Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individual
personal, non-commercial purposes.
and we request that you use these files for
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
ai[http: //books . google. com/|
Tue INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
A
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ΟΝ
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
BY The REV.
WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D.. LL.D., Litt.D., F.BA.
LADY MARGARET FRO DIVINITY, AND
CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD
iN ORDI ταν
AND THE
Rev. ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, D.D.
PRENCIPAL OF KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON
FIFTH EDITION
EDINBURGH
T. ἃ T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
Fisk Sa
First Epirion . . September 1895
FirtH Epition . . December 1002
» " . Latest Reprint 1962
PREFACE
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
revivals 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
deserves.
Perhaps the nearest approach to anything at all dis-
tinctive in the present edition would be (1) 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 difficult
ii PREFACE
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 different 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 first instance is not what answer
iv PREFACE
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 degree 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 /ntroductions 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
PREFACE ν
editors themselves are conscious of having gained much
by this co-operation, and they hope that this gain may be
set off against a certain amount of unevenness which was
inevitable.
It only remains for them to express thei: 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 readcr is requested to note the table of abbreviations
on p. cx 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).
W. SANDAY.
A. C. HEADLAM.
σον, Whitsuntide, 1895.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
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
Texts and Studies, iii. 2. No more extensive recasting
of the commentary has been attempted.
Oxroap, Lent, 1896,
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
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 Zheo
logische Literaturzcitung, No. 26, 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 Expossior
(Vol. IV, 1896, p. 124) by the late Rev. J. Barmby, on Zhe
Meaning of the‘ Righteousness of God’ in the Epistle to the
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 E‘xlettung in das N.T. (Leipzig,
1897) of Dr. Zahn, which discusses the questions relating
to the Epistle with the writer’s accustomed thoroughness
and leaming, a new ‘improved’ edition of the Zinlettung of
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, 7Aeol. Studien &c, (Gottingen,
1897), contains two papers which have a bearing upon the
Epistle, Zur paulinischen Théodicée by Dr. Ernst Kiihl, and
Beittrage zur paulin. Rhetorik by Dr. Joh. Weiss. Weshould
hope to take account of these and other works if at some
future time we are permittcd to undertake a fuller revision
of our commentary.
W. S.
A. C. H.
Oxrorp, December, 1897
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
ONCE more the call for a new edition has come upon
us 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
us that our thoughts and studies have of late travelled so
far 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
subject will be found in the article ‘ Romans’ in Hastings’
Dictionary of the 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 is probably the appearance (in 1800) 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
us 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 little commentary in the Century Bible by A. E.
Garvie.
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
viii PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
(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. 210-12, where reference is made
to an interesting tract by Dalman, Die richterliche Gerech-
tigkett im A. T. (Berlin, 1897), and to other literature.
Something also was said in the Fournal of Theological
Studies, i. 486 ff., ii. 198 ff. And the question is again
raised by Dr. James Drummond in the first number of the
Hibbert Fournal, 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 Sieffert
(‘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. Feine
(Das 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 L£ssay on Personality as a Philoso-
phical Principle (1900), 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 papyri. We
associate these studies especially with the names of
G. A. Deissmann, whose Bible Studies have recently been
PaeErace TO THE FIFTH EDITION ἘΣ
meciiset τς Encish (Edimbergh, 19¢1), A. Thumb,
KR Dees sc others It ἢ the less necessary to
g- τδ- cecads a50c% these. as an excellent account is
power τἱ aI Sat =as deen done m a series of papers by
EA A ΚΣ ποῦν τὰ the Expussttery Temes, vol. xii (1901.
Dr. Kercecy was himself a pioneer of the newer move-
gpere zw Soe aad with his Searces of New Testament Greek
(ΞξξξεξασξεἝ 18:5) We ought not however to forget the
φῶτ, earser work of Dr. Hatch, Essays ἐπ Biblical Greek
(OGxcard, 188 which was reaily at the time in advance
of s—<ar research on the Continent.
Tne ce>er sadiect might be described as the Rhetoric
of the New Testament. A comprehensive treatment of
amoe=xt rhetorical prose in general has been undertaken
by Prof E. Norden of Breslau in Die antike Kamstpresa
(Lezazzz, 1858) Dr. Norden devotes pp. 451-510 to an
aga yss of style in the New Testament, and also pays
speccal attention to the later Christian writers, both Greek
and Latin. The ‘Rhetoric of St. Paul” in particular is
the s-5;ect of a monograph by Dr. Johannes Weiss in the
volume dedicated to his father. Nor should we close this
survey without a special word of commendation for Zhe
Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Fewish Thought by
Mr. H. St. John Thackeray (London, 1900).
For the rest we must leave our book to take its place,
soch as it is, in the historical development of literature on
the Epistle.
W. S.
A. C. H.
Movember, 199.
CONTENTS
eaue=@¢@0-—_—»
INTRODUCTION © © © © © co eo ifi-cix
4 3. Rome in a. Ὁ. 58 ° Ἢ e ° Py e . . xiii
2. The Jews in Rome © © «© © © «© «© Xvili
3. The Roman Church . . ° ° . . . xxv
4. Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose . 9. οΧχχνὶ
gs. Argument . . «© «© © « « e ὁ Xliiv
6. Language and Style . . © oo ὁ. eo e Mii
7. Text e . . e e e ° e e o bani
8. Literary History . e e e e e e . kxxiv
9. Integrity 7 © © © © «© «© o εἶχχχν
ΣΟ. Commentaries e e e e e e e eXCvili
ABBREVIATIONS e e e . . e e o (χ-εἱὶ
COMMENTARY °° e ee 0e© © e© «© 31-436
DETACHED NOTES:
The Theological Terminology of Rom.f.1-7 . ὁ ὁ 57)
The word δίκαιος and its cognates . - © ὃς 28
The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in some
Jewish Writings. . .« .« « «© « « §Y!
The Righteousness of God . Ὁ . . . 34
St. Paul’s Description of the Condition of the Heathen
World . . . . . 49
Use of the Book of Wisdom it in Chapter bow lel tt ει
The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice . . - φι
The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by
St. James . . . . . . . 102
Jewish Teaching on Circumcision 2 ὁ 108
The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of
St Paull . . 116
Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of
Justification? . . . . . . . 122
xii
The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement
The Effects of Adam’s Fall in Jewish Theology
CONTENTS
St. Paul’s Conception of Sin and of the Fall .
History of the tnterpretation of the Pauline
δικαίωσις
The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ
The Inward Conflict.
St. Paul’s View of the Law
The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit
The Renovation of Nature
The Privileges of Israel.
The Punctuation of Rom. ix. §
The Divine Election
The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament
The Power and Rights of God as Creator
The Relation of St. Paul’s Argument | in chap. ix to the Book
A History of the Interpretation of Rom. ix. 6-29 .
of Wisdom .
« The Argument of ix. 30-x. 21 :
St. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament
The Doctrine of the Remnant
The Merits of the Fathers
._ The Argument of Romans ix-xi
Human Responsibility
St. Paul’s Philosophy of History .
The Salvation of the Individual: Free- will and Predesti-
nation . . e
Spiritual Gifts 2 9
The Church and the Civil Power .
The History of the word ἀγάπη
The Christian Teaching on Love .
The early Christian belief in the nearness of the παρουσία
The relation of Chapters xii-xiv to the Gospels
What sect or party is referred to in Rom. xiv?
Aquila and Priscilla .
INDEX:
I Subjects °
II Latin Words .
111 Greek Words .
INTRODUCTION
Ce pe)
ὃ 1. ROME IN A.D. 58.
Ir was during the winter 57-58, or early in the spring of the
year 58, according to almost all calculations, that St. Paul wrote
his Epistle 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 far 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 St. 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 universalit
of the Gospel makes him desire to preach it in the universal city ἢ.
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
δ The main authorities used for this section are Furneaux, 724 Anna/s of
Tacttus, vol. ii, and Schiller, Geschichle des Romeschen Kaisservetchs ustes
ter Regierung des Nero.
8 Rom. i. 8-15.
8 Acts xix. 21; xxiii. 11.
4 Phil. i 27; iil. 20; Eph. fi. 19; Acts xxiii. 2.
xiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ὁ 1.
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. Paul was
himself a Roman citizen. This privilege, not then so common as
it became later, would naturally broaden the 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 struck 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 Quinguennium of
Nero, and remembered as the happiest period of the Empire since
the death of Augustus*. Nor was the judgement unfounded. It is
' 3 Thess. ii. 7 ὁ κατέχων, 6 τὸ κατέχον. It is well known that the
commonest interpretation of these words among the Fathers was the Roman
Empire (see the Catena of passages in Alford, tii. p. 56 ff.), and this accords
most suitably with the time when the Epistle was written (¢. 53 A.D.). The
only argument of any value for a later date and the unauthentic character of
the whole Epistle or of the eschatological sections (ii. 1-12) is the attempt to
explain this passage of the return of Nero, but such an interpretation is quite
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 ont, 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 (τὸ
κατέχον) and visibly personified in the Emperor (ὁ κατέχων), restrained these
forces. Such an interpretation, either of the 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 generalize the spiritual forces of good and evil which underlie the surface
society.
* Ramsay, 714 Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 147, 148; cf. also pp. 60,
70, 158. See also Lightfoot, Srb/ical Essays, pp. 202-205.
* Aur. Victor, Caes. 5, Eptt. 13, Onde guidam prodidere, Tratanum solitum
dicere, procul distare cunctos principes a Neronis guinguentio. The expression
81] ROME IN A.D. 58 xv
probable that even the worst excesses of Nero, like the worst cruelty
of Tiberius, did little harm to the mass of the people even in Rome ;
and many even of the faults of the Emperors assisted in working
out the new ideas which the Empire was creating. But at present
we have not to do with faults. Members of court circles might
have unpleasant and exaggerated stories to tell about the death of
Britannicus; tales might have been circulated of hardly pardon-
able excesses committed by 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 degradation, 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, οἱ
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 Burrus. It
was due apparently 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 rebellion 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 repetundae; 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
inyuennium may have been suggested by the certamen qguingucnnale which
Kero founded in Rome, as Dio tells us, ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτηρίας τῆς τε διαμονῆς τοῦ
aparore αὐτοῦ, Dio, Epis. xi. 21; Tac. dwn. xiv. 20; Suet. Mero 12; cf. the
coins described, Eckhel, vi. 264; Cohen, i. p. 282, 47-65. CER. QUINQ.
R08 Οὐ.
xvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [δ 1
Suillius in 58 was the misgovernment of Asia. And ποῖ 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 ἢ.
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
police 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 δ, 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 being
‘ordained by God’; when he says that the ruler is a minister οἱ
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 countrymen, under
which he had seen the towns through which he passed enjoying
peace, prosperity and civilization.
δ For the provincial administration of Nero see Furneaux, of. cit. pp. 56, 57 ;
W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial Administration, pp. 135, 137 ;
Tac. Ann. xiii. 30, 31, 33) 50, 51, §3-57-
* Suetonius, Mero 16. iller, p. 420.
* Schiller, pp. 381, 382: ‘In dem Mechanismus des gerichtlichen Ver.
fahrens, im Privatrecht, in der Ausbildung und Forderung der Rechtswissen-
schaft, selbst auf dem Gebiete der Appellation kénnen gegriindete Vorwiirfe
kaum erhoben werden. Die kaiserliche Regierung liess die Verhaltnisse hier
rahig den Gang gehen, welchen ihnen friihere Regierungen angewiesen hatten ἢ
4 Tac. Ann. xv. 20, 21.
δ Amold, p. 137.
xviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [81
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 4.
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 himself 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 ἢ.
ὃ 2. THE JEWS IN ΕΟΜΕ ὃ,
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
1 We have collected the following names from the contents of one colum-
barium (C. /. 2. vi. 2, p. 941). It dates from a period rather earlier than this.
It must be remembered that the proportion of foreigners would really be larger
than appears, for many of them would take a Roman name. Amaranthus 5180,
Ch tus 5183, Serapio (δώ) 5187, Pylaemenianus 5188, Creticus 5197,
Asclepiades 5201, Melicus 5217, Antigonus 5227, Cypare 5220, Lezbius 5221,
Amaryllis 5258, Perseus 5270, Apamea 5287 a, Ephesia 5299, Alexandrianus
5316, Phyllidianus 5331, Mithres 5344, Diadamenus 5355, Philumenus 5401,
Philogenes 5410, Graniae Nicopolinis 5419, Corinthus 5439, Antiochis 5437,
Athenais 5478, Eucharistus 5477, Melitene 5490, Samothrace, Mystius 5527,
Lesbus 5529. The following, contained among the above, seems to have
a special interest : “H3usos Εὐοδοῦ πρεσβευτὴς Φαναγορείτων τῶν καγὰ Βώσπορον,
and “Ασπουργος Βιομάσον vids ἑρμηνεὺς Σαρμάτων βωσπορανός 5207.
8 Tac. Ann. xiii. 32; Lightfoot, Clement, i. 30.
8 Since this section was written the author has had access to Berliner,
Geschichte d. Juden in Rom (Frankfurt a. M. 1893), which has enabled him to
correct some current misconceptions. The facts are also excellently put together
by Schiirer, Mentest. Zesigesch. ii. 505 ff.
xx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3.
Here the Jews soon took root and rapidly increased in numbers.
It was still under the Republic (B.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 Martius. There were syna-
gogues of Αὐγουστήσιοι and ᾿Αγριππήσιοι (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-lying regions, one near the Porta
Portuensis, two near the Via Appia and the catacomb of S. Callisto,
and one at Portus, the harbour at the mouth of the Tiber 5.
Till some way on in the reign of Tiberius the Jewish colony
flourished without interruption. But in a.p. 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 proselyte 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
1 The Jews were interested in this trial as Flaccus had laid hands on the
money collected for the Temple at Jerusalem. Civero’s speech makes it clear
that the Jews of Rome were a formidable body to offend.
3 Joseph. Ant. XVII. xi. 1; 3. 7. 11. vi. 1.
8 There is mention of an ἄρχων Σιβουρησίων, Ο. 7. G. 6447 (Schiirer,
Gemeindeverfassung @. Juden in Rom, pp. 16, 35; Berliner, p. 94). As
synagogues were not allowed within the pomoerium (tbid. Ὁ. 16) we may
suppose that the synagogue itself was without the walls, but that its frequenters
came from the Subura.
4 Berliner conjectures that the complimentary title may have been given as
a sort of equivalent for emperor-worship (of. ctf. p. 21).
5 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 (of. ett.
46 fi.)
Ps Tacitus, Assal. ii. 85 si οὗ gravitatems caeli interissent, vile damnum.
xxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2.
xili. go). That it did so, and that this is the fact alluded to by Suetonius is
the opimion of the majority of German scholars from Baur 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
true’.
The edict of Claudius was followed in about three years by his
death (a.p. 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 11 was also, like his father, a persona grafa at the Roman
court. Dio Cassius sums up the history of the Jews under the
Empire in a sentence which describes well their fortunes 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 ὃ,
(2) 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 (Ans. 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 contributions (especially the atdrackma) 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 Α. Ὁ.)
2 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 out 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 ”’
175).
®, b'st. Joseph. 3; Ant. XX. viii. 11.
> Dio Cassius xxxvii. 17 ἔστι καὶ παρὰ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις τὸ γένος τοῦτο, κολουσθὲν
μὲν πολλάκις αὐξηθὲν δὲ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον, ὥστε καὶ els παρρησίαν τῆς νομίσεωε
ἐκνικῆσαι.
xxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2.
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 superstitious 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 period
had begun 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
1 The purpose of this is somewhat uncertain: it may have been used to pack
their wares.
3 The passages on which this description is based are well known Smeali
Trades : Martial, Epig. 1. xlii. 3-5; XII. lvii. 13, 14. Mendicancy: Juvenal,
Sat. iii. 14; vi. 542 ff. Proselytism: Horace, Sat. 1. iv. 142 f.; Juvenal, Sat.
xiv. 96 ff.
3 ἥϊοταος, Sat. I, ix. 69 f.; Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. (of proselytes); Persius,
Sat. v. 184; Sueton. Aug. 76. The texts of Greek and Latin authors relating
to Judaism have recently been collected in a complete and convenient form by
Théodore Reinach ( 7extes relatifs au Judatsme, Paris, 1895).
88] THE ROMAN CHURCH χχν
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 ’ (εὐσεβεῖς, σεβόμενοι,
σεβόμενοι τὸν Θεόν, φοβούμενοι τὸν Θεόν) 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.
(1) Origin. The most probable view of the origin of the
Christian Church in Rome is substantially that of the commen-
ἰδίου known as Ambrosiaster (see below, ὃ 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
1 Javenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff.
* See the very ample collection of mateiial on this subject in Schiirer,
Nenutest. Zeitgesch. ii. 558 ff.
> Constat ttague temporibus apostolorum /udaeos, propterea quod sub regno
Remano agerent, Romae habitasse: ex quibus hi gui crediderant, tradiderunt
Komanis ut Christum profitentes, Legem servarent... Komants autem irasci
won debuil, sed εἰ laudare fi.lem illorum; quia nulla insignia virtuium
xxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8
the phenomena of the Epistle. St. Paul would hardly have written
as he does if the Church had really been founded by an Apostle.
He clearly regards it as coming within his own province as Apostle
of the Gentiles (Rom. i. 6, 14f.); 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 proportions both Jews and Gentiles.
At a date so early as this it is not in itself likely that the Apostles
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 possibilities 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. 21;
Rom. i. 13; xv. 22-24). It was not however to 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
videntes, nec aliquem apostolorum, susceperant fidem Christs ritu licet Iudaice
(S. Ambrosii Of. iii. 373 ἔ., ed. Ballerini). e shall see that Ambrosiaster
exaggerates the strictly Jewish influence on the Church, but in his general
conclusion he is more right than we might have expected.
1 <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,
Ssttengeschschte Roms, ii. 3).
XXviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 8.
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 given 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
born 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 Catechests, 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
Church.
(ii) The traditional founder of the Roman Church is 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 is early is either too uncertain or too slight and vague tc
XXX EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [δ 8
Two fourth-century documents, both in texts which have undergone some
corruption, the A/artyrologium Hieronymianum (ed. Duchesne, p. 84) and
a Depositio Martyrum in the work of Philocalus, the so-called ‘ chronographer
of the year 354,’ connect a removal of the bodies of the two Apostles with
the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus in the year 258. There is some
ambiguity as to the localities from and to which the bodies were moved ;
but the 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 Catacumbas adjoining the present Church of St
Sebastian’. 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 Damasus (366-384 A.D.) 3.
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 year 200, 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. at too appears for the first time in the fourth century with
Eusebius (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 make 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 (¢. 175-190 A.D.)®.
Thus we have the twenty-five years’ episcopate of St. Peter certainly
believed in towards the end of the erst 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 42 (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., 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 # 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
1 The best account of this transfer is that given by Duchesne, Lider Pontifi-
calis i. cvi f.
3. So Lipsius, after Erbes, Apokr. Apostelgesch. 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 Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas, pp. 33 ἴω
49 ff. This work contains a full survey of the controversy with new archaco-
ical details.
Lightfoot, op. cst. i. 259 ff.; 333.
¢ Ap. Lightfoot, pp. 237, 333- ® Ibid. p. 333
© Apokr, Apostelgesch. ii. 27, 69
xxxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ 8
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 after 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 Epistle 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 with 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
Gentiles.
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. 1 where Abraham is described (in the
most probable text) as ‘our forefather according to the flesh’ (τὸν
προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα). To that however it was obvious to
reply that in 1 Cor. x. 1 St. Paul spoke of the Israelites in the
§ 3.] THE ROMAN CHURCH xx xiii
wilderness as ‘our fathers,’ though no one would maintain tha: the
Corinthian Christians were by birth Jews. There is more weight
—indeed there is real weight—in the argument drawn from the
section, Rom. vii. r-6, where not only are the readers addressed
as ἀδελφοί pou (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 νόμος vv. 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. He 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 that 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. (ὑμῖν
δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν κιτ.λ.)} would be proof sufficient of this. But it
is further clear that St. 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. i 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.
d
xxxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8
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
born 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
ἃ 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. 2). Andronicus and Junias and Herodion
are described as ‘kinsmen’ (ovyyeveis) 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 Judaeus Apella
(Horace, Sa#. I. v. 100). 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.p., and Aristobulus the
scion of the house of Herod. We know that at the time when
Δ See the note on ch. xvi. 3, where reference is made to the view favoured
by Dr. Hort (Rom. and Eph. p. 12 ff.), that Prisca was a Roman lady belonging
to the well-known family of that name.
xxxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ὁ 8.
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 THE EPISTLE.
(1) Zime 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
Epistle.
St. Paul had long cherished the desire of paying a visit to Rome
(Rom. i. 13; xv. 23), 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 (1 Cor. xvi. 1 ff.; 2 Cor. viii. 1 ff.; ix. 1 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’ (Acts xxiv. 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. 21). Part of
this programme has been accomplished. At the time of writing
St. Paul seems to be at the capital of Achaia. The allusions
2 On this collection sce an excellent article by Mr. Rendall in 7he Expositor,
1893, ii. 331 ff.
xxxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ὁ 4
Mr. F. Rendall in 7he Expositor for April, 1894 (p. 254 ff), who would
place it some years earlier.
Clemen, who propounds a novel view of the chronology of St. Paul's life
generally, would interpose the Council of Jerusalem (which he identifies with
the visit of Acts xxi and not with that of Acts xv) between Komans, 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 Judaizers, and
he accounts for this by the events which followed the Council (Gal. ii. 12 ff. ;
i. 6 ff.). There is, however, much that is arbitrary in the whole of this
reconstruction ; and the common view seems to us far 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 δ (or 642). 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 (Peasinus, 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.
(2) 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) he 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
1 Dr. Clemen places St. Paul’s long stay at Ephesus (2} years on his reckon-
ing) in 50-53 A.D. In the course of it would fall our 1 Corinthians and two
out of the three letters which are supposed to be combined in our 2 Corinthians
(for this division there is really something of a case). He then inserts a third
missionary journey, extending not over three months (as Acts xx. 3), but
over some two years in Macedonia and Greece. To this he refers the last
Corinthian letter (2 Cor. i-viii) and a genuine fragment of Ep. to Titus
(Tit. iii. 13-14). Ep. to Romans is written from Corinth in the winter of
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, 2 Tim. iv. 19-21. This fills the interval which ends with the arrest
at Jerusilem in the year 58, Epp. to Phil., Col., Philem. and one or two more
fragments of Past. Epp., the Apostle’s arrival at Rome in A.D. 61 and his
death in AD. 64. The whole scheme stands or falls with the place assigned to
te ne of Jerusalem, and the estimate formed of the historical character
of the Acts.
xi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4
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 1 Corinthians he had actually before him a letter
containing a number of questions which he was requested to
answer, while in that of 2 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. Bernhard
Weiss, since his day. According to this theory the main object of
the Epistle 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 little reference to the circum-
stances of the moment.
It would be wrong to call this view—at least in its recent forms
—unhistorical. 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
likely 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
xiii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [δ 4
For, lastly, 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 (i. 11; xv.
29). 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
πνευματικὸν χάρισμα, ἃ 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 will
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 exactly 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, ina
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 magnetic influence upon others; partly they consisted
* This is impressively stated in Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 42 .
xliv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4
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
universal.
§ 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, 80 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’ (8. Paul and Protestantism, 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 Epistle
given by the same writer, with the additional advantage of presenting
it in his fresh and bright manner :—
xvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 5.
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 that 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. τό, 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?
xlviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ἢ 8.
() Jewish critic and Gentile sinner in the same position (ii. 1-4).
(1i.) Standard of judgement : deeds, not privileges (ii. 5-11)
(lii.) Rale of judgement: Law of Moses for the Jew; Law of Con
science for the Gentile (ii. 13-16).
y. Failure of the Jew (ii. 17-29). Profession and reality, as regards
) Law (ii. 17-24);
(2 Circumcision (il. 25--20).
& [ arenthetic). Answer to casuistical objections from Jewish stand-
point (iil. 1-8).
(.) The Jen advantage as recipient of Divine Promises
(iii, 1, 2);
{li.) which promises are not invalidated by Man’s unfaithfulness
(fil. 3, 4).
(iii.) Yet God's » veater glory no excuse for human sin (iii. 5-8).
4. Universal failure to attain to righteousness and earn acceptance
illustrated from Scripture (iii. y—20).
8. Consequent I‘xposition of New System (iii. 21-31):
a. (i.) in its relation to Law, independent of it, yet attested by it
(21);
(ii.) in its universality, as the free gift of God (22-24);
(iii.) 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 canse—the twofold manifestation of God's righteous-
ness, at once asserting itself against sin and conveying pardos
to the sinner (26).
8. Preliminary note of two main consequences from this:
(1) Boasting excluded (27, 28);
(ii.) Jew and Gentile alike accepted (29-31).
p- 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);
(li.) nor Circumcision (iv. 9-12)
{so that there might be nothing to prevent him from
being the spiritual father of uncircumcised as well as
circumcised (11, 13)],
(dii.) 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].
(iv.) Abraham’s Faith, a type of the Christian’s (iv. 17-28) :
[he too believed in a birth from the dead].
¢ 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 fortiord by the Love displayed in
Christ's Death for sinners (v. 5-11).
&. Contrast of these effects with those of Adam’s Fall (v. 12-21):
i.) like, in the transition from one to all (12-14);
(ii.) unlike, in that where one brought sin, condemnation, death, the
other brought grace, a declaration of unmerited rightectus-
ness, life (15-17).
(4i.) Summary. Relations of Fall, Law, Grace (18-21)
(The Fall brought sin; Law increased it; but Grace more
than cancels the ill effects of Law].
§ 5.] THE ARGUMENT xlix
K. Progressive Righteousness in the Christian (Sanctification) (vi-viii).
1. Reply to further casuistical objection: ‘If more sin means more
grace, why not go on sinning Τ᾽
The immersion of Baptism carried with it a death to sin,
and union with the risen Christ. The Christian there-
fore cannot, must not, sin (vi. 1-14).
8. The Christian’s Release: what it is, and what it is not: shown by
two metaphors.
e. Servitude and emancipation (vi. 15-23).
8. 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].
ἃ. 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. 7-24). The conflict ended by the interposition of
Christ (35).
4. Perspective of the Christian’s New Career (viii).
The Indwelling Spirit.
a. Failure of the previous system made good by Christ’s Incarnation
and the Spirit's presence (viii. 1-4).
8. The new régime contrasted with the old—the régime of the Spirit
with the weakness of unassisted humanity (vill 5-9). -
γ. The Spirit’s presence a guarantee of bodily as well as moral
resurrection (viii. 10-13) ;
& also a guarantee that the Christian enjoys with God a son’s relation,
and will enter upon a son’s inheritance (viii. 14-17).
e. That glorious inheritance the object of creation’s yearning (viii.
18-23);
and of the Christian's hope (viii. 23-25).
9. Human infirmity assisted by the Spirit’s intercession Sri 26, 27)
Φ. and sustained by the knowledge of the connected in by which
God works out His purpose of salvation (viii. 28-30).
4. Inviolable security of the Christian in dependence upon God's
favour and the love of Christ (viii. 31-39).
C Problem of Israel’s Unbelief. The Gospel in history (ix, x, xi). The
rejection of the Chosen People a sad contrast to its high destiny and
privileges (ix. 1-5).
1. Justice of the Rejection (ix. 6-29).
a. The Rejection of Israel not inconsistent with the Divine promises
(ix. 6-13);
8. nor with the Divine Justice (ix. 14-29).
(i) The oe of God's choice shown from the O.T. (1x
14-18).
(ii.) A necessary deduction from His position as Creator (ix.
19-23).
(iii.) The alternate choice of Jews and Gentiles expressly reserved
and foretold in Scripture (ix. 24-29).
e. Cause of the Rejection.
e. Israel 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—
(i.) Not difficult and remote but near and easy (x. 5-10);
(ἢ.) Within the reach of all, Jew and Gentile alike (x. 11-13).
8. Nor can Israel plead in defence want of opportunity or warning—
(i.) The Gospel has been fully and universally preached (x. 14-18).
ς
1 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 5.
(ii.) Israel had been warned beforehand by the Prophet that they
would reject God's Message (x. 19-21).
3. Mitigating considerations. The purpose of God (xi).
a. The Unbelief of Israel is now as in the past only partial (xi. 1-10).
8. It is only temporary—
(i.) Their fall has a special purpose—the introduction of the
Gentiles (xi. 11-15).
(ii.) That Israel will be restored is vouched for by the holy stock
from which it comes (xi. 16-24).
γ. 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. 25-31).
Doxology (xi. 33-36).
I11.—Practical and Hortatory.
(1) The Christian sacrifice (xii. 1, 9).
(2) The Christian as a member of the Church (xii. 3-8).
(3) The Christian in his relation to others (xii. 9-31).
The Christian’s vengeance (xii. 19-21).
(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. 1-xv. 6).
The Jew and the Gentile (xv. 7-13).
IV.— Epilogue.
a. Personal explanations. Motive of the Epistle. Proposed visit to
Rome (xv. 14-33). |
8. Greetings to various persons (xvi. 1-16).
A waming (xvi. 17-20).
Postscript by the Apostle’s companions and amanuensis (xvi.
21-23).
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 Epistle ; and it seems to mean this.
There are two competing systems or plans of life or salvation
before St. Paul’s mind. The one is the old Jewish system, a know-
ledge of which is presupposed ; the other is the Christian system.
li EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ὁ 9.
§ 6. LANGUAGE AND STYLE.
(1) 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
among 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 (1) the appear-
ance of the first Latin writers, said by Jerome *® to be Apollonius
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 ἡ, and Victor, an African by
birth, who became Bishop of Rome about 189 a.p. (2) 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 Α. Ὁ.
(1) The evidence οἱ Juvenal 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 narses; and in
after life the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation °.
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 heen 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 sur Geschichte des Taufsymbols (Chris-
tiania, 1875).
2 De Var. Ill. Nii. Tertullianus presbyter nunc demum primus post Victorem
Ν Apollonium Latinorum ponttur.
> Monuments of Early Christianity (London, 1894), p. 29 ff.
* Juv. Sat. iii, 60 f.; cf. vi. 187 ff. 5 “pig. xiv. 58.
4 Caspari, Ouellen sum Taufsymbol, iii. 286 f.
Ἶ Gemeindeverfassung, p. 33 ff. he inscriptions referred tu are all from
Roman sites. There is also one in Greek from Portus
liv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [δ 6
recited and the questions put first in Greek and then in Latin’. These are
all survivals of Roman usage at the time when the Church was bilingual.
(2) The dates of Apollonius and of Bp. Victor are fixed, but rather more
uncertainty hangs over that of the first really classical Christian work in
Latin, the Octavius of Minucius Felix. This has been much debated, but
opinion seems to be veering round to the earlier date®, which would bring him
into near proximity to Apollonius, perhaps at the end of the reign of
M. Aurelius. The period which then begins and extends from c. 180-250 A.D.
shows a more even balance of Greek and Latin. The two prominent writers,
Hippolytus and Caius, still make use of Greek. The grounds perhaps pre-
nderate for regarding the Muratorian Fragment as a translation. But at the
ning of the period we have Minacius Felix and at the end Novatian,
and Latin begins to have the upper hand in the names of bishops. The
limpse which we get of the literary ‘activity of the Charch of Rome through
the 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, with the decay
of wealth and trade, and Gothic piracies breaking oP the pax omana on the
Aegean, this intercourse was greatly interrupted. Thus Greek influences lost
their strength. The Latin Charch, Rome reinforced by Africa, had now
@ substantial literature of its own. Under leaders like Tertullian, 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.
(2) 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: 1, 2 Thess.;
Gal., 1, 2 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 decidcdly in favour of Ephesians.
It is, for instance, significant that Jilicher in his recent Linleitung
? More precise and full details will be found in Caspari’s Excursus, Op. cst.
Ῥ. 466 fff.
8 Kriiger, Alichristl. Ldt. Ὁ. 88.
lvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [$6
There is, as we shall see, another side. We have perhaps
exaggerated the opposition for the sake of making the difference
clear. When we come to look more closely at the Epistle to the
Romans we shall find in it not a few passages which tend in the
direction of the characteristics of Ephesians ; and when we examine
the Epistle to the Ephesians we shall find in it much to remind us
of characteristics of Romans. We will however leave the com-
parison as it has been made for the moment, and ask ourselves
what means we have of explaining it. Supposing the two Epistles
to be really the work of the same man, can the difference between
them be adequately accounted for ?
There is always an advantage in presenting proportions to the eye and
reducing them to some sort of numerical estimate. This can be done in
the present case without much difficulty by reckoning up the number of
longer pauses. This is done below for the two Epistles, Romans and Ephe-
sians. The standard used is that of the Revisers’ Greek Text, and the
estimate of length is based on the number of στίχοι or printed lines‘. It
will be worth while to compare the Epistles chapter by chapter :—
ROMANS,
στίχοι. () () 9
Ch. I. 64 13 14 --
II δ 14 7 8
IIL 47 20 12 16
IV 45 6 14 7
V 47 6 15 --
VL 42 8 14 8
VII 49 16 20 §
VIIL 70 17 26 14
ΙΧ 55 8 19 10
X. 37 6 16 9
XI. 62 16 27 I
Total fordoctrinal portion 570 130 184 88
——$— ͵. ὀ ἐἜ“-“-.ο---------
402
XII. 36 14 12 --
XIII 39 11 15 I
XIV I 11 37 3
XV. 3 8 24 --
XVI 50 7 38 --
Total for the Epistle 789 181 290 92
er
563
Here the proportion of major points to στίχοι is for the doctrinal chap-
ters 402: 570 = (approximately) 1 in 1-4; and for the whole Epistle not
very different, 563:789 =1 in 1-418. The proportion of interrogative
sentences is for the whole Epistle, 92: 789, or 1 in 8-6; for the doctrinal
chapters only, 88:570, or 1 in 6-5; and for the practical portion only,
42219, or 1 in 55. This last item is instructive, because it shows how very
1 The counting of these is approximate, anything over half a line being
reckoned as a whole line, and anything less than half a line not reckoned.
ἵν EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ς 6
. ᾿Αβραάμ Rom. 9, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 9; not elsewhere in St. Panl. [σπέρμα
᾿Αβραάμ Rom. 2, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 1.]
ἀκροβυστία Rom. 3, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 3; elsewhere 3.
ἀποστολή Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; not elsewhere in St. Paul,
δικαιοῦν Rom. 15, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 3; elsewhere 2.
δικαίωμα Rom. §; not elsewhere.
δικαίωσις Rom. 3; not elsewhere.
καταργεῖν Rom. 6, 1 Cor. 9, 2 Cor. 4, Gal. 3; elsewhere 4
ψόμος Rom. 76, 1 Cor. 8, Gal. 32; elsewhere 6.
περιτομή Rom. 15, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 7; elsewhere 8.
σπέρμα Rom. 9,1 Cor. 1, 3 Cor. 1, Gal. 5; elsewhere 1.
Connected with this controversy, though not quite so directly, would be :—
ἀσθενής Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 10, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; elsewhere 1.
ἀσθενεῖς Rom. 4, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6; elsewhere 2.
ἀσθένεια Rom. 3, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6, Gal. 1; elsewhere 1.
ἀσθένημα Rom. 1; not elsewhere,
ἐλεύθερος Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 6, Gal. 6; elsewhere 2.
ἐλευθερυῦν Rom. 4, Gal. 1; not elsewhere.
ἐλευθερία Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; not elsewhere.
καυχᾶσθαι Rom. 5,1 Cor. 5 (1 v.L), 2 Cor. 20, Gal. 2; elsewhere 3.
καυχῆμα Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 3, 2 Cor, 3, Gal. 1; elsewhere 2.
καυχῆσις Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 6; elsewhere 1.
κατακαυχᾶσθαι Rom. 2; not elsewhere.
ὀφειλέτης Rom. 3, Gal. 1; not elsewhere.
ὀφείλημα Rom. 1; not elsewhere.
σκάνδαλον Rom. 4, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 13 not elsewhere. [σκανδαλίζεω
1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 1, Rom. 1 v. 1.
ὠφελεῖν Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 1: ὠφέλεια Rom. 1; neither elsewhere.
Two other points may be noticed, one in connexion with the large use of
the O.T. in these Epistles, and the other in connexion with the idea of
successive periods into which the religious history of mankind is divided :—
γέγραπται Rom. 16, 1 Cor. 7, 2 Cor. 2, Gal. 4; not elsewhere in
St. Paul.
ἄχρις οὗ Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 2 (1 v.L); not elsewhere.
ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; not elsewhere
These examples stand out very distinctly; and their disappearance from
the later Epistle is perfectly intelligible: cessante causa, cessat effectus.
(2) But it is not only that the subject-matter of Ephesians differs
from that of Romans, she 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
1 These examples are selected from the lists in Bishop Lightfoot’s classical]
essay ‘On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the tians,’ in Jours. of
Class. and Sacr. Philol. iii. (1857) 308 ff.
Lx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [δ 6.
roUro δὲ λέγω Gal. 1.
ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι Gal. 1.
σοῦ; ποῦ οὖν ; Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 8, Gal. 1; not elsewhere.
vi οὖν; τίς οὖν; Rom. 11, 1 Cor. §, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. [ri ov
ἐροῦμεν; Rom. 6; τί ἐροῦμεν ; Rom 1.]
rl λέγω (λέγει, &c.) Rom. 3, Gal. 1; not elsewhere.
διατί Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 13 not elsewhere.
ὑπέρ, unusual compounds of—
ὑπερεκτείνειν 2 Cor. I.
ὑπερλίαν 2 Cor. 2.
ὑπερνικᾶν Rom. 1.
ὑπερπερισσεύειν Rom. 1, 3 Cor. 1.
ὑπερφρονεῖν Rom. 1.
(4) A last cause which we suspect may possibly have been at
work, though this is more a matter of conjecture, is she employment of
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 dic/are 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 (Eus. H. £. VI. xxiii. 2). 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 upon it in
any particular instance. It is however interesting to note that if 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 characteristics 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
ἃ circuitous 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 passayes which may help to show
the fundamental resemblance between the two Epistles. (For a defence of
the punctuation of the extract from Romans reference may be made to the
notes ad lec. |
Lil EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [δ 6
Rom. x. 5-8. EPH. fv. 7-11.
Moaofjs γὰρ γράφει ὅτι τὴν δικαιο- ‘Ext δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ἢ χάριι
σύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμον ὃ ποιήσας dx κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Opwwos (σεται ἐν αὐτῇ. δὲ ἐκ διὸ λέγει, ᾿Αναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ῃχμαλώ-
wicreas δικαιοσύνη οὕτω λέγει, Μὴ τευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, καὶ ἔδωκε δύματα
εἴσῃε ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ gov Tis ἀναβῆ- τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. (τὸ δὲ ᾿Ανέβη τί ἐστιν
σεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν ; (τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη els τὰ κατώτερα
Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν.) §, Tis κατα μέρη τῆς γῆε; ὃ καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστι
βήσεται els τὴν ἄβυσσον ; (τοῦτ᾽ καὶ ὃ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν obpa-
ἔστι͵ Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναγαγεῖν) νῶν, ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα.) καὶ αὐτὸν
ἀλλὰ τί λέγει; "Evyyis σον τὸ ῥῆμά ἔδωκε τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλου: #.7.A.
ἐστιν, ἐν τῷ στόματί σον καὶ ἐν τῇ
καρδίᾳ cov’ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς
πίστεω: ὃ κηρύσσομεν.
GAL. iv. 25-31.
Td δὲ "ΑὙΎαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αραβίᾳ, συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἱερουσαλήμ
δουλεύει μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. ἡ δὲ ἄνω ‘lepovoarrp ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν,
Gres ἐστὶ μήτηρ ἡμῶν. γέγραπται γάρ, EippdvOnri, στεῖρα ἢ ob τίκτουσα...
ἡμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐσμέν. ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ τότε ὃ
κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκε τὸν κατὰ Πνεῦμα, οὕτω καὶ νῦν. ἀλλὰ τί
ἡ γραφή; “ExBade τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς, ov γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσῃ
ὃ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκη: μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. διό, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν
σαιδίσκης τέκνα, ἀλλὰ τῇ: ἐλευθέρας.
It would be interesting to work out the comparison of this passage of
Eph. with the earlier Epistles phrase by phrase (e.g. cp. Eph. iv. 7 with
Rom. xii. 3, 6; 1 Cor. xii. 11; 2 Cor. x. 13); but to do this would be reall
endless and would have too remote a bearing on our Present subject. Enongh
will have been said both to show the individuality of style in Ep. to Romans’
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 usual,
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 under 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
style of the Apostle is rather to be sought for in the Epistles to the Thessa-
lonians and those of the Roman captivity *.’
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. 25-37, and Ep. to
Ephesians. These are fully pointed out ad /oc., and the genuineness of the
doxology is defended in § 9 of this Introduction.
3. Journ. of Class. and Sacr. Phtlol., ut sup., p. 302.
ἱχὶν EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS {$7
iii. a1 ; ix. 6 οὐχ οἷον .. . ἐάν x. 15: Xi, 31 ἡπεί]θησαν τῷ
«+ « πλήρωμα Xiii. 10.
D. Cod. Claromontanus, saec. vi. 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. i. 1, HavAos . . . ἀγαπητοῖς Θεοῦ
i. 7, is missing, and i. 27 ἐξεκαύθησαν .. . ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν i. 30
(in the Latin i. 24-27) is supplied by a later hand.
&. Cod. Sangermanensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Formerly
at St. Germain-des-Prés, 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 (Augia
Major); now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Rom. i. 1 Παῦλος. . . ἐν τῷ vd[ pq] iii. το is missing, both
in the Greek and Latin texts.
G. Cod. Boernerianus, saec. ix ex. Graeco-Latinus. Written at
St. Gall, now at Dresden. Rom. i. 1 ddepiopevos .. . πίστεως
i. 5, and ii. 16 τὰ κρυπτὰ. . . νόμον ἧς ii. 25 are missing.
Originally formed part of the same MS. with 4 (Cod. San-
gallensis) of the Gospels.
It has been suggested by Traube (Wattenbach, Anlettung sur Griech.
Faldographie, 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 Σηδύλιος Σκόττος ἐγὼ ἔγραψα. The resemblance of the
handwriting is close, as may be seen by comparing the facsimile of the Paris
Psalter published by Omont in the A/é/anges Graux, p. 313, with that of the
St. Gall Gospels in the Palaeographical Society's series (i. pl. 179). This
fact naturally raises the further question whether the writer of the MS. of
St. Paul’s Epistles is not also to be identified with the compiler of the com-
mentary entitled Collectanea in omnes B. Pauli Epistolas (Migne, Patrol.
Laé. cili. 9-128), which is also ascribed to a ‘ Sedulius Scotus.’ The answer
must 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 /ratres
hellenict who formed a sort of guild in the monastery of St. Gall (see the
authorities quoted in Caspari, Quelien sum Taufsyméol, iii. 4750, and
compare Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 137). There are several instances
of the name ‘ Sedulius Scotus’ (Migne, P. 2. é sup.).
It should be noted that of these MSS. SABC are parts of what
were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter
throughout the LXX and Greek Testament; DE FG 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 Ὁ, E, F,G,. An important
MS., Cod. Coislinianus (H or H,), which, however, exists only in
fragments, is unfortunately wanting for this Epistle : see below.
ixvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 1.
(2) Versions.
The versions quoted are the following:
The Latin (att).
The Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet.)
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 Latina is very imperfectly preserved to us. We
possess only a small number of fragments of MSS. ese are :
gue. Cod. Guelferbytanus, saec. vi, which contains fragments of Rom. xi.
33-xii. §; xii. 17-xiii. §; xiv. 9-20; xv. 3-13.
τ. Cod. Frisingensis, saec. v or vi, containing Rom. xiv. 10-xv. 13.
ty. Cod. Gottvicensis, saec. vi or vii, containing Rom. v. 16-vi. 4;
vi. 6-19.
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 def g, and quotations in the Latin Fathers. The former do not
strictly represent the anderlying Greek of the Version, as they are too much
conformed to their own Greek. ἃ (as necessarily 6) 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.
iv), and to the so-called Speculum 5. Augustin: (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 i. 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 Vetus Latina of St. Paul's Epistles will be found in Ziegler,
Die lateinischen Bibelibersetsungen 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. Ὁ.
harl. British Museum Harl. 1775. Saec. vi or vii.
tol, Cod. Toletanus. Saec. x, or rather perhaps viii (see Berger, Hs»
toire de la Vulgate, Ὁ. 14).
The Vulgate of St. Paul's Epistles is a revision of the Old Latin so slight
and cursory as to be hardly an independent authority. It was however made
Ixviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [81
also gives some reasons for ascribing an Italian origin to this MS. We are
however confronted by the fact that there is a distinct ility that both
MSS. if they were not written in the same place had at in part the same
scribes. It was first pointed out by Tischendorf (NV. 7. Vat., Lipsiae, 1867,
xxi-xxiii), on grounds which seem to be sufficient, that the writer whom
calls the ‘fourth scribe’ of ἐξ wrote also the N.T. portion of B. And, as
it has been said, additional arguments are becoming available for i
ΜΒ with the library at Caesarea (see Rendel Harris, Stschometry, Ὁ. 71 ££;
and the essay of Bousset referred to below).
The grovenance of δὲ would only carry with it approximately and aot
exactly that of B. The conditions would be satisfied if it were possible, or
not cifficult, for the same scribe to have a hand in both. For instance, the
view that δὲ had its origin in Palestine would not be inconsistent with the
older view, recently revived and defended by Bousset, that B was an Egyp-
tian MS. There would be so much coming and going between Palestine
and t, especially among the followers of Origen, that they would belong
virtually to the same region. But when Herr Bousset goes further 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 prima facie. 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 is only as one amongst several possibilities. Nothing can as yet be
regarded as proved.
Apart from such external data as coincidences of handwriting which con-
nect the two MSS. as they have come down 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 their testi-
mony so much as upon its early date. That the date of their common
readings is in fact extremely early appears to be proved by the number of
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. N 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 see) in the Pauline Epistles has
a clear infusion of Western readings. It is possible that all these may have
come in from a single copy; but it is less likely that all the ‘ Western’ or
all the ‘Alexandrian’ readings which are found in δὲ had a single origin.
Indeed the history of δὲ since it was written does but reflect the history of
its ancestry. We have only to suppose the corrections of N* embodied in
the text of one MS., then those of &° first inserted in the margin and then
embodied in the text of a succeeding MS., then those of N™ in a third and
Ne> 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
rocess, to pick to pieces the different elements of which the text of the
S. consists, to arrange them in their order and determine their affinities
‘This analysis will doubtless be carried further than it has been.
eH, Arm., Euthal.
A number of scholars working on δὲ have thrown out suggestions which
would tend to group together these authorities, and possibly to bring them into
some further connexion with NB. The MS. H Paul. (unfortunately, as we have
1 A similar view is held by Corssen. He regards the modern text based on
MB as sur cin Spiegelbild ciner wilikiurlich fixierten Recension des vierten
Jahrhunderts (Der Cypriantsche Text d. Acta Apostolorum, Berlin, 1892, ἡ. 24)
Ixx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 7.
We are not sure 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 chere 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 Gk. and G Gk. are practically one witness and
not two.
Dr. Corasen reached a number of other interesting conclusions. Examining
the common element in D FG he showed that they were ultimately derived
from a single archetype (Z), and that this archetype was written per cola ef
commaia, or in clauses corresponding to the sense (sometimes called
στίχοι), as may be seen in the Palacographical Society's facsimile of D
(ser. i. pl. 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 Evv. (the other half, as we remember, of
G Paul.) and D Evwv. Act. (Cod. Bezae, which holds a like place in the
Gospel and Acts to D Paal.), 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 sup may now be added the Sinai palimpsest. If that
were so—and indeed without this additional evidence—Dr. Corssen probably
uts the limit too late when he says that such a MS. is not likely to have
written before the time of St. Chrysostom, or 407 A. D.
Thus Dr. Corssen thinks that there arose early in the fifth centu
a ‘Graeco-Latin edition,’ the Latin of which was more in agreement with
Victorinus Ambrosiaster and the Spanish Specss/um. For the inter-connexion
of this group he adduces a striking instance from 1 Cor. xiii. 1; and he
argues that 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 Sfecs/ssm 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. 25-27).
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. (i) 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 probably 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 hypo-
thesis propounded in § 9 of this Introduction. (iv) The relations of the
Gothic Version to the group should be determined as accurately as possible.
(v) The characteristics both of D and of the archetype of DG should be
compared with those of Cod. Bezae and the Old-Latin MSS. of the Gospels
and Acts.
(3) The Textual Criticism of Epistle to Romans. The textual
criticism of the Pauline Epistles generally is inferior in interest to
xxiv
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[§ 7.
deceptive, but there 1s not a little reason for thinking that the following
readings belong to the soundest innermost kernel of the MS.
iv. I om. εὑρηκέναι.
τ. 6 ef Ὑς 9 ea.
wii. 25 χάρις τῷ Oc
viii. 24 ὃ γὰρ βλέπει, τίς ἐλπίζει ;
x.9 τὸ ῥῆμα... ὅτι Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦ:.
xiv. 13 om. πρόσκομμα... ἥ.
xv. 19 Πνεύματοι without addition.
Asa
these readings have been discussed more or less fully in the com
mentary, they need only be referred to here. Two more readings present
considerable attractions.
ix. 23 om. καί.
xvi. 27 om. ᾧ.
They are however open to some suspicion of being corrections to ease the
construction.
The question is whether or not they are valid 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 view that these are
among them.
Other singular, or subsingular, readings of B will be found in xv. 4, 13,
3°, 32.
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
in 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. 25 καλέσω τὸν ob λαόν
pov λαόν pov, καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπη-
μένην ἠγαπημένην.
Rom. ix. 32,33 προσέκοψαν τῷ
λίθῳ τοῦ προσκόμματος, καθὼς
γέγραπται, Ἰδού, τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν
λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτ-
ραν σκανδάλον' καὶ ὁ πιστεύων
ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθή-
σεται.
Rom. xii. 1 παραστῇσαι τὰ σώματα
ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὖ ἀρεσ-
Tov τῷ Θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν
ὑμῶν.
Rom. xii. 2 μὴ συσχηματί-
ζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ.
1 Peter ii. 10 οἱ ποτὲ οὗ λαός, νῦν
δὲ λαὸς Θεοῦ, οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν
δὲ ἐλεηθέντες.
1 Peter ii. 6-8 Ἰδού, τίθημι ἐν
Σιὼν λίθον ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἐκλεκτόν͵
ἔντιμον" καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ
ov μὴ καταισχυνθῇ . . . οὗτος:
ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας, ὃ καὶ
λίθος προσκόμματος καὶ πέτρα
σκανδάλου, of προσκόπτονσι τῷ
λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες, εἰς ἐτέ-
θησαν.
1 Peter il. 5 ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς
Ovolas εὐπροσδέκτους Θεῷ διὰ Ἰ.
Χρ.
1 Peter ad μὴ συσχηματιζ(ό-
μενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν
ἐπιθυμίαις.
ἰχχνὶ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8.
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
urpose.
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 1 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. Peter 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. xi. 1m 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 Epistle,
ἰχχν EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ($s
Rom. vii, 33 βλέπω 82 ἕτερον νόμον James iv. x πόθεν πόλεμοι καὶ πόθεν
ἂν τοῖ μέλεσί pov, ἁντιστρα- μάχαι ἐν ὑμῖν ; οὐκ ἰντεῦθεν, ἐκ τῶν
τευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ vous μον, ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρατενομένων ἐν
καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῆς τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν;
ἁμαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί μου.
Rom. xiii. 12 ἀποθώμεθα οὖν James i. a1 ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν
τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, ἐνδυσώμεθα 82 ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας ἐν πρᾳῦ-
γὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός. tort δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφντον λόγον τὸν
δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν.
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 ἀκροαταί and ποιηταὶ
was not made by either St. Paul or St. James for the first time;
metaphors like θησαυρίζεις, expressions like ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργὴς compared
with ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς (both occur in the O.T.), the phrase νόμος
ἐλευθερίας might all have independent sources. Nor are there
any passages where we find the same order of thought (as in
1 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. 2-4 and in
Rom. vii. 23 = James iv. 1, 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 cited
as an example of works and endeavours to show that the word
λογίζομαι is inconsistent with this.’ But the controversy must have
been carried on elsewhere than in these writings, and it is equally
probable that both alike may be dealing with the problem as it
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
teaching or the teaching of St. Paul’s followers; but there is no
Ixxx
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[$6
that the Ignatian letters were formed into one collection before
those of St. Paul had been.
Assuming then, as we are entitled to
do, that the Apostolic Fathers represent the first quarter of the
second century we find the Epistle 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. 21 ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ dod-
veros αὐτῶν καρδία.
Rom. ii. 24 τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ
Θεοῦ 80 ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, καθὼς γέγραπται.
Rom. iv. “ Μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέ-
θησαν αἱ ἀνόμιαι καὶ ὧν ἐπε-
καλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι"
8 μακάριος ἀνὴρ ᾧ οὐ μὴ
λογίσηται Κύριος ἁμαρτίαν.᾽"
9 ὁ μακαρισμὸς ov οὗτος
ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομήν; ἣ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν
ἀκροβυστίαν;
Rom. vi. 1 τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν;
ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἢ χάρις
πλεονάσῃ 3 μὴ γένοιτο.
Rom. i. 29 πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ
ἀδικίᾳ, πονηρίᾳ, πλεον εξίᾳ, κακίᾳ,
μεστοὺς φθόνου, puvov, ἔριδος, ὃ
λον,κακοηθείας, ψιθνριστάς, κα-
raddAovs, θεοστυγεῖς, ὑβριστάς,
ὑπερηφάνον:, ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρε-
τὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀσυνέ-
τους, ἀσυνθέτους, dordpyous, ἀνελεή-
μονας" οἵτινες, τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἐπιγνόντες, ὅτι of τὰ τοιαῦτα
πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν,
οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
συνενδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν.
Rom. ix. 4, 5 ὧν... ἡ λατρεία
καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, ὧν of πατέρες, καὶ
ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
Rom. xiii. 1, 2 πῆσα ψυχὴ ἐξου-
elas ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω" ob
yap ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, al
δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν.
ὥστε ὃ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ
Clem. 36 διὰ τούτον ἢ dovveros
καὶ ἐσκοτωμένη διάνοια ἡμῶν ἀνα-
θάλλει εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὑτοῦ φῶς.
Clem. 51 διὰ τὸ σκληρυνθῆναι
αὐτῶν τὰς ἀσυνέτους καρδίας.
Clem. 47 ὥστε καὶ βλασφημίας:
ἐπιφέρεσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι Kuplov διὰ
τὴν ὑμετέραν ἀφροσύνην.
Clem. 50 Μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέ-
θησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι καὶ ὧν ἐπεκα-
λύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι: μακάριος
ἀνὴρ ᾧ ob μὴ λογίσηται Κύριος:
ἁμαρτίαν. οὐδέ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ στόματι
αὐτοῦ δόλος. οὗτος ὁ μακαρισμὸ:
ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐκλελεγμένους ὑπὸ τοῦ
Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.
Clem. 33 τί οὖν ποιήσωμεν, ἀδελ-
φοί; ἀργήσωμεν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγαθοποιΐας
καὶ ἔγκαταλείπωμεν τὴν ἀγάπην ; μη-
θαμῶς τοῦτο ἐάσαι ὃ δεσπότης ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν
γε γενηθῆναι.
Clem. 35 ἀπορρίψαντες ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶ,»
πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν καὶ ἀνομίαν, πλεο-
νεξίαν, ἔρεις, κακοηθείας τε καὶ
δόλον, ψιθυρισμούς τε καὶ κατα-
λαλιάς,θεοστνγίαν, ὑπερηφανίαν
τε καὶ ἀλαζονείαν, κενοδοξίαν τε καὶ
ἀφιλοξενίαν. ταῦτα γὰρ οἱ πράσ-
σοντεξ στυγητοὶ τῷ Θεῷ ὑπάρχουσιν"
οὗ μόνον δὲ οἱ πράσσοντες αὐτά,
ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ συνευδοκοῦντες αὐτοῖς.
Clem. 32 ἐξ αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἱερεῖς καὶ
Aevira: πάντες οἱ λειτουργοῦντες τῷ
θυσιαστηρίῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ
Κύριος "Ingots τὸ κατὰ σάρκα" ὲἂξ
αὐτοῦ βασιλεῖς καὶ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἡ γού-
μένοι κατὰ τὸν Ἰούδαν.
Clem. 61 σύ, δέσποτα, ἔδωκας τὴν
ἐξουσίαν τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῖς διὰ τοῦ
μεγαλοπρεποῦι καὶ ἀνεκδιηγήτου κρά-
του: σου, els τὸ γινώσκοντας ἡμᾶς ψὴν
ὑπὸ σοῦ αὐτοῖς δεδομένην δόξαν καὶ
~ ~
τῇ Θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκεν᾽" ol
δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς κρίμα λή-
φονται.
LITERARY HISTORY
Ixxxi
τιμὴν ὑποτάσσεσθαι αὐτοῖς, μηδὲν ἔναν-
τιουμένους τῷ θελήματί σον.
References in the letters of Ignatius are the following:
Rom. i. 3 τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρ-
ματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ
ὁρισθέντος νἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει.
Rom. ii. 24.
Rom. iii. 37 ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησιε;
Rom. vi. 4 οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν
ααινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν.
Rom. vi. 5; vili. 17, 29.
Rom. vi. 17 es ὃν σαρεδόθητε
τύπον διδαχῆ!:.
Rom. vii. 6 ὥστε δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς
ἐν καινότητι πνεύματο: καὶ οὗ παλαιό-
τητι γράμματος.
Rom. viii. 11 ὁ ἐγείρας X. 'L
ἐκ νεκρῶν.
Rom. ix. 23 σκεύη ἐλέου: ἃ προ-
πητοίμασεν εἰς δύξαν.
Rom. xiv. 17 οὐ γάρ ἔστιν
βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις: κα
σόσις.
Rom. xv. § τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν
ἀλλήλοις κατὰ X. Ἰ.
Smyr. 1 ἀληθῶς ὄντα bu yévous
Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, νἱὸν Θεοῦ
κατὰ θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν.
Cf. Trall. 8 (both quote Ο. T.).
Eph. 18 ποῦ καύχησις τῶν Aeyo-
μένων συνετῶν ;
(Close to a quotation of 1 Cor. i. 20.)
Eph. 19 Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως pavepov-
μένον els καινότητα ἀϊδίου (ais.
Mag. 5. δι’ οὗ ἐὰν μὴ αὐθαιρέτωι
ἔχωμεν τὸ ἀποθανεῖν εἰς τὸ αὐτοῦ
Gos, τὸ ζἣν αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.
Trall. ο κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίωμα ὃς καὶ ἡμᾶς
ψφοὺς πιστεύοντας αὐτῷ obras ἐγερεῖ ὃ
πατὴρ αὑτοῦ ἐν X. a οὗ χωρὶς τὸ
ἀληθινὸν ζῆν οὐκ ἔχομεν.
Mag. 6 εἰς τύπον καὶ διδαχὴν
fas.
Mag. 9 of ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν
dyactpapévres els καινότητα ἐλπίδοι
ἦλθον.
Trall. 9 δε καὶ ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ
Tou
νεκρῶν, ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν
πατρὸς αὐτοῦ.
Eph. 9 προητοιμασμένοι els οἷκο-
δομὴν Θεοῦ πατρός.
Trall. 2 οὐ γὰρ βρωμάτων καὶ
ποτῶν εἶσιν διάκονοι.
Eph. 1 ὃν εὔχομαι κατὰ Ἰ. Χ. ὑμᾶς
ἀγαπᾷν, καὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς αὐτῷ ἐν ὁμοιό-
mt εἶναι.
The following resemblances occur in the Epistle of Polycarp:
Rom. vi. 13 καὶ τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν
ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης.
Rom. xiii. 12 ἐνδυσώμεθα δὲ
τὼ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός.
Rom. xii. 10 τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ
als ἀλλήλον: φιλόστοργοι, TH
τιμῇ ἀλλήλον: προηγούμενοι.
Rom. xiii. 8 ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν
ἵτερον νόμον σπεπλήρωκεν #.7.A.
Pol. 4 ὁπλισώμεθα τοῖς ὅπλοις
THs δικαιοσύνης.
Pol. 10 /fraternitatis amatores
Giligentes tnvicem, in veritate sociati,
mansuetudinem Domini alterustré
pracstolantes, nullum despicientes.
Pol. 3 ἐὰν γάρ τις τούτων ἐντὸς ἢ
πεπλήρωκεν ἐντολὴν δικαιοσύνητ' ὁ
γὰρ ἔχων ἀγάπην μακράν ἐστιν νάσηξ
ἁμαρτίας.
Ixxxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ 8
Rom. xiv. 10 πάντες γὰρ παρα- Pol. 6 καὶ πάντας: δεῖ wapa-
στησόμεθα τῷ βήματιτοῦ; Θεοῦ στῆναι τῷ βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
eee καὶ ἕκαστον ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ λόγον
12 ἄρα [οὖν) ἕκαστος ἡμῶν περὶ δοῦναι.
δαντοῦ λόγον δώσει [τῷ Θεῷ].
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 Refulato omntum
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 ἢ, the Valentinians of the Italian school δ, and to Basileides’.
In the last writer the use made of Rom. v. 13, 14 and viii. 39, 22
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—
(1) 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.
(2) 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. i. 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντο: υἱοῦ Θεοῦ Test. Levi. 18 καὶ πνεῦμα ἁγιω.
dy δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιω- σύνης ἔσται én’ αὐτοῖς....
σύνη:...
Rom. ii. 13 οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ Test. Aser. 4 οἱ γὰρ ἀγαθοὶ ἄνδρει
νόμον δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. ..... δίκαιοί εἰσι παρὰ τῷ Oeg.
1 τοῦ Χριστοῦ Western and Syrian.
8 ἀποδώσει BD FG.
> τῷ Θεῷ om. ΒΕΟ.
4 Rom. ii. 4 = Dial. 47; Rom. iii. 11- = Dial. a7; Rom. iv. 3 = Dial. 23;
Rom. ix. 7 = Dial. 44; Rom. ix. 27-29 = Dial. 32, 55, 64; Rom.x. 18 =
Apol. i. 40; Rom. xi. 2, 3 = Dial. 39.
5 Hipp. Ref. v. 7, pp. 138. 64-140. 76 = Rom. i. 20-26
4 Ibid. vi. 36, p. “ἐξ g-10 = Rom. viii. 11.
Ἶ Ibid. vii. 2g, p. 370. 80 = Rom. v. 13, 14; ibid. p. 368. 75 = Rom. vili
tg, 22.
Ixxxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8.
arrangement we cannot conjecture with any certainty; but 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 point is the text of the Epistles used by Marcion. 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 undoubted. In the Romans particularly he omitted chaps.
iL 19-ii. 1; iii. 31-iv. 25; ix. 1-33; x. 5-xi. 32; xv.—xvi. Nor
again can we doubt that he omitted and altered short passages in
order to harmonize the teaching with his own. For instance, in
x. 2, 3 he seems to have read ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὸν Θεόν. 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 point of view is the omis-
sion of πρῶτον in i. 16 (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', 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
this 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
lists, 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 spse beatus aposiolus Paulus, sequens
prodecessoris sui lohannts ordinem, nonnist nominatim seplem ecclesits
seribat ordine fali: ad Corinthios (prima). ad Ephestos (secunda), ad
Philippenses (tertia), ad Colossenses (quarta), ad Galatas (quinia), ad
Thessalonicenses (sexta), ad Romanos (septima). Nor does this
* On Harnack’s theory that the Pauline Epistles had at the close of the
second century less canonical authority than the Gospels, see Sanday, Bampton
Lectures, pp. 20, 66.
IEW: EPISTLE TU: THE ROMANS [88
“Le thus powers. κατ τΊδδος there nave pe ew excentoms ‘The enrlicst writs
Wm Greve ur ponupenss ¢ te > cust: ones: u σφε Been the Engisb-
a Ἐ ri ttS! The ἐσσέξωσστ, ας wis δὲ Ξεῖξες ace mamiy historical
Tae Lywecer umiure τ Ἐχεις.: 5: O° ἃ =: 3 Kom: oc: we ancw from te
ὅτι tue’ me sks πττρ: cust Pomc χεροῖν ΜῈ tha: St Pad
Su0Ls Bse KNOWL SE Σ Soot corer: = l.ome. ot thet Agu
am τι. SPOT maw ree teem Δ: :τ-ἰ ome fe mrerpres xu 13
h.er:* aR. abk: ἘΠῚ Lat ace. Eciws o oe Anotte sconit bavwe wandesl
we ingm. oo Bae Emus Lar ZB .. τὰ 2. Σ- SUS aewe pe writeen aizer the
ma. ¢ fetuses Ta Sane πετῶν wa: cacccimec ov Bronn Bansr*, and
RB Geek revive. δ. Uke τίδεσπ oar om σεῖτλπ lea ee eres thevlogie,
Mii" 20S gr τος.
wXE3E. (SS fee. i Bierce reas ao Cou. anc consiierec thet al
tae Pesce Eraste cite, om Ce wea. So -- σεκχευῖτι teelf was the
τα tame WL” κεῖσ OG ὅς om Su το we oe Epmucs which bo
2 3eme To δ ἐσῖτξις OAT CE ἃ ὁ ES δ: carr perioc σε the him
: Demtct woo G2tamm 6. Soule τὶ asec ot gf: oicr~.. a gtetemen
π.: Wat SS ee BET CRS WO ὁ 2c appest Ὁ
our ει o Le ASD ας. -Ἦ τ ce ἃ ce homes ct riconsistensy of
er ΤΊΣ. eS Wi oe eee oe Sees Ὁ ODM wot bac ere
Bil Prem i La Sear wiki hota Comr= prowe δ arpecs thet
Lem tou. Gees LIBIcTIS. Rteanee mcs” ote τὸ mas Gewoter! iil!
comer. G De orate τί τιν Lime Wot ἢ τσ. a: menses
Wi LE ASSO Ls Ae Be aw OSE = =k ΤΣ och «acme Epes.
Be eS Ska se eK Σὰ kl TES ΣΣ the
cece ees oe clown: occas —lomam : a ee
2 Derm. EK ALR os at ot eT coin or moo cnr onfinenee οἱ
wees. ac. Sisal een amo oo... rosie σ fe fomans horrowsd
soe Fil. »ππΞξ am. πὶ: svat τ W Wi De asics 8 lee
“ὩΣ Σιν LE τ τασα οἷς Oh. Ὡοσπτ' τ oT livese ΤΩΡ ΡΟ
“.- τ SI. πὶ τὸῶς yee Ss 5 a= περ at: acmi.ct ones alo
“Δ τς weer SS SL Bek Tet Lf. a, © ἘΞ: cate cno-Tnolstions
-- ὦ τρ Oe ee Site ots res, ba-teee of
cepe We 25 δ. BLL ἢ aw Ὁ St mam ~seencchis theories
σ:-: eget Lt ore ΟΣ τὶ en uo TE Bleu os y
“ἀπ Ln Mieke ΣῸΞ ᾿ς locate. racism: ἃ: me ἢ -asle®
Ce ee -- τῷ αἱ ἀπὶνς: aS οὐ oe ee τὰ Derg aad
ΧΩ, Oe — ot τς ὦ: = Rt τὰτ- a.
Perce ae. Nowe fancy Gary Neos eo tome act: mam a "osephes,
pa et Te mal x ΠΞΕΣ τοι ve δὸς TL. Le ee a oe δ achool
4. «᾿Ξ τ -νΝ a i “2.... τος we. 2. an ae a = dias rT -_ x =
pee Wi ST ep came puceuly
Stee wt we YB πὶ Ce : ὡς ve cm vt πος them
Eee Lowe. She 2 sccm “τ Tr sureis z= J pen-
ge. .-: .-- τ’ “᾿ _. om «- # sae « Ss τς. δ τὰς.
> wees 8 Le «ἴωσι; 4.2L τ Ses “Beak pee or | τι υσφέ. ας, 1883,
- Vem ΄- = Sec. mr {Wet τ “>acmiws Faget as dis
gee EY Re Be ELL ONT
ΨΦε πο. MS OE RN | en otc ἃ Pierson
@ 2 ft eee, Stow πα. . NN.
ixxxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9.
It has been pointed out that interpolation theories are not as absurd as they
might prima facie be held to be, for we have instances of the process actually
taking place. The obvious 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 οἱ
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
ina text which may have been interpolated. Those who doubted the genuineness
of the Armenian ent 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 improbable 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 p
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 the 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 whatever school would
doubt that there is a strong sustained argument running thrcugh 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. 10; 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 (wAcovdon .. . ἐπλεόνασεν), that suggests ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν, then
comes πλεονάσῃ in vi. 1; 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 ont 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
nt 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 under
XCil EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὃ 9.
recognize that xiv and xv. 13 form a single paragraph which must not be
split up.
Bat farther than this the remainder of chap. xv 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
circumstances in which he is placed, the dangers he is expecting, his hope of
visiting Rome fulfilled in such a very different manner, are all inconsistent with
spuriousness; 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.
ur’s views were followed bv Schwegler, Holsten, Zeller, and others,
but have been rejected by Mangold, Hilgenteld, Pficiderer, Weizsiicker, and
Lipsius. A modified form is put forward by Lucht', who con-iders that parts
are genuine and part spurious: in fact he applies the interpolation theory to
these two chapters (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 by the manu-
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
is no external evidence. There isno 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 of
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
forms :
(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 Thessalonians. Chap. i-xiv and xvi. 21-24.
(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 grounds tor believing that xvi. 1-20
was addressed to the Ephesian Church. (iv) The Macedonian names occurring
in xvi. 21-24 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 conclusive. One is that
there are not four endings in the Lpistle at all; xv. 33 is not like any of the
‘ Lucht, Ober die beiden letsten Capitel des Rimerbriefs, 1871.
© Renan, S¢. Pal, pp. lxin ff. This theory is examined at great length by
Bp. Lightfoot, of. cst. pp. 293 ff.
xcvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [89
must refer to that and to Dr. Hort’s own essay for the reasons which make ut
accept the doxology as not only a genuine work of St. Paul, but also as an
integra] portion of the Epistle. That at the end he shuuld feel compelled
once more to sum up 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 have quoted his emendation of the passage in Origen and pointed out that
it is to us most unconvincing. No single argument in favour of the existence
of the shorter recension may be strong, but the combination of reasons is
in our opinion too weighty to be explained away.
Dr. Hort’s own conclusions are: (1) 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 be 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 explained, the insertion
of the Doxology after xiv and its omission.’ This latter is due to Marcion,
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 is
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 oft
of the end ofa 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 arbitrary,
and that his theory does not satisfactorily explain all the facts.
7. We ourselves incline to an opinion suggested first we believe 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 with 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 begining of chap. xv we shall find that as far as regards
the first thirteen verses hardly any other course was possible for him, if he held
ε EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ὁ 10.
(not of this but of Savile’s text which is superior to Montfaucon’s),
by the Rev. 2: B. Morris, was given in the Library of the Fathers,
vol. vii: Oxford, 1841. The Homilies were delivered at Antioch
probably between 387-397 a.p. 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
exegesis.
Tueoporet (Theodrt., Thdrt.) played a well-known moderating
part in the controversies of the fifth century. He died in 458 a.p.
As a commentator he is a pedtseguus—but one of the best of the
many pedisegui—of St. Chrysostom. His Commentary on the Ep.
to the Romans is contained in his Works, ed. Sirmond: Paris,
1642, Tom. iii, 1-119; also ed. Schulze and Noesselt, Halle,
1769-1774.
Joannes Damascenus (Jo.-Damasc.); died before 754 a.p. His
commentary is almost entirely an epitome of Chrysostom; it is
printed among his works (ed. Lequien: Paris, 1712, tom. ii.
pp. 1-60). The so-called Sacra Parallela 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 uber die dem Johannes
von Damascus sugeschriebenen Parallelen, Halle, 1892).
OxcumEnius (Oecum.); bishop of Tricca in Thessaly in the
tenth century. ‘The Commentary on Romans occupies pp. 195-
413 of his Works (ed. Joan. Hentenius: Paris, 1631). It is prac-
tically a Catena with some contributions by Oecumenius himself;
it includes copious extracts from Photius (Phot.), the eminent
patriarch of Constantinople (¢. 820-c. 891) ; these are occasionally
noted.
THeopuHy.act (Theoph.); archbishop of Bulgaria under Michael
VII Ducas (1071-1078), and still living in 1118. His Commentary
is one of the best specimens of its kind (Opp. ed. Venet,, 1754-
1763, tom. li. 1-118).
Eutnymius ZicaBenus (Euthym.-Zig.) ; living after 1118; 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.
eli EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10.
Hvuex or St. Victor (Hugo a S. Victore, Hugh of Paris);
s. 1097-1141. Amongst the works of the great mystic of the
twelfth century are published Allegoriae in Novum Testamentum,
Lib. VI. Allegoriae in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Migne,
P. 2. clxxv, col. 879), and Quaestiones ef Decistones in Epistolas
D. Pauls. 1. In Epistolam ad Romanos (Migne, clxxv, col. 431).
The authenticity of both these is disputed. St. Hugh was a typical
representative of the mystical as opposed to the rationalizing
tendency of the Middle Ages.
Peter ABELARD, 1079-1142. Petri Abaelard: commentariorum
super S. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos libri quinque (Migne, P. 2.
clxxviil. 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, of. εἰ. col. 30). So far as
we have consulted it, we have found it based partly on Origen partly
on Augustine, and rather weak and indecisive in its character.
THomas AQUINAS, ¢. 1225-1274, Called Doctor Angelicus. His
Expositio in Epistolas omnes Divot Pault Apostolt (Opp. Tom. xvi.
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 Aristotle. His
commentary works out in great detail the method of exegesis started
by St. Augustine. No modern 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. Reformation and Post-Reformation Periods.
Cozxt, John (¢. 1467-1519); 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
as an historical memorial of the earlier English Reformation.
Erasmus, Desiderius, 1466-1536. Erasmus’ Greek Testamen
civ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10
(iv) of the Sacraments; (v) of the Roman or false doctrine of Sacraments,
and (vi) of Christian Liberty or Church Polity. There is just a single para-
graph on Election. In 1539 he published two things, the Commentary on
Romans and the 2nd edition of the /mststuses. And the latter are greatly
expanded with all his distinctive doctrines fully developed. Two things are,
I think, certain: this development was due to his study (1) of Augustine,
especially the Anti-Pelagian writings, and (2) of St. Paul. But it was St.
Paul read through Augustine. The exegetical stamp is peculiarly distinct
in the doctrinal parts of the /ss¢t/sfes; and so I should say that his ideas
were not so much philosophical as theological and exegetical in their basis.
I ought to add however as indicating his philosophical bent that his earliest
studies—before he became a divine—were on Seneca, De Clementia.’
Brza, Theodore (1519-1605). His edition of the Greek Testa-
ment with translation and annotations was first published by
H. Stephanus in 1565, his Adnofationes majores in N.T. at Paris
In 1594.
Arminius (Jakob Harmensen), 1560-1609, Professor at Leyden,
1603. Asa 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 Hallam 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 commentators of the seven-
teenth century were Estius and Cornelius a Lapide. |
Cornetius a Lapipr (van Stein), ob. 1637, a Jesuit, published
his Commeniaria in omnes d. Pauli epistolas at Antwerp in 1614.
Estius (W. van Est), ob. 1613, was Provost and Chancellor of
Douay. His Jn omnes Pault ef altorum apostolor. epistolas com-
meniar. was published after his death at Douay in 1614-1616.
Grotius (Huig van Groot), 1583-1645. -His Annolationes
tn NV. 7. 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 from his master. He had
hardly the philological ability for the task he had undertaken, and
although of great personal piety was too much destitute of dogmatic
interest.
The work of the philologists and scholars of the sixteenth and the
first half of the seventeenth century on the Old and New Testament
was summed up in Crificé 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. had up to that time attained.
Two English commentators belonging to the seventeenth century
@eserve notice
eviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10.
edition appeared in 1877, the second in 1881, and there have been
several others since.
Gonrt, Dr. F. (Go.), Professor at Neuchatel. Commentatre sur
VEptire aux Romains, Paris, &c., 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 works,
strongest in exegesis proper and weakest in textual criticism.
OLTRAMARE, Hugues (Oltr.), 1813-1894; Professor at Geneva.
Commentaire sur [ Epttre aux Romains, published in 1881, 1882
(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 commend them-
selves as right.
Mourg, Rev. H. Ὁ. G. (Mou.); Principal of Ridley Hall,
Cambridge. Mr. Moule’s edition (in the Cambridge Bible 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 Zhe
Exposttor’s Bible.
Girrorp, Dr. E. H. (Gif.); sometime Archdeacon of London.
The Epistle to the Romans in Zhe Speaker's Commentary (1881)
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.
Lippon, 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). The 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
band of a most lucid writer and accomplished theologian.
§ 10.] COMMENTARIES cix
Barusy, Dr. James; formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield’s
Hall, Durham. Dr. Barmby contributed Romans to the Pudpii
Commentary (London, 1890); a sound, independent and vigorous
exposition.
Lirsius, 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 the Profestantendibel (English translation,
published by Messrs. Williams & Norgate in 1883), and he edited
the same Epistle along with Galatians and Philippians in the
Handcommentar zum Neuen 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 is unsurpassed. No other commentary is so different
from those of our own countrymen, or would serve so well to
supplement their deficiencies.
Scuagrer, Dr. A.; Professor at Miinster. Dr. Schaefer’s Er-
klarung d. Briefes an die Rimer (Minster 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
commentators, 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.
TuropHanes, ob. 1893; was Professor and Inspector in the
Se. 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 is based mainly on that of Chrysostom. ‘Theophanes
has both the strength and weakness of his master, Like him he iz
often historical in his treatment, like him he sometimes fails to
gtasp the more profound points in the Apostle’s teaching.
ABBREVIATIONS
—_-~eee
Ecciestastical Writers (see Ὁ. xcviii ff.).
Amb. . ° . . . . Ambrose,
Ambrstr. ὁ ° e « Ambrosiaster,
Ath. . ° ° . e Athanasius.
Aug. «© . ὁ ° . Augustine.
Bas. . ° ° ° e Basil.
Chrys. © 8 « « . Chrysostom.
Clem.-Alex. . . . Clement of Alexandria.
Clem.-Rom. . ° « Clement of Rome.
Cypr.. «© «© «© -« « Cyprian.
Cyr.-Alex. . a ο 6 . Cyril of Alexandria.
Cyr.-Jerus. . . . . . Cyril of Jerusalem.
Epiph. . . . . Epiphanius.
Eus, . . . . ° « Eusebius.
Euthym.-Zig, . . . Euthymius Zigabenus.
Hippok .« . . . . Hippolytus.
Ign. . . . ° . . Ignatius.
Jer.(Hieron) . « Ὁ « Jerome.
Jos. . «2. «© «© « « Josephus.
Method. ., ° . . . Methodius.
Novat. ° ° . . .ς Novatian.
Oecum,. ὃ « «© © « Occumenius.
Orig. . e Φ e e ° Origen.
Orig.-lat 2. 2. «2 « . Latin Version of Origen
Pelag. © e « « «¢ Pelagius.
Phot. e e e e e . Photius.
Ruf. . ° ° ὁ . . Rufinus.
Sedul. . . . ° ° « Sedulius.
Tert. . Φ e e . Tertullian.
Theod.-Mope. . +. « «© Theodore of Mopsuessia
Theodrt. e e e e e Theodoret.
Theoph. e Φ e Φ ° Theophylact.
ABBREVIATIONS
Versions (see Ὁ. lxvi f.).
Aegyptt. e e e e ° Egyptian.
Boh. Φ e e e Φ Bohairic.
Sah. Φ ry e Φ e Sahidic.
Aeth. e e e e e e Ethiopie.
Arm. . e ° ° e « Armenian
Goth. ° e e Py e Φ Gothic.
Latt. e Φ 4 e e e Latin.
Lat. Vet. . e ° . Vetus Latina.
Vulg. e e e e e Vulgate.
Syrr. . © «© «© « ὁ Syriac.
Pesh. . . ° ° « Peshitto.
Harcl. . ς . ° « Harclean.
Cov. . ° , . . Coverdale.
Genev ° ° ° . . Geneva.
Rhem. ‘ . ° ° « Rheims (or Douay).
Tyn. . . . . . . Tyndale.
Wic. e 9 e e e e Wiclif.
AV. . e . . . . Authorized Version.
RV. . . . . . Revised Version.
Edstors (see Ὁ. cv ff.).
T.R. . . . ὁ . Textus Receptus.
Tisch. ° . ° . . Τιβοδοηάοτί.
Treg. © ce © « « Tregelles.
WH. . . ° . . Westcott and Hort
Alf. . . ° . e . Alford.
Beng. . © © . Bengel.
Del. . e e e Φ . Delitzsch.
De W. e e Φ e e De Wette.
El. ° ° ° . . Ellicott.
Fi. 2. 6 2 ὁ . . Fritzsche (C. F. A.p
Gif. e e e ry e ° Giffor d.
Go. e e e e e ° Godet.
Lf. e e e 9 Φ . Lightfoot.
Lid. Φ e e e e . Liddon.
Lips. . °. ὁ e ° . Lipsius.
Mey. - +» © © o « Meyer.
Mey.-W. . « © « « Meyer-Weise,
Oler. Φ e e e e e Oltramare.
Ve. . - e ΕΞ . Vaughan.
CIL.
Grm.-Thay.
Trench, Syn.
Win.
Exp. .
SJBExeg.
Lwtih.
al.
cal. (calen.)
todd. .
edd. .
edd. pr.
om. .
paul. «
pler . 9
plur. .
praem.
rel.
2/3, 4/5, ἄς.
ABBREVIATIONS
Corpus Inscriptionum
Graecarum.
Corpus Inscriptionum
Latinarum.
Grimm-Thayer’s Lext-
con.
Trench on Synonyms.
Winer’s Grammar.
Expositor.
Journal of the Soctety of
Biblical Literature
and Exegesis.
Leitschrift fiir wissen.
schaftliche Theologte.
addit, addunt, &c.
alii, alibi.
catena.
codices.
editores.
editores priores (older
editors).
omittit, omittunt, &c.
pauci.
plerique.
plures.
praemittit, praemittunt,
ἂς.
reliqui.
twice out of three times,
four out of five times,
&c.
In text-critical notes adverbs (25, semel, &c.), statistics (?/,, 4/,) and
cod. codd., ed. edd., &c., always qualify the word which precedes, not
that which follows: ‘Vulg. codd.’ = some MSS. of the Vulgate,
Epiph. cod. or Epiph. ed.= a MS. or some printed edition of
Epiphanius.
N.B.—Tbe text commented upon is that commonly known as the
Revisers’ Greek Text (i.e. the Greek Text presupposed in the Revised
Version of 1881) published by the Clarendon Press. The few instanoes
in which the editors dissent from this text are noted as they ooour.
THE
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION.
1.1,7. * Paul, a divinely chosen and accredited Apostle,
gives Christian greeting to the Roman Church, ttself also
divinely called.
*Paul, a devoted servant of Jesus Christ, an Apostle called
by 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
yours! May God Himself, the heavenly Father, and the Lord
Jesus Messiah, grant them to you!
I. 2-6. 7 preach, in accordance with our Fewish Scrip-
tures, Fesus 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,
but rather the direct fulfilment of promises which God had
inspired the prophets of Israel to set down in Holy Wnt. lt
relates to none other than His Son, whom it presents in a twofold
aspect ; on the one hand by physical descent tracing His lineage
* In this one instance we have ventured to break up the long and heavily-
weighted sentence in the Greek, and to treat its two main divisions separately.
Bat the second of these is not in the strict sense a parenthesis: the constraction
of the whole paragraph is continuous.
B
a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 1-7.
to David, as the Messiah was to do, ‘and on the other hand, ia
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 of
God’s favour in that I was called to be a Christian and also the
special gifts 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
Name.
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
them.
The leading points in the section may be summarized thus:
(i) I, Paul, am an Apostle by no act of my own, but by the
deliberate call and in pursuance of the long-foreseen plan of God
(vv. x, 7). (ii) You, Roman Christians, are also special objects of
the Divine care. You inherit under the New Dispensation the
same position which Israel occupied under the Old (vw. 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 (vv. 3, 7; see note on κλητοῖς ἁγίοις). (iv)
Its subject is Jesus, Who is at once the Jewish Messiah and the
Son of God (wv. 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 tu remember (1) that the Epistle was written about
the year 58 a.p., 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 poi'
at the end of the paragraph.
4 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 1.
Jost about the group 1 and 2 Cor. Rom. there is a certain amount of
oubt.
Remembering the Western element which enters into B in Epp. Paul.. it
looks as if the evidence for xv iv in Cor. Rom. might be entirely Western;
but that is not quite clear, and the reading may possibly be right. In any
case it would seem that just about this time St. Paul fell into the habit of
writing Χριστὸς "Ingots. The interest of this would lie in the fact that in
Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς the first word would seem to be rather more distinctly a
proper name than in Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. No doubt the latter phrase is rapidly
passing into a proper name, but Χριστός would seem to have a little of its
sense as a title still clinging to it: the phrase would be in fact transitional
between Χριστός or ὁ Χριστός of the Gospels and the later Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς or
Χριστός simply as a proper name (see Sanday, Basspion Lectures, 289
and an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in Expos. 1888, i. 386 ἐν
subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction.
κλητὸς ἀπόστολος. κλῆσις is another idea which has its roots in
the Old Testament. Eminent servants of God become so by an
express Divine summons. The typical examples would be
Abraham (Gen. xii. 1-3), Moses (Ex. iii. 10), the prophets (Isa. vi.
8,9; Jer. i. 4, 5, &c.). The verb καλεῖν occurs in a highly typical
passage, Hos. xi. 1 ἐξ Αἰγύπτον μετεκάλεσα ra τέκνα pov. For the
particular form «Anrés we cannot come nearer than the ‘guests’
κλητοί of Adonijah (1 Kings i. 41, 49). By his use of the term
t. 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 1). The same combina-
tion «Anrés ἀπόστ. occurs in 1 Cor. i. 1, 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
Apostles.
On the relation of κλητός to ἐκλεκτός see Lft. on Col. iii. 12. There is
a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. In the Gospels
κλητοί are all who are invited to enter Christ’s kingdom, whether or not they
accept the invitation ; the ἐκλεκτοί are a smaller group, selected to special
honour (Matt. xxii. 14). In St. Paul both words are applied to the
same persons; «Anrdés implies that the call has been not only given but
obeyed.
ἀπόστολοςς 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.1.), 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. 1 Cor, xii. 28; Eph.
iv. 113 Didaché xi, xii, &c.; also esp. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 92 ff.;
Harnack in Zexte u. Untersuch, ii. 111 ff.). Strictly speaking
St. Paul could only claim to be an Apostle in the wider accepta-
tion of the term ; he lays stress, however, justly on the fact that he is
«λητὸς ἀπόστολος, i.e. not merely an Apostle by virtue of possessing
6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [z. 1-8.
times in Epp. Paul, besides in Epp. and Apoc. cnly twice; εὐαγ-
γελίζεσθαι twenty times in Epp. Paul., besides once mid. seven times
pass.). The disparity between St. Paul and the other N. T. writers
outside Evv. Synopt. Acts is striking. The use of εὐαγγέλιον for
a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday, Bamp. Lect. p. 317 2.) ;
the way is prepared for it by places like Mark i. 1; Apoc. xiv. 6.
2. xpoemmyye&aro. The words ἐπαγγελία, ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι occur
several times in LXX, but not in the technical sense of the grea
‘promises’ made by God to His people. The first instance of
this use is Ps. Sol. xii. 8 καὶ ὅσιοι κυρίου κληρονομήσαιεν ἐπαγγελίας
κυρίου : Cf. vii. 9 τοῦ ἐλεῆσαι τὸν οἶκον ᾿Ιακὼβ εἰς ἡμέραν ἐν ἣ ἐπηγγεΐλω
αὐτοῖς, and Xvii. 6 οἷς οὐκ ἐπηγγείλω, μετὰ βίας ἀφείλοντο : 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 notice that in strict accordance with what we may believe to have been
the historical sequence, neither ἐπαγγελία nor ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι (in the technica:
sense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke xxiv. 49, where éway-
γελία 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 (i) the
romises made by Christ, in particular the promise of the Holy Spirit (which
15 referred to the Father in Acts i. 4); so ἐπαγγελία three times in the Acts,
Gal, iii. 14, and Eph. i. 13; (ii) the promises of the O. T. fulfilled in Chris-
tianity; so ἐπαγγελία four times in Acts (note esp. Acts xiii, 32, xxvi. 0),
some eight times each in Rom. and Gal., both ἐπαγγελία and ἐπαγγέλλεσθα.
repeatedly in Heb., &c.; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet
falflled or unfulfilled, e.g. 2 Cor. i. 20 ὅσαι γὰρ ἐπαγγελίαι Θεοῦ (cf. «i. 1);
1 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Tim.i. 1; 2 Pet. iii, 4 ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσία, wrod.
ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις : perhaps the earliest extant instance of the use
of this phrase (Philo prefers ἱεραὶ γραφαί, ἱεραὶ βίβλοι, ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος :
cf. Sanday, Bamp. Lect. 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 γραφαῖς ἁγίαις the absence of
the art. throws the stress on ἁγίαις ; the books are ‘holy’ as con-
taining the promises of God Himself, written down by inspired
men (διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ).
8. γενομένου. This is contrasted with ὁρισθέντος, γενομένου denot-
ing, as usually, ‘transition from one state or mode of subsistence
to another’ (Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. i. 30); it is rightly paraphrased
‘[ Who] was born,’ and is practically equivalent to the Johannean
ἔλθόντος εἷς τὸν κόσμον.
ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβίδ. For proof that the belief in the descent of
the Messiah from David was a living belief see Mark xii. 35 ff.
wes λέγουσιν οἱ γραμματεῖς ὅτε ὁ Χριστὸς wes ἐστι Δαβίδ; (cf. Mark
8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1.4
sance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to
the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil. ii. g διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν
ὑπερύψωσε, καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα). This is
sufficiently expressed by our word ‘designated, which might
perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts.
It is true that Christ decomes 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 versions are not very helpful. The common rendering was
bracdestinaius (so expressly Rufinus [Orig.-lat.] ad@ ἦρε. ; cf. Introd. § 7).
ilary of Poitiers has des/inatus, which Rafinus also prefers. Tertullian
reads definitus.
υἱοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘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. xxi. 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 iii. 11, v. 71; the cen-
turion, Mark xv. 39 1), and it is implied by the words of the
Tempter (Matt. iv. 3, 61) and the voice from heaven (Mark
i. 11 f, ix. 78). The crowning instance is the confession of
St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Logza,
‘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, i. x (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 μονογενής, may be followed in Swete, A post.
Creed, Ὁ. 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 speaks of Him as ὁ ἴδιος vids
(Rom. viii. 32), 6 ἑαυτοῦ vids (viii. 3), he intends to cover the period
of pre-existence, as that St. John identifies the μονογενής with the
10 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 4, δ
men’ Wic.) but οὗ a single dead person. We might expect rather
νεκροῦ OF ἐκ νεκρῶν (as in i Pet. i, 3); and it is probable that this
form is only avoided because of ἐξ ἀναστάσεως coming just before.
But νεκρῶν coalesces closely in meaning with dvacr., so as to give it
very much the force of a compound word, ‘by a dead-rising’
(Zodtenauferstehung), ‘a resurrection such as that when dead per-
sons rise.’ Christ is ‘the first-born from the dead’ (Col. i, 18).
τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. Although in O. T. regularly applied to God
as equivalent of Adonat, Jahkveh, this word does not in itself
necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah
(Mark xii. 36, 371; Ps. Sol. xvii. 36 βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν χριστὸς κύριος)
without thereby pronouncing Him to be ‘God’; they expressly
distinguished between the Messiah and the Aemra or ‘ Word’ of
Jehovah (Weber, Alisyn. Theol. p. 178). On the lips of Christians
Βύριος 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, 11; Col. i. τό, 17). The title was given to our Lord
even in His lifetime (John xiii. 13 ‘Ye call me, Master (ὁ διδά-
gxados), and, Lord (ὁ Kupws): and ye say well; for so I am’), but
without a full consciousness of its significance: it was only after
the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their central
belief (Phil. ii. 9 ff., &c.).
δ. ἐλάβομεν. The best explanation of the plur. seems to be that
St. Paul associates himself with the other Apostles.
χάρις is an important word with a distinctively theological use
and great variety of meaning: (1) objectively, ‘sweetness, ‘at-
tractiveness,’ a sense going back to Homer (Od. viii. 175); Ps. xlv.
(xliv.) 3 ἐξεχύθη χάρις ἐν χείλεσί σον: Eccl. x. 12 λόγοι στόματος
σοφοῦ χάρις: Luke iv. 22 λόγοε χάριτος : (2) subjectively ‘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
εὑρεῖν χάριν is the commonest form of phrase in the O. T. (Gen.
vi. 8; xviii. 3, &c.); 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 (u) generally, as in Zech. xii. 10 ἐκχεῶ... πνεῦμα
χάριτος καὶ οἰκτιρμοῦ, but far more commonly in N. T. (Luke ii. 40;
John i. 14, 16, &c.); (8) by a usage which is specially characteristic
of St. Paul (though not confined to him), with opposition to
ὀφείλημα, ‘debt’ (Rom. iv. 4), and to ἔργα, ‘ 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 prominert place in the vocabulary of Justification.
12 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 6, 7
6. ἐν οἷς: not merely in a geographical sense of a Jewish com.
munity among Gentiles, but clearly numbering the Roman Church
among Gentile communities.
κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ : ‘called ones of Jesus Christ’: gen. of
possession.
7. ἐν Ρώμῃ : om. Gg, schol. cod. 47 (τὸ ἐν Ῥώμῃ οὔτε ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει
οὔτε ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ μνημονεύει, i. 6. Some Commentator whom the Scholiast
had before him). G reads πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ (similarly
d* Vulg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. seem to imply
πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ρώμῃ ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ). The same MS. omits τοῖς
ἐν Ῥώμῃ 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 ἐν Ῥώμῃ here and in
ver. 15. Fora full discussion of the question see the Introduction,
9.
; κλητοῖς ἁγίοις. Κλητὴ ἁγία represents consistently in LXX the
phrase which is translated in AV. and RV. ‘an holy convocation’
(so eleven times in Lev. xxiii and Ex. 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 κλητὴ ἁγία, 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
κλητοῖς has the same sense aS «Anrds in ver. 1: 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 statement of the evidence respecting κλητὴ ἁγία
we are indebted to Dr. Driver :—
κλητή corresponds to Nib, from NP ἐν call, a technical term almost
wholly confined to the Priests’ Code, denoting apparently a special religious
meeting, or ‘convocation,’ held on certain sacred days.
It is represented by «An7y, Ex. xii. 16b; Lev. xxiii. 7, 8, 27, 35, 36;
Num. xxviii. 25. Now in all these passages, where the Heb. has ‘ on such
a day there shall be a holy convocation,’ the LXX have ‘such a day shall
be xAnr? dyia,’ i.e. they alter the form of the sentence, make day subject,
and use «Anrf with its proper force as an adj. ‘shall be a called (i.e.
14 BPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [z. 1.
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. 2, &c.).
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
ἅγιοι, 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. 3).
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 Iam holy’ (1 Pet. i. 15, 16).
We note that Ps. Sol. had already described the Messianic
people as λαὸς ἅγιος (καὶ συνάξει λαὸν ἅγιον, οὗ ἀφηγήσεται ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ
xvii. 28; cf. Dan. vii. 18-27; viii. 24). 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, a1; xxvi.
19; xxviii. 9, varied from Ex. xix. 6 ἔθνος ἅγιον. 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 above 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’ (sesusnctus ab omns vitio,
labis expers). 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. Delitzsch
in He1zog’s Real-Encyklopadie, ed. 2, 5. v. ‘ Heiligkeit Gottes.’ Instruc-
tive discussions will be found in Davidson, Zsekiel, p. xxxix. £.; Robertson
Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 132 ff., 140 (140 ff., 150 ec. 2); Schults,
Theology of the Old Testament, ii. 131, 167 ff. <A treatise ey Dr. J. Agar
L7.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION is
Beet is on a good method, but is somewhat affected by critical questions as
to the sequence of the documents.
There is an interesting progression in the addresses of St. Paul's
Epp.: 1, 2 Thess. Gal. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ (ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις); 1, 2 Cor. τῇ
ἐκκλ. + φοῖρ ἁγίοις ; τ Cor. Rom. κλητοῖς ἁγίοις ; Rom. Phil. πᾶσι τοῖς
ἐγίοις ; Eph. Col. τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς.
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 promuent
in the later. And it would be natural that there should be some
such progression of thought, as the number of local churches mult-
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 ἐκκλησία 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
ἐκκλησία constantly stands for the religious assembly of the whole
people, as well as the saying of our Lord Himself in Matt. xv: 1¢
But the question is too large to be argued as a side issue.
Rudolf Sohm’s elaborate Kirchenrecht (Leipzig, 1892) 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.
χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη. Observe the combination and deepened re-
ligious significance of the common Greek salutation χαίρειν, and
the common Heb. salutation Shalom, ‘Peace.’ χάρις and εἰρήνη are
both used in the full theological sense: χάρις = the favour of God
cipnyn = the cessation of hostility to him and the peace of ming
which follows upon it.
There are four formulae of greeting in N. T.: the simple
χαίρειν in St. James; χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη in Epp. Paul. (except 1, 2 Tim.)
and in 1,2 St. Peter; χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη in the Epistles to Timothy
and 2 St. John; ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη in St. Jude.
εἰρήνη. We have seen how χάρις had acquired a deeper sense in
N. T. as compared with O. T.; with εἰρήνη 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 (Εἰρήνη σοι Jud. xix. 20, &c.). 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. xxix. [xxviii.] 11 Κύριος εὐλογήσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν
εἰρήνῃ : Ιχχχν͵ [Ixxxiv.] 8 λαλήσει εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ : tid. 10
δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη κατεφίλησαν: Cxix. [cxvili.] 165 εἰρήνη πολλὴ τοῖς
ἀγαπῶσι τὸν νόμον : Is. lili. § παιδεία εἰρήνης ἡμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν: Jer. xiv.
13 ἀλήθειαν καὶ εἰρήνην δώσω ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς: Ezek. xxxiv. 25 διαθήσομαι
16 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 1.
τῷ Δαυὶδ διαθήκην εἰρήνης (cf. xxxvii. 26]. Nor is this use confined
to the Canonical Scriptures: cf. Enoch v. 4 (other reff. in Charles,
ad loc.); Jubilees i. 15, 29; xxii. 9; xxxiii. 12, 30, &c.; it was one
of the functions of the Messiah to bring ‘peace’ (Weber, Ad/syn.
Theol. p. 362 f.).
The nearest parallel for the use of the word in a salutation as here is
Dan. iii. 98 [31]; iv. 34 (LXX); iii. 98 [31]; vi. 25. (Theodot.) εἰρήνη ὑμῖν
πληθυνθείη.
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The juxta-
position of God as Father and Christ as Lord may be added to the
proofs already supplied by wv. 1, 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 1 Cor. vili. 6 ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν els Θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἡμεῖς els
αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτοῦ.
The opposition in that passage between the gods of the heathen
and the Christians’ God seems to show that ἡμῶν = 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 Ep. to
Romans at the time when St. Paul wrote his earliest extant Epistle
(1 Thess. i. 1; cf. 2 Thess. i. 2). This shows that even at that
date (κα. Ὁ. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. It
is well also to remember that although in this particular verse of
Ep. 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.
πατρὸς ἡμῶν. 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 (Ps.
Ixviii. 53 Ixxxix. 26; Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixiii, 16; Ixiv. 8; Jer.
xxxi. 9; Mal. 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.
ciii, 13). But this idea which lies as a partially developed germ ip
18 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 8-16.
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 full
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 6. 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
(xAntés, ἀφωρισμένος): in other cases an old phrase has been
adopted with comparatively little modification (ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος
αὐτοῦ, and perhaps εἰρήνη)ὴ; in others the transference involves
a larger modification (δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις, κλητοὶ ἅγιοι,
Κύριος, Θεὸς πατήρ) ; in others again we have a term which has ac-
quired a significance since the close of the O. T. which Christianity
appropriates (ἐπαγγελία [ mpoempyyeiAaro |, γραφαὶ ἅγιαι, ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν,
ἅγιοι) ; in yet others we have a new coinage (ἀπόστολος, εὐαγγέλιον),
which however in these instances is due, not to St. Paul or the
other Apostles, but to Christ Himself.
ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH.
I. 8-15. 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 world, 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 Himself
Who hears that constant ritual of prayer which my spirit addresses
to Him in my work of preaching the glad tidings of His Son.
9 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
20 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 8-10.
Himself brought about the fulfilment of the promise, even justifying
faith may be described as ‘faith in God.’ The most conspicuous
example of this is ch. iv. 5 τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ, πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν
δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.
9. λατρεύω connected with λάτρις, ‘hired servant,’ and λάτρον, ‘hire’:
(i) already in classical Gk. applied to the service of a higher power
(διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ λατρείαν Plato, Afol. 23 B); (ii) in LXX always of
the service either of the true God or of heathen divinities. Hence
Augustine: Aarpea ... aut semper aut tam frequenter ul fere
semper, ea dicttur servifus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum (Trench,
Syn, p. 120 ἢ).
Aarpevey is at once somewhat wider and somewhat narrower in meaning
than λειτουργεῖν : (i) it is used only (or almost wholly) of the service of G
where λειτουργεῖν (Aetrovpyés) is used also of the service of men (Josh. i. 1
v.1.; 1 Kings i. 4, xix. 21; 2 Kings iv. 43, vi. 15, &c.); (ii) but on the other
hand it is used of the service both of priest and people, esp. of the service
rendered to Jahveh by the whole race of Israel (Acts xxvi. 7 τὸ δωδεκάφυλον
ἂν ἐκτενείᾳ Aartpevoy, cf. Rom. ix. 4); λειτουργεῖν is sppropriated to the
ministrations of priests and Levites (Heb. x. 11, &c.). here λειτουργεῖν
(Aesroupyés) 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).
ἐν τῷ πνεύματί pou. The πνεῦμα is the organ of service; the
εὐαγγέλιον (= τὸ κήρυγμα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου) the sphere in which the
service is rendered.
ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν pou: ‘af my prayers, at all my times of prayer
(cf. 1 Thess. i. 3; Eph. i. 16; Philem. 4).
10. ef{trws. On the construction see Burton, Moods and Tenses, § 276.
8y word: a difficult expression to render in English; ‘now at
length’ (AV. and RV.) omits ποτέ, just as ‘in ony maner sumtyme’
(Wic.) omits ἤδη; ‘sometime at the length’ (Rhem.) is more accu-
rate, ‘some near day at last.’ In contrast with νῦν (which denotes
present time simply) ἤδη 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
soon as it has, So here ἤδη = ‘now, after all this waiting’: ποτέ
makes the moment more indefinite. On ἤδη see Baumlein, Greech.
Partikeln, Ὁ. 138 ff.
εὐοδωθήσομαι. The word has usually dropped the idea of ὁδός
and means ‘to be prospered’ in any way (e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 2 ὅ τι
ἂν εὐοδῶται, where it is used of profits gained in trade; similarly in
LXX and Zest. XII. Pair. Jud. 1, Gad 7); and so here Mey. Gif.
ΕΝ. ἃς. 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 (‘1 have
a spedi wey’ Wic.).
22 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 16, 17.
makes τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ adverbial, guod in me est promtus sum: so toa
deAmbrstr. The objection to this is that St. Paul would have
Written πρόθυμός εἰμ. Mey. Lips. and others take τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρόθυ-
μὸν together as subject of [ἐστινἾ εὐαγγελίσασθαι, ‘hence the eager-
ness on my part (is) to preach.” In Eph. vi. δὲ; Phil. i 12; Col.
iv. 7 τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ = ‘ my affairs.’
THESIS OF THE EPISTLE: THE RIGHTEOUSNESS
OF GOD BY FAITH.
I. 16,17. That message, humble as it may seem, casts
a new light on the righteousness of God: for ἐξ tells how
His righteousness flows forth and embraces man, when ἐξ ts
met by Faith, or loyal adhesion to Christ.
4 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
perish.’
16. ἐπαισχύνομαι. St. Paul was well aware that his Gospel was
‘unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles foolishness '
(1 Cor. i. 33). 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, § 1; also Hicks
in Studia Brblica, iv. 11.
We have an instance here of a corruption coming into the Greek text
through the Latin: tracy. ἐπὶ εὐαγγέλιον G, erudbesce super evangelium g,
24 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 16, 17.
In this latter sense σωτηρία 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. 18 ff.) and in its
positive aspect as the imparting of ‘eternal life’ (Mark x. 301;
John iii. 15, 16, &c.). Both these sides are already combined in
the earliest extant Epistle (ὅτε οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς ὀργήν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς
περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διὰ τοῦ Κυρίον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ ἀποθανόντος
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν
1 Thess. v. 9, 10).
πρῶτον: 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 Epp. Paul. B hasaslight
Western element, to which this particular reading may belong. In
that case it would rest entirely upon Western authority. Marcion
appears to have omitted πρῶτον 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. 1, ix. 1 ff,
xi. τό ff., xv. 9; also Matt. xv. 24; Jo. iv. 22; 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. 1 ff., x. 1 ff.; xv. 8, &c.: see also Introduction ὃ 4).
17. δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ. For some time 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 ‘of
God’ as ‘from God,’ i.e. a state or condition 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 Pulp:t Commentary on Romans, and the other
by Dr. A. Robertson in Zhe Thinker for Nov. 1893 *; comp. also a
concise note by Dr. Τ᾿ K. Abbott ad ες. 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. (1) 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.] 2, ‘The Lord hath made
* The point is, however, beginning to attract some attention in Germany.
26 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Σ 17.
ἐκ πίστεως. 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 wv. 3, 4. It is the ‘ Yes’ of
ihe 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 suth 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 πίστις, πιστεύω 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
28 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 19.
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 ἐκ πίστεως els πίστιν. We shall have the process
described more fully when we come to chapters vi-viii.
ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. The analogy of Ps, Ixxxiii. 8 (Ixxxiv. 7)
ἐκ δυνάμεως els δύναμιν, and of 2 Cor. ii. 16 ἐκ θανάτου els θάνατον...
ἐκ ζωῆς els ζωήν, 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
(ex fide predicantium in fidem credenttum 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.
ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως. 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
St. Paul’s teaching as expressed more fully in Rom. iii. 22, 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 ὁ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δίκαιος, 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. codd. non oft. Harcl., Orig.-lat. Hieron.)
insert μου (ὁ δὲ dix. μον ἐκ πίστεως, or ὁ δὲ Sin. ἐκ πίστεως μον ζήσεται) from
the LXX. Marcion, as we should expect, seems to have omitted not only
wpwroy but the quotation from Habakkuk; this would naturally follow
from his antipathy to everything 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, Gesch. d. Neutest K » di. 515 ff.
The word δίκαιος and tts cognates.
δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη. In considering the meaning and application of these
terms it is important to place ourselves at the right point of view—at the
int of view, that is, of δι Paul himself, a Jew of the Jews, and not either
Greek or mediaeval or modern. Two main facts have to be borne in mind
in regard to the history of the words δίκαιος and δικαιοσύνη. The first is that
although there was a sense in which the Greek words covered the whole
80 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [:. 17
of the religious leaders of a nation devoting themselves with so inuch earnest-
ness and zeal to the study of a law which they believed to come, and which
in a certain sense and measure really did come, from God, and yet failing so
disastrously as their best friends allow that they did fail in grasping the
law's true spirit. No one felt more keenly than St. Paul himself the fall
pathos of the situation. His heart bleeds for them (Rom. ix. 3); he cannot
withhold his testimony to their zeal, though unhappily it is not a zeal
according to knowledge (Rom. x. 2).
Hence it was that all this mass—we must allow of honest though ill-
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 which the
pture-loving 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 I),
and then more searchingly and with ter fulness of illustration and
application, ‘There is nothing from without the man that going into him
can defile him: but the things which proceed out of the man are those that
defile the man’ (Mark vii. 15 ||); and then yet again more searchingly still,
‘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 light’
(Matt. xi. 28~-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
thing to be done was to give it a personal ground, to base it on a personal
relationship. And therefore he lays down that the righteousness of the
Christian is to be a ‘righteousness of faith. Enough will have been said in
the next note and in those on ἐκ πίστεως and δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ 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 expressed in this passage is t the
‘declaration of righteousness’ on the part of God, the Divine verdict of
acquittal, runs s# advance of the actual practice of righteousness, and comes
forth at once on the sincere embracing of Christianity.
δικαιοῦν, δικαιοῦσθαι. The verb δικαιοῦν 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 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 δικαιοῦν. 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 -ὄόω: comp. Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vi. II
“ον can δικαιοῦν possibly signify ‘to 4 righteous?” Verbs indeed of
this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use, e.g.
χυφλοῦν, “to make blind.” But when such words are derived from adjectives
of moral meaning, as ἀξιοῦν, ὁσιοῦν, δικαιοῦν, they do by usage and must
from the nature of things signify to deem, to account, to prove, or to fecal
as worthy, holy, righteous.’
ῳ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [z. 17
The last of these senses is the one most common in the Synoptic
‘Faith’ is there usually ‘belief in the miracle-working power of Christ or of
God through Christ.’ It is (a) the response of the applicant for relief—
whether for himself or another—to the offer expressed or implied of that
relief by means of miracles (Mark v. 341]; x. 52 ἡ. The effect of the
miracle is usually proportioned to the strength of this response (Matt. ix. 29
κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν γενηθήτω ὑμῖν : for degrees of faith see Matt. viii. 10,
26; Luke xvii. 5, &c.). 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’ (ἡ πίστις ἡ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ). Faith is also (8) the confidence
of the disciple that he can exercise the like miracle-working power when ex-
pressly conferred upon him (Mark xi. 22-24 ||). This kind of faith our Lord
in one place calls ‘faith in God’ (Mark xi. 32). 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
over into the Acts (Acts iii. 16; xiv.g). We find in that book also ‘ fhe faith’
(ἡ πίστις Acts vi. 7; xiii. 8; xiv. 22; xvi. 5; xxiv. 24), ie. ‘the faith distinctive
of Christians,’ belief that Jesus is the Son of God. ‘A door of faith’ (Acts
xiv. 27) means ‘an opening for the spread of this belief.’ When πίστιν is
used as an attribute of individuals (πλήρης πίστεως 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 πίστις is twice applied to prayer (Jas. i. 6; v.
15), where it means the faith that God will grant what is prayed for. Twice
it means ‘Christian faith’ (Jas. i. 3; ii. 1). In the controversial passage,
Jas. ii. 14-26, where Faith is contrasted with Works, the faith intended is
‘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.
21), and to believe in the promise of his birth (Jas. ii. 23). Faith with
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 the 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 (1 Pet. i. 5,
7-9; ii.6; 2 Pet. i. 1, §), and usually faith as the foundation of character.
When St. Peter speaks of Christians as ‘guarded through faith unto salva-
tion’ (1 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 πίστις (1 Jo. v. 4),
though he makes up by his fondness for πιστεύω. With him too faith 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’ (1 Jo. v. 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. 12; cf. also πιστός i. §; ii.
10, &c.).
The distinctive use of ‘faith’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews is for faith in
the fulfilment of God's promises, a firm belief of that which is still future and
unseen (ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων Heb. xi. 1).
This use not only runs through ch. xi, but is predominant in all the places
where the word occurs (Heb. iv. a; vi. 1; x. 223 f.; xii. 2; xiii. 7): it is not
34 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Σ. 16, 17.
a7 ff.; v. 1,3). We have seen that it is not merely assent or adhesion but
enthusiastic adhesion, personal adhesion; the highest and most effective
motive-power of which human 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 violin-player runs over the strings of his violin.
The Righteousness of God.
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
run 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 ὄντως ὄν, 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 all 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-
sition of the Epistle had been already combined in the Old
estament. Reference has been made to the triple combination of
‘righteousness, ‘salvation’ and ‘revelation’ in Ps. xcviii. [xcvii.] a:
similarly Is. lvi. 1 ‘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 (ἐλεημοσύνην) from the God of his
salvation (παρὰ Θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ) In the Second Part of Isaiah
it occurs frequently: Is. xlv, ar-25 ‘ There is no God beside Me ;
a just God and a Saviour (δίκαιος καὶ σωτήρ). 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 (ἀπὸ Kupiow
δικαιωθήσονται), and shall glory’: Is. xlvi. 13 ‘I bring near My
righteousness ; it shall not be far off, and My salvation shall not
tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel My glory’: Is.
li. δ, 6 ‘My righteousness is near, My salvation is gone forth...
486 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 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 δικαίωσις (iv. 25, v. 18). More often he uses in respect to
it the verb δικαιοῦσθαι (iii. 24, 28, v. 1, 9, viii. 30, 33). The full
phrase is δικαιοῦσθαι ἐκ πίστεως : which means that the believer, by
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 ἀσεβής (Rom. iv. 5), an offender against
God.
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 δικαιοῦσθαι 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 δικαιοῦν,
δικαιοῦσθαι 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 great 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
xv. 22 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 twa
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
38 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 16, 17.
quences which flowed from it (v. s-21). But with ch. vi another
factor 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 vii.
q-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 (vi. 15—vii. 25). (Ὁ) 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 Justification. If Justification=/ustita infusa as well
as imputaia, 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
affirmative, viz. whether we might not regard the whole working
out of the influences brought to bear upon the Christian in chaps.
I. 18-82,] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 39
vi-vili, as yet 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. ll that can be said to the contrary
is that St. Paul himself does not explicitly give it this name.
THE UNIVERSAL NEED: FAILURE OF
THE GENTILES.
I. 18-82. This revelation of Righteousness, tssuing forth
from God and embracing man, has a dark background in
that other revelation of Divine Wrath at the gross wickea-
ness of men (ver. 18).
There are three stages: (1) the knowledge of God which
all might have from the character imprinted upon Creation
(vv. 19-20); (2) the deliberate ignoring of this knowledge
and idle speculation ending in idolatry (vv. 21-23); (3) the
judicial surrender of those who provoke God by idolatry t
every kind of moral degradation (vv. 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 (ἐν ddex.). 511 is
not 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 all 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
that knowledge, they did not pay the homage due to Him as
40 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [i 18-382
God: they gave Him no thanks; but they gave the rein to futile
speculations; they lost all intelligence of truth, and their moral
sense was obscured. “™ While they boasted of their wisdom, they
were 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 !).
* 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
them.
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
I. 18.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 41
part of the Jews. The summary conclusion of the whole section
i. 18—iii. 20 is given in the two verses iii. 19, 20: 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.
Marcion retained ver. 18, omitting Θεοῦ, perhaps through some accident
on his own part or in the MS. which he copied (Zahn, μέ ssp. p. 516; the
rather important cursive 47 has the same omission). The rest of the chapter
with ii. 1 he seems to have excised. He may have been jealous of this
trenchant attack upon the Gentiles.
"᾿Αποκαλύπτεται. 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 St. Paul lays stress on these signs: he develops
the ἀποκαλύπτεται, present. In the first half of the next chapter
be brings out the final doom to which the signs are pointing.
Observe the links which connect the two sections: ἀποκαλύπτεται
i. 18 = ἀποκάλυψις il. 5; ὀργή i. 18, 11. 5,85 ἀναπολόγητος i. 20,
ii. 3.
ὀργὴ Θεοῦ. (1) 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. 1, 2 Nadab and Abihu; Num. xvi. 33, 46 ff. Korah; xxv. 3
Baal-peor), or (8) upon non-Israelites for oppression of the Chosen
People (Jer. 1. r1-17; Ezek. xxxvi. 5). (2) In the prophetic
writings this infliction of ‘wrath’ is gradually concentrated upon
a great Day of Judgement, the Day of the Lord (Is. ii. ro—22, &c.;
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 :
cf, Matt. iii. 7; 1 Thess. ii 10; Rom. ii. 5, ν. 9; Rev. vi. 16, 17.
Even 1 Thess. ii. 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, Rechifertigung u. Versoh-
nung, ii. 124 ff. ed. 2.
Similarly Euthym.-Zig. "AwowaAdareraca.t.r. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ δηλονότι κρίσεω:.
We mast remember however that St. Paul regarded the Day of Judgement as
near at hand.
ἐν ἀδικίᾳ, ‘living in unrighteousness ‘Ae while’ Moule.
κατεχόντων. κατέχειν = (i) ‘to hold fast’ LK. viii.15; 1 Cor. xi. 2,
xv. 2, &c.; (ii) ‘to hold down,’ ‘hold in check’ 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7,
where τὸ κατέχον, ὁ κατέχωνΞ-ἰῃς force of [Roman] Law and Order
by which Antichrist is restrained: similarly here but in a bad
42 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1 18-20.
sense; it is the truth which is ‘held down,’ hindered, thwarted,
checked in its free and expansive operation.
19. διότι: aways in Gk. Test. =‘ because.’ There are three uses :
(i) for δι’ ὅ τι = propler quod, guamobrem, ‘ wherefore,’ introducing
ἃ consequence; (ii) for διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι = propherea quod, OF guia,
‘because,’ giving a reason for what has gone before; (iii) from
Herod. downwards, but esp. in later Gk. = ὅτι, ‘ that.’
τὸ γνωστόν. This is a similar case to that of εὐοδωθήσομαι above :
γνωστός in Scripture generally (both LXX and N. T.) means as
arule ‘known (e.g. Actsi. 19, ii. 14, xv. 18, &c.); 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, Zhe Witness of God, p. 4) where the context favours
that sense: so Orig. Theoph. Weiss. Gif., against Chrys. 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.
ἐν αὐτοῖς, ‘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: 80 Mey. Go. Oltr. Lips., not exactly as Gif. (‘in their very
nature and constitution as men’) or Moule (‘ among them).’
Compare also Luther, Zad/e Talk, Aph. dxlix: ‘ Melanchthon discoursi
with Luther touching the prophets, who continually boast thus: ‘“‘ Thus sai
the Lord,” asked whether God in person spoke with them or no. Lather
replied: ‘* They were very 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 ἐν, as in the phrase λαλεῖν ἔν τινι (Habak. ii. 1 ἀποσκο-
wevow τοῦ ἰδεῖν τί λαλήσει ἂν ἐμοί : cf. Zech. i. 9, 13, 14,10; ii. 3; Iv. 4. 5;
v. 5,10; vi. 4; also 4 Ezr. v. 15 angelus gus loguebatur 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 λαλεῖν ἐν does not cover
the very explicit φανερύν ἔστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς : and we must remember that
St. Paul is writing as one who had himself an ‘abundance of revelations’
(2 Cor. xii. 7), and uses the language which corresponded to his own
experience.
20. ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμους 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 dx’ ἀρχῆς κόσμον
(Matt. xxiv. 21), ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμον (Matt. xxv. 34; Luke xi. 50;
Rev. xiii. 8; xvii. 8), ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως (Mark x. 6; xiii. 19; 2 Pet.
iii, 4), seem to show that the force of the prep. is rather /emporal,
‘ since the creation of the universe’ (ἀφ᾽ οὗ χρόνον ὁ ὁρατὸς ἐκτίσθη
τόσμος Euthym.-Zig.). The idea of knowledge being derived from
44 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1 20, 31.
the signification of δόξα, the divine glory or splendour. It is suggested
that this word was not used because it seemed inadequate to describe the
uniqueness of the Divine Nature (Rogge, Dte Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus
von d. religids-sittl. Charakt. d. Heidentums, Leipzig, 1888, p. 10 £.)
εἷς τὸ εἶναι : εἰς τό 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 sufficient knowledge of Himself. Burton however
(Moods and Tenses, ὃ 411) takes εἰς τό 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 καὶ οὕτως εἰσίν,
and seems therefore to require that εἰς rd εἶναι be interpreted as
expressing result.’ There is force in this reasoning, though the use
of εἰς τό for mere result is not we believe generally recognized.
4]. ἐδόξασαν. δοξάζω 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 δόξα it merely = ‘to form
an opinion about’ (δοξαζόμενος ἄδικος, ‘held to be unrighteous,’ Plato,
Rep. 588 B); then later with a gradual rise of signification ‘to do
honour to’ or ‘praise’ (ἐπ᾿ ἀρετῇ δεδοξασμένοι ἄνδρες Polyb. VI. liii.
ro). 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. iii. 1 ἐδόξασεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ᾿Αρταξέρξης *Apay);
(ii) Of that which is done by man to God (Lev. x. 3 ἐν πάσῃ τῇ
συναγωγῇ δοξασθήσομαι) ; (iii) Of the glory bestowed on man by God
(Rom. viii. 30 obs δὲ ἐδικαίωσε, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασε) ; (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. xiii. 31; xiv. 13; xvii. 1, 4, &c.).
ἐματαιώθησαν, ‘were frustrated,’ ‘rendered futile.’ In LXX ra
μάταια = ‘idols’ as ‘things of nought.’ The two words occur
together in 2 Kings xvii. 15 καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ὀπίσω τῶν ματαίων καὶ
ἐματαιώθησαν.
διαλογισμοῖς : as usually in LXX and N. T. in a bad sense of
‘ perverse, self-willed, reasonings or speculations’ (cf. Hatch, Zs.
ww Bibl. Gk. p. 8).
Comp. Enoch xcix. 8, 9 ‘And they will become godless by 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 all their works in a lie and
they worship a stone.’
καρδία : the most comprehensive term for the human faculties,
I. 31-24.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 45
the seat of feeling (Rom. ix. 2; x. 1); will (1 Cor. iv. 5; vii. 37;
cf. Rom. xvi. 18); thoughts (Rom. x. 6, 8). Physically καρδία
belongs to the σπλάγχνα (2 Cor. vi. r1, 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. ἤλλαξαν ἐν: an imitation of a Heb. construction: cf. Ps.
cvi. (cv.) 20 ; also for the expression Jer. ii. 11 (Del. ad loc.) ἄς.
δόξαν = ‘manifested perfection.’ See on iii. 23.
Comp. with this verse Philo, Vét. Mos. iii. 20 (Mang. id. 161) of τόν
ἀληθῆ θεὸν καταλιπόντες τοὺς ψευδωνύμου: ἐδημιούργησαν, φθαρταῖς καὶ γενηταῖς
οὐσίαις τὴν τοῦ ἀγενήτου καὶ ἀφθάρτου πρόσρησιν ἐπιφημίσαντες : also De Ebriet.
28 (Mang. i. 374) wap’ ὃ καὶ θεοπλαστεῖν ἀρξάμενος ἀγαλμάτων καὶ ξοάνων καὶ
μυρίων ἀφιδρυμάτων ὑλαῖς διαφόροις τετεχνιτευμένων κατέπλησε τὴν
. .. κατειργάσατο τὸ ἐναντίον οὗ προσεδόκησεν, ἀντὶ ὁσιότητος
ἀσέβειαν----τὸ γὰρ πολύθεον ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἀφρόνων ψυχαῖς ἀθεότης, καὶ θεοῦ τιμῆς
ἀλογοῦσιν ol τὰ θνητὰ θειώσαντε:---οἷς οὐκ ἐξήρκεσεν ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ..
εἰκόνα: διαπλάσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη καὶ ἀλόγοις ζώοις καὶ φυτοῖς τῆς τῶν ἀφθάρτων
ψιμῆς μετέδοσαν.
84. παρέδωκεν : 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
παρέδωκεν is Not merely permissive (Chrys. Theodrt. Euthym.-Zig.*),
through God permitting men to have their way; or privastve,
through His withdrawing His gracious aid; but judicza/, the appro-
priate punishment of their defection: it works automatically, one
evil leading to another by natural sequence.
This is a Jewish doctrine: Pirgé Aboth, iv. 2 ‘ Every fulfilment of duty is
rewarded by another, and every transgression is punished by another’; S.
bath 104° " Whosoever strives to keep himself pure receives the power to do
so, and whosoever will be impure to him is it [the door of vice] thrown
open’; Jerus. Talmud, ‘ He who erects a fence round himself is fenced, and
he who gives himself over is given over’ (from Delitzsch, Notes on Heb.
Version of Ep. to Rom.). The Jews held that the heathen because of their
rejection of the Law were wholly abandoned by God: the Holy Spirit was
withdrawn from them (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 66).
ἐν αὐτοῖς NW A BC D*, several cursives; ἐν ἑαυτοῖς DOEFGKLP,
&c., printed editions of Fathers, Orig. Chrys. Theodrt., Vulg. (sz
conlumelis adfictant corpora sua in 1951). The balance is strongly
® Similarly Adrian, an Antiochene writer (c. 440 A.D.) in his Eloayery) els
τὰς θείας γραφάς, a classified collection of figures and modes of speech em-
ployed in Holy Scripture, refers this verse to the head Τὴν ἐπὶ raw ἀνθρωπίνων
κακῶν συγχώρησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὡς πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ Adyar ἐπειδὴ κωλῦσαι dwvapevos,
φοῦτο οὗ ποιεῖ.
46 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 24-28.
in favour of αὐτοῖς. With this reading ἀτιμάζεσθαι is pass., and ἐν
αὐτοῖς = ‘among them’: with ἐν éavrois, drip, is mid. (as Vulg.).
On the forms, αὐτοῦ, αὑτοῦ and ἑαυτοῦ see Buttmann, Gr. of NV. 7. Ga. (te.
Thayer) P: 111; Hort, /ntrod., Notes on Orthography. Ὁ. 144.
In N. T. Greek there is a tendency to the disuse of strong reflexive forms.
Simple possession is most commonly expressed by αὐτοῦ, αὐτῆς, δίς. : only
where the reflexive character is emphasized (not merely sussm, but ΣΆΝΕ
tpsisss) is ἑαυτοῦ used (hence the importance of such phrases as τὸν ἑαυτοῦ
υἱὸν πέμψας Rom. viii. 3). Some critics have denied the existence in the
N. T. of the aspirated αὑτοῦ : and it is true that there is no certain proof of
aspiration (such as the occurrence before it of οὐχ 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 usage, it is retained by
WH. (e.g. in Jo. it. 24; Lk. xxiii. 12).
25. οἵτινες : ὅστις, 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 guz, or guzppe gut, with subj.
τὴν ἀλήθειαν... τῷ ψεύδει : abstr. for concrete, for τὸν ἀληθινὸν
Θεόν... τοῖς ψεύδεσι θεοῖς, cf. 1 Thess. i. 9.
ἐσεβάσθησαν. This use of σεβάζεσθαι is an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον ; the
common form is σέβεσθαι (see Va.).
παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα = not merely ‘ more than the Creator’ (a force
which the preposition might bear), but ‘passing ὧν the Creator
altogether,’ ‘to the neglect of the Creator.’
Cf. Philo, De Mund. Opif. 2 (Mangey, i. 2) τινὲς γὰρ τὸν κόσμον μᾶλλον ἣ
φὸν κοσμοποιὸν θαυμάσαντες (Loesner).
ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητός. 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. ἀπολαμβάνοντες : ἀπολ. ΞΞ (i) ‘to receive back’ (as in Luke vi.
34); (ii) ‘to receive one’s due’ (as in Luke xxiii. 41); and so here.
28. ἐδοκίμασαν : δοκιμάζω = (i) ‘to test’ (1 Cor. iii, 13, &c.);
(ii) ‘to approve after testing’ (so here; and ii. 18; xiv. 22, &c.);
similarly ἀδόκιμον = ‘rejected after testing,’ ‘ reprobate.’
ἐν ἐπιγνώσει : ἐπίγνωσις = ‘ after knowledge’: hence (i) recogni-
tion (vb. = ‘to recognize,’ Matt. vii. 16; xvii. 12, &c.); (ii) ‘ad-
vanced’ or ‘further knowledge,’ ‘full knowledge.’ See esp. Sp.
Comm. on 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Lft. on Phil. i. 9.
νοῦν = the reasoning faculty, esp. as concerned with moral
action, the intellectual part of conscience: vovs and συνείδησις are
combined in Tit. i. 15: vous may be either bad or good; for the
good sense see Rom. xii. 3; Eph. iv. 23.
48 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 80-82.
which follow remind us of the bullies and braggarts of the Eliza-
bethan stage. For the distinction between them see Trench, Syn.
Ρ. 95 ἢ.
It is well preserved in the Cyprianic Latin, tnisertost, sueperbi, dactantes sui.
For the last phrase Lucif. has glortantes ; either would be better than the
common rendering é/afos (Cod. Clarom. Cod. Boern. Ambrstr. Aug. Vulg.).
ὑπερήφανος. Mayor (on Jas. iv. 6) derives this word from the adjectival
form twepos (rather than ὑπέρ Trench) and φαίνω, comparing ἐλαφηβόλος from
ἔλαφος and βάλλω: he explains it as meaning ‘ conspicuous beyond others,’
‘outshining them,’ and so ‘ proud,’ ‘haughty’: see his note, and the exx.
there quoted from Ecclus. and Pss. Sol.
81. ἀσυνέτονς : ἀσυνειδήτους (‘ without conscience ") Euthym.-Zig. How
closely the two words σύνεσις and συνείδησις are related will appear from
Polyb. XVIIL xxvi. 13 οὐδεὶς οὕτως οὔτε μάρτυς ἐστὶ φοβερὸς οὔτε κατήγορος
δεινὸς ὡς ἡ σύνεσις ἡ ἐγκατοικοῦσα ταῖς ἑκάστων ψυχαῖς, [Βαϊ is not this
a gloss. on the text of Polyb.? It is found in the margin of Cod. Urbin.]
re eres ‘false to their engagements’ (συνθῆκαι) ; cf. Jer. iii. 7,
ἀσπόνδους after aorédpyous (Trench, Sys. p. 96 ff.) is added
from 2 Tim, iii. 3 [CK L ΡΊ.
82. οἵτινες : see on ver. 25 above.
τὸ Sinaiwpa: prob. in the first instance (i) a declaration that
a thing is δίκαιον [rs δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου = ‘that which the Law lays
down as right,’ Rom. viii. 4]; hence, ‘an ordinance’ (Luke i. 6 ;
Rom. ii. 26; Heb. ix. 1, 10); or (ii) ‘a declaration that a person
is δίκαιος, ‘a verdict of not guilty,’ ‘an acquittal’: so esp. in
St. Paul (e.g. Rom. v. 16). But see also note on p. 31.
ἐπιγνόνται : ἐπιγινώσκοντες (B) 80, WH. marg.
ποιοῦσιν... συνευδοκοῦσι. There has been some disturbance of
the text here: B, and apparently Clem. Rom., have ποιοῦντες...
συνευδοκοῦντες ; and so too DE Vulg. (am. fuld.) Orig.-lat. Lucif.
and other Latin Fathers, but inserting, nom stntellexerunt (οὐκ
ἐνόησαν D). WH. obelize the common 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
Apollinaris below). If the participles are wrong they have probably
been assimilated mechanically to πράσσοντες. Note that ποιεῖν =
facere, to produce a certain result ; πράσσειν = agere, to act as
moral agent: there may be also some idea of repeated action.
συνευδοκοῦσι denotes ‘hearty approval’ (Rendall on Acts xxii.
a0, in Expos. 1888, ii, 209); cf. 1 Macc. i. 57 συνευδοκεῖ τῷ νόμῳ :
the word occurs four times besides in N. Τ᾿ (Luke, Epp. Paul.),
ἀμφότεροι δὲ πονηροί, καὶ ὃ xardpfas, καὶ ὃ συνδραμών. vou δὲ ποιεῖν
φὸ συνευδοκεῖν χεῖρον τίθησι κατὰ τὸ λεγόμενον, εἰ ἐθεώρεις κλέστῃν,
I. 18-382. ] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 49
συνέτρεχες αὑτῷ. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ποιῶν, μεθύων τῷ πάθει, ἡττᾶται τῆς πρήξεωτ"
ὃ δὲ συνευδοκῶν, ἐκτὸς: ὧν τοῦ πάθους, πονηρίᾳ χρώμενος, συντρέχει τῷ κακῷ
(Apollinaris in Cramer’s (σίδρα).
St. 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, Al/syn. 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
(sb:d. 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 (rd:d. 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’ (1 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
E
50 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Σ. 18-82.
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 from 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 prior: reasoning or prejudice makes
him untrue to facts. The Pagan world was not wholly bad. It
had its scattered and broken lights, which the Apostle 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, Ds
Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus von d. religtés-sitilichen Charakter d
Hetdentums, Leipzig, 1888.
I. 106-82. FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 51
If the statements of St. Paul cannot be taken at once as supplying the place
of scientific inquiry from the side of the Comparative History of Religion, so
neither can they be held to furnish data which can be utilized just as they
stand by the bistorian. 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 standard of that which
ought to be attained. A calm and dispassionate weighing of the facts, with
due allowance for the nature of the authorities, will be found in Friedlander,
Ssttengeschichte Roms, Leipzig, 1869-1871.
Use of the Book of Wisdom in Chapter I.
1. 18-32. In two places in Epist. to Romans, ch. i and ch. ix, there are
clear indications of the use by 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 the earlier work by which it is illustrated.
Romans.
i. 20. τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὑτοῦ ἀπὸ κτί-
oes κόσμον ros ποιήμασι νοούμενα
φαθορᾶται,
ᾷ ve ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότητ'
εἷς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτουν
ax. é αν ἂν τοῖς διαλογισ-
pos αὐτῶν. καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετοι:
αὐτῶν καρδία.
22. φασκοντες divas σοφοὶ ἐμωράν-
θησαν"
23. wal ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφ-
ϑάρτου Θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκύνος {θαρ-
vou ἀνθρώπον καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετρα-
wétew καὶ ἐρτετῶν.
Φ The more recent editors as ἃ rule
read ἰδιότητος with the uncials and
Gen. i. 36f.; bat it is byno means clear
that they are right: Cod. 248 em-
bodies very ancient elements and the
context generally favours di&é6777T0s.
It still would not be certain that St.
Wisdom.
xii, 1. καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀγαθῶν
οὐκ ἴσχυσαν εἰδέναι τὸν ὄντα οὔτε τοῖς
ἔργοις προσέχοντες ἐπέγνωσαν τὸν
τεχνίτην.
xiii. 5. ἐκ γὰρ μεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς
κτισμάτων ἀναλόγως ὁ γενεσιουργὸς
αὐτῶν θεωρεῖται.
ii, 23. [ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισε... τὸν ἄνθρω.-
πον... εἰκόνα τῆς ἰδίας ἀϊδιύτητος Ὁ
(Cod. 248 a/., Method. Athan. Epiph. ;
ἰδιότητος NAB, Clem.-Alex. &c.)
ἐποίησεν.
xviii. 9. τὸν THs θειότητος νόμον.
xiii. 8. πάλιν δὲ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοὶ σννγνω-
στοί.
xiii. 1. μάταιοι γὰρ πάντες ἄνθρωποι
φύσει, οἷς παρὴν θεοῦ ἀγνωσία t.
xii. 24. καὶ γὰρ τῶν πλάνης ὁδῶν
μακρύτερον ἐπλανήθησαν θεοὺς ὑπολαμ-
βάνοντες τὰ καὶ ἐν (yas τῶν ἐχθρῶν
ἄτιμα, νηπίων δίκην ἀφρόνων ψευσθέν-
τες.
xii. 1. τὸ ἄφθαρτόν σον πι εῦμα.
xiv. 8. τὸ δὲ φθαρτὸν Θεὺς ὠνομά-
σθη.
xiii. 10. ταλαίπωροι δὲ καὶ ἐν νεκροῖς
αἱ ἐλπίδες αὐτῶν, οἴτινες ἐκάλεσαν
θεοὺς ἔργα χειρῶν ἀνθρώπων.
Paul had this passage in his mind.
+ The parallel here is not quite
exact. St. Paul says, ‘ They did know
but relinquished their knowledge,’
Wisd. ‘They ought to have known
bat did not.’
τοῦ Θεοῦ ty τῷ ψεύδει, καὶ ἐσεβάσθη-
ετίσαντψα,
52 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 18-83.
xiii. 13, 14. dwelxacey αὐτὸ εἰκόνι
ἀνθρώπου, ἣ (wy τινὶ εὐτελεῖ ὡμοίωσεν
αὐτύ.
xiii. 17 8644. οὐκ αἰσχύνεται τῷ
ἀψύχῳ προσλαλῶν' καὶ περὶ μὲν ὑγιείας
τὸ ἀσθενὲς ἐπικαλεῖται, περὶ δὲ ζωῆς τὸ
νεκρὺν ἀξιοῖ κι. σ.λ.
xiv. 11. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἂν εἰδώλοις
ἐθνῶν ἐπισκοπὴ ἔσται, ὅτι ἐν κτίσματι
Θεοῦ εἰς βδέλυγμα ἔγενήθησαν.
xiv. 21. τὸ ἀκοινώνητον ὄνομα λίθοις
καὶ ξύλοις περιέθεσαν.
xiv. 12. ἀρχὴ γὰρ πορνείας ¢ ἐπίνοια
εἰδώλων, εὑρέσεις δὲ αὐτῶν φθορὰ ζωῆς.
xiv. 16, εἶτα ἐν χρόνῳ κρατυνθὲν τὸ
ἀσεβὲς ἔθος ὡς νόμος ἐφυλάχθη.
xiv. 22. εἶτ᾽ οὐκ ἤρκεσε τὸ πλανᾶ-
σθαι περὶ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἐν μεγάλῳ (ζῶντες ἀγνοίας πολέμῳ τὰ
τοσαῦτα κακὰ εἰρήνην προσαγορεύουσιν,
23. ἣ γὰρ rexvopévous τελετὰς ἢ κρύφια
μυστήρια ἣ ἐμμανεῖς ἑξάλλων θεσμῶν
κώμους ἄγοντες, 24. οὔτε βίους οὔτε
γάμους καθαροὺς ἔτι φυλάσσουσιν, ἕτε-
pos δ' ἕτερον ἣ λοχῶν ἀναιρεῖ ἣ νοθεύαν
ὀδυνᾷ.
45. οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν
σαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν
34. διὸ παρέδωκεν x. 7. A.
86. διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν κ. 7. A.
πεπληρωμένου:ς πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ, πο-
γηρίᾳ, πλεονεξίᾳ, κακίᾳ, μεστοὺς φθόνον,
φόνου, ἔριδος, δόλον, κακοηθείας, ψιθν-
ριστάς, καταλάλους, θεοστυγεῖς, ὑβρι-
στάς͵ ὑπερηφάνους, ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς
κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀσυνέτους,
ἀσυνθέτου:, ἀστόργους, ἀνελεήμονας.
ς
25. πάντα δὲ ἐπιμὶξ ἔχει αἷμα καὶ
φόνος πλοπὴ καὶ δόλος, φθορά, ἀπιστία,
τάραχος, ἐπιορκία, θόρυβος ἀγαθῶν,
26. χάριτος ἀμνησία, ψυχῶν μιασμός,
γενέσεω: (sex) ἐναλλαγή, γάμων ἀταξία,
μοιχεία καὶ ἀσέλγεια.
37. ὴ γὰρ τῶν ἀνωνύμων εἰδώλων
θρησκεία παντὸς ἀρχὴ κακοῦ καὶ αἰτίο
καὶ πέρας ἐστίν.
It will be seen that while on the one hand there can be no question of
direct quotation, 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
extent of expression 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
study.
(Compare the note on ix. 19-29 below, also an essay by E. Grafe in
Theol. Abhandlungen C. von Weissacher gewidmet, Freiburg, i. B. 1892,
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. Paul’s 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. i 18-32, ix. 19-33
are the most conspicuous examples. ]
¢ A.V. expands this as ‘ [spiritual]
fornication’; and so most moderns.
but even so the phrase might have
had something to do in suggesting the
thought of St. Paul
IZ 1-16.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 53
TRANSITION FROM GENTILE TO JEW. BOTH
ALIKE GUILTY.
II. 1-16. This state of things puts out of court the [ Fewish]
critic who ts himself no better than the Gentile. He can
claim no exemption, but only aggravates his sin by tm-
penstence (vv.1-5). Strict justice will be meted out to all—
the Few coming first then the Gentile (vv. 6-11). The Few,
well be judged by the Law of Moses, the Gentile by the Law
of Conscience, at the Great Assize which Christ will hold
(vv. 12-16).
7 The Gentile sinner is without excuse; and his critic—who-
ever he may be—is equally without excuse, even though [like
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, end 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 either 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 (ov emphatic) will
escape? ‘Or are you presuming upon all that dbundant goodness,
forbearance, and patience with which God delays His punishment
ofsin? 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
he has done. * To those who by steady persistence in a life-work
of good strive for the deathless glories of the Messianic Kingdom,
54 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1.1
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. Qn 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 vv. 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 done
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
thetorical 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.’
56 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [11. 4-6.
wult pro exigers; et multae miscricordiae, guoniam multiplicat magis misers-
cordias his qui pracsentes sunt et qui practerierunt et qui futuri sunt: st
enim non mulliplicaverit, non vivificabitur sacculum cum his gut inhabitant
in co; εἰ donator, quoniam si non donaverit de bonilale sua ut alleveniur hi
qui iniquitatem fecerunt dé suis intquitatibus, non potertt dectes millesima
pars vivificart hominum.
καταφρονεῖς : cf. Apoc. Baruch. xxi. 20 /nnotescat potentia tua silts ged
putant longanimitatem tuam esse infirmitatem.
εἰς μετάνοιαν σε ἄγει : its Lurpose or tendency is to induce you
to repent.
‘The Conative 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. 23, which
means: Until He opens His treasure-chamber and shuts it again, man
returns to God and He accepts him’ (7ract. Thaansth ii. 1 af. Winter a
Wiinsche, /ud. Litt. i. 207).
δ. κατά : ‘in accordance with,’ secundum duritiam tuam Vulg.
ὀργήν : see on i. 18 above.
ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς : 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. 12 ff.; xiii. 6 ff.; xxiv.
ai; Jer.xlvi. 10; Joelii. 1 ff.; Zeph.i. 7 ff.; Ezek. vii. 7 ff.; xxx. 3 ff.; Zech.
xiv. 1; Mal. iii. 2; iv. 1. It also enters largely into the pseudepigraphic
literature: Zmoch xiv. 2 ff. (and the passages collected in Charles’ Note};
Ps. Sol. xv. 13 ff.; 4 Ezr. vi. 18 ff., 77 ff. [vii. 102 ff. ed. Bensly]; xii. 34;
Apoc. Baruch. li. 13 lv. 6, &e.
δικαιοκρισίας : not quite the same as δικαίας κρίσεως 2 Thess. i. 5
(cf. juste judictt’ Vulg.), denoting not so much the character of the
judgement as the character of the Judge (δικαιοκριτής 2 Macc. xii.
41 ; cf. ὁ δίκαιος xperns 2 Tim. iv, 8).
The word occurs in the Qusnta (the fifth version included in Origen’s
Hexapla) of Hos. vi. § ; it is also found twice in Zest. Χ 77 Patriarch. Levi 3
ὁ δεύτερος ἔχει πῦρ, χιόνα, κρύσταλλον ἕτοιμα els ἡμέραν προστάγματος Kupiov
ἐν τῇ δικαιοκρισίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. bid. 15 λήψεσθε ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον
παρὰ τῆς δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ Θεοῦ.
6. ὃς ἀποδώσει: Prov. xxiv. 12 (LXX). The principle here laid
down, though in full accord with the teaching of the N. T.
II. 6-9.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 57
generally (Matt. xvi. 27; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 7; Eph. vi. 8;
Col. iii. 24, 25; Rev. ii. 23; xx. 12; xxii. 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 state: it
belongs properly to the beginning, not to the end, of the Christian’s
career (see on δικαιωθήσονται 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
done.
7. καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ : collective use of ἔργον, as in
ver. 15, ‘a lifework,’ the sum of a man’s actions.
8. τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας : ‘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 ép:6os ‘a hired labourer’
we get ἐριθεύω ‘to act as a hireling,’ ἐριθεύομαε a political term
for ‘hiring paid canvassers and promoting party spirit:’ hence
ἐριθεία = 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 Ell. on Gal. v. 20, but esp. Fri.
ad loc.
The ancients were strangely at sea about this word. Elesychius (cent. 5)
derived ἔριθος from épa ‘earth’; the Etymologicum Magnum (a compilation
perhaps of the eleventh century) goes a step further, and derives it from épa
θής agricola mercede conductus; Greg. Nyssen. connects it with ἔριον ‘ wool’
(ἔριθος was used specially of woolworkers); but most common of all is the
connexion with ἔρις (so Theodrt. on Phil. ii. 3; ef. Vulg. Ass gsed ex con-
bentione [ per contentionem Phil. ii. 3; rixae Gal. v. 20]). There can be
little doubt that the use of ἐριθεία was affected by association with ἔρις,
thongh there is no real connexion between the two words (see notes on
ἐπωρώθησαν xi. 7, κατανύξεως xi. 8).
ὀργὴ ... θυμός : see Lft. and Ell. on Gal. v. 20; Trench, Syn.
Ῥ. 125: ὀργή is the settled feeling, θυμός the outward manifestation,
‘outbursts’ or ‘ ebullitions of wrath.’
ὀργὴ δέ ἔστιν ὃ ἑπόμενος τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ πόνοι. θυμὸν δὲ
ὁρίζονται ὀργὴν ἀναθυμιωμένην καὶ διοιδαίνουσαν Orig. (in Cramer’s Catena).
9. θλίψις καὶ στενοχωρία : ἡγεῤμέαϊο ( pressura in the African form
of the Old Latin) ¢/ angustia Vulg., whence our word ‘ anguish’:
στενοχωρία 8 the stronger word=‘ torturing confinement ’ (cf. 2 Cor.
iv. 8). But the etymological sense is probably lost in usage:
calamilas εἰ angushiae h.e. summa calamilas Fri. p. 106.
58 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS {π. 9-12.
similar \binations (‘day of tribulation and ” ‘of tribulation
ant geste δ tof odblaton! “of anguish and affliction,’ δ.)
See cea
κατεργαζομένου = carey to she le ae Διο
ΓΕ ellen ere ener εν τη ταν nip acre sy
La eo eet ert Cae 107.
11. προσωποληψία : peculi to Biblical and Ecclesiastical Greek
(Eph. vi. 9; Col. Ὁ Jas. ti τ ch προσωπολήπτην Acts x. 345
προσωποληπτεῖν Jas, ii. 9; ἀπροσωπολήπτως τ Pet, i. 11) : πρόσωπον
Xeno = ( tive ἃ gracious reception to a supplant or suitor
(Lev. xix. 15); and hence (ii) to show partiality, give corrupt judge-
ba In ΟὟ. always with a bad sense,
rep πῆς Foret pM
wt ad ῥῶρον, which is adopted in Ps. So
τρόσωπον, and
peg τέλμα the person (0
will execute adgement on seh eg
12, 13. νόμος and ὁ νόμος. Se inicio ae
not escape the scholarship of Origen, whose comment on Rom. iii. at reads
thus in Rufinus’ translation (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 201): Moris est apud
ra erin Nlpe Sees Se ee es See
vero naturale
ἀἰδησαοα bor however, th
cases. There are τ ταν ἄγοι
(2) νόμος -- law in general (e.g. ii. 12, 14; fii, 20f,; iv.15; ν, 13, &c.).
there is yet a third usage where νόμον without art. really means the
Moses, but the absence of the art. calls attention to it not as proceeding
Moses, but in its quality as /aw; ΙΝ Mosis sed quia lex as ieee
it in his comment on Gal. ii. 19 (p. 46). St. Paul {Ggards the Pre Messianic
period as essentially a period ES .w, both for Jew and for Gentile. Hence
when he wishes to bring out this he uses νόμος without art, even where he is
referring to the Jews; because his main point is that they were under
a legal system '—who gave it and what name it bore was a
ideration, The Law of the Jews was οἷα typical exam;
"things that was universal. ‘This will explain passages like Rom. v, 20, x. 4.
few places, which do not come under any of these
accounted for by the influence of the
12. ἀνόμως. The heathen are represented as deliberately rejecting
(δὲς
60 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IX. 14, 15.
heard (ἐδέα.). If he commits sin and repents, that too does not help him
(Pestkta 156"). Even for his alms he gets no credit (Pestkta 12°). ‘In
their books’ (i.e. in those in which God sets down the actions of the
heathen) ‘there is no desert’ (Shir Rabba 86°). See Weber, Altsyn. Theol.
p- 66f. Christian theologians have expressed themselves much to the same
effect. Their opinions are summed up concisely by Mark Pattison, Assays,
ii, 61. ‘In accordance with this view they interpreted the in
St. Paul which speak of the religion of the heathen; e.g. Rom. ti. 14.
Since the time of Augustine ‘De Spir. εἰ Lit. § 27) the orthodox interpreta-
tion had applied this verse, either to the Gentile converts, er to the favoured
few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine assistance. The
Protestant expositors, to whom the words “do by uature the things containea
in the law” could never bear their literal force, sedulously preserved the
Augustinian explanation. Even the Pelagian Jeremy Taylor is obliged to
gloss 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 intm the hearts of men” (Dect. Dudst. Book II. ch. 1, § 3). The
rationalists, however, find the expression “by nature,” in its literal sense,
exactly conformable to their own views (John Wilkins [1614-1673], Of Nat.
Fel. 11. 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
sccming to see that they are incompatible relics of divergent schools of
octrine.
18, οἵτινες : see on i. 28.
ἐνδείκνυνται: ἔνδειξις implies an appeal to facts; demonsirateo
rebus gests facia (P. Ewald, De Vocis Σννειδήσεως͵ &c., p. 16 n.).
τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου : ‘the work, course of conduct belonging to’
(ie. in this context ‘required by’ or ‘in accordance with ’) ‘the
aw’: collective use of ἔργον as in ver. 7 above.
[Probably not as Ewald of. cit. p. 17 after Grotius, opss legis est id, quod
lex in Judacis effictt, nempe cognstso licets et ἐδ εχ.
συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως. This phrase is almost
exactly repeated in ch. ix. 1 συμμαρτ. μοι τῆς συνειδ, pou. 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 them by the conscience is another concurrent witness.
συνειδήσεως. Some such distinction as this is suggested by the original
meaning and use of the word συνείδησις, which = ‘ co-knowledge,’ the know-
ledge or reflective judgement which a man has dy the stue of or ἔνε 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 (342-391 B.C.), Monost. 597
(cf. 654) dwaow ἡμῖν ἡ συνείδησις θεός (ed. Didot, pp. 101,103). It is sig-
nilicant 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, τὸ συνειδός and ἡ συνείδησιΣ appear
to be practically convertible. Epictetus (vagm. 17) compares the con.
science to a παιδαγωγός in a passage which is closely ; arallel to the comment
of Origen on this verse of Ep. Rom. (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 107) spirifess . ..
II. 15.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 61
welut pacdagogus εἰ (sc. animae) guidam sociatus et rector ut eam de melioribus
moneat vel de culpis castiget et arguat.
In Biblical Greek the word occurs first with its full sense in Wisd. xvii. 10.
Pu ἀεὶ δὲ προσείληφε τὰ χαλεπὰ [πονηρία] συνεχομένη τῇ συνειδήσει. In
Ο τὸ συνειδός is the form used. In Ν. T. the word is mainly Pauline
in the speeches of Acts xxiii. 1, xxiv. 16; Rom. 1 and 2 Cor,,
Past Epp., also in Heb.) ; elsewhere only in 1 Pet. and the . adult.
obn viii. 9. It is one of the few technical terms in St. Paul which seem to
τες Greek rather than Jewish affinities.
The ‘Conscience’ of St. Paul is a natural faculty which belongs to all
men alike (a Cox ii. 1g), and pronounces upon the character of actions, both
their own (2 Cor. i. 13) and those of others (2 Cor. iv. 2, v.11). It can be
over-scrupulous (1 Cor. x. 25), but is blunted or ‘seared ’ by neglect of its
warnings (1 Tim. iv. 2).
The usage of St. Paul corresponds accurately to that of his Stoic con-
tem ies, but is somewhat more restricted than that which obtains in
modern times. Conscience, with the ancients, was the faculty which passed
judgment upon actions after they were done (in technical language the con-
scientia consequens moralis), not so much the general source of moral
obligation. In the passage before us St. Paul speaks of such a source
(ἐαντοῖς elon νόμοι): 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 Vocis Συνειδήσεως apud script. N. T. vt a
potestate (Lipsiae, 1833).
μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων. 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 (cf. Shakspeare’s ‘ When to the sessions of sweet silent
thought, I summon up remembrance of things past’); in this case
μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων 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 μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων will = ‘between one
another, ‘between man and man,’ ‘in the intercourse of man
with man’; and λογισμῶν 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 μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων, 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 is a curious parallel to this description in Assump. Moys. i. 13
Creavit enim orbem terrarum propter plebem suam, et nom coepit eam
inceptionem creaturae ... palam facere, ut in ea gentes arguantur et humils-
ber inter se disputationibus arguant 56.
τῶν λογισμῶν : the λογισμοί 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
καρδίᾳ (πολλοὶ λογισμοὶ ἐν καρδίᾳ ἀνδρός Prov. xix. 21; cf. Ps, xxxii. 11 ;
Prov. vi. 18): it is used of secret ‘plots’ (Jer. xviii. 18 δεῦτε
62 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS FIT. 15-16
λογισώμεθα ἐπὶ Ἵερεμίαν λογισμόν, ‘devise devices’), and of the Divine
intentions (Jer. xxix [xxxvi] 11 λογιοῦμαι ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς λογισμὸν εἰρήνης).
an the present passage St. Paul 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 thoughts ” both belong to the same persons.
This is rightly seen by Klépper, who has written at length on the passage
before us (Paslisssche Siudten, Konigsberg, 1887, p. 10); but it does not
follow that both the conscience and the thoughts are exercised upon the same
objects, or that μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων must be referred to the thoughts in the
sense that influences from without are excluded. The parallel quoted in
support of this (Matt. xviii. 15 μεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ μόνου) derives that part
of its meaning from μόνον, not from μεταξύ.
4 καί: ‘or even,’ ‘or it may be,’ implying that ἀπολ. is the ex-
ception, κατηγ. 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 δικαιωθήσονται in ver. 13, or rather forms a conclu-
sion to the whole paragraph, taking up again the ἐν ἡμέρᾳ of ver. 5.
The object of wv. 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.
Orig., with his usual acuteness, sees the difficulty of connecting ver. 16 with
ver, 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, velut in certs, tta 1m corde nostro
These marks God can see (ed. Lomm. p. 109).
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε (ef WH. marg.): ἐν αὶ ἡμέρᾳ B, WH. text: ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἢ A.
Pesh. Boh. a/., WH. marg.
διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (e¢ WH. marg.\: διὰ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ NB, Orig., Tisch
WH. text.
κρινεῖ : might be κρίνει, as RV. marg., fut. regarded as certain.
κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν pou. 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 shrough
Jesus Christ as His Deputy (which was at least new in its applica-
tion, though the Jews expected the Messiah to act as Judge, Znoch
xlv, xlvi, with Charles’ notes).
The phrase κατὰ τὸ εὐαΎΥ. μον occurs Rom. xvi. 25, of the specially
Pauline doctrine of ‘free grace’; 2 Tim. ii. 8, (i) of the resurrection of
Christ from the dead, (ii) of His descent from the seed of David.
We note in passing the not very intelligent tradition (introduced by φασὶ
δέ, Eus. H. Φ. III. iv. 8), that wherever St. Paul spoke of ‘his Gospel” he
meant the Gospel of St. Luke.
64 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [xX. 17.
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; neither
is an outward and bodily circumcision the true circumcision.
* 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. Εἰ δέ NAB Ὁ" al., Latt. Pesh. Boh. Arm. Aeth., &c.: “Ide
De L al., Harcl., Chrys. αὐ. The authorities for εἰ δέ include all the
oldest MSS., all the leading versions, and the oldest Fathers: ἴδε is
an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the construction
slightly easier. Reading εἰ δέ the apodosis of the sentence begins
at ver. 21.
᾿Ιουδαῖος : here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew
it would have a tendency to do) to Ἰσραηλίτης, a member of the
Chosen People, opposed to the heathen.
Strictly speaking, ‘Efpatos, opp. Ἑλληνισγής, calls attention to language ;
Ἰουδαῖος, opp. Ἕλλην, calls attention to nationality ; ᾿Ισραηλέτης = a member
of the theocracy, in possession of full theocratic privileges (Trench, Syn.
§ xxxix, Ὁ. 132 ff.). The word Ἰουδαῖος does not occur in LXX (though
Ἰουδαϊσμὲς is found four times in 2 Macc.), but at this date it is the common
word ; ‘E8paios and Ἰσραηλίτης are terms 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 Ezra vi. 55f. haec autem
omnia aixt coram te, Domine, quoniam dixisti eas (sc. gentes) nil esse, a
tam salivae assimilatas sunt, et quasi stillicidtum de vase similasti
undantiam corum.
ἐπονομάζῃ : ‘ bearest the name’: ἐπονομάζειν =‘ to impose a name,
pass. ‘to have a name imposed.’
ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ : ‘have a law to lean upon’: so (without art.)
NABD*; but it is not surprising that the later MSS. should
make the statement more definite, ‘lean upon fhe Law.’ For ἐπαν.
(requiescts Vulg.) cf. Mic. iii. 11; Ezek. 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.
καυχᾶσαι ἐν Θεῷ : suggested by Jer. ix. 24 ‘let him that glorieth
glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am
the Lord.’
κανχᾶσαι : for καυχᾷ, stopping at the first step in the process of con-
traction (καυχάεσαι, καυχᾶσαι, καυχᾷ). This is one of the forms which used
66 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 20-28.
expression of Divine truth, so far as it went. It is more difficult to
account for 2 Tim. iii. § ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν
αὑτῆς ἡρνημένοι.
See however Lft. in /Josernm. of Class. and Sacr. Philol, (1857) ἰδ, 115
‘They will observe that in two passages where St. Paul does speak of that
which is unreal or at least external, and does not employ σχῆμα, he still
avoids using μορφή as inappropriate, and adopts μόρφωσις instead (Rom. ii.
20; 2 Tim. iii. 5), where the termination -was denotes ‘‘the aiming after or
affecting the μορφή." Can this quite be made good ?
21. οὖν: resumptive, introducing the apodosis to the long pro-
tasis in vv. 17-20. 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.
κλέπτειν : infin. because κηρύσσων contains the idea of command.
22. βδελυσσόμενος : used of the expression of physical disgust,
esp. of the Jew's horror at idolatry.
Note the piling up of phrases in Deut. vii. 26 wat οὐκ εἰσοίσεις βδέλνγμα
{here of the gold and silver plates with which idols were overlaid] εἰς
τὸν οἶκόν cov, καὶ ἔσῃ ἀνάθημα ὥσπερ τοῦτο. προσοχθίσματι προσοχθιεῖς καὶ
βδελύγματι βδελύξῃ, τι ἀνάθημά ἐστιν. Comp. also Dan. xii.11; Matt. xxiv.
15, ἄς. One of the ignominies of captivity was to be compelled to
the idols of the heathen: Assump. Moys. viii. 4 cogentur palam batulare ἐ
corum inquinata.
tepoouets. The passage just quoted (Deut. vii. 26 with 25),
Joseph. Ané. IV. viii. 10, and Acts xix, 37 (where the town-clerk
asserts that St. Paul and his companions were ‘ nof ἱερόσυλοι 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 guarded against
this: everything which had to do with an idol was a βδέλνγμα 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 loc.; also on ἱεροσυλία, which mast
not be interpreted too narrowly, Lft., Zss. om Supers. Rel. Ὁ. 299 £;
Ramsay, 7he Church in the Roman Empire, p. 1442., where it is noted
that ἱεροσυλία was just one of the crimes which a provincial governor could
proceed against by his own rmpersum.
The Eng. Versions of ἱεροσυλεῖς group themselves thus: ‘robbest God of
his honour’ Tyn. Cran. Genev.; ‘doest sacrilege’ (or equivalent) Wic.
Rhem. AV. RV. marg.; ‘dost rob temples’ RV.
23. It is probably best not to treat this verse as a question.
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
indic. (ὁ διδάσκων... ὃς καυχᾶσαι).
68 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΙ. 27-29.
compare Phil. iii. 3, where St. Paul claims that Christians represent
the true circumcision.
28. ὃ ἕν τῷ φανερῷ. The Greek of this and the next verse is
and there is seme ambiguity as to how much belongs to the subject how
much to the predicate. Even accomplished scholars like Dr. Gifford and
Dr. Vanghan differ. The latter has some advantage in symmetry, making
the missing words in both clauses belong to the subject (‘Not be who is
a Jew] outwardly isa Jew... but he who is [a Jew} in secret is a Jew );
{it is a drawback to this view of the constraction that it
and καρδίας : Gif, as it seems to τα rightly, combines these (‘he which i
inwardly a Jew [is traly a Jew}, and circamcision of heart ... [is true
circumcision ᾽)). Similarly Lips. Weiss (but not Mey.).
29. περιτομὴ καρδίας. The idea of a spiritual (heart-) circum-
cision goes back to the age of Deuteronomy; Deut. x. 16 περιτε-
μεῖσθε τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν : Jer. iv. 4 περιτμήθητε τῷ Θεῷ ὑμῶν, καὶ
περιτέμεσθε τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν: cf. Jer. ix. 26; Ezek. xliv. 7;
Acts vii. §1. Justin works out elaborately the idea of the Christian
circumcision, Dial. c. Tryph 114.
ὃ ἔπαινος. We believe that Dr. Gifford was the first to point
out that there is here an evident play on the name ‘ Jew’: Judah
wm‘ Praise’ (cf. Gen. xxix. 35; xlix. 8).
CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
III. 1-8. This argument may suggest three objections:
(i) Lf the moral Gentile ts better off than the immoral Few,
what becomes of the Few’s advantages ?—ANSWER. He still
has many. Hts e.g.) ave the promises (vv. 1-2). (ii) But
has not the Fews 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 fatthful-
ness (vv. 3,4). (iii) 27 that ἐς the result of his action, why
should man be judged ?’—ANSWER. He certainly will be
judged: we may not say (as 7 am falsely accused of saying),
Do evil that good may come (vv. 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
IIL 1-8.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 6g
the prophecies of the Messiah. [Here the subject breaks off;
a fuller enumeration is given in ch. ix. 4, 5.]
*'You say, 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 sayings
[the promises just mentioned], and gain His case when it is brought
to tnal.
*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.) “3 That too were blasphemy to think! If
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.
"If, 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 (καῦῦ brought up for judgement as a sinner?
*So the objector. And I know that this charge of saying
‘Let us 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.
All I will say is that the judgement which these sophistical
reasoners will receive is richly deserved.
1ff 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. 1 ff, iv. 1 ff, vi. 1 ff, 15 ff, vii. 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 experience of controversy with
Jews and the narrower Jewish Christians. We are told expressly
70 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [111.1,8
that the charge of saying ‘Let us do evil that good may come’
was brought as a matter of fact against the Apostle (ver. 8). And
vi. 1, 1§ 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 ἢ). 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.
1. τὸ περισσόν. That which encircles a thing necessarily
lies outside it. Hence περί would seem to have a latent meaning
‘beyond,’ which is appropriated rather by πέρα, πέραν, but comes out
in περισσός, ‘ that which is in excess,’ ‘ over and above.’
2. πρῶτον μέν : intended to be followed by ἔπειτα δέ, but the line
of argument is broken off and not resumed. A list of privileges
such as might have followed here is given in ch. ix. 4.
πρῶτον μὲν γάρ: om. γάρ Β ὍΣ E G “πέρ... pauc., verss. pler., Chrys.
Orig.-lat. al., (yap) WH.
é ὕθησαν. πιστεύω, in the sense of ‘ entrust,’ ‘confide,’ takes acc. of
the thing entrusted, dat. of the person; e.g. Jo. ii. a4 ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἐπί-
orevey ἑαυτὸν [rather αὑτὸν or αὐτόν) αὐτοῖς. In the passive the dat.
becomes nom., and the acc. remains unchanged ( Buttmann, pp. 175, 189, 190;
Winer, xxxii. § [p. 287]; cf. 1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7).
τὰ λόγια. 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
Messiah.
The old account of λόγιον as a dimin. of λόγος is probably correct, though
Mey.-W. make it neut. of λόγιος on the ground that λογίδιον is the proper
dimin. The form λογίδιον is rather a strengthened dimin., which by a process
common in language took the place of λόγιον when it acquired the special
sense of ‘oracle. From Herod. downwards λόγιον = ‘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’ (περὶ τῶν
δέκα λογίων is the title of Philo’s treatise). So in LXX the expression is
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 Pail. vii. 1 ὃς dy μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια τοῦ Κυρίου : cf. Iren.
72 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [11]. 4, δ.
ψεύστης : in asserting that God’s promises have not been fulfilled.
καθὼς γέγραπται : ‘ Zven as it stands written.’ The quotation is
exact from LXX of Ps. li [I]. 6. Note the mistranslations in LXX
(which St. Paul adopts), νικήσῃς (or νικήσεις) for tnsons sis, ἐν τῷ
κρίνεσθαι (pass.) for ἐπ tudicando or dum tudicas. 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.
St. 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.
ὅπως ἄν: ἄν points to an unexpressed condition, ‘in case a decision is
given.’
δικαιωθῇς : ‘that thou mightest be pronounced righteous’ by
the judgement of mankind; see p. 30 f. above, and compare Matt. xi.
1g καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων (Vv. 1. τέκνων : cf. Lk. vii. 35)
αὐτῆς. Test, XII Patr. Sym. 6 ὅπως δικαιωθῶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῶν
ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. Ps. Sol. ii. 16 ἐγὼ δικαιώσω σε ὁ Θεός. The usage
occurs repeatedly in this book ; see Ryle and James ad Joc.
ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου: not ‘ pleadings’ (Va.) but ‘sayings,’ ie. the
λόγια just mentioned. Heb. probably = ‘ judicial sentence.’
γικήσῃς : like vincere, of ‘gaining a suit,’ opp. to ἡττᾶσθαι : the
full phrase is νικᾶν τὴν δίκην (Eur. £2. 955, &c.).
νικήσῃ, BO KL &c.; νικήσεις NA DE, meinuse.alig. Probably νικήσει
is right, because of the agreement of NA with the older types of Western
Text, thus representing two great families. The reading νικήσῃς in B appa-
rently belongs to the small Western element in that MS., which would seem
to be allied to that in G rather than to that in D. There is a similar
fluctuation in MSS. of the LXX: νικήσῃς is the reading of NB (def. A),
νικήσεις of some fourteen cursives. The text of LXX used by St. Paul differs
not seldom from that of the great uncials.
κρίνεσθαι : 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. Zest. Locts
a Paulo allegatis, p. 24N.).
δ. ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν: a general statement, including ἀπιστία. In
like manner Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην is general, though the particular
instance which St. Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God
to His promises.
συνίστησι: συνίστημε (συνιστάνω) has in N. T. two conspicuous
meanings: (i) ‘to bring together’ as two persons, ‘to introduce’
or ‘commend’ to one another (e.g. Rom. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. iii. 1; iv. 2;
v. 12, &c.; cf. συστατικαὶ ἐπιστολαὶ 2 Cor. iii. 1); (ii) ‘to put
together’ or ‘make good’ by argument, ‘to prove,’ ‘establish '
111. 5-7.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 73
(composshis collechisque quae rem contincant argumentis aliquid doceo
Fritzsche), as in Rom. v. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 11; Gal. ii. 18 (where see
Lft. and Ell.).
Both meanings are recognized by Hesych. (cunorhvew ἐπαινεῖν, φανεροῦν,
βεβαιοῦν, wapar:Péva:) ; but it is strange that neither comes out clearly in the
uses of the word in LXX; the second is found in Susann. 61 ἀνέστησαν ἐπὶ
τοὺς δύο πρεσβύτας, ὅτι συνέστησεν αὐτοὺς Δανιήλ ψευδομαρτυρήσαντας (Theod.).
τί ἐροῦμεν : another phrase, like μὴ γένοιτο, which is charac-
teristic of this Epistle, where it occurs seven times; not elsewhere
in N.T.
μὴ ἄδικος : the form of question shows that a negative answer is
expected (μή originally meant ‘ Don’t say that,’ &c.).
6 ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν : most exactly, ‘the inflicter of the anger’
(Va.). The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on i. 18,
xii. 10.
Barton however makes ὁ ἐπιφέρων strictly equivalent to a relative clause,
and like a relative clause suggest a reason (‘Who visiteth’ =‘ because He
visitcth’) M. and 7. § 428. ,
κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω : 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 1 Cor. ix. 8
μὴ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ταῦτα λαλῶ; 2 Cor. xi. 17 ὁ λαλῶ, ov κατὰ Κύριον
λαλώ.
6. ἐπεὶ πῶς κρινεῖ : St. Paul and his readers alike held as axio-
matic the belief that God would judge the world. But the objection
just urged was inconsistent with that belief, and therefore must
fall to the ground.
ἐπεί: ‘since, if that were so, if the inflicting of punishment necessarily
implied injustice.’ ‘Ewei gets the meaning ‘ if so,’ ‘if not’ (‘or else’), from
the context, the clause to which it points being supposed to be repeated:
bere iwei εἰ ἄδικος ἔσται ὃ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν (cf. Buttmann, Gr. of WV. 7.
Ῥ. 359)-
τὸν κόσμον : all mankind.
7. The position laid down in ver. § is now discussed from the side
of man, as it had just been discussed from the side of God.
ASEN A minusc. pauc., Vale: cod. Boh.. Jo.-Damasc., Tisch. WH. fezxt.
RV. text.; elyép BD EG K LP &c., Vulg. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. a/., WH.
mary. KV. marg. The second reading may be in its origin Western.
ἀλήθεια: the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises;
ψεῦσμα, the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as
in ver. 4).
κἀγώ: ‘I too, as well as others, though my falsehood thus
76 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (TIT. 9.
that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse,
and that all mankind might be held accountable to God.
Ὁ 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. τί οὖν ; ‘What then [follows]?’ Not with προεχόμεθα, because
that would require in reply οὐδὲν πάντως, not οὐ πάντως.
προεχόμεθα is explained in three ways: as intrans. in the same
sense as the active προέχω, as trans. with its proper middle force,
and as passive. (i) προεχόμεθα mid. = προέχομεν ( praecellimus cos
Vulg.; and so the majority of commentators, ancient and modern,
"Apa περισσὸν ἔχομεν παρὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ; Euthym.-Zig. ἔχομέν τι πλέον
καὶ εὐδοκιμοῦμεν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ; Theoph. ‘ Do we think ourselves better ν᾽
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
προέχομεν, the common form in such contexts. (ii) προεχόμεθα 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 ri οὖν cannot be combined with προεχόμεθα
because of οὐ πάντως. (iii) προεχόμεθα passive, ‘Are we excelled?’
‘Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles)?’ a rare use, but still
one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, Of. oro. III 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 Ass/orse, 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 respect
t. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places
(ii. 25-29). A few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take προεχόμεθα as pass.,
but give it the same sense as προέχομεν, ‘Are we (Jews) preferred
(to the Gentiles) in the sight of God?’
«ροεχόμεθα : v. 1, προκατέχομεν περισσόν D* G, 31; Antiochene Fathers
(Chrys. (ed. Field] Theodt. Severianus', also Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. (some MSS.
but cot the best, enemus ampliuss: a gloss explaining spoey. in the same
78 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IIt. 9-13.
Psalter reproduces Coverdale (A.D. 1537), and also into the ‘Great Bible’
(first issued by Cromwell in 1539, and 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
revision which substituted elsewhere the Authorized Version of 1611. The
editing of the Great Bible was due to Coverdale, who put an δὶ to the
passages found in the Vulgate but wanting in the Hebrew. These marks
owever 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. xiv with nothing to distinguish them from the rest
of the text. Jerome himself was well aware that these verses were no part
of the Psalm. In his commentary on Isaiah, lib. xvi, he notes that St. Paul
quoted Is. lix. 7, 8 in Ep. to Rom., and he adds, guod meslti ignorantes, de
bertio decimo psalmo sumptum putant, qui versus |orixor) ἐπ editione Vulgate
[i.e. the κοινή of the LXX)] addtts susst et in Hebraico non habentur (Hieron.
Opp. ed. Migne, iv. 601 ; comp. the preface to the same book, sdzd. col. 568 £.;
the newly discovered Commentariols in Psalmos, ed. Morin, 1895, p. 34 £.).
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, δίκαιος for ποιῶν
χρηστότητα and οὐδὲ εἷς for οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός. 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 directly suggests the connexion with his main argument.
The δίκαιος ‘shall live by faith’; but till the coming of Christianity
there was no true δίκαιος 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.
11. οὐκ ἔστιν ὃ συνιῶν: non est gut inielligat (rather than gud
intelligit); Anglict, ‘there is none to understand.’ [But ABG,
and perhaps Latt. Orig.-lat. Ambrstr., WH. (αὶ read συνιῶν, as also
(B)C WH. éexé ἐκζητῶν, without the art. after LXX. This would =
non est inielligens, non est requirens Deum (Vulg.) ‘There is
no one of understanding, there is no inquirer after God.’ |
ὃ συνιῶν : on the form see Win. Gr. § xiv, 16 (ed. 8; xiv, 3 E. T.); Hort,
Intr. Notes on Orthog. p. 167; also for the accentuation, Fri. p. 174 f.
Both forms, ovsidw and συνίω, are found, and either accentuation, συνιῶν or
συνίων, may be adopted: probably the latter is to be preferred; cf. ἤφιε from
dgiw Mk. i. 34, xi. 16.
12. dua: ‘one and all.’
ἠχρειώθησαν: Heb. = ‘to go bad,’ ‘become sour,’ like milk;
comp. the ἀχρεῖος δοῦλος of Matt. xxv. 30.
ποιῶν (sine artic.) ABG &c. WH. text.
Χρηστότητα = ‘ goodness’ in the widest sense, with the idea οἱ
‘ utility’ rather than specially of ‘ kindness,’ as in ii. 4.
III. 12-19.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 79
ἕως fvés: cp. the Latin idiom ad unum omnes (Vulg. literally ssgue ad
unum). B67, WH. marg. omit the second οὐκ ἔστιν [οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν
χρηστότητα ἕω: ἑνός]. The readings of Β and its allies in these verses are
open to some suspicion of assimilating to a text of LXX. Inver. 14 Bry
ΤῊ ey (ὧν τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν) corresponding to αὐτοῦ in B's text of Ps. x. 7
ix. 28].
18. τάφος. ... ἐδολιοῦσαν, The LXX of Ps. v. 9 [10] corre-
sponds pretty nearly to Heb. The last clause = rather Ainguam
suam blandam reddunt( poltunt), or perhaps lingua sua blandtuntur
(Kautzsch, p. 34): ‘their tongue do they make smooth’ Cheyne;
‘smooth speech glideth from their tongue’ De Witt.
ἐδολιοῦσαν : Win. Gr. § xiii, 14 (ed. 8; xiii, af. E. T.). The termina-
tion -say, extended from imperf. and 2nd aor. of verbs in - με to verbs in -ω, is
widely found ; it is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek. but by no
means confined to it; it is frequent in Boeotian inscriptions, and is called by
one grammarian a ‘ Boeotian ᾿ form, as by others ‘ Alexandrian,
ἰὸς ἀσπίδων: Ps. cxl. 3 [cxxxix. 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 xx. 16): see art. ‘Serpent’ in
D. B.
14. Ps. x. 7 somewhat freely from LXX [ix. 28]: οὗ ἀρᾶς τὸ
στόμα αὐτοῦ γέμει καὶ πικρίας καὶ δόλου. St. Paul retains the rel. but
changes it into the plural: στόμα αὐτῶν Β 17, Cypr., WH. marg.
πικρία: 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.
ὀξεῖς of πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα" οἱ δὲ πόδες αὐτῶν [ἐπὶ πονηρίαν
σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς τρέχουσι ταχινοὶ ἐκχέαι αἷμα [καὶ οἱ
ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ διαλογισμοὶ αὐτῶν διαλογισμοὶ ἀπὸ
ἔγνωσαν. φόνων]. σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία
ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης
οὐκ οἴδασι [καὶ οὐκ ἔστι κρίσις ἐν
ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν].
αἷμα ἀναίτιον Theodotion, and probably also Aquila and Symmachus,
(From the Hexapla this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX
ἀφρόνων (for ἀπὸ φόνων) AN: οἴδασι ἐξ' BQ*, &c.: ἔγνωσαν A J mary.
(Q = Cod. Marchalianus, XII Holmes) misuse. alig.
19. What is the meaning of this verse? Does it mean that the
passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (ὁ νόμος = O. T.;
80 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [III. 19, 20.
νόμον τὴν παλαιὰν γραφὴν ὀνομάζει, ἧς μέρος τὰ προφητικά Euthym.-
Zig.), and therefore they are as much guilty before God as the
Gentiles? So most commentators. Or does it mean that the
guilt of the Jews being now proved, as they sinned they must also
expect punishment, the Law (ὁ νόμος = the Pentateuch) affirming
the connexion between sin and punishment. SoGif. Both interpre-
tations give a good sense. [For though (i) does not strictly prove
that αὐ 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 ὁ νόμος. It is
urged, (i) that there is only a single passage in St. Paul where
ὁ νόμος clearly=O. T. (1 Cor. xiv. 21, a quotation of Is. xxviii. 11):
compare however Jo. x. 34 (= Ps. lxxxii. 6), xv. 25 (= Ps.
xxxv. 19); (ii) that in the corresponding clause, τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ
must = the Law, in the narrower sense; (iii) that in ver. 21 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 ὁ νόμος 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 which sense
he was using ; the use of the word in one sense would call up the
other (cf. Note on ὁ θάνατος in ch. v. 12).
Oltr. also goes a way of his own, but makes ὁ νόμος = Law in the
abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience, and for the
Jew the law of Moses), which is contrary to the use of ὁ νόμος.
λέγει. . . λαλεῖ: λέγειν calls attention to the substance of what
is spoken, λαλεῖν to the outward utterance; cf. esp. M¢Clellan,
Gospels, p. 383 ff.
φραγῇ : cf. ἀναπολόγητος i. 20, ii. 4; the idea comes up at each
step in the argument.
ὑπόδικος : not exactly ‘guilty before God,’ but ‘answerable to
God.’ ὑπόδικος takes gen. of the penalty; dat. of the person injured
to whom satisfaction is due (τῶν διπλασίων ὑπόδικος ἔστω τῷ βλαφθέντι
Plato, Legg. 846 Β). So here: all mankind has offended against
God, and owes Him satisfaction. Note the use of a forensic
term.
20. διότι: ‘because,’ not ‘therefore,’ as AV. (see on i. 10).
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
vil. ἡ ff.
δικαιωθήσεται : ‘shall be pronounced righteous,’ certainly not
‘shall be made righteous’ (Lid.); the whole context (ia πᾶν corona
ITI. 21-26. ] THE NEW SYSTEM 81
Φραγῦ, ὑπόδικος, ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ) has reference to a judicial trial and
verdict.
ar σάρξ : man in his weakness and frailty (1 Cor. i. 2g; 1 Pet.
i 24).
ἐπίγνωσις : ‘clear knowledge’; see on i. 28, 32.
THE NEW SYSTEM.
III. 21-26. Here then the new order of things comes in.
In st ts 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, (i) though attested by the
Sacred Books, ts independent of any legal system (ver. 21);
(11) ἐξ ἐς apprehended by faith in Christ, and is as wide as
man's need (vv. 22, 23); (iii) 12 ἐς made possible by the
propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ (vv. 24, 25); which Sacrifice
at once explains the lenient treatment by God of past sin
and gives the most decisive expression to His righteousness
(vv. 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
lume 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
e
82 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 21.
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. νυνὶ δέ: ‘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 séa/es, 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 νυνί may well have its first and most obvious
meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Rom. xvi.
25, 26 pvornpiov . . . φινερωθέντος. . . νῦν, Eph. ii. 12, 13 νυνὶ
δὲ . .. ἐγενήθητε ἐγγύς, Col. i. 26, 27 μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον...
νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη, 2 Tim. i. 9, 10 χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν . . . πρὸ χρόνων
αἰωνίων φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν, Heb. ix. 26 νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ
τῶν αἰώνων . . . πεφανέρωται. 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. 1); and (ii) that φανεροῦσθαι is constantly used
with expressions denoting time (add to passages above Tit. i. 3
καιροῖς ἰδίοις, τ Pet. i. 20 ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτον τῶν χρόνων). The leading
English commentators take this view.
An allusion of Tertullian’s makes it probable that Marcion retained this
verse ; evidence fails as to the rest of the chapter, and it is probable that he
cut out the whole of ch. iv, along with most other references to the history
of Abraham (Tert. on Gal. iv. 21-26, Adv. Marc. v. 4).
χωρὶς νόμου: ‘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).
δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ: see on ch. i. 17. St. Paul goes on to define
his meaning. The righteousness which he has in view is essentially
ΠῚ. 21, 22.] 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. 22). 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
the same time more effective method is substituted, the method of
attachment to a Divine Person.
πεφανέρωται. Contrast the completed φανέρωσις in Christ and
the continued ἀποκάλυψις in the Gospel (ch. i. 16): the verb
φανεροῦσθαι 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,
1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. i, 10; 1 Pet. i. 20; 1 Jo. iii. 5, 8: of the
Atonement, Heb. ix. 26: of the risen Christ, Mark xvi. 12, 14;
John xxi. 14: of the future coming to Judgement, 1 Pet. v. 4;
1 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 1 Jo.i. a,
which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the
principle of ‘ life.’
μαρτυρουμένη κ. τ. Ἁ. : 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. i. a, iii. 31, the whole of ch. iv, ix. 25-33;
ΣΧ. 16-21; xi. I-10, 26-29; xv. 8-12; xvi. 26 ἄς.
22. δέ 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; Σ Cor.
ii. 6; Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 8) happens to be from the general to the
particular.
πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ : 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
Christ’ u. der chrisiliche Glaube, Leipzig, 1891).
Dr. Hausslciter contends that the gen. is subjective not objective, that like
the ‘faith of Abraham’ in ch. iv. 16, it denotes the faith (in God: which
Christ Himself maintained even through the ordeal of the Crucifixion, that
84 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [IIL 22, 238
this faith is here put forward as the central feature of the Atonement, and
that it is to be grasped or appropriated by the Christian in a similar manner
to that in which he reproduces the faith of Abraham. If this view held
Rod: a number of other passages (notably i. 17) would be affected by it.
ut, although ably carried out, the interpretation of some of these passages
seems to us forced; the theory brings together things, like the πίστις Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ here with the πίστις Θεοῦ in iii. 3, which are really disparate; and
it has so far, we believe, met with no acceptance.
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. B, and apparently Marcion as quoted by Tertullian,
drop Ἰησοῦ } (s0 too WH. marg.); A reads ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας om. N* A BC, 47. 67**, Boh Aeth. Arm., Clem.-Alex.
Orig. Did. Cyr.-Alex. Aug.: in DEFGKL ἄς, ἐπὶ πάντας alone is
found in Jo. Damasc. Vulg. codd., so that els πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας would
seem to be a conflation, or combination of two readings originally alterna-
tives. If it were the true reading els would express ‘destination for’ all
believers, ἐπί ‘extension to’ them.
23. οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστολή. 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.
ἥμαρτον. 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.
ὑστεροῦνται : see Monro, Homeric Grammar, ὃ 8 (3); mid. voice =
‘fel want. Gif. well compares Matt. xix. 20 τί ἔτι torepa;
(objective, ‘What, as a matter of fact, is wanting to me?’) with
uke xv. 14 καὶ αὐτὸς ἤρξατο ὑστερεῖσθαι (subjective, the Prodigal
begins to feel his destitution).
τῆς δόξης There are two wholly distinct uses of this word:
(1) = ‘opinion’ (a use not found in N. and thence in
particular ‘favourable opinion,’ ‘reputation’ (Rom. ii. 7, 10;
ohn xii. 43 &c.); (2) by a use which came in with the
XX as translation of Heb. 33 = (i) ‘visible brightness or
splendour’ (Acts xxii. 11; Σὲ Cor. xv. 40 ff.); and hence
(ii) the brightness which radiates from the presence of God,
the visible glory conceived as resting on Mount Sinai (Ex.
xxiv. 16), in the pillar of cloud (Ex. xvi. ro), in the tabernacle
(Ex. xl. 34) or temple (1 Kings viii. 11; 2 Chron. v. 14), and
specially between the cherubim on the lid of the ark (Ps. Ixxx. 1;
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.
i. 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 ἐδόξασεν with Rom. v. 2 ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τῆς
86 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [TII. 24
irregular for St. Paul. The Apostle frequently gives a new tum 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 2 Cor. viii. 18, 19 συνεπέμψαμεν δὲ τὸν ἀδελφὸν . . . οὗ
ὁ ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ . . . ob μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ χειροτονηθείς (as if
ὃς ἐπαινεῖται had preceded).
δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι. Each of these phrases strengthens the
other in a very emphatic way, the position of αὐτοῦ further laying
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 (διὰ τῆς drodurpdcews).
ἀπολυτρώσεως. It is contended, esp. by Oltramare, (i) that
Aurpéw and ἀπολυτρόω 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
ἀπολύτρωσις is Plut. Pomp. 24 πολέων αἰχμαλώτων ἀπολυτρώσεις, where
the word has this sense of ‘ putting to ransom’); (ii) that in LXX
λυτροῦσθαι is frequently used of the Deliverance from Egypt, the
Exodus, in which there is no question of ransom (so Ex. vi. 6,
xv. 13; Deut. vii. 8; ix. 26; xiii. 5, &c.: cf. also ἀπολυτρώσει
Ex. xxi. 8, of the ‘release’ of a slave by her master). The subst.
ἀπολύτρωσις occurs only in one place, Dan. iv. 30 [29 or 32], LXX
ὁ χρόνος μον τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ἦλθε οἱ Nebuchadnezzar’s recovery
from his madness. Hence it is inferred (cf. also Westcott, Heb.
p. 296, and Ritschl, Rechifert. τ. Versohn. ii. 220 ff.) that here and
in similar passages ἀπολύτρωσις 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) δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ
λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, and in 1 Tim. li. 6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ
πάντων, and in view also of the many passages in which Christians
are said to be ‘bought,’ or ‘bought with a price’ (1 Cor. vi. 20,
vii. 23; Gal. iii. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 1; Rev. v. 9: cf. Acts xx. 28;
1 Pet. i. 18, 19), we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea
of the λύτρον retains its full force, that it is identical with the τιμή,
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.
τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. We owe to Haussleiter (Der Glaube Jeses Christi,
Ῥ. 116) the interesting observation that wherever the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ or ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ occurs there is no single instance of the variants ἐν Ἰησοῦ οἱ
ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. This is significant, because in other combinations the
88 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 26.
supported (esp. by the leading German commentators, De W. Fri.
Mey. Lips.). But there seems to be no clear instance of ἱλαστήριον
used in this sense. Neither is there satisfactory proof that aor.
(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 ὄν. There is evidence that the word was current as
an adj. at this date (ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα Joseph. Antt. XVI. vii. 1;
ἱλαστηρίον θανάτου 4 Macc. xvii. 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 is
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 us: they give all three renderings, pro-
pitiaioriem, ropitiatorem, and propitiationem. Syr. is also ambiguous.
he Coptic clearly favours the masc. rendering adopted above.
It may be of some interest to compare the Jewish 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 Day of Atonement cannot atone until he has
given satisfaction to his fellow-man’ ; and more to the same effect (Mishnah,
Tract. Joma, viii. 9, af. Winter u. Wiinsche, /Jitd. Lt. p. 98). We get
a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta, Zvact. Joma, 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 [22]. 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 you” (Lev. xvi. 30). If a man commits ἃ 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 [32]). 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. 14).
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. a1 (?)
“Only,” i.e. when he tums from his evil way does he obtain atonement,
otherwise he obtains no atonement’ (of. cst. p. 154).
* Some MSS. read here διὰ... τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου τοῦ θανάτου αὐτῶν (O. F.
Fritzsche ed /oc.).
III. 25.] THE NEW SYSTEM 89
διὰ τῆς wlorens: διὰ πίστεως NC*D* FG 67% al, Tisch. WH. fext.
The art. seems here rather more correct, pointing back as it would do to διὰ
πίστεως Ἴ. X. in ver. 22; it is found in B and the mass of later authorities,
but there is a strong phalanx on the other side; B is not infallible in such
company (cf. xi. 6).
ἂν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι : not with πίστεως (though this would be
a quite legitimate combination ; see Gif. ad Joc.), but with προέθετο
ἱλαστήριον: 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. 11; 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 of 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. ;
Heb. Ὁ. 293 f.).
For the prominence which is given to the Bloodshedding in
connexion with the Death of Christ see the passages collected
below.
εἰς ἔνδειξιν : εἰς denotes the final and remote object, πρός the
mearer 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
which God displayed through long ages towards sinners. For the
punctuation and structure of the sentence see below. For ἔνδειξιν
see on ch. ii. 15: here too the sense is that of ‘proof by an appeal
to fact.’
εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ. 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 the 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 appealed as satisfying the conditions which the righteousness
go EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _[III. 25, 36.
of God required. See the longer Note on ‘The Death of Christ
considered as a Sacrifice’ below.
διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν : not ‘for the remission,’ as AV., which gives
a somewhat unusual (though, as we shall see on iv. 25, not
impossible) sense to διά, and also a wrong sense to πάρεσιν, but
‘because of the pretermission, or passing over, of foregone sins.’
For the difference between mdpeois and ἄφεσις see Trench, Syn.
p. 110 ff.: πάρεσις = ‘ putting asrde,’ temporary suspension of
punishment which may at some later date be inflicted; ἄφεσις =
‘putting away,’ complete and unreserved forgiveness.
It is possible that the thought of this pas may have been suggested by
Wisd. xi. 23 [24] καὶ παρορᾷς ἁμαρτήματα ἀνθρώπων els μετάνοιαν. There
will be found in Trench, of. εἶ. p. 111, an account of a controversy which
bevinni
arose out of this verse in Holland at the end of the sixteenth and
of the seventeenth centuries.
ἁμαρτημάτων : as contrasted with ἁμαρτία, ἁμάρτημα = the single
act of sin, ἁμαρτία = the permanent principle of which such an act
is the expression.
dv τῇ ἀνοχῇ: ἐν either (i) denotes mofive, as Mey., &c. (Grimm,
Lex. 8. ν. ἐν, § €); 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.
ἀνοχῇ : see on ii. 4, and note that ἀνοχή is related to πάρεσις as
χάρις is related to ἄφεσις.
26. πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν : 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 διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν 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 construction :
(i) otherwise it is difficult to account for the change of the preposi-
tion from εἰς to πρός ; (ii) the art. is on this view perfectly accounted
for, ‘the same display’ as that just mentioned ; (iii) τῶν spoyeyo-
νότων ἁμαρτημάτων seems to be contrasted with ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ ; (iv) the
construction thus most thoroughly agrees with St. Paul’s style
elsewhere: see Gifford’s note and compare the passage quoted
Eph. iii. 3—5, also Rom. iii. 7, 8, ii. 14-16.
δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα, This is the key-phrase which establishes
the connexion between the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, and the δικαιοσύνη ἐκ
92 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΠῚ. 21-26.
Many of these passages besides the mention of bloodshedding
and the death of the victim (Apoc. v. 6, 12, xiii. 8 dpviov ἐσφαγμένον :
cf. v. 9) call attention to other details in the act of sacrifice (e.g.
the sprinkling of the blood, ῥαντισμός 1 Pet. i. 2; 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; 1 Cor. v. 8, and the passages
which speak of the ‘lamb’ in 1 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 1 Jo. ii. a, iv. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 24); to the ratification of the
Covenant (Matt. xxvi. 28, &c.; Heb. ix. 15-22); to the sin-offering
(Rom. viii. 3; Heb. xiii. τα; 1 Pet. iii, 18, and possibly if not
under the earlier head, 1 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; 2 Cor. xv. 3;
4 Cor. v.21; Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14 and 20; Tit. ti. 14; Heb. i. 3,
ix. 28, x. 12 al.; 1 Pet. ii. 24, iii. 18; 1 Jo. ii. 2,iv. 10; Apoc.i. 5}.
The author of Ep. 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. 22
καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματι πάντα καθαρίζεται κατὰ τὸν νόμον, και χωρὶξ
αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσι). The use of the different words
denoting ‘propitiation ’ is all to the same effect (ἱλαστήριον Rom.
iii. 25 ; ἱλασμός 1 Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10; ἱλάσκεσθαι Heb. ii. 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 real
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 gradual refinement and purification,
94 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [11]. 27-81.
from idea into reality, and embodied in marvellous perfection upon
Calvary.
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?
CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW SYSTEM.
III. 27-81. Hence it follows (1) that no claim can be
made on the ground of human merit, for there ts no merit
tn Faith (vv. 27, 28); (2) that Few and Gentile are on the
same footing, for there is but one God, and Faith ts the only
means of acceptance with Him (vv. 29, 30).
An objector may say that Law ts 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 (οὖν, but see Crit. Mole) 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. 22] is that
Π:. 37,28.} CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW SYSTEM 95
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 is 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
acceptance.
" 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.
41. ἐξεκλείσθη : an instance of the ‘summarizing’ force of the
aorist ; ‘it is shut out once for all,’ ‘ by one decisive act.’
St. Paul has his eye rather upon the decisiveness of the act than upon its
continued result. In English it is more natural to us to express decisiveness
by laying stress upon the result—‘ ss shut out.’
διὰ ποίου νόμου : νόμου 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 νόμος would be ch. vii. 21, 23; viii. 2; x. 31,
on which see the Notes.
28. odv recapitulates and summarizes what has gone before.
The result of the whole matter stated briefly is that God declares
righteous, &c. 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,
λογιζόμεθα γάρ, helps that coherence. [The Jew’s] boasting is
excluded, decause justification turns on nothing which 1s 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.
οὖν BCD*KLP &c.; Syrr. (Pesh.-Harcl.); Chrys. Theodrt. αἱ. ; Weiss
RV. WH. marg.: γάρ NAD*EFG αἱ. plur.; Latt. (Vet.-Vulg.) Boh.
Arm. ; Orig.-lat. Ambrst. Aug.; Tisch. WH. text RV. marg. The evidence
for yap is largely Western, but it is combined with an element (N 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
text. On the other hand B admits in this Epistle some comparatively late
readings (cf. xi. 6) and the authorities associated with it are inferior (BC in
Epp. is not so strong a combination as BC in Gesgp.). We prefer the
seading γάρ.
96 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [111. 28-83
δικαιοῦσθαι: we must hold fast to the rendering ‘is declared
righteous, not ‘is made righteous’; cf. on i. 17.
ἄνθρωπον : any human being.
29. % presents, but only to dismiss, an alternative hypothesis on
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.
μόνον: μόνων B αἱ. plur., WH. marg.; perhaps assimilated to Ἰουδαίων
eee ἐθνῶν.
80. εἴπερ : decisively attested in place of ἐπείπερ. The old distinction
drawn between εἴ wep and εἴ ye was that ef wep is used of a condition which
is assumed without implying whether it is rightly or wrongly assumed, ef γε
of a condition which carries with it the assertion of its own reality (Hermann
on Viger, p. 831; Baumlein, Griech. Partikeln, p. 64). It is doubtful
whether this distinction holds in Classical Greek; it can hardly hold for
N.T. But in any case both εἴ wep and εἴ ye lay some stress on the condition,
as a condition: cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, §§ 353, 354 ‘ The Particle
πέρ is evidently a shorter form of the Preposition πέρι, which in its adverbial
use has the meaning beyond, exceedingly. Accordingly πέρ is sntenstve,
denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree, in
its fullest sense, &c. ... ye is used like πέρ to emphasize a particular word
or phrase. It does not however safensify the meaning, or insist on the fact
as ‘rue, but only calls attention to the word or fact.... In a Conditioral
Protasis (with ὅς, ὅτε, el, &c.), ye emphasizes the condition as such: hence
εἴ γε tf only, always supposing that. On the other hand εἴ wep means
supposing ever so much, hence sf really (Lat. si guidem).’
ἐκ πίστεως. .. διὰ τῆς πίστεως : ἐκ denotes ‘source,’ διά ‘ attend-
ant circumstances. The Jew is justified ἐκ πίστεως διὰ περιτομῆς :
the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is
circumcision. The Gentile is justified ἐκ πίστεως καὶ διὰ τῆς πίστεως:
no special channel, no special conditions are marked out; faith is
the one thing needful, it is itself ‘both law and impulse.’
διὰ τῆς πίστεως = ‘the same faith, ‘the faith just men-
tioned.’
81. καταργοῦμεν : see on ver. 3 above.
νόμον ἱστῶμεν. If, as we must needs think, ch. iv contains the
proof of the proposition laid down in this verse, νόμον 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.
IV. 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 97
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, xiii. 10 πλήρωμα οὖν νόμον ἡ ἀγάπη compared with Gal. v. 6
πίστις Oc ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη).
THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM,
IV. 1-8. Take the crucial case of Abraham. He, like
the Christian, was declared righteous, not on account of his
works—as 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 ts due, not to
sinlessness but to God's free forgiveness of sins.
1Osyector. You speak of the history of Abraham. Surely
he, 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—he has something to boast of.
St. Paut. 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 (i. 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
faith 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: 7‘ 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
not enter in His book.’ .
"
98 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [τν. 1.
1%. 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 the 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 supposed 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. 1 ff.).
1. The first question is one of reading. There is an important
variant turning upon the position or presence of εὑρηκέναι. (1)
K LP, &c., Theodrt. and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which
are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after τὸν
προπάτορα ἡμῶν. It is then taken with κατὰ σάρκα: ‘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 κατὰ σάρκα with πατέρα : ὑπερβατὸν yap
τὸ κατὰ σάρκα]. 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 atall. (2) NACDEFG, some cur-
sives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place
after ἐροῦμεν. In that case κατὰ σάρκα goes not with εὑρηκέναι but
with τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν which it simply defines, ‘our natural pro-
genitor.’ (3) But a small group, B, 47*, and apparently Chrysostom
from the tenor of his comment, though the printed editions give it
in his text, omit εὑρηκέναι altogether. Then the idea of ‘gain’
drops out and we translate simply ‘What shall we say as to
Abraham our forefather?’ &c. The opponents of B will say that
the sense thus given is suspiciously easy: it is certainly more
100 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Tv. 3, 8.
paraphrase. There should be a colon after καύχημα. St. Paul
does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a καύχημα
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 καύχημα before God. There is
a stress upon τὸν Θεόν which is taken up by τῷ Θεῷ 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. xv. 6, see below.
8. ἐλογίσθη : 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. vii. 8 ἐὰν δὲ φαγὼν φάγῃ ... οὐ
λογισθήσεται αὐτῷ, XVii. 4 λογισθήσεται τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ αἷμα, KC.
The notion arises from that of the ‘ book of remembrance’ (Mal.
iii. 16) in which men’s good or evil deeds, the wrongs and
sufferings of the saints, are entered (Ps. lvi. 8; Is. lxv. 6). Oriental
monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the
merit or demerit of their subjects (Esth. vi. 1 ff), and in like
manner on the judgement day Jehovah would have the ‘books’
brought out before Him (Dan. vii. 10; Rev. xx. 12; comp. also
‘the books of the living,’ ‘ the heavenly tablets,’ a common expres-
sion in the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, and Test. XII Patr., on which
see Charles on L£noch xivii. 3; and in more modern 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, Alssyn. Theol. p. 233). They had also the idea of the
transference of merit and demerit from one person to another
(14. p. 280 ff.; Ezek. 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 another
quality—righteousness.
ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην : was reckoned as equivalent to, as
standing in the place of, ‘righteousness.’ The construction is
common in LXX: cf. x Reg. (Sam.) i. 13; Job xli. 23 (24); Is.
xxix. 17 (=xxxii. 15); Lam. iv. 3; Hos. viii. 12. The exact
phrase éAoyic6n αὐτῷ εἷς δικαιοσ. recurs in Ps. cv [cvi]. 31 of the
zeal of Phinehas. On the grammar cf. Win. ὃ xxix. 3 a. (p. 239,
ed. Moulton).
On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. Weber, Alisyn. Palast.
Theologte, 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
1023 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [τν. 7, 8.
7, 8. Μακάριοι, κτὰ. This quotation of Ps, xxxii. 1, 2 is the same
in Heb. and LXX. It is introduced by St. Paul as confirming his
interpretation of Gen. xv. 6.
μακάριοι 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.
@ ot ph, SoN*ACD*F KL &c.: οὗ οὐ μή NBD Ε (ἢ Ὁ, 67%. οὗ is
also the reading of LXX (ᾧ N* R*). The authorities for οὗ are superior as
they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission
(δὲ B + D) and it is on the whole more probable that ᾧ has been assimilated
to the construction of λογίζεσθαι in vv. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that od has been
assimilated to the preceding ὧν or to the O.T. or that it has been affected
by the following οὐ : ᾧ naturally established itself as the more euphonious
reading.
οὗ μὴ λογίσηται. 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 Ell. on 1 Thess. iv. rg [p. 164], and Win. § lvi.
3, P- 634 ἢ.
