abject : the birth of Isaac in which 
Abraham believed might be described as a ^ birth fram the 

28-25. In this it is a type af the Christian's Faith, to 
which is annexed a like acceptance and which also has for 
its object a * birth from the dead ' — the Death and Resur- 
rection of Christ. 

*^In this light Abraham is regarded by God before whom he b 
represented as standing — that God who mfuses life into the dead 
(as He was about to infuse it into Abraham's dead body), and 
who issues His summons (as He issued it then) to generations 
yet unborn. 

" In such a God Abraham believed. Against all ordinary hope 
of becoming a father he yet had faith, grounded in hope, and 
enabling him to become the father not of Jews only but of wide- 
spread nations, to whom the Promise alluded when it said (Gen. 
XV. 5) ' Like the stars of the heaven shall thy descendants be.' 

*• Without showing weakness in his faith, he took full note 
of the fact that at his advanced years (for he was now about 
» hundred years old) his own vital powers were decayed ; he took 


ftin note of the barrenness of Sarah his wife ; ■•and yet with the 
promise in view no impulse of unbelief made him hesitate ; his 
faith endowed him with the power which he seemed to lack; he 
gave praise to God for the miracle that was to be wrought in him, 
^having a firm conviction that what God had promised He was 
able sdso to perform. ** And for this reason that faith of his was 
credited to him as righteousness. 

**Now when all this was recorded in Scripture, it was not 
Abraham alone who was in view ••but we too^the future 
generations of Christians, who will find a like acceptance, as we 
have a like faith. Abraham believed on Him who caused the birth 
of Isaac from elements that seemed as good as dead : and we too 
believe on the same God who raised up from the dead Jesus our 
Lord, •• who was delivered into the hands of His murderers to atone 
for our sins, and rose again to effect our justification (i.e. to put 
the crown and seal to the Atonement wrought by His Death, and 
at the same time to evoke the faith which makes the Atonement 

17. woWpa, K.T.X. Exactly from LXX of Gen. xvii. 5. The LXX 
tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the 
Heb., patrem frementu iurboiy L e. ingeniis muliiiudinis populorum 
(Kautzsch, p. 35). 

KaWram oS firiorcucrc 6cou : attraction for Kartvavri Stov f M" 
9T€v<r9 : luiTfVavri describing the posture in which Abraham is 
represented as holding colloquy with God (Gen. xvii. i ff.). 

(Movoiounros : ' maketh alive.' St. Paul has in his mind the two 
acts which he compares and which are both embraced under this 
word, (i) the Birth of Isaac, (2) the Resurrection of Christ On 
the Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch, Ess, in Bibl. Greek, p. 5. 

■oXouKTos [to lit) ovra ^ tvra]. There are four views : (i) icaX.= 
*to name, speak of, or describe, things non-existent as if they 
existed' (Va.); (ii) = *to call into being, issue His creative fiat* (most 
commentators); (iii) = 'to call, or summon,' ' issue His commands 
to' (Mey. Gif); (iv) in the dogmatic sense = *to call, or invite to 
Hfe and salvation ' (Fri.). Of these (iv) may be put on one side as 
too remote from the context ; and (ii) as Mey. rightly points out, 
seems to be negatived by us 5yrou The choice remains between 
(i) and (iii). If the former seems the simplest, the latter is the 
more forcible rendering, and as such more in keeping with the 
imaginative grasp of the situation displayed by St. Paul. In favour 
of this view may also be quoted Apoc. Bar. xxi. 4 O qui fitcisH 
ierram audi me , . . qui vocasti ab initio mundi quod nondum trai, ei 



oUdiuni iihi. For the use of icaXcly see also the note on ix. * 

18. elf T& ycr^oOai = ^art ywifrBai : ' his faith enabled him to 
become the father/ but with the underlying idea that his faith in 
this was but carrying out the great Divine purpose which ordered 
all these events. 

oJnis loTOi : = Gen. xv. 5 (LXX). 

10. |ii\ do^cWioas. Comp. Lft. in Joum. ff Class, ami Sac, PhiUi. 
iii. 106 D. : ' The New Testament use of iiij with a participle . . . has a much 
wider rang:e than in the earlier language. Yet this it no violation of 
principle, bat rather an extension of a particular mode of looking at the 
subordinate event contained in the participial clause. It is viewed as an 
accident or condition of the principal event described by the finite verb, and 
is therefore negatived by the aependent negative iiii and not by the absolute oh. 
Rom. iv. 19 ... is a case in point whether we retain ob or omit it with 
Lachm. In the latter case the sense will be, "he so considered his own 
body now dead, as not to b$ weak in the (?) faith.** ' This is well expressed 
in RV. ' without being weakened,' except Uiat * being weakened * should be 
rather ' showing weakness ' or ' becoming weak.' See also Barton, M, and T, 

I 145. 

KaTci^<rf M A B C some good cursives, some MSS. of Vulg. 
(including am)^ Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat (which probably here preserves 
Origen's Greek), Chrys, and others ; ov Kar^vdqirt D E F G K L P 
&c., some MSS. of Vulg. (including /«/</, though it is more pro- 
bable that the negative has come in from the Old Latin and that 
it was not recognized by Jerome), Syr.-Harcl., Orig.-lat bis, Epiph. 
Ambrstr. a/. 

Both readings give a good sense : KaTw6ri(Tt, * he ^iV/ consider, and 
ye/ did not doubt' ; ©u icaTcwi;o-f, * he did no/ consider, and therefort 
did not doubt.' Both readings are also early: but the negative 
ov •taT€wJi;(r€ is clearly of Western origin, and must probably be set 
down to Western laxity : the authorities which omit the negative 
are as a rule the most trustworthy. 

^dpx(>>v : ' being already about a hundred years old.* May we not say 
that wm. denotes a present state simply as present, but that vwapx^tiv denotes 
a present state as a product of past states, or at least a state in present time 
as related to past time (' vorhanJenseiHt dasein^ Lat. existere^ adesse^praeste 
esse* Schmidt) f See esp. T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on i Cor. vii. 30 : 'the 
last word {bv6,pxnv) is difficult ; it seems to mean sometimes " to be origin- 
ally," " to be substantially or fundamentally,'* or, as in Demosthenes, ** to be 
stored in readiness.** An idea oi propriety sometimes attaches to it: comp. 
thrap^tSf "property** or "substance." The word however asks for further 
investigation.* Comp. Schmidt, Lat, u. gr, Synonymik, $ 74. 4. 

20. 01U SuKpCOi] : ' did not hesitate * {jovrkoriv ohhX ivt^Uurw o^82 dfu^ 
fiaXt Chrys.). ^atcpiptiv act. "diiftdicarSf (i) to ' discriminate,* or ' distinguish ' 
between two things (Matt xvi. 3 ; cf. 1 Cor. xL 29, 31) or persons (Acts xv. 9; 
I Cor. iv. 7); (ii) to *arbitiate* between two parties (i Cor. vi. 5). 8n- 
KpiyfaOcu mid. (and pass.) * (i) 'to get a decision/ 'litigate,* 'dispute,' or 
'contend' (Acts xL a ; Jas. ii« 4; Jade 9) ; (ii) to 'be divided against one- 
telf,* * waver,' 'doubt' The other senses are aU found in LXX (where the 
word occurs some thirty timet), bat this is wanting. It is however well 

IV. M.] 



cMabUihtd far N.T., <rbcr« it appear* u the proper opposiU of ■(orii 
*m<iv. So Malt uu. 1 1 lir !xi^* vianr, sat i^^ ImvpiSf t< : Maik li. 13 li 
l* ilij . . . aaj ;i4 Bia«piflp )»■ rp tofSi^ airav dAAd morii^ : Rom. ii». 13 i S) 
0>a*pirJfKrDi, jilr ^fp, naTaWipinii, irn oin 1« ntomit : Jai. i. (> atrdrai Bi 
Ir rSvTti ii'fiir tioc^Hi'^fin'oi : ■lio probibly Juile 11. A like use is foand In 
Cbiistiia writioEi of the seL-ond century and later: e.g. Pntev. Jot. 11 
ue^aaoa U Hafudji itmplOii Jr Javrp aJtovoo, n.rA. (guntcd by Mayor on 
Ju. i. 6) : Cirx. Hemil, i. jo r<^ r^f npaiof idnjt aw a).iidi[at Jioxfii^ag : 
it. 40 ««^ Tov >i^rair ju! irf<a<-i Bfou Iioicpiff^vai. It ii tematkabte thil a km 
whl^ (except al ui utliiboia to ■iotivhv) there U no reiBon (o connect 
ipecial!]' with Cbriilianity iboold thai leem lo be InceabU to Cbiistlsn 
circle* uiii the Chtiiiiui line of tiidition. It it act likely to be in the itrict 
leme a Cbiillliii coinage, bnt appears to have had iti brgiaiiing in nest 
Brroilinity to Chrisliuiity. AparaUel case li Ihat of the word H^xot (St. 
Jimet, Clem. Rom.. Herm., Didaeki, &c). The two wordi leem to belong 
lo the wne cycle of ideal. 

IrctwvapdAi) T^ inimK, if niorfi is here usually taken as dat. o( 
mpcct, "he was sirenglhened in his faith,' i.e. 'bis faith was 
Hrengthened, or confinned.' In favour of this would be p.<} iaSunitrat 
Tj wiirm above ; and the surrounding terms {intpW'j, irXqpa^opijfljJt) 
might Ecera to point lo a menial process. But it is tempting to 
nuke ry rtiTTH instrumental or causal, like rg airiim'^ to which it 
stands in immediate aniithesis: mi. t^ olar. would then := 'he was 
endowed with power by means of his faiili' (sc. t4 ««t(jai/i*™i 
■LToZ rFifta rMSumfA^Sri). According to the Talmud, Abraham wurdt 
ta ifiner Natur erntmrt, line mut Creatur {Bammidbar Rabba xi), 
um dit Zeugung tu voiVtringtn (Weber, p. 256). And we can 
hard!}' doubt that the passage was taken in this way by the author 
of Heb., who appears to have had it directly in mind : comp. Heb. 

si. II, 13 iricmi col avtri lappa ACmfur iis niiTa^'i\r/t' mrfpiMios i^aQr 
<al wapi taipif g;Xuui( . , . lUi lai aifi (vAt iyttriiBiiiTar, ta'i Tatta 
rtPttpmiUHii/, ia0mt 'o Svrpa rou ovpnmi r^ r\^8" (observe esp. Sivofuv 

tXafit, piMtpvfJivv). This sense is abo distinctly recognized by 

Euthyrn.-Zig- {irtiuraniiSi lit tiaiSoynftai' T^ viartc f) Jrtivrainii6ii 

wt-it njr tiimf). Tlie other (common) interpretation is preferred by 
Chryi., from whom Euthym.-Zig. seems to get his i wtarir 

nrij*tsvfi(n)( ivraitfut Biiral irXii'oKlt, 

The Talmud laj's great stress on the Birlh of Isaac. In the 
Bame of Isaac was found an mdication that with him the hisiory 
of Rwclalion began. With him the people of revealed Religion 
came into t-xisience : with him ' the Holy One began 10 work 
wonders' (.fi^«A. Rabba liil. ap. Weber, Al/syn. Theol. p. 256). 
Bat It is of course a wholly new point when Si. Paul compares the 
miraculous birth of Isaac with the raising of Christ from the dead. 
The parallel consists not only in the nature of the two events — 
both a bringing to life frotn conditions which betokened only 
de&tfa — but also in the faith of which ihey were the objca. 

SoAt Ufor: a Hebraism: cf. Josh. vii. 19; 1 Suq. vi. 5; ■ 
CfaroD. xvL 18, tt 


21. irXT|po^opi|6cis : v\Tipo{f>o(}ta = ' full assurance,' ' firm conviction,' 
I Thess. i. 5 ; Col. li. a ; a word especially common amongst the 
Stoics. Hence n\rjpo<t>op€ur$ai, as used of persons, = ' to be fully 
assured or convinced,' as here, ch. xiv. 5 ; Col. iv. la. As used of 
things the meaning is more doubtful: cf. a Tim. iv. 5, 17 and 
Luke i. I, where some take it as = * fully or satisfactorily proved,' 
others as = ' accomplished ' (so Lat.-Vet. Vulg. RV. /ex/ LfL On 
Revision, p. 14a) : see note ad loc, 

23. %C aOxAK ^vfiv, Beresh. R. xl. 8 *Thou findest that all 
that is recorded of Abraham is repeated in the history of his 
children' (Wetstein, who is followed by Meyer, and Delitzsch ad loc). 
Wetstein also quotes Taanith ii. i Fratres nosiri, de Ninevitis 
non dictum est : et respexit Deus saccum eorum. 

24. Tois moTcuouirii^ : ' to us who believe.' St. Paul asserts that 
his readers are among the class of believers. Not ' if we believe/ 
which would be mtmvovaiv (sine artic). 

26. Sio with ace. is primarily retrospective, =* because of: but 
inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution, did may be 
retrospective with reference to the idea, but prospective with 
reference to the execution. Which it is in any particular case must 
be determined by the context. 

Here diA ra napairr. may be retrospective, = * because of our 
trespasses ' (which made the death of Christ necessary) ; or it may 
be prospective, as Gif. * because of our trespasses,* i.e. 'in order to 
atone for them.' 

In any case dtii r^v diKalaxnv is prospective, * with a view to our 
justification,' 'because of our justification' conceived as a motive, 
i.e. to bring it about. See Dr. Gilford's two excellent notes 
pp. 108, 109. 

The manifold ways in which the Resurrection of Christ is 
connected with justification will appear from the exposition below. 
It is at once the great source of the Christian's faith, the assurance 
of the special character of the object of that faith, the proof that the 
Sacrifice which is the ground of justification is an accepted sacrifice, 
and the stimulus to that moral relation of the Christian to Christ in 
which the victory which Christ has won becomes his own victory. 
See also the notes on ch. vi. 5-8. 

T/if Place of t/ie Resurrection of Christ in the 

teaching of St. Paul. 

The Resurrection of Christ fills an immense place in the teaching 
of St Paul, and the fact that it does so accounts for the emphasis 
and care with which he states the evidence for it (i Cor. xv. i-ii). 


(i) The Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the Divinity 
of Christ (Acts xvii. 31 ; Rom. L 4; i Cor. xv. 14, 15). 

(ii) As proving the Divinity of Christ the Resurrection is also 
the most decisive proof of the atoning value of His Death. But 
for the Resurrection, there would have been nothing to show — at 
least no clear and convincing sign to show — that He who died upon 
the Cross was more than man. But if the Victim of the Cross had 
been man and nothing more, there would have been no sufficient 
reason for attaching to His Death any peculiar efficacy ; the faith 
of Christians would be ' vain/ they would be 'yet in their sins ' 
(i Cor. XV. 17). 

(iii) In yet another way the Resurrection proved the efficacy of 
the Death of Christ. Without the Resurrection the Sacrifice of 
Calvary would have been incomplete. The Resurrection placed 
upon that Sacrifice the stamp of God's approval ; it showed that 
ihe Sacrifice was accepted, and that the cloud of Divine Wrath — 
the opyi} so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom. iii. 25, 
a 6)— had passed away. This is the thought which lies at the bottom 
of Rom. vi 7-10. 

(iv) The Resurrection of Christ is the strongest guarantee for 
the resurrection of the Christian (i Cor. xv. ao-23 ; a Cor, iv 14; 
Rom. viiL 11 ; Col. i. 18). 

(v) But that resurrection has two sides or aspects : it is not only 
physical, a future rising again to physical life, but it is also moral 
and spiritual, a present rising from the death of sin to the life of 
righteousness. In virtue of his union with Christ, the close and 
intimate relation of his spirit with Christ's, the Christian is called 
upon to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ. And ttiis 
moral and spiritual sense is the only sense in which he can repeat 
them. We shall have this doctrine fully expounded in ch. vi. i-i i. 

A recent monograph on the subject of this note (E. Schader, DU Bedtutung 
itsUUndigtn Christutfur dU Rtcktferligung ncuh Paulus^ Giitcrsloh, 1893) 
has worked out in modi careful detail the third of the above heads. Herr 
Schader (who smce writing his treatise has become Professor at Konigsberg) 
insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrou^'ht by 
Christ ; that which redeems is not merely tlie act of Christ*s Death but His 
Person {Jkv f *x^t^^ ^^ dvoXyrpcMftv Lph i. 7 ; Col. i. 14). It is as a Person 
that He takes the place of the sinner and endures the Wrath of God in his 
stead (Gai. iii. 13; a Cor. v. ai). The Resurrection is proof that this 
' Wrath * is at an end. And therefore in certain salient passages (Rom. iv. 35 ; 
▼i 9, 10 ; Tiii. 34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ as 
the canse of justification. The treatise is well deserving of study. 

It may be right also to mention, without wholly endorsing, Dr. Hort's 
significant aphorism : ' Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemp- 
tioo, and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and lesurrection one aspect 
of life' ^Hulsean Lectures^ p. a 10). This can more readily be accepted if 
* one aspect ' in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other aspects 
At die same time snch a saying is useful as a warning, which is especially 
where the attempt is being made towards more exact definitions, that 


all definitioDt of gnat doctrines have a relatiTe rather than an abaolute valne. 
They are partial symbols of ideas which the human mind cannot grasp in 
their entirety. If we coold see as God sees we should doubtless find them 
runoing up mto large and broad laws of His working. We desire to make 
this reserve in regard to our own attempts to define. Withoot It exact 
eaegesds may well seem to lead to a revived Scholasticism. 


V. 1-11. TAe state which thus lies before the Christian 
should have consequences both near and remote. The nearer 
consequences^ peace with God and hope which gives courage 
under persecution (vv. 1-4) : the remoter consequence ^ an 
assurance^ derived from the proof of God*s love, of our final 
salvation and glory. The first step {our present acceptance 
with God) is difficult ; the second step {our ultimate salva- 
tion) follows naturally from t/ie first (w. 5-11). 

^We Christians then ought to enter upon our privileges. By 
that strong and eager impulse with which we enroll ourselves as 
Christ's we may be accepted as righteous in the sight of God, and 
it becomes our duty to enjoy to the full the new state of peace 
with Him which we owe to our Lord Jesus Messiah. *He it is 
whose Death and Resurrection, the object of our faith (iv. 25), 
have brought us within the range of the Divine favour. Within 
the sheltered circle of that favour we stand as Christians, in no 
merely passive attitude, but we exult in the hope of one day 
participating as in the favour of God so also in His glory. ' Yes, 
and this exultation of ours, so far from being shaken by per- 
secutions is actually founded upon them. For persecution only 
generates fortitude, or resolute endurance under trials : ^ and 
then fortitude leads on to the approved courage of the veteran ; 
and that in turn strengthens the hope out of which it originally 

* More : our hope is one that cannot prove illusory ; because 
(and here a new factor is introduced, for the first time in this 
connexion) the Holy Spirit, through whom God is brought into 
personal contact with man — that Holy Spirit which we received 
when we became Christians, floods our hearts with the conscious- 


ne*s of the Love of God for us. 'Think what are the facH lo 
which wc CAD appeal. When we were utterly weak and prostrate, 
at the moment of our deepest despair, Christ died for us — not as 
righteous men, but as godless sinners I ' What a proof of love was 
there 1 For an upright or righteous man it would be hard to find 
one uillingtodie; though perhaps for a good man (wiih theloveable 
qualities of goodness) one here and there may be brave enough to 
face death. ' Bui God presses home the proof of His unmerited 
Love towards us, in that, sinners as we still were, Christ died for us 
'Here then is an a fortiori argument. The fact that we have 
been actually declared ' righteous ' by coming within the influence 
of Christ's sacrificial filood — this fact which implies a stupendous 
change in the whole of our relations to God is a sure pledge of 
what is far easier — our escape from His final judgement. " For 
there is a double contrast. If God intervened for us while we were 
His enemies, much more now that wc are reconciled to Him. If 
the first intenention cost the Death of His Son, the second costs 
nothing, but follows naturally from the share which we have in 
Hii Life. " And not only do we look for this final salvation, but 
■re ve buoyed up by an exultant sense of that nearness to Cod 
into which we have been brought by Christ to whom we owe that 
one great step of our teconciliaiioa. 

I-IL Every line of this passage breathes St. Paul't personal 
experience, and his intense hold upon the objective facts which are 
the grounds of a Christian's confidence. He believes that the 
ardour with which he himself sought Christian baptism was met by 
an answering ctiange in the whole relation in which he stood to 
God. That change he attributes ultimately, it is clear throughout 
this conlex:, not merely in general terms to Christ {flui v. i, a, 11 
Ut) but more particularly to the Death of Christ (irapfAJAi iv. 35 ; 
■vt'doH V. 6, 6 ; if ry sl^iori V. 9 ; Sid rou flnim-ou V. lo). He con- 
ceives of that Death as operating by a sacrilicial blood -shedding 
(«» ry oituiTi : cf. iii. 35 and the passages referred 10 in the Note on 
the Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice). The Blood of thai 
Sacrifice is as il were sprinkled round the Christian, and forms 
a tort of hallowed enclosure, a place of sanctuary, into which he 
enters. Within ibis he is safe, and from its sheltt^r he looks out 
etultingly over the physical dangers which threaten him ; they may 
rirengthen his firmness of purpose, but cannot shake it. 

I. The «ord i>««'«n* at the end of the last chapter recalls St. 
Paul lo luB main topic. After expounding the nature of his new 


method of obtaining righteousness in iii. a 1-26, he had begun to 
draw some of the consequences from this (the deathblow to Jewish 
pride, and the equality of Jew and Gentile) in iiL 27-31. This 
suggested the digression in ch. iv, to prove that notwithstanding 
there was no breach of God's purposes as declared in the O. T. 
(strictly the Legal System which had its charter in the O. TX but 
rather the contrary. Now he goes back to 'consequences and 
traces them out for the individual Christian. He explains why it 
is that the Christian faces persecution and death so joyfully : he 
has a deep spring of tranquillity at his heart, and a confident hope 
of future glory, 

cx«»)iCK. The evidence for this reading stands thus : cxoopify M * 
A B* C D E K L, cursives, Vulg. Syrr, Boh. Arm. Aeth., 
repeatedly Chrys. Ambrstr. and others: f;^oficp correctors of KB, 
F G (duplicate MSS. it will be remembered) in the Greek though 
not in the Latin, P and many cursives, Did. Epiph. Cjrr.-Alex, in 
three places out of four. Clearly overwhelming authority for 
lxa)/xfy. It is argued however (i) that exhortadon is here out of 
place: 'inference not exhortation is the Apostle's purpose' 
(Scrivener, In/rod, u. 380 ed. 4) ; (ii) that o and o> are frequendy 
interchanged in the MSS., as in this very word Gal. vL 10 (cf. 
I Cor. XV. 49) ; (iii) it is possible that a mistake might have been 
made by Tertius in copying or in some very early MS. from which 
the mass of the uncials and versions now extant may have de- 
scended. But these reasons seem insufficient to overthrow the 
weight of direct testimony, (i) St. Paul is apt to pass from argu- 
ment to exhortation; so in the near context vL (i), 12, (15); 
viii. 12 ; (ii) in tx^l^^ inference and exhortation are really com- 
bined : it is a sort of light exhortation, ' we should have ' (T. S. 

As to the meaning of «x*fM# it should be observed that it does 
not = * make peace,' * get ' or * obtain peace ' (which would be 
ax^^/Mi^)) but rather * keep ' or ' enjoy peace * (ou yap itrrw Vrov fitj ovaaif 

tipfjtnjv Xa/3fiy koi fioBfia-av Karafrxfiv ChryS. I cf. ActS ix. 3 1 17 fih 

oZv €KKkri(ria . . . ctxn' ^^p^^^^i ' continued in a state of peace '). The 
aor. part. ducmcadcWfr marks the initial moment of the state tiprivrtv 
tx»y^v* The declaration of * not guilty,' which the sinner comes 
under by a heartfelt embracing of Christianity, at once does away 
with the state of hostility in which he had stood to God, and 
substitutes for it a state of peace which he has only to realize. 
This declaration of ' not guilty ' and the peace which follows upon 
it are not due to himself, but are ^ih rov Kvpiov rifi&u 'ii^o-ov Xpiorov : 
kaw is explained more fully in iii. 25 ; also in w. 9, 10 below. 

Dr. J. Agar Beet (Comm. ad loc^ discusses the exact shade of meaning 
conveyed by the aor. part. biHaioi9ivrtt in relation to tlpfjitniv fx^fuv. He 
cootendfl that it denotes not so much the rtasom for entering upon the state 


In qnetdoo mm the means of entering upon it. No donbt this is perfectly 
tenable oo the score of grammar; and it is also true that 'jostificattoo 
necessarily invoWes peace with God.* But the argument goes too much 
npon the assumption that tip. Ix* *" ' obtain peace/ which we have seen to 
be erroneous. The sense is exactly that of ttx^v tlpnnjv in the passage 
quoted from the Act% and luccuwB., as we have said, marks the initial 
moment in the state. 

2. T^r vpoaraY^ryifr. Two Stages only are described in w. i, a 
though different language is used about them : dtxaica^cWc r = f 
vpwnymYfi^ *¥i^ = X^P^^ I ^^ jcavxiycrir is a characteristic of the 
state of x°f^^f At ^^ same time that it points forward to a future 
state of d6(a. The phrase 4 npoaay^ < our introduction/ is a con- 
necting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. £ph. ii. i8; 
iiL la) : the idea is that of introduction to the presence-chamber of 
a monarch* The rendering 'access' is inadequate, as it leaves 
oat of sight the fact that we do not come in our own strength but 
need an * introducer ' — Christ 

{ox^KOficr: not 'we have had' (Vsl), but 'we have got or 
obtained^' aor. and perf. in one. 

'Both grammar and logic will run in perfect harmony together if we 
icndei; "through whom we have by faith got or obtained our access into 
this grace wherein we stand." This rendering will bring to view two causes 
of getting the access or obtaining the introduction into the state of grace ; 
one cause objectiTe, Christ: the other subjective, faith; Christ the door, 
isith the hand which moves the door to open and to admit ' (T. S. Evans in 
£m^. iS8a, L 169). 

f% idtrni om. BDEFG, Lat Vet, Orig.-lat ^is. The weight of this 
evidence depends on the value which we assign to R All the other evidence 
is Western ; and B also (as we have seen) has a Western element ; so that 
the question is whether the omission here in B is an independent corrobora- 
tion of the Western group or whether it simplv belongs to it (does the 
evidence «■ ^-i- 8, or 8 only?). There is the further point that omissions in 
the Western text deserve more attention than additions. Either reading can 
be easily enough accounted for, as an obvious gloss on the one hand or the 
omission of a superfluous phrase on the other. The balance is sufficiently 
represented by placing ry viotm in brackets as Treg. WU. RV. mar^. (Weiss 

c(t T9jr x^P^ Toi^n)K: the ' state of grace' or condition of those 
who are objects of the Divine favour, conceived of as a space 
fenced in (Mey. Va. &c.) into which the Christian enters : cf. Gal. 
▼. 4 ; I Pet V. I a (Va. and Grm.-Thay. s.v. x^^f 3. a). 

loTif|Ka|iCK : ' stand fast or firm ' (see Va. and Grm.-Thay. s. ▼• 
Imifu iL a. d). 

Ik* AiriSi: as in iv. 18. 

Ti)f So{t|«. See on iiL 23. It is the Glory of the Divine 
Presence (Shekinah) communicated to man (partially here, but) in 
full measure when he enters into that Presence ; man's whole being 
will be transfigured by it 


Is the Society or the Individual tlu proper object of 

Justification t 

It is well known to be a characteristic feature of the theology 
of Ritschl that he regards the proper object of Justification as the 
Christian Society as a collective whole, and not the individual as 
such. This view b based upon two main groups of arguments, 
(i) The first is derived from the analogy of the O.T. The great 
sacrifices of the O. T. were undoubtedly meant in the first instance 
for 'the congregation.' So in regard to the Passover it is laid 
down expressly that no alien is to eat of it, but all the congregation 
of Israel are to keep it (Ex. xiL 43 fif., 47). And still more 
distinctly as to the ritual of the Day of Atonement : the high priest 
is to 'make atonement for the holy place, because of the un- 
cleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their trans- 
gressions, even all their sins '; he is to lay both his hands on the 
head of the goat, and ' confess over him all the iniquities of the 
children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins' 
(Lev. xvi. 16, a I, also 33 f). This argument gains in force from 
the concentration of the Christian Sacrifice upon a single event, 
accomplished once for all. It is natural to think of it as having 
also a single and permanent object. (2) The second argument is 
derived from the exegesis of the N. T. generally (most clearly 

perhaps in Acts XX, a8 r^v iKickrjaiap roO Bcov |v. L Kvpiov], fpf 
ntpwnoititraro bih rov cufmrot rov Idiov : but also in I JO. il. 3 ; iv. lo; 

I Pet. iiL 18; Apoc. i. 5f. ; v. pf.), and more particularly in the 
Epistles of St. Paul. The society is, it is true, most clearly 
indicated in the later Epp. ; e. g. Tit. ii. 14 <r»Trjpos fifi&v 'I. x., it 

cdfioicf V iavT6v imip fJpSiu, iva XvTpvDcrrjrai fipBs . . . Koi KaOapivQ iavr^ XcAv 
n€ptov(TMw : Eph. V. 35 f* ^ XpuTr6s fjydnrja-* r^v ficfcXijo'/av, koX iavrov 
nap€d(aK€P inrip avrrii* Iva avTr)v Ayidajj Ka6api(ras le.r.X. (cf. also Eph. iL 

18; iii. 12; Col. i. 14). But Ritschl also claims the support of 
the earlier Epp. : e. g. Rom. viii. 33 vrrcp rjfjuav natfrmv waptdtucwv 

avT6u : iii. 3 3 diKaioavvrj dc Qtov . . . ft; navras roits wiaTtvovras i and 

the repeated IjpwU in the contexts of three passages (Comp. Rechi- 
ftrt. u, VersOhn, ii. 316 f., i6o). 

In reply the critics of Ritschl appeal to the distinctly in- 
dividualistic cast of such expressions as Rom. iii. 26 diKdiovira roy 

fV TriOTfoaff *Ii;a"ov : iv. 5 iiri rhv diKaioinrra t6v ucf/S^, with the COntext : 
X. 4 fls iiKaiofrvvTju navrl r» mo'TtvovTi (Schader, Op, cit. p. 39 n. , cf. 

also Glo^l, Der Heilige Geist, p. 103 n.; Weiss, Btbl. Theol. ( 83 b, 
referred to by Schader). 

It is undoubtedly true that St Paul does use language which 
points to the direct justification of the individual believer. This 


perhaps comes out mosi clearly in Rom. iv, where the personal 
hiiih and personal justiGcattOD of Abraham are laken as t>'pical of 
the Christian's. But need we on that account throw over the other 
passages above quoted, wliich seem to be quite as unambiguous t 
That which brings benefit to the Church collectively of necessity 
brings bcne&t to the individuals of which it is composed. We 
may if we like, as St Paul very often does, leave out of sight ihe 
intcmening steps; and it is perhaps the more natural that he 
should do so, as the Church is in this connexion an ideal entity. 
But this entity is prior in thoii3:ht to ihc members who compose 
it ; and when we think of the Great Sacrifice as consummated 
once for all and in its effects reaching down through ihe ages, it is 
no less natural lo let the mind dwell on the conception which 
alone embraces past, present, and future, and alone binds all the 
scattered particulars inlo unity. 

We must remember also that in the age and to the thought of 
St. Paul (he act of faith in the individual which brings him within 
the range of justification is inseparably connected with its ratifica- 
tion in baptism. But the significance of baptism lies in the fact 
that whoever undergoes it is made thereby member of a society, 
and becomes at once a recipient of the privileges and immunities 
of that society. St. Paul is about (in the next chapter) to lay 
tlreaa on this point. He there, as well as elsewhere, describes the 
relation of spiritual union into which the Christian enters with 
ChriM E> established by the same act which makes him also 
member of the eocieiy. And therefore when at the beginning of 
(he present chapter he speaks of the entrance of the Chrisdan into 
the stale of grace in metaphors which present that siale under the 
figure of a fenced-o? enclosure, it is natural to identify the area 
within which grace and justification operate with the area of the 
society, in other words with the Church. The Church however in 
this conneKion can have no narrower definition than ' all baptized 
persons.' And even the condition of baptism is introduced as an 
inseparable adjunct lo faith; so that if through any exceptional 
circumstances the two were separated, the greater might be taken 
lo include the less. The Christian theologian has to do with what 
■I normal ; ihe abnormal he I'.-aves to the Searcher of hearts. 

It is thus neither in a spni of exclusiveness nor yet in that of 
any hard and fast Scliolasticism, but only in accordance with the 
free and natural tendencies of the Apostle's thought, that we speak 
of Justification 35 normally mediated through the Church. St. 
Paul himself, as we have seen, often drops the intervening link. 
especially in the earlier Epistles. But in proportion as his maturer 
Innght dwclb moic and more upon the Church as an organic 
whole be also conceives of it as doing for the individual believer 
what tbe ' congregatioo ' did for the iodividuai Israelites under the 




older dispensation. The Christian Sacrifice with its effects, like 
the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement by which it is ^ified, 
reach the individual through the community. 

8-6. The two leading types of the Old-Latin Version of the Epistle stand 
out distinctly in these verses. We are fortunately able to compaie the 
Cyprianic text with that of Tertnllian {non solum . . . eonhmdU) mud the 
European text of Cod. Clarom. with that of Hilary {trihulatto . . . cotrfumdify. 
The passage is also ouoted in the so-called Speculum (m), which represents 
the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian {Classical Review ^ iv. 4161). 

Cod. Clarom. 

Non solum autan, sed et ghriamur 
in tribulatumibus^ scientes quod tribu- 
lotto patientiam operaiur^ patitmtia 
autem probationtm^ probatto auiom 
spem ; spes autem hom con/undit, quia 
caritcu Dei diffusa est in coraibus 
nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui 
datus est noHs, 

perficit HiL ; prok, fforo m Hil. , 
spes vero Hil. (Ccxi. Clarom. » m). 


Non solum autem^ sed et gloriamur 
in pressuris^ scientes quoniam pres- 
sura tolerantiam opercUur, tolerantia 
autem probationem^ probcUio autem 
spem ; spes autem non confundit^ quia 
diUctio Dei infusa est cordibus nostris 
per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est 

verum etiam exultantes Tert ; certi 
quod Tert.; perfictat Tert. (ed. Vin- 
dob.) ; tol. vero Tert. ; spes vero Tert. 

Here, as elsewhere in Epp. Paul., there is a considerable amoiint of matter 
common to all forms of the Version, enough to give colour to the suppositioo 
that a single translation lies at their root. But the salient expreuions are 
changed ; and in this instance TertuUian goes with Cyprian, as Hilary with 
the European texts. The renderings tolerantia and pressura are yeriAed for 
TertuUian elsewhere {tolerantia Luke xxi. 19 ; i Tbess. L 4 : pr€ssura 
Rom. yiii. 35; xii. la; i Cor. vii. 38; a Cor. i. 8; iv. 17; vi. 4; tU. 4; 
Col. L 34; a Thess. i. 4; Apoc. ii. aa; yii. 14), as also diloctio (to which 
the quotation does not extend in this passage, but which is found in 
Luke xi. 43 ; John xiii. 35 ; Rom. viii. 35, 39 ; i Cor. xiii. 1 flF., &c.). We 
note however that Hilary and TertuUian agree in perficit {ferficiat)^ though 
in another place Hilary has allusively tribulcUio patientiam opertUur, 
Perhaps this coincidence may point to an older rendering. 

8. od \L6viiv %i (JarrjKa^fv dXXa kcu Kavx^yLtOa^ Or ifmjKorts ahXa ical 

Kovx^V^voi): in this elliptical form characteristic of St. Paul and 
esp. of this group of Epistles (cf. v. 11 ; viii. 23; ix. 10; a Cor. 
viii. 19). 

Kavx<2>|Acvoi B C, Orig. bis and others : a good group, but open to suspicion 
of conforming to ver. 11 (q. v.) ; we have also found a similar group, on the 
whole inferior, in iii. a8. If Kavxijuiwi were right it would be another 
example of that broken and somewhat inconsecutive structure which it 
doubtless due, as Va. suggests, to the habit of dictating to an amanuensis. 

Note the contrast between the Jewish kov^w^^ which * is excluded ' 
(iii. 27) and this Christian »caux»7<r»f. The one rests on supposed 
human privileges and merit; the other draws all its force from the 
assurance of Divine love. 

The Jewish writers know of another Kavxnoi^ (besides the empty boasting 
which St. Paul reprehends), but it is reserved for the blest in Paradise: 4 Ezr. 
yii. 98 [Bensly^vi. 7a O. F. Fritzsche] exultabunt cumfidmia et . . , 
fidebunt non eonfusi^ ot gaudebunt non reverentos. 


iw Tols OXi^rco-i. The ^c^fir are the physical hardships and 
SQfferings that Sl Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the 
Christian; cf. Rom. viii. 35 ff.; i Cor, iv. 11-13; vii. 26-32 ; xv. 
30-32; 2 Cor. i. 3-10; xi. 23-27. Such passages give us 
glimpses of the stormy background which lies behind St Paul's 
Epistles. He is so absorbed in his ' Gospel ' that this makes very 
little impression upon him. Indeed, as this chapter shows, the 
overwhelming sense of God's mercy and love fills him with such 
exultation of spirit that bodily suffering not only weighs like dust in 
the balance but positively serves to strengthen his constancy. The 
same feeling comes out in the vn€pviKC>fi€v of viii. 37 : the whole 
passage is parallel. 

uvo|M>in/|ir: not merely a passive quality but a 'masculine con- 
stancy in holding out under trials ' (VVaite on 2 Cor. vi. 4), * forti- 
tude.' See on ii. 7 above. 

4. SoKifAifj : the character which results from the process of trial, 
the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit ; cf. 
James i. 12, &c. The exact order of vnofiovri and doKifxri must not 
be pressed too far : in St. James i. 3 t6 HoKifjuop r^r irl(rrfm produces 
vKOfioini. If St. James had seen this Epistle (which is doubtful) we 
might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. The con- 
ception is that of 2 Tim. ii. 3 (in the revised as well as the received 

^ S^ SoRiffc^ AmSa. It is quite intelligible as a fact of experience 
that the hope which is in its origin doctrinal should be strengthened 
by the hardening and bracing of character which come from 
actual conflict. Still the ultimate basis of it is the overwhelming 
sense of God's love, brought home through the Death of Christ ; 
and to this the Apostle returns. 

6. od RaTGuoxuKci : * does not disappoint/ ' does not prove illusory.' 
The text Is. xxviii. i6 (LXX) caught the attention of the early 
Christians from the Messianic reference contained in it (' Behold, 
I lay in Zion,' &c.), and the assurance by which this was followed 
(* he that believeth shall not be put to shame ') was confirmed to 
them by their own experience : the verse is directly quoted Rom. 
iz. 33 q. v. ; i Pet. ii. 6. 

4l dydin) tow ecoC : certainly * the love of God for us,' not * our 
love for God ' (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns) : ayomy thus 
comes to mean, * our sense of God's love,' just as ilprivrj = * our 
sense of peace with God.' 

imKixvroi,, The idea of spiritual refreshment and encourage- 
ment is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of 
waUring. Sl Paul seems to have had in his mind Is. xliv. 3 
* I will pom* water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the 
dry ground : I will pimr My Spirit upon thy seed,' &c. 

liA Rrcvfiarot 'Ayiou : without the art., for the Spirit at imparUd. 


St Paul refers all his conscious experience of the pnvileges of 
Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the 
time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, L e. from 
his baptism. 

6. In ydp. There is here a difficult, but not really very im- 
portant, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus 
summarized : — 

tfn yap at the beginning of the verse with h% also after axrBwpSnf^ 
the mass of MSB. 

fri at the beginning of the verse only, some inferior MSS. 
(later stage of the Ecclesiastical text). 

•U Ti yap (possibly representing Xwa ri yap, ut quid emnC)^ the 
Western text (Latin authorities). 

tl yap few authorities, pardy lAtin. 

clyt B. 
It is not easy to select from these a reading which shall account 
for all the variants. That indeed which has the best authority, the 
double m, does not seem to be tenable, unless we suppose an 
accidental repetition of the word either by St. Paul or his amanuensis. 
It would not be difficult to get ?tc yap from Xva rl yap, or vice versa, 
through the doubling or dropping of in from the preceding w^ord 
HMiN ; nor would it be difficult to explain tfn yap from cZ yap, or 
vice versa. We might then work our way back to an alternative H 
yap or €1 y*, which might be confused with each other through the 
use of an abbreviation. Fuller details are given below. We think 
on the whole that it is not improbable that here, as in iv. i, B has 
preserved the original reading ti yr. For the meaning of ct y* (* so 
surely as ' Va.) see T. S. Evans in £xp, i88a, i. 176 f.; and the note 
on iiu 30 above. 

