LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
PRINCETON, N.J.
'^
Purchased by the
Mary Cheves Dulles Fund
Ccyy I
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF
The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.LlTT.,
Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopcedia and Symbolics,
Union Theological Seminary, New York ;
The Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.LlTT.,
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford;
The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.,
S«m*titHe Master of Univirsity College, Durham.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
Rev. W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D.
AND
Rev. a. C. HEADLAM, B,D.
The international Critical Commentary
^N OF mnc^
o-o - 1 1903
A
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMAN?
BY THE
Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LLJ3.
LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, AND
CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD
AND THE
Rev. ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, B..D
FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE, OXFORD
\T
^ h
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
Printed in the United States of Americ;
All rights reserved. No part of this book
may be reproduced in any form without
the permission of Charles Scribner's Sons
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, and R. B. Rackham. We have also, where
necessary, inserted references 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.
W. S.
A. C. H.
Oxford, Lent,, 1896.
PREFACE
The commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans
w^hich 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 thenL 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 (i) the distribution
of the subject-matter of the commentary, (2) the attempt
to furnish an interpretation of the Epistle which might be
described as historical.
Some experience in teaching has shown that if a difficult
Vi r&BFACI
Epistle like the Romans b really to be understood and
grasped at once as a whole and in its parts, the argumspi
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 th?|l
of making our exposition of the Epistle historical, that &
of assigning to it its true position in place and iime — 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
PREFACE Vll
does the Epistle give to questions which are occupying
men's minds now, or which have occupied them in any
past period of Church history, but what were the questions
of the time at which the Epistle was written and what
meaning did his words and thoughts convey to the writer
himself
It is in the pursuit of this original meaning that we have
drawn illustrations somewhat freely from Jewish writings,
both from the Apocryphal literature which is mainly the
product of the period between loo B.c and loo A.D., and
(although less fully) from later Jewish literature. In the
former direction we have been much assisted by the
attention which has been bestowed in recent years on
these writings, particularly by the excellent editions of the
Psalms of Solomon and of the Book of Enoch. It is by
a continuous and careful study of such works that any
advance in the exegesis of the New Testament will be
possible. For the later Jewish literature and the teaching
of the Rabbis we have found ourselves in a position of
greater difficulty. A first-hand acquaintance with this
literature we do not possess, nor would it be easy for most
students of the New Testament to acquire it. Moreover
complete agreement among the specialists on the subject
does not as yet exist, and a perfectly trustworthy standard
of criticism seems to be wanting. We cannot therefore feel
altogether confident of our ground. At the same time we
have used such material as was at our disposal, and cer-
tainly to ourselves it has been of great assistance, partly as
suggesting the common origin of systems of thought which
have developed very differently, partly by the striking
contrasts which it has afforded to Christian teaching.
Our object is historical and not dogmatic Dogmatics
arc indeed excluded by the plan of this series of commen-
taries, but they are excluded also by the conception which
we have formed for ourselves of our duty as commentators.
We have sought before all things to understand St. Paul,
viii PREFACE
and to understand him not only in relation to hit fur-
roundiiigs 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-
tients 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 Introductions to Romans and Ephesians, which,
through the kindness of the editors, have been in our
possession since December last.
The Commentary and the Introduction have been about
equally divided between the two editors ; but they have
each been carefully over the work of the other, and they
desire to accept a joint responsibility for the whole. The
PREFACE Ix
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 their 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.
Brightmzm of the Pusey House. Dr. Plummer, as editor
of the series, has read through the whole of the Com-
mentary more than once, and to his courteous and careful
criticism they owe much. To Mr. Brightman they are
indebted for spending upon the proof-sheets of one half of
the Commentary greater care and attention than many men
have the patience to bestow on work of their own.
The reader is requested to note the table of abbreviations
on p. ex ff., and the explanation there given as to the
Greek text made use of in the Commentary. Some addi*
tional references are given in the Index (p. 444 ff).
W. SANDAY.
A. C. HEADLAM.
Okvokb, WMltwntUi$, 1%^
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION xiii-cu
i I. Rome in A. D. 58 . . , , . . . . xiii
a. The Jews in Rome . xviii
3. The Roman Church xxv
4. Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose . « ,xx\\\
}. Argument xiiv
6. Language and Style . Iii
f. Text . Ixiii
8. Literary History ........ ixx'w
9. Integrity ....... .Ixxxv
10. Commentaries ....... .xcviii
Abbreviations ........ cx-cxii
COMMENTARY I-436
Dbtached Notes:
The Theological Terminolo^ of Rom. 1. I-7 . . . 17
The word SiKaiof and its cognates 28
The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in some
Jewish Writings 31
The Righteousness of God 34
St. Paul's Description of the Condition of the Heathen
World 49
Use of the Book of Wisdom in Chapter i . . • • $1
The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice ... 91
The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by
St James loa
Jewish Teaching on Circumcision 108
The Place of the Resurrection ol Christ fan the teaching (rf
St Paul 116
li the Society or tbm ladivtdital the {Hoper object of
Justificatioa ? 12a
CONTENTS
The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement . • » . 129
The Effects of Adam's Fall in Jewish Theology , . . 136
St Paul's Conception of Sin and of the Fall .... 143
History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of
iiKaiaxris .......*. 147
The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ . . . l63
The Inward Conflict t . 184
St Paul's View of the Law 187
The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit . . . .199
The Renovation of Nature 2Io
The Privileges of Israel >3'
The Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5 133
The Divine Election 248
The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament . . . 157
The Power and Rights of God as Creator .... 266
The Relation of St Paul's Argument in chap, ix to the Book
of Wisdom 267
A History of the Interpretation of Rom. ix. 6-29 . . . 269
The Argument of ix. 30-x. 21 : Human Responsibility . 300
St. Paul's Use of the Old Testament 302
The Doctrine of the Remnant ...... 316
The Merits of the Fathers 330
The Argument of Romans ix-xi 34*
St Paul's Philosophy of History 342
The Salvation of the Individual : FreeWill and Predesti-
nation . . 347
Sphitual Gifts 358
The Church and the Civil Power ..»•.. 369
The History of the word ayuTTi; ...••• 374
The Christian Teaching on Love 376
The early Christian belief in the nearness of the irmpwwim . 379
The relation of Chapters xii-xiv to the Gospels . . . 381
What sect or party is referred to in Rom. xiv ? , . . 399
Aquila and PrisciU* .....••. 418
INDEX :
I Subjects 437
II Latin Words 443
III Greek Words ........ 44J
INTRODUCTION
§ I. Rome in a.d. 58.
It was daring 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 universality
of the Gospel makes him desire to preach it in the universal city '.
And the impression which we gain from the Epistle to the
Romans is supported by our other sources of information. The
desire to visit Rome dominates the close of the Acts of the
Apostles : ' After I have been there, I must also see Rome.' ' As
thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness
also at Rome'.' The imagery of citizenship has impressed itself
upon his language *. And this was the result both of his experience
and of his birth. Wherever Christianity had been preached the
Roman authorities had appeared as the power which restrained
* The main aathoritiet used for this section are Fameanx, Tlu Annah of
Tacitus, vol. ii, and Schiller, Gtukithtt dts Romiuhtm Kaisstrreuht umtet
der RtgitruHg des Ner»,
* Rom. l 8-15.
* Acts xix. 31 ; xxiiL ti.
* Phil. L 37 ; iii. ao; Ei^i. fi. 19; Acts zziii. g.
XlV EPISTiJft TO THE ROMANS [§ I
the forces of erfl opposed to it *. The worst pereecutioi) of the
Christians had been while Judaea was under the rule of a native
prince. Eveiywhere the Jews had stirred up persecutions, and
the imperial oflScials had interfered and protected the Apostle.
And so both in this Epistle and throughout his life St. Paul
emphasizes the duty of obedience to the civil government, and the
necessity of fulfilling our obligations to it. But also St. Paul wa^
himself a Roman citizen. This privilege, not then so common as
it became later, would naturally broaden die 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
camiot 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 Quinquennium of
Nero, and remembered as the happiest period of the Empire since
the death of Augustus •• Nor was the judgement unfounded. It is
' s Thess. ii. 7 4 anrixv, 6 rb KaT^xov. It is well known that the
commonest interpretation of these words among the Fathers was the Roman
Empire (see the Cattna of passages in Alford, iii. p. 56 fT.), and this accords
most suitably with the time when the Epistle was written {c. 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 out, and this he calls the ' mystery of
iniquity,' and describes in the language of the O. T. prophets. But everywhere
the power of the civil government, as embodied in the Roman Empire {76
Karixov) and visibly personified in the Emperor (0 narixoiv), 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 01 the Old, reveal to us
and generalize the spiritual forces of good and evil which underlie the surfiace
of society.
' Ramsay, Tk4 Ckurth in tkt Jtcmam Empirt, pp. 147, 148; cf. also pp. 60,
70, 158 n. See also Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 202-205.
• Aur. Victor, Cats. 5, Epit. 12, Unde quidam prodidere. Traianum solitum
iktr*,fr$cul distort amctcs principes m Nercnis quinqitennio The ezpressioo
§ L] ROME IN A.D. 58 XV
probable that even the worst excesses of Nero, Uke die wont enielty
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
v\ ould the populace be offended ; more far-seeing observers might
be able to detect worse signs, but if any ordinary citizen, or
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 Burros. It
was due apparently also to flashes of gerios 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 role of Felix, but he was
a legacy from the reign of Claudius. The diflBculties 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 repeiundae ; 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
'wiih a righteous thunderbolt.' Amongst the accusations against
auinquennium may have been snggested by the ctrtamen fuinqtunnaU which
Nero founded in Rome, as Die tells at, \iv\p T171 aatTTjpias r^ re Suz/toi^i to9
Kpdrovs avTov, Dio, £pii. Ixi. 21 ; Tac. Amm. xiv. ao; Soet. N«r» la; CL the
coins described, Eckhel, vi. 364 ; Cohen, L p. aSa, 47-6$. CKE. QVIlia
aoM. 00.
xvl EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ L
Suillius in 58 was the misgovernment of Asia. And not only were
the favourites of Claudius condemned, better men were appointed
in their place. It is recorded that freedmen were never made
procurators of imperial provinces. And the Emperor was able in
many cases, in that of Lyons, of Cyrene, and probably of Ephesus,
to assist and pacify the provincials by acts of generosity and
benevolence \
We may easily, perhaps, lay too much stress on some of the
measures attributed to Nero ; but many of them show, if not the
policy of his reign, at any rate the tendency of the Empire. The
police regulations of the city were strict and well executed *. An
attack was made on the exactions of pubUcans, and on the excessive
power of freedmen. Law was growing in exactness owing to the
influence of Jurists, and was justly administered except where the
Emperor's personal wishes intervened '. Once the Emperor — was it
a mere freak or was it an act of far-seeing political insight? —
proposed a measure of free trade for the whole Empire. Governors
of provinces were forbidden to obtain condonation for exactions by
the exhibition of games. The proclamation of freedom to Greece
may have been an act of dramatic folly, but the extension of Latin
rights meant that the provincials were being gradually put more
and more on a level with Roman citizens. And the provinces
flourished for the most part under this rule. It seemed almost as if
the future career of a Roman noble might depend upon the goodwill
of his provincial subjects *. And wherever trade could flourish there
wealth accumulated. Laodicea was so rich that the inhabitants
could rebuild the city without aid from Rome, and Lyons could
contribute 4,000,000 sesterces at the time of the great fire •.
When, then, St. Paul speaks of the ' powers that be ' as being
' ordained by God ' ; when he says that the ruler is a minister of
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, undei
which he had seen the towns through which he passed enjoying
peace, prosperity and civilization.
* For the provincial administration of Nero see Fnrneaiut, op. cit. pp. 56, 57 ;
W. T. Arnold, Th* Roman System of Prcmincial AdministratUfH, pp. 135, 137 ;
Tac. Ann. xiii. 30, 31, 33, 50, 51, 53-57.
* Suetonius, Nero 16. Schiller, p. 420.
=• Schiller, pp. 381, 381: * In dem Mechanismus de» gerichtlichen Ver-
fiihrens, im Privatrecht, in der Ausbildnng nnd Fordenmg der Rechtswiisen-
schaft, selbst anf dem Gebiete der Apoellation konnen gegriindete Vorwiirfe
kanm erhoben warden. Die kaiserliche Regienmg liess die Verhaltniise hiei
nibig deii Gang gehen, welchea ibnen friihere Regierangen angewiesen luuien.'
* Tac Ann. xv. ao, ai.
' Arnold, p. 137.
f L] ROME IN A.D. 58 xvii
Bnt k was not only Nero, it was Seneca * also who was ruling in
Rome when St Paul wrote to the Church there. The attempt to
find any connexions literary or otherwise between St. Paul and
Seneca may be dismissed ; but for the growth of Christian principles,
still more perhaps for that of the principles which prepared the way
for the spread of Christianity, the fact is of extreme significance. It
was the first public appearance of Stoicism in Rome, as largely in-
fluencing politics, and shaping the future of the Empire. It is a strange
irony that makes Stoicism the creed which inspired the noblest
representatives of the old regime, for it was Stoicism which provided
the philosophic basis for the new imperial system, and this was nof
the last time that an aristocracy perished in obedience to their own
morality. What is important for our purpose is to notice that the
humanitarian and universalist ideas of Stoicism were already begin-
ning to permeate society. Seneca taught, for example, the equality
in some sense of all men, even slaves ; but it was the populace n ho
a few years later (a.d. 61) protested when the slaves of the murdered
Pedanius Secundus were led out to execution '. Seneca and many
of the Jurists were permeated with the Stoic ideas of humanity and
benevolence; and however little these principles might influence
their individual conduct they gradually moulded and changed the
law and the system of the Empire.
If we turn from the Empire to Rome, we shall find that just
those vices which the moralist deplores in the aristocracy and the
Emperor helped to prepare the Roman capital for the advent of
Christianity. If there had not been large foreign colonies, there
could never have been any ground in the world where Christianity
could have taken root strongly enough to influence the surrounding
population, and it was the passion for luxury, and the taste for
philosophy and literature, even the vices of the court, which
demanded Greek and Oriental assistance. The Emperor must have
teachers in philosophy, and in acting, in recitation and in flute-
playing, and few of these would be Romans. The statement of
Chrysostom that St. Paul persuaded a concubine of Nero to accept
Christianity and forsake the Emperor has probably little foundation*,
the conjecture that this concubine was Acte is worthless ; but it may
illustrate how it was through the non-Roman element of Roman
society that Christianity spread. It is not possible to estimate the
exact proportion of foreign elements in a Roman household, but
a study of the names in any of the Columbaria of the imperial period
* See Lightfoot, Si. Paul and Seneca, Philippians, p. a68. To this period
of his life belong the imoKoKoKvvrojai^, the De dementia, the De Vita Beata,
the De Beneficiis, and the De Constantia Sapientit. See Teuffel, History ^
Roman Literature, translated by Warr, ii, 42.
* Tac. Ann. xiv. 42-45.
* Chrysostooa Horn, in AH. App. 46, 3.
ll
xviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ L
will illustrate how large that element was. Men and women oi every
race lived together in the great Roman slave world, or when they
had received the gift of freedom remained attached as clients and
friends to the great houses, often united by ties of the closest
intimacy with their masters and proving the means by which
every form of strange superstition could penetrate into the highest
circles of society *.
And foreign superstition was beginning to spread. The earliest
monuments of the worship of Mithras date from the time of Tiberius.
Lucan in his Pharsalia celebrates the worship of Isis in Rome ;
Nero 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 year58; while the story of PomponiaGraecinawho,inthe
year 5 7, 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 *.
§ a. The Jews in Rome*.
There are indications enough that when he looked towards
Rome St. Paid 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 litde scattered groups of Christians
of whom he had heard through Aquila and Prisca, and probably
^ We have collected die following names from the contents of one colnm-
barium (C. /. L. vi. a, p. 941). It dates from a period rather earlier than thii.
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 5 180,
Chrysantus 5183, Serapio {bis) 5187, Pylaemcnianus 5188, Creticus 5197,
Asclepiades 5201, Melicus 5217, Antigonus 5227, Cypare 5229, Lezbius 5221,
Amaryllis 5258, Perseus 5279, Apamea 5287 a, Ephesia 5299, Alexandrianus
5316, Phyliidianus 5331, Mithres 6.^44, Diadumenus 5355, Philnmenus 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, leems to have
a Sj ecial interest : 'H5i;«oj Ei)o5oC irpea/SewriJi ^avafopdruv rS/v Kara Buawopof,
and 'Aavovpyos Bto^aao* vliJi ipfirjvdis ^ap/iirwv 0waiiopar6t S^Oj.
* Tac. Ann xiii. 32 ; Lightfoot, Clement, L 30.
* Since this section was written the author ha» had access to Berliner,
Geschichte d.Juden in Rom (Frankfurt a. M. 1893^ which has enabled him to
correct some current misconceptions. The facte are also excellently put togethf*
by Schiirer, Neutest. Zeiigesck. ii. $05 ff.
9 a] THE JEWS IN ROME xix
through others whom he met on his travels. And the thought of the
Christian Church would at once connect itself with that larger
community of which it must have been in some sense or other an
oflfshoot, the Jewish settlement in the imperial city.
(i) History. The first relations of the Jews with Rome go back
to the time of the Maccabaean princes, when the struggling patriots
of Judaea had some interests in common with the great Republic
and could treat with it on independent terms. Embassies were
sent imder Judas * (who died in i6o b.c.) and Jonathan* (who died
in 143), and at last a formal alliance was concluded by Simon
Maccabaeus in 140, 139*. It was characteristic that on this last
occasion the members of the embassy attempted a religious
propaganda and were in consequence sent home by the praetor
Hispalus *.
This wa« only preliminary 'ontact. The first considerable
settlement of the Jews in Rome dates from the taking of Jerusalem
by Pompey in b.c. 63 •. A number of the prisoners were sold as
slaves; but their obstinate adherence to their national customs
proved troublesome to their masters and most of them were soon
manumitted. These released slaves were numerous and impor-
tant enough to found a synagogue of their own *, to which they
might resort when they went on pilgrimage, at Jerusalem. The
policy of the early emf>erors favoured the Jews. They passionately
bewailed the death of Julius, going by night as well as by day to
his funeral pyre "* ; and under Augustus they were allowed to form
a regular colony on the further side of the Tiber*, roughly speak-
ing opposite the site of the modern 'Ghetto.' The Jews
quarter was removed to the left bank of the river in 1556, and
has been finally done away with since the Italian occupation.
' I Mace. viiL 17-33. * i Mace. rii. 1-4, 16.
• I Mace. xiv. 74; XV. 15-24.
• This statement is made on the aothority of Valerius Maximns I. ili. 2
(Excerpt. Parid.) : Judaeos qui Sabazi Jovis cultu Romanos injicere mores
conati sunt, repetere domos suas coegit. Doubt is thrown upon it by Betliner
(p. 4), but without sufficient reason. Val. Max. wrote under Tiberius, and made
use of good sources. At the same time, what he says about Jupiter Sabazius
it very probably based on a misunderstanding ; nor need we suppose that the
action of some members of the embassy affected the relations of the two peoples,
• This too is questioned by Berliner (p. 5 S.\ who points out that Philo, Leg.
ud Caium 23, from which the statement is taken, makes no mention of Pompey
But it is difficult to see what other occasion could answer to the description, as
this does very well. Berliner however is more probably right in supposing
that there must have been o'her and older settlers in Rome to account for the
Umgnage of Cicero so early as B. c 59 (see below). These settlers may have
come for purposes of trade.
• It was called after them the ' synagogue of the Libertini ' (Acts vi. 10).
' Sneton. Caesar 84.
• This was the quarter asnally assigned to prisoners of war {Bsschrtibung d
Uadt Rom, III. iil 578).
bs
XX EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 1.
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 AiyovaTfjcrioi and ' Ayptnnrjo-uH (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-!ying 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 '.
Till some way on in the reign of Tiberius the Jewish colony
flourished without interruption. But in a. d. 19 two scandalous
cases occurring about the same time, one connected with the priests
of Isis, and ihe 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 Eg)^tians. Foixr
thousand were banished to Sardinia, nominally to be employed in
putting down banditti, but the historian scornfully hints that if they
fell victims to the climate no one would have cared *.
The end of the reign of Caligula was another anxious and
critical time for the Jews. Philo has given us a graphic picture of
the reception of a deputation which came with himself at its head
to beg for protection from the riotous mob of Alexandria. The
half-crazy emperor dragged the deputation after him from one point
to another of his gardens only to jeer at them and refuse any further
* The Jews were interested in this trial u Flaccus had laid hands 00 the
money collected for the Temple at Jemsalem. Cicero's speech make* it dear
that the Jews of Rome were a formidable body to offend.
* Joseph An/. XVII. xi. i ; B./. II. vi. i.
' There is mention of an dpxoir 'SiPovptiolmr, C. /. G. 6447 (Schtirer,
Gemeindeverfa^sung d. Juden in Rom, pp. 16, 35 ; Berliner, p. 94). Aa
synagognes were not allowed within the pomotriutn {ibid, p. 16) we may
snppose that the synagogue itself was withont the walls, bnt that its frequenter*
came from the Subura.
* Berliner conjectures that the complimentary title may have been giTen at
a sort of equivalent for emperor- worship {op. cit. p. Ji).
' Data relating to the synagogues have been obtained from inscriptiona,
which have been carefully collected and commented upon by Schvirer in the
work quoted above (Leipzig, 1879), also more recently by Berliner {tf. cit.
p.46ff.).
* Tadtna, AnnaL ii. 85 j/ #j grmoitatim ca$li inttrissent, wiU dammtm.
f 1.] THE JEWS III ROME xxl
answer to their petition ^ Caligula insisted on the setting up of
his own bust in the Temple at Jerusalem, and his opportune death
alone saved the Jews from worse things than had as yet befallen
them (a.d. 41)
In the early part of the reign of Claudius the Jews had friends
at court in the two Herod Agrippas, father and son. But a
mysterious notice of which we would fain know more shows them
once again subject to measures of repression. At a date which is
calculated at about a.d. 52 we find Aquila and Prisca at Corinth
'because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from
Rome' (Acts xviii. a). And Suetonius in describing what is
probably the same event sets it down to persistent tumults in the
Jewish quarter 'at the instigation of Chrestus'.' There is at
least a considerable possibility, not to say probability, that in this
enigmatic guise we have an allusion to the effect of the early
preaching of Christianity, in which in one way or another Aquila
and Prisca would seem to have been involved and on that account
specially singled out for exile. Suetonius and the Acts speak of
a general edict of expulsion, but Dio Cassius, who is more precise,
would lead us to infer that the edict stopped short of this. The
clubs and meetings (in the synagogue) which Caligula had allowed,
were forbidden, but there was at least no wholesale expulsion *.
Any one of three interpretations may be put upon impuhore ChresU
atsidu4 tutnultuantes. (i) The words may be taken literally as they stand.
* Chrestus ' was a common name among slaves, and there may have been an
individual of that name who was the author of the disturbances. This is the
▼iew of Meyer and Wieseler. (ii) Or it is very possible that there may be
a confusion between 'Chrestus' and 'Christus.' TertuUian accuses the
Pagans of pronouncing the name ' Christians ' wrongly as if it were Chres-
tiani, and so bearing unconscious witness to the gentle and kindly character
of those who owned it. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronunciatut
a vobis {nam nee nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de suavitate vel benif^i-
tate compositum tst {Apol. 3; cf Justin, Apol. i. § 4). If we suppose some
such very natural confusion, then the disturbances may have had their origin
in the excitement caused by the Messianic expectation which was ready to
break out at slight provocation wherever Jews congregated. This is the
view of Lange and others including in part Lightfoot {Philippians, p. 169).
(iii) There remains the third possibility, lor which some preference has been
expressed above, that the disturbing cause was not the Messianic expectation
in general but the particular form of it identified with Christianity. It is
certain that Christianity must have been preached at Rome as early as this;
and the preaching of it was quite as likely to lead to actual violence and
riot as at Thessalonica or Anti<jch or Pisidia or Lystra (Acts xvii. 5 ; xiv. 19;
* Leg. ad Caium 44, 45.
' Sueton. Claud. 35 Judae»s impuhore Ckrtste iusidu$ tumultuantts Roma
txpulit.
' Dio Cassius, Ix. 6 tovs t« "lot/Saiovt, vXtoviusavTos aZ$ii S/arf xa^ffws iv
StKV Tapaxfjs vir6 tov 6x^°^ aipSJv ttjs irSKtem (ipxSrjvat, ovk {(■fjKaat (liv, r^ di
S^ varpiqi vS/Kf} 0ii^ xf'f^^^'^^^ tKtKfvgt fiif cvva$poiita$ou, ria r« ircuptiai
iwQyax(f*io<u inri rov tatov ti4\v9«.
XXH EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ *
xiii. 50). That it did so, and that this is the fact alluded to by Stietonins is
the opinion of the majority of German scholars from Baur onwards. It ia
impossible to verify any one of the three hypotheses ; but the last would fit
in well with all that we know and woald add an interesting touch if it men
tni*'.
The edict of Claudius was followed in about three years by hit
death (a. d. $4). Under Nero the Jews certainly did not lose bui
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*. Heron
Agrippa II was also, like his father, a persona grata 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 oi
their peculiar customs '.
(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 {Ant. XIV. x.)
quotes a number of edicts of the time of Julius Caesar and
after his death, some of them Roman and some local, securing to
the Jews exemption from service in the army (on religious grounds),
freedom of worship, of building synagogues, of forming clubs and
collecting contributions (especially the didrachma) for the Temple
at Jerusalem. Besides this in the East the Jews were largely
permitted to have their own courts of justice. And the wonder
is that in spite of all their fierce insurrections against Rome these
rights were never permanently withdrawn. As late as the end of
the second century (in the pontificate of Victor 189-199 a. d.)
* A suggestion was made ia the Church Quarterly Review for Oct 1894,
which deserves consideration ; vir. that the dislocation of the Jewish com-
aiunity caused by the edict of Claudius may explain ' why th« \1hurch of the
capital did not grow to the same extent as elsevxhere out e* '"^^ svaagognf
Even when St. Paul arrived there in bonds the chiefs of the resto^tfr' JewisI
organization profe.^std to have heard nothing, officially or UDCSSii'j.'U, of the
Apostle, and to know about the Christian sect just what we ma^ i'^'-.ose the
rioters ten years earlier knew, that it was " evei ywhere spok^ against " '
(p. 175)-
' Vit. Joseph. 3; Ant. XX. viii. 11.
* Dio Cassius xxxvii. 17 lan Kal irapd. roit 'FojjMiiois rb ytvot toSto, mKovffti^
pip voK/Jucis av£7]6iy Si iwi wKftCTov, Sicrrt mti tit wappTiffiar r^s vtuivtm'
f a.] THE JEWS IN ROME XxHi
Callistus, who afterwards himself became Bishop of Rome, was
banished to the Sardinian mines for forcibly breaking up a Jewish
meeting for worship (Hippol. Refut. Haer. ix. 12).
There was some natural difference between the East and the
West corresponding to the difference in number and concentration
of the Jewish population. In Palestine the central judicial and
administrative body was the Sanhedrin ; after the Jewish War the
place of the Sanhedrin was taken by the Ethnarch who exercised
great powers, the Jews of the Dispersion voluntarily submitting to
him. At Alexandria also there was an Ethnarch, as well as a
central board or senate, for the management of the affairs of the
community. At Rome, on the other hand, it would appear that
each synagogue had its own separate organization. This would
consist of a • senate ' (yfpouo-ia), the members of which were the
' elders ' (irp«o-/3vr*po«). The exact relation of these to the ' rulers '
(e[px^*^0 •* ^^^ quite clear : the two terms may be practically
equivalent ; or the apxovrtt may Se a sort of committee within the
larger body *. The senate had its ' president ' {ytpov^-idpxns) ; and
among the rulers one or more would seem to have been charged
with the conduct of the services in the synagogue {dpxi<rwayu>yos,
apxivvvaytayoi). Under him would be the {mrjptTTis {Chazan) who
performed the minor duties of giving out and putting back the
sacred rolls (Luke iv. ao), inflicted scourging (Matt. x. 1 7), and
acted as schoolmaster. The priests as such had no special status
in the synagogue. We hear at Rome of wealthy and influential
j)eople who were called ' father ' or • mother of the synagogue * ;
this would be an honorary title. There is also mention of a wpo-
9TaTi)s or patr onus, who would on occasion act for the synagogue
in its relation to the outer world.
(3) Social status and condition. There weic certainly Jews of
rank and position at Rome. Herod the Great had sent a number
<rf his sons to be educated there (the ill-fated Alexander and
Aristobulus as well as Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip the tetrarch •).
At a later date other members of the family made it their home
(Herod the first husband of Herodias, the younger Aristobulus,
and at one time Herod Agrippa I). There were also Jews attached
in one way or another to the imperial houseliokl (we have had
mention of the synagogues of the Agrippesii diXid. Augusiesii). These
would be found in the more aristocratic quarters. The jews'
* This is the view of Schiirer {Gtmtindeverf. p. aa). The point is not
discussed by Berliner. Dr. Edersheim appears to regard the ' elders ' as
identical with the 'rulers,' and the ^pxicvvayaiyos as chief of the body. He
would make the functions of the yepovainpxrjs political rather than religiuus,
and he speaks of this office as if it were confined to the Dispersion of the V\'est
{Lt/e and Tima, &c. L 438). These are points whkh must be regarded aa
more or less open.
» Joi. Ant. XV. X. I ; XVH. L J.
XXiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ ft
quarter proper was the reverse of aristocratic. The fairly plentifal
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 fear* 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 to
be likened to ' gold or silver or stone, graven by art and device
of man.'
It is difficult to say which is more conspicuous, the repulsion or
the attraction which the Jews exercised upon the heathen world.
The obstinate tenacity with which they held to their own customs,
and the rigid exclusiveness with which they kept aloof from all
others, offended a society which had come to embrace all the varied
national religions with the same easy tolerance and which passed
from one to the other as curiosity or caprice dictated. They
looked upon the Jew as a gloomy fanatic, whose habitual expres-
sion was a scowl. It was true that he condemned, as he had
reason to condemn, the heathen laxity around him. And his
neighbours, educated and populace alike, retaliated with bitter
hatred and scorn.
At the same time all — and there were many — who were in search
' The purpose of this is somewhat nncertain : it may h«Te been used to pack
their wares.
' The passages on which this description is based are well known. Small
Trades : Martial, Epig. I. xlii. 3-5 ; XII. Ivii. 13, 14. Mendicancy: Juvenal,
Sat. iii. 14; vi. 542 ft. Proselytism: Horace, Sat. I. iv. 143 f.; Juvenal, Sat.
xiv. 96 £F.
' Horace, Sat. I. ii. 69 f. ; Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. (of proselytes) ; Persioi,
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
Theodore Reinach {TexUs rdatifs aujudaisme, Paris, 1895).
THE ROMAN CHURCH XXV
irf" a purer creed tfian 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 ' {tiat^els, o-f/So'/xewt,
tTf^ofitvot TOP Qfop, (fio^ovfifvoi Tov Ofov) 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 '.
I 5. The Roman Church.
(i) Origin. The most probable view of the origin <A the
Christian Church in Rome is substantially that of the commen-
tator known as Ambrosiaster (see below, § 10). This fourth-
century writer, himself probably a member of the Roman Church,
does not claim for it an apostolic origin. He thinks that it arose
among the Jews of Rome and that the Gentiles to whom they
conveyed a knowledge of Christ had not seen any miracles or any
of the Apostles*. Some such conclusion as this fits in well with
* Javenal, .Sis/, xiv. 96 ff.
' See the very ample collection of material oa this sobject in Sditirer,
Neutest. Zeitgtsch. ii. 558 flf.
' Constat itaqut temporibus apostolorum ludaeos, propterea quod sub regno
Romano agerent, Romae habitasse : ex quibus hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt
Rtmanis ut Ckrittum profiUntes, Legtm servarent . . . Romanis autem irasci
mam debuit. tad tt laudare fidam ilhrum ; quia nuBa insignia virtuiutn
XXVi EFXSTLB TO THE ROMANS [f A
the phenomena of the Epistle. St Paul would hardlj 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, 14 f.); and in this very Epistle he lays
it down as a principle governing all his missionary labours that he
will not 'build upon another man's foundation' (Rom. xv. ao).
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. ai ;
Rom. i. 13; XV. aa-24). It was not however io found a Church,
at least in the sense of first foundation, for a Church already
existed with sufficient unity to have a letter written to it.
If we may make use of the data in ch. xvi — and reasons will
be given for using them with some confidence — the origin of the
Roman Church will be fairly clear, and it will agree exactly with
the probabilities of the case. Never in the course of previous
history had there been anything like the freedom of circulation
and movement which now existed in the Roman Empire*. And
this movement followed certain definite lines and set in certain
definite directions. It was at its greatest all along the Eastern
shores of the Mediterranean, and its general trend was to and from
Rome. The constant coming and going of Roman officials, as
one provincial governor succeeded another ; the moving of troops
vidtntes, nee aliquem afostolorum, susceperant fidem Chriiti ritu licet Iitdaif
(S. Ambrosii 0pp. iii. 373 f., ed, Ballerini). We shall see that Ambrosiastei
exagi^'ciates the strictly Jewish influence od the Church, but io bi> genenJ
conclusion he is mure right than we might have expected.
' ' The conditions of travelling, for ease, salety, 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 ol the present oeatary' (Friedlaodei,
SitUngexhickU Rmms, tt. j).
§ 8.] THE ROMAN CHURCH xxvlf
fiom place to place with the sending of fresh batches of recruits
and the retirement of veterans ; the incessant demands of an ever-
increasing trade both in necessaries and luxuries ; .the atti-action
which the huge metropolis naturally exercised on the imagination
of the clever young Orientals who knew that the best openings for
a career were to be sought there ; a thousand motives of ambition,
business, pleasure drew a constant stream from the Eastern pro-
vinces to Rome. Among the crowds there would inevitably be some
Christians, and those of very varied nationality and antecedents,
St. Paul himself had for the last three years been stationed at one of
the greatest of the Levantine emporia. We may say that the three great
cities at which he had spent the longest time — Antioch, Corinth,
Ephesus — were just the three from which (with Alexandria) inter-
course was most active. We may be sure that not a few of his
own disciples would ultimately find their way to Rome. And so
we may assume that all the owners of the names mentioned in
ch. xvi had some kind of acquaintance with him. In several cases
he adds some endearing little expression which implies personal
contact and interest : Epaenetus, Ampliatus, Stachys are all his
' beloved '; Urban has been his ' helper '; the mother of Rufus had
been also as a mother to him ; Andronicus and Junia (or Junias)
and Herodion are described as his ' kinsmen ' — i. e. perhaps his
fellow-tribesmen, possibly like him natives of Tarsus. Andronicus
and Junias, if we are to take the expression literally, had shared
one of his imprisonments. But not by any means all were
St. Paul's own converts. The same pair, Andronicus and Junias,
were Christians of older standing than himself. Epaenetus is
described as the first convert ever made from Asia : that may of
course be by the preaching of St. Paul, but it is also possible that
he may have been converted while on pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
If the Aristobulus whose household is mentioned is the Herodian
prince, we can easily understand that he might have Christians
about him. That Prisca and Aquila should be at Rome is just
what we might expect from one with so keen an eye for the
strategy of a situation as St. Paul. When he was himself esta-
blished and in full work at Ephesus with the intention of visiting
Rome, it would at Once occur to him what valuable work they might
be doing there and what an excellent preparation they might make
for his own visit, while in his immediate surroundings they were
almost superfluous. So that instead of presenting any difficulty,
that he should send them back to Rome where they were already
known, is most natural.
In this way, the previous histories of the friends to whom St. Paul
sends greeting in ch. xvi may be taken as typical of the circum-
stances which would bring together a number of similar groups of
Christians at Rome. Some from Palestine, some from Corinth,
XXViii BPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ A
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 regiilar
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 yiew thus given of the origin of the Roman Chnrch is correct, h
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 tree founder was St. Peter.
(i) We are told expressly that among those who listened to St. Peter's
address on the Day of Pentecost were some who came from Rome, both
bom Jews of the Dispersion and proselytes. When these returned they
would naturally take with them news of the strange things which were
happening in Palestine. But unless they remained for some time in Jerusalem,
and unless they attended very diligently to the teaching of the Apostles,
which would as yet be informal and not accompanied by any regular system
of Catechesis, 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 Chnrch 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 tiiere is hardly an item in the evidence which is not subject to
some dedncticm. The evidence which is definite is somewhat late, and the
evidence wliich it early ia either too uncertain or too slight and vague to
««.]
THE ROMAN CHURCH XXix
carry a clear conclosion '. Most decisive of all, if it held good, would be
die allnsion in St Peter's own First Epistle if the ' Babylon ' from which he
writes (i Pet. v. 13) is really a covert name for Rome. This was the view ol
the Early Chorch, and although perhaps not absolutely certain it is in accord-
ance with all probability. The Apocalypse confessedly puts ' Babylon * for
Rome (Rev. xiv. 8; xvi. 19, &c.), and when we remember the common
practice among the Jewish Rabbis of disguising their allusions to the op-
pressor *, we may believe that Christians also, when they had once become
inspected and persecuted, might have fallen into the habit of using a secret
language among themselves, even where there was less occasion for secresy.
When once we adopt this view, a number of details in the Epistle (such
M the mention of Silvanus and Mark, and the points of contact between
I Peter and Romans) find an easy and natural explanation '.
The genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome (c. 97 a.d.) couples together
St. Peter and St. Paul in a context dealing with persecution in such a way
as to lend some support to the tradition that both Apostles had perished
there*; and the Epistle of Ignatius addressed to Rome {c. 115 a.d.) appeals
to both Apostles as authorities which the Roman Church would be likely to
recognire ' ; but at the utmost this proves nothing as to the origin of the
Church. When we descend a step later, Dionysius of Corinth {e. 171 a.d.)
does indeed couple the two Apostles as having joined in ' planting ' the
Church of Rome as they had done previously that of Corinth *. But this
Epistle alone is proof that if St. Paul could be said to have 'planted' the
Church, it could not be in the sense of first foundation ; and a like considera-
tion must be taken to qualify the statements of Irenaeus ^ By the beginning
of the third century we get in Tertullian • and Cains of Rome * explicit
references to Rome as the scene of the double martyrdom. The latter writer
points to the ' trophies ' (rai rpSnaia '•) of the two Apostles as existing in his
day on the Vatican and by the Ostian Way. This is conclusive evidence as
to the belief of the Roman Church about the year 300. And it is followed
by another piece of evidence which is good and precise as Car as it goes.
* The summary which follows contains only the main points and none of the
Indirect evidence. For a fuller presentation the reader may be referred to
Lightfoot, Si. CUment ii. 490 ff., and Lipsius, Apokr. Aposttl^esck. ii. 1 1 ff.
^ On this practice, see Biesenthal, Trostschreiben an du Hebrder, p. 3 ff. ;
and for a defence of the view that SL Peter wrote his First Epistle from Rome,
Lightfoot, St. Clement ii. 491 f. ; Von Soden in Handcomtnentar III. iL 105 f.
&C. Dr. Hort, who had paid special attention to this Epistle, seems to have
held the same opinion {Judaistit Christianity, p. 155).
* There is a natural reluctance in the lay mind to take iv BafivXmvi in any
other sense than literally. Still it is certainly to be so taken in Orac. Sibyll. t.
159 (Jewish) ; and it should be remembered that the advocates of this view
include men of the most diverse opinions, not only the English scholars men-
tioned above and Dollinger, but Renan and the Tiibingen school generally.
* Ad Cor. V. 4 ff. » Ad Rom. iv. 3.
* Eus. H. E. II. xxT. «. * Adv. Haer. III. iii. a, 3.
* Scarp. 15; £>e Praetcript. 36. » Eus. B. E. II. xxv. 6, 7.
" There has been much discussion as to the exact meaning of this word.
The leading Protestant archaeologists (Lipsius, Erbes, V. Schultze) hold that
it refers to some conspicuous mark of the place of martyrdom (a famous
' terebinth ' near the naumcuhium on the Vatican (Mart. Pet. et Paul. 63) and
a * pine-tree ' near the road to Ostia. The Roman Catholic authorities would
refer it to the ' tombs ' or ' memorial chapels ' (m4moriae). It seems to ns
probable that buildings of some kind were already in existence. For statements
of the opposing views see Lipsius, Apokr. Ap»st$lgtS(k. iL ai ; De Waal, Dit
Apottelgruft mi Cmtaeumbiu, p. 14 ff.
XXX EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ »
Two fotuth-centnry docnx&enti, both in texts which have nndeigone lomt
corruption, the Martyrologium Hiertnymianum (ed. Duchesne, p. 84) and
• Deposits 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 358. There is some
ambiguity as to the localities from and to which the bodies were moved ;
bat the most probable view is that in the Valerian persecution when the
cemeteries were closed to Christiana, the treasured relics were transferred to
the site known as Ad Cmtatumbcu 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.)*-
Here we have a chain of substantial proof that the Roman Church fiillj
believed itself to be in possession of the mortal remains of the two Apostles
as far back as the year aoo, a tradition at that date already firmly established
and associated with definite well-known local monuments. The tradition as
to the twenty-five years' episcopate of St. Peter presents some points of re-
semblance. That too appears for the first time in the fourth century with
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 np probably by Hippolytus^. Lipsius would carry back this liat
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 {c. 175-190 A.D.)*.
Thus we have the twenty-five years' episcopate of St Peter certainly
believed in towards the end of the first quarter of the third century, if not by
the beginning of the last quarter of the second. We are coming back to
a time when a continuous tradition is beginning to be possible. And yet the
difficulties in the way of bringing St. Peter to Rome at a date so early as the
year 43 (which seems to be indicated) are so great as to make the acceptanof
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 ci
both to the work of missions in general, would almost compel some allusion
to such a visit if it had taken place. Between the years 58 or 61-63 and 170
there is quite time for legend to grow up ; and Lipsius has pointed out
a possible way in which it might arise *. There is evidence that the tradition
of our Lord's command to the Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for twelve
years after His Ascension, was current towards the end of the second century.
The travels of the Apostles are usually dated from the end of this period
' The best account of this transfer is that given by Duchesne, Libtr Pontifi-
ttUii i. cri f.
" 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 ia
the first century : see the latter's Die Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas, pp. 33 £,
49 ff. This work contains a full survey of the controversy with new archaeo
logical details.
* Lightfoot, op. n<r. L 359 ff. ; 33^
• Ap. Lightfoot. pp. 337, 333. • Did. p^ |j|.
* Apokr^ AposUlf^k. ii a?, i^
«•]
THE ROMAN CHURCH xxxl
(i.e about 41-41 A.D.). That the traditional date of the death of St. Petei
is 67 or 68 ; and subtracting 43 from 67 we get just the 35 years required.
It was assumed that St. Peter's episcopate dated from his first arrival in
Rome.
So far the ground is fairly clear. But when Lipsius goes further than this
and denies the Roman visit im Mo, his criticism seems to us too drastic '.
He arrives at his result thus. He traces a double stream in the tradition.
On the one hand there is the ' Petro-pauline tradition ' which regards the two
Apostles as establishing the Church in friendly co-operation '. The outlines
of this have been slcetched above. On the other hand there is the tradition
of the conflict of St. Peter with Simon Magus, which under the figure of
Simon Magus made a disguised attack upon St. Paul '. Not only does
Lipsius think that this is the earliest form of the tradition, but he regards it
as the original of all other forms which brought St. Peter to Rome * : the
only historical ground for it which he would allow is the visit of St. Paul.
This does not seem to us to be a satisfactory explanation. The traces of the
Petro-pauline tradition are really earlier than those of the Ebionite legend.
The way in which they are introduced is free from all suspicion They are
supported by collateral evidence (St. Peter's First Epistle and the traditions
relating to St. Mark) the weight of which is considerable. There is practic-
ally no conflicting tradition. The claim of the Roman Church to joint
foundation by the two Apostles seems to have been nowhere disputed. And
even the Ebionite fiction is more probable as a distortion of facts that have
a basis of truth than as pure invention. The visit of St. Peter to Rome, and
his death there at some uncertain date ', seem to us, if not removed beyond
all possibility of doubt, yet as well established as many of the leading facts
of history.
(a) Composition. The question as to the origin of the Roman
Church has little more than an antiquarian interest ; it is an isolated
fact or series of facts which does not greatly affect either the picture
which we form to ourselves of the Church or the sense in which
we understand the Epistle addressed to it. It is otherwise with
the question as to its composition. Throughout the Apostolic age
the determining factor in most historical problems is the relative
* It is significant that on this point Weizsickcr parts company from Lipsioi
\4^st. Zeitatt. p. 485).
■ Op. <*. p. 1 1 flf. * nid. p. a8 ft
« Ibid. p. 63 flf.
• There is no substantial reason for supposing the death of St. Peter to have
taken place at the same time as that of St. Paul. It is true that the two
Apostles are commemorated upon the same day Qune 39), and that the
Chronicle of Eusebius refers their deaths to the same year (a.d. 67 Vers.
Armen. ; 68 Hieron.). But the day is probably that of the deposition or re-
moval of the bodies to or from the Church of St. Sebastian (see above) ; and
for the year the evidence b very insufficient Professor Ramsay (^The Church
in the Raman Empirt, p. 279 flf.) would place the First Epistle of St. Peter in
the middle of the Flavian period, A.D. 75-80 ; and it must be admitted that the
authorities are not such as to impose an absolute veto on this view. The fact
that tradition connects the death of St. Peter with the Vatican would seem t«
point to the great persecution of a.d. 64 ; but the state of things implied in
the Epistle does not look as if it were anterior to this. On the other hand,
Professor Ramsay's arguments have greatly shaken the objectioas to the tradi-
tioaal date of the death of St PaoL
xxxll EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ ft.
preponderance of the Jewish element or the Gentile. Which ol
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 m 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. i where Abraham is described (in the
most probable text) as ' our forefather according to the flesh ' (to»
wporruTopa fiftiv Kara aapKa). To that however it was obvious to
leply that in i Cor. x. i St. Paul spoke of the Israelites in the
§ 8.] THE ROMAN CHURCH xxxiij
wUdemess as * our fathers,' though no one would maintain that 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. i-6, where not only are the readers addressed
as ad(\(poi fiov (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 vo/jlos vv. i, 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 torgotten 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 addressef'
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. Paul
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. {v/up
fie Xey« rois fdvtviv k.tX) would be pfoof sufBcient 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 give*
it its colour. This inference cannot easily be explained away from
the passages, Rom. L 5-7, 13-15; xv. 14-16. In the first St. Paul
numbers the Church at Rome among the Gentile Churches, and
bases on his own apostleship to the Gentiles his right to address
them. In the second he also connects the obligations he is under
to preach to them directly with the general fact that all Gentiles
without exception are his province. In the third he in like manner
excuses himself courteously for the earnestness with which he haa
written by an appeal to his commission to act as the priest who
lays upon the altar the Church of the Gentiles as his ofifering.
XXXiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ S
This then is the natural construction to put upon the Apostle'i
language. The Church to which he is writing is Geniile 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
a previous connexion with Judaism, would tend to set him still
more at his ease in this respect. We shall see in the next section
that the force which impels the Apostle is behind rather than in
front. It is not to be supposed that he had any exact statistics
before him as to the composition of the Church to which he was
writing. It was enough that he was aware that a letter such at he
has written was not likely to be thrown away.
If he had stayed to form a more exact estimate we may take the
greetings in ch. xvi as a rough indication of the lines that it would
follow. The collection of names there points to a mixture of
nationalities. Aquila at least, if not also Prisca*, we know to have
been a Jew (Acts xviii. a). Andronicus and Junias and Herodion
are described as ' kinsmen ' (<n/yyfmy) 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 ludaeus Apella
(Horace, Sat. I. v. loo). And there is besides ' the household of
Aristobulus,' some of whom — if Aristobulus was really the grandson
of Herod or at least connected with that dynasty — would probably
have the same nationality. F"our names (Urbanus, Ampliatus,
Rufus, and Julia ) are Latin. The rest (ten in number) are Greek
with an indeterminate addition in 'the household of Narcissus.'
Some such proportions as these might well be represented in the
Church at large.
(3) Status and Condition. The same list of names may give us
some idea of the social status of a representative group of Roman
Christians. The names are largely those of slaves and freedmen.
In any case the households of Narcissus and Aristobulus would
belong to this category. It is not inconceivable, though of course
not proveable, that Narcissus may be the well-known freedman of
Claudius, put to death in the year 54 a.d., and Aristobulus the
•cion of the house of Herod. We know that at the time when
• See the note on eh. xvi. 3, where reference \% made to the view faTonred
by Dr. Hort {Rom. and Epk. p. la ff.), that Priica was a Roman lady belongiof
to the well-kaown family of that 1
M]
THE ROMAN CHURCH XXXV
St Paul wrote to the Philippians Christianity had penetrated into
the retinue of the Emperor himself (Phil. iv. 22). A name like
Philologus seems to point to a certain degree of culture. We
should therefore probably not be wrong in supposing that not
only the p)oorer class of slaves and freedmen is represented. And
it must be remembered that the better sort of Greek and some
Oriental slaves would often be more highly educated and more
refined in manners than their masters. There is good reason to
think that Pomponia Graecina, the wife of Aulus Plautius the
conqueror of Britain, and that in the next generation Flavins
Clemeng and Domitilla, the near relations and victims of Domitian,
had come under Christian influence*. We should therefore be
justified in supposing that even at this early date more than one of
the Roman Christians possessed a not inconsiderable social stand-
ing and importance. If there was any Church in which the ' not
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble/
had an exception, it was at Rome.
When we look again at the list we see that it has a tendency to
&11 into groups. We hear of Prisca and Aquila, * and the Church
that is in their house,' of the household of Aristobulus and the
Christian members of the household of Narcissas, of Asyncritus, &c.
'and the brethren that are with them,' of Philologus and certain
companions ' and all the saints that are with them.' It would only
be what we should expect if the Church of Rome at this time
consisted of a number of such little groups, scattered over the
great city, each with its own rendezvous but without any complete
and centralized organization. In more than one of the incidental
notices of the Roman Church it is spoken of as ' foundeii ' (Iren.
Adv. Haer. III. i. i ; iii. 3 ) or ' planted ' (Dionysius of Corinth in
Eus. H. E. II. XXV. 8) by St. Peter and St. Paul. It may well be
that although the Church did not in the strict sense owe to these
Apostles its origin, it did owe to them its first existence as an
organized whole.
We must not however exaggerate the want of organization at
the time when St. Paul is writing. The repeated allusions to
' labouring ' (xowtai/) in the case of Mary, Tryphaena and Tryphosa,
and Persis — all, as we observe, women — points to some kind of
regular ministry (cf. for the quasi-technical sense of Ktmiav i Thess.
V. 12; I Tim. V. 17). It is evident that Prisca and Aquila took
the lead which we should expect of them ; and they were well
trained in St. Paul's methods. Even without the help of an
Apostle, the Church had evidently a life of its own; and where
there is life there is sure to be a spontaneous tendency to definite
trticulation of function. When St Paul and St Peter arrived w«
* lightfoot, CUirunt, L 30-39, *c
XXXVl BPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9-
■lay believe diat they would find the work half done ; still it would
wait the seal of their presence, as the Church of Samaria waited foi
the coming of Peter and John (Acts viiL 14).
^ 4. The Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose,
OF THE Epistle.
(i) Tme 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
dodrinairt 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
fulfillvd; but at the moment of writing his face is turned not
westwards but eastwards. A collection has been made in the
Greek Churches, the proceeds of which he is with an anxious mind
about to convey to Jerusalem. He feels that his own relation and
that of the Churches of his founding to the Palestinian Church is
a delicate matter; the collection is no lightly considered act of
passing charity, but it has been with him the subject of long and
earnest deliberation ; it is the olive-branch which he is bent upon
offering. Great issues turn upon it ; and he does not know how it
will be received '.
We hear much of this collection in the Epistles written about
this date ( i Cor. xvi. i ff . ; 2 Cor. viii. i ff . ; ix. i ff.). In the
Acts it is not mentioned before the fact; but retrospectively in
the course of St. Paul's address before Felix allusion is made to
it: 'after many years I came to bring alms to my nation and
offerings' (Actsxxiv. 17). Though the collection is not mentioned
in the earlier chapters of the Acts, the order of the journey is
mentioned. When his stay at Ephesus was drawing to an end
we read that 'Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed
through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After
I have been there, I must also see Rome' (Acts xix. 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
* On this collection aee an ezotUent artide by Mr. Readall in Tkt Expositor
1893, ii. 3ai ff.
^ 4.] TIME AND PLACE XXXvH
which point to this would none cf them taken separately be
certain, but in combination they amount to a degree of pro-
bability which is little short of certainty. The bearer of the
Epistle appears to be one Phoebe who is an active, perhaps an
official, member of the Church of Cenchreae, the harbour of
Corinth (Rom. xvi. i). The house in which St. Paul is staying,
which is also the meeting-place of the local Church, belongs to
Gaius (Rom. xvi. 33); and a Gaius St. Paul had baptized at
Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14). He sends a greeting also from Erastus,
who is described as ' oeconomus' or ' treasurer* of the city. The
office is of some importance, and points to a city of some im-
portance. This woiild agree with Corinth; and just at Corinth
we learn from 2 Tim. iv. 20 that an Erastus was left behind on
St. Paul's latest journey— naturally enough if it was his home.
The visit to Achaia then upon which these indications converge
is that which is described in Acts xx. a, 3. It occupied three
months, which on the most probable reckoning would fall at
the beginning of the year 58. St. Paul has in his company at
this time Timothy and Sosipater (or Sopater) who join in the
greeting of the Episde (Rom. xvi. 21) and are also mentioned
in Acts XX. 4. Of the remaining four who send their greetings
we recognize at least Jason of Thessalonica (Rom. xvi. 21 ; cf.
Acts xvii. 6). Just the lightness and unobtrusiveness of all these
mutual coincidences affixes to the works in which they occur
the stamp of reality.
The date thus clearly indicated biingt the Epistle to the Romans into
close connexion with the two Epistles to Corinthians, and less certainly with
the Epistle to Galatians. We tiave seen how the collection for the Churches
of Judaea is one of the links which bind together the first three. Many
other subtler traces of synchronism in thought and style have been pointed
out between all four (especially by Bp. Lightfoot in Joum. of Class, and
Sacr. PhiM. iii [1857], p. 289 ff.; also Galatians, p. 43 ff., ed. a). The
relative position of i and 2 Corinthians and Romans is fixed and certain.
If Romans was written in the early spring of A.o. 58, then i Corinthians
wonld fall in the spring and 1 Corinthians in the autumn of A.D. 57^. In
regard to Galatians the data are not so decisive, and different views are held.
The older opinion, and that which would seem to be still dominant in
Germany (it is maintained by Lipsius writing in 1891), is that Galatians
belongs to the early part of St. Paul's long stay at Ephesus, A. D. 54 or 55.
In England Bp. Lightfoot found a number of followers in bringing it into
closer juxtaposition with Romans, about the winter of A.D. tj^-jiS. The
question however has been recently reopened in two opposite oirections : on
the one hand by Dr. C. Clemen {Cktonologie der paulinischtn Brief e, Halle,
1893), who would place it after Romans; and on the other hand by
* Jiilicher, in his recent Einleitung, p. 6a, separates the two Epistles to the
Corinthians by an interval of eighteen months ; nor can this opinion be at once
ruled out of court, though it seems opposed to i Cor. xvi. 8, from which we
rather that when he wrote the first Epistle St. Panl did oot contemplate staying
IB Ephesos longer than the next succeeding Pentecost
XXXviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4
Mr. F. Rendall in The Expositor for April, 1894 (p. 154 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 Romans, which
he assigns to the winter of a.d. 53-54, and Galatians, which he places towards
the end of the latter year '. His chief argument is that Galatians represents
a more advanced and heated stage of the controversy with the Judairers, and
he accounts for this by the events which followed the Council (Gal. ii. 1 2 ff. ;
i. 6 ff.)- There is, however, much that is arbitrary in the whole of thii
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'i
opinion that Galatians was written during the early part of St. Paul's first
visit to Corinth in the year 51 (or 52). The question is closely connected
with the controversy reopened by Professor Ramsay as to the identity of the
Galatian Churches. For those who see in them the Churches of South
Galatia (Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe) the earlier date
may well seem preferable. If we take them to be the Churches of North
Galatia (Pessinus, Ancyra, and Taviuro), then the Epistle cannot be earlier
than St. Pauls settlement at Ephesus on his third journey in the year 54.
The argument which Bishop Lightfoot based on resemblances of thought and
language between Galatians and Romans rests upon facts that are indisput-
able, but does not carry with it any certain inference as to date.
(a) Occasion. If the time and place of the Epistle are clear,
the occasion of it is still clearer; St. Paul himself explains it
in unmistakable language twice over. At the beginning of the
Episile (Rom. i. 10-15) he tells the Romans how much he has
longed to pay them a visit ; and now that the prospect has been
brought near he evidently writes to prepare them for it. And
at the end of the Epistle (ch. xv. 22-33) ^^ repeats his explanation
detailing all his plans both for the near and for the more distant
future, and telling them how he hopes to make his stay with thena
the most important stage of his journey to Spain. We know that
his intention was fulfilled in substance but not in the manner
of its accomplishment He went up to Jerusalem and then
* Dr. Clemen places St. Paul's long stay at Ephesus (aj years on his reckon-
ing) in 50-52 A.D. In the course of it would fall our i Corinthians and two
out of the three letters which are supposed to be combined in our 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 m Asia Minor, with another genuine
fragment, 2 Tim. iv. 19-ai. This fills the interval which ends with the arrest
at Jerusalem 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 hia
death in A. D. 64. The whole scheme stands or falls with the place assigned to
the Council of Jerusalem, and the estimate formed of the historical chaiacteb
of the Acta.
$ 4.] OCCASION AND PURPOSE xxxix
to Rome, but only after two yean' forcible detention, and aa
a prisoner awaiting his trial.
{3) Purpose. A niore complicated question meets us wheu
from the occasion or proximate cause of the Epistle to the Romans
we pass to its purpose or ulterior cause. The Apostle's reasons
for writing to Rome lie upon the surface ; his reasons for writing
the particular letter he did write will need more consideration.
No doubt there is a providence in it. It was willed that such
a letter should be written for the admonition of after-ages. But
through what psychological channels did that providence work ?
Here we pa?s on to much debated ground ; and it will perhaps
help us if vv> begin by presenting the opposing theories in as
antithetical a form as possible.
When the different views which have been held come to b«
examined, they will be found to be reducible to two main types,
which differ not on a single point but on a number of co-ordinated
points. ( One might be described as primarily historical, the other
primarily dogmatic ; one directs attention mainlyTcTthe Church
addressed,' Ihe oUier-mainly to the writer; one adopts the view
of a predominance of Jewish-Christian readers, the other pre-
supposes readers who are predominantly Gentile Christians.
Here again the epoch-making impulse came from Baur. It was
Baur who first worked out a coherent theory, the essence of which
was that it claimed to be historical. He argued from the analogy
of the other Episdes which he allowed to be genuine. The cir-
cumstances of the Corinthian Church are reflected as in a glass in
the Epistles to the Corinthians ; the circumstances of the Galatian
Churches come out clearly from that to the Galatians. Did it not
follow that the circumstances of the Roman Church might be
directly inferred - from the Epistle to the Romans, and that the
Epistle itself was written with deliberate reference to them ? Why
all this Jewish-sounding argument if the readers were not Jews ?
Why these constant answers to objecdons if there was no one to
object? The issues discussed were similar in many respects to
those in the Epistle to the Galatians. In Galatia a fierce con-
troversy was going on. Must it not therefore be assumed that
there was a like controversy, only milder and more tempered, at
Rome, and that the Apostle wished to deal with it in a manner
correspondingly milder and more tempered?
There was truth in all this ; but it was truth to some extent
one-sided and exaggerated. A Uttle reflexion will show that the
cases of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were not exactly
parallel to that of Rome. In Galatia St. Paul was dealing with
a perfectly definite state of things in a Church which he himself had
founded, and the circumstances of which he knew from within and
not merely by hearsay. At Corinth he had spent a still longer
Xl EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS l^ ^
time; when he wrote he was not far distant; there had been
frequent communications between the Church and the Apostle;
and in the case of i Corinthians he had actually before him a letter
containing a number of questions which he was requested to
answer, while in that of a Corinthians he had a personal report
brought to him by Titus. What could there be like this at Rome ?
The Church there St. Paul had not founded, had not even seen;
and, if we are to beheve 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 Hst 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 httle reference to the circum-
stances of the moment
It would be wrong to call this view — at least in its recent formi
— 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 <^
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 *ihe 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 soipe- re^^ljtnowledgf; of the^ state, of
tbfcChurchto 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 OS that he had entertained for many years to visit Rome ia
^ 4.] OCCASION AND PURPOSE xli
persoa When first he met them at Corinth they were newly
arrived from the capital ; he would hear from them of the state of
things they left behind them; and a spark would be enough to
fire his imagination at the prospect of winning a foothold for Christ
and the Gospel in the seat of empire itself. We may well
believe — if the speculations about Prisca are valid, and even with-
out drawing upon these — that the two wanderers would keep up
communication with the Christians of their home. And now, very
probably at the instance of the Apostle, they had returned to
prepare the way for his coming. We cannot afford to lose so
valuable a link between St. Paul and the Church he had set his
heart on visiting. Two of his most trusted friends are now on the
spot, and they would not fail to report all that it was essential to
the Apostle to know. He may have had other correspondents
besides, but they would be the chief. To this source we may look
for what there is of local colour in the Epistle. If the argument is
addressed now to Gentiles by birth and now to Jews ; if we catch
a glimpse of parties in the Church, ' the strong ' and ' the weak' ;
if there is a hint of danger threatening the peace and the faith of
the community (as in ch. xvi. 17-^20) — ij|_isJiQm-bie-fnends -4n~
Rome that the ApoHtle draws-lM&^knnwlpdgf nf the rnnditinns with
wfiichhe is dealmg^
j^L, The second factor which helps in determining the character of
the Epistle has more to do with what it is not than with what it is :
it prevents it from being as it was at one time described, ' a com-
pendium of the whole of Christian doctrine.' The Epistle is not
this, because like all St. Paul's Epistles it implies a common basis
of Christian teaching, those TTapaSoa-fis as they are called elsewhere
(i Cor. xi. a ; a Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6), which the Apostle is able to
take for granted as already known to his readers, and which he
therefore thinks it unnecessary to repeat without special reason.
ge will not ^lay again' a foundation which is already laid. He
will not speak of the ' first principles' of a Christian's belief, but
will ' go on unto perfection.' Hence it is that just the most fundaX
mental doctrines — the Divine Lordship of Christ, the value of His j
Death, the nature of the Sacraments — are assumed rather than I
stated or proved. Such allusions as we get to these are concerned/
not with the rudimentary but with the more developed forms of the
doctrines in question. They nearly always add someihing to the
common stock of teaching, give to it a profounder significance,
or apply it in new and unforeseen directions. The last charge
that could be brought against the Epistle would be that it consisted
of Christian commonplaces. It is one of the most original of
writings. No Christian can have read it for the first time without
feeling that he was introduced to heights and depths of ChrisLianiti?
of which he had never been conscious before.
Xlii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4
For, lastly, the most powerful <rf all the influences which hava
shaped the contents ot tne i^pTstle is the expeneni^ oQhejyxiter.
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, fts in the rest of the Gentile world (Rom. i. 13). He
longed to impart to the Roman Christians some ' spirituaLgift,'
such as he knew that he had the power of imparting^TT"! i fxv.
19). By this he meant the effect of his own personal presence,
but the gift was one that could be exercised also in absence. He
has exercised it by this letter, which is itself the outcome of a
nvfyy^ceriKov xapKr^a, a 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.
' r 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,'
a ^ these were the watchwords ; and the Apostle felt that they were
pregnant with intense meaning. That new personal relation of
the believer to his Lord was henceforth the motive-power which
dominated the whole of his life. It was also met, as it seemed, in a
marvellous manner from above. We cannot doubt that from his con-
version onwards St. Paul found himself endowed with extraordinary
energies. Some of them were what we should call miraculous;
but he makes no distinction between those which were miraculous
and those which were not. He set them all down as miraculous
in the sense of having a direct Divine cause. And when he looked
around him over the Christian Church he saw that like endowments,
energies vSimilar in kind if inferior to his own in degree, were
widely diflfhsed. 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 ia impreuiTcly sUted in Hort, X^m. mnd Bpk p. 4a ff.
§4.] OCCASION AND PURPOSE xlifi
in a strange elation of spirit which made suffering and toil seem
lignt and insignificant ; but most of all the new impulse was moral
in its working, it blossomed out in a multitude of attractive traits —
' love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
meekness, temperance.' These St. Paul called * fruits of the
Spirit.' The act of faith on the part of man, the influence of the
Spirit (which was only another way of describing the influence of
Christ Himself ^) from the side of God, were the two outstanding
facts which made the lives of Christians diff'er from those of other
men.
These are the postulates of Christianity, the forces to which the
Apostle has to appeal for the solution of practical problems as they
present themselves. His time had been very largely taken up
with such problems. There had been the great question as to
the terms on which Gentiles were to be admitted to the new society.
On this head St. Paul could have no doubt. His own ruling
principles, ' faith ' and ' the Spirit,' made no distinction between
Jew and Gentile; he had no choice but to contend fnr the equal
rights of both — a certain precedence might be yielded to the Jews
as the chosen people of the Old Covenant, but that was all.
This battle had been fought and won. But it left behind
a question which was intellectually more troublesome — a question
brought home by the actual eff"ect of the preaching of Christianity,
very largely welcomed and eagerly embraced by Gentiles, but as
a rule spurned and rejected by the Jews — how it could be that
Israel, the chosen recipient of the promises of the Old Testament,
should be excluded from the benefit now that those promises came
to be fulfilled. Clearly this question belongs to the later reflective
stage of the controversy relating to Jew and Gentile. The active
contending for Gentile liberties would come first, the philosophic
or theological assignment of the due place of Jew and Gentile in
the Divine scheme would naturally come afterwards. This more
advanced stage has now been reached ; the Apostle has made up
his mind on the whole series of questions at issue ; and he takes
the opportunity of writing to the Romans at the very centre of the
empire, to lay down calmly and deliberately the conclusions to
which he has come.
The Epistle is the ripened fruit of the thought and struggles of
the eventful years by which it had been preceded. It is no merely
abstract disquisition but a letter full of direct human interest in the
persons to whom it is written ; it is a letter which contains here
and there side-glances at pardcular local circumstances, and at
least one emphatic warning (ch. xvi. 17-20) against a dangei
which had not reached the Church as yet, but any day might reach
* 8ae the notef ob ch. TiiL 9-17 ; compaie also ch. vi. i-i^
Xliv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS R 4.
it, and the full urgency of which the Apostle knew only too well j
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 interestmg essay in which, discarding all tradition, he
seeks to re-interpret the teaching of St. Paul directly from the
standpoint of the nineteenth century, Matthew Arnold maps out the
contents of the Epistle as follows : —
' If a somewhat pedantic form of expression may be forgiven for
the sake of clearness, we may say that of the eleven first chapters
of the Epistle to the Romans — the chapters which convey Paul's
theology, though not . . . with any scholastic purpose or in any
formal scientific mode of exposition — of these eleven chapters, the
first, second, and third are, in a scale of importance, fixed by
a scientific criticism of Paul's line of thought, sub-primary; the
fourth and fifth are secondary; the sixth and eighth are primary;
the seventh chapter is sub-primary ; the ninth, tenth, and eleventh
chapters are secondary. Furthermore, to the contents of the
separate chapters themselves this scale must be carried on, so far as
to mark that of the two great primary chapters, the sixth and
eighth, the eighth is primary down only to the end of the twenty-
eighth verse ; from thence to the end it is, however, eloquent, yet
for the purpose of a scientific criticism of Paul's essential theology
only secondary' (6V. Paul and Protestantism, p. 92 f).
This extract may serve as a convenient starting-point for our
exaniinaiion of the argument : and it may conduce to clearness ol
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 : —
f 6.] THE ARGUMENT XIV
' The first chapter is to the Gentiles — its purport b ; Yon have
not righteousness. The second is to the Jews — its purport
is : No more have you, though you think you have. The third
chapter assumes faith in Christ as the one source of right-
eousness for all men. The fourth chapter gives to the notion
of righteousness through faith the sanction of the Old Testament
and of the history of Abraham. The fifth insists on the causes for
thankfulness and exultation in the boon of righteousness through
feith in Christ; and applies illustratively, with this design, the
history of Adam. The sixth chapter comes to the all-important
question : ** What is that faith in Christ which I, Paul, mean ? " —
and answers it. The seventh illustrates and explains the answer.
But the eighth down to the end of the twenty- eighth verse, develops
and completes the answer. The rest of the eighth chapter expresses
the sense of safety and gratitude which the solution is fitted to
inspire. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters uphold the second
chapter's thesis — so hard to a Jew, so easy to us— that righteous-
ness is not by the Jewish law ; but dwell with hope and joy on a
final result of things which is to be favourable to Israel' {ibid. p. 93).
Some such outline as this would be at the present stage of in-
vestigation generally accepted. It is true that Baur threw the
centre of gravity upon chapters ix-xi, and held that the rest of the
Epistle was written up to these : but this view would now on
almost all hands be regarded as untenable. The problem discussed
in these chapters doubtless weighed heavily on the Apostle's mind ;
in the circumstances under which he was writing it was doubtless
a problem of very considerable urgency ; but for all that it is
a problem which belongs rather to the circumference of St. Paul's
thought than to the centre ; it is not so much a part of his funda-
mental teaching as a consequence arising from its collision with an
unbelieving world.
On this head the scholarship of the present day would be on the
side of Matthew Arnold. It points, however, to the necessity, in
any attempt to determine what is primary and what is not primary
in the argument of the Epistle, of starting with a clear understanding
of the point of view from which the degrees of relative importance
are to be assigned. Baur's object was historical— to set the
Epistle in relation to the circumstances of its composition. On
that assumption his view was partially — though still not more than
partially — justified. Matthew Arnold's object on the other hand
was what he calls ' a scientific criticism of Paul's thought ' ; by
which he seems to mean (though perhaps he was not wholly clear
in his own mind) an attempt to discriminate in it those elements
which are of the highest permanent value. It was natural that he
should attach the greatest importance to those elements in particular
which seemed to be capable ot direct personal verification. From
xlvl EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§9.
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 He beyond the reach of our personal
v^xperience. 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
eflorts 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 reaHties, and who upon the strength of
them liave reduced their lives to a harmonious unity superseding
the war of passion, do really afford no slight presumption that the
beliefs which have enabled theni to do this are such as the Ruler of
the universe apjiroves, and such as aptly fit into the eternal order.
Whatever the force of this presumption to the outer world, it ia one
which the Christian at least will cherish.
We therefore do not feel at liberty to treat as anything less than
primary that which was certainly primary to St. Paul. We entirely
accept the view that chapters vi and viii are primary, but we also
feel bound to place by their side the culminating verses of chapter
iii. The really fundamental passages in the Epistle we should say
were, ch.i. 16, 17, which states the problem, and iii. ai-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 }
§ ft.] THE ARGUMENl xlvii
And the answer is (i) by certain great redemptive acts on the
part of God which take effect in the sphere above, though their
consequences are felt throughout the sphere below; (a) through
a certain ardent apprehension of these acts and of their Author
Christ, on the part of the Christian; and (3) through his con-
tinued self-surrender to Divine influences poured out freely and
unremittingly upon him.
It is superfluous to say that there is nothing whatever that is new
in this statement. It does but reproduce the belief, in part implicit
rather than explicit, of the Early Church ; then further defined and
emphasized more vigorously on some of its sides at the Reformation ;
and lastly brought to a more even balance (or what many would
fain make a more even balance) by the Church of our own day. Of
course it is liable to be impugned, as it is impugned by the
attractive writer whose words have been quoted above, in the
interest of what is thought to be a stricter science. But whatever
the value in itself of the theory which is substituted for it, we may
be sure that it does not adequately represent the mind of St. Paul.
In the present commentary our first object is to do justice to this.
How it is afterwards to be worked up into a complete scheme of
religious behef, it lies beyond our scope to consider.
For the sake of the student it may be well to draw out the
contents of the Epistle in a tabular analytical form. St. Paul, as
Matthew Arnold rightly reminds us, is no Schoolman, and his
method is the very reverse of all that is formal and artificial. But
it is undoubtedly helpful to set before ourselves the framework of
his thought, just as a knowledge of anatomy conduces to the better
understanding of the living human frame.
L — Introduotion (i. 1-15).
a. The Apostolic Salutation (i. 1-7).
0. St. Paul and the Roman Church (i. 8-15).
n. — Doctrinal.
The Great Thesis. Problem : How is Righteonsness to be attained?
Answer : Not by man's work, but by God's gift, through Faith, or
loyal attachment to Christ (i. 16, 17).
A. R%hteoasness as a state or condition in the sight of God (Justification)
(I 18-V. 3l).
I. Righteonsness not hitherto attained (i. i8-iii. ao).
[Rather, by contrast, a scene which bespeaks impending Wrath].
m. Failure of the Gentile (i. 18-33).
(L) Natural Religion (L i8-ao) ;
(iL) deserted for idolatry (i. 21-25) J
(iiL) hence judicial abandonment to abominable sins (26, 37), to
every kind of moral depravity (28-31), even to perversion of
conscience (3a).
B, [Transitional]. Future judgement without respect of penoas sncfa M
Jew ot Gentile (ii. 1-16).
idviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [$ &
(L) Jewish critic and Gentile tinner in the same position (11. 1-4).
(li) Standard of judgement : deeds, not privileges (ii. 5-11).
(ill.) Rule of judgement : Law of Moses for the Jew ; Law of Co»
science for the Gentile (ii. ia-i6).
J. Failure of the Jew (ii. 17-39). Profession and reality, as regard*
(1.) Law(ii. 17-34);
(ii.) Circumcision (ii. 25-39).
IL [Parenthetic]. Answer to casnistical objections from Jewish stand-
point (iii. 1-8).
^) The Jew's advantage •■ recipient of Divbie Promises
(iii. 1,3);
(Ii.) which promises are not invalidated by Man's onfaithfnlnew
(iii- 3, 4)-
(iii.) Yet God's greater glory no excuse for human sin (iiL 5-8).
«. Universal failure to attain to righteousness and earn acceptance
illustrated from Scripture (iii. 9-30).
t. Consequent Exposition of New System (iii. ai-31) :
4k (i.) in its relation to Law, independent of it, yet attested hf k
(");
rti) in its universality, as the free gift of God (31-34) »
(iii.) in the method of its realization through the propitiatory Death
of Christ, which occupies under the New Dispensation the
■ame place which Sacrifice, especially the ceremonies of the
Day of Atonement, occupied under the Old (25) ;
(hr.) in its final cause — the twofold manifestation of God's righteona-
ness, at once asserting itself against sin and conveying pardon
to the sinner (36).
$. Preliminary note of two main consequences from this :
(i.) Boasting excluded (37, 38) ;
(ii.) Jew and Gentile aUke accepted (29-31).
^ Relation of this New System to O. T. considered fai refeienoe to the
crucial case of Abraham (iv. 1-35).
(i.) Abraham's acceptance (lilce that described by David) tamed
on Faith, not Works (iv. 1-8) ;
QL) nor Circumcision (iv. 9-13)
[to that there might be nothing to prevent him from
being the spiritual father of uncircumcised as well •■
circumcised (11, 13)],
(UL) nor Law, the antithesis of Promise (iv. 13-17)
[so that he might be the spiritual father of mil belieren,
not of those under the Law only].
(ir.) Abraham's Faith, a type of the Christian's (iv. 17-35) :
[he too believed in a birth from the dead].
^ Blissfril effects of Righteousness by Faith (v. i-si).
m. (L) It leads by sure degrees to a triumphant hope of final ■>!•
vation (v. 1-4).
(ii.) That hope guaranteed a fortiori by the Love displayed ia
Christ's Death for sinners (v. 5-11).
A Contrast of these effects with those of Adam's Fall (v. ia-3i) t
(i.) like, in the transition from one to all (13-14);
(ii.) unlike, in that where one brought sin, condemnation, death, the
other brought grace, a declaration of unmerited righteoua-
ness, life (15-17).
^) Summary. Relations of Fall. Law, Grace (18-31)
[The Fall brought sin; Law increased it; bat Graoc men
than cancels die ill effects of Law].
{ •.] THE ARGUMENT Xlix
B. ProgiMslTe Righteontnets in the Christian (SanctificatioD) (vi-viii).
I. Reply to farther casuistical objection : ' If more sin means more
frace, why not go on sinning?'
The immersion of Baptism carried with it a death to sin.
and onion with the risen Christ. The Christian there-
fore cannot, mast not, sin (vi. 1-14).
ft. Tke Christian's Release : what it ii, and what it is not : shown by
two metaphors.
■. Servitude and emancipation (vi. i5-a3).
A> The marriage-bond (vii. 1-6).
[The Christian's old self dead to the Law with Christ; ao that
he is henceforth free to live with Him].
^ Judftistic 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. 7-34). The conflict ended by the interposition of
Christ (as).
4. Fenpective of the Christian's New Career (viii).
The Indwelling Spirit,
a. Failure of the previous system made good by Christ's Incanution
and the Spirit's presence (viii. 1-4).
fi. The new vgime contrasted with the old — the regime of the Spirit
with the weakness of unassisted humanity (viii. 5-9).
•fk 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).
4. That glorious inheritance the object of creation's yearning (viii.
18-32);
and of the Christian's hope (viii. 13-35).
f . Human infirmity assisted by the Spirit's intercession (viii. a6, if) ;
$. and sustained by the knowledge of the connected chain by which
God works out His purpose of salvation (viii. 28-30).
1. 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).
I. Justice of the Rejection (ix. 6-39).
«. The Rejection of Israel not inconsistent with the Divine promlsea
(ix. 6-13);
$. mot with the Divine Justice (ix. 14-39).
(L) The absoluteness of God's dioice shown from the O. T. (ix,
14-18).
(U.) A necessary dedaction from His position as Creator (ix.
19-23)-
(iiL) The alternate choice of Jews and Gentiles expressly reserved
and foretold in Scripture (ix. 24-29).
ft. Canae of the Rejection.
«. Israel sought righteousness by Works instead of Faith, in their owa
way and not in God's way (ixl 30-x. 4).
And this although God's method was —
(i.) Not difl&cult and remote but near and easy (x. 5-10) ;
(ii.) Within the reach of all, Jew and Gentile alike (x. 11-13).
$, Nor can Israel plead in defence want of opporttmity or wamhig —
(i.) The Gospel has heai fully and universally preached (x. I4>i8)
I EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6
(tt.) Israel had been warned beforehand by the Prophet that the;
would reject God's Message (x. iq-ji).
p Mitigating cousiderationg. The purpose of God (xi).
«. The Unbelif'f of Israel is now as in the past only partial (id. l-io).
fi. It is only temporary —
(L) Their fall has a special purpose — the introdnctioD of the
Gentiles (xi. 11-15).
(H.) That Israel will be restored is vouched for by the holy stock
from which it comes (xi. 16-34).
y. lo all this may be seen the purpose of God working upwards
through seeming severity, to a beneficent result — the final
restoration of all (xi. aj-Ji).
Doxology (xi. 33-36).
in. — Practical and Hortatory.
(i) The Christian sacrifice (xii. i, »).
(a) The Christian as a member of the Church (xii. 3-4)>
(3) The Christian in his relation to others (xii. 9->i).
The Christian's vengeance (xii. 19-31).
(4) Church and State (xiii. 1-7).
(5) The Christian's one debt ; the law of love (xiii. S-IO).
The day approaching (xiii 11 -14).
(6) Toleration ; the strong and the weak (xiv. i-xv. 6),
The Jew and the Gentile (xv. 7-13).
IV, — Epilogue.
a. Personal explanations. Motive of the Epistle. PropOMd visit ta
Rome (xv. 14-33).
0. Greetings to various persons (xvL 1-16).
A warning (xvi. 17-30).
Postscript by the Apostle's companions and amancfniii (xvL
ai-a.^).
Benediction and Doxology (xvL i^aj).
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 tystem,
§6.] THE ARGUMENT U
« knowledge of which again is presupposed. St. Paul is not
expounding the Christian religion, he is writing to Christians ;
what he aims at expounding is the meaning of the new system.
This may perhaps explain the manner in which he varies between
the expressions ' the Gospel,' or ' the Gospel of God,' or ' the Gospel
of Jesus Christ/ and ' my Gospel.' The former represents the
Christian religion as recognized and preached by all, the latter
represents his own personal exposition of its plan and meaning.
The main purpose of the argument then is an explanation of the
meaning of the new Gospel of Jesus Christ, as succeeding to and
taking the place of the old method, but also in a sense as embracing
and continuing it.
St. Paul begins then with a theological description of the new
method. He shows the need for it, he explains what it is — emphasiz-
ing its distinctive features in contrast to those of the old system, and
at the same time proving that it is the necessary and expected out-
come of that old system. He then proceeds to describe the work-
ing of this system in the Christian life ; and lastly he vindicates
for it its true place in history. The universal character of the new
Gospel has been already emphasized, he must now trace the plan
by which it is to attain this universality. The rejection of the Jews,
the calling of the Gentiles, are both steps in this process and
necessary steps. But the method and plan pursued in these cases
and partially revealed, enable us to learn, if we have faith to do
go, that ' mystery which has been hidden from the foundation
of the world,' but which has always guided the course of human
history — the purpose of God to ' sum up all things in Christ'
If this point has been made clear, it will enable us to bring out
the essential unity and completeness of the argument of the
Epistle. We do not agree as we have explained above with the
opinion of Baur, revived by Dr. Hort, that chap, ix-xi represent
the essential part of the Epistle, to which all the earlier part is but
an introduction. That is certainly a one-sided view. But Dr.
Hort's examination of the Epistle is valuable as reminding us that
neither are these chapters an appendix accidentally added which
might be omitted without injuring St. Paul's argument and plan.
We can trace incidentally the various difficulties, partly raised by
opponents, partly suggested by his own thought, which have helped
to shape different portions of the Epistle. We are able to analyze
and separate the difierent stages in the argument more accurately
and distinctly than in any other of St. Paul's writings. But this
must not blind us to the lact that the whole is one great argument;
the purpose of which is to explain the Gospel of God in Jesus the
Messiah, and to show its ehects on human life, and in the history
of the race, and thus to vindicate for it the right to be considered
the ultimate and final revelation oi God's purpose for mankind.
d
ul epistle to the romans [$ a
§ 6. Language and Style.
(i) Language^. It will seem at first sight to the oninitiated
reader a rather strange paradox that a letter addressed to the
capital of the Western or Latin world should be written in Greek.
Yei 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
amonq which was to be sought the main body of the readers of
the Epistle.
The early history of the Church of Rome might be said to fall
into three periods, of which the landmarks would be (i) the appear-
ance of the first Latin writers, said by Jerome ■ to be ApoUonius
who suffered under Commodus in the year 185, and whose
Apology and Acts have been recently recovered in an Armenian
Version and edited by Mr. Conybeare ', and Victor, an African by
birth, who became Bishop of Rome about 189 a.d. (a) Next
would come in the middle of the third century a more considerable
body of Latin literature, the writings of Novatian and the corre-
spondence between the Church of Rome and Cyprian at Carthage.
(3) Then, lastly, there would be the definite Latinizing of the capital
of the West which followed upon the transference of the seat of
empire to Constantinople dating from 330 a. d.
(i) The evidence of Juvenal and Martial refers to the latter half of the
first centnry. 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 nursei; and in
•fter life the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation •.
For thr Tewish colony we have the evidence of the inscriptions. Ont of
thirty-eight collected by Schurer^ 00 less than thirty are Greek and eight only
' The question of the use of Greek at Rome has been often discnsscd
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 aoo
pages to vol. iii. of his work QntlUn tmr Gesthitht$ d$s Tau/symholt (Chris-
tiania, 1875).
^ De Fir. III. liii. Tertullianui pntbyUr uunt dtmum primm fott Vu^mm
tt ApoUonium Latinorum ponitur.
^ Monuments of Early Christianity (London, 1894), p. ao ff.
* Juv. Sat. iii. 60 f. ; cf. vi. 187 ff • Ep^. riT. 58.
• Caspari, QiuUen zum Tauf symbol, iii. J 86 f.
^ Gtnuindeverfassung, p. 33 ff. The inscriptions referred to uc aH froa
Roman sites. I'here is also one in Greek from Portus.
*«.]
LANGUAGE AND STYLE Uil
Latin and if one of the Greek inscriptions it in Latin charactera, eonvenelj
tiiree of the Latin are in Greek characters. There do not seem to be any in
Hebrew'.
Of Christian inscriptions the proportion of Greek to Latin woald seem to be
•bont 1 : a. £at the great mass of these would belong to a period later than
that of which we are speaking. De Rossi ^ estimates the number for the period
between M. Aurelins and Septimins Severus at about i6o, of which something
like half would be Greek. Beyond this we can hardly go.
But as to the Christian Church there is a quantity of other evidence. The
bishops of Rome from Linos to Elenthems (c. 174-189 a.d.) are twelve in
number : of these not more than three (Clement, Sixtus I = Xystns, Pius) bear
Latin names. But although the names of Clement and Pius are Latin the
extant Epistle of Clement is written in Greek ; we know also that Hermas,
the author of ' The Shepherd,* was the brother of Pius *, and he wrote in Greek.
Lideed all the literature that we can in any way connect with Christian Rome
down to the end of the reign of M. Aurelius is Greek. Besides the works of
Clement and Hennas we have still surviving the letter addressed to the Church
at Rome by Ignatius ; and later in the period, the letter written by Soter
(c. 166-174 A.D.) to the Corinthian Church was evidently in Greek*. Justin
and Tatian who were settled in Rome wrote in Greek ; so too did Rhodon,
a pupil of Tatian's at Rome who carried on their tradition \ Greek was the
language of Polycarp and Hegesippus who paid visits to Rome of shorter
duration. A number of Gnostic writers established themselves there and used
Greek for the vehicle of their teaching : so Cerdon, Marcion, and Valentinas,
who were all in Rome about 140 A.D. Valentinus left behind a considerable
school, and the leading representatives of the ' Italic ' branch, Ptolemaeus
and Heracleon, both wrote in Greek. We may assume the same thing of the
other Gnostics combated by Justin and Irenaeus. Irenaeus himself spent some
time at Rome in the Episcopate of Eleuthems, and wrote his great work
In Greek.
To this period may also be traced back the oldest form of the Creed of
the Roman Church now known as the Apostles* Creed'. This was in Greek.
And there are stray Greek fragments of Western Liturgies which ultimately
go back to the same place and time. Such would be the Hymnus angtlicmt
(Luke ii. 14) repeated in Greek at Christmas, the Trishagion, Kyrie eUison
and Christt eltuon. On certain set days (at Christmas, Easter, Ember days,
and some others) lections were read in Greek as well as Latin ; hymns were
occasionally sung in Greek ; and at the formal committal of the Creed to the
candidates for baptism (the so-called Traditio and Redditio Symboli) both
the Apostles* Creed (in its longer and shorttr forms) and the Nicene were
1 Comp. also Berliner, L 54. * Ap. Caspari, p. 303.
' Pius is described in the Liher PontiJtcalU as natione Italm . . . de dvi/mU
Aquileia ; but there is reason to think that Hermas was a native of Arcadia.
The assignments of nationality to the earliest bishops are of very donbtfol
▼aloe.
* It was to be kept in the archini and read on Snndays like the letter of
Clement (Eus. H. E. IV. xxiu. 11).
» Eus. H. E. V. xiii. i.
* It was m pursuit of the origin of this Creed that Caspari was drawn into
his elaborate researches. It is generally agreed that it was in nse at Rome by
the middle of the second century. The main question at the present moment
is whether it was also composed there, and if not whence it came. Caspari
would derive it from Asia Minor and the circle of St. John. This is a problem
which we may look to have solved by Dr. Kattenbusch lA Giessen, who ii
continuing Ca^Mh's labous {Dtu Afattli$tk$ SjmM, Bd. L Leiptig,
1894).
Inr EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [^ 6^
redted and the qnestions pat first in Greek and then in latin*. These are
all •urvivals of Roman usage at the time when the Church wai bilingual.
(2) The dates of ApoUonius and of Bp. Victor are fixed, but rather mort
uncertainty hangs over that of the first really classical Christian work in
Latin, the Octaviui 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 ApoUonius, perhaps at the end of the reign ol
M. Anrelius. The period which then begins and extends from c. 180-350 A.D.
shows a more even balance of Greek and Latin. The two prominent writen,
Hippolytus and Caius, still make use of Greek. The grounds perhaps pre-
ponderate for regarding the Muratorian Fragment as a translation. But at the
beginning of the period we have Minucius Felix and at the end Novatian,
and Latin begins to have the upper hand in the names of bishops. The
glimpse which we get of the literary activity of the Church of Rome through
the letters and other writings preserved among the works of Cyprian shows u
at last Latin in possession of the field.
(3) The Hellenizing character of Roman Christianity was due in the fin*
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 up iht pax R omana on the
Aegean, this intercourse was greatly interrupted. Thus Greek influences lost
their strength. The Latin Church, Rome reinforced by Africa, had now
a substantial literature of its own. Under leaders like TertuUian, Cjrprian,
and Novatian it had begun to develop its proper individuality. It could
stand and walk alone without assistance from the East. And a decisive
impulse was given to its independent career by the founding of Constantinople.
The stream set from that time onwards towards the Bosphorus and no longer
towards the Tiber. Rome ceases to be the centre of the Empire to become
in a still more exclusive sense the capital of the West
(a) Style. The Epistles which bear the name of St. Paul present
a considerable diversity of style. To such an extent is this the
case that the question is seriously raised whether they can have had
the same author. Of all the arguments urged on the negative
side this from style is the most substantial ; and whatever decision
we come to on the subject there remains a problem of much
complexity and difficulty.
It is well known that the Pauline Epistles fail into four groups
which are connected indeed with each other, but at the. same tinie
stand out with much distinctness. These groups are : .'i, 2 Thesa/;
(Gal., I, 2 Cor., Rom.'; Phil., Col., Eph., Philem. ; Past. Epp. Tne
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 Episde reacts upon the former. The
tendency of critical inquiry at the present moment is in favour ol
Colossians and somewhat less decidetlly in favour of Ephesians.
It is, for instance, significant that Jillicher in his recent Einkilung
* More precise and full details will be found in Caspari's Excuma, Ot. at,
p. 466 ff.
" Kriiger. AUckristl. Lit. p. 88.
$ 6.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE Iv
(Freiburg L B. and Leipzig, 1894) sums up rather on this side of
the question than the other. We believe that this points to what
will be the ultimate verdict. But in the matter of style it must be
confessed that Col. and Eph. — and more especially Eph. — stand at
the furthest possible remove from Romans. We may take Eph.
and Rom. as marking the extreme poles of difference within the
Epistles claimed for St. Paul ^ Any other member of the second
group would do as well ; but as we are concerned specially with
Rom., we may institute a comparison with it.
The diflference is not so much a difference of ideas and of
vocabulary as a difference of structure and composition. There are,
it is true, a certain number of new and peculiar expressions in the
later Epistle ; but these are so balanced by points of coincidence,
and the novel element has so much of the nature of simple addi-
tion rather than contrariety, that to draw a conclusion adverse to
St Paul's authorship would certainly not be warranted. The sense
of dissimilarity reaches its height when we turn from the materials
(if we may 80 speak) of the style to the way in which they are
put together. The discrepancy lies not in the anatomy but in the
surface distribution of hght and shade, in the play of feature, in
the temperament to which the two Epistles seem to give expression.
We will enlarge a little on this point, as the contrast may help us
to understand the individuality of the Epistle to the Romans.
This Epistle, like all the others of the group, is characterized
by a remarkable energy and vivacity. It is calm in the sense
that it is not aggressive and that the rush of words is always well
under control. Still there is a rush of words, rising repeatedly to
passages of splendid eloquence ; but the eloquence is spontaneous,
the outcome of strongly moved feeling ; there is nothing about it
of laboured oratory. The language is rapid, terse, incisive; the
argument is conducted by a quick cut and thrust of dialectic ; it
reminds us of a fencer with his eye always on his antagonist.
We shut the Epistle to the Romans and we open that to the
Ephesians ; how great is the contrast I We cannot speak here of
vivacity, hardly of energy ; if there is energy it is deep down
below the surface. The rapid argumentative cut and thrust is
gone. In its place we have a slowly-moving onwards-advancing
mass, like a glacier working its way inch by inch down the valley.
The periods are of unwieldy length; the writer seems to stagger
under his load. He has weighty truths to express, and he struggles
to express them — not without success, but certainly with little
flexibility or ease of composition. The truths unfolded read like
abstract truths, ideal verities, ' laid up in the heavens ' rather than
embodying themselves in the active controversies of earth,
' The difference between these Epistles on the side we tat considering if
(reater (e. g.) than that between Romans and the Pastorala.
Ivi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 0^
There is, as we shall see, another side. We ha^e perhaps
xaggerated the opposition for the sake of making the difference
lear. 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 proportion* to the eye and
redacing them to some sort of numerical estimate. This can be done in
the present case without much difficulty by reckoning up the number ci
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 arlxoi or printed lines ^ ll
«iU be worth while to compare the Epistles chapter by chapter : —
Romans.
€Tlx9i.
(•)
(•)
tt
CLL
64
>S
>4
— i
n.
«I
M
1
•
IIL
47
to
la
If
IV.
45
<
»4
»
V.
47
(
If
VI
4»
8
14
"I
VII.
49
16
to
1
VIII.
70
»7
*6
H
DC.
05
8
»9
10
X
37
«
16
9
XI.
i?
16
«7
II
trinalport
ion 570
130
184
40t
w
XIL
3«
14
IS
^
XIIL
»9
II
IS
1
XIV.
tl
II
»7
f
XV.
8
t4
a8
XVI.
»o
_7
—
e Epistle
789
181
190
f»
563
Here the proportion of major point* to trrlxot is for the doctrinal chap-
ters 402:570 >= (approximately) i in 1.4; and for the whole Epistle not
Tcry different, 563 : 789 =« i in I'4i8. The proportion of interrogative
sentences is for the whole Epistle, 9a : 789, or i in 8-6 ; for the doctrinal
chapters only, 88 : 570, or i in 6-5 ; and for the practical porticm only,
4 : 319, or I in 55. This last item is instructive, beosose it show* how very
' The counting o\ these is approximate, anything over half a line being
Kckooed as a whole Une, and anything less than half a line not veolconed
4 a.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE Ivii
greatly, even in the tame Epistle, the amount of interrogation rariet with
the subject-matter. We also observe that in two even of the doctrinal chap-
ters interrogative sentences are wanting. They lie indeed in patches or
thick clusters, and are not distributed equally throughout the Epiatl*.
Now w« tiUB to Ephesiaoi^ for which the data art as follow*:—
ErmsiAMS.
^rlxm (•) O (0
a.!
4S
4
1
«.
n.
40
9
•B>
m,
36
t
•
—
[111
IS
>S
-1
IV.
SI
•
H
I
▼.
1*
n
If
>v
TL
M
s
■S
.«>
WW
^m^
•!•
»»
S8
1
1%W
95
This fiTCi a very different Riiih. The proportion of major points ia Im
Eph. i-iii, roughly speaking, i in 4, as against i in 1-4 for R<Hn. i-zii, and
for the whole Epistle rather more than i in 3, as against i in i>4i8. Th«
propoitioB of interrogations is i in 170 compared with i in 8^ or 6<{.
In illustrating the nature of the difference in style between
Romans and Ephesians we have left in suspense for a time the
question as to its cause. To this we will now return, and set down
some of the influences which may have been at work — which we
may be sure were at work — and which would go a long way to
•ccoont for it
(i) First would be /At natural variation of style which comes
from dealing with different subject-matter. The Epistles of the
second group are all very largely concerned with the controversy
as to Circimicision and the relations of Jewish and Gentile
Christians. In the later Epistle this controversy has retired into
the background, and other topics have taken its place. Ideas are
abroad as to the mediating agencies between God and man which
impair the central significance of the Person of Christ ; and the
multiplication of new Churches with the growing organization of
intercommunication between those of older standing, brings to the
front the conception of the Church as a whole, and invests it with
increased impressiveness.
These facts are reflected on the vocabulary of the two Epistles. The
controversy with the Judaizers gives a marked colour to the whole gronp
which includes the Epistle to the Romans. This will appear on the face
of the statistics of usage as to the frequency with which the leading terms
occur in these Epistles and in the rest of the Pauline Corpus. Of coarse
some of the instances will be accidental, but by far the greater number ara
significant Those which follow have a direct bearing on the Jndaistie
controveny. ' Elsewhere ' means elsewhere in the Paoline Epistles.
kriii EPISTLB TO THE ROMANS [§ 6.
' 'AfipaAn Rom. 9, t Cor. i, Gal. 9 ; not elMwhere in St Panl. [owipim
'k^paan Rom. i, 2 Cor. 1, GaL i.]
iMpo^varia Rom. 3, i Cor. 2, Gal. 3 ; elsewhere 3.
AwocToK^i Rom. i, i Cor. i, Gal. i ; not elsewhere in St. PaaL
itKOiovv Rom. 15, I Cor. 2, GaL 3; elsewhere a.
iiKcuwfM Rom. 5 ; not elsewhere.
tiKaiwcis Rom. a ; not elsewhere.
aarapytiy Rom. 6, i Cor. 9, 2 Cot. 4, Gal. 3 ; eliewheri 4.
r6ftos Rom. 76, i Cor. 8, Gal. 33 ; elsewhere 6.
wffnTOfiT} Rom. 15, i Cor. i, GaL 7 ; elsewhere 8.
0ir(pfia Rom. 9, I Cor. i, a Cor. i, Gal. 5; elsewhere i.
Connected with this controversy, though not quite so directly, woold bt »^
daOfvrjs Rom. I, I Cor. 10, a Cor. i, Gal. i ; elsewhere i.
iaOtvui Rom. 4, i Cor. a, a Cor. 6 ; elsewhere a.
iaOfvtia Rom. a, i Cor. a, a Cor. 6, Gal. i ; elsewheic I.
aaOivTjfta Rom. i ; not elsewhere.
iXtvOfpos Rom. a, i Cor. 6, Gal. 6 ; elsewheic a.
iKfvOtpovy Rom. 4, GaL i ; not elsewhere.
4Xcv5«p«a Rom. i, i Cor. i, a Cor. i. Gal. i ; not elsewhere.
KavxaaOai Rom. 5, I Cor. 5 (i v.L), a Cor. ao, GaL a ; elsewhere ^
•ai/x^Ma Rom. I, I Cor. 3, a Cor. 3, Gal. i ; elsewhere t.
«ai;X^<^'* Rom. a, 1 Cor. i, a Cor. 6 ; elsewhere I.
»aTaKaKxn<^^a' Rom. 2 ; not elsewhere.
i<pfi\tTTjs Rom. 3, Gal. i ; not elsewhere.
itf>eiXT}fia Rom. I ; not elsewhere.
vKilivSaXov Rom. 4, I Cor. i, Gal. i ; not elsewhere. [#cer8aX/(iHr
I Cor. 2, a Cor. i, Rom. i r. 1.]
ixptK IV Rom. I, I Cor. 2, Gal. i : ixpiKtta 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 ol
•uccessive periods into which the religious history of mankind is divided : —
-fi-ypanrai Rom. 16, i Cor. J, a Cor. 3, GtA. 4; not elsewhere in
St. Paul.
dx/>'» oil Rom. I, I Cor. a, Gal. a (i v.L) ; not elsewhere.
«</)' offov xpovov Rom. I, I Cor. i, Gal. I ; not elsewhere
These examples stand out very distinctly; and their disappearance from
the later Epistle is perfectly intelligible : cessante causa, cessat effectut.
(«) But it is not only that the subject-matter of Ephesians differs
from that of Romans, the circumstances under which it is presented
also differ. Romans belongs to a period of controversy, and
although at the time when the Epistle is written the worst is over,
and the Apostle is able to survey the field calmly, and to state his
case uncontroversially, still the crisis through which he has passed
has left its marks behind. The echoes of war are still in his ears.
The treatment of his subject is concrete and not abstract. He
sees in imagination his adversary before him, and he argues much
as he might have argued in the synagogue, or in the presence of
refractory converts. The atmosphere of the Epistle is that of
per.sonal debate. This acts as a stimulus, it makes the blood
* These examples are selected from the lists in Bishop Lightfoot's classical
> essay ' On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galatians*' \nJoum. ^
Ckui. amd Satr. Fhilol. ill. (1857) 308 fif.
§«.] l^NGUAGE AND STYLB lix
drculate more rapidly in the veins, and ghret to the style a liveli-
ness and directness which might be wanting when the pressure was
removed. Between Romans, written to a definite Church and
gathering up the result of a time of great activity, the direct out-
come of prolonged discussion in street and house and school, and
Ephesians, written in all probability not to a single Church but to
a group of Churches, with its personal edge thus taken off, and
written too under confinement after some three years of enforced
inaction, it would be natural that there should be a difference.
(3) This brings us to a third point which may be taken with the
last, the allowance which ought to be made for the special tempera-
ment of the Apostle. His writings furnish abundant evidence of
a highly strung nervous organization. It is likely enough that the
physical infirmity from which he suffered, the ' thorn in the flesh '
which had such a prostrating effect upon him, was of nervous
origin. But constitutions of this order are liable to great fluctua-
tions of physical condition. There will be ' lucid moments,' and
more than lucid moments — months together during which the
brain will work not only with ease and freedom, but with an
intensity and power not vouchsafed to other men. And times such
as these will alternate with periods of depression when body and
mind alike are sluggish and languid, and when an effort of will is
needed to compel production of any kind. Now the physical
conditions under which St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans
would as naturally belong to the first head as those under which he
wrote the Epistle which we call * Ephesians * would to the second.
Once more we should expect antecedently that they would leave
a strong impress upon the style.
The difference in style between Rom. and Eph. would seem to be very
largely a difference in the amount of vital energy throwii into the two
Epistles. Vivacity is a distinguishing mark of the one as a certain slow and
laboured movement is of the other. We may trace to this cause the
phenomena which have been already noted — the shorter sentences of Romans,
the long involved periods of Ephesians, the frequency of interrogation on the
one hand, its absence on the other. In Rom. we have the champion of
Gentile Christendom with his sword drawn, prepared to meet all comers ; in
Eph. we have ' such an one as Paul the aged, and now a prisoner &lso 0/
Jesuf Christ.'
Among the expressions specially characteristic of this aspect of Ep. tO
Romans would be the following : —
«^a, beginning a sentence, Rom. 9, i Cor. i, a Cor. a, Gal. 5 ; elsewhert
Epp. Paul. 3, Heb. a. \oi^ ovv Rom. 8 (or 9 v. 1.), Gal. i ; elsewheit
3 : o^a without oSc Rom. i (or s ▼. L), I Cor. i, GaL 3, Heb. a.]
dAAd Xt-fo) Rom. t.
Ai7ai S€ Gal. a.
X(7(v Ovv Rom. a.
X^7a; a rovTO Sri I Cor. S«
•dAif Kiyw a Cor. ».
Ix EPISTL£ TO THE ROMANS ^ •.
v«9r» M Xiyw GtL i.
tyii IlavXos Kifv Ifuif 8n GaL I.
wav ; wov dv ; Rom. i, i Cor. 8, Gal. I ; not ebenbei*.
«( oiy; rlt oZv; Rom. ii, I Cor. 5, GaL i; not elatwhcn. [ri 9h
ipovfitv; Rom. 6; ri ipovfitv; Rom i.]
rl Xiyu {>^iyu, See.) Rom. 3, Gal. i ; not elsewheni
tiar£ Rom. I, I Cor. a, a Cor. i ; not elaewhero.
tfip, onusoal compoonds of —
{rwtfMKTfivuv a Cor. i.
ivtpklay a Cor. a.
inrtpyucav Rom. i.
twfpvtpiafffvfty Rom. i, s Cor. i.
hr*p<ppoytiy Rom. i .
(4) A last cause which we suspect may possibly have been «t
work, though this is more a matter of conjecture, is the 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 diciare 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. E. VI. xxiii. a). But we can well believe that if
this were the case some scribes would be more expert than others,
and would reproduce what was dictated to them more exactly.
Tertius, we should suppose, was one of the best of those whom
St. Paul employed for this purpose. An inferior scribe would get
down the main words correctly, but the little connecting links he
may have filled in for himself.
This is rather speculation, and we should not wish to lay itreu npoo 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
u 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
A circuitous route and not seldom with a somewhat violent twist or turn at
the end. This is specially noticeable in abstract doctrinal passages, just aa
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
•tructure is common to both.
We will place side by side one or two passages which may help to show
tile fundamental resemblance between the two Epistles. [For a defence ol
tite punctuation of the extract from Romans reference may be nude to th«
notes mi kc.'\
§e.]
LANGUAGE AND STYLE Ix)
Rom iU. ii-a6. Eph. ilL 1-7.
Vwl 6( X'^P^* y6nov IkKOioa^uvri Tovrov x*^/"" '7<^ UavXot i 94vfuoi
9tov nt^vipairai, fiaprvpovfiivt) ino rov Xpiarcv 'Itfaov xmip vftSjv tSiv
Tov v6fxov Kal rwf vpo(pr)Twv SiKato- lOvSiv, — ttyt ijitoiiaaTf r^v olKOVon'tav
trivrj Si @tov Sti. wiartcos 'Irjaov rijs x'^/'*''°* ''"'^ &fov rrjs SoBeiarjs fioi
Xptarov (U vavrat roit viartiovras' th vfias, Sti KarcL avoKiXvptv iyvaj-
oil yip iffTt StoffToKff' wAvTfs ySip plcrOt] fioi rd fnvarrjpiov, KaQiit irpo-
Ijfiaprov, Kal itartpovvrcu t^s Sofjjr iypaxpa iv ix'tyq), vpds t SvvaaOt ava-
Tov 9(oS' SiKaiovfxtvoi SaiptaLy t§ yiviiOKOvrtt voriaai r^v aiveaiv ftov iv
aiiTOv X'^P"'* ''^ '^^ dwoXurpufffoas r& fxvffTj]piq} rod X., i irtpats yevfaii
Ttjt iy X. *I., tr vpofOfTO 6 Btbs ovk iyvaipiaOT] rets vloTt rSiv a.v6pwn<uw^
IXaariipiov Sid r^f wiartut iv ry ws vvv iirfKaXixpOr] rots ayiois a-noaro'
avTov alfMTt, tit tvSti(tv t§» Stitouo- Xo«j airov ical tipo<pr)Tait iv XlvtvuaTi'
CvvT}S airrov, Sid t^ irip«Ttv rSiv ftvai rd (6vrj crvyKKrjpoySfia ical cvaatufta
vpoytyov6Ttjy i.iuipTf)ijArvy kv rp koX cv/x/iiToxa ttjs iwayyt\iai iv X. 'I.
droxp TOV 0tov vpdt rfjy ly5(i(iy Sici tov dayytXlov ov iytvr)9r)v 5*4-
T^ iuauoaivrit airov iw Tip vvy uovos Kara t^jv HwpfAv t^» x'^P'-'"'''^ '""<'''
nup^, <tt rd tTvat airdr Stxaiov Moi Btov ttjs SoOuarit fioi narii r^y ivip-
Muaiovyra riv l« wUrrtmt lijaod. yitar Trjt Swa^tvt airov.
Li the Roman* passage we hare fiiBt the rerelation of the righteousness of
God, then a specification of the particular aspect of that righteousness with
• streas upon its universality, then the more direct assertion of this univer-
•ality, followed in loose construction (see the note ad Uk.) by an announce-
ment of the free character of the redemption wrought by Christ, then a fuller
comment on the method of this redemption, its object, the cause which rendered
it necessary, its object again, and its motive. A wonderful series of contents
to come from a single sentence, like those Chinese boxes in which one box
is cunningly fitted within another, each smaller than the last.
The passage from Ephesians in like manner begins with a statement of the
durance which the Apostle is suffering for the Gentiles, then goes off to
explain why specially for the Gentiles, so leading on to the fivar-rjpiov on
which that mission to the Gentiles is based, then refers back to the previous
mention of this fivarfjpiov, which the readers are advised to consult, then
pives a fuller description of its character, and at last states definitely its
substance. Dr. Gifford has pointed out (on Rom. iii. 26) how the argu-
ment works round in Lph. to the same word nvar-ljpiov as in Rom. to the
tame word ivSu^iv. And we have similar examples in Rom. ii. 16 and iii. 8,
where two distinct trains of thought and of construction converge uprai
• clause which is made to do duty at the same time for both.
The particular passage of Ephesians was chosen as illustrating this pecu-
liarity. But the general tendency to the formation of periods on what we
have called the 'telescopic' method — not conforming to a plan of structure
deliberately adopted from the first, but linking on clause to clause, each sug-
gested by the last — runs through the whole of the first three chapters of
Eph. and has abundant analogues in Rom. (i. 1-7, 18-24; ii- 5-i6; iii. 21-
36; iv. 11-17; v. 12-14; i*- 33-39; XV. 14-38). The passages from
Rom. are as we have said somewhat more lively than those from Eph. ;
they have a more argumentative cast, indicated by the frequent use of yap ;
whereas those from Eph. are not so much argumentative as expository, and
consist rather of a succession of clauses connected by relatives. But the
difference is really superficial, and the underlying resemblance is great.
Just one other specimen may be given of marked resemblance of a some-
what different kind — the use of a quotation from the O.T. with running
comments. In this instance we may strengthen the impression by printing
for comparison a third passage from Ep. to Galatians.
Ixij BPISTLB TO THE ROMANS [^ &
Rom. z. 5-8. Eph. tv. 7>ii.
McDfffjt yip ypi<pu Sri r^ 8(«bi*- *b4 8) U&aT^ ifuS^ ii6hi 4 X^
vivrfv T7)v (« v(i;(ov 4 iroirjffas ofr- card tA fiirpov rijj Soiptaf rod Xpiffrov.
§po}wos (TjfffTcu ir aurg. ^ 8i l« 8id X^7fi, 'Ava^ij tit Cipot pXAto^^
wiarfui SiKaioavyij oCtcd \iyti, Mi^ t«vo-<i' alxfia\o)aiav, Kal ISojKt i6/MTa
ttrr^ffs iy rp icapS'uf aov T« dva/S^- Tory avOpwnois. (ri Si ^Avt^rj rl iortw
ctToi tli riv ovpav6v ; (toCt' tart, •! /i^ irt «a2 Kari^r) tU rd tcaTirrtpa
Xpiarbv Karayaytiv) 1j, Tit «ara- >««p7 r^y -y^t; 6 Karaffis avrSs <<m
/3^(7crai ftf T^>' d^vaaov ; (toCt* «ai i dva^ds vittpavw vayra/y rSiv oiipa-
tan, Xptardy iic vfKpSjv avayayuv.) vSiv, Xva vXrjpuaj) tA w&yra.) Koi ovrdt
dAAd ri Ktyd ; '£771^9 trov to fiijpuk tSiMf rovt ^ir iwoariKom s.rJL
jffriv, ^f Tf( ardpari aov kclI ir r^
KapSi<f aov tovt' tan ri fi^pui r^t
wlartcn t Kijpvaoon«p.
Gal. It. «5-3i.
Ti 8i 'hyap 2«vo opot IffriK ir rp 'Apa^ia, avaroix*l Vk t^ rvr *I(po»<7aXi^;r
Jov\«i5(« 7(lp f»«rd rwv TiKvoiv air^y. 1) 8« avo) '\(povadKr)n iKtvOipa iariv,
ijny tarl p'fjTjjp -fjixSiv. ylypavToi yap, Evipp&vBrjTi, ariipa 1) ov riKTovaa . . .
^piitt M, aBe\(poi, card 'laauK inayytXias Ttteva ianiv. dAX' Siavtp rSrt i
KaToi a&pxa ytw-qOtU (S'tuKf tov Kord Xlvtvpia, ovtw kuI vvv. aXKa rl \tytt
^ ypaipij ; 'EK0a\t r^v iratSiaKTjv Kal rdy vloy airrjt, ov ydp ff^ KXripovopriaf
i vlut Trjs vai5'iaKT}s pLtra rov vlov Tijt iK(v$fpau Si6, i5f\(poi, «S« ioftiw
maiiiaierjs rlKva, dXXd t^s iKtvOipat.
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; i Cor. xii. 1 1 ; 3 Cor. x- 1 3) ; but to do this would be really
endless and would have too remote a bearing on our present subject. Enough
will have been said both to show the individuality of style in Ep. to Romans '
and also to show its place in connexion with the range of style in the Pauline
Epi^.tlcs generally, as seen in a somewhat extreme example. It is usual,
especially in Germany, to take Ep. to Romans with its companion Epistles
•» 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 Theaia-
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 sufl5ciently 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 tbe
narked coincidences l^tween the doxology, Rom. xv. 35-27, and Ep. to
Ephesians. These are fully pointed out ad he., and \bm genuneneaa of A*
doxology is defended in § 9 of this Introduction.
• Joum. of Class, mttd Satr. PhiloL, ut sup., p. 302.
$ 7.] THE TEXT Ixifi
well hare been a concurrence of causes. And on the other hand
the positive reasons for supposing that the two Epistles had really
the same author, are weighty enough to support the conclusion.
Between the limits thus set, it seems to us that the phenomena of
style in the Epistles attributed to St Paul maj be nmged without
straining.
f 7. The Text.
(i) Authorities. The authorities quoted for the Tarions readings
to the text of the Epistle are taken directly from Tischendorf's
great collection {Nov. Test. Graec. vol. ii. ed. 8, Lipsiae, 1872),
with some verification of the Patristic testimony. For a fuller
account of these authorities the student must be referred to the
Prolegomena to Tischendorf's edition (mainly the work of Dr. C. R.
Gregory, 1884, 1890, 1894), and to the latest edition of Scrivener's
Introduction (ed. Miller, London, 1894). They may be briefly
enumerated as follows :
(i) Greek Manusckiptb.
Primary uncials.
M Cod. Sinaiticus, saec. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the
Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai ; now at St Petersburg.
Contains the whole Epistle complete.
Its correctors are
W contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second
MS. of high value;
M* attributed by Tischendorf to saec. vi ;
M* attributed to the beginning of saec. vii. Two hands of
about this date are sometimes distinguished as t>)<* and
Neb.
A. Cod. Alexandrinus, saec. ▼. Once in the Patriarchal Library
at Alexandria ; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles I
in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.
B. Cod. Vaticanus, saec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly
since 1533^ (Batiffol, La Vaticam de Paul Hi a Paul v,
p. 86). Complete.
The corrector B' is nearly d the same date and used
a good copy, though not quite so good as the original
Some six centuries later the faded characters were re-
traced, and a few new readings introduced by B'.
C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, saec. v. In the National Library
at Paris. Contains the whole Epistle, with the exception of
the following passages : ii 5 ko^o. dc n^v . . . vnh row vd/ww
* Dr. Gr^ory would carry back the evidence further, to 1531 {Fr^Ug.
p. 360), bat M. Batiffol eould find no trace of the MS. in the earlier ObU.
Ixiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 7.
iiL SI ; ix. 6 ovy oTov . , . 4ip X. 15 : Zi. 31 ^ti]3riaap Tf
. . . nXfipcofia xiii. 10.
D. Cod, Claromontanus, sacc. 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. i, llavXoj . . . dyaTrrjrolt Qtoii
L 7> is missing, and i. 27 t^fKavdrja-av . . . «</)cvprrat KOKov i. 30
^n the Latin i. 24-27) is supplied by a later hand.
E. Cod. Sangermanensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Formerly
at St. Geimain-des-Pr^s, now at St. Petersburg. [This MS.
might well be allowed to drop out of the list, as it is nothing
more than a faulty copy of D.]
F. Cod. Augiensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Bought by Bentley
in Germany, and probably written at Reichenau {Augt'a
Major); now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Rom. i. I DaOXot . . . fv ra v6[^^'\ iii. 19 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. i a^wpio-^^Vo* . . , niarfw
i. 5, and ii. 16 ra Kpvnrh . . . v6iJLov §s ii. 25 are missing.
Originally formed part of the same MS. with A (Cod. San-
gallensis) of the Gospels.
It has been suggested by Tranbe (Wattenbach, Anleitung tttr Gritch.
Paldographie, ed. 3, 1895, p. 41) that this MS. wai written by the game
hand as a well-known Psalter in the library of the Arsenal at Paris which
bears the signature Xr\bv\ioi Xkottos tydi eypaipa. The resemblance of the
handwriting is close, as may be seen by comparing the facsimile of the Paris
Psalter published by Omont in the Milanges Graux, p. 313, with that of the
St. Gall Gospels in the Palaeographical Society's series (i. pi. 179). This
fact naturally raises the further question whether the writer of the MS. of
St. Paul's Epistles is not al^o to be identified with the compiler of the com-
mentary entitled Collectanea in omnes B. Pauli Epistolas Migne, Patrol.
Lot. ciii. 9-128), which is also ascribed to a ' Sedulius Scotus.' The answer
must be in the negative. The commentary presents no»e 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 fratnt
kellenUi who formed a sort of guild in the monastery of St. Gall (see the
authorities quoted in Caspari, Qutllen turn Taufsymbol, iii. 475 n, and
compare Bcrger, Histoire de la Vulgatt, p. 137). There are several instances
of the name ' Sedulius Scotus ' (^Migne, P. L. ut suf.).
It should be noted that of these MSS. l^ A B C are parts of what
were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter
throughout the LXX and Greek Testament ; D E F G are all
Graeco-Latin, and are different MSS. from those which bear the
same notation on the Gospels and Acts. In Westcott and Hort's
Introduction they are distinguished as D^ 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.
§ 7.] THE TEXT IXV
Secondary tmcialt.
K. Cod. Mofqnensii, laee. ix. Brought to Moscow from the monastery ol
St. Dionysius on Mount Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul.
Rom. X. 1 8 aXXcL Kiyw to the end is missing.
L. Cod. Angelicus, saec ix. In the Angelican Library of the Augustinian
monks at Rome. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Romans com-
plete.
P. Cod. Porphyrianns, saec ix In. A palimpsest brought from the East by
Tischendorf and called after its present owner Bishop Porphyry. Contain!
Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul., Apoc. Rom. ii. 15 [inoXo'yov'jixtyaiy . . .
^ dSiKia fjlijuvvl iii. 5 ; viii. 35 @e6t i iiKaiwv . . . iva ^ «a[T' tK\oyrir'\
ix. II ; xi. 3 2 xal dvoTOfiiav . . . Ovaiav xii. I are missing.
S. Cod. Athous Laurae, saec. viii-ix. In the monastery Laura on Mount
Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. PauL Romans complete. This
MS. has not yet been collated.
X. Cod. Patiriensis, saec. ▼. Formerly belonging to the Basilian monks
of the abbey of Sta. Maria de lo Patire near Rossano, now in the
Vatican. There is some reason to think that the MS. may have come
originally from Constantinople {cf. Batiffol, VAbbayt de Rossano, pp. 6,
79 and 62, 71-74). Twenty-one palimpsest leaves, containing portions
of Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. These include Rom. xiii. 4-xv. 9.
A study of readings from this MS. is pablished in the Etvus Bibliqtu
for April, 1895.
Minuscules.
A few only of the leading minuscules can be given,
g. (= Ew. 5, Act. 5), saec. xiv. At Paris ; at one time ia Calabria.
17, («■ Ew. 33, Act. 13), saec. ix (Omont, ix-x Gregory). At Paris.
Called by Eichhom ' the queen of cursives.*
ji. (—Act. 35, Apoc 7). Written 1087 a.d. Belonged to John Covell,
English chaplain at Constantinople about 1675 ; now in the British
Museum.
3a. ( — Act. 36), saec xii. Has a similar history to the last.
37. (^■" Ew. 69, Act 31, Apoc. 14), saec. xv. The well-known ' Leicestei
MS.' ; one of the Ferrar group,' the archetype of which was probably
written in Calabria.
47. Saec xi. Now in the Bodleian, but at one time belonged to the monas-
tery of the Holy Trinity on the island of Chalcis.
67. ("Act. 66, Apoc. 34), saec. xi. Now at Vienna: at one time in the
possession of Arsenius, archbishop of Monemvasia in Epidaurus. The
marginal corrector (67**) drew from a MS. containing many peculiar
and ancient readings akin to those of M Paul., which is not extant for
Ep. to Romans.
71. Saec x-xi. At Vienna. Thought to have been written in Calabria.
80. (— Act. 73), saec. xi. In the Vatican.
93. (-■ Act. 83, Apoc. 99), saec. xii (Gregory), At Naples. Said to have
been compared with a MS. of Pamphilus, bnt as yet collated only ia
a few places.
137. (—Ew. 363, Act. 117), saec. xiii-xir. At Paris.
353. (Gregory, 260 Scrivener — Ew 489. Greg., 507 Scriv. ; Act. 195 Greg.,
334 Scriv.). In the library of Trin. Coll., Cambridge. Written on
Mount Sinai in the year 1316.
These MSS. are partly those which have been noticed as giving con-
spicuous readings in the commentary, partly those on which stress is laid
by Hort {Introd. p. 166), and partly those which Boosset connects wit}» hit
*Codia. Pamphili (se* below).
Ixvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMAMS £| 1
(>) VnsiOMt.
The Tcrsions quoted are the following :
The Latin (Latt.).
The Vetus Latina (Lat V«t^
The Vulgate (Vulg.).
The Egyptian (Aegypt).
The Bohairic (Boh.)^
The Sahidic (Sah.).
The Syriac (Syrr.).
The Peshitto (Pesh.).
The Harclean (HarcLy.
The Armenian (Arm.).
The Gothic (Goth.).
The Ethiopic (Aeth.).
Of these the Vct«s Latina is rery Imperfectly preserved te M. W«
posseu only a imall number of fragments of MSS. Tlieat are :
gae. Cod. Gael ferby tanas, saec. vi, which contains fragments of Rom. ll
33-'"»- 5; «>• 17-""- 5 ; »!▼• 9-20; XT. 3-1 J.
r. Cod. Frisingensis. saec. ▼ or tI, containing Rom. zIt. io-xt. 1%.
tf Cod. Gottvicensis, saec vi or vii, containing Rom. ▼. i^vL 41
▼i 6-19.
The texts of these fragments are, howerer, neither early (relatiyely to the
history of the Version) nor of much interest To supplement them we havt
Jie Latin versions of the bilingual MSS. D E F G mentioned above, usually
quoted as d e f g, and quotations in the Latin Fathers. The former do not
strictly represent the underlying Greek of the Version, as they are too much
conformed to their own Greek, d (as necessarily e) follows an Old-Latin text
not in all cases altered to suit the Greek ; g is based on the Old Latin
but is very much modified ; f is the Vulgate translation, altered with the
help of g or a MS. closely akin to g. For the Fathers we are mainly
indebted to the quotations in Tertullian (saec. ii-iii), Cyprian (saec. iii),
the Latin Irenaeus (saec. ii, or more probably iv), Hilary of Poitiers (saea
iv), and to the so-called Speculum S. Augustini (cited as m), a Spanish
text also of the fourth century isee below, p. 134).
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 Vitus Latina of St. Paul's Epistles will be found in Ziegler,
Die lateinischen Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymus, Miinchen, 1879;
bat the subject has not as yet t)een sufficiently worked at for a genera]
agreement to be reached.
For the Vulgate the following MSS. arc occasionally <iaoted :
am. Cod. Amiatinus c. 700 A. D.
fuld. Cod. Fuldensis e. 546 A. D.
karl. British Museum Harl. 1775. Saec. vi or viL
tol. Cod. Toletanus. Saec. z, or rather perhapa viii (te* Bcfgvr, Bi^
Uirt it Im Vulgate, p. 14).
The Vulgate of St. Paul's Epistles is a revision of the Old Latin so iligfat
■Bd cnisoiy as to be hardly an independent authority. It was bowe«er mm
§7.]
THE TEXT IxvU
with die help of the Greek MSS^ and we have the express statement of
St. Terome himself that in Rom. xii. i r he substituted Domino servientet
for Umpori urvientes of the older Version {Ep. xxvii. 3 ad Marcellam).
Wa gather from this letter that Jerome's edition had been issued in the year
185 A. D.
Of the Egyptian Versions, Bohairic is that usually known as Memphitic
(— • mc' WH.) and cited by Tisch. as * Coptic ' (' cop.'). For the reasons
which make It correct to describe it as Bohairic see Scrivener, Introd. ii. 106,
cd. 4. It is usually cited according to Tischendorf (who appears in the
Epistles to have followed Wilkins; see Tisch. N.T. p. ccxxxiv, ed. 7), but
in some few instances on referring to the original it has become clear that
his quotations cannot always be trusted: see the notes on v. 6 ; viii. 28;
s. 5 ; ztL 37. This suggests that not only a fresh edition of the text, but
also a fresh collation with the Greek, is much needed.
In the Sahidic (Thebaic) Version ( = 'sah.' Tisch., 'the.' WH.) some
few readings have been added from the fragments published by Amelineau
In the ZtUuhrift fur Aigypt. Spracht, 1887. These fragments contain vi.
•o-a3 ; Tii. i-ai ; viii. 15-38 ; 11. 7-23 ; xi. 31-36; xii. 1-9.
The reader may be reminded that the Peshitto Syriac was certainly current
mach in its present form early in the fourth century. How much earlier
than this it was in use, and what amount of change it had previously under-
gone, are questions still being debated. In any case, there is no other form
of the Version extant for the Pauline Epistles.
The Harclean Syriac (-■ 'syr. p[osterior] ' Tisch., 'hi.' WH.^ is a re-
OCnsien made bj the Monophysite Thomas of Harkhel or Heraclea in 616
A. D., of the older Fhiloxenian Version of 508 a. D., which for this j>art
of the N.T. is now lost A special importance attaches to the readings,
sometimes In the text but more often in the margin, which appear to be
derived frx>m ' three (v. L two) approved and accurate Greek copies ' in the
■tonastety of the Enaton near Alexandria (WH. Introd. p. 156 f ).
The Gothic Version is also definitely dated at about the middle of the
fimuth century, and the Armenian at about the middle of the fifth. The dates
of the two Egyptian Versions and of the Ethiopic are still uncertain
(Scrivener, Introd. ii. 105 f., 154, ed. 4). It is of more importance to know
that the types of text which they represent are in any case early, the
Egyptian somewhat the older.
The abbreviations in references to the Patristic writings are sach as it is
hoped will cause no difficulty (but see p. ex).
(j) Internal Grouping 0/ Authorities. The most promising and
successful of all the directions in which textual criticism is being
pursued at this moment is that of isolating comparatively small
groups of authorities, and investigating their mutual relations and
origin. For the Pauline Episdes the groups most affected by
recent researches are J-^B ; ^^cjj, Arm., Euthal., and in less degree
a number of minuscules ; D [£] F G.
The proofs seem to be thickening which connect these two great MSS
with the library of Eusebius and Pamphilus at Caesarea. That is a view
which has been held for some time past (e. g. by the late Canon Cook,
Rtvised Version of the First Three Gospels, p, 159 ff. ; and Dr. Scrivener,
Collation of Cod. Sinaiticus, p. xxxvii f.), but without resting upon any very
solid arguments. And it must always be remembered that so excellent
a palaeographer as Dr. Ceriani of Milan {ap. Scrivener, Introd. i. 121, ed. 4)
thooeht that B was written in Italy (Magna Graeda), and that Dr. Hori
Ixviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ %
also gives some reasons for ascribing an Italian origin to this MS. We an
however confronted by the fact that there is a distinct probability that both
MSS. if they were not written in the same place had at least in part the same
scribes. It was first pointed out by Tischendorf (JV. T. Vat., Lipsiae, 1867,
Ep. xxi xxiii), on grounds which seem to be safficient, that the writer whom
e calls the ' fourth scribe ' of N wrote also the N.T. portion of B. And, as
it has been said, additional arguments are becoming available for connecting
K with the library at Caesarea (see Rendel Harris, Stichonutry, p. 71 ff. ;
and the essay of Bonsset referred to below).
The provenance of K would only carry with it approximately and not
exactly that of B. The conditions would be satisfied if it were possible, or
not cUfiicult, for the same Fcribe to have a hand in both. For instance, the
view that K had its origiii in Palestine would not be inconsistent with the
older vi(;w, recently revived and defended by Bousset, that B was an Egyp-
tian MS. There would be so much coming and going between Palestine
and Egypt, especially among the followers of Origen, that they would belong
▼irtuully to the same region. But when Herr Bousset goes further and main-
tains that the text of B represents the recension of Hesychins ', 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. K 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 K had a single origin.
Indeed the history of K 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 K'' first inserted in the margin and then
embodied in the text of a succeeding MS., then those of K^ in a third and
K**" in a fourth, to form a mental picture of the process by which our present
MS. became what it is. It remains for critical analysis to reconstruct this
process, to pick to pieces the difTereat elements of which the text or the
MS. consists, to arrange them in their order and determine their affinities.
This analysis will doubtless be carried further than it has been.
K'^H, Arm., Euthal,
A number of scholars working on 55 have thrown out suggestions which
would tend to group together these authorities, and possibly to bring them
' A similar view is held by Corssen. He regards the modem text based on
K B as nur ein Spiegelbild einer willkiirlich jixierten Kuension dei vierttm
Jahrhunderts \D*r Cyprianisch€ Textd. Acta Apostolorum, Berlin, 189a, p. 24).
^7.]
THE TEXT Ixix
into some further connexion with S? B. The MS. H Paul, (unfortunately,
as we have said, not extant for Romans) bears upon its face the traces of
its connexion with the library of Caesarea, as the subscription to Ep. to Titus
states expressly that the MS. was corrected 'with the copy at Caesarea in
the library of the holy Pamphilus written with his own hand.' Now in June,
1893, Dr. Rendel Harris pointed out a connexion between this MS. H Paul,
and Euthalius {Sfic/uv/ietry, p. 88). This had also been noticed by Dr. P.
Corssen in the second of the two programmes cited below (p. 12). Early in
1894 Herr W. Bousset brought out in Gebhardt and Harnack's Tcxtc u. iln-
tersuchungen a series of Text-kritische Studien zuin iV. 7'., in the course
of which (without any concert with Dr. Rendel Harris, but perhaps with
fome knowledge of Corssen) he not wlj addaoed further evidence of this
connexion, bat also brought into the gronp the third corrector cf K (K°).
A note at the end of the Book of Esther said to be by his band speaks
in graphic terms of a MS. corrected by the Hexapla of Origen, com-
pared by Antoninus a confessor, and corrected by Pampbilas ' in prison '
(i. e. just before his death in the persecution of Diocletian). Attention had
often been drawn to this note, but Herr Bousset was the first to make the
fall use of it which it deserved. He found on examination that the presump-
tion raised by it was verified and that there was a real and close connexion
between the readings of N" and those of H and Euthalius which were inde-
pendently associated with Pamphilus*. Lastly, to complete the series of
novel and striking observations, Mr. F. C. Conybeare comes forward in the
current number of the Journal »/ Philology (no. 46, iSgs") and maintains
• farther connexion of the group with the Armenian Version. These
researches are at present in full swing, and will doubtless lead by degrees
to more or less definite results. The essays which have been mentioned
•11 contain tome more speculative matter in addition to what has been
mentioned, but it is also probable that they have a certain amount of solid
nucleus. It is only just what we should have expected. The library
founded by Pamphilus at Caesarea was the greatest and most lamous oi
all the book-collections in the early Christian centuries ; it was also the
greatest centre of literary and copying activity just at the moment when
Christianity received its greatest expansion ; the prestige not only oi
Eusebius and Pamphilus, but of the still more potent name (for some time
yet to come) of Origen, attached to it. It would have been strange if it had
not been consulted from far and wide and if the infinence of it were not felt
in many parts of Christendom.
D F G, Goth.
Not only is E a mere copy of D, but there is a Tery close relation between
F and G, especially in the Greek. It is not as yet absolutely determined
what that relation is. In an essay written in 1871 (reprinted in Lightfoot
Biblical Essays, p. 331 ff.) Dr. Hort states his opinion that F Greek is a direct
copy of G, F Latin a Vulgate text partly assimilated to the Greek and with
intrusive readings from the Latin of G. Later \Introd. p. 150) he writes
that F is 'as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of G as E of D : if not
it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar.' This second alterna-
tive is the older view, adopted by Scrivener {Introd. p. 181, ed. 3) and
maintained with detailed arguments in two elaborate programmes by
Dr. P. Corssen (.£//. Paulin. Codd. Aug. Botm. Clarom^ 1887 and 1889).
* Since the above was written all speculations on the subject of Euthalius
have been superseded by Prof. Armitage Robinson's admirable essay in Texts
and Studies, iii. 3. Both the text of Euthalius and that of the Codex Pa/ii-
phili are ^ewn to be as yet very Uncertain quantities. Still it is probable that
the authorities in question are really connected, and that there are elements in
their text which may be traceable to Euthalius on the one hand and the Cae-
sarean library on the other.
Ixx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [$ 1
We are not rare tbat the question can ctUl bt r^arded m settled in ddi
sense, and that Dr. Hort's original view is not to be preferred. Dr. Corssea
admits that there 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 sicie 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. Corssen reached a number of other interesting conclnsions. Examining
the common element in D F G he showed that they were ultimately derived
from a single archetype (Z), and that this archetype was written p«r cola tt
(omtnata, or in clauses corresponding to the sense (sometimes called
OTi\oi), as may be seen in the Palaeographical Society's facsimile of D
(ser. i. pi. 63, 64). Here again we have another coincidence of inde-
pendent workers, for in 1891 Dr. Rendel Harris carrying further a suggestion
of Rettig's had thrown out the opinion, that not only did the same system of
colometiy lie behind Cod. A Ew. (the other half, as we remember, of
G Paul.) and D Ew. Act (Cod. Bezae, which holds a like place in the
Gospel and Acts to D Paul.), but that it also extended to the other impor-
tant Old-Latin MS. k ^Cod. Bobiensis), and even to the Coretonian Syriac
— to which we suppose may now be added the Sinai palimpsest If that
were so — and indeed without this additional evidence — Dr. Corssen probably
puts the limit too late when he says that such a MS. is not likely to have
been written before the time of St. Chrysostom, or 407 a. d.
Thus Dr. Corssen thinks tliat there arose early in the fifth centnt^
a ' Graeco- Latin edition,* the Latin of which was more in agreement witA
Victorinus Ambrosiaster and the Spanish Speculum. For the inter-connexion
of this group he adduces a striking instance from i Cor. xiii. i ; and he
argues 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 witli him
than as to the date, though the Speculum contains an African element He
then points out that this Graeco-Latin edition has affinities with the Gothic
Version. The edition did not contain the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and the
Epistle to the Romans in it ended at Rom. zv. 14 (see § 9 below) ; it was
entirely without the doxology (Rom. xvi. 35-37).
Dr. Corssen thinks that this Graeco-Latin edition has undergone tome
correction in D by comparison with Greek MSB. and therefore that it is in
psot more correctly preserved in G, which however in its turn can only l>e
nsed for reconstructing it with caution.
Like all that Dr. Corssen writes this sketch is raggestive and likely to bt
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 ia which the Greek has been conformed to tlie 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 oi this Introduction, (iv) The relations of tb*
Gothic Version to the group should be determined as accurately as possible.
(t) 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 tlM Goq>elf
and Acts.
(3) Thf Textual Criticism of Epistle t9 Ronuau. The textual
criticism of the Pauline Epistles generally is inferior in interest te
f 7.] THB TEXT bad
diat of the Historical Books of the New Testament When this if
said it is not meant that investigations such as those outlined above
are not full of attraction, and in their way full of promise. Any-
thing which throws new light on the history of the text will be found
in the end to throw new Ught on the history of Christianity. But
what is meant is that the textual phenomena are less marked, and
have a less distinctive and individual character.
This may be due to two causes, both of which have really been
at work. On the one hand, the latitude of variation was probably
never from the first so great ; and on the other hand the evidence
which has come down to us is inferior both in quantity and quality,
so that there are parts of the history— and those just the most
interesting parts — which we cannot reconstruct simply for want of
material. A conspicuous instance of both conditions is supplied
by the state of what is called the ' Western Text' It is probable
that this text never diverged from the other branches so widely as
it does in the Gospels and Acts; and just for that section of it
which diverged most we have but little evidence. For the oldest
forms of this text we are reduced to the quotations in Tertullian
and Cyprian. We have nothing like the best of the Old-Latin MSS.
of the Gospels and Acts ; nothing like forms of the Syriac Versions
such as the Curetonian and Sinaitic ; nothing like the Diatessaron.
And yet when we look broadly at the variants to the Pauline
Epistles we observe the same main lines of distribution as in the
rest of the N.T. A glance at the apparatus criticus of the Epistle
to the Romans will show the tendency of the authorities to fall
into the groups DEFG; HB; MACLP. These really corre-
spond to hke groups in the other Books : DEFG correspond
to the group which, in the nomenclature of Westcott and Hort, is
called ' Western ' ; N B appear (with other leading MSS. added) to
mark the Une which they would call ' Neutral ' ; N A C L P would
include, but would not be identical with, the group which they call
' Alexandrian.' The later uncials generally (with accessions every
now and then from the older ranks) would constitute the family
which they designate as ' Syrian,' and which others have called
' Antiochene,' ' Byzantine,' ' Constantinopohtan,' ot ' Ecclesiastical.'
Exception is taken to some of these titles, especially to the term
' Western,' which is only retained because of its long-established
use, and no doubt gives but a very imperfect geographical descrip-
tion of the facts. It might be proposed to substitute names
suggested in most cases by the leading MS. of the group, but
generalized so as to cover other authorities as well. For instance,
we might speak of the S-text (= ' Western'), the P-text (= ' Neutral'),
the m-text ( = * Alexandrian'), and the e-text or <r-text (=' Ecclesi-
astical'ot 'Syrian'). Such terms would beg no questions; they
woiakl simply describe facts. It would be an advantage that the
Ixxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [f 1
same term ' 8-text ' would be equally suggested by the leading MS.
in the Gospels and Acts, and in the Pauline Epistles ; the term
' P-text,' while suggested by B, would carry with it no assumption
of superiority ; ' a-text ' would recall equally ' Alexandrian ' and
* Codex Alexandrinus ' ; and ' «-text ' or ' a-text ' would not imply
any inherent inferiority, but would only describe the undoubted
facts, either that the text in question was that generally accepted by
the Church throughout the Middle Ages, or that in its oldest form
it can be traced definitely to the region of Antioch and northern
Syria. It is certain that this text (alike for Gospels, Acts, and
Epistles) appears in the fourth century in this region, and spread
from it ; while as to the debated point of its previous history nothing
would be either affirmed or denied.
If some such nomenclatnre as this were adopted « further step might be
taken by distingviisbing the earlier and later stages of the same text as 8^,
8', &c., <rS •r', &fc It would also have to be noted that although in the
vast majority of cases the group would include the MS. from which it
took its name, still in some instances it would not include it, and it might
even be ranged on the opposite side. This would occur most often with
the a-text and A, but it would occur also occasionally with the ^-text and
B (as conspicuously in Rom. xL 6).
Such being the broad outlines of the distribution of authorities oa th«
Epistle to the Romans, we ask. What are its distinctive and individoal
features ? These are for the most part shared with the rest of the Pauline
Epistlea. One of the advantages which most of the other Epistles possess.
Romans is without : none of the extant fragments of Cod. H belong to it.
This deprives us of one important criterion ; but conclusions obtained for
the other Epistles may be applied to this. For instance, the student will
observe carefully the readings of N* and Arm. Sufficient note has unfor-
tunately not been taken of them in the commentary, as the clue was not in
the writer's hands when it was written. In this respect the reader must be
asked to supplement it. He should of course apply the new test with
caution, and judge each case on its merits : only careful use can show to what
extent it is valid. When we consider the mixed origin of nearly all ancient
texts, sweeping propositions and absolute rules are seen to be oat of
place.
The specific characteristics of the textual apparatus of Romans may be
said to be these : (i) the general inferiority in boldness and originality of the
8- (or Western) text ; (ii) the fact that there is a distinct Western element in
B, which therefore when it is combined with authorities of the 8- or Western
type is diminished in value ; (iii; the consequent rise in importance of the
group N AC ; (iv) the existence of a few scattered readings either of B alone
or of B in combinatidn with one or two other authorities which have eoa-
siderable intrinsic probability and may be right.
We proceed to say a few words on each of these heada.
(i) The first must be taken with the reservations noted above. The
Western or 8-text has not it is true the bold and interesting variations which
are found in the Gospels and Acts. It has none of the striking inter-
polations which in those Books often bring in ancient and valuable matter
That may be due mainly to the fact that the interpolations in question are
for the most part historical, and therefore would naturally be looked for in
the Historical Books. In £p. to Romans the more important 8-variants
arc not interpoJatioos bat omissions (as e. g. in the Gospel of St. Luke). Still
|Y.] THE TEXT Ixxiii
Ibeie TariantB prcsenre some ef the freedom of cmrrection and paraphrase to
which we are accustomed elsewhere.
E. g. iii. 9 rl irpoiearixofity riptaffor ; D* G, Chryt. Orig.-lat «/. : rl oSc ;
w^txof^eOa ; r#/.
k. 19 «v KaTfviriafv D E F G, Scc Orig.-lat Epiph. Ambrstr. ai. :
Hartvorjatt N A B C a/.
». 14 M TOW anapr-qaavras 6a, 63, 67**, Orig.-lat. C«dd. Lai. ap,
Aug., Ambrstr. : «*J tovj /xi) an).aprr\aavTa% rel.
*iL 6 tbC Bavarov D E F G, Codd. ap. Orig.-lat al. : oMoOavivrK reL
sii. 1 1 Tf> Katp^ ZovXfiovTfs D* F G, Codd. Lot. ap. HieroD. ap.
Orij^.-lat Ambrstr. : ry Kvplif ^ov\tv::vTtt rel.
13 ToTf fjivdaut Tail' iyiojv D* F G, C»dd. ap. Theod. Mops. ap.
Orig.-lat HiL Ambrstr. al.: toTs xpe'i's tou' tiyioiv rtl. lTHcsc
two readings were perhaps due in the tirst instaace to accidental
triors of transcription.]
SV. 13 wKr]po<popriaat B F G : wkifpiMtut rtl.
aa voWdxis B D E F G : T<i noXXi reL
31 5«p<xpopia B D* F G, Ambrstr. : SiaKoria reL
The most interesting aspect of this branch of the text is the history <^ its
tntecedents as represented by the common archetype of D G, and even more
by the pecnliar element in G. The most prominent of these readings are
disdused below in f g, bnt a still further investigation of them in connexion
with allied phenomena in other Epistles is desirable.
(ii) It will hare been seen that in the last three readings just given B joins
with the unmistakably Western authorities. And this phenomenon is in
point of fact frequently repeated. We have it also in the omission of
■fnpwroy i. 16; cm. yap iii. a ; om. r§ vlaru t. 2 ; *in9. /xiv vi. 21 ; 5ici i6
lroi«ovv avTov Iivtv^ia viii. 1 1 (where however there is a great mass of other
authorities) ; *om. 'Irjaovs and *om. «« vtKpwv viii. 34 ; 1) diaffrj/iTj ix. 4 ; ins.
6$r ix. 19; *oT« after v6nov and *faiTd ins. after iroiijaas x. 5 ; if [rois] x,
so ; *om. ydp xir. 5 ; om. owi', inoSuatt, fom. rqi ©eoj xiv. 1 2 ; *add ^ a«av-
taXi(*T€u ^ da6(v€i xiy. 21 ; v/ids xv. 7; rf^v [Afavx'?^'*'] xv. 17.
It is perhaps significant that in all the instances marked with ♦ the group
is joined by 8<«. It may be through a copy related to the ' Codex Pam-
phili ' that these readings came into R We also note that the latest and
worst of all the readings found in B, the long addition in xi. 6 d 5e «f epywv
oiixiri (om. iarl B) x^P^^' ^^*^ ''^ tpyov ovtciri iffrl x<ip's ("^ B ; (pyov aL)
is shared by B with K'h. In the instances marked with f, and in xv. 13
m\Tipo(popijffai, B agrees not with D but with G; but on the uther hand in
Tiii. 34 (om. 'Irjaovi) and in xr. 7 it ag;rees with D against G ; so that the
resemblance to the peculiar elemeut in the latter MS. does not stand out
quite clearly. In the other instances both D and G are represented.
(iii) When B thus goes over to the Western or 8-group the mr.in support
of the alternative reading is naturally thrown upon N AC. This is a group
which outside the Gospels and Acts and especially in Past. Epp. Heb. and
Apoc. (with or without other support) has not seldom preserved the right
reading. It becomes in fact the main group wherever B is not extant. The
principal difficulty — and it is one of the chief of the not very numerous
textual difficulties in Romans — is to determine whether these MSS, really
retain the original text or whether their reading is one of the finer Alexan-
drian corrections. This ambiguity besets us (e. g) in the very complex
attestation of viii. 11. The combination is strengthened where NA are
joined by the Westerns as in iii. 28. In this instance, as in a few others,
they are opposed by B C, a pair which do not carry quite as much weight
in the Epistles as they would in the Gospels.
(!▼) It may appear paradoxical, but the value oi B seems to rise when
ft is deserted by all or nearly all other nnciala. Appearances may be
Ixxhr EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [^ V.
deceptive, bnt there it not a little reason for tbialring that tb» fallMvlm
readings belong to the soundest inncnnoat kciaal •! th« MSL
It. I om. tvpTjKivai.
T. 6 tl ft.
▼it 35 X^pis ry 0f^.
▼iii. 14 A yci.p fiKinti, rtt IXmliu ;
X, g ri Prjfia . . . Srt Kvpios 1tiir»9t.
xiy. 13 om. wpouKopLfia . . . ^,
zv. 19 nvtvuaros withont addition.
As all these readings have been disenssed more or lest fully In the com-
mentary, they need only be referred to here Two more readings present
considerable attractions.
ix. 33 om. Koi.
xvi. 37 om. ^.
They are however open to some snspidon 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 6 will be foand ia sv. 4i 13.
to, 3a. But these are less attractive and less important
§ 8. Literary History.
The literary history of the Epistle to the Romans begins earKer
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 SL Peter. In the
following table the passages in which there is a similarity between
the two Epistles are compared :
Rom. ix. 35 KoXtaw rhv mi Xair I Peter tt. 10 W rcr) cA Xadt, rib
liov KaoY ftov, teal riiv ovk ^^OTf- ti Xa^t Btov, al •iim ^Knjfitp^if v*r
nivrfv Tjyainjfifvrjv. 9i iKfijOirra.
Rom. ix. 33, 33 arpe<7^««fa»' r^ I Peter iL 6-8 *I8«tf, rl$mn |p
XtOqi Tov vpoaKofxnaros, leaOut Xiiir Kl$or dtcpoyonnaiow ttcXtKriif,
ftypawrat, 'ISotu, riOijfit Iv Siwr irrifioy' Kal i wtartimw kw* mir^
KiOoy v poam6n(iaTOi Kal wir- ov fi^ «arai#x*'*'^P • • • ai^ot
pav aKavSiXov Kal 6 wiortvojv IfurfjOri (It KeipaXijr ycjf'uu, *mi.
Ir* air^ •« «ar«< vx**'^<^ kl0o$ wp00K6fiftaT»t Kal wirpm
wtrmi. 0KarSi\»v, «t wp»omiwT»w0t r^
X^Tf* dwtiSawm, cb I aai M-
$r)Oay.
Rom. xiL I wapavr^ffui ri gii^tmrm I Peter iL 5 ayw^ymu urtwitarwii
h^v dva'tav (uaar, ayiar, tvaptt- #vriat tiwp^aifKrmn 9*^ 9ti 'L
roy rif ©ty, t^ KoyiKriv Karptiay Xf.
Rom. xii. a ni) avrxVM**'*' * Peter L 14 ni) #r#x<f^*^<C^
^*edt T^ aXSi¥i Toirp. ffurci rait vpiTtp«y jr rf irfrti^ iyaQv
*«•]
UTBRARY HISTORY
Ixxv
The following passages seem
thoughts and words :
Rom. zii. 3 dXXd ^ptmtif cit tA
moi^porttr . . .
^/Mx . . . cfrc dia«o>'iar, ir rf
twixov^f . . .
3 (tcaarqf At i Ocdt i/iiptat
Hirpor vlarfoK.
Cf. also Rom. xiiL 11-14; ft-io;
rii. 9, 13.
to be modelled on St PauTi
Rom. ziL 9 4 iyaw^ drvvi-
«/)(roi . . . 10 rp <fn\aS«k^if
Rom. zii. 16 rd aird (Is dXXifXaw
^povovvTtf nif TO vtprjKcL tppo-
rovvTfs, dAAd Tofi rawtn'oii
#vi'a«a7o/x(i'M. fi^ yivtaSt <f>p6vifU)i
ra^' cavTor?.
17 ftrjStyl ca/rdr drrt xaxov
iwoSiSdyres" wpovocyvfuyot «a\d
h>diiTioy vavruy AvOpinrav
18 cl 5vi'ar($>', rd l£ biMv, iitri
•dyrwr AvOpanroir flp^ytiarrtt.
CL also YT. 9, 14.
Rom. xiii. i waaa tfvx^ i(ovaUus
iircpcxoi/o'ais ivoraaffioSw
ov yip iariy i^ovaia tl fxif vwi Btoi,
ml Si oZaat irri 9*»5 rtTay/xiyai
tUrlr ...
3 ol yiip apxovrti o£« tlal p6$ot
r^ iya9^ (pyq>, dX\oi r^ Kam^ . . .
4 6(oG yd,p Zi6,icoy6s iorir, l»-
tiKos tls ifyyify t^ ri kuk^p mpia-
9wn . . .
7 iw6Sort wSffi r6$ 6^ttkir r^
rdr <p6poy riv <p6poy, r^ ri riktt
vh TfKot, T^ T^y <p609y rir ^6^»Pf
I Peter ir. 7-11 wArrup 8< ri WXoi
477i«<' aoxppoviiaaTf ovv icai ylf-
tf/art *h vpoaivxas' vph irayrojy t^
fii iavToiis dydwrjr itertvij (xoyrtt,
Srt &yain) tcaKvirrti w\ij6os aftapnajv
^i\6(tyot tls iWTi\ovi, avtv yoyyv-
91X01)' tKaarot KaOais IXa^t x^P*^'
HO, tls iavTovs avri StaKovovyrti,
As KaXol olicov6fiot TtoiKiKrjs x<ip*'''0>
9tov' cf rtf KaXfi, in \6yta @<ov' •!
rtt SiaKtwti, As t£ Ifx^^ot {t X<'P7T*'
i 9t6s.
I Peter L aa rdt ^vx^s (>i*»y ^lyn-
mSrts ... (It pi\aSt\<piay dvvv6r
mpiToy iK KapStoM dWrjXovs d^avi^
oart itcrtySis.
I Peter ilL 8, 9 rd ii riXos, vivrtt
ifA6<f>ports, avfiiraOfis, ^X(i5(A<^0(,
tvair\ayxy<H, Tairtiy6<ppoyts, (til
dwoSiSoyrts Kaitiy dvrl Kaxoi
i^ \oiSopiaf dyrl XotSo/xat, rovvayricv
M tvKoyovvrts, iri tls rovro «/cXl^
#)jT( fro tvXoyiay uXijpoyofi^aTjrt . . .
II iKKkiydrw 8c dvo icaKov, Kti
woirjadru dya$6y' ^tjTiiadiw tlf^wtiw
tai iut^drw avrijr.
I Peter ii. 13-17 iwriysirt wdof
ifOpcaviyji xrlati 8id rir Kiptoy,
tin fiaaiXu, «bt vvtpixoyri, etrt
iiyinodiy, i/s 81' avroS vffiirofiiyois tls
igSiKijciy MaKowoi&y ivaivov Si
iiya$oiiou!iy in ovtws iari t6 6fKr]fta
rov 8cov . . . wiyras Tt/t^iaarf r^r
dSfK/poTtjra dyavart' rhf Bcdc
f»fi*i«tr rif BatiXia Ti/tdre.
Although equal stress cannot be laid on all these passages tht
resemblance is too great and too constant to be merely acci-
dental. In I Pet ii. 6 we have a quotation from the O.T. with
the same variations from the LXX that we find in Rom. ix. 33
(see the note). Not only do we find the same thoughts, such as
the metaphorical use of the idea of sacrifice (Rom. xii. i ; i Pet
jL 5), and the same rare words, such as <n)C)(T]iiaTiitiT6ai, awird-
Mftne, but in one passage (Rom. xiii. 1-7; i Pet u. 13-17) wa
Ixxvi 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 tl>at 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
purpose.
This relation between the two Epistles is supported by other
independent evidence. The same relation which prevails between
the First Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle to the Romans is also
found to exist between it and the Epistle to the Ephesians, and
the same hypothesis harmonizes best with the facts in that case
also. The three Epistles are all connected with Rome: one of
them being written to the city, the other two in all probability
being written from it. We cannot perhaps be quite certain as
to the date of i Peter, but it must be earlier than the Apostolic
Fathers who quote it ; while it in its turn quotes as we see at least
two Epistles of St. Paul and these the most important. We may
notice that these conclusions harmonize as far as they go with the
view taken in § 3, that St. 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 diflferent lines of investigation
adds greatly to the strength of each.
The wriier of the Epistle to the Hebrews again was probably
indebted to the Romans, the resemblance between Rom. iv. 17
and Heb. xi. 11 is very close and has been brought out in the
notes, while in Rom. xii. 19, Heb. x. 30, we have the same
passage of Deuteronomy quoted with the same marked diver-
gences from the text of the LXX. This is not in itself conclusive
evidence; there may have been an earlier form of the version
current, in fact there are strong grounds for thinking so ; but the
hypothesis that the author <rf 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 suflBciently
to be quoted, yet it is quite conceivable that many other of the
words and phrases in the Hebrews which are Pauline in charactei
ou) have been derived from an acquaintance with this Epistle.
iB.]