The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paut
and by St. Fames.
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 the 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 πίστει χωρὶς
ἔργων (Rom. iii 28 ; cf. iv. 1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is
accounted righteous ἐξ ἔργων καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον (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 (Jas. 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
104 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [σν-. 1-8.
If we thus understand the real relation of the two Apostles, it will
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 St. 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-
demning.
It would thus appear that when it is examined the rea] 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 (Galatians, p. 157 ff., ed. 2) that
Gen. xv. 6 was ἃ 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’ (x Macc. ii. 52)? 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 Mechi//a 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. u/ 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 being given to every part of
the Pentateuch.
It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason
IV. 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 105
that 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
ews; but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of
aith 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 Epistles have a real relation to that
controversy, and so at least indirectly 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 Epistle 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
constantly coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts,
especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and
Greece, the scene of St. Paul’s labours; and as there was always
at his elbow the little coferte 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!) 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 the very language of St. Paul, in places
like Rom. vi. 1 ff., 15 ff., 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
Φ Besides what is said above, see Introduction § 8. It is a satisfaction to
find that the view here taken is substantially that of Dr. Hort, /udaiste
Christianity, p. 148, ‘it seems more natural to suppose that a misuse or
misanderstandin wey guarded of St. Paul's teaching on the part of others gave rise to
Se. James's care guarded language.’
106 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. 9-12.
practical teaching pitched on a more every-day level and appealing
to larger numbers, which is the check and safeguard against possible
misconstruction.
FAITH AND CIRCUMCISION.
IV. 9-12. Zhe declaration made to Abraham did not
depend upon Circumcision. For ἐξ was made before he was
circumcised ; and Circumcision only came in after the fact,
fo ratify a verdict already given. The reason 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 fazth 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. 10 ff. Therefore although it might be (and was
confirmed by circumcision, it could not be due to it or conditione
by it.
ΚΗ σημεῖον περιτομῆς. Circumcision at its institution is said to
be ἐν σημείῳ διαθήκης (Gen. xvii. 11), between God and the
108 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 11, 12
Abram became Abraham, ‘father of many nations,’ lit. ‘a great
multitude’; ‘he was 80, the Glossator adds, ‘because he taught
them to believe.’
δι᾿ ἀκροβυστίας : ‘though in a state of uncircumcision.’ διά of
attendant circumstances as in διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς ii, 27, τῷ
διὰ προσκόμματος ἐσθίοντι XiV. 20.
12. τοῖς στοιχοῦσι. As it stands the art. is ἃ 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 doth circumcised and believe. This requires in Greek the
omission of the art. before στοιχοῦσιν. But τοῖς στ. 18 found in all
existing MSS. We must suppose therefore either (1) that there
has been some corruption. WH. think that τοῖς may be the
remains of an original αὐτοῖς : 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.
στοιχοῦσι. στοιχεῖν is a well-known military term, meaning
strictly to ‘march in file’: Pollux viii. 9 τὸ δὲ βάθος στοῖχος καλεῖται,
καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐφεξῆς εἶναι κατὰ μῆκος ζυγεῖν' τὸ δὲ ἐφεξῆς κατὰ βάθος στοιχεῖν,
‘the technical term for marching abreast is ζυγεῖν, for marching in
depth or in file, στοιχεῖν᾽ (Wets.).
On οὐ μόνον rather than μὴ μόνον in this verse and in ver. 16 see Burton,
M. and T.§ 481.
Sewish Teaching on Circumcision.
The fierce fanaticism with which the Jews insisted upon the rite
of Circumcision is vividly brought out in the Book of /ubtlees
(xv. 25 ἢ): ‘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 born, 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 earth, 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
IV. 13-17.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 109
they will omit this circumcision of their sons, and all of them, sons
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
out 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, Alésyn. Theol.
p. 51 ἢ). When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took
a part in the act (12:4. Ὁ. 253). It was his circumcision and antici-
patory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the
‘father of many nations’ (did. 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 St. 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.
PROMISE AND LAW.
IV. 18-17. Again the declaration that was made to
Abraham had nothing to do with Law. For tt turned on
Fatth and Promise which are the very antithests of Law.
The veason being that Abraham might be the spiritual
father of all believers, Gentiles as well as Fews, and that
Gentiles might have an equal claim to the Promise.
1 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
110 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [τν. 18
serves to bring down God’s wrath by enhancing the guilt of sin.
Where there is no law, there is no transgression, which implies
a law to be transgressed. Law and Promise therefore are mutually
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
favour, 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 (ἡμῶν), as it is expressly stated in Gen. xvii. δ
‘A father’ (ie. 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 was not what God
had really intended, but that the true principles of things held out
ἃ prospect so much brighter and more hopeful, and one whicb
furnished such abundant justification tor all that seemed new in
Christianity.
18. οὐ γάρ. κτλ. 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.
διὰ νόμου: without art., any system of law.
ἡ ἐπαγγελία: see on ch. i. 2 (προεπηγγείλατο), 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 woole 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 following examples may be added to those quoted on ch. i. 2 to
illustrate the diffusion of this idea of ‘Promise’ among the Jews in the first
century A.D.: 4 Ezra iv. 27 non capiet portare quae ἐμ lemportbus isstes
¢ 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 before.
112 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [TV. 16.
a code. It means to overstep a line clearly defined: peccare est
transilire lineas Cicero, Parad. 3 (ap. Trench, Syn. p. 236).
16. ἐκ πίστεως. 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 ἐκ πίστεως either
ἡ κληρονομία ἐστίν from v. 14 (Lips. Mey.) or ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐστιν from
v. 13 (Fri.), but as τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν is defined just below it seems
better to have recourse to some wider thought which shall include
both these. ‘It was’=‘ 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.
εἰς τὸ εἶναι. 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.
ABRAHAW’S FAITH A TYPE OF THE CHRISTIAN’S.
IV. 17-22. Abraham's Faith was remarkable both for tts
strength and for its object: the birth of Isaac in which
Abraham believed might be described as a ‘birth from the
dead.’
23-25. In this it is a type of the Christian's Faith, to
which ts annexed a like acceptance and which also has for
sts object a ‘birth from the dead’—the Death and Resur-
rection of Christ.
In this light Abraham is regarded by God before whom he is
represented as standing—that God who infuses 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.’
1° Without showing weakness in his faith, he took full note
of the fact that at his advanced years (for he was now about
8 hundred years old) his own vital powers were decayed; he took
{V. 17.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 113
full 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 also 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
effectual).
17. πατέρα, κιλ. Exactly from LXX of Gen. xvii. 5. The LXX
tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the
Heb., patrem frementis turbae, i.e. ingentis multitudinis populorum
(Kautzsch, p. 25).
κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσε Θεοῦ : attraction for κατέναντι Θεοῦ ᾧ ἐπί-
orevoe: κατέναντι describing the posture in which Abraham is
represented as holding colloquy with God (Gen. xvii. 1 ff.).
ζωοποιοῦντος : ‘maketh alive. St. Paul has in his mind the two
acts which he compares and which are both embraced under this
word, (1) the Birth of Isaac, (2) the Resurrection of Christ. On
the Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch, £ss. in Bibl. Greek, Ὁ. §.
καλοῦντος [τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα]. There are four views: (i) caA.=
‘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
life 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 ὡς ὄντα. 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 gut fecish
berram audi me... gut vocash ab initio mundt quod nondum eral, εἴ
114 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (TV. 17-20.
obediunt ἠδέ. For the use of καλεῖν see also the note on ix. *
below.
18. εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι = Sore γενέσθαι : ‘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.
οὕτως ἔσται: = Gen. xv. 6 (LXX).
19. μὴ ἀσθενήσας. Comp. Lft. in Journ. »f Class. and Sac. Philol.
fii. 106 n.: ‘The New Testament use of μή with a participle... has a much
wider range than in the earlier language. Yet this is no violation of
principle, but 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 princi al event described by the finite verb, and
is therefore negatived by the dependent negative μή and not by the absolute od.
Rom. iv. 19... is a case in point whether we retain οὐ or omit it with
Lachm. In the latter case the sense will be, ‘‘he so considered his own
body now dead, as not to be weak in the (?) faith.”’ This is well expressed
in RV. ‘wethout betng weakened,’ except that ‘being weakened’ should be
Fan ‘showing weakness ' or ‘becoming weak.’ See also Burton, Af. and 7.
145.
κατενόησε SABC some good cursives, some MSS. of Vulg.
(including am.), Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat. (which probably here preserves
Origen’s Greek), Chrys, and others; οὐ κατενόησε DEF GK LP
&c., some MSS. of Vulg. (including /u/d, 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. δίς, Epiph.
Ambrstr. al.
Both readings give a good sense: κατενόησε, ‘he dtd consider, and
yet did not doubt’; οὐ κατενόησε, ‘he did mot consider, and therefore
did not doubt.’ Both readings are also early: but the negative
οὐ κατενόησε 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.
ὑπάρχων: ‘being a/ready about a hundred years old.” May we not say
that εἶναι denotes a present state simply as present, but that ὑπάρχειν denotes
ἃ present state as a product of past states, or at least a state in present time
as related to past time (‘vorhandenseim, dasein, Lat. exsstere, adesse, praesto
esse’ Schmidt)? See esp. T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vii. 26: ‘the
last word (ὑπάρχειν) 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 of propreety sometimes attaches to it: comp.
ὕπαρξις, “ property” or “substance.” The word however asks for further
investigation.” Comp. Schmidt, Lat. κι. gr. Synonymtk, § 74. 4.
20. οὐ διεκρίθη : ‘did not hesitate’ (τουτέστιν οὐδὲ ἐνεδοίασεν οὐδὲ ἀμφέ-
βαλε Chrys.). διακρίνειν act. = dsiudicare, (i) to ‘discriminate,’ or ‘ distinguish’
between two things (Matt. xvi. 3; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 29, 31) or persons (Acts xv. 93
1 Cor, iv. 7); (i1) to ‘arbitrate’ between two parties (1 Cor. vi. 5). δια"
κρίνεσθαι mid. (and pass.) = (i) ‘to get a decision,’ ‘litigate,’ ‘ dispute,’ or
‘contend’ (Acts xi. 2; Jas. ii, 4; Jude 9); (ii) to ‘be divided against one-
self,’ ‘waver,’ ‘doubt.’ The other senses are all found in LXX (where the
word occurs some thirty times), but this is wanting. It is however well
116 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [IV. 21-25
41. wAnpodopn Geis: πληροφορία = ‘full assurance,’ ‘firm conviction,
1 Thess. i. 5; Col. ii. 2; a word especially common amongst the
Stoics. Hence πληροφορεῖσθαι, as used of persons, = ‘to be fully
assured or convinced,’ as here, ch. xiv. δ; Col. iv. 12. As used of
things the meaning is more doubtful: cf. 2 Tim. iv. 5, 17 and
Luke i. 1, where some take it as = ‘fully or satisfactorily proved,’
others as = ‘ accomplished’ (so Lat.-Vet. Vulg. RV. text Lft. On
Revision, p. 142): see note ad loc.
23. δι᾽ αὐτὸν μόνον. 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 Zaanith ii. 1 Fratres nostri, de Ninevitis
non dictum est: et respexit Deus saccum eorum.
24. τοῖς πιστεύουσιν : ‘to us who believe.’ St. Paul asserts that
his readers are among the class of believers. Not ‘if we believe,’
which would be πιστεύουσιν (sine artic.).
25. διά with acc. is primarily retrospective,=‘ because of’: but
inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution, διά 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 διὰ τὰ παραπτ. 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 διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν is prospective, ‘with a view to our
justification,’ ‘ because of our justification’ conceived as a motive,
i.e, to bring it about. See Dr. Gifford’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.
The Place of the 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 (1 Cor. xv. 1-11).
Iv. 17-35.} THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 117
(i) The Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the Divinity
of Christ (Acts xvii. 31; Rom. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 14, 18).
(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’
(x 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
the Sacrifice was accepted, and that the cloud of Divine Wrath —
the ὀργή so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom. iii. 25,
26)—had passed away. Thisis 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 (1 Cor, xv. 20-23; 2 Cor. iv 14;
Rom. viii. 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 this
moral and spiritual sense is the only sense in which he can repeat
them. We shall have this doctrine fully expounded in ch. vi. r-11.
A recent monograph on the subject of this note (E. Schader, Die Bedeutung
des lebendigen Christus fiir die Rechifertigung nach Paulus, Gitersloh, 1893)
has worked out in mach careful detail the third of the above heads. Herr
Schader (who since writing his treatise has become Professor at Konigsberg)
insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrought by
Christ ; that which redeerns is not merely the act of Christ’s Death but His
Person (ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν Eph 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 (Gal. iii. 13; 2 Cor. νυ. 21). The Kesurrection is proof that this
‘Wrath’ is at an end. And therefore in certain salient passages ‘Rom. iv. 25 ;
vi. 9, 10; viii. 34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ as
the cause 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-
tion, and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and :esurrection one aspect
of life’ | Hulsean Lectures, p. 210). This can more readily be accepted if
“one aspect’ in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other aspects
At the same time such a saying is useful as a warning, which is especially
aceded where the attempt is being made towards more exact definitions, that
118 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [v. 1-11.
all definitions of great doctrines have a relative rather than an absolute value.
They are partial symbols of ideas which the human mind cannot grasp in
their entirety. If we could see as God sees we should doubtless find them
running up into large and broad laws of His working. We desire to make
this reserve in regard to our own attempts to define. Without it exact
exegesis may well seem to lead to a revived Scholasticism.
BLISSFUL CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION.
V. 111. The 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) ἐς difficult; the second step (our ultimate salva-
tion) follows naturally from the first (vv. 5-11).
γε 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. 26),
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
sprang.
® 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-
120 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ν. 1.
method of obtaining righteousness in iii. 21-26, he had begun to
draw some of the consequences from this (the deathblow to Jewish
pride, and the equality of Jew and Gentile) in iii. 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. T.), 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.
ἔχωμεν. The evidence for this reading stands thus: ἔχωμεν & *
AB*CDEKL, cursives, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat.
repeatedly Chrys. Ambrstr. and others: ἔχομεν correctors of δὲ B,
F G (duplicate MSS. it will be remembered) in the Greek though
not in the Latin, P and many cursives, Did. Epiph. Cyr.-Alex. in
three places out of four. Clearly overwhelming authority for
ἔχωμεν. It is argued however (i) that exhortation is here out of
place: ‘inference not exhortation is the Apostle’s purpose’
(Scrivener, Jnéirod. ii. 380 ed. 4); (ii) that o and are frequently
interchanged in the MSS., as in this very word Gal. vi. 10 (cf.
1 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 vi. (1), 12, (18);
viii. 12; (ii) in ἔχωμεν inference and exhortation are really com-
bined: it is a sort of light exhortation, ‘we should have’ (T. 8.
Evans).
As to the meaning of ἔχωμεν it should be observed that it does
not = ‘make peace,’ ‘get’ or ‘obtain peace’ (which would be
σχῶμεν), but rather ‘keep’ or ‘enjoy peace’ (οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἴσον μὴ οὖσαν
εἰρήνην λαβεῖν καὶ δοθεῖσαν κατασχεῖν Chrys.; cf. Acts ix. 31 ἡ μὲν
οὖν ἐκκλησία... εἶχεν εἰρήνην, ‘ continued in a state of peace’). The
aor. part. δικαιωθέντες marks the initial moment of the state εἰρήνην
ἔχωμεν. 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 διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ:
kow is explained more fully in ili. 25; also in wv. 9, ro below.
Dr. J. Agar Beet (Comm. ad /oc.) discusses the exact shade of meaning
conveyed by the aor. part. δικαιωθέντες in relation to εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν. He
contends that it denotes not so much the reason for entering upon the state
V.1,2.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 121
in question as the sans of entering upon it. No doubt this is perfectly
tenable on the score of grammar; and it is also true that ‘justification
necessarily involves peace with God.’ But the argument goes too much
upon the assumption that elp. ἔχ. = ‘obtain peace,’ which we have seen to
be erroneous. The sense is exactly that of εἶχεν εἰρήνην in the
quoted from the Acts, and δικαιωθ., as we have said, marks the initial
moment in the state.
2 τὴν xpocaywyhy. Two stages only are described in wv. 1, 3
though different language is used about them: δικαιωθέντες = ἡ
προσαγωγή, εἰρήνη = χάρις ; the καύχησις is a characteristic of the
state of χάρις, at the same time that it points forward to a future
state of dédfa. The phrase 4 mpogay., ‘our introduction,’ is a con-
necting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. Eph. ii. 18;
lii. 12): the idea is that of introduction to the presence-chamber of
a monarch. The rendering ‘access’ is inadequate, as it leaves
out of sight the fact that we do not come in our own strength but
need an ‘ introducer ’—Christ.
ἐσχήκαμεν: not ‘we have had’ (Va), but ‘we have got or
obtained,’ aor. and perf. in one.
“Both grammar and logic will ran in perfect harmony together if we
render, “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 objective, Christ: the other subjective, faith; Christ the door,
faith the hand which moves the door to open and to admit’ (T. S. Evans in
Exp. 1882, i. 169).
τῇ πίστει om. BD EFG, Lat. Vet., Orig.-lat. δῷ. The weight of this
evidence depends on the value which we assign to B. 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 simply belongs to it (does the
evidence = B+ δ, or 8 only?). There is the further point that omissions in
the Western text deserve more attention than addiiions, 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 rp πίστει in brackets as Treg. WH. RV. mearg. (Weiss
omits).
els τὴν χάριν ταύτην: 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.
v. 4; 1 Pet. v. 12 (Va. and Grm.-Thay. 8. v. χάρις 3. a).
ἑστήκαμεν: ‘stand fast or firm’ (see Va. and Grm.-Thay. sv.
tornps ii. 2. d).
ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι: as in iv. 18.
τῆς δόξης. See on iii. 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.
122 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS {v.12
Is the Soctety or the Individual the proper object of
Fustification ?
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 is based upon two main groups of arguments.
(1) 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. xii. 43 ff., 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, a1, 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. 28 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ν l. Kupiov], ἣν
περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου : but also in 1 Jo. ii. 2; iv. 10;
1 Pet. iii. 18; Apoc. i. §f.; v. 9f.), 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 σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἶ. X., ὃς
ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς... καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν
περιούσιον : Eph. ν. 25 f. ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησε τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ ἑαυτὸν
παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς" ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας x.1.d. (cf. also Eph. ii.
18; iii. r2; Col. i. 14). But Ritschl also claims the support of
the earlier Epp.: e.g. Rom. viii. 32 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν
αὐτόν : iii. 22 δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ... εἰς πάντας τοὺς morevovras: and
the repeated ἡμεῖς in the contexts of three passages (Comp. RecA/-
Jert. u. Versohn. ii. 216 f. 160).
In reply the critics of Ritschl appeal to the distinctly in-
dividualistic cast of such expressions as Rom. iil. 26 δικαιοῦντα τὸν
ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ : iv. 5 ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβὴ, With the context:
X. 4 εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι (Schader, op. ctt. p. 2g n.3 cf.
also Gloél, Der Hetlige Geist, p. 10a n.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 82 Ὁ,
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
124
older dispensation.
‘ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[ν. 2-6.
The Christian Sacrifice with its effects, like
the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement by which it is typified,
reach the individual through the community.
8-5. The two leading types of the Old-Latin Version of the Epistle stand
out distinctly in these verses. We are fortunately able to compare the
Cyprianic text with that of Tertullian (son solum ... con
is) and the
European text of Cod. Clarom. with that of Hilary (¢r#ds/atio . . . ¢ #2).
The passag
¢ is also quoted in the so-called Specss/sm (m), which represents
the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian (Classical Review, iv. 416 f.).
CYPRIAN,
Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur
in pressurts, scientes guoniam pres-
sura tolerantiam operatur, tolerantia
autem probationem, probatio autem
spem ; spes autem non confundtt, quia
dilectio Det infusa est cordibus nostris
per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est
nobis.
verum etiam exultantes Tert.; certs
quod Tert.; perfictat Tert. (ed. Vin-
Cop. CLAROM.
Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur
in tribsulationibus, scientes quod tribu-
latio tentiam operatur, patientia
quem probationer, probatio autem
spem ; spes autem non confundst, quia
caritas Det diffusa est ἐκ cordtbus
nostris per Spiritum Sanctum gui
datus est nobis.
perficit Hil ; . vero mHil.,
spes vere Hil. (Cod. Clarom. = m).
dob.) ; tol. vero Tert.; spes vero Tert.
Here, as elsewhere in Epp. Paul., there is a considerable amount of matter
common to all forms of the Version, enough to give colour to the supposition
that a single translation lies at their root. But the salient expressions are
changed ; and in this instance Tertullian goes with Cyprian, as Hilary with
the European texts. The renderings folerantia and pressura are verified for
Tertullian elsewhere (tolerantia Luke xxi. 19; 1 Thess. i. 4: pressura
Rom. viii. 35 ; xii. 18; 1 Cor. vii. 28; 2 Cor. i. 8; iv. 17; vi. 45 vii. 4;
Col. i. 24; 2 Thess. i. 4; Apoc. ii. 22; vii. 14), as also d#/ectio (to which
the quotation does not extend in this passage, but which is found in
Luke xi. 42; John xiii. 35 ; Rom. viii. 35, 39; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ff., &c.). We
note however that Hilary and Tertullian agree in perficit ( perficiat), though
in another place Hilary has allusively ¢ribulatio patrenttam operatur.
Perhaps this coincidence may point to an older rendering.
8. ob μόνον δέ (ἑστήκαμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμεθα, OF ἑστηκότες ἀλλὰ καὶ
καυχώμενοι): in this elliptical form characteristic of St. Paul and
esp. of this group of Epistles (cf. v. 11; viii. 23; ix. 10; 2 Cor.
vili. 19).
καυχώμενοι BC, Orig. δὲ; 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. 28. If καυχώμενιι were right it would be another
example of that broken and somewhat inconsecutive structure which is
doubtless due, as Va. suggests, to the habit of dictating to an amanuensis.
Note the contrast between the Jewish καύχησις which ‘ is excluded’
(iii. 27) and this Christian καύχησις. 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 καύχησις (besides the empty boasting
which St. Paul reprehends), but it is reserved for the blest in Paradise: 4 Ezr.
vii. 98 [Bensly =vi. 72 O. F. Fritzsche] exultabunt cum fiducta et... com:
fidebunt non confust, et gaudebunt non reverentes.
V. 8-6.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 125
ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσι. The θλίψεις are the physical hardships and
sufferings that St. Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the
Christian ; cf. Rom. viii. 35 ff.; 1 Cor. iv. 11-13; vii. 26-323 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
litle 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 ὑπερνικῶμεν of viii. 37: the whole
passage is parallel.
ὑπομονήν: not merely a passive quality but a ‘masculine con-
stancy in holding out under trials’ (Waite on 2 Cor. vi. 4), ‘ forti-
tude.’ See on ii. 7 above.
4. δοκιμή : 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 ὑπομονή and δοκιμή must not
be pressed too far: in St. Jamesi. 3 τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως produces
ὑπομονή. 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
text
ἡ δὲ δοκιμὴ ἐλπίδα. 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.
δ. οὗ καταισχύνει : * does not disappoint,’ ‘ does not prove illusory.’
The text Is. xxviii. 16 (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.
ix. 33 q.v.; 1 Pet. ii. 6.
ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ : certainly ‘the love of God for us,’ not ‘ our
love for God’ (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns): ἀγάπη thus
comes to mean, ‘our sense of God’s love,’ just as εἰρήνη = ‘ our
sense of peace with God.’
ἐκκέχυται. The idea of spiritual refreshment and encourage-
ment is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of
watering. St. Paul seems to have had in his mind Is. xliv. 3
‘I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the
dry ground: I will pour Aly Spirit upon thy seed,’ &c.
διὰ Πνεύματος ‘Ayiou: without the art., for the Spirit as tmparied.
5126 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 5, 6.
St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges of
Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the
time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, i.e. from
his baptism.
6. ἔτι γάρ. There is here a difficult, but not really very im-
portant, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus
summarized :—
ὅτι γάρ at the beginning of the verse with ὅτε also after ἀσθενῶν,
the mass of MSS.
ὅτι at the beginning of the verse only, some inferior MSS.
(later stage of the Ecclesiastical text).
els ri γάρ (possibly representing ἵνα ri γάρ, uf guid enim), the
Western text (Latin authorities).
εἰ γάρ few authorities, partly Latin.
εἶ ye Β.
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 ἔτι, 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 ἔτι γάρ from iva ri γάρ, or vice versa,
through the doubling or dropping of iw from the preceding word
HMIN; nor would it be difficult to explain ἔτι γάρ from εἰ γάρ, or
vice versa. We might then work our way back to an alternative εἰ
γάρ or εἶ ye, 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. 1, B has
preserved the original reading ef ye. For the meaning of ef ye (‘so
surely as’ Va.) see T.S. Evans in £xp. 1882, i. 176 f.; and the note
on iii. 30 above.
In more detail the evidence stands thus: ére γάρ here with ἔτι also after
ἀσθενῶν NAC D* αἱ. : ἔτι here only DOE KLP &c.: eis ri yap D° FG:
ui guid enim Lat-Vet. Vulg., Iren.-lat. Faustin: εἰ γάρ 104 Greg. (58
Scriv.), fuld., Isid.-Pelus. Aug. δέ: εἰ yap... ἔτι Boh. (‘For if, we being still
weak,’ &c.): εἰ δέ Pesh.: ef ye 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 fullest and most exact will be found in WH.]
It thus appears: (1) that the reading most strongly supported is ἔτι γάρ,
with double ἔτι, which is impossible unless we suppose a /apsus calams
between St. Paul and his amanuensis. (2) The Westem reading is els τί
yap, which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original fra
τί γάρ (Gif, from ut guid enim of Iren.-lat. &c.): this is no doubt a very
early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is el yap. (4) B alone gives
εἴ ye. 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. 1 above).
But the problem is, how to account for the other readings? It would not be
difficult palaeographically from εἰ γάρ to get ἔτε yap by dittography of
1 (eirap, eulrap, erirap), or from this again to get els ri γάρ through ditto-
graphy of ε and confusion with c (ectirap) ; or we might take the alternative
ingeniously suggested by Gif., of supposing that the original reading was we
128 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [v. 7-9
is implied that it is an easier thing to die for the ἀγαθός than for the
δίκαιος, Similarly the Gnostics drew a distinction between the
God of the O. T. and the God of the N.T., calling the one δίκαιος
and the other ἀγαθός (Iren. Adv. Haer. 1. xxvii. 1; comp. other
passages and authorities quoted by Gif. p. 123). The δίκαιος keeps
to the ‘letter of his bond’; about the ἀγαθός 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 τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ neut.) and even by Mey. and Dr.
T. K. Abbott (Zssays, p. 75) that there is no substantial difference
between δίκαιος and ἀγαθός. 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 ἀγαθοῦ and not before δικαίου need not stand
in the way. This is sufficiently explained by Gif., who points out
that the clause beginning with μόλις is virtually negative, so that
δικαίου is indefinite and does not need the art., while the affirmative
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
games in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural
sense of the passage.
8. συνίστησι : see on iii. 5.
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην : ‘His own 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.’
τὴν ἑαντοῦ ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς ὃ Θεός NAC KP &c.: ὁ Θεὸς εἰς ἡμᾶ:
DEFGL: om. ὁ Θεός B. There is no substantial difference of meaning,
as els ἡμᾶς in any case goes with συνίστησι, not with ἀγάπην.
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανες St. Paul uses emphatic language, 1 Cor.
xv. 1-3, to show that this doctrine was not confined to himself but
was a common property of Christians.
9. St. Paul here separates between ‘justification,’ the pronouncing
‘not guilty’ of sinners in the past and their final salvation from the
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. ix. 22 χωρὶς αἱματεκχνσίας ob yweras ἄφεσις, see Ὁ. 98
avove.
V. 9-11.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 129
No clearer passage can be quoted for distinguishing the spheres
of justification and sanctification than this verse and the next—the
one an objective fact accomplished without us, the other a change
operated within us. Both, though in different ways, proceed from
rist.
δι᾿ αὐτοῦ : explained by the next verse ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ. That
which saves the Christian from final judgement is his union with
the living Christ.
10. κατηλλάγημεν. The natural prima facie view is that the
reconciliation is mutual ; and this view appears to verify itself on
examination : see below.
ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ. For the full meaning of this see the notes on
ch. vi. 8-11; viii. 10, 11.
11. καυχώμενοι (δὴ BC D, ἂς.) is decisively attested for καυχώμεθα,
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 καυχώμεθα. In any case it is present and
not future (as if constructed with σωθησόμεθα). We may compare
a similar loose attachment of δικαιούμενοι in ch. iii. 24.
The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement.
The καταλλαγή described in these verses is the same as the εἰρήνη
of ver. 1; and the question necessarily meets us, What does this
σἱρήνη OF καταλλαγή 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. a1: ‘ ἐχθρούς, “ hostile to God,” as the
consequence of ἀπηλλοτριωμένους not “hateful to God,” as it is taken
by some. The active rather than the passive sense of ἐχθρούς 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 effected.’
Similarly Westcott on σ Jo. ii. 2 (p. 85): ‘Such 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. 1of.). 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 Aacpds, when it is applied to the
sinner, 50 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 ἰλασμός is properly
140 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ν. 19-14
used in reference to a personal agent. Some one is ‘ propitiated’:
and who can this be, but God?]
The same idea is a characteristic feature in the theology of
Ritschl (Δ αλλ. ἡ. Vers. ii. 230 ff.).
No doubt there are passages where ἐχθρός denotes the hostility
and καταλλαγή 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.
(1) In the immediate context we have τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν,
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 χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, to which is usually added ἀπὸ
Θεοῦ in the greetings of the Epistles.
(2) In Rom. xi. 28 ἐχθροί is opposed to ἀγαπητοί, where ἀγαπητοὶ
must be passive (‘beloved by God’), so that it is hardly possible
that ἐχθροί 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 ἱλαστήριον (Rom. iii.
25), ἱλασμός (1 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: κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω 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.’
THE FALL OF ADAM AND THE WORK OF CHRIST.
V. 12-14. What a contrast does this last description
suggest between the Fall of Adam and the justifying Work
of Christ! There ἐς indeed parallelism as well as contrast.
For it ts true that as Christ brought righteousness and life,
so Adam's Fall brought sin and death. If death prevailea
throughout the pre-Mosatc pertod, that could not be due solely
132 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ν. 12
That being so, we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. 11 that
St. Paul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one
case with that of 4/e 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 how they were transmitted; nor does he even define
in precise terms whaf# is transmitted. He seems, however, to mean
(1) the liability to sin, (2) the liability to die as the punishment
of sin.
ὥσπερ. 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: ὥσπερ δὲ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἧ ἁμαρτία els τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε, καὶ διὰ
τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος . . . οὕτω καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ δικαιοσύνη
εἰσῆλθε, καὶ διὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἡ (on. But the words διὰ τῆς ἅμαρ-
rias ὁ θάνατος 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 (ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος)
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.
4 ἁμαρτία: 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.
aig τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε: a phrase which, though it reminds us
specially of St. John (John i. 9, 10; ill, 17, 19; Vi. 14; ix. δ,
39; x. 36, &c.), is not peculiar to him (cf. τ 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.
ὃ θάνατος. Some have taken this to mean ‘eternal death,’
chiefly on the ground of wv. 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 (1) this is clearly the sense of ver. 14; (2) it is
the sense of Gen. ii. 17; iii. 19; to which St. Paul is evidently
alluding. It seems probable that even in vv. 17, 21, the idea
is in the first instance physical. But St. Paul does not draw the
V. 121] ADAM AND CHRIST 133
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;
ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἦ χάρις is the 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 understood in the second place ὁ θάνατος.
διῆλθεν: contains the force of distribution; ‘made its way to
each individual member of the race’: καθάπερ τις κλῆρος πατρὸς
διαβὰς ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐγγόνους (‘like a father’s inheritance divided among
his children’), Euthym.-Zig.
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. Though this expression has been much fought over,
there can now be little doubt that the true rendering is ‘ because.’
(1) Orig. followed by the Latin commentators Aug. and Ambrstr.
took the rel. as masc. with antecedent ᾿Αδάμ: ‘in whom,’ i.e. ‘in
Adam.’ But in that case (i) ἐπέ would not be the right preposi-
tion; (ii) ¢ would be too far removed from its antecedent.
(2) Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc.
with antecedent θάνατος : ‘in which, i.e. ‘in death,’ which is
even more impossible. (3) Some moderns, taking ¢ as neut. and
the 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, jus/ as all sinned’), Rothe, De Wette;
(ii) (= ἐφ᾽ ὅσον) ‘in proportion as,’ ‘in so far as’ (‘all died, ἐμ so
far as all sinned’), Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But
the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) ¢ is rightly
taken as neut., and the phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ as conj.=‘because’ (‘for
that’ AV. and RV.) by Theodrt. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass
of modern commentators. This is in agreement with Greek
usage and is alone satisfactory.
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in classical writers more often means ‘on condition that’: ef.
Thuc. i. 113 σπονδὰς ποιησάμενοι ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τοὺς ἄνδρας κομιοῦνται, ‘on con-
dition of getting back their prisoners,’ &c. The plural ἐφ᾽ οἷς is more
common, as in ἀνθ’ ὧν, ἐξ dv, δι’ ὧν. In N.T. the phrase occurs three
times, always as it would seem = propterea quod, ‘because’: cf. 2 Cor. v. 4
στενάζομεν Bapovpeva ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ob θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι #.7.A.; Phil. iii, 12
ἐφ᾽ ᾧὶ καὶ κατελήφθην ὑπὸ Χ, ‘I. (where ‘seeing that’ or ‘because’ appears
to be the more probable rendering). So Phavorinus (d. 1537; 8 lexico-
gtapher of the Renaissance period, who incorporated the contents of older
works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) ἐφ’ ᾧ ἀντὶ τοῦ διότι
Aéyovow ‘Arrixol, οἷον tg’ ᾧ τὴν κλοπὴν εἰργάσω (‘because you com
mitted the theft”) «.7.A.
834 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [v. 12, 18
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. Here lies the erux of this difficult pas-
sage. In what sense did ‘all sin’? (1) Many, including even
Meyer, though explaining ἐφ᾽ ¢ as neut. rather than masc., yet
give to the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equivalent
to that which it has if the antecedent of ¢ is Addy. Bengel has
given this classical expression: omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante,
‘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 ἐν ᾿Αδάμ would have removed
all ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part
supply nothing, but take ἥμαρτον in its usual sense: ‘all sinned
in their own persons, and on their own initiative.’ So Euthym.-
Zig.: διότι πάντες ἥμαρτον ἀκολουθήσαντες τῷ προπάτορι κατά γε τὸ
ἁμαρτῆσαι. 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 ἥμαρτον 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
from Adam. So practically Stuart, Fricke, Weiss, ἄς. There
still remains the difficulty as to the connexion of this clause with
what follows: see the next note.
It is a further argument in favour of the view taken above that a very
similar sequence of thought is found in 4 Ezra, Immediately after laying
down that the sin of Adam’s descendants is due to that malignstas radicts
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 malignum as he had: £4
deliguerunt gus habitabant civitatem, in omnibus factentes sicut fecit Adam
et omnes generationes cius, uichbantur enim et tpst corde maligno (4 Ezra iii.
25 f.). Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from Apo.
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. ἄχρι γὰρ νόμου κι. At first sight this seems to give a
reason for just the opposite of what is wanted: it seems to prove
not that πάντες ἥμαρτον, 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 guilt 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
136 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ν. 14
Cyprian and Victorinus—a statement which we are not at present able to
verify. He accounts for the Greek reading by the usual theory of heretical
corruption. There is a similar question of the insertion or omission of a
negative in Rom. iv. 19 (q.v.\, Gal. ii. §. In two out of the three cases the
Western text omits the negative, but in ch. iv. 19 it inserts it.
τύπος (τύπτω): (1) the ‘impression’ left by a sharp blow (τὸν τύπον
τῶν ἥλων John xx. 25), in particular the ‘stamp’ struck by a die; (2)
inasmuch as such a stamp bears the figure on the face of the die, ‘ copy,
‘figure,’ or ‘ representation ’; (3) by a common transition from effect to cause,
‘ 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 οἱ
person in history 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 (ἀντίτυπος 1 Pet. iii. 21).
These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation: see
esp. Cheyne, /sasah, ii. 170 ff. (Essay III, ‘On the Christian Element in the
Book of Isaiah ἢ).
τοῦ μέλλοντος. (1) The entirely personal nature of the whole
comparison prevents us from taking τοῦ μέλλ. as neut. = ‘that
which was to come’ (Beng., Oltramare). If St. Paul had
intended this, he would have written τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. (2)
Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the
Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as ὁ δεύτερος or ὁ ἔσχατοε
"Addn (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47). If St. Paul had intended this, he
would have written τοῦ μέλλοντος ᾿Αδάμ. (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 sufficiently
brought out by the expression ‘of Him who was to be.’ ὁ
μέλλων thus approximates in meaning to ὁ ἐρχόμενος (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 τοῦ μέλλοντος = ‘Him who was to
come’ when Adam fell, not ‘who #s (still) to come’ (Fri. De W.).
The Effects of Adam's Fall in Fewish Theology.
Three points come out clearly in these verses: (1) 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 illustration from Jewish sources, though the Talmud does
4 ‘The designation “The Coming One” (//adéa), though a most truthfal
expression of Jewish expectancy, was aot one ordinarily used of the Messiah.’
rsheim, ZL. & 7. i. p. 668,
V. 12-14.] ADAM AND CHRIST 137
mot 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’ (Zs/e and Times, ἄς. 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 Baruch.
(1) The evidence is strongest as to the connexion between Adam’s sin and
the introduction of death. ‘ There were,’ says Dr. Edersheim, ‘two divergent
opinions—the one ascribing death to personal, the other to Adam’s guilt’
(op. cat. i. 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. 23 f. ὁ @eds ἔκτισεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπ᾿ ἀφθαρσίᾳ... φθόνῳ δὲ
διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, where we note the occurrence of
St. Paul’s phrase; Ecclus, xxv. 24 [33] δι᾽ αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν γυναῖκα) ἀποθνή-
σκομεν πάντες. The doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Ezra and
Apoc. Baruch.: 4 Ext. iii. 7 ef huic (sc. Adamo) mandasté diligere viam
tuam, εἰ practerivit cam; 4“ statim instituist? in eum mortem et in
sationibus (= gencrationibus) eius: Apoc. Baruch. xvii. 3 (Adam) mortem
attulst et abscidit annos corum qui ab 40 genits fuerunt: ibid. xxili. 4
Usando peccavet Adam et decreta futt mors contra eos gut gignerentur.
(2) We are warmed (by Dr. Edersheim in Sf. Comm. Apocr. ad loc.) not
to identify the statement of Ecclus. xxv. 24 [23] ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἀρχὴ ἁμαρτίας
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,
and in like manner he also seems to deduce from her (ἀπὸ yur.) the ssitium
peccandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra iii. 21 f. Cor enim malignum baiulans
primus Adam transgressus et victus est, sed et omnes gui de co mati sunt:
eh facta est permanens infirmitas, εἰ lex cum corde popult, cum malignitale
vadscis; et discessit quod bonum est, et mansit malignum: tbtd. iv. 30
Quontam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab inttto, et
quantum impielatis generavit usque nunc, et generat usque dum vental area:
hid. vii. «ἃ (118) Οὐ quid fecists Adam? St enim tu peccasti, nom est factus
Ssoleses tus casus, sed εἰ mostrum qui ex be advenimus.
(3) And yet alony with all this we have the explicit assertion of responsi-
bility on the part of all who sin. This appears in the passage quoted above
on ver. 12 (ad fis.). To the same efiect are 4 Ezr. viii. 59 f. Non enim
Altsssimus voluit hominem disperdi, sed ipsi gui creati sunt coinguinaverunt
women etus gui γε} 401: sbid. ix. 11 gui fastidierunt legem meam cum adhuc
evant habentes libertatem. αἰ the classical passage is <poc. Baruch.
liv. 15, 19 «δὲ enim Adam prior peccavit, et attulit mortem super omnes
tmmaturam ; sed etiam slli gui ex eo nati sunt, unusguisque ex εἰς pratpa-
vavit animae suae tormentum futurum: et tlerum unusquisque ex 6s
elegit sibi gloriam futuram... Non est ergo Adam causa, ntsi animae suae
lantum ; ΜΟΙ vero unusquisque fuit antmae suae Adam.
The teaching of these passagcs does not really conflict with that of the
Talmud. The latter is thus summarized by Weber (Alisyn. Theol. p. 216):
* By the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right
relation to God is rendered difficult. More than this cannot be said. Sin,
to which the bent and leaning had already been planted in man by creation,
had become a fact ; the “ evil impulse” ( = cor malignum) gained the mastery
over mankind, who can only resist it by the greatest efforts; before the Fall
it had had power over him, but no such ascendancy (Uebermacht).’ Hence
when the same writer says a little further on that according to the Rabbis
‘there is such a thing as transmission of guilt, but not such a thing as trans-
138 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ν. 15-21.
mission of sin (Bs gibt eine Evbschuld, aber keine Evbsiinde), the negative
proposition is due chiefly to the clearness with which the Rabbis (like Apec.
Baruch.) insist upon free-will and direct individual 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 cor malignum
before the Fall, nor does he use such explicit language as nos
vero unusguisque ΔΩ animae suae Adam: on the other hand he
does define more exactly than the Rabbis the nature of human
responsibility both under the Law (ch. vii. 7 ff.) and without it
(ii. 12-15). 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 fall.
ADAM AND CHRIST.
V. 16-21. So far the parallelism: but note also the
contrast. How superior the Work of Christ! (1) 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 the whole race with
sin, and a multitude of sins collected together in one only to
be forgiven! (ver. 16). (3) How different and surpassing in
tts whole character and consequences: a reign of Death and
a reign of Life! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adam’s Fall
brought sin: Law increased tt: but the Work of Grace has
cancelled, and more than cancelled, the effect of Law (vv.
18-21).
%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
¥40 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 16, 16.
(which is prop. ‘missing a mark’). It is however appropriate
that παράπτ. should be used for a ‘fall’ or first deflection from
uprightness, just as ἁμάρτ. is used of the failure of efforts towards
recovery. On the word see Trench, Syn. p. 237 ὦ
τοῦ ἑνός : ‘the one man,’ t,¢. Adam.
of πολλοί: ‘the many,’ practically = πάντας ver. 12; πάντας ἀνθρώ-
sous in ver. 18, ‘all mankind.’ It is very misleading to translate
as AV., ignoring the article, if ‘through the offence of ome, many
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 Γῆ. On Revision, p. 97, ‘ By this accurate version
some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute reprobation
had been happily prevented. Our English readers had then seen, what
several of the Fathers saw and testified, that of πολλοί, the many, in an anti-
thesis to the one, are equivalent to πάντες, αΖ, in ver. 12, and comprehend the
whole multitude, the entire species οὗ mankind, exclusive only of she ove.’
πολλῷ μᾶλλον. 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.
ἡ δωρεά is more fully defined below (ver. 17) as ἡ δωρεὰ τῆς
δικαιοσύνης : the gift is the condition of righteousness into which
the sinner enters. δωρεά, ‘boon,’ like δῶρον contrasted with δόμα,
is reserved for the highest and best gifts; so Philo, Leg. Adleg. iii.
7° ἔμφασιν μεγέθους τελείων ἀγαθῶν δηλοῦσιν (Lft. Rev. p. 77); comp.
also the ascending scale of expression in Jas. i. 17.
ἐν χάριτι goes closely with ἡ δωρεά. In classical Greek we should
have had the art. ἡ ἐν χάριτι, 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 ἐν χάριτι from ἡ
δωρεά and connect it with ἐπερίσσευσε.
χάρις is more often applied to God the Father, and is exhibited in the
whole scheme of salvation. As applied to Christ it is (1) that active favour
towards mankind which moved Him to intervene for their salvation (cf. esp.
4 Cor. viii. 9); (2) the same active favour shown to the individual by the
Father and the Son conjointly (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 ἐστί, with the
second ἐγένετο : ‘ 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 is expansion out-
wards, from one to many: in the other case there is contraction
143 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 18, 19.
πεπληρωκότος. But it seems better, with Mey. Gif. and others, to
give the same sense to δικαίωμα as in ver. 16. We saw that there
the sense was fixed by κατάκριμα, which is repeated in the present
verse. On the other hand it is doubtful whether δικαίωμα can quite
ΞΞ ἃ 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 és neut. in agreement with δικαιώμ, (Mey.-W. Va.
Gif.) rather than masc. (Lips.).
Scxaiwow ζωῆς. ‘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. διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς... διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς. It is natural that
this aspect of the Fall as παρακοή should be made prominent in
a context which lays stress on the effect of law or express command
in enhancing the heinousness of sin. It is natural also that in
antithesis to this there should be singled out in the Death of
Christ its special aspect as ὑπακοή: cf. Heb. v. 8,9; Matt. xxvi.
39; Phil. ii. 8. On the word παρακοή (‘a failing to hear,’ securia,
and thence tnobedtentia) see Trench, Syn. p. 234.
κατεστάθησαν. . . κατασταθήσονται: ‘ 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, κατασταθήσονται 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 ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, καὶ οὐκ Uf ἐθνῶν
ἁμαρτωλοί, he implied (speaking for the moment from the stand-point of his
countrymen) that Gentiles would be regarded as φύσει ἁμαρτωλοί: they
belonged ‘to the class’ of sinners; just as we might speak 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 very similar:
so far as it relates to the effects of the Fall of Adam it must be interpreted
by vv. 12-14; and so far as it relates to the effects of the Death of Christ
it is parallel to vv. 1, 2 δικαιωθέντες οὖν [ἐκ micrews] εἰρήνην ἔχομεν (con-
tained in ἔχωμεν) πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ‘1. X., δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τὴν
προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν εἰς τὴν χάριν ἐν ἣ ἑστήκαμεν, For the use of καθί-
στασθαι there is a good parallel in Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 9 ᾿Εγὼ οὖν τοὺς μὲν
βουλομένους πολλὰ πράγματα ἔχειν... els τοὺς ἀρχικοὺς καταστήσαιμι, where
aaraor. = εἰς τοὺς ἀρχικοὺς τάττομεν (:Ωω.) and ἐμαυτὸν τάττω εἰς
ἠρυλομένους (ἐκ7.).
V. 20, 21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 143
20. παρεισῆλθεν : ‘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. 13-16; x. 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, but the Law entered by the way!
It was to show that the need of it was temporary and not absolute or
clan recedence’ (πρόσκαιρον αὐτοῦ δεικνὺς τὴν χρείαν οὖσαν, καὶ ob
προηγουμένην) Chrys.
τὰν πλεονάσῃ. For the force of ἵνα comp. els τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπο-
λογήτους i. 20 : 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 δὲ ἵνα ἐνταῦθα οὐκ αἰτιολογίας πάλιν ἀλλ’ ἐκβάσεώς ἐστιν. Οὐ γὰρ διὰ
τοῦτο ἃ ἵνα πλεονάσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐδόθη μὲν ὥστε “Μειῶσαι καὶ ἀνελεῖν τὸ παρά-
στωμα᾿ ἐξέβη δὲ τοὐναντίον, οὐ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ νόμου φύσιν, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν τῶν
δεξαμένων ῥαθυμίαν (Chrys.): a note which shows that the ancients were quite
aware of the ecbatic sense of ἵνα (see on xi. 11).
πλεονάσῃ, as Va. remarks, might be transitive, but is more
probably intransitive, because of ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ auapr. which follows.
τὸ παράπτωμα: 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.
Δ]. ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ. 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).
διὰ δικαιοσύνης. The reign of grace or Divine favour is made
possible 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.
St. Paul's 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 dyapria with its cognates is a case in point. The
corresponding term in Hebrew has much the same original sense
144 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ἵν. 12-21
of ‘missing a mark.’ Both words are used with 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 ἁμαρτία, ἁμαρτάνειν 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 Concora-
ance 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. xxxix. 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.
. 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
ἃ 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 (ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ
ἔλλογεῖται μὴ ὄντος νόμον 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. rgf.; 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. 13-21.) ADAM AND CHRIST 145
which the heinousness of the offence is proportioned to advantages
and 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. vit.
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. 12-14). But there was yet a third
element, independent 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
same 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. 12); 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 distinction 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 Enoch, p. 52f.), 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 (1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 11), but the direct tempta-
tion of individual Christians (1 Cor. vii. 5); he has his followers on
whom he is sometimes invited to wreak his will (1 Cor. v. δ;
L
146 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ν. 13-21
r Tim. i. 30); supernatural powers of deceiving or perverting men
are attributed to him (2 Thess. ii. 9 κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐν πάσῃ
δυνάμει καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασι ψεύδους : cf. 2 Cor. xi. 14). The
Power of Evil does not stand alone but has at its disposal a whole
army of subordinate agents (Goxal ἐξουσίαι, κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ σκότοις
τούτον Eph. vi. 12; cf. Col. ii. 15). There is indeed a whole
hierarchy of evil spirits as there is a hierarchy of good (Eph. i. 21),
and Satan has a court and a kingdom just as God has. He is ‘the
god of the existing age’ (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου 2 Cor. iv. 4), and
exercises his rule till the final triumph of the Messiah (2 Thess. ii.
8 f.; 1 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 Jeast
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 following the account in Gen. iii; and the question
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 modern criticism,
that it is not to be taken as a literal record 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 of
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 farther, 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 is present in every man who
is born into the world. But the tendency does not become actual sin until
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 truths all come ont in
that narrative—the recognition of the Divine Will, the act of disobedience
to the Will so recognized, 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 surest
pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part of us, the soul,
Origen
Chrysos-
tom.
148 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 13-21
G@angerous theeries as to conduct, which arise from holding such beliefs in
+ too crude a mahner, are at once guarded against (§ 33): What then must
- we do, brethren? Must we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love !
May the Mastert-mever allow this to defall us at least ... We have seen that
all the righteous were adorued in good works .. . Seeing then that we have
this pattern, let-us confarm ourselves with all diligence to His will; let us
with all our work the work of righteousness.’ Clement writes as
a Christian of second gencratiod who inherits the teaching and phraseo-
logy of the Aspastolic period. ‘ Faith,’ ‘Works,’ ‘ Righteousness,’ are ideas
which have bedcéme part of the Christian life; the need of defmition has not
arisen. The,system of conduct which should be exhibited as the result of
the different ‘elements of this life is clearly realized. What St. Paul and
St. James: each in his different way arrived at is accomplished. For the
exact meaning of St. Paul, however, and the understanding of his teaching,
we get no aid. Bishop Lightfoot, while showing how Clement ‘has caught
the spirit of the Pauline teaching,’ yet dwells, and dwells rightly, on ‘ the
defect in the dogmatic statement.’ (See Lightfoot, Clement, 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.
εὐ How little Origen had grasped some points in St. Paul’s thought may be
seen: by his comment on Rom. ili. 20 Ex oferibus igtter legis one tusti-
feabitur omnis caro in comspectes cius, hoc modo intelligendum puto: guia
omnis: gus caro est et secundum carnem vivit, non potest iustificari ex
lege Dei, sicut.et alibi dictt idem Apostolus, guia qui in carne sunt Deo
piacere non possant (ἐκ Rome, iii. 6; Opp. tom. vi. 194, ed. Lommatzsch).
ut in many points his teaching is clear and strong. All Justification is by
faith alone (ili. 9, p. 217 et dicst seefficere solius | iustificationem, sta el
credens guts tantummodo iustificetur, etiamsi μέλ ab ἐο operis
explstum). 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 God, a peace which has
been purchased ‘for~ ts ‘by’thé -blood of Christ (iv. 8, p. 285, on Rom. v. 1).
The process of justificatidnis*dlearly one of ‘imputation’ (ides ad tustitiam
veputeturiv. 1, Ὁ. 240, of Rom. iv. 1-8), and is identified with the Gospel
teaching of the forgiveneds ‘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. 37-42). But the need for good works is not excluded: sed
Sortassts haec aliquis audiens resolvatur et bene agendt negligentiam capiat,
53 quidem ad tustificandum fides sola sufficiat. ad quem dicemus, quia post
éustificationsem εἰ iniuste quis agat, sine dubio iustificationis gratiam sprevit
-.. tndulgentia namque non fuiurorum sed praeteritorum criminum datur
ii. 9, p. 219, on Rom. iii. 27, 28). Faith without works is impossible
iv. I, p. 234): rather faith is the root from which they spring: son
ex operibhs radix iustitiac, sed ex radice tustitiae fructus operum cresctt,
tlla scilicet wadice iustitiae, gua Deus accepto fert tustiliam sine operibus
(iv. I, p. 24%; ‘see also the comment on Rom. ii. 5, 6 in ii. 4, p. 81). We
may further-note that in the comment on Rom. i. 17 and iii. 24 the sesstitia
Dez is clearly'interpreted as the Divine attribute.
The same criti which ‘was passed on Origen applies in an equal
or even greater degree to Chrysostom. Theologically and practically the
teaching is vigorous and well balanced, but so far as exegesis is con-
cerned St. Paul’s conception and point of view are not understood. The
circumstances which had created these conceptions no longer existed
Comelius
a Lapide.
152 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-21
Law, he entirely brushes away (on ili. 20); again, he interprets testifcare as
‘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 of fides informis and formata 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 ii. 6 he points
out that the words can be taken in quite a natural sense, for reward does not
imply merit, and on ii. 13 that he applies the passage to Gentiles not in
ἃ state of grace, but says that the words mean that although Gentiles had
knowledge and opportunity they had sinned, and therefore would be neces-
sarily condemned.
The Reformation theology made St. Paul’s point of view comprehensible,
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 of fides informess and
Jormata, 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 is substituted for dead works; and
faith becomes identified with ‘ personal assurance’ or‘ self-assurance.’ More-
over, for the ordinary expression of St. Paul, ‘we are justified 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 vagne sense of σώζειν,
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 divorced
in fact from the Christian life.
The Reformation teaching created definitely the distinction between tuststia
imputata and tustitia infusa, and the Council of Trent defined Justification
thus: sustificatio non est sola peccatorum remissto, sed etiam sanctificatio
et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et
donorum (Sess. VI. cap. vii).
A typical commentary on the Romans from this point of view is that of
Cornelius a Lapide. On i. 17 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 from ii. 13
that works have a place in justification; and that our justification consists in
the gift to us of the Divine justice, that is, of grace and charity and other
virtues.
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, Sanctitication, Salvation.
Our Christian life begins with the act of taith 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
VI. 1-14] UNION WITH CHRIST 153
of faith nothing can profit us. There is a close connexion again between
Justification and Salvation ; the one represents the beginning of the process
of which the other is the conclusion, and in so far as the first step is the
essential one the life of the justified on earth can be and is spoken of as
the life of the saved; but 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 on ii. 6, 13): we must strive to make our character such as befits us
for 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 #retched 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.
THB MYSTICAL UNION OF THE CHRISTIAN
WITH CHRIST.
VI. 1-14. 77 more sin only means more grace, shall we
goon 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) 74. brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ,
so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him.
(2) 72 expresses symbolically a sertes 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, and lives henceforth a reformed
life dedicated to God. [This at least ts the ideal, whatever
may be the veality.| (vv. 1-11.) Act then as men who have
thrown off the dominion of Sin. Dedicate all your powers
to God. Be not afraid; Law, Sin's ally, ἐς superseded in
sts hold over you by Grace (vv. 12-14).
*Osyzctor. Is not this dangerous doctrine? If more sin
means more grace, are we not encuuraged to go on sinning ?
154 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (Vi. 1-14
δι Paut. A horrible thought! 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
in it.
*Surely you do not need reminding that all of us who were
immersed or baptized, as our Christian phrase runs,‘ é#¢o Christ,’
i.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 haunt of sin, might be so paralyzed and
156 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [vI. 1-8.
it however not by proving a non 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 pivot: dpptrines,
the Mystical Union of the Christian with Christ dating from his
Baptism. Here we have another of those great elerhental forces in
the Christian Life which effectually prevents any antindmian:'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 various readings in this chapter are unimportant. There can be no
question that we should read ἐπιμένωμεν for ἐπιμενοῦμεν in ver. 1; (nooper
and not ζήσωμεν in ver. 2; and that τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν should be omitted at the
end of ver. 11. In that verse the true position of εἶναι is after ἑαυτούς
(N* BC, Cyr.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc.): some inferior authorities place it after
νεκροὺς μέν : the Western text (A DEF G, Tert.; cf. also Pesh. Boh. Arm.
Aeth.) omits it altogether. .
Δ. οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν. Naturally the relative of quality: ‘we,
being what we are, men who died (in our baptism) to sin,’ &c.
8. ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε: ‘Can you deny this, or is.it possible that you are
not aware of all that your baptism involves?’ St. Paul does 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.
ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν: ‘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. 27
ὅσοι yap εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε.
This conception lies at the root of the whole passage. ΑἹ] 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.
εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν. This points back to ἀπεθάνομεν
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 efficacy 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 immunities
and privileges, The sprinkling of the Blood of Christ seals that
158 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VI. δ, 6.
τῷ ὁμοιώμ. dat. of respect. Probably the former, 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 fuller 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 composition.
6. γινώσκοντες : see Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. viii. r (p. 299), where
γινώσκω as contrasted with οἷδα is explained as signifying ‘ apprecia-
tive or experimental acquaintance.’ A slightly different explanation
is given by Gif. ad loc., ‘ noting this, as of the idea involved in the
cone knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding
νους).
ὃ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος : ‘our old self’; cp. esp. Suicer, Zhes.
i. 352, where the patristic interpretations are collected (ἢ προτέρα
πολιτεία Theodrt.; ὁ κατεγνωσμένος Bios Euthym.-Zig., &c.).
This phrase, with its correlative ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, is a marked link of
connexion between the acknowledged and disputed Epp. (cf. Eph. ii. 15;
iv. 22, 24; Col. iii. 9). The coincidence is the more remarkable as the
phrase would hardly come into use until great stress began to be laid u
the necessity for a change of life, and may be a coinage of St. Paul's. It
should be noted however that ὁ ἐντὸς ἄνθρωπος goes back to Plato (Grm.-
Thay. s. νυ. ἄνθρωποε, 1.€.).
συνεστανρώθη : cf. Gal. il. 20 Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι. There is a differ-
ence between the thought here and in /mit. X¢s. II. xii. 3 ‘Behold! in the
cross all doth consist, and all lieth in our dying thereon; for there is no
other way unto 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 Gospels, which is a daily process. St. Paul no doubt leaves room for
such 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.
καταργηθῇ. For xarapyeiv see on ili. 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.
τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας : the body of which sin has taken posses-
sion. Parallel phrases are vii. 24 τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου :
Phil. iii. 21 τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν : Col, ii. rr [ἐν τῇ ἀπεκ-
δύσει] τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός. 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
80 apt to be the instrument of its own carnal impulses.’
Here τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας must be taken closely together, because
it is not the body, simply as such, which is to be killed, but the
VI. 6-10.] UNION WITH CHRIST 159
body as she seat of sin. This is to be killed, so that Sin may lose
its slave.
τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν. On τοῦ with inf. as expressing purpose see
esp. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 342.
τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ : ἁμαρτία, as throughout this passage, is personified as
a hard taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter.
7. ὃ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν. . . ἁμαρτίας. The argument is thrown into
the form of a general proposition, so that ὁ ἀποθανών 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.
t Pet. iv. x ὅτι ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπανται ἁμαρτίας : also the Rabbinical
parallel quoted by Delitzsch ad Joc. ‘ when a man is dead he is free
from the law and the commandments.’
Delitzsch goes so far as to describe the idea as an ‘acknowledged /ocus
communis, which would considerably weaken the force of the literary
coincidence between the two Apostles.
δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. The sense of δεδικαίωται 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. συζήσομεν. 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 little more stress on the physica] 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.
κυριεύει. Still the idea of master and slave or vassal. Death
loses its dominium over Christ altogether. That which gave Death
its hold upon Him was sin, the human sin with which He was
brought in contact by His Incarnation. The connexion was
severed once for all by Death, which set Him free for ever.
10. ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανε. The whole clause forms a kind of cognate
accus. after the second ἀπέθανεν (Win. ὃ xxiv. 4, p. 209 Ε. T.);
Euthym.-Zig. paraphrases τὸν θάνατον ὃν ἀπέθανε διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν
ἀπέθανε τὴν ἡμετέραν, where however rj ἁμαρτίᾳ is not rightly repre-
sented by διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτία».
160 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VZ. 10, 18.
τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν. In what sense did Christ die to sin?
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’ (2 Cor. v. 21)? The
same verse which tells us this supplies the answer: τὸν μὴ γνόντα
ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ‘the Sinless One for our sake
was treated as if He were sinful.’ The sin which hung about Him
and wreaked its effects upon Him was not His but ours (cp. 1 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.
ἐφάπαξ. The decisiveness of the Death of Christ is specially
insisted upon in Ep. to Hebrews. This is the great point of con-
trast with the Levitical sacrifices: they did and it did not need to
be repeated (cf. Heb. vii. 27; ix. 12, 26, 28; x. 10; also σ Pet.
lii. 18
tn ua Θεῷ. 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 κυριεύει αὐτοῦ
but God.
This phrase (ἢ τῷ Θεῷ naturally suggests ‘the moral’ application
to the believer.
11. λογίζεσθε ἑαυτούς. 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 for God, through its
union with the risen Christ, who also lives only for God.
λογίζεσθε : not indic. (as Beng. Lips.) but imper., preparing the
way, after St. Paul’s manner, for the direct exhortation of the next
paragraph.
ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿ησοῦ. 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. (1) The relation is conceived as
a local relation. The Christian has his being ‘in’ Christ, a
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 ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, not ἐν Incov Χριστῷ (Deissmann,
p. 88; cp. also Haussleiter, as referred to on p. 86 sup.). We find
however ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ in Eph. iv. 21, but not in the same strict
application. (3) In agreement with the regular usage of the words
in this order ἐν Xp. ‘I. always relates to the glorified Christ regarded
as πνεῦμα, not to the historical Christ. (4) The corresponding
expression Χριστὸς ἔν τινι is best explained by the same analogy of
162 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (Vt. 1-14
him too to go off at the word νόμον into a digression, returning to
the subject with which the chapter opened, and looking at it from
another side.
Lhe 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 Lord. But that apprehension was 80
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 rdentification of will, 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
this 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
164 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Vz. 1-14
ness were all-powerful, might employ itself and work its wonders, it was
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,
could 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
daty, which 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 faith’ (St. Paul and
Protestantism, p. 69 f.).
‘It is impossible to be in presence of this Pauline conception of faith
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 attributed 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 calls 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: fo 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 necrosés (2 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-
ness, it enabled him to say: Die te them! Christ did. If any man be in
Chi said Paul,—that is, if any man identifies himself with Christ by
attachment so that he enters into his feelings and lives with 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 ordinary 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. Adi
impulses of selfishness conflict with Christ’s feelings, He showed it by dying
to them all; if you are one with 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’ (#5#d. pp. 75-78).
Another striking presentation of the thought of this passage will be found
in a lay sermon, Zhe Witness of God, by the philosopher, T. H. Green
(London, 1883; also in Works). Mr. Green was as far removed as Matthew
Arnold from conventional theology, and there are traces of Hegelianism 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,
166 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VI. 18-23,
admitted that the group of conceptions united by St. Paul, and, as it would
seem, yet more widely extended by St. John, is difficult to grasp intellectually,
and has doubtless been acted upon in many a simple unspeculative life in
which there was never any attempt to formulate it exactly in words. But the
conception belongs to the length 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 is capable of exercising
a stronger and more dominating influence on the Christian consciousness
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 certain directions which has led them, if not
exactly to discoveries, yet to new and vivid realization of truths which to
indolent minds are obscured by their very familiarity.
THE TRANSITION FROM LAW TO GRACE,
ANALOGY OF SLAVERY.
VI. 15-28. Zake an illustration from common life—the
condition of slavery. The Christian was a slave of sin;
his business was uncleanness; his wages, death. But he
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! * 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
Righteousness.
1 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 ua-
divided service. Devote the members of your body as unreservedly
168 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (Vz. 16-19.
appealed in ‘No man can serve two masters’ (Matt. vi. 24). There
are still nearer parallels in John viii. 34; 2 Pet. ii. 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.
firov... 4: these disjunctives state a dilemma in a lively and emphatic
way, implying that one limb or the other must be chosen (Baumlein, Per-
sikellehve, Ὁ. 244; Kiihner, Gram. ἃ 540. 5).
17. els ὃν. . . διδαχῆς : stands for [ὑπηκούσατε] τύπῳ διδαχῆς εἰς
ὃν παρεδόθητε. We expect rather ὃς ὑμῖν παρεδόθη : 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 Didaché (see the reff. in Hatch, Arddert
Lectures, 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.
τύπον διδαχῆς. For τύπος 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 that
that is the meaning here. So among the ancients Chrys. (ris δὲ ὁ
τύπος τῆς διδαχῆς ; ὀρθῶς ζὴν καὶ μετὰ πολιτείας ἀρίστης) Euthym.-Zig.
(els τύπον, ἤγουν τὸν κανόνα καὶ ὅρον τῆς εὐσεβοῦς πολιτείας), and
among moderns 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 of
the nineteenth century and not with those of the first (cf. Hort,
Rom. and Eph. p. 32 ‘Nothing like this notion of a plurality of
Christian τύποι διδαχῆς occurs anywhere else in the N. Το, and it is
quite out of harmony with all the context’).
19. ἀνθρώπινον λέγω. St. Paul uses this form of phrase (cf.
Gal. iii. 16 κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω) 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) ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγεν, ἀπὸ ἀνθρωπίνων λογισμῶν, ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν
συνηθείᾳ γινομένων.
διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός. Two explanations are possible :
(1) ‘ because of the moral hindrances which prevent the practice of
Christianity’ (Chrys. Theodrt. Weiss and others); (2) ‘because
of the difficulties of apprehension, from defective spiritual experi-
ence, which prevent the understanding of its deeper truths’ (most
moderns), Clearly this is more in keeping with the context. In
170 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII 1-6.
(Gif.). When two phrases link together so easily as ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐπαισχ.
with what precedes, it is a mistake to separate them except for
strong reasons; nor does there appear to be sufficient ground for
distinguishing between near consequences and remote.
ete: τὸ μὲν γάρ NOBD*EFG. There fs the usual ambi of
readings in which B alone joins the Western authorities. The
reading belongs to the Western element in B, and ψ τη vas
introduced through erroneous antithesis to νυνὶ δέ,
33. ὀψώνια. From a root πεπ- we get ἕψω, ὄψον, ‘ cooked’ meat, fish, é&e.
as contrasted with bread. Hence the compound ὀψώνιον (ὠνέομαι, ‘to buy’) =
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 Atticists, but found freely in Polybius,
1 Macc. &c. (Sturz, Dial. Maced. Ὁ. 187).
xépiopa. Tertullian, with his usual picturesque boldness, translates this by
donativum (De Kes. Carn.c. 47 Stipendia enim delinguentiae mors
autem dei vita acterna). It is not probable that St. Paul had this particular
antithesis in his mind, though no doubt he intends to contrast ὀψώνια and
χάρισμα.
THE TRANSITION FROM LAW ΤῸ ΘΒΑΟΒ.
ANALOGY OF MARRIAGE.
VII. 1-6. Zake 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; soas to set him free to contract a new marriage—
with Christ, no longer dead but risen: and the fruit of that
marriage should be a new life quickened by the Spirit.
1T 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
styled ‘an adulteress’ if she marry another man: but if her
VII. 1-6.] LAW AND GRACE 171
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 identification
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. °QOur new marriage must be fruitful,
as our old marriage was. When we had nothing better to guide
us than this frail humanity of ours, so liable to temptation, at that
time too a process of generation was going on. The impressions
ef sense, suggestive of sin, stimulated into perverse activity by their
legal prohibition, kept plying this bodily organism of ours in such
@ way as to engender acts that only went to swell the garners 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
Law.
1-6. The text of this section—and indeed of the whole chapter
—is still, ‘Ye are not under Law, but under Grace’; and the
Apostle brings forward another illustration to show how the transi-
tion from Law to Grace has been effected, and what should be its
consequences.
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
legitimate one.
172 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [vm 1a
Gif. however may be right in explaining the transition rather
differently, viz. by means of the παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος 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
Christianity.
The ‘law of the husband’ = the law which condemned that old
state.
The new Marriage = the union upon which the convert enters
with Christ.
The crucial phrase is ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε in ver. 4. According to
the way in which we explain this will be our explanation of the
whole passage. See the note ad doc.
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. Ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε: (‘surely you know this—that the régime of Law
has come to an end, and that Grace has superseded it.] Or do yca
require to be told that death closes all accounts, and therefore 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?’
γινώσκουσι γὰρ νόμον λαλῶ: ‘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. ἡ γὰρ ὕπανδρος γυνή: [‘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.’ ὕπανδρος : a classical word, found
in LXX. :
κατήργηται ; ‘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 law
is annulled to the woman.’ For καταργεῖν see on iii. 3.
VII. 2-4.} LAW AND GRACE 173
ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός : 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. 2;
‘the law of the Nazirite’ Num. vi. 13.
3. χρηματίσει, The meanings of χρηματίζειν ramify in two directions,
The fundamental! 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 (1) ‘to bear a name or title’ (χρημα-
τίζει βασιλεύς Polyb. V. lvii 2); and so simply, as here, ‘to be called or
styled’ (Acts xi. 26 ἐγένετο .. . χρηματίσαι πρῶτον ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ rods μαθητὰς
ΣΧριστιανούε) ; 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,
communications, revelations,’ given by an oracle or by God. So six times
in LXX of Jerem., Joseph. Antiz., Plutarch, &c. From this sense we get
pres ‘to be warmed or admonished’ by God (Matt. ii. 12, 22; Acts x, 22;
b. vili. δ; xi. 7). Hence also subst. χρηματισμός, ‘a Divine or oracular
response,’ a Mace. ii. 4; Rom. xi. + Burton (21. and 7. § 69) calls the
fat. here a ‘ gnomic fature’ as stating ‘what will customarily happen when
occasion offers.’
τοῦ μὴ εἶναι - ὥστε μὴ εἶναι: the stress is thrown back upon ἐλευθέρα, ‘80
as not to be,’ ‘causing her not to be,’—not ‘so that she is.’ According to
Burton τοῦ μή here denotes ‘ conceived result’; but see the note on ὥστε
δουλεύειν in ver. 6 below.
4. ὥστε with indic. introduces a consequence which follows as a matter
of fact.
καὶ duets ἐθβανατώθητε. 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
you.’ So Chrys. ἀκόλουθον ἦν εἰπεῖν, τοῦ νόμου τελευτήσαντος οὐ κρίνεσθε
μοιχείας, ἀνδρὶ γενόμενοι ἑτέρῳ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐκ εἶπεν οὕτως, ἀλλὰ πῶς; Ἔ θανα-
τώθητε τῷ νόμῳ (cf. Euthym. -Zig.). In favour of this is the parallel
κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμον τοῦ ἀνδρός in ver. 2, and κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ
νόμου 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
There is therefore a strong attraction in the explanation of
Gif., who makes ὑμεῖς = not the whole self but the old self, s.¢. the
old state of the self which was really ‘crucified with Christ’
(ch. vi. 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 penalties 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.
wal ὑμεῖς. The force of καί here is, ‘You, my readers, as well as the wife
in the allegory.’
διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The way in which the death of
the ‘old man’ is brought about is through the identification of the
154 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIZ. 4, δ.
Christian with the Death of Christ. The Christian takes his place,
as it were, with Christ upon the Cross, and there has his old self
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 (vi. 6), to which St. Paul also throws in an allusion
in τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι. The two lines of symbolism really run
parallel to each other and it is easy to connect them.
ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος = The Husband:
Crucifixion of the wad. ἄνθ. = Death of the Husband:
Resurrection = Re-Marriage :
ὥν, δουλεύειν τῷ Θεῷ = καρποφορεῖν τῷ Θεῷ.
εἷς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ. Lips. takes this not of ‘being married tc
another husband,’ but of ‘joining another msaster,’ on the ground that there
is no marriage to the Zaw. This however (1) is unnecessary, because
marriage to the ‘old man’ carries with it subjection to the Law, so that the
dissolution of the marriage involves release from the Law by a step which is
close and inevitable; (2) it is wrong, because of καρποφορῇῆσαι, which it is
clearly forced and against the context to refer, as Lips. does, to anything but
the offspring of marriage.
καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ eg. 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.
5. ὅτε γὰρ ἦμεν ἐν τῇ σαρκί, This verse develops the idea con-
tained in καρποφορήσωμεν: the new marriage ought to be fruitful,
because the old one was. εἶναι ἐν τῇ σαρκί is the opposite of εἶναι
ἐν τῷ πνεύματι: the one is ἃ life which has no higher object than
the gratification of the senses, the other is a life permeated by the
Spirit. Although σάρξ 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.
τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν: πάθημα has the same sort of ambiguity
as our word ‘passion.’ It means (1) 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. τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν = ‘connected with sins,’ ‘ leading to sins,’
τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου͵ Here St. Paul, as his manner is, ‘ throws
up a finger-post’ which points to the coming section of his argu-
ment. The phrase διὰ τοῦ νόμου is explained at length in the next
176 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VI1. 7-25.
course ought to follow. ὥστε with indic. lays stress on the effect; ὥστε with
infin. on the cause. Thus in 1 Cor. i. 7 ὥστε ὑστερεῖσθαι = ‘causing of
inspiring you to feel behindhand’ (see Sp. Comms. ad loc.); in Matt. xiii. 32
γίνεται δένδρον, ὥστε ἐλθεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ καὶ κατασκηνοῦν = ‘becomes a tree
big enough for the birds to come,’ &c. It will be seen that the distinction
corresponds to the difference in the general character of the twe moods.
ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος... παλαιότητι γράμματοφ. 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 period 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 καινότης πνεύματος is given in ch. viii.
It is perhaps well to remind the reader who is not careful to check the
study of 1 the English versions by the Greek that the opposition between
γράμμα and πνεῦμα 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 γράμμα is with St. Paul
always the Law of Moses, as a written code, while πνεῦμα is the operation
of the Holy Spirit characteristic of Christianity (cf Rom. ii. 39; 3 Cor. iii. 6).
LAW AND SIN.
VII. 7-25. 77, release from Sin means release from Law,
must we then tdentify Law with Sin? No. Law reveals
the sinfulness of Sin, and by this very revelation stirs up the
dormant Sin to action. But this ts not because the Law
itself is evil—on the contrary tt ἐς good—but that Sin may
be exposed and tts guilt aggravated (vv. 7-13).
This ts what takes place. I haveadouble self. But my
better self ἐς impotent to prevent me from doing wrong
(vv. 14-17). Jt ts equally impotent to make me do right
(vv. 18-21). There is thus a constant conflict going on,
Irom which, unaided. I can hope for no deliverance. But,
God be thanked, through Christ deliverance comes! (wv.
21-25).
ΤΊ 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
178 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 7-25.
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 recognizes its excellence. ἢ 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 Iam
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 is 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 stern 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 fatal grip upon my body. ™ Unhappy man that I am—
torn with a conflict from which there seems to be no issue! 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.
VII. 7, 8] LAW AND SIN 199
7. So far Sin and Law have been seen in such close connexion
that it becomes necessary to define more exactly the relation
between 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 is evident that Marcion had this section, as Tertullian turns against him
Se. Paul’s refusal to listen to any attack upon the Law, which Marcion
ascribed to the Demiurge: Abominatur apostolus criminationem legis...
Quid deo imputas legis quod legi cius apostolus imputare non audet ἢ Atquin
accumulat: Lex sancta, et praecceptum eius iustum et bonum. «δὲ éaliser
cowarateer legem creatoris, guomodo ipsum destruat mescio.
ὃ νόμος ἁμαρτία. It had just been shown (ver. 5) that Sin makes
use of the Law to effect the destruction of the sinner. Does it
follow that Sin is to be sdentified 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
horror.
ἀλλά contradicts emphatically the notion that the Law is Sin.
On the contrary the Law first told me what Sin was.
οὐκ ἔγνων. It is not quite certain whether this is to be taken
hypothetically (for οὐκ ἂν ἔγνων, ἄν omitted to give a greater sense
of actuality, Kihner, Gr. Gramm. ii. 176 f.) or whether it is simply
temporal. Lips. Oltr. and others adopt the hypothetical sense
both here and with οὐκ gde» below. Gif. Va. make both οὐκ
ἔγνων and οὐκ gdew plain statement of fact. Mey.-W. Go. take
οὐκ ἔγνων temporally, οὐκ ἥδειν hypothetically. As the context is
a sort of historical retrospect the simple statement seems most in
place.
τὴν τὸ γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν. re γάρ is best explained as = ‘for also,’ ‘ for indeed’
(Gif. Win. § liii. p. 561 E.T.; otherwise Va.). The general proposition is
ew by a concrete example.
. pdew retain their proper meanings : ἔγνων, “1 learnt,’ implies
more intimate experimental acquaintance; joey is simple knowledge that
there was such a thing as lust.
ἐπιθυμήσεις. The Greek word has a wider sense than our
‘covet’; it includes every kind of illicit desire.
8. ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα : ‘ getting a start,’ finding a point dapput, or,
as we should say, ‘something to take hold of.’ In a military
sense ἀφορμή = ‘a base of operations’ (Thuc. i. go. 2, &c.). In
a literary sense ἀφορμὴν λαβεῖν = ‘to take a hint,’ ‘adopt a sug-
gestion ’ ; cf, Eus. Ep. ad Carpianum ἐκ τοῦ πονήμειτος τοῦ προειρη-
μένον ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς. 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.
ἡ ἁμαρτία: see p. 145, sup.
διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς. The prep. διά and the position of the word
180 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 8-18.
show that it is better taken with κατειργάσατο than with ἀφορμ.
on ἐντολή is the single commandment; νόμος the code as a
whole.
χωρὶς yap... νεκρά. A standing thought which we have had
before, iv. 15; v. 13: cf. iii. 20.
9. ἔζων (ἔζην B; ἔζουν 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; viii. 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.
ἀνέζησεν : ‘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.
ll. ἐξηπάτησέ pe. The language is suggested by the descrip-
tion of the Fall (Gen. iii. 13 LXX; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. a
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. ὁ μὲν νόμος The μέν expects a following 3. St. Paul had
probably intended to write ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία κατηργάσατο ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν
θάνατον, 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
St. Paul's view of the nature and functions of the Law see below.
It is hardly safe to argue with Zahn (Gesch. d. X. ii. 517) from the ἴδη-
guage of Tertullian (given above on ver. 7) that that writer had before him
a corrupt Marcionitic text—not, Zahn thinks, actually due to Marcion, but
corrupted since his {ἰπ|6--- ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ δικαία for ἧ ἐντ. ἁγία καὶ δικαία.
It is more probable that Tert. is reproducing his text rather freely: in De
Pudic. 6 he leaves out καὶ δικαία, lex quidem sancta est et pracceptum
sanctum et optimum (the use of superlative for positive is fairly common ip
Latin versions and writers).
13. Why was this strange perversion of so excellent a thing as
the Law permitted? This very perversion served to aggravate the
183 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 15-81.
to produce a certain result without reference to its moral character, and
simply as it might be produced by inanimate mechanism (see also the notes
on ch. i. 32: ii.9). Of course the specific sense may not be always marked
by the context, but here it is well borne out throughont. For a fuller
account of the distinction see Schmidt, Lat. s. Gr. Synonymik, p. 294 ff.
οὐ γινώσκω 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 speak, blindly: he is not
a fully conscious agent: a force which he cannot resist takes the decision out
of his hands.
ὃ θέλω. The exact distinction between θέλω and βούλομαι has been much
disputed, and is difficult to mark. On the whole it seems that, especially in
N. τ᾿ usage, βούλομαι lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose, delibera-
tion, θέλω on the more emotional aspect of will: in this context it is
evidently something short of the final act of volition, and practically = ‘wish,’
‘desire.’ See especially the full and excellent note in Grm.-Thay.
17. νυνὶ δέ: ‘as it is,’ ‘as the case really lies’; the contrast is
logical, not temporal.
ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία. [Read ἐνοικοῦσα with δὲ Β, Method
(ap. Phot. cod., non autem ap. piph.)| 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
existence.
18. ἐν ἐμοί, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, κτλ. 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.
παράκειταί pot: ‘lies to my hand,’ ‘within my reach.’
ob MABC 47 67** al., Edd.: οὐχ εὑρίσκω DEFGKLP &e.
20. ὃ οὐ θέλω BC DEFG αἱ, WH. RV.: ὃ οὐ θέλω ἔγω RAKLP
&c., Tisch. WH. marg.
4]. εὑρίσκω dpa τὸν νόμον: ‘I find then this rule,’ ‘this con-
straining principle,’ hardly ‘this constantly recurring experience,’
which would be too modern. The νόμος here mentioned is akin
to the ἕτερον νόμον 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 Geselz d. h. die objechv mir auferlegte Nothwendigkett.
Many commentators, from Chrysostom onwards, have tried to
make τὸν νόμον = 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,
1 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: (1) τὸν νόμον
put as if the sentence had been intended to run “1 find then the
184 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VITI. 24, 35.
ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου. In construction τούτου might
go with σώματος (‘from this body of death’): but it is far better to
take it in the more natural connexion with 6a»drov; ‘the body 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.
25. ἄρα οὖν κιτλ. A terse compressed summary of the previous
paragraph, vv. 7-24, describing in two strokes the state of things
prior to the intervention of Christ. The expression is that which
comes from deep feeling. The particular phrases hardly seem to
need further explanation.
εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ. The true reading is probably χάρις τῷ Θεῷ. The
evidence stands thus.
χάρις τῷ Θεῷ B, Sah., Orig. semsel Hieron. semeel.
χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ N* C* (de C* non liguet, minusc. alig., Boh. Arm., Cyr.
Alex. Jo.-Damasc.
ἢ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ DE 38, de Vulg., Orig.-lat. δέ, Hieron. semel Ambrstr.
ἢ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου F G, f g, cf. Iren.-lat.
εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ N*AKLP &c., Syrr. Goth., Orig. δὲς Chrys.
Theodrt. af. [εὐχαριστῶ Θεῷ Method. af. Epiph. cod., sed χάρις τῷ
Θεῷ vel χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ Epiph. edd. pr.; vid. wetsch, Alethedéss
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 MSS. would be derived from it (not at once but by
successive steps) by the doubling of two pairs of letters,
Toyroy[ey ]yapic[ Tew |rw6ew.
The descent of the other readings may be best represented by a table.
χάρις τῷ Θεῷ
εὐχαριοτῶ τῷ Θεῷ
χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ ἢ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ (ΘΥ)
ἢ χάρις τοῦ Kypioy (KY)
The other possibility would be that εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ had got reduced to
χάρις τῷ Θεῷ by successive dropping of letters. But this must have taken
place very early. It is also conceivable that χάρις δέ preceded χάρις only.
The Inward Con/fisct.
Two subjects for discussion are raised, or are commonly treated
as if they were raised, by this section. (1) Is the experience
described that of the regenerate or unregenerate man? (2) Is it,
or is it not, the experience of St. Paul himself?
1 (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 menpapévos ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν Ver. 14, κατεργάζομαι
186 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _[ VII. 7-85.
a change in man. But here, whether the moment described is
before or after the embracing of Christianity, in any case abstraction
is 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. 2g is there a single expression used which
belongs to Christianity. And the use of it marks that the conflict
is ended.
(2) As to the further question whether St. Paul is speaking of
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 commonly
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, 80
evidently 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-introspection. 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 te
ch. vib
188 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΥΩ]. 7-26.
ended; it gave no help towards the performance of that which it
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 is διὰ νόμον ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας (Rom. iii. 20), Its effect
therefore was only to increase the condemnation: it multiplied sin
(Rom, v. 20); 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
practice 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 Gentiles. In the course of his travels St. Paul was
led to visit a number of the scattered colonies of Jews, and when
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
individual, the same verdict held, διὰ νόμον ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας.
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
VIII. 1-4] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 189
kept—at all. There was a Rabbinical commonplace, a stern
rule 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. ii. 10; cf. Gal. iii, 16; Rom.
x. 5). Any true happiness therefore, any true relief, must 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 (τέλος yap
νόμου Χριστὸς els δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι Rom. x. 4); and
his own pages reflect, better than any other, the new hopes and
energies by which it was succeeded.
LIVE IN THE SPIRIT.
THE FRUITS OF THE INCARNATION.
VIII. 1-4. The result of Christ's interposition ts to
dethrone Sin from its tyranny in the human heart, and to
instal in tts stead the Spirit of Christ. Thus what the
Law of Moses tried to do but failed, the Incarnation has
accomplished.
*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 fatal 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
our poor human nature was constantly tempted and fell. But now
God Himself has interposed by sending the Son of His love to
190 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS’ {[VIIL12.
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 condemnation 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 ff. This chapter is, as we have seen, an expansion of χάριε τῷ
Θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν 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 wv. 1-17 to
the more impassioned outlook and deeper introspection of vv. 18-30,
and thence to the magnificent climax of wv. 31-39.
There is evidence that Marcion retained wv. 1-11 of this chapter, probably
with no very noticeable variation from the text which has come down to us
(we do not know which of the two competing readings he had in ver. 10).
Tertullian leaps from viii. 11 to x. 2, implying that much was cut out, bot
we cannot determine how much.
1. κατάκριμα. One of the formulae of Justification: κατάκρισις
and κατάκριμα are correlative to δικαίωσες, δικαίωμα; both sets of
phrases being properly forensic. Here, however, the phrase rois
ἐν X. "I, 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 fully
in ver. 3 (cf. vi. 7-10). The κατάκρισις which used to fall upon the
sinner now falls upon his oppressor Sin.
μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα. An interpolation
introduced (from ver. 4) at two steps: the first clause μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπα-
rovow in A D> 137, fm Vulg. Pesh. Goth. Arm., Bas. Chrys.; the second
clause ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα in the mass of later authorities NC DOE K LP &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-
buted to him, Athanasius and others omit both.
2. ὁ νόμος τοῦ Πνεύματος = the authority exercised by the Spirit
We have had the same somewhat free use of νόμος in the last
chapter, esp. in ver. 23 ὁ νόμος τοῦ νοός, ὁ νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας : it is no
longer a ‘code’ but an authority producing regulated action such
as would be produced by a code.
τοῦ Πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς. The gen. expresses the ‘ effect wrought’
(Gif.), but it also expresses more: the Spirit brings life because it
essentially ἐς life.
198 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 3.
the sentence, like τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν in Rom. xii. 1, appears to be
refuted by τὸν κολοφῶνα in Theaet. above. Win. Gr. § xxxii. 7, p. 290 E. T.
while recognizing the accus. use (§ lix. 9, p. 669 E. T.), seems to prefer to
take τὸ ἀδυν. as nom. So too Mey. Lips. &c.
(2) Is τὸ ἀδύν. active or passive? Gif., after Fri. (cf. also Win.
uf sup.) contends for the former, on the ground that if ἀδύν. were
passive it should be followed by τῷ νόμῳ not τοῦ νόμου. Tertullian
(De Res. Carn. 46) gives the phrase an active sense and retains the
gen., guod tnvalidum erat legis. Buton the other hand if not Origen
himself, at least Rufinus the translator of Origen has a passive
rendering, and treats τοῦ νόμον as practically equivalent to τῷ νόμφ:
quod impossibile erat legi*. Yet Rufinus himself clearly uses
imposstbilis in an active sense in his comment; and the Greek of
Origen, as given in Cramer's Caéena, Ὁ. 125, appears to make τὸ
ἀδύν. active: ὥσπερ yap ἡ ἀρετὴ ἰδίᾳ φύσει ἰσχυρά, οὕτω καὶ 9 κακία καὶ
τὰ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἀσθενῆ καὶ ἀδύνατα ... τοῦ τοιούτου νόμου ἡ φύσις ἀδύνατός
ἐστι. Similarly Cyr.-Alex. (who finds fault with the structure of the
sentence) : τὸ ἀδύνατον, τουτέστι τὸ ἀσθενοῦν. Vulg. and Cod. Clarom.
are slightly more literal: guod smposstbile erat legis. The gen. might
mean that there was a spot within the range or domain of Law
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 adv». and also to give a some-
what easier construction: if τὸ ἀδύν. 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,’ &c.,
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 use of LXX and N.T. would seem to show that
ἀδύνατος masc. and fem. was always active (so twice in N. T., twenty-two
times [3 wv. IL] in LXX, Wisd. xvii. 14 τὴν ἀδύνατον ὄντω: νύκτα καὶ ἐξ
ἀδυνάτου qdov μυχῶν ἐπελθοῦσαν, being alone somewhat ambiguous and
peculiar), while ἀδύν. neut. was always passive (so five times in LXX, seven
in N.T.). It is true that the exact phrase rd ἀδύνατον does not occur, but
in Luke xviii. 27 we have τὰ ἀδύνατα παρὰ ἀνθρώποις δυνατά ἐστι παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ.
ἐν @: not ‘because’ (Fri. Win. Mey. Alf.), but ‘in which’ or
‘wherein,’ defining the point in which the impossibility (inability)
of the Law consisted. For ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός 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 nothing.
τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱόν. The emphatic ἑαυτοῦ brings out the community
of nature between the Father and the Son: cf. τοῦ ἰδίον viow ver. 328;
τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ Col. i, 13.
4 The text is not free from suspicion.
194 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 3-5.
(comp. T. K. Abbott, ‘ effectually condemned so as to expel"): but i
not ap how this was done. The commoner view is “is. based oa Chrys.
wield claims nr the incarnate Christ a threefold victory Υ over Sin et
ing to it, as overcoming it (in a forensic sense), and convicting
injustice in handing over to cath Hits own sinless body as if it were sinfal
Similarly Euthym..-Zig. and 1 others in part. Cyr.-Alex. explains the victory
of Christ over Sin as over to the Christian through the indwelling
of the Holy Ghost an ucharist (διὰ τῆς μυστικῆς evAcylas). This is
at least right in so far as τς lays stress on the identification of the Christian
with Christ. But the victory over sin does not rest on the mere fact of
sinlessness, but on the absolute severance from sin involved in the Death
upon the Cross and the Resurrection.
ἐν τῇ σαρκί goes with xarexpwe, The Death of Christ has the
efficacy which it has because it is the death of His Flesh: by means
of death He broke for ever the power of Sin upon Him (vi. 10;
Heb. vii. 16; x. 10; 1 Pet. iii, 18); but through the mystical
ive with Him the death of His Flesh means the death of ours
ips.).
4. τὸ δικαίωμα: ‘the justifying,’ Wic., ‘the justification,’ Rhem.
after Vulg. sustificatio ; Tyn. is better, ‘the rightewesnes requyred
of (i.e. by) the lawe.’ We have already seen that the proper sense
of δικαίωμα 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. 32; ii. 26.
It is not clear how Chrys. (= Euthym.-Zig.) gets for δικαίωμα the sense
τὸ τέλος, ὃ σκοπός, τὸ κατόρθωμα.
τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν: ‘those who walk by the rule
of the flesh,’ whose guiding principle is the flesh (and its grati-
fication). The antithesis of Flesh and Spirit is the subject of
the next section.
THE LIFE OF THE FLESH AND THE LIFE OF
THE SPIRIT.
VIII. 5-11. Compare the two states. The life of self-
indulgence involves the breach of God's law, hosttlity to
Him, and death. Submission to the Spirit brings with tt
true life and the sense of reconciliation. You therefore,
if you are sincere Christians, have in the presence of the
Spirtt 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
196 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 6-9.
cnly is there ‘life’ in the sense that a career so ordered will issue in
life; it has already in itself the germs of life. As the Spirit itself is
in Its essence living, so does It impart that which must live.
For a striking presentation of the Biblical doctrine of Life see Hort,
Haulsean Lectures, pp. 98 ff., 189 ff. The following may be quoted: ‘ The
sense 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 fruit of obedience and faith. The
pealmist or wise man or prophet, whose heart had sought the face of the
rd, was conscious of a second or divine life, of which the first or natural
life was at once the image and the foundation; a life not imprisoned in
some secret recess of his soul, but filling his whole self, and overflowing
upon the earth around him’ (p. 98). Add St. Paul’s doctrine of the in-
dwelling Spirit, and the intensity of his language becomes intelligible.
εἰρήνη = as we have seen not only (i) the state of reconciliation
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 by 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. of δέ: 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 slightly different form, no longer abstract
but personal. The way is thus paved for a more direct application
to the readers.
9. ἐν capxi,...éy πνεύματι. Observe how the thought mounts
radually upwards. εἶναι ἐν σαρκί = ‘to be under the domination of
fhe flesh’; corresponding to this εἶναι ἐν πνεύματι = ‘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
πνεῦμα, 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 πνεῦμα. He rises almost imperceptibly through the
πνεῦμα of man to the Πνεῦμα of God. From thinking of the way in
which the πνεῦμα 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 εἴπερ Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ
οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. οἰκεῖν ἐν denotes a settled permanent penetrative
influence. Such an influence, from the Spirit of God, St. Pau]
assumes to be inseparable from the higher life of the Christian.
198 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII.10, 11
‘physical death,’ and to go back for δὲ ἁμαρτίαν not to vi. 5 ff. but
to v. 12 ff., so that it would be the sin of Adam and his descendants
(Aug. Gif. Go.) perpetuated to the end of time. Oltr. objects that
νεκρόν in this case ought to be θνητόν, but the use of νεκρόν gives
a more vivid and pointed contrast to (o7—‘a dead thing.’
τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην. Clearly the πνεῦμα here meant
is the human πνεῦμα which has the properties of life infused into it
by the presence of the Divine πνεῦμα. ζωή is to be taken in a wide
sense, but with especial stress on the future eternal life. διὰ δικαιο-
σύνην 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. 117 sup.). Christ is the
ἀπαρχή (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23: the same power which raised Him will
raise us (1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14); Phil. iii, a1; 1 Thess.
iv. 14). But nowhere is the argument given in so full and complete
a formas here. The link which connects the believer with Christ,
and makes him participate in Christ's resurrection, is the possession
of His Spirit (cp. 1 Thess. iv. 14 τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἄξει
σὺν αὐτῷ).
διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ Πνεύματος. The authorities for the two
readings, the gen. as above and the acc. διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ Πνεῦμα,
seem at first sight very evenly divided. For gen. we have a long
line of authorities headed by NAC, Clem.-Alex. For acc. we bave
a still longer line headed by B D, Orig. Iren.-lat.
In fuller detail the evidence is as follows:
διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος κιτιλ. NAC Ρ al,, codd. ad. Ps.-Ath. Dial. ¢. Macedon.,
Boh. Sah. Harcl. Arm. Aeth., Clem.-Alex. Method. (codd. Graec.
locorum ab Epiphanio cstatorum) Cyr.-Hieros codd. plur. et ed. Did. 4/5
Bas 4/4 Chrys. ad 1 Cor. xv. 45, Cyr.-Alex. ter, al. plur.
διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν «7A. BDEFGKLP &c., codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. ¢.
Macedon.; Vulg. Pesh. (Sah. coda.) ; Iren.-lat. Orig. plisrtes; Method.
vers, slav. et codd. Epiphanii 1/3 σέ ex parte 2/3, Cyr.-Hieros. cod.
Did.-lat. semel (interp. Hieron.) Chrys. ad loc. Tert. Hil. αἱ. δίων.
When these lists are examined, it will be seen at once that the authorities
for the gen. are predominantly Alexandrian, and those for the acc. 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 attaches to Harcl. Arm. Hippol. Cyr.-Hieros.
Bas. on the side of the gen. and to B, Orig. on the side of the acc. The
testimony of Method. is not quite clear. The first place in which the
assage occurs is a quotation from Origen: here the true reading is probably
δὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν, as elsewhere in that writer. The other two places belong to
Methodius himself. Here too the Slavonic version has in both cases acc.;
the Greek preserved in Epiphanius has in one instance acc., in the other gen.
It is perhaps on the whole probable that Method. himself read acc. and that
en. is due to Epiphanius, who undoubtedly was in the habit of using gen.
balancing the opposed evidence we remember that there is a distinct
Western infusion in both B and Orig. in St. Paul’s Epistles, so that the ace
200 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIr. 5-11.
Χριστός (where however Bp. Lightfoot makes the antecedent to ὅδε
not πνεῦμα but the whole sentence ; his note should be read). The
key to these expressions is really supplied by the passage before us,
from which it appears that the communication of Christ to the soul
is really the communication of His Spirit. And, strange to say, we
find this language, which seems 80 individual, echoed not only possibly
by Ignatius but certainly by St. John. As Mr. Gore puts it (Bampion
Lectures, 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 relation 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 distinction.
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. 26f.), and
a number of other actions which we should call ‘ personal’ are
ascribed to Him—‘dwelling’ (vv. 9, 11), ‘leading’ (ver. 14),
‘witnessing ’ (ver. 16), ‘assisting’ (ver. 26). In the last verse of
2 Corinthians St. Paul distinctly 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 ἃ threefold
distinction.
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
VIII. 13-16.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 201
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.
SONSHIP AND HETIRSHIP.
WII. 12-17. Live then as men bound for such a destiny,
ascetics as to your worldly life, heirs of immortality. The
Spirtt implanted and confirms in you the consciousness of
your inheritance. It tells you that you are in a special sense
sons of God, and that you must some day share the glory to
which Christ, 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:
203 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 13-16.
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
fact that we are children of God. ‘™ But to be a child implies
something more. The child will one day inherit his father’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 already entered.
Only, be it remembered, that in order to share in the glory, it is
necessary first to share in the sufferings which lead to it.
12. Lipsius would unite wv. 13, 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. 12); 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 οὖν in x. 14.
18. πνεύματι. The antithesis to σάρξ seems to show that this
is still, as in vv. 4, δ, 9, the human πνεῦμα, but it is the human
πνεῦμα in direct contact with the Divine.
τὰς πράξεις : of wicked doings, as in Luke xxiii. 51.
14. The phrases which occur in this section, Πνεύματε Θεοῖ
ἄγονται, τὸ Πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν, are Clear proof that
the other group of phrases ἐν πνεύματι εἶναι, Or τὸ Πνεῦμα οἰκεῖ (ἐνοικεῖ)
ἐν ἡμῖν 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 different in kind.
υἱοὶ Θεοῦ. The difference between vids and τέκνον appears to be
that whereas τέκνον denotes the natural relationship of child to
parent, vids implies, in addition to this, the recognized séafus and
legal privileges reserved for sons. Cf. Westcott on St. John i. 12
and the parallels there noted.
15. πνεῦμα Soudeiag. This is another subtle variation in the
use Of πνεῦμα. From meaning the human spirit under the in-
fluence of the Divine Spirit πνεῦμα comes to mean a particular
state, habit, or temper of the human spirit, sometimes in itself
(πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως Num. v. 14, 30; mv. ἀκηδίας Is. lxi. 3; wv. πορνείας
Hos. iv. 12), but more often as due to supernatural influence, good
or evil (πν, σοφίας κιτιλ, 18. xi. 23 wy. πλανήσεως Is, xix. 145 πν.
κρίσεως Is. XXviii. 6; wv. κατανύξεως 18. xxix. 10 (= Rom. xi. 8);
204 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 18,19.
treatise to the question Quis rerum divinarum heres sit ? (Mang. i.
473 ff.). Meaning originally (i) the simple possession of the Holy
Land, it came to mean (ii) its permanent and assured possession
(Ps. xxv [xxiv]. 13; xxxvi [xxxvii]. 9, 11 &c.); hence (iii)
specially the secure possession won by the Messiah (Is. lx. a1;
lxi. 7; and so it became (iv) a symbol of all Messianic blessings
(Matt. v. 5; xix. 29; xxv. 34, &c.). Philo, after his manner,
makes the word denote the bliss of the soul when freed from the
body.
It is an instance of the unaccountable inequalities of usage that whereas
κληρονομεῖν, κληρονομία occur almost innumerable times in LXX, κληρονόμος
occurs only five times (once in Symmachus); in N.T. there is much greater
equality (κληρονομεῖν eighteen, κληρονομία fourteen, eAnpovdpos fifteen).
συγκληρονόμοι. 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 κληρονομία received its full Christian
adaptation directly from Him (cf. also Matt. xxv. 34).
εἴπερ συμπάσχομεν. St. Paul seems here to be reminding his
hearers of a current Christian saying: cf. 2 Tim. ii, ΣῈ πιστὸς 6
λόγος, El γὰρ συναπεθάνομεν καὶ συζήσομεν' εἰ ὑπομένομεν καὶ συμβασι-
λεύσομεν. This is 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, the Truth, and the Life there referred to. For εἴπερ see
ON iii. 30.