In more detail the evidence stands thns : ?ri y&p here with in also after 
dffOfvwv NACD* a/.: hi here only D«KKLP &c. ; fls ri yap D^KG: 
ut quid enim Lat-Vet Vulg., Iren.-lat Faustin: «l y6p 104 Greg, (-h 
Scriv.\ fold., Isid.-Pelui. KvL^.hU\ d y^p. . . In Boh. (*For if, we being still 
weak,' &C.) : tl 5^ Pesh. ; tl yt B. [The readings are wrongly given by Lips., 
and not quite correctly even by Gif., through overlooking the commas in Tisch. 
The statement which is at once follest and most exact will be found in WH.] 
It thus ap]3ears: (i) that the reading most strongly supported is In yap, 
with double In, which is impossible unless we suppose a lapsus calami 
between St. Paul and his amanuensis. (2) The Western reading is ctr ti 
ydp, which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original (va 
ri ydp (Gifl, from ut quid enim of Iren.-lat. &c.) : this it no doubt a very 
early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is H yap, (4) B alone gives 
cf 7c. So far as sense goes this is the best, and there are not a few cases in 
N. T. where the reading of B alone strongly commends itself (cf. iv. i above). 
But the problem is, how to account for the other readings? It would not be 
difficult palaeographically from H ydp to get In yap by dittography of 
I (cifAp, ciifAp, CTifAp), or from this again to get tit rl ydp through ditto- 
graphy of € and confusion with c (ecTirAp) ; or we might take the alternative 
ingeniously snggested by Gif., of supposing that the original reading was tm 



•I 7^^, of which (he firel 'wo Ictltn h«d beta ibiorlifd by the prvnoat tifut 
(MHiHiitiJ>iTir«p). Thetc would iboi be no creit ilifliciilty ic accoantiog foe 
tbe origio either of In -jif or of the group ol Weiteni readings; mil Ihe 
primitiT¥ Tmri«al> would be reduced to the two, ci r*p "od ei ft. Dt. Hon 
propoled lo account for these bT ■ conjectnra! ei ncp, which woald be ft con- 
eciTable root for *.11 the viiriktioni— parti; thiongn paiapbrue uid paitlj' 
through eiron of trinicription. We might however escape the neceiiit; ol 
raoriing to conjectDre by lappoibg confusion between r*- '^'^ 'he abbteVla- 
tiod A [For this form lec T. W. Allen, JVala en AUrevialiens in Grttk 
.VSS. lOiford, i88g), p. 9 uid pi. ili; Lehmann, Dit laihygrxtphiichtn Ab- 
ki-itmgm d. gruck. Hatuisehn/ltti (Leipiig, 1880), p. yi f. isf. 9, Wc 
tclieve that the oldest atont eiample ii in the Fragtatntum Malhctnatitum 
Bahitna ai the •eventh eenwry (Wattenbmch, Siript. Grate. Sfeiim. tab. 8), 
where tbe abbrCTiatian appean in a corrapt form. Bnt we know thai ihott- 
band wai itrj largely practiKd in tbe early cesturiei (cf. Eds. H. B. 
VL uiii 1), and il may have been used by Teittut hiinulf.] \\'here we 
have toch a tangled ikein to unravel a* thii it ii impossible to apeak very 
QODlidently ; but we (utpect that ■! 7<, M il makea tht bcu tense, may also 
be the original reading. 

tf r* 't' *) 



tti rip 

[Tn]. Ti rip iic Ti rip 

m fuid tnim 
Aotavr: 'incapable' of working out any righteousness Tor our- 

Ka-A ■oipjf. Si, Paul is strongly impres-ed with the fiincas of 
the moment in the world's history which Christ chose for His 
tnien'ention in it. This idea is a striking link of connexion between 
the (practically) acknowledged and the disputed Epistles ; compare 
OD the one hand Gal. iv. 4 ; j Cor. vi. a ; Rom. iii. a6 ; and on 
ihe other hand Eph. i 10 ; i Tim, il 6 ; vi. 15 ; Tit. i. 3. 

7. (irfXn ydp. The yAft explains how this dying for sinners is 

a conspicuous proof of love. A few may face death for a good 

nan, siill fewer for a righteous man, but in the case of Christ 

there is more even than this ; He died for declared enemies of God. 

For /ui>Jt the tiin hand of It a 

•tloiation in Luke ia. 39. Tbe tw 

aenie and in wricing 

imip 8»aiau. There is clearly in this passage a contrast between 
iimip buaim and vfifp roi aynSoi. They are not expressions which 
■najr be taken ai roughly synonymous (Mey,-W. IJps. ftc.). txit u 


is implied that it is an easier thing to die for the ayaB6t than for the 
ducoioc. Similarly the Gnostics drew a distinction between the 
God of the O. T. and the God of the N. T^ calling the one ^Utuos 
and the other dyaB6f (Iren. Adv, Haer, I. xxvii. i ; comp. other 
passages and authorities quoted by Gif p. 123). The dimuof keeps 
to the ' letter of his bond ' ; about the QyaB6i there is something 
warmer and more genial such as may well move to self-sacrifice 
and devotion. 

In face of the clear and obvious parallel supplied by Irenaeus, 
not to speak of others, it should not be argued as it is by Weiss 
and Lips, (who make roiJ aya^oO neut.) and even by Mey. and Dr. 
T. K. Abbott [Essays^ p. 75) that there is no substantial difference 
between hlKoxot and oyaBo^. We ourselves often use 'righteous' 
and * good ' as equivalent without effacing the distinction between 
them when there is any reason to emphasize it. The stumbling- 
block of the art. before oyaBov and not before diica/ov need not stand 
in the way. This is sufficiently explained by Gif., who points out 
that the clause beginning with ftdXcs is virtually negative, so that 
dixa/ov is indefinite and does not need the art., while the afi&rmative 
clause implies a definite instance which the art indicates. 

We go therefore with most English and American scholars 
(Stuart, Hodge, Gif. Va. Lid.) against some leading Continental 
names in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural 
sense of the passage. 

8. vM¥vaTt\fj\ : see on iii. 5. 

T^K jauTou dyiiiniK : * His cfwn love,* emphatic, prompted from 
within not from without. Observe that the death of Christ is here 
referred to the will of the Father, which lies behind the whole of 
what is commonly (and not wrongly) called the * scheme of re- 
demption.' Gif. excellently remarks that the * proof of God's love 
towards us drawn from the death of Christ is strong in proportion 
to the closeness of the union between God and Christ,* It is the 
death of One who is nothing less than * the Son.' 

tV <avTo€ dy^'^v <^* ^V-^'^ & ^<^* K A C K P &c. : 6 Beds eft ffias 

D £ F G L : om. <^ 6c<$r B. There is no substantial difference of meaning, 
at cir i^/ios in any case goes with awiarrjcif not with d^dvrjr, 

tvkp V^f&uK AWdaKc. St. Paul uses emphatic language, i Cor. 
zv. 1-3, to show that this doctrine was not confined to himself but 
was a common property of Christians. 

0. St. Paul here separates between * justification,' the pronouncing 
'not guilty' of sinners in the past and their final salvation from tli^ 
wrath to come. He also clearly connects the act of justification 
with the bloodshedding of Christ: he would have said with the 
author of Heb. iz. aa xapU alfiuTtKxyaias ov yuferai a(ft€<nsy see p. 9s 



No clearer passage can be quoted for distinguishing the spheres 
of justification and sanctification than this verse and the next — the 
one an objective £act accomplished without us, the other a change 
operated within us. Both, though in different ways, proceed from 

^i* oAtoG: explained by the next verse cV rj f«j avrov. That 
which saves the Christian from final judgement is his union with 
the living Christ 

10. KOTi|XXi&yT)fUF. The natural prima fade view is that the 
reconciliation is mutual ; and this view appears to verify itself on 
examination : see below. 

4r TQ (tvg adroC. For the full meaning of this see the notes on 
ch. vi. 8-1 1 ; viii. lo, ii. 

11. KovxiSfMrM (N B C D, &c.) is decisively attested for icavx<ofji€$a, 
which was doubtless due to an attempt to improve the construction. 
The part is loosely attached to what precedes, and must be taken 
as in sense equivalent to kovx^/m^ In any case it is present and 
not future (as if constructed with awBrjao^tOa). We may compare 
a similar loose attachment of ducoiov/^cMM in ch. iii. 24, 

The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement 

The «iraXXayi7 described in these verses is the same as the 9\pr\v^ 
of ver. I ; and the question necessarily meets us, What does this 
ccp^anf or nmiXXoy^ mean ? Is it a change in the attitude of man to 
God or in that of God to man ? Many high authorities contend 
that it is only a change in the attitude of man to God. 

Thus Lightfoot on Col. i. a i : * ix^pwt, " hosiiU to God," as the 
consequence of airi/XXorpcw/AcVovr not '* hateful to God," as it is taken 
by some. The active rather than the passive sense of tx^povs is 
required by the context, which (as commonly in the N. T.) speaks 
of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of God as reconciled to the 
sinner ... It is the mind of man, not the mind of God, which must 
undergo a change, that a reunion may be elTected.' 

Similarly Westcott on i Jo. ii. a (p. 85) : * Sucii phrases as *^ pro- 
pitiating God" and "God being reconciled" are foreign to the 
language of the N. T. Man is reconciled (2 Cor. v. 18 ff.; Rom. 
v. 10 f.). There is "propitiation" in the matter of sin or of the 
sinner. The love of God is the same throughout; but He 
••cannot" in virtue of His very nature welcome the impenitent 
and sinful: and more than this, He "cannot" treat sin as if it 
were not sin. This being so, the Ikaafios, when it is applied to the 
sinner, so to speak, neutralizes the sin.' [A difficult and it may be 
thought hardly tenable distinction. The relation of God to sin is 
not merely passive but active ; and the term iXatr/tos is properly 


used in reference to a personal agent. Some am is * propitiated ' : 
and who can this be, but God ?] 

The same idea is a characteristic feature in the theology of 
Ritschl {Recht, u. Vers. ii. 230 ff.). 

No doubt there are passages where ixBp6t denotes the hosdiitj 
and KoraKKayii the reconciliation of man to God ; but taking the 
language of Scripture as a whole, it does not seem that it can be 
explained in this way. 

(i) In the immediate context we have r^v auiraXXay^F ik^fuv^ 
implying that the reconciliation comes to man from the side of 
God, and is not directly due to any act of his own. We may 
compare the familiar x^^^ '^a^ *^Pi^t to which is usually added aik 
Btov in the greetings of the Epistles. 

(a) In Rom. xL a8 ix^poi is opposed to ayatniTolj where ayawt/ni 

must be passive (* beloved by God '), so that it is hardly possible 
that ixBpoi can be entirely active, though it may be partly so : it 
seems to correspond to our word ' hostile/ 

(3) It is difficult to dissociate such words as (Xaor^/Mov (Rom. iii. 
25), t^a(rix6t (i Jo. ii. 2) from the idea of propitiating a person. 

(4) There is frequent mention of the Anger of God as directed 
against sinners, not merely at the end of all things, but also at this 
present time (Rom. i. 18, &c.). When that Anger ceases to be 
so directed there is surely a change (or what we should be com- 
pelled to call a change) on the part of God as well as of man. 

We infer that the natural explanation of the passages which 
speak of enmity and reconciliation between God and man is that 
they are not on one side only, but are mutual 

At the same time we must be well aware that this is only our 
imperfect way of speaking : Kara avBpwnov Xryw must be written 
large over all such language. We are obliged to use anthropo- 
morphic expressions which imply a change of attitude or relation 
on the part of God as well as of man ; and yet in some way which 
we cannot wholly fathom we may believe that with Him there is 
' no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' 


V. 12-14. What a contrast does this last description 
suggest between the Fall of Adam and the justifying Work 
of Christ ! There is indeed parallelism as well as contrast 
For it is true thai as Christ brought righteousness and life^ 
so Adam^s Fall brought sin and death. If death prevailed 
throughout the pre- Mosaic period, tfiat could not be due solely 


to tkt act of those who died. Death is the punishment oj 
sin : hut they had not sinned against law as Adam had. 
The true cause then was not their own sin, but Adam's; 
whose fall thus had consequences extending beyond itself, likt 
the redeeming act of Christ. 

The description juat given of the Work of Christ, first justifying 
and reconciling the sinner, and then holding out to him the hope 
of final salvation, brings out forcibly the contrast between the 
two great Representatives of Humanity — Adam and Christ. The 
act by which Adam fell, like the act of Christ, had a far-reaching 

ffeci upon mankind. Through his Fall, Sin, as an active principle, 
first gained an entrance among the human race ; and Sin brought 

ith it the doom of (phj-sical) Death. So thai, through Adam's 
Fail, death pen-aded the whole body of his descendants, because 
ihey one and all fell into sin, and died as he bad died, " When 
] say 'they sinned' I must insert a word of qualification. In the 
Uiict sense of full responsibility, they could not sin: for that 
attaches only to sin against law, and they had as yet no law to 
rin against. "Yet ihey suffered the full penalty of sin. All 
through the long period which intervened between Adam and the 
Mosaic legislation, the tyrant Death held sway; even though 
those who died had not sinned, as Adam had, in violation of 
an express command. This proved that something deeper was 
U work : and that could only be the transmitted effect of Adam's 
It is this transmitted effect of a single act which made Adam 
a type of the coming Messiah. 

la. W T«uTo: points to the logical connexion with what pre- 
cedes. It has been argued, at somewhat disproportionate length, 
whether this refers to ver. 1 1 only (Fricke, Dt Slente dogmalica loci 
PoMtlini ad Rom. v. 13 sq., Lipaiae, 1680, Mey., Philippi, Beet), or 

». 9-1 1 {Fri.), or to w. i-ii (Rothe, Hofmann), or to the 
whole discussion &om i. 17 onwards (Beng., Schoti, Reiche, 
ROckert). We cannot lay down so precisely how much was 
consciously present to the mind of the Apostle. But as the lead- 
ing idea of the whole section is the comparison of the train of 
coKKqucDces flowing from the Fall of Adam wiih the train of 
consequences flowing from the Justifying Act of Christ, it seema 

tal to ioclude at least as much . .- .- • 

work, Ic. as faiaa w. t-it. 


That being so, we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. 1 1 Aat 
St Paul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one 
case with that of lift in the other. Fricke, however, is right in 
saying that his object is not to inquire into the origin of death 
or sin. The origin of both is assumed, not propounded as 
anything new. This is important for the understanding of the 
bearings of the passage. All turns on this, that the effects of 
Adam's Fall were transmitted to his descendants; but St. Paul 
nowhere says hew they were transmitted ; nor does he even define 
in precise terms what is transmitted. He seems, however, to mean 
(i) the liability to sin, (a) the liability to die as the punishment 
of sin. 

«S<nrep. The structure of the paragraph introduced by this 
word (to the end of ver. 14) is broken in a manner very character- 
istic of St. Paul. He begins the sentence as if he intended it to 

run : &<mtp dt* tv^ avdpumov ff AfxapTia cZff t6p K6afunf tlofjXBtf xoi dti 
TTJt ityMprlat 6 Bavoros • • • ovr«» kcX hi iv6t dvOpmmv ^ ducaiocrvi^ 
flcr^X^, Ka\ dt^ TTjs litKCUoavvrjt ff (toff. But the WOrds hth Tfjt AfUMp' 

rias 6 Bdvarot bring Up the subject which St. Paul is intending to 
raise, viz. the connexion of sin and death with the Fall of Adam : 
he goes off upon this, and when he has discussed it sufficiently 
for his purpose, he does not return to the form of sentence 
which he had originally planned, but he attaches the clause 
comparing Christ to Adam by a relative (or ccrri rvnot tw ikSKkoms) 
to the end of his digression : and so what should have been the 
main apodosis of the whole paragraph becomes merely sub- 
ordinate. It is a want of finish in style due to eagerness and 
intensity of thought ; but the meaning is quite clear. Compare 
the construction of ii. 16; iii. 8, 26. 

i| dfAapTia: Sin, as so often, is personified: it is a malignant 
force let loose among mankind : see the fuller note at the end of 
the chapter. 

els T^y K^o-|jioK eurfjXOe : a phrase which, though it reminds us 
specially of St. John (John i. 9, 10; iii. 17, 19; vi. 14; ix. 5, 
39; 3t. 36, &c.), is not peculiar to him (cf. 1 Tim, i. 15; Heb. 
X. 5). St John and the author of Heb. apply it to the personal 
incarnation of the Logos; here it is applied to the impersonal 
self-diffusion of evil. 

6 ddmros. Some have taken this to mean 'eternal death,' 
chiefly on the ground of w. 17, 21, where it seems to be opposed 
to ' eternal life.' Oltr. is the most strenuous supporter of this 
view. But it is far simpler and better to take it of 'physical 
death' : because (i) this is clearly the sense of ver. 14; (a) it is 
the sense of Gen. ii. 17; iii. 19; to which St Paul is evidently 
alluding. It seems probable that even in w. 17, 21, the idea 
is in the first instance physical But St Paul does not draw the 

V. 19.] ADAM AND CHRIST 1 33 

marked distinction that we do between this life and the life to 
come. The mention of death in any sense is enough to suggest 
the contrast of life in all its senses. The Apostle's argument 
is that the gift of life and the benefits wrought by Christ are 
altogether wider in their range than the penalty of Adam's sin; 
Mrrpcirfp/vafMrcF ^ x^P^ ^ ^^^ keynote of the passage. It is not 
necessary that the two sides of the antithesis should exactly cor- 
respond. In each particular the scale weighs heavily in favour 
of the Christian. 

The Western text (DEFG, &c.) omits this word altogether. Aug. 
makes the subject of the vb. not death but sin : he makes it a charge against 
the Pelagians that they onderstood in the second place A Sdvaros, 

SiiiX6cr: contains the force of distribution; 'made its way to 
each individual member of the race': KaBawtp rit xXfipos narphs 
dtaffat €w\ rovf iyydvcvt (' like a fathei^s inheritance divided among 
his children'), Euthym.-Zig. 

k^ ^. Though this expression has been much fought over, 
there can now be little doubt that the true rendering is ' because.' 
(i) Orig. followed by the Latin commentators Aug. and Ambrstr. 
took the rel. as masc. with antecedent 'Ada/i : ' in whom/ i. e. ' in 
Adam.' But in that case (i) M would not be the right preposi- 
tion; (ii) f would be too far removed from its antecedent, 
(a) Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc. 
with antecedent Ba^arot : ' in which,' i. e. 'in death,' which is 
even more impossible. (3) Some modems, taking f as neut. and 
d)e whole phrase as equivalent to a conjunction, have tried to 
get out of it other meanings than 'because.' So (i) 'in like 
manner as' ('all died, /us/ as all sinned'), Rothe, De Wette; 
(ii) (= r(^' itrop) ' in proportion as,' ' in so far as ' (' all died, in so 
far as aU sinned'), Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But 
the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) f is rightly 
taken as neut., and the phrase c<^' ^ as conj.=' because' ('for 
that' AV. and RV.) by Theodrt. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass 
of modem commentators. This is in agreement with Greek 
usage and is alone satisfactory. 

l^' f In classical writers more often means 'on condition that*: et 
Thnc. L 113 awovSas voirjadfKuoi h<p* f rovt &vbpas icofuovvrai, 'on con- 
dition of getting back their prisoners,' Sec. The plural i<p* oft it more 
oommon, as in um0^ Siv, i( iv, 81' Sti/. In N. T. the phrase occurs three 
times, always as it woold Ktm^propterea quod, 'because* : cf. a Cor. ▼. 4 
€ra^(onf9 fiapov/ifvof lip' f oi OiKofuv Mv<t<ut6<u «.r.X. ; Phil. iii. IS 
i^' ^ Koi ttartkifipOfjv irrd X. 1. (where 'seeing that* or 'because* appean 
to be the more probable rendering). So Phavorinus (d. 1537; a lexico- 
grapher of the Renaissance period, who incorporated the contents of older 
works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) i<p* f drrl rov 9t6rt 
kiycvcip 'ArrtMoi, otop kf' f r^y Mkovi^v tlpydam ('because you com 
mittcd the theft*) «.rJL 


Ht* f irdrrcs ^fiapTor. Here lies the crux of this difficult pas- 
sage. In ^hat sense did * all sin'? (i) Many, including even 
Meyer, though explaining c^' f as neut rather than masc, yet 
g^ve to the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equivalent 
to that which it has if the antecedent of 4 ^^ *^^t^ Bengel has 
given this classical expression: omnes peccamnt^ Adamo peccanU^ 
* all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam/ his sin involved theirs. 
The objection is that the words supplied are far too important 
to be left to be understood. If St Paul had meant this, why did 
he not say so? The insertion of cV *Ada/i would have removed 
all ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part 
supply nothing, but take rjfxapTov in its usual sense: 'all sinned 
in dieir own persons, and on their own initiative.' So Euthym.- 

Zig. : bi6fn wdm-tt tjftafyrop dKoXo%f3ri<rams r^ wpotraropi Kara yr t6 

dfutfmjirtu. The objection to this is that it destroys the parallelism 
between Adam and Christ: besides, St. Paul goes on to show 
in the same breath that they could not sin in the same way that 
Adam did. Sin implies law ; but Adam's descendants had no law. 
(3) It is possible however to take fffiaprop in its ordinary sense 
without severing the connexion between Adam and his posterity. 
If they sinned, their sin was due in part to tendencies inherited 
^m Adam. So practically Stuart, Fricke, Weiss, &c. There 
still remains the difficulty as to the connexion of this clause with 
what follows : see the next note. 

It it A further argument in fiiTonr of the view taken abore that a raj 
similar sequence of thought is found in 4 Ezra. Immediately after laying 
down that the sin of Adam's descendants is due to that maligmias radicis 
which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in full 
below), the writer goes on to describe this sin as a repetition of Adam's due 
to the fact that they too had within them the cor maliptum as he had : Ei 
diltquerunt qui hctbitabant civitatem^ in omnibus fcuienUs sicut fecit Adam 
tt omnes gencraiionts eius, utebantur enim et ipst corde maiigno (4 Ezra iii. 
35 f.). Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from W/m*. 
Baruch, which lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin and on the 
freedom of choice in those who give way to it : see the fuller note below. 

18. clxp^ Y^P ^^^ K.T.X. At first sight this seems to give a 
reason for just the opposite of what is wanted : it seems to prove 
not that froyrcr 17/xaproir, but that however much men might sin 
they had not at least the full guilt of sin. This is really what 
St. Paul aims at proving. There is an under-current all through 
the passage, showing how there was something else at work 
besides the p^uilt of individuals. That ' something ' is the effect 
of Adam's Fall. The Fall gave the predisposition to sin; and 
the Fall linked together sin and death. 

St. Paul would not say that the absence of written law did 
away with all responsibility. He has already laid down most 
distinctly that Gentiles, though without such written law, have 



law enough lo be Judged by (ii. i»-i6); and Jews before the 
tinae of Moses were only in the posiiion of Geniiles. But the 
degree of their guilt could not be the same either is that of 
Adam, or as that of the Jews after the Mosaic legislation. 
Perhaps it might be regarded as an open question whether, apart 
from Adam, prc-Mosaic sina would have been punishable with 
death. What St. Paul wishes to bring out is that prior to the 
giving of the Law, the fate of mankind, to an extent and in a way 
which he does not define, was directly traceable to Adam's Fall. 

dfiopria ii oSk iXXoY'LTaL n.t.X. The thought is one which 
had evidently taken strong hold on St. Paul: see on iv. 15, and 
the parallels there quoted. 

AXoYctrat : ' brought into account ' (Gif.), as of an entry made 
in a ledger. The word also occurs in Philem. 18, where see 
Lightfoot s note. 

■a.)(f BCDEFGKLP, Sec. iKkoySrtu tf: 

K J] loS J imfiulaia/ur Vaig. ta/J. Aiobnti. eL 
be ■ tiniit«ken) correction dae to the Cooltxt. 
. . e fonn ol the verb: l^iya U decisively ■tteileti in Philem. 18 : 
tnu tl would not follow lh>t the wine (omt wu Died here wbere St, Paul 
b emptOTing & diffeienl umanaenni : however, u the tendency of [he UsS. 
is iBtlier to oblilente vemicDltr forms tbui to iBlrodiicc tbem, there u 
perh>H ■ ilighl balance of probability in favoot of JAAirydrai : see WeScotI 
and Hoit, Aela m Ortkogtophj in Appeodii to /ntrtd. p. 166 Ct. 

14. JpwrAtuinv h Od^arot. St. Paul appeals to the universal 
prevalence of death, which is personified, as sin had been just 
before, under the figure of a grim tyrant, in proof of the mis- 
chief wrought by Adam's Fail. Nothing but the Fall could 
account for that universal prevalence. Sin and death had their 
bcginniDgs together, and they were propagated side by side. 

On the cenainty and QDlvcnality of Dcntb, regaided » ■ penalty, comp, 
Seneca, Nal. Qtiattt. ii. ;q Etdttn Hiiui lariiiiavt vtttiindum tit . . In 
tmma tumililulKm at capitaU supplitium tt quidim ttnilitiUioiu iuttitiima. 
mam ^md nagtmrn leUl tisi inialium isrtrtiHa faimrii, fucrum laiieiK 
tmmim tl tart tadtm itt. Similarly ^bili ipcaks of ti* mfupua mpiy 4^wv, 
ti ti/ia IDi GifOMl. 3 ; ed. Mang. L i6^), Llsewhere he goes s «tep further 
•nd mtrti tn nrrl Y'"")'^' ' - - n^i^if rd ■tjuipTdi'dr, For parallels in 
4 Eoa and At$t. Samck. see below. 

Miwii |i^ ApoprfjiravTM. AQUmberofautboriliei, mostly Latin Fathers, 
bat iodndlDg also Ihe impoitaal margin of Cod. 67 with three other cursives, 
the Gnt hand of d, and the Cicek of Oiig- at least once, omit the negative, 
BUkiog tbe teiga of death extend only over those nbo bad sinned after the 
Ulienai of Adam. So Orig.-lal. (Rufinni) repeatedly and eipieuly, Latin 
MSS. known lo Aug., tbe 'older Latin MSS.' according to Ambnti. and 
Sedolina- Tbe comment of Ambrstr, la inleresling ai ihoHing a certain grasp 
of critical principlu, though it was difficult for any one in thote dap to have 
tuf^deril command of M^. to kuou the real state of the evidence. AmListt. 
prelen in this caie tbe evidence of the Latin MSS., becauiie th'^e with which 
be Ii acquainted are older than the Greek, and reprcienl, as Ike thinki, an 
oldci form «f teat. He claims thai this form has the support of TeirulUan, 


Cyprian and Victorinos — a statement which we are not at pretent able to 
rerify. He acconats for the Greek reading by the nsnal theory of heretical 
oormption. There is a similar question of the insertion or omission of a 
negative in Rom. iv. 19 (q.v.\ Gal. ii 5. In two out of the three cases the 
Western text omits the negative, bat in ch. iv. 19 it inserts it. 

Tvirof (twTcw): (i) the 'impression' left by a sharp blow (r^ nhm 
Tutv ffXttJT John XX. 35). in particular the 'stamp' stmck by a die; (a) 
inasmuch as such a stamp bears the figure on the face of the die, ' copy, 
* figure/ or * representation '; (3) by a common transition fiY>m effect to casse, 
' mould/ 'pattern/ 'exemplar'; (4) hence in the special sense of the word 
type, which we have adopted from the Greek of the N. T., * an event or 
person in historv corresponding in certain characteristic features to another 
event or person. That which comes first in order of time is properly the 
type, that which comes afterwards the antitype {drrirvwot i ret. iii. ai). 
These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation : see 
esp. Cheyne, /satoA, ii. 170 fif. (Essay III, ' On the Christian Element in the 
Book of Isaiah '). 

ToC f&AXoKTos. (i) The entirely personal nature of the whole 
comparison prevents us from taking roO ^'XX. as neut = ' that 
which was to come' (Beng., Oltramare). If St Paul had 
intended this, he would have written rod /wXXoiror al&vog, (2) 
Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the 
Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as 6 dtvrwpot or 6 t[irxarot 
*Addfi (i Cor. XV. 45, 47). If St. Paul had intended this, he 
would have written rov /xcXXowor 'A^a/*. (3) The context makes 
it clear enough who is intended The first representative of 
the human race as such prefigured its second Great Repre- 
sentative, whose coming lay in the future : this is sufficiendy 
brought out by the expression *of Him who was to be.* i 
lUXkwp thus approximates in meaning to 6 ipx6ii9vtn (Matt xi. 
3; Luke vii. 19; Heb. x. 37), which however appears not to 
have been, as it is sometimes regarded, a standing designation 
for the Messiah *. In any case rov fitWoimot = * Him who was to 
come' when Adam fell, not 'who is (still) to come* (Fri. Dc W.). 

TAe Effects of Adam's Fall in Jewish Theology. 

Three points come out clearly in these verses: (i) the Fall of 
Adam brought death not only to Adam himself but to his 
descendants; (2) the Fall of Adam also brought sin and the 
tendency to sin ; (3) and yet in spite of this the individual does 
not lose his responsibility. All three propositions receive some 
partial illustraiion from Jewish sources, though the Talmud does 

• * The designation *' The Coming One ** {I/abbd), thongh a most trnthfnl 
expression of Jewish expectancy, was not one ordinarily nsed of the Messialt' 
Edersheim, L,^T,L p. 068. 

V. 11-14.] ADAM AND CHRIST 137 

not seem to have had any consistent doctrine on the subject 
Dr. Edersheim says expressly : ' So far as their opinions can be 
gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original Sin and 
of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient 
Rabbis' {.Ldfe and Tmes, Ac i. 165). Still there are approxima- 
tions, especially in the writings on which we have drawn so freely 
already, the Fourth Book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Banich. 

(i) The evidence is strongest as to the connexion between Adam's sb and 
the introdnction of death. * There were/ says Dr. Edersheim, ' two divergent 
opinions — the one ascribing death to personal, the other to Adam's gnilt ' 
{tf. cit, L 166). It is however allowed that the latter view greatly pre- 
ponderated. Traces of it are found as far back as the Sapiential Books: 
e.g. Wisd. ii 33 f. <i ecOt iicnaw rbr SyBpuvw iv &(pBapaiq. . . . <p06v^ t^ 
duifi6Xo» $6yaTot daij\$tv tls rdv Mdofiop, where we note the occurrence of 
St. Paul's phrase; Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] 8i* ainifr (sc. t^ ywaiKa) dvoBvri' 
WMOfuy vi&rrff. The doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Esra and 
j4^. Banuk, : 4 Ezr. iii. 7 it huit (sc Adamo) mandasti diligert viam 
ttiam, it fraeterivit earn; $t staiim instituisti in eum niortem it in 
nationibus {^ generationibus) eius: Apoc. Baruch, xvii. 3 (Adam) mortem 
mttuJit it abscidit annas eorum qui ab m geniti fuerunt : ibid, xxiii. 4 
Quando pcccavit Adam et duretafuit mors contra eos qui gigmrtntur, 

(a) We are warned (by Dr. Edersheim in Sp. Comm. Apocr. ad loc.) not 
to identify the statement of Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] dv^ ywcuK^s &px^ ifta/nias 
with the N. T. doctrine of Original Sin : still it points in that direction ; we 
have just seen that the writer deduces from Eve the death of all mankind, 
ftod in like manner he also seems to deduce from her {dvd yvr.) the initium 
pucandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra iii. 2 1 f. Cor tnim malignum baiulans 
primus Adam transgressus it virtus est, sed it omnes qui de eo nati sunt : 
it facta ist pirmamns infirmitas, et Ux cum corde populi^ cum malipiitati 
radicis ; it discessit quod bonum est, it mansit malignum : ibid, iv. 30 
Quonicun granum siminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio, et 
quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc, et generat usque dum veniat area : 
ibid. vii. 4*? (i 18 } O /w qtiidfecistt Adam ? St enim tu peccasti, non est /actus 
sotims tuus casus f sed et nostrum qui ix te advenimus. 

(3) And yet alon^ with all this we have the explicit assertion of responsi- 
bility on the part of all who sin. This appears in the passage qnoted above 
on ver. la {ad Jin.), To the same eflect are 4 Ezr. viii. 59!. Non enim 
Altissimus volutt komimm disperdi, sid ipsi qui cnati sunt coinquinavirunt 
nomen iius qui fecit ios : ibid. ix. 1 1 qui fcutidierunt legem meam cum cuihue 
iroMt kabentis libertatem. lint the classical passage is Apoc. Baruch. 
li^* 15* 19 S* inim Adam prior peccavit, it attulit mortem super omnes 
immaturam ; sid itiam illi qui iX a nati sunt, unusquisqui ix eis praepa- 
rtnrit animoi suae tormentum futurum: it iterum unusouisqui ix iis 
iligit sibi gloriam futuram . . . Non est ergo Adam causa, ntsi animoi suat 
tmntum ; nos Viro unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam. 

The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the 
Talmod. The latter is thus summarized by Weber {Aitsyn, Theoi. p. ai6^ : 
*By the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right 
relation to God is rendered difficult More Sian this cannot be said. Sin, 
to which the bent and leaning had already been planted in man by creation, 
bad become a fact ; the *' evil impulse " ( =^ cor malignum) gained the mastery 
crtvt mankind, who can only resist it by the greatest efforts ; before the Fall 
k had had power over him, but no such ascendancy ( Uebermcuht)* Hence 
when the same writer says a little farther on that according to the Rabbis 
' there it snch a thing as transmission of piilt* but not such a thing as traii»- 


m{«ion of tin (Es gibt iitu ErhckuU, aber Mm Erhsunde)! the negAdre 
propotitioo is due chiefly to the cleamen with which the Rabbis (like Ap^e. 
Bmnuh,) insist upon free-will and direct indiTidoal responsibility. 

It seems to us a mistake to place the teaching of St. Paul in too 
marked opposition to this. There is no fundamental inconsistency 
between his views and those of his contemporaries. He does not 
indeed either affirm or deny the existence of the cw maUgnum 
before the Fall, nor does he use such explicit language as nos 
vera unusqutsque fuit animae suae Adam : on the other hand he 
does define more exacdy than the Rabbis the nature of human 
responsibility both under the Law (ch. vii. yff.) and without it 
(ii. ia-15). But here, as elsewhere in dealing with this mysterious 
subject (see p. 267 below), he practically contents himself with 
leaving the two complementary truths side by side. Man inherits 
his nature ; and yet he must not be allowed to shift responsibility 
from himself: there is that within him by virtue of which he is free 
to choose ; and on that freedom of choice he must stand or faXL 


V. 15-21. So far the parallelism: but note also the 
contrast. How superior the Work of Christ! (i) How 
different in quality: the one act all sin, the other act all 
bounty or grace! (ver. 15). (2) How different in quantity, 
or mode of working : one act tainting t/ie whole race with 
sin, and a multitude of sins collected toge titer in one only to 
be forgiven ! (ver. 16). (3) How different and surpassing in 
its whole cliaracter and consequences : a reign of Death and 
a reign of Life! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adams Fall 
brought sin : Law increased it: but the Work of Grace lias 
cancelled, and more tlian cancelled, t/ie effect of Law (w. 

"In both cases there is a transmission of effects: but there 
the resemblance ends. In all else the false step (or Fall, as we 
call it) of Adam and the free gift of God's bounty are most unlike. 
The fall of that one representative man entailed death upon the 
many members of the race to which he belonged. Can we then 
be surprised if an act of such different quality — the free unearned 
favour of God, and the gift of righteousness bestowed through 

T. 18-«Ll 



the kindness of that other Representative Man, JesDs Messiah 
— should have not onlj- cancelled the effect of the Fall, but 
also brought further blessings to the whole race t "There is 
t second difference between this boon bestowed through Christ 
aad ihe iJl effects of one man's sinning. The sentence pro- 
nounced Dpon Adam took its rise in the act of a single man. and 
bad for its result a sweeping verdict of condemnation. But the 
gift tKStowed by God inverts this procedure. It took its rise in 
many faults, and it had for its result a verdict declaring sinners 
righteous. "Vet once more. Through the single fault of the one 
man Adam the tyrant Death began its reign through that one 
sole agency. Much more then shall the Christian recipients of 
that overflowing kindness and of the inesiiraable gift of righteous- 
ness — much more shall they also reign, not in death but in life, 
through the sole agency of Jesus Messiah. 

" To sum Dp. On one side we have the cause, a single Fall ; 
and the effect, extending to all men, condemnation. On the other 
side we have as cause, a single absolving act ; and as effect, also 
eiteoding to all, a like process of absolution, carrying with it life. 
"For as through the disobedience of the one man Adam all 
mankind were placed in the cUss and condition of ' sinners,' so 
through the obedience (shown in His Death upon the Cross) of the 
one man, Christ, the whole multitude of believers shall be placed 
in the class and condition of ' righteous.' *° Then Law came in, 
as a son of 'afterthought,' a secondary and subordinate stage, 
in the Divme plan, causing the indefinite multiplication of sins 
which, like the lapse or fall of Adam, were breaches of express 
command. Multiplied indeed they were, but only with the result 
of calling forth a still more abundant stream of pardoning grace. 
" Hitherto Sin has sat enthroned in a kingdom of the dead ; 
its subjects have been sunk in mora! and spiritual death. But this 
has been permitted only in order that the Grace or Goodwill of 
God might also set up its throne over a people fitted for its sway 
by lite gift of righteousness, and therefore destined not for death 
but for eternal Ufe^thiough the mediation of Jesus Messiah, our 

IS. wap^DTWfM: lit *a slip or fall sideways,' 'a false step,' 
' t lapse ' : hence meuph. in a sense not very diBSimilar to Vyrw 

I40 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [▼. 15, 16. 

(which b prop, 'missing a mark'). It is however appropriate 
Uiat frap6wT. should be used for a 'fall' or first deflection from 
uprightness, just as ofMfn-, is used of the failure of efforts towards 
recovery. On the word see Trench, Syn, p. 237 fc 

ToG M% : ' fhe one man,' f . i. Adam. 

oi voXXoi : ' the many,' practically = wcofrag ver. 12 ; ndprtn Mp^ 
wws in ver. 18, 'all mankind.' It is very misleading to translate 
as A v., ignoring the article, if ' through the offence of one, mofiy 
be dead, by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' 
Redemption like the Fall proceeds not from any chance member of 
the human race, and its effects extend not only to ' many ' but to 
' all ' — to ' all,' that is potentially, if they embrace the redemption 
which is offered them. 

See Bentley, quoted by Lft Om Rmsion, p. 97, 'By this accnrate ▼enioD 
some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute reprobatioD 
had been happily prevented. Our English readers had then teen, what 
several of the Fathers saw and testified, Siat o2 iroAAo^ thi moHy, In an anti- 
thesis to tAe cfUf are equivalent to vdvTCf, aH, in ver. la, and comprehend the 
whole multitude, the entire species •f mankind, exclusive only otike t 

iroXX^ fidXXoK. What we know of the character of God as dis« 
played in Christ makes us more certain of the good result than of 
the evil. 

if| Supcd is more fully defined below (ver. 17) as 4 ^»pf^ rtft 
diKoioavvTjs : the gift is the condition of righteousness into which 
the sinner enters, ^ptd^ * boon,' like d»pov contrasted with d(^ 
is reserved for the highest and best gifts ; so Philo, Leg, Aileg, iiL 

70 ifi(l>aai¥ fAfytdovs rfXctoiv ayaBw hrjkovfriv (LiL JReV* p. 77) > COmp. 

also the ascending scale of expression in Jas. i. 17. 

iv x<^piTi goes closely with ^ doo^a. In classical Greek we should 
have iiad the art. ii iv x^p^rt, but in Hellenistic Greek a qualifying 
phrase is attached to a subst. without repetition of the art. Mey. 
however and some others (including Lid.) separate h x^""^ from 4 
dwptd and connect it with tn-fpio-acvov. 

X<i/Hf is more often applied to God the Father, and b exhibited in the 
whole scheme of salvation. As applied to Christ it is (i) that active favour 
towards mankind which moved Him to intervene for their salvation (cf. esp. 
a Cor. viii. 9) ; (a) the same active favour shown to the individual by the 
Father and the Son conjoinily ^Rom. i. 7 q. v.). 

16. The absence of verbs is another mark of compressed anti- 
thetic style. With the first clause we may supply cWi, with the 
second cycVcro : ' And not as through one man's sinning, so is the 
boon. For the judgement sprang from one to condemnation, but 
the free gift sprang from many trespasses (and ended in) a declara- 
tion of righteousness.' In the one case there b expansion out- 
wards, from one to many : in the other case there is contraction 



T. ie-18.] 

inwards ; the movement originates with many sins niiich are all 
embraced in a single sentence of absolution, 

Suaiu|ut : usually the decision, decree, or ordinance by which 
a thing is deciarerl tUmor (that uhich gives a thing the force of 
'right'); here the decision or sentence by which persons are 
declared SUaai, The sense is determined liy the antithesis lo lord- 
(fHfut, iatalaiiiB bears to iuaiaoit the relation of an act completed 
to an act in process (see p. 31 tup.). 

17. noXXi fiaXXor. Here the a /orliori arRumenl lies in the 
nature of the two contrasted forces : God's grace must be more 
powerful in its working than man's sin. 

tf)r v(puro«iar . , , rfis Soipco^ t^s Siii<moi™'it|5 Xajipdvon-fs. Ei'ery 
term here points to thnl gift of righteousness here described as 
something objeciive and external 10 the man himseir, not wrought 
within him but coming to him, imputed not infused. It has its 
source in the overflow of God's free favour ; it is a gift which man 
Tttma: see pp. as, 30 f., 36 above. 

paaiXfuavtwi. The meiajihor is present to Sl Paul's mind ; 
and having used it just before of the prevalence of Death, he 
naturally recurs to it in the sense more familiar to a Chrit^tian of 
his share in the Messianic blessings, of which the foremost was 
a heightened and glorified vitality, that ' eternal life ' which is his 
already in germ. 

M toi i»4( "iTjoiHi Xpt<rroii. The dui here covers the whole media- 
tion of the Son in reference to man : it ia through His Death that the 
sinoer on embracing Christianity enters upon the state of righteous- 
ness, and through the union with Him which follows that his whole 
being is vitalized and transfigured through time into eternity. 

18. This and the three following verses, introduced by the 
strongly illative particles apa oEv, sum up the results of the whole 
comparison between Adam and Christ : the resemblance is set 
forth in w. 18, 19; the difference and vast preponderance of the 
scale of blessing in w. zo, ai. 

Again we have a condensed anliihesis — the great salient strokes 
confronting each other witliout formal construction ; origin, extent, 
issue, alike parallel and alike opposed. 'As then, through one lapse, 
to all men, tmio condemnation — so also, through one justifying act, 
to all men, unto justification of life.' There are two difficulties, 
the interpretation of &' ivirt SuawftnTiii and of iuiiuiirir fu^t. 

V Irii SiaaiufiaTo;. Does Aiiiuu/ki here mean the same thing 
as in ver. 16 P If so. it is the sentence by wbi<.h God declares 
men righteous on account of Christ's Death. Or is it the merit 
of that Death itself, the ' righteous act,' or drarov, of Christ ? A 
number of scholars (Holsten, Va. Lips. Lid) argue that it must 
be the latter in order to correspond with dt' (>^ nafKHrrs^ioi. So 

too Euihym.-Zig. V itit tumiiuiras Tov X. r^* Sxpar iuuutiirirtii 


iTffrXiyptNRfrof. But it seems better, with Mey. Gi£ and others, to 
give the same sense to diKaU/M as in ver. i6. We saw that there 
the sense was fixed by KoraKpifxa, which is repeated in the present 
verse. On the other hand it is doubtful whether hucal^iuL can quite 
ss' a righteous act' God's sentence and the act of Christ are so 
inseparable that the one may be used in the antithesis as naturally 
as the other. 

It is best also to follow the natural construction of the Greek 
and make Mc neut in agreement with hixankfu (Mey.-W. Va. 
Gif.) rather than masc. (Lips.). 

SiKOittair ms. ' Life ' is both the immediate and ultimate result 
of that state of things into which the Christian enters when he is 
declared ' righteous ' or receives his sentence of absolution. 