UTERARY HISTORY
Ixxvil
The passages referred to are the following :
Rom. iT. 17-11 KarbtavTi ov M-
9rtvat 6coS rot/ (ojovoiovvrot roin
vtKpovs . . . Koi fir) daOivr/aat t$
marti KarfvoTfat t6 iavrov oSiita
i)8t) y fvf It pojfiivov {iKarovTaiTTjs
wov vrripxatv), Kol T^v V(Kpo/0tr ri}t
ft^rpas ^appaf th 8i r^v ivay-
yt\iap rod Bead ov SitxpiOri rp
dnan'f, dAA' ivtZvvaniuOij r^
mloTti, Sobs t6^a» r^ 6(9), «aJ
9\ripo(poprj9(ls Sn t iw^yytKrai
ivvards ion Kol voi^acu.
Rom. zlL 19 tfiol M'lKijou, l-yi^
dtrravodd>ao>, Xiya Kv/)(ot.
Heb. zi. 1 1 , 1 a wia-nt koI airfi TAppa
ttiwaftiv tit KaTafioX^v arrfpfiaroi
ikafitr Koi Tiapd Kaipov ijX.iHiai, iwti
miarbv ^f/jaaro rov iirayyttki'
fifvov iid icai d<p' (voi fytvy^Otjaay,
Kal ravra rtrtKpwfiivov . , ,
19 Koyitrdfuyot Sri ical Ic nKpuw
^^ftip(^r Svvardt i 9tit.
Heb. X. 30 ifui tttimims, fyc^
iirratoiiifct*.
When we pass to the Epistle of St. James we approach a much
more difficult problem. The relation between it and the Epistle
to the Romans has been often and hotly debated; for it is
a theological as well as a literary question. The passages which
resemble one another in the two Epistles are given at length by
Prof. Mayor in his edition of the Epistle of St. James, p. xciii, who
argues strongly in favour of the later date of the Romans. The
following are among the most important of these ; we have not
thought it necessary to repeat all his instances :
Rom. IL I M iyavoXSyrjTot tt, &
SfOpontt va% 6 Kplvrnw iv ^ yip
mplvtit rhv irtpoy, atavroy tcara-
Kpiytw rd yd^ aird wpdoatis i
gpiyam.
Rom. iL 13 oi ydp ol d«^onr«)
pSfiov SiKauH wapd [rf>] 6(9) dAA' •!
voti;rat ySftov hiKauoQrjaovToi.
Rom. ir. i rioZyipoSfuy tvprjxivcu
*A0padfA riy mpovdropa i^/ji&r
fford adp/ca; <I yap 'APpadpi i(
ipyttp iSiKaii>$t), cxct gavxijlM.
Rom. iy. ao fit Si r^ iimyytXiay
rov Btov oi 9ifKpi07} r$ dnffrif,
dAA* iytSwafiii0ij ry wlaTtt,
Rom. ▼. 3-5 Kavx&iitOa h row
Bfdiptaiv, tlh6Tti irt 1) 9\tfit iwo-
Hoyify Karfpyd^trat,^ Si iwoftor^
9oKipii)v, ^ S\ SoKipiif lAir{5a- 1)
m tXiris ov «ara«rxiV*<, Srt ^ dYdvy
rov 0COV iutixyrai.
James ir. II fri^ «oToXaA«rr« iX\^
Xcav, dS(\<poi. 6 caraAaXwy dSeX^oO, 4
Mpiveoy roy dJS(X.<p6y avrov, xaroAoAci
96/*0¥, Kol Kpiyu vofiov tt Si vofioy Kpl-
r<tr, oix tl voiijr^i y6iu>v, dXAd itpiT^.
James i. aa y'lytaOt Si woirjral
X6yov, Moi nil n6y»y dxpomral vapa-
koyi^d/ityoi iavrovt.
James iL ai 'APpaipi i war^p
^ftSiv •iiK i( ipywy iSiMaii)6ij,
dytviyicat 'laadK rdy vldy avrov ivl ri
OvffiaaTTipioy ;
James L 6 alrtirw Si iy wlortt
p»l5iv SiaKpiy6fi(V0i' 6 ydp SiaKpiyd-
H*yot (oiKf tt\iiSajyt 9a\Aff(Hjt dyapu-
iopUr^ KcH fiim^ofUv^.
James i. a-4 vaaay X'V*^*' i}7^<^«wtf«
irav wttpafffxois vtpiviaijT* ■notKiXois,
yivwaKovTft on rd SoKipaov iipmy rrjt
niar feat Kartpyd^tTCu vvoftoyifiv. i)5i
ivoftoyij ipyoy riktum ixirat, iya ^rc
riktiM.
* The LXX of Deat oxii. 35 iwds <r ^pUff iaiuii^mi dvrMvMww, ir»
•#aAf d «o8> ainh'.
Ixxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ a
Rom. t{L t3 PKiww Si iTtpttf riiiof Jamea fr. i m69tp w&Ktpm mi w60v
4* Tott niKtal nov, dvTiarpa- fuixoi i" Ifui' ; o^k iyT(v0tv, im rSr
Ttv6fitroy r^ v6fi^ rov vooi /tov, ^Soyuy i/uir rSrf ar partvonivmr i*
mai alxiMi\aiTi(oyTi fit ty r^ v6fji^ ri^t roTt /liKtaiv vnwr ;
Afiaprias tS> cirri iy tois niktal fuv.
Rom. xiii. la AwoOatntia olir James L ai Awoii/ttfi weurtm
rd Ipya rov aKdrovt, iySvaiifU0a ti ^napiav Kal mtpiaafiay komIiu ir ifp<f^
vtd 5vAa rov ftnit, n/ri ii^aaO* rby in<f>VToy Xoyov rdr
tyyi/uyar rSiotu rcb ^x^ biAy.
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 diflBcult 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 aKpoarai and iroiijrat
was not made by either St. Paul or St. James for the first time ;
metaphors like 6r]cravpLt,€t<;, expressions like iv rjfjiepa opyrjs compared
with eV ^nfptf a<f)ay^s (both occur in the O.T.), the phrase vofios
iXevdfpias might all have independent sources. Nor are there
any passages where we find the same order of thought (as in
I Peter) or the same passage of the O.T. quoted with the same
variations — either of which would form stronger evidence. The
resemblance is closest in Rom. v. 3-5 = James i. a-4 and in
Rom. vii. 23 = James iv. i, but these are not sufficient by them-
selves to establish a case.
Again, if we turn to the polemical passages, we may admit
that ' Paul betrays a consciousness that Abraham had been dted
as an example of works and endeavours to show that the word
XoyiCofiai 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 ol
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
f •.] LITERARY HISTORY Ixxlx
proof that eidier Epistle was written with a knowledge of the
other. There are no resemblances in style 8u£Scient to prove literary
connexion.
One other book of the N.T. may just be mentioned. If the
doxology at the end of Jude be compared with that at the end of
Romans it is difficult to believe that they are quite independent
It may be that they follow a common form derived from Jewish
doxologies, but it is more probable that the concluding verses o?
the Romans formed a model which was widely adopted in the
Christian Church. We certainly seem to find doxologies of the
same type as these two in i Clem.-Rom. Ixiv, Ixv. a ; Mart. Polyc.
XX ; it is followed also in Eph. iii. ao. The resemblance in form
of the doxologies may be seen by comparing them with one
another.
Rom. xA. 15-37 rf %\ Ivra- Jade a4, 35 rf 8) Svfa/i^rf*
Itiw^ ilMt 0Tr]pi^(u . . . ti6p^ ^v\d(au i/ftas drraiaTotn, Kol or^aat
0o<p^ Oc^, lid lijirev X^t#r«v, , . .a^iwuoxn . . . Ii6v^ &f^ aairripi
[^i 4 Hi* •!* T*it •Iwrai. Ilfubv, S(d 'Ii7<r«S Xpiarov rov Kvpiov
iftrnv, Siia, fuyaXuavvT], Kp&roi Koi
i^ovaiOf wp6 vaprds rov alSivoi xal vw
maifh warrat r9i>s aluyat. dif^y.
When we enter the sub-apostolic age the testimony to the use
/ the Epistle is full and ample. The references to it in Clement of
^lome are numerous. We can go further than this, the discus-
bions on wioTit and diKaioirvvri (see p. 147) show clearly that Clement
used this Epistle at any rate as a theological authority. Bishop
Lightfoot has well pointed out how he appears as reconciling and
combining four diflferent types of Apostolic teaching. The Apostles
belong to an older generation, their writings have become subjects
oi discussion. Clement is already beginning to build up, however
madequately, a Christian theology combining the teaching of the
'iiiferent writers of an earlier period. If we turn to Ignatius'
letters what will strike us is that the words and ideas of the Apostle
have become incorporated with the mind of the writer. It is not
so much that he quotes as that he can never break away from
the circle of Apostolic ideas. The books of the N.T. have given
'aim his vocabulary and form the source of his thoughts. Polycarp
quoies more freely and more definitely. His Epistle is almost
a Cento of N.T. passages, and among them are undoubted quota-
tions from the Romans. As the quotations of Polycarp come from
Roui., I Cor., a Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., i Tim., 2 Tim., it is
difficult not to believe that he possessed and made use of a collec-
tion j! the Pauline Epistles. Corroborative evidence of this might
be found in the desire he shows to make a collection of the letters
of Igi.atius. He would be more likely to do this if he already pos-
lesseu collections of letters ; and it is really impossible to maintaio
Ixxx
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[§»
that the Ignatian letters were fonned into one collection before
those of St. Paul had been. Assuming then, as we are entided to
do, that the Apostolic Fathers represent the first quarter of the
second century we find the 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 iaicorlaBii 4 ^*i-
vtrot airwv KapSia,
Rom. H. »4 rd fip 5ro/ta tow
SeoC Si' v//ay 0\acr(pr] fJ-tirai ir
Tofj (dvfaiv, KoOuJs "YtypaiTTat.
Rom. iv. 7 " Maffd/xot Sir A<pi-
Briaav al dvo^tat ital aiv ivt-
Ka\v(p9r}ffay al inapriai'
8 fxaKaptot avi)p w ov fxfj
koyiaT]Tat Kvpiot ifxaprlav."
9 6 fxa/tapiafxds oZv ovros
ivl rfjv TTtpiTOfj.rjv; ^ Koi iwi r^qv
oKpo^varlav ;
Rom. vi. I t/ oZy ipovpnv,
iwifii(V(vp(v rfj apiapriq, tva ^ X*^P**
ir\«of dap ; fiij fivoiTO.
Rom. i. ig tnmXtjpvptivovt wiaji
iSiKiif, iTovripia, ir\fot'f(l(f, KaKitf,
pLearoiis <p9uvov, <puvov, iptSoi, 5d-
Kov, KaK 01] 6 (las, if/ 1 Ovp I <TT is, K a-
TaXdAowj, OfoOTvffis, iPpiffrds,
vwtpr]<pdvovs, i\a(6yas, icpfvpt-
rdis KaKuiv, "Yovtvffiy dneiOus, davvi-
Tovs, davuOiTovs, dardpyovs, dvf\trf-
Hovas' oiTivcs, rb ZiKaiojp.a tov 8(ov
iwiyvovTts, on ol rd roiavra
wpdaaoyrts d^iot Saydrov daiy,
ov fi6yoy aird voiovaiv, dAAd ttai
wvtvSoKoiaty rots npiaaovatv.
Rom. ix. 4, 5 Ac . . . i) \arpela
gal al iirayytXiai, Siv ol naripts, icai
i( Siv 6 Xpiards ri «ar<i cdpwa.
Rom. xiii. i, a Maaa ^wxh i(ov-
eiaiv virfp(xoi'ffats broraaaiaOcu' ov
fap itjTtv f^ovaia tl p.if vno Qtov, al
Sk ovffat vvi &(ov Tfray fiiyai tlait'
iiOTt 6 dwnrafaonwos r% i^ovt'itf
Qem. 36 8«d roxrroy If ioiyfs
col iaicorajfiiyri iidvoia iipS/y dro-
9dXKu fls rb davpaarov airov (puis.
Clem. 51 Sid ri ffKKr)pw6rjyai
uiiT&y rds davyirevs itapSias.
Clem. 47 Si(TTt Koi 0KaO(pTjpias
IvKpeptaOai Tq> uv6pLaTi Kvpiov Bid
ri^v vfitTfpav d<ppoavnjr.
Clem. 50 Ma/cdpioi Hjv d<pi-
9r)aay at dvopilai «ai 3jv imita-
Xv(pOr}<rav al dpapriav paKdptos
dyfjp oT ow fii) \oyiffi)Tai Kvpios
dfiaprlay. oiSi iariv iy t^ ffrSpari
avTov 56Kos. ovtos 6 paKapitrfioi
lyiyfTO iirl rovs iK\*Ktypivovs iinb rov
BfOV K.T.K.
Clem. 33 rt ovv woirjavfttv, dSfX-
^oi; dpyria<up.ty dnb rffs dyaOonoitat
Koi iyKaTaXeiirw/jKy rtju dydvrjv ; fitj-
$apws TovTO idaai o Stanorijs i<p' i^/iTf
7« yfvt)6^vai.
Clem. 35 diroppi\pavTfs dtp' iavrSn
rdaay dSiKiar icai dvontay, vXco-
yt(lay, Iptis, icaitOTiOfias re «ai
S6K0VS, \fii6vpiapiovs Tt Ka\ Kara^
X.a\ids,0toaTvyiav,vitt pr]<payiay
Tt Kai d\a(oyfiay, KtvoSoi'iuy rt nal
d(pi\oltviav. ravra yap ol upda-
aoyrts ffTwyijToi t^ &(^ vndpxovaiy
oh ftovoy Si ol vpdaooyrts avrd,
dXXA Koi ol 0¥y*vioMovrrts airrois.
Clem. 3S If aircv yip Itptit mH
Atvirat wdvTts ol ktiTovpyovvrts r^
$v<naffTTipi(fi TOV <d(ov- i( avTov i
Kvpios 'Irjaovs t6 Mard aipKa- i(
ai/rov 0a(Ti\fis koi apxovres Kal iiyov-
f^(voi xard rby 'lov5av.
Clem. 61 ffv, SiffTTOTa, tSwKas riff
l^ovffiav rfjs ^aaiXtias a{iTois Sid tov
pfyaKoirpcnovi «ai dvfKSiTjyrjTov Kpd-
Tuvs (TOV, tls rd yivwffKOVTas 'fjl*ds T^
Ivb aoi airrois StSofUvtiv S6(atf mi
is.]
LITERARY HISTORY
Ixxxl
rfi TeS •€•» iiaray^ iyfiiffnjKttr <A TinffP viroTcuTfffffBat airott, ftriHy ivixf
References in the letters of Ignatius are the following:
Rom. i. 3 TOP ytvofiirov t« crnip-
fUXTos AaPlS Kara aapxa, roS
ipur^ivTos viov 9«e5 ip SvyifAtt.
Rom. ii. 24.
Ron. iii. 37 vo» •{r ^cavx9'»*i
Smyi. I a\Ti6a)s ovra in
AalilS /card adpKa, vlir
jKora 0(Xr)fia Kal Svva^itr.
yivon
9tov
Rom. Ti. 4 oSt» K€d l^futt i»
9mtv6TfiTi ia>ris irfpnraTriaoifUP.
Rom. Ti. { ; viiL 17, S9.
Cf. Trail. 8 ^both quote O. T.).
Eph. 18 irov Kavx^<t*t fS)v Xtyv-
(Close to a quotation of i Cor. i. 20.)
Eph. 19 &(ov duOpaimvajt (pavtpov-
fiivov tit xatf6ri)r a diSiov ^aiTJt.
Mag. 5 &* ©C til' /ui) av9aipirm%
txo>P-fy TO dnoOavuv (is to aiiroi
wiOoi, to ^v ai/Toi) ovk tcTiy kv ffpuv.
Trail. 9 KaTci to ufioitufia Si koi f)fms
To^t ViaT(iovrai avr^ ovrcus ■:y(per d
waTi)p avTov iv X. 'I., o5 X'^P'^ ^^
iMjOivdv ^y oiiu exofifv.
Mag. 6 tit Tiiww ical St^ax^f
i<p9apaioa.
Mag. 9 0J Iv waKaiots wpnyftaaiv
dvn(7TpcupivTtt fit KaivoTrfra f\iri5os
Ij^eov.
Trail. 9 ts *0i iXfjOais riyipOif diti
wtKpSiiv, kytifavTot airrdf rw
waipos avrov.
Eph. 9 wpotiToinaa/iiym tit «lmo-
tofif/y S(ov woTpSs.
Trail. 2 oi) yap ffpaifiirmw mai
wrS/y tiaiy Skucovm.
Eph. I iv «£xo^( /rard *!. X. v/ioi
iyanav, Kal voyrat vfias avr^ iv 6ijloi6
njTt ttvat.
The following resemblances occur in the Epistle of Polycarp r
Ron. TI. 17 (ft Ir mmptiS^t
t4vov SiSaxrjs.
Rom. vii. 6 uaT* Sov\ci/(ir 4/ia«
if icaivoTTjTii nvfVfiaTOS ical oi vaXoii-
njTi ypdfifiaTOs.
Rom. viii. 11 i iytipat X. "L
l« ytHpuy.
Rom. ix. 23 OKeij] ikitvt A w^
^roi/xafffv (Is S6(ay.
Rom. xiv. 17 oil ydp taTiy ij
$affi\(ia Toi Q(ov ffpSian Kal
w6ais.
Rom. XT. 5 Ti avT^ fpo¥W iw
iXA^Aoir Karii X. 1.
Rom. vi. 13 «aj r<i
(vAa 5iKaio(Tvrr)t.
Rem. xiii. 13 iySpffi/fitBa ti
td Snka Tov <{>arr6s.
Rom. xii. 10 r^ tpiXadtKfl^
fit dW^Kovs (piKoaTopyoi, t^
Ti/ip AWijKovs wpoijyovfKyoi.
Rom. xiii. 8 6 ycLp dyairu/t' rdv
irtpoy yiiMV v««Ai^p««<r «.t.A..
Pol. 4 iwKiaiifittm ftt iwK»tt
T^i 9iitai»9vyqt.
Pol. 10 fratemitatis mmatortt
diiigentes invicem, in veritatc sociati,
mansne'udinem Domini alterutri
praestolcntes, nullum despicientes.
Pol. 3 (dv ydp Ttj Tovraiv ivrbs ^
Vttr ?\.T]pOJIC(V (VT0\TjV l,tK(Hoavinjs' i
ydp (xo^y dydrijy fttutpdy icrw 70091
iM'^pTiar.
Ixxxii EPISTLE TO THE ROBIANS [§ 8k
Rom. xiT. lO irArrti ydp wapth PoL 6 mti vivrat M 9Upm^
0rfja6 fi*Oa T^ ^■/}HaTt rov^ &ioi 0T^rat r^ P'^/tart rtS X/m«t*6,
... Koi fxavror Mp 4avr«9 kifot
12 dpa [oZv] fKaarot ^ftwv ntpi 8«Cr««.
lavrov K6yor iitvti* [r^ O*^]*.
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 Refutatio omnium
haeresium ; it would of course be of greater value if we could fix
with certainty the date of the documents he makes use of. We
find quotations from the Epistle in writings ascribed to the Naas-
senes ', the Valentinians of the Italian school *, and to Basileides '.
In the last writer the use made of Rom. v. 13, 14 and viil 19, 2a
is exceedingly curious and interesting.
If we turn to another direction we find interesting evidence of
a kind which has not as yet been fully considered or estimated.
The series of quotations appended from the Testament of the
Twelve Patriarchs can hardly be explained on any other hypo-
thesis than that the writer was closely acquainted with the Epistle
to the Romans. This is not the place to enter into the various
critical questions which have been or ought to be raised concern-
ing that work, but it may be noticed here —
(i) That the writer makes use of a considerable number of
books of the N. T. The resemblances are not confined to the
writings of St. Paul.
(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 roS opiffdevrot vfov 9(o8 Test Levi. 18 trnk «rfS/ia kyim'
iv hway^k itardi tvtvfia dyitt- 0irr)t larcu lir ovtoTt. . . .
9vvr)s. . .
Rom ii. 13 o£ ydp ol AKpoaral Test. Aser. 4 ot fip dyafiti SySpat
riftov Siicaioi vapi t<^ Bt^. .... iimai9l tlci wapii r^ 0<^
* TOW XpiffTov Western and Syrian.
■ diroScufftj B D F G.
' Ty &tq) cm. B F G.
• Rom. ii. 4 = Dial. 47 ; Rom. iii. 11-17 - Dial. 2j ; Rom. W. 3 - DUL *3;
Rom. ix- 7 = Dial. 44 ; Rom. ix. 27-39 = Dial. 33, 55, 64; Rom. s. 18 —
Apol. i. 40 ; Rom. xi. 2, 3 = Dial. 39.
' Hipp. A"^ V. 7, pp. 138. 64-140. 76 = Rom. I. 20-16
• Ibid. vi. 36, p. 386. 9-10 = Rom. viji. 11.
* Ibid. vii. 35, p. 370. 80 - Rom. ▼. 13, 14; ibid. p. 368. 75 — Rom. vHi
19, 33.
5 8.]
UTERARY HISTORY
Ixxxiii
Rom. ▼. 6 In yip TLptarot Syrcay
ijfi&v daOtvaiv (Ti Kari xaipiv bwip
dat0cuy diri$ayt.
Rom. vi. I twinivwfitv rp
Rom. Ti. 7 ^ ftLp iwoScofiir
StSiMaiwrai iiri rijs anapriat.
Rom. yii. 8 d<popfifiv Si \a0ovoa
^ inaprla Sici rrjt iyroXijs «a-
TUpryiffaTO kv Ifiol vaaav iiriOv/xlay.
Rom. viii. a 8 otSaixtv il ori rots
dyavSiffi t6v ©c^k vAvra rwr-
tpytf fit iyaOSy.
Rom. ix. ai 4 ovm lx*< i(ovaiay
i Mtpafidit roS wrikov, iK rov av-
Tov ^vpdfxaros vot^aat t ftiy (tr Tifiip'
9K*vot, b ii tls arifuar;
Rom. xiL I mpaar^ffot ri 9i>iMTm
Vfi&y $v<ritw (Siaay, ayiav, (vApfffTor
r^ B(^, Trjy KvyiKify Aarpcioy
frfiarr.
Rom. zii. a i /o^ wticw bwb rov kokov,
dAXd ylKa Irr^ dya$$ rd KaK6y.
Rom. xiii. la dnoBiiixtOa aZv rd
tfyM Tov am6Tovs, ivSvaii/uffa M
rii iwKm rov (pmrSt.
Rom. XT. 33 6 ti Bt6t r^t
tlp^vtit furd wdvTtjy i/iwr.
Rom. xn. ao 6 Si e<dt rijt tlpijtnjt
avwrpi^ti rby Xarayay im^ roif
Test. Benj. 3 dmftifTfrei twip
Acffiuv AwoiapttTat.
Test. Levi. 4 ol &v6pwiroi dmarcSirm
inifttyovffir Ir rait dSiKiau,
Test. Sym. 6 o-nojs SiKaiojO& Avi
rijs d/xaprias rav \pvxSin' bpS/y.
Test. Neph. 8 xai Sio iyroXmt
flar Kod (I f^i) yivarvrai iy ri^ti a^air,
Apaprtay ■napkxovaiy.
Test. Benj. 4 & dyaOovotup ...r^
AyawSiyri rdy Qtiy 99y*py*t.
Test. Neph. a KaOSm ydp 6 ittpafitht
otS( t6 (TKtvoi, v6aoy x'^P^h '""^ '"'P^
aiiTiy <()ip(i wr)\6v, ovto) ical 6 Kvpiot
wpos ofioiojffty TOV wvtvftarot woitt ri
oufia.
Test. Levi 3 9poo<pipopoi Si Kvptm
6ap^y dojSias Koytmi^y aai Arm-
poKToy mpwKpopSm.
Test Benj. 4 oftnn 6 iYflf«w«i6r
ri/Tf rb KaK6y.
Test. Neph. a oirrow obSi |r c«ir«i
h>y4iatadt voifjaai tpya tpoirit.
Test. Dan. 5 Ix"*^*' ▼^c Btip r^t
tlprfyijs.
Test Aier. "j icai iy i}<rvxtf *9p-
rpi&uv rify K»paX^ rov SpdK»yr*»
li' 68aTOt.
So tar we have had no direct citation from the Epistle by name.
Although Clement refers expressly to the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, and Ignatius may refer to an Epistle to the Ephesians,
neither they nor Polycarp, nor in fact any other writer, expressly
mentions Romans. It is with Marcion {c. 140) that we obtain
our first direct evidence. Romans was one of the ten Epistles
he included in his Apostolicon, ascribing it directly to St. Paul.
Nor have we any reason to think that he originated the idea of
making a collection of the Pauline Epistles. The very fact, as
Zahn points out, that he gives the same short titles to the Epistles
that we find in our oldest MSS. (7rp6s panalovs) implies that these
had formed part of a collection. Such a title would not be
sufficient unless the books were included in a collection which had
a distinguishing title of its own. In the Apostolicon of Marcion the
Epistles were arranged in the following order: (i) Gal., (2) i Cor.,
(3) 2 Cor., (4) Rom., (5) i Thess., (6) 2 Thess., (7) Laodic. =
Ephes., (8) Col., (9) PhiL, (10) Philem. The origin of this
Ixxxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8k
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,
i. 19-ii. i; iii. 31-iv. 25; ix. 1-33; x. 5-xi. 33; 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 dyvoovvrtt yap t6v Qtov. 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 npcoTov 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 o(
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 ipse beatus apostolus Paulus, sequms
prodecessoris sui loha^mis ordinem, nonnisi nominatim septem eccksiis
scribat or dine tali: ad Connthios \prima). ad Ephesios {secunda), ad
Philippenses itertia), ad Colossaises iquarta), ad Galatas {quinta), ad
Tfussalonicenses [sexta), ad Rofnanos {septima). Nor does this
' Ob Harnack's theory that the Pauline Epistles had at the close of the
wcond centnry less canonical anthority than the Gospels, sec Sanday, Bamptem
Luturtt, pp ao, 66.
^ 0.] INTEGRITY IxxxV
Stand alone. The same place apparently was occupied by Romans
in the collection used by TertuUian, probably in that of Cyprian,
It is suggested that it influenced the order of Marcion, who per-
haps found in his copy of the Epistles Corinthians standing first,
while the position of Romans at the end may be implied in
a passage of Origen.
The later order (Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.) is
that of all writers from the fourth century onwards, and, with the
exception of changes caused by the insertion of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and of certain small variations which do not affect the
point under discussion, of all Greek MSS., and of all MSS. of
Versions. This widespread testimony implies an early date. But
the arrangement is clearly not traditional. It is roughly based on
the length of the Epistles, the Romans coming first as being the
longer.
The origin of the early order is by no means clear. Zahn's
conjecture, that it arose from the fact that the collection of Pauline
Epistles was first made at Corinth, is ingenious but not conclusive,
while Clem. Rom. 47, which he cites in support of his theory, will
hardly prove as much as he wishes \
To sum up briefly. During the first century the Epistle to the
Romans was known and used in Rome and perhaps elsewhere.
During the first quarter of the second century we find it forming
part of a collection of Pauline Epistles used by the principal Church
writers of that time in Antioch, in Rome, in Smyrna, probably also
in Corinth. By the middle of that century it had been included in
an abbreviated form in Marcion's Apostolicon \ by the end it appears
to be definitely accepted as canonicaL
\ 9. Integrity of the Epistle.
The tnrvey which has been given of the literary history of the Epistle to
the Romans makes it perfectly clear that the external evidence in favour of its
esrly date is not only relatively but absolutely very strong. Setting aside
doubtful quotations, almost every Christian writer of the early part of the
second century makes use of it; it was contained in Marcion's canon; and
when Christian literature becomes extensive, the quotations are almost
numerous enough to enable us to reconstruct the whole Epistle. So strung
is this evidence and so clear are the internal marks of authenticity that the
Epistle (with the exception of the last two chapters ol which we shall speak
presently) has been almost universally admitted to be a genuine work ol
St. Paul. It was accepted as such by Baur, and in consequence by all member:]
of the Tiibingen school ; it is accepted at the present day by critics of every
variety of opinion, by Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Lipsius, Harnask
M definitely as by those who are usually classed as conservative.
' On this tabject ace Zahn, GiathichU, &c^ U. p. 344.
bcxXVi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9
To this general acceptance there have been few exceptions. The earliest writei
who denied the genuineness of the Epistle appears to have been the English-
man Evanson (1792). The arguments on which he relied are mainly historical.
The Epistle implies the existence of a Church in Rome, but we Itiuiw from the
Acts that no such Church existed. Eciually impossible is it that St. Paul
should have known such a number of persons in Rome, or that Aqnila
and Priscilla should have been there at this time. He interprets xvi. 13
literally, and asks why the aged mother of the Apostle should have wandered
to Rome. He thinks that xi. la, 15, 21, 23 must have been written after the
fall of Jerusalem '. The same thesis was maintained by Bruno Bauer *, and
has been revived at the present day by certain Dutch and Swiss theologians,
notably Loman and Steck.
Loman (1882) denied the historical reality of Christ, and considered that all
the Paoline Epistles dated from the second centory. Christianity itself was *h«
embodiment of certain Jewish ideas. St. Paul was a real person who lived at
the time usually ascribed to him, but he did not write the Epistles which bear
his name. That he should have done so at such an early period in the history
of Christianity would demand a miracle to account for its history ; a statement
which we need not trouble ourselves to refute. Loman's arguments appear to
be the silence of the Acts, and in the case of the Romans the inconsistency of
the various sections with one another ; the differences of opinion which had arisen
with regard to the composition of the Roman Church prove (he argues) that
there is no clear historical situation implied '. Steck (1888) has devoted himself
primarily to the Epistle to the Galatians which he condenms as inconsistent
with the Acts of the Apostles, and as dependent upon the other leading Epistles,
but he incidentally examines these also. All alike he puts in the second
century, arranging them in the following order : — Romana, i Corinthians,
a Corinthians, Galatians. All alike are he says built up under the influence of
Jewish and Heathen writers, and he finds passages in the Romans borrowed
from Philo, Seneca, and Jewish Apocryphal works to which he assigns a late
date — such as the Aisumpti* I\!osis and 4 Ezra*. Akin to these theories
which deny completely the genuineness of the Epistle, are similar ones also
having their origin for the most part in Holland, which find large interpolations
in our present text and profess to distmguish different recensions. Earliest of
these was Weisse (1867), who in addition to certain more reasonable theories
with regard to the concluding chapters, professed to be able to distinguish by
the evidence of style the genuine from the interpolated portions of the Epistle *.
His example has been followed with greater indiscreetness by Pierson and
Naber(i886\ Michelsen (1886), Voelter (1889, 90), Van Manen (1891).
Pierson and Naber^ basing their theory on some slight allusions in Josephm,
consider that there existed about the beginning of the Christian era a school
of elevated Jewish thinkers, who produced a large number of apparently
fragmentary works distinguished by their lofty religious tone. These were
made use of by a certain Paulus Episcopus, a Christian who incorporated them
* Evanson (Edward), 7>l« Distvnamct cf the four gnurally rueioed Ewom-
g$listt esamined, Ed. i, 179a, pp. 357-261; Ed 2, 1805, pp. 306-313.
* Bruno Bauer, Kritik d*r paul. Brief e^ 185a. Ckristus und die Casartm,
p. 373.
■ Loman (A. D.), QwusHohu Pauliiuu, TJUckfisch Tijdschrift, i88a, 1883,
1886.
* Steck (Rudolf), Dt GaUUerbrief natk seiner Echthtit untertuckt. Berlin,
1888.
* Weisse (C. H.\ Beitrdge tur Kritik der Paulinischen Brief e mm die
GtdaUr, Komer, Philipper und Kolosstr. Leipzig, 1867.
* Verisitnili*, Leueram conditionem Nam Tettamenti exkikteUiei. A. Piettoa,
^ «. A. Naber, Amstelodami, 1886
*•!
INTEGRITY Ixxxvii
ia letter* which he wrote ia order to make cp for his own povertj* of religioM
uid philosophical ideas. An examination of their treatment of a single chapter
may be appended. The basis of ch. ti is a Jewish fragment {admodum
wumcrabile) which extends from ver. 3 to ver. 11. This fragment Paulus
Episcopns treated in his usual manner. He begins with the foolish question
of ver. 3 which shows that he does not understand the argument that follows.
He added interpolations in ver. 4. /(idem odoratnur tnanum eius ver. 5.
If we omit t^ dfioiwftan in ver. 6 the difficulty in it vanishes. Ver. 8 again ia
feeble and therefore was the work of Paulus Episcopus : non enim credimut
mts esst victttret, ted novimus nos vivere ver. 11). w. 11-23 with the ex-
ception apparently of ver. 14, 15 which have been misplaced, are the work
of this interpolator who spoiled the Jewish fragment, and in these verses
adapts what has preceded to the nses of the Church^. It will probably not
be thought necessary to parsue this subject further.
Michelsen * basing bis theory to a certain extent on the phenomena of the
Uat two chapters considered that towards the end of the second century
three recennoni of the Epistle were in existence. The Eastern containing
ch. i-xri 94; the Western ch. i-xiv and xvi. 25-37; the Marcionite ch.
i-xiT. The redactor who put together these recensions was however also
responsible for a considerable number of interpolations which Michelsen
undertakes to distinguish. Volter's theory is more elaborate. The original
Epistle according to him contained the following portions of the Epistle.
i. la, 7; 5,6; 8-17; V. and vi. (except v. 13, 14, 20; vi. 14, 15): xii, xiii;
«v. 14-33 ; xri. ai-33. This bears all the marks of originality; its Christology
is primitive, free from any theory of pre-existence or of two natures. To the
first interpolator we owe i. 18; iii. 20 (except ii. 14, 15); viii. 1, 3-39;
L ib-4. Here the Christology is different ; Christ is the pre-existent Son ol
God. To the second interpolator we owe iii. 21 — iv. 25; v. 13, 14, 30; vi.
14, 15 ; Tii 1-6 ; ix. X ; xiv. i — xt. 6. This writer who worked about the year
70 wai a determined Antinomian, who could not see anything but evil in the
Law. A third interpolator is responsible for vii. 7-25 ; viii. 2 ; a fourth for
zi; ii 14, 15; XT. 7-13; a hfth for xvi. 1-20; a sixth for xvi. 34; a seventh
for xtL 35-37.
Van Manen * is distinguished for his vigorous attacks on his predecessors ; and
for basing his own theory of interpolations on a reconstruction of the Marcionite
text which he holds to be original.
It has been somewhat tedious work enumerating these theories, which will
■eem probably to most readers hardly worth while repeating; so subjective
and arbitrary is the whole criticism. The only conclusion that we can arrive
at is that if early Christian documents have been systematically tampered with
in a manner which would justify any one of these theories, then the study oi
Christian history would be futile. There is no criterion of style or of language
which enables us to distinguish a document from the interpolations, and wc
should be compelled to make use of a number of writings which we could not
either trust or criticize. If the documents are not trustworthy, neither is our
criticism.
But such a feeling of distrust is not necessary, and it may be worth while to
conclude this subject by pointing out certain reasons which enable us to feel
confident in most at any rate of the documents of early Christianity.
» Op. eit., pp. 139-143-
• Michelsen (J. H. A.), Tktologisth Tijdschrift, 1886, pp. 37a ft, 473 ft;
1887, p. 163 ff.
' Voelter (Daniel), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1889, p. 365 ff.; and DU Com-
position der pcml. Hauptbriefe, I. Dir Romer- und Gakzterbrief, 1890.
* Van Manen (W. C.), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1887. Marcion's Brief van
Paulus aan dt Galatiis, pp. .^82-404, 451-5^4; and Faultu II, D» Mef
mam d» Rimimtm. Leiden, 1891.
Ixxxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8t
It has been pointed ont that interpolation theories are not as absord as they
might prima facU be held to be, for we have instances of the process actually
taking place. The obvions examples are the Ignatian letters. But these are
not solitary, almost the whole of the Apocryphal literature has undergone the
same process ; so have the Acts of the Saints ; so has the Didache for example
when included in the Apostolic Constitutions. Nor are we without evidence of
interpolations in the N. T. ; the phenomenon of the Western text present!
exactly the same characteristics. May we not then expect the same to hare
happened in other cases where we have little or no information? Now in
dealing with a document which has come down to as in a single MS. or
version, or on any slight traditional evidence this possibility must always be
considered, and it is necessary to be cautious in arguing from a single passage
in a text which may have been interpolated. Those who doubted the genuinenesa
of the Armenian fragment of Aristides for example, on the grounds that it
contained the word Theotokos, have been proved to be wrong, for that word as
was suspected by many has now been shown to have been interpolated.
But in the case of the N. T. we have so many authorities going back in-
dependently to such an early period, that it is most 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 passages
which are difficult ; but it is surely very gratuitous to imagine that everything
which is genuine is easy. The whole tendency of textual criticism is to prove
that it is 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 certamly 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 through the whole
Epistle, The possibility of the commentaries which have been written proves
conclusively the improbability of theories implying a wide element of in-
terpolation. But in the case of St. Paul we may go further. Even where there
is a break in the argument, there is almost always a verbal coimexion. When
St. Paul passes for a time to a side issue there is a subtle coniiexioD in thought
as in words which would certainly escape an interpolator's observation. This
has been pointed out in the notes on xi. lo; xv. so, 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, 30, which is omitted by some of these critics, leads on immediately
to the second (vXtovaari . . . iv\(6vaatv), that suggests vntpcirepiaatvafy, then
comes vKfovdaji in vi. i ; bnt 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
present for the most part a definite and compact literary unit.
If to these arguments we add the external evidence which is given in detail
above, w« may feel reasonably confident that ti» historical cooditiona aader
fa.]
INTEGRITV bcxxix
which the Epistk hu cone dww* t* st make fte tfaeoritt af tU> new school
»f critics untenable '.
We have laid great stress on the complete absence of any textual justifica-
tions for any of Uie theories which have been so far noticed. This absence
is made all the more striking by the existence of certain variations in the text
and certain facts reported on tradition with regard to the last two chapters of
the Epistle. These facts are somewhat complex and to a certain extent con-
flicting, and a careful examination of them and of the theories suggested to
explain them is necessary '.
It will be convenient first of all to enumerate these facts :
(i) The words tv 'Pw/*p in i. y and 15 are omitted by the bilingual MS. G
both in the Greek and Latin text (F is here defective). Moreo\ er the cursive
47 adds in the margin of ver. 7 ri Iv Ti>fx^, oirt iv rrj i^rjyrjnu ovrt iv t<jJ
^i;rf; tivrffiovtifi. Bp. Lightfoot attempted to find corroborative evidence for
this reading in Origen, in the writer cited as Ambrosiaster, and in the reading
of D iv a-yairj for a-^amjroit. That he is wrong in doing so seems to be shown
by Dr. Hort ; but it may be doubtful if the latter is correct in his attempt to
explain away the variation. The evidence is slight, but it is hardly likely that
it arose simply through transcriptional error. If it occurred only in one place
this might be sufl6cient ; if it occurred only in one MS. we might ascribe it to
the delinquencies of a single scribe ; as it is, we must accept it as an existing
variation supported by slight evidence, bat evidence sufficiently good to
demand an explanation.
(a) There is considerable variation in existing MSS. concerning the place of
the final doxology (xvi. 35-27).
a. In N B C D E minuK. pauc. cedd. up. Orig.lat., d e f Vulg. Pesh. Boh.
Aeth., Orig.-laL Ambrstr. Pelagius it occors at the end of chap. xvi. and there
only.
b. In L minutt. plus fuam aoo, codd. mp. Orig.-lat., Hard., Chrys. Theodrt.
Jo.-Damasc. it occurs at the end of chap, xiv and there only.
c. In A P 5. 17 Arm. codd. it is inserted in both places.
d. In F". G codd. mp. Hieron. (»« E|.h. iiL 5), g, Marcion {vidt infrm) it Is
entirely omitted. It may be noted that G leaves a blank space at the end of
chap, xiv, and that f is taken direct from the Vulgate, a space being left in F
in the Greek corresponding to these verses. Indirectly D and Sedulius also
attest the omission by placing the Benediction after ver. 34, a transposition
which would be made (sec below) owing to that verse being in these copies
at the end of the Epistle.
In reviewing this evidence it becomes clear (i) that the weight of good
authority is in favour of placing this doxology at tiie end of the Epistle, and
there only, (ii) That the variation in position — a variation which must be
explained — is early, probably earlier than the time of Origen, although we
can never have complete confidence in Rufinus' translation, (iii") That the
evidence for complete omission goes back to Marcion, and that very prcbably
his excision of tht words may have influenced the omission in Western
authorities.
' The English reader will find a very full account of this Dutch school of
cntics in Knowling, Tlu IVittuss of the Epistles, pp. 133-343. A very
careful compilation of the results arrived at is given by Dr. Carl Clemen, Du
Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Britft. To both these works we must
express our obligations, and to them we must refer any who wish for farther
information.
' The leading discussion tm the last two chapters of the Romans is coB'
tained in three papers, two by Bp. Lightfoot, and one by Dr. Hort first
published in the Journal of Philology, vols, ii, iii, and since reprinted ^
Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. S87-374.
XC EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [^ 0
(3) There to Tery considerable eridence that Marcion omitted ^ whole «
the last two chapters.
a. Origen ( int. Rnf.) x. 43, toL vii, p. 453, ed. Lomm. writes r Ca/M hM
Marcifin, a quo Scripturae Evangelicae atqut Apostolicat inttrpolatat sunt, dt
hat epistola penitus abstulit ; et non solum hoc, ted et ab to loco, ubi tcriptum
est: omne autem quod non est ex fide, peccatum est : usque ad finem cunctm
dissecuit. In aliis vera exemplaribus , id est, in his quae non sunt a Marcion*
temerata, hoc ipsum caput diverse positum invenimus, in nonnullis ttenim
c^dicibus post eum locum, quern supra diximus hoc est : omne autem quod noa
est ex fide, peccatum est: statim coherens kabetur: ei autem, qui potent eit
vos confirmare. Alii vero codices in fine id, ut nunt est positum, cmttintmt.
This extract is quite precise, nor is the attempt made by Hort to emend it at
all successful. He reads in for ab, having for this the support of a Paris MS.,
and then emends hoc into hit ; reading tt non solum hit sed et in *» Ut; Sec,
and translating ' and not only here but also,' at xiv. 23 ' he cut OBt everything
quite to the end.' He applies the words to the Doxology alone. The changes
in the text are slight and might be justified, but with this change the wordf
that follow become quite meaningless : usque ad finem tuntta dissecuit can
only apply to the whole of the two chapterg. If Origen meant the doxology
alone they would be quite pointless.
b. But we have other evidence for Marcion's text. TertuUian, Adv. Mart. ▼.
14, quoting the words tribunal Christi (xiv. 10), states that they occur i»
clausula of the Epistle. The argument is not conclusive but the words
probably imply that in Marcion's copy of the Epistle, if not in all those known
to TertuUian, the last two chapters were omitted.
These two witnesses make it almost certain that Marcion omitted not only
the doxology but the whole of the last two chapters.
(4) Some further evidence has been brought forward suggesting that an
edition of the Epistle was in circulation which omitted the last two chapters.
a. It is pointed out that TertuUian, Marcion, Irenaeus, and probably Cyprian
never quote from these last two chapters. The argument however is of little
value, because the same may be said of i Cor. xvi. The chapters were not
quoted because there was little or nothing in them to quote.
b. An argument of greater weight is found in certain systems of capitnla-
tions in MSS. of the Vulgate. In Codex Amiatinus the table of contents gives
fifty-one sections, and the fiftieth section is described thus: De periculo ctm-
trisiante f rat rem suum esca sua, et quod non sit regnum Dei esca et potus sed
iustitia et pax et gaudium in Spiritu Sancto ; this is followed by the fifty-first
and last section, which is described as De mysterio Domini ante passionem in
iiletitio hahito, post passionem vero ipsius revelato. The obvious deduction is
that this system was drawn up for a copy which omitted the greater part at any
ratf of cha; s. xv and xvi. This system appears to have prevailed very widely.
In the Codex Fuldtnsis there are given in the table of contents fifty-one
sections: of these the first twenty-three include the whole Epistle up to the
end of chap, xiv, the last sentence being headed Quod fide les Dei non debeani
invicem iudicare cum umisquisque secundum regulas mandatorum ipse st
debd'it divino iudicio praeparare ut ante tribunal Dei sine confusiane possit
tperutn suorum praestare rationem. Then follow the last twenty-eight sections
of the Amiatine sy^item, beginning with the twenty-fourth at ix. I. Hence
chaps, ix xiv are described twice. The Bcribt- seems to have had before him
an otherwise unrecorded system which only embraced fourteen chapters, and
then added the remainder from where he could get them in order to make np
what he felt to be the right number of fifty-one.
Both these systems seem to exclude the Ust two ckapteti, whatertr leasoa
«• may give for the phenomenon.
(5) Lastly, some critics have discovered a certain amotmt of significance
in two other points.
§».]
INTEGRITY 3Ki
a. The piayer at the end of chap, xv is supposed to represent, either with
or without the afir^v (which is omitted in some MSS., probably incorrectly), a
conclusion of the Epistle. As a matter of fact the formula does not represent
any known form of ending, and may be paralleled from places in the body of
the Epistle.
b. The two conclusions xvi. 20 and 24 of the T R are supposed to represent
endings to two diflfeient recensions of the Epistle. But as will be seen by
referring to the note on the passage, this is based upon a misreading. The
reading of the T R is a late conflation of the two older forms of the text The
benediction stood originally at ver. 20 and only there, the verses that followed
being a sort of postscript. Certain MSS. which were without the doxology (see
above) moved it to their end of the Epistle after ver. 23, while certain othen
placed it after ver. 27. The double benediction of the TR arose by the
ordinary process of conflation. The significance of this in corroborating the
existence of an early text which omitted the doxology has been pointed ont ;
otherwise these verses will not support the deductions made from them bj
Renan, Gifford, and others.
The above, stated as shortly as possible, are the diplomatic facts which
demand explanation. Already in the seventeenth century some at any rate had
attracted notice, and Semler (1769), Griesbach (1777) and others developed
elaborate theories to account for them. To attempt to enumerate all the
different views would be beside our purpose : it will be more convenient to
confine ourselves to certain typical illustrations.
I. An hypothesis which would account for most (although not all) of the
facts stated would be to suppose that the last two chapters were not genuine.
This opinion was held by Baur *, although, as was usual with him, on purely
m priori grounds, and with an only incidental reference to the MS. evidence
which might have been the strongest support of his theory. The main motive
which induced him to excise them was the expression in xv. 8 that Christ was
made 'a minister of circumcision,' which is inconsistent with his view of
St. Paul's doctrine ; and he supported his contention by a vigorous examina-
tion of the style and contents of these two chapters. His arguments have been
noticed (so far as seemed necessary) in the commentary. But the consensus of
a large number of critics in condemning the result may excuse our pursuing
them in further detail. Doctrinally his views were only consistent with a one-
sided theory of the Pauline position and teaching, and if that theory is given
ap then his arguments become untenable. As regards his literary criticism the
opinion of Renan may be accepted : ' On est surpris qu'nn critique aussi
habile que Baur se soit content^ d'une solution aussi grossi^re. Pourqnoi on
faussaire aurait-il invente de si insignificants details t Pourqnoi aurait-il ajont^
4 I'ouvrage sacre une liste de noms propres ' ? '.
But we are not without strong positive arguments in favour of the gennine
ness of at any rate the fifteenth chapter. In the first place a careful
examination of the first thirteen verses shows conclusively that they are closely
connected with the previous chapter. The break after xiv. 33 is purely arbi-
trary, and the passage that follows to the end of ver. 6 is merely a conclusion
of the previous argument, without which the former chapter is incomplete, and
which it is inconceivable that an interpolator could have either been able 01
desired to insert; while in w. 7-13 the Apostle connects the special subject
of which he has been treating with the general condition of the Church, and
supports his main contention by a series of texts drawn from the O. T. Both
in the appeal to Scripture and in the introduction of broad and general prin-
ciples this conclusion may be exactly paralleled by the custom of St. Paol
elsewhere in the Epistle. No theory therefore can be accepted which doc* nol
' TkeologischM Ztitung, 1836, pp. 97, 144. Paulus, 1866, pp. 39Sft
' St. Paul, p. Ixxi, quoted by Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. a9a
XCO EPISTLB TO THE ROMANS [§ •.
fccogiiise that xtf and zr. 13 form a angle paragraph which mast not ba
•plit op.
But farther than this the remainder of chap, zv 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
circamstances 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 tlic
Apostle's writing.
Baur's views were followed by von Schwegler, Holsten, 2^11er, and others,
but have been rejected by Mangold, Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, and
Lipsius. A modified form is put forward by Lucht ', who considers that parts
•re 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 is no greater need for suspecting interpolatioiia
in chap, xv than in chap. xiv.
3. We may dismiss then all such theories as imply the spuriousness of the lait
two chapters and may pass on to a second group which explains the pheno*
menji of the MSS. by supposing that our Epistle has grown up through th*
combination of different letters or parts of letters either 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, xw,
(ii) A letter to the Ephesians. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. i-ao.
f iii) A letter to the Thessalonians. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 2 i-a4.
(iv) A letter to an unknown church. Chap, i-xiv and xvi. 25-37.
In the last three letters there would of course be some modificationi Id
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. ao, 34, 35-37. Each of these really represented the ending of a separate
Epistle, (iii) There are strong internal grounds for believing that xvi i-ao
was addressed to the Ephesian Church, (iv) The Macedonian names occurring
in xvL a 1-24 suggest that these verses were addressed to a Macedonian
church, (v) This explains how it came to be that such an elaborate letter
was sent to a church of which St. Paul had such little knowledge as that
of Rome.
This theory has one advantage, that It accounts for all the facts ; but there
are two arguments against it which are absolutely conclusive. One is that
there are not four endings in the Epistle at all ; zv. 33 ii not like any of the
* Lucht, t^^ die btiden Uttttm CapUtldu RomerbrUfi, 1871.
" Renan, St. Paul, pp. Ixiii ff. This theory it examined at great length bf
l|p. LightiiDOt, tf. cit. pp. 193 C
§•]
INTEGRITY XcHI
ending! of St Paart Epiitlet ; while, as is shows aboTe, the origin of th«
dnplicate benediction, xvi. 30 and 34, mnst be explained on purely textual
grounds. If Renan's theory had been correct then we shonld not have both
benedictions in the late MSS. but in the earlier. As it is, it is clear that the
duplication simply arose from conflation. A second argument, in our opinion
equally conclusive against this theory, is that it separates chap, xir from the
first thirteen verses of chap. xr. The arguments on this subject need not be
repeated, but it may be pointed out that they are as conclusive against Renan's
hypothesis as against that of Baur.
3. Renan's theory has not received s/^s^ptance, but there is one portion of it
which has been more generally held than any other with regard to these final
chapters; that namely which considers that the list of names in chap, xri
belongs to a letter addressed to Ephesus and not to one addressed to Rome. This
view, first put forward by Schulz(i829), has been adopted by Ewald, Mangold,
Laurent, Hitzig, Reuss, Ritschl, Lucht, Holsten, Lipsius, Krenkel, Kneucker,
Weiss, Weizsacker, Farrar. It has two forms; some hold ver. i, a to belong
to the Romans, others consider them also part of the Ephesian letter. Nor is
it quite certain where the Ephesian fragment ends. Some consider that it
includes vv. 17-ai, others make it stop at ver. 16.
The arguments in favour of this view are as follows: i. It is pointed ont
that it is hardly likely that St. Paul should have been acquainted with such
a large number of persons in a church like that of Rome which he had never
visited, and that this feeling is corroborated by the number of personal details
that he adds; references to companions in captivity, to relations, to fellow-
labourers. All these allusions are easily explicable on the theory that the
Epistle is addressed to the Ephesian Church, but not if it be addressed to the
Roman, a. This opinion is corroborated, it is said, by an examination of the
list itself. Aquila and Priscilla and the church that is in their house are men-
tioned shortly before this date as being at Ephesus, and shortly afterwards they
are again mentioned as being in the same city (i Cor. xvi 19; a Tim. iv. 19).
The very next name Epaenetus is clearly described as a native of the province
of Asia. Of the others many are Jewish, many Greek, and it is more likely
that they should be natives of Ephesus than natives of Rome. 3. That the
warning against false teachers is quite inconsistent with the whole tenor of
the letter, which elsewhere never refers to false teachers as being at work in
Rome.
In examining this hypothesis we must notice at once that it does not in
any way help us to solve the textual difficulties, and receives no assistance
from them. The problems of the concluding doxol(^ and of the omission of
the last two chapters remain as they were. It is only if we insert a bene-
iiction both at ver. ao and at ver. 34 that we get any assistance. In that case
we might explain the duplicate benediction by supposing that the first was
the conclusion of the Ephesian letter, the second the conclusion of the Roman.
As we have seen, the textual phenomena do not support this view. The theory
therefore mnst be examined on its own merits, and the burden of proof is
thrown on the opponents of the Roman destination of the Epistle, for as has
been shown the only critical basis we can start from, in discussing St Paul's
Epistles, is that they have come down to us substantially in the form in
which they were written unless very strong evidence is brought forward to the
contrary.
But this evidence cannot be called very strong. It is admitted by Weiss
and Mangold, for instance, that the a pricri arguments against St. Paul's
acquaintance with some twenty-four persons in the Roman community are of
slight weight. Christianity was preached amongst just that portion of the
population of the Empire which would be most nomadic in character. It is
admitted again that it would be natural that, in writing to a strange chnrch,
St. Paol shonld lay special stress on all those with whom he was acgnainted 01
XdV EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9
of whom he had heard, in order that he might thns commend himself to them.
Again, when we come to examine the names, we find that those actually con-
nected with Ephesns are only three, and of these persons two are known to
have originally come from Rome, wMle the third alone can hardly be con-
•idered sufficient support for this theory. When again we come to examine
the warning against heretics, we find thnt after all it is perfectly consistent
with the body of the Epistle. If we conceive it to be a warning against false
teachers whom St. Paul fears may come but who have not yet done so, it
exactly suits the situation, and helps to explain the motives he had in writing
the Epistle. He definitely states that he is only warning them that they may
be wise if occasion arise.
The arguments against these verses are not strong. What is the valae of
ttie definite evidence in their favour? This is of two classes. (i) The
archaeological evidence for connecting the names in the Epistle with Rome,
(ii) The archaeological and literary evidence for connecting any of the persons
mentioned here with the Roman Church.
(i) In his commentary on the Philippians, starting from the text Phil. It. aa
Affira^ovTai {)fiidi . . . fiaKiara ol in tov Kaiffapos oltcia^, Bp. Lightfoot proceeds
to examine the list of names in Rom. xvi in the light of Roman inscriptions.
We happen to have preserved to us almost completely the funereal inscriptions
of certain columbaria in which were deposited the ashes of members of the
imperial household. Some of these date a little earlier than the Epistle to the
Romans, some of them are almost contemporary. Besides these we have
a large number of inscriptions containing names of freedmen and others belong-
ing to the imperial household. Now examples of almost every name in Rom.
Kvi. 3-16 may be found amongst these, and the publication of the sixth
volume of the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions has enabled us to add to the
instances quoted. Practically every name may be illustrated in Rome, and
almost every name in the Inscriptions of the household, although some of them
are uocoriamon.
Now what does this prove? It does not prove of coarse that these are
the persoEiS to whom the Epistle was written ; nor does it give overwhelming
evidence that the names are Roman. It shows that such a combination of
names was possible in Rome : but it shows something more than this. Man.
gold asks what is the value of this investigation as the same names are found
outside Rome? The answer is that for the most part they are very rare.
LipsittS makes various attempts to illustrate the names from Asiatic inscrip-
tions, but not very successfully ; nor does Mangold help by showing that the
two common names Narcissus and Hermas may be paralleled elsewhere. We
have attempted to institute some comparison, but it is not very easy and will
Bot be until we have more satisfactory collections of Greek inscriptions. If
we take the Greek Corpus we shall find that in the inscriptions of Ephesns
only three names out of the twenty-four in this list occur ; if we extend our
survey to the province of Asia we shall find only twelve. Now what this
comparison suggests is that such a combination of names — Greek, Jewish, and
Latin — could as a matter of fact only be found in the mixed population which
forTued the lower and middle classes of Rome. This evidence is not con-
clu»ive, but it shows that there is no a priori improbability in the names being
Roman, and that it would be diificulc anywhere eUe to illustrate such an
heterogeneous collection.
To this we may add the further evidence afforded by the explanation given
hj Bishop Lightfoot and repeated in the notes, of the households of Narcissus
and Aristobulns : evidence again only corroborative but yet of some weight.
(ii) The more direct archaeological evidence is that for connecting the names
of rrisca, Amplias, Nercus, and Apelles definitely with the early history of
Roman Christianity. These points have been discussed sufficiently in the
notes, and it is only necessary to say here that it would be an excess o'
«•]
INTEGRITY XCV
■eepticinn to look npon Rich eridence »■ worthless, although it might not
weigh much if there were strong evidence on the other side.
To sum np then. There is no external evidence against this section, nor
does the exclusion of it from the Roman letter help in any way to solve the
problems presented by the text. The arguments against the Roman des-
tination are purely a /n'on". They can therefore have little value. On being
examined they were found not to be valid ; while evidence not conclusive but
considerable has been brought forward in favour of the Roman destination.
For these reasons we have used the sixteenth chapter without hesitation in
writing an account of the Roman Church, and any success we have had in the
drawing of the picture which we have been able to present must be allowed to
weigh in the evidence.
4. Reiche (in 1833) suggested that the doxology was not genuine, and his
opinion has been largely followed, combined in some cases with theories as to
the omission of other parts, in some cases not. It is well known that passages
which did not originally form part of the text are inserted in different places in
different texts; for instance, the fericope adulierae is found in more than one
place. It would still be difficult to find a reason for the insertion of the
doxology in the particular place at the end of chap, xiv, but at the same time
the theory that it is not genuine will account for its omission altogether in
some MSS. and its insertion in different places in others. We ask then what
farther evidence there is for this omission, and are confronted with a large
namber of arguments which inform ns that it is clearly unpanline because it
harmonizes in style, in phraseology, and in subject-matter with non-pauline
Epistles — that to the Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. This argument
most tell in different ways to different critics. It will be very strong, if not
conclusive, to those who consider that these Epistles are not Pauline. To
those however who accept them as genuine these arguments will rather con-
firm their belief in the Pauline authorship.
5. But there is an alternative hypothesis which may demand more careful
consideration from us, that although it comes from St. Paul it belongs to rather
a later period in his life. It is this consideration amongst others which forms
the basis of the theory put forward by Dr. Lightfoot. He considers that the
original Epistle to the Romans written by St. Paul contained all our present
Epistle except xvL 25-27 ; that at a somewhat later period — the peiiod per-
haps of his Roman imprisonment, St. Paul turned this into a circular letter ;
he cut off the last two chapters which contained for the most part purely
personal matter, he omitted the words if 'Fufiy in i. 7 and 15 ; and then added
the doxology at the end because he felt the need of some more fitting con-
clusion. Then, at a later date, in order to make the original Epistle complete
the doxology was added from the later recension to the earlier.
Dr. Lightfoot points out that this hypothesis solves all the problems. It
explains the existence of a shorter recension, it explains the presence of the
doxology in both places, it explains the peculiar style of the doxology. We
may admit this, but there is one point it does not explain ; it does not explain
how or why St. Paul made the division at the end of chap. xiv. There is
nothing in the next thirteen verses which unfits them for general circulation.
They are in fact more suitable for an encyclical letter than is chap. xiv. It is
to ns inconceivable that St. Paul should have himself mutilated his own argu-
ment by cutting off the conclusion of it. This consideration therefore seems
to us decisive against Dr. Lightfoot's theory
6. Dr. Hort has subjected the arguments of Dr. Lightfoot to a very close
examination. He begins by a careful study of the doxology and has shown
clearly first of all that the parallels between it and passages in the four acknow-
ledged Epistles are much commoner and nearer than was thought to be the case ;
and secondly that it exactly reproduces and sums up the whole argument of
the Epistle. On his investigation we have based our commentary, and we
XCVi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ ft
■tut refer to that and to Dr. Hort's own essay for the reasons which make w
Accept the doxology as not only a genuine work of St. Paul, but also as an
integral portion of the Epistle. That at the end he should 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
vind of the Apostle. He does so in fact at the conclusion of the Galatian
i'etter, 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 as most nnconvincing. 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: (i) He suggests that at 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, (a) Some such theory as this
might explain the capitulations. ' The analogy of the common Greek capita-
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 xIt and its omission.' This latter is due to Marcion,
which mast 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 conclades that though a genuine reading it
is incorrect and perhaps arises through some accident sach as the tearing off
of the end of a papyrus roll or the last sheet in a book.
While admitting the force of some of Hort's criticisms on Lightfoot, and
especially his defence of the genuineness of the doxology, we must express
onr 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 wc beliere by
Dr. GifFord.
As will have already become apparent, no solution among those offered has
attempted to explain what is really the most difficult part of the problem,
the place at which the division was made. We know that the doxology
was in many copies inserted at the end of chap, xiv ; we have strong grounds
for believing that in some editions chaps, xv and xvi were omitted ; why is it
at this place, certainly not a suitable one, that the break occurs? As we have
seen, a careful examination of the text shows that the first thirteen verses oi
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 oflf 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 vnshed 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 mattei jf fact internal evidence and externa*
testimony alike point to the same cause. We have seen that there is con-
■ideiable testimony for the fact that Marcion excised the last two chapters, and
if wc examine the beginning of chap, xv we shall find that as far as regardi
IIm lint thirteen venes hardly any other cooise was possible for him, if tie held
§9.]
INTEGRITY XCvil
the opinions which are ascribed to him. To begin with, five <tt these renes
contain quotations from the O. T. ; but further ver. 8 contains an expression
Kiyoj ycip Xpicriv StnKovov ■yfyfvfjaOat irepiroiSji vwip d\rj0fias 9(ov, which he
most certainly could not have used. Still more is this the case with regard to
ver. 4, which directly contradicts the whole of his special teaching. Tht
words at the end of chap, xiv might seem to make a more suitable ending
than either of the next two verses, and at this place the division was drawn.
The remainder of these two chapters could be omitted simply because they
were useless for the definite dogmatic purpose Marcion had in view, and the
Doxology which he could not quite like would go with them.
If we once assume this excision by Marcion it may perhaps explain the
phenomena. Dr. Hort has pointed out against Dr. Lightfoot's theory of
a shorter recension with the doxology that all the direct evidence for omitting
the last two chapters is also in favour of omitting the Doxology. ' For the
omission of xv, xvi, the one direct testimony, if such it be, is that of Marcion :
and yet the one incontrovertible fact about him is that he omitted the Doxology.
If G is to be added on the strength of the blank space after xiv, yet again it
leaves out the Doxology.' We may add also the capituhitions of Codex
Fuldensis which again, as Dr. Hort points out, have no trace of the Doxology.
Our evidence therefore points to the existence of a recension simply leaving
out the last two chapters.
Now it is becoming more generally admitted that Marcion's Apostolicon had
some — if not great— influence on variations in the text of the N. T. His
edition had considerable circulation, especially at Rome, and therefore
presumably in the West, and it is from the West that our evidence mostly
comes. When in adapting the text for the purposes of church use it was
thought advisable to omit the last portions as too personal and not sufficiently
edifying, it was natural to make the division at a place where in a current
edition the break had already been made. The subsequent steps would then
be similar to those suggested by Dr. Hort. It was natural to add the
Doxology in order to give a more suitable conclusion, or to preserve it for
public reading at this place, and subsequently it dropped out at the later
place. That is the order suggested by the manuscript evidence. All our best
authorities place it at the end ; A P Arm. — representing a later but still
respectable text — have it in both places; later authorities for the most part
place it only at xiv. 33.
It remains to account for the omission of any reference to Rome in the first
chapter of G. This may of course be a mere idiosyncracy of that MS., arising
either from carelessness of transcription {z. cause which we can hardly accept) or
from a desire to make the Epistle more general in its character. But it does not
seem to us at all improbable that this omission may also be due to Marcion.
His edition was made with a strongly dogmatic purpose. Local and personal
allusions would have little interest to him. The words iv 'Fufiy could easily be
omitted without injuring the context. The opinion is perhaps corroborated
by the character of the MS. in which the omission occurs. Allusion has been
made (p. Ixix) to two dissertations by Dr. Corssen on the allied MSS. D F G.
In the second of these, he suggests that the archetype from which these MSS.
are derived (Z) ended at xv. 13. Even if his argument were correct, it would
not take away from the force of the other facts which have been mentioned.
We should still have to explain how it was that the Doxology was inserted
at the end of chap, xiv, and the previous discussion would stand as it is : only
a new fact would have to be accounted for. When, however, we come to
examine Dr. Corssen's arguments they hardly seem to support his con-
tention. It may be admitted indeed, that the capitulations of the Codex
Amiatinus might have been made for a copy which ended at xv. 13, but they
present no solid argument for the existence of such a copy. Dr. Corssen
points out that in the section zr. 14 — xvi. 33, there are a considerable numbef
XCviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ ti
of variaHoni in the text, and suggests that that implies a different soDice foi
the text of that portion of the epistle. The nnmt^r of variations in the
tericope adulteia* are. it is well known, considerable ; and in the same way
ne would aigue that this portion which has all these variations mnst come from
a separate source. Hut the facts do not support hit conlention. It it tnie
that in forty-three verses he is able to enumerate twenty-four variations; bnt if
we examine the twenty-three verses of chap, xiv we shall find fourteen
variations, a still larger proportion. Moreover, in xiv. 13 there are as numerous
and as important variations as in any of the following verses. Dr. Corssen'«
arguments do not bear out his conclusion. As a matter of fact, as Dr. Hort
pointed out against Dr. Lightfoot, the text of D F G presents exactly the same
phenomena throughout the Epistle, and that suggests, although it does not
perhaps prove, that the archetype contained the last two chapters. The scribe
however was probably acquainted with a copy which omitted them. This
archetype is alone or almost alone amongst our sources for the text in
omitting the Doxology. It also omits as we have seen kv 'Pu/^p in both places.
We would hazard the suggestion that all these variations were due directly or
indirectly to the same cause, the text of Marcion.
In our opinion then the text as we have it represents substantially the Epistle
that St Paul wrote to the Romans, and it remains only to explain briefly the
somewhat complicated ending. At xv. 13 the didactic portion of it is con-
cluded, and the remainder of the chapter is devoted to the Apostle's personal
relations with the Roman Church, and a sketch of his plans. This paragraph
ends with a short prayer called forth by the mingled hopes and fears which these
plans for the future suggest. Then comes the commendation of Phoebe, the
bearer of the letter (xvi. 1,2); then salutations (3-16). The Apostle might
now close the Epistle, bnt his sense of the danger to which the Roman Church
may be exposed, if it is visited by false teachers, such as he is acquainted with
in the East, leads him to give a final and direct warning against them. We
find a not dissimilar phenomenon in the Epistle to the Philippians. There in
iii. 1 he appears to be concluding, but before he concludes he breaks out into
a strong, even indignant warning against false teachers (iii. 2-21), and even
after that dwells long and feelingly over his salutations. The same difiicnlty
of ending need not therefore surprise us when we meet it in the Romans.
Then comes (xvi. 20) the concluding benediction. After this a postscript with
salutations from the companions of St Paul. Then finally the Apostle, wish-
ing perhaps, as Dr. Hort suggests, to raise the Epistle once more to the serene
tone which has characterized it throughout, adds the concluding Doxology,
summing up the whole argument of the Epistle. There is surely nothing
unreasonable in supposing that there would be an absence of complete same-
ness in the construction of the different letters. It is not likely that all would
exactly correspond to the same model. The form in each case would be
altered and changed in accordance with the feelings of the Apostle, and there
is abundant proof throughout the Epistle that the Apostle felt earnestly the
need of preserving the Roman Chorch from th* evils of disunion and false
teaching.
"^ 10. Commentaries.
A very complete and careful bibliography of the Epistle to the
Romans was added by the editor, Dr. W. P. Dickson, to the
English translation of Meyer's Commentary. This need not be
repeated here But a few leading works may be mentioned,
especially such as have been most largely used in the preparation
^10.] COMMENTARIES xcix
of this edition. One or two which have not been used are added
as links in the historical chain. Some conception may be formed
of the general characteristics of the older commentators from the
sketch which is given of their treatment of particular subjects ; e.g.
of the doctrine of diKaiaais at p. 147 if., and of the interpretation of
ch. ix. 6—29 on p. 269 fF. The arrangement is, roughly speaking,
chronological, but modern writers are grouped rather according to
their real affinities than according to dates of publication which
would be sometimes misleading.
I. Greek Writers.
Okioek (Orig.); ob. 353: Comment, in Epist. S. Fault ad
Romanes in Origenit Opera ed. C. H. E. Lommatzsch, vols, vi, vii :
Berolini, 1836, 1837. The standard edition, on which that of
Lommatzsch is based, is that begun by Charles Delarue, Bene-
dictine of the congregation of St. Maur in 1733, and completed after
his death by his nephew Charles Vincent Delarue in 1759- The
Commentary on Romans comes in Tom. iv, which appeared in
the latter year. A new edition — for which the beginnings have
been made, in Germany by Dr. P. Koetschau, and in England by
Prof. Armitage Robinson and others — is however much needed.
The Commentary on our Episde belongs to the latter part of
Origen's life when he was settled at Caesarea. A few fragments of
the original Greek have come down to us in the Philocalia (ed.
Robinson, Cambridge, 1893), and in Cramer's Catena, Tom. iv.
(Oxon. 1844); but for the greater part we are dependent upon the
condensed translation of Rufinus (iience ' Orig.-lat.'). There is no
doubt that Rufinus treated the work before him with great freedom.
Its text in particular is frequently adapted to that of the Old-Latin
copy of the Epistles which he was in the habit of using ; so that
'Orig.-lat.' more often represents Rufinus than Origen. An ad-
mirable account of the Commentary, so far as can be ascertained,
in both its forms is given in Dr. Westcott's article (Jrigenes in
Diet Chr. Biog. iv. 11 5-1 18.
This work of Origen's is unique among commentaries. The
reader is astonished not only at the command of Scripture but at
the range and subtlety of thought which it displays. The questions
raised are often remarkably modern. If he had been as successful
in answering as he is in propounding them Origen would have left
litde for those who followed him. As it is he is hampered by
defects of method and especially by the fatal facility of allegory;
the discursiveness and prolixity of treatment are also deterrent to
the average reader.
Chrysostom (Chrys.) ; ob. 407 : Homil. in Epist. ad Romanos,
ed. Field : Oxon. 1849; a complete cridcal edition. A translation
C EPISTLE TO THB ROMANS [^ 10.
(not of this but of Savile's text which is superior to Montfaucon's),
by the Rev. J. B. Morris, was given in the Library of the Fathers,
vol. vii: Oiford, 1841. The Homilies were delivered at Antioch
probably between 387-397 a. d. They show the preacher at his
best and are full of moral enthusiasm and of sympathetic human
insight into the personality of the Apostle ; they are also the work
of an accomplished scholar and orator, but do not always sound the
depths of the great problems with which the Apostle is wrestling.
They have at once the merits and the limitations of Antiochene
exegesis.
Theodoret (Theodrt., Thdrt.) played a well-known moderating
part in the controversies of the fifth century. He died in 458 a. d.
As a commentator he is a pedisequus — but one of the best of the
TOAny pedtsequt — of St. Chrysostom. His Commentary on the Ep.
to the Romans is contained in his Works, ed. Sirmond : Paris,
1643, Tom. iii. 1-119; also ed. Schulze and Noesselt, Halle,
1769-1774.
Joannes Damascenus (Jo.-Damasc.) ; died before 754 a. d. His
commentary is almost entirely an epitome of Chrysostom; it is
printed among his works (ed. Lequien : Paris, 17 12, torn. 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 Uher die dem Johannes
von Damascus zugeschriebenen Paralklen, Halle, 1892).
Oecumenius (Oecum.) ; bishop of Tricca in Thessaly in the
tenth century. The Commentary on Romans occupies pp. 195-
413 of his Works {tA. 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 {c. 8ao-<". 891) ; these are occasionally
noted.
Theophylact (Theoph.) ; archbishop of Bulgaria under Michael
VII Ducas(io7i-io78), and still living in 11 18. His Commentary
is one of the best specimens of its kind {0pp. ed. Venet., 1754-
1763, tom. ii. 1-118).
EuTHYMius ZiGABENUS (Euthym.-Zig.) ; living after 11 18; monk
in a monastery near Constantinople and in high favour with the
emperor Alexius Comnenus. His Commentaries on St. Paul's
Epistles were not published until 1887 (ed. Calogeras : Athens) ;
and as for that reason they have not been utilized in previous
editions we have drawn upon them rather largely. They deserve
citation by their terseness, point, and general precision of thought,
but like all the writers of this date they follow closely in the foot-
steps of Chrysostom.
§ 10.] COMMENTARIES d
». Latin Writers
Ambrosiastxs (Ambrstr.). The Episile to the Romass heads
a series of Commentaries on thirteen Epistles of St, Paul, which in
some (though not the oldest) MSS. bear the name of St. Ambrose,
and from that circumstance came to be included in the printed
editions of his works. The Benedictines, Du Frische and Le
Nourry in 1690, argued against their genuineness, which has been
defended with more courage than success by the latest editor,
P. A. Ballerini {S. Ambrosii Opera, torn, iii, p. 350 ff. ; Mediolani,
1877). The real authorship of this work is one of the still open
problems of literary criticism. The date and place of composition
are fairly fixed. It was probably written at Rome, and (unless
the text is corrupt) during the Episcopate of Damasus about the
year 380 a. d. The author was for some time supposed to be
a certain Hilary the Deacon, as a passage which appears in the
commentary is referred by St. Augustine to sanctus Hilarim
{Contra duas Epp. Pelag. iv. 7). The commentary cannot really
proceed from the great Hilary (of Poitiers), but however the fact is
to be explained it is probably he who is meant. More recently an
elaborate attempt has been made by the Old-Catholic scholar,
Dr. Langen, to vindicate the work for Faustinus, a Roman pres-
byter of the required date. [Dr. Langen first propounded his
views in an address delivered at Bonn in 1880, but has since given
the substance of them in his Geschichte d. rom. Kirche, pp. 599-
610.] A case of some strength seemed to be made out, but it
was replied to with arguments which appear to preponderate by
Marold in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift for 1883, pp. 415-470. Unfor-
tunately the result is purely negative, and the commentary is stili
without an owner. It has come out in the course of discussion
that it presents a considerable resemblance, though not so much
as to imply identity of authorship, with the Quaesttones ex utroqut
Testamento, printed among the works of St. Augustine. The com-
mentator was a man of intelligence who gives the best account we
have from antiquity of the origin of the Roman Church (see above,
p. xxv), but it has been used in this edition more for its interesting
text than for the permanent value of its exegesis.
Pelagius (Pelag.). In the Appendix to the works of St. Jerome
(ed. Migne xi. [P. L. xxx.], col. 659 fF.) there is a series of Com-
mentaries on St. Paul's Epistles which is now known to proceed
really from the author of Pelagianism. The Commentary was
probably written before 410. It consists of brief but well written
scholia rather dexterously turned so as not to clash with his
peculiar views. But it has not come down to us as Pelagius left it.
Cassiodorius, and perhaps others^ made excisions in the interests
»f '•^'^adoxy.
eii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10.
Hugh of St. Victor (Hugo a S. Victore, Hugh of Paris);
c. 1097-1141. Amongst the works of the great mystic of the
twelfth century are published Allegoriae in Novum Testamenium,
Lib. VI. Allegoriae in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Migne,
P. L. clxxv, col. 879), and Quaestiones et Decisiones in Epistolas
D. Pauli. I. 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 rationaUzing
tendency of the Middle Ages.
Petkr Abelard, 1079-1142. Petri Abaelardi commentariorum
super S. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos libri quinque (Migne, P. L.
clxxviii. col. 783). The commentary is described as being ' literal,
theological, and moral. The author follows the text exactly,
explains each phrase, often each part of a phrase separately, and
attempts (not always very successfully) to show the connexion of
thought. Occasionally he discusses theological or moral questions,
often with great originality, often showing indications of the opinions
for which he was condemned ' (Migne, op. cit. 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, c. 12 25-1 274, called Doctor Angelicus. His
Exposiiio in Epistolas omnes Divi Pauli Apostoli {0pp. 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-Re/ormation Period*.
CoLET, John {c. 1467- 1519); Dean of St Paul's. Colet, Ae
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-AIaster of St. Paul's School. They are full of interest
as an historical memorial of the earlier English Reformation.
Erasmus, Desiderius, 1 466-1 536. Erasmus' Greek Testament
§ 10.] COMMENTARIES ciu
with a new translation and annotations was published in 1516;
his Paraphrasis Novi Tesiamenii, a popular work, in 152a. He
was greater always in what he conceived and planned than in the
manner in which he accomplished it. He published the first
edition of the Greek New Testament, and the first commentary on
it which made use of the learning of the Renaissance, and edited
for the first time many of the early fathers. But in all that he did
there are great defects of execution, defects even for his own time.
He was more successful in raising questions than in solving them ;
and his commentaries suffer as much from timidity as did those of
Luther from excessive boldness. His aim was to reform the Church
by publishing and interpreting the records of early Christianity — an
aim which harmonized ill with the times in which he lived. His
work was rather to prepare the way for future developments.
Luther, Martin, 1 483-1 546. Luther's contribution to the
literature of the Romans was confined to a short Preface, published
in 1533. But as marking an epoch in the study of St. Paul's
writings, the most important place is occupied by his Commentary
cm the Galatians. This was published in a shorter form. In epist.
P. ad Galatcu Mart. Lutheri comment, in 15 19; in a longer form.
In epist. P. ad Gal. commentarius ex praelectionibus Mart. Luiheri
collectus, 1535. Exegesis was not Luther's strong point, and his
commentaries bristle with faults. They are defective, and prolix ;
full of bitter controversy and one-sided. The value of his contribu-
tion to the study of St, Paul's writings was of a different character.
By grasping, if in a one-sided way, some of St. Paul's leading
ideas, and by insisting upon them with unwearied boldness and
persistence, he produced conditions of religious life which made
the comprehension of part of the Apostle's teaching possible. His
exegetical notes could seldom be quoted, but he paved the way for
a correct exegesis.
Melanchthon, Philip (1497-1560), was the most scholarly of
the Reformers. His Adnotationes in ep. P. ad Rom. with a preface
by Luther was published in 1522, his Commentarii in Ep. ad Rom.
in 1540.
Calvin, John (i 509-1 564). His Commentarii in omnes episiolas
Pauli Apost. was first published at Strassburg in 1539. Calvin was
by far the greatest of the commentators of the Reformation. He
is clear, lucid, honest, and straightforward.
As the qnestion is an interest-ng one, how far Calvin brought his peculiar
▼lews ready-made to the study of the Epistle and how far he derived them
from it by an uncompronising exegesis, we are glad to place before the
reader a statement by one who is familiar with Calvin's writings (Dr. A. M.
Fairbaim, Principal of Mansfield College). * The first edition of the
Institutes was published in 1536. It has hardly any detailed exposition of
the higher Calvinistic doctrine, but is made up of six parts : Exposition!
(t) of tlw Decalogoe ; (ii) of the Apostolic Creed ; (iii) of the Lord's Praysr:
dv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10.
(iv) of the Sacrament! ; (▼) of the Roman or false doctrine of Sacraments ;
and (vi) of Christian Liberty or Church Polity. There is jast a single para-
graph on Election. In 1 539 he published two things, the Commentary on
Romans and the 2nd edition of the Institutes. 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 (i) of Augustine,
especially the Anti-Pelagian writings, and (a) of St. Paul. But it was St.
Paul read through Augustine. The exegetical stamp is peculiarly distinct
in the doctrinal parts of the Institutes ; 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, Dt CUwuntia!
Beza, Theodore (1519-1605). His edition of the Greek Testa-
ment with translation and annotations was first published by
H. Stephanus in 1565, his Adnotationa majores in N. T. at Paris
in 1594.
Arminius (Jakob Harmensen), 1 560-1 609, Professor at Leyden,
1603. As a typical example of the opposite school of interpretation
to that of Calvin may be taken Aiminius. His works were com-
paratively few, and he produced few commentaries. Two tracts oi
his however were devoted to explaininp: 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.
Cornelius a Lapidi (van Stein), ob. 1637, a Jesuit, published
his Commentaria in omnes d. Pauli eptstolas at Antwerp in 16 14.
EsTius (W. van Est), ob. 161 3, was Provost and Chancellor of
Douay. His In omnes Pauli et aliorum apostolor. episiolas com-
meniar. was published after his death at Douay in 1614-1616.
Grotius (Huig van Groot), 1583-1645. His Annoiationet
in N. T. were published at Paris in 1644. This distinguished
publicist and statesman had been in his younger days a pupil of
J. J. Scaliger at Leyden, and his Commentary on the Bible was
the first attempt to apply to its elucidation the more exact philo-
logical methods which he had learnt 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 Critici Sacri, first published in 1660. L
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
deserve notice.
§ 10.] COMMENTARIES CV
Hammons, Henry (1605-1660), Fellow of Magdalen College,
Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. Hammond was well known
as a royalist. He assisted in the production of Walton's Polyglott.
His Paraphrase and Annotations of the New Testament appeared in
1653, a few years before his death, at a time when the disturbances
of the Civil War compelled him to live in retirement He has
been styled the father of English commentators, and certainly no
considerable exegetical work before his time had appeared in this
country. But he has a further title to fame. His commentary
undoubtedly deserves the title of * historical.' In his interpretation
he has detached himself from the dogmatic struggles of the seven-
teenth century, and throughout he attempts to expound the Apostle
in accordance with his own ideas and those of the times when he
lived.
Locks, John (1668-1704), the well-known philosopher, devoted
his last years to the study of St. Paul's Epistles, and in 1 705-1 707
were published A Paraphrase and Notes to the Epistle of St. Paul
to the Galatians, the first and second Epistles to the Corinthians, and
the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians. Appended is an Essay
for the understanding of St. Paul's Epistles by consulting St. Paul
himself. A study of this essay is of great interest. It is full of
acute ideas and thoughts, and would amply vindicate the claim of
the author to be classed as an ' historical ' interpreter. The com-
mentaries were translated into German, and must have had some
influence on the future development of Biblical Exegesis.
Bengel, J. A. (Beng.), 1687-1752; a Lutheran prelate in
Wiirtemberg. His Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742) stands out
among the exegetical literature not only of the eighteenth century
but of all centuries for its masterly terseness and precision and
for its combination of spiritual insight with the best scholarship of
his time.
Wetstein (or Wettstein), J. J., 1693-1754; after being deposed
from office at Basel on a charge of heterodoxy he became Pro-
fessor in the Remonstrants' College at Amsterdam. His Greek
Testament appeared 1751, 1752. Wetstein was one of those inde-
fatigable students whose first-hand researches form the base of
other men's labours. In the history of textual criticism he deserves
to be named by the side of John IVIill and Richard Bentley ; and
besides his collation of MSS. he collected a mass of illustrative
matter on the N. T. from classical, patristic, and rabbinical sources
which is still of great value.
4. Modern Period,
Tholuck, F. a. G., 1799-1877 ; Professor at Halle. Tholuck
was a man of large sympathies and strong religious character, and
CVf EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10.
both personally and through his commentary (which came out first
in 1824 and lias been more than once translated) exercised a wide
nfluence outside Germany ; this is specially marked in the American
xegetes.
Fritzsche, C. F. a. (Fri.), 1 801-1846, Professor at Giessen.
Fritzsche on Romans (3 vols. 1 836-1 843), like Lttcke on St. John
md Blcek on Hebrews, is a vast quarry of materials to which all
subsequent editors have been greatly indebted. Fritzsche was one
of those philologists whose researches did most to fix the laws of
N. T. Greek, but his exegesis is hard and rationalizing. He
engaged in a controversy with Tholuck the asperity of which he
regretted before his death. He was however no doubt the better
scholar and stimulated Tholuck to self-improvement in this respect
Meyer, H. A. W. (Mey.), 1800-1873; Consistorialrath in the
kingdom of Hanover. Meyer's famous commentaries first began
to appear in 1832, and were carried on with unresting energy in a
succession of new and constantly enlarged editions until his death.
There is an excellent English translation of the Commentary on
Romans published by Messrs. T. and T, Clark under the editor-
ship of Dr. W. P. Dickson in 1873, 1874. Meyer and De Wette
may be said to have been the founders of the modem style of
commenting, at once scientific and popular : scientific, through its
rigorous — at times too rigorous — application of grammatical and
philological laws, and popular by reason of its terseness and power
of presenting the sifted results of learning and research. Since
Meyer's death the Commentary on Romans has been edited with
equal conscientiousness and thoroughness by Dr. Bernhard Weiss,
Professor at Berlin (hence ' Mey.-W.'). Dr. Weiss has not all his
predecessor's vigour of style and is rather difficult to follow, but
especially in textual criticism marks a real advance.
De Wette, W. M. L. (De W.), 1 780-1849; Professor for a short
time at Berlin, whence he was dismissed, afterwards at Basel. His
Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament first
appeared in 1 836-1848. De Wette was an ardent lover of freedom
and rationalistically inclined, but his commentaries are models of
brevity and precision.
Stuart, Moses, 1780-1852; Professor at Andover, Mass. Comm.
on Romans first published in 1832 (British edition with preface by
Dr. Pye-Smith in 1833). At a time when Biblical exegesis was
not being very actively prosecuted in Great Britain two works ol
solid merit were produced in America. One of these was by
Moses Stuart, who did much to naturalize German methods. He
expresses large obligations to Tholuck, but is independent as
a commentator and modified considerately the Calvinism of his
surroundings.
HooGS, Dr. C, 1 797- 1 878; Professor at Princeton, New Jersey
§ 10.] COMMENTARIES CVIl
His Comm. on Romans first published in «83S, rewritten in 1864,
18 a weighty and learned doctrinal exposition based on the principles
of the Westminster Confession. Like Moses Stuart, Dr. Hodge
also owed much of his philological equipment to Germany where
he had studied.
Alford, Dr. H. (Alf.), 1810-1871 ; Dean of Canterbury. His
Greek 7'estament (1849-1861, and subsequently) was the first to
import the results of German exegesis into many circles in England.
Nonconformists (headed by the learned Dr. J. Pye- Smith) had been
in advance of the Established Church in this respect. Dean Alford's
laborious work is characterized by vigour, good sense, and scholar-
ship, sound as far as it goes ; it is probably still the best complete
Greek Testament by a single hand.
Wordsworth, Dr. Christopher, 1809-1885; Bishop of Lincoln.
Bishop Wordsworth's Greek Testament (i 856-1 860, and subse-
quently) is of an older type than Dean Alford's, and chiefly valuable
for its patristic learning. The author was not only a distinguished
prelate but a literary scholar of a higli order (as may be seen by
his Athens and Attica, Conjectural Emendations of Ancient Authors,
and many other publications) but he wrote at a time when the
reading public was less exigent in matters of higher criticism and
interpretation.
JowKTT, B., 1817-1893; widely known as Master of Balliol
College and Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford.
His edition of -5"/. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians, Galatians,
and Romans first appeared in 1855; second edition 1859; recently
re-edited by Prof. L. Campbell. Professor Jowett's may be said to
have been the first attempt in England at an entirely modern view
of the Epistle. The essays contain much beautiful and suggestive
writing, but the exegesis is loose and disappointing.
Vaughan, Dr. C. J. (Va.); Dean of LlandafF. Dr. Vaughan's
edition first came out in 1859, ^^^ was afterwards enlarged; the
edition used for this commentary has been the 4th (1874). It is
a close study of the Epistle by a finished scholar with little further
help than the Concordance to the Septuagint and Greek Testament :
its greatest value lies in the careful selection of illustrative passages
from these sources.
Kelly, W. ; associated at one time with the textual critic
Tregelles. His Notes on the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1873),
are written from a detached and peculiar standpoint ; but they are
the fruit of sound scholarship and of prolonged and devout studv,
and they deserve more attention than they have received.
Beet, Dr. J. Agar ; Tutor in the Wesleyan College, Richmond.
Dr. Beet's may be described as the leading Wesleyan commentary :
it starts from a very careful exposition ot the text, but is intended
^roughout as a contribution to systematic theology. The first
Cviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ la
edition appeared in 1877, the second in 1881, and there have been
several others since.
GoDET, Dr. F. (Go.), Professor at Neuchatel. Commmtairt im
VEpttre aux Romains, Paris, Ac, 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 t EpUre aux Romains, published in 1881, 1883
(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.
MouLE, Rev. H. C. 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 Tht
Expositor's Bible.
GiFFORD, Dr. E. H. (Gif.); sometime Archdeacon of London.
The Epistle to the Romans in The Speaker's Commentary (1881)
was contributed by Dr. Gilford, 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 diflBculties of exegesis which it does not fully face, and the
solution which it offers is certain to be at once scholarly and well
considered : it takes account of previous work both ancient and
modern, though the pages are not crowded with names and
references. Our obligations to this commentary are probably
higher than to any other.
LiDDON, Dr. H. P. (Lid.); Explanatory Analysis 0/ 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). 'Wit Analysis
was first printed in 1876, but after that date much enlarged. It ii
what its name implies, an analysis of the argument with very full
notes, but not a complete edition. It is perhaps true that the
analysis is somewhat excessively divided and subdivided; in
exegesis it is largely based on Meyer, but it shows everywhere the
hand of a most lucid writer and accomplished theologian.
( 10.] GOMMENTARIES clx
Bakmbt, Dr. James; formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield's
Hall, Durham. Dr. Barmby contributed Romans to the Pulpit
Commentary (London, 1890) ; a sound, independent and vigorous
exposition.
Lipsius, Dr. R. A. (Lips.), 1830-1891; 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 Protestantenbibel (English translation,
published by Messrs. Williams & Norgate in 1883), and he edited
the same Epistle along with Galatians and Philippians in the
Handcommentar zum Nmen 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.
ScHAEFER, Dr. A.; Professor at Mdnster. Dr. Schaefer's Er-
kldrung d. Brief ex an die Romer (Mtinster i. W., 1891) may be
taken as a specimen of Roman Catholic commentaries. It is
pleasantly and clearly written, with fair knowledge of exegetical
literature, but seems to us often just to miss the point of the
Apostle's thought Dr. Schanz, the ablest of Roman Catholic
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.
Theophanes, ob. 1893; was Professor and. Inspector in the
St. Petersburgh Ecclesiastical Academy and afterwards Bishop of
Vladimir and Suzdal. He early gave up his see and retired to
a life of learning and devotion. His commentary on the Romans
was published in 1890. He is described as belonging to an
old and to a certain extent antiquated school of exegesis. His
commentary is based mainly on that of Chrysostom. Theophanes
has both the strength and weakness of his master. Like him he is
dtxa. historical in his treatment, like him he sometimes £uls to
Sgnxp the more profound pdnts in the Apostle's teaching.
ABBREVIATIONS
Ecclesiastical Writers (see p. xcviii flF.).
Amb , . . . . Ambros©.
Ambrstr Ambrosiastet,
Ath. .«•... Athanasiui.
Aug Augustine.
Bas Basil.
Chrys. ..... Chrysostom.
Clem.-Alex. .... Clement of Alexandrk
Clem.-Rom. .... Clement of Rome.
Cypr Cyprian.
Cyr.-Alex Cyril of Alexandria.
Cyr.-Jerus Cyril of Jerusalem.
Epiph Epiphanius.
Eus. ...... Eusebius.
Euthym.-Zig Euthymius Zigabentn.
HippoL Hippolytus.
Ign Ignatius.
Jer. (Hieron.) .... Jerome.
Jos Josephus.
Method Meihodiua.
Novat. Novatian.
Oecum Oecumeniui.
Oiig . Origen.
Orig.-laL Latin Version of Origea
Pelag Pelagius.
Phot PhotiuB.
Ruf. RufinuB.
SeduL Sedulius.
Tert Tertullian.
Theod.-Mops. .... Theodore of Mopsnessla
Theodrt Theodoret
Theoph Theophylact
ABBREVIATIONS
Ftrtioiu (see p. Izvi t).
Aegyptt Egyptlaw,
Boh. Bohairic
Sah. Sahidic
Aeth- Ethiopia
Anr.. Axmeniaflb
Goth. Gothic.
Latt Latin.
Lat Vet .... Vetus Latia^
Vulg. Vulgate.
Syrr Syriac
Pegh Peshitta
Hard. . • . • • Harclean.
Gov Goverdale.
GeneT. Geneva.
Rhem. Rheims (or Doimj).
Tyn Tyndale.
Wic Wiclif.
AV Authorized Venrion.
RV. ...... Revised Version.
Editors (see p. cv ff.).
T. R. Textus Receptna.
Tisck Tischendorf.
Tref. Tregelles.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
Alf. Alford
Beng. ..... BengeL
DeL Dehtzsch.
DeW. DeWette.
EIL Ellicott.
Fri Fritzsche (C F. A.>
Git Gifford.
Ga ...... Godet
Lft. Lightfoot
lid .••••. Liddon.
Lipa. ...... Lipsius.
Mey. ..,.,, Meyer.
Mey.-W Meyer-Weim
Oltr. . . . , • . Oltramare.
Ya. Vaughan.
CXU ABBREVIATIONS
CJ.O. • • . , . Corput InxcripHonum
Graecarum.
CJX,. . • , , . Corpus Inscriptionum
Lattnarum.
Gnn.-Thay. .... Grimm -Thayer's Ltxi'
con.
Trench, Sy». .... Trench on Symmymt.
Win Winer's Grammar.
Exp. ...... Expositor.
JBExeg. ..... Journal of the Society <^
Biblical Literature
emd Exegesis.
Zw7%, . . • , , Zeitschrift fUr wissen-
schaftliche Theol^ie.
Mdd. addii, addunt, Ike.
«/. alii, alibi.
cat. (eaten.) catena.
codd. ...... codices.
edd, .,..,. editcres.
edd.pr. ..... editcres priorea (older
editors).
«m omiitit, omittunt, Jfcc.
pauc pauci.
pier plerique.
phtr plures.
proem, ..... praemittit, pnemittimt,
&c.
rH. reliqui.
*/3> 4/6> ^^ • • • . twice out of three times,
four out of five times,
In text-critical notes adverbs {bis, temel, &c.), statistics (V„ */i) and
cod. codd., ed. edd., &c., always qualify the word which precedes, not
that which follows : ' Vulg. codd.' = some MSS. of the Vulgate,
Epiph. eod. or Epiph. a/. = a MS. or some printed edition of
Epiphanius.
BT.B. — The text eonunented upon ia that commonly known aa the
Bevl^ers' Qreek Text (i. e. the Greek Text presupposed in the Revised
Version of 1881) published by the Clarendon Press. The few instanoes
tal wiiiob tb« editors dissent from this text are noted as they ooour.
THE
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
THE AFOSTOIilC SAIiTTTATION.
1. 1, 7. * Paul, a divinely chosen and accredited Apostle^
gives Christian greeting to the Roman Church, itself 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 1 May God Himself, the heavenly Father, and the Lord
Jesus Messiah, grant them to you!
I. 2-6. I preach, in accordance with our yewish Scrip-
tures, Jesus the Son of David and Son of God, whose
commission I bear.
*The message which I am commissioned to proclaim is no
startUng 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 Writ. 'It
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 <me instance we h*ve ventured to break op the long and heavily-
weighted sentence in the Greek, and to treat its two main divisions separately.
But the second of these is not in the strict sense a parenthesis : the constmctioa
of the whole paragiaph is coatinaoas.
a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 1-7.
to David, as the Messiah was to do, *and on the other hand, in
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 labom-s 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. 1,7). (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 (w. 6, 7).
(iii) The Gospel which I am commissioned to preach, though new
in the sense that it puts forward a new name, the Name of Jesus
Christ, is yet indissolubly linked to the older dispensation which
it fulfils and supersedes (w. a, 7 ; see note on K>^rjTols Ayiois). (iv)
Its subject is Jesus, Who is at once the Jewish Messiah and the
Son of God (w. 3, 4). (v) From Him, the Son, and from the Father,
may the blessedness of Christians descend upon you (ver. 7).
This opening section of the Epistie affords a good opportunity
to watch the growth of a Christian Theology, in the sense of
reflection upon the significance of the Life and Death of Christ
and the relation of the newly inaugurated order of things to the
old. We have to remember (i) that the Epistle was written about
the year 58 a.d., or within thirty years of the Ascension; (a) that
in the interval the doctrinal language of Christianity has had to
be built up from the foundations. We shall do well to note which
of the tei ms used are old and which new, and how far old terms
have had a new face put upon them. We will return to this point
at the end of the paragraph.
I. L] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 5
L touXof *li)aou XpioTou : iovXos Btov or Kvptov is an Old Testa-
ment phrase, applied to the prophets in a body from Amos onwards
(Am. iil 7; Jer. vii. 35 and repeatedly; Dan. ix. 6; Ezra ix. 11);
also with slight variations to Moses {dtpdnau Josh. i. 2), Joshua
(Josh. xxiv. 29; Jud. ii. 8), David (title of Ps. xxxvi. [xxxv.J; Pss.
IxxviiL [IxxviiJ 70; Ixxxix. [Ixxxviii.] 4, 21; also trais Kvpiov, title
of Ps. xviii. [xvii.]), Isaiah \nais Is. xx. 3); but applied also to
worshippers generally (Pss. xxxiv. [xxxiii.] 23 ; cxiii. [cxii.] i
waiSts; cxxxvi. [cxxxv.] aa of Israel, &c.).
This is the first instance of a similar use in the New Testament ;
it is found also in the greetings of Phil., Tit., Jas., Jude, 2 Pet., show-
ing that as the Apostolic age progressed the assumption of the title
became established on a broad basis. But it is noticeable how
quietly St. Paul steps into the place of the prophets and leaders of
the Old Covenant, and how quietly he substitutes the name of His
own Master in a connexion hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah.
'ItjctoO XpicrroO. A small question of reading arises here, which is per-
haps of somewhat more importance than may appear at first sight. In the
opening verses of most of St. Paul's Epistles the MSS. vary between 'lijaov
Xpiarov and XpiffTov 'Irjaov. There is also evidently a certain method in the
variation. The evidence stands thus (where that on one side only is given
it may be assumed that all remaining authorities are on the other) : —
I Thess. i. i 'Irjaov Xpiar^ unquestioned,
a Thess. i. I 'Irjaov Xpiar^ Edd. ; Xpiar^ 'Irjaov D E F" G, Ambrstr.
(tu ed. Ballerini).
GaL i. I 'Irjffov "Kptarov unquestioned.
I Cor. i. I XptffTov 'irjaov BDEFG 17 al. paut., Vulg. codd., Chryi.
Ambrstr. Aug. setnel, Tisch., WH. marg.
t Cor. i. I Xpiarov 'Irjaov N BMP 17 marg., Hard., Euthal. cod. Theodrt
Tisch. WH. RV.
Rom. i. I TLpiarov 'Irjaov B, Vulg. codd., Grig, iis (contra Orig.-lat. bU)
Aug. «OT//Amb. Ambrstr. al. Lat., Tisch. WH. marg,
Phil. i. I XpiffTov '\T]aoi N B D E, Boh., Tisch. WH. RV.
Eph. i. I XpiOTov 'Irjaov BDEP17, Vulg. codd. Boh, Goth. Hard.,
Grig, (gx Caten.) Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV.
Col. i. I XptffTov 'Irjaov KABFGLP17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Hard., Euthal.
cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. Hieron. a/.. Tisch. WH. RV.
Philem. i. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov KAD«FGKP {de/. B), &c., Boh., Hieron.
(«/ vid.) Ambrstr. a/., Tisch. WH. RV.
1 Tim. i. I Xpiarov 'Irjaov NDFGP {de/. B), Vulg. codd. Boh. Hard.,
Jo -Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV.
J Tim. i. I Xpiarov 'lijaov NDEFGKP {de/. B) 17 a/., Vulg. codd.
Boh. Sah. Hard., Euthal. f^o*/. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. al., Tisch. WH.
RV.
Tit. i. I Irjaov Xpiarov K D^ E F G &c., Vulg. codd. Goth. Pesh. Arm.
Aeth., Chrys. Euthal. cod. Ambrstr. (ed. Ballerin.") a/., Tisch. WH.
(sed Xpiarov ['Irjaov'] marg.) RV. ; Xpiarov 'hjaov A minusc. tres, Vulg.
codd. Boh. Hard., Cassiod. ; Xpiarov tantum D**.
It will be observed that the Epistles being placed in a roughly chrono-
logical order, those at the head of the list read indubitably ^IrjTov Xpiaroi
(or Xpiar^), while those in the latter part (with the single exception of Tit.,
which is judiciously treated by WH.) as indubitably read Xpiarov 'ltta<A
M t
4 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. L
Jnst SDoat the gronp i and a Cor. Rom. there is a certain amount vi
doubt.
Remembering the Western element which enters into B in Epp. Panl., it
looks as if the evidence for xi» 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 ol
writing Xpicrros 'l??(Toi5j. The interest of this would lie in the fact that in
Xpiaros Irjaovi the first word would seem to be rather more distinctly a
proper name than in ^lijaovs Xpiaru^. No doubt the latter phrase is rapidly
passing into a proper name, but XpiarSs would seem to have a little of its
sense as a title still clinging to it : the phrase would be in fact transitional
between Xoiaroi or o Xpiari,i of the Gospels and the later Xptards Irjaovs or
Xpi«TT(5y simply as a proper name (see .Sanday, Bampton Lectures, "o. 389 f.,
and an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in Expos. 18S8, i. 386 ff.). The
subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction.
kXtjtos ATr<5oToXos. itAijffir 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 iGen. xii. 1-3), Moses (Ex. iii. 10), the prophets (Isa. vi.
8, 9 ; Jer. i. 4, 5, &c.). The verb KoKfiv occurs in a highly typical
passage, Hos. Xi. I *^ klyv-nroxi fifTtKoXtaa ra TtKva (wv. For the
particular fonn kXt/tos we cannot come nearer than the ' guests '
{kXtjtoI) of Adonijah (i Kings i. 41, 49). By his use of the term
St. Paul places himself on a level at once with the great Old
Testament saints and with the Twelve who had been 'called'
expressly by Christ (Mark i. 17; ii. 14 ||). The same combina-
tion KXrjTos dnoar. occurs in I Cor. i. i, but is not used elsewhere
by St. Paul or any of the other Apostles. In these two Epistles
St. Paul has to vindicate the parity of his own call (on the way
to Damascus, cf. also Acts xxvi. 17) with that of the elder
Apostles.
On the relation of n^TjrSt to t>c\fKT6t see Lft. on Col. iii. I a. There If
a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. In the Gospell
nXrjToi are all who are invited to enter Christ's kingdom, whether or not they
accept the invitation ; the ntXtKToi are a smaller group, selected to special
honour (Matt. xxii. 14). In St Paul both words are applied to the
same persons; KKriT6s implies that the call has been not only given but
obeyed.
dir6aToXo«. 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.l.), 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. x\i 7), and many others (cf. i Cor. xii. 28; Eph.
iv. 11; DidacM xi, xii, &c. ; also esp. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 92flF. ;
Harnack m Texte u. Untersuch. ii. 1 1 1 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 be is
rJki^TOf aitoaroko^, i. e. not merely an Apostle by virtue of possessing
X. L] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 5
such qualifications as are described in Acts i. 21, a a, but through
a direct intervention of Christ. At the same time it should be
remembered that St. Paul lays stress on this fact not with a view
to personal aggrandizement, but only with a view to commend his
Gospel with the weight which he knows that it deserves.
d<j>upio-fi^Kos : in a double sense, by God (as in Gal. i. 15) and
by man (Acts xiii. 3). The first sense is most prominent here ; or
rather it includes the second, which marks the historic fulfilment of
the Divine purpose. The free acceptance of the human commis-
sion may enable us to understand how there is room for free will
even in the working out of that which has been pre-ordained by
God (see below on ch. xi). And yet the three terms, 8ov\os,
icKt}t6s, d<{j(opi(Tfievos, all scrve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural
doctrine that human ministers, even Apostles, are but instruments
in the hand of God, with no initiative or merit of their own.
This conception is not confined to the Canonical Books : it is found also
in Assump. Mays. i. 14 itaque excogitavit et invenit me, qui ai initio orbis
ttrrarum praeparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illius.
CIS cfioyyAioK ©coO. The particular function for which St. Paul
is ' set apart ' is to preach the Gospel of God. The Gospel is
sometimes described as ' of God ' and sometimes ' of Christ ' (e. g.
Mark i. i). Here, where the thought is of the gradual unfolding
in time of a plan conceived in eternity, ' of God ' is the more appro-
priate. It is probably a mistake in these cases to restrict the force
of the gen. to one particular aspect (' the Gospel of which God
is the author,' or * of which Christ is the subject ') : all aspects are
included in which the Gospel is in any way related to God and
Christ.
cuayyAioK. The fundamental passage for the use of this word
appears to be Mark i. 14, 15 (cf. Matt. iv. 23). We cannot doubt
that our Lord Himself described by this term (or its Aramaic
equivalent) His announcement of the arrival of the Messianic
Time. It does not appear to be borrowed directly from the LXX
(where the word occurs in all only two [or three] times, and once for
* the reward of good tidings ' ; the more common form is fvayyeXta).
It would seem, however, that there was some influence from the
rather frequent use (twenty times) of eiayy^Xifeij/, €i;ayyfXiffo-da»,
especially in Second Isaiah and the Psalms in connexion with the
news of the Great Deliverance or Restoration from the Captivity.
A conspicuous passage is Isa. Ixi. i, which is quoted or taken as
a text in Luke iv. 18. The group of words is well established in
Synoptic usage {tvayytXiov, Matthew four times, Mark eight, Acts
two; tvayyf\i^e(T6ai, Matthew one, Luke ten, Acts fifteen). It
evidently took a strong hold on the imagination of St. Paul in
connexion with his own call to missionary labours {tvayytXiov sixty
6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. l-t.
dmes in Epp. Paul, besides in Epp. and Apoc. only twice ; nay-
ytXi^taBcu 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 tvayytXiov for
a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday, Bamp. Led. p. 3i7«.)»
the way is prepared for it by places like Mark i. i ; Apoc. xiv. 6.
2. TrpoeTnrjYYeiXaTO. The words tnayytXia, i-nayyiWtaQai OCCUr
several times in LXX, but not in the technical sense of the great
' promises ' made by God to His people. The first instance of
this use is Ps. Sol. Xii. 8 Km Saioi Kvpiov Kkrjpovo^ir^daitv (nayytXiat
Kvpiov: cf. vii. 9 Tox) (Ktrjaai ritv oiKov 'laKut^ els TjfjLtpav iv rj fTrriyyfCka
aiiTois, and xvii. 6 oU ovk tnrjyytika), fifra /3/ar d(j)€iXoyro : 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 (irafyeXia nor iirafyiWeadcu (in the technical
•ense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke xxiv. 49, where inay-
ytKia is used of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit ; but we no sooner crosg
over to the Acts than the use becomes frequent. The words cover (i") the
promises made by Christ, in particular the promise of the Holy Spirit (which
is referred to the Father in Acts i. 4) ; so iirayytKia three times in the Acts,
Gal. iii. 14, and Eph. i. 13 ; ^ii) the promises of the O T. fulfilled in Chris-
tianity; so inayytKia four times in Acts (note esp. Acts xiii. 3a, xxvL 6),
some eight times each in Rom. and Gal., both inayytXia and ivayye^^taBat
repeatedly in Heb., &c. ; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet
fulfilled or unfulfilled, e.g. 2 Cor. i. ao oatu 7d/) irrayytXiat e«ot) (cf. vii. i) ;
I Tim. iv. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. i ; a Pet iii. 4 ij inayytXia r^i vapovaiat airrov.
iv Ypa(f)ais dyiais : perhaps the earliest extant instance of the use
of this phrase (Philo prefers itpal ypa<f>ai, Upal jSt'/SXoi, 6 Upos \6yos :
cf. Sanday, Bamp. Led. p. 72) ; but the use is evidently well estab-
lished, and the idea of a collection of authoritative books goes
back to the prologue to Ecclus. In ypa(pais Ayiais the absence of
the art. throws the stress on iyiais ; the books are ' holy ' as con-
taining the promises of God Himself written down by inspired
men (8ta tS>v irpo(j)TjTi>¥ avTov).
8. ytvoftivou. This is contrasted with Spia-dfvrot, ynmpxvov denot»
ing, as usually, ' transition from one state or mode of subsistence
to another ' {Sp. Comm. on i Cor. i. 30) ; it is rightly paraphrased
' [Who] was born,* and is practically equivalent to the Johannean
fKd6vTos fls rov Kocrpov.
Ik <nr^p|iaTo$ Aa^i'S. For proof that the belief in the descent of
the Messiah from David was a living belief see Mark xii. 35 flF.
wmt Xryovfrtc ot ypapnarfit on 6 Xpicrros vi6s i<m Aa^id ] (cf- Mark
I. 8, 4.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION J
xi. lo and x. 47 f.) : also Ps. Sol. xvii. 23 ff. Tit, xvpu, nal a»a<n^iam
airrois Tov ^aaikta aiiTuv vlov £iavili tie rhv Kaipov ov oi8as ov, 6 Q«6t, row
(SmrtXcvo-at «Vi 'lapaijX iraiia aov k.t.\. ; 4 Ezra xii. 32 (in three of the
extant versions, Syr. Arab. Armen.); and the Talmud and Targums
(passages in Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 341). Our Lord Himself
appears to have made little use of this title : he raises a difficulty
about it (Mark xil 35-37 H). But this verse of Ep. to Romans
shows that Christians early pointed to His descent as fulfilling one
of the conditions of Messiahship ; similarly 2 Tim. ii. 8 (where the
assertion is made a part of St. Paul's ' Gospel ') ; Acts ii. 30 ; Heb.
vii. 14 'it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah' (see
also Eus. H. E. I. vii. 17, Joseph and Mary from the same tribe).
Neither St. Paul nor the Acts nor Epistle to Hebrews defines more
nearly how the descent is traced. For this we have to go to
the First and Third Gospels, the early chapters of which embody
wholly distinct traditions, but both converging on this point. There
is good reason to think that St. Luke i, ii had assumed substan-
tially its present shape before a.d. 70 (cf. Swete, Apost. Creed,
P- 49).
In Test. XII. Patriarch, we find the theory of a double descent from Levi
and from Jndah (Sym. 7 a.vaaTi\aii 'i^p Kv/xo; l« toC Aci/ct it% dpxifp^a Kal ix
TOV 'lovSa djs fiafft\ia, 0(6y itai av0p<uwov : Gad. 8 Snan ripii^ffojmv "lovSav icai
Afvti oTi ({ ainSiv &varfX(i Kvpios, fforrfip t^ '\aparjK, &c. ; cf. Hamack's
note, Patr. Apost. i. 5 a). This is no doabt an inference from the relationship
of the Mother of our Lord to Elizabeth (Luke i. 36).
kotA aapxa . . . kotA itviu^ta are opposed to each other, not as
* human ' to ' divine,' but as ' body ' to ' spirit,' both of which in
Christ are human, though the Holiness which is the abiding pro-
perty of His Spirit is something more than human. See on nara
nV€Vfi. Ayiaxr. below.
4. tpiadivTo^ : * designated.' It is usual to propose for this
word an alternative between (i) ' proved to be,' * marked out as
being ' (d«ix^«Wor, dno(Pav6itn-os Chrys.), and (ii) ' appointed,' ' in-
stituted,' ' installed,' in fact and not merely in idea. For this latter
sense (which is that adopted by most modern commentators) the
parallels are quoted, Acts x. 42 ovtos f<mv 6 itpurpxvos imh tov Qtov
KptTfjs (b>vra>y Kot veKpS>v, and XVii. 3 1 /icXXft Kpivetv , . . iv avbpX a
ipi(Tt. The word itself does not determine the meaning either
way : it must be determined by the context But here the particular
context is also neutral ; so that we must look to the wider context
of St. Paul's teaching generally. Now it is certain that St. Paul
did not hold that the Son of God became Son by the Resurrection.
The undoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2 Cor. iv. 4 ;
viii. 9 ; cf. Col. i. 15-19). At the same time he did regard the
Resurrection as making a difference — if not in the transcendental
relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond oiu- cogni<
S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [L 4.
tance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to
the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil. ii. 9 dt6 nal 6 Qt^s avr6p
vntpv'^tou't , Koi fX'tploraTO avr^ r^ ivofta rh vntp nap oi/o/ia). 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 becomes Judge in a sense in which He does
not become Son ; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external
creation but by an inherent right. The Divine declaration, as it
were, endorses and proclaims that right.
The Latin rersions are not very helpfnl. The common rendering WM
prtueUstinatus (to expressly Rafinos [Orig.-lat.] ad lot. ; cf. Introd. ( 7).
Hilary of Poitiera has destinatus, which Rniinai also prefers. Tertollian
reads definitus.
uloS ecou. ' Son of God,' like ' Son of Man/ was a recognized
tide of the Messiah (cf. Enoch cv. a ; 4 Ezra vii. a8, 29 ; xiii. 3a,
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. al., it cannot be said that He did
not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made
upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mark iiL 11, v. 7 j ; the cen-
turion, Mark xv. 39 ||), and it is implied by the words of the
Tempter (Matt iv. 3, 6 ||) and the voice from heaven (Mark
i. II B, ix. 711). The crowning instance is the confession of
St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Logia,
' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' Matt, xvi, 16. It
is consistent with the whole of our Lord's method that He should
have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims, and that
He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spon-
taneous working of the minds of His disciples. Nor is it sur-
prising that the title should have been chosen by the Early Church
to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of
Christ : see esp. the common text of the Gospel of St. Mark, L i (where
the words, if not certainly genuine, in any case are an extremely
early addition), and this passage, the teaching of which is very
direct and explicit. The further history of the term, with its
strengthening addition novoyf^^qs, may be followed in Swete, Apost.
Creed, p. 24 ff., where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of
Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed.
In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates
from the Resurrection: but we have also seen that St. Paul re-
garded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation ;
and it is as certain that when he speaks of Him as 6 Btof v'lii
(Rom. viii. 32), 6 iocurov vloy (viii. 3), he intends to cover the period
of pre-existence, as that St. John identifies the \unny*vi\s with the
S. 4.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 9
pre-existent Logos. There is no sufficient reason to think that
the Early Church, so far as it reflected upon these terms, under-
stood them diflferently.
There are three moments to each of which are applied with variations the
words of Ps. ii. 7 ' Thon art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee.' They
are (i) the Baptism (Mark i. 1 1 1) ; (ii) the Transfiguration ^Mark ix. 7 ||) ;
(iii) the Resurrection (Acts xiii. 33). We can see here the origin of the Ebio-
nite idea of progressive exaltation, which is however held in check by the
doctrin; of the Logos in both its forms, Pauline (2 Cor. iv. 4, &c., ut sup.)
and Johannean (John L i ff.). The moments in question are so many stepi
in the passage through an earthly life of One who came forth from God and
returned to God, not stages in the gradual deification of one who began hit
career as }fn.\h$ ivipomo*.
iv Sufdfiei : not with vlov Brov, as Weiss, Lips, and others, * Son
of God in power,' opposed to the present stale of humiliation, but
rather adverbially, qualifying opiaBttnot, ' declared with might to be
Son of God.' The Resurrection is regarded as a 'miracle' or
' signal manifestation of Divine Power.' Comp. esp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4
ffTTavpmSr) f^ aadfvfiai, iiXXa (^ (k Bvpafxtws Qfov, This parallel de-
termines the connexion of iv 8vv.
kotA iTKcCfia dyiw«unf|$ : not (i) = Uv(vfia°Ayioy, the Third Person
in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally and some moderns),
because the antithesis of oap^ and nixvua requires that they shall
be in the same person ; nor (ii), with Beng. and other moderns
(even Lid.) as the Divine Nature in Christ as if the Human Nature
were coextensive with the adp^ and the Divine Nature were co-
extensive with the nvevpa, which would be very like the error of
Apollinaris ; but (iii) the human nvfvfia, like the human a-dp^,
distinguished however from that of ordinary humduity by an
exceptional and transcendent Holiness (cf. Heb. ii. 17; iv. 15 'it
behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren . .
yet without sin').
4Y'^'^<'^^i not fotmd in profane literature, occurs three times in LXX of
the Psalms, not always in agreement with Heb. (Tss. xcv. 6 [xcvi. 6
'strength']; xcvi. la [xcvii. 12 'holy name,' lit. 'memorial']; cxiiv. 5
[cxlv. 5 'honour']). In all three places it ia used of the Divine attribute;
but in a Mace. iii. la we have rj tov rv-nov AyiaiavvT). In Test. XII. Pair.
Levi 18 the identical phrase vvtv^i. ifiai<T. occurs of the saints in Paradise.
The passage is Christian in its character, but may belong to the original
work and is in any case probably early. If so, the use of the phrase is so
different from that in the text, that the presumfition would be that it was not
coined for the first time by St. Paul. The same instance would show that
the phrase does not ^•{ itself and alone necessarily imply divinity. The
wvfvpa dyicuavvrji, though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity
or Divine Personality resided. The clear definition of this point was one of
the last results of the Christoloj^'ical controversies of the fifth and sixth
centuries (Loofs, Dogmengesch. § 39, 3). For d7(a><r. see on O7«o» ver. 7.
1% dmoTiio-Eus ceKpwi' : a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ.
His was not a ' resurrection of dead persons' (' ajenrisynge of dead
iO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 4, &
men' Wic.) but of a single dead person. We might expect rathef
ptKpov or (K vtKpau (as in i Pet. i. 3) ; and it is probable that this
form is only avoided because of e| dvaardatctt coming just before.
But v*npa)v coalesces closely in meaning with dvatrr., so as to give it
very much the force of a compound word, ' by a dead-rising '
{Twilenauferslehung), ' a resurrection such as that when dead per-
sons rise.' Christ is 'the first-born from the dead' (Col. i. 18).
TOO Kupiou i^fiuK. Although in O. T. regularly applied to God
as equivalent of Adonat, Jakveh, this word does not in itself
necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah
(Mark xii. 36, 37 B ; Ps. Sol. xvii. 36 ^aaiXtvs avrcbv ;^pt(rrit icvpios)
without thereby pronouncing Him to be 'God'; they expressly
distinguished between the Messiah and the Memra or ' Word ' of
Jehovah (Weber, Altsyn. TheoL p. 178). On the lips of Christiana
Kvpioj denotes the idea of ' Sovereignty,' primarily over themselves
as the society of believers (Col. i. 1 8, &c.), but also over all creation
(Phil. ii. 10, II ; Col. i. 16, 17). The title was given to our Lord
even in His lifetime (John xiii. 13 'Ye call me, Master (6 8tdd-
i/KoXot), and, Lord (6 Ki'ptoj) : and ye say well ; for so I am '), but
without a full consciousness of its significance : it was only after
flie Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their central
belief (Phil. ii. 9 ff., &c.).
6. iXdpofiei'. The best explanation of the plur. seems to be that
St. Paul associates himself with the other Apostles.
X<Spis is an important word with a distinctively theological use
and great variety of meaning: (i) objectively, 'sweetness,' 'at-
tractiveness,' a sense going back to Homer {Od. viii. 175); Ps. xlv.
(xliv.) 3 i^fxyQr] xdpn iv x^LXtai (rov '. Eccl. X. 1 2 \6yoi OTOfiarot
a-o(pov x^'-pi-'i '• Luke iv. 22 \6yoL x'^P'-to'; : (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
tiptiv x^P^" ** ^^^ 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 (a) generally, as in Zech. xii. 10 «x<» • • irvtvfia
xdpiTos Koi oiKTipfini^ but far more commonly in N. T. (Luke ii. 40,
John i. 14, 16, &c.); (;3) by a usage which is specially characteristic
of Sl Paul (though not confined to him), with opposition to
o(l)fCXtjfia, ' debt ' (Rom. iv. 4), and to tpya, ' works ' (implying merit,
Rom. xi. 6), ' UTuarmd 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. a). In this sense the
word takes a prominent place in the vocabulary of Justificatioa
I. 6. J THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION II
(4) The cause being put for the eflfect x°P^^ denotes (a) * the state
of grace or favour' which the Christian enjoys (Rom. v. 2), 01
($), like xap'<»"/*a, any particular gift or gifts of grace (nXfipTjs ^(aptroi
Acts vi. 8). We note however that the later technical use, esp.
of the Latin gratia, for the Divine prompting and help which
precedes and accompanies right action does not correspond exactly
to the usage of N. T. (5) As xapit or 'kindly feeling' in the
donor evokes a corresponding xap*f or ' gratitude ' in the recipient,
it comes to mean simply 'thanks' (i Cor. x. 30).
Xfipi*' here = that general favour which the Ap. shares with all
Christians and by virtue of which he is one ; dTroaToXi^i' = the more
peculiar gifts of an Apostle.
We observe that St. Paul regards this spiritual endowment as
conferred upon him by Christ (8t' ol) — we may add, acting through
His Spirit, as the hke gifts are described elsewhere as proceeding
from the Spirit (i Cor. xii, &c.).
€is AiraKo^K Triarews : may be rendered with Vulg. ad ohediendum
fidei provided that mar. is not hardened too much into the sense
which it afterwards acquired of a ' body of doctrine ' (with art.
Tji niarei Jude 3). At this early date a body of formulated doctrine,
though it is rapidly coming to exist, does not still exist : Trtorit
is still, what it is predominantly to St. Paul, the lively act or impulse
of adhesion to Christ. In confessing Christ the lips ' obey ' this
impulse of the heart (Rom. x. 10). From another point of view,
going a step further back, we may speak of * obeying the Gospel '
(Rom. X. 16). Faith is the act of assent by which the Gospel is
appropriated. See below on ver. 17.
iy iroai tois iBvecriv. Gif. argues for the rendering ' among all
nations ' on the ground that a comprehensive address is best suited
to the opening of the Epistle, and to the proper meaning of the
phrase navTa ra (6vri (cf. Gen. xviii. 18, &c.). But St. Paul's com-
mission as an Apostle was specially to the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 8), and it
!S more pointed to tell the Roman Christians that they thus belong
to his special province (ver. 6), than to regard them merely as one
among the mass of nations. This is also clearly the sense in which
Ihe word is used in ver. 1 3. Cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 2 1 f.
oirep TOO 6K6|xaTos ofirou. This is rather more than simply * for
His glory.' The idea goes back to the O. T. (Ps. cvi. [cv.] 8 ;
Ezek. XX. 14; Mai. i. 11). The Name of God is intimately
connected with the revelation of God, Israel is the instrument or
minister of that revelation; so that by the fidelity of Israel the
revelation itself is made more impressive and commended in the
eyes of other nations. But the Christian Church is the new Israel :
and hence the gaining of fresh converts and their fidelity when
gained serves in hke manner to commend the further revelation
made of God in Christ (avroO, cf. Acts v. 41 \ Phil. ii. 9).
lA EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 6, %
0. Ir ot« : not merely in a geographical sense of a Jewish com-
munity among Gentiles, but clearly numbering the Roman Church
among Gentile communities.
KXt|Tol *lT|aou XpuTToC: 'called ones of Jesus Christ': gen. of
possession.
7. i¥ 'P«i)i>|| : om. G g, ScAol. cod. 47 (rA ip 'Pw/i^ oSrt iv rg t^Tiyrjatt
oCrt iv T^ prjro) fivrjfiovtvfi, i. e. some commentator whom the Scholiast
had before him). G reads navi toU ovaiy iv dydnri etov (similarly
d* Vulg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. seem to imply
irao-i Toit oZfTiv iv 'Prnfiji iv dyaiij] Qtov). The Same MS. OmitS roit
iv 'Pi/iff 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 iv 'Pco^/; here and in
ver. 15. For a full discussion of the question see the Introduction,
§6.
kXt]tois dyiois. KXr;r^ Ayla 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 KXijn) dyLa, 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
kXtitoIs has the same sense as KXrjTos in ver. i: as he himself was
* called ' to be an Apostle, so all Christians were * called ' to be
Christians; and they personally receive the consecration which
under the Old Covenant was attached to ' times and seasons.'
For the following detailed statement of the evidence respecting «Xi;r^ Ayia
we are indebted to Dr. Driver : —
kKtjt^ cotresponds to ^^9, trom K*^^ t» emU, a technical term almoat
wholly confined to the Priests' Code, denoting apparently a special religiotu
meeting, or ' convocation,' held on certain sacred days.
It is represented by KKrjrIi, Ex. xii. 16 b; Lev. xxiii. 7, 8, 37, 35, 36;
Num. xxviii. 35. Now in all these passages, where the Heb. has '«m such
a day there shall be a holy convocation,' the LXX have < snch a day shall
be K\rfrii Ayia,' i.e. they alter the form of the sentence, make day subject,
aad use sXi}r(i with its proper force w aa adj. 'shall be a calitd (t.e.
I. 7.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 1$
a specially appointed, chosen, distinguished*), Aofy (day) ' ; of. cX. in //. is.
165 and Rom, i. i. They read analogously with ^"7?^ in Lev. xxiii. a at
iopToi Kvpiov, Ay KoXiffeTf aircis leXriTis dyias (cf. v. 37), 31 «o2 KoXiatrt
ravrqv t^v ijnipav kXijttiV ayia tarai vfuv. In Lev. xxiii. 3 (cf. v. 24),
uXririi Ayia seems to be in apposition with av&vavais. The usage of kKijHi
in Lev. xxiii is, however, such as to suggest that it was probably felt to
have the form of a subst (sc. '^iiipa) ; cf. i-nucXriTos.
This view of k\. is supported by their rendering of K'JiPl? elsewhere. In
Ex. xii. 1 6 a, Lev. xxiii. 4 they also alter the form of the sentence, and
render it by a verb, KXr]dr}atTai iyia, and iyias xaXifferf respectively.
In Num. xxviii. 18, 26 («ai ry fiiJi(p<} twv veuv .... kiriKXrjTot dyia larax
ifuv : similarly xxix. 1, 7, la), they express it by ewiKKrjTos (the same word
nsed ()) ■fit'-ipa ^ irpdiTt] eirlKXrjTOi ayid 'iarai {//xiv) ib. i. 16; xxvi. 9, for the
ordinary partic. called, summoned), i.e. I suppose in the same sense of
specially appointed (cf. Josh. xx. 9 al voXtn at eniv\i]Toi rots vloU lapa^K).
Is. i. 13 ' the calling of a convocation ' is represented in LXX by ^ttipai
ltfyd\t]v, and iv. 5 ' all her convocations * by ra ittpiKxicKqi airrji.
From all this, it occurs to me that the LXX were not familiar with the term
JOpD, and did not know what it meant. I think it probable that they pro-
nounced it not as a subst. ^i^l?, but as a participU *^ptp (' called *).
dyiois. The history of this word would seem to be very parallel
to that of Kkr\To\i. It is more probable that its meaning developed
by a process of deepening from without inwards than by extension
from within outwards. Its connotation would seem to have been
at first physical and ceremonial, and to have become gradually
more and more ethical and spiritual, (i) The fundamental idea
appears to be that of 'separation.' So the word 'holy' came
to be applied in all the Semitic languages, (2) to that which was
' set apart ' for the service of God, whether things (e. g. x Kings vii.
51 [37] ) or persons (e, g. Ex. xxii. 31 [29] ). But (3) inasmuch as
that which was so ' set apart ' or ' consecrated ' to God was required
to be free from blemish, the word would come to denote ' freedom
from blemish, spot, or stain' — in the first instance physical, but
by degrees, as moral ideas ripened, also moral. (4) At first the
idea of 'holiness,' whether physical or moral, would be directly
associated with the service of God, but it would gradually become
detached from this connexion and denote ' freedom from blemish,
spot, or stain,' in itself and apart from any particular destination.
In this sense it might be applied even to God Himself, and we
find it so applied even in the earliest Hebrew literature (e. g.
I Sam. vi. 20). And in proportion as the conception of God itself
became elevated and purified, the word which expressed this
central attribute of His Being would contract a meaning of more
severe and awful purity, till at last it becomes the culminating
and supreme expression for the very essence of the Divine Nature.
When once this height had been reached the sense so acquired
* Bid {L»x, im LXX.) dtes from Phavoriniu the gloss, kK, ^ KoKtor^ moI i
14 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [l. 7,
would be reflected back over all the lower uses, and the tendency
would be more and more to assimilate the idea of holiness m
the creature to that of holiness in the Creator. This tendency
is formulated in the exhortation, ' Ye shall be holy ; for I, the
Lord your God, am holy ' (Lev. xix. a, *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
&yioi, 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, aa), they are
to be 'transformed by the renewing' of their mind (Rom. xii. a).
He teaches in fact implicitly if not explicitly the same lesson as
St. Peter, ' As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves also
holy in all manner of living (AV. conversation); because it is
written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy ' (i Pet. i. 15, 16).
We note that Ps. Sol. had already described the Messianic
people as Xa6s ayiot (koi (Tvvd^et \a6v dywv, oi a(f>rjyr](r«rai iv hiKaioavvjf
xvii. 28; cf. Dan. vii. 18-27; ^"- '4)' Similarly Enoch ciii. a;
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. a, 21 ; xxvi.
19; xxviii. 9, varied from Ex. xix. 6 (6vos ayiov). We have thus
another instance in which St. Paul transfers to Christians a title
hitherto appropriated to the Chosen People. But in this case the
Jewish Messianic expectation had been beforehand with him.
There is a certain element of conjecture in the abore sketch, which it
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 accomit for the
application of the same word at once to the Creator and to His creatures,
both things and persons. The common view (accepted also by Delitzsch) is
that in the latter case it means * separated ' or ' set apart ' for God, and in
the former case that it means 'separate from evil' {sejunctus ai omni 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 Heriog's Real-Encyklopddie, ed. a, s. t. ' Ileiligkeit Gottes.' Instruc-
tive discussions will be found in Davidson, Ezekitl, p. xxxix. i, ; Robertson
Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 133 ff., 140 (140 ff., 150 ed. a) ; Schultx,
ThioUgy of tht Old Ttstament, ii. 131, 167 ff. A treatise by Dr. J. Agat
L 7.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 15
Beet is OB a good method, bat Is somewhat affected bf ctitteal ^aestioM M
to the sequence of the docaments.
There is an interesting progression in the addresses of St. Paul's
£pp. : I, t ThesS. Gal. r^ «(C(tX»7<rig (rait (KKKt}(riais) ', I, 2 Cor. fj
f kkX. -f rotff iyiott ; I Cor. Rom. Kkrfroit dyiots ; Rom. Phil, naa-i nSs
iyiots ; £ph. Col. roit dyiois Koi itUTTois.
The idea of the local Church, as a unit in itself, is more promi-
nent in the earlier Epp.; that of individual Christians forming part of
the great body of believers (the Church Catholic) is more prominent
in the later. And it would be natural that there should be some
such progression of thought, as the number of local churches multi-
plied, and as the Apostle himself came to see them in a larger
perspective. It would however be a mistake to argue at once
from this that the use of c«ucXij<ria 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
iKtckr^cria constantly stands for the religious assembly of the whole
people, as well as the saying of our Lord Himself in Matt. xvi. 18.
But the question is too large to be argued as a side issue.
Rudolf Sohm's elaborate Kirchenrecht (Leipzig, 1893) starts from the
assumption that the prior idea is that of the Church as a whole. But jnst
this part of his learned work has by no means met with general acceptance.
Xapis Kol cipi^m]. Observe the combination and deepened re-
ligious significance of the common Greek salutation xalptw^ and
the common Heb. salutation Shalom, ' Peace.' x«P« ^ind dpfjin} are
both used in the full theological sense : x«P'f = the favour of God,
elpTjvf] = the cessation of hostility to him and the peace of mind
which follows upon it.
There are four formulae of greeting in N. T. : the simple
XO-Lpeiv in St. James ; x^-P'-'^ '^°-'' ^PWV i^^ Epp. Paul, (except i and
2 Tim.) and in i, 2 St. Peter; x^P'^, cAcos, elp^vr} in the Epistles
of Timothy and 2 St. John ; eXeos Kal elpiji'r] koL aydir-r] in St. Jude.
eipir]»n>). We have seen how xap« had acquired a deeper sense in
N. T. as compared with O. T. ; with cipijw; this process had taken
place earlier. It too begins as a phrase of social intercotu-se,
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 {Etpr)vj) o-ot 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 Kvpios tiXoyqafi t6i» \a6v airov iv
flprjvji : IxXXV. [Ixxxiv.] 8 \cLkri<Tfi elpfjvtjv inl top Xmv avrtn) : t'iid. lO
Hixauxrvvj} km tlp^vt) Karc0(Xi;a'ay : cxix. [cxviii.J 1 65 Wpiji^ fl-oXXi; rou
ayaniiat t6v pofiov : Is. liii. 5 jratbtia tlptjvrjs ijft&v iw (an6v \ Jer. ZIV.
13 aX^d«ai« wak upi\vriv iacm iiri ttjs yrjs: Ezek. XXXlv. 25 iiadritrofim
l6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 7.
ry Aovid iiaGfjKTip ttpfivris [cf. xxxvii. a6j. 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, Altsyn,
Theol. p. 362 f.).
The nearest parallel for the nse of the word in a salntation as here ia
Dan. iii. 98 [31]; vi. 34 (LXX) ; iii. 98 [31]; vi. 25 (Theodot.) «lpiJ>T; ifA
wkT/OwOtiT].
diro 6coS irarp^s Vjfiuf ical Kupiou 'ti)(rou Xpiorou. The juxta-
position of God as Father and Christ as Lord may be added to the
proofs already supplied by w. i, 4, that St. Paul, if not formally
enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which
cannot really be distinguished from it. The assignment of the
respective titles of ' Father ' and ' Lord ' represents the first begin-
ning of Christological speculation. It is stated in precise terms
and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate prepositions
in I Cor. viii. 6 dXX' tjfjUv tls 0«6r 6 narrip, f^ ov ra iravra, Kai fifit'is W»
avT6v, KOI fis Kvptos 'irja-ovt XpuTT6s, 8«* oi ra navra, kelL fjfuis di avTOV.
The opposition in that passage between the gods of the heathen
and the Christians' God seems to show that fjficov = 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
(i Thess. i. i ; cf. 2 Thess. i. 2), This shows that even at that
date (a. d. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. It
is well also to remember that although in this particular verse of
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 difiScult, took its place without struggle and
without controversy among accepted Christian truths.
iraxpSs t'lfiui'. 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. 5; Ixxxix. 26; Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixiii. 16; Ixiv. 8; Jer.
xxxi. 9; Mai. i. 6; ii, 10); but there is usually some restriction or
qualification — God is the Father of Israel, of the Messianic King, of
a particular class such as the weak and friendless. It may also be
said that the doctrine of Divine Fatherhood is implicitly contained
in the stress which is laid on the * loving-kindness ' of God (e. g. in
such fundamental passages as Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7 compared with Ps.
dii. 13). But this idea which lies as a partially developed germ in
I. 1-7.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 1 7
the Old Testament breaks into full bloom in the New. It is
placed by our Lord Himself in the fore-front of the conception of
God. It takes however a two-fold ramification : 6 Trar^p vixSav [v/xwf,
trov, avT&v] (e. g. twenty times in St. Matt.), and 6 n-ai^p fiov [6 narfip]
(e. g. twenty-three times in St. Matt.). In particular this second
phrase marks the distinction between the Son and the Father ; so
that when the two are placed in juxtaposition, as in the greeting of
this and other Epistles, 6 nanjp is the natural term to use. The
mere fact of juxtaposition suflBciently suggests the varfip tov Kvpim
^fiS>v 'irjcrov Xpiarov (which is expressed in full in 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i.
3; Col. i. 3 ; cf. Rom. xv. 6; a Cor. xi. 31, but not Eph. iii. 14; Col.
ii. 2); so that the Apostle widens the reference by throwing in
^fiav, to bring out the connexion between the source of * grace and
peace ' and its recipients.
It is no doubt true that irarrjp is occasionally used in N. T. in the
more general sense of 'Creator' (James i. 17 'Father of lights,'
i. e. in the first instance, Creator of the heavenly bodies; Heb. xii. 9
' Father of spirits ' ; cf. Acts xvii. 28, but perhaps not Eph. iv. 6
jrarijp ndirrav, where nuvrav may be masc). It is true also that A
narfip r«v oX<aj» in this sense is common in Philo, and that similai
phrases occur in the early post-apostolic writers (e. g. Clem. Rom.
ad Cor. xix. 2 ; Justin, Apol. i. 36, 61 ; Tatian, Or. c. Graec. 4).
But when Harnack prefers to give this interpretation to Pater in
the earliest creeds {Das Apost. Glaubensbekenniniss, p. 20), tht
immense preponderance of N. T. usage, and the certainty that the
Creed is based upon that usage (e. g. in i Cor. viii. 6) seem to be
decisive against him. On the early history of the term see esp
Swete, Apost. Creed, p. ao flF.
The Theological Terminology of Rom. i. 1-7.
In looking back over these opening verses it is impossible not to
be struck by the definiteness and maturity of the theological teach-
ing contained in them. It is remarkable enough, and characteristic
of this primitive Christian literature, especially of the Epistles of
St. Paul, that a mere salutation should contain so much weighty
teaching of any kind ; but it is still more remarkable when we think
what that teaching is and the early date at which it was penned.
There are no less than five distinct groups of ideas all expressed
with deliberate emphasis and precision: (i) A complete set of
ideas as to the commission and authority of an Apostle; (2) A
complete set of ideas as to the status in the sight of God of a Chris-
tian community; (3) A clear apprehension of the relation of the
new order of things to the old; (4) A clear assertion of what we
should call summarily the Divinity of Christ, which St. Paul re-
garded both in the light of its relation to the expectations of his
c
1 8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [L 8-16
countrymen, and also in its transcendental reality, as revealed by oi
"nferred 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 e. g. Jer. i. 5 and Gal. i. 15). These purposes are
working themselves out, and the Roman Christians come within
their range.
When we come to examine particular expressions we find that
a large proportion of them are drawn from the O. T. In some
cases an idea which has been hitherto fluid is sharply formulated
((cXijTor, acpcopitTnivoi) ; in Other cases an old phrase has been
adopted with comparatively little modification {vTrip roC ovofiarot
avTov, and perhaps flpn*^) ; in others the transference involves
a larger modification [jboiXos *lr)aov Xptirrov, x^P'^> kXtitoi &yuu,
Kvpios, Qfos irarrjp) ; in Others again we have a term which has ac-
quired a significance since the close of the O. T. which Christianity
appropriates {^enayyfXia ^TTpofntfyyeiKaToj, ypa(j)ai aytai, dvd(rra(ris ytKpiHv,
ayioi) ; in yet others we have a new coinage (dn-ooroXor, tiayyeXiov),
which however in these instances is due, not to St. Paul or the
other Apostles, but to Christ Himself.
ST. PAUIi AND THE ROMAN CHURCH.
I. 8-15. God knows hatv long I have desired to see you
— a hope which I trust may at last be accomplished — and
to deliver to you. as to the rest of the Gentile worlds my
message of salvation.
'In writing to you I must first offer my humble thanks to
God, through Him Who as High Priest presents all our prayers
and praises, for the world-wide fame which as a united Church you
bear for your earnest Christianity. • If witness were needed to
show how deep is my interest in you, I might appeal to God 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.
*• He knows how unceasingly your Church is upon my lips, and how
every time I kneel in prayer it is my petition, that at some near day
I. •.] ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH 1 9
I may at last, in the course which God's Will marks out for me,
really have my way made clear to visit you. " For I have a great
desire to see you and to impart to you some of those many gifts
(of instruction, comfort, edification and the like) which the Holy
Spirit has been pleased to bestow upon me, and so to strengthen
your Christian character. "I do not mean that I am above
receiving or that you have nothing to bestow, — ^far from it, — but
that I myself may be cheered by my intercourse with you (fV vfilv),
or that we may be mutually cheered by each other's faith, I by
yours and you by mine. " I should be sorry for you to suppose
that this is a new resolve on my part. The fact is that I often
intended to visit you — an intention until now as often frustrated
— in the hope of reaping some spiritual harvest from my labours
among you, as in the rest of the Gentile world, "There is no
limit to this duty of mine to preach the Gospel. To all without
distinction whether of language or of culture, I must discharge
the debt which Christ has laid upon me. " Hence, so far as the
decision rests with me, I am bent on delivering the message of
salvation to you too at Rome.
8. 8id. Agere autem Deo gratiaSy hoc est sacrificium laudis
offerre: et ideo addii per Jesum Christum; velut per Pontificem
magnum Orig.
^ irums ojiui'. For a further discussion of this word see below
on ver. 17. Here it is practically equivalent to 'your Christianity,'
the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian carrying with it
the direct consequences of that act upon the character. Much
confusion of thought would be saved if wherever * faith ' was
mentioned the question were always consciously asked. Who or
what is its object? It is extremely rare for faith to be used in
the N. T. as a mere abstraction without a determinate object In
this Epistle ' faith ' is nearly always ' faith in Christ.' The object
is expressed in iii. 22, 26 but is left to be understood elsewhere.
In the case of Abraham ' faith ' is not so much ' faith in God ' ag
' faith in the promises of God,' which promises are precisely those
which are fulfilled in Christianity. Or it would perhaps be more
strictly true to say that the immediate object of faith is in most
cases Christ or the promises which pointed to Christ. At the same
time there is always in the background the Supreme Author of
that whole ' economy ' of which the Incarnation of Christ formed
a part. Thus it is God Who justifies though the moving cause of
justification is usually defined as ' faith in Christ' And inasmuch
as it is He Who both promised that Christ should come and also
■O EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS {I. 8-10.
Himself brought about the fulfilment of the promise, even justifying
•kith may be described as ' faith in God.' The most conspicuous
example of this is ch. iv. 5 T<p 8« ^xi^ ipya^Ofiiva, itun-fvovri di ciri tA»
itKaioiivra t6p d<re/3^, \oyi(eTai f) nloTis avrov ds 8iKaio<riivrjv.
0. Xarpeuu connected with Xdrpis, ' hired servant/ and Xarpop, 'hire':
(i) already in classical Gk. applied to the service of a higher power
{8ia r^y roO 6(ov Xarptiav Plato, Apol. 236); (ii) in LXX always of
the service either of the true God or of heathen divinities. Hence
Augustine : Aarpda . . . aui semper aut tam frequenter ut fere
temper, ea dicitur servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum (Trench,
Syn. p. i2of.).
harptitiv is at once somewhat wider and somewhat narrower In meaning
than Xnrovpydv : (i) it is used only (or almost wholly) of the service of God
where A«iTov/37*ri' {KeirovpySs) is nsed also of the service of men (Josh. i. I
f.l.; I Kings i. 4, xix. ai ; 2 Kings iv. 43, vi. 15, &c.) ; (ii) but on the othei
hand it is nsed of the service both of priest and people, esp. of the service
fendered to Jahveh by the whole race of Israel (Acts xxvi. 7 rd 5ai5ti(d(pv\o>
iy iieT«vfi(} Karpfvov, of. Rom. ix. 4) ; \tiTovprffiv is appropriated to the
ministrations of priests and Levites (Heb. x. 11, &c.). Where XftrovpyeTv
(\uTovpy6i) is not strictly in this sense, there is yet more or less conscioos
reference to it (e. g. in Rom. xiii. 6 and esp. xv. 16).
<r Ty w€6\ian |*oo. The wvtvua is the organ of service; the
tvayyfXuiv {= to Krjpvyfia ToiJ fvayycAt'ov) the sphere in which the
service is rendered.
iiri tSjv TipoaevxStv ^o« : • a/ my prayers,' at all my times of prayer
(cf. I Thess. i. a ; Eph. i. 16 ; Philem. 4).
10. slircos. On the eonstrnction see Barton, Affiods and Tentet, f 376.
i58t| iroT^: a difficult expression to render in English; 'now at
length' (AV. and RV.) omits Trore, just as 'in ony maner sumtyme*
(Wic.) omits ^Si; ; ' sometime at the length ' (Rhem.) is more accu-
rate, ' some near day at last.' In contrast with viiv (which denotes
present time simply) ^8r) denotes the present or near future in
relation to the process by which it has been reached, and with
a certain suggestion of surprise 6r relief that it has been reached so
soon as it has. So here rjdr) = ' now, after all this waiting ' : fror«
makes the moment more indefinite. On ^Si; see Baumlein, Gritck.
ParUkeln,^. 138 flf.
€fio8w6r)aonai. The word has usually dropped the idea of 686t
and means ' to be prospered ' in any way (e. g. i Cor. xvi. 3 5 n
av (vobuiToi, where it is used of profus gained in trade; similarly in
LXX and Test. XI L Pair, Jud. i, Gad 7) ; and so here Mey. Gif.
RV., &c. It does not, however, follow that because a metaphor is
often dropped, it may not be recalled where it is directly suggested
by the context. We are thus tempted to render with the earlier
English Versions and Vulg. prosperum iter habeam (* I have
t spedi wey * Wic).
I. 10-16.] ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH 21
ev T(S ^eXT^/Aari tov ®eov. St. Paul has a special reason for
laying stress on the fact that all his movements are in the hands
of God. He has a strong sense of the risks which he incurs in
going up to Jerusalem (Rom. xv. 30 f.), and he is very doubtfu'
whether anything that he intends will be accomplished (Hort,
J?(?m. and Eph. p. 42 fif.).
^KQ^tv : probably for fiffre iAdeiv (Burton, § 371 c).
11. ^miroOw: «ri- marks the direction of the desire, 'to you-
ward ' ; thus by laying stress on the personal object of the verb it
rather strengthens its emotional character.
\dpi<Tii,a iTfeufiaTiK^K. St. Paul has in his mind the kind of gifts
— partly what we should call natural and partly transcending the
ordinary workings of nature — described in i Cor. xii-xiv ; Rom.
xii. 6 ff. Some, probably most, of these gifts he possessed in an
eminent degree himself (i Cor. xir. i8), and he was assured that
when he came to Rome he would be able to give the Christians
there the fullest benefit of them (Rom. xv. 29 olda 8e on ipx°i^*^°^
rrp6s vftas ev n\r]pa)fxaTi fv\oyias Xpiarov iXevaopai), His waS COn-
spicuously a case which came under the descripdon of John vii. 38
* He that believeth on Me, as the scripture hath said, out of his
belly shall flow rivers of living water,' i. e. the behever in Christ
should himself become a centre and abounding source of spiritual
influence and blessing to others.
<U ri <m)pt.xO'f|vav : (It t6 with Infin. expressing purpose 'is employed
with special frequency by Paul, bat occnrs also in Heb. i Pet and Jas.'
(Barton, § 409).
12. oru(iiropaiiXT)0t]»'oi : the subject is «V«, which, from the (tw in
orvunapaxK. and (v vp.iv, is treated in the latter part of the sentence as
equivalent to ^p.tis. We note of course the delicacy with which the
Apostle suddenly checks himself in the expression of his desire to
impart from his own fulness to the Roman Christians : he will not
assume any airs of superiority, but meets them frankly upon their
own level : if he has anything to confer upon them they in turn
will confer an equivalent upon him.
13. oil 9i\ia : odit otofuu (D*) G, «Mi arbitrtr d e g Ambrstr. ; an instance
of Western paraphrase.
oxw, 'I ma,y get.'
14. 'EXXtjai re ital ^ap^(ipolf : a resolution mto its parts of vdtmt
ra fdpT], according to (i) divisions of language, (ii) degrees of culture.
16. TO Kar ifii. It is perhaps best, with Gif. Va. Mou., to take
t6 kot ffif as subject, iTp6Bvp.ov as predicate : so g Vulg. quod in me
promtum est. In that case to kot e>« will = ' I, so far as it rests
with me,' i. e. ' under God ' — L'homme propose, Dieu dispose ; cf. »
r<p BeXtjitari tov Qfoi above. Differently Orig.-lat. (Rufinus) who
IS EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 16, 17.
makes tA nor' «/w' adverbial, quod in mt est promlus sum : so too
d e Ambrstr. The objection to thi> is that St. Paul would have
written irpoBvfios flfu. Mey. Lips, and others take t6 tear in* irp66v-
ftov together as subject of [eoriv] fvayytXiaaadat, ' hence the eager-
ness on my part (is) to preach.' In Eph. vi. ai ; Phil. i. la; CoL
iv. 7 Tu Kar' ({It s= * my affairs.*
THESIS or THE EPISTLE: THE BIGHTEOUSNESS
OF GOD BY FAITH.
I. 16, 17. That message^ humble as it may seem, casts
a new light on the righteousness of God: for it tells how
His righteousness flows forth and embraces man, when it is
met by Faith, or loyal adhesion to Christ.
" Even there, in the imperial city itself, I am not ashamed of my
message, repellent and humiliating as some of its features may
seem. For it is a mighty agency, set in motion by God Himself,
and sweeping on with it towards the haven of Messianic security
every believer — first in order of precedence the Jew, and after him
the Gentile. " Do you ask how this agency works and in what it
consists ? It is a revelation of the righteousness of God, manifested
in a new method by. which righteousness is acquired by man, —
a method, the secret of which is Faith, or ardent loyalty to Jesus
as Messiah and Lord ; which Faith is every day both widening its
circles and deepening its hold. It was such an attitude as this
which the prophet Habakkuk meant when, in view of the desolating
Chaldaean invasion, he wrote : ' The righteous man shall save his
life by his faith, or loyalty to Jehovah, while his proud oppressors
perish.'
16. k-Koxayvvo^ox. St. Paul was well aware that his Gospel was
' unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles foolishness '
(i Cor. i, 23). How could it be otherwise, as Chrysostom says, he
was about to preach of One who ' passed for the son of a carpenter,
brought up in Judaea, in the house of a poor woman . . . and who
died like a criminal in the company of robbers ? ' It hardly needed
the contrast of imperial Rome to emphasize this. On the attraction
which Rome had for St. Paul see the Introduction, § i ; also Hicks
in Studia Biblica, iv. 11.
We have an instance here of a corrnption coming into the Greek te«t
throogb the Latin : kmvcx- <ir< •va-ffiKiw G, trubesco super evangelium g,
I. 16.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 43
con/undor de evangelic Aug. The Latin renderings need not imply any
▼arious reading. The barbarism in G, which it will be remembered has an
interlinear version, arose from the attempt to find a Greek equivalent for
every word in the Latin. This is only mentioned as a clear case of a kind of
corruption which doubtless operated elsewhere, as notably in Cod. Beiae.
It is to be observed, however, that readings of this kind are necessarily quite
late.
SJyafiis is the word properly used of the manifestations of Divine
power. Strictly indeed bvvafui is the inherent attribute or faculty,
fvfpytia is the attribute or faculty in operation. But the two words
are closely allied to each other and 8Cvafxis is so often used for
exerted power, especially Divine superhuman power, that it practi-
cally covers ivipyaa. St. Paul might quite well have written
(vepyfia here, but the choice of hvva^n throws the stress rather more
on the source than on the process. The word hivaiia in a context
like this is one of those to which modern associations seem to give
a greater fulness and vividness of meaning. We shall not do wrong
if we think of the Gospel as a ' force ' in the same kind of sense as
that in which science has revealed to us the great ' forces ' of nature.
It is a principle operating on a vast and continually enlarging scale,
and taking effect in a countless number of individuals. This con-
ception only differs from the scientific conception of a force like
' heat' or ' electricity ' in that whereas the man of science is too apt
to abstract his conception of force from its origin, St. Paul con-
ceives of it as essentially a mode of personal activity ; the Gospel
has all God's Omnipotence behind it. As such it is before all
things a real force, not a sham force like so many which the
Apostle saw around him ; its true nature might be misunderstood,
but that did not make it any less powerful : 6 Xoyoj yhp 6 rov aravpov
rdis ptv anoXKvixfvoii nwpia cVrt, rols 8( (Tco^Ofifvois Tjplv Swafus Qtov c'oTi
I Cor. i. 1 8 ; cf. i Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20 ; i Thess. i. 5.
CIS (TUTr\piav. The fundamental idea contained in a-arrfpia is the
removal of dangers menacing to life and the consequent placing
of life in conditions favourable to free and healthy expansion.
Hence, as we might expect, there is a natural progression corre-
sponding to the growth in the conception of life and of the dangers
by which it is threatened, (i) In the earlier books of the O. T.
(TOT. is simply deliverance from physical peril (Jud. xv. 18 ; i Sam.
xi. 9, 13, &c.). (ii) But the word has more and more a tendency
to be appropriated to the great deliverances of the nation (e. g. Ex.
xiv. 13, XV. 2, the Passage of the Red Sea; Is. xlv. 17, xlvi. 13, lii.
lo, &c., the Return from Exile), (iii) Thus by a natural transition
it is associated with the Messianic deliverance ; and that both (a) in
the lower forms of the Jewish Messianic expectation (Ps. So/, x.
9; xii. 7; cf. Test. XII. Pair. Sym. 7; Jud. 22; Benj.9, 10 [the form
used in all these passages is o-wnjpioi'j ; Luke i. 69, 71, 77), and (^)
tn the higher form of the Christian hope (Acts iv. aa; xiii. a6, &c.).
34 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 16, 17.
In this latter sense traTtjpia covers the whole range oi the Messianic
deliverance, both in its negative aspect as a rescuing from the
Wrath under which the whole world is lying (ver. i8 ff.) and in its
positive aspect as the imparting of ' eternal life ' (Mark x. 30 D ;
John iii. 15, 16, &c.). Both these sides are already combined in
the earliest extant Epistle (ot* ovk lOtTo rjyMs 6 e«oj tls opy^v, dXX' th
ntpiiroiritTiv (TcdTTjplas dia tov Kvpiov fjpmv 'irjaoi Xpiarrou, tow dvodav6pTOS
vnfp ^/tcoi/, tea tiTt ypifyopwptv ctrt Ka6tid<afUif ifta viiP aiiT^ (tjaaptp
I Thess. V. 9, 10).
irpdiTOf; 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 has a
slight Western element, to which this particular reading may be-
long. In that case it would rest entirely upon Western authority.