SUFFERING THE PATH TO GUORY.
VIII. 18-25. What though the path to that glory les
through suffering? The suffering and the glory alike are
parts of a great cosmical movement, in which the irrational
creation joins with man. As tt shared the results of hss
fall, so also will it share in his redemption. Its pangs are
pangs of a new birth (vv. 18-22).
Like the mute creation, we Christians too watt painfully
Jor our deliverance. Our attitude is one of hope and not 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
206 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VILIL. 18, 19.
scale. In fact it is nothing short of an universal law that suffering
marks the road to glory. All the suffering, all the imperfection,
all the unsatisfied aspiration and longing of which the traces are 80
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 this time coincides with the glorious consummation which
awaits the Christian.
True it is 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.
λογίζομαι : here in its strict sense, ‘I calculate,’ ‘weigh mentally,’
‘count up on the one side and on the other.’
ἄξια... πρός. In Plato, Gorg. Ὁ. 471 E, we have οὐδενὸς ἄξιός ἐστι
πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν: so that with a slight ellipse οὐκ ἄξια... πρὸς τὴν
δόξαν will = ‘not worth (considering) in comparison with the glory.’
Or we may regard this as a mixture of two constructions, (1) οὐκ
ἄξια τῆς δόξης, i.e. ‘not an equivalent for the glory’; comp. Prov.
Vill. 11 πᾶν δὲ τίμιον οὐκ ἄξιον αὐτῆς (SC. τῆς σοφίαεὴ) ἐστίν, and (2)
ὐδενὸς λόγου ἄξια πρὸς τὴν δόξαν : comp. Jer. xxiii. 28 τί τὸ ἄχυρον
πρὸς τὸν σῖτον;
The thought has a near parallel in 4 Ezra vil. 3 ff. Compare (¢.g.) the
following (vv. 12-17): Et facté sunt introitus huius sacculi angusts et
dolentes et laboriosi, ῥαμεὶ autem et malt et periculorum plens et labore
magno opere fultt; nam matorts sacculi imtrottus spatiost ef securé et
Sacientes immortalitatis fructum. St ergo non ingredtentes ingresst Sucrint-
que vivunt angusta et vana haec, non poterunt recipere quae sunt repostia ..
susti autem ferent angusta sperantes spatiosa. Compare also the quotations
from the Talmud in Delitzsch ad loc. The ee is asked, What is the
way to the world to come! And the answer is, Through suffering.
μέλλουσαν: emphatic, ‘is destined to,’ ‘is certain to.’ The
position of the word is the same as in Gal. ili. 23, and serves to
point the contrast to τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ.
δόξαν: the heavenly brightness of Christ's appearing: see on
iii. 23.
eis ἡμᾶς : to reach and include us in its radiance.
19. ἀποκαραδοκία : cf. Phil. i. 20 κατὰ τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἔλπίδα
pov: the verb ἀποκαραδοκεῖν Occurs in Aquila’s version of Ps. xxxvii
[xxxvi} 7, and the subst. frequently in Polyb. and Plutarch (see
rm ~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, ἀπο- denoting
diversion from other things and concentration on a single object.
This passage (especially vv. 17, 22) played a considerable part in the
system of Basilides, as described in Hippol. Ref. Onn. Haer. vii. 25-37.
208 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII 16-22.
temporibus qui per semetip~sum liberabit creaturam suam et ipse dispomet
guz derelicts sunt... ecce dies veniunt, quando incipiet Altissimus liberare
cos gus super terram sunt: Apoc. Bar. xxxii. 6 Suturum est ut Fortis
innovel creaturam suam (= 4 Ezra vii. 75 [Bensly] donec ventant tempora
tlla, tn guibus incépies creaturam renovare). The Messiah does not come
alone: 4 Ezra xiii. 31 non poterit guisque super lerram videre filium meum
wel cos qui cum co sunt mist in tempore diet. He collects round Him
a double multitude, consisting partly of the ten tribes who had been carried
away into captivity, and partly of those who were left in the Holy Land
(bid. vv. 12, 39 ff, 48 4).
ἀπεκδέχεται : another strong compound, where ἀπο- contains the
same idea of ‘ concentraled waiting’ as in droxapadoxia above.
20. tH... ματαιότητι : ματαιότης ματαιυτήτων is the refrain of the
Book of Ecclesiastes (Eccl. i. 2, &c.; cf. Ps. xxxix. 5, 11 [xxxviii. 6,
12] cxliv (cxliii]. 4): that is μάταιον which is ‘ without result ’ (μάτην),
‘ineffective, ‘which does not reach its end’—the opposite of
τέλειος : the word is therefore appropriately used of the disappointing
character of present existence, which nowhere reaches the perfection
of which it is capable.
ὑπετάγη : by the Divine sentence which followed the Fall (Gen.
iii, 17-19).
οὐχ ἑκοῦσα : not through its own fault, but through the fault of
man, i.e. the Fall.
διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα : ‘by reason of Him who subjected it,’ i.e. not
man in general (Lips.); nor Adam (Chrys. @/.); nor the Devil
(Go.), but (with most commentators, ancient as well as modern)
God, by the sentence pronounced after the Fall. It is no argument
against this reference that the use of διά with acc. in such a con-
nexion is rather unusual (so Lips.).
ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι qualifies ὑπετάγη. Creation was made subject to
vanity—not simply and absolutely and there an end, but ‘in hope
that,’ ἄς. Whatever the defects and degradation of nature, it was
at least left with the hope of rising to the ideal intended for it.
21. ὅτι. The majority of recent commentators make ὅτι (= ‘that’)
define the substance of the hope just mentioned, and not (= ‘ 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.
καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις : not only Christians but even the mute creation
with them.
ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς. δουλείας corresponds to ὑπετάγη, 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 δόξα. ‘Glorious liberty’ is a poor
translation and does not express the idea: δόξα, ‘ the glorified state,’
is the leading fact, not a subordinate fact, and ἐλευθερία is its
characteristic, ‘the liberty of the glory of the children of God.’
22. οἴδαμεν γάρ introduces a fact of common knowledge (though
VIII. 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.
συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει. It seems on the whole best to take the
συν- in both instances as =‘ together,’ 1.6. in all the parts of which
creation is made up (so. Theod.-Mops. expressly: βούλεται δὲ
εἰπεῖν ὅτι συμφώνως ἐπιδείκνυται τοῦτο πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις" ἵνα τὺ παρὰ πάσης
τὸ αὐτὸ γένεσθαι ὁμοίως, παιδεύσῃ τούτους τὴν πρὸς ἅπαντας κοινωνίαν
αἱρεῖσθαι ry τῶν λυπηρῶν καρτερία). Oltr. gets out of it the sense of
‘inwardly ’ {- ἐν éaurois), which it will not bear: Fri. Lips. and
others, after Euthym.-Zig. make it = ‘wst4 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 beginning of the
next verse (οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτο). The two verses must be
kept apart.
23. οὐ μόνον δέ. Not only does nature groan, but we Christians
also groan: our very privileges make us long for something more.
Thy ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ Πνεύματος : ‘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 (1 Cor.
xii. &c.), but including also the moral and spiritual gifts which were
more permanent (Gal. v. 22f.). 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 (1 Cor. xv. 44 ff.).
St. Paul calls this a ‘deliverance,’ i.e. a deliverance from the ‘ills
that flesh is heir to’: for ἀπολύτρωσις see on iii. 24.
ἔχοντος ἡμεῖς : ἡμεῖς is placed here by NAC 5. 47. 80, also by Tisch.
RV. and (in brackets) by WH.
υἱοθεσίαν : see on ver. 15 above. Here υἷοθ. = the manifested,
realized, act of adoption—its public promulgation.
24. τῇ γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν. 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. modr, ‘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 dy
faith, or from another point of view—looking at salvation from the
side of God—dy grace (both terms are found in Eph. ii. 8) than dy
hope. This seems preferable. Some have held that Hope is here
only an aspect of Faith: and it is quite true that the definition οἱ
Faith in Heb. xi. 1 (ἔστι δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων
ὅλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων). makes it practically equivalent to Hope. But
that is just one of the points of distinction between Ep. to Heb.
Ῥ
212 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIIL 26, 27.
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,
Altsyn. Theol. p. 382). There was to be no unrighteousness 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 atrue light to the Gentiles (Schiirer, op.
cst. Ὁ. 456).
Σ we compare these Jewish beliefs with what we find here in the
Epistle to the Romans there are two ways in which the superiority
of the Apostle is most striking. (1) There runs through his words
an intense sympathy 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’ (#d7d. 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.
THE ASSISTANCE OF THE SPIRIT.
VIII. 26, 27. Meanwhile the Holy Spirit itself assists in
our prayers.
* Nor are we alone in our struggles. The Holy Spirit sup-
perts 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 from the depths of our being, we recognize the
voice of none other than the Holy Spirit. He makes intercession ;
214 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIEL 26-29.
speech may well lay to heart, that all prayer need not be formu-
lated, but that the most inarticulate desires (springing from a right
motive) 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
2 Cor. xiii. 14; Matt. xxviii. r9. Oltr. however makes τὸ πνεῦμα in
both verses = ‘the human spint,’ against the natural sense of
ὑπερεντυγχάνει and ὑπὲρ ἁγίων, which place the object of intercession
outside the Spirit itself, and against κατὰ Θεόν, which would be by
no means always true of the human spirit.
ὑπερεντνγχάνει is decisively attested (N° ABDFG &c.). Text. Recept.
has the easier ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.
27. ὅτι. Are we to translate this ‘ because’ (Weiss Go. Gif. Va.)
or ‘that’ (Mey. Oltr. Lips. Mou.)? Probably the latter; for if we
take ὅτι as assigning a reason for οἷδε ri τὸ φρόνημα, 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 κατὰ Θεόν and
not ὑπὲρ ἁγίων. It seems best therefore to make ὅτι describe the
nature of the Spirit’s intercession.
κατὰ Θεόν = κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ: cf. 2 Cor. vii. g—11.
The Jews had a strong belief in the value of the intercessory prayer of
their great saints, such as Moses (Ass. Moys. xi. 11, 17; xii. 6), Jeremiah
(Apoc. Bar. ii. 2): cf. Weber, p. 287 ff But they hive nothing like the
teaching of these verses.
THE ASCENDING PROCESS OF SALVATION.
VIII. 28-80. With what a chain of Providential care
does God accompany the course of His chosen! In eternity,
the plan laid and their part in it foreseen; in time, first
theiy call, then their acquittal, and finally their reception
into glory.
Yet another ground of confidence. The Christian knows that
all things (including his sufferings) 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.
Ὁ Think what a long perspective of Divine care and protection lies
before them! First, in eternity, God marked them for His own,
as special objects of His care and instruments of His purpose.
216 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 28.
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 xara πρόθεσιν, 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 πρόθεσις see on ch. ix. 11 ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ Θεοῦ,
which would prove, if proof were needed, that the purpose is that
of God and not of man (κατ᾽ οἰκείαν προαίρεσιν Theoph. and the
Greek Fathers generally): comp. also Eph. i. 11; iii. χα; 2 Tim.
i. 9.
It was one of the misfortunes of Greek theology that it received a bias in
the Free-Will controversy from opposition to the Gnostics (ef. Pp. 269 inf.)
which it never afterwards lost, and which seriously prejudiced its exegesis
wherever this question was concerned. ‘Ihus in the present instance, the great
mass of th: Greek commentators take κατὰ πρόθεσιν to mean ‘in accordance
with the man’s own προαίρεσις or free act of choice’ (see the extracts in
Cramer's Catena ‘e cod. Monac.’; and add Theoph. Oecum. Euthym.-Zig.).
The two partial exceptions are, as we might expect, Origen and Cyril of
Alexandria, who however both show traces of the influences current in the
Eastern Church. Origen also seems inclined to take it of the propostium
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
intended? and decides that it would not be wrong to answer τήν re τοῦ
218 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ὙἹΣΙ. 39, 80.
καὶ προώρισε. 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.’
συμμόρφους denotes inward and thorough and not merely super-
ficial likeness.
τῆς εἰκόνος. 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 δόξα, the absorption of the
splendour of His presence.
εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. As the final
cause of all things is the glory of God, so the final cause of the
Incarnation and of the effect 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 ‘ Eldest-born’ (πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν
νεκρῶν, iva γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων Col. i. 18). This is
different from the ‘first-born of all creation’ (Col. i. 15). πρωτό-
roxos is a metaphorical expression ; the sense of which is determined
by the context; in Col. i. 1g 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. οὖς δὲ προώρισε κιτλ. Having taken his readers to the end
of the scale, the δόξα 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
ἐκάλεσεν, ἐδικαίωσεν, ἐδόξασε. These are not quite exhaustive:
ἡγίασεν might have been inserted after ἐδικαίωσεν; but it is suffi-
ciently implied as a consequence of ἐδικαίωσεν and a necessary
condition of ἐδόξασε: in pursuance of the Divine purpose that
Christians should be conformed to Christ, the first step is the call ;
this brings with 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. ἐκάλεσεν and ἐδικαίωσεν are both
naturally in the aorist tense as pointing to something finished
and therefore past: ἐδόξασεν 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 ἐδόξασεν
is both complete and certain in the Divine counsels. To God
there is neither ‘ before nor after.’
VIII. 81-39. ] LIFE 1N THE SPIRIT 219
THE PROOFS AND ASSURANCE OF DIVINE LOV®E.
VIII. 81-89. With the proofs of God's love before him,
the Christian has nothing to fear. God, the Fudge, ts on
his side, and the ascended Christ intercedes for him
(vv. 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 tt, or to bar the Christian's
triumph (vv. 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. ™ His 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 like 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
Jesus Messiah our Lord.
220 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VIII. 82, 88.
82. ὅς γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο. A number of emphatic
expressions are crowded together in this sentence: ὅς ye, ‘the same
God who’; τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ, ‘His own Son,’ partaker of His own
nature; οὐκ ἐφείσατο, the word which is used of the offering of
Isaac in Gen. xxii. 16, and so directly recalls that offering—the
greatest sacrifice on record. For the argument comp. v. 6—10.
83-35. The best punctuation of these verses is that which is
adopted in RV. xf (so also Orig. Chrys. Theodrt. Mey. ΕἸ].
Gif. Va. Lid.). There should not be more than a colon between
the clauses Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν" τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν; 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 that love? The Apostle
clearly has in his mind Is. l. 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 distinctly favours
the view that each affirmation is followed by a question relating to
that affirmation. The phrases ὁ κατακρινῶν and ὁ δικαιῶν 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, Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν and Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ὃ ἀποθανών
are both answers to τίς ἐγκαλέσει; and τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν ; τίς ἡμᾶς χωρίσει ;
are subordinate questions, suggested in the one case by δικαιῶν, in the other
by ἐντ. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. We observe also that on this view ver. 35 is closely
linked to ver. 34. The rapid succession of thought which is thus obtained,
each step leading on to the next, is in full ce with the spirit of the
assage.
Another way of taking it is to put a full stop at δικαιῶν, and to make ris
ἐγκαλέσει; ris ὃ κατακρινῶν ; two distinct questions with wholly distinct
answers. So Fri. Lips. Weiss Oltr.Go. Others again (RV. marg. Beng.
De W. Mou.) make all the clauses questions (Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν ; ἐντνγΎχ. ὑπὲρ
ἡμῶν ;) But these repeated challenges do not give such a nervous concatena-
tion of reasoning.
33. ris ἐγκαλέσει ; another of the forensic terms which are so
common in this Epistle ; ‘Who shall impeach such as are elect of
God ?’
ἐκλεκτῶν. We have already seen (note on i. 4) that with
St. Paul κλητοί and ἐκλεκτοί are not opposed to each other (as they
are in Matt. xxii. 14) but are rather to be identified. By reading
into κλητοί 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
222 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS {0Π|. 86-88
θανατούμεθα ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν: cf. 1 Cor. xv. 31 caf ἡμέραν
ἀποθνήσκω : ‘tota die, hoc est, omni Ὀζίας meae tempore’ Orig.
πρόβατα σφαγῆς : sheep destined for slaughter; cf. Zech. xi. 4
τὰ πρόβατα τῆς σφαγῆς (cf. Jer. xii. 3 πρόβατα eis σφαγήν Cod. Marchal.
marg.).
The Latin texts of this verse are marked and characteristic. Tertullian,
Scorp.13 Tua causa mortificamur tota die, deputati sumus ut pecora tugu-
lationis. Cyprian, 7421. iii. 18 (the true text; cf. Zfsst. xxxi. 4) Causa tui
occtdimur tota die, deputati sumus ut oves victimae. Hilary of Poitiers,
Tract. tn Ps. cxviii. (ed. Zingerle, p. 429) Propter te mortificamur tota dia,
aeputati sumus sicut oves occisionis. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1]. xxii. 2
(/atine; cf. 1V. xvi. 2) Propter te morte afficimur tota die, aestimats sumus
“2 oves occisionts. (Similarly Cod. Clarom Sfeculum Augustins, codd. ML)
Vulgate (Cod. Amiat.) Propter te mortificamur tota die, aestimati sesmus
sf oves occistonis. 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 group
Tren.-lat. Cod. Clarom. and the Sfecse/um) at the other. Hilary stands
between, having deputati in common with Cyprian, but on the whole leaning
rather to the Tater group. The most difficult problem is presented by
Tertullian, who approaches Cyprian in 7a causa and deputats, and the
Vulgate group in mortificamur: in pecora iugulationis he stands alone.
This passage might seem to favour the view that in Tertullian 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 there
must be a large element in Tertullian’s text which is simply individual.
The text before us may be said to give a glimpse of the average position of
a problem which is still some way from solution.
87. ὑπερνικῶμεν. Tertullian and Cyprian represent this by the
coinage supervincimus (Vulg. Cod. Clarom. Hil. superamus) ; ‘ over-
come strongly’ Tyn.; ‘are more than conquerors’ Genev., happily
adopted in AV.
διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος ἡμᾶς points back to τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Κριστοὺ
in ver. 35.
38. οὔτε ἄγγελοι οὔτε ἀρχαί. ‘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. ro. St. Paul from time to time makes use of similar Jewish
designations for the hierarchy of angels: so in £ Cor. xv. 24;
Eph. i. 21 ἀηχή, ἐξουσία, δύναμις, κυριότης, πᾶν ὄνομα ὀνομαζόμενον:
iii. 20; vi. 12; Col. i. 16 (θρόνοι, κυριότητες, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι) ; ii. 10,
156. The whole world of spirits is summed up in Phil. ii. τὸ as
ἐπουράνιοι, emtye.ot, καταχθύνιοι. It is somewhat noticeable that whereas
the terms used are generally abstract, in several places they are
made still more abstract by the use of the sing. instead of plur.,
ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν ξ Cor. XV.
24; ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας asA. Eph. i. 38; ἡ κεφαλὴ
πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας Col. i 1ο.
VIII. 38, 39.) LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 222
It is also true (as pointed out by Weiss, 2.2]. Theol. ὃ 104;
Anm. 1.3) that the leading passages in which St. Paul speaks of
angels are those in which his language aims at embracing the
whole κόσμος. He is very far from ἃ θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων 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 δυνάμεις) are enough to show that the Apostle 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
8 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. i. 20 ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ
πάντα eis αὐτόν... εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). 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 (1 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’ (x Cor. xv. 28). On the whole subject see Everling,
Die paulinische Angelologie u. Démonologie, Gottingen, 1888.
For ἄγγελοι the Westen text (Ὁ EF G, Ambrstr. Aug. Amb.) has
ἄγγελος. There is also a tendency in the Western and later authorities to
insert οὔτε ἐξουσίαι before or after ἀρχαΐ, obviously from the parallel passages
in which the words occur together.
οὔτε δυνάμεις. There is overwhelming authority (δ A BC D ἄς.)
for placing these words after οὔτε μέλλοντα. We naturally expect
them to be associated with ἀρχαί, as in 1 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 (τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν). But it is perhaps more
probable that in the rush of impassioned thought St. Paul inserts
the words as they come, and that thus οὔτε δυνάμεις may be slightly
belated. It has been suggested that St. Paul takes alternately
animate existences and inanimate. When not critically 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 Zest.
ΧΩ Patr. Levi 3 ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ (sc. οὐρανῷ) εἰσὶν αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν παρεμβολῶν,
οἱ ταχθέντες els ἡμέραν κρίσεως, ποιῆσαι ἐκδίκησιν ἐν τοῖς πνεύμασι τῆς πλάνης
wai τοῦ Be
89. οὔτε ὄψωμα οὔτε βάθος. Lips. would give to the whole
context a somewhat more limited application than is usually
assigned to it. He makes οὔτε ἐνεστ. . . βάθος 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
414 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΥἹΣΙ. 80
height or from the depth bar our entrance into the next world,
where the love of Christ will be still nearer to us.’ This is also
the view of Origen (see below). But it is quite in the manner of
St. Paul to personify abstractions, and the sense attached to them
cannot well be too large: cf. esp. Eph. iii. 18 τί τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος
καὶ ὕψος καὶ βάθος, and 2 Cor. x. § πᾶν ὕψωμα ἐπαιρόμενον κατὰ τῆς
γνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ.
The common patristic explanation of ὕψωμα is ‘things above the heavens,’
and of βάθος, ‘things beneath the earth.’ Theod. Monach. ὕψωμα μὲν τὰ
ἄγαν ἐπίδοξα, βάθος δὲ τὰ ἄγαν ἄδοξα. Theodoret βάθος δὲ τὴν γέενναν,
ὕψωμα τὴν βασιλείαν. Origen (in Cramer's Catena) explains ὕψωμα of the
‘spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places’ (Eph. vi. 12), and
βαθος of rd καταχθόνια. The expanded version of Rufinus approaches still
more nearly to the theory of Lipsius: Séws/iter ef altitudo et profundum
impugnant nos, sicut et David dicit multi qui debellant me de alto: sine
aubio cum a spiritions nequitiae de caclestibnes urgereiur: et sicut tterum
dicit: de profundis clamavi ad te, Domine: cesms ab his gui im inferne
deputati sunt et gehennae spiritibus impugnaretur.
οὔτε τις κτίσις érépa. The use of ἑτέρα and not ἄλλη 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
of 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 discoveries of the microscope and telescope. Comp. Balfour, Foundations
of Belief, 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 corner 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.’
ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Inco’. 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 Spirit, because Christ
died for us; and God commends His love because CA&rist¢ died.
The same essential significance runs through this section (note
esp. W. 31-35, 39).
[X. 1-5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL £25
THE APOSTLE’S SORROW OVER ISRAEL’S UNBELIEF.
IX. 1-5. The thought of this magnificent prospect fills
me with sorrow for those who seem to be excluded from 1t—
my own countrymen for whom I would willingly sacrifice
my dearest hopes—excluded too in spite of all thetr special
privileges and their high destiny.
* How glorious the prospect of the life in Christ! How mournful
the thought of those who are cut off from it! 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
my 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’ (Exod. 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!
ΙΧ. ΧΙ. St. Paul has now finished his main argument. He
has expounded 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 is
this new scheme of righteousness and salvation apart from law
Q
226 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS {1x. 2
consistent with the privileged position of the Jews? They had
been the chosen race (we find St. Paul enumerating their privileges),
through them the Messiah had come, and yet it appeared they
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
εὐαγγέλιον if for both Jew and Greek, is yet for the Jew first (i. 16;
ii. 9). It has led him to lay great stress on the fact that the Jews
especially had sinned (ii. εἶν. Once indeed he has begun to
discuss it directly (iii. 1); ‘ What advantage then is there in being
a Jew?’ but he postponed it for a time, feeling that it was ἢ
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-xi, 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 ix. 30-x. a1 the guilt of Israel is proved;
in chap. xi 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 exceeding all human speculation.
Marcion seems to have omitted the whole of this chapter with the possible
exception of vv. 1-3. Tert. who passes from viii. 11 to x. 2 says salto οἵ
Ate amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae (Ado. Mare. v.14). See
Zahn, Gesch. des N. 7. Kanons Ὁ. 518.
1. We notice that there is no grammatical connexion 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 Epistle, 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
exactly.
ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ: ‘I speak the truth in Christ, as one
united with Christ’; cf. 2 Cor. ii. 17 ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας, ἀλλ᾽ os
ἐκ Θεοῦ, κατέναντι Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν: xii. 19. St. Paul has just
IX 1, 2.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 227
descnbed that union with Christ which will make any form of sin
impossible ; cf. viii. 1, 10; and the reference to this union gives
solemnity to an assertion for which it will be difficult to obtain full
credence.
οὐ ψεύδομαι. A Pauline expression. 1 Tim. ii. 7 ἀλήθειαν λέγω,
οὗ ψεύδομαι : 2 Cor. xi. 31; Gal. i. 20.
συμμαρτυρούσης: cf. ii. 15; viii. 16. The conscience is personified
80 as to give the idea of a second and a separate witness. Cf.
Oecumenius ad loc. μέγα θέλει εἰπεῖν, διὸ προοδοποιεῖ τῷ πιστευθῆναι,
τρεῖς ἐπιφερόμενος μάρτυρας, τὸν Χριστόν, τὸ “Aytov Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
συνείδησιν.
ἐν Πνεύματι ᾿Αγίῳ with συμμαρτυρούσης. St. Paul adds further
solemnity to his assertion by referring to that union of his spirit
with the Divine Spirit of which he had spoken in the previous
chapter. Cf. viii. 16 αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν.
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. πρότερον δὲ διαβεβαιοῦται περὶ ὧν μέλλει
λέγειν ὅπερ πολλοῖς ἔθος ποιεῖν ὅταν μέλλωσί τι λέγειν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς
ἀπιστούμενον καὶ ὑπὲρ οὗ σφόδρα ἑαντούς εἰσι πεπεικότες.
8. ὅτι: ‘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.
λύπη (which is opposed to χαρά Jn. xvi. 20) appears to mean
grief as a state of mind; it is rational or emotional: ὀδύνη 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
τῇ καρδίᾳ) which is the result of λύπη.
With the grief of St. Paul for his countrymen, we may compare the griel!
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 his sorrow by
enumerating their close relationship to God and their ancestral pride:
4 Ezra viii. 15-18 ef munc dicens dtcam, de omni homine (tu magtis “εἶς, de
autem tuo, ob quem doleo, et de haereditate tua, propter quam lugeo, et
propter Isradl, propler quem tristis sum, et de semine lacob, propler quod
conturbor. Ibid. x. 6-8 non vides luctum nostrum et quae nobis contigerunt ?
uoniam Ston mater nostra omnium in tristitia contristatur, et humilitate
umiliata est, et luget validissime...21 22 vides enim quoniam sanctifi-
catio nostra deserta effecta est, et altare nostrum demoiitum est, εἴ templum
nostrum destructum est, et psalterium nostrum humiliatum est, et hymnus
ssoster conticurt, et exsultatio nostra dissoluta est, et lumen candelabri nostri
extinctum est, ef arca testament: nostri direpia est. sipoc. Baruch. xxxv. 3
quomodo enim ingemiscam super Stone, εἰ quomodo lugebo super /erusalem?}
guia tn loco isto ubt prostrainus sum nunc, olim summus sacerdos off. revat
jones sanctas.
228 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [rx. 8.
8. This verse which is introduced by γάρ does mmx give the
reason of his grief but the proof of his sincerity.
ηὐχόμην: ‘the wish was in my mind’ or perhaps ‘the prayer
was in my heart.’ St. Paul merely states the fact of the wish
without regard to the conditions which made it impossible. Cf. Lft.
on Gal. iv, 20 ‘The thing is spoken of in itself, prior to and
independently of any conditions which might affect its possibility.’
See also Acts xxv. 22, and Burton, Af. and T. ὃ 33.
ἀνάθεμα : ‘accursed, ‘devoted to destruction.’ The word was
originally used with the same meaning as ἀνάθημα (of which it was
a dialectic variation, see below), ‘that which is offered or consecrated
to God.’ But the translators of the Old Testament required an
expression to denote that which is devoted to God for destruction, and
adopted ἀνάθεμα as a translation of the Hebrew OU: see Levit. xxvii
28, 29 πᾶν δὲ ἀνάθεμα ὃ ἐὰν ἀναθῇ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Κυρίῳ... οὐκ ἀποδώσεται
οὐδὲ λυτρώσεται... καὶ πᾶν ὃ ἐὰν ἀνατεθῇ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐ λυτρωθη-
σεται, ἀλλὰ θανάτῳ θανατωθήσεται: Deut. vil. 36; Josh. vi. 1 καὶ ἔσται
ἡ πόλις ἀνάθεμα, αὐτὴ καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτῇ, Κυρίῳ σαβαώθ. And
with this meaning it is always used in the New Testament: Gal. i.
8,9; 1 Cor. xvi. 22. The attempt to explain the word to mean
‘excommunication’ from the society—a later use of the Hebrew in
Rabbinical writers and the Greek in ecclesiastical—arose from
a desire to take away the apparent profanity of the wish.
There is some doubt and has been a good deal of discussion as to the
distinction in meaning between ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα. It was originally
dialectic, ἀνάθημα being the Attic form (ἀνάθημα ἀττικῶς, ἀνάθεμα ἑλληνικῶς
Moeris, p. 28) and ἀνάθεμα being found as a substitute in non-Attic works
Anth. P. 6. 162, C./.G. 2693d and other instances are quoted by the
ictionaries), The Hellenistic form was the one naturally used by the
writers of the LXX, and it gradually became confined to the new meaning
attached to the word, but the distinction seems never to have become
certain and MSS. and later writers often confuse the two words. In the
LXX (although Hatch and Redpath make no distinction) our present texts
seem to preserve the difference of the two words. The only doubtful passage
is 2 Mace. ii. 13; here A reads ἀνάθεμα where we should expect ἀνάθημα,
but V (the only other MS. quoted by Swete) and the authorities in Holmes
and Parsons have ἀνάθημα. In the N.T. ἀνάθημα occurs once, Luke xxi. 5,
and then correctly (but the MSS. vary, ἀνάθημα BL, ἀνάθεμα NAD). The
Fathers often miss the distinction and explain the two words as identical:
so Ps.-Just. Quaest. εἰ Resp. 1a1; Theod. on Rom. ix. 3, and Suidas; they
are distinguished in Chrys. on Rom. ix. 3 as quoted by Suidas, but not in
Field's ed. No certain instance is quoted of ἀνάθημα for ἀνάθεμα, but ἀνάθεμα
could be and was used dialectically for ἀνάθημα. On the word generally
see esp. Trench Sys. i. § 5; Lft. Gal i. 8; Fri. on Rom. ix. 3.
αὐτὸς ἐγώ. The emphasis and position of these words emphasizes
the willingness for personal sacrifice; and they have still more force
when we remember that St. Paul has just declared that nothing in
heaven or earth can separate him from the love of Christ. Chrys.
ad loc. τί λέγεις, ὦ Παῦλε; ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ποθουμένου, οὗ μήτε
480 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Σ. 4
ἀγαθὰ "᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν συναγωγῇ φυλῶν, ἃ ποιήσει ὁ Θεός. ταχύναι ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ
σραὴλ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ). When therefore St. Paul uses this name he
reminds his readers that it is just those for whose salvation above
all, according to every current idea, the Messiah was to come, who
when he has come are apparently cut off from all share in the
privileges of his kingdom.
υἱοθεσία : ‘the adoption,’ ‘status of an adopted son’: on the
origin of the word and its use in relation to Christian privileges see
above, Rom. viii. 15. Here it implies that relationship of Israel to
God described in Exod. iv. 22 τάδε λέγεε Κύριος Υἱὸς πρωτότοκός μου
Ἰσραήλ: Deut. xiv. 1; xxxii.6; Jer. xxxi.9 ; Hos. xi.1. So Judzlees
i. 211 will bea Father unto them, and they shall be My children,
and they shall all be called children of the living God. And every
angel and every spirit will know, yea they will know that these are
My children, and that I am their Father in uprightness and
in righteousness and that I love them.’
ἡ δόξα : ‘the visible presence of God among His people’ (see
on iii. 23). δόξα is in the LXX the translation of the Hebrew
mm 33, called by the Rabbis the Shekinah (M3°3¥), the
bright cloud by which God made His presence known on earth;
cf. Exod. xvi. 10, &c. Hence τὸ κάλλος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ Ps. Sol. ii. δ,
ἀπὸ θρόνου δόξης 1B. ver. 20, Wisd. ix. 10, imply more than the mere
beauty of the temple, and when St. Stephen, Acts vii. 2, speaks of
6 Θεὸς τῆς δόξης his words would remind his hearers of the visible
presence of God which they claimed had sanctified Jerusalem and the
temple. On late Rabbinical speculations concerning the Shekinah
see Weber Alisyn. Theol. Ὁ. 179.
αἱ διαθῆκαι; ‘the covenants, see Hatch Zssays on 2iblical
Greek, Ὁ. 4). The plural is used not with reference to the two
covenants the ον and the Christian, but because the original
covenant of God with Israel was again and again renewed
(Gen. vi. 18; ἰχ. 9; xv. 18; xvii. 2, 7,9; Ex. ii. 24). Comp. Ecclus.
xliv. ΣΙ μετὰ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν διαμενεῖ ἀγαθὴ κληρονομία, ἔκγονα αὐτῶι:
ἐν ταῖς διαθήκαις ; Wisdom xviii. 22 λόγῳ τὸν κολάζοντα ὑπέταξεν, ὅρκους
πατέρων καὶ διαθήκας ὑπομνήσας. According to Irenaeus, III. xi. 11
(ed. Harvey) there were four covenants: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τέσσαρες ἐδό-
θησαν καθολικαὶ διαθῆκαι τῇ avOpwndryre’ pia μὲν τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τοῦ
Νῶε, ἐπὶ τοῦ τόξον δευτέρα δὲ τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ, ἐπὶ τοῦ σημείον τῆς περιτομῆτ'
τρίτη δὲ ἡ νομοθεσία ἐπὶ τοῦ Μωσέως" τετάρτη δὲ ἡ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου, διὰ
τοῦ Κυμίον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ *.
The Jews believed that they were bound to God and that God
was bound to them by a covenant which would guarantee to them
His protection in the future. According to St. Paul it was just
those who were not bound to Him by a covenant who would
receive the Divine protection. On the idea of the Covenant and
4 In the Latin version the four covenants are Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ.
232 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΣ. δ.
ὃ ὃν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, κιτλ.: with Χριστός (see below), ‘who is
over all, God blessed for ever.’ πάντων is probably neuter, cf. xi. 36.
This description of the supreme dignity of Him who was on His
human side of Jewish stock serves to intensify the conception of
the privileged character of the Jewish race.
The Privileges of Israel.
By this enumeration of the privileges of Israel St. Paul fulfils two
purposes in his argument. He gives firstly the facts which
intensify his sorrow. Like the writer of 4 Ezra his grief is
heightened by the remembrance of the position which his country-
men have held in the Divine economy. Every word in the long
list calls to mind some link which had united them, the Chosen
People, with God; every word reminds us of the glory of their past
history; and it is because of the great contrast suggested between
the destiny of Israel and their actual condition that his grief is so
profound.
But the Apostle has another and more important thought to
emphasize. He has to show the reality and the magnitude of the
problem before him, and this list of the privileges of Israel just empha-
sizes it. It was so great as almost to be paradoxical. It was this.
Israel was a chosen people, and was chosen for a certain purpose.
According to the teaching of the Apostle it had attained this end:
the Messiah, whose coming represented in a sense the consum-
mation of its history, had appeared, and yet from any share in the
glories of this epoch the Chosen People themselves were cut off.
All the families of the earth were to be blessed in Israel: Israel
itself was not to be blessed. They were in an especial sense the
sons of God: but they were cut off from the inheritance. They
were bound by special covenants to God: the covenant had been
broken, and those outside shared in the advantages. The glories of
the Messianic period might be looked upon as a recompense for
the long years of suffering which a faithful adhesion to the Law and
a loyal preservation of the temple service had entailed: the bless-
ings were to come for those who had never kept the Law. The
promises were given to and for Israel: Israel alone would not
inherit them.
Such was the problem. The pious Jew, remembering the
sufferings of his nation, pictured the Messianic time as one when
these should all pass away; when all Israel—pure and without stain
—should be once more united; when the ten tribes should be
collected from among the nations; when Israel which had suffered
much from the Gentiles should be at last triumphant over them.
All this he expected. The Messiah had come: and Israel, the
Ix. δ. THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 233
Messiah’s own people, seemed to be cut off and rejected from the
blessings which it had itself prepared for the world. How was this
problem to be solved? (Cf. 4 Ezra xiii; Schttrer, Geschichie,
ii. 452 8q.)
The Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5.
wal ἐξ ὧν ὃ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὃ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς els rods
αἰῶνας" ἀμήν.
reply, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge, 1883 : by Prof. Dwight
and Dr. Fzra Abbot, in 1 8. Exeg. June and December, 1881, pp. 22-55,
87-164; and 1883, pp. 900-112. Of these the paper of Dr. Abbot is much
the most exhaustive, while that of Dr. Gifford seems to us on the whole to
show the most exegetical power.
Dismissing minor variations, there are four main interpretations (all of Alternati: -
them ref to in the RV.) which have been suggested : interpret
(s) Placing a comma after σάρκα and referring the whole passage to tions.
Christ. So RV.
(6) ing a full stop after σάρκα and translating ‘ He who is God over
all be blessed for ever,’ or ‘is blessed for ever.’ So Rv. marg.
(ὁ With the same punctuation translating ‘He who is over all is God
blessed for ever.’ RV. marg.
(@) Placing a comma after σάρκα and a full stop at πάντων, ‘ who is over
all. God be (or is) blessed for ever.’ RV. marg.
It may be convenient to point out at once that the question is one of The ori.
interpretation and not of criticism. The original MSS. of the Epistles were ginal ΜῸΣ
almost certainly destitute of any sort of punctuation. Of MSS. of the first without
century we have one containing a portion of Isocrates in which a few dots punctua
are used, but only to divide words, never to indicate pauses in the sense; in tion.
the MS. of the Πολιτεία of Aristotle, which dates from the end of the first
or beginning of the second century, there is no punctuation whatever except
that a slight space is left before a quotation: this latter probably is as close
a representation as we can obtain in the present day of the original form of
the of the N.T. In carefully written MSS., the work of professional
scribes, both before and during the first century, the more important pauses
in the sense were often indicated but lesser pauses rarely or never; and, so
far as our knowledge enables us to speak, in roughly written MSS. such as
were no doubt those of the N.T., there is no punctuation at all until about
the third century. Our present MSS. (which begin in the fourth century)
do not therefore represent an early tradition. If there were any traditional
punctuation we should have to seek it rather in early versions or in second
and third century Fathers: the punctuation of the MSS. is interesting in
the history of interpretation, but has no other value.
History of
the inter-
pretation.
(1) The
Versions.
(2) The
Fathers.
Oss
(4) Modern
criticism.
234 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΣ. δ
The history of the interpretation must be passed over somewhat cursorily.
For our earliest evidence we should naturally turn to the older versions, but
these seem to labour under the same obscurity as the original. It is however
probably true that the traditional interpretation of all of them is to apply the
oxology to Christ.
About most of the Fathers however there is no doubt. An immense pre-
ponderance of the Christian writers of the first eight centuries refer the word
to Christ. This is certainly the case with Irenaeus, Haev. III. xvii. 2, ed.
Harvey; Tertullian, Ado. Prax. 13, 15; Hippolytus, Cont. Noct. 6 (cf.
Gifford, op. tf. p. 60); Novatian, 7γὲν. 13; Cyprian, Zest. ii. 6, ed. Hartel;
Syn. Ant. adv, Paul. Sam. in Routh, Xel. Sacrae, iii. 391, 293; Athanasi
Cont. Arian. I. iii. 10; Epiphanius, Haer. lvii. 3, 9, ed. Oehler; Basil,
Adv. Eunom. iv. p. 282; Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Esnom. 11; Chrysostom,
Hom. ad Rom. xvi. 3, &c.; Theodoret, Ad Rom. iv. p. 100; Augustine, De
Trinitate,ii.13; Hilarius, De Zrinttate, viii. 37, 38; Ambrosius, De Spiriiu
Sancto, i. 3. 46; Hieronymus, £p. CXXJ. ad Algas. Qu. ix; Cyril AL, Cont.
Jul. x. pp. 327, 328. It is true also of Origen (ἐπ Kom. vii. 13) if we may
trust Rufinus’ Latin translation (the subject has been discussed at length
by Gifford, op. et¢. p. 31; Abbot, 5 8. Axeg. 1883, p. 103; WH. ad lo.)
Moreover there is no evidence that this conclusion was arrived at on dogmatic
grounds. The passage is rarely cited in controversy, and the word Θεός was
iven to our Lord by many sects who refused to ascribe to him full divine
onours, as the Gnostics of the second century and the Arians of the fourth.
On the other hand this was a useful text to one set of heretics, the Sabellians;
and it is significant that Hippolytus, who has to explain that the words do
nat favour Sabellianism, never appears to think of taking them in any
other way.
The strongest evidence against the reference to Christ is that of the leading
uncial MSS. Of these δὲ has no punctuation, A undoubtedly puts a point
after σάρκα, and also leaves a slight space. The punctuation of this chapter
is careful, and certainly by the original hand; but as there is a similar point
and space between Χριστοῦ and ὑπέρ in ver. 3, a point between σάρκα and
οἵτινες, and another between Ἰσραηλῖται and ὧν, there is no reason as far as
punctuation is concerned why 6 ὧν should not refer to Χριστός as much as
oirives does to ἀδελφῶν. δ B has a colon after σάρκα, but leaves no space,
while there is a space left at the end of the verse. The present colon is
however certainly not by the first hand, and whether it covers an earlier
stop or not cannot be ascertained. C has a stop after σάρκα. The difference
between the MSS. and the Fathers has not been accounted for and is certainly
curious.
Against ascribing these words to Christ some patristic evidence has
been found. Origen (Rufinus) ad Joc. tells us there were certain persons
who thought the ascription of the word Θεύς to Christ difficult, for St. Paul
had already called him vids Θεοῦ. The long series of extracts made by
Wetstein ad Joc. stating that the words ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός cannot be used of
the Son are not to the point, for the Son here is called not ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Gevs,
but ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, and some of the writers he quotes expressly interpret the
passage of the Christ elsewhere. Again, Cyril of Alexandria (Cont. Jad. x.
. 327) quotes the Emperor Julian to the effect that St. Paul never calls
Christ Θεός, but although this is certainly an interesting statement, this
assage, which Cyril quotes apainst him, might easily have been overlooked.
wo writers, and two only, Photius (Cont. Afan. iii. 14) and Diodorus
(Cramer's Catena, p. 162), definitely ascribe the words to the Father.
The modem criticism of the passage began with Erasmus, who pointed
* For information on this point and also on the punctuation of the older
papyri, we are much indebted to Mr. F. G. Kenyon, of the British Museum.
on
εὐλογητ
The coa-
nexion of
thought.
236 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΙΧ. δ.
they suggest so great an antithesis to his mind that he could not refer them
to Christ.
But further than this: no instance seems to occur, at any rate in the
N.T., of the participle ὥν being used with a prepositional phrase and the
noun which the prepositional phrase qualifies. Ifthe noun is mentioned the
substantive verb becomes unnecessary. Here ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός would be
the correct expression, if Θεός is the subject of the sentence; if ὧν is added
Θεός must become predicate. This excludes the translation (6.) ‘He who is
God over all be (or is) blessed for ever.’ It still leaves it possible to translate
as (¢.) ‘He who is over all is God blessed for ever,’ but the reference to
Χριστός remains the most natural interpretation, unless, as stated above, the
word Θεός sugvests in itself too great a contrast.
It has thirdly been pointed out that if this passage be an ascription of
blessing to the Father, the word εὐλογητός would naturally come just
as the word ‘ Blessed’ would in English. An examination of LXX usace
shows that except in cases in which the verb is expressed and thrown forward
(as Ps. cxii (cxiii]. 2 εἴη τὸ ὄνομα Ἑυρίον εὐλογημένον) this is almost in-
variably its position. But the rule is clearly only an empirical one, and in
cases in which stress has to be laid on some special word, it may be and is
broken (cf. Ps. Sol. viii. 40, 41). As ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός if it does not refer
to ὁ Χριστός must be in very marked contrast with it, there would be a special
emphasis on the words, and the perversion of the natural order becomes
possible. These considerations prevent the argument from the position of
εὐλογητός being as decisive as some have thought it, but do not prevent the
balance of evidence being against the interpretation as a doxology referring
to the Father.
The result of an examination of the grammar of the passage makes it clear
that if St. Paul had intended to insert sn ascription of praise to the Father
we should have expected him to write εὐλογητὸς els τοὺς αἰῶνας ὃ ἐπὶ πάντων
Θεός. If the translation (@.) suggested above, which leaves the stop st
πάντων, be accepted, two difficulties which have been are avoided,
but the awkwardness and abruptness of the sudden Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς els rots
αἰῶνας make this interpretation impossible. We have seen that the position
of εὐλογητός makes a doxology (6.) improbable, and the insertion of the
participle makes it very unnatural. The grammatical evidence is in favour
of (a.), i.e. the reference of the words to ὁ Χριστός, unless the words ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ
πάντων Θεός contain in themselves so marked a contrast that they could not
possibly be so referred.
We next to the connexion of thought. Probably not many will
doubt that the interpretation which refers the passage to Christ (a.) admirably
suits the context. St. Paul is enumerating the privileges of Israel, and as the
highest and last privilege he reminds his readers that it was from this Jewish
stock after all that Christ in His human nature had come, and then in order
to emphasize this he dwells on the exalted character of Him who came
according to the flesh as the Jewish Messiah. This gives a perfectly clear
and intelligible interpretation of the passage. Can we say the same of any
interpretation which applies the words to the Father!
Those who adopt this latter interpretation have generally taken the words
as a doxology, ‘ He that is over all God be blessed for ever,’ or ‘ He that is
God over all be blessed for ever.’ A natural criticism that at once arises is,
how awkward the sudden introduction of a doxology! how inconsistent with
the tone of sadness which pervades the passage! Nor do the reasons all
μι support of this interpretation really avoid the difficulty. It is quite true
of course that St. Paul was full of gratitude for the privileges of his race and
especially for the coming of the Messiah, but that is not the thought in his
mind. His feeling is one of sadness and of failure: it is necessary for him
to argue that the promise of God has not failed. Nor again does a reference
to Rom. i. 3g support the interpretation. It is quite true that there we have
Conclw-
sion.
238 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (Tx. 6-18.
Rev. v. 13 and 2 Pet. iii. 18. Again we can assert that we should not expect
it in so early an Epistle as the Romans, but, as Dr. Liddon points out,
2 Thess. i. 12 implies it as does also Phil. ii. 5-8; and there is no reason
why language should not at this time be beginning to adapt itself to theo-
logical ideas already formed.
Throughout there has been no argument which we have felt to be quite
conclusive, but the result of our investigations into the grammar of the
sentence and the drift of the argument is to incline us to the belief that the
words would naturally refer to Christ, unless Θεός is so definitely a proper
name that it would imply a contrast in itself. We have seen that that is not
so. Even if St. Paul did not elsewhere use the word of the Christ, yet it
certainly was so used at a not much later period. St. Paul’s phraseology is
never fixed; he had no dogmatic reason against so using it. In these circum-
stances with some slight, but only slight, hesitation we adopt the first alterna-
tive and translate ‘Of whom is the Christ as concerning the flesh, who is
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’
THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE DIVINE PROMISES,
IX. 6-18. For it ἐς indeed true. With all these privileges
Israel ἐς yet excluded from the Messianic promtses.
Now in the first place does this imply, as has been urged,
that the promises of God have been broken? By no means.
The Scriptures show clearly that physical descent ts not
enough. The children of Ishmael and the children of Esau,
both alike descendants of Abraham to whom the promtse was
given, have been rejected. There is then no breach of the
Divine promise, tf God rejects some Israelites as He has
rejected them.
*Yet in spite of these privileges Israel is rejected. Now it
has been argued: ‘If this be so, then the Divine word has failed.
God made a definite promise to Israel. If Israel is rejected,
that promise is broken.’ An examination of the conditions of
the promise show that this is not so. It was never intended
that all the descendants of Jacob should be included in the Israel
of privilege, πο more in fact than that all were to share the
full rights of sons of Abraham because they were his offspring.
Two instances will prove that this was not the Divine intention.
Take first the words used to Abraham in Gen. xxi. 12 when he
cast forth Hagar and her child: ‘In Isaac shall thy seed be called.’
These words show that although there were then two sons of
Abraham, one only, Isaac, was selected to be the heir, through
240 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Χ. 6, 7.
οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι: ‘the case is not as though.’ ‘This grief of
mine for my fellow countrymen is not to be understood as mean-
ing. Lipsius. The phrase is unique: it must clearly not be
interpreted as if it were οὐχ οἷόν τε, ‘it is not possible that’: for the
re is very rarely omitted, and the construction in this case is
always with the infinitive, nor does St. Paul want to state what
it is impossible should have happened, but what has not happened.
The common ellipse οὐχ ὅτι affords the best analogy, and the
phrase may be supposed to represent οὐ τοιοῦτον δέ ἐστι οἷον ὅτι.
(Win. § lxiv. 1.6; E.T. p. 746.)
ἐκπέπτωκεν : ‘fallen from its place,’ i.e. perished and become of no
effect. Sor Cor. xiii. 8 ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε ἐκπίπτει (TR); James i. 11.
ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ: ‘the Word of God,’ in the sense of ‘the
declared purpose of God,’ whether a promise or a threat or a de-
cree looked at from the point of view of the Divine consistency.
This is the only place in the N. T. where the phrase occurs
in this sense; elsewhere it is used by St. Paul (2 Cor. ii. 17;
iv. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 9g; Tit. ii. 5), in Heb. xiii. 7, in Apoc. i. 9; vi. 9;
xx. 4, and especially by St. Luke in the Acts (twelve times) to
mean ‘the Gospel’ as preached ; once (in Mark vii, 13), it seems
to mean the Ο. T. Scriptures ; here it represents the O. T. phrase
ὁ λόγος τοῦ Kupiov: cf. 18. xxxi. 2 καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ (i. 6. τοῦ Κυρίου) οὐ
μὴ ἀθετηθῇ.
οἱ ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ : the offspring of Israel according to the flesh, the
υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ of ver. 27.
οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ. Israel in the spiritual sense (cf. ver. 4 on ᾿Ισραηλῖται
which is read here also by DEF G, Vulg., being a gloss to bring
out the meaning), the ᾿Ισραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ of Gal. vi. 16, intended for
the reception of the Divine promise. But St. Paul does not mean
here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church)
from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel
might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out
from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants
of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied
in the sacred name Israel. This statement, which is the ground
on which he contests the idea that God’s word has failed, he has
now to prove.
7. οὐδ᾽ ὅτι. The grammatical connexion of this passage with
the preceding is that of an additional argument; the logical con-
nexion is that of a proof of the statement just made. St. Paul
could give scriptural proof, in the case of descent from Abraham,
of what he had asserted in the case of descent from Jacob, and thus
establish his fundamental principle—that inheritance of the pro-
mises is not the necessary result of Israelitish descent.
σπέρμα ‘ABpadp. The word σπέρμα is used in this verse, first of
natural seed or descent, then of seed according to the promise.
Ix. 7.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 241
Both senses occur together in Gen. xxi. 12, 13; and both are
found elsewhere in the N. T., Gal. iii. 29 εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, dpa τοῦ
᾿Αβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ: Rom. xi. 1 ἐγὼ... ἐκ σπέρματος ᾿Αβραάμ. The
nominative to the whole sentence is πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ. ‘The
descendants of Israel have not all of them the legal rights of in-
heritance from Abraham because they are his offspring by natural
descent.’
ἀλλ᾽. Instead of the sentence being continued in the same form
as it began in the first clause, a quotation is introduced which com-
pletes it in sense but not in grammar: cf. Gal. iii. 11, 12; 1 Cor.
KV. 27.
dy ᾿Ισαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα: ‘in (i.e. through) Isaac will
those who are to be your true descendants and representatives
be reckoned,’ ἐν (as in Col. i. 16 ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα) im-
plies that Isaac is the starting-point, place of origin of the
descendants, and therefore the agent through whom the descent
takes place ; so Matt. ix. 34 ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων : τ Cor. vi. 2.
σπέρμα (cf. Gen. xii. 7 r@ σπέρματί σου δώσω τὴν γὴν : Gen. XV. 5 οὕτως
ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου) is used collectively to express the whole number
of descendants, not merely the single son Isaac. The passage
means that the sons of Israel did not inherit the promise made to
Abraham because they were his offspring—there were some who
were his offspring who had not inherited them ; but they did so be-
cause they were descendants of that one among his sons through
whom it had been specially said that his true descendants should
be counted.
The quotation is taken from the LXX of Gen. xxi. 12, which
it reproduces exactly. It also correctly reproduces both the lan-
guage and meaning of the original Hebrew. The same passage
is quoted in Heb. xi. 18.
The opinion expressed in this verse is of course exactly opposite
to the current opinion—that their descent bound Israel to God
by an indissoluble bond. See the discussion at the end of this
section.
κληθήσεται : ‘reckoned,’ ‘considered,’ ‘counted as the true
σπέρμα᾽ ; not as in ver. ΣΙ, and as it is sometimes taken here,
‘called,’ ‘summoned’ (see below).
The uses of the word καλέω are derived from two main significations,
(1) to ‘call,’ ‘summon,’ (2) to ‘summon by name,’ hence ‘to name.’ It
may mean (1) to ‘call aloud’ Heb. iii. 13, to ‘summon,’ to ‘summon to
a banquet’ (in these senses also in the LXX), so 1 Cor. x. 27; Matt. xxii. 3;
from these is derived the technical sense of ‘calling to the kingdom.’
This exact usage is hardly found in the LXX, but Is. xlii. 6 (ἐγὼ Κύριον
ὃ Θεὸς ἐκάλεσά σε ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ), Is. li. (ὅτι els ἦν καὶ ἐκάλεσα αὐτόν,
eal εὐλόγησα αὐτὸν καὶ ἠγάπησα αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπλήθυνα αὐτόν) approach it. In
this sense it is confined to the epistles of St. Paul with Hebrews and St. Peter,
the word hardly occurring at all in St. John and not in this sense elsewhere
242 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Tx 7-0.
(although «Anrés is so used Matt. xxii. 14). The full construction is καλεῖ
τινα eis τι, τ Thess. ii, 12 τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ
δόξαν : but the word was early used absolutely, and so ὁ καλῶν of God (s0
Rom. iv. 17; viii. 30; ix. 11, 24). The technical use of the term comes out
most strongly in 1 Cor. vii and in the derived words (see on «Agrés
Rom. i. 1, γ᾽. (2) In the second group of meanings the ordinary con-
struction is with a double accusative, Acts xiv. 12 ἐκάλουν τε τὸν
Δία (so Rom. ix. 25, and constantly in LXX), or with ὀνόματι, ἐπὶ τῷ
ὀνόματι as Luke i. 59, 61, although the Hebraism καλέσονσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
Ἐμμανονήλ (Matt. i. 33) occurs. But to ‘call by name’ has associations
derived on the one side from the idea of calling over, reckoning, accounting;
hence such phrases as Rom. ix. 7 (from Gen. xxi. 12 LXX), and on the other
from the idea of affection suggested by the idea of calling by name, so
Rom. ix. 26 (from LXX Hos. ii. 1[i. 10). These derivative uses of the word
occur independently both in Greek, where κέκλημαι may be used to mean
little more than ‘to be,’ and in Hebrew. The two main meanings can always
be distinguished, but probably in the use of the word each has influenced
the other; when God is said to be ‘He that calls us’ the primary idea is
clearly that of invitation, but the secondary idea of ‘calling by name,’ i.e.
of expressing affection, gives a warmer colouring to the idea suggested.
8. τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν. From this instance we may deduce a general
principle.
τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκός : Liber’ quos corporis vis genuertt, Fri.
τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ : bound to God by all those ties which have been
the privilege and characteristic of the chosen race.
τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας: Libert guos Det promissum procreavit. Fn.
Cf. Gal. iv. 23 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὃ δὲ ἐκ
τῆς ἐλευθέρας δὲ ἐπαγγελίας : 28 ἡμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ᾿Ισαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας
τέκνα ἐσμέν. ᾿
All these expressions (τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας) are
used elsewhere of Christians, but that is not their meaning in this
passage. St. Paul is concerned in this place to prove not that
any besides those of Jewish descent might inherit the promises, but
merely that not all of Jewish descent necessarily and for that very
reason must enjoy all the privileges of that descent. Physical con-
nexion with the Jewish stock was not in itself a ground for inherit-
ing the promise. That was the privilege of those intended when
the promise was first spoken, and who might be considered to be born
of the promise. This principle is capable of a far more universal
application, an application which is made in the Epistle to the
Galatians (iii. 29; iv. 28, &c.), but is not made here.
9. ἐπαγγελίας must be the predicate of the sentence thrown
forward in order to give emphasis and to show where the point
of the argument lies. ‘This word is one of promise,’ i.e. if
you refer to the passage of Scripture you will see that Isaac was
the child of promise, and not born κατὰ σάρκα; his birth therefore
depends upon the promise which was in fact the efficient cause of
it, and not the promise upon his birth. And hence is deduced
a general law: a mere connexion with the Jewish race κατὰ σάρκα
rx. 9-11] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 243
does not necessarily imply a share in the érayyeAla, for it did not
according to the original conditions.
κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι, καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ vids. St. Paul
combines Gen. xviii. 10 (LXX) ἐπαναστρέφων ἥξω πρὸς σὲ κατὰ τὸν
καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς Spas, καὶ ἔξει υἱὸν Σάρρα ἡ γυνή σον: and 14 (LXX)
εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἀναστρέψω πρὸς σὲ εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός.
The Greek text is a somewhat free translation of the Hebrew, but
St. Paul’s deductions from the passage are quite in harmony with
both its words and its spirit.
κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον is shown clearly by the passage in Genesis
to mean ‘at this time in the following year,’ i.e. when a year is
accomplished; but the words have little significance for St. Paul:
they are merely a reminiscence of the passage he is quoting,
and in the shortened form in which he gives them, the meaning,
without reference to the original passage, is hardly clear.
10. οὐ μόνον δέ: see on v. 3, introducing an additional or even
stronger proof or example. ‘You may find some flaw in the
previous argument; after all Ishmael was not a fully legitimate
child like Isaac, and it was for this reason (you may say) that the
sons of Ishmael were not received within the covenant; the in-
stance that I am now going to quote has no defect of this sort,
and it will prove the principle that has been laid down still more
clearly.’
ἀλλὰ καὶ Ρεβέκκα, κιτιλ.: the sentence beginning with these words
is never finished grammatically; it is interrupted by the parenthesis
in ver. 11 μήπω γὰρ γεννηθέντων... καλοῦντος, and then continued
with the construction changed; cf. v.12, 18; 1 Tim. i. 3.
ἐξ ἑνός are added to emphasize the exactly similar birth of the
two sons. The mother’s name proves that they have one mother,
these words show that the father too was the same. There are
none of the defective conditions which might be found in the case of
Isaac and Ishmael. Cf. Chrys. ad loc. (Hom. in Rom. xvi. p. 610)
9 yap Ρεβέκκα καὶ μόνη τῷ ᾿Ισαὰκ γέγονε γυνή, καὶ δύο τεκοῦσα παῖδας, ex
τοῦ ᾿Ισαὰκ ἔτεκεν ἀμφοτέρους" ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οἱ τεχθέντες τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρὸς
Svres, τῆς αὐτῆς μητρός, τὰς αὐτὰς λύσαντες ὠδῖνας, καὶ ὁμοπάτριοι ὄντες καὶ
ὁμομήτριοι, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις καὶ δίδυμοι, οὐ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀπήλαυσαν.
κοίτην ἔχουσα : ‘having conceived’; cf. Fri. ad loc.
Tou πατρὸς ἡμῶν : ‘the ancestor of the Jewish race.’ St. Paul is
here identifying himself with the Jews, ‘his kinsmen according to
the flesh.’ The passage has no reference to the composition of the
Roman community.
11, μήπω γάρ, κιτλ. In this verse a new thought is introduced,
connected with but not absolutely necessary for the subject under
discussion. The argument would be quite complete without it.
St. Paul has only to prove that to be of Jewish descent did not in
itself imply a right to inherit the promise. That Esau was re
244 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ἸΣ. 11.
jected and Jacob chosen is quite sufficient to establish this. But
the instance suggests another point which was in the Apostle’s
mind, and the change in construction shows that a new difficulty,
or rather another side of the question—the relation of these events
to the Divine purpose—has come forward. It is because he desires
to bring in this point that he breaks off the previous sentence. The
yap then, as so often, refers to something latent in the Apostle’s
mind, which leads him to introduce his new point, and is explained
by the sentence ma ... μένῃ, ‘and this incident shows also the
absolute freedom of the Divine election and purpose, for it was
before the children were born that the choice was made and de-
clared.’
μήπω... μηδέ: ‘although they were not yet born nor had done
anything good or evil.’ The subjective negative shows that the
note of time is introduced not merely as an historical fact but as
one of the conditions which must be presumed in estimating the
significance of the event. The story is so well known that the
Apostle is able to put first without explanation the facts which
show the point as he conceives it.
ἵνα... μένῃ. What is really the underlying principle of the
action is expressed as if it were its logical purpose; for St. Paul
represents the events as taking place in the way they did in order
to illustrate the perfect freedom of the Divine purpose.
ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ Θεοῦ: ‘the Divine purpose which
has worked on the principle of selection.’ These words are the
key to chaps. ix—xi and suggest the solution of the problem before
St. Paul. πρόθεσις is a technical Pauline term occurring although
not frequently in the three later groups of Epistles: Rom. viii. 28 ;
ix. 11; Eph. i. 10, 11 ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν, προορισθέντες κατὰ
πρόθεσιν τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ:
iii. 11 κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ Χ. ‘1. τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν:
2 Tim, i. 9 τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ, οὐ κατὰ τὰ
ἔργα ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν : the verb also is found
once in the same sense, Eph. i. 9 κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ͵ ἣν προ-
ἔθετο ἐν αὐτῷ: From Aristotle onwards πρόθεσις had been used to
express purpose; with St. Paul it is the ‘ Divine purpose of God for
the salvation of mankind,’ the ‘ purpose of the ages’ determined in
the Divine mind before the creation of the world. The idea is
apparently expressed elsewhere in the N. T. by βουλή (Luke vii. 30;
Acts ii. 23; iv. 28; xx. 27) which occurs once in St. Paul (Eph. i.
11), but no previous instance of the word πρόθεσις in this sense
seems to be quoted. The conception is worked out by the Apostle
with greater force and originality than by any previous writer, and
hence he needs a new word to express it. See further the longer
note on St. Paul’s Philosophy of History, p. 342. ἐκλογή ex-
presses an essentially O. T idea (see below) but was itself a new
246 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Χ. 13, 18.
part of the process by which He elects or rejects the race. In
either case the choice has been made independently of merits either
of work or of ancestry. Both were of exactly the same descent, and
the choice was made before either was born.
ὁ μείζων... τῷ ἐλάσσονι: ‘the elder,’ ‘the younger. This
ase of the words seems to be a Hebraism; see Gen. x. 21 καὶ τῷ
Σὴμ ἐγενήθη... ἀδελφῷ ᾿Ιάφεθ τοῦ μείζονος : ib. xxix. 16 ὄνομα τῇ μείζονι
Λεία, καὶ ὄνομα τῇ νεωτέρᾳ 'ῬαχήλΛ, But the dictionaries quote in
support of the use Σκιπίων 6 μέγας Pol. XVIII. xviii. 9. The
instances quoted of μικρός (Mk. xv. 40; Mt. xviii. 6, 10, 14, &c.)
are all equally capable of being explained of stature.
18. τὸν “lax®B ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἡσαῦ ἐμίσησα. St. Paul con-
cludes his argument by a second quotation taken freely from the
LXX of Mal. i. 2, 3 οὐκ ἀδελφὸς ἦν "Hoa τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβ ; λέγει Κύριος" καὶ
ἠγάπησα τὸν ᾿Ιακώβ, τὸν δὲ ᾿Ησαῦ ἐμίσησα.
What is the exact object with which these words are introduced?
(x) The greater number of commentators (so Fri. Weiss Lipsius),
consider that they simply give the explanation of God’s conduct.
‘God chose the younger brother and rejected the elder not from
any merit on the part of the one or the other, but simply because
He loved the one and hated the other.’ The aorists then refer to
the time before the birth of the two sons; there is no reference to
the peoples descended from either of them, and St. Paul is repre-
sented as vindicating the independence of the Divine choice in
relation to the two sons of Isaac.
(2) This explanation has the merit of simplicity, but it is prob-
ably too simple. (i) In the first place, it is quite clear that St.
Paul throughout has in his mind in each case the descendants as
well as the ancestors, the people who are chosen and rejected as
well as the fathers through whom the choice is made (cf. ver. 7).
In fact this is necessary for his argument. He has to justify God's
dealing, not with individuals, but with the great mass of Jews who
have been rejected. (ii) Again, if we turn to the original contexts
of the two quotations in wv. 12, 13 there can be no doubt that in
both cases there is reference not merely to the children but to their
descendants. Gen. xxv. 23 ‘Two nations are in thy womb, and two
peoples shall be separated even from thy bowels;’ Mal. i. 3 ‘ But
Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his
heritage to the jackals of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith,
&c. There is nothing in St. Paul’s method of quotation which could
prevent him from using the words in a sense somewhat different
from the original; but when the original passage in both cases is
really more in accordance with his method and argument, it is
more reasonable to believe that he is not narrowing the sense.
(iii) As will become more apparent later, St. Paul’s argument is to
show that throughout God’s action there is running a ‘ purpose
248 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Tx. 6-18.
I shall love thee and make peace with thee. Thou shalt be rooted out and
thy son shall be rooted out and there shall be no peace for thee.’ (See alsc
Jos. Bell. Jud. IV. iv.1, 2; Hausrath, New Testament Times, vol. i. pp. 67, 68,
Eng. Trans.)
The Divine Election.
St. Paul has set himself to prove that there was nothing in the
promise made to Abraham, by which God had ‘ pledged Himself to
Israel’ (Gore, Studia Bibi:ca, iii. 40), and bound Himself to allow all
those who were Abraham’s descendants to inherit these promises. He
proves this by showing that in two cases, as was recognized by the
Jews themselves, actual descendants from Abraham had been ex-
cluded. Hence he deduces the general principle, ‘There was from
the first an element of inscrutable selectiveness in God’s dealings
within the race of Abraham’ (Gore, #3.). The inheritance of the
promise is for those whom God chooses, and is not a necessary
privilege of natural descent. The second point which he raises,
that this choice is independent of human merit, he works out
further in the following verses.
On the main argument it is sufficient at present to notice that it
was primarily an argumenium ad hominem and as such was abso-
lutely conclusive against those to whom it was addressed. The
Jews prided themselves on being a chosen race; they prided them-
selves especially on having been chosen while the Ishmaelites and
the Edomites (whom they hated) had been rejected. St. Paul
analyzes the principle on which the one race was chosen and the
other rejected, and shows that the very same principles would
perfectly justify God’s action in further dealing with it. God might
choose some of them and reject others, just as he had originally
chosen them and not the other descendants of Abraham.
That this idea of the Divine Evection was one of the most funda-
mental in the O.T. needs no illustration. We find it in the
Pentateuch, as Deut. vii. 6 ‘For thou art an holy people unto the
Lord, thy God: the Lord, thy God, hath chosen thee to be a
peculiar people unto himself above all peoples that are on the face
of the earth :’ in the Psalms, as Ps. cxxxv. 4 ‘For the Lord hath
chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure’: in
the Prophets, as Is. xli. 8, 9 ‘But thou Israel, my servant, Jacob
whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend; thou whom
I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth and called thee
from the corners thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant,
I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.’ And this idea of
Israel being the elect people of God is one of those which were
seized and grasped most tenaciously by contemporary Jewish
thought. But between the conception as held by St. Paul’s con-
350 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΓΣ. 14-29.
kingdoms of the earth. He still holds the doctrine, but the
Christian revelation has given a meaning to what had been a nar-
row privilege, and might seem an arbitrary choice. His view is
now widened. The world, not Israel, is the final end of God's
action. This is the key to the explanation of the great difficulty
the rejection of Israel. Already in the words that he has used
above ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις he has shown the principle which he
is working out. The mystery which had been hidden from the
foundation of the world has been revealed (Rom. xvi. 26). There
is still a Divine ἐκλογή, but it is now realized that this is the result
of a πρόθεσις, a universal Divine purpose which had worked through
the ages on the principle of election, which was now beginning to
be revealed and understood, and which St. Paul will explain and
vindicate in the chapters that follow (cf. Eph. i. 4, 11; iii. 11).
We shall follow St. Paul in his argument as he gradually works
it out. Meanwhile it is convenient to remember the exact point he
has reached. He has shown that God has not been untrue to any
promise in making a selection from among the Israel of his own
day; He is only acting on the principle He followed in selecting
the Israelites and rejecting the Edomites and Ishmaelites. By the
introduction of the phrase ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις St. Paul has also
suggested the lines on which his argument will proceed,
THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE DIVINE JUSTICE.
IX. 14-29. But secondly tt may be urged: ‘ Surely then
God ἐς unjust. No, tf you turn to the Scriptures you will
sce that He has the right to confer Hts favours on whom He
will (as He did on Moses) or to withhold them (as He did
From Pharaoh) (vv. 14-18).
77 it ἐς further urged, Why blame me tf I like Pharaoh
reject God's offer, and thus fulfil His will? I reply, It ts
your part not to cavil but to submit. The creature may not
complain against the Creator, any more than the vessel
against the potter (vv. 19-21). Still less when God's purpose
has been so beneficent, and that to a body so mixed as this
Christian Church of ours, chosen not only from the Fews but
also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24) ;—as indeed was foretold
(vv. 25-29).
IX. 14-20] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 451
“But there is a second objection which may be raised. ‘If
what you say is true that God rejects one and accepts another
apart from either privilege of birth or human merit, is not His
conduct arbitrary and unjust?’ What answer shall we make to
this? Surely there is no injustice with God. Heaven forbid that
I should say so. Iam only laying down clearly the absolute character
of the Divine sovereignty. ™ The Scripture has shown us clearly
the principles of Divine action in two typical and opposed incidents:
that of Moses exhibiting the Divine grace, that of Pharaoh ex-
hibiting the Divine severity. Take the case of Moses. When he
demanded a sign of the Divine favour, the Lord said (Ex. xxxiii.
17-19) ‘Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by
name ...I will make all my goodness pass before thee ; I will be
gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on
whom I will show mercy.’ * These words imply that grace comes
to man not because he is determined to attain it, not because he
exerts himself for it as an athlete in the races, but because he has
found favour in God’s sight, and God shows mercy towards him:
they prove in fact the perfect spontaneousness of God’s action.
Sc in the case of Pharaoh. The Scripture (in Ex. ix. 16) tells us
that at the time of the plagues of Egypt these words were ad-
dressed to him: ‘I have given thee thy position and place, that
I may show forth in thee my power, and that my name might be
declared in all the earth.’ ™ Those very Scriptures then to which
you Jews so often and so confidently appeal, show the absolute
character of God’s dealings with men. Both the bestowal of mercy
or favour and the hardening of the human heart depend alike upon
the Divine will.
9 But this leads to a third objection. If man’s destiny be
simply the result of God's purpose, if his hardness of heart is
a state which God Himself causes, why does God find fault? His
will is being accomplished. There is no resistance being offered.
Obedience or disobedience is equally the result of His purpose.
* Such questions should never be asked. Consider what is in-
volved in your position as man. A man’s relation to God is such
that whatever God does the man has no right to complain or object
or reply. The Scriptures have again and again represented the
relation of God to man under the image οἱ a potter and the
852 EPISTLE TO THE ΒΟΜΑΝΒ [1Χ. 20-29.
vessels that he makes. Can you conceive (to use the words of
the prophet Isaiah) the vessel saying to its maker: ‘ Why did you
make me thus?’ * The potter has complete control over the lump
of clay with which he works, he can make of it one vessel for an
honourable purpose, another for a dishonourable purpose. This
exactly expresses the relation of man to his Maker. God has
made man, made him from the dust of the earth. He has as
absolute control over His creature as the potter has. No man
before Him has any right, or can complain of injustice. He is
absolutely in God’s hands. ™ This is God’s sovereignty; even
if He had been arbitrary we could not complain. But what
becomes of your talk of injustice when you consider how He has
acted? Although a righteous God would desire to exhibit the
Divine power and wrath in a world of sin; even though He were
dealing with those who were fit objects of His wrath and had
become fitted for destruction; yet He bore with them, full of long-
suffering for them, * and with the purpose of showing all the wealth
of His glory on those who are vessels deserving His mercy, whom
as we have already shown He has prepared even from the
beginning, **a mercy all the greater when it is remembered that
we whom He has called for these privileges are chosen not only
from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles, Gentiles who were
bound to Him by no covenant. Surely then there has been no
injustice but only mercy.
δ᾽ And remember finally that this Divine plan of which you
complain is just what the prophets foretold. They prophesied the
calling of the Gentiles. Hosea (i. 10, and ii. 23) described how
those who were not within the covenant should be brought into it
and called by the very name of the Jews under the old Covenant,
‘the people of God,’ ‘the beloved of the Lord,’ ‘the sons of the
living God.’ ® And this wherever throughout the whole world
they had been placed in the contemptuous position of being, as he
expressed it, ‘no people.’ *® Equally do we find the rejection of
Israel—all but a remnant of it—foretold. Isaiah (x. 22) stated,
‘Even though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand
of the seashore, yet it is only a remnant that shall be saved, ™ for
a sharp and decisive sentence will the Lord execute upon the earth.
® And similarly in an earlier chapter (i. g) he had foretold the oom-
FX. 14, 16] ΤῊΣ UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 253
plete destruction of Israel with the exception of a small remnant:
“Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should have
been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.’
14-29. St. Paul now states for the purpose of refutation a
possible objection. He has just shown that God chooses men
independently of their works according to His own free determina-
tion, and the deduction is implied that He is free to choose oz
reject members of the chosen race. The objection which may be
raised is, ‘if what you say is true, God is unjust,’ and the argument
would probably be continued, ‘we know God is not unjust, there-
fore the principles laid down are not true.’ In answer, St. Paul
shows that they cannot be unjust or inconsistent with God’s action,
for they are exactly those which God has declared to be His in those
very Scriptures on which the Jews with whom St. Paul is arguing
would especially rely.
14. τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; see on iii. 5, a very similar passage: εἰ δὲ ἡ
ἀδικία ἡμῶν Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησι, τί ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἄδικος 6 Θεὸς
ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν ; ... μὴ γένοιτο. The expression is used as
always to introduce an objection which is stated only to be
refuted.
μή: implying that a negative answer may be expected, as in
the instance just quoted.
παρὰ ty Θεῷ. Cf. ii. 11 οὐ γάρ ἐστι προσωποληψία παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ:
Eph. vi. 9; Prov. viii. 30, of Wisdom dwelling with God, ἤμην
wap αὐτῷ ἁρμόζουσα.
μὴ γένοιτο. Cf. iii. 4. The expression is generally used as here
to express St. Paul’s horror at an objection ‘which he has stated
for the purpose of refutation and which is blasphemous in itself or
one that his opponent would think to be such.
15-19. According to Origen, followed by many Fathers and
some few modern commentators, the section wv. 15-19 contains
not St. Paul’s own words, but a continuation of the objection put
into the mouth of his opponent, finally to be refuted by the
indignant disclaimer of ver. 20. Such a construction which was
adopted in the interest of free-will is quite contrary to the structure
of the sentence and of the argument. In every case in which μὴ
γένοιτο occurs it is followed by an answer to the objection direct or
indirect. Moreover if this had been the construction the inter-
rogative sentence would not have been introduced by the particle
μή expecting a negative answer, but would have been in a form
which would suggest an affirmative reply.
15. τῴ γὰρ Μωσῇ λέγει. The yap explains and justifies the
strong denial contained in μὴ γένοιτο, Too much stress must not
be laid on the empnasis given to the name by its position; yet it is
obvious that the instance chosen adds considerably to the strength
254 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [IX. 16, 16
of the argument. Moses, if any one, might be considered to have
deserved God’s mercy, and the name of Moses would be that most
respected by St. Paul’s opponents. λέγει without a nominative for
Θεὸς λέγει is a common idiom in quotations (cf. Rom. xv. 10;
Gal. iii. 16; Eph. iv. 8; v. 14).
ἔλεήσω ὃν ἂν hed, κατὰ: ‘I will have mercy on whomsoever
I have mercy.’ The emphasis is on the ὃν ἄν, and the words are
quoted to mean that as it is God who has made the offer of salva-
tion to men, it is for Him to choose who are to be the recipients of
His grace, and not for man to dictate to Him. The quotation is
from the LXX of Ex. xxxiii. rg which is accurately reproduced.
It is a fairly accurate translation of the original, there being only
a slight change in the tenses. The Hebrew is ‘I am gracious to
whom I will be gracious,’ the LXX ‘I will be gracious to whom-
soever I am gracious.’ But St. Paul uses the words with a some-
what different emphasis. Moses had said, ‘Show me, I pray thee,
thy glory.’ And He said, ‘I will make all my goodness pass before
thee, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee: and
I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy
on whom I will show mercy.’ The point of the words in the
original context is rather the certainty of the Divine grace for those
whom God has selected ; the point which St. Paul wishes to prove
is the independence and freedom of the Divine choice.
ἐλεήσω... olxrecpijow. The difference between these words
seems to be something the same as that between λύπη and ὀδύνη in
ver, 2. The first meaning ‘compassion,’ the second ‘distress’ or
‘pain,’ such as expresses itself in outward manifestation. (Cf
Godet, ad loc.)
16. dpa οὖν introduces as an inference from the special instance
given the general principle of God’s method of action. Cf. ver. 8
tour’ ἔστιν, Ver. 11 iva, where the logical method in each case is the
same although the form of expression is different.
τοῦ θέλοντος, κιτλ. ‘God's mercy is in the power not of human
desire or human effort, but of the Divine compassion itself.’ The geni-
tives are dependent on the idea of mercy deduced from the previous
verse. With θέλοντος may be compared Jo. i. 12, 13 ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς
ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι... οἱ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος
σαρκός, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. The meta-
phor of τοῦ τρέχοντος is a favourite one with St. Paul (1 Cor. ix.
24,26; Phil. ii. 16; Gal. ii. 2; v. 7).
In vv. 7-13 St. Paul might seem to be dealing with families or
groups of people; here however he is distinctly dealing with in-
dividuals and lays down the principle that God’s grace does not
necessarily depend upon anything but God's will. ‘Not that
I have not reasons to do it, but that I need not, in distributing of
mercies which have no foundation in the merits of men. render
256 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΤΣ. 17.
the dead, and the simple verb ἐγείρειν in James v. 15 means ‘ rais-
ing from sickness.’ The words may possibly therefore have this
sense, but the passage as quoted by St. Paul could not be so inter-
preted. Setting aside the fact that he probably altered the reading
of the LXX purposely, as the words occur here without any allusion
to the previous sickness, the passage would be meaningless unless
reference were made to the original, and would not justify the
deduction drawn from it ὃν δὲ θέλει σκληρύνει.
(2) The correct interpretation (so Calv. Beng. Beyschlag Go.
Mey. Weiss. Lips. Gore) is therefore one which makes St. Paul
generalize the idea of the previous passage, and this is in accord-
ance with the almost technical meaning of the verb ἐξεγείρειν in the
LXX. It is used of God calling up the actors on the stage of
history. So of the Chaldaeans Hab. i. 6 διότε ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξεγείρω rots
Χαλδαίους : of a shepherd for the people Zech. xi. 16 διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ
ἐξεγείρω ποιμένα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν : of a great nation and kings Jer. xxvii.
41 ἰδοὺ λαὸς ἔρχεται ἀπὸ βορρᾶ, καὶ ἔθνος μέγα καὶ βασιλεῖς πολλοὶ
ἐξεγερθήσονται an’ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς. This interpretation seems to be
supported by the Samaritan Version, sudststere te fect, and cer-
tainly by the Syriac, 0d td fe comstifus uf oslenderem; and it ex
presses just the idea which the context demands, that God had
declared that Pharaoh’s position was owing to His sovereign will
and pleasure—in order to carry out His Divine purpose and plan.
The interpretation which makes ἐξεγείρειν mean ‘ call into being,’
‘create, has no support in the usage of the word, although not
inconsistent with the context; and ‘to rouse to anger’ (Aug. de
W. Fri. ἄς.) would require some object such as θυμόν, as in
2 Macc. xiii. 4.
The readings of the Latin Versions are as follows: Quia in hoc ipsum
excttavi te, def, Vulg.; guia ad hoc tpsum te suscttavi, Orig.-lat.; guia in
hoc ipsum excttavi le suscitavt te, g; guiain hoc ipsum te servavt, Ambrstr.,
who adds alt: codices «ἐς habent, ad hoc te suscitavt. Stve servavi sive
suscslavt unus est sensus.
The reading of the LXX is καὶ ἕνεκεν τούτου διετηρήθης iva ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν
cot τὴν ἰσχύν μου, καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ yp. St. Paul’s
variations are interesting.
(1) εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο is certainly a better and more emphatic representation
of the Hebrew than the somewhat weak τούτου ἕνεκεν. The expression is
characteristically Pauline (Rom. xiii. 6; 2 Cor. v. §; Eph. vi. 18, 23;
Col. iv. 8).
(a) ἐξήγειρά σε represents better than the LXX the grammar of the Hebrew,
‘I made thee to stand,’ but not the sense. The variants of the Hexapla
(&ernpyoa) and other versions suggest that a more literal translation was in
existence, but the word was very probably St. Paul’s own choice, selected to
bring out more emphatically the meaning of the passage as he understood it.
(3) ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοί. St. Paul here follows the incorrect translation of
Ὥς LXX. The Hebrew gives as the purpose of God's action that Pharaoh
‘nay know God’s power, and as a farther consequence that God's name may
be known in the world. The LXX assimilates the first clause to the second
and gives it a similar meaning.
ΣΧ. 17,18.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 257
(4) ὅπω:.. . ὅπω:. Here St. Paul obliterates the distinction which the
LXX (following the Hebrew) had made of fva. .. Sas. But this alteration
was only a natural result of the change in the LXX itself, by which the two
clauses had become coordinate in thought.
(5) For δύναμιν the LXX reads ἰσχύν. The reading of St. Paul appears
as a variant in the Hexapla.
18. dpa οὖν. Just as ver. 16 sums up the argument of the first part
of this paragraph, so this verse sums up the argument as it has
been amplified and expounded by the additional example.
σκληρύνει : ‘hardens’; the word is suggested by the narrative of
Exodus from which the former quotation is taken (Ex. iv. a1; vii.
3; ix. 12; x. 20, 27; xi.10; xiv. 4, 8, 17) and it must be translated in
accordance with the O. T. usage, without any attempt at softening
or evading its natural meaning.
The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament.
A second objection is answered and a second step in the argu-
ment laid down. God is not unjust if He select one man or one
nation for a high purpose and another for a low purpose, one man
for His mercy and another for His anger. As is shown by the
Scriptures, He has absolute freedom in the exercise of His Divine
sovereignty. St. Paul is arguing against a definite opponent,
a typical Jew, and he argues from premises the validity of which
that Jew must admit, namely, the conception of God contained in
the O. T. There this is clearly laid down—the absolute sove-
reignty of God, that is to say, His power and His right to dispose
the course of human actions as He will. He might select Israel
for a high office, and Edom for a degraded part: He might
select Moses as an example of His mercy, Pharaoh as an example
of His anger. If this be granted He may (on grounds which the
Jew must admit), if He will, select some Jews and some Gentiles
for the high purpose of being members of His Messianic kingdom,
while He rejects to an inferior part the mass of the chosen people.
This is St. Paul’s argument. Hence there is no necessity for
softening (as some have attempted to do) the apparently harsh
expression of ver. 18, ‘whom He will He hardeneth.’ St. Paul
says no more than he had said in i. 20-28, where he described the
final wickedness of the world as in a sense the result af the Divine
action. In both passages he is isolating one side of the Divine
action; and in making theological deductions from his language
these passages must be balanced by others which imply the Divine
love and human freedom. It will be necessary to do this at the
close of the discussion. At present we must be content with
St. Paul’s conclusion, that God as sovereign has the absolute right
and power of disposing of men’s lives as He will.
858 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΣ. 18, 19
We must not soften the passage. On the other hand, we must
not read into it more than it contains: as, for example, Calvin
does. He imports various extraneous ideas, that St. Paul speaks
of election to salvation and of reprobation to death, that men
were created that they might perish, that God’s action not only
might be but was arbitrary: Hoc enim vult efficere apud nos, ul
in ea guae apparel inter electos et reprobos diversilate, mens nostra
contenta sit quod ita visum fuertt Deo, alios illuminare in salulem,
alios in mortem excaecare...Corrutt ergo frivolum illud effugium quod
de praesctentia Scholastict habent, Neque enim praevideri rutnam im-
ptorum a Domino Paulus tradtt, sed εἴς consilio ef voluntate ordinari,
guemadmodum et Solomo docet, non modo praccognitum fuisse imptorum
interilum, sed imptos tpsos fuisse destinalo creatos ul pertrent.
The Apostle says nothing about eternal life or death. He says
nothing about the principles upon which God does act; he never
says that His action is arbitrary (he will prove eventually that it
is not so), but only that if it be no Jew who accepts the Scripture
has any right to complain. He never says or implies that God
has created man for the purpose of his damnation. What he does
say is that in His government of the world God reserves to Him-
self perfect freedom of dealing with man on His own conditions
and not on man’s. So Gore, of. ci#. p. 40, sums up the argument:
‘God always revealed Himself as retaining His liberty of choice,
as refusing to tie Himself, as selecting the historic examples of
His hardening judgement and His compassionate good will, so as
to baffle all attempts on our part to create His vocations by our
own efforts, or anticipate the persons whom He will use for His
purposes of mercy or of judgement.’
19. ἐρεῖς μοι ody. Hardly are the last words ὃν δὲ θέλει σκλη-
ρύνει out of St. Paul’s mouth than he imagines his opponent in
controversy catching at an objection, and he at once takes it up and
forestalls him. By substituting this phrase for the more usual
τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, St. Paul seems to identify himself less with his
opponent's objection.
μοι οὖν is the reading of N° A BP, Orig. 1/3 Jo.-Damase.; οὖν μοι of the
TR. is supported by DEF GK L &c., Vulg. Boh., Orig. 2/3 and Orig.-lat.
Chrys. Thdrt. It is the substitution of the more usual order.
τί ἔτι μέμφεται : ‘why considering that it is God who hardens
me does He still find fault?’ Why does he first produce a
position of disobedience to His will, and then blame me for falling
into it?) The ἔτι implies that a changed condition has been pro-
duced which makes the continuation of the previous results sur-
prising. So Rom. iii. 7 εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ψεύσματι
ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, τί ἔτι κἀγὼ ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸς κρίνομαι;
Rom. vi. 2 οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ ;
260 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (TX. 21, 22.
should of course be taken with ἐξουσίαν, is intended to emphasize
the contrast between κεραμεύς and πηλός, as suggesting the true
relations of man and God.
φυράματος : ‘the lump of clay.’ Cf. Rom. xi. 16; 1 Cor. v. 6,7;
Gal. v.9. The exact point to which this metaphor isto be pressed
may be doubtful, and it must always be balanced by language used
elsewhere in St. Paul’s Epistles; but it is impossible to argue that
there is no idea of creation implied: the potter is represented not
merely as adapting for this or that purpose a vessel already made,
but as making out of a mass of shapeless material one to which he
gives a character and form adapted for different uses, some
honourable, some dishonourable.
ὃ μὲν ais τιμὴν σκεῦος, κιτλ.: cf. Wisd. xv. 7 (see below)
2 Tim. ii. 20 ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔστι μόνον σκεύη
ἀργυρᾶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ξύλινα καὶ ὀστράκινα, καὶ ἃ μὲν εἰς τιμήν, ἃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν.
But there the side of human responsibility is emphasized, ἐὰν οὖν τις
ἐκκαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, ἔσται σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, κιτιλ.
The point of the argument is clear. Is there any injustice if
God has first hardened Pharaoh’s heart and then condemned him,
if Israel is rejected and then blamed for being rejected? The answer
is twofold. In wv. r9~21 God’s conduct is shown to be right under
all circumstances. In vv. 22 sq. it is explained or perhaps rather
hinted that He has a beneficent purpose in view. In wv. 109-21
St. Paul shows that for God to be unjust is impossible. As He has
made man, man is absolutely in His power. Just as we do not
consider the potter blameable if he makes a vessel for a dishonour-
able purpose, so we must not consider God unjust if He chooses to
make a man like Pharaoh for a dishonourable part in history. Post-
quam demonstratum est, Deum tla egisse, demonstratum etiam est omnt-
bus, qut Most credunt, eum convenienter suae tushtiae egisse. Wetstein.
As in ii. 5 St. Paul brings the argument back to the absolute
fact of God’s justice, so here he ends with the absolute fact of
God’s power and right. God had not (as the Apostle will show)
acted arbitrarily, but if He had done so what was man that he
should complain?
22. εἰ δὲ θέλων ὁ Θεός, x.7.4.: ‘but if God, &c., what will you say
then?’ like our English idiom ‘What and if’ There is no apo-
dosis to the sentence, but the construction, although grammatically
incomplete, is by no means unusual: cf. Jo. vi. 61, 62 τοῦτο ὑμᾶς
σκανδαλίζει ; ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν νἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου
ἦν τὸ πρότερον; Acts xxiii. 9 οὐδὲν κακὸν εὑρίσκομεν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ
τούτῳ' εἰ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος .. Luke xix. 41, 42 καὶ ὡς
ἤγγυτεν, ἰδὼν τὴν πόλιν ἔκλαυσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ λέγων ὅτι Εἰ ἔγνως ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ
ταύτῃ καὶ σὺ τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην. There is no difficulty (as Oltramare
seems to think) in the length of the sentence. All other con-
structions, such as an attempt to find an apodosis in καὶ i
263 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΧ. 22, 28
had fitted themselves for destruction (Chrys. Theoph. Oecum.
Grotius Beng.), although, as the argument in chap. x shows, he
could have done so, for this would have been to impair the con-
ception of God’s freedom of action which at present he wishes to
emphasize; but he says just what is necessary for his immediate
se—they were fitted for eternal destruction (ἀπώλεια opp. to
σωτηρίας. That is the point to which he wishes to attract our
attention.
23. καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ. These words further develop and explain
God’s action so as to silence any objection. St. Paul states that
God has not only shown great long-suffering in bearing with those
fitted for destruction, but has done so in order to be able to show
mercy to those whom He has called: the καί therefore couples ta
γνωρίσῃ in thought with ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ. St. Paul is no longer
(see ver. 24) confining himself to the special case of Pharaoh,
although he still remembers it, as his language shows, but he is
considering the whole of God’s dealings with the unbelieving Jews,
and is laying down the principles which will afterwards be worked
out in full—that the Jews had deserved God's wrath, but that He
had borne with them with great long-suffering both for their own
sakes and for the ultimate good of His Church. In these verses, as
in the expression ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις, St. Paul is in fact hinting
at the course of the future argument, and in that connexion they
must be understood.
On the exact construction of these words there has been great variety of
opinion, and it may be convenient to mention some divergent views.
(1) WH. on the authority of B, several minuscules, Valg. Boh. Sah., Orig.-lat.
3/3 omit καί. This makes the construction simpler, but probably for that very
reason should be rejected. A reviser or person quoting would naturally omit
wai; it is difficult to understand why it should be inserted : moreover on such
a point as this the authority of versions is slighter, since to omit a pleonastic καί
would come within the ordinary latitude of interpretation necessary for their
purpose. There is some resemblance to xvi. 27. In both cases we find the
same MS. supporting a reading which we should like to accept, but which
has much the appearance of being an obvious correction. (2) Calv. Grot.
de W. Alf. and others make «al couple θέλων and iva γνωρίσῃ. Bat
this obliges us to take θέλων ... ἐνδείξασθαι as expressing the purpose
of the sentence which is both impossible Greek and gives a meaning
inconsistent with paxpudvyig. (3) Fri. Beyschlag and others couple ἵνα
γνωρίσῃ and els ἀπώλειαν; but this is to read an idea of purpose into
κατηρτισμένα which it does not here possess. (4) To make καὶ &a
give the apodosis of the sentence εἰ δὲ ἤνεγκεν (Ols. Ewald, &c.), or to
create a second sentence repeating εἰ, καὶ εἰ ἵνα... (supposing a second
ellipse), or to find a verb hidden in ἐκάλεσεν, supposing that St. Paul meant
to write «ai εἰ iva γνωρίσῃ .. . ἐκάλεσεν but changed the construction and put
the verb into a relative sentence (Go. Oltramare); all these are quite im-
possible and quite unnecessary constructions,
τὸν πλοῦτον, κιτιλ.: οὗ ii. 4; Eph, iii. 16 κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης
ϑ ΄΄
“ὑτοῦ.
264 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Σ. 265, 36.
ammi, ‘ not a people’ and Lo-ruhamah, ‘without mercy,’ to signify
the fallen condition of the ten tribes; and Hosea prophesies their
restoration (cf. Hosea i. 6, 8, 9). St. Paul applies the principle
which underlies these words, that God can take into His covenant
those who were previously cut off from it, to the calling of the
Gentiles. A similar interpretation of the verse was held by the
Rabbis. Pesachim viii. f. Dixit R. Eliezer: Non alia de causa in
exilium et captivitatem mistt Deus S. B. Israelem inter nationes, nist
ut facerent multos proselytos S. 22. Oseae ii. 25 (23) ef seram cam
miht in terram. Numquid homo seminat salum nist ut colligal
mullos coros γι δ Wetstein.
The LXX reads ἐλεήσω τὴν οὖκ ἠλεημένην, καὶ ἐρῶ τῷ ob λαῷ pow Aads pow
εἶ σύ, but for the first clause which agrees with the Hebrew the Vatican
substitutes ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην. St. Paul inverts the order of the
clauses, so that the reference to τὸν ob λαόν μου, which seems perticalarly to
suit the Gentiles, comes first, and for ἐρῶ substitutes καλέσω which naturally
crept in from the ἐκάλεσεν of the previous verse, and changes the construc-
tion of the clause to suit the new word. In the second clause St. Paul seems
to have used a text containing the reading of the Vatican MS., for the latter
can hardly have been altered to harmonize with him. St. Peter makes use of
the passage with the reading of the majority of MSS.: οἱ τοτὲ οὐ λαός, νῦν δὲ
λαὸς Θεοῦ, of οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες (1 Pet. ii. 10).
καλέσω with a double accusative can only mean ‘I will name,’
although the word has been suggested by its previous occurrence
in another sense.
26. καὶ ἔσται, ἐν τῷ τόπῳ... ἐκεῖ x.7.A. St. Paul adds a passage
with a similar purport from another part of Hosea (i το). The
meaning is the same and the application to the present purpose
based on exactly the same principles. The habit had probably
arisen of quoting passages to prove the calling of the Gentiles ; and
these would become commonplaces, which at a not much later date
might be collected together in writing, see Hatch, Essays in Biblical
Greek, p. 103, and cf. Rom. iii. 10. The only difference between
St. Paul’s quotation and the LXX is that he inserts ἐκεῖ : this insertion
seems to emphasize the idea of the place, and it is somewhat difficult
to understand what place is intended. (1) In the original the place
referred to is clearly Palestine: and if that be St. Paul’s meaning
he must be supposed to refer to the gathering of the nations at
Jerusalem and the foundation of a Messianic kingdom there
(cf. xi. 26). St. Paul is often strongly influenced by the language and
even the ideas of Jewish eschatology, although in his more spiritual
passages he seems to be quite freed from it. (2) If we neglect
the meaning of the original, we may interpret ἐκεῖ of the whole
world. ‘Wheresoever on earth there may be Gentiles, who have
had to endure there the reproach of being not God’s people, in
that place they shall be called God’s people, for they will become
members of His Church and it will be universal.’
IX. 27-29.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 265
27,28. St. Paul has supported one side of his statement from
the O. T., namely, that Gentiles should be called; he now passes
on to justify the second, namely, that only a remnant of the Jews
should be saved.
27. ἐὰν ἡ ὁ ἀριθμός... ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς : quoted from the LXX of
Is. x. 22, but considerably shortened. The LXX differs considerably
from the Hebrew, which the translators clearly did not understand.
But the variations in the form do not affect the meaning in any
case. St. Paul reproduces accurately the idea of the original
passage. The context shows that the words must be translated
‘only a remnant shall be saved,’ and that it is the cutting off of
Israel by the righteous judgement of God that is foretold. Prof.
Cheyne in 1884 translated the Hebrew: ‘For though thy people,
O Israel, were as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall
return: a final work and a decisive, overflowing with righteousness !
For a final work and a decisive doth the Lord, Jehovah Sabaoth,
execute within all the land.’
28. λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ποιήσει Κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς :
συντελῶν, ‘accomplishing,’ συντέμνων, ‘abridging. Cf. Is. xxviii. 22
διότι συντετελεσμένα καὶ συντετμημένα πράγματα ἤκουσα mapa Kupiov
Σαβαώθ, ἃ ποιήσει ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. ‘For a word, accomplishing
and abridging it, that is, a sentence conclusive and concise, will
the Lord do upon the earth.’
Three critical points are of some interest:
(1) The variations in the MSS. of the Gr. Test. For ὑπόλειμμα (ὑπόλιμμα
WH.) of the older MSS. (NAB, Eus.), later authorities read κατάλειμμα
to agree with the LXX. In ver. 28 λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων
ποιήσει Κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is the reading of N AB a few minusc., Pesh. Boh.
Aecth., Eus. 2/3; Western and Syrian authorities add after συντέμνων, ἐν
δικαιοσύνῃ" ὅτι λόγον ouvrerpnpévoy to suit the LXX. Alford defends the
TR. on the plea of homoeoteleuton (συντέμνων and συντετμημένονῚ, but the
insertion of γάρ after λόγον which is preserved in the TR. (where it is
ungrammatical) and does not occur in the text of the LXX, shows that the
shortened form was what St. Paul wrote.
(2) The variations from the LXX. The LXX reads καὶ ἐὰν γένηται
ὃ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλειμμα αὐτῶν σωθήσεται.
λόγον συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον Kupios
φοιήσει ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ὕλῃ. St. Paul substitutes ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ,
a reminiscence from Hosea i. 10, the words immediately preceding those
noted by him above. The later part of the quotation he considerably
ortens.
(3) The variations of the LXX from the Hebrew. These appear to arise
from an inability to translate. For ‘a final work and a decisive, overflowing
with righteousness,’ they wrote ‘a word, accomplishing and abridging it in
righteousness,’ and for ‘a final work and a decisive,’ ‘a word abridged will
the Lord do,’ &c.
29. προείρηκεν : ‘has foretold.’ A second passage is quoted in
corroboration of the preceding.
εἰ μὴ Κύριος κιτὰλ.. quoted from the LXX of Is. i. 9, which
266 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 19-309.
again seems adequately to represent the Hebrew. ‘Even in the
O. T., that book from which you draw your hopes, it is stated that
Israel would be completely annihilated and forgotten but for
a small remnant which would preserve their seed and name.’
The Power and Rights of God as Creator.
St. Paul in this section (vv. 19-29) expands and strengthens
the previous argument. He had proved in wv. 14-18 the absolute
character of the Divine sovereignty from the O. T.; he now
proves the same from the fundamental relations of God to man
implied in that fact which all his antagonists must admit—that
God had created man. This he applies in an image which was
common in the O. T. and the Apocryphal writings, that of the
potter and the clay. God has created man, and, as far as the
question of ‘right’ and ‘justice’ goes, man cannot complain of
his lot. He would not exist but for the will of God, and whether
his lot be honourable or dishonourable, whether he be destined for
eternal glory or eternal destruction, he has no ground for speak-
ing of injustice. The application to the case in point is very
clear. Ifthe Jews are to be deprived of the Messianic salvation,
they have, looking at the question on purely abstract grounds,
no right or ground of complaint. Whether or no God be
arbitrary in His dealings with them does not matter: they must
submit, and that without murmuring.
This is clearly the argument. We cannot on the one hand
minimize the force of the words by limiting them to a purely
earthly destination: as Beyschlag, ‘out of the material of the
human race which is at His disposal as it continues to come into
existence to stamp individuals with this or that historical destina-
tion,’ implying that St. Paul is making no reference either to the
original creation of man or to his final destination, in both points
erroneously. St. Paul’s argument cannot be thus limited. It is
entirely based on the assumption that God has created man, and
the use of the words els δόξαν, εἰς ἀπώλειαν prove conclusively that
he is looking as much as he ever does to the final end and
destination of man. To limit them thus entirely deprives the
passage of any adequate meaning.