19. Sid tt)s irapaKoijf . . . Sid riis Avcucoiif. It is natural that 
this aspect of the Fall as irapaxo^ should be made prominent in 
a context which lays stress on the effect of law or express conunand 
in enhancing the heinousness of sin. It is natund also that in 
antithesis to this there should be singled out in the Death of 
Christ its special aspect as vinuco^ : cf. Heb. v. 8, 9 ; Matt xxvi. 
39 ; Phil. ii. 8. On the word iropoxoi^ (' a failing to hear/ moirid, 
and thence inobeduntia) see Trench, Syn, p. 234. 

KaTCorddriaar . . . KaraaraOi^aoKTai: ' were constituted ' • . . ' shall 
be constituted.' But in what sense 'constituted'? The Greek 
word has the same ambiguity as the English. If we define further, 
the definition must come from the context Here the context is 
sufficiently clear: it covers on the one hand the whole result of 
Adam's Fall for his descendants prior to and independently of their 
own deliberate act of sin; and it covers on the other hand the 
whole result of the redeeming act of Christ so far as that too is 
accomplished objectively and apart from active concurrence on the 
part of the Christian. The fut KaTaaraOfjfTovTM has reference not to 
the Last Judgement but to future generations of Christians ; to all 
in fact who reap the benefit of the Cross. 

When St. Paul wrote in Gal. ii. 15 i/uts ^v<rci IovSoTm, gal obx k£ kBvvif 
AfiopTwKoi, he implied (speaking for the moment from the stand-point of hit 
countrymen) that Gentiles would be regarded as <p6ff*i AftaprwXoli they 
belonged ' to the class ' of tinners ; just as we might speaJc of a child as 
belonging to the * criminal class ' before it had done anything by its own act 
to justify its place in that class. The meaning of the text is veiy similar: 
so far as it relates to the effects of the Fall of Adam it must be interpreted 
by w. ia-14 ; and so far as it relates to the effects of the Death of Chriit 
it is parallel to w. i, a 9iKaioj$(VT(s oZv [lir viorcav] ^pifpnp^ ^X^f^*^ (con- 
tained in €xo)ii*v) nphs rbv Bfdy 8id rov KvfHov ^fjJjjy 1. X., St* ol tcai r^ 
vpoaaywyilv kaxrjfcayitv tit rijy x^f^^ ^^ d k(rrqicap,w. For the use of moBir 
craa6cu there is a good parallel in Xen. A/em. ii. I. 9 '£70; oZv rovt ft^ 
fiovKofiivovt vokkcL wpdyfJiaTa cx<**' • • • <<*f fovs dpxufovt icaTaar^ffatfJH, where 
vnraer. = tit roxn dpxiKOvt T&rrofuw (xn/.) and €/iavr^ rdrrm tU ro^ 
Hov\ofUvout iimf.). 


80. vofMuriiXOcr : ' come in to the side of a state of things already 
existing/ St. Paul regarded Law as a ' parenthesis ' in the Divine 
plan : it did not begin until Moses, and it ended with Christ 
(cp. iv. i^i6 ; z. 4). Here however he has in view only its late 
beginning: it is a sort of ' after-thought ' (see the Paraphrase). 

' Why did he not say the Law was given, bat ths Law entered by tke way t 
It was to show that the need of it was temporary and not absolute or 
claiming preoedenoe' (vpSaieaipoy aitrov 9tueybf ri^y XP*^ oSaoy, mU ob 
t9 p iap Mi wpotiyovfUmp^) Chrys. 

Ira vXcoKda||. For the force of t»a comp. tU r^ thai avrovs ivano^ 

XoyffTovt L ao : the multiplication of transgression is not the first 
and direct object of law, but its second and contingent object : law 
only multiplies trangression because it is broken and so converts 
into deliberate sin acts which would not have had that character if 
they had not been so expressly forbidden. 

Td 8) iwa Irrovtfa oitm airioXoyiat w6kip dAA' ixfidatdn iffriw. Ol yip M 
rovro iMn Iwa w\toydajf, dXk* iMij filw &<TTt iiuStaai leai doftKuv rb wap6r 
wrw/Aor iiififf ^ TfAfPOjrriop, ov vapA t^w tov voftov <pv(ri¥, d\Xd vapd r^ rw 
U^afUpwtf fiaBvftlav (Chryi.) : a note which shows that the ancients were quite 
aware of the ecbatic sense of ti'a (see on xL 11). 

vV<ovd[o||, as Va. remarks, might be transitive, but is more 
probably intransitive, because of in\«6vatr€v ^ afxafyr. which follows. 

T& wapdwrm^ : seems expressly chosen in order to remind us 
that all sins done in defiance of a definite command are as such 
repetitions of the sin of Adam. 

21. iw Tff Owd-nf, Sin reigns, as it were, over a charnel-house ; 
the subjects of its empire are men as good as dead, dead in every 
sense of the word, dead morally and spiritually, and therefore 
doomed to die physically (see on vi. 8 below). 

SiA SuiaioaJnfis. The reign of grace or Divine favour is made 
possiUe by the gift of righteousness which the Christian owes to 
the mediation of Christ, and which opens up for him the prospect 
of eternal life. 

Si. PauTs Conception of Sin and of the FalL 

St Paul uses Greek words, and some of those which he uses 
cannot be said to have essentially a different meaning from that 
which attached to them on their native soil ; and yet the different 
relations in which they are placed and the different associations 
which gather round them, convey what is substantially a different 
idea to the mind. 

The word dtiopria with its cognates is a case in point. The 
corresponding term in Hebrew has much the same original sense 


of * missing a mark/ Both words are used ^-ith a higher and a 
lower meaning; and in both the higher meaning belongs to the 
sphere of religion. So that the difference between them is not in 
the words themselves but in the spirit of the religions with which 
they are connected. 

This appears upon the face of it from the mere bulk of literary 
usage. In classical Greek Atiaprla^ a^iaproftiw are common enough 
in the lighter senses of ' missing an aim/ of ' error in judgement or 
opinion'; in the graver sense of serious wrong-doing they are 
rare. When we turn to the Bible, the LXX and the N.T. 
alike, this proportion is utterly reversed. The words denote nearly 
always religious wrong-doing, and from being in the background 
they come strongly to the front ; so much so that in the Concord- 
anci to the LXX this group of words fills some thirteen columns, 
averaging not much less than eighty instances to the column. 

This fact alone tells its own story. And along with it we must 
take the deepening of meaning which the words have undergone 
through the theological context in which they are placed. ' How can 
I do this great wickedness, and sin against God ? ' (Gen. xzxiz. 9). 
'Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is 
evil in Thy sight ' (Ps. li. 4). ' Behold, all souls are Mine ; as the 
soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine : the soul 
that sinneth, it shall die ' (Ezek. xviii. 4). We have travelled a long 
way from Hellenic religion in such utterances as these. 
X It is impossible to have an adequate conception of sin without 
an adequate conception of God. The Hebrew in general, and 
St. Paul in particular, had this ; and that is why Sin is such an 
intense reality to them. It is not a mere defect, the coming short 
of an ideal, the mark of an imperfect development. It is some- 
thing more than a negation ; it is a positive quality, calling forth 
a positive reaction. It is a personal offence against a personal 
God. It is an injury or wound — if the reaction which it involves 
may be described in such human terms as * injury ' or ' wound ' — 
directed against the Holy One whose love is incessantly going forth 
towards man. It causes an estrangement, a deep gulf of separation, 
between God and man. 

The guilt of sin is proportioned to the extent to which it is 
conscious and deliberate. Wrong actions done without the know- 
ledge that they are wrong are not imputed to the doer {Afiaprla dc ov« 
AXoycirai fi^ Svrot v6fiov Rom. V. 13 : cf. iv. 15). But as a matter 
of fact few or none can take advantage of this because everywhere — 
even among the heathen — there is some knowledge of God and of 
right and wrong (Rom. i. ipf. ; ii. 12, 14 f), and the extent of that 
knowledge determines the degree of guilt. Where there is a written 
law like that of the Jews stamped with Divine authority, the guilt is 
at its height But this is but the climax of an ascending scale in 

V. 19-8L] ADAM AND CHRIST 145 

which the heinousness of the offence is proportioned to advantages 
imd opportunities. 

Why did men break the Law ? In other words, Why did they 
sin? When the act of sin came to be analyzed it was found to 
contain three elements. Proximately it was due to the wicked 
impulses of human nature. The Law condemned illicit desires, but 
men had such desires and they succumbed to them (Rom. vii. 
7 ff.). The reason of this was partly a certain corruption of 
human nature inherited from Adam. The corruption alone would 
not have been enough apart from the consentient will ; neither 
would the will have been so acted upon if it had not been for 
the inherited corruption (Rom. v. 1 2-14). But there was yet a third 
element, independient of both these. They operated through the 
man himself; but there was another influence which operated with- 
out him. It is remarkable how St Paul throughout these chapters, 
Rom« V, vi, vii, constantly personifies Sin as a pernicious and deadly 
force at work in the world, not dissimilar in kind to the other great 
counteracting forces, the Incarnation of Christ and the Gospel 
Now personifications are not like dogmatic definitions, and the 
personification in this instance does not always bear exactly the 
tame meaning. In ch. v, when it is said that * Sin entered into the 
world/ the general term ' Sin' includes, and is made up of, the sins 
of individuals. But in chaps, vi and vii the personified Sin is set 
over against the individual, and expressly distinguished from him. 
Sin is not to be permitted to reign within the body (vi. la); the 
members are not to be placed at the disposal of Sin (vi. 13) ; to 
Sin the man is enslaved (vi. 6, 17, 20; vii. 14), and from Sin he is 
emancipated (vi. 18, 22), or in other words, it is to Sin that he dies 
(vi. 9, 11); Sin takes up its abode within his heart (vii. 17, 20): 
it works upon him, using the commandment as its instrument, and 
so is fatal to him (vii. 8, 11). 

In all this the usage is consistent : a clear distinciion is drawn 
at once between the will and the bodily impulses which act upon 
the will and a sort of external Power which makes both the will and 
the impulses subservient to it What is the nature of this Power ? 
Is it personal or impersonal ? We could not tell from this particular 
context No doubt personal attributes and functions are assigned 
to it, but perhaps only figuratively as part of the personification. 
To answer our questions we shall have to consider the teaching of 
the Apostle elsewhere. It is clear enough that, like the rest of his 
countrymen (see Charles, Book of Enochs p. 52 f.), St Paul did 
believe in a personal agency of Evil. He repeatedly uses the per- 
sonal name Satan ; he ascribes to him not only mischief-making in 
the Church (i Thess. iL 18; 2 Cor. ii. 11), but the direct tempta- 
tion of individual Christians (i Cor. vii. 5); he has his followers on 
whom he is sometimes invited to wreak his will (i Cor. v. 5; 


I Tim. L 90); sopematural powers of deceiving or perverting men 
are attributed to him (a Thess. ii. 9 kot rwpyciair tw Sorava w Kair§ 

h%fvAfM^ Koi mjitttois cat npatn ^Movt I cf. 2 Cor. zi. 1 4). The 

Power of Evil does not stand alone but has at its disposal a whole 
army of subordinate agents {apx^t ^^vaiaif KovfioKparoptt rw o-kStoi s 
TWTov £ph. vi. la; cf. Col. ii. 15). There is indeed a whole 
hierarchy of evil spirits as there is a hierarchy of good (Eph. L 21), 
and Satan has a court and a kingdom just as God has. He is * the 
god of the existing age' (6 0t6£ rov alc^vos rovrov 2 Cor. iv. 4), and 
exercises his rule till the final triumph of the Messiah (2 Thess. ii. 
8 f. ; I Cor. xv. 24 f.). 

We see therefore that just as in the other books of the N.T. 
the Gospels, the Apocalypse, and the other Apostolic Epistles, evil 
is referred to a personal cause. And although it is doubtless true 
that in chaps, vi, vii, where St. Paul speaks most directly of the 
baleful activity of Sin, he does not intend to lay special stress on 
this ; his language is of the nature of personification and does not 
necessarily imply a person ; yet, when we take it in connexion with 
other language elsewhere, we see that in the last resort he would 
have said that there was a personal agency at work. It is at least 
clear that he is speaking of an influence external to man, and 
acting upon him in the way in which spiritual forces act. 

St Paul regards the beginnings of sin as traceable to the Fall of Adam. 
In this he is simply foUowing the account in Gen. iii ; and the qnestion 
naturally arises. What becomes of that account and of the inferences which 
St Paul draws from it, if we accept the view which is pressed upon us by 
the comparative study of religions and largely adopted by modem criticism, 
that it is not to be taken as a literal recoid of historical fact, but as the 
Hebrew form of a story common to a number of Oriental peoples and going 
back to a common root ! When we speak of a * Hebrew form ' of this story 
we mean a form shaped and moulded by those principles of revelation oi 
which the Hebrew race was chosen to be the special recipient From this 
point of view it becomes the typical and summary representation of a series 
of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half-calcined bones can 
ever reproduce for us. In some way or other as far back as history goes, 
and we may believe much further, there has been implanted in the human 
race this mysterious seed of sin, which like other characteristics of the race 
is capable of transmission. The tendency to sin b present in every man who 
is bom into the world. But the tendency does not become actual tin imtil 
it takes effect in defiance of an express command, in deliberate disregard of 
a known distinction between right and wrong. How men came to be 
possessed of such a command, by what process they arrived at the conscious 
distinction of right and wrong, we can but vaguely speculate. Whatever it 
was we may be sure that it could not have been presented to the imagination 
of primitive peoples otherwise than in such simple forms as the narrative 
assumes in the Book of Genesis. The really essential tmths all come out in 
that narrative — the recognition of the Divine Will, the act of disobedience 
to the Will so recognixed, the perpetuation of the tendency to such dis- 
obedience ; and we may add perhaps, though here we get into a region of 
surmises, the connexion between moral evil and physical decay, for the sorest 
pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part of ns, the soul, 

T. U-aL] 


t^i^xisb rigblNnuDOf to God. Ttiese uliFnt prindplei, vhich ma^ ha*« 
been due in bet to > ptDC:» of gmduil accielioD ihiongb long pcriodi, arc 
nalontlxuid beviUbly ininnied op ■• > group of liogle iacidcDti. Tbeii 
WMOIial dunclei U Dot aUerefi, uid in the Interpretation of primitlTe 
beliob we ms; nfely remember thit ' a thontand feus in the si^ht of God 
uc but •■ ooe day.' We who believe in Proriileiice md <n ' 
•ctiie inHneiice of the Spirit of God upoQ man, may well alw believe Ibal 
the teiuliTe Kropings of ihe primaeval savage were usisled and guided and 
to led op to de6iiile is^un, to which he himielf perhaps at the time contd 
hanlljr give ■ mime bnt which he leaml lo call ' sin ' and ' disobedience,' and 
the teodaic^ to which later ago also taw to have bern banded on froa 
Cencntion to geceratioo la a way which we now describe aa ' betrdity,' tl 
would be abtunl to expect the laoguage of modem science in the prophet 
who Gm iocorpoialed the ttaditions of bia mce in the Sacred Boolii Of the 
Hebrewi. He tises the only kind of language avaiUbte to hii own InlclU- 
geace and that of bii contemporariei. But if the language which he does 
sac is from that point of view abaodanllyjnstitied, thni the application which 
Sc Paul makes of it is eqnally justified. He too eipreisei truth througb 
iymbcii. aad in the days when men Can dispense with symbols bis teaching 
may be obsolete, but not before. 

Tbit need for an Incamaiion and the ueed for an Atonement are not 
tkpeniicnl upon any particular preseoialion . which may be Liable to cor- 
Kctiao with iacreasiug knowledge, of the origin of sin. They rajt, not aa 
theory or on anythiog which on be clothed in the forms of tlieory, bnt on 
the grot onUtanding facts of the actual sin of manlciod and lu ravagei. 
Wc take these facts as we see thetn, and to n* they fuiiiiih an abundant 
•xplanatiaa of all that God has done to counteract them. How they an h 
tlwii tnm to be eiplaincd may well form n li-gitimaic subject for cnriosi^, 
b«t tbe fautoiical side of it at Uatt has but a very slight bearing oa a» 
ioinpietatiaa «f the N.T, 

History of tht Interpretation of tJte Pauline doctrifU 

of 8(ltat'uicris. 

Ill ofdn to cotnplete otir commentary on the earlier portion ol tbe EpiilTe^ 
it will be convenient 10 sum up, as sbonly as is poisibte, ihe history of the 
doctnne of JuitilicatioD. so far as it ii deGnilely connected with exegesis. 
To porsoe the subject liiTthei than that would be beside our porpotei but so 
msdk i* necessary since the exposition of ihc preceding chapters has been 
»lmo*t entiicly fram one point of view. We abail of course tc obliged to 
ooofioe o«lr*elve* to certain typical names. 

JoM at the close of the Apostolic period the earliest ipecDlilion on tbe C 
tabjecl of Jnstificatlon meets ua. Clement of Rome, in his Epistle lo the Romannft 
Corinthians, writes deaily guarding against any practical Blisses which may 
aiM from bl. Paul's luching. He has before him the three writeit of tbe 
N.T. who deal most definitely with 'faith' and ' rigbleousnesa,' and from 
ttaem constiDcts a system of life and action. He tike* the typical euunple, 
that oF Abraham, and aski, ' Wherefore was oui &Ihei Ahiaham bleased I' 
The (OIBCI combines tiiat of St. Paul and St James. ' Was it i.ot because 
bewnragbt ligbteoiuneu andtrtith through faith I ' (( ;|I aixl ltiiaiovirr)y «J 
AXiittnir Iti rifrttn iDi^aot ;). And throughout tbere is the same no- 
otiiaaXioo of different types of doctrine. ' We are justified by works and not 
by words ' (§ 30 ifTott Stauaiiuroi nai fi4 \6yoit). Bnt again (J J» ' : ' And 
so we. having been called Ibrough Hit will in (. hiist Jesus, are nut jttvfttA 
Ihrongll ourselves or throncb our own wiutom or understanding 01 piety nr 
wotks wbich we wrought in holmess of bean, but through faith whereby iha 
Alnsigfaty Cod justified all men that have been from Uie beginning,' Bat 


dftngeroos thc«riet as to condact, wbidi arise from holdine sndi bdiefii In 
t too crude a mahner, are at once guarded against (§ 33) : * Wliat then mnsi 
• we do, brethren! Mnst we idly abttai^ from domg good, and forsake love ! 
May the MasteTnever allow this to liefall ns at leut . . . We have seen that 
All the righteoos were adoroed in good worics . . . Seeing then that we have 
this pattem, let<«s confonn ourselves with all diligence to His will ; let ns 
with all onr stoehgth work die work of righteousness.' Clement writes as 
a Christian of me second generatiod who inherits the teaching and phraseo- 
logy of the f Apostolic period. * Faith,' * Works/ ' Righteousness,' are ideas 
which have bebime part of the Christian life ; the ne^ of definition has not 
arisen. The>mtem of conduct which should be exhibited as the result of 
the different 'elements of tiiia life is deariy realized. What St. Paul and 
St. James? «lch in his different way arrived at is accomplished. For the 
exact meaning of 6t Paul, however, and the understanding of his teaching, 
we get no aid. Bkbop Lightfoot, while showing how Clement ' has caught 
the spirit of the PauUne teaching,' yet dwells, and dwells rightly, on ' the 
defect in the dogmatic statement.' (See Lightfoot, CUment, i. 96, 397.) 

The question of Justification never became a subject of controversy in the 
early church, and consequently the Fathers contented themselves as Clement 
had done with a clear practical solution. We cannot find in them either an 
answer to the more subtle questions which later theologians have asked or 
much assistance as to the exact exegesis of St. Paul's language. 
Origen • How little Origen had grasped some points in St« Paul's thoaght may be 
seensby his comment on Rom* iii. 20 £x operibus igitnr Ugis quodnon imtti- 
faabUur ^mnii caro in €o^p§ctu ctttf , h$c modo intilUgmdum puto : quia 
mmnis • qui caro at €t setundum camem tnvitf nan potist imstijkari ex 
I$gt DHf ticut €t aiidi dicit idem Apostolus^ quia qui in came sunt Deo 
placere non po»nnt (mi I^om, iii. 6 ; 0pp. tom. vi. 194, ed. Lcmmiatzsch). 
But in many points his teaching is clear and stroi^. All Justification is hj 
faith alone (iii. 9, p. 217 ^/ dicit sufficere solius fidH iustificoHotum, iia ut 
tredens quit tatttummcdo iustificttur^ etiamsi nihil ah io aperis fuerii 
expUtum). It is the beginning of the Christian life, and is represented as 
the bringing to an end of a state of enmity. We who were followers of the 
devil, our tyrant and enemy, can if we will by laying down his arms and 
taking up the banner of Christ have peace with G(^, a peace which has 
been purchased 'for tij 'by^6 blood of Christ (iv. 8, p. 385, on Rom. v. i). 
The proceu of justificatidfa*b'dearly one of ' imputation ' Uides ad iustiiiam 
reputiturkf,' r, p. 340/ otf Roml iv. 1-8), and is identified with the Gospel 
teaching of the forgivene^'of sins ; the two instances of it which are quoted 
being the penitent thief and the woman with the alabaster box of oiutment 
(Luke vii. 37-43). But the need for good works is not excluded: sed 
fortassis kaec aliquis audiens resolvatur et bitu agendi mgligenHam capiat^ 
siqnidem ad iustifieandum fides sola suffUiat, ad quern dicemuSf quia post 
iustificatienem si iniuste quis agat, sine dubio iustificaiionis gratiam sprevit 
• . . indulgentia namque non futurorum sed praeteritorum eriminum datur 
nii. 9, p. 319, on Rom. iii. 37, 38). Faith without worics is impossible 
(iv. I, p. 334): rather faith is the root from which they spring : non erp 
ex operMs radix iustitiae, sed ex radiee iustitiae fructus operum cresatf 
ilia scilicet eradicd iustitiae^ qua Deus accepto fert iustiiiam sine operibus 
(iv. X, p.' 34/ (; *jMe also the comment on Rom. ii. 5, 6 in ii. 4, p. 81). We 
may furthernoter that in the comment on Rom. L 1 7 and iiL 34 the itutitia 
Dei is clcMuly'ixllexpreted as Uie Divine attribute. 
Chrysos- The same critilasm which was passed on Origen applies in an equal 

tom. or even greater degree to Chrysostom. Theologically and practically the 

Uaching is vigorous and well balanced, but so far as ex^esis is con- 
cerned St PaiH's conception and point of view are not understood. The 
circumstances which had created these conceptions no longer existed 

». 1»-«L] 



For ci>mpl«, eommeDling on Rom. (1. ia he wrfln; 'it ia upon world 
tfait pniu^unent uid leward depeniJ, not upon ciicamcUioil oi iuicirciun> 
cuian'; wiring ■ diitinction wliieb the Apoille does not betveen the 
moicl ind csemdnial Utr- The hinoncil linutioD it ctearl; aufei nod 
li brongfal ool nr? well at ihe begioni^ie of J/tm. jii: ' He fan acajscd 
ibe Gentilei, be bii accoKd the Jew* ; what foUovi to meMioa next ii the 
li^hteoomets which ii bf hitb. For if the Isw of nalore ■luled not, ud 
the wtinea Law wu of no adTtntage, but bulh weighed dawD ihlne thai 
died Ihetn not aright, and made it plain that they were worthy of gienler 
puiuibnient, ibea the ulvation which is by grace was beDceforth necestaiy.' 
The meaning of &«uoaurq 8fnG ii well branght oat. 'The decbuing «f 
Hii riehteoQBieu U not only l>ial He ii Himtelf righteous, bat thai He 
doih a^ muke [hem that are tilled with the pntiefying scar* of lin suddenly 
rightmat' {Hem. <ii. on iii. 14, 15). It may be intereiling 10 quote tba 
expoutioD of the paeage which (o!lowa.i lie eiplaim Sia ttJv wijuoii- ttir 
tfvirftrirar i^f-njiiAnjii llios ; iii r^» •o/noii', rourtori ri)i- tixpajotar. 
•vatn -fif irjfiai tK^it fv, dAX' inntp aaiiia nfOXytiy titt iro^ai JSum 
Xtrh, aCtw mJ 4 |^vx4 •■ttpO'^f'Va, gi<i1iie •dLffdii the meaning of 'paM- 
lynt,' the pualyiit of ■pirtiBal life which hu rctt]lt«d from tb, Gcnualty 
itattiai icmu clearly to be taken u 'milcc lighleons,' e*en in pasugci 
whcK it will least bear iDch an inteiprctalioD ; foe instance oa ii. 5 {Hem. 
Till.) SnvTu i tftit tir iw datfiilif S'ti'tifita invmr l(aifi^ oixl (oAAimn 
i&tW^pwffoi liieee, dUj) tat iitatov woi^ffai, . , , »f y^p luMKOpm aCfrftv 
i t^Bi" i^aiir i.*i X^P''"» ■o^t; /uXAar i Srii<uu«<fi, aod on IT. 15 (^«*<. 
at) Jrt ruirrr 7^ nl oit£ii>t mi ivfan; Ira .funuaut Jp7<i<npat^ Yet his 
nuge t* cot coniiitenl. for on Rom. viii. 33 be writes: ' Hf does not say. 
it I* God that forgave onr sini. but what i< much greaiet 1 — " It is God tbt 
juttiAeth.'* For wben the Judge's seateoce declares as jua t&ica/ovr dao- 
fahni), and socb a judge too, what signilielb the accuser f 

No purpcM wotild be serted by CDtetiDg further into tbc •lem of the Theodani; 
Gtcek coiomeiitiiton; but one pasiige 01 Theodore t may be quoted as 
an inilanoe of Ihe way in which all the fatheti connect Jnstilication and 
Btpuun On liom, ». 1. 1 ('id. p, 53) he wiilei: 4 tiara /ii» (;*» iSwm- 
tfOTo -rwv iitaprniidTat rify Sfptaty «il A/jdifAw/t voi Aifrafoif Aid r^ rtA Ani/rpov 
■■JiJui7«n<ri« di/^TTC airoT^an Si ii/iot t^i' h/K'I rir ttiv yifirtjiiirTpi 

To wiQ Up t!ic iMcIiiit); [it the Greek Fathurs. They put m the rery front of 
creytUng, the Atonement tbrongh the death of Chnst, wilhoot as a rule 
dabontlng any theory concerning it: tbii^ eh sract eristic we find from 
Ihe Tcry beginning: it is as Etrong In Ignstiui ai in any later Father: 
Uc; all thinlc that it is by faith we are jtulihed. and at the tame time lay 
laiDWBse Etre» on the tsIdc, but not the merits, of good woikti they seem 
>U irery definitely to coooect Justifi ration with Bapiimi and the tMginning 
of dw Christian life, so much so itjdeed that M U well knowa eieu .the 
MMtbtlity of pgidon for iKHt-bapIismal sin was daobtrd by some : hot they 
Lave a» ibcory of JuslificatioD as later timei demand it; Ibcy air never dose 
and caact id the exegesis of SL I'anl : and they are without the liinoncal 
(Hulitiiios tthich would enable them to nnderaiaiid hit great antithesii of 
• Law' and' Gospel," "Failli' and "Works," Merit 'and 'Grace.' 

The opiuioos ol St. Aognsiine are of much greater importanoc. Allbouch St. AngBvl 
be does not approach the quettioa from the lamc point of view aa the li 
Reformalioo tbeolugians, be repRscnl> the source fioui which came the 
mediaeval tendency which created that theology. His most iaiporcaol 
eaposliiODS are tho>e cwitalikoi in De Sfi'iln il.Litira and /■• falpooH 
XXXI EnarratU II . ibis tialm he ileicnbes ai Psalmui graiiit* Dei 
1 iHili/Ualienii mufrat atJJu fratitdinlit'ut mtrtlii matrit, ud prat- 
""''"' His p*ip<Me ia to |«avi 

U MM MitrrscfnAla Demtmi Uti w 


[V. la-a 

u ipinst iny form of PcUgianism <h>l oor ulntion coma from oe mer 
of OUT Dim but only fiom the Divine £iat:e vhidi u ^vcn lu. Thii leadi tt 
three roBiD cbancleiiitict IQ his exposition of the Rooiaiu. (i) Fold 
Gnt, food worki dor^e hf tboae who *Te not Id i itate of gmne ■ 
»«Iaelesi ; tuitu tomputtt icna Optra nu ante Jidim: vbi fidti nan tr 
ttntim epta nen iral {Enarratif % 4) Hence he explaiiii l<om. IL |J 
13 R. of works done not ia a stale of nHtott but of grace. In iL 13 tt ~ 
Apottle is refening to the Gentiles who liii*e accepted the Goipel: ud tl 
' Law written in Iheli heart* ' is the Uw not of the O.T, but of the N.T. ij 
he natniAlly compare* a Cor. iii. } and Roid. ii. 16 {Di Sp. it LU. (i 4. 
40). (]) Then, ■econdl}', St. Angtislitie'i eipoiitiaQ goei on some' *" 
diflerenl Uan from ihoie of the Apoiile'i aigumoit. He makei the w 
aim of the early portion of the Romant to be the proof of the neceni 
gratt. Men have failed withont gnce, and It is only by tneani of it 
they can do any worki which are acceptable to God. This from one [ 
of view really reptcieiiti St. Paul's aii^menl, from an>}ther it is very i 
removed from It. Il had the Imdeacy Indeed to truiifec the central poial 
in connexion with hnmin ulvalion from the aloning death of Christ acceptr' 
by Kaith to the gift of the Divine Grace received from God. Although i 
this reladoD, as often, St. Augustine's ucposition is deeper than that of tl 
Greek fathen, it lead« to a much leu correct inlcipietalion. (j) For, tbirdll^fl 
there can be do doubt that it leadt direcily (o the doctrine of ' infnied ' grac^l 
It is <jiute ttu* that Chiysostom bai perhaps even iDore definitely interprel 
(uRUDuoAu of ' making just.' and that Aogiutine in one place admits I 
possibility of inlcrpceling it either ai 'makiag jolt' or ' lECkoning jiMt'l 
{,£}* Sf. tl Lit. i 45). But altboDgh he admits the two InterprcUtloDi v^ 
far as concemi the words, practically bit whole theory is that cm an Infuila' 
of the grace of faith by wbich men are made just. So in his eommeat a 
i. 1 7 he writes : kau ist itutilia Dei, putt in TulaaiOU* VMri titiala, A 
Ainw rtvilalur: qtiat idai iiu/ilia Itei diciltir, qtied impcrtiendo cam ii 

facit {Dt Sf. II Lil. ! 18) : and again : crtdtnti infuil in « -' ■ — '• 

impium dtpulaitir fidii lius ad iuililiam. si itulificatur in 
fit iuslus {Unarratii J 6): m nen tiH Dem rtddH debiiam fetnam, j 
dtttal indebitam graliam : so ZV Sp. tl Lil. { ^6 : haa tit luttilia £ 
fuam rum talaia dacit per ligii pratciflum, virum ttmm dot per ipin 

St. Anguillne's theory is in fact this ; faith li a gift of grace which 
ftised into mcD, enables them to produce works good and acceptable 
God. Thepoint ofview il clearly Dot that of St. Paul, and it Is the » 
the mediaeval theory of grace with all its developments. 

This theory as we find it eUborated in the Sumpia Thtelt^a*. ha 
u it concerns us three main chancteristics. (i } In the first place it rli 
the Atigustinian theoiy of Grace instead of the Pauline theory of Joitificat 
It is quite clear that in Sl Paul x^/ui is the favour of God (o man, aod 
a gift given by God to man ; but grmlia in St. Thomas has evideotly 
tatter signification : aungraiia emnem natural tnaiai fantltaltm txadm, « 
fti«d nihil aliud lit guam partifipalia quaadavt diviaiu nalnraiguat Bmnem 
aliam na/urain ixadil {Summa rAia/B^ac.Piini». Sf:an6ae Qn.c^i. 1). So 
also: dcMum gratiae . , .gratiat in/usio . . . in/iauiil denum gra/iat itatiji- 
lanlii (ciiiL 3). (*) Secondly, it interprets itatijicttrt 10 'make just,' and in 
coDsequeoce looks upon justmcationasDot only rtmiiite piuaterum, bnt also 
an infiision of grace. This question is discussed fully in Qu. cxiij. Art. >. 
TheconduMon arrived at is: qiiam iustiliat Dei rtpugntl patnamdimitttrt 
Hgaile culpa, nulliui aufim hcminii fnalii mfdo naieittir, rtalui petnat 
miifut gratia tclli futal ; ad mlpai gti»qiu hemtHii qualii mtdt naiiilur, 
rtmissienim. graliai infusiontm rtquxri manifittum tit. The primary teat 
iB which this coDcluaion ia baaed ii Rom. iii. %^iialifitaii gmtii p^ ^^iam 


I not ^H 

r. i«-«i.] 



ifiriMi. wbieh li therefore cleirlyiDterpreled to mrui ' inrt<Ie;ii5tbjMillifniioa 
olgiscc' ; and it ii argued IhKt theenect or [he Divine Idtc oh m ji giace bf 
wbich * men ii mmde wonhy o( ileni«l life, uicl thmt therefore remission of 
nilt cinnot be aDderatood imlns it be accompanied by Ibe infuiion of grxce. 
ii) The woidi quoted above, ' by whicb ■ man ii made ivoilhy of elenial 
Ufe' (,digiaavilaatlima\ inttodnce oito a third point in tbe mediae val Chcoiy 
ti jnatjficaiion ; indireclly by in theory of merit di amgrmi and d4 ctHdignt 
It intTodsced jait Ihal doctrine of merit agalnit which it, Paul bad diteaed 
U« ■hole lyitem. Tbii labject l> nocked onl in Qu. i:xit, where it i> argned 
^An. I) that in a >en>e we can deserve Bomething fiom God. Although 
(Art. ») a man cannot deierre life eternal in a stale of nalnre. yet (Art. 3) 
■flci)tutificatioD hecan : Hems mtritur uitam atltmam tx cettdigm. Tbii 
U nipparted by Rom. viii. 1 7 sifilii ti hatrtdti, it being signed that we ara 
•oni 10 whom is owed the ioheiitince ix ipte tan adeflioKU. 

Howererdefenuble as a complete whole the system aHhtSHmma maybe, 
there li no doubt that nothing so complicated can be grasped by the pojinlar 
mind, and that the teachiog it repre^nts led to a wide tyslem of leligioui 
cormpcioo which presented a very defiDite analogy with the errors which 
St, pBol combated ; it is eqoally clear that it is not the System of Jnslifica- 
tioa pot forward by St. Paol. It will be convenient to pass on dirrclly to 
tbe tmchisg of Lnther, and to pat it in direct contrast with the teaching cf 
Aqoinu. Although it arose primarily against the teaching of the Uiei 
SatooltneD, whose teaching, especially on theiubject of merit at lenpua v>A 
Jt t»ndigns, wu rery mncb ileveloptd, substantially it rcpTEsents a revolt 
■gunst the whole mediaeval tbeorj. 

Lather's main doctrines were the following. Throngh the taw man learns Latbei j 
hii dnttdness : he leans to say with the prophet, ' there is none that doetb 
Kood, ao not ooe.' He leami his own weakness. And then arises the cry - 
'Who anx gi*e me aay help I' Then in its dne season comes the saving 
ward of the Gospel, *Be of good cheer, my son, thy sins are forgiven. 
Believe in Jesns Christ who was cmcilied for thy sini.' This Is the beginning 
of salittioQ 1 in this way we are freed from sin, we are justified and tbere it 
giten cnto us life eternal, not on acconnt of our own merits and works, but 
on account of faith by which we approached ChiisL (Lather on Galatiana 
a 16; Off. ed iss,, p. J08.) 

Ai against the mediaeval leaching the following pointa art notioeable, 
(i)lo the first place Jnitilicition is quite clearly a doctrine of •imtitia 
imftOala ': Dnu ocaflal sea rifital nei imstts ulum frtflir fiitm in 
Cirillumi. It it etpecUny slated that we ate not free from sin. As long as 
Wc live we are subject to the stain of sin : only our sins are not impolecl to 
■a. (1) Secondly, Lnther inherits from the Schoolmen the distinction of 
fidis in/ermii toA fidu /tmtala atm (harilart: but whereas they bad con- 
tadered that xKiiwifiiltiftrmata which justifies, with him it aJUIa iitftrmU. 
He arroed tlut if it were necessary that laith should Lie united with charity 
to (nahle it to justify, then it is do longer faith alone that justifies, but 
diarity .- taith becomes nselcss and good works are brought in. (j) Thiidly, 
it la needless to point out that he snacks, and that with great vigour, all 
theories of merit dt lengme and di tcndigno He describes them thus : laJia 
mcntlra fcrienfa et harritiUi tlaifiluiniai diittaiu frtfrnii Tuttiitt Judarii, 
■Mi talitiat LkriiH. 

The teaching of the Kefonnatioa worked a complete change in the eaegeaii Calvta 1 
ti St. Pan). A condition of practical error had arisen, cleaily in many 
ways membling that which St Paul combated, and hence Si. Piul'i con- 
OC|itioiu are nnderstowl brttet. The ablest of the Reformation commentaries 
is certainly that of Calvin : and the change produced may be seen most 
clearly la one point. The attempt that had bet^n made to evade the meaning 
•f Sl Pull's words ac to Law, by applying them only to the ceremoniu 


Law, he entirely brushes away (on ill. ao) ; again, he interprets UtsHJUarB ai 
'to reckon just, in accordance with the meaning of the Greek word and the 
context of iv. 5. The scheme of Justification as laid down by Luther is 
applied to the interpretation of the Epistle, but his extravagant language is 
avoided. The distinction oi fides informis and formaia is condemned as 
anreal ; and it is seen that what St. Paul means by works being unable to 
justify is not that they cannot do so in themselves, but that no one can fulfil 
them so completely as to be * just' We may notice that on it 6 he points 
out that the words can be taken in quite a natural sense, for reward does not 
imply merit, and on iL 13 that he applies the passage to Gentiles not in 
a state of grace, but says that the words mean that although Gentiles had 
knowledge and opportunity they had sinned, and therefore would be neoes- 
larily condemned. 

The Reformation theology made St. Paul's point of view comprdiensible, 
but introduced errors of exegesis of its own. It added to St Paul's teaching 
of ' imputation* a theory of the imputation of Christ's merits, which became 
the basis of much unreal systematization, and was an incorrect interpreta- 
tion of St Paul's meaning. The unreal distinction oi fidss itif^rmis and 
formata, added to Luther's own extravagant language, produced a strong 
antinomian tendency. ' Faith' almost comes to be looked upon as a meritorious 
cause of justification ; an unreal faith b substituted for dead works ; and 
fiiith becomes identified with ' personal assurance ' or ' self-«ssuranoe.' More- 
over, for the ordinary expression of St. Paul, 'we are justi6ed by faith,' 
was substituted 'we are saved by faith,' a phrase which, although once 
used by St. Paul, was only so used in the somewhat vague sense of adb(ccv, 
that at one time applies to our final salvation, at another to our present 
life within the fold of the Church; and the whole Christian scheme of 
sanctification, rightly separated in idea from justification, became divoroed 
in fact from the Christian life. 

The Reformation teaching created definitely the distinction between iuttitia 
imputata and iustitia infusay and the Council of Trent defined Justification 
thus : iustifictUio non est sola peccatorum remission sed etiam sanctificaHo 
$t rtfwvatio interioris hominis ptr tfciuntariam suscepti^nem graiioi €t 
dcnorum (Sess. VI. cap. vii). 
Cornelius A typical commentary on the Romans from this point of view is that of 
a Lapide. Cornelius a Lapide. On L 1 7 he makes a very just distinction between our 
justification which comes by faith and our salvation which comes through 
the Gospel, namely, all that is preached in the Gospel, the death and merits 
of Christ, the sacraments, the precepts, the promises. He argues firom ii. 13 
that works have a place in justification ; and tliat our justification consists in 
the gift to us of the Divine justice, that is, of grace and charity and other 

This summary has been made sufficiently comprehensive to bring out the 
main points on which interpretation has varied. It is clear from St. Paul's 
language that he makes a definite distinction in thought between three 
several stages which may be named Justification, Sanctihcation, Salvation. 
Our Christian life begins with the act of laith by which we turn to Christ ; 
that is sealed in baptism through which we receive remission of sins and 
are incorporated into the Christian community, being made partakers of 
all the spiritual blessings which that implies : then if our life is consistent 
with these conditions we may hope for life eternal not for our own merits 
but for Christ's sake. The first step, that of Remission of sins, is Justi- 
fication : the life that follows in the Christian community is the life of 
Sanctification. These two ideas are connected in time in so far as the 
moment in which our sins are forgiven begins the new life; but they are 
separated in thought, and it is necessary for us that this should be so, in 
order that we may realize that unless we come to Christ in the self-surrender 


of £iitb Dothiag am profit as. There is a close connenon again between 
Justification and Salvation ; the one represents the beginning of the process 
of which the other b the conclnsion, and in so far as the first step is the 
cncntial one the life of the justified on earth can be and is spoken of as 
the life of the saved ; bnt the two are separated both in thought and in 
time, and this is so that we may realize that our life, as we are accepted by 
faith, endowed with the gift of God's Holy Spirit, and incorporated into the 
Christian community, must be holy. By our life we shall be judged (see the 
notes 00 ii. 6, 13): we must strive to make our character such as befits us 
far the life in which we hope to share : but we are saved by Christ's death ; 
and the initial act of faith has been the hand which we stretched out to 
receive the divine mercy. 

Our historical review has largely been a history of the confusion of these 
three separate aspects of the Gospel scheme. 



VI. 1-14. If more sin only means more grace, shall we 
go OH sinning? Impossible. The baptized Christian cannot 
sin. Sin is a direct contradiction of the state of things 
which baptism assumes. Baptism has a double function. 

(1) // brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, 
so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him. 

(2) // expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to 
the redeeming acts of Christ 

Immersion = Death. 

Submersion = Burial {the ratification of Death). 

Emergence — Resurrection, 
All these the Christian has to undergo in a moral and 
spiritual sense, and by means of his union with Christ. As 
Christ by His death on the Cross ceased from all contact with 
sin, so the Christian, united with Christ in his baptism, has 
done once for all with sin, ami lives henceforth a reformed 
life dedicated to God. [This at least is the ideal, whatever 
mc^ be the reality.] (w. i-ii.) Act then as men wlio have 
thrown off the dominion of Sin. Dedicate all your powers 
to God. Be not afraid ; Law, Sins ally, is superseded in 
its hold aver you by Grace (w. 12-14). 

'Objector. Is not this dangerous doctrine? If more sio 
means more grace, are we not encoaraged to go on sinning ? 