Marcion appears to have omitted tt/dwtov as well as the quotation
from Habakkuk, and it is possible that the omission in this small
group of Western MSS. may be due to his influence. *
For the precedence assigned to the Jew comp. Rom. iii. i, ix. i flF.,
xi. 16 ff., XV. 9 ; also Matt. xv. 94; Jo. iv. aa ; Acts xiii. 46. The
point is important in view of Baur and his followers who exaggerate
the opposition of St. Paul to the Jews. He defends himself and
his converts from their attacks ; but he fully concedes the priority of
their claim and he is most anxious to conciliate them (Rom. xv. 31 ;
cf. ix. I flf., X. I ff.; XV. 8, &c.: see also Introduction § 4).
17. SiKoioaunf) 0eoO. 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 ' 0/
God' as '/rom 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 Pulpit Commentary on Romans, and the other
by Dr. A. Robertson in The Thinker for Nov. 1893 *; comp. also a
concise note by Dr. T. K. Abbott adloc. There can be little doubt
that the protest is justified ; not so much that the current view is '
wrong as that it is partial and incomplete.
The ' righteousness of God ' is a great and comprehensive idea v
which embraces in its range both God and man ; and in this
fundamental passage of the Epistle neither side must be lost sight "
of. (i) In proof that the righteousness intended here is primarily
'the righteousness of God Himself it may be urged: (i) that this
is consistently the sense of the righteousness of God in the Old
Testament and more particularly in passages closely resembling the
present, such as Ps. xcviiL [xcvii.j a, ' The Lord hath made
* The point ii, however, bejpiming to Attrmct touM attention in Geimany.
L 17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 35
known His salvation : His righteousness hath He revialed (a7r<»cd-
Xv^tv) in the sight of the nations,' which contains the three key-
words of the verse before us ; (ii) that elsewhere in the Epistle
d»K. e«oC=' the righteousness of God Himself (several of the
passages, e.g. iii. 21, 22, x. 3, have the same ambiguity as the
text, but iii. 5, 25, a6 are quite clear) ; (iii) that the marked
antithesis atroKaKxmTtTM yap opyif Q(ov in ver. 18 compared with
iiKawavvq yap Qtov dnoKoKvnTtTfu in ver. 1 7 requires that the gen.
eeoC shall be taken in the same sense in both places. These are
arguments too strong to be resisted.
(2) But at the same time those which go to prove that 5tK. Qfov is
a gift of righteousness bestowed upon man are hardly less con-
vincing, (i) The righteousness in question is described as being
revealed « maTemi tis TiiaTw ; and in the parallel passage iii. 22 it is
qualified as dw. ©eoC hia nltrrtms 'Ij^o-oC XptoroO tis iravras roiis nKTrevov
ras, where its relation to the human recipient is quite unmistak-
able, (ii) This relation is further confirmed by the quotation from
Habakkuk where the epithet diVatos is applied not to God but to
man. Observe the logical connexion of the two clauses, ^iKaioa-vvt}
yap Qeov dnoKaXviTTfTai , . . KaBas ytypa Ttrai, 'O fie b'lKaios fK nuTTfcos
CT)<T€Tai. (iii) Lastly, in the parallel Phil. iii. 9 the thought of the
Apostle is made quite explicit : n^ e^'*"' 'M" Stfcatoarvvjji' rrjv « vo^iov,
ak^a Tffv din jrtOTfwf XpioroO, ttjv ik ©eov 8iKaioavvr)v «ri Tjj itIitt fi. The
insertion of the preposition eV transfers the righteousness from
God to man, or we may say traces the process of extension by
which it passes from its source to its object.
For (3) the very cogency of the arguments on both sides is
enough to show that the two views which we have set over against
each other are not mutually exclusive but rather inclusive. The
righteousness of which the Apostle is speaking not only proceeds
from God but is the righteousness of God Himself: it is this, how-
ever, not as inherent in the Divine Essence but as going forth and
embracing the personalities of men. It is righteousness active and
energizing; the righteousness of the Divine Will as it were pro-
jected and enclosing and gathering into itseif ki^inix. vrl'Js. St. Paul
fixes this sense upon it in another of the great key-verses of the
Epistle, ch. iii. 26 tis rotlvai avrbv BiKaiov Kal SiKaiovvra t6v tK niaTecos
'Ijjo-ov. The second half of this clause is in no way opposed to the
first, but follows from it by natural and inevitable sequence : God
attributes righteousness to the behever because He is Himself
righteous. The whole scheme of things by which He gathers to
Himself a righteous people is the direct and spontaneous expression
of His own inherent righteousness : a necessity of His own Nature
impels Him to make them like Himself. The story how He has^
done so is the burden of the ' Gospel.' For a fuller developmeul
of the idea contained in ' the righteousness of God' see below,
a6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 17
in -iri<rrca>« This root-conception with St. Paul means in the
first instance simply the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah
and Son of God ; the affirmation of that primitive Christian Creed
which we have already had sketched in w. 3, 4. It is the ' Yes ' of
the soul when the central proposition of Christianity is presented to
it. We hardly need more than this one fact, thus barely stated, to
explain why it was that St. Paul attached such immense importance
to it. It is so characteristic of his habits of 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 n-iWtf, ni<TTev(o 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 anil it (his belief) was reckoned unio 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
I. 17.J RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 17
the furnace of afHiction, the Prophet Habakkuk had announced that
one class of persons should be exempted on the ground of this
very quality, * faith.' ' The just or righteous man shall live by
faith.' Here once more faith was brought into direct connexion
with righteousness. When therefore St. Paul began to interrogate
his own experience and to ask why it was that since his conversion,
i. e. since his acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Lord, it had
become so much easier for him to do right than it had been before ;
and when he also brought into the account the conclusion, to which
the same conversion had led him, as to the significance of the Life
and Death of Jesus for the whole Church or body of believers ; what
could lie nearer at hand than that he should associate faith and
righteousness together, and associate them in the way of referring
all that made the condition of righteousness so much more possible
under Christianity than it had been under Judaism, objectively to
the work of the Messiah, and subjectively to the appropriation of
that work by the believer in the assent which he gave to the one
proposition which expressed its value ?
It will be seen that there is more than one element in this con-
ception which has to be kept distinct. As we advance further in
the Epistle, and more particularly when we come to the great
passage iii. 21-26, we shall become aware that St. Paul attached to
the Death of Christ what we may call a sacrificial efficacy. He
regarded it as summing up under the New Covenant all the func-
tions that the Mosaic Sacrifices had discharged under the Old. As
they had the effect, as far as anything outward could have the
effect, of placing the worshipper in a position of fitness for ap-
proach to God ; so once for all the sacrifice of Christ had placed
the Christian worshipper in this position. That was a fact objec-
tive and external to himself of which the Chrisdan had the benefit
simply by being a Christian ; in other words by the sole act of
faith. If besides this he also found by experience that in following
with his eye in loyal obedience (like the author of Ps. cxxiii) his
Master Christ the restraint of selfishness and passion became far
easier for him than it had been, that was indeed a different matter ;
but that too was uUimately referable to the same cause; it too
dated from the same moment, the moment of the acceptance of
Christ. And although in this case more might be said to be done
by the man himself, yet even there Christ was the true source of
strength and inspiraticn ; and the more reliance was placed on this
strength and inspiration the more effective it became ; so much so
that St. Paul glories in his infirmities because they threw him back
upon Christ, so that when he was weak, then he became strong.
On this side the influence of Christ upon the Christian life was
a continuous influence extending as long as Hfe itself. But even
here the critical moment was the first, because it established the
l8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 17.
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 « niartcos ds irlariv. We shall have the process
described more fully when we come to chapters vi-viii.
Ak irioTcws els ttiotii'. The analogy of Ps. Ixxxiii. 8 (Ixxxiv. 7)
tK 8vv(ifAe(os (Is 8vvafiiv, and of 2 Cor. ii. 16 tx Gavdrov eiy Bdvarov , , ,
<V (arjs (h Coii}v, 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 credentium 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.
A SiKaios Ik iricrrecos. 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 6 Se « iria-rKos BiKaws, 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 opt. Harcl., Orig.-lat. Hieron.)
insert /lou (o 5^ 5(«. ^ow €« martais, or 6 5i SU. ih, Triffreon fxov (-qaeTai) from
the LXX. Marcion, as we should expect, seems to have omitted not only
irpwTov 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 examinatioa of Marcion's text see
Zahn, Gesch. d. 1^ cutest. Kanons, ii. 515 fi.
The word fitKoio? and its cognates.
8(kou.os, 8ucai<KriivT|. In considering the meaning and application ot these
terms it is important to place ourselves at the right point of view — at the
point of view, that is, of St Paul himself, a Jew of the Jews, and not either
Greek or mediaeval or modem. Two main facts have to be borne in mind
in regard to the history of th* wofds Slieatot and SiKcuoavvrj. The first is that
although there was a sense in which the Greek words corered the whol«
1. 17.]
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 39
range of right action (^Eth. Nic. V. L 15 8t«a«o<TiJi'»7— T«A.f/a apirt) with the
•ingle qualification that it is vphi trtpov, the duty to one's neighbour *), yet
in practice it was far more commonly used in the narrower sense of Justice
(distributive or corrective idid. a ff.). The Platonic designation of SiKaioavvt)
as one of the four cardinal virtues (Wisdom, Temperance, and Courage or
Fortitude, being the others) had a decisive and lasting influence on the whole
subsequent history of the word in the usage of Greek philosophy, and of all
those moral systems which have their roots in that fertile soil. In giving
a more limited scope to the word Plato was only following the genius of his
people. The real standard of Greek morals was rather t6 KaXov — that which
was morally noble, impressive, admirable — than t6 Siicaiov. And if there
was this tendency to throw the larger sense of diicatoavvr] into the background
in Greek morals, that tendency was still more intensified when the scene was
changed from Greece to Rome. The Latin language had no equivalent at
all for the wider meaning of Sutaioavvq. It had to fall back upon j'usttiia,
which in Christian circles indeed could not help being affected by the domi-
nant use in the Bible, but which could never wholly throw off the limiting
conditions of its origin. This is the second fact of great and outstanding
significance. We have to remember that the Middle Ages derived one half of
its list of virtues through Cicero, firom the Stoics and Plato, and that the four
Pagan virtues were still further thrown into the shade by the Christian triad.
Happily for ourselves we have in English two distinct words for the two
distinct conceptions, 'justice ' and ' righteousness,' And so especially from
the time of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, the conception
' righteousness ' has gone far to recover its central importance. The same
may perhaps be said of the Teutonic nations generally, through the strength
of the Biblical influence, though the German branch has but the single word
Gerechtigkeit to express the two ideas. With them it is probably true
that the wider sense takes precedence of the narrower. But at the time
when St. Paul wrote the Jew stood alone in maintaining the larger sense of
the word full and undiminished.
It is a subordinate question what was the origin of the fundamental idea.
A recent writer (Smend, AUtest. Religionsgtsch, p. 410 ff.) puts forward the
view that this was the ' being in the right,' as a party to a suit in a court of
law. It may well be true that as h'lK^ meant in the first instance ' usage,'
and then came to mean ' right ' because usage was the earliest standard of
right, in like manner the larger idea of ' righteousness ' may have grown
up out of the practice of primitive justice. It may have been first applied
to the litigant who was adjudged to be ' in the right,' and to the judge, who
awarded ' the right ' carefully and impartially.
This is matter, more or less, of speculation. In any case the Jew of
St. Paul's day, whatever his faults, assigned no inadequate place to
Righteousness. It was with him really the highest moral ideal, the principle
of all action, the goal of all effort
If the Jew had a fault it was not that righteousness occupied an inadequate
place in his thoughts ; it was rather that he went a wrong way to attain to
it. '\<jpa^\ t\ dtwKcov vofiop iticaioavt'Tjs ft? yS/xov ovk f<p9aaf, is St. Paul's
mournful verdict (Rom, ix. 31). For a Jew the whole sphere of righteousness
was taken up by the Mosaic Law. His one idea of righteousness was that
of conformity to this Law. Righteousness was for him essentially obedience
to the law. No doubt it was this in the first instance out of regard to the
law as the expressed Will of God. But the danger lay in resting too much
in the code as a code and losing sight of the personal Will of a holy and
good God behind it. The Jew made this mistake ; and the consequence was
Qiat his view of obedience to the law became formal and mechanical. It ia
impossible for an impartial mind not to be deeply touched by the spectack
* Aristotle quotes the proverb tv Si Riittuoaiv^ ovKKiffi^v ira<r' ipvrii ivt.
yO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS \1. 17.
of the religions leaders of a nation devoting themselves with lo mnch eunest-
ness and real 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
disasLrously 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 full
pathos of the situation. Ilis heart bleeds for them (Rom. ix. 2 ; he cannot
withhold his testimony to their zeal, though unhappily it is not a teal
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
Scripture-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 ||\
and then more searchingly and with greater 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 > ou and learn of Me . . . For My yoke it easy, and My burden is light '
(Matt' xi. 28-30).
So the Master ; and then came the disciple. And he too seised the heart
of the secret. He too saw what the Master had refrained from putting with
a dey;ree of emphasis which might have been misunderstood (at least the
majority of His reporters might leave the impression .l!i:.t tliis had been the
case, though one, the Fourth Evangelist, makes Hini 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 offaith^ Enough will have been said in
the next note and in those on \k mffTfois and Sinaioffvyrj Btov as to the
nature of this righteousness. It is sharply contrasted with the Jewish con-
ception of righteousness as obedience to law, and of course goes far deeper
than any Pagan conception as to the motive of righteousness. The specially
Pauline feature in the conception expressed in this passage is that the
' declaration of righteousness ' on the part of God, the Divine verdict of
acquittal, runs in advance of the actual practice of righteousness, and comes
forth at once on the sincere embracing of Christianity.
BiKaioCv, SiKaiovo 9ai. The verb biKaioxiv means properly * to pronounce
righteous.* It has relation to a verdict pronounced by a judge. In so far as
the person ' pronounced righteous ' is not really righteous it has the sense of
' amnesty ' or ' forgiveness.' But it cannot mean to ' make righteous.'
There may be other influences which go to make a person righteous, but
they are not contained, or even hinted at, in the word hucatovv. 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 -<5o>: comp. .5^. Comm. on i Cor. vi. 11
•How can ?iKaiovv possibly signify "to make righteous'^" Verbs indeed of
this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use e. g.
rvif'Xox/v, •' to make blind." But when such words are derived from adjectives
of moral meaning, as &^iovv, ooioiv, SiKatovf, they 'io by usage and must
from the nature of things signify to deem, to account, to prove, 01 to treat
at worthy, holy, righteous.'
I. 17.]
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 3I
(ii) By the regular nse of the word. Godet (p. 199) makes a bold
assertion, which he is hardly likely to have verified, but yet which is probably
right, that Ihere is no example in the whole of classical literature where the
word = ' to make righteous.' The word however is not of frequent occurrence,
(iii^i From the constant usage of the LXX (O. T. and Apocr.), where the
word occurs some forty-five times, always or almost always with the forensic
or judicial sense.
In the great majority of cases this sense is unmistalcable. The nearest
approach to an exception is Ps. Ixxiii [Ixxii] 13 apa fxaraiwi iSiKaiwaa t^v
«ap5iW /*oi;, where, however, the word seems to =- 'pronounced righteous,' in
other words, 'I called my conscience clear.' In Jer. iii. 11 ; Ezek. xvL 51,
53 8««. = ' prove righteous.'
(iv) From a like usage in the Pseudepigraphic Books : e. g. Ps. Sol. ii. 16 ;
iii. 5 ; iv. 9; viii. 7, 27, 31 ; ix. 3 (in these passages the word is used con-
sistently of 'vindicating' the character of God); justifico 4 Ezr. iv. 18;
I. 16 ; xii. 7 ; 5 Ezr. ii. 20 {Libb. Apocr. ed. O. F. Fritzsche, p. 643) — all
these passages are forensic ; Apoc. Baruch. (in Ceriani's translation from
the Syriac) xxi. 9, 11 ; xxiv. i— where the word is applied to those who are
' declared innocent ' as opposed to ' sinners.' »
(v) From the no less predominant and unmistakable usage of the N. T. :
Matt. xi. 19; xii. 37 ; Luke vii. 39, 3; ; x. 39 ; xvi. 15 ; xviii. 14; Rom. ii.
13; iii. 4; I Cor. iv. 4; i Tim. iii. 16 — to quote only passages which are
absolntely unambiguous.
(vi) The meaning is brought out in full in ch. iv. 5 ry II n^ epya^o/iivip,
wiffrtvovTi Sf (irl ruv ZiKaiovvra tov datlifj, Ao7t([f rai 17 w'kttis ovtov els SiKaio-
avvqv. Here it is expressly stated that the person justified has nothing
to show in the way of meritorious acts ; his one asset (so to speak) is faith,
and this faith is taken as an ' equivalent for righteousness. '
We content ourselves for the present with stating this result as a philo-
logical fact. What further consequences it has, and how it fits into the
teaching of St. Paul, will appear later ; see the notes on SiKatoffvvT) @(ov
above and below.
8iKaiu)(ta. For the force of the termination -/xa reference should be made
to a note by the late T. S. Evans in S/>. Comm. on i Cor. v. 6, part of which
is quoted in this commentary on Rom. iv. 2. SiKaiwfM is the definite con-
crete expression of the act of ZiKwcuais : we might define it as ' a declaration
that a thing is Ktitaiov, or that a person is S'lKaios.' From the first use we get
the common sense of ordinance,' 'statute,' as in Luke i. 6 ; Rom. i. 32, ii.
36, and practically viii. 4 ; from the second we get the more characteristically
Pauline use in R<ym. v. 16, 18. For the special shades of meaning in these
passages see the notes upon them.
StKaioxns. This word occurs only twice in this Epistle (iv. 35, v. 18),
and not at all besides in the N. T. Its pl.ice is taken by the verb Stmiovv,
just as in the Gospel of St. John the verb mcrtiiuv occurs no less than
ninety-eight times, while the substantive mam is entirely absent. In
meaning St/caicuffu preserves the proper force of the termination -ffis : it
denotes the * process or act of pronouncing righteous,' in the case of sinners,
' the act of acquittal.'
The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in
some Jewish Writings.
The word iriVrt* has two leading senses, 1) fidelity and (a) belief. The
secoiid sense, as we have said, bas its more exact significance determined by
its object: it may mean, (i) beliet in God; iii) belief in the promises oi
God ; (iii) belief in Christ ; (ivj belief in some particular utterance, claim, o»
promise of God or Christ.
$1 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. IT
The last of these senses is the one most common in the Synoptic Gospels.
'Faith' is thtie usually 'belief in the miracle-working power of Christ or ol
Cod through Christ.' It is o) the response of the applicant for relief —
V. hether for himself or another — to the offer expressed or implied of that
relief by means of miracles (Mark v. 34 || ; x. 53 ||). The effect of the
miracle is usually proportioned to the strength of this response (Matt. ix. 29
ward T:7f rrloTiv v^Siv ytvT]Qr)Ta} v/.uv: for degrees of faith see Matt. viii. 10,
36; 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' (17 Triarn f/ h' aiirov). Faith is also {0) the confidence
of the disciple that he can exercise the like miracle-working power when ex-
pressly conferred upon him 1 Mark xi. 33-34 ||). 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 meant
'faith in Himself.'
Faith in the performance of miracles is a sense which naturally passes
over into the Acts (Acts iii. 16 ; xiv. 9). We find in that book also ' ihe faith '
{f) niarts Acts vi. 7 ; xiiL 8 ; xiv. 2 2 ; xvi. 5 ; xxiv. 24), i. e. ' 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 nians is
used as an attribute of individuals {TrKrjprji marfwi Acts vi. 5 of Stephen ; xi.
34 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 iriajti 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. i ). In the controversial passage,
Jas. ii. 14-26, where Faith is contiasted 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. it
31), 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 alwajs Christian faith (1 Pet. i. 5,
7-9 ; ii. 6; 3 Pet. i. i, 5), and usually faith as the foundation of character.
When St. Peter speaks of Christians as ' guarded through faith unto salva-
tion ' (I Pet. i. 5) his use approaches that of St Paul ; faith is treated as the
' one thing needful,'
St John, as we have seen, very rarely uses the word mans (i Jo. ▼. 4),
though he makes up by his fondness for TnaTevai. 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' (i 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. it 13, 19 ; xiii. 10 ; xiv. 12 ; cf. also tr«rr^i i- 5 ! ii-
10, &c.).
The distinctive use of ' faith ' in the ^2pistle to the Hebrews is for faith in
the fulfilment of God's promises, a firm belief of that which is still future and
unseen [hXiri^ofikvajv vnoaraais, vpayfmTcvv f\eyxos ov li\tvop.(van' Heb. xi. I).
This use not only runs through ch. xi^ but is predominant in all the places
where the word occurs (Heb. iv. a ; vi. i - x. 33 f. ; xii. 3 ; xiii. 7) .- it is not
I. 17.]
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 33
found in St. Paul of promises the fulfilment of which is still future (for this
he prefers iXwis : cf. Rom. viii. 35 tl 5i 6 oi/ l3K(-non(v (Km(oiJ.tv, S«' vtrofiov^s
inftcSfx6nf9a). St. Paul does however use ' faith ' for the confidence of O. T.
saints in the fulfilment of particular promises made to them (so of Abraham
in Rom. It).
Going outside the N. T. it is natural that the use of * faith ' should be
neither so high nor so definite. Still the word is found, and frequently
enough to show that the idea ' was in the air ' and waiting only for an object
worthy of it. ' Faith ' enters rather largely into the eschatological teaching
respecting the Messianic time. Here it appears to have the sense of ' fidelity
to the O. T. religion.' In the Psalms 0/ Solomon it is characteristic of the
Messiah Himself: Ps, Sol. xvii. 45 ■noijxaivojv t6 iroi/xviov Kvpiov iv itiaiti koX
biKaioavvT). In the other Books it is characteristic of His subjects. Thus
4 Ezr. vi. i^Jlorebit auiem fiJes et vincettir corruptela; vii. 34 Veritas stabit
et fides co7ivalescet ; 44 (114) soliita est intcmperantia, abscissa est incredu-
litas (=airj<rTia). In Apoc. Barjic/i. and Ass u nip. Mays, the word has this
sense, but not quite in the same connexion : Apoc. Bar. liv. 5 revelas ab-
scondiia inimaculatis qui in fide subiecerunt se tibi et legi ttiae ; 21 glori-
ficabis fideles iuxta fideni eoriim; lix. 1 incredulis torinentut)i ignis reser-
vatiim ; Ass. Movs. iv. % dtiae autem tribus perma7iebunt in praeposita fide.
In Apoc. Bar Ivii. 2 we have it in the sense of faith in the prophecy of com-
ing judgement ;y5'rt'('j' itidicii fiitiiri tunc gignebatitr. Several times, in oppo-
sition to the use in St. Paul, we find opera et fides combined, still in con-
nexion with the ' last things ' but retrospectively with reference to the life on
earth. So 4 Ezra ix. 7, 8 et erit, oinnis qui salvus /actus fuerit et qui po-
terit effugere per opera sua vel per fideni in qua credidit, is relinquetur de
praedictis periculis et videbit salutare nieuni in terra mea et in finibus
meis ; xiii. 23 ipse custodibit qui in periculo incideritit, hi sunt qtii habent
opera et fidem ad Fortissinumi. We might well believe that both these pas-
sages were suggested, though perhaps somewhat remotely, by the verse of
Habakkuk which St. Paul quotes. The same may be said of 5 Ezr. xv. 3,
4 nee turbent te increduliiates dicentitim, quoniain omnis incredu/us in in-
credulitate sua morietur {Libb. Apocr. p. 645, ed. O. F. Fritzsche).
Among all these various usages, in Canonical Books as well as Elxtra-
canonical, the usage of St. Paul stands out markedly. It forms a climax to
them all with the single exception of St. John. There is hardly one of the
ordinary uses which i« not represented in the Pauline Epistles. To confine
ourselves to Ep. to Romans; we have the word (i) clearly used in the sense
of 'fidelity' or * faithfuhiess ' (the faithfulness of God in performing His
promises), Rom. iii. 3 ; also (ii) in the sense of a faith which is practically
that of the miracle-worker, faith as the foundation for the exercise of spiritual
gifts, Rom. xii 3, 6. We have it (iii) for a faith like that of Abraham in
the fulfilment of the promises of which he was the chosen recipient, Rom. iv.
passim. The faith of Abraham however becomes something more than
a particular attitude in regard to particular promises ; it is (iv) a standing
attitude, deliberate faith in God. the key-note of his character ; in ch. iv. the
last sense is constantly gliding into this. A faith like Abraham's is typical 0/
the Christian's faith, which has however both a lower sense and a higher :
sometimes (v) it is in a general sense the acceptance of Christianity, Rom. i.
5 ; I. 8, 17 ; xvi. 26; but it is also (vi) that specially strong and confident
acceptance, that firm planting of the character upon the service of Christ,
which enables a man to disregard small scruples, Rom. xiv. i, 22 f. ; cf. i.
17. The centre and mainspring of this higher form of faith is (vii) defined
more exactly as 'faith in Jesus Christ,' Rom. iii. 32 q. v., 26. This is the
crowning and characteristic sense with St. Paul; and it is really this which
he has in view wherever he ascribes to faith the decisive significance which
he does ascribe to it, even though the object is not expressed (as in i. 17; iii.
34 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 16, IT
47 f[.; T. I, a). We have teen that it i< not merely assent or adhesion bnt
enthusiastic adhesion, personal adhesion ; the highest and most effective
motive power of which human character is capable. It is well to remembei
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.
Thi 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 Te.'-taments 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 OJ/TC09 01/, 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-
position of the Epistle had been already combined in the Old
Testament. Reference has been made to the triple combination of
'righteousness,' 'salvation' and 'revelation' in Ps. xcviii. [xcvii.] a:
similarly Is. Ivi. i ' My salvation is near to come, and My righteous-
ness to be revealed.' The double combination of ' righteousness '
and ' salvation ' is more common. In Ps. xxiv. [xxiii.] 5 it is
slightly obscured in the LXX : ' He shall receive a blessing from
the Lord and righteousness {tKft^yioavtrqv) from the God of his
salvation {napa Q(ov (r<aTrjpoi airov)' In the Second Part of Isaiah
it occurs frequently: Is. xlv. 21-25 * There is no God beside Me ;
a just God and a Saviour {SUaiot koI o-cdttip). 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 {ano Kvplm
tiicaia)6fj(TovTai), 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. 5, 6 ' My righteousness is near, My salvation is gone forth . . .
1. 16, 17.J RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 35
My salvation shall be for ever, and My righteousness shall not be
abolished.'
In all these passages the righteousness of God is conceived as
'going forth,' as projected from the Divine essence and realizing
itself among men. In Is. liv. 17 it is expressly said, 'Their
righteousness [which] is of Me ' ; and in Is. xlv. 25 the process is
described as one of justification ('in the Lord shall all the seed of
Israel be justified ' : see above). In close attendance on the
righteousness of God is His salvation ; where the one is the other
immediately follows.
These passages seem to have made a deep impression upon
St. Paul. To him too it seems a necessity that the righteousness
of God should be not only inherent but energizing, that it should
impress and diffuse itself as an active force in the world.
According to St. Paul the manifestation of the Divine righteous-
ness takes a number of different forms. Four of these may be
specified, (i) It is seen in the fidelity with which God fulfils His
promises (Rom. iii. 3, 4). (2) It is seen in the punishment
which God metes out upon sin, especially the great final punish-
ment, the Tjftepa opyrjs Koi arroKaXtylreos SiKaioKpialas Toii Qfov (Rom.
ii. 5). Wrath is only the reaction of the Divine righteousness
when it comes into collision with sin. (3) There is one signal mani-
festation of righteousness, the nature of which it is difficult for us
wholly to grasp, in the Death of Christ. We are going further
than we have warrant for if we set the Love of God in opposition
to His Justice; but we have the express warrant of Rom. iii. 25, a6
for regarding the Death on Calvary as a culminating exhibition of
the Divine righteousness, an exhibition which in some mysterious
way explains and justifies the apparent slumbering of Divine re-
sentment against sin. The inadequate punishment hitherto in-
flicted upon sin, the long reprieve which had been allowed man-
kind to induce them to repent, all looked forward as it were to that
culminating event. Without it they could not have been ; but the
shadow of it was cast before, and the prospect of it made them
possible. (4) There is a further link of connexion between what is
said as to the Death of Christ on Calvary and the leading pro-
position laid down in these verses (i. 16, 17) as to a righteousness
of God apprehended by faith. "The Death of Christ is of the
nature of a sacrifice (fV r^ avroO aiftari) and acts as an IKatTTfjpiov
(iii. 25 q. V.) by virtue of which the Righteousness of God which
reaches its culminating expression in it becomes capable of wide
diffusion amongst men. This is the great ' going forth ' of the
Divine Righteousness, and it embraces in its scope all believers.
The essence of it, however, is — at least at first, whatever it may be
ultimately — that it consists not m making men actually righteous
but in ' justifying ' or treating them as if they were righteout.
36 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 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 8t»caicoo-ts (iv. 25, V. 18). More often he uses in respect to
it the verb ^Kaioia-dai (iii. 34, 28, v. i, 9, viii. 30, 33). The full
phrase is StKatoOcr^ai «*c nicrrtas : 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 dat^qs (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 8iKaiov(T6in 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 biKaiovv,
8iKaiov(r6M 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~Pr63igal 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 Forgiyeness, Free Forgiveness. The Parable
of the Prodigal Son is a picture of it which is complete on two
of its sides, as an expression of the attitude of mind required in
the sinner, and of the reception accorded to him by God. To
1.16,17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 37
insist that it must also be complete in a negative sense, and that
it excludes any further conditions of acceptance, because no such
conditions are mentioned, is to forget the nature of a parable.
It would be as reasonable to argue that the father would be
indifferent to the future conduct of the son whom he has recovered
because the curtain falls upon the scene of his recovery and is
not again lifted. By pressing the argument from silence in this
way we should only make the Gospels inconsistent with them-
selves, because elsewhere they too (as we shall see) speak of
further conditions besides the attitude and temper of the sinner.
We see then that at bottom and when we come to the essence of
things the teaching of the Gospels is not really different from the
teaching of St. Paul. It may be said that the one is tenderly and
pathetically human where the other is a system of Jewish Scho-
lasticism. But even if we allow the name it is an encouragement
to us to seek for the simpler meaning of much that we may be
inclined to call ' scholastic' And we may also by a little inspection
discover that in following out lines of thought which might come
under this description St. Paul is really taking up the threads of
grand and far-reaching ideas which had fallen from the Prophets
of Israel and had never yet been carried forwards to their legitimate
issues. The Son of Man goes straight, as none other, to the
heart of our common humanity; but that does not exclude the
right of philosophizing or theologizing on the facts of religion, and
that is surely not a valueless theology which has such facts as its
foundation.
What has been thus far urged may serve to mitigate the apparent
strangeness of St. Paul's doctrine of Justification. But there is
much more to be said when we come to take that doctrine with
its context and to put it in its proper place in relation to the whole
system.
In the first place it must be remembered that the doctrine belongs
strictly speaking only to the beginning of the Christian's career.
It marks the initial stage, the entrance upon the way of life. It
was pointed out a moment ago that in the Parable of the Prodigal
Son the curtain drops at the readmission of the prodigal to his
home. We have no further glimpse of his home life. To isolate
the doctrine of Justification is to drop the curtain at the same
place, as if the justified believer had no after-career to be re-
corded.
But St. Paul does not so isolate it He takes it up and follows
every step in that after-career till it ends in the final glory (ots di
fSiKaiuxre, tovtovs koI tdo^aat viii. 30). We may say roughly that
the first five chapters of the Epistle are concerned with the doctrine
of Justification, in itself (i. 16 — iii. 30), in its relation to leading
features of the Old Covenant (iii. 31 — iv. 25) and in the conse-
4l EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [L 16, 17
quences which flowed from it (v. 1-2 1). But with ch. vi anothei
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.
7-a5) — and that with great fulness of detail — the whole career
of the Christian subsequent to Justification. We shall speak ol
the teaching of those chapters when we come to them.
It is no doubt an arguable question how far ihese later chapten
can rightly be included under the same category as the earlier.
Dr. Liddon for instance summarizee 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. as). (C) The Life of Justification and the work
of the Holv 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 =y«jA'/»a 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 rathei
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
inseparaMe,' 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
FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 39
vi-viii, 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 hke footing with other manifes-
tations of that Righteousness. All that can be said to the con-
trary is that St. Paul himself does not explicitly give it this
name.
THB UNIVEIlSAIi NEED: FAILUBB OT
THE GENTHjES.
I. 18-82. This revelation of Righteousness^ issuing forth
from God and embracing man, has a dark background in
that other revelation of Divine Wrath at the gross wicked-
ness of men (ver. i8).
There are three stages: (i) the knowledge of God which
all might have from the character imprinted upon Creation
(w. 19-20) ; (2) the deliberate ignoring of this knowledge
and idle speculation ending in idolatry (vv. 21-23) • (s) '^^
judicial surrender of those who provoke God by idolatry to
every kind of moral degradation (w. 24-32).
** This message of mine is the one ray of hope for a doomed
world. The only other revelation, which we can see all around
us, is a revelation not of the Righteousness but of the Wrath
of God breaking forth — or on the point of breaking forth — from
heaven, like the lightning from a thundercloud, upon all the
countless offences at once against morals and religion of which
mankind are guilty. They sufle and suppress the Truth within
them, while they go on still in their wrong-doing (eV aSiK.). " It 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 [L 18-82.
God : they gave Him no thanks ; but they gave the rein to futile
speculations ; they lost ail 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 I).
"Because of this idolatry, I repeat, God gave them up to the
vilest [passions. Women behaved like monsters who had forgotten
their sex. *' And men, forsaking the natural use, wrought shame
with their own kind, and received in their physical degradation
a punishment such as they deserved.
*" They refused to make God their study : and as they rejected
Him, so He rejected them, giving them over to that abandoned
mind which led them into acts disgraceful to them as men:
*• replete as they were with every species of wrong-doing; with
active wickedness, with selfish greed, with thorough inward de-
pravity : their hearts brimming over with envy, murderous thoughts,
quarrelsomeness, treacherous deceit, rank ill-nature; backbiters,
'-* slanderers ; in open defiance of God, insolent in act, arrogant in
thought, braggarts in word towards man ; skilful plotters of evil,
bad sons, '* dull of moral apprehension, untrue to their word,
void of natural duty and of humanity : ^'^ Reprobates, who, knowing
full well the righteous sentence by which God denounces death
upon all who act thus, are not content with doing the things which
He condemns themselves but abet and applaud those who practise
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) en the part of the Gentiles, (ii) on the
I. 18.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 4I
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 @eov, perhaps through some accident
on his own part or in the MS. which he copied (Zahn, tii sup. p. 516 ; the
nther important cursive 47 has the same oiDission i. Therest of the chapter
with iL I he seems to have excised. He may have been jealous of this
trenchant attack upon the Gentiles.
*AiroKoXu'irT«Tot. 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 ajroKoXvfrrcToi, present. In the first half of the next chapter
he brings out the final doom to which the signs are pointing.
Observe the links which connect the two sections : amoKa\v-aT(rai
i. 18 ^ airoKaXtn^tc iL 5 > ^P)"7 ^ '^r i'* 5) ^ > a.vanok6f]rot \. 20,
ii. I.
6pY^| eeou. (i) In the O. T. the conception of the Wrath of
God has special reference to the Covenant-relation. It is inflicted
either (a) upon Israelites for gross breach of the Covenant (Lev.
X. I, a Nadab and Abihu ; Num. xvi. 33, 46 flf. Korah ; xxv. 3
Baal-peor), or {p) upon non-Israelites for oppression of the Chosen
People (Jer. L 11-17; Ezek. xxxvi. 5). (2) In the prophetic
writmgs this infliction of * wrath' is gradually concentrated upon
a great Day of Judgement, the Day of the Lord (Is. ii. 10-22, &c. ;
Jer. XXX. 7, 8 ; Joel iii. 12 ff. ; Obad. 8 flF. ; Zeph. iii. 8 flf.). (3) Hence
the N. T. use seems to be mainly, if not altogether, eschatological :
cf. Matt. iii. 7; i Thess. i. 10; Rom. ii. 5, v. 9; Rev. vi. 16, 17.
Even I 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, Recht/erttgung u. Versoh-
nung, ii. 124 ff. ed. a.
Similarly Euthym.-Zig. 'KwomaXivrtrtu m.r.X. iv fifii.ip<f St]\ov6ti Kplaews.
We must remember however that St. Paul regarded the Day of Judgement as
near at hand.
iy dSiKio, ' living in unrighteousness fAe wht'le' Moule.
naT€x6vTbiy. Karex^eiv = (i) ' to hold fast' Lk. viii. 15 ; i Cor. xi. a,
XV. t, &c. ; (ii) 'to hold down,' 'hold in check' a Thess. ii. 6, 7,
where to Kartxov, 6 KaTfxuv=^the force of [Roman] Law and Order
by which Antichrist is restrained: similarly here but in a bad
4t EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [L 18-aO.
sense; it is the truth whicu is 'held down,' hindered, thwarted,
checked in its free and expansive operation.
19. SkJti : always in Gk. Test. = ' because.' There are three uses :
(i) for iC 5 Ti = propter quod, quamobrem, ' wlierefore,' introducing
a consequence ; (ii) for i^ta roOro ori = propterea quod, or quia,
' because,' giving a reason for what has gone before ; (iii) from
Herod, downwards, but esp. in later Gk. = on, ' that.'
t6 yywn6y. This is a similar case to that of dodajdria-oiiai above :
yvwaros in Scripture generally (both LXX and N. T.) means as
a rule 'known' (e.g. Acts i. 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, T/:e Wiinest 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 cov^er his writings.
Iv auTois, ' within them,' St. Paul repeatedly uses this preposi-
tion where we might expect a different one (cf. Gal. i. 16; Rom.
ii. 15) : any revelation must pass through the human conscious-
ness : so Mey. Go. Oltr. Lips., not exactly as Gif. (' in their very
nature and constitution as men ') or Moule (' among ihera).'
Compare also Luther, Table Talk, Aph. dxlix : ' Melanchthon discoursing
with Luther touching the prophets, who c< ntinually boast thus : " Thus saith
the Lord," asked whether God in person spoke with them or no. Luther
replied : " They were very holy, spiritual people, who seriously contemplated
npon holy and divine things: therefore God spake with them in tlieir
consciences, which the prophets held as sure and certain revelations.'"
It is however possible that allowance should be made for the wider
Hebraistic nse of iv, as in the phrase \a\iiv tv nvi (Habak. ii. i &Tro<jKo-
wtvaoj TOO liiiv ri KaXrjafi iv i^ioi: cf. Zech. i. 9, 13, 14, 19 ; ii. 3 ; iv. 4. 5 ;
V. 5, 10 ; vi. 4; also 4 Ezr. v. 15 angelus qui loquebatur in me. In that
case too much stress must not be laid on the preposition as describing an
internal proce<5s. At the same time the analogy of h.aKtXv kv does not cover
the very explicit (pavtpov iartv iv avrois : and we must remember that
St. Paul is writing as one who had himself an 'abundance of revelations'
(a Cor. xii. 7), and sses the language which corresponded to his owa
experience.
20. dir6 RTi<rewt R^vfiOM. 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 an-' apxh^ Koafwv
(Matt. xxiv. 21), dno KUTo^nXfis Kon-fjMv (Matt. XXV. 34 ; Luke xi. 50;
Rev. xiii. 8 ; xvii. 8), an dpxfit icria-tvs (Mark x. 6 ; xiii. 19 ; 2 Pet.
iii. 4), seem to show that the force of the prep, is rather temporal,
'st'nce the creation of the universe' (<i<^" oi x^'"^'>v 6 oparns iKTioB^
aAvfios £uih}m.-Zig.). The idea of knowledge being derived fron:
I. 20.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 49
the fabric of the created world is in any case contained in the
context.
KTi(rcw«: see Lft. Col. p. 214. nrlms has three senses: (i) the
act of creating (as here) ; (ii) the result of that act, whether (a) the
aggregate of created things (Wisd. v. 18 ; xvi. 24 ; Col. i. 15 and
probably Rom.viii. 19 ff.); or (3) a creature, a single created thing
(Heb. iv. 13, and perhaps Rom. viii. 39, q. v.).
Kadoparai: commonly explained to mean 'are clearly seen*
{Kara with intensive force, as in Karafiavdavfiv^ Karavotlv) ; go Fri.
Grm.-Thay. Gif. &c. It may however relate rather to the direction
of sight, ' are surveyed,' ' contemplated ' (' are under observation *
Moule). Both senses are represented in the two places in which
the word occurs in LXX : (i) in Job x. 4 ^ Sxrn-tp /Sporos 6pq Kadop^t ;
(ii) in Num. ZXiv. S BaKaap. . . . Kadop^ Tov *l<Tpar)\ farpaTOTrtdfVKOTa
Kara (pvXag.
diSios : aliiorrjf is a Divine attribute in Wisd. ii. 33 (v. 1., see
below); cf. also Wisd. vii. 26 (purbs ai^iov, Jude 6.
The argument from the nature of the created world to the
character of its Author is as old as the Psalter, Job and Isaiah :
Pss. xix. I ; xciv. 9; cxliii. 5; Is. xlii. 5; xlv. i8; Job xii. 9;
xxvi. 14; xxxvi. 24 fF. ; Wisd. ii. 23 ; xiii. i, 5, &c. It is common
to Greek thought as well as Jewish : Arist. De Mundo 6 a6i(jipr\rot
mt avTu>v T&v epyuv Otapeirai [o Bfoj] (Lid.). This argument is very
fully set forth by Philo, De Praem. et Poen. 7 (Mang. ii. 415).
After describing the order and beauty of Nature he goes on:
' Admiring and being struck with amazement at these things, they
arrived at a conception consistent with what they had seen, that
all these beauties so admirable in their arrangement have not come
into being spontaneously {ovk dnavTopaTiadivra yeyovtv), but are the
work of some Maker, the Creator of the world, and that there must
needs be a Providence {npovoiav); because it is a law of nature
that the Creative Power (to nfnoirjKos) must take care of that which
has come into being. But these admirable men superior as they
are to all others, as I said, advanced from below upwards as if
by a kind of celestial ladder guessing at the Creator from His
works by probable inference (ola 8id rtvos ovpaviov KkifiaKos dn-i t6i»
((rytof ctKort Xo-ytcr^i^ trroxairapfvoi rbv !iTjpt.ovpy6v),
d€i($TT)s : BfOTTjs = Divine Personality, dfiorrjs = Divine nature and
properties : dCvafus is a single attribute, ^«idr?;y is a summary term
for those other attributes which constitute Divinity : the word
appears in Biblical Gk. hrst in Wisd. xviii. 9 rbv ttjs Ofnanjros vo/mp
fv ofiovoia biidtvro.
Didymus {Trin. ii. 11 ; Migne, P. G. xxxix. 664) accuses the heretics of
reading &f6Tr}s here, and it is found in one MS., P.
It is certainly somewhat strange that so general a term as 9(i6Ttjs should
be combined with a term denoting a particular attribute like Svva/ut. To
meet this diiificalty the attempt has been made to narrow down 6ti6Tip to
44 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I, 20, 21
the signification of Wfo, the divine glory or •plendonr. It is fuggested
that this word was not used because it seemed inadequate to describe the
uniqueness of the Divine Nature (Rogge, Die Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus
von d. religids-sittl. Charait. d, Heidentutns, Leipzig, i888, p. lo £,)
els T& fivax : th t6 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, § 411) takes tls to 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 kcli ovtws elalv,
and seems therefore to require that fh t6 tlvai be interpreted as
* expressing result.' There is force in this reasoning, though the use
of (U TO for mere result is not we believe generally recognized.
21. ^So^ao-af. 5o|afa) 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 ho^a it merely = ' to form
an opinion about ' (So|a^d/tx,€vos aStKos, * held to be unrighteous, '
Plato, Hep. 588 B) ; then later with a gradual rise of signification
' to do honour to ' or ' praise ' [l-rr aperfj 8e8o|acr|U,€vot av8pe<; Polyb.
VI. liii. id). And so in LXX and N. T. with a varying sense accord-
ing to the subject to whom it is applied: (i) Of the honour done by
man to man (Esth. iii. I (86^aa-€v 6 ^aa-iXevs 'Apra^ep^rjs 'A/idv);
(ii) Of that which is done by man to God (Lev. x. 3 iv irdayj r^
avvaycoyf] 8o^aa6rj(Tonai) ; (iii) Of the glory bcstowed on man by God
(Rom. viii. 30 ots 8« (biKalaa-f, TovTovs km (do^aae) ] (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 ; xviL i, 4, Ac).
^|jiaTai(f50T|o-ai', ' were frustrated,' ' rendered futile.' In LXX ra
naraia = ' idols ' as ' things of nought.' The two words occur
together in 2 Kings Xvii. 15 km fnoptidrja-av oiritrm t5>v fiaraltav «u
fpaTai<i>dri(Tav.
SiaXoyioiJiois : as usually in LXX and N. T. in a bad sense of
' perverse, self-willed, reasonings or speculations ' (cf. Hatch, £ss.
in 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.'
KapSia : the most comprehensive term for the human faculties,
I. 21-24.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 45
the seat of feeling (Rom. ix. a ; x. i) ; will (i Cor. iv. 5 ; vii. 37 ;
cf. Rom. xvi. 18); thoughts (Rom. x. 6, 8). Physically Kapdia
belongs to the anXdyxva (2 Cor. vi. n, 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. 6).
23. i]XXa|oi' ip : an imitation of a Heb. construction : cf Ps.
cvi. (cv.) 20 ; also for the expression Jer. ii. 1 1 (Del ad loc.) &c.
%6^(xv = 'manifested perfection.' See on iii. 23.
Comp. with this verse Philo, Vit. Mas. iii. 20 (Mang. ii. i6i) ot rbv
AXrjOri 6ihv icaTaXin6t>Tes roij if/ivSwvvixovs eSTj^iovpyrjaav, (pdaprais Kal ytvrjTcui
ovffiais T^v Tov dyei/riTov Hal d.<p6apTov -apoaprjaiv kvicp-q^iaavTa : also Dt Ebrut.
a8 (Mang. i. 374) irap' h koI dtoirXaartiv dp^antvos dya\fxa.T<uy Kal ^oavwv Kai
ikKaiv fivp'uuv diptSpv/jiaTOJV v\cus itatpopois rtrtxi'iTfVfiivcuv KariTrATjae Trjv
oIkov fji.ivjp> . . , Kareipydaaro to iyavriov ov irpoa(S6i{rjatv, dvTi uaioTrjTot
dai^fiav — ri ydp woKvOfov fv rats raiv dippovaiv if/vxcus dOtdrTjs, Kal 6(ov rifirjs
iXoyovffiv ol TCi Oinjrd 9(iw<ravres — ofi ovk t^rjpKiafv ijKiov Kal atXijvrj^ . . .
tlKovai SiaiT\daaa6ai, dW' i]5i) Koi ikdyatt (uoit Kal <pvToit r^t rvr affQapfrvy
rin%% fitriSoaaw.
24. irop^uKei' : 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
napiiutKtv is not merely permt'sst've (Chrys. Theodrt. Euthym.-Zig.*),
through God permitting men to have their way; or privative^
through His withdrawing His gracious aid ; hwi judicial, the appro-
priate punishment of their defection : it works automatically, one
evil leading to another by natural sequence.
This is a Jewish doctrine : Pirqi Aboth, iv. a * Every fiilfilment of duty it
rewarded by another, and every transgression is punished by another * ; Shab-
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 ' ; Jems. Talmud, ' He who erects a fence round himself is fenced, and
he who gives himself over is given over ' (from Delitzsch, Notes on Heb.
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. ThtoL p. 66).
4r ofirois ^< A B C D*, several cursives; tviavro'iv D°EFGKLP,
&c., printed editions of Fathers, Orig. Chrys. Theodrt., Vulg. (ut
contumeliis adficiant corpora sua in ipsis). The balance is strongly
• Similarly Adrian, an Antiochene writer (c. 440 A.D.) in his Maaywyij tU
rds Odai ypacpds, a, classified collection of figures and modes of speech em-
ployed in Holy Scripture, refers this verse to the head Tfjv i^rl rStv dvBpaimvttw
KaKwv avyx^pnaty roi Ofov in tpS^iv aitrov Kiiiw inubi^ KmhS/oai imd4^tvol,
9OVT0 06 notu.
46 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [l. 24-2a
in favour of airoU. With this reading dTtfjiii(cad(u is pass., and 4t
avrols = ' among them ' : with ev tavToU, arifK is mid. (as Vulg.).
On the fonni, avroO, avrev *nd iavrov le* Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gh. (tr.
Thayer) p. li i ; Hort, Introd., Notet on Orthography, p. 144.
In N. T. Greek there is a tendency to the disuse of ttrong reflexive form*.
Simple possession is most commonly expressed by avTovy avrrft, &c. : only
where the reflexive character is emphasized (not merely tuum, but suum
ifsius) is iavTov nied (^hencc the importance of such phrases as T(iv iavrov
viic vift^at Rom. viii. 3). Some critics have denied the existence in the
N. T. of the aspirated avrov : and it is true that there is no certain proof of
aspiration (such as the occurrence before it of ovx or an elided preposition;
in early MSS. breathings are rare), but in a few strong cases, where the
omission of the aspirate would be against all Greek nsage, it ia retained bjr
WH. (e.g. in Jo. ii. 34; Lk. xziii. la).
25. oTTiKct : iaris, 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 gut, or quippe qui, with subj.
T^K dXii0€ioK . . . Tu \|»«u'8ev : abstr. for concrete, for rhv aktfiaiiP
Qfov . . . role ^tvdtcri Beois, cf. I TheSS. i. 9.
i(T€^6.<j^T\va.v. This use of <Tt^dCfa6<u is an iira^ Xty6fupop ; the
common form is af^eadai (see Va.).
jtaph t6k KTicroiTo = not merely ' more than the Creator ' (a force
which the preposition might bear), but 'passing by the Creator
altogether,' ' to the neglect of the Creator.'
Cf. Philo, De Mund. Ofif. a (Mangey, L a) rw\t f^f riw Klaitar luXXam %
rir Ko<JnoiToi6y Oavft/iaayrfs (Loesner).
Ss ifnir eSkoyr]T6%. 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. dTroXauPdfon^t : ajroX.= (i) ' to receive back ' (as in Luke ri.
34) ; (ii) ' to receive one's dw ' (as in Luke xxiii. 41) ; and so here.
28. iSoKifiocraK : 8o«^C^» = (i) 'to test' (i Cor. iii. 13, &c.);
(ii) ' to approve after testing' (so here; and ii. x8 ; xiv. 22, &c.);
similarly dSdw/iof s= ' rejected after testing,' ' reprobates.'
!•' ^iriyKitfaci : hriyvaxris = ' q/Her knowledge ' : hence (i) recogni-
tion (vb. ='to recognize,' Matt. vii. 16; xvii. la, &c.); (ii)' ad-
vanced ' or ' further knowledge,' * full knowledge.' See esp. Sp.
Comm. on i Cor. xiii. la ; Lft. on Phil. i. 9.
rouv = the reasoning faculty, esp. as concerned with moral
action, the intellectual part of conscience : voiis and <rvp«itlr}(Tis are
combmed in Tit. i. 15 : poCs may be either bad or good ; for the
good sense se« Rom. xiL a ; £ph. iv. 23.
C. 28-30.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILBS 47
tA Ka9i]Koi^ra: a technical term with the Stoics, 'what is morally
fitting ' ; cf. also a Mace. vi. 4.
29. We must beware of attempting to force the catalogue
which follows into a logical order, though here and there a certain
amount of grouping is noticeable. The first four are general
terms for wickedness ; then follows a group headed by the allitera-
tive i>Q6vov, ^6vou, with other kindred vices ; then two forms of
backbiting; then a group in descending climax of sins of arro-
gance ; then a somewhat miscellaneous assortment, in which again
alliteration plays a part.
dSiKia : a comprehensive term, including all that follows.
rtopveia : om. i<) A B C K ; probably suggested by similarity in
sound to novr)piq,
irocTjpia : contains the idea of * active mischief (Hatch, Bibl. Gk.
p. 77 f. ; Trench, Syn. p. 303). Dr. T. K. Abbott {Essays, p. 97)
rather contests the assignment of this specific meaning to irovr)pia ;
and no doubt the use of the word is extremely wide : but where
definition is needed it is in this direction that it must be sought.
KaKia : as compared with novrjpia denotes rather inward vicious
ness of disposition (Trench, Syn. p. 36 f.).
The MSS. vary as to the order of the three words vovrjplt^ n\tovt(l<f, neutlif,
WH. iexf RV. retain this order with BL, &c., Hard. Arm., Bas. Greg.
Nyss. «/. : Tisch. WH. marg. read rovrjp. kok. irXtov. with KA, Pesh. ml- :
WH. marg. also recognizes kok. irovrjp. ir\(ov. with C, Boh. al.
irXtovegi'qi. On the attempt which is sometimes made to give to this word
the sense of ' impurity ' see Lft. on Col. iii. 5. The word itself means only
• selfish greed,' which may however be exhibited under circumstances where
impurity lies near at hand: e.g. in i Thess. iv. 6 irXeoviKTtiv is used of
Adultery, but rather as a wrong done to another than as a vice.
ROKOTiGctas : the tendency to put the worst construction upon
everything (Arist. RheL ii. 13; cf. Trench, Syn. p. 38). The word
occurs several times in 3 and 4 Maccabees.
30. »|/i9upiaT<£s, KOTaXdXous. The idea of secresy is contained in
the first of these words, not in the second: ■^t^. susurraiores
Cypr. Lucif. Ambrstr. susurrones Aug. Vulg. ; Karak. deiractores
Cypr. Aug. Vulg., detrectatores {detract-) Lucif. Ambrstr. al.
OcooTuyeis : may be either (i) passive, Deo odibiles Vulg. : so
Mey. Weiss Fri. Oltr. Lips. Lid. ; on the ground that this is the
constant meaning in class. Gk., where the word is not uncommon ;
or (ii) active, Dei osores = abhorrentes Deo Cypr. : so Euthym.-Zig.
(rovr rhv 0fAi» \j.iijovvra<i), Tyn. and Other English versions not derived
from Vulg., also Gif. Go. Va., with some support from Clem. Rom.
ad Cor. xxxv. 5, who in paraphrasing this passage uses ^eoorvyta
clearly with an active signification, though he follows it by orvyT/Tol
T^ e»<p. As one among a catalogue of vices this would give the
more pointed sense, imless we might suppose that ^coorvyttr had
come to have a meaning like oiu* ' desperadoes.' The three terms
4* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [l 80-8&
which follow remind us of the bullies and braggarts ef the Eliza-
bethan stage. For the distinction between them see Trench, Syn,
p. 95 ff.
It is well preserved in the Cyprianic Latin, iniuriosi, tuperbi, iactantti mi.
For the last phrase Lucif. has gloriantti ; either would be better than the
common rendering tiatos (Cod. Clarom. Cod. Boem. Ambrstr. Aug. Vulg.).
tiTr€pTi(^avos. Mayor (on Jas. iv. 6) derives this word from the adjectival
form viTfpos (rather than vntp Trench) and <paiyoj, comparing i\a<pT}$6\os from
IXaipot and /SdXXw : he explains it as meaning ' conspicnons beyond others,'
♦ outshining them,' and so ' proud,' ' haughty ' : see his note, and the cxx.
there quoted from Ecclus. and Pss. Sol.
31. dcrw€Tovs : davvuSriTovt (' without conscience ') Euthym.-Zig. How
closely the two words avvtais and awtiSriats are related will appear from
Polyb. XVIII. xxvi. 13 01 Sttj ovrwt oCrt fxaprvf iarl (popepds ovrt Karrjyopos
Sftvbs OK 1) ffvvtfTis ^ iyKaroiKOvaa reus tKaaroiv if/vxais. [But is not this
a gloss, on the text of Polyb. t It is found in the margin of Cod. Urbin.]
iauyQirovi, ' false to their engagement* ' (o-w^^/cat) ; cf. Jer. iii. 7,
dair<5i'8ous after aaropyovt (Trench, Syn. p. 95 ff.) it added
from 2 Tim. iii. 3 [C K L P].
82. oiTikes : see on ver. 25 above.
TO SiKaiw/io : prob. in the first instance (i) a declaration that
a thing is 8iKaiov [to diKaiaifia roii vofiov = ' that which the Law lays
down as right,' Rom. viii. 4] ; hence, ' an ordinance ' (Luke i. 6 ;
Rom. ii. 26 ; Heb. ix. i, 10) ; or (ii) 'a declaration that a person
is BiKoios,' 'a verdict of not guilty,' *an acquittal*: so esp. in
St. Paul (e. g. Rom. v. 16). But see also note on p. 31.
im.yv6Yn% : iinyiyiiaMorrtt (B) 80, WH. tmarj;.
iroioGaiK . . . aufcuSoKoScri. There has been some disturbance of
the text here : B, and apparently Clem. Rom., have woioirrts . . .
<Tvw(v8oKovvTes ; and so too D E Vulg. (am. fuld.) Orig.-lat, Lucif.
and other Latin Fathers, but inserting, non intellexerttni {ovk
€v6riaav 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
ApoUinaris below). If the participles are wrong they have probably
been assimilated mechanically to npdaaovrtt. Note that iroulv ac
facere, to produce a certain result ; ttpuairtw = agere, to act as
moral agent : there may be also some idea of repeated action.
aoi'tuSoKouCTi denotes ' hearty approval ' (Rendall on Acts xxii.
20, in Expos. 1888, ii. 209) ; cf. i Mace. i. 57 vvvtv^oKti rw v6^\
the word occurs four times besides in N. T. (Luke, Epp. Paul.).
ifupSripot ii worripol, /ra2 i icardp^at, moI 6 fwipaftiif. vwC ii wottit
ri vwtvioKtiv X**Po*' T(9>;crt icarA rd Xty6tuvoy, tl kitA^tit mK^wrf|9^
t. 18-82.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 49
wpfrptx** «ir^. 6 ftir ydp voiwr, fit&imr r^ wA$et, i^arot r^ wfSi^ttK'
i 9i ffWivSoMUV, iitris ttv rov niBovt, wotnfpiif xpi)n*woi, vwrfi^ti rf> Kcut^
(Apollinaris in Cramer*! Cttenm).
Si. 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 ^ith permanent tendencies of human nature and
with principles which are apparent in the Providential government
of the world.
The Jew of the Dispersion, with the Law of Moses in his hand,
could not but revolt at the vices which he found prevailing among
the heathen. He turned with disgust from the circus and the
theatre (Weber, Altsyn. Thiol, pp. 58, 68). He looked upon the
heathen as given over especially to sins of the flesh, such as those
which St. Paul recounts in this chapter. So far have they gone as
to lose their humanity altogether and become like brute beasts
{ibid. p. 67 £). The Jews were like a patient who was sick but
with hope of recovery. Therefore they had a law given to them to
be a check upon their actions. The Heathen were like a patient
who was sick unto death and beyond all hope, on whom therefore
the physician put no restrictions {ibid. p. 69).
The Christian teacher brought with him no lower standard, and
his verdict was not less sweeping. 'The whole world,' said St
John, ' lieth in wickedness,' rather perhaps, * in [the power of] the
Wicked One' (i Jo. v. 19). And St Paul on his travels must
have come across much to justify the denunciations of this chapter.
He saw that idolatry and licence went together. He knew that
the heathen myths about their gods ascribed to them all manner
of immoralities. The lax and easy-going anthropomorphism oi
Hellenic religion and the still more degraded representations, with
at times still more degraded worship, of the gods of Egypt and the
50 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 18-8^
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 ia
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 16-19). We
therefore cannot say that a priori reasoning or prejudice makes
him untrue to facts. The Pagan world was not wholly bad. It
had its scattered and broken lights, which the 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 doea not
add much beyond what lies fairly upon the surface : Rogge, Du
Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus vn i. rtligwt-tittiiehm CharakUt d
Htideniums, Leipzig, 1888.
I. 16-da.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES
51
If the statements of St. Panl cannot be taken mt once at supplying the place
ef scientific inquiry from the side of the Comparative History of Religion, so
neither can they be held to famish data which can be utilized just as they
stand by the historian. The standard which St. Paul applies is not that of
the historian but of the preacher. He does not judge by the average level of
Boral 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 foood in Fhedlander,
Sitttmguchuhtt Roms, Leipzig, 1 869-1 871.
Uu iftJu B—k of Wisdom in CkafUr I.
L 18-39. In two places in Epist. to Romans, ch. i and ch. ix, there are
dear 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 Uie earlier work by which it is illustrated.
Romans.
L SO. n^ 7<if iJifnnx ttintSi imh Kri-
f m Uktt mknA Hpufut mi fM^njr
alt ri tbtu mbrait drairoXvy^rovr
tl. tiiaTatii6r)ffaw tr rots 8<aA»Y«ff-
fioit avrwv, Mai iffKorlaSt) i^ davptrot
oifTvy Kapiia.
a a. <pcL9M<mTU Jw gotpoi i/mfii'-
13. mi ^XXa^ rj^ S^or rev A^
0aprov €t€ov ir dfunwfuiTi tlKoyos <p6a^
rov dyOpuwov Koi ir<T<wwr mai rrrfm-
wi50» mai kfrntrim.
Wisdom,
xiii. I. «a} tK rSiy dpvfiivvr &-ya$Sn>
ovic r<rxvffoi' tldivai rbv ovra owrt Toii
ipTfoit wpoaixovrfs inifywaav rdv
T«X'''''T''
xiii. 5. itt yap n*yi6ovt koI xoXAoc^s
mriafxiiTejv avaKiyvs i ytvtaiovprfbs
airrSjv ttwpurcu.
iL aj. [o Stdi litTiot . . . riv avOpot-
wov . . . tlKofa TTJs ISias SxSiutt]Tos •
(Cod. 248 a/., Method. Athan. Epiph. ;
l5i6TriToi KAB, Clem.- Alex. Slc."'
iiroiijatyj]
xviii. 9. T^y riji SaSTTjros ySfioy.
xiii. 8. wi\iy hi ov5' airol avyyym-
0Toi.
xiii. I. /iiratot -yip iriyrtt ayBpwiroi
^vati, oh vaprjy Stov dyyaiaia f.
xii. 34. Kal fSip rmv ir\dv7]f dSSn
uaKpoTfpov knXavqOrjaav Bfoxis vnoXafi-
finvovTn rd Koi iv fj^'ou rwv kxBpcuv
arifio, yrfv'taiy iljetjy d((>p6ya>y }(i(vaQiy-
Tf».
xii. I. rb atpSaprSy aov tti'tvitia,
xiv. 8. rb it <p6aprrby ©eus iivofiA'
•^-
xiii. 10. ruKaiiteipoi ii Koi iy ytxpou
ml iXniStt avTwv, otrtyts iita\(Ga»
0*obt ipyn xupSjy dy&pwnuy.
* The nore tecent editor* as a r«1e
read ISiSttjtos with the uncials and
Gen. i. 36 f. ; bat it is by no means clear
that they are right: Cod. 348 em-
bodies very ancient elements and the
context generally favours dlSidrijrof.
It still would not be certain that St
Paul had this passage in his mind.
t The parallel here is not quite
exact. St. Paul says, ' They did know
but relinquished their knowledge,'
Wisd. ' They on^ht to have knowa
bat did not.'
• •
5t
BPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[I. 18-3a
35. eirtrtt /Mn^XXo^or rj^ iX.'tfittam
tov Bfov ip r^ tf/tvidf gal iat^iaOtf*
14. M wmp4S«K*r tur.K
t6. IkA Tovre vapiZvmmf «. r. X.
rTipt(f,v\(oyf(i(f, KaKiq, fitarovs (p$6vov,
^yoVf IpiSoif SoKov, icaitorjOftai, ifii9v-
ptorat, KaraXiXom, Ofoffrvytis, v^pi-
arit, virtpT)((><ivovi, dAa^(5vaf, i(ptvpfTSi$
wucS/y, yovfvaty dnfiOfit, aavyirovt,
iawtirovt, iaropyovt, dftKt^fim'Qt.
3, 14.
ii^puiirov, 1) (^ Ttpl tirtku Aftoiuotr
atrro.
xiii. 17 tqq. otm ciaxyytrai r^
inf^XV ^poaKaX&ir ni w€pl fiir ^«[a>
t6 iaOtyit iwinaXHTOif rtpi 9i (oi^t ri
wtKpbr d^<or K. 9, X.
ziT. II. S<ck toSto Koi Iv tl9ii\oa
IBySiy iwiffKori) iarcu^ 8r< Ir Ktiapan
•cov *U fii(\vyfta tytvfiOrjffar.
xiv. ai. TO ajcoiydjyrjrop 6fO)/m XiBoti
mai (v\ots wtpiiOtffar.
xiv. 13. ipx^ y^P vopvtiatX iniyom
ttSuXofy, tiptatis Si a\n5jy (p$opd ^oj^.
xiv. 16. «Ta Ir XP'^^'V xparvyBtp ri
isf&is iOot dit yofiot i(pv\dx6r},
xiv. 23. tlr oIk TjpKtat t6 »A.ovfi-
0$au wtpl T^y Tofi 6(oC TvcMTtr, d\Ad wai
iy ft*y6.\<f> (wrtt dyyoiai wo\ift^ ri
rooavra Kotcd flp^yfjy irpoffayoptvovffty,
13. ^ yip T(KW0^6yovt rtKtrdt ^ Kpxxpia
pkvffrfipia 4 ififtaytit i(aK\uy OtapSiy
gdipiovt iyoyrft, 34. ot/Tf /3(0Vt ofirf
^d/ioVT icaOapoiis (rt <pv\aff<Tov(Tiy, lr<-
^ot 8' trtpoy ^ KoxSn' atnupti % yoOtimm
35. wirra 8) impii lx« of/ia xoi
^(Jvo; k\ov^ ica\ S^Xor, <p0opA^ dinorto,
ripaxoSy imopKia, 66pv0ot dyaOwyf
36. x^P*'''^* apLyrjaioj if/vxSn' puaapLot^
ytyiatoJt (sex) ivaXKay^, yifttir ira^l^
/iotx<^ci Koi daiXytia.
tj, 1^ 7dp rSry ifonnifuev tlUtXam
$pt}a)c«la rayrit ipx^ KOMoi mai Qlrlm
Mi2 wipat tarty.
It will be seen that while on tht ooe band there can bt no qnestion ci
direct quotation, on the other hand the resemblance it 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. Panl
must have bestowed upon the Book of Wisdom a considerable amount of
study.
[Compare the note on ix. 19-39 below, also an essay by £. Grafe in
Tkeol. Abhandlungtn C. von Weizsdcher gtwidmet, Freiburg i. B. 1892,
p. 351 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. Rona. L iS-^a, is. 19-33
are the most conspicuous examples.]
X A.V. expands this as ' [spiritual]
fornication ' ; and so most modems.
B«t even so the phiKse might hav«
kad something to do in raggesting th«
thought of St. Paol.
U. 1-16.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 53
TBANSITIOir PROM aBNTILB TO JEW. BOTH
ALIKE OUHiTY.
n. 1-ld. This state of things puts out of court the \Jewisfi\
critic who is himself fw better than the Gentile. He can
claim no exemption, but only aggravates his sin by im-
penitence (w.1-5). Strict justice will be meted out to all —
ths Jew coming first then the Gentile (w. 6-1 1). The Jew,
will be judged by tlte Law of Moses, the Gentile by the Law
of Conscience, at the Great Assize which Christ will hold
(w. ia-i6).
* The Gentile sinner is without excuse ; and his critic — who-
eyer 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, and his
own conduct is identical with that which he condemns. ' And we
are aware that it is at his conduct that God will look. The
standard of His judgement is reality, and not a man's birth or
status as 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 ((ru emphatic) will
escape ? * Or are you presuming upon all that abundant goodness,
forbearance, and patience with which God delays His punishment
of sin? If so, you make a great mistake. The object of that long-
suffering is not that you may evade punishment but only to induce
you to repent. • While you with that callous impenitent heart of
yours are heaping up arrears of Wrath, which will burst upon you
in the Day of Wrath, when God will stand revealed in His character
as the Righteous Judge. • The principle of His judgement is clear
and simple. He will render to every man his due, by no fictitious
standard (such as birth or status) but strictly according to what
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
He will give that for which they strive, viz. eternal life, ^Biit
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, whethei
lie be Jew or whether he be Gentile — the Jew again having prece-
dence. '*0n the other hand the communicated glory of the Divine
Presence, the approval of God and the bliss of reconciliation with
Him await the man who labours on at that which is good — be he
Jew or Gentile ; here too the Jew having precedence, but only
precedence : " for God regards no distinctions of race.
" Do not object that the Jew has a position of privilege which
will exempt him from this judgement, while the Gentile has no law
by which he can be judged. The Gentiles, it is true, have no law ;
but as they have sinned, so also will they be punished without one
[see w. 14, 15]. The Jews live under a law, and by that law they
will be judged. "For it is not enough to hear it read in the
synagogues. That does not make a man righteous before God.
His verdict will pronounce righteous only those who have dctu
what the Law commands. "I say that (Jentiles 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 Assise which I teach that He
will hold through His Deputy, Jesus Messiah.
1. The transition from Gentile to Jew is conducted with raocfa
rhetorical skill, somewhat after the manner of Nathan's parable
to David. Under cover of a general statement St Paul sets be-
fore himself a typical Jew. Such an one would assent cordially
to all that had been said hitherto (p. 49, tup.). It is now turned
against himself, though for the moment the Apostle holds ia
suspense the direct affirmation, ' Thou art the man.'
II . 1-4.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 55
There U evidence that Marcion keptvr. a, 12-14, 16, 30(from ?xoi'Ta)-a9;
fof the rest evidence fail*. We might suppose that Marcion would omit w.
17-ao, which record (however ironically) the privileges of the Jew; bat the
retention of the Utt clause of ver. ao is against this.
%ti links this section closely to the last ; it is well led up to by
i. 38, but apanoK. pointing back to i. 20 shows that the Apostle had
more than this in his mind.
2. oiSafiev Se ABD &c., Hard., Orig.-lat. Tert. Ambrstr. Theodrt. a/.
WH. Uxt RV. text : oWafiev yap N C 17 «/. J>auc. Latt. (exc. g) Boh. Arm.,
Chrys. , Tisch. WH. ma7-g. RV. niarg. An even balance of authorities,
both sides drawing their evidence from varied quarters. A more positive
decision than that of WH. RV. would hardly be justified.
elSaficr : oJSa = to know for a fact, by external testimony ;
yiyviiKTKm » to know by inner personal experience and appro-
priation: see Sp. Comm. iiL 299; Additional note on i Cor. viii. i.
8. av emphatic ; * thou, of all men.' There is abundant illus-
tration of the view current among the Jews that the Israelite was
secure simply as such by virtue of his descent from Abraham and
of his possession of the Law : cf. Matt. iii. 8, 9 * Think not to say
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father ' ; Jo. viii. 33 ;
Gal. it 15 ; the passages quoted by Gif. ; Weber, Allsyn. Theol.
p. 69 f.
There may be an element of popular misunderstanding, there is
certainly an element of inconsistency, in some of these passages.
The story of Abraham sitting at the gate of Paradise and refusing
to turn away even the wicked Israelite can hardly be a fair
specimen of the teaching of the Rabbis, for we know that they in-
sisted strenuously on the performance of the precepts of the Law,
moral as well as ceremonial. But in any case there must have
been a strong tendency to rest on supposed religious privileget
apart from the attempt to make practice conform to them.
4. •%ipn\trr6T(\T0%'. bonitatis Vulg., in Tit. iii. 4 benignitas: st-
Lft. on Gal. v. si. XP'?*"'*^"?^ = 'kindly disposition'; }xaKpo6vfiio
as 'patience,' opp. to 6^v6vfiia a 'short' or 'quick temper,' 'irasci-
bility' (cf. ^pa8vt tit opyriv Jas. i. 19) ; avo^^ = ' forbearance,'
•delay of punishment,' cf. ivtxofiai to hold one's hand.
Comp. Philo, Z<f. Allegor. L 13 (Mang. L 50) 'Orav ydip tjj ftlr xari
$a\aTrT]Sj vriycis Si iv rois cprf/jornTois inon^pfi . . . ri irtpov napiartjaiv J|
T^v virtpffoKtjV Tov T( vKovTov Kal rrjs d'fa06Tt)TOt avrov ;
With iMxtcpoOv/juas comp. a graphic image in Apoe. Baruch. xii. 4 Evigu
laUt centra U furor qui nunc in longanimitate tanqttam in frtnis reti-
The following is also an impressive statement of this side of the Divine
attributes: 4 Ezr. vii. 62-68 (132-138) Scio, Do/nine, qtioniam{ = ori ' that ')
nunc vocatus est Altissimus /nisericors, in eo quod misereatur his qui non-
dum in saeculo advene r tint ; et 7niserator in eo quod miseratur illis qzn
conversioncinfaciunt in lege eiiis ; et longaniinis, quoniani longanimitatem
traestat his qui peccaverunt quasi suis operibus ; et munijicus, quoniam
56 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II 4-6.
quidem donare vult pro exigere ; et 7nuUae miser icordiae, quo7iiam mui-
tiplicaf inagis misericordias his qui praesenles stint et qui praeterierunf et
qui futuri sunt : si enim non mtdtiplicaverit, non vivificahitzir saeculu'r
cum his qui inhabitant in eo , et donator, qtioniam si non donaverit de
honitate sua ut allcventur hi qui iniquitatein feccrunt de suis iniqui tafi-
bus, non poierit dccies niillesiina pars vivijicari honiinuin.
Kara^tpovclis : ct. Apoc. Baruch. xxi. 3o Innsttscat pottniui tua iUii fwi
pHtant lenganimitatem tuam esse infirmitattm.
CIS ficToVotai' at ayci : its purpose or tendencj ii to induce you
to repent.
• The Conative Present is merely a specicf of the Progxessiye Present. A
Terb which of itself suggests effort when nsed hi a tense which implies action
in progress, and hence incomplete, naturally suggests the idea of attempt '
(Burton, § ii).
'According to R. Levi the words [Joel ii. 13] mean: God remoTes 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 : Ajiger and Wrath are the messengers of destruction. I will send them
liar awav 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. Jitchak, but he
locks them up (Anger and Wrath) out of their way ; see Jer. 1. 35, which
means : Until He opens His treasure-chamber and shuts it again, man
returns to God and He accepU hina' (7r«f/. Tkcumith iL i a/. Winter n.
Wiinsche, _/«^. Litt. i. 207).
6. KOT<£ : * in accordance with,' ttcundum iuritiam tuam Vulg.
ipyrjK : see on i. 18 above.
ipYTjK i* fniip({, ipYTJs : 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 k taught by
the Prophets from Amos onwards (Amos v. 1 8 ; la. ii. 1 3 ff. ; xiiL 6 ff. ; xjdr.
ai ; Jer. xlvi. 10 ; Joel ii. i ff. ; Zeph. i. 7 ff. ; Eiek. vli. 7 ff. ; xxx. 3 ff. ; Zech.
xiv, I ; Mai. iii. 3 ; It. i. It also enters largely into the pseudepigraphic
literature : £nMh xlv. 3 ff. (and the passages collected in Charles* Note) ;
Ps. Sol. XV. 13 ff. ; 4 Ear. vi. 18 ff., 77 ff. [vii loa ff. ed. Bensly]; «L J4;
A/oc. Bartuk. Ii. i ; Iv. 6, See.
SiKaioKpiaias : not quite the same as tiutalat Kplvemt » Thess. i. 5
{cf.jtuftjudi'cu Vulg.), denoting not so much the character of the
judgement as the character of the Judge {diieatoKpn^t t Mace zii.
41 ; cf. 6 diKaios KpiTrjs 3 Tim. iv. 8).
The word occurs in the Quintm (the fifth verstoo indnded ia Origea's
Htxapld) of Hos. yi 5 ; it is also found twice in Test. XII PatrimrtX. Levi 3
b dfVTf pos Ix" ^Pf X*<5«'«, ifpvaraWoy troiiia tts ^nipav wpoaraynarot Kvpiot
Iv rp SiKaioKpiffiq rov Bfov. Ibid, 15 X^\f/ta$t dfttSiafiiw imi alax'ir^ aU/rim
m/xi Tr)s iiKaio»cpiala$ rov 9<ou
6. 8f diroScoaci: Prov. xxiv. la (LXX). The principle here laid
down, though in full accord with the teachhig of the N. T
n. 6-8.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 57
generally (Matt. xvi. 27 ; a Cor. v. 10; GaL vi. 7; Eph. vi. 8;
Col. iii. 24, 25 ; Rev. ii. 33; xx. la ; xxii. la), 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 bucaiudrjaorrai 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. la).
But as a matter of fact the Law was not kept, the works were not
done.
7. Koff iifo^v^¥ tpyov dyaOou : collective use of *pyow, as in
ver. 15, 'a lifework,' the sum of a man's actions.
8. Tois Se i^ JpiOeias : ' 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 epidos ' a hired labourer '
we get ipiBevm 'to act as a hireling,' ipiBtvofuu a political term
for ' hiring paid canvassers and promoting party spirit : ' hence
ipi6(ia ss. the spirit of faction, the spirit which substitutes factious
opposition for the willing obedience of loyal subjects of the king-
dom of heaven. See Lft. and £11. on GaL v. ao, but esp. Fri.
ad he.
The ancients were strangely at sea aboat this word. Hesychins (cent 5)
derived ipiOos from Ipa ' earth ' ; the Etymologicum Magnum (a compilation
perhaps of the eleventh century) goes a step further, and derives it from ipa
^5 agrUtla merctdt conductus ; Greg. Nyssen. connects it with iptov ' wool '
(ipiOos was nsed specially of woolworkers) ; but most common of all is the
connexion with Ipii (so Theodrt. on Phil. ii. 3 ; cf. Vulg. Ais qui tx con-
tention* \_per ccntentiomm Phil. ii. 3 ; rix<u Gal. v. 20] ). There can be
little doubt that the use of iptOda was affected by association with tpts,
though there is no real connexion between me two words (see notes on
kmvpi)6fiaa9 xL 7, Karavi^iut xi. 8).
ipY^i . . . 6u|i^s : see Lft and £11. on Gal. v. 20 ; Trench, Syn,
p. 125: opyii is the settled feeling, 6v(i6t the outward manifestation,
' outbursts ' or * ebullitions of wrath.'
bpyii 9t ifTV i iw6fMPot roTt Afiaprdveveiv M rtftwplcf nSvoi. 6vix.hu Se
Apt^oyrcu dpy^ inaOviuanhrqv ic<d ti<Abaiyovaav Orig. (in Cramer's Catena).
9. 6Xti|fis Kal crreyoxwpia : tribulatio {pressura in the African form
of the Old Latin) // angtistia Vulg., whence our word ' anguish * :
oTtvox^plavs, the stronger wordss' torturing confinement ' (cf. a Cor.
iv. 8). But the etymological sense is probably lost in usage:
calamitas et angusHae h> e. summa calamitas FrL p. 106.
5K EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 9-19.
For limilar combinatioaa ('day of tribulation and pain/ 'of tribnlatirai
and great shame,' ' of suffering and tribulation,' ' of angui&h and affliction,' Sec)
sec Charles' note on Enoch xIt. a.
KaTcpya^ofxcVou = ' carry to the end ' ; Kara either strengthening
the force of the simple vb., as per in perficere, or giving 't a bad
sense, as \r\ perpetrare Fri. p. 107.
11. ■n-poaa)TroXT]\|»io : peculiar to Biblical and Ecclesiastical Greek
(Eph. vi. 9 ; Col. iii. 25 ; Jas. ii. i ; cf. npoamnoXriTrrrft Acts X. 34 ;
ni.w(ro)iro\r]itT('iv JaS. ii. 9; a7rpo(T(i}no\rjirro»t I Pet. i. l'j)l rrp6crm7roi>
hip^dveiv = (i) to give a gracious reception to a suppliant or suitor
(Lev. xix. 15) ; and hence (ii) to show partiality, give corrupt judge-
ment In N. T. always with a bad sense-
The idea goei back to Deut. x. ij & 9*dt , , . oi $avf*a(ti wpdffwww ciV
ov pj) A^d/Sp Iwpov, which is adopted in Ps. Sol. ii. 19 i e«ut Kpir^i blKoiot «a2
ov 6avfia.au rrp6<xainov, and explained '\aJubiUts t. 15 'And He ii not one
who will refjard the person (of any) nor receive gifts ; when He says that He
will execute judgement on each : if one gave him everything that is on the
earth, He will not regard the gifts or the person (of any), nor accept any-
thing at his hands, for he is a Righteous Judge' ; cf. Apot. Banuh. xiii. 7,
Pirqi Aboth iv. 31 ' He is about to judge with whom there is no iniquity,
nor forgetfulness, nor respect of persons, nor taking of a bribe.'
12, 13. vojios and 6 v6(jiot. The distinction between these two forms did
not escape the scholarship of Origen, whose comment on Rom. iii. ai reads
thus in Rufinus' translation (ed. Lommatzsch, vi 201): Moris tst apud
Graetos nominibus apOpa praeponi, quae apud nos possunt articuli nominari.
Si quando igitur Alosis legem nominal, solilum nomini pratmittit artitulum:
si quando vero naluralem vult intelligi, sine articulo nominal legem. This
distinction however, though it holds good generally, does not cover all the
cas«s. There are really three mam uses: ii) o vo^toj -= the Law of Moses;
the art. denotes something with which the readers are familiar, 'their own
law,* which Christians in some sense inherited from the Jews through the O. T
(a) Kii/tof^ law in general (e.g. ii. 12,14; iii. 20 f.; iv. 15; v. 13, &c.). (3) But
there is yet a third usage where vofxos without art. really means the Law of
Moses, but the absence of the art. calls attention to it not as proceeding from
Moses, but in its quality as law ; noM quia Mosis sed quia lex as Gif. expresses
it in his comment on Gal. ii. 19 (p. 46). St. Paul reganis the Pie-Messianic
period as essentially a period of Law, both for Jew and for Gentile. Hence
when he wishes to bring ont this he uses vuftos without art. even where he is
referring to the Jews ; because his mam point is that they were under
' a legal system ' — who gave it and what name it bore was a secondary con-
sideration. The Law of the Jews was only a typical example of a state of
things that was universal. This will explain passages like Rom. v. ao, r. 4
There will remain a few places, which do not come under any of these
heads, where the absence of the art. is accounted for by the influence of the
context, usually acting' through the law of grammatical sympathy by which
when one word in a phrase drops the article anotlier also drops it ; some oi
these passages involve rather nice points of scholarship (see the notes 00
ii. 25; iii. 31 ; xiii. 8). On the whole subject compare esp. Gif. p^ 47ff. ;
also a monograph by Grafe, Die paulinische Lehre von Gesetz, Freiburg I,
B. 1884, ed. 2, 189,^. Dr. Grafe goes rather too far in denying the dis-
tinction between vbpai and 6 nd/j-os, but his paper contains many just re-
marks and criticisms.
12. ijfioprov. Burcon ($ 54) calls this a * collective Aorist,' represented
1112-14.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 59
in English by the Perfect. ' From the point of view from which the Apostle
is speaking, the sin of each offender is simply a past fact, and the sin of
all a series or aggregate of facts together, constituting a past fact. But
inasmuch as this series is not separated from the time of speaking we must
as in iii. 23 employ an English Perfect in translation.' Prof. Burton
suggests an alternative possibility that the aor. may be proleptic, as if it
were spoken looking backwards from the Last Judgement of the sins which
will then be past; but the parallels of iii. 23, v. 12 are against this.
avo/xco^. The heathen are represented as deliberately reject-
ing not only the Law of Moses but even the Noachic ordinances.
Thus they have become enemies of God and as such are doomed
to destruction (Weber, Altsyn. TJieol. p. 65).
IS. ol aKpoaral v6[ji'^v : cf. KaTr)\ovfi(vot (m rov rSfiov ver. 18 ; also Pereq
R. Meir 6 {Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, ed. Taylor, p. 115) ' Thorah is
acquired ... by leamii;g, by a listeniijg ear,' &c. It is interesting to note
that among the sayings ascribed to Simeon, very possibly St. Paul's own
class-mate and son of Gamaliel his teacher, is this: 'not learning but doing
is the groundwork ; and whoso multiplies words occasions sin' {PirqiAbotk.
i. 18, ed. Taylor; reff. from Delitzsch).
v6^ov sine artic. bis NABDG. The absence of the art. again (as in the
last verse) generalizes the form of statement, ' the hearers and the doers of
law' (whatever that law may be) ; cf. vii. I.
8iKaib>di^vo»n-ai. The word is used here in its universal sense of
' a judicial verdict,' but the fut. tense throws forward that verdict
to the Final Judgement. This use must be distinguished from
that which has been explained above (p. 30 f.), the special or, so to
speak, technical use of the term Justification which is characteristic
of St. Paul. It is not that the word has any different sense but
that it is referred to the past rather ihan to the future (ducatm^tWes
aor. cf. V. 1,9); the acquittal there dates from the moment at
which the man becomes a Christian ; it marks the initial step in
his career, his right to approach the presence of God as if he were
righteous. See on ver. 6 above.
14, €9iT) : TO i6v^ would mean all or most Gentiles, t6vr\ means
only some Gentiles ; the number is quite indefinite, the prominent
point being their character as Gentiles.
Cf. 4 Ezr. iii. 36 homines quidtm per ntmima imvtnitJ lervaut mandata
tua, gentes autem non i$meni«$.
tA ft^ yiyxiv exoiTo , the force of ^^ is ' who *x hypoihesi have not
a law,' whom we conceive of as not having a law ; cf, ra ^ ivra
I Cor. i. 28 (^uae pro nihilo habentur Grimm).
4auTois €iffi i^fios : ubi legis impUiio, ibi lex P. Ewald.
The doctrine of this verse was liberal doctrine for a Jew. The Talmnd
recognizes no merit in the good deeds of heathen unless they are accompanied
by a definite wish for admission to the privileges of Judaism. Even if
a heathen were to keep the whole law it would avail him nothing withont
oircamcisioQ {Debarim Rabba i). If he prayi to Jehovah his prayer is e«^
6o EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 14, 16
heard {ibid.). If he commits lin «nd repents, that too does not help him
{Ptsikta 156'). Eren for hit alms he gets no credit {Pesiktm 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, A//syn. Theol.
p. 66 f. Christian theologians have expressed themselves much to the same
effect Their opinions are summed up concisely by Mark Pattison, Bssayt,
ii. 61. 'In accordance with this view they interpreted the passages in
St. Paul which speak of the religion of the heathen; e.g. Rom. ii. 14.
Since the time of Augustine [De Spir. tt Lit. § 27) the orthodox interpreta-
tion had applied this verse, either to the Gentile converts, or to the favoured
few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine assistance. The
Protestant expositors, to whom the words " do by nature the things contained
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
Spiiit of God, who is never wanting to men in things necessary, was pleased
to put into the hearts of men " {Duct. Dubit. Book II. ch. i, § 3). The
rationalists, however, find the expression " by nature," in its literal sense,
exactly conformable to their own views (John Wilkins [1614-1672], Of Nat.
Rel. II. c. 9), and have no difficulty in supposing the acceptableness of those
works, and the salvation of those who do them. Burnet, on Art. XVIII.,
in his usual confused style of eclecticism, suggests both opinions without
seeming to see that they are incompatible relics of divergent schools of
doctrine.'
16. olrifes: see on L 25.
lv%v.Kv\ivta,\.'. fp^ei^is implies an appeal to facta; demonstratio
rebus gestis facia (P. Ewald, De Vocis Iwddfiorfas, &c., p. 1 6 n.).
TO IpyoK ToG Ko'iAou : ' the work, course of conduct belonging to '
(i.e. in this context 'required by' or 'in accordance with') 'the
Law ' : collective use of fpyov as in ver. 7 above.
[Probably not as Ewald «p. cit. p. 17 after Grotins, e^uj kgit at id, fWM
lex in Judaeis efficit, ntmpe cognitio liciti tt mititi.'\
<rufifiapTupouaT|s aurui' rrjs auKciSi^o-eox. This phrase is almost
exactly repeated in ch. ix. i (rv/MnapT. fioi Trjt avvfid. ftav. 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.
tnvti^ftttt. Some such distinction as this is sugi^^ested by the original
meaning and use of the word ffwdbriffn, which — ' co-knowledge,' the know-
ledge or reflective judgement which a man has ly tfu sidt of ox in conjunction
with the original consciousness of the act. This second consciousness is easily
projected and personihed as confronting the first.
The word is quoted twice from Menander (342-291 B. c.), M»n»tt. 597
(cf. 654) dwafTij/ iituv if ffWfiSijffis 9t6t (^ed. Didot, pp. 101,103). I* is sig-
nificant 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, rh avvui6s and ^ awdhrjau appear
to be practically convertible Epictetus {Fragm. 97) compares the con-
science to a 7rai8aY(v7<it in a passage which is closely parallel to the comment
of Orij^en on this verse of £p. Rom. (ed. Lommatzsch, vL 107) tpiritut . ,
n. 16.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 6l
mltU paedagogm ti [sc. animae] quidam sociatus tt rutor ut tarn de mtlioribm
moruat vel dt culpit castiget et arguat.
In Biblical Greek the word occurs first with its fall sense in Wisd. xvii. lo.
[ll] <i«« 5i irpoa(i\f]<pt ri x'^*"''^ [novrjpla] tTvvtxofiivr) ry ffWfiSrjati. In
Philo rd cvvtii6s is the form used. In N. T. the word is mainly Pauline
;occurring in the speeches of Acts xxiii. i, xxiv. i6; Rom. i and 2 Cor.,
JPast. Epp., also in Heb.) ; elsewhere only in i Pet. and the peric. adult.
iohn viiL 9. It is one of the few technical terms in St. Paul which seem to
ave Greek rather than Jewish affinities.
The ' Conscience ' of St. Paul is a natural faculty which belongs to all
men alike (Rom. ii. 15), and pronounces upon the character of actions, both
their own (a Cor. i. la) and those of others (a Cor. iv. a, v. i r). It can be
OTer-scrupuIous (i Cor. x. 15), but is blunted or ' seared ' by neglect of its
warnings (i Tim. iv. a).
The usage of St. Paul corresponds accurately to that of his Stoic con-
temporaries, but is somewhat more restricted than that which obtains in
modem times. Conscience, with the ancients, was the faculty which passed
judgment upon actions after they were done (in technical language the con-
tcientia ttnsequens moralis), not so much the general source of moral
obligation. In the passage before us St. Paul speaks of such a source
{lavroiis *tai ySfw?) ; 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, D4 Vhu XwtM^atm »pud itript. N. T. vi at
potestat* (Lipsiae, 18S3).
fMTa|d dXXif|X«r. 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
^Kra^v dXX^Xaoif 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 \i.(Ta^ dXX^X«i> will = * between one
another,' * between man and man,' ' in the intercourse of man
with man ' ; and Xoyitr^Sv 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 utra^v dWrjKav, 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 it a curious parallel to this description in Astump. Mays. i. 13
Creavit enim orbem ttrrarum prept*r pltbetn mam, et nou coepit earn
inceptionem crtaturae . . . palam factre, ut imtagttttfs mrguantur et kumili-
ur inter te disputationibus mrgvamt tt.
Twf Xoyi(r|iuiy : the Xoyurnoi 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
mapiuf (TroXXot Xoyt^/iok iv KapSlq dv8p6s Prov. xix. 2 1 ; cf. Ps. xxxli. 1 1 ;
Prov. vL 18): it is used of secret 'plots' (Jer. zviii. i9 dtur*
6a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 16- 16
Xayiaufitda nrl 'Uptftiop Xoyiafiof, ' devisc devices '), and of the Divine
intentions (Jer. xxix [xxxvi] 1 1 Xoytoifuu f(t> ifxds Xoyta-n6» tlprivrjt).
In 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 apon
their fellows.
' The conscience ' and ' the thoughts * both belong to die nme pertont.
This is rightly seen by Klopper, who hu written at length on the passage
before n» yPau^iniscke Studien, Kbnigsberg, 1887, p. 10); but it does not
follow that both the conscience and the thoughts are exercised upon the tame
objects. 01 that /xfTa^ii dW'qXwv naust be referred to the thoughts in the
sense that influences from without are excluded. The parallel quoted in
support of this Matt, xviii. 15 ixtra^i) aov itai aiirov fi6vov) dehTCi that part
of its meaning from ^rov, not from fura^i.
^ Kai: ' or even,' ' or it may be,' implying that diroX. it the ex-
ception, KaTTjy. 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 diKaicoO^a-ovrai in ver. 13, or rather forms a conclu-
sion to the whole paragraph, taking up again the tv r^ntpa of ver. 5.
The object of vv. 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 tct. 16 with
▼er. 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, v«lut in teru, ita in tordt nostn.
These marks God can see (ed. Lomm. p. 109).
*v '|(ji<p<^ St« (it \VH. marg!) : iv f ni^ifxf B, WH. Uxt: Ip ijiiip^ ^ A,
Pesh. Boh. a/., WH. marg;.
8id Ttjo-oO XpurroO («/ WH. inarg.) : Sid Xpirrov 'IijvoSKB, Orig., Tisch.
WH. ttxt.
apicci : might be Kpivti, as R V. marg., fiit regarded as certain.
aoxA TO tiia>fy£Ki6v (lou. The point to which St. Paul's Gospel,
or habitual teaching, bears witness is, not that God will judge the
world (which was an old doctrine), but that He will judge it through
Jesus Christ as His Deputy (which was at least new in its applica-
tion, though the Jews expected the Messiah to act as Judge, Enoch
ilv, xlvi, with Charles' notes).
The phrase varcl r3 tbaft. lum occurs Rom. ztL %$, ot the specially
Pauline doctrine of 'free grace'; a 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 ^<rl
lU, Eus. ff. E. Ill iv 8 I, that wherever St. Paul spoke of 'hit Goaper hi
meant the Gospel of St. Lake.
II. 17-28.] FAILURE OF THE JEWS 6$
fahjTJRb or the jews.
II. 17-29. TAf Jew may boast of his possession of a special
Revelation and a written Law, but all the time his practice
shows that he is really no better than the Gentile (w. 17-24).
And if he takes his stand on Circumcision, that too is of
value only so far as it is moral and spiritual. In this moral
and spiritual circumcision the Gentile also may share (w.
•5-29).
*' Do jrou tell me that you bear the proud name of Jew, that
you repose on a written law as the charter of your salvation ? Do
you boast that Jehovah is your God, "that you are fully ac-
quainted with His revealed Will, that you adopt for yourself a high
standard and listen to the reading of the Law every Sabbath-day ?
" Do you give yourself out with so much assurance as a guide to
the poor blind Gentile, a luminary to enlighten his darkness ? •* Do
you call your pupils dullards and yourself their schoolmaster? Are
they mere infants and you their teacher? You, who have all
knowledge and aH truth visibly embodied for you in the Law?
•' Boastful Jew I How does your practice comport with your
theory ? So ready to teach others, do you need no teaching your-
self? The eighth "and seventh commandments which you hold
up to others — do you yourself keep them ? You profess to loathe
and abhor idols ; but do you keep your hands from robbing their
temples ? *• You vaimt the possession of a law ; and by the
violation of that law you a£front and dishonour God Who gave it.
**As Isaiah wrote that the Gentiles held the Name of God in
contempt because they saw His people oppressed and enslaved, so
do they now for a different reason — becatise of the gross incon-
sistency in practice of those who claim to be His people.
* True it is that behind the Law you have also the privilege of
Circumcision, which marks the people of Promise. And Circum-
cision has its value if yon are a law-performer. But if you are
a law-breaker you might as well be uncircumcised. " Does it not
follow that if the uncircumcised Gentile keeps the weightier statutes
of the Moral Law, he will be treated as if he were circumcised ?
^ And uncircumcised as he is, owing to his Gentile birth, yet if hfl
64 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 17
fulfils the Law, his example will (by contrast) condemn 70a 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. El 8^ M A B D* «/., Latt. Pesh. Boh. Arm. Aeth., *c. : "i**
D«L al, Hard., Chrys. al. The authorities for « ii include all the
oldest MSS., all the leading versions, and the oldest Fathers : tte is
an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the construction
slightly easier. Reading ci ii the apodosis of the sentence begins
at ver. 21.
'louSaios : here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew
it would have a tendency to do) to 'lo-poijXt'njr, a member of the
Chosen People, opposed to the heathen.
Strictly speaking, 'E^SpoTof, opp. "BXXtiviarfft, calls attention to language ,
louStudr, opp. 'EXX17V, calls attention to nationality ; 'la par^XiTrji — a member
of the theocracy, in possession of full theocratic privileges (Tiench, Syn
$ xxxix, p. 13a S.). The word 'lovScuos does not occur in LXX (though
lovSaXffndt is fonnd four times in 2 Mace), but at this date it is the common
word ; 'E^pcuos and Iffparj^TTjt 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. 55 f. katc auttm
omnia dixi coram te, Domine, quoniam dixisti eat (sc. gtntes) nil tsse, ti
Juoniam salivae assimilata$ tuHt, tt quasi itilliddium d« vast rimilasH
abundantiam eorum.
lT(ovo^6.\rn : ' bearest the name ' : irrovoiia^tiv^s.* Xo impose % name,
pass. ' to have a name imposed.'
^ira;'a-irau|| v6^^ : ' have a law to lean upon ' : so (without art.)
t^ A B D* ; but it is not surprising that the later MSS. should
make the statement more definite, ' lean upon the Law.' For inav
{requiescis Vulg.) cf. Mic. iii. 1 1 ; 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.
iiou)faffai Iv ©ew : suggested by Jer. ix. 24 ' let him that glorieth
glory in this, that he under standeth and knoweth Me, that I am
the Lord.'
Kavx&voi : for kqvx?, stopping at the first step In the process of con-
tnictioa {itayxatcai, mavxaaai, «at;x$). This it one of the forms which used
II. 17-20.] FAILURE OF THE JEWS 65
to be called ' Alexandrine,' but which fimply belong to the popular Greek
current at the time (Hort, Introd. p. 304). wauxScai occurs also in i Cor.
iv. 7, tcarcucavxaaai Rom. xL 18 ; comp. oSwaaat Luke xvi. 25, and from «n-
contracted verbs, <piy«Tat . . . vifaai Luke xvii. 8, Svvaaat Matt. v. 36 (but
ivvfj Mark ix. a a) ; see Win. Gr. xiii. a 4 (p. 90).
18. t6 9^T|fjia. Bp. Lightfoot has shown that this phrase was
BO constantly used for ' the Divine Will ' that even without the art.
it might have that signification, as in i Cor. xvi. 12 {On Revision,
p. 106 ed. I, p. 118 ed. a).
8oKi|jidtcis tA Sia^^pon'a : prohas utiliora Cod. Clarom. Rufin.
Vulg. ; non modo prae malis bona sed in bonis optima Bang, on
Phil. i. 10, where the phrase recurs exactly. Both words are
ambiguous : ioKifiaCav = (i) ' to test, assay, discern ' ; (ii) * to
approve after testing' (see on i. a8); and ra 8ia(fifpnvra may be
either ' things which differ,' or ' things which stand out. or excel.'
Thus arise the two interpretations represented in RV. and RV.
marg., with a like division of commentators. The rendering of
RV. marg. ('provest the things that differ,' 'hast experience of
good and bad ' Tyn.) has the support of Euthym.-Zig. (SiaKpiven to
hia(\ispovTa oKKifKav' olov Ka\hv koi KaK6vy dpeTrjv Koi KOKiav), Fri. De W.
Oltr. Go. Lips. Mou. The rendering of RV. ('approvest the
things that are excellent') is adopted by Latt. Orig. [i/a ut non
solum quae sint bona scias, verum eiiam quae sint meliora et utiliora
discernas), most English Versions, Mey. Lft. Gif. Lid. (Chrys. does
not distinguish ; Va is undecided). The second rendering is the
more pointed.
KaTi]xou/iefos i*. toC v6^o» : cf. Acts. xv. ai.
19. irliroiOas «.r.X. The common constniction after irimoiBas is on : ace.
and infin. is very rare. It seems better, with Vaughan, to take aeavr6v
closely with viitoiOas, ' and art persuaded as to thyself that thou art,' &c.
oSTryiv . . . Tv<t)Xwv. It is natural to compare Matt. xv. 14 rv<p\oi tlmv
dStjyol rv<p\S)v k.t.K. ; also xxiii. 16, 34. Lips, thinks that the first saying was
present to the mind of the Apostle. It would not of course follow that it
was current in writing, though that too is possible. On the other hand the
expression may have been more or less proverbial : comp. Wiinsche, Erldut.
d. Evang. on Matt, xxiii. 16. The same epithet was given by a Galilaean
to R. Chasda, Baba Kama fol. 5 a a. ' When the Shepherd is angry with the
sheep he blinds their leader; i.e. when God determines to punish the
Israelites, He gives them unworthy mlers.'
20. iraiScuT^i': 'a schoolmaster,' with the idea of discipline,
correction, as well as teaching ; cf. Heb. xii. 9.
vr^tAviv'. 'infants,' opp. to reXftot, 'adults,' as in Heb. v. 13, 14.
|t6p<^(iKnv : ' outline,' ' delineation,' ' embodiment.' As a rule
vyjipa = outward form as opp. to inward substance, while Hop^"?
= outward form as determined by inward substance ; so that
(Tx^fw is the variable, \iop^i] the permanent, element in things : see
Lft. Phil. p. 125 ff.; Sp. Comm. on i Cor. vii. 31. Nor does the
present passage conflict with this distinction. The Law was a reaJ
66 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ll. 20-28
expression of Divine truth, so far as it went. It is more difficult to
account for a Tim. iii. 5 fX"*^** ftSptpata-tv tiatBtiat t^* 8» bvvaiut
mrrrjs fjpvtjfitvoi.
See however Lft. in Joum. of Class, and Sacr. Philol. (1857) iii. 115
' They will observe that in two passages where St. Paul doet speak of that
which is nnreal or at least external, and does not employ ax^fM, he still
avoids using fwp<p^ as inappropriate, and adopts n6p<pwait instead (Rom. ii.
30 ; 3 Tim. iii. 5), where the termination -wais denotes " the aiming after or
affecting the fiop<frfi." ' Can this quite be made good f
21. oiv: resumptive, introducing the apodosis to the long pro-
tasis in w. 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.
KXI-iTTtiv : infin. becanse itrjp^aam' contains the idea of command.
22. pScXuao-cS/jiei'os : used of the expression of physical disgust,
esp, of the Jew's horror at idolatry.
Note the piling up of phrases in Dent. vii. a6 «tai ov/r tltxolwM $i{\vyiM
[here of the gold and silver plates with which idols were overlaid] tU
Tdv oJkov ffov, Kai lajj av&Orjiia wawtp tovto. rpoaoxOi^<yi^ci'''t irpoaoxOifts koX
PS(\vyiJiaTi )35e\v^p, on dvaOrjpA iariv. Comp. also Dan. xii. il ; Matt. xxIt.
15, &c. One of the ignominies of captivity was to be compelled to carry
the idols of the heathen : Assumf. Mays. viii. 4 ctgentur palam baiulart idola
eorum iuquinata.
i€pocruXeis. The passage just quoted (Deut. vii. a6 with 25),
Joseph. Ani. IV. viii. 10, and Acts xix. 37 (where the town-clerk
asserts that St. Paul and his companions were ' not iepoavXoi) 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 ^SiKvy/M 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 Uk. ; also on UpoavKla, which must
not be interpreted too narrowly, Lft., £ss. en Supem. Rtl. p. 399 t ;
Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empirt, p. 144 n., where it is noted
that UpoavKia was just one of the crimes which a provincial governor could
proceed against by his own imperium.
The Eng. Versions of UpoavKtis group themselves thus : ' robbest God of
his honour' Tyn. Cran. Genev. ; 'doest sacrilege' (ot 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 lelative and
indie ^o 8i8aaK<ov . . . OS Kavxatrat).
II. «i-27.J FAILURE OF THE JEWS O?
24. A free adaptation of Is. Ui. 6 (LXX). Heb. * And con-
tinually all the day long My Name is blasphemed ' : LXX adds to
this dt' vfMs and Vr roU t6vt<ru>. St Panl omits diaiTaPT6s and changes
Hov to Tov Qeov.
The original meant that the Name of God was reviled by the
tyrants and oppressors of Israel : St. Paul, following up a suggestion
in the LXX (dt iifMs), traces this reviling to the scandal caused
by Israel's inconsistency. The fact that the formula of quotation
is thrown to the end shows that he is conscious of applying the
passage freely : it is almost as if it were an after-thought that the
language he has just used is a quotation at alL See the longer
note on ch. x, below.
85. v6uov irpdo-(rx)s. On the absence of the art. tee especially the scholarly
note in Va. : ' It is almost as if voftov vpiacrtiv and vSiiov -napa^&Tijs were
severally like vofio9fT(tv, vono(pv\aKHv, &c., vofioOiTtjt, vonoSiSaaKaXos, &c.,
one compound word: if thou be a law-doer . . . if thou be a law-transgresior,
&c, indicating the character of the person, rather than calling attention to
the particular/or*f or designation of the law, which claims obedience.*
-^iyoy&t: 'is by that very fact become.' Del. quotes the realistic ex*
pression given to this idea in the Jewish fancy that God would send hit
angel to remove the marks of circumcision on the wicked.
26. €is irepiT0|jif)K XoyiaOiqatTai : 'Koyl(,«T6at tXs t» = \oyi(f(T0at th tA
tumi Tt, fls denoting result, ' so as to be in place of,' ' reckoned as
a substitute or equivalent for ' (Fri., Grm.-Thay. s. v. Xoyifo/ia» i a).
Of the synonyms TrifxTv, (pvXiaattp, TiXflV ; njptiv » ' to keep an eye upon,'
' to observe carefully ' (and then do) ; <pv\i<Tauy = ' to guard as a deposit'
* to preserve intact ' against violence from without or within ; rtKuv = ' to
bring (a law) to its proper fulfilment ' in action ; rrfpuv and <pvKdaa fiv are
both from the point of view of the agent, rcXctc from that of the law which
is obeyed. See Westcott on Jo. xvii. i a ; i Jo. ii. 3.
27. Kpicei : most probably categorical and not a question as
AV. and RV. ; = ' condemn ' by comparison and contrast, as in
Matt. xii. 41, 4a 'the men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judge-
ment with this generation and shall condemn it,' &c. Again we
are pointed back to w. 1-3 ; the judge of others shall be himself
judged.
^ Ik (|)Ja€(>)s dicpoPuoTia : uncircumcision which physically re-
mains as it was born. The order of the words seems opposed to
Prof. Burton's rendering, *the uncircumcision which by nature
fulfils the law' («'« (pva-.sztjiva-fi V. 14).
Bid of 'attendant circumstances' as in iv. 11, viiL 25, xiv. 20;
Anglicfe ' with,' with all your advantages of circumcision and the
possession of a written law.
The distinction between the literal Israel which is after the flesh
and the true spiritual Israel is a leading idea with St. Paul and
is worked out at length in ix. 6 ff. ; see also pp. a, 14 sup. We may
w a
68 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [11. 27-28
compare Phil. iii. 3, where St. Paul claims that Christians represent
the true circumcision.
28 & 4v T^ 4>av<p$. The Greek of thU and the next verse is elliptical,
and there is some ambiguity as to how much belongs to the subject and 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 he who Is
[« Jew] outwardly is a Jew . . . but he who is [a Jew] in secret is a Jew') ;
but it is a drawback to this view of the construction that it separates irtpiTo/iij
and KapKias : Gif., as it seems to us rightly, combines these (' he which is
inwardly a Jew [is truly a Jew], and circumcision of heart ... [is tme
circumcision ']). Similarly Lips. Weiss (but not Mey.).
29. ircpiTOfif) KopSias. The idea of a spiritual (heart-) circum-
cision goes back to the age of Deuteronomy; DeuL x. 16 ntpm-
fjLuadf TT]v aKKrjpoKap^iav vpimv : Jer. iv. 4 ■nfpiTfjLr\6r]Tt ra ©*« ifi&v, Koi
v(piT(p(a-6f Tr]v aiCKripoKapbiav vpS)p : cf. Jer. ix. 26 ; Ezek. xliv. 1 ;
Acts vii. 51. Justin works out elaborately the idea of the Christian
circumcision, Dial. c. Tryph 114.
A Ittoivos. We believe that Dr. Gifford was the first to point
out that there is here an evident play on the name * Jew ' : Judah
«' Praise ' (cf. Gen. xxix. 35 ; xlix. 8).
OASniSTICAIi OBJBCTIOW8 ANSWBItBD.
ni. 1-8. This argument may suggest three objections:
\) If the moral Gentile is better off than the immoral Jew^
what becomes of the Jew's advantages ? — ANSWER. He still
has many. His [e.g.) are the promises (w. 1-2). (ii) But
has not the Jews unbelief cancelled those promises? —
Answer. No unbelief on the part of man can affect th$
pledged word of God: it only serves to enhance His faithful-
ness (w. 3, 4). (iii) If that is the result of his action, why
should man be judged? — ANSWER. He certainly will b*
judged: we may not say {as I am falsely accused of saying\
Do evil that good may come (w. 5-8).
^ If the qualifications which God requires are thus inward and
spiritual, an objector may urge. What becomes of the privileged
position of the Jew, his descent from Abraham, and the like ?
What does he gain by his circumcision ? * He does gain much
(Ml all sides. The first gain is that to the Jews were committed
ni. 1-8.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 69
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 Psaknist
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 trial
'A new objection arises. If our unrighteousness is only
a foil to set oflF the righteousness of God would not God be unjust
who punishes men for sin ? (Speaking of God as if He were man
can hardly be avoided.) • That too were blasphemy to think ! 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 truthfuhiess of
God in performing His promises is only thrown into relief by my
infidelity, which thus redounds to His glory, why am I still like
other offenders (koi) brought up for judgement as a sinner ?
• So the objector. And I know that this charge of saying
* Let 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.
Iff. It is characteristic of this Epistle that St. Paul seems
to imagine himself face to face with an opponent, and that he
discusses and answers arguments which an opponent might bring
against him (so iii. iff., iv. iff., vi. iff., 15 ff., vii. yff.). 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 [UI. 1, &
that the charge of saying ' Let ns do evil that good may come '
was brought as a matter of fact against the Apostle (ver. 8). And
vi. 1, 15 restate this charge in Pauline language. The Apostle
as it were takes it up and gives it out again as if it came in the
logic of his own thought. And the other charge of levelling down
all the Jew's privileges, of ignoring the Old Testament and dis-
paraging its saints, was one which must as inevitably have been
brought against St. Paul as the like charges were brought against
Si. Stephen (Acts vi. 13 f.). It is probable however that Sl 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 hi* own thought than contending with
an adversary.
1. tA Trepiaa6v. That which encircles a thing necessarily
lies outside it. Hence ntpi would seem to have a latent meaning
* beyond,' which is appropriated rather by rripa, nipav, but comes out
in TTfpiaaoi, ' that which is in excess,' ' over and above.'
2. trpuToi' y,iv : intended to be followed by firtira dt, 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.
vpwTov n\v fip : om. fip B D* E G iminutc. pom., vtrtt. ptmr.^ Chiys.
Orig.-lat. al., [7ap] WH.
i7ri<rr€iJ9Ti(rav. TriaTtuw, in the sense of ' entrust,' ' confide,' takes ace. of
the thing entrnsted, dat. of the person ; e. g. Jo. iL 34 i> SJ 'I^aoCj oi* lir«-
ffTtvty iavrdv [rather airbv or avroy'] airois. In the passive the dat
becomes nom., and the ace. remains unchanged ( Buttmann, pp. 175, 189, 190;
Winer, xxxii. 5 [p. 287] ; of. i Cor. ix. 17 ; Gal. ii. 7).
tA XcSyia. 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 XSyiw aa a dimin. of kiyot \a probably conect, though
Mey.-W. make it neut. of ^dyiot on the ground that KoyiSiov is the proper
dimin. The form KoyiSiov is rather a strengthened dimin., which by a process
common in language took the place of Koyiov when it acquired the special
■ense of 'oracle.' From Herod, downwards Kdftop = 'oracle' as a brief
condensed saying; and so it came to = any 'inspired, divine ntterancej:
e. g. in Philo of the ' prophecies' and of the ' ten commandments ' {irtpl tSi9
SUa Koyiwv is the title of Philo's treatise). So in LXX the expression is
ssed of the ' word of the Lord ' five times in Isaiah and frequently in th«
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
Jesw (Polyc a/ PkiJ. vii. i tt &y fxteoitit tA Kiytm rw Ki/ptov : cf. Iren.
III. a-4.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 7 1
Adv. Haer. i piaef. ; also Weiss, Einl. § 5. 4). But from the time of Philo
onwards the word was used of any sacred writbg, whether discourse 01
narrative ; so that it is a disputed point whether the Xo-^ia rod Kvpiov whick
Papias ascribes to St. Matthew, as well as his own \oylwv Kvpiavwv t(r/yr]a(it
(Eus. //. E. III. xxxix. 16 and i) were or were not limited to discourse (see
especially Lightfoot, Ess. on Supem. Ret. p. 173 ff.).
8. i[Jti(m\irav . . . dirioria. Do these words refer to * unbelief
(Mey. Gif. Lid. Oltr. Go.) or to ' unfaithfulness ' (De W. Weiss
Lips. Va.) ? Probably, on the whole, the former : because (i) the
main point in the context is the disbelief in the promises of the
O. T. and the refusal to accept them, as fulfilled in Christ; (ii)
chaps, ix-xi show that the problem of Israel's unbelief weighed
heavily on the Apostle's mind ; (iii) 'unbelief is the constant sense
of the word (dmo-T«<a occurs seven times, in which the only apparent
exception to this sense is 2 Tim. ii. 13, and dnurria eleven times,
with no clear exception) ; (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. xi. 20
rg anicTTiq t^eKKaffdrja-av, aii 8e rj] iriarfi eoTrxas. At the Same time
the one sense rather suggests than excludes the other ; so that tht:
amcrria of man is naturally contrasted with the niaris of God
(of. Va.).
iriony : ' faithfulness ' to His promises ; cf. Lam. iiL 23 noKXh ij
v/oTtr trov : Ps. Sol. viii. 35 ^ niaTis aov fxtff fj^iaiv.
naTapyi^O'Ci. Karapytlv (from Kara causative and apy6i = atpyoi)
= ' to render inert or inactive ' : a characteristic word with St. Paul,
occurring twenty-five times in his writings (including 3 Thess.
Eph. a Tim.), and only twice elsewhere (Lk. Heb.) : = (i) in
a material sense, ' to make sterile or barren,' of soil Lk. xiii. 7,
cf. Rom. vi. 6 Xva Karapyrjdr] to <ra>fia ttjs dfnaprias, ' that the body aS
an instrument of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless ' ;
(ii) in a figurative sense, ' to render invalid,' ' abrogate,' ' abolish '
{rffv hrayyfkiav Gal. iii. 17 J v6p,ov Rom. iii. 31).
4. (i^ Y^KOiTO : a formula of negation, repelling with horror
something previously suggested. ' Fourteen of the fifteen N. 1".
instances are in Paul's writings, and in twelve of them it expresses
the Apostle's abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be
falsely drawn from his argument' (Burton, M. and 7. § 177 ; cf
also Lft. on Gal. ii. 17).
It is characteristic of the vehement impulsive style of this group of Epp
that the phrase is confined to them (ten times in Rom., once in i Cor., twice
in Gal.). It occurs live times in LXX, not however standing alone as here,
but worked into the body of the sentence (cf. Gen. xliv. 7, 17 ; Josh. ixii. 29,
sxIt. 16 ; I Kings xx [xxi]. 3).
ywMia : see on i. 3 above ; the transition which the verb
denotes is often from a latent condition to an apparent condition.
and so here, ' prove to be,' ' be seen to be.'
dXT)di]s : as keeping His plighted word.
7a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 4, ft.
4>«i!<rTT]« : in asserting that God's promises have not been fulfilled.
Kadus Y^YP*^*^*^ • * -^^^» as it stands written.' The quotation is
exact from LXX of Ps. li [1]. 6. Note the mistranslations in LXX
(which St. Paul adopts), viKfjo-jis (or wK^o-nr) for tnsons sis, «V ry
Kpivta-dai (pass.) for t'n iudicando or dum iudicat. The sense of the
original is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God*8
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.
tints dv X Sit points to an nnczpresscd condition, ' in case • dediioa is
given.'
SiKaiuOrfs : ' that thou mightest be pronounced righteous ' by
the judgement of mankind ; see p. 30 f. above, and compare Matt. xi.
19 /cat ihi<aii>6rj if aro(f>ia dno rav tpyav (v. 1. rtKvav : cf. Lk. vii. 35)
avrrji. Test, XII Pair. Sym. 6 on-ttr iiKaiaOa aiTo ri); ifiaprias r»v
y^tvxvv vfiav. Ps. Sol. ii. 16 €ya) iuuuixToi vf 6 Qt6t. The usage
occurs repeatedly in this book ; see Ryle and James ad loc.
iv Tois X<5yois aou: not ' pleadings' (Va.) but ' sayings,' Le. the
Voyio just mentioned. Heb. probably = * judicial sentence.'
riKT)(rT)s : like vincere, of ' gaining a suit,' opp. to ^rrmrdot : the
full phrase is vKav t^v d«ijv (Eur. El. 955, &c.).
vurfjo^s, B G K L &c. ; viitfjattt K A D £, minute, aliq. Probably ruHfOttt
is right, because of the agreement of K A with the older types of Western
Text, thus representing two great families. The reading viic^a^s in B appa-
rently belongs to the small Western element in that MS., which wonld seem
to be allied to that in G rather than to that in D. There is a similar
''actuation in MSS. of the LXX : vncrjant is the reading of K B {def. A),
0iiefiffui of some fourteen cursives. The text of LXX need by St Panl differs
not aeldom from that of the great oncials.
KpiKcaOai : 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, £>e Vet. Test. Ltcit
a Paulo allegatis, p. 34 n.).
6. ifj dSiKia iqfjiuK: a general statement, including amarla. In
like manner e«ov biKawavvrfv is general, though the particular
instance which St Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God
to His promises.
ffufioTTiai : avvloTujfu {avpurTavm) 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. i ; a Cor. iii. i; iv. a;
V. 13, &C. ; cf. avaraTiiuu fniaroXai a Cof. Hi. l) ; (ii) * tO put
together' or 'make good' by argument, 'to prove,' 'establish'
in. 6-7.J CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 73
{compositis colUcHsqut quae rem contineant argumentis aliquid docec
Fritzsche), as in Rom. v. 8 ; s Cor. vii. 11 ; Gal. ii. 18 (where see
LfL and £U.).
Both meanings are recognized by Hesych. (crwicrrdveiv iiraivfiv, (pavepovv,
fieffatovv, iraparidivai) ; but it is strange that neither comes out clearly in the
uses of the word in LXX ; the second is found in Susann. 61 aviaTTjaav
iirX rovs Svo irpearfivras, on auv4(Trr}<Tev aiirohs ^aviiiK ipeoSoiiapropiia'avTas
(Theod.).
Ti IpoCficr : another phrase, like /xfi yivotro, which is charac-
teristic of this Epistle, where it occurs seven times ; not elsewhere
in N. T.
|if) 081KOS : the form of question shows that a negative answer is
expected (/*^ originally meant ' Don't say that,' &c.).
h iin.^ipav tJji' 6pyi]i' : most exactly, * the infiicter of the anger '
(Va.). The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on L 18,
zii. 19.
Bnrton however makes i iwupiprnv strictly eqaivalent to a relatiTe clanse,
and like a relative clause suggest a reason ('Who visiteth'-'' because He
visiteth') M. and T. § 428.
wxth. oM^pvntw X^Y** • & ioxxR. 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 ; cut comp. also i Cor. ix. 8
/i^ Kara ivQpamov ravra \dkSt : a Cor. xi. 17 o XaX««, ov xora Kvptov
XaX«.
6. Ivci trws Kpirfi : 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.
Iirc( : ' since, if that were so, if the inflicting of punishment necessarily
implied injustice.' 'Kirtf gets the meaning ' if so,* ' if not ' (' or else '), from
the context, the clause to which it points being supposed to be repeated :
here Ivti sc el SAmw cffroi 4 Im^t/MVK r^ ^/>Y<^ (cf. Buttmaon, Gr. ^ N. T.
C*- P- 359)-
rdr K<Sa)iOK : all mankind.
<l 8c M A minute, pauc., Vulg. (»d. Boh., Jo.-Damasc., Tisch. WH. test.
RV. text. ; cl 7dp B D E G K L P &c., Vulg. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. «/., WH.
utarg. RV. marg. The second reading may be in its origin Western.
7. The position laid down in ver. 5 is now discussed from the side
of man, as it had just been discussed from the side of God.
dWjGcia: the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises;
y^tvtrixa, the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as
in ver. 4),
Mv<i: '1 too,' as weU as others, though my &lsehood thus
74 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [lU. 7, t.
redounds to God's glory. St Paul uses the first person from
motives of delicacy, just as in i Cor. iv. 6 he ' transfers by a fiction *
(Dr. Field's elegant rendering of ^ert^x^/idnora) to himself and his
friend Apollos what really applied to his opponents.
8. There are two trains of thought in the Apostle's mind : (i)
the excuse which he supposes to be put forward by the unbeliever
that evil may be done for the sake of good ; (ii) the accusation
brought as a matter of fact against himself of saying that evil
might be done for the sake of good. The single clause noifiavfuv
TO KQKh Iva tXdji TO ayadd is made to do duty for both these trains of
thought, in the one case connected in idea and construction with
W . . . fif], in the other with Xtyovaw on. This could be brought
out more clearly by modern devices of punctuation : n m xdyo) ur
ifiapTwXSs, Kp'ivofiai ; Koi [rt J nr\ — Ka6a>t ^\a(T(fir}fiovn(da, Koi Kaddts (f>a(Ti
Ttvts tjfuis Xryed* ot* — noirjamfuy k.t.X. There is a very similar con-
struction in w. 35, 26, where the argument works up twice over to
the same words, tls [rrpos] rfjv (vbti^tv t^j diKaioavvtji avToii, and the
words which follow the second time are meant to complete both
clauses, the first as well as the second. It is somewhat similar
when in ch. ii. ver. 16 at once carries on and completes w. 15
and 13.
St. Paul was accused (no doubt by actual opponents) of Anti-
nomianism. What he said was, ' The state of righteousness is not
to be attained through legal works ; it is the gift of God.' He
was represented as saying ' therefore it does not matter what a man
does ' — an inference which he repudiates indignantly, not only
here but in vi. i flf., 15 ff.
WK TO Kpi/io K.T.X. This points back to n' tn Kdya> Kplvofiai ; the
plea which such persons put in will avail them nothing ; the judge-
ment (of God) which will fall upon them is just. St. Paul does
not argue the point, or say anything further about the calumny
directed against himself; he contents himself with brushing away
an excuse which is obviously onreaL
UinVEBSAIi FAHiimB TO ATTATW TO
RIOHTEOUSia^EaS.
III. 9-20. If the case of us Jews is so bad, are the
Gentiles any better ? No. Tlie same accusation covers both.
The Scrip tin es speak of the universality of human guilt,
which is laid down in Ps. xiv and graphically described in
Pss. V, cxl, X, in Is. lix, and again in Ps. xxxvi. And if
ni. 0-20.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 75
the yew is equally guilty with the Gentile, still less can he
escape punishment ; for the Law which threatens him with
punishment is his own. So then the whole system of Law
and works done in fulfilment of Law, lias proved a failure.
Law can reveal sin, but not remove it.
•To return from this digression. What inference are we to
draw ? Are the tables completely turned ? Are we Jews not only
equalled but surpassed (Trpoexo/*? (9a passive) by the Gentiles ? Not at
alL There is really nothing to choose between Jews and Gentiles.
The indictment which we have just brought against both (in i. 1 8-
3a, ii. 17-39) proves that they are equally under the dominion
of sin. "The testimony of Scripture is to the same effect. Thus
in Ps. xiv [here with some abridgment and variation], the Psalmist
complains that he cannot find a single righteous man, "that there is
none to show any intelligence of moral and religious truth, none to
show any desire for the knowledge of God. "They have all (he
says) turned aside from the straight path. They are like milk
that has turned sour and bad. There is not so much as a single
right-doer among them. "This picture of universal wickedness
may be completed from such details as those which are applied
to the wicked in Ps. v. 9 [exactly quoted]. Just as a grave stands
yawning to receive the corpse that will soon fill it with corruption,
so the throat of the wicked is only opened to vent forth depraved
and lying speech. Their tongue is practised in fraud. Or in
Ps. cxl. 3 [also exactly quoted] : the poison-bag of the asp lies
under their smooth and flattering lips. " So, as it is described in
Ps. X. 7, throat, tongue, and lips are full of nothing but cursing
and venom. ** Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX
of Is. lix. 7, 8] : They run with eager speed to commit murde'
'• Their course is marked by ruin and misery. *^ With smiling
paths of peace they have made no acquaintance. " To sum up the
character of the ungodly in a word [from Ps. xxxvi (xxxv). i LXX] :
The fear of God supplies no standard for their actions.
"Thus all the world has sinned. And not even the Jew can
claim exemption from tne consequences of his sin. For when the
Law of Moses denounces those consequences it speaks especially
to the people to whom it was given. By which it was designed
76 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 9
that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse
and that all mankind might be held accountable to God.
** This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By works ol
Law (i. e. by an attempted fulfilment of Law) no mortal may hope
to be declared righteous in God's sight. For the only eflfect 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.
8. tC o8k ; ' What then [follows] ? ' Not with npotx6n*6a, because
that would require in reply ovdiv navrat, not oi ndvrwt.
Ttpo€x6ii.e9a is explained in three ways : as intrans. in the same
sense as the active npotx^, as trans, with its proper middle force,
and as passive, (i) npotxoH'fda mid. = npoixoptv {^praecellimus eot
Vulg, ; and so the majority of commentators, ancient and modern,
kpa irtpKraov ep^o/ieK Trapa tovs "EWijvas", Euthym.-Zig. ?;^o^€v ri nXtov
Koi tvdoKipovptv oi 'lovSmot ; Theoph. ' Do we think ourselves better?'
Gif.). But no examples of this use are to be found, and there
seems to be no reason why St. Paul should not have written
npofxoptv, the common form in such contexts, (ii) npoexi/itda trans,
in its more ordinary middle sense, ' put forward as an excuse or
pretext ' (' Do we excuse ourselves ? ' RV. marg., ' Have we any
defence?' Mey. Go.). But then the object must be expressed,
and as we have just seen W ovv cannot be combined with npoex6ii(6o
because of ov navras. (iii) npotxopeBa passive, ' Are we excelled ? '
' Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles) ? ' a rare use, but still
one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, Oi. Norv. Ill ad
he). 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 historic, 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 respert
St. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places
(ii. 25-29). A few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take npo€x6nt6a as pass.,
but give it the same sense as npof'xoptp, * Are we (Jews) preferred
(to the Gentiles) in the sight of God ? '
Tpofx6nt9a : v. I. vpo«ar^xo/*<*' vtpi9c6v D* G, 31 ; Antiocheae Fathen
(Chiryi. [«d. Field] Theodt. Severianns), also Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. (ioine MSS.
bat not the best, t$Mtmtu amplius) : a glosa explaining vpotx- in the sama
tU. 0, 10.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 77
way M Vnlg. and the later Greek commentators quoted above A L read
od itdvTus. Strictly speaking oi should qualify navrat, ' not
altogether,' 'not entirely,' as in i Cor. v. lo ov Travras toU nopvois
rov K6(Tfiov TovTov : but in some cases, as here, ndvrws qualifies ov,
' altogether not/ ' entirely not,' i. e. * not at all ' {nequaquam Vulg.,
ovbanas Theoph.). Compare the similar idiom in ov ndw ; and see
Win. Gr. Ixi. 5.
irpoQTiao-iifi,c9a : in the section i. 18— ii. 39.
4^' &|iapT(av. In Biblical Greek bn6 with dat. has given place entirely to
hv6 with ace. Matt. viii. 9 dv6poiir6s dni vird t^ovaiav is a strong case. The
change has already taken place in LXX ; e. g DeuL xxxiii. 3 vdyrtt ol
ijp/uujub'oi iwi rcLt x*^pdt <fov, ical oZroi vvi oi flat.
10. The long quotation which follows, made up of a number of
passages taken from different parts of the O. T., and with no
apparent break between them, is strictly in accordance with the
Rabbinical practice. ' A favourite method was that which derived
its name from the stringing together of beads {Charaz), when a
preacher having quoted a passage or section from the Pentateuch,
strung on to it another and like-sounding, or really similar,
from the Prophets and the Hagiographa ' (Edersheim, Life and
Times, Sec. i. 449). We may judge from this instance that the
first quotation did not always necessarily come from the Pentateuch
— though no doubt there is a marked tendency in Christian as
compared with Jewish writers to equalize the three divisions of the
O. T. Other examples of such compounded quotations are Rom.
ix. 25 f. ; 27 f.; xi. 26 f. ; 34 f. ; xii. 19 f. ; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Here the
passages are from Pss. xiv [xiiij. 1-3 {=Ps. liii. 1-3 [Hi. 2-4]),
ver. I free, ver. 2 abridged, ver. 3 exact; v. 9 [10] exact; cxl. 3
[cxxxix. 4] exact : x. 7 [ix. 28] free ; Is. lix. 7, 8 abridged ; Ps.
xxxvi [xxxv], I. The degree of relevance of each of these
passages to the argument is indicated by the paraphrase : see also
the additional note at the end of ch. x.
As • whole this conglomerate of quotations has had a cnrious history.
The quotations in N.T. frequently react upon the text of O.T., and they have
done so here: w. 13-18 got imported bodily into Ps. xiv [xiii LXX I as an
appendage to ver. 4 in the 'common' text of the LXX (ij hoivtj, i.e. the
unrevised text current in the time of Origen). They are still found in Codd.
K* B R U and many cursive MSS. of LXX (om, N'='»A), though the Greek
commentators on the Psalms do not recognize them. From interpolated
MSS. such as these they found their way into Lat.-Vet., and so itito
Jerome's first edition of the Psalter (the 'Roman'), also into his second
edition (the 'Gallican,' based upon Origan's Hexapla), though marked with
an obelus after the example of Origen. The obelus dropped out, and they
are commonly printed in the Vulgate text of the Psalms, which is practically
the Gallican. From the Vulgate they travelled into Coverdale's Bible
^.D. 1535) ; from theocc into Matthew's (Rogers') Bible, which in th«
78 EPISTLE TO TH£ ROMANS [III. 9-12.
Pgalter reprodncet Coverdale (A.D. 1537), and alto into the 'Great Bible'
(first issued by Cromwell in 1539, «ind 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 at being familiar and smoother to sing, even in the later
revision which tubstituted elsewhere the Authorized Version of 1611. The
editing of the Great Bible was due to Coverdale, who put an ♦ to the
Eassaget 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. xir 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, quod multi ignorantes, dt
Urtio decimo psalmo tumptum putant, qui versus {arixoC^ in edition* Vulgata
[i. e. the Koivi\ of the LXX] additi sunt $t in Htbraico non habentur (Hieron-
0pp. ed. Migne, iv. 601 ; comp. the preface to the same book, ibid. col. 568 f. ;
also the newly discovered C0mm*Htarieli in Ptalmos, ed. Morin, 1 895, p. 34 f.).
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, itVatoc for iroicor
\(>riar6Tr\Ta and oi8* tjp for ovk tariv ciwc ip6t. 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 BiKaioi ' shall live by faith ' ; but till the coming of Christianity
there was no true SiVaior 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. oAk €<m¥ 4 vunSiv: non est gut inielligat (rather than qui
'intelligit) ; Anglicfe, * there is none to understand.' [But A B G,
and perhaps Latt. Orig.-lat. Ambrstr., WH. text read o-vvtir, as also
(B)C WH. text fVC'jri./, without the art. after LXX. This would =
non est intelligens, non est requirens Deum (Vulg.) ' There is
no one of understanding, there is no inquirer after God.'J
h orwuiv : on the form see Win. Gr. § xiv, 16 (ed. 8 ; xiv, 3 E. T.) ; Hort,
Intr. Notts on Orthog. p. 167; also for the accentuation, FrL p. 174!
Both forms, cvukto and awlw, are found, and either accentuation, awtSir or
cwiwv, may be adopted : probably the latter is t^ be preferred ; cf. Ijfit from
i<piw Mk. L 34, xi. 16.
12. oLfia : ' one and alL'
^XpeiwdT)aar : Heb. = 'to go bad,' 'become soar,' like milk;
comp. the dxptlos FiovXot of Matt. xxv. 30.
iroiAv {sin4 artii.) A B G &c. WH. text.
XpT)<TTiSTT)Ta = ' goodness ' in the widest sense, with the idea ot
' utility ' rather than specially of ' kindness,' as in ii. 4.
m. ia-19.') UNIVERSAL FAILURS 79
Ittt hfit : q>. the Latlii idiom mf mtmm omntt (Valg. litenlly msfu* md
mmum). B 67**, WH. mmrg. omit the second oi* larir [ou/r ianv iroiSar
Xpr]OT6Tfira tois ivoi]. The readings of B «nd its allies in these verses are
open to some snspicion of assimilating to a text of LXX. In ver. 14 £ 17
add aireiv (Ibw ri aT6fia airwy) corresponding to afiroS in B's text of Ps. x. 7
[ix. 38].
IS. rtf^of . . . ^oXiouvar. The LXX of Ps. v. 9 [10] corre-
sponds pretty nearly to Heb. The last clause as rather linguam
suam blandam reddunt {poliunf), or perhaps lingua sua blandiuntur
(Kautzsch, p. 34) : ' their tongue do they make smooth ' Cheyne ;
' smooth speech glideth from their tongue ' De Witt.
jSoXioOcrav : Win. Gr. \ xiii, 14 (ed. 8 ; xiii, if. E. T.). The termina-
tion -fav, extended from imperf. and snd aor. of verbs in -/u to verbs in -w, is
widely fonnd ; it is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek, bat 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.'
i&s doiriSwK: 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. zxi. 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. a8]: ol apa* t6
(TTOfia avTov ytfttt Ka\ iriKpiat aal iSkov. St. Paul retains the rel. but
changes it into the plural : <TT6iia avruv B 17, Cypr., WH. marg,
iriKpia : Heb. more lit. =i/raudes.
16-17. 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. It. lis. 7, 8.
^^tr ol frddcf alrStv (Kxiat aifM* ti M irtfdcc avrStv [crrl mvtiplv
Tvrrpinfui «u raKaarmpia i» rait rpc^mxri] raxti«i inxtai aifia [ml at
Mots avrmv, luu Mov tlpiipnit ••* iuiKoytirpai avr&p buiXoyurfioi dirh
fyimatw, <f>iymp\. avvrpiftfia xaX rdkainatpla
hf rait iHcU avritp Koi 6d6y tlp^piis
•ic tlUkurt [ml aim Svn icpimt i»
raw 6dolt avr&p],
utpn dtndntm Theodotion, and probably also Aqnila and Symmaehnt.
[From the Hexapla this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX.]
i^()6vtov (for avh <^6vvv) A N : oilaai N' B Q*, &c : iyvaiaay A Q* wiarf,
(Q == Cod. Marchalianns, XII Holmes) minttsc. aliq.
10. What is the meaning of this verse ? Does it mean that the
passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (o mS^oc sx O. T. ;
So EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 19, 20
v6ftov T^F noKaiitv ypa<f>T)v ovo/jid^tt, ^t fiipot rii npo(^t)TiKa EuthyiH.-
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 (6 voyios = the Pentateuch) affirming
the connexion between sin and punishment. So Gif. Both interpre-
tations give a good sense. [For though (i) does not strictly prove
that all men are guilty but only that the Jews are guilty, this was
really the main point which needed proving, because the Jews were
apt to explain away the passages which condemned them, and held
that — whatever happened to the Gentiles — they would escape.]
The question really turns upon the meaning of 6 v6fi.os. It is
urged, (i) that there is only a single passage in St. Paul where
6 ro/iov clearly=0. T. (i Cor. xiv. 21, a quotation of Is. xxviii. 11) :
compare however Jo. x. 34 (= Ps. Ixxxii. 6), xv. 25 (= Ps.
XXXV. 19) ; (ii) that in the corresponding clause, rois iv r^ p6fuf
must = the Law, in the narrower sense ; (iii) that in ver. a i 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 6 vofios 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 6 Sdvaros in ch. v. la).
Oltr. also goes a way of his own, bnt makes i rS/Mt ^ 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 6 ¥6ftos.
X^ci . . . XaXei : Xtytiv calls attention to the substance of what
is spoken, \dXeiv to the outward utterance ; cf. esp. M^Ciellan,
Gospels, p. 383 flf.
^payif : cf. dvanoXoyrfrot I. 80, ii. I ; the idea comes np at each
step in the argument.
dir6SiKo« : not exactly ' guilty before God,' bat ' answerable to
God.' vTToSiKo? takes gen. of the penalty; dat. of the person
injured to whom satisfaction is due (twv StTrXao-iW vttoSlkos eo-Toi
tQ l3Xa(f>6£VTi Plato, Zegg. 846 B). So here: all mankind has
offended against God, and owes Him satisfaction. Note the use
of a forensic term.
20. Bidri : ' because,' not ' therefore,' as AV. (see on L 19).
Mankind is liable for penalties as against God, because there is
nothing else to afford them proteciion. Law can open men's
eyes to sin, but cannot remove it Why this is so is shown in
vii. 7 ff.
SiKaiwOTJaeTat : ' shall be pronounced righteous,' certainly not
' shall be made righteous ' (Lid.) ; the whole context (u«o irar ortVsa
III. 21-26.J THE NEW SYSTEM Vl
<t>payfj, vn6biK0fy Mmu» avrov) has reference to % Judicial trial and
verdict.
jsaaa adp| '. man in his weakness and frailty (i Cor. L 19 ; i Pet
». a4)-
hti^vwrit : 'dear knowledge'; see on I s8, 3a.
THE NEW SYSTEM.
m. 21-26. Here then the new order of things comes in.
In it is offered a Righteousness which comes from God but
embraces man, by no deserts of his but as a free gift on the
part of God. This righteousness^ (i) though attested by the
Sacred Books, is independent of any legal system (ver. 21);
(ii) it is apprehended by faith in Christ, and is as wide as
mans need (w. aa, 23) : (iii) it is made possible by the
propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ (w. 24, 25) ; which Sacrifice
at once explains the lenient treatment by God of past sin
and gives the most decisive expression to His righteousness
(vv. a5, 26).
" It is precisely such a method which is oflFered 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
time 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
8l EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. 22.
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. ruri 8^ : ' 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 states, 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 wvi may well have its first and most obvious
meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Rom. xvL
25, a6 fivmjpiov . . . <pvLVtpti6ivTos . . , vip, £ph. ii. 12, 13 1^1^
dt . . . fyevi]67)Tt iyyvs, Col. L 26, 27 fivoTTjpiov to anoKiKpvfifUvop . . .
rwi/ ii ((fiai/tpoifii, 2 Tim. L 9, lO X'''"" "'^H' ^odt'iaav , . . irpo XP^**^'
alwiwp (f)avtpu)6(l<Tav 8« viv, Heb. ix. 26 i^vi 6( ina^ «Vi <rwTt}ituf
Tuv ala>vvp . . . irf<f>av(paTai. It may be observed (i) that the N. T.
writers constantly oppose the pre-Christian and the Christian
dispensations to each other as periods (comp. in addition to the
passages already enumerated Acts xvii. 30; Gal. iii. 23, 25,
iv. 3, 4 ; Heb. i. i) ; and (ii) that (^awpoOo-^at is constantly used
with expressions denoting time (add to passages above Tit. i. 3
mipols Idioit, I Pet. i. 20 cfr' ivxarov Tii> xp^imp). The leading
English commentators take this view.
An allusion of Tertullian's makes it probable that Marcion retained this
rerse ; 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, AJv. Marc. v. 4).
Xupis rtffiov: 'apart from law,' * indeptndently of it,' not at
a subordinate system growing out of Law, but as an alternative
for Law and destined ultimately to supersede it (Rom. x. 4).
SiKaioaun] dcoS : see on ch. i. 17. St. Paul goes on to define
his meaning. The righteousness which he has in view is» esser
THE NEW SYSTEM 83
tially 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, work-
ing its way to larger reahzation amongst men. One step in this
reahzation, the first great objective step, is the Sacrificial Death of
Christ for sin (ver. 25); the next step is the subjective appre-
hension 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.
ire({>ai'epuTat. Contrast the completed <pav^pt»(ris in Christ and
the continued airoKaXvylrn in the Gospel (ch. i. 16) : the verb
(t)av(povadai is regularly used for the Incarnation with its accompani-
ments and sequents as outstanding facts of history prepared in the
secret counsels of God and at the fitting moment ' manifested ' to
the sight of men; so, of the whole process of the Incarnation,
I Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. I 10; i Pet. i. ao; i Jo. iii. 5, 8: of the
Atonement, Heb. ix. a6 : of the risen Christ, Mark xvi. la, 14 ;
John xxi. 14 : of the future coming to Judgement, i Pet. v. 4 ;
I Jo. ii. a 8. The nearest parallels to this verse which speaks of
the manifestation of Divine ' righteousness ' are a Tim. i. 10, which
speaks of a like manifestation of Divine 'grace,' and i Jo. i. a,
which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the
principle of ' life.'
^apTupovfiiyy] k. r. X. : another instance of the care with which
St. Paul insists that the new order of things is in no way contrary
to the old, but rather a development which was duly foreseen and
provided for : cf. Rom. L a, iii. 31, the whole of ch. iv, ix. a6-33 ;
X. i6-ai ; xi. i-io, 26-39; xv. 8-ia ; xvi. 26 &c.
22. 8^ 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 (aa in ch. ix. 30 ; i Cor.
li. 6 ; Gal. it a ; Phil. ii. 8) happens to be from the general to the
particular.
-irioTcws 'lijffoS Xpi<rro8 : 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
ChrisHu. der christliche Glaube, Leipzig, 1891).
Dr. Haussleiter contends that the gen. is subjective not objectiTe, tkat like
the 'fidth of Abraham' in ch. iv. 16, it denotes the faith (in God), wh^ch
Christ Himself maintained even tbroogfa the ordeal of the Cmcifijcion, that
84 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 22, 2a
this &ith is here pot 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
good, a number of other passages (notably i. 17) would be affected by it
But, although ably carried out, the interpretation of some of these passages
seavus to us forced ; the theory brings together things, like the maTis Irjaov
Xp.fjTov here with the mans Qeov in iii. 3, which are really disparate; and
h h..s so far, we believe, met with no acceptance.
'IrjaoO XpiaToO. B, and apparently Marcion as quoted by Tertullian,
drop 'IrjffoC (so too \VH. marg. ; A reads \v XpiaTw 'Irjoov.
Kal cm ■n&vTo.'i om. N* A B C, 47. 67**, Boh. Aeth. Arm., Clem.-Alex.
Orig. Did. Cyr.-Alex. Aug. : ins. D E F G K L &c. tni iravras alone is
found in Jo. Damasc. Vulg. codd., so that *Ii Ttavras koX «iri -nfivras would
seem to be a conflation, or combination of two readings originally alterna-
tives. If it were the true reading kU would expres* 'destination for* all
believers, lui 'extension to' them.
23. ofi ydp ^(TTi 8iaoToXi^. The Apostle is reminded of one of
his main positions. The Jew has (in this respect) no real advantage
over the Gentile ; both ahke need a righteousness which is not their
own ; and to both it is offered on the same terms.
TjjjiapTOK. 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.
fioTcpoOi'Tai : see Monro, Homeric Grammar^ § 8 {3); mid. voice ^
^feel want.' Gif well compares Matt. xix. 20 rt ?rt ioTcp© ;
(objective, ' What, as a matter of fact, is wanting to me ? ') with
Luke XV. 14 Kal avToi ^p^iiTo vartptladai (subjective, the Prodigal
begins to/eel his destitution).
Ti)s 86|t(]s. There are two wholly distinct uses of this word :
(i) = 'opinion' (a use not found in N. T.) and thence in
particular ' favourable opinion,' ' reputation ' (Rom. ii. 7, 10 ;
John xii. 43 &c.); (2) by a use which came in with the
LXX as translation of Heb. ^iSS = (i) ' visible brightness or
splendour' (Acts xxii. 11 ; I 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. 10), in the tabernacle
(Ex. xl. 34) or temple (1 Kings viii. 11; a Chron. v. 14), and
specially between the cherubim on the lid of the ark (Ps. Ixxx. I ;
Ex. XXV. 22; Rom. ix. 4 &c.); (iii) this visible splendour
symbolized the Divine perfections, 'the majesty or goodness of
God as manifested to men' (Lightfpot 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. a Cor. iv. 6,
iii. 18). Both morally andC^hj^sically a certain transfiguration
takes place in the Christian, partially here, completely hereafter
(comp. e.g. Rom. viii. 30 «'Sd^a t€i» with Rom. v. a «r' cXirtdi tv
m. 28, 24.J THE NEW SYSTEM 85
W^p TOW 6eov, viiL 18 T^v ftfWova-av S6§(n' diT0Ka\v<p6rjvai, 2 Tim.
ii. 10 S6^ris alavlov). The Rabbis held that Adam by the Fall lost
six things, 'the glory, life (immortality), his stature (which was
above that of his descendants), the fruit of the field, the fruits of
trees, and the light (by which the world was created, and which
was withdrawn from it and reserved for the righteous in the world
to come).' It is explained that ' the glory ' was a reflection from
the Divine glory which before the Fall brightened Adam's face
(Weber, AUsyn. Theol. p. 314). Clearly St. Paul conceives of this
glory as in process of being recovered : the physical sense is also
enriched by its extension to attributes that are moral and
gpirituaL
The meaning of th^a in thii connexion is well illustrated by 4 Ezr. yii. 4a
[ed. Bensly »» vL 14 O. F. Fritzsche, p. 607], where the state of the blessed
is described as neqtu meridiem, neque noctem, neque ante lucem [perh. for
anteluctum; vid. Bensly ad loc.\ neque nitorem, neque claritatem, neque
lucem, nisi tolummodo splendorem claritatis Altissimi [perh. = a^av-^aa ^.^a
Sd^r/i 'T>f/iffTov]. In quoting this passage Ambrose has sola Dei fulgebit
tlaritas ; Dominus enim erit lux omnium (cf. Rev. xxi. 24). The blessed
themselves shine with a brightness which is reflected from the face of God :
ibid. VY. 97, 98 [Bensly «■ 71, 72 O. F. Fritzsche] quomodo incipiet {n^Wfi)
vultus eorum fulgert sicut sol, et quomodo incipient stellarum adsimilari
lumini . . .festinant enim videre vultum \eius\ cui serviunt viventes et
m quo incipient gloriosi mercedem recipere (cf. Matt. xiii. 43).
24. Siitaioufiei'oi. The construction and connexion of this word
are difl&cult, and perhaps not to be determined with certainly.
(i) Many leading scholars (De W. Mey. Lips. Lid. Win. Gr. § xlv.
6 b) make hLKaiov^fvoi mark a detail in, or assign a proof of, the
condition described by vo-rfpoOvrat. In this case there would be
a slight stress on hitptav. men are far from God's glory, because the
state of righteousness has to be given them ; they do nothing for
it. But this is rather far-fetched. No such proof or further
description of iorfpoCiTat is needed. It had already been proved
by the actual condition of Jews as well as Gentiles ; and to prove
it by the gratuitousness of the justification would be an inversion
of the logical order, (ii) vo-rfpoOfTai 8iKaiovfjLevoi is taken as = va-rf-
povvTM Koi diKMovvTM (Frl.) Or := v(TTfpovfievoi 8iKaiovvTai (Tholuck).
But this is dubious Greek, (iii) SiKaiovnevoi is not taken with what
precedes, but is made to begin a new clause. In that case there is
an anacoluthon, and we must supply some such phrase as nw
Kovxoifieda ; (Oltr.). But that would be harsh, and a connecting
particle seems wanted, (iv) Easier and more natural than any of
these expedients seems to be, with Va. and Ewald, to make ov yap
. . . iartpoiivTai practically a parenthesis, and to take the nom.
^iKaioCfievoi ' as suggested by travrts in ver. 23, but in sense referring
rather to rom maTiuovrai in ver. 22.' No doubt such a construcaon
would be irregular, but it may be questioned whether it is too
M EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS |II1. 24.
irregular for St. Paul. The Apostle frequently gives a new turn to
a sentence under the influence of some expression which is really
subordinate to the main idea. Perhaps as near a parallel as any
«'Ould be a Cor. viii. l8, 19 (rvvtnifxyiranfv df t6v a8f\<f>6i> , . ol
5 tlnaivos iv Ty rvayy«Xt« . . . oi itAvov it, dXXa Koi xftpoTovrfSfiT (aS if
or fTrnivt'irai had preceded).
Swpeai' T^ auTou x'^'P'Ti. Each of these phrases strengthens the
other in a very emphatic way, the position of airov 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 (8ia r^j diroXvrpmcreoys).
diroXuTpuCTcws. It is contended, esp. by Oltramare, (i) that
\vTp6a) and dirokvTpom 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
dwoXvTpaxTis is Plut. Pomp. 24 iroXt'an' axxpAKcurviv aTrokvrpdxTfts, where
the word has this sense of ' putting to ransom ') ; (ii) that in LXX
Xvrpoiadai 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. a6 ; xiii. 5, Ac: cf. also anoKvrp&trtt
Ex. xxi 8, of the * release ' of a slave by her master). The subst.
dnokvTpoxTis occurs Only in one place, Dan. iv. 30 [29 or 32], LXX
6 xp^^'o^ P°^ "^^ airo\vTpu>(Tt(iii TjXOt of Nebuchadnezzar's recovery
from his madness. Hence it is inferred (cf. also Westcott, He6.
p. 296, and Ritschl, Rechtfert. u. VersOhn. ii. 220 fF.) that here and
in similar passages anokvrpasfTK 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) iovvm rriv V^x^" ovtov
Xirpov dvTi rroXXuv, and in I Tim. ii. 6 6 dovs iavrhv dvriXvTpov xmip
ndvTutVy and in view also of the many passages in which Christians
are said to be * bought,' or ' bought with a price ' (i Cor. vi. ao,
vii. 23; Gal. iii. 13; a Pet. ii. i; Rev. v. 9: cf. Acts xx. aS ;
I Pet. i. 18, 19), we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea
of the Xvrpov retains its full force, that it is identical with the tj/x^,
and that both are ways of describing the Death of Christ. The
emphasis is on the cost 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.
rfjs <v Xpio-T^ 7i]<roO. We owe to Hanstleiter {Dtr Glamhe Jtsu Christi,
p. 116) the interesting ob«ervation that wherever the phrase iv Xpiar^ 01 iv
Xpiar^ lijaov occurs there is no single instance of the variants iv 'Irjaov 01
Iv 'Ii;aov T^VT^. This is significant, becanie in other combinations thf
III. 24, 26.] THK NEW SYSTEM 87
Tariants are freqaent It it also what we shoold expect, btcaase Ir Xptorr^
and Iv Xpurr^ li^cr. always relate to the glorified Christ, not to the historic
Jesut.
26. irpo^OeTO may a: either (i) ' whom God proposed to Himself,'
' purposed,' * designed ' (Orig. Pesh.) ; or (ii) ' whom God set forth
publicly ' {proposuit Vulg.). Both meanings would be in full ac-
cordance with the teaching of St. Paul both elsewhere and in this
Epistle. For (i) we may compare the idea of the Divine npodtant
in ch. ix. 11 (viii. 28); Eph. iii. 11 (i. 11); 2 Tim. i. 9; also
I Pet. i. 20. For (ii) compare esp. Gal. iii. i oU kut ocpdaKfxovi
*lr](rovs Xp«rrAf iTpoeypd(f>i] itTTavpafitvos. But when we tum to the
immediate context we find it so full of terms denoting publicity
(ir«f>artpttTat, tit fvSfi$iv, irpir Tf)v eviti^iv) that the latter sense seems
preferable. The Death of Christ is not only a manifestation of the
righteousness of God, but a visible manifestation and one to which
appeal can be made.
tXa<m^pior : usually subst. meaning strictly ' place or vehicle of
propitiation,' but originally neut. of adj. iXaomjptor (tXaori^piov
midtfia Ex. XXV. 16 [17], where however Gif. takes the two words
as substantives in apposition). In LXX of the Pentateuch, as m
Heb. ix. 5, the word constantly stands for the * lid of the ark,' or
* mercy-seat,' so called from the fact of its being sprinkled with the
blood of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement. A number of
the best authorities (esp. Gif. Va. Lid. Ritschl, Rechtfert. u. Versohn.
ii. 169 flF. ed. 2) take the word here in this tense, arguing (i) that
it suits the emphatic avrov in iv t^ ovtov aifian; (ii) that through
LXX it would be by far the most familiar usage ; (iii) that the
Greek commentators (as Gif. has shown in detail) unanimously give
it this sense ; (iv) that the idea is specially appropriate inasmuch as
on Christ rests the fulness of the Divine glory, * the true Shekinah,'
and it is natural to connect with His Death the culminating rite in
the culminating service of Atonement. But, on the other hand,
there is great harshness, not to say confusion, in making Christ at
once priest and victim and place of sprinkling. Origen it is true
does not shrink from this ; he says expressly invenies igilur . . . esse
ipsum et propitiatorium et pontificem et hosiiam quae offertur pro
populo {in Rom. iii. 8, p. 213 Lomm.). But although there is
a partial analogy for this in Heb. ix. 11-14, 23-x. 22, where
Christ is both priest and victim, it is straining the image yet further.
to identify Him with the tXaor^pwi'. The Christian iKaajjipiov, or
' place of sprinkling,' in the literal sense, is rather the Cross. It is
also something of a point (if we are right in giving the sense of
publicity to -npokBtro) that the sprinkling of the mercy-seat was just
the one rite which was withdrawn from the sight of the people.