But on the other side it is equally necessary to see exactly how
much St. Paul does say, and how much he does not. He never
says, he carefully avoids saying, that God has created men for
reprobation. What his argument would bear is that, supposing
we isolate this point, the ‘rights’ of man against God or of God
against man, then, even if God had created man for reprobation,
man could have no grounds for complaint.
268 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Χ. 10-29.
in the Book of Wisdom has been pointed out. Again in the ninth
chapter the same resemblance meets us, and demands some slight treatment
in this place. The passages referred to occur mostly in Wisdom xi, xii.
There is first of all similarity of subject. Wisdom x-xix form like
Rom. ix-xi a sort of Philosophy of History. The writer devotes himself to
exhibiting Wisdom as a power in the world, and throughout (influenced
perhaps by associations connected with the place of his residence) contrasts
the fortunes of the Israelites and Egyptians, just as St. Paul makes Moses
and Pharaoh his two typical instances.
And this resemblance is continued in details.
The impossibility of resisting the Divine power is more than once dwelt
on, and in language which has a very close resemblance with passages in the
Romans.
Rom. ix. 19, 20 ἐρεῖς μοι οὖν, Τί ἔτι
μέμφεται ; τῷ γὰρ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ
τίς ἀνθέστηκε; . .. μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ
πλάσμα τῷ wAdoayn, Ti με ἑποί-
ῃσας οὕτως;
Wisd. xi. 21 καὶ κράτει βραχίονόι
σου τίς ἀντιστήσεται;
xii. 12 τίς γὰρ ἐρεῖ, Τί ἐποίησα:; ἣ
τίς ἀντιστήσεται τῷ κρίματί σου;
τίς δὲ ἔγκαλέσει σοι κατὰ ἐθνῶν ἄπολω-
λότων, ἃ σὺ ἐποίησας ; ἣ τίς els κατά-
στασίν σοι ἐλεύσεται ἔκδικος κατὰ dbi-
κων ἀνθρώπων ;
Both writers again lay great stress on the forbearance of God.
Rom. ix. 22, 23 εἰ δὲ θέλων ὁ
Θεὸς ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν ὀργὴν καὶ
ἡνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ ἤνεγκεν
ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ σκεύη ὀργῆς
κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν,
καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς δόξης
αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ σκεύη ἐλέους «.7.A.
So again we have the image of the
Wisd. xii. 10 κρίνων δὲ gard βραχὺ
ἐδίδους τόπον μετανοίας.
xii. 20 εἰ γὰρ ἐχθροὺς παίδων σον καὶ
ὀφειλομένους θανάτῳ μετὰ τοσαύ-
τῆς ἐτιμώρησας προσοχῆς καὶ δεήσεωι,
δοὺς χρόνους καὶ τόπον δι ὧν ἀπαλ-
λαγῶσι τῆς κακίας, μετὰ πόσης ἀκρι-
βείας ἔκρινας τοὺς viovs σου ;
potter used by both, although neither
the context nor the purpose is quite similar.
Rom. ix. 21 ἣ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν
ὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ
αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν els
Wisd. xv. 7 καὶ γὰρ κεραμεὺς dma-
λὴν γῆν θλίβων ἐπίμοχθον πλάσσει πρὸς
ὑπηρεσίαν ἡμῶν ἕκαστον" ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ
τιμὴν σκεῦος, ὃ δὲ els ἀτιμίαν ; αὐτοῦ πηλοῦ ἀνεπλάσατο τά τε τῶν
καθαρῶν ἔ δοῦλα σκεύη, τά τε
ἐναντία, πάνθ᾽ ὁμοίως τούτων δὲ érépov
vis éxacrov ἐστὶν 4 χρῆσις, κριτὴς ὁ
wnAoupyés.
The particular resemblance of special passages and of the general drift of
the argument combined with similar evidence from other parts of the Epistle
secms to suggest some definite literary obligation. But here the indebted-
ness ceases. The contrast is equally instructive. The writer of the Book of
Wisdom uses broad principles without understanding their meaning, is often
self-contradictory, and combines with ideas drawn from his Hellenic culture
crude and inconsistent views. The problem is the distinction between the
positions of Jews and Gentiles in the Divine economy. Occasionally we
find wide universalist sentiments, but he always comes back to a strong
nationalism. At one time he says (xi. 23-26): ‘ But Thou hast mercy upon
all... Thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which
Thou hast made... Thou sparest all: for they are Thine, O Lord, Thou
Lover of souls.” But shortly after we read (xii. 10): ‘Thou gavest them
place for repentance, not being ignorant that their cogitation would never
changed. We soon find in fact that the philosophy of the Book of
Wisdom is strictly limited by the nationalist sympathies of the writer. The
270 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Σ. 6-29
See also 11]. i 21. Lomm. xxi. 300. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart be
explains by the simile of rain. The rain is the same for all, but under its
influence well-cultivated fields send forth good crops, ill-cultivated fields
thistles, &c. (cf. Heb. vi. 7, 8). So it is a man’s own soul which hardens
itself by refusing to yield to the Divine grace. The simile of the potter he
explains by comparing 2 Tim. ij. 30, 21. ‘A soul which has not cleansed
itself nor purged itself of its sins by penitence, becomes thereby a vessel for
dishonour.. And God knowing the character of the souls He has to deal
with, although He does not foreknow their future, makes use of them—as
or example Pharaoh—to fulfil that part in history which is necessary for
is purpose.
Influence Origen's interpretation of this passage, with the exception of his doctrine
of Origen. of pre-existence, had a very wide influence both in the East and West. In
the West his interpretation is followed in the main by Jerome (Zfsst. 120
ad Hedibiam de quaestionibus 12, cap. 10, Migne xxii. 997), by Pelagius
(Migne xxx. 687-691), and Sedulius Scotus (Migne ciii. 83-93). In the
aiter its influence had prevailed for a century and a half, it became the
starting-point of the Antiochene exegesis. Of this school Diodore is un-
fortunately represented to us only in isolated fragments; Theodore is strongly
influenced by Origen; Chrysostom therefore may be taken as its best and most
distinguished representative. His comment is contained in the XVIth homily
oa the Romans, written probably before his departure from Antioch, that is
before the year 398.
Chrysos- Chrysostom is like Origen a strong defender of Freewill. As might be
om. expected in a member of the Antiochene school, he interprets the in
accordance with the purpose of St. Paul, i.e. to explain how it was the Jews
had been rejected. He refers ver. 9 to those who have become true sons of
God by Baptism. ‘ You see then that it is not the children of the flesh that
are the children of God, but that even in nature itself the generation by
means of Baptism from above was sketched out beforehand. And if you
tell me of the womb, I have in return to tell you of the water.’ On ver. 16
he explains that Jacob was called because he was worthy, and was known to
be such by the Divine foreknowledge: ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ Θεοῦ is
explained as ἡ ἐκλογὴ ἡ κατὰ πρόθεσιν καὶ πρόγνωσιν γενομένη. On vv. 14-20
Chrysostom does not follow Origen, nor yet does he interpret the verses as ex-
pressing St. Paul’s own mind ; but he represents him in answer to the objection
that in this case God would be unjust, as putting a number of hard cases and
texts which his antagonist cannot answer and thus proving that man has no right
to object to God's action, or accuse Him of injustice, since he cannot understand
or follow Him. ‘ What the blessed Paul aimed at was to show by all that
he said that only God knoweth who are worthy.’ Verses 30, 21 are not
introduced to take away Freewill, but to show up to what point we ought
to obey God. For if he were here speaking of the will, God would be
Himself the creator of good or evil, and men would be free from all
responsibility in these matters, and St. Paul would be inconsistent with
himself. What he does teach is that ‘man should not contravene God, but
yield to His incomprehensible wisdom.’ On vv. 22-24 he says that Pharaoh
has been fitted for destruction by his own act; that God has left undone
nothing which should save him, while he himself had left undone nothing
which would lead to his own destruction. Yet God had bome with him with
great long-suffering, wishing to lead him to repentance. ‘ Whence comes
it then that some are vessels of wrath, and some of mercy? Of their own
free choice. God however being very good shows the same kindness to both.’
The commentaries of Chrysostom became supreme in the East, and very
largely influenced all later Greek commentators, Theodoret (sec. v), Photius
(sec. ix), Oecumenius (sec. x), Theophylact (sec. xi), Euthymius Zigabenus
(sec. xii), &c.
Abelard.
Aquinas.
272 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Χ. 6-29
depends upon the hidden justice of God which no human standard can measure.
4 16 Sst sgstur hoc fixum atque tmmobile in mente sobria pielate atque stabil
in fide, quod nulla est iniguitas apud Deum: atque sta tenacissime firmisst-
meque credatur, id ipsum quod Deus cutus cult miseretur et quem vult obdural,
hoc est, cuius vult miseretur, et cuins non oult non miseretur, esse alicusus
occulfae atque ab humano modulo investigabilss aeguitatés. and so again, aequs-
bate eccultissima et ab humanis sensibus remolissima iudicat. God is always
just. His mercy cannot be understood. Those whom He calls, He calls out of
pity ; those whom He does not, He refuses to call out ofjustice. It is not merit
or necessity or fortane, but the depths of the wisdom and knowledge of God
which distinguishes vessels of wrath from vessels of mercy. And so it is for
the sake of the vessels of mercy that He postpones the punishment of the
vessels of anger. They are the instruments of the safety of others whom
God pities.
Enough has been said to show the lines of St. Augustine's interpretation.
Although from time to time there might be controversies about his views on
Grace, and there might be a tendency to modify some of the harder sides of
his system, yet his exegesis of this passage, as compared with that of Origen
or Chrysostom, became supreme in the West. It influenced first the i
and doctrine of the Schoolmen, and then that of the Reformation and of Calvin.
For the middle ages it may be sufficient to take Abelard (1079-1143) and
Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274). Both were largely influenced by Augustine;
but whereas in the case of Abelard the influence was only indirect, is
Aquinas we have the clearest and most perfect example of the Augustinian
exposition.
Abelard (Migne clxxviii. 911) makes a somewhat strange division of the
Epistle, attaching the exposition of ix. 1-5 to the end of chap. viii. He
begins his fourth book with ix.6. In vv. 6-13 he sees a vindication of the
freedom of the Divine will in conferring grace, but only in relation to Jacob.
‘That the election of Jacob,’ he says, ‘ that is the predestination, may remain
unmoved.’ The choice depends solely on the Divine grace. Verses 14—19 he
explains as the objection of an opponent, to which St. Paul gives an answer,
ver, 20, ‘Who art thou?’ The answer is a rebuke to the man who would
accuse God of iniquity. God may do what He will with those whom He has
created: imo multo potins Deo licere quocunque modo voluerit creaturam suam
bractare atque disponere, gui obnoxius nullo tencetur debito, anteguam quia:
guam sila promereatur. Men have no more right to complain than the
animals of their position. There is no injustice with God. He does more
for mankind by the impiety of Judas than by the piety of Peter. (Qsets enim
fedelium nesctat, quam optime usus sit summa sila tmpietate Iudae, cusius
exsecrabils perditione totius humant generis redemptionem est operatus.
Then he argues at some length the question why man should not complain,
if he is not called as others are called to glory; and somewhat inconsistently
he finds the solution in perseverance. God calls all, He gives grace to all,
but some have the energy to follow the calling, while others are slothful
and negligent. Ste e¢ Deo nobis quotidie regnum coelorum offerente, alius
vegni spsius desiderio accensus in bonis perseverat operibus, alius in sua
torpescit ignavia. On vv. 22,23 he says God bore with the wickedness of
Pharaoh both to give him an opportunity to repent, and that He might use
his crimes for the common good of mankind.
In contrast with the somewhat hesitating and inconsistent character of
Abelard’s exposition, Aquinas stands out as one of the best and clearest com-
mentaries written from the Augustinian standpoint. The modern reader mus
learn to accustom himself to the thoroughness with which each point is
discussed, and the minuteness of the sub-divisions, but from few exponents will
he gain so much insight into the philosophical questions discussed, or the
logical difficulties the solution of which is attempted.
Calvia.
Arminias
274 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Σ. 6-29
the Divine election. This is absolutely gratuitous on God’s part, and quite
independent of man. In the salvation of the just there is nothing above
God's goodness, in the punishment of the wicked there is nothing above His
severity: the one He predestinates to salvation, the other to eternal damna-
tion. This determination is quite independent of foreknowledge, for there
can be nothing in man’s fallen nature which can make God show kindness to
him. The predestination of Pharaoh to destruction is dependent on a just
but secret counsel of God: the word ‘to harden’ must be taken not only Fats
meisssve, but as signifying the action of the Divine wrath. The ruin of the
wicked is described not as foreseen, but as ordained by His will and counsel.
It was not merely foreknown, but, as Solomon says, the wicked were created
that they might . There is no means of telling the principle by which
one is taken and another rejected; it lies in the secret counsels of God.
None deserve to be accepted. The wrath of God against Pharaoh was post-
poned that others might be terrified by the horrible judgement, that God's
power might be displayed, and His mercy towards the elect made more clear.
As God is especially said to prepare the vessels of glory for glory, it follows
that the preparation of the vessels of wrath equally comes from Him; other.
wise the Apostle would have said that they had prepared themselves for
destruction. Before they were ereated their fate was assigned to them. They
were created for destruction.
Arminius represents absolute antagonism on every point to these views.
The purpose of the chapter is, he says, the same as that of the Epistle,
looked at from a special point of view. While the aim of the Epistle is to
prove ‘ Justification by Faith,’ in this chapter St. Paul defends his argament
against Jews who had urged: ‘It overthrows the promises of God, therefore
it is not true.” By the words addressed to Rebecca He signified that He had
from eternity resolved not to admit to His privileges all the children of
Abraham, but those only whom He should select in accordance with the
lan He had laid down. This plan was to extend His mercy to those who
ad faith in Him when He called and who believed on Christ, not to those
who sought salvation by works. The passage that follows (ver. 14 ff.)
shows that God has decided to give His mercy in His own way and on ἢ
own plan, that is to give it not to him who runs, to him that is who strives
after it by works, but to him who seeks it in the way that He has appointed.
And this is perfectly just, because He has Himself announced this as His
method. Then the image of the potter and the clay is introduced to prove,
not the absolute sovereignty of God, but His right to do what He will, that
is to name His own conditions. He has created man to become something
better than he was made. God has made man a vessel: man it is who
makes himself a bad vessel. God decrees on certain conditions to make
men vessels of glory or vessels of wrath according as they do or do not fulnl
these conditions. The condition is Justification by Faith.
The systems of Arminius and Calvin were for the most part supreme
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the exegesis of this chapter,
although there were from time to time signs of historical methods of inter-
pretation. Hammond for example, the English divine of the seventeenth
century, in his paraphrase adopts methods very much beyond those of his
lime. But gradually at the beginning of the present century the defects or
inadequacy of both views became apparent. It was quite clear that as
apainst Arminius Calvin’s interpretation of chap. ix was correct, that St.
Paul’s object in it was not to prove or defend justification by faith, but to
discuss the question behind it, why it was that some had obtained justification
by faith and others had not. But equally clear was it that Calvin’s inter-
pretation, or rather much of what he had read into his interpretation, was
inconsistent with chap. x, and the language which St. Paul habitually uses
elsewhere. This apparent inconsistency then must be recognized. Huw
{X.80—X.18.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 275
must it be treated? Various answers have been given. Fritzsche asserts Fritesche
that St. Paul is carried away by his argument and unconsciously contradicts
himself. ‘It is evident that what St. Paul writes is not only inconsistent with
itself but absolutely contradictory.’ If the Jews, it is asserted in chap. ix,
were first chosen and then rejected, it was the malignity of God and not their
Own perversity which caused their fall. If God had decreed their fall for
a time (chap. xi), they could not be blamed if they had fallen; and yet in
chap. x they are blamed. Afssltis sacpe accidit ut amicum fortunae fulmine
percussum erecturé studio consolandi argumentis cupide uterentur neque ab
omni parte firmis et quorum unum cum altero parum consisteret. Et
mvclins sibi Paulus consensissel, si Aristotelis non Gamalielis alumnus
“asset.
Meyer admits the discrepancy but explains it differently. ‘As often as we Meyer.
treat only one of the two truths, God ἐξ absolutely free and all-sufficient, and
man has moral freeiom and ts in virtue of his proper self-determination and
responsibility a liberum agens, the author of his salvation or perdition, and
carry it out in a consistent theory and therefore in a one-sided method, we
are compelled to speak in such a manner that the other truth appears to be
ann *...‘The Apostle has here wholly taken his position on the
absolute standpoint of the theory of our dependence upon God, and that
with all the boldness of clear consistency.’...‘He allows the claims of
both modes of consideration to stand side by side, just as they exist side by
side within the limits of human thought.’ According to Meyer in fact the
two points of view are irreconcileable in thought, and St. Paul recognizing
this does not attempt to reconcile them.
It would be impossible to enumerate all the different varieties of opinion
in the views of modern scholars. One more specimen will be sufficient.
The solution offered by Beyschlag. He maintains that all interpretations are Beyschlag
wrong which consider that St. Paul is concerned with anything either before or
after this life. It is no eternal decree of God, nor is it the future destiny of
mankind that he is dealing with. It is merely their position in history and
in the world. Why has he chosen one race (the Jews) for one purpose,
another race (the ptians) for another? He is dealing with nations not
individuals, with temporal not spiritual privileges.
The above sketch will present the main lines of interpretation of these
verses, and will serve as a supplement to the explanation which has been
iven above. We must express our obligations in compiling it to Weber
(Dr. Valentin), Kritische Geschichte der Exegese des 9. Kapitels resp. der
Verse 14-23 des Romerbricfes, bis auf Chrysostomus und Augustinus ein
schiesslich, and to Beyschlag (Dr. Willibald), Die paulinische Theodicee,
Rémer 1X-XT1, who have materially lightened the labour incurred.
ISRAEL ITSELF TO BLAME FOR ITS REJECTION.
IX. 80-X.18. Zhe reason that God has rejected Israel
ἐς that, though they sought righteousness, they sought tt in
their own way by means of works, not in God's way through
faith. Hence when the Messiah came they stumbled as had
been foretold (vv. 30-33). They refused to give up their
own method, that of Law, although Law had come to an end
in Christ (x. 1-4), and this in spite of the fact that the old
276 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [EX. 80-X.&
system was difficult if not impossible (ver. 5). while the new
system was easy and within the reach of all (vv. 6-10), sudeed
universal in tts scope (vv. 11-13).
ΙΧ. * What then is the position of the argument so far? One
fact is clear. A number of Gentiles who did not profess to be
in pursuit of righteousness have unexpectedly come upon it;
a righteousness however of which the characteristic is that it is not
eared by their own efforts but is the product of faith in a power
outside them. "JIsrael on the other hand, the chosen people of
God, although making strenuous efforts after a rule of moral and
religious life that would win for them righteousness, have not
succeeded in attaining to the accomplishment of such a rule.
** How has this come about? Because they sought it in their own
way, not in God’s way. They did not seek it by faith, but their aim
was to pursue it by a rigid performance of works. * And hence
that happened to them which the Prophet Isaiah foretold. He
spoke (xxviii. 16) of a rock which the Lord would lay in Zion
and foretold that if a man put his trust in it, he would never
have cause to be ashamed. But elsewhere (viii. 14) he calls it
‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence,’ implying that those
who have not this faith will consider it a stumbling-block in their
way. This rock is, as you have always been told, the Messiah. The
Messiah has come; and the Jews through want of faith have
regarded as a cause of offence that which is the corner stone of
the whole building.
ΣΧ. 'Let me pause for a moment, brethren. It is a serious
accusation that I am bringing against my fellow-countrymen. But
I repeat that I do it from no feeling of resentment. How great is
my heart’s good will for them! How earnest my prayer to God
for their salvation! *For indeed as a fellow-countryman, as one
who was once as they are, I can testify that they are full of zeal
for God. That is not the point in which they have failed; it is
that they have not guided their zeal by that true knowledge which
is the result of genuine spiritual insight. ὃ Righteousness they
strove after, but there were two ways of attaining to it. The one
was God’s method: of that they remained ignorant. The other
was their own method: to this they clung blindly and wilfuliy.
They refused to submit to God's plan of salvation.
278 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS | IX. 80
keep to his old methods; he must accept the new. And this
must be so, because there is for all men alike one Redeemer,
who gives the wealth of His salvation to all those whoever they
may be who call on His name. ™ And 50 the prophet Joel, fore-
telling the times of the foundation of the Messianic kingdom,
says (ii. 32) ‘ Everyone that shall call on the name of the Lord
(i. e. of the Messiah) shall be saved.’ When the last days come, in
the times of storm and anguish, it is the worshippers of the
Messiah, those who are enrolled as His servants and call on His
Name, who will find a strong salvation.
ΙΧ. 80-X. 21. St. Paul now passcs to another aspect of the
subject he is discussing. He has considered the rejection of
Israel from the point of view of the Divine justice and power, he
is now to approach it from the side of human responsibility. The
concluding verses of the ninth chapter and the whole of the tenth
are devoted to proving the guilt of Israel. It is first sketched out
in ix. 30-33. Israel have sought righteousness in the wrong way,
in that they have rejected the Messiah. Then St. Paul, over-
whelmed with the sadness of the subject, pauses for a moment
(x. 1, 2) to emphasize his grief. He returns to the discussion by
pointing out that they have adhered to their own method instead
of accepting God’s method (vv. 2, 3). And this in spite of
several circumstances ; (1) that the old method has been done
away with in Christ (ver. 4); (2) that while the old method
was hard and difficult the new is easy and within the reach of
all (vv. 5-10); (3) that the new method is clearly universal and
intended for all alike (vv. r1-13). At ver. 14 he passes to another
aspect of the question: it might still be asked: Had they full
opportunities of knowing? In wv. 14-21 it is shown that both
through the full and universal preaching of the Gospel, and
through their own Prophets, they have had every opportunity given
them.
80. τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; The οὖν, as is almost always the case in
St. Paul, sums up the results of the previous paragraph. What
then is the conclusion of this discussion? ‘It is not that God’s
promise has failed, but that while Gentiles have obtained ‘“righteous-
ness,” the Jews, though they strove for it, have failed.’ This summary
of the result so far arrived at leads to the question being asked;
Why is it so? And that introduces the second point in St. Paul’s
discussion—the guilt of the Jews.
ὅτι ἔθνη κτλ, There are two constructions possible for these
words. 1. The sentence ὅτι... τὴν ἐκ πίστεως may contain the
answer to the question asked in ri οὖν ἐροῦμεν; This interpretation
280 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [TX. 81-88
as continually escapes them. All idea of anticipation has been
lost in φθάνω in later Greek, cf. Phil. iii. 16; Dan. iv. το (Theod.)
ἔφθασεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν.
82. ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως... προσέκοψαν. Two constructions are
possible for these words. (1) We may put ἃ comma at ἔργων and
supply διώκοντες. Then the passage will ran: ‘Why did they not
attain it? because pursuing after it not by faith but by works they
stumbled,’ ἄς. ; or (2) we may put a full stop at ἔργων and supply
ἐδίωξαν. ‘Why did they not attain it? because they pursued after
it not by faith but by works, they stumbled,’ &c. The sentence has
more emphasis if taken in this way, and the grammatical construc-
tion is on the whole easier.
GAN’ ὡς ἐξ ἔργων. The ὡς introduces a subjective idea. St. Paul
wishes to guard himself from asserting definitely that ἐξ ἔργων was
a method by which νόμον δικαιοσύνης might be pursued. He there
fore represents it as an idea of the Jews, as a way by which they
thought they could gain it. So in 2 Cor. ii. 17 ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας
represents the purpose and aim of the Apostle; 2 Cor. xi. 17
ὃ λαλῶ, οὐ κατὰ Κύριον λαλῶ, GAN’ ὡς ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ represents an aspect
from which his words may be regarded; Philem. 14 ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατὰ
ἀνάγκην τὸ ἀγαθόν σου ἣ ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον: ‘even the appearance
of constraint must be avoided’ (cf. Lightfoot, ad Joc.). The ὡς
gives a subjective idea to the phrase with which it is placed, but the
exact force must be determined by the context.
προσέκοψαν: προσκόπτειν τινί means not ‘to stumble over by
inadvertence, but ‘to be annoyed with,’ ‘ show irritation at.’ The
Jews, in that the cross was to them a σκάνδαλον, had stumbled
over Christ, shown themselves irritated and annoyed, and expressed
their indignation, see Grm. Thayer, sud voc.
τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ προσκόμματος : ‘a stone which causes men to
stumble.’ Taken from the LXX of Is. viii. 14. The stone at
which the Jewish nation has stumbled, which has been to them
a cause of offence, is the Christ, who has come in a way, which,
owing to their want of faith, has prevented them from recognizing
or accepting Him, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 8.
88. ἰδού, τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν κτλ. The quotation is taken from the
LXX of Is. xxvili. 16, fused with words from Is. viii. 14. The
latter part of the verse is quoted again x. 11, and the whole in
1 Pet. ii. 6.
A comparison of the different variations is interesting. (1) The LXX
reads ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβάλλω els τὰ θεμέλια Σιών. In both the passages in the
N.T. the words are ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιών. (2) For the LXX λίθον πολυτελῇ
ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον, St. Peter reads ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντιμον:
while St. Paul substitutes λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου taken
from Is. viii. 14 καὶ οὐχ ὡς λίθον προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε οὐδὲ ὡς πέτραι
πτώματι. Here St. Peter ii. 8 agrees with St. Paul in writing πέτρα σκανδάλον
for zévpas πτώματι. (3) The LXX proceeds εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς, which both
Lx. 88.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 281
St. Peter and St. Paul omit. (4) The LXX proceeds καὶ ὁ πιστεύων οὗ μὴ
καταισχυνθῇ. Both St. Peter and St. Paul bring out the personal reference
by inserting ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, while St. Paul reads καταισχυνθήσεται and in x. 13
adds was,
ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ. Personal, of the Messiah, ‘ He that believeth on Him
shall not be ashamed.’ St. Paul inserts the words, both here and in
Xx. 11, to emphasize the personal reference. If the reference were
impersonal, the feminine would be required to agree with the
nearest word πέτρα.
καταισχυνθήσεται. Either an incorrect translation of the Hebrew,
or based on a different reading. The RV. of Isaiah reads ‘ shall
not make haste.’
In the O. T. neither of these passages has any direct Messianic
reference. In both Jehovah is the rock founded on Zion. In
Is. viii. 14 He is represented as a ‘stumbling-block’ to the
unbeliever ; in Is, xxviii. 16 He is the strength of those that believe
in Him. But from the very beginning the word λίθος was applied
to Christ, primarily with reference to Ps. cxviii. 22 ‘the Stone
which the builders rejected’ (Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10; Luke
xx. 17; Acts iv. rr by St. Peter). The other passages in which
the word λίθος was used in the LXX came to be applied as here,
and in Eph. ii. 20 ἀκρογωνιαίου is used almost as a proper name.
By the time of Justin Martyr λίθος 1s used almost as a name of the
Christ: ἔστω καὶ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχοντα ὡς λέγεις, καὶ ὅτι παθητὸς Χριστὸς
προεφητεύθη μέλλειν εἶναι καὶ λίθος κέκληται (Dial. 36. p. 122 C. ed.
Otto): ὁ γὰρ Χριστὸς βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεὺς καὶ θεὸς καὶ κύριος καὶ ἄγγελος
καὶ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀρχιστράτηγος καὶ λίθος (ib. 34. Ρ. 112 D.) These
quotations seem to imply that λίθος was a name for the Messiah
among the Jews, and that Justin wishes to prove that Christ fulfils
that title, and this seems to be corroborated by quotations from
Jewish writings, not only in later books but even earlier. In Is.
viii. 14, Sanhedrin 38. 1 Filius Davidis non venit donec duae
domus patrum ex Israele defictant, quae sunt Aechmalotarcha Baby-
lonicus ef princeps terrae Israeliticae g.d. Et erit in Sanctuarium
ef in lapidem percusstonis et petram offensionis duabus domibus
Lsrael. Is. xxviii. 16 is paraphrased by the Targum Jonathan,
Ecce ego constituam in Sion regem, regem fortem, potentem el
kerribilem ; corroborabo eum et confortabo eum dicit Propheta.
Lusti autem qui crediderint haee cum venertt tribulatio non com-
movebuntur, and some apparently read regem Messias regem
poteniem. Ps. cxviii. 22 is paraphrased by the same Targum,
Puerum despexerunt aedificatores, qui Λα! inter filios Israel el
merusl! constifut rex ef dominator. For these and other reff. see
Schoettgen, ii. 160, 606.
A comparison of Romans and 1 Peter shows that both Apostles
agree in quoting the same passages together, and both have
282 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 88-X.1L
a number of common variants from the normal text of the LXX.
This may have arisen from St. Peter’s acquaintance with the
Romans; but another hypothesis may be suggested, which will
perhaps account for the facts more naturally. We know that to
prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, was the constant
practice of the early Christians. Is it not possible that even as early
as this there may have been collections of O. T. texts used for con-
troversial purposes arranged according to their subjects, as were
the later Zesé#monta of Cyprian, where one of the chapters is headed:
Quod idem et lapis dictus εὐ (Zest. ii. 16)? See onix. 26, 26 supra.
ΣΧ. 1. There is no break in the argument between this chapter
and vv. 30-33 of chap. ix; but before expanding this part of the
subject, the Apostle pauses for a moment, impelled by his own
strong feelings and the deep tragedy of his count:yman’s rejection,
to express his sorrow and affection.
Marcion admitted into his text ver. 2-4, which he was able to use as
a proof text of his fundamental doctrine that the Jews had been ignorant of
the ‘ higher God.’ The whole or almost the whole passsge which follows
X. 5-Χὶ. 32, he appears to have omitted, Zahn, p. 518. Tert. Adv. Aare. v. 13.
ἀδελφοί, The position increases the emphasis of a word always
used by the Apostle when he wishes to be specially emphatic.
The thought of the Christian brotherhood intensifies the contrast
with the Israelites who are excluded.
μέν : without a corresponding é¢. The logical antithesis is given
in ver. 3.
εὐδοκία : ‘good will,’ ‘ good pleasure,’ not ‘desire,’ which the word
never means.
The word εὐδοκία means ‘ good pleasure’ either (1) in relation to oneself
when it comes to mean ‘contentment,’ Ecclus. xxix. 23 dst μικρῷ wal μεγάλφ
εὐδοκίαν ἔχε: ib. xxxvw (xxxii). 14 of ὀρθρίζοντες εὑρήσουσι εὐδοκίαν : 2 Thess,
i, 11 καὶ πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης καὶ ἔργον πίστεως ἐν δυνάμει: Ps.
Sol. xvi. 12: or (2) in relation to others, ‘good will,’ ‘ benevolence,’ Ecclus.
ix. 12 μὴ εὐδοκήσῃς ἐν εὐδοκίᾳ ἀσεβῶν : Phil. i. 15 τινὲς μὲν διὰ φθόνον καὶ
ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν : (3) in this sense it
came to be used almost technically of the good will of God to man, Eph.
i§ κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ: i. g κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ:
Ps. Sol. viii. 39.
The above interpretation of the word is different from that taken by Fritzsche
(ad loc.), Lift. (ad Phil. i. 15), Grm. Thayer, Lex. (8. v.), Philippi and Tholuck
(ad foc.). The word seems never to be used unqualified to mean ‘ desire’ ; the
instance quoted by Lft. does not support it.
ἡ δέησις : non orasset Paulus st absolute reprobatt essent. Beng.
εἰς σωτηρίαν = ἵνα σωθῶσι; cf. ver. 4 εἰς δικαιοσύνην and i. § εἰς
ὑπακοὴν πίστεως.
The additions ἡ before πρὸς τὸν Θεόν and ἐστιν before εἰς σωτηρίαν in
the TR. are grammatical explanations. The reading τοῦ Ἰσραήλ for αὐτῶν
may have been merely an explanatory gloss, or may have arisen through the
verse being the beginning of a lesson in church services.
x. 2-4] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 283
3. μαρτυρῶ γάρ. This gives the reason for St. Paul’s grief.
He had been a Jew περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων (Gal. i. 14; cf.
Acts xxii. 3) and hence he knew only too well the extent both of
their zeal and of their i ignorance.
ζῆλον Θεοῦ. Obj. genitive: ‘zeal for God’ (not as in 2 Cor.
xi. 2). An O. T. expression : Judith. ix. 4 ἐζήλωσαν τὸν ζῆλόν σου:
Ps. Ixviii [Ixix] ; cxviii [cxix]. 139 ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκον cov: 1 Macc.
ii. 58 ζῆλος νόμου. Jowett quotes Philo, Leg. ad Catum, ὃ τό (Mang.
ii. 562) ‘ Ready to endure death like immortality rather than suffer
the neglect of the least of their national customs.’ St. Paul selects
the very word which the Jew himself would have chosen to express
just that zeal on which more than anything else he would have
prided himself.
κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσι.. The Jews were destitute, not of γνῶσις, but of
the higher disciplined knowledge, of the true moral discernment
by which they might learn the right way. ἐπίγνωσις (see Lft. on
Col. i. 9, to whose note there is nothing to add) means a higher
and more perfect knowledge, and hence it is used especially and
almost technically for knowledge of God, as being the highest
and most perfect form: see on i. 28 and cf. iii. 20.
8. ἀγνοοῦντες γάρ. This verse gives the reason for οὐ κατ᾽
ἐπίγνωσιν, and the antithesis to ἡ μὲν εὐδοκία. ἀγνοοῦντες means ‘ not
knowing,’ ‘ being ignorant of, not ‘ misunderstanding. St. Paul
here states simply the fact of the ignorance of his fellow-country-
men ; he does not yet consider how far this ignorance is culpable:
that point he makes evident later (vv. 14 sq.).
Thy τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην... τὴν ἰδίαν. St. Paul contrasts two
methods of righteousness. On the one side there was the righteous-
ness which came from God, and was to be sought in the manner
He had prescribed, on the other was a righteousness which they
hoped to win by their own methods, and by their own merit.
Their zeal had been blind and misdirected. In their eagerness to
pursue after the latter, they had remained ignorant of and had not
submitted to the method (as will be shown, a much easier one)
which God Himself had revealed.
ὑπετάγησαν. Middle, ‘submit themselves,’ cf. Jas. iv. 7; 1 Pet.
ii. 13; v.5; Winer, ὃ xxxix, 2. p. 327 E.T.
The second δικαιοσύνην after ἰδίαν of the TR. is supported by & only
among good authorities, and by Tisch. only among recent editors; it is
omitted by ABD EP, Vulg. Boh. Arm., and many Fathers.
4. τέλος γὰρ νόμου «.7.A, St. Paul has in the preceding verse
been contrasting two methods of obtaining δικαιοσύνη; one, that
ordained by God, as ix. 32 shows, a method ἐκ πίστεως ; the other
that pursued by the Jews. a method διὰ νόμου. The latter has ceased
to be possible, as St. Paul now proves by showing that, by the coming
of Christ Law as a means of obtaining righteousness had been
284 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [x. 4
brought to an end. The γάρ therefore introduces the reason, not
for the actual statement of ver. 3, that the Jews had not submitted
to the Divine method, but for what was implied—that they were
wrong in so doing.
τέλος : ‘end,’ ‘termination.’ Law as a method or principle of
righteousness had been done away with in Christ. ‘Christ is the
end of law as death is the end of life.’ Gif. Cf. Dem. C. Eudbukden,
1306, 25 καίτοι πᾶσίν ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις τέλος τοῦ βίου θάνατος (quoted
by Fri. and by many writers after him).
The theological idea of this verse is much expanded in later
Epistles, and is connected definitely with the death of Christ: Eph.
ii. 1§ ‘He abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances’; Col. ii. 14 ‘ Having
blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us,
which was contrary to us: and He hath taken it out of the way,
nailing it to the cross.’ This last passage is paraphrased by Lft. :
‘Then and there [Christ] cancelled the bond which stood valid
against us (for it bore our own signature), the bond which engaged
us to fulfil all the law of ordinances, which was our stern pitiless
tyrant. Ay, this very bond hath Christ put out of sight for ever,
nailing it to His cross, and rending it with His body, and killing
it in His death.’ And as he points out, a wider reference must
be given to the expression; it cannot be confined to the Jews.
The ordinances, although primarily referring to the Mosaic law,
‘will include all forms of positive decrees in which moral or social
principles are embodied or religious duties defined ; and the “ bond”
is the moral assent of the conscience which (as it were) signs and
seals the obligation.’
‘ Although the moral law is eternal, yet under the Gospel it loses
its form of external law, and becomes an internal principle of life.’
Lid.
νόμου : ‘Law’ as a principle (so Weiss, Oltramare, Gif.), not
the Law, the Mosaic Law (so the mass of commentators). It is
not possible indeed to lay stress on the absence of the article here,
because the article being dropped before τέλος it is naturally also
dropped before νόμου (see on ii. 13), and although St. Paul might
have written τὸ γὰρ τέλος τοῦ νόμου, yet this would not exactly have
suited his purpose, for τέλος is the predicate of the sentence thrown
forward for emphasis. But that the application of the term must
be general is shown by the whole drift of the argument (see below),
by the words παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντε proving that the passage cannot be
confined to the Jews, and consequently not to the Mosaic law, and
by the correct reading in ver. 5 τὴν ἐκ νόμου (see critical note).
The interpretation of this verse has been much confused owing
to incorrect translations of τέλος (fulfilment, aim), the confusion οἱ
νόμος and ὁ νόμος, and a misapprehension of the drift of the passage.
286 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (x. 5-8.
that he means by τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν in Eph. ii. 1g (quoted
above).
ζήσεται : shall obtain life in its deepest sense both here and
hereafier (see pp. 180, 196).
There are a number of small variations in the text of this verse. (1) ὅτι
is placed before τὴν δικαιοσύνην by N* A D*, Vulg. Boh., Orig.-lat., after νόμου
by N°BD°EFGKLP &c., Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &e. (2) ἐκ νόμου is read
by NB, ἐκ τοῦ νόμον by the mass of later authorities. (3) ὁ ποιήσας is
read without any addition by N* AD E, Vulg., Orig.-lat., αὐτά is added by
BFGKLP &c., Syrr., Chrys. Thirt. &c., eam by Fete +t. (4) ἄνθρωπον is
om. by F G, Chrys. (5) ἐν αὐτῇ is read by NAB meinusc. fauc., Vulg. Bob.
Orig.-lat., dy αὐτοῖς DEF GK LP ἄς. Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c.
The original text was ὅτι τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ὁ ποιήσας ἄνθρωποι
ζήσεται ἐν αὐτῇ. The alteration of αὐτά... αὐτοῖς came from a desire to
make the passage correspond with the LXX, or Gal. iii. 12 (hence the
omission of ἄνθρωπος), and this necessitated a change in the position of ὅτι.
τοῦ νόμου arose from an early misinterpretation. The mixed text of B γράφει
χὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ὅτι ὁ ποιῆσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὑτῇ and
of D γράφει ὅτι τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νομοῦ ὁ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται
ἐν αὐτοῖς are curious, but help to support N A Valg. Boh.
6-8. The language of St. Paul in these verses is based upon the
LXX of Deut. xxx. 11-14. Moses is enumerating the blessings of
Israel if they keep his law: ‘if thou shalt obey the voice of the
Lord thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which
are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the Lord thy
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul’; he then goes on
(the RV. translation is here modified to suit the LXX): “1 [For this
commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard
for thee, nor is it far from thee. ' Not in heaven above] sayrng,
Who shall go up for us into heaven (and receive it for us, and having
heard of it we shall doit? ‘Nor is it beyond the sea], saying,
Who will go over to the further side of the sea for us, {and receive it
for us, and make it heard by us, and we shall do it?] ™ But the
word is very nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, [and in thy
hands, that thou mayest do it].’ The Apostle selects certain words
out of this passage and uses them to describe the characteristics of
the new righteousness by faith as he conceives it.
It is important to notice the very numerous variations between the
quotation and the LXX. In the first place only a few phrases are
selected: the portions not quoted are enclosed in brackets in the translation
given above. Then in those sentences that are quoted there are very con-
siderable changes: (1) for the λέγων of the LXX, which is an ungrammatical
translation of the Hebrew, and is without construction, is substituted μὴ
εἰπῇς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σον from Deut. viii. 17, ix.4: (a) for ris διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς
τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης is substituted ris καταβήσεται els τὴν ἄβυσσον in order
to make the passage better suit the purpose for which it is quoted: (3) in
+ The Bohairic Version is quoted incorrectly in support of this reading.
The cam read there does not imply a variant, but was demanded by the idiom
of the language.
x. 6.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 287
ver. 8 the words σφόδρα... dy ταῖς χερσί cow are omitted (this agrees witk
the Hebrew), as also ποιεῖν αὐτό,
6. ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη οὕτω λέγει. It is noticeable that
St. Paul does not introduce these words on the authority of Scripture
(as ver. rr), nor on the authority of Moses (as ver. 5), but merely
as a declaration of righteousness in its own nature. On the
personification compare that of Wisdom in Prov. i. 20; Lk. xi. 49;
of παράκλησις Heb. xii. 5.
τίς ἀναβήσεται eis τὸν οὐρανόν ; In the original passage these
words mean: The law which I command you is not far off, it is
not in heaven, so that you will have to ask, Who will go up to bring
it down for us? it is very near and not hard to attain. St. Paul
uses the same words to express exactly the same idea, but with
a completely different application. ‘The Gospel as opposed to
the Law is not difficult or hard to attain to.’
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν : ‘that is to say, to bring Christ
down. Just as Moses had said that there was no need for anyone
to go up into heaven to bring down the law, so it is true—far more
true indeed—to say that there is no need to go into heaven to
bring down the object of faith and source of righteousness—Christ.
Christ has become man and dwelt among us. Faith is not a
difficult matter since Christ has come.
The interpretations suggested of this and the following verses
have been very numerous. τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν occurs three times in this
passage, and we must give it the same force in each place.
In the third instance (ver. 8) it is used to give a meaning or
explanation to the word τὸ ῥῆμα, which occurs in the quotation ; it
introduces in fact what would be technically known as a ‘ Midrash’
on the text quoted (so Mey. Lid. Lips. and apparently Va. Gif).
That is the meaning with which the phrase has been used in
ix. 8, and is also the meaning which it must have here. The
infinitive cannot be dependent on τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι (for in all the passages
where the phrase is used the words that follow it are in the same
construction as the words that precede), but is dependent on
ἀναβήσεται which it explains: so Xen. Mem. 1. v.2 (Goodwin, Greek
Moods and Tenses, § 97) εἰ βουλοίμεθα τῷ ἐπιτρέψαι ἣ παῖδας παιδεῦσαι,
§ χρήματα διασῶσαι. In this and similar cases it is not necessary to
emphasize strongly the idea of purpose as do Fri. (mempe uf Christum
tn orbem lerrarum deducat) and Lips. (ndmlich um Christum herabsu-
holen), the infinitive is rather epexegetical (so apparently Va. Gif.).
The LXX here reads ris ἀναβήσεται... καὶ λήψεται ; the construction
is changed because τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν καὶ κατάξει would hardly have been
clear.
Of other interpretations, some do not suit the grammar. ‘ That
would be the same thing as to say Who will bring Christ down?’
would require ris κατάξει τὸν Χριστόν. Weiss translates ‘that would
o#8 , EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (x. 6-8.
be the same thing as to bring Christ down,’ apparently making
the infinitive dependent on τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν. Other translations or para-
phrases do not suit the context: ‘Do not attempt great things,
only believe’: or, ‘Do not waver and ask, Is Christ really come?
only believe.’ The object of the passage is not to exhort to faith
or to show the necessity of faith—that has been done in the early
part of the Epistle; but to prove that the method of faith was one
which, for several reasons, should not have been ignored and left
on one side by the Jews.
7. 4, Tis καταβήσεται... ἀναγαγεῖν : ‘nor is it necessary to
search the depth, since Christ is risen from the dead.’ St. Paul
substitutes ris καταβήσεται eis τὴν ἄβυσσον for the more ordinary ris
διαπεράσει ἡμῖν els τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης, both because it makes a
more suitable contrast to the first part of the sentence, and because
it harmonizes better with the figurative meaning he wishes to draw
from it. ἄβυσσος in the O. T. meant originally the ‘deep sea,’ ‘ the
great deep’ or ‘the depths of the sea,’ Ps. cvi (cvii). 26 ἀναβαί-
νουσιν ἕως THY οὐρανῶν, καὶ καταβαΐνουσιν ἕως τῶν ἀβύσσων, and the deep
places of the earth, Ps. Ixx (Ixxi). 20 καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀβύσσων τῆς γῆς
πάλιν ἀνήγαγές pe, and so had come to mean Tartarus or the Lower
World; τὸν δὲ τάρταρον τῆς ἀβύσσον Job. xli..23, where the reference
to rdprapos is due to the LXX; cf. Eur. Phoen. 1632 (1605) raprdpov
ἄβυσσα xdopara. Elsewhere in the N. T. it is so used of the abode
of demons (Luke viii. 31) and the place of torment (Rev. ix. 1).
This double association of the word made it suitable for St. Paul's
purpose; it kept up the antithesis of the original, and it also
enabled him to apply the passage figuratively to the Resurrection of
Christ after His human soul had gone down into Hades.
On the descensus ad inferos, which is here referred to in indefinite
and untechnical language, cf. Acts ii. 27; 1 Peteriii.19; iv. 6; and
Lft. on Ign. Afagn. ix ; see also Swete, Apost.-creed, Ὁ. 57 ff.
8. τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως. ‘The message, the subject of which is
faith’; πίστις does not mean ‘the faith,’ i.e. ‘the Gospel message ’
(Oltramare), but, as elsewhere in this chapter, faith as the principle
of righteousness. Nor does the phrase mean the Gospel message
which appeals to faith in man (Lid.), but the Gospel which preaches
faith, cf. x. τ. On ῥῆμα cf. 1 Peter i. 25 τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα Κυρίον μένει
els τὸν αἰῶνα. τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν eis ὑμᾶς.
ὃ κηρύσσομεν. This gives the reason why the new way of
righteousness is easy to attain, being as it is brought home to every
one, and suggests a thought which is worked out more fully in
ver. 14 f.
In what sense does St. Paul use the O. T. in w. 6-8? The
difficulty is this. In the O. T. the words are used by Moses of
re Law: how can St. Paul use them of the Gospel as against the
w?
ago EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (x. 8-12
pains to keep quite clear of the charges of love of novelties and of
Opposition to it’; but also there is to St. Paul a correspondence
between the O. T. and N. T.: the true creed is simple whether
a its spiritual side or Gospel (cf. Aug. De Natura εἰ Grahka,
§ 83).
9. ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς κιτλ. This verse corresponds to and
applies the preceding verse. The subject of the ῥῆμα which is
preached by the Apostles is the person of Christ and the truth
of His Resurrection. Κύριος refers to ver. 6, the Resurrection
(ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν) to ver. ἢ. The power of Christ
lies in these two facts, namely His Incarnation and His Resur-
rection, His Divine nature and His triumph over death. What
is demanded of a Christian is the outward confession and the
inward belief in Him, and these sum up the conditions necessary
for salvation.
The ordinary reading in this verse is ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς by τῷ στόματί σον
Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, for which WH. substitute τὸ ῥῆμα ἐν τῷ στόματί cow ὅτι
Κύριος Ἰησοῦς. τὸ ῥῆμα has the authority οὗ B 71, Clem.-Alex. and perhaps
Cyril, ὅτι K. I. of B, Boh., Clem.-Alex. and Cyril 3/3. The agreement in
the one case of B and Boh., in the other of B and Clem.-Alex. against nearly
all the other authorities is noticeable.
10. καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται κιτλ. St. Paul explains and brings
out more fully the application of the words he has last quoted. The
beginning of the Christian life has two sides: internally it is the
change of heart which faith implies; this leads to righteousness,
the position of acceptance before God: externally it implies the
‘confession of Christ crucified’ which is made in baptism, and this
puts a man into the path by which in the end he attains salvation ;
he becomes σωζόμενος.
11. λέγει γὰρ 4 γραφή κτλ. Quoted from Is. xxviii. 16 (see
above, ix. 33) with the addition of πᾶς to bring out the point on
which emphasis is to be laid. St. Paul introduces a proof from
Scripture of the statement made in the previous verse that faith is
the condition of salvation, and at the same time makes it the
occasion of introducing the second point in the argument, namely,
the universal character of this new method of obtaining righteous-
ness.
In ver. 4 he has explained that the old system of δικαιοσύνη ἐκ
νόμον has been done away with in Christ to make way for a new
one which has two characteristics: (1) that it is ἐκ πίστεως: this has
been treated in vv. 5-10; (2) that it is universal: this he now
proceeds to develope.
12. οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστολὴ Ἰουδαίου τε καὶ Ἕλληνος. St. Paul
first explains the meaning of this statement, namely, the universal
character of the Gospel, by making it clear that it is the sole
method for Jews as well as for Gentiles. This was both a warning
X. 13, 18.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 491
and a consolation for the Jews. A warning if they thought that,
in spite of the preaching of the Gospel, they might seek salvation
in their own way; a consolation it once they realized the burden
of the law and that they might be freed from it. The Jews have
in this relation no special privileges (cf. i. 16; ii. 9, 10; iii. 9;
τ Cor. i 24; xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11); they must obtain
δικαιοσύνη by the same methods and on the same conditions as the
Gentiles. This St. Paul has already proved on the ground that
they equally with the Gentiles have sinned (iii. 23). He now
deduces it from the nature and the work of the Lord.
ὦ γὰρ αὐτὸς Κύριος πάντων, cf. 1 Cor. xii. g. This gives the
reason for the similarity of method for all alike: ‘it is the same
Lord who redeemed all mankind alike, and conferred upon all alike
such wealth of spiritual blessings.’ It is better to take Κύριος πάντων
as predicate for it contains the point of the sentence, ‘The same
Lord is Lord of all’ (so the RV.).
Κύριος must clearly refer to Christ, cf. vv. 9, 11. He is called
Κύριος πάντων Acts x. 36, and cf. ix. 5, and Phil. ii. 10, 11.
πλουτῶν : ‘abounding in spiritual wealth,’ cf. esp. Eph. iti. 8
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαι τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν. ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸν Κύριον, or more cor-
rectly ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου, is the habitual LXX transla-
tion of a common Hebrew formula. From the habit of beginning
addresses to a deity by mentioning his name, it became a tech-
nical expression for the suppliant to a god, and a designation
of his worshippers. Hence the Israelites were οἱ ἐπικαλούμενοι τὸν
Κύριον or τὸ ὄνομα Kupiov. They were in fact specially distinguished
as the worshippers of Jehovah. It becomes therefore very signifi-
cant when we find just this expression used of the Christians as
the worshippers of Christ, ὁ Κύριος, in order to designate them as
apart from all others, cf. 1 Cor. i. 2 σὺν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ
ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. There is a treatise on the
subject by A. Seeberg, Die Anbetung des Herrn bet Paulus, Riga,
1891, see especially pp. 38, 43-46.
18. was γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται. St. Paul sums up and clenches
his argument by the quotation of a well-known passage of Scripture,
Joel ii. 32 (the quotation agrees with both the LXX and the Hebrew
texts). The original passage refers to the prophetic conception of
the ‘day of the Lord.’ ‘The sun shall be turned into darkness,
and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the
Lord come.’ At that time ‘ whosoever shall call on the name of the
Lord’ shall be saved. This salvation (σωθήσεται, cf. ver. 9 σωθήσῃ,
10 σωτηρίαν), the Jewish expectation of safety in the Messianic
kingdom when the end comes, is used of that Christian salvation
which is the spiritual fulfilment of Jewish prophecy.
Kupiow. The term Κύριος is applied to Christ by St. Paul in
492 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 14-21.
quotations from the O. T. in 2 Thess. i. 9; 1 Cor. ii. 16; x. 21,
26; 2 Cor. iii. 16, and probably in other passages.
This quotation, besides concluding the argument of vv. 1-13,
suggests the thought which is the transition to the next point dis-
cussed—the opportunities offered to all of hearing this message.
ISRAEL'S UNBELIEF NOT EXCUSED BY WANT OF
OPPORTUNITY.
ΣΧ. 14-21. This unbelief on the part of Israel was not
owing to want of knowledge. Fully accredited messengers—
such a body as ἐς necessary for preaching and for fatth—
have announced the Gospel. There ts no land but has heard
the voices of the Evangelical preachers (vv. 14-18). Nor
was tt owing to want of understanding. Their own Prophets
warned them that tt was through disobedience that they
would veject God’s message (vv. 19-21).
All then that is required for salvation is sincerely and genuinely
to call on the Lord. But there are conditions preliminary to this
which are necessary ; perhaps it may be ugged, that these have not
been fulfilled. Let us consider what these conditions are. Ifa man
is to call on Jesus he must have faith in Him ; to obtain faith it is
necessary that he must hear the call; that again implies that
heralds must have been sent forth to proclaim this call. “And
heralds imply a commission. Have these conditions been fulfilled?
Yes, Duly authorized messengers have preached the Gospel. The
fact may be stated in the words of the Prophet Isaiah (lii. 7) de-
scribing the welcome approach of the messengers who bring news
of the return from captivity—that great type of the other, Messianic,
Deliverance: * How beautiful are the feet of them that preach good
tidings.’
%* But it may be urged, in spite of this, all did not give & a
patient and submissive hearing. This does not imply that the
message has not been given. In fact Isaiah in the same passage
in which he foretold the Apostolic message, spoke also of the in-
credulity with which the message is received (lili. 1) ‘ Lord, who
hath believed our message?’ ™” Which incidentally confirms what
we were saying a moment age: Faith can only come from the
294 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 14, 15.
‘The passage which follows (14-21) is in style one of the most obscure
portions of the Epistle.’ This statement of Jowett’s is hardly exaggerated.
‘The obscurity arises,’ as he proceeds to point out, ‘from the argument
being founded on passages of the Old Testament.’ These are quoted withont
explanation, and without their relation to the argument being clearly
brought out. The first difficulty is to know where to make a division in
the chapter. Some pat it after ver. 11 (so Go.) making wv. 11-21 a proof
of the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles ; some after ver. 13 (Chrys.
Weiss, Oltr. Gif.) ; some after ver. 15 (Lid. WH. Lips.). The decision of
the question will always depend on the opinion formed of the drift of the
passage, but we are not without structural assistance. It may be noticed
throughout these chapters that each su i f ph is introduced by
a question with the particle οὖν : so ix. 14 τ ἂν ἐροῦμεν ; 30; xi. 1,11.
And this seems to arise from the meaning of the particle: it sums up the
conclusion of the preceding paragraph as an introduction to a further step in
the argument. This meaning will exactly suit the passage under consideration.
‘The condition of salvation is to call on the Lord ’—that is the conclusion
of the last section: then the Apostle goes on, ‘if this be so, what then (οὖν)
are the conditions necessary for attaining it, and have they been fulfilled?’
the words forming a suitable introduction to the next stage in the argument.
This use of οὖν to introduce a new paragraph is very common in St. Paul
See especially Rom. v. 1, vi. 1, xii. 1; Eph. iv. 1; 1 Tim. ii. 1; 2 Tim. ii 1,
besides other less striking instances. It may be noticed that it is not easy
to understand the principle on which WH. have divided the text of these
chapters, making no break at all at ix. 29, beginning a new paragraph at
chap. x, making a break here at ver. 15, making only a slight break at
chap. xi, and starting a new paragraph at ver. 13 of that chapter at whst
is really only a parenthetical remark.
X. 14, 15. The main difficulty of these verses centres round two
points: With what object are they introduced? And what is the
quotation from Isaiah intended to prove ?
1. One main line of interpretation, following Calvin, considers
that the words are introduced to justify the preaching of the Gospel
to the Gentiles; in fact to support the πᾶς of the previous verse.
God must have intended His Gospel to go to the heathen, for a duly
commissioned ministry (and St. Paul is thinking of himself) has
been sent out to preach it. The quotation then follows as a justi-
fication from prophecy of the ministry to the Gentiles. The possi-
bility of adopting such an interpretation must depend partly on the
view taken of the argument of the whole chapter (see the General
Discussion at the end), but in any case the logical connexion is
wrong. Ifthat were what St. Paul had intended to say, he must have
written, ‘Salvation is intended for Gentile as well as Jew, for God
has commissioned His ministers to preach to them: a commission
implies preaching, preaching implies faith, faith implies worship,
and worship salvation. The conversion of the Gentiles is the
necessary result of the existence of an apostolate of the Gentiles.’
It will be seen that St. Paul puts the argument exactly in the
opposite way, in a manner in fact in which he could never prove
this conclusion.
3. Roman Catholic commentators, followed by Liddon and
296 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Σ. 14, 16
a corruption from ἀκούσονται, and it is too weakly supported to be the
correct reading. ἀκούσωσιν, which will explain both variants and harmonizes
with the other subjunctives, is therefore correct. B here alone among the
leading MSS. is correct throughout.
οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν: ‘how can they believe on Him whom they
have not heard preaching?’ οὗ is for eis τοῦτον οὗ: and 48 ἀκούειν
τινος means not ‘to hear of some one,’ but ‘to hear some one
preaching or speaking,’ it must be so translated, and what follows
must be interpreted by assuming that the preaching of Christ's
messengers is identical with the preaching of Christ Himself. This
interpretation (that of Mey. and Gif.), although not without diffi-
culties, is probably better than either of the other solutions proposed.
It is suggested that od may be for ὅν, and the passage is translated
‘of whom they have not heard’; but only a few instances of this
usage are quoted, and they seem to be all early and poetical.
The interpretation of Weiss, οὗ = where, completely breaks the
continuity of the sentences.
15. κηρύξωσιν. The nominative is οἱ κηρύσσοντες, which is implied
in κηρύσσοντος.
By means of this series of questions St. Paul works out the
conditions necessary for salvation back to their starting-point.
Salvation is gained by calling on the Lord; this implies faith.
Faith is only possible with knowledge. Knowledge implies an
instructor or preacher. A preacher implies a commission. If
therefore salvation is to be made possible for everyone, there must
have been men sent out with a commission to preach it.
καθὼς γέγραπται, Qs dpaio of πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων ἀγαθά.
By introducing this quotation St. Paul implies that the commis-
sioned messengers have been sent, and the conditions therefore
necessary for salvation have been fulfilled. ‘Yes, and they have
been sent: the prophet’s words are true describing the glorious
character of the Evangelical preachers.’
The quotation is taken from Isaiah lii. 7, and resembles the
Hebrew more closely than our present LXX text. In the original
it describes the messengers who carry abroad the glad tidings
of the restoration from captivity. But the whole of this section of
Isaiah was felt by the Christians to be full of Messianic import, and
this verse was used by the Rabbis of the coming of the Messiah
(see the references given by Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. ii. 179). St.
Paul quotes it because he wishes to describe in O. T. language the
fact which will be recognized as true when stated, and to show
that these facts are in accordance with the Divine method. ‘St
Paul applies the exclamation to the appearance of the Apostles of
Christ upon the scene of history. Their feet are ὡραῖοι in his eyes,
as they announce the end of the captivity of sin, and publish εἰρήνῃ
(Eph. vi. 15 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς εἰρήνης) made by Christ, through the
X. 15, 16.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 297
blood of His Cross, between God and man, between earth and
heaven (2 Cor. v. 18-20; Eph. ii. 17; Col. i. 20); and all the
blessings of goodness (τὰ ἀγαθά) which God in Christ bestows on
the Redeemed, especially δικαιοσύνη.’ Liddon.
There are two critical questions in connexion with this quotation: the
reading of the Greek text and its relation to the Hebrew and to the LXX.
ro? RV. reads ds ὡραῖοι οἱ πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων ἀγαθά: the
TR. inserts τῶν εὐαγ. εἰρήνην after οἱ πόδες. The balance of authority is
strongly in favour of the RV. The clause is omitted by NABC minuse.
. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Aeth., Clem.-Alex. Orig. and Orig.-lat.: it is in-
serted by DEFGKLP &c.,, Vulg. Sym. (Pesh. Harcl.) Arm. Goth., Chrys.
Iren.-lat. Hil. af. The natural explanation is that the insertion has been
made that the citation may correspond more accurately to the LXX.
This end is not indeed altogether attained, for the LXX reads ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης,
and the omission might have arisen from Homoeoteleuton; but these con-
siderations can hardly outweigh the clear preponderance of authority.
There is a somewhat similar difficulty about a second minor variation.
The RV. reads ἀγαθά with ABC DEFGP, Orig. Eus. Jo.-Damasc., the
TR. has τὰ ἀγαθά with δὲ etc. Clem.-Alex. Chrys. and most later authorities.
Here the LXX omits the article, and it is difficult quite to see why it should
have been inserted by a corrector; whereas if it Vad formed part of the
original text he could quite naturally have omitted it.
(2) The LXX translation is here very inexact. πάρειμε ds ὥρα ἐπὶ τῶν
ὁρέων, ὡς πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης, ὧς εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά.
St. Paul's words approach much more nearly to the Hebrew (RV.) ‘ How
beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings,
that pablisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth
salvation.’ He shortens the quotation, makes it plural instead of singular
to suit ibis Purpose, anc and omits the words ‘upon the mountains,’ which have
only a
16. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες. An objection suggested. ‘Yet, in spite of
the fact that this message was sent, all did not obey the Gospel.’
οὐ πάντες is a meiosis; cf. ri γὰρ εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες ; (iii. 3).
ὁπήκουσαν, like ὑπετάγησαν (ver. 3), Seems to imply the idea of
voluntary submission: cf. vi. 16, 17 δοῦλοί ἐστε ᾧ twaxovere...
ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε.
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳφ. The word is of course suggested by the quotation
of the previous verse.
Ἡσαΐας γὰρ λέγει κιτλ, ‘But this fact does not prove that no
message had been sent; it is indeed equally in accordance with
prophecy, for Isaiah, in a passage immediately following that in
which he describes the messengers, describes also the failure of
the people to receive the message.’ With yap cf. Matt. i. 20 ff.
The quotation is from the LXX of Is. lili. 1. Κύριε, as Origen
pointed out, does not occur in the Hebrew.
ἀκοῇ: means (1) ‘hearing, ‘the faculty by which a thing is
heard’; (2) ‘the substance of what is heard,’ ‘a report, message.’
In this verse it is used in the second meaning, ‘ who hath believed
our report?’ In ver. 17, it shades off into the first, ‘faith comes
by hearing.’ It is quite possible of course to translate ‘report’ or
298 KPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 16-18
‘message’ there also, but then the connexion of idea with ver. 18
μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν is obscured.
It has been questioned to whom St. Paul is referring in this and
the preceding verses—the Gentiles or the Jews. The language is
quite general and equally applicable to either, but the whole drift
of the argument shows that it is of the Jews the Apostle is thinking.
Grotius makes wv. 14 and 16 the objection of an opponent to which
St. Paul replies in ver. 16 ff.
17. dpa ἡ πίστις. ‘Hence may be inferred (in corroboration of
what was said above) that the preliminary condition necessary for
faith is to have heard, and to have heard implies a message.’ This
sentence is to a certain extent parenthetical, merely emphasizing
a fact already stated ; yet the language leads us on to the excuse
for unbelief suggested i in the next verse.
διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ: ‘a message about Christ. Cf. ver. 8 τὸ
ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν. St. Paul comes back to the phrase he
has used before, and the use of it will remind his readers that this
message has been actually sent.
Χριστοῦ is the reading of NBC Ὁ E mseinusc. pane., Valg. Sah. Boh. Arm.
Acth. Orig-lat. 2/2, Ambrst. Aug.—@cod of “A D>*K LP el. βίων. Sym,
Clem.-Alex. Chrys. Theodrt.
St. Paul has laid down the conditions which make faith possible,
a Gospel and messengers of the Gospel; the language he has used
reminds his readers that both these have come. Yet, in spite of
this, the Jews have not obeyed. He now suggests two possible
excuses.
18. ἀλλὰ λέγω: ‘but it may be said in excuse: It is possible
that those whom you accuse of not obeying the Gospel message
have never heard of it?’ On μὴ οὐ see Burton, 1, and 7. ὃ 468.
pevouvye: an emphatic corrective, ‘with a slight touch of irony’
(Lid.); cf. ix. 20.
εἰς πᾶσαν Thy γῆν κιτιὰ. St. Paul expresses his meaning in words
borrowed from Psalm xix. (xviii.) §, which he cites word for word
according to the LXX, but without any mark of quotation. What
stress does he intend to lay on the words? Does he use them
for purely literary purposes to express a well-known fact? or does
he also mean to prove the fact by the authority of the O. T.
which foretold it?
1. Primarily at any rate St. Paul wishes to express a well-known
fact in suitable language. ‘What do you say? They have not
heard! Why the whole world and the ends of the earth have
heard. And have you, amongst whom the heralds abode such
a long time, and of whose land they were, not heard?’ Chrys.
2. But the language of Scripture is not used without a point
In the original Psalm these words describe how universally the
goo EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ΙΣ. 19-2)
even a foolish people (it was foretold) would accept it, and thus
stir up Israel to jealousy. Nor again can they plead that it was
difficult to find; for Isaiah with great boldness has stated that men
who never sought or asked for it would find it. The real reason
was that the Israelites are a disobedient and a stubborn people,
and, although God has all day long stretched forth His hands to
them, they will not hear Him.
πρῶτος Μωσῆς. εὐθὺς Μωσῆς. ‘ Even as early in Israel’s history as
Moses.’
ἐγὼ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς κιτλ.: taken from Deut. xxxii. 21 sub-
stantially according to the LXX (ὑμᾶς is substituted for αὐτούε). In
the original the words mean that as Israel has roused God’s jealousy
by going after no-gods, so He will rouse Israel’s jealousy by
showing His mercy to those who are no-people.
20. Ἡσαΐας δὲ ἀποτολμᾷ. St. Paul’s position in opposing the
prejudices of his countrymen made him feel the boldness of Isaiah
in standing up against the men of his own time. The citation is
from Isaiah Ixv. 1 according to the LXX, the clauses of the
original being inverted. The words in the original refer to the
apostate Jews. St. Paul applies them to the Gentiles; see on
ΙΧ. 25, 26.
B D* F G with perhaps Sah. and Goth. add ἐν twice before τοῖς, a Western
reading which has found its way into B (cf. xi. 6). It does not occar is
NAC D°*ELP etc., and many Fathers.
21. πρὸς δὲ τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ λέγει κιτλ, This citation (Is. ἶχν. 2)
follows almost immediately that quoted in ver. 2ο, and like it
is taken from the LXX, with only a slight change in the order.
In the original both this verse and the preceding are addressed
to apostate Israel; St. Paul applies the first part to the Gentiles,
the latter part definitely to Israel.
The Argument of ix. 30-x. 21: Human Responsibility.
We have reached a new stage in our argument. The first step
was the vindication of God's faithfulness and justice: the second
step has been definitely to fix guilt on man. It is clearly laid
down that the Jews have been rejected through their own fault.
They chose the wrong method. When the Messiah came, instead
of accepting Him, they were offended. They did not allow their
zeal for God to be controlled by a true spiritual knowledge. And
the responsibility for this is brought home to them. All possible
excuses, such as want of opportunity, insufficient knowledge,
inadequate warning, are suggested, but rejected. The Jews are
a disobedient people and they have been rejected for their dis-
obedience.
302 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Σ- ΧΙ.
her child. See how he has brought us a most lucid answer
to all the difficulties before raised, by showing that it was from
their own temper that ruin had befallen them, and that they are
wholly undeserving of pardon.’
We must accept the interpretation then which sees in this
chapter a proof of the guilt of the Jews. St. Paul is in fact
looking at the question from a point of view different from that
which he adopted in Chap. ix. There he assumes Divine Sovereignty,
and assuming it shows that God’s dealings with the Jews are
justified. Now he assumes human responsibility, and shows that
assuming it the Jews are guilty. Two great steps are passed in
the Divine Theodicy. We need not anticipate the argument, but
must allow it to work itself out. The conclusion may suggest
a point of view from which these two apparently inconsistent
attitudes can be reconciled.
St. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament.
In Chaps. ix—xi St. Paul, as carrying on a long and sustained
argument, which, if not directed against Jewish opponents, discusses
a question full of interest to Jews from a Jewish point of view,
makes continued use of the O.T., and gives an opportunity for
investigating his methods of quotation and interpretation.
The text of his quotations is primarily that of the LXX. Ac-
cording to Kautzsch (De Veleris Testament locis a Paulo Apostle
allegatis), out of eighty-four passages in which St. Paul cites the
Ο. ΓΤ. about seventy are taken directly from the LXX or do not
vary from it appreciably, twelve vary considerably, but still show
signs of affinity, and two only, both from the book of Job (Rom.
xi. 35 = Job xli. 3 (11); 1 Cor. iii. 19 = Jobv. 13) are definitely in-
dependent and derived either from the Hebrew text or some quite
distinct version. Of those derived from the LXX a certain number,
such for example as Rom. x. 15, show in some points a resemblance
to the Hebrew text as against the LXX. We have probably not
sufficient evidence to say whether this arises from a reminiscence
of the Hebrew text (conscious or unconscious), or from an Ara-
maic Targum, or from the use of an earlier form of a LXX text.
It may be noticed that St. Paul’s quotations sometimes agree with
late MSS. of the LXX as against the great uncials (cf. iii. 4, 15 ff.).
As to the further question whether he cites from memory or by
reference, it may be safely said that the majority of the quotations
are from memory; for many of them are somewhat inexact, and
those which are correct are for the most part short and from well-
known books. There is a very marked distinction between these
and the long literary quotations of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
304 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Σ- πὶ
the original, and without any definite formula of citation. So in
x. 6-8 (see the note) the O. T. language is used rather than a text
from it cited. The same is true in a number of other
where, as the text of Westcott and Hort exhibits clearly, ideas
borrowed from the O.T. are expressed in language which is
borrowed, but without any definite sign of quotation. That this is
the natural and normal use of a religious book must clearly be
recognized. ‘For (the writers of the N.T. the Scripture], was
the one thesaurus of truth. They had almost no other ks.
The words of the O. T. had become a part of their mental furni-
ture, and they used them to a certain extent with the freedom with
which they used their own ideas’ (Toy, Quofatons, &c. Ὁ. xx). It
is a use which is constantly being made of the Bible at the present
day, and when we attempt to analyze the exact force it is intended
to convey, it is neither easy nor desirable to be precise. Between
the purely rhetorical use on the one side and the logical proof on
the other there are infinite gradations of ideas, and it is never quite
possible to say how far in any definite passage the use is purely
rhetorical and how far it is intended to suggest a definite argument.
But there is a third class of instances in which the words are
used in a sense which the original context will not bear, and yet the
object is to give a logical proof. This happens mainly in a certain
class of passages; in those in which the Law is used to condemn
the Law, in those in which passages not Messianic are used with
a Messianic bearing, and in those (a class connected with the last)
in which passages are applied to the calling of the Gentiles which
do not refer to that event in the original. Here controversially the
method is justified. Some of the passages used Messianically by the
Christians had probably been so used by the Rabbis before them.
In all cases the methods they adopted were those of their contempo-
raries, however incorrect they may have been. But what of the
method in relation to our own times? Are we justified in using it?
The answer to that must be sought in a comparison of their teaching
with that of the Rabbis. We have said that controversially it was
justified. ‘The method was the same as, and as good as, that of
their own time; but it was no better. As far as method goes the
Rabbis were equally justified in their conclusions. There is in
fact no standard of right and wrong, when once it is permitted to
take words in a sense which their original context will not bear.
Anything can be proved from anything.
Where then does the superiority of the N.T. writers lie? In
their correct interpretation of the spirit of the O.T. ‘As ex-
pounders of religion, they belong to the whole world and to all
time; as logicians, they belong to the first century. The essence
of their writing is the Divine spirit of love and righteousness that
filled their souls, the outer shell is the intellectual form in which
ΙΧ-ΧΙ!] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 305
the spirit found expression in words. Their comprehension of the
deeper spirit of the O. T. thought is one thing: the logical method
by which they sought formally to extend it is quite another’ (Toy,
Quotations, $c. Ὁ. xxi). This is just one of those points in which
we must trace the superiority of the N. T. writers to its root and
take from them that, and not their faulty exegesis.
An illustration may be drawn from Church History. The Church
inherited equally from the Jewish schools, the Greek Philosophers,
and the N. T. writers an unhistorical method of interpretation; and
in the Arian controversy (to take an example) it constantly makes
use of this method. We are learning to realize more and more
how much of our modern theology is based on the writings of
St. Athanasius; but that does not impose upon us the necessity of
adopting his exegesis. If the methods that he applies to the O. T.
are to be admitted it is almost as easy to deduce Arianism from
it. Athanasius did not triumph because of those exegetical methods,
but because he rightly interpreted (and men felt that he had rightly
interpreted) the spirit of the N.T. His creed, his religious insight,
to a certain extent his philosophy, we accept: but not his exegetical
methods.
So with the O. T. St. Paul triumphed, and the Christian Church
triumphed, over Judaism, because they both rightly interpreted the
spirit of the O.T. We must accept that interpretation, although we
shall find that we arrive at it on other grounds. This may be
illustrated in two main points.
It is the paradox of ch. x that it condemns the Law out of the
Law ; that it convicts the Jews by applying to them passages, which
in the original accuse them of breaking the Law, in order to
condemn them for keeping it. But the paradox is only apparent
Running through the O. T., in the books of the Law as well as ir
those of the Prophets, is the prophetic spirit, always bringing out
the spiritual truths and lessons concealed in or guarded by the Law
in opposition to the formal adherence to its precepts. This spirit
the Gospel inherits. ‘The Gospel itself is a reawakening of the
spirit of prophecy. There are many points in which the teaching
of St. Paul bears a striking resemblance to that of the old Prophets.
It is not by chance that so many quotations from them occur in
his writings. Separated from Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and
Isaiah by an interval of about 800 years, he felt a kind of sympathy
with them; they expressed his inmost feelings; like them he was
at war with the evil of the world around. When they spoke of
forgiveness of sins, of non-imputation of sins, of a sudden turning
to God, what did this mean but righteousness by faith? When
they said, “‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice,” here also was
imaged the great truth, that salvation was not of the Law... Like
the elder Prophets, he came not “to build up a temple made witb
Σ
506 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (Ix-XL
hands,” but to teach a moral truth: like them he went forth alone,
and not in connexion with the church at Jerusalem: like them he
was looking for and hastening to the day of the Lord’ (Jowett).
This represents the truth, as the historical study of the O. T. will
prove ; or rather one side of the truth. The Gospel is not merely
the reawakening of the spirit of prophecy ; it is also the fulfilment
of the spiritual teaching of Law. It was necessary for a later
writer—the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews—when contro-
versy was less bitter to bring this out more fully. Christ not only
revived all the teaching of the Prophets, righteousness, mercy,
peace; He also exhibited by His death the teaching of the Law,
the heinousness of sin, the duty of sacrifice, the spiritual union of
God and man.
The same lines of argument will justify the Messianic use of the
O.T. If we study it historically the reality of the Messianic
interpretation remains just as clear as it was to St. Paul. Alle-
gorical and incorrect exegesis could never create an idea. They
only illustrate one which has been suggested in other ways, The
Messianic interpretation, and with it the further idea of the uni-
versality of the Messianic kingdom, arose because they are contained
in the O.T. Any incorrectness of exegesis that there may be lies
not in the ideas themselves but in finding them in passages which
have probably a different meaning. We are not bound, and it
would be wrong to bind ourselves, by the incorrect exegesis of
particular passages; but the reality and truth of the Messianic idea
and the universal character of the Messianic kingdom, as prophesied
in the O.T. and fulfilled in the N. T., remain one of the most
real and impressive facts in religious history. Historical criticism
does not disprove this; it only places it on a stronger foundation
and enables us to trace the origin and growth of the idea more
accurately (cf. Sanday, Bampton Lectures, pp. 404, 405).
The value of St. Paul’s exegesis therefore lies not in his true
interpretation of individual passages, but in his insight into the
spiritual meaning of the O.T.; we need not use his methods, but
the books of the Bible will have little value for us if we are not able
to see in them the spiritual teaching which he saw. In the cause
of truth, as a guide to right religious ideas, as a fatal enemy to
many a false and erroneous and harmful doctrine, historical criticism
and interpretation are of immense value; but if they be divorced
from a spiritual insight, such as can be learnt only by the spiritual
teaching of the N. T., which interprets the O.T. from the stand-
point of its highest and truest fulfilment, they will become as barren
and unproductive as the strangest conceits of the Rabbis or the
most unreal fancies of the Schoolmen.
[See, besides other works: Jowett, Contrasts of Prophecy, in his
edition of the Romans; Toy, Quofations in the New Testament,
XI. 1-5.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 307
New York, 1884; Kautzsch, De Veleris Testaments locts a Paule
Apostolo allegatis, Lipsiae, 1869; Clemen (Dr. August), Ueber den
Gebrauch des Alten Testaments im Neuen Testamente, und spectell in
den Reden Jesu (Einladungsschrift, &c., Leipzig, 1891); Turpie
(6681 McCalman), Zhe Old Testament in the New, London,
1868.
THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT COMPLETE.
XI. 1-10. /srael then has refused to accept the salvation
offered ἐξ, ἐς 1t therefore rejectea? No. At any rate the
vejection 1s not complete. Now as always in the history of
Israel, although the mass of the people may be condemned to
disbelief, there ts a remnant that shall be saved.
The conclusion of the preceding argument is this. It is through
their own fault that Israel has rejected a salvation which was fully
and freely offered. Now what does this imply? Does it mean
that God has rejected His chosen people? Heaven forbid that
I should say this! I who like them am an Israelite, an Israelite
by birth and not a proselyte, a lineal descendant of Abraham,
a member of the tribe that with Judah formed the restored Israel
after the exile. *No, God has not rejected His people. He
chose them for His own before all time and nothing can make
Him change His purpose. If you say He has rejected them,
it only shows that you have not clearly grasped the teaching of
Scripture concerning the Remnant. Elijah on Mt. Horeb brought
just such an accusation against his countrymen. * He complained
that they had forsaken the covenant, that they had overthrown
God’s altars, that they had slain His Prophets; just as the Jews
at the present day have slain the Messiah and persecuted His
messengers. Elijah only was left, and his life they sought. The
whole people, God’s chosen people, had been rejected. ‘So he
thought; but the Divine response came to him, that there were seven
thousand men left in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal.
There was a kernel of the nation that remained loyal. ὅ Exactly
the same circumstances exist now as then. Now as then the mass
of the people are unfaithful, but there is a remnant of loyal ad
308 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΙ. 5-10.
herents to the Divine message :—a remnant, be it remembered,
chosen by God by an act of free favour: ‘that is to say those
whom God has in His good pleasure selected for that position, who
have in no way earned it by any works they have done, or any
merit of their own. If that were possible Grace would lose all its
meaning: there would be no occasion for God to show free favour
to mankind.
"It is necessary then at any rate to modify the broad statement
that has been made. Israel, it is true, has failed to obtain the
righteousness which it sought; but, although this is true of the
nation as a whole, there is a Remnant of which it is not true.
Those whom God selected have attained it. But what of the rest?
Their hearts have been hardened. Here again we find the same
conditions prevailing throughout Israel’s history. 5 Isaiah declared
(xxix. 10; vi. 9, 10) how God had thrown the people into a state
of spiritual torpor. He had given them eyes which could not see,
and ears which could not hear. All through their history the mass
of the people has been destitute of spiritual insight. ° And again
in the book of Psalms, David (Ixix. 23, 24) declares the Divine
wrath against the unfaithful of the nation: ‘May their table be their
snare. It is just their position as God’s chosen people, it is the Law
and the Scriptures, which are their boast, thit are to be the cause of
their ruin. They are to be punished by being allowed to cleave
fast to that to which they have perversely adhered. °°‘ Let their eyes
be blinded, so that they cannot see light when it shines upon them:
let their back be ever bent under the burden to which they have
so obstinately clung.’ This was God’s judgement then on Israel
for their faithlessness, and it is God's judgement on them now.
1-36. St. Paul has now shown (1) (ix. 6-29) that God was
perfectly free, whether as regards promise or His right as Creator, to
reject Israel; (2) (ix. 30-x. 21) that Israel on their side by neglecting
the Divine method of salvation offered them have deserved this
rejection, He now comes to the original question from which he
started, but which he never expressed, and asks, Has God, as might
be thought from the drift of the argument so far, really cast away
His people? To this he gives a negative answer, which he proceeds
to justify by showing (1) that this rejection is only partial (xi. 1-10),
(2) only temporary (xi. 11-25), and (3) that in all this Divine action
there has been a purpose deeper and wiser than man can altogether
understand (xi. 26—36).
810 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Σι. 2.
answer to the question he has just asked, adding emphasis by
repeating the very words he has used.
by The addition of these words gives a reason for the
emphatic denial of which they form a part. Israel was the race
which God in His Divine foreknowledge had elected and chosen,
and therefore He could not cast it off. The reference in this
chapter is throughout to the election of the nation as a whole, and
therefore the words cannot have a limiting sense (Orig. Chrys.
Aug.), ‘that people whom He foreknew,’ i.e. those of His people
whom He foreknew; nor again can they possibly refer to the
spiritual Israel, as that would oblige a meaning to be given to
λαός different from that in νεῖ. 1. The word προέγνω may be taken,
(1) as used in the Hebrew sense, to mean ‘whom He has known or
chosen beforehand.’ So γινώσκειν in the LXX. Amos iii. 2 dpas
ἔγνων ἐκ πασῶν τῶν φυλῶν τῆς γῆς. And in St. Paul x Cor. viii. 3 εἰ
δέ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Θεόν, οὗτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ' αὐτοῦ. Gal. iv. 9 νῦν δὲ
γνόντες Θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. 2 Tim. ii. 19 Fyre Κύριος
τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ. Although there is no evidence for this use of
προγινώσκειν it represents probably the idea which St. Paul had in
his mind (see on viii. 29). (2) But an alternative interpretation
taking the word in its natural meaning of foreknowledge, must not
be lost sight of, ‘that people of whose history and future destiny
God had full foreknowledge.’ This seems to be the meaning
with which the word is generally used (Wisd. vi. 13; viii. 8; xviii. 6;
Just. Mart. Afol.i.28; Dral. 42. p. 261 B.); so too πρόγνωσις is used
definitely and almost technically of the Divine foreknowledge (Acts
ii. 23); and in this chapter St. Paul ends with vindicating the
Divine wisdom which had prepared for Israel and the world
a destiny which exceeds human comprehension.
4 οὐκ ofSare: cf. ii. 4; vi. 3; vii. x; ix. 21. ‘You must admit
this or be ignorant of what the Scripture says.’ The point of the
quotation lies not in the words which immediately follow, but in the
contrast between the two passages; a contrast which represented
the distinction between the apparent and the real situation at the
time when the Apostle wrote.
ἐν ᾿Ηλίᾳ : ‘in the section of Scripture which narrates the story
of Elijah. The O. T. Scriptures were divided into paragraphs to
which were given titles derived from their subject-matter; and these
came to be very commonly used in quotations as references. Many
instances are quoted from the Talmud and from Hebrew commen-
tators: Berachoth, fol. 2. col. 1, fol. 4. col. 2 td guod scriptum est a
Michéel, referring to Is. vi.6. So Zaantjo/h, ii.1; Aboth de-Rabbi
Nathan, c.9; Shir hashirim rabba i. 6, where a phrase similar
to that used here, ‘In Elijah,’ occurs, and the same passage is
quoted, ‘I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of Hosts.’
So also Philo, De Agricultura, p. 203 (i. 317 Mang.) λέγει yap ἐν rais
312 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΙ. 4, δ.
deliberation’; and so finally (4) of an oracle ‘to give ἃ
taking the place of the older ypaw; and so it is used in the N. T.
of the Divine warning Mat. ii. 12, 22 χρηματισθέντες κατ᾽ ὄναρ: Luke
ii. 26; Acts x. 22; Heb. vili.5; xi. 7: cf. Jos. Ant. V.i.tg; Xi.
3; XI. iii. 4. From this usage of the verb χρηματίζω was derived
χρηματισμός, as the more usual χρησμός from χράω. See also p. 173.
τῇ Βάαλ: substituted by St. Paul (as also by Justin Martyr, do.
ct.) for the LXX τῷ Βάαλ, according to a usage common in other
passages in the Greek Version.
The word Baal, which means ‘Lord,’ appears to have been originally
used as one of the names of the God of Israel, and as such became a part of
many Jewish names, as for example Jerabbaal (Jad. vi. 33; vii. 1), Eshbaal
(1 Chron. ix. 39), Meribbaal (1 Chron. ix. 40), &c. But gradually the
special association of the name with the idolatrous worship of the Phoenician
god caused the use of it to be forbidden. Hosea ii. 16, 17 ‘and it shall be
at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me
no more Baali. For I will take away the names of the ‘Baalim out of her
mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by their name.’ Owing to this
motive a tendency arose to obliterate the name of Baal from the Scriptures :
just as owing to a feeling of reverence ‘Elohim’ was substituted for * Jehovah’
fo the second and third books of the Psalms. This usage took the form of
substituting Bosheth, ‘abomination,’ for Baal. So Eshbaal (1 Chr. viii. 33,
39) ) became Ishbosheth (2 Sam. ii. 8; iii, 8); Meribbaal (1 Chr. ix. 40)
Mep ibosheth (a Sam. ix. 6 ff); Jerabbaal Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. xi. a1).
See also Hosea ix. 10; Jer. iii. 24; xi. 13. Similarly in the LXX αἰσχύνη
represents in one passage Baal of the Hebrew text, 3 Kings xviii. 19, 25.
But it seems to have been more usual to substitute αἰσχύνη in reading for the
written Βάαλ, and as a sign of this Qe? the feminine article was written;
just as the name Jehovah was written with the pointing of Adonai. This
usage is most common in Jeremiah, but occurs also in the books of Kings,
Chronicles, and other Prophets. It appears not to occur in the Pentateach.
The plural ταῖς occurs 2 Chr. xxiv. 7; xxxiii. 3. This, the only satisfactory
explanation of the feminine article with the masculine name, is given by
Dillmann, Afonatsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaft eu Berlin, 1881,
Ῥ. 601 ff. and has superseded all others.
The LXX version is again shortened in the quotation, and for καταλείψω
is substituted κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ, which is an alternative and perhaps more
exact translation of the Hebrew.
5. οὕτως οὖν. The application of the preceding instance to the
circumstances of the Apostle’s own time. The facts were the
same. St. Paul would assume that his readers, some of whom
were Jewish Christians, and all of whom were aware of the exist-
ence of such a class, would recognize this. And if this were so
the same deduction might be made. As then the Jewish people
were not rejected, because the remnant was saved; so now there
is a remnant, and this implies that God has not cast away His
people as such.
λεῖμμα (on the orthography cf. WH. ii. App. p. 154, who read
λίμμα), ‘a remnant.’ The word does not occur elsewhere in the
N.T., and in the O.T. only twice, and then not in the technical
sense of the ‘remnant.’ The usual word for that is τὸ καταλειφθέν.
ΧΙ. 5-7.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 313
κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος. Predicate with γέγονεν. ‘There has come
to be through the principle of selection which is dependent on the
Divine grace or favour.’ This addition to the thought, which is
further explained in ver. 6, reminds the reader of the result of the
previous discussion: that ‘election’ on which the Jews had always
laid so much stress had operated, but it was a selection on the
part of God of those to whom He willed to give His grace, and
not an election of those who had earned it by their works.
6. εἰ δὲ χάριτι κατλ, A further explanation of the principles of
election. If the election had been on the basis of works, then the
Jews might have demanded that God’s promise could only be ful-
filled if all who had earned it had received it: St. Paul, by reminding
them of the principles of election already laid down, implies that
the promise is fulfilled if the remnant is saved. God's people
are those whom He has chosen; it is not that the Jews are chosen
because they are His people.
ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις : ‘this follows from the very
meaning of the idea of grace.’ Gratia nisi gratis sit gratia non est.
St. Augustine.
The TR. after γίνεται χάρις adds εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων, οὐκένι ἐστὶ χάρις" ἐτεὶ τὸ
ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον with N°(B) L and later MSS., Syrr., Chrys. and Thdrt.
(in the text, but they do not refer to the words in their commentary).
B reads εἰ δὲ ἐς ἔργων, οὐκέτι χάρις ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶ χάρις. The
clause is omitted by N* AC DE ΕΟΡ, Vulg. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Arm.,
Orig.-lat. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrst. Patr.-latt. There need be no doubt that it is
gloss, nor is the authority of B of any weight in support of a Western
addition such as this against such preponierating authority. This is con-
sidered by WH. to be the solitary or almost the solitary case in which B
possibly has a Syrian reading (Introd. ii. 150).
7. τί οὖν; This verse sums up the result of the discussion in
vv. 2-6. ‘What then is the result? In what way can we modify
the harsh statement made in ver. 1? It is indeed still true that
Israel as a nation has failed to obtain what is its aim, namely
righteousness: but at the same time there is one portion of it, the
elect, who have attained it.’
ἡ δὲ exdoyh: i.e. of ἐκλεκτοί, The abstract for the concrete
suggests the reason for their success by laying stress on the idea
rather than on the individuals.
οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν : ‘while the elect have attained what
they sought, those who have failed to attain it have been hardened.’
They have not failed because they have been hardened, but they
have been hardened because they have failed; cf. i. 24 ff., where
sin is represented as God’s punishment inflicted on man for their
rebellion. Here St. Paul does not definitely say by whom, for
that is not the point it interests him to discuss at present: he has
represented the condition of Israel both as the result of God's
action (ch. ix) and of their own (ch. x). Here as in κατηρτισμένα
314 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [xr 7, 8.
ix. 22, he uses the colourless passive without laying stress on the
cause: the quotation in ver. 8 represents God as the author,
ἔπταισαν in ver. 11 suggests that they are free agents.
The verb wapéw (derived from πῶρος a callus or stone formed in the
bladder) is a medical term used in Hippocrates and elsewhere of a bone or
hard substance growing when bones are fractured, or of a stone forming in
the bladder. Hence metaphorically it is used in the N. T., and apparently
there only of the heart becoming hardened or callous: so Mark vi. 52;
Jo. xii. 40; Rom. xi. 7; 2 Cor. itl. 14: while the noun πώρωσις occurs in
the same sense, Mark iii. §; Rom. xi. 25; Eph. iv. 18. The idea is in all
these places the same, that a covering has grown over the heart, making
men incapable of receiving any new teaching however good, and making
them oblivious of the wrong they are doing. In Job xvii. 7 (σεπώρωνται
γὰρ ἀπὸ ὀργῆς ol ὀφθαλμοί pov) the word is used of blindness, but again only
of mora] blindness ; anger has caused as it were a covering to grow over
the eyes. There is therefore no need to take the word to mean ‘blind,’ as
do the grammarians (Suidas, πωρόε, ὁ τυφλός: πεπώρωται, τετύφλωται :
Hesychius, πεπωρωμένοι, τετυφλωμένοι) and the Latin Versions (excasecati,
obcaecati). It is possible that this translation arose from a confusion with
πηρός (see on κατανύξεως below) which was perhaps occasionally used of
blindness (see Prof. Armitage Robinson in Academy, 1892, p. 305), although
probably then as a specialized usage for the more General ‘ maimed.” Al-
though the form πηρόω occurs in some MSS. of the N. T., yet the evidence
against it is in every case absolutely conclusive, as it is also in the O. T. ip
the one passage where the word occurs.
8. καθὼς γέγραπται. St. Paul supports and explains his last
statement οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν by quotations from the Ο. Τ.
The first which in form resembles Deut. xxix. 4, modified by
Is. xxix. 10; vi. 9, 10, describes the spiritual dulness or torpor of
which the prophet accuses the Israelites. This he says had been
given them by God as a punishment for their faithlessness. These
words will equally well apply to the spiritual condition of the
Apostle’s own time, showing that it is not inconsistent with the
position of Israel as God’s people, and suggesting a general law of
God's dealing with them.
The following extracts, in which the words that St. Paul has made
use of are printed in spaced type, will give the source of the quotation.
Deut. xxix. 4 καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν καρδίαν εἰδέναι καὶ
ὀφθαλμοὺς βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα ἀκούειν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης, Is,
xxix. 10 ὅτι πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς Κύριος πνεύματι κατανύξεως : cf. Is. vi. 9, 10
ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὗ μὴ .
... καὶ εἶπα Ἕως πότε, Κύριε; While the form resembles the words in
Deut., the historical situation and meaning of the quotation are represented
by the passages in Isaiah to which St. Paul is clearly referring.
πνεῦμα κατανύξεως : ‘a spirit of torpor,’ a state of dull insensi-
bility to everything spiritual, such as would be produced by drunken-
ness, or stupor. Is. xxix. ro (RV.) ‘For the Lord hath poured
out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes,
the prophets; and your heads, the seers, hath He covered.’
The word κατάνυξις is derived from κατανύσσομαι. The simple verb
γύσσω is used to mean to ‘prick’ or ‘strike’ or ‘dint.’ The compound
316 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΙ. 1-10.
ally groping about in the dark!’ They are to be like those described
by Plato as fast bound in the cave: even if they are brought to the
light they will only be blinded by it, and will be unable to see.
The judgement upon them is that they are to be ever bent down
with the weight of the burden which they have wilfully taken on
their backs.
It may be worth noticing that Lipsius, who does not elsewhere accept the
theory of interpolations in the text, suggests that vv. 9, 10 are a gloss added
by some reader in the margin after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. Holsten, Z./.
w. 7. 1872, p. 455; Michelsen, 74. 7. 1887, p. 163; Pretestanten-bebel,
1872, Ὁ. 589; A. 7. ii. 154). It is suggested that διαπαντὸς is inconsistent
with ver. 11 ff. But it has not been noticed that in ver. 11 we have a change
of metaphor, ἕπταισαν, which would be singularly out of place if it came
immediately after ver. 8. As it is, this word is sug and accounted
for by the metaphors employed in the quotation introduced in ver. 9. If
we omit vv. 9, 10 we must also omit ver. 11. There is throughout the
whole Epistle a continuous succession of thought from verse to
verse which makes any theory of interpolation impossib (See Intro
duction, § 9.)
The Doctrine of the Remnant.
The idea of the ‘Remnant’ is one of the most typical and
significant in the prophetic portions of the O.T. We meet it
first apparently in the prophetic narrative which forms the basis of
the account of Elijah in the book of Kings, the passage which
St. Paul is quoting. Here a new idea is introduced into Israel's
history, and it is introduced in one of the most solemn and im-
pressive narratives of that history. The Prophet is taken into the
desert to commune with God; he is taken to Sinai, the mountain of
God, which played such a large part in the traditions of His people,
and he receives the Divine message in that form which has ever
marked off this as unique amongst theophanies, the ‘still small
voice, contrasted with the thunder, and the storm, and the
earthquake. And the idea that was thus introduced marks a
stage in the religious history of the world, for it was the first
revelation of the idea of personal as opposed to national consecra-
tion. Up to that time it was the nation as a whole that was
bound to God, the nation as a whole for which sacrifices were
offered, the nation as a whole for which kings had fought and
judges legislated. But the nation as a whole had deserted Jehovah,
and the Prophet records that it is the loyalty of the individual
Israelites who had remained true to Him that must henceforth be
reckoned. The nation will be chastised, but the remnant shall be
saved.
The idea is a new one, but it is one which we find continuously
from this time onwards ; spiritualized with the more spiritual ideas
of the later prophets. We find it in Amos (ix. 8-10), in Micah (ii
XI.1-10.] § THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 417
12, v. 3), in Zephaniah (iii. 12, 13), in Jeremiah (xxiii. 3), in Ezekiel
(xiv. 14-20, 22), but most pointedly and markedly in Isaiah. The
two great and prominent ideas of Isaiah’s prophecy are typified in
the names given to his two sons,—the reality of the Divine ven-
ce (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) and the salvation of the Remnant
Shear-Jashub) and, through the Holy and Righteous Remnant, of
the theocratic nation itself (vii. 3; viii. 2, 18; ix. 12; x. 21, 24);
and both these ideas are prominent in the narrative of the call
(vi. 9-13) ‘ Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed,
but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their
ears heavy, and shut their eyes ... Then said I, Lord, how long?
And He answered, Until cities be waste without inhabitant and
homes without men, and the land become utterly waste.’ But this
is only one side. There is a true stock left. ‘Like the terebinth
and the oak, whose stock remains when they are cut down and sends
forth new saplings, so the holy seed remains as a living stock and
a new and better Israel shall spring from the ruin of the ancient
state’ (Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel, Ὁ. 234). This doctrine
of a Remnant implied that it was the individual who was true to
his God, and not the nation, that was the object of the Divine
solicitude; that it was in this small body of individuals that the
true life of the chosen nation dwelt, and that from them would
spring that internal reformation, which, coming as the result of the
Divine chastisement, would produce a whole people, pure and
undefiled, to be offered to God (Is. ἰχν. 8, 9).
The idea appealed with great force to the early Christians. It
appealed to St. Stephen, in whose speech one of the main currents
of thought seems to be the marvellous analogy which runs through
all the history of Israel. The mass of the people has ever been
unfaithful; it is the individual or the small body that has remained
true to God in all the changes of Israel’s history, and these the
people have always persecuted as they crucified the Messiah.
And so St. Paul, musing over the sad problem of Israel’s unbelief,
finds its explanation and justification in this consistent trait of the
nation’s history. As in Elijah’s time, as in Isaiah’s time, so now the
mass of the people have rejected the Divine call; but there always
has been and still is the true Remnant, the Remnant whom God
has selected, who have preserved the true life and ideal of the
people and thus contain the elements of new and prolonged life.
And this doctrine of the ‘Remnant’ is as true to human nature
as it is to Israel’s history. No church or nation is saved en masse,
it is those members of it who are righteous. It is not the mass
of the nation or church that has done its work, but the select
few who have preserved the consciousness of its high calling.
It is by the selection of individuals, even in the nation that has
been chosen, that God has worked equally in religion and in all
418 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ([XI. 11-14
the different lines along which the path of human development has
progressed.
[On the Remnant see especially Jowett, Contrasts of Prophecy,
in Romans ii. p. 290; and Robertson Smith, Zhe Prophets of
Israel, PP. 106, 209, 234, 258. The references are collected in
Ochler, Zheologte des alten Testaments, p. 809.
THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT FINAL.
XI. 11-24. The Rejection of Israel is not comblete, nor
will st be final. Its result has been the extension of the
Church to the Gentiles. The salvation of these will stir the
Fews to jealousy ; they will return to the Kingdom, and this
will mean the final consummation (vv. 10-15).
Of all this the guarantee ἐς the holiness of the stock from
which Israel comes. God has grafted you Gentiles into that
stock against the natural order; far more easily can He
vestore them to a position which by nature and descent ἐς
theirs (vv. 16-24).
"The Rejection of Israel then is only partial. Yet still there
is the great mass of the nation on whom God’s judgement has
come: what of these? Is there no further hope for them? Is
this stumbling of theirs such as will lead to a final and complete
fall? By no means. It is only temporary, a working out of the
Divine purpose. This purpose is partly fulfilled. It has resulted
in the extension of the Messianic salvation to the Gentiles. It is
partly in the future; that the inclusion of these in the Kingdom
may rouse the Jews to emulation and bring them back to the place
which should be theirs and from which so far they have been
excluded. 55 And consider what this means. Even the transgres-
sion of Israel has brought to the world a great wealth of spiritual
blessings; their repulse has enriched the nations, how much greater
then will be the result when the chosen people with their numbers
completed have accepted the Messiah? ™In these speculations
about my countrymen, I am not disregarding my proper mission
to you Gentiles, It is with you in my mind that I am speaking.
I will put it more strongly. I do all I can to glorify my ministry
as Apostle to the Gentiles, and this in hopes that I may succeed
320 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (xI. 1
no grafted branches but the natural growth of the tree, He certainly
will be no more ready to spare you, who have no such privileges
to plead. ™ Learn the Divine goodness, but learn and understand
the Divine severity as well. Those who have fallen have ex-
perienced the severity, you the goodness; a goodness which will
be continued if you cease to be self-confident and simply trust:
otherwise you too may be cut off as they were. ™Nor again
is the rejection of the Jews irrevocable. They can be grafted
again into the stock on which they grew, if only they will give up
their unbelief. For they are in God’s hands; and God’s power is
not limited. He is able to restore them to the position from which
they have fallen. “For consider. You are the slip cut from the
olive that grew wild, and yet, by a process which you must admit
to be entirely unnatural, you were grafted into the cultivated stock.
If God could do this, much more can He graft the natural branches
of the cultivated olive on to their own stock from which they were
cut. You Gentiles have no grounds for boasting, nor have the
Jews for despair. Your position is less secure than was theirs, and
if they only trust in God, their salvation will be easier than was
yours.