*St. Paul. A horrible thought I When we took the decisive 
step and became Christians we may be said to have died to sin, in 
such a way as would make it flat contradiction to live any longer 
m It 

* Surely you do not need reminding that all of us who were 
immersed or baptized, as our Christian phrase runs, ' into Christ,' 
L e. into the closest allegiance and adhesion to Him, were so 
immersed or baptized into a special relation to His Death. I mean 
that the Christian, at his baptism, not only professes obedience 
to Christ but enters into a relation to Him so intimate that it may 
be described as actual union. Now this union, taken in connexion 
with the peculiar symbolism of Baptism, implies a great deal more. 
That symbolism recalls to us with great vividness the redeeming 
acts of Christ — His Death, Burial, and Resurrection. And our 
union with Christ involves that we shall repeat those acts, in 
such sense as we may, i. e. in a moral and spiritual sense, in our 
own persons. 

* When we descended into the baptismal water, that meant that 
we died with Christ — to sin. When the water closed over our 
heads, that meant that we lay buried with Him, in proof that our 
death to sin, like His death, was real. But this carries with it the 
third step in the process. As Christ was raised from among the 
dead by a majestic exercise of Divine power, so we also must from 
henceforth conduct ourselves as men in whom has been implanted 
a new principle of life. 

•For it is not to be supposed that we can join with Christ in 
one thing and not join with Him in another. If, in undergoing 
a death like His, we are become one with Christ as the graft 
becomes one with the tree into which it grows, we must also be 
one with Him by undergoing a resurrection like His, i. e. at once 
a moral, spiritual, and physical resurrection. • For it is matter of 
experience that our Old Self — what we were before we became 
Christians — was nailed to the Cross with Christ in our baptism : 
it was killed by a process so like the Death of Christ and so 
wrought in conjunction with Him that it too may share in the 
name and associations of His Crucifixion. And the object of 
this crucifixion of our Old Self was that the bodily sensual part of 
us, prolific home and haimt of sin, might be so paralyzed and 



TI. 1-14.] 

disabled as henceforth to set us free from the service of Sin. ' For 
just as DO legAl claim can be made upon the dead, so one who is 
(eihically) dead b certified 'Not Guilty' and eiempt from all the 
claims that Sin could make upon him. 

'Bui is this all? Arc we to stop at the death to sin? No: 
there is another aide to the process. If. when we became Chris- 
lians, we died with Christ (morally and spiritually), we believe that 
we shall also Lve wilh Him (physically, as well as ethically and 
■piiittially) : 'because we know for a fact ihai Christ Himself, now 
thai He has been once raised from the dead, will not have the 
process of death to undergo again. Death has lost its hold over 
Him for ever. " For He has done with Death, now that He has 
done once for all with Sin, by bringing to an end that earthly 
slate which alone brought Him in contact iviib iu Henceforth 
He lives in unintemipted communion wiih God. 

" In like manner do you Christians regard yourselves as dead, 
iaen and motionless as a corpse, in all that relates to sin, but 
instinct with life and responding in every nerve to those Divine 
claims and Divine inSuences under which you have been brought 
b^ yxnir union with Jesus Messiah. 

"1 exhort you therefore not to let Sin exercise its tyranny over 
this frail body of yours by giving way to its evil passions. " Do 
not, u you are wont, place hand, eye, and tongue, as weapons 
stained with unrighteousness, at the service of Sin ; but dedicate 
yontvelves once for all, like men who have left the ranks of the 
dead and breathe a new spirilual life, to God ; let hand, eye, and 
longtie be weapons of righteous temper for Him to wield. "You 
may rest assured that in so doing Sin will have no claims or 
power over you, for you have left the r/gime of Law (which, as we 
thaD shortly see, is a stronghold of Sin) for that of Grace. 

I. The fact that he has just been insisting on the function of sin 
to act as a provocative of Divine grace recalls to the mind of the 
Apostle the accusation brought attains! himself of saying ' Let us 
do evil, thai good may come ' (iii. 8). He is conscious that his 
own teaching, if pressed to its logical conclusion, is o[-en to this 
charge ; snd he states it in terms which are not exactly those which 
would be used by his adversaries but such as might seem to 
express the one-sided development of his own thought. Of course 
he doe* not allow the consequence for a moment ; he repudiates 


it however not by proving a nm sequitur^ but by showing how this 
train of thought is crossed by another, even more fundamental 
He is thus led to bring up the second of his great i)ivot7dQ9trines, 
the Mystical Union of the Christian with Christ dating Ttfim his 
Baptism. Here we have another of those great eleihtotallbrces in 
the Christian Life which effectually prevents any antinbmiaii-' con- 
clusion such as might seem to be drawn from different premises. 
St. Paul now proceeds to explain the nature of this force and the 
way in which the Christian is related to it 

The yariout readings in this chapter are onimpoitant There can be no 
question that we should read ivtfuvwftw for kmti(vovfi§y in ver. i ; (i^ao/icy 
and not ifyavynv in ver. a ; and that r^ Kvpl^i i^itS^ should be omitted at the 
end of ver. 11. In that verse the true position of cTvcu is after kaurak 
(K*BCy Cyr.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc.) : some inferior authorities place it aitei 
v(«/>o^ liiv : the Western text (A D £ F G, Tert ; dL also PesL Boh. Aim. 
Aeth.) omits it altogether. 

2. oiTiKcs dtrcOdKOfMK. Naturally the relative of quality : ' we, 
being what we are, men who died (in our baptism) to sin/ Arc. 

8. ^ dyKociTf : ' Can you deny this, or is. it possible that you are 
not aware of all that your baptism involves ? ' St. Paul cloes not 
like to assume that his readers are ignorant of that which is to him 
so fundamental. The deep significance of Baptism was universally 
recognized ; though it is hardly likely that any other teacher would 
have expressed that significance in the profound and ' original 
argument which follows. 

lpaiTTiaOY))icK CIS Xpurr&K *li)ffouK: 'were baptized unto union 
with' (not merely 'obedience to') 'Christ' The act of baptism 
was an act of incorporation into Christ Comp. esp. GaL iii. 37 

&roi yap tU Xfnar6p i^arrria&rjTt, Xpiarhv ivtbva-atrB*, 

This conception lies at the root of the whole passage. All the 
consequences which St Paul draws follow from this union, incor- 
poration, identification of the Christian with Christ On the origin 
of the conception, see below. 

CIS T^i^ OdKaroK adroC iPaimo^rificK. This points back to atrc^ai<ofic9 
above. The central point in the passage is death. The Christian 
dies because Christ died, and he is enabled to realize His death 
through his union with Christ 

But why is baptism said to be specially ' into Christ's death * ? 
The reason is because it is owing primarily to the Death of Christ 
that the condition into which the Christian enters at his baptism 
is such a changed condition. We have seen that St Paul does 
ascribe to that Death a true objective efilcacy in removing the 
barrier which sin has placed between God and man. Hence, as 
it is Baptism which makes a man a Christian, so is it the Death 
of Christ which wins for the Christian his special inmiunities 
and privileges. The sprinkling of the Blood <£ Christ seals that 



covenant wiih His People to which Baptism admits them. Bui this 
is only the first step : the Apostle goes on to show how ihe Death 
of Christ has a subjective as veil as an objective side for the 

4. ffmtTd*i)fi(r . . . tivanf. A Strong majority of the best 
scholars {Mey.-W. Gif. Lips. Oltr Go.) would connect •« rt* 
eArarm witli Sid rov Satitiaiiaras and not U'Jth av¥ira<f>']iii*, because of 
(i) idaicT. Ill T. 6air, aut. just before; (ii) a certain incongruity in 
the connexion of omna<i>. with tU ii* edmroi- ; death precedes burial 
and is not s result or object of it We are not sure that this 
reasoning is decisive, (i) Sl Paul does not avoid these ambiguous 
constmciions. as may be seen by iii. 15 htniioiSitf , . , 9ia -nic itiaTtat 

n ra ovrov oifun, where >'r r« airrou oi^rt goes with rpniStro and 

not with 8ii r^i irimitt. (ii) The ideas of ' burial ' and ■ death ' are 
so closely associated that they may be treated as correlative to each 
other — burial is only death sealed and made certain. ' Our baptism 
was a sort of funeral ; a solemn act of consigning us 10 that death 
of Christ in which we are made one with Him,' Va. (iii) There is 
a special reason for saying here not ' we were buried into burial,' 
but ' we were buried into dealh,' because ' death ' is the keynote of 
(be whole passage, and the nord would come in appropriately to 
mark the transition from Christ to the Christian. Still thes<^ argu- 
ments do not amount to proof thai the second connexion is right, 
and it b perhaps best to yield to the weight of authority. For the 

U>ea compare esp. Col. ii. t S avrTa<pinrt ourf rV r^ S^irriiriiaTt ir ^ 

tU T&r tivaTor is best taken as = ' into that death (of His),' the 
death just mentioned : so Oltr. Gif. Va, Mou., but not Mey.-W. 
Go., who prefer the sense ' mto dealh ' (in the abstract). In any 
case there is a stress on the idea of death ; but the clause and the 
verse which follow will show that St. Paul does not yet detach the 
death of the Christian from the death of Christ. 

8ti lifi W£in Tou woTfJot : Aif^i here practically = ' power ' ; but 
it ia power viewed eiternally rather than internally; the stress is 
laid noi so much on the inward energy as on the signal and 
glorious manifesiaiion. Va, compares Jo. xi. 40. 23, where 'thou 
shall see the glory of God ' = ' thy brother shall rise again,' See 
note on iii. 13. 

5. #w^uTi»: 'united by growth'; the word exactly expresses 
the process by which a graift becomes united with Ihe life of a tree. 
So the Christian becomes ' grafted into ' Christ. For the metaphor 

WC may compare xi. IJ av Si dyp.Ao.ut ar intirtfi>a6;t ir airtois. (oi 
Wymatrmrir rijt pifilt «ai r^f (ruinjrot r^t ikaiat I'yiVou, and Tennyson's 

' grvw ineorporaU into thee," 

It Is a question whether we are to take aii^<^. ytyor, direcdy with 
*Y 4fi«wwi. ii,T.X. or whether we are to supply ry X/Mn-y and make 


r^ 6i»oUtii. dat of respect. Probably the fonner, as being simpler 
and more natural, so far at least as construction is concerned, 
though no doubt there is an ellipse in meaning which would be 
more exactly represented by the fiiller phrase. Such condensed 
and strictly speaking inaccurate expressions are common in 
language of a quasi-colloquial kind. St. Paul uses these freer 
modes of speech and is not tied down by the rules of formal 
literary composidon. 

6. YiviSaKoirTcs : see Sp. Comm. on i Cor. viii. i (p. 299), where 
yufWTKtt as contrasted with 01^ is explained as signifying ' apprecia- 
tive or experimental acquaintance.' A slightly different explanation 
is given by Gif. ad loc., ' no/tng this/ as of the idea involved in the 
fact, a knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding 


6 iraXai^ 4^yMv fivOp^nros : 'our old self'; cp. esp. Suicer, Tkes. 
i« 352| where the patristic interpretations are collected (9 wpmpa 
wtikiTtia Theodrt. i 6 KartyiHadiUvos fiiog £uthym.-Zig., &c). 

This phrase, with its correlatiTe 6 Ktuv^ HyOpotwos^ is a marked link of 
eonnezion between the acknowledged and disputed £pp. (cf. Eph. ii 15; 
iv. aa, a4; Col. iii. 9). The coincidence is tne more remarkable as the 
phrase would hardly eome into use until great stress began to be laid upon 
the necessity for a change of life, and may be a coinage of St Faults. It 
should be noted however that 6 hr^ dvBptawot goes iMtck to Plato (Gia.- 
Thay. s.v. St^fcawot, i.e.). 

9vvi<rravp«»0i| : cf. GaL ii ao Xpitrr^ ffwtffravpeafjuu. There is a differ^ 
ence between the thought here and in Imit. XH. II. xii. 3 ' Behold 1 in the 
cross all doth consist, and all lieth in our dying thereon ; for there is no 
other way onto life, and unto true inward peace, but the way of the holy 
cross, and of daily mortification.' This is rather the 'taking up the cross' 
of the Gospeb, which is a dailv process. St. Paul no doubt leaves room for 
sudi a process (Col. iii. 5, &c.) ; but here he is going back to that which is 
its root, the one decisive ideal act which he regards as taking place in 
baptism : in this the more gradual lifelong process is anticipated. 

RaTapYqO^ For Korapytlv see on iiL 3. The word is appro- 
priately used in this connexion : ' that the body of sin may be 
paralyzed,' reduced to a condition of absolute impotence and 
inaction, as if it were dead. 

T& auf&a TTJs dfuiprias : the body of which sin has taken posses- 
sion. Parallel phrases are vii. 24 roC v^yLoros rov Bavarov rovrov : 
Phil. iii. 21 rh a&fM Trj£ rantivi>(rt<a£ fffiSiu : Col. ii. II [cV rf dfrcic- 

dvcfft] rov acafutrot rrjt a-apKds, The gen. has the general sense of 
' belonging to,' but acquires a special shade of meaning in each 
case from the context ; ' the body which is given over to death,' 
* the body in its present state of degradation/ ' the body which is 
so apt to be the instrument of its own carnal impulses.' 

Here r& a&fia Ttjs 6fiapTia£ must be taken closely together, because 
it is not the body, tt'mply as such, which is to be killed, but the 


bodj as ihi utU ofnn. This is to be killed, so that Sin may lose 
its slave. 

TOO fU|Rfo SouXcJciK. On rw with inf. as expressing purpose see 
esp. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 343. 

TQ A|iofmf : hfiafnia, as throughout this passage, is personified as 
a hard taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter. 

7. 6 Y^p d«o6ai^K . . . dfiaprias. The argument is thrown into 
the form of a general proposition, so that 6 dno3aya>v must be taken 
in the widest sense, ' he who has undergone death in any sense of 
the term' — physical or ethical. The primary sense is however 
clearly physical: 'a dead man has his quittance from any claim 
that Sin can make against him ' : what is obviously true of the 
physically dead is inferentially true of the ethically dead. Comp. 
I Pet. iy, I in 6 naB^v aapKi KrnavTcn Afrnprias : also the Rabbinical 
parallel quoted by Delitzsch ad loc, * when a man is dead he is free 
from the law and the commandments.' 

Delitnch goes to far as to describe the idea as an * acknowledged ioeus 
tfimmttmt* which would considerably weaken the force of the literary 
ooiDcidence between the two Apostles. 

ScSuiofirrai dv& Ti)s djiofn-ias. The sense of MiKoiwai is still 
forensic : ' is declared righteous, acquitted from guilt.' The idea is 
that of a master claiming legal possession of a slave : proof being 
put in that the slave is dead, the verdict must needs be that the 
claims of law are satisfied and that he is no longer answerable; 
Sin loses its suit 

8. aut4<rofMr« The different senses of ' life ' and ' death ' always 
lie near together with St Paul, and his thought glides backwards 
and forwards from one to another almost imperceptibly ; now he 
lays a httle more stress on the physical sense, now on the ethical ; 
at one moment on the present state and at another on the future. 
Here and in ver. 9 the future eternal life is most prominent ; but 
ver. 10 is transitional, and in ver. 11 we are back again at the 
stand-point of the present 

9. If the Resurrection opened up eternity to Christ it will do 
so also to the Christian. 

Kvpictki. Still the idea of master and slave or vassal. Death 
loses its dominium over Christ altogether. That which gave Death 
its bold upon Him was sin, the human sin with which He was 
broo^t in contact by His Incarnation. The connexion was 
severed once for aU by Death, which set Him free for ever. 

10. S ydp dw^Oai^. The whole clause forms a kind of cognate 
accns. after the second dniBavtv (Win. § xxiv. 4, p. 209 £. T.); 

EuthjmL-Zig. paraphrases r6p Bdvarov tp aniBavt dto r^v dpapriop 

imiBam rijw ifurtpav, where however rj ofUMpri^ is not righdy repre- 
sented by M n}v Afiopriafm 


TQ dfMif>Tif dir^arcr. In what sense did Christ die to sin F 
The phrase seems to point back to ver. 7 above : Sin ceased to 
have any claim upon Him. But how could Sin have a claim upon 
Him 'who had no acquaintance with sin' (a Cor* v. ai)? The 
S^mtie verse which tells us this supplies the answer : r^ 11^ yp&rra 
dfiopriaw imip fjfjMP &fiaprtap tnoiij<r«py ' the Sinless One for our sake 
was treated as if He were smful/ The sin which hung about Him 
and wreaked its effects upon Him was not His but ours (cp. i Pet. 
ii. 22, 24). It was in His Death that this pressure of human sin 
culminated ; but it was also in His Death that it came to an end, 
decisively and for ever. 

^^dira{. The decisiveness of the Death of Christ is specially 
insisted upon in £p. to Hebrews. This is the great point of con- 
trast with the Levitical sacrifices : they did and it did not need to 
be repeated {cL Heb. viL 27; ix. la, 26, 28; z. 10; also i Pet 
iii. 18). 

({) Tw ec^ Christ died for (in relation to) Sin, and lives hence- 
forth for God. The old chain which by binding Him to sin made 
Him also liable to death, is broken. No other power Kvpuvti aurov 
but God. 

This phrase Q r^ Br^ naturally suggests ' the moral ' application 
to the believer. 

11. XoyitcffOc lauToi^. The man and his * self are distinguished. 
The *self' is not the ' whole self/ but only that part of the man 
which lay under the dominion of sin. [It will help us to bear this 
in mind in the interpretation of the next chapter.] This part of 
the man is dead, so that sin has lost its slave and is balked of its 
prey; but his true self is alive, and alive /br God, through its 
union with the risen Christ, who also lives only for God. 

Xoyi^caOc : not indie, (as Beng. Lips.) but imper., preparing the 
way, after St. Paul's manner, for the direct exhortation of the next 

iv XpioTw 'Itjcrou. This phrase is the summary expression of 
the doctrine which underlies the whole of this section and forms, as 
we have seen, one of the main pillars of St. Paul's theology. The 
chief points seem to be these, (i) The relation is conceived as 
a local relation. The Christian has his being ' in ' Christ, as 
living creatures * in ' the air, as fish * in ' the water, as plants * in ' 
the earth (Deissmann, p. 84 ; see below). (2) The order of the 
words is invariably cV Xpiorf 'liyo-oG, not <V Irjaov Xpiorf (Deissmann, 
p. 88 ; cp. also Haussleiter, as referred to on p. 86 sup,). We find 
however cV r^ 'ii^o-ov in £ph. iv. 21, but not in the same strict 
application. (3) In agreement with the regular usage of the words 
in this order cV Xp. 'l. always relates to the glorified Christ regarded 
as TTvtvfia, not to the historical Christ. (4) The corresponding 
expression Xpto-ros cv nvt is best explained by the same analogy of 

' Tf. 11-14.^ UNION WITH CHRIST iM 

'the air.' Man lives and breathes ' in the air,' and [he air is also 
'm the man ' (Deissmann, p. g>). 

DtttuDinn't monogrtph ii cntillcd Dtt neutitlamtnlluht Fermrl in 
Ckriita/tm. Muhuig, 1891. It u > oreful uid mclhodical iiiictligiiliOD of 
ibe nbject, somewhat loo rigoroni in pressing all example! of tbe use into 
the ume mould, aod rather uicUoed to realistic modes of conception. A ler; 
tBtei«illi>{; qnestioa arisei n to the origin of the phn&e. HeiT DeiumuiD 
>e^tds it u a crealioD — and tiatorallf uoiie of tbe most original creationt — 
of bt. Paul. Aod it ii me that it i* not found iu the Synoptic Gospel*. 
AfpTOxioulioni however ate found moie or less sporailica'l]', in i St. Peter 
(m. 16 ; r. tOk 14; klwttjs in the coned text W X^ot^I, in the Acts (i*. ) 
ip if "ImsC: 9, 10 it Tfi iriiian lijaoii Xp~ini>5 : 11 ; alii, jg (r rovrfi woi 
t wiaiiuaiw Siclu oiiiai), aod in full Tolume in the Fonnh Gospel (ir iiioi, 
Mirttr J* iiaS Jo. ii, f6; ii», lo, 30; it. j-j; ivi. 33; x*ii. al), in the 
Finl Kpistle of St. John {t* iut$, k» rf, ulf ,hai. tUrt-y ii. j;, 6, B, 14, 17, 
iSi iU. 6, 14; T. It, 10: Jx<" Tiv vl6r V. u), and alto in ihc Apocalypie 
(fc lijaoS i. 9 ; I"- Kuf-V liv. 13). Besides Ihe N, T. there are the Apostolic 
Fttbers, whoie UE.-igc should be investigated with reference 10 the extent to 
«blcb it is directlj traceable (o St Panl*. The phrase h Xp.oTf 't<;>>si 
occBis m I Clem, xxxii. 4 j uivilt. t ; Igo, Epk. i. 1 ; Trail, ii. % ; Ram. 
L I ; IL ). The commoner phnues are ir Xpiorfi la Clem. Rom. and Jr 
1790* Xpurrf whioh is frequent in IgnaL Tbe distiDcUon between i* Iqioi 
Xf-orf and Jr Xpiirry l^ogv is by this time obliterated. In view of these 
pbnoaeiu uid the usage of N. T. it is natural to ask whether all caa be 
■COoBntol for on tbe auumpIioD that the phtaie originales entirely wrth 
St. PanL In spite o( Ihe silence of Evr. Synopt. it seems more probable 
llui the snggesiioD came in some way nltimitely from our Lord Himself, 
tliis would Dill be the only instance of an idea which caught the attenlion of 
bot few of the fiiat disciples but was destined aflenrards lo wider acceptance 
sad eipanUoa. 

U. pootXau^rw: cf. V. 31 of Sin; v. 14, 17 of Death. 

966) AFtkw tl rq< 

IS. Observe the change of lense : iropiffvdi'eTt, ' go on yielding," 
b}r the neakne&s uhich succumbs to temptation whenever it presses; 
wapasr^ffarc, ' dedicate bj one decisive act, one resolute elTori.' 

5»Xa: 'weapons' (cf. esp. Rom xiiL la; 1 Cor. vL 7; x, 4). 
iViot and iuaKKTtwjt are gen. qualilalU. For a like miliiary 
metaphor more fully worked out eomp. Eph vi, 11-17. 

11. Apipna Y<lp- Vou are not, as you used to be, constantly 
harassed by the assaults of sin, aggravated to your consciences by 
the prohibitions of Law. The fuller explanation of this aggravating 
effect of Law is coming in what follows, esp. in ch. vii ; and it is 
jtul like St. Paul to ' set up a finger'post,' pointing to the course his 
argument is to lake, in the last clause of a pLtragraph. It is like 

* It i* rathei nrtnge that this qurilion does not appear 10 be tosched eittiei 
by Bp. Lightfoot or Zj Gebhardi and llamnJc There is more to the point m 
(be esceUcot monograph on Ignaiias by Von det Colli in TtxU u. Umttrt 
■u. J, b« the particular group of phrases is not difctlly treated. 


him too to go of! at the word w^^of hito a digression, returning to 
the subject with wliich the chapter opened, and looking at it from 
another side. 

The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ 

How did St Paul arrive at this doctrine of the Mystical Union? 
Doubtless by the guiding of the Holy Spirit But that guiding, as 
it usually does, operated through natural and human channels. 
The channel in this instance would seem to be psychological. The 
basis of the doctrine is the Apostle's own experience. His conver- 
sion was an intellectual change, but it was also something much 
more. It was an intense personal apprehension of Christ, as 
Master, Redeemer and LoixL But that apprehension was so 
persistent and so absorbing; it was such a dominant element in 
the life of the Apostle that by degrees it came to mean little less 
than an actual identification qfwiU, In the case of ordinary friend- 
ship and affection it is no very exceptional thing for unity of purpose 
and aim so to spread itself over the character, and so to permeate 
thought and feeling, that those who are joined together by this 
invisible and spiritual bond seem to act and think almost as if they 
were a single person and not two. But we can understand that in 
St Paul's case with an object for his affections so exalted as Christ, 
and with influences from above meeting so powerfully the upward 
motions of his own spirit, the process of identification had a more 
than common strength and completeness. It was accomplished in 
that sphere of spiritual emotion for which the Apostle possessed 
such remarkable gifts — ^gifts which caused him to be singled out as 
the recipient of special Divine communications. Hence it was that 
there grew up within him a state of feeling which he struggles to 
express and succeeds in expressing through language which is 
practically the language of union. Nothing short of this seemed to 
do justice to the degree of that identification of will which the 
Apostle attained to. He spoke of himself as one with Christ And 
then his thoughts were so concentrated upon the culminating acts 
in the Life of Christ — the acts which were in a special sense asso- 
ciated with man's redemption — His Death, Burial and Resurrection 
— that when he came to analyze his own feelings, and to dissect 
thb idea of oneness, it was natural to him to see in it certain stages, 
corresponding to those great acts of Christ, to see in it something 
corresponding to death, something corresponding to burial (which 
was only the emphasizing of death), and something corresponding 
to resurrection. 

Here there came in to help the peculiar symbolism of Baptism. An 
imagination as lively as St. Paul's soon found in it analogies to the 
same process. That plunge beneath the running waters was like 

VI. 1-14] 



K dfklh ; the moment's pause while they swept on overhead was 
like a burial ; the standing erect once more in air and sunlighi 
was a species of resurrection. Nor did the likeness reside only in 
ibe outward rite, it eitended to its inner signifiiancc. To what was 
it that the Ctiristian died? He died to his old sil/, to all that he 
had been, whether as Jew or Gentile, before he became a Christian. 
To what did he rise again ? Clearly to that tuw life to which the 
Christian was bound over. And In this spiritual death and resurrec- 
tion the great moving factor was that one fundamental principle of 
union with Ciirist, identification of will with His. It was this which 
enabled the Chhstian to make his parting with the past and embracing 
of new obligations real. 

There is then, it will be seen, a meeting and coalescence of 
a number of diverse trains of thought in this most pregnant 
doctrine. On the side of Christ there is first the loyal acceptance 
of Him as Messiah and Lord, that acceptance giving rise to an 
impulse of strong adhesion, and the adhesion growing into an 
identification of will and purpose which is not wrongly described 
as onioa Further, there is the distributing of ihb sense of union 
over the cardinal acts of Christ's Death, Buri^ and Resurrection. 
Then on the side of the man liiere is his formal ratification of the 
process by the undergoing of B.iptism, the symbolism of which all 
converges to the same end ; and tliere is his practical assumption 
of the duties and obligations to which baptism and the embracing 
of Christianity commit him — the breaking with his tainted past, the 
entering upon a new and regenerate career for the future. 

The vocabulary and working out of the ihoui^hl in St. Paul are 
his own, but the fundamental conception has close parallels in the 
vrilings of St. John and St. Peter, the New Birth through water 
and Spirit (John iii. 5), the being begotten again of incorruptible 
seed (t Pet. L S3), the comparison of baptism to the ark of Noah 
(i PeL ill so, ai) in St. Peter; and there is a certain partial 
coii>ci(kncc even in the anncCijatr of St. James (Jas. i. 18). 

li i« the gnat merit of Matthew Amold'i St. Paul vd PniteilaiUism, 
•rhalcver ili defecu uid iftutevrr iti one-iideiineiii, that it did stice wllb 
fcauuluble fotce uid fmimeii oo ihii pail of Si. Paul'i leaching. And the 
netit b all the giealer when we coQ^idrr bow really hi^b and iliHicull thai 
Uachlitg u. iDd bow Bpt it 11 to slioot oin the bead of reader at heaiei. 
Huibev Arnold uw, and eipicued with all hii ooti Indditr, tbe founilaiioo 
of ainple piychologicil fact m whii;b the Apoitle'a myitical laDgnige i> 
bued. He givei to jl the name of ' faith,' and il ia indeed the only bind ol 
Ctilh which hi> recogniiei. Noi ii he wrong ia ginng the proces this aame, 
tboogh, aa it bapi-cua, St Paul hai not ai yet tgioken of ' fBilb ' in this con- 
BaioK and doe* not to tpcik of il onlil he comci to Eph iii. 17. It wii 
Teatl]r (aitti. the Itvmg appcehensioa of Chiut, which liea at the botiom of all 
th* laognage of idem ilicat ion and union. 

' U era tbert waa a caw in which tbe woudei-workine power of aitach- 
M<at. ta • DUi for whom the motal ij-mpathica and the deijie for ligLleoiW' 


neis were mil-powerful, might employ itielf and work its wonden, it waa 
here. Paul felt this power penetrate him ; and he felt, also, how by 
perfectly identifying himself through it with Christ, and in no other way, 
conld he ever get the confidence and force to do as Christ did. He thus 
found a point in which the mighty world outside man, and the weak world 
inside him, seemed to combine for his salvation. The struggling stream of 
duty, whidi had not volume enough to bear him to his goal, was suddenly 
reinforced by the immense tidal wave of sympathy and emotion. To this 
new and potent influence Paul gave the name of /aitk* {St, Pmd amd 
Froiestantum, p. 69 f.). 

' It is impossible to be in presence of this Pauline conception of fidtb 
without remarking on the incomparable power of edification which it con- 
tains. It is indeed a crowning evidence of that piercing practical religious 
sense which we have attribute to Paul. . . . The elemental power of sym- 
pathy and emotion in us, a power which extends beyond the limits of our 
own will and conscious activity, which we cannot measure and control, and 
which in each of us differs immensely in force, volume, and mode of mani- 
festation, he calb into full play, and sets it to work with all its strength and 
in all its variety. But one unalterable object is assigned by him to this 
power: to die with Christ to the law of the flesh, to live with Christ to the 
law of the mind. This is the doctrine of the necrosis (a Cor. iv. 10), Paul's 
central doctrine, and the doctrine which makes his profoundness and origin- 
ality. . . . Those multitudinous motions of appetite and self-will which 
reason and conscience disapproved, reason and conscience could yet not 
govern, and had to yield to them. This, as we have seen, is what drove 
Paul almost to despair. Well, then, how did Paul's faith, working through 
love, help him here ? It enabled him to reinforce duty by affection. In the 
central need of his nature, the desire to govern these motions of unrighteous- 
ne^, it enabled him to say : Die to them / Christ did. If any man be in 
Clinst, said Paul, — that is, if any man identifies himself with Christ bjr 
attachment so that he enters into his feelings and lives ¥rith his life,— he is 
a new creature; he can do, and does, what Christ did. First, he suffers 
with him. Christ, throughout His life and in His death, presented His body 
a living sacrifice to God ; every self-willed impulse, blindly trying to assert 
itself without respect of the universal order, he died to. You, says Paul to 
his disciple, are to do the same. ... If you cannot, your attachment, your 
faith, must be one that goes but a very little way. In an ordinaiy human 
attachment, out of love to a woman, out of love to a friend, out of love to 
a child, you can suppress quite easily, because by sympathy you become one 
with them and their feelings, this or that impulse of selfishness which 
happens to conflict with them, and which hitherto you have obeyed. All 
impulses of selfishness conflict with Christ's feelings, He showed it by dying 
to them all ; if you are one ¥dth Him by faith and sympathy, you can die to 
them also. Then, secondly, if you thus die with Him, you become trans- 
formed by the renewing of your mind, and rise with Him. . . . You rise with 
Him to that harmonious conformity with the real and eternal order, that 
sense of pleasing God who trieth the hearts, which is life and peace, and 
which grows more and more till it becomes glory ' {iHd. pp. 75-78). 

Another striking presentation of the thought of this passage will be found 
in a lay sermon, The IVitness of God^ by the philosopher, T. H. Green 
(London, 1883 ; also in Worhs\. Mr. Green was as fu* removed as Matthew 
Arnold from conventional theology, and there are traces of H^elianism in 
what follows for which allowance should be made, but his mind had a natural 
affinity for this side of St Paul's teaching, and he has expressed it with great 
force and moral intensity. To this the brief extracts given will do but 
imperfect justice, and the sermon is well worth reading in its entirety. 

' The death and rising again of the Christ, as [St Paul] conceived them. 

TI. 1-14.] 



were not lepantt uid Independent evmU, They were two ijiiei of Ihe same 
Mt— u act which reUtivcW to dn, to Ihe Itci^h, lo Ihe old mui, to kII which 
■epvain from God, ii death ; but which, jnit for that rnson, U [he birth of 

■ new life retiliTely to God God was in [Chntt]i «> <hat what He did, 

God did. A dealh Dtilo life, ■ lite out of death, cnuil then be in <ome vity 
Ibe osruce of the divine natDre — masl be an act which, though exhibited 
once (or «I1 in the cnidfiiioD and rtsnrTcclion of Chriit, wu yet eteniaJ— 
the act of God Himself. For thai Tery reason, however, il was one perpetu- 
ally re-eucied. and lo be re-enacted, by man. If Christ died for all, nil died 
ID Hira : all were bnried in His grave to be all made ali*e in His resar- 
ledion ... la other woidi. He constituies in ui a new intellectual conscious- 
ness whidl transforms the will and is the source of a new moral life.' 
Tfaeie ia special vatne in the way in which the difference ii broii([ht onl 
between th« stale of Ihingi to which the indiiidnal can attain by bis own 
effort and one in which the change is wrought front without. The first 

■ wonld be a self- renunciation which would be really the acme of scif-secking. 
On the other band, presented as the contiauoos act of God Himself, as Ihe 
eternal self-snnenHet of the Divine Sod (o the Father, it ii (or ni and miiy 
be in BS, but is Dot of us. Nay, it is just because DOl of oi, that it may be 
is OS. Because it is Ihe mind of Christ, and Christ Is God's, in the contem- 
ptation of il we are taken oat of oniselvea, we slip the nntBial man and 
a^iptDpriate tlial mind which we behold. Constrained by God's manrlciled 
lo*^ weceaie lo be our own that Christ may become Oors' i.TA* Witmii bJ 
<M. pp. 7-IO). 

\S e may qnote lastly an estimate of the Panline conception Id the history 
«f RetigiOD. ' It is in Christendom that, according to the providence of Cwl, 
this power has been eihitiited ; not indeed either BdetjUBtely or exclusively, 
bnt moit fully. In the religions of the Easl, Ibe idea of a death lo tite 
flesldy self as ft>e end of the merely human, and Ibe beginning of a divine 
life, bai not been wontiaK: nor. is a taen idea, has it beeu very different from 
that which is Ihe eroond of Christianity. But there it hai never been 
realized ia action, either intellectually or morally. The Idea of the uith- 
drawalfiom lenie has renuioed alistracl. Il has not issued in sucb a>lni|;gle 
with the snperiictal view of things, as has gradually conslilDled Ibe science 
of ChiisleoJom. In like manner that of sell lenunciatloa has never emerged 
(rom the esoteric state. Il has bad no ontlet into Ihe life of charity, but 

■ back-way always open into the lUe of tensoal licence, and has been finally 
DUchaniied in the artificial vacancy of the dervish or fakir' {Hid. p. ii]. 

One of the services which Mr. Green's lay sermon may do us is in helping 
■s to nndentiDd — not the whole but part of ihe remarkable conception ot 
■The Way' in Dr. Horl'i poslhumoui 7'ke fVay, Iki Trulh, and tlu Lift 
(Cambridge and London, 1B93). When il i» contended, 'first that the whole 
■ecmine maic of history in nature and man, the lumulluoui movement of Ibe 
world m procicss, baa nmning through it one aopreme dominaiing Way; 
and second, ihal He who on earth wis called Jesna the Naiardne U that 
Way' {Tht Way, Ac p. 10 f.), we can hardly be wrong, though Ihe point 
migbl have been brought out more clearly, in seeliing a scriptnr!^ illuslnilion 
in St. Paul's teachmg as lo the Death, Butiil, and RetuttectioD of Cbriil. 
Tbese lo him are not meiely isoliled historical events which took place once 
for aU Id the put. They did s« take place, and Ihcit historical reality, as 
well as their direct significance in the Kedemplion wrought out by Chjist, 
mait be insisted upi>D. But they ore more than this : ibey constitute a taw, 

■ predisposed pattern or plan, which other banian lives have to follow. 
' Death tmlo life,' ' life gruwmg out of death,' is the inner principle Or tecrel, 
applied in an indefinite variety of ways, but running ibiough the history of 
mint, perhaps all, religious aspirauon and attainment. Everywheic tii'ie 
■Mt be the death of aa old self and the birtb of • new. It mtiit ■)• 


admitted that the group of eonoeptioiif united by St. Paul, and, aa it would 
•eem, yet more widely extended by St John, is difficult to grasp intellectually, 
and has doubtless been acted upon m many a simple onspecnlatiYe life in 
which there was never any attempt to formulate it exactly in words. But the 
conception belongs to the lent^h and depth and height of the Gospel : here, 
as we see it in St Paul, it bears all the impress of his intense and prophet- 
like penetration : and there can be little doubt that it b capable of exercising 
a stronger and more dominating influence on the Christian consdoosness 
than it has done. This must be our excuse for expanding the doctrine at 
rather considerable length, and for invoking the assistance of those who, just 
by their detachment from ordinary and traditional Christianity, have brought 
to bear a freshness of insight in oertain directions which has led them, if not 
exactly to discoveries, yet to new and vivid realizatioo of truths which to 
indolent minds are obscured by their very familiarity. 


VI. 15-23. Take an illustration from common life — the 
condition of slavery. The Christian was a slave of sin ; 
its business was uftcleanness; his wages y death. But hs 
has been emancipated from this service^ only to enter upon 
another — that of Righteousness. 

^Am I told that we should take advantage of our liberty as 
subjects of Grace and not of Law, to sin ? Impossible 1 '* Are 
you not aware that to render service and obedience to any one is 
to be the slave of that person or power to which obedience is 
rendered? And so it is here. You are either slaves of Sin, and 
the end before you death ; or you are true to your rightful Master, 
and the end before you righteousness. "But, thank God, the 
time is past when you were slaves of Sin ; and at your baptism you 
gave cordial assent to that standard of life and conduct in which 
you were first instructed and to the guidance of which you were 
then handed over by your teachers. " Thus you were emancipated 
from the service of Sin, and were transferred to the service of 

*• I am using a figure of speech taken from every-day human 
relations. If * servitude ' seems a poor and harsh metaphor, it is 
one which the remains of the natural man that still cling about you 
will at least permit you to understand. Yours must be an un- 
divided service. Devote the members of your body as unreservedly 

■ n.u-a>.] 



to ifae service of righteousness (or progressive consecratioa to God, 
U JOQ ODCe devoted them to Pagan uncleanness «nd daily increas- 
ing licence. "I exhort you to this. Why? Because while you 
were slaves to Sin, you were freemen in regard 10 Righteousness. 
" What good tnen did you get from conduct which you now blush 
to think a(i Much indeed I For the goal to which it leads is 
death. "But now that, as Christians, you are emancipated from 
Sin and enslaved to God, you have something to show for your 
service — closer and fuller consecration, and your goal, eternal Life ! 
" For the wages which Sin pays its votaries is Death ; while you 
receive — no wages, but the bountiful gifi of God, the eternal Life, 
whkll b 0UI3 through our union with Jesus Messiah, our Lord. 

1S-3S. The next two seciions (vi. 15-23; vii. 1-6) might be 
described summarily as a description of the Christian's release, what 
it ia KDd what it is not. The receiving of Christian Baptism was 
» great dividing-line across a man's career. In it he entered into 
ft mbciiy new relation of self-idetitificaiion with Christ which was 
fraught with momentous consequences looking both backwards and 
forwards. From his siii-stained past he was cut off as it were by 
death: towards the future he turned radiant with the quickening 
inBuence of a new life. Su Paul now more fully espQunds the 
nature of the change. He does so by the help of two illustrations, 
one from the state of slavery, the other from the state of wedlock. 
Each Slate implied certain ties, like those by which the convert lo 
ChridiaDiiy was bound before his conversion. But the cessation of 
diew ties does not cany with it the cessation of all lies ; it only 
meaas the substitution of new ties for the old. So is it with the 
•lave, who is emancipated from one service only to enter upon 
another. So is it with the wife who, when released by the death of 
one husband, is free 10 marry again. In the remaining verses ol 
this chapter St. Paul deals with the case of Slavery. Emancipation 
froot Sin is but the prelude to a new service of Righteousness. 

U. The Apostle once more reverts to the point raised at the 
bcgtontng of the chapter, but with the variation thai the incentive 
10 sin is no longer the seeming good which Sin works by calling 
down grace, but the freedom of the state of grace as opposed to tl 
•Irictnese of die Law. St. Paul's reply in effect is that Chrislia»^ 
freedom consists not in freedom 10 sin but in freedom from sin. 

4|taprf|Ow)tn : from > tile »or. tiiopniea, foond Id LXX (Vellch, frr^. 
Vtrit, p. 49). Cbryt. ctdi. TbeodiL uid olben, wiLh minuKalo. (cm) 

16. A fteneral proposition lu wliich our Lord Himself I 


appealed in ' No man can serve two masters ' (Matt vi. 94). There 
are still nearer parallels in John viii. 34 ; 2 Pet iL 19 : passages 
however which do not so much prove direct dependence on St Paul 
as that the thought was 'in the air' and might occur to more 
writers than one. 

I^TOi • . . 4) : theie disjnnctivei state a dilemma in a lively and emphatk 
way, impl]ring that one limb or the other must be chosen (Banmlein, Ar- 
tihelUkr*, p. 344 ; Kiihner, Gram. § 540. 5). 

17. els Sk • • . SiSaxTJS : stands for [uin^KOMrarf] rinroi Maxit dt 

l» KapMBrjTM, We expect rather ht vfilw waptMfi : it seems more 
natural to say that the teaching is handed over to the persons 
taught than that the persons taught are handed over to the teach- 
ing. The form of phrase which St Paul uses however expresses 
well the experience of Christian converts. Before baptism they 
underwent a course of simple instruction, like that in the * Two 
Ways ' or first part of the Didachi (see the reff. in Hatch, Hibberi 
Lectura, p. 314). With baptism this course of instruction ceased, 
and they were left with its results impressed upon their minds. 
This was to be henceforth their standard of living. 

TihroK SiSaxTJs. For rvnot see the note on ch. v. 14* The third 
of the senses there given (* pattern,' * exemplar,' * standard ') is by 
far the most usual with St Paul, and there can be little doubt itai 
that is the meaning here. So among the ancients Chrys. (ris M 4 

rviroff rris didax^r; opBSii (tjp mi furh nokirtias dpiarrif) £uthym.-Zig. 
^tlf Tvwopf ^yovv t6p Kavdva icai opov r^r tva-tfinvs froXircuv), and 

among modems all the English commentators with Oltr. and Lips. 
To suppose, as some leading Continental scholars (De W. Mey.-W. 
Go.) have done, that some special ' type of doctrine,' whether 
Jewish-Christian or Pauline, is meant, is to look with the eyes ci 
the nineteenth century and not with those of the first (cf. Hort, 
liom, and Eph, p. 32 'Nothing like this notion of a plurality of 
Christian rviroi Ma\Tii occurs anywhere else in the N. T., and it is 
quite out of harmony with all the context '). 