Another way of taking tXaonjptov is to supply with it 6vpa on the
analogy of a*ari\pu>v, TtXtarfipiop, xapurri]ptovk This too is Strongly
88 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III 25
supported (esp. by the leading German commentators, De W. Fri
Mey. Lips.). But there seems to be no clear instance of tXaor^pto*
used in this sense. Neither is there satisfactory proof that tXatrr.
(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 ok. There is evidence that the word was current as
an adj. at this date {tXaarripiop fiv^ixa Joseph. AnU. XVI, vii. i •
IXacTTTfpiov Bavdrov 4 Macc. xvii. 32 *, and other exx.). The
objection that the adj. is not applied properly to persons counts
for very little, because of the extreme rarity of Uie 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 TtrsioiM do not help u : they give all three leaderingi, ^r»-
fitialorium, firopitiatortm, and propitiationtm. Syr. U also ombiguon*.
The 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 it given him from above to mj^e 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 be has
given satisfaction to his fellow-man ' ; and more to the same effect (Mishnah,
Tract. Joma, viii. 9, ap. Winter u. Wiinsche, Jiid. Lit. p. 98). We get
a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta, Tract. Joma, v : ' R. Ismael
said, Atonement is of four kinds. He who transgresses a positive command
and repents is at once forgiven according to the Scripture, " Return, ye back-
sliding children, I vrill heal your backslidings " (Jer. iii. 23 [2 a]). He who
transgresses a negative command or prohibition and repents has the atone-
ment held in suspense by his repentance, and the Day of Atonement makes
it effectual, according to the Scripture, " For on this day shall atonement be
made for yon " (Lev. xvi. 30). If a man commits a sin for which is decreed
extermination or capital punishment and repents, his repentance and the
Day of Atonement together keep the atonement in suspense, and suffering
brings it home, according to the Scripture, " I will visit their transgression
with the rod and their iniquity with stripes" (Ps. Ixxiix. 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 yon 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. 21 (?)
"Only," i.e. when he turns from his evil way does he obtain atonement,
otherwise he obtains no atonement ' {op. tit. p. 154).
* Some MSS. read here did . . . «•« l> aanjpiov rov Aai4rov oirwr (O. F.
Fritische met loc.).
III. 26.1 THE NEW SYSTEM 8q
9*A Tj)« irloTflwt: &a wtffTtcn KC*D*FG 6j** «/., Tisch. WH. text.
The art. seems here rather more correct, pointing back as it would do to Sii
wlarton *!. X. in ver. aa ; it is found in B and the mass of later authorities,
bat there is a strong phalanx on the other tide ; B ia not infallible in sach
company (cfl xi. 6).
Ir T^ ouTou atfia-n : not with nitrrttit (though this would be
a quite legitimate combination ; see Gif. ad loc), but with npofOero
tkaorTjpiov: 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. ii ; 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 flf. ;
Heb, p. 293 f.).
For the prominence which is given to the Bloodshedding in
connexion with the Death of Christ see the passages collected
below.
CIS 2>'8€i|i»» : e?f denotes the final and remote object, »rpoV the
nearer object. The whole plan of redemption from its first
conception in the Divine Mind aimed at the exhibition of God's
Righteousness. And the same exhibition of righteousness was
kept in view in a subordinate part of that plan, viz. the forbearance
which God displayed through long ages towards sinners. For the
punctuation and structure of the sentence see below. For Iv^ti^w
see on ch. ii. 15 ; here too the sense is that of ' proof by an appeal
to fact.'
CIS cKSei^ir TTis 8iitoiocnJn(j$ aurou. 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 sarrifice, 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 tc 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
90 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 25, 26
of God required. See the longer Note on ' The Death of Christ
considered as a Sacrifice ' below.
Sid -riiK irdpcair: not 'for the remission/ as AV., which gives
a somewhat unusual (though, as we shall see on iv. 25, not
impossible) sense to 8»a, and also a wrong sense to ndpta-iv, but
'because of the pretermission, or passing over, of foregone sins.'
For the difference between Trdpta-it and a(f>ta-it see Trench, Syn.
p. iioff. : rrdpea-is = ' putting osi'de,' temporary suspension of
punishment which may at some later date be inflicted ; a<f>t<rts at
' putting away,' complete and unreserved forgiveness.
It is possible that the thought of this passage may hare been suggested by
Wisd. xi. 33 [34] Hcu trapop^s ipapi-Zjuara dvOpdjirtuy tit pfriyoiav. There
will be found in Trench, op. cit. p. 1 1 1, an account of a controversy which
arose out of this verse in Holland at the end of the sixteenth and beginning
of the serenteenth centnries.
d)iapTT|)i(iTwi' : as contrasted with ApLopria, apAprnfpM as the single
act of sin, dpapria = the permanent principle of which such an act
is the expression.
ir Tfl Akox^ : «V either (i) denotes motive, as Mey., Ac. (Grimm,
Lex. s. V. if, 5 ^) ; or (ii) it is temporal, * during the forbearance of
God.' Of these (i) is preferable, because the whole context deals
with the scheme as it lay in the Divine Mind, and the relation of
its several parts to each other.
dcoxfj : see on ii. 4, and note that avoy^ is related to wptnt as
xapt{ is related to d(pt<ris.
26. irpis r^v ivhtiiiv: 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 Hm rfiv ndptaw 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 diflicult to account for the change of the preposi-
tion from tls to np6s ; (ii) the art. is on this view perfectly accounted
for, * the same display ' as that just mentioned ; (iii) riv trpoytyif
p6t(ov &fiapTT]pdT(op seems to be contrasted with tv r^ vCv Kcup^ ; (iv) the
construction thus most thoroughly agrees with St. Paul's style
elsewhere : see GifTord's note and compare the passage quoted
Eph. iii. 3-5, also Rom. iii. 7, 8, ii. 14-16.
SixaioK Ral SiKaioCio-a. This is the key-phrase which establishes
the connexion between the ducoMvinnf Btov, and the duuuovvmf ia
III. 21-26.] THE NEW SYSTEM 9I
nlartmt. It is not that ' God is righteous and yet declares righteous
the believer in Jesus/ but that * He is righteous and also, we might
almost say and there/ore, declares righteous the believer.' The
words indicate no opposition between justice and mercy. Rather
that which seems to us and which really is an act of mercy is the
direct outcome of the ' righteousness ' which is a wider and more
adequate name than justice. It is the essential righteousness of
God which impels Him to set in motion that sequence of events in
the sphere above and in the sphere below which leads to the free
forgiveness of the believer and starts him on his way with a clean
page to his record.
7hv Ik ■aifrttioi : ' him whose ruling motive is faith ' ; contrast
oi (^ tpidfias ch. ii. 8 ; iaoi c'| i^jyap v6fiov (' as many as depend on
works of law') Gal. ill. 10.
Tlfe Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice.
It is impossible to get rid from this passage of the double idea
(i) of a sacrifice; (a) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory. In any
case the phrase «V t^ qvtov aluari. carries with it the idea of sacrificial
bloodshedding. And whatever sense we assign to iXao-njpio«» —
whether we directly supply Qvfia, or whether we supply tnldfixa and
regard it as equivalent to the mercy-seat, or whether we take it as
an adj. in agreement with ov — the fundamental idea which underlies
the word must be that of propitiation. And further, when we ask,
Who is propitiated ? the answer can only be ' God.' Nor is it
possible to separate this propitiation from the Death of the Son.
Quite apart from this passage it is not difficult to prove that these
two ideas of sacrifice and propitiation lie at the root of the teaching
not only of St. Paul but of the New Testament generally. Before
considering their significance it may be well first to summarize this
evidence briefly.
(i) As in the passage before us, so elsewhere; the stress which is
laid on alfxa is directly connected with the idea of sacrifice. We
have it in St. Paul, in Rom. v. 9 ; Eph. i. 7, ii. 13 ; Col. i. 20 {8ia tov
mfiaroe tov aravpov). We have it for St. Peter in I Pet. i. 2 {pavricriinv
atfiaros) and 1 9 (rifiito aifuiTi i)s apvov aptapov Koi dvniXov), Fof
St John we have it in i Jo. i. 7, and in v. 6, 8. It also comes
out distinctly in several places in the Apocalypse (i. 5, v. 9, vii. 14,
xii. II, xiii. 8). It is a leading idea very strongly represented in
Ep. to Hebrews (especially in capp. ix, x, xiii). There is also the
strongest reason to think that this Apostolic teaching was suggested
by words of our Lord Himself, who spoke of His approaching
death in terms proper to a sacrifice such as that by which the First
Covenant had been inaugurated (comp. i Cor. xi. 25 with M»i*
xxvi 28 ; Mark xiv. 24 [perhaps not Luke xxii. 20]).
g% EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IIL 21-26
Many of these passages besides the mention of bloodshedding
and the death of the victim (Apoc. v, 6, ia,xiii. 8 dpviov €a-(payn(vov:
cf. V. 9) call attention to other details in the act of sacrifice (e. g.
the sprinkling of the blood, payna-fids i Pet. L a ; Heb. xiL 24 ;
cf. Heb. ix. 13, 19, 31).
We observe also that the Death of Christ is compared not only
to one but to several of the leading forms of Levitical sacrifice : to
the Passover (John i. 29, xix. 36; i Cor, v. 8, and the passages
which speak of the ' lamb ' in i Pet. and Apoc.) ; to the sacrifices
of the Day of Atonement (so apparently in the passage from which
we start, Rom. iii. 25, also in Heb. ii. 17; ix. 12, 14, 15, and
perhaps i Jo. ii. a, iv. 10; i Pet. ii. 24); to the ratification of the
Covenant (Matt. xxvi. 28, &c. ; Heb. ix. 15-22); to the sin-oflFering
(Rom. viii. 3; Heb. xiii. 11; i Pet. iii. 18, and possibly if not
under the earlier head, i Jo. ii. a, iv. 10).
(a) 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. a8 ; Acts v. 30 f , apparently ; i Cor. xv. 3 ;
a Cor. v. ai ; Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14 and 20 ; Tit. ii. 14 ; Heb. i. 3,
ix. 28, X. 12 al.; i Pet. ii. 24, iii. 18; i Jo. ii. a,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. a a
Koi <T\(b6v iv aifiari ndvra Kadapi^erai Kara ritv vopov, koi x®P'*
alftartKxva-iat ov yivtrai a(f)f(Tis). The use of the different words
denoting ' propitiation ' is all to the same effect [i\aa-TT]pioy Rom.
iii. 25 ; iKaafjios I Jo. ii. a, iv. 10 ; tXacrKtadai 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, Hke 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.
m. 21-26.J THE NEW SYSTEM 93
In this connexion it may be worth while to quote a striking
passage from a writer of great, if intermittent, insight, who approaches
the subject from a thoroughly detached and independent stand-
point. In his last series of Slade lectures delivered in Oxford {T^
Art of England, 1884, p. 14 f.), Mr. Ruskin wrote as follows:
' None of you, who have the least acquaintance with the general
tenor of my own teaching, will suspect me of any bias towards the
doctrine of vicarious Sacrifice, as it is taught by the modem
Evangelical Preacher. But the great mystery of the idea of
Sacrifice itself, which has been manifested as one united and
solemn instinct by all thoughtful and affectionate races, since the
world became peopled, is founded on the secret truth of benevolent
energy which all men who have tried to gain it have learned — that
you cannot save men from death but by facing it for them, nor
from sin but by resisting it for them . . . Some day or other
—probably now very soon — -too probably by heavy afflictions of
the State, we shall be taught . . . that all the true good and
glory even of this world — not to speak of any that is to come, must
be bought still, as it always has been, with our toil, and with our
tears.'
After all the writer of this and the Evangelical Preacher whom
he repudiates are not so very far apart. It may be hoped that the
Preacher too may be willing to purify his own conception and to
strip it of some quite unbiblical accretions, and he will then find
that the central verity for which he contends is not inadequately
stated in the impressive words just quoted.
The idea of Vicarious Suffering is not the whole and not
perhaps the culminating point in the conception of Sacrifice, for
Dr. Westcott seems to have sufficiently shown that the centre of
the symbolism of Sacrifice Hes not in the death of the victim but
in the offering of its life. This idea of Vicarious Suffering, which is
nevertheless in all probability the great difficulty and stumbling-
block in the way of the acceptance of Bible teaching on this head,
was revealed once and for all time in Isaiah liii. No one who
reads that chapter with attention can fail to see the profound truth
which lies behind it — a truth which seems to gather up in one all
that is most pathetic in the world's history, but which when it has
done so turns upon it the light of truly prophetic and divine inspira-
tion, gently lifts the veil from the accumulated mass of pain and
sorrow, and shows beneath its unspeakable value in the working out
of human redemption and regeneration and the sublime consolations
by which for those who can enter into them it is accompanied.
I said that this chapter gathers up in one all that is most pathetic
in the world's history. It gathers it up as it were in a single
typical Figure. We look at the lineaments of that Figure, and
then we transfer our gaze and we recognize them all translated
94 EPISTLE rO THE ROMANS [ill. 27-8L
from idea into reality, and embodied in marvellous perfecrion upon
Calvary.
Following the example of St. Paul and St. John and the Epistle
to ihe 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 (i) that no claim can bi
made on the ground of human merit, for there is no merit
in Faith (w. 27, 28) ; (a) that Jew and Gentile are on the
same footing, for there is but one God, and Faith is the only
means of acceptance with Him (w. 29, 30).
An objector may say that Law is thus abrogated. On the
contrary its deeper principles are fulfilled^ as the history of
Abraham will show (ver. 31).
•" There are two consequences which I draw, and one that an
objector may draw, from this. The first is that such a method of
obtaining righteousness leaves no room for human claims or merit.
Any such thing is once for all shut out For the Christian system
is not one of works — in which there might have been room for
merit — but one of Faith. *» Thus {qZp, but see Crii. Note) we believe
that Faith is the condition on which a man is pronounced righteous,
and not a round of acts done in obedience to law.
"The second consequence [already hinted at in wr. a a] is thai
III. 27, 28.] CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW SYSTEM 95
Jew and Gentile are on the same footing. If thej are not, Aien
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 — Fsiith, 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.
27. <C<KXei(r9f} : an instance of the * summarizing ' force of the
aorist ; * it is shut out once for all,' ' by one decisive act.'
St Panl has hi* eye rather apoa the deciiiveness of the act than apon iti
contintied result. In English it is more natural to m to express dedsiveness
by laying stress npon the result — ' is shat out'
ftid TToiou ^ftou : vdftov 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 oset of v6ftot would be ch. tU. ai, as ; tUL a ; s. 31,
on which see the Notes.
28. oSk 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 yap gives the better
sense. We do not want a summary statement in the middle of an
argument which is otherwise coherent The alternative reading,
XoytCofifda yap, helps that coherence. [The Jew's] boasting is
excluded, becaust justification turns on nothing which is the peculiar
possession of the Jew but on Faith. And so Gentile and Jew are
on the same footing, as we might expect they would be, seeing
^t they have the same God.
oSf BCEKKLP &c; Syn. (Pesh.-Harcl.) ; Chrys. Theodrt «/. ; Weiaa
RV. WH. marg. : f6f H A D* E F G a/, plur. ; Latt. (Vet.-Vulg.) Boh.
Ann. ; Orig.-lat. Ambrst Aug. ; Tisch. WH. text RV. marg. The evidence
for yap is largely Western, but it is combined with an element (K A, Boh.)
which in this instance is probably not Western ; so that the reading would
be carried back beyond the point of divergence of two most ancient lines of
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 (B C ia
Efp. is not so strong a combination as 6 C in G*spp.). Wc i»efer the
reading y(t.p.
96 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [HI. 28-81
8iitaiou(r6oi : we must hold fast to the rendering 'is declared
righteous.' not ' is made righteous ' ; cf. on i. 17.
o.vQpu>ttjiv : any human being.
29. T] 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.
)i6vov : novw B al. ftur., WH. marg. ; perhaps auimilated to lovSoW
. . . KoX iOvwv.
30. «iTr«p : decisively attested in place of Ittflirtp. The old distinction
drawn between tl -nip and tl 7* was that tt -ntp is used of a condition which
is assnnird without implying whether it is rightly or wrongly assumed, tl y«
of a condition which carries with it the assertion of its own reality (Hermann
on Viger, p. 831 ; Baumlein, Griech. Partikeln, p. 64V It is doubtful
whether this distinction holds in Classical Greek ; it can hardly hold for
N.T. But in any case both cf vtp and «! 7f lay some stress on the condition,
as a condition: cf. Monro, Homerie Grammar, §§ 353, 354 ' The Particle
»f'/) is evidently a shorter form of the Preposition vipi, which in its adverbial
use has the meaning beyond, excetdingly. Accordingly iikp is intensive,
denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree, in
its fullest sense, &c. ... 7* is used like vip to emphasize a particular word
or phrase. It does not however intensify the meaning, or insist on the fact
as true, but only calls attention to the word or fact. ... In a Conditional
Protasis (with os. on, fl, &c.), yt emphasiies the condition as such: hence
ti yf if only, always supposing that. On the other hand tl mtf means
supposing ever to muth, hence if really (Lat. si quident).'
6K TTiCTTcws . . . Bid TTjs TTitTTcus : (K dcuotcs ' sourcc,' bia ' attend-
ant circumstances.' The Jew is justified <« ma-Ttms i«a n-tpiTonTjt :
the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is
circumcision. The Gentile is justified « rriarfas Koi Sia r^s n-tWcwr :
no special channel, no special conditions are marked out ; faith is
the one thing needful, it is itself ' both law and impulse.'
8id TTJs irioTcws =: ' the same faith,' ' the faith just men-
tioned.'
81. KaTapyoufifr : see on ver. 3 above.
»'<5(ioK loTwfAef. If, as we must needs think, oh. iv contains the
proof of the proposition laid down in this verse, vo^ov 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 f)revailed 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 AU
these things are realized in Christianity.
IV. 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 97
And then farther, 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. lo wX^pana ovv voitov if oycun; Compared with Gal. v. 6
•ivrtff d»' cyainpf ntfyyovfionj).
TES FAITH OF ABBAHAM.
rv. 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 is due, not to
sinlessness but to God" s free forgivetiess of sins.
' Objectok. 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. Paul. Perhaps he has before men, but not before God.
• For look at the Word of God, that well-known passage of Scrip-
ture, Gen. XV. 6. What do we find there ? Nothing about works,
but ' Abraham put faith in God,' and it (L e. his faith) was credited
to him as if it were righteousness.
* This proves that there was no question of works. For a work-
man claims his pay as a debt due to him; it is not an act of
favour. 'But to one who is not concerned with works but puts
fciith in God Who pronounces righteous not the actually righteous
(in which there would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly — to
such an one his faith is credited for righteousness.
*Just as again David in Ps. xxxii describes how God 'pro-
nounces happy ' (in the highest sense) those to whom he attributes
righteousness without any reference to works : ' ' Happy they,' he
says, — not *who have been guilty of no breaches of law,' but
•whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are
veiled from sight. ' A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will
not enter in His booL'
98 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. I.
Iff. The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but
the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure, due
as it would seem to the crossing of other lines of thought with
the main lines. The proposition which the Apostle sets him-
self to prove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch,
is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches.
But the way of putting this is affected by two thoughts, which still
exert some influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to
the advantage of the Jew. (ii) the pride or boasting which wa:*
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 pnde
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 j
but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met
with in actual controversy (see on iii. i ff.).
1. The first question is one of reading. There is an important
variant turning upon the position or presence of eoptju^foi. (i)
K L P, &c., Theodrt. and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which
are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after ri*
wponaTopa rjfiwv. It is then taken with Kara adpKa \ ' What shall we
say that A. has gained by his natural powers unaided by the grace
of God ? ' So Bp. Bull after Theodoret. jTEuthym.-Zig. however,
even with this reading, takes Kara aapKa with naripa : i-ntpliarhv yaft
TO Kara adpKo]. But this is inconsistent with the context. The
question is not, what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or
without it, but whether the new system professed by St. Paul left
him any gain or advantage at all. (a) MACDEFG, some cur-
sives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place
after (povptv. In that case Kara aapxa goes not with «vpt]Kivai but
with Tov npondropa fjpoiv 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 tvprfKfvm 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 sar that
the sense thus given is suspiciously easy : it is certainly more
IT. 1, a.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 99
satisfactory than that of either of the other readings. The point is
not what Abraham got by his righteousness, but how he got his
righteousness — by the method of works or by that of faith. Does
the nature of A.'s righteousness agree better with the Jewish
system, or with St. Paul's ? The idea of ' gain ' was naturally
imported from ch, iii. i, 9. There is no reason why a right reading
should not be preserved in a small group, and the fluctuating
position of a word often points to doubtful genuineness. We
therefore regard the omission of tvprjKfvai as probable with WH.
texi Tr. RV. marg. For the construction comp. John L 15 oJrot
1-5. One or two small qnestions of form may be noticed. In ver. i
npoiriTopa (N***' A B C* a/.) is decisively attested for irartpa, which is
found in the later MSS. and commentators. In ver. 3 the acute and sleepless
critic Origan thinks that St. Paul wrote 'Afipa/x (with Heb. of Gen. xv , cf.
Gen. xvii. <;), but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the
text of Scripture substituted 'A^poAfi. It is more probable that St. Paul had
before his mind the established and significant name throughout : he quotes
Gen. xvii. 5 in ver. 17. In ver. 5 a small group (N D* F G) have dat^Tji', on
which form see WH. Intrvd. App. p. 157 f. ; Win Gr. ed. 8, § ix. 8 ; Tisch.
00 Heb. vi. 19. In this instance the attestation may be wholly Western, bat
not in others.
ihv irpoirdTopa ^fifflr. This description of Abraham as ' our fore-
father ' is one of the arguments used by those who would make the
majority of the Roman Church consist of Jews. St. Paul is not
very careful to distinguish between himself and his readers in such
a matter. For instance in writing to the Corinthians, who were
undoubtedly for the most part Gentiles, he speaks of ' our fathers '
as being under the cloud and passing through the sea (i Cor. x. i).
There is the less reason why he should discriminate here as he is
just about to maintain that Abraham is the father of all believers,
Jew and Gentile alike, — though it is true that he would have added
' not after the flesh but after the spirit.' Gif. notes the further point,
that the question is put as proceeding from a Jew ; along with
Orig. Chrys. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. Lips, he connects t6v irpondr. f^i.
with Kara aapKo, It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort
{Rom. and Eph. p. 23 f.) though relegating (vpriKtvtu to the margin,
still does not take icara aapKa with t6v irponuTopa fip,cop.
2. Kaux^lf^a: 'Not materies gloriandi as Meyer, but rather
gloriatto, as Bengel, who however might have addedyif/a ' (T. S.
Evans in Sp. Comtn. on i Cor. v. 6). The termination -pa denotes
not so much the thing done as the completed, determinate, act;
for other examples see esp. Evans ui sup. It would not be wrong
to translate here 'has a ground of boasting,' but the idea of
' ground ' is contained in ex«, or rather in the context.
dXX' 06 irp^ Tie ectS^. It seems best to explain the introduction
vi this clause by some such ellipse as that which is supplied in the
■ •
lOO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 2, 8.
paraphrase. There should be a colon after xaixntt'^' St Paul
does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a <tavx»7M«
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 Kaixntia before God. There is
a stress upon r6v ei6¥ which is taken up by r^ e*^ in the quota-
tion. ' A. could not boast before God. He might have done so
if he could nave 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. iXoYiaGr] ; 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 tav ii (/>aycl>v <f>ayii . . . oi
\oyia6f](TfTai avr^, xvii. 4 \oyi(y6i}(rtT(u tm avdpamtf tKtivtf (Ufia, Ac.
The notion arises from that of the ' book of remembrance ' (Mai.
iii. 16) in which men's good or evil deeds, the wrongs and
suflferinws of the saints, are entered (Ps. Ivi. 8 ; Is. Ixv. 6). Oriental
monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the
merit or demerit of their subjects (Esth. vi. i flf.), and in like
manner on the judgement day Jehovah would have the 'books'
brought out before Him (Dan. vii. 10; Rev. xx. la; comp. also
' the books of the living,' ' the heavenly tablets,' a common expres-
sion in the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, and Test. XII Pair., on which
see Charles on Enoch xlvii. 3 ; and in more modem times,
Cowper's sonnet ' There is a book . . . wherein the eyes of God
not rarely look ').
The idea of imputation in this sense was familiar to the Jews
(Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 233). They had also the idea of the
transference of merit and demerit from one person to another
{ibid. p. 280 flf. ; Ezek. xviii. a ; John ix. a). That however is not
in question here ; the point is that one quaUty faith is set down, <x
credited, to the individual (here to Abraham) in place of another
quality — righteousness.
AoyiaOT) auTu cis 8iKaioauin()K : was reckoned as equivalent to, as
standing in the place of ' righteousness.' The construction is
common in LXX: cf. i Reg. (Sam.) i. 13; Job xU. 23 (24); Is.
xxix. 17 (=xxxii. 15); Lam. iv. a; Hos. viii. 12. The exact
phrase i'Koyiadr) aira tls ducaiocr. recurs in Ps. cv [cvi], 31 of the
zeal of Phinehas. On the grammar cf. Win. § xxix. 3 a. (p. aap,
ed. Moulton).
On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. Weber, Altsyn. Paldst.
Theologie, p. 255 flf. 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 ba^ the Shekinah which had
IV. 8-6.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 101
retired into the seventh heaven, so that in the days of Moses h
could take up its abode in the Tabernacle {ibid. p. 183). According
to the Jews the original righteousness of Abraham, who began to
serve God at the age of three {ibid. p. 118) was perfected (i) by his
circumcision, (a) by his anticipatory fulfilment of the Law. But
the Jews also (on the strength of Gen. xv. 6) attached a special
importance to Abraham's faith, as constituting merit (see Mechilta
on £x. xiv. 31, quoted by Delitzsch ad loc. and by Lightfoot in the
extract given below).
4. 6. An illustration from common life. The workman earns
his pay, and can claim it as a right. Therefore when God bestows
the gift of righteousness, of His own bounty and not as a right, that
is proof that the gift must be called forth by something other than
works, viz. by faith.
5. l-aX t6k SiKaioui^a: 'on Him who pronounces righteous' or
' acquits,' i. e. God. It is rather a departure from St. Paul's more
usual practice to make the object of faith God the Father rather
than God the Son. But even here the Christian scheme is in view,
and faith in God is faith in Him as the alternative Author of that
scheme. See on i. 8, 17, above.
We muit not be misled by the comment of Euthym.-Zig. rovriari «<rr«iJom
8t« Svvarcu h ©«i» tov \v aff(l3ei.q. ^efficaKora, rovroy ((aitpvijt ov fiivov k\tv-
Otpwffcu KoK&aiws, aWd, itai SiKaiov iroi^acu (comp. the same writer on ver. 25
tva SiKoiovs ijnas iroi^a^). The evidence is too decisive (p. 30 f. suf.) that
SiKaiovv •= not ' to make righteous ' but ' to declare righteous as a judge.*
It might however be inferred from i^ai(pvrji that dUatov iroirjaai was to be
taken somewhat loosely in the sense of ' treat as righteous.' The Greek
theologians had not a clear conception of the doctrine of Justification.
t6k do'c^T] : not meant as a description of Abraham, from whose
case St. Paul is now generalizing and applying the conclusion to
his own time. The strong word da-t^rj is probably suggested by
the quotation which is just coming from Ps. xxxii. i.
6. Aapi'S (Aao€i8). Both Heb. and LXX ascribe Ps. xxxii to
David. In two places in the N. T., Acts iv, 25, 26 (= Ps. ii. i, a),
Heb. iv. 7 (s= Ps. xcv. 7) Psalms are quoted as David's which have
no title in the Hebrew (though Ps. xcv [xciv] bears the name ot
David in the LXX), showing that by this date the whole Psalter
was known by his name. Ps. xxxii was one of those which Ewald
thought might really be David's : see Driver, Introduction, p. 357.
T^K iiaKapicr^iiv : not ' blessedness,' which would be /zarapidn;*
but a 'pronouncing blessed'; fiaKapi(fiv nvass'to call a person
blessed or happy ' (roOt tc yap 6€ovs fiaKapi^ofUV , . . (tai Tb>v dvdpiv
Tovs dtioTOTovs fiaKaplContv Arist. £th. Nic. I. xii. 4 ; comp. Euthym.-
Zig. tTriratrit ii Koi Kopvcprf Tiprjs koI 86^t]s 6 fiaKopicrpos, ' Felicitation is
the strongest and highest form of honour and praise '). St. Paul
uses the word again Gal. iv. 15. Who is it who thus pronounces 9
man blessed ? God. The Psalm describes how He does so.
lOa EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 7, a
7, 8. MaKcJpioi, ILT.X. This quotation of Ps. xxxii. i, » is the same
in Heb. and LXX. It is introduced by St. Paul as confirming his
interpretation of Gen. xv. 6.
paKcipioi 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.
^oif^-f^. SoK»ACD«FKL&c.: oJo*^ KBDE(t)G,67*». o8 b
also the reading of LXX (^ K«* R»). The authorities for ol are superior M
they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission
i N B + D) and it if on the whole more probable that ^ has been assimilated
to the construction of Koyl((ff9cu in yt. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that o5 has been
assimilated to the preceding «r or to the O.T. or that it has been affected
by the following ov : ^ natorally esUblished itself as the moie euphonio«i
remding.
od (1^ XoyicrriTm*. 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 EIL on 1 Thess. iv. 15 [p. 154], and Win. $ Ivi.
3, p. 634 t
Thi History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul
and by St. Javus.
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 n-torct x«»P««
Jpytov (Rom. iiu 38 ; cf. iv. 1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is
accounted righteous i^ epyaiv koI oint «'«: jrtoTfwr fiovov ( 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
^)articular 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 Sl Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own
spiritual experience confirms the unqualified afiirmation of the
Book of Genesis ; and he is therefore able to take it as one of the
foi\ndations of his system. St James, occupying a less exceptional
IV 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM IO3
Standpoint, and taking words in the average sense put upon them,
has recourse to the context of Abraham's life, and so harmonizes
the text with the requirements of his own moral sense.
The fact is that St. James and Su Paul mean different things by
* faith,' and as was natural they inipos* these different meanings on
the Book of Genesis, and adapt the .?st of their conclusions to
them. When St. James heard speak of ' faith,' he understood by
it what the letter of the Book of Genesis allowed him to understand
by it, a certain belief. It is what a Jew would consider the funda-
mental belief, belief in God, belief that God was One (Jas. ii. 19).
Christianity it with him so much a supplement to the Jews' ordinary
creed that it does not seem to be specially present to his mind
when he is speaking of Abraham. Of course he too believes in the
'Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Gloy ' (Jas. ii. i). He takes that
belief for granted ; it is the substratum or basement of life on which
are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality
(jrpoo-ftwroXf^i'a). If he were questioned about it, he would put it on
the same footing as his belief in God. But St. James was a
thoroughly honest, and, as we should say, a ' good ' man ; and this
did not satisfy his moral sense. What is belief unless proof is given
of its sincerity ? Belief must be followed up by action, by a line
of conduct conformable to it. St. James would have echoed
Matthew Arnold's proposition that ' Conduct is three-fourths of
life.' He therefore demands — and from his point of view rightly
demands — that his readers shall authenticate their beliefs by putting
them in practice,
St. Paul's is a very different temperament, and he speaks from a
very different experience. With him too Christianity is something
added to an earlier belief in God ; but the process by which it was
added was nothing less than a convulsion of his whole nature It
is like the stream of molten lava pouring down the volcano's ^ide.
Christianity is with him a tremendous over-masteriuL!; force. The
crisis came at the moment when he confessed his faith in Christ ;
there was no other crisis worth the name after that. Ask such
an one whether his faith is not to be proved by action, and the
question will seem to him trivial and superfluous. He will almost
suspect the questioner of attempting to brmg back under a new
name the old Jewish notion of rehgion as a round of legal
observance. Of course action will correspond with fiiiih. The
believer in Christ, who has put on Christ, who has died with Ciirist
and risen again with him, must needs to the very utmost of his
power endeavour to Uve as Christ would have him live. St. Paul
is going on presently to say this (Rom. vi. i, 13, 15), as his
opponents compel him to say it. But to himself it appears a
truism, which is hardly worth definitely enunciating. To say that
a man is a Christian should be enough.
I04 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 1-&
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 hare 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 real meeting-
ground between the two Apostles shrinks into a comparatively
narrow compass. It does not amount to more than the fact that
both quote the same verse. Gen. xv. 6, and both treat it with
reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith.
Now Bp, Lightfoot has shown {Galatians, p. 157 flF., ed. s) that
Gen. XV. 6 was a standing thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools.
It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: 'Was not
Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him
for righteousness ' (i Mace. ii. 5a) ? It is repeatedly quoted and
commented upon by Philo (no less than ten times, Lft.). The
whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate
allegory. The Talmudic treatise Mechilta expounds the verse at
length : * Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake
and the world was. For as a reward for Israel's having believed in
the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in them ... In like manner thou
findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world
to come solely by the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the
Lord ; for it is said, " and he believed in the Lord, and He counted
it to him for righteousness " ' (quoted by Lft. ut sup. p. 1 60). 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 lOj
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
Jews ; but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of
Faith 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 coterie of St. Paul's fanatical enemies, it would
be impossible but that versions, scarcely ever adequate (for how
few of St. Paul's hearers had really understood him I) 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
hke Rom. vi. i flf., 15 if., shows to have been really needed. And
thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths,
suited to dififerent 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
• Besides what it laid above, see Introduction § 8. It is a satisfaction to
find that the view here taken is substantially that of Dr. Hort, Judatstic
Christianity, p. 148, 'it seems more natural to suppose that a misuse ot
misunderstanding of St Paal's teaching on the part of others gave liae to
St James's care&ly gsarded langoage.'
I06 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 possibla
misconstruction.
FAITH AKD CXRCTTMCIfilOH.
IV. 9-12. The declaration made to Abraham did not
depend upon Circumcision, For it was made before he was
circumcised ; and Circumcision only came in after the fact,
to ratify a verdict already given. The reason being thai
Abraham might have for his spiritucd descendants the un-
circumcised as well as the circumcised.
•Here we have certain persons pronounced 'happy.* It
this then to be confined to the circumcised Jew, or may it also
apply to the uncircumcised Gentile ? Certainly it may. For there
is no mention of circumcision. It is his faith that we say was
credited to Abraham as righteousness. **And the historical
circumstances of the case prove that Circumcision had nothing
to do with it. Was Abraham circumcised when the declaration
was made to him ? No : he was at the time uncircumcised.
" And circumcision was given to him afterwards, like a seal
affixed to a document, to authenticate a state of things already
existing, via, 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. Si. Paul appeals to the historic fact that the Divine
recognition of Abraham's faith came in order of time before his
circumcision : the one recorded in Gen. xv. 6, the other in
Gen. xvii. lo ff. Therefore although it might be (and was)
confirmed by circumcision, it could not be due to it or conditioned
by it
XL mi^tor vcpi-rofti)). Circumcision at its institution is said lo
be o* trnpnif haBlveitf (Gen. xvii. ii), between God and the
IV. U.J THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM lOj
circumcised. The gen. ntpirofxris is a genitive of apposition or identity,
a sign ' consisting in circumcision/ ' which was circumcision.' Some
authorities (AC* al.) read nfpiTo^rjv.
v^payiSa. The prayer pronounced at the circumcising of
a child runs thus : ' Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved
from the womb, and put His ordinance upon His flesh, and sealed
His oflfspring with the sign of a holy covenant.' Com p. Targum
Can/, iii. 8 ' The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was
sealed in the flesh of Abraham'; Shemoth R. 19 'Ye shall not eat
of the passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh.'
Many other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad loc. (cf. also
Delitzsch).
At a very early date the same term trcfipayit was transferred from
the rite of circumcision to Christian baptism. See the passages
collected by Lightfoot on 2 Clem. vii. 6 {Clem. Rom. ii. 226), also
Gebhardt and Harnack ad loc, and Hatch, Hibbert Lectures,
p. 295. Dr. Hatch connects the use of the term with * the
mysteries and some forms of foreign cult ' ; and it may have
coalesced with language borrowed from these ; but in its origin it
appears to be Jewish. A similar view is taken by Anrich, Das
antike Myskrienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum
(Gdttingen, 1894), p. 120 if., where the Christian use of the word
a^payii is fuUy discussed.
Barnabas (ix. 6) seems to refer to, and refnte, the Jewish doctrine which
he puts in the month of an objector : dXA' ipitr Kat yLr]v jrtpiTtV^T/Tcu b
yjoAt fk fftppnyiSa. dW6, vas ^vpos ical 'Apaifi ical navres oi lepus rSiv tiSwKuy.
ipa oZv icaKUvot in riji SiaOrjKTjs avruiv daiv ; dA.A<i Kal oi Alyvirriot it' ntpi-
roufi tlolv. The fact that so many heathen nations were circumcised proved
that circnmcision could not be the seal of a special covenant
els tA *lvu, K.T.X. Even circumcision, the strongest mark of
Jewish separation, in St. Paul's view looked beyond its immediate
exclusiveness to an ultimate inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews.
It was nothing more than a ratification of Abraham's faith. Faith
was the real motive power ; and as applied to the present condition
of things, Abraham's faith in the promise had its counterpart in the
Christian's faith in the fulfilment of the promise (i. e. in Christ).
Thus a new division was made. The true descendants of Abra-
ham were not so much those who imitated his circumcision (i. e.
all Jews whether believing or not), but those who imitated his
faith (i. e. believing Jews and believing Gentiles), tls t6 denotes
that all this was contemplated in the Divine purpose.
irarepa -ndvTotv tui» wiorcookTui'. Delitzsch [ad loc.) quotes one
of the prayers for the Day of Atonement in which Abraham is
called ' the first of my faithful ones.' He also adduces a passage,
Jerus. Gemara on Biccurim, i. 1, in which it is proved that even
the proselyte may claim the patriarchs as his \3^I}^3K because
108 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. U, 12
Abram became Abraham, ' father of many nations,' lit ' a great
multitude ' ; * he was so,' the Glossator adds, ' because he taught
them to believe.'
Si* dKpo^uoTias : ' though in a state of uncircumcision/ Aui of
attendant circumstances as in dih ypaiifiaros km irtfHTOfiijs ii. 27, ry
iia 7TpoaK6fifiaTOS (adiopTi xiv. ao.
12. Tois oToixouai. As it stands the art. is a solecism : it would
make those who are circumcised one set of persons, and those who
follow the example of Abraham's faith another distinct set, which
is certainly not St. Paul's meaning. He is speaking of Jews who
are io/A circumcised and believe. This requires in Greek the
omission of the art. before vroixovtriy. But tois or. is found in all
existing MSS. We must suppose therefore either (i) that there
has been some corruption. WH. think that rolt may be the
remains of an original airols : 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.
<rroixoG<n. a-roixfly is a well-known military term, meaning
strictly to ' march in file ' : Pollux viii. 9 t6 ii ^d0os vrolxpt KoXeiTOi,
KoL t6 fiiv t(f)(^s tivai Kara firJKos (vydv' t6 di t(f)t^s Karii ^ddos a-Toi\tt»,
' the technical term for marching abreast is (vytlv, for marching in
depth or in file, aroixt'iv ' (Wets.).
On ov |i6vov rather than /i^ fM$ror in thii ren* and In Tcr. 16 tee Barton,
M.mmdT.i 481.
Jewish Teaching on Circumcisum.
The fierce fanaticism with which the Jews insisted upon the rite
of Circumcision is vividly brought out in the Book 0/ Jubilees
(xv. 15 if.) : ' This law is for all generations for ever, and there is
no circumcision of the time, and no passing over one day out of
the eight days ; for it is an eternal ordinance, ordained and written
on the heavenly tables. And every one that is bom, the flesh of
whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs not to
the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham,
for he belongs to the children of destruction ; nor is there moreover
any sign on him that he is the Lord's, but (he is destined) to be
destroyed and slain from the 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
tV. 18-17.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM IO9
they will omit this circumcision of their sons, and all of them, sona
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, Altsyn. Theol.
p. 51 f.). When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took
a part in the act {ibid. p. 353). It was his circumcision and antici-
patory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the
' father of many nations ' {ibid. p. 256). Indeed it was just through
his circumcision that Isaac was born of a ' holy seed.' This was
the current doctrine. And it was at the root of it that 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.
PBOMISE hSTD LAW.
IV. 18-17. Again the declaration that was made to
Abraham had nothing to do with Law. For it turned on
Faith and Promise which are the very antithesis of Law.
The reason being that Abraham might be the spiritual
father of all believers. Gentiles as well as Jews^ and that
Gentiles might have an equal claim to the Promise.
^* Another proof that Gentiles were contemplated as well as Jews.
The promise made to Abraham and his descendants of world-wide
Messianic rule, as it was not dependent upon Circumcision, so also
was !M)t 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.
^Tor Law is in its effect* the very opposite of Promise. It only
I lO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 18
serves to bring down God's wrath by enhancing the guiU 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 (v^f), as it is expressly stated in Gen. xvii. 5
'A father' (i.e. in spiritual fatherhood) 'of many nations have
I made thee *.'
13-17. 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
a prospect so much brighter and more hopeful, and one which
furnished such abundant justification for all that seemed new in
Christianity.
13. ov ydp, K.T.X. The immediate point which this paragraph
is introduced to prove is that Abraham might be, in a true though
spiritual sense, the father of Gentiles as well as Jews. The ulterior
object of the whole argument is to show that Abraham himself
is rightly claimed not as the Jews contended by themselves but
by Christians.
81A fofiou : without art., any system of law.
Vj ^TrayYcXia : see on ch. i. a (npotnTfyyiiXaTo), where the uses of
the word and its place in Christian teaching are discussed. At the
time of the Coming of Christ the attention of the whole Jewish race
was turned to the promises contained in the O. T. ; and in
Christianity these promises were (so to speak) brought to a head
and definitely identified with their fulfilment
The following examples may be added to those qnoted on ch. L t to
illnstrate the diffusion of this idea of * Promise ' among the Jews in the firrt
centary a.d. : 4 Ezra It. 37 rum capiet portan quae in temporibus iustis
* There is a slight awkwardness in making oar break in the middle ol
a verse and of a sentence. St. Paal glides after his manner into a new subject,
««ggested to him by the verce which he quotes in proof of what has gone befoie
THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM III
yepromissa sunt ; vii. 14 si ergo non ingredientes Ingres si fuerint qui vivunt
angusfa et vana haec, non poterunt recipere quae sunt reposita ( = rcfc htto-
Ke(tt6va Gen. xlix. 10); ibid. 49 (119) ff. quid enim nobis prodest si pro-
mi sstim est nobis immortale tempus^ nos vero mortalia opera egimus? &c.
Apoc. Baruch. xiv. I'i propter hoc etiam ipsi sine titnore relinquunt mun-
diiin istum, et fidenies in laetitia speratit se recepturos mundum quern pro-
misisti eis. It will be observed that all these passages are apocalyptic and
eschatological. The Jewish idea of Promise is vague and future; the Chris-
tian idea is definite and associated with a state of things already inaugurated.
TO kXt]poi'($p,oi' oMthv etcoi K^cfiou. What Promise is this? There
is none in these words. Hence (i) some think that it means the
possession of the Land of Canaan (Gen. xii. 7 ; xiii. 14 f. ; xv. 18 ;
xvii. 8 ; cf. xxvi, 3 ; Ex. vi. 4) taken as a type of the world-wide
Messianic reign; (a) others think that it must refer to the particular
promise faith in which called down the Divine blessing — that
A. should have a son and descendants like the stars of heaven.
Probably this is meant in the first instance, but the whole series
of promises goes together and it is implied (i) that A. should have
a son ; (ii) that this son should have numerous descendants ;
(iii) that in One of those descendants the whole world should be
blessed ; (iv) that through Him A.'s seed should enjoy world-wide
dominion.
8id SiKaioffunfis irioTcus : this ' faith-righteousness ' which St
Paul has been describing as characteristic of the Christian, and
before him of Abraham.
14. 01 ^K »'<$|xou: 'the dependants of law/ 'vassals of a legal system/
such as were the Jews.
itXT)poK<5jioi. If the right to that universal dominion which will
belong to the Messiah and His people is confined to those who are
subject to a law, like that of Moses, what can it have to do either
with the Promise originally given to Abraham, or with Faith to
which that Promise was annexed ? In that case Faith and Promise
would be pushed aside and cancelled altogether. But they cannot
be cancelled ; and therefore the inheritance must depend upon them
and not upon Law.
16. This verse is parenthetic, proving that Law and Promise
cannot exist and be in force side by side. They are too much
opposed in their effects and operation. Law presents itself to
St. Paul chiefly in this hght as entailing punishment. It increases
the guilt of sin. So long as there is no commandment, the wrong
act is done as it were accidentally and unconsciously ; it cannot be
called by the name of transgression. The direct breach of a known
law is a far more heinous matter. On this disastrous effect of Law
see iii. ao, v. 13, ao, vii. 7 fF.
15. o5 5e for a% ydp is decisively attested (i< A B C &c.).
wopdpaais is the appropriate word for the direct violation of
112 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
a code. It means to overstep a line clearly defined : peccare est
transilire lineas Cicero, Farad. 3 (op. Trench, Syn. p. 236).
16. Ik -irio-Teus. 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 wiih «'« nitrrtaf either
if Kkr)povofiia iarlv from V, 1 4 (LipS. Mey.) or if inayyeKia icrriv from
V. 13 (Fri.), but as Tr)v inayytXiav 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 Providendal ordering
of things, form the background, understood if not directly expressed,
to the whole chapter.
els t4 elcoi. 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.
ABBAHAM'S FAITH A TYPE OP THB CHBISTIAlTa.
IV. 17-22. Abraham s Faith was remarkable both for its
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, te
which is annexed a like acceptance and which also has for
its object a ' birth from the dead ' — ^4^ Death and Resur-
rection of Christ.
"In this light Abraham is regarded by God before whom he is
lepresented 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.'
'"Without showing weakness in his faith, he took full note
of the fact that at his advanced years (for he was now about
a hundred years old) his own vital powers were decayed ; be took
IV. 17.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM IIJ
fun note of the barrenness of Sarah his wife ; ''and yet with the
promise in view no impulse of unbelief made him hesitate; hii
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. TTttT^po, m.TX Exactly from LXX of Gen. xvii. 5. The LXX
tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the
Heb., patrem fremtntu iurbae, i. e. ingentit multiiudims populorum
(Kautzsch, p. S5).
naWKam ou kv\.a^%v9% QcoG : attraction for utrivavTi 6rav ^ fV/-
crrwcr* : Korivavn describing the posture in which Abraham is
represented as holding colloquy with God (Gen. xvii. i ff.).
(tKnroiourros : ' maketh alive. St. Paul has in his mind the two
acts which he compares and which are both embraced under this
word, (i) the Birth of Isaac, (2) the Resurrection of Christ On
the Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Greek, p. 5.
KoXouKTos \Ta. \ir] 5vTa wt ivra]. There are four views : (i) KaX.s
*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 a= ' to call, or invite to
life and salvation ' (Fri.). Of tibese (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 «» Srra. The choice remains between
(i) and (iii). If the former seems the simplest, the latter is the
more forcible rendering, and as such more in keeping with the
imaginative grasp of the situation displayed by St. Paul. In favour
of this view may also be quoted Apoc. Bar. xxi, 4 O qui fecisH
Urram audi wu . , , qui voceuti ab initio mundi quod nondum erat, el
114 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [TV. 17 SCV
obediunt ftbi. For the nae of oXciy see also the note on is. )
below.
18. cifi T& ycr^aOai = i<m ym<r€m : ' 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.
oJtws loToi : = Gen. xv. 5 (LXX).
19. |it\ d<rd(VT|(ras. Comp. Lft. in Jtmm. tf Class, mud Sme. PMM.
m. 106 n. : 'The New Testament use of fxri with a participle . . . has a mach
wider range than in the earlier language. Yet this is no violation <A
principle, but rather an extension of a particular mode erf looking at the
subordinate event contained in the participial clause. It it viewed as an
accident or condition of the principal event described by the finite verb, and
is therefore negatived by the dependent negative /«ij and not by the absolute oi.
Rom. iv. 19 ... is a case in point whether wc retain ov or omit it with
Lachm. In the latter case the sense will be, "he so considered his own
body now dead, ms n*t to U weak in the (?) faith." ' This is well expressed
in RV. ' without bting weakened,' except that ' being weakened ' should be
rather ' showing weakness ' or ' becoming weak.' See also Burton, M. trnd T.
KOT€»'6r]<r« M A B C some good cursives, some MSS. of Vulg.
(including am), Pesh. Boh., Orig.-laL (which probably here preserves
Origen's Greek), Chrys. and others ; oi Kar«vo'i;(r« D E F G K L P
&c., some MSS. of Vulg. (including y?</</, though it is more pro-
bable that the negative has come in from the Old Latin and that
it was not recognized by Jerome), Syr.-HarcL, Orig.-lat bis, Epiph.
Ambrstr. al.
Both readings give a good sense : KaTwv6ri<Tr, ' he did consider, and
ye/ did not doubt' ; ov KaTtvorjat, ' he did no/ consider, and therefort
did not doubt.' Both readings are also early: but the negative
ov KUTtvoTia-f 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.
^irdpxcdv: 'being already about a hundred years old.' May we not >ay
Aat tXvok denotes a present state simply as present, but that iiTrd/>x<i>' denotes
• present state as a product of past states, or at least a state in present time
as related to past time (' vorhandenstin, dastin, Lat. *xisttre, adess«,Pratst4
4SU ' Schmidt 1 1 See esp. T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on i Cor. vii. 30 : ' the
last word {{nTapxtw) 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 propriety sometimes attaches to it : comp.
'"'Pf '»! " property " or " substance." The word however asks for further
investigation.' Comp. Schmidt, IxU. u. gr. Synonymik, % 74. 4.
20. ovi 8i«Kp(dT) : ' did not hesitate ' (rovriaTw ou8< ivtZoicustr oiSJ ^fPi"
fia\t Chrys.). diaKpirttr act. ^diiuduart, (i) to ' discriminate,' or ' distinguish '
between two things vMatt. xvi. 3 ; cf . i Cor. xL 39, 31 ) or persons (Acts xv. 9;
1 Cor. iv. 7); ii) to 'arbitiate' between two parties (i Cor. vi. 51. tut-
Mfiv*a6cu mid. (and pasa.) •« ^i) 'to get a decision," litigate," ' dispute,' oe
'contend ' (Acts xi. 2 ; Jas. ii. 4 ; Jude 91 ; (ii ' to 'be divided against one-
•elf,' 'waver,' 'doubt." The other senses are all found in LXX (where the
w«ttl occurs some thirty times), bat tliia is wanting. It k bowerec well
IV. 20.J THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM II5
established for N.T^ where it Appears as the proper opposite of wltnu
wiartvct. So Matt, xxt ai iiy txT^* '^tic, Koi nil hiaKpiOrJTf : Mark xi. 33 tt
kf flrg , . . Koi fii) S*aHpi6^ If rp aapd'uf airrov dKXd wiartvp : Rom. xiy. 33 d S)
lkaicptv6fityoi, Wv <payi, MarcuciicpiTai, 3t« ovx i)t nltrrtwt : Jas. 1. 6 alrdrw Hi
iy w'uTTu ixT)S(y iiaj(piv6fuyot : also probably Jnde 3 a. A like nse is found in
Christian writings of the second century and later: e.g. Protev. Joe. 11
iucovaaaa i\ Maptcifi SuKpiOrj iy iavr^ \iyovaa, k.t.K (quoted by Mayor on
las. i. 6) : Clem. Homil. i. 30 7rc/>i r^t itapaZo9i\.aj)i aa dKrjOdas ^taKpiOrjaji :
U. 40 *tpi Tov fiovov Kal ayadov 9(oS StoKpid^vai. It is remarkable that a nse
which (except as an antithesis to wiffrtitiy) there is no reason to connect
specially with Christianity should thus seem to be traceable to Christian
circles and the Christian line of tradition. It is not likely to be in the strict
sense a Christian coinage, bat appears to have had its beginning in near
Jroiimity to Christianity. A parallel case is that of the word Si^x"* (St.
ames, Clem. Rom., Herm., DidatJk/, &&). The two words seem to belong
to the same cycle of ideas.
lKcSuKap.(26i) rg wiorci. rg frtdrrft is here usually taken as dat. of
respect, 'he was strengthened in his faith,' i.e. 'his faith was
strengthened, or confirmed.' In favour of this would be n^ dadevrja-as
Tji niarti above ; and the surrounding terms (8i.tKpiBi), n\f}po(f)opri6fis}
might seem to point to a mental process. But it is tempting to
make rj wiarti instrumental or causal, like rg anurritf to which it
stands in immediate antithesis : <Vcd. r^ n-tW. would then s ' he was
endowed with power by means of his faith' (sc. ri vfvtKp»ftivov
avTov aifia iveivvapicodr]). According to the Talmud, Abraham wurde
in seiner Natur erneueri, eine neue Creatur {Bammidbar Rabba xi),
um die Zeugung tu vollbringen (Weber, p. 256). And we can
hardly doubt that the passage was taken in this way by the author
of Heb., who appears to have had it directly in mind : comp. Heb,
XI. II, I a itiartt, tun avrr\ 'Sdppa dvvafup tis KaTofioXrjy OTrtpparos tXa^f
ml irapa Kaiphy rjXiKtai . . . dio icdi d<f>' (v^r eytyvfjdrfaav, Koi ravra
PtptKpafxivov, Kodois ra aarpa tov oipavov tw tr\T)6ei (observe esp. bvyafuy
IXajSf, ytvtKpa^Uyov). This sense is also distinctly recognized by
£uthym.-Zig. {ivthvyanmSr} «lt naiBoyovlay t^ »r»<rr«i" ^ fvedwcmatOr)
wpos rrip niorip). The Other (common) interpretation is preferred by
Chrys., from whom £uthym.-Zig. seems to get his i vt<rru>
hnbtian/pfvos 8vvdfM«»t itirat wktinvot.
The Talmud lays great stress on the Birth of Isaac. In the
name of Isaac was found an indication that with him the history
of Revelation began. With him the people of revealed Religion
came into existence : with him ' the Holy One began to work
wonders' {Beresh. Rabba liii, ap. Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 256).
But it is of course a wholly new point when St. Paul compares the
miraculous birth of Isaac with the raising of Christ from the dead.
The parallel consists not only in the nature of the two events —
both a bringing to life from cmiditions which betokened only
death — but also in the faith of which they were the object.
Sod« %ii%w. a Hebraism: cf. Josh. viL 19; i Sam. vi. 5; 1
Chron. xvi %%, &c.
Il6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (IV. Bl-Sft.
21. -irXt|po^opi|9eis: wKt}po<f>opla s ' full assurance/ ' firm conviction,
I Thess. i. 5 ; Col. ii. a ; a word especially common amongst the
Stoics. Hence iT\r)po(f)op('i<TOai, as used of persons, = * to be fully
assured or convinced/ as here, ch. xiv. 5 ; Col. iv. i a. As used of
things the meaning is more doubtful : cf. a Tim. iv. 5, 1 7 and
Luke i. I, where some take it as = 'fully or satisfactorily proved/
others as = ' accomplished ' (so Lat.-Vet. Vulg. RV. Ux/ Lft. On
Revision, p. 14a) : see note ad he.
23. 8i' outAk fi^KOK. Beresh. R. xl. 8 'Thou findest that aU
that is recorded of Abraham is repeated in the history of his
children ' (Wetstein, who is followed by Meyer, and Delitzsch <k/ /w.).
Wetstein also quotes Taanith ii. i Frairts nostri, de Nintoitis
non dictum est: et respexit Deus saccum eorum.
24. Tois -iricTTcuouaii' : ' to us who believe.' St. Paul asserts that
his readers are among the class of believers. Not ' if we belicYc/
which would be ■Kiurdimxrw {tiru artic).
25. 810 with ace. is primarily retrospective, =' because of: but
inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution, bta 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 81A to napairr. may be retrospective, = * because of our
trespasses ' (which made the death of Christ necessary) ; or it may
>>e prospective, as Gif. 'because of our trespasses/ i.e. 'in order tc
atone for them.'
In any case 3uk t^v {tiKaimviv 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.
Tht Place of the Resumttum of Christ m tht
teaching of St. Paul.
The Resurrection of Christ fills an immense place in Ae teaching
of St Paul, and the &ct that it does so accounts for the emphasis
and care with which he states the evidence for it (i Cor. xv. i-ii)^
rV. 17-2«.J THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 117
(i) The Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the Divinity
of Christ (Acts xvii. 31 ; Rom. i 4; i Cor. xv. 14, 15).
(ii) As proving the Divinity of Christ the Resurrection is also
the most decisive proof of the atoning value of His Death. But
for the Resurrection, there would have been nothing to show — at
least no clear and convincing sign to show — that He who died upon
the Cross was more than man. But if the Victim of the Cross had
been man and nothing more, there would have been no sufficient
reason for attaching to His Death any peculiar efficacy ; the faith
of Christians would be ' vain,' they would be * yet in Uieir sins '
(i Cor. XV. 17).
(iii) In yet another way the Resturection 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 opyi] so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom. iii. 35,
a 6)— had passed away. This is the thought which lies at the bottom
of Rom. vi. 7-10.
(iv) The Resurrection of Christ is the strongest guarantee for
^e resurrection of the Christian (i Cor. xv. ao-ag ; « Cor. iv. 14;
Rom. viii. 11 ; Col. i. i8).
(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 <^ his spirit with Christ's, the Christian is called
upcm to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ. And this
moral and spiritual sense is the only sense in which he can repeat
diem. We shall have this doctrine fiilly expounded in ch. vi. i-ii.
A recent monograph on tiie nibject of tbU note (E. Schader, DU Bedeuiung
duUbendigen Chritiut fur di$ Rechtftrtigung nach Paulus, Giitersloh, 1893)
has worked oat in much carefnl detail the third of the above heads. Hen
Schader (who since writing his treatise has become Professor at Konigsberg)
insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrought bj
Christ ; that which redeems is not merely the act of Christ's Death but His
Person (if ^ cx^A**** ^*' aTroXiW-poNTti' Eph. L 7 ; Col. L 14). It is as a Person
that He takes the place of the sinner and endures the Wrath of God in his
•tead (Gal. iii. 13; a Cor. ▼. ai). The Resurrection is proof that this
' Wrath ' is at an coA. And therefore in certain salient passages (Rom. iv. 35 ;
vi. 9, 10 ; viii. 34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ ai
th« came of justification. The treatise is well deserving of study.
It may be right also to mention, without wholly endorsing, Dr. Hort'i
dgnificant aphorism : ' Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemp-
tion, and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and resurrection one aspect
of life' {Huitiam Lteturtt, p. a 10). This can more readily be accepted if
* oae aspect ' in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other aspects.
At the same thae snch a saying is useful as a warning, which is especially
■ecded where the attrmpt is being made towards more exact definitions, that
Il8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 1-U.
•U definitions of great doctrines have a relatiT* rather than an abaolnte valnft
They axe paitial symbols of ideas which the human miod cannot grasp ip
their entirety. If we could see as God sees we should doubtless find them
running up mto large and broad laws of His working. We desire to make
this reserve in regard to our own attempts to define. Without it ccael
exegesis noay well waam to lead to • rariTed ScholaaticiaB.
BLISSFITL CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFIOATION.
V. 1-11. TAf state which thus lies before the Christian
should have consequences both near and remote. Tht nearer
consequences^ peace with God and hope which gives courage
under persecution (w. 1-4) : the remoter consequence, an
assurance, derived from the proof of God's love, of our final
salvation and glory. The first step {our present acceptance
with God) is difficult ; the second step {our ultimate salva^
tion) follows naturally from the first (w. 5-11).
*We Christians then ought to enter upon oor privilege*. 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. »5),
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 foimded 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 torn strengthens the hope out of which k originally
sprang.
^ More : our hope is one that cannot prove fllusory ; 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-
V. 1-11.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION II9
ness of the Love of God for us. 'Think what are the facts to
which we can appeal. When we were utterly weak and prostrate,
at the moment of our deepest despair, Christ died for as — not as
righteous men, but as godless sinners I ' What a proof of love was
there ! For an upright or righteous man it would be hard to find
one willing to die; though perhaps for a good man (with the loveable
qualities of goodness) one here and there may be brave enough to
face death. * But God presses home the proof oi His unmerited
Love towards us, in that, sinners as we still were, Christ died for us.
• Here then is an « fortiori argument The fact that we have
been actually declared * righteous ' by coming within the influence
of Christ's sacrificial Blood — this fact which implies a stupendous
change in the whole of our relations to God is a sure pledge of
what is far easier— our escape from His final judgement '• Fot
there is a double contrast If God intervened for us while we were
His enemies, much more now that we are reconciled to Him. If
the first intervention cost the Death of His Son, the second costs
nothing, but follows naturally from the share which we have in
His Life. ^ And not only do we look for this final salvation, but
we are buoyed up by an exultant sense of that nearness to God
into which we have been brought by Christ to whom we owe that
one great step of our reconciliation.
1-lL Every line of this passage breathes St Paul's personal
experience, and his intense hold upon the objective facts which are
the grounds of a Christian's confidence. He believes that the
ardour with which he himself sought Christian baptism was met by
an answering change in the whole relation in which he stood to
God That change he attributes ultimately, it is clear throughout
this context, not merely in general terms to Christ (dta v. i, a, 11
bis) but more particularly to the Death of Christ {napfbo&fj iv. 25;
iiiri6a»t V. 6, 8 ; iv t» tu^utri V. 9 } i*a tov Bavarav v. lo). He con-
ceives of that Death as operating by a sacrificial blood-shedding
(eV Tf aifuiTi : cf. iiL 85 and the passages referred to in the Note on
the Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice). The Blood of that
Sacrifice is as it were sprinkled round the Christian, and forms
a sort of hallowed enclosure, a place of sanctuary, into which he
enters. Within this he is safe, and from its shelter he looks out
exultingly over the physical dangers which threaten him ; they may
strengthen his firmness of purpose, but cannot shake it.
L The word dutaiaHny at the end of the last chapter recalls St
Paul to his main topic After expounding the nature of his new
I20 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
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 ^he digression in ch. iv, to prove that notwithstanding
there was no breach of God's purposes as declared in the O. T.
(strictl) 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 tranquility at his hear^ and a confident hope
of future glory.
cxu|xcK. The evidence for this reading stands thus : <xo*Mn' M *
A B* C D E K L, cursives, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-laL
repeatedly Chrys. Ambrstr. and others : «x<'/*«' correctors of M 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
Zxoiftn. It is argued however (i) that exhortation is here out ot
place: 'inference not exhortation is the Apostle's purpose'
(Scrivener, Introd. ii. 380 ed. 4); (ii) that e and « are frequendy
interchanged in the MSS., as in this very word Gal. vi. 10 (cf.
I Cor. XV. 49) ; (iii) it b 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. (i), is, (15);
viii. I a ; (ii) in «x**/*<»' inference and exhortation are really com-
bined : it is a sort of light exhortation, ' we tkould have ' (T. S.
Evans).
As to the meaning of *x**iuv it should be observed that it does
not s= ' make peace,' ' get ' or * obtain peace ' (which would be
o-xv/Mv), but rather ' keep ' or ' enjoy peace * (ov yap iarw utov fiti oiavr
tlpi}vrfv XafieiP cat doBt'urap Karavxt'if ChryS. ; cf. ActS ix. 3 1 i) fifP
ovv iKKktjala . . . tixt* *lpfm*'i ' continued in a state of peace '). The
aor. part. iucaitidfVTts marks the initial moment of the state tlprfvrip
Ix«»fitp. 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 iia toC Kvpiov ^pAp 'irjaov Xpivni :
kaw is explained more fully in iii. 25 ; also in w. 9, 10 below.
Dr. J. Agar B«et (Comm. *J l»€.) discnsses the exact shade of meaning
conveyed by the aor. part. ZucaiwSivrtt in relation to tlpffPriP {)guptr. Ha
ooQtenda that it denotes not to much the rtasam for entering upon the ttatt
¥. 1, a.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 131
Ib qaeition u the mtams of entering apoa it. No doabt this It perfectly
tenable on the score of grammar; and it is also tme that 'jnstification
necessarily inTolves peace with God.' But the argument goes too much
npon the assumption that tip. ex- = ' obtain peace,' which we have seen to
be erroneous. The sense is exactly that of t^x** *ip^vr)v in the passage
quoted from the Acts, and tutaitiO., as we have said, marks the initial
moment Ib the state
S. T}|r irpoaaywy^r. Two Stages only are described in w. i, a
though different language is used about them : biKaimdivrtt = 17
npoo'aymyif^ tipifvii ^ xapts ; the Kavxr^irit is a characteristic of the
state <^ x^P"* At the same time that it points forward to a future
itate of bo^ The phrase ff npovay., ' our introduction,' is a con-
necting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. £ph. ii. 18;
iii. I a) : 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
ivx^f^tla^l.^¥ : not ' we have had ' (Va.), but ' we have got ot
obtained,' aor. and perf. in one.
' Both grammar and logic will nm in perfect harmony together if we
render, "through whom we hare 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 adniit ' (T. S. Evans in
£m/. 1 88a, L 169).
rg irtcrra om. BDEFG, Lat Vet., Orig.-lat Us. The weight of this
eridenee depend* <m 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 (docs the
evidence » P + 8, or 8 only?). There is the farther point that omissions in
the Western text deserve more attention than additions. Either reading can
be easily enough accounted for, as an obvious gloss on the one hand or the
omission of a superfluous phrase on the other. The balance is sufficiently
represented by placing rp wiaru ia brackets as Treg. WH. RV. tmar^. (Weiss
omits).
cU t^v X'^P'* Tn'Sr^w : 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 ; I Pet. v. 1 2 (Va. and Grm.-Thay. s. v. ^ap's 3- a).
4(rr^Ka|icr : ' stand fast or firm ' (see Va. and Grm.-Thay. a. v.
tarrrip* ii. 2. d).
^ir' i\Ttl%i : as in iv. 18.
TTJ$ 8o'|t|s. 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 Fiei»ence ; man's whole being
will be uansfigured by iu
I9« EPISTLK TO THE ROMANS (V. 1, %
Is th4 Society 9r thi Individual tht proper obiect 0f
Justification f
It is well known to be a characteristic feature <rf 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,
(i) The first is derived from the analogy of the O. T. The great
sacrifices of the O. T. were undoubtedly meant in the first instance
for ' the congregation.' So in regard to the Passover it is laid
down expressly that no alien is to eat of it, but all the congregation
of Israel are to keep it (Ex. xii. 43 flF., 47). And still more
disiinctly 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. i6, a I, also 33 f.). This argument gains in force from
the concentration of the Christian Sacrifice upon a single event,
accomplished once for all. It is natural to think of it as having
also a single and permanent object. (2) The second argument is
derived from the exegesis of the N. T. generally (most clearly
perhaps in Acts xx. a 8 ri]v iKKkt\aiav tov Qtoi fy. 1, KuptovJ, ffp
wtpitiToirjcraTO 8ta roii atfiaros row Idiov : but also in I Jo. ii. a ; Iv. I O ;
I Pet. iil 18; Apoc. i. sf. ; v. 9f.), and more particularly in the
Epistles of St. Paul. The society is, it is true, most clearly
indicated in the later Epp. ; c. g. Tit. ii. 1 4 wr^pos fifuov '1. x., &$
fd<oKtP iavrip vnep fjfiiov, Iva XvrpoxrrjTai rjfias . . . Ka\ naBapiar) iavr^ \a^p
vtpioiKTiov '. Eph. V. 25 f« ^ Xpurros rjydnTjat Tfjv (KitXtjaiap, Kai iavrov
irapiboiKtp inrip aires' ti'a airfip Ayidafj KaSupiaas K.r.X, (cf. also Eph. ii.
18; iii. 12; Col. L 14). But Ritschl also claims the support of
the earlier Epp.: e.g. Rom. viii, 3a vvip fifiQ>p ndt^mv napfbtnttp
aiirdp : iii. 2 a 8iKau)(Tvvtf it Qtoi> . . , tit ndprat roi/t VKrrtvouras I and
the repeated »7M'« in the contexts of three passage* (Comp. Ruht-
fert. u, Versohn. ii. a 16 f, 160).
In reply the critics of Ritschl appeal to the dist nctly in-
dividualistic cast erf* such expressions as Rom. iii. a 6 biKaioivra ro»
in ifioTftis 'It/o-ov : iv. 5 fTTi TOV dtKaiovvra tov acfjSij, With the COnteXt :
X. 4 tU diKaio<rvvr)P navri r^ nKrrtvovn (Schader, Op. cit. p. %f) n. J cf.
also Gloel, Der Heilige Geitt, p. loa n.; Weiss, Bibi Thtol. § 8a b,
referred to by Schider).
It is undoubtedly true that St Paul does use language which
points to the direct justification of the individual believer. Thia
V. I, 2.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION l»$
perhaps comes out most clearly in Rom. iv, where the personal
faith and personal justification of Abraham are taken as typical of
the Christian's. But need we on tiiat account throw over the other
passages above quoted, which seem to be quite as unambiguous ?
That which brings benefit to the Church collectively of necessity
brings benefit to the individuals of which it is composed. We
may if we like, as St. Paul very often does, leave out of sight the
intervening steps; and it is perhaps the more natural that he
should do so, as the Church is in this connexion an ideal entity.
But this entity is prior in thought to the members who compose
it; and when we think of the Great Sacrifice as consummated
once for all and in its effects reaching down through the ages, it is
no less natural to let the mind dwell on the conception which
alone embraces past, present, and future, and alone binds all the
scattered particulars into unity.
We must remember also that in the age and to the thought of
St. Paul the act of faith in the individual which brings him within
the range of justification is inseparably connected with its ratifica-
tion in baptism. But the significance of baptism lies in the fact
that whoever undergoes it is made thereby member of a society,
and becomes at once a recipient of the privileges and immunities
of that society. St. Paul is about (in the next chapter) to lay
stress on this point. He there, as well as elsewhere, describes the
relation of spiritual union into which the Christian enters with
Christ as established by the same act which makes him also
member of the society. And therefore when at the beginning of
the present chapter he speaks of the entrance of the Christian into
the state of grace in metaphors which present that state under the
figure of a fenced-oflF enclosure, it is natural to identify the area
within which grace and justification operate with the area of the
society, in other words with the Church. The Church however in
this connexion can have no narrower definition than ' all baptized
persons.' And even the condition of baptism is introduced as an
inseparable adjunct to faith; so that if through any exceptional
circumstances the two were separated, the greater might be taken
to include the less. The Christian theologian has to do with what
is normal ; the abnormal he leaves to the Searcher of hearts.
It is thus neither in a spirit of exclusiveness nor yet in that of
any hard and fast Scholasticism, but only in accordance with the
free and natiu-al tendencies of the Apostle's thought, that we speak
of Justification as normally mediated through the Church. St.
Paul himself, as we have seen, often drops the intervening link,
especially in the earlier Epistles. But in proportion as his maturer
insight dwells more and more upon the Church as an organic
whole he also conceives of it as doing for the individual believer
what the ' congregation ' did for the individual Israelites tmder the
\
114 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 2-&
older dispensation. 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
oat distinctly in these verset. We are fortunately able to compare the
Cyprianic text with that of Tertnllian {mm solum . . . confundit^ and the
European text of Cod. Clarom. with that of Hilary {tribulatio . . . amfundU).
The passage is also quoted in the so-called Speculum (m), which represents
the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian {ClassicaJ Rtview, iv. 416 f.).
Cyprian. Cod. Clarom.
Non solum auttm, sed et gloriamur Non solum autem, sed tt glcrutmur
in prtssuris, scientes quoniam pres- in tribulationibuSf scientes quod tribu-
sura tolerantiam operatur, tolerantia latio patientiam optratur, patuntia
autem probationem, probatio autem autem probationem, probatio autem
spem ; spes autem non confundit, quia spem ; spes autem noM confundit, quia
dikctio Dei infusa est cordibus nostris caritat Dei diffusa est in corJibus
per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui
nobis. datus est nobis.
verum etiam exultantes TtiL ; certi perficit Hil. ; proi. 9*r» mHil.;
quod Tert. ; perficicd Tcrt. (ed. Vin- sp«s vert Hil. (Cod. Clarom. = m).
dob.) ; tol- vera Tert. ; spes vero Tert.
Here, as elsewhere in Epp. Paul., there is a considerable amotmt 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 arc
changed ; and in this instance Tertnllian goes with Cyprian, as Hilary with
the European texts. The renderings tolerantia and pressurm arc Terified f<»
Tertnllian elsewhere {tolerantia Luke xxi. 19 ; i Thess. i. 4 : prusurm
Rom. viii. 35 ; xii. i a ; i Cor. yii. a8 ; a Cor. L 8 ; iv. 1 7 ; tL a ; vii. 4 ;
Col. i. 34; 2 Thest. i. 4; Apoc ii. as ; vii. 14), as also dilsetis (to which
the quotation does not extend in this passage, but which is found ia
Luke xi. 4a ; John xiii. 35 ; Rom. viii. 35, 39 ; i Cor. xiii. 1 ff., &c.). We
note however that Hilary and Tertnllian agree in ptrficit {p4r/icicU), though
in another place Hilary has allusively tribulcuio patuntiam ofermtur.
Perhaps this coincidence may point to an older rendering.
8. ou (iOKOf %i (JaTTjKafitv oXXc xol Kavxttf^'Ba, Of con^mm aXXa itdi
Kovx^iMtvoi) : in this elliptical form characteristic of St. Paul and
esp. of this group of Epistles (cf. v. 11 ; viiL 13 ; ix. 10 ; t Cor.
viii. 19).
Kavx^iMvoi B C, Orig. Hs and others : « eood group, but open to saspidoo
of coDforming to ver. 11 (q. v.) ; we have luso found a similar group, on the
whole inferior, in iii. aS. If Kavx<^/<f>'ot 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 anuuanensis.
Note the contrast between the Jewish «ivx»?o'»f which ' is excluded '
(iii. 27) and this Christian KaixTi<rn. The one rests oa supposed
himian privileges and merit ; the other draws all its force from the
assurance of Divine love.
The Jewish writers know of another navxv^tt (besides the empty bocuting
which St. Paul reprehends), but it is reserved for the blest in Paradj^: 4 Err.
vii. 98 [Bensly = vi. 72 O. F. Fritzsche] exultabunt eumjidmitt tt . - , ctm-
/idebunt non confusi, tt gaudebunt non rtvertntts.
▼. »-5.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 145
Ir Tcuf 9Xii|f6(ri. The $\i^tis are the physical hardships and
sufferings that St Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the
Christian; cf. Rom. viii. 35ff. ; i Cor. iv. 11-13; vii. 26-32 ; xv.
30-32; a Cor. i. 3-10; xi. 23-27. Such passages give us
glimpses of the stormy background which lies behind St. Paul's
Epistles. He is so absorbed in his ' Gospel ' that this makes very
little impression upon him. Indeed, as this chapter shows, the
overwhelming sense of God's mercy and love fills him with such
exultation of spirit that bodily suffering not only weighs like dust in
the balance but positively serves to strengthen his constancy. The
same feeling comes out in the imtpvuiufttv of viii. 37 : the whole
passage is parallel.
d-ro|u>inf)r: not merely a passive quality but a 'masculine con-
stancy in holding out under trials ' (Waite on s Cor. vL 4), ' forti-
tude.' See on ii. 7 above.
4. 8oKifti/| : the character which results from the process of trial,
the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit ; cf.
James Lis, &c. The exact order of Inonovl} and doKifif) must not
be pressed too far : in St. James i. 3 t6 SokIhiov r^r wiaTtan produces
vn-ofi*yi|. If St. James had seen this Epistld (which is doubtful) we
might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. The con-
ception is that of a Tim. iL 3 (in the revised as well as the received
text).
ij 8j SoKi|fcf| IXirtSo. It is quite Intelligible as a fact of experience
that the hope which is in its origin doctrinal should be strengthened
by the hardening and bracing of character which come from
actual conflict. Still the ultimate basis of it is the overwhelming
sense of God's love, brought home through the Death of Christ ;
and to this the Apostle returns.
6. o4 Karaiorxi'fci : ' 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,' tec), and the assurance by which this was followed
('he that believeth shall not be put to shame') was confirmed to
diem by their own experience : the verse is directly quoted Rom.
ix. 33 q. V. ; I Pet. ii. 6.
^ i,ydin\ T08 eeou : certainly ' the love of God for us,' not ' our
love for God ' (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns) : dyaTn; thus
comes to mean, ' our smse of God's love,' just as W/j^mj ss ' our
sense of peace with God'
iKKixfrrai. The idea o( spiritual refreshment and encourage-
ment is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of
waUring. Sl Paul seems to have had in his mind Is. xliv. 3
' I will potu* water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the
dry ground : I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed,' &c.
%ik nrcuffcaTos 'Ayiou: without the art, for the Spirit as imparted
I aft EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 6, «
St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges d
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. ?Ti ydp. There is here a difficult, but not really very im-
portant, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus
summarized : —
frt yap at the beginning of the verse with It* also after ivdnw,
the mass of I\ISS.
fri at the beginning of the verse only, some inferior MSS.
(later stage of the Ecclesiastical text).
«r ri yap (possibly representing Ipa ri yap, ut quid enim), the
Western text (Latin authorities).
•/ yap few authorities, pardy Latin.
•? -y. B.
It is not easy to select from these a reading which shall account
for all the variants. That indeed which has the best authority, the
double fTi, 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 «rt yap from 'pa W yap, or vice versa,
through the doubling or dropping of in from the preceding word
HMiN ; nor would it be difficult to explain tin yap from « yap, or
vice versa. We might then work our way back to an alternative tl
ydp or « yf, ^iiich might be confused with each other through the
use of an abbreviation. Fuller details are given below. We think
on the whole that it is not improbable that here, as in iv. i, B has
preserved the original reading »i ye. For the meaning of e» yt {* so
surely as ' Va.) see T. S. Evans in £xp. i88a, i. 176 f.; and the note
on iii. 30 above.
lo more detail the trldence stands thus : frt yAf here with In alto after
iffOeywi' K A C D* «/. : in here only D« E K L P &;c. : tit ri y&p D" F G :
mi quid tnim Lat.-Vet. Vulg., Iren.-lat Fanstin : et yap 104 Greg. (= h
Scriv. , fuld , Isid.-Pelu8. Aug. bit : tl 7<i/> . . .tn Boh. (' For if, we being still
weak,' &c.^ : *l hi Pesh. : *l y* B. [The readings are wrongly given by Lips.,
and not quite correctly even by CJif., through overlooking the commas in Tisch.
The statement which is at once fullest and most exact will be found in WH.]
It thus appears: (i) that the reading most strongly supported is In ydp,
with double tri, which is impossible tuiless we suppose a lapsus calami
between St. Paul and his amanuensis, (a) The Western reading is tU rl
ydp, which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original fvo
ri yap (Gif., from ut quid enim of Iren.-lat. &c.) : this is no doubt a very
early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is »l yap. (4) B alone gives
fi yt. 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. r above)
But the problem is, how to account for the other readings? It would not be
difhcult palaeographically from *l ydp to get in ydp by dittography ol
I (eifAp, €nrAp, eriTAp), or from this again to get cb ri ydp through ditto*
graphy of f and confusion with c (tCTirAp) ; or we might take the alternative
ingeniously suggested b) Gif., of supposing that the original reading was 'am
V. 6, 7.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 127
W fip, ni which the first two letters h«d been absorbed by the prerious ■fipln
(NHiN[iN]ATirAp). There wonld thus be no great difiicnlty in accounting for
Uie origin either of It« -^ap or of the group of Western readings ; and the
primitive variants wonld be reduced to the two, ei f ap and ei r^. Dr. Hort
proposed to account for these by a conjectural ci ncp, which would be a con-
ceivable root for all the variations — partly through paraphrase and partly
through errors of transcription. We might however escape the necessity of
neaorting to conjecture by supposing confusion between pt and the abbrevia-
tion tfc. [For thia form see T. W. Allen, Notei on Abbreviations in Greek
AfSS. (Oxford, 1889), P- 9 *nd P^- >"? Lehmann, Die tachygraphischen Ab-
kUrzungtH d. griech. Handschrifttn (Leipzig, 1880), p. 91 f. taf. 9. We
believe that the oldest extant example is in the Fragmenlum Mathematicum
Bobienst of the seventh century (Wattenbach, Script. Graec. Specim. tab. 8),
where the abbreviation appears in a corrupt form. But we know that short-
hand was very largely practised in the early centuries (cf. Eus. H. E.
VL xxiii. a), and it may have been used by Tertius himself.] Where we
have such a tangled skein to unravel as this it is impossible to speak very
confidently ; but we suspect that ti 7<, as it makes the best sense, noay also
bt tht ori^al reading.
«T r« («> *)
Vn r*p «•' rif
in r«r
tid
mt fuid mtm
4UT0crAr : ' Incapable ' of working oat any righteousness for our-
■elves.
»oTd Kaip6r. St. Paul is strongly impressed with the fitness of
the moment in the world's history which Christ chose for His
intervention in it. This idea is a strikins? link of connexion between
the (practically) acknowledged and the disputed Epistles ; compare
on the one hand Gal. iv. 4 ; 2 Cor. vi. 2 ; Rom. iii. 26; and on
the other hand Eph. L 10 ; i Tim. il 6 ; vi. 15 ; Tit. L 3.
7. fioXis Y'^P- The ydp explains how this dying for sinners is
a conspicuous proof of love. A few may face death for a good
man, still fewer for a righteous man, but in the case of Christ
there is more even than this ; He died for declared enemies of God.
For n6\ii the first hand of M and Orig. read (loyis, which has more
attestation in Luke ix. 39. The two wordi were easily confused both in
sense and in writing.
6ircp SiKoiou. There is clearly in this passage a contrast between
(mtp diKaiov and inip roi dyn6ov. They are not expressions which
may be taken as roughly synonymous (Mey.-W. Lips. &c.), but it
ia8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 7-8
is implied that it is an easier thing to die for the iya66t than for the
i'lKuot. Similarly the Gnostics drew a distinction between the
God of the O. T. and the God of the N, T„ calling the one iUaiot
and the other aya66s (Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xxvii. i ; comp. other
passages and authorities quoted by Gif p. 183). The dtVator keeps
to the ' letter of his bond ' ; about the ayaQit 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 roi dyaSov neut.) and even by Mey. and Dr.
T. K. Abbott {Essayx, p. 75) that there is no substantial difference
between iUaiot and aya66t. 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 dyaSov and not before Amo/ov need not stand
in the way. This is sufficiently explained by Gif., who points out
that the clause beginning with /ioXts is virtually negative, so that
iiKa'un> 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
names in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural
sense of the passage.
8. aoi'iorrjai : see on iii. 5.
T^i' ^auToG 6.y&m\¥ : ' 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.'
ri\v lavToO i-ydirriv alt f|^ay h B<6t KACKP &e.: 4 Ocdr •!> |/ift
D £ F G L : om. 6 Bt6% B. There it do snbstantud differenoe of metniDg,
w *U liiMt in any case goes with cwiartiat, not with dydn^r.
6vjp ^fiuK dWdarc. St. Paul uses emphatic language, i 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 bntw<en ' justification,' the pronouncing
'not guilty' of sinners in the p^st 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. aa x**^'" oiftaTtKxva'uK ov yuwrtu l^onr, see p. 9a,
above.
V. 9-11.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION ia§
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, Uiough in different ways, proceed from
Christ.
%i oAtou : explained by the next verse eV rg (m§ airrov. That
which saves the Christian from final judgement is his union with
the living Christ
10. Ka-n]\X<iyT)fier. The natural prima facie view is that the
reconciliation is mutual ; and this view appears to verify itself on
exammation : see below.
cf TQ (uj auTou. For the full meaning of this see the notes on
ch. vi. 8-1 1 ; viii. lo, ii.
11. KauxtifJici'oi (fc^ B C D, &c.) is decisively attested for Kovx^Mf^a,
which was doubtless due to an attempt to improve the construction.
The part, is loosely attached to what precedes, and must be taken
as in sense equivalent to KavxiainQa. In any case it is present and
not future (as if constructed with crm6r\a6\ii6a). We may compare
a similar loose attachment of dticatov/xcyei in ch. iii 24.
Tht Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement,
The KoratCKarfr) described in these verses is the same as the ftp^vi;
of ver. i; and the question necessarily meets us, What does this
tlpi]vr\ or (KOTaXXayiJ 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. ai : * (xSpovs, " hostile to God," as the
opposite of d7r»jXXorp«i))Li«'ovs, not " hateful to God," as it is taken
by some. The active rather than the passive sense of (x^pov<: 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 i 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. lof.). There is "propitiation" in the matter of sin or of the
sinner. The love of God is the same throughout; but Me
" 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 iKaanos, when it is applied to the
sinner, so to speak, neutralizes the sin.' [A difficult and it may be
thought hardly tenable distinction. The relation of God to sin is
nea merely passive Uit active ; and the term ikaoiios is properly
V5-
130 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-14
used in reference to a personal agent. Some oru is * propitiated ' ;
and who can this be, but God ?]
The same idea is a characteristic feature in the theology of
Ritschl (Recht. u. Vers. ii. 230 ff.).
No doubt there are passages where ix^pot denotes the hostility
and KaroKKayri the reconciliation of man to God ; but taking the
language of Scripture as a whole, it does not seem that it can be
explained in this way.
(i) In the immediate context we have tt]v KaraWayiiv fKa^ofuv,
implying that the reconciliation comes to man from the side of
God, and is not directly due to any act of his own. We may
compare the familiar x"P'f 'f<" *^PV'^> to which is usually added dwA
etoii in the greetings of the Epistles.
(a) In Rom, xL 28 €;(^po« is opposed to ayainjTol, where dyamjroi
mutt be passive (' beloved by God '), so that it is hardly possible
that t'xdpoi 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 IXao-r^ptov (Rom. iii.
25), iXa<r/xdr (i Jo. ii. 2) from the idea of propitiating a person.
(4) There is frequent mention of the Anger of God as directed
against sinners, not merely at the end of all things, but also at this
present time (Rom. i. 18, &c.). When that Anger ceases to be
so directed there is surely a change (or what we should be com-
pelled to call a change) on the part of God as well as of man.
We infer that the natural explanation of the passages which
speak of enmity and reconciliation between God and man is that
they are not on one side only, but are mutual.
At the same time we must be well aware that this is only our
imperfect way of speaking : Kari avdpairov Xry» 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 shado* of turning.'
THE FAT.Ti OF ADAM AND THE WOBK OF CHBIST.
V. 12-14. What a contrast does this last description
suggest between the Fall of Adam and the justifying Work
of Christ ! There is indeed parallelism as well as contrast.
For it is true that as Christ brought righteousness and life^
so Adams Fall brought sin and death. If death prevailed
throughout the tre-Mosaic period, that could not b* due solely
V. 12-14.) ADAM AND CHRIST I31
to the act of i \ose who died. Death is the punishment of
sin; but they had not sinned against law as Adam had.
The true cause then was not their own sin, but Adam's ;
whose fall thus had ^'consequences extending beyond itself like
the redeeming act of Christ.
" The description just gven of the Work of Christ, first justifying
and reconciling the sinner, and then holding out to him the hope
of final salvation, brings out forcibly the contrast between the
two great Representatives of I^umanity — Adam and Christ. The
act by which Adam fell, like th* act of Christ, had a far-reaching
effect upon mankind. Through his Fall, Sin, as an active principle,
first gained an entrance among the himian race ; and Sin brought
with it the doom of (physical) Death. So that, through Adam's
Fall, death pervaded the whole body of his descendants, because
they one and all fell into sin, and died as he had died. " When
I say ' they sinned ' I must insert a word of qualification. In the
strict sense of full responsibility, they could not sin: for that
attaches only to sin against law, and they had as yet no law to
sin against. "Yet they suffered the full penalty of sin. All
through the long period which intervened between Adam and the
Mosaic legislation, the tyiant Death held tway; even though
those who died had not sinned, as Adam had, in violation of
an express command. This proved that something deeper was
at work : and that could only be the transmitted eflfect of Adam's
sin. It is this transmitted effect of a Jtingle act which made Adam
a type of the coming Messiah.
12. Bid toGto: points to the logical connexion with what pre-
cedes. It has been argued, at somewhat disproportionate length,
whether this refers to ver. ii only (Fricke, De Mente dogmatica loci
Paulini ad Rom. v. la sq., Lipsiae, 1880, Mey., Philippi, Beet), or
to vv. 9-n (Fri.), or to w. i-ii (Rothe, Hofmann), or to the
whole discussion from i. 17 onwards (Beng., Schott, Reiche,
Riickert). We cannot lay down so precisely how much was
consciously present to the mind of the Apostle. But as the lead-
ing idea of the whole section is the comparison of the train of
consequences flowing from the Fall of Adam with the train of
consequences flowing from the Justifying Act of Christ, it seems
natural to include at least as much as contains a brief outline 0/
that work, L e. as far as w. i-i i.
E a
I3» EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 1%
That being so, we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. 1 1 that.
St. Paul only wishes to compare the result of deafk in the one
case with that of li/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 ol
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 wAa/ is transmitted. He seems, however, to mean
(r) the liability to sin, (2) the liability to die as the punishment
of sin.
wairep. 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 : Sxrntp 81 <«/if dv6pd)nov if ifiapria tit t6v Koafiov rta^Xdc, xai ith
TTJt ifxapriat 6 Gavaros . . . oi/T« Koi di ivos avOpamov if iiKaunrwr)
elcrr}\dt, Kol dia rrjs diKaioainnji fj fwij. But the WOrds iia rrjt Afiap'
rias 6 davarot bring up the subject which St. Paul is intending to
raise, viz. the connexion of sin and death with the Fall of Adam :
he goes off upon this, and when he has discussed it sufficiently
for his purpose, he does not return to the form of sentence
which he had originally planned, but he attaches the clause
comparing Christ to Adam by a relative (or «Vrj rvnos toC fUKkovrot)
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 dear. Compare
the construction of ii. i6; iii. 8, 26.
^ dfiapria: Sin, as so often, is personified: it is a malignant
force let loose among mankind : see the fuller note at the end (A
the chapter.
CIS rhv KiSo-fior ciarjXOe : a phrase which, though it reminds as
specially of St. John (John i. 9, 10; iii. 17, 19; vi. 14; ix. 5,
39; X. 36, &c.), is not peculiar to him (cf. i 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.
i Bdvaros. Some have taken this to mean * eternal death,'
chiefly on the ground of w. 17, ai, where it seems to be opposed
to ' eternal life.' Oltr. is the most strenuous supporter of this
view. But it is far simpler and better to take it of 'physical
death' : because (i) this is clearly the sense of ver. 14; (2) it is
the sense of Gen. ii. 17; iii. 19; to which St. Paul is evidently
alluding. It seems probable that even in w. 17, ai, the idea
is iv the first instance physical. But St. Paul does not draw the
V. IS.] ADAM AND CHRIST I33
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 ;
{mtptiTfftLavtvatv 9 X"/"* Js the keynote of the passage. It is not
necessary that the two sides of the antith sis should exactly cor-
respond. In each particular the scale weighs heavily in favom
of the Christian.
The Western text (D E F G, &c.) omits this word altogether. Aug.
makes the subject of the vb. not death but sin : he accuses the Pelao-ian?
of inserting (the second) 6 Q&varos.
SiT]\d€K: contains the force of distribution; 'made its way to
each individual member of the race ' : KuBdirfp ns KXripot narpoi
ita^as t'lrl roiis ryyovovs (' like a father's inheritance divided among
his children'), Euthym.-Zig.
i^' <^. 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 'Aidp : ' in whom,' i. e. ' in
Adam.' But in that case (i) ('ni would not be the right preposi-
tion; (ii) ^ would be too far removed from its antecedent.
(1) Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc.
with antecedent Bdyaros : ' in which,' i. e. ' in death,' which is
even more impossible. (3) Some moderns, taking w 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) (s= i<f> iaoy) ' in proportion as,' ' in so far as ' (' all died, in so
faros 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 «0' « as conj.=' because' ('for
that' AV. and RV.) by Theodrt. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass
of modem commentators. This is in agreement with Greek
usage and is alone satisfactory.
k<f> ^ in dassical writen more often means 'on condition that*: cf.
Thuc. i. 113 (TTTOcSat toiTjadfifvoi i(p' ^ rovr dybpas KOfiiovvrai, 'on con-
dition of getting back their prisoners,* &c. The plnral kip' oh is more
common, as in u.v6' &y, i^ S>v, dt' Siv. In N. T. the phrase occurs three
times, always as it would seem ^/ropterta quod, 'because': cf. a Cor. v. 4
vrivd{p\it» Papovufvor i<f>' y ov OeKoptv iKSvaaaOm k.t.X.; Phil. iii. la
if' ^ Koi KaT(\'fi<p9-yv vit6 X. 1. (where 'seeing that* or 'because* appears
to be the more probable rendering). So Phavorinns (d. 1537; a lexico-
grapher of the Renaissance period, who incorporated the contents of oldei
works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) «</>' <p dyri tov di6ri
kiyovaty 'KrriKoi, otov 1^'^ rifw Kkom^v •l^yAwm ('becaoae you GOn»
Bitted the theft *) «.r.X.
134 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12. 18
!«►* (S Ttdvns ^jfiapror. Here lies the crux of this d'fficult pas-
sage. In what sense did 'all sin ? (i) Man/, inchiding even
Meyer, though explaining t(f>' ^ 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 'AW/u. Beni^el has
g^ven this classical expression : omms peccarunt, Adamo pucante,
' 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 unrlerstood. If St. Paul had meant this, why did
he not say so? The insertion of iv *A5d/i would have removed
all ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part
supply nothing, but take tl^aprov in its usual sense : * all sinned
in their own persons, and on their own initiative.' So Euthym.-
Zig. : hiOTi ivavT*s rjfiapToy aKoXovdrjaavTis r« npoTTaropi Kara yt to
d/xapr^o-at. 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 ^p.apTov xw its ordinary sen<
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, &c. There
still remains the difRculty as to the connexion of this clause with
what follows : see the next note.
It is a farther argument in favoar of the view taken above that • 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 malignitas radicis
which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in full
below), the writer goes on to describe this sin as a repetition of Adam's due
to the fact that ihey too had within them the cor malig>ium as he had : Et
deliquerunt qui habitabant civitaUm, in omnibus facientes sicut fecit Adam
et omnes gemrationts eius, utebantur enim et if si corde maligna (4 Ezra iii.
25 f. . Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from Apoc.
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.
13. axpi Y^P •'V®" ••T-X. At first sight this seems to give a
reason for just the opposite of what is wanted : it seems to prove
not that irdvT€t fipLapTov, 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, havt
V. 18, 14.] ADAM AND CHRIST I55
law enough to be judged by (iL 12-16); and Jews b<fore the
time of Moses were only in the position of Gentiles. But the
degree of their guilt could not be the same either as that of
Adam, or as that of the Jews after the Mosaic legislation.
Perhaps it might be regarded as an open question whether, apart
from Adam, pre-Mosaic sins would have been punishable with
death. What St. Paul wishes to bring out is that prior to the
giving of the Law, the fate of mankind, to an extent and in a way
which he does not define, was directly traceable to Adam's Fall.
i^apria hk ouk ^XXoyciTai k.t.K. The thought is one which
had evidently taken strong hold on St. Paul: see on iv. 15, and
the parallels there quoted.
AXoycirai : * brought into account ' (Gif.), as of an entry made
in a ledger. The word also occurs in Philem. 18, where see
Lightfoot's note.
iXXoyfiTtu (or irXo^f !>«) K« B C D E F G K L P, See, iXXoyarai K<:
ivtXoytiro ti*, iWo-^aro A 52 108; imputabatur YxAg. codd. AvixhrstT, al.
The imperf. appears to b« a (mistaken) correction due to the context.
Al to the form of the verb: *A.Xi>-ya is decisively attested in Philem. 18 ;
bat it would not follow that the same form was used here where St. Paul
is employing a different amanuensis : however, as the tendency of the MSS.
if rather to obliterate vernacular forms than to introduce them, there is
perhaps a slight balance of probability in favour ot fWoydrai : see Westcott
and Hort, JVofet tn Orthography in Appendix to Introd. p. 166 ff.
14. IpaaiXeotTti' 6 GdcoTos. St. Paul appeals to the universal
prevalence of death, which is personified, as sin had been just
before, under the figure of a grim tyrant, in proof of the mis-
chief wrought by Adam's Fall. Nothing but the Fall could
account for that universal prevalence. Sin and death had their
beginnings together, and they were propagated side by side.
On the certainty and universality of Death, regarded as a penalty, comp.
Seneca, Nat. Quatst. ii. 59 l.odem citiiis tardiusve veniendum est . . . In
tmtus tonstituttim est capitak supplidum et quidem constitutione iustissima.
nam quod maptum soiet esse solatium extrema passuris, quorum eadem
eausa et sors eadem est. Similarly Philo speaks of tov avfupva vtKpbv fiixwv,
ri aaifia {De Gigant. 3 ; ed, Mang. i. 264). Elsewhere he goes a step further
and asserts 5t« ttavrl -f€vvrjTu . . . avficpvii rb dfj-apriytip. For parallels in
4 Ezra and ApM. Baruck. see below.
iiri Tovs jiT] afiapTTjo-avTas. A number of authorities, mostly Latn Fathers,
but including also the important mari^in of Cod. 67 with three other cursives,
the first hand of d, and the Greek of Orig. at least once, omit the negative,
making the reign of death extend only over those who had sinned after the
likeness of Adam. So Orig.-lat. (Rufinus) repeatedly and expressly, Latin
MSS. known to Aug., the 'older Latin MSS.' according to Ambrstr. and
Sedulius. The comment of Ambrstr. is interesting as showing a certain grasp
of critical principles, though it was difficult for any one in those days to have
•nfiicient command of MSS. to know the real state of the evidence. Ambrstr
prefers in this case the evidence of the Latin MSS., because those with which
he is acquainted are older than the Greek, and represent, as he thinks, ajs
older form of text. He claims that thi^ fonit ha» the support of TeJtollian
136 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 14.
Cyprian and Victorinns — a statement which we are not at present able to
verify- He accouats 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. 5. In two out of the three cases the
Western text omits the negative, but in ch. iv. 19 it inserts it.
TVTTOs (tvtttcu) : (i) the 'impression' left by a sharp blow (tAt tvwop
rwv fiXaiv John xx. 35). in particular the 'stamp' stmok by a die; (a)
inasmuch as such a stamp bears the figure on the face of the die, ' ropy,*
'figure,* or ' representation '; (3) by a common transition from effect to caoae,
'mould,' 'pattern,' 'exemplar'; (4) hence in the special sense of the word
type, whicn we have adopted from the Greek of the N. T., ' an event or
person in historr 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 {avTirvvoi 1 Pet. iii. ai).
These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation : fee
esp. Cheyue, Iiaiak, ii. 170 ff. 1, Essay III, ' On the Christian Element in th«
Book of Isaiah ').
Tou jiAXoKTos. (i) The entirely personal nature of the whole
comparison prevents us from taking roC |4«XX. as neut. = ' that
which was to come ' (Beng., Oltramare). If St Paul had
intended this, he would have written mv ^tXXovroc a\.i>vot. (a)
Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the
Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as i d«w-»pot or i firxarot
'A8a/i (i Cor. XV. 45, 47). If St, Paul had intended this, he
would have written tov fx(k\atn-ot 'Abdft.. (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.' 6
HfXXup thus approximates in meaning to 6 ipx6fi(vct (Matt xi.
3; Luke vii. 19; Heb. x. 37), wliich however appears not to
have been, as it is sometimes regarded, a standing designation
for the Messiah *. In any case toO fifKXomos = ' Him who was to
come' when Adam fell, not 'who is (still) to come' (Fri. De W.).
Tke Effects of Adam's Fall in Jrufish Theology.
Three points come out clearly in these verses : ( i ) the Fall of
Adam brought death not only to Adam himself but to his
descendants ; (2) the Fall of Adam also broughi sin and the
tendency to sin ; (3) and yet in spite of this the individual does
not lose his responsibility. All three propositions receive seme
partial illustration from Jewish sources, though the Talmud does
* ' The designation " The Coming One " {Habbd), though a most truthfa]
expression of Jewish expectancy, was aot one ordinaiily used of the Meanalk'
Edersheim. L. ^ T.i. p. 668
V. 12-14.] ADAM AND CHRIST 137
not seem to have had any consistent doctrine on the subject
Dr. Edersheim says expressly : * So far as their opinions can be
gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original Sin and
of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient
Rabbis' ij^ife and Times, &c. i. 165). Still there are approxima-
tions, especially in the writings on which we have drawn so freeJv
akeady, the Fourth Book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch.
(i) The evidence i> itrongest as to the connexion between Adam's fin and
the introdnction of death. ' There were,' says Dr. Edersheim, * two divergent
opinions — the on* ascribing death to personal, the other to Adam's gnilt'
(0f. cit. 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. iL 93 f. o %t6t ixriaty ror avOpaiitov km' cup6apffiif . . . ip06yqi Si
itafiokov B&varoi tlaijKOtv ds rdv it6afiov, where we note the occurrence ol
St. Paul's phrase; Ecclns. xiv. 34 [33] 61* airiiy (sc. r^f ywaiKa) iiro6vri-
0KOfitv viiVTK. The doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Ezra and
Apet. Banteh. : 4 Ezr. iii. 7 tt huie (sc. Adame) mandasti diligere viam
tuam, tt fraeterivit tarn ; tt statim instituisti in turn mortem tt in
naiionihu ( = gtntrationibus) eius : Afoc. Baruth. xvii. 3 (Adam) morttm
tUtulit tt abscidit annos ttrum qui ab $0 geniti fuerunt : ibid, xxiii. 4
Quando feccavit Adam tt dtcrttafuit mors centra eos qui gigntrentur,
(a) We are warned (by Dr. Edersheim in Sf. Comm. Apecr. ad lec^ not
to identify the statement of Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] diro "^waiKhi dpx4 &/uifrrias
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 {dnd yw.) the initium
ptccandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra iii. 2 1 f. Cor tnim malignum baiulans
primus Adam transgressus tt vittus est, sed tt tmnes qui de to mati sunt :
tt facta tst permatiens infirmitas, et lex cum corde populi, cum malignitate
radicis ; et discessit quod bonum est, et mansit malignum : ibid. iv. 30
Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio, et
quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc, et generat usque dum veniat area :
ibid. vii. 48 (118) 0 tu quid fecisti Adam? Si enini tii peccasti,noit est
foetus solius tuus casus, sed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus.
(3) And yet along 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. 13 (ad fin^. To the same eflect are 4 Ezr. viii. 50 f. Non enim
AUissimus volutt hominem disperdi, sed ipsi qui creati sunt coinquinaverunt
uemen eius qui fecit eos : ibid. ix. 1 1 qui fastidierunt legem meam cum adhtu
trant hadentes liberiatem. But the classical passage is Apoc. Baruch.
liv. 15, 19 Si tnim Adam prior peccavit, et attulit mortem super omnes
immaturam ; ttd etiam illi qui ex et nati sunt, unusquisqut ex eis praepa-
ravit animae suae tormentum futurum: tt iterum unusquisque tx tis
tlegit sibi gloriam futuram . . . Non est ergo Adam causa, nisi animat sucu
tantum; mos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam.
The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the
Talmud. The latter is thus summarised by Weber {Altsyn. Theol. p. ai6) :
*By the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right
relation to God is rendered difEcnlt. 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 " ( = cer malignum) gained the mastery
over mankind, who can only resist it by the greatest efTorts ; before the Fall
it had had power over him, but no sudi ascendancy ( Uebermacht)^ Henca
when the same writer says a little further oa that according to the Rabbis
^there ia such a thing at transmission of guilt, but not inch a thing as tr«n»
158 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 16-21
miision of Mn {Em gibt tine EritchuU, abtr Mtu Erbtunde)' the negative
proposition is due chieflj to the clearness with which the Rabbit (like Af9C,
Bmruik.) insist upon free-will and direct Indiyidual 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 tliose 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 lanc:uage as not
vero unusquisque fuit 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 flf.) and without it
(ii. 12-15). 2ut 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 £&1L
ADAM Ain> CHBIST.
▼. 16-21. So far the parallelism: hut note also thi
contrast. How superior t/ie Work of Christ f (i) How
different in quality: the one act all sin, the other act all
bounty or grcue ! (ver, 15). (2) How different in quantity,
or mode of working : one act tainting tJte 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
its whole character and consequences : a reign of Death and
a reign of Life ! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adam's Fall
brought sin : Law increased it: but the Work of Grace has
cancelled, and mori tlian cancelled, the effect of Law (w.
18-ai).
"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 tha^ one representative man entailed death upon the
many members ol the race to which he belonged. Can we then
be surprised if an act of such different quality — the free unearned
bvour of God. and the fi^ift of righteousness bestowed through
V. 16-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 139
the kindness of that other Representative Man, Jesus Messiah
— should have not only cancelled the effect of the Fall, but
also brought further blessings to the whole race ? "There is
a second difference between this boon bestowed through Christ
and the ill effects of one man's sinning. The sentence pro-
nounced upon Adam took its rise in the act of a single man, and
had for its result a sweeping verdict of condemnation. But the
gift bestowed by God inverts this procedure. It took its rise in
many faults, and it had for its result a verdict declaring sinners
righteous. "Yet once more. Through the single fault of the one
man Adam the tyrant Death began its reign through that one
sole agency. Much more then shall the Christian recipients of
that overflowing kindness and of the inestimable gift of righteous-
ness— much more shall they also reign, not in dtath but in life,
through the sole agency of Jesus Messiah.
** To sum up. On one side we have the cause, a single Fall ;
and the effect, extending to all men, condemnation. On the other
side we have as cause, a single absolving act ; and as effect, also
extending to all, a like process of absolution, carrying wilh it life.
*'For as through the disobedience of the one man Adam all
mankind were placed in the class and condition of 'sinners,' so
through the obedience (shown in His Death upon the Cross) of the
one man, Christ, the whole multitude of believers shall be placed
in the class and condition of * righteous.' *• Then Law came in,
as a sort of ' afterthought,' a secondary and subordinate stage,
in the Divine plan, causing the indefinite multiplication of sins
which, like the lapse or fall of Adam, were breaches of express
command. Multiplied indeed they were, but only with the result
of calling forth a still more abundant stream of pardoning grace.
'* Hitherto Sin has sat enthroned in a kingdom of the dead ;
its subjects have been sunk in moral and spiritual death. But this
has been permitted only in order that the Grace or Goodwill of
God might also set up its throne over a people fitted for its sway
by the gift of righteousness, and therefore destined not for death
but for eternal life — through the mediation of Jesus Messiah, our
Lord.
16. irapdiTTUfta : lit. 'a slip or fall tideways,' 'a false step,'
' a lapse ' : hence metaph. in a sense not very dissimilai to iMOfnijitm
I40 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 16, 1ft
(which is prop, 'missing a mark'). It is however appropriate
that wapijrr. should be used for a 'fall' or first deflection from
uprightness, just as aftdpr. is used of the failure of efforts towards
recovery. On the word see Trench, Syn. p. 237 f.
Tou iv6^ : ' the one man,' t. *. Adam.
01 iroXXoi : * the many,' practically = ndvrat ver. la ; ndvrat dvBpiy
wovs in ver. 18, 'all mankind.' It is very misleading to translate
as AV., ignoring the article, if ' through the offence of one, many
be dead, by the obedience of oru 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 bv Lft. Ot$ Revitim, p. 97, ' By this accorate Terdon
lome hurtful mistakes about partial redrmption and absolute reprobation
had been happily prevented. Our English readers had then seen, what
several of the Fathers saw and testified, that ol voXXoi, the many, in an anti-
thesis to tk4 otu, are equivalent to vdvrfs, all, in ver. ta, and conaprehend the
whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusiv* only of tht 0m$*
iroXX^ fidXXor. 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.
lij Swpcdl is more fully defined below (ver. 17) as 4 *«»p«^ ^
8iKaio(rvvt)s : the gift is the condition of righteousness into which
the sinner enters. 8a>ptdy ' boon,' like 8apov contrasted with dd/ta,
is reserved for the highest and best gifts; so Philo, Leg. AUeg. iii
70 ffKfxurtP fuytdovs rtXtiatu iya6iv brfKovatv (Lft. ReV. p. 77) i ^omp^
also the ascending scale of expression in Jas. i. 17.
iv x<^iTi goes closely with ^ b»pta. In classical Greek we should
have had the art. 9 <V x<^P*^*> ^^^ ^^ Hellenistic Greek a qualifying
phrase is attached to a subst. without repetition of the art. Mey.
however and some others (including Lid.) separate «» x'^P"* from 4
btiptd and connect it with intpiaatvat.
xiptt it mort often applied to God the Father, and is exhibited in the
whole scheme of salvation As applied to Christ it is (i) that active favour
towards mankind which moved Him to intervene for their salvation (of. esp.
s Cor. viii. 9) ; (a) the same active favour shown to the individual by th«
Fatiier and the Son conjointly (Rom. L 7 q. v.).
16. The absence of verbs is another mark of compressed anti-
thetic style. With the first clause we may supply *<ttI, with the
second ey«V«To : ' And not as through one man's sinning, so is the
boon. For the judgement sprang from one to condemnation, bnt
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 contracti<»
F. 16-18.] ADAM AND CHRIST I41
Inwards; the movement originates with many sins which are all
embraced in a single sentence of absolution.
SiKai'u/io : usually the decision, decree, or ordinance by which
a thing is declared iUatov (that which gives a thing the force of
•right'); here the decision or sentence by which persons are
declared iUaiot. The sense is determined by the antithesis to Kara-
Kpifia, iiKaiwfia bears to diKaiaxTis the relation of an act completed
to an act in process (see p. 31 -rwA).
17. iroXXw fxaXXor. Here the a fortiori argument lies in the
nature of the two contrasted forces : God's grace must be more
powerful in its working than man's sin.
i4jr TTcpiao-eiai' . . . ttjs SwpeSs rfjs 8iKOio<r«Ji't]s Xafji(3<ii/orres. Every
term here points to that gift of righteousness here described as
something objective and external to the man himself, not wrought
within him but coming to him, imputed not infused. It has its
source in the overflow of God's free favour ; it is a gift which man
receives: see pp. 25, 30 f., 36 above.
^aaiXeuaouo-i. The metaphor is present to St. Paul's mind;
and having used it just before of the prevalence of Death, he
naturally recurs to it in the sense more familiar to a Christian of
his share in the Messianic blessings, of which the foremost was
a heightened and glorified vitality, that ' eternal life ' which is his
already in germ.
%\.h Tou ivh% 'It](too Xpiorou. The 8*0 here covers the whole media-
tion of the Son in reference to man : it is through His Death that the
sinner on embracing Christianity enters upon the state of righteous-
ness, and through the union with Him which follows that his whole
being is vitalized and transfigured through time into eternity.
18. This and the three following verses, introduced by the
strongly illative particles opo ouv, sum up the results of the whole
comparison between Adam and Christ : the resemblance is set
forth in w. 18, 19; the difference and vast preponderance of the
scale of blessing in w. 20, 21.
Again we have a condensed antithesis — the great salient strokes
confronting each other without formal construction : origin, extent,
issue, alike parallel and alike opposed. ' As then, through one lapse,
to all men, unto condemnation — so also, through one justifying act,
to all men, unto justification of life.' There are two difl&culties,
the interpretation of fit ivbs diKaicoftaTos and of SiKaiaxriv ^»^r.
8(* Ifos 8iKaiup,aT0$. Does itKaiayia here mean the same thing
as in ver. 16? If so, it is the sentence by which God declares
men righteous on account of Christ's Death. Or is it the merit
of that Death itself, the ' righteous act,' or vnaKofi, of Christ ? A
number of scholars (Holsten, Va. Lips. Lid.) argue that it must
be the latter in order to correspond with it* iv6s napanTii>(jMTos. So
too £uthjrm.-Z3g. it ^v6r dtttMunaros rov X. ryy Sitpaif duuuoiripqf
14a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 18, 1».
trwTrXijponKOTot. But it seems better, with Mey. Gif. and others, to
give the same sense to diKaiana as in ver. 16. We saw that there
the sense was fixed by Karaicpifxa, which is repeated in the present
verse. On the other hand it is doubtful whether 8iKa(a)na can quite
z='a righteous act.' God's sentence and the act of Christ are so
inseparable that the one may be used in the antithesis as naturally
as the other.
It is best also to follow the natural construction of the Greek
and make <w>i neut. in agreement with Sikoiw/x. (Mey.-W. Va.
Gif.) rather than masc. (Lips.).
SiKaiuair lanjs. ' 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.
10. Si& rqs irapaKOTJs . . . 8id -rfjs u-iraK0T)9. It is natural that
this aspect of the Fall as napaxoT] 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 virwcor} : cf. Heb. v. 8, 9 ; Matt. xxvi.
39 ; Phil. ii. 8. On the word napaKoi) (' a failing to hear,' incuria,
ind thence inobedientid) see Trench, Syn. p. 234.
KaT€crT<£9T]crai' . . . KaraaTaOiiCTOKToi: ' 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. KaTa<rta6r\<yovTM has reference not to
the Last Judgement but to future generations of Christians ; to all
m tact who reap the benefit of the Cross.
When St. Paul wrote in Gal. ii. 15 ij/itfi <^v<rc( lowSoToi, «ai (Ak i( i9vm
AitapToi\oi, he implied (speaking for the moment from the stand-point of his
countrymen) that Gentile* would be regarded as <pv<ru dixapraiXol: they
belonged ' to the class ' of linners ; 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 w. 13-14; and so far as it relates to the effects of the Death of Christ
it is parallel to w. i, 2 iiKaiuffevrfs niv [Ik martois] flprjvrjv (xofic (con-
tained in lx'*'M**') "■p^s ''■^•' ©tor Sici Tov Kvp'tov ^ficuv *I. X., St' ot koI t})w
vfoaa-^tTj^v iaxv'^^'^l^f^ *'* ''^*' X'^P"' ^ ? tcf^rfKafifv. For the use of KaOi-
oraaOcu there is a good parallel in Xen. Mem. ii. i. 9 'Eyu ovv rovt ftiv
0ov\o^l^vovs iToKXa irfiayfiaTa lx<"' ■ • ■ **s Tovs apxiKcin icaraaTTjaaifii, where
Koraar. = tit rovt dpxntoiit rdrrotuv {sup.) and iftavriif rirrm tb ro^
fiovfjitiyovs {it^.).
V. 20, 9J J ADAM AND CHPIST I43
20. iropeifffjXOei' : • come in to the side of a state <rf 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 it a sort of ' after-thought ' (see the Paraphrase).
' Why did he not say the Law was gtven, bot fAs Law tnttrtd by the way t
It was to show that the need of it was temporary and not absolute or
claiming precedence ' {vpoaicatpov aiirov Seim^t r^v XP*^*"" ttvao', mi ei
gvplar oiiSi irpoijyovixivtjy) Chrys.
Zvo irXeo»'(£(rT). For the force of iva comp. «lt ri tlvai mimvt apano-
Xayfjrovs L SO : 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 Si Iva ivravOa ovk alrioXoyias irdXir dXA* iitP&atin Iffriv. (M fA^ hi
TovTO iS60T} tva irA.eordffjj, dAA' (569r) jxiy &aT( nuSiaai itai Ay«\ttv t6 irap6r
meuixa' f((0r] Si rovvavriw, ov rrapcl rifv rod vd/iov <pv(Tiv, dXXd irapa TJ^r r&v
6cf a^tVouy ^a$vfxiav (Chrys.) : a note wLich shows that the ancients were quite
aware of the ecbatic sense of Iva (see on xL 11).
vXcoctiaii, as Va. remarks, might be transitive, but is more
probably intransitive, because of fnXfovaatv fi afiapr. which follows.
ri irapdiirTufia : seems expressly chosen in order to remind us
that all sins done in defiance of a definite command are as such
rrpetitions of the sin of Adam.
21. iv Tw Bavdrtf. 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).
8id SiKotoCTuinijs. 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. PauVs 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 diflferent
relations in which they are placed and the diflferent associations
which gather round them, convey what is substantially a diflferent
idea to the mind.
The word ifuipria with its cognates is a case in point. The
corresponding term ia HelH'ew has much the same original sense
144 EPISILE TO THE ROMANS [V. 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 AfxapTia, dixapravftv are common enough
in the lighter senses of ' missing an aim,' of 'error in judgement or
opinion'; in the graver sense of serious wrong-doing they are
rare. When we turn to the Bible, the LXX and the N.T.
alike, this proportion is utterly reversed. The words denote nearly
always religious wrong-doing, and from being in the background
they come strongly to the front ; so much so that in the Concord
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
a positive reaction. It is a personal offence against a personal
God. It is an injury or wound — if the reaction which it involves
may be described in such human terms as ' injury ' or ' wound ' —
directed against the Holy One whose love is incessantly going forth
towards man. It causes an esf rangement, 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 [ifiapria di ow
(Woyr'^m fxff Sptos v6fiov Rom. v. 13: cf. iv. 1 5). But as a matter
of fact few or none can take advantage of this because everywhere —
even among the heathen — there is some knoM'ledge of God and of
right and wrong (Rom. i. 19 f.; ii. 12, 14 (.), 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 io
V. 12-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST XAg
Which the heinousness of the offence is proportioned to aidvantagej
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 S
impulses ofhuman nature. The Law condemned illicit desires, but
men had such desires and they succumbed to them (Rom. vii.
7 ff.). The reason of this was partly a certain corruption of
human nature inherited from Adam. The corruption alone would
not have been enough apart from the consentient will ; neither
would the will have been so acted upon if it had not been foi
the inherited corruption (Rom. v. 12-14). But there was yet a third 3
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 hke 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. 1 3) ; 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. 52 f.), St. Paul did
believe in a personal agency of Evil. He repeatedly uses the per-
sonal name Satan ; he ascribes to him not only mischief-making in
the Church (i Thess. ii. 18; a Cor. ii. 11), but the direct tempta-
tion of individual Christians (i Cor. viL 5); he has his followers on
whom he is sometimes invited to wreak his will (i Cor. v. 5;
146 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-Sl.
1 Tim. i. 30) ; supernatural powers of deceiving or perverting men
are attlibuted to him (2 TheSS. ii. 9 kot ivipytiav roi ^arava iv rraaii
ivudfifi Koi iTTjftdois Koi Ttpaai ^tviovs : cf. 2 Cor. xi. 1 4). The
Power of Evil does not stand alone but has at its disposal a whole
army of subordinate agents [dpxai, f^ovaiai, KovnoKparoptt roi aKorovs
TovTov Eph. vi. la; 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' (6 6e6i tov atwvos tovtov 2 Cor. iv. 4), and
exercises his rule till the final triumph of the Messiah (2 Thess. ii.
8 f. ; I Cor. xv. 24 f.).
We see therefore that just as in the other books of the N.T.
the Gospels, the Apocalypse, and the other Apostolic Epistles, evil
is referred to a personal cause. And although it is doubtless true
that in chaps, vi, vii, where St. Paul speaks most directly of the
baleful activity of Sin, he does not intend to lay special stress on
this ; his language is of the nature of personification and does not
necessarily imply a person ; yet, when we take it in connexion with
othei language elsewhere, we see that in the last resort he would
have said that there was a personal agency at work. It is at least
clear that he is speaking of an influence external to man, and
acting upon him in the way in which spiritual forces act.
St. PanI regards the beginnings of tin 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 modem 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 oi
which the Hebrew race was chosen to be the special recipient. From this
point of view it becomes the typical and summary representation of a series
of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half-calcined bones can
ever reproduce for us. In some way or other as far back as history goes,
and we may believe much further, there has been implanted in the human
race this mysterious seed of sin, which like other characteristics of the race
{s 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
aistinction 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 m such simple forms as the narratiTe
assumes in the Book of Genesis. The really essential truths all come out 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 di»-
obedience ; and we may add perhaps, though here we get into a region of
■nrmises, the connexion between moral evil and physical decay, for the surest
pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part of us, the bo«1,
V". 18-aLJ ADAM AND CHRIST 147
through righteonsness to God. These salient principles, which may hav*
been dne in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods, are
aaturally and in° * jiy summed up as a group of single incidents. Their
essential character is not altered, and in the interpretation of primitive
beliefs we may safely remember that ' a thousand years in ♦^he sight of God
are but as one day.* We who believe in Providence and who believe in the
•ctive influence of the Spirit of God upon man, may well also believe that
the tentative gropings of the primaeval savage were assisted and guided and
so led up to definite issues, to which he himself perhaps at the time could
baldly give a name but which he learnt to call ' sin ' and ' disobedience,' and
the tendency to which later ages also saw to have been handed on from
generation to generation in a way which we now describe as ' heredity.' It
would be absurd to expect the language of modem science in the prophet
who first incorporated the traditions of his race in the Sacred Books of the
Hebrews. He uses the only kind of language available to his own intelli-
gence and that of his contemporaries. But if the language which he does
ose is from that point of view abundantly justified, then the application which
St. Paul makes of it is equally justified. He too expresses truth throiigh
symbols, and in the days when men can dispense with symbols his teaching
may be obsolete, but not before.
Thf need for an Incarnation and the need for an Atonement are not
dependent upon any particular presentation, which may be liable to cor-
rection with increasing knowledge, of the origin of sin. They rest, not on
theory or on anything which can be clothed in the forms of theory, but on
the great outstanding facts of the actual sin of mankind and its ravages.
We take these facts as we see them, and to us they furnish an abundant
explanation of all that God has done to counteract them. How they are in
their turn to be explained may well form a legitimate subject for curiosity,
but the historical side of it at least has but a very slight bearing on the
interpretatioD of the N. T.
History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrini
of biKaiaxTii.
In order to complete onr commentary on the earlier portion ol the Epistle,
it will be convenient to sum up, as shortly as is possible, the history of the
doctrine of Justification, so far as it is definitely connected with exegesis.
To pursue the subject farther than that would be beside our purpose ; but so
much is necessary since the exposition of the preceding chapters has been
almost entirely from one point of view. We shall of course be obliged to
confine ourselves to certain typical names. ,
Just at the close of the Apostolic period the earliest speculation on the '
■object of Justification meets us. Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the
Corinthians, writes clearly guarding against any practical abuses which may
arise from St. Paul's teaching. He has before him the three writers of the
N. T. who deal most definitely with ' faith ' and ' righteousness,* and fi-om
them constructs a system of life and action. He takes the typical example,
that of Abraham, and asks, ' Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed f
The answer combines taat of St. Paul and St. James. ' Was it not because
he wrought righteousness and truth through faith ?' (§ 31 ovxl ^imioavvqv koX
AXif&tiav Sid m'ffTttus iroiiiaat ;). And throughout there is the same co-
ordination of different types of doctrine. ' We are justified by works and not
by words' (§ 30 (pyois diKaio{iiJi(voi nal fifj x6yois). But again (§ 33) ; 'And
so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified
throngh ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or
works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith whereby the
Almighty God justified all men that have been from Uke beginning.' Bat
I4tl EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12 21
dangerous thi*orie« as to condnct, which arise from hoWing tach beliefs is
too crade a. manner, are at once guarded against (§ 33) : ' What then most
we do, brethren? Must we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love?
May the Master never allow this to befall us at least . . . We have seen that
all the righteous were adorned in good works . . . Seeing then that we have
this pn.ttem, let ns conform ourselves with all diligence to His will ; let ns
wiih all our strength work the work of righteousness.' Clement writes as
a Christian of the second generation who ii herits the teaching and phraseo-
logy of the Apostolic period. ' Faith,' * Works,' ' Righteousness,' are ideas
which have become part of the Christian life ; the need of definition 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
dsfeot in the dogmatic statement.' (See Lightfoot, Clement, i. 96, 397.)
The question of Justification never became a subject of controversy is tht
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.
Ongen. How little Origen had grasped some points in St. Paul's thought may hi
seen by his comment on Rom. iii. 20 JSx operibus i^tur legU quod non iusti-
ficabitur omnis caro in conspectu tint, hoc modo intelligendum puio : quia
tmnis qui caro est et secundum carnem vivit, non potist iustiJUari «x
l*ge Dei, sicut et alibi dicit idem Apostolus, quia qui in came sunt Deo
placere non possunt (in Rom. iii. 6 ; 0pp. torn. vi. 194, ed. Lommatzsch).
But in many points his teaching is clear and strong. All Justification is by
faith alone (iii. 9, p. 2\1 et dicit sufficere solius jidei iustificationem, ita ut
tredens quit tantummodo iustificetur, etiamsi nihil ab to operit fuerit
ucpUtum). 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 us by the blood of Christ (iv. 8, p. 285, on Rom. v. l).
The process of justification is clearly one of 'imputation ' (Jides ad iustUiam
rtputetur iv. i, p. 240, on Rom. iv. 1-8), and is identified with the Gospel
teaching of the forgiveness of sins ; the two instances of it which are quoted
being the penitent thief and the woman with the alabaster box of ointment
(Luke vii. 37-42). But the need for good works is not excluded: sed
fortassis haec aliquis audiens resolvatur et bene agendi negligentiam capiat,
ti quidem ad iustificandum fides sola sufficiat. ad quem dicemus, quia post
iustificationem si iniuste quis agat, sine dubio iustificationis gratiam sprevit
. . . indulgentia namque non futurorum sed praeteritorum criminun datur
fiii. 9, p. 219, on Rom. iii. 37, 28). Faith without works is impossible
Qiv. I, p. 234) : rather faith is the root from which they spring : non ergo
€x operH/us radix iustitiae, sed ex radice iustitiae fructus operum crescit,
ilia scilicet radice iustitiae, qua Deus cucepto fert iustitiam sine operibus
(iv. I, p. 241 ; see also the comment on Rom. ii. 5, 6 in ii. 4, p. Si). We
may further cote that in the comment on Rom. i. 17 and iii. 24 the iustitia
Dei is clearly interpreted as the Divine attribute.
The same criticism 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
arcnmstances which had created these conception* no longer existed.
V. 12-21.J /IDAM AND CHRIST 149
For tiample, commenting on Rom. iL to he writes: *it Is upon work*
that punishment and reward depend, not upon circumcision or uncircum-
cision ' ; making a distinction which the Apostle does not between the
moral and ceremonial law. The historical situation is clearly grasped and
is brought out very well at the beginning of Horn, vii : * He has accused
the Gentiles, he has accused the Jews ; what follows to mention next is the
righteousness which is by faith. For if the law of nature availed not, and
the written Law was of no advantage, but both weighed down those that
used them not aright, and made it plain that they were worthy of greater
Dunishment, then t^e salvation which is by grace was henceforth necessary.'
The meaning of &«aio<Ti5vi7 9tov is well brought out 'The declaring of
His righteousness is not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He
doth ^so make them that are filled with the putrefying scars of sin suddenly
righteous' {Horn. viL on iiL 34, 25). It may be interesting to quote the
exposition of the passage which follows. He explains Sid r^v vapeaiv tcDt
vpoyv^ovdrojv AfiapTrjuaTOiv thus : Sjd rffv naptatv, Tovriart tt)!/ vtKpcatnv,
oxiKfTi ydp vytias f\iris Jjy, iW' Siaittp awjxa wapa\v6iv rfjs dvouOfv (Seiro
Xfipoi, ovTOf Koi f) \tvx^ vfKpaiOeiaa, giving irdptan the meaning of ' para-
lysis,' the paralysis of spiritual life which has resulted from sin. Generally
StKai6<u seems clearly to be taken as ' make righteous,' even in passages i
where it will least bear such an interpretation ; for instance on iv. 5 (//om.
viii.) dvvarai 6 $t6s ror iv daePda PeffiwitoTa rovrov (^ai(pvrjs ovxi toXdafont
l\tv6(pa>(jcu n6vov, dWA Hoi Siicaioy irotTJaai, . . , tl yap /xuKapios oirait
6 \a^uv dcptmy dir6 x<i/'«'''oy TroXXy (mWov 6 SiKaio/Ods, and on iv. 25 (Horn.
ix) IttJ ToiJTy ydp KoX dneOave leat dviartj Xva Siitalovs kpydarjrai. Yet his
usage is not consistent, for on Rom. viii. 33 he writes : ' He does not say,
it is God that forgave our sins, but what is much greater : — " It is God that
justifieth." For when the Judge's sentence declares us just {Sinaiovs dwo-
^ivfi), and such a judge too, what signifieth the accuser?'
No purpose would be served by entering further into the views of the 1
Greek commentntors ; but one passage of Theodoret may be quoted as
an instance of the way in which all the fathers connect Justification and
Baptism. On Rom. v. i, 3 ^vid. p. 53) he writes : 1) nians niv vfj.iv kbwpTj-
aaro rSiv ap-aprrnxdrajv t^»' d(ptaiv koX dfiwfiovs not SiKaiovs Sid ttjs tow Xovrpov
va\n.tyyfvfaiai d-nf(pj)vt' wpoa'ijim Si iifias rijv irpbt rif Oi<^v yfytvrjuivriT
^Kdrrtiv tlfnjvrjv.
To sum up the teaching of the Greek Fathers. They put in the very
front of everything, the Atonement through the death of Christ, without as
a rule elaborating any theory concerning it : this characteristic we find from
the very beginning: it is as strong in Ignatius as in any later I'atner:
they all think that it is by faith we are justified, and at the same time lay
immense stress on the value, but not the merits, of good works : they seem
all very definitely to connect Justification with Baptism and the beginning
of the Christian life, so much so indeed that as is well known even the
possibility of pardon for post-baptismal sin was doubted by some : but they
have no theory of Justification as later times demand it; they are never close
and exact in the exegesis of St Paul ; and they are without the historical
conditions which would enable them to understand his great antithesis of
• Law' and ' Gospel,' ' Faith ' and ' Works,' ' Merit ' and ' Grace.'
The opinions' of St Augustine are of much greater importan e. Althout^'h
he does not iipproach the question from the same point of view as tiie
Reformation theologians, he represents the source from which came the
mediaeval tendency which created that theology. His most important
expositions are those contained in De Spiritu ct Litera and In Psalmum
XXXI Enarratio II: this Psalm he describes as Psalmus gratiae Dei
tt iustificationis nosirae nullis praecedentibus meritis nostris, sed prat'
vmiente nos miserUordia Domin$ Dti mattri . . . His purpose is to prove
IJO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
as against any form of Pelagianism that our salvation comes from no
merits of our own but only from the Divine grace which is given us.
This leads to three main characteristics in his exposition of the Romans,
(i) For, first, good works done by those who are not in a state of grace are
valneless : nemo computet txma opera sua ante fidem: ubi fidti mmi *ra*
ionum opus ncn erat {Enarr^iio § 4) Hence he explains Rom. 11. 5,
isff. of works done not i- a state of nature but of grace. In iL 13 the
Apostle is referring to t'^e Gentiles who have accepted the Gospel; and the
' Law written in their hearts ' is the law not of the O.T. but of the N.T. :
he natnralV^ compares 2 Cor. iii. 3 and Rom. ii. a6 {Dt Sp. €t LU. §§ 44-
49). (2) Then, secondly, St. Augustine's exposition goes on somewhat
different lines from those of the Apostle's argument. He makes the whole
aim of the early portion of the Romans to be the proof of the necessity of
grace. Men have failed without grace, and it is only by meant of it that
they can do any works which are acceptable to God. Thb from one point
of view really represents St. Paul's argument, from another it is very much
removed from it. It had the tendency indeed to transfer the central point
in connexion with human salvation from the atoning death of Christ accepted
by 1 aith to the gift of the Divine Grace received from God. Although in
this relation, as often, St. Augustine's exposition is c^eper than that of the
Grrek fathers, it leads to a much less correct interpretation. (3) For, thirdly,
there can be no doubt that it leads directly to the doctrine of ' infused ' grace.
It is quite true that Chrysostom has perhaps even moie definitely interpreted
dt/caiovaOai of ' making just,' and that Augustine in one place admits the
possibility of interpreting it either as 'making just' or 'reckoning just'
[De Sp. et Lit. § 45). But although he admits the two interpretations so
far as concerns the words, practically his whole theory is that of an infusion
of the grace of faith by which men are made just. Sc in his comment on
i. 17 he writes: haec est iustitia Dei, quae in Testamtmte Veitri velata, in
Novo revelatur: quae idea iustitia Dei dicitur, ^woi/ impertiendo earn iustof
facit {De Sp. et Lit. ^ 18) : and again : credenti inquit in eum qui iustificat
impium deputatur fides eius ad iustitiam. si iustificatur impius ex impio
fit iustus {Enarratio § 6) : so rum ttbi Deus reddit debitam foenam, sttk
donat indebitam gratiam : so De Sp. et Lit. \ 36 : ha*c est tusti/ia Dei,
quam non solum docet per legis praeceptum, verum tti*m dot fer SpirUui
donum.
I St. Augustine's theory is in fact thia ; fiiith is a gift of grace wntch ia-
fased into men, enables thecs to produce works good and acceptable to
God. The point of view is clearly not that of St. Paul, and it is the sonroe ol
the mediaeval theory of grace with all its developments.
Aquinas This theory as we find it elaborated in the Summa ThepU^iat, has so iar
as it concerns us three main characteristics, (i) In the first place it elaborates
the Augustinian theory of Grace instead of the Pauline theory of Justification.
'. iS quite clear that in St. Paul x*^/"^ is the favour of God to man, and not
* gilt given by Gi>d to mm; but gratia in St. Thomas has evidently this
latti^r signification : cum gratia omnem natura* crtatae fcuuUatem excedat, 00
quod nihil aliud sit quam participano quaedam divinae natureu quae omttem
aliam naturam excedit {Summa Theologiat, Prima Secundae Qn. cxii. i ). So
also : donum gratiae . . . gicUiae infusio . . . infundit donum graiiae iustifi-
cantis (cxiii. 3). (a^i Secondly, it interprets iustificare to ' make just,' and in
consequence looks upon jvistincation as not only remissio peccatorum, but also
an infusion of grace. This question is discussed fiiUy in Qu. cxiii. Art. a.
The conclusion arrived at is: quum iustitiae Dei repugnei poenam dimtttert
vigente culpa, nullius autem hominis qualis mode nascitur, reatut poena*
absque gratia tolli queai ; ad culpcu quoque hominis qualis modo nascitur^
Temissionem. gratiae infusionem requiri mani/estum est. The primary text
Qo which this conclusion is based is Rom. iii. 24 iusti/itcUi gratis fn grmtiam
V. ia-21.J ADAM AND CHRIST 1$1
ipHut, which is therefore clearly interjireted to mean ' madt jt st by an inftision
of grace ' ; and it is argued that the effect of the Divine love on us is grace by
which a man is made wo "thy of eternal life, and that thereibie lemissiou of
guilt cannot be understood unless it be accompanied by the infusion oi grace.
(.^) The words quoted aboT";, ' by which a man is made worthy of eternal
lif ■ ' idignus vita aeterna int 'oduce us to a third point in the mediaev al th . ory
of justification : indirectly by its theory of merit ae co,,^ and de condi-^nt
It introduced just that doctrine of merit against which St. Pnul had directed
his whole system. This subject is worked out in Qu. cxiv, where it is argued
(Art I) that in a sense we can deserve something from God. Although
(Art a) a man cannot deserve life eternal in a state of nature, yet Art. ^)
after justification he can : Homo meretur uitam aetemam ex condigno. This
is supported by Rom. viii. 17 sifilii tt haeredes. it being argued that we are
sons to whom is owed the inheritance ex ipso iure adoptionis.
However defensible as a complete whole the system of the Summa maybe,
there is no doubt that nothing so complicated can be grasped by the po] ular
mind, and that the teaching it represents led to a wide system of religious
corruption which presented a very definite analogy with the errors which
St. Paul combated ; it is equally clear that it is not the system of Justifica- "\
tJon put forward by St. Paul. It will be convenient to pass on directly tc
the teaching of Luther, and to put it in direct contrast with the teaching of
Aquinas. Although it arose primarily against the teaching of the later
Schoolmen, whose teaching, especially on the subject of merit de congruo and
de condigno, was very much developed, substantially it repi4sents a revolt
against the whole mediaeval theory.
Luther's main doctrines were the following. Through the law man learns Loth^
his sinfulness : he learns to say with the prophet, ' there is none that doeth
good, no not one.' He learns his own weakness. And then arises the cry :
* Who can give me any help ? ' Then in its due season comes the saving
word of the Gospel, 'Be of good cheer, my son, thy sins are forgiven.
Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for thy sins.' This is the beginning
of salvation ; in this way we are freed from sin, we are justified and there is
given unto us life eternal, not on account of our own merits and works, but
on account of faith by which we approached Christ (Luther on Galatians
ik 16; 0pp. ed. 1554, p. 308.)
As against the mediaeval teaching the following points are noticeable,
(1) In the first place Justification is quite clearly a doctrine of 'iustitia
imputata' : Deus acctptat seu reputat nos iustos solum propter Jidem in
Christum. It is espei ia!!)' .'^tated that we are not firee from sin. As long as
we live we are subject to tlie stain of sin : only our sins are not imputed to
as. (2) Secondly, Luther inherits from the Schoolmen the distinction of
fides informis and Jides fonnata cum charitatt ; but whereas the f had con-
sidered that '\\.\i2& fides formata which justifies, with him it \%fideii informis.
He argued that if it were necessary that laith should be united with charity
to enable it to justify, then it is no longer faith alone that justifies, but
charity: faith becomes useless and good works are brought in. (3) Thirdly,
it is needless to point out that he attacks, and that with great vigour, all
theories of merit de congruo and de condigno. He describes them thus : talia
monstra portenta et horribiles blasphemiae debtbani proponi Turcis et ludaeis,
uon ecclesiae Christi.
The teaching of the Reformation worked a complete change in the exegesis CalTlA
of St. Paul. A condition of practical error had arisen, clearly in many
ways resembling that which St Paul combated, and hence St. Paul's con-
ceptions are understood better. The ablest of the Reformation commentaries
is certainly that of Calvin ; and the change produced may be seen most
clearly in one point. The attempt that had been made to evade the meaning
of St Paul's words as to Law, by applying them only to the ceremoniaJ
l$» EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-81.
Law, h« entirely brashes away (on ill. ao) ; again, he Interprets iustijiear* u
'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 ii
applied to the interpretation of the Epistle, but his extravagant language is
avoided. The distinction ol fides informU and formata is condemned as
unreal ; 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
a 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 ol fides informis and
farmata, 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
fiuth 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 vague sense of adj^ur,
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 iustitia
imputata and iustitia infusa, and the Council of Trent defined Justification
thus : iustificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed etiatn tanctificatio
tt rtnovatio interioris hominis p$r voluntariam susceptionem graiiat *t
donorum (Sess. VI. cap. vii).
A typical commentary on the Romans from this point of view is that of
Cornelius a Lapide. On L 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. i|
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
▼irtnes.
This summary has been made sufficiently comprehensive to bring ont 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, Sanctification, Salvation.
Our Christian life begins with the act of faith 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 fur life eternal not for our own merits
I 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, io
order that we may realize that unless w« come to Christ in the salf-aoirendo
VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST I53
of faith nothing can profit ns. There is a close connexion again between
Justification and Salvation ; the one represents the beginning of the proces*
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 as
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 hmid which we stretched out to
receive the divine mercy.
Our historical review has largely been a history of the confusion of thes#
three separate aspects of the Gospel scheme.
THE MYSTIOAI. UNIOIT OV THB CHBISTIAS
WITH CHHIST.
VI. 1-14. If more sin only means more grace, shall wt
go on sinning f Impossible. The baptized Christian cannot
sin. Sin is a direct contradiction of the state of things
which baptism, assumes. Baptism has a double function.
{i) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ,
so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him.
(2) // expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding tfi
the redeeming acts of Christ
Immersion as 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 is the ideal: whatever
may be the reality.'] (w. i-ii.) Act then as men who have
thrown off the dominion of Sin. Dedicate all your powers
to God. Be not afraid ; LaWy Sins ally, is superseded in
its hold over you by Grace (w. ia-14).
* Objector. Is not this dangerous doctrine? If more sis
means more grace, are we not encouraged to go on sinning ?
154 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 1-14.
•St. Paul. 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 yon do not need reminding that all of us who were
immersed or baptized, as our Christian phrase runs, ' into 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, hke 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 hke His, i. e. at once
a moral, spiritual, and physical resunection. • 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
na, prolific home and haunt of sin, might be so paralyzed and
VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST I55
disabled ae henceforth to set us free from the service of Sin. 'For
just as no legal claim can be made upon the dead, so one who is
(ethically) dead is certified * Not Guilty ' and exempt from all the
claims that Sin could make upon him.
'But is this all? Are we to stop at the death to sin? No;
there is another side to the process. If, when we became Chris-
tians, we died with Christ (morally and spiritually), we believe that
we shall also live with Him (physically, as well as ethically and
spiritually) : ' because we know for a fact that Christ Himself, now
that He has been once raised from the dead, will not have the
process of death to undergo again. Death has lost its hold over
Him for ever. '° For He has done with Death, now that He has
done once for all with Sin, by bringing to an end that earthly
state which alone brought Him in contact with it. Henceforth
He lives in uninterrupted communion with God.
" In like manner do you Christians regard yourselves as dead,
inert and motionless as a corpse, in all that relates to sin, but
instinct with life and responding in every nerve to those Divine
claims and Divine influences under which you have been brought
by your union with Jesus Messiah.
" I exhort you therefore not to let Sin exercise its tyranny over
this frail body of yours by giving way to its evil passions. " Do
not, as you are wont, place hand, eye, and tongue, as weapons
stained with unrighteousness, at the service of Sin; but dedicate
yovu-selves once for all, like men who have left the ranks of the
dead and breathe a new spiritual life, to God ; let hand, eye, and
tongue be weapons of righteous temper for Him to wield. '*You
may rest assured that in so doing Sin will have no claims or
power over you, for you have left the r/gime of Law (which, as we
shall shortly see, is a stronghold of Sin) for that of Grace.
L The fact that he has just been insisting on the function of sin
to act as a provocative of Divine grace recalls to the mind of the
Apostle the accusation brought against himself of saying ' Let us
do evil, that good may come ' (iii. 8). He is conscious that his
own teaching, if pressed to its logical conclusion, i? open to this
charge ; and he states it in terms which are not exactly those which
would be used by his adversaries but such as might seem to
express the one-sided development of his own thought. Of course
he does not allow the consequence for a moment ; he repudiates
156 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 1-a
It however not by proving a non tequitur, 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-doctrines,
the Mystical Union of the Christian with Christ dating from his
Baptism. Here we have another of those great elemental forces in
the Christian Life which effectually prevents any antinomian 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 nnimportant. There can b« no
question that we should read iTttfxivoinfv for imixtvoviitv in ver. i ; (riaofttr
and not (riawntr in ver. 3 ; and that t^) Kvpiq) ^fxaiv should be omitted at the
end of ver. 11. In that verse the true position of thai is after iavrovt
(N* B C, C)T.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc.) : some inferior authorities place it after
vfKpovs (xiv : the Western text (A D £ F G, Tert ; d. also Fesh. Boh. Ann.
Aeth.) omits it altogether.
2. oiTii'es direGai'Ofjici'. Naturally the relative of quality : ' we,
being what we are, men who died (in our baptism) to sin,' Ac.
3. ^ dycoeiTe : ' 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.
€Pa7rTia0T)|jiei' €is Xpiffxii' *lijaooi» : ' were baptized unto anion
with' (not merely ' obedience to') 'Christ' The act of baptism
was an act of incorporation into Christ Comp. esp. GaL iii. 27
wroi yap fls XpKTTov fl3aTrTia6>]Te, Xpiarov ivebvaairOe,
This conception lies at the root of the whole passage. All the
consequences which St. Paul draws follow from this union, incor-
poration, identification of the Christian with Christ On the origin
of the conception, see below.
els Toi' 0df aroK auroG e^airriaOrjixer. This points back to dntddvofttp
above. The central point in the passage is deafh. The Christian
dies because Christ died, and he is enabled to realize His death
thiough his union with Christ
But why is baptism said to be specially ' into Christ's dea/h ' ?
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 <^ Christ seals that
VL 8-6.] UNION WITH CHRIST l57
covenant with His People to which Baptism admits them. But this
is cnly the first step : the Apostle goes on to show how the Death
of Christ has a subjective as well as an objective side for the
believer.
4. aui'CT(i<t)T]fier . . . Qdvatop. A Strong majority of the best
scholars (Mey.-W. Gif. Lips. Oltr. Go.) would connect tls top
ddvarov with dia Toii ^anriirnaTos and nOt with avvfTd(f)r]fifv, becaUSe of
(i) t/SoTTT. *tt T. 6av. avT. just before; (ii) a certain incongruity in
the connexion of (rwrrdcf). with ttt t6v Bdvarov : death precedes burial
and is not a result or object of it We are not sure that this
reasoning is decisive, (i) St. Paul does not avoid these ambiguous
constructions, as may be seen by iii. 25 tv ttpoiOfro . . . 8ia rrjs iriarecos
iv Tp avTov aiftaTt, where eV tw airov a'ftari goes with npotdtTo and
not with iia rrjs niarfcts. (ii) The ideas of ' burial ' and ' death ' are
so closely associated that they may be treated as correlative to each
other — burial is only death sealed and made certain, ' Our baptism
was a sort of funeral ; a solemn act of consigning us to that death
of Christ in which we are made one with Him,' Va. (iii) There is
a special reason for saying here not ' we were buried into burial,'
but ' we were buried into death,' because ' death ' is the keynote of
the whole passage, and the word would come in appropriately to
mark the transition from Christ to the Christian. Still these argu-
ments do not amount to proof that the second connexion is right,
and it is perhaps best to yield to the weight of authority. For the
idea compare esp. Col. iL is avvra^ivrts air^ cV r» ^anrlafiari iv ^
Kai <rvvT)y€p6T]Tt,
CIS Toi' Qdvarov is best taken as = ' into that death (of His),' the
death just mentioned : so Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou., but not Mey.-W.
Go., who prefer the sense * into death ' (in the abstract). In any
case there is a stress on the idea of death ; but the clause and the
verse which follow will show that St. Paul does not yet detach the
death of the Christian from the death of Christ
8id TTis Sdltjs TOO rroTpcJs : d6$ijs here practically = * power ' ; but
it is power viewed externally rather than internally ; the stress is
laid not so much on the inward energy as on the signal and
glorious manifestation. Va. compares Jo. xi. 40, 23, where ' thou
shalt see the glory of God ' = ' thy brother shall rise again.' See
note on iii. 23.
6. (ri;ft()>uToi : ' united by growth ' ; the word exactly expresses
the process by which a graft becomes united with the life of a tree.
So the Christian becomes ' grifted into ' Christ. For the metaphor
we may compare xi. 17 o-w d« dypUXaios £>v fvtKfvrpiaSrjs (v avrois, KBu
(TvyKoivavhi r^f p«'C'/f *"• ^' TrtdnjTos Tijr ikaias tyii/ov, and TennySOn's
'grow incorporate into thee.'
It is a question whether we are to take (Tvy,<\>. ytyiv. directly with
ry iiumiti^ cr.X. or whether we are to supply r^ Xpurr^ and make
15* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 6, d
r^ 6fwia)fi, dat. of respect. Probably the former, as being simple!
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. Yi»'«^<^'«o»^«s • see Sp. Comm. on i Cor. viii. i (p. 299), where
yti/owTKO) as contrasted with olda is explained as signifying ' apprecia-
tive or experimental acquaintance.' A slightly different explanation
is given by Gif. ad be, ' noting this,' as of the idea involved in the
fact, a knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding
{vols).
i iraXaids ilJjiciK ai^pwvo« : 'our old self'; cp. esp. Suicer, Tlut.
i. 352, where the patristic interpretations are collected {ji wponpa
KciXiTfla Theodrt. ; 6 Karfyvwafiivos /9ior Euthym.-Zig., &c.).
This phrase, with its correlative i icaivdt HvOpofwos, is a marked link of
eonnexion between the acknowledged and dispnted Epp. (cf. Eph. iL 15;
iv. 33, 34; Col. iii. 9). The coincidence is the more remarkable as the
phrase would hardly come into use until great stress began to be laid upon
the necessity for a change of life, and may be a coinage of St Paul's. It
should be noted however that 6 iyrit ivOpuwos goes back to Plato (Gnn.
Thay. s. v. dyOfxuwos, i.e.).
«ruv€OTavpioOt) : cf. Gal. iL 30 X/xar^ erwtaraipwfuu. There is a differ-
ence between the thought here and in /mit. XH. II. xii. 3 ' Behold I 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.
KOTapYTjOf. For Korapytiv see on iii. 3. The word is appro-
priately used in this connexion : ' that tfie body of sin may be
paralyzed,' reduced to a condition of absolute impotence and
inaction, as if it were dead.
ri ffwfxa ttis dfiaprios : the body of which sin has taken posses-
sion. Parallel phrases are vii. 24 roC aifiaros rov dapdrov rovrov :
Phil. iii. 2 1 TO a&fta t^j ranuvaxTtas fifiStu : Col. ii. 1 1 [*V t§ areic-
Svcret] Tou (TUfiuTos r^t aapK6s. 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 ia
so apt to be the instrument of its own carnal impulses.'
Here t6 crci>fia r^r dftaprla^ must be taken closely together, because
it is not the body, hmplj> ox tuch, which is to be killed, but th«
VI. 6-10.] ONION WITH CHRIST 159
body as the seat of sin. This is to be killed, 80 that Sin may lose
its slave.
Tou fATiK^Ti SooXciJen'. On Tov with inf. as expressing purpose see
esp. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 342.
TTJ d|jiapTia : ofiapria, as throughout this passage, is personified as
a hard taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter.
7. A ydp d'iro0ai'J»K . . . d|iapTias. The argument is thrown into
the form of a general proposition, so that 6 dnoOavav must be taken
in the widest sense, ' he who has undergone death in any sense of
the term' — physical or ethical. The primary sense is however
clearly physical: 'a dead man has his quittance from any claim
that Sin can make against him ' : what is obviously true of the
physically dead is inferentially true of the ethically dead. Comp.
I Pet. iv. I ort 6 7Ta6d)v aapKi neiravrai Afiaprtas : also the Rabbinical
parallel quoted by Delitzsch ad loc. ' 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 Ipou
communis,'' which would considerably weaken the force of the literuy
coincidence between the two Apostles.
ScSiKOiUTai Airi ttjs djiapTios. The sense of idtKalarcu 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. <Tut,r\aofiw. 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 physical sense, now on the ethical ;
at one moment on the present state and at another on the future.
Here and in ver. 9 the future eternal life is most prominent ; but
ver. 10 is transitional, and in ver. 11 we are back again at the
stand-point of the present.
9. If the Resurrection opened up eternity to Christ it will do
so also to the Christian.
Kupi€u6i. 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. o Y^p dir^daKc. The whole clause forms a kind of cognate
accus. after the second unidavtv (Win. § xxiv. 4, p. 209 E. T.);
£uthym.-Zig. paraphrases tov Bdvarov ov mrfSavf hia rfjp ayiapr'uv
iniBavt rrjv rjfimpcw, where however T§ ofjMfyrif is not rightly repre-
sented by But T^v dfuipruMtf,
l6o EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VL 10, 11
Tj) AfiapTia iLiri9av€9. 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' (a Cor. v. 21)? The
same verse which tells us this supplies the answer : tw ftf) yv6in-a
iftapriav xmtp fjfioiv iftaprlav tnoiija-fv, ' 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. i Pet.
ii. 22, 24). It was in His Death that this pressure of human sin
culminated ; but it was also in His Death that it rame to an end,
decisively and for ever.
e<|>(£Tra|. 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 (of. Heb. vii. 27; ix. is, 26, 28; x. 10; also i Pet
iii. 18).
JfJ Tw ©eu. 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 Kvpuiti avrov
but God.
This phrase ^ ry Sea naturally suggests ' the moral ' application
to the believer.
IL \oYiteCT0e iaoToos. The man and his ' self ' are distinguished.
The 'sejjf' 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 /or God, through its
union with the risen Christ, who also lives only for God
XoYiS«<r9e : not indie, (as Beng. Lips.) but imper., preparing the
way, after St. Paul's manner, for the direct exhortation of the next
paragraph.
cr XptoTw *It|o-o5. This phrase is the summary expression of
the doctrine which underlies the whole of this section and forms, as
we have seen, one of the main pillars of St. Paul's theology. The
chief points seem to be these, (i) The relation is conceived as
a local relation. The Christian has his being ' in ' Christ, as
living creatures ' in ' the air, as fish ' in ' the water, as plants 'in*
the earth (Deissmann, p. 84 ; see below). (2) The order of the
words is invariably fV Xpwrrw 'l»j<rov, not cV Irjcrov Xpiar^ (Deissmann,
p. 88 ; cp. also Haussleiter, as referred to on p. 86 sup.). We find
however «V tw 'li^oroO in Eph. iv. 21, but not in the same strict
application. (3) In agreement with the regular usage of the wor'ds
in this order «V Xp. *I. always relates to the glorified Christ regarded
as wtvfxa, not to the historical Christ. (4) The corresponding
expression Xomti^ iw nw is best explained by the same analogy of
VI. 11-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST l6l
'the air.' Man lives and breathes ' in th« air/ and the air is also
'in the man ' (Deissmann, p. 92).