11. St. Paul has modified the question of ver. 2 so far: the
rejection of Israel is only partial. But yet it is true that the rest,
that is the majority, of the nation are spiritually blind. They have
stumbled and sinned. Does this imply their final exclusion from
the Messianic salvation? St. Paul shows that it is not so. It is
only temporary and it has a Divine purpose.
λέγω ody. A new stage in the argument. ‘I ask then as to this
majority whose state the prophets have thus described.’ The
question arises immediately out of the preceding verses, but is
a stage in the argument running through the whole chapter, and
raised by the discussion of Israel’s guilt in ix. 30—-x. 21.
μὴ ἔπταισαν, ἵνα πέσωσι : ‘have they (i.e. those who have been
hardened, ver. 8) stumbled so as to fall?’ Mumgurd ste offenderunt,
ut caderentP Is their failure of such a character that they will be
finally lost, and cut off from the Messianic salvation? ta expresses
the contemplated result. The metaphor in ἔπταισαν (which is often
used elsewhere in a moral sense, Deut. vii. 25; James ii. 10; iii. 3;
2 Pet. i. r0) seems to be suggested by σκάνδαλον of ver.g. The
meaning of the passage is given by the contrast between πταίειν
and πεσεῖν ; a man who stumbles may recover himself, or he may
fall completely. Hence πέσωσιν is here used of a complete and
ΧΙ. 11] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 321
irrevocable fall. Cf. Is. xxiv. 20 κατίσχυσε yap ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἡ ἀνομία, καὶ
πεσεῖται καὶ οὐ μὴ δύνηται ἀναστῆναι: Ps. Sol. iii. 13 ἔπεσεν ὅτι πονηρὸν
τὸ πτῶμα αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἀναστήσεται : Heb. iv. 11. It is no argument
against this that the same word is used in wv. 22, 23 of a fall
which is not irrevocable: the ethical meaning must be in each
case determined by the context, and here the contrast with ἔπταισαν
suggests a fall that is irrevocable.
There is a good deal of controversy among grammarians as to the admission
of a laxer use of iva, a controversy which has a tendency to divide scholars
by nations; the German grammarians with Winer at their head (8 liii. 10. 6,
p. 573 E. T.) maintain that it always preserves, even in N. T. Greek, its
classical meaning of purpose ; on the other hand, English commentators such
as Lightfoot (on Gal. v. 17), Ellicott (on 1 Thess. v. 4), and Evans (on 1 Cor.
vii. 39) admit the laxer use. Evans says ‘that iva, like our “‘ that,” has three
uses: (1) final (in order that he may go), (2) definitive (I advise that he go),
(3) subjectively ecbatic (have they stumbled that they should fall)’; and it
is quite clear that it is only by reading into passages a great deal which is
not expressed that commentators can make {va in all cases mean ‘in order
that.’ In 1 Thess. νυ. 4 ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, ob« ἐστὲ by σκύτει, iva ἡ ἡμέρα
ὑμᾶς ds κλέπτης καταλάβῃ, where Winer states that there is ‘a Divine
porpose of God,’ this is not expressed either in the words or the context.
1 Cor. vii. "9 ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστί, τὸ λοιπὸν ἵνα καὶ οἱ Exovres
γυναῖκας ὡς μὴ ἔχοντες ὦσι, ‘is it probable that a state of sitting loose to
worldly interests should be described as the aim or purpose of God in
curtailing the season of the great tribulation?’ Evans.) Yet Winer asserts
that the words ἵνα καὶ οἱ ἔχοντες κιτιλ. express the (Divine) purpose for
which ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστί. So again in the present passage it is
only a confusion of ideas that can see any purpose. If St. Paul had used
ἃ passive verb such as ἐσωρώθησαν then we might translate, ‘have they been
hardened in order that they may fall?’ and there would be no objection in
logic or grammar, but as St. Paul has written ἔπταισαν, if there is a purpose
in the passage it ascribes stumbling as a deliberate act undertaken with the
purpose of falling. We cannot here any more than elsewhere read in
a Divine purpose where it is neither implied nor expressed, merely for the
sake of defending an arbitrary grammatical rule.
μὴ γένοιτο. St. Paul indignantly denies that the final fall of
Israel was the contemplated result of their transgression. The
result of it has already been the calling of the Gentiles, and the
final purpose is the restoration of the Jews also.
τῷ αὐτῶν παραπτώματι: ‘by their false step,’ continuing the
metaphor of ἔπταισαν.
4 σωτηρία τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. St. Paul is here stating an historical
fact. His own preaching to the Gentiles had been caused definitely
by the rejection of his message on the part of the Jews. Acts
xiii. 45-48; cf. villi. 4; xi. 19; xxviii. 28.
εἷς τὸ παραζηλῶσαι αὐτούς: ‘to provoke them (the Jews) to
jealousy. This idea had already been suggested (x. 19) by the
quotation from Deuteronomy ᾿Εγὼ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς én’ οὐκ ἔθνει.
St. Paul in these two statements sketches the lines on which the
Divine action is explained and justified. God's purpose has been
to use the disobedience of the Jews in order to promote the calling
τ
324 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 1s.
his countrymen, and his zeal in carrying out his mission to the
Gentiles, combine towards producing the same end. ‘Do not think
that what I am saying has nothing to do with you Gentiles. It
makes me even more zealous in my work for you. That ministry
of mine to the Gentiles I do honour to and exalt, seeking in this
way if perchance I may be able to move my countrymen to
jealousy.’ Then in ver. 15 he shows how this again reacts upon
the general scheme of his ministry. ‘And this I do, because their
return to the Church will bring on that final consummation for
which we all look forward.’
13. ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω κιτλ' The δέ expresses a slight contrast in
thought, and the ὑμῖν is emphatic: ‘ But it is to you Gentiles I am
speaking. Nay more, so far as I am an Apostle of Gentiles,
I glorify my ministry: if thus by any means, &c.
ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος : comp. Acts xxii. a1; Gal. i 7,9; Σ Tim. ii. 7.
τὴν διακονίαν pou δοξάζω. He may glorify his ministry, either
(i) by his words and speech; if he teaches everywhere the duty of
preaching to the Gentiles he exalts that ministry: or (ii), perhaps
better, by doing all in his power to make it successful: comp.
1 Cor. xii. 26 εἴτε δοξάζεται μέλος.
This verse and the references to the Gentiles that follow seem to
show conclusively that St. Paul expected the majority of his readers
to be Gentiles. Comp. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. a2 ‘Though the
Greek is ambiguous the context appears to me decisive for taking
ὑμῖν as the Church itself, and not as a part of it. In all the long
previous discussion bearing on the Jews, occupying nearly two and
a half chapters, the Jews are invariably spoken of in the third
person. In the half chapter that follows the Gentiles are constantly
spoken of in the second person. Exposition has here passed into
exhortation and warning, and the warning is exclusively addressed
to Gentiles: to Christians who had once been Jews not a word is
addressed.’
The variations in reading in the particles which occur in this verse suggest
that considerable difficulties were felt in its interpretation. For tur δέ
NABP meitnuse. pauc., Syrr. Boh. Arm., Theodrt. cod. Jo.-Damase. ; we find
in C ὑμῖν οὖν ; while the TR with DEFGL &c Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. has
ὑμῖν γάρ. Again μὲν οὖν is read by NA BCP, Boh., Cyr.-Al. Jo.-Damasc. ;
μέν only by TR with L &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. ‘(so Meyer); while the
Westem group DEF G and some minuscules omit both.
It may be noticed in the Epp. of St. Paul that wherever μὲν οὖν or μενοῦν
γε occur there is considerable variation in the reading.
Rom. ix. 20: μενοῦνγε NAK LP &c., Syrr. Boh.; μὲν οὖν B; omit al-
together DFG.
x. 18: μενοῦνγε om. F Gd, Orig.-lat.
1 Cor. vi 4: μὲν οὖν most authorities ; F G γοῦν.
vi. 7: μὲν οὖν ABC &c.; μέν xD Boh.
Phil. iii. 8: μὲν οὖν BDEFGKL &c.; μενοῦνγε 8 A P Boh.
The Western MSS. as a rule avoid the expression, while B is consistent is
preferring it.
326 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 15-24
is a sign of the inauguration of the new era. Schiirer, Geschichie, ἃς.
ii. p. 460; /udslees xxiii. 29 ‘And at that time the Lord will heal
his servants, and they will arise and will see great peace and will
cast out their enemies; and the just shall see it and be thankful
and rejoice in joy to all eternity.” noch li. 1 (p. 139 ed. Charles)
‘And in those days will the earth also give back those who are
treasured up within it, and She6l also will give back that which it
has received, and hell will give back that which it owes. And he
will choose the righteous and holy from among them : for the day
of their redemption has drawn nigh.’ As in the latter part of this
chapter St Paul seems to be largely influenced by the language
and forms of the current eschatology, it is very probable that the
second interpretation is the more correct; cf. Origen viii. 9, p. 257
Tunc enim ἐγ τ! assumtio Israel, quando tam ef mortus vilam recipient
ef mundus ex corruphbil: incorruphbdilis fiet, eb mortales immortal:tate
donabuntur; and see below ver. 26.
16. St. Paul gives in this verse the grounds of his confidence in
the future of Israel. This is based upon the holiness of the Patriarchs
from whom they are descended and the consecration to God which
has been the result of this holiness. His argument is expressed in
two different metaphors, both of which however have the same
P ἀπαρχὴ . .. φύραμα. The metaphor in the first part of the
verse is taken from Num. xv. 19, 20 ‘It shall be, that when ye
eat of the bread of the land, ye shall offer up an heave offering
unto the Lord. Of the first of your dough (ἀπαρχὴν φυράματος LXX)
ye shall offer up a cake for an heave offering: as ye do the heave
offering of the threshing floor, so shall ye heave it.’ By the offering
of the first-fruits, the whole mass was considered to be consecrated;
and so the holiness of the Patriarchs consecrated the whole people
from whom they came. That the meaning of the ἀπαρχή is the
Patriarchs (and not Christ or the select remnant) is shown by the
parallelism with the second half of the verse, and by the explanation
of St. Paul’s argument given in ver. 28 ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας.
ἁγία : ‘consecrated to God as the holy nation’ in the technical
sense of ἅγιος, cf. i. 7.
ῥίζα... κλάδοι. The same idea expressed under a different
image. Israel the Divine nation is looked upon as a tree; its
roots are the Patriarchs; individual Israelites are the branches,
As then the Patriarchs are holy, so are the Israelites who belong
to the stock of the tree, and are nourished by the sap which
flows up to them from those roots.
17-24. The metaphor used in the second part of ver. 16 suggests
an image which the Apostle developes somewhat elaborately. The
image of an olive tree to describe Israel is taken from the Prophets;
Jeremiah xi. 16 ‘The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree,
328 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 17, 18
ἐξεκλάσθησαν. The same simile is used, with a different applica-
tion, Enoch xxvi. 1 καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ἐφώδευσα als τὸ μέσον τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἴδον
τόπον ηὐλογημένον, ἃ ἐν ᾧ δένδρα ἔχοντα παραφυάδας μενούσας καὶ βλαστούσαι
rou δένδρου ἐκκοπέντος.
ἀγριέλαιος : ‘the wild olive.’ The olive, like the apple and most
other fruit trees, requires to have a graft from a cultivated tree,
otherwise the fruit of the seedling or sucker will be small and
valueless. The ungrafted tree is the natural or wild olive. It is
often confused with the oleaster (Eveagnus angusiifoltus), but quite
incorrectly, this being a plant of a different natural order, which
however like the olive yields oil, although of an inferior character.
See Tristram, Natural List. of the Bible, pp. 371-377.
ἐνεκεντρίσθης ἐν αὐτοῖς : ‘wert grafted in amongst the branches of
the cultivated olive.’ St. Paul is here describing a wholly unnatural
process, Grafts must necessarily be of branches from a cultivated
olive inserted into a wild stock, the reverse process being one
which would be valueless and is never performed. But the whole
strength of St. Paul’s argument depends upon the process being
an unnatural one (cf. ver. 24 καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ἐνεκεντρίσθης); it is
beside the point therefore to quote passages from classical writers,
which, even if they seem to support St. Paul’s language, describe
a process which can never be actually used. They could only show
the ignorance of others, they would not justify him. Cf.Origen viii. 10,
p- 265 Sed ne hoc quidem lateat nos in hoc loco, quod non eo ordine
Apostolus olivae εἰ oleastrt similitudinem posuit, quo apud agricolas
habetur, Illi enim magts oltvam oleastro inserere, ef non oltvae
oleastrum solent: Paulus vero Apostolica auctoritate ordine com-
mutato res magis causts, quam causas rebus aplavit.
συγκοινωνός : Σ Cor. ix. 23; Phil. i. 1; and cf. Eph. iii. 6 εἶναι τὰ
ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμα καὶ συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Χριστῷ
᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.
τῆς ῥίζης τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας : comp. Jud. ix. 9 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς
ἡ ἐλαία, Μὴ ἀπολείψασα τὴν πιότητά pov... πορεύσομαι; Zest. XI.
Pat. Levi, 8 ὁ πέμπτος κλάδον poe ἐλαίας ἔδωκε πιότητος. The
genitive τῆς πιότητος is taken by Weiss as a genitive of quality, as
in the quotation above, and so the phrase comes to mean ‘ the fat
root of the olive.’ Lips. explains ‘the root from which the fatness
of the olive springs.’
The genitive τῆς πιότητος seemed clumsy and unnatural to later revisers,
and so was modified either by the insertion of καί after ῥίζης, as in Ne A and
later MSS. with Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Chrys., or by the omission
of τῆς ῥίζης in Western authorities Ὁ F G Ircn.-lat.
18. μὴ κατακαυχῶ τῶν κλάδων. St. Paul seems to be thinking οἱ
Gentile Christians who despised the Jews, both such as had
become believers and such as had not. The Church of Corinth
could furnish many instances of new converts who were carried
XI. 18-23.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 326
away by a feeling of excessive confidence, and who, partly on
grounds of race, partly because they had understood or thought
they had understood the Pauline teaching of ἐλευθερία, were full of
contempt for the Jewish Christians and the Jewish race. Inci-
dentally St. Paul takes the opportunity of rebuking such as them.
οὐ σὺ τὴν ῥίζαν «rd. ‘All your spiritual strength comes from
the stock on which you have been grafted.’ In the ordinary process
it may be when a graft of the cultivated olive is set on a wild stock
the goodness of the fruit comes from the graft, but in this case it is
the reverse ; any merit, any virtue, any hope of salvation that the
Gentiles may have arises entirely from the fact that they are grafted
on a stock whose roots are the Patriarchs and to which the Jews,
by virtue of their birth, belong.
19. ἐρεῖς οὖν The Gentile Christian justifies his feeling of
confidence by reminding St. Paul that branches (κλάδοι, not ol
κλάδοι) had been cut off to let him in: therefore, he might argue,
I am of more value than they, and have grounds for my self-
confidence and contempt.
20. καλῶς. St. Paul admits the statement, but suggests that the
Gentile Christian should remember what were the conditions on
which he was admitted. The Jews were cast off for want of faith, he
was admitted for faith, ‘There was no merit of his own, therefore
he has no grounds for over-confidence: ‘Be not high-minded ;
rather fear, for if you trust in your merit instead of showing faith
in Christ, you will suffer as the Jews did for their self-confidence
and want of faith.’
AL εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς κι. This explains the reason which made
it right that they should fear. ‘The Jews—the natural branches—
disbelieved and were not spared; is it in any way likely that you,
if you disbelieve, will be spared when they were not—you who have
not any natural right or claim to the position you now occupy ?’
οὐδέ σου φείσεται is the correct reading (with N ABC P min. pauc., Boh.,
Orig.-lat., &c.); either because the direct future seemed too strong or under
the influence of the Latin (me forte nec t1bi parcat Vulg. and Iren.-lat.) μήπως
οὐδέ σον was read by DF GL &c., Syrr. Chrys. &c., then φείσεται was changed
into φείσηται (min. pauc. and Chrys.) for the sake of the grammar, and found
its way into the TR.
22. The Apostle sums up this part of his argument by deducing
from this instance the two sides of the Divine character. God is full
of goodness (χρηστότης, cf. ii. 4) and loving-kindness towards man-
kind, and that has been shown by His conduct towards those
Gentiles who have been received into the Christian society. That
goodness will always be shown towards them if they repose their
confidence on it, and do not trust in their own merits or the
privileged position they enjoy. On the other hand the treatment
of the Jews shows the severity which also belongs to the character
380 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΧΙ]. 22-24
of God; a severity exercised against them just because they trusted
in themselves. God can show the same severity against the Gentiles
and cut them off as well as the Jew.
dsoropla and χρηστότης should be read in the second of the verse,
with 8 ABC Orig. Jo.-Damasc. against the accusative of the Western and
Syrian text. D a mixed reading, dworopiay and χρηστότης: the as-
similation was easier in the first word than in the second. The Θεοῦ after
χρηστότης is omitted by later MSS. with Clem.-Alex., Orig. from a desire
for uniformity.
ἐὰν ἐπιμείνῃςξ. The condition of their enjoying this goodness is
that they trust in it, and not in their position.
καὶ σύ: emphatic like the ἐγώ of ver. 19 ‘ You too as well as the
ews.’
} 48. St. Paul now turns from the warning to the Gentile Christians,
which was to a certain extent incidental, to the main subject of the
paragraph, the possibility of the return of the Jews to the Divine
Kingdom ; their grafting into the Divine stock.
καὶ ἐκεῖνοι δέ : ‘yes, and they too.’
24. This verse sums up the main argument. If God is so
powerful that by a purely unnatural process (παρὰ φύσιν) He can
graft a branch of wild olive into a stock of the cultivated plant, so
that it should receive nourishment from it; can He not equally well,
nay far more easily, reingraft branches which have been cut off
the cultivated olive into their own stock? The restoration οἱ
Israel is an easier process than the call of the Gentiles,
The Merits of the Fathers.
In what sense does St. Paul say that Israelites are holy because
the stock from which they come is holy (ver. 16), that they are
ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας (ver. 28)? He might almost seem to be
taking up himself the argument he has so often condemned, that
the descent of the Jews from Abraham is sufficient ground for
their salvation.
The greatness of the Patriarchs had become one of the common-
places of Jewish Theology. For them the world was created (Apuc.
Baruch, xxi. 24). They had been surrounded by a halo of myth
and romance in popular tradition and fancy (see the note on iv. 3),
and very early the idea seems to have prevailed that their virtues
had a power for others as well as for themselves. Certainly Ezekiel
in the interests of personal religion has to protest against some
such view: ‘ Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were
in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness,
saith the Lord God’ (Ezek. xiv. 14). We know how this had
developed by the time of our Lord, and the cry had arisen: ‘We
432 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ([XI. 3δ-86
he was accounted righteous before God, is a guarantee that the
same Faith can be developed in his descendants. After all it is
because they are a religious race, clinging too blindly to their own
views, that they are rejected, and not because they are irreligious.
They have a zeal for God, if not according to knowledge. When
the day comes that that zeal is enlisted in the cause of the Messiah,
the world will be won for Christ; and that it will be so enlisted the
sanctity and the deep religious instinct of the Jewish stock as
exhibited by the Patriarchs is, if not certain proof, at any rate evi-
dence which appeals with strong moral force.
MERCY TO ALL THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF GOD.
XI. 25-36. All this ts the unfolding of a mystery. The
whole world, both Few and Gentile, shall enter the Kingdom,
but a passing phase of disobedience has been allowed to the
Fews now, as to the Gentiles in the past, that both alike, few
as well as Gentile, may need and receive the Divine mercy
(vv. 25-32). What a stupendous exhibition of the Divine
mercy and wisdom (vv. 33-36)!
* But I must declare to you, my brethren, the purpose hitherto
concealed, but now revealed in these dealings of God with His
people. I must not leave you ignorant. I must guard you
against self-conceit on this momentous subject. That hardening
of heart which has come upon Israel is only partial and temporary.
It is to last only until the full complement of the Gentiles has
entered into Christ’s kingdom. ™ When this has come about then the
whole people of Israel shall be saved. So Isaiah (lix. 20) described
the expected Redeemer as one who should come forth from the
Holy city and should remove impieties from the descendants of
Jacob, and purify Israel: 7 he would in fact fulfil God’s covenant
with His people, and that would imply, as Isaiah elsewhere explains
(xxvii. 9), a time when God would forgive Israel’s sins. This is
our ground for believing that the Messiah who has come will bring
salvation to Israel, and that He will do it by exercising the Divine pre-
rogative of forgiveness; if Israel now needs forgiveness this only
makes us more confident of the truth of the prophecy. ™In the
Divine plan, according to which the message of salvation has been
preached, the Jews are treated as enemies of God, that room may
334 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΧΙ. 25
he declares not merely as the result of his argument, but as an
authoritative revelation, the mystery of the Divine purpose.
25. ob γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν: cf. i. 13; 1 Cor.x. 15; xii. 1; a Cor.
i. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 13: a phrase used by St. Paul to emphasize
something of especial importance which he wishes to bring home
to his readers. It always has the impressive addition of ‘ brethren.’
The ydp connects the verse immediately with what precedes, but
also with the general argument. St. Paul's argument is like
a ladder; each step follows from what precedes; but from time to
time there are, as it were, resting-places which mark a definite
point gained towards the end he has in view.
τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτος On the meaning of ‘mystery’ in St. Paul
see Lightfoot, Colossians, i. 26; Hatch, Ess. sn Bibl. Gk. p. 57 ff.
Just at the time when Christianity was spreading, the mysteries as
professing to reveal something more than was generally known,
especially about the future state, represented the most popular form
of religion, and from them St. Paul borrows much of his phraseology.
So in Col. i. 28, 1 Cor. ii. 6 we have τέλειον, in Phil. iv. 12
μεμύημαι, in Eph.i. 13 σφραγίζεσθαι; so in Ign. Ephes. 12 Παῦλον
σύμμνσται. But whereas among the heathen μυστήριον was always
used of a mystery concealed, with St. Paul it is a mystery revealed.
It is his mission to make known the Word of God, the mystery
which has been kept silent from eternal ages, but has now been
revealed to mankind (1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii. 3, 4; Rom. xvi. as).
This mystery, which has been declared in Christianity, is the eternal
purpose of God to redeem mankind in Christ, and all that is im-
plied in that. Hence it is used of the Incarnation (1 Tim. iii. 16),
of the crucifixion of Christ (1 Cor. ii. 1, 7), of the Divine purpose
to sum up all things in Him (Eph. i. 9), and especially of the
inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom (Eph, iii. 3, 4; Col. i. 26,
27; Rom. xvi. 25). Here it is used in a wide sense of the whole
plan or scheme of redemption as revealed to St. Paul, by which
Jews and Gentiles alike are to be included in the Divine Kingdom,
and all things are working up, although in ways unseen and
unknown, to that end.
ἵνα μὴ fre wap ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι : ‘that you may not be wise in
your own conceits,’ i.e. by imagining that it is in any way through
your own merit that you have accepted what others have refused:
it has been part of the eternal purpose of God.
ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ought probably to be read with A B, Jo.-Damasc. instead of wap!
ἑαυτοῖς NC Ὁ L &c., Chrys. &c., as the latter would probably be introduced
from xii. 16. Both expressions occur in the LXX. Is. v. 21 of συνετοὶ ἐν
ἑαυτοῖς, Prov. iii. 7 μὴ ἴσθι φρόνιμος παρὰ σεαντῷ.
πώρωσις κιτὰλ.: ‘a hardening in part’ (cf. ἐκ μέρους τ Cor. xii. 27).
St. Paul asserts once more what he has constantly insisted on
throughout this chapter, that this fall of the Jews is only partial
XI. 25, 26.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 335
(cf. wv. δ, 7, 17), but here he definitely adds a point to which he
been working up in the previous section, that it is only tem-
porary and that the limitation in time is ‘until all nations of the
earth come into the kingdom’; cf. Luke xxi. 24 ‘and Jerusalem
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the
Gentiles be fulfilled.’
τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν: the full completed number, the comple-
ment of the Gentiles, i.e. the Gentile world as a whole, just as in
ver. 12 rd πλήρωμα is the Jewish nation as a whole.
There was a Jewish basis to these speculations on the completed number.
Apoc. Baruch xxiii. 4 guia quando peccavit Adam et decreta ὟΝ mors contra
ces gui gignerentur, tunc numerata est multitudo eorum gi gignerentur,
et numero ills pracparatus est locus ubi habitarent viventes et ubt custe-
Girentur mortus, nisi ergo compleatur numerus pracdictus son vivet creatura
4 (5) Ezra ii. 40, 41 (where Jewish ideas underlie a Christian work)
recipe, Sion, numeram tuum ef conclude candidatos tuos, gut legem Domins
comp : filtorum tuorum, quos optabas, plenus est numerus: vega
imperium Domini ul sanctificetur populus tuus gus vocatus est ab initio.
εἰσέλθῃ was used almost technically of entering into the Kingdom
or the Divine glory or life (cf. Matt. vii. a1; xviii. 8; Mark ix.
43-47.), and so came to be used absolutely in the same sense
(Matt. vii. 13; xxiii. 13; Luke xiii. 24).
26. καὶ οὕτω: ‘and 50,’ i.e. by the whole Gentile world coming
into the kingdom and thus rousing the Jews to jealousy, cf. ver. 11 f.
These words ought to form a new sentence and not be joined
with the preceding, for the following reasons: (1) the reference of
οὕτω is to the sentence ἄχρις οὗ «.r.A. We must not therefore
make οὕτω... σωθήσεται coordinate with mapwors ... γέγονεν and
subordinate to ὅτι, for if we did so οὕτω would be explained by
the sentence with which it is coordinated, and this is clearly not
St. Paul’s meaning. He does not mean that Israel will be saved
because it is hardened. (2) The sentence, by being made in-
dependent, acquires much greater emphasis and force.
πᾶς ᾿Ισραήλ. In what sense are these words used? (1) The
whole context shows clearly that it is the actual Israel of history
that is referred to. This is quite clear from the contrast with ré
πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν in ver. 25, the use of the term Israel in the same
verse, and the drift of the argument in vw. 17-24. It cannot be
interpreted either of the spiritual Israel, as by Calvin, or the
remnant according to the election‘of grace, or such Jews as believe,
or all who to the end of the world shall turn unto the Lord.
(2) was must be taken in the proper meaning of the word:
‘Israel as a whole, Israel as a nation, and not as necessarily in-
cluding every individual Israelite. Cf. 1 Kings xii. 1 καὶ εἶπε
Σαμονὴλ πρὸς πάντα “lopand: 2 Chron. Xii. 1 ἐγκατέλιπε ras ἐντολὰς
ἹΚυρίου καὶ πᾶς ᾿Ισραὴλ per αὐτοῦ : ὨΔΠ.ἸΧ. 11 καὶ πᾶς ᾿Ισραὴλ παρέβησαν
τὸν νόωον σὺν καὶ ἐξέκλιναν τοῦ μὴ ἀκοῦσαι τῆς φωνῆς σον.
336 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 26, 27.
σωθήσεται : ‘shall attain the σωτηρία of the Messianic age by
being received into the Christian Church’: the Jewish conception
of the Messianic σωτηρία being fulfilled by the spiritual σωτηρία of
Christianity. Cf. x. 13.
So the words of St. Paul mean simply this. The people of
Israel as a nation, and no longer ἀπὸ μέρους, shall be united with
the Christian Church. They do not mean that every Israelite shall
finally be saved. Of final salvation St. Paul is not now thinking,
nor of God’s dealings with individuals, nor does he ask about those
who are already dead, or who will die before this salvation of
Israel is attained. He is simply considering God’s dealings with
the nation asa whole. As elsewhere throughout these chapters,
St. Paul is dealing with peoples and classes of men. He looks
forward in prophetic vision to a time when the whole earth.
including the kingdoms of the Gentiles (rd πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν) and
the people of Israel (was ἸΙσραήλ), shall be united in the Church οἱ
God.
26, 27. καθὼς γέγραπται. The quotation is taken from the
LXX of Is. lix, 20, the concluding words being added from Is.
xxvii. 9. The quotation is free: the only important change, how-
ever, is the substitution of ἐκ Σιών for the ἕνεκεν Σιών Of the LXX.
The Hebrew reads ‘and a Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto
them that turn from transgression in Jacob.’ The variation
apparently comes from Ps. xiii. 7, lil. ἡ (LXX) ris δώσει ἐκ Σιὼν τὸ
σωτήριον τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ ;
The passage occurs in the later portion of Isaiah, just where the
Prophet dwells most fully on the high spiritual destinies of Israel;
and its application to the Messianic kingdom is in accordance with
the spirit of the original and with Rabbinic interpretation. St. Paul
uses the words to imply that the Redeemer, who is represented by
the Prophets as coming from Zion, and is therefore conceived by
him as realized in Christ, will in the end redeem the whole of Israel.
The passage, as quoted, implies the complete purification of Israel
from their iniquity by the Redeemer and the forgiveness of their
sins by God.
In these speculations St. Paul was probably strongly influenced,
at any rate as to their form, by Jewish thought. The Rabbis con-
nected these passages with the Messiah: cf. Zract, Sanhedrin, f.
98. 1 ‘R. Jochanan said: When thou shalt see the time in which
many troubles shall come like a river upon Israel, then expect the
Messiah himself as says Is. lix. rg.’ Moreover a universal restora-
tion of Israel was part of the current Jewish expectation. All
Israel should be collected together. There was to be a kingdom
in Palestine, and in order that Israel as a whole might share in
this there was to be a general resurrection. Nor was the belief in
the coming in of the fulness of the Gentiles without parallet
XI. 26—-29.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 337
Although later Judaism entirely denied all hope to the Gentiles,
much of the Judaism of St. Paul’s day still maintained the O. T.
belief (Is. xiv. 2; Ixvi. 12, 19-21; Dan. ii. 44; vii. 14, 27). So
Enoch xc. 33 ‘And all that had been destroyed and dispersed and
all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the heaven assembled
in that house, and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced with great joy
because they were all good and had returned to his house.’ Orae.
Sibyl. iii. 710 f. καὶ τότε δὴ νῆσοι πᾶσαι πόλιες τ᾽ épéovow .. . δεῦτε,
πεσόντες ἅπαντες ἐπὶ χθονὶ λισσώμεσθα ἀθάνατον βασιλῆα, θεὸν μέγαν
dévady τε. Ps. Sol. xvii. 33-35 ‘And he shall purge Jerusalem and
make it holy, even as it was in the days of old, so that the nations
may come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, bringing as
gifts her sons that had fainted, and may see the glory of the Lord,
wherewith God hath glorified her.’ The centre of this kingdom
will be Jerusalem (compare the extract given above), and it is
perhaps influenced by these conceptions that St. Paul in ix. 26
inserts the word ‘there’ and here reads ἐκ Σιών. If this be so, it
shows how, although using so much of the forms and language of
current conceptions, he has spiritualized just as he has broadened
them. Gal. iv. 26 shows that he is thinking of a Jerusalem which
is above, very different from the purified earthly Jerusalem of the
Rabbis; and this enables us to see how here also a spiritual
conception underlies much of his language.
ὁ ῥυόμενος : Jesus as the Messiah. Cf. 1 Thess. i. ro.
27. καὶ αὕτη «.t.A.: ‘and whensoever I forgive their sins then
shall my side of the covenant I have made with them be fulfilled.’
28. κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον: ‘as regards the Gospel order, the
principles by which God sends the Gospel into the world.’ This
verse sums up the argument of vv. 11-24.
ηὖρε: treated by God as enemies and therefore shut off from
m.
δι᾿ ὑμᾶς : ‘for your sake, in order that you by their exclusion
may be brought into the Messianic Kingdom.’
κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογήν: ‘as regards the principle of election :’
‘ because they are the chosen race.’ That this is the meaning is
shown by the fact that the word is parallel to εὐαγγέλιον. It cannot
mean here, as in wv. 5, 6, ‘as regards the elect, i.e. the select
remnant. It gives the grounds upon which the chosen people were
beloved. With ἀγαπητοί, cf. ix. 25; the quotation there probably
suggested the word.
διὰ τοὺς πατέρας : cf. ix. 4; xi. 16f.: ‘for the sake of the Patri-
archs’ from whom the Israelites have sprung and who were weli-
pleasing to God.
29. St. Paul gives the reason for believing that God will not
desert the people whom He has called, and chosen, and on whom
He has showered His Divine blessings. It lies in the unchangeable
z
338 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 20-32
nature of God: He does not repent Him of the choice that He has
made.
ἀμεταμέλητα: 2 Cor. vii. το. The Divine gifts, such as have
been enumerated in ix. 4, δ, and such as God has showered upon
the Jews, bear the impress of the Giver. As He is not one who
will ever do that for which He will afterwards feel compunctioa,
His feelings of mercy towards the Jews will never change.
4 κλῆσις : the calling to the Kingdom.
80. The grounds for believing that God does not repent for the
gifts that He has given may be gathered from the parallelism
between the two cases of the Jews and the Gentiles, in one of which
His purpose has been completed, in the other not so. The Gentile
converts were disobedient once, as St. Paul has described at length
in the first chapter, but yet God has now shown pity on them, and
to accomplish this He has taken occasion from the disobedience of
the Jews: the same purpose and the same plan of providence may
be seen also in the case of the Jews. God's plan is to make dis-
obedience an opportunity of showing mercy. The disobedience
of the Jews, like that of the Gentiles, had for its result the manifesta-
tion of the mercy of God.
The ὑμεῖς shows that this verse is written, as is all this chapter,
with the thought of Gentile readers prominently before the writer's
mind.
81. τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει : ‘by that same mercy which was shown to
you.’ Ifthe Jews had remained true to their covenant God would
have been able on His side merely to exhibit fidelity to the
covenant, As they have however been disobedient, they equally
with the Gentiles are recipients of the Divine mercy. These words
τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει GO with ἐλεηθῶσι, cf. Gal. ii. 10; 2 Cor. xii. 7, as is
shown by the parallelism of the two clauses
νῦν δὲ ἠλεήθητε τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ
τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ νῦν ἐλεηθῶσι.
This parallelism of the clauses may account for the presence of
the second νῦν with ἔλεηθῶσι, which should be read with & B D, Boh.,
Jo. Damasce. It was omitted by Syrian and some Western authorities
(AEFG, &c. Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. rell.) because it
seemed hardly to harmonize with facts. The authorities for it
are too varied for it to be an accidental insertion arising from a
repetition of the previous νῦν.
82. St. Paul now generalizes from these instances the character
of God’s plan, and concludes his argument with a maxim which
solves the riddle of the Divine action. There is a Divine purpose
in the sin of mankind described in i. 18-iii. 20; there is a Divine
840 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΧῚ. 88-δ6.
in their special relations, what we call Philosophy : the latter an
intuitive penetrating perception of particular truths (see Lft. on
Col. i. 9).
δ ένητα: Prov. xxv. 3, Sym.; and perhaps Jer. xvii. 9, Sym.
(Field, Hexapla, ii. 617), ‘unsearchable’; κρίματα, not judicial de-
cisions, but judgements on the ways and plans of life. Cf. Ecclus.
XVli. 12 διαθήκην αἰῶνος ἔστησεν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ ὑπέδειξεν
avrots.
ἀνεξιχνίαστοι : ‘that cannot be traced out,’ Eph. iii. 8; Job v. 9;
ix. 10; xxxiv. 24. This passage seems to have influenced 1 Clem.
Rom. xx. 5 ἀβύσσων re ἀνεξιχνίαστα... . . συνέχεται προστάγμασιν.
84. τίς γὰρ ἔγνω κατ. This is taken from Is, xl. 13, varying
only very slightly from the LXX. It is quoted also 1 Cor. i. 16.
85. ἢ τίς προέδωκεν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἀνταποδοθήσεται αὐτῷ; taken from
Jobxli. 11, but not the LXX, which reads (ver. 2) ris ἀντιστήσεταί μοι καὶ
Umopevec; The Hebrew (RV.) reads, ‘ Who hath first given unto me
that I should repay him?’ It is interesting to notice that the only
other quotation in St. Paul which varies very considerably from the
LXX is also taken from the book of Job (1 Cor. iii. 19, cf Job v. 13),
see p. 302. This verse corresponds to ὦ βάθος πλούτους ‘So rich
are the spiritual gifts of God, that none can make any return, and
He needs no recompense for what He gives,’
86. God needs no recompense, for all things that are exist in
Him, all things come to man through Him, and to Him all return.
He is the source, the agent, and the final goal of all created things
and all spiritual life.
Many commentators have attempted to find in these words
a reference to the work of the different persons of the Trinity (see
esp. Liddon, who restates the argument in the most successful
form). But (1) the prepositions do not suit this interpretation:
δι᾿ αὐτοῦ indeed expresses the attributes of the Son, but εἰς αὐτόν
can not naturally or even possibly be used of the Spirit. (2) The
whole argument refers to a different line of thought. It is the
relation of the Godhead as a whole to the universe and to created
things. God (not necessarily the Father) is the source and inspirer
and goal of all things.
This fundamental assumption of the infinite character of the Divine
wisdom was one which St. Paul would necessarily inherit from Judaism.
It is expressed most clearly and definitely in writings produced immediately
after the fall of Jerusalem, when the pious Jew who still preserved a belief
in the Divine favour towards Israel could find no hope or solution of the
problem but in a tenacious adherence to what he could hold only by faith.
God's ways are deeper and more wonderful than man could ever understand
or fathom: only this was certain—that there was a Divine purpose of love
towards Jsrael which would be shown in God's own time. ere are many
resemblances to St. Paul, not only in thought but in expression. A fee.
Baruch xiv. 8, 9 Sed quis, Dominator Domine, assequetur tudictum tuum!
aul quis investigabit profundum viae tuac? aut quis supputabit gravitatem
342 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1Χ-- ΧΙ
his point of view our starting-point must be the conclusion he
arrives at. This, as expressed at the end of ch. xi, is that God
wishes to show His mercy upon all alike; that the world as a whole,
the fulness of the Gentiles and all Israel, will come into the Messianic
Kingdom and be saved; that the realization of this end is a mystery
which has now been revealed, and that all this shows the greatness
of the Divine wisdom ; a wisdom which is guiding all things to their
final consummation by methods and in ways which we can only
partially follow.
The question at issue which leads St. Paul to assert the Divine
purpose is the fact which at this time had become apparent ; Israel
as a nation was rejected from the Christian Church. If faith in
the Messiah was to be the condition of salvation, then the mass of
the Jews were clearly excluded. The earlier stages of the argu-
ment have been sufficiently explained. St. Paul first proves (ix.
6—29) that in this rejection God had been neither untrue to His
promise nor unjust. He then proves (ix. 30-x. 13) that the Israelites
were themselves guilty, for they had rejected the Messiah, although
they had had full and complete knowledge of His message, and
full warning. But yet there is a third aspect from which the
rejection of Israel may be regarded—that of the Divine purpose.
What has been the result of this rejection of Israel? It has led to
the calling of the Gentiles,—this is an historical fact, and guided
by it we can see somewhat further into the future. Here is
a case where St. Paul can remember how different had been the
result of his own failure from what he hadexpected. He can appeal
to his own experience. There was a day, still vividly before his
mind, when in the Pisidian Antioch, full of bitterness and a sense
of defeat, he had uttered those memorable words ‘ from henceforth
we will goto the Gentiles.’ This had seemed at the moment a con-
fession that his work was not being accomplished. Now he can see
the Divine purpose fulfilled in the creation of the great Gentile
churches, and arguing from his own experience in this one case,
where God’s purpose has been signally vindicated, he looks
forward into the future and believes that, by ways other than we
can follow, God is working out that eternal purpose which is part
of the revelation he has to announce, the reconciliation of the world
to Himself in Christ. He concludes therefore with this ascription
of praise to God for His wisdom and mercy, emphasizing the
belief which is at once the conclusion and the logical basis of his
argument.
St. Paul's Philosophy of History.
The argument then of this section of the Epistle is not a dis-
cussion of the principles on which grace is given to mankind, but
a philosophy of History. In the short concluding doxology to
$44 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Tx-xI
a knowledge of right and wrong before Moses, there was an
increase in knowledge after him ; but yet the stages do definitely
exist. And they may be found also running through the whole of
history; they are not confined to the Jewish people. The stage of
primitive ignorance is one through which presumably every race
of men has passed; some in fact have not yet passed beyond it:
but there has been progress upwards, and the great principle
which has accompanied and made possible that progress is Law.
The idea of Law in St. Paul is clearly not exhausted in the Jewish
law, although that of course is the highest example of it. All
peoples have been under law in some form. It is a great holy
beneficent principle, but yet it is one which may become a burden.
It is represented by the law of the conscience; it is witnessed by
the moral judgements which men have in all ages passed on one
another ; it is embodied in codes and ordinances and bodies of law;
it is that in fact which distinguishes for men the difference between
right and wrong. The principle has worked, or is working,
among mankind everywhere, and is meant to be the preparation of,
as it creates the need for, the highest revelation, that of the Gospel.
(2) These three stages represent the first point in St. Paul's
scheme of history. A second point is the idea of Election or
Selection, or rather that of the ‘ Purpose of God which worketh
by Selection.’ God did not will to redeem mankind ‘ by a nod
as He might have done, for that, as Athanasius puts it, would be to
undo the work of creation; but He accepts the human conditions
which He has created and uses them that the world may work out
its own salvation. So, as St. Paul feels, He has selected Israel to
be His chosen people; they have become the depositary of Divine
truth and revelation, that through them, when the fulness of time
has come, the world may receive Divine knowledge. This is clearly
the conception underlying St. Paul’s teaching, and looking back from
the vantage ground of History we can see how true it is. To use
modern phraseology, an ‘ethical monotheism’ has been taught the
world through the Jewish race and through it alone. And St. Paul’s
principle may be extended further. He himself speaks of the ‘ fulness
of time,’ and it is no unreal philosophy to believe that the purpose
of God has shown itself in selecting other nations also for excel-
lence in other directions, in art, in commerce, in science, in states-
manship; that the Roman Empire was built up in order to
create a sphere in which the message of the Incarnation might
work; that the same purpose has guided the Church in the
centuries which have followed. An historian like Renan would
tell us that the freer development of the Christian Church was only
made possible by the fall of Jerusalem and the divorce from
Judaism. History tells us how the Arian persecutions occasioned
the conversion of the Goths, and how the division of the Church
346 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Σ- πὶ
supply a solution of many problems. Why does God allow sin?
Why does He shut up men under sin? It is that ultimately He
may exhibit the depths of His Divine mercy. We may feel that
some such scheme of the course of history as was sketched out
above explains for us much that is difficult, but yet we always
come back to an initial question, Why does God allow such a state
of affairs to exist? We may grant that it comes from the free-will
of man; but if God be almighty He must have created man with
that free-will. We may speak of His limitation of His own powers,
and of His Redemption of man without violating the conditions of
human life and nature; but if He be almighty, it is quite clear
that He could have prevented all sin and misery by a single act.
What answer can we make? We can only say, as St. Paul does,
that it is that He may reveal the Divine mercy; if man had not been
created so as to need this mercy, we should never have known the
Love of God as revealed in His Son. That is the farthest that
our speculations may legitimately go.
(4) But one final question. What evidence does St. Paul give
for a belief in the Divine purpose in history? It is twofold. On
' the one hand, within the limited circle of our own knowledge or
experience, we can see that things have unexpectedly and wonder-
fully worked out 80 as to indicate a purpose. That was St. Paul’s
experience in the preaching to the Gentiles. Where we have more
perfect knowledge and can see the end, there we see God’s purpose
working. And on the other hand our hypothesis is a God of
infinite power and wisdom. If we have faith in this intellectual
conception, we believe that, where we cannot understand, our failure
arises from the limitations not of God’s power and will, but of our
own intelligence.
An illustration may serve to bring this home. We can read
in such Jewish books as 4 Ezra or the Apocalypse of Baruch the
bewilderment and confusion of mind of a pious Jew at the fall
of Jerusalem. Every hope and aspiration that he had seems
shattered. But looked at from the point of view of Christianity,
and the wider development of Christianity, that was an inevitable
and a necessary step in the progress of the Church. If we believe
in a Divine purpose in history, we can see it working here quite
clearly. Yet to many a contemporary the event must have been
inexplicable. We can apply the argument to our time. In the
past, where we can trace the course of events, we have evidence of
the working of a Divine purpose, and so in the present, where so
much is obscure and dark, we can believe that there is still a Divine
purpose’ working, and that all the failures and misfortunes and
rebuiis of the time are yet steps towards a higher end. Z% dix
ad me: Inito terrent orbis ef antequam starent exitus saecult..., εἰ
antequam investigarentur praesentes anni, εἴ antequam abalienarentur
348 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ῚΧ-χι.
support of or against universalism; on the one side we have
statements such as those in a later Epistle (x Tim. ii. 4) ‘God our
Saviour, who willeth that all men should be saved and come to the
knowledge of the truth’; or again, ‘He has shut allup to disobedience,
but that He might have mercy upon all’ (Rom. xi. 32). On the
other side there is a strong assertion of ‘ wrath in the day of wrath
and revelation of the righteous judgement of God, who will render
to every man according to his works;... unto them that are fac-
tious and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and
indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that
worketh evil’ (ii. 5-9). St. Paul asserts both the goodness and the
severity of God. He does not attempt to reconcile them, nor need
we. He lays down very clearly and definitely the fact of the Divine
judgement, and he brings out prominently three characteristics of it:
that it is in accordance with works, or perhaps more correctly on
the basis of works, that is of a man’s whole life and career; that it
will be exercised by a Judge of absolute impartiality, —there is no
respect of persons; and that it is in accordance with the oppor-
tunities which a man has enjoyed. For the rest we must leave the
solution, as he would have done, to that wisdom and knowledge
and mercy of God of which he speaks at the close of the eleventh
chapter.
There is an equal inconsistency in St. Paul's language regarding
Divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Ch. ix implies argu-
ments which take away Free-will; ch. x is meaningless without the
presupposition of Free-will. And such apparent inconsistency of
language and ideas pervades all St. Paul’s Epistles. ‘ Work out your
own salvation, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do
of His good pleasure’ (Phil. ii. 12,13). Contrast again ‘God gave
them up unto a reprobate mind,’ and ‘wherefore thou art without
excuse’ (Rom. i. 18; ii. 1). Now two explanations of this language
are possible. It may be held (as does Fritzsche, see p. 275) that
St. Paul is unconscious of the inconsistency, and that it arises
from his inferiority in logic and philosophy, or (as Meyer) that he
is in the habit of isolating one point of view, and looking at the
question from that point of view alone. This latter view is correct ;
or rather, for reasons which will be given below, it can be held and
stated more strongly. The antinomy, if we may call it so, of
chaps. ix and x is one which is and must be the characteristic
of all religious thought and experience.
(1) That St. Paul recognized the contradiction, and held it
consciously, may be taken as proved by the fact that his view
was shared by that sect of the Jews among whom he had been
brought up, and was taught in those schools in which he had
been instructed. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees attributed
everything to Fate and God, but that yet the choice of right and
$50 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [:Χ- ΣΙ.
effectus causae παΐμγ αἱ ef divinae virlult attributtur, quast parkm
a Deo, partim a naturali agent fiat, sed totus ab utrogue secundum
ahum modum, sicul idem effectus totus altributtur instrumento, εἰ
principal agents etiam totus (16. Ixx). See also Summa Theologiae,
Pars Prima, cv. art. §; Prima Secundae, cxiii).
This is substantially also the view taken by Mozley, On the Augustinian
Doctrine of Predestination. The result of his argument is summed up as
follows, pp. 326, 327: ‘Upon this abstract idea, then, of the Divine Power, as
an unlimited power, rose up the Augustinian doctrine of Predestination and
good; while upon the abstract idea of Free-will, as an unlimited faculty,
rose up the Pelagian theory. Had men perceived, indeed, more clearly and
really than they have done, their ignorance as human creatures, and the
relation in which the human reason stands to the great truths involved io
this question, they might have saved themselves the trouble of this whole
controversy. They would have seen that this question cannot be determined
absolutely, one way or another; that it lies between two great contradictory
truths, neither of which can be set aside, or made to give way to the other;
two opposing tendencies of thought, inherent in the human mind, which go
on side by side, and are able to be held and maintained together, although
thus opposite to each other, because they are only incipient, and not final
and complete truths ;—the preat truths, I mean, of the Divine Power on the
one side, and man’s Free-will, or his originality as an t, on the other.
And this is in fact, the mode in which this question is settled by the practical —
common-sense of mankind. ... The plain natural reason of mankind is thus
always large and comprehensive ; not afraid of inconsistency, but admitting
all truth which presents itself to its notice. It is only when minds begin to
philosophize that they grow narrow,—that there begins to be felt the appeal
to consistency, and with it the temptation to exclude truths.’
(3) We can but state the two sides ; we cannot solve the problem.
But yet there is one conception in which the solution lies. It is in
a complete realization of what we mean by asserting that God is
Almighty. The two ideas of Free-will and the Divine sovereignty
cannot be reconciled in our own mind, but that does not prevent
them from being reconcilable in God’s mind. We are really
measuring Him by our own intellectual standard if we think
otherwise. And so our solution of the problem of Free-will, and
of the problems of history and of individual salvation, must finally
lie in the full acceptance and realization of what is implied by the
infinity and the omniscience of God.
THE NEW LIFE.
XII. 1, ἃ. With this wonderful programme of salvation
before you offer to God a sacrifice, not of slaughtered beasts,
but of your living selves, your own bodies, pure and free
from blemish, your spiritual service. Do not take pattern
352 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΧΙ1.}
practical results of his whole previous argument, yet (as often with
him, cf. xi. rr) the words are directly led up to by the conclusion
of the previous chapter and the narration of the wisdom and
mercy of God.
διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 3 ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν.
Oleripuds in the singular only occurs once (Col. iii. 12); the plural
is a Hebraism directly derived from the LXX (Ps. cxviii. 156 οἱ
οἰκτιρμοί σου πολλοί, κύριε, σφόδρα)η. There is a reference to the
preceding chapter, ‘As God has been so abundantly merciful to
both Jews and Greeks, offer a sacrifice to Him, and let that sacrifice
be one that befits His holiness.’
παραστῆσαι: a tech. term (although not in the O.T.) for presenting
a sacrifice: cf. Jos. Ant. 1V. vi. 4 βωμούς re ἐκέλευσεν ἑπτὰ δείμασθαι
τὸν βασιλέα, καὶ τοσούτους ταύρους καὶ κριοὺς παραστῆναι. The word
means to ‘ place beside,’ ‘ present’ for any purpose, and so is used
of the presentation of Christ in the temple (Luke ii. 22), of St. Paul
presenting his converts (Col. i. 28), or Christ presenting His
Church (Eph. v. 27), or of the Christian himself (cf. Rom. vi. 13 ff.).
In all these instances the idea of ‘ offering’ (which is one part of
sacrifice) is present.
τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν. To be taken literally, like τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν in vi. 13,
as is shown by the contrast with τοῦ νοός in ver. 2. ‘ Just as the
sacrifice in all ancient religions must be clean and without blemish,
so we must offer bodies to God which are holy and free from the
stains of passion.’ Christianity does not condemn the body, but
demands that the body shall be purified and be united with Christ
Our members are to be ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ Θεῷ (vi. 13); Our bodies
(τὰ σώματα) are to be μέλη Χριστοῦ (1 Cor. vi. 15); they are the
temple of the Holy Spirit (16. ver. 19); we are to be pure both in
body and in spirit (7d. vii. 34).
There is some doubt as to the order of the words εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ.
They occur in this order in N° BD EF GL and later MSS., Syrr. Boh. Sah.,
and Fathers; τῷ Θεῷ εὐ. in NAP, Vulg. The former is the more δι
expression, but St. Paul may have written τῷ Θεῷ ev. to prevent ambiguity,
for if τῷ Θεῷ comes at the end of the sentence there is some doubt as to
whether it should not be taken with παραστῆσαι.
θυσίαν ζῶσαν : cf. vi. 13 παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ Θεῷ, ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν
ζῶντας. The bodies presented will be those of men to whom new-
ness of life has been given by union with the risen Christ. The
relation to the Jewish rite is partly one of distinction, partly of
analogy. The Jewish sacrifice implies slaughter, the Christian
continued activity and life; but as in the Jewish rite all ritual
requirements must be fulfilled to make the sacrifice acceptable to
God, so in the Christian sacrifice our bodies must be holy, without
spot or blemish.
ἁγίαν, ‘ pure,’ ‘holy,’ ‘ free from stain,’ 1 Pet. i. 16; Lev. xix. 3
XII. 1, 2.| THE NEW LIFE $52
So the offering of the Gentiles (Rom. xv. 16) is ἡγιασμένη ἐν Ty, “Ay
(See on i. 7.)
εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ: cf. Phil. iv. 18 δεξάμενος παρὰ ᾿Επαφροδίτου τὰ
παρ᾽ ὑμῶν͵ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν δεκτήν, εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ : Rom. xiv. 18 ;
‘ Well-pleasing to God.’ The formal sacrifices of the old covenant
might not be acceptable to God: cf. Ps. li. 16, 17.
τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν. Acc. in apposition to the idea of the
sentence. Winer, ὃ lix. 9, p. 669, E. T.: cf. τ Tim. ii. 6 and the
note on viii. 3 above. A service to God such as befits the reason
(Adyos), i.e. a spiritual sacrifice and not the offering of an irrational
animal: cf. 1 Pet. ii. 5. The writer of Zest. XJ/. Pat. Levi 3
seems to combine a reminiscence of this passage with Phil. iv. 18:
speaking of the angels, he says προσφέρουσι δὲ Κυρίῳ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας
λογικὴν καὶ ἀναίμακτον προσφοράν.
We may notice the metaphorical use St. Paul makes of sacrificial
language: ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν Phil. ii. 17 ;
ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας (Lev. i. g) Phil. iv. 18; ὀσμή 2 Cor. ii. 14, 16; λει-
roupyds, lepoupyouvra, προσφορά Rom. xv. 16. This language passed
gradually and almost imperceptibly into liturgical use, and hence
acquired new shades of meaning (see esp. Lightfoot, Clement, i.
2. συσχηματίζεσθε.... μεταμορφοῦσθε, ‘ Do not adopt the external
and fleeting fashion of this world, but be ye transformed in your
inmost nature. On the distinction of σχῆμα and μορφή preserved in
these compounds see Lightfoot, Journal of Classical and Sacred
Philology, vol. ili. 1857, p. 114, PAlippians, p. 125. Comp. Chrys.
ad loc., ‘He says not change the fashion, but de éransformed, to
show that the world’s ways are a fashion, but virtue’s not a fashion,
but a kind of real form, with a natural beauty of its own, not needing
the trickeries and fashions of outward things, which no sooner
appear than they go to naught. For all these things, even before
they come to light, are dissolving. If then thou throwest the
fashion aside, thou wilt speedily come to the form.’
There is a preponderance of evidence in favour of the imperatives (συσχη
ματίζεσθε, μεταμ'ιρφοῦσθε) in this verse, B L P all the versions ‘Latt. Boh.
Syrr.), and most Fathers, against A D F G (N varies’. The evidence of the
Versions and of the Fathers, some of whom paraphrase, is particularly
important, as it removes the suspicion of itacism.
τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ‘this world,’ ‘this life,’ used in a moral sense.
When the idea of a future Messianic age became a part of the
Jewish Theology, Time, χρόνος, was looked upon as divided into
a succession of ages, αἰῶνες, periods or cycles of great but limited
duration; and the present age was contrasted with the age to
come, or the age of the Messiah (cf. Schiirer, ὃ 29. 9), a contrast
very common among early Christians: Matt. xii. 32 οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ
τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι: Luc. xx. 34, 35 οἱ viol τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου
Aa
854 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΙ]. 3.
oo 0 οἷ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν : Eph. i. 21 οὐ μόνον ὦ
τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι. So Enoch xvi. 1 μέχρις ἡμέραι
τελειώσεως τῆς κρίσεως τῆς μεγάλης, ἐν 7 6 αἰὼν ὁ μέγας τελεσθήσεται.
As the distinction between the present period and the future was
one between that which is transitory and that which is eternal,
between the imperfect and the perfect, between that in which οἱ
ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (1 Cor. ii. 6) have power and that in which
ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων (Enoch xii. 3) will rule, alé» like κόσμος in
St. John’s writings, came to have a moral significance: Gal. i, 4 ἐκ
τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ: Eph. ii. 2 περιεπατήσατε κατὰ τὸν
αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου : and so in this passage.
From the idea of a succession of ages (cf. Eph. ii. 7 ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσι
τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις) came the expression εἷς τοὺς αἰῶνας (xi. 36), or
αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων to express eternity, as an alternative for the older
form els τὸν alsva. The latter, which is the ordinary and original
O. T. form, arises (like αἰώνιος) from the older and original meaning
of the Hebrew ‘é/am, ‘the hidden time,’ ‘futurity,’ and contains
rather the idea of an unending period.
τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός : our bodies are to be pure and free from
all the stains of passion; our ‘mind’ and ‘intellect’ are to be no
longer enslaved by our fleshly nature, but renewed and purified by
the gift of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Tit. iii. § διὰ λουτροῦ παλεγγενεσίας
καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου : 2 Cor. iv. 16: Col. iii. το. On
the relation of ἀνακαίνωσις, ‘ renewal,’ to παλιγγενεσία see Trench, Syn.
§ 18. By this renewal the intellectual or rational principle will no
longer be a νοῦς σαρκός (Col. ii. 18), but will be filled with the
Spirit and coincident with the highest part of human nature
(1 Cor. ii. 15, 16). ᾿
δοκιμάζειν: cf. ii.18; Phil. i.ro. The result of this purification
is to make the intellect, which is the seat of moral judgement, true
and exact in judging on spiritual and moral questions.
τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, «.7.A., ‘That which is in accordance with
God's will.’ This is further defined by the three adjectives which
follow. It includes all that is implied in moral principle, in the
religious aim, and the ideal perfection which is the goal of life.
THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS.
XII. 3-8. Let every Christian be content with his proper
place and functions. The society to which we belong 1s
a single body with many members all related one to another.
Hence the prophet should not strain after effects for which
his faith ts insufficient; the minister, the teacher, the
exhorter, should each be intent on his special duty. The
358 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΧῚΣ. 8.
ὃ προϊστάμενος, the man that presides, or governs in any position,
whether ecclesiastical or other. The word is used of ecclesiastical
officials, 1 Thess. v.12; 1 Tim. v.17; Just. Mart. Afol.i. 67; and
of a man ruling his family (1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12), and need not be
any further defined. Zeal and energy are the natural gifts required
of any ruler.
ὃ ἐλεῶν. ‘Let any man or woman who performs deeds of mercy
in the church, do so brightly and cheerfully.” The value of bright-
ness in performing acts of kindness has become proverbial, Ecclus.
xxxii. (xxxv.) 11 ἐν πάσῃ δόσει ἱλάρωσον τὸ ποόσωπάν cov: Prov. xxii. 8
ἄνδρα ἱλαρὸν καὶ δότην εὐλογεῖ ὁ Θεός (Quoted 2 Cor. ix. 7); but just as
singleminded sincerity became an eminently Christian virtue, so
cheerfulness in all the paths of life, a cheerfulness which springs
from a warm heart, and a pure conscience and a serene mind set
on something above this world, was a special characteristic of the
early Christian (Acts ii. 46; v. 41; Phil. i. 4, 18; ii 18, &c.;
ε Thess. v. 16).
Spiritual Gifts.
The word χάρισμα (which is almost purely Pauline) is used of
those special endowments which come to every Christian as the
result of God’s free favour (χάρις) to men and of the consequent
gift of faith, In Rom. v. 15, vi. 13, indeed, it has a wider signifi-
cation, meaning the free gift on the part of God to man of forgive-
ness of sins and eternal life, but elsewhere it appears always to be
used for those personal endowments which are the gifts of the
Spirit. In this connexion it is not confined to special or con-
spicuous endowments or to special offices. There are, indeed,
ra χαρίσματα τὰ μείζονα (1 Cor. xii. 31), which are those apparently
most beneficial to the community; but in the same Epistle the word
is also used of the individual fitness for the married or the un-
married state (1 Cor. vii. 7); and in Rom. i. 13 it is used of the
spiritual advantage which an Apostle might confer on the com-
munity. So again, χαρίσματα include miraculous powers, but no
distinction is made between them and non-miraculous gifts. In
the passage before us there is the same combination of very
widely differing gifts; the Apostle gives specimens (if we may
express it so) of various Christian endowments; it is probable
that some of them were generally if not always the function of
persons specially set apart for the purpose (although not perhaps
necessarily holding ecclesiastical office), others would not be con-
fined to any one office, and many might be possessed by the same
person. St. Paul's meaning is: By natural endowments, strengthened
with the gifts of the Spirit, you have various powers and capacities:
in the use of these it is above all necessary for the good of the
360 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ X11. 9.
portion St. Paul is laying down broad and statesmanlike positions
which are the result of past experience and deal with circumstances
which may arise in any community.
MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.
XII. 9-21. The general principles of your life should be
a love which is perfectly sincere, depth of moral feeling,
consideration for others, zeal, fervour, devoutness, hopefulness,
fortitude under persecutions. prayerfulness, eagerness to help
your fellow-Christians by shaving what you possess with
them and by the veady exercise of hospitalsty.
Bless, do not curse, your persecutors. Sympathizse with
others. Be united in feeling, not ambitious but modest in
your aims. Be not self-opinionateda or vevengeful. Do
nothing to offend the world. Leave vengeance to God.
Good for evil ts the best requital.
9. ἡ ἀγάπη, cf. xiii. 8. The Apostle comes back from direc-
tions which only apply to individuals to the general direction to
Christian Charity, which will solve all previous difficulties. Euthym.-
Zig. διδάσκων yap was ἂν ra εἰρημένα κατορθωθείη, ἐπήγαγε τὴν μητέρα
πάντων τούτων, λέγω δὴ τὴν εἰς ἀλλήλους ἀγάπην. The sequence of
ideas is exactly similar to that in σ Cor. xii, xiii, and obviously
suggested by it. In the section that follows (9-21), ἀγάπη is the
ruling thought, but the Apostle does not allow himself to be con-
fined and pours forth directions as to the moral and spiritual life
which crowd into his mind.
ἀνυπόκριτος. Wisd. v. 18; xviii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 6 (ἀγάπη);
1 Tim. i. 5 and 2 Tim. i. ; (xiorss); Jas. ill, 17 (ἡ ἄνωθεν meet
1 Pet. i. 22 (φιλαδελφία). It is significant that the word is not
used in profane writers except once in the adverbial form, and
that by Marcus Aurelius (viii. 5).
ἀποστυγούντες : SC. ἔστε aS ἔστω above, and cf. 1 Pet. ii. 18; iii. 1.
An alternative construction is to suppose an anacoluthon, as if
ἀγαπᾶτε dvuroxpirws had been read above; cf. 2 Cor. i. ἡ. The
word expresses a strong feeling of horror; the dwo- by farther
emphasizing the idea of separation gives an intensive force, which
is heightened by contrast with κολλώμενοι.
τὸ πονηρὸν. .. τῷ ἀγαθῷ The characteristic of true genuine
love is to attach oneself to the good in a man, while detesting the
evilin him. There cannot be love for what is evil, but whoever
bas love in him can see the good that there is in all.
XII. 10, 11.] MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 361
10. τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ, ‘love of the brethren’; as contrasted with
ἀγάπη, which is universal, φιλαδελφία represents affection for the
brethren; that is, for all members of the Christian community,
cf. 2 Pet. i. 7. Euthym.-Zig. ἀδελφοί ἐστε κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν διὰ τοῦ
βαπτίσματος ἀναγέννησιν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀνάγκην ἔχετε φιλαδελφίας.
φιλόστοργοι: the proper term for strong family affection. Euthym.-
Zig. τουτέστι θερμῶς καὶ διαπύρως φιλοῦντες. ἐπίτασις yap φιλίας ἡ
στοργή, καὶ τῆς στοργῆς πάντως αὔξησις ἡ φιλοστοργία.
τῇ τιμῇ κιὶλ.: cf. Phil. ii. 3 ‘in lowliness of mind each accounting
other better than himself.’ The condition and the result of true
affection are that no one seeks his own honour or position, and
every one is willing to give honour to others. The word mponyou-
μενοι is somewhat difficult; naturally it would mean ‘ going before,’
‘preceding,’ and so it has been translated, (1) ‘in matters of honour
preventing one another,’ being the first to show honour: so Vulg.
invicem pracvententes; or (2) ‘leading the way in honourable
actions’: ‘Love makes a man lead others by the example of
showing respect to worth or saintliness,’ Liddon; or (3) ‘surpass-
ing one another’: ‘There is nothing which makes friends so
much, as the earnest endeavour to overcome one’s neighbour in
honouring him,’ Chrys.
But all these translations are somewhat forced, and are difficult,
because προηγεῖσθαι in this sense never takes the accusative. [1 is,
in fact, as admissible to give the word a meaning which it has not
elsewhere, as a construction which is unparalleled. A comparison
therefore of 1 Thess. v. 13; Phil. ii 3 suggests that St. Paul is
using the word in the quite possible, although otherwise unknown,
sense Of ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας. So apparently RV. (=AV.) ‘in
honour preferring one another,’ and Vaughan.
11. τῇ σπουδῇ μὴ ὀκνηροί, ‘in zeal not flagging’; the words
being used in a spiritual sense, as is shown by the following clauses.
Zeal in all our Christian duties will be the natural result of our
Christian love, and will in time foster it. On ὀκνηρός cf. Matt. xxv.
26: it is a word common in the LXX of Proverbs (vi. 6, &c.).
τῷ πνεύματι ζέοντες : cf. Acts xviii. 25, ‘fervent in spirit’; that is
the human spirit instinct with and inspired by the Divine Spirit.
The spiritual life is the source of the Christian’s love: ‘ And all
things will be easy from the Spirit and the love, while thou art
made to glow from both sides,’ Chrys.
τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες. The source of Christian zeal is spiritual
life, the regulating principle our service to Christ. It is not
necessary to find any very subtle connexion of thought between
these clauses, they came forth eagerly and irregularly from St.
Paul’s mind. Κυρίῳ may have been suggested by πνεύματι, just as
below διώκειν in one sense suggests the same word in another
sense.
462 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΧ]. 11-18
There is a very considerable balance of authority in favour of δυρίφ
KRABELP &c., es ἃ Syrr. Bob., Gr. Fathers) as against zapq (D FG,
in Fathers). Cf Jer. Zp. 27 ad Marcellam: sili ἔκαμ spe
tempori servientes, nos le domino servientes. Orig.-lat. ad lec. sie
autem in nonnullis Latinorum exemplis haberi tempori servientes: gued
non mihi videtur convenienter tnsertum. The corruption may have arisen
from Κῶ KP@ being confused together, a confusion which would be easier
pier reminiscences of such expressions as Eph. νυ. 16 ἐξαγοραζόμενοι τὸν
καιρόν.
12. τῇ ἐλπίδι χαίροντες. See above on ver. 8. The Christian
hope is the cause of that Christian joy and cheerfulness of dis-
position which is the grace of Christian love: cf. x Cor. xiii. 7
‘Love ... hopeth all things.’
τῇ θλίψει ὑπομένοντες. Endurance in persecution is naturally
connected with the Christian’s hope: cf. x Cor. xiii. 7 ‘Love...
endureth all things.’
It is interesting to notice how strongly, even thus early, persecu-
tion as a characteristic of the Christian’s life in the world had
impressed itself on St. Paul’s phraseology: see x Thess. i. 6; iii.
3,7; 2 Thess. i. 4, 6; a Cor. i. 4, &c.; Rom. v. 3; viii. 35.
τῇ προσευχῇ προσκαρτεροῦντες : Acts. i. 14; ii, 42; Col iv. 2.
Persecution again naturally suggests prayer, for the strength of
prayer is specially needed in times of persecution.
18. ταῖς χρείαις τῶν ἁγίων κοινωνοῦντες. This verse contains twe
special applications of the principle of love—sharing one’s goods
with fellow-Christians in need, and exercising that hospitality
which was part of the bond which knit together the Christian com-
munity. With κοινωνεῖν in this sense cf, Phil. iv. 15; Rom. xv. 26;
2 Cor. ix. 13; Heb. xiii. 16.
The variation ταῖς μνείαις (D F G, MSS. known to Theod. Mops, Vulg.
cod, (am), Eus. Hist. Mart. Pal., ed. Cureton, p. 1, Hil. Ambrstr. Aug.) is
interesting. In the translation of Origen we read: Usibus sanctorum com-
municantes. Memini in latinis exemplaribus magis haberé: memoriis
sanctorum commupicantes: verums nos nec conmsuctudinem turbamus, ne
weritali praciudicamus, maxime cum utrumgque conveniat aedifications.
Nam usibus sanctorum honeste et decenter, non quast stipem indigentiius
pracbere, sed censum nostrorum cum ipsts quodammodo habere communem, et
meminisse sanctorum sive tn collectis solemnthus, sive pro eo, ut ex recorda-
tione corum proficiamus, aptum et conveniens videtur. The variation must
have arisen at a time when the ‘holy’ were no longer the members of the
community and fellow-Christians. whose bodily wants required relieving,
but the ‘saints’ of the past, whose lives were commemorated. But this
custom arose as early as the middle of the second century: cf. Mart.
Polye. xviii ἔνθα ὡς δυνατὸν ἡμῖν συναγομένοις ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ χαρᾷ παρέξει
ὁ Κύριος ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίον αὐτοῦ ἡμέραν γενέθλιον, els τε τὴν τῶν
προηθληκότων μνήμην καὶ τῶν μελλόντων doxno τε καὶ ἑγοιμασίαν : and the
variations may, like other peculiarities of the western text, easily have arisen
so soon. We cannot however lay any stress on the passage of Origen, as it
is probably due to Rufinus. See Bingham, Ass. xiii.9. 5. WH. suggest
that it was a clerical error arising from the confusion of yp and ων in
« badly written papyrus MS.
XIL 18-16. ] MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 363
φιλοξενίαν. From the very beginning hospitality was recognized
as one of the most important of Christian duties (Heb. xiii. 2;
1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. 1. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 9; compare also Clem. Rom. §1
τὸ μεγαλοπρεπὲς τῆς φιλοξενίας ὑμῖν ἦθος : ὃ το of Abraham διὰ πίστιν
καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐδόθη αὐτῷ υἱὸς ἐν γήρᾳ : ὃ 11 διὰ φιλοξενίαν καὶ εὐσέβειαν
Λὼτ ἐσώθη: ὃ 12 διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐσώθη 'Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη § 35).
On its significance in the early Church see Ramsay, Zhe Church
in the Roman Empire, pp. 288, 368. The Christians looked upon
themselves as a body of men scattered throughout the world, living
as aliens amongst strange people, and therefore bound together
as the members of a body, as the brethren of one family. The
practical realization of this idea would demand that whenever a
Christian went from one place to another he should find a home
among the Christians in each town he visited. We have a picture
of this intercommunion in the letters of Ignatius; we can learn it
at an earlier period from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians
(2 Cor. iii. 4; viii. 18, 23, 24). One necessary part of such inter-
communion would be the constant carrying out of the duties
of hospitality. It was the unity and strength which this inter-
course gave that formed one of the great forces which supported
Christianity.
14. εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας. The use of the word διώκειν in one
sense seems to have suggested its use in another. The resem-
blance to Matt. v. 44 is very close: ‘But I say unto you, Love
your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you.’ Emphasis
is added by the repetition of the maxim in a negative form, Cf.
James iii. 9.
15. χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων xt.A. On the infinitive cf. Winer,
§ xliii. 5 d, p. 397, E. T. But it seems more forcible and less
awkward to take it, as in Phil iii. 16, as the infinitive used for
the emphatic imperative than to suppose a change of construc-
tion. ‘But that requires more of a high Christian temper, to
rejoice with them that do rejoice, than to weep with them that
weep. For this nature itself fulfils perfectly: and there is none
so hardhearted as not to weep over him that is in calamity: but
the other requires a very noble soul, so as not only to keep from
envying, but even to feel pleasure with the person who is in
esteem. And this is why we placed it first. For there is nothing
that ties love so firmly as sharing both joy and pain one with
another,’ Chrys. ad loc. Cf. Ecclus. vii. 34.
16. τὸ αὐτὸ... . φρονοῦντες, ‘being harmonious in your relations
towards one another’: cf. xv. 5; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. ii, 2; iv. ἃ.
The great hindrance to this would be having too high an estima-
tion of oneself: hence the Apostle goes on to condemn such
pride.
μὴ τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες : cf. xi. 20; 3 Cor. xiii. § ‘ Love vaunteth
364 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. 16-19.
not itself, is not puffed up,’ shows how St. Paul is still carrying out
the leading idea of the passage.
τοῖς ταπεινοῖς : prob. neuter; ‘allow yourself to be carried along
with, give yourself over to, humble tasks:’ ‘consentinge to meke
thingis,” Wic. The verb συναπάγειν means in the active ‘to lead
along with one,’ hence in the passive, ‘to be carried away with,’ as
by a flood which sweeps everything along with it (Lightfoot on
Gal. ii. 13; cf. 2 Pet. iii. 17), and hence ‘to give oneself up to.’
The neuter seems best to suit the contrast with τὰ ὑψηλά and
the meaning of the verb; but elsewhere in the N. T. ταπεινός is
always masculine, and so many take it here: ‘make yourselves
equall to them of the lower sorte,’ Tyn. Cov. Genev. ‘Con-
sentinge to the humble,’ Rhen. So Chrys.: ‘That is, bring thyself
down to their humble condition, ride or walk with them; do not be
humbled in mind only, but help them also, and stretch forth thy
hand to them.’
μὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς : taken apparently from Prov. iii
7 μὴ ἴσθι φρόνιμος παρὰ σεαυτῷ. Cf. Origen non polest veram sapien-
tiam Det scire, qui suam stultttiam quasi sapientiam colst,
17. μηδενὶ κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἀποδιδόντες. Another result of the
principle of love. Mat. v. 43, 44; 1 Thess. v.15; 1 Pet. iii. 9;
1 Cor. xiii. 5, 6 ‘Love... taketh not account of evil; rejoiceth
not in unrighteousness, tut rejoiceth with the truth.’
προνοούμενοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων : cf. Prov. iii, 4,
2 Cor. iv. 2; viii, ar. ‘As nothing causes offence so much as
offending men’s prejudices, see that your conduct will commend
itself as honourable to men.’ Euthym.-Zig. οὐ πρὸς ἐπίδειξιν ἀλλὰ
πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, καὶ Sore μηδενὶ δοῦναι πρόφασιν σκανδάλουισνι This
seems better than to lay all the emphasis on the πάντων, as some
would do.
18. εἰ δυνατόν, ‘if it be possible, live peaceably with all men, at
any rate as far as concerns your part (rd ἐξ ὑμῶν). Over what others
will do you can have no control, and if they break the peace it is
not your fault. ‘Love seeketh not its own’ (1 Cor. xiii. 5).
19. ἀγαπητοί. Added because of the difficulty of the precept not
to avenge oneself.
δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ, ‘give room or place to the wrath of God.’
Let God’s wrath punish. Euthym.-Zig. ἀλλὰ παραχωρεῖτε τῆς ἐκδική-
σεως τῇ ὀργῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τῇ κρίσει τοῦ Kupiov. The meaning of δότε
τόπον is shown by Eph. iv. 27 μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ, do not
give scope or place to the devil; ἡ ὀργή means the wrath of God:
cf. Rom. v. 9. That this is the right interpretation of the word is
shown by the quotation which follows.
But other interpretations have been often held: δότε τόπον is
translated by some, ‘allow space, interpose delay,’ i.e, check and
restrain your wrath; by others, ‘yield to the anger of your
XII. 19-21.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 365
opponent’: neither of these interpretations suits the context or
the Greek,
γέγραπται γάρ. The quotation which follows comes from Deut.
Xxxil. 35, and resembles the Hebrew ‘ Vengeance is mine and
recompense, rather than the LXX ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐκδικήσεως ἀνταποδώσω :
and the Targum of Onkelos more than either. The words are
quoted in the same form in Heb. x. 30.
20. ἀλλὰ "Edy πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου κιτιλ. Taken from the LXX; cf.
Prov. xxv. 21, 22, agreeing exactly with the text of B, but varying
somewhat from that of ΑΝ. The term ἄνθρακες πυρός clearly means
‘terrible pangs or pains,’ cf. Ps. cxxxix (cxl). 11 (LXX); 4 (5) Ezra
xvi. 54 Non dical peccator se non peccasse, guoniam carbones ignis
comburel super caput etus gui απ: Non peccavi coram domino ef
gloria τεσ. But with what purpose are we to ‘heap coals of fire
on his head’? Is it (1) that we may be consoled for our kind act
by knowing that he will be punished for his misdeeds? This is
impossible, for it attributes a malicious motive, which is quite
inconsistent with the context both here and in the O. T. In the
latter the passage proceeds, ‘ And the Lord shall reward thee,’ im-
plying that the deed is a good one; here we are immediately told
that we are not to be ‘overcome of evil, but overcome evil with
good,’ which clearly implies that we are to do what is for our
enemies’ benefit. (2) Coals of fire must, therefore, mean, as most
commentators since Augustine have said, ‘the burning pangs of
shame, which a man will feel when good is returned for evil, and
which may produce remorse and penitence and _ contrition.
Potest enim fiert ul animus ferus ac barbarus inimict, st sential
beneficium nostrum, st humanitatem, st affectum, st pietalem ordeal,
compunctionem cordts capital, commisst poenitudinem gerat, ef ex hoc
wynis in ¢o quidem succendatur, gut eum pro commisst consctentia
forqueal ef adurat: ef tsti erunt carbones ignis, gui super capul eus
ex nostro misericordiae et piefatis opere congregantur, Origen.
Δ]. μὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ «.1.A., ‘do not allow yourself to be
overcome by the evil done to you and be led on to revenge and
injury, but conquer your enemies’ evil spirit by your own good
disposition. A remark which applics to the passage just con-
cluded and shows St. Paul’s object, but is also of more general
application.
ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS.
XIII. 1-7. The civil power has Divine sanction. Its
functions are to promote well-being, to punish not the good
but the wicked. Hence it must be obeyed. Obedience to st ts
a Christian duty and deprives st of all sts terrors.
366 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XIII. 1
Se too you pay tribute because the machinery of govern-
ment is God's ordinance. In this as in all things give to all
their due.
XIIL The Apostle now passes from the duties of the individual
Christian towards mankind in general to his duties in one definite
sphere, namely towards the civil rulers. While we adhere to what
has been said about the absence of a clearly-defined system or
purpose in these chapters, we may notice that one main thread of
thought which runs through them is the promotion of peace in all
the relations of life. The idea of the civil power may have been
suggested by ver. rg of the preceding chapter, as being one of the
ministers of the Divine wrath and retribution (ver. 4): at any rate
the juxtaposition of the two passages would serve to remind St.
Paul’s readers that the condemnation of individual vengeance and
retaliation does not apply to the action of the state in enforcing
law; for the state is God's minister, and it is the just wrath of God
which is acting through it.
We have evidence of the use of vv. 8-10 by Marcion (Tert. adv. Marc.
wv. 14) Alerite tlague totam creatoris disciplinam princtpali pracceplo ecius
conclusst, Diliges prozimum tanquam te. Hoc legis supplementum st ex ἐβια
lege est, quis sit legis sam ignore. On the rest of the chapter we have
no information.
L πᾶσα ψυχή: cf. ii. 9. The Hebraism suggests prominently
the idea of individuality. These rules apply to all however
privileged, and the question is treated from the point of view of
individual duty.
ἐξουσίαις : abstract for concrete, ‘those in authority’; cf. Luke
xii. 11; Tit. iii. 1. ὑπερεχούσαις ‘who are in an eminent position,’
defining more precisely the idea of ἐξουσίαις : cf. x Pet. ii, 13;
Wisdom vi. 5.
ὑποτασσέσθω. Notice the repetition of words of similar sound,
ὑποτασσέσθω.. . . TeTAypevas. . . ἀντιτασσόμενος . . . διαταγῃ, and cf.
xii. 3.
οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία κιτλ, The Apostle gives the reason for
this obedience, stating it first generally and positively, then nega-
tively and distributively. No human authority can exist except as the
gift of God and springing from Him, and therefore all constituted
powers are ordained by Him. The maxim is common in all
Hebrew literature, but is almost always introduced to show how
the Divine power is greater than that of all earthly sovereigns, or
to declare the obligation of rulers as responsible for all they do to
One above them. Wisdom vi. 1, 3 ἀκούσατε οὖν͵ βασιλεῖς, καὶ σύνετε,
μάθετε δικασταὶ περάτων γῆς . . . ὅτι ἐδόθη παρὰ τοῦ Kupiov ἡ κράτησις
ὑμῖν καὶ ἡ δυναστεία παρὰ ὑψίστου : Enoch χὶνὶ. § ‘ And he will put
down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms, because they do
368 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ~~ [XIII 4-4.
power of punishing inherent in the government. So UJpian,
Digest, i. 18.6.§ 8; Tac. Aisé. iii. 68 ; Dio Cassius, xlii. 27.
ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργήν, ‘inflicting punishment or vengeance so as to
exhibit wrath,’ namely the Divine wrath as administered by the
ruler who is God’s agent (cf. ver. 2 and xii.19). The repetition of
the phrase Θεοῦ διάκονος with both sides of the sentence emphasizes
the double purpose of the state. It exists positively for the well-
being of the community, negatively to check evil by the infliction
of punishment, and both these functions are derived from God.
δ. διό: rulers, because as God’s ministers they have a Divine
order and purpose, are to be obeyed, not only because they have
power over men, but also because it is right, διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν (cf.
ii. 15, ix. 1).
6. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καί, sc. διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν : ‘and it is for this
reason also.’ St. Paul is appealing to a principle which his readers
will recognize. It is apparently an admitted rule of the Christian
communities that taxes are to be paid, and he points out that the
principle is thus recognized of the moral duty of obeying rulers.
That he could thus appeal to a recognized practice seems to imply
that the words of our Lord (Luke xx. 20-25) had moulded the
habits of the early Church, and this suggestion is corroborated by
ver. 7 (see the longer note below).
λειτουργοί, ‘God’s ministers.’ Although the word is used in
a purely secular sense of a servant, whether of an individual or of
a community (x Kings x. δ; Ecclus. x. 2), yet the very definite
meaning which λειτουργὸς Θεοῦ had acquired (Ecclus vii. 30; Heb.
viii. 2; see especially the note on Rom. xv. 16) adds emphasis to
St. Paul’s expression.
προσκαρτεροῦντες must apparently be taken absolutely (as in
Xen. 27εἰ], VIL. v. 14), ‘ persevering faithfully in their office, and
eis αὐτὸ τοῦτο gives the purpose of the office, the same as that
ascribed above to the state. These words cannot be taken im-
mediately with mpooxaprepovvres, for that verb, as in xii. 13, seems
always to govern the dative.
7. St. Paul concludes this subject and leads on to the next by
a general maxim which covers all the different points touched
upon : ‘ Pay each one his due.’
τῷ τὸν φόρον, SC. ἀπαιτοῦντι. φόρος IS the tribute paid by a subject
nation (Luke xx. 22; 1 Macc. x. 33), while τέλος represents the
customs and dues which would in any case be paid for the support
of the civil government (Matt. xvii. 25; 1 Macc. x. 31).
φόβος is the respectful awe which is felt for one who has power
in his hands; τιμήν honour and reverence paid to a ruler: cf. 1 Pet.
li. 17 τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε" τὸν βασιλέα τιμᾶτε.
A strange interpretation of this verse may be seen in the
Gnostic book entitled Πίστις Σοφία, p. 294, ed. Schwartze.
XTII.1-7.] ΟΝ OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 369
The Church and the Civil Power.
The motive which impelled St. Paul to write this section of the
Epistle has (like so many other questions) been discussed at great
length with the object of throwing light on the composition of the
Roman Church. If the opinion which has been propounded already
in reference to these chapters be correct, it will be obvious that
here as elsewhere St. Paul is writing, primarily at any rate, with
a view to the state of the Church as a whole, not to the particular
circumstances of the Roman community: it being recognized at
the same time that questions which agitated the whole Christian
world would be likely to be reflected in what was already an
important centre of Christianity. Whether this opinion be correct
or not must depend partly, of course, on our estimate of the
Epistle as a whole; but if it be assumed to be so, the character of
this passage will amply support it. There is a complete absence of
any reference to particular circumstances: the language is through-
out general: there is a studied avoidance of any special terms;
direct commands such as might arise from particular circumstances
are not given: but general principles applicable to any period or
place are laid down. As elsewhere in this Epistle, St. Paul,
influenced by his past experiences, or by the questions which were
being agitated around him, or by the fear of difficulties which he
foresaw as likely to arise, lays down broad general principles,
applying to the affairs of life the spirit of Christianity as he has
elucidated it.
But what were the questions that were in the air when he wrote?
There can be no doubt that primarily they would be those
current in the Jewish nation concerning the lawfulness of paying
taxes and otherwise recognizing the authority of a foreign ruler.
When our Lord was asked, ‘Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar
or no?’ (Matt. xxii. 18 f.; Luke xx. a2 f.), a burning question
was at once raised. Starting from the express command ‘ thou
mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother’
(Deut. xvii. 15), and from the idea of a Divine theocracy, a large
section of the Jews had refused to recognize or pay taxes to the
Roman government. Judas the Gaulonite, who said that ‘the
census was nothing else but downright slavery’ (Jos. 45», XVIII.
i. 1), or Theudas (ibid. XX. v. 1), or Eleazar, who is represented
as saying that ‘we have long since made up our minds not to
serve the Romans or any other man, but God alone’ (Bell. Jud.
VII. viii. 6), may all serve as instances of a tendency which was
very wide spread. Nor was this spirit confined to the Jews of
Palestine ; elsewhere, both in Rome and in Alexandria, riots had
occurred. Nor again was it unlikely that Christianity would be
wb
370 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ XXII. 1-9.
affected by it. A good deal of the phraseology of the early
Christians was derived from the Messianic prophecies of the
O. T., and these were always liable to be taken in that
purely material sense which our Lord had condemned. The fact
that St. Luke records the question of the disciples, ‘ Lord, dost
thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts i. 6) seems
to imply that such ideas were current, and the incident at Thessalo-
nica, where St. Paul himself, because he preached the ‘ kingdom,’
was accused of preaching ‘ another king, one Jesus,’ shows how
liable even he was to misinterpretation. These instances are quite
sufficient to explain how the question was a real one when St.
Paul wrote, and why it had occupied his thoughts. It is not
necessary to refer it either to Ebionite dualistic views (so Baur),
which would involve an anachronism, or to exaggerated Gentile
ideas of Christian liberty; we have no record that these were ever
perverted in this direction.
Two considerations may have specially influenced St. Paul to
discuss the subject in his Epistle to the Romans. The first was
the known fact of the turbulence of the Roman Jews; a fact which
would be brought before him by his intercourse with Priscilla and
Aquila. This may illustrate just the degree of local reference in
the Epistle to the Romans. We have emphasized more than once
the fact that we cannot argue anything from such passages as this
as to the state of the Roman community; but St. Paul would not
write in the air, and the knowledge of the character of the Jewish
population in Rome gained from political refugees would be just
sufficient to suggest this topic. A second cause which would lead
him to introduce it would be the fascination which he felt for the
power and position of Rome, a fascination which has been already
illustrated (Introduction, ὃ 1).
It must be remembered that when this Epistle was written the
Roman Empire had never appeared in the character of a persecutor.
Persecution had up to this time always come from the Jews or from
popular riots. To St. Paul the magistrates who represented
the Roman power had always been associated with order and
restraint. The persecution of Stephen had probably taken place
in the absence of the Roman governor: it was at the hands of the
Jewish king Herod that James the brother of John had perished:
at Paphos, at Thessalonica, at Corinth, at Ephesus, St. Paul had
found the Roman officials a restraining power and all his experience
would support the statements that he makes: ‘ The rulers are not
a terror to the good work, but to the evil:’ ‘He is a minister of
God to thee for good:’ ‘ He is a minister of God, an avenger for
wrath to him that doeth evil.’ Nor can any rhetorical point be
made as has been attempted from the fact that Nero was at this
time the ruler of the Empire. It may be doubted how far the vices
XIII. 1-7.] ΟΝ OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 471
of a ruler like Nero seriously affected the well-being of the
provincials, but at any rate when these words were written the
world was enjoying the good government and bright hopes of
Nero's Quingquennium.
The true relations of Christianity to the civil power had been
laid down by our Lord when He had said: ‘ My kingdom is not of
this world, and again: ‘Render unto Caesar the things that be
Caesar’s and to God the things that be God’s.’ It is difficult to
believe that St. Paul had not these words in his mind when he
wrote ver. 7, especially as the coincidences with the moral teaching
of our Lord are numerous in these chapters. At any rate, starting
from this idea he works out the principles which must lie at the
basis of Christian politics, that the State is divinely appointed, or
permitted by God; that its end is beneficent; and that the spheres
of Church and State are not identical.
It has been remarked that, when St. Paul wrote, his experience
might have induced him to estimate too highly the merits of the
Roman government. But although later the relation of the Church
to the State changed, the principles of the Church did not. In
x Tim. ii. 1, 2 the Apostle gives a very clear command to pray for
those in authority : ‘I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications,
prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men: for
kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil
and quiet life in all godliness and gravity’; so also in Titus iii. 1
‘Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities.’
When these words were written, the writer had to some extent at
any rate experienced the Roman power in a very different aspect.
Still more important is the evidence of 1 Peter. It was certainly
written at a time when persecution, and that of an official character,
had begun, yet the commands of St. Paul are repeated and with
even greater emphasis (1 Pet. ii. 13-17).
The sub-Apostolic literature will illustrate this. Clement is writing to the
Corinthians just after successive periods of persecution, yet he includes
a prayer of the character which he would himself deliver, in the as yet
unsystematized services of the day, on behalf of secular rulers. ‘Give
concord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth... while we
render obedience to Thine Almighty and most excellent Name, and to our
ralers and governors upon the earth. Thou, Lord and Master, hast given
them the power of sovereignty through Thine excellent and unspeakable
might, that we, knowing the glory and honour which Tnon hast given them,
may submit ourselves unto them, in nothing resisting Thy will. Grant unto
them therefore, O Lord, health, peace, concord, stability, that they may
administer the government which Thou hast given them without failure.
For Thou, O heavenly Master, King of the ages, givest to the sons of men
lory and honour and power over all things that are upon the earth. Do
ἔοι, Lord, direct their counsel according to that which is good and well-
pleasing in Thy sight.’ Still more significant is the letter of Polycarp, which
was written very shortly after he had met Ignatius on his road to martyrdom ;
in it he emphasizes the Christian custom by combining the command to pray
372 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ XIIE. 1-4.
for rulers with that to love our enemies. ‘Pray also for kings and powers
and princes and for them that persecute and hate you and for the enemies of
the cross, that your fruit may be manifest among all men that ye may be
perfect in Him.’ (Clem. Rom. lx, lxi; Polyc. ad ῥᾷεϊ. xii.)
It is not necessary to give further instances of a custom which prevailed
extensively or universally in the early Church. It became a commonplace
of apologists (Just. Mart. Apo/.i.17; Athenagoras, Leg. xxxvii; Theophilus,
i.1t; Tertullian, Afol. 30, 39, ad Scap.2; Dion. Alex. af Eus. 7. Ξ. VIL xi;
Amob. iv. 36) and is found in all liturgies (cf. Const. 49. vili. 12).
One particular phase in the interpretation of this chapter demands a
notice. In the hands of the Jacobean and Caroline divines it was held to
support the doctrine of Passive Obedience. This doctrine has taken a variety
of forms. Some held that a Monarchy as opposed to a Republic is the oaly
scriptural form of government, others that a legitimate line alone has this
divine right. A more modified type of this teaching may be represented by
a sermon of Bishop Berkeley (Passive Obedience or the Christian Doctrine
of not resisting the supreme power, proved and vindicated pon the principles
of the law of nature in @ discourse delivered at the College Chapel, 1713.
Works, iii. p. 101). He takes as his text Rom. xiii. 2 ‘ Whosoever resisteth
the Power, resisteth the ordinance of God.’ He begins ‘ It is not my desiga
to inquire into the particular nature of the government and constitution of
these kingdoms.’ He then proceeds by assuming that ‘there is in every civil
community, somewhere or other, placed a supreme power of making laws,
and enforcing the observation of them.’ His main purpose is to prove that
‘Loyalty is a moral virtue, and thou shalt not resist the supreme power,
8 rule or law of nature, the least breach whereof hath the inherent stain of
moral turpitade.’ And he places it on the same level as the commandments
which St. Paul quotes in this same chapter,
Bishop Berkeley represents the doctrine of Passive Obedience as expounde?
in its most philosophical form. But he does not notice the main difficulty
St. Paul gives no directions as to what ought to be done when there is
a conflict of authority. In his day there could be no doubt that the ταῖς of
Caesar was supreme and had become legitimate: all that he had to con-
demn was an incorrect view of the ‘kingdom of heaven’ as a theocracy
established on earth, whether it were held by Jewish zealots or by Christians.
He does not discuss the question, ‘if there were two claimants for the
Empire which should be supported?’ for it was not a practical difficulty
wien he wrote. So Bishop Berkeley, by his use of the expression ‘some-
where or other,’ equally evades the difficulty. Almost always when there is
a rebellion or a civil war the question at issue is, Who is the rightfal
governor? which is the power ordained by God !
But there is a side of the doctrine of Passive Obedience which requires
emphasis, and which was illustrated by the Christianity of the first three
centuries. The early Christians were subject to a power which required
them to do that which was forbidden by their religion. To that extent
and within those limits they could not and did not obey it: but they never
encouraged in any way resistance or rebellion. In all things indifferent the
Christian conformed to existing law; he obeyed the law ‘not only because of
the wrath, but also for conscience sake.’ He only disobeyed when it was
necessary to do so for conscience sake. The point of importance is the
detachment of the two spheres of activity. The Church and the State are
looked upon as different bodies, each with a different work to perform. To
designate this or that form of government as ‘ Christian,’ and support it on
these grounds, would have been quite alien to the whole spirit of those days.
The Church must influence the world by its hold on the hearts and consciences
of individuals, and in that way, and not by political power, will the
Kingdom of God come.
XIII. 8,9] LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW 378
LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW.
XIII. 8-10. There ts one debt which the Christian must
always be paying but never can discharge, that of love. All
particular precepts are summed up in that of love, which
makes injury to any man impossible.
8. St. Paul passes from our duties towards superiors to that one
principle which must control our relations towards all men, love. In
xii. ο the principle of love is introduced as the true solution of all
difficulties which may arise from rivalry in the community; here it
is represented as at the root of all regulations as to our relations to
others in any of the affairs of life.
μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε must be imperative as the negatives show.
It sums up negatively the results of the previous verse and suggests
the transition, ‘ Pay every one their due and owe no man anything.’
εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀγαπᾷν ἀλλήλους : ‘Let your only debt that is unpaid
be that of love—a debt which you should always be attempting to
discharge in full, but will never succeed in discharging.’ Permanere
lamen ef nunquam cessure a nobis debilum caritatis: hoc enim et quo-
fide solvere et semper debere expedtt nobis. Orig. By this pregnant
expression St. Paul suggests both the obligation of love and the
impossibility of fulfilling it. This is more forcible than to suppose
a change in the meaning of ὀφείλετε : ‘Owe no man anything, only
ye ought to love one another.’
& γὰρ ἀγαπῶν κτλ. gives the reason why ‘love’ is so important :
if a man truly loves another he has fulfilled towards him the whole
law. νόμον is not merely the Jewish law, although it is from it that
the illustrations that follow are taken, but law as a principle. Just
as in the relations of man and God πίστις has been substituted for
νόμος, 80 between man and man ἀγάπη takes the place of definite
legal relations. The perfect πεπλήρωκεν implies that the fulfilment
is already accomplished simply in the act of love.
9. St. Paul gives instances of the minner in which ‘love’ fulfils
law. No man who loves another will injure him by adultery, by
murder, by theft, &c. They are all therefore summed up in the
one maxim ‘thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,’ as indeed
they were also in the Old Covenant.
The AV. adds after οὐ κλέψεις in this verse ob ψευδομαρτυρήσεις from the
O.T. with & P &c., Boh. &c., as against ABDEFGL &c., Vulg. codd. and
most Fathers. ἐν τῷ before ἀγαπήσεις is omitted by BF G. For ceavroy of
the older MSS. (NS A BD E), later MS. read ἑαυτόν, both here and elsewhere.
In late Greek éaurcv became habitually used for all persons in the reflexive,
and scribes substituted the form most usual to them.
The order of the commandments is different from that in the Hebrew tert.
$74 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XITI. 9, 10.
both in Exodus xx. 13 and Dent. v. 17, namely, (6) Thou shalt do no murder,
(7) Thou shalt not commit adultery, (8) Thou shalt not steal. The MSS.
of the LXX vary; in Exodus B reads 7, 8, 6, AF 6, 7, 8; in Deut. B reads
, 6, 8 (the order here), AF 6,7, 8. The order of Romans is that also of
ke xviii. 20; James ἰΐ 11; Philo De Decaloge; Clem.-Alex. Strom. vi. τό.
καὶ εἴ τις ἑτέρα shows that St. Paul in this selection has only
taken instances and that he does not mean merely to give a sum-
ming up of the Jewish law.
ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται : a rhetorical term used of the summing nop of
a speech or argument, and hence of including a large number of
separate details under one head. As used in Eph. i. το of God
summing up all things in Christ it became a definite theological
term, represented in Latin by recapitulato (Iren. III. xxii. 2).
᾿Αγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν, Taken from Leviticus
xix. 18 where it sums up ἃ far longer list of commandments. It
is quoted Matt. xxii. 39; Mark xii. 31; Luke x. 27; Gal. v. 14;
James ii. 8 where it is called βασιλικὸς νόμος.
10. ἡ ἀγάπη... οὐκ ἐργάζεται. Love fulfils all law, because no
one who loves another will do him any ill by word or deed. These
words sum up what has been said at greater length in τ Cor. xiii.
4-6.
πλήρωμα, ‘complete fulfilment.” The meaning of wd. here is
given by ver. 9 ‘ He that loveth his neighbour has fulfilled {τεπλή-
ρωκενὴ law, therefore love is the fulfilment (πλήρωμα) of law.
The History of the word ἀγάπη.
There are three words in Greek all of which may be translated by the
English ‘love,’ épdw, φιλέω, ἀγαπάω. Of these ἐράω with its cognate form
ἔραμαι was originally associated with the sexual passion and was thence
transferred to any strong passionate affection; φιλέω was used rather of
warm domestic affection, and so of the love of master and servant, of parents
and children, of husband and wife; in Homer, of the love of the gods for
men. ἐρᾶν is combined with ἐπιθυμεῖν and contrasted with φιλεῖν as in
Xen. Meer. xi. 11 ὥστε ob μόνον φιλοῖο ἂν ἀλλὰ καὶ EpGo. One special use
of ἔρως and ἐράω must be referred to, namely, the Platonic. The intensity
and strength of human passion seemed to Plato to represent most adequately
the love of the soul for higher things, and so the philosophic épas was used
for the highest human desire, that for true knowledge, true virtue, true
immortality.
The distinction of φιλέω and ἀγαπάω much resembled that between ame
and ai/igo. The one expressed greater affection, the other greater esteem.
So Dio Cassius xliv. 48 ἐφιλήσατε αὐτὸν ὡς πατέρα καὶ ἠγαπήσατε ὧς evep-
γέτην; and John xxi. 15-17 λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν δεύτερον, Σίμων Ἰωάνου,
dyands pe; λέγει αὐτῷ. Ναί, Κύριε" σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε w.7.A, (see Trench,
Syn. § xii). It is significant that no distinction is absolute; but φιλέω
occasionally, still more rarely ἀγαπάω, are both used incorrectly of the
sexual passion. There is too close a connexion between the different forms
of human affection to allow any rigid distinction to be made in the use of
words.
When these words were adopted into Hellenistic Greek, a gradual change
376 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ([XIITI. 8-10.
which are not purely animal there is present that same love which ia its
highest and most pure development forms the essence and sam of the
Christian religion. This affection, however perverted it may be, Christianity
does not condemn, but so far as may be elevates and purifies.
The Christian Teaching on Love.
The somewhat lengthy history just given of the word ἀγάπη is
a suitable introduction to the history of an idea which forms a fun-
damental principle of all Christian thought.