19. di^pi^iriKOK X^Y^. St Paul uses this form of phrase (cf. 
Gal. iii. 15 Karh, avBpmrow Xeyu) where he wishes to apologize for 
having recourse to some common (or as he would have called it 
' carnal ') illustration to express spiritual truths. So Chrys. (first 

explanation) wrcunl iXrytv, dnb avBpnamiiKiiv Xoytafi&p, dsro tw i.9 
mnniQtU^ yufofuvtop, 

81& Tf|K daO^yciar Tf)s aapK^s. Two explanations are possible : 
(i) ' because of the moral hindrances which prevent the practice of 
Christianity' (Chrys. Theodrt Weiss and others); (a) 'because 
of the difficulties of apprehension, from defective spiritual experi- 
ence, which prevent the understanding of its deeper truths ' (most 
moderns)i Clearly this is more in keeping with the context In 

VI. 19-sl] law and grace 169 

iny case ihe clause refers to what has gone berore, not (as Orig. 
Chiys., ftc) (o what follows. 

a«p( •• hninui natiire in in HCAlinm, ptiniKiit)* phyiical ind monil, bol 
Hcondaritj inHlectual. It ia inullcclual wealcnns in Ki far u thb li deter- 
Biioed bj moial, bT the limilation* of cliaracler : cf. ippwtii' tS t^i «np«ut, 
^pirTllia Tftf coficit Rom. riii. jf-; ooi^dI »ari odp«o t Cut. i. 16. The 
idea of ihis pasuge it cimilaT to that of i Cur. iii, 1 tiUs ifioi liiirKni, oi 

Tj daa6opffi^ itaSapala and anida fitly describe the characteriadc 
features of Pagan life (cf. i. 14 fT.). As throughout the context these 
forms of sin are personified; they obtain a mastery over the man ; 
■nd "If rjir atvuun describes the effect of that mastery — 'to the 
practice of iniquity.' With these verses (rg-at) compare especially 
I Pet. iv. 1-5, 

1(1 iyiatr^. Mey. (but not Weiss) Lips. Ollr. Go. would make 
Ay<airit4t here praclicadly = AynarrivT!, i. e. not so much the process of 
consecration as the result of the process. There is certainly this 
tendency in language ; and in some of the places in which the word 
is used it seems to have the sense of the resulting state {e. g. 1 Thess. 
iv. 4, where it is joined with i-ifi^ ; i Tim. ii. 15, where it is joined 
with wlmtt and aydnij). But in the present passage the word may 
well retain its proper meaning : the members are to be handed over 
to Righteousness to be (gradually) made fit for God's service, not 
to become fit all at once. So Weiss Gif. Va, Mou. ('course oi 
purification'). For the radical meaning see the note on ilyiot 
eh. i. 7, and Dr. A. B, Davidson, Hebrews, p. 206 ; Jyioo-^iii = ' the 
process of fitting for acceptable worshij>/ a sense which comes 

out clearly in Heb. Xii. 14 J!>W(Iir< . . . tIiv Ayiair^ii at x-'P" "i/Mt 

l^tTTot rot KbpiDv. The word occurs some ten times (two w. IL) 
in L^X and in Pt. Soi. xvii. 33, but is not classical 

21. ri™ oir . . . ivaiox"''"^* '• ^\'he^e does Ihe question end and 
the answer bedn? (1) Mnst English commentators and critics 
(Treg. WH. RV. as well as Gif Va.) carry on the question to 
^Baiff]FVHv0<. In that case iiUrur must be supplied before (^' ou, 
and its omission might be due 10 Ihe reflex effect of Jaii^ii in the 
■enience following (comp. otroflayiiiT« f* ^ tarnxoiitSa vii. 6 below). 
There would then be a common enough ellipse before rJ yo^ WXoi, 
•What fruit had ye . . -f [None:] for the end,' Ac. (3) On the 
other hand several leading Germans (Tisch. Weiss Lips,, though 
rot Mey.) put the question at rin, and make iip' aU titaurxirfirBi 
part of the answer. ' What fruit had ye then i "rhings [pleasures, 
gratifications of sense] of which you are now ashamed : for their 
end i* death.' So, too, Theod.-Mops. (in Cramer) expressly: tar' 

iwitfMinr •>' oti "Cr iKaiaxir'tr'^: Both interpretations are 
possible, but the former, as it would seem, is more simple and natural 


(Gif.). When two phrases link together so easflj as ^* oZr htatrx' 
with what precedes, it is a mistake to sepanue them except for 
strong reasons; nor does there appear to be sufficient gromid for 
distinguishing between near consequences and remote. 

rd Ydp: r6 iih^ yip K«BD^EFG. There b the usual ambMtj of 
readingt in which B alone joini the Western aathorities. The probabilitj is 
that the reading belongs to the Western element la B, and that fU^ was 
faitrodnced throng erroneoos antithesis to rwl Si. 

88. ii|r4via. From a root vcv- we get f^, ^S^, 'cooked* meat, fisihy &c 
as contrasted with bread. Hence the compound btpvvww (jS/yio/tag, ' to boy ') • 
(i) provision-money, ration-money, or the rations In kind given to troops; 
(2; in a more general sense, ' wages.' The word is said to have come in 
with Menander : it is proscribed by the Attidsts^ bat found fredy in PolybliiSi 
I Mace. &c rSturz, DuU. Mactd, p. 187). 

X^uri&a. Tertullian, with his nsnal pictnresqoe boldness, translates this by 
donaiivum {D§ Rts, Cam,c 47 Stiptnaia tmm deiinguentiai mors, danatwmm 
auUm dei vita aetima). It is not probable that St. Panl had this particnlar 
antithesis in his mind, though no doubt he intends to contrast d^fdbvia and 


VII. 1-6. Take another illustration from the Law of 
Marriage. The Marriage Law only binds a woman while 
her husband lives. So with the Christian, He was wedded^ 
as it were, to his old sinful state ; and all that time he was 
subject to the law applicable to that state. But this old life 
of his was killed through his identification with the death of 
Christ; so as to set him free to contract a new mcu^riage — 
with Christ, no longer decui but riscfi: and the fruit of that 
marriage should be a new life quickened by the Spirit, 

' I say that you are free from the Law of Moses and from Sin« 
You will see how : unless you need to be reminded of a fact which 
your acquaintance with the nature of Law will readily suggest to 
you, that Law, for the man who comes under it, is only in force 
during his lifetime. *Thus for instance a woman in wedlock is 
forbidden by law to desert her living husband. But if her husband 
should die, she is absolved from the provisions of the statute ' Of 
the Husband.' 'Hence while her husband is alive, she will be 
sijrled 'an adulteress' if she marry another man: but if her 

▼n. 1-6.] LAW AND GRACE 1 71 

husband die, she is free from that statute, so that no one can call 
her an adulteress, though she be married to another man. 

*We may apply this in an allegory, in which the wife is the 
Christian's *self ' or 'ego'; the first husband, his old unregenerate 
state, burdened with all the penalties attaching to it. 

You then, my brethren in Christ, had this old state killed in you 
— brought to an abrupt and violent end — by your identificadon 
with the crucified Christ, whose death you reproduce spiritually. 
And this death of your old self left you free to enter upon a new 
marriage with the same Christ, who triumphed over death — 
a triumph in which you too share — that in union with Him you, 
and indeed all of us Christians, may be fruitful in good works, to 
the glory and praise of God. * Our new marriage must be fruiiful, 
as our old marriage was. When we had nothing better to guide 
OS than this frail humanity of ours, so liable to temptation, at that 
time too a process of generation was going on. The impressions 
•f sense, suggestive of sin, stimulated into perverse activity by their 
legal prohibition, kept plying this bodily organism of ours in such 
a way as to engender acts that only went to swell the gamers of 
Death. * But now all that has been brought to an end. Law and 
the state of sin are so inextricably linked together, that in dying, at 
our baptism, a moral death, to that old state of sin we were absolved 
or discharged from the Law, which used to hold us prisoners under 
the penalties to which sin laid us open. And through this discharge 
we are enabled to serve God in a new state, the ruling principle of 
which is Spirit, in place of that old state, presided over by Written 

1-6. The text of this section — and indeed of the whole chapter 
— b still, 'Ye are not under Law, but under Grace'; and the 
Apostle brings forward another illustration to show how die transi- 
tion from Law to Grace has been effected, and what should be its 

In the working out of this illustration there is a certain amount 
of intricacy, due to an apparent shifting of the stand-point in the 
middle of the paragraph. The Apostle begins by showing how 
with the death of her husband the law which binds a married 
woman becomes a dead letter. He goes on to say in the 
application, not ' The Law is dead to you,' but ' You are dead to 
the Law' — which looks like a change of position, though a 
kgitimate one. 


Gif. however may be right in explaining the transition rather 
differently, viz. by means of the irakm6t &vdp<anog of ch. vi. 6. The 
' self of the man is double ; there is an ' old self and a ' new self; 
or rather the 'self remains the same throughout, but it passes 
through different states, or phases. Bearing this in mind we shall 
find the metaphor work out consistently. 

The Wife = the true self, or ego, which is permanent through 

all change. 
The (first) Husband = the old state before conversion to 

The 'law of the husband ' = the law which condemned that old 

The new Marriage =: the union upon which the convert enters 

with Christ 

The crucial phrase is vfuU iBtmrriiBrfn in ver. 4. According to 
the way in which we explain this will be our explanation of the 
whole passage. See the note ad loc. 

There is yet another train of thought which comes in with 
w. 4-6. The idea of marriage naturally suggests the offspring of 
marriage. In the case of the Christian the fruit of his union with 
Christ is a holy life. 

1. *H dyi'ociTc : P surely you know this — that the regime of Law 
has come to an ena, and that Grace has superseded it] Ot do you 
require to be told that death closes all accounts, and tnerefore that 
the state of things to which Law belongs ceased through the death 
of the Christian with Christ — that mystical death spoken of in the 
last chapter ? ' 

yii^aKouai ydp i^jjiok XaXu: ' I speak ' (lit ' am talking *) 'to men 
acquainted with Law.' At once the absence of the article and the 
nature of the case go to show that what is meant here is not 
Roman Law (Weiss), of which there is no reason to suppose that 
St. Paul would possess any detailed knowledge, nor yet the Law of 
Moses more particularly considered (Lips.), but a general principle 
of all Law ; an obvious axiom of political justice — that death clears 
all scores, and that a dead man can no longer be prosecuted or 
punished (cf. Hort, Rom, and Eph. p. 24). 

2. ^ ydp Jirai'Spos yun^ : [' the truth of this may be proved by 
a case in point.] For a woman in the state of wedlock is bound 
by law to her living husband.' vtrapdpos : a classical word, found 
in LXX. 

Ka-n^pyviTai : 'is completely (perf) absolved or discharged' (lit 
* nullified ' or * annulled,' her status as a wife is abolished). The 
two correlative phrases are treated by St. Paul as practically 
convertible : * the woman is annulled from the law,' and * the lav 
is annulled to the woman.' For mrapyciy see on iii. 3. 


d«& Tou v^fiou Tou di'Spos : from that section of the statute-book 
which is headed *The Husband/ the section which lays down his 
rights and duties. Gif. compares ' the law of the leper ' Lev. xiv. a ; 
*the law of the Nazirite' Num. vL 13. 

8. XFni'M'*^^*^ The roeanings of Xflf^'''K*^^ ramify in two directions. 
The fnodamtmtal idea is that of ' transacting business ' or ' managing affairs.' 
Hence we get on the one hand, from the notion of doing business under 
a certain name, from Polybius onwards (i ) 'to bear a name or title * (xp>7/<a- 
ri(ci dotfiAf^ Polyb. V. Ivii. a) ; and so simply, as here, ' to be called or 
styled * (Acts zL 26 iyirrro . . . xflt'^^'^'^^^ nparrov iv 'Avrioxtiq roht fioBrp-ds 
Z^arioroyr) ; and on the other hand (2) from the notion of 'having dealings 
with/ 'giving audience to' a person, in a special sense, of the 'answers, 
oommnnications, revelations,' given by an oracle or by God. So six times 
in LXX of Jerem., Joseph. Antiq., Plutarch, &c. From this sense we get 
pan. 'to be warned or admonished' by God (Matt. ii. 12, 33; Acts z. 32 ; 
Heb. viiL 5 ; xi. 7). Hence also subst. xPVf*<'^'''^^t^^t * ^ Divine or oracular 
response/ a Mace. iL 4 ; Rom. xi. 4. Burton {M. and T. % 69) calls the 
fnt. here a ' gnomic future * at stating ' what will customarily happen when 
occasion offers.' 

ToO |i,'4 cTvoi -r Shtt^ fif^ cTmu : the stress is thrown back upon lX9v$ipa, ' to 
as not to be/ 'causing her not to be/— not *so that she is.' According to 
Buxton Tov /i4 ^^i^ denotes 'conceived result'; but see the note on war* 
9av\tv^tp in ver. 6 below. 

4. 6oTt with indie introduces a consequence which follows as a mattei 
of fiiCt. 

Kol dfAcIs iBavaTiiBj\r€. We have said that the exact interpreta- 
tion of the whole passage turns upon this phrase. It is commonly 
explained as another way of saying * You had the Law killed to 

JOUm* So Chrys. okSXovBop ^p tlnupf TOV vofiov rcXcvn^cairoff ov KpiwttrBt 
/aMXtlatf opdpX y€v6fifvoi iripif, *AXX* ovk tlntv ovrcaSf dXXa n&sl 'Edava- 

rmBiiTM Tf ¥6/1^ (cf. £uthym.-Zig.). In favour of this is the parallel 

KOT^iyf/rtu afF6 rov p6fiov rov avhpos in ver. 2, and KorrjpyfjBijfjitv d7r6 tov 

wifuw in ver. 6. But on the other hand it is strange to speak of the 
same persons at one moment as * killed ' and the next as ' married 
again.' There is therefore a strong attraction in the explanation of 
Gif., who makes vfiiU = not the whole self but the old self, f . e. the 
old state of the self which was really * crucified with Christ' 
(ch. vL 6), and the death of which really leaves the man (= the wife 
in the allegory) free to contract a new union. This moral death 
of the Christian to his past also does away with the Law. The 
Law had its hold upon him only through sin; but in discarding 
his sins he discards also the pains and [)enalties which attached to 
them. Nothing can touch him further. His old heathen or Jewish 
antecedents have passed away ; he is under obligation only to Christ. 

Rol ^|&^. The force of mcu here is, ' You, my readers, as well as the wife 
Id the allegory.' 

Sid TOU atif&ciTos TOU XpioTou. The way in which the death of 
the ' old man ' is brought about is through the identification of the 


Christian with the Death of Christ The Christian takes bis place, 
as it were, with Christ upon the Cross, and there has his old seU 
crucified. The 'body' of Christ here meant is the 'crucified 
body': the Christian shares in that crucifixion, and so gets rid 
of his sinful past We are thus taken back to the symbolism of the 
last chapter (vL 6), to which St. Paul also throws in an allusion 
in ry ^jc yffjcp«y iytpBtvn, The two lines of symbolism really run 
parallel to each other and it is easy to connect them. 

6 vakat^ Mpcmos = The Husband : 

Crucifixion of the vaX, avB, = Death of the Husband: 

Resurrection = Re-Marriage : 

Qp, dovXf vffiy r^ Gc^ sz tcapno<Poptuf rf Otf, 

fit rd TtvlvOai if[iA% Irlp^. Lips, takes this not of ' being muried te 
another husband,* but of ' joining another muuteri on the ground that there 
is no marriage to the Lcbw. This however (i) is unnecessary, because 
marriage to the ' old man ' carries with it subjection to the Law, so that the 
dissolution of the marriage inTolves release from the Law by a step which is 
close and inevitable ; (a) it is wrong, because of m^o^^ocu, which it is 
clearly forced and against the context to refer, as Lips, does^ to anything but 
the offspring of marriage. 

Kapiro^opi^o-ttf&cr t^ 6cf. The natural sequel to the metaphor of 
' Marriage.' The ' fruit ' which the Christian, wedded to Christ, is 
to bear is of course that of a reformed life. 

6. 8tc y^p ^fiCK y T^ (TopKi. This verse develops the idea con- 
tained in Ka(mo<f>opria'tifU¥ : the new marriage ought to be fruitful, 
because the old one was. ilvat, cV rg aapn is the opposite of ftwu 
^ r^ wPiv^Tt : the one is a life which has no higher object than 
the gratification of the senses, the other is a life permeated by the 
Spirit. Although trdp( is human nature especially on the side of 
its frailty, it does not follow that there is any dualism in St. Paul's 
conception or that he regards the body as inherently sinful. 
Indeed this very passage proves the contrary. It implies that it 
is possible to be * in the body' without being *in the flesh.' The 
body, as such, is plastic to influences of either kind : it may be 
worked upon by Sin through the senses, or it may be worked upon 
by the Spirit In either case the motive-force comes from without 
The body itself is neutral See esp. the excellent discussion in 
Gifford, pp. 48-52. 

rd ira9i^|jiaTa twk dfiapribiK: ndOrjpa has the same sort of ambiguity 
as our word * passion.' It means (i) an * impression,' esp. a * pain- 
ful impression ' or suffering ; (2) the reaction which follows upon 
some strong impression of sense (cf. Gal. v. 24). The gen. rw# 
aympTiav = * connected with sins/ * leading to sins.' 

Td Sid Tou i^fiou. Here St Paul, as his manner is, < throws 
up a finger-post ' which points to the coming section of his argu- 
ment The phrase d<d rot) vdpiav is explained at length in the next 

▼n. e, «.] LAW AND GRACE 1 75 

paragraph: il refers to the effect of Law in calling forth and 
aggrai'attng sin. 

irr\pyiin. The pricks and stings of passion were active in otir 
members (cf. i Thess. ii. 13 ; a Thess. it. 7 ; a Cor. i. 6, iv. ta ; 
Gal. V. 6. &c.). 

TB tovdrw : da/, commodi, contrasted wiih Koprroip, r^ Bt^ above. 

a, rvri a Kan)pY^9r](ici' 4wi ToG yi}Loii. ' But ss it ts we ' (In our 

Eccuit part, the old man) ' were discharged or annulled from the 
,w ' {i.t. we had an end put to our relations with the Law; by 
the death of our old man there was nothing left 00 which the Law 
could wreak its vengeance; we were 'struck with atrophy' in 

lespect to it: see 00 ver. a), irfip l/^tii •anj/iy^ftjfiti' ; roO lanxo^rov 
Kopi rrji ifiairrlat AfSp^Jrou noXnioii ojroflowJi'Toi nil Tatptrroc ChryS, 

We observe how Chrys. here practically comes round to the same 
aide as Gif. 

Hie tendcHugi of mr^py^SrjtHr trt nibn intereMiug, and ihotr the dilS' 
enltj of fading tn euct cqaivtleoi io olbei laoeuagcs: rtacuati lumm: 
Ten-i ululi mmm Codd. Cluom. Ssat^nn. Vule. (.-we weie uii- 
booiideo' Wit; "we «re loosed' Khem.) : 'we mre deliyered' Tjm. Cr«n. 
Ocaev. AV. : 'we arc dischkined ' KV. : nem avcm 4ti dfgagit Oitt. iL' 
Jfttatau Tat., Geneii, 1874): nun ahtr sind mr fir das Ctult nuki 
muJtriiaViaisi^lta {Da$ JVnu Ttsl., Freiburg i B. iSSi, ed. 3). 

ijiiAa,*i'm%. AV. »pparenllj re»d iso6atu¥io%. for wliich there a no 
MS ■Bthonljr, bat which teenis to be derived bj ■ mistkLe of Ueu following! 
Eiuinu from * comment of CbryHxtom'a (ice TUch. ad Jat.). The 
WettcTS text (D E F G, <i>dd. af. Orig..l>t. aod mod Latins) boldly correct! 
to To£ AvoTou. which would go with nv fu^et, aod which gives ui eaiier 
conilmctioa , though oat a belter lense. After dn^or^iu we mint tapply 
lulrfi, juat ai io tL a I we bid to supplj Jutirait. 

ir f KaT(Lx'|t<9<^ l^he antecedent of (V ^ is taken by nearly all 
commentators as equivalent Io ry ftf^^ (whether fctvy or miirai is 
regarded as maac. or better neutr.). Gif. argues against referring 
it 10 the 'old state,' 'the old man,' that this is not sufficiently 
suggested by the context But wherever ' death ' is spoken of it is 
primarily this 'old stale,' or 'old man' which dies, so that the use 
of the tcnn dnoAu^rrfi alone seems enough (o suggest it It was 
this old sinful state which brought man under the grip of the Law ; 
vrheo the sinful life ceased the Law lost its hold. 

w<rT« BouX«u(Lr: not 'so that we serve' (RV. and most com- 
mcntaKirs), but ' so or /d serve,' i. e. ' enabling us to serve.' The 
tiress is thrown back upon nai-r)i'rp\6i\^», — we were SO completely 
discharged as to set us free to serve. 


•ad (or N. T. by the Ule Canon T, S. Et-ans in the E:ifoi. for 18S1, i. 3 fl. : 
Am with indie ilatea [he defiaite result wbitb ne a matter of fact dau 
fcUaw ) him with inlia. slate* the cootemplated remit which in the uaiunl 


coarse ought to follow. &art with indie lays stress on the effect ; fi^rc with 
infin. on the canse. Thns in i Cor. i. 7 &<jr* vartptiaBcu « 'caasing or 
inspiring yon to feel behindhand ' (see Sp. Comm. ad locJ) ; in Matt. xiii. 3a 
•jfivtrai SivSpoVj &ar* kK0(iv rci wtrurd itat KaracKtjyovv « ' becomes a tree 
it'g encugh for the birds to come/ &c. It will be seen that the distincdoa 
corresponds to the difference in the general character of the two moods. 

i¥ KOii^TTiTt wcu|iaTos . . . ToXai^Ti ypdf&^TOs. In each case 
the gen. is what is called of ' apposition ' : it denotes that in which 
the newness, or oldness, consists. The essential feature of the new 
state is that it is one of * Spirit'; of the old state, that it is regulated 
by ' written Law/ The j)eriod of the Paraclete has succeeded to 
the period which took its character from the Sinaitic legislation. 
The Christian life turns on an inspiration from above, not on an 
elaborate code of commands and prohibitions. A fuller explanation 
of the KoivoTTjs niftCfiaTos is given in ch. viii. 

It is perhaps well to remind the reader who is not careful to check tht 
stttdy of the English versions by the Greek that the opposition between 
ypAfifta and wvtvfta is not exactly identical with that which we are in the 
habit of drawing between 'the letter' and *the spirit' as the 'literal 'and 
' spiritual sense of a writing. In this antithesis ypafi/M is with St Paul 
always the Law of Moses, as a written code, while wcO/ia is the operation 
of the Holy Spirit characteristic of Christianity (d Rom. ii. 39 ; a Coc iii. 6). 


VH. 7-26. If release from Sin means release from Law, 
must we then identify Law with Sin ? No, Law reveals 
the sinfulness of Sin, and by this very revelation stirs up the 
dormant Sin to action. But this is not because the Lara) 
itself is evil — on the contrary it is good — but tJiat Sin may 
be exposed and its guilt aggravated (w. 7-13). 

This is what takes place, I have a double self But my 
better self is impotent to prevent me from doing wrong 
(vv. 14-17). // is equally impotent to make me do right 
(w. 18-21). There is thus a constant conflict going on^ 
from which, unaided. I can hope for no deliverance, But^ 
God be thankedy through Christ deliverance comes! (w. 
a I -25). 

^ I spoke a moment ago of sinful passions working through Law, 
and of the death to Sin as carrying with it a release from the Law. 
Does it follow that the Law itself is actually a form of Sin ? An 

intolerable thoug^ht I On the contrary it was the Law and nothing 
else through which I leaml the true nature of Sin. For instance, 
I knew the sinfulness of covetous or illicit desire only by the Law 
■aying ' Thou shalt noi covet.' • But the lurking Sin wiihin me 
started into activity, and by the help of that express command, 
provoking to that which it prohibited, led me into al! kinds oi 
conscious and sinful covetousness. For without Law to bring il 
out Sin lies dead — inert and passive. ' And while sin was dead. 
I— my inner self — was alive, in happy unconsciousness, following 
my bent with no pangs of conscience excited by Law. But then 
came ihJs Tenth Commandment; and with its coming Sin awoke 
to life, while I — sad and tragic contrast — died the living death o( 
tin. precursor of eternal death. " And the commandment which 
was given to point men the way to life, this very commandment 
was found in my case to lead to death. " For Sin took advantage 
of it, and by the help of the commandment — al once confronting 
Die with the knowledge of right and provoking me lo do thai 
which was wrong — it betrayed me, so that 1 fell ; and the com- 
mandment was the weapon with which it slew me. " The result i>< 
thai the Law, as a whole, is holy, inasmuch as it proceeds from God : 
and each single commandment has the like character of holiness, 
jtutice, and beneficence. "Am I then lo say that a thing so 
eiceilent in itself to me proved fatal } Not for a moment. Il was 
rather the demon Sin which wrought the mischief. And the reason 
why it was permitted to do so was that it might be shown in 
il» tnie colours, convicted of being the pernicious thing that it is, 
by ibe fact that it made use of a good instrument, Law, to 
work out upon me the doom of death. For this reason Sin was 
permitted to have its way, in order that through its perverted 
use of the Divine commandment it might be seen in all its utter 

**The blame cannot attach to the Law. For we all know that 
the Law has its origin from the Spirit of God and derives its 
chancier bom that Spirit, while I, poot mortal, am made of frail 
humu) flesh and blood, sold like any slave in the market into the 
nervitude of Sin. " It is not the Law, and nol my own deliberate 
aelf, which b the cause of the evil ; because my actions are exe- 
cnled blindly with no proper concurrence of the will. 1 purpose one 


way, I act another. I hate a thing, but do it ^ And by this very 
fact that I hate the thing that I do, my conscience bears testimony 
to the Law, and recognijEes its excellence. *^ So that the state of the 
case is this. It is not I, my true self, who put into act what is 
repugnant to me, but Sin which has possession of me. ^ For I am 
aware that in me as I appear to the outer world — in this ' body 
that does me grievous wrong,' there dwells (in any permanent and 
predominating shape) nothing that b good. The will indeed to do 
good is mine, and I can command it ; but the performance I cannot 
command. ^ For the actual thing that I do is not the good that 
I wish to do ; but my moral agency appears in the evil that I wish 
to avoid. **But if I thus do what I do not wish to do, then the 
active force in me, the agent that carries out the act, is not my true 
self (which is rather seen in the wish to do right), but the tyrant 
Sin which holds possession of me. ^ I find therefore this law — 
If so it may be called — this stem necessity laid upon me from 
without, that much as I wish to do what is good, the evil lies at my 
door. "For I am a divided being. In my innermost self, the 
thinking and reasoning part of me, I respond joyfully to the Law 
of God. * But then I see a different Law dominating this bodily 
organism of mine, and making me do its behests. This other Law 
takes the field in arms against the Law of Reason and Conscience, 
and drags me away captive in the fetters of Sin, the Power which 
has such a &tal grip upon my body. ** Unhappy man that I am— 
torn with a conflict from which there seems to be no issue I This 
body from which proceed so many sinful impulses ; this body which 
makes itself the instrument of so many acts of sin ; this body 
which is thus dragging me down to death. — How shall I ever get 
free from it? What Deliverer will come and rescue me from its 
oppression ? 

*" A Deliverer has come. And I can only thank God, approach- 
ing His Presence in humble gratitude, through Him to whom the 
deliverance is due — ^Jesus Messiah, our Lord. 

Without His intervention — so long as I am left to my own 
unaided self— the state that I have been describing may be briefly 
summarized. In this twofold capacity of mine I serve two masters: 
with my conscience I serve the Law of God; with my bodily 
organism the Law of Sin. 

vn. 7, t.] LAW AND sm 179 

7. So &r Sin and Law have been seen in such close connexion 
that il becomes necessary to define more exactly the relation 
benreen them. In discussing this the Apostle is led to consider 
the action of both upon the character and the struggle to which 
they give rise in the soul. 

It if erident that Mardoo had thii section, at Tertallian tnmi against him 
St. Panl*t refusal to listen to any attack npon the Law, which Marcion 
ascribed to the Demiarge : Abaminaiur apostolus criminatiomm Ugis . . . 
Qmd dt0 impuUn Ugis ^t/od Ugi tius apostolus imputaro non audot f Atquin 
it aceumulat : Lex sancta, et praeceptnm eios instam et bonnm. Si ialiter 
vtmoraiur l^om €roaiorist quomodo %psum destruat nescio, 

h ¥6^M% dfiafmo. It had just been shown (ver. 5) that Sin makes 
use ofHtit Law to effect the destruction of the sinner. Does it 
follow that Sin is to be identified with the Law ? Do the two so 
overlap each other that the Law itself comes under the description 
of Sin ? St. Paul, like every pious Jew, repels this conclusion with 

dXXdl contradicts emphatically the notion that the Law is Sin. 
On the contrary the Law first told me what Sin was. 

odtt lyriir. It is not quite certain whether this is to be taken 
hypothetically (for ovit hp Iy»»v, &v omitted to give a greater sense 
of actuality, KUhner, Gr, Gramm, ii. 176 f.) or whether it is simply 
temporal Lips. Oltr. and others adopt the hypothetical sense 
both here and with oIk jfdciv below. Gif. Va. make both ovx 
and ova {fdrtv plain statement of fact. Mey.-W. Go. take 
hf9^¥ temporally, ovk S^w hypothetically. As the context is 
a sort of historical retrospect the simple statement seems most in 

^fpf Ti Y^ IwiOvf&Cav. Tf yip is best explained as « ' for also/ ' for indeed ' 
(Gil Win. § liiL p. 561 £. T. ; otherwise Va.). The general proposition is 
pcofved by a concrete example. 

$yn0¥ . . . {Stiv retain their proper meanings : ijyojVf * I learnt* implies 
mofc intimate experimental acquaintance; jfSciv is simple knowledge that 
there was snch a thing as lust 

Ivi6u|i4acis. The Greek word has a wider sense than oui 
* covet'; it includes every kind of illicit desire. 

8. A^opfi^K Xo^oGaa : ' getting a start/ finding a point dappui, or, 
as we should say, ' something to take hold of.' In a military 
sense <b^pm4 = ' & base of operations ' (Thuc. i. 90. a, &c.). In 
a hterary sense a<^p\a\v Xa^tlv = ' to take a hint,' * adopt a sug- 
gestion ' ; ct £US. ^p. ad Carpianum €K tov noinj^uiros rov irpof tprj- 

lagwov Mpht €tXrf<t>as d<f>optids. And SO here in a moral sense : Sin 
exists, but apart from Law it has nothing to work upon, no means 
of producing guilt Law gives it just the opportunity it wants. 

il d|iapTia: see p. 145, sup, 

Ii4 T^if ^rroXiit. The prep, dui and the position of the won) 


show that it is better taken with KaTftpyatraro than with a/f>opft, 
Xa/3. ^iToX^ is the single commandment; i^fuw the code as a 

Xiiplt Y^ . . . rcKpd. A standing thought which we have had 
before, iv. 15; v. 13: of. iii. 20. 

0. llwK (€Ctip B; <Cow 17). St. Paul uses a vivid figurative 
expression, not of course with the full richness of meaning which 
he sometimes gives to it (i. 17; viiL 13, &c.). He is describing 
the state prior to Law primarily in himself as a child before the 
consciousness of law has taken hold upon him ; but he uses this 
experience as typical of that both of individuals and nations before 
they are restrained by express command. The 'natural man' 
flourishes ; he does freely and without hesitation all that he has 
a mind to do; he puts forth all his vitality, unembarrassed by 
the checks and thwartings of conscience. It is the kind of life 
which is seen at its best in some of the productions of Greek art. 
Greek life had no doubt its deeper and more serious side; but 
this comes out more in its poetry and philosophy : the frieze of 
the Parthenon is the consummate expression of a life that does 
not look beyond the morrow and has no inward perplexities to 
trouble its enjoyment of to-day. See the general discussion below. 

di^T|(rcr : ' sprang into life ' (T. K. Abbott). Sin at first is 
there, but dormant ; not until it has the help of the Law does it 
become an active power of mischief. 

U. iitiirdiriiri |ic. The language is suggested by the descrip- 
tion of the Fall (Gen. iii. 13 LXX; cf. a Cor. xi. 3; i Tim. u. 
14). Sin here takes the place of the Tempter there. In both 
cases the 'commandment' — acknowledged only to be broken — 
is the instrument which is made use of to bring about the disas- 
trous and fatal end. 

12. 6 ikkv i^f&os. The fih expects a following dc. St. Paul had 

probably intended to write ^ dc dftapria Kar/jpydaan ffV fftoi r^ 

BopoTOP, or something of the kind ; but he digresses to explain how 
a good Law can have evil consequences, and so he fails to com- 
plete the sentence on the same plan on which he had begun it. On 
Sl Paul's view of the nature and functions of the Law see below. 

It is hardly safe to argne with Zahn {Gesch, <f. ^. iL 517^ from the lan- 
guage of TertuUian (given above on ver. 7) that that writer had before him 
a corrupt Marcionitic text — ^not, Zahn thinks, actnaUy dne to Mardon, bat 
cormpted since his time — ^ ivro>Ji abrcv fkxaia for 4 ^^f* ^7><^ fol btKoieu 
It is more probable that Tert. is reproducing his text rather freely : in Di 
Pudic, 6 he leaves out koX Siteaia, Ux quidem sfuuta at et praeteptum 
sanctum et optimum (the use of superlative for positive is fairly common id 
Latin versions and writeis). 

Id. Why was this strange perversion of so excellent a thing as 
the Law permitted ? This very perversion served to aggravate the 


honxir of Sin : Dot conleni with the evil which it is in ilself ii 
mngi needs turn lo evil ihat which was at once Divine in its origin 
and beneficent in its purpose- To say this was to pronounce its 
condemnation: it was Uke giving it full scope, so that the whole 
world mighl see (^ovg) or what extremities {naff vn^doXqK) Sin 
wa& capable. 

14. The section which follows explains more fully by a psycho- 
logical analysis Aow u is that the Law is broken and that Sin 
works such havoc. There is a germ of good in human nature, 
a geooine desire to do what is right, but this is overborne by the 
force of temptation acting through the bodily appetites and 

vrcwfuinK^. The Law is 'spiritual,' as the Manna and the 
Water from the Rock were 'spiritual' {i Cor. x. 3, 4) in the sense 
of being 'Spirit-caused' or 'Spirit-given,' but with the further 
connotation that the character of the Law is such as corresponds 
to its origin. 

ii^i>«l (ouptut6t (4^ L P al.) denotes dimply the material of 
which human nature is cotiiposed, ' made of flesh and blood ' 
(t Cor. ill. 1 ; a Cor. iii. 3), and as such exposed to all the tempta- 
tions which act through the body. 

There iiu Ijccd coniideiable controTcrif as to the beariag of the satitheiii 
m St. Puil t^etwecn ttie ai/^ and wriviia. It hu been nuintkined that Ibii 
■Dtilbent uaonnti to dualism, that St. Paul legardi the «ap{ a* inhereutlj 
eril and the cause of evil, and tbal this dcalistic conception 11 Greek 01 
)UIIeai*tic and not JewUb to iU origin. So, bat with riilleccncei among 
Ibemielrat. Hobleii ^1855, 1868), Ri(£. Schnildt (1870}, LwlciuaiiD (1H7J], 
sad lo iosu: extent Pfleiderct I1873), [[n the tecond etiiliou oi tiii Pan/in- 
itmui (1890 . Plleiderei icfcn 10 mocb of Si. Fiol'* leaching on thi^ bead 
ai Mtmi to go bcTood Uie O. T. not lo Helitnism, bat lo tbe Utei Jewiih 
doctrine ol tbe tall, roocb u it has licen eipoucdcd above, p. i^b fi. In tbii 
we need not greatW differ ft<>in him.1 The most claboiate leply wai that ol 
K. H. WcDdt, Du Btgrifft J-ltuck und Gtitl ^Gotha. iB;8), which wai 
made die basil of an u..cllent Ireaiiie 10 Ent;lisb bj Dr. W. P. DickWD, 
St. Famfl Uu rf iki Ttrmi Flak and Spirit, Glasgow, 1883. Reference 
inaj alas be mode to the well-contideted statcmeut of Dr. Gifford {Kemant, 

E. fB-51). The CDDUDTenv may now l« irgarded ai practically cIoKd. 
nnlt i* mnuDed up by liptiot in th >c decisive woriia ; 'Tbe Paolinc 
aDthropotogy resu cntiiety 00 an Old Tirsiaraent baM ; tbe eleinenli in it 
which ate nipposcd to be derived from Hellenistic dualism mnsl simply be 
denied (rind tinfoih tii htsitetltn'i' TLr points peculiar 10 St, Paul, 
•ccoidine lo Lipuoi, arc ihe sharper cootraiL between the Divine nvtufia and 
the human i^vx<I, and the reading of a niorc ethical sense into >i<>pf, wluch 
was «ri|-inslly pbysical, so that In GaL v. 19 H., Rcmi. vUL 4 ff. the eaf^ 
bcomts a ptindlfe diiEdty at war with the -nn^ia. In the ptoent passage 
^KoDL viL l4->Sl the opiiosing princip!f is djui^io, and the oof^ is only Ibe 
■uiCcrial moliuin {Sl^tlrat) ol sensual iinpnhes and dr«ires. We may add 
thai tUa is Sl Paol'i enential view, of which all eUe is but ihe taiiant 

IS. tiaT*fyHtfat. ^ ptrfina ,pi' ptlrt, ' to carry into effecl,' 'put into eieco- 
CkM'; wfoaam • age, lo ai;i ai a moial and ropcioiible being: rwui •^/atu, 


to prodaee a ceitaia remit withont xefereooe to its moral character, tod 
■imply as it might be produced by inanimate mechaniim (tee alio the notes 
on ch. i. 33 : ii. 9). Of course the specific sense may not be always marked 
by the context, but here it is well borne ont thronghont. For a fuller 
account of the distinction see Schmidt, Lai, u, Gr. Synonymik^ p. 294 ff. 

o^ ^v^oMft appears to describe the harmonious and conscious working of 
will and motive, the former deliberately accepting and carrying out the 
promptings of the latter. The man acts, so to s^ak, blindly : he is not 
a fully conscious agent : a force which he cannot resist takes the decisioo ont 
of his hands. 

6 64Xfi». The exact distinction between 9k><M and 0o6kofiag has been much 
disputed, and is difficult to mark. On the whole it seems that, especially in 
N. T. usage, 0oukofuu lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose, delibera- 
tion, $ikv on the more emotional aspect of will: in tnis context it is 
evidently something short of the 6nal act of volition, and practically « 'wish,' 
* desire.' See especially the full and excellent note in Grm.-Th*y, 

17. wA, hi: ' as it is,' ' as the case really lies ' ; the contrast is 
logical, not temporal. 

i^ oiKOuaa iv iful dfiOfrrCa. [Read ipoiKowra with H B, Method. 
{ap. Phot cod., nan auiem ap, Epiph.)] This indwelling Sin cor- 
responds to the indwelling Spirit of the next chapter : a further 
proof that the Power which exerts so baneful an influence is 
not merely an attribute of the man himself but has an objective 

18. Ik Ifioi, tout' ?<mK, k.t.X. The part of the man in which 
Sin thus establishes itself is not his higher self, his conscience, but 
his lower self, the ' flesh,' which, if not itself evil, is too easily made 
the instrument of evil. 

wofKiKciTai f&oi : * lies to my hand/ ' within my reach.' 

o4 KABC 4767** j/., Edd.: o^x • V'^**" DEFGKLP &c. 
20. h oh eikcj BCDEFG a/., V^H. RV.: t 06 Bikn iy» MAKLP 
&c., Tisch. W H. Ptar^, 

21. cdpiaK(tf apa t6k i^jxok : ' I find then this rule,' ' this con- 
straining principle,' hardly * this constantly recurring experience,' 
which would be too modem. The p6^os here mentioned is akin 
to the €T€po¥ v6fiov of ver. 23. It is not merely the observed fact 
that the will to do good is forestalled by evil, but the coercion of 
the will that is thus exercised. Lips, seems to be nearest to the 
mark, das Geseiz d, h, die ohjecHv mtr auferUgte NothwendigkeiL 

Many commentators, from Chrysostom onwards, have tried to 
make rov p6fwv = the Mosaic Law : but either (i) they read into the 
passage more than the context will allow; or (ii) they give to the 
sentence a construction which is linguistically intolerable. The 
best attempt in this direction is prob. that of Va. who translates, 
* I find then with regard to the Law, that to me who would fain 
do that which is good, to me (I say) that which is evil is present' 
He supposes a double break in the construction : (i) r6v v6fAow 
put as if the sentence had been intended to run ' I find then the 

▼n. S1-9M.] LAW AND SIM 1 8^ 

Law — when I wish to do good — poweriess to help me'; snd (>) 
iiiai repeated for the sake of clearness. It it apparently in 
a sitDilar sense thai Dr. T. K. Abbott proposes as an alternative 
rendering (the first being aa above), ' With respect to the law, 
I find,' ±c. But the anacoluthon after rov linov seems too great 
even for dictation to an amanuensis. Other expedients like those 
of Mey. (not Mey.-W.) Fri. Ew. are still more impossible. See 
e*p. Gif. Additional Note, p. 145. 

32. tfvr^Sopot Tf rofiy Tou BtoH: what it approves, 1 gladly and 
cordially approve. 

■iiTi til fvat ar4pw«or. St. Paul, as we have seen (on vi. 6), 
makes great use of this phrase Si^patiot, whii;h goes back as far as 
Plato. Now be contrasts the 'old' with the 'new man' (or, as 
■e should say, the ' old ' with the ' new tti/') ; now he contrasts 
the 'outer man.' or the body {i •£■ SyS^aimi 1 Cor. iv. 16), with the 
'inner man,' the conscience or reason (a Cor, iv. 16; Eph. ili, 16). 

23. Inpor i^fior; 'a different law' (for the distinction between 
rT'pot, ' different,' and S^m, ' anolber,' ' a second,' see the commen- 
tators on GaL i. 6, 7). 