Deissmann's monograph it entitled DU meuttttamtntlith* Forme! in
Ckristojtsu, Marburg, 1892. It is a carefnl and methodical investigation of
the subject, somewhat too rigorons in pressing all examples of the use into
the same mould, and rather inclined to realistic modes of conception. A very
interesting question arises as to the origin of the phrase. Herr Deissmann
regards it as a creation— and naturally as one of the most original creations —
of St Paul. And it is true that it is not found in the Synoptic Gospels.
Approximation! however are found more or less sporadically, in i St. Petei
(iii. 16; v. 10, 14; always in the correct text iw Xpiar^), in the Acts (iv. a
ip T^ 'Irjffov: 9, 10 ev T^ ivofiari 'Irjaov XpiffTov: 13 ; xiii. 39 iv rovrqi was
i wiardaiv SiKaiovTCu), and ia iiill volume in tke Fourth Gospel (iv ffiot,
ixsvtiv Iv iixoi Jo. vi. 56; liv. ao, 30; xv. 3-7; xvi. 33; xvii. 31), in the
First Epistle of St John {iv avrw, iv ry vl^ tlvau, nivuv ii. 5, 6, 8, 24, 27,
a8; iii. 6, 24; T. II, 30; Ix*"' »'"•' "'({v r. 13), and also in the Apocalypse
{iv 'Irjaov i.g;iv Kiz/x'y xiv. 13). Besides tha N. T. there are the Apostolic
Fathers, whose usage should be investigated with reference to the extent to
which it i directly traceable to St Paul*. The phrase iv Xpiar^ 'Itjoov
occurs in 1 Clem, xxxii. 4 ; zxxviii. i ; Ign. £ph. i. 1 ; Trail, ix. 3 ; Kom.
Li; ii. 3. The commoner phrases are iv XpiarS) in Clem. Rom. and iv
^Irjaov 1.piar^ which is frequent in Ignat The distinction between iv 'I»;aoC
XpiffT^ and iv Xptar^ 'Irjaov is by this time obliterated. In view of these
phenomena and the usage of N. T. it is natural to ask whether all can be
accounted for on the assumption that the phrase originates entirely with
St. Paul. In spite of the silence of Evv. Synopt it seems more probable
that the suggestion came in some way ultimately from our Lord Himself.
This would not be the only instance of an idea which caught the attention of
but few of the first disciples bat was destined afterwards to wider acceptance
and expansion.
12. fiaaiXtuirm: cf. ▼. ai of Sin; ▼. 14, 17 of Death.
With this Terse comp. Philo, Dt Gigant. 7 (Mang. i. 366) Afrtor U r^i
iytwiartjfxoavvtjs ftiyiarov ^ ffdpi Mat 1) wp6s aipua oUtiuau.
18. Observe the change of tense : irapi<rr(£K«T€, ' go on yielding/
by the weakness which succumbs to temptation whenever it presses ;
vapaon^aaTC, ' dedicate by one decisive act, one resolute effort.'
SirXo : ' weapons ' (cf. esp. Rom. xiii. 13; a Cor. vL 7 ; x. 4).
adiKMu and diKaioavvjjs are gen. qualitatis. For a like military
metaphor more fully worked out comp. Eph. vi. i i-i 7.
14. dftapTia Y<ip. You are not, as you used to be, constantlj
harassed by the assaults of sin, aggravated to your consciences by
the prohibitions of Law. The fuller explanation of this aggravating
effect of Law is coming in what follows, esp. in ch. vii ; and it is
just like St. Paul to ' set up a finger-post,' pointing to the course his
argument is to take, in the last clause of a paragraph. It is like
* It is rather strange that this question does not appear to be touched eithei
by Bp. Lightfoot or by Gebhardt and Hamack, There is more to the point in
the excellent monograph on Ignatius by Von der Goltz in Ttxtt m UnUn,
siL 3, but the paiticalar group of phrases it not directly treated.
I63 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. l-14i
him too to go off at the word v6fiop into a digression, returning te
the subject with which the chapter opened, and looking at it from
another side.
Tk^ DoctrifU of Mystical Union vfith Chriif.
How did St. Paul arrive at this doctrine of the Mystical Union i
Doubtless by the guiding of the Holy Spirit But that guiding, a»
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 so
persistent and so absorbing; it was such a dominant element in
the life of the Apostle that by degrees it came to mean little less
than an actual identification 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 thi«
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
VI. 1-14.] ONION WITH CHRIST 163
ft death ; the moment's pause while they swept on overhead was
like a burial ; the standing erect once more in air and sunlight
was a species of resunection. Nor did the likeness reside only in
the outward rite, it extended to its inner significance. To what was
it that the Christian died ? He died to his 9ld self, to all that he
had been, whether as Jew or Gentile, before he became a Christian.
To what did he rise again ? Clearly to that ntw life to which the
Christian was bound over. And in this spiritual death and resurrec-
tion the great moving factor was that one fundamental principle of
union with Christ, identification of will with His. It wag this which
enabled the Christian to make his parting with the past and embracing
of new obligations real.
There is then, it will be seen, a meeting and coalescence of
a number of diverse trains of thought in this most pregnant
doctrine. On the side of Christ there is first the loyal acceptance
of Him as Messiah and Lord, that acceptance giving rise to an
impulse of strong adhesion, and the adhesion growing into an
identification of will and purpose which is not wrongly described
as union. Further, there is the distributing of this sense of union
over the cardinal acts of Christ's Death, Burial and Resurrection.
Then on the side of the man there is his formal ratification of the
process by the undergoing of Baptism, the symbolism of which all
converges to the same end ; and there is his practical assumption
of the duties and obligations to which baptism and the embracing
of Christianity commit him — the breaking with his tainted past, the
entering upon a new and regenerate career for the future.
The vocabulary and working out of the thought in St. Paul are
his own, but the fundamental conception has close parallels in the
writings of St. John and St. Peter, the New Birth through water
and Spirit (John iii. 5), the being begotten again of incorruptible
seed (i Pet. i. 23), the comparison of baptism to the ark of Noah
(i Pet. iii. 30, 21) in St. Peter; and there is a certain partial
coincidence even in the imiKir\a(v of St. James (Jaa. i. 18).
It ia the great merit of Matthew Arnold's St. Paul mnd ProUstemtiim,
whatever its defects and whatever its one-sidedness, that it did seize with
remarkable force and freshness on this part of St. Paul's teaching. And the
merit is all the greater when we consider how really high and difficult that
teaching is, and how apt it is to shoot over the head of reader or hearer.
Matthew Arnold saw, and expressed with all his own luciriity, the foundation
of simple psychological fact on which the Apostle's mystical language ia
based. He gives to it the name of ' faith,' and it is indeed the only kind of
Ikith which he recognizes. Nor is he wrong in giving the process this name,
though, as it happens, St. Paul has not as yet spoken of ' faith ' in this con-
nexion, and does not so speak of it until he comes to Eph. iii. 1 7. It waa
really faith, the living apprehension of Christ, which lie* at the bottom of all
the language of identification and union.
* If ever there was a case in which the wonder-working power of attach-
Kent, in a man for whom th# moral sympathies and the desire for righteoa»
M •
l64 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ["VI. l-14k
ness WCTC all-powerful, might employ Itself and work its wonders, it wai
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 «he confidence and force to do as Christ did. H« thus
found a point in which the mighty world outside man, and the weak world
inside him, seemed to combine for his salvation. The struggling stream of
duty, 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 an4
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 c^o^vni^g 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 con'^cious 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: to die with Christ to the law of the flesh, to live with Christ to tki
law of the mind. This is the doctrine of the necrosis (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 dis^ipproved, 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, ^^'ell, 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 to them I Christ did. If any man be in
Christ, 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 qnite easily, because by sympathy yon 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. AU
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
tense of pleasing God who trieth the hearts, which is life and peace, and
which grows more and more till it becomes glory ' (ibid. pp. 75-78).
Another striking presentation of the thought of this passage will be found
in a lay sermon. The Witttess of Goa, by the philosopher, T. H. Green
(London, 1883; also in IVo/hs). 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 bat
imperfect justice, and the sermon is well worth reading in its entirety.
' Tlie death and rising again of the Christ, M [St Faal] conceived theak.
VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST 1 65
were not separate and independent events. They were two sides of the same
act — an act which relatively to sin, to the flesh, to the old man, to all which
separates from God, is death ; but which, just for that reason, is the birth of
a new life relatively to God, . . . God was in [Christ], so that what He did,
God did. A death unto life, a life out of death, must then be in some way
the essenct' of the divine nature — must be an act which, though exhibited
once for all in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, was yet eternal —
the act of God Himself. For that very reason, however, it was one perpetu-
ally re-enacted, and to be re-enacted, by man. If Christ died for all, all died
in Him : all were boned in His grave to be all made alive in His resur-
lection ... In other words, He constitutes in us a new intellectual conscious-
ness, which transforms the will and is the source of a new moral life.'
There is special value in the way in which the difference is brought out
between the state of things to which the individual can attain by his owh
effort and one in which the change is wrou<^ht from without. The first
'would be a self-renunciation which would be really the acme of self-set king.
On the other hand, presented as the continuous act of God Himself, as the
eternal self-surrender of the Divine Son to the Father, it is for us and may
be in as, but is not of us. Nay, it is just because not of us, that it may be
in OS. Because it is the mind of Christ, and Christ is God's, in the contem-
platioQ of it we are taken out of ourselves, we slip the natural man and
appropriate that mind which we behold. Constrained by God's manifested
love, we cease to be our own that Christ may become ours' (7>4* IVitness 4^
Gtd, pp. 7-10).
We may quote lastly an estimate of the Pauline conception in the history
of Religion. ' It is in Christendom that, according to the providence of God,
this power has been exhibited ; not indeed either adequately or exclusively,
but most fully. In the religions of the East, the idea of a death to the
fleshly self as the end of the merely human, and the beginning of a divine
life, bias not been wanting ; nor, as a mere idea, has it been very different from
that which is the ground of Christianity. But there it has never been
realized in action, either intellectually or morally. The idea of the with-
drawal from sense has remained abstract. It has not issued in such a struggle
with the superficial view of things, as has gradually constituted the science
of Christendom. In like manner that of self-renunciation has never emerged
from the esoteric state. It has had no outlet into the life of charity, but
a back-way always open into the life of sensual licence, and has been finally
mechanized in the artificial vacancy of the dervish or fakir' {ibid. p. 31).
One of the services which Mr. Green's lay sermon may do us is in helping
OS to understand — not the whole but part of the remarkable conception of
• The Way ' in Dr. Hort's posthumous Tht Way, the Truth, and the Life
(Cambridge and London, 1893). When it is contended, 'first that the whole
teeming maie of history in nature and man, the tumultuous movement of the
world in progress, has running through it one supreme dominating Way;
and second, that He who on earth was called Jesus the Nazarene is that
Way' {The Way, &c. p. aof.), we can hardly be wrong, though the point
might have been brou<;ht out more clearly, in seeking a scriptnrjd illustration
In St. Paul's teaching as to the Death, Burial, and Resuirection of Christ.
These to him are not merely isolated historical events which took place once
for all in the past. They did so take place, and their historical reality, as
well as their direct significance in the Redemption wrought out by Chiist,
must be insisted upon. But they are more than this : they constitute a law,
a predisposed pattern or plan, which other human lives have to follow.
' Death imto life,' ' life growing out of death,' is the inner principle or secret,
applied in an indefinite variety of ways, but running through the history of
most, perhaps all, religious aspiration and attainment. Everywhere there
must be the death of aa old vM and the birth of a new. It must b«
l66 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 16-28.
admitted that the group of conceptions anited by St. Panl, and, h it wooM
•ecm, yet more widely extended by St. John, is difficult to grasp intellectnally,
and has doubtless been acted upon in many a simple unspeculative life is
which there was never any attempt to formulate it exactly in words. Eut tba
conception belongs to the len<^th 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 b* little doubt that it is capiable of exercising
a stronger and more dominating influence on tht Christian consciousnesi
than it has done. This must be our excuse for expanding the doctrine at
rather considerable length, and for inToking 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 realizatioa of truths which to
indolent minds are obscored by their vety familiarity.
THE TRANSITIOH FROM ULW TO OBACS.
ANALOGY OF SLAVERY.
VI. 16-23. Takg an illustration from common life — tk*
condition of slavery. The Christian was a slave of sin;
his business was unc leanness ; his wages, death. But h$
has been emancipated from this service, only to tnter upon
another — that of Righteousness.
"Am I told that we should take advantage of oor liberty at
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 ia
rendered? And so it is here. Yon are either slaves <rf 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 yoo
gave cordial assent to that standard of life and conduct in which
you were first instructed and to the guidance of which you wera
then handed over by your teachers. " Thus you were emancipated
from the service of Sin, and were transferred to the service ol
Righteousness.
'• I am using a figure of speech taken from erery-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 «»-
Hvidtd service. Devote the members of your body as unreservedly
VI. 15-88.) LAW AND GRACE lf>7
to the service of righteousness for progressive consecration to God,
as you once devoted them to Pagan uncleanness and daily increas-
ing licence. •• I exhort you to this. Why ? Because while you
were slaves to Sin, you were freemen in regard to Righteousness.
" What good then did you get from conduct which you now blush
to think of? Much indeed ! For the goal to which it leads b
death. " But now that, as Christians, you are emancipated from
Sin and enslaved to God, you have something to show for your
service — closer and fuller consecration, and your goal, eternal Life I
•• For the wages which Sin pays its votaries is Death ; while you
receive — no wages, but the bountiful gift of God, the eternal Life,
which is ours through our union with Jesus Messiah, our Lord.
16-28. The next two sections (vi. 15-23 ; vii. 1-6) might be
described summarily as a description of the Christian's release, what
it is and what it is not The receiving of Christian Baptism was
a great dividing-line across a man's career. In it he entered into
a wholly new relation of self-identification with Christ which was
fraught with momentous consequences looking both backwards and
forwards. From his sin-stained past he was cut off as it were by
death : towards the future he turned radiant with the quickening
influence of a new life. St. Paul now more fully expounds the
nature of the change. He does so by the help of two illustrations,
one from the state of slavery, the other from the state of wedlock.
Each state implied certain ties, like those by which the convert to
Christianity was bound before his conversion. But the cessation of
these ties does not carry with it the cessation of all ties ; it only
means the substitution of new ties for the old. So is it with the
slave, who is emancipated from one service only to enter upon
another. So is it with the wife who, when released by the death of
one husband, is free to marry again. In the remaining verses of
this chapter St Paul deals with the case of Slavery. Emancipation
from Sin is but the prelude to a new service of Righteousness.
16. The Apostle once more reverts to the point raised at the
beginning of the chapter, but with the variation that the incentive
to sin is no longer the seeming good which Sin works by calling
down grace, but the freedom of the state of grace as opposed to the
strictness of the Law. St. Paul's reply in effect is that Christian
freedom consists not in freedom to sin but in freedom from sin.
&fiapr<jau|Mv : from • late aor. ^/iaprrjaa, found in LXX (Veitch, /rreg.
Vtrbs, p. 49). Chiys. c»dd. Tbeodrt. aixl otbcn, with minuscules, it»A
16. A general proi>osition to which oqr Lord Himself had
l68 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 16-19.
appealed in 'No man can serve two masters' (Matt. vi. 14). There
are still nearer parallels in John viii. 34 ; a 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.
fJTOi . . . f| : these disjnnctlret state a dilemma In a lively and emphatic
way, implying that one limb or the other mnst bt chosen (Baomlein, Pmt-
tiktlUhr*, p. 344 ; Kiibner, Grmm. § 540. 5).
17. els 8r . . . SiSaxfjt : Stands for [imrfKovvaTt^ rvna fii^axlft tU
iv naptd66r]T: We expect rather tt iftlv naptdodrj : 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 Dt'dacA/ (see the reff. in Hatch, Ht'iberi
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.
TuiroK SiSaxTJs. For Tvnos see the note on ch. ▼. 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. (m fit i
Tvnos Tfjs iiiaxrjsl 6p6a>t (rjv xol fttrii noiKiTtiat dp't(Trf]s) Euthym.-Zig,
(fit rviroy, ijyovp rov Kav6va Ktti opov rrjs tia-f^nvs noXiTtias), 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,
Jiom. and Eph. p. 3a 'Nothing like this notion of a plurality of
Christian two* ii^axrjs occurs anywhere else in the N. "r., and it is
quite out of harmony with the context ').
19. dvOpwiTiKOK X^y». St Paul uses this form of phrase (ct
Gal. iii. 15 Kara avBpanov Xryw) 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) i><Ta»t\ Tkrytr, diri ivOpmntiwv Xoytv/xwi', am* rmv i»
ovyrjSdf yipvfiiviav.
Sid TT)r &aQiytteu^ tt]$ vapx^. Two explanations are possible :
(i) ' because of the moral hindrances which prevent the practice of
Christianity' (Chrys. Theodrt Weiss and others); (a) 'because
of the difficulties of apprehension, from defective spiritual experi-
ence, which prevent the understanding of its deeper truths' (most
moderna). Clearly this is more in keeping with the context la
VI. 19-ai] LAW AND GRACE IO9
any case the clause refers to what has gone before, not (as Orig.
Chrys., &c.) to what follows.
trAp( •■ hnman nature in iti weakness, primarily physical and moral, bnt
•ecoiidarily intellectual. It is intellectual weakness in so far as this is deter-
mined by moral, by the limitations of character : cf. <ppoveiv tA t^j ffapitSs,
4>p6yt)fia riji aapKos Rom. viii. 5 f. ; ao^pol tcaraL odpna 1 Cor. i, 26. The
idea of this passage is similar to that of i Cor. iii. a -^AKa iifios iv6riaa, oi
rfi AKaOapvi^. oKaffapata and avofua fitly describe the characteristic
features of Pagan life (cf. i. 24 ff.). As throughout the context these
forms of sin are personified; they obtain a mastery over the man;
and tis T^v dvofiioM describes the effect of that mastery — 'to the
practice of iniquity.' With these verses (19-ai) compare especially
I Pet. iv. 1-5.
CIS dyiao-|ji6r. Mey. (but not Weiss) Lips. Oltr. Go. would make
Ayia(rn6s here practically = Ayiojavvri, i. e. not so much the process of
consecration as the result of the process. There is certainly this
tendency in language ; and in some of the places in which the word
Is used it seems to have the sense of the resulting state (e. g. i Thess.
iv. 4, where it is joined with rififj; i Tim. ii. 15, where it is joined
with irttTTjr and dydnri). But in the present passage the word may
well retain its proper meaning : the members are to be handed over
to Righteousness to be (gradually) made fit for God's service, not
to become fit all at once. So Weiss Gif. Va. Mou. ('course of
purification'). For the radical meaning see the note on dyios
ch. i. 7, and Dr. A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, p. ao6 : dyiavixos = ' the
process of fitting for acceptable worship/ a sense which comes
out clearly in Heb. xii. 14 St<a«r« . . . rhv iyia(Tn6v oi x^^p"^^ oiSelt
iyjrtrai top Kvpiov. The word occurs some ten times (two w. 11.)
in LXX and in Ps. Sol, xvii. 33, but is not classical
21. Tii'o oSk . . . iwoiirxuVeaOe ; Where does the question end and
the answer begin? (i) Most English commentators and critics
(Treg. WH. RV, as well as Gif. Va.) carry on the question to
/rraio-xvwo-tff. In that case €<«';/&»»> must be supplied before e<^' oU,
and its omission might be due to the reflex effect of fKfipav in the
sentence following (comp. dnodavovrtt iv ^ KaT€ix6fieSa vii. 6 below).
There would then be a common enough ellipse before ri yap reXos,
' What fruit had ye ... ? [None :] for the end,' &c. (a) On the
other hand several leading Germans (Tisch. Weiss Lips., though
not Mey.) put the question at Tore, and make (cj)' <hs ^Traitrxivfadt
part of the answer. ' What fruit had ye then ? Things [pleasures,
gratifications of sense] of which you are now ashamed : for their
end is death.' So, too, Theod.-Mops. (in Cramer) expressly : ««■'
tpa>Tr)ai9 dvayvwrriov ri riva ovv rndpnov tlx«Tt T«Jr«, tira Kara
anoKpuruf icp' off vv9 inanrxvpta^t. Both interpretations are
possible, but the former, as it would seem, is more simple and natural
I TO BPISTLK TX> THE ROMANS |^VII. l-«
(Gif.). When two phrases link together so easily as i(l>' ols tfmtax.
with what precedes, it b a mistake to separate them except for
strong reasons ; nor does there appear to be sufficient ground for
distinguishing between near consequences and remote.
tA Y<)^p : ri nhr yip K« B D* E F G. There is the nsxuA ambignity of
readings in which B alone joins the Western authorities. The probability ii
that the reading belongs to the Western element im B, and that /utf was
introduced through erroneous antithesis to rvvl Si.
83. 6«)f(dVia. From a root new- we get iipai, oif/ov, 'cooked' meat, fiih, dec
as contrasted with bread. Hence the compound dtf/wnov (iiviontu, * to buy *) —
(i^ provision-money, ration-money, or the rations in kind given to troops;
(j) in a more general sense, 'wages.' The word is said to have come ia
with Menander : it is proscribed by the Atticists, but fomnd freely in Polybius,
I Mace. &c. (Sturt, Dial. Mactd. p. 187).
\(uf\.<xy.<x, Tertullian, with his nsnal pictnresqne boldness, translates this by
donativum {D$ Res. Cam.c. 47 Stiftndia tnim delinqtunticu m^rs, donaiirmm
omtem dei vita aetema). It is not probable that St. Panl had this particular
antithesis ia his mind, though no doubt he intends to contraat i^tiniM and
TEB TBAKSmON TBOM LAW TO OBACB.
ANALOGY OF MABRIAOB.
VII. 1-6. Take another illustration from the Law of
Marriage. The Marriage Law only binds a woman while
her husband lives. So with the Christian. He was wedded^
as it were, to his old sinful state ; and all tJtat 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 oj
Christ; so as 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.
* I say that yon are free from the Law of Moses and from Sin.
You will see how : unless you need to be reminded of a fact whicb
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 ii
forbidden by law to desert her Uving 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 hei
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 yova 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. • Our 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
of sense, suggestive of sin, stimulated into perverse activity by their
legal prohibition, kept plying this bodily organism of ours in such
a way as to engender acts that only went to swell the gamers of
Death. ' But now all that has been brought to an end. Law and
the state of sin are so inextricably linked together, that in dying, at
our baptism, a moral death, to that old state of sin we were absolved
or discharged from the Law, which used to hold us prisoners under
the penalties to which sin laid us open. And through this discharge
we are enabled to serve God in a new state, the ruling principle of
which is Spirit, in place of that old state, presided over by Written
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 arc dead to
the Law' — which looks like a change of position, though a
legitimate ont.
1 7* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 1, 1
Gif. however may be right in explaining the transition rathei
differently, viz. by means of the naXtuos avOpanos 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 passei
through different states, or phases. Bearing this in mind we shall
find the metaphor work out consistently.
The Wife s: the true self, or ego, which is permanent through
all change.
The (first) Husband s the old state before conversion to
Christianity.
The 'law of the husband' s the Uw which condenmed that old
state.
The new Marriage s the union upon which the convert enters
with Christ
The crucial phrase is vfi«is idaparioQrfn in ver. 4. According to
the way in which we explain this will be our explanation of the
whole passage. See the note ad loc.
There is yet another train of thought which comes in with
w. 4-6. The idea of marriage naturally suggests the offspring of
marriage. In the case of the Christian the fruit of his umon with
Christ is a holy life.
L *H dycociTC : [* surely you know this — that the regime of Law
has come to an end, and that Grace has superseded it.] Or do you
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 ? '
yivcSffKoucri yAp i^jioi' XaXA: ' 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. 14).
2. ^ Y^P •JwoKSpos yuin^ : [' 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.' vm-aydpor : a classical word, found
inLXX.
KoWipyijTou : Ms 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
it annulled to the woman.' For marapr/w see on iiL 3.
VII. 2-4.] LAW AND GRACE 173
dir& T08 t^ftou ToS Mp6^ : from that section of the statute-book
which is headed ' The Husband,' the section which lavs down hie
rights and duties. Gif. compares ' the law of the leper Lev. xiv. a ;
'the law of the Nazirite' Num. vi. 13.
9. xpy\\uirl<T^i, The meanings of xpVI**'^''^^C*"' niniify la two directions.
The fondamental idea is that of ' transacting business ' or ' managing affairs.'
Hence we get on the one hand, from the notion of doing business under
a certain name, from Polybius onwards (i) 'to bear a name or title * (xpvf^-
Ti(*t ^aaiKtvt Polyb. V. Ivii. a) ; and so simply, as here, ' to be called ot
styled ' (Acts zi. a6 ifivtro . . . xpTjijariaai npwTor ir 'Avrioxfi(f Toiit fMOrfrSit
Xptariayovs) ; and on the other hand (3) 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
fai LXX of Jerem., Joseph. Antiq., Plutarch, &c. From this sense we get
pass, 'to be warned or admonished' by God (Matt. iL la, aa; Acts x. aa ;
neb. viii. 5 ; xi. 7). Hence also subst. xprjfianaijulu, ' a Divine or oracular
response,' s Mace. ii. 4 ; Rom. xi. 4. Burton {M. and T. | 69) calls the
fat here a ' gnomic future ' aa stating ' what will customarily happen when
occasion offers.'
ToO |xt^ ctvoi ■■ S)aT9 ttveu : the stren is thrown back upon iKnffipa, * ao
•s not to be,' ' causing her not to be,' — not ' ao that she is.' According to
Barton rod n^ here denotes 'conceived result'; bat see the note on aart
tov\(iifty in ver. 6 below.
4. Stvn with indie introduces a consequence which foUowa aa a matter
of fact
ftal 0{jiflif c9aKaT<S9i|Tf. 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. aieSXovdop ^p tlvt'iv, rov p6fiov T*\n>TT}<ravrot ev KpimaB*
fuux'iatt apbpX ytv6nevoi iriptf. *AXX* qvk tiwtv ovrvf, aXX^ rrit', 'Edava'
rt»6tfTt Tf p6n<f (cf. £uthym.-Zig.). In favour of this is the parallel
Karripyi^at air6 rov p6ftov rov dvdp6s in Ver. 2, and Ka-njpyTjdTjfttv <ifr6 rov
p6fiov in ver. 6. But on the other hand it is strange to speak of the
same persons at one moment as ' killed ' and the next as ' married
again.' There is therefore a strong attraction in the explanation of
Gif., who makes vfuU as not the whole self but the old self, f. *. 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 ob/igation only to Christ
■ol ^<tt. The force of aol here is, 'Yob, my readers, aa well aa the wifii
in the allegory.'
%iA ToG a«S|iaTo« to8 XpioroS. The way in which the death of
the ' old man ' is brought about is through the identification of the
174 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 4, ft.
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 T« «K vtKpSyr iytpBivri. The two Unes of symbolism real!/ mn
parallel to each other and it is easy to connect them.
6 vakaibt SuBpanot at The Husband :
Crucifixion of the iraX. avB. = Death of the Husband :
Resiu-rection = Re-Marriage :
Qv, dovX«ufty ru 6(^ ss Kapnocpopt'iP r^ &t^.
•It rd y€via-9aK (p,&s iriptf. Lipt. takes tliis not of 'being married tD
another husband,' but of 'joining another master,* on the ground that there
is no marriage to the Law. This however (i) is unnecessary, because
marriage to the ' old man ' carries with it sutyection to the Law, so that the
dissolution of the marriage involves release from the Law by a ste;) which ia
close and inevitable ; (a) it is wrong, because of KapiTo<popfj(Tcu, which it is
clearly forced and against the context to refer, as Lipt. does, to anything bat
the ofispring of marriage.
Kapiro(^opi^awfic»' tw 0cm. The natural sequel to the metaphor of
' Marriage.' The ' fruit ' which the Christian, wedded to Christ, is
to bear is of course that of a reformed life.
6. ore yAp ^/iCK iv rg <rapKi. This verse develops the idea con-
tained in Kapno(f)npfi(TKfif» : the new marriage ought to be fruitful,
because the old one was. tli»u iv rf} vapid is the opposite of fltxu
€P T« npfvfioTi : the one is a life which has no higher object than
the gratification of the senses, the other is a life permeated by the
Spirit. Although aap^ 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. 48-53.
rd iraOii^fiaTa tui^ AiAapTiuK: wdBrjfia has the same sort of ambiguity
as our word ' passion.' It means (i) an ' impression,' esp. a ' pain-
ful impression ' or suffering ; (a) the reaction which follows upon
some strong impression of sense (cf. Gal. v. 14). The gen. r«p
oftapriMp s ' connected with sins,' ' leading to sins.'
Td 8id Tov ra'jjiou. Here St Paul, as hit maimer is, ' throws
up a finger-post ' which points to the coming section of his argu-
Btant The phrase did r*v p6tt»v is explained at length in the nexJ
VU. 6, 6.] LAW AND GRACE 175
paragraph : it refers to the effect of Law in calling forth and
aggravating sin.
ivr]pytlTo. The pricks and stings of passion were active in our
members (cf. I Thess. ii. 13; • Thess. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 6, ir. la ;
Gal. V. 6, &c.).
T» Oavdra : daf. commodi, contrasted with Kapnotft. r^ Qta above.
6. wv\ hi Karrjpyi^OTjfiei' diri too coijou. ' But as it is we ' (in our
peccant part, the old man) ' were discharged or annulled from the
Law ' {;'. e. we had an end put to our relations with the Law ; by
the death of our old man there was nothing left on which the Law
could wreak its vengeance; we were 'struck with atrophy' in
respect to it : see on ver. a), vin fjiitlt KaTrjpyfidrjfifp ; roC Karsxofifvov
napa t^s afiapriat avdpaiTrov nakaiov dirodapdvros Kai Ta(f)tvrot Chrys.
We observe how Chrys. here practically comes round to the same
side as Gif.
The rendering! of iiaTrfpyf)9rjp*v are rather interetting, and show the difiB-
culty of finding an exact equivalent in other languages: tvacnati sumus
Tert. ; scluti mmus Codd. Clarom. Sangerm. Vulg. (—'we were nn-
bounden' VVic. ; 'we are loosed' Rhem.) ; 'we are delivered' Tyn. Cran.
Genev. AV. ; 'we are discharged' RV. ; nous ttvons Hi digagis Oltr. (Z/
Nouveau Test., Geneva, 1874); nun abtr sind wir fur das G€stt» uickt
mekr da Weizsacker {Das Neue Test., Freiburg i. B. i88a, ed. 2).
diro9ov6vT€s. AV. apparently read avoOavovroi, for which there l> no
MS. authority, but which seems to be derived by a mistake of Beza following
Erasmus from a comment of Chrysostom's (see Tisch. md lot.). The
Western text (D E F G, £odd. ap. Orig.-lat, and most Latins) boldly corrects
to ToC 6a- arov, which would go with rov vofiov, and which gives an easier
construction, though not a better sense. After anQ9<w6vT*s we must supply
Itfciff , just as in vi. a I we had to supply iKtlvvw.
Iv <S RaTcix^ficOa. The antecedent of rr ^ is taken by nearly all
commentators as equivalent to t^ v6pff (whether *'«t«ii^ or Toira is
regarded as masc. or better neutr.). Gif. argues against referring
it to the 'old state,' 'the old man,' that this is not sufficiently
suggested by the context. But wherever ' death ' is spoken of it is
primarily this ' old state,' or ' old man ' which dies, so that the use
of the term ano6av6vTti alone seems enough to suggest it It was
this old sinful state which brought man under the grip of the Law ;
when the sinful life ceased the Law lost its hold.
a<rr€ SouXeu'eir: not 'so that we serve' (RV. and most com-
mentators), but ' so ox /» serve,' i. e. ' enabling us to serve.' The
stress is thrown back upon KaTifpy^0t)fup, — we were so completely
discharged as to set us free to serve.
The true distinction between Siffrt with infin. and S/trrt with indie, which is
not always observed in RV., is well stated by Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, ed,
1889, § 584 (with the quotation from Shilleto, De Fals. Leg. App. in the note),
tnd for N. T. by the late Canon T. S. Evans in the Expos, for 1883, i. 3 ff. :
£<rrc with indie, states the definite result which as a matter of fact dou
fallow i 6«r« with infin. states the contemplated mnlt which in the natanJ
176 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII 7-2A
eonne mt/A/ /» follow. Siffrt with indie. lay» strew on the effect; iar* with
infin. on the cause. Thus in i Cor. i. 7 fiffr* vartptiaOai «• 'catising ot
inspiring you to feel behindhand' (see Sf. Cotntn. ad lot.) ; in Matt. xiii. 31
•^ivtrai SfvSpov, Siart i\6fiy fd wfTfivd ical icaTaaKr]vovy » ' becomes a tree
iig^ enough for the birds to some,' &c. It will be seen that the distinotioa
corresponds to the difference in the general character of the tw« moods.
iv Kair6Ti)Ti vrcuftaros . . . iraXai^n Yp({|j.}AOT0t. 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 iuuv6frr)t nvtifiaTot is given in ch. viii.
It is perhaps well to remind the reader who is not careful t« check the
study of the English versions by the Greek that the opposition between
ypa/jiixa and irvfvfia 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 fpanna is with St. Paul
always the I^w of Moses, as a written code, while nvtviM. ic the operatioa
of the Holy Spirit characteristic of Christianity (c£ Rom. ii. 39 ; a Cor. tii. 6).
LAW ATSTD SIN.
VH. 7-26. If reUase from Sin means release from Law,
must we then identify Law with Sin ? No. Law reveals
the sinfulness of Sin^ and by this very revelation stirs up the
dormant Sin to cation. But this is not because the Law
itself is evil — on the contrary it is good — but that Sin may
be exposed and its guilt aggravated (w. 7-13)-
This is what takes place. I have a double self. But n^
better self is impotent to prevent me from doing wrottg
(vv. 14-17). // is equally impotent to make me do right
(w. 18-21). There is thus a constant conflict going on,
from which, unaided, I can hope for no deliverance. But^
God be thanked, through Christ deliverance comes I (w.
ai-25).
' I spoke a moment ago of sinful passions working through Law,
and of the death to Sin as carrying with it a release from the Law.
Does it follow that the Law itself is actually a form of Sin ? Aa
VII. 7-86.) LAW AND SW 177
intolerable thought ! On the contrary it was the Law and nothing
else through which I learnt the true nature of Sin. For instance,
I knew the sinfulness of covetous or illicit desire only by the Law
saying * Thou shalt not covet.' * But the lurking Sin within me
started into activity, and by the help of that express command,
provoking to that which it prohibited, led me into all kinds of
conscious and sinful covetousness. For without Law to bring it
out Sin Ues dead — inert and passive. ' And while sin was dead,
I — my inner self — was alive, in happy unconsciousness, following
my bent with no pangs of conscience excited by Law. But then
came this Tenth Commandment ; and with its coming Sin awoke
to life, while I — sad and tragic contrast — died the living death of
sin, precursor of eternal death. ^* And the commandment which
was given to point men the way to life, this very commandment
was found in my case to lead to death. " For Sin took advantage
of it, and by the help of the commandment — at once confronting
me with the knowledge of right and provoking me to do that
which was wrong — it betrayed me, so that I fell ; and the com-
mandment was the weapon with which it slew me. " The result is
that the Law, as a whole, is holy, inasmuch as it proceeds from God :
and each single commandment has the like character of holiness,
justice, and beneficence. "Am I then to say that a thing so
excellent in itself to me proved fatal ? Not for a moment. It was
rather the demon Sin which wrought the mischief. And the reason
why it was permitted to do so was that it might be shown in
its true colours, convicted of being the pernicious thing that it is,
by the fact that it made use of a good instrument, Law, to
work out upon me the doom of death. For this reason Sin was
permitted to have its way, in order that through its perverted
use of the Divine commandment it might be seen in all its utter
hideoosness.
** The blame cannot attach to the Law. For we all know that
the Law has its origin from the Spirit of God and derives its
character from that Spirit, while I, poor mortal, am made of frail
human flesh and blood, sold like any slave in the market into the
servitude of Sin. " It is not the Law, and not my own deliberate
■elf, which is the cause of the evil ; because my actions are exe-
cuted blindly with no proper concurrence of the wilL I purpose one
M
17* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VH. 7-16
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 testimonj
to the Law, and recognizes its excellence. '^ So that the state of the
case is this. It is not I, my true self, who put into act what is
repugnant to me, but Sin which has possession of me. " For I am
aware that in me as I appear to the outer world — in this ' body
that does me grievous wrong,' there dwells (in any permanent and
predominating shape) nothing that 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.
Vithout His intervention — so long as I am left to my own
unaided self — the state that I have been describing may be brieflv
summarized. In this twofold capacity of mine I serve two masters:
with my conscience I serve the Law of God; with my bodily
•rganism the Law of Sin.
Vn. 7, 8.] LAW AND SIM 1 79
7. So far Sin and Law have been seen in «uch 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 h«d thit section, ai Tertnllian tumi against him
St. Paul's refusal to listen to any attack npon the Law, which Marcion
ascribed to the Demiurge : Abominatur apostolus criminationtm legis . . .
Quid deo imfutas legis quod legi tins apostolus imputart non audit t Atquin
it accumulat : Lex sancta, et praeceptum eius iustum et bonnin. Si taJiier
V4H4ratur Ugtm trtatoris, qutmtdo ipsutn destruat ntstU.
i cifios dfjiapTio. It had just been shown (ver. 5) that Sin makti
use ^the Law to effect the destruction of the sinner. Does it
follow that Sin is to be identified with the Law ? Do the two so
overlap each other that the Law itself comes under the description
of Sin ? St. Paul, like every pious Jew, repels this conclusion with
horror.
dXXd contradicts emphatically the notion that the Law is Sin.
On the contrary the Law first told me what Sin was.
ofiK h(Yw. It is not quite certain whether this is to be taken
hypothetically (for oIk hv tyvav, Sv omitted to give a greater sense
of actuality, Kuhner, Gr. Gramm. ii. 176 f.) or whether it is simply
temporal. Lips. Oltr. and others adopt the hypothetical sense
both here and with ovk fibdv below. Gif. Va. make both ovk
?yv«tv and OVK pSftf plain statement of fact. Mey.-W. Go. take
OVK ryvoiv temporally, ovk ^btw hypothetically. As the context is
a Bort of historical retrospect the simple statement seems most in
place.
rfjv Tf ifdp <mev|i(av. re ^^ is best explained as - ' for also,' * for indeed '
(Gif. Win. § liii. p. 561 E. T. ; otherwise Va.). The general propoBiUon is
proved by a concrete example.
lyvwv . . . iq6€iv retain their proper meanings: ifvir, 'I learnt,' implies
more intimate experimental acquaintance; <fb*iy is simple knowledge that
there was such a thing as lost.
firiOufii^acis. The Greek word has a wider sense than our
' covet ' ; it includes every kind of ilhcit desire.
8. d<()opfi.T)K XoPouoro : ' getting a start,' finding a point dappui, or,
as we should say, ' something to take hold of.' In a military
sense d^opurj ss ' a base of operations ' (Thuc. i, 90. a, &c.). In
a literary sense acpopixriv X«^«i» = ' to take a hint,' ' adopt a sug-
gestion ' ; cf. Eus, £p. ad Carpianum en roi noyf/fiaTos tov irpoaprj-
fiivov dp8p6s €ikri<pa>s dcpopftds. 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.
\ dfuipria: see p. 145, sup.
t(4 T% 4inroX^f. The prep. Bti and the position of the woid
l8o EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 8-U
show that it is better taken with Kontpyaaaro than with a^>op^
\a$. fiToXf is the single commandment ; v6ftos the code as a
whole.
X»pis y&p . . . rtRpd. A standing thought which we have had
before, iv. 15; v. 13: cf. iii. 20.
9. il(av {etv B ; ((mv 1 7). 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.
&yiit](jtv : ' 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.
11. ii:i\TTiTf\<Ti fic. The language is suggested by the descrip-
tion of the Fall (Gen. iii. 1 3 LXX ; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; i Tim. ii
14). Sin here takes the place of the Tempter there. In both
cases the 'commandment' — acknow'edged only to be broken —
is the instrument which is made use of to bring about the disas-
trous and fatal end.
12. A (icK v<5|xos. The niv expects a following b*. St. Paul had
probably intended to write f) 8e ifiaprla KarrjpycuTaTO iv ifioi t6v
Bavarov, OX 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 (Gettk. </. A*. IL 517) from the lan-
guage of Tertullian (given above on ver. 7) that that writer had before him
a corrnpt Marcionitic text — not, 2^hn thinks, actually due to Marcion, but
corrupted since his time — 1) iyroX^ airrov SiKoia for H ivr. iyia Kal Siitaia.
It is more probable that Tert. is reproducing his text rather freely : in Z?*
Pudu. 6 he leaves out itaL liitaxa, Ux quidem sancta at tt praecepti^m
tcmctMm et optimum (the use of superlative for positive is fairly common in
Latin versions and writers).
18. Why was this strange perversion of so excellent a thing as
the Law permitted ? This very perversion served to aggravate the
VIL 18-16.] LAW AND SIM l8l
horror of Sin : not content with the evil which it is in itself it
must needs turn to evil that which was at once Divine in its origin
and beneficent in its purpose. To say this was to pronounce its
condemnation : it was like giving it full scope, so that the whole
world might see {itavg) of what extremities {Koff vv«p^ok^v) Sin
was capable.
14. The section which follows explains more fully by a psycho-
logical analysis how it is that the Law is broken and that Sin
works such havoc. There is a germ of good in human nature,
a genuine desire to do what is right, but this is overborne by the
force of temptation acting through the bodily appetites and
passions.
irreuftaTtR^t. The Law is 'spiritual,' as the Manna and the
Water from the Rock were ' spiritual ' (i Cor. x. 3, 4) in the sense
of being ' Spirit-caused ' or ' Spirit-given,' but with the further
connotation that the character of the Law is such as corresponds
to its origin.
adpKivoi {aapKiKos t^ L P a/.) denotes simply the material of
which human nature is composed, ' made of flesh and blood '
(i Cor. iii. I ; 2 Cor. iii. 3), and as such exposed to all the tempta-
tions which act through the body.
, There has been considerable controTtrsy as to the bearing of the antithesis
in St Paul between the a&p^ and irycv/w. It has been maintained that this
antithesis amounts to dualism, that St. Paul regards the aap^ as inherently
eril and the cause of evil, and that this dualistic conception is Greek or
Hellenistic and not Jewish in its origin. So, but with differences among
themselves, Holsten (1855, 1868), Rich. Schmidt (1870), Liidemann (187a),
and to some extent Pfleiderer (1S73). [In the second edition of his PauUn-
iimus (1890), Pfleiderer refers so much of St. Paul's teaching on this head
as seems to go beyond the O. T. not to Hellenism, but to the later Jewish
doctrine of the Fall, much as it has been expounded above, p. 136 ff. In this
tte need not greatly differ from him.] The most elaborate reply was that of
H. H. Wendt, Die Btgriffe Fltisch und Giist (Gotha, 1878), which was
made the basis of an excellent treatise in English by Dr. W. P. Dickson,
St. PauFt Uu of the T$rms Flesh and Spirit, Glasgow, 1883. Reference
may also be made to the well-considered statement of Dr. Gifford (Romans,
f'P- 48-5')' The controversy may now be regarded as practically closed,
ts result is summed up by Lipsius in these decisive words : ' The Pauline
anthropology rests entirely on an Old TesUment base ; the elements in it
which are supposed to be derived from Hellenistic dualism must simply be
denied {sind einfack %u bestrtiten).' The pointa peculiar to St Paul,
according to Lipsius, are the sharper contrast between the Divine mtvpa and
the human ^tv^V, and the reading of a more ethical sense into aap^, which
was originally physical, so that in Gal. v. 19 ff., Rom. viii. 4 ft the aap^
becomes a principle directly at war with the mtvpa. In the present passage
(Rom. vii. 14-25) the opposing principle is dpapria, and the adp£ is only the
material naedium (Substrat) of sensual impulses and desires. We may add
that this is St Paul's essential view, of which all else is but the variant
expression.
10. KaT«pY<tfo|Mu '^ ptrficio,p*rp$tfo, ' to carry into effect,' * put into execn*
dob ' : mpAaom « tfgf, to act as a moral and responsible being : voiar ^/atic^
ite EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VH. IB-VL
to prodnoc • certain result without reference to its moral character, and
simply as it might be produced by inanimate mechanism (see also the notet
on ch. i. 32 : ii. 9). Of coune the specific sense may not be always marked
by the context, but here it is well borne out throughout. For a fuller
account of the Hisdnction see Schmidt, Lot. m. Gr. Sytunymik. p. 394 ff.
ou ywituKui 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 oat
of his hands.
h 6(\ci>. The exact distinction between Oi\w and ^tiXonni has been mndi
disputed, and is difficult to mark. On the whole it seems that, especially in
N. T. usage, ^ovXoixcu lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose, delibera-
tion, 9i\a} on the more emotional aspect of will : in this context it ii
eridently something short of the fmal act of volition, and practically — ' wish,'
' desire.' See especially the fall and excellent note in Grm.-Thay.
17. rwrl %i: ' as it is/ ' as the case really lies ' ; the contrast it
logical, not temporal.
^ oiKoGoa iv i^oX dftapnou [Read IviKovam with M B, Method.
(ap. Phot, cod., non auiem ap. Epiph.)] This indwelling Sin cor-
responds to the indwelling Spirit of the next chapter : a further
proof that the Power which exerts so baneful an influence is
not merely an attribute of the man himself but has an objectiYe
existence.
18. iv l^oi, toot' ?<mr, «.t.X. The part of the man in which
Sin thus establishes itself is not his higher self, his conscience, but
his lower self, the ' flesh,' which, if not itself evil, is too easily made
the instrument of evil.
irapdKciTai (104 : ' lies to my hand,' * within my reach.'
•b KABC 47 67**a/., Edd.: oix '^-^V** D E F G K L P *e.
20. b oi ei\<v BCDEFG «/., WH. &V.: I •« iikm iym MAKLP
Bk., Tisch. WH. marf.
21. cApioKO) apa T^r r^fior : ' I find then this rule,' ' this con-
straining principle,' hardly * this constantly recurring experience,'
which would be too modern. The t^fiot here mentioned is akin
to the !t*pov v6fjLov of ver. t-^. It is not merely the obserred 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 objectiv mir auferkgU Notkwendigkdt,
Many commentators, from Chrysostora onwards, have tried to
make row v6\n>v = 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 ii hng^istically intolerable. The
best attempt in this direction is prob. that of Va. who translates,
* I find then with regard to the Law, that to me who would fain
ao that which is good, to me (I say) that which is evil is present'
He supposes a double break in the construction : (i) rhv y6fior
pot as if the sentence had been intended to run ' I find then the
VU. 21-24.] LAW AND SIN l8?
Law— when I wish to do good— powerless to help me ' ; and (i.
«>t repeated for the sake of clearness. It is apparently in
a similar sense that Dr. T. K. Abbott proposes as an alternative
rendering (the first being as above), 'With respect to the law,
I find,' &c. But the anacoluthon after t6v v6fiov seems too great
even for dictation to an amanuensis. Other expedients like those
of Mey. (not Mey.-W.) Fri. Ew. are still more impossible. See
esp. Gif. Additional Note, p. 145.
22. auin/jSojioi ry fiJfif too e€oO : what it approves, I gladly and
cordially approve,
KOTd r6y law ayipntKOK St. Paul, as we have seen (on vi. 6),
makes great use of this phrase Hvdpconos, which goes back as far as
Plato. Now he contrasts the 'old' with the 'new man' (or, as
we should say, the 'old' with the 'new self) ; now he contrasts
the 'outer man,' or the body (6 f$<o av6pwnos 2 Cor. iv. 16), with the
'inner man,' the conscience or reason (2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16).
28. Irepov I'djior: 'a different law' (for the distinction between
frtpos, ' different,' and axXof, « another,' ' a second,' see the commen-
tators on Gal. i. 6, 7).
There are two Imperatives {v6fi.M) within the man : one, that of
conscience; the other, that proceeding from the action of Sin
upon the body. One of these Imperatives is the moral law, 'Thou
Shalt' and 'Thou shalt not'; the other is the violent impulse of
passion.
T« v6n*i TOO ro<Js fjio«. For »«{;» see on i. a8 : it is the rarional
pan of conscience, the faculty which decides between right and
wrong : strictly speaking it belongs to the region of morals rather
than to that of intercourse with God, or religion ; but it may be
associated with and brought under the influence of the nvtLfia
(Eph. iv. 23 dfavfovadai r^ rrvtvfiari tov vo6s : cf. Rom. xii. 2), jUSt aS
on the other hand it may be corrupted by the flesh (Rom. i,' a8).
24. raXaiTTupos lyu avQpwrtQ%. A heart-rending cry, from the
depths of despair. It is difficult to think of this as exactly St. Paul's
own experience : as a Christian he seems above it, as a Pharisee
below it — self-satisfaction was too ingrained in the Pharisaic temper,
the performance of Pharisaic righteousness was too well within the
compass of an average will. But St. Paul was not an ordinary
Pharisee. He dealt too honestly with himself, so that sooner or
later the self-satisfaction natural to the Pharisee must give way:
and his experience as a Christian would throw back a lurid light on
those old days ' of which he was now ashamed.' So that, what with
his knowledge of himself, and what with his sympathetic penetration
into the hearts of others, he had doubtless materials enough for the
picture which he has drawn here with such extraordina'iy power
He has sat for his own likeness ; but there are ideal traits in th«
picture as well
1 84 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. M, >&
!■ To8 o4ffcaros toG iwdrwi toJtou. In construction rovrov might
go with o-M/iarof (' from this body of death ') : but it is far better to
take it in the more natural connexion with 6avarov ; ' 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. 4po ooK II.T.X- A terse compressed summary of the previous
paragraph, w. 7-84, 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.
«vxapi<rr& t^ 6<^. The tree reading u probably x^ ^¥ ®*^- The
svidence itands thus.
X^P** fV •«9' B, Sah., Orig. semel Hieron. stitul.
X^pi* 8i rq> @e^ N» C* (dt C* fum liquet) minust. sUf., Boh. Arm., Cyr-
Alex. Jo.-Damasc
1) xip't rov e<ov D £ 38, de Vulg., Orig.-lat. Ut Hieron. ttmtl Ambntr.
^ X^pit ToC Kvplov FG, f g, cf. Iren.-lat.
•iX"P'<^'''5 T^ e*^ N* A K L P &c., Syrr. Goth., Orig, its Chryt.
Theodrt. al. [tvxaptaTu 0ey Method, ap. Epiph. cttd., sed x''P'^ '"V
0(f> vel x<^/>" S^ Tf) ^f^v £piphu tdd. pr. ; mid. Bonwetsch, Methodius
von Olympus, i. 204.]
It is easy to see how the reading of B wonld explain all the rest The
reading of the mass of MSS. wonld be derived from it (not at once bot by
successive steps) by the doubling of two pairs of letten,
TOYTOY[€Y]x*P'c[T<o]Ta)eea).
The descent of the other readings may be best represented by • table.
X^piC T(i> 6€<{>
cfxApiCTce T^ 6e^
|ipK Ac T^ 6c<^ N x^pic TOY 6eoY (6?)
M x*P'C TOY Kypioy (Ky)
The other possibility would be that (vxafxtrrA r^ •cf* had got reduced t«
X(ip<» f^ ^*v ^y successive dropping of letters. But this must have taken
place very early. It is also conceivable that x^' '^ pnceded x^' only.
The Inward Conflict.
Two subjects for discussion are raised, or are commonly treated
as if they were raised, by this section, (i) Is the experience
described that of the regenerate or unregenerate man? (a) Is it,
or is it not, the experience of St. Paul himself?
I (a). Origen and the mass of Greek Fathers held that the
passage refers to the unregenerate man. (i) Appeal is made to
such expressions as irm-poficKOf imh ri\w ifjMprlaf ver. 14, KOTfpyaCcfuu
VII. 7-26.1 LAW AND SIN 1 85
[rA KaK6»] w. 19, 20, ToXaijrwpof fyi> a^^pawror ver. 24. It is argued
that language like this is nowhere found of the regenerate state,
(ii) When other expressions are adduced which seem to make for
the opposite conclusion, it is urged that parallels to them may be
quoted from Pagan literature, <.g. the video meliora of Ovid and
many other like sayings in Euripides, Xenophon, Seneca, Epictetua
(see Dr. T. K. Abbott on ver. 15 of this chapter), (iii) The use of
the present tense is explained as dramatic. The Apostle throws
himself back into the time which he is describing.
(3) Another group of writers, Methodius (ob. 310 a.d.), Augustine
and the Latin Fathers generally, the Reformers especially on the
Calvinistic side, refer the passage rather to the regenerate, (i) An
opposite set of expressions is quoted, /xto-i [ri KaK6v'\ ver. 15, 6k\,i>
noitly t6 «aXo'»' ver. 21, irvvi^bofxai ra vontf ver. 22. It is Said that' these
are inconsistent with the anriWoTprntuvoi koL ix6poi of Col. i. 21 and
with descriptions like that of Rom. viii. 7, 8. (ii) Stress is laid on
the present tenses : and in proof that these imply a present experi-
ence, reference is made to passages like i Cor. ix. 27 vn-amdf* ^mv
TO ff&fM Koi 8ov\aya,yS>. That even the regenerate may have this
mixed experience is thought to be proved, e.g. by Gal. vi. 17.
Clearly there is a double strain of language. The state of things
described is certainly a conflict in which opposite forces are strueslina
for the mastery. ^^ ^
Whether such a state belongs to the regenerate or the unre-
generate man seems to push us back upon the further question,
What we mean by ' regenerate.' The word is used in a higher and
a lower sense. In the lower sense it is applied to all baptized
Chnstians. In that sense there can be little doubt that the
experience described may fairly come within it.
But on the other hand, the higher stages of the spiritual life seem
to be really excluded. The sigh of relief in ver. 25 marks a dividing
hne between a period of conflict and a period where conflict is
practically ended. This shows that the present tenses are in any
case not to be taken too literally. Three steps appear to be
distmguished, (i) the life of unconscious morality (ver. 9), happy,
but only from ignorance and thoughtlessness; (ii) then the sharp
collision between law and the sinful appetites waking to activity ;
(iii) the end which is at last put to the stress and strain of this
colhsion by the intervention of Christ and of the Spirit of Christ, of
which more will be said in the next chapter. The state there
described is that of the truly and fully regenerate; the prolonged
struggle which precedes seems to be more rightly defined as tn/er
regenerandum (Gif after Dean Jackson).
Or perhaps we should do better still to refuse to introduce so
technical a term as ' regeneration ' into a context from which it is
wholly absent. Sl Paul, it is true, regarded Christianity as operating
l86 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 7-28.
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. »5 is there a single expression used which
belongs to Christianity. And the use cf it marks that the conflict
is ended.
(a) 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, so
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 ex^ierience 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 t»
ch. vii
VJI. 7-86.] LAW AND SIM i$j
St. Paul's Vuw of the Law,
It was in his view of the Mosaic Law that St. Paul must have
Beemed most revolutionary to his countrymen. And yet it would
be a mistake to suppose that he ever lost that reverence for the
Law as a Divine institution in which every Jew was born and bred
and to which he himself was still more completely committed by
his early education as a Pharisee (Gal. i. 14 ; Phil. iii. 5 f.). This
old feeling of his comes out in emotional passages like Rom. ix. 4
(cf. iii. a; ii. 25, &c.). And even where, as in the section before
us, he is bringing out most forcibly the ineffectiveness of the Law
to restrain human passion the Apostle still lays down expressly
that the Law itself is ' holy and righteous and good ' ; and a little
lower down (ver. 14) he gives it the epithet ' spiritual,' which is
equivalent to ascribing to it a direct Divine origin.
It was only because of his intense sincerity and honesty in
feeing facts that St Paul ever brought himself to give up his
belief in the sufficiency of the Law ; and there is no greater proof
of his power and penetration of mind than the way in which,
when once his thoughts were turned into this channel, he followed
out the whole subject into its inmost recesses. We can hardly
doubt that his criticism of the Law as a principle of religion dates
back to a time before his definite conversion to Christianity. The
process described in this chapter clearly belongs to a period when
the Law of Moses was the one authority which the Apostle re-
cognized. It represents just the kind of difficulties and struggles
which would be endured long before they led to a complete shift-
ing of belief, and which would only lead to it then because a new
and a better solution had been found. The apparent suddenness
of St. Paul's conversion was due to the tenacity with which he
held on to his Jewish faith and his reluctance to yield to con-
clusions which were merely negative. It was not till a whole
group of positive convictions grew up within him and showed their
power of supplying the vacant place that the Apostle withdrew his
allegiance, and when he had done so came by degrees to see
the true place of the Law in the Divine economy.
From the time that he came to write the Epistle to the Romans
the process is mapped out before us pretty clearly.
The doubts began, as we have seen, in psychological experience.
With the best will in the world St. Paul had found that really tc
keep the Law was a matter of infinite difficulty. However much
it drew him one way there were counter influences which drew
him another. And these counter influences proved the stronger
of the two. The Law itself was cold, inert, passive. It pointed
severely to the path of right and duty, but there its function ,
\
1 88 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. 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 diA v6fiov fwlyvma-it afiaprlat (Rom. iii. ao). Its effect
therefore was only to increase the condemnation : it multiplied sin
(Rom. V. ao); it worked wrath (Rom. iv. 15); it brought man-
kind under a curse (Gal. iii. 10).
And this was equally true of the individual and of the race ; the
better and fuller the law the more glaring was the contrast to the
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, dia v6fiov imyvuxris dfiafn-iat.
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. II
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. Paal'i
it seemed as if the law was never kept— never satisfactorilr
VTII. 1-4.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT I«9
kept — at all There was a Rabbinical commonplace, a stern
rule of self-judgement, which waa 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. lo; cf Gal. iii. i6; Rom.
X. 5). Any true happiness therefore, any true relief, must be
sought elsewhere. And it was thia happiness and refief whicii
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 ahd 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 {rikot yap
96fiov Xpiarrbs fit iucaioarvvriv navri rm trttrrevovTi Rom. X. 4) ; and
his own pages reflect, better than any other, the new hopes and
energies by which it was succeeded.
UFE IN TEH SPIRIT.
THE FBUITS OP THE INCABNATIOW.
VIII. 1-4. Tke result of Christ's interposition is to
dethrone Sin from its tyranny in the human heart, and to
instal in its stead the Spirit of Christ. Thus what the
Law 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
I90 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 1, S,
take upon Him that same human nature with aU its attributes
except sin : in that nature He died to free us from sin : and thife
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 ft. This chapter is, as we have seen, an expansion of x^P*' ^
S«a> 8ta 'irjaov Xpiarov rov Kxiplnv rjuSiv 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 wiih Christ in God.' It works gradually up
through the calm exposition and pastoral entreaty of w. 1-17 to
the more impassioned outlook and deeper introspection of vv, 18-30,
and thence to the magnificent climax of w. 31-39.
There is evidence that Marcion retained vr i-i i of this chapter, probably
with no very noticeable variation from the text which has coitie down to us
(we do not know which of the two competing readii gs he had in ver. 10).
Tertullian leaps from viii. 11 to x. a, implying that mncb wm cat oat, bat
we caanot determine how much.
1. KaTdKpijma. One of the formulae of Justification : KoriKpint
and KaraKpuxn are correlative to ^iKaima-K, HiKaltofta ; both sets of
phrases teing properly forensic. Here, however, the phrase rolt
eV 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, secureci by a process which is explained more fully
in ver. 3 (cf. vi. 7-10). The KaraKpifrit which used to fall upon the
sinner now falls upon his oppressor Sin.
p,tj KaTcl ordpKa ircpiiraTovcnv, dXXd tcard mrrOfta. An interpolation
introdnced (from vei. 4) at two steps: the first clause fif) /card aipua wtpim-
Tovaiv in A D*" 137, f m Vulg. I'esh. Goth. Ann., Bas. Chrys. ; the second
clause dAAd xarcL irvtC/^a in the mass of later authorities {<• D* E K L P «Scc. ;
the older uncials with the Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions, the Latin Vcnion
of Origen and perhaps Orij^en himsf If with a fourth-century dialogue attri-
buted to him, Athanasins and others omit both.
8. 4 y6\i.o% TOO n»'cufiaTos = the authority exercised by the Spirit,
We have had the same somewhat free use of vofwt in the last
chapter, esp. in ver. 236 yofn-s roi i>o6i, 6 vofios rffs ifiaprlas : it is no
longer a ' code ' but an authority producing regulated action such
as would be produced by a code.
Tou n»'«ofiaTos rfj-; Iwtjs. The gen. expresses the ' eflfect wrought '
(Gif.), hut it also expre^es more : the Spirit brings life because it
essentially u life.
VUl. 2, 8.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 191
ip Xpi<rrw'li|vou goes with f)'ktvd€p<aa-t : the authority of the Spirit
operating through the union with Christ, freed me, &c. For the
phrase itself see on ch. vi. 11
^jXevO^pwo'^ |u. A small group of importuit authorities (M B F G,
m Pesh., Tert. 1/2 vel potius a/2 Chrys. codd.) has ■^\fv9f puffer at. The
combination of K B with Latin and Syriac authorities shows that this reading
must be extremely early, going back to the time before the Western text
diverged from the main body. Still it can hardly be right, as the second
person is nowhere suggested in the context, and it is more probable that at
is only a mechanical repetition of the last syllable of ■^KtvOepuat (cc).
Dr. Hort suggests the omission of both pronouns {^/ms also being found),
and although the evidence for this is confined to some MSS. of Arm. (to
which Dr. Hort wouid add ' perhaps ' the commentary of Origen as repre-
sented by Rufinus, but this is not certain), it was a very general tendency
among scribes to supply an object to verbs originally without one. We do
not expect a return to first pers. sing, after rois iy X. 'I., and the scanty
evidence for omission may be to some extent paralleled, e.g. by that for the
omission of tvprjKtvai in iv. 1, for €« 7* in v. 6, or for x^P** '"'? ^^V ^ vii. 25.
Bot we should hardly be justified in doing more than placing fit in brackets.
dir& ToC v6fkou -njs &^apHa9 nal tou daydrou = the authority
exercised by Sin and ending in Death: bee on vii. 23, and on
6 vofi. T. nvevfi. above.
8. T& Y&p dSuKaroK tou v6^ov. Two questions arise as to these
words, (i) What is their construction? The common view,
adopted also by Gif. (who compares Eur. Troad. 489), is that they
form a sort of nom. absolute in apposition to the sentence. Gif.
translates, ' the impotence (see below) of the Law being this that,'
&c. It seems, however, somewhat better to regard the words in
apposition not as nom. but as accui.
A most accomplished scholar, the late Mr. James Riddell, in his * Digest
of Platonic Idioms' {Th* Apology «f PUU», Oxford, 1877, p. 122), lays down
two propositions about constructions like this : * (i) These Noun-Phrases and
Neuter-Pronouns are Accusatives. The prevalence of the Neuter Gender
makes this difficult to prove ; but such instances as are decisive afford an
analogy for the rest: Theaet. 153 C it\ tovtois rdr KoXo(paiva, drayicd^oi
*poa^i$6.^ajy k.t.K. Ct Soph. 0. T. 603 koX rwvS iKtyxor . . . vtvOov, and
the Adverbs dpxfjv, itcn^, r^y Trpirrrjv, &c (ii) They represent, by Appo-
sition or Substitution, the sentence itself. To say, that tiiey are Cognate
Accusatives, or in Apposition with the (unexpressed) Cognate Accus., would
be inadequate to the facts. For (i) in most of the instances the sense points
out that the Noun-Phrase or Pronoun stands over against the sentence, or
portion of a sentence, as a whole; (a) in many of them, not the internal
force but merely the rhetorical or logical form of the sentence is in view. It
might be said that they are Predicates, while the sentence itself is the
Subject.' [Examples follow, but that from Theaet. given above is as clear
as any.] This seems to criticize by anticipation the view of Va., who regards
rd dSvv. as accus. but practically explains it as in apposition to a cognate
accus. which is not expressed : ' The impossible thing of the Law , . . God
[effected; that is He] condemned sin in the flesh.' It is true that an apt
parallel is quoted from a Cor. vi. 13 t^p 8c avrriy avriiuadiav wKarvvOtfT*
Koi vfitii : but this would seem to come under the same rule. The argTuuent
that if ri dJbw. had been accus. it would probably hsve stood at the end of
I9t EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 8
the aentenoe, like r))v KoytKify karpilap vfiSrr in Rom. xii. i, appears to be
refnted by ror teoX otpwva in Thtatt. above. Win. Gr. § zxxii. 7, p. 390 E. T.
while recognizing the accns. use (§ lix. 9, p. 669 E. T.), seenu to prefer to
take rJ klIvv. as nom. So too Mey. Lips. &c.
(f) Is t6 ahvv. active or passive ? Gif., after Fri. (cf. also Win.
ut tup.) contends for the formal, on the ground that if ahvv. were
passive it should be followed by ri i/o/i« not rw v6^au. TertuUian
\De Res. Corn. 46) gives the phrase an active sense and retains the
gen., quod invalidum erat legis. But on the other hand if not Origen
himself, at least Rufinus the translator of Origen has a passive
rendering, and treats rov vofiov as practically equivalent to ry v6fif :
quod impossihile erat legi*. Yet Rufinus himself clearly uses
impossibilis in an active sense in his comment ; and the Greek of
Origen, as given in Cramer's Catena, p. 125, appears to make tA
ahvv. active : &(Tirtp yap 17 aptTTj I8if <Pv(Tfi Itrxvpd, ovra Koi ^ Kania Koi
r^ air avr^i dadfvr] koi dSvvara . . . Toii rotovrov v6fxov if f^vvu divvardt
iaru Similarly Cyr.-Alex. (who finds fault with the structure of the
sentence) : ro dSvvarov, toutc'ot* tA daOtPovv. Vulg. and Cod, Clarom.
are slightly more literal: quod impossibile 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 BiblioU use of dbiv. and also to give a some-
what easier construction : if ro dbvv. 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. wonld seem to show that
iivvaroi masc. and fem. was always actiye (so twice in N. T., twenty-two
times [3 VT. 11.] in LXX, Wisd. xvii. 14 r^v dSwarov ovron vvKra ical If
dSwdrov aSov ftvxwv iirfXOovaav, being alone somewhat ambiguons and
peculiar), while dSvv. nent. was always passive (so five times in LXX, seven
m N. T.). It ii true that the exact phrase t6 dSwaroy does not occur, but
in Luke xviiL 37 we have rd dStivara wapd dvOpirnou iwarii ian wapd r^ 8<^.
i¥ ^ : not ' because ' (Fri. Win. Mey. Alf ), but ' in which ' or
' wherein,' defining the point in which the impossibility (inability)
of the Law consisted. For fjadtvu dih r^t <rapK6t comp. vii. a a, aj.
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.
TOY lauTou ui6y. The emphatic tavrov brings out the community
of nature between the Faiher and the Son : cf. rov idiov vioi ver. 3a,
rmi wlov r^ aydntjs avrov CoL L 13.
* The text it not free from snxpidoa.
VIII. 8,] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 193
^i' ifioi^fia-n vapitds d|AapTias : the flesh of Christ is ' like ' ours
inasmuch as it is flesh ; ' like,' and only ' like,' because it is not
sinful: osiendii not quidem habere carrum peccati, Filium vera Dei
ntnilitudinem habutsse carnis peccati, non carnem peccait {Ong.-\a.L).
Pfleiderer and Holsten contend that even the flesh of Christ was
• sinful flesh,' i.e. capable of sinning ; but they are decisively refuted
by Gif. p. 165. Neither the Greek nor the. argument requires that
the flesh of Christ shall be regarded as sinful fleshy though it is
His Flesh — His Incarnation — which brought Him into contact
«dth Sin.
Kal ircpl dfiapTias. This phrase is constantly used in the O.T.
for the ' sin-offering ' ; so ' more than fifty times in the Book of
Leviticus alone ' (Va.) ; and it is taken in this sense here by Orig.-
lat. Quod hostia pro peccato /actus est Christus, et oblatus sit pro
purgatione peccatorum, omnes Scripturae iestantur . . . Per hanc ergo
hosiiam carnis suae, qucu dicitur pro peccato, damnavit peccatum in
carne, &c. The ritual of the sin-offering is fully set forth in Lev. iv.
The most characteristic feature in it is the sprinkling with blood of
the horns of the altar of incense. Its object was to make atonement
especially for sins of ignorance. It was no doubt typical of the
Sacrifice of Christ. Still we need not suppose the phrase nep\
iftofiT. here specially limited to the sense of 'sin-offering.' It
includes every sense in which the Incarnation and Death of Christ
had relation to, and had it for their object to remove, human sin.
KaWKpii'e TTji' dftapTiaK iv tjj aapxi. The key to this difficult
clause is supplied by ch. vi. 7-10. By the Death of Christ upon the
Cross, a death endured in His human nature. He once and for ever
broke off all contact with Sin, which could only touch Him through
that nature. HenceforLh Sin can lay no claim against Him.
Neither can it lay any claim against the believer ; for the believer
also has died with Christ. Henceforth when Sin comes to prosecute
its claim, it is cast in its suit and its former victim is acquitted.
The one culminating and decisive act by which this state of things
was brought about is the Death of Christ, to which all the subse-
quent immunity of Christians is to be referred.
The parallel passage, vi. 6-1 1, shows that this summary
condemnation of Sin takes place in the Death of Christ, and not
in His Life ; so that KoriKpivt cannot be adequately explained either
by the proof which Christ's Incarnation gave that human nature
might be sinless, or by the contrast of His sinlessness with man's
sin. In Matt. xii. 41, 4a (' the men of Nineveh shall rise up in the
judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it,'&c.) KaraKplvtat
has this sense of 'condemn by contrast,' but there is a greater fulness
of meaning here.
The ancients rather miss the mark in their comments on this passas;e.
Tims Orig.-lat dammarit t«(catum, hoc est, fugavit peccatum tt abttulH
194 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 8-5
(comp. T. K. Abbott, 'effectnaHy condemned no as to expel'): bnt it doei
not appear how this was done. The comnnoner view is based on Cbry».,
who clainas for the incarnate Christ a threefold victory over Sin, as not
yielding to it, as overcoming it (in a forensic sense), and convicting it ol
injustice m handing over to death His own sinless body as if it were sinful.
Similarly Euthym.-Zig. and others in part. Cyr.-Alex. explains the victory
of Christ over Sin as passing over to the Christian through the indwelling
of the Holy Ghost and the Eucharist (6«1 t^j fivarnt^s (v\oyiat). This is
at least right in so far as it lays stress on the identification of the Christian
v,-ith 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 Resnrrection.
l¥ Tjj aopKi goes with KartKpiy*. 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. lo;
Heb. vii. i6,- x. lo; i Pet. iii. 18); but through the mystical
union with Him the death of His Flesh means the death of ours
(Lips.).
4. xi SiKaiwfia: 'the justifying,' Wic, 'the justification,' Rhem.
after Vulg. iustificatio ; Tyn. is better, ' the rightewesnes requyred
of (/'. e. by) the lawe.' We have already seen that the proper sense
of diKoiafjia 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. a6.
It is not clear how Chrys. (« Euthym.-Zig.) gets for iimlwfia the kom
ri riKos, 6 OKovSt, r6 tcarSpOuita. t-
Tois fi^ itarA vdpKa irepiiraToCair : ' 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 IiIPE OP THE PIiESH AITD THE UTB OF
THE spraiT
VIII. 6-11. Compare the two states. The life of self-
indulgence involves the breach of God's law, hostility to
Him, and death. Submission to the Spirit brings with it
true life and the sense of reconciliation. You therefore,
if you are sincere Christians, have in the presence of the
Spirit a sure pledge of immortality.
' These two modes of life are directly opposed to one another.
If any man gives way to the gratifications of sense, then these and
nothing else occupy his thoughts and determine the bent of his
character. And on the other hand, those who let the Holy Spirit
VHL 6, e.J LIFE IN THE SPIRIT I95
guide them fix their thoughts and affections on things spiritual
• They are opposed in their nature ; they are opposed also in their
consequences. For the consequence of having one's bent towards
the things of the flesh is death — both of soul and body, both here
and hereafter Just as to surrender one's thoughts and motives to
the Spirit brings with it a quickened vitality through the whole man,
and a tranquillizing sense of reconciliation with God.
' The gratifying of the flesh can lead only to death, because it
implies hostility to God. It is impossible for one who indulges the
flesh at the same time to obey the law of God. * And those who
are under the influence of the flesh cannot please God. * But you,
as Christians, are no longer under the influence of the flesh. You
are rather under that of the Spirit, if the Spirit of God (which, be it
remembered, is the medium of personal contact with God and
Christ) is really in abiding communion with you. " But if Christ,
through His Spirit, thus keeps touch with yoiu- souls, then mark
how glorious is your condition. Your body it is true is doomed to
death, because it is tainted with sin ; but your spirit — the highest
part of you — has life infused into it because of its new state of
righteousness to which life is so nearly allied. " In possessing the
Spirit you have a guarantee of future resurrection. It links you to
Him whom God raised from the dead. And so even these perish-
able human bodies of yours, though they die first, God will restore
to life, through the operation of (or, having regard to) that Holy
Spirit by whom they are animated.
5. ^poroOcnv: 'set their minds, or their hearts upon.' ^popw
denotes the whole action of the <t>priv, i. e. of the affections and will
as well as of the reason ; cf. Matt. xvi. 23 ow <ppov€is ra tov e<ov,
aWa TO rav dvBpdmotv : Rom. xiL 16 ; Phil. iii. 19 ; Col. iii. 2, Sec.
6. <t>p<$ini)|ia : the content of (^povdv, the general bent of thought
and motive. Here, as elsewhere in these chapters, a-dp^ is that side
of human nature on which it is morally weak, the side on which
man's physical organism leads him into sin.
OdfaTos. Not merely is the (ppovrjua Trjs <rapK6s death in «^eci,
inasmuch as it has death for its goal, but it is also a present death,
inasmuch as its present condition contains the seeds which by
their own inherent force will develop into the death both of body
and soul.
IfcMI. In contrast with the state of things just described, where
the whole bent of the mind is towards the things of tnc Spirit, not
ig6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VHI. 6-9
only 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 ftriking presentation of the Biblical doctrine of Life see Hort,
Hulsean L$ctur€S, pp. 98 flf., 189 fF. The following may be qnoted: 'The
tense of life which Israel enjoyed was, however, best expressed in the choice
of the name "life" ai a designation of that higher communion with God
which grew forth in due time as the fruit of obedience and faith. The
psalmist or wise man or prophet, whose heart had sought the face of the
Lord, 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.
«tpil»Tj = as we have seen not only (i) the state of reconciliation
with God, but (ii) the sense of that reconciliation which diflfuses
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. 01 8^ : not as AV. * so these,' 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. Iv aapKi, . , .Iv ysv^i^txTK. Observe how the thought mounts
gradually upwards. tXvai. iv aapid = * to be under the domination of
[the] flesh ' ; corresponding to this flvai iv irvfvfuiTi = ' to be under
the domination of [the] spirit,' 1. e. in the first instance, the human
spirit. Just as in the one case the man takes his whole bent and
bias frorti 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
nvtvfxa, 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 nvevfia. He rises almost imperceptibly through the
nvt'^a of man to the nvevfia of God. From thinking of the way in
which the nvtvfia 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 (Jn-tp n.v(v(ia Qtov
olxtl iv vfiiv. oUtlv iv denotes a settled permanent penetrative
influence. Such an influence, from the Spirit of God, St. Paul
assumes to be inseparable from the higher life of the Christian.
^11. a, 10.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT I97
The way in which iv aapKi is opposed to iv mtiiicen, and ftirther
the way in which iv irvtvfiart passes from the spirit of man to the
Spirit of God, shows that we must not press the local significance of
the preposition too closely. We must not interpret any of the
varied expressions which the Apostle uses in such a sense as to
infringe upon the distinctness of the human and Divine personalities.
The one thing which is characteristic of personality is distinctness
from all other personalities ; and this must hold good even of the
relation of man to God. The very ease with which St. Paul changes
and inverts his metaphors shows that the Divine immanence with
him nowhere means Buddhistic or Pantheistic absorption. We
must be careful to keep clear of this, but short of it we may use the
language of closest intimacy. All that friend can possibly receive
from friend we may believe that man is capable of receiving from
God. See the note on iv Xpurra "lijo-oC in vi. 1 1 ; and for the anti-
thesis of o-ap^ and nvtvfia the small print note on vii. 14.
ci W Tis. A characteristic delicacy of expression : when he is
speaking on the positive side St. Paul assumes that his readers have
the Spirit, but when he is speaking on the negative side he will not
say bluntly ' if you have not the Spirit,' but he at once throws
his sentence into a vague and general force, 'if any one has
not,' &c.
There are some good remarks on the grammar of the conditional clauies
in this verse and in tv. 10, 35, in Barton, M. and T. §§ 469, 343, 361.
odK loTir oAtou : he is no true Christian. This amounts to
saying that all Christians 'have the Spirit' in greater or less
degree.
10. €1 ^ Xpiorr^s. It will be observed that St. Paul uses the
phrases Tlvtv^ e*ov, nveO/wi Xpttrrov, and XptoTcJr in these two verses
as practically interchangeable. On the significance of this in its
bearing upon the relation of the Divine Persons see below.
T^ fACK o-b)|ia ccKp&K 81' dfiapTiak'. St. Paul is putting forward first
the negative and then the positive consequences of the indwelling
of Christ, or the Spirit of Christ, in the soul. But what is the
meaning of ' the body is dead because of sin ? ' Of many ways of
taking the words, the most important seem to be these : (i) * the
body is dead tmputaiive, in baptism (vi. 2 flf.), as a consequence 01
sin which made this implication of the body in the Death of Christ
necessary' (Lips.). But in the next verse, to which this cjjarly
points forward, the stress lies not on death imputed but on physical
death, (ii) ' The body is dead mystice, as no longer the instrument
of sin ( sans ^nergie productrice des acies charnels), because of sin —
to which it led ' (Oltr.). This is open to the same objection as the
last, with the addition that it does not give a satisfactory explanation
(^ &' inaprimf, (iii) It remains to take Mxp^ in the plain sense of
198 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 10, 11
' physical death,' and to go back for ii dfiaprlap not to vi. a ff. but
to V. I a 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
ytKpoP in this case ought to be 6vr)T6v, but the use of veKpov gives
a more vivid and pointed contrast to ^c^i} — ' a dead thing.'
t6 8c •iTi'eo|ia l«^ 8101 SiKaioo'urr]!'. Clearly the nvtifia here meant
is the human nvtifia which has the properties of life infused into it
by the presence of the Divine mtiixa. fcoij is to be taken in a wide
sense, but with especial stress on the future eternal life, iia Hikmo-
(Tiiinjv 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
irn^rted, then practised.
' u) St. Paul is fond of arguing from the Resurrection of Christ
to the resurrection of the Christian (see p. 1 17 sup.). Christ is the
anapxh (i Cor. XV. 20, 23 : the same power which raised Him will
raise us (i Cor. vi. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 14); Phil. iii. ai; i Thess.
iv. 14). But nowhere is the argument given in so full and complete
a form as here. The link which connects the believer with Chrisjt,
and makes him participate in Christ's resurrection, is the possession
of His Spirit (cp. I Thess. iv. 14 rovi woiiiT^Oivras fita t«; 'Iijffov &^u
Ovv ai)Ta>\
81& ToG ^KoiKouKTos ofiroC ncEufiaros. The authorities for the two
readings, the gen. as above and the ace. BUi t6 (voikovv airrov Uvtvfm,
seem at first sight very evenly divided. For gen. we have a long
line of authorities headed by t^ A C, Clem.-Alex. For ace. we have
a still longer line headed by B D, Orig. Iren.-lat
Id fuller detail the evidence is as follows :
8(d rod ivoiKovvToi «.t.a. N A C P" o/., cadd. a/>. Ps.-Ath. Dial. t. Mcuedtn.,
Boh. Sah. Hard. Arm. Aeth., Clem.-Alex, Method, {codd. Graec.
locorum ab Epiphanio citatorum) Cj r.-Hieros codd. plur. tt «d. Did. 4/5
Bas 4/4 Chrys. <id i Cor. xv. 45. Cvr.-Alex. ttr, al. plur.
&a TO IvoiKolv K.T.K. BDEFtiKLP &c., codd. op. Ps.-Ath. Dial. c.
Macedon.; Vulg. Pesh. (Sah. codd.); Iren.-lat. Grig, pluries; Method.
vers. tlav. et codd. Epiphanii 1/3 et tx parte a/.^;, Cyr.-Hieros. cod,
Did.-lat. semel {interp. Hieron.) Chrys. ad lex. Tert. Hil. al plur.
When these lists are examined, it will be seen at once thnt the authoritiet
for the gen. are predominantly Alexandrian, and those for the ace. predomi-
nantly Western. The question is how fJar in each case this main body u
reinforced by more independent evidence. From this point of view a some-
what increased importance attaches to Hard. Arm. Hippol. Cyr.-Hieros.
Bas. on the side of the gen. and to B, Orig. on the side of the ace. The
testimony of Method, is not quite clear. The firs* place in which the
passage occurs is a quotation from Origen : here the true reading is probably
84A TO kvoucuw, as elsewhere in that writer. The other two plices belong to
Methodius himself. Here too the Slavonic version has in both caaes ace ;
tie Greek preserved in Epiphanius has in one instance ace, in the other gen.
It is perhaps on the whole probable that Method, himself read ace. and that
gCD. IS due to Epiphanius, who undoubtedly was in the habit of using g):n.
In balancinjT the opposed evidence we remember that there is a distinct
WMtets ioiosioo in both B and Orig. in St. Paul's Epistles, ao that the ace.
Vni. S-U.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT I99
may rest not on the authority of two families of text, bat only of one. On
the other hand, to Alexandria we must add Palestine, which would connt
for something, though not very much, as being within the sphere of Alexan-
drian influence, and Cappadocia, which would count for rather more; but
what is of most importance is the attesting of the Alexandrian reading so far
West as Hippolytus. Too much importance must not be attached to the
assertion of the orthodox controversialist in the Dial. t. Macedonios, that
gen. is found in ' all the ancient copies ' ; the author of the dialogue allows
that the reading is questionable.
On the whole the preponderance seems to be slightly on the side
of the gen., but neither reading can be ignored. Intrinsically the
one reading is not clearly preferable to the other. St Paul might
have used equally well either form of expression. It is however
hardly adequate to say with Dr. Vaughan that if we read the ace.
the reference is • to the ennobling and consecrating effect of the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the human body.' The prominent
idea is rather that the Holy Spirit is Itself essentially a Spirit of Life,
and therefore it is natural that where It is life should be. The gen.
brings out rather more the direct and personal agency of the Holy
Spirit, which of course commended the reading to the supporters of
orthodox doctrine in the Macedonian controversy.
Tk* Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit is taken
over from the O.T., where we have it conspicuously in relation to
Creation (Gen. i. 2), in relation to Prophecy (i Sam. x. 10; xi. 6 ;
xix. 20, 23, &c.), and in relation to the religious Hfe of the individual
(Ps. li. 11) and of the nation (Is. Ixiii. lo f.). It was understood
that the Messiah had a plenary endowment of this Spirit (Is. xi. 2).
And accordingly in the N.T. the Gospels unanimously record the
visible, if symbolical, manifestation of this endowment (Mark i. 10 ;
Jo. L 32). And it is an expression of the same truth when in this
passage and elsewhere St. Paul speaks of the Spirit of Christ
convertibly with Christ Himself. Just as there are many passages
in which he uses precisely the same language of the Spirit of God
and of God Himself, so also there are manv others in which he
uses the same language of the Spirit of Christ and of Christ
Himself. Thus the 'demonstration of the Spirit' is a demonstra-
tion also of the 'power of God' (i Cor. ii. 4, 5); the working of
the Spirit is a working of God Himself (i Cor. xii. 11 compared
with ver. 6) and ot Christ (Eph. iv. 11 compared with 1 Cor. xii.
28, 4). To be ' Christ's ' is the same thing as to ' live in the Spirit '
(Gal. V. 22 ff.). Nay, in one place Christ is expressly identified
with ' the Spirit ' : ' the Lord is the Spirit ' (2 Cor. iu. 1 7) : a passage
which has a seemingly remarkable parallel in Ignat. Ad Magn. xv
tppua6* t¥ iiiaimuf. etov, KiKTriiUvot aduuuwsiov w^ntUK & ifmv 'hxroin
900 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 6-lL
KpurrSt (where however Bp. Lightfoot makes the antecedent to fc
not nvfvud 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 so individual, echoed not only possibly
by Ignatius but certainly by St. John. As Mr. Gore puts it {Bampion
Ltctura, 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
game sort of way in which the spirit of man is related to the man.
In this very chapter the Holy Spirit is represented as standing over
against the Father and pleading with Him (Rom. viii. 26 f.), and
a number of other actions which we should call ' personal ' are
ascribed to Him — 'dwelling' (w. 9, 1 1 ),' 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 a 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 difiference in the experience of the
Vin. 12-10.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT aoi
two Apostles. In both cases it is this actual experience which
gives the standpoint from which they write. St. John, who had
heard and seen and handled the Word of Life, who had stood
beneath the cross and looked into the empty tomb, when he
thinks of the coming of the Paraclete naturally thinks of Him
as ' another Paraclete.' St. Paul, who had not had the same
privileges, but who was conscious that from the moment of his
vision upon the road to Damascus a new force had entered into
his soul, as naturally connects the force and the vision, and sees in
what he feels to be the work of the Spirit the work also of the
exalted Son. To St. John the first visible Paraclete and the
second invisible could not but be diiferent; to St. Paul the in-
visible influence which wrought so powerfully in him seemed to
stream directly from the presence of Him whom be had heard
from heaven call him by his name.
BONBHIP AJSTD HEntSHTP.
VIII. 11-17. Live then as men bound for such a destiny y
ascetics as to your worldly life, heirs of immortality. The
Spirit 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 tc
which Christy your Elder Brother, has gone.
^'Such a destiny has its obligations. To the flesh yon 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 :
lot EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 12-16.
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 firkt to share in the suflferings which lead to it.
12. Lipsius would unite w. la, 13 closely with the foregoing;
and no doubt it is true that these verses only contain the
conclusion of the previous paragraph thrown into a hortatory
form. Still it is usual to mark this transition to exhortation by
a new paragraph (as at vi. la); and although a new idea (that
of heirship) is introduced at ver. 14, thai idea is only subor-
dinate to the main argument, the assurance which the Spirit gives
of future life. See also the note on ovv in x. 14.
18. TTj-cojiari. The antithesis to a-dp^ seems to show that this
is still, as in w. 4, 5, 9, the human n-yev/xa, but it is the human
nvdfia in direct contact with the Divine.
Tos Trpd^cis : of wicked doings, as in Luke xxiii. 51.
14. The phrases which occur in this section, nvfvftan ©ew
ayovrai, to Ilt'eifjia a-vyLfxuprupfi Ttf irvfvpaTt, r)piov, are clear prOOf that
the other group of phrases eV irvtvfiari dvai, or t6 Uvtvp.n oIku (<Vot(cf i)
«V s;/Lirp 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.
oiol 0€ou. The difference between ulo's and t«i«i' appears to be
that whereas t(kvop denotes the natural relationship of child to
parent, wio'f implies, in addition to this, the recognized status and
legal privileges reserved for sons, Cf. Westcott on St. John i. la
and the parallels there noted.
15. TTfeo/xo SouXeias. This is another subde variation in the
use of vvivpn. From meaning the human spirit under the in-
fluence of the Divine Spirit nvtvpa. comes to mean a particular
state, habit, or temper of the human spirit, sometimes in itself
{riVivpM (r}\(0(T(a)s Num. V. I4, 30 ; Jiv, d(tr;StVis Is, Ixi. 3 ; WP. TTOpveiat
Hos. iv. I a), but more often as due to supernatural influence, good
or evil {nw, atxpLas «c.T.X. Is. xi. a ; m-. irXav^o-«a»j Is. xix. 14 ; in».
npltnmt Is. ZXviii. 6; m. maravifymt Ig. xxix. lO (sb Rom XL 8);
VIII. 16-17.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT %o^
m*. x^P^rot m\ oticrtpnov Zech. xii. lo ; nv. d(T0eutias Lvike xiii. ii;
WW. ittXias 2 Tim. i. 7 ; ro fr». rijs n\dvrjs I Jo. iv. 6). So here
ir». iovkdas = such a spirit as accompanies a state of slavery, such
a servile habit as the human irvd^m assumes among slaves. This
was not the temper which you had imparted to you at your bap-
tism {iki^tTt). The slavery is that of the Law : cf. Gal. iv 6 7
fl4, V. I. ' "
■irdXiK CIS ^($Por ; ' so as to relapse into a state of fear.' The
candidate for baptism did not emerge from the terrors of the
Law only to be thrown back into them again.
uioeeaias : a word coined, but rightly coined, from the classical
phrase vibi ridfireai {OfToi vl6s). It seems however too much to
say with Gif. that the coinage was probably due to St. Paul him-
self. 'No word is more common in Greek inscriptions of the
Hellenistic time : the idea, like the word, is native Greek ' (E L
Hicks in S/udm Biblica, iv. 8). This doubtless points to the
quarter from which St. Paul derived the word, as the Jews had
not the practice of adoption.
'Appo, i TTOTT^p. The repetition of this word, first in Aramaic
and then in Greek, is remarkable and brings home to us the fact
that Christianity had its birth in a bilingual people. The same
repetition occurs in Mark xiv. 36 {' Abba, Father, all things are
possible to Thee ') and in Gal. iv. 6 : it gives a greater intensity of
expression, but would only be natural where the speaker was
using in both cases his familiar tongue. Lightfoot {Hor. Heb. on
Mark xiv. 36) thinks that in the Gospel the word ' ^m'a only was
used by our Lord and h Har^p added as an interpretation by
St. Mark, and that in like manner St. Paul is interpreting for the
benefit of his readers. The three passages are however all too
emotional for this explanation : interpretation is out of place in
a prayer. It seems better to suppose that our Lord Himself,
using familiarly both languages, and concentrating into this word
of aU words such a depth of meaning, found Himself impelled
spontaneously to repeat the word, and that some among His
disciples caught and transmitted the same habit. It is significant
however of the limited extent of strictly Jewish Christianity that
we find no other original examples of the use than these three.
16. aurb t6 nceCjio : see on ver. 14 above.
aufifiapTupct : cf. ii. 15; ix. 2. There the 'joint-witness' was
the subjective testimony of conscience, confirming the objective
testimony of a man's works or actions ; here consciousness is
analyzed, and its da/a are referred partly to the man himself, partly
to the Spirit of God moving and prompting him.
17. KXrjpoj'Ofioi. The idea of a KXripovofiia is taken up and
developed in N. T. from O. T. and Apocr. (Ecclus, Ps. Sol.,
4 Ezr.). It is also prominent in Philo, who devotes a whole
<04 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII.18,1»
treatise to the question Quit nrum divinarum heres sitf (Mang. I
473 ff.). Meaning originally (i) the simple possession of the Holj
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. Ix. ai ;
(xi. 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 U an instance of the onacconntable ineqaalides of usage that wheieaa
K\f]povo/uiy, ttKrjpoyoftia occur almost innumerable times in LXX, tc\i]por6itoi
occurs only five times (once in Symmacbus) ; in N. T. there is much greatci
equality {KKijpovo/jiuy eighteen, itKr)povo)ua fourteen, mkiipov6not hfteen).
9VYKXT)poK6|ioi. 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 Kkrjpovofxia received its full Christian
adaptation directly from Him (cf. also Matt xxv. 34).
ctircp vufiirdcrxofici'. St. Paul seems here to be reminding his
hearers of a current Christian saying : cf. a Tim. iL 1 1 irtorA* i
XJyor, E( yap avvatrtdavofjitp koi avCrjaofup^ vrroufvofiev Koi <rvfij3a(r(-
Xtvvofitv. 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't
77ie Way, the Truth, and the Lift there referred to. For rurc/> see
on iii. 30.
suppERnra thb path to olobt.
VIII. 18-26. What though the path to that glory lies
through sufferi:rg ? The suffering and the glory alike are
parts of a great cosntical movetnent, in which the irrational
creation joins with man. As it shared the results of his
fall, so also will it share in his redemption. Its pangs are
pangs of a new birth (w. iS-aa).
Like t/ie mute creation, we Christians too wait painfully
for 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 imdergo
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
VIIL 18.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT ao^
that consummarion not they alone but the whole irrational creation,
both animate and inanimate, waits with eager longing; Hke
spectators straining forward over the ropes to catch the first
glimpse of some triumphal pageant.
"•The future and not the present must satisfy its aspirations.
For ages ago Creation was condemned to have its energies marred
and frustrated. And that by no act of its own : it was God who
fixed this doom upon it, but with the hope " that as it had been
enthralled to death and decay by the Fall of Man so too the
Creation shall share in the free and glorious existence of God's
emancipated children. ^ It is like the pangs of a woman in child-
birth. This universal frame feels up to this moment the throes of
travail — feels them in every part and cries out in its pain. But
where there is travail, there must needs also be a birth.
""Our own experience points to the same conclusion. True
that in those workings of the Spirit, the charismata with which we
are endowed, we Christians already possess a foretaste of good
things to come. But that very foretaste makes us long — anxiously
and painfully long — for the final recognition of our Sonship. We
desire to see these bodies of ours delivered from the evils that
beset them and transfigured into glory.
•*Hoj)e is the Christian's proper attitude. We were saved
indeed, the groundwork of our salvation was laid, when we became
Christians. But was that salvation in possession or in prospect ?
Certainly in prospect. Otherwise there would be no room for
hope. For what a man sees already in his hand he does not hope
for as if it were future. " But in our case we do not see, and we
do hope; therefore we also wait for our object with steadfast
fortitude.
18. Xoyi^ofMu ydEp. At the end of the last paragraph St Paul
has been led to speak of the exalted privileges of Christians in-
volved in the fact that they are sons of God. The thought of these
privileges suddenly recalls to him the contrast of the sufTerings
through which they are passing. And after his manner he does
not let go this idea of ' suffering ' but works it into his main
argument. He first dismisses the thought that the present suffer-
ing can be any real counter-weight to the future glory ; and then
he shows that not only is it not this, but that on the contrary it
actually points forward to that glory. It does this on the grandest
ACM EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIIL 18, 18.
scale. In fact it is nothing short of an universal law that suffering
marks the road to glory. All the suflFering, all the imperfection,
all the unsatisfied aspiration and longing of which the traces are so
abundant in external nature as well as in man, do but point forward
to a time when the suffering shall cease, the imperfection be re-
moved and the frustrated aspirations at last crowned and satisfied;
and 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.
Xoyilofiai : here in its strict sense, 'I calculate/ 'weigh mentally,'
' count up on the one side and on the other.'
a|ia . . . •jrp<Ss. In Plato, Gorg. p. 471 E, we have ovS*v6f i$i6s »W»
irpot Tr}v dXijdetaf : SO that with a slight ellipse ovk o^m . . . wpot t^v
do^av will = ' not worth (considering) in comparison with the glory.'
Or we may regard this as a mixture of two constructions, (i) ovk
a^ta TTis 86ir]s, \. 6. ' not an equivalent for the glory ' ; comp. Prov.
viii. II nav 8t Tifuoy ovk n^tov avrfis (sc. T^f <ro(f)ias) iariy, and (2)
ov8fv6f \6yov a^ia rrp6s t^»' 86^av: COmp. Jer. Zxiii. 28 tI r6 aj(ypov
npos rhv (rirov ;
The thought ha* a near parallel in 4 Ezra yii. 3ff. Compare {«.g.) the
following (w. ia-17): Et fcuti sunt introitus huius saeculi angusti tt
doltntu et laboriosi, pauci autem et malt et peritulorum pleni et labor*
magna opere fulti ; nam maioris taeculi introittu spatiosi et securi et
facientes immortalitatit fructum. Si ergo non ingredientes ingretsi fuertnt-
que vtvunt angusta et vana haec, mm poterunt recipere quae tunt repoiita . . .
iusti autem ferent angusta sperantts spatiosa. Compare also the qaotations
from the Talmud in DeliUsch ad lot. The question is asked, What is the
way to the world to come ? And the answer is, Through suffering.
f&^XouaaK : emphatic, ' is destined to,' ' is certain to.' The
position of the word is the same as in Gal. iii- 23, and serves to
point the contrast to rov vvv Katpov.
h6iav : the heavenly brightness of Christ's appearing : see on
iii. 23.
els i^fiias : to reach and include us in its radiance.
19. diTOKapaSoKia : cf. Phil. i. 20 Kara ttjv dnoKapafioKlav ko) iKirifta
nov : the verb dnoKapaBoKuv occurs in Aquila's version of Ps. xxxvii
[xxxvi], 7, and the subst. frequently in Polyb. and Plutarch (see
Grm.-Thay. s. v., and Ell. Lft. on Phil. i. 20). A highly expressive
word ' to strain forward,' lit. * await \\ ilh outstretched head.' This
sense is still further strengthened by the compound, ano- denoting
diversion from other things and concentration on a single object.
This passage (especially yt. 17, as) played a considerable part in tbf
qrstem of Basiiides, as des^jibed in Hippol. Jie/. Omn, Hatr. viL 35-27.
VJIl. 18.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 90J
rf)s KTiaews: see on i. ao. Here the sense is given by the
context ; 17 kt!«hs is set in contrast with the ' sons of God/ and
from the allusion to the Fall which follows evidently refers to Gen.
iii. 17, 18 'Cursed is the ground for thy sake . . . thorns also and
thistles shall it bring forth to thee.' The commentators however
are not wrong in making the word include here the whole irrational
creation. The poetic and penetrating imagination of St. Paul
sees in the marks of imperfection on the face of nature, in the
signs at once of high capacities and poor achievement, the visible
and audible expression of a sense of something wanting which will
one day be supplied.
Oltr. and some others argue strenuously, but in vain, for giving
to KTia-is, throughout the whole of this passage, the sense not of the
world of nature, but of the world of man (similarly Orig.). He
tries to get rid of the poetic personification of nature and to
dissociate St. Paul from Jewish doctrine as to the origin of death
and decay in nature, and as to its removal at the coming of the
Messiah. But (i) there is no sufficient warrant for limiting ktio-h
to humanity; (ii) it is necessary to deny the sufficiently obvious
reference to Gen. iii. 17-19 (where, though the 'ground' or 'soil'
only is mentioned, it is the earth's siulace as the seed-plot of life) ;
(iii) the Apostle is ra'iier taken out of tlie mental surroundings
in which he moved than placed in them: see below on 'The
Renovation of Nature.'
The ancients generallj Uke the passage as above (fi Krlait 1) iKoyos
expressly Enthym.-Zig ). Orig.-lat., as expressly, has crtaturam utpott
ratumabiUm ; but be is qnite at fault, making rp iMTvu6TtiTt >- ' the body.'
Chrys. and Euthym.-Zig. call attention to die personification of Nature,
which they compare to that in the Psalms and Prophets, while Diodoms of
Tarsus refers the expressions implying life rather to the Powers (Svfd/xctt)
which preside over inanimate nature and from which it takes its forms. The
sense commonly given to /tarcuorifri is » f9opa.
i^¥ d-iroKdXuiliii' TUK vltav toC Gcov. The same word diroKciXv^ic is
applied to the Second Coming of the Messiah (which is also an
fni(pca>tia 2 Thess. ii. 8) and to that of the redeemed who accompany
Him : their new existence will not be like the present, but will be
in ' glory * {d6^) both reflected and imparted. This revealing of
die sons of God will be the signal for the great transformation.
The Jewish writings use similar language. To them also the appearing of
the Messiah is an diroKi\vfis : 4 Ezra xiii. 3a */ trit cumJUnt kaec, »t ctm-
Hngent signa qua* ante osUndi tibi tt tunc revelabitur filius meus qutm
mdisti ut virum '"c^.^denttm ; Apoc. Bar. xxxix. 7 et erit, cum appropinqua-
writ te"i^%u finis eius ut cadat, tunc revelabitur principatus Messicu met qui
similis est fonti et viti, et oum revelatus fuerit eradicabit multitudinem earn-
gregationis eius (the Latin of this book, it will be remembered, is Ceriani's
version from the Syriac, and not ancient like that of 4 Ezra). The object <rf
the Messiah's appearing is the same as with St. Paul, to deliver creatioa
from its ills : 4 Ecra xiiL a6, 39 ifu tst qu4m conservat AUissimus mtUHt
toS EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 18-2^
ttmporifms ftti p*r ttmttipsum liberabit creaturam suam tt ipse disponei
qui tUrelictt sunt . . . tcct dies vtniunt, quando incipiet Altissimui liberart
COS qui super terram sunt: Apoc. Bar. xxiii. 6 quando futurum est ut Fortis
innovet creaturam suam (- 4 Exra vii. 75 [Bensly] donee veniant ttmpora
ilia, in quibus incipies creaturam rtnovare). The Messiah does not come
aloue : 4 Ezra xiii. - r non poterit quisque super terram vidert Jilium meum
vel eos qui cum eo sunt nisi 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 thoie who were left in the Holy Land
(ibid. w. I a, 39 ff., 48 f.).
dircKS^XC'''^ • another strong compound, where an»- contains the
same idea of ' comeniraled waiting ' as in anoKapa^oKia above.
20. TTJ . . . fiaTai6rr|Ti : (xaraioTrfs fiaTautrt'iroiv is the refrain of the
Book of Ecclesiastes (Eccl. i. a, &c. ; cf. Ps. xxxix. 5, 11 [xxxviii. 6,
12] cxliv [cxliii]. 4) ; that is ftdraiou which is ' without result ' (jmttjv),
' ineffective,' ' which does not reach its end ' — the opposite of
TfXfios : the word is therefore appropriately used of the disappointing
character of present existence, which nowhere reaches the perfection
of which it is capable.
uircTdyT) : by the Divine sentence which followed the Fall (Gen.
ii. 17-19).
DUX iKoucra : not through its own fault, but through the fault of
man, i. e. the Fall
SiA Toi' fiiroTd^arro : ' by reason of Him who subjected it,' i.e. not
man in general (Lips.) ; nor Adam (Chrys. a/.) ; nor the Devil
(Go.\ but (with most commentators, ancient as well as modem)
God, by the sentence pronounced after the Fall It is no argument
against this reference that the use of fita with ace. in such a con-
nexion is rather unusual (so Lips.).
eir* AirtSi qualifies \mtTayr\. Creation was made subject to
vanity — not simply and absolutely and there an end, but * in hope
that,' &c. Whatever the defects and degradation of nature, it was
at least left with the hope of rising to the ideal intended for it.
21. oTi. The majority of recent commentators make ort (*= 'that*)
define the substance of the hope just mentioned, and not (as ' be-
cause ') give a reason for it. The meaning in any case is much
the same, but this is the simpler way to arrive at it.
Kal auTT) ^ KTiais : not only Christians but even the mute creation
with them.
diro Tjjs SouXcia^ rfjs ^9opas. dotAft'ay corresponds to wrfTayFj, the
state of subjection or thraldom to dissoluticn and decay. The
opposite 10 this is the full and free development of all the powers
which attends the state of ho^a. ' Glorious liberty ' is a f)Oor
translation and does not express the idea : 5o|a, ' the glorified state,'
is the leading fact, not a subortlinate fact, and tXevdepia is its
rharacteristic, ' the liberty of the glory of the children of God.'
22. ot8a)i,cK yiJ^P introduces a fact of common knowledge (thou^
VIII. 22-24.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT I09
the apprehension of it may not have been sc common as he
assumes) to which the Apostle appeals.
auarevdlii Kal auKuSirci. It seems on the whole best to take the
irt'j^ in both instances as = 'together,' i.e. in all the parts of which
creation is made up (so. Theod.-Mops. expressly: ^oiXerai 8i
tlnttv OTt <rvfji.(f)oi)vcos (WtStiKPvrai rovro Traaa ij KTiVts" ipa to napa irdarjs
t6 airi yivtaOai o/xoit»r, naideva-r) tovtovs t^v irpos dnavras Koivaviaf
vlpe'ia-Bai rj} twv XvnTjpay KapTtpia). Oltr. gets OUt of it the sense of
'inwardly' (= (v (avToU), which it will not bear: Fri. Lips, and
others, after Euthym.-Zig. make it — ' with 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 (ou p6vov 8«, aX\a xai ainoi). The two verses must be
kept apart.
23. 00 iLovQv %4. Not only does nature groan, but we Christians
also groan : our very privileges make us long for something more.
TTjK dirapxV TOO flk'euiAaTos: 'the first-fruits, or first instalment
of the gift of the Spirit.' St. Paul evidently means all the
phenomena of that great outpouring which was specially charac-
teristic of the Apostolic Age from the Day of Pentecost onwards,
the varied charismata bestowed upon the first Christians (i Cor.
xii. &c.), but including also the moral and spiritual gifts which were
more permanent (Gal. v. 2a f.). The possession of these gifts
served to quicken the sense of the yet greater gifts that were to
come. Foremost among them was to be the transforming of the
earthly or ' psychical ' body into a spiritual body (i Cor. xv. 44 ff.).
Sl Paul calls this a ' deliverance,' i. e. a deliverance from the ' ills
that flesh is heir to' : for diroXvrpoxris see on iii. 34.
JxovTfs li|Ji«is : fipitit is placed here by K A C 5. 47. 80, alio by Tiaclt
RV. and (in brackets) by WH.
uioOtviav: see on ver. 15 above. Flere vlod. = the manifested,
realized, act of adoption — its public promulgation.
24. T^ Y^P ^^TTiSi cawOtjfiei'. The older commentators for the
most part (not however Luther Beng. Fri.) took the dat. here as
dative of the instrument, ' by hope were we saved.' Most moderns
(including Gif Go. Oltr. Mou. Lid.) take it as dat. modi, (W, hope
were we saved ; ' the main ground being that it is more in "^tccord-
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 — by grace (both terms are found in Eph. ii. 8) than by
hope. This seems preferable. Some have held that Hope is here
only an aspect of Faith : and it is quite true that the definition of
Faith in Heb. xi. I («o-Tt hi m'<rr»r kXrcKl^op.iviav vnoa-raais, npayparii>t
tKtyyos ov ^Xenopivcop), makes it practically equivalent to Hope. Bui
that is just one of the points of distinction between Ep. to Heb
aiO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. S4, Mi
and St. Paul. In Heb. Faith is used somewhat vaguely of belid
in God and in the fulfilment of His promises. In St. Paul it is fai
more often Faith in Christ, the first act of accepting Christianity
(sec p. 33 above). This belongs essentially to the past, and to the
present as growing direcily out of the past ; but when St, Paul
comes to speak of the future he uses another term, Awt'r. No
doubt when we come to trace this to its origin it has its root in the
strong conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus and its consequences ;
but the two terms are not therefore identical, and it is best to
keep them distinct.
Some recent Germans (Holsten, Weiss, Lips.) take the dat. as
daiivMS commodi, ^for hope were we saved.' But this is less
natural. To obtain this sense we should have to personify Hope
more strongly than the context will bear. Besides Hope is an
attribute or characteristic of the Christian life, but not its end.
(kn\% 8c pXcTrofi^KT) : fXTrt's here = ' the thing hoped for,' just as
KTWii = ' the thing created ' ; a very common usage.
t ydp (3X«Tr», t{« A.irC5« ; Thii terse reading is fonnd only in B 47 wtarg^
which adds to iraAativ owtcw ?x*' ^ it is adopted by RV. text, WH. ttxt.
Text. Recept. hag '\h 7<ip &\kitu tij] t/ /rat [tXTri'^fi], of which t» alone ia
found in Western authorities (D F G, Vnlg. Pesh. a/.), and «o« alone in
K*47*. Both RV. and WII. give a place in the margin to ri not iXwi^u
and ri teal iro/jifrti [vwofiivti with K* A 47 aiarg^."].
26. The point of these two verses is that the attitude of hope,
so distinctive of the Christian, implies that there is more in store
for him than anything that is his already,
81* 6irofiOKi)s : constancy and fortitude under persecution, Stc,
pointing back to the ' sufferings ' of ver. 18 (cf. on ii. 7 ; v. 4 ; and
for the use of d<i iL a 7).
TA^ Renovation of Naturt.
We have already quoted illustrations of St. Paul's langnage from
some of the Jewish writings which are nearest to his own in point
of time. They are only samples of the great mass of Jewish
literature. To all of it this idea of a renovation of Nature, the
creation of new heavens and a new earth is common, as part of the
Messianic expectation which was fulfilled unawares to many of
those by whom it was entertained. The days of the Messiah were
to be the 'seasons of refreshing,' the 'times of restoration of all
things,' which were to come from the face of the Lord (Acts iii. 19,
21). The expectation had its roots in the O. T., especially in
those chapters of the Second Part of Isaiah in which the approach-
ing Return from Captivity opens up to the prophet such splendid
visions for the future. The one section Jg. Ixv. i7-a5 might well
mi. 18-25.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 111
be held to warrant most of the statements in the Apocrypha and
Talmud.
The idea of the ' new heavens and new earth ' is based directly
upon Is, Ixv. 17, and is found clearly stated in the Book of Enoch,
xlv. 4 f. * I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal
blessing and light. And I will transform the earth and make it
a blessing and cause Mine elect ones to dwell upon it ' (where see
Charles' note). There is also an application of Ps. cxiv. 4, with
an added feature which illustrates exactly St. Paul's anoKokv^is tuv
viS>p Tov Gtoi I * In those days will the mountains leap like rams
and the hills will skip like lambs satisfied with milk, and they will
all become angels in heaven. Their faces will be lighted up
with joy, because in those days the Elect One has appeared, and the
earth will rejoice and the righteous will dwell upon it, and the elect
will go to and fro upon it' {Enoch li. 4f). We have given
parallels enough from 4 Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch, and
there is much in the Talmud to the same effect (cf Weber, Alisyn.
Theol. p. 380 ff. ; Schflrer, Neutest. Zeitgesch. iL 453 ff., 458 f. ;
Edersheim, Lt/t and Times, ftc. ii. 438).
It is not surprising to find the poetry of the prophetic writings
hardened into fact by Jewish literalism ; but it is strange when the
products of this mode of interpretation are attributed to our Lord
Himself on authority no less ancient than that of Papias of Hiera-
polis, professedly drawing firom the tradition of St. John, Yet
Irenaeus {Adv. Haer. V. xxxiii. 3) quotes in such terms the follow-
ing : ' The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having
ten thousand shoots and on each shoot ten thousand branc^ies, and
on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten
thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand grapes, and
each grape when pressed shall yield five and twenty measures of
wine . . . Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand
heads, and every head shall have ten thousand grains, and every
grain ttn pounds of fine flour, bright and clean; and the other
fruits, seeds and the grass shall produce in similar proportions, and
all the animals using these fruits which are products of the soil,
shall become in their turn peaceable and harmonious.' It happens
that this saying, or at least part of it, is actually extant in Apoc.
Bar. xxlx. 5 (cf. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 620-623, 744 ff.), so that it
clearly comes from some Jewish source. In view of an instance
like this it seems possible that even in the N, T. our Lord's words
may have been defined in a sense which was not exactly that
originally intended owing to the current expectation which the dis-
ciples largely shared.
And yet on the whole, even if this expectation was by the Jews
to some extent literalized and materialized, some of its essential
features were preserved. Corresponding to the new abode pre-
Alt EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 26, aTs
pared for h 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,
Allsyn. Theol. p. 382). There was to be no unrighteousness in
their midst, for they were all to be holy {Ps. Sol. xvii. a 8 f., 36,
&c.). The Messiah was to rule over the nations, but not merely by
force ; Israel was to be a true light to the Gentiles (Schttrer, op. lii.
p. 456).
If 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, (i) 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' {Px. Sol. xvii. 31). The only place for the
Gentiles is ' to serve him beneath the yoke ' {ibid. ver. 32). The
vision of the Gentiles streaming to Jerusalem as a centre of religion
is exceptional, as it must be confessed that it is also in O. T.
Prophecy. On the other hand, with St. Paul the movement is
truly cosmic. The ' sons of God ' are not selected for their own
sakes alone, but their redemption means the redemption of a world
of being besides themselves.
THE ASSISTANCE OP THE SPIRIT.
Vni. ae, av. MeanwhiU the Holy Spirit itself assists m
our prayers.
"Nor are we alone in our struggles. The Holy Spirit sup-
ports our helplessness. Left to ourselves we do not know what
prayers to offer or how to offer them. But in those inarticulate
groans which rise from the depths of our being, we recognize the
voice of none other than the Holy Spirit He makes intercession ,
VIIL 26.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT aij
and His intercession is sure to be answered. "For God Who
searches the inmost recesses of the heart can mterpret His own
Spirit's meaning. He knows that His own Will regulates Its
petitions, and that they are offered for men dedicated to His service.
26. AaauTws. As we groan, so also does the Holy Spirit groan
with us, putting a meaning into our aspirations which they would
not have of themselves. All alike converges upon that 'Divine
event, to which the whole creation moves.' This view of the
connexion (Go., Weiss, Lips.), which weaves in this verse with
the broad course of the Apostle's argument, seems on the whole
better than that which attaches it more closely to the words im-
mediately preceding, ' as hope sustains us so also does the Spirit
sustain us ' (Mey. Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou.).
(ruKamXaiiPd^cTai : avTt^afi^dvfo-dai = ' to take hold of at the
side {ami), so as to support ; and this sense is further strength-
ened by the idea of association contained in aw-. The same
compound occurs in LXX of Ps. Ixxxviii [Ixxxix]. a a, and in
Luke X. 40.
Tjj daOcKciiji : decisively attested for rait aadtpuait. On the way in
which we are taking the verse the reference will be to the vague-
ness and defectiveness of our prayers ; on the other view to our
weakness under suflfering implied in di* vTroftovfjs. But as imonovii
suggests rather a certain amount of victorious resistance, this appli-
cation of atrdivfia seems less appropriate.
rh Ydp Ti irpoo-cu^ufjieOa. The art, makes the whole clause object
of oibafuv. Gif. notes that this construction is characteristic of
St. Paul and St. Luke (in the latter ten times ; in the former Rom.
xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14; Eph. iv. 9; i Thess. iv. i). W npotrtvi. is
strictly rather, ' What we ought to pray ' than ' what we ought to
pray for,' i. e. ' how we are to word our prayers,' not * what we are
to choose as the objects of prayer.' But as the object determines
the nature of the prayer, in the end the meaning is much the
same.
naQh Set. It is perhaps ft refinement to take this as == ' accord-
ing to, in proportion to, our need ' (Mey.-W. Gif.) ; which brings out
the proper force of ita06 (cf. Baruch L 6 v. 1.) at the cost of putting
a sense upon del which is not found elsewhere in the N. T., where
it always denotes obligation or objective necessity. Those of the
Fathers who show how they took it make Kad6 J« = riva Tp6Trov
iti vpoatv$., which also answers well to Kara eUp in the next
verse.
iTr«p*vrvY)(dvu : imvyxdvtt means originally * to fall in with,' and
hence ' to accost with entreaty,' and so simply ' to entreat ' ; in this
sense it is not uncommon and occurs twice in this Epistle (viii. 34 ;
XL «V The verse contains a statement which the unready oi
114 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 26 28.
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 consciousnesg. This
verse and the next go to show that St. Paul regarded the action of
the Holy Spirit as personal, and as disiinct 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. 19. Oltr. however makes to nvevfia in
both verses = ' the human spirit,' against the natural sense of
tmeptvTvyx^^*^ ^^^ ^^*P <i')""»'i which place the object of intercession
outside the Spirit itself, and against Kara etop, which would be by
no means always true of the human spirit.
vwrpevTvyxaytt it dedsively attested (K* A B D F G See.). Text Reeept
has the easier ivrtrfx^''** *"'^P i);i«»'.
27. 8ti. Are we to translate this ' because ' (Weiss Go. Gif. Va.)
or ' that ' (Mey. Oltr. Lips. Mou.) ? Probably the latter ; for if we
take on as assigning a reason for <u5« ri t6 <f)p6vTffia, 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 Kara e*6v and
not inrip dyicov. It seems best therefore to make on describe the
nature of the Spirit's intercession.
Kard Q€6v := Kara to diXrjpa tov 6rov : cf. 9 Cor. vii. 9— 1 1.
The Jews had a strong belief in the value of the intercessory prayer «l
their great saints, such as Moses {Ass. Mays. zi. 11, 17; xii. 6), Jeremiah
\Apoc. Bar. ii. 3 : cf. Weber, p. 387 fi. Bat thej have nothing lik« the
teaching of these verses
THE ASCENDIWO PBOCESS OP SAIiVATIOW.
VIII. 28-80. With what a chain of Providential cart
does God accompany the course of His chosen / In eternity^
the plan laid and their part in it foreseen ; in time, first
their call, then their acquittal, and finally their reception
into glory.
•'Yet another ground of confidence. The Christian knows that
all things (including his 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.
^ 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 instiuments of His ptupose,
VIII. 28.] UFE IN THE SPIRIT 215
Then, in the lame eternity, He planned that they snould share in
the glorified celestial being of the Incarnate Son — in order that
He, as Eldest Bom, might gather round Him a whole family of
the redeemed. *• Then in due course, to those for whom He had
in store this destiny He addressed the call to leave their worldly
lives and devote themselves to His service. And when they
obeyed that call He treated them as righteous men, with their
past no longer reckoned against them. And so accounted righteous
He let them participate (partially now as they will do more com-
pletely hereafter) in His Divine perfection.
28. olSai^cr U passes on to another ground for looking con-
fidently to the future. The Christian's career mus/ have a good
ending, because at every step in it he is in the hands of God and is
carrying out the Divine purpose.
irdrra vuvfpyel : a small but important group of authorities, A B,
Orig. 2/6 or a/7 (cf. Boh. Sah. Aeth.), adds 6 e«Jr ; and the inser-
tion lay so much less near at hand than the omishiion that it must
be allowed to have the greater appearance of originality. With
this reading avvtpytl must be taken transitively, ' causes all things
to work.'
The Bohairic Venion, tranilated literally and preserving the idioms, is ' Bot
we know that those who love God, He habitually works with them in every
food thing, those whom He has called according to His purpose.' The Sahidic
'ersion (as edited by Am^linean in ZtUsckrift fur Atgypt. Spracht, 18S7)
Is in part defective but certainly repeats 8e<ir : ' But we know that those who
love God, God . . . them in every good thing,' &c From this we gather
that the Version of Upper Egypt inserted b ©tor, and that the Version o(
Lower Egypt omitted it bot interpreted <rw€p7«r transitively as if it were
present. It would almost seem as if there was aa exegetical tradition which
took the word in this way. It is true that the extract from Origan's Com-
mentary in the Philotalia (ed. Robinson, p. 326 fif.) not only distinctly and
repeatedly presents the common reading but also in one place (p. 229) clearly
has the common interpretation. But Chrysostom {ad Ice.) argues at some
length as if he were taking av '^pytt transitively with 6 @(6s for subject.
Similarly Gennadius (in Cramer's Catena), also Theodoret and Theodoras
Monachus (preserved in the Cattna). It would perhaps be too much to
claim all these writers as witnesses to the reading avvtpyti i Btos, but they
may point to a tradition which had its origin in that reading and survived it.
On the other hand it is possible that the reading may have grown out of the
interpretation.
For the use of awtpyt there arc two rather close parallels in Test. XII
Patr. : Issach. 3 i Ocdj owtfrfu t$ aTtXorijri fiov, and Gad 4 ri yap vvtviM
rev fuaovs . . . avrtpyti r^ ^aravq. if vaaiv tts Ouvarov tSiv afOpanruv to 5i
wvfvfia rrjt iqfawtft 4r fUucpo6vfii<f ffyrtpyti r^ vofi^ rofi 9cov tit aotri^piav
Tois Hard vp69c<nr rXt|tois ouvtr. With this clause St. Paul in-
troduces a string of what may be called the technical terms of hia
11 6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 2b
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 ol
Divine care and ordering. This is summed up at the outset in the
phrase Kara np6e*«Ttv, ihe 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 prool
that the love of God never quits His chosen ones.
The enumeration follows the order of succession in time
For Trpo^eo-i? see on ch. ix. II 17 Kar €Kkoyi]v Trpd^ecrts tov ©toiij
which would prove, if proof were needed, that the purpose is that
of God and not of man {kiit olKtiav rrpoaipta-iv Theoph. and the
Greek Fathers generally): cornp. also Eph. i. 11 ; iii. 11 ; 2 Tim,
i. 9.
It was one of the misfortunes of Greek theolog) that it received a bias ia
the Free- Will controversy from opposition to the Gnostics (cf. p. 269 in/.)
which it never afterwards lost, and which seriously prejudiced its exegesis
wherever this question was concerned. Thus in the present instance, the great
mass of the Greek commentators take KaroL irpoOanv to mean ' in accordance
with the man's own irpoaipfais 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 ol
Alexandria, who however both show traces of the influences current in the
Eastern Church. Origen also seems inclined to take it of the propositum
bonum *t bonam voluntattm quam circa Dii cultum gtrunt ; 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 character* and
conduct of men. Cyril of Alexandria asks the question, Whose purpoae ii
intended 1 and decides tha^ it woald not be wron^ to answer ri^v t« ro>
Vin. 28, 29.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 21 9
KtK\i]K6Tot mai T^ Imn-Sgr. He comes to this decUon however nther oo
dogmatic than on exegetical grounds.
It is equally a straining of the text when Augustine distinguishes two kinds
of call, one secundum propositum, the call of the elect, and the other of those
who are not elect. Non enim omnes vocati secundum propositum sunt
vocati: quoniam multi vocati, pauci eltcti. Ipsi ergo secundum propositum
vocati qui electi ante constitutionem mundi {Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. ii. lo.
§ 3 3, cf- Cont. Julian, v. 6, § 14). In the idea of a double call, Augustine
seems to have been anticipated by Origen, who however, as we have seen,
gives a different sense to Ko-rh irp66((nv: omnes quidem vocati sunt, nontamen
pmtut secundum propositum v»cati sunt (ed. Lomm. vil. 13S).
KXt|Tois : ' called,' implying that the call has been obeyed. The
(tX^trtt is not au salut (Oltr.), at least in the sense of final salva-
tion, but simply to become Christians : see on i. i.
29. 8Tt : certainly here ' because,' assigning a reason for Kovra
<rwfpy('i 6 Qfos tls dyadov, not 'that' (= c'es/ que Oltr.).
ous irpo^yKw. The meaning of this phrase must be determined
by the Biblical use of the word ' know,' which is very marked and
clear : e. g. Ps. i. 6 ' The Lord knoweth (yty!^wo-»c«t) the way of the
righteous'; cxliv [cxliii]. 3 'Lord, what is man that Thou takest
knowledge of him (ot* fyvd>a6r)s aira LXX) ? Or the son of man
that Thou makest account of him?' Hos. xiii. 5 ' I did know
{(iroifMatvoy) thee in the wilderness.' Am. iii. 2 'You only have
I known (tyvav) of all the families of the earth.' Matt. vn. 23
' Then will I profess unto them I never knew (fyi/wj/) you,' &c.
In all these places the word means * to take note of,' ' to fix the
regard upon,' as a preliminary to selection for some especial pur-
pose. 'The compound npotyva only throws back this * taking
note ' from the historic act in time to the eternal counsel which
it expresses and executes.
This interpretation (which is yery similar to that of Godet and which
approaches, though it is not exactly identical with, that of a number of older
commentators, who make npoeyvoi = p7atdiligere, approbare) has the double
advantage of being strictly conformed to Biblical usage and of reading
nothing into the word which we are not sure is there. This latter objection
applies to most other ways of taking the passage : e.g. to Origen's, when he
makes the foreknowledge a foreknowledge of character and fitness, npoava-
Tfviffas ovv 6 Qeot t^ tlpfxZ rS/v kaofihtav, Koi Karavo-qaas fioirrjf rov k(f>' tjiiiv
rwvbi Tivojy iirl tiae^eiay Kal opfii^v im ravrrfv fitri rrjy poinjv «.t.X.
{Fhilocal. xxv. 3. p. 327, ed. Robinson ; the comment ad loc. is rather nearer
the mark, cognovisse suos diciiur, hoc est in dikctione habuisse sibiqut
sociasse, but there too is added sciens quaUs essent). Cyril of Alexandria
(and after him Meyer) supplies from what follows upocyvitad-qoav Cm taovrai
avnnop(poi T^s tlie6vot rov tiov abrov, but this belongs properly only to
wpoupifff. Widest from the mark are those who, like Calvin, look beyond
the immediate choice to final salvation : Dei autem praecogniiio, cuius hie
Paulus meminit, non nuda est praescientia . . . sed adoptio qua Jilios suos
m reprebis semper discrevit. On the other hand, Gif. keeps closely to the
context in explaining, ' " Foreknew " as the individual objects of His purpose
{irp69fais) and therefore foreknew as "them that love God."' The only
defect in this seems to be that it does not soffidently take •ccoont oi the
O. T. and N. T- use of ytyvi>atcm.
tl8 BPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 20, 80
■al wpo^pi<r«. The Apostle overleaps for the moment inter-
mediate steps and carries the believer onward to the final con-
summation of God's purpose in respect to him. This is exactly
defined as ' conformity to the image of His Son.'
au|jifi6p<^ous denotes inward and thorough and not merely super-
ficial likeness.
Tijs tiKiJi'os. As the Son is the image of the Father (» Cor. iv.
4; Col. i. 15), so the Christian is to reflect the image of Hit
Lord, passing through a gradual assimilation of mind and character
to an ultimate assimilation of His d6$a, the absorption of the
splendour of His presence.
CIS t6 etcai auT&K irpur^roKOK ir ireXXoit dScX^ois. As the final
cause of all things is the glory of God, so the final cause of the
Incarnation and of the effect of the Incarnation upon man is that
che Son may be surrounded by a multitude of the redeemed.
These He vouchsafes to call His ' brethren.' They are a ' family,'
the entrance into which is through the Resurrection. As Christ
was the first to rise, He is the ' Eldest-born ' (TrpwrdroKor in rw
vtKpHv, Iva yevTjTM tp na(riv avTos npoartvatp Col. i. 1 8). This is
different from the 'first-born of all creation' (Col. i. 15). vpuro-
TOKot is a metaphorical expression ; the sense of which is determined
by the context; in Col. i. 15 it is relative to creation, here it is
relative to the state to which entrance is through the Resurrection
(see Lightfoot's note on the passage in Col.).
80. ous hi Trpowpiac K.T.X. Having taken his readers to the end
of the scale, the S6$a in which the career of the Christian cul-
minates, the Apostle now goes back and resolves the latter part of
the process into its subdivisions, of which the landmarks are
tKoktiTtp, fHiKaiaatv, *86^a<rt. Thesc are not quite exhaustive:
tiyiatrtv might have been inserted after edtxaiwo-ei' ; but it is sufl5-
ciently implied as a consequence of fiixalaxrey and a necessary
condition of iU^avt : in pursuance of the Divine purpose that
Christians should be conformed to Christ, the first step is the call ;
this brings wiih it, when it is obeyed, the wiping out of past sins,
or justification; and from that there is a straight course to the
crowning with Divine glory. tKaXtatp and tSiKoiaatv are both
naturally in the aorist tense as pointing to something finished
and therefore past : i^o^aatv is not strictly either finished or past,
but it is attracted into the same tense as the preceding verbs ; an
attraction which is further justified by the fact that, though not
complete in its historical working out, the step implied in «Sd^a(r*»>
is both cotnplete and certam in the Divine counsels. To God
there is neither ' before nor after.'
Fill. 31-39.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT SI 9
THS FBOOFS AND ASSUBANCB OF BIVINB XiOTB.
VIII. 81-30. Wiik the proofs of God's lovi before hint^
the Christian has nothing to fear. God, the Judge, is on
his side, and thi ascended Christ intercedes for him
(w. 31-34).
The love of God in Christ is so strong that earthly
sufferings and persecutions — nay, all forms and phases of
being — are powerless to intercept »'/, or to bar the Christians
triumph (w. 35-39).
" What conclusion are we to draw from this ? Surely the
strongest possible comfort and encouragement. With God on our
side what enemy can we fear ? *■ Ag 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 P 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 as 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 as in
Jesus Messiah oor Lord.
S30 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 82, 88
82. is v« Tou ISiou ulou O0K f^ciaaro. A nnmber of emphatic
expressions are crowded together in this sentence : it ye, ' the same
God who ' ; tov Idlov vloi, ' His own Son,' partaker of His own
nature ; ovk ((^titraro, the word which is used of the offering of
Isaac in Gen. xxii. i6, and so directly recalls that offering — the
greatest sacrifice on record. For the argument comp. v. 6-io.
33-35. The best punctuation of these verses is that which is
adopted in RV. text (so also Orig. Chrys. Theodrt. Mey. EU.
Gif. Va. Lid.). There should not be more than a colon between
the clauses e«or 6 iMaimv ris i KoraKpipav ; God is coHceived 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. 1. 8, 9 ' He is near that justifieth men ;
who will contend with me ? . . . Behold, the Lord God will help
me ; who is he that shall condemn me ? ' This distinctly favours
the view that each affirmation is followed by a question relating to
that affirmation. The phrases 6 KaraKpivHv and 6 diKiu»v 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, Oc^ 6 Siicat&v and X^ffrdt ItjooSt 6 iwo§arim
are both answers to ris iyxaXftTti ; and ris 6 KaroKpivuiv ; rit ijitas x^P^*^*^ i
are subordinate questions, suggested in the one case by SiKoicDi', in the other
by (vr. inip fifxuv. 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 fiill accordance with the spirit of the
passage.
Another way of taking it is to put a full stop at iiicaiSiv, and to make Wt
iyKoKiau ; ris i xaraKpticDv ; 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 (©«^r 6 biKaiSiv ; kvTVfX' inrif
ilfjuuv ;) But these repeated challenges do not giva sack a aerrou coaeateoa-
tioD of reasoning.
88. Tis ^KaX^o-ci; another of the forensic terms which are so
common in this Epistle ; ' Who shall impeach such as are elect <^
God?'
^kXcktuk. We have already seen (note on i. i) that with
St. Paul KkijToi and fKAtrro* are not opposed to each other (a« they
are in Matt. xxii. 14) but are rather to be identified. By reading
into icX»;7-ot' 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 m salvation,
the ' glory ' reserved for them ; this lies as it were at the end <A
VIII. 88-86.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 331
the avenue; but *(«X*rr5r only shows that they are in the right
way to reach it. At least no external power can bar them from
it ; if they lose it, they will do so by their own fault
KoraKplvMv : tmroMpivair RV. ttxt Mon. This is quite possible, bot Stmuaw
mggests the present
S4. XpioTos Itjo-oO* K AC F G L, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat Did.
Aug. : XpiarSs (om. 'Itjaovs) B D E K &c., Syrr., Cyr.-Jenis. Chrys. ai.
Another instance of B in alliance with authorities otherwise Western and
Syrian. \VH. bracket 'irjc.
iytp6ti% «K veicpav H* AC al.flur., RV. WH': em. I« Kitpwv K'BDE
FGKL &c., Ti, WH*. The group which inserts U vtKfSiv it practically
ths sanae as that which inserts ^Irjaovs above.
8« Koi. Stroke follows stroke, each driving home the last. * It
is Christ who died — nay rather (immo vero) rose from the dead —
who {koi should be omitted here) is at the right hand of God — who
also intercedes for us.' It is not a dead Christ on whom we depend,
but a living. It is not only a living Christ, but a Christ enthroned,
a Christ in power. It is not only a Christ in power, but a Christ
of ever-active sympathy, constantly (if we may so speak) at the
Father's ear, and constantly pouring in intercessions for His
struggling people on earth. A great text for the value and
significance of the Ascension (cf. Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 67 f.).
36. dwi Tt]s dY<iin|s too XpiaToO. There is an alternative reading
roC GeoO for which the authorities are ^5 B, Orig. {1/3 doubtfully in
the Greek, but 6/7 in Rufinus' Latin translation) ; Eus. 4/6 ; Bas.
2/6 ; Hil. i/a and some others. RV. WH. note this reading in
marg. But of the authorities B Orig.-lat. a/7 read in full ano t^s
dydn-i;! rov ©fov r^f iv Xpiara 'irjaov, which is obviously taken from
ver. 39. Even in its simpler form the reading is open to suspicion
of being conformed to that verse : to which however it may be
replied that Xpiarov may also be a correction from the same source.
On the whole Xptarov seems more probable, and falls in better with
the view maintained above of the close connexion of vv. 34, 35.
' The love of Christ ' is unquestionably ' the love of Christ for
us,' not our love for Christ : cf. v. 5.
6Xrv|;is ic.T.X. We have here a splendid example of Kaixn^^f *"
Tois 6\i^«Tiv of which St. Paul wrote in ch. v. 3 flf. The passage
shows how he soared away in spirit above those ' sufferings of this
present time ' which men migte inflict, but after that had nothing
more that they could do. On 6kiy\ris ^ o-Tej'ox<»P'a see ii, 9 ; for
iit»y(i6s cf. a Cor. xi. 33 ff., 3a f. ; xii. 10, &c. ; for Xt^oy ^ yv/ii/oVr^s,
I Cor. iv. 11; a Cor. xi. a7 ; for KiVawot a Cor. xi. a6; i Cor.
XV. 30.
36. 3ti l^cKd aow. The quotation is exact from LXX of P&
xliv [xliii]. 23 : on belongs to it.
IvfKtv is decisively attested here : in the Psalm B bos ffcco, MAT {vcjrcr.
where there is a presumption against the reading of B.
»aa EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 86-8a
6avaroJft«6a 2Xnr j^w ^nipav: cf. I Cor. xv. 31 Ka(f ^fUpa»
airo6vT](TKCi : * tota die, hoc est, omni viiae meae tempore ' Orig.
irp6^aTa a<f>aYtis : sheep destined for slaughter; cf. Zech. xi. 4
ra np6,ia.Ta ri^s <r4>ayris (cf. Jer. xii. 3 itp6iiaTa tit vcpayi'/v Cod. Marchal.
marg.).
The Latin texts of thii Terse are marked and characteristie. Tertnllian,
Scorp. 13 Tua causa wtortificamur tota dU, dtputati sutnui ut ptcora iugu-
lationis. Cyprian, Test. iii. 18 (the true text; cf. Epist. xxxi. 4) Causa tut
occidimur tota die, deputati sumus ut oves victimae. Hilary of Poitiers,
Tract, in Pt. cxviii. (ed. Zingerle, p. 439") Propter tt nutrtificamur tota die,
deputati sumus sicut oves occisionis. Irenaens, Adv. Haer. II. xxii. a
[J.atine; cf. IV. xvi. 2) Propter te mort* afficimur tota die, aestimati sumus
ut eves occisionis. (vSimilarly Cod. Claxom Speculum Augustini, codd. ML)
Vulgate (Cod. Ainiat.) Propter te mortificamur tota die, aestimati sumus
tit oves occisionis. Here two types of text stand out clearly : that of Cyprian
at one end of the scale, and that of the Vulgate (with which we may group
Iren.-lat. Cod. Clarom. and the Speculum) at the other. Hilary stands
between, having deputati in common with Cvprian, but on the whole leaning
rather to the later group. The most difficult problem is presented by
TertuUian, who approaches Cyprian in Tua causa and deputati, and the
Vulgate group in mortificamur : in pecorm iugulationis he stands alone
This passage might seem to favonr the view that in TertuUian we had the
primitive text from which all the rest were derived. That hypothesis how-
ever would be difficult to maintain systematically; and in any case there
mnst 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 oi
a problem which is still some way &om solution.
87. flirepi'iitwfjiei'. TertuUian and Cyprian represent this by the
coinage supervinctmus (Vulg. Cod. Clarom. Hil. superamus) ; ' over-
come strongly ' Tyn. ; ' are more than conquerors ' Genev., happily
adopted in AV.
Sid ToG i.yaiir\<ravTOt i)|Jias points back to r^r iydmit rov %purT*i
In ver. 35.
88. ouTc ayYcXoi oStc dpxaC ' And He will call on all the host
of the heavens and all the holy ones above, and the host of God,
the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim, and all the angels of
power, and all the angels of principalities, and the Elect One, and
the other powers on the earth, over the water, on that day ' Enoch
Ixi. 10. St. PaiJ from time to time makes use of similar Jewish
designations for the hierarchy of angels : so in i Cor. xv. 24 ;
Eph. i. a I a ,\ij, f^ovaia, 8vvafus, Kvpidrrjs, rrav Sro/ta oyoixa^ofifvov :
iii. 10; vi. 12; Col. i. 16 (dpovoi, Kvpi6TtjT(e, apxai, i^ova'uu) ', ii. ID,
15. The whtle world of spirits is summed up in Phil. ii. 10 as
ejTowpdvioi, imyfoi, KoraxOovioi. It is somewliat 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.,
oray Karapyrfvjj wcurav apxrfv Koi waaav f^ovaiav Ka\ Svpafuv I Cor. XV,
24; inrtpapc* irdtrtft dp^fit koi f^ovaias iutX. Eph. L SIj f u<paXi
irtunjr apx^ koI t^owriat CoL ii lO.
^11. 88, 88.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT Saj
It is ako true (as pointed ont hy Weiss, BtV. ThtoL § 104]
Anm. 1. 2) that the leading passages in which St. Paul speaks of
angels are those in which his language aims at embracing the
whole KOfTixot. He is very far from a Sp^a-Ktia tS» dyytXav 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 6vvdfi(is) 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
a certain hierarchy to which the current names are given. They
seem to be neither wholly good nor wholly bad, for to them too
the Atonement of the Cross extends (Col. L 20 dn-oicaraXXa^at ri
iravra th avrop . . . «r« ra fin rijs y^s «iT€ ra iv rote ovpavoii). There
is a sense in which the Death on the Cross is a triumph over them
(Col.ii. 15). They too must acknowledge the universal sovereignty
of Christ (i Cor. xv. 34; cf. Eph. i. 10); and they form part of
that kingdom which He hands over to the Father, that ' God may
be all in all ' (i Cor. xv. 28). On the whole subject see Everling,
Dit paulinischt Angelologie u. DSmotiologie, GOttingen, i888.
For a77«Xoi the Weftem text (D E F G, Ambrstr. Ang. Amb.) hat
iyy(\ot. There is also a tendency in the Western and later authorities to
insert ovt( ((ovaiat before or after dpxaif obviously from the parallel passages
in which the words occnr together.
ouTf 8uK<£p.cif . There is overwhelming authority (M A B C D Ac.)
for placing these words after ovt* fUXXovra. We naturally expect
them to be associated with dpxai, as in i Cor. xv. 14 ; Eph. i. 31.
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. 13 (tois «rToi;^oi;<r»»'). But it is perhaps more
probable that in the rush of impassioned thought St Paul inserts
the words as they come, and that thus ovrt Hvwdiuu 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 powen on
the earth ' in the passage from the Book of Enoch quoted above ; also Test.
XII Pair. Levi 3 ir ry rplr^t (so. ovpcw^) *i<Tly at Supi/xus twv vaptn^oXw,
oi raxOtvTft fit ^fUp<w Kpifftwt, noi^mu iKSimjair ir roit wvtvuaoi r^s vXAytjt
cat ToS BtXiap.
89. oSn uijftffia oSn pA9o%. Lips, would give to the whole
conte.Kt a somewhat more limited application than is usually
assigned to it He makes oCre cVcot. . . ^odor 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 01 the
124 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VTII. 89
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 mannei of
St. Paul to personify abstractions, and the sense attached to them
cannot well be too large : cf. esp. Eph. iii. 1 8 ri r6 irXdros xai firjKot
KOI v\^os Koi &ados, and t Cor. X. 5 vav v^ufJia *ii€up6fifyo9 Kara ttjs
yyoxrtoiis tov Ocov.
The common patristic explanation of Cipaifta is ' thing* above the hetyens,'
and of ^aOoi, 'things beneath the earth.' Theod, Monach. iiipaifxa /xiy ri
dyav iniSo^a, Pd6os ii rcL ayav a5o(a, Theodoret fiiOos Si tt^v yitwar,
v\f/ojfjui T^v ^affi\tiav. Origen tin Cramer's Catena) explains vipojfta of the
'spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places' Eph. vL la), and
liddos of TcL KaraxOoyia. The expanded version of Kufinus approaches still
more nearly to the theory of Lipsius: Similiter et altitudo et profundum
itnpugnant nos, sicut et David dicit multi qni debellant me de alto : iint
dubio cum a spiritibits nequitiae de caelestibut urgeretur: et sicut iterum
dicit : de profundis clamavi ad te, Doniine : cum ab his qui in inftm*
deputati sunt et gehennae spiritibui itnfugnaretur.
ouTc T15 KTiais iripa.. The use of iripa and not nXX?; seems to
favour the view that this means not exactly 'any other created
ihing ' 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 aakt
if there may not be another creation besices 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 comer of the illimit-
able world, like children in a darkened room, encompassed by we know
not what ; a little better endowed with the machinery of sensation than the
protozoon, yet poorly provided indeed as compared with a being, if such
a one could be conceived, whose senses were adequate to the infinite variety
of material Nature.*
dirS T^s dydinis too 0eoo ti]S Iv Xpiar^ *lT)aoO. 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 thi Holy Spirit, because Chrisi
died for us ; and God commends His love because Chrisi died.
The same essential significance runs through this section (not*
esD. w. 31-35, 39)-
IX. 1-6.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 2%$
THB AFOSTUrS SOBBOW OVEB ISBAEIi'S TTIirBEIjrBF.
IX. 1-6. TAe thought of this magnificent prospect fills
mt with sorrow for those who seem to be excluded from it —
my own countrymen for whom I would willingly sacrifict
my dearest hopes — excluded too in spite of all their special
privileges and their high destiny.
* How glorious the prospect of the life in Christ ! How mournful
the thought of those who are cut oflF 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 I
IX-XI. 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
226 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [UL 1.
consistent with the privileged position of the Jew*? 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
tvayyi\iov if for both Jew and Greek, is yet for the Jew first (i. i6,
ii. 9). It has led him to lay great stress on the fact that the Jews
especially had sinned (ii. 17). Once indeed he has begun to
discuss it directly (iii. i); 'What advantage then is there in being
a Jew ? ' but he postponed it for a time, feeling that it was necessary
first to complete his main argument. He has dwelt on the fact
that the new way of salvation can be proved from the Old Testa-
ment (chap. iv). Now he is at liberty to discuss in full the question :
How is this conception of Christ's work consistent with the fact of
the rejection of the Jews which it seems to imply ?
The answer to this question occupies the remainder of the
dogmatic portion of the Epistle, chaps. ix-Ki, 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. ai 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 haTe omitted the whole of this chapter with the possible
exception of tv. i -3. TerU who passes from viii. 11 to x. a says mU* tt
kit amplissimum abruptum intercisa* serif turtu {Adp. Mart. v. 14). See
Zahn, Gesch. dts N. T. Kanom p. 518.
L We notice that there is no grammatical coimezion 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.
dXi^Ociaf \hfia iv Xpior^: 'I speak the truth in Christ, as one
united with Christ '; of. a Cor. ii. 17 aXX' i»s *$ tiXncpivdas, dXX' «h
M 0«ov, KaTfyavn d«ov tp Xfiiar^ \aX.ovun>: xii. 1 9. St. Paul haS jUSt
IX. 1, 1.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 937
described that anion with Christ which will make any form of sin
impossible; cf. viii. i, lo; and the reference to this union gives
solemnity to an assertion for which it will be dijQBcult to obtain full
credence.
ofi 4'eu^of<^<u. A Pauline expression. ■ Tim. ii. 7 aKi)6tm» X«yw,
ov ^tiiofiai: a Cor. xi. 31 ; Gal. i. to.
7Ufi|tapTupou<n|s: cf. ii. 15 ; viii. 16. The conscience is personified
so as to give the idea of a second and a separate witness. Cf.
Oecumenius ad loc, fiiya 6*\ti ttirtip, 816 npoobonoul r^ in(TTtv6rJ¥ai,
rpetf €Tri<p€p6ftepog (idprvpaty t6p XpurT6p, ri 'Aytoy Ili/cv^ta, Ka\ ri}v iavTOv
wvti8ri(rip.
w rii'cufian 'AyCy with ovixfiaprvpovarjs. 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 avr6 to Hvfvfta a-vfiftaprvptl t« nvtifxari r)n»p.
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. wportpop ii dia^e^aiovnu W€p\ &p fifXXei
Xtytip" inrtp n-oXXoir iBot rroifii* vrap /icXXoxri rt Xry«y wapa rols iroXXoit
ant<TTovfji(vop luu virip oS axf)6Spa iavrovs ctcri ircfrcdcorvf.
2. 8ti : ' that,' introducing the subordinate sentence dependent on
che 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.
Xumi (which is opposed to xop<> Jn* zvi. 20) appears to mean
grief as a state of mind ; it is rational or emotional : dSunr) 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
fg Kopdtfi) which is the result of Xvinp.
With the grief of St Paal for his eoantiymen, we mnj compate the grief
of a Jew writing after the fall of Jernsalem, who feels both the misfortune
and the sin of his people, and who like St. Paul emphasizes his sorrow bj
enumerating their close relationship to God and their ancestral pride :
4 Ezra viii. 15-18 tt nutu duens duam, d* omni komins tu magis sets, de
populo amttm tuo, ob qutm doUo, tt de haertditate tua, propter quam lugeo, et
propUr ItraH, propter qu$m tristis sum, et de semine Jacob, propter quad
conturbor. Ibid. x. 6-8 non vides luctum nostrum et quae nobis contigerunt ?
quoniam Sion mater nostra omnium in tristitia centristatur, et humilitate
humiliata est, et luget ualidissime . . . 21-33 vides enim quoniam sanctifi-
catio nostra deserta effecta est, et altare nostrum demolitum est, et templum
nostrum destructum est, et psalterium nostrum humiliatum est, et hymnus
master conticuit, et exsultatio nostra dissoluta est, et lumen candelabri nostri
uctinctum est, et area testamenti nostri direpta est. Apoc. Baruch. xxxv. 3
quomodo enim ingemiscam super Sione, et quomode lugebo super lerusalemt
quia in loco isto uH prostratus turn nmmc, olim summus saterdos offerebed
tiflotioMi! jMnttttt.
22$ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. &
8. This verse which is introduced by ydp does not give the
reason of his grief but the proof of his sincerity.
tjoxtJiAUK : '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 aflFect its possibility.'
See also Acts xxv. 2 a, and Burton, Af. and 7! § 33.
d»'<i0€jio: 'accursed,' 'devoted to destruction.' The word wat
originally used with the same meaning as dvddrffta (of which it was
a dialectic variation, see below), ' that which is oflfered 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 dvadefia as a translation of the Hebrew D^n : see Levit. xxvii.
28, 29 n'O" Se dvddefia t cav dvaQji avdpmnot r^ Kvpitf . . . ovic afrodoxrerai
ovi)( \vrpo)(T(Tai . . . Koi wdv o idv dvaTtBrj ditb T&v dvdpannv ov Xvrpud^-
o-«Tat, dXKa davdria 6avaT<n6rj(TtTcu : Deut. vU. a6 ; Josh. vi. fj Ka\ iarcu
^ iroXtr dvddefia, airr^ nai ndvra ova iarip iv airrj, Kvpiif vc^aad. And
with this meaning it is always used in the New Testament : Gal. L
8, 9 ; 1 Cor. xvi. a a. 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 discnstion at to the
distinction in meaning between dvaet/ia and iviOrj/M. It was originally
dialectic, dvaOrj/M being the Attic form (dvdOrjfM drTiKUfs, ivdOtpa iWtjviicSit
Moeris, p. 28) and dvdOtfta being found as a substitute in non-Attic works
{Anth. F. 6. 162, C.I.G. 2693d and other mstances are quoted by the
Dictionaries). 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 terts
seem to preserve the difference of the two word*. The only doubtful passage
is a Mace. ii. 13; here A reads dvdOtfjui where we should expect dviOrj/M,
but V ^the only other MS. quoted by Swete) and the authorities in Holmes
and Parsons have dv&drjfia. In the N.T. dvdOrjfui occurs once, Ltilce zxi. 5,
and then correctly (but the MSS. vary, dvdOrjfia B L^ avdOtiM. K A D). The
Fathers often miss the distinction and explain the two words as identical :
so Ps.-Just. Quaest. et Rtsp. lai ; Theod. on Rom. ix. 3, and Suidas; they
are distinguished in Chrys. on Rom. ix. 3 as quoted by Snidas, but not in
Field's ed. No certain instance is quoted oidvdQr]pa. for dvadf^xa, bot dvdQtim
could be and was used dialectically for dvkQrnt.a. On the word generally
see esp. Trench Syn. i. 5 5 ; Lft. Gal. i. 8 ; Fri. on Rom. ix. 3.
ouTos €Y«. 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. Chryg.
ad loc. Tt Xryctr, a> Uaikt ; itro rov X^motov rov mtBovftipoVf oi fu/n
IX. 3, 4.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 229
TO^TOV vOv eijxv CLvadefia eivat.;
dirb ToO XpLo-ToO: 'separated from the Christ,' a pregnant use
of the preposition. The translation of the words as if they were
ivb T. X. arises from a desire to soften the expression.
/card ffdpKa: cf. iv. I 'as far as earthly relations are concerned';
spiritually St. Paul was a member of the spiritual Israel, and his
kinsmen were the dde\(poi of the Christian society.
The prayer of St. Paul is similar to that of Moses: Exod. xxxii.
32 'Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin — ; and if not, blot me,
I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.' On this
Clem. Rom. hii. 5 comments as follows : & fjLeydXrjs dydir-qs, w riKeib-
rtp-ot dvvnfpP\r)Tov, wappi]<rtd(tTcu Btpairav wpos Kvpiov, atrcirat acpttriy t«
w\ti6(i ^ KM fovrbv i$dX.(i<l>6ijvai fttr avT&v d^toi. In answer to those
who have found difficulties in the passage it is enough to say with
Prof. Jowett that they arise from 'the error of explaining the
language of feeling as though it were that of reasoning and
feflection.'
There aie one or two slight variations of reading in Tcr. 3, airds iyu was
placed before ivi$. tTv. by C K L, Vnlg., and later anthorities with T R, and
VnS (D E G) snbstitnted for dv6 (K A £ C &c.). Both Tariations arise from
a desire to modify the passage.
4u oZrir^s claiK : ' inasmuch as they are.' St. Paul's grief for Israel
arises not only from his personal relationship and affection, but
also from his remembrance of their privileged position in the Divine
economy.
*lcrpaT)\rTai : used of the chosen people in special reference to
the fact that, as descendants of him who received from God the
name of Israel, they are partakers of those promises of which it was
a sign. The name therefore implies the privileges of the race;
cf. £ph. ii. IS dnrjWoTpimiJLfPOi t^s noXireias roii ^lirpaijX Kcti ^tvoi twv
iia6T]KS>v TTjs fTTayyfXiac : and as such it could be used metaphorically
of the Christians (6 'IvpafjX rov Qtoi Gal. vi. 16 ; cf. ver. 6 inf.) ; a use
which would of course be impossible for the merely national designa-
tion 'lovSatot.
* Israel ' is the title used in contemporary literature to express the
special relations of the chosen people to God. Ps. Soi. xiv. 3 on
If ft(p\s Ktu 7) KkrjpovofUa rov Qfov fOTiv 6 'IcrparjX : Ecclus. Xvii. 1 5 fifpts
Kvpiov 'lapaijX eoriV : Jubilees xxxiii. 18 ' For Israel is a nation holy
unto God, and a nation of inheritance for its God, and a nation of
priesthood and royalty and a possession.' Thus the word seems to
have been especially connected with the Messianic hope. The
Messianic times are 'the day of gladness of Israel' {Ps. Sol. x. 7),
die blessing of Israel, the day of God's mercy towards Kia' 1
(ib. ZViL 5O1 5' ItaKoptot o yiM^ftcwM W rait fifitpais iitfivaii ISfiv to
ftJO EPISTLE TO THE ROMAMS [IX C
iyoBk 'IvpaiiK hr mymrymy^ <f>v\ip, A irot^ovt i Gror. Tayvvtu A Bt6t M
laparjX ri tKtot avrov). When therefore St. Paul use« 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 ofif from all share in the
privileges of his kingdom.
utoOcffia : ' 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 £zod. iv. 22 radt Xf-yct Kvpiot Yi6t nparoTOKOi fto»
'lapnfjk : Deut. xiv. i ; xxxii. 6 ; Jer. xxxi. 9 ; Hos. xi. i. %o Jubilees
i. 31 'I will be a 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 uprightneM and
in righteousness and that I love them.'
ij 8<5|o : ' the visible presence of God among His people ' (see
on iii. 23). W^a is in the LXX the translation of the Hebrew
nin^ Il23, called by the Rabbis the Shekinah (W^af), the
bright cloud by which God made His presence known on earth ;
cf. Exod. xvi. 10, &c. Hence rh kolWo^ rf;? 80^75 avroO Ps. Sol. ii. 5,
aitit 6p6vov Ho^t ib. ver. ao, Wisd. ix. 10, imply more than the mere
beauty of the temple, and when St. Stephen, Acts vii. 2, speaks of
i Otis TTjs io^tjt his words would remind his hearers of the visible
presence of God which they claimed had sanctified Jerusalem and the
temple. On late Rabbmical speculations concerning the Shekinah
see Weber AUsyn. Theol. p. 179.
at 8i«di)Kai : ' the covenants,' see Hatch Essays oh Biblical
Greek, p. 47. The plural is used not with reference to the two
covenants the Jewish and the Christian, but because the original
covenant of God with Israel was again and again renewed
(Gen. vi. 18; ix. 9; xv. 18; xvii. a, 7, 9 ; Ex. ii. 24). Comp. Ecclus.
xliv. 1 1 fura rov anipftaTos aiirStv buxfitvt'i ayc^i) nXrjpovofiia, ficyova avrmp
iv rait diaSrjKMS', Wisdom XViii. 2 2 Xoyy Tor mdXa^oi'Ta vntra^fy, opKovs
nartpuv Koi iia6r)Kas vnofivrjaat. According to Irenaeus, III. xi. ii
(ed. Harvey) there were four covenants : nui dta toOto rivaapts ibo-
Srjtray Ka$o\iKa\ iiadrJKCU r^ avBpttnorrjn' fiia nfv rov KaTaKkwfiov rov
N»(, iirl rov ro^ov' dtvrtpa ii rov 'A/3padfi, rr< rov tnjfjitiov TTJt rrtpiTOfirjs'
TpiTtj Si ^ vopo6«ria nrt rov Mmvcrimt' Ttrdprrf di if rov EvayycXuw, dwk
Toi) Kvplov fjpMP 'itjaov Xpiaroi *,
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 botind to Him by a covenant who would
receive the Divine protection. On the idea of the Covenant and
* Ib the Latin venian the kmt covenants ai* Adam, Noah, Mows, Christ
IX. 4. 5.J THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL J)l
its practical bearing on Jewish life see SchQrer Gtschickky ii
p. 388.