The duty of love in some form or other had been a common-
place of moral teaching in times long before Christianity and in
many different places. Isolated maxims have been collected in its
favour from very varied authors, and the highest pagan teaching
approaches the highest Christian doctrine. But in all previous
philosophy such teaching was partial or isolated, it was never
elevated to a great principle. Maxims almost or quite on a level
with those of Christianity we find both in the O.T. and in Jewish
writers. The command ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy-
self’ is of course taken directly from the O.T., and is there used
to sum up in one general principle a long series of rules. Sayings
of great beauty are quoted from the Jewish fathers. ‘ Hillel said,
Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace,
loving mankind and bringing them nigh to the Torah’ (Parge
Aboth i, 13); or again, ‘What is hateful to thyself do not to thy
fellow; this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary; go
study,’ also ascribed to Hillel. It is however true in all cases that
these maxims, and all such as these, are only isolated instances, that
they do not represent the spirit of earlier institutions, and that they
form a very insignificant proportion compared with much of
a different character.
In Christianity this principle, which had been only partially
understood and imperfectly taught, which was known only in
isolated examples, yet testified to a universal instinct, was finally
put forward as the paramount principle of moral conduct, uniting
our moral instincts with our hizhest religious principles. A new
virtue, or rather one hitherto imperfectly understood, had become
recognized as the root of all virtues, and a new name was demanded
for what was practically a new idea.
In the first place, the new Christian doctrine of love is universal.
‘Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and
hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and
pray for them that persecute you;’ and a very definite reason is
given, the universal Fatherhood of God. This universalism which
underlies all the teaching of Jesus is put in a definite practical
form by St. Paul, ‘In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile,
XIII. 11. THE DAY IS AT HAND 377
bond nor free, male nor female.’ As it is summed up in a well-
known work. ‘ The first law, then, of the kingdom of God is that
all men, however divided from each other by blood or language,
have certain mutual duties arising out of their common relation to
God’ (Ecce Homo, chap. xii).
But secondly, the Christian doctrine of love was the substitution
of a universal principle for law. All moral precepts are summed
up in the one command of love. What is my duty towards others?
Just that feeling which you have towards the persons to whom you
are most attached in the world, just that you must feel for every one.
If you have that feeling there will be no need for any further
command. Love is a principle and a passion, and as such is the
fulfilment of the Law. Christ ‘declared an ardent, passionate, or
devoted state of mind to be the root of virtue’; and this purifying
passion, capable of existing in all men alike, will be able to re-
deem our nature and make laws superfluous.
And thirdly, how is this new Christian spirit possible? It is
possible because it is intimately bound up with that love which is
a characteristic of the Godhead. ‘God is love.’ ‘A new com-
mandment I give to you, that ye should love one another as I have
loved you.’ It is possible also because men have learnt to love
mankind in Christ. ‘Where the precept of love has been given,
an image must be set before the eyes of those who are called on to
obey it, an ideal or type of man which may be noble and amiable
enough to raise the whole race, and make the meanest member of
it sacred with reflected glory.’ This is what Christ did for us.
These three points will help to elucidate what St. Paul means by
ἀγάπη. It is in fact the correlative in the moral world to what faith
is in the religious life. Like faith it is universal; like faith it is
a principle not a code; like faith it is centred in the Godhead.
Hence St. Paul, as St. John (1 John iii. 23), sums up Christianity
in Faith and Love, which are finally, united in that Love of God,
which is the end and root of both.
THS DAY IS AT HAND.
XIII. 11-14. Zhe night of this corrupt age ts flying.
The Parousia ts nearing. Cast off your evil ways. Gtrd
yourselves with the armour of light. Take Christ into your
hearts. Shun sin and self-indulgence.
11, The Apostle adds a motive for the Christian standard of
life, the nearness of our final salvation.
καὶ τοῦτο, ‘and that too’: cp. 1 Cor. vi. 6, 8; Eph, ii. 8, &c.: it
378 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIIT. 1-18
resumes the series of exhortations implied in the previous sections ;
there is no need to supply any special words with it.
τὸν καιρόν : used of a definite, measured, or determined time, and
so almost technically of the period before the second coming of
Christ: cf. 2 Cor. vii. 29 6 καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος; Mark i. 15; and
80 ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστώς (Heb. ix. 9).
ὅτι ὥρα ἤδη arr. ἤδη with ἐγερθῆναι. The time of trial on earth
is looked upon as a night of gloom, to be followed by a bright
morning. We must arouse ourselves from slumber and prepare
ourselves for the light.
viv γὰρ ἐγγύτερον κιτᾺ. ‘ For our completed salvation, no longer
that hope of salvation which sustains us here, is appreciably nearer
for us than when we first accepted in faith the Messianic message.’
Gre ἐπιστεύσαμεν refers to the actual moment of the acceptance of
Christianity. The language is that befitting those who expect the
actual coming of Christ almost immediately, but it will fit the
circumstances of any Christian for whom death brings the day.
In ver. 11 the original ὑμᾶς (δ A BC P, Clem.-Alex.) has been corrected
for the sake of uniformity into ἡμᾶς (N* D E F G L, &e., Boh. Sab.). In ver. 13
ἐν ἔρισι καὶ ζήλοις is a variant of B, Sah., Clem.-Alex. Amb. In wer. :4 B,
and Clem.-Alex. read τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, which may very likely be the
correct reading.
12. προέκοψεν, ‘has advanced towards dawn.’ Cf. Luke ii. 53;
Gal. i. 14; Jos. Bell. Jud. IV. iv. 6; Just. Dial. p. 277d.
The contrast of ὕπνος, νύξ, and σκότος with ἡμέρα and φῶς finds
many illustrations in Christian and in all religious literature.
ἀποθώμεθα. The works of darkness, i.e. works such as befit the
kingdom of darkness, are represented as being cast off like the
uncomely garments of the night, for the bright armour which
befits the Christian soldier as a member of the kingdom of light.
This metaphor of the Christian armour is a favourite one with
St. Paul (1 Thess. v. 8; 2 Cor. vi. 7; Rom. vi. 13; and especially
Eph. vi. 13 f.); it may have been originally suggested by the
Jewish conception of the last great fight against the armies of
Antichrist (Dan. xi; Orac. S10. iti. 663 f.; 4 Ezra xiii. 33; Enoch
xc. 16), but in St. Paul the conception has become completely
spiritualized,
13. εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν. The metaphor περιπατεῖν of
conduct is very common in St. Paul’s Epistles, where it occurs
thirty-three times (never in the Past. Epp.); elsewhere in the
N. T. sixteen times.
κώμοις, ‘rioting, ‘revelry’ (Gal. v. a1; 1 Pet. iv. 3). μέθη the
drunkenness which would be the natural result and accompaniment
of such revelry.
κοίταις καὶ doeAyetats, ‘unlawful intercourse and wanton acts.’
Ὅρα δὲ τὴν τάξιν' κωμάζων μὲν γάρ τις μεῦνει, μεθύων δὲ κοιτάζεται,
XIII. 18,14] § THE DAY IS AT HAND $79
κοιταζόμενος δὲ ἀσελγαίνει, τοῦ οἶνον τοῦτον τῇ πλησμονῇ πυρπολοῦντος καὶ
διερεθίζοντος. Euthym.-Zig.
14, ἐνδύσασθε τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν. Christ is put on first in
baptism (vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27), but we must continually renew that
life with which we have been clothed (Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 12).
τῆς σαρκός with πρόνοιαν : the word is thrown forward in order to
emphasize the contrast between the old nature, the flesh of sin, and
the new, the life in Christ.
On this passage most commentators compare St. Aug. Confess.
Vili. 12, 23 Arriput, aperus ef legit in silentio capttulum, quo pri-
mum coniech sunt ocult met: Non in conversationibus et ebrie-
tatibus, non in cubilibus et impudicitiis, non im contentione et
aemulatione: sed induite Dominum Iesum Christum, et carnis
providentiam ne feceritis in concupiscentiis. Mec ulfra volut
legere, nec opus erat. Statim quippe cum fine hutusce sentenhiae quasi
luce securitahis infusa cordt meo, omnes dubitationis tenebrae diffu-
gerunt,
The early Christian belief in the nearness of the
παρουσία.
There can hardly be any doubt that in the Apostolic age the
prevailing belief was that the Second Coming of the Lord was an
event to be expected in any case shortly and probably in the life-
time of many of those then living; it is also probable that this
belief was shared by the Apostles themselves. For example, so
strongly did such views prevail among the Thessalonian converts
that the death of some members of the community had filled them
with perplexity, and even when correcting these opinions St. Paul
speaks of ‘ we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of our
Lord’; and in the second Epistle, although he corrects the
erroneous impression which still prevailed that the coming was
immediate and shows that other events must precede it, he still
contemplates it as at hand. Similar passages may be quoted from
all or most of the Epistles, although there are others that suggest
that it is by his own death, not by the coming of Christ, that
St. Paul expects to attain the full life in Christ to which he looked
forward (1 Cor. vii. 29-31; Rom. xiii. r1, 12; Phil. iv. 5; and
on the other side 2 Cor. v. 1-10; Phil. i. 23; iii. 11, 20, 21; see
Jowett, Zhessalonians, &c., i. p. 105, who quotes both classes of
passages without distinguishing them).
How far was this derived from our Lord’s own teaching?
There is, it is true, very clear teaching on the reality and the
suddenness of the coming of Christ, and very definite exhortation
to all Christians to live as expecting that coming. This teaching
is couched largely in the current language of Apocalyptic literature
480 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ΣΣ]. 11-14
which was often hardly intended to be taken literally even by
Jewish writers; moreover it is certainly mingled with teaching
which was intended to refer to what was a real manifestation of the
Divine power, and very definitely a ‘coming of the Lord’ in the
O.T. sense of the term, the destruction of Jerusalem. ill this
language again is reported to us by those who took it in a literal
sense. The expressions of our Lord quoted as prophetic of His
speedy return are all to a certain extent ambiguous; for example,
‘This generation shall not pass away until all these things be ful-
filled,’ or again ‘ There be some of them here who shall not taste of
death until they see the Son of man coming with power.’ On the
other side there is a very distinct tradition preserved in documents
of different classes recording that when our Lord was asked de-
finitely on such matters His answers were ambiguous. Actsi. 7
‘It is not for you to know times and seasons, which the Father
hath set within His own authority.’ John xxi. 23 ‘ This saying
therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should
not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; bur,
If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ Moreover
he affirmed that He Himself was ignorant of the date Mark xiii. 32;
Matt. xxiv. 36 ‘ But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not
even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.’
In the face of these passages it is reasonable to believe that
this ignorance of the Early Church was permitted and that with
a purpose. If so, we may be allowed to speculate as to the service
it was intended to fulfil.
In the first place, this belief in the nearness of the second coming
quickened the religious and moral earnestness of the early Christian.
Believing as intently as he did ‘that the fashion of this world passeth
away, he ‘set his affection on things above’; he lived in the world
and yet not of the world. The constant looking forward to the
coming of the Lord produced a state of intense spiritual zeal which
braced the Church for its earliest and hardest task.
And secondly, it has been pointed out very ably how much the
elasticity and mobility of Christianity were preserved by the fact that
the Apostles never realized that they were building up a Church
which was to last through the ages. It became the fashion of
a later age to ascribe to the Apostles a series of ordinances and
constitutions. Any such theory is quite inconsistent with the real
spirit of their time. They never wrote or legislated except so far
as existing needs demanded. They founded such institutions as
were clearly required by some immediate want, or were part of our
Lord’s teaching. But they never administered or planned with
a view to the remote future. Their writings were occasional,
suggested by some pressing difficulty; but they thus incidentally
laid down great broad principles which became the guiding principles
XIII. 11-14] THE DAY IS AT HAND 381
of the Church. The Church therefore is governed by case law, not
by code law: by broad principles, not by minute regulations. It
may seem a paradox, but yet it is profoundly true, that the Church
is adapted to the needs of every age, just because the original
preachers of Christianity never attempted to adapt it to the needs
of any period but their own.
The relation of Chaps. XII-XIV to the Gospels.
There is a very marked resemblance between the moral teaching
of St. Paul contained in the concluding section of the Epistle to the
Romans, and our Lord’s own words; a resemblance which, in some
cases, extends even to language.
Rom. xii. 14. Matt v. 44.
εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας ὑμᾶτ' ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, καὶ προσ-
αὐλογεῖτε, καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθε. εύὐχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς.
Rom. xiii. 7. Matt. xxii. a1.
ἀπόδοτε πᾶσι τὰς ὀφειλάς κ.τ.λ. ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Ἑαίσαρος Kaicap,
καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ.
Rom. xiii 9. Matt. xxii. 39, 40.
καὶ ef ris ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν τούτῳ δευτέρα δὲ ὁμοία αὕτη, ᾿Αγαπήσειῃ
τῷ λόγῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, ἐν τῷ τὸν πλησίον σον ὧς σεαυτόν. ἐν TavTAIS
"Ayarnoes τὸν πλησίον σον ὧς ταῖς δυσὶν ἐντολαῖς ὅλος ὁ νόμος κπρέ-
δαντόν. μαται καὶ οἷ προφῆται.
To these verbal resemblances must be added remarkable identity
of teaching in these successive chapters. Everything that is said
about revenge, or about injuring others, is exactly identical with the
spirit of the Sermon on the Mount; our duty towards rulers exactly
reproduces the lesson given in St. Matthew’s Gospel; the words
concerning the relation of ‘love’ to ‘law’ might be an extract from
the Gospel: the two main lines of argument in ch. xiv, the absolute
indifference of all external practices, and the supreme importance
of not giving a cause of offence to any one are both directly derived
from the teaching of Jesus (Matt. xviii. 6, 7, xv. 11-20). This
resemblance is brought out very well by a recent writer (Knowling,
Witness of the Epistles, p. 312): ‘Indeed it is not too much to add
that the Apostle’s description of the kingdom of God (Rom. xiv. 17)
reads like a brief summary of its description in the same Sermon
on the Mount; the righteousness, peace, and joy, which formed the
contents of the kingdom in the Apostle’s conception are found side
by side in the Saviour’s Beatitudes; nor can we fail to notice how
both St. Matthew and St. Luke contrast the anxious care for meat
and drink with seeking in the first place for the kingdom of God
and His righteousness. Nor must it be forgotten that Paul’s
fundamental idea of righteousness may be said to be rooted in the
teaching of Jesus.’
382 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII-XIV.
It is well known that there are definite references by St. Paul to
the words of our Lord: so 1 Thes. iv. 15 = Matt. xxiv. 31; 1 Cor.
vii. 10 = Mark x. 9; 1 Cor. ix. 14 = Luke x. 7; as also in the case
of the institution of the Last Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 24. Reminiscences
also of the Sermon on the Mount may be found in other Epistles,
e.g. James iv. 9 = Matt. v. 4; James v. 12 = Matt. v. 33; & Pet.
iii. 9 = Matt. v. 39; 1 Pet. iv. 14 = Matt. v. 11,12, and elsewhere.
The resemblances are not in any case sufficient either to prove
the use of any document which we possess in its present form, or
to prove the use of a different document (see below); but they do
show that the teaching of the Apostles was based on some common
source, which was identical both in substance and spirit with those
words of our Lord contained in the Gospels.
They suggest further that even in cases where we have no direct
evidence that Apostolic teaching is based on the Gospel narrative
it does not follow that our Lord Himself did not originate it.
For Christianity is older than any of its records. The books
of the N.T. reflect, they did not originate, the teaching of early
Christianity. Moreover, our Lord originated principles. It was
these principles which inspired His followers; some of the words
which are the product of and which taught those principles are
preserved, some are not; but the result of them is contained in the
words of the Apostles, which worked out in practical life the
principles they had learnt directly or indirectly from the Christ.
A much more exact and definite conclusion is supported with very great
industry by Alfred Resch in a series of investigations, the first of which is
Agrapha, Aussercanonische Evangelien-fragmente in Texte und Unter-
suchungen, v. 4. He argues (pp. 28, 29) that the acquaintance shown by
St. Paul with the words and teaching of Jesus implies the use of an Urcanon-
tsche Quellenschrift, which was also used by St. Mark, as well as the other
N.T. writers. It would be of course beside our purpose to examine this theo
but so far as it concerns the passages we are considering it may be noticed
(1) That so far as they go there would be no reason why all St. Paul's teach-
ing should not have been derived from our present Gospels. He does not
profess to be quoting, and the verbal reminiscences might quite well represent
the documents we possess. (2) That it is equally impossible to argue against
the use of different Gospels. The only legitimate conclusion is that there
must have been a common teaching of Jesus behind the Apostle’s words
which was identical in spirit and substantially in words with that contained
in our Synoptic Gospels. Some stress is laid by Resch (pp. 345, 302 ff.)
on passages which are identical in Romans and 1 Peter. So Rom. xii. 17s
1 Pet. iii.g; Rom. xiii. r, 3 = 1 Pet. ii. 13,14. The resemblance is un-
doubted, but a far more probable explanation is that 1 Peter is directly
indebted to the Romans (see Introduction § 8). There is no reason to cite
these as ‘ Words of the Lord’; yet it is very probable that much more of the
common teaching and even phraseology of the early Church than we are
accustomed to imagine goes back to the teaching of Jesus.
XIV. 1-XV.7.] ΟΝ SCRUPULOUSNESS 383
ON FORBEARANCE TOWARDS THOSE WHO ARB
SCRUPULOUS.
XIV. 1—XV.18. Receive a scrupulous Christian cordially.
Do not be continually condemning him. Some of you have
grasped the full meaning of Christian faith, others whose
conscience ἐς too tender lay undue stress on particular prac-
tices, on rules as to food or the observance of certain days.
Do not you whose faith ts more robust despise such scruples ;
nor should they be censorious (vv. 1-5).
Every one should make up his own mind. These things
ave indifferent in themselves. Only whatever a man does he
must look to Christ. Inlife and death we are all His, whose
death and resurrection have made him Lord of all. To
Him as to no one else shall we be called upon to give account
(vv. 6-12).
We must avoid censoriousness. But equally must we
avoid placing obstacles before a fellow-Christian. I believe
firmly that nothing ts harmful in stself, but ἐξ becomes so ἴυ
the person who considers tt harmful. The obligation of love
and charity ts paramount. Meats are secondary things.
Let us have an eye to peace and mutual help. It ts not
worthwhile for the sake of a little meat to undo God's
work in a brother's soul. Far better abstain from flesh and
wine altogether (vv. 13-21).
Keep the robuster faith with which you are blest to
yourself and God. To hesttate and then eat ἐς to incur
guilt; for tt ἐς not prompted by strong fatth (vv. 22, 23).
This rule of forbearance applies to all classes of the com-
munity. The strong should bear the scruples of the weak.
We should not seek our own good, but that of others ; following
the example of Christ as expounded to us in the Scriptures ;
those Scriptures which were written for our encouragement
and consolation. May God, from whom this encouragement
comes, grant you all—weak and strong, Few and Gentile—to
de of one mind, uniting in the praise of God (xv. 1-7).
384 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Σιν.1
For Christ has received you all alike. To both Few and
Gentile He has a special mission. To the Fews to exhibit
God’s veracity, to the Gentiles to reveal His mercy; that
Gentile might unite with Few, as Psalmist and Prophet
foretold, in hymns of pratse to the glory of God. May God
the giver of hope send it richly upon you (vv. 8-13).
XIV. 1—XV. 138. The Apostle now passes on to a further point;
the proper attitude to adopt towards matters in themselves indifferent,
but concerning which some members of the community might have
scruples, The subject is one which naturally connects itself with
what we have seen to be the leading thought which underlies these
concluding chapters, and in fact the whole Epistle, namely, the
peace and unity of the Church, and may have been immediately
suggested by the words just preceding: St. Paul has been con-
demning excessive indulgence; he now passes to the opposite
extreme, excessive scrupulousness, which he deals with in a very
different way. As Augustine points out, he condemns and instructs
more openly the ‘strong’ who can bear it, while indirectly showing
the error of the ‘weak.’ The arguments throughout are, as we shall
see, perfectly general, and the principles applied those characteristic
of the moral teaching of the Epistle—the freedom of Christian faith,
the comprehensiveness of Christian charity and that duty of peace
and unity on which St. Paul never wearies of insisting.
Tertullian (Adv. Mare. v. 15) refers to ver. 10, and Origen (Cones. in
Rom. x. 43, Lomm. vii. Ὁ. 453) to ver. 23. Of Marcion’s use of the rest of the
chapter we know nothing. On chaps. xv, xvi, see Introduction, § 9.
1. τὸν δὲ ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει : cf. Rom. iv. 19; 1 Cor. viii. 7, 9,
10, 11; ix. 22. ‘Weakness in faith,’ means an inadequate grasp
of the great principle of salvation by faith in Christ; the conse-
quence of which will be an anxious desire to make this salvation
more certain by the scrupulous fulfilment of formal rules.
προσλαμβάνεσθε, ‘receive into full Christian intercourse and
fellowship. The word is used (1) of God receiving or helping
man: Ps. xxvi (xxvii) 10 ὁ πατήρ μου καὶ ἥ μήτηρ μου ἐγκατέλιπόν με,
ὁ δὲ κύριος προσελάβετό με: SO in ver. 3 below and in Clem.
Rom. xlix. 6 ἐν ἀγάπῃ προσελάβετο ἡμᾶς ὁ δεσπότης. But (2) it is
also used of men receiving others into fellowship or companion-
ship: 2 Macc. viii. 1 τοὺς μεμενηκότας ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιουδαισμῷ προσλαβόμενοι
συνήγαγον εἰς ἐξακισχιλίου. These two uses are combined in xv. 7
‘ All whom Christ has willed to receive into the Christian community,
whether they be Jews or Greeks, circumcised or uncircumcised,
every Christian ought to be willing to receive as brothers.’
μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν, ‘but not to pass judgements
on their thoughts.’ Receive them as members of the Christian
XIV. 1-4.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 385
community, but do not let them find that they have been merely
received into a society in which their somewhat too scrupulous
thoughts are perpetually being condemned. διακρίσεις, from διακρίνω
to ‘judge,’ ‘ decide,’ ‘distinguish,’ means the expression of judge-
ments or opinions, as Heb. v. 14 ‘judgement of good or evil,’
1 Cor. xii. 10 ‘judgement or discernment of spirits.’ διαλογισμῶν
means ‘ thoughts, often, but not necessarily, with the idea of doubt,
hesitation (Luke xxiv. 38), disputes (Phil. ii. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 8), or
generally of perverse self-willed speculations. The above interpre-
tation of διακρίσεις is that of most commentators (Mey.-W. Oltr. Va.)
and is most in accordance with usage. An equally good sense
could be gained by translating (with Lips.) ‘not so as to raise
doubts in his mind, or (with Gif.) ‘ not unto discussions of doubts’ ;
but neither interpretation can be so well supported.
3. The Apostle proceeds to describe the two classes to which
he is referring, and then (ver. 3) he gives his commands to both
sides.
δε μὲν... ὃ δὲ ἀσθενῶν. With the vanation in construction cf. 1 Cor.
xii. 8-10; Mark iv. 4; Luke viii. 5. The second ὁ is not for ὅς, but is to be
taken with ἀσθενῶν.
πιστεύει, ‘ hath faith to eat all things’; his faith, i.e. his grasp and
hold of the Christian spirit, is so strong that he recognizes how
indifferent all such matters in themselves really are.
λάχανα ἐσθίει, ‘abstains from all flesh meat and eats only
vegetables.’ Most commentators have assumed that St. Paul is
describing the practice of some definite party in the Roman
community and have discussed, with great divergence of opinion,
the motive of such a practice. But St. Paul is writing quite
generally, and is merely selecting a typical instance to balance the
first. He takes, on the one side, the man of thoroughly strong
faith, who has grasped the full meaning of his Christianity; and on
the other side, one who is, as would generally be admitted, over-
scrupulous, and therefore is suitable as the type of any variety of
scrupulousness in food which might occur. To both these classes
he gives the command of forbearance, and what he says to them
will apply to other less extreme cases (see the Discussion on p. 399).
8. ὁ ἐσθίων... ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐσθίων. St. Paul uses these expressions
to express briefly the two classes with which he is dealing (see ver. 6).
Pride and contempt would be the natural failing of the one; a spirit
of censoriousness of the other.
ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ αὐτὸν προσελάβετο. See ver. 1. God through Christ
has admitted men into His Church without imposing on them
minute and formal observances; they are not therefore to be
criticized or condemned for neglecting practices which God has
not required.
4, σὺ τίς al; St. Paul is still rebuking the ‘weak. The man
ce
386 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIv. 4 δ.
whom he is condemning is not a household slave, but the servant of
God; to God therefore he is responsible.
τῷ ἰδίῳ κυρίῳφ. Dat. of reference: cf. vv. 5-8. ‘It is to his
own master that he is responsible.’ He it is to whom he must show
whether he has used or misused his freedom, whether he has had
the strength to fulfil his work or whether he has failed. πίπτει
(xi. rr, 22) of moral failure; στήκει (1 Cor. xvi. 13; Phil. i. 27) of
moral stability. In τ Cor. x. x2 the two are contrasted, ὥστε ὁ
δοκῶν ἑστάναι βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ.
σταθήσεται δέ: cf. Matt. xii. 25. In spite of your censoriousness
he will be held straight, for the same Lord who called him on
conditions of freedom to His kingdom is mighty to hold him
upright The Lord will give grace and strength to those whom He
as called.
For δυνατεῖ (NX ABCD FG), which is an unusual word, later MSS.
substituted δυνατός (P, Bas. Chrys.), or δυνατὸς. ἐστιν (TR with L
and later MSS.). For ὁ Κύριος (ἐξ A BCP, Sah. Boh, &c.) & Θεός was ἰδ.
troduced from ver. 3 (DEFGL, &c., Vulg., Orig.-lat. Bas. Chrys., &c.),
perhaps because of the confusion with τῷ Kupigy above.
δ. The Apostle turns to another instance of similar scrupulous
ness,—the superstitious observance of days. In Galaua he has
already had to rebuke this strongly; later he condemns the Colos-
sians for the same reason. Gal. iv. το, rx ‘ Ye observe days, and
months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any
means I have bestowed labour upon you in vain.’ Col. ii. 16, 17
‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect
of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are
a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s.’ St. Paul
does not in the Romans condemn any one for adherence to this
practice, but simply considers the principles which underlie the
question, as illustrating (hence yap) the general discussion of the
chapter. The fundamental principle is that such things are in
themselves indifferent, but that each person must be tully assured
in his own conscience that he is doing right.
Various commentators have discussed the relation of these direc-
tions to Ecclesiastical ordinances, and have attempted to make
a distinction between the Jewish rites which are condemned and
Christian rites which are enjoined. (So Jerome, Contra Jovinian.
li. 16, quoted by Liddon ad loc.: non inter tetunta εἰ saturiialem
aequalia mente dispensat; sed contra cos loguttur, gut in Christum
credentes, adhuc tudatzabant.) No such distinction is possible. The
Apostle is dealing with principles, not with special rites, and he
lays down the principle that these things in themselves are indif-
ferent; while the whole tenor of his argument is against scrupu-
lousncss in any form. So these same principles would apply
equally to the scrupulous observance of Ecclesiastical rules, whether
XIV. δ, 6.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 387
as in some places of Sunday, or as in others of Saints’ days or
Fast days. Such observances if undertaken in a scrupulous
spirit are opposed to the very essence of Christian freedom.
When once this principle has been grasped a loyal free adhesion
to the rules of the Church becomes possible. The Jew and
the scrupulous Christian kept their rules of days and seasons,
because they believed that their salvation depended on an exact
adherence to formal ordinances. The Christian who has grasped
the freedom of the Gospel recognizes the indifference in themselves
of all such ordinances; but he voluntarily submits to the rules of
his Church out of respect for its authority, and he recognizes the
value of an external discipline. The Apostolical Constitutions,
which representing an early system of Christian discipline, seem to
recognize these principles, for they strongly condemn abstinence
from food if influenced by any feeling of abhorrence from it,
although not if undertaken for the purpose of discipline.
Tisch. (ed. 8) reads here 8s μὲν γάρ with δ AC P, Vulg. Boh. (which he
quotes incorrectly on the other side), Bas. Ambrstr. Jo. -Damasc. The γάρ is
omitted by δὲς B D EF G, Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. Thdrt. TR. RV. and inserted
between brackets by WH. Lachmann. The insertion is probably right;
the balance of external evidence being in its favour, for B here is clearly
Western in character.
κρίνει, ‘estimates,’ ‘approves of’: Plat. PAz/. p. 57 E is quoted.
παρά, ‘passing by ’ and so ‘in preference to.’
πληροφορείσθω. The difference between the Christian and the
Jew or the heathen, between the man whose rule is one of faith and
the man subject to law, is, that while for the latter there are definite
and often minute regulations he must follow, for the former the
only laws are great and broad principles. He has the guidance of
the Spirit; he must do what his νοῦς, his highest intellectual faculty,
tells him to be right. On the word πληροφορείσθω see on iv. 21
and cf. Clem. Rom. ΧΙ πληροφορηθέντες διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως.
6. The reason for indifference in these matters is that both
alike, both the man who has grasped the Christian principle and
the man who is scrupulous, are aiming at the one essential thing,
to render service to God, to live as men who are to give account
to Him.
ὃ φρονῶν : ‘esteem,’ ‘ estimate,’ ‘ observe.’ Κυρίῳ, emphatic, is Dat.
of reference as above, ver. 4.
ὁ ἐσθίων... ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων: see ver. 3. Both alike make their
meal an occasion of solemn thanksgiving to God, and it is that
which consecrates the feast. Is there any reference in εὐχαριστεῖ to
the Christian εὐχαριστία ὃ
After Κυρίφ φρονεῖ the TR. with later authorities (LP &c., Syrr., Bas.
Chrys. Thdrt.) add καὶ ὁ μὴ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν Κυρίῳ οὐ φρονεῖ, a gloss
which seemed necessary for completing the sentence on the analogy of the
388 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIv. 6-9.
last half of the verse. The addition of this clause caused the omission of
wai before ὁ ἐσθίων (TR. with some minuscules). That the words καὶ ὁ μὴ
φρονῶν were not parts of the original text omitted by homoeoteleuton is
shown by the fact that many authorities which insert them still preserve the
superfluous καί (Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt. and many minuscules). Various
instances of homoeoteleuton occur, as might be expected, in these verses, but
they are in all cases confined to a single or very slight authority. L omits καὶ
ὃ μὴ ἐσθίων... εὐχ. τῷ θεῷ : 66 omits ἡμέραν to ἡμέραν ; πεώφεμεξε. 3 omit
ἐσθίει ἴο ἐσθίει.
7-12. St. Paul proceeds to develop more fully, and as a general
rule of life, the thought suggested in ver. 6. To God we are
responsible whether we live or die; before His judgement-seat we
shall appear; therefore we must live as men who are to give
account of our lives to Him and not to one another.
7. οὐδεὶς γὰρ... ἀποθνήσκει. In life and in death we are not
isolated, or solitary, or responsible only to ourselves. It is not by
our own act we were created, nor is our death a matter that con-
cerns us alone.
8. τῷ Κυρίῳ: ‘but it is to Christ, as men living in Christ’s sight
and answerable to Him, that we must live; in Christ’s sight we
shall die. Death does not free us from our obligations, whether we
live or die we are the Lord’s.’ Wetstein compares Pirgé A doth, iv.
32 ‘Let not thine imagination assure thee that the grave is an
asylum; for perforce thou wast framed, and perforce thou wast
born, and perforce thou livest, and perforce thou diest, and perforce
thou art about to give account and reckoning before the King of
the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed is He.’
It may be noticed that in these verses St. Paul describes the Christian life
from a point of view other than that which he had adopted in chap. viii.
There it was the higher aspects of that life as lived in union with Christ,
here it is the life lived as in His sight and responsible to Him.
9. The reason for this relation of all men to Christ as servants
to their master is that by His death and resurrection Christ has
established His Divine Lordship over all alike, both dead and
living. Responsibility to Him therefore no one can ever escape.
εἰς τοῦτο is explained by ἵνα κυριεύσῃ.
ἀπέθανε καὶ ἔζησεν must refer to Christ’s death and resurrection.
ἔζησεν cannot refer to the life of Christ on earth, (1) because of the
order of words which St. Paul has purposely and deliberately
varied from the order ζῶμεν καὶ ἀποθνήσκωμεν of the previous verses ;
(2) because the Lordship of Christ is in the theology of St. Paul
always connected with His resurrection, not His life, which was
a period of humiliation (Rom. viii. 34; 2 Cor. iv. 10, συ); (3)
because of the tense; the aorist ἔζησεν could be used of a single
definite act which was the beginning of a new life, it could not be
used of the continuous life on earth.
νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων. The inversion of the usual order is owing to
XIV. 9-12.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 389
the order of words in the previous part of the sentence, ame}. και
no. For the κυριότης of Christ (iva κυριεύσῃ) see Phil. ii, 9, 11.
For Χριστός the TR. with later MSS., Syrr., Iren.-lat. reads καὶ Χριστός.
ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἔζησεν, the older and most difficult reading (8 A BC, Boh., Arm.
Aeth. Orig.-lat. Chrys. 1/2) has been explained in various ways; by ἀπέθ. καὶ
ἀνέστη F G, Vulg. Orig. and other Fathers; by ἀπέθ. καὶ ἀνέστ. καὶ ἀνέζησεν
TR. with minusc. (perhaps conflate); by ἀπέθ. καὶ ἀνέστ. καὶ ἔζησεν, LP.
&c., Harkl. and some Fathers: by ἔζησ. καὶ ἀπέθ. καὶ ἀνέστ. DE, Iren.
10. St. Paul applies the argument pointedly to the questions he
is discussing. We are responsible to Christ; we shall appear
before Him: there is no place for uncharitable judgements or
censorious exclusiveness between man and man.
σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις refers to ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων, ἢ καὶ σύ to ὁ ἐσθίων.
παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. Cf. Acts xxvii. 24 Καίσαρί
σε δεῖ παραστῆναι. For βῆμα, in the sense οὗ ἃ judge’s official seat,
see Matt. xxvii. 19; Jo. xix. 13, ἄς. God is here mentioned as
Judge because (see il. 16) He judges the world through Christ.
n 2 Cor. v. ro the expression is τοὺς yap πάντας ἡμᾶς φανερωθῆναι δεῖ
ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. It is quite impossible to follow
Liddon in taking Θεοῦ of Christ in his Divine nature; that would
be contrary to all Pauline usage: but it is important to notice how
easily St. Paul passes from Χριστός to Θεός. The Father and the
Son were in his mind so united in function that They may often
be interchanged. God, or Christ, or God through Christ, will
judge the world. Our life is in God, or in Christ, or with Christ
in God. The union of man with God depends upon the intimate
union of the Father and the Son.
Θεοῦ must be accepted as against Χριστοῦ on decisive authority. The
latter reading arose from a desire to assimilate the expression to 2 Cor. v. 10.
Li. St. Paul supports his statement of the universal character of
God’s judgement by quoting Is. xlv. 23 (freely acc. to the LXX).
In the O. T. the words describe the expectation of the universal
character of Messianic rule, and the Apostle sees their complete
fulfilment at the final judgement.
ἐξομολογήσεται τῷ Θεῷ, ‘shall give praise to God,’ according to
the usual LXX meaning; cf. xv. 9, which is quoted from Ps. xvii
(xviii). 50.
ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγω Ἑύριοφ is substituted for κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω, cf. Num. xiv, 28
&e.; for πᾶσα γλῶσσα «.7.A. the LXX reads ὀμεῖται π. y. τὸν Θεόν.
12. The conclusion is: it is to God and not to man that each of
us has to give account. If Θεῷ be read (see below), it may again
be noted how easily St. Paul passes from Κύριος to Θεόε (see on
ver. ro and cf. xiv. 3 with xv. 7).
There are several minor variations of text. οὖν is omitted by BDF GP
and perhaps the Latin authorities, which read stague. For δώσει of the TR.
390 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 12-14
WH. read ἀποδώσει with BD F G Chrys., the Latin authorities reading reddit
Cont Cyprian dabit). τῷ Θεῷ at the end of the sentence is omitted by BFG
τι Aug. In all these cases B is noticeable as appearing with a group
which is almost entirely Western in character.
18. The Apostle now passes to another aspect of the question.
He has laid down very clearly the rule that all such points are in
themselves indifferent; he has rebuked censoriousness and shown
that a man is responsible to God alone. Now he turns completely
round and treats the question from the other side. All this is
true, but higher than all is the rule of Christian charity, and this
demands, above all, consideration for the feelings and consciences
of others.
Μηκέτι οὖν. .. κρίνωμεν marks the transition to the second ques-
tion by summing up the first.
xpivate: for the play on words cf. xii. 3, 14, xiii. τ. ‘Do not
therefore judge one another, but judge this for yourself, i.e. deter-
mine this as your course of conduct: cf. 2 Cor. ii. 1.
τὸ μὴ τιθέναι... τῷ ἀδελφῷ... σκάνδαλον. τιθέναι is suggested
by the literal meaning of σκάνδαλον, ἃ snare or stumbling-block
which is laid in the path. St. Paul has probably derived the word
σκάνδαλον and the whole thought of the passage from our Lord’s
words reported in Matt. xviii. 6f. See also his treatment of the
same question in 1 Cor. viii. g f.
πρόσκομμα... should perhaps be omitted with B, Arm. Pesh. As
Weiss points out, the fact that 4 is omitted in all authorities which omit sp.
proves that the words cannot have been left out accidentally. πρόσκομμα
would come in from 1 Cor. viii. 9 and ver, 20 below.
14. In order to emphasize the real motive which should influ-
ence Christians, namely, respect for the feelings of others, the
indifference of all such things in themselves is emphatically stated.
dv Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ. The natural meaning of these words is the
same as that of ἐν Xp. (ix. 1); to St. Paul the indifference of all
meats in themselves is a natural deduction from his faith and life
in Christ. It may be doubted whether he is here referring expressly
to the words of Christ (Mark vii. 15; Matt. xv. 11); when doing
so his formula is παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου.
κοινόν. The technical term to express those customs and habits,
which, although ‘common’ to the world, were forbidden to the
pious Jew. Jos. Ané. XIII, 1. 1 τὸν κοινὸν βίον προῃρημένους:
1 Macc. i. 47, 62; Acts x. 14 ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ
ἀκάθαρτον.
δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, ‘in itself,’ ‘in its own nature.’
That δι᾽ éavrov is the right reading is shown by (1) the authority of δ BC
also of 2 (Cod. Patiriensis, see Introduction, § 7) supported by many later
MsS., the Vulgate, and the two earliest commentators Orig.-lat. / Domine
ergo lesu nihil commune per semetipsum, hoc est natura στ dicstur, and
Chrys. τῇ Φύσει φησὶν οὐδὲν ἀκάθαρτον and (a) by the contrast with τῷ
392 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 17-20.
In danger of falling into the Judaizing course of interpreting the
Messianic prophecies literally, and imagining the Messianic kingdom
to be one of material plenty ’ (Iren. V. xxxiii. 3).
These words are often quoted as condemning any form of
scrupulousness concerning eating and drinking; but that is not
St. Paul’s idea. He means that ‘eating and drinking’ are in
themselves so unimportant that every scruple should be respected,
and every form of food willingly given up. They are absolutely
insignificant in comparison with ‘ righteousness’ and ‘ peace’ and
‘joy.’
δικαιοσύνη κτλ. This passage describes man’s life in the
kingdom, and these words denote not the relation of the Christian
to God, but his life in relation to others. δικαιοσύνη therefore is not
used in its technical sense of the relation between God and man,
but means righteousness or just dealing ; εἰρήνη is the state of peace
with one another which should characterize Christians; χαρά is the
joy which comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the
community; cf. Acts ii. 46 μετελάμβανον τροφῆς ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ
ἀφελότητι καρδίας.
18. The same statement is generalized. The man who, on the
principle implied by these virtues (ἐν τούτῳ, not ἐν τούτοις), is Christ's
servant, i.e. who serves Christ by being righteous and conciliatory
and charitable towards others, not by harshly emphasizing his
Christian freedom, is not only well-pleasing to God, but will gain
the approval of men.
δόκιμος τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. The contrast to βλασφημείσθω of ver. τό.
Consideration for others is a mark of the Christian character which
will recommend a man to his fellow-men. δόκιμος, able to stand
the test of inspection and criticism (cf. 2 Tim. ii. 15).
19. οἰκοδομῆς : cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 26 πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν γινέσθω,
1 Thess. v. 11 οἰκοδομεῖτε eis τὸν ἕνα.
διώκομεν (NA BFGLP3) is really more expressive than the somewhat
obvious correction διώκωμεν (Ὁ D E, Latt.).. DEF ὦ add φιλάξωμεν after
ἀλλήλους.
20. κατάλυε . .. ἔργον keeps up the metaphor suggested by
οἰκοδομῆς. ‘Build up, do not destroy, that Christian community
which God has founded in Christ.’ Cf. 1 Cor. iii. g Θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν
συνεργοί. Θεοῦ γεώργιον, Θεοῦ οἰκοδομὴ ἐστε. The words εἰρήνη and
οἰκοδομή both point to the community rather than the individual
Christian.
πάντα μὲν καθαρά: cf. 1 Cor. x. 23 πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα
συμφέρει. πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα οἰκοδομεῖ.
ἀλλὰ κακόν : the subject to this must be supplied from πάντα. It
is a nice question to decide to whom these words refer. (1) Are
they addressed to the strong, those who by eating are likely to give
offence to others (so Va. Oltr., and the majority of commentaries)?
XIV. 20-28.] ΟΝ SCRUPULOUSNESS 393
or (2) are they addressed to the weak, those who by eating what they
think it wrong to eat injure their own consciences (so Gif. Mey.-W.
and others)? In the former case διὰ προσκόμματος (on the διά cf. ii.
27, iv. 11) means ‘so as to cause offence,’ in the latter ‘so as to
take offence’ (Tyndale, ‘who eateth with hurt of his conscience’).
Perhaps the transition to ver. 21 is slightly better if we take (1).
21. A thing in itself indifferent may be wrong if it injures the
consciences of others; on the other hand, to give up what will injure
others is a noble act.
καλόν : cf. x Cor. vii. 1 and for the thought 1 Cor. vili. 13 διόπερ,
οἱ βρῶμα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν pov, οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα εἷς τὸν αἰῶνα, iva
μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν pov σκανδαλίψω.υ We know the situation implied
in the Corinthian Epistle, and that it did not arise from the existence
of a party who habitually abstained from flesh: St. Paul was
merely taking the strongest instance he could think of. It is
equally incorrect therefore to argue from this verse that there was
a sect of vegetarians and total abstainers in Rome. St. Paul
merely takes extreme forms of self-deprivation, which he uses as
instances. ‘I would live like an Essene rather than do anything to
offend my brother.’
The TR. adds after προσκόπτει the gloss ἢ σκανδαλίζεται ἣ ἀσθενεῖ with B
Western and Syrian authorities (NCB DEFGLP, &c., Vulg. Sah, Bas,
Chrys.). They are omitted by NA C3, Pesh. Boh., Orig. and Orig.-lat. This
is a very clear instance of a Western reading in B; cf. xi. 6.
22. σὺ πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις. Your faith is sufficient to see that all
these things are a matter of indifference. Be content with that
knowledge, it is a matter for your own conscience and God. Do
not boast of it, or wound those not so strong as yourself.
The preponderance of authorities (δὲ A BC, Vulg. codd. Boh., Orig.-lat.)
compels us to read ἣν ἔχεις. The omission of fv (DEFGLP 3, Vulg
. Syrr. Boh., Chrys. &c.) is a Western correction and an improvement.
μακάριος «7.4. Blessed (see on iv. 6, 7) because of his strong
faith is the man who can courageously do what his reason tells him
that he may do without any doubt or misgiving κρίνων, to ‘judge
censoriously so as to condemn,’ cf. ii. 1, 3, 29. δοκιμάζει ἀ 28,
ii. 18) to ‘ approve of after testing and examining.’
48. ὃ δὲ διακρινόμενος : see on iv. 20. If a man doubts or
hesitates and then eats, he is, by the very fact that he doubts,
condemned for his weakness of faith. If his faith were strong he
would have no doubt or hesitation.
πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως, ἁμαρτία ἐστίν. πίστις is subjective, the
strong conviction of what is right and of the principles of salvation.
‘Weakly to comply with other persons’ customs without being
convinced of their indifference is itself sin.’ This maxim (1) is not
concerned with the usual conduct of unbelievers, (2) must not be
894 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 28-XV.1L
extended to cases different in character from those St. Paul is
considering. It is not a general maxim concerning faith.
This verse has had a very important part to play in controversy. How
important may be seen from the use made of it in Augustine Contra /ultanum
iv, one passage of which (§ 32) may be quoted: Lx guo colligitur, etiam
spsa bona opera Saciunt infideles, non tpsorume esse, sed tlitses gus bene
atitur malts. Ipsorum autem esse peccata guibus et bona male faciunt ;
quia ea non fideli, sed infideli, hoc est stulta et noxia faciunt voluntate:
qualis voluntas, nullo Christiano dubitante, arbor est mala, quae facere non
potest nisi fructus malos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, ve&s sedis, quod
non est ex fide, peccatum est. Since this time ithas been used to support the
two propositions that works done before justification are sin and consequently
that the heathen are unable to do good works. Into the merits of these
controversies it will be apart from our purpose to enter. It is sufficient to
notice that this verse is in such a context completely misquoted. As Chry-
sostom says, ‘\Vhen a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing is
clean, how can he do else than sin? Now all these things have been
spoken by Paul of the object in hand, not of everything.’ The words do
not apply to those who are not Christians, nor to the works of those who
are Christians done before they became such, but to the conduct of believing
Christians; and faith is used somewhat in the way we should speak of
a ‘good conscience’; ‘everything which is not done with a clear conscience
is sin.” So Aquinas, Summa i. 2, qu. xix, art. v. omne quod mon est ex fidt
peccatum est, id est, omne quod est contra conscientiam.
On the doxology (xvi. 35-27), which in some MSS. finds a place here, see
the Introduction, § 8.
XV. 1. The beginning of chap. xv is connected immediately
with what precedes, and there is no break in the argument until
ver. 13 Is reached; but towards the close, especially in wv. 7-13,
the language of the Apostle is more general. He passes from the
special points at issue to the broad underlying principle of Christian
unity, and especially to the relation of the two great sections of the
Church—the Jewish and the Gentile Christians.
ὀφείλομεν δέ. Such weakness is, it is true, a sign of absence of
faith, but we who are strong in faith ought to bear with scruples
weak though they may be. of δύνατοι not, as in x Cor. i. 26, the
rich or the powerful, but as in 2 Cor. xii. 10, xiii. 9, of the morally
strong.
βαστάζειν: cf. Gal. vi. 2 ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη βαστάζετε. In classical
Greek the ordinary word would be φέρειν, but βαστάζειν seems to
have gradually come into use in the figurative sense. It is used of
bearing the cross both literally (John xix. 17), and figuratively
(Luke xiv. 27). We find it in later versions of the O. T. In Αᾳ,
Symm. and Theod. in Is. xl. σι, Ixvi. 12; in the two latter in
Is. Ixiii. 9g; in Matt. viii. 17 quoting Is. lili. 3: in none of these
passages is the word used in the LAX. It became a favourite word
in Christian literature, Ign. Ad Polye.1, Epist. ad Diog. ὃ 10 (quoted
by Lft.).
μὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκειν: cf. 1 Cor. x. 33 καθὼς κἀγὼ πάντα πᾶσυ
ἀρέσκω, μὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ συμφέρον, where St. Paul is describing his
XV.2-4] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 395
own conduct in very similar circumstances, He strikes at the root
of Christian disunion, which is selfishness.
2. alg τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς οἰκοδομήν : cf. xiv. 16 ὑμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν, το τὰ
τῆς οἰκοδομῆς τῆς els ἀλλήλους. The end or purpose of pleasing them
must be the promotion of what is absolutely to their good, further
defined by olxodoun, their edification. These words limit and
explain what St. Paul means by ‘pleasing men.’ In Gal. i. 10
(cf. Eph. vi. 6; x Thess. ii. 4) he had condemned it. In 1 Cor. ix.
20-23 he had made it a leading principle of his conduct. The rule
is that we are to please men for their own good and not our own.
The γάρ after ἕκαστος of the TR. should be omitted. For ἡμῶν some
authorities (F GP 5, Vulg., many Fathers) read ὑμῶν.
8. καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς κτλ. The precept just laid down is
enforced by the example of Christ (cf. xiv. 15). As Christ bore
our reproaches, so must we bear those of others.
καθὼς γέγραπται. St. Paul, instead of continuing the sentence,
changes the construction and inserts a verse of the O. T. [Ps.
Ixviii (Ixix). 10, quoted exactly according to the LXX], which he
puts into the mouth of Christ. For the construction cf. ix. 7.
The Psalm quoted describes the sufferings at the hands of the
ungodly of the typically righteous man, and passages taken from it
are often in the N. T. referred to our Lord, to whom they would
apply as being emphatically ‘the just one.’ Ver. 4 is quoted
John xv. 25, ver. gain John ii. 17, ver. 9b in Rom. xv. 3, ver. 12
in Matt. xxvii. 27-30, ver. 21 in Matt. xxvii. 34, and John xix. 29,
ver. 22 f. in Rom. xi. 9, ver. 25a in Acts i. 20. (See Liddon,
ad loc.)
of ὀνειδισμοί κιτλ. In the original the righteous man is repre-
sented as addressing God and saying that the reproaches against
God he has to bear. St. Paul transfers the words to Christ, who is
represented as addressing a man. Christ declares that in suffering
it was the reproaches or sufferings of others that He bore.
4. The quotation is justified by the enduring value of the O. T.
προεγράφη, ‘were written before,’ in contrast with ἡμετέραν :
cf. Eph. iii. 3; Jude 4, but with a reminiscence of the technical
meaning of γράφειν for what is written as Scripture.
διδασκαλίαν, ‘instruction’: cf. 2 Tim. iii. 16 πᾶσα γραφὴ θεό-
πνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν.
τὴν ἐλπίδα : the specifically Christian feeling of hope. It is the
supreme confidence which arises from trust in Christ that in no cir-
cumsiances will the Christian be ashamed of that wherein he trusteth
(Phil. i. 20); a confidence which tribulation only strengthens, for
it makes more certain his power of endurance and his experience
of consolation. On the relation of patience to hope cf. v. 3 and
x Thess. i. 3.
396 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 4-6.
This passage, and that quoted above from 2 Tim. iii. 16, lay
down very clearly the belief in the abiding value of the O.T.
which underlies St. Paul’s use of it. But while emphasizing its
value they also limit it. The Scriptures are to be read for our
moral instruction, ‘for reproof, for correction, for instruction which
is in righteousness’; for the perfection of the Christian character,
‘that the man of God may be complete, furnished unto every good
work’; and because they establish the Christian hope which is in
Christ. Two points then St. Paul teaches, the permanent value of
the great moral and spiritual truths of the O.T., and the witness
of the O. T. to Christ. His words cannot be quoted to prove more
than this.
There are in this verse a few idiosyncrasies of B which may be noted bu:
need not be accepted; ἐγράφη (with Vulg. Orig.-lat.) for spoeypd¢e ;
πάντα before εἰς τὴν hy. (with P); τῆς παρακλήσεως repeated after ἔχωμεν
(with Clem.-AL.). The TR. with N©CALP 3, &c. substitutes προεγράφη for
ἐγράφη in the second place, and with C™* DEF GP, &c., Valg. Boh. Harel.
omits the second διά,
δ. After the digression of ver. 4 the Apostle returns to the sub-
ject of vv. 1-3, and sums up his teaching by a prayer for the unity
of the community.
ὃ δὲ Θεὸς τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως : cf. ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης
(ver. 33; Phil. iv. 9; τ Thess. v. 23; Heb. xiii. 20), τῆς ἐλπίδος
(ver. 13), πάσης παρακλήσεως (2 Cor. i. 3), πάσης χάριτος (x Pet
v. 10).
τὸ at φρονεῖν : cf. Phil. ii. a-§ πληρώσατέ pov τὴν χαράν, iva τὸ
αὐτὸ φρονῆτε. .. τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Xp. Ἰ.
κατὰ Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν: cf 2 Cor. xi. Σ ὃ λαλῶ, οὐ κατὰ Κύριον
λαλῶ : Col. ii. 8 οὐ κατὰ Χρ.: Eph. iv. 24 τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν
κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα (Rom. viii. 27, which is generally quoted, is not
in point), These examples seem to show that the expression must
mean ‘in accordance with the character or example of Christ.’
δῴη for δοίῃ, a later form, cf. a Thess. iii. 16; 2 Tim, i. 16, 18; ii. 25;
Eph. i. 17 (but with variant δώῃ in the last two cases). Xp. "Ino. (B DEG L,
&c., Boh. Chrys.), not ‘Inc. Xp. NAC FP 3 Vulg., Orig.-lat. Theodrt.
6. Unity and harmony of worship will be the result of unity
of life.
ὁμοθυμαδόν, ‘with unity of mind.’ A common word in the Acts
(i. 14, &c.).
τὸν Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This expres-
sion occurs also in 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; Eph. i. 3; 1 Ρεῖ. i. 4. In
Col. i. 3, which is also quoted, the correct reading is τῷ Θεῷ πατρὶ
τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν "I. X. Two translations are possible: (1) ‘God even
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Mey.-W. Gif. Lid., Lips.).
In favour of this it is pointed out that while πατήρ expects some
correlative word, Θεός is naturally absolute; and that ὁ Θεὸς καὶ
398 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 8-10
carry out the promises implied in that covenant the seal of which
was circumcision; 80 2 Cor. iii. 6 διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης. In the
Ep. to the Galatians (iv. 4, 5) St. Paul had said that Christ was
‘born of a woman, born under the law, that He might redeem them
which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of
sons. On the Promise and Circumcision see Gen. xii. 1-3, xvii.
I-14.
The privileges of the Jews which St. Paul dwells on are as fol-
lows: (1) Christ has Himself fulfilled the condition of being circum-
cised: the circumcised therefore must not be condemned. (2) The
primary object of this was to fulfil the promises made to the Jews
cf. Rom. ii. 9, ro). (3) It was only as a secondary result of this
essiahship that the Gentiles glorified God. (4) While the bless-
ing came to the Jews ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας to preserve God's consistency, it
came to the Gentiles ὑπὲρ dddovs for God’s loving-kindness.
γεγενῆσθαι, which should be read with NAELP 9 (γεγεννῆσθε) ; it was
altered into the more usual aorist γενέσθαι (BC Ὁ F G), perhaps because it
was supposed to be co-ordinated with δοξάσαι.
rag ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων : cf. ix. 4, 5.
9. τὰ δὲ ἔθνη... δοξάσαι. Two constructions are possible for
these words: (1) they may be taken as directly subordinate to λέγω
yap (Weiss, Oltr. Go.). The only object in this construction would
be to contrast ὑπὲρ ἐλέους with ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας. But the real antithesis
of the passage is between βεβαιῶσαι ras ἐπαγγελίας and τὰ ἔθνη δοξά-
oa: and hence (2) ra 8... ἔθνη... δοξάσαι should be taken as
subordinate to eis τό and co-ordinate with βεβαιῶσαι (Gif. Mey.
Lid., Va.). With this construction the point of the passage
becomes much greater, the call of the Gentiles is shown to be (as
it certainly was), equally with the fulfilment of the promise to the
Jews, dependent on the covenant made with Abraham (iv. ΕΣ, 12,
16, 17).
ae γέγραπται. The Apostle proceeds, as so often in the
Epistle, to support his thesis by a series of passages quoted from
the O.T.
διὰ τοῦτο «.7.A.: taken almost exactly from the LXX of Ps. xvii
(xviii). 50. In the original David, as the author of the Psalm, is
celebrating a victory over the surrounding nations: in the Messianic
application Christ is represented as declaring that among the
Gentiles, i.e. in the midst of, and therefore together with them, He
will praise God. ἐξομολογήσομαι, ‘I will praise thee’: cf. xiv. m1.
10. Εὐφράνθητε κιτὰλ. : from the LXX of Deut. xxxii. 43. The
Hebrew, translated literally, appears to mean, ‘ Rejoice, O ye nations,
His people.’ Moses is represented as calling on the nations to
rejoice over the salvation of Israel. St. Paul takes the words as
interpreted by the LXX to imply that the Gentiles and chosen
people shall unite in the praise of God.
400 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV-XV. 18.
dealing with certain special circumstances which have arisen in the
Church of Rome, and that the weak and the strong represent two
parties in that Church.
1. The oldest explanation appears to be that which sees in these
disputes a repetition of those which prevailed in the Corinthian
Church, as to the same or some similar form of Judaizing practices
(Orig. Chrys. Aug. Neander, &c.). In favour of this may be
quoted the earlier portion of the fifteenth chapter, where there is
clearly a reference to the distinction between Jewish and Gentile
Christians. But against this opinion it is pointed out that such
Jewish objections to ‘things offered to idols,’ or to meats killed in
any incorrect manner, or to swine’s flesh, have nothing to do with
the typical instances quoted, the abstinence altogether from flesh
meat and from wine (vv. 2, 21).
2. A second suggestion (Eichhorn) is that which sees in these
Roman ascetics the influence of the Pythagorean and other heathen
sects which practised and taught abstinence from meat and wine
and other forms of self-discipline. But these again will not satisfy
all the circumstances. These Roman Christians were, it is said, in
the habit of observing scrupulously certain days: and this custom
did not, as far as we know, prevail among any heathen sect.
3. Baur sees here Ebionite Christians of the character repre-
sented by the Clementine literature, and in accordance with his
general theory he regards them as representing the majority of
the Roman Church. That this last addition to the theory is tenable
seems impossible. So far as there is any definiteness in St. Paul’s
language he clearly represents the ‘strong’ as directing the policy
of the community. They are told to receive ‘him that is weak in
faith’; they seem to have the power to admit him or reject him.
All that he on his side can do is to indulge in excessive criticism.
Nor is the first part of the theory really more satisfactory. Of
the later Ebionites we have very considerable knowledge derived
from the Clementine literature and from Epiphanius (//aer. xxx),
but it is an anachronism to discover these developments in a period
nearly two centuries earlier, Nor again is it conceivable that
St. Paul would have treated a developed Judaism in the lenient
manner in which he writes in this chapter.
4. Less objection perhaps applies to the modification of this
theory, which sees in these sectaries some of the Essene influence
which probably prevailed everywhere throughout the Jewish world
(Ritschl, Mey.-W. Lid. Lft. Gif. Oltr.). This view fulfils the
three conditions of the case. The Essenes were Jewish, they were
ascetic, and they observed certain days. If the theory is put in the
form not that Essenism existed as a sect in Rome, which is highly
improbable, but that there was Essene influence in the Jewish com-
munity there, it is possible. Yet if any one compares St. Paul’s
XIV.-XV.13.] ΟΝ SCRUPULOUSNESS 401
language in other Epistles with that which he uses here, he will
find it difficult to believe that the Apostle would recommend
compliance with customs which arose, not from weak-minded
ecrupulousness, but from a completely inadequate theory of religion
sad life. Hort (Rom. and Eph., p. 27 f.) writes: ‘The true origin
of these abstinences must remain somewhat uncertain: but much
the most probable suggestion is that they come from an Essene
element in the Roman Church, such as afterwards affected the
Colossian Church.’ But later he modified his opinion (/udaistic
Christiantly, Ὁ. 128): ‘There is no tangible evidence for Essenism
out of Palestine.’
All these theories have this in common, that they suppose St. Paul
to be dealing with a definite sect or body in the Roman Church,
But as our examination of the Epistle has proceeded, it has become
more and more clear that there is little or no special reference in
the arguments. Both in the controversial portion and in the
admonitory portion, we find constant reminiscences of earlier
situations, but always with the sting of controversy gone. St. Paul
writes throughout with the remembrance of his own former expe-
rience, and not with a view to special difficulties in the Roman
community. He writes on all these vexed questions, not because
they have arisen there, but because they may arise. The Church
of Rome consists, as he knows, of both Jewish and heathen
Christians. These discordant elements may, he fears, unless wise
counsels prevail produce the same dissensions as have occurred
in Galatia or Corinth.
Hort (Judasstic Christianity, Ὁ. 126) recognizes this feature in
the doctrinal portion of the Epistle: ‘It is a remarkable fact, he
writes, ‘respecting this Epistle to the Romans ... that while it
discusses the question of the Law with great emphasis and fulness,
it does so without the slightest sign that there is a reference to
a controversy then actually existing in the Roman Church.’ Unfor-
tunately he has not applied the same theory to this practical
portion of the Epistle: if he had done so it would have presenied
just the solution required by all that he notices. ‘There is no
reference, he writes, ‘to a burning controversy.’ ‘The matter is
dealt with simply as one of individual conscience.’ He contrasts
the tone with that of the Epistle to the Colossians. All these
features find their best explanation in a theory which supposes
that St. Paul’s object in this portion of the Epistle, is the same
as that which has been suggested in the doctrinal portion.
If this theory be correct, then our interpretation of the passage
ts somewhat different from that which has usually been accepted,
and is, we venture to think, more natural, When St. Paul says in
ver. 2 ‘the weak man eateth vegetables,’ he does not mean that
there is a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes
pd
402 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV.-XV. 18.
a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness. When again he
says ‘one man considers one day better than another,’ he does not
mean that this sect of vegetarians were also strict sabbatarians, but
that the same scrupulousness may prevail in other matters. When
he speaks of ὁ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν, ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων he is not thinking
of any special body of people but rather of special types. When
again in ver. 21 he says: ‘It is good not to eat flesh, or drink
wine, or do anything in which thy brother is offended,’ he does
not mean that these vegetarians and sabbatarians are also total
abstainers; he merely means ‘even the most extreme act of self-
denial is better than injuring the conscience of a brother.’ He had
spoken very similarly in writing to the Corinthians: ‘ Wherefore, if
meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for ever-
more, that I make not my brother to stumble’ (s Cor. viii. 13). It
is not considered necessary to argue from these words that absti-
nence from flesh was one of the characteristics of the Corinthian
sectaries ; nor is it necessary to argue in a similar manner here.
St. Paul is arguing then, as always in the Epistle, from past
experience. Again and again difficulties had arisen owing to
different forms of scrupulousness. There had been the difficulties
which had produced the Apostolic decree ; there were the difficulties
in Galatia, ‘Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years’;
there were the difficulties at Corinth. Probably he had already in
his experience come across instances of the various ascetic tenden-
cies which are referred to in the Colossian and Pastoral Epistles.
We have evidence both in Jewish and in heathen writers of the
wide extent to which such practices prevailed. In an age when
there is much religious feeling there will always be such ideas.
The ferment which the spread of Christianity aroused would create
them. Hence just as the difficulties which he had experienced
with regard to Judaism and the law made St. Paul work out and
systematize his theory of the relation of Christianity to personal
righteousness, so here he is working out the proper attitude of the
Christian towards over-scrupulousness and over-conscientiousness.
He is not dealing with the question controversially, but examining
it from all sides.
And he lays down certain great principles. There is, first of all,
the fundamental fact, that all these scruples are in matters quite
indifferent in themselves. Man is justified by ‘faith’; that is
sufficient. But then all have not strong, clear-sighted faith: they
do not really think such actions indifferent, and if they act
against their conscience their conscience is injured. Each man
must act as he would do with the full consciousness that he is to
appear before God's judgement-seat. But there is another side
to the question. By indifference to external observances we may
injure another man’s conscience. To ourselves it is perfectly
XV. 14. APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 403
indifferent whether we conform to such an observance or not. Then
we must conform for the sake of our weak brother. We are the
strong. We are conscious of our strength. Therefore we must
yield to others: not perhaps always, not in all circumstances, but
certainly in many cases. Above all, the salvation of the individual
soul and the peace and unity of the community must be preserved.
Both alike, weak and strong, must lay aside differences on such
unimportant matters for the sake of that church for which Christ
died.
APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS.
XV. 14-21. These admonitions of mine do not imply that
I am unacquainted with your goodness and deep spiritual
knowledge. In writing to you thus boldly I am only
fulfilling my duty as Apostle to the Gentiles; the priest
who stands before the altar and presents to God the Gentile
Churches (vv. 14-17). |
And this ἐς the ground of my boldness. For I can boast
of my spiritual labours and gifts, and of my wide activity in
preaching the Gospel, and that, not where others had done so
before me, but where Christ was not yet named (vw. 18-21).
14. The substance of the Epistle is now finished, and there only
remain the concluding sections of greeting and encouragement.
St. Paul begins as in i. 8 with a reference to the good report of the
church. This he does as a courteous apology for the warmth of
feeling he has exhibited, especially in the last section; but a com-
parison with the Galatian letter, where there is an absence of any
such compliment, shows that St. Paul’s words must be taken to
have a very real and definite meaning.
πέπεισμαι δέ: cf. viii. 38, ‘Though I have spoken so strongly it
does not mean that Iam not aware of the spiritual earnestness of
your church.’
καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ περὶ ὑμῶν, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοί : notice the emphasis gained
by the position of the words. ‘And not I inquire of others to know,
but J myself, that is, I that rebuke, that accuse you.’ Chrys.
μεστοί: cf. Rom. i. 29, where also it is combined with mewAnpe-
μένοι.
πάσης γνώσεως: ‘our Christian knowledge in its entirety.’ Cf.
τ Cor. xiii. 2 καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω προφητείαν καὶ εἰδῶ τὰ μνστήρια πάντα καὶ
πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν, καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν κιτιλ. γνῶσις is used for
the true knowledge which consists in a deep and comprehensive
grasp of the real principles of Christianity.
404 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XV. 14, 18.
τῆι is read by MBP, Clem.-Alex. Jo-Damasc. It is omitted by
AC DEFGL, &c., Chrys. Theodrt.
ἀγαθωσύνης: cf. 2 Thess. i. 11; Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9; used
only in the LXX, the N. T. and writings derived from them.
Generally it means ‘goodness’ or ‘uprightness’ in contrast with
κακία, as in Ps. li. (lii.) § ἠγάπησας κακίαν ὑπὲρ ἀγαθωσύνην : defined
more accurately the idea seems to be that derived from ἀγαθός of
active beneficence and goodness of heart. Here it is combined
with γνῶσις, because the two words represent exactly the qualities
which are demanded by the discussion in chap. xiv. St. Paul
demands on the one side a complete grasp of the Christian faith
as a whole, and on the other ‘goodness of heart,’ which may
prevent a man from injuring the spiritual life of his brother Christians
by disregarding their consciences. Both these were, St. Paul is
fully assured, realized in the Roman community.
Forms in οσύνη are almost all late and mostly confined to Hellenistic
writers. In the N. T. we have ἐλεημοσύνη, ἀσχημοσύνη, ἁγιωσύνη, ἱερωσύνη,
μεγαλωσύνη : see Winer, § xvi. 2 8 (p. 118, ed. Moulton).
δυνάμενοι καὶ ἀλλήλους νουθετεῖν. Is it laying too much stress on
the language of compliment to suggest that these words give a hint
of St. Paul’s aim in this Epistle? He has grasped clearly the
importance of the central position of the Roman Church and its
moral qualities, and he realizes the power that it will be for the
instruction of others in the faith. Hence it is to them above all
that he writes, not because of their defects but of their merits.
It is difficult to believe that any reader will find an inconsistency between
this verse and i. 11 or the exhortations of chap. xiv, whatever view he may
hold concerning St. Paul’s general attitude towards the Roman Church. It
would be perfectly natural in any case that, after rebuking them on certain
points on which he felt they needed correction, he should proceed to com-
pliment them for the true knowledge and goodness which their spiritual
condition exhibited. He could do so because it would imply a true estimate
of the state of the Church, and it would prevent any offence being taken at
his freedom of speech. But if the view suggested on chap. xiv. and throughout
the Epistle be correct, and these special admonitions arise rather from the
condition of the Gentile churches as a whole, the words gain even more
point. ‘I am not finding fault with you, I am warning you of dangers
you may incur, and I warn you especially owing to your prominent and
important position.’
15. τολμηρότερον. The boldness of which St. Paul accuses
himself is not in sentiment, but in manner. It was ἀπὸ μέρους, ‘in
part of the Epistle’; vi. 12 ff., 19; viii. 9; xi. 17 ff.; xii. 3;
xiii. 3 ff., 13 ff., xiv.; xv. 1, have been suggested as instances.
ἐπαναμιμνήσκων. Wetstein quotes ἕκαστον ὑμῶν, καίπερ aap Bos
Bora, ὅμως ἐπαναμνῆσαι βούλομαι Demosthenes, PAzl. 74, 7 The
ἐπί seems to soften the expression ‘suggesting to your memory.
St. Paul is not teaching any new thing, or saying anything which
XV. 15-17.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 405
a properly instructed Christian would not know, but putting more
clearly and definitely the recognized principles and commands of
the Gospel.
διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν po. On St. Paul’s Apostolic grace
cf. i. § δ᾽ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν: Xii. 3 λέγω γὰρ διὰ τῆς
χάριτος τῆς δοθείσης μοι.
It is probably preferable to read τολμηροτέρως (A Β, WH.) for τολμηρό-
τερον. ε TR. adds ἀδελφοί after ἔγραψα ὑμῖν against the best authorities
(N A BC, Boh., Orig. Aug. Chrys.) ; the position of the word varies even in
MSS. in which it does occur. ὑπό is a correction of the TR. for ἀπό (N BF
Jo.-Damasc.).
16. λειτουργόν seems to be used definitely and technically as in
the LXX of a priest. See esp. 2 Esdras xx. 36 (Neh. x. 37) rois
ἱερεῦσι τοῖς λειτουργοῦσιν ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. So in Heb. viii. 2 of our
Lord, who is ἀρχιερεύς and τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργός : see the note on i. 9.
Generally in the LXX the word seems used of the Levites as
opposed to the priests as in 2 Esdras xx. 39 (Neh. x. 40) καὶ ol
ἱερεῖς καὶ of λειτουργοί, but there is no such idea here.
ἱερουργοῦντα, ‘ being the sacrificing priest of the Gospel of God.’
St. Paul is standing at the altar as priest of the Gospel, and the
offering which he makes is the Gentile Church.
le εἶν means (1) to ‘ perform a sacred function,’ ἢ especiall
to ‘Sacrifice’: and os leppaor feavea means ‘ the slgin iains 3 and then
(3) to be a priest, to be one who performs sacred functions. Its con-
struction is two-fold: (1) it may take the accusative of the thing sacrificed ;
so Bas. in Ps. exw καὶ lepovpynow σοι τὴν τῆς αἰνέσεως θυσίαν; or (2)
ἱερουργεῖν τι may be put for ἱερουργόν τινος εἶναι (Galen, de Theriaca μνστη-
βίων ἱερονργόν), 80 4 Macc. vii. 8 (v. 1.) rots ἱερουργοῦντας τὸν νόμον : Greg.
Naz. ἱερουργεῖν σωτηρίαν τινός (see Fri. ad loc. from whom this note is taken).
ἡ προσφορά. With this use of sacrificial language, cf. xii. 1, 2.
The sacrifices offered by the priest of the New Covenant were not
the dumb animals as the old law commanded, but human beings,
the great body of the Gentile Churches. Unlike the old sacrifices
which were no longer pleasing to the Lord, these were acceptable
(εὐπρόσδεκτος, τ Pet. ii. 5). Those were animals without spot or
blemish; these are made a pure and acceptable offering by the
Holy Spirit which dwells in them (cf. viii. 9, 11).
For the construction of προσφορά cf. Heb. x. 10 π. τοῦ σώματος Ἶ. Xp.
17. ἔχω οὖν τὴν καύχησιν. The τήν should be omitted (see below).
‘I have therefore my proper pride, and a feeling of confidence in
my position, which arises from the fact that I am a servant of
Christ, and a priest of the Gospel of God.’ St. Paul is defending
his assumption of authority, and he does so on two grounds:
(1) His Apostolic mission, διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν pos, ἃ5 proved
by his successful labours (vv. 18-20); (2) the sphere of his
labours, the Gentile world, more especially that portion of it in
which the Gospel had not been officially preached. The emphasis
408 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 19-21
inhabiting it, he would have been told that it was ‘Illyria.’ The
term therefore is the one which would naturally occur to him as
fitted to express the limits of his journeys to the West (Strabo vii.
7: 4).
The word Illyria might apparently be used at this period in two senses.
(τὴ As the designation of a Roman province it might be used for what was
otherwise called Dalmatia, the province on the Adriatic sea-coast north
of Macedonia and west of Thrace. (3) Ethnically it would mean the
country inhabited by Illyrians, a portion of which was included in the Roman
vince of Macedonia. In this sense it is used in Appian, Ji/lyrice 1, 7;
Fos. Bell. Ind. 11. xvi.4; and the passage of Strabo quoted above.
πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ : cf. Col. i. a5 ἧς ἐγενόμην
ἐγὼ διάκονος κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν pos εἰς ὑμᾶς, πλη-
ρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. In both passages the meaning is to ‘fulfil,’
‘carry out completely,’ and so in the AV. ‘to fully preach,’ In
what sense St. Paul could say that he had done this, see below.
20. οὕτω δὲ φιλοτιμούμενον κιτιλ, introduces a limitation of the
statement of the previous verses. Within that area there had been
places where he had not been eager to preach, since he cared only
to spread the Gospel, not to compete with others. οὕτω is ex-
plained by what follows. φιλοτιμούμενον (x Thess. iv, 11; 2 Cor.
v. g) means to ‘strive eagerly,’ having lost apparently in late Greek
its primary idea of emulation. See Field, Ossum Norv. iii. p. 100,
who quotes Polyb. i. 83; Diod. Sic. xii. 46; xvi. 49; Plut. Vit.
Caes. liv.
ὠνομάσθη : ‘so named as to be worshipped.’ Cf. 2 Tim. i. 19;
Isa. xxvi. 13; Amos Vi. 10.
ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον. For ἀλλότριον cf. 2 Cor. x. 15, 16. St. Paul
describes his work (1 Cor. iii. 10) as laying a ‘foundation stone’:
ὡς σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων θεμέλιον ἔθηκα aAdos δὲ ἐποικοδομεῖ : and so
generally the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets (Eph. ii. 20).
21. ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται. St. Paul describes the aim of his
mission (the limitations of which he has just mentioned) in words
chosen from the O.T. The quotation which follows is taken
verbally from the LXX of Isa. 111, 15, which differs but not es-
sentially from the Hebrew. The Prophet describes the astonish-
ment of the nations and kings at the suffering of the servant of
Jehovah. ‘That which hath not been told them they shall see.’
The LXX translates this ‘ those to whom it was not told shall see,’
and St. Paul taking these words applies them (quite in accordance
with the spirit of the original) to the extension of the knowledge
of the true Servant of Jehovah to places where his name has not
been mentioned.
Verses 19-21, or rather a portion of them (ὥστε με. . . ἀλλά), are still
objected to by commentators (as by Lipsius) who recognize the futility of
XV. 19-21.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 409
the objections to the chapter as a whole. In a former case (xi. 810) the
clumsiness of an excision suggested by Lipsius was noticed and bere he has
not been any happier. He omits ver. 30, but keeps the quotation in ver, 31,
yet this quotation is clearly suggested by the preceding words οὐχ ὅσον
ὠνομάσθη Χριστός. It would be strange if an interpolator were to make the
sequence of thought more coherent.
e general objections to the passage seem to be—
(1) It is argued that St. Paul had never preached in Jerusalem, nor would
have been likely to mention that place as the starting-point of his mission ;
that these words therefore are a ‘concession made to the Jewish Chris
tians,’ and hence that the chapter is a result of the same conciliation ten-
dency which produced the Acts. Most readers would probably be satisfied
with being reminded that according to the Acts St. Paul had preached in
Jerusalem (Acts ix. 28, 29). But it may be also pointed out that St. Paul
15 merely using the expression geographically to define out the limits within
which he had preached the Gospel; while he elsewhere (Rom. xi. 26) speaks
of Sion as the centre from which the Gospel has gone forth.
(2) It is asserted that St. Paul had never preached in Illyricum. There
is some inconsistency in first objecting to the language of this passage
because it agrees with that of the Acts, and then criticizing it because it
contains some statement not supported by the same book. But the re-
ference to Illyricum has been explained above. The passages of the Acts
quoted clearly leave room for St. Paul having preached in districts inhabited
by Ilyrians. He would have done so if he had gone along the tian
way. But the words do not necessarily mean that he had been in Illyria,
and it is quite possible to explain them in the sense that he had preached
as far as that province and no further. In no case do they contain any
statement inconsistent with the genuineness of the passage.
(3) It is objected that St. Paul could in no sense use such a phrase as
πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. But by this expression he does not mean that
he had preached in every town or village, but only that everywhere there were
centres from which Christianity could spread. His conception of the duties
of an Apostle was that he should found churches and leave to others to
build on the foundation thus laid (1 Cor. iii. 7, 10). As a matter of fact
within the limits laid down Christianity had been very widely preached.
There were churches throughout all Cilicia (Acts xv. 41), Galatia, and
Phrygia (Gal. i. 13 Acts xviii. 23). The three years’ residence in Ephesus
implied that that city was the centre of missionary activity extending through-
out all the province of Asia (Acts xix. 10) even to places not visited by
St. Paul himself (Col. ii. 1). Thessalonica was early a centre of Christian
propaganda (1 Thess. i. 7, 8; iv. 10), and later St. Paul again spent some
time there (Acts xx. 2). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians contains in
the greeting the words σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ᾿Αχαίᾳ,
snowing that the long residence at Corinth had again produced a wide
extension of the Gospel. As far as the Adriatic coast St. Paul might well
have considered that he had fu!filled his mission of preaching the Gospel,
znd the great Egnatian road be δὰ followed would lead him straight to
Rome.
(4) A difficulty is found in the words ‘that I may not build on another
mans foundation.’ It is said that St. Paul has just expressed his desire to
go to Rome, that in fact he expresses this desire constantly (i. §, 13; xii. 3;
xv. 15), bat that bere he states that he does not wish to build on another man’s
foundation ; how then it is asked could he wish to go to Rome where there
was already a church? But there is no evidence that Christianity had been
officially or systematically preached there (Acts xxviii. 22), and only a small
community was in existence, which had grown up chiefly as composed of
settlers from other places. Moreover, St. Paul specially says that it is for
the sake of mutual grace and encouragement that he wishes to go there; he
410 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 332, 28.
implies that he does not wish to stay long, but desires to press on further
westward (ver. 34).
THE APOSTLE’S PLANS.
XV. 22-88. 7 have been these many times hindered from
coming to you, although I have long eagerly desired +t. Now
7 hope 7 may accomplish my wish in the course of a journey
to Spain. But not immediately. I must first take to Feru-
salem the contributions sent thither by Macedonia and
Achata—a generous gift, and yet but a gust recompense for
the spiritual blessings the Gentile Churches have received
from the Fews. When this mission ἐς accomplished I hope
7 may come to you on my way to Spain (vv. 22-29).
Meantime I earnestly ask your prayers for my own
personal safety and that the gifts I bear may be received by
the Church. I shall then, tf God will, come to you with
a light heart, and be refreshed by your company. May the
God of peace make Hrs peace to light upon you (vv. 30-33).
22. διὸ καί. The reason why St. Paul had been go far prevented
from coming to Rome was not the fear that he might build on
another man’s foundation, but the necessity of preaching Christ in
the districts through which he had been travelling; now there was
no region untouched by his apostolic labours, no further place for
action in those districts. ἐνεκοπτόμην : Gal v. 7; 1 Th. ii. 18;
1 Pet. iii. 7.
τὰ πολλά, ‘these many times,’ i.e. all the times when I thought
of doing so, or had an opportunity, as in the RV.; not, as most
commentators, ‘for the most part’ (Vulg. plerumgue), πολλάκις,
which is read by Lips. with BDEFG, is another instance of
Western influence in B.
23. νυνὶ δὲ μηκέτι τόπον ἔχων, ‘seeing that I have no longer
opportunity for work in these regions,’ τόπον, as in xii. 19, αιν.;
Eph. iv. 27; Heb. xii. 17, ‘opportunity,’ ‘scope for action.’ κλίμασι,
‘tracts’ or ‘ regions’ (2 Cor. xi.10; Gal.i. a1; often in Polybius).
ἐπιποθίαν does not occur elsewhere; but ἐπιποθεῖν (Rom. i. 11;
a Cor. ν. 2; ix. 14; Phil. 1. 8; ii. 26; 1 Th. iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 4;
James iv. §; 1 Pet. ii. 2) and ἐπιπύθησις (2 Cor. vii. 7, 11) are not
uncommon, Opn its signification, ‘a longing desire,’ see on i. 11.
ἱκανῶν : a very favourite word in the Acts of the Apostles (ix. 23;
xviii. 18, &c.). ‘It is likely enough that St. Paul’s special interest
in the Christian community at Rome, though hardly perhaps his
e
XV. 23, 24.] THE APOSTLE’S PLANS 41Σ
knowledge of it, dates from his acquaintance with Aquila and
Priscilla at Corinth. This was somewhere about six years before
the writing of the Epistle to the Romans, and that interval would
perhaps suffice to justify his language about having desired to visit
them ἀπὸ ἱκανῶν ἐτῶν (a rather vague phrase, but not so strong as
the ἀπὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν, which was easily substituted for it)’ Hort,
Rom. and Eph. p. τι.
For ἐπιποθίαν δὲ ἔχων Western authorities (Ὁ F G) read ἔχω, an attempt
to correct the grammar of the sentence. ἱκανῶν, read by BC 37. 59. 71,
Jo.-Damasc., is probably right for πολλῶν, which is supported by all other
authorities and is read by R.V.
24. In this verse the words ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, which are inserted
by the TR. after Σπανίαν, must be omitted on conclusive manuscript
evidence, while γάρ must as certainly be inserted after ἐλπίζω.
These changes make the sentence an anacolouthon, almost exactly
resembling that in v. 12 ff., and arising from very much the same
causes. St. Paul does not finish the sentence because he feels that
he must explain what is the connexion between his visit to Spain
and his desire to visit Rome, so he begins the parenthesis ἐλπίζω γάρ.
Then he feels he must explain the reason why he does not start at
once; he mentions his contemplated visit to Jerusalem and the
purpose of it. This leads him so far away from the original
sentence that he is not able to complete it; but in ver. 28 he
resumes the main argument, and gives what is the logical, but not
the grammatical, apodosis (cf. v. 18).
ὡς ἂν wopedwpas. The ὡς d is temporal: cf. Phil. ii. 23; 1 Cor.
xi. 34: on this latter passage Evans, in Speaker's Comm. Ὁ. 328,
writes: ‘When I come: rather according as I come: the presence of
the ἄν points to uncertainty of the time and of the event: for this
use comp. Aesch. Lum. 33 μαντεύομαι yap ὡς ἂν ἡγῆται Beds.’
προπεμφθῆναι: 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 12; 2 Cor. i. 16; need not mean
more than to be sent forward on a journey with prayers and good
wishes. ‘The best commentary on this verse is ch. i. 11 fff.
Lipsius again strikes out vv. 23, 24 and below in ver, 28 3° ὑμῶν
eis τὴν Zraviay—a most arbitrary and unnecessary proceeding.
The construction of the passage has been explained above and is
quite in accordance with St. Paul’s style, and the desire to pass
further west and visit Spain is not in any way inconsistent with
the desire to visit Rome. The existence of a community there
did not at all preclude him from visiting the city, or from
preaching in it; but it would make it less necessary for him to
remain long. On the other hand, the principal argument against
the genuineness of the passage, that St. Paul never did visit Spain
(on which see below ver. 28), is most inconclusive; a forger would
never have interpolated a passage in order to suggest a visit to
Spain which had never taken place. But all such criticism fails
412 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ([XV. 24-27.
absolutely to realize the width and boldness of St. Paul’s schemes.
He must carry the message of the Gospel ever further. Nothing
will stop him but the end of his own life or the barrier of the
ocean.
25. St. Paul now mentions a further reason which will cause
some delay in his visit to Rome, and his missionary journey to
Spain.
διαχονῶν τοῖς ἁγίοις : cf. 2 Cor. viii. 4 τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς διακονίας
τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους. The expression ‘ministering to the saints’ has
become almost a technical expression in St. Paul for the contribu-
tions made by the Gentile Christians to the Church at Jerusalem.
26. εὐδόκησαν implies that the contribution was voluntary, and
made with heartiness and good-will: see on Rom. x. 1 (εὐδοκία) ;
1 Cor. i, a1; Gal. i. 15.
κοινωνίαν : οὗ a collection or contribution 2 Cor. viii. 4; ix. 13
ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ els πάντας and κοινωνεῖν Rom.
xii. 13 ταῖς χρείαις τῶν ἁγίων κοινωνοῦντες.
πτωχούς : cf. Gal. ii. 10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν. On
the poor Christians at Jerusalem see James ii. 2 ff.; Renan, Hisé.
des Origines, &c. vol. iv. ch. 3. In Jerusalem the Sadducees, who
were the wealthy aristocracy, were the determined opponents of
Christianity, and there must have been in the city a very large
class of poor who were dependent on the casual employment and
spasmodic alms which are a characteristic of a great religious
centre. The existence of this class is clearly implied in the
narrative at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles. There
was from the very first a considerable body of poor dependent on
the Church, and hence the organization of the Christian community
with its lists (1 Tim. v. 19) and common Church fund (ἀπὸ τοῦ
κοινοῦ Ign. Ad Polyc. iv. 3) and officers for distributing alms (Acts
vi. 1-4) must have sprung up very early.
27. εὐδόκησαν κιτιλ. St. Paul emphasizes the good-will with
which this contribution was made by repeating the word εὐδόκησαν ;
he then points out that in another sense it was only the repayment
of a debt. The Churches of the Gentiles owed all the spiritual
blessings they enjoyed to that of Jerusalem, ‘from whom is Christ
according to the flesh,’ and they could only repay the debt by
ministering in temporal things.
πνευματικοῖς... gapxixots. Both are characteristically Pauline
words, x Cor. ix. Σὲ εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν τὰ πνευματικὰ ἐσπείραμεν, μέγα εἰ
ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν τὰ σαρκικὰ θερίσομεν ; σαρκικοῖς is used without any bad
association.
ἐκοινώνησασ. The word κοινωνέω, of which the meaning 1s uf course ‘ to
be a sharer or participator in,’ may be used either of the giver or of the
receiver. The giver shares with the receiver by giving contributions, so Ron.
xii. 13 (quoted on ver. 26); the receiver with the giver by receiving contri-
bations, so here. The normal construction in the N. T. is as here with the
XV. 27, 28.] THE APOSTLE'S PLANS 4153
dative : once (Heb. ii. an is used with the genitive, and this construction is
common in the O. T. on Gal. vi. 6).
The contributions for the poor in Jerusalem are mentioned in
Rom. xv. 26, 27; 1 Cor. xvi. 1-3; 2 Cor. ix. 1 ff; Acts xxiv. 17, and
form the subject of the ablest and most convincing section in
Paley’s Horae Paulinae. Without being in any way indebted to
one another, and each contributing some new element, all the
different accounts fit and dovetail into one another, and thus imply
that they are all historical. ‘For the singular evidence which this
passage affords of the genuineness of the Epistle, and what is more
important, as it has been impugned, of this chapter in particular,
see Paley’s Horae Paulinae, chap. ii. No. 1.’ Jowett, ad Joc., and
for some further reff. see Introd. § 4.
28. ἐπιτελέσας ... σφραγισάμενος. St. Paul resumes his argu-
ment and states his plans after the digression he has just made
on what lies in the immediate future. With ἐπιτελέσας (a Pauline
word), cf. Phil. i. 6; it was used especially of the fulfilment of
religious rites (Heb. ix. 6 and in classical authors), and coupled
with λειτουργῆσαι above, suggests that St. Paul looks upon these
contributions of the Gentile communities as a solemn religious
offering and part of their εὐχαριστία for the benefits received.
σφραγισάμενος, ‘having set the seal of authentication on.’ The
seal was used as an official mark of ownership: hence especially
the expression ‘the seal of baptism’ (2 Cor. i. a2; Eph. i. 13;
see on iv. 11). Here the Apostle implies that by taking the con-
tributions to Jerusalem, and presenting them to the Church, he puts
the mark on them (as a steward would do), showing that they are
the fruit to the Church of Jerusalem of those spiritual blessings
(πνευματικά) which through him had gone forth to the Gentile
world.
εἰς τὴν Σπανίαν. It has been shown above that it is highly prob-
able that St. Paul should have desired to visit Spain, and that therefore
nothing in these verses throws any doubt on the authenticity of the
chapter as a whole or of any portions of it. A further question
arises, Was the journey ever carried out? Some fresh light is
perhaps thrown on the question by Professor Ramsay’s book Zhe
Church and the Empire. If his arguments are sound, there is
no reason to suppose that if St. Paul was martyred at Rome
(as tradition seems to suggest) he must necessarily have suffered
in what is ordinarily called the Neronian persecution. He might
have been beheaded either in the later years of Nero’s reign or
even under Vespasian. So that, if we are at liberty to believe
that he survived his first imprisonment, there is no need to compress,
as has been customary, the later years of his missionary activity.
It is on these assumptions easier to find room for the Spanish
journey. Have we evidence for it? Dismissing later writers wh
414 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ([XV. 28-80
seem to have had no independent evidence, our authorities are
reduced to two, the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, and
Clement of Rome. We cannot lay much stress on the former; it
is possible perhaps that the writer had independent knowledge, bat
it is certainly more probable that he is merely drawing a conclu-
sion, and not quite a correct one, from this Epistle: the words are
sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spantam proficiscentis. The
passage in Clement (ὃ 5) runs as follows: Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον
ὑπέδειξεν, ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, φνγαδενθείς, λιθασθείς, κηρυξ γενόμενος
ὅν re τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος
ὅλαβεν, δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως
ἐλθών, καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμον καὶ
eis τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη. This passage is much stronger, and
Lightfoot’s note in favour of interpreting the words τὸ τέρμα τῆς
δύσεως as meaning Spain is very weighty; but is it quite certain
that a Jew, as Clement probably was (according to Lightfoot him-
self),speaking of St. Paul another Jew would not look upon Rome
relatively to Jerusalem as the τέρμα τῆς δύσεως, ‘the western limit’?
We in England might for example speak of Athens as being in the
Eastern Mediterranean. There is also some force in Hilgenfeld’s
argument that ἐλθών and μαρτυρήσας should be taken together. For
these reasons the question whether St. Paul ever visited Spain
must remain very doubtful.
29. πληρώματι : see on xi.ra. St. Paul feels confident that his
visit to Rome will result in a special gift of Christ’s blessing. He
will confer on the Church a χάρισμα πνευματικόν, and will in his turn
be comforted by the mutual faith which will be exhibited. Cf. i
11, 12.
It has been pointed out how strongly these words make for the
authenticity and early date of this chapter. No one could possibly
write in this manner at a later date, knowing the circumstances
under which St. Paul actually did visit Rome. See also ver. 32 iva
ἐν χαρᾷ ἐλθὼν πρὸς ὑμᾶς διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ συναναπαύσωμαι ὑμῖν.
The TR. reads with X&° L &c., Vulg.-clem. Syrr. Arm., Chrys. Theodrt.
εὐλογίας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Xp. The words τοῦ εὖ. τοῦ should be omitted oo
decisive authority.
80. The reference to his visit to Jerusalem reminds St. Paul of
the dangers and anxieties which that implies, and leads him to
conclude this section with an earnest entreaty to the Roman Chris-
tians to join in prayers on his behalf. Hort (Rom. and Eph.
pp. 42-46) points out how this tone harmonizes with the dangers
that the Apostle apprehended (cf. Acts xx. 17-38, xxi. 13, &c.):
‘We cannot here mistake the twofold thoughts of the Apostle’s
mind. He is full of eager anticipation of visiting Rome with the
full blessing of the accomplishment of that peculiar ministration.
XV. 80-82.] THE APOSTLE’S PLANS 415
But he is no less full of misgivings as to the probability of escaping
with his life’ (p. 43).
διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Πνεύματος That brotherly love which is one
of the fruits of the Spirit working in us (cf. Gal. v. 22). That
πνεῦμα is personal is shown by the parallelism with the first clause.
συναγωνίσασθαι. ‘He breaks off afresh in an earnest entreaty to
them to join him in an intense energy of prayer, wrestling as it were’
(Hort, of. εἴ. p. 43). They will as it were take part in the contest
that he must fight by praying on his behalf to God, for all prayer
is a spiritual wrestling against opposing powers. So of our Lord’s
agony in the garden: Luke xxii. 44; Matt. xxvi. 42. Cp. Origen
ad loc.: Vix enim invenies, ul orantt cuiquam non aliquid inants et
altenae cogitationis occurrat, et intentionem, gua τῷ Deum mens dirt-
φημ, declinet ac frangat, atque cam per ea quae non competit, raptat.
Et ideo agon magnus est orationis, ub obsistentibus inimicis, et ora-
honis sensum tn diversa raptentibus, fixa ad Deum semper mens stabil
intentione contendat, ut merito posstl efiam tpse dicere: cerfamen
bonum certavt, cursum consummavt.
81. The Apostle’s fear is double. He fears the attacks upon
himself of the unbelieving Jews, to whom more than any other
Christian teacher he was an object of hatred: and he is not certain
whether the peace-offering of the Gentile Churches which he was
bearing to Jerusalem would be accepted as such by the narrow
Jewish Christians at Jerusaiem. How strong the first feeling was
and how amply justified the Acts of the Apostles show (Acts xx. 3,
23; xxi. 11).
In ver. 30 ἀδελφοί is omitted by B76, Aeth., Chrys. alone, but perhaps
correctly. In ver. 31 ἡ δωροφορία for διακονία, and ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ for εἰς
are instances of Western paraphrase shared by B (B D Ε G).
82. But the prayer that the Roman Christians offer for St. Paul
will also be a prayer for themselves. If his visit to Jerusalem be
successful, and his peace-offering be accepted, he will come to
Rome with stronger and deeper Christian joy. ‘ After the personal
danger and the ecclesiastical crisis of which the personal danger
formed a part’ (Hort) he hopes to find rest in a community as yet
untroubled by such strife and distraction.
συναναπαύσωμαι, ‘I may rest and refresh my spirit with you.’
Only used here in this sense (but later in Hegesippus af. Eus.
HE. IV. xxii. 2). Elsewhere it is used of sleeping together
(Is. xi. 6). The unusual character of the word may have been the
cause of its omission in B and the alteration in some Western MSS.
(see below).
There are several variations of reading in this verse :
(1) SAC, Bob. Arm., Orig.-lat. read ἐλθὼν... συναναπαύσωμαι with
some variation in the position of ἐλθών (after iva δὲ, Boh., Orig.-lat.; after
χαρᾷ AC agrecing in this with other authorities). All later MSS. with the
416 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 82 ΧΙ}
Western group read ἔλθω and insert «af before συναναπαύσωμαε. B is alone in
having ἔλθω and omitting owarasavcepa: ὑμῖν, but receives support in the
reading of some Western authorities; D E read ἀναψίξω μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, FG be
φψύχω μ. ὃ., ing with most Latin authorities, ere” Cebit scum.
(3) For διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ (AC LP, Valg. Syrr. Boh. Arm., Orig.-lat.
Chrys. Thdst.), & Ambrst. have δ. 0. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, DEF G (with defg),
fuld. Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, B Kupcow Ἰησοῦ. Lightfoot (On a fresh Kevision, &c..
Pp. 106 f£) sugyests that the original reading was θελήματος used absolately
the Divine will: ef. Rom. ii 18; 1 Cor. xvi. 12. See also his note on
Ign. Eph. § 20, Rom. § 1 (where some authorities add τοῦ Θεοῦ, others
domini , Smym. §§ 1, 11. Elsewhere in St. Paul the expression always is
θέλημα Θεοῦ, except once, Eph. v. 17 τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Κυρίου.
83. ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης : cf. ver. 5. St. Paul concludes his
request for a prayer with a prayer of his own for them. ‘ Peace,’
a keynote of the Epistle, is one of his last thoughts.
AFG and some minuscules omit ἀμήν. On the importance ascribed te
this word by some commentators see the Introduction, § 9.
PERSONAL GREETINGS.
XVI. 1-16. 7 commend to you Phoebe our stster. Recetve
her as becometh members of a Christian Church. For she
has stood by many others, and myself as well (vv. 1, 2).
Greet Prisca and Aquila. Greet all those whose names
or persons I know, who are members of your community
(vv. 3-16).
1. συνίστημι. The ordinary word for to ‘commend,’ ‘introduce’;
see on iii. 5, a derivative of which appears in the phrase συστατικαὶ
ἐπιστολαί (2 Cor, iii. 1; for its use in the later ecclesiastical writings
sce Suicer, Zhesaurus). These letters played a very large part in
the organization of the Church, for the tie of hospitality (cf. xii. 13),
implying also the reception to communion, was the great bond
which united the separate local Churches together, and some pro-
tection became necessary against imposture.
Φοίβην. Nothing is otherwise known of Phoebe, nor can we
learn anything from the name. She was presumably the bearer of
this letter.
διάκονον, ‘a deaconess.’ The only place in which this office is re-
ferred to by name in the N. T. (for 1 Tim. iii. r1, v. 3 ff. cannot be
quoted). The younger Pliny (29. X. xcvi. 8) speaks of mznzsirae:
guo magis necessarium credidt ex duabus ancillis, quae munistrae
dicebantur, quid esset vert et per tormenta quaerere. ‘They do not
appear elsewhere to be referred to in any certain second-century
writing; but constant reference to them occurs in the Afoséolie
XVI. 1, 2.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 417
Constitutions, in the earlier books under the name of διάκονος (ii. 26;
iii. 15), in the later of διακόνισσα (viii. 19, 20, 28). Of the exact
relation of the ‘deaconess’ to the ‘ widows’ (1 Tim. v. 3) it is not
necessary to speak, as we have no sufficient evidence for so early
a date; it is quite clear that later they were distinct as bodies, and
that the widows were considered inferior to the deaconesses (A posi.
Const. iii. 7); it is probable however that the deaconesses were for
the most part chosen from the widows. That the reference to
a ‘deaconess’ is in no sense an anachronism may be inferred both
from the importance of διακονία in the early Church, which had quite
clearly made it necessary for special male officials to be appointed,
and from the separate and secluded life of women. From the very
beginning of Christianity—more particularly in fact at the beginning
—there must have been a want felt for women to perform for
women the functions which the deacons performed for men.
Illustrations of this need in baptism, in visiting the women’s
part of a house, in introducing women to the deacon or bishop,
may be found in the <Afostolical Constitutions (iii. 15, &c.). So
much is clear. An office in the Church of this character, we
may argue on ἃ priori’ grounds, there must have been; but an
order in the more ecclesiastical sense of the term need not have
existed. διάκονος is technical, but need hardly be more so than is
mpooraris in ver. 2. (The arguments of Lucht against the au-
thenticity of portions of these two verses are examined very fully
by Mangold, Der Romerbrief und seine geschichtlichen Voraussetsung,
pp. 136 ff.)
τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Keyypeats. Cenchreae was the port of Corinth
on the Saronic Gulf. During St. Paul’s stay at Corinth that city
had become the centre of missionary activity throughout all Achaia
(cf. 2 Cor. i. 1), and the port towards Ephesus, a place where there
must have been many Jews living, could easily be a centre of the
Christian Church. Its position would afford particularly an oppor-
tunity for the exercise by Phoebe of the special duties of hospitality.
2. ἀξίως τῶν ἁγίων, ‘in a manner worthy of the saints,’ i.e. ‘of
the Church.’ Not only to provide for her wants, but to admit her
to every spiritual privilege as ‘in the Lord.’
mpootdns, a ‘succourer’ or ‘helper’; this almost technical
word is suggested by παραστῆτε. It is the feminine form of spo-
στάτης, used like the Latin pasronus for the legal representative of
the foreigner. In Jewish communities it meant the legal repre-
sentative or wealthy patron: see Schtirer, Die Gemeinde-Verfas-
sung, &c., Ins. 31: ἐνθάδε xerve | ratc mpoctatuc | ocioc ezucen | Ἔτη OB
ἐν εἰρη | komncic coy, Cf. also C. 1 G. 5361. We also find the word
used of an office-bearer in a heathen religious association, see
Foucart, Assoctations Religieuses, p. 202, Ins, 20, line 34 (= C. 1 G.
126) δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ὁ προστάτης καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερανιστὴς καὶ ὁ γραμματεὺς καὶ
we
418 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XvVI. 2-4
οἱ ταμίαι καὶ σύνδικοι. Here the expression suggests that Phoebe
was a person of some wealth and position who was thus able
to act as patroness of a small and struggling community.
8. Πρίσκαν καὶ ᾿Ακόλαν. So the MSS. here by preponderating
authority for Πρίσκιλλα «.’A. Priscilla is a diminutive for Prisca, and
both are Roman names.