There are two Imperatives {i^im) within the man : one, that of 
conscience ; the other, that proceeding from the action of Sin 
opon the body. One of these Imperatives is the moral law, 'Thou 
shalt' and 'Tbou ghalt not'; the other is the violent impulse of 

Tf rif-if ToC ro4t |i««. For revt see on i. sB : it is (he radonat 
pan of conscience, the faculty which decides between right and 
wrong; itiicUy speaking it belongs to the region of morals rather 
than to that of intercourse with God, or religion ; but it may be 
associated with and brought under the influence of the trmC^ 

(Eph. iv. 33 ir<aioia6iu r^ nrivjum rnv nxJr : cf. Rom. xiu ■), jUSt as 

on the other hand it may be corrupted by the flesh (Rom. i. »8). 

94. ToXaiirwpoi iyii artpwrmt. A heart-tending cry, from the 
deptlis of des[air. It is difficult to think of this as exactly St. Paul's 
own experience : as a Christian he seems above it, as a Pharisee 
below it — self-satisfaction was too ingrained in the Pharisaic temper, 
the peifonnancc of Pharisaic righteousness was too well within the 
compasa of an average will. But St. Paul was not an ordinary 
Phansee. He dealt loo honestly with himself, so that sooner or 
laler the seir-saiisfaction natural to the Pharisee must give way. 
and bis experience as a Christian would throw back a lurid light on 
those old iiys 'of which ho was now ashamed.' So that, what with 
his knowledge of himself, and what with his sympathetic penetration 
into the hearts of others, he had doubtless materials enough for the 
picture which be has drawn here with such extraordinary power. 
He has sat for his own hkencss; but there are ideal traits in the 
pictan uwelL 


Ik toO aiS|&oTot tou Bavdrwt toiStou. In construction mvrov might 
go with avfuiroff (' from this body of death ') : but it is far better to 
take it in the more natural connexion with Aiytfrov ; * the bodj of 
this death ' which already has me in its clutches. Sin and death 
are inseparable : as the body involves me in sin it also involves me 
in mortality ; physical death to be followed by eternal, the death of 
the body by the death of the souL 

26. &pa oZv K.T.X. A terse compressed summary of the previous 
paragraph, w. 7-24, describing in two strokes the state of things 
prior to the intervention of Christ. The expression is that whidi 
comes from deep feeling. The particular phrases hardly seem to 
need further explanation. 

c^of iorA T^ Off. The trne reading ii probably x°pf ^9 ^*9* Tbe 
eridence stands thus. 

X^^ rfr •#{; B, Sah., Orig. semel Hieron. stmiL 

Xapis U r$ e€^ K* C* {dt C* nM liquit) minusc. alif., Boh. Arm., Cjr^ 

Alex. Ja-Damasc. 
4 X^' '''^ ^*^ ^£ 38, de Vulg., Orig.-lat. Mr Hieroo. umel Ambistr. 
1) x^P" ^^^ Kvplov FG, f g| cf. Iren.4at. 
ff^X<>P«^w "TV ^*9 K*AKLP Ac, Syrr. Goth., Orig. Hs Chrji. 

Theodrt a/, [c^x^"^^^ ^<f Method. 41/. Epiph. tad,, ntd xdp^* ^ 

ecf vel x^/M' S^ ^f 9<f Epiph. tdd. pr. ; vid. Bonwetsch, MitkMm 

von Olympus, i. 204^] 

It is easy to see how the reading of B would explain all the rest The 
reading of the mass of MSB. wonld be derived from it (not at once but bj 
successive steps) by the doubling of two pairs of letters, 


The descent of the other readings may be best represented by a table. 

XApiC T(f> 6€(p 

I [ CYXApiCTOo T<p 6e$ 

Xapic Ac T$ 6c(p N x^pic TOY 6eoY (6?) 

N x^pic TOY Kyp'ioy (K?) 

The other possibility wonld be that tlx^^'"' ^f ^'f had got reduced to 
X^t r^ ef ^ by successive dropping of letters. But this must have taken 
place veiy early. It is also conceivable that x^' ^^ preceded x^' only. 

TAe Inward Conflict. 

Two subjects for discussion are raised, or are commonly treated 
as if they were raised, by this section, (i) Is the experience 
described that of the regenerate or unregenerate man ? (a) Is it, 
or is it not, the experience of St. Paul himself? 

I (a). Origen and the mass of Greek Fathers held that the 
passage refers to the unregenerate man. (i) Appeal is made to 

such expressions as trtnptifUvot vk6 r^y dftaprUuf ver. 14, KaTtpyd(ofMm 

' •m.^-v.J 



[t4 aatif] W. 19, JO, raXaiimtpot ryi Sv$f>tmas ver. 14. Il li flrgued 

that knguage like this is nowhere found of (he regenerate state. 
(ii) Wben other expressions are adduced which seem 10 make for 
the opposite conclusion, it is urged that parallels to them may be 
quoted from Pagan literature, t.g. the video meliora of Ovid and 
many other like sayings in Euripides, Xenophon. Seneca. Eplctetus 
<see Dr. T. K. Abbott on ver, 15 of this chapler). (iii) The use of 
the preKiit tense is explained as dramatic. The Aposile ihtowg 
himself back into the time which he is describing. 

(a) Another group of writers, Methodius (ob. 310 a. d.), Augustine 
and the Latin Fathers generally, the Reformers especially on the 
Calrinistic side, refer the passage rather to the regenerate, (i) An 
opposite set of expressions is quoted, »uoi [ri Kanir] ver. 15, 6i\tt 
aauir rd »iXo> ver. 1 1 , irui^Aafiai r^ vofuf Ver. 11. It 18 said that these 
are inconsistent with the ayniWo^pueitivoi lai ixBfoi of Col. i. ai and 
with descriptions like that of Rom. viii. 7, 8. (ii) Stress is laid on 
the present tenses: and in proof that these imply a present experi- 
eDC«, reference is made to passages like j Coi. ix. 17 inranid(it lum 
tA «afu cai Sovkaytmyi. That even the regenerate may have this 
mixed experience is thought to be proved, e.g. by Gal. v. 17. 

Clearly there is a double strain of language. The state of things 
described is certainty a cooSict in which opposite forces are struggling 
for th« mastery. 

Whether such a slate belongs to the regenerate or the unre- 
generate man seems to push us back upon the further question, 
Wbai we mean by ' regenerate.' The word is used in a higher and 
a tower sense. In the lower sense it is applied to all baptized 
Christians. In that sense there can be little doubt that the 
experience described may fairly come within it. 

But on the other hand, the higher stages of the spiritual life seem 
10 be really excluded. The sigh ot relief in ver. 15 marks a dividing 
Une between a period of conflict and a period where conflict is 
practically ended This shows that the present tenses are in any 
cue tiot to be taken too literally. Three steps appear to be 
distinguished, (i) the life of unconscious morality (ver. 9V happy, 
but only from ignorance and thoughdessness ; (ii) then the sharp 
collision between law and the sinful appetites waking to activity; 
(iii) the end which is at last put 10 the stress and strain of this 
collision by the intervention of Christ and of the Spirit of Christ, of 
which more will be said in the next chapter. The stale there 
described is that of the truly and fully regenerate ; the prolonged 
struggle which precedes seems to be more rightly defined as t'nier 
r^auraudum (Gif. after Dean Jackson). 

Or perhaps we should do belter still to refuse to introduce so 
technical a term as ' regeneration ' into a context from which it is 
wboUj abeenL Su Paul, It is true, regarded Chrbtianity as operating 


a change in man. Bat here, whether the moment described is 
before or after the embracing of Christianitj, in anj case abstraction 
b made of all that is Christian. Law and the soul are brought face 
to face with each other, and there is nothing between them. Not 
until we come to ver. 25 is there a single expression used which 
belongs to Christianitj. And the use of it marks that the conflict 
is ended 

(a) As to the further question whether St Paul is speaking 0^ 
himself or of ' some other man ' we observe that the crisis which is 
described here is not at least the same as that which is commonlj 
known as his ' Conversion/ Here the crisis is moral ; there it was 
in the first instance intellectual, turning upon the acceptance of 
the proposition that Jesus was truly the Messiah. The decisive 
point in the conflict may be indeed the appropriation of Christ 
through His Spirit, but it is at least not an intellectual conviction, 
such as might exist along with a severe moral struggle. On the 
other hand, the whole description is so vivid and so sincere, so 
evidendy wrung from the anguish of direct personal experience, 
that it is difficult to think of it as purely imaginary. It is really 
not so much imaginary as imaginative. It is not a literal photo- 
graph of any one stage in the Apostle's career, but it is a con- 
structive picture drawn by him in bold lines from elements sup- 
plied to him by self-introspecdon. We may well believe that the 
regretful reminiscence of bright unconscious innocence goes back 
to the days of his own childhood before he had begun to feel the 
conviction of Sin. The incubus of the Law he had felt most 
keenly when he was a 'Pharisee of the Pharisees.' Without 
putting an exact date to the struggle which follows we shall prob- 
ably not be wrong in referring the main features of it especially to 
the period before his Conversion. It was then that the powerless- 
ness of the Law to do anything but aggravate sin was brought 
home to him. And all his experience, at whatever date, of the 
struggle of the natural man with temptation is here gathered 
together and concentrated in a single portraiture. It would 
obviously be a mistake to apply a generalized experience like 
this too rigidly. The process described comes to different men 
at different times and in different degrees; to one early, to an- 
other later ; in one man it would lead up to Christianity, in 
another it might follow it; in one it would be quick and sudden, 
in another the slow growth of years. We cannot lay down any 
rule. In any case it is the mark of a genuine faith to be able to 
say with the Apostle, 'Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 
our Lord.' It is just in his manner to sum up thus in a sen- 
tence what he is about to expand into a chapter. The break 
occurs at a very suitable place : ch. viii is the true conclusion to 
ch. viL 

*n T-»] 



St. Paul's View of the Law. 

It was ID his view of the Mosaic Law itiat St. Paul must hav« 
seemed most revolutionary to his counirymen. And yet it would 
be % mistake to suppose that he ever lost that reverence for ihe 
law as a Divine msiitulion in which every Jew was bom and bred 
and to which he himself was still more completely comtniited by 
his early education as a Pharisee (Gal. i. 14 ; Phil. iii. 5 f.). This 
old feeling of his comes out in erootional passages like Rom. ix. 4 
(ct m. ) ; ii. 35, ftc). And even where, as in the section before 
us, be is bringing out most forcibly the ineffectiveness of the Law 
to restrain human passion the Apostle still lays down expressly 
that the Law itself is ' holy and righieous and good '; and a little 
lower donn (ver. 14) he gives it the epithet ' spiritual,' which is 
equivalent to ascribing 10 it a direct Divine origin. 

It was only because of his intense sincerity and honesty in 
being facts that St. Paul ever brought himself to give up his 
belief in the sufficiency of the Law ; and there is no greater proof 
of his power and penetration of mind than the way in which. 
when once his thoughts were turned into this channe], he followed 
out the whole subject into its inmost recessea. We can hardly 
doubt that his criticism of the Law as a principle of religion dates 
bock to a time before his definite conversion (o Christianity. The 
process described in thb chapter dearly belongs to a period when 
iJi« Law of Moses was the one authority which the Apostle re- 
cogiui«d. It represents just the kind of difficulties and struggles 
which would be endured long before they led to a complete shift- 
ing of belief, and which would only lead to it then because a new 
and a better solution had been found. The apparent suddenness 
of St. Paul's conversion was due to the tenacity with which he 
held on to his Jewish faiib and his reluctance to yield to con- 
dunons which were merely negative. It was not till a whole 
group of positive convictions grew up within him and showed their 
power of supplying the vacant place that the Apostle withdrew his 
allegiance, and when he had done so came by degrees lo see 
the tnw place of the Law in [he Divine economy. 

From the time that he came to write the Epistle to the Romans 
tbe process is mapped out before us pretty clearly. 

The doubts Uigan, as we have seen, in psychological experience. 
With tbe best will in the world St. Paul had found that really to 
ke«p the Law was a matter of infinite difficulty. However much 
it drew him one way there were counter influences which drew 
bim another. And these counter influences proved the itronger 
of tbe two. The Law itself was cold, inert, passive. It pointed 
severely lo the path of right and duty, but there its fimction 


ended ; it gave no help towards the performance of that which il 
required. Nay, by a certain strange perversity in human nature, 
it seemed actually to provoke to disobedience. The very fact 
that a thing was forbidden seemed to make its attractions all the 
greater (Rom. vii. 8). And so the last state was worse than the 
first The one sentence in which St. Paul sums up his experience 
of Law b di^ v6fiov (Wyvoxrtr afuipriat (Rom. iii. ao). Its effect 
therefore was only to increase the condemnation : it multiplied sin 
(Rom. V. ao); it worked wrath (Rom. iv. 15); it brought man- 
kind under a curse (Gal iii. 10). 

And this was equally true of the individual and of the race ; the 
better and fuller the law the more glaring was the contrast to the 
pracdce of those who lived under it. The Jews were at the head 
of all mankind in their privileges, but morally they were not much 
better than the Gendles. In the course of his travels St. Paul was 
led to visit a number of the scattered colonies of Jews, and wlien 
he compares them with the Gentiles he can only turn upon them 
a biting irony (Rom. ii. 17-29). 

The truth must be acknowledged ; as a system. Law of what- 
ever kind had failed. The breakdown of the Jewish Law was 
most complete just because that law was the best It stood out 
in history as a monument, revealing the right and condemning 
the wrong, heaping up the pile of human guilt, and nothing 
more. On a large scale for the race, as on a small scale for the 
mdividual, the same verdict held, di^ p6fjLov hrlyvwnt d/iofnias. 

Clearly the fault of all this was not with the Law. The fault 
lay in the miserable weakness of human nature (Rom. viii. 3). 
The Law, as a code of commandments, did all that it was intended 
to do. But it needed to be supplemented. And it was just this 
supplementing which Christianity brought, and by bringing it set 
the Law in its true light and in its right place in the evolution of 
the Divine plan. St. Paul sees spread before him the whole ex- 
panse of history. The dividing line across it is the Coming of 
the Messiah. All previous to that is a period of Law — first of 
imperfect law, such law as was supplied by natural religion and 
conscience ; and then of relatively perfect law, the law given by 
God from Sinai. It was not to be supposed that this gift of law 
increased the sum of human happiness. Rather the contrary. 
In the infancy of the world, as in the infancy of the individual, 
there was a blithe unconsciousness of right and wrong ; impulse 
was followed wherever it led ; the primrose path of enjoyment 
had no dark shadow cast over it. Law was this dark shadow. 
In proportion as it became stricter, it deepened the gloom. If 
law had been kept, or where law was kept, it brought with it 
a new kind of happiness; but to a serious spirit like St Paul's 
it seemed as if the law was never kept— never satisfactorily 

▼m. 1-4.] UFE IN THE SPIRIT 1 89 

kept — at all. There was a Rabbinical commonplace, a stern 
rale of self-judgement, which was fatal to peace of mind : ' Who- 
soever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, 
he is become guilty of all* (Jas. iL 10; cf. Gal. iii. 16; Rom. 
X. 5). Any true happiness therefore, any true relief, be 
sought elsewhere. And it was this happiness and relief which 
St. Paul sought and found in Christ. The last verse of ch. vii 
marks the point at which the great burden which lay upon the 
conscience rolls away; and the next chapter begins with an 
uplifting of the heart in recovered peace and serenity ; * There is 
therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.' 

Taken thus in connexion with that new order of things into 
which it was to pass and empty itself, the old order of Law had at 
last its difficulties cleared away. It remained as a stage of 
salutary and necessary discipline. All God's ways are not bright 
upon the surface. But the very clouds which He draws over the 
heavens will break in blessings; and break just at that moment 
when their darkness is felt to be most oppressive. St. Paul him- 
self saw the gloomy period of law through to its end {riXot yap 

96fun> Xpurr&ff tig ^auxrwriv navri r^ trtrrrcvovrt Rom. X. 4) ; and 

his own pages reflect, better than any other, the new hopes and 
by which it was succeeded. 


The result of Christ's interposition is to 
dethrone Sin from its tyranny in the human heart, and to 
instal in its stead the Spirit of Christ. Thus what the 
Law cf Moses tried to do but failed^ the Incarnation has 

'This being so, no verdict of 'Guilty' goes forth any longer 
against the Christian. He lives in closest union with Christ. 
* The Spirit of Christ, the medium of that union, with all its life- 
giving energies, enters and issues its laws from his heart, dis- 
possessing the old usurper Sin, putting an end to its authority and 
to the fetal results which it brought with it. ' For where the old 
system failed, the new system has succeeded. The Law of Moses 
could not get rid of Sin. The weak place in its action was that 
oor poor human nature was constandy tempted and fell. But now 
God Himself has interposed by sending the Son of His love to 

190 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS f'^^^^^ ^ ^ 

take upon Him that same human nature with all its attributes 
except sin : in that nature He died to free us from sin : and this 
Death of His carried with it a verdict of condenmation against Sin 
and of acquittal for its victims; ^ so that from henceforth what the 
Law lays down as right might be fulfilled by us who regulate our 
lives not according to the appetites and passions of sense, but at 
the dictates of the Spirit 

1 ft This chapter is, as we have seen, an expansion of x<W ^ 
6c^ dccb 'lijcroO Xpurrov tov Kvptov ^fi&w in the last verse of ch« vii. It 
describes the innermost circle of the Christian Life from its begin- 
ning to its end — ^that life of which the Apostle speaks elsewhere 
(Col. iii. 3) as ' hid with Christ in God/ It works gradually up 
through the calm exposition and pastoral entreaty of w. 1-17 to 
the more impassioned outlook and deeper introspection of w. 18-30, 
and thence to the magnificent climax of w. 31-39. 

There ii eridenoe that Mardon retained tt. i-ii of this chapter, probably 
with no Tery noticeable Tariation from the text which has come down to ns 
(we do not know which of the two competing readings he had in ver. 10). 
Tertullian leaps from Tiii 11 to z. a, implying that much was cot out, bat 
we cannot determine how much. 

1. Kardicpipa. One of the formulae of Justification : itanUe/Mrit 
and KaroKptfia are correlative to dixaitoirit, diKalwfta; both sets of 
phrases being properly forensic Here, however, the phrase toTs 
^ X. *!• which follows shows that the initial stage in the Christian 
career, which is in the strictest sense the stage of Justification, has 
been left behind and the further stage of union with Christ has 
succeeded to it. In this stage too there is the same freedom from 
condemnation, secured by a process which is explained more fiilly 
in ver. 3 (cf. vi. 7-10). The KaraKpiais which used to fall upon the 
sinner now falls upon his oppressor Sin. 

|At\ Kard (nlpKa Trcptiraroikn.v, dXXd KaroL iTvc{)|ia. An interpohition 
introduced (from ver. 4) at two steps : the first clause fifl tcard cAptea wtptwa- 
rovcty in AD^ 137, f m Vulg. Pesh. Goth. Arm., Has. Chrys.; the second 
clause 6Xkd leariL nrcvfia in the mass of later authorities K* I>£ K L P &c. ; 
the older uncials with the Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions, the Latin Version 
of Origen and perhaps Origen himself with a fourth-century dialogue attri- 
bnted to him, Athanasius and others omit both. 

2. 6 v6p.os Tou rii'cufiaTos = the authority exercised by the Spirit 
We have had the same somewhat free use of vofxos in the last 
chapter, esp. in ver. 236 vopos roO vo6s, 6 vofios rrjs inuLprias : it is no 
longer a ' code ' but an authority producing regulated action such 
as would be produced by a code. 

TOO rii'cu^Tos Ttis Iwtjs. The gen. expresses the ' effect wrought' 
(Gif.), but it also expresses more : the Spirit brings life because it 
essentially is life. 


4r Xpim^'iiicrou goes with tikniSipaai : the authority of the Spirit 
openiing through the union with Christ, freed me, ic. For the 
phrase itseirsee on ch. vi. ii 

^^XniMpiMri |M, A aatXX group of impocUnt mtlioritiei iKBFG, 
nt Pab., Ten. i/i w/ peliui i/i Cb.tjt. itdd.\ hu li.VfiyejfWv^r at. Tbc 
combmuioD of K B witb Lsdd uid Syrixc luthoiitiet show* thai this reading 
mut be citremelj luly, going back to the time before [be Weitero teit 
dinrged (roDi the mtia body. Slill It can hatdly be right, m the second 
penoo ii aowhete luggeted in the couteit. and it is mote probable that m 
i* oolj a mechaoical lepelitloa of the lait ajrllable d( ^AfudVponrt (ce). 
Dr. Hon loggestt the amistloii of both proaoaos (i)*^ ■'"<■ being (oimd), 
and although the evidence for this is confined la tomt MSS. of Ann. (to 
which Dr. Hon would add 'perhB5>f' the commentary of Origen u rcpre- 
KVted b; Rnlinas, bot thi* ii not certaia), it wai a very geiieral tendency 
■mong KTibei to tupply an object to Terbs originally without one. We do 
■M (Sped a rctam lo finl pen. ling. after rait tv X. 'I., and the scanty 
crUcDce lor omioioo may be to aome extent paralleled, e.g. by that for the 
onbtioo of (ufnjitroi in IT. I, for (! 7< in >- 6. ot tor x^9'' '^ ^'V 'n vii. 15. 
Bu wc afaonld haHly be justified In doing moie than placing la in brackeu. 

&»A Toil r6)iou r^i d(iaf>Tlat aoi t«S Oavdrou = the authority 
exefCised by Sin and ending in Death: see on vii. 33, and on 
a rift, r, mvik above. 

8. H yip iSuroTDi- rou rdfiov. Two questions arise as to these 
words, (i) What is iheir construction? The common view, 
adopted also by Gif. (who compares Eur. Troad. 489), is that they 
form a sort of nom. absolute in apposition to the sentence. Gif. 
translates, ' the impotence (see below) of the Law being this that,' 
ftc. It seems, however, somewhat better to regard the words in 
apposition not as nom. but as accus. 

A most accomplished scholar, Ihe late Mr. Jimel Riddell, In his ' Digest 
of PUtonic l^omt' (Tit AfeUgy if Plalf.OiiaiA, 1877,0.1331, lays .i own 
two piopoaitioDS about consliucli on 1 like thiai 'lit These Noun -Phrases and 
Neotci-riononni are Actiuatit/tl. The prcratence of the Neuter Gender 
maket thb diHiciitt to pioTe; bat »ch inslances as are dediiTc alToid an 
analogy for the rest: Tbeaet. 153 C Jui -niraa ri* KvXo-p^ira, dvaTM^m 
v^H^■JSaf•« t.r.K Ct Soph. 0. T. 643 cd T^xtr fofyxer . . . wfiSov. and 
the Adrerba ifiX^i '■fi', ^V f^f"!*, &C lii) They represenl, by Appo- 
aidon or SnbstitulJon , tii im/tm-i ititlf. To say, that they are Cognate 
Accoaatirei. or in Apposition with the (nneipres^) Cognate Accns., would 
be inadeqiiate lo the facts. For o ) in most ol the instances the sense points 
<MX that the Noon-Phraie ot Pronoun stands over against the senlence, or 
pcslioa of a senlence, ai a whole; (11 in many of them, not the latemal 
fbcce but merely the tbelorical or logical fonn erf the sentence is in Tiew. It 
might be (aid ihat Ihn' are Predicates, while the sentence Itself ii the 
Sa^ecL' [Eiamples follow, but that from Thtatt. given abon ii ai dear 
at any.] This scenu to criliciie l>y aniidpatiou ihe new of Va., who regaida 
ri dUr. at accus. but practically explains it a* in apportion to a cognate 
ftccna. which is not eipteaied : ' The impossible thing of the Law . . . God 
[effected; that ia He] condemned ain in the HFtb ' It is true that an apt 
psratlel ll quoted btna t Cor. vi. 13 i^r U e-vr^r Amiuafiar f:>jiTvv*qT« 
(Oi liiua ■■ but thi« wonld seem to come under the same rule. The argument 
ihal if rl iiir. had been aoeni. it wosld probably have stood at Ihe end ol 


lentenoe, like ri^ Xoyucifif XarptUu^ Ift&w in Rom. zii. I, appeui to be 
refuted by top KoX<xf>&va in Theaet, aboTe. Win. Gr, § xxzii. 7, p. %^ £. T. 
while recognizing the accos. nse (§ lix. 9, p. 669 £. T.), leems to prefer to 
take rh diw, as nom. So too Mey. Lips. &c 

(a) Is t6 advv. active or passive ? Gif., after FiL (cf. also Win. 
at sup,) contends for the former, on the ground that if advp. were 
passive it should be followed by r^ p6fif not rw v6iuw. Tertullian 
{De Res, Cam, 46) gives the phrase an active sense and retains the 
gen., quod invalidum erat Ugis. But on the other hand if not Origen 
himself, at least Rufinus the translator of Origen has a passive 
rendering, and treats rov wofiov as practically equivalent to rf rS/A^ : 
quod imposstbile erat Ugi*. Yet Rufinus himself clearlj uses 
impossibilis in an active sense in his comment ; and the Greek of 
Origen, as given in Cramer's Catena, p. 125, appears to make ri 

abv¥, active : &<rw€p yap 4 aptrri liiq. <f)va€i Urxypdf ovra» mi f Koxia ml 
t6, air* aur^r daSiv^ Kal diCpara . . . rov roiovrov v6fiOV 19 <f>vatg advmir6t 

iaru Similarly Cyr.-Alez. (who finds fault with the structure of the 
sentence) : t6 dduraroy, Tovrtori t6 d(T$€Povr, Vulg. and Cod. Clarom. 
are slightly more literal: quod imposstbile erat legis. The gen. might 
mean that there was a spot within the range or domain of I^w 
marked 'impossible,' a portion of the field which it could not 
control. On the whole the passive sense appears to us to be more 
in accordance with the Biblical use of ahvv, and also to give a some- 
what easier construction : if rh advy. is active it is not quite a simple 
case of apposition to the sentence, but must be explained as a sort 
of nom. absolute (' The impotence of the Law being this that,' ftc, 
Gif.), which seems rather strained. But it must be confessed that 
the balance of ancient authority is strongly in favour of this way of 
taking the words, and that on a point — the natural interpretation of 
language— where ancient authority is especially valuable. 

An induction from the nse of LXX and N. T. wonld seem to show that 
d8i;varot masc. and fern, was always active (so twice in N. T., twenty-two 
times [3 TV. IL] in LXX, Wisd. xvii. 14 Ti)r iAvvarov orron n/irra iai ^ 
dbwoTov fiov fMvxSfy 4vcX0ov<rav, being alone somewhat ambiguous and 
pecnliar) , while ddi/v. nent. was alwa3rs passive (so five times in IJCX, seren 
m N. T.). It ii true that the exact phrase r6 didyvaror does not occur, but 
in Luke xviii 37 we have rd dUvvara wapd dy$pdnrois dvyard icri wapd rf Stf, 

i¥ f : not * because ' (Fri. Win. Mey. Alf.), but * in which ' or 
' wherein,' defining the point in which the impossibility (inability) 
of the Law consisted. For fi<rB(P€t dw ttjs aapxds comp. vii. 22, 23. 
The Law points the way to what is right, but frail humanity is 
tempted and falls, and so the Law's good counsels come to notlung. 

T^i^ lauToC vl6v. The emphatic iavrov brings out the community 
of nature between the Father and the Son : cf. rov {dtov vlov ver. 3s; 

rov viov Ttjs dydnrjs avrov CoL L 13. 

^ The text it not free from suspidoiL 

FTUt «.] 

LIFE m THE spmrr 


Ar ifUHii^n vopKit Aftttpiioi : the flesh of Chnsi ia ' like ' ours 
Inasmuch as It is flesh ; ' like,' and only ' like,' because il is not 
sinful: osliiuiil not guidem habtre carntm ptccati. Filium vera Da 
timililudimm kabuiut carnt's ptccali, non carntm peeca/i {OrigAai.). 

Piieiderer and Holsten contend thai even ihe flesh of Christ was 
* sinful flesh.' i.e. capable of sinning ; but they arc decisively refuted 
by Gif. p. 165. Neither the Greek nor the argument requires that 
ihe flesh of Christ shall be regarded as sinful fit sh, though it is 
His Flesh — His Incarnation — whith broughi Hira into contact 
with Sin. 

KQi -Kpi d^pTiof. This phrase is constantly used in ihe O.T. 
for the 'sin-offering'; so 'more than fifty times in the Book of 
Leviticus alone' (Va.); and it is taken in this sense here by Orig.- 
laL Quod hostia pro peccato /actus ist Chrislas, tl oUatus til pro 
purgabont ptccatorum. omnes Seriplurat leslanlur . . . Per hanc trgo 
kfisham earnit suae, quae dicitur pro ^ccaXa. damnavit peccaliim in 
eanu, 4c. The ritual of the sin-offering is fully set forth in Lev. iv. 
The most chaiacleristic feature in it is the sprinkling with blood of 
the horns of the altar of incense. Its object was to make atonement 
especially for ^ns of ignorance. It was no doubt typical of the 
Sacrifice of ChrisL Still we need not suppose the phrase irrpl 
iiuipT. here specially timiied to the sense of 'sin-offering.' It 
includes every sense in which the Incarnation and Death of Christ 
lutd relation to, and had it for their object to remove, human sin. 

KoWKpira Trgv dfiofTior Iv rj) aapNi. The key to this difficult 
clause is supplied bych. vi. 7-10. By the Death of Christ upon the 
Cross, a death endured in His human nature, He once and for ever 
broke off all contact with Sin, which could only touch Him through 
lliai n^ilure. Henceforth Sin can lay no claim against Him 
NeitbcT can it lay any claim against the believer ; for the believer 
kIso has died with Christ, Henceforth when Sin comes to prosecute 
its claim, it is cast in its suit and its former victim is acquitted. 
The one culminating and decisive act by which this slate of things 
was brought about is the Death of Christ, to which all the subse- 
qcent immimity of Christians is to be referred. 

The parallel passage, vi. 6-11, shows thai this summary 
condemnation of Sin takes place in the Death of Christ, and not 
in His Life ; so that mnv** cannot be adequately explained either 
by the proof which Christ's Incarnation gave that human nature 
mighi be sinless, or by the contrast of His sinlessness with man's 
sin. In Matt, «ji, 41, 4a ('the men of Nineveh shall rise up in the 
judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it,'&c.) ta-raiipina 
has this seoseof 'condemn by contrast,' but there is a greater fulness 
of meaning here. 

Tbe ucimti ritlici mlu the mirk In Ibeir commenu on thU passapr, 

Tbs* Oii£.-lat. Jamuavil puialam, htc til, fvgavil ftccalnm tl aiilmUt 


(eomp. T. K. Abbott, 'effectnaTlj condemned lo ti to npel*): but it doti 
not appear how this was done. The commoner view is based oo Chxyi^ 
who claims for the incarnate Christ a threefold Tictory oTer Sin, at not 
yielding to it, as OTeroominr it (in a forensic sense), and cooricting it ci 
injustice in handing OTer to death His own sinless body as if it were sininL 
Similarly Enthym.-Zig. and others in part Cyr.-Alex. explains the Tictoiy 
of Christ orer Sin as passing oTer to the Christian through the indwdling 
of the HoW Ghost and the Eucharist {9id r^t /tvcriKnt tlxoyita). This is 
at least right in so far as it lays stress on the identification of the Christian 
with Christ. But the Tictory over sin does not rest on the mere fact of 
sinlessness, but on the absolute seyerance from sin iuTolved in the Death 
upon the Cross and the Resurrection. 

i¥ rg <rapKi goes with KorUpivt. The Death of Christ has die 
efficacy which it has because it is the death of His Flesh : bj means 
of death He broke for ever the power of Sin upon Him (vL lo; 
Heb. viL i6; X. lo; i Pet ill. i8); but through the mystical 
union with Him the death of His Flesh means the death of ours 

4. ih SiKaftifia : * the justifying/ Wic^ ' the Justification,' Rhem. 
after Vulg. xmtificaHo\ Tyn. is better, *the rightewesnes requyred 
of (i.e. by) the lawe/ We have already seen that the proper sense 
of ddcottffia is ' that which is laid down as right/ ' that which has the 
force of right ' : hence it = here the statutes of the Law, as righteous 
statutes. Comp. on i. 3a ; iL a6. 

It is not clear how Chrys. (* Euthym.-^g.) gets for Umum^ tlie sense 

T019 p^ aard adpica vcpivarouotr : ' those who walk bj the rule 
of the flesh/ whose guiding principle is the flesh (and its grad- 
fication). The antithesis of Flesh and Spirit is the subject of 
the next section* 



vm. 6-11. Compare the two states. The life of self- 
indulgence involves the breach of God's law, hostility to 
Him, and death. Submission to the Spirit brings with it 
true life and the sense of reconciliation. You therefore, 
if you are sincere Christians, liave in the presence of the 
Spirit a sure pledge of immortality. 

• These two modes of life are directly opposed to one another. 
If any man gives way to the gratifications of sense, then these and 
nothing else occupy his thoughts and determine the bent of his 
character. And on the other hand, those who let the Holy Spirit 


gmdt (bem fix their thoughts and affections on things spiritual 
'They are opposed in their nature; Ehey are opposed also in their 
consequences. For the consequence of having one's bent towards 
the ihings or the flesh is de;i[h — both of soul and body, both here 
and faereafler. Just as to sunender one's tlioughts and motives to 
tbe Spirit brings with it a quicliened vitality through the whole man, 
end ^ tranquiiiizing sense of reconciliation with God. 

'Tbe gratifying of the Besh can lead only to death, because it 
implies hostility to God. It is impossible for one who indulges the 
flesh at tbe same time (o obey the law of God. ' And those who 
are nnilct the influence of the flesh cannot please God. *But you, 
as Christians, are no longer under the influence of the flesh. You 
are raiiier under that of the Spirit, if the Spirit of God (which, be il 
Tcmcmbered, is the medium of personal contact with God and 
Christ) ia really in abiding communion with you. "But if Ciirist, 
through His Spirit, thus keeps touch with your souls, then mark 
bow glorious is your condition. Your body it is true is doomed to 
death, because il is tainted with sin ; but your spirit — the highest 
pftH of you — has life infused into it because of its new state of 
righteousness to which life is so nearly allied. " In possessing the 
Spirit yon have a guarantee of future resurrection. It links you 10 
Him whom God raised from the dead. And so even these perish- 
able human bodies of yours, though they die flrst, God will restore 
to life, through the operation of (or, having regard to) that Holy 
Spirit by whom they are animated. 

5. ^p«iHiSvi¥: 'set their minds, or their hearts upon.' ^poM» 
denote* the whole action of the -^piv, i.e. of the affections and will 
as well as of ihe reason; cf. Malt. xvi. 13 ou ippoMit ra roii eroO, 
•XU Ti »* 0>4pMr«>' : Rom. ziL 16 ; Phil. lii. 19 ; Col. iii. 2. Ac. 

6. 4p^|m: the content of iPp"'"', the general bent of thought 
and motive. Here, as ebewhere in these chapters, a-dp$ is that side 
of human naiure on which it is morally weak, the side on which 
man'i physical organism leads him into sin. 

KivTos, Not merely is the •PpAf-mia t^t aaptSi death in e^ecl, 
inasmuch as it has death for its goal, but it is also a present death, 
inasmuch as its present condition contains the seeds which by 
their own inherent force will develop into the death both of body 
and souL 

(w^. In contrast with the state of things just described, where 
the whole bent of the mind b towards the things of the Spirit, not 


cnly is there ' fife ' in the sense that a career so ordered will issue in 
hfe ; it has already in itself the germs of life. As the Spirit itself is 
in Its essence living, so does It impart that which most live. 

For a ftriking presentation of the Biblical doctrine of Life lee Hoit, 
Hulsean Lectures ^ pp. 98 ff., 189 ff. The following may be quoted : ' The 
lense of life which Israel enjoyed was, however, best expressed in the choice 
of the name " life *' as a designation of that higher communion with God 
which grew forth in due time as the frnit of obedience and fidth. The 
psalmist or wise man or prophet, whose heart had songht the &ce of the 
Lord, was conscious of a second or divine life, of which the first or natnral 
life was at once the image and the foundation; a life not imprisoned in 
some secret recess of his sonl, but filling his whole sel^ and orerflowing 
upon the earth aronnd him' (p. 98). Add St Paul's doctrine of the in- 
dwelling Spirit, and the intensity of his language becomes intelligible. 

clp^Ki| =: as we have seen not only (i) the state of recondliatioQ 
with God, but (ii) the sense of that reconciliation which diffuses 
a feeling of harmony and tranquillity over the whole man. 

7. This verse assigns the reason why the ' mind of the flesh is 
death,' at the same time bringing out the further contrast between 
the mind of the flesh and that of the Spirit suggested bj the 
description of the latter as not only ' life ' but ' peace.' The mind 
of the flesh is the opposite of peace ; it involves hostility to God, 
declared by disobedience to His Law. This disobedience is the 
natural and inevitable consequence of giving way to the flesh. 

8. ot %i : not as AV. ' so then,' as if it marked a consequence or 
conclusion from ver. 7, but 'And': ver. 8 merely repeats the 
substance of ver. 7 in a slighdy different form, no longer abstract 
but personal The way is thus paved for a more direct application 
to the readers. 

9. i¥ aapKi, , . ,i¥ vrcJfiaTi. Observe how the thought mounts 
gradually upwards, c^m iv vapid = ' to be under the domination of 
fthe] flesh * ; corresponding to this f iko* cV wtviwri = * to be under 
the domination of [the] spirit,' i.e. in the first instance, the human 
spirit Just as in the one case the man takes his whole bent and 
bias from the lower part of his nature, so in the other case he takes 
it from the highest part of his nature. But that highest part, the 
iryrvfui, is what it is by virtue of its affinity to God. It is essentially 
that part of the man which holds communion with God : so that 
the Apostle is naturally led to think of the Divine influences which 
act upon the irvfvfia. He rises almost imperceptibly through the 
irycv/jui of man to the n^cv/ia of God. From thinking of the way in 
which the irvcv/ua in its best moods acts upon the character he 
passes on to that influence from without which keeps it in its best 
moods. This is what he means when he says cfircp nvfvfia eco« 
o2icci cV vfuy. olK€i¥ €v dcuotes a settled permanent penetrative 
influence. Such an influence, from the Spirit of God, St Paul 
assumes to be inseparable from the higher life of the Christian. 


Tbe way in which /r mpid is opposed to Iv wrtiiien, and fiirlher 
the way in which » itmv^ti passes 6om the spirit of man to the 
Spirit of God, shows that we must not press the loca! significance o( 
the preposition too closely. We must not interpret any cf the 
varied expressions which the Apostle uses in such a sense as to 
infringe upon the distinctness of the human and Divine personalities 
The one thing which is characteristic of personality is distinctness 
from all other personalities; and this must hold good even of (he 
relation of man 10 God. The very ease with which St. Paul changes 
and inverts his metaphors shows that the Divine immanence wiih 
him nowhere means Buddhisiic or Panlheistic absorption. We 
must be careful to keep clear of this, but short of it we may use the 
langtiage of closest intimacy. All that friend can possibly receive 
from friend we may believe that man is capable of receiving from 
God. See the note on <V Kpurra 'iijcrou in vi. ii ; and for the anti- 
thesis of trdp( and irxCfut the small print note on vii. 14. 

•I W T«. A diaracteristic delicacy of expression; when he b 
speaking on the positive side St Paul assumes that his readers have 
the Spirit, but when he is speaking on the negative side he will not 
say bluntly ' if you have not the Spirit,' but he at once throws 
his sentence into a vague and general force, 'if any one has 
BOt,' *c. 

mSk Itmr D^ToS : he is no true Christian. Ttiis amounts to 
laying that all Christians 'have the Spirit' in greater or less 

10. (t N Xpicrris. It will be observed that St. Paul uses the 
phiases Jlmita 6ro!i, Ovivfui Xpiorou, and XpHrrdt in ihcsc iwo versci 
as practically interchangeable. On the significance of this in its 
bearing upon the relation of the Divine Persons see below. 

ti |*J» irwfia HKpAv Si' dfiofiritu'. St. Paul is putting forward Srst 
tbe n^pitive and then the positive consequences of the indwelling 
of Christ, or the Spirit of Christ, in the souL But what i* the 
meaning of ' the body is dead because of sin t ' Of many ways of 
taking tbe words, the most important seem to be these : (i) ' the 
body IS dead impulalive, in baptism (vi. 1 ff.), as a consequence of 
■in which made this implication of the body in the Death of Chiisl 
necessary ' (Lips.). But in the nesl verse, to which this clearly 
points forward, the stress lies not on death imputed but on physical 
death, (ii) 'The body is dead mystict, as no longer the insiniroent 
of sin ( WW tmrgic prodiulnee dti acta thameU), because of sin — 
10 which it led ' (Oltr.) This is open to the same objection as the 
kst,witfa the addition that it does not give a satisfactory explanation 
of it ittofn-iar. (iii) It remains to take mitpSr in ibe plain sense of 


' physical death/ and to go back for d«* Anapriap not to vi. a ff. bat 
to V. la ff., so that it would be the sin of Adam and his descendants 
(Aug. G'iL Go.) perpetuated to the end of time. Oltr. objects that 
ptKp6v in this case ought to be Btnfr^if, but the use of vtKpdr gives 
a more vivid and pointed contrast to (a»4 — 'a dead thing/ 

t6 Si iiycu|&a Iti^ Sid SiKai(KnSnf|r. Qearlj the ntv/ui here meant 
is the human irm/Aa which has the properties of life infused into it 
bj the presence of the Divine inwCfia. («»^ b to be taken in a wide 
sense, but with especial stress on the future eternal life, dc^ dmuo- 
(Tvnjr is also to be taken in a wide sense : it includes all the senses 
in which righteousness is brought home to man, first imputed, then 
imparted, then practised. 

11. St. Paul is fond of arguing from the Resurrection of Christ 
to the resurrection of the Christian (see p. 1 17 sup,), Christ is the 
impxi (i Cor. XV. ao, 23 : the same power which raised Him will 
raise us (i Cor. vi. 14; a Cor. iv. 14); Phil. iii. ai; i Thess. 
iv. 14). But nowhere is the argument given in so full and complete 
a form as here. The link which connects the believer with Christ, 
and makes him participate in Christ's resurrection, is the possession 

of His Spirit (cp. I Thess. iv. 14 roxfs KQiyLrfiivras tth ToC *I]^ov ^i 

Bi4 ToO ^roiKouint>s adrou Ri^eufiaTo^. The authorities for the two 
readings, the gen. as above and the ace. tta r6 muoovw avrw nycv/ia, 
seem at first sight very evenly divided. For gen. we have a long 
line of authorities headed by N A C, Clem.- Alex. For ace. we have 
a still longer line headed by B D, Orig. Iren.-lat 

In fuller detail the evidence is as follows : 

&a rw kvoucowrrot m.rX. K A C P* a/., codd, ap, Ps.-Ath. Dial, €. Maeedm.^ 
Boh. Sah. HarcL Arm. Aeth., Clem.-Alex. Method, {eodd, Crmtc, 
hcorum ab Epiphanio ciiatorum) Cyr.-Hieros codd. plur, it id. Did. 4/5 
Bas 4/4 Chrys. ad i Cor. xr. 45, Cyr.-Alex. /tfr, al. plur. 