^ KO)to0c(ria : a classical word, occurring also in Philo. * The
giving of the law.' ' The dignity and glory of having a law com-
municated by express revelation, and amidst circumstances so full
of awe and splendour.' Vaughan.
The current Jewish estimation of the Law {6 v6ftot 6 xmapxw
tit ToK alava Baruch iv. i) it is unnecessary to illustrate, but the
point in the mention of it here is brought out more clearly if we
remember that all the Messianic hopes were looked upon as the
reward of thdse who kept the Law. So Ps. Sol. xiv, i m<rr6s Kipioi
roit ayaKm<Ti» mrhv iv d\i}dtif . . . rolr troptvofifvois iv iiKaiotrvvjj npouray-
ftirttp avrev, cV t>6ftta a>« rrcrctXaro i}piu tls (utfjv {]pS»v. It was one of
the paradoxes of the situation that it was just those who neglected
the Law who would, according to St. Paul's teaching, inherit the
promises.
^ XarpcCa: 'the temple service.' Heb. ix. i, 6; 1 Mace. ii. 19, 28.
As an illustration of Jewish opinion on the temple service may be
quoted Pirqe Aboth, i. a (Taylor, p. a6) ' Shimeon ha-^addiq
was of the remnants of the great synagogue. He used to say, On
three things the world is stayed; on the Thorah, and on the
Worship, and on the bestowal of kindnesses.' According to the
Rabbis one of the characteristics of the Messianic age will be
a revival of the temple services. (Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 359.)
ol ^irayycXiai : ' the promises made in the O. T. with special
reference to the coming of the Messiah.' These promises were of
course made to the Jews, and were always held to apply particularly
to them. While sinners were to be destroyed before the face of
the Lord, the saints of the Lord were to inherit the promises
(cf. Pt. Sol. xii. 8) ; and in Jewish estimation sinners were the
gentiles and saints the chosen people. Again therefore the
choice of terms emphasizes the character of the problem to be
discussed. See note on i. a, and the note of Ryle and James on
P$.Sol.loc.cit.\ cf. also Heb. vi.ia; xi. 13; Gal. iii.19; 1 Clem. x. a.
ai hiaQxiKtu K C L, Vnlg. codd. Boh. &c. has been corrected into ^ h<a9-i]itr)
B D F G, Vnlg. codd. paw. ; also iirayytMou into tvayyt\ia D E F G, Boh.
Both TahatioDs are probably due to fancied difficulties.
6. ol iraWpes: 'the patriarchs.' Acts iii. 13, vii. 3a. On the
' merits ' of the patriarchs and their importance in Jewish theol gy
see the note on p. 330.
ii &¥ h Xpurrdf rd Kn-rd adpita. Cf. i Clem, xxxii. 2 c'l airov 6
Kvptcrs 'lijo-oCs t6 Kara a-dpKa. 6 Xp. is not s. personal name, but must
be translated ' the Messiah.' Not only have the Jews been united
to God by so many ties, but the purpose for which they have beer
selected has been fulfilled. The Messiah has come forth fronn
them, and yet they have been rejected.
a$% EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 5
4 Ar M itArrmv et6%, k.t.X. : with XfturrSt (see below), ' who ii
God over all blessed for ever.' navTtov is probably neuter, cf. zi. 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.
Tk^ Privilegis 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 thftt 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.
AH 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, tht
IX. 5.]
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; Schiirer, Geschichte,
ii. 452 sq.)
Tk* Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5.
mikliiml XpitrU ri mtA cri/uca, • i» iwl wivrwr, Stit tikoytjrh clt r«^
•nfcot' ijtfy^.
The interpretation of Rom. ix. 5 hai probably been discussed at greater Special
length than that of any other verse of the N.T. Besides long notes in uQatnr
Taiions commentaries, the following special papers may be mentioned:
Schultz, in Jahrbucher fur dtuUcke TkeologU, 1868, vol. xiii. pp. 463-506;
Grimm, Zwth., 1869, pp. 311-333 ; Harmsen, ib. 1872, pp. 510, 521 : bat
England and America have provided the fullest discnssiona— by Prof.
Kennedy and Dr. Gifford, namely, Tht Divinity of Christ, a strmon
preached on Christmas Day, 1882, before the University of Cambridge, with
an appendix on Rom. ix. 5 and Titns ii. 13, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy,
D.D., Cambridge, 1883 ; Caesarem Appello, a letter to Dr. Kennedy, by
Edwin Hamilton Gifford, D.D., Cambridge, 1883; and Pauline Christology,
I. Examination of Rom. ix. 5, being a rejoinder to the Rev. Dr. Gifford" t
reply, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge, 1883 : by Prof Dwight
and Dr. Eira Abbot, va /. £. Exeg. June and December, 188 1, pp. 33-55,
87-154 ; and 1883, pp. 90-113. Of these the paper of Dr. Abbot is much
the most exhaustive, while that of Dr. Gifford seems to ns on the whole to
show the most exegetical power.
Dismissing minor variations, there are four main interpretations (all kA. Altema^v
them referred to in the RV.) which have been suggested : interpreta
(a) Placing a comma after ff<i/)«o and referring the whole passage to tions
Christ So RV.
{b) Placing a full stop after odpna and translating ' He who is God over
all te blessed for ever,' or ' is blessed for ever.' So RV. marg.
(c) With the same punctuation translating ' He who is over all is God
blessed for ever.' RV. marg.
{d) Placing a comma after a&pKa and a full stop at w&VTCjy, * who is over
»1L 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 MS.''
almost certamly 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 punctna-
are used, but only to divide words, never to indicate pauses in the sense ; in tion.
the MS. of the no\ireia 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 books of the N. T. In carefully written MSS., the work of professional
scnbes, 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 ♦raditional
punctuation we should have to seek it rather in early versions or in second
aBd third century Fathers : the punctuation of the MSS. if interesting is
the Uatoiy of iateipreUtitnt, but hu no ether ndac
»S4
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[IX. a.
Htstctf at The history of the interpretation must be passed oyer somewhat csnorily.
the fajve». For our earliest evidence we should naturally turn to the older versions, bat
pretatioo. these seem to labour under the same obscority as the originaL It is howsvcc
(i) Th« probably true that the traditional interpretation of all of them ii to apply the
Versiocia. doaology to Christ.
'a ) The About most of the Fathers however there is no doubt An immense pie>
Fatiiers. ponderance of the Christian writers ot the first eight centuries refer the word
to Christ. This is certainly the case with Irenaens, Natr. III. rvii. », ed.
Harvey; Tertnllian, j4dv. Prax. 13, 15; Hippolytus, Cont. Noct. 6 (ct
Gifford, op. (it. p. 60) ; Novatian. Trin. 13 ; Cyprian, Tut. ii. 6, ed. Hartel ;
Syn. Ant. adv. Paul. Sam. in Ronth, Pel. Saerae, iii, 391, 293 ; Athanasius^
C»nt. Arimn. L iii. 10; Epiphanius. Ha^. Irii. a, 9, ed. Oehler; Basil,
Adv. Eumm. iv. p. aSa ; Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Eutum. 11 ; Chrysostom,
Horn, ad Rom. ivi. 3, <Ssc. ; Theodoret, Ad Rom. iv. p. 100 ; Angustine, Dt
Trinitate, it 13 ; Hilarius, Dt Trinitatt, viii. 37, 38 ; Ambrosius, Dt Spiriin
Sancto, L 3. 46 ; Hieronymus, Ep. CXXI. ad Algat. Qn. ix ; Cyril AL, Cont.
M. X. pp. 337, 338. It is true also of Origen {im Pom. vii. 13) if we may
trust Kufinus' Latin translation (the subject has been discussed at length
by Gifford, op. cit. p. 3' : Abbot,/, B. Extg. 1883, p. 103; WH. ad iot.).
Moreover there is no evidence that this conclusion was arrived at on dogmatic
grounds. The passage is rarely cited in controversy, and the word e«<5s was
eiven to our Lord by many sects who refused to ascribe to him full divine
noQours, 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
Bot favour Sabellianism, never appears to think of taking theaa in any
other way.
The strongest evidence againct the reference to Christ is that of the Icsuling
oncial MSS. Of these K has no punctuation, A undoubtedly puts a point
after aapKa, and also leaves a slight space. The punctuation of this chapter
U careful, and certainly by the original hand ; bet as there is a similar point
and space between Xptarov and vrrip in ver. 3, a point between aipxa and
dtrtyfs, and another between 'lcrpai}\iT(u and aii', there is no reason as far as
punctuation is concerned why i wv should not refer to Uptards as much ti
MTicts does to i5(K<puiv. * fi has a colon after aapna, 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 earlitf
stop or not cannot be ascertained. C has a stop after aipna. The difference
between the MSS. and the Fathers has not been accounted for and is certainly
corions.
Against ascribing these words to Christ some patristic evidence has
been found. Origen (Rufinus) ad lot. tells as there were certain pers(HU
who thought the ascription of the word ©«<5f to Christ difficult, for St. PwB^
had already called him vl^t B*ov. The long series of extracts naade by
Wetstein ad lot. stating that the words i iw\ wdvTwv Htus cannot be used ot
the Son are not to the point, for the Son here is called not 6 ivi Trarron' %t6t,
but €wi viWTaiv ee<5s, and some of the writers he quotes expressly interpret the
passage of the Christ elsewhere. Again, Cyril of Alexandria {Cont. Jul. x.
p. 327) quotes the Emperor Julian to the effect that St. Paul never calif
Chrii>t Bt6s, but although this is certainly an interesting statement, thk
passage, which Cyril quoies against him, might easily have been overlooked.
Two writers, and two only, Photius {Cont. Man. iii. 14) and Diodrnw
(Cramer's Catena, p. 162), definitely ascribe the words to the FatJier.
The modem criticism of the passage began with Erasmus, wbo poiated
* For information oa this pcJat and also 00 the panctnation of the olda
paoyri, we are mtich fcidrbtod to Mr. F. G. KenTon, «f th» Britiah Moaetua.
•:X)Tlie
4 Modem
71 'dtm.
ex. S.] THK UNBEUEF OF ISRAEL «35
oat that thert were certainly three altematiTe interpretationi possibk, and
that as there was so mach doabt about the Terse it shonld nerer be used
•gainst heretics. He himself wavers in his opinion. In the Commentary
he seems to refer the words to the Father, in the Paraphrase (a later bat
popular work) he certainly refers them to the Son. Socinus, it is interesting
to note, was convinced by the position of (i\oyt)Tit (see below) that the
soitence must refer to Chnst. From Erasmus' time onwards opinions have
varied, and have been influenced, as was natural, largely by the dogmatic
opinions of the writer ; and it seems hardly worth while to quote long lists of
names on either side, when the question is one which must be decided not bf
authority or theological opinion but by considerations of language.
The discussion which follows will be divided into Uirec heads: —
(l) Grammar ; (a) Sequence of thought ; (3) Pauline usage.
The first words that attract onr attentioB are ri tcard aapica, and a parallel The gram
oaturally suggests itself with Rom. t. 3, 4. As there St Paul describes the mar of thin
human descent from David, bat expressly limits it xari a&pKa, and then passage.
in contrast describes his Divine descent tcari wtxifia iyiwaivrji ; so here the (i) r^Karc
course of the argument having led him to lay stress on the human birth of ffifma.
Christ as a Jew, he would naturally correct a one-sided statement by
limiting that descent to the earthly relationship and then describe the true
nature of Him who was the Messiah of the Jews. He would thus enhance
the privileges of his Cellow-conntrymen, and put a culminating point to his
argument. r6 «ard aipga leads us to expect an antithesis, and we find just
what we should have expected ia i i/v Iwl vdyrvr S(6s.
Is this legitimate? It has been argued first of all that the proper anti-
thesis to aip( is wvtS/im. But this objection is invalid. @t6s u in a coih
siderable number of cases used in contrast to aip( (Luke iii. 6 ; i Cor. i. 39 ;
Col. iii. 32; Philemon 16; a Chron. xxxii. 8; Ps. Iv [Ivi]. 5; Jer. xrvL 5;
Dan. iL 1 1 ; cf. Gifford, p. 40, to whom we owe these instances).
Again it is argued that the expreuion ri icarci aipxa as opposed to Mori
aapita precludes the possibility of such a contrast in words. While ttard
odpKa allows the expression of a contrast, ri «ard aipita would limit the
idea of a sentence but would not allow the limitation to be expressed. This
statement again is incorrect. Instances are found in which there is as
expressed contrast to such limitations introduced with the aiticle (see
Gifford, p. 39 ; he quotes Isocrates, p. 33 e ; Demosth. C0ti/. Eubul. p. 1399,
L14).
Bat although neither of these objections is valid, it is perfectly true tha^
neither card c&pKa nor r6 ««rd 9&pKa demands an expressed antithesis
(Rom. iv. I ; Clem. Rom. L 33). The expression rb Kara aapna cannot
therefore be quoted as decisive ; but probably any one reading the passage
for the first time would be led by these words to expect some contrast and
would naturally take the words that follow as a contrast.
The next words concerning which there has been much discussion are b &y. s) i t^
It is argued on the one hand that 6 &v is naturally relatival in character and
equivalent to 01 can, and in support of this statement 3 Cor. xi. 31 is quoted :
b ©€tfj Kol iTOT^p Tov Kvpiov 'iTjaov oTdtr, b iiv (iXoyr/rbs (Is roiii odaivas, Sn
ov ifxiiiofuu — a passage which is in some respects an exact parallel. On the
other hand passages are quoted in which the words do not refer to anything
preceding, such as Jn. iii. 31 0 avouffty ipxofievos iirdyw itdvrwv iariv b iav iu
TTJs yijs fK rijs yrjs iart, icai i» r$» 7^1 A.aA«f : and ol bvm in Rom. viii. 5, 8.
The question is a nice one. It is perfectly true that b &v can be used in botk
ways; but it must be noticed that in the last instances the form of the
sentence is such as to take away all ambiguity, and to compel a change of
subject In this case, as there is a noun immediately preceding to which the
words would naturally refer, as there is no sign of a change of subject, and
■s there is no finite verb in the sentence following, an ordinary reader would
oiBsider that the words i im M miarrw 9t6t refer to what pieoedes odear
•36 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS |^IX. 1.
they suggest m great an antithesis to his mind that he co&ld not refer then
to Christ.
But further than this: no instance seems to occur, at any rate in the
N.T., of the participle Siv being used with a prepositional phrase and the
noun which the prepositional phrase qualifies. If the noun is mentioned the
substantive verb becomes unnecessary. Here t M nivruv Scor would be
the correct expression, if &f6t is the subject of the sentence ; if (Jf is added
©«5i must become predicate. This excludes the translation (J>.) ' 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
Xp<(rT(5r remains the most natural interpretation, unless, as stated above, the
word Q(6i suggests 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 tvXoyqrot would naturally come first, just
as the word ' Blessed * would in English. An examination of LXX usage
shows that except in cases in which the verb is expressed and thrown forward
(as Ps. cxii [cxiii]. a ttrj rh ovofta Kvpiov (iXoyrjfiiyov) this is almost in-
nuriably its position. But Ae 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 (ct Ps. Sol. viii. 40, 41). As 6 i/v iirl vavraiv 0f6t if it does not refer
to 6 XfHorSt 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
ti)Koyr]T6s 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 an ascription of praise to the Fathei
we should have expected him to write (vKoyrjTos fh roiis alwvas d iwl nirram
9t6s. If the translation (d.^ suggested above, which leaves the stop at
wAvToiv, be accepted, two difficulties which have been urged are avoided,
bat the awkwardness and abruptness of the sudden Sds *v\oyT)T6t (Is roxit
tlSiyat make this interpretation impossible. We have seen that the position
of *v\ofr]r6i makes a doxology (b.) 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 6 Xpiaros, unless the words i irv *«
mAvToiv 06(5r contain in themseWes so marked a contrast that they could not
possibly be so referred.
We pass 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 ordef
to emphasiie 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 aay
interpretation which applies the words to the Father ?
Those who adopt this latter interpretation have generally taken the woids
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 alleged
in support of this interpretation really avoid the difficult); 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 u not the thought in his
Bind. 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 rciereaee
Id Rom. L 35 snpport the intcrpretatio&. It is qvite tHM that there we ha?*
IX. 6.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL »$f
a doxology in tiie midst of a passage of great sadness ; bat like » Cor. ti. 3I
that is an instance of the ordinary Rabbinic and oriental asage of adding an
ascription of praise when the name of God has been introdnced. That wonld
not apply in the present case where there b no previous mention of the name
of God. It is impossible to say that a doxology conld not stand here ; it te
certainly true that it would be unnatural and out of place.
So strongly does Dr. Kennedy feel the difficulties both exegetical and Prot
grammatical of taking these words as a blessing addressed to the Father, Kennedy's
that being unable to adopt the reference to Christ, he considers that they interpreta>
occur here as a strong assertion of the Divine unity introdnced at this tioo.
place in order to conciliate the Jew8 : * He who is over all is God blessed
for ever.' It is difficult to find anything in the context to support this
opinion, St. Paul's object is hardly to conciliate onbelieving Jews, but to
solve the difficulties of believers, nor does anything occur in either the
previous or the following verses which might be supposed to make an
assertion of the unity of God either necessary or apposite. The inter*
pretation fails by ascribing too great subtlety to the Apostle.
Unless then Pauline nsnge makes it absolutely impossible to refer the Pauline
expressions B(6$ and inl ndvTwv to Christ, or to address to Him such uag&
a doxology and make use in this connexion of the decidedly strong word (i) 9t6k
*i\oyr}T6s, the balance of probability is in favour of referring the passage
tp Him. What then is the usage of St. Paul? The question has been
somewhat obscured on both sides by the attempt to prove that St. Paul
could or could not have used these terms of Christ, i. e. by making the
difficulty theological and not linguistic. St. Paul always looks upon Christ
as being although subordinate to the Father at the head of all creatioa
(i Cor. xi. 3 ; xv. a8 ; Phil. ii. 5-11 ; CoL L i.^-ao), and this would quite
justify the use of the expression iirl mvroiy of Him. So also if St. Paul caa
speak of Christ as tlKwv rod 6cot) (2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15), as iv fiopcp^ &eo3
ivapX'^t *°d laa %i^ (Phil, ii 6), he ascribes to Him no lesser dignity
than would be implied by B(6t as predicate. The question rather is this :
eras 9(6t so definitely used of the ' Father ' as a proper name that it could
not be used of the Son, and that its use in this passage as definitely points to
the Father as would the word ■aarqp if it were substituted? The most
significant passage referred to ii I Cor. xii. 4-6, where it is asserted that 0c<$9
is as much a proper name as Kvptos or vytOfta and is used in marked distine-
tion to Kvptos. But this passage surely suggests the answer. Kipiot if
clearly used as a proper name of the Son, but that does not prevent St. Pad
elsewhere speaking of the P'ather as Kifiot, certainly in quotations from thft
O.T. and probably elsewhere (i Cor. iii. 5), nor of XpiorSs as irvcv/Oi
(a Cor. iii. 16). The history of the word appears to be this. To one
brought up as a Jew it would be natural to use it of the Father alone, and
hence complete divine prerogatives would be ascribed to the Son somewhat
earlier than the word itself was used. But where the honour was given the
word used predicatively wonld soon follow. It was habitual at the beginning
of the second century as in the Ignatian letters, it is undoubted in St John
where the Evangelist is writing in his own name, it probably occurs
Acts XX. a8 and perhaps Titus ii. 14. It must be admitted that we should not
expect it in so early an Epistle as the Romans ; but there is no impossibility
either in the word or the ideas expressed by the word occurring so early.
So again with regard to doxologies and the use of the term (iXoyT]r4t. (j) Doxo*
The distinction between tiXoftjTSs and tiXoyrju^yos which it is attempted to logies ad*
make cannot be sustained : and to ascribe a doxology to the Son wonld be dressed ttt
a practical result of His admittedly divine nature which would gradually Christ
show itself in language. At first the early Jewish usage would be adhered
to ; gradually as the dignitr of the Messiah became realized, a change wonld
take piacs in the nse of words. Hence we find doxologies appearing
dcfinitelvia later bodu of llie N.T., probably in a Tin. iv. it^ttrtsinlyia
i^S BPISTLI TO THE ROMAN5 [IX. 6-18.
fUv. V. 1 1 and a Pet ih. i8. Again we can auert that we ahotild not expect
k in to earlj an Epistle as the Romani, bat, as Dr. Liddoa points ont,
t Thess. i. i a implies it ai docs also PhiL ii. 5-8 ; and there is no reason
why language should not at this time be b^inning to adapt iUelf to thecK
logical ideas already formed.
CooQrfa Thronghont there has been n* argnment which we hare felt to be qnite
rioB. coQclnsive, bnt the resalt of oar investigations into the grammar of the
sentence and the drift of the argnment is to incline us to the belief that the
words would natarally refer to Christ, unless B(6s is so definitely a proper
name that it wonld imply a contrast in itself. We have seen that that is not
•o. 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
■ever 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, wh» U
•rer all, God blessed for ever. Amen.'
TH2S EBJECTION O^' ISBABL WOT IITCOITSISTEWT
WITH THE DIVINE PEOMISES.
IX. 6-18. For it is indeed true. With all these privileges
fsrael is yet excluded from the Messianic promises.
Now in the first place does this imply ^ as has been urged,
that the promises of God have been broken f By no meant.
The Scriptures show clearly that physical descent is net
enough. The children of Ishmael and the children of Esau,
both alike descendants of Abraham to whom the promise was
given, have been rejected. There is then no breach of the
Divine promise^ if God refects some Israelites as He has
rejected them.
•Yet in spite of these priTfleget Israel b rejected. Now it
lias 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
<tf privilege, ^no more in fact than that all were to share the
foil 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. is when he
cast forth Hagar and her child : ' In Isaac shall thy seed be called.'
These words show that although there were then two kmu oI
AtHtiham. one only, Isaac, was selected to be the heir, through
IZ. 6.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEI, 2^9
iHiom the promise wu to be inherited. * And the general conchi-
sion follows : the right <rf being ' sons of God/ L c of sharing that
adoption of which we spoke above as one of the privileges of Israel,
does not depend on the mere accident of human birth, but those
born to inherit the promise are reckoned by God as the descendants
to whom His words apply. • The salient feature is in fact the pro-
mise, and not the birth ; as is shown by the words used when the
promise was given at the oak of Mamre (Gen. xviii. lo) * At this
time next year will I come and Sarah shall have a son.' The
promise was given before the child was bom or even conceived,
and the child was bom because oi the promise, not the promise
given because the child was bom.
*" A second instance shows this still more clearly. It might be
argued in the last case that the two were not of equal parentage :
Ishmael was the son of a female slave, and not of a lawful wife :
in the second case there is no such defect. The two sons of
Isaac and Rebecca had the same father and the same mother:
moreover they were twins, bom at the same time. " The object
was to exhibit the perfectly free character of the Divine action,
that purpose of God in the world which works on a principle of
selection not dependent on any form of human merit or any con-
vention of human birth, but simply on the Divine will as revealed
in the Divine call ; and so before they were born, before they had
done anything good or evil, a selection was made between the two
sons. "From Gen. xxv. S3 we leam that it was foretold to
Rebecca that two nations, two peoples were in her womb, and that
the elder should serve the younger. God's action is independent
of human birth ; it is not the elder but the younger that is selected.
" And the prophecy has been fulfilled. Subsequent history may
be sunmied up in the words of Malachi (L a, 3) 'Jacob have
I loved, and Esau have I hated.'
6. The Apostle, after conciUating his readers by a sh(xt preface,
now passes to the discussion of his theme. He has never definitely
stated it, but it can be inferred from what he has said. The con-
nexion in thought implied by the word 8< is rather that of passing
to a new stage in the argument, than of sharply defined opposition
to what has preceded. Yet there is some contrast : he sighs over
the fall, yet that fidl is not so absolute as to imply a break in God's
purpose.
440 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 6, 7.
o6x olo¥ 8i Jn : 'the case is not as though.' * This grief o(
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 oix vUw tc , ' it is not possible that ' : for the
T« 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 oix ^» affords the best analogy, and the
phrase may be supposed to represent w rmovror ii tan olop in,
(Win. § Ixiv. 1.6; E. T. p. 746.)
<K*^irTWK€K : ' fallen from its place,' i.e. perished and become of no
effect So I Cor. xiii. 8 7 dydnri oiitnort ««rt»rr« ( AV) ; James i. II.
i \6yo% ToG 0eou: '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 (a Cor. ii. 17;
iv. 2 ; s Tim. ii. 9 ; 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. 1 3), it seems
to mean the O. T. Scriptures ; here it represents the O. T. phrase
6 Xoyos Tov Kvpiov : cf. Is. ZXXi. 2 Koi i Xoyor avrov (i. e. rov Kvpiov) ov
ftrj a6(TT)6ri.
01 Ii 'lo-pa^X : the offspring of Israel according to the flesh, the
v\o\ 'l(Tpar]\ of ver. 2 7.
oSroi 'lapaV]X. Israel in the spiritual sense (cf. ver. 4 on 'ivpatjKiTot
which is read here also by D E F G, Vulg., being a gloss to bring
out the meaning), the 'l<rpafj\ tov eeov 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 hat failed, he has
now to prove.
7. ou8* 8ti. 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.
mripfia 'APpadfi. The word aneppa is used in this verse, first of
natural seed or descent, then of seed according to the promise.
IX 7.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 24 1
Both senses occur together in Gen. xxi. t», 13; and both are
found elsewhere in the N. T., Gal. iii. 29 « di t/fif»t Xpiarov, Spa tot
A^paafi (rntpfxa tart : Rom. xi. I «y» , . . €K antpfiuiTos A^padp,. The
nominative to the whole sentence is -navra ol t$ 'ifrpafjX. ' 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.'
dXX*. 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, is; i Cor.
XV. 27.
iv *laa&K KXT|6i^acTai croi oitipfia: 'in (i.e. through) Isaac will
those who are to be your true descendants and representatives
be reckoned,' iy (as in Col. i. 16 tp avra eicri<r6rj ra ndvra) 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 <V tw Spxovrt t&v daifioviw : i Cor. vi. a.
<nr*pfia (cf. Gen. xii. 7 ''^ amfpfxari trov Saxrat t^v yrjv I Gen. XV. 5 ovras
e(TTai ri (nrfpixa trov) 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. la, 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.
KXT]0i^(rcT(u : 'reckoned,' 'considered,' 'counted as the true
trntpita' ; not as in ver. 11, and as it is sometimes taken here,
' called/ * sunmioned ' (see below).
The OMt of the word itaXim are derived from two main significatioDS,
{I) to 'call,' 'sommon,' (a) to 'gmnrnon by name,' hence 'to name.' It
may mean (i) to 'call alond' Heb. iii. 13, to 'summon,' to 'summon to
a iMmquet' (in these senses also in the LXX), so i Cor. x. 37 ; Malt. 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 {t'^ih Kvpios
i Bids fK&Kfcrd at iv SiKcuoavvji) , Is. li. 2 (on fU ^v ital tKAXtaa avT6v,
Koi tv\6yqaa avrbv kcH ■fifairqaa avrbv koX (7r\r;0vva airSv) approach it. In
this sense it is confined to the epistles of St. Paul with Hebrews and St. Peter,
the word hardlj occurring at all in St. John and not in this sense elscwhen
24* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX 7-0
(mlthongh KXifrSt is so used Matt. xxM. 14). The fnll constraction it *oX«ft
Ttra tU Ti, 1 Thcss. ii. ii rov KaXovvros iifiat *ls TTjy iairrov PaaiKtlav ml
i6(ay : but the word was early used absolutelj-, and so o KaXvJv of God (t«
Rom. iv. 17; viii. 30 ; ix. 11, 34). The technical use of the term comes out
most strongly in 1 Cor. vii and in the derived words (see on ic\riT6t
Rom. i. I, 71. (a) In the second group of meanings the ordinary con-
struction is with a double accusatire, Acts xiv. la iK&Kow t« r6v ^apv&^ar
Aia (so Rom. ix. 25, and constantly in LXX), or with i>v6iJMri, im\ ry
6v6ijuari as Luke i. 59, 61, although the Hebraism KaXiaovai rh Svofia airrov
'EiifiavovqX. (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. la LXX), and on the other
from the idea of aflection suggested by the idea of calling by name, so
Rom. ix. a6 (from LXX Hos. iL i [i. 10]). These derivative n^es of the word
occur independently both in Greek, where iteKKrjfuu 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,* L«.
of expressing affection, gives a warmer colouring to the idea suggested.
8. TOUT* i<mp. From this instance we maj deduce a general
princi[)le.
Toi T^Ki'o Tfi« crapK^s : liBeri quos corporis vis genuerit. FrL
r£'K»'a Tou 0eou : bound to God by all those ties which have been
the privilege and characteristic of the chosen race.
Ta T^Kfa Tfjs ^TrayyeXias: liberi quos Dei promissum procreavit. FrL
Cf. Gal. iv. 23 dXX' 6 ^fv tK TTjs n<u8i(TKT}s Kara aapKa ytytwrfrai, i 6* «a
rT^r (X(v0(pas 81 irrayytXiat : 28 fjfjifU dc, dd(\(fioi, Kara 'laaax cVoyycXtof
TfKva eV/ifV.
All these expressions {rtirva rm> ©fov, rewa TTJs iirayy(\iat) 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 bom
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. j8, &c.), but is not made here.
0. iirayyeXia^ 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
tlie child of promise, and not born Kara adpKa ; his birth therefore
depends upon the promise which was in fact the eflBcient cause of
h, and not the promise upon his birth. And hence is deduced
a general law : a mere connexion with the Jewish race «n^ vapm
tSL 9-lL] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL X45
does not necessarily imply a share in the arayytXta, for it did not
according to the original conditions.
Kara toc Kaip^K toutok ^Xeucrofiai, Kol Jorai tf Zdppa ul6%, St. Paul
combines Gen. ZViii. lO (LXX) fnavaarpfCpaiv rj^o) rrp6s <Tf Kara rot
Kotpov rovrov tls &paSf (cat c^et viov 2dppa 4 yvi^ (rov ', and 1 4 (LXX)
tls rov Kaipitv rovrov avaarpi^cD irpos <ri tls &pas, koi tarai rrj Zapptf vl6s.
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.
•toxA TOK Kaip^K TouToi' 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. ofi il6vo¥ hi : 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 fiilly 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
dearly.'
dXXA nat 'PcP^KRo, K.T.X. : the sentence beginning with these words
is never finished grammatically; it is interrupted by the parenthesis
in ver. 11 pfiira yhp ytwrjdtvrotv . . . Kokovvros, and then continued
with the construction changed ; cf. v. la, 18 ; i Tim. i. 3.
ii iv69 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. {Horn, in Rom. xvi. p. 610)
i\ yap 'Ptd(<Ka nai it6vrj t^ 'laaaK yiyove yvyrj, koi dvo xtKovaa iraihas, (k
rov laaax ertKtp dp(f)orfpovf' oXX' ofutt ol rtx6«vret roO aiirov irarp6s
ivrtt, r^r airrjs ftrprpos, rat avrat Xvaavrts wdlfac, ko< Sttondrpiot ivns Koi
OfioprjTpiot, ma\ irpos rovrott nai dibvftni, oi riv aiiruv dnrjKavaap,
KoiTT|y Ixouaa : ' having conceived ' ; cf. Fri. ad loc.
ToG iroxpos i\\L5ty : ' 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 composiiion of the
Roman community.
11. fi^-irw ydp, K.T.X. 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^
ft •
344 EPISTLE TO THE ROMAN8 [XX. U
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
Id 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 Iva ... fitvn, ' and this incident shows also the
absolute freedom of the Divine election and purpose, for it was
before the children were bom that the choice was made and de-
clared.'
(iilTrw . . . (jiT|8^ : ' 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
Zko . . . \tiyji. 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.
^ HOT ^uXoy^t' irp^Oeais toC ©€ou : '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. np66((Tn is a technical Pauline term occurring although
not frequently in the three later groups of Epistles : Rom. viii. s8 ;
ix. 1 1 ; £ph. i. lO, 1 1 iv avr^, iv if Kol €ickr)pa>6T]fi€p, npoopurOtvrtt mrJk
irp66«nv Tov rk rravra ivfpyovvrot kotA T^r ^ovkifv rov 6t\r}ftaros avrev:
iii. 1 1 Kara np60f(Tip rStv alayatv tjy inoirjwn iv r^ X. 'I. r^ Kvpt«> iiliAp '.
2 Tim. i. 9 roC aaxravTos tjfMs xai KaXtaavros KXfjtrti iyia, ov Kara ra
ipya fificov, dk\a Kor Idiav rrpoBfatv Ka\ X'^P*" • the verb also is found
once in the same sense, Eph. i. 9 xark i^r ridoKiap airrov, ^r wpr
i6(To fv avT^. From Aristotle onwards np6d(a-is 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 /SowXij (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 np66(tns 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. cVXoyiJ ex-
presses an essentially O. T. idea (see below) but was itself a neti
IX. U^ 12.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 345
word, the only instances quoted in Jewish literature earlier than
this Epistle being from the Psalms of Solomon, which often show
an approach to Christian theological language. It means (i)
' the process of choice,' ' election.' Ps. Sol. xviii. 6 Kadaplaai 6 Qf6s
'lapafjX tls ^nipav t'Xtov iv tiiXoyiq, ds ^fxtpav eKkoytjs iv ava^ei Xpiarov
airroi; ix. 7; Jos. £./. II. viii. 14; Acts ix. 15; Rom. xi. 5, 28;
I Thess. i. 4 ; a Pet. i. 10. In this sense it may be used of man's
election of his own lot (as in Josephus and perhaps in Ps. Sol.
ix. 7), but in the N. T. it is always used of God's election. (2) As
abstract for concrete it means «Xe»trot, those who are chosen,
Rom. XL 7. (3) In Aquila Is. xxii. 7 ; Symmachus and Theodo-
tion, Is. xxxvii. 34, it means ' the choicest,' being apparently em-
ployed to represent the Hebrew idiom.
fkirQ : the opposite to fKiriirT»Ktv (ver. 6) : the subjunctive shows
that the principles which acted then are still in force.
oAk ii SpyuK dXX* eK tou Ka\ourro$. These words qualify the
whole sentence and are added to make more clear the absolute
character of God's free choice.
We must notice (i) that St. Paul never here says anything about
the principle on which the call is made ; all he says is that it is not
the result of Jpya. We have no right either with Chrysostom
(«'a <i>avji <pitia\ tov Qtov ij e'lcXoy^ 17 Kara irpodtaiv xai trpiyvoKTiv yevopkivqS
to read into the passage foreknowledge or to deduce from the
passage an argument against Divine foreknowledge. The words
are simply directed against the assumption of human merit. And
(a) nothing is said in this passage about anything except ' election '
or 'calling' to the kingdom. The gloss of Calvin dum alios ad
sahtUm praedesHnat^ alios ad aeternam damnationem is nowhere
implied in the text.
So Gore {Studia Biblica, iii. p. 44) *The absolute election of
Jacob, — the " loving " of Jacob and the " hating " of Esau, — has
reference simply to the election of one to higher privileges as head
of the chosen race, than the other. It has nothing to do with their
eternal salvation. In the original to which St. Paul is referring,
Esau is simply a synonym for Edom.'
^aOXov it the reading of the RV. and modem editors vnth K A B, a few
minascules, and Orig. Kait(>v which occurs in TR. with D F G K L etc. and
Fathers after Chrysostom was early substituted for the less usual word.
A similar change has been made in a Cor. v. 10.
For the iTp6e€<n,s toO 0€ov of the RV. the TR. reads tow ©eoD np69«ns with
the support of only a few minuscules.
12. 6 (iciluK K.T.X. The quotation is made accurately from the
LXX of Gen. XXV. a 3 tai eure Kvpios airrg Avo fdmj iv tq ytarpi aoi
ttaiP, Koi dvo \ao\ in t^i KoiKlas <rov biatTTa\r](TovTai' Koi \ahi \aov vnfpe^fi,
cai 6 fuiCav iovXiwn r^ ikdaaovi (cf. Hatch, Essoys in Biblical Greek,
p. 163). God's election or rejection of the founder of the race if
a4<( EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 12, It
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.
A fkiiluv . . . T^ i\da<Toy^ : * the elder,' * the younger/ This
use of the words seems to be a Hebraism; see Gen. x. ai «u r^
2f)fi iyivr]drf . . . dde\<f>u> 'lacfxd tov ftfi(ovos : ib. Xxix. 1 6 oyofia rg fiei^om
Atia, Kai ovofta rfj vtoaripa 'VaxrjK, But the dictionaries quote in
support of the use ZKini<^v i (liyai Pol. XVIII. xviii. 9. The
instances quoted of ^iKp6s (Mk. xv, 40; Mt xviii. 6, 10, 14, Ac.)
are all equally capable of being explained of stature.
13. TOf 'laKup ^yoTTpo-o, tov Sc 'Haou ^)j,i(rr)aa. SL Paul con-
cludes his argument by a second quotation taken freely from the
LXX of Mai. i. 2, 3 ovk iibt\(j>bt Tjv 'Herat! t9v 'I(uo)/9 \ Xryft Kvpuif* maX
rjyaTrrjva tov 'laKO)^, tAv di 'Htrav €fiicrT}(ra.
What is the exact object with which these words are introduced?
(i) 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 proN
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 w. 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;' Mai. i. 3 'But
Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his
heritage to the jackals of the wilderness. Whereas £dom 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 it running a 'purpoae
IX. 13.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 247
according to election.' He does not therefore wish to say that h
is merely God's love or hate that has guided Him.
Hence it is better to refer the words, either directly or in-
directly, to the choice of the nation as well as the choice of the
founder (so Go. Gif. Liddon). But a further question still remains
as to the use of the aorist. We may with most commentators
still refer it to the original time when the choice was made:
when the founders of the nations were in the womb, God chose
one nation and rejected another because of his love and hatred.
But it is really better to take the whole passage as corroborating the
previous verse by an appeal to history. ' God said the elder shall
serve the younger, and, as the Prophet has shown, the whole of sub-
sequent history has been an illustration of this. Jacob God has
selected for His love ; Esau He has hated : He has given his moun-
tains for a desolation and his heritage to the jackals.'
i^yiTn\<Ta . . . i}i.i<n\(Ta. There is no need to soften these words
as some have attempted, translating ' loved more ' and ' loved less.'
They simply express what had been as a matter of fact and was
always looked upon by the Jews as God's attitude towards the two
nations. So Thanchuma, p. 32. a (quoted byWetstein, ii. 438) Tu
invtniex omnes transgressioTies, quas odit Deus S. B. futsse in Esavo.
How rery telling wonld be the reference to Esau and Edom an acquaint-
ance with Jewish contemporary literature will show. Although in Dent, xxiii. 7
it was said 'Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother,' later
events had obliterated this feeling of kinship ; or perhaps rather the feeling of
relationship had exasperated the bitterness which the hostility of the two
nations had aroused. At any rate the history is one of continuous hatred on
both sides. So in Ps. cxxxvii. 7 and in the Greek Esdras the burning of the
temple is ascribed to the Edomites (see also Obadiah and Jer. xlix. 7-33).
Two extracts from Apocryphal works will exhibit this hatred most clearly.
In Enoth Ixxxix. ii-ia (p. 233, ed. Charles) the patriarchal history ii
symbolized by different animals : ' But that white bull (Abraham) which was
bom amongst them begat a wild ass (Ishmael) and a white bull with it
(Isaac), and the wild ass multiplied. But that bull which was bom from
him begat a black wild boar (Esau) and a white sheep (Jacob); and that
wild boar begat many boars, but that sheep begat twelve sheep.' Here
Esau is represented by the most detested of animals, the pig. So in
Jubilees xxxvii. 33 sq. (trans. Charles) the following speech is characteristi-
cally put into the mouth of Esau : ' And thou too (Jacob) dost hate me and
my children for ever, and there is no observing the tie of brotherhood with
thee. Hear these words which I declare unto thee : if the boar can change
its skin and make its bristles as soft as wool : or if it can cause horns to
sprout forth on its head like the homs of a stag or of a sheep, then I will
observe the tie of brotherhood with thee, for since the twin male offspring
were separated from their mother, thou hast not shown thyself a brother to
me. And if the wolves make peace with the lambs so as not to devour or
rob them, and if their hearts turn towards them to do good, then there will
be peace in my heart towards thee. And if the lion becomes the friend of
the ox, and if he is bound under one yoke with him and ploughs with him
and makes peace with him, then I will make peace with thee. And when
the raven becomes white as the raza (a large white bird), then I know tiiat
24l> EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 0-lS.
I shall loTe thee and make peace with thee. Thon shalt be rooted out antt
thy ton shall be rooted out and there shall be no peace for thee.' (See also
Jot. Bill. Jud. IV. IT. I, a ; Haiurath, Ntw Tutamtmt TitudS, toL L pp. 67, 68,
Et^. Tnmt.)
Tkt Divint BlecHom,
St. Fanl has set himself to prove that there was nothing in the
promise made to Abraham, by which God had ' pledged Himself to
Israel ' (Gore, Siudia Biblica, 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, ii5.). 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 cho.sen 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
fjerfectly 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 Election 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 000-
IX. a-18.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 149
temporaries and the O. T. there were striking differences In the
O. T. it is always looked upon as an act of condescension and love
of God for Israel, it is for this reason that He redeemed them from
bondage, and purified them from sin (Deut. vii. 8 ; x. 15; Is. xliv.
21, 22); although the Covenant is specified it is one which involves
obligations on Israel (Deut. vii. 9, &c.) : and the thought again and
again recurs that Israel has thus been chosen not merely for their
own sake but as an instrument in the hand of God, and not merely
to exhibit the Divine power, but also for the benefit of other nations
(Gen. xii. 3 ; Is. Ixvi. 18, &c.). But among the Rabbis the idea of
Election has lost all its higher side. It is looked on as a covenant
by which God is bound and over which He seems to have no control.
Israel and God are bound in an indissoluble marriage {Shemoih
rabba 1. 51): the holiness of Israel can never be done away with,
even although Israel sin, it still remains Israel {Sanhedrin 55) : the
worst IsraeUte is not profane like the heathen (Bammidbar rabba 1 7):
no Israelite can go into Gehenna {Pesikta 38 a) : all Israelites have
their portion in the world to come {^Sanhedrin i), and much more
to the same effect. (See Weber Alisyn. Theol. p. 51, &c., to whom
are due most of the above references.)
And this belief was shared by St, Paul's contemporaries. ' The
planting of them is rooted for ever : they shall not be plucked out
all the days of the heaven : for the portion of the Lord and the
inheritance of God is Israel ' {Ps. Sol. xiv. 3) ; ' Blessed art thou of
the Lord, O Israel, for evermore' {}b. viii. 41) ; ' Thou didst choose
the seed of Abraham before all the nations, and didst set thy name
before us, O Lord : and thou wilt abide among us for ever ' {ib. ix.
17, i8). While Israel is always to enjoy the Divine mercy, sinners,
i. e. Gentiles, are to be destroyed before the face of the Lord
[lb. xii. 7, 8). So again in 4 Ezra, they have been selected while
Esau has been rejected (iii. 16). And this has not been done as part
of any larger Divine purpose ; Israel is the end of the Divine action ;
for Israel the world was created (vi. 55) ; it does not in any way
exist for the benefit of other nations, who are of no account ; they
are as spittle, as the dropping from a vessel (vi 55, 56). More
instances might be quoted {Jubilees xix. 16 ; xxii. 9 ; Apoc. Barttch
xlviil 20, 23 ; Ixxvii. 3), but the above are enough to illustrate the
position St, Paul is combating. The Jew believed that his race
was joined to God by a covenant which nothing could dissolve,
and that he and his people alone were the centre of all God's
action in the creation and government of the world.
This idea St. Paul combats. But it is important to notice how
the whole of the O. T. conception is retained by him, but
broadened and illuminated. Educated as a Pharisee, he had
held the doctrine of election with the utmost tenacity. He had
believed that his own nation had been chosen bom among all the
»50 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 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 17 kot eK\oyf)v irpodfcris 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 cVXoyjj, but it is now realized that this is the result
of a Trp6d(ais, 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 (of. Eph. i. 4, ii ; iii, ii).
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 ^ 'f"^' fKXoytjv npofifmi St. Paul has also
suggested the lines on which his argument will proceed.
THE EEJECTIOIT OP ISHAEIi NOT nTCONSISTETTT
WITH THE DrVIlTB JUSTICE.
IX. 14-29. But secondly it may be urged: • Surely then
God is unjust! No^ if you turn to the Scriptures you will
see that He has the right to confer His favours on whom He
will {as He did on Moses) or to with/wld them {as He did
from Pharaoh) (w. 14-18).
If it is further urged^ Why blame me if I like Pharaoh
reject Gods offer ^ and thus fulfil His willt I reply, It is
your part not to cavil but to submit. The creature may not
complain against the Creator, any more than the vessel
against the potter (w. 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 Jews but
also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24) ; — as indeed was foretold
(w. 25-29).
IX. 14-20.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL a^I
**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. I am 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. xxxiiL
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.
" So 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.
" 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 of a potter and ihe
S52 KPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX 20-28
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 fi'om 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.
*• 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. lo, and iL 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. a a) 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, "• fw
a. sharp and decisive sentence will the Lord execute upon the earth.'
* And similarly in an earlier chapter (i. 9) he had foretold the com-
UL 14, 16.] THE UNBEUEF 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.'
14-20. 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 or
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. Ti o8k ipoOiur; see on iii. 5, a very similar passage: «t de 9
adiKia fffinv 6cov ducauxrvvriv «rv»i(rTt)vt, ri tpovfitv', fi^ adiKos 6 Qt6i
6 (iTi<Pfpi»v rffp opyffv ; . . . fi^ yivovro. The expression is used as
always to introduce an objection which is stated only to be
refuted.
}fif\ : implying that a negative answer may be expected, as in
the instance just quoted.
vapcl Tw 6c^. Cf. ii. 1 1 ov yap iori irpirtnroKtpjria wapa r^ 6c^
£ph. vi. 9 ; Prov. viii. 30, of Wisdom dwelling with God, ^m*?"
Trap* ovrw ap/i6(ov(ra,
fif| yiyoiro. 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.'
16-10. According to Origen, followed by many Fathers and
some few modem commentators, the section w. 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. ao. 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 fiii
yivovrm 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
lui expecting a negative answer, but would have been in a form
which would suggest an aflfirmative reply.
16. Ty Y^P MuiTil Xfyct. The yap explains and justifies the
strong denial contained in ^ri ycVotro. Too much stress must not
be laid on the emphasis given to the name by its position ; yet it 19
obvious that the instance chosen adds considerably to the strength
a 54 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 Mo^es would be that most
respected by St. Paul's opponents, Xtyti without a nominative for
Gfof Kfyti is a common idiom in quotations (ct Rom. xv. lo;
Gal. iii. i6; Eph. iv. 8; v. 14).
^Xei^au OK &V iXeu), k.t.X : ' I will have mercy on whomsoever
I have mercy.' The emphasis is on the iv av, 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. 19 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 graeious.' 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.
Aeticrw . . . oiKTEipi^aw. The difference between these words
seems to be something the same as that between Xvirrj and obvyrf in
ver. 2. The first meaning 'compassion,' the second * distress ' or
'pain,' such as expresses itself in outward manifestation. {Ci,
Godet, ad loc.)
16. apa ooK introduces as an inference from the special instance
given the general principle of God's method of action. Cf. ver. 8
TovT fomv, ver. 1 1 Iva, where the logical method in each case is the
same although the form of expression is different.
Tou GcXoKTos, K.T.X. ' 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 di^ovros may be compared Jo. i. la, 13 tb<j»Ktv avrois
f^ovaiav rtKva Qfov ytvfcr6at . . . ot oin i^ ai/iara)i>, ovhi fx 6*\TjfiaToi
(rapKoi, oiSf « deXrjfxaTos dvbpos, aXX' «<t Qtoi fytvvT)dr]arap, The meta-
phor of TOO rpixoirro% is a favourite one with St. Paul (i 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
grouDS of people; here however he is distinctly dealing with in-
diviouals and lays down the principle that God's grace does not
necessarily depend upon anything but God's will. ' Not that
I havf not rea ons to do it, but thai 1 need not, in distributing oi
mercies which have no foundation in the merits of men, rendei
IX. le, 17.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 2$$
any other reason or motive but mine own will, whereby I may do
what I will with mine own.' Hammond.
The MSS. vary curiously in the orthography of iKfioa, iXtdw. In ver. i6
KABDEFG support (\(6.a) {iXtSivros), B^K &c. (\€f<u {(Xeovvros) ; in
ver. 1 8 the position is reversed, lAcdw (lA.«a) having only D F G in its
favour; in Jude 33 iKtaat {iKtarf) ii supported by K B alone. See WH.
Introd. iL App. p. i66.
17. X/yci yAp ^ yp^'^'f*^' '•'^^ ^* *" additional proof showing
that the principle just enunciated (in ver. i6) is true not merely in
an instance of God's mercy, but also of His severity, take the
language which the Scripture tells us was addressed to Pharaoh.'
On the form of quotation cf. Gal. iii. 8, aa ; there was probably no
reason for the change of expression from ver. 15; both were well-
known forms used in quoting the O. T. and both could be used
indifferently.
Ty ^apacS. The selection of Moses suggested as a natural
contrast that of his antagonist Pharaoh. In God's dealings with
these two individuals, St. Paul finds examples of His dealings with
the two main classes of mankind.
CIS ttfiTo TooTo, K.T.X. : taken with considerable variations, which in
some cases seem to approach the Hebrew, from the LXX of Ex. ix.
16 (see below). The quotation is taken from the words which Moses
was directed to address to Pharaoh after the sixth plague, that of
boils. ' For now I had put forth my hand and smitten thee and
thy people with pestilence, and thou hadst been cut off from the
earth ; but in very deed for this cause have I made thee to stand,
for to show thee my power, and that my name may be declared
throughout all the earth.' The words in the original mean that
God has prevented Pharaoh from being slain by the boils in order
that He might more completely exhibit His power ; St. Paul by
slightly changing the language generalizes the statement and
applies the words to the whole appearance of Pharaoh in the field
of history. Just as the career of Moses exhibits the Divine mercy,
so the career of Pharaoh exhibits the Divine severity, and in both
cases the absolute sovereignty of God is vindicated.
^^i^ycipa : * I have raised thee up, placed thee in the field of
history.' There are two main interpretations of this word pos-
sible, (i) It has been taken to mean, * I have raised thee up
from sickness,' so Gif. and others, ' I have preserved thee and not
taken thy life as I might have done.' This is in all probability the
meaning of the original Hebrew 'I made thee to stand,' and
certainly that of the LXX, which paraphrases the words Sierriprjdns.
It is supported also by a reading in the Hexapla Stenj/jjjcrd <re, by the
Targnm of Onkelos Susttnui U ut ostenderem tibt, and the Arabic
Tt reservavi iii ostenderem tibi. Although f'^eyfiptiv does not seem
to occur in this sense, it is used i Cor. vi. 14 of resurrection from
i$6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 17
the dead, and the simple verb iyrlptiv in James v. 15 means *rais«
ing from sickness.' The words may possibly therefore have this
sense, but the passage as quoted by St. Paul could not be so inter-
preted. Setting aside the fact that he probably altered the reading
of the LXX purposely, as the words occur here without any allusion
to the previous sickness, the passage would be meaningless unless
reference were made to the original, and would not justify the
deduction drawn from it ty di 6(X.ti vKkripvvtt.
(2) The correct interpretation (so Calv. Beng. Beyschlag Go.
Mey. Weiss. Lips. Gore) is therefore one which makes St. Paul
generalize the idea of the previous passage, and this is in accord-
ance with the almost technical meaning of the verb (^tydjKw in the
LXX. It is used of God calling up the actors on the stage of
history. So of the Chaldaeans Hab. i. 6 iion tSoii iyat t$ty(ipa» rowi
Xa\8aiovs : of a shepherd for the people Zech. xi. 1 6 dion liov tya
e^ty«ip(o TTOifiiva iiri rffv yfjv : of a great nation and kings Jer. xxvii.
41 Idoii Xaif ipxtrai dn6 fioppa, Kai <e6vos piyn Kn\ /3a(r»X*Ir iroXXoi
f^tytpdrjaovrai an (crxarov r^t y^s. This interpretation seems to be
supported by the Samaritan Version, subsistere te feci, and cer-
tainly by the Syriac, ob id te consttiui u/ ostenderem ; 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 t^fydpav 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. dc
W. Fri. &c.) would require some object such as 6vti6v, as in
2 Mace. xiii. 4.
The readings of the Latin VeriioDB are as follows : Qttia in ktt ^tum
ixcitavi U, d e f, Valg. ; quia <td hoc ipsutn te tuscitavi, Orig.-lat. ; quia in
hoc ipsum excitavi te suscitavi te, g ; quia in hoc ipsutn te servctvi, Ambrstr.,
who adds alii codices sic habtnt, ad hoc ti suscitavi. Sive stwavi rive
suscitavi unus est sensus.
The reading of the LXX i« Kai IvtKev rovrov tUtrtjprfOjjf tva Mti^mpuu iv
aol Tr)v Iffxvy fiov, koI otton StayycAp ri ivopA pov iv ir&aig rp yp. St. Paul's
variations are interesting.
(i ) tU avrh Tovro is certainly a better and more emphatic representation
of the Hebrew thtm the somewhat weak rovrov iptittv. The expression is
characteristically Pauline (Rom. xiii. 6; a Cor. v. 5; Epli. tI. 18, aa ;
Col. iv. 8).
(a) i^iiynpd at represents better than the LXX the grammar of the Hebrew,
' I made thee to stand,* but not the sense. The variants of the Hexapla
{JiitTTipy^aa) 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
biing out more emphatically the meaning of the passage as he understood it.
(3) ivbH^oifWn iv aoi. St Paul here follows the incorrect translation of
ihe LXX. The Hebrew gives as the purpose of God's action that Pharaoh
may know God's power, and as a further consequence that God's name may
be known in the world. The LXX assimilates the fint clanae to the Mcood
and gives it a similar meaning.
iX. 17, 18.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 957
(4) inan . . . 8»o». Here St. Paul obliterates the distinction which the
LXX (following the Hebrew) had made of tva . . . Swm. 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 ivvafuv the LXX read* lax'iv. The reading of St. Paul appeara
u a variant in die Hexapla.
18. apa oSv. Just as ver. i6 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.
anXtjpoi'ei : ' hardens ' ; the word is suggested by the narrative of
Exodus from which the former quotation is taken (Ex. iv. 21 ; vii.
3; ix. la; X. 20, 27; xi.io; xiv. 4, 8, 17) and it must be translated in
accordance with Uie 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
diat 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 oflSce, 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. 30-a8, where he described the
final wickedness of the world as in a sense the result of 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 disDOsing of men's lives as He will
»59 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 18, 10
We must not soften the passage. On the other hand, we musi
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 entm vult efficere apud not, ui
in ea quae apparet inter electos et reprobos diversitate, mens nostra
contenta sit quod ita visum futrit Deo, alios illuminare in salutem,
alios in mortem excaecare . . . Corruit ergo frivolum illudeffugium quod
de praescientia Scholastici habent. Neque enim praevideri ruinam im-
piorum a Domino Paulus tradit, sed eius consilio et voluniate ordinari,
quemadmodum et Solomo docet. non modo praecognitum fuisse impiorum
inter itum, sed impios ipso s fuisse destinato creatos ut perirent.
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 actior it arbitrary (he will prove eventually that it
is not so), but only that it it oe no Jew who accepts the Scripture
has any right to complain. He never says or implies that Goo
las created roan 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, op. cit. 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 baflBe 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'
18. cpcis ftoi o8r. Hardly are the last words hv hi B(\u o-xXi;-
pCvei 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
Tt ovv epovfMfu, St. Paul seems to identify himself less with his
opponent's objection-
fUH oZy ig the reading of K* A B 1 » Grig. 1/3 Jo.-Dannase. ; cZv fio* of the
TR. U supported by D E F G K L Sec, Vnlg. Boh., Orig. a/3 and Oiig.-l«L
Cbryt. Thdrt. It is the sabstitution of the more utaal order.
Ti In )i^fi<|>cTai : ' 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 tn implies that a changed condition has been pro-
duced which makes the continuation of the previous results sur-
prising. So Rom. iii. 7 *' ^< ^ dXrjdtia roi Qtov iv r^ (/i«p ^nxTftari
iTiffUOTtvatv fit nyp So^av avrov, ri tn Kayit its 6ftapra>k6t itpumiuUp
Rom. vi. t omMc aurtdofoiup r^ iftaprifj wat m (^aofttp i» ovry ;
IX. 10-21.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL »59
Tf In nifupmu i» read by TR. and RV. with K A K L P &c., Vnlg. Syrr.
Bob. , and many Fathers. B D E F G, Orig.-lat. Hieron. insert oZv after tL
^owkrutan, which occurs in only two other passages in the N. T.
(Acts xxvii. 43 ; i Pet iv. 3) seems to be substituted for the
ordinary word BiKtfua as implying more definitely the deliberate
purpose of God.
dkd^oTTjKC Perfect with present sense; cf. Rom. xiii. a Sxrrt
i avTvrawofUVOt ttj t^ovtriq rg rov Qtov biarayfi dv6e<rrrjKtv, Winer,
§ xl. 4, p. 34a, E. T. The meaning is not : * who is able to
resist,' but ' what man is there who is resisting God's will ?' There
is no resistance being offered by the man who disobeys ; he is only
doing what God has willed that he should do.
20. & ai^pwire. The form in which St. Paul answers this question
is rhetorical, but it is incorrect to say that he refuses to argue.
The answer he gives, while administering a severe rebuke to his
opponent, contains also a logical refutation. He reminds him
that the real relation of every man to God (hence & avOpairf) is
that of created to Creator, and hence not only has he no right
to complain, but also God has the Creator's right to do what He
will with those whom He has Himself moulded and fashioned.
|tCKOury« : ' nay rather,' a strong correction. The word seems
to belong almost exclusively to N. T. Greek, and would be impossible
at the beginning of a sentence in classical Greek. Cf. Rom. x. 18;
PhiL iii. 8; but probably not Luke xi. a8.
J( &v9pca9t ntvovvft it read by K A B (bnt B om. 7c at in Phil. iii. 8),
Orig. 1/4 Jo.-Damasc. ; mvovvft is omitted by DFG, defg Vulg.,
Orig.-lat., and inserted before S) avOpw-nt by N'D'KLF and later MSS.,
Orig. 3/4, Chrys. Theod.-mops Thdrt. &c. The same MSS. (F G d f g) and
Orig.-lat. omit the word again in x. 18, and in Phil. iii. 8 BDEFGKL
and other authorities read piiv oZv alone. The expression was omitted as
nnusnal by many copyists, and when restored in the margin crept into
a different position in the verse.
1*^ epei rh irXa'afio, icT.X. The conception of the absolute power
of the Creator over His creatures as represented by the power of
the potter over his clay was a well-known O. T. idea which
St. Paul shared with his opponent and to which therefore he could
appeal with confidence. Both the idea and the language are bor-
rowed from Is. xlv. 8—10 e'-yw eliii Kvpios 6 icricras ae' iroiov ^iXriov
KartiTKevaa-a ias TrrfXov Kfpaftfcts , , . (iif ipt'i 6 irTjXos ra mepafitl Tt
votftr, on ovK tpyd^^j) ov8e fX"^ X^'P"*'? ^"7 oiroKpi6rja-fTat to n\d(Tp.a
Vpbs rov n\d(TavTa avro' and Is. XXix. l6 ovx as 6 TrijXis rov Kfpa-
fifas \oyia6>]<Tt(Td( ; (ir) ipel to jrXaa-^a t^ rtXaaavTi avro Ov av fj.t
(irXacras ; ^ ro iroirjfui tw iroiTjaavri Ov crvvtrms fit enoirjcras J Cf. also
Is. Ixiv. 8; jer. xviii. 6; Eccles. xxxvi. [xxxiii.] 13.
21. fi ouK fxei c|ou<Tiai' : ' if you do not accept this you will be
compelled to confess that the potter has not complete control over
his cla? — an absurd idea.' The unusual position of rov nijXov, which
36o EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 21, 22
should of course be taken with i^vtrUa, is intended to emphasize
the contrast between Ktpofuvt and inik6t, as suggesting the true
relations of man and God.
f upo/Aaros : ' the lump of clay.' Cf Rom. xL i6 ; i Cor. v. 6, 7 j
Gal. V. 9. The exact point to which this metaphor is to 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.
8 ytev CIS riiti]v aK<uos, icT.X. : cf. Wisd. jn. 7 (see below) :
2 Tim. ii. 20 *v luyaikrj a oiV/f ovk coti ^dyov OKtvti XP*"^^ '^
apyvpa, dWa koI ^vKiva Koi oaTfiaKivOf Koi A ixiv (tr Tiftfjv^ 6 dc tls drifxiav.
But there the side of human responsibility is emphasized, iaw ovk tu
(KKaddprj iavrov dtrb tovtuv^ eorat VKtvot cir Ttjifiy, «c,r.X.
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 w. 19-ai God's conduct is shown to be right under
all circumstances. In w. aa sq. it is explained or perhaps rather
hinted that He has a beneficent purpose in view. In vv. 19-21
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. Fosf-
quam demonstratum est, Deum ita egisse, demonstraium ttiam est omni-
bus, qui Mosi credunt, mm convenienier suae iustitiae egisse. Wetstein.
As in iii. 5 St. Paul brings the argument back to the ab olute
fact of Gk)d's justice, so here he ends with the absolute fact ol
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. 61 8e Q{kw 6 Geis, 11.T.X. : ' 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 roOro vnas
(TKavbaK'i^ft j iav oiv BeapiJTt top vlov rov avOpanov ava^aivovra Snov
fjv TO npoTfpov ; Acts Xxiii. 9 oidtv kok^v *vpi(TKOfifV iv t« dvdpimtif
rovTtd' (i 8f wvfifia iXdXtjtrfv avr^ ^ ayyrXorJ Luke xix. 4 1, 42 Koi cat
rfyyiatUy i8i»v t^k iroXu> (xXavo-cf ««•' aifT^ Xcy<uv on E{ fyvas iv t^ hl'*P9
ravTT] Koi <ri ra np6t tlprivrfv. 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 «■! 2m
IX. 22.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL l6l
yvrnpiofi, in ot« Koi tKaKttrtv, Of even in ver. 31 f^ o^" tpovfuv, are
needlessly harsh and unreal.
The S( (which differs from oSv : cf. Jo. vi. 6a ; Acts xxiii. 9),
although not introducing a strong opposition to the previous
sentence, implies a change of thought. Enough has been said to
preserve the independence of the Divine will, and St. Paul suggests
another aspect of the question, which will be expounded more
fully later ; — one not in any way opposed to the freedom of the
Divine action, but showing as a matter of fact how this freedom
has been exhibited. ' But if God, notwithstanding His Divine
sovereignty, has in His actual dealings with mankind shown such
unexpected mercy, what becomes of your complaints of injustice ?'
OAuK. There has been much discussion as to whether this
should be translated ' because God wishes/ or ' although God
wishes.' (i) In the former case (so de W. and most commenta-
tors) the words mean, ' God because He wishes to show the
terrible character of His wrath restrains His hands, until, as in the
case of Pharaoh, He exhibits His power by a terrible overthrow.
He hardened Pharaoh's heart in order that the judgement might
be more terrible.' (2) In the latter case (Mey.-W. Go. Lips.
Gif.), * God, although His righteous anger might naturally lead to
His making His power known, has through His kindness delayed
and borne vtith those who had become objects that deserved His
wrath.' That this is correct is shown by the words iv noXk^ nanpo-
6vni<f, which are quite inconsistent with the former interpretation,
and by the similar passage Rom. ii. 4, where it is distinctly stated
TO ;^pij(rTii' Tov 0(01; elf fterdvoiav at aytt. Even if St. Paul occa-
sionally contradicts himself, that is no reason for making him do so
unnecessarily. As Liddon says the three points added in this
sentence, the natural wrath of God against sin and the violation of
His law, the fact that the objects of His compassion were agtwi
opy^s, and that they were fitted for destruction, all intensify the
difficulty of the Divine restraint.
ji'ScilaaOai rfiy ipyi\y xai yi'wpiaeu r6 Suyarftr afrrou are reminis-
cences of the language used in the case of Pharaoh, Mfi$»»iJuu h
vK€ui) 6pYi)s : ' vessels which deserve God's anger ' ; the image of
the previous verse is continued. The translation 'destined for
God's anger ' would require vKtii) tls opyi^v : and the change of con-
struction from the previous verse must be intentional.
KaTT|pTia|ji^i'a cis d-iroSXeiaf : * prepared for destruction.' The
construction is purposely different from that of the corresponding
words A irpoTjToifiaaev. St. Paul does not say ' whom God pre-
pared for destruction ' (Mey.), although in a sense at any rate he
could have done so (ver. 18 and i. 34, &c.), for that would conflict
with the aritument di the sentence; nor does he say that the^
26a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 22, 2t
had fitted themselves for destruction (Chrys. Theoph. Oecum
Groiius 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
purpose — they were fitted for eternal destruction {anaXfia opp. to
iroTr, ia). That is the point to which he wishes to attract our
attention.
23. KOI ifo yi^wpia^. 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 Kai therefore couples ha
yvwpiiTD in thought with ev noWj) naxpodviiiq. 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 fj kut WKoyfjv npoBtais, 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 thete words there has been great Tariety of
opinion, and it may be convenient to mention some divergent views.
(i) W'H. on the authority of H, several minuscules, Vulg. Boh. Sah., Orig.-lat
3/3 omit Kai This makes the construction simpler, but probably for that very
reason should be rejected. A reviser or person quoting would naturally omit
cai : it is difficult to understand why it should be inserted ; moreover on soch
apoint as this the authority of versions is slighter, since to omit a pleonastic vol
would come within the ordinary latitude of interpretation necessary for their
purpose. There is some resemblance to rvi. 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, (a) Calv. Grot,
de W. Alf. and others make Kai couple OiXoiy and Iva yrupiff^. But
this obliges us to lake Bixotv . . . ivhu^aaOoi as expressing the pnrpoM
of the sentence which is both impossible Greek and gives a meaning
inconsistent with ftaKpoOvpiia. (3) Fri. Beyschlag and others couple iva
yroipioji and di dirw^^fiav ; but this is to read an idea of purpose into
MaTTjpTiafjLfva which it does not here possess. (4) To make leal tva
give the apodosis of the sentence tl St rjityKfv (Ols. Ewald, &c.), or to
create a second senience repeating el, «cu €i fi-a . . . ^supposing a second
rllipse), or to find a verb hidden in (KoXtaty, supposing that St. Paul meant
to write Kai d 'iva yvwpiay . . . (Kaktafv but changed the construction and put
the verb into a r';lative sentence (,Go Oltramare); all these are quite im-
possible and quite unnecessary constructions.
T&r vXouTor, K.T.X. : cf. ii. 4 ; £ph. iii. 16 mark ri wkovn$ r^t ^i$n*
IX. 23-26] THE UNBELIEF OP ISRAEl 263
ft irpoT]Toi|jia<rci' els 86|ar : the best commentary on these w<Mrds
is Rom. viii. 28-30.
We may note the very striking nse made of this metaphor of the potter'i
wheel and the cup by Browning, Rabbi ben Etra, xxvi-xudi. W« may
especially illnstrate the words a wpoijToifiarrfv tU Sufor.
But I need now as then,
Thee, God, who mouldest men ;
So take and nse thy work 1
Amend what flaws may lark,
Wtutt strain o' the stuff, what warpings past the afan I
My times be in Thy hand!
Perfect the cup as planned I
Let age approve of youth, and death complete the samal
24. 08s Kai ^KdXeorci' ^(ids : ' even us whom He has called.'
The ovt is attracted into the gender of ^juar. The relative clause
gives an additional fact in a manner not unusual with St. PauL
Rom. i. 6 (P oU ia-Tt Kai vntit : a Tim. i. 10 (pmria-avros if (a>f)v ncA
acpdapaiay 8ia tov fvayyi\iov, «ls t fTtSrjv cyi icfjpv$. The Calling of the
Gentiles is introduced not because it was a diflRculty St. Paul was
discussing, bat because, as he shows afterwards, the calling of the
Gentiles had come through the rejection of the Jews.
There have been two main lines of interpretation of the above
three verses, (i) According to the one taken above they modify
and soften the apparent harshness of the preceding passage (19-21).
That this is the right view is shown by the exegetical con-
siderations given above, and by the drift of the argument which
ctilminating as it does in a reference to the elect clearly implies
some mitigation in the severity of the Divine power as it has been
described. (2) The second view would make the words of ver. 22
continue and emphasize this severity of tone : ' And even if God has
borne with the reprobate for a time only in order to exhibit more
clearly the terror of His wrath, and in order to reveal His mercy
to the elect, even then what right have you — man that you are —
to complain ?' Cf. Calvin : jEa si dominus ad aliquod tempus patienter
sustinet . . . ad demonstranda suae severiiatis iudicia , . . ad viriutem
suamillusirandam,. . . praeterea quo inde notior fiat et clarius elucescat
suae in electos misericordiae amplitudo : quid in hoc disptnsatione
misericordiae dignum?
26. 6s xai : ' and this point, the rejection of the Jews and the
calling of the Gentiles, is foretold by the prophet' St. Paul now
proceeds to give additional force to his argument by a series of
quotations from the O. T., which are added as a sort of appendix
to the first main section of his argument
KoX^aw . . . \ya.Trf['^irt\v — quoted from the LXX of Hosea ii. 23
with some alterations. In the original passage the words refei
to the ten tribes. A son and daughter of Hosea are named Lo*
S64 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 26, 90.
ammi, ' not « people ' and Lo-rtihamah, 'without mercy/ to signify
the fallen condition of the ten tribes ; and Hosea prophesies their
restoration (cf. Hosea i. 6, 8, 9). St. Paul appMes 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 viil f. Dixit R. Eliezer: Non alia de causa in
exilium et captivitatem misii Deut S. B. Israelem inter nationet, nisi
utfacerent multos proselytos S. D. Oseai ii. as (23) tt seram earn
mihi in terram. Numquid homo teminat satum nisi ut colligai
multos coros iriticif Wetstein.
The LXX reads \\t(\am t^v o£« i(Kti\iiinf9f ni Ipd r^ o{> Xa^ /mv Aa^t pa*
<7 vi, bat for the firat clause which agrees with the Hebrew the Vatican
rabstitntes ar^iainiat) r^c ovk ^yamjfiinjp. St. Paol inverts the order of the
clauses, so that the reference to rdv od \a6y fwv, which seems particularly to
suit the Gentiles, comes first, and for ipSi substitutes KaKitrof which naturally
crept in from the iKi\ta(v 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 harmonixe with him. St. Peter makes use of
the passage with the reading of the majority of MSS. : 0/ wori oi ka6t, vw M
Xa^ 8<oC, ol ovK fi\tt}ftfvoi, vw h\ i\ti)0irTtt (l Pet ii. lo).
KoKivm with a double accusative can only mean ' I will name,'
although the word has been suggested by its previotis occurrence
in another sense.
26. ital €(rrat, iv ry -r^iry . . . ^kci k.t.X. St. Paul adds a passage
with a similar purport from another part of Hosea (L 10). 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 tKti : this insertion
seems to emphasize the idea of the place, and it is somewhat difficult
to understand what place is intended, (i) 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. (a) If we neglect
the meaning of the original, we may interpret f«t of the whole
world. 'Wheresoever on earth there may be Gentiles, who nave
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 Chiu-ch and it will be anirersaL'
IX. 27-aa] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 96$
87, 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. idr {} 4 dpi9fi<t . . . 4tI T<i« y^t : quoted from the LXX of
Is. X. as, 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 afifect 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 oi 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 I
For a final work and a decisive doth the Lord, Jehovah Sabaoth,
execute within all the land.'
28. XAyer y&p ovrrtK&v aol (rvrri^vw voii^i Krfpios litl ti)s yi\9 I
vwTtX&v, * accomplishing,' wwt( fivw^ 'abridging.' Cf. Is. xxviii. as
dt^i tnmrenktVfjJva ica) trvvTiTfU}fiMva npdyfiara iJKOvtra napa Kvptow
2affao)6f A vo^trtt twl na<rca> njy y^v. ' For a word, accomplishing
and abridging it, that is, a sentence conclusive and concise, wiU
the Lord do upon the earth.'
Three critical points are of some interest t
(i) The TatlationB in the MSS. of the Gr. Test For IniXtifiiia (iirSXifiim
WH.) of the older MSS. (KAB,£a8.), later authorities read KardXtiiifia
to agree with the LXX. In ver. aS \6yoy yip awreXSiy icdi avrriftveav
voi^crci Kvput M T^s yijs is the reading of K A B a few minasc, Pesh. Boh.
Aeth., Ens. a/3; Western and Syrian anthorities add after amninvojv, iv
ikKatoavvy trt \6yov ffvvrfTftrififyov to suit the LXX. Alford defends the
TR. on the plea of homoeoteleuton {awTiftva/r and gvvmixrinivov), but the
insertion of y&p after \6iyov which is preserved in the TR. (where it is
tmgrammatlcal) and does not occur in the text of the LXX, shows that the
shortened form was what St. Paul wrote.
(a) The variations from the LXX. The LXX reads koX kd» yevrirai
i \ads 'lapa^K dn ^ dfifios r^f OaX&aaris, ri Kar&Ktinita airaiv o»i$r]<reTai.
k6yov ffwTtXSry teat avvrifwoiv iv Sucaiooivjf ort K6yov awTtr/iJjftirov KiSptof
9oit(fftt iv rp olitovfih'Tf o\ji. St. Paal snbstitntes dpiO/iit tuv vlStv IffpariXf
a reminiscence from Hosea L 10, the words immediately preceding those
quoted by him above. The later part oi the quotation he considerably
uiortens.
(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 abridgiitg it to
righteousness,' and for ' a final woric and a decisive^' ' a word abridged will
the Lord do,' 8cc
28. vpoeipijKcr : ' has foretold.' A second passage it quoted in
corroboration of the preceding.
«l |fc^ KifMt m.tXt quoted from the LXX of Is. L 9, which
966 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 19-28.
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 foi
t small remnant which would preserve their seed and name.'
TAf Power and Rights of God as Creator.
St. Paul in this section (w. 19-29) expands and strengthens
the previous argument. He had proved in vv. 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. If the 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 Umiting 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 «« bo^av, tit anmkfuw prove conclusively that
he is looking as much as he ever does to the final end and
destination of man. To hmit 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 foi
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.
IX. 18-29.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 96;
We must in fact remember — and it is quite impossible to under-
stand St. Paul if we do not — that the three chapters ix-xi form
one very closely reasoned whole. Here more than anywhere else
in his writings, more clearly even than in i. i6 — iii. 36, does St, Paul
show signs of a definite method. He raises each point separately,
argues it and then sets it aside. He deliberately isolates for a time
the aspect under discussion. So Mr. Gore {op. cit. p. 37) : * Hia
method may be called abstract or ideal : that is to say, he makes
abstraction of the particular aspect of a subject with which he is
immediately dealing, and — apparently indifferent to being misun-
derstood— treats it in isolation ; giving, perhaps, another aspect of
the same subject in equal abstraction in a different place.' He
isolates one side of his argument in one place, one in another,
and just for that very reason we must never use isolated texts.
We must not make deductions from one passage in his writings
separated from its contexts and without modifying it by other
passages presenting other aspects of the same questions. The
doctrinal deductions must be made at the end of chap, xi and not
of chap. ix.
St. Paul is gradually working out a sustained argument. He
has laid down the principle that God may choose and reject whom
He wills, that He may make men for one purpose or another just
as He wills, and if He will in quite an arbitrary manner. But it is
already pointed out that this is not His method. He has shown
long-suffering and forbearance. Some there were whom He had
created, that had become fitted for destruction — as will be shown
eventually, by their own act. These He has borne with — both
for their own sakes, to give them room for repentance, and be-
cause they have been the means of exhibiting His mercy on those
whom He has prepared for His glory. The Apostle lays down
the lines of the argument he will follow in chap. xi.
The section concludes with a number of quotations from the
O. T., introduced somewhat irregularly so far as method and
arrangement go, to recall the fact that this Divine plan, which we
shall find eventually worked out more fully, had been foretold by
the O. T. Prophets.
(The argument of Rom. ix-xi is put for English readers in the
most accessible and clearest form by Mr. Gore in the paper often
quoted above in Studia Biblica, iiL 37, ' The argument of Romani
ix-xi.')
Tht Relation of St. Paul's Argument in chap, ix
to the Book of Wisdom.
In a note at the end of the first chapter of the Romans the very marked
memblance that exists between St Paol's language there and certaii
a68 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 18-29.
pasMges In the Book of Wisdom has been pointed out. Again in the ninth
chapter the same resemblance meets os, 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 £g>'ptians, just as St Paul makea Mosea
and Pharaoh his two typical instances.
And this resemblance is continued in details.
The impossibility of resisting the Divine power ii more than once dwelt
en, and in language which has a very close resemblance with passages in the
Romans.
Rom. ix. 19, aoiptft/iot oJk, Ti?T« Wisd. xi. ai «ai ttpirfi fipaxlovii
^i(*<ptTeu; Ty fdp ^ovK'/jfiari avrov tov t/s ivTtarrjfftrai;
rit drOiartfitt ; . . . /i^ ipti ri xii. 12 ris yap ipfi, Ii ivoftjo'at; 4
wXiff/M T# wXdaovTi, Ti >i« i»of- rls AvriarrjafTai r^ Kpip-aTi aovi
f crat otrottf v»y 5J k-i/KaXiatt. aoi Kard, iOvStv aitoKtt-
Xoroiv, A a\i iiroiTjaai ; ^ rii fit /card'
eraalv aoi IXtiatjai tKOutot hutoL d5»-
Mtfv dvOpijiroir ;
Both writers again lay great stress on the forbearance of God.
Rom. ix. 33, 33 tl 8J OiXvv 6 Wisd. xii. 10 Kfuvejv 5J narii Ppayi
9(ds ivtti^aaOai rrjv dpyriy Koi iSi^ovt r6irov ftfravoiai.
yrcjp'taai rd Swarov avrov TJvcfKfv xii. ao tl yoLp ix^pohs waiSan' ffov Koi
iy iroAA^ fiaKpoOvfiiq CKevr) opyijt 6<p(i\o p.(vovt Oavdr(^ fifrd roaaV'
marripTiffniva tls diTw\(tav, njf irinuprjaas npoaoxv^ *"• Sf^creaw,
Koi tva yvoipiajj rbv itXovTOV rxfi 56(^t toiis x/wkoot ital rdirov & w dimA.-
•£tov iml VKtvt) ixiovs «.tA- Xaywai T^t leaKiat, fitroi voarjt aicpi'
Pdas iitptvas roiis vtovt crov ;
So again we have the image of the potter used by both, although neither
the context nor the purpose is quite similar.
Rom. ix. ai ^ ovk ixti i^ovaiav Wisd. xv. 7 >m\ yAp ««/>a/Kcit d«a-
i KtpafAtiit rod rrrjKov, ix tow kifv f^v OKifiajv iwifioxOov vXiofftt vpdt
mirov tpvpdnarot woirjaai t (*if tU virqp«jiav ^fiuv (Kaarov a\X' km rov
nftif aK*vo$f t 9) ttt drt/Mor; airov 917X0 v drcirXdo'aro ri rt rwr
madapwv ipyeur SovXa aKtvrj, r& rt
kvavria, Maa>9' ifioiws' tovtov 8J kripov
rii IxaaTOV iarlr ^ XFh"^* tpiTi^t i
wriKovpy6t.
The particular resemblajice of apecial passages and of the general drift of
the argument combined with similar evidence from other parts of the Epistle
■eems 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
•elf-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 cc-mes back to a strong
nationalism. At one time he says (xi. 33-36) : ' But Thou hast mercy upon
•11 . . . Thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which
Thon 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
Elace for repentance, not being ignorant that their cogitation would never
e changed. We soon find in fact that the philosophy of the Book of
Wiidom is strictly limited by the nationalist aympathies <i the writer. Tkf
S: 6-29.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 269
Gentiles are to be punished by God for being enemies of His people and for
their idolatry. Any forbearanc:; has been only for a time and that largely
for the moral instruction thus indirectly to be given to the Jews. The Jews
have been punished, — but only slightly, and with the purpose of teaching
them ; the Gentiles for their idolatry deserve 'extreme damnation.'
If St. Paul learnt from the Book of Wisdom some expressions illustrating
the Divine power, and ageneral aspect of the question: he obtained nothing
further. Hisbroad views and deep insight are his own. And it is interest-
ing to contrast a Jew wlio has learnt many maxims which conflict with his
nationalism but yet retains all his narrow sympathies, with the Christian
Apostle full of broad sympathy and deep insight, who sees in human af-
fairs a purpose of God for the benefit of the whole world being worked out,
A History of the Interpi'etation of Rom. ix. 6-29.
The difficulties of the ninth chapter of the Romans are so great that few
will ever be satisfied that they have really understood it : at any rate an
acquaintance with the history of exegesis upon it will make us hesitate to be
too dogmatic about our own conclusions A survey of some of the more
typical lines of comment (nothing more can be attempted) will be a fitting
supplement to the general discussion given above on its meaning.
The earliest theologians who attempted to construct a system out of Gnostic
St. Paul's writings were the Gnostics. They found the Epistle to the Ro-
mans, or to speak more correctly certain texts and ideas selected from the
Epistle (such as Rom. v. 14 and viii. 19 ; cf . Hip. Ref. vii. 25) and generally
misinterpreted, very congenial. And, as might naturally be expected, the
doctrine of election rigidly interpreted harmonized with their own exclusive
religious pretensions, and with the key-word of their system <pv(Tis. We are
not surprised therefore to learn that Rom. ix. , especially ver. 14 sq. , was one
of their strongholds, nor do we require to be told how they interpreted it
(see Origen De Princ. III. li. 8, vol. xxi. p. 267, ed. \.oraxa.=zPhiloc. xxi.
vol. XXV. p. 170; Com)n. ut Rom. Praef. vol.vi. p. I ; and Tert. Adv.
Marcion. ii. 14).
The interest of the Gnostic system of interpretation is that it determined Origeo
the direction and purpose of Origen. who discusses the passage not only in
his Commentary, written after 244 (vii. 15-18, vol. vii. pp. 160-180), but
also in the third book of the De Priucipiis, written before 231 {De Prin.
III. ii. 7-22, vol. xxi. pp. 265-303 =:/'/«7t'r. xxi. vol. xxv. pp. 164-190), be-
sides some few other passages. His exegesis is throughout a strenuous
defence of freewill. Exegetically the most marked feature is that he puts
vv. 14-19 into the mouth of an opponent of St. Paul, an interpretation
which influenced subsequent patristic commentators. Throughout he
states that God calls men because they are worthy, not that they are
worthy because they are called ; and that they are worthy because they
have made themselves so. Cf. ad Rom. vii. 17 (Lomm. vii. 175) Ul
enim Jacob esset vas ad honoretn sanctificatiim, et tittle Domino, ad
omne opus bonum paratum, ANIMA Eius EMENDAVERAT semet ipsam :
et videns Deus puritatem eius, et potestatem habens ex eadem ?nassa
facere aliud vas ad honorem, aliud ad coniumeliam, Jacob quidem, qui
ut diximus emuiidaverat semet ipsum, fecit vas ad honorem, Esau
VERO, CUIUS ANIMAM NGN ITA PURAM NEC ITA SIMPLICEM VIDIT,
ex eadem massa fecit vas ad contumeliam. To the question that may be
asked, how or when did they make themselves such, the answer is, ' In
a state of pre-existence.' De Princ. II. ix, 7, Lomm. xxi. 225 igitur sicut
de Esau et Jacob diligcntius perscrutatis scripturis invenitur, quia non est
iniustitia apud Deum ... si EX praecedentis videlicet vitae meritis
disrne eum electum esse sentiamus a Deo. ita ut fratri t)raet>oni mereretur
S70 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 6-20.
See also III. L ai. Lomm. xxL 300. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart ht
explains by the simile of rain. The rain is the same for all, bnt under its
Influence well-cultiTated fields lend forth good crops, ill-cultivated fields
thistles, &c. (cf. Heb. vi. 7, 8). So it is a man's own sonl which hardens
itself by refusing to yield to the Divine grace. The simile of the potter he
explains by comparing 3 Tim. ii. so, ai. '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
for example Pharaoh — to fulfil that part in history which is necessary for
His purpose.
Origen's interpretation of this passage, with the exception of his doctrine
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 {Epist. lao
ad Hedibiam dt quatstionibus la, cap. 10, Migne xxii. 997), by Pelagiof
(Migne xxx. 687-691), and Sedulius Scotus (^Migne ciii. 83-93). ^ t^' 'S.as.i,
after 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
on the Romans, written probably before his departure from Antioch, that ii
before the year 398.
Chrysostom is like Origen a strong defender of Freewill. A» might be
expected in a member of the Antiochene school, he interprets the passage io
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, bnt 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 : fi tear' iK\oyT)v irp69fats tov Btov is
explained as ff kK\oyfi ^ Kard, npSdeaiv Kal npSyvuatv yevofievr,. On vr. 14-ao
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 ao, ai 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 w. 32-24 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 borne 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), Photin»
(sec. ix), Oecumenias (kc z), TheophyUct (sec xi), Eathymiua Zigabcnu
(tec. xii), dec.
IZ. e-20.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 271
The tradition of the Greek commentators is preserved in the Russian Church. Rnss
Idodem Sclavonic theology presents an interesting snbject for study, as it is comr
derired directly from Chrysostom and John of Damascus, and has hardly aries.
been Uluminated or obscured by the strong, although often one-sided, influ-
ence of Augustine and Western Scolasticism. In the Commentary of Bishop
Theophanes* on the Romans (he died in 1894) published at Moscow in
1890, we find these characteristics very clearly. Just as in Chrysostom we
find the passage interpreted in accordance not with d friori theories as to
Grace and Predestination, but with what was clearly St. Paul's purpose, the
problem of the ' Unbelief of the Jews in the presence of Christianity.' And
also as in Chrysostom we find w. 11, i a explained on the grounds of Fore-
knowledge, and Pharaoh's destruction ascribed to his own act. On ver. 18 :
' The word " he hardeneth " must not be understood to mean that God by His
power effected a hardening in the heart of the disobedient like Pharaoh, but
that the disobedient in character, under the working of God's mercies, them-
selves, according to their evil character do not soften themselves, but more and
more harden themselves in their obstinacy and disobedience.' So again
on TV. aa, aj : ' God prepared the one to be vessels of mercy, the others
fashioned themselves into vessels of wrath.' And the commentary on these
verses concludes thus : ' Do not be troubled and do not admit of the thought
that there is any injustice, or that the promise has failed ; but on the contrary
believe, that God in all his works is good and right, and rest yourselves in
devotion to His wise and for us unsearchable destinations and divisions.'
There is, in fact, a clear conception of the drift and purpose of St. Paul's
argument, but a fear of one-sided predestination teaching makes a complete
grasp of the whole of the Apostle's meaning impossible.
The commentary generally quoted under the name of Ambrosiaster has an Aagi
interest as containing probably the earliest correct exposition of w. 14-19.
But it is more convenient to pass at once to St. Augustine. His exposition
of this passage was to all appearance quite independent of that of any of his
I^edecessors.
The most complete exposition of the ninth chapter of Romans is found in
^^\3xa.\Ssit Ad Simplicianum, i. qu. a, written about the year 397, and all the
leading points in this exposition are repeated in his last work, the Opu$
imperfectum contra lulianum, i. 141. The main characteristics of the
oommentary are that (i) he ascribes w. 14-19 to St. Paul himself, and considers
that they represent his own opinions, thus correcting the false exegesis of Origen
and Chrysostom, and (a) that he takes a view of the passage exactly opposite
to that of the latter. The purpose of St. Paul is to prove that works do
not precede grace but follow it, and that Election is not based on foreknowledge,
for if it were based on foreknowledge then it would imply merit. Ad Simplic.
L qu. a, § 2 Ut scilicet non st quisque arbitrctur idea perctpisse gratiam, quia
bene opercUus est ; sed bene operari non posse, nisi per Jidem perceperit
gratiam ... § 3 Prima est igitur gratia, secunda opera bona. The instance
of Jacob and Esau proves that the gift of the Divine grace is quite gratuitous
and independent of human merit — that grace in fact precedes faith. § 7 Nemo
tnim credit qui non voccUur . . . Ergo ante omne meritum est gratia. Even
the will to be saved must come from God. Nisi eius vocatione non volumus.
And again : § 10 Noluit ergo Esau et non cucurrit : sedet si voluisset et cucur-
risset, Dei ddiutorio pervenisset, qui ei etiam veils et currert vocando prae-
ttaret, nisi vocationis contemptu reprobus fieret. It is then shown that God
can call whom He will, if He only wills to make His grace congruous. Why
then does He not do so ? The answer lies in the incomprehensibility of the
Divine justice. The question whom He will pity and whom He will not
* For a translation of portions of this Conunentaiy, we are indebted to the
kindness of Mr W. J. Birkbeck, of Magdalen College, Oxford.
17* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 6-28.
depends npon the hidden justice of God which no hnman standard can naeasnre
f l6 .5"iV igitur hocfixum atqut immobiU in mente sobria pietate atqut stabili
in fide, quod nulla est iniquitas afud Deum : atqut ita tenacissime firmissi-
wuque credatur, id ipsum quod Deus cuius vult miseretur et quern vult obdurat,
hoc tst, cuius vult miseretur, et cuius nan vult non mistrttur, ess* alicuiui
tccultae atque ab humane modulo investigabilis aequitatis: and so again, euqui-
tatt tccultissima et ab humanis sensibus remotissima iudicat. God is always
JBst. His naercy cannot be understood. Those whom He calls, He calls out of
pity; those whom He does not, He refuses to call out of justice. It is not merit
or necessity or fortune, 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
▼essels 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 exegesis
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 (i 227-1374). Both were largely influenced by Augustine;
but whereas in the case of Abelard the influence was only indirect, in
Aquinas we have the clearest and most perfect example of the Angostinian
exposition.
ibelard. Abelard (Migne clxxviiL 911) makes a somewhat strange division of the
Epistle, attaching the exposition of ix. 1-5 to the end of chap. viiL Ha
begins his fourth book with ix. 6. In w. 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
nnmoved.' 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,
▼er. 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 potius Deo litere quocunque modo voluerit crtaturam tuam
tractare atque disponere, qui obnoxius nulla tenetur debito, antequam quid-
quam ilia 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. Quit tnim
fideliutn nesciat, quam optimt usus sit summa ilia impietatt Itidat, cuius
exsecrabili perditione totius humani generis redemptionem tst 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
imd negligent. Sic et Deo nobis quotidit regnum coelorum offerente, alius
regni ipsius desiderio accensus in bonis perseverat operibus, alius in sua
torpescit ignavia. On w. 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.
kQ«<»— In contrast with the somewhat hesitating and inconsistent character ol
Abelard's exposition, Aquinas stands out as one of the best and clearest com-
mentaries written from the Augustiniau standpoint. The modem reader must
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 discossed, or tlM
logical difficulties the soiation of which i* attempted.
[X. 6-29.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 37)
The purpose of the section is, he says, to discnss the origin of Grace, to do
which the Apostle makes use of the opportunity afforded by the difficulties
implied in the rejection of the Jews. Apostolus supra tucessitatem et vir-
tutem gratiaa demonstravit : hie incipit agert d* orient gratiae, utrum ex sola
Dei electione detur, aut detur tx meritis pra4cedentium optrum, occasion*
mecepta ex to, quod ludaei qui videbantur divinis obsequiis mancipati, exci-
dtrant m gratia. In w. 6-13 the errors of the Jews, of the Manichaeans
(who believed that human actions were controlled by the stars which appeared
at the time of their birth), of the Pelagians, of Origen (the pre- existence of
souls) are condemned, and it is shown that God chose men, not because they
were holy, but that they might be holy : unum alteri praeeligit, non quia
sanetus ercU,sed ut sanctus tsset. In w. 14-18 St. Paul shows from Scripture
that there is no injustice either in Predestination or in Reprobation. God
has predestined the just to life for merits which He has Himself conferred on
them, the wicked to destruction for sins which come from themselves. Deus
froposuit se punitwum malos propter peccata, quae a se ipsis habent n«n
a Deo. lustos autem proposuit se praemiaturum propter tnerita quae a s«
ipsis non habent. All lies in the will of God ; we notice indeed that among
other erroneous opinions one, that oi merita consequentia gratiatn, — the view
apparently of Abelard — is refuted. There is no injustice. ' Distributive justice
has a place in cases of debt, but not in cases of pity.' If a man relieves
one beggar, but not another, he is not unjust ; he is kind hearted towards one.
Similarly if a man forgives only one of two offenders, he is not unjust ; he is
merciful towards one, just towards the other.
In the instance of Pharaoh two readings are discussed, servavi and extita/tn
If the first be taken it shows that, as the wicked are worthy of immediate de-
struction, if they are saved it is owing to the clemency of God ; if the second,
God does not cause wickedness, except by permitting it ; He allows the
wicked by His good judgement to fall into sin on account of the iniquity they
have committed. Quod quidem non tst intelligendum hoc modo quod Deus
in homine causat malitiam, sed tst intelligendum permissive, quia scilicet in
iusto tuo iudicio permittit aliquos ruert in peccatum propter praecedentes
iniquitates. Dtus malitiam ordinal non causat. In w. 19-24 he says
there are two questions, (i) Why, speaking generally, should He choose some
men and not choose others? (2) Why should He choose this or that man and
not someone else ? The second of these is treated in w. 19-31 ; to it there is
DO answer but the righteous will of God. No man can complain of being
anjustly treated, for all are deserving of punishment. The answer to the first
is contained in w. 32-34. In order to exhibit both His justice and His
mercy, there must be some towards whom He shows His justice, some
towards whom He can show His mercy. The former are those who are naturally
fitted for eternal damnation : God has done nothing but allow them to do
what they wish. Vasa apta in inttritum he defines as in se habentia aptitu-
dinem ad astemam damnationem ; and adds Hoc autem solus Deus circa eos
agit, quod eos permittit agere quae concupiscunt. He has in fact borne with
them both for their own sakes, and for the sake of those whom He uses to
exhibit the abundance of His goodness — a goodness which could not be
apparent unless it could be contrasted with the fate of the condemned.
Sigitanter autem dicit [ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae] quia ipsa con-
demnatio tt reprobatio malorum quae est secundum Dei iustitiam, manifestai
it commendai sanctorum gloriam qui ah ipsa tali miseria liberantur.
The antithesis which was represented among patristic commentators by
Augustine and Chrysostom was exaggerated at the Reformation by Calvin
and Arminius. Each saw only his own side. Calvin followed Augustine,
and exaggerated his harshest teaching : Arminius showed a subtle power oi
finding Freewill even in the most unlikely places.
The object of St Paolj accotding to Calvin, is to maintain the freedom o^
474 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 6-29.
the Divine election. Thii is absolately gntnitoai oa God't p«it, and qnitt
iadcpendent of man. In the salvation of the just there if nothing above
God s goodness, in the punishment of the wicked there it nothing above Hii
■everity : the one He predestinates to salvation, the other to eternal damna-
tion. This determination is quite independent of foreknowledge, for there
can be nothmg in man's fallen natnre which can make God show kindness to
him. The predestination of Pharaoh to destruction is dependent on a jast
but secret counsel of God : the word ' to harden ' must be taJcen not only per'
missive, 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 perish. 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 wa« 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 ve els 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 created their fate wai assigned to them. They
were created for destruction.
Arminius represents absolute antagonism oo 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 argument
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 o(
Abraham, but those only whom He should select in accordance with the
Elan 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.)
■hows that God has decided to give His mercy in His own way and on His
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 ia 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
ia 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 condition! to make
men vessels of glory or vessels of wrath according as they do or do not fulfil
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
time. But gradually at the beginning of the present century the defects or
inadequacy of both views became apparent. It was quite clear that a*
•gainst 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, bnt 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, wat
inconsistent with chap, x, and the language which St. Paul habitually uet
elsewhere. Thia apparent inconsistency tlien mnst be lecognizeO: How
IX. SO— Z. IS.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 375
ntut it be treated f Varioas answen have been given. Fritzsche asserts Frtti
that St Pan! is carried away by his argnment and unconsciously contradicts
liimselt ' It is evident that what St. Paui writes is not only inconsistent with
Xself bat absolutely contradictory.' If the Jews, it is asserted in chap, ix,
were 6Tst 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
« time (chap, xi), they could not be blamed if they had fallen ; and yet in
£liap. z they are blamed. Multis saept accidit ut amicum fortunae fulmine
ptrcussum trtcturi studio tomolandi argumentis cupide uUrentur neqtu ab
tmni parte Jlrtnis tt quorum unum turn alttro parum consisttret. Et
uulius Hbi Paulut consnuUsti, ti Aristottlis mom GamalUlis alumnus
fuissot.
Meyer admits the discrepancy but explains it differently. ' As often as we Meyi
treat only one of the two truths, God is absoluttly free and alUsufficient, and
mam has moral freedom and is in virtue of his proper self-determination and
rtsponsihility a liberum agens, tho author of his salvation or perdition, and
carry it out in a consistent theory and therefore in a one-sided method, we
arc compelled to speak in such a manner that the other truth appears to be
annulled.' . . . ' 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 modem scholars. One more specimen will be sufficient.
The solution offered by Beyschlag. He maintains that all interpretations are Beyo
wrong which consider that St. Pafl is concerned with anything either before or
after this life. It is no eternal decree of God, nor is it the future destiny of
mar.fund that he is dealing with. It is merely their position in history and
IB the world. Why has he chosen one race (the Jews) for one purpose,
•Bother race (the Egyptians) for another ? He is dealing with nations not
iadiTidaals, 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
given above. We must express our obligations in compiling it to Weber
(Dr. Valentin), Kritisch* Geschichtt der Exegese des 9. Kapitels rtsp. dtr
Vorst 14-33 dts Rbmerbriefes , bis auf Chrysostomus und Augustinus «'»•
tchiosslich, and to Beyschlag (Dr. Willibald), Di$ paulinische TheodicMt
ROmtr JX-XI, who have materially lighteacd the labour incoiied.
ZBBAEZi ITSEIiF TO BLAME FOB ITS BEJECTIOIT.
IX. 80-X. 18. The reason that God has rejected Israel
is that, though they sought righteousness, they sought it 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 (w. 30-33). They refused to give up their
own method, that of Law, although Law had come to an end
m Chrut (x 1-4), and this in ^te of the fact that the old
§76 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 80-X. 8.
system was difficult if not impossible (ver. 5), while the new
system was easy and within the reach of eUHys. 6-10), indeed
universal in its scope (w. 11-13).
IX. ** 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
earned by their own efforts but is the product of faith in a power
outside them. ** Israel 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 (viil 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 comer stone of
the whole building.
X. ^ 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 I How earnest my prayer to God
for their salvation I ' For indeed as a fellow-countryman, as one
who was once as they are, I can testify that they are full of seal
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. 'Righteousness they
strove after, but there were two ways of attaining to it. The one
was God's method : of that they remaiiied ignorant. The othei
was their own method: to this they clung blindly and wilfully
They refused to submit to God's plan of salvation.
Z.4-12.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL •77
•Their own method was based on a rigid performance of legal
enactments. But that has been ended in Christ. Now there ia
a new and a better way, one which has two characteristics ; it is
based on the principle of faith, and it is universal and for all men
alike, '(i) It is based on the principle of faith. Hence it is that
while the old method was difficult, if not impossible, the new is
easy and open to alL The old method righteousness by law, that
b by the exact performance of legal rules, is aptly described by
Moses when he says (Lev. xviii. 5), 'the man who does these
things shall live/ i. e. Life in all its fulness here and hereafter was
to be gained by undeviating strictness of conduct ; and that con-
dition we have seen (l i8-iii 20) was impossible of fulfilment.
'But listen to the proclamation which righteousness by faith
makes to mankind. It speaks in well-known words which have
become through it more real. ' There is no need for you to say,
Who will go up into heaven ? Heaven has come to you ; Christ
has come down and lived among men. ''There is no need to
search the hidden places of the deep. Christ has risen. There
is no need therefore to seek the living among the dead. You are
offered something which does not require hard striving or painful
labour. * The word of God is very nigh thee, in thy heart and in
thy mouth.' And that word of God is the message of faith, the
Gospel which proclaims * believe and thou shalt be saved ' ; and
this Gospel we preach throughout the world. ' All it says to you
is : ' With thy mouth thou must confess Josus as sovereign Lord,
with thy heart thou must believe that God raised Him from the
dead.' "For that change of heart which we call faith, brings
righteousness, and the path of salvation is entered by the con-
fession of belief in Christ which a man makes at his baptism.
" (a) This is corroborated by what the Prophet Isaiah said (xxviii.
16) in words quoted above (ix. 33), the full meaning of which we
now understand : * Everyone that believeth in Him (i. e. the
Messiah) shall not be ashamed.' Moreover this word of tiis,
' everyone,' introduces the second characteristic of the new method.
It is universal. *^And that means that it applies equally to Jew
and to Greek. We have shown that the new covenant is open for
Greeks as well as Jews ; it is also true to say that the conditions
demanded are the same for Jew as for Greek. The Jew cannot
«78 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [UL 80
keep to Ms old methods; he must accept the new. And thii
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 so the prophet Joel, fore-
telling the times of the foundation of the Messianic kingdom,
says (ii. 3a) ' Everyone that shall call on the name of the Lord
(i. c. 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 Hia
Name, who will find a strong salvation.
IX. 80-X. 21. St. Paul now passes to another aspect of the
subject he is discussing. He has considered the rejection ol
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. I, 3) 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. j, 3). And this in spite o(
several circumstances ; (i) that the old method has been done
away with in Christ (ver. 4); (a) that while the old method
was hard and difficult the new is easy and within the reach of
all (w. 5-10); (3) that the new method is clearly universal and
intended for all alike (w. 11-13). At ver. 14 he passes to another
aspect of the question : it might still be asked : Had they full
opportunities of knowing? In w. 14-ti 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. rl o2r Ipouf&cr; The oiy, 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 gmlt of the Jews.
i^T^ iQvr\ K.T.X. There are two constructions possible for these
words. I. The sentence on . . . n^i> m wianms may contain the
answer to the question asked in W ov» ipmi^v ; This interpretation
IZ. 80, 8L] the unbelief OF ISRAEL %J9
a probably right The difficulty, however, is that nowhere else m
this Epistle, where St. Paul uses the expression W ovi' epovfitv, docs
he give it an immediate answer. He follows it by a second
question (as in ix. 14) ; and this is not a mere accident. It is
a result of the sense of deliberation contained in the previous
words with which a second question rather than a definite state-
ment seems to harmonize, s. The alternative rendering would be
to take the words iri . . . f(f>6a<rtv, as such a second question.
* What shall we say then ? Shall we say that, while Gentiles who
did not seek righteousness have obtained it, Israel has not attained
to it?' The answer to this question then would be a positive
one, not given directly but implied in the further one itari ; ' Yes,
but why?' — The difficulty in this construction, which must tell
against it, is the awkwardness of the appended sentence diKaioavmjp
dc TTiw etc nltn-Mttg. Lipsius' suggestion that in r= < because ' is quite
impossible.
26ktj : ' heathen,' not * the heathen ' ; some, not all : nam
nonnuiti pagani fidtm turn Christo adtunxerant, rh wXtipafia tw
iBvSiv ad Christi xacra nondum accesserat. Fri.
SitSKOKTa . . . KarAaPc: 'correlative terms for pursuing and
overtaking' (Field, Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 96). The metaphor
as in TpixovTos (ver. 16) is taken from the racecourse, and probably
the words were used without the original meaning being lost sight
of: cf. I Cor. ix. 24. The two words are coupled together
£xod. XV. 9 ; Ecclus. xi. 10; xxvii. 8; Phil. iii. 12 ; Herod, ii. 30;
Lucian, HermoU 'j'j. dirnKdv is a characteristic Pauline word occur-
ring in letters of all periods: i Thess. (i), i Cor. (i), Rom. (4),
PhU. (a), I Tim. (i), a Tim. (i).
%Maio(ruyr\¥ hi hmits and explains the previous use of the word.
' But remember, (and this will explain any difficulty that you may
have), that it was «« niareus' : cf. iii. a a ^ikmoovvt] 8« Qfoi: i Cor.
ii. 6 ao<\>'ua> if XaXoO/My d> rolt rcXctotr' ao<f)iav ii ov rov alStvos
Mvrov.
Some nnall Tariations of readings may be jn«t noticed. In yer. 31 the
■econd SiKaioavvTjs after th v6noy of the TR. is omitted by decisive authority,
u also is v6fJtov (after ipfuv) in ver. 32, and yap after irpoaiKoxpav. In ver. 33
wai read by the TR. has crept in from x. 1 1 , and Western MSS. read ob ftil
KarcuaxwO^ to harmonize with the LXX.
81. 'lapo^X %i n.T.X. These words contain the real difficulty erf
the statement, of which alone an explanation is necessary, and is
given. ' In spite of the fact that some Gentiles even without
seeking it have attained righteousness, Israel has failed.'
r6^oy %iKaioa6yn% : < a rule of life which would produce righteous-
ness' : cf. iii. 37 vifjMt nivTfas : vii. ai.
ofiK i^Qatn : ' did not attain it ' ; they are represented as con-
tinually piu-suing after something, the accompUshment o( which
a8o EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 81-8*
as continually escapes them. All idea of anticipation has been
iost in (pedvu in later Greek, cf. Phil, iii. i6; Dan. iv. 19 (Theod.)
i<^6acrtv fit T(iv ovpav6v.
82. oTi ofiii ^K wioTfws . . . irpoff^Ko4»a*'. Two constructions are
possible for these words. (1) We may put a comma at cpy«v and
supply bLWKovTfs. Then the passage will run : ' Why did they not
attain it ? because pursuing after it not by faith but by works they
stumbled/ &c. ; or (2) we may put a full stop at tpyav and supply
f^iu^av. * 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.
dXX* &s H «PY«^' The it introduces a subjective idea. St. Paul
wishes to guard himself from asserting definitely that t^ (pyav wai
a method by which vofiov iiKaiotrvvrjs 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 a Cor. ii. 1 7 aXX* ox »| tlXucpivtiat
represents the purpose and aim of the Apostle; a Cor. xi. 17
6 XaXw, ov Kara Kvpiov \a\S>, aXX' its iv a<Ppo<rvi>t] represents an aspect
from which his words may be regarded ; Philem. 14 'va fif) wr Kara
ii'dyicTip TO dya66v aov § aX\a Kara iKovaiov : * even the appearance
of constraint must be avoided' (cf. Lightfoot, ad loc). The «s
gives a subjective idea to the phrase with which it is placed, but the
exact force must be determined by the context.
irpo(TeKoi|»aK : npoaKoirrnw rir'i 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 aKovdaKov, had stumbled
over Christ, shown themselves irritated and annoyed, and expressed
their indignation, see Grm. Thayer, xu6 voc.
T« \i0« TOO irpoffKiSfifiaTOs : ' 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. i Pet. ii. 8.
33. 1800, Ti0T)fit iv Iiwi' K.T.X. The quotation is taken from the
LXX of Is. xxviii. 16, fused with words from Is. viii. 14. The
latter part of the verse is quoted again x. 11, and the whole in
I Pet. ii. 6.
A comparison of the different rariationi k interesting, (i) The LXX
reads J5oi» kfui kn^dWoi (U rd BtfiiXia li&iv. In both the passages in the
N.T. the words are /5oii tIOjjiju iv 'S.iiiv. (a) For the LXX K'lOov ■no\vT^\^
kK\(icT6v SiKpoyaiviaiov fVTtfiov, St. Peter read* AKpoyajviaiov iic\(KTov Ivrtnor :
while St. Paul substitutes \iOov irpoaKdfXfMrot «ai virpav OKavhakov taken
from Is. viii. 14 koI ov\ iis \l9ov itpoaKuntxari avvavr-qaiaOt ov5i in irirpiu
vTwuari. Here St. Pete: ii. 8 agrees with St. Paul in writing nirpa aKavidXot
£»i 9«Tpa$ wriiftaTi. (3) The LXX proceeds tU ri $*fii\ia air^, which both
IX. as.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL flSl
St Peter and St Paal omit (4) The LXX proceeds not 6 vicrrcikm' oi /ii|
MaraiaxwOi. Both St. Peter and St. Paul bring out the personal reference
by inserting Ir' tiiir^, while St Paul reada imraiax'^vOiiatTai and in s. il
adds vat.
Iir* afirw. Personal, of the Messiah, * He that believeth on Him
shall not be ashamed.' St. Paul inserts the words, both here and in
X. II, to emphasize the personal reference. If the reference were
impersonal, the feminine would be required to agree with the
nearest word irirpa.
iiara.iiryjiv^'f[ijtTcn. Either an incorrect translation of the Hebrew,
or based on a different reading. The RV. of Isaiah reads ' shall
noLmake haste.'
lln the O. T. neither of these passages has anv direct Messianic
leferencer In both_Jehovah is the rock founded on Zioh. 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 \i6os was applied
to Christ, primarily with reference to Ps. cxviii. 33 'the Stone
which the builders rejected' (Matt. xxi. 43; Mark xii. 10; Luke
XX. 17; Acts iv. 1 1 by St. PeteiVI The other passages in which
the word \'t6ot was used in the LXX came to be applied as here,
and in Eph, ii. 30 oKpoyuviaiov is used almost as a proper name.
By the time of Justin Martyr \i6os is used almost as a name of the
Christ : tartt koI Taira ovto>s t\ovra if Xtytis, Koi OTi nadrjTot Xpiaros
npnecpTiTevdq fiiXkiiv tivai icai \l6os K(K\tjTat [Dial. 36. p. 123 C. ed.
Otto) : • yap Xpicrror /SacriXcvr koi Upcvs xat 6*6s koi Kvpios koI ayyeXos
Koi avdpuiros ita\ apxitrrpdrriyns koi \i6os (ib. 34. p. 1 1 3 D.) These
quotations seem to imply that \i6os was a name for the Messiah
among the Jews, and that Justin wishes to piove 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, Sanhedrtn 38. i Films Davidis non venit donee duae
iomus patrum ex Jxraele deficiant, quae sunt Aechmalotarcha Baby-
'.onicus ei princeps terrae hraeliticae q. d. Et erit in Sanciuarium
et in lapidem percussionis et petram offensionis duabus domibus
Israel. Is. xxviii. 16 is paraphrased by the Targum Jonathan,
Ecct ego constituam in Sion regem, regem fortem, poteniem el
terribilem ; corroborabo eum et confortabo eum dicit Propheta.
lusti autem qui crediderint haec cum venerit tribulatio non com-
mcvebuntur, and some apparently read regem Messias regem
potentem. Ps. cxviiL 32 is paraphrased by the same Targum,
Puerum despexerunt aedificatorts, qui fuit inter filios Israel ei
meruit constitui rex et dominator. For these and other reff. see
Schoettgen, ii. 160, 606.
A comparison of Romans and i Peter shows that both Apostles
agree in quoting the same passages together, and both have
S89 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX 88-Z. L
a number of common yariants 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 Testimoma of Cyprian, where one of the chapters is headed:
Quod idem et lapis dicius sit {Test. ii. i6) ? See on ix. 25, 26 supra.
X. 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 countryman's rejection,
to express his sorrow and affection.
Mardoo admitted into his text ver. a-4, which he was able to use u
a proof text of his fundamental doctrine that the Jews had been ignorant of
the ' higher God.' The whole or almost the whole passage which follows
X. 5-xi. 3a, he appears to have omitted, Zahn, p. 518. Tert. Adv. Marc. r. 13.
dSeXt^oi. 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.
fi^K : without a corresponding Sc. The logical antithesis is given
in ver. 3.
cuSoKia : ' good will/ ' good pleasure/ not 'desire/ which the word
never means.
The word tvSoitia means ' good pleasure ' either (i) in relation to oneself
when it comes to mean 'contentment,' Ecclus. xxix. 23 M fnicp^ xai fitydkqt
(iSuidav lx« : ib. xxxv (xxxii), 14 oi opOpi^ovrts tvprjaovai fvSoKtay : 2 Thess.
J. 1 1 xal wXrjpucy irdcray tvooKtav dyaOtuavvTjs koi ipr/ov viffTfon iv Svydfiu : A.
So/, xvi. la : or (2) in relation to others, 'good will,' ' benevolence,' Ecclos,
ix. la fjiii txiZoKTiaigs iv tvSoKit} dat&aiv : Phil. i. 15 riytt niv Sid <p66yoy itai
ipiy, Twit Si leal fit' dSoKtay ruy 'S.pKrrov tcrjpvffffovffiy : (3) in this sense it
came to be used almost technically of the good will of God to man, £ph.
i. 5 Kurd T^v (vSoKiay roO OfX^fiaros axirov : L 9 Kard rify €iSo4clat> ovrov :
Ps. Sol. viii. 3<).
The above interpretation of the word is different from that taken by Fritzscbe
{adloc.), Lft. ^ad Phil. i. 15), Grm. Thayer, Lex. (s. ▼.), Philippi and Tholuck
'yod loc.). The word seems never to be used onqoalified to mean ' desire ' ; the
instance quoted by Lft. does not support it.
i\ %i'i\tn% : non orasset Paulus si absolute rtprobati esteni. Beng.
CIS aiorqpiaK = tea <Tti6i>(ri; cf. Ver. 4 tit iutaiotTvvffv and L 5 '^'
vnoK^rfv wioTtois.
The additions ff before wpis rbv %»iiy and k0rtw before clt rmrtifiar in
the TR. are giammatical explanatioQS. The reading toS ^Ivpa^k for airntm
may have been merely an explanatory gloss, or may have arisen threagb the
v&st bemg the beginning of a lesson in church serrioea.
X. 2-4.J THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL »9$
2. i&apTupu Y'^P* ^^^^ gives the reason for St. Paul's grief.
He had been a Jew Trfpiaa-orepai (rjKcorfjs vndpxoiv (Gal. i. 14; cf.
Acts xxii. 3) and hence he knew only too well the extent both at
their zeal and of their ignorance.
IriKov 0€oO. Obj. genitive : * zeal for God ' (not as in t Cor.
xi. 2). An O. T. expression : Judith, ix. 4 e^rjXriXTav rbv fiJXoV <tov:
Ps. Ixviii [Ixix] ; cxviii [cxix]. 139 6 f^Xoy tov o'kov (tov. i Mace,
ii. 58 C^Xor vofwv. Jo wett quotes Philo, Leg. ad Caium, § 16 (Mang.
il 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.
nar ^iriyfOKriK. The Jews were destitute, not of yvuxns, but of
the higher disciplined knowledge, of the true moral discernment
by which they might learn the right way. firiyvaais (see Lft. on
Col. i. 9, to whose note there is noihing to add) means a higlier
and more perfect knowledge, and hence it is used especiall)- iind
almost technically for knowledge of God, as being the highest
and most perfect form : see on i. 28 and cf. iii. 20.
8. dyfooufTfs ydp. This verse gives the reason for ov kqt'
eiriyvcofTiv, and the antithesis to 17 nev fv8oKia. dyvoovvres 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 (w. 14 sq.).
j^v ToO 0€ou SiKaioaunf|K . . . tt)»' ISiaK. 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.
u-ireTdyTjcaK. Middle, ' submit themselves,' cf. Jas. iv. 7 ; i Pet
"• 13; V. 5 ; Winer, § xxxiv, 3. p. 3*7 E.T.
The second iiKaioffvvr)v after iSlav of the TR. U supported bj N only
vnoDg good authorities, and by Tisch. only among recent cditon; it ii
omitted by A B D E P, Vnlg. Boh. Arm., and many Fathers.
4. riko^ Y^P t^^it-ou K.rX. St. Paul has in the preceding verse
been contrasting two methods of obtaining SiKaioavvtj; one, that
ordained by God, as ix. 3a shows, a method eV mWfox ; the other
that pursued by the Jews, a method 8ia popov. The latter has ceased
to be possible, as St. Paul now proves by showing that, by the coming
of Chiist Law as a means of obtaining righteousness had bees
384 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. ^
brought to an end. The yap 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.
tAos : ' end,' ' termination.' Law at 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. Eubuliden,
1306, 25 t^niroi iraaiv €<mv avdponrois riXot tov ^iov BdvaTos ((JUOted
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. 15 '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 stem 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.
I'cJfAou : * 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 TtXos it is naturally also
dropped before vofiov (see on ii. 1 3), and although St. Paul might
have written t6 yap t(\os tov vofiov, yet this would not exactly have
suited his purpose, for tcKos 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 navri tw nia-Tevovri proving that the passage cannot b»e
I confined to the Jews, and consequently not to the Mosaic law, and
by the correct reading in ver. 5 rfjv «« v6nov (see critical note).
The interpretation of this verse has been much confused owing
to incorrect translations of riXos (fulfilment, aim), the confusion <m
fofjios and 6 vopos, and a misapprehension of the drift of the passage.
(
X. 4, 0.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 385
That the version given above is correct is shown (i) by the mean-
ing of TfXof. It is quite trae that Christ is the Tt\(iu>aii of the
Law, that in Him what was typical has its fulfilment; but reXot
never means T«X<t«»«rir (as it is taken here by Orig. Erasmus, ftc).
Again, it is equally true that the Law is the naiiayaySs that brings
men to Christ, and that Christ can be described as the object or
goal of the Law (as the passage if taken by Chrys., other fathers,
and Va. amongst English commentators) : but reKos is only used
once in this sense in St. Paul's Epistles ( i Tim. i. 5), Xpiaros would
become the predicate, rtKos would then require the article, and vo/ios
would have to be interpreted of the Jewish Law. The normal
meaning of the word, and the correct one here, is that of ' termina-
tion' (so Aug. De W. Mey. Fri. Weiss, Okramare): U) hv the
ipeaning of yti/xot (see abov&). This is interpreted incorrectly of the
Jewish Law only by almost all commentators (Orig. Chrys. ani
all the Fathers, Erasmus, Calv. De W. Mey. Va.) ; (3) by the
context. This verse is introduced to explain ver. 3, which asserts
that of two methods of obtaining righteousness onais right, the
otherwrong. bt. Wul here confirms this by showing that the one
as come to an end so as to introduce the other. It is his object
to mark the contrast between the two methods of righteousness
and not their resemblance.
But the misinterpretation is not confined to this verse, it colours
the interpretation of the whole passage. It is not St. Paul's aim to
show that the Jews ought to have realized their mistake because
the O. T. dispensation pointed to Christ, but to contrast the two
methods. It is only later (w. 14 f.) that he shows that the Jews
had had full opportunities and warnings.
CIS iiK.aioir6ini\v narrX tu irioreuon-i : ' so that duuuoavinj may come
to everyone that believes,' •»o that tveryone by believing may
obtain dtxato<rvyi;.'
Ommi ertdtnti, trtutatur ri ertdmti v. i aq., ri tmmi v. il iq. wurrl,
0mm «s iudaeis $t gtntihu. Bcng.
6-10. St. Paul proceeds to describe the two modes of obtaining
hiKaiomjvri in language drawn from the O. T., which had become
proverbial.
6. Mu(ri)s yip Ypii<|>ci k.tX Taken from Lev. xviii. 5, which is
quoted also in Gat iii. la. The original (A noir](Tas auBpanos (riatrai
iv avToit) is slighUy modified to suit the grammar of this passage,
T171' hiKcuofrvvrfv nji' «(t yd^ov being made the object of jroijjora?. St. Paul
quotes the words to mean that the condition of obtaining life by
law is that of fulfilment, a condition which in contrast to the other
method described immediately afterwards is hard, if not im-
possible. On this difficulty of obeying the law he has laid stress
again and again in the fint part of the Epistle, and it is this
185 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 5-B.
that he means by rdy rd/iov r«» hrokmw in Eph. ii 15 (quoted
above).
(i^acTai : shall obtain life in its deepest sense both here and
hereafier (see pp. 180, 196).
There are a number of small variationi ia the text of this ▼one. (i) Sn
is placed before t^j/ SiKaioaw-qy by N* A D*, Vnlg. Boh., Orig.-lat, after »'<5/4oi»
by N" B D" E F G K L P &c., Syrr., Chryt Thdrt. &e. (a) U v6tiov is read
by K B, iic Tov v6nov by the mass of later authorities. (3) 6 woiriffas ia
read without any addition by K* AD E, Vnlg., Orig. )at., alri is added by
B F G K L P &c., Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt &c, tarn by d** e f. (4) &vepuiros is
om. by F G, Chrys. ; 5) iv air^ is read by K A B minttsc. pam., Vidg. Boh.
Orig.-lat., If avTofs D E F G K L P &c. Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c.
The original text was otj ri\v SiicaiocTvvrjy rfjv ii€ v6nov 6 woirjoas av9pwvo%
(fjofTat iv avTTi. The alteration of avT& . . . aiiroh came fiom a desire to
make the passage correspond with the LXX, or Gal. iii. 13 (hence the
omission of avBpwnos), and this necessitated a change in the position of 5ri.
TOV vofxov arose from an early misinterpretation. The mixed text of B ypoupti
rijv SiKaioavvTjv T'fjv I* v6nov in 6 irotrjirai avrcL avOponrot (tjatTcu ir airy and
of D ypcKpti oTi T^f hiKaioavvrpr r-qy Ik toC vouov 6 voiijaas avOpotmos ^ijatrtu
ir avToii are curious, bot help to support K A Vulg. 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 01
(the RV. translation is here modified to suit the LXX) : * " [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] saying.
Who shall go up for us into heaven [and receive it for us, and having
heard of it we shall do it ? " 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 th*
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 Tery niunerons rariatiou between the
quotation and the LXX. In the first place only a few phrases ait
selected : the portions not quoted vet enclosed in bradceta in the translation
given above. Then in those sentences that are quoted there are very con-
siderable changes : (i ) for the yi-^oiv of the LXX, which is an ungrammatical
translation of the Hebrew, and is without construction, is substituted ^^
tiwQ% ty r77 KapSi<f aov from Deut. viii. 17, ix.4 : (3) for ris iiawtpdau ^puw tls
r6 vipav r^s 0a\aaatjs is substituted ris KarajiriatTa* tit rifv &&wfaov in ordei
to make the passage better suit the pnrpose for which it is quoted : (3) in
t The Bohairic Version is quoted incorrectly in support of this reading.
The earn read there does not imply a variant, but was demanded bj the idioM
»f the language.
X. 6.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 387
ver. 8 the words v<p6tpa . . .h rait x*^ ••* ut omitted (this agrees with
the Hebrew), as also wojciV avri.
6. Vj %k in «{<rr««*t ftiitaiotrdvii oStm Xfyci. It is noticeable that
St. Paul does not introduce these words on the authority of Scripture
(as ver. 1 1), 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. ao; Lk. xi. 49;
of irapdKkrjvit Heb. xii. 5-
Tis draP^^acrai cU fhv ofipartfr; 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 diflBcult or hard to attain to.'
TOUT loTi, XpwTTOK KaTaYaYcif : ' 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 nimierous. tovt* tarw 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 t6 prjiui, which occtu-s 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 tovt' ftn-i (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
dpo^rjatrcu which it explains : so Xen. Mem. I. v. a (Goodwin, Greek
Moods and Tenses, $ 97) d ^vXoifitOa r^ entrpeyfrai ^ miidas nai8fV(rM,
^ XprjfiaTa duuroKTcu. In this and similar cases it is not necessary to
emphasize strongly the idea of purpose as do Fri. {nempe ui Christum
in orbem ierrarum deducaf) and Lips. {nUmlich urn Christum htrabzu-
hokn), the infinitive is rather epexegetical (so apparently Va. Gif.).
The LXX here reads Ws ai/a^^a-«Tat . . . km Xr^-^trai ; the construction
is changed because rovr iariv koI Kord^u 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 ri« Kara^ti rip Xpurriv. Weiss translates ' that would
S88 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Z. 6>a
be the game thing as to bring Christ down/ apparently making
the infinitive dependent on tovt foriv. 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. ^, Ti's KarapriaeTOi . . . dfayayeir : * nor is it necessary to
search the depth, since Christ is risen from the dead.' St. Paul
substitutes ris Kara^rja-tTcu tls r^v aiivaaov for the more ordinary rU
btair(pa<TH ^»av (It rb iripav rrfs 6n\arr(Tr]i, 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. a^vaaot in the O. T. meant originally the ' deep sea,' * the
great deep' or 'the depths of the sea,' Ps. cvi (cvii), 26 dva^ai-
vovaiv tas tS>p oipaviov, xal KaTo^aivoviriv twr tS>v d^vatrov, and the deep
places of the earth, Ps. Ixx (Ixxi). ao kuI (k t«v a,iJi)<ro-wi» r^r y^s
itaKtv avriyayit fu, and SO had come to mean Tartarus or the Lower
World; t6v 8« raprapov r^r d/Svcro-ov Job. xli. 23, where the reference
to rdprapot is due to the LXX ; cf. Eur. Phoen. 1632 (1605) '.iprapot)
a0va<ra xoc^ra. Elsewhere in the N. T. it is so used of the abode
of demons (Luke viii. 31) and the place of torment (Rev. ix. i).
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 ; i Peter iii. 19 ; iv. 6; and
Lft. on Ign. Magn. ix ; see also Swete, Apost. -creed, p. 57 ff.
8. rd ^^fio Tiis vioTcws. ' The message, the subject of which is
faith ' ; vians 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, cC X. 17. On pr^yua cf. I Peter i. 25 r6 dc pr\pja. Kvpiov lUvti
tls riv alwva. rovro de tan rd prjfjut ro tvayytXiadtv tls vfuis.
t Ki)pu(rao|jicK. 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 i The
diflBculty is this. In the O. T. the words are used by Moses of
the Law : how can St. Paul use them of the Gospel as against the
Law?
X.8.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 289
The following considerations will suggest the answer to be given .
(i) The context of the passage shows that there is no stress
laid on the fact that the O. T. is being quoted. The object of the
argument is to describe the characteristics of tiKauxrivt} « maretitSf
not to show how it can be proved from the O. T.
(a) The Apostle carefully and pointedly avoids appealing to
Scripture, altering his mode of citation from that employed in the
previous verse. Mosen non citat, quia sensum Mosis non sequitur^
sed tantum ab illo verba mutuatur, Vatablus, ap. Crit. Sacr. ad he.
(3) The quotation is singularly inexact. An ordinary reader
fairly well acquainted with the O. T. would feel that the language
had a familiar ring, but could not count it as a quotation.
(4) The words had certainly become proverbial, and many
instances of them so used have been quoted. Philo, Quod omn.
prob. lib. § 10 (quoted by Gifford), 'And yet what need is there
either of long journeys over the land, or of long voyages for the
sake of investigating and seeking out virtue, the roots of which the
Creator has laid not at any great distance, but so near, as the wise
law-giver of the Jews says, *' They are in thy mouth, and in thy
heart, and in thy hands," intimating by these figurative expressions
the words and actions and designs of men ? ' Bava Mezia, f. 94. i
(quoted by Wetstein) Si quis dixerit mulieri. Si adscenderis in
firmamtntum, out descenderis in afytsum, eris mihi desponsata, haec
conditio frustranea est ; 4 Ezra iv. 8 dicebas mihi fortas sis : In abys^
sum non descendi, neque in infermim adhuc, neque in coelis unquam
ascendi', Banich iii. 29, 30 t« avi^rj els rov olpavov <al f\a(3ev avTTjv,
Koi KaTf^'i^a<T(v avTr]v eK twi/ rf^fXwvJ Tis dif^rj nipav rrjs dahdaoTji Koi
ftpev avrfjv (of Wisdom) ; Jubilees xxiv. 32 ' For even if he had
ascended to heaven, they would bring him down from there . . .
and even if he descends into She61, there too shall his judgement
be great ' ; cp. also Amos ix. a.
(5) St Paul certainly elsewhere uses the words of Scripture in
order to express his meaning in familiar language, cf. ver. 18 ; xi. i.
For these reasons it seems probable that here the Apostle does
not intend to base any argument on the quotation from the O. T.,
bat only selects the language as being familiar, suitable, and pro-
verbial, in order to express what he wishes to say.
It is not necessary therefore to consider that St. Paul is interpret-
ing the passage of Christ by Rabbinical methods (with Mey. Lid.
and others), nor to see in the passage in Deuteronomy a prophecy
of the Gospel (Fri.) or a reference to the Messiah, which is certainly
not the primary meaning. But when we have once realized that no
argument is based on the use of the O. T., it does not follow that
the use of its language is without motive. Not only has it a
great rhetorical value, as Chrysostom sees with an orator's instinct :
* he uses the words which are found in the O. T., being always at
A^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Z. S>1%
pains to keep quite clear of the charges of love of novelties and ot
opposition to it'; but also there is to St Paul a correspondence
between ihe O. T. and N, T. : the true creed is simple whether
Law on its spiritual side or Gospel (cf. Aug. Dt Natura tt Gratia,
§83)
0. 3ti lh.v AfioXoyrjcrgs «,t.X. This verse corresponds to and
applies the preceding verse. The subject of the f>r\\ux which is
preached by the Apostles is the person of Christ and the truth
of His Resurrection. Kvpwt refers to ver. 6, the Resurrection
(or* 6 ©for avTov rjytiptp ik vtKpcoy) to ver. 7* 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 salvadon.
The ordinaiy reading in this rtne is Idp ii)tcKoy^<r^ h rp 0r6iiarl «o*
Kvpiov 'lT]<Tovy, for which WH. substitute t6 ^tui tv r^ arSftaTi 9ov 8ti
Kvpioi 'Irjaovs. r6 pfifia has the authority of B 71, Clem.-Alex. and perhaps
Cyril, on 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. KapSia ydp iriorcucTai k.t.X. St. Patil 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 <r«fd/xfi>of.
11. X^ci Y^p ^ YP(^<t>^ k.tX. Quoted from Is. xxviii. i6 (see
above, ix. 33) with the addition of iras to bring out the point on
»rhich 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 dme 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 dixatoavi^ in
v6fiov has been done away with in Christ to make way for a new
one which has two characteristics : (i) that it is </c ntcrrcuc: this has
been treated in w. 5-10; (a) that it is universal: this he now
proceeds to develope.
12. ou yi^P ^(^>^ SiaoToXf) 'louSaiou tc xal *EXXi)ko$. St Paul
first explains the meaning of this statement, namely, the imiversal
character of the Gospel, by making it clear that it is the sole
method for Jews as well as for Gentiles. This was both • warning
Z. 12, 18.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL SOI
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. i6; ii. 9, 10; iii. 9;
I Cor. i. 34; xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11); they must obtain
iiKoioavvtf by the same methods and on the same conditions as the
Gentile*. 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.
6 ydp auT^ Kupios Tt&vTfav, cf. I Cor. xii. 5. 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 Ki^ptoy navrav
as predicate for it contains the point of the sentence, ' The same
Lord is Lord of all ' (so the RV.).
Kupios must clearly refer to Christ, cf. w. 9, 11. He is called
iLvpioi ndvTiov Acts X. 36, and cf. ix. 5, and Phil. ii. 10, 11.
irXouTWK : ' abounding in spiritual wealth,' cf esp. Eph. iii. 8
Tois tdvtaw rvayyfXiaaaBai to dve^i^vlaarov nXoirrot rov Xpiarov,
rods ^mxaXoufi^Kous afiitSc. eniKa\tia-6ai t6v Kvpiov, or more cor-
rectly eiriKaktiaQm rh Svofia rov Kvpiov, 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 01 eirucdkovfifvoi tow
Kvpiof or TO ovofM Kvpiov. 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, 6 Kvpiot, in order to designate them as
aptart from all others, cf. i Cor. i. a <rvv naari toU firiKoKoviiivois rh
itiofia rov Kvpiov tfpwv 'irjtrov Xpurrov. There is a treatise on the
subject by A. Seeberg, Ih'e Anbetung dex Herrn bet Paulus, Riga,
1 891, see especially pp. 38, 43-46.
13. iras Y^P ^ ^* ^mKaX^<n|Tai. St. Fan! 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 {autdr^afrcu, cf. ver. 9 awOfjo^,
10 (T<oTt)piav), 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.
Kwpiow. The term Kvpwt is applied to Christ by St. Paul ia
SI93 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X 14-21.
quotations from the O. T. in » Thess. i. 9; i Cor. iL 16; x. »i,
a6 ; a Cor. iii. 16, and probably in other passages.
This quotation, besides concluding the argument of w. 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 XJITEELIEV NOT EXCUSED BY WAIST OW
OPPORTUMITY.
X. 14-21. This unbelief on the part of Israel was not
owing to want of knowledge. Fully accredited messengers —
such a body as is necessary for preaching and for faith —
have announced the Gospel. TJure is no land but has heard
the voices of the Evangelical preachers (w. 14-18). Nof
was it owing to want of understanding. Their own Prophets
warned them that it was through disobedience that they
would reject God's message (vv. 19-ai).
"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 urged, that these have not
been fulfilled. Let us consider what these conditions are. If a 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 (Iii. 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 k a
patient and submissive hearing. This does not imply that the
message nas noC 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 (liii. i) ' Lord, who
hath believed our message ? ' " Which incidentally confirms what
we were saying a moment ago : Faith can only come from the
X. 14-2L] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL S93
message heard, and the message heard implies the message sent —
the message, that is, about Christ.
*• But it may be alleged : We grant it was preached, but that
does not prove that Israel heard it. Is that possible, when in the
words of Psalm xix * the voices of God's messengers went forth
into all lands, and their words to the limits of the known world ? '
^* Or another excuse : ' Israel heard but did not understand.'
Can you say that of Israel ? From the very beginning of its history
a long succession of its Prophets foretold the Divine scheme.
Moses, to begin with, wrote (Deut. xxxii. 21) 'I will excite you
to jealousy at a nation outside the pale, that does not count as a
nation at alL I will rouse your anger at seeing yourselves out-
stripped by a nation whom you regard as possessing no intelligence
for the things of religion.' "• Isaiah too was full of boldness. In
the face of his fellow-countrymen he asserted (Ixv. i) that God's
mercies should be gained by those who had not striven after them
(the Gentiles). " And then he turns round to Israel and says that
although God had never ceased stretching out His arms to them
with all the tenderness of a mother, they had received His call with
disobedience, and His message with criticism and contradiction.
The Jews have fallen, not because of God's unfaithfulness or in-
justice, not because of want of opportunity, but because they are a
rebellious people — a people who refuse to be taught, who choose
their own way, who cleave to that way in spite of every warning
and of every message.
14-21. This section seems to be arranged on the plan of sug-
gesting a series of diflSculties, and giving short decisive answers to
each : (i) ' But how can men believe the Gospel unless it has been
fully preached ? '(v. 14). Answer. ' It has been preached as Isaiah
foretold' (ver. 15). (a) 'Yet, all have not accepted it' (ver. 16).
Answer. ' That does not prove that it was not preached. Isaiah
foretold also this neglect of the message' (vv. 16, 17). (3) 'But
perhaps the Jews did not hear' (v. 18), Answer. 'Impossible.
The Gospel has been preached everywhere.' (4) 'Bui perhaps
they did not understand' (ver. 19). Answer. 'That again is im-
possible. The Gentiles, a people without any real knowledge,
have understood. The real fact is they were a disobedient, self-
willed people.' The object is to fix the guilt of the Jews by re*
moving every defence which might be made on the ground of wani
of opportunitiea.
S94 EPISVLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 14, If.
'Th« passage which follows (14-31) b io style one of the most obscnn
portions of the Epistle.' This statement of Jowctt'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 without
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 put it after Ter. 11 (so Go.) making rr. ii-ai a prod
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 ol
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 succeeding paragraph is introduced by
a question with the particle ovy : so ix. 14 W oZv tpoC/i«i'; 30; xi. i, 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 (ovi')
are the conditions necessary for attaining it, and hare they been fulfilled?*
the words forming a suitable introduction to the next stage in the argument.
This use of ovv to introduce a new paragraph is very common in St. Paul.
See especially Rom. t. i, vi. i, xii. i ; Eph. iv. I ; I "Tim. iL i ; a Tim. u. I,
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 Tcr. IJ of that chapter at what
is really only a parenthetical remark.
X. 14, 16. 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 ?
I. One main Une of interpretation, following Calvin, considers
that the words are introduced to justify the preaching of the Gospel
to the Geniiles ; in fact to support the nas 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 ( -ral
Discussion at the end), but in any case tHe logical connexion ii
wrong. If that 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.
a. Roman Catholic commentatora, followed by Liddon and
Z. 14.J THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL it^^
Gore, consider that the words are introduced in order to justify an
apostolic or authorized ministry. But this is to introduce into the
passage an idea which is quite alien to it, and which is unnecessary
for the argument
3. The right interpretation of the whole of this paragraph seems to
be that of Chrysostom. The Jews, it has been shown, have neglected
God's method of obtaining righteousness; but in order, as he desires,
to convict them of guilt in this neglect, St. Paul must show that they
have had the opportunity of knowing about it, that their ignorance
{ayvoovrrts ver. 3) is culpable. He therefore begins by asking what
are the conditions necessary for ' calling upon the Lord ? ' and then
shows that these conditions have been fulfilled. There may still
be some question as to the meaning of the quotation, (i) It may
be introduced merely as corroborative of the last chain in the
argument (so most commentators). This need of a commissioned
ministry corresponds to the joy and delight experienced when they
arrive. Or better, (2) it may be looked upon as stating the fulfil-
ment of the condidons. ' Yes, and they have come, a fact that no
one can fail to recognize, and which was foretold by the Prophet
Isaiah.' So Chrysostom, who sums up the passage thus : ' If the
being saved, then, came of calling upon Him, and calling upon
Him from believing, and believing from hearing, and hearing from
preaching, and preaching from being sent, and if they were sent,
and did preach, and the prophet went round with them to point
them out, and proclaim them, and say that these were they whom
they showed of so many ages ago, whose feet even they praised
because of the matter of their preaching ; then it is quite clear that
the not believing was their own fault only. And that because
God's part had been fulfilled completely.'
14. vws oSv iTriKoKiaiatrrai. The word 01%, as often in St. Paul,
marks a stage in the argument. 'We have discovered the new
system of salvation: what conditions are necessary for its acceptance?'
"The question is not the objection of an adversary, nor merely
rhetorical, but rather deliberative (see Burton, Af. and T. § 169):
hence the subjunctive (see below) is more suitable than the Iutu«e
which we find in ix. 30. The subject of «7rt»taX«cra)»^tu is implied in
w. 13, 13, 'those who would seek this new method of salvation by
calling on the name of the Lord.'
In this seriet of qnestioni in tt. 14, 15 the MSS. vuy between the stib-
jnnctive and the fatnre. Generally the authority for th« subjunctive strongly
preponderates : inMaKtatovrax. K A B D E F G, -niarfuaoitnv K B D E F G P,
itr)pv((u<Ttv KABDEKLP. In the case of oKovowatv there is a double
Tariation. K" A* (A la/ei ) B and some minuscules read dKovatuaiv ; K D E F
G K P and gome minuscules read Ajtovaovrai ; L etc., Clem.- Alex. Ath.
Chrys. tdJ. Theodrt. and theTR. read dieovaovffi. Here however the double
vmriant makes the sobjunctive almost certain. Although the form aKovoovai
h possible ia N.T. Greek, it is most improbable that it should have arisen om
89^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 14, IS.
a corrcption from Sutoifforrtu, tod it it too weakly sappoited to be tha
correct reading. iKoiiaotatv, which will explain both variants and hannoniiei
with the ottier tubjnnctivei, is therefore correct. B here alone among the
leading MSS. is correct thronghoot.
ou ouK {jKouaay : ' how can they believe on Him whom they
have not heard preaching ? ' ov is for «ir tovtop oS : and as oKovtiv
riyos 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 diflS-
culties, is probably better than either of the other solutions proposed.
It is suggested that ov may be for ov, 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, oS = where, completely breaks the
continuity of the sentences.
15. KT|pu|(<xriK. The nominative is o2 KripCaaovrtt, which is implied
in KTJpvatTOVTOS.
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.
Kadus Y^YP'^'""'''^^' '^ <i)paioi ol ircSSes twk cuayYcXi^oix^Kwr dyaOd.
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, Ilor. 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 wpaloi in his eyes,
as they announce the end of the captivity of sin, and publish «tp^»^
(Kph. vL 15 ro fMiyycXioi' ri^r ti(ii\vr\s) made by Clirist, through the
X. U, 16.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISKAKL S97
blood of His Cross, between God and man, between earth and
heaven (2 Cor. v. 18-20; £ph. ii. 17; Col. i. 20); and all the
blessings of goodness {rh dya6a) which God in Christ bestows on
the Redeemed, especially diKauxrvvt).' Liddon.
There are two critical question* in connexion with this qnotation : the
leading of the Greelc text and its relation to the Hebrew and to the LXX.
(1) The RV. reads «» ujpdtoi ol w(55<j rSiv evayye\i(o).iivcuv 07060 : the
TR. inserts rolr tvay. tlprjvTjy after ol ir<55«i. The balance of authority is
•trongly in favour of the RV. The clause is omitted by N A B C minusc.
pauc. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Aeth., Clem. -Alex. Orig. and Orig.-lat. : it is in-
serted byDEFGKLP &c., Vulg. Syrr. (Pesh. Hard.) Arm. Goth., Chrys.
Iren.-lat. Hil. «/. 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 ikKor\v eifnjvrjt,
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 dyaOi with ABCDEFGP, Orig. Eus. Jo.-Damasc, the
TR. has Tci dyaOi with K 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 had formed part of the
"".ginal text he could quite naturally have omitted it
(a) The LXX translation is here very inexact, niptifu its &pa kwl tS)v
6pio/v, on irdSes tvayytXi^ofitvov clko^v dprjvrji, &s evayyt\t^6fi(vos &ya6i.
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 pnblisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth
salvation.' He shortens the quotation, makes it plural instead of singular
to suit his purpose, and omits the words < upon the mountains,' which have
only a local significance.
16. dW ofi jtdmt. An objection suggested. ' Yet, in spite of
the fact that this message was sent, all did not obey the Gospel.'
ov navres is a meiOStS ; cf. ri yap *i finioTrjaav TlfCS ; (iii. 3).
fiiri^Kouffoi', like virtrdyrjcrav (ver. 3), Seems to imply the idea of
voluntary submission: cf. vi. 16, 17 8ov\oi tart f imuKovfrt . .
{mrjKovaart lie €k Kapdias tit ov napfbn6r]Tf.
Tw efiayycXiu. The word is of course suggested by the quotation
of the previous verse.
'Haatas yap \iyt\, 11.T.X. ' 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. liii. i. Kupie, as Origen
pointed out, does not occur in the Hebrew.
dKoif: means (i) '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
29^ JCPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X 16- la
'message' there also, but then the connexion of idea with ver. i8
nfj ovK TJKovaav 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 w. 14 and 15 the objection of an opponent to which
St. Paul replies in ver. 16 ff.
17. apa i?i Tri<ms. ' 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 in the next verse.
81A pi^fiaTos XpiaxoO : ' a message about Christ.' Cf. ver. 8 t4
prjfjLa Tfjs 7ri(TT(a>s o KTjpvvaofifv. 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
Xpiarov is the reading of KBC D E minust. pane.. Valg. Sah. Boh. Arm.
Aeth. Orig.-lat. 2/2, Ambrst. Aug.— e«o5 of K» AD^'KLP ml.fUr., Syn.,
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. dXXA Xfy«: '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 \i.r) oi see Burton, M. and T. § 468.
ficcoukyc : an emphatic corrective, ' with a slight touch of irony'
(Lid.) ; cf. ix. 20.
CIS iraaoi' rf)!' yi^r «.t.X. St. Paul expresses his meaning in words
borrowed from Psalm xix. (xviii.) 5, 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 ?
I. Primarily at any rate St Paul wishes to express a well-known
fact in suitable language. * What do you say ? They have not
heard I Why the whole world and tlie 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.
8. But the language of Scripture is not used without a point
In tlie original Psalm these words describe how universally tb«
X. 18, 10.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL ^99
works of nature glorify God. By using them St. Paul ' compares
the universality of the preaching of the Gospel with the universality
with which the works of nature proclaim God.' Gif.
A second difficulty is raised by older commentators. As a matter
of fact the Gospel had not been preached everywhere ; and some
writers have inverted this argument, and used this text as a proof
that even as early as this Christianity had been universally preached.
But all that St. Paul means to imply is that it is universal in its
character. Some there were who might not have heard it ; some
Jews even might be among them. He is not dealing with indi-
viduals. The fact remained true that, owing to the universal
character of its preaching, those whose rejection of it he is con-
sidering had at any rate as a body had the opportunities of hearing
of it
19. dXXd X^w, fji)| *lvpaf)X ofix lyru ; a second excuse is suggested :
'surely it cannot be that it was from ignorance that Israel failed?'
(i) What is the meaning of the somewhat emphatic introduction
of 'ItrpafiXi It has been suggested that it means a change of
subject. That while the former passage refers to Gentiles, or
to Gentiles as well as Jews, here the writer at last turns to Israel in
particular. But there has been no hint that the former passage
was dealing with the Gentiles, and if such a contrast had been
implied 'lo-paiJX would have had to be put in a much more pro-
minent place, ntpl di ToC 'la-pafjX Xrya>, fi^ oiik eyva ; The real reason
for the introduction of the word is that it gives an answer to
the question, and shows the untenable character of the excuse.
Has Israel, Israel with its long line of Prophets, and its religious
privileges and its Divine teaching, acted in ignorance? When
once ' Israel ' has been used there can be no doubt of the answer.
(a) But, again, what is it suggested that Israel has not known?
As the clause is parallel with fiff ovk ^Kowav, and as no hint is given
of any change, the object must be the same, namely p^/xa Xpia-Tov,
the message concerning the Messiah. All such interpretations as
the 'calling of the Gentiles' or 'the universal preaching of the
Gospel' are outside the line of argument.
(3) But how is this consistent with dyvooivrfs ver. 3? The
contradiction is rather formal than real. It is true Israel's zeal
was not guided by deep religious insight, and that they clung
blindly and ignorantly to a method which liad been condemned;
but this ignorance was culpable : if they did not know, they might
have known. From the very beginning of their history their
whole line of Prophets had warned them of the Divine plan.
(4) The answer to this question is given in three quotations
from the O. T. Israel has been warned that their Messiah
would be rejected by themselves and accepted by the Gentiles.
They cannot plead that the message was difficult to understand ;
500 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Z. 10-91
even a foolish people (it was foretold) would accept it, and tliui
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.
vpwTos MkKrijs. tidiis Mtaatjs. * Even u early in Israel's history at
Moses.'
tfit irapalT|X(ovM A|fc&f k.t.X. : taken from Dent, zzxii. ti sub-
stantially according to the LXX {vfiat is substituted for airoit). 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. 'Haatas ii diroroXfif. 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. i 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
ix. s5, a6.
B D'^ F G with perhaps Sah. uid Goth, add h twiet bcfen rott, a Western
reading which has found its waj into B (c£ zL 6). It doet mot occur ia
K AC D'^'fiLP etc, and many Fathera.
21. irp&s hk rhv 'lapa^X Xfyti k.t.X. This citation (Is. Ixv. •)
follows almost immediaiely that quoted in ver. so, 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
Tke Argument of ix. 30-x. si : Human Rtsponsibilitf.
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
leal 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 tbejr have been rejected for their dis*
obedience.
IX. 80-Z. 21.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL JOl
Now it has been argued that tach an interpretation is in-
consistent with Chap. ix. That proves clearly, it is asserted, that
grace comes to man, not in answer to man's efforts, but in accord-
ance with God's will. How then can St. Paul go on to prove that
the Jews are to blame ? In order to avoid this assumed incon-
sistency, the whole section, or at any rate the final portion, has
been interpreted differently: w. ii-ai are taken to defend the
Apostolic ministry to the Gentiles and to justify from the O. T. the
calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews: vv. 14, 15
are used by St. Augustine to prove that there can be no faith
without the Divine calling; by Calvin, that as there is faith
among the Gentiles, there must have been a Divine call, and so
the preaching to them is justified. Then the quotations in w.
i8-ai are considered to refer to the Gentiles mainly; they are
merely prophecies of the facts stated in ix. 30, 31 and do not
imply and are not intended to imply human responsibility.
An apparent argument in favour of this interpretation is sug-
gested by the introductory words ix. 30, 31. It is maintained that
two propositions are laid down there; one the calling of the
Gentiles, the other the rejection of the Jews, and both these have
to be justified in the paragraph that follows. But, as a matter
of fact, this reference to the Gentiles is clearly introduced not as
a main point to be discussed, but as a contrast to the rejection
of Israel. It increases the strangeness of that fact, and with that
fact the paragraph is concerned. This is brought out at once by
the question asked iii W ; which refers, as the answer shows, en-
tirely to the rejection of Israel. If the Apostle were not condemning
the Jews there would be no reason for his sorrow (x. i) and the
palliation for their conduct which he suggests (x. a) ; and when
we come to examine the structure of the latter part we find that
all the leading sentences are concerned not with the defence of
any ' calling,' but with fixing the guilt of those rejected : for example
aX-V ov ndvrtt v»r^«tov<ra>' (v. 1 6), dXXa X^ye*, fifi wk iJKOvvav; (v. 1 8),
fiff *l<rpafik ovK ?yv»; (y. 19). As there is nowhere any reference
to Gentiles rejecting the message, the reference must be to the
Jews ; and the object of the section must be to show the reason why
(although Gentiles have been accepted) the Jews have been rejected.
The answer is given in the concluding quotation, which sums up
the whole argument. It is because the Jews have been a dis-
obedient and gainsaying people. Chrysostom, who brings out the
whole point of this section admirably, sums up its conclusion as
follows: 'Then to prevent them saying, But why was He not
made manifest to os also f he sets down what is more than this,
that I not only was made manifest, but I even continued with
My hands stretched out, inviting them, and displaying all tb»
concern of an affectionatt father, and a fond mother that is set ob
30a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX-XX
her child. See how he has brought us a most lucid answei
to all the diflBculties 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 th$ 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 Veterit Testamenti locis a Paulo Apostolo
allegatis), out of eighty-four passages in which St. Paul cites the
O. r. 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); i Cor. iii. 19 = Job v. 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 Targ^m, 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 thes*
and the long literary quotations of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
IX-XI.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 303
In his formulae of quotation St Paul adopts all the varioua
forms which seem to have been in use in the Rabbinical schools,
and are found in Rabbinical writings. Even his less usual expres-
sions may be paralleled from them (cf. xi. 2). Another point of
resemblance may be found in the series of passages which he
strings together from different books (cf. iii. 10) after the manner
of a Rabbinical discourse. St. Paul was in fact educated as a Rabbi
in Rabbinical schools and consequently his method of using the
O. T. is such as might have been learnt in these schools.
But how far is his interpretation Rabbinical? It is not quite
easy to answer this question directly. It is perhaps better to point
out first of all some characteristics which it possesses.
In the first place it is quite clearly not ' historical ' in the modern
sense of the word. The passages are quoted without regard to
their context or to the circumstances under which they were written.
The most striking instances of this are those cases in which the
words of the O. T. are used in an exactly opposite sense to that
which they originally possessed. For instance in ix. 25, 26 words
used in the O. T. of the ten tribes are used of the Gentiles, in x. 6-8
words used of the Law are applied to the Gospel as against the
Law. On the other hand Rabbinical interpretations in the sense
in which they have become proverbial are very rare. St. Paul
almost invariably takes the literal and direct meaning of the words
(although without regard to their context), he does not allegorize
or play upon their meaning, or find hidden and mysterious prin-
ciples. There are some obvious exceptions, such as Gal. iv. 22 flf.,
but for the most part St. Paul's interpretation is not allegorical,
nor in this sense of the term Rabbinical.
Speaking broadly, St. Paul's use of the O. T. may be described
as literal, and we may distinguish three classes of texts. There
are firstly those, and they are the largest number, in which the
texts are used in a sense corresponding to their O. T. meaning.
All texts quoted in favour of moral principles, or spiritual ideas, or
the methods of Divine government may be grouped under this head.
The argument in ix. 20, 21 is correctly deduced from O. T. prin-
ciples ; the quotation in ix. 17 is not quite so exactly correct, but
the principle evolved is thoroughly in accordance with O. T. ideas.
So again the method of Divine Election is deduced correctly from
the instances quoted in ix. 6-13. Controversially these arguments
were quite soxmd ; actually they represent the principles and ideas
oftheO.T.
A second class of passages consists of those in which, without
definitely citing the O T., the Apostle uses its language in order
to express adequately and impressively the ideas he has to convey.
A typical instance is that in x. 18, where the words of the Psalm
•re used in quite a different sense from that which they have in
304 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX-ZL
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 passages
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 books.