In Acts xviii. 2 the reading fs ᾿Ακόλαν... καὶ Πρίσκιλλαν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ,
in ver. 18 Πρίσειλλα καὶ 'Acvdas; in 1 Cor. xvi. 19 ’AgvAas wal Upicea (80
δὲ BM P, Boh., bot AC DEFG, ἂς. Valg. Syrr. Πρίσειλλα) ; in 2 Tim. iv. 19
Upicnay καὶ ᾿Ακύλαν (by preponderating authority). The fact that Prisca is
so often mentioned first suggests that she was the more important of the two.
4. οἵτινες... τὸν ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον «.7.4. probably refers to some
great danger which they had run on his behalf. It may have been
the great tumult at Ephesus, although this was somewhat recent.
If so the danger then incurred may have been the reason that they
had left that city and returned for a time to Rome. The special
reference to the Churches of the Gentiles perhaps arises from the
fact that, owing to their somewhat nomadic life, they were well
known to many Christian Churches.
Aquila and Priscilla.
The movements of Aquila and Priscilla have been considered to be 96
complicated as to throw doubts on the authenticity of this section of the
Epistle, or to suggest that it was addressed not to the Church at Rome, but
to the Church of Ephesus.
From Acts xviii. 1, 2 we learn that Aquila was a Jew of Pontus. He and
his wife Prisca had been compelled to leave Kume in 52 A.D. by the decree
of Claudius. They retired to Corinth, where they first became acquainted
with St. Paul. With him they went to Ephesus, where they remained some
time ; they were there when the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written,
and had a church in their house (ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἐν Κυρίῳ πολλὰ ᾿Ακύλας
wai Πρίσκα σὺν τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ τ Cor. xvi. 19). This Epistle
was written probably about twelve months before the Epistle to the
Romars. In 2 Tim. iv. 19, written in all probability at least eight years
later, they appear again at Ephesus,
Now, is not the life ascribed to them too nomadic! And is not the
Coincidence of the church in their house remarkable? The answer is that
a nomadic life was the characteristic of Jews at that day, and was certainly
a characteristic of Aquila and Priscilla (Lightfoot, Bsé/:cal Essays, p. 299, and
Renan, Les Apdtres, pp.96, 97, Zahn, Sktszen,p.169). We know that although
Aquila was a Jew of Pontus, yet he and his wife lived, within the space of
a few years, at Rome, at Corinth, and at Ephesus. Is it then extremely
improbable that they should travel in after years, probably for the sake of
their business? And if it were so, would they not be likely to make their
house, wherever they were, a place in which Christians could meet together!
On ἃ priort grounds we cannot argue against the possibility of these
changes. Are there any positive arguments for connecting them with the
Roman Church? De Rossi, in the course of his archaeological investigations,
bas suggested two traces of their influence, both of which deserve investi-
gation.
XVI. 4] PERSONAL GREETINGS 419
(i) Amongst the older churches of Rome is one on the Aventine bearing
the name of St. Prisca, which gives a title to one of the Roman Cardinals.
Now there is considerable evidence for connecting this with the names of
Aquila and Priscilla. In the Lider Ponithcatts in the life of Leo III
(795-816), it is described as the ‘titulus Aquilae et Priscae’ (Duchesne,
86. Pont. 11. p. 30) ; in the legendary Acts of St. Prisca (which apparently
date from the tenth century) it is stated that the body of St. Prisca was
translated from the place on the Ostian road where she had been buried, and
transferred to the church of St. Aquila and Prisca on the Aventine (Acta
Sanctorum, Jan. Tom. ii. p. 187 ef deduxerunt ipsam ad urbem Komam
sum hymnis εἰ canticts spirstualibus, iuxta Arcum Romanum tn ecclesia
sanctorum Martyrum Aquilae et Priscae), and the tradition is put very
clearly in an inscription apparently of the tenth century which formerly
stood over the door of the church (C. Jus. Chrast. ii. p. 443):
Haec domus est Aquilae seu Priscae Virgints Almae
Ques lupe Paule tuo ove uchis domino
Hee Petre divins Tribuebas fercula verbi
Sepius hocce loco sacrificans domino.
nny later testimonies are referred to by De Rossi, but they need not here
cited.
For the theory that this church is on the site of the house of Prisca and
Aquila, De Rossi finds additional support in a bronze diploma found in 1776
in the garden of the church bearing the name of G. Marius Pudens Cor-
nelianus: for in the legendary Acts of Pudens, Pudenziana, and Praxedis,
Priscilla is stated to have been the mother of Padens (Acta Sanct. Mai.
Tom. iv. p. 397), and this implies some connexion between the names of
Aquila and Priscilla and the family of Pudens.
he theory is a plausible one, but will hardly at present stand examination.
In the first place the name of Aguila and Priscilla (or Prisca) is not the
oldest borne by the church ; from the fourth to the eighth century it seems
always to have been the ¢stulus 5. Priscae (see Liber Pontificalis, ed.
Duchesne, i. “ΟἹ, 517%), and although the origin of this name is itself
doubtful, it is hardly likely that if the locality had borne the name of Aquila
and Priscilla, that name would first have been lost and then revived. It is
much more probable that the later name is an attempt to connect the biblical
account with this spot and to explain the origin of the name of Prisca.
Nor is the second piece of evidence of any greater weight. The acts of
Pudens and his daughters, supposed to be narrated by the person called
St. Pastor, who was a contemporary of Pius the bishop and addressed his
letters to Timothy, are clearly legendary, and little or no stress can be laid
on the mention of Priscilla as the mother of Pudens. The object of the Acta
is in fact to invent a history for martyrs whose names were known, and who
were for some reason grouped together. But why were they thus grouped ?
The reason probably is given in the statement at the end, that they were
baried in the cemetery of Priscilla. These names would probably be found
in the fourth century in that cemetery, attached to graves close to one
another, and would form the groundwork of the Acéfa. ‘There may still be
some connexion between the names, which may or may not be discovered,
but there is not at present any historical evidence for connecting the ti/s/ss
St. Priscae with the Aquila and Priscilla of the N.T. (see de Rossi, δ με].
Arch. Christ. Ser. i. No. § (1867), p. 45 ff.)
(ii) A second line of argument seems more fruitful. The exploraticns of
De Rossi in the Coemectertssms Priscillae, outside the Porta Salaria have
resulted in the discovery that as the Cocmeterium Domililiae stans frum
a burying-place of Domitills and her family, so that of Priscilla originates in
the burying-place of Acilius Glabrio and other members of the Acilian gens.
This seems to corroborate the statement of Dio Cassius (Ixvii. 14) that the
420 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 4, δ.
Acilius Glabrio who was consul with Trajan in A.D. 91 was a Christian and
died as such, and implies that Christianity had penetrated into this as into
other leading Koman families. Now the connexion with the subject immediately
before us is as follows. The same researches have shown that 2 name of
the females of the Acilian gens is Priscilla or Prisca. For instance, in one
inscription we read :
Mm’ ACILIUS V.....
Aquila was a Jew of Pontus: how then does it happen that his wife, if not
be himself, bore a Koman name? The answer seems to be suggested by
these discoveries. They were freedmen of a member of the Acilian gens,
as Clemens the Roman bishop was very probably the freedman of Flavius
Clemens. The name Prisca or Priscilla would naturally come to an ad-
hereut of the family. The origin of the name Aquila is more doubtful, but
it too might be borne by a Roman freedman. If this suggestion be correct,
then both the names of these two Roman Christians and the existence of
Christianity in a leading Roman family are explained.
Two other inscriptions may be quoted, as perhaps of interest. The first
is clearly Christian :
AQUILIAE PRISCAE IN PACE
The second C. /. Ζ. vi. 12273 may be so. The term Renata might suggest
that it is but also might be Mithraic: ‘ee
D. M.
AQUILIA - RENATA
QVAE-V-A-N...
ΒΚ - VIVA - POSVIT - 5181
CVRANTE - AQVILIO IVSTO
ALVMNO - ET - AQVILIO
PRISCO - FRATRE
The argument 1s not demonstrative, but seems to make the return of
Aquila and Priscilla to Rome, and their permanent connexion with the
Roman Church, probable. See De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser. iv.
No. 6 (1888-9), p. 129 Agusla e Prisca et gli Actlit Glabrions.
Dr. Hort (Rom. and: Eph. pp. 12-14), following a suggestion made by
Dr. Plumptre (Bidbs/ical Studtes, p. 417), points out that it is a curious fact
that in four out of the six places in which the names occur that of the wife is
the first mentioned. He connects the name with the cemetery of St. Prisca,
and suggests that Prisca was herself a member of some distinguished Roman
family. He points out that only Aquila is called a Jew from Pontus, not
his wife. There is nothing inconsistent in this theory with that of the
previous argument; and if it be true much is explained. It may however be
suggested that for a noble Roman lady to travel about with a Jewish husband
engaged in mercantile or even artisan work is hardly probable; and that the
theory which sees in them freed members of a great household is perhaps
the most probable.
δ. καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν. There is no decisive
evidence until the third century of the existence of special buildings
used for churches. The references seem all to be to places in
private houses, sometimes very probably houses of a large size. In
the N.T. we have first of all (Acts xii. 12) the house of Mary, the
mother of John, where many were collected together and praying.
Col. iv. 1§ ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἀδελφούς, cal Νυμφᾶν, καὶ τὴν
422 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 5-7
᾿Ασίας is supported by preponderatuwg authority (* ABC DFG, Valg.
Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Jo..Damasc. Ambrst.) against "Ayafes (LP ἂς,
Syrr., Chrys. Theodrt.).
For the idea of illustrating this chapter from inscriptions we are of course
indebted to Bishop Lightfoot's able article on Caesar's household (Phs/ippians,
p.169). Since that paper was written, the appearance of a portion of vol. vi.
of the Corpus of Latin iptions, that, namely, containing the inscriptions
of the city of Rome, has both provided us with more extensive materia] and
also placed it in a more convenient form for reference. We have therefore
gone over the ground again, and either added new illustrations or given
references to the Latin Corpus for inscriptions quoted by Lightfoot from
older collections. Where we have not been able to identify these we have
not, except in a few cases, thought it necessary to repeat his references
A large number of these names are found in Colsmébaria containing the
monuments and ashes of members of the imperial household during the first
century : these special collections are kept together in the Corpus (vi. 3926-
8397). There is also a very large section devoted to other names belong-
ing to the domus Augusts (vi. 8398-9101). A complete use of these
materials will not be possible until the publication of the /sedices to vol. vi.
For a discussion of the general bearing of these references, sce Introduction,
$ 9.
6. Μαρίαν (which is the correct reading) may like Μαριάμ be
Jewish, but it may also be Roman. In favour of the latter alter-
native in this place it may be noticed that apparently in other cases
where St. Paul is referring to Jews he distinguishes them by calling
them his kinsmen (see on ver. 7). The following inscription from
Rome unites two names in this list, C./.Z. vi. 22223 p-M-|
MARIAE | AMPLIATAE cef.; the next inscription is from the house-
hold, ib. 4394 MARIAE-M-L-XANTHE | NYMPHE: FEC: DE - SVO.
ἥτις πολλὰ ἐκοπίασεν εἰς ὑμᾶς. This note is added, not for the
sake of the Roman Church, but as words of praise for Marta
herself.
Μαρίαν is read by A BC P, Boh. Arm. ; Μαριάμ by N DEFGL, &c., Chrys.
The evidence for els ὑμᾶς, which is a difficult reading, is preponderating
(NS ABCP, Syrr. Boh.), and it is practically supported by the Western
oup (DEFG, Vulg.), which have ἐν ὑμῖν. The correction els ἡμᾶς is read
By L, Chrys. and later authorities.
7. ᾿Ανδρόνικον: a Greek name found among members of the
imperial household. The following inscription contains the names
of two persons mentioned in this Epistle, both members of the
household, C. 7, Z. vi. 5326 DIS - MANIBVS | C. IVLIVS - HERMES
VIX - ANN + XXXIII-M-V | DIEB- XIII | C- IVLIVS - ANDRONICVS
CONLIBERTVS: FEC | BENE: MERENTI- DE: SE: see also 5325 and
11626 where it is the name of a slave.
᾿Ιουνίαν : there is some doubt as to whether this name is mas-
culine, ‘Iovvias or Ἰουνιᾶς, a contraction of Junianus, or feminine
Junia. Junia is of course a common Roman name, and in that
case the two would probably be husband and wife; Junias on the
other hand is less usual as a man’s name, but seems to re-
present a form of contraction common in this list, as Patrobas.
424 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 7, 8.
of those who during the dispersion after the death of Stephen
began almost immediately to spread the word in Cyprus and Syria
(Acts xi. 19). As Dr. Weymouth points out (On she Rendering inte
English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect, p. 26) the perfect should
here be translated ‘ were.’
“It is utterly amazing,’ he writes, ‘that in Rom. xvi. 7 of καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ
γεγόνασιν ἂν Xp. is rendered in the RV. “ who also have been in Christ before
me.” The English idiom is here simply outraged. What officer in our
Navy or Army would not stare at the βάρβαρος who should say of a senior
officer, “‘ He has been in the Service before me”? ‘‘ He was in the Navy
before me” is the only correct English form. ...The English mind fastens
on the idea of time defined by “before me,” and therefore uses the simple
Past. ... The Greek Perfect is correctly employed, because it is intended to
convey, and does convey, the idea that they are still in Christ, while the
English “ have been” suggests precisely the contrary.’
8. ᾿Αμπλιᾶτος is the more correct reading for the abbreviated
form ᾿Αμπλιᾶς which occurs in the TR. This is a common
Roman slave name, and as such occurs in inscriptions of the imperial
household. C.J. Z. vi. 4899 AMPLIATVS | RESTITVTO - FRATRI|
SVO + FECIT - MERENTI: 5154 C. VIBIVS - FIRMVS- C | VIBIO -
AMPLIATO | PATRONO - SVO, &c., besides inscriptions quoted by Lft.
But there is considerable evidence for connecting this name more
closely with the Christian community in Rome. In the cemetery
of Domitilla, now undoubtedly recognized as one of the earliest of
Christian catacombs, is a chamber now known by the name of
‘Ampliatus’ owing to an inscription which it contains. This
chamber is very early: pre-Christian in character if not in origin.
The cell over which the name of Ampliatus is inscribed is a later
insertion, which, from the style of its ornament, is ascribed to the
end of the first or beginning of the second century. The inscription
is in bold, well-formed letters of the sane date. Not far off is another
inscription, not earlier than the end of the second century, to
members of apparently the same family. The two inscriptions are
AMPLIAT[I] and AVRELIAE + BONIFATIAE | CONIVGI - INCOM-
PARABILI | VERAE CASTITATIS FEMINAE | QVAE - VIXIT - ANN-
XXV-M- II | DIEB- III - HOR: VI | AVREL* AMPLIATVS CvM |
GORDIANO + FILIO. The boldness of the lettering in the first
inscription is striking. The personal name without any other
distinction suggests a slave. Why then should any one in these
circumstances receive the honour of an elaborately painted tomb?
The most plausible explanation is that he was for some reason
very prominent in the earliest Roman Church. The later inscription
clearly suggests that there was a Christian family bearing this
name; and the connexion with Domiulla seems to show that here
we have the name of a slave or freedman through whom Christianity
had penetrated into a second great Roman household. See de
Rossi, Bull. Arch.Christ. Ser. iii. vol. 6 (1881), pp. 57-74; Athenaeum
XVI. 8-11] PERSONAL GREETINGS 425
March 4, 1884, p. 289; the inscription is just referred to by Light-
foot, Clement. i. p. 39.
9. Οὐρβανός: a common Roman slave name found among
members of the household, C. J. 22. vi. 4237 (quoted by Lft. from
Murat. 920. 1) VRBANVS + LYDES + AVG « L " DISPENS | INMVNIS -
DAT - HERMAE + FRATRI + ET | CILICAE + PATRI: Cf. §604, 5606,
and others, quoted by Lft. (Grut. p. 580. 10, p. 1070. 1).
τὸν συνεργὸν ἡμῶν. Where St. Paul is speaking of personal
friends he uses the singular τὸν ἀγαπητόν μον: here he uses the
plural because Urbanus was a fellow-worker with all those who
worked for Christ.
Στάχυν : a rare Greek name, but found among members of the
imperial household: C. 1. Z. vi. 8607 Ὁ. M. | M. VLPIO + AVG: L |
EROTI | AB - EPISTVLIS - GRAECIS | EPAPHRODITVS | ET -
STACHYS | CAESAR-N-SER | FRATRI- KARISSIMO- ET | CLAVDIA
* FORMIANA | FECERVNT: cf. also inscriptions quoted by Lft.
10. ᾿Απελλῆν. Again a name borne by members of the house-
hold and by Jews: amongst others by the famous tragic actor.
See the instance quoted by Lft. and cf. Hor. Saé. 1, ν. 100 Creda
Ludaeus Apella, non ego.
τὸν δόκιμον : cf. 1 Cor. xi. 19; 2 Cor. x. 18; xiii. 7. One who
has shown himself an approved Christian.
τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αριστοβούλου. The explanation of this name given
by Lft. bears all the marks of probability. The younger Aristo-
bulus was a grandson of Herod the Great, who apparently lived
and died in Rome in a private station (Jos. Bell. Jud. 11. xi. 6;
Antig. XX. i. 2); he was a friend and adherent of the Emperor
Claudius. His household would naturally be οἱ ᾿Αριστοβούλου, and
would presumably contain a considerable number of Jews and
other orientals, and consequently of Christians. If, as is probable,
Aristobulus was himself dead by this time, his household would
probably have become united with the imperial household. It
would, however, have continued to bear his name, just as we find
servants of Livia’s household who had come from that of Maecenas
called Maecenatiani (C. 7. Z. vi. 4016, 4032), those from the house-
hold of Amyntas, Amyntiani (4035, cf. 8738): so also Agrippiani,
Germaniciani. We might in the same way have Arsstobulians (cf.
Lft. λέ pp. 172, 3).
11, Ἡρῳδίωνα τὸν συγγενῆ pov. A mention of the household of
Aristobulus is followed by a name which at once suggests the
Herod family, and is specially stated to have been that of a Jew.
This seems to corroborate the argument of the preceding note.
τοὺς dx τῶν Napxiogou, ‘the household of Narcissus,’ ‘ Narcis-
siani.. The Narcissus in question was very possibly the well-
known freedman of that name, who had been put to death by
Agrippina shortly after the accession of Nero some three or fou
426 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 11-18,
years before (Tac. Ann. xiii. 1; Dio Cass. lx. 34). His slaves
would then in all probability become the property of the Emperor,
and would help to swell the imperial household. The name is
common, especially among slaves and freedmen, cf. C. 7. Z. vi. 4123
(in the household of Livia), 4346, 5206 HELICONIS NARCISS!I |
AVGVSTIANI | : 22875 NARCISSVS - AVG: LiB. Lft. quotes also
the two names Ti. Claudius Narcissus (see below), Ti. lulius Nar-
cissus from Muratori, and also the form Narcissianus, TI - CLAVDIO-
SP - F - NARCISSIANO (Murat. p.1150. 4). The following inscrip-
tion belongs to a somewhat later date: C.J. Z. vi. 9035 Ὁ. ™. |
Τ᾿ FLAVIVS- AVG - LIB | NARCISSVS - FECIT - SIBI | ET -. COELIAE-
SP - FILIAE | IERIAE - CONIVGI- SVAE ..., and lower down T
FLAVIVS - AVG : LIB - FIRMVS - NARCISSIANVS | RELATOR - AVC-
TIONVM - MONVMENTVM ᾿ REFECIT. See also 9035 a. (Lightfoot,
Phil. p. 173.)
Dr. Plumptre (Bsblical Studies, Ὁ. 428) refers to the following interesting
inscription. Pit Se be found in ΟἿΣ. ) 154° being reputed to have come
from Ferrara. D.M. | CLAVDIAE | DICAEOSYNAER | TI ° CLAVDIVS | NAR-
CISSVS | LIB. AEID. COIV | PIENTISSIMAE | ET FRVGALISSI | B. M. Tiberius
Claudius suggests the first century, but the genuineness of the Ins. is not
sufficiently attested. The editor of the fifth volume of the Corpus writes :
Testimonia auctorum aut incertorum...aul fraudulentorum de loco cum
parum defendant titulum eum exclusi, quamquam fiers potest wt sil
ius mec multum corrupius. The name icaeosyne is curious bat bs
found elsewhere C. 7. 2. iii. 2391; vi. 2866: x. 649. There is nothing dis-
tinctively Christian abont it.
12. Τρύφαιναν καὶ Τρυφῶσαν are generally supposed to have been
two sisters. Amongst inscriptions of the household we have
4866 Ὁ. M. | VARIA +» TRYPHOSA | PATRONA " ET | M. EPPIVS "
CLEMENS |: 5035 Ὁ. M. | TRYPHAENA | VALERIA - TRYPHAENA
| MATRI- B*>M-F- ET | VALERIUS + FVTIANVS (quoted by Lft.
from Acc. di Archeol. xi. Ὁ. 375): 5343 TELESPHORVS - ET - TRY-
PHAENA, §774, 6054 and other inscriptions quoted by Lft. Atten-
tion is drawn to the contrast between the names which imply
‘delicate,’ ‘dainty,’ and their labours in the Lord.
The name Tryphaena bas some interest in the early history of the Church
as being that of the queen who plays such a prominent in the story of
Paul and Thecla, and who is known to have been a real character.
Περσίδα. The name appears as that of a treedwoman, C. J. Z. vi.
23959 DIS: MANIB | PER-SIDI-L- VED | VS: MITHRES | VXORI.
It does not appear among the inscriptions of the household.
13. ἹΡοῦφον : one of the commonest of slave names. This Rufus
is commonly identified with the one mentioned in Mark xv. a1,
where Simon of Cyrene is called the father of Alexander and Rufus.
St. Mark probably wrote at Rome, and he seems to speak of
Rufus as some one well known.
τὸν ἐκλεκτὸν ἐν Kupiy. ‘Elect’ is probably not here used in the
428 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 15, 16
Νηρέα. This name is found in inscriptions of the imperial house-
hold, C. /. Z. vi. 4344 NEREVS - NAT - GERMAN | PEVCENNVS -
GERMANICI | ANVS - NERONIS: CAESARIS. It is best known in
the Roman Church in connexion with the Acts of Nereus and
Achilleus, the eunuch chamberlains of Domitilla (see Ac/a Sancto-
rum May. iii. p.2; Texte und Untersuchungen, Band xi. Heft 3).
These names were, however, older than that legend, as seems to
be shown by the inscription of Damasus (Bull. Arch. Christ. 1874,
p. 20 sq.; C. dns. Christ. ii. p. 31) which represents them as
soldiers. The origin of the legend was probably that in the cata-
comb of Domitilla and near to her tomb, appeared these two
names very prominently; this became the groundwork for the
later romance. An inscription of Achilleus has been found in the
cemetery of Domitilla on a stone column with a corresponding
column which may have borne the name of Nereus: both date from
the fourth or fifth century (Bull. Arch. Christ. 1875, p.8 8q.). These
of course are later commemorations of earlier martyrs, and it may
well be that the name of Nereus was in an early inscription (like
that of Ampliatus above). In any case the name is one connected
with the early history of the Roman Church; and the fact that
Nereus is combined with Achilleus, a name which does not appear
in the Romans, suggests that the origin of the legend was archaeo-
logical, and that it was not derived from this Epistle (Lightfoot,
Clement. i. p. 51; Lipsius Apokr. Apgesch. ii. 106 ff.).
᾿Ολυμπᾶς : an abbreviated form like several in this list, apparently
for ᾿Ολυμπιόδωρος.
16. ἐν φιλήματι ἁγίῳ : so xr Thess. v. 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor.
xiii, 12; 1 Pet. v. 14 ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης. The
earliest reference to the ‘kiss of peace’ as a regular part of the
Christian service is in Just. Mart. Apol. i. 65 ἀλλήλους φιλήματι
ἀσπαζόμεθα παυσάμενοι τῶν εὐχῶν. It is mentioned in Tert. de Orat.
14 (osculum pacts); Const. Apost. ii. 57. 12; viii. 5.5; and it became
a regular part of the Liturgy. Cf. Origen ad loc.: Ex hoc sermone,
altisgue nonnullts similibus, mos ecclestts tracttus est, ut post orationes
osculo se invicem suscipiant fratres. Hoc autem osculum sanclum
appellat A postolus.
ai ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ Χριστοῦ : this phrase is unique in the
N.T. Phrases used by St. Paul are ai ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἁγίων, ἡ ἐκκλησία
τοῦ θεοῦ, αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ
(Gal, i. 21), τῶν ἐκκλησίων του θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ, and in Acts xx. 28 we have the uncertain passage τὴν ἐκ-
κλησίαν τοῦ Kupiov or τοῦ Θεοῦ, where Θεός must, if the correct
reading, be used of Χριστός. It is a habit of St. Paul to speak on
behalf of the churches as a whole: cf. xvi. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 17; xiv.
33; 2 Cor. vill. 18; xi. 28; and Hort suggests that this unique
phrase is used to express ‘the way in which the Church of Rome
XV1.16,17.] WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 429
was an object of love and respect to Jewish and Gentile Churches
alike’ (Rom. and Eph. i. §2).
WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS,
XVI. 17-20. Beware of those breeders of division and
mischief-makers who pervert the Gospel which you were
taught. Men such as these are devoted not to Christ but to
their own unworthy aims. By their plausible and flattering
speech they deceive the unwary. I give you this warning,
because your loyalty is well known, and I would have you
Sree from every taint of evil. God will speedily crush Satan
beneath your feet.
May the grace of Christ be with you.
17-20. A warning against evil teachers probably of a Jewish
character. Commentators have felt that there is something unusual
in a vehement outburst like this, coming at the end of an Epistle
so completely destitute of direct controversy. But after all as Hort
points out (Kom. and Eph. pp. §3-55) it is not unnatural. Against
errors such as these St. Paul has throughout been warning his
readers indirectly, he has been building up his hearers against
them by laying down broad principles of life and conduct, and
now just at the end, just before he finishes, he gives one definite
and direct warning against false teachers. It was probably not
against teachers actually in Rome, but against such as he knew
of as existing in other churches which he had founded, whose
advent to Rome he dreads.
It has been suggested again that ‘St. Paul finds it difficult to
finish.” There is a certain truth in that statement, but it is hardly
one which ought to detain us long. When a writer has very much
to say, when he is full of zeal and earnestness, there must be much
which will break out from him, and may make his letters some-
what formless. To a thoughtful reader the suppressed emotion
implied and the absence of regular method will really be proofs of
authenticity. It may be noted that we find in the Epistle to the
Philippians just the same characteristics: there also in iii. 1, just
apparently as he is going to finish the Epistle, the Apostle makes
a digression against false teachers.
17. σκοπεῖν, ‘to mark and avoid.’ The same word is used in
Phil. iii, 17 συμμιμηταί μὸν γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ σκοπεῖτε τοὺς οὕτω
περιπατοῦντας in exactly the opposite sense, ‘to mark so as to
follow.’
430 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 17-18.
διχοστασίαι: cf. Gal. v. a0. Those divisions which are the
result of the spirit of strife and rivalry (és and ζῆλος) and which
eventually if persisted in lead to αἱρέσει. The σκάνδαλα are the
hindrances to Christian progress caused by these embittered
relations.
τὴν διδαχήν, not ‘Paulinism,’ but that common basis of Christian
doctrine which St. Paul shared with all other teachers (1 Cor
xv. 1), and with which the teaching of the Judaizers was in his
opinion inconsistent.
ἐκκλίνατε: cf. Rom. iii. ει. The ordinary construction is with
ἀπό and the genitive (a) of the cause avoided ἀπὸ κακοῦ (1 Pet.
iii, rx), or (6) of the person.
18. These false teachers are described as being self-interested
in their motives, specious and deceptive in their manners. Cf.
Phil. iii. rg ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία, καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ
αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες.
τῇ δαυτῶν κοιλίᾳφ. These words do not in this case appear to
mean that their habits are lax and epicurean, but that their motives
are interested, and their conceptions and objects are inadequate.
So Origen: Sed et guid causae sit, qua turgia inecclestis suscttantur,
ef lites, dtvind Spiritus instincts apertt. Ventris, inquit, gratia: hoc
est, gquaestus ef cuptdttatis. The meaning is the same probably in
the somewhat parallel passages Phil. iii. 17-21; Col. ii. a0-iii. 4.
So Hort (Judarstic Chrishantty, p. 124) explains ταπεινοφροσύνη to
mean ‘a grovelling habit of mind, choosing lower things as the
primary sphere of religion, and not τὰ ἄνω, the region in which
Christ is seated at God’s right hand.’
Χρηστολογίας καὶ εὐλογίας, ‘fair and flattering speech.’ In
illustration of the first word all commentators quote Jul. Capitolinus,
Pertinax 13 (in Hist, August): χρηστολόγον eum appellantes qui bene
loqgueretur et male faceret. The use of εὐλογία which generally means
‘praise, ‘laudation,’ or ‘blessing’ (cp. xv. 29), in a bad sense as
here of ‘flattering’ or ‘specious’ language is rare. An instance is
quoted in the dictionaries from Aesop. /aé. 229, p. 150, ed. Av.
ἐὰν σὺ εὐλογίας εὐπορῇς ἔγωγέ σον ov κήδομαι.
10. ἡ γὰρ ὑμῶν ὑπακοή. ‘I exhort and warn you because your
excellence and fidelity although they give me great cause for
rejoicing increase my anxiety. These words seem definitely
to imply that there were not as yet any dissensions or erroneous
teaching in the Church. They are (as has been noticed) quite
inconsistent with the supposed Ebionite character of the Church.
When that theory was given up, all ground for holding these
words spurious was taken away.
θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς. St. Paul wishes to give this warning without
at the same time saying anything to injure their feelings. He
gives it because he wishes them to be discreet and wary, and
ΧΥῚ. 19-38. ] WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 431
therefore blamcless. In Matt. x. 16 the disciples are to be
φρόνιμοι and ἀκέραιοι : see also Phil. ii. 15.
ZO. ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης. See on xv. 13. It is the ‘God of
peace’ who will thus overthrow Satan, because the effect of these
divisions is to break up the peace of the Church.
συντρίψει : ‘will throw him under your feet, that you may trample
upon him.’
τὸν Σατανᾶν. In 2 Cor. xi. 14 St. Paul writes ‘for even Satan
fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing
therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of
righteousness.’ The ministers of Satan are looked upon as im-
personating Satan himself, and therefore if the Church keeps at
peace it will trample Satan and his wiles under foot.
ἡ χάρις κιλ. St. Paul closes this warning with a salutation
as at the end of an Epistle.
There is very considerable divergence in different authorities as to the
benedictions which they insert in these concluding verses.
net » The TR. reads in ver. 20 ἡ χάρι: τοῦ Κυρίον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ [Χριστοῦ)Ἅ
μῶν.
This is supported ὈΥΒΑΒΟΙΡ, &c., Vulg. &c., Orig.-lat.
It is omitted by D E F G Sedul.
3) In ver. 24 it reads ἡ χάρι: τοῦ Kuplow ἡμῶν Ἶ. X. μετὰ wdvrew ὑμῶν.
This is omitted by NABC, Valg. codd. (am. fuld. hari.) Boh. Aeth.
Orig.-lat.
It is Faserted by DEFGL, &c., Vulg. Harcl. Chrys. &c. Of these
F GL omit wv. 25-27, and therefore make these words the end of the
Epistle.
(3) A third and smaller group puts these words at the end of ver. 37:
P. 17. 80, Pesh. Arm. Ambrstr.
Analyzing these readings we find:
NA BC, Orig.-lat. have a benediction at ver. 21 only.
D EF G have one at ver. 24 only.
L, Vulg. clem., Chrys., and the mass of later authorities have it in both
laces.
P has it at ver. 21, and after ver. 27.
The correct text clearly has a benediction at ver. 21 and there only ; it
was afterwards moved to a place after ver. 24, which was very probably
in some MSS. the end of the Epistle, and in later MSS., by a
conflation, appears in both. See the Introduction, § 9.
GREETINGS OF ΒΥ. PAUL'S COMPANIONS.
XVI. 21-23. All my companions— Timothy, Luctus. Fason,
and Sosipater—greet you. I Tertius, the amanuensts, also
give you Christian greeting. So too do Gatus, and Erastus,
treasurer of Corinth, and Quartus.
21-28. These three verses form a sort of postscript. added after
432 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 21-27
the conclusion of the letter and containing the names of St. Paul’s
companions.
21. Τιμόθεος had been with St. Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. i. 1):
of his movements since then we have no knowledge. The μον
with συνεργός is omitted by B.
Λούκιος might be the Lucius of Cyrene mentioned Acts xiii. 1.
Ἰάσων is probably the one mentioned in Acts xvii. 5-7, 9 as
St. Paul’s host, and Σωσίπατρος may be the same as the Σώπατρος
of Acts xx. 4, who was a native of Berea. If these identifications
are correct, two of these three names are connected with Mace-
donia, and this connexion is by no means improbable. They had
attached themselves to St. Paul as his regular companions, or
come to visit him from Thessalonica. In any case they were
Jews (οἱ συγγενεῖς pov cf. ver. 7). It was natural that St. Paul
should lodge with a fellow-countryman.
22. ὁ γράψας. St. Paul seems generally to have employed an
amanuensis, see r Cor. xvi. a1; Col. iv. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 17, and
cf. Gal. vi. Στ ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί.
48. Γάϊος who is described as the host of St. Paul and οἱ
the whole Church is possibly the Gaius of 1 Cor. i. 14. In all
probability the Christian assembly met in his house. Erastus
(cf. 2 Tim. iv. 20) who held the important office of οἰκόνομος τῆς
πόλεως, ‘the city treasurer,’ is presumably mentioned as the most
influential member of the community.
THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY.
XVI. 25-27. And now let me give praise to God, who can
make you firm believers, duly trained and established accord-
ing to the Gospel that I proclaim, the preaching which
announces Fesus the Messiah; that preaching in which
God’s eternal purpose, the mystery of his working, kept
stlent since the world began, has been revealed, a purpose
which the Prophets of old foretold, which has been preached
now by God’s express command, which announces to all the
Gentiles the message of obedience in fatth: to God, I say, to
Him who ἐς alone wise, be the glory for ever through Fesus
Messiah. Amen.
25-27. The Epistle concludes in a manner unusual in St. Paul
with a doxology or ascription of praise, in which incidentally all
the great thoughts of the Epistle are summed up. Although
XVI. 25.] THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY 433
doxologies are not uncommon in these Epistles (Gal. £ 5; Rom.
xi. 36), they are not usually so long or so heavily weighted; but
Eph. iii. 21; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17 offer quite sufficient parallels;
the two former at a not much later date. scriptions of praise at
the conclusion of other Epp. are common, Heb. xiii. 20, 21; Jude
24, 25; Clem. Rom. ὃ lxv; Mart. Polyc. 20.
The various questions bearing on the genuineness of these
verses and their positions in different MSS., have been sufficiently
discussed in the Introduction, § 9. Here they are commented
upon as a genuine and original conclusion to the Epistle exactly
harmonizing with its contents. The commentary is mainly based
on the paper by Hort published in Lightfoot, Brdhcal Essays,
p- 321 ff.
25. τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι : cf. Rom. xiv. 4 στήκει ἣ πίπτει
σταθήσεται δέ δυνατεῖ γὰρ ὁ Κύριος στῆσαι αὐτόν. A more exact
parallel is furnished by Eph. iii. 20 τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ . .. ποιῆσαι...
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα. στηρίζω is confined in St. Paul to the earlier Epistles
(Rom. i. rr; and Thess.). δύναμαι, δυνατός, δυνατέω of God, with
an infinitive, are common in this group. We are at once reminded
that in i. rx St. Paul had stated that one of the purposes of his
contemplated visit was to confer on them some spiritual gift that
they might be established.
κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν pou: Rom. ii. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 8; cf. also
Rom. xi. 28 κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, One salient feature of the Epistle
is at once alluded to, that special Gospel of St. Paul which he
desired to explain, and which is the main motive of this Epistle.
St. Paul did not look upon this as antagonistic to the common
faith of the Church, but as complementary to and explanatory of
it. To expound this would especially lead to the ‘establishment’
of a Christian Church, for if rightly understood, it would promote
the harmony of Jew and Gentile within it.
καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα ᾿Ιησοῦ ΧριστοῦιΓ. The words κήρυγμα, κηρύσσειν
occur throughout St. Paul’s Epp., but more especially ἴῃ this
second group. (Rom. x. 8; 1 Cor. i. 21, 23; ii. 4; 2 Cori 19;
iv. 6; xi. 4; Gal. ii. 2, ἄς.) The genitive is clearly objective,
the preaching ‘about Christ’; and the thought of St. Paul is
most clearly indicated in Rom. x. 8-12, which seems to be here
summed up. St. Paul’s life was one of preaching. The object
of his preaching was faith in Jesus the Messiah, and that name
implies the two great aspects of the message, on the one hand
salvation through faith in Him, on the other as a necessary
consequence the universality of that salvation. The reference
is clearly to just the thoughts which run through this Epistle, and
which marked the period of the Judaistic controversies.
κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου κι. Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7, 10 σοφίαν
δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν rois τελείοις... Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ, τὴν ἀποκεκρυμ-
vf
434 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 25, 26
μένην, ἣν προώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων... ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ Θεὸς
διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Eph. iii. 3, 5,6; Tit.i a, 3; 2 Tim. 1 9. 10,
and for separate phrases, Rom. i. 16; iii. a1; xi. 25. This is the
thought which underlies much of the argument of chaps. ix—xi,
and is indirectly implied in the first eight chapters. It represents
in fact, the conclusion which the Apostle has arrived at in musing
over the difficulties which the problems of human history as he
knew them had suggested. God who rules over all the aeons or
periods in time, which have passed and which are to come, is
working out an eternal purpose in the world. For ages it was
8 mystery, now in these last days it has been revealed: and this
revelation explains the meaning of God’s working in the past.
The thought then forms a transition from the point of view of
the Romans to that of the Ephesians. It is not unknown in the
Epp. of the second group, as the quotation from Corinthians shows;
but there it represents rather the conclusion which is being arrived
at by the Apostle, while in the Epp. of the Captivity it is assumed
as already proved, and as the basis on which the idea of the Church
is developed. The end of the Epistle to the Romans is the first
place where we should expect this thought in a doxology, and
coming there, it exactly brings out the force and purpose of the
previous discussion.
The passage κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν down to γνωρισθέντος goes not with
στηρίξαι but with κήρυγμα, The preaching of Christ was the
revelation of the ‘mystery which had been hidden,’ and explained
God's purpose in the world.
26. In this verse we should certainly read διά re γραφῶν προ-
φητικῶν. The only Greek MSS. that omit re are DE, and the
authority of versions can hardly be quoted against it. Moreover,
the sentence is much simpler if it be inserted. It couples together
φανερωθέντος and γνωρισθέντος, and all the words from διά re γραφῶν
to the latter word should be taken together. εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη
probably goes with els ὑπακοὴν πίστεως and not with γνωρισθέντος.
διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν..... γνωρισθέντος.ς All the ideas in
this sentence are exactly in accordance with the thoughts which
run through this Epistle. The unity of the Old and New Testa-
ments, the fact that Christ had come in accordance with the
Scriptures (Rom. i. 1, 2), that the new method of salvation although
apart from law, was witnessed to by the Law and the Prophets
(μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν Rom. iii. 21), the
constant allusion esp. in chaps. ix-xi to the Old Testament
Scriptures; all these are summed up in the phrase διὰ γραφῶν
προφητικῶν.
The same is true of the idea expressed by κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ
aleviov Θεοῦ. The mission given to the preachers of the Gospel
is brought out generally in Rom. x. 15 ff., the special command
XVI. 26, 27. THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY 435
to the Apostle is dwelt on in the opening wv. 1-5, and the sense
of commission is a constant thought of this period. With regard
to the words, alwviov is of course suggested by χρόνοις aiwvias:
cp. Baruch iv. 8, Susanna (Theod.) 42 (LXX) 35. The formula
κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν occurs 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8, but with quite
a different meaning ; in the sense of this passage it comes again in
1 Tim. i. 1; Tit. i. 3.
We find the phrase els ὑπακοὴν πίστεως in Rom. i. δ. As Hort
points out, the enlarged sense of ὑπακοή and ὑπωκούω is confined to
the earlier Epistles.
The last phrase εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος hardly requires
illustrating ; it is a commonplace of the Epistle. In this passage
still carrying on the explanation of κήρυγμα, four main ideas of
the Apostolic preaching are touched upon—the continuity of the
Gospel, the Apostolic commission, salvation through faith, the
preaching to the Gentiles.
μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ: a somewhat similar expression may be found
in τ Tim. i. 17, which at a later date was assimilated to this, σοφῷ
being inserted. But the idea again sums up another line of
thought in the Epistle—God is one, therefore He is God of both
Jews and Greeks ; the Gospel is one (iii. 29, 30). God is infinitely
wise (ὁ βάθος πλούτον καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως Θεοῦ Xi. 33); even
when we cannot follow His tracks, He is leading and guiding
us, and the end will prove the depths of His wisdom.
27. ᾧ ἡ δόξα κτλ. The reading here is very difficult.
1. It would be easy and simple if following the authority of
B. 33. 73, Pesh., Orig.-lat. we could omit ᾧ, or if we could read
αὐτῷ with P. 31. 54 (Boh. cannot be quoted in favour of this
reading; Wilkins’ translation which Tisch. follows is wrong).
But both these look very much like corrections, and it is difficult
to see how ¢ came to be inserted if it was not part of the original
text. Nor is it inexplicable. The Apostle’s mind is so full of the
thoughts of the Epistle that they come crowding out, and have
produced the heavily loaded phrases of the doxology; the struc-
ture of the sentence is thus lost, and he concludes with a well-
known formula of praise ¢ ἡ δόξα «1A. (Gal. i. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 18,
Heb. xiii. 21).
a. If the involved construction were the only difficulty caused
by reading ᾧ, it would probably be right to retain it. But there
are others more serious. How are the words δια ᾿Ι. X. to be taken?
and what does ¢ refer to?
(1) Grammatically the simplest solution is to suppose, with
Lid., that ¢ refers to Christ, and that St. Paul has changed the
construction owing to the words διὰ Ἰ.Χ. He had intended to
finish ‘to the only wise God through Christ Jesus be Glory,’
as in Jude 25 μόνῳ Θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν, διὰ “1. X. τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, δόξα,
436 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 31.
μεγαλωσύνη, «r.r., but the words ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ remind him that
it is through the work of Christ that all this scheme has been
developed; he therefore ascribes to Him the glory. This is the
only possible construction if ¢ be read, but it can hardly be
correct; and that not because we can assert that on @ prion
grounds a doxology cannot be addressed to the Son, but because
such a doxology would not be in place here. The whole purpose
of these concluding verses is an ascription of praise to Him who
is the only wise God.
(2) For this reason most commentators attempt to refer the
¢@ to Θεῷ. This in itself is not difficult: it resembles what is
the probable construction in 1 Pet. iv. x1, and perhaps in Heb.
xiii. a1. But then διὰ "I. X. becomes very difficult. To take it
with σοφῷ would be impossible, and to transfer it into the
relative clause would be insutferably harsh.
There is no doubt therefore that it is by far the easiest course
to omit ¢. We have however the alternative of supposing that
it is a blunder made by St. Paul’s secretary in the original letter.
We have seen that some such hypothesis may explain the im-
possible reading in iv. 1a.
els τοὺς αἰῶναν should be read with BCL, Harcl., Chrys. Cyr. Theodrt.
τῶν αἰώνων was added in NADEP, Vaulg. Pesh. Boh. Orig.-lat. &c.,
owing to the influence of 1 Tim. i. 17.
The doxology sums up all the great ideas of the Epistle.
The power of the Gospel which St. Paul was commissioned to
preach; the revelation in it of the eternal purpose of God; its
contents, faith; its sphere, all the nations of the earth; its author,
the one wise God, whose wisdom is thus vindicated—all these
thoughts had been continually dwelt on. And so at the end
feeling how unfit a conclusion would be the jarring note of
vv. 17-20, and wishing to ‘restore to the Epistle at its close its
former serene loftiness,’ the Apostle adds these verses, writing
them perhaps with his own hand in those large bold letters which
seem to have formed a sort of authentication of his Epistles
(Gal. vi. 11), and thus gives an eloquent conclusion to his great
argument.
INDEX TO THE NOTES
ge)
J. SUBJECTS.
Abbot, Dr. Ezra, p. 233.
Abbott, Dr. T. K., pp. 128;
Abelard, pp. cii; 272.
Abraham, Descent rom, Ῥ. 58.
Faith of, p. 97 ἢ.
History of, in St. Paul and St.
James, p. 102 ff.
Promise to, pp. 109 ff.; 248.
Righteousness of, p. 100 ff.
Accusative case, vi. 10 ; viii. 3.
Acilius Glabrio, p. 420.
Αεῖς, εἷς, Ρ. xv
dam, ΒΡ. Ρ. 130 ff. ; 343 8.
1 of, p. 136
Adrian, p. 45-
Agrippests, pp. xx; xxiii.
Alexandrian text, p. Lxxi.
Alexandrinus, Codex, p- xiii.
Alford, Dean, p. cviii,
Aliturus, p. xxii.
Amanuensis, xvi. 32; pp. lx; 137.
Ambrosiaster, pp. xxv; ci.
Amiatinus, Codex, pp. Ixvi; xc.
Ampliatus, xvi. 8; pp. xxvii; xxxiv.
Andronicus, xvi. 7; pp. xxvii; ΧΧΧΙΥ.
Angelicus, Codex, Ὁ. |xv.
Angels, pp. 146; 222 f.
Aorist tense, ii. 13; ili, 27.
Apelles, xvi. 18; p. xxxiv.
Apollonius, p. lii.
Apostle, pp. 4 f.;
Aquila and Prisciliz (Prisca), pp.
XVill; XxVil; xxxiv; xl; 370; 411;
414 ff.
titulus of, p. 419.
the church in their house, p. xxxv.
Agquilia Prisca, p. 420.
185, &c.
Aquinas, Thomas, pp. cil; go f.1
272 £.; 3493 394
Aristides, p. lxxxil.
Aristobulus, xvi. 10; pp. xxiii; xxvii;
ΧΧΧΙΥ ; XXXV.
Armenian Version, pp. Ixvii ; lxviii £
Arminius, pp. civ; 274.
Arnold, Matthew, pp. xliv; 163 f.
Article, Use of, ii. 12, 135 iil, 115 ἐν,
12, 34; Vili. 26; ix. 4.
Asia, Province of, xvi. §.
Astarte, p. xviii.
Asyncritus, xvi. 14; Pp. xxxv.
Athanasius, St, p. 305.
Atonement, pp. 88; 91 ff.; 117; 1393
14
Day of, pp. 85; 92; 122 ff.
Attraction, ‘Gramuatical, iv. 17; vi
17; ix. 24; x. 14.
Augiensis, Codex, pp. xiv ; Lxix.
Augustesti, pp. xx; xxiii.
Augustine, St., pp. 149 f.; 185; 217)
a7 £5 3795 394, &e.
Babylon, as a name of Rome, p. xxix.
Balfour, "Mr. A. J., p. 224.
Baptism, pp. 107; 153 ff.
Karmvy, Dr. J., p
Baruch, Apocalypse ὁ of, pp. 33; 137;
207, &e.
Basileides, p. Lxxxii.
[πο], The Abbé P., p. Lxv.
Raumlein, W., pp. 20, ἄτα.
Baur, F. C., PP. Χχχὶϊ ; Xxxix; xci;
400.
Beet, Dr. J. Agar, p. cvii.
Benediction, The concluding, p. καὶ.
438
Bengel, J. A., p. cv.
Berber. svi
Beyschiag, Dr. Willibald, p. 375.
Beza, ore, p. Civ.
Blood-shedding, Sacrificial, pp. 89;
1 f.3 119.
Barrnerianss, Codex, pp. Ixiv; \xix.
Bohairic Version, viii 28; p. Ixvii.
Bousset, W., p. Ixviii f.
Browning, Robert, p. 263.
Burton, Prof. E. De Witt, p. 20 and
passim.
Caius, p. xxix.
Caligu!a, p. xx.
Call, Conception of, pp. 4; 217.
Callistus, the Roman Bishop, p. xxiii.
Calvin, pp. ciii; 151 f.; 273.
Capito, p. xv.
Caspari, Dr. Ὁ. P., p. lit
Catacumbas, ad, p. xxx.
Cenchreae, xvi. 1; Ὁ. xxxvii.
Ceriani, Dr., Ὁ. lxvii.
Charles, R. H., pp. 148; 326, ἄς.
Chrestus, Ὁ. xx.
Chrysostom, St., pp. xcix; 148; 270;
ags, &c
Churches, the earliest (buildings for
worship), xvi. 5.
Cteeru, p. xx.
Circumcision, p. 106 ff.
Civil Power, pp. 365 ff.; 369 ff.
Claromontanus, Codex, pp. lxiv; Ixix.
Clemen, Dr. A., p. 307.
Clemen, Dr. C., pp. xxxvii; zxxviii ;
Ixxxix.
Clemens Romanus, pp. xxix; lxxix;
147; 371.
Clemens, Flavius, p. xxxv.
Cotslinianus, Codex, pp. |xiv; lxviii;
Lxxii
Colet, John, p. cii.
Collection for the saints in Jerusalem,
pp. xxxvi ; xcii.
Columbaria, Ὁ. xvii.
Commandments, The Ten, p. 373 f.
Communication in Roman Empire,
p. xxvi f,
Conflict, The Inward, p. 184 f.
Conversion, p. 186.
Conybeare, F. C., p. Lxix.
Cook, Canon, p. Ixvii.
Corbalo, p. xv.
Corinth, p. xxxvi.
Corinthians, First Epistle to, pp. xxxvii;
418,
Corssen, Dr. P., pp. Ixviii; Ixix ; xcviii.
INDEX TO THE NOTES
Covenant, pp. 230; 249.
Critics Sacrs, p. civ.
Cyprian, p. lii.
Cyrene, p. xvi.
Cyril of Alexandria, p. 216 £
Damascenus, Johannes, p. c.
Damasus, the Roman Bishop, Ὁ. xxx.
Date of the Epistle, pp. xxxvi ff. ; 2.
Dative case, iv. 20; vi. 5; vii. 4, 5;
viii. 24.
David, Descent of Messiah from, i. 3;
as author of Psalms, iv. 6 ; xi. 9.
Days, Observance of, p. 386 f.
Death, Idea of (see ‘Jesus Christ,
Death of’; @dvaros), vi. 8.
Deissmann, Herr G. A., pp. 160£;
444 ff.
Delitzsch, Dr. F., p. 45 and passine.
Depositie Martyrum, p. xxx.
De Rossi, Cav. G. B., p. 418 Ε΄
De Wette, p. cvi.
Dickson, Dr. W. P., p. evi.
Dionysius of Corinth, p. xxix.
Domitilla, p. xxxv.
Doxologies, pp. 46; 337 f.
Doxology, The (Rom. xvi. 25-37),
pp. Ixxix; Ixxxix; xcv; 432 @f.
Dwight, Dr. T., p. 233.
Ebionite, p. 400.
Edersheim, Dr. A., pp. xxiii; 136 ff.
Egyptian Versions, p. lxvii.
Election, pp. 244 £; 248 f£.; 344.
Epaenetas, xvi. §; p. xxvii.
Ephesians, Epistle to the, p. lv.
Ephesus, pp. xvi; xciii.
Ephraemt, Codex, Ὁ. ixiii.
Epistles of St. Paul, Addresses oi,
p. 15.
Erasmus, p. cif.
Erastus, p. xxxvii.
Esau, ix. 13.
issenes, p. 400 ἔ
Estius, p. civ.
Ethiopic Version, p. Lrvii.
uthalias, p. lxix.
Euthymius Zigabenus, p. c.
kvans, Dr. T.S., pp. 99; 126; 321;
322.
Evanson, E., p. Ixxxvi.
verling, Dr. O., p. 223.
Evil, Power of, p. 145 £
Ewald, Dr. P., p. 61.
Ezra, Fourth Book of, p. 33 and
passim.
I. SUBJECTS
Fairbairn, Dr. A. M., p. ciil.
Faith, PP- 19; 31 f.; 83 f.; 94 ff.;
and Works, pp. §7; 105.
Fall, The, pp. 85; 130 ff.; 136 f£;
143 ff.; 206.
Felix, p. xv.
Forensic terms, pp. 30 f.; ‘ 190; 220.
Free-Will, pp. 216; 347 f.
Fricke, Dr Dr ὦ. A. p.1 3"
F riedlander, Dr. he
Fritzsche, C. F. A, bp. oa: 275, &c.
Fuldensis, Codex, pp. \xvi; xc.
Gaius, xvi. 23; p.
Galatia, Churches of, As awe exvili
Galatians, Epistle to the, p. xxxvii.
Genitive case, iii, 22; iv. 11; Vv. δ;
τὰν δὲ TH 363 XV. 5, 13, 33; xvi.
Gentiles ‘(see ἔθνη), i δ, 13, 18-33;
ii, 14 f., 26; ἡ. 9, 23, 29 f.; ix. 30;
x. 12; xv. of . I6f.; xvi. 26.
Call of ς, ix, 24 ἢ,
Gentile-Christians, i. 6;
13 ff.; xv. 9 ff, 27.
iv. 17; xi
in Church of Rome. pp. xxxii; liif .
Gifford, Dr. ΕΝ Poni
nostics, pp. 2 368
GOD, as Citator Pp. 259; 266 f.
as Father, pp. 16 f.; 201 ff.;
396 f.
Love of, pp. 118£3 125; 219 ff.;
224.
Mercy of, p. 332 ff.
Sovereignty of, pp. 216; 250 ff. ;
257 f.
Godet, Dr. F., p. cviii, &c.
Gore, Canon, pp. 200; 267, ἄς.
Gospel, The, p- xiii;
Universality of be (see ‘Gen-
tiles’), nd 298 £
ls, The, DP. 8;
f.; 91; 381 f.; 431.
Gothic ersion, The, pp. Ixvii; Ixix.
Grace (see χάρι), The state of, p. 2188.
Grafe, Dr. E., p. 52.
Greek Commentators. pp. xcix; 207;
216.
Greeks in Rome, p. xvii.
Green, T. H., pp. 42; 164 f.
Grimm, Dr. Willibald, p. 233.
Grotius, Hago, p. civ.
Grouping of MSS., p. lxvii.
ve 17; 30; 33;
Hammond, Henry,
v,
Heathen ‘see ‘ Gentiles,’ ἔθνη), p. 49 £
485
Hebrews, Epistle to the, pp. lxxvi;
32; 92; 115.
Heirship, p. 207 ff.
Hermas, xvi. 14.
Hermes, xvi. 14.
Herodion, xvi. 11;
pp. xxvii; xxxiv.
Herods, The, xxi ἢ
Paul’s Philosophy of,
Hodge, ‘Dr. C., p. cvi.
Hort, Dr. F. J. A., pp. Ixvi; ldx;
lxxxix; XCV; 165; 401; 414 £3
420; 429; 433.
δ of St. Victor, p. cil.
atius, pP: xxix; lxxix; "εἶδ: 3
ifyrs Iilyricum, p. 407 ff.
Immanence, The Divine, p- 199.
Imperfect tense, ix. 3.
In ete (cf. els τό), i 10; ἐδ. 21;
Inteprite of the Epistle, pp. lxxxi;
399:
Tnterpolations in ancient writers, p.
f.
Interpretation, History of, pp. 147 & ;
269 ff.
Irenaeus, p. xxix.
Isaac, pp. ΔῈ ff.; 238 ff.
Isis, Worship of, pp. xviii; xx.
Israel (see Jews, &c.), Privileges of,
PP. 343 53 ff.; 68 f.; 232; 398
Rejection of, pp. 238 ff. ; 307 &;
318 ff.; 341 ὦ.
Restoration of, p. 318 ff.
Unbelief of, p. 225 ff.
ζῶν ix. 13.
ames, St., pp. 32; 102 ff.; 128.
Epistle of, p. Ixxvii.
Jason, p. xxxvii.
Jerusalem, Fall of, pp. 2373 346;
380.
Collection for poor saints in,
Pp. XXXVi; xciL
St. Paul's visit to, p. 414 f.
Jesus CHRIST (see Ἰησοῦς Xpords,
Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, ly Χριστῷ).
Death of, pp. 91. fi. ; 160.
Descent of,
Teaching Pisce Gospels), p. 37,
Jewish “Teaching (see ‘Messianic ἴδ.
terpretation ἢ.
440
INDEX TO THE NOTES
Jewish Teaching on Adam’s Fall, | Life, Idea of, vi. 8; vii. 9; viii. 6;
Ρ. 136 &£
on Atonement, p. 88.
oa Circumcision, p. 108 f.
on Election, p. 248 f.
on Relation to Civil Power, p. 369.
on Renovation of Nature, p.
210 ff.
on Restoration of Israel, p. 336£
Jews (see ‘ Israel *).
as critics, p. §3 ff.
Failure of The, p- 63 fi.
in Rome, 2. xviii f.
banished from Rome, p. xx.
their organization, p. xxii f.
their social status, p. xxv.
influence oaRoman Society. p.xxv.
their migratory character, p. xxvi.
their turbulence, p. xxxiii.
ohn, St., pp. 91 £.; 163.
Epistle of, p.
wdgement, The Final, p 53 ff.
ulia, xvi. 155 Ὁ. xxxiv.
iilicher, on Ephesians, p. lv.
+ Caesar, relation to the Jews,
Jania ( (or Janias), xvi. 17; pp. xxvii;
XXXiv.
Justification (see δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, δι-
καιοῦν͵ δικαίωσις, δικαίωμα), pp. 30 f.;
368. : 57; τι8Ά4.; 122;128;153; 190.
and Sanctification, p- 38.
ustin Martyr, p. lxxxiii.
uvenal, Ὁ. lii
Kautzsch, Dr. E., pp. 72; 307.
Kelly, Ww. » p- evii.
Kennedy, Dr. B. H., p. 235
Kenyon, Dr. F. G., p. 234.
Kldpper, Dr. A., p. 62.
Knowling, R. J., p. Ixxxix.
Laodicea, p. xvi.
Lapide, Cornelius a, pp. civ; 152.
Latin Version, The Old (Lat. Vet.),
i. 30; ili. 25; Vv. 3-5, 145 Vill. 36;
ix. 17; pp. Ixvi; 273.
Law, Conception of, pp. 58; τος ff. ;
161; 343 f.
and Grace, pp. 166 ff.; 176 ff.;
187 ff.
Libertini, pp. xix; xxviii.
x. 5; xii. 1.
Lightfoot, Bp., pp. Ixxxix ;
rae: Dr. R. A, p. cix and passin
Literary History of Epistle to
Romans, p. lxxiv.
Locke, John, p. cv.
Loman, A. D., Ὁ. lxxxvi.
Love, pp. 373 ff. 5 376 f.
Lucius, xvi. a1.
Lather, Martin, pp. cili; 42 ; 15.
Lyons, p. xvi.
Maccabees, The, p. xix.
Mangold, Dr. W., pp. xxxil; xctii ;
399; 417-
Manuscripts, Ὁ. Lxii ἔς
Marcion, pp. lxxxili; xc; xcvi; 28;
55: 83; 119: 180; 190; 226;
339; 366; 384.
Mark, St, p. xxix.
Marriage, Law of, p. 170 ff
Martial, Ὁ. lit
Martyrologinm Hieronymianum, p
xcv and
Mary ary (Miriam), pp. XXXIV; XXXV
Mayor, Dr. J. B., p. xxvii.
Melanchthon, Philip, p. ciii.
Ment BP 81; 86; 94 ff. : 97 ff. ; 245;
Messiah, Coming of the, pp. 62; 188;
307; 287 £3 296; 33 £; 3791
Messianic Interpretation of O. T.,
pp. 281 f.; 387 65 we 306 ; 336.
Meyer, Dr. H. A » Pp. cvi and
passion
Michelsen, J. H.A., p. lxxxviii.
Minucius Felix, p. liv.
Mithras, p. xvill.
Mosquensts, Codex, Ὁ. \xv.
Mouie, H. C. G.,, p. cviii.
Naasseni, p. 1xxxil.
Naber, 5. A., p. Ixxxvi.
Narcissus, xvi. 11; p. xxxiv £
Natural Religion, pp. 39 Ε΄. ; 54.
Nereus, xvi. 5.
Nero, The Quinguennium of, p. xiv.
Character of his reign, p. xv.
Law and Police under him, p svi.
Neutral Text, Ρ Lxxi.
Novatian, p. lin
Objections, Treatment of, pp. 69,
743 983 253; 293; 295.
enius, p. ε.
1. SUBJECTS
Oebler, Dr. G. F,, p. 318.
Old Testament, Use of the, pp. 77;
264; 288 f.; 302 ff.; 396.
Collections of extracts from,
pp. 264; 282.
Oltramare, Hugues, p. cviii.
Olympas, xvi. 15.
Origen, p. xcix and passim.
Original Sin, 137. ie
Ostian way, ‘The, p
Paganism, Ῥ. “5
Parousia, ia the p- 377 ££.
Pasticiple, Force of, iv. 18; v. 1;
ix, 22.
Passive Obedience, p. 373.
Patiriensis, Codex, p. \xv.
Patriarchs, Testaments of the Twelve,
Ixxxii.
P-
Patrobas, xvi. 14.
Patron, p. 417 f.
Pattison, Mark, p
Paul, St. (see “St. Paes,” ‘St. John,’
‘St. Jude.’ ‘St. Peter ’).
Collection of his Epistles, Ὁ. lxxix.
Conversion of, p. 186.
Lourtesy of, Pp. 333 403.
of, p. xxxi.
Ciel of, over Israel, pp. 225;
erusalem visits, p. xiii.
{our oar Oe PP xxxvi ff. ; 407 ff. ;
Penetrating insight of, pp. 36 f. ;
pe 186.
Philosophy οι History of, p.
2
342 ff.
Plans of, pp. xxxvi ff.; 19 ff.;
4io ff.
Roman citizenship, p. xiv.
Rome and its influence on, pp. xiii;
xviii.
Style of, p. liv.
Temperament and character,p.lix.
Paulus Episcopus, p. lxxswiii.
Pedanius Secundas, p. xvii.
Pelagius, p. ci.
Perfect tense, v. 2; ix. 19; xvi. 7.
Persis, xvi. 12; p. xxxv.
Peshitto Version, The, p. Lxvii.
Peter, St.
Death of, p. xxxii.
Roman man Chareh and, pp. xxviii ff. ;
His ewe μ twenty-five years’ episcopate,
o?
441
Peter, First Epistle of, p. lxxiv ff.
Pharaoh, ix. 17.
Philo, Embassy to Rome, p. τὰ
Philologus, xvi. 1§; p. xxxiv
Phlegon, xvi. 14. P
Phoebe, xvi. 1; p. xxxvi.
Pierson, A., p. Lxxxvi.
Plumptre, Dean, pp. 420; 426.
Polycarp, Epistle of pp. lxxix; 371.
Pompeius Magnus, p. xix.
Pomponia Graecina, pp. xviil; xxii;
XXXV.
Poor, Contributions for the, pp. xxxvi ;
xcii; 412 f.
Poppaea Sabina, p. xviii.
Porphyrianus, Codex, p. \xv.
Porta Portuensis, Jewish cemetery at,
Portus, Jewish cemetery at, p. xx.
Predestination (ore * Election,’ ‘ Re-
sponsibility ’), p. 347 ff.
Prisca (Priscilla : wy ‘Aquila'), xvi 3.
Prisctliae coemeterium, p. 410.
Promise, Conception of, pp. 6; 18;
I
Propitiation, PP. | 92; 94; 1398
Proselytes, p.
Provinces onder or Nero, Pp. xv.
Pythagoreans, p. 400.
Quinguenssium of Nero, p. xiv.
Ramsay, W. M., pp. xiv; xxviii;
Reconciliation, Idea of, p. 129 f.
Reformation Theology, The, pp. cil;
152; 2736
0 (cL δνοκάλνρι) pp. 39 ff
42.
Riddell, Mr. James, p. 191.
Righteousness, p. 38 ff.
of God, pp 24 ff.; 134 ff
Roman Charch, pp. xxv; 18 ff. ; 370;
re; {; 404. of
omposition of, xxxi.
Creed of, p. liii. P
Government, pp. xxxv; 370 !.
Greek character of, p. lii.
442
Koman Charch (comiinscd )—
Mixed character of, p xxxiv.
Origin of, pp. xxv; lxxvi.
Status and Condition of, p | REX'V,
lxxxiv.
Purpose of, Pe xxxix.
Text ext οἱ, p. iil
place of, p. xxxvi.
Rome in A.D. 58, p. xiii ff.
Influence of, on St. Paul, pp. xiii ;
Rufus, xvi. 13; pp. xxvii; xxxiv.
Ruskin, Mr., p. 93.
Sacrifice of Christ, pp. gt ff.; 119;
122.
Sacrifices, the Levitical, Pp. 93; 122.
Sahidic Version,
Salvation, pp. 23 f.; 1521.
Sanctification, pp. 38; 152.
Sangermanensts, Codex, Ὁ. |xix.
Satan, p. 145.
Schiider, Dr. E., ἢ. 117.
Schacter, | Dr. A., p. cix.
olasticism, 373 118; 123.
Schultz, Dr. Hoe te v3
Schiirer, Dr. E., p. xviii and passin
Scrivener, Dr. Fo Ἢ. A., p. xvii.
Sedulius Scotus, p. Lxiv.
Seneca, p. xvii.
Septuagint, passins.
Silvanus, p. xxix.
Sin, pp. 130 ff. ; 136 ff. ; 143 ff. ; 175 ff.
Sinasticus, Codex, pp. lxii; lxvii.
Slavery in Rome, p. xviii.
Smend, Dr. R., p. 29.
Smith, Dr. W. Robertson, pp. 14;
17 Ἑ
Society, the Christian, pp. 122 f.; 355.
Sohm, Dr. R., p. 15.
Sonship, Ῥ. 20 ff.
Sosipater, p. xxxvii.
Spain, xv. 24, 28.
Speculum, The, p. 1
Spirit, The Holy, ΡΡ. * 898; ; 196£;
199 ff.
INDEX TO THE NOTES
Spiritual gifts, pp. a3; 358 @
Stachys, xvi. 9; p. xxvii.
Steck, Radolph, p. Lxxxvi.
Stichi (στίχοι), p. lvi f.
Swete, Dr. H. B,, p. 73 afi 421.
Syriac Versions, p. xxi ff.
Terminology, Theological, p. 17.
Tertius, xvi. 22.
Tertullian, p. xxix.
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
p. lxxxii and passiwe.
Text of the Epistle, Ὁ. Lxiii.
New jDomenclature suggested,
Ῥ.
Theodoret, pp. ο; 149 and passim.
Theophanes, P cx.
Theophylact, p
Thessalonians, E ῬΡ. to, p. bxii.
Tholuck, F. A. G., p. cv.
Timotheus, xvi. 21; p. xxxvii.
Toy, Prof. C. H., p. 306 £
Trent, Council of, p. 152.
Trinity, Doctrine of the, pp. 16;
200; 340.
Tryphaena, xvi. 123; p. xxxv.
Tryphosa, xvi. 12 ; Ὁ. xXxxv.
Turpie, Mr. D M‘Calman, Pp. 307.
Tyndale, pp. 65; 175; 1943 393.
Union with Christ, pp. 117; 153 4.;
162 ff.
Urbanus, xvi. 9: pp. xxvii; xxxiv.
Valentinians, p. Lxxxii.
Van Manen, Wie C., p. Ixxxvii.
Vatican Hill, The, p. xxix.
Vaticanus, Codex, pp. lxiii; lxviii;
xxiii.
Vaughan, Dr. Ὁ. J., p. cvii.
Vegetarians, pp. 385 ; 401 f.
Versions, p.
Vicarious suffering, p. 93.
Victor, Bishop, p. lil.
Vipsanius Terenas, .
Voelter, Dr. D., p. ixxxvii.
Weak, The, BP 383 ff.: 399 ff.
Weber, Dr. F., p. 7 and passim.
Weber, Dr. V., p. 275.
Weiss, Dr. Bernhard, pp- xl; cvi
Weisse, C. H., p. lxxxvi
Westcott. Bishop, PP. 93: 129.
11. LATIN WORDS 44f
Western Text, The, p. Ixxi ff. Works, pp. 57; 102; 378 ff.
Womoe ° ov. Wrath of God, pp. 47; 117.
eymou . » P- 424.
Wiclif, pp. 95 1753 194- Zahn, Dr. Theodor, p. Ixxav
Weordswosth, Dr. Christopher, p. cvii. ' Ziegler, L., p. lxvi.
II. LATIN WORDS.
angustia, p. §7. | sugulatie, p. 233
carilas, pp. 124; 378. mortificars, p. 222.
. Ῥ. 8. perficio, pp. 581 124.
depulatus, Ὁ. 222. perpetro, Ὁ. 5ὅ.
destinatus, p. 8. pressura, pp. 57: 124
dilectio, pp. 124; 375 victime, p. 222.
III. GREEK WORDS.
(This is an Index to the Notes and not a Concordance; sometimes however,
where it is desirable to illustrate a particular ¢, references are given to
passages which are not directly annotated in the Commentary. The o
tunity is also taken to introduce occasional references to two works which
appeared too late for use in the Commentary, Notes on Epistles of St. Pal
from unpublished Commentaries (including the first seven chapters of the
Romans) by Bp. Lightfoot, and Sibelstudsen by G. Adolf Deissmann (Mare
burg, 1895). Some especially of the notes on words in the rormer work
attain to classical value (dyadus and δίκαιος, ἀνακεφαλαιοῦσθαι, ὀψώνιον), and
the latter brings to bear much new illustrative matter from the Flinders Petrie
and other papyri and from inscriptions. In some instances the new material
adduced has led to a confirmation, while in others it might have led to a
modification of the views expressed in the Commentary. e cannot however
include under this latter the somewhat important differences in regard to
δικαιοῦν and καταλλάσσειν. Bp. Lightfoot’s view of δικαιοῦν in particular
seems to us less fully worked out than was usual with him.]
᾿Αββᾶ, viii 15. | Δγιωσύνη, i. 4.
ἄβυσσοι. x. 7. : ἀγνοεῖν, x. 3; xi. 2g.
ἀγαθός, v. 7 (= Lt.); vd ἀγαθόν, xiii. . dypedAasos, xi. 17.
4: xiv. 16; xv. 2. ἀδελφός, x. τ: Ch Deinemacn, p. 8st.
ἀγαθωσύνη, XV. 14 | ἀδικία, i. 18, 29; ui δ.
ἀγαπᾶν, xiii. 8, 2: ἀδόκιμος, i. 28.
ἀγάπη, v. § 8; xii g; xiii. 10; . ddvvaros, viii. 3.
xv. 30; pp. 374 ff.: cf. Deissmann, ἀΐδιος, i. 20.
f. αἷμα, iii. 25; pp. 93 £. 1129.
αἰών, xii. 2.
. | ἀκαθαρσία, vi. 19.
ἅγιοι, i. 7; πὶ, 16; xii. 1, 1}: wvi. 2, ἀκοὴ, x. 16.
14. ἀκροατής, ii. 13.
q
ge
᾿
444 INDEX TO THE NOTES
dapoBvoria, ἰδ. 37.
ἀλήθεια, i. 38; fii. 6.
ἀληθής, iii. 4.
ἀλλὰ λέγω, x. 18, 19.
ἀλλάσσειν by, i, 23.
ἀλλότριοι, XV. 20.
ἅμα, iii. 12.
ἁμαρτάνειν, v. 12, 13; vi 185 p. 144.
μα, ili. 25.
ili. 95; v.13; p. 143 f.
ἥ, τ. 12; vi.6, 7, 10; via. 8.
duerapéAnros, xi. 29.
ἀναβαίνει»
» x. 6.
ἀνακεφαλαιοῦσθαι, xiii. 9: of. Lift.
Notes, Ὁ. 32: f.
ἀναλογία, xii. 6.
ὦ ἔσω, vii. 22.
ὁ παλαιός, vi. 6; pp. 172, 174.
ἀνομία, vi. 19.
ἀνοχή, ii. 4.
ἀνταπόδομα. xi. 9.
ἀντιτάσσεσθαι, xiii. 3.
ἀνυπόκριτος, xii. 9.
ἄξιος... πρός, villi. 18.
ἀξίως, xvi. 2.
ἀπαρχή, viii. 23; xi. 16; xvi. g.
ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, viii. 19.
ἀπιστία, ἀπιστεῖν. iii. 3.
ἁπλότης, xii. 8.
ἀπό, i. 20; ἀπὸ μέρους, xv. 15.
ἀποβολή. xi. 14.
ἀποθνήσκειν, vi. 7, 10.
ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι, i. 18.
ἀποκάλυψις, viii. 19.
ἀποκαραδοκία, viii. 19.
ἀπολαμβάνειν, i. 27.
dwodvrpoos, iii, 24: cf. Lft. ad foc.
and p. 316.
ἀπόστολος, i. 1; xvi. 7; p. 18.
ἀποτίθεσθαι, xiii. 12.
dworoApay, x. 20.
ἀπώλεια, ix. 22.
dpa οὖν, v. 18; vii. 25; ix 16, 18.
ἀρέσκειν, xv. 1.
ἀρχή, viii. 38.
ἀσέβεια, i. 18,
ἀσεβής. iv. g.
ἀσέλγεια, xiii 13.
ἀσθένεια, vi. 19; viii. 36.
doGeveiy, xiv. 1.
ἀσθενής», v. 6.
"Agia, xvi. 5.
ἄσπονδος, i. 31 (v. 1.)
ἀσύνετος, i. 31.
ἀτιμάζεσθαι, i. 24.
αὐτός͵ i. 24: ix. 3; XV. ἐφ
αὐτοῦ (emphatic), iii. 24.
αὑτοῦ, i. 24.]
ἀφορίζει, i. si p- 18.
, Vii. 8.
᾿Αχαία, xvi. § (v. L).
ἀχρειοῦσθαιε, iii. 12.
Baad, ἢ, xi. 4.
βάθος, viii. 39; xi. 33.
βακτίζεσθαι «is, vi. 3.
BapBapos,i.14.
βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, xiv. 17.
βασιλεύειν, V. 14, 17; vi. 1%
ey, Xv. 1.
βδελύσσεσθαι, ii. 22.
βῆμα, χὶν. το.
βλασφημεῖσθαι, xiv. τά.
βούλημα, ix. 19.
[βούλομαι, p. 182.
βρῶσις, xiv. 17.
γεγενῆσθαι, xv. 8.
γέγονα, ii. 25; xvi. 7.
γένοιτο, μή, lil. 4; ΧΙ. 1, 11.
γίνεσθαι, i. 3.; iil. 4.
γινώσκειν, ii. 2; vi. 6, vii, 7, 18;
viii. 29.
γνῶσις, xv. 14.
γνωστόν, τό, i. 19.
γράμμα, vii. 6.
γραφή, i. 2; p. 18: cf Deissmann,
Ῥ' 109.
δέ, 111. 22; ix. 30; xi. 13.
δεῖ, viii. 26.
διά, i. 8; ii. 27; iii, 28, 29; fw. γι,
35; xiv. 20; p. 110.
δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, xiv. 14.
διαθήκη, ix. 4.
διακονεῖν, XV. 28.
διακονία, xii. 7.
διάκονος, xv. 8; xvi. 1.
διακρίνεσθαι, iv. 230; xiv. 23.
διάκρισις, xiv. 1.
διαλογισμόύς, i, 21; xiv. 1.
διασγολή, x. 12.
διαφέροντα, τά, ii. 18 [ = Lit.)
διδασκαλία, xv. 4.
ϑιδαχή, vi 17; xvi. 17.
διέρχεσθαι, v. 13.
δικαιοκρισία, ii. §.
os, i. 17; iii. 26; v.73; p. 281.
δικαιοσύνη, pp. 28 ff., 392.
δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (ἡ δικ. τοῦ Θεοῦ), L
17; tii, 15, 31, 25; Χ. 3; p. 34 ff
οὖν, δικαιοῦσθαι, ii. 13; ui. 4. 20,
26, 28; iv. 5; ae & vili. 30;
pp. 30f. (otherwise ; see how-
ever his remarks on ἀῤλιοῦν, Votes,
p. 108). .
δικαίωμα, i. 32; v. 16, 185 viii. 4;
Ρ. 31 (cf. Lf. Ῥ. 292).
ws, iv. 25; v. 183 pp. 31,
147 ff.
διό, xiii. § ; xv. 22.
διότι, i. 19; iii. 20.
διχοστασίαι, Xvi. 17.
διώκειν, ix. 30; xii. 14.
δοκιμάζειν, i. 28; ii. 18; xii. 2.
δοκιμή, v. 4- ee
δόξα, i. 23; iii. 23; v. 33 vi. 43 viii.
18, 31; ix. 4; xv. 7; xvi. 27.
δοξάζω, i. a1; viii. 30; xi. 133 xv. 9.
δουλεία, viii. 15, 31.
δοῦλοι, i. τ; p. 18.
δύναμις, 1. 4, 16; viii. 38.
δύνασθαι, xvi. 28.
δυνατεῖν͵ xiv. 4.
δυνατός, xii. 18.
δῴη, Xv. δ.
δωρεά, V. 15.
ἐγαοαλεῖν, viii, 33.
ἐγκεντρεῖν, xi. 17.
εἰν, XV. 22.
ἐδολιοῦσαν, ili. 13.
ἔθνη, i. 5; ἰδ. 14; ix. 30.
εἴγε, v. 6 (v. 1.) (iii. 30].
εἰκών, viii. 20.
εἴπερ, tii. 30.
εἴσωτ:, i. το; xi. 14.
εἰρήνη, i. 7; v. 13; vill. 6; xiv. 17;
XV. 13, 33; xvi. 20; p. 18.
els, ii. 26; iv. 33 viii. 18; xi. 36;
xv. 26 (cf. Deissmann, p. 113 ff.).
als τό with inf., i. 11, 20 (otherwise
Lft.); iv. 11, 16, 18.
els, ὁ, Vv. 15, 17; ix. 10,
εἰσέρχεσθαι, xi. 25.
is, ii. 8 (cf. Lit}; iii. 26, 30 (ef.
Lft.) ; iv. 14, 16; xi. 36; xii. 18.
ἔκδικος, xiii. 4.
dues, ix. 26.
ἐκαλᾶν, xi. 17,
GREEK WORDS
ἐκκλησία, xvi. 5, 16; p. 1.
ἐκκλίνειν, xvi. 17.
ἐκλεκτός, vili. 33; xvi. 133 p. 4.
ἐκλογή, xi. 7, 28.
war’ ἐκλογήν, ix. 113 xi. 5;
Ῥ. 250.
ἐκπίπτειν, ix. 6.
ἐκχύνειν, v. 5.
ἐλάσσων, ix. 13.
ἐλεᾶν, ix. 15; xii. 8.
ἐλευθερία, viii, aI.
Ἕλλην, i 14.
ἐλλογεῖσθαι (ἐλλογᾶσθαι), v. 1.3.
danis, v. 43 viii. 24; xii. 12; xv. 4,
13.
ἐν, i. 18 (otherwise Lft.), 19, 233 xi.
2, 25; xv. 6: cf. Deissmann, p.
8 | 5 f
Kuply, xvi. 13.
ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, xiv. 14.
ἐν Χριστῷ, ix. 1; xvi. 7.
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, iii. 24; wi. 81.
ἐν σαρκί, viii. 9.
ἐν πνεύματι, viii. 9.
ἐν ᾧ, viii. 3.
ἐνδείκνυσθαι, ii, 16 ix. 17, 28.
ἔνδειξιν, iii. 25, 26.
ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι, iv. 20.
ἐνοικεῖν, vii. 17 ; viii. 11.
ἐντολή, vii. 8.
ἐντυγχάνειν, xi. 2: cf. Deissmann,
117 f.
&awaray, vii. 11.
ἐξεγείρειν, ix. 17.
ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, xiv. 11.
ἐξουσία, ix. 21; xiii. 1.
ἐπαγγελία, iv. 13; ix. 4, 8; p. 18
(cf. Lft. on iv. 31).
ἕπαινοε, ii. 29.
ἐπαισχύνεσθαι, i. τό.
ἐπαναμιμνήσκειν, XV. 18.
ἐπαναπαύεσθαι, ii. 17.
ἐπεί, iii. 6.
ἐπί, £9, 11; Iv. 18; v. 3; viii. 29.
dp’ ᾧ, ν. 12.
ἐπίγνωσις, i. 28; iii. 30; x. 2.
ἐπιθυμεῖν, ἐπιθυμία, vii. 7; Ὁ. 378-
ἐπικαλεῖσθαι, X. 12, 13, 14-
ἐπιμένειν, xi. 22.
ἐπιποθεῖν, i. 11.
ἐπιποθία, XV. 23.
ἐπίσημος, xvi. 7.
ἐπιτελεῖν, xv. 28.
ἐπιφέρειν, iii, 5.
ἐπονομάζεσθαι, ti. 17.
ἔργον, τὸ ἔργον, ii. 1g; xii 3; xiv.
203 p. 103.
446
ἃ ροεῖν---
ἐρεῖς οὖν͵ ix. 19; xi. 10.
vl ἐροῦμεν, ili. κ.
vi οὖν ἐροῦμεν, iv. 1; vi. τς vii.
75 villi. gu 5 ix. 14.
dpcBela, ii. 8.
ἐσθίειν, xiv. 3, 3, 6.
ἕτερος, vii. 23.
ἔτι, iti. 7; v. 6; ix. το.
«δαγγελίζεσθαι, x. 15; p- κ΄.
λιον, 1.35 x. 16; xi. 28; p 18.
εὐαγγέλιόν pov, ii, 16; xvi. ag.
ebdpeoros, xii. 1.
x. I.
εὐλογεῖν, xii. Σ
εὐλογητός, i. og; ix 83 p. 236: ef.
et ix.
waf, vi. 10.
v. 12.
re’ i. 28; iv. a; νι 1,2 (=L&),
ἐχθρά, p. 129 ἢ
ἔειν, xii. 11.
nAos, X. Δ.
(ἣν, vii. 9 (cf LA); x. g; xi. 1;
xiv. 9.
anh, wili. 6; xi. 16.
wowaeiy, iv. 17.
4, iii. 29; xi. 2.
4 ἀγνοεῖτε, vi. 3; vii. τ.
wai, ii. 15.
ἤτοι. . ἥ, vi, τό.
ἤδη, i. το; ‘xiii. 11.
Ἠλείας, χὶ. 2.
ἡμέρα, ii. 5.
μα, xi. 12.
θάνατος, 6, v. 12, 21;
(=Lft.) ; vii. 24.
θανατοῦσθαι, vii. 4.
θειότης, i, 20.
θέλειν, vii. 1§ ; ix. 16.
θέλημα, τό, i. 10; ii. 18; xii. a
θεμέλιον, XV. 20.
Θεός, p. 237.
Θεὸς πατήρ, i iy; p. 18.
li i i. 30 (cf. if},
» Xi. 9.
θλίψιν, ii. 9; Vv. 3; viil. 35 ; xii. 12.
vi. 3, 4
INDEX TO THE NOTES
θυμός, iL 8.
θυσία, xii. 1.
Taos, vill. 22; = 3: see however
Deissmann f.
it; pp. 3 f.,, 83 1,
PP- 93, 130:
comp. n, p.t31 &
Ἰλλυρικόν, xv. 19.
ἵνα, ¥. 20; Xi. ΣΙ.
Ἰουδαῖον, i
08, 47 29; Ῥ. 399.
Ἰσραήλ, ix.
Ἰσραηλίτηη, ἊΝ Ρ. 64.
Ἱστάναι, iii. 31; xiv. 4.
καθήκοντα, ra, i, 28.
καθιστάναι, ¥. 19.
καθό, viii. 26,
καθορᾶν, i. 20.
και , ὧι, 26 ; χὶΐ. τὶ (v. 1.); xii. σὲ,
κατὰ καιρόν, κατὰ τὰν καιρόν, ¥,
6; ix. 9.
κακία, 1. 29.
κακοήθεια, i. 20.
καλεῖν, iv. 17 ; viii, 30; ix. 7.
καλῶς, xi. 20.
καρδία, i. 21.
καρποφορεῖν, vii. 4 (otherwise Lft.).
κατά, il 6. viii. 27; xi. 28; xv.g.
cas’ els, xii. 5.
war’ οἶκον, xvi. g.
κατάγειν, χ. 6.
καταισχύνειν, Υ.5; ix. 33.
κατακανχᾶσθαι, ΧΙ, 18.
κατάκριμα, viii. 1.
κατακρίνειν, Viii. 3.
καταλάλος, i. 30.
καταλαμβάνειν, ix. 30.
καταλλαγή, ν. 11; Xi. 18.
καταλλάσσειν, V. 10,
καταλύειν, xiv. 20.
κατανοεῖν, iv, 19.
κατάνυξις, xi, 8.
καταργεῖν, iii. 3, 31; vi. 6; vii. 2, 6.
καταρτίζειν, ix. 22.
καταφρονεῖν, ii. 4.
κατέναντι, ἵν. 17.
κατεργάζεσθαι, li. οἱ vii. 15.
κατέχειν, κατέχεσθαι, i, 18 (otherwieg
Lft.) ; vii. 6.
κατηγορεῖν, ii. 18.
Ill. GREEK WORDS
warn xety, fi. 18.
«ανχᾶσθαι, v. 3, 11.
κανχᾶσαι, ii. 17.
καύχημα, iv. 2.
καύχησις, V. 3; KV. 17.
Keyxpeal, xvi. τ.
κήρνγμα, xvi. 25.
κηρύσσειν, X. 14, 18.
κίνδυνος, viii. 35.
δοε, xi. τό.
κληρονόμος, ἵν. 13, 143 viii. 17.
κλῆσις, xi. 29.
κλητός, i. 1, 6,7; viii. 28; p. 18.
«λητὴ ἁγία, p. 13
wolry, xiii, 13.
κοίτην ἔχειν, ix. 10.
κοπιᾶν, xvi. 6.
κόσμος, ὁ, iii. 6; v. 12.
κρίνειν, κρίνεσθαι, ili. 4; xiv. 5, 13.
ετίσιξ, i. 20; Viil. 19, 21, 39.
κύκλφ, xv. 10.
κυριεύειν, vi. 9.
Κύριος, i. 4, 75 x. 12, 13; xii, εἰ;
xiv. 8; xv. 6; p. 18.
em por, xiv, 14.
λαλεῖν, ili. 19.
λαός, xi. 1.
λατρεία, ix. 4; xii. 1.
λατρεύειν, i. 9.
λόχανα, xix. 2.
Adyes, hii. To.
ἀλλὰ λέγω, x, 18, 10.
λέγω οὖν, xi. 1, IT.
λεῖμμα, xi. 5.
λειτουργεῖν, p. 20: cf. Deissmann,
p. 137 f.
λειτουργός, xiii. 6; xv. 16.
λόγια τά, iii. 2.
λογίζεσθαι, viii. 18; xiv. 14.
λογίζεσθαι εἷς, i. 26;
λογικύς, xii. 1.
λογισμός, ii. 18.
λόγος, iii. 4: ix. 6.
λυπεῖσθαι, Xiv. 18.
λύπη, ix. 2.
μακάριον, iv. 7, 8; xiv. 22.
μακαρισμός, iv.
μακροθυμία, ii.
Μαρία (μαριάμν. xvi. 6 (ν. 1.).
μαρτυρεῖν, 21: ΣΧ. 3
447
ματαιότης, viil. 20,
ματαιοῦσθαι, i. 21.
μάχαιρα, vill. 35.
μείζων, ix. 12.
μέλλειν, viii. 18,
μέλλων, ὃ, Vv. 14.
μέν, x. 1.
μὲν οὖν, xi. 13; p. 324.
pevouvye, ix, 20, x. 18.
μένειν, ix. 11.
μεστός, i. a9; Xv. 14.
μεταδιδόναι, xii. 8,
μεταμορφοῦσθαι, xii. 2.
μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων, iL. 18.
μή, il. 14; ἰδ, 5; ἐν. 19; ix. 14:
x.
ph γένοιτο, ili. 43 ix. 14; xi. 2,
It.
μήπω, ix. 11.
μνεία, xii, 13 (v. 1.
μόνος, xvi. 26.
μόρφωσις, ii. 20.
μυστήριον, xi. 28; xvi. 28.
vexpés, i. 4 (cf. Lft.) ; viii. ro; xi. rg.
ἐκ νεκρῶν, vi. 13 (ef. Lf).
νήπιος, ti, 20.
νικᾶν, iii. 4; xii. 21.
νομοθεσία, ix. 4.
νόμος, metaphorical use of, fii. 27; vil.
21, 23; Vili. 2; x. 31.
νόμο: (sine artic.), ii. 13, 13, 14, 28;
tii. 31 (cf. ai 13; Vv. 133
vil. 1; ix. 313
enor, 6, ii. 13, We iii. 19; viia,
vous, i. 98; vil. 23; xik 2.
νυνί, iii, 21.
ὁδηγός, li. 19.
οἴδαμεν, ti. a; viii. aa, 28.
οἰκοδομή, xiv. 19.
οἰκτείρειν, i ix. 18.
οἰκτιρμός, xii. 3.
υἷος, ix. 6.
ὀκνηρός, xii, ΣἹ.
ὅλος, viii. 36.
dpoOupadcy, xv. 6.
ὁμοίωμα, vi. §; viii. 3,
ὁμολογεῖν, ix. 9.
ὀνειδισμός, XV. 3.
ὄνομα, i. 5; p. 18
ὀνομάζειν, Xv. 20.
ὅπλον, vi. 13.
ὅπωε dy, iil.
ὀργή, 4 ὀργή. L185 H 6,8; Bh δ
xi 19; xili. 4.
448
δρίζειν, i. 4.
ὅς γε, viii. 32.
ὅστις, i. 25, 323 HL. 18; vi. 2; ix. 4.
ὅτι, viii. 21, 27, 29; ix. 2.
οὐ μή, iv. 8.
οὐ μόνον δέ, viii. 33; ix. 10.
ob πάντως, iii.
οὗν, ii. a1; iii, 28 (v, 1.); x. 14: xii.
Is Pe 294.
ὀφείλειν, xiii. 8; xv. 1.
ὀψώνιον, vi. 23: cf. Lft. and Deise-
mann, Ὁ. 145 f.
πάθημα, vii. §-
παιδεντής, ii. 20.
παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος, vi. 6.
πάντως, iii. 9.
παρά, i. 25.
παρ᾽ ἑαντοῖς͵ xii, 16.
παράβασις, iv. 15.
παραδιδόναι, i. 24; iv. 25; vi. 15.
παραζηλοῦν, x. 19; xi. 11.
παρακεῖσθαι, wii. 18, 31.
wapason, V. 10.
παράπτωμα, v.15; xi. in (cf. Lit. on
Vv. 20).
παράκλησις, xv §.
Ξαρεισέρχεσθαι, Υ. 10.
πάρεσις, iii. 28.
Ξαριστάναι, παριστάνειν, vi, 133 xii. 1.
παρουσία, pp. 370.
was, ix. 53 x. 16; xi. 26, 32.
πατήρ, ὁ, 1.7; Vi.4; viii. 15; cf xv. 6,
"ατήρ (= patriarch), i ix. 5,10; xi 28;
ero, ii. 19.
περὶ ἁμαρτίας, viii. 3.
περιπατεῖν, xili. 13.
περισσεία, V. 17.
περισσός, iil. 1.
περιτομή, ii. 29; xv. 8
πηλύς, iv. 21.
πικρία, iil. 14.
πιύτης, Xi. 17.
πίπτειν», xi. 11, 225 xiv. 4.
πιστεύειν, πιστεύεσθαι, iii, 2; Σ. 103
Xiv. 2.
πίστις, iii. 22; pp. 31 ff.
πίστις, ἡ, i. 8, 173 iii, 3. 35; iv.
20; v. 2; x. 8, 17; xii. 6;
xiv. I,
πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, iii. 22.
εἰς πίστιν, i. 17.
ἐκ πίστεως, i. 17; iii. 26, 30 (ς!.
] 1; ix. 30, 32; x.6; xiv. 23.
σλάσμα, ix. 20.
πλεονάζειν, Υ. 20.
INDEX TO THE NOTES
πλεονεξία, 1. 20.
πληροῦν, Xv. 10.
πληροφορεῖν, πληροφορεῖσθαι, ἦν. 51:
xiv. 5; xv. 13 (ν.].).
πλήρωμα, xi. 12, 255 XV. 29.
πλουτεῖν, x. 12.
wAovros, ix. 23; xi. 12.
πνεῦμα, viii. 9, 10, 11; xdi. ΕΣ ; xv. 30.
Πνεῦμα ΑγὙιον, v. 5; ix. 1; xiv.
17; Xv. 13, 16, 19.
πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, vill. 9, 14.
πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, viii. 9.
πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, i 1. 4.
πνεῦμα δουλείας, viii. 15.
πνεῦμα κατανύξεως, xi. 8.
πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, viii. 15.
by πνεύματι, by τῷ πνεύματι, Lg:
ii. 29; vill. 9; ix. 1.
κατὰ wvevpa, 1. 4; Will. 4, δ.
πνευματικός, i, IL; Vv. 143 Υἱὲ. 14;
πολλοί, ol, v. 185.
, Τά, ZV. 22.
πονηρία, i. 20.
πορνεία, i, 20 (v. 1.).
προγινώσκειν, Vili. 29; xi. 8.
προγράφειν, XV. 4.
προδιδύναι, xi. 35.
προειρηκέναι, ix. 29.
προεπαγγέλλεσθαι, i. 3.
προετοιμάζειν, ix. 23.
προέχεσθαι, iii. 9.
προηγεῖσθαι, xii. 10.
πρόθεσις, viii. 28; ix. ΕἸ : Ὁ. 250.
πρόθυμος, i. 15.
προΐστασθαι, xii. 8.
προκόπτειν, xiii. 12.
προνοεῖσθαι, xii. 17.
προορίζειν, Vili. 29.
προπάτωρ, iv. I.
προπέμπειν, XV. 24.
πρός, iii, 26; viii. 18.
wpocayoryh, Υ. 2.
προσκαρτερεῖν, xii. 12.
πρόσκομμα, ix. 32; xiv. 13 (ν.}.).
προσλαμβάνεσθαι, xiv. 1
πρόσληψις, xi. 18.
προστάτις͵ Xvi. 2.
wpoopopa, xv. τό.
προσωποληψία, ii, τι.
προτίθεσθαι, iii. 25 (otherwise Lft, aa
loc., cf. p. 318)
προφητεία, xii. 6.
wpopnriads. xvi. 26.
πρῶτον͵ i. 16 (v. L).
πρῶτος, X. 19.
I. GREEK WORDS
wperéroxos, vili, 20.
wraiey, xi. II.
στωχός, xv. 26.
πωροῦν, xi. 7.
πώρωσις, xi. 28.
ῥῆμα, x. 8, 17.
ῥίζα, xi, 16 ff.; xv. 18,
ῥνόμενοε, ὁ, xi. 26.
Ῥώμη, i. 7.
σαρκικός, XV. 37.
oapawos, vii. 14.
wae, ti. 20; vi. 19; ix. 8; xiii. 14;
p- 181.
ἐν σαρκί, ἐν τῇ σαρκί, vii. g; viii
8, 9.
κατὰ σάρκα, i. 8; iv. 13 viii. 4,
onpetov, iv. 11; XV. 10.
σκάνδαλον, xi. 9; xiv. 13.
oxevos, ix. 21, 22.
oxAnpovay, ix. 18.
σκοπεῖν, XVi. 17.
Zravia, xv. 24, 28.
σπέρμα, ix. 7.
σπουδή, xii. 8, 11.
στενοχωρία, ii. 9.
στήκειν, Xiv. 4.
στηρίζειν͵ i. 105 xvi. 25.
στοιχεῖν, iv. 12 (on τοῖς στοιχ.
14).
σνγγενής, ix. 3: xvi. 7, 10, 21.
σνγελείειν, xi. 32.
σνγκληρονόμος, viii. 17.
συγκοινωνόι, xi. 17.
Ζυμμαρτυρεῖν, ii. 15; viii. 16; ix. a.
σύμμορφος, Vili. 29.
συμπαρακαλεῖσθαι, i. 12.
συμπάσχειν, wili, 17.
σύμφυτος, Vi. 5.
συναγωνίζεσθαι, XV. 30.
συναιχμάλωτος, xvi. 7.
συναναπαύεσθαι, XV. 32.
συναντιλαμβάνέσθαι, viii. 26.
συναπάγεσθαι, xii. τό.
συνείδησις. ti. 15; ix. 1,
συνεργεῖν, viii. 28.
συνευδοκεῖν, i. 32.
συνθάπτεσθαι, vi. 4.
συνιστάναι, iii. 5; xvi. 3.
συνιῶν, iii. 11.
συντελεῖν, ix. 28.
συντέμνειν, ix. 28.
συντρίβειν, xvi. 20.
ece
i a si ee SSS SSS a a ΠΡΟ
449
σύντριμμα, iii. 16.
συνωδίνειν, viii. 22.
σνσταυροῦσθαι, vi. 6.
συσχηματίζεσθαι, xii. a,
σφαγή, viii. 36.
σφραγίζειν, xv. 28.
oppayis, iv. 11.
σώζειν, σώζεσθαι, v. 9; vili. 24; a
26: cf. Lft. p. 288.
cua. wi. 6: vie 4, 24: xii. 1.
Σωσίπατρο:, xvi. 21.
σωτηρία, 1.16; x. 45 xi. 11.
ταπεινός, xii. τό.
γε yap, vii. 7.
τέκνον, viii. 14, 173 ix. 8 (cf. Deiss-
mann, p. 164).
τέλος (send), x. 43 (=toll), xiii. 7.
τί ἐροῦμεν, iii. 5.
τί οὖν ; iii.9; wi. 16; xi. 7.
ἐροῦμεν ; ; iv. τ; wi; wih
73 Vili. 315 ix. 14, 30.
ἀλλὰ τί λέγει; x. 83 xi. 4.
τιμή, xii, το.
τινές, ili. 35 xi. 19.
τὸ war’ ἐμέ, i. 15.
τολμᾶν, ν. 7.
τολμηρύτερον, XV. 18.
τόποι, xii. 193 XV. 23.
τοῦ with infin., vi. 6; vii. 3
τράπεζα, xi. 9.
τράχηλος, xvi. 4.
τύπος, V. 14; Vi. 17.
ὑβριστής, i. 30.
νἱοθεσία, viil. 18.
υἱός (of Christ; cf Deissmann, Ὁ. 166 1.).
i. 4; Vili. 29; (of man), vill. 14.
tyudrepos, xi. 31.
ὑπακοή, i. §; Vv. 19; xvi. 19.
ὑπακούειν, x. τό.
ὕπανδρος, vii. 2.
ὑπάρχειν, iv. 10.
ὑπερεντνγχάνειν, viii. 26.
ὑπερέχειν, xiii, 1.
ὑπερήφανος, i. 30.
ὑπερνικᾶν, viii. 37.
ὑπερπερισσεύειν, v. 20.
ὑπερφρονεῖν, xii. 3.
ὑπό, iii. g.
ὑπόδικος, lii. 10.
ὑτόλειμμα, ix. 27.
ὑπομένειν, xii. 12.
ὑπομονή, Vv. 3.
ὑποτάσσειν, ὑποτάσσεσθαι, vill. 203 8
3; xiii. 1.
ὑστερεῖσθαι, iii. 23.
450
ὄψηλέε, τῇ τ6.
ὄψωμα, viil. 39.
φράττειν ΤῊΝ
φρονεῖν, vill. “δὲ aL 16; xiv. 6; xv. g.
χαρά, xiv. 17; KV. 13.
χάρις, i. δ; v. 3, 153 HL δ᾽ δ; xii. 8)
xv. 15; xvi. 20; p. 18
INDEX TO THE NOTES
καὶ εἰρήνη,
χέρι μοὶ ἐγ ῖ. ak a3; xii 6; B
358 £.
wpe, xil. 13.
χρημανίζειν, vii. 3.
χρηματισμός, xi. 4.
χρηστολογία, xvi. 18.
χρηστότης, ii, 4; fii. 12; xi. 22.
Σριστὸν ances vill. 34 (v. L), 39 3 PP
3:.,
ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, iii. 24; wi. 11.
ἐν Χριστῷ, ix. 1; xvi. 7.
ψεύδομαι, ix. 1.
ψεῦδος, i, 28.
ψεῦσμα, iii. ἢ.
nf, lit. 4.
ψυχή, ii. ο; xili. 1.
ὦν, 6, ix. δ; p. 235.
ὧς, ix. 32.
ws dy, xv. 24.
ὡσαύτως, viii. 26.
ὥστε (σὰ indic.), vil. 4; (with δα.)
ae saree S01) ἠΐ