Sid rd kvoiKovv k.tJ^, BDEFGKLP &c., eodd. op. Ps.-Ath. Dial, c, 
Afacedon.; Vulg. Pesh. (Sah. codd.); Iren.-lat. Orig, pluries\ Method. 
vers. Slav, et codd, Epiphanii 1/3 it ex parti s/5, Cyr.-Hieros. cod. 
Did.-lat. simel Kinterp. Hieron.) Chrys. adloc, Tert. HiL al.plur. 

When these lists are examined, it will be seen at once that the anthorities 
for the gen. are predominantly Alexandrian, and those for the ace. predomi- 
nantly Western. The question is how far in each case this main body is 
reinforced by more independent evidence. From this point of view a some- 
what increased importance attadies to Hard. Arm. rlippoL Cyr.-Hieros. 
Bas. on the side ot the gen. and to B, Orig. on the side of the ace. The 
testimony of Method, is not quite clear. The first place in which the 
passage occurs is a quotation from Origen : here the true reading is probably 
Old rh kvoiKovVj as elsewhere in that writer. The other two places belong to 
Methodius himself. Here too the Slavonic version has in both cases ace. ; 
the Greek preserved in Epiphanius has in one instance ace, in the other gen. 
It is perhaps on the whole probable that Method, himself read ace and that 
gen. is due to Epiphanius, who undoubtedly was in the habit of using gen. 
hi balancing the opposed evidence we remember that there is a distinct 
Western infusion in both B and Orig. in St Panl'i Episdes, so that the aoe 


>. On 

BBnf tcM not OB the antbohly of two fimilln of text, bnl only of 
the olbci hud. to Alexandria we most uld PnleiiiDC, which wnnia conDi 
for KiiDClhiiig, Ihough not veij mncb. u being wllhia the ■pbere of Aleisn- 
dtiui influence, tad Cappadoda. wbii^h woBid cociit for rather more; bnl 
wfau is of moit imponaoce la the alleuing of the Alciandrian reading to f*r 
Vi'oC U Mippolylns. Too much impottnnce muiI not lie alliched to the 
■serliou of the orthodoi contiOTeiiiftltsi in the Dia/. t. Matidaniti, thai 
no. w foond Id ' all the ancienl copia ' ; the anihor of the di>loj;De tllowi 
uut the leading li quettioaable. 

On Uie whole the preponderance seems to be slightly on the side 
of the gen., but neither reading can be ignored. Intrinsically the 
one reading tB not dearly preferable to the other. St. Paul mighi 
have used equally well either fonn of expression. It Is however 
hardly adequate to say with Dr. Vaughan that if we read the ace. 
the reference is ' to the ennobling and consecraitng effect of the 
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the human body.' The prominent 
idea is rather that the Holy Spirit is Itself essentially a Spirit o/'Zi^i', 
and therefore it is natural that where II is life should be. The gen. 
brings out rather more the direct and personal agency of the Holy 
Spirit, which of course commended the reading to the supporters of 
orthodox doctrine in the Macedonian controversy. 


T/u Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. 

The doctrine of the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit is taken 
orer from the O.T., where we have it conspicuously in relation to 
Creation (Gen. L i\, in relation to Prophecy (i Sam. x. lo; xi. 6 ; 
six. ao, 33. &c), and in relation to the religious life of the Individual 
(Ps. ti. II) and of the nation (Is. Ixiii. 10 f.). It was understood 
that the Messiah had a plenary endowment of this Spirit (Is. xi. 3), 
And accordingly in the N.T. the Gospels unanimously record the 
viable, if symbolical, manifeaiaiion of this endowment (Mark i. 10; 
Jo. i. 31). And it is an expressioD of the same truth when in this 
passage and elsewhere St. Paul speaks of the Spirit of Christ 
convcrtibly with Christ Himself. Just as there are many passages 
in which he uses precisely the same language of the Spirit of God 
and of God Himself, so also there are many others in which he 
uses the same language of the Spirit of Christ and of Christ 
Himielt Thus the ' demonstration of the Spirit ' is a demonstra- 
tion also of the ' power of God ' (i Cor. ii, 4, 5) ; the working of 
the Spirit is a working of God Himself (1 Cor. lii. 11 compared 
with ver. 6j and of Christ (Eph. iv. 11 compared with t Cor. xii. 
j8, 4). To be • Christ's ' is the same thing as to * live in the Spirit ' 
(Gal. V. 11 ff.). Nay, in one place Christ is expressly idenLiiied 
with "the Spirit': "the Lord is the Spirit' (a Cor. iiL 17): a passage 
which has a seemingly remarkable parallel in Ignat. Ad Magn. xv 
fyfmftt if Jfwvoif Orou, xcnifMrat HiatfitTcr imiifca, at ivrtr 'lifwit 


Xpnrr6t (where however Bp. Lightfoot makes the antecedent to It 
not iri'f vM^i but the whole sentence ; his note should be read). The 
key to these expressions is really supplied by the passage before as, 
from which it appears that the communicadon of Christ to the soul 
is really the communication of His Spirit And, strange to say, we 
find this language, which seems so individual, echoed not only possibly 
by Ignatius but certainly by St John. As Mr. Gore puts it {BampUm 
Lectures t p. 132), 'In the coming of the Spirit the Son too was to 
come ; in the coming of the Son, also the Father. *' He will come 
unto you," " I will come unto you,'* " We will come unto you " are 
interchangeable phrases * (cf. St John xiv. 16-23). 

This is the first point which must be borne clearly in mind : in 
their reladon to the human soul the Father and the Son act through 
and are represented by the Holy Spirit. And yet the Spirit is not 
merged either in the Father or in the Son. This is the comple- 
mentary truth. Along with the language of identity there is other 
language which implies disdnction. 

It is not only that the Spirit of God is related to God in the 
same sort of way in which the spirit of man is related to the man. 
In this very chapter the Holy Spirit is represented as standing over 
against the Father and pleading with Him (Rom. viii. 26 £) , and 
a number of other acdons which we should call ' p>ersonal ' are 
Ascribed to Him — 'dwelling' (w. 9, 11), * leading' (ver. 14), 
'witnessing' (ver. 16), 'assisting' (ver. 26). In the last verse of 
2 Corinthians St. Paul distincdy co-ordinates the Holy Spirit with 
the Father and the Son. And even where St John speaks of the 
Son as coming again in the Spirit, it is not as the same but as 
'other'; 'another Paraclete will He give you' (St. John xiv. 16). 
The language of identity is only partial, and is confined within 
strict limits. Nowhere does St Paul give the name of ' Spirit ' to 
Him who died upon the Cross, and rose again, and will return 
once more to judgement. There is a method running through the 
language of both Apostles. 

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is really an extension, 
a natural if not necessary consequence, of the doctrine of the 
Incarnation. As soon as it came to be clearly realized that the 
Son of God had walked the earth as an individual man among 
men it was inevitable that there should be recognized a dis- 
tinction, and such a distinction as in human language could only 
be described as * personal ' in the Godhead. But if there was 
a twofold distinction, then it was wholly in accordance with the 
body of ideas derived from the O. T. to say also a threefold 

It is interesting to observe that in the presentation of this last 
step in the doctrine there is a difference between St Paul and 
St John corresponding to a difference in the experience of the 

Vm. ia-16.] UFE IN THE SPIRIT aoi 

two Apostles. In both cases it is this actual experience which 
gives the standpoint from which they write. St. John, who had 
heard and seen and handled the Word of Life, who had stood 
beneath the cross and looked into the empty tomb, when he 
thinks of the coming of the Paraclete naturally thinks of Him 
as ' another Paraclete.' St. Paul, who had not had the same 
privileges, but who was conscious that from the moment of his 
vision upon the road to Damascus a new force had entered into 
his soul, as naturally connects the force and the vision, and sees in 
what he feels to be the work of the Spirit the work also of the 
exalted Son. To St. John the first visible Paraclete and the 
second invisible could not but be different; to St. Paul the in- 
visible influence which wrought so powerfully in him seemed to 
stream directly from the presence of Him whom he had heard 
from heaven call him by his name. 


VJJ.1. 12-17. Live then as men bound far suck a destiny, 
ascetics as to your worldly life, Juirs of immortality. The 
Spirit implanted and confirms in you the conscioustiess of 
your inheritance. It tells you that you are in a special sense 
fcns of Gody and that you must some day share the glory to 
which Christy your Elder Brother ^ has gone. 

''Such a destiny has its obligations. To the flesh you owe 
nothing. *• If you live as it would have you, you must inevitably 
die. But if by the help of the Spirit you sternly put an end to 
the licence of the flesh, then in the fullest sense you will live. 

**Why so? Why that necessary consequence? The link is 
here. All who follow the leading of God's Spirit are certainly by 
that very fact special objects of His favour. They do indeed enjoy 
the highest title and the highest privileges. They are His sons. 

*• When you were first baptized, and the communication of the 
Holy Spirit sealed your admission into the Christian fold, the 
energies which He imparted were surely not those of a slave. 
You had not once more to tremble under the lash of the Law. 
No: He gave you rather the proud inspiring consciousness of 
men admitted into His family, adopted as His sons. And the 
consciousness of that relation unlocks our lips in tender filial 
appeal to God as our Father. ^Two voices are distinctly heard: 


one we know to be that of the Holy Spirit ; the other is the voice 
of our own consciousness. And both bear witness to the same 
foct that we are children of God. ^^But to be a child implies 
something more. The child will one day inherit his fathei^s 
possessions. So the Christian will one day enter upon that 
glorious inheritance which his Heavenly Father has in store for 
him and on which Christ as his Elder Brother has ab'eady entered. 
Only, be it remembered, that in order to share in the glory, it is 
necessary first to share in the suflferings which lead to it. 

12. Lipsius would unite w. is, 13 closely with the foregoing; 
and no doubt it is true that these verses only contain the 
conclusion of the previous paragraph thrown into a hortatory 
form. Still it is usual to mark this transition to exhortation by 
a new paragraph (as at vi. la); and although a new idea (that 
of heirship) is introduced at ver. 14, that idea is only subor- 
dinate to the main argument, the assurance which the Spirit gives 
of future life. See also the note on oZv in z. 14. 

18. vKciifu&Ti. The antithesis to adp( seems to show that this 
is still, as in w. 4, 5, 9, the human irycvfui, but it is the human 
wtvfia in direct contact with the Divine. 

tAs irp(££cis : of wicked doings, as in Luke zxiii. 51. 

14. The phrases which occur in this section, Uvtv/ian Owi 
&yorrai^ t6 livtvfia QVfjtfiapTvpti rf wvnffiaTi ^/xmv, are dear proof that 
the other group of phrases cV wvtvfjMn ilifai, or r6 nvrvfui ohctl (Jvoual) 
cV ^fiip are not intended in any way to impair the essential distinct- 
ness and independence of the human personality. There is no 
such Divine ' immanence * as would obliterate this. The analogy 
to be kept in view is the personal influence of one human being 
upon another. We know to what heights this may rise. The 
Divine influence may be still more subtle and penetrative, but it is 
not diflerent in kind. 

uiol 6eou. The diflerence between vl6t and rtxpop appears to be 
that whereas rcVi'ov denotes the natural relationship of child to 
parent, vldr implies, in addition to this, the recognized s/a^us and 
legal privileges reserved for sons. Cf. Westcott on Sl John L la 
and the parallels there noted. 

16. irycuf&a SouXcias. This is another subtle variation in the 
use of ir»et/fuz. From meaning the human spirit under the in- 
fluence of the Divine Spirit nvtv/xa comes to mean a particular 
state, habit, or temper of the human spirit, sometimes in itself 

{irvfVfia (rfXaxTfas Num. V. I4, 30 ; np. aKtjbias Is. Ixi. 3 ; wv, mpptiat 

Hos. iv. I a), but more often as due to supernatural influence, good 
or evil (fry. ao<l>ias le.r.X. Is. zi. a ; wp, irXavi^o-foDff Is. xiz. 14 ; iry. 

Kpiatm Is. zzviii. 6; frv. Koravv^mt Is. zziz. 10 (= Rom. zL 8); 

L U-».] 



WW. xapmt ut attnpiioi' Zech. XU. lo ; nv. dodrvtW Lake tiu. II ; 
w». BiiXiai 1 Tim. i. 7 ; ri «T, i^t irXdi^t I Jo. iv, 6). So here 
WW. AouAiuM = £Uch a spirit as accompanies t state of slavery, such 
m servile habil as the human tntiiia assumes among slaves. This 
was Dot the temper which you had imparled to you at your bap- 
tism (Ai^Strt). The slavery is that of the Law : cf. Gal, iv. fi, 7, 
"4. V- I- 

■mOiir lis tipor : ' so as to relapse into a state of fear.' The 
candidate for baptism did not emerge from the terrors of the 
Law only to be thrown back into them again. 

■ioSfoiai : a word coined, but rightly coined, from the classical 
phrase vlbs riSivSai (flrrit irJoi). It Eeems however too much to 
say with Glf. that the coinage was probably due to St Paul him- 
self. *No word is more common in Gretk inscriptions of the 
Hellenistic time : the idea, like the word, b native Greek ' (E, L. 
Hicks in Sfut/ia Bibliea, iv. 8). This doubtless points to llic 
quarter from whith St. Paul derived the word, as the Jews bad 
not the practice of adoption. 

'A^Pa, i woT^p. The repetition of this word, first in Aramaic 
and then in Greek, is remarkable and brings home to us the fact 
that Christianity had its birth in a bilingual people. The same 
repetition occurs in Mark xiv. 36 ('Abba, Father, all things are 
possible to Thee ') and in Gal. iv. 6 : it gives a greater intensity of 
expression, but would only be natural where the speaker was 
BiiDg in both cases his familiar tongue. Lightfool {Hor. Htb. on 
Mark xiv. 36) thinks that in the Gospel the word 'K&Sa only was 
used by our Lord and i □ar^ji added as an interpretaiion by 
Sl Mark, and that in like manner St. Paul is interpreting for the 
benefit of his readers. The three passages are however ail too 
emotional for this explanation : interpretation is out of place in 
a prayer. It seems belter to suppose that our Lord Himself, 
using familiarly both languages, and concentrating into this word 
of aB words such a depth of meaning, found Himself impelled 
spontaneously to repeat the word, and that some among His 
disciples caught and transmitted the same habit. It is significant 
however of the limited extent of strictly Jewish Christianity that 
we find no other original examples of the use than these three. 

16. oM td nrtufia : see on ver. 14 above. 

vuftfioprupii : cT. ii. 15; ix. j. There the ' join t- witness ' was 
the subjective tesiimony of conscience, confirming the objective 
testimony of a man's works or actions ; here consciousness is 
aoalyied, and its data are referred partly to the man himself, partly 
to ll>e Spirit of God moving and prompting him. 

17. sXipavdiioi. The idea ol a (X^pn^ofiu is taken up and 
developed in N. T. from O. T. and Apocr. (Ecclus, Pt. Sol., 
4 £zr.). It is also prominent in Philo, who devotes a whole 


treatise to the question Quit rerum dwtnarum hares sU? (Mang. L 
473 flf.). Meaning originally (i) the simple possession of the Holy 
Land, it came to mean (ii) its permanent and assured possession 
(Ps. XXV [xxiv]. 13; xzxvi [xxxvii]. 9, 11 ftc); hence (iii) 
specially the secure possession won by the Messiah (Is. Ix. ai ; 
Ixi. 7 ; and so it became (iv) a symbol of all Messianic blessings 
(Matt. V. 5 ; xix. ap ; xxv. 34, &c.). Philo, after his manner, 
makes the word denote the bliss of the soul when freed from the 

It is an instance of the onaccoimtable inequalides of usage that whereas 
mXripovoiutv, icKfjpopo/ua occur almost innamerable times in LXX, gkffpwS/tot 
occurs only five times (once in Sjrmmachns) ; in N. T. there is much greater 
eqoality {Kkrjpwofutp eighteen, Kkfjpwoftia fourteen, K\ffpoy6fiot fifteen). 


ouyicXTifMi^lioi. Our Lord had described Himself as ' the Heir 
in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 38). This 
would show that the idea of Kkrjpopofila received its full Christian 
adaptation directly from Him (cf. also Matt xxv. 34). 

cZircp (ni|&ird9xo|&cK. St. Paul seems here to be reminding his 
hearers of a current Christian saying : cf. a Tim. iL 1 1 winrht 6 

Xtwrofifv. This b another instance of the Biblical conception of 
Christ as the Way (His Life not merely an example for ours, but 
in its main lines presenting a fixed type or law to which the lives 
of Christians must conform); cf. p. 196 above, and Dr. Hort's 
The Way, ike Truths and the Life there referred to. For corfp see 
on iii. 30. 


\nil. 18-26. What though the path to that glory lies 
through suffering? The suffering and the glory alike are 
parts of a great cosntical movement, in which the irrational 
creation joins with man. As it shared the results of his 
fall, so also will it share in his redemption. Its pangs are 
pangs of a new birth (w. i8-aa). 

Like the mute creation^ we Christians too wait painfully 
for our deliverance. Our attitude is one of hope and tiot of 
possession (vv. 23-25). 

■•What of that? For the sufferings which we have to undergo 
in this phase of our career I count not worth a thought in view 
of that dazzling splendour which will one day break through 
the clouds and dawn upon us. ^^ For the sons of God will stand 
forth revealed in the glories of their bright inheritance. And for 




thai consBimnaiion not they alone but the wliole irrational creation, 
both animate and inanimate, walls with eager longing ; like 
speclatore straining forwaid over the ropes to catch the first 
glimpse of some triumphal pageant. 

"The future and not the present must satisfy its aspirations. 
For ages ago Creation was condemned to have its energies marred 
and Tmstraied. And that by no act of its own : it was God who 
fixed this doom upon it, but with the hope *' that as it had been 
enthralled to death and decay by the Fall of Man so too the 
Creation shall share in the free and glorious existence of God's 
emancipated children. " It is like the pangs of a woman in child* 
binh. This universal frame feels up to this moment the throes of 
travail — feels them in every part and cries out in its pain. But 
where there is travail, there must needs also be a birth. 

■Our own experience points to the same conclusion. True 
that in those workings of the Spirit, the ckarjtmata with which we 
are endowed, we Christians already possess a foretaste of good 
things to comt. But that very foretaste makes us long — anxiously 
and painfully long — for the final recognition of our Sonship. We 
desire to see these bodies of ours delivered from the evils that 
beset them and transfigured into glory. 

•* Hope is the Christian's proper altitude. We were saved 
indeed, the groundwork of our salvation was laid, when we became 
Christians. But was that salvation in possession or in prospect ? 
Certainly in prospect. Otherwise there would be no room for 
hope. For what a man mm already in his hand he does not hope 
for as if it were fiiture. " But in our case we do not see, and we 
do hapt; therefore we also wait for our object with steadfast 

18. )u>Y((o|iai yip. At the end of the last paragraph St Paul 
has been led to speak of the exalted privileges of Christians in- 
volved in the &ct that they are leru of God. The thought of these 
privileges suddenly recalb to him the contrast of the sufferings 
through which they arc passing. And after his manner he does 
not let go this idea of 'suffering* but works it into his main 
argument. He first dismisses the thought that the prefent suffer- 
ing can be any real counter- weigh I to the future glory ; and then 
he shows that not only is it not this, but that on the contrary it 
actually points forward to that glory. It does this on the grandesr 


scale. In fact it is nothing short of an universal law that suffering 
marks the road to glory. All the suffering, all the imperfection, 
tdl the unsatisfied aspiration and longing of which the traces are so 
abundant in external nature as well as in man, do but point forward 
to a time when the suffering shall cease, the imperfection be re- 
moved and the frustrated aspirations at last crowned and satisfied; 
and thb time coincides with the glorious consummation which 
awaits the Christian. 

True it b that there goes up as it were an universal groan, from 
creation, from ourselves, from the Holy Spirit who sympathizes 
with us; but this groaning is, but the travail-pangs of the new 
birth, the entrance upon their glorified condition of the risen sons 
of God. 

Xoyilofioi : here in its strict sense, 'I calculate,' 'weigh mentally,' 
' count up on the one side and on the other.' 

5(ia . . . irp^. In Plato, Gorg, p. 471 £, we have oMfi4f l£i^ con 
frp6ff r^v akvfit%aif : SO that with a slight ellipse ov<c Stfya . . . vp&r np 
^^y will = ' not worth (considering) in comparison with the glory.' 
Or we may regard this as a mixture of two constructions, (i) ovc 
ofta r^s d({^i7ff, i. e. ' not an equivalent for the glory ' ; comp. Prov. 

viiL II iroy dc rtfuop ovk a(ioy avrfis (sc. r^r uxxf>ias) iarbf^ and (s) 

jvdcyov X^yov ^ux icp6t rifv d<S£av: comp. Jer. xxiiL a8 W r^ ^^VP^ 

»p6s t6v airop ; 

The thought has a near parallel in 4 Ezra yii. 3ff. Compare (f^») the 
following (yv. ia-17): Et facti sunt introUus huius taecuii anptsH #/ 
dolintis et laboriosit pauci autem et mcUi it pericuhrum pUni it lab^n 
magna opere fulti; nam niaiorU saeculi introiius spaticsi it ucuri it 
faciintes immortalitatU fructum. Si ergo non ingredUntis ingnssi fiurint' 
qui vivunt angusta et vana kaec, non poterunt recipere quae sunt reppsita . . . 
iusti autem ferent angusta sperantes spaiiosa. Compare also the quotations 
from the Talmud in Delitzsch ad Ice, The question is asked. What is the 
way to the world to come ! And the answer is, Through suffering. 

f&AXouaaK : emphatic, * is destined to/ ' is certain to.' The 
position of the word is the same as in Gal. iii. 23, and serves to 
point the contrast to rov vxw xaipw, 

h6iav : the heavenly brightness of Christ's appearing : see on 
iii. 23. 

CIS ^)mIs : to reach and include us in its radiance. 

10. diroKapaBoKia : of. Phil. i. 20 koto rffv arroKapadoKiap koL Airtda 

fiov : the verb dnoKapadoKtlv occurs in Aquila's version of Ps. xzxvii 
[xxxvi]. 7, and the subst. frequently in Polyb. and Plutarch (see 
Grm.-Thay. s. v., and Ell. Lft on Phil. i. 20). A highly expressive 
word * to strain forward/ lit. * await with outstretched head. This 
sense is still further strengthened by the compound, oiro- denoting 
diversion from other things and concentration on a single object 

This passage (especially vr. 17, a a) played a considerable part m the 
s>'i5tem of Ba^des, as described in Hippol. jRe/, Omn, Haer, yu. 25-37. 



fiif KTiffftit; see on i. so. Here the sense is given hy tlie 
coniezt; i ".<«( is sel in contrail with the 'sons of God,' »nd 
from the allo-sion to the Fall which follows evIdcDtl)' refers to Gen. 
tii. 17, 1 8 'Cursed is ihe ground for ihy sake . , . thorns also and 
thistles shall it bring forth to thee.* The commenlaiors however 
are not wrong in making the word include here the whole irrational 
Creadon. The poetic and penetrating imagination of St. Paul 
sees in ihe marks of imperfeclion on the face of nature, in the 
signs at once of high capacities and poor achievement, the visible 
suiii audible expression of a sense of someihitig wanting which will 
one day be supplied. 

Oltr, and some others argue Btrenuously, but in vain, for giving 
to <Tt<nc, throughout the whole of this passage, the sense not of thi' 
world of nature, hut of the world of man (similarly Otig.). He 
tries to get rid of the poetic personification of nature and to 
dissociate St. Paul from Jewish doctrine as to the origin of death 
and decay in nature, and as to its removal at the coming of the 
Messiah. But (i) there is no sufficient warrant for limitmg cri'int 
uj humanity; (ii) it is necessary to deny the stifficiemly obvious 
reference to Gen. iii. 17-19 (where, though the ' ground ' or * soil ' 
only is mentioned, it is the earth's surface as the seed-plot oflife); 
{til) the Apostle is rather taken out of the mental surrounding'^ 
in which he moved than placed in them: see below on 'The 
Renovation of Nanire.' 

Tie incima genoallj uke the pis»ee ■• than (4 irimi i iXoyoi 
exprmly Eothym, -Zig ) . Orig.-Ut,, u eipreiily, bu iruUHram utfati 
rafinuHitm; but be ii quite at Unit, miking rg imtaii'iti - 'the tii^j.' 
Chrin. aad Eothrm.-Zig. oil MleolioQ to the penonilicatioD of Nature, 
whiij) they compare to thai in ihe Pialnu and PiopbeU, while Diodoioi o! 
Tanu refen the eipressioo* Implying life rather la the Powers (Svriimij 
which preside over Inaniioate Datnre and from which it laixa itifoimi. The 
•euK cummODty pvat to liaTminjT' ii — ^ofa, 

T*!!" A)roiidXui|itr Tuy tiliir too e<oO. The same word aironaXv^is Is 
applied lo the Second Coming of the Messiah (which is also an 
iwupartla > Thess. ii. 8) and lo that of the redeemed who accompany 
Him ; their new existence will noi be like the present, but wili he 
in 'glory' (JU£a) both reflected and imparted. This revealing of 
the sons of God will be Ihe signal for the great transformation. 

The Jewtih writini^ dm nmilu taaguafc. To them also the appearing of 
the Meuiah )■ an droaAi^.i : 4 Eiia lili. 31 *t tril tmmfitnl kail, tt in»- 
linjpnl ligiia qua* anlt ailtnJi liii il tunr rtvtIahilHr filiiu mttu quim 
mi-liili ar virnni aietndeititiii -. Aftt. Bar. xxiix. 7 (/ irit, mm afprtfinatta- 
rtril limpMt fimii titu Hi taJ*l, tuiu rtvtiabilur primipattit ilnstat ma qui 
mmiiii tsl/mii tt vili, if mm milaltu /utrit traduabil muiliiudintm com- 
grtgalienit tim Ihe Lilin of thii hook, il will be icmemtiered, ii Ceriini'i 
renion rrom the Syriac, aad not aacient like that ot 4 Eiraj. The olijcf-l of 
tlie Hcsaiah'a appeanng ii Ihe same as with St. Pant, to delivei aralion 
frogail* ill*: ^iMt, liii. 16, 19 ifu tit qtitm icmtrvai Allitiimiu muMi 


Umporibus pit per ttmetipsum liberabit ereaturam suam €t ipst disptmti 
qui derelictt sunt . . . icc4 dies veniunt, quamio ifuipiet AUissimus Uberttrt 
tos qui super terram sunt : Apoc, Bar. xxxii. 6 quando futurum est ut Foriis 
innovet ereaturam suam ( >= 4 Ezra vii. 75 [Bensly] donee veniant tgmpora 
ilia, in quibus incipies ereaturam renevare). The Messiah does not come 
alone : 4 Ezra xiii. 51 nan poterit quisque super terram tfidertfilium meum 
vel eos qui cum eo sunt nisi in tempore diei. He collects ronnd Him 
a doable multitude, consisting partly of the ten tribes who had been carried 
iway into captivity, and partly of those who were left in the Holj Land 
{ibid, VY. la, 39 ff., 48 £)• 

dvcKS^erai : another strong compound, where diro- contains the 
same idea of ' concentraled waiting ' as in dnoKopaioiUa above. 

20. TJ . • . |&aTai<STT)Ti : fiaraiorrfs liarcutyrrfrap is the refrain of the 

Book of Ecclesiastes (£ccl. i. 2, &c, ; of. Ps. zzxix. 5, 11 [xxzviii. 6, 
I a] cxliv [cxliii]. 4) : that is /xaroiov which is ' without result ' (j»anfw), 
•ineffective/ 'which does not reach its end' — ^the opposite of 
rcXcioff : the word is therefore appropriately used of the disappomling 
character of present existence, which nowhere reaches the perfection 
of which it is capable. 

dircrdyr) : by the Divine sentence which followed the Fall (Gen. 
iii. 17-19). 

odx iKoikra : not through its own fault, but through the fault of 
man, i. e. the Fall 

8id ihv iiiroT(l£ain-a : ' by reason of Him who subjected it,' ie. not 
man in general (Lips.); nor Adam (Chr3rs. al,); nor the Devil 
(Go.), but (with most commentators, ancient as well as modem) 
God, by the sentence pronounced after the Fall It is no argument 
against this reference that the use of dm with ace. in such a con- 
nexion is rather unusual (so Lips.). 

^ir* ^XiriSi qualifies vn-erdyi;. Creation was made subject to 
vanity — not simply and absolutely and there an end, but * in hope 
that,' &c. Whatever the defects and degradation of nature, it was 
at least left with the hope of rising to the ideal intended for it 

2L on. The majority of recent commentators make ori (= *that*) 
define the substance of the hope just mentioned, and not (s ' be- 
cause ') give a reason for it. The meaning in any case is much 
the same, but this is the simpler way to arrive at it. 

Kal adr^ Vj kticis : not only Christians but even the mute creation 
with them. 

dir& Tr)S BouXcias Tf|S ^6opds. dov\€iai corresponds to virrrayi;, the 

state of subjection or thraldom to dissolution and decay. The 
opposite to this is the full and free development of all the powers 
which attends the state of d6(a. 'Glorious liberty' is a poor 
translation and does not express the idea : t6^ ' the glorified state,' 
is the leading fact, not a subordinate fact, and iXnB^pia is its 
characterisiic, ' the liberty of the glory of the children of God.' 
S2. oi8a|&cK ydp introduces a fact of common knowledge (though 

▼m. 22-24] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 209 

the apprehension of it may not have been so common as he 
assumes) to which the Apostle appeals. 

<rvaT€vai*i koI frwtaSiveL. It seems on the whole best to take the 
0VW' in both instances as = * together/ i.e. in all the parts of which 
creation is made up (so. Theod.-Mops. expressly : ^oxerai di 

tlwuw 8ti irvfi^ym iTidelKvirrai touto Ta<ra if ktUtis' tva rd Ta/>d rdiri/f 
t6 a&r6 yiwtirBai 6/itofcM, Taidevtrg ro&rovt r^y Tp6s SLvavras Koivtaviav 
alpeurBfu -rg rQi9 XvrripQr Kaprepla). Oltr. gets OUt of it the sense of 

* inwardly' (=^r ^avroTt), which it will not bear: Fri. Lips, and 
others, after Euthym.-Zig. make it = * wt'/A men ' or ' with the 
children of God * ; but if these had been pointed to, there would 
not be so clear an opposition as there is at the beginmng of the 
next verse {06 iibwow 54, dXXA xal aOrol). The two verses must be 
kept apart. 

28. oA fi^ror %i. Not only does nature groan, but we Christians 
also groan : our very privileges make us long for something more. 

T^jr dvapx^i' Tou nKcu|iaTo$: 'the first-fruits, or first instalment 
of the gift of the Spirit' St Paul evidently means all the 
phenomena of that great outpouring which was specially charac- 
teristic of the Apostolic Age from the Day of Pentecost onwards, 
the varied charismata bestowed upon the first Christians (i Cor. 
zii. &c.), but including also the moral and spiritual gifts which were 
more permanent (Gal. v, 2a f ). The possession of these gifts 
served to quicken the sense of the yet greater gifts that were to 
come. Foremost among them was to be the transforming of the 
earthly or * psychical ' body into a spiritual body (i Cor. xv. 44 ff.). 
St Paul calls this a • deliverance,' i. e. a deliverance from the * ills 
that flesh is heir to' : for venokvr^tm see on iii. 24. 

Xxwn^ %icit: iiiuU if placed here by KAC 5. 47. 80, also by Tisch. 
RV. aod (in brackeU) by WH. 

wlo^coiar: see on ver. 15 above. Here vXoB. = the manifested . 
realized, act of adoption — its public promulgation. 

24. T^ Y^ AiriSi ^ofrtOrificr. The older commentators for the 
most part (not however Luther Beng. Fri.) took the dat. here as 
dative of the instrument, * by hope were we saved.* Most moderns 
(including Gif. Go. Oltr. Mou. Lid.) take it as dat, modi, ' in hope 
were we saved ; * the main ground being that it is more in accord- 
ance with the teaching of St. Paul to say that we were saved by 
faith, or from another point of view — looking at salvation from the 
side of God — fy grace (both terms arc found in Eph. ii. 8) than by 
hope. This seems preferable. Some have held that Hope is here 
only an aspect of Faith : and it is quite true that the definition of 

Faith in Heb. xL I {Ji<m hi wlaru tKniCoyAimv vn6aTcunSf vpaypLoriMP 

iXryxot ov /SXffiro^cMiv), makes it practically equivalent to Hope. But 
diat is just one of the points of distinction between £p. to Hek 



and St. Paul. In Heb. Faiih is used somewhat vagnelf III 
in God and in the fulfilment of His promises, In Sl Paul fi 
more often Faith in Chrisf. the first act of accepting Christiai 
(see p. 33 above). This belongs essentially to the past, and \' 
present as growing directly out of the pa^t ; but when St. 1 
comes to speak of the future he uses another term, Ani 
doubt when we come To trace this to its origin it has its root ii 
strong conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus and its consequence 
but the two terms are not therefore identical, and it is best J 
keep them distinct. 

Some recent Germans (Holslen, Weiss, Lips.) take the dat q 
dalivus commodiy 'for hope were we saved.' But this is I 
natural. To obtain this sense we should have to personify Hoj 
more strongly than the context will bear. Besides Hope is I 
attribute or characteristic of the Christian life, but not its end. 

jXirU 8( pXeTTOft^Ki) : Airfc here = 'the thing hoped for.' just % 
cWriE ^ ' ihe thing created ' ; a very common ui^age. 

B Y^pXJim, t(s IXnlfii; Thi» tene remdinR ii foond oolyin . 
which »dds th tnXaxlr ofirM txii : it is adopted by RV. text, \\ H. i 

Text Reccpt. h.ii [ft i^p BXShh tii] ti Jtai [jAitif.i], of which t( i " 
found in Western aDthoritiu (DFG, Volg. Prtb. al), and noJ * 
K' 47*. Both RV. uid U H. give * place in Ihe mi^'in to rl aal 
and Wt Kol iwoiiiyti [hrantrii wiih N* A 47 merf,], 

as. The point of these two verses is that the attitude of b 
so distinctive of the Christian, implies that there is mo 
for him than anything tltat is his already. 

81' SironoiTi?: constancy and fortitude under persecution, 
pointing back to the ' sufferings' of vet, i8 (cf, on ii. 7 ; V. 4 ; I 
for the use of <)ui ii. 97). 

TAf RencvatioH of Natitre. 

We have already quoted illustrations of St, Paul's language 
some of the Jewish writings which are nearest to his own in _ 
of time. They are only samples of the great mass of Jeirish 
literature. To all of it this idea of a renovation of Nature, the 
creation of new heavens and a new earth is common, as part of the 
Messianic expectation which was fulfilled unawares to many of 
those by whom it was entertained. The days of the Messiah wi 
to be the 'seasons of refreshing,' the 'times of restoration of 
things.' which were to come from the face of the Lord (Acts iii. 
ii). The espectaiion had its roots in the O.T,, especially 
those chapters of the Second Part of Isaiah in which the approach- 
ing Return from Captivity opens up to the prophet such splcndi ' 
visions for the future. The one section Is. Ixv. t7->6 might wc 

»y of 


be held lo warrant most of the •Jiaiemenis in the Apocrypha and 

The idea of the ' new heavens and new earth ' is based directly 
upon Is, btv, 17. and is found clearly stated in the Book of Enaek. 
ilv. 4 f. ' I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal 
blessing and light. And I will transform the earth and make it 
a blessing and cause Mine elect ones to dwell upon it ' (where see 
Charles' note). There is also an application of Ps. cxiv. 4, with 
an added feature which illustrates exactly St. Paul's motaikv^is rat 
viav TBv Bnv : ' In those days will the mountains leap like rams 
and the hills will skip like lambs saiisRed with milk, and they will 
all become angels in heaven. Their faces will be lighted up 
with joy, because in those days the Elect One has appeared, and the 
earth will rejoice and tlie righieou^ will dwell upon it, and the elect 
will Ro to and fro upon it' {Enoeh li. 4/.). We have given 
parallels enough from 4 Ezra and the Apocalypse of BarucH, and 
there is much in the Talmud lo the same effect (cf, Weber, Alhjm. 
Tkeol. p. 380 if.; SrhQrer, Ntulest. Zeitgtsch. ii. 453 ff., 458 f.; 
Edersheim, Li/e and Times, ftc. ii. 438). 

It is not surprising to find the poetry of the prophetic writings 
hardened into fact by Jewish literalism ; but it is strange when the 
products of this mode of interpretation are attributed to our Lord 
Himself on authority no less ancient than that of Papias of Hiera- 
polis, professedly drawing from the tradition of St. John. Yet 
Irenaeus {Adv. Haer. V. xsxiii. 3) quotes in such terms the follow- 
mg : ' The days wil! come. In which vines shall grow, each having 
ten thousand shoots and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and 
on each branch again ten thousand iwigs, and on each twig ten 
thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand grapes, and 
each grape when pressed shall >ield five and twenty measures of 
wine . . , Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand 
heads, and every head shall have ten thousand grains, and every 
grain ten pounds of fine flour, bright and clea.n ; and the other 
fruits, seeds and the grass shall produce in similar proponions, and 
all the animals using these fruits which are products of the soil, 
shall become in their turn peaceable and harmonious.' It happens 
that this saying, or at least pari of it, is actually extant in Apoc. 
Bar. xxix. 5 (cf, Orac. Sibyll. iii. 6jo-6a3, 744 ff^, so that it 
clearly comes from some Jewish source. In view of an instance 
like this it seems possible that even in the N. T. our Lord's words 
may have been defined in a sense which was not exactly that 
originally intended owing to the current expectadon which the dis- 
ci plei largely shared. 

And yet on the whole, even if this expectation was by the Jewi 
to tome extent literalized and materialized, some of its essentia] 
(caiuj'ea were preserved. Corresponding to the new abode pre- 


pared for it there was to be a renewed humanity : and that not 
only in a physical sense based on Is. xxxv. 5 f. (* Then the eyes of 
the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be un- 
stopped,' &c.), but also in a moral sense ; the root of evil was to be 
plucked out of the hearts of men and a new heart was to be im- 
planted in them : the Spirit of God was to rest upon them (Weber, 
Aitsyn, TheoL p. 382). There was to be no imrighteousness in 
their midst, for they were all to be holy {Ps, Sol, xvii. 28 f., 36, 
&c.). The Messiah was to rule over the nations, but not merely by 
force ; Israel was to be a true light to the Gentiles (Schurer, op. 
cii. p. 456). 

If we compare these Jewish beliefs with what we find here in the 
Epistle to the Romans there are two wa3rs in which the superiority 
of the Aposde is most striking, (i) There runs through Ins words 
an intense sjmipathy with nature in and for itself. He is one of 
those (like St Francis of Assisi) to whom it is given to read as it 
were the thoughts of plants and animals. He seems to lay his ear 
to the earth and the confused murmur which he hears has a meaning 
for him : it is creation's yearning for that happier state intended for 
it and of which it has been defrauded. (2) The main idea is not, 
as it is so apt to be with the Rabbinical writers, the mere glorifica- 
tion of Israel. By them the Gentiles are differently treated. 
Sometimes it is their boast that the Holy Land will be reserved 
exclusively for Israel : * the sojourner and the stranger shall dwell 
with them no more' (Ps, Sol, xvii. 31). The only place for the 
Gentiles is * to serve him beneath the yoke ' {ibid, ver, 32). The 
vision of the Gentiles streaming to Jerusalem as a centre of religion 
is exceptional, as it must be confessed that it is also in O.T. 
Prophecy. On the other hand, with St. Paul the movement is 
truly cosmic. The * sons of God ' are not selected for their own 
sakes alone, but their redemption means the redemption of a world 
of being besides themselves. 


Vill. 26y 27. Meanwhile the Holy Spirit itself assists in 
otir prayers. 

"•Nor arc we alone in our struggles. The Holy Spirit sup- 
ports our helplessness. Left to ourselves we do not know what 
prayers to offer or how to offer them. But in those inarticulate 
groans which rise fi'om the depths of our being, we recognize the 
voice of none other than the Holy Spirit He makes intercession : 


and Hb inlcrcession is sure to be answered. "For GckI Who 
searches the inmost recesses of the heart can interpret His own 
Spirit's meaning. He knows that His own Will regulates Its 
petilions. and that they are oflfered for men dedicated to His service. 

as. Avaintt- As We groan, so also does the Holy 5j>irit groan 
with us, putting a meaning into our aspirations which they would 
not have of tbemseives. All alike converges upon thai ' Divine 
event, to which the whole creation moves.' Tliis view of the 
connexion (Go., Weiss, Lips.), which weaves in this vetse with 
the broad course of the Apostle's argument, seems on the whole 
better than that which attaches it more closely to the words im- 
mediately preceding, ' as hope sustains us so also does tiie Spirit 
sustain us' {Mey. Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou.). 

wramXa^fii^ai : amXaii^MirSai = ' to take hold of at the 
^ide {artij, so as 10 support ' ; and this sense is further strength- 
ened by the idea of association contained in crvi-. The same 
compound occurs in LXX of Fs. Ixxxviii [Ixxxix]. ai, and in 
Luke X. 40. 