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, Quotations, &c. p. 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 oiher 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 wUl 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 whict
IX-Xl.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 505
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,
Quo/a/tons, Sfc. p. 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
•nterpreted) 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 in
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 feeUngs ; 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
B
3o6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX-ZI
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. San day, 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 g^ide 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 hii
edition of the Romans; Toy, Quotations in the New Testammi,
XI. 1-6.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 307
New York, 1884; Kautzsch, De Veteris Tesiamenti locit a Pauh
Apostolo alkgatis, Lipsiae, 1869; Clemen (Dr. August), Ueber den
Gebrauch des Alien Testaments im Neuen Testamenie, und speciell in
den Reden Jesu (Einladungsschrift, &c., Leipzig, 1891); Turpie
(David McCalman), Tht Old Testament in tht New, London,
1868.]
THB BBJECnOir or ISBAEI. NOT COMFLETB.
XI. 1-10. Israel then has refused to accept the salvation
offered it; is it therefore rejected? No. At any rate the
rejection is not complete. Now as always in the history of
Israel, although the mass of the people may be condemned to
disbelief there is 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 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. ' Exactly
the same circiun stances exist now as then. Now as then the mass
of the people are uniaithful, but there ii a remnant of loyal ad'
1 ■
)08 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 6-10
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. Isaiah declared
(xxix, lo; 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, that 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 per\'ersely 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 (i) (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 (i) that this rejection is only partial (xi. i-io),
(2) only temporary (xi. 11-25), ^^^d (3) that in all this Divine action
there has been a purpose deeper and wiser than man can altogethei
understand (xi. 26—36).
XI. 1, 2.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 509
1. Xfyu oSf. This somewhat emphatic phrase occurring here
and in ver. 1 1 seems to mark a stage in the argument, the oSp as
so often summing up the result so far arrived at. The change of
particle shows that we have not here a third question parallel to
the dK\a Xcyw of X. 18, 1 9.
fif| dircSaaTo 6 Qeos rir \ahy afi-roo ; ' Is it possible that God has
cast away His people?' The form of the question implies neces-
sarily a negative answer and suggests an argument against it, (i)
By the juxtaposition of 6 BeSs and tAi» \a6v avrov. Israel is God's
people and so He cannot reject them. Ipsa populi eius appellatio
rationem negandi contiiut. Beng. (a) By the use made of the
language of the O. T. Three times in the O. T. (i Sam. xii. 2a;
Ps. xciii [xciv]. 14; xciv [xcv]. 4) the promise oIk antaatTM Kvptor
Tov \a6v avTov occurs. By using words which must be so well
known St. Paul reminds his readers of the promise, and thus again
implies an answer to the question.
This very clear instance of the merely literary use of the language
of the O. T. makes it more probable that St. Paul should have
adopted a similar method elsewhere, as in z. 6 ff., 18.
|fc^ Y^'^^™' St. Paul repudiates the thought with horror. All
his feelings as an Israelite make it disloyal in him to hold it
sal Y^P K'T.X. These words have been taken in two ways, (i)
As a proof of the incorrectness of the suggestion. St. Paul was an
Israelite, and he had been saved ; therefore the people as a whole
could not have been rejected. So the majority of commentators
(Go. Va. Oltr. Weiss). But the answer to the question does not
occur until St. Paul gives it in a solemn form at the beginning of
the next verse; he would not therefore have previously given
a reason for its incorrectness. Moreover it would be inconsistent
with St Paul's tact and character to put himself forward so promi-
nently.
(a) It it therefore better to take it as giving ' the motive for his
deprecation, not a proof of his denial' (Mey. Gif. Lips.). Through-
out this passage, St Paul partly influenced by the reality of his
own sympathy, partly by a desire to put his argument in a form as
little oflFensive as possible, has more than once emphasized his own
kinship with Israel (ix. 1-3; x. i). Here for the first time, just
when he is going to disprove it, he makes the statement which has
really been the subject of the two previous passages, and at once,
in order if possible to disarm criticism, reminds his readers that he
is an Israelite, and that therefore to him, as much as to them, the
supposition seems almost blasphemous.
'larpaT)Xtrr)S k.t.X. Cf. s Cor. xi. aa ; Phil. iii. 5.
8v irpolYvw, which is added by Lachmann after t6v \abr airov, has the
mpport of A D Chrys. and other aathorities, bnt clearly came in from ver. a.
8. o6r dmioraT*. St Paul gives expressly and formally a negative
5IO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XL. %
answer to the question he has just asked, adding emphasis by
repeating the very words he has used.
tv -npoiyyut. 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
Xaos different from that in ver. i. The word npotyvvt may be taken,
(i) as used in the Hebrew sense, to mean 'whom He has known or
chosen beforehand.' So yiv6)(TKti¥ in the LXX. Amos iii. 2 vfias
fyvmv €K naaSiv rSav (f)v\S)v r^t yfjs. And in St. Paul I Cor. viii. 3 «
S< Tit dyar,q rbv Qtov, ovros fyvcoa-rai in aiirov. Gal. iv. 9 vvv dc
yvdvTff Q(()V, naWov 8< yvaxrBei/rei vno &tov. 9 Tim. ii. 1 9 tyvu Kvpios
Tovr ovras avrov. Although there is no evidence for this use of
TTpoyivuxTKdv 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. Apol. i. 28 ; Dial. 42. p. 261 B.); so too npiyvuait 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.
t\ ouK oiSare: cf. ii. 4 ,* vi. 3 ; vii. i ; 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.
iv 'HXi'a : ' in the section of Scripture which narrates the story
of Elijah.' The O. T. Scriptures were divided into paragraphs to
which \\ ere 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. I , fol. 4. col. 2 id quod scriptum est apud
Michdel, referring to Is. vi. 6. So Taanigoih, ii. i; Aboih dt-Rabhi
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, Dt Agricultural p. 203 (i> 317 Mang.) Ac)wi yc^ hf rtm
XI. a-4.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 31 J
dpait, referring to Gen. iii 15. The phrase «ri rrjs /Sdrou Mark
xii. a6; Luke xx. 37 ; Clem. Ifom. xvi. 14 ; Apost. Const, v. 20, is
often explained in a similar manner, but very probably incorrectly,
the «irt being perhaps purely local. The usage exactly corresponds
to the method used in quoting the Homeric poems. As the Rabbis
divided the O. T. into sections so the Rhapsodists divided Homer,
and these sections were quoted by their subjects, ci/'E^ropoj ai/atpe<r«,
h vtKviq. (See Fri. Delitzsch ad loc, Surenhusius, Bi^Xos KaTaXXayTjs,
p. 3«)
itrrvyxdy^i ' * h© accuses Israel before God.' The verb iv-
Tvyxai-ew means, (i) 'to meet with,' (3) 'to meet with for the
purposes of conversation/ 'have an interview with,' Acts xxv. 24;
hence (3) 'to converse with,' 'plead with,' Wisdom viii. 21, either
on behalf of some one {vnip nvos) Rom. viil 27, 34 ; Heb. vii. 25;
or against some one (Kara nvos), and so (4) definitely * to accuse ' as
here and I Mace. xi. 35 '^"^ tvfTvyxavov kot avrov npes avoixoi Toiv CK
Toi (Bvovt: viii. 33; x. 61, 63.
The TR. «dd» Xiyuv at the end of this verse with K* L al. pier., it is
omitted by K<ABCD£FGP min. pauc., Vulg. Sah. Boh., and most
Fathen.
8. Ki$pic, Tois irpo<|)iiTas k.t.X. The two quotations come from
I Kings xix. 10, 14, 18; the first being repeated twice. Elijah
has fled to Mt. Horeb from Jezebel, and accuses his countrymen
before God of complete apostasy; he alone is faiihful. God
answers that even although the nation as a whole has deserted
Him, yet there is a faithful remnant, 7,000 men who have not
bowed the knee to Baal, There is an analogy, St. Paul argues,
between this situation and that of his own day. The spiritual
condition is the same. The nation as a whole has rejected God's
message, now as then; but now as then also there is a faithful
remnant left, and if that be so God caimot be said to have cast
away His people.
The qtiotatioQ is somewhat shortened from the LXX, and the order of the
clauses is inverted, perhaps to put in a prominent position the words roi/s
wpo(priTai aov dviKruvav to which there was most analogy during St. Paul's
time (cf. Acts vii. 5a ; i Thess. ii. 14). The Kai between the clauses of the
TR. is read by DEL and later MiiS. Justin Martyr, Dial. 39. p. 257 D,
quotes the words as in St. Paul and not as in the LXX : Kaj yap 'HAi'ai
mpi vfiaiv irpos rbv Qtbv ivrvyxo.vaiv ovrais \iyff Kvpif, roiis irpoip-qrai aov
aireKTfivay Kai rd Qvaiaarripid aov ieaT(aKa\pav Kayw v-rreXti(p6r)i' /xoj/oy Koi
(TjTovai T^c \f/vxr]v itov. Kai avoKpivtrtu aiir^, 'Et* tlai fioi tuTaKiaxiXLOi
avSpfs, at oiiK iKapif/av y6vv rp BdoA.
4. 6 xP'nH'aTKr/ios : ' the oracle.' An unusual sense for the
word, which occurs here only in the N. T., but is found in 2 Mace.
ii. 4 ; Clem. J^om. xvii. 5 ; and occasionally elsewhere. The verb
Xprniarl^Hv meant (i) originally 'to transact business'; then (2) ■ to
consult,' 'deliberate'; hence (3) 'to give audience,' 'answer after
)ia EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 4, i^
deliberation'; and so finally (4) of an oracle 'to give a response,'
taking the place of the older xp°f^ > ^^^ so it is used in the N. T.
of the Divine warning Mat ii. la, 33 xpviMTurOtvrts kot ivap: Luke
ii. a6 ; Acts x. 33 ; Heb. viii. 5 ; zi. 7 : cf. Jos. Anti. V. i. 14 ; X. i.
3 ; XI. iii. 4. From this usage of the verb xp»7A*a»'«'C« was derived
xpifiariafios, as the more usual xpwi^^s from XP^- See also p. 173.
rfj BdaX : substituted by St. Paul (as also by Justin Martyr, ioc.
at.) for the LXX r<a BoaX, according to a usage common in other
passages in the Greek Version.
The word Baal, which means 'Lord,' appean to have been originally
nsed as one of the names of the God of Israel, and as snch became a part of
many Jewish names, as for example Jembbaal (Jnd. yi. 3a ; vii. 1), Eshbaal
(i Chron. ix. 39), Meribbaal (i 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 '
in the second and third books of the Psalms. This usage took the form of
substituting Bosheth, ' abomination,' for Baal. So Eshbaal (i Chi. viii. 33,
ix. 39) became Ishbosheth (a Sam. ii. 8; iii. 8) ; Meribbaal (i Chr. ix. 40)
Mephibosheth (a Sam. ix. 6 if.); Jembbaal Jerubbesheth (a Sam. xi. ai).
See also Hosea ix. 10; Jer. iii. 24; xi. 13. Similarly in the LXX aiaxuvij
represents in one passage Baal of the Hebrew text, 3 Kings xviii. 19, aj.
But it seems to have been more usual to substitute alaxv^V '^ reading for the
written Bda\, and as a sign of this Qeri 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 Pentateuch.
The plural rais occurs 2 Chr. xxiv. 7 ; xxxiii. 3. This, the only satisfactory
explanation of the feminine article with the masculine name, is given by
Dillmann, Monatsberichte der Akademit dtr JVisstntchafl su Btrlin, 1881,
p. 601 fT. and has superseded all others.
The LXX version is again shortened in the quotation, and for KaraXtitfrn
is substituted KariKitrov (/.iavr^, which is an alternative and perhaps more
exact translation of the Hebrew.
6. oiItws oiv. 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.
Xcififta (on the orthogiaphy cf. WH. ii. App. p. 154, who read
Xinfia), * 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 it r^ KardXtidtBiw
ZI. §-!.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL $1$
«OT ^KXoy^y \dpiTOi' Predicate with yiyovtp. * 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.
0. ct hi X'^P^'''^ K.T.X. 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 dl 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.
fircl ^i X^P^« ofinrfrt yiKcrai x<^P^S' *t^^s follows from the very
meaning of the idea of grace.' Gratia nisi gratis sit gratia turn est.
St Augustine.
The TR. after '^vvtat xipit adds «I 8J i( Ipyw, otxciri iar\ x&pu' lirtl ro
Ifi-yoy cvKin iarlv Jipfov with K' (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 «l 8J if Ipyoiv, ovKiri xap'S' iifd fh Ipyov oiiKirt larl x"/"*- The
clanse is omitted by K* A C D E F G P, Vulg. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.^ Arm.,
Orig.-lat. Jo.-Damasc Ambrst Patr.-latt. There need be no donbt that it is
a gloss, nor is the authority of B of any weight in support of a Western
addition such as this against such preponderating 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. n oui» ; This verse sums up the result of the discussion in
yf . s-6. ' What then is the result ? In what way can we modify
the harsh statement made in ver. i ? 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.'
tj %l €KXoyi^ : i. e. oi cxXf ktoi. The abstract for the concrete
suggests the reason for their success by laying stress on the idea
rather than on the individuals.
oi 8^ Xoiiroi lTt<apu}Qr\aa,v '. '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 *» in KarnpTKirnivf
514 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 7, 8
ix. as, he uses the colourless passive without laying stress on the
cause : the quotation in ver. 8 represents God as the author,
iirrataav in ver. I X suggests that they are free agents.
The verb noipSo) (derived from rraipoi a callus or itone formed in the
bladder) is a medical term used m Hippocrates and elsewhere of a bone oi
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. 5a ;
Jo. xii. 40; Rom. xi. 7 ; 2 Cor. iii. 14: while the noun irijpojdis occurs in
the same sense, Mark iii. 5; Rom. xi. 35 ; 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 {■nctraipoivrai
yd.p utrd up-yfji ol b<p6akfj.oi fiov) the word is used of blindness, but again only
of moral 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, nojp6s, 6 Tv<p\6s : irtttiipaiTai, TfTv<p\orrou ;
Hesychius, irfvtupojfiivoi, T(rv<p\a)/x(voi) and the Latin Versions {txcMcati,
0bcaecaii). It is possible that this translation arose from a confusion with
vT]p6i (s-ee on Karavv^tajs below) which was perhaps occasionally used of
blindness (see Prof. Armitage Robinson in Academy, 1893, p. 305), although
probably then as a specialized usage for the more general * maimed.' Aj-
though the form ir-qpow 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. is
the one passage where the word occurs.
8. Ka6us Y^YP^^"**^^' ^^- ^^^^ supports and explains his last
statement ol 8e \oino\ tnopmSTjaav by quotations from the O. T.
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 suggebting a general law oi
God's dealing with them.
The following extracts, in which the words that St. Panl has mad».
use of are printed in spaced type, will give the source of the quotation.
Deut. xxix. 4 Koi oiiK iSaiKty Kvpios 6 &e6s v/mv icapdiay (Ibiyat itai
i<p9a\fxovi ^\iir*ir ttal S>ra dKovtiv iws rijs ^fxipat ravriji. li.
xxix. 10 oTi TTfjTuTiKfv vfids Kvpios ■Bv*v nan Karavv^tais : cf. Is. vi. 9, to
0*05 oLKOvafTf Kcu oil fiij avvifTf nai ^Ktrrovrfs ^\€t//tT( Kal oil fii) tSijTf.
. . Koi eiTTa "Ecur nurt, Kvptf ; While the form resembles the words in
Deut., the historical situation and meanmg of the quotation are represented
by the passages in Isaiah to which St. Paul is clearly referring.
■irfeujjia itoTavoleus : ' 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. 10 (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 maToyv^u is derired from tcaravvaffofuu. The simple verb
witam it used to mean to 'prick' or 'strike' or 'dint' TLe coir.pound
XI. 8-10.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL $1$
verb wotM mean, (l) to 'strike* or 'prick violently,* and hence («) to
' stun ' ; no instance is quoted of it in its primary sense, but it is common
(3) especially in the LXX of strong emotions, of the prickings of lust Susan.
10 (Theod.) ; of strong grief Gen. xxxiv. 7 ; Ecclus. xiv. i ; and so Acts ii. 37
KaTtvvyriacw rrj napSiq. of being strongly moved by speaking. Then (4) it is
used of the stunning effect of such emotion which results in speechlessness :
Is. vi. 5 A rdXat ifi) 5ti Kajavivv^fjun : Dan. x. 15 IScu/ta rd Tfp6ao)ir6v fiov
M T^v T^c Kal icaT(viyr]v, and so the general idea of torpor would be
derived. The noun Karaw^tt appears to occur only twice, Is. xxix. 10
wvfvfui Karavv^fois, Ps. lix [Ix]. 4 ohov Karavv^(aj%. In the former case it
clearly means ' torpor ' or ' deep sleep,' as both the context and the Hebrew
show, in the latter case probably so. It may be noticed that this definite
meaning of ' torpor ' or * deep sleep ' which is found in the noun cannot be
exactly paralleled in the verb ; and it may be suggested that a certain con-
fiision existed with the verb vvaTa^o), which means 'to nod in sleep,' 'be
drowsy,' just as the meaning of ipiOda was influenced by its resemblance
to ipis (c£ ii. 8). On the word generally see Fri. ii. p. 558 ff.
lus rfjs trqiiepov ^Jfi^pos: cf. Acts vii. 51 'Ye stiffnecked and
uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy
Ghost: as your fathers did so do ye.' St Stephen's speech
illustrates more in detail the logical assumptions which underlie
St Paul's quotations. The chosen people have from the beginning
shown the same obstinate adherence to their own views and
a power of resisting the Holy Ghost ; and God has throughout
punished them for their obstinacy by giving them over to spiritual
blindness.
9. KOI AoPlS X^yti 11.T.X. : quoted from the LXX of Pb. Ixviii
flxix]. 23, 34 yfVt}6r]To» ^ TpaTTffn avT&v ivmntov avT&v ds jrayt'Sa, Koi (It
dyranoSoa-tv Ka\ iTKdvdaXov' <TKOTia6rfrti><Tav k.t.X. (which is ascribed in
the title to David) with reminiscences of Ps. xxxiv [xxxv]. 8, and
xxvii [xxviii]. 4. The Psalmist is represented as declaring the
Divine wrath against those who have made themselves enemies of
the Divine will. Those who in his days were the enemies of the
spiritual life of the people are represented in the Apostle's days by
the Jews who have shut their ears to the Gospel message.
tj TpdiTc^a oAtuk: 'their feast.' The image is that of men
feasting in careless security, and overtaken by their enemies, owing
to the very prosperity which ought to be their strength. So to the
Jews that Law and those Scriptures wherein they trusted are to
become the very cause of their fall and the snare or hunting-net in
which they are caught
vKdf SaXoK : ' that over which they fall,' * a cause of their destruc-
tion.'
dKTairo8o)ia : Ps. xxvii [xxviii]. 4. 'A requital,' 'recompense.'
The Jews are to be punished for their want of spiritual insight by
being given over to blind trust in their own law; in fact being
given up entirely to their own wishes.
10. ffKOTiaOi^Twaoi' it.T.\. ' May their eyes become blind, so that
they have no insight, and their backs bent Uke men who are continii'
31 6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. I-IO.
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 sec.
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 Lipsins, who does not elsewhere accept the
theory of interpolations in the text, suggests that w. 9, 10 are a gloss added
by some reader in the margin after the fall of Jerusalem (of. Holsten, Z.f.
w. T. 1873, p. 455; Michelsen, Th. T. 1887, p. 163; Protatanten-bibely
1873, p. 589; E. T. ii. 154). It is suggested that Stairai'Tdi is inconsistent
with ver. 1 1 flf. But it has not been noticed that in ver. 1 1 we have a change
of metaphor, (vraiaav, which would be singularly out of place if it came
immediately after ver. 8. As it is, this word is suggested and accounted
for by the metaphors employed in the quotation introduced in ver. 9. H
we omit w, q, 10 we must also omit ver. 11. There is throughout the
whole Epistle a continuous succession of thought running from verse to
verse which makes any theory of interpolation impossible. (See Intro-
duction, § 9.)
TAf Doctrine of the Remnant.
The idea of the ' Remnant ' is one of the most typical and
sif^nificant 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 317
is,v.3), in Zephaniah (iii. i», 13), in Jeremiah (xxiii. 3), In Ezekiel
(xiv. 14-30, a a), 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-
geance (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. a, 18; ix. la; x. 21, 24);
and both these ideas are prominent in the narrative of the call
(vL 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, p. 334). 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 oflfered to God (Is. Ixv. 8, 9).
The idea appealed with great force to the early Christians. I
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 hfe.
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 ev masse,
it is those members of it who aie 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 caUing.
It is by the selection of individuals, even in the nation that has
been chosen, that God has worked equallv in religion and in all
51 8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XL U-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. apo; and Robertson Smith, TTu Prophets of
Israel, pp. io6, 209, 234, 258. The references are collected in
Oehler, Thtologie dts alten Tutaments, p. 809.J
THE REJECTION OF ISRAEI. NOT TINAIi.
XI. 11-24. Tht Rejection of Israel is not complett, not
will it he final. Its result has been the extension of th*
Church to the Gentiles. The salvation of these will stir the
Jews to jealousy : they will return to the Kingdom, and this
will mean the final consummation (w. 10-15).
Of all this the guarantee is 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
restore them to a position which by nature and descent is
theirs (w. 16-24).
" The Rejection of Israel then is only partial. Yet still thert
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. " 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
«s Apostle to the Gentiles, ^ and this in hopes that I may succeed
XI. 14-21.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 319
in bringing salvation to some at any rate of my countrymen by thus
moving them to emulation. "And my reason for this is what
I have implied just above, that by the return of the Jews the whole
world will receive what it longs for. The rejection of them has
been the means of reconciling the world to God by the preaching
to the Gentiles ; their reception into the Kingdom, the gathering
together of the elect from the four winds of heaven, will inaugurate
the final consummation, the resurrection of the dead, and the
eternal life that follows.
^ But what ground is there for thus believing in the return of the
chosen people to the Kingdom ? It is the holiness of the race.
When you take from the kneading trough a piece of dough and
oflFer it to the Lord as a heave-offering, do you not consecrate the
whole mass? Do not the branches of a tree receive life and
nourishment from the roots? So it is with Israel. Their fore-
fathers the Patriarchs have been consecrated to the Lord, and in
them the whole race ; from that stock they obtain their spiritual life,
a life which must be holy as its source is holy. " For the Church
of God is like a ' green olive tree, fair with goodly fruit,' as the
Prophet Jeremiah described it Its roots are the Patriarchs; its
branches the people of the Lord. Some of these branches have
been broken off; Israelites who by birth and descent were members
of the Church. Into their place you Gentiles, by a process quite
strange and unnatural, have been grafted, shoots from a wild olive,
into a cultivated stock. Equally with the old branches which still
remain on the tree you share in the rich sap which flows from its
root *• Do not for this reason think that you may insolently boast
of the position of superiority which you occupy. If you are
inclined to do so, remember that you have done nothing, that all
the spiritual privileges that you possess simply belong to the
stock on which you by no merit of your own have been grafted.
*• But perhaps you say : * That I am the favoured one is shown by
this that others were cut off that I might be grafted in.* ** I grant
what you say; but consider the reason. It was owing to their
want of faith that they were broken off : you on the other hand
owe your firm position to your faith, not to any natural superiority.
•^ It is an incentive therefore not to pride, as you seem to think, but
to fear. For if God did not spare the holders of the birthright,
320 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. U
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 e«-
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 oflF 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 g^ew 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. i 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.
\4y(a oSv. 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. si.
fii] iirrauray, Iva viaairi ; ' have they (i. e. those who have been
hardened, ver. 8) stumbled so as to fall ?' Numquid sic offenderunt,
ut caderent y* Is their failure of such a character that they will be
finally lost, and cut off from the Messianic salvation ? tea expresses
the contemplated result. The metaphor in tirrataav (which is often
used elsewhere in a moral sense, Deut. vii. 25 ; James ii. 10; iii. a;
a Pet. i. id) seems to be suggested by iTKdvdaXov of ver. 9. The
meaning of the passage is given by the contrast between Tsraitip
and ntaup ; a man who stumbles may recover himself, or he may
EaU completely. Hence wwmaw is here used of a complete and
XI. IL] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL $Zt
irrevocable fall. Cf. Is. Zxiv. ao Kuria-xvaf yap cV avr^r ll dvofda, Koi
jr«r€»rai Koi oi n^ dvvijrai dvaaTtjvai '. Ps. Sol. iii. 1 3 ?nf<T(v on iroprfpot
t6 nrmfta avTov, Koi ovic dvaa-rfjcrfTcu : Heb. iv. II. It is no argument
against this that the same word is used in w. 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 fin-aiaav
suggests a fall that is irrevocable.
There is a good deal of controversy among grammarians as to the admission
of a laxer use of tva, a controversy which has a tendency to divide scholars
by nations; the German grammarians with Winer at their head (§ liii. 10. 6,
p. 573 E. T.) maintain tiiat 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 i Thess. v. 41, and Evans (on i Cor.
vii. 29) admit the laier use. Evans says ' that 'iva, like our " that," has three
uses : ( I ^ final (in order that he may go), (2) definitive (I advise that he go),
(3) subjectively tcbaiit (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 Iva in all cases mean ' in order
that.' In I Thess. v. 4 vp.ih Si, dS€\<poi, ova kar\ iv okotu, tva ^ 'fip-ipa
vfids (lis K\ivTT}s KaraX&Bif, where Winer states that there is 'a Divine
purpose of God,' this is not expressed either in the words or the context.
In I Cor. vii. 29 i Kaipbs cwfCTaXfXfvos iarl, rd \oiv6v iva Koi 01 ex"'''''*'
fwaiKat uis pii (xovTfs Siai, ' 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 fco Kal ol ixovrts tc.T.K. express the (Divine) purpose for
which i Katpis awfaraXfiivot iffri. So again in the present passage it is
only a confusion of idea* that can see any purpose. If St. Paul had used
a passive verb such as inwpwOijaav 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 iiiTcuaav, 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.
|iT| Y^i/oiTo. 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.
-lu auTuf irapairFcSfian : ' by their false step/ continuing the
metaphor of tirrauav.
^ auTTjpia Tois eOfcaiK. St. Paul is here stating an histoncai
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. viii. 4; xi. 19; xxviii. 28.
eis TO irapalTiXuaai outous : ' to provoke them (the Jews) to
jealousy.' This idea had already been suggested (x. 19) by the
quotation from Deuteronomy 'Eyw Trapaf/zXaxrw vpas eV ovk edvet.
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
Sai EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 11, 1%
of the Gentiles, and He will eventually arouse the Jews to give up
their unbelief by en^ulation of the Gentiles. Eira KaTa(TKtvd((t, irt
t6 nTaicfux airriiv 8i7rX^»' oiKovofxlav tpyd^trai' rd r* yap tdvrj avrfiadyd
KM (ivTovs if ■napaKvi^ov Ka\ (p<i6i(ov i7riaTpf<f>*i, pfi <ft«poirras rifw rvvmirrr)*
ruv *dva)v Tipr)v. Euthym.-Zig.
12. St. Paul strengthens his statement by an argument drawn
from the spiritual character of the Jewish people. If an event
which has been so disastrous to the nation has had such a bene-
ficial result, how much more beneficial will be the result of the
entrance of the full complement of the nation into the Messianic
kingdom ?
irXooTos KcJfffiou : the enriching of the world by the throwing open
to it of the kingdom of the Messiah : cf. x. is 6 ydp airits Kipwr
iravToip, nXovTav (is irdvrai rovs iniKoKovpivovi avrop.
ri> TJTTr)|ia auTUK : ' their defeat.' From one point of view the
unbelief of the Jews was a transgression (wapaTrTcD^ia), from another
it was a defeat, for they were repulsed from the Messianic kingdom,
since they had failed to obtain what they sought.
llrnjiM occurs only twice elsewhere : in It. xxzi. 8 ot 9i vtarlffKoi
laovrai (h f]TTT]/M, iriTpc^ ydp 7rtpi\i](p6r)<TovTai ckt xdpaKi Kol ^TrrjO-qaovrat :
and in i Cor. vi. 7 ^^'<1 f^i*' ovv oXcuy tjtttjijui vpiv icrTiv, 5ti Kpi/xara txfTt
pf9' iavToiv. The correct interpretation of the word as derived from the
verb would be a ' defeat,' and this is clearly the meaning in Isaiah. It can
equally well apply in i Cor., whether it be translated a ' defeat ' in that it
lowers the Church in the opinion of the world, or a 'moral defeat,' hence
a ' defect.' The same meaning suits this passage. The majority of com-
mentators however translate it here ' diminution ' (see especially Gif. Sp.
Comm. pp. 194, 203), in order to make the antithesis to nX-qptupa exact.
But as Field points out {Otium Norv. iii. 97) there is no reason why the
sentence should not be rhetorically faulty, and it is not much improved by
giving ijTTtjpa the meaning of ' impoverishment ' as opposed to ' replenish-
ment'
rh irKr\p(ofia adrtav : ' their complement,' * their ftill and completed
number.' See on xi. 25.
The exact meaning of wK^pcopa has still to be ascertained, i. There is
• long and elaborate note on the word in Lft. Col. p. 323 ff. He starts with
asserting that ' substantivet in -pa formed from the perfect passive, appear
always to have a passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion of
a concrete thing ; they may signify the action itself regarded as complete,
or the product of the action : but in any case they give the result of the
agency involved in the corresponding verb.' He then takes the verb irAijpov*
and shows that it has two senses, (i) ' to fill,' (ii) ' to fulfil ' or ' complete ' ;
and deriving the fundamental meaning of the word wKrjpupa from the latter
usage makes it mean in the N. T. always ' that which is completed.'
a. A somewhat different view of the termination -pa is given by the late
T. S. Evans in a note on i Cor. v. 6 in the Sp. Comm. (part of which is
quoted above on Rom. iv. 2.) This would favour the active sense ui quoa
itnpkt or adimplet, which appears to be the proper sense of the English word
'complement ' (see the Philolotjical Society's Eng. Diet. s.v.). Perhaps the
term ' concrete ' would most adequately express the normal meaning o# th«
termination.
XI. 18, 14.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 335
18, 14. These two verses present a good deal of difficulty, of
rather a subtle kind.
1. What is the place occupied by the words vfiiv H X/yw ictX in
the argument ? (i) Some ( Hort, WH, Lips.) place here the beginning
of a new paragraph, so Dr. Hort writes : ' after a passage on the
rejection of unbelieving Israel, and on God's ultimate purpose
involved in it, St. Paul turns swiftly round.' But an examination
of the context will show that there is really no break in the ideas.
The thought raised by the question in ver. 1 1 runs through the
whole paragraph to ver. 24, in fact really to ver. 32, and the
reference to the Gentiles in ver. 17 flf. is clearly incidental. Again
ver. 15 returns directly to ver. 12, repeating the same idea, but in
a way to justify also ver. 13. (ii) These verses in their appeal to
the Gentiles are therefore incidental, almost parenthetic, and are
introduced to show that this argument has an application to Gentiles
as well as Jews.
2. But what is the meaning of fifp oZv (that this is the correct
reading see below) ? It is usual to take ovv in its ordinary sense of
therefore, and then to explain fitv by supposing an anacoluthon,
or by finding the contrast in some words that follow. So Gif.
' Sl Paul, with his usual delicate courtesy and perfect mastery of
Greek, implies that this is but one part [fitu) of his ministry, chosen
as he was to bear Christ's name " before Gentiles and kings and
the children of Israel." Winer and others find the antithesis in
ei jras irapaCr)\ci>(To>. But against these views may be urged two
reasons, (i) the meaning of /iiv ovv. The usage at any rate in the
N. T. is clearly laid down by Evans on i Cor. vi. 3 {Speaker's
Comm. p. 285), ' the ovv may signify then or therefore only when
the fiiv falls back upon the preceding word, because it is expectant
of a coming bi or aTdp, otherwise, as is pointed out, the ^iv must
coalesce with the olv, and the idea is either ' corrective and substi-
tutive of a new thought, or confirmative of what has been stated
and addititious.' Now if there is this second use of /xev oiv possible,
unless the hi is clearly expressed the mind naturally would suggest
it, especially in St. Paul's writings where yiiv ovv is generally so
used : and as a matter of fact no instance is quoted in the N. T.
where oZv in /lev oZv has its natin^al force in a case where it is not
followed by bi (Heb. ix. i quoted by Winer does not apply, see
Westcott ad loc). But (ii) further ovv is not the particle required
^ere. What St. Paul requires Is not an apology for referring to
the Gentiles, but an apology to the Gentiles for devoting so much
attention to the Jews.
If these two points are admitted the argument becomes much
clearer. St. Paul remembers that the majority of his readers are
Gentiles ; he has come to a point where what he has to say touches
them nearly ; he therefore shows paienthetically bow his love fof
t s
3*4 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. U
his countrymen, and his zeal in carrying out his mission to th«
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. {i\uv 8e \4y(o k.t.X. The 8« expresses a slight contrast in
thought, and the vfi'if 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.
iQvC)v diroaxoXos : comp. Acts xxii. ai ; Gal. ii. 7, 9; i Tim. ii. 7.
T^v SittKoi'iai' fiou Solaju. 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.
« Cor. xii. 26 UTf 8o^a(eTai fifXos.
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, liom. and Eph, p. 22 'Though the
Greek is ambiguous the context appears to me decisive for taking
\)\jl'iv 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 ocear in this verse suggest
that considerable difficulties were felt in its inicrpretation. For h^ Si
K A B P mmusc. patu., Syrr. Boh. Arm., Theodrt. itd. Jo.-Damasc ; we find
in C vfuy oiu ; while the TR with D E F G L Sec Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. has
v/uv ydp. Again /iiv oZv is read by M A B C P, Boh., Cyr.-AL Jo.-Damasc. ;
fifv only by TR with L Sec, Orig.-lat Chrys. &c (so Meyer) ; while the
Western group D E F G and some minuscules omit both.
It may be noticed in the Epp. of St. Pan! that wherever >iir oSf or fta^mm
yt occur there is considerable variation in the reading.
Kom. ix. ao : luvovvyf K A K L P ftc, Syrr. Boh. ; #Ur «Sr B ; onit al-
together D F G.
X. 18: ntvovvff om. FGd, Orig.-lat
I Cor. vi. 4 : ^h' oCv most authorities ; F G ym/f.
vi. 7 : fiiv owi' A B C &c. ; fiiv HT> Boh.
I Phil. iii. 8: ^Jr o5v BD EFGKL &c. ; Mo-oCi^f K A P Boh.
The Western MSS. as a mle avoid the expressioo, while B is consistent b
preferring it
XI. 14, 15.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL $2^
14. cZ -irws irapa(T]X«So'w. «t tras is used here interrogatively with
the aorist subjunctive (cp. Phil. iii. lo, ii). The grammarians
explain the expression by saying that we are to understand with it
a-Koir&v. ft wms occuTS Acts xxvii. 12 with the optative, Rom. i. lo
with the future.
15 The two previous verses have been to a certain extent
parenthetical ; in this verse the Apostle continues the argument of
ver. I a, repeating in a stronger form what he has there said, but in
such a way as to explain the statement made in w. 13, 14, that by
thus caring for his fellow-countrymen he is fulfilling his mission
to the Gentile world. The casting away of the Jews has meant
the reconciliation of the world to Christ. Henceforth there is no
more a great wall of partition separating Gk)d's people from the
rest of the world. This is the first step in the founding of the
Messianic kingdom ; but when all the people of Israel shall have
come in there will be the final consummation of all things, and this
means the realization of the hope which the reconciliation of the
world has made possible.
d-iroPoXi^ : the rejection of the Jews for their faithlessness. The
meaning of the word is defined by the contrasted np6&krp\tK.
KaraXXayfi K6(r|i,ou : cf. w. 10, 11. The reconciliation was the
immediate result of St. Paul's ministry, which he describes elsewhere
(2 Cor. V. 18, 19) as a ministry of reconciliation ; its final result,
the hope to which it looks forward, is salvation [KaTaKkayivrts
vmBrjtToufda) : the realization of this hope is what every Gentile
must long for, and therefore whatever will lead to its fulfilment
must be part of St. Paul's ministry.
irp(S(rXT]t|ns : the reception of the Jews into the kingdom of the
Messiah. The noun is not used elsewhere in the N. T., but the
meaning is shown by the parallel use of the verb (cf. xiv. 3 ; xv. 7).
lu^ Ik i^cKpuK. The meaning of this phrase must be determined
by that of (taraXXoy^ Koafiov. The argument demands something
much stronger than that, which may be a climax to the section.
It may either be (i) used in a figurative sense, cf. Ezek. xxxvii. 3 fF.;
Luke XV. 24, 32 6 aSeAc^ds aov ovtos vtKpos t)v, koi (Crjat' Kal dnoXwXws,
xaii fvptdr}. In this sense it would mean the universal diffusion of
the Gospel message and a great awakening of spiritual life as the
result of it. Or (2), it may mean the 'general Resurrection' as
a sign of the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom. In this
sense it would make a suitable antithesis to (faraXXayij. The recon-
ciliation of the heathen and their reception into the Church on
earth was the first step in a process which led ultimately to their
troynfpia. It gave them grounds for hoping for that which they
should enjoy in the final consummation. And this consummation
would come when the kingdom was completed. In all contempo-
rary Jewish literature the Resurrection (whether partial or general)
526 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 16-2^
is a sig^n of the inauguration of the new era. Schttrer, Geschichie, Ac.
ii. p. 460 ; Jubilees 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.' Enoch li. i (p. 139 ed. Charles)
' And in those days will the earth also give back those who are
treasured up within it, and She61 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 entm erit assumito Israel, quando iam el mortui vilam recipient
el mundus ex corruptibili incorruptibilis fiel, et morialts immorlalilate
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
purpose.
diropx^ . . . 4'"P«t"*« 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 {airapxiiv (pvpdfiaros 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 dnapxri 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 dyanriToi 3ta tovs nartpas,
dyia : ' consecrated to God as the holy nation ' in the technical
sense of ayios, cf. i. 7.
pi(a . . . icXdSoi. The same idea expressed under a diflFerent
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 bee.
XI. 17-24.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 3*7
fair with goodly fruit : with the noise of a great tumult He hath
kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken ' ; Hosea
xiv. 6 ' His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the
olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon.' Similar is the image of the
vine in Is. V. 7 ; Ps. Ixxx. 8 ; and (of the Christian Chi"-'^h^ in John
XV. I ff.
The main points in this simile are the following : —
The olive = the Church of God, looked at as one continuous
body; the Christian Church being the inheritor of the
privileges of the Jewish Church.
The root or stock {piC<^) = that stock from which Jews and
Christians both alike receive their nourishment and strength,
viz. the Patriarchs, for whose faith originally Israel was
chosen (cf. w. 28, 29).
The branches (oJ /fXaSot) are the individual members of the
Church who derive their nourishment and virtue from the
Btock or body to which they belong. These are of two
kinds:
The original branches ; these represent the Jews. Some have
been cut off from their want of faith, and no longer derive
any nourishment from the stock.
The branches of the wild olive which have been grafted in.
These are the Gentile Christians, who, by being so grafted
in, have come to partake of the richness and virtue of the
olive stem.
From this simile St. Paul draws two lessons, (i) The first is
to a certain extent incidental. It is a warning to the heathen
against undue exaltation and arrogance. By an entirely unnatural
process they have been grafted into the tree. Any virtue that
they may have comes by no merit of their own, but by the virtue
of the stock to which they belong ; and moreover at any moment
they may be cut oflf. It will be a less violent process to cut off
branches not in any way belonging to the tree, than it was to cm
off the original branches. But {2) — and this is the more im-
portant result to be gained from the simile, as it is summed up in
ver. 24 — if God has had the power against all nature to graft in
branches from a wild olive and enable them to bear fruit, how much
more easily will He be able to restore to their original place the
branches which have been cut oflf.
St. Paul thus deduces from his simile consolation for Israel, but
incidentally also a warning to the Gentile members of the Church —
a warning made necessary by the great importance ascribed to
them in ver. 1 1 f. Israel had been rejected for their sake.
17. Tivi^: a meiosis. Cf. iii. 3 rt yap tl t]Tri(TTricrdv Tivfs', Tti/ft 8«
tint, napaftvOovfjitvot avrovs, «»c woKkdias tlpifKOfUP, iwti vsXX^ irXctovt d
amarria-iunts. £uthym.-Zig.
5«8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 17, 18.
ii€K\da9i\<Taw. The same simile is used, with a different applica-
tion, Enoch XZvi. I Ka\ fKfldtv icfitiitvtra tls to futrov rijs y^f, cat t8ov
Tonov T)i\oyr]fxtvov, iv ^ iivbpa i\ovTa wapa(f>vdSas ftfvovaat Km ffKourrovtrat
roC iivbpov fKKonfVTos.
dypiAaios : ' 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 {Eleagnus angusft/olius), 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 Hist, of the Bible, pp. 371-377.
<K€it€rrpiCT8T]s iv auTois : * 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. 34 koI naph. (piaiv tpeKtvrpiadrjs) ; 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 la teat nos in hoc loco, quod non eo or dine
Apostolus olivcu et oleastri similitudinem posuit, quo apud agricolas
habetur. llli enim magis olivam oleastro inserere, et non olivae
oleastrum solent : Paulus veto Apostolica auctoritate or dine com-
mutato res magis causis, quam causas rebus aptavit.
o-uyiton'ui'ds : i Cor. ix. 23 ; Phil. i. 7 ; and cf. Eph. iii. 6 tXvcu. rh
tffvrf avyxKripovopa Koi (rvaaufta Koi irvniJifTO}(a rijs cirayycXtar f» Xpurra
Ii^cot) dih roil evayyfXlov,
TTJS pit,f]S TTJS iriiTifjTOS TijS Aaias : COmp. Jud. ix. 9 Koi etnfv airois
t) (kaia, Mr) ajroXe(\^aa"a r^v irionjra fiov . . . nopevcrofiai J Test. XII.
Pat. Levi, 8 i iripnros KXdbov pot (kaias ?Sojk« jrioTi;ros. The
genitive rfjt ntdrrrros 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 genitiye r^t wi&rtfrm seemed clamsy and nnnatnral to later revisers,
and so was modified either by the insertion of Koi after pi^ijs, as in N« A and
later MSS. with Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Chrys., or by the omission
of T^t p'l^rjs in Western authorities D F G Iren.-lat.
18. p.r] KaraKauxu rStv itXdSwi'. St. Paul seems to be thinking of
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. 18-22.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 599
away by a feeling of excessive confidence, and who, partly on
grounds of race, partly because they had understood or though*
they had understood the Pauline teaching of eXevdtpla, were full o.
contempt for the Jewish Christians and the Jewish race. Inci-
dentally St. Paul takes the opportunity of rebuking such as them.
06 ai t^v ptlav k.t.\. ' 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. ^pei« oSv. The Gentile Christian justifies his feeling <A
confidence by reminding St. Paul that branches («cXadoi, not oi
(tXdSot) 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. KaXws. 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 suflfer as the Jews did for their self-confidence
and want of faith.'
21. «i yAp & Qebs k.t.X. 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 ? '
oiSf <rov 4^ci(rcTai is the correct reading (with K A B C P min. pattc., Boh.,
Orig.-lat., &c.); either because the direct future seemed too strong or under
the influence of the Latin {ne forte nee tibi parcat Vulg. and Iren.-lat.) /il^ircus
ovhk cov was read by D F G L &c., Syrr. Chrys. &c., then (ptifftrai was changed
into (ptiarjTai {min. p«uc. and Chrys.) for thie 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 {xpwtottis, 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 charactei
350 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 22-34
of God ; a severity exercised against them just because they trusted
in themselves. God can show the same severity against the Gentiles
tnd cut them off as well as the Jew.
Aworofda and xptjarortj^ thonld be read in the second part of the rerie,
with K A BC Oiig. Jo.-Damasc. against the accusative of the Western and
Syrian text. D has a mixed reading, avoTOftlav and xPV''''''^'n^- the at-
•imilation was easier in the first word than in the second. The Stov after
XfrjffTOTTjs is omitted by Ut<r MSS. with Clem.-Alex., Orig. from a desire
for oniformity.
Wk 4'irtfieitn[]f. The condition of their enjoying this goodness is
that they trust in it, and not in their position.
xal au : emphatic like the tym of ver. 1 9 ' You too as well as the
Jews.'
23. 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.
KOI ^Keit'oi 8^ : ' yes, and tiiey too.'
24. This verse sums up the main argument. If God is so
powerful that by a purely unnatural process {napa (f)v<Tiv) 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 of
Israel is an easier process than the call of the Gentiles.
TAf 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
dya7ri;roi 5ta roiii narepas (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 {Apoc.
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 deUver 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 tiie cry had arisen : ' We
XI. U-24.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL $$J
have Abraham for our father ' (see note on ii. 3). At a later iate
the doctrine of the merits of the Fathers had been developed
into a system. As Israel was an organic body, the several
members of which were closely bound together, the superfluous
merits of the one part might be transferred to another. Of
Solomon before he sinned it was said that he earned all by his
own merit, after he sinned by the merit of the Fathers {Kohel
rabba 6o<'). A comment on the words of Cant. i. 5 ' I am black,
but comely,' closely resembles the dictum of St. Paul in ver. 18
* The congregation of Israel speaks : I am black through mine
own works, but lovely through the works of my fathers ' {Shevioth
rabba, c. 23). So again: 'Israel lives and endures, because it
supports itself on the fathers ' {ib. c. 44). A very close parallel to
the metaphor of ver. 1 7 f. is given by Wajjikra rabba, c. 36 ' As
this vine supports itself on a trunk which is dry, while it is itself
fresh and green, so Israel supports itself on the merit of the fathers,
although they already sleep.' So the merit of the fathers is a general
possession of the whole people of Israel, and the protection of the
whole people in the day of Redemption {Shemoih rabba, c. 44 ;
Beresch rabba, c. 70). So Pesikia 153^ 'The Holy One spake to
Israel: My sons, if ye will be justified by Me in the judgement,
make mention to Me of the merits of your fathers, so shall ye be
justified before Me in the judgement' (see Weber, AUsyn. Thtol.
p. 280 f.).
Now, although St. Paul lays great stress on the merits of the
Fathers, it becomes quite clear that he had no such idea as this in
his mind; and it is convenient to put the developed Rabbinical
idea side by side with his teaching in order to show at once the
resemblance and the divergence of the two views. It is quite clear
in the first place that the Jews will not be restored to the Kingdom
on any ground but that of Faith; so ver. 23 Vav ^17 (mfttivaxri r^
dTTto-ng. And in the second place St. Paul is dealing (as becomes
quite clear below) not with the salvation of individuals, but with
the restoration of the nation as a whole. The merits of the Fathers
are not then looked upon as the cause of Israel's salvation, but as
a guarantee that Israel will attain that Faith which is a necessary
condition of their being saved. It is a guarantee from either of
two points of view. So far as our Faith is God's gift, and so far
as we can ascribe to Him feelings of preference or affection for one
race as opposed to another (and we can do so just as much as
Scripture does), it is evidence that Israel has those qualities
which will attract to it the Divine Love. Those qualities oi the
founders of the race, those national qualities which Israel inherits,
and which caused it to be selected as the Chosen People, these it
still possesses. And on the other side so far as Faith comes by
human effort or character, so far that Faith of Abraham, for whicfe
559 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 26-8A
be 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 AT.Ti THE UI.TIMATE PITBFOSB OF OOD.
XI. 25-36. All this is the unfolding of a mystery. The
whole worlds both Jew and Gentile, shall enter the Kingdom;
but a passvig phase of disobedience has been allowed to the
Jews now, as to the Gentiles in the past, that both alike, yew
as well as Gentile, may need and receive the Divine mercy
(w. 25-32). What a stupendous exhibition of the Divine
mercy and wisdom (w. 33-36) I
" 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 : " he would in fact fulfil God's covenant
with His people, and that would imply, as Isaiah elsewhere explaint
(xxviL 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
XI. 25-36.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 333
be found for you Gentiles in the kingdom ; but this does not alter
the fact that by the Divine principle of selection, they are still the
beloved of the Lord, chosen for the sake oi their ancestors, the
Patriarchs. "God has showered upon them His blessings and
called them to His privileges, and He never revokes the choice
He has made. "There is thus a parallelism between your case
and theirs. You Gentiles were once disobedient to God. Now it
has been Israel's turn to be disobedient ; and that disobedience has
brought to you mercy. '* In like manner their present disobedience
will have this result : that they too will be recipients of the same
mercy that you have received. **And the reason for the dis-
obedience may be understood in both cases, if we look to the final
purpose. God has, as it were, locked up all mankind, first Gentiles
and then Jews, in the prison-house of unbelief, that He may be able
at last to show His mercy on all alike.
" When we contemplate a scheme like this spread out before us
in vast panorama, how forcibly does it bring home to us the in-
exhaustible profundity of that Divine mind by which it was planned 1
The decisions which issue from that mind and the methods by which
it works are alike inscrutable to man. " Into the secrets of the
Almighty none can penetrate. No counsellor stands at His ear to
whisper words of suggestion. " Nothing in Him is derived from
without so as to be claimed back again by its owner. •* He is the
source of all things. Through Him all things flow. He is the
final cause to which all things tend Praised for ever be His
name I Amen.
26-86. St Paul's argument is now drawing to a close. He has
treated all the points that are necessary. He has proved that
the rejection of Israel is not contrary to Divine justice or Divine
promises. He has convicted Israel of its own responsibility. He
has shown how historically the rejection of Israel had been the
cause of preaching the Gospel to the heathen, and this has led to
far-reaching speculation on the future of Israel and its ultimate
restoration ; a future which may be hoped for in view of the spiritual
character of the Jewish race and the mercy and power of God.
And now he seems to see all the mystery of the Divine purpose
unfolded before him, and he breaks away from the restrained and
formal method of argument he has hitherto imposed upon himself.
Just as when treating of the Resurrection, his argument passes into
revelation, ' Behold, I tell you a mystery' (i Cor. zv. 51) : so here
354 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 25
he declares not merely as the result of his argument, but as an
authoritative revelation, the mystery of the Divine piupose.
26. od Y^p ^{kdt A|ias dyKocir: cf. i. 13 ; I Cor. x. i ; xii. i ; a Cor.
I 8; I 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.
TO fiucm^pioK TouTo. Ou thc meaning of ' mystery ' in St. Paul
see Lightfoot, Colossians, i. 26; Hatch, £ss. in 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. a8, i Cor. ii. 6 we have rCkeiav, in Phil. iv. is
fifHVT]ftai, in Eph. i. 13 o-(f>payi(((r6ai ; SO in Ign. Ephes. la TLavkav
avfifjivaTai. But whereas among the heathen fivcrrfjpiov 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 (i Cor. ii. 7 ; Eph. iii. 3, 4 ; Rom. xvi. 25).
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 (i Tim. iii. 16),
of the crucifixion of Christ (i Cor. ii. i, 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. a5). 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.
Ika pf) ^Tc irap* jaurois ^p6¥i\un : ' that you may not be wise in
your own conceits,' i. c. 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.
ir lavToTi ought probably to be read with A B, Jo.-Damasc initead of «ap'
tavroU K C D L &c., Chrys. &c., as the latter would probably be intrainced
from xii. 16. Both expressioni occur In the LXX. Ii. v. ai ol owtroi tr
iavraStf ProT. iii. 7 ^^ iaOi (ppovifiOi wapd atavr^.
irtSpuxns 11.T.X.: * a hardening m part' (cf. »V p*povs i Cor. xii. a 7^
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. w. 5, 7, 17), but here he definitely adds a point to which he
has 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. 34 'and Jerusalem
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the
Gentiles be fulfilled.'
rh vXi^pufia twc ^Oi'wi' : the full completed number, the comple-
ment of the Gentiles, L e. the Gentile world as a whole, just as in
ver. la Ti rrXrjpafia is the Jewish nation as a whole.
There was a Jewish basis to these specnlations on the completed niunber.
A/0£. Baruch xxiii. 4 quia quando petcavit Adam tt dtcreta juit mors contra
e»t qui gignerentur, tunc nnmerata est multitado eomtn qui gignerentur,
tt numero illi praeparatus tst lotus ubi hahitarent viventts it ubi eusto-
dirtntur mortui, nisi ergo compleattir numerus praedictus tion vivet creatura
... 4(6) Ezra ii. 40, 41 (where Jewish ideas underlie a Christian work)
rtcipe, Sion, numemm taum et conclude candidatos tuos, qui legem Domini
compleverunt : Jiliorum tuorum, quos optabas, plenns est numerus : roga
imperium Domini ut scMctificetur populus tuus qui vocatus est ai initio.
cla^XOT) was used almost technically of entering into the Kingdom
or the Divine glory or life (cf. Matt. vii. 2 1 ; 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. Kol ouTu : ' and so/ i. e. by the whole Gentile world coming
mto the kingdom and thus rousing the Jews to jealousy, cf. ver. 1 1 f.
These words ought to form a new sentence and not be joined
with the preceding, for the following reasons: (i) the reference of
ovrm is to the sentence axptt ot k.tX. We must not therefore
make ovr* . , . o-od^o-erat coordinate with irmpttxrit . . . yiyovtv and
subordinate to on, for if we did so ouro» 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, (a) The sentence, by being made in-
dependent, acquires much greater emphasis and force.
irfis 'lapaiiX. In what sense are these words used? (i) 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 tA
ukiipafm tS)v i6va)v in ver. 2$, the use of the term Israel in the same
verse, and the drift of the argument in w. 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.
(a) iras 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. i Kings xii. i km «fir«
SafiovijX itpos wdvra 'icrpaijX : 2 Chron. xii. I iyKOTtkint rhs tvrohhi
Ykvpiov Koi was 'lo-paijX /ler* avrov : Dan. ix. 1 1 Koi vas ^IcrpcajK wapi^trqf
ritp tt^Mv (Tov Kot i^kXuKW rov u^ axovaau Trjs 0mi>qc vov.
33^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 26, 27.
ffuO^orcTOi : ' shall attain the (rmrnpia of the Messianic age bj
being received into the Cliristian Church': the Jewish conception
of the Messianic o-wn^/jta being fulfilled by the spiritual (rmrrjpia of
Christianity. Cf. x. 13.
So the words of St. Paul mean simply this. The people of
Israel as a nation, and no longer ano fifpow, 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 o(
Israel is attained. He is simply considering God's dealings with
the nation as a 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 (t6 n-Xi^pw^a tS)v i6vS>v) and
the people of Israel inas 'lapaifk), shall be united in the Church of
God.
26, 27. Ko6us yfypoTrroi, 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 (k Stwi/ for the fvtKtv Sjwi^ 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, lii. 7 (LXX) Wt fia,(Tti tx liitu t6
iTwr-qpiov Tov laparjK ;
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. Tract. Sanhedrin, f.
98. I * 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. 19.' 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 ^e fulr^ess of the Gentiles without parallel
XI. 26-29.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 33;
Although later Judaism entirely denied all hope to the Gentiles,
much of the Judaism of St. Paul's day stiU 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.' Orac.
Sibyll. iii. 710 f. kcX rort ifj vrjiroi naa-ai noKus r fpiovariv . . . dfvrt,
nttrovrts iiravrtt f?rt x^""* Xto-ffi/iecr^a dddvarov ^acrtX^a, 6e6v fityav
dfvaov Tt. 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 «'« Stwv. 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.
6 ^u<Sfi€>'os : Jesus as the Messiah. Cf. i Thess. i. 10.
27. ical ooTTj K.T.X. : ' and whensoever I forgive their sins then
shall my side of the covenant I have made with them be fulfilled.'
28. KarA ^iv to iuay^ikvov : 'as regards the Gospel order, the
principles by which God sends the Gospel into the world.' This
verse sums up the argument of w. 11-24.
^X^poi : treated by God as enemies and therefore shut oflf from
Him.
81* fljAas : ' for your sake, in order that you by their exclusion
may be brought into the Messianic Kingdom.'
kotA 8i T^K IkXoyti»' : ' 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 tiayyiXiov. It cannot
mean here, as in w. 5, 6, ' as regards the elect,' i. e. the select
remnant. It gives the grounds upon which the chosen people were
beloved. With dyainiTOi, cf. ix. 25; the quotation there probably
suggested the word.
8id ToOs iroWpos : cf. ix. 4 ; xi. 16 f. : ' for the sake of the Patri-
archs ' from whom the Israelites have sprung and who were well-
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
.^3^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 29-8%.
nature of God : He does not repent Him of the choice that He hai
made.
d|jieTajjiAi(|To : a Cor. vii. lo. The Divine gifts, such as have
been enumerated in ix. 4, 5, 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 compunction.
His feelings of mercy towards the Jews will never change.
^1 KXfjais : 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 ufxets shows that this verse is written, as is all this chapter
with the thought of Gentile readers prominently before the writer's
mind.
8L Tw 6}i.tTipif i\iu : ' by that same mercy which was shown to
you.' If the 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 tne Divine mercy. These words
ru viuTtptf (Xc» go with t\€T)6oi(ri, d. Gal. ii. 10; a Cor. xiL 7, as ia
shown by the parallelism of the two clauses
This parallelism of the clauses may account for the presence of
the second tniv with «'X*ij^w(rt, which should be read with N B D, Boh.,
Jo. Damasc. It was omitted by Syrian and some Western authorities
(A E F G, &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 pvv.
82. St. Paul now generalizes from these instances the character
ol 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. iS-iiL ao; there is a DfrsM
XI. 82, 83.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 339
purpose in the faithlessness of the Jews. The object of both alike
is to give occasion for the exhibition of the Divine mercy. If God
has shut men up in sin it is only that He may have an oppor-
tunity of showing His compassion. So in Gal. iii. a a aikXa trvv-
ikKtiaev ^ ypaf^h ^^ ir^vra tnro anapriav, tva ^ inayytXia tK iritrrtat Irftrov
Xpurrov do^g rols vurrtvovai, the result of sin is represented as being
to give the occasion for the fulfilment of the promise and the
mission of the Messiah. All God's dealings with the race are in
accordance with His final purpose. However harsh they may
seem, when we contemplate the final end we can only burst forth
into thankfulness to God.
vwiKktKQt Ydp h 6cos : cf. L 14 f., and see below, p. 347.
auK^KXciffc : Ps, Ixxviii [Ixxvii]. 6a 'He gave his people over
unto the sword (awiKkuvtv tls pofi<f)aiav).' Used with the pregnant
sense of giving over so that there can be no escape.
ToOs -irdrras. Not necessarily every single individual, but all looked
at collectively, as the wKffpwua t&v i6vS>v and was 'lo-pa^X. All the classes
mto which the world may be divided, Jew and Gentile alike, will be
admitted into the Messianic Kingdom or God's Church. The
reference is not here any more than elsewhere to the final salvation
of every individual.
88. St. Paul has concluded his argument He has vindicated
the Divine justice and mercy. He has shown how even the reign
of sin leads to a beneficent result. And now, carried away by the
contrast between the apparent injustice and the real justice of God,
having demonstrated that it is our knowledge and not His goodness
that is at fault when we criticize Him, he bursts forth in a great
ascription of praise to Him, declaring the unfathomable character
of His wisdom.
We may notice that this description of the Divine wisdom re-
presents not so much the conclusion of the argument as the assump-
tion that underlies it. It is because we believe in the infinite
character of the Divine power and love that we are able to argue
that if in one case unexpectedly and wonderfully His action has
been justified, therefore in other cases we may await the result,
resting in confidence on His wisdom.
Marcion't text, which had omitted eyoything between z. 5 end zL 34 (tee
on ch. x) here resumes. Tert. quotes w. 33, 33 as follows: t profundum
divitiantm tt tapientiat Dti, «t imnotstigabiUi via4 eius, omitting icaL
•fvdiaton and iis Mx^tptvvrjTa rd Kpi/iara ainov, Tlxen follow tt. 34, 35
without any Tariation. On ver. 36 we Icnow nothing. See Zahn, p. 518.
PdOos: 'inexhaustible wealth.' Cf. Prov. xviiL 3 ^ados naKStv,
troubles to which there is no bottom. The three genitives that
follow are probably coordinate ; vXovrov means the wealth of the
Divine grace, cf. z. la ; o-o(^ias and yvnattas are to be distinguished
as meaning the former, a broad and comprehensive survey of things
1 •
340 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 88-86,
in their special relations, what we call Philosophy ; the latter aa
intuitive penetrating perception of particular truths (see Lft. on
Col. i. 9).
dvelepeuinrjTo : Prov. xxv. 3, Sym. ; and perhaps Jer. JiviL 9, Sym.
(Field, Hexapla, ii. 617), 'unsearchable'; Kpi|AaTa, not judicial de-
cisions, but judgements on the ways and plans of life. Cf. Ecclus.
XVll. I 2 BiadijKTjv al&vot ftrnjan* ft«T avrav, Koi ri xplfiara ovrov irridti^
avToiii.
Ave^ixylatrroi : ' that cannot be traced out/ Eph. iil 8 ; Job v. 9 ;
be. 10 ; xxxiv. 24. This passage seems to have influenced i Clem.
Rom. XX. 5 d^vacrav rt avt^ixviavra .... 0VPf](tTat npnarayfiaariv,
84. Tis Y^P ^V'* K.T.X. This is taken from Is. xl. 13, varying
only very slightly from the LXX. It is quoted also i Cor. ii. 16.
85. f{ Tis Trpoe'SwKiK auTu. (cal drrairoSodi^veTai aurw; taken from
Job xli. 1 1, but not the LXX, which reads (ver. a) tU dvrttrr^o-crai ^i km
vrronivfi ; The Hebrew (RV.) reads, ' Who hath first given unto me
that I should repay him ? ' It is interesting to notice that the onlj
other quotation in St. Paul which varies very considerably from the
LXX is also taken from the book of Job (i Cor. iii. 19, cf. Job v. 13),
seep. 30a. This verse corresponds to i> ^ddos nXovrov. '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 diflferent persons of the Trinity (see
esp. Liddon, who restates the ajgument in the most successful
form). But (i) the prepositions do not suit this interpretation :
81* auTou indeed expresses the attributes of the Son, but els ootiJi'
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 th« ^ather) is the source and inspirer
and goal of all inings.
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 Jerusnlem, 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 Israel which would be shown in God's own time. There are many
resemblances to St. Paul, not only in thought but in expression. j4/>oc.
Baruck xiv. 8, 9 Sed quis, Dominator Domine, assequetur iudicium tuum f
mut quis inveitigabit profundutn via* tutu ? aui quu supptitaUt gratntaUm
IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 34I
ftmiiat tumtt aut quis foterit cogitart coiuiUum tuum incomprehensibiUi
ant quit unquam tx natis inveniet principium autfintm iapientiae tuae ? . ..
zx. 4 tt tunc ostendam tibi iudicium virtutis meat, »t vias [in]tnvesttgabila
. . . xxi. 10 tu tuim solus $s vivtns immortalis »t [in utvestigabilis et
nunurum hominum nosti . . . liv. la, 13 eequis enim assimilabitur in mira-
hilibus tuis, Deus, aut quis comprehtndet cogitationem tuam profundam
vitae t Quia tu tonsilio tuc gubtmas omnes creaturas quas creavii dextera
iua, et tu omnemfontcm lucis apud t$ tonstituisti, *t thesaurum sapientiat
subtus throHum tuum praeparasti . . . Ixxr quis assimilabitur, Domine, boni-
tati tuast est enim incomprehensibilis. Aut quis scrutabitur miseratients
tuas, quae sunt infinitat ? aut quis comprehendet intelligentiam tuam ? aut
quis poterit consonart cogitationts mentis tuae ? 4 Ezra v. 34 torqutnt me
rents mei per tmnem horam quatrentem apprehendere semitam Altissimi et
investigate partem iudicii tius. et dixit ad me Non poles . . . \o et dixit ad
AM Quomodo non potes facere unum de his quae dicta sunt, sic non poteris
imemre iudicium meum autfiuem caritatis quam popule promisi t
Tki Argument of Romans IX-XI.
In the summary that has been given (pp. 269-275) of the various
opinions which have been held concerning the theology of this
section, and especially of ch. ix, it will have been noticed that
almost all commentators, although they differed to an extraordinary
degree in the teaching which they thought they had derived from
•:he passage, agreed in this, that they assumed that St. Paul was
primarily concerned with the questions that were exercising their
own minds, as to the conditions under which grace is given to man.
and the relation of the human life to the Divine will. Throughom
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a small number of com-
mentators are distinguished from the general tendency by laying
stress on the fact that both in the ninth and in the eleventh chapter,
it is not the lot of the individual that is being considered, nor
eternal salvation, but that the object of the Apostle is to explain
the rejection of the Jews as a nation ; that he is therefore dealing
with nations, not individuals, and with admission to the Christian
Church as representing the Messianic o-tonypt'a and not directly with
the future state of mankind. This view is very ably represented by
the English philosopher Locke ; it is put forward in a treatise which
has been already referred to by Beyschlag (p. 275) and forms the
basis of the exposition of the Swiss commentator Oltramare, who
puts the position very shortly when he says that St. Paul is speaking
not of the scheme of election or of election in itself, but * of God's
plan for the salvation of mankind, a plan which proceeded on the
principle of election.'
It is true that commentators who have adopted this view (in
particular Beyschlag) have pressed it too far, and have used it to
explain or explain away passages to which it will not apply ; but it
undoubtedly represents the main lines of the Apostle's argument
and his purpo»<^ throughout these chapters. In order to estimate
S4t EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX-XI
his point of view our ftarting-point must be the conclusion h«
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 lime 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 erf
the Jews were clearly excluded. The earlier stages of the argu-
ment have been sufficiently explained. Sl 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 had expected. 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 go to 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 logicail basis of kii
argument
St. PauVs Philosophy 0f History.
The argument then of this section of the Epistle it not % dis*
cuftsion of the principles on which grace is given to mankind, but
a philosophy of History. In tlv; short concluding doxology te
IX-ZI.] MERCY TO ALL GODS ULTIMATE PURPOSE 343
the Epistle — a conclusion which sums up the thought which
underlies so much of the previous argument — St. Paul speaks of
the mystery which has been kept silent in eternal times, but is
now revealed, ' the Counsel,' as Dr. Hort (in Lft. Biblical Essays,
p. 335) expresses it, ' of the far-seeing God, the Ruler of ages or
periods, by which the mystery kept secret from ancient times is
laid open in the Gospel for the knowledge and faith of all nations.'
So again in Eph. i. 4-1 1 he speaks of the foreknowledge and plan
which God had before the foundation of the world ; a plan which
has now been revealed: the manifestation of His goodness to
all the nations of the world. St. Paul therefore sees a plan or
purpose in history ; in fact he has a philosophy of History. The
characteristics of this theory we propose shortly to sum up.
(i) From Rom. v. la flF. we gather that St. Paul divides history
into three periods represented typically by Adam, Moses, Christ,
excluding the period before the Fall, which may be taken to typify
an ideal rather than to describe an actual historical period. Of these
the first period represents a state not of innocence but of ignorance.
' Until the Law, i. e. from Adam to Moses, sin was in the world ;
but sin is not imputed when there is no law.' It is a period which
might be represented to us by the most degraded savage tribes.
If sin represents failure to attain an ideal, they are sinful ; but if
sin represents guilt, they cannot be condemned, or at any rate only
to a very slight degree and extent. Now if God deals with
men in such a condition, how does He do so ? The answer is, by
the Revelation of Law; in the case of the Jewish people, by
the Revelation of the Mosaic Law. Now this revelation of Law,
with the accompanying and implied idea of judgement, has
fulfilled certain functions. It has in the first place convicted man
of sin ; it has shown him the inadequacy of his life and conduct.
' For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shall
not lust' It has taught him the diflference between right and
wrong, and made him feel the desire for a higher life. And so,
secondly, it has been the schoolmaster leading men to Christ. It
has been the method by which mankind has been disciplined, by
which they have been gradually prepared and educated. And
thirdly. Law has taught men their weakness. The ideal is there ,
the desire to attain it is there ; a struggle to attain it begins, and
that struggle convinces us of our own weakness and of the power of
sin over us. We not only learn a need for higher ideals ; we learn
also the need we have for a more powerful helper. This is the
discipline of Law, and it prepares the way for the higher and
fuller revelation of the Gospel.
These three stages are represented for us typically, and most
clearly in the history <rf the Jewish dispensation. Even here of
course there is an element of inexactness in them. There wa«
544 EPISTLE TO THE ROMAN! X-XL
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 ol
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 pilhciple, 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 rati er 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 Gotbt, and how the division of the Church
IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 345
at the schism of East and West, or at the time of the Reformation,
occasioned new victories for Christianity. Again and again an event
which to contemporaries must have seemed disastrous has worked
out beneficially ; and so, guided by St. Paul's example, we learn to
trust in that Divine wisdom and mercy which in some cases where
we can follow its track has been so deeply and unexpectedly
vindicated, and which is by hypothesis infinite in power and
wisdom and knowledge.
(3) These then are two main points in St. Paul's teaching ; first,
the idea of gradual progress upwards implied in the stages of Adam,
Moses, Christ ; secondly, the idea of a purpose running through
history, a purpose working by means of Selection. But to what
end r The end is looked at under a twofold aspect ; it is the
completion of the Messianic Kingdom, and the exhibition of the
Divine mercy. In describing the completion of the Messianic
Kingdom, St, Paul uses, as in all his eschatological passages, the
forms and phrases of the Apocalyptic literature of his time, but
reasons have been given for thinking that he interpreted them, at
any rate to a certain extent, in a spiritual manner. Ther^ is per-
haps a further diflSculty, or at any rate it may be argued that St. Paul
is mistaken as regards the Jews, in that he clearly expected that at
some time not very remote they would return to the Messianic King-
dom ; yet nothing has yet happened which makes this expectation
any more probable. We may argue in reply that so far as therfi
was any mistaken expectation, it was of the nearness of the last timea
and that the definite limit fixed by St. Paul, ' until the fulness of the
Gentiles come in,' has not yet been reached. But it is better to
go deeper, and to ask whether it is not the case that the rejection
of the Jews now as then fulfils a purpose in the Divine plan ?
The well-known answer to the question, ' What is the chief argu-
ment for Christianity ? ' — ' the Jews ' — reminds us of the continued
existence of that strange race, living as sojourners among men,
the ever-present witnesses to a remote past which is connected by
our beliefs intimately with the present. By their traditions to
which they cHng, by the O. T. Scriptures which they preserve by
an independent chain of evidence, by their hopes, and by their
highest aspirations, they are a living witness to the truth of that
which they reject. They have, their purpose still to fulfil m the
Divine plan.
St. Paul's final explanation of the purpose of God — the exhi-
bition of the Divine mercy — suggests the solution of another class
of questions. In all such speculations there is indeed a diffi.:ulty,
— the constant sense of the hmitations of human language as
applied to what is Divine ; and St. Paul wishes us to feel these
limitations, for again and again he uses such expressions as
' I speak as a man.' But yet granting this, ttie thought does
34^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX-XL
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 hfe 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 so 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
rebutfs of the time are yet steps towards a higher end. Et dixit
ad me : Inilio terreni orbis et antequam starent exitut saeculi . . ., et
ankquam mvesiigareniur praeseniet OMMt, et antequam abaUenartniur
IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 347
torum gut nunc peccant adinventiones et consignati essent qui fidi
thesaurizavcrunt : tunc cogiiavi ei facia sunt per me solum et non
per alium, ui et finis per nu et non per cUium (4 Ezra vi. 1-6).
Tk4 Salvation of the Individual. Free-will and
Predestination.
While the ' Nationalist ' interpretation of these chapters has been
adopted, it has at the same time been pointed out that, although it
correctly represents St. Paul's line of argument, it cannot be legiti-
mately used as it has been to evade certain difficulties which have
been always felt as to his language. St. Paul's main line of argu-
ment applies to nations and peoples, but it is quite clear that the
language of ix. 19-23 applies and is intended to apply equally to
individuals. Further it is impossible to say, as Beyschlag does, that
there is no idea in the Apostle's mind of a purpose before time. It
18 God's purpose ' before the foundation of the world * which is
being expounded. And again, it is quite true to say that the
election is primarily an election to privilege ; yet there is a very
intimate connexion between privilege and eternal salvation, and
the language of ix. 22, 23 'fitted unto destruction,' 'prepared unto
glory,' cannot be limited to a merely earthly destiny. Two ques-
tions then still remain to be answered. What theory is implied
in St. Paul's language concerning the hope and future of individuals
whether Christian or unbelievers, and what theory is implied as to
the relation between Divine foreknowledge and human free-will ?
We have deliberately used the expression ' what theory is
implied?'; for St. Paul never formally discusses either of these
questions ; he never gives a definite answer to either, and on both
he makes statements which appear inconsistent. Future salvation
is definitely connected with privilege, and the two are often
looked at as effect and cause. ' If while we were enemies we
were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much
more being reconciled shall we be saved by His life' (v. 10).
' Whom He called, them He also justified : and whom He justified,
them He also glorified ' (viiL 30). But, although the assurance oif
hope is given by the Divine call, it is not irrevocable. ' By their
unbelief they were broken ofl^ and thou standest by thy faith. Be
not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural
branches, neither will He spare thee' (xi. 20, 21). Nor again is
future salvation to be confined to those who possess external
privileges. The statement is laid down, in quite an unqualified
way, that 'glory and honour and peace 'come 'to everyone that
worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek' (ii. 10).
Again, there is no definite and unqualified statement either m
3^8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IZ-XI.
support of or against universalism ; on the one side we have
statements such as those in a later Epistle (i 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 rendei
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 Ufe 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. i). 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 ^1 religious thought and experience.
(i) 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
IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 349
wrong lay with men {^apuraioi . . , tlftapftivji tv koH 6w npoirdirTown
wavra Koi r^ flip irpdrrtiv ra ducato, Kal fx^, koto to nXtlcrroy etrl rots
dvdpanoit KticrOai, &ot]deiv hi tls tKacrrov km rifv tlpapfievrjv B. J. II.
viii. 14; comp. Ant. XIII. v. 9 ; XVIII. i. 3) : and so in Pirqi Aboth,
iii. 14 (p. 73 ed. Taylor) 'Everything is foreseen; and free-will
is given : and the world is judged by grace ; and everything is
according to work.' (See also Ps. Sol. ix. 7 and the note on
Free-will in Ryle and James' edition, p. 96, to which all the above
references are due.) St. Paul then was only expanding and giving
greater meaning to the doctrine in which he had been brought up.
He had inherited it but he deepened it He was more deeply con-
scious of the mercy of God in calling him ; he felt more deeply the
certainty of the Divine protection and guidance. And yet the
sense of personal responsibility was in an equal degree intensified.
' But I press forward, if so be I may apprehend, seeing that also
I was apprehended by Christ ' (Phil. iii. 1 2).
(a) Nor again is any other solution consistent with the reality
of religious belief. Religion, at any rate a religion based on
morality, demands two things. To satisfy our intellectual belief
the God whom we believe in must be Almighty, i. e. omnipotent
and omniscient ; in order that our moral hfe may be real our Will
must be free. But these beliefs are not in themselves consistent.
If God be Almighty He must have created us with full knowledge
of what we should become, and the responsibility therefore for
what we are can hardly rest with ourselves. If, on the other hand,
our Will is free, there is a department where God (if we judge the
Divine mind on the analogy of human minds) cannot have created
us with full knowledge. We are reduced therefore to an apparently
irreconcilable contradiction, and that remains the language of all
deeply religious minds. We are free, we are responsible for what we
do, but yet it is God that worketh all things. This antithesis is
brought out very plainly by Thomas Aquinas. God he asserts is
the cause of everything {J)eus causa est »mnibus operantibus ut
opermiur, Cont. Gent. III. Ixvii), but the Divine providence does
not exclude Free-wiU. The argument is interesting : Adhuc pro-
videntia est multiplicativa bonorum in rebus gubernatis. Illud ergo
per quod tnulta bona subtraherenlur a rebus^ nan pertinet ad pro-
videntiam. Si autem libertas voluntatis iolUretur, multa bona sub-
traherenlur. Tolleretur enim laus virtutis humanae, quae nulla esl
si homo libere non agit, tolleretur enim iustitia praemiantis et punientis.
si non libere homo ageret bonum et malum, cessaret etiam circum-
spectio in consiliis, quae de his quae in necessitate agunlur, frustrtt
fractarenlur, esset igitur contra frovidentiae rationem si subtraheretur
voluntatis libertcu [ib. Ixxiii). And he sums up the whole relation
of God to natural causes, elsewhere showing how this same
prindpl* applies to the human will : pate/ etiam quod non sic idem
35© EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX-XI.
effcctus causae naturali tt divtnae virtuti attribuitur , quasi partitn
a Deo, partim a naturali agenli fiat, ted totus ab utroque secundum
alium modum, sicut idem ejfectus totus attribuitur instrumento, et
principali agenti etiam totus [ib. Ixx). See also Summa Theologicu,
Pars Prima, cv. art. 5 ; Prima Secundae, cxiii).
This ia tnbstantially also the riew taken by Moiley, On iAt Augustiman
Doctrine of Predestination. The result of his argument it summed up as
follows, pp. 326, 327: ' Upon this abstract idea, then, of the Divine Power, M
an unlimited power, rose up the Augustinian doctrine of Predestination and
good ; while upon the abstract idea of Free-will, ai 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 in
this question, they might have saved themselvei 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 great truths, I mean, of the Divine Power on the
one side, and man's Free-will, or his originality as an agent, 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 LIFB.
XII. 1, a. 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
Xn. I.] THE NEW LIFE 351
by the age in which you livty but undergo complete moral
reformation with the will of God for your standard.
XII-XV. 12. We now reach the concluding portion of the
Epistle, that devoted to the practical application of the previous
discussion. An equally marked division between the theoretical
and the practical portion is found in the Epistle to the Ephesians
(chap, iv) ; and one similar, although not so strongly marked, in
Galatians (v. i or a) ; Colossians (iii. i) ; i Thessalonians (iv. i) ;
a Thessalonians (iii. 6). A comparison with the Epistles of St.
Peter and St. John will show how special a characteristic of St.
Paul is this method of construction. The main idea running
through the whole section seems to be that of peace and unity for
the Church in all relations both internal and external. As St. Paul
in the earlier portion of the Epistle, looking back on the controversies
through which he has passed, solves the problems which had been
presented in the interests no longer of victory, but of peace, so in
his practical exhortation he lays the foundation of unity and
harmony on deep and broad principles. A definite division may
be made between chaps, xii, xiii, in which the exhortations are
general in character, and xiv-xv. la, in which they arise directly
out of the controversies which are disturbing the Church. Yet
even these are treated from a general point of view, and not in
relation to any special circumstances. In the first section, the
Apostle does not appear to follow any definite logical order, but
touches on each subject as it suggests itself or is suggested by the
previous ideas ; it may be roughly divided as follows : (i) a general
introduction on the character of the Christian life (xii. i, a) ; (ii)
the right use of spiritual gifts especially in relation to Church
order (3-8) ; (iii) a series of maxims mainly illustrating the great
principle of ayoTn; (9-ai); (iv) duties towards rulers and those in
authority (xiii. 1-7) ; (v) a special exhortation to ayanri, as including
all other commandments (8-10) ; (vi) an exhortation to a spiritua'
life on the ground of the near approach of the irapowia (11-14).
Tertollian qnotes the following verses of this chapter from Maxcion : 9, lOc ,
la, 14b, i6b, 17a, 18, 19. There is no evidence that any portion wa<
omitted, but ver. 18 may have stood after ver. 19, and in the latfer ftypaimu
is naturally cut off and a yip inserted. The other variations n Dted by Zaho
seem less certain (Zahn, Gtsckichtt dts N. T. Kanous, p. 518; Tert. ado.
Marc. T. 14;.
1. -irapanaXw o8i». A regular formula in St. Paul : Eph. iv. i ;
( Tim. 'i. I ; i Cor iv. 16. As in the passage in the Ephesians,
'he o3»' refers not so much to what immediately precedes as to the
result of the whole previous argument. ' As you are justified by
Christ, aad put in a new relation to God, I exhort you to live in
accordance with that relation.' But although St. Paul is giving thf
35» EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. I
practical results of his whole previous argument, yet (as often with
him, cf. xi. ii) the words are directly led up to by the conclusion
of the previous chapter and the narration of the wisdom and
mercy of God.
8id Twr oiKTipfiwi' Tou eeoC. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 3 ^ irarTjp r&p oucripuSiv.
OlKTipfiot in the singular only occurs once (Col. iii. la); the plural
is a Hebraism directly derived from the LXX (Ps. cxviii. 156 ol
oiKTipfioi aov TToXXoi, Kvpif, a-(b6dpa). 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.*
irapaoTTJo-oi: a tech. term (although not in the O.T.) for presenting
a sacrifice : cf. Jos. An/. IV. vi. 4 tiu>pL0vs rt (KeXtvarty inra Sflpaadat
Tov ^aaiXea, Koi Toaovrovs ravpovs Kai koiovs irapa(rrfjvai. 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.
T& atSfiara ifiwr. To be taken literally, like ra fiiXfi vfi&p in tL 13,
as is shown by the contrast with tov vo6i in ver. a. ' 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 oTrXa iiKaioa-vvris r^ e*y (vi. 13) ; our bodies
{ra troifiaTa) are to be n«\r] Xpurrov (i Cor. vi. 1 5); they are the
temple of the Holy Spirit (;'3. ver. 19); we are to be pure both in
body and in spirit {tb. vii. 34).
There it tome doubt as to the order of the wordi tvApttrrw r^ 6«^.
They occur in this order in K'BDEFGLand later MSS., Syir. Boh. Sah.,
and Fathers; tw 0tM ti. in KAP, Vulg. The former is the more usual
expression, but St. Paul may have written ry ©«y tv. to prevent ambiguity,
for if Tq> 8(f) comes at the end of the sentence there is aome doubt as to
whether it should not be taken with itapaarrjaai.
Guo'ioi' IficKxv : cf. vi. 1 3 irapauTTjaaT* tavrovs rto &f^, «><r«i c'x PtmpStt
(avras. The bodies presented will be those of men to whom new-
ness of life has been gixfin, 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.
Ayiut, ' pure,' ' holy/ ' free from stain,' i Pet. i. 16 ; Lev. xix. t.
XII. 1, a.] THE NEW LIFE 353
So the offering of the Gentiles (Rom. xv. i6) is rtywrftivii iv Up, 'Ay.
(See on L 7.)
cudpeoTOy Ty ©tu: cf. Phil. iv. 18 it^dfitvos naph 'Ena(f)pobiTov ra
nap" ipS)v, 6<Tfi^v tiaSiaifdvaiav dfKrfjv, (vapfarop toj ©fw : Rom. xiv. 1 8
* Well-pleasing to God.' The formal sacrifices of the old covenant
might not be acceptable to God : cf. Ps. li. 16, 17
tJ)k XoyiK^K XarpeiaK fijiwi*. Ace. in apposition to the idea of the
sentence. Winer, § lix. 9, p. 669, E. T. : cf. i Tim. ii. 6 and the
note on viii. 3 above. A service to God such as befits the reason
(Xo'yoy), i. e. a spiritual sacrifice and not the offering of an irrational
animal : cf. i Pet. ii. 5. The writer of Tesf. XII. Pat. Levi 3
seems to combine a reminiscence of this passage with Phil. iv. 18:
speaking of the angels, he says npoa<f>fpov<Ti di Kvpi<f 6<Tp,^p tia8ias
XoyiKTjv KoX avalpMKTOv npo<T(f)opav,
We may notice the metaphorical use St. Paul makes of sacrificial
language: eVl r^ 6v<ri<f koI Xftrovpytg TTJs nlcrTfois ip.S>v Phil. ii. 17 J
oafjLTi evaStar (Lev. i. 9) Phil. iv. 18; ocr/i^ 8 Cor. ii. 14, 16; Xfe-
Tovpy6s, Upovpyovvra, 7rpotr(popd Rom. XV. 16. This language passed
gradually and almost imperceptibly into liturgical use, and hence
acquired new shades of meaning (see esp. Lightfoot, Clement, L
p. 386 sq.).
There is • preponderance of eridence in faronr of the imperatives (avaxt-
ftari^taOi, (UTap-ofxpovaOi) in this verse, B L P all the versions (Latt. Boh.
Syrr.), and most Fathers, against AD F G (X varies 1. The evidence of the
Versions and of the Fathers, some of whom paraphrase, is particolarly
important, as it removes the suspicion of itacism.
2. auorxTifiaTiteffOc . . . |jicTa|xop<|>oGa9e, ' Do not adopt the external
and fleeting fashion of this world, but be ye transformed in your
inmost nature.' On the distinction of trxnyM and popf^ii preserved in
these compounds see Lightfoot, Journal of Classical and Sacred
Philology, vol. iii. 1857, p. \\\,Philipptans, p. 125. Comp. Chrys.
ad loc, * He says not change the fashion, but be transformed, to
show that the world's ways are a fashion, but virtue's not a fash-
ion, but a kind of realy^^r/;/, 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.'
Tw oiciKi toJt^, '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, xp°^°^i was looked upon as divided into
a succession of ages, aitoi/e?, 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 Schtirer, § 29. 9), a contrast
very common among early Christians: Matt. xii. 32 ovn iv tovt^
T^ cuMPi oSn iv Tf fiiXkoPTi : Luc. XX. 34, 35 o( viaH rov alavos rovrov
354 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. S
. . . el it Kara^KinBivTtt rav cuSivos tKtivav tvx*^* ' Eph. L 1 1 •£ fu(wM> if
ra alwvi tovtu) dWa Koi iv roJ fiikkovru So Enoch XVi. I fn'xp^t flfitaat
TtXtioorTKos TTJs Kpi<Tfa)s T^t n*yaXr]t, tw ^ 6 alay 6 fUyas rt\Kr6T)<TtT<u.
As the tlistinciion 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 ol
apxovTfi Tov alcovos TovTov (i Cor. ii. 6) have power and that in which
i (iaa-tXfvs rmv alavuv (Enoch xii. 3) will rule, oTciv like «co'<r/ior in
St. John's writings, came to have a moral significance : Gal. i. 4 eV
TOV alu>vos TOV fpf aTorros irovT]fjnv: Eph. ii. 2 wtpunaT^iTort koto top
aluva TOV Koap-nv tovtov : and 80 in this passage.
From the idea of a succession of ages (cf. Eph. ii. 7 4v roU alairi
roii firfp^ofjifi/ois) came the expression tls tovs atavas (xi. 36), or
alwvas tS>v alavou to express eternity, as an alternative for the older
form fls t6v ali>va. The latter, which is the ordinary and original
O. T. form, arises (like aiwwoj) from the older and original meaning
of the Hebrew '^/am, 'the hidden time/ 'futurity,' and contains
rather the idea of an unending period.
TTj df oKaivwaei toC vo6^ : 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. 5 Bia XovrpoC Trdkiyytytaias
Koi dvaKmvai(r((as IIvfvpLaTos 'Ayiov: 2 Cor. iv. 16: Col. iii. lO. On
the relation of dvaicaivaxTtc, ' renewal,' to TraXiyytwa/a gee Trench, Syn.
§ 18. By this renewal the intellectual or rational principle will no
longer be a voiit a-apKos (Col. ii. 18), but will be filled with the
Spirit ind coincident with the highest part of human nature
(i Cor. ii. 15, 16).
8oKi|ji<£t€H' : cf. ii. 18 ; Phil. i. 10. 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.
TO eArjfia TOO 0eou, k.t.X., ' 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 it the goal of Ufe.
THE KIGHT USE OP 8PIKITUAI. GITTa
XII. 3-8. Let every Christian be content with his proper
place and functions. The society to which we belong is
a single body with many members all related one to another.
Hence the prophet should not strain after effects for which
his faith is insufficient; the minister, the teacher, the
ex/iorter, sliould each be intent on his special duty. The
XII. 3-6] THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 355
almsgiver, the person in authority, the doer of kindness^
should each cultivate a spirit appropriate to what he does.
8. St. Paul begins by an instance in which the need of an
enlightened mind is most necessary; namely, the proper bearing
of a Christian in the community, and the right use of spiritual gifts.
8id rfjs x^^P^Tos K.T.X. gives emphasis by an appeal to Apostolic
authority (cf. i. 5). It is not merely a question of the spiritual
progress of the individual, for when St. Paul is speaking of that he
uses exhortation (ver. 1), but of the discipline and order of the
community; this is a subject which demand* the exercise of
authority as well as of admonition.
irarrl t« okti. An emphatic appeal to every member of the
Christian community, for every one (cVdaTO)) has some spiritual
gift.
(1^ fiirep(t>povciK, ' not to be high-minded above what one ought
to be minded, but to direct one's mind to sobriety.' Notice the
play on words vntpcppovtlv . . . i^povtiv . . . (fypovelv . . . cra)<f)povt'iw. The
<f>povtlv tls TO (r«0pomv would be the fruit of the enlightened intellect
as opposed to the (Pp6p7]p,a rrjs aapKds (viii. 6).
iKdarm is after (pepiat, not in apposition to wavA ry Svn, and its
prominent position gives the idea of diversity; for the order, cp.
I Cor. vii. 17. 'According to the measure of faith which God has
given each man.' The wise and prudent man will remember that
his position in the community is dependent not on any merit of his
own, but on the measure of his faith, and that faith is the gift of
God. Faith ' being the sign and measure of the Christian life ' is
used here for all those gifts which are given to man with or as the
result of his faith. Two points are emphasized, the diversity iKdarf
, . . pttrpow, and the fact that this diversity depends upon God : cf.
I Cor. vii. 1 «XX* ckairrot (dter f^'* X'^P^I'^ '"^ Qtovp i ftiw ovrtas, i 6i
WTt»g.
4, 6. Modesty and sobriety and good judgement are necessary
because of the character of the community : it is an organism or
corporate body in which each person has his own duty to perform
for the well-being of the whole and therefore of himself.
This comparison of a social organism to a body was very
common among ancient writers, and is used again and again by
St Paul to illustrate the character of the Christian community : see
I Cor. xii. 12; Eph. iv. 15; Col. L 18. The use here is based
upon that in i Cor. xii. 12-31. In the Epistles of the Captivity it
is another side of the idea that is expounded, the unity of the
Church in Christ as its head.
6. ri 8e Kad* cTs. An idiomatic expression found in later Greek.
Cf. Mark xiv. 19 «tr Kaff tU : John viii. 9 : 3 Mace. v. 34 6 koB" tit
M riuf <t>ikmv : Lucian Soloecista 9 ; £u«. H. E. X. iv, &c *Xi koIB
A a a
55* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XH. 5, &
its was probablj formed on the model of h Ka& «', and then maJf
%Xi came to be treated adverbially and written as one word : hence
it could be used, as here, with a neuter article.
6-13. ?xo»^«5 S^ ■fo.fxa^o.ti^, it.T.X. These words may be taken
grammatically either (i) as agreeing with the subject of «<r/i«',
a comma being put at \t.i'^n, or (a) as the beginning of a new
sentence and forming the subject of a series of verbs supplied with
the various sentences that follow ; this is decidedly preferable, for in
the previous sentence the comparison is grammatically finished, and
ixovTti hi suggests the beginning of a new sentence.
Two methods of construction are also possible for the wordg
Karh. Tr\v aviikoyiav tt]S iriorrwr . . . «V r^ iiaKOv'uf, &C. Either they muSt
be taken as dependent on txovrts, or a verb must be supplied with
each and the sentences become exhortations, (i) If the first con-
struction be taken the passage will run, ' So are we all one body in
Christ, but individually members one of another, having gifts which
are different according to the grace which is given us, whether we
have prophecy according to the proportion of faith, or a function
of ministry in matters of ministration, or whether a man is a teachei
in the exercise of functions of teaching, or one who exhorteth in
exhortation, one who giveth with singleness of purpose, one who
zealously provides, one who showeth mercy cheerfully.' (a) Accord-
ing to the second interpretation we must translate 'having gifts
which vary according to the grace given us, — be it prophecy let us
use it in proportion to the faith given us, be it ministry let us use it
in ministry,' &c.
That the latter (which is that of Mey. Go. Va. Gif ) is preferable
is shown by the difficulty of keeping up the former interpretation
to the end ; few commentators have the hardihood to carry it
on as far as ver. 8; nor is it really easier in ver. 7, where the
additions «V rfi SiaKovlq are very otiose if they merely qualify *xovT(t
understood. In spite therefore of the somewhat harsh ellipse, the
second constraction must be adopted throughout.
6. Karol T^v &va\oyiav rqs iriorcws {sc. npo(f)tjT(V(a(uv). The
meaning of nlcrreas here is suggested by that in ver. 3. A man's
gifts depend upon the measure of faith allotted to him by God,
and so he must use and exercise these gifts in proportion to the
faith that is in him. If he be aaxfipmv and his mind is enlightened
by the Holy Spirit, he will judge rightly his capacity and power ; i^,
on the other hand, his mind be carnal, he will try to distinguish
himself vain-gloriously and di.<5turb the peace of the community,
Liddon, with most of the Latin Fathers and many later com-
mentators, takes niartms objectively : ' The majestic proportion of
the (objective) Faith is before him, and, keeping his eye on it, he
avoids private crotchets and wild fanaticisms, which exaggerate
the relative importance of particular truths to the neglect of others.'
XII. e-8.] THE RIGHT USB OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 357
But this interpretation is inconsistent with the meaning he has
himself given to irla-ns in ver. 3, and gives a sense to avaXoylap
which it will not bear ; the difl&culty being concealed by the ambi-
guity of the word ' proportion ' in English.
7. SioKOKior, ' if we have the gift of ministry, let us use it in
ministering to the community, and not attempt ambitiously to
prophesy or exhort.' dioKovia was used either generally of all
Christian ministrations (so Rom. xi. 13; i Cor. xii. 5; Eph. iv.
12, Ac.) or specially of the administration of alms and attendance
to bodily wants (i Cor. xvi. 15 ; a Cor. viii. 4, &c.). Here the
opposition to irpo(f)r)Tfia, didaa-KoXia, wapdiiKijirii seems to demand the
more confined sense.
6 SiSdaKuc. St. Paul here substitutes a personal phrase because
txuv 8i8a(TKaXiav would mean, not to impart, but to receive instruction.
8. 6 fA€Ta8i8ous : the man who gives alms of his own substance
is to do it in singleness of purpose and not with mixed motives,
with the thought of ostentation or reward. With i n€Ta5iSovs, the
man who gives of his own, while 6 8ta8i8ovs is the man who dis-
tributes other persons* gifts, comp. TesL XII. Pair. Iss. 7 navA
av6pa>ir<0 6dvvofiev<a avvtcTTiva^a, koH irraix^ ptTthaKa t6i» aprov fiov,
dirXoTTis, The meaning of this word is illustrated best by Test
XII. Fair. Issachar, or ntp\ inXonjTos. Issachar is represented as
the husbandman, who lived simply and honestly on his land. 'And
my father blessed me, seeing that I walk in simplicity {inXorr}!).
And I was not inquisitive in my actions, nor wicked and envious
towards my neighbour. I did not speak evil of any one, nor attack
a man's life, but I walked with a single eye {iv d7rX<Jn;Ti 6^6aKpS>v).
. . . To every poor and every afflicted man I provided the good
things of the earth, in simplicity (&ifk6rrjs) of heart. . . . The simple
man (6 iiikovs) doth not desire gold, doth not ravish his neighbour,
doth not care for all kinds of dainty meats, doth not wish for
diversity of clothing, doth not promise himself (ov^ vnoypac^u) length
of days, he receiveth only the will of God ... he walketh in up-
rightness of life, and beholdeth all things in simplicity (dirXdri^Ti).'
Issachar is the honourable, hardworking, straightforward farmer ;
open-handed and open-hearted, giving out of compassion and in
singleness of purpose, not from ambition.
The word is used by St. Paul alone in the N. T., and was
specially suited to describe the generous unselfish character of
Christian almsgiving; and hence occurs in one or two places
almost with the signification of liberality, a Cor. ix. 11, 13; just as
' liberality ' in English has come to have a secondary meaning, and
iuiaiovvvr) in Hellenistic Greek (Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek,
p. 49). Such specialization is particularly natural in the East,
where large-hearted generosity is a popular virtue, and where such
words as ' gpod ' may be used simply to mean munificent
$$B EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. a
A irpoioTiificros, the man that presides, or governs in any position,
whether ecclesiastical or other. The word is used of ecclesiastical
officials, I Thess. v, la ; i Tim. v. 17 ; Just. Mart. Apvl. i. 67 ; and
of a man ruling his family (i Tim. iii. 4, 5, 13), and need not be
any further defined. Zeal and energy are the natural gifts required
of any ruler.
6 IKedv. ' 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.) 1 1 eV Trdaj) ioati 'iXdpmaoy to np6<T(i)n6v aov: Prov. xxii. 8
av8pa iXapuv Kiii doTriv tvXoyfl 6 Qfos (quoted t 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 IL 46; ▼. 41; Phil. L 4, 18; ii. 18, &c. ;
I Thess. V. 16).
Spiritual Gifts.
The word xapiviM (which is almost purely Pauline) is used of
those special endowments which come to every Christian as the
result of God's free favour (xap»r) 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 Hfe, 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 xapi(rfiaTa ra pfi(ova (i Cor. xii. 31), which are thosc 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 (i 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, x"P'<^M<»''« 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 g^fts; 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
ZU. 8-8.] THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 359
community that you should show a wise and prudent judgement,
not attemptmg offices or work for which you are not fitted, nor
marring your gifts by exercising them in a wrong spirit.
This being the meaning of xapt''^M"^« -nd Su Paul's purpose in
this chapter, interpretations of it, as of the similar passage (chap,
xii) in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which have attempted
to connect spiritual gifts more closely with the Christian ministry
are unfounded. These are of two characters. One, that of
Neander, maintain! that in the original Church there were no
ecclesiastical officers at all but only x'^p^(^(*°'ra, and that as spiritual
gifts died out, legulariy appointed officers took the place of those
who possessed them. The other finds, or attempts to find, an
ecclesiastical office for each gift of the Spirit mentioned in this
chapter and the parallel passage ol the Corinthians, or at any rate
argues that there must have been npocftrjTai, di^da-KaXoi ice, existing
as church officers in the Corinthian and Roman communities.
Neither of these is a correct deduction from the passages under
consideration. In dealing with the ^apivfiara St. Paul is discussing
a series of questions only partially connected with the Christian
ministry. Every church officer would, we may presume, be con-
sidered to have x<v'<^M«»"« which would fit him for the fulfilment of
such an office; but most, if not all, Christians would also have xapi(r-
nara. The two questions therefore are on different planes which
partially intersect, and deductions from these chapters made in
any direction as to the form of the Christian organization are
invalid, although they show the spiritual endowments which those
prominent in the community could possess.
A comparison of the two passages, i Cor. xii. and Rom. xii. 3-8,
is interesting on other grounds. St. Paul in the Corinthian Epistle
is dealing with a definite series of difficulties arising from the
special endowments and irregularities of that church. He treats
the whole subject very fully, and, as was necessary, condemns
definite disorders. In the Roman Episde he is evidently writing
with the former Epistle in his mind : he uses the same simile : he
concludes equally with a list of forms of xap^f^para — shorter, indeed,
but representative; but there is no sign of that directness which
would arise from dealing with special circumstances. The letter is
written with the experience of Corinth fresh in the writer's mind,
but without any immediate purpose. He is laying down directions
based on his experience ; but instead of a number of different
details, he sums up all that he has to say in one general moral
principle : Prudence and self-restraint in proportion to the gift ot
faith. Just as the doctrinal portions of the Episde are written with
the memory of past controversies still fresh, discussing and laying
down in a broad spirit positions which had been gained in the
Gonrse of those controversies, so we shall find that in the practical
360 EPISTLE TO TH£ ROMANS [XII. 8
portion St Paul is Izyiag down broad and statesmanlike positions
whicli are the result of past experience and deal with circumstancei
which may arise in any community.
MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHBISTIAIT IiTFTL
Xll. 9-21. TA^ general principles of your life should bi
a love which is perfectly sincere, depth of moral feelings
consideration for others, zeal, fervour, devoutness, hopefulness,
fortitude under persecutions, pray erf ulness, eagerness to help
your fellow- Christians by sharing what you possess with
them and by the ready exercise of hospitality.
Bless, do not curse, your persecutors. Sympathize with
others. Be united in feeling, not ambitious but modest in
your aims. Be not self-opinionated or revengeful. Do
nothing to offend the world. Leave vengeanci to God,
Good for evil is the best requital.
0. ^ Ay*^'"!' 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. hihaoKitv yap ircof hv to, ftprjfitva KaropBaBfit), fnfiyayt rfju fMtjrtpa
ndvTcov TovTcov, X/yw 87 rfjv (Is d\\Tj\ovc dyaTrrjv. The Sequence of
ideas is exactly similar to that in i Cor. xii, xiii, and obviously
suggested by it. In the section that follows (9-21), dydnrj 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.
dKoiriitpiTos. Wisd. V. i^;# xviii. 16; 3 Cor. vi. 6 {aydrnf);
I Tim. i. 5 and 2 Tim. i. 5 (ttio-tis) ; Jas. iii. 17 (17 avu)6ev cro^ia) ;
I Pet. i. 22 {c{>t\a8eXcfi(.a). It is si.f^nifi':^ant thnt th" Avord is not
used in profane writers except once in the adverbial form, and
that by Marcus Aurelius (viii. 5).
dTToaTuyourres : sc. (art as f(TTu> above, and cf. I Pet. ii. 18 ; iii. i.
An alternative construction is to suppose an anacoluthon, as if
ayairoTf avvnoKpiTas had been read above; cf. 2 Cor. i. 7. The
word expresses a strong feeling of horror; the otto- by farther
emphasizing the idea of separation gives an intensive force, which
is heightened by contrast with KoWayfifvoi.
ri TTorrjpoK . . . ry dyaOw. The characteristic of true genuine
love is to attach oneself to the good in a man, while detesting the
evil in him. There cannot be love for what is evil, but whoevei
has love in him can see the ^rood that there is in sU.
Zn. 10, IL] MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 361
10. TQ ^tXo8e\4»i^, Move of the brethren'; as contrasted with
dyaiTT), which is universal, (f)iKabf\<pia represents affection for the
brethren; that is, for all members of the Christian community,
cf. 2 Pet. i. 7. Euthym.-Zig. d?ie\(poi tare Kara rfjv avTr)v bia rov
^aTTTLcrfiaTOS dvayevvrja-ip Kal Sta tovto di'ayxrji/ e)^tTf <Pi,\a8(\<f)iae.
(|>iX(5<rropYoi : the proper term for strong family affection. Euthym.-
Zig. TovT€cm dfjifj-Hs Kul bianvpios (piXoivTes. (iriTavts yap 0tXtaf ^
OTopyT), Ka\ TTJs arropyrji jrdcTwr av^rjcris ff cf)i\o(TTopyta,
-Tp Ti|ifi it.T.X. : of. Phil. ii. 3 'in lowliness of mind each account-
ing 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 Trporjyou-
|Mroi is somewhat difficult ; naturally it would mean ' going before,'
'preceding,' and so it has been translated, (i) ' in matters of honour
preventing one another,' being the first to show honour : so Vulg.
invicem praevenientes ; or (a) '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 irpoTjyuaBai in this sense never takes the accusative. It 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 i Thess. v. 13; Phil. iL 3 suggests that St. Paul is
using the word in the quite possible, although otherwise unknown,
sense of {jyoifitvoi vntpixovras. So apparently RV. ( = AV.) 'in
honour preferring one another,' and Vaughan.
11. TQ oTTouSfj ji.^ ^Knrjpoi, '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 oKvrjpos cf. Matt. xxv.
26 : it is a word common in the LXX of Proverbs (vi. 6, &c.).
T^iri'eujxoTi t^orres: 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.
T^ Kupi'w SooXeu'ov^cs. 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. Kvpiy may have been suggested by nufvpan, just as
below dtwKcu* in one sense suggests the same word in another
sense.
|69 XPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. 11-18.
There U • very considerable balance of authority in faToor of mpt^
(KABELP &c., Vulg. Syrr. Boh., Gr. Fathers) as against Kcup^ (DFG,
Latin Fathers). Cf, Jar. £/>. 37 ad Marcellam : iV/» /^•^aw/ spe gaudente*,
tempori servientes, nos legamut domino servientes. Oiig.-lat. tui Uc. tcit
auttm in nonnullis Latinorum extmplis habtri tempori servicntea: quod
non mihi videtur convenUnttr insertum. The corruption may have arisen
from iMJS tjpo) being confused together, a confusion which would be eaiier
from reminiscences of snch expressions as £ph. ▼. 16 J£a7o/>a((S/x«'<M r^
12. TJJ AiriSi xaipot^nS' See above on ver. 8. The Chnstian
hope is the cause of that Christian joy and cheerfulness of dis-
position which is the grace of Cliristian love: cf. i Cor. ziii. 7
' Love . . . hopeth all things.'
Tg 6Xi<)>ci h-Ko^ivQvtvi. Endurance in persecution is natnrallj
connected with the Christian's hope : cf. i 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 i Thess. i. 6 ; iii.
3, 7 ; 2 Thess. i. 4, 6 ; a Cor. i. 4, Ac. ; Rom. v. 3 ; viii. 35.
T^ irpoo-cuxt) irpoo-KapTcpouKTcs : Acts. i. 14; ii. 4s; Col. iv. 9.
Persecution again naturally suggests prayer, for the strength of
prayer is specially needed in times of persecution.
13. Tois xp'ittis TUK dyiui' KOiKdJcoGn-cs. This verse contains two
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 Kowfitvtiv in this sense c£ Phil. iv. 15; Rom. xv. a6;
t Cor. ix. 13; Heb. xiii. 16.
The variation toTj p»tiai% (D F G, MSS. known to Theod. Mopt., Vulg.
cod. (am), Ens. Hist. Mart. Pal., ed. Cnreton, p. i, Hil. Ambrstr. Aug.) it
interesting. In the translation of Origan we read : Usibus sanctorum com-
municantes. Memini in latinis extmplaribus magis haberi: memoriia
sanctorum comii/unicantes: verum nos nee consueiudimm turbamus, mte
veritati praeiudicamus, maxime cum utrumqiu conveniat cudificationi.
Nam usibus sanctorum honeste et decenter, non quasi stipem indigentibut
praebere, sed censum nostrorum cum ipsis quodammodo habere commumm, et
meminisse sanctorum sive in collectis solemnibus, sive pro eo, ut ex recorda-
tione eorum proficiamus, aptum et conveniens videtur. The variation most
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.
Polyc. xviii iv6a dn dwaT'jv fj^iiv cvvayo/ityoK iv ayaXKiAau ital xap^ trapt^fi
6 Kvpios irriTtKftv ri^y rov puiprvpiov avrov f)n(pay ytpiOXiov, «is t« rtjv tup
wporj6\TjK6Twv fivTjfnjv Koi rSh' pitWSvrosv anKrjaiy rt koI iroifiaaiav : and the
rariations may, like other peculiarities of the western text, easily have arisen
•o soon. We cannot however lay any stress on the passage of Origen,.«« it
is probably dne to Rufinus. See Binghun, Ant. xiii. 9. 5. WH. suggest
that it was a clerical error arising fxcp% the coofusioa of XP *^'^ *"* ^
• badly written papyroi M.S.
SII. 18-16.] MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 3O3
^iXoCcKiar. From the very beginning hospitality was recognized
as one of the most important of Christian duties (Heb. xiii. a
I Tim. iii. 2 ; Tit. i. 8 ; i Pet. iv. 9 ; compare also Clem. Rom. § i
r4 fitydkonpenfs T^t <f)iKo^tv[at vfiiv rjdot '. § I O of Abraham bia nitrnt
cat (^tXo^cKiay iiodtf avr^ viis iv yr)pa : § 1 1 dta <f}i\o^tviav xai (vai^eiaw
Ai»T itriidrj'. § IS dw irifmv koi (()iXo^fviav ta-adrj 'Paa/3 ij iropvr] § 35).
On its significance in the early Church see Ramsay, The 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
imong 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
(a Cor. iii. 1; viii. 18, a3, 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. cuXoyctTC -rods Sitfuorrat. The use of the word iuLKtiv 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. x^^P***' |*<tA Yfi'Kpiwwf it.T.X. 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
to 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 whv we placed it first. For there is nothing
that ties love so firmly as sharing both joy and pain one witn
another,' Chrys. ad he. Cf. Ecclus. vii. 34.
16. th auTo . . . <t)poi'oucT€s, ' being harmonious in your relationa
towards one another ' : cf. xv. 5 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 1 1 ; Phil. ii. 2 ; iv. a.
The great hindrance to this would be having too high an estima-
tion of oneself: hence the Apostle goes on to condemn such
pride.
ik\ tA diHXA ^poraurrct - cf. xi. ao ; ■ Cor. xiii. 5 * Love vaunteth
364 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. 16-10
not itself, is not puffed up/ shows how St Paul is still carrying out
the leading idea of the passage.
Tois TOTTeiKois : prob. neuter ; ' allow yourself to be carried along
with, give yourself over to, humble tasks : * ' consentinge to meke
thingis,' Wic. The verb trvvandyav 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. a Pet. iii. 17), and hence 'to give oneself up to.'
The neuter seems best to suit the contrast with ra ir^Xd and
the meaning of the verb ; but elsewhere in the N. T. ranuvos 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 ihem ; do not be
humbled in mind only, but help them also, and stretch forth thy
hand to them.'
fi^ Y'*"*'^^ (^pcSKijioi irop* lauTots : taken apparently from Prov. iii.
7 fjif] la-di (f)p6uifios napa afavrm. Cf. Origen non potest veram tapitn-
tiam Dei scire, qui suam stultiiiam quasi sapientiam colit.
17. fi.TjSci'l KaKOK L\rt\ KOKoS diroSiS(Srrcs. Another result of the
principle of love. Mat. v. 43, 44; i Thess. v. 15; i PeL iii. 9 ;
1 Cor. xiii. 5, 6 ' Love . . . taketh not account of evil ; rejoiceth
not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth.'
irpo^oou^6"oi KaXd ^ctSirtoK irdirrwi' dMOptSiruK : cf. Prov. iii. 4 ;
2 Cor. iv. 2; viii. 21. 'As nothing causes offence so much as
offending men's prejudices, see that your conduct will commend
itself as honourable to men.' Euthym.-Zig. oi- irpot tnidet^iv dWa
irp6s fiLda<TKaXiav, Koi &ot« (iTj8fv\ doivai Trpd^ao-tv (TKavSoKov, This
seems better than to lay all the emphasis on the rrdprmp, as some
would do.
18. €1 iuvar6v, * if it be possible, live peaceably with all men, at
any rate as far as concerns your part {t6 <| iftav).' 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 ' (i Cor. xiii. 5).
10. dYOTTTjToi. Added because of the difficulty of the precept not
to avenge oneself.
Z6re T<5iroK t^ 6pYii, * give room or place to the wrath of God '
Let God's wrath punish. Euthym.-Zig. aXXA napaxape'irt ttjs tKSiK^
atus Tj) opyii rov Ofov, rg Kpiau toi5 Kvpt'ov. The meaning of idn
Toirov is shown by Eph. iv. 27 ftrfdi 8idoT€ rdnov r<5 dia/3($Xa>, do not
give scope or place to the devil ; 17 6pyr) 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: Wr« Trfn-w is
translated by some, ' allow space, interpose delay,' i.e. check and
restrain your wrath; by others, 'yield to the anger (A your
XII. 18-21.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 365
opponent ' : neither of these interpretations suits the context or
the Greek.
Yfypavrai ydp. The quotation which follows comes from Deut
xxxii. 35, and resembles the Hebrew ' Vengeance is mine and
recompense, rather than the LXX «V fjnep<f tKbiKijafots avranoddxTut :
and the Targum of Onkelos more than either. The words are
quoted in the same form in Heb. x. 30.
20. dXXA 'EAk ireiK^ 6 ix9p6i oroo K.T.X. Taken from the LXX ; cf.
Prov. XXV. ai, ai, agreeing exactly with the text of B, but varying
somewhat from that of A M. The term S.vdpaKti Ttup6s clearly means
* terrible pangs or pains/ cf. Ps. cxxxix (cxl). 1 1 (LXX) ; 4 (5) Ezra
xvi. 54 Non dicai peccator se non peccasse, quoniam carbones ignis
€9mburti suptr caput eius qui dicit : Non peccavi coram domino et
gloria ipsiut. But with what purpose are we to ' heap coals of fire
on his head' ? Is it (i) 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, (a) 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 fieri ut animus ferus ac barbarus inimici, si sential
beneficium nostrum, si humanitaiem, si affectum, si pietaiem videat,
compunciionem cordis capiat, commissi poenitudinem gerat, et ex hoc
ignis in eo quidem succendatur, qui eum pro commissi conscientia
torqueat et adurat : et isti erunt carbones ignis, qui super caput eius
ex nostra misericordiae et pietatis opere congregantur, Origen.
21. fif] KiKu uir& ToC KOKou K.T.X., ' do uot 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 applies to the passage just con-
cluded and shows St. Paul's object, but is also of more general
application..
OS OBEDIENCE TO BUIiEBS.
XIII. 1-7. The civil power has Divine sanction. Its
functions are to promote well-being, to punish not the good
hut the wicked. Hence it must be obeyed. Obedience to it it
a Christian duty and deprives it of all its terrors.
306 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIII. 1
Se> toe you pay tribute because the machinery of govern-
ment is God's ordinance. In this as in all things give to all
their due.
XIII. 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. 19 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 ase of tt. 8-10 by Marcion (Tert. adv. Mare.
▼. 14) Merita itaque totam crtatoris disciplinam principali praecepto tins
eonclusit, Diliges proximum tanquam te. Hoc legis supplcmtntum si ex ipsa
lege est, quis sit deus legis iam ignore. Oq the rest of the chapter we have
no information.
1. iraao <|»uxi^ : cf. ii. 9. The Hebraism suggests prominently
the idea of individuality. These rules apply to all however privi-
leged, and the question is treated from the point of view of indi-
vidual duty.
ifouaiais: abstract for concrete, * those In authority'; cf. Luke
xii. II ; Tit. iii. i. dircpcxouaais 'who are in an eminent position,'
defining more precisely the idea of i^owriait : cf. i Pet. ii. 13 ;
Wisdom vi. 5.
uiroTaaacaOw. Notice the repetition of words of similar sound,
vnoTa<T(Tf<T6t» , . . Tirayfifpoi . . . dvriTaaa6fitvos ... dtaray^, and cf
xii. 3.
ou Y^p i<rr^r iiouala k.t.X. The Apostle gives the reason for
this obedience, stating it first generally and positively, then nega-
tively and distribntively. No human authority can exist except as
the eift of God and springing from Him, and therefore all consti-
tuted 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. i, 3 dKoCaart oZv, /SatriXfIt, koI ovvtrt,
fuldfTt biKaaral rrtpdrtep yijs . , , on tdodij rrapd tov Kvpiov 17 Kpanjait
ifiiv Koi fj ivvatrrtia vapa ii/rtorow : £nOch xlvi. 5 * And he wlll pUt
down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms, because the/ do
Xm. 1-4.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS ^^
not extol and praise him, nor thankfully acknowledge whence the
kingdom was bestowed upon them' : Jos. Bell.Jud. II. viii. 7 rh ni<TT6i>
nape^eiv na<Ti, ftaXiara di Tois Kparovaiv' ov yap dixa Qfov n(piylyt<r6cu
nvt tA apxdv. St. Paul adopts the maxim for a purpose similar to
that in which it is used in the last instance, that it is the duty of
subjects to obey their rulers, because they are appointed and
ordained by God.
The preponderance of anthority (K A B L P and many later MSS., Baa.
Chrys.) is decisive for f I fifi Inb 0fov. The Western reading dtro 0«oC wai
a correction for the less usual expression (DEFG and many later MSS.,
Grig. Jo.-Damasc). The reading of the end of the verse should be ai 8^
oSaat vvo @(ov rtray^fvat tlaiv N A B D F G.
2. wore 6 dmriraaacSficKos k.t.X. The logical result of this
theory as to the origin of human power is that resistance to it
is resistance to the ordering of God ; and hence those who resist will
receive Kplfia — a judgement or condemnation which is human, for it
comes through human instruments, but Divine as having its origin
and source in God. There is no reference here to eternal punish-
ment.
8. ol Y^P 5pxotn"<s. The plural shows that the Apostle is
speaking quite generally. He is arguing out the duty of obeying
rulers on general principles, deduced from the fact that ' the state '
exists for a beneficent end ; he is not arguing from the special
condition or circumstances of any one state. The social organism,
as a modern writer might say, is a power on the side of good.
Tw dyaGw Ipyw : cf. ii. 7 ''■"'^ f-^" ''"^' i>Ttoixovriv tpyov dyadou In
)0th passages ipyov is used collectively; there it means the sum
of a man's actions, here the collective work of the state. For the
subject cf. I Tim. ii. i, a : we are to pray 'for kings and all in
authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable hfe in all godli-
ness and honesty.'
The singular ry iiyaOS tpy(p &KKA t^ kolk^ is read by R A B D F G P, Boh.
Vulg. i^boni optris sed mali), Clem.-Alex. Iren.-lat. Tert. Orig -lat. Jo.-
Damasa Later MSS. with E L, Syrr. Arm., Chrys. Thdrt. read ruiv dyaOuv
Ipywv . . . KaKow. Hoit suggests an emendation of Patrick Young, ry
i,yadoipiy<f, which has some support apparently from the Aeth. ti qui facit
honum : but the antithesis with KaK^ makes this correction improbable.
6A6IS Se . . . i%wQ\.wf ; The construction is more pointed if these
words are made a question.
As the state exists for a good end, if you lead a peaceable life
you will have nothing to fear from the civil power.
4. @eoG ydp SidKoi^s ^<m. Fem. to agree with i^ovaia, which
throughout is almost personified. <roi, * for thee,' ethical, for thy
advantage. «is ri dyaOdf, ' for the good,' to promote good, existing
for a good end.
■^v |*dxaipaK. The sword is the symbol of the executive and
eriminal jurisdiction of a magistrate, and is therefore used of the
$6S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIII. 4-7.
power of punishing inherent in the government So Ulpian,
Dtges/, i. 1 8. 6. § 8 ; Tac. /Its/, iii. 68 ; Dio Cassias, xlii. 17.
ckSikos ti$ ipyf^y, ' 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. a and xii. 19). The repetition of
the phrase Otov duiKovos 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,
5. 816: rulers, because as God's minit^ters 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, dta njc invfidrjauf (cf.
ii. 15, ix. i).
6. 8icl TouTo Y«tp »oi, sc. dta Tfjv <rvvtihi)(riv : ' 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).
XeiToupyoi, ' God's ministers.' Although the word is used in
a purely secular sense of a servant, whether of an individual or of
a community (i Kings x. 5; Ecclus. x. 2), yet the very definite
meaning which Xtirovpyos Qeov had acquired (Ecclus vii. 30; Heb.
viii. 2 ; see especially the note on Rom. xv. 16) adds emphasis to
St. Paul's expression.
irpoCTKapTcpourres must apparently be taken absolutely (as in
Xen. Ne/L VII. v. 14), * persevering faithfully in their oflice/ and
CIS aoT6 TOUTO gives the purpose of the office, the same as that
ascribed above to the state. These words cannot be taken im-
mediately with npoaKapTfpovvTtt, for that verb, as in xiL 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 diflferent points touched
upon : ' Pay each one his due.'
Tu rby ^6pov, sc. dnaiToiini. ifiopot is the tribute paid by a subject
nation (Luke xx. 22 ; i Mace. x. 33), while tcXoj represents the
customs and dues which would in any case be paid for the support
of the civil government (Matt. xvii. 25; i Mace. x. 31).
4)oPos is ilie respectful awe which is felt for one who has power
in his hands ; npi'jv honour and reverence paid to a ruler : cf. i Pel.
ii. 1 7 '''ov Oti)v (ptifidtrOe' tov jSatrtXta rifiart.
A strange interpretation of this verse may be seen in the
Gnostic book entided Ulartt So^io, p. 294, ed. Schwartze.
XIII. 1-7.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 369
Tfu Church and tht Civil Power,
The motive which impelled St. Paul to write this section of the
Epistle has (like so many other quesiions) 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
Jiere as elsewhere St._Pa.ul is writing, primarily at any rate, with
Ja_vTpvfyrrtKg'gfaf<> ftf the^jChuTch- Ji»-a-whole, not to the particular
circumstances of the Roman community : it being recognized at
^e same~"tTme: that questions which agitated the whole Christian
world^ would be likely to be reflected in what was already an
"TnipOrtaiit centre of Christianity. Whether this opinion be correct
• or hgr mustniepend-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 absgnce o"
.any reference to particular circumstances: the language is tErougS
out general : there is a stuHied 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. %% 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-^)ay^taxes to-ihfL.
Roman goverrgnentrjnda^the^aulonite, who said that 'the
census was nothing else but downright slavery ' (Jos. AnL XVIII.
i. i), or Theudas (ibid. XX. v. i), 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
ot
370 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIH. 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 bed 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 th;^ 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 alr«u)y
illustrated (Introduction, § i).
It must be remembered that when this Epi8tle_wag writtcji-ihe
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 thii
time *he ruler of the Empire. It may be doubted how far the vioet
sin 1-7.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 57I
oi 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 Quinquennium.
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 difRcult 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 areTiot idenlical.
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
I Tim. ii. I, 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 iiL i
' 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 oflRcial character,
had begun, yet the commands of St. Paul are repeated and with
even greater emphasis (i Pet. ii. 13-17).
The sob- Apostolic literature will illustrate this. Clement is writing to the
Corinthians just after snccessivc periods of persecation, yet he includes
• 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
rulers 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 Thou 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 failuie.
For Thou, O heavenly Master, King of the ages, givest to the sons of men
glory and honour and power over all things that are upon the earth. Do
Thou, 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 ;
'• k h* emphasises the Christian custom by combining the command to pray
■ lit
573 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZIU. 1 7
for nUn with Aat to lav* our enemiet. ' Pray alio for kings and powen
and princes and for them that persecute and hate jron and for the enemies vi
the cross, that your frait may be manifest among all men that ye may be
perfect in Him.' (Clem. Rom. Ix, Ixi ; Polyc. ml Pkil. xii.)
It is not necessary to give further instances of a custom which prevailed
emtensively or universally in the early Church. It became a commonplace
of apologists 1 Just. Mart. Apol. i. 1 7 ; Athenagoras, Leg. xxrvii ; Theophilus,
i. 1 1 ; Tertullian, Apol. 30, i%ad Scap. a ; Dion. Alex, ap Eus. H. E. VII. xi ;
Amob. iv. 36) and is found in all liturgies (cf. Cotut. Ap. viii. 1 a).
One particular phase in the interpretation of this chapter demands a passing
ootice. 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 only
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 {Passiv* Odedumt or tht Christian Doctrine
of not resisting the aupreme power, proved and vindicated upon the principles
if tht law of nature in a discourse delivered eU the College Chapel, 171 a.
Works, iii. p. loi). He takes as his text Rom. xiii. a 'Whosoever resisteth
the Power, resisteth the ordinance of God.* He begins ' It is not my design
to inquire into the particular nature of the govemmeat 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,
• rule or law of nature, the least breach whereof hath the inherent stain of
moral turpitude.' 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 expounded
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 rule 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 realots 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
when 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 rightful
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 day*.
The Church must influence the world by its hold oa tht btarts and consdencei
<A individuals, and in that way, ud aot bjr p>>itkal powv, will tiM
Kingdom of God come.
XIII. 8, 9.] LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW 373
LOVE THE PUIiPrLMBNT OP ALL LAW.
XIII. 8-10. There is 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 lovi, 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. 9 the principle of love is introduced as the true solution of all
difiiculties 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 Ufe.
litlScfi |iT)Sei' d(j>ei\€Tf 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.'
tl |if| th dvoirav dXXi^Xout : * 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
(amen et nunguam cessare a nobis dehiium caritatis : hoc entm et quO'
tidie solvere ei semper debere expedit 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 o^ciXcr* : ' Owe no man anything, only
ye ought to love one another.'
6 Y&p dyairwK k.t.X. gives the reason why ' love ' is so important :
if a man truly loves another he has fulfilled towards him the whole
law. v6tLov 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 Gcd irlans has been substituted for
voyMs, so between man and man iyami takes the place of definite
legal relations. The perfect vtit\ripaKtv implies that the fulfilment
is already accomplished simply in the act of love.
9. St. Paul gives instances of the manner in which ' love ' fulfils
law. No man who loves another will injure him by adultery, by
murder, by theft, &c. They are all therefcwe 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 ob itXiifitit In this verse oh tpivSoimprvpffirtit from the
O. T. with K P &c., Boh. &c., ai against A B D E F G L &c., Vulg. eodJ. and
most Fathers, iv ry before dyanrjaen is omitted by B F G. For atavroy of
the older MSS. (K A B D E), later MSS. read iavT6v, both here and elsewhere.
In late Greek iavroy became habitually nsed for all persons in the reflexive^
and scribes substituted the form most usual to them.
Th« order of the commandmenta is different &om that in the Hebrew text
S74 IPISTLI TO THE ROMANS [XIO. 0, 10k
both in Exodna xs. 13 and Dent. t. i^, namely, (6) Thon ahalt do no mnrder,
(7) Thou shalt not commit adultery, (8) Thou shalt not steal. The MSS
of the LXX vary ; in Exodu* B reads 7, 8, 6, A F 6, 7, 8 ; in Deut. B readi
7, 6, 8 (the order here), A F 6, 7, 8. The order of Romans is that also ol
lAkezviii. ao; James ii. 11 ; Philo Dt Dtcalogo; Clem. -Alex. Strom, vi. 16^
Kai ci Tis IWpa 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.
dKaxc^JaXaiouTai : a rhetorical term used of the summing up of
a speech or argument, and hence of including a large number of
separate details under one head. As used in Eph. i. 10 of God
summing up all things in Christ it became a definite theological
term, represented in Latin by recapitulatio (Iren. III. xxii. a).
'AYaTn^ccis T&i' irXT)o'ioi' <rou As ioMct^v. Taken from Leviticas
xiz. 18 where it sums up a far longer list of commandments. It
is quoted Matt. xxii. 39; Mark xii. 31 ; Luke z. %1\ Gal. v. 14;
James ii. 8 where it is called /3ao-iXi«t6f v6\Mt.
10. y\ dydirt) . . . ofiic ^pyd^eTaj. Lc»ve fulfls 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 i Cor. xiii.
4-6.
irXT]pu(ia, ' complete fulfilment.' The meaning of wX. here is
given by ver. 9 ' He that loveih his neighbour has fulfilled (frnrXq-
p^Kd*) law, therefore love is the fulfilment (7rXt?p«/ia) of law.
The History of the word a.y&'ui\*
There are three words in Greek all of which may be translated by th«
English 'love,' kpaoi, tpiKtw, dyandoj. Of these ipioj with its cognate form
foanai was originally associated with the sexual passion and was thence
translerred to any strong passionate affection ; <pi\ia) 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. ipdv is combined with iiriOvixeiv and contrasted with <pt\Hy as in
Xen. J/ier. xi. 11 Sxtt* oi fioi'ov (ptXoio &v d\\d Kal ip^o. One special use
of tpojs and ipau 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 ipui was used
for the highest human desire, that for true knowledge, true virtue, true
Immortality.
The distinction of <(n\{o) and dYav<ia> much resembled that between mm0
and diligo. The one expressed greater affection, the other greater esteem.
So Dio Cassius xliv. 48 (^i^rjaart avriv in naripa xai i^yaTrjcart As tvtp-
yirrjv; and John xxi. 15-17 ^iyu air^ wikiy dtvrtpow, j^ficor "lativov,
dyawq.t fit ; A.«7«< avT^, Na«, Kvpif vv oldas Srt (pt\S> at tc.r.X. (see Trench,
Sjm. § xii). It is significant that no distinction is absolute; but ^Xiv
occasionally, still more rarely dyairdoi, are both used incorrectly of the
sexual passion. There is too close a connexion between the different forma
of human affection to allow any rigid distinction to be made in the use ol
trords.
When these words were adopted into Hellenistic Gredc, « gradual ebanfe
XIII. 8-10.] LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW 375
wms made in their use. tpiot and its cognates are very rarely nsed, and
almost invariably in a bad sense. In the N. T. they do not occur at all. the
word tiriOv/xfOj being employed instead. Yet occasionally, even in biblical
and ecclesiastical Greek, the higher sense of the Platonic t'/xus finds a place
(Prov. It. 6; Wisdom viii. 2 ; Justin, JDia/. 8, p. 225 B ; Clem.- Alex. Cok.
II, p. 90; see Lightfoot, Ignatius ad Rom. vii. 3). Between dvaTratu and
^iXlot a decided preference was shown for the former. It occurs about
a68 times (Hatch and Rcdpath) in a very large proportion of cases as a
translation of the Hebrew 3nK ; <pt\io) about twelve times (Trommius), ex-
cluding its use as equivalent to tsculor. This choice was largely due to the
use of the Hebrew word to express the love of God to man, and of man to
God (Deut. xxiii. 5; xxx. 6; Hosea iii. i); it was felt that the greatei
amount of intellectual desire and the greater severity implied in u7a7rdcu fitted
it better than <pL\iiu for this purpose. But while it was elevated in meaning
it was also broadened ; it is used not only of the love of father and son, oi
husband and wife, but also of the love of Samson for Delilah (Jud. xvi. 4)
and of Hosea's love for his adulterous wife (Hos. iii. i). Nor can there be any
donbt that to Hebrew writers there was in a pure love of God or of righteous-
ness something of the intensity which is the highest characteristic of human
passion (Is. Ixii. 5). irfOMio) in the LXX corresponds in all its characteristics
to the English ' love."
But not only did the LXX use modify the meaning of d7an-da>, it created
a new word d7d»i7. Some method was required of expressing the conception
which was gradually growing up. 'Epous had too sordid associations. 4>(Aia
was tried (Wisdom vii. 14; viii. 18), but was felt to be inadequate. The
language of the Song of Solomon created the demand for a-^airT]. (2 Kings
I or a times ; Ecclesiastet 3 ; Canticles 1 1 ; Wisdom 3 ; Ecclus. i ; Jeremiah i ;
Pi. Sol. I.)
The N.T. reproduces the usage of the LXX, but somewhat modified.
While ar^anao) is used 138 times, (piKtoi is used in this sense 23 times (,13 in
St. John's Gospel) ; generally when special emphasis has to be laid on the
relations of father and son. But the most marked change is in the use of
ovdm;. It is never used in the Classical wTiters, only occasionally in the
LXX ; in early Christian writers its use becomes habitual and general.
Nothing could show more clearly that a new principle has been created than
this creation of a new word.
In the Vulgate dfim] is sometimes rendered by dileciio, sometimes by
taritat; to this inconsistency are due the variations in the Enr;lish
Authorized Version. The word caritas passed into English in the Middle
Ages (for details see Eng. Diet, sub vac.) in the form 'charity, and was for
some time used to correspond to most of the meanings of d-^dnr] ; but as the
English Version was inconsistent and no corresponding verb existed the
usage did not remain wide. In spite of its retention in i Cor. xiii. 'charity'
became confined in all ordinary phraseology to ' benevolence,' and the
Revised Version was compelled to make the usage of the New Testament
consistent.
Whatever loss there may have been in association and in the rhythm of
well-known passages, there is an undoubted gain. The history of the word
ifavdat is that of the collection under one head of various conceptions which
were at any rate partially separated, and the usage of the N. T. shows that
the distinction which has to be made is not between <pi\f(u, dyandw and
ipdu, but between d7din7 and (mdv/xia. The English language makes this
distinction between the affection or passion in any form, and a purely animal
desire, quite plain ; although it may be obliterated at times by a natural
euphemism. But setting aside this distinction which must be occasionally
present to the mind, but which need not be often spoken of, Christianity does
Bot shrink from declaring that in all fomas of htmnan passion and affection
576 XPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZIII. 8-10.
which are not purely animal there is present that lame love which in itt
highest and most pure development forms the essence and aom of the
Christian religion. This affection, horwever perverted it may b«, Christianity
does not condemn, bat so far aa may be elevates and porifiei.
Tht Christian Teaching #» Lovt,
The somewhat lengthy history just given of the word <lytJinj It
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' {Pirqt
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, miiting
our moral instincts with our highest 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 Chnst Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile,
XIIL U.] THE DAY IS AT HAND 577
bond nor free, male nor female/ As it i'a 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 b> blood or language,
have certain mutual duties arising out of their common relation to
God ' {Ecct HomOt 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 ot
it sacred with reflected glory.' This is what Christ did for us.
These three points will help to elucidate what St. Paul means by
oyaffjy. 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 ii the end and root of both.
THB DAY 18 AT HAinO.
XIII. 11-14. The night of this corrupt agi is flying.
The Parousia is nearing. Cast off your evil ways. Gird
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 ot
life, the nearness of our final salvation.
Ral TOOT©, ' and that too ' : cp, i Cor. vi. 6, 8 ; i.ph. it 8, &c. : it
I? 8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIII. Il-IA
resumes the series of exhortations implied in the previous 8ection« ;
there is no need to supply any special words wiih it.
Tof Koip<5j' : used of a definite, measured, or determined time, and
so almost technically of the period before the second coming of
Christ: cf. I Cor. vii. 2g 6 Kaipis in/vcaraXftcW ; Mark i. 15; and
so 6 Kaioos 6 ivtaras (Heb. ix. 9).
oTi <3pa r\hi\ K.T.X. ^5^7 with fyepdrjvtu. 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.
yuv ydp eyyuTcpov k.t.X. ' 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.'
oTf (TTKTTfvaafifv 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 vfidi (N A BC P, Clem.-Alex.) has been corrected
for the sake of uniformity into v^aj (K« D E F G L, &c., lioh. Sah.). In ver. 1 3
iy fpitJi Kal (t]\ois is a variant of B, Sah., Clem.-Alex. Amb. In ver. 14 B,
and Clem.-Alex. read riv Xptcrir l^aovv, which may very likely be the
correct reading.
12. irpoeKovJ/ei', ' has advanced towards dawn.* Cf. Luke ii. 52 ;
Gal. i. 14 ; Jos. Bell. Jud. IV. iv. 6 ; Just. Dial. p. 277 d.
The contrast of xinvos, vv^, and (r«t<5ror with ij/i/pa and <^ut finds
many illustrations in Christian and in all religious literature.
diro6c5jx€0a. The works of darkness, 1. 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 (i Thess. v, 8; a 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. Sib. iii. 663 f. ; 4 Ezra xiii. 33; Enoch
xc. 16). but in St. Paul the conception has become completely
spiritualized.
13. iuay^r[^6vu>% irepiiroT^awjitr. The metaphor ittpinartiw ol
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.
KtdiJiois, 'rioting,' 'revelry' (Gal. v. ti; i Pet iv. 3). ni&tf the
drunkenness which would be the natural result and accompaniment
ftf such revelry.
KoiTait Kol dacXyciait, 'unlawful intercourse and wanton acts.
*Opa bi rqy rafty* mmjta^ttv ftip yip rtt iu6\m^ fuOvrnv ii Ko^Ta^^Ttu^
Xm. 18, 14.] THE DAY IS AT HAND 379
MMTof o/xcvw it AfftXyaivri, rov ouwv rovrov t§ it\ti<ritop§ wvpirdktwnt tmi
iupt6iCo^of' Euthym.-Zig.
14. et'SuvcMrOc tok KupioK *lT)<roui' Xpi(rr6v. 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).
Tiis aapK^s with rrpovoiop ; 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. Con/ess.
viii. I a, 33 Arrtpui, aperui «t legi in silent io capilulum, quo pri-
mum coniecti sunt oculi mei: Non in conversationibus et ebrie-
tatibus, non in cubilibus et impudicitiis, non in contentione et
aemulatione : sed induite Dominum lesum Christum, et carnis
providentiam ne feceritis in concupiscentiis. Nee ulira volui
legere, ntc opus erat. Siatim quippe cum fine huiusce sententiae quasi
luct secwrikUis infusa cardi meo, omnes dubitationis ttnebrat di§u-
gtruHt,
Tht tarty Christian belief in thi nearness of th4
Ttapovala,
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 ofnnions 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 (i Cor. vii. 29-31; Rom. xiii. ii, 12; Phil. iv. 5; and
on the other side 2 Cor. v. i-io; Phil. i. 23; iii. 11, 20, ai ; see
Jowett, Thessalonians, &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
28o EPIS11.E TO THE ROMANS (XIII. 11-14
which was often hardly intended to be taken literally even bj
Jewish writers; moieover 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. All 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 God 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. Acts i. 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 ; but,
If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ?' Moreover
he afiBrmed 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 Cimrch was permitted and that with
^ 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 seal 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 thai
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 principlf^
XIII. U~14.] THE DAY IS AT HAND 38]
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.
Thi 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. di. 14. Matt t. 44.
tikoy^t, Mtd /t^ marapaaOt, «rfx«^^c ^^P "^^ SiuKovran' ifias,
Rom. xiil. 7. Matt. zxii. ai.
A969cfn tSot nU i^tiKit «.rJL iwSioT* oir rd Kataapot Kaierapi,
Mol rd rod Btov r^ &($.
Rom. siii. 9. Matt. xxii. 39, 40.
mat rf Tit Mpa irroK^, h roirp itvripa ii o/«oia avrij, 'Ayav^aeit
r^ \6y^ dra/vc^aXatovreu, ir r^ riy ■KXrjalov aov dn aeavrSv. iv ravrait
'A-farfiotu riif wXriaiov 9tm it Tofs Svalv irroXait iKos 6 ydfios xpi'
lavT^r ftartu itai ol vpo<prJT<u.
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 Epistle, p. 31a) : ' Indeed it is not too much to add
that the Apostle's description of the kingdom of God (Rom. xiv. 1 7)
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 '
38ft EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZII-XIV
It Ji well known that there are definite references by St. Paul to
the words of our Lord : so i Thes. iv. 15 s= Matt. xxiv. 31 ; i Cor.
vii. 10 = Mark x. 9 ; i Cor. ix. 14 s Luke x. 7 ; as also in the case
of the institution of the Last Supper, i 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. 1 2 = Matt. v. 33 ; i Pet
iii. 9 =: Matt. v. 39 ; i Pet. iv. 14 = Matt. v. 11, la, 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 boih 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 oiu" 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 mndi more exact and definite conclosion if supported with Tery great
industry by Alfred Resch in a teries of investigations, the first of which ia
Agrapha, Ausstrcanonischs Evangeliin-fragmtntt in Textt und UtUtT'
nuhun^tn, v. 4. He argues (pp. 28, 39) that the acquaintance shown by
St. Paul with the words and teaching of Jesus implies the use of an Urcanon-
ische QuelUnschrift, 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 theory,
but so far as it concerns the passages we are considering it may be noticed :
(i) 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. (3) That it is equally impossible to argue against
the use of different Gospel*. 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. 245, 303 flf.)
on passages which are identical in Romans and i Peter. So Rom. xii. 1 7 °>
I Pet. iii. 9; Rom. xiii. i, 3 « i Pet. ii. 13, 14. The resemblance ia un-
doubted, but a far more probable explanation is that i 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
eommon teaching and even phraseology of the early Church than w« an
accsatomed to imagine goes back to the teaching of Jeaa»
JOV. l-XV. 7.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 383
Oir FOBBEABAKOE TOWABDS THOSE WHO ABE
SCBUFUIiOUS.
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 is 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 is more robust despise such scruples,
nor should they be censorious (w. 1-5).
Every one should make up his own mind. These things
are indifferent in themselves. Only whatever a man does he
must look to Christ. In life 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
(w. 6-12).
We must avoid censoriousness. But equally must we
avoid placing obstacles before a fellow- Christian. I believe
firmly that nothing is harmful in itself, but it becomes so to
the person who considers it harmful. The obligation of love
and charity is paramount. Meats are secondary things.
Let us have an eye to peace and mutual help. It is not
worth while 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 (w. 13-ai).
Keep the robuster faith with which you are blest to
yourself and God. To hesitate and then eat is to incur
guilt ; for it is not prompted by strong faith (w. 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
(onus, grant you all — weak and strong, Jew and Gentile — to
h* of one mind, uniting in the praise of God (xv. 1-7).
^84 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 1.
For Christ has received you all alike. To both yew and
Gentile He has a special mission. To the Jews to exhibit
God's veracity, to the Gentiles to reveal His mercy ; that
Gentile might unite with Jew, as Psalmist and Prophet
foretold, in hymns of praise to the glory of God. May God
the giver of hope send it richly upon you (w. 8-13).
XTV. 1 — XV. 13. 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. Mart. r. 15) refers to ver. 10, tnd Origen {Cemm. Im
Rom. X. 43, Lomni. vii. p. 453) to vtt. %%. Of Marcicn's ose of the rest of ths
chapter we know nothing. On chapa. xv, xri, see Introduction, § 9.
1. thv %\ dafieKoon-a t^ moTci: cf. Rom. iv. 19; I Cor. viii. 7, 9,
10, II ; ix. 2%. '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 tiiis salvation
more certain by the scrupulous fulfilment of formal rules.
irpoaXafi^dt'caOc, 'receive into full Christian intercourse and
fellowship.' The word is used (i) of God receiving or helping
man : Ps. XXVi (xxvii) 10 a nati\p (utv ml ^ Mfrjp fum iyKOTfkurov fUy
6 8« Kvpios irpodikdHtTo fit: so in ver. 3 below and in Clem.
Rom. xlix. 6 «V dydirp npo(Tf\a0{T9 iffMt 6 fieaironys. But (a) it is
also used of men receivmg others into fellowship or companion-
ship : 3 Mace. viii. I tovs fttpevTfK&ras iv r^ 'lovbeuafi^ npoaXaffdfitvot
avvriyayov (Is i^aKia-^iXiovs. 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.*
(if) els SiaKpiaeis SiaXoyiofiuK, 'but not to pass judgement!
on their thoughts.' Receive them as members of the QiristiaB
znr. 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. dioKpivtis, from diaKpivm
to 'judge,' 'decide/ 'distinguish/ means the expression of judge-
ments or opinions, as Heb. v. 14 'judgement of good or evil/
I Cor. xii. lo 'judgement or discernment of spirits.' diaXoyiarnap
means ' thoughts,' often, but not necessarily, with the idea of doubt,
hesitation (Luke xxiv. 38), disputes (Phil. ii. 14; i Tim. ii. 8), or
generally of perverse self-willed speculations. The above interpre-
tation of duiKpiaeit 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.
2. The Apostle proceeds to describe the two classes to which
he is referring, and then (ver. 3) he gives his commands to both
sides.
St |tjv . . . A 82 ivHvAv. With the variation in constmction cf. i Cor.
siL 8-10 ; Mark iv. 4 ; Lake viii. 5. The second 6 is not for it, hot is to be
taken with da$(v&y.
vurrcJci, ' 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.
Xdxai'a 4a6ici, ' 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. 6 iadlm . . . 6 82 fif| cadiW. 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 spint
of censoriousness of the other.
6 eefts Y^P ""TaK irpoaeXcipeTO. See ver. i. 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. orA Tis ct; St. Paul is still rebuking the 'weak.' The man
386 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZTV. 4, &
whom he is condemning is not a household slave, bat the servant of
God ; to God therefore he is responsible.
Tw iSi'w Kupi^. Dat. of reference: cf. w. 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, mirrci
(xi. II, 2 a) of moral failure; <m^iiei (i Cor. xvi. 13; Phil. L 27) of
moral stability. In i Cor. x. is the two are contrasted, &(m i
ioKuv icnavai ^Xtnira fif) itiaij.
oraGriaeToi 8rf: 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
has called.
For Zvrar ft (KA6CDFG), which is an tmasul word, later MSS.
substituted 5wot<5» (P, Bas. Chryj.), or iwarbt . . . iarir (T R with L
and later MSS.). For 6 Kvpwt (N A B C P. Sah. Boh., &c) 6 BtSt was iiw
troduced from vcr. 3 (DEFGL, See, Vu'.g., Orig.-lat Baa. Chzyt., &c),
perhaps because of the confusioa with r^ Kvpiqf above.
5. The Apostle turns to another instance of similar scrupulous-
ness,— the superstitious observance of days. In Galatia he has
already had to rebuke this strongly ; later he condemns the Colos-
sians for the same reason. Gal. iv. 10, 11 '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 ydp) the general discussion of the
chapter. The fundamental principle is that such things are in
themselves indifferent, but that each person must be fully 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 lovinian.
iL 1 6, quoted by Liddon ad loc. : non inter ieiunia et saluriiatem
aequalia mente dispensat ; sed contra tos loquitur, qui in Christum
tredentes, adhuc iudaizabani.) No such distinction is possible. The
Apostle is dealing with principles, not with special rites, and he
bys down the principle that these things in themselves are indif-
ferent; while the whole tenor of his argument is against scrupu-
lousness in any form. So these same principles would apply
equally to the scrupulous observance of Elcclesiastical rules, whethef
XIV. 6, e.J ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 387
as in some places of Sunday, or as in others of Saints ' days of
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 tt fiiy y&p with N A C P, Vulg. Boh. (which he
^otei incorrectly on the other side), Bas. Ambrstr. Jo.-Damasc. The yap is
omitted by N« B D E F 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.
KpiKCt, 'estimates/ 'approves of : Plat. Phil. p. 57 E is quoted,
vapd, ' passing by ' and so ' in preference to.'
irXt)po(t>opeiad(i). 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 vois, his highest intellectual faculty,
tells him to be right. On the word ■nXr^po^opdcrda see on iv. 21
and cf. Clem. Rom. xlii Tr^rjpocpopr/dfVTts 6ia t^s dvaa-Tda-tios.
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.
6 4>pot'fli' : ' esteem,' ' estimate,' ' observe. ' Kupiw, emphatic, is Dat.
of reference as above, ver. 4.
6 eaOiwK ... 6 (i^ iaQimv: 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 coxapiaxei to
ibe Christian tixapiarlai
After Kvp(> (pporu the TR. with later anthorities (LP &c., Syrr., Bas.
Chrys. Thdrt.) add ttai 6 /i^ <ppova>v Tyv ^fiipav Kvpiqi ov <ppov(l, a gloss
vhich seemed necessary for completing the sentence on the analogy of the
c c a
3^8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZIV. 0-9
last half of the Terse. The addition of this claoae eanacd the ominioa ol
Kai before 6 kirOiajv (TR. with »ome minnicnle*). That the wordi /«iM ^
<PpovSfv were not part» of the original text omitted by homoeotelenton ia
shown by the fact that many authorities which insert them still preserve the
superfluous icai (Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt. and many minoscoles). Varioni
instances of homoeotelenton occur, at might be expected, in these rerses, but
they are in all cases confined to a single or very slight authority. L omits «al
6 nf) iaeiuv . . . *ix. T^ t*^ : 66 omits i^fUpay to i^fiifof ; minmsc. 3 omit
iaBiti to l<r#(«i.
7-lS. 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. ouSeis Y&p . . . dvo6cY](ntci. 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. Tw Kupiu : ' 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 Pirqt Aboth, 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. Pan! describes the ChiistiaB lift
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 onion 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.
CIS TouTo is explained by Xva Kvpinnrji.
dir^daKc xal l'i(\irf.¥ must refer to Christ's death and resurrection.
tinfTtv cannot refer to the life of Christ on earth, (i) because of the
order of words which St. Paul has purposely and deliberately
varied from the order fw/xfr km cmoBvrjtTKttfifp 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 n-nod of humiliation (Rom. viii. 34; a Cor. iv. 10, 11); {3)
because of the tense ; the aorist t^rfirttr 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.
respwr koi IwKTMr. The inversion of the osual order is owing ta
ZIV. 0-12.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 389
the order of words in the previous part of the sentence, miO. m)
7C>7<''> For the Kvpt6rris of Christ {'va mpitiag) see Phil. ii. 9, 11.
For XfiarSt the TR. with later MSS., Syrr., Iren.-lat. reads itai Xpiarit.
A'wiewtv Koi. (Cv^ty, the older and most difficult reading (K A B C, Boh., Ann.
Aeth. Orig.-lat. Chrya. i/a) has been explained in various ways ; by avid. Koi
iifioni F G, Vnlg. Grig, and other Fathers ; by dviO. Kal dviar. xal wi^rjafp
TR. with mitmte. (perhaps conflate^ ; by avle. Kal iviar. itdt iCtjatry LP.
Bee., HarkL and some Fathera : by iitia. mal dwi$. mal ofitrr. DE. Ireo.
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 ezclusiveness between man and man.
•d U Tt spirCit refers to i ^^ faBiav, {| xal v6 to i tardlcav.
vopoonio'tfficSa t^ ^Vifiart tow 6eou. Cf. Acts xxvii. 24 JLalvofA
9* d«t tra/KKTr^vou. For |3^/mi, in the sense of a judge's official seat,
see Matt. zxviL 19; Jo. zix. 13, &c. God is here mentioned as
Judge because (see ii. 16) He judges the world through Christ.
In fl Cor. ¥.10 the expression is rovr yap iravrat fipas (paytpad^vai JWt
tpnpooBtp rov fitjfiaros rov Xpiarov. It is quite impossible to follow
Liddon in taking Qtov 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 Xpiards to e(6s. 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
nnion of the Father and the Son.
•cov mtut be accepted as against ILpiarov on decisive authority. The
latter reading arose from a desire to assimilate the expression to 2 Cor. y. 10.
11. St Paul supports his statement of the universal character of
God's judgement by quoting Is. xlv. 23 (freely ace. 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.
^loiAoXoyVjacTai t^ 06«, ' shall give praise to God,' according to
the usual LXX meaning ; cf. xv. 9, which is quoted from Ps. xvii
(xviii). 50.
(Si iyi/, Xiyat Kipiot is snbstitiited for gar' tftavrov hpa^iu, cf. Nam. xiy. a8
ftc ; for maa, y\waaa c.r.X. the LXX reads ifiurcu 9. 7. riy 8c<ir.
12. The conclusion is : it is to God and not to man that each of
OS has to give account. If e*(» be read (see below), it may again
be noted how easily St. Paul passes from Kvpios to Ocdt (see on
vcr. lo and cf. xiv. 3 with xv. 7).
There are several minor variations of text. cZr ia omitted by B D F G P y. , ^^TWi
and perhaps the Latin authorities, which read itaqtu. For hitati of the TR. fi
590 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 12-14
WH. read Awo9i,<Tu with B D F G Chrys., the Larin authorities readtog reddH
(but Cyprian dabit). ry et^ at the end of the sentence is omitted by B F G
Cypr. Aug, In all these cases B is noticeable as appearing with a group
which is almost entirely Western in character.
13. The Apostle now passes to another aspect of the question.
He has laid down very clearly the rule that all such points are in
ih«mselves 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 ia
true, but higher than all is the rule of Christian charity, and this
demands, above all, consideration for the feelings and consciences
of others.
Mtjk^ti oZv . . . Kpifufter marks the transition to the second ques-
tion by summing up the first.
KpiKare: r the play on words cf. xii. 3, 14, xiii. i. 'Do not
therefore jud- e one another, but judge this for yourself, i. e. deter-
mine this as your course of conduct' : cf. 2 Cor. ii. i.
th |i^ TiQivtu . . . Tu d8£X()>w . . , aKd^SaXoK riOevai is suggested
by the literal meaning 01 aKavSaXov, a snare or stumbling-block
which is laid in the path. St. Paul has probably derived the word
(TKavbaXov and the whole thought of the passage from our Lord's
words reported in Matt, xviii. 6 f. See also his treatment of the
same question in i Cor. viii. 9 f.
irp6(rK0|i|i.a . . . t| should perhaps be omitted with B, Arm. Pesh. As
Weiss points out, the fact that jj is omitted in all authorities which omit irp.
proves that the words cannot have been left out accidentally. vpoanofi/M
would come in from i Cor. viii. 9 and ver. ao 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.
iv Kopiw 'Itjctou. The natural meaning of these words is the
same as that of tv Xp. (ix. i) ; to St. Paul the indifference of all
meats in themselves is a natural deduction from his faith and life
in Ciirist. 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 TrapfXa^ov diro tov Kvpiov.
Koiv6v. The technical term to express those customs and habits,
which, although 'common' to the world, were forbidden to the
pious Jew. Jos. An/. XIII. i. I roy KOIVov ^iov nporjprjpfvovsl
I Mace. L 47, 62; Acts X. 14 in 9v8fvoTa f<ji<ryop map Kowip nU
OKadaprov,
81* eauTou, ' in itself,' ' in its own nature.'
That it iavTov is the right reading is shown by (i) the authority of KBC
also of 2 (Cod. Patiriensis, see Introduction, § 7) supported by many later
MSS., the VulgatL, and the two earliest commentators Orig.-lat. In Dotnitu
trgo lesu nihil commune per semetipsum, hoc est natura sui dicitur, and
Chrys. r% <f>vati 4>riaiv ovUy i/taOapror and fa) by the contrast with t^
ZIV. 14-17.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 39]
K9-ii(onir^. Si' alrriA, * through Oirirt' (to Theodxt and later oomm.) fa
a correction,
cl )jif| Tu XoyitoiA^fu K.T.X. Only if a man supposes that the
breach of a ceremonial law is wrong, and is compelled by public
opinion or the custom of the Church to do violence to his belief, he
is led to commit sin ; for example, if at the common Eucharistic
meal a man were compelled to eat food against hi» conscience it
would clearly be wrong.
16. fi ydp. The ydp (which has conclusive manuscript authority)
implies a suppressed link in the argument. 'You must have
respect therefore for his scruples, although you may not share
them, for if,' &c.
XoireiToi. His conscience is injured and wounded, for hfc wiftully
and knowingly does what he thinks is wrong, and so he is in danger
of perishing (an-oXXue).
Air^p oS XpioTos &niBa¥M. Cf. I Cor. viii. 10, 11. Christ died
to save this man from his sins, and will you for his sake not give
up some favourite food ?
16. fit) pXaa(j>if)fic ia0w a.T.X. Let not that good of yours, I e. your
consciousness of Christian freedom (cf. i Cor. x. 29 fi fXfvSfpla fiov),
become a cause of reproach. St. Paul is addressing the strong, as
elsewhere in this paragraph, and the context seems clearly to point,
at least primarily, to opinions within the community, not to the
reputation of the community with the outside world. The above
interpretation, therefore (which is that of Gifford and Vaughan),
is better than that which would refer the passage to the reputation
of the Christian community amongst those not belonging to it
(Mey-W. Lips. Liddon).
17. Do not lay such stress on this freedom of yours as to cause
a breach in the harmony of the Church ; for eating and drinking are
not the principle of that kingdom which you hope to inherit
ii ^aaiXcia toO eeoO. An echo of our Lord's teaching. The
phrase is used normally in St. Paul of that Messianic kingdom
which is to be the reward and goal of the Christian life ; so
especially i Cor, vi. 9, 10, where it is laid down that certain classes
shall have no part in it. Hence it comes to mean the principles or
ideas on which that kingdom is founded, and which are already
exhibited in this world (cf. i Cor. iv. ao). The term is, of course,
derived through the words of Christ from the current Jewish con-
ceptions of an actual earthly kingdom ; how far exactly such
conceptions have been spiritualized in Sl Paul it may be difficult
to say.
Ppucrit Rol v6(7if. If, as is probable, the weak brethren are
conceived of as having Judaizing tendencies, there is a special point
m this expression. * If you lay so much stress on eating and drinking
as to make a point oi indulging in what you will at all costs, you are
393 BPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 17-2a
in danger oX falling into the Judaizing course of interpreting the
Messianic prophecies literally, and imagining the Messianic kingdom
to be one of material plenty * (Iren. V. zxxiii. 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.'
BiKaiovJinr) ict.X. 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. i^K(uo<nvr| therefore is not
used in its technical sense of the relation between God and man,
but means righteousness or just dealing ; tlpiivrf is the state of peace
with one another which should characterize Christians ; x°P<> ^s the
joy which comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the
community; of. Acts ii. 46 funXaftfiafop Tfo<p^s iv ayaXXid(r«t Kok
of^iK&nfTi KapSiat.
18. The same statement is generalized The man who, on the
principle implied by these virtues {tp rovrtf, not iv rovrott), 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.
S6ki)ios Tots d^dptSirois. The contrast to ^\a<T<^t^'ur6» of ver. 16.
Consideration for others is a mark of the Christian character which
will recommend a man to his fellow-men. doVt/bior, able to stand
the test of inspection and criticism (cf. 2 Tim. ii. 15).
19. OtKO$0)iT)$ : cf. I Cor. Xiv. a 6 vavra vpot aUodoft^p fivtaSm,
I TheSS. V. 1 1 oWoiontirt ils rov iva.
it^KOfiw (KABFGLP3) is reallj more expressive than the tomewhat
obvious correction Siifiutfuw (C D £» Latt). D £ F G who add <pv\&^oiitar
after dMi^Xovt.
20. KardXuc . . . ff>yor keeps up tne metaphor suggested by
•tKoionTft. 'Build up, do not destroy, that Christian communi^
which God has founded in Christ.' Cf. i Cor. iii. 9 Qfov yap iafuv
avvtpyoL 6(ov ytatpyiov, Qtov MKoiofiTf itrrt. The words tip^yf and
•iKoiofjifl both point to the community rather than the individual
Christian.
vdfTa |Ur ita9ap<fi: cf. I Cor. X. S3 frdvra Z^tvrv, aXX' •i wii^rm
9Vfi<f)fptt. ndvTa c|coTM>, aXX' ov warra otKoiofUi.
&XX& KOK^r : the subject to this must be supplied from rdyra. It
b a nice question to decide to whom these words refer, (i) Are
they addressed to the strong, those who by eating are hkely to give
ofifence to others (so Va. Oltr., and the majority of commentaries) }
XIV. 20-aa] ON scrupulousness 393
or (a) 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 6ia npoaKSiiftaros (on the 8td cf. ii.
S7, 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. ai is slightly better if we take (i).
SI. 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.
caXJr : cf. i Cor. vii. i and for the thought i Cor. viii. 13 iiAirtp,
•I Pp&iia aitavidki(iit rhv uSt\<p6t> fiov, oi fi^ <f)dyo» Kpta €ts t6v alS>va, iva
ft^ rir ditX<f»6¥ pov aKopiaikiata, 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 wpoffKSwrtt the gloss ^ oKavta\((tTai Ij dattvtt with B
Western and Syrian authorities (K«BDEFGLP, &c., Vnlg. Sah., Bas.
Chry».). They are omitted by K A C 3, Pesh. Boh., Grig, and Orig.-lat. Thia
k a yery clear inatance of a Western reading in B ; cf. xi. 6.
82. <rd vi<rrtr <|k Jx«i5« 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 (K ABC, Vnlg. ccdd. Boh., Orig.-lat.)
compels OS to read ^ Ix^it. The omission of Ijv (D E F G L P 3, Vulg.
€0da. Syrr. Boh., Chrys. &c.) is a Western correction and an improvement.
|iaK(ipio« it.T.\. 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 Kpivmv, to 'judge
censoriously so as to condemn,' cf. ii. i, 3, 27). doM/xafrt (i. a8,
iL 18) to ' approve of after testing and examining.'
23. 6 S^ SiaKpiKiSiicrafi : see on iv. 30. 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.
noM 8^ S oOk ^k irioTc&is, dftapria lm¥. witrru fe 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 (i) is not
concerned with the usual conduct of unbelievers, (2) must not be
394 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 23-XV. L
extended to cases different in character from those St Paul is
considering. It is not a general maxim concerning faith.
This verse hai had a very important part to play in controveny. How
important may be seen from the use made of it in Augustine Contra lulianum
iv, one passage of which (§ 3a) may be quoted: Ex quo coUii^itur, etiam
ipsa bona opera quae faciunt infidehs, non ipsorum esse, sed illius qui bene
utilur malis. Ipsorum autem esse peccata quibus et bona male faciunt ;
quia ta non fideli, sed infidell, hoc est stulta et noxia faciunt voluntate:
qualis voluntas, nullo Christiana dubitante, arbor est mala, quaefacere non
potest nisi fructus tnalos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, velis nolis. quod
non est ex fide, peccatum est. Since this time it has 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 pui-pose to enter. It is sufficient to
notice that this verse is in such a context completely mi'^quoted. As Chry-
sostom says, ' When a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing it
clean, how can he do else than sin ? Now all tliese 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 vsed 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 mom *st ex fide
peccatum est. id est, omne quod est contra conscitntiam.
On the doxology (xvi. 35-27), which in some MSS. finds a place here, we
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 vv. 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.
6(t>£iXo|iCf 8^. 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. 01 SukaTot not, as in i Cor. i. 36, the
rich or the powerful, but as in s Cor. xii. 10, xiii. 9, of the morally
strong.
Pao-Td^eif : cf. Gal. ri. a ak\f)\»v rh /Sdpjj ^a<TTa(fn. In classical
Greek the ordinary word would be (f>(peiv, but /Saordffiv seems to
have gradually come into use in the figurative sense. It is used o^
bearing the cross both literally (John xix. 17), and figuratively
(Luke xiv. 27V We find it in later versions of the O. T. In Aq.,
Symm. and Theod. in Is. xl. 11, Ixvi. 12; in the two latter in
Is. Ixiii. 9; in Matt. viii. 17 quoting Is. liii. 3: in none of these
passages is the word used in the LXX. It became a favourite word
in Christian literature, Ign. Ad Polyc. i, Epist. ad Diog. § 10 (quoted
by Lft.).
fiT) ^auTois dp^aKcir: cf. I Cor. X. 33 Kada>r Koyo) itavrtL. matra
ipfaKu, fth CnTQ>v TO €fimiTov (Tv^cpifMv, where St. Paul is describing his
ZV.2-4.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 395
own conduct in very similar circumstances. He strikes at the root
of Christian disunion, which is selfishness.
2. CIS t6 dyadoK irpos oiKoSofii]i> : cf. xiv. 16 vfx&v t6 dya66v, 19 rd
f^t olKoSonfjt rfis tls aAXijXovf. The end or purpose of pleasing them
must be the promotion of what is absolutely to their good, further
defined by oUoBon^, their edification. These words limit and
explain what St. Paul means by ' pleasing men.' In Gal. i. lo
(cf. Eph. vi. 6 ; i Thess. ii. 4) he had condemned it. In i Cor. ix.
30-23 ^^ ^^^ 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 y6p after ticaarot of the TR. should be omitted. For ijfuar •ome
authorities (F G P 3, Valg., many Fathers) read ifiSv.
8. Kol yAp 4 Xpiaros b.t.X. 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.
KaGus y^YP**''"'**' 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. 9 a in John ii. 17, ver. 9 b in Rom. xv. 3, ver. 12
in Matt, xxvii. 27-30, ver. 21 in Matt, xxvii. 34, and John xix. 29,
ver. 22, t in Rom. zL 9, ver. 25a in Acts i. ao. (See Liddon,
ad loc.)
ot dKciSiafioC R.T.X. 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 suifering
it was the reproaches or sufferings of others that He bore.
4. The quotation is justified by the enduring value of the O. T.
•irpo€Yp<£<|>r], 'were written before,' in contrast with fjfitTfpav:
cf. Eph. iii. 3 ; Jude 4, but with a reminiscence of the technical
meaning of ypdcfxiv for what is written as Scripture.
SiSoaKaXiaf, 'instruction*: cf. a Tim. iii. 16 ndaa ypa(f)ii 6f6-
vvtvoTos Koi ct>0cX(/L(Of rrpos diSaaKoXiav.
T^K AttiSo : the specifically Christian feeling of hope. It is the
supreme confidence which arises from trust in Christ that in no cir-
cumstances 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 oi endurance and his experience
of consolation. On the relation of patience to hope cf. ▼. 3 and
I Thess. L 3.
196 SPISTLK TO THE ROMAKft [XV. A-^
This passage, and that quoted above from i Tim. iii. i6, 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
Talue 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 ai« in thla Ten* • few IdloeyBcrMiet of B which muij be noted b«t
need not be accepted; iypi^ (with Volg. Orig.-lat.) for wpotypitp^ i
wiyra before <b rilw i)/i. (with P) ; r^t wapaK\^iir*wt repeated after fx^M*'
(with Clem.-AL). The TR. with N« A L P 3, &c tnbititutea wfo«ypi(pii for
hpHl in the lecond place, and with C«« D £ F G P, &&, Volg. Boh. Hard,
omiti the second 8UL
5. After the digression of ver. 4 the Apostle rettuns to the sub-
ject of w. 1-3, and simu up his teaching by a prayer for the onity
of the community.
i Zk 6cd« Ti)s Avo|»orfit haI T()f vapaKX^<re«t : cf. i et6t r^t Wp4>^
(ver. 33; PhiL iv. 9; i Thess. v. •3; Heb. xiii. so), r^t fkwidot
(ver. 13), ndoTjt napaKX^vtmt (s Cor. L 3), wd<n)s x'^"' (> Pct.
V. 10).
rh oM ^porctr : cf. Phil. ii. S-5 wXtipmvart fum r^v K^P^^t ^ *^
airh <f>povrJT€ . . . rovro (ppovtiTt iv ifup & Koi tp Xp. 'I.
KarA Xpiorir 'ItiaoGr: cf. S Cor. xi. 17 i XaX«», ov cari \.vpum
XaX« : Col. ii. 8 ov xor^ X/>. : £ph. iv. S4 ritv Kaivbp ipOpinrop rbit
warii Qthp KriaOtvra (Rom. viii. 87, 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'
9^ for 80(9, a later form, cf a Thest. iii. 16 ; a Tim. 1. 16, 18 ; ii. »$ ;
Eph. L 1 7 (bat with variant Sii^ in the last two cases). Xp. 'Itjo. (B D £ G L,
&C., Boh. Chrys.), not 'Iijff. X/). K A C F P 3 Vulg., Orig.-lat Theodrt.
6. Unity and harmony of worship will be the result of unity
of life.
A)iio0ufAa8i$r, ' with unity of mind.' A common word in the Acts
(L 14, Ac).
■thv Qihv Kal waWpa tow Kupiow ^^w *li|(ro8 XpioroG. This expres-
sion occurs also in a Cor. i. 3 ; xi. 3 1 ; Eph. i. 3 ; i Pet. i. 3. In
Col. i. 3, which is also quoted, the correct reading is r^ efw naTp\
Tov Kvpiov fip.i>v *l. X. Two translations are possible : (i) ' God even
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ' (Mey.-W. Gif. Lid., Lips,).
In favour of this it is pointed out that while warrip expects some
correlative word, B«6t is naturally absolute; and that i &'ot tuH
XV. 6-8.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 597
warffp occurs absolutely (as in I Cor. XV. 24 irav wapaiifltH ri/w fiam-
\tiav Ty e€^ Kai troTpi), an argument the point of which does not
seem clear, and which suggests that the first argument has not
much weight. (2) It is better and simpler to take the words in
their natural meaning, ' The God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ' ; (Va. Oltr. Go. and others), with which cf. Eph. i. 17 6 eeAs
tov Kvplov ^ji&v *l. X. : Matt, xxvii. 46 ; Jn. xx. 17 ; Heb. i. 9.
7. The principles laid down in this section of the Epistle are
now generalized. All whom Christ has received should, without
any distinction, be accepted into His Church. This is intended
to apply especially to the main division existing at that time in the
community, that between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
%ih irpoaXafi^ciKcaOc dXXi^Xous k.t.X. : the command is no longer
to the strong to admit the weak, but to all sections of the com-
munity alike to receive and admit those who differ from them ; so
St. Paul probably said vfiat, not fjfias. The latter he uses in ver. i,
where he is identifying himself with the ' strong,' the former he uses
here, where he is addressing the whole community. On duJ cf. Eph,
ii. II ; I Thess. v. 11 : on irpoaXafi^avtadt see xiv. i, 3.
l/Ms is read by K A C E F G L, Vulg. Eoh. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. ; H/uit
by B D P3. B is again Western, and its authority on the distinction between
^fxas and vfias is less trostwortiiy than on most other points (see WH. tt.
pp. ai8, 310).
CIS SiJfoK 0605 with frpoo-eXajS"-© : *in order to promote the
jlory of God.' As the following verses show, Christ has sum-
moned both Jews and Greeks into His kingdom in order to
promote the glory of God, to exhibit in the one case His faithful-
ness, in the other His mercy. So in Phil. ii. 11 the object of
Christ's glory is to promote the glory of God the Father.
8. St. Paul has a double object. He writes to remind the Gen-
tiles that it is through the Jews that they are called, the Jews that
the aim and purpose of their existence is the calling of the Gentiles.
The Gentiles must remember that Christ became a Jew to save
them ; the Jew that Christ came among them in order that all the
families of the earth might be blessed : both must realize that the
aim of the whole is to proclaim God's glory.
This passage is connected by undoubted links {816 ver. 7 ; Xry«»
yap ver. 8) with what precedes, and forms the conclusion of the
argument after the manner of the concluding verses of ch. viii. and
ch. xi. This connexion makes it probable that ' the relations of
Jew and Gentile were directly or indirectly involved in the rela-
tions of the weak and the strong.' (Hort, Jiom. and Eph. p. 29.)
SidKOfoi* . . . ircpiTO(tTis : not ' a minister of the circumcised,' still
less a * minister of the true circumcision of the spirit,' which would
be introducing an idea quite alien to the context, but ' a minister
of circumcision' (so Gifibrd, who has an excellent note), Le. ta
39^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZV. 8-ia
cany out the promises implied in that covenant the seal of which
was circumcision ; so a Cor. iii. 6 diaK6t>ovt Kaiinjt iiadrjKrjg, In the
Ep. to the Galatians (iv. 4, 5) St. Paul had said that Christ wai
' born of a woman, bom 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, xviL
1-14.
The privileges of the Jews which St. Paul dwells on are as fol-
lows : (i) Christ has Himself fulfilled the condition of being circum-
cised: the circumcised therefore must not be condemned, (a) The
primary object of this was to fulfil the promises made to the Jews
(cf Rom. ii. 9, 10). (3) It was only as a secondary result of thig
Messiahship that the Gentiles glorified God. (4) While the bless-
ing came to the Jews i/nip aXr]dfias to preserve God's consistency, it
came to the Gentiles imip eXeowt for God's loving-kindness.
ytftvTJaOai, which should be read with K A E L P 3 (ytytnnjffSt) ; it WM
altered into the more usual aorist ytviaOai (B C D F G), perhai>s bMaoM it
was supposed to be co-ordinated with So^iaai.
tAs iiroYY^^io? f^y iroT^pwK '. cf. ix. 4, 5.
0. rh 8i lOt'T) . . . Soldaai. Two constructions are possible for
these words: (i) they may be taken as directly subordinate to X«y»
yap (Weiss, Oltr. Go.). The only object in this construction would
be to contrast imep Aeowr with inip aXrideias. But the real antithesis
of the passage is between /3f/3atw<rat ras inayyikias and TO e^w; 8of(i-
vai: and hence (a) to. 8f . . . (6vrf . . . bo^daai should be taken as
subordinate to ets t6 and co-ordinate with ^t^aiSxrai (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. 11, is,
16, 17).
Ka6us Yeypairnu. The Apostle proceeds, as so often in the
Epistle, to support his thesis by a series of passages quoted from
theO.T.
8ii TooTo K.T.X. : 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. i^opMKoyr)aofuu, ' I will praise thee ' : cf. xiv. 1 1.
10. Eu^pikv%i\n K.T.X. : 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 aa
interpreted by the LXX to imply that the Gentiles and chosen
people shall unite in the praise of God.
ZV. U-18.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 399
11. AlyeiTt K.T.X.: Ps. cxvi(cxvii). i. LXX. An appeal to all
nations to praise the Lord.
There are flight variations in the Greek text and in the LXX. For v&vra
rd lOyri rdv Kvpiov C F G L have riy K. ir. r. i. agreeing with the order of
the LXX. hatvta&Tuoav is read by K A B C D E Chrys. (so LXX A M
alffadrttftray) Iwaifiaart by latt MSS. with later LXX MSS.
12. 'Eorai ^ ^((a k.t.X. : from Is. xi. 10, a description of the
Messianic kingdom, which is to take the place of that Jewish king-
dom which is soon to be destroyed. The quotation follows the
LXX, which is only a paraphrase of the Hebrew ; the latter runs
(RV.) ' And it shall come to pass in that day, that Uie root of Jesse,
which standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the
Gentiles seeL'
18. The Apostle concludes by invoking on his hearers a bless-
ing— that their faith may give them a life full of joy and peace, that
in the power of the Holy Spirit they may abound in hope.
4 eeis Tf]5 AiriSos : cf. ver. 5. The special attribute, as in fact
the whole of the benediction, is suggested by the concluding words
of the previous quotation.
irooTif x«P*s »«' tlp-h^%' The joy and peace with God which is
the result of true faith in the Christian's heart. On tlp^vt) see i. 7.
For wXijpwaai (most MSS.) B F G have the cnrioos variant irkripo(pop^atu.
B reads iw wdap x^Pt ""^ tlprrjvji and omits tis t6 vtptaatiuv : the peca-
liarities of this MS. in the last few verses are noticeable. D £ F G omit
The general question of the genuineness of these last two chapters is
discussed in the Litroduction (§ 9). It will be convenient to mention in
the course of the Commentary some few of the detailed objections that have
been made to special passages. In xv. 1-13 the only serious objection is
that which wai first raised by Baur and has been repeated by others since.
The statements in this section are supposed to be of too conciliatory a
character ; especially is this said to be the case with ver. 8. ' How can we
imagine,' writes Baur, ' that the Apostle, in an Epistle of such a nature and
•fter all that had passed on the subject, would make such a concession to the
Jewish Christians as to call Jesus Christ a minister of circumcision to confirm
the promises of God made to the Fathers?' To this it maybe answered
that that b exactly the point of view of the Epistle. It is brought out most
clearly in xi. 17-25 ; it is implied in the position of priority always given to
tiie Jew (i. i6 ; ii. 9, 10) ; it is emphasized in the stress continually laid on
the relations of the new Gospel to the Old Testament (ch. iv, &c.), and
the importance of the promises which were fulfilled (i. 3 ; ix. 4). Baur'a
difficulty arose from an erroneous conception of the teaching and position of
St PanL For other argument* see Mangold, D«r Romerbrief, pp. 81-100.
What sect or party is referred to in Rom. XIV?
There has been great diversity of opinion as to the persons
referred to in this section of the Epistle to the Romans, but all
commentators seem to agree in assuming that the Aposde is
400 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV-XV la
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.
I. 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, Ac). 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. a, ai).
a. A second suggestion (Eichhom) 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 Ciiristians 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 Sl 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 {Haer. 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 thii
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 Jevish, 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-
mimity there, it is possible, fet if any one compares St. Paul'f
XIV.-XV. 18.'J ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 40I
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
scrupulousness, but from a completely inadequate theory of religion
and 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 {Judatsiic
Christianity, p. ia8)* ' 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 (Judaistic Christianity, p. ia6) 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 lulness,
it does so without the slightest sign that there is a reference to
a controversy then actually existing in the Roman Church.' Unior-
tunately he has not applied the same theory to this practical
portion of the Epistle : if he had done so it would have presented
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
is somewhat different from that which has usually been acceited,
and is, we venture to think, more natural. When St. Paul says in
ver. a 'the weak man eateth vegetables,' he does not mean that
there is a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes
»4
40a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV.-ZV. lA
a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness. When again hi
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 6 (ppovwv tti» fjfifpav, i fi^ faOinv he is not thinking
of any special body of people but rather of special types. When
again in ver. a i he says : ' It is good not to eat flesh, or drink
wine, or do anything in which my brother is offended,' he does
not mean that these vegetarians and Sabbatarians arc 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 ' (i 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 difiiculties had arisen owing to
ditierent forms of scrupulousness. There had been the difficulties
which had produced the Apostolic decree ; there were the diflSculties
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 405
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.
AFOLOGY FOB ADMONITIONa
XV. 14-21. These admonitions of mine do not imply that
t 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 ; tJie priest
who stands before the altar and presents to God the Gentile
Churches (w. 14-17).
And this is the ground of my boldness. For I can boast
of my spiritual labours and gifts ^ and of my wide activity in
preachi7ig the Gospel, and that, not where others had done so
before me, but where Christ was not yet named (w. 18-ai).
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.
T^irciafiai %i : cf viii. 38, ' Though I have spoken so strongly it
does not mean that I am not aware of the spiritual earnestness of
your church.'
Bal afirds ly^ vcpi d|iSK, 8n sal aOrot : notice the emphasis gained
by the position of the words. ' And not I inquire of others to know,
but / myself, that is, I that rebuke, that accuse you.' Chrys.
|ftc<rroi : cf. Rom. L 89, where also it is combined with ireirXi^/M*-
v(£(n|« yvAatmn'. 'our Christian knowledge in its entirety.' Cf.
I Cor. xiii. t kcU iav (xa> itpo({)T)Tfia9 xai ctdc0 ra fivar^pta wavra laA
niaav Tfjv yvSxnv, xai iav c^tt naaap r^v viarw K.r.X. yvims is USed for
the true knowledge which consists in a deep and comprehensive
grasp of the real principles of Christianitj.
404 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 14, 1&
«^ ft read by KBP, Clem.-Alez. Jo.-Daouuc. It It omlttad hj
AC DEFGL, &C.: Chry*. Theodn.
dyaObKruKiis : cf. a Thes3. i. ii; Gal. v. f i ; Eph. v. 9; nsed
only in the LXX, the N. T. and writings derived from them.
Generally it means 'goodness' or 'uprightness' in contrast with
KtKta, as in Ps. li. (lii.) 5 fjynmja-at Kcuciav tmip ayaduxTvyrjp : defined
more accurately the idea seems to be that derived from aya06s of
active beneficence and goodness of heart. Here it is combined
with yvSxTis, 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 CLrislian 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 -ffivrj are almost all late and mostly confined to Hellenistic
writers. In the N. T. we have i\(Tj)^oavvr), &axqnoaiivrj, dyiataivi), Uptxxvv^,
fifya\aiavvri : see Winer, § xvi. a /9 (p. 118, ed. Moulton).
SuK^ficcot Kal &XXi]Xous coudeTciK. Is it lajing 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
hat he writes, not because of their defects but of their merits.
It is diflicQlt to believe that any reader will find an inconsistency between
this verse and i. 11 or the exhortations of chap. xiT, 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 mors
point ' I am not finding fault with you, I am warning yon of dangers
you may incur, and I warn yon cspecudly owing to your prominent and
important position.'
16. ToX|iT]p<ST6por. The boldness of which St. Paul accuses
himself is not in sentiment, but in manner. It was dn-i uipovs, ' in
part of the Epistle', vi, 12 ff., 19; viii. 9; xi. 17 flF. ; xiL 3;
xiiL 3 ff., 13 ff., xiv.; xv. i, have been suggested as nistances.
i-ttava\i,ni.vf\(XK<av. WetStein quotes tKaarov vixav, Katntp anpifiiu
ftSora, o|i<ut firavafivrjacu fiovXofiai Demosthenes, Phit. 74» 7' The
«rt seems to soften the expression 'suggesting to your memory.'
St Paul is not teaching any new thing, or saying anything whick
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.
8id T^v x<^pt*' Tf)** ZoQ^lady f&oi. On St. Paul's Apostolic grace
cf. i. 5 di* ov iXd^ofitp \apuf xai dirooToX^i' : xU. 3 Xcyw yap duk r^r
\apiTos TT}S ioSfiarjs fioi.
It is probably preferable to read To^nrjporipon (A B, WH.) for roKfiripi'
rtpor. The TR. adds d5t\<po't after lypa^a ifuy against the best attthorities
(N A B C, Boh., Grig. Aug. Chrys.) ; the position of the word varies even in
MSS. in which it does occur. iv6 is a correction of the TR. for dr6 (K B F
Ja-Damasc.).
16. \tnoupy6v seems to be used definitely and technically as in
the LXX of a priest See esp. a Esdras xx. 36 (Neh. x. 37) toI*
Uptvai Tvils XtiTovpyovaiy iv oiK<f GcoO ^pwp. So in Heb. viii. 3 of OUT
Lord, who is apxieptvt and tS>v iyiwv XfiTovpyoi : see the note on i. 9.
Generally in the LXX the word seems used of the Levites as
opposed to the priests as in a Esdras xx. 39 (Neh. x. 40) ml ol
Upt'is Koi ol XuTovpyoi, but there is no such idea here.
UpoupYourra, ' 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.
Upovpyttv means (i) to 'perform a sacred function,' hence (a^ especially
to * sacrifice ' ; and so rd UpovpyfiOtvja means ' the slain victims ; and then
(3) to be a priest, to be one who performs sacred functions. Its con-
■traction is two-fold : (i) it may take the accusative of the thing sacrificed ;
so Bas. im Ps. txv *ai Upovprp^am aoi riiv r^; alvlatcas Ovaiav ; or (a)
Upovpyuv ri may be put for hpovpySy rivos (tvou (Galen, dt Thtriaea lanjnf
fio/y UpovpySy), so 4 Macc. vii. 8 (v. 1.) tovi Upovprfovvras t6v y6noy : Greg.
Naz. Upovpytty ooirrjpiay nvos (see Fri. mdlec. from whom this note is takoi).
^ irpo(r(f>opd. With this use of sacrificial language, cf. xii. i, a.
The sacrifices off"ered 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
(rurrpoo-SeKTot, I 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 irpoacpopa cf. Heb. x. 10 r. to» o-M/tarot*I. X^
17. Ixw oSv T^v RauxTjaii'. The ttiv 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, 8ia Tfjv x^P'" "?" ^oBt'ia-av iun, as proved
by his successful labours (w. 18-20); (a) the sphere of his
labours, the Gentile world, more especially that portion of it in
which the Gospel had iM>t been officially preached. The emphasis
4^6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 17-10.
therefore is on iv Xp. 'I,, and to irp'x: t6v Sf6v. Wiih KaCxrja-iv cf.
iii. 27, I Cor. xv. 31; with the whole verse, 2 Cor. x. 13 Tifxe'Lc fie
oix.'i fls TO nfifrpa KavxTjai'iifda ... 17 6 fie Kavxo^lJ-fvoi iv Kvpico KavxaaSa.
The RV. has not improved the text by adding r-qv before Kavxqatv. The
combination N A LP. Boh., Arm., Chrys., Cyr., Theodrt. is stronger than that
of B D E F G in this Epistle. C seems uncertain.
18. ou \Ap ToXfiiio-w K.T.X. ' For I will not presume to mention
any works but those in which I was myself Christ's agent for the
conversion of Gentiles.' St. Paul is giving his case for the assump-
tion of authority {KnCxwn). It is only his own labour or rather
works done through himself that he cares to mention. But the
value of such work is that it is not his own but Christ's working in
him, and that it is among Gentiles, and so gives him a right to
exercise authority over. a Gentile Church like the Roman.
With 7-SKixfiira> (XACDEFGLP, Boh. Hard., etc.) cf. 2 Cor.
X. 12; there seems to be a touch of irony in its use here; with
KareipyiiaaTo 2 Cor. xii. 12, Rom. vii. 13, &C. ; with \6yia Kai epya,
'in speech or action,' 2 Cor. x. 11.
19. i/ Zuvd'xei o-r]p,eta>i' k.t.X. : cf. 2 Cor. xii. 12 to /leV a-rjfiua tov
uTtocTToXov KaTcipyacrfr} iv vfiiv iv jracri; vwofiitvfj , crij/jifiois re Koi ripacri Kai
Svvaixecri: Heb. ii. 4 crvvfTTipapTvpovvTOs rdv Q(ov arjixflots re Koi repavi
Kai TTOiKi'Kms dvvnpfat Kai Uvevfiaroi 'Ayiov fifpKrp.ois Kara rrjv avTOV
6(\r]aiv: I Cor. xii. 28.
The combination arip.(Ta kol rlpara is that habitually used throughout the
N. T. to express what are popularly called miracles. Both words have the
same denotation, but different connotations, repa's implies anything mar-
vellous or extraordinary in itself, arjueiov represents the same event, but
viewed not as an objectless phenomenon but as a sign or token of the agency
by which it is accomplished or the purpose it is intended to fulfil. Often
a third word Swa/xdi is added which implies that these 'woiks' are the
exhibition of more than natural power. Here St. Paul varies the expres-
sion by saying that his work was accomplished in the power of signs and
wonders ; they are looked upon as a sign and external exhibition of the
Apostolic xapis. See Trench, Miracles xci ; Fri. ad loc.
There can be no doubt that St. Paul in this passage assumes that he
possessps the Apostolic power of working what are ordinarily called miracles.
The evidence for the existence of miracles in the Apostolic Church is two-
fold : on the one hand the apparently natural and unobtrusive claim made
by the Apostles on behalf of themselves or others to the power of working
miracles, on the other the definite historical narrative of the Acts of the
Apostles. The two witnesses corroborate one another. Against them it
might be argued that the standard of evidence was lax, and that the
miraculous and non-miraculous were not sufficiently distinguished. But will
the first argument hold against a pergonal assertion ? and does not the
narrative of the Acts make it clear that miracles in a perfectly coi rect sense
of the word were definitely intended ?
^i' SofdjAei rivcufjiaTos 'Ayio" : cf. ver, 13, and on the reading here
see below. St. Paul's Apostolic labours are a sign of commission
because they have been accompanied by a manifestation of more
TV. 10.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 407
thaii natural gifts, and the source of his power is the Holy Spirit
with which he is filled.
This seems one of those passages in which the valne of the text of B
where it is not vitiated by Western influence is conspicuons (cf. iv. 1). It
reads (alone or with the support of the Latin Fathers) wfVfMTos without
any addition. K L P &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c., add etod, A C D F G Boh.
Valg. Arm.. Ath. &e. read iylov. Both were corrections of what seemed an
imfinished expression.
dwd 'UpoiNraX?))ft sal rJhX^ I^^XP^ "^^ 'iXXupiRoS. These words
have caused a considerable amount of discussion.
I. The first question is as to the meaning of kCkK^.
(i) The majority of modern commentators (Fri. Gif. Mey-W.)
interpret it to mean the country round Jerusalem, as if it were Koi
rev KUKkf, and explain it to mean Syria or in a more confined
sense the immediate neighbourhood of the city. But it may be
pointed out that kvkX^ in the instances quoted of it in this sense
(Gen. zxxv. 5 ; xli. 48) seems invariably to have the article.
(a) It may be suggested therefore that it is better to take it as
do the majority of the Greek commentators and the AV. 'from
Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum.' So Oecumenius «v*cXw
in ftq T^y Kar tiidtiav 686v (v6vnr]6§s, dWa Kara to nepi$ and tO the
same effect Chrys. Theodrt. Theophylact. This meaning is exactly
supported by Xen. Anab. VII. i. 14 xal n6T(pa dm roi Iffjov opovs 8ioi
9optv(a6aiy % avaXy dta ^'<nfr i^« Qpms, and substantially by Mark
VL 6.
fl. It has also been debated whether the words ' as far as lUyria '
include or exclude that country. The Greek is ambiguous;
certainly it admits the exclusive use. p*xpt &a\diTcrr)s can be used
clearly as excluding the sea. As far as regards the facts the narra-
tive of the Acts (ra ptprf (Kuva Acts XX. 2 ; cf. Tit. iii. 12) suggests
that St. Paul may have preached in Illyria, but leave it uncertain.
A perfectly tenable explanation of the words would be that if
Jerusalem were taken as one limit and the Eastern boundaries
of Illyria as the other, St. Paul had travelled over the whole of
the intervening district, and not merely confined himself to the
direct route between the two places. Jerusalem and Illyria in fact
represent the limits.
If this be the interpretation of the passage it is less important to
fix the exact meaning of the word Illyria as used here ; but a passage
in Strabo seems to suggest the idea which was in St. Paul's mind
when he wrote. Strabo, describing the Egnatian way from the
Adriatic sea-coast, states that it passes through a portion of
Illyria before it reaches Macedonia, and that the traveller along it
has the Illyrian mountains on his left hand. St. Paul would have
followed this road as far as Thessalonica, and if pointing Westward
he had asked the names of the mountain region and of the peoples
408 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZV. 10-2L
inhabiring 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 viL
7.4).
The word Illyria might apparently be vied at this period in two senses,
(l) 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 lUyrians, a portion of which wai included in the Roman
province of Macedonia. In this sense it is used in Appian, Illy rum I, 7;
Jos. Bell. lud. II. xvi. 4 ; and the passage of Strabo quoted above.
ircirXtipuK^fai t& euayyAiOK TOt! XpiGrrou : of. Col. i. 35 ^r (ytv6fuf»
fyo) biaKovot Kara ttjv olKOvofiiav tov Qeov Tr)V dodelcrdv ftoi de vfias, ir\if
pSxrai TOV Xoyo>» row etov. 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. ouTO) Se ({>iXoTifxoufi6i'oi' K.T.X. 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, ovr** is ex-
plained by what follows. (piKoTifiovufpov (i Thess. iv. 11; a Cor.
V. 9) means to ' strive eagerly,' having lost apparently in late Greek
its primary idea of emulation. See Field, Olium Norv. iii. p. 100,
who quotes Polyb. i. 83; Diod. Sic. xii. 46; xvi. 49; Plut. Vit.
Caes. liv.
ifojidaevi : 'so named as to be worshipped.' Cf. t Tim. iL 19;
Isa. xxvi. 13; Amos vi. 10.
dXXoTpioi/ OcfiE'Xioi'. For aXXoVptov cf. a Cor. x. 15, 16. St. Paul
describes his work (i Cor. iii. 10) as laying a 'foundation stone*:
if ao<poe apx^ffUfav BefiiXioy (6r)Ka' aK\os di fnoiKoSofitl I and SO
generally the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets (Eph. ii. 20).
21. dXXd KaOojs yiypaiTTM. 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. hi. 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 bis name has not
been mentioned.
Verses 19-21, or rather a portion of them (fi<rrc fit . . . dXXd), are still
objectod to by commentators (as by Lipsins) who rtcognixe th« fntility ol
TV. 1»-21.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 4O9
the objections to the chapter u • whole. In « former case (zi. 8-10) the
clumsiness of an excision suggested by Lipsins was noticed and here he has
aot been any happier. He omits ver. ao, but keeps the quotation in ver. ai,
yet this quotation is clearly suggested by the preceding words oix ''o"
ivofiaaer) Xpt<rr6s. It would be strange if an interpolator were to make the
sequence of thought more coherent.
The general objections to the passage seem to be—
(I) It is argued that St- Paul had never preached in Jerusalem, nor woald
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. 38, 29). But it may be also pointed out that St. Paul
is merely using the expression geographically to define out the limits within
which he had preached the Gospel; while he elsewhere (Rom. xL 36) speaks
of Sion as the centre from which the Gospel has gone forth.
(a) It is asserted that St. Paul had never preached in Ulyricum. 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 Ulyricum has been explained above. The passages of the Acts
quoted clearly leave room for St. Paul having preached in districts inhabited
by lUyrians. He would have done so if he had gone along the Egnatian
way. But the words do not necessarily mean that he had been in lUyria,
and it is quite possible to explain them in the sense that he had preached
u 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 ase such a phrase as
9fir\T]pvKivai rd cita-yYtXior. 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 (i Cor. iii. 7, 10). As a matter of fact
within the limits laid down Christianity had been Tery widely preached.
There were churches throughout all Cilicia (Acts sv. 4a), Galatia, and
Phrygia (Gal. i. I ; Acts xviiL 33). 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. l). Thessalonica was early a centre of Christian
propaganda (I Thess. L 7, 8 ; iv. 10), and later St. Paul again spent some
time there (Acts xz. a). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians contains in
the greeting the words viiv roU dYioit iroffi rott oZair tv oAp rp 'Axcuq,
showing that the long residence at Corinth had again produced a wide
extension of the GospeL As far as the Adriatic cokst St Paul might well
have considered that he had fulfilled his mission of preaching the Gospel,
and the great Egnatian road be had followed would lead him straight to
Rome.
(4) A di£Bculty is found in the words ' that I may not build on another
man's 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. 5, 1 3 ; xii. 3 ;
XV. 15), but that here 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. 32), 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 foi
the sakr of matnal grace and encouragement that he wishes to go there; ha
4f EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 22, 29.
fanplkt tb«t he does Mt wUk I* itej lonfi bal dcaliet t» picM «■ ftutlMi
vestward (vcr. 14).
THS AFOSTZiB'S FLANS.
ZV. 22-33. I have bein these many times hindered from
coming to yoUy although I have long eagerly desired it. Now
I hope I may accomplish my wish in the course of a journey
to Spain. But not immediately. I must first take to JerU'
salem the contributions sent thither by Macedonia and
Achaia — a generous gift, and yet but a just recompense for
th4 spiritual blessings the Gentile Churches have received
from the Jews. When this mission is accomplished I hope
I may come to you on my way to Spain (w. 22-29).
Meantime I earnestly ask your prayers for *«y own
personal safety and that the gifts I bear may be received by
the Church. I shall then, if God will, come to you with
a light heart, and be refreshed by your company. May the
God of peace make His peace to light upon you (w. 30-33).
22. 8i4 itai. The reason why St Paul had been so 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. <V<Koirro/ti)ir : GaL v. 7; i Th. iL 18;
I Pet iii. 7.
tA TToXXd, ' these many times,' L 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. pUrumque). froXXa«f,
which is read by Lips, with B D £ F G, is another instance otf
Western influence in B.
23. vw\ %\. fiTjK^Ti timv Ijfav, 'seeing that I have no longer
opportunity for work in these regions.' Ton-ov, as in xiL 19, q.v. ;
Eph. iv. 37 ; Heb. xii. 17, ' opportunity,' ' scope for action.' itXt/xao-t,
* tracts ' or ' regions ' (a Cor. xi. 10 ; Gal. Lai; often in Polybius).
^mvoOiav does not occur elsewhere ; but inumBw (Rom. L 1 1 ;
a Cor. V. a; ix. 14; PhiL i. 8; ii. a6; i Th. iii. 6 ; a Tim. L 4;
James iv. 5; i Pet iL a) and iffai66r\fna (a Cor. viL 7, 11) are not
uncommon. On its signification, 'a longing desire,' see on L 11.
Uavwr : a very favourite word in the Acts of the Apostles (ix. as ;
xviiL 18, ftc). 'It is likely enough that St Paul's special interest
In the Christian community at Rome, though hardly perhaps his
XV. 28, 24.] THE APOSTLE'S PLANS 4II
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
p)erhaps suffice to justify his language about having desired to visit
them «ri iKaviiv truv (a rather vague phrase, but not so strong as
the an6 iroXXwi' rrmv, which was easily substituted for it)' Hort,
Rom.<mdEph.^. 11.
For lwiito9ia» 8J Ix*"' Western aothorities (D F G) read ix<», «n attempt
to correct the grammar of the sentence. iKavSiv, read by B C 37. 59. 71,
Jo.-Damasc, it probably right for woKkSiv, which is snpported by all otbei
•Bthorities and it read by R.V.
84. In this verse the words iktiiroiJiiu vphs v/tas, which are inserted
by the TR. after Jnavlav, must be omitted on conclusive manuscript
evidence, while yap must as certainly be inserted after (XniCco.
These changes make the sentence an anacolouthon, almost exactly
resembling that in v. la flF., and arising from very much the same
causes. St Paul does not finish the sentence because he feels that
he must explain what b the connexion between his visit to Spain
and his desire to visit Rome, so he begins the parenthesis tXniCa yap.
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).
6s &r vopcJufmi. The m av is temporal : cf. Phil. ii. 23 ; i Cor.
xL 34: on this latter passage Evans, in Speaker's Comm. p. 328,
writes : * When I come : rather according as I come : the presence of
the &v points to uncertainty of the time and of the event : for this
use COmp. AeSCh. Eutn. 33 ftavTeiofuu yap i>s &v T)y^Tai 6f6s.
'irpoire|ji<f>6t]i'(u : I Cor. xvi. 6, 11 ; a Cor. L 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. L 11 flf.
Lipsius again strikes out vv. 23, 24 and below in ver. 28 St* vftaip
tie rrjif Siraviav — 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
fiirther 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. a 8), 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 lails
4ia EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 24-87
absolutely to realize the width and boldness of St. Paul's schemes.
He must carry the message of the Gospel ever further. Notliing
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.
SiaitOfUK TOis dyiois : cf. 9 CoT. viii. 4 r^v Koivavlav r^c huutovlat
T^f *U Tovs iylovs. 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. cuS^KTjo-aK implies that the contribution was voluntary, and
made with heartiness and good-will : see on Rom. x. i {ndoida) ;
I Cor. i. 81 ; Gal. i. 15.
Koivwiav: of a collection or contribution t Cor. viii 4; iz. 13
ink&njTi r^r Koivatvlas tis axirovs kcu *ts wdvrmt and moumpttp Rom
xii. 13 rats xp<'(i'( ^<^'' Ayiav Koivttvovvrts.
itTu\o6s : cf. Gal. ii. 10 fi6vov rav frrwx*" t*^ ftrrjfusvtvmfuw, Ot
the poor Christians at Jerusalem see James iL a ff. ; Renan, Ifist
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 Aposdes. 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 (i Tim. v. 19) and common Church fund (d»r* tw
Ktuvov Ign. Ad Polyc. iv. 3) and officers for distributing alms (Acts
vL 1-4) must have sprung up very early.
27. cu8<JitTjaoK it.T.X. St. Paul emphasizes the good-will with
which this contribution was made by repeating the word *v8o(oj(roj» ;
he then points out that in another sense it was only the repa)mient
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 bj
ministering in temporal things.
vKcupariKois . . . aapKiKois. Both are characteristically Pauline
words. I Cor. ix. 11 *l fifUls v/xli* ra nvtvfMTiKa iaTrtipafxtP, fttya tl
^fult vfiStv rii aapKiiui 6ipi9x>iu9\ vapuxcHs is used without any bad
association.
|icotvtt>vT)7av. The word Koivonita, of which the meaning u of coorte ' to
be • 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 Rom.
xii. 13 (quoted on ver, 36) ; the receiver with the giver by receiving contri-
ImtioaB, so here. The aormal coattiaction in the N. T. it w here with the
XV. 87, 28.] THE APOSTLB'S PLANS 413
dative : <moc (Heb. il. 14) ft b used with the genitiT^ and thli ooottnictiao fa
commoa in the O. T. (Lft. on GaL tL 6).
The contributions for the poor in Jerusalem are mentioned in
Rom. XV. 26, a7 ; i Cor. xvi. 1-3; a Cor. ix. i flf ; Acts xxiv. 17, and
form the subject of the ablest and most convincing section in
Paley's JIorM Paulina*. 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 aflfords of the genuineness of the Epistle, and what is more
important, as it has been impugned, of this chapter in particular,
«ee Paley's Horae Paulituu, chap. iL No. i.' Jowett, ad be, and
for some further reff. see Introd. § 4.
28. l-iriTcX^aas . . . a4>paYi(rdfi,6i'os. 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 mntKeaas (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 X*iToupy^<r<u above, suggests that St. Paul looks upon these
contributions of the Gentile communities as a solemn religious
ofifering and part of their tixapiarta for the benefits received.
ai^paYicrdf&cKOs, ' having set the seal of authentication on.' The
seal was used as an official mark of ownership : hence especially
the expression 'the eal of baptism' (a Cor. i. ta ; 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
{wvtvuarucd) which through him had gone forth to the Gentile
world.
els TfjK litavlaw. 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 72/
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
jotimey. Have we evidence for it } Dismissing later writers wtio
414 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZV. 28-80
BAem to have had no independent evidence, our authorities are
reduced to two, the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, and
Clc'rent of Rome. We cannot lay much stress on the former; it
is possible perhaps that the writer had independent knowledge, but
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 profeciiomm Pauli ah urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentit. The
passage in Clement (§ 5) runs as follows : TLavKos inofxovrjs Ppa^e'io*
vr;(d(i^(i>, iirraKis dfcr/xa (poptaai, (f>vyaitvdtit, \i6aadtlt, XTJpv^ yfv6fuvot
!v T€ T.7 dvaroX.^ Koi (t> rfj iva€i, ri ytvvaiov rijs •nlartms ainov itKios
fXa^ep, iiKaiocrvvTjv ii^d^as Skov top Kocrfiov Ka\ iiri tA ripfia t^s Svatms
f\6(M)v, Koi (jLaprvprfcras eirl rwi/ tjyovufvuv, ovrws dnrjWdyTf rov Koafiov Koi
tis Tov dyiov T&trov ('noiHvdrj. This passage is much stronger, and
Lightfoot's note in favour of interpreting the words t6 ripiia rfft
iv(Tfa)i 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 reppa rijs Sva-tas, '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 tXdav and fiaftrvpfia-at should be taken together. For
these reasons the question whether St. Paul ever visited Spain
must remain very doubtful.
29. irXT)pu)iaTi : see on xi. I a. 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 xap"^Ma irvfvuarMou, and will in his turn
be comforted by the mutual faith which will be exhibited. Cf. L
II, 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. 3a Im
fV x°P9 tk^^*' T^pis v/xar dta 6(\f)paTos Qtov wwavajravatifuii vfiip.
The TR. read* with K* L &c., Vnlg.-clem. Syrr. Ann., Chrys. Theodrt.
tiXoyias rov (vayytXiov roS Xp, The words rov ti. rov should be omitted on
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 {Horn, 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, Ac);
'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 ministratioa
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).
8id Tiis Aydmfjs toO rircJfiaTot. That brotherly love which is one
of the fruits of the Spirit working in us (cf. Gal. v. as). That
wt^vfta is personal is shown by the parallelism with the first clause.
vwayuviuaaBai. ' He breaks off afresh in an earnest entreaty to
them to join him in an intense energy of prayer, wrestling as it were '
(Hort, op. at. 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. 43. Cp. Origen
ad loc. : Vix enim invenies, ui oranti cuiquam non aliquid inanis et
alienae cogitationis occurrai, tt intentionem, qua in Deum mens diri-
gitur, declinet ac/rangat, atque earn per ta quat non compettt, rapiat.
Et ideo agon magnus est orationis, ut obsistentibus tnimicis, et ora-
tionis sensum in diver sa rapientibus, fixa ad Deum semper mens stabili
intentione contendat, ut merito possit etiam ipse dicere: ceriamen
bonum certavi, cursum consummavi.
31. 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 Jerusalem. How strong the first feeling was
and how amply justified the Acts of the Apostles show (Acts xx. 3,
as; xxi. 11).
Iq ver. 30 iXiK^ it omitted by B76, Aeth., Chryt. alone, bot perhapa
correctly. In ver. 31 ^ iwpocpopia for SiOKotia, and if 'Itpovaak^it for tit 1.
are instances of Western paraphrase shared by B (B D F 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.
auraKairai5(r<i>fiei, 'I may rest and refresh my spirit with you.'
Only used here in this sense (but later in Hegesippus ap. Eus.
ff. E. 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 MSB.
(see below).
There ore aeveral variations of reading in this verse :
(i) MAC, Boh. Arm., Orig.-Iat. read iKQmv . . . ^wmaimivmyMi with
some variation in the position of iKQinv (after Iva K, Boh., Orig. -lat ; aftei
y(fi^ A C agreeing in this with other authorities). All later MSS. with tha
4l6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZV. 82-XVL L
Western gronp read i\0o) and insert col before evrarawaiffwfieu. 6 U alone in
having (\0qj and omitting arwavarravacj/Mt ifuv, but receives support in the
reading of some Western authoiities ; D E read &va\pv^o) fitd' ifiSiv, F G 4i«-
^X*" A"- ^-f agreeing with most Latin authorities, rtfrigerer vobiscum.
(a) For 6j(i 6t\rnta.T0\ etoC (A CLP, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm., Orig.-lat
Chrys. Thdrt.), K Ambrst. have 8. 9. 'Irjaov Xptarov, DEFG (with defg),
fnld. Xpiarov 'It]<tuv, B Kvpiov 'lr}(Tov. Lightfoot (On afresh Revision, &c.,
pp. io6ff.) suggests that the original reading was 6t\TjfiaTot used absolutely
of the Divine will: cf. Rom. ii. i8; i Cor. xvi. la. See also his note on
Ign. EpA. § 20, Rom. § i (where some authorities add tow e*ov, others
domini , Smyrn. §§ i, II. Elsewhere in St Paul the expression always it
6i\7ina &(ov, except once, Eph. ▼. 17 rd OiXrjua rot) Kvpiov.
83. 4 8c eeos TTjs etpi^i'Tis : 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.
A F G and some minuscules omit an^^r. On the importaoot MCrilMd <•
tht* word by some commentators see the Introdaction, f 9.
PEBSONAIi GBEETUraa.
XVI. 1-16. I commend to you Phoebe our sister. Receivi
her as becometh members of a Christian Church. For shi
has stood by many others, and myself c^ well (w. i, a).
Greet Prisca and Aquila. Greet all those whose names
or persons I know, who an members of your community
(vv. 3-16).
1. aui'iaTTifii. The ordinary word for to ' commend,' ' introduce ' ;
see on iii. 5, a derivative of which appears in the phrase ervjrrarntoi
iiriaTokai (» Cor. iii. I ; for its use in the later ecclesiastical writings
see Suicer, Thesaurus). 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.
♦oi/BYii/. Nothing is otherwise known of Phoebe, nor can we
learn anything from the name. She was presumably the bearer of
this letter
Sidicoj'oj', • a deaconess.' The only place in which this oflBce is re-
ferred to byname in the N. T. (for i Tim. iii. 11, v. 3 flf. cannot be
quoted). The younger Pliny {Ep. X. xcvi. 8) speaks olt mtntsirae:
quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis, quae mtnistroi
dicebanlur, quid esttt veri et per tormtnta quaerere. They do not
appear elsewhere to be referred to in any certain second-century
writing; but constant reference to them occurs in the Aposiolit
XVX 1, 2.J PERSONAL GREETINGS 417
Constitutions, in the earlier books under the name of fitnKovos (ii. 86 ;
iii. I5)j in the later of d«a>coVta<ra (viii. 19, 20, 28). Of the exact
relation of the 'deaconess' to the * widows ' (i Tim. v. 3) it is not
necessary to speak, as we have no suflBcient 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 {Apost.
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 iuxKovia 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 bishoj),
may be found in the Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 15, &c ). So
much is clear. An office in the Church of this character, we
may argue on h priori grounds, there must have been; but an
order in the more ecclesiastical sense of the term need not have
existed. tiaKovoi is technical, but need hardly be more so than is
TTpwrrdrif in ver. a. (The arguments of Lucht against the au-
thenticity of portions of these two verses are examined very fully
by Mangold, Zfer Ronurbrief und seine geschichtlichen Voraussetzung.
pp. 136 ff.)
TTJs cKKXtjaias Tt\% iv KcYxpcnts. 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. a Cor. i. i), 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. i\lwi Tuf dYiwK, ' 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.'
trpoaxdris, a ' succourer ' or * helper ' ; this almost technical
word is suggested by vapaarrfrt. It is the feminine form of -npo-
(TTOTrfs, used like the Latin patronus for the legal representative of
the foreigner. In Jewish communities it meant the legal repre-
sentative or wealthy patron : see Schiirer, Die Gemdnde- Verfas-
tung,8cc., Ins. 31: cnOa^c keitc | r^ic ttpoctathc | ocioc szhccn | cth oB
eN 6ipH I KOiMHCic COY, cf also C.I. G. 5361. We also find the word
used of an office-bearer in a heathen religious association, see
Foucart, Associations Religieuses. p. 202, Ins. 20, line 34 (= C /. G.
Ia6) dowua^cTM dc 6 vpoaTa,rr)t Kvii o apxifpavior^s Ktu i ypafifiarfvs ko)
41 1< EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZVI. 2-4.
9I TUfiUu Kal oTvdiKot. 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. ripiaicai' Kai 'AxuXar So the MSS. here by preponderating
authority for nptWiXAa k. 'a. Priscilla is a diminutive for Prisca, and
both are Roman names.
In Acts xviii. a the reading b 'Am^Xow . , . col UpUrKiXXaw Tvraum airoi,
in vcr. 18 npiaiciWa ical 'AKvKat; in i Cor. xvi. 19 'AmvKas ical Upiaica (so
K B M P, Boh., but A C D E F G, &c., Vulg. Syrr. npiaiciKXa) ; in a Tim. iv. 19
npiaxav Kal 'AKv\av (by preponderating authority). The fact that Prisca ia
•o often mentioned first snggests that she was the more important oi the two.
4. oiTH'cs , . . tAt iauTwk rpdxriXor k.t.X. probably refers to some
great danger wliich 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 liave 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 so
complicated as to throw doubts on the authenticity of this section of the
Epistle, or to sugs;est that it was addressed not to the Church at Rome, bat
to the Church of Ephesus.
P rom Acts xviii. i, a we learn that Aquila was a Jew of Pontus. He and
bis wife Prisca had been compelled to leave Rome in 5a A.D. by the decree
of Claudius. They retired to Corinth, where they first became acquainted
with St. Paul. With him they went to Elphesus, where they remained some
time ; they were there when the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written,
and had a church in their house (aa-nd^trcu ti/xar kv Kvpio) voXAd 'A/cvXat
ital HpioKa avv rp kqt' oTkov avruv iKK\7]a'ta i Cor. xvL 19). This Epistle
was written probably about twelve months before the Epistle to the
Romans. In 3 Tim. iv. 19, written in all probability at least eight yean
later, they appear again at Ephesus.
Now, is not the life ascribed to them too nomadic t And is not the
coincidence of the church in their bouse 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, Biblical Essays, p. 299, and
Renan. L*s Apdtrts, pp.96, 97,Zahn,5/J«««^«,p. 169). We know that although
Aquila was a Jew of Poutus, 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 busmess ? 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 h priori grounds we cannot argue agamst 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^
has suggested two traces of their influence, both of which detenre ioTesti*
cation.
SVI. 4.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 419
(i) Amongst the older charches of Rome is one on the Aventine beanng
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
Aqnila and Priscilla. In the Liber Ptmttficalis, in the life of Leo III
(795-816), it is described as the ' titulus Aquilae et Priscae' (Duchesne,
Lti. Pont. XL p. ao) ; 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 et deduxerunt ipsam ad urbem Eomam
turn hymnis et ctmticis spiritualibus, iuxta Arcum Romanum in ecclesia
sanctorum Martyrum Aquilae et Priscae), and the tradition is put very
clearly in an inscription apparently of the tenth century which fonnerly
itood over the door of the church (C Ins. Christ, ii. p. 443) :
Haee domus est Aquilae seu Priscae Virginis Almmt
Qu*s lup« Poult tuo art vehis domino
Hie Petre divini Tribuebas fercula vtrbi
Sefius hoece lot4 smcrificans dcminc.
Many Uter testiaoniet are referred to by De Rossi, bnt they need not here
be cited.
For the theory that this chnrch is on the site of the honse of Prisca and
Aqnila, De Rossi finds additional support in a bronze diploma found in 1 776
in the garden of the church bearing the name of G. Marius Pudens Cor-
nelianns : for in the legendary Acts of Pudens, Pudenziana, and Praxedis,
Priscilla is stated to have been the mother of Pudens {Acta Sanct. Mai.
Tom. ir. p. 197), and this implies some connexion between the names of
Aqnila and Priscilla and the family of Pudens.
The theory is a plausible one, but will hardly at present stand examination.
Id the first place the name of Aquila 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 titulus S. Prisca4 (see Liber Pontificalis, ed.
Duchesne, L 501, 517**), and although the origm of this name is itself
donbtful, 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. Bnt why were they thus grouped ?
The reason probably is given in the statement at the end, that they were
buried 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 Acta. There may still be
lome connexion between the names, which may or may not be discovered,
bnt there is not at present any historical evidence for connecting the titulus
St. Priscae with the Aquila and Priscilla of the N. T. (see de Rossi, BuJl.
Arch. Christ. Ser. i. No. 5 (1867), p. 45 ff.)
(ii) A second line of argument seems more fruitful. The explorations of
De Rossi in the Coemeteiium Priscillae, outside the Porta Salaria, have
resulted in the discovery that as the Coemeterium Domitillae starts from
a burying-place of Domitilla 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
B e a
490 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 4, &
Acilias 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 Roman families. Now the connexion with the subject immediately
before us is as follows. The same researches have shown that a name of
the females of the Acilian gens is PrisciUa or Prisca. For instance, in one
inscription wc read :
tt* ACIUDS T
C. V.
rusciixA..c
Aqnila was a Jew of Pootns : how then does it happen that hit wife, if not
he himself, bore a Roman name? The answer seems to be suggested by
these discoveries. They were freedmen of a member of the Acilian gens,
•s Clemens the Roman bishop was very probably the freedman of Flavins
Clemens. The name Prisca or PrisciUa would naturally come to an ad-
herent of the family. The origin of the name Aqnila is more doubtful, but
it too mis^ht 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 fint
!• clearly Christian :
AQUIUAK PRISCAB IN PACS
The second C. I. L.vi. 1 2273 may be to. The term Rmtitm mig^ suggest
tlut it is but also might be Mithraic :
D. M.
AQUILIA • RENATA
QVAE . T . A • N . . .
8S • VIVA . POSVIT . SIM
CVRANTB . AQVILIO • IVSTO
ALVMNO . ET • AQVIUO
FRISCO • FRATRE
The ailment is not demonstrative, but seems to make the retun ci
Aquila and PrisciUa to Rome, and their permanent connexion with the
Roman Church, probable. See De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser. iv.
No. 6 (188S-9), p. 129 Aquila e Prisca et gli Acilii Glabrioni.
Dr. Hort [^Rom and Eph. pp. 12-14), following a suggestion made by
Dr. Plumptre {Biblical Studies, 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.
6. Ktti y^v icaT* otKor aArwr ^KKXtio-iaf. 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, th«
mother of John, where many were collected together and praying
Col. iv. 15 dawaaaa6* rovv 4p Aaodixctf mdf\<Povs, Ka\ Nt<fi^r, ml r^i
irVI. 6.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 491
tar eiUov airrmif tKiekriaiap I Philemon t Koi rg tear* otfcdr <rov cntXi/irtfi :
besides i Cor. xvi, 19. At a later date we have Clem. Recog. x. 71
Theophilus, domus suae ingentem basilicam ecclesiae nomine consecraret :
De Rossi, Roma Soft. i. p. aop Collegium quod est in domo Sergio*
Paulinae. So in Rome several of the oldest churches appear to
nave been built on the sites of houses used for Christian worship.
So perhaps San Clemente is on the site of the house of T. Flavius
Clemens the consul (see Lightfoot, Clement, p. 94).
There is no reason to suppose that this Church was the meeting-
place of all the Roman Christians ; similar bodies seem to be
implied in w. 14, 15. We may compare Ada lustini Marty ris § 2
(Ruinart) where however the speaker is of course intentionally
vague : Quaesivit Prae/ectus, quern in locum Christiant convenirent.
Cui respondit lustinus, eo unumquemque convenire quo vellet ac posset.
An, inquit, existimas omnes nos in eumdem locum convenire solitos ?
Minime res ita se hahet . . . Tunc prae/ectus : Age, inquit, dicas,
quem in locum conveniatis, et discipulos tuos congreges. Respondit
lustinus : Ego prope domum Martini cuiusdam, ad balruum cogno-
mento Timiotinum, hactenus mansi.
'Eiraiceros. Of him nothing is known : the name is not an un-
common one and occurs in inscriptions from Asia Minor, C. I. G.
2953 (from Ephesus), 3903 (from Phrygia). The following in-
scription from Rome is interesting, C. I.L. vi. 1 7 1 7 1 Dis • mam |
EPAENETI {sic) \ EPAENETI . F | EPHESIO | T • MVNIVS | PRI3-
CIANVS I AMICO SVO.
dirapxT) TTJs *A(Tias : i. e. one of the first converts made in the
Roman province of Asia : cp. i Cor. xvi. 1 5 dihart ttjv oiKiap 2Tf4iava,
OTi iariv dirap)(rj ttjs 'A;(fu'aj, Koi fit diaKoviav Tois iyiois era^av iavrovs.
On the importance of first converts see Clem. Rom. § xlii Kara x^pas
ovv Koi iroXcit Kripva<rovTts KaOiaravow rht dnapxas avriv, boKifMaawret t^
nvfVftan, tts fin<TK6rmn Koi Hiaicovovt tS>p (uWovtup tturrfidv.
This name caused great difficulty to Renan, ' What ! had all the
Chiu-ch of Ephesus assembled at Rome ?' 'AH' when analyzed is
found to mean three persons of whom two had been residents at
Rome, and the third may have been a native of Ephesus but is
only said to have belonged to the province of Asia (cf. Lightfoot,
Biblical Essays, p. 301). How probable it was that there should
be foreigners in Rome attached to Christianity may be illustrated
from the Acts of Justin which were quoted in the note on an
earlier portion of the verse. These give an account of the
martyrdom of seven persons, Justin himself, Charito, Charitana,
Euelpistus, Hierax, Liberianus, and Paeon. Of these Justin we
know was a native of Samaria, and had probably come to Rome
from Ephesus, Euelpistus who was a slave of the Emperor was
a native of Cappadocia, and Hierax wag of lamium in Phrygia
This was about 100 years later.
4aa EPISTLE TO THE ROMANg [ZVl. I^-T
'Arlea it fnpported by preponderating anthoiity (KABCDFG, Vulg.
Boh. Ann. Aeth., Orig.-Iat. Jo.'Damasc. Ambrat) againit 'Axatas (LP &&,
Syrr., Chrys. Theodrt.)-
For the idea of illnstratinp this chapter horn inscriptions we are of coarse
indebted to bishop Lightfoot s able article on Caesar's household {PhilippianSf
p. 169^. Since that paper was written, the appearance of a portion of vol. vL
of the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions, that, namely, containing the inscriptions
of the city of Rome, has both provided as with more extensive material 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 Columbaria containing th*
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 eUmus Augusti (vi. 8398-9101). A complete use of these
materials will not be possible until the publication of the Indices to vol. ▼».
For a discussion of the general bearing of these references, see Introduction,
6. Mapiac (which is the correct reading) may like Mapta^ 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.l.L. vi. 22223 D'M'j
MARIAE I AMPLIATAE ctt. ; the next inscription is from the house-
hold, ib. 4394 MARIAE • M • L • XANTHE | NYMPHE • FEC • DE • SVO.
t|tis iroXXd ^KOTriaacK cis u^a$. This note is added, not for the
sake of the Roman Church, but a« words of praise for Maria
herself.
Mapi'av is read by A B C P, Boh. Arm. ; Mapta>4 by K D E F G L, &c., Chrys.
The evidence for tU vfidt, which is a difficult reading, is preponderating
(NABCP, Syrr. Boh.), and it is practically supported by the Western
group (D £ F G, Vulg.), which have h ifur. The correction «Is ^fta$ is read
by L, Chrys. and later aathorities.
7. 'Av%p6viKov: 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.I. L. vi. 5326 Dis • manibvs | c jvlivs • hermes I
VIX • ANN • XXXIII • M • V I DIEB • XIII | C • IVLIVS • ANDRONICVS j
CONLIBERTVS • FEC | BENE • MERENTI • DE • SE : See alsO 5325 and
11626 where it is the name of a slave.
'looi'iai' : there is i^ome doubt as to whether this name is mas-
culine, lovviai or 'lovwa?, 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 Patrobaa
<VI.7.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 4*$
Hermas, Olympas. If, as is probable, Andronicus and Junias are
included among the Apostles (see below) then it is more probable
that the name is masculine, although Chrysostom does not appear
to consider the idea of a female apostle impossible: 'And indeed
to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst
these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is I But
they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements.
Oh 1 how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be
even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle I '
Tois oruYYCKCis |iou. St. Paul almost certainly means by ' kinsmen,'
fellow-countrymen, and not relations. The word is used in this
sense in ix. 3, and it would be most improbable that there should
be so many relations of St. Paul amongst the members of a distant
Church (w. 7, 11) and also in Macedonia (ver. ai); whereas it is
specially significant and in accordance with the whole drift of the
Epistle that he should specially mention as his kinsmen those
members of a Gentile Church who were Jews.
Kal auraixiiaXtSrous |*ou. Probably to be taken literally. Al-
though St Paul had not so far suffered any long imprisonment, he
had certainly often been imprisoned for a short time as at Philippi,
s Cor. zL a3 iw <f>v\aKais itfpuTfTorripms ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. v
iKToKii dtv/ia <f>opftras. Nor is it necessary that the word should
mean that Andronicus and Junias had suffered at the same time as
St. Paul ; he might quite well name them fellow-prisoners if they
had hke him been imprisoned for Christ's sake. Metaphorical
explanations of the words are too far-fetched to be probable.
omi'^s fiffir 4-iriaT]fioi iv Tois diroirroXois may mean either (i)
well known to the Apostolic body, or (2) distinguished as Apostles.
In favour of the latter interpretation, which is probably correct, are
the following arguments, (i) The passage was apparently so
taken by all patristic commentators, (ii) It is in accordance with
the meaning of the words, iniarinoi, lit. ' stamped,' ' marked,' would
be used of those who were selected from the Apostolic body as
'distinguished,' not of those known to the Apostolic body, or
looked upon by the Apostles as illustrious ; it may be translated
'those of mark among the Apostles.' (iii) It is in accordance with
the wider use of the term ajrocrroXof. Bp. Lightfoot pointed out
(Gala/tans, p. 93) that this word was clearly used both in a narrow
sense of ' the twelve ' and also in a wider sense which would include
many others. His views have been corroborated and strengthened
by the publication of the Didache. The existence of these 'Apostles,*
itinerant Christian Evangelists, in Rome will suggest perhaps one
of the methods by which the city had been evangelized.
ot Kai irpo Ifikou '^v^ovo.oy.v kv Xpiaru. Andronicus and Junias had
been converted before St Paul : they therefore belonged to the
earliest days of the Christian community ; perhaps even they were
434 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVL 7, &
jf 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 tht Rendering tn/«
English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect, p. s6) the perfect should
icre be translated ' were.'
'It it ntterly amazing,' he writes, 'that in Rom. zri. 1 A mX w/4 IfioS
•■^Vf6va<jiv \v Xp. is rendered in the R V. " who also have been in Christ befort
me." The English idiom is here simply outraged. What officer in oar
Navy or Army would not stare at the ^dp0apos 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," tmd therefore uses the simple
PasL . . . 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. 'AfiirXiaTos is the more correct reading for the abbreviated
orm *A/x7rXtaj which occurs in the TR. This is a common
Koman slave name, and as such occurs in inscriptions of the imperial
household. C.I.L. vi. 4899 ampliatvs | restitvto • fratri|
3VO • FECIT • MERENTl : 5154 C' VIBIVS • FIRMVS • C | VIBIO •
AMPLIATO I 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
inseiiion, which, from the style of its ornament, is ascribed to th«
end of the first or beginning of the second century. The inscription
is in bold, well-formed letters of the same date. Not far off is another
inscription, not earlier than the cud of the second century, to
members of apparently the same family. The two inscriptions are
AMPLIAT[i] and AVRELIAE • BONIFATIAE I CONIVGI • INCOM-
PARABILl I VERAE CASTITATIS FEMINAE | QVAE • VIXIT • ANN •
XXV • M • II I DIEB • nil • HOR • VI I 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 exj^lanation 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 Domitilla seems to show that here
we have the name of a slave or freedman through whom Christianity
had penetralea into a second great Roman household. See de
Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser, iii. vol. 6 (1881), pp. 57-74 J
PERSONAL GREETINGS 425
AtJienaeicm March 4, 1884, p. 289; the inscription is just re-
ferred to by Lightfoot, Clement, i. p. 39.
0. Oup^ai'^ : a common Roman slave name found among
members of the household, C. I, L. vi. 4237 (quoted by Lft. from
Murat. 920. l) VRBANVS • LYDES • AVG • L • DISPENS | INMVNIS •
DAT • HERMAE • FRATRI • ET | CILICAE • PATRI : cf. 5604, 5605,
and others, quoted by Lft. (Grut. p. 589. 10, p. 1070. i).
tSk awi^^hv tJ(iwi'. Where St. Paul is speaking of persona!
friends he uses the singular toi/ ayajr/^rov \i.ov'. here he uses the
plural because Urbanus was a fellow-worker with all those who
worked for Christ
ZrdxuK : a rare Greek name, but found among members of the
imperial household : C. 1. L. ri. 8607 d. m. | m. vlpio • avg • l |
EROTI I AB • EPISTVLIS • GRAECIS | EPAPHRODITVS | ET •
STACHY8 I CAESAR • R • SER | FRATRI • KARISSIMO • ET | CLAVDIA
• FORMIANA I FECERVNT : cf also inscriptions quoted by LfL
10. 'AireXX^K. 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. Sat. I. v. 100 Credai
ludaeut Apella, non ego.
tAk S<$Ki|jior: cf. i Cor. zi. 19; s Cor. x. 18 ; xiii. 7. One who
has shown himself an approved Christian.
ToOs ^K Twr 'AptoTo^ouXow. 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. lud. IL xi. 6 ;
Antiq. XX. i. 2); he was a friend and adherent of the Emperor
Claudius. His household would naturally be oi 'Apktto^ovXov, 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.I. L. 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 Aristobuliani (cf.
Lft. Phil. pp. 172, 3;.
11. 'HpoSiui^a Toc avy^ivr^ |&o». 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.
Toiis cK rStv NapKiaaou, ' 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 foui
4l6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. U-IM.
years before (Tac Attn. ziiL ■ ; Dio Cass. Ix. 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. I. L. vi. 41 13
(in the household of Livia), 4346, 5306 HELicONis NARCISSI |
AVGVSTiANi I : 22875 NARCissvs • AVC • LIB. Lft. quotes also
the two names Ti. Claudius Narcissus (see below), Ti. lulius Nar-
cissus from IVIuratori, and also the form Narcissianus, ti • clavdio •
sp • F • narcissiano (Murat, p. 11 50. 4). The following inscrip-
lion belongs to a somewhat later date : C.I. L. vi. 9035 D. M. |
T • FLAVIVS • AVG • LIB | NARCISSVS • FECIT • SIBI | ET • COELIAE •
SP • FiLiAE I lERiAE • coNiVGi • SVAE . . . , and lower down T
FLAVIVS • AVG • LIB • FIRMVS • NARCISSIANVS | RELATOR • AVC-
TiONVM • MONVMENTVM * REFECIT. See also 9035 «. (Lightfoo^
Phil.^. 173.)
Dr. Plnmptre {Biblical Studies, p. 418) refen to the following bterestiiig
inscription. It may be found in C. I. L. v. 154* being reputed to have come
from Ferrara. D. M. | clavdiae | dicakosynae | ti • clavdivs | nar-
CISSVS I LIB. AEID. COIV | PIENTISSIMAE | ET FRVGALISSI | B. M. Tiberlot
Claudius sugt^ests the first century, but the genuineness of the Ins. ia not
sufficiently attested. The editor of the fifth volume of the Corpus writes :
Testimonia auciorum aut incerioritm . . . aui fraudulentorum dt loco cum
parum defendant titulum eum exclusi, quamquam fieri potest ut sU
genuinus nee multum corruptus. The name Dicaeosyne is curious but ia
found elsewhere C. I. L. iii. 2391 ; vi 25866 : z. 649. There is nothing du-
tinctively Christian about it
12. Tpu4>oii'o>' KOI TpotJjaJCTOK are generally supposed to have been
two sisters. Amongst inscriptions of the household we have
4866 D. M. I VARIA • TRYPHOSA | PATRONA • ET | M. EPPIVS •
CLEMENS I : 5035 D. M. | TRYPHAENA | VALERIA • TRYPHAENA
I MATRI • B • M • F • ET I VALERIUS • FVTIANVS (quoted by Lft.
from Ace. di Archeol. xi. p. 375): 5343 telesphorvs • ET • TRY-
PHAENA, 5774, 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 has some interest in the early history of the Church
as being that of the queen who plays such a prominent part in the ttoiy ol
Paul and Theda, and who is knows to have been a real character.
riepaiSo. The name appears as that of a freedwoman, C. I. L. vL
23959 DIS ■ MANIB I PER • SIDI • L • VED | VS • MITHRES | VXORI.
It does not appear among the inscri})tions of the household.
13. 'PoG<j>o»' : one of the commonest of slave names. This Rufus
is commonly identified with the one mentioned in Mark xv. ai,
wnere Simon of Cyrene is called the father of Alexander and Rufus.
St. Mark probably wrote at Rome, and he seems to speak ol
Rufus as some one well known.
T^ litXcKT&r iv Kwpiy. ' Elect ' is probably not here used in the
XVI. 18-16.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 497
technical sense ' chosen of God/ — this would not be a feature to
distinguish Rufus from any other Christian, — but it probably means
' eminent,' * distinguished for his special excellence,' and the addition
of cV Kvpt'w means ' eminent as a Christian ' (2 Jo. i ; i Pet. ii. 6).
So in English phraseology the words ' a chosen vessel ' are used
of all Christians generally, or to distinguish some one of marked
excellence from his fellows.
Kal t^v )&t|Wpa auTou km i^ov. St. Paul means that she had
showed him on some occasion all the care of a mother, and
that therefore he felt for her all the aflFection of a son.
14. 'AaoYKpiToi' : the following inscription is of a freedman ot
Augustus who bore this name, C. I. Z. vi. 1 2565 d. m. | asyncreto 1
AVG • LIB • FECIT • FL | AVIA • SVCCESSA | PATRONO BENE | ME-
RENTi. The name Flavia suggests that it is somewhat later than
St. Paul's time.
♦Xeyorro. The inscriptions seem to throw no light on this name.
The most famous person bearing it was the historian of the second
century who is referred to by Origen, and who gave some informa-
tion concerning the Christians.
'Epfk^v : one of the commonest of slave names, occurring con-
stantly among members of the imperial household.
narpoPaf. An abbreviated form of Patrobius. This name was
borne by a well-known freedman of Nero, who was put to death by
Galba (Tac. Jits/, i. 49 ; ii. 95). Lft. quotes instances of other freed-
men bearing it: Ti • CL • avg • L • patrobivs (Grut. p. 610. 3),
and Ti • CLAVDio • patrobio (Murat. p. 1329).
'Epfias is likewise an abbreviation for various names, Hermagoras,
Hermerus, Hermodorus, Hermogenes. It is common among
slaves, but not so much so as Hermes. Some fathers and modem
writers have identified this Hermas with the author of the ' Shepherd,'
an identification which is almost certainly wrong.
Kal Toi^s 9iiy auTois dSeXt^ous. This and the similar expression in
the next verse seem to imply that these persons formed a small
Christian community by themselves.
15. ^iXtiXoyos. A common slave name. Numerous instances
are quoted from inscriptions of the imperial household : C. I. L. vi.
41 16 OAMA • LIVIAE • L • CAS . . . | PHOEBVS • PHILOLOGI | qUOted by
Lft. from Gorius, Mon.Liv. p. 168 ; he also quotes Murat. p. 1586.
3, p. 2043. 2 ; Grut. p. 630. I. He is generally supposed to be
the brother or the husband of Julia, in the latter case Nereus, hia
sister Nerias, and Olympas may be their children.
'louX^af. Probably the commonest of all Roman female names,
certainly the commonest among slaves in the imperial household.
The following inscription is interesting: C. I. L. vi. 20416 d. M. |
IVUAE NEREi * P • | CLAVDIAE. The name Julia Tryphosa occun
•0715-7 in one case apparently in a Christian inscription.
4a8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 16, 18
Ni|p^«. This name is found in inscriptions of the imperial house-
hold, C. I. L. XL 4344 NEREVS • HAT • GERMAN | PEVCENNVS
GERMANici I ANVS • NERONis • CAESARis. It ts best known in
the Roman Church in connexion with the Acts of Nereus and
Achilleus, the eunuch chamberlains of Domitilla (see Acta Sancto-
rum May. iiL p. a ; Texte und Untertuchungen, Band xi. Heft a).
These names were, however, older than that legend, as seems to
be shown by the inscription of Damasus {Bull. Arch. Christ. 1874,
p. ao sq. ; C. Ins. Christ. IL 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 sq.). 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. Apgetch. iL 106 flf.).
'OXufiirds : an abbreviated form like several in this list, apparently
for '0\vnnt6i(iipoi.
16. iv (^iXi^piTi dyiif : so I Thess. t. a6 ; i Cor. xvi. ao ; a Cor.
xiii. la; I Pet. v. 14 avndaaa-dt a\\f]\ovt iv ^iKrjfiaTi aydin;;. The
earliest reference to the ' kiss of peace ' as a regular part of the
Christian service is in JusL Mart. Apol. i. 65 dX\rj\ovs ^tXiy/xari
a(Tna(6fi*6a nava-dfitvoi r&v tix&v. It is mentioned in Tert. dc Oral.
14 {osculum pcuis) ; Const. Apost. ii. 57. la ; viii. 5, 5 ; and it became
a regular part of the Liturgy. Cf. Origen ad loc. : Ex hic sermont,
aliisque nonnullis similibus, mot eccUsiis iraditus est, ui post orationtf
osculo se invicem suscipiant fratrts. Hoc auUm osculum sanctum
appellat Apostolus.
al 4KKXT)<riai -iraaai toS XpivToS : this phrase is unique in the
N.T. Phrases used by St. Paul are at tVicXijo-iai ritv Ayittw, 17 fKKXrja-la
rot) 6fov^ at *KK\T)(Tiai roi 6fOv, rate tKicXrjaiais rrjt 'lovSaias rals cV Xptcrr^
(GaL i. a 2), r&v (VKXijcrtW rov 6(ov T&v ovar&p n t% 'lovSaif iv TLpurrif
'lijtrov, and in Acts xx. a 8 we have the uncertain passage r^r «-
KKffalav rot) Kvptbv or rov 6fov, where Qt6s must, if the correct
reading, be used of Xpitrrdt, It is a habit of St. Paul to speak on
behalf of the churches as a whole : cf. xvi. 4 ; i Cor. vii. 17; xiv.
33; a Cor. viii. 18; xi. 38; and Hort suggests that this unique
phrase is nsed to express ' the way in which the Church of Roma
ZVI. 16, 17.] WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 439
was an object of love and respect to Jewish and Gentile Cburchet
alike ' (Xotn. and Eph. I 5s).
WABNIirO AOAHTBT TAIiSB TBAOHEBfll
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 warnings
because your loyalty is well known, and I would have you
free from every taint of evil. God will speedily crush Satan
beneath your feet.
May the grace of Christ be withyom.
17-20. A warning against evil teachers jH-obably 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 {Rom. and Eph. pp. 53-55) it is not unnatural. Against
errors such as these St. Paul lus 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 actu^y in Rome, but against such as he knew
qX. as existing in other churches which he had founded, whose
advent to Rome he dreads.
It has been suggested again that < St Paul finds k diflScult to
finish.' There is a certain truth in that statement, but k 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. i, just
apparently as he is going to finish the Epistle, the Apostle makes
a digression against ^Ise teachers.
17. aicoireir, 'to mark and avoid.' Tlie same word is used in
PhiL iii. 17 Wftfuntfrai fiov yivtaOt, ditX^ol^ Kok VKomum ro^ ovr«
trtpanroivTai in exactly the opposite sense, 'to mark so w to
follow.'
430 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 17-lA
8ixo«Taor^: cf. Gal. v. to. Those divisions which are th«
result of the spirit of strife and rivalry {fpis and C^Xor) and which
eventually if persisted in lead to alpi<r*it. The aKavboKa are the
hindrances to Christian progress caused by these embittered
relations.
W|K SiSax^r, not ' Panlinism/ bat that common basis of Christian
doctrine which St Paul shared with all other teachers (i Cor.
XV. i), and with which the teaching of the Judaizers was in his
opinion inconsistent
^kkX^kotc: cf. Rom. iii. ii. The ordinary construction is with
an-d and the genitive (a) of the cause avoided <ar4 aonv (i Pet
iii. ii), or {b) 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. 19 &!* r6 rikos ani>\tia, hv i ^(^ ^ 'O'Xta, aoi ^ dd^ A» rf
alaxvi'D aiirip, 01 ra iniytia <ftpovovvrtt,
TQ iauTtav KoiXif . These words do not in this case appear to
mean that their habits are lax and epicurean, but that their motires
are interested, and their conceptions and objects are inadequate.
So Oi igen : Sed et quid causae sit, qua iurgia in eccUsiis xuxcitantur^
et lites, divini Spiritus instinctu aperit. Ventris, inquit, gratia : hoc
est, quaestus et cupiditatis. The meaning is the same probably in
the somewhat parallel passages Phil. iii. 17-21; CoL ii. so-iiL 4.
So Hort {Judaistic Christianity, p. 124) explains rantivocppoavpri to
mean ' a grovelling habit of mind, choosing lower things as the
primary sphere of religion, and not tA av», the region in which
Christ is seated at Goti's right hand.'
XpTjo-ToXoyias nal cuXoyias, ' fair and flattering speech.' In
illustration of the first word all commentators quote Jul. Capitolinus,
Pertinax 13 (in Hist. August)'. xpn<^o^oyov eum appellanies qui beTU
loqueretur et male facer et. The use of (vKoyla 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. Fab. 229, p. 150, ed. Av.
iav (TV fvXoyiat tvnop^s tyayi crov oii Ktjdofiai.
10. if Y^p ufiwr 6iraKoi^. ' 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.
6iKm %i dftas. 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
XVI. ie-28.] WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 431
therefore blamelenk In Matt x. 16 the disciples are to b«
^poviftoi and dxtpaiMi see also Phil. ii. 15*
20. 6 Zk Oc&s Tf]s cipil)in)f. See on xv. 13. It is the 'God of
peace ' who will thus overthrow Satan, because the efifect of these
divisions is to break up the peace of the Church.
oucTpiil/ci : 'will throw him under your feet, that jou may trample
upon him.'
TOK laravav. In s Cor. xi. 1 4 St. Paul writes ' for even Satan
feshioneth 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
4 X<^pts "-T-^- S^- P^ul closes this warning with a salutation
as at the end of an Epistle.
There is very considerable divergence in different aathoritiet m to Ac
benedictions which they insert in these concluding verses.
(i) The TR. reads in ver. ao ^ x^P^* ^^ Kvpiov ^fmr liyraS [X^ffroS]
luO' iinSnf.
This is supported by K A B C L P, &c., Viilg. &c., Orig.-lat
It is omitted by D E F G Sednl.
(i) In ver. 34 it reads ^ x^P** ""^^ Kvflow ^ftSty % X. fitrA wivruw t/tS^.
This is omitted by M ABC, Valg. cedJ. (am. fuld. karl.) Boh. Aeth.
Orig.-lat.
It is inserted by D E F G L, &c., Vnlg. Hard. Chrys. &c Of these
F G L omit tv. 35-37, and therefore make these words the end of the
Epistle.
(3) A third and smaller group pats these words at di* «nd of vec 17 :
P. 17. 80, Pesh. Arm. Ambrstr.
Analyzing these readings we find :
K A BC, Orig.-lat have a benediction at ver. si only.
D E F G have one at ver. 34 only.
L, Vulg. cU»$., Ctirys., and the mass ^f lata Mtktrities have it ia both
places.
P has it at ver. si, and after ver. ty.
The correct text clearly has a benediction at rer. ai and there only; it
was afterwards moved to a place after ver. 34, which was very probably
in some MSS. the end of the Epistle, and in later MSS., by a natural
cooflatioQ, appears in both. Sea the Introdnctiatt, S 9>
OBEETINaS OP ST. PAUL'S C0MPAin01l&
ZVI. 21-23. All my companions — Timothy^ Lucius, yason,
and Sostpater — greet you. I Tertius, the amanuensis, also
give you Christian greeting. So too do Gaius, and Erastus,
treasurer of Corinihy and Quartus.
21-28. These three verses form a sort oi postscript added aftei
43* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 21-27
the conclusion of the letter and containing the names of St Paul's
companions.
21. Ti|i<59eos had been with St Paul in Macedonia (» Cor, I i) :
of his movements since then we have no knowledge. The /io»
with <Tvv*py6s is omitted by B.
AouKios might be the Lucius of Cyrene mentioned Acts ziii. i.
'icKTfuv is probably the one mentioned in Acts xvii. 5-7, 9 as
St. Paul's host, and Soxr/n-arpor may be the same as the s«7rarpor
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 (oi (Tvyytvfis fiov cf. ver. 7). It was natural that St Paul
should lodge with a fellow-countryman.
22. 6 Ypa+as- St. Paul seems generally to have employed an
amanuensis, see i Cor. xvi. ai ; Col. iv. 18 ; t Thess. iii. 17, and
cf. Gal. vi. 1 1 ibtTt VTjXiKois vfxiv ypanftaaiv typa\fra ttj fpfi xtipi.
23. rd'ios who is described as the host of St. Paul and of
the whole Church is possibly the Gaius of i Cor. i. 14. In all
probability the Christian assembly met in his house. Erastus
(cf. a Tim. iv. 20) who held the important office of oIkovohos t^i
ni\fas, ' the city treasurer,' is presumably mentioned M the most
influential member of the community.
THE CONCIiUDINO DOZOLOOT.
XVI. 25-27. And now let me give praise to God, whe eon
make you firm believers, duly trained and established accord'
ing to the Gospel that I proclaim, the preaching which
announces Jesus the Messiah; that preachiftg in which
God's eternal purpose, the mystery of his working, kept
silent since the world began, has been revealed, a purposi
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 faith : to God, I say, to
Him who is alone wise, be the glory for ever tJirough Jesus
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
ttie great thoughts of the Epistle are summed op. Although
XVI. 25.] THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY 433
doxologies are not uncommon in these Epistles (Gal. I g ; Rom.
xi. 36), they are not usually so long or so heavily weighted ; but
Eph. iii. a I ; Phil. iv. 20; i Tim. i. 17 offer quite sufficient parallels;
the two former at a not much later date. Ascriptions of praise at
the conclusion of other Epp. are common, Heb. xiii. 20, a I ; Jude
a4, as; Clem. Rom. § Ixv; Mart. Polyc. ao.
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, Biblical Essays,
p. 3ai flF.
25. T^ 8j Sui'aii^yM fiftfis (rn|pi|ai : cf. Rom. xiv. 4 or^Kft ^ mirrcc
vradrjatTai bi' bwarti yap 6 Kvpios aTrjtTai amou. A more exaCt
parallel is furnished by Eph. iii. 20 ra 8« hvvap.(v<a . . . noi^aai . . .
airy ^ i6^a. irn)pi(m is confined in St. Paul to the earlier Epistles
(Rom. i. II ; and Thess.). Svvanai, Swaros, 8vvaT€<o of God, with
an infinitive, are common in this group. We are at once reminded
that in i. II 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.
Kard ri *iayy£KL6v |iOM: Rom. ii. 16; a Tim. ii. 8; cf. also
Rom. xi. a 8 Kara ri tiayyfXiov. 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
Kal TO K^puy^a 'ItjctoG Xpioroo. The words Krjpvyfia, lOfpvtriTtw
occur throughout St. Paul's Epp., but more especially in this
second group. (Rom. x. 8; i Cor. i. ai, ag; ii. 4; a Cor. L 19;
iv. 5 ; xi. 4 ; Gral. ii. a, &c.^ 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.
Kard diroKdXu^iK fjiuanripiou k.t.X. Cf. I Cor. ii. 6, 7, 10 <ro<^tm
Ft
434 IPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZVI. 26, 86
fiftnjv, tjp np9Apt&tv 6 Gtht nph t&v al&pctv . . . fffjuw tH airtKoKvufttv i BcAf
8ta Tov nvtvfiarns. Eph. iii, 3, 5, 6 ; Tit. i *, 3 ; a Tim. L 9, 10,
and for separate phrases, Rom. i. 16 ; iii. ai ; 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
a 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 g^roup, as the quotation from Corinthians shows;
but there it represents rather the conclusion which is being arrived
at by the Aposde, 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 Kara dnoKoKvyj/tw dowH to yvmpKrBivTos goes not with
(TTTipl^ai but with KTjpvyfM, 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 f)ta n ypa(f)S»p wpo-
<^i)tikS>v. The only Greek MSS. that omit t« 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
<f>avtp(o6iVTot and yvapiadfin-nt, and all the words from did « ypa(f)Ap
to the latter word should be taken together, fit wapra to t6pti
probably goes with tls vnaKorjv wiarfms and not with ypaptadevros.
hid TC ypa^CiP -n-po({>i]TiKWK . . . yvupiaQitnos. 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. i, a), that the new method of salvation although
apart from law, was witnessed to by the Law and the Prophets
(fiapTvpovpivri vno rov vopov Ka\ riv irpocprjrip Rom. iiL ai), the
constant allusion esp. in chaps, ix-xi to the Old Testament
Scriptures; all these are summed up in the phrase dia ypa(f)mt
wpo<f)TfriKiop.
The same is true of the idea expressed by mir iiriraytip rw
elmpiov e«oO. The mission given to the preachers of the Gosp)el
it brought out generally in Rom. x. 15 £f., the special cotni&iLn4
XVI. 26, 27.] THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY 435
to the Apostle is dwelt on in the opening w. 1-5, and the sense
of commission is a constant thought of this period. With regard
to the words, alaviov is of course suggested by xP"'"*** aluviott:
cp. Baruch iv. 8, Susanna (Theod.) 42 (LXX) 35. The formula
KOT tnirayrjy occurs I Cor. vii. 6; a Cor. viii. 8, but with quite
a different meaning ; in the sense of this passage it comes again in
I Tim. i. I ; Tit. i. 3.
We find the phrase tit fnroKofip vitmmt in Rom. i. 5. As Hort
points out, the enlarged sense of wr«o^ and viraKovm is confined to
the earlier Epistles.
The last phrase «*f ndwra rit tOvri yvnpurSivrot hardly requires
illustrating ; it is a commonplace of the Epistle. In this passage
still carrying on the explanation of Kripvyfia, 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.
fi6vtf <ro(j)u ecu: a somewhat similar expression may be found
in I Tim, i. 17, which at a later date was assimilated to this, (ro0y
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 (S> ^dOoi nXovTov Koi ao(f)ias Koi yvaxTtat &tov xi. 33) J even
when we cannot follow His tracks. He is leading and guiding
us, and the end will prove the depths of His wisdom.
27. Y ^ ^^i°- ttX The reading here is very difficult.
I. It would be easy and simple if following the authority of
B. 33. 7a, Pesh., Orig.-lat. we could omit «, or if we could read
avry with P. 3 1. 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 4 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 ^ ^ d6$a k.tA. (Gal. i. 15; a Tim. iv. 18;
Heb. xiii. ai).
a. If the involved construction were the only difficulty caused
by reading y, it would probably be right to retain it But there
are others more serious. How are the words dm 'L X. to be taken?
and what does w refer to ?
(1) Grammatically the simplest solution is to suppose, with
Lid., that a refers to Christ, and that St. Paul has changed the
construction owing to the words dta *I. X. He had intended to
finish *to the only wise God through Christ Jesus be Glory/
aa in Jude 05 /m(iy ^'f tf'ur^pt '}/****', ^ '!• 3L rw Kvpiov iiftrnp, do^
i3fi KPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZVI. IT
itryahmvvpif, crX, but the words *liy<r*5 Xpurr^i 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 5^ be read, but it can hardly be
correct; and that not because we can assert that on « priori
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.
(a) For this reason most commentators attempt to refer the
^ to eta. This in itself is not difficult: it resembles what is
the probable construction in i Pet. iv. 11, and perhaps in Heb.
xiii. a I. But then dih *!. X. becomes very difficult To take it
with ao(})a would be impossible, and to transfer it into the
relative clause would be insufferably 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. i a.
<{t Tovi cduvat should be read with BCL, Hard., Chrys. Cyr. Theodit
T&v aUwoiv was added in NADEP, Vnlg. Pe«h. Bolu, Oii^.-lat Scc^
owing to the influence of i 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
w. 17-20, and wishing to 'restore the Epistle at its close to its
tone of 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
I. Subjects.
Abbot, Dr. Ezra, p. 133.
Abbott, Dr. T. K., pp. laS ; 185, Sec,
Abelaid, pp. cii; 273.
Abrmham, Descent from, p. 55.
Faith of, p. 97 fl.
History of, in St. Paul and St.
James, p. loa ff.
Promise to, pp. i09ff. ; 348.
Righteousness of, p. 100 fl.
Accasative case, vi. 10 ; vilL y
Acilias Glabrio, pi 410.
Acte, p. xviL
Adam, pp. ijoff. ; 34} ff.
Fall of, p. 136 i.
Adrian, p. 45.
Agrippesii, pp. zx ; xziiL
Alexandrian text, p. bad.
AUxandriiuu, Ctlde*, p. LdM.
Alford, Dean, p. cviiL
Alitams, p. xxii.
Amanuensis, zri. sa ; pp. Is; 197.
Ambrosiaster, pp. zxv ; d.
Amiaiinus, Codex, pp. Ixvi ; bc
Ampliatas, xvi. 8 ; pp. xxvii ; xzxIt.
AndronicQS, xvi. 7 ; pp. xxvii ; xzziv.
Angeluns, Codex, p. unr.
Angels, pp. 146 ; 323 £.
Aorist tense, u. 15 ; iii. »7.
Apelles, xvi. 18 ; p. zzxit.
ApoUonivB, p. Iii.
Apostle, pp. 4 f. ; 433.
Aquila and Priscilla (Pritca), pp.
xviiij xxvk; xxxiv; zl; 370; 411;
414 flf.
titulus ot, pu 41^
the church m their house, p. xxzv.
A^ilia Priaea, p. 4*0.
Aqninas, Thomas, pp. cM; ifo £;
37a f. ; 349 ; 394.
Aristides, p. IxxxiL
Aristobulns, xvi. 10; pp. xxiii ; xxvii;
xxxiv ; XXXV.
Armenian Version, pp. Ixvii ; Ixriti t,
Arminias, pp. civ ; 374.
Arnold, Matthew, pp. xliv; 163 f.
Article, Use of, ii. la, 13; iii. 11; It.
13, 34 ; viii. 36; ix. 4.
Asia, Province of, xvL 5.
Astarte, p. xviiL
Asyncritus, xvi. 14 , p. zxxr.
Athanasins, St, p. 305.
Atonement, pp. 88 ; 91 ff.; 117; 119;
149.
Day of, pp. 85 ; 93 ; lis ff.
Attraction, Grammatical, iv. 17; vi
17; ix. 34; X. 14,
Angiensis, Codex, pp. Ixiv ; Ixis.
Augustesii, pp. xx ; xxiii.
Augustine, St., pp. 149 f.; 185; S17;
*1^i-; 379; 394»&c
Babylon, as a name of Rome, p. xxif
Balfour, Mr. A. J., p. 334.
Baptism, pp. 107 ; 153 ff.
Barmby, I>r. J., p. cix.
Baruch, Apocalypse of, pp. 33 ; i|7 •
307, (Sec.
Basileides, p. Ixxxii.
Batiffol, The Abb^ P., p. bnr.
Biumlein, W., pp. ao, &c.
Baor, F. C, pp. xxxii; xxxix; aai;
400.
Beet, Dr. J. Agar, p. cviL
BcnedictioD, The eoadnding^ p. adl
43«
IMDBX TO THE NOTES
Bengel, J. A-, jp. m.
Berliner, p. xviiL
Beyichlag, Dr. Willibald, p. #75.
Beta, Theodore, p. civ.
Blood-shedding, Sacrificial, pp. 89;
91 f. ; 119.
Boenurianus, Codex, pp. Ixiv ; bdz.
Bohairic Version, viiL a8; p. IzriL
Bousaet, VV., p. Ixviii f.
Browning, Robert, p. 263.
Bnrton, ProL £. D« Witt, p. M ttd
passim.
Cains, p. xxix.
' Caligula, p. ix.
Call, Conception of, pp. 4; fiy.
Callistus, the Roman Bishop, p. zziii.
Calvin, pp. ciii; 151 f , ; 373.
Capito, p. XV.
Caspari, Dr. C. P., p liL
Catacumbas, ad, p. xxx.
Cenchieae, xvi. I ; p. xzxviL
Ceriani, Dr., p. Ixvii.
Charles, R. H., pp. 145; 326, &c.
Chrestus, p. xx.
Chrysostom, St, pp. xcix ; 148; 370;
395, &c.
Churches, the earliest (buildings fox
worship), xvi. 5.
Cicero, p. xx.
Circumcision, p. 106 flF.
Civil Power, pp. 365 ff. ; 369 ff.
Claromontanus, Codex, pp. Ixiv ; Ixix.
Clemen, Dr. A., pp. xxxvii ; xxxviii ;
307-
Clemen, Dr. C, pp. xxxvii f. ; Ixxxix.
Clemens Romanus, pp. xxix ; Ixxix ;
147; 371-
Clemens, Flavins, p. xxxv.
Coislinianus, Codex, pp. Ixiv ; IzviH ;
Ixxii.
Colet, John, p. cii.
Collection for the saints in Jerusalem,
pp. xxxvi ; xcii.
Columbaria, p. xviL
Commandments, The Ten, p. 373 f.
Communication in Roman Empire,
p. xxvi f.
Conflict, The Inward, p, 184 i.
Conversion, p. 186.
Conybeare, F. C, p. Ixix.
Cook, Canon, p. IxviL
Corbulo, p. XV.
Corinth, p. xxxvi.
Corinthians, First Epistle to, pp. xxxrii ;
418.
Corsseo, Dr. P., pp. Ixviii ; Ixix ; xcviiL
Covenant, pp. 330; t^
Critici Sacri, p. da,
Cyprian, p. liL
Cyrene, p. xvi.
Cyril of Alexandria, p. ai6 1
Damascenus, Johannes, p. &
Damasus, the Roman Bishop, p zs&
Date of the Epistle, pp. xxxvi ff. ; a.
Dative case, iv. ao; vi 5 ; viL 4, f ,
viii. 34.
David, Descent of Messiah from, L }]
as anthor of Psalms, iv. 6 ; xL 9.
Days, Observance of, p. 386 f.
Death, Idea of (see 'Jesns Christ,
Death of ; Bin/aroi)^ vi. 8.
Deissmann, Hen G. A., pp. 160 £ j
444 ff.
Delitzsch, Dr. F., p. 45 «tA passim.
Depositio Martyrum, p. xxx.
De Rossi, Cav. G. B., p. 418 fL
De Wette, p. cvi.
Dickson, Dr. W. P., p. cvL
Dionysins of Corinth, p. «»<y,
Domitilla, p. xxxv.
Doxologies, pp. 46 ; 337 £
Doxology, The (Rom. xvL f6-t7),
pp. Ixxix ; Ixxxix ; xcr ; 43a ft
Dwight, Dr. T., p. asj.
Ebionite, p. 400.
Edersheim, Dr. A., pp. xxili; 136 ft
Egyptian Versions, p. Ixvii.
Election, pp. 344 i. ; 348 ff. ; 344.
Epaenetus, xvi. 5 ; p. xxvii.
Ephesians, Epistle to the, p^ !▼.
Ephesus, pp. xvi; xciii.
Ephratmi, Codex, p. Ixiii.
Epistles of St. Paul, AddreaMi •(
P- ^5-
Erasmns, p. ciL
Erastns, p. xxxriL
Esau, ix. 13.
Essenes, p. 400 £
Estius, p civ.
Ethiopic Version, p. Ixvft
Euthalins, p. Ixix.
Euthymius Zigabenns, p. c
Evans, Dr. T. S., pp. 99; ia6; %%\\
3"'
Evanson, E., p. IxxxvL
Everling, Dr. O., p. a J 3,
Evil, Power of, p 145 £
Ewald, Dr. P., p. 61.
E^a, Fourth Book oi^ p. SJ and
L SUBJECTS
430
Fairbaim, Dr. A. M^ fk cUL
Faith, pp. 19; sift; 83 C; 94 t.;
97 ft
and Works, pp. 57 ; 105.
Fall, The, pp. 85; 130 B.', 136 ff.;
143 «. ; ao5.
Felix, p. XT.
Forensic terms, pp. 30 f.; 190; aaa
Free-Will, pp. 216; 347 L
Fricke, Dr. G. A., p. 131.
Friedlander, Dr. L., p. 51.
Fritzsche, C. F. A., pp. cvi ; 175, &c.
Fuldemis, Codss, pp. Ixri ; xc.
Gains, xri. 33 ; p. xxxrii.
Galatia, Churches of, p. xxxviii.
Galatians, Epistle to uie, p. xxxvU.
Genitive case, iii. aa ; iv. 11; ▼. 5;
vii. 5 ; viii. 36 ; rv. 5, 13, 33 ; xvi.
ao, 35.
Gentiles (see t6vr)\ L 5, 13, i8-3a ;
iL 14 f., 26; iii. 9, a3, 39 f.; ix. 30;
m. la ; xv. 9 ff., 16 f.; xri. 36.
Call of the, ix. 34 ff.
Gentile-Christians, L 6; vr. 17; zi.
13 ff. ; XV. 9 ff., 37.
in Church of Rome, pp. zxzii ; Iii f
Gifford, Dr. E. H., p. cviii.
Gnostics, pp. 369 ; 368.
Goo, as Creator, pp. 359 ; a66 L
•■ Father, pp. 16 1; aoi ff. ;
396 f.
Love of, pp. 1 18 1 ; ity, ai9 ft ;
134.
Mercy of, p. 33a ffl
Sovereignty of, pp. 3 16 ; 350 fL ;
"57 1-
Godct, Dr. F., p. cviii, &c.
Gore, Canon, pp. 300 ; 367, &c
Gospel, The, pp. xliii ; 1.
Universality of Uie (set 'Gen-
tiles*), p. 398!
Gospels, The, pp. 8; 17; 30; 3a;
36 f.; 91; 381 f.; 431.
Gothic Version, The, pp. Ixvii ; box.
Grace (see x&pit). The state of^ p. 3 1 8 ff.
Grafe, Dr. E., p. 53.
Greek Commentators, pp. xcix ; 107 ;
316.
Greeks in Rome, p. xvil.
Green, T. H., pp. 4a ; 164 C
Grimm, Dr. Willibald, p. 333.
Grotins, Hugo, p. civ.
Grouping of MSS., p. IzviL
Hammond, Henry, p. cr.
Heathen (sec ' Gentilea,' f^), p. 49 £
Hebrews, Epistle to the, pp. bcni;
3»; 9a; "5-
Heirship, p. 30i ff.
Hermas, xvi. 14.
Hermes, xvL 14.
Herodion, xvi. 1 1 ; pp. xxvii ; xxxIt.
Herods, The, p. xxi L
Hesychins, p. IxriiL
Hilary, p. ci.
Hispalns, p. xix.
History, St. Fanl's Philosophy o^
p. 343 ff.
Hodge, Dr. C, p. cvi.
Hort, Dr. F. J. A., pp. Ixvi ; Ixix ;
Ixxxix ; xcT ; 165 ; 401 ; 414 L \
430; 429; 433.
Hugh of St. Victor, p. ciL
Ignatius, pp. xxix; Ixxix; 161 ; aoo.
Illyria, Illyricum, p. 407 ff.
Immanence, The Divine, p. 197.
Imperfect tense, ix. 3.
Infinitive (cf. (It rJ), i. 10; iL ai ;
xii. 15.
Integrity of the Epistle, pp. Ixxxi ;
^ 399-
Interpolations in ancient writers, p.
Ixxvi f.
Interpretation, History of, pp. 147 fil ;
369 ff.
Irenaeus, p. xxix.
Isaac, pp. 1 1 3 ff. ; 338 ff.
Isis, Worship of, pp. xviii ; xz.
Israel (see Jews, &c.), Privileges o(
pp. 34 ; 63 ff. ; 68 ff. ; 23a ; 398.
Rejection of, pp. 338 ff ; 307 ff.;
318 ff; 341 f.
Restoration of, p. 318 ff.
Unbelief o^ p. aag fi.
Jacob, ix. 13.
James, St, pp. 3a; loa ff.; i%§.
Epistle of, p. Ixxvii
Jason, p. xxxviL
Jerusalem, Fall o^ pp. 337 ; %4fi\
38a
Collection for poor saints in,
pp. xxxvi ; xciL
St Paul's visit to, p. 414 f.
Jesus Chkist (see 'irjaovi Xpurritf
Xftardt 'lij<Tovi, iv Xptar^).
Death of, pp. 91 ff ; 160.
Descent of, p. 6 f.
Teaching of (see Gospels), p. 37,
&c
Jewish Teaching (see 'Messianic In*
terpretatioD ')•
440
INDEX TO THE NOTES
fewifb Teaching on Adam's Fall,
p. 136 ff.
on Atonement, p. 88.
00 Circumcision, p. 108 1
on Election, p. 248 f.
on Relation to Ciril Power, p. 369.
on Renovation of Nature, p.
sioff.
on Restoration of Israd, p. 336 L
Jewi (see 'Israel').
as critics, p. 53 ff.
Failure of the, p. 63 C
in Rome, p. xviii f.
banished from Rome, p. xm.
their organization, p. xxii {.
their social status, p. zxr.
influence onRoman Societ7,p.zxT.
their migratory character, p. xxtL
their turbulence, p. xxziiL
John, St., pp. 91 f. ; 163.
owett, Dr. B., p. criL
Judaistic Controversy, p. IriL
Judaizers, p. 400.
Jude, St., p. 3a.
Epistle of, p. Ixziz.
Judgement, The Final, p. 5] C
Julia, xn. 15 ; p. xxxiv.
Jiilicher, on Ephesians, p. Iv.
Julius Caesar, relation t» the Jews,
p. xix.
Junia (or Junias), xtL 17 ; pp. xxvii ;
xxxiv.
Justification (see Simuoavrii 9fov, 81-
Kaiovv, SiKaiwais, iiKaivfia), pp. 30 f.;
36ff. ; 57; 118 ff. ; 132:138:153; 190.
and Sanctiiication, p. 38.
Justin Martyr, p. Ixxxiii.
Javenal, p. IIL
Kautzsch, Dr. E., pp. 7a ; 307.
KeUy, W., p. cvii.
Kennedy, Dr. B. H., p. 333.
Kenyon, Dr. F. G., p. 334.
Klopper, Dr. A., p. 62.
Knowling, R. J., p. Ixxzix.
Laodicea, p. zvi.
Lapide, Cornelius a, pp. civ ; 15a.
Latin Vermon, The Old (Lat. Vet^,
i. 30; iii. 35 ; v. 3-5, 14; viii. 36;
ix. 17; pp. Ixvi; 373.
Law, Conception of, pp. 58 ; 109 ff. ;
161 ; 343 f.
and Grace, pp. 166 ff.; 176 ff.;
187 ff.
Libertini, pp. xix ; xxviii.
Liddon, Dr. H. P., p. cviii and fastim.
Life, Idea of, vi. 8 ; vii. 9; vtiL €{
X. 5 ; xii. I.
Lightfoot, Bp., pp. Ixxxix ; xcr and
passim.
Lipsius, Dr. R. A., p. cix and passim.
Literary History of Epistk to the
Romans, p. Ixxiv.
Locke, John, p. cv.
Loman, A. D., p. Ixxxvi.
Love, pp. 373 ft; 376 f.
Lucius, xvi. 31.
Luther, Martin, p[». dii ; 4a ; If I.
Lyons, p. sn.
Maccabees, The, p. xix.
Mangold, Dr. W., pp. xzzii ; actii ;
399; 417.
Manuscripts, p. bdii L
Marcion, pp. Ixxxiii; as; scri ; 38;
55; 83; 179; 180; 190; aa6:
339 ; 366 ; 384-
Mark, St, p. xxix.
Marriage, Law o^ p. 170 C
Martial, p. liL
MartyroUiinm ffiirom/miammmf p^
XXX.
Mary (Miriam), pp. xxxiv ; xxxv.
Mayor, Dr. J. B., p. Ixxvii.
Melanchthon, Philip, p. eiii.
Merit, pp. 81 ; 86 ; 94 ff. ; 97 ft ; 345 ;
330 ff-
Messiah, Coming of the, pp. 6a ; 188 ;
307 ; 387 £ ; 396 ; 336 £ ; 379 £
Messianic Interpretation of O. T.,
pp. 281 f.; 387 f.; 396; 306; 336.
Meyer, Dr. H. A. W., p. cvi and
passim.
Michelsen, J. H. A., p. IxzxriiL
Minucius Felix, p. liv.
Mithras, p. xviii.
MosquensiSf Codtx, p. Lnr.
Moule, H. C. G., p. cviM.
Naasseni, p. Ixxxii.
Naber, S. A., p. IxxxvL
Narcissus, xvi. 1 1 ; p. xxxiv L
Natural Religion, pp. 39 ff. ; {4.
Nereus, xvi. 5.
Nero, The Quinqumnimm of, p. xiv.
Character of his reign, p. xv.
Law and Police under him, p. xvi
Neutral Text, p. IxxL
Novatian, p. liL
Objections, Treatment of, ^ 09;
7^ ; 98; a63; a93J ^9k-
Occumeoiust p. «.
i. SUBJECTS
Ml
Oehler. Dr. G. F, p. 318.
Old Testament, Use of the, pp. 77 ;
364 ; 288 f. ; 302 ff. ; 396.
Collections of extracts from,
pp. 264 ; 283.
Oltramare, Hugues, p. cviii.
01)mipas, xvi. 15.
Origen, p. xcix and passim.
Original Sin, p. 137.
Ostian way, The, p. xxiz.
Paganism, p. 49 ff.
Paley.W., p. 413.
Parous! a, The, p. SJjti.
Participle, Force of, !▼. l8 ; ▼. I ;
ix. 33.
Passive Obedience, p. 37a.
Pa/irunsis, Codex, p. Ixv.
Patriarchs, Testament* of the Twelve,
p. Ixxxii.
Patrobas, xvi. 14.
Patron, p. 417!
Pattison, Mark, p. 60.
Paul, St. (see 'St. James,' 'St John,'
'St. Jnde,"St. Peter').
Collection of his Epistles, p. budx.
Conversion of, p. 186.
Conrtesj of, pp. ai ; 403.
Death of, p. xxxi.
Grief o^ over Israel, pp. a 35 ;
337.
Temsalem visits, p. xlii.
Joame3rs o( pp. zxxvi if. ; 407 ff. ;
413 a
Penetrating insight o(,pf. a6t;
103; 186.
Philosophy of History of, p.
343 ff.
Plans of, pp. zxxvi ff. ; 19 ff- ;
410 ff.
Roman citizenship, p. xiv.
Rome and its influence on, pp. xiii ;
xviii.
Style ot p. liv.
Temperament and character,p.lix.
Paulas EpiscopuB, p. Ixxxviii.
Pedanius Secundus, p. xvii.
Pelagius, p. ci.
Perfect tense, v. a ; ix. 19 ; xvi. 7.
Persis, xvi. 1 2 ; p. xxxv.
Peshitto Version, The, p. IxviL
Peter, St.
Death of, p. xxxii.
Roman Church and, pp. xxviii ff. ;
Ixxvi.
His twenty-five years' episcopate,
P XXX.
Peter, First Epistle of, p. Ixzivft
Pharaoh, ix. 17.
Philo, Embassy to Rome, p. zs,
Philologns, xvi. 15 ; p. xxxiv t
Phlegon, xvi. 14.
Phoebe, xvi. I ; p. xxxvi.
Pierson, A., p. Ixxxvi.
Plumptre, Dean, pp. 430 ; 436.
Polycarp, Epistle of, pp. Ixxix; J71.
Pompeius Magnus, p. xix.
Pomponia Graecina, pp. xviii; zxii;
Poor, Contiibutions for the, pp.
xcii ; 41 2 f.
Poppaea Sabina, p. xviii.
Porpkyrianus , Codex, p. Ixv.
Porta Portiunsis, Jewish cemetery at,
p. XX.
Portus, Jewish cemetery at, p. xx.
Predestination (see ' Election,' * Re-
sponsibility •), p. 347 ff.
Prisca (Priscilla : see ' Aquila *), xvL J.
Priscillae coetneterium, p. 419.
Promise, Conception e^ pp. 6; iSj
109 ff.
Propitiation, pp. 9a ; 94; 139!
Proselytes, p. xxv.
Provinces under Nero, p. xr.
Pythagoreans, p. 400.
QminqMemUum of Nero, p. shr.
Ramsay, W. M., pp. zhr; zsvifi}
xxxi.
Reconciliation, Idea of, p. 139!.
Reformation Theology, The, pp. cttf
15a; 373 f-
Regeneration, p. 185 C
Reiche, p. xcv.
Remnant, Doctrine of tfa^ ppw ]ol I
316 ff.
Renan, E., pp. xcii ; 411.
Kendall, F., p. xxxviiL
Resch, Dr. A., p. 383.
Resurrection, p. 335 f.
of Christ, pp. 113 ffl; ll6Cj IMi
Revelation (cf. a9'o«dAv^),pp.39&;
4a.
Riddell, Mr. James, p. 191.
Righteousness, p. a8 ff.
of God, pp. 34 ff. ; 134 ft
Roman Church, pp. xzv ; 18 £ { ||#|
401 1 ; 404.
Composition of, p. xxzL
Creed ol, p. liiL
Government, pp. xxxv; 37^ C
Greei.. character of, p. liL
443
INDEX TO THE NOTES
Roman Chnrch {(tntinutd) —
Mixed character of, p. xxxiv.
Origin of, pp. xiv ; IxxvL
Status and condition of, p. xxxiv.
Roman citizenship, St. Paal'i, p. xir.
Roman Empire, p. xiv.
Romans, Epistle to the.
Analysis of, p. xlviL
Argument of, p. xliv.
Ephesians compared with, (w hr.
Integrity of, p. Ixxxv.
Language and Style of, lii.
literary History of, p. Ixxiy.
Occasion of, p. xxxviii.
Place of, in Pauline Epistles,
p. Ixxxir.
Purpose of, p. xxxiz.
Text of, p. Ixii.
Time and place of, p. xzrrL
Rome in A.D. 58, p. xiii flf.
Influence of, on St. Paul, pp. xiii ;
XX vi.
Ralus, xvi. 13 ; pp. xxyU; xxxIt.
Ruskin, Mr., p. 93.
Sacrifice of Christ, pp. 91 flF. ; 119;
132.
Sacrifices, the Levitical, pp. 9a ; I a a.
Sahidic Version, p. Ixvii.
Salvation, pp. 33 f. ; 15a f.
Sanctification, pp. 38; 15a.
Sangermatunsis , Codex, p. Ixix.
Satan, p. 145.
Schader, Dr. E., p. 117.
Schaefer, Dr. A., p. cix.
Scholasticism, pp. 37 ; 118; I a 3.
Schnltr, Dr. H., p. 14.
Schurer, Dr. £., p. xviii and /misim.
Scrivener, Dr. F. H. A., p. IxtIL
Sedulius Scotus, p. IxIt.
Seneca, p. xvii.
Septuagint,/ajji>»».
Silvanus, p. xxix.
Sin, pp. 130 ff ; 136 ff. ; I43ff. ; 176 ff.
Sinaiticus, Codex, pp. Ixii ; Ixvii.
Slavery in Rome, p. xviii.
Smeiid, Dr. R., p. 39.
Smith, Dr. W. Robertaon, pp. 14;
317 f-
Society, the Christian, pp. laa f. ; 355.
Sohm, Dr. R., p. 15.
Sonship, p. 30I ff.
Sosi pater, p. xxxviL
Spain, XV. 34, 38.
Speculum, The, p. ia4.
Spirit, The Holy, pp. i89ff. ; 196 L;
199 C
Spiritual gifts, pp. si ; 358 ft
Stachys, xvi. 9 ; p. xxvii.
Steck, Rudolph, p. IxxxvL
Stichi {arixoi), p. Ivi L
Stoicism, p. xtL
Stuart, Moses, p. ctL
Suetonius, p. xxL
Suillins, p. xvi.
Swete, Dr. H. B., p. 7 ; 17 ; ssi.
Syriac Versions, p. Ixxi f.
Terminology, Theological, p. 17.
Tertius, xvi. a a.
TertuUian, p. xxix.
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
p. Ixxxii and/oJxiM.
Text of the Epistle, p. Ldii.
New nomenclature saggested,
p. Ixxi.
Theodoret, pp. c ; i\^ waA fassim.
Theophanes, p. cix.
Theophylact, p. c.
Thessalonians, Epp. to, p. bdL
Tholuck, F. A. G., p. cr.
Timotheus, xvi. 3i ; p. xxzriL
Toy, Prof C. H., p. 306 1
Trent, Council of, p. 153.
Trinity, Doctrine of the, pp. i( ,
aoo ; 340.
Tryphaena, xvi. la ; p. xxxr.
Tryphosa, xvi. i a ; p. xxxr.
Turpie, Mr. D M'^Calnun, p. 307.
Tyndale, pp. 65 ; 175; 194; 393.
Union with Christ, pp. 117; 153 ff.;
163 ff.
Urbanus, xtL 9 ; pp. xxvii ; xxxir.
Valentinians, p. IxxxiL
Van Manen, W. C, p. IxxxrlL
Vatican Hill, The, p. xxix.
Vaiicaniu, Codex, pp. Ixiii ; Ixviii ,
Ixxiii.
Vaughan, Dr. C. J., p. criL
Vegetarians, pp. 385 ; 401 £
Versions, p. Ixvi.
Vicarious suffering, p. 93.
Victor, Bishop, p. lii.
Vipsanins Terenas, p. Xf.
Voelter, Dr. D., p. Ixxxrtt.
Weak, The, pp. 383 ff. ; 399!.
Weber, Dr. F., p. 7 and passim,
Weber, Dr. V., p. 375.
Weiss, Dr. Bemhard, pp. zl ; cr'*
Wcisse, C. H., p. Ixxxvu
Westcott, Bishop, pp. 93 ; i S9.
II. LATIN WORDS
443
Western Text, The, p. Ixxi ff.
Wctstein, J. T., p. cr.
Weymouth, Dr. R. F., p. 414.
Wiclif, pp. 9; 175; 194.
Wordsworth, Dr. Christopher, p. eviL
Works, pp. 57 ; loa ; 175 f.
Wrath of God, pp. 47 ; 117.
Zahn, Dr. Theodor, p. IzJOCV.
Ziegler, L., p. Ixvi.
II. Latin Words.
amguttia, ^ tf.
cari/as, pp. 114; 37f.
definitut, p. 8.
deputatus, p. sat.
dtstinatuSf pw 8.
diisctiSt pp. 114; 17^
iugulatiCf p. a at.
mcrti/uari, p. aat.
perficio, pp. 58; ia4.
perpetro, p. 58.
pressura, pp. 571 I S^
vutiwia, p. a 2 a.
III. Greek Words.
[This if m Index to the Notes and not a Concordance ; sometimes however,
where it is desirable to illustrate a particular usage, references are given to
passages which are not directly annotated in the Commentary. The oppor-
tunity is also taken to introduce occasional references to two works which
appeared too late for use in the Commentary, N^otes on Epistles of St. Paul
from unpublished Comnuntaries (including the first seven chapters of the
Romans) by Bp. Lightfoot, and Bibelstiidien by G. Adolf Deissiiiann (Mar-
burg, 1895). Some especially of the notes on worda in the former work
attain to classical value (070601 and St'/fotoj, dva/ft^aAatoCaSai, hipwviov), 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. We cannot however
include under this latter head the somewhat important differences in regard to
^iHMovv and KaraWdafftiv. Bp. Lightfoot 's view of SiKoiovy in particular
seems to ns less folly worked oat than was usual with him.]
•Aj3/3a, viii. 15.
afivaaot, x. 7.
ir^oBoSf T. 7 (-Lft.) ; ri dYotfdr, xiiL
4 ; xiv. 16 ; xr. a.
ir^/aJ&aiawrf, xr. 14.
difaTTaVf xiii. 8, 9.
ir^-rr), ▼. 5, 8; xiL 9; xiiL 10;
XV. 30 ; pp. 374 ff. : c£. Deissmann,
p. 8of.
SiYffXoi, viii 38,
ayia<Tfj.6s, vi, 19.
liyios, i. 7 ; sL i<; xfi. i, i| ; xvL t,
»4.
iytaxrivri, i. 4.
dyvoeiy, x. 3 ; xi. 35.
aypiiKaios, xi. 1 7.
dSe\(p6s, X. I : c£ Deissmann, p. 8a f
aSiKia, i. 18, 39; iii. 5.
dSoKifxci, i. a8.
ddvvaTos, viii. 3.
diStos, i. ao.
alfta, iii. 25 ; pp. 91 £, iif,
aiajv, xii. a.
inadapaia, vi. I9.
dKOTj, X. 16.
uKpoar'^s, iL 13.
444
INDEX TO THE NOTES
outpo$v(fT(a, ii. 17.
iX-Tidua, i. 25 ; UL &
i\.r}OT}i, iii. 4.
liAAd ^iyoj, x. 18, 19.
dWaaffttv iv, i, 33.
dXAdrpjoi, XT. SO.
a/ia, iii. 13.
afMpTav€iv,y. la, 13; vL 15 ; p. 144.
afxdpTTjfua, iii. 25.
d/iapria, iii. 25 ; v. 13; p. 143 f.
4, V. la ; vi. 6, 7, 10 ; Tii. 8.
dfi*rafti\TiTos, xi. 29.
Ul'4/9CUI'C(*', X. 6.
di'd7»j»', X. 6.
auti^v, vii. 9,
ayiOffM, ix. 3.
dfcuKatVojo'it, xiL t.
dvaKfipaKaicvffOcu, xiii. 9: cf. Lft.
J\^o/es, p. 3ai fc
d»'aAo7«a, xii. 6.
dfawoKoyTjTos, i. ao ; tt. i .
di'aarcuTtt, i. 4 ; p. 18.
dvt^fpfvvrjTos, xi. 33.
avOpa^, xii. 20.
dj'^pwjTij'oc >.(yM, yL I9.
ayOpomos. ix. ao.
6 <<rcy, vii. a a.
(} »raA.a<dr, n. 6 ; pp. 17 a, 1 74.
ivofiia, vi. 19.
di/oxi?, ii. 4.
4»^airo5o/ia, xi 9.
ivTirAaafffOat, xiiL a.
avvn6nptTos, xii. 9.
d^<or . . . npos, viii. 18.
d^/<«y, xvi. a.
^"■opxy. viii- as ; «• 16 ; rri §.
d7r€«5e'xfff^a't viii. 19.
dniarla, iiriaTfty, iii. 3.
dwAoTT;!, xii. 8.
dird, i. 20 ; dni p,ipovs, XT. I5.
dwo0o\^, xi. 14.
dvo6vT]ffic(ii', vi. 7, 10.
dvoKoKtinrfffOat, i. 1 8.
diroicdAv^is, viii. 19.
inoKapaSoKia, viii. 19.
diroAa/<)3dre(i', i. 27.
d7ro\vTptuais, iii. 34 : c£ Lft. a/ 4k.
and p. 316.
dir6(TToKos, i. I ; xvi. 7 ; p. 18.
diroTiOeaOcu, xiii. la.
dvoToKfidi' , X. ao.
dnd/Kfia, ix. 22.
apa ovy, v. 18 ; vii. 35 ; is. i(, ll.
dpioKuv, XV. I.
"/'X'7. viii. 38.
dai/Sfia, i. 181.
iatfiifs, iv. f .
i<ri\y«ia, xiii. 13.
d(70(Vf(a, vL 19 ; viiL lit.
doOtvtiy, xiv. I.
dtrflevijj, V. 6.
'Kaia, xvi. 5.
d<Tiroi'5oj, i. 31 (▼, L).
&<Tvy(TOf, i. 31.
dT<^^€a^(u, i. 34.
atrrdy, i. 24 ; ix. 3 ; xr. 14,
aiiTov (emphatic), iii. 14.
[avTov, i. 24.]
d(popi(ftv, i. I ; p. ll.
dipopfiij, vii. 8.
'Axafa^ xvi. 5 (v. L).
iXptiovaOai, iii. la.
BdoX, ij, xi. 4.
^dOos, viii. 39 ; xi. j|.
0anrl(tff6at (It, vi. 3.
&Ap0apos, i. 14.
^(T(X(ta ToC 0(oC, xiv. ly.
^offiXevfii', V. 14, 17 ; vi It,
Paari^fiy, xv. i.
^SeXtiaataOai, iL as.
;3^^a, xiv. 10.
^KuffcpTififiaOai, xiv. iC
fiovKtjua, ix. 19.
l&ov\onni, p. 1 8 a.]
hpSicis, xiv. 17.
7«7««'^fftfoi, XT. 8.
yiyova, ii. 25 ; xvi. 7.
ytyoiro, /*^, iii. 4; jd. I, II.
yivtaOai, i. 3 ; iii. 4.
yiyii/ffKuv, ii. a; tL <; vM. I, l|
[viii. 29].
yvSiaii, xv. 14.
TfoxTTdi*, rd, L 19.
ypdnfio, viL 6.
ypa(p^, i a; p. 18: c£ Ddssaaua,
p. 109.
Si, iii. aa; ix. 30; iL I).
2cr, viii a6.
8(d, i. 8 ; ii. 37 ; iiL 35, a9 ; iv. II,
as; xiv. ao; p. 119.
9t' iavTov, xiv. 14.
Sia&^icT), ix. 4.
Siawovcfc, XV. 35.
Sia/toy'ia, xii. 7.
SioKovos, XV. 8 ; xvL I.
SiaKpivfffOat, iv. ao ; xir. t^
State ptais. xiv. I.
5<aAo7<(r/^uf, i. ai ; xir. i.
SiaaroKi), x. la.
diatpepovra, ri, iL 18 [^Lft.^
ItJotfxaAia, XT. 4.
in. GREEK WORDS
44'
liaBx*, tL 17 ; vrL 17.
MpxtnOat, T. 11.
iiKaioKfHala, y. 5.
SUcmos, L 17 ; Hi. 36; ▼. 7 ; p. 18 £
SucaioffiiyTI, pp. a8 ff., 39a.
Huttuooivri 9to9 (1) Six. rov 6«ov), L
17; ia. 15, Ji, 25; X. 3; p. 34ff-
hKcuow, iiKaiovaOM, ii. 13 ; lii. 4, ao,
t6, a8; W. 5; vi. »; viii. 30;
pp. 30 1. (otherwise Ln. ; lee how*
ever hit remariu 00 i(ioiy, JViftes,
p. 105)-
ilKcJmfta, L it; ▼. 16, 18; viiL 4;
p. 31 (cf. Lft. p. igi),
Sutaluou, iv. 15; T. it; n^ 3'>
147 ft
9i6, ziiL 5 ; xt. »t.
ttiri, i. 10 ; iii. aa
SiXOirraauu, xvL 17.
Stimuy, ix. 30; zii. 14.
8o«i/((iC«r, i. a8; iL 18 ; siL t.
«0««M, T. 4.
86£a, L S3 ; ill. S3 ; T. a ; tL 4 ; viii.
18, SI ; ix. 4; XT. 7| svL a7.
So(i(a), L ai ; viii. 30; sL I}; a?. 9.
tovXtiOf viii. 15, ai.
SovAoff, L I ; p. 18.
96raiut, i. 4, 16 ; viii |t.
SfuraaOcUj xvL a|.
Swarui', xiT. 4.
Svcar^, zii. 18I
Scaped, T. If.
fYMrrpcff, xi. 17.
iyxSirrtty, xv. as.
ISoAiovffar, iii. 13.
I0v% i. 5 ; ii. 14 ; Ix. 30.
tlyt, V. 6 (▼. 1.) ; [iii 30].
tlKiw, viii. a9,
rfvcp, iii. 30.
cfiwf , i. 10 ; xi. 14.
flp'fivij, i ?; V. I ; viii. 6; xiT. 17;
»▼• i3» 33 ; xvi. ao; p, 18.
•b, ii. 36 ; iv. 3 ; viii. 18 ; xi. 36 ;
XV. a6 (cf. Deissmaim, p. 113 ff.).
dt T<5 with inf., i. 11, ao (otixerwise
Lft.); iv. II, 16, 18.
•&. o, T. 15, 17 ; ix. 10.
U, ii. 8 (cf. lit); iii. a6, 30 (cf.
lit.) ; iv. 14, 16; si. 36; xiL 18.
imbiKos, xiii. 4.
ivci, ix. 36.
btrnKSff xi. 17.
l«/rXi7<r(a, xvl. 5, l€; p. If.
ixicKlvfiy, xvi. 17.
l«A.(ArT(ir, viii. 33; xtL 13 ; p. 4.
i«Xo7i^, xi. 7, 38.
mr' inKoy^v, fau II { >L 5
p. 350.
ttcviwrtir, ix. 6.
iicxvvuv, V, 5.
lA.a<ro'a»', ix. la.
iKtay, ix. 15 ; xiL 1.
(Kfv6fpla, viii. ai.
'EK\7]y, L 14.
lAA.07(r<r^at (lAA»70ff5oi), t. t).
IXir/r, T. 4 ; viii. 34 ; xii. i a ; xv. 4,
13-
tr, L 18 (otherwise Lft.), 19, 33 ; iL
a, 35 ; XT. 6 : c£ Deissmaim, p.
iv Kvpi<p, xvi. 13.
tr Kvpiq> Ttjffov, xiv. 1 4.
Ik XpiffT^, ix. I ; xvi. 7.
iy Xpiar^ 'Iriaov, iii. 34 ; vi. II.
jy (rap/ic/, viii. 9.
iv itvtvuari, viii. 9.
ky ^, viii. 3.
IvSctxi'vcrdai, iL 15: ix. 17, St.
iyi(i(ts, iii. 35, 36.
ifSvca/iovcr&oi, iv. 30.
ivoiKeiv, vii. 17 ; viii. 11.
iyroK^i, viL 8.
irrvyx&vfiy, xL s : cf. Deismumn,
p. 117 f.
I^avarav, vii. II.
i(ffflpuy, ix. 17.
((oftoXoffiaOcu, xiv. II.
i(ovffla, ix. 31 ; xiii. i.
lva77(X{a, iv. 13; ix. 4, 8} p> ll
(cf. Lft. on iv. ai).
fwcuvoi, ii. 39.
4irai<Tx«5»'*ff^a«, i. 16,
fwcwa/xifivTjffKfiy, xv. I5.
(iraraTravcff^ai, ii. 1 7.
ivfl, iii. 6.
Ivi, i. 9, II ; iv. 18 ; v. s ; viii. so
l^'y, V. 13.
ini-ivoHTis, i. 38 ; iii. so; x. 2.
iviOvpitiv, (iriOvpua, vii. 7 ; p. 37$.
tiriKaKuaOai, x. IS, 13, I4.
Ivt/itytty, xi. a a.
Jn-iFo9crv, i. II.
ivinoOia, xv. a).
iviffriiios, xvi. 7.
IvtrcXciV, XV. a8.
tvifipeiv, iii. 5.
liroFo/Ki^<a9a(, ii. 17.
tpyoy, rd cpyor, iL 15; xiiL |; bHr
446
INDEX TO THE NOTES
ipttt otr, Ix. 19 ; si. 19.
tI ipovfitv, iii. 5.
tI olv Ipovfitv, W. I) tL l{ vli.
7 ; yiii. ji ; is. 14.
ipiOfta, ii. 8.
iaeifiv, xiv. 2, 3, 6w
irtpot, vii. 23.
Iti, iii. 7 ; v. 6; Ix. 19.
*iayyf\i^(a9cu, x. 15; p. g£
«iaYfi\iov, i. 1 ; x. i6 ; xi. a8 ; pw 18.
fvayy(\t6v fiov, ii. 16; XtI. 95.
tvaptaros, xii. I.
f vSo/rfrc, XV. a6 £
(vSoKia, X. I.
tuXo^tf;'. xii. 14.
tiiKofTiTds, L as ; ix. g ; pi. 136 : et
Lft., p. 310.
9v\oyia, xv. 39; xri. 18.
fvoSovaOat, i. lo ( = Lft.).
fvpiaKfiv, iv. I (t. 1. ; on the reading
see also Lft).
tvxfffOai, ix. 3.
(<pditcL(, vi. 10.
tip' ^, V. 12.
Ix«»'. i- 38 ; ir. i{ ▼. i, a («Iit).
ix^pos, p. ia9f,
C^cic, xii. II.
C^\0S, X. 3.
C^", vii. 9 (c£ Lft.)} a. f ; sii. i;
xiv. 9.
C<u^, viii. 6 ; xL 15.
^ouoiroicrr, iv. 17*
f , iii. 39 ; xi 9.
^ dyvouTf, vi. }) trfl. I.
^ /cat, ii. 15.
jroi . . . ^, vi. 16.
f|8)7, i. 10; xiii, lu
ilXf (ar, xi. 3.
i^^f/Mi, ii. 5.
ijTTtjfta, xL It.
BAfOTot, 6, r. la, II ; vL I, 4
( = Lft.") ; viL 14.
BavarovcrOaif vii. 4.
BtiSrrfi, i. 30.
*«X«ii', vii. 15 ; ix. 16.
eiKrjua, t6, i. lO ; iL i8 ; xfi. I.
0(H(\iov, XV. 30.
e€<5s, p 337. ^
e«os naxTip, L 7 ; p. 18.
$(oaTvyrji, L 30 (cf. Lft.).
»ijpa, xi. 9.
fAii/'ir, ii. 9 ; ▼. 3 ; viiL 35 ; xJL it.
•of^, a. 8.
ivela, xii. I.
ftiot, viiL 3a; B. |t M
Deiisnumn, p. laoL
UpoffvK*i^, ii. aa.
ttpovpTfur, XV. 16.
"If/wi/aaXi?/!, XT. 19.
Irjoovt XpifTOt, i. I I pp. t C 'S 'U
160 £
Uaf6t, XV. 33 (v. L).
tkaarfipior, iii. 35; pp. 9a, 130.
comp. Lit. and Deisamann, p. i a i ff.
*l\Xvpuc6y, XV. 19.
Iko, v. ao; xL II.
I6t, iii. 1 3.
'lovSaiot, ii. 17, a9; p. ttf.
*I<7/>a^\, ix. 6.
*lapariXlTtp, ix. 4 ; p. 64.
lar&vai, iii. 31 ; idT. 4.
KaS^Kom, Tti, i. slL
MaOiardyai, v. 1 9.
«a0o, viii. a6.
sadopaf, i. ao.
Kaip6s, iii. a6 ; xiL II (t. L); xiiL it,
Kard Kcup6r, card rii^ »up6ff v,
6; ix. 9.
Kaxia, i. 39.
Kaxo>7d(ia, L 39.
«oA€r»', iv. 17 ; vliL 30; ix. y.
Kci\m, xi. ao.
Kap^la, i. ai.
Kapwo(pop(iv, vii. 4 (otherwiae Lft.).
carci, ii. 5 ; viii. 37 ; xL aS; xr.f.
Ka0' tis, xii. 5.
car' otKoy, xvL §.
car<i7(ii', x. 6.
aarataxvyftv, v. 3 ; ix. |^
KaraKavxaaOaif S. 18.
mirajcpifui, viiL I.
garaKpiytiy, viiL 3.
KarakiXot, L 30.
KaraKapL^iytiv, ix. 30.
caroAAaT^, v. 1 1 ; iL 1^
KaraWaaattP, T. 10).
KaroAi/ttc, xiv. ao.
Karavofiy, iv. I9.
/rardia>£it, xL 8.
«arap7»'V, iii. 3, 31 | vL ( ; vfl. t* 4,
Karapri^fiy, ix. aa.
Karacppovfiv, ii. 4.
caTcVavrj, iv. It.
icaTfpya((aO<u, li. 9 ; viL 13.
MaTfx*iy, KaTix*o$<Uf L 18 (otherwtM
LfL) ; vii. 6.
Ha-nfyopHv, ii. If.
Ul. GREEK WORDS
447
aa»jfla$<u, ▼. f, II.
MavxoffM, H. ly.
mauxfau, t. j ; wr, 17.
K(<yXP«>i* xvl. I.
K^ipvyfta, xvL Sf.
Kt)fwff<rttr, X. 14, If.
Kiviwoi, Tiii. )$.
«X(i2oT, zL 16.
M\rjpoy6ttos, hr. I|, I4 } vfB. 17.
KXijau, zL a9.
«X7rdf, i. I, 6. 7 ; vUL at ; p^ It.
MKijril 4rfla, p^ 111
MXifMf XT. 33.
mtAia, ztL 18.
«oir^, zir. 14.
KotvejTHv, ziL If ; a*. •!•
Koivtjrla, xf. a6.
•o/n;, zilL l«.
«o/nfr lywCt fat* Mk
KowiSf, ziri. 6.
K6<riwt, 4, UL 6 ; ▼. la.
gpivur, ttfirtcdai, tit 4 ; ziv. (, l).
rr<<r», i. ao ; viii. 19, at, 39.
kvk\^, zt. 19.
mpitvtiv, tL 9.
Kv/Mot, L 4, 7 ; m. la, i| ; Btt. II ;
xiv. 8 ; ZT. 6; pk iS.
Kv^ior, ziT. 14.
kaXtir, UL 19.
Ka6t, zL I.
Karptioj iz. 4: ift. 1.
Xarpciicir, L 9.
X^xayo, ziz. a.
Kiytiy, iii. lo.
dXA.d x/tw, X. iS, 19.
Kiyw <^, XL. I, II.
Kttftfta, zL 5.
kHTovprfttv, pw a«: ci. Dulawwiiii,
KtiTovprfSs, ziiL %; xr. 16.
K6yta ri, iiL a.
kayiCtaOai, viii. 18 ; xir. 14.
\oyiCf(T0cu di, ii. a6 i hr. ^
Xo^urot, zii. I.
KoyKX/jids, iL i§.
k&yos, iii. 4 ; iz. €.
Xinr«ra0a«, zIt. If.
X^, iz. a.
itamipun, W. 7, 8 1 xiv. tai
fMMapifffji6s, It. 6.
ftoucpoOvfjua, iL 4.
Mapta (Mapwi/i), ztL < (v. L).
tiMfrvfir, iii. ai; x. a.
/«rrac^n;t, tUL aci
l»aLTaiov(r9<u, L SI.
>4(ix<Mpa, Tiii. 3f.
lUl^w, iz. IS.
niXXtiv, Tiii. 18.
ftiWotr, d, T. 14.
ftir, X. I.
^ir oZv, zi. If ; pk |t^
ntvowft, iz. ao; a. mL
ftivtiv, iz. II.
fuarSi, i. 2g ; xt. I4.
fttraSiSovai, xii. 8.
intra fiop<povaOai, zii. a.
/iCTO^v (iXX^Aov, iL If.
frtk ii. 14; IiL 5; iT. 19; hu 14;
z. 10.
fLi) yhotrmf iiL 4t Ix. 14; xi. I,
II.
fiJtvm,ix. II.
Iiftia, ziL IS (t. ty.
li6ros, xvi. a6.
/i4$p^«KTit, it ao.
ftvvrfipiov, zL a5 ; ztL af.
r««p<$», L 4 (cf.Lft) ; Tiii. 10 ; xL If.
U vtKpSiv, Ti. 13 (cl Lft.).
r^or, iL ao.
riitdv, iii. 4; xii. ai.
woiio9taia, ix. 4.
riS^ot, metaphorical nae of, iii. 37 ; TiL
ai, 33; Tiii. 2 ; x. 31.
r6iio$ {tine artu.), ii. la, 13, I4, 35 ;
iii. 31 (ct Lft.); ir. 13; t. 13;
TiL I ; ix. 31 ; z. 4.
p6ftot, 6, ii. 13, 14 ; iiL 19 ; vil. a,
I a.
rovs, i. a8 ; TiL 33 ; ziL a.
pwl, iiL a I.
6iiry6s, ii. 19.
otSanfv, ii. a ; Tiii. a a, A
olKoSoftfi, xiT. 19.
obcTtipfir, ix. 15.
oiKTipfids, ziL I.
otot, ix. 6.
hKvrjp6t, ziL II.
JXoi, viii. 36.
6iio6vfjia56y, XT. 6.
inolw/ia, Ti. 5 ; TiiL ^
^/loXoYtrv, ix. 9.
dvtiSta/tSs, XT. 3.
Syofia, i. 5 ; p. ilL
bvofiA^tiv, XT. ao.
8irXov, Ti. 13.
{voir &,y, iiL 4.
i^, 1) ApT^, L itj I. g,t; Ifi. St
xiL 19 ; xiii. 4.
448
INDEX TO THE NOTES
& yt, viii. 3«.
iiTTtt, i. 25, 33 ; iL 15 ; tU t ; is. 4.
Sri, viii. ai, 37, 29 ; iz. a.
•i /a;, iv. 8.
ov fi6voy ii, viii. aj; ix. lO.
oi wivTojf, iii. 9.
thf, ii. 31 ; iii a8 (t. L) ; x. 14 ; zii.
I ; p. 394-
6<ptl\fiv, xiii. 8 ; rr. i.
iifiin'ioy, ▼!. 33 : c£ Lit and Dei»-
Buuin, p. 145 L
wAffrjfM, tU. 5.
raiStvr^t, ii. ao.
vaXcu^ dvOpcawot, H> C
wiyrott, iii. 9.
•B/xi, L 85.
««!/>' ^irroTt, xiL i€.
•a/xi/SatTiT, iy. 15.
«apaSi8(Srai, L 34 ; It. 35 ; tL 17.
tapa(i]Xovy, z. 19 ; zL II.
wapaKftaOtu, rii. 18, 31.
wapatco^, T. 19,
wapiwrojfui, ▼. 15 ; sL II (c£ Lft. on
▼. 3o).
wmpAKkijffit, ZT. f.
wapfiaipxtodcu, ▼. JO.
tiptcts, m. as.
Mi/H(rr(i>^ vapi^TirttPf vL 1} ; ziL I.
wapovff/a, pp. 379 f.
vcb, iz. 5 ; z. 16 ; zL 36, 3s.
wari^p, i, L 7 ; ▼!. 4 ; viiL 15 ; cf. zr. C
nr^p (-ipatri«rch), iz. 5, 10; zL aS ;
ZT. 8.
wiwotBa, ii. if.
*cp2 ifiafyrlas, riil. |,
vc/KiraTcry, zilL l^
9*ptffa(ia, ▼. 17.
v(/>c(rff($t, liL I.
mtpiToitfi, iL 39 ; a«, 1.
wi7X<5j, ir. a I.
wutpla, iii. 14^
vi^n;t, xi. 17.
wlnrtiv, xi. II, tt ; xir. 4.
wtaT«vu¥f wi0Tvit<rOai, m. 1 ; a. le ;
ziv. a.
■iffru, iiL at ; pp. 31 ff.
•f«rit,4, L 8, 17; iii. J. 35; iv.
ao; ▼. a; s. 8, 17; xii. 6;
xiv. I.
•ivru li/ffov X^ffroS, ilL aa.
•b v/tmr, I. 17.
Ic miartm, L 17 ; iii 36, 30 (cf.
Lft); ix.30,33; Z.6; ziT. 33.
wKieiKx. ix. 30.
•Uardf <ir, t. SO.
wKto¥((ia, i. 39.
vKijpovy, XT. 19.
wXT}po<poptiv, irKTip<xpop«ff9ai, hr. jl ;
xiv. 5 ; XT. 13 (v. L).
wX'/ipwfta, xL 13, 35 ; xr. 39.
wKovrtiy, x. 13.
wKovTos, ix. 33 ; xi. la.
wvtvfM., viii. 9, 10, II ; zii. II ; zr. 3a
nyfvfxa 'Ayiov, r. 5 ; ix. I ; itw.
17 J XT. 13, 16, 19.
wrtv/ta Ofov, viii. 9, 14.
rrtvua Xpiffrov, viii. 9.
wv*vfia ayio)avvr)t, i. 4.
wvtiifta SovXf/ot, viii 15-
wvtvfta Korayv^ion, xi 8.
vrtvua vloStalca, Tiii I5.
Ir vrcv/iart, Ir r^ vrcv/iort, L 9 ;
ii. 39 ; Tiii. 9 ; ix. i.
Marat wytSpui, i 4; viii 4, 5.
wyntMTtK6t, L ii; v. 14; m. 141
XT. 37.
vMi&, i. 3a.
«oAAo(, ol, T. 15.
9oXXi, tA, ZT. ft.
woyrjpia, i. 39.
wopyda, i. 39 (t. L).
wpoyiyiiaKiiy, Tiii tf ; sL •.
wpoypitptiy, xT. 4.
«poSi8((r(u, xi. 35.
wpoftprjitivtu, ix. 39.
*poeva77^XA<ff0cu, 1. t.
iipo(roi>td^(tr, iz. a).
vpoixtoOai, iii. 9.
rpoi^cTadai, xii lO.
«p<$df<nt, Tiii. a8 ; Ul II } pw tfi^
vp60vfiot, i. ig.
wpotarauj^cu, xii. 8.
v^K^vTcir, xiii It.
vporMfo'^ai, xii. 17.
vpoopi(tiy, Tiii 39.
vpowdrei^, iT. I.
vpoirifimw, ZT. t4.
»/><(f, iii. 36 ; Tiii it.
vpoffayety^, r. a.
wpocKoprtpfly, ziL It.
wp6<rimfifta, iz. 3a ; adv. ij ('».LX
vfoahafiS&vta^ai, ziT. I.
wp6aXijif/it, xi 15.
trpoo-TdTif, ZTi t.
tpoatpopa, ZT. 16.
wpocomoXijipia, ii II.
wporleeaeai, iii. 35 (othcrwlat Lft, arf
Ut., cf. p. 3»8).
wpo<pr)T(ia, xii. 6.
vpoiptfTiKoi, xri. a6.
wpwToy, i. 16 (t. L).
mpmrna, z. 19.
in. GREEK WORDS
449
tft0r6rem«t, tUI. ti^
mralttv, zi. Ii.
WTo>x<5i> XV. 26.
woipow, xi. 7>
wAptMit, zi. 15.
^/lo, ». 8, 17.
fl(a, xL 16 ff.; XT. It.
ivifitvot, 6, zi. a6.
W»?, i. 7.
0apMiii6t, XV. 3J.
gipmwos, vii. 14.
9ip(, iii. so; Ti. 19 ; is. 8 ; xiiL 14 ;
p. 181.
ir oofMi, If rp tfa/Mr(, vii. 5 ; viii.
«aT(i tf<ipaa, L 3 ; It. I ; viii. 4,
SBrorat, zvL so ; p. 145.
ot^iCtaOai, L S5.
gij/ittor. It. II ; xw. 19.
rsdrSoXor, zi. 9 ; ziv. I^
rcfvof, iz. SI, as.
wmkiipivtiy, iz. it.
gmovfiv, ztL 17.
Iirorio, ZT. a4, s8.
0wipfta, iz. 7.
owovS^, zii. 8, It.
wrtroxwf^a, ii. 9.
rrfyitiy, ziv. 4.
my^CuK, i. 1 1 ; zri. S5.
0Toixtty, iT. IS (on rou rraix. nt
Lft).
0vrr*r^, iz. 3 ; zvi. 7, 10, »i.
wvyuXtUir, zL 3a.
9vyK\r]poy6tu>t, viii. 17.
wyweowrds, xi. 17.
rvfiftofiTvpttv, ii. 15; viiL i(; iz. i.
mififiopfpos, Tiii. 29.
ffv/iira/xuRxAcrff^, i. IS.
0Vfi«tUrx<*>'i viii. 17.
ffvfi^vrof, vi. 5.
0«ra7etfvi(ca0a(, zt. 30
««raix/<a^<»TO>, zvi. 7*
vvyayamvta&at, xv. 3a.
ffvoavrtXa/i^dvcatfoi, viiL §4.
ffvyav&ftaOai, zii. 16.
ffwflSrjau, ii. 15 ; is. I.
ffwtpytii', viiL aS.
ffvrtvioicfty, i. 3a.
ffvt^ffTccrtfai, vi. 4.
tnmiirriyai, iii. 5 ; zvi. I.
mmwy, iii. 11.
ffvrrcXcrK, iz. a8.
gvyrifiytiy, iz. a8.
9wr(ifitv, zvi. aa
(rivrpiixiia, iii. 16.
«rt;i/ou5iV«ii', viii. aa.
cvaravpovaSai, vi. 6.
ffipdyrj, viii. 36.
a<ppafi(fiv, XV. a8.
o<ppayis, iv. II.
ceu^fiv, au^eaOai, v. 9; viii. t4» ^
a6 : c£ Lft p. 288.
<rcD/ia, vi. 6; vii. 4, a4 ; xii. I.
Xa/oimxTpos, xvi. a I.
avTijpia, i. 16; z.i; zi.1i.
rairc(v<iv, xii. 16.
T« 7<ip, vii. 7.
T^Ki'OJ', viii. 14, 17 ; ix. 8 (cf. Deia»
mann, p. 164).
riXos (^end), x. 4; (=toll), xiii. 7.
W ipovfuv, iii. 5.
ri ouv ; iii. 9 ; vi. 15 ; zi. 7.
rl oZy epovfity ; iv. I ; vi. I ; vii
7 ; viii. 31 ; ix. 14, 30.
dAXd ri \iyfi ; z. 8 ; zL ^
Ti/tii, xii. 10.
Tiyis, iii. 3 ; zi. 17.
t6 itar' Ifti, i. 15.
ToX/iay, V. 7.
ToXfitjpirtpoy, zv. 15.
T(5iros, xii. 19 ; XV. 23.
rod with infin., vi. 6 ; viL ^
rpavf^a, xi. 9.
T^X'?^''*» xvi. 4.
■niwm, V. I4; vi. ly.
IPpiffrrfi, i. 30.
vioOfaia, viii. 15.
v2<it (of C hrist ; cf . Deissmami, p. iff £)t
1. 4, viii. a9; (of man), viiL 14.
ifiirtpoi, xi. 31.
imoKofft, i. 5 ; V. 19 ; zvi. I9«
xnraitovtiy, x. 16.
(hravS/JOT, vii. a.
vir&pxuy, iv. 19.
&ir<p«KTV7X<i>^«>'» viiL flC
{m'(p«x<"'i ^'^ I*
imtp^ipayoi, i. 30.
inrcpvt/vai', viii. 37.
virc^cpi(7(7(i;(i»', v. M.
v*(p<ppovtty, zii. ).
inr^, iii. 9.
ini6biicot, iii. 19.
itir6Xtinixa, iz. a 7.
^o^cfH', xii. IS.
{rwonoy^, v. 3.
iwordafftiy, iworiaafttmt vi& W} tt
3 ; xiii. I.
tiCTfptiaOtu, iiL 13.
• f
45®
INDEX TO THE NOTES
6if/wfia, viii. 3^
fab't00ai, vll. I^
faytpov<T0<u, iiL ai ; xvL aC
tpavkot, ix. 1 1.
<f>tiS(a9aif Tiii. 31.
^$dvny, ix. 31.
<f>i\aStK<pla, xiL IC
f>«A.«V, p. 374 £
iplKrjfta, xvi. 16.
tptXo^tvia, xiL 13.
^t\6aTopyot, xiL 10^
piXoTiUHodfu^ XT. to.
^po%, xiii. 6.
i^pdrrur, iiL 19.
^ofcry, Till. 5 ; siL 16 ; alv. € ) ^fv. f.
ff6rr)i*a, riii. 6.
if>p6vtfiot, xi 95 ; xiL 161.
<pv\ia<Ttiv, ii. a6.
ipvpafio, ix. SI i xL i6w
^u, ii 14.
lty4,«hr.i7;«T.ij.
K^t, L I ; ▼. t, 15 ; zL I, < ; aU. t;
sv. IS : avL to; p. 18.
xipifffM., Lii;TLs3{iiL(;p
358 ff.
X/>«(<i| xiL 13.
Xfnjftariitty, vii. 3.
XpttfuiTianot, ri. 4.
Xp»7ffToXo7(a, xvi. 18.
Xpti<Trirr)s, iL 4 ; iiL la ; xi. ta.
Xpiarit 'Irjffovt, viiL 34 (t. L), 39 ; pfi
|t, T6of.
ir Tifnar^ lijffov, iiL 14; «L II.
^ X^<rT^, ix. I ; svi. y.
^8o;mu, ix. L
ffvdo*, L 35.
^cvff/io, iiL 7.
fmvTfit, iii 4.
tfr.j, lx.|: p.> if.
At, ix. 3a.
dU if, XT. >« .
A««rr«f, Tiii. a6.
&#T( (withindlc. ,tIL4; («dWl
TiL6.
A
\J
si^
vJ(
i
DATE DUE
*:"v->-