T^ iaitrtia : decisively attested for roir aaStvtSmt. On the way in 
which we are taking the vetse the reference will be to the vague- 
ness and defectiveness of our prayers; on the other view to our 
weakness under suffering implied in Jti' itro/ioi^c. But as uiro^orn 
suggests rather a certain amount of victorious resistance, this appli- 
cation of audiHu seems less appropriate. 

ti yip n vfio<r(u|w(u9a. Tlie art. makes the whole clause object 
of oliatitr. Gif. notes that this construction is characterisuc ol 
Si. Pad and Sl LtUte (in the latter ten limes; in the former Rom. 
xiii. 9; Gal. v, 14; Eph. iv. 9; i Thess. iv. i), ri upmrn^. b 
strictly rather, ' What we ought 10 pray ' than ' what we ought to 
pray for," i.e. ' how we are to word our prayers.' not ' what we are 
to choose as the objects of prayer.' But as the object determines 
iIk nature of the prayer, in the end the meanmg is much the 

Koti (ft. It is perhaps a refinement to take this as = ' accord- 
ing to, in proportion to, our need ' (Mey.-W. Gif.) ; which brings out 
the proper force of ra$6 (cf. Baruch i. 6 v. 1.) at the cost of putting 
a sense upon Ril which is not found elsewhere in the N. T., where 
it always denotes obligation or objective necessity. Those of the 
Fathers who show how (bey took it make iia66 it% =^ rira rpiito* 
9f< wpoatvi^ which also answers well to tara Biir in ihe next 

kvtptrtvfxi-"**' '• imrfXpiHt means originally 'to fall in with,' and 
hence ' to accost with entreaty,' and so simply ' to entreat ' ; m thb 
sense it is not uncommon and occurs twice in this Epistle (viii. 34 ; 
xt i). The verse contains a statement which the unready of 


speech may well lay to heart, that all prayer need not be forma- 
lated, but that the most inarticulate desires (springing from a right 
modve) may have a shape and a value given to them beyond 
anything that is present and definable to the consciousness. This 
verse and the next go to show that St. Paul regarded the action of 
the Holy Spirit as personal, and as distinct from the action of the 
Father. The language of the Creeds aims at taking account of 
these expressions, which agree fully with the triple formula of 
a Cor. xiii. 14; Matt, xxviii. 19. Oltr. however makes to irvcv/ia in 
both verses ss ' the human spirit/ against the natural sense of 
vw€p€Prvyxdif€i and virfp AyUtp, which place the object of intercession 
outside the Spirit itself, and against Korii Gcdr, which would be by 
no means always true of the human spirit. 

6r(p(irTV7xa»'« ii dedsively attested (K* ABDFG &c). Test Recept 
has the easier knvyx^*^ ^^P 4f(<^* 

27. 8ti. Are we to translate this * because ' (Weiss Go. Gif. Va.) 
or * that ' (Mey. Oltr. Lips. Mou.) ? Probably the latter ; for if we 
take on as assigning a reason for ol^€ ri r6 <^p6vrii»a^ the reason would 
not be adequate: God would still ' know' the mind, or intention, 
of the Spirit even if we could conceive it as not nark Q*6w and 
not vwip dytluv. It seems best therefore to make in describe the 
nature of the Spirit's intercession. 

Rard 8c6k ss Kara rh diktjfui rov Btov: cf. a Cor. vii. 9*11. 

The Jews had a strong belief in the valne of the intercessory prayer of 
thdr great saints, snch as Moses {Ass, Mays, zi. 11, 17; ziL 6), Jeremiah 
{Apoc. Bar, ii. a) : cf. Weber, p. aS; £E: But they hive nothing like the 
teaching of these verses. 


VIII. 28-80. With what a chain of Providential cart 
does God accompany the course of His chosen ! In eternity^ 
the plan laid and their part in it foreseen ; in time, first 
their call^ then their acquittal, and finally their reception 
into glory. 

••Yet another ground of confidence. The Christian knows that 
all things (including his suflferings) can have but one result, and 
that a good one, for those who love God and respond to the call 
which in the pursuance of His purpose He addresses to them. 
^ Think what a long perspective of Divine care and protection lies 
before them I First, in eternity, God marked them for His own, 
as special objects of His care and instruments of His purpose 



Then, En the same eternity, He planned that they should share in 
the glorified celestial being of the lnca^nnte Son — in order ihai 
He, as Eldest Bom, might gather round Him a whole ramily ol 
the redeemed. " Then in due course, to those for whom He had 
ID Store this destiny He addressed the call to leave their worldly 
lives and devote themselves to His service. And when they 
obeyed that call He treated them as righteous men, with their 
past no longer reckoned against them. And so accounted righteous 
He let them participate (partially now as they will do more com- 
pletely hereafter) in His Divine perfection. 

38. oiSo^cr it passes on to another ground for looking con- 
fidently to the future. The Christian's career must have a good 
ending, because at every step in it be is in the hands of God and is 
carrying out the Divine purpose. 

ndrra aunpy*l: a small but imjiorlan! group of authorities, AB, 
Orig. 3/6 or a/7 (cf. Bob. Sah, Aelh.), adds 6 etrft; and the inser- 
tion lay so much less near at hand than the omisbion that it must 
be allowed to have the greater appearance of originality. Wiib 
this reading mniryti must be taken Uansitively, 'causes all things 
to work.' 

The Bohilric VenloB.tmiiUied liier«IIy»nd preMrrinE'he idioms, ii'Bnt 
wt koow tbat Ihotc who love God. He taibitusUy woiki with them in ewi; 
fixxt tbing, IboM wbom He hii called iccording to llupuipoic.' TheSahidic 
Veruon (u edlLed by Am^lmnn in Zeilukrijl fiir Aigypt Spraikt. iSfa;) 
b ID p«t defectiTt but cetninly icpeits Biii : ' Uul we know thit those who 
loTc God, God . . . Ihem ia every good thiag,' &c trnm thii we githec 
that the Version of Lippet tgypl instiled h etui, ind tbat the Venion of 
Lower EEjrpt omitted it but inicjprelcd avrip7tr Itrnifjlively u U it were 
ptctent. It woQld alisMt >ecm u if there wrs id excgetioil tradition wbich 
look the woid in ihii wiy. It it tiue Lhat the cxiiact fiotn Urigpo'i Coin- 
Bcoury ID the Pkilecalia 'ed. Robuiion, p. Ji6 R. , not only dittinclly and 
repolidly pieBenii the common reading bnt aUo in one place (p 3i9)cleaily 
bu the common inlerpictition. Bdt ChiyioMom {ad let.) trgun at lome 
IdCtb ai if be were tikuig owijryfi' tiansitiTely with t e<v( fot mbject. 
Simitarly Gcrnid^ni (In Cramet'i Cnuna], also Theodotit and Tbeodoiui 
Mooachus (piesetvtd Id the Catena , It would pcibiip* be too much to 
dain all th«e wiiten as witneasp* lo the reariinc avuiiytii ••«!. but they 
■nay point to a tiadiiioc which had its origm in thnt reading and survived it 
Do Ibe other hand it li possible that the lenil^ng may hategrowa onl of the 

Foi the nie of tvytfrii there aic two rather close pnrallell in Tuf. XII 
Fair. : tiaacb. 3 i Oiih mmpyti rp igAdrfTi* fiou, and Gad 4 ri yAp muiia 
*«* idvtm . . . avnpyii rf Zararj ir raair ih Vavaroi' rSir •iitpiijor' ri H 
»nt(i4 T^i d7«aqi Ir iMUfotviil^ evnf^fi Tfi i-ufiy toC ©loS iJi et/n/piai- 

Toil "«r4 irpo9«ffi» aXigTois oiSon-. Wiih this clatjse Sl Paul in- 
trodnces t Stiiag of what may be called the technical teims of his 


theology, marking the succession of stages into which he divides 
the normal course of a Christian life — all being considered not 
from the side of human choice and volition, but from the side of 
Divine care and ordering. This is summed up at the outset in the 
phrase icara np6S€ori», the comprehensive plan or design in accord- 
ance with which God directs the destinies of men. There can be 
no question that St. Paul fully recognizes the freedom of the human 
will. The large part which exhortation plays in his letters is con- 
clusive proof of this. But whatever the extent of human freedom 
there must be behind it the Divine Sovereignty. It is the practice 
of St. Paul to state alternately the one and the other without 
attempting an exact delimitation between them. And what he has 
not done we are not likely to succeed in doing. In the passage 
before us the Divine Sovereignty is in view, not on its terrible but 
on its gracious side. It is the proof how ' God worketh all things 
for good to those who love Him.' We cannot insist too strongly 
upon this ; but when we leave the plain declarations of the Apostle 
and begin to draw speculative inferences on the right hand or on 
the left we may easily fall into cross currents which will render any 
such inferences invalid. See further the note on Free- Will and 
Predestination at the end of ch. xi. 

In further characterizing * those who love God * St Paul na- 
turally strikes the point at which their love became manifest by the 
acceptance of the Divine Call. This call is one link in the chain 
of Providential care which attends them : and it suggests the other 
links which stretch far back into the past and far forward into the 
future. By enumerating these the Apostle completes his proof 
that the love of God never quits His chosen ones. 

The enumeration follows the order of succession in time. 

For 7rp66€(Ti£ see on ch. ix. II ^ kgt f«cXoy^v np^Otait rov 6cov, 

which would prove, if proof were needed, that the purpose is that 
of God and not of man (tear oiKdav irpoalptaiv Theoph. and the 
Greek Fathers generally): comp. also Eph. i. ii ; iii. ii ; a Tim, 
i. 9. 

It was one of the misfortanes of Greek theology that it received a bias io 
the Free- Will controversy from opposition to the Gnostics (cf. p. 369 inf.) 
which it never afterwards lost, and which seriously prejudiced its exegesis 
wherever this question was concerned. Thus in the present instance, the great 
mass of \h(' Greek commentators take /rard vp6$(fftv to mean ' in accordance 
with the man's own vpoalptois or free act of choice* (see the extracts in 
Cramer's Catena *e cod. Monac.'; and add Theoph. Oecum. £uthym.-Zig.). 
The two partial exceptions are, as we might expect, Origen and Cjmoi 
Alexandria, who however both show traces of the influences current in the 
Eastern Church. Origen also seems inclined to take it of the propositum 
bonum et bonam voluntatem quam circa Dei cultum gerunt ; but he admits 
the alternative that it may refer to the purpose of God. If so, it refers to 
this purpose as determined by His foreknowledge of the characters and 
conduct of men. Cyril of Alexandria asks the question, Whose purpose is 
mtendedf and decides that it would not be wrong to answer rhw t« rov 



vm. ss, SB.] 

■•sJliliifoM nl rifir larrar. He comei to Ihit decition hoveva nthci on 
doematic thm cd eicgelical gn>imdi. 

u U c<]a*ll7 a ilriiiiiDg of Ihc text vhen AngosCine dUtingnisba two kiodi 
of cb1I> one lettmdHm pnrfeiilum.itu: cxll of the elect, and the other of those 
who wt nol eiccL AW eaim emmi vetali Hcundnm propotLlum luitt 
9*eMi: fitetaam multi emafi, pami iltcli. Ipii ir;ga taanJum prefvsilum 
Vtiati ni lUeti ante <en>tiiiaiantm muHJi (ivul. dual Sfiisl. /'ilag^. il lo. 
f ji. ct Cmt. Julian, v. 6, { 14 i. In the idea of a double call, Auguttioe 
tcetni to bate been anticipated by Orij;en, who howcTei, ai we have seen. 
givei a different iFnie to nmtk vpliStiny: Bmntsqvidan vacalitHni, nanlamtn 
tmnti Kcundom pioposilnm Vteati stmt |,ed. Lomm. vii. 118'. 

nXi|t«Ii: ' called,' implviiig that ihe call has been obeyed. The 
<X$vu is not aw salut (Ollr.), ai least in the sense of final salva- 
tion, btit simply to become Christians: see on L 1. 

36. Sn: certainly here ' becatise,' assigning a reason for ndvra 
DvHf)*: a e.ot *I« aya&ov, nol ' that ' ( = c'lit qut Ollr.). 

oB* -wpo^vu. The meaning of this phriise must be determined 
by the Biblical use of the word ' know, which is very marked and 
clear : e. g. Pa. i. 6 ' The Lord tnoweth (yiyi'Miwi) the way of the 
risbtcotis'; cxliv fcxhii]. 3 'Lord, what is man that Thou takest 
knowledge of him (an iyinia6m a{n^ LXX) ? Or the son of man 
that Thou makeat account of him?' Hos. xiii 5 '1 did know 
(rTiWfiwvoi) [bee in the wilderness.' Am. iii. 3 ' You only have 
I known (l^mr) of all the families of the earth.' MaLt. vii. 33 
'Then will 1 profess unio them I never knew (/y»»») you,' ft& 
In all these places the word means ■ to uke note of,' ' to fix the 
regard upon," as a preliminary to selection for some especial put- 
pose. The compound ir,»iy™ only throws back this ' taking 
note ' from the hislortc act in time to the eternal cotmsel which 
it expresses and executes. 

ThU inleipretaTioii (which ii very limilar to thsl of Godet and which 
■ppraachei. ttioagh it ii nol exactl]' identioil wilh, that ol a naoilKt of older 
canuDCDtaion, ■■ho mike t^ifm - fiaidiligtrt, epfrchan) hu (he double 
ad'anuge of txing itridlj conCormed to Biljlical oiaEe and of reading 
nothiDK into the word which we aie not uue is there, "nus latter objrclion 
applies to most other wayi of tskiag the pasinge: e.g. to OriGeo'i, when he 
tnakc* the foreknowledge a foreknowledge of character and fitneia, mpaata- 
TOinu oJr J ©(lit T^ iipf^ ^f jBof.J>a», loj jrarom^oa! /k«T(i' luS i^ ^fuV 
rwrlj nmn III iC«idiuw mI up^^v \w\ nimtr |i<T<i njv l<o-ri^ b.t.A. 
(Fkiinal. axT. ). p. 337. ed. Robinion ; the comment ai tei. 11 ralhtr nearer 
the Ristk, itgnmiitu mas duilur, kK til in diltitisnt kakuisu tibiqtii 
Uiiaiu. but there loo i* added uimi fualts tsiinl). Cyril of Alexaiidnfl 
(aail after him Meyer) lapplici from what folloui rpotyviieSriaar tit iverroi 
viit'i^'Pf™ t^ fiiuruf TDu Tiov atraC, t>ul ibi* bclongi property only lo 
tpaiifict. Uideat from the mark are (hcnc who, like CulVin, look beyond 
the iminediate choice to final ulNation; Dti aultm praimgHirie. lUiui im 
Pauim maninil, nen mida tit fraaiitntia . . .led adoplio qua JS/iei luei 
* nprfiii sifHpir diuTtvil. On the other hand. Gif. keept cloiely to tJie 
Mottal in eaplauuBg, ' " Foreknew " ai the individual objcc ' ' ' 
i.fpUna) and therefore foreknew ai " them that love Ui 
defect in thia leemi to be that it doc> not (nffidcotlj take •ocoanl of tbe 
ar. aiKl N T. iueDr-r>v^<"<>- 



Rol vpo«Spi9f. The Apostle overleaps for the moment inter- 
mediate steps and carries the believer onward to the final con- 
summation of God's purpose in respect to him. This is exactly 
defined as ' conformity to the image of His Son.' 

au|Afji^p^us denotes inward and thorough and not merely super- 
ficial likeness. 

Tijs eU^Kos. As the Son is the image of the Father (s Cor. iv. 
4; Col. i. 15), so the Christian is to reflect the image of His 
Lord, passing through a gradual assimilation of mind and character 
to an ultimate assimilation of His do^ the absorption of the 
splendour of His presence. 

clt T& ctKOi odrdK irp«i>T^TOKoy <r iroXXoTs dScX^it. As the final 
cause of all things is the glory of God, so the final cause of the 
Incarnation and of the efi'ect of the Incarnation upon man is that 
the Son may be surrounded by a multitude of the redeemed. 
These He vouchsafes to call His * brethren.' They are a * family/ 
the entrance into which is through the Resurrection. As Christ 
was the first to rise, He is the ' £ldest-bom ' {npayroroKos dm rw 

ptKp&Vf ipa yivrjTM iv nacrip avTu£ yrp«i>rfvo>y Col. i. 1 8). This is 

different from the 'first-born of all creation' (Col. i. 15). «-p«»ro- 
roKOf is a metaphorical expression ; the sense of which is determined 
by the context; in Col. i. 15 it is relative to creation, here it is 
relative to the state to which entrance is through the Resurrection 
(see Lightfoot's note on the passage in Col.). 

80. oCs %i •t[po6pi<r€ K.T.X. Having taken his readers to the end 
of the scale, the do^a in which the career of the Christian cul- 
minates, the Apostle now goes back and resolves the latter part of 
the process into its subdivisions, of which the landmarks are 
cVcaXco-cv, fdiKaiaatVf cdofatrc. These are not quite exhaustive: 
tfyiaatv might have been inserted after cducmoxrcv ; but it is suffi- 
ciently implied as a consequence of cducatwo-fv and a necessary 
condition of iU^aati in pursuance of the Divine purpose that 
Christians should be conformed to Christ, the first step is the call ; 
this brings wiih it, when it is obeyed, the wiping out of past sins, 
or justification; and from that there is a straight course to the 
crowning with Divine glory. cVoXrcrfy and cdtJcoiWcy are both 
naturally in the aorist tense as pointing to something finished 
and therefore past ; iho^aatv is not strictly either finished or past, 
but it is attracted into the same tense as the preceding verbs ; an 
attraction which is further justified by the fact that, though not 
complete in its historical working out, the step implied in ii6$€ur€9 
is both complete and certain in the Divine counsels. To God 
there is neither ' before nor after.' 

Vm. 81-M.J tAFE IN THE SPIRIT %ig 


vm. 81-89. WifA the proofs of God's love before him, 
the Christian has nothing to fear, God, the Judge, is an 
his side, and the ascended Christ intercedes for him 

(w. 31-34). 

The love of God in Christ is so strong that earthly 
sufferings and persecutions — nay, all forms and phases of 
being — are powerless to intercept it, or to bar the Christians 
triumph (w. 35-39)- 

"^What conclusion are we to draw from this? Surely the 
strongest possible comfort and encouragement. With God on our 
side what enemy can we fear ? "As Abraham spared not Isaac, 
so He spared not the Son who shared His Godhead, but suffered 
Him to die for all believers. Is not this a sure proof that along 
with that one transcendent gift His bounty will provide all that is 
necessary for our salvation ? " Where shall accusers be found 
against those whom God has chosen? When God pronounces 
righteous, ** who shall condemn ? For us Christ has died ; I should 
say rather rose again ; and not only rose but sits enthroned at 
His Father's side, and there pleads continually for us. ** Hb love 
is our security. And that love is so strong that nothing on earth 
can come between us and it The sea of troubles that a Christian 
has to face, hardship and persecution of every kind, are powerless 
against it ; ** though the words of the Psalmist might well be 
applied to us, in which, speaking of the faithful few in his own 
generation, he described them as ' for God's sake butchered all 
day long, treated Uke sheep in the shambles/ '^ We too are no 
better than they. And yet, crushed and routed as we may seem, 
the love of Christ crowns us with surpassing victory. ** For I am 
convinced that no form or phase of being, whether abstract or 
personal ; not life or its negation ; not any hierarchy of spirits ; no 
dimension of time; no supernatural powers; '^no dimension of 
space; no world of being invisible to us now, — will ever come 
between us and the love which God has brought so near to us in 
JesQS Messiah oar Lord 


82. 8s yc Tou ISiou utou odic i^waro. A number of emphatic 
expressions are crowded together in this sentence : 8? yc, ' the same 
God who'; toO Idiav vhvf 'His own Son/ partaker of His own 
nature ; ovc iffHlaaro^ the word which is osed of the offering of 
Isaac in Gen. xzii. i6, and so directly recalls that offering---the 
greatest sacrifice on record. For the argument comp. v. 6-io. 

88-36. The best punctuation of these verses is that which is 
adopted in RV. text (so also Orig. Chrys. Theodrt Mey. EIL 
Gif. Va. Lid.). There should not be more than a colon between 
the clauses 6f &s 6 duteuwv rU 6 narcMpw^v \ God is conceived of as 
Judge : where He acquits, who can condemn ? Ver. 34 is then 
immediately taken up by ver. 35 : Christ proved His love by dying 
for us; who then shall part us from Uiat love? The Aposde 
clearly has in his mind Is. 1. 8, 9 ' He is near that justifieth men ; 
who will contend with me ? . . • Behold, the Lord God will help 
me ; who is he that shall condemn me ? ' This distincdy favours 
the view that each affirmation is followed by a question relating to 
that affirmation. The phrases 6 KoroKpitmp and 6 ducatiuf form 
a natural antithesis, which it is wrong to break up by putting a full 
stop between them and taking one with what precedes, the other 
with what follows. 

On the view taken above, Of dt 6 8i«aiwr and X^ordt liT^rovt 6 dw o9 a» hr 
are both aniwers to tIs iyicaKiffti ; and rlt 6 tcaragpipwi^ ; rit ^^/$Sm x'^fioH ; 
are subordinate questions, suggested in the one case by daeaidr, in the other 
by ivT, {nr\p ij/juity. We observe also that on this view ver. 35 is closely 
linked to ver. 34. The rapid snccession of thought which is thus obtained, 
each step leading on to the next, is in full accordance with the spirit of the 

Another way of taking it is to put a full stop at 9tittu&y, and to make rlt 
iyica\€a€i; rit 6 KaroKpivwi two distinct questions with wholly distinct 
answers. So Fri. Lips. Weiss Oltr. Ga Others again (RV. marg, Beng. 
De W. Mou.) make all the clauses questions (8cdf 6 ducaiw; itrrvyx. Inrip 
iffiwv ;) But these repeated challenges do not give such a nervooa concatena- 
don of reasoning. 

33. Tis ^KaX^o-ei; another of the forensic terms which are so 
common in this Epistle ; ' Who shall impeach such as are elect of 

juXciiTUK. We have aheady seen (note on i. i) that with 
St Paul icXi/roc and exXcieroi are not opi>osed to each other (as they 
are in Matt. xxii. 14) but are rather to be identified. By reading 
into JcXi^roi the implication that the call is accepted, St Paul shows 
that the persons of whom this is true are also objects of God's 
choice. By both terms St Paul designates not those who are de- 
stined for final salvation, but those who are * summoned * or * se- 
lected ' for the privilege of serving God and carrying out His will. 
If their career runs its normal course it must issue in salvation, 
the ' glory ' reserved for them ; this lies as it were at the end of 


t /(Xmth* only shows that they are in the right 
At least no eiiemal power can bar ihem from 
ft; if they lose it, ihey will do so by their own fault. 

Karnwpdw: nanufurm' RV. Itxl Moa. Thit ii quite po^lilc, but Simm 
(Bggati the present. 

«4. XpiffTM l>i<roO» K A C F G U VoIr. Bod. Ann, Aeth.Orig.-lat.Diil, 
Aug.! X^crSt lorn. 'J-jnoui) BDEK Hcc. Syn., C^r.-Jtrut Chrys. a/. 
Aooltici initutce of B in ktliiincc wilb lalboritin olherwite WeUFm and 
Sjnua. Vi H. bucket 'Ifif. 

tytp$At b vtip^ K'ACal. plur., RV. WH' : tm. I> >tj>;w. K* B D E 
FG K L &c, Tt. WH>. The ^map whicb uueru im nipin ii pnciically 
the Mme ■* tbxl vliich inaeita 'Iqffoui a bore. 

81 au. Stroke follows stroke, each driving home the last. 'Il 
a Christ who died— nay rather {immo vera) rose from the liead — 
who («•/ should be omtited here) is at the right hand of God— who 
also intercedes for us.' It is not a dead Christ on whom we depend , 
but k living. It is not only a living Christ, but a Christ enthroned. 
a Christ in power. It is not only a Christ in power, but a Christ 
of ever-active sympathy, constaniiy (if we may so apeak) at ihf 
Father's ear, and constantly pouring in intercessions for His 
struggling people on eanh. A great test for the value and 
significance of the Ascension (cf. Swcte, Apat/. Cried, p. 67 f.). 

SS, d>i iTffl dy^irr|t Toi! XpLOToS. There is an alternaiive reading 
loO Stot for which the authorities are NB, Orig. (1/3 doubtfully in 
[he Greek, but 6/7 in Rufinus' Latin tran^laiion) ; Eus. 4,'6 ; Bas. 
1/6; HiL i/i and some others. RV. WH. note this reading in 
marg. But of the authorities B Orig.-lal. s/7 read in full ana r^t 
iy^M^t ni Bioi r^i it Xpurr^ 'lijaoi, which is obviously taken from 
vcT. 39. Even in its simpler form the reading is open to suspicion 
of being conformed to that verse : to which however it may be 
replied that Xpumni may also be a correction from the same source. 
On the whole XfuvmO seems more probable, and falls in better with 
the view maintained above of the close connexion of w, 34, 35. 

' The love of Christ " is unquestionably ' the love of Christ for 
us,* not our love for Christ : cf. v. 5. 

6Xii|rLi K.T.X. We have here a splendid example of naixn'^t •* 
rm< flXif.ff.» of which St. Paul wrote in ch. v. 3 ff. Tlie passage 
■hows how he soared a»ay in spirit above those ■ suflferin-s of this 
present lime' which men might inflict, but after that had nothing 
more that they could do. On Ai^ir $ artro^ap'ia see il 9 ; for 

dwryyuit cf. 1 Cor. xi. 33 ff., 3a f. ; Xii 10, ftc. ; for "Kmot Ij yujuont, 

t Cor. iv. 11 ; 3 Cor. xi, 37 ; for hVSvmw a Cor. xi. i6 ; i Cor 
XV. 30. 

8S. Srt trttii ooH. The quotation is exact from LXX of Pa. 

xliv t'liii]- '3 • *" lielonga to it. 

frcnr U dedii'ely ilteited here : in the Pulm B bu Itfo, K A T IrtMt 
wbere there ti ■ prcmmptioo agamit tb* reading ot B. 


OaKatvi^ficOa ^Y)r T^r ifjf&^pov: cf. I Cor. xv. 31 co^ 4M>a» 
airo^M^ariow : * tota die, hoc «/, omni vitae meae tempore * Orig. 
Tp^paTo a^ayris: sheep destined for slaughter; cf. Zech. xi. 4 

r^ vpojiaxa r^£ cr^ay^r (cf. Jer. xii. 3 irp6^ara tU vfjiayhv Cod. MarchaL 


The Latin texts of this verse are marked and characteristic Tertnllian, 
Scorp. 13 Tua causa mortificamur tota die^ deputati sumus ut ptcora iugtt' 
lationis, Cyprian, Test. iii. 18 (the true text; cf. Epist. xzxi. 4) Causm tui 
cecidimur tota die^ deputati sumus ut eves victimae. Hilary of Poitiers, 
Tract, in Ps. cxviii. (ed. Zingerle, p. 429) Propter te mortiJUantur tota die^ 
deputati sumus sicut oves occisumis. Irenaeos, Aehf. Haer, II. xziL a 
{J,atine\ cf. IV. xvi. 2) Propter te morte afficimur tota dio^ asstimeUi sumui 
ut oves occisionis. (Similarly Cod. Clarom Speculum Augustini, codd. ML) 
Vulgate (Cod. Amiat.) Propter te mortificamur tota die, aestimati sumus 
tit oves occisionis. Here two types of text stand out clearly : that of Cyprian 
at one end of the scale, and that of the Vulgate (with which we may groop 
Iren.-lat. Cod. Clarom. and the Speculum) at the other. Hilary stands 
between, having deputati in common with Cyprian, bat on the whole leaning 
rather to the later group. The most difficult problem is presented by 
TertuUian, who approaches Cyprian in Tua causa and deputati^ and tl^ 
Vulgate group in mortificamur \ in pecora iugulationis he stands alone. 
This passage might seem to favour the view that in TertuUian we had the 
primitive text from which all the rest were derived. That hypothesis how* 
ever would be difficult to maintain systematically; and in any case thexe 
most be a large element in Tertullian*s text which is simply individuaL 
The text before ns may be said to give a glimpse of the average position ol 
a problem which is still some way from solution. 

87. direpKiKufiCK. TertuUian and Cyprian represent thb by the 
coinage supervinctmus (Vulg. Cod. Clarom. Hil. superamus) ; * over- 
come strongly ' Tyn. ; * are more than conquerors ' Genev., happily 
adopted in AV, 

Sid Tou dyairi^aaft'TOS ^^Q'% points back to r^f ayamit rov Kpiaro4 
in ver. 35. 

38. ouTc dyYcXoi oi^rc dpxai. ' And He will call on all the host 
of the heavens and all the holy ones above, and the host of God, 
the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim, and all the angels of 
power, and all the angels of principalities, and the Elect One, and 
the other powers on the earth, over the water, on that day ' Enoch 
Ixi. 10. St. Paul from time to time makes use of similar Jewish 
designations for the hierarchy of angels: so in i Cor. xv. 34; 

£ph. i. 2 1 un)^Tjj f^ovaiOf bvvafus, fcvpiornjs, nav Bvofta 6vofUi(6fi€POP i 

iii. 10; vi. 12 ; Col. i. 16 (Opovotj KvpioTrjTft^ ^PX^h <(ov(ruu); ii. 10, 
15. The whole world of spirits is summed up in Phil. ii. 10 as 
cirovpaviOi, cVtyc or, Ka.Ta\66vioi. It is somewhat noticcablc that whereab 
the terms used are generally abstract, in several places they are 
made still more abstract by the use of the sing, instead of plur., 

orav Karapyr)(Tri iraacof dpxfjv Koi iraaav i^ovvlav Ka\ dvpafuv I Cor. XV. 
34 ; imtpdua ndirrf£ dpxrJ9 <ai f^ovaias icrA. £ph. L SI ; f icc^KiXif 
ircUnjs dp^fjs koI i^ovisias Col. IL ID. 

Vm. 88, 88.1 LIFE IN THE SPIRIT ai9 

It is also true (as pointed out by Weiss, BibL ThecL % 104 ; 
Anm. I. a) that the leading passages in which St. Paul speaks of 
angels are those in which his language aims at embracing the 
whole K^ftot, He is very far from a BptiaKtla raw oyycXwv such as he 
protests against in the Church at Colossae (Col. ii. 18). At the 
same time the parallels which have been given (see also below 
under diwd^cr) are enough to show that the Af>ostle must not be 
separated from the common beliefs of his countrymen. He held 
that there was a world of spirits brought into being like the rest of 
creation by Christ (Col. i. 16). These spirits are ranged in 
a certain hierarchy to which the current names are given. They 
seem to be neither wholly good nor wholly bad, for to them too 
the Atonement of the Cross extends (Col. L 20 diroKaraWd^i r^ 

wawra §ls avrop • . . ctrc ra tn\ rrjs y^r circ ra cV rots oxfpavols). There 

is a sense in which the Death on the Cross is a triumph over them 
(Col. ii. 15). They too must acknowledge the universal sovereignty 
of Christ ( I Cor. xv. 24 ; cf. Eph. i. 10) ; and they form part of 
that kingdom which He hands over to the Father, that ' God may 
be all in all' (i Cor. xv. 28). On the whole subject see Everling, 
JHe poMdimschi Angelologie u, Ddmonologie^ G5ttingen, 1888. 

For ^cXm the Western text (D £ F G, Ambrstr. Aug. Amb.) has 
4771X01. There is also a tendency in the Western and later authorities to 
iooert oirrc i^owriai before or after apx"^^ obviously from the parallel passages 
Id which the words occor together. 

o«Jt« Sif»4|&cit. There is overwhelming authority (t^ A B C D &c.) 
for placing these words after ovt€ fUXXoura. We naturally expect 
them to be associated with dpxal, as in i Cor. xv. 24 ; Eph. i. 21. 
It is possible that in one of the earliest copies the word may have 
been accidentally omitted, and then added in the margin and re- 
inserted at the wrong place. We seem to have a like primitive 
corruption in ch. iv. 12 {rais ^otxoOo-cv). But it is p)erhaps more 
probable that in the rush of impassioned thought St. Paul inserts 
the words as they come, and that thus ovrt dvvdti€is may be slightly 
belated. It has been suggested that St. Paul takes alternately 
animate existences and inanimate. When not criiically controlled, 
the order of association is a very subtle thing. 

For the word compare ' the angels of power ' and ' the other powers on 
the earth* in the passage from the Book of Enoch quoted above ; also Test. 
JC// Pair. Leri 3 iw t^ rpir^ (sc ovpay^) tlaiv al dviafxtn ratv vap*nfio\SJv, 
0I rax^iwTts tit ^fup€» icpiatott, noi^acu iKliicijaiv Ir roit nnvfuiai rrjs ir\6yijs 
Mai rov BtXiap. 

89. om in|r»fia otTrt p<£0os. Lips, would give to the whole 
context a somewhat more limited application than is usually 
assigned to it He makes ovrc cVf(rr. . . fidOos all refer to angelic 
powers : ' neither now nor at the end of life (when such spirits 
were thought to be most active) shall the spirits either of the 


height or from the depth bar oor entrance into the next world, 
where the love of Christ will be still nearer to us.' This is also 
the view of Origan (see below). But it is quite in the manner of 
Sl Paul to personify abstractions, and the sense attached to them 
cannot well be too large : cf. esp. £ph. iii. i8 ri r6 wXann Km fiSjKos 

Koi vyjfot cat ^Oos^ and 2 Cor. Z. 5 "^ v^^^fta iwaipofupom Kara rijs 
yKMTCwf rov 6fov. 

The common patristic explanation of ttf^otita is ' things above the heavens/ 
and of /3d0of, < things beneath the earth.' Theod. Monach. {ftpwfWL /Ur rei 
dyaif Mio^a, fia$ot 8J rd Ayw dSo^a, Theodoret fidSof 82 r^ yitrraw, 
CiffWfia rijv fiaaiXtlop. Origen (in Cramer's Catena) explains ^nfmiia of the 
'spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places* ;£ph. vL la), and 
fiadot of T^ KaTax66¥ia, The expanded version of Rufinns approaches still 
more nearly to the theory of Lipsins: Similiter it altitudo et profnndam 
impMgna9tt nes, ticut tt David aicit malti aai debellant me de alto : tim 
duHo cum a spiriiibus fuquitiae de caelistihus urgtretur: et simt iterum 
dicit : de prorandis clamavi ad te, Domine : rtMPi ab his qui im inftme 
deputati sunt et gehennae spiritibus impugnaretur. 

oih-c ns KTiais Mpcu The use of kripa and not oXXi; seems to 
favour the view that this means not exactly 'any other created 
thing ' but ' any other kind of creation/ ' any other mode of being/ 
besides those just enumerated and differing from the familiar world 
as we see it. 

Origen (in Cramer) would like to take the passage in this way. He asks 
if there may not be another creation besides this visible one, ' in its nature 
visible though not as yet seen ' — a description which might seem to anticipate 
the discovenes of the microscope and telescope. Com p. Balfoor, Foundations 
of Beliefs p. 71 f. * It is impossible therefore to resist the conviction that 
there must be an indefinite number of aspects of Nature respecting which 
science never can give us any information, even in our dreams. We must 
conceive ourselves as feeling our way about this dim comer of the illimit- 
able world, like children in a darkened room, encompassed by we know 
not what ; a little better endowed with the machinery of sensation than the 
protozoon, yet poorly provided indeed as compared with a being, if such 
a one could be conceived, whose senses were adequate to the infinite variety 
of material Nature.' 

dir^ TT|s dyciinis tou 6cou tt|s ^k XpioTw*lT)aou. This is the full 
Christian idea. The love of Christ is no doubt capable of being 
isolated and described separately (2 Cor. v. 14; Eph. iii. 19), but 
the love of Christ is really a manifestation of the love of God. 
A striking instance of the way in which the whole Godhead 
co-operates in this manifestation is ch. v. 5-8 : the love of God 
is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spt'rti, because Chriii 
died for us ; and God commends His love because Christ died 
The same essential significance runs through this section (nott 
esp. w. 31-35. 39). 



1-6. TAe thought of this magnificent prospect fills 
me with sorrow for those who seem to be excluded from it — 
my own countrymen for whom I would willingly sacrifice 
my dearest hopes — excluded too in spite of all their special 
privileges and their high destiny, 

' How glorious the prospect of the life in Christ I How mournful 
the thought of those who are cut off from itl There is no 
shadow of falsehood in the statement I am about to make. As 
one who has his life in Christ I affirm a solemn truth ; and my 
conscience, speaking under the direct influence of God's Holy 
Spirit, bears witness to my sincerity. 'There is one grief that 
I cannot shake off, one distressing weight that lies for ever at my 
heart * Like Moses when he came down from the mount, the prayer 
has been in my mind : Could I by the personal sacrifice of my 
own salvation for them, even by being cut off from all communion 
with Christ, in any way save my own countrymen ? Are they not 
mj own brethren, my kinsmen as far as earthly relationship is 
concerned ? * Are they not God's own privileged people ? They 
bear the sacred name of Israel with all that it implies ; it is they 
whom He declared to be His 'son,' His * firstborn' (£xod. iv. 22); 
their temple has been illuminated by the glory of the Divine 
presence; they are bound to Him by a series of covenants re- 
peatedly renewed ; to them He gave a system of law on Mount 
Sinai ; year after year they have offered up the solemn worship of 
the temple ; they have been the depositories of the Divine promises ; 
* their ancestors are the patriarchs, who were accounted righteous 
before God ; from them in these last days has come the Messiah 
as regards his natural descent — that Messiah who although sprung 
from a human parent is supreme over all things, none other than 
God, the eternal object of human praise 1 

St Paul has now finished his main argument He 
has ezi>ounded his conception of the Gospel. But there still 
remains a difficulty which could not help suggesting itself to 
every thoughtful reader, and which was continually being raised 
by one class of Christians at the time when he wrote. How b 
this new scheme of righteousness and salvation apart from law 



consistent with the privileged position of the Jews? Thej had 
been the chosen race (we find St Paul enumerating their privileges), 
through them the Messiah had come, and yet it appeared tbej 
would be rejected if they would not accept this new righteousness 
by faith. How is this consistent with the justice of God ? 

The question has been continually in the Apostle's mind. It 
has led him to emphasize more than once the fact that the new 
fvoyycXioy if for both Jew and Greek, is yet for the Jew first (i. i6; 
iL 9). It has led him to lay great stress on the fact that the Jews 
especially had sinned (iu 17V Once indeed he has begun to 
discuss it directly (iii. i) ; ' What advantage then is there in being 
a Jew ? ' but he postponed it for a time, feeling that it was necessary 
first to complete his main argument He has dwelt on the fact 
that the new way of salvation can be proved from the Old Testa- 
ment (chap. iv). Now he is at liberty to discuss in full the question : 
How is this conception of Christ's work consistent with the fact of 
the rejection of the Jews which it seems to imply ? 

The answer to this question occupies the remainder of the 
dogmatic portion of the Epistle, chaps, ix-zi, generally considered 
to be the third of its principal divisions. The whole section may 
be subdivided as follows: in ix. 6-29 the faithfulness and justice of 
God are vindicated; in iz. 30-z. ai the guilt of Israel is proved; 
in chap, zi St Paul shows the divine purpose which is being fulfilled 
and looks forward prophetically to a future time when Israel will 
be restored, concluding the section with a description of the Wisdom 
of God as far ezceeding all human speculation. 

Mardon seems to haye omitted the whole of this chapter with the possible 
exception of vv. 1-3. Tert. who passes from viii. 11 to x. 2 says saJU ti 
ku amplissimum abruptum internsag scripturae {Adv, Marc. t. 14). See 
Zahn, Gesch, des N. T. Kanons p. 518. 

L We notice that there is no grammatical connezion with the 
preceding chapter. A new point is introduced and the sequence 
of thought is gradually made apparent as the argument proceeds. 
Perhaps there has been a pause in writing the Episde, the amanu- 
ensis has for a time suspended his labours. We notice also that 
St. Paul does not here follow his general habit of stating the 
subject he is going to discuss (as he does for example at the 
beginning of chap, iii), but allows it gradually to become evident. 
He naturally shrinks from mentioning too definitely a fact which is 
to him so full of sadness. It will be only too apparent to what he 
refers; and tact and delicacy both forbid him to define it more 

dXi^dciaK Xf/<u i¥ XpioTw: 'I speak the truth in Christ, as one 
united with Christ'; of. 2 Cor. ii. 17 dXX' m f$ ctXatpiwaf, ^X* m 

cff e«ov, mirivavri BfoC fV XfHorrf XaXoO/icy: zii. 1 9. St. Paul haS JUS^ 


descnbed that union with Christ which will make any form of sin 
impossible; cf. viii. i, lo; and the reference to this union gives 
solemnity to an assertion for which it will be difficult to obtain full 

od ^wJSofuu. A Pauline expression, i Tim. ii. 7 dkri$fta» Xcyw, 
ov y^vdofuu: 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Gal. i. 20. 

9iififftaf>Tvpou(n|s: cf. ii. 15; viiL 16. The conscience is personified 
so as to give the idea of a second and a separate witness. Cf. 

Oecumenius ad loc» y^iya BtXti tlnuw^ dt6 npoodonoul r^ trccrrfv^Fai, 
rpfls €vt<l>€p6iJL€ifos /idprvpatf t6p X(HaT6Pf r6 'Kytov Hvtvfui, itai r^v iavroit 

iw nKeJfu&Ti 'Ayty with avfifiaprvpovarjt. St. Paul adds further 
solemnity to his assertion by referring to that union of his spirit 
with the Divine Spirit of which he had si>oken in the previous 

chapter. Cf. viiL 16 avr6 ro IlvfvfAa (rvfifMaprvpti r^ frvtvfian ^/mof. 

St. Paul begins with a strong assertion of the truth of his 
statement as a man does who is about to say something of the 
truth of which he is firmly convinced himself, although facts and 
the public opinion of his countrymen might seem to be against 

him. Cf. Chrys. ad loc, wporfpop dt dtafiffieuovrtu ircpi &y fuXXfi 
Xtyn^ iirtp wokkois tBos nouuf Stop fUWc^ai ri Xryfiy irap^ roit iroXXoiff 
mmrraufupop ccd vwip cS a<f>6^pa iavrovt dag trfirtiKorft, 

%. In: * that,' introducing the subordinate sentence dependent on 
the idea of assertion in the previous sentence. St. Paul does not 
mention directly the cause of his grief, but leaves it to be inferred 
from the next verse. 

Xv«i| (which is opposed to x^ ]^' xvi. 20) appears to mean 
grief as a state of mind ; it is rational or emotional : 6h6¥r\ on the 
other hand never quite loses its physical associations ; it implies 
the anguish or smart of the heart (hence it is closely connected with 
rj Kopbiq) which is the result of Xvmj. 

With the grief of St Paul for his coantrymen, wc may compare the grief 
of a Jew writing after the fall of Jerusalem, who feels both the misfortune 
and the sin of his people, and who like St. Paul emphasizes hii sorrow by 
CDiimerating their close relationship to God and their ancestral pride : 
4 £cra Tiii. 15-18 it nunc dicens duam, de omni homine tu magis sets, dt 
fo^mh auiim tuOy ob quern doleo^ et de haereditate ttia, propter quam lugeo^ et 
propter Israil, propter quern tfistis sum, et de semine lacob, propter quod 
tmUurhor. Ibid. x. 6-8 ncn vides luctum nostrum et quae nobis contigerunt ? 
quoniam Sion mater nostra omnium in tristitia contristatur, et humilitate 
mumiliata ost^ et luget valtdissime ... 21 22 vides enim quoniam sanctifi- 
catio nostra deserta